DEDICATION

This work is especially dedicated to my wife Pamellah, and my daughter,

Bethel Baraka Manyah, for their encouragement and contributions towards my

professional growth.

ABSTRACT

This study sought to; determine levels of income generated from Solid WasteManagement (SWM) practices, assess contribution of the income to

(HHs) socio-economics and make policyrecommendations to exploit existing potential in SWM practices. 121 HHs weresurveyed from five phases of Dandora, Kenya. Respondents were selectedthrough systematic sampling by phase. Relationships between SWM practicesand household socioeconomic factors were established through descriptiveanalysis and correlations. Findings showed SWM practices had positiveinfluence on socioeconomic lives of participants. Mean monthly income fromSWM practices (Collection and Disposal, Recycling, and Minimization) wereKShs 15941.28/=, KShs 16170.45/= and KShs 9467.50/= per householdrespectively. Total income of KShs 102,481,259/= per month from SWMPractices for the 6800HHs under study, contributed 82.47% of the total HHsocioeconomic expenditure which included but not limited to education, food,health and housing expenses. These expenses constituted 55%, 21%, 18%,and 5% of total income respectively implying that HHs had other sources ofincome to supplement income from SWM practices. Correlation between totalincome and total expenses revealed a weak but positive correlation (r=0.389, at p=0.01) that was significant. The researcher recommends separation ofwaste at household level for easier collection, disposal and recycling; regularwaste collection to avoid creation of mini-dumps in residential areas; andsupport for research and popularization of adoption of appropriate and low cost SWM technologies locally available to reduce handling cost of recyclablewaste. Due to pollution of water supplied to HHs by leachate water from wastedumps, a separate cell should be provided at the sanitary landfill for the ashesof incinerated hazardous wastes and composting of solid waste at householdlevel especially by those farming to generate organic manure for organicfarming. The government should develop and implement policies that outlinepractical approaches to SWM practices.

Key WordsCorrelation, Expenditure, Influence, Income / Revenue; Participating

Household; Recycle, Practices; Sampling, Socioeconomic Implications

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION .................................................................................................. 1

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................... 3

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................... 6

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ 7

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.............................................................. 9

CHAPTER ONE:............................................................................................ 11

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 111.1 Background to the Study............................................................................................ 11

1.2 Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................... 16

1.3 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................. 17

1.4 Objectives .................................................................................................................. 17

1.5 Research Questions .................................................................................................. 18

1.6 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................... 18

1.7 Delimitation of the Study............................................................................................ 19

1.8 Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................. 19

1.9 Assumptions of the Study .......................................................................................... 20

1.10 Definitions of Significant Terms ............................................................................... 20

CHAPTER TWO: ........................................................................................... 22

LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 222.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 22

2.2 Theoretical Literature................................................................................................. 22

2.3 Empirical Literature.................................................................................................... 28

2.3.1 Solid Waste Collection & Disposal .......................................................................... 28

2.3.2 Solid Waste Recycling ............................................................................................ 34

2.3.3 Solid Waste minimization........................................................................................ 37

2.4 Conceptual framework ............................................................................................... 41

2.5 Summary ................................................................................................................... 42

CHAPTER THREE: ....................................................................................... 43

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...................................................................... 433.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 43

3.2 Research Design ....................................................................................................... 43

3.3 Target Population ...................................................................................................... 43

3.4 Sampling procedure................................................................................................... 44

3.6 Methods of Data Collection........................................................................................ 46

3.7 Validity and reliability ................................................................................................. 47

3.8 Methods of Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 48

3.9 Operational definition of variables.............................................................................. 49

3.10 Summary ................................................................................................................. 50

CHAPTER FOUR: ......................................................................................... 51

DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION..................... 514.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 51

4.2 Respondent return rate .............................................................................................. 51

4.3 Household socioeconomic characteristics (Profile of Respondents).......................... 52

4.3.1 Respondents distribution by gender .................................................................... 52

...................................... 53

..................................................................................... 54

.......................................................................... 54

4.3.3 Occupation of respondents.................................................................................. 56

4.3.4 Descriptive Statistics of income from Solid Waste Management practices ......... 57

4.3.6 Household sources of labour for Solid Waste Management practices ................ 58

4.3.7 Solid Waste Management charges and transportation........................................ 60

4.3.8 Location (Distance in metres) and income from Solid Waste Management

practices....................................................................................................................... 61

4.3.9 Respondents total income and expenditure pattern ............................................ 64

4.4 Implications of Solid Waste Management practices on socioeconomic lives of

Dandora residents ........................................................................................................... 67

4.4.1 The Influence of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal on socioeconomic lives of

Dandora residents ........................................................................................................ 68

4.4.2 The Influence of Solid Waste Recycling on socioeconomic lives of Dandora

residents....................................................................................................................... 73

4.4.3 The Influence of Solid Waste minimization on socioeconomic lives of Dandora

residents....................................................................................................................... 77

4.4.4 Correlations for combined Solid Waste Management Income against total

expenditure .................................................................................................................. 81

4.4.5 Patterns of household pooled Income and Expenditure statistics ....................... 84

CHAPTER FIVE: ........................................................................................... 87

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 875.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 87

5.2 Summary ................................................................................................................... 87

5.3 Discussions................................................................................................................ 88

5.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 92

5.5 Recommendations..................................................................................................... 96

5.5 Suggestions for future research................................................................................. 98

REFERENCES.............................................................................................. 99

APPENDICES ............................................................................................. 105Appendix A: Waste disposal methods for various major companies in Nairobi ............. 105

Appendix B: Questionnaire for Households in Dandora................................................. 107

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Human Ecosystems

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework o 42

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Target population by proportion 44

Table 3.2: Proportional sample for each phase 46

Table 3.3: Operational definition of variables 49

Table 4.1: Respondent return rate

Table 4.2: Respondents distribution by gender .....52

Table 4.3: Gender distribution of household members by

location 3

Table 4.4: ..............................................54

Table 4.5: Respo

Table 4.6: Correlations between Income from Solid Waste Management

practices and Level

Table 4.7: Occupation of respondents ..................56

Table 4.8: Descriptive Statistics of income from Solid Waste Management

pr . 57

Table 4.9: Correlations between Occupation and Solid Waste

Management income .57

Table 4.10: Household sources of labour for Solid Waste Management

practices .....................................................................59

Table 4.11: The mean Solid Waste Management income and distance from

dumpsite to households.................................................62

Table 4.12: Correlation between Income from Solid Waste Management

practices income and distance from disposal

site

Table 4.13: The total income and expenditure pattern......................65

Table 4.14: Correlations Solid Waste Management income and monthly

expenditure 7

Table 4.15: The Solid Waste Collection& Disposal practice........68

Table 4.16: Mean Solid Waste Management Collection and Disposal

Income and Expenditure pattern................................69

Table 4.17: Correlations between Solid Waste Management Collection

and Disposal Income and Socioeconomic

expenses ....................................................................72

Table 4.18: The Solid Waste recycling practice.............................74

Table 4.19: Mean Solid Waste Recycling income and expenditure

pattern..........................................................................74

Table 4.20: Correlations Solid Waste Recycling Income and

Socioeconomic expenses .75

Table 4.21: The Solid Waste Minimization practice........................77

Table 4.22: Mean Solid Waste Minimization income and Expenditure

pattern .........................................................................78

Table 4.23: Correlations between Solid Waste Minimization Income and

Socioeconomic expenses ............................................80

Table 4.24: The total income and total expenditure for households

surveyed........................................................................82

Table 4.25: Correlations between total income and total monthly

expenditure....................................................................83

Table 4.26: Pooled monthly household income and expenditure pattern

per month.......................................................................84

Table 4.27: Influence of Income from the different SWM practices to

participating HHs

Table 4.28: Comparison of percentage revenue contribution by SWM

practice..........................................................................86

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACK - Anglican Church of Kenya

CBOs - Community Based Organizations

CBS - Central Bureau of Statistics

GoK - Government of Kenya

GNP - Gross National Product

ISWM - Integrated Solid Waste Management

JICA - Japan International Cooperation Agency

MSWM - Municipal Solid Waste Management

NCC - Nairobi City Council

NEMA - National Environment Management Authority

POPs - Persistent Organic Pollutants

PPPs - Public-Private Partnerships

PVC - Polyvinyl chloride

SWM - Solid Waste Management

TCDD: - Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin

WHO - World Health Organization

CHAPTER ONE:

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Effective and sustainable Solid Waste Management is becoming a burgeoning

problem for national and local governments due to rapid increase in volume

and types of Solid and hazardous waste as a result of continuous economic

growth, urbanization and industrialization (Dulo, 2010). The United Nations

Environmental program (UNEP) Integrated Solid Waste Management plan

(UNEP, 2009) estimated that the total amount of municipal solid waste (MSW)

generated globally in 2006 reached 2.02 billion tonnes, representing a seven

(7) percent annual increase since 2003. In addition, it projected that the global

generation of MSW will rise by 37.3 percent, equivalent to approximately eight

(8) percent increase per year between 2007 and 2011. According to UNEP

(2009) 0.5kg to 3kg healthcare waste per person was estimated by the world

Health Organization (WHO) in most low-income countries but no industrial

waste generation estimates were provided. Agricultural waste for twenty five

(25) European Union (EU) member countries was estimated at 700 million

tonnes.

Regionally, the expenditure for developing countries in municipal councils on

solid waste management was estimated at 20 50 percent of their annual

budgets even though 30- 60 percent of all urban solid wastes remains

uncollected with almost 50 percent of the population not served (World Bank,

2008). In comparison, low-income countries spend 80-90 percent, middle-

income countries 50-80 percent while high-income countries spend less that

10 percent of their Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) budget on

collection alone.

According to Scheinberg (2001), developing countries face challenges in

proper management of waste with most effort made to reduce the final

volumes and generate sufficient funds for waste management. He argues that

if most waste could be diverted for material; and resources recovery, then a

substantial reduction in final volumes of waste could be achieved while the

recovered material and resources could be utilized to generate revenue to fund

waste management. Based on the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle) this

forms the premise of Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) system

principle. With an appropriate segregation and recycling system, a significant

quantity of wastes can be diverted from landfills and converted into a useful

resource.

Scheinberg (2001) documents that developing and implementing ISWM

requires comprehensive data on present anticipated waste situations,

supportive policy frameworks, knowledge and capacity to develop plans or

systems, proper use of environmentally sound technologies and appropriate

financial instruments to support its implementation.

In the East Africa region, the city of Kampala, Uganda with a population of

approximately 1.5 million people is riddled with numerous problems associated

with solid waste management (JICA, 1998). Waste management is the sole

responsibility of the Kampala City Council (KCC) through the city Environment

Department. Here, waste management constitutes garbage collection and

disposal from households, market areas, hospitals, industries, and the city

center. Efforts to manage garbage in the city are continuously overwhelmed

and frustrated with the ever-increasing population of city residents and levels

of economic activity. As result, incompetence and low service coverage

characterize KCC. Often times the service are not on schedule and only

provides them in crucial areas such as market places, residential areas, as

well as politically sensitive areas (JICA, 1998).

The economic and demographic growth of cities in Uganda like other countries

in the developing world is posing serious challenges to the urban local

authorities. With rapidly swelling urban population, the requirement for

infrastructure and services increase manifold. Solid waste management is one

such service that needs to be adequately provided to ensure an urban

environment conducive to the well-being and productivity of the residents.

Some communities in Kampala receive little (in some cases no) solid waste

collection services because local governments have no resources to cover all

households. Thus in the absence of collection services, households use forms

of disposal most of which are heavily polluting. There is also lack of information

on household solid waste generation and how much households value solid

waste management.

population of 3.3 million people (GoK, 2010). The poor economic growth of 1.1

percent in 1993 and less than 2 percent in 2001 resulted in an increase in the

level of poverty that stood at 56 percent in 2001 (Rotich, 2005). Rural-urban

migrations resulted in unplanned settlements in the peri-urban areas

accommodating about 60 percent of the urban population on only 5 percent

urban land area. Consequently, urban centres have experienced comparatively

high growth rates with little infrastructure expansion to match it. This

urbanization and accompanying industrialization in a state of overstretched

infrastructure is one of the major challenges facing the Kenyan government.

The benefits of urbanization in Kenya have therefore been accompanied by

social, economic and environmental problems, some in overwhelming

proportions. These include lack of access to clean drinking water, illegal waste

dumping and improper disposal of solid and hazardous wastes.

Dandora dumpsite located about eight kilometers (five miles) east of Nairobi

city in Embakasi area is the main dumping site for most of the solid waste

generated by the people living in Nairobi (Wambugu, 2010). The Dandora

dump

conditions to which the poor living next to the dump are exposed. This is

because the waste from Dandora Dumpsite has led to poor sanitation for the

people residing in Dandora settlement (slum) which is a low-income residential

area.

Dandora has a high population and has served as a dumping site in Nairobi for

a number of years. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) approximates the

population to be about 30,000 inhabitants. Majority of whom are low and

middle income earners working in the city centre. Others include people living

in Kariobangi, Babadogo, Lakisama and Umoja estates. Some run their small

business for example retail shops, food kiosks, and hair boutiques among

others which produce a lot of wastes to be disposed. The Dandora dumping

site covers a large area of about 30 acres. The area used to be a quarry then it

became a dumping site. Initially, it was an old quarry to be refilled but has now

given rise to an enormous mountain of garbage (Kituo cha Sheria, 2010). The

Dandora dumpsite is run by the City Council of Nairobi which collects levies

from the trucks that dump at the site daily. The private sector has also been

involved in the search for waste management solutions and they are the major

contributors of waste at the dumping sites. Appendix 1 shows a number of

major companies in Nairobi that dump their mixed waste in Dandora dumpsite.

Wambugu

that Health experts have warned residents of the hazards of working in and

living near the dump site. For years now, the community, Civil Society

Organizations, and Faith Based Organizations have asked the Government to

do something about it yet, little has been done. Dumping at the site is

unrestricted leaving industrial, agricultural, domestic and medical wastes

(including used syringes) scattered all over the site. Plastics, rubber, lead paint

treated wood, and poisonous chemicals are just some of the hazardous items

on the dumpsite.

Waste can be categorized into solid and liquid waste. Liquid waste is

sometimes referred to as human waste or excreta. This paper looks primarily

at solid waste. In Nairobi, Polythene bags and plastics, including PVC items,

make up approximately 225 tonnes out of the 2000 tonnes of solid waste

generated daily (KAM, 2003). This represents about 11% of total waste

generated daily, while 75% comprises biodegradable waste that can be

composted. The remaining percentage is made up of other recyclable

materials such as textiles, metal and glass making up 2.7%, 2.6% and 2.3%

respectively. Open burning of municipal waste is widely used by the residents

of Nairobi, as a means of disposing solid waste.

According to Kituo cha Sheria (2010), there are those who relied on the

dumping site for their livelihood and also other animals such as dogs and birds

which scavenge for food in the dumping site. It is worth noting that these

benefits are not yet quantified and neither are they documented.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Solid waste management is one of the major urban development challenges in

major urban areas. World over, open dumpsites are still the primary means of

managing solid waste (Dulo, 2010). They are found in minor streets across the

cities and in open fields, especially in middle and low-income residential areas

like Dandora, Nairobi. Due to inefficiency in the waste collection system, most

of the wastes from domestic and commercial activities are dumped in these

sites posing a threat to human life and the environment.

According to JICA (1998), until the mid 1970s the Nairobi City Council (NCC)

singly collected over 90 per cent of the waste. In the late seventies, the Council

owned 118 waste collection trucks which still had great difficulties collecting

800 tons of waste generated daily then. Currently, the council has less than 20

trucks which are expected to collect 2600 tons generated daily though

collection has been partly outsourced to the private sector. Nairobi City Council

(2002) admitted that the Council was unable to manage waste effectively in the

city and of particular concern was the proliferation of informal medical facilities,

some of which are located within residential areas.

UNEP (2005), on solid waste management in Kenya shows that in Nairobi,

with about 3.3 million people, only about 25% of the estimated 2,600 tonnes of

solid waste generated daily gets collected but is dumped in the open at the

only disposal site in Dandora whose capacity has been exceeded. Of this, 68%

is municipal waste generated from households. The problem has been

compounded by the high population density settlements that have emerged in

Dandora some of which are less than the recommended one kilometer (1km)

buffer between the waste and the settlements posing serious social,

environmental and economic problems to the residents and indeed the entire

City of Nairobi (NCC, 2010).

The available literature highlights the low capacity of collection and

transportation of solid waste by major players citing evidence of quantities

generated. Little is known on the contribution of the SWM practices on the

social and economic lifestyles of residents. This study sought to assess the

influence of Solid Waste management practices on the socioeconomic lives of

residents of Dandora, Nairobi.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of Solid Waste

Management practices on the socioeconomic lives of residents of Dandora,

Nairobi.

This study hypothesized that: Solid Waste Management Practices have no

influence on socioeconomic lives of participating households.

1.4 Objectives

The specific objectives of this study were to:

i. To evaluate the influence of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal as a

management practice on the socioeconomic lives of residents of Dandora,

Nairobi.

ii. To assess the influence of Solid Waste Recycling as a management

practice on the socioeconomic lives of residents of Dandora, Nairobi.

iii. To assess the influence of Solid Waste minimization as a management

practice on the socioeconomic lives of residents of Dandora, Nairobi.

1.5 Research Questions

i. What is the influence of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal as a

management practice on the socioeconomic lives of residents of Dandora,

Nairobi?

ii. What is the influence of Solid Waste Recycling as a management practice

on the socioeconomic lives of residents of Dandora, Nairobi?

iii. What is the influence of Solid Waste Minimization as a management

practice on the socioeconomic lives of residents of Dandora, Nairobi?

1.6 Significance of the Study

The Kenya Vision 2030 aims to achieve a nation that has a clean, secure and

sustainable environment by 2030. Emphasized by the Millennium

development goals, the specific strategies for realising these aims include:

Improving pollution and waste management through the application of the right

economic incentives, Promoting environmental conservation to better support

-private partnerships

(PPPs) for improved efficiency in water and sanitation and enhancing disaster

preparedness in all disaster-prone areas as well as improving the capacity for

adaptation to global climatic change.

The findings of the study will provide useful information to the policy makers in

the Ministries of Environment and Mineral Resources as well as Public health

in pursuing the aims of Vision 2030 on sustainable development.

By assessing extent to which residents participate in solid waste management

activities the study will reveal socioeconomic relevance of the dumpsite to

residents and recommend possible best SWM practices to improve their

welfare and optimized participation with maximum benefits.

Nairobi City Council will find the results of this study useful for application as a

basis for decision making on administrative policies based on highlighted

household opinion on the dumpsite relocation debate.

It is also hoped that the findings of this study will help raise awareness on

issues pertaining SWM at the NCC, community and National levels to help

build initiatives to reduce the SWM problem.

Finally, this study contributes to literature on Solid Waste Management

practices for reference by other researchers.

1.7 Delimitation of the Study

The study was limited to Dandora dumpsite, Nairobi which lies on Latitude -

1.25° , Longitude 36.9° covering well over 30 acres and which acted as a

representative of other dumping sites countrywide. The study focused on the

influence of Solid waste management practices (Solid Waste Collection and

Disposal, Solid Waste Recycling and Solid Waste minimization) on the

socioeconomic lives of residents of Dandora, Nairobi considering the high

population and the high rate of unemployment that have forced the area

residents to find alternative sources of income at the Dandora dumpsite.

1.8 Limitations of the Study

The researcher experienced the following limitations: -

i. Uncooperative RespondentsAll respondents were given assurance of confidentiality for information

collected in the survey.

ii. Suspicion

The researcher explained to the respondents that their responses are meant

solely for the purpose of the study and will not be used against them. Writing of

iii. Delays in processing the research permitThe researcher factored in time for processing the research permit though it

took longer that the set time. The researcher employed research assistants in

data collection to ensure the research was done within specified time.

1.9 Assumptions of the Study

The study had the following basic assumptions, that: -

i. The residents of Dandora participated in Solid Waste Management

practices

ii. The Solid Waste Management Practices influence the socioeconomic lives

of residents of Dandora, Nairobi

1.10 Definitions of Significant Terms

This section gives definition of the significant terms as used in this study.

Government policies: - a plan of action adopted or pursued by the

government of Kenya on waste management.

The rules and regulations set defining proper

waste management procedures to enhance

sustainable development

Household participation: - refers to gender roles in the solid waste

management practices

Influence: - affect, to shape, to change or contribute towards

Socio-economic lives: - the social (health) and economic (income

derived from SWM activities) lives of Dandora

residents

Solid waste: - is defined as Solid or semi-solid, non-soluble

material such as agricultural refuse, demolition

waste, industrial waste, mining residues,

municipal garbage and sewage sludge.

Solid waste Collection & Disposal: - refers to the process of picking of

waste from households, transportation and

dumping at designated points

Solid waste management: - Is the Systematic control of generation,

collection, storage, transport, source separation,

processing, treatment, recovery, and disposal of

solid waste.

Solid Waste minimization: - Refers to burning of solid waste which includes

the application of open air burning and use of

industrial incinerators.

Solid Waste Recycling: - refers to resource recovery activities such as

recovering or diverting wastes from the waste

stream to reuse, sell, giving away or compost in

the case of food wastes at the household level.

This could include repair, re-manufacture and

conversion of materials, parts and products

CHAPTER TWO:

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a review of theoretical and empirical literature on Solid

waste management. The concept of solid waste management and related

practices is discussed with its possible social, economic and environmental

implications on mankind. The concept will be used to assess the implications

of solid waste management practices on the residents of Dandora, Nairobi.

2.2 Theoretical Literature

Just as the generation of waste involves a complex interplay of social, cultural,

economic and technological processes, the proper management of waste

cannot be divorced from the same processes. Though necessary, for

conceptual purposes, to view waste management as a clear and distinct

category of activity in society, in practice any successful waste management

strategy has to address diverse issues such as patterns of consumption,

incentive systems -the economics of waste management, waste handling

technology and legal frameworks. Largely, the issue of waste management

searches for sustainable development strategies (ENVILEAD, 2005).

a product or material that does not have a value anymore for the first user and

waste could have value to another person in a different circumstance or even

in a different culture. There are many large industries that operate primarily or

exclusively using waste materials like paper and metals as their industrial feed

stocks (Scheinberg, 2001).

This study is based on the theory of human ecology which recognizes that

natural systems have evolved over time and are being threatened by

technological development initiated by industrial revolution and the resultant

population explosion (Jarry and Jarry, 1995). According to Ali (2009),

Environmental problems result from the interaction between the human society

and ecological systems. The human system destroys the ecological system

through increased feed growing population requiring water, energy, food and

developmental space. All these anthropogenic activities lead to waste

generation for resources that are not properly utilized. The important indices

here include environmental degradation (pollution of land and water that upset

the balance of many smaller systems). The studies on human ecology centre

on application of ecological principles to understand spatial distribution of

social groups and their relationships. Urban ecology on the other hand focuses

neighbourhoods.

Urban ecosystems are complex environmental, social, economic, cultural and

political environments. Their wellbeing can be measured in a variety of ways,

including the health status of the human population, the health of the biotic

community, the quality of the built and natural environments, the health of their

contained biotic community, their impact on regional and global ecosystems

and the effectiveness with which they function in social, economic and political

terms.

The urban physical environment is both built and natural, and is contained

within a wider regional system and global biosphere. Threats to human health

stemming from the physical environment result from our failure to create livable

built environments, our pollution of air, water, soil and food chains within the

urban area, and adverse changes in regional ecosystems and at the global

level stemming at least in part from the way we design and operate urban

settlements.

Human health is ultimately dependent on the health of the planet and of the

natural ecosystems within which we live. However, since man spends most of

their time in human-created ecosystems (cities and towns) which have both

physical and social dimensions, our health is also significantly dependent upon

the health of those urban ecosystems. Man needs to learn how to manage

urban settlements as ecosystems in ways that will enhance both human health

and the health of natural ecosystems.

In assessing the socioeconomic implications of Dandora Dumpsite on area

residents, this study applies the Human Ecosystems Model (HEM) developed

by Machlis, Force and Burch (2005) with emphasis on the role of solid waste

management practices. The model combines the benefits of the ecosystems

models that incorporate human energy consumption and transformation with

social processes that influence energy use (Luzadis et. al., 2002). The Model

provides a basis for using a systems approach by describing the internal

behaviour of a system and the interactions with external systems. It provides a

basis for examining different types of system changes by clarifying

relationships between social and biophysical patterns and processes (Luzadis

et. al., 2002).

According to Machlis et al. (2005), the human ecosystem is defined as a

coherent system of biophysical and social factors capable of adaptation and

sustainability over time. Human ecosystems rest upon a foundation of biotic

and abiotic factors taken as base conditions: a solar-driven energy system

obeying thermodynamic properties, biogeochemical cycles of high constancy,

landforms and geological variation of great complexity, the full genetic

structure of life including biophysical properties of homosapiens. The base

conditions limit, constrain, influence and occasionally direct many human

ecosystem processes. Boundaries can be spatially identified through

ecological transition zones, administrative and political boundaries, or more

fine-scaled analysis of sharp perturbations in system flows.

Within any particular human ecosystem, a set of critical resources is required

in order to provide the system with necessary supplies. These include

biophysical, socioeconomic, and cultural resources. The flow and use of these

critical resources are regulated by the social system, the set of general social

structures (including institutions, patterns and processes) that guide much of

human behavior.

The social system is composed of three subsystems (Figure 1). The first

subsystem is a set of social institutions, defined as collective solutions to

universal challenges, wants and needs. The second subsystem is a series of

social cycles referring to temporal patterns for allocating human activity while

the third subsystem is the social order, which is a set of cultural patterns for

organizing interaction among people and groups, and people and nature.

Combined, these three subsystems constitute the social system. Joined with

the flow of resources, this creates the human ecosystem.

Within this structure, key flows transfer individuals of varying species,

information from genetic to cultural, energy, materials - here including natural

resources such as water, and man-made materials, nutrients and money.

These flows within and between human ecosystems vary by rate, intensity,

duration, frequency, and distribution. Flows between structural components of

human ecosystems designate most biophysical and socio-cultural processes.

The human ecosystems are multi-scaled and hierarchically nested. The model

is primarily useful for predicting and evaluating spilling and non-linear first-,

second-, and third-order effects and is capable of synthesizing a large range of

theory, method, and evidence.

The model includes key elements like critical resources particularly

socioeconomic resources (income, and capital), cultural resources

(organizational capacity and practices) plus social institutions herein

represented by the residents of Dandora focusing on their role in solid Waste

management. It also looks at the social cycles associated with the two and the

social order resulting from income differentials, attitudes, perceptions and

practices in the specific neighbourhoods.

Figure 1: Human Ecosystems Model (HEM); Source: (Machlis, et. al., 2005; Luzadis, et al., 2002).

2.3 Empirical Literature

This section presents a review of empirical literature on Solid waste

management practices. The concept of solid waste management practices is

discussed with their social, economic and environmental implications human

lives.

2.3.1 Solid Waste Collection & Disposal

Waste collection is one of the most visible urban services. Agunwamba, (1998)

studying Solid Waste Management in Nigeria: Problems and issues were

mainly interested in two indicators: waste collection coverage and availability of

vehicles and equipment. Although these two indicators are correlated, they

found it important to enquire about both of them, as the former reflects the

interests of system users, while the later is primarily important for service

providers. Coverage represents the percentage of total households served,

reported separately for slum, low-, middle-, high-income city areas and total

city.

Agunwamba, (1998) documents that despite the formulation and

implementation of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) as

well as a national environmental policy, the environment has not been

adequately protected. Interests have been mainly on aesthetics which are

rarely achieved. Waste collection is therefore irregular and restricted to the

major cities. Improperly cited open dumpsites deface several cities, thus

endangering public health by encouraging the spread of odours and diseases,

uncontrolled recycling of contaminated goods and pollution of water sources.

According to World Bank (1999), Cities in both developed and developing

countries generally do not spend more than 0.5 per cent of their per capita

gross national product (GNP) on urban waste services, which covers only

about one-third of overall cost. The responsibility over solid waste collection

and disposal is thus well beyond the capacity of municipal governments. More

than 80 per cent of the total waste management costs in low-income countries

are collection costs (World Bank, 1999).

In Latin America the cost of waste collection was about 46 per cent of the total

municipal solid waste management cost (World Bank, 1999). Cost recovery in

SWM service is difficult because, even though there is some willingness to pay

for waste collection service, there is little such willingness for waste disposal.

Municipal authorities have consequently financed the services traditionally

through general revenues or attempted to charge for the service through

inefficient property tax. Due to the existence of willingness to pay, however,

private provision of waste collection has potential. In addition, limited

economies of scale and ease of entry and exit in waste collection imply that

competition can keep the price of the private service competitive.

The effect is that an increasing proportion of urban dwellers in developing

countries, particularly the urban poor, will lack access to municipal solid waste

management services hence suffer from pollution-related environmental and

health problems. Fortunately, there are ways of dealing with or minimizing this

problem. One of which is the use of well-designed economic instruments to

create the requisite incentives (UNEP, 2005).

Vasanthi, Kaliappan and Srinivasaraghavan (2007) in their study on Impact of

poor solid waste management on ground water investigated the quality of

ground water around a municipal solid waste disposal site in Chennai, India.

Chemical analyses carried out on water samples collected at various radial

distances from the boundary of the dumping yard, at intervals of 3 months and

for a period of 3 years revealed that the ground water quality does not conform

to the drinking water quality standards as per Bureau of Indian Standards. The

effects of dumping activity on ground water appeared most clearly as high

concentrations of total dissolved solids, electrical conductivity, total hardness,

chlorides, chemical oxygen demand, nitrates and sulphates. Leachate

collected from the site showed presence of heavy metals. The study revealed

that the contaminant concentrations tend to decrease, during the post

monsoon season and increase, during the pre monsoon season in most of the

samples. The study indicated that landfills in densely populated cities should

have the ground water monitored on regular basis and that ground water in

and around the landfill sites should not be used for drinking purposes unless it

meets specific standards. The study recommended that indiscriminate

dumping of wastes in developed areas without proper solid waste

management practices should be stopped(Vasanthi, Kaliappan and

Srinivasaraghavan, 2007).

UNEP, (2005) on Selection, design and implementation of economic

instruments (in solid waste management, Nairobi.) reports that the magnitude

and nuisance of the solid waste management problem in Nairobi motivated

was

situation, is largely characterized by low coverage of solid waste management

services, pollution from uncontrolled dumping of waste, inefficient public

services, chaotic or unregulated private sector participation, and lack of key

solid waste management infrastructure. In Nairobi with about 3.3 million people,

only about 25 per cent of the estimated 2,000 tonnes of solid waste generated

daily gets collected and dumped at Dandora dumpsite. Yet, until the mid 1970s

the Nairobi City Council (NCC) singly collected over 90 per cent of the waste

(JICA, 1998).

The report further indicates that after significant deterioration in the services

provided by the NCC, private companies and community-based organizations

started providing waste collection services in the mid 1980s. There are now

many actors involved in the service, operating in open competition and without

any guidance, control, or partnership from or with the NCC. However, the small

private companies and informal actors, who are the only providers of service to

the urban poor, are harassed instead of being encouraged and facilitated. The

consequence of all this has been a chaotic solid waste management sector

(UNEP, 2005).

Ali (2009) examining Characterization management and improvement

Strategies for household waste in Nairobi documents that the prevailing high

household solid waste generation is due to increasing population, improved

income, poor attitudes and behaviour, low environmental awareness, absence

of source reduction and recycling practices, geographical and physical

conditions, low frequency of collection and characteristics of service area.

He found that it has become a common practice to dump waste on streets,

roadside and between plots especially in the middle and low income areas.

This frequently exposes residents to blocked water ways, sewer systems and

pungent smell. It also results in stagnant waters which provide breeding

grounds for flies, rats, cockroaches, mosquitoes and other pests which are

disease vectors. His findings show that the existing environmental

management programs lack the needed coverage, intensity and continuity to

correct existing pathetic public attitudes towards proper environmental

management practices. He reports choking smoke, pungent smells, broken

glasses, respiratory diseases, anaemia, stomach and other related health

problems to be a common occurrence.

Due to unrestricted access to dumpsites, scores of families brave the noxious

fumes to scavenge raw materials each day, much of which eventually finds its

way back to neighbourhoods as animal feed and even human food. Stray

chicken, pigs, goats, dogs and cats roam the dumpsites eating the toxic matter

and becoming vectors of pests and parasites that are eventually transferred to

the surrounding homes and hence causing diseases to both animals and

human beings. ENVILEAD (2005), found that the free-range chicken eggs

collected near the Dandora dumpsite outside Nairobi showed high levels of

dioxins (and PCBs) which exceeded background levels by almost 18-fold and

were more than six times higher than the European Union (EU) dioxin limit for

eggs.

Lack of proper apparel for the resource people at the site also contributes to

contracting diseases as they are exposed to very poor sanitation. The health

risks are evidenced by the ever increasing number of clinics and chemists

around the site and the adjacent estates (Muniafu & Otiato, 2010). Leachate

produced by waste disposal sites contains a large amount of substances which

are likely to contaminate ground water. The impact of such sites upon ground

water can be judged by monitoring the concentration of potential contaminants

at a number of specific monitoring points.

Studies by JICA (1998) show that the relative proportions of various types of

solid wastes are generated in Nairobi; i.e. Food Waste at 51.5%, Paper

(Recyclable and Others at 7.3%, Textiles at 2.7%, Plastic (container and

others) at 11.8%, Leather at 0.9%, Rubber at 1.5%, Glass (containers and

others at 2.3%, Metal (containers and others) at 2.6%, Ceramic and Soil at

2.7% with Grass/Wood at 6.7%. Mismanagement of these wastes typically

results in pollution of the natural environment and may pose substantial danger

to public health and welfare.

Wael (2005) studying The impact of privatization of solid waste management

on the Zabaleen garbage collectors of Cairo reported that the Zabaleen

settlements community was characterized by a high incidence of animal

epidemics, illiteracy, poor environmental conditions and low incomes. One

quarter of the household heads sampled in 1993 had moved to the settlement

m the waste collection

practices in 1983, the average household income per month was estimated at

LE 70 (approximately US$ 11.50 in January 2005), placing residents within the

lowest 10 per cent nationally for urban income. However with supported World-

Bank funding from 1981, through the Zabaleen Environmental Development

Programme (ZEDP), the Muqattam settlement coordinated by a local NGO, the

greatly improved in terms of housing stock, water supply, sewage disposal,

electricity and road infrastructure. Residents also began to enroll more of their

children, especially girls, in schools, while introducing health programmes to

reduce neonatal mortality.

2.3.2 Solid Waste Recycling

According to Thorstensen (1990), recycling streams typically start with assured

prices for modest product volumes. Recycled material whatever the cost, are

of intrinsically poorer quality than new material. Recycling is inherently costly

being characterized by high input, much sorting, handling and packaging.

Avoiding these problems requires separation of solid wastes at source using

free labour (householders) as far as possible and secure assured outlets for

disposal of wastes.

Neamatalla, (1998) reports that a small-industries project, established by

ZEDP, concentrated on establishing community-based recycling enterprises

designed to maximize the resource value of waste. The project provided loans,

which enabled Zabaleen families to buy plastic-granulating machines and rug-

pulling machines. As a result, plastic recycling became highly profitable as it

number of community members abandoned pig raising in favour of recycling

and trading while others abandoned garbage collection and started buying the

refuse from other members of the community or from other Zabaleen

settlements in Cairo. The ZEDP set up a composting plant designed for simple

operation and maintenance that was later developed into a waste recovery

system with the responsibility for managing the composting plant assumed by

a local NGO, the Association for the Protection of the Environment established

in 1984. This plant was used to transform the vast amount of accumulated

organic waste in the settlement into saleable fertilizer for the purpose of

generating income to fund development activities such as a rug-weaving

school and a paper-recycling project. Uncontaminated organic waste was

sorted for the production of higher-grade compost, with retrieval of up to 80 per

cent of the materials and with the remaining 20 per cent being dumped on the

outskirts of the city. This recycling system prevented the need for unsanitary

landfills, as well as protecting the environment from the uncontrolled disposal

of organic waste.

Despite the physical improvements within the Muqattam settlement, poor Solid

Waste Management and leadership skills led to a state of dependency on

Environmental Quality International (EQI) instead of full community

participation. Representation relied to a certain extent on the board of

programme directors, most of whom, being outsiders, failed to reflect the

needs of the whole community. The gap between rich and poor grew wider,

thus strengthening existing power positions and exacerbating previous sources

of conflict and tension. The situation was aggravated by the absence of

which was dominated by community leaders who did not represent the

interests of the poorest in the settlement.

-based waste

established in the mid-

leaders were instrumental in transforming it from a charity organization into a

community-based development association that managed the credit

programme which financed the micro-enterprise recycling industries,

encouraged income-generating activities connected to garbage processing,

system.

Recycling of products such as papers, tyres, plastics, used clothes, and metals,

is becoming increasingly popular. A kilogram of old newspapers sells for

between Kshs.15 to Kshs.27 while old tyres go for Kshs.50-3000 depending on

the degree of tear and wear, and size. Organic wastes are also increasingly

being recycled to produce compost products. For example, community-based

organizations (CBOs) managed by women are recycling market waste from

Korogocho Market near Dandora to produce organic manure for sale thus

raising income for household use. The self-help activities of the Mukuru project

earned KShs 1.55 million in 1996 from the recovery of 1,018 tons of materials

and for financing investments required to improve efficiency (JICA, 1998).

These resource recovery programs save energy, causes minimal pollution and

land disruption, cuts waste disposal costs, and extends the life of landfills by

preventing waste from residing there.

Maina (2005) studying community involvement in domestic solid waste

management documents that organics are not scavenged by waste pickers but

are important to street children who often pick through bins to find the next

meal. Some of larger restaurants and hotels also sell their wastes to farmers

as pig feed while others do compositing, use as livestock feed including goats,

chicken and cows.

Results form the study by Maina (2005) testing the relationship between the

length of stay of residents in Kayole-Soweto and waste recycling as a solid

waste management practice indicate that there was no significant relationship

between the two variables with r2 = 0.003 approximately 0.3%.

2.3.3 Solid Waste minimization

Most local governments and urban agencies have often identified solid waste

as a major problem that has reached proportions requiring drastic measures.

Three key trends have been observed with respect to solid waste - increase in

sheer volume of waste generated by urban residents; change in the quality or

make-up of waste generated; and the disposal method of waste collected, by

land-fill and incineration (Srinivas, 2008).

According to Tangri (2003), Municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration plants

tend to be among the most expensive solid waste management options, and

they require highly skilled personnel and careful maintenance. For these

reasons, incineration tends to be a good choice only when other, simpler, and

less expensive choices are not available. Because MSW plants are capital-

intensive and require high maintenance costs and comparatively higher

technically trained operators, they are commonly adopted by developed

countries. However, high capital and maintenance costs may make MSW

incineration beyond the reach of many of the lesser developing countries.

Ali (2009) findings therefore report that the bulk of solid waste is subjected to

open burning in plastics producing carcinogenic vinyl chloride monomers and

dioxins. Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD) and Polychlorinated

dibenzofurans (PCDF), Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and Polychlorinated

Biphenyls (PCBs) are unintentional persistent organic pollutants (U-POPs),

formed and released from thermal processes involving organic matter and

chlorine as a result of incomplete combustion or chemical reactions. These U-

POPs are commonly known as dioxins because of their similar structure and

health effects.

These U-POPs are both of natural and anthropogenic origin. They resist

photolytic, biological and chemical degradation. They are bio-accumulative,

widespread geographically and are toxic to life. The concentration of U-POPs

of anthropogenic origin has greatly increased over the years. Toxics Link

Report (2000) identifies several potential sources of these U-POPs, among

them being medical waste incineration and open burning of domestic waste.

According to USEPA estimates, municipal solid waste incineration and medical

waste incineration are among the top sources of dioxins released into the air.

They make up for 1,100gm TEQ/year and 477gm TEQ/year respectively

(USEPA, 1998). Of all source categories, combustion sources account for

nearly 80% of air emissions that contribute to choky smoke, water pollution,

pungent smells, broken objects, respiratory diseases and other related health

problems.

Tangri, (2003), notes that despite intensive scrutiny over many years, much

remains unknown about the releases of pollutants from waste-burning activities.

Waste burning produces hundreds of distinct hazardous by-products yet only a

handful of them have been studied thoroughly while hundreds remain

unidentified. Connett (1998) identifies some of the toxic emissions of

incineration including: hydrogen chloride, nitric oxide, heavy metals, dioxins,

furans and other U-POPs, fly ash, bottom ash, stack gas, fugitive emissions

plus other residues.

Due to the persistent and bio-accumulative nature of dioxins and furans, these

chemicals exist throughout the environment. Their health effects depend on a

variety of factors, including the level of exposure, duration of exposure and

stage of life during exposure. Some of the probable health effects of dioxins

and furans include the development of cancer, immune system suppression,

reproductive and developmental complications, endocrine disruption (Connett,

1998; Luscombe and Costner, 2003). The International Agency for Research

on Cancer (IARC) identified TCDD as the most toxic of all dioxin compounds.

The accumulation of dioxins and furans in the environment resulting from

waste incineration activities can reach levels that render resources unfit for

human consumption. Connett (2003), documents an incident in Netherlands

where 16 dairy farmers downwind of a huge incinerator in Rotterdam could not

sell their milk because it contained three times higher dioxin levels than

anywhere else in Netherlands. According to Patandin (1999), even low doses

of dioxins are very toxic. He reports that prenatal exposure to typical daily

intake of dioxins and PCBs has effects on neurodevelopment and thyroid

hormones from studies he conducted in Netherlands. Deficits of up to four

points in IQ and increased susceptibility to infections in 42 month old children

exposed to typical daily intakes of dioxins/PCBs were observed.

In Kenya, a study on egg-sampling by ENVILEAD and ARNIKA (2005) under

the Dioxin, PCBs and Waste Working Group of IPEN found eggs collected

around the Dandora dumpsite in Nairobi, Kenya, to have dioxin levels over 6

times higher than the EU dioxins limits for eggs. The sampled eggs also

exceeded the proposed WHO limits for PCBs by more than 4-fold. It is

estimated that the Dandora open dumpsite handles 803,000 tons of waste per

year (National inventory of POPs, 2004). The study was not able to carry out a

comprehensive investigation into the health consequences of the incinerators

and open air burning sites visited. It however reports complaints about chest

complications and serious smoke irritation for those living downwind from the

Kenyatta National Hospital incinerator. These were due to Inhalation of the

pollutants-infested smoke and fly ash carried across by the wind; Consumption

of animal products such as meat, milk and eggs from animals feeding within

and around the sites.

Incineration produces residues that require treatment and disposal, most often

in a landfill. Incinerator ash- either as bottom ash or fly ash is highly toxic.

Tangri (2003) observed that handling of this ash raises serious concerns

because workers are often exposed to the ash, sometimes with little or no

protective gear. In addition to dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB), incinerators are sources of other halogenated

organic compounds, toxic metals and greenhouse gases. Toxic metals

released from incineration activities include: Mercury, Lead, Cadmium, Arsenic,

Chromium, Beryllium, Antimony, and Manganese.

Spadaro, et. al., (2005), Studying the methodology for evaluating the impacts

and damage costs (`external costs') due to pollution from waste treatment

compared the damage costs of landfill and incineration of municipal solid

waste with due account for energy and materials recovery, as well as possible

differences in transport distance. Though the total damage costs of leachates

because of the complexity of the environmental pathways and of the long time

horizon of some persistent pollutants were not quantified, an extreme scenario

was considered to show that they are not worth worrying about in the sense

that reducing the pollutants in leachates beyond current regulations would

bring negligible benefit in comparison with the decline of other sources of the

same pollutants.

The study found that the damage costs due to the construction of the waste

treatment facility were negligible. The damage costs of waste transport

illustrated by an arbitrary choice of a 100 km round trip by a 16 tonne truck

were also negligible. The benefits of materials recovery made a small

contribution to the total damage cost. However, direct emissions of the landfill

or incinerator and the avoided emissions had significant contributions due to

energy recovery from an incinerator. The study reports damage costs for

incineration ranging from about 4 to 21 tonnes and that they were extremely

dependent on the assumed scenario for energy recovery. The cost for landfill

ranges from about 10 to 13 tonnes. It was found to be dominated by

greenhouse gas emissions because only a fraction of the CH4 can be captured

and was assumed to be 70 %. Amenity costs (odour, visual impact, noise)

were highly site-specific with results from a literature survey indicating that

such costs could make a significant contribution estimated to the order of 1

tonne.

2.4 Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework of this study shows the relationship Solid waste

Collection & Disposal, Solid Waste Recycling and Solid Waste minimization as

Independent variables and their Socio-economic implications on lives of

residents of Dandora, Nairobi (Income, Health) as the Dependent variable.

Government policies are considered as the moderating variable while

Household participation is used as the Intervening variable in this study.

Independent Variable Moderating variable Dependent Variable

Intervening variable

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework of the study

This study hypothesized that: Solid Waste Management Practices have no

influence on socioeconomic lives of participating households.

2.5 Summary

Although waste generally refers to unwanted material by the immediate user,

this definition is subjective since the waste could have value to another person

in a different circumstance or culture. In shading light on the influence of

dumpsites on socioeconomic lives of residents, the Human Ecosystems Model

has been discussed with emphasis on the role of SW Collection and disposal,

Recycling and Minimization as SWM practices.

Government policies

Socioeconomic

implications on

participating

households

Household participation

Solid WasteRecycling

Solid WasteMinimization

Solid wasteCollection &Disposal

Indicators: Food,Health, Education &Housing expenses

CHAPTER THREE:

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This section describes the research methodology under the subtopics:

research approach, research design, target population, sampling procedures

and design, data collection, validity and reliability of research instruments,

methods of data analysis, Operational definition of variables and a summary of

the chapter

3.2 Research Design

A survey design was modeled to enable assessment of the socio-economic

implications of solid waste management practices on households around

Dandora dumpsite, Nairobi. This study sought to describe and explain

socioeconomic characteristics of Dandora residents (existing reality) by

collecting numerical data on observable behaviors of the sample by subjecting

these data to statistical tests.

3.3 Target Population

This study covered a target population of about 30,000 residents from

approximately 6800 households based on the administrative records at the

Table 3.1 by proportion.

Table 3.1: Target population by proportionHousehold location Population (No. of

Households)

Percentage (%)

Dandora Phase I N1= 2000 29.4

Dandora Phase II N2= 1080 15.9

Dandora Phase III N3 = 800 11.8

Dandora Phase IV N4= 1220 17.9

Dandora Phase V N5= 1700 25.0

Total households 6800 100

Where N1 5 represents target population from Dandora Phase I V

respectively.

3.4 Sampling procedure

Sample size is influenced by a number of factors: - the purpose of the study,

population size, the risk of selecting a "bad" sample and the allowable

sampling error (Israel, 1992). Miaoulis and Michener (1976) emphasize on;

the level of precision, the level of confidence or risk, and the degree of

variability in the attributes being measured.

Under these considerations, Yamane (1967) formula was used to calculate

sample size for this study. The formula (below) was used to calculate the

sample size based on a 91% confidence level and precision (P) = 0.09

assumption.

Yamane (1967) formula.

n = N / 1 + N (e2) ....................................................................................1

Where n is the sample size, N is the population size, and e is the level of

precision.

Thus, with N = 6800 households, and

e = 0.09

n= 6800/ {(1 + 6800(0.092)}

n= 121 households from Dandora

Sample size for this study was therefore 121 households.

To get the sample households for each phase, proportional sampling was

carried out. Sample size for

Phase 1 = n1,

Thus sample sizes for Phase 1 to 5 = n1, n2 to n5.............................................2

Thus sample size for each phase was calculated as by

ni = Ni / N *n.............................................................................................3

Sample size n = n1 + n2+ n3 + n4 + n5

Thus the sampling matrix showing sample size calculated from the population

is as in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Proportional sample for each phaseHousehold location Sample Calculation Sample sizeDandora Phase I n1 = 121 * 2000/ 6800 36

Dandora Phase II n2= 121 * 1080 / 6800 19

Dandora Phase III n3 = 121 * 800/ 6800 14

Dandora Phase IV n4 = 121 * 1220/ 6800 22

Dandora Phase V n5= 121 * 1700/ 6800 30

Total sample size (n) 121

Data was collected from a sample of one hundred and twenty one (121)

households randomly selected from the 6800 households through proportional

sampling across five phases in Dandora. Systematic sampling was applied to

select respondents from each phase.

3.6 Methods of Data Collection

To achieve the objectives of this study, primary data was collected. Overall,

data was collected using a questionnaire survey. Primary data comprised local

views, perceptions and opinions related to the waste collection and disposal,

recycling and minimization at the Dandora dumpsite among local community

household members.

A questionnaire was used to collect both quantitative and qualitative data to

enable assessment of the socio-economic implications of the solid waste

management on households around Dandora dumpsite, Nairobi. Descriptive

analysis was used to summarize data collected.

3.7 Validity and reliability

In seeking to achieve the research objectives, the researcher ensure that the

research instruments were both valid and reliable. This section discusses how

validity and reliability were achieved.

3.7.1 ValidityTo ensure validity of the research instruments in this study, a pre-test was

carried out in Kayole (a sorting area for Dandora waste) on a sample of

respondents randomly sampled and not included in the final research sample

size. The pilot study was conducted on a sample size of ten (10) households to

enhance validity of the questionnaires. This was for assessing clarity of the

instrument items so that those that failed to measure the intended variables

were modified or discarded. The instruments were thoroughly scrutinized to

ensure that they collected all the information needed to address the objectives

of this research.

3.7.2 ReliabilityReliability is the measure of the degree to which a research instrument yields

consistent results of data after repeated trials. It is influenced by a random

error. As the random error increases, the reliability decreases. Random error is

the deviation from a true measurement due to the factors that have not been

effectively addressed by the researcher. These errors may arise from

inaccurate coding, ambiguous instructions to the subjects, bias and

To test for reliability of the instrument the researcher analyzed the findings of

the pilot study on split-half index. This method involved scoring two-halves of a

test separately for each person then calculating a correlation coefficient for the

two scores. They were found to be consistent, establishing validity. Incomplete

questionnaires were eliminated. The reliability coefficient was calculated using

the Spearman correlation formula given below.

Reliability of scores on total test = 2× reliability for ½ test

1+ reliability for ½ tests

Where

8314

Reliability of scores on total test = 2× ½ (0.8314) = 0.587

1+ ½ (0.8314)

The reliability coefficient was 0.587 approximately 58.7percent. This coefficient

was found to be adequate since it was greater than the required minimum of

0.3 (r > 0.3)

3.8 Methods of Data Analysis

The study adopted descriptive and correlation data analysis. According to Best

(1977) descriptive research involves the description, recording, analysis and

interpretation of conditions that now exist. It also involves some type of

comparison and contrast and may attempt to discover relationships that exist

between non manipulated variables.

The data was computed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences

(SPSS). Descriptive statistics and analytical tools such as Mean, frequencies,

percentages were employed on data collected. Relationships were established

by Correlation techniques (Spearma

analysis focusing simple correlations were done to establish existing

relationships between household socio-economic factors (Income, Health,

occupation, education and location) and the effects SWM practices.

3.9 Operational definition of variables

presented in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Operational Definition of Variables No Research

ObjectiveResearchQuestion

Variable type Indicator Scale DataCollectionInstrument

Tools of Analysis

1. To evaluatethe influenceof SWCollection and Disposal onsocioeconomiclives of residents of Dandora,Nairobi.

What is theinfluence of SW Collectionand Disposalonsocioeconomiclives of residents of Dandora,Nairobi?

Independentvariable:SWCollection & Disposal

-No. of lorriescollecting&disposingSW perday-Collection&Disposalfeescharged(Income)

Nominal, Ordinal

Questionnaire Descriptivestatistics :-Measures of Centraltendency: -Mean-Frequencytables & Percentages

2. To assess theinfluence of SW Recyclingonsocioeconomiclives of residents of Dandora,Nairobi.

What is theinfluence of SW Recyclingonsocioeconomiclives of residents of Dandora,Nairobi?

Independentvariable:SWRecycling

-Types &No. of SWrecycled-Income

-Nominal- Ordinal

Questionnaire -Mean,- Frequencytables & Percentages

3. To assess theinfluence of SWminimizationon

What is theinfluence of SWminimizationon

Independentvariable:SWminimization

- Amountof SWreduced/minimizedper day

-Nominal, Ordinal

Questionnaire - Mean- Frequencytables & Percentages

socioeconomiclives of residents of Dandora,Nairobi.

socioeconomiclives of residents of Dandora,Nairobi?

-Income

Dependentvariable:Socio-economiclives of residents of Dandora,Nairobi

-Income- Food, Health,education, housingexpenses

-Nominal, ratio, ordinal

Questionnaire -Correlationtechnique:

coefficient of correlation)for strengthof associationbtwvariables

Moderatingvariable:Government policies

No. of policies on SWM

Questionnaire

Interveningvariable:

Householdparticipation

-Genderroles

-Nominal- Ordinal- Ratio

Questionnaire

3.10 Summary

A survey methodology was modeled to enable assessment of the influence of

the solid waste management practices on socio-economic lives of residents of

Dandora, Nairobi. Data (both qualitative and quantitative) was collected from a

sample of one hundred and twenty one (121) households randomly selected

from the 6800 households through proportional sampling across five phases in

Dandora. Systematic sampling was used to select respondents from the five

phases of Dandora. The data was collected using a questionnaire survey.

CHAPTER FOUR:

DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Introduction

This section contains data analysis and presentation based on the research

objectives. Section 4.2 presents Respondent return rate from the five locations

(Phase I - V) surveyed. Section 4.3 discusses Household socioeconomic

characteristics profiling: -Respondents distribution by gender , Gender

distribution of household members by

Management practices and their correlation. It also details household sources

of labour for Solid Waste Management practices, variations in mean distance

from dumpsite to household locations and finally discusses the Household

expenditure pattern. Section 4.4 discusses Implications of the Solid Waste

Management practices on the socioeconomic lives of Dandora residents by the

research objectives. It focuses on the contribution of Solid Waste Collection&

Disposal, Solid Waste Recycling and Solid Waste minimization to the

socioeconomic lives of Dandora residents.

4.2 Respondent return rate

The survey established that the number of individuals in 107 households was

468. Out of the 121 Questionnaires administered, 107 were recovered. This

translated to a response rate of 88 percent (%.) as shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Respondent return rateLocation Expected responses Actual responses Percentage (%)Phase 1 36 32 89

Phase 2 19 13 68

Phase 3 14 13 93

Phase 4 22 22 100

Phase 5 30 27 90

Totals 121 107 88

4.3 Household socioeconomic characteristics (Profile of Respondents)

This section contains data on respondents socioeconomic characteristics from

the five locations (Phase I - V) surveyed. It presents respondents distribution

by gender,

4.3.1 Respondents distribution by gender

The gender distribution in the households was found to be 65 percent males

and 35 percent women as shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Respondents distribution by gender

Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 70 65.4

Female 37 34.6

Total 107 100.0

The higher percentage of males implies that there were more men than women

who participated in Waste Management practices as a source of income. It is

also explained by the fact the nature of activities undertaken in Waste

Management practices require a lot of energy thus the job favors the

involvement of males in contrast to females.

The population distribution was such that 30 percent were from Phase 1 being

the highest, 25 percent from Phase 5, 21 percent were from Phase 4, while

Phase 2 and Phase 3 had 12 percent each as shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Gender of member distribution by location

Location Distribution Gender No. of household members Percentage Male Female TotalPhase 1 140 30 22 10 32

Phase 2 57 12 10 3 13

Phase 3 57 12 6 7 13

Phase 4 96 21 15 7 22

Phase 5 118 25 17 10 27

Totals 468 100 70 37 107

The high number of people involved in Waste Management practices from

Phase 1 indicates that they benefited more economically from the Waste

Management practices followed by Phase 5 while Phases 2 and 3 benefited

the least.

The survey instruments were used to establish the ages of respondents.

Based on findings, the survey established that the mean age of the population

to be 31 years as in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4:

NMinimum

Age Maximum

Age Mean

AgeStd.

Deviation

Age 107 17 53 31.26 8.382

Total 107

This implies that Dandora area had a higher concentration of the youthful

population compared to the elderly persons. This youthful population provided

a greater percentage of the labour-force for Solid Waste Management

practices in the region.

The survey established that 9 percent of the respondents had primary

education, 36 percent secondary, 48 percent had attended tertiary colleges

while 7 percent had university education.

Table 4.5: level of education

Level of education No. of Respondents Percentage

Primary 8 9

University 34 36

Tertiary college 45 48

Secondary 7 7

Total 107 100

The low percentage of participants in Solid Waste Management activities with

University education suggests that they may have preferred to take up

alternative jobs rather than be involved in Solid Waste Management practices

as a means of raising income to take care of their socioeconomic needs. This

implies that is a major factor in deciding the kind of employment the residents

take up. The Solid Waste Management activities were therefore left to those

with lower level education

Table 4.6: Correlations between Income from Solid Waste Managementpractices and level of education

Solid Waste

Management

Income/month

Pearson Correlation 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000

N 107

Level of Education Pearson Correlation -0.170

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.081

N 106

When income from Solid Waste Management practices was correlated with the

populations level of education, the statistic revealed a weak negative

correlation between Income from Solid Waste Management practices and

(r = - 0.170, p=0.1) as in Table 4.6. The

correlation was not significant. This result suggests that the respondent level of

education affects their choice of occupation. The respondents with a higher

level of education were less directly engaged in Solid Waste Management

practices as a full time occupation to raise income for their households since

they stood better chances of getting alternative jobs.

4.3.3 Occupation of respondents

The survey found out that the population comprised of 44 percent individuals

engaged in Solid Waste Collection and Disposal, 41 percent took up Solid

Waste Recycling activities while 15 percent were engaged in Solid Waste

Minimization as an occupation as shown in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7: Occupation of respondentsOccupation (SWM Practice) Frequency Percentage

Solid Waste Collection& Disposal 47 44

Solid Waste Recycling 44 41

Solid Waste Minimization 16 15

Total 107 100 The high percentage participants involved in Solid Waste Collection and

Disposal as well as Solid Waste Recycling activities was motivated by the

higher levels of income accrued compared to relatively lower income from

Solid Waste Minimization activities. These results suggest that more members

of the population were motivated to participate in Solid Waste Collection and

Disposal because it gave higher economic returns in comparison with the other

Solid Waste Management practices. In this context however, the economic

contribution of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal was relatively close to that

of Solid Waste Recycling.

4.3.4 Descriptive Statistics of income from Solid WasteManagement practices

The survey revealed that the mean income from Solid Waste Management

practices was KShs. 15067.48 with a maximum of KShs 55800 as shown in

Table 4.8. This level of income significantly contributed towards social and

economic expenses of the households.

Table 4.8: Descriptive Statistics of income from Solid Waste Managementpractices

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Solid Waste

Management

Income/month

107 0 55800 15067.48 10011.013

Total 107

4.3.5 Correlations between Occupation and income from Solid WasteManagement practices

The correlations between occupation and the income from Solid Waste

Management practices were as in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9: Correlations between Occupation and income from SolidWaste Management practices

Solid Waste ManagementIncome/month

Pearson Correlation 1.000Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000

N 107Occupation Pearson Correlation 0.008

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.938N 107

The relationship between occupation and the income from Solid Waste

Management practices revealed a positive but weak correlation (r= 0.08,

p=0.1). However, the relationship was not significant. This statistic implies that

the people involved in Solid Waste Management practices were motivated by

the level of income they earned from the practices. This means that when a

higher income is raised the Solid Waste Management practices, a higher

percentage of the population will engage in the Solid Waste Management

practices as an occupation due to the motivation to earn more money to take

care of their socioeconomic needs and vise versa. It also implies that the

households relied on the Solid Waste Management practices as a key source

of their income because of its significant contribution towards improvement of

their social and economic lifestyles. When the returns are very low, the

participants find other alternative sources of income to supplement it.

4.3.6 Household sources of labour for Solid Waste Managementpractices

The study found out that the households either employ laborers to help in Solid

Waste Management activities or source for labour from their own family

members. The variations in the sources of labour as established by this survey

for Solid Waste Management practices were as in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10: Household Sources of labour for Solid Waste ManagementpracticesSource of labour Percentage (%)100% hired labour 20

50% hired plus 50% own family labour 62

100% own family labour 18

Total 100

At least 18 percent of the population entirely engaged their own family labour

(100% own household members without involving people from other

households as laborers), 62 percent reported using about 50% of hired labour

while the 50% was provided by the household members themselves. The

remaining 20 percent used 100% hired labour from other households whom

they paid a wage based on the Solid Waste Management activities done per

week.

The involvement of hired labour (approximately 51 percent of the total labour)

engaged in Solid Waste Management activities was associated with the fact

that there was availability of cheap labour provided by the youth who dropped

out of school opting for the menial jobs to raise income to help their

the fact that most families take advantage of the cheap labour as a way of

transferring the social risks (for example health problems) to members outside

their households thus minimizing health related expenses as a household. This

is supported by the low mean expenditure of the area residents on health

(KShs 930) as in Table 4.10 which was expected to have been higher in

comparison to the other socioeconomic expenses based on the nature of

activities undertaken in Solid Waste Management exposing participants to

frequent health risks.

4.3.7 Solid Waste Management charges and transportation

The types of Solid Waste Collected from the household and disposed at

Dandora dumpsite were found to be mainly domestic. This survey established

that an average of three (3) kilograms (Kgs) in quantity is generated per

household per day. Relative proportions of various types of solid wastes were

generated from households surveyed; i.e. Food Waste, Recyclable Paper,

Textiles, Plastic containers, Leather, Rubber, Glass containers, Metal

containers, Ceramic and Soil.

Waste from the households was picked and transported mainly by use of

lorries and handcarts depending on location of household from the dumpsite.

This was especially true for households from Phases 1, 2 and 5 who stay

farthest from the Dandora dumping site. About 11 percent of the waste is

illegally dumped by the waste generators themselves. This was because of the

low willingness to pay for the Solid Waste Collection and Disposal on the basis

that they were close to the dumpsite and therefore did not need to incur

expenses on Solid Waste Management practices but eventually ended up

creating mini-dumping sites within the estates.

The survey established that the general affordability to pay for Solid Waste

The mean percentage willingness to

pay (WTP) for Solid Waste Management practices was 61 percent with values

as low as of zero (0) percent and a high of 100 percent. The mean fee charged

is KShs 109/= charged per month with a minimum of KShs 40/= and a

maximum of KShs 200/= per month while some do not pay for the Solid Waste

Management services at all. Those who were not willing to pay indicated that

the dumpsite was so close to them that they chose to dump the waste by

themselves.

The waste charge system of the households was based on the location /

distance of the client's premises from the dumping site and not the quantity of

waste to be collected. The timing of payment for the waste charges was mostly

on a monthly basis. Additionally, the survey found that waste collection and

disposal was done once a week (Saturday only) which was not regular enough

thus led to creation of mini-dumping sites in the residential areas.

4.3.8 Location (Distance in metres) and income from Solid WasteManagement practices

The survey established that in terms of distance from the households to the

disposal area, the mean distance from households to the dumpsite was 1060

metres (approximately 1 kilometer). Phase 2 was the furthest at approximately

2 kilometers (1958 metres) while Phase 4 had a mean of 361 metres only with

some households as close as 50 metres away from the dumpsite. The mean

distance from households surveyed to the dumpsite was established to be

1060 metres (approximately 1 kilometer) with variations in the five locations as

in Table 4.11

Table 4.11: The mean Solid Waste Management income and distancefrom dumpsite to households

LocationMean Income

(KShs)Percentagecontribution

Mean Distance(Metres)

Phase 1 12766.88 17 1420

Phase 2 11011.54 15 1958

Phase 3 14126.92 19 738

Phase 4 17645.45 24 361

Phase 5 18099.26 25 926

Total 73650.05 100

The survey found out that respondents from Phase 5 raised the highest mean

income (KShs 18099.26) while Phase 2 raised the least income (KShs

11011.54). Based on distance in relation to income from Solid Waste

Management practices, Phase 5 contributed 25 percent of the total income

followed by Phase 4 at 24 percent and Phase 3 at 19 percent. Phase 1

contributed 17 percent while Phase 2 contributed the least towards total

income generated being 15 percent. Phase 5 therefore experienced the

highest positive influence of income from Solid Waste Management practices

on the socioeconomic lives of Dandora residents.

The results imply that the households closer to the dumping site got more

social and economic benefits from Solid Waste Management practices thus

leading to improved lifestyles of the respective households. Those households

located farthest from the dumping site got lesser net income which led to a

lower contribution to their social and economic lives. However, based on the

percentage contributions for each Phase discussed above, the disparity (10

percent difference between the highest and lowest contribution) was relatively

not high.

Table 4.12: Correlation between Income from Solid Waste Managementpractices income and distance from disposal site

Distance fromDumpsite (m)

Distance from Dumpsite (m) PearsonCorrelation 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 N 5Solid Waste ManagementIncome

PearsonCorrelation -0.829

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.083 N 5

Based on the findings, the correlation between income from Solid Waste

Management practices and Distance from dumpsite revealed a strong negative

relationship (r= - 0.829 at p=0.1) that was not significant. This implies that

income from Solid Waste Management practices tended to decline with

increase in the distance from the disposal point. This was attributed to the

operational costs incurred in ensuring the safe disposal of the Solid Waste at

the dumpsite from households where they are generated. It suggests that a

higher amount of the income was spent for those transporting the waste from

The operational costs include: - payments for the hired labour to facilitate the

Solid Waste Management activities - collection and Disposal, Recycling and

Minimization- transportation costs, provision of waste collection containers

mainly large polythene bags, hiring of transportation equipment such as lorries

and handcarts, acquisition of operational licenses form the City Council of

Nairobi, repairs of transportation equipment due to wear and tear, payment of

disposal fees at the dumping site as well as money lost to cartels controlling

the dumping activities at the dump site.

Conclusively, these findings showed that the households found nearest to the

dumpsite benefited more socioeconomically compared to their counterparts

living farther from the dumpsite. This meant that they had more disposable

income thus were able to comfortably take better care of their expenses

related to food, housing, health and investment in education leading to better

lifestyles in comparison to those households found at longer distances from the

landfill.

4.3.9 Respondents total income and expenditure pattern

To evaluate the influence of combined Solid Waste Management practices on

socioeconomic lives of residents, the total income was compared to the total

household expenses. The results were as in Table 4.13.

Table 4.13: The total income and expenditure pattern

Totals forHouseholds Income

Foodexpenses

Educationexpenses

Housingexpenses

Healthexpenses

Totalexpenses

Totals(KShs) 1,705,687 426,352 1,107,188 370,423 102,222 2,006,185

N 107 107 107 107 107 107

Mean 15,941 3,874 10,052 3,364 930 18,220

Percentage(%)contribution 82 21 55 18 5 100Maximum 55,800 21,000 54,000 6,000 6,000 64,400

Minimum 0 180 0 1,000 20 3,900

S. Deviation 10,011 2,474 11,226 1,324 914 12,015

The expenditure pattern by the respondents showed a high expenditure on

education, followed by food, housing and health in that order as shown in the

Table 4.13. The mean income was found to be KShs 15,941 and was lower

than the mean total expense of KShs18, 220. The Minimum and Maximum

income levels were zero KShs (0) and KShs 55,800 respectively.

Income from Solid Waste Management practices contributed significantly to

the total household expenditure. It provided 82 percent of the total monthly

socioeconomic expenses. A major share (55 percent) of this income was

spend on education indicating that the households gave priority to education in

relation to the other social and economic needs. Food expenses amounted to

21 percent of the total income while housing took up 18 percent of the income

generated from Solid Waste Management practices. The total Solid Waste

Management Income contribution of 82 percent to the total household

socioeconomic expenditure left a deficit of 17 percent only to be covered by

other sources of income. This implies that Solid Waste Management practices

had a positive influence on socioeconomic lives of Dandora residents and

shows that it contributed a significantly to their socioeconomic expenditure

leading to improved standards of living among Dandora residents.

Health expenses made up a mere 5 percent though it would have been

expected to be higher based on the risks in the nature of activities undertaken

in Solid Waste Management which pose health threats to participants. This

was explained by the fact that there was availability of cheap labour provided

by the youth who drop out of school opting for the menial jobs to raise income

es thus most

families took advantage of the cheap labour as a way of transferring the social

risks (mostly health related) to members outside their households thus

minimizing health related expenses at household level. This was supported by

the low mean expenditure of the area residents on health (KShs 930/=) as in

Table 4.10 which was expected to have been higher in comparison to the other

socioeconomic expenses based on the nature of activities undertaken in Solid

Waste Management exposing participants to frequent health risks. The fact

that total expenditure was higher than income implies that the households had

other sources of income they relied on to supplement income from Solid Waste

Management practices.

When Solid Waste Management income was correlated with monthly

expenditure, the statistic in Table 4.14 was realized.

Table 4.14: Correlations Solid Waste Management income and monthlyexpenditure

Solid WasteManagementIncome/month

PearsonCorrelation 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000N 107

Monthlyexpenditure

PearsonCorrelation .389(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000N 107

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

The analysis Solid Waste Management against Monthly expenditure revealed

a weak positive correlation (r=0.389, at p=0.01). The relationship was

significant and suggests that; the higher the amount of income is raised from

the Solid Waste Management practices, the higher the level of contribution of

that income towards offsetting household monthly expenditure. This

socioeconomic expenditure included food, education, housing and health

expenses.

4.4 Implications of Solid Waste Management practices on socioeconomiclives of Dandora residents

In seeking to achieve the study objectives, data on the implications of Solid

Waste Management practices was collected from respondents in Dandora.

This section discusses the influence of Solid Waste Collection and disposal,

Solid Waste Recycling and Solid Waste Minimization activities on the social

and economic lives of residents of Dandora.

4.4.1 The Influence of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal onsocioeconomic lives of Dandora residents

The survey established that of the population that dealt with Solid Waste

Collection and Disposal, Phase 5 and 1 had equal proportions of 28 percent;

Phase 4 had 23 percent while Phases 2 and 3 shared the remaining 22

percent as in Table 4.15.

Table 4.15: The Solid Waste Collection& Disposal practiceLocation Frequency Percentage

Phase 1 13 28

Phase 2 5 11

Phase 3 5 11

Phase 4 11 23

Phase 5 13 28

Total 47 100

The higher percentage of population dealing with Solid Waste Collection and

Disposal from Phase 5 and 4 was attributed to the short distance between the

households as sources of Solid Waste generated and the disposal point. This

led to lower operational costs thus participants retained a higher percentage of

their earnings from Solid Waste Collection and Disposal.

When the mean Solid Waste Collection and Disposal income was compared to

the expenditure patterns on socioeconomic factors, it was found to contribute

varied percentages to their expenditure as by the results in Table 4.16.

Table 4.16: Mean Solid Waste Management Collection and DisposalIncome and expenditure pattern

Solid Waste

Collection&

Disposal

Income

Food

expenses

Education

expenses

Housing

expenses

Health

expenses

Total

expenses

Mean 15941.28 4045.96 11559.79 3740.43 831.91 20178.09

PercentageContribution 79 20 57 19 4 100

The survey established that the Mean Solid Waste Collection and Disposal

income was KShs 15941.28 as in Table 4.16. The expenditure pattern showed

a high expenditure on education, followed by food, housing while health had

the least.

Income from Solid Waste Collection and Disposal contributed significantly to

the total household expenditure. It provided 79 percent of the total monthly

socioeconomic expenses. A major share (57 percent) of this income was

spend on education indicating that the households gave priority to education in

relation to the other social and economic needs. Food expenses amounted to

20 percent of the total income while housing took up 19 percent of the income

generated from Solid Waste Collection and Disposal. The Solid Waste

Collection and Disposal Income contribution of 79 percent to the household

socioeconomic expenditure left a deficit of 21 percent to be covered by other

sources of income. This implies that Solid Waste Collection and Disposal

activities had a positive influence on socioeconomic lives of Dandora residents

and shows that it contributed significantly to their socioeconomic expenditure

leading to improved standards of living among Dandora residents.

Health expenses make up 4 percent though it would have been expected to be

higher based on the nature of activities undertaken in Solid Waste Collection

and Disposal which pose health risks to participants. This is explained by the

fact that there was availability of cheap labour provided by the youth who drop

out of school opting for the menial jobs to raise income to help their

advantage of the cheap labour as a way of transferring the social risks (mostly

health related) to members outside their households thus minimizing health

related expenses as a household.

This is supported by the low mean expenditure of the area residents on health

(KShs 831.91) as in Table 4.13 which was expected to have been higher in

comparison to the other socioeconomic expenses based on the nature of

activities undertaken in Solid Waste Collection and Disposal exposing

participants to frequent health risks. The total expenditure of KShs 20178.09

was found to be higher than the total income that was raised from Solid Waste

Collection and Disposal. This implies that respondents had other sources of

income that they relied on to supplement their income from Solid Waste

Collection and Disposal activities.

Those who directly participated in Solid Waste Collection and Disposal

pursued it as a form of employment or to maintain clean environment

(environmental conservation). Those who did not argued that the solid waste

are smelly and the collectors did not have safety gear for handling the waste

thus made it a health risk. Some indicated that they had left the work to street

children who collected the waste for cheaper costs thus received low returns

from direct participation or that they had alternative source of income thus had

no time for involvement in solid waste management. Others felt that it resulted

into social stigma because those involved in Solid Waste Management were

despised by community. Cases of children dropping out of schools while opting

to make quick money from the landfill and engage in drug abuse were also

reported. This had also led to child employment (the exploitation of desperate

children dropping out of school), which is a bridge of the global community

labour laws on Child rights.

The SWM Collection and Disposal resulted into social, environmental and

economic effects. The health effects included occurrence of: Colds, coughs,

malaria due to bites from mosquitoes that breed in the Solid Waste due to

delayed collection, bronchitis/ URTIS, throat infections, respiratory infections,

Skin diseases, Tetanus due pricks from sharp objects in the Solid waste

collected and presence of rodents due to mini-dumping site within the estates.

Environmental effects included water pollution due to blocked sewage systems

and accumulation of waste in drainage systems; air pollution, bad smells, noise

pollution and land degradation.

Solid Waste Collection and Disposal income was correlated to the

socioeconomic factors, revealing the results in Table 4.17.

Table 4.17: Correlations between Solid Waste Management Collectionand Disposal Income and Socioeconomic expenses

Solid Waste Collection& Disposal Income

Pearson Correlation 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 N 48Food Pearson Correlation 0.229 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.118 N 48Education Pearson Correlation 0.439(**) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.002 N 48Housing Pearson Correlation 0.203 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.167 N 48Health Pearson Correlation 0.168 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.253 N 48Total expenses Pearson Correlation 0.474(**) Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 N 48

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The correlation analysis on Solid Waste Collection and Disposal income and

socioeconomic variables revealed that there was a positive but weak linear

relationship between income and food expenses(r= 0.229, at p= 0.1) as in

Table 4.17. The correlation was significant. This implies that the higher the

amount of income is generated Solid Waste Collection and Disposal the more

the amount of money will be contributed towards settling socioeconomic

expenses of households.

Income and education expenses revealed a positive near moderate correlation

which was significant (r=0.439, at p=0.01). This implies that education took up

a major percentage of this income. The statistic also revealed a weak but

positive linear relationship between Income and housing expenses (r=0.203 at

p=0.1) which was not significant. Income and health analyses showed a weak

positive correlation (r=0.168, at p=0.1) which was not significant.

The Solid Waste Collection and Disposal income against total socioeconomic

expenses revealed a positive near moderate correlation (r=0.474) which was

significant at p=0.01. This shows that the income derived from Solid Waste

Collection and Disposal contributed to a greater extent in settling household

socioeconomic expenses especially education compared to the other sources

of income.

4.4.2 The Influence of Solid Waste Recycling on socioeconomiclives of Dandora residents

The survey established that the highest percentage of the population dealing

with Solid Waste Recycling came from phase 1 at 34 percent followed by

Phase 5 at 25 percent while Phase 3 had the least at 9 percent as in Table

4.18.

Table 4.18: The Solid Waste recycling practiceLocation Frequency Percentage

Phase 1 15 34

Phase 2 7 16

Phase 3 4 9

Phase 4 7 16

Phase 5 11 25

Total 44 100

Solid Waste Recycling was found to create employment thus is a source of

income. It also maximizes material utilization saving money for alternative

needs and adds value to the waste recycled. The survey established that the

mean income from Solid Waste recycling was KShs 16170.45. The

expenditure pattern showed a higher allocation to education, followed by food,

housing while health had the least.

Table 4.19: Mean Solid Waste Recycling income and expenditure patternSWR

Income

Food

expenses

Education

expenses

Housing

expenses

Health

expenses

Total

expenses

Mean 16170.45 3954.09 9223.18 3063.64 1161.82 17402.73

PercentageContribution 93 23 53 18 7 100

Income from Solid Waste Recycling contributed significantly to the total

household expenditure. It provided 93 percent of the total monthly

socioeconomic expenses. Slightly over half (53 percent) of this income is

spend on education indicating that the households give preference to

education in relation to the other social and economic needs. Food expenses

amounted to 23 percent of the total income while housing took up 18 percent

of the income generated from Solid Waste Recycling. The Solid Waste

Recycling Income contribution of 93 percent to the household socioeconomic

expenditure left a deficit of 7 percent to be covered by other sources of income.

This implies that Solid Waste Recycling activities had a positive influence on

socioeconomic lives of Dandora residents and shows that it contributed very

highly to their socioeconomic expenditure leading to improved standards of

living among the households. Health expenses take up 7 percent of their

income.

The total expenditure (KShs 17402.73) was found to be higher than the income

raised as in Table 4.19. This implies that the respondents had other sources of

income used to supplement the income from the Solid Waste Recycling

practice in settling socioeconomic expenses incurred regularly.

Table 4.20: Correlations Solid Waste Recycling Income andSocioeconomic expenses

Solid Waste RecyclingIncome

PearsonCorrelation 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000N 44

Food PearsonCorrelation

0.134

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.387

N 44Education Pearson

Correlation0.305(*)

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.044N 44

Housing PearsonCorrelation 0.114

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.461N 44

Health PearsonCorrelation 0.067

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.664N 44

Total expenses PearsonCorrelation 0.348(*)

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.021N 44

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The correlation between Solid Waste Recycling income and the food expenses

revealed a weak but positive linear relationship (r=0.134 at p=0.1) which was

not significant as in Table 4.20. Income and education expenses showed a

weak positive correlation (r=0.305). The relationship was significant at p=0.05.

Income against housing expenditure revealed a weak positive correlation

(r=0.114, at p=0.1). However, the relationship was not significant. The

relationship between income and health showed a weak positive correlation

(r=0.067 at p=0.1) which was not significant. Social effects associated with

recycling include tetanus infection resulting from metal and glass pricks

increasing household social expenditure on treatment for improved health

status.

The Solid Waste Recycling income against total Solid Waste Recycling

expenses revealed a positive but weak correlation (r=0.348) significant at

p=0.05. This survey result shows that the income raised from Solid Waste

Recycling activities contribute positively to the social and economic lives of

households. It implies that higher returns from Solid Waste Recycling motivate

participants to engage more in the practice. However, a higher portion of this

income was directed towards education in comparison to other social

expenses.

4.4.3 The Influence of Solid Waste minimization on socioeconomiclives of Dandora residents

The survey established that Phase 1, 3 and 4 had equal percentage of

residents participating in Solid Waste Minimization being 25 percent. Phase 5

had 19 percent while Phase 2 had the least at 6 percent as in Table 4.21.

Table 4.21: The Solid Waste Minimization practiceLocation Frequency Percentage

Phase 1 4 25

Phase 2 1 6

Phase 3 4 25

Phase 4 4 25

Phase 5 3 19

Total 16 100

The survey established that the Mean income from Solid Waste Minimization

was KShs 9467.50. The expenditure pattern showed a higher amount

allocated to education, followed by food, housing and lastly health as in Table

4.22.

Table 4.22: Mean Solid Waste Minimization income and Expenditurepattern

SW

Minimization

Income

Food

expenses

Education

expenses

Housing

expenses

Health

expenses

Total

expenses

Mean 9467.50 3188.94 8075.00 3118.75 588.75 14971.44

PercentageContribution 63 21 54 21 4 100

Income from Solid Waste Minimization contributed above average to the total

household expenditure. It provided 63 percent of the total monthly

socioeconomic expenses. Slightly over half (54 percent) of this income is

spend on education indicating that the households give preference to

education in relation to the other social and economic needs. Food expenses

amounted to 21 percent of the total income while housing took up 21 percent

of the income generated from Solid Waste Minimization. The Solid Waste

Minimization Income contribution of 63 percent to the household

socioeconomic expenditure left a deficit of 37 percent to be covered by other

sources of income. This implies that Solid Waste Minimization activities had a

positive influence on socioeconomic lives of Dandora residents and shows that

it contributed well above average to their socioeconomic expenditure leading to

improved standards of living among the households.

Health expenses make up 4 percent though it would have been expected to be

higher based on the nature of activities undertaken in Solid Waste Minimization

which pose health risks to participants. This is explained by the fact that there

was availability of cheap labour provided by the youth who provide cheap

labour away from household mostly carried out at the dumping site.

Those who directly participated in Solid Waste burning indicated that they do

so because it reduces bad smell of the wastes and reduces the amount of

wastes collected and disposed. The street children light fires at the dumpsite

every night to keep themselves warm minimizing the wastes although this also

affects the residents as the wind blows the smoke into the densely populated

residential area surrounding it. 91 % of respondents avoid burning solid waste

at household level for fear of fire break ups in the congested residential area.

Burning of Solid Waste was socially linked to skin infections, environmental

effects like air pollution due to smoke and burnt waste particles, bad smell and

water pollution. Little economic value was attached to this practice thus the

level of income generated from this practice was relatively low in comparison

to the other Solid Waste Management practices.

The total expenditure (KShs 14971.44) was found to be higher than the income

raised. This implies that the respondents had other sources of income used in

supplementing the income raised from Solid Waste Minimization in meeting

their household expenditures.

Table 4.23: Correlations between Solid Waste Minimization Income andSocioeconomic expenses

Solid Waste minimizationincome

PearsonCorrelation 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 N 16Food Pearson

Correlation -0.076

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.779 N 16Education Pearson

Correlation -0.146

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.589 N 16Housing Pearson

Correlation -0.073

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.788 N 16Health Pearson

Correlation -0.013

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.962 N 16Total expenses Pearson

Correlation -0.153

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.572 N 16

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The correlation between Solid Waste Minimization income and food expenses

revealed a weak negative relationship (r=-0.076 at p=0.1). Solid Waste

Minimization income and education expenses also revealed a weak negative

correlation (r= -0.146 at p=0.1). The relationships above were not significant.

Solid Waste Minimization income and housing expenses revealed a weak

negative relationship (r= -0.073 at p=0.1). The correlation between Solid Waste

Minimization income and health expenses revealed a weak negative

relationship (r= -0.013 at p=0.1). Both relationships above were not significant.

The correlation between Solid Waste Minimization income and total Solid

Waste Minimization expenses revealed a weak negative correlation (r= -0.153

at p=0.1). This shows that the Income raised from Solid Waste Minimization

contributed to lesser extent to the overall household expenditure compared to

other sources of income spent on the socioeconomic aspects of households in

Dandora.

4.4.4 Correlations for combined Solid Waste Management Incomeagainst total expenditure

In general, Solid Waste Management was intended to create a clean

environment which reduces the occurrence of the social, environmental and

economic effects. Majority of the population engaged in Solid Waste

Management practices were motivated by the income generated from the

practices.

Table 4.24: The total income and total expenditure for householdssurveyed

Totals for Households

Solid WasteManagement

IncomeFood

expensesEducation expenses

Housingexpenses

Health expenses

Totalexpenses

Totals(KShs) 1,705,687 426,352 1,107,188 370,423 102,222 2,006,185

N 107 107 107 107 107 107

Mean 15,941 3,874 10,052 3,364 930 18,220

Percentage (%) contribution 82 21 55 18 5 100

The total Solid Waste Management income was found to be KShs 1,705,687

while the total expense was KShs 2,006,185 as shown in the Table 4.24. Total

Income from Solid Waste Management practices contributed significantly to

the total household expenditure. It provided 82 percent of the total

socioeconomic expenses. A major share (55 percent) of this income was

spend on education indicating that the households give high priority to

education in relation to the other household social and economic needs. Food

expenses amounted to 21 percent of the total income while housing took up 18

percent of the total income generated from Solid Waste Management practices.

The Solid Waste Management practices Income contribution of 82 percent to

the household socioeconomic expenditure left a deficit of 18 percent which

was covered by other sources of income. This implies that Solid Waste

Management practices had a positive influence on socioeconomic lives of

Dandora residents and shows that it contributed significantly to their

socioeconomic expenditure thus led to improved standards of living among

Dandora residents.

Health expenses make up a mere 5 percent though it would have been

expected to be higher based on the nature of activities undertaken in Solid

Waste Management activities which pose health risks to participants. This was

explained by the fact that there was availability of cheap labour provided by the

available youthful population who opt for the menial jobs to raise income to

families take advantage of the cheap labour as a way of transferring the social

risks (mostly health related) to members outside their households thus

minimizing health related expenses as a household. This is supported by the

low mean expenditure of the area residents on health (KShs 930/=) as in Table

4.24 which was expected to have been higher in comparison to the other

socioeconomic expenses based on the nature of activities undertaken in Solid

Waste Management practices exposing participants to frequent health risks.

The total expenditure of KShs 2,006,185 was found to be higher than the total

income KShs 1,705,687 that was raised from Solid Waste Management

practices. This implies that respondents had other sources of income that they

relied on to supplement their income from Solid Waste Management activities.

Table 4.25: Correlations between total income and total monthlyexpenditure

Solid Waste Management income/month

Solid WasteManagementIncome/month

Pearson Correlation 1.000Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000

N 107Monthly expenditure Pearson Correlation 0.389(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000N 107

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

The analysis between total Solid Waste Management income and total

expense revealed a weak positive correlation (r=0.389, at p=0.01). The

relationship was significant. It suggests that the higher the amount of income

raised from the Solid Waste Management practices, the higher the level of

contribution of that income towards offsetting household monthly expenditure.

This socioeconomic expenditure included but not limited to food, education,

housing and health.

4.4.5 Patterns of household pooled Income and Expenditurestatistics

To evaluate the influence of combined SWM practices on socioeconomic lives

of the HHs, the total income for the sample was compared to their pooled

household expenses. The results were as in Table 4.26.

Table 4.26: Pooled monthly household income and expenditure patternper month

Socioeconomic aspect IncomeExpenditure

Food Education Housing Health Total Totals(KShs) 1,705,687 426,352 1,107,188 370,423 102,222 2,006,185N 107 107 107 107 107 107

Mean per month 15,941 3,874 10,052 3,364 930 18,220

Percentage (%) Contribution 82 21 55 18 5 100

The spending pattern by the respondents showed a 55% expenditure on

education, 21% on food, 18% on housing and 5% on health. The mean income

was found to be KShs 15,941/= and was lower than the mean total expense of

KShs 18,220/= implying that the HHs had other sources of income they relied

on to supplement income from SWM practices.

When the results were generalized for the population under study, the

combined income from different SWM practices was found to have contributed

a significant 82.47% to the total household expenditure. This implies that SWM

Practices had a positive influence on socioeconomic lives of participating HHs

but left a deficit of 17.5% which participants had to find other sources of

income to bridge the gap (Table 4.27).

Table 4.27: Influence of Income from the different SWM practices toparticipating HHs

SWM Practice% HH

participantsNo. ofHHs

Total Income(KShs)

TotalExpenses

%socioecon

omicinfluence Income Deficit

SW C&D 41 2,788 44,444,279 47,470,108 93.63 (3,025,829)

SWR 44 2,992 48,380,640 60,372,831 78.41 (11,992,191)

SWMin 15 1,020 9,656,340 14,428,151 63.24 (4,771,811)

MeanSocioeconomicInfluence 100 6,800 102,481,259 122,271,090 82.47 (19,789,831)

In general, the percentage influence of revenue from SWC&D on

Socioeconomic lives of participating HHs was found to be 93.63%. The

influence of SWR was 78.41% while SWMin had a 63.24% influence. These

combined translated to a Mean Socioeconomic Influence of 82.47% on

participating HHs. A comparison of percentage contribution of revenue by

SWM practices for total population revealed that SWC&D contributed 43% of

income generated by the total population under study (Table 4.28). Similarly

SWR contributed 47% while SW minimization contributed 10% to the HHs

socioeconomic needs.

Table 4.28: Comparison of percentage revenue contribution by SWMpractice

SWM PracticeContribution to TotalIncome (KSh.)

% Contribution toTotal Income

SWM Income 44,444,279 43

SWR Income 48,380,640 47

SW Minimization Income 9,656,340 9

Total Income 102,481,259 100

When SWM income was correlated with monthly expenditure, the analysis

revealed a weak positive correlation (r=0.389, at p=0.01). The relationship was

significant; it suggests that the higher the amount of income is raised from the

SWM practices, the higher the level of its contribution towards offsetting

CHAPTER FIVE:

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter consists of a summary of the findings of the research, conclusions

relating to the research objectives, Discussions in relation to literature

reviewed and recommendations on the Solid waste Management practices.

Areas that need further research have also been highlighted.

5.2 Summary

Solid Waste Management practices had a positive influence on socioeconomic

lives of Dandora residents. The total Solid Waste Management Income

contributed 82.88 percent of the total household socioeconomic expenditure

leaving a deficit of 17.12 percent only to be covered by other sources of

income.

The Solid Waste Collection and Disposal income against total socioeconomic

expenses revealed a positive moderate correlation (r=0.474) which was

significant at p=0.01 showing that Solid Waste Collection and Disposal income

contributed to a greater extent in settling household socioeconomic expenses.

Solid Waste Recycling income against total Solid Waste Recycling expenses

revealed a positive but weak correlation (r=0.348) significant at p=0.05

showing that income raised from Solid Waste Recycling activities contribute

positively to the social and economic lives of households. The correlation

between Solid Waste Minimization income and total Solid Waste Minimization

expenses revealed a weak negative correlation (r=-0.153 at p=0.1) showing

that the Income raised from Solid Waste Minimization contributed to lesser

extent to the overall household expenditure compared to other sources of

income spent on the socioeconomic aspects of households in Dandora.

In general, the correlation between total Solid Waste Management income and

total expense revealed a weak positive correlation (r=0.389, at p=0.01)

showing a significant relationship between the two variables. It suggests that

the higher the amount of income raised from the Solid Waste Management

practices, the higher the level of contribution of that income towards offsetting

household monthly expenditure. This socioeconomic expenditure included

expenses on food, education, housing and health. This is because the Solid

Waste Management practices contribute to a greater extent to the availability

5.3 Discussions

The mean distance from households to the dumpsite was 1060 metres

(approximately 1 kilometer). Phase 2 was the furthest at 1958 metres while

Phase 4 had a mean of 361 metres with some households as close as 50

metres away from the dumpsite. These findings agree with NCC, (2010) which

showed that there are high population density settlements that have emerged

in Dandora some of which are less than the recommended 1km buffer between

the dumpsite and the settlements posing serious health problems to the

residents.

The Solid Waste Recycling Income contribution of 93 percent to the household

socioeconomic expenditure left a deficit of 7 percent to be covered by other

sources of income. This implies that Solid Waste Recycling activities had a

positive influence on socioeconomic lives of Dandora residents and shows that

it contributed very highly to their socioeconomic expenditure leading to

improved standards of living among the households. Health expenses take up

7 percent of their income. The Solid Waste Minimization Income contribution of

63 percent to the household socioeconomic expenditure left a deficit of 37

percent to be covered by other sources of income. This implies that Solid

Waste Minimization activities had a positive influence on socioeconomic lives

of Dandora residents and shows that it contributed well above average to their

socioeconomic expenditure leading to improved standards of living among the

households.

These results agree with Scheinberg (2001), who argued that developing

countries face challenges in proper management of waste with most effort

made to reduce the final volumes and generate sufficient funds for waste

management. He argues that if most waste could be diverted for material; and

resources recovery, then a substantial reduction in final volumes of waste

could be achieved while the recovered material and resources could be utilized

to generate revenue to fund waste management. Based on the 3Rs (Reduce,

Reuse, and Recycle) this forms the premise of Integrated Solid Waste

Management (ISWM) system principle. He adds that with an appropriate

segregation and recycling system, a significant quantity of wastes can be

diverted from landfills and converted into a useful resource.

The mean income raised from the Solid Waste Management practices was

found to be KShs 15,941/= per month while mean expenditure was KShs

18,220/= per month. The higher expenditure implies that households must

raise additional income from other sources to supplement the income from

Solid Waste Management practices in meeting their needs.

These finding agrees with JICA (1998), that Recycling of products such as

papers, tyres, plastics, used clothes, and metals, is becoming increasingly

popular. This is especially true for the example given on community-based

organizations (CBOs) managed by women recycling market waste from

Korogocho Market near Dandora to produce organic manure for sale thus

raising income for household use. The report revealed that the self-help

activities of the Mukuru project earned KShs 1.55 million in 1996 from the

recovery of 1,018 tons of materials per year. This income was however not

ers and for financing investments required

to improve efficiency agreeing with the above results in Dandora where the

mean income raised from the Solid Waste Management practices was found to

be KShs 15,941/= per month lower than the mean expenditure of KShs

18,220/= per month thus not enough to take care of all the household

socioeconomic needs.

The survey found that waste collection and disposal was done once a week

(Saturday only) which was not regular enough thus led to creation of mini-

dumping sites in the residential areas. Due to mini-dumping, it was noted

during the survey in most of the solid waste collection points and disposal sites

that there was presence of offensive odour, smoke and disease vectors such

as cockroaches, rats, flies and mosquitoes that have negative impacts on

public health. This led to environmental pollution the increased chances of

disease infections thus having a negative effect on the socioeconomic lives of

residents. Respondents in this study mentioned cases of throat infections,

respiratory infections, Skin diseases, Tetanus due pricks from sharp objects

from the dumping sites among children and adults in the within residential

areas.

These results agree with JICA (2010) that wastes are not collected regularly at

many collection points. They reported that delays in waste collection for a long

time generate the smell of a black liquid called leachate which is considered as

a high polluter when it reaches watercourses due to its high concentration in

Bio-chemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and

chemicals. It was noted that the leachates generated in these collection points

and in the illegal disposal sites pollute the household water systems and rivers

of Nairobi. They also observed that solid wastes are dumped intentionally

along the roads or river banks by the residents. This brings as a consequence

the transfer of uncollected wastes to rivers, drains, streams and lowland areas

when Nairobi experiences intensive rains causing high level water and soil

pollution which in turn affects the health of residents consuming the water.

The mean percentage willingness to pay (WTP) for Solid Waste Management

practices was 61 percent with values as low as of zero (0) percent and a high

of 100 percent. The mean fee charged is KShs 109/= charged per month with

a minimum of KShs 40/= and a maximum of KShs 200/= per month while some

do not pay for the Solid Waste Management services at all. The waste charge

system of the households is based on the location/distance of the client's

premises and not the quantity of waste to be collected. The timing of payment

for the waste charges is mostly on a monthly basis.

These findings strongly agree with JICA (2010) preparatory survey for

integrated Solid Waste Management in Nairobi city that revealed a WTP =

KShs 118.60/=. The survey reported that the level of waste charge in low

income areas like Dandora had been set up on the basis the fixed pricing

system which is referred to the willingness to pay (WTP) and the average

affordability to pay (ATP). The public awareness survey conducted by JICA

revealed an average WTP and an average ATP of the low income areas as

KShs 32/= per month and KShs 153/= per month respectively. The actual

waste charge was therefore set up between the WTP and the ATP.

The fact that those who are not willing to pay choose to dump the waste by

themselves agrees with earlier studies by Ali (2009) examining

Characterization management and improvement Strategies for household

waste in Nairobi. He found out that it has become a common practice to dump

waste on streets, roadside and between plots especially in the middle and low

income areas. He also documented that the prevailing high household solid

waste generation is due to increasing population, improved income, poor

attitudes and behaviour, low environmental awareness, absence of source

reduction and recycling practices, geographical and physical conditions, low

frequency of collection and characteristics of service area.

5.4 Conclusions

Income from Solid Waste Collection and Disposal contributed significantly to

the total household expenditure. It provided 79 percent of the total monthly

socioeconomic expenses. A major share of this income is spend on education

indicating that the households give priority to education in relation to the other

social and economic needs. Food and housing expenses took up lower

percentages of the income generated from Solid Waste Collection and

Disposal. This implies that Solid Waste Collection and Disposal activities had a

positive influence on socioeconomic lives of Dandora residents and shows that

it contributed significantly to their socioeconomic expenditure leading to

improved standards of living among Dandora residents. Health expenses

make up the least percentage though it was have been expected to be higher

based on the nature of activities undertaken in Solid Waste Collection and

Disposal which pose health risks to participants. This is explained by the fact

that there was availability of cheap labour provided by the youthful population

social and economic expenses thus most families take advantage of the cheap

labour as a way of transferring the social risks (mostly health related) to

members outside their households thus minimizing health related expenses as

a household.

Income from Solid Waste Recycling contributed significantly to the total

household expenditure. It provided 93 percent of the total monthly

socioeconomic expenses. Slightly over half of this income is spend on

education indicating that the households give preference to education in

relation to the other social and economic needs. Food, housing amounted to

less than half of the income generated from Solid Waste Recycling. This

implies that Solid Waste Recycling activities had a positive influence on

socioeconomic lives of Dandora residents and shows that it contributed very

highly to their socioeconomic expenditure leading to improved standards of

living among the households. Health expenses were lower than expected due

to health risk transference to hired labour from outside the households.

Income from Solid Waste Minimization contributed above average to the total

household expenditure. It provided 63 percent of the total monthly

socioeconomic expenses. Slightly over half of this income is spend on

education indicating that the households give preference to education in

relation to the other social and economic needs. Food and housing expenses

amounted to less than half of the total income generated from Solid Waste

Minimization. This implies that Solid Waste Minimization activities had a

positive influence on socioeconomic lives of Dandora residents and shows that

it contributed well above average to their socioeconomic expenditure leading to

improved standards of living among the households. Health expenses were

low. This is explained by the fact that there was availability of cheap labour

provided by the youth who provide cheap labour away from household mostly

carried out at the dumping site.

The mean monthly income generated from SWM practices (Collection and

Disposal, Recycling and Minimization) were KShs 15941.28/=, KShs

16170.45/=, and KShs 9467.50/= contributing 79%, 93% and 63% income

levels to participating HHs socioeconomic expenditure respectively. Majority of

the population participating in SWM practices were motivated by the income

generated from the practice.

Solid Waste Management practices contributed positively to the

socioeconomic lives of residents of Dandora. Despite the low affordability and

willingness to pay for the Solid Waste Management services and with the

requirement to offset the general operational costs, the participants still

manage to raise income used to settle their household socioeconomic

expenses from the Solid Waste Management practices. These socioeconomic

expenses includes but not limited to food, education, housing and health

expenses. A larger portion of the household income is spent on education

enhancing social and personal development that could yield additional income

to the households in the long run.

The total Income from combined Solid Waste Management practices

contributed significantly to the total household expenditure. It provided 82

percent of the total socioeconomic expenses. A major share of this income is

spend on education indicating that the households give high priority to

education in relation to the other household social and economic needs. This

implies that Solid Waste Management practices had a positive influence on

socioeconomic lives of Dandora residents and shows that it contributed

significantly to their socioeconomic expenditure thus led to improved standards

of living among Dandora residents.

The household socioeconomic expenditure items of the total SWM Practices

monthly income for the 6800 HHs under study, KShs 102,481,259/=, included

but were not limited to Education, food, health, and housing expenses. A major

share of the income was spent on education indicating that the HHs gave high

priority to education in relation to the other household social and economic

needs. Based on the findings, SWM is a viable venture option that investors

can target for revenue generation in improving livelihoods and for poverty

eradication. The percentage influence of revenue from SWC&D on

Socioeconomic lives of participating HHs was 93.63%, 78.41% for SWR and

63.24% for SWMin. These combined translated to a positive Meansocioeconomic influence of 82.47% on participating HHs leaving a deficitof 17.5% only to be covered by other sources of income thus reject theHypothesis that: Solid Waste Management Practices have no influenceon socioeconomic lives of participating households.

toward appropriate waste separation and discharge, low affordability of waste

generators to pay garbage fees charged, low frequency of waste collection and

transportation, lack of containers to accept discharged waste, lack of collection

staffs and collection vehicles thus a low capability of waste collectors, weak

legal enforcement inform of weak penalty clause provisions in law and lack of

Waste Management programs were found to constrain the successful

implementation of Solid Waste Management practices in Dandora.

5.5 Recommendations

Based on the findings and discussion on the influence of Solid Waste

Management Practices on Socioeconomic lives of residents of Dandora above,

the researcher recommends the following: -

1. Characterization (separation) of waste at household level to facilitate

easier collection, disposal and recycling of Solid Waste to ensure that

participants accrue maximum benefits from the practices.

2. The survey found that waste collection and disposal was done once a

week (Saturday only) which was not regular enough thus led to creation

of mini-dumping sites in the residential areas. The researcher

recommends that regular waste collection and disposal (twice or three

times per week) should be done to avoid creation of mini-dumping sites

in the residential areas.

3. The survey found that most recyclers lack knowledge and equipment to

facilitate the recycling processes. The researcher recommends that the

Government of Kenya should encourage and support research and

popularize the use of appropriate solid waste management methods that

are locally available and low cost technologies to reduce the cost of

handling waste especially recyclable waste.

4. From the findings, the leachate water from the dumping sites is

estimated to be one of the causes of water pollution of the water supplied

to households through broken pipes. This affects health of residents

leading to occurrences of diseases as well as water and soil pollution

due to toxic substance from the waste generated. To improve and

develop of the hazardous waste management system, the researcher

recommends provision of a separate cell at the sanitary landfill for the

ashes of incinerated hazardous wastes. Though composting of municipal

waste is not popular method for treatment of municipal waste,

composting of biodegradable waste is more environment-friendly system.

Considering the impacts on the environment, the also recommends

digging of compost sites for households especially by those farming to

generate organic manure for organic farming.

5. The survey found out that the lack of awareness of existing Solid Waste

Management policies by the respondents was a great challenge to the

Solid Waste Management process. Majority respondents did not have

any knowledge of existing policies that govern Solid Waste Management

practices in Kenya. Those who were aware of these policies rated the

level of success of policy implementation as very low. The researcher

recommends creation of awareness and trainings to households by

government line ministries (Ministries of Local Government, Environment

and Mineral Resources, and Public Health & Sanitation) and relevant

stakeholders/ partners on waste management and existing policies

through education extension services to inform the public on Solid Waste

Management policy requirement to ensure they support the Solid Waste

Management practices on a knowledge basis.

5.5 Suggestions for future research

The survey found that waste collection and disposal was done once a week

which was not regular enough thus led to creation of mini-dumping sites in the

residential areas. This result to leachate water causing water pollution of the

water supplied to households through broken pipes. This affects health of

residents leading to occurrences of diseases as well as water and soil pollution

due to toxic substance from the waste generated. Research should be

conducted to establish the levels of toxicity and associated health risks so as

to inform proper Solid Waste Management practices among households

through appropriate campaigns

REFERENCES

Agunwamba, J. C. (1998). Solid Waste Management in Nigeria: Problems and

issues. Environmental Management Vol. 22, No. 6, pp849-856

Ali, A. (2009). Characterization management and improvement Strategies for

household waste in Nairobi, Thesis (PhD) University of Nairobi

Census, (2010). 2009 Population & Housing Census Results, Ministry of State

for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030

Connett, P. (1998). ation: A poor solution for the 21st

Energy: Nov 24 -25, 1998, Amsterdam.

Dulo, S. O. (2010). Impact of Solid Waste Management in Kenya on ground

water. Thesis (PhD) University of Nairobi

ENVILEAD, ARNIKA and IPEN. (2005). Contamination of Eggs from the

ENVILEAD, (2005). Fostering Active and Effective Civil Society Participation in

Preparations for Implementation of the Stockholm Convention: A Study

on Waste Incineration Activities in Nairobi that Release Dioxin and Furan

into the Environment. The International POPs Elimination Project (IPEP)-

Environmental Liaison, Education and Action for Development

(ENVILEAD) Kenya, 2005

Glossary of Environment Statistics, Studies in Methods. (2001). Series F, No.

67, United Nations, New York.

Ikiara, M. et. al. (2004).

d, I. J. Post and Furedy C.(eds), solid Waste

management and Recycling: Actors, Partnerships and Policies in

Hyderabad, India and Nairobi, Kenya, Chapter4, Kluwer Academic

Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands

try Urban Poor to Solid Waste

Management (SWM) services: Role and Potential of Public Private

-

infrastructure project: Infrastructure Service Entitlements and Urban

poverty in Kenya.

IPEP, (2005). International POPs Elimination Project: Fostering Active and

Effective Civil Society Participation in Preparations for Implementation of

the Stockholm Convention. A Study on Waste Incineration Activities in

Nairobi that Release Dioxin and Furan into the Environment

Environmental Liaison, Education and Action for Development

(ENVILEAD) Kenya

Israel, G. D. (1992). Sampling The Evidence OF Extension Program Impact.

Program Evaluation and Organizational Development, IFAS, University

of Florida

Jarry, D. and J. Jarry, (1995). Collins Dictionary of Sociology. Glasgow.

HarperCollins Publishers

JICA, (2010). Preparatory Survey for Integrated Solid Waste Management in

Nairobi city in the republic of Kenya, Draft final report volume 3:

Supporting report section H, Financial and Economic aspect.

JICA, (1998).

KAM, (2003). Position Paper to NEMA - Plastic Sector

Kamel, L. (2003). mmunity-based waste management into

-es-Salaam,

Tanzania, March.

Kenya National Inventory of Persistent Organic Pollutants under the Stockholm

Convention, (2004) final report (Unpublished).

Kituo cha Sheria, (2010). Report on The Dandora Dumping Site Visit Carried

out on 5th March 2010 (Legal Aid & Education Department)

Kothari, C. R. (2005). 2nd ed. Research Methodology: Methods and

Technology, New Age International Publishers. Pp 401

Luscombe, D. and Costner, P. (2003). Technical Criteria for the Destruction of

Stockpiled Persistent Organic Pollutants; Greenpeace International

Science Unit.

Luzadis, et al. (2002). Towards a More integrated Ecosystems Model Society

and Natural Resources 15: 89- 94

Machlis, et. al. (2005). The Structure of Human Ecosystems, V.05.2,

Maina, A. W. (2005). community involvement in Domestic Solid Waste

Management: A case study of Kayole environmental management

Association

Mann, S. Prem. (2005). 5th ed. Introductory statistics, Von Hoffman.

Miaoulis, G. and Michener, R. D. (1976). An Introduction to Sampling.

Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Muniafu, M. and Otiato, E. (2010). Solid Waste Management in Nairobi, Kenya:

A case for emerging economies. Journal of Language, Technology &

Entrepreneurship in Africa: Vol. 2. No.1. 2010, ISSN 1998-1279 346

Nairobi City Council, (2002). A Survey on medical Waste in Nairobi

(unpublished report)

Nairobi City Council, (2002). A Survey on medical Waste in Nairobi

(unpublished report)

Nairobi City Council, (2010). Draft policy framework on Solid Waste

Management in Kenya

National Assembly Official Report, (2009). (A) Question No.180 De-

Commissioning of Dandora Dumpsite

NCC- UNEP, (2010). Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the City of

Nairobi, Kenya: Situation Analysis & Detailed Action Plan (City Council of

Nairobi - United Nations Environment Programme: 2010)

Neamatalla, M. (1998).

-Cities Programme, publication

MCP-0 I 8D, accessible at

http://www.megacitiesproject.org/publications/pdf/mcp018d.pdf

Otieno, J. O. (2006). Household preferences for improved solid waste

management: A case study of Nairobi City

Patandin, S. (1999). Effects of environmental exposure to polychlorinated

biphenyls and dioxins on growth and development in young children, A

prospective follow-up study of breast-fed infants from birth until 42

months of age. Thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.

Rotich, K. H. Yongsheng, Z. and Dong, J. (2005). Municipal solid waste

management challenges in developing countries- Kenyan Case Study.

Waste Management - Volume 26, Issue 1, 2006, pg92-100

Scheinberg, A. (2001). Integrated Sustainable Solid Waste Management- The

Concepts, Tools for Decision-makers. Experiences from Urban Waste

Expertise Programme (1995- 2001)

SIDI, (1993). Metropolitan Colombia Solid Waste Management Study,

Secretariat for Infrastructure Development and Investment, Colombia, Sri

Lanka

Spadaro, et. al. (2005). Environmental impacts and costs of solid waste: a

comparison of landfill and incineration. St.-Michel, 75272 Paris 06,

France

Srinivas, H. (2008). Solid Waste Management: A policy and programme matrix.

http://gdrc.org/uem/waste/swm-matrix.html. last accessed February,

2011.

Syagga, P. (1992). Problems of Solid Waste Management in Urban Residential

Areas in Kenya: in: The Proceedings of African Research Network for

Urban Management (ARNUM) Workshop: Urban Management in Kenya,

Joyce Malombe (ed.). University of Nairobi, 1992.

Syagga, P. (1993). Background Paper on Waste Management in Central and

Eastern African Region. Unpublished research paper. Nairobi: University

of Nairobi, Department of Land Development.

Tangri, N. (2003). Waste Incineration: A Dying Technology: Essential Action

for GAIA: www.no-burn.org

Tom, et. al., (2010) Municipal Solid Waste Composting: Strategies for

Separating Contaminants, Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research

Cornell University

Toxics Link, (2000). Trojan Horses: Persistent organic Pollutants in India.

Delhi: Toxics Link.

UNEP, (2005): Plastic bag ban in Kenya proposed as part of the New waste

UNEP, (2005). Selection, design and implementation of economic instruments

in: Solid Waste Management, Nairobi.

UNES, (2004). University of Nairobi Enterprises and Services Limited: National

Inventory of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) under Stockholm

Convention.

UNEP, (2009). Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan- Training

Manuals Volume1: Waste Characterization and quantification with

Projections for future.

UNEP, (2009). Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan- Training

Manuals Volume2: Assessment of Current Waste Management System

and Gaps therein.

UNEP, (2009). Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan- Training

Manuals Volume3: Targets and issues of Concern for ISWM.

UNEP, (2009). Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan- Training

Manuals Volume4: ISWM Plan.

USEPA, (2000). Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds, Part I:

Estimating Exposure to Dioxin Like Compounds, Volume 2: Sources of

Dioxin Like compounds in the United States, Draft Final Report

EPA/600/P-00/001Bb, (http://www.epa.gov/ncea ).

USEPA, (1998). The Inventory of Sources of Dioxins in the United States,

USEPA, Office of Research and Development, External Review Draft,

EPA/600/P-98/002Aa. April.

Vasanthi, P., Kaliappan S. and Srinivasaraghavan, R. (2007). Impact of poor

solid waste management on ground water Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment Volume 143, No.s 1-3, 227-238.

Wambugu, C. (2010). Aftermath of the Dandora Dumpsite.

http://hakijamii.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/the-aftermath-of-the-dandora-

dumpsite/. Last accessed 12th February, 2011

Wael, S. F. (2005). The impact of privatization of solid waste management on

the Zabaleen garbage collectors of Cairo in the Journal for Environment

& Urbanization Vol 17 No 2, 2005

World Bank, (2008). improving Municipal Solid Waste Management in India- A

sourcebook for Policy Makers and Practitioners

Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis. 2nd Ed., New York:

Harper Row

APPENDICES

This section contains a Table on waste disposal methods for companies in Nairobi,

statistical analysis Tables of results, the Questionnaire and the budget.

Appendix A: Waste disposal methods for various major companies in Nairobi

Company / Organization Contents of Waste EstimatedWeight intons/month

Method ofDisposal

Jomo Kenyatta

International

Airport (JKIA)

Mixed aircraft waste 300 Waste dumped in

Dandora dumpsite

Kenya Revenue Authority

staff

quarters

Household/domestic

waste

285 Waste dumped in

Dandora dumpsite

Kenya Shell Company

(Shell

& B.P. House)

Commercial waste 60 Waste dumped in

Dandora dumpsite

Kenya breweries Household and

commercial

200 Waste dumped in

Dandora dumpsite

NAS Airport Services Food & food

packaging

350 Waste dumped in

Dandora dumpsite

Swan Industries Commercial &

industrial waste

350 Waste dumped in

Dandora dumpsite

Kenya Shell aviation Stations commercial

& food waste

72 Waste dumped in

Dandora dumpsite

Orbit Chemicals

Polythene sheet

cuttings & plastic

drums

-

Paper & drum sold

dumped near Athi

River.

Source: Kenya National Inventory of POPs (2004)

Appendix B: Questionnaire for Households in Dandora

Social Economic Survey Data of Dandora Dumpsite: Year 2011Household Number: _____________ Date: ___________________________

Location/Estate/ Phase_____________ Name of Enumerator: _____________________

1. 0 Household Details1.1 Kindly make a complete list of all individuals who normally live in this household, starting

with the head of Household

Respondent

(see code)

A0

Household

head

(see code)

A1

Sex

(see

code)

A2

Age(years)

A3

Highest level of

education (see code)

A4

Main

Occupation

(see code) A5

A0 Father = 1, Spouse (Mother) =2, Child =3, Relative/ House help= 4

A1 Father = 1, Mother =2

A2 male=0, female=1

A4 none=1, pre-unit=2, Primary=3, secondary=4, Tertiary College=5, University=6,

others (Specify) =7

A5 Solid Waste Management=0, farming=1, Employed=2, Self-employed (business) =3,

Student=4 Casual labourer=5 others (specify) =6

2.0 Infrastructure (tick as applies)2.1 House ownership: Rented Owner

2.2 Type of house: Permanent Semi permanent Temporary

2.2 Estimated distance from house to the dumpsite.............. metres or ........kilometers

2.4 Accessibility to Electricity: Yes No

2.5 Accessibility to water services: Yes No

2.6 Source of water: Borehole Piped water from Nairobi City Council Piped water

from priv

3.0 Income and economic welfare implications of Dandora dumpsite3.1 Please indicate the amount of income you raise from the following solid waste

management practices/ activities and other sources of income you are involved in wholly or

partially.

Solid Waste Management practice/ activity Pay per/ month (KShs)

Collection &Disposal

Burning/ Minimization

Recycling/ Selling

3.2 How much of your income do you spend on each of the following items? (Please fill in

the Table below)

Description

Item Amount in Kshs/

month

Solid waste management practice/

activity

Amount in

Kshs / month

Food Collection & Disposal

Education Burning/ Reduction

Housing(Rent) Recycling/ selling

Health

Total

3.3 What are your main sources of labour for the following Solid Waste Management

Practices (Tick as appropriate).

Solid Waste

Management

Practice

Own Family

Labour 100%

Own Family labour plus

Hired Labour

100% hired

Labour

Less than

50% hired

More than

50% hired

Collection& Disposal

Minimization/ Burning

Recycling

4.0 Effects of Solid Waste Collection and Disposal as a management practice onsocioeconomic lives of residents of Dandora

4.1Do you directly participate in Solid Waste Collection and Disposal? Yes No

4.2

4.3Are you willing to pay for Solid waste collection and disposal? Yes No

4.4How would you rate your willingness to pay for Collection and disposal services?

Percentage willingness to pay for

Collection services

Amount charged per

month (KShs)

4.5Give percentage use for each of the following equipment used for collection and

disposal of Solid waste.

Equipment Percentage

(%) use

Amount charged

Per trip (KShs)

Amount of waste

collected per trip

(tonnes)

Lories

Pickups

Wheel

burrows

Handcarts

Others

(specify)

Total 100 %

4.6Types of Solid Waste Collected and Disposed

Type of Solid Waste (e.g. metal,

plastic, domestic e.t.c)

Quantity Collected & Disposed per

day(Kgs)

4.7Recommend best practices for Solid Waste Collection and Disposal that will ensure

improved benefits and safety to participants/ households.

5.0 Effects of Solid Waste Recycling as a management practice on the socioeconomiclives of residents of Dandora.

5.1Do you participate in Solid Waste Recycling? Yes No

5.2Give reasons for your answer above

5.3What are the benefits of Solid Waste recycling/ reuse/ reselling?

5.4List the types of Solid Waste recycled from households and the Dandora Dumpsite

Type of Solid Waste (e.g.

Metal, paper, textile,

glass)

Quantity recycled per day/

week (Kgs/ tonnes)

Relative resell

price per unit

5.5List the effects (benefits and negative effects) of Recycling/ reuse/ reselling Solid

Waste to your family

Social effects

encountered

Economic effects (e.g. amount of income

raised)

5.6Give reasons why some people choose not participate in Solid Waste recycling/

reuse/ reselling.

5.7 Recommend best practices for Solid Waste Recycling that will ensure improved

benefits and safety to participants/ households.

6.0 The effect of Solid Waste minimization (Burning and Incineration) as amanagement practice on the socioeconomic lives of residents of Dandora.

6.1Do you participate in Solid Waste Burning as a household? Yes No

6.2Give reasons for your answer above

6.3List the types of Solid Waste minimized/ Burned at the dumpsite

Type of Solid Waste(e.g. Metal,

paper, textile, glass)

Quantity burned per day (Kgs/

tonnes)

6.4What are the benefits of minimizing/ burning Solid Waste?

6.5List the effects (both positive and negative effects) of Solid Waste minimization/

burning

Social effects

encountered

Economic effects (e.g. amount of income

raised)

6.6Give reasons why some people choose not participate in minimization/burning of

Solid Waste.

6.7Recommend best practices for minimization/ burning of Solid Waste that will ensure

improved benefits and safety to participants/ households.

6.8List the Challenges you experience in the solid waste management process and

suggest how to overcome them

Challenge Suggestion to overcome the

challenge

7.0 Relocation of Dandora dumpsite7.1 There have been suggestions by government to relocate Dandora dumpsite. Do

you support its relocation? Yes No

7.2 Give five reasons for your answer above.

i.

ii.

iii.

7.3 Are there any policies that govern solid waste management practices in Kenya?

Yes No

7.4 If yes, how many do you know? (Number of policies in Kenya on solid waste

management practices)............................................................

7.5 List any such policies applicable to solid waste management practices in Kenya

Policy paper reference Year Implementation body / Organization

7.6 In your honest opinion are these policies being implemented? Yes No

7.7 How would you rate the level of success of implementation of these policies?

0- 25% 26 - 50% 50% 51 - 75% 76 -

100 %

7.8 Give recommendations you consider useful to improve implementation of existing

policies on solid waste management practices in Kenya

7.9 What other new policies would you recommend to be put in place to guide solid

waste management practices in Kenya?