Solid and Liquid Waste Management at Household Level: Evidence from Three Small Towns Along the Shores of Lake Victoria, Tanzania

SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL: EVIDENCE FROM THREE SMALL TOWNS ALONG THE SHORES OF LAKE VICTORIA, TANZANIA

Benedict M. Kilobe1, Bonamax N. Mbasa2, Zilihona. J.E. Innocent3 1,2Institute of Rural Development Planning, Lake Zone Centre, P.O. Box 11957, Mwanza. 3Institute of Rural Development Planning, P.O. Box 138, Dodoma. Abstract The present study assessed the current status on solid and liquid waste management at household level in small towns of Misungwi, Magu and Lamadi in the shores of Lake Victoria, Northwestern Tanzania. A sample size of 417 was used in this study. The study used both primary and secondary data of quantitative and qualitative nature, collected through questionnaire survey, key informant interviews, observation and documentary review. Survey data were analyzed for descriptive statistics such as frequencies and means. Qualitative data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis technique. The study found that most of households in all towns did not store their solid waste, but rather did open burning, throw away or put in a pit ready for burning by 85% in Misungwi and Lamadi and 75% in Magu. . About 17% of the respondents in Magu, 12% in Misungwi and 6% in Lamadi used containers to store their waste. Few respondents, mainly in Lamadi (6%) and Magu (5%) used plastic bags. With regard to how households dispose solid waste generated in their homes, the findings show that 75%, 72% and 58% in Magu, Misungwi and Lamadi, respectively, practiced open burning of solid wastes. Most of the respondents disposed waste in open spaces around their homesteads, as reported by 76%, 81% and 80% of the respondents in Misungwi, Magu and Lamadi, respectively. None of the study towns had sewerage system. The findings further show that majority of respondents in Lamadi (84%) managed faecal sludge by digging holes and burying compared to 61% in Magu and 38% in Misungwi which used this method. This practice is, however, unhygienic and environmentally unfriendly as faecal sludge can spill over and cross contaminate water sources and the environment. This shows poor handling of household solid waste in most of the surveyed households. . It is, therefore, recommended that awareness creation on proper solid waste management practices be intensified so that the community can change their mind set with regard to management of solid wastes. Moreover, in all satellite towns solid waste collection points and dumping sites should be established. Collection points are very crucial to enable solid wastes from households, schools and other public institutions to be gathered before are transported to the dumping sites as it is unhealthy for household members to carry their wastes to the dumping sites individually. Key words: Domestic wastewater, Faecal sludge, Liquid waste, Solid waste.

I. INTRODUCTION

The ever-increasing quantities of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) are a growing environmental concern in urban centres in both developed and developing countries around the world (UN Habitat, 2009; 2012; World Bank, 2012; Solomon, 2011). In 2012, the World Bank estimated that global MSW

DOI: 10.22623/IJAPSA.2017.3036.2SC1L Page 20 International Journal of Applied and Pure Science and Agriculture (IJAPSA) Volume 03, Issue 5, [May- 2017] e-ISSN: 2394-5532, p-ISSN: 2394-823X generation levels were approximately 1.3 billion tons per year, and are expected to increase to approximately 2.2 billion tons per year by 2025. Waste generation in sub-Saharan Africa was approximately 62 million tons per year. Per capita waste generation in this region spanned a wide range, from 0.09 to 3.0 kg per person per day, with an average of 0.65 kg/capita/day. Urban residents produced about twice as much waste as their rural counterparts (World Bank, 2012). Data on the amount of solid waste generated and collected in different cities and towns in Tanzania are scarce and are based on different estimation methods. UN Habitat (2009) shows that in Moshi, waste generation was roughly estimated at 220 tons/ day, from different sources including households (120 tons), commercial including markets (37 tons), institutions (10 tons), industries (50 tons) and hospitals (3 tons) in 2009. Dar es Salaam City was estimated to generate about 3,456 tons of waste per day in 2011. This amount was produced in residential areas, commercial, institutions, markets, industrial and hospitals (Solomon, 2011). Another study by UN Habitat (2012) in three towns along the shores of Lake Victoria (Sengerema, Geita and Nansio) shows that the amount of solid waste generated is 38,000kg/day, 50,000kg/day and 21,500kg/day, respectively. Solid waste management (SWM), which involves collection, transportation and disposal is one of the key duties of all urban Local Government Authorities (LGAs) in Tanzania as mandated by the Local Government Act of 1982 and the Environmental Management Act of 2004 (Solomon, 2011; Ntakamulenga, 2012). While cities and towns are generating an ever-increasing volume of waste, their SWM capacity is still low. One of the challenges facing many urban LGAs in SWM includes poor or no storage of waste at the source of generation, especially at the household level. Although the existing regulations specify the types of refuse storage containers/dust bins, these have been difficult to adhere to partly because of unavailability and high costs. Consequently, many households tend to use out of standard storage, ranging from salvaged drums/tins, paper bags, plastic paper bags, jute bags, sacks, or even just being thrown on the bear ground, thus making it difficult for its collection (Ntakamulenga, 2012). Other challenges include lack of separation of solid waste from the sources, transportation facilities, collection sites and disposal, insufficient solid waste management equipment such as trucks and lack of sanitary land fill. Consequently, most of the solid waste generated is not collected and is left scattered in the vicinity and other open spaces. A performance audit on the management of solid waste in six LGAs in the big cities and regions in Tanzania (Dar es Salaam, Mwanza, Mbeya and Arusha) shows that the amount of solid waste not collected by LGAs is more than 50% of the total SW generated (National Audit Office, 2009). UN Habitat’s (2012) study in Sengerema, Geita and Nansio identifies a number of challenges facing SWM. First, SWM is accorded low priority in service provision while the policy, legal and regulatory environment does not adequately support SWM. Second, the institutional framework is non- supportive because responsibilities for SWM are not properly aligned with the requisite authority and financial resources. Third, the political environment is considered non-supportive because it has not come all out to support SWM with all the means at its disposal. Four, the towns are affected by SWM data poverty which is characterized by the fact that the towns do not have reliable solid waste generation and composition data. Five, available solid waste management resources are insufficient because of low SWM budget allocation, inadequate SWM staff, SWM equipment and facilities, and non-consideration of cost recovery. Little information is known regarding management of solid and liquid waste in most fast growing township especially in Lake Zone in Tanzania. The present study therefore assesses the current status on solid and liquid waste management at household level in small towns of Misungwi, Magu and Lamadi along the shores of Lake Victoria in Northwestern Tanzania. Information gathered will assist stakeholders on how the National Sanitation Campaign has helped to raise awareness on sanitation and hygiene issues in the country. In addition the effort will contribute also to localization of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) particularly SDG number Six. Target two of this goal is by 2030 achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation.

@IJAPSA-2017, All rights Reserved Page 21 International Journal of Applied and Pure Science and Agriculture (IJAPSA) Volume 03, Issue 5, [May- 2017] e-ISSN: 2394-5532, p-ISSN: 2394-823X II. STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 The Study Area The study was conducted in three selected towns of Misungwi, Magu and Lamadi along the shores of Lake Victoria. Misungwi is one of eight districts in Mwanza Region, which is located along the Mwanza- Shinyanga highway with a population of 30 728 people. Magu township is located 61 km from Mwanza City along the Mwanza-Musoma road and has a population of 23 822. Lamadi is a small but fast growing township in Busega District, Simiyu Region about 70 km from Magu town along the Mwanza – Musoma road. The present population of Lamadi is estimated to be 22 062 people (URT, 2014).

2.2 Study Design The study adopted a cross sectional design, using mixed methods of data collection. Data were collected at a single point in time, which is one of the characteristic features of a cross sectional design (Kothari, 2009). Both primary and secondary data of quantitative and qualitative nature were collected so as to adequately address the study objectives. Primary data were gathered from households and key informants including district officials and community leaders The household was used as the unit of analysis because it is an arena where much of daily life, including management of solid and liquid waste takes place (Niehof and Price, 2001; Masanyiwa, 2014). Secondary data were gathered from relevant documents at district councils to complement the primary data.

2.3 Sampling and Sample Size This study employed multistage sampling techniques using a combination of purposive and random sampling methods. The first stage involved purposive sampling of villages and mitaa within the urban centres of the study towns. In Misungwi, the villages selected were Misungwi, Iteja, Ng’wambola, Mapilinga and Nange. In Magu, Ilungu, Kipeja, Isandula ‘A’, Isandula ‘B’ and Isandula ‘C’ while in Lamadi, Kalago, Makanisani, Lamadi and Sokoni were selected. The second stage entailed simple random sampling of at least 30 households within each village/mtaa for the survey. Simple random sampling technique was used because it provides equal chance for households to be involved in the study, thus, reducing biasness and enhancing reliability of the findings (Kumar, 2005). Since the population of the study towns was large to have an optimum sample size which is manageable and meets the requirements of efficiency, representativeness, reliability and flexibility (Kothari, 2009), a sample size calculator using the Creative Research System (2012) was used to determine the sample size. A confidence interval of 5 was used because the higher the confidence interval the higher the accuracy of the answers to be picked and 95% confidence level was used as is commonly used by researchers (Creative Research System, 2012). Based on this, a sample size of 417 households was selected (Table 1). From each village or mtaa, a minimum of 30 households were surveyed, which is a reasonable sample for statistical analysis and comparison across the villages/mitaa (Grinnell, 2001). Table 1: Household sample size Town Total Population Number of Households Sample size Misungwi 30 728 5 179 169 Magu 23 822 4 326 121 Lamadi 22 062 5 391 127 Total 76 612 14 896 417

2.4 Data Collection Methods A structured questionnaire with closed and open-ended questions was used for the household survey. The questionnaire aimed at collecting data on management of solid waste in the study towns.

@IJAPSA-2017, All rights Reserved Page 22 International Journal of Applied and Pure Science and Agriculture (IJAPSA) Volume 03, Issue 5, [May- 2017] e-ISSN: 2394-5532, p-ISSN: 2394-823X The questionnaire was designed and inputted into a web based mobile application (Poimapper). Compared to paper work, using the mobile application resulted into more accurate and reliable data, made it faster to train enumerators and data entry was done directly during interviews. Key informant interviews were organized with relevant stakeholders, including ward and mtaa/village leaders and district council staff.

2.5 Data Processing and Analysis Quantitative data collected using the questionnaire survey was exported from the mobile platform application (Poimapper) into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to make them amenable for analysis. Most of the household survey data were analyzed for descriptive statistics such as frequencies and means. The qualitative data obtained from observation, key informant interviews and the open-ended questions in the questionnaire were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis technique. This involved transcribing and reading through the field notes and transcripts to identify key themes and patterns relevant to the study objectives and questions. Because quantitative and qualitative data are mutually dependent and tend to complement each other, the presentation and discussion of the findings weaves together the quantitative and qualitative data, as presented in the following sections.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Storage and dispose of solid waste The findings show that most of the households in all study towns did not store their solid waste, but rather did burn, throw away or put in a pit ready for burning as revealed by 85% in Misungwi, 75% in Magu and 85% in Lamadi. About 17% of the respondents in Magu, 12% in Misungwi and 6% in Lamadi used containers to store their waste. Few respondents, mainly in Lamadi (6%) and Magu (5%) used plastic bags (Table 2). This shows poor handling of household solid waste in most of the surveyed households. During the survey, some heaps of or scattered solid waste were observed in some of the households. This could lead to eruption of diseases especially during the rainy season. Burning of solid waste was also done in the household yards causing heavy smoke, which is unhealthy to household members and neighbours. Table 2: Household solid waste storage facilities (n=417) Facility Misungwi Magu Lamadi All Containers 21(12.4) 20(16.5) 7(5.5) 48(11.5) Plastic bags 3(1.8) 6(5.0) 8(6.3) 17(4.1) Others (throw away, 108(85.0) 91(75.2) 143(84.6) 342(82.0) burn or put in a pit) Note: Figures in brackets are percents With regard to how households dispose solid waste generated in their homes, the findings in Table 3 show that three quarters of the households in Magu (75%), close to three quarters in Lamadi (72%) and more than half in Misungwi (58%) mostly burn solid waste. About three quarters in Lamadi (75%) had pits within their yards, as did 40% and 33% of the households in Misungwi and Magu, respectively. In Misungwi, 62% of the households mainly ‘throw away’ solid waste, although this practice was not very common in Magu (27%) and Lamadi (9%). Composting of organic waste was somehow practiced in Misungwi (19%) and in Magu (13%), but very rarely in Lamadi (4%). Very few respondents reported that household waste was collected by individuals, mainly in Magu (14%) as shown in Table 3 (See also Plate 1). This shows poor management of household solid waste in the study towns. Household solid waste collection is done to a very small extent in Magu, but not done in Misungwi and Lamadi. Even in Magu where solid waste is collected, there is a problem of transportation and lack of a properly designed disposal site. As a result, solid waste is disposed at an open ‘unofficial’

@IJAPSA-2017, All rights Reserved Page 23 International Journal of Applied and Pure Science and Agriculture (IJAPSA) Volume 03, Issue 5, [May- 2017] e-ISSN: 2394-5532, p-ISSN: 2394-823X dump site along the Mwanza- Musoma highway and in other open spaces. This problem has also been reported in other towns and cities in Tanzania (Ntakamulenga, 2012) and in Sengerema, Geita and Nansio (UN Habitat, 2012).

Plate 1: Household solid waste storage and disposal methods Table 3: Household solid waste disposal methods (n=417) Method Misungwi Magu Lamadi All Garbage containers 1(0.6) 0(0.0) 2(1.6) 3(0.7) Pit within yard 67(39.6) 40(33.1) 95(74.8) 202(48.4) Communal collection point 3(1.8) 7(5.8) 13(10.2) 23(5.5) Burning 98(58.0) 91(75.2) 92(72.4) 281(67.4) Throwing away 104(61.5) 33(27.3) 11(8.7) 148(35.5) Collected by district authority or 1(0.6) 17(14.0) 1(0.8) 19(4.6) individuals Compositing 32(18.9) 16(13.2) 5(3.9) 53(12.7) Note: Figures in brackets are percents

3.2 Distance to waste disposal point Most of the respondents in all towns disposed their solid waste ‘up to 50 metres’, as reported by 97%, 86% and 85% of the respondents in Misungwi, Magu and Lamadi, respectively. Few respondents, particularly in Magu (9%) and Lamadi (8%) walked more than 500 metres to dispose household solid waste (Table 4). This reflects the fact that most households disposed solid waste within their homesteads as discussed earlier. However, none of the surveyed households reported to be sorting their solid waste. Table 4: Distance to waste disposal point (n=417) Distance Misungwi Magu Lamadi All Up to 50 metres 130(97.0) 85(85.9) 85(85.0) 300(90.1) 50 -100 metres 2(1.5) 5(5.1) 1(1.0) 8(2.4) 100-200 metres 1(0.7) 0(0.0) 2(2.0) 3(0.9) 200-500 metres 1(0.7) 0(0.0) 4(4.0) 5(1.5) More than 500 metres 0(0.0) 9(9.1) 8(8.0) 17(5.1) Note: Figures in brackets are percents

3.3 Domestic wastewater disposal With regard to domestic wastewater disposal, most of the respondents disposed in open spaces around their homesteads, as reported by 76%, 81% and 80% of the respondents in Misungwi, Magu and Lamadi, respectively. Slightly over one fifth of the respondents in Misungwi (21%) disposed domestic wastewater in their yard, about 20% in Misungwi and 16% in Lamadi disposed domestic wastewater in pits and 17% in Magu used a combination toilet, yard, pit and streets (Table 5). Septic tanks were used by 8%, 7% and 9% of the surveyed households in Misungwi, Magu and Lamadi, respectively. None of the study towns had sewerage system as also reported by previous studies in these towns (Atkins

@IJAPSA-2017, All rights Reserved Page 24 International Journal of Applied and Pure Science and Agriculture (IJAPSA) Volume 03, Issue 5, [May- 2017] e-ISSN: 2394-5532, p-ISSN: 2394-823X International Ltd and Matrix Development Consultants, 2012; COWI, 2015a, b, c). As a result, proper management of domestic wastewater in the study towns could not be ascertained. Table 5: Methods of domestic wastewater disposal (n=417) Method of disposal Misungwi Magu Lamadi All Open spaces 129(76.3) 98(81.0) 102(80.3) 329(78.9) Toilet 11(6.5) 5(4.1) 1(0.8) 17(4.1) Yard 36(21.3) 7(5.8) 12(9.4) 55(13.2) Septic tank 13(7.7) 9(7.4) 11(8.7) 33(15.8) Pit 33(19.5) 8(6.6) 20(15.7) 61(14.6)

Combination 6(3.6) 20(16.5) 15(11.8) 41(9.8) Note: Figures in brackets are percents The findings further show that a large majority of respondents in Lamadi (84%) managed faecal sludge by digging holes and burying compared to 61% in Magu and 38% in Misungwi which used this method. This practice is, however, unhygienic and environmental unfriendly as faecal sludge can spill over and cross contaminate water sources and the environment. In addition, pits are shallow close to the house where rain water can uncover it (Bain and Luyendijk, 2015). Paying waste cesspit emptier trucks was more common in Misungwi (63%) than in Magu (38%) and Lamadi (15%) as shown in Table 6. This can be explained by the fact that none of the study towns had cesspit emptier trucks. Instead, they used trucks from MWAUWASA and private service providers in Mwanza. Partly because of the long distance from Mwanza to Magu and Lamadi, most households in these towns could not afford this service. Similar observations were also reported by Atkins International Ltd and Matrix Development Consultants (2012) and COWI (2015a, b, c) that the study towns have no formal sewerage systems and utilise latrines, Cess pits and a few septic tanks. There are no facilities for collection, treatment and disposal of faecal sludge. Table 6: Management faecal sludge at household level (n = 417) Method Misungwi Magu Lamadi All Dig hole and burry 63(37.5) 73(60.8) 106(83.5) 242(58.3) Discharge during rainy 0(0.0) 1(0.8) 1(0.8) 2(0.5) season Discharged in open drains 0(0.0) 1(0.8) 0(0.0) 1(0.2) Pay cesspit emptier trucks 105(62.5) 46(38.3) 19(15.0) 170(41.0) Note: Figures in brackets are percents

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Solid waste management at household level in the study towns is being improperly managed and posses challenge on the environment. Solid wastes are not sorted according to type and are disposed mainly through burning, throwing away and dumping into pit around the households. This shows poor handling of household solid waste in most of the surveyed households. It is, therefore, recommended that awareness creation on proper solid waste management practices be intensified so that the community can change their mind set with regard to management of solid wastes. In addition, provision of a proper designed solid waste collection points and dumping sites are of significant importance if management of solid wastes has to be enhanced. It is, therefore, recommended that in all satellite towns solid waste collection points and dumping sites should be established. Collection points are very crucial to enable solid wastes from households, schools and other public institutions to be gathered before are transported to the dumping sites as it is unhealthy for household members to carry their wastes to the dumping sites individually.

[1] Atkins International Ltd and Matrix Development Consultants, (2012). Project Formulation Report Part 6 – Mwanza Satellite Towns. Project Formulation for scaling up the Lake Victoria Water and Sanitation Initiative. [2] COWI, (2015a). Water Supply and Sanitation for Mwanza Town and Satellites: Technical Assistance for Preparation of Master Plan, Detailed Design and tender Documents: Satellite Town Detailed Report: Misungwi Final Report. [3] COWI, (2015b). Water Supply and Sanitation for Mwanza Town and Satellites: Technical Assistance for Preparation of Master Plan, Detailed Design and tender Documents: Satellite Town Detailed Report: Magu Final Report. [4] COWI, (2015c). Water Supply and Sanitation for Mwanza Town and Satellites: Technical Assistance for Preparation of Master Plan, Detailed Design and tender Documents: Satellite Town Detailed Report: Lamadi Final Report. [5] Gascon, J., Vargas, M., Schellenberg, D., Urassa, H. Casals, C., Kahigwa, E., Aponte, J. J., Mshinda, H. and Vila, J. (2000). Diarrhea in children under 5 years of age from Ifakara, Tanzania: A case-control study. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 38(12): 4459-62. [6] Kothari, C.R. (2009). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. Second Revised Edition. New Delhi: New Age International Publishers. [7] Kumar, R. (2005). Research Methodology. A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. Second Edition. London: Sage Publications. [8] Masanyiwa, Z.S. (2014). Decision Making Under the Tree: Gender Perspectives on Decentralization Reforms in Service Delivery in Rural Tanzania. Wageningen: PhD Thesis, Wageningen University. [9] Mwambuli, S. (2011) Sustainability crisis in Rural Water Supply: Water Aid National Audit Office, (2009). A Performance Audit on the Management of Solid Waste in Big Cities and Regions in Tanzania. Mbeya, Dar Es Salaam, Mwanza and Arusha. A Report of the Controller and Auditor General of The United Republic of Tanzania. [10] Niehof, A. and Price, L. (2001). Rural Livelihood Systems: A Conceptual Framework. Wageningen UPWARD Series on Rural Livelihoods No.1. [11] Ntakamulenga, R. (2012). The Status of Solid Waste Management in Tanzania. A Paper Presented During the Coastal East Africa Solid Waste Workshop Held in Flic En Flac, Mauritius, 10-13 September, 2012. [12] Solomon, A.O. (2011). The Role of Households in Solid Waste Management in East Africa Capital Cities. Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of the degree of doctor at Wageningen University. Wageningen: The Netherlands. [13] UN Habitat, (2009). Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities. [14] UN Habitat, (2012). Solid Waste Management Assessment Within Urban Settings in Burundi, Rwanda and Tanzania. [15] URT, (2014). Basic Demographic and Socio-Economic Profile Statistical Tables: Tanzania Mainland. Dar es Salaam: National Bureau of Statistics. [16] World Bank, (2012). What Waste. A Global Review of Solid Waste. Urban Development Series – Knowledge Paper.