Assessment of Solid Waste Management Practices: a Case of Masha Town, Southwestern Ethiopia

ASSESSMENT OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: A CASE OF MASHA TOWN, SOUTHWESTERN ETHIOPIA

MSc THESIS BY KIBRALEM KEBEDE WODAJO

AUGUST, 2017 ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA

ASSESSMENT OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: A CASE

OF MASHA TOWN, SOUTH WESTERN ETHIOPIA

KIBRALEM KEBEDE WODAJO

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY, COLLEGE OF NATURAL SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES, ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BIOLOGY

AUGUST, 2017 ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA

DECLARATION I hereby declare that this MSc thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other University, and all sources of material used for this thesis have been duly acknowledged.

Name: KIBRALM KEBEDE WODAJO

Signature: ______

Date: ______

iii

ADVISOR’S THESIS SUBMISSION APPROVAL SHEET SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY This is to certify that the thesis entitled “ASSESSMENT OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: A CASE OF MASHA TOWN, SOUTHWESTERN ETHIOPIA,” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master’s with specialization in BIOLOGY, Department of BIOLOGY, and has been carried out by KIBRALEM KEBEDE Id. No MSc/047/06, under my supervision. Therefore, I confirm that the student has fulfilled the requirements and hence hereby recommend that the student can submit the thesis to the department for public defense.

Name of advisor: Simon Shibru (PhD)

Signature______Date______

EXAMINERS’ THESIS APPROVAL SHEET

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY We, the undersigned, members of the Board of Examiners of the final open defense by KIBRALEM KEBEDE have read and evaluated his thesis entitled “ASSESSMENT OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: A CASE OF MASHA TOWN, SOUTH WESTERN ETHIOPIA”, and examined the candidate’s oral presentation. This is, therefore, to certify that the thesis has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biology.

Name of the Chairperson______Signature______Date_____

Name of Advisor______Signature______Date______

Name of Internal Examiner ______Signature ______Date______

Name of External Examiner______Signature______Date______

School of Graduate Studies______Signature______Date______

Stamp of the Department______Date______

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to express the deepest gratitude to almighty God for giving me time and peaceful life.

Next to almighty God, I would like to express the deepest gratitude to Virgin Mary, mother of God, the golden censer which didst bear the coal of fire which the blessed took from the Sanctuary, Ask for Us.

I would like to thank Dr. Simon Shibru, my advisor for his encouragements, industrious supervision, scientific guidance, keen advice and unreserved professional support, critical follow-up and very interesting comments that is important to improve my work from proposal to the accomplishment of this work.

Arba Minch University, College of Natural Sciences and Department of Biology are grateful for giving me this opportunity.

I would also like to acknowledge with gratitude Masha municipality staff members for their significant contributions and assistance in the course of this study.

I would like to thanks to my brother Kibrom Kebede whose creativity and initiative fill my heart with brightness and the hard times he gave me to think beyond.

I forward my heartfelt gratitude to my lovely wife, Merawit Kifle for his moral support. My thanks also go to my father and my mother for their financial and moral support.

Last but not least, I would like to acknowledge all informants and my relatives who Spend their time and sharing their insights with me.

ACRONYMS CSA Central Statistical Agency DSWGR Daily Solid Waste Generation Rate HHs Households ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management MSEs Micro and Small Enterprises MMPD Masha Master Plan Document NEMA National Environmental Management Authority NGO Non-Governmental Organizations PCPDSWGR Per Capita per Day Solid Waste Generation Rate SNNPR South Nation Nationality Peoples Regions SW Solid Waste SWM Solid Waste Management UNCHS United Nations Center for Human Settlement USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency WASET World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology WHO World Health Organization

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... VI

ACRONYMS ...... VII

TABLE OF CONTENTS...... VIII

LIST OF TABLE ...... XII

LIST OF FIGURES ...... XIII

ABSTRACT...... XIV

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ...... 1

1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ...... 2

1.3. OBJECTIVE OF STUDY ...... 3 1.3.1. General Objective ...... 3 1.3.2. Specific Objectives ...... 3 1.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS...... 4

1.5. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ...... 4

1.6. SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY ...... 4 1.7. DEFINITION AND GENERAL CONCEPTS OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENTS ...... 5

1.8. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS ...... 7

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 8

2.1. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FROM THE WORLD AND CONTINENTAL

PERSPECTIVE ...... 8 2.2. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN ETHIOPIA ...... 8

2.3. SOURCE AND TYPES OF SOLID WASTES ...... 10 2.4. SOLID WASTE GENERATION, CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPOSITIONS...... 11

2.5. FACTOR INFLUENCING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ETHIOPIA ...... 13 2.5.1. Management factors ...... 13 2.5.2. Lack of skills, knowledge and equipment in solid waste management ...... 14

viii

2.5.3. Lack of Policy Enforcement and Responsibility ...... 14 2.5.4. Risks and problems associated with solid waste...... 14 2.6. COMPONENTS OF GOOD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ...... 15 2.6.1. Waste Recycling and Reuse ...... 16 2.6.2. Composting ...... 16 2.6.3. Incineration ...... 17 2.6.4. Land filling...... 17 2.6.5. Anaerobic Digestion ...... 18

2.7. FUTURE PROSPECTIVE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ...... 19 2.7.1. Communication among Stakeholder ...... 19 2.7.2. Local leaders ...... 19 2.7.3. Empowerment/ Sense of ownership...... 19 2.7.4. Private sector involvement...... 20 2.7.5. Public awareness, cooperation and participation ...... 20 2.8. COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN COMMUNITY AND ORGANIZATION ...... 20 2.8.1. Community Awareness ...... 21 2.8.2. Role of Women ...... 21 2.8.4. Information and Knowledge ...... 22

2.9. METHODS OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION ...... 22

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 24

3.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ...... 24

3.2. TOPOGRAPHY OF MASHA TOWN ...... 27 3.3. METHODS ...... 28 3.3.1. Sampling Design ...... 28 3.4. DATA COLLECTION METHODS ...... 29 3.4.1. Questionnaires...... 29 3.4.2. Field Observations and Measurement...... 30 3.4.3. Focus Group Discussion ...... 31 3.4.4. Secondary Data Collection...... 31 3.5. DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION ...... 31

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ...... 32

4.1. BACKGROUND OF THE RESPONDENTS ...... 32 4.1.1. Response rate ...... 32 4.1.2. Household Heads by Gender ...... 32 4.1.3. Family size of the respondents...... 32 4.1.4. Marital Status of Respondents ...... 33 4.1.5. Educational back ground of the respondents ...... 33 4.2. SOLID WASTE GENERATION RATE IN THE STUDY AREA ...... 34 4.2.1. Relationship between waste generation and income level...... 35 4.2.2. Relationship between waste generation and Education level ...... 35 4.2.3. Relationship between waste generation rate and family size...... 36

4.3. SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION IN THE STUDY AREA ...... 36 4.4. STATUS OF EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT’S PRACTICE IN MASHA TOWN ...... 37 4.4.1. Solid waste handling in household level...... 37 4.4.2. Solid Waste Generated at HHs level...... 38 4.4.3. Waste storage as problem at HHs level ...... 38 4.4.4. Solid waste separation...... 39 4.4.5. Waste reuse ...... 39 4.4.6. Solid Waste Exchange ...... 40 4.4.7. Composting ...... 40 4.4.8. Door to door collection service for households ...... 41

4.5. THE IMPACT OF IMPROPER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN STUDY THE AREA ...... 42 4.5.1. Health Impact ...... 42 4.5.2. Infrastructure damage ...... 42 4.5.3. Socio-Economic Impact ...... 43 4.5.4. Environmental Impact...... 43

4.6. LEVEL OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE STUDY AREA ...... 44

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 45

5.1. CONCLUSION ...... 45

5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 46

REFERENCES ...... 47

APPENDICES ...... 54

LIST OF TABLE PAGE Table 1. Source and types of Solid Wastes ...... 11 Table 2. Solid Waste Generation in Relation to the Income Levels ...... 12 Table 3. Solid Waste Characteristics in income Levels ...... 13 Table 4. Economic conditions of the communities in the study area...... 28 Table 5. Households sample selected methods in Masha town ...... 29 Table 6. Family size of the Respondents...... 32 Table 7. Marital Status of Respondents ...... 33 Table 8. Education level of the respondents ...... 34 Table 9. Type of SW materials re-used ...... 39 Table 10. Solid waste Exchange ...... 40 Table 11. Practice of composting wastes at household level ...... 41 Table 12. Top ten diseases recorded in Masha health center in 2014 ...... 42 Table 13. Cost for road maintenance and medication treatment ...... 43 Table 14. Status of community participation in solid waste management ...... 44

xii

LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. The interlink between functional elements of solid waste management system. ... 18 Figure 2. Map of the study Area ...... 25 Figure 3. Annual mean minimum and maximum Temperature of Masha Town ...... 26 Figure 4. Annual mean minimum and maximum rainfall of the Masha Town ...... 27 Figure 5. Income level of the household ...... 35 Figure 6. Relationship between waste generation rate and family size ...... 36 Figure 7. solid waste composition...... 37 Figure 8. Households illegally damping of solid waste in ditch near to home, road side and at open area ...... 38 Figure 9. Solid waste collection and transportation in the study area...... 41 Figure 10. Damaged roads by stagnant storm water in the area, particularly in summer seasons ...... 43 Figure 11. Openly accumulated solid wastes with packing materials along the street and river banks ...... 44

xiii

ABSTRACT The municipal solid waste causes substantial harm to the environment and human health if mismanaged. With a rapidly expanding human population and growing trend of urbanization, problems related to the management of municipal solid waste have become of considerable importance in Ethiopia from both environment and human safety. This urges for better understanding of the existing practices and problems of solid waste management in emerging towns of Ethiopia. This study therefore assessed the existing solid waste management practices and problems in Masha town, Sheka zone, SNNPR. Samples were selected using probabilistic and non- probabilistic techniques. The study was conducted on randomly selected 76 households, characterized into different classes. Both primary and secondary data sources were used. Primary data were collected through questionnaires, interviews and observation. Secondary data were collected from different documents and office reports. The data collected from both primary and secondary sources were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative descriptive methods. Findings of the study revealed that most of the residents (91.0%) in the study area use traditional method of solid waste handling system. The result also showed that plastic bags and sacks were used as a temporary solid waste collecting and storing material in the study area. About (10.4%) of the respondents replied that communities dump the solid waste everywhere, like river banks (9. %), and along the street roads (80.6%). Openly dumped solid waste in the area was damaging both the environment and public health as viewed by the respondents. As indicated by the respondents (92.5%) of the community participation in municipal solid waste management was extremely low. There are a number of reasons raised to low participation of community on solid waste management. The mean valve of household solid waste generation rate of Masha town is 2.6 kg/day, 76.5kg/month and 931 kg/year. Composition of the solid waste generated in Masha town is predominantly made up of organic component (90%), paper (2%), plastics (2%), hazardous (1%), other waste (2%) glass (2%), and metal (1%). Lack of awareness, poor coordination among the residents, lack of efficient implementation of enacted rules and regulation by concerned bodies were the main factors. To alleviate the problems in the study area handling separation and collection system of solid waste should be established and enhanced. Poor municipal solid waste management is practiced in the town. Therefore, it is recommended that the municipal should develop proper infrastructure, and prepare proper disposal sites where municipal solid wastes can be disposed. Awareness raising among the inhabitants and also organizing the youth groups in small and micro enterprises in solid waste management activities is found to be important. Regular monitoring of the functionality of the system is also important.

Keywords/Phrases:- Generation rate, Households, Management, Masha town, Solid Waste, Waste Composition

xiv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the study Solid waste management is a major public health and environmental concern in cities of many developing countries (Guerrero and Hogland, 2013). Open dumping of solid waste is common practice, as the bulk of the waste is either not collected or irregularly collected (Dereje Tadesse, 2001). In case where it is collected, the mode of transport used is inappropriate and dump site is either not properly selected or is any open space (Sheinberg, 2010). This has resulted in a sanitary and generally smelly conditions and attracting scavenging animals, providing a food chain path for transmitting diseases to humans living in vicinity, as well as breeding place for insects and rodent disease vector (Zelke Zewde, 2005).

Solid Wastes that carelessly disposed and end up everywhere can poison and contaminate the world (Chaturvedi, 2006). These contaminations can be surface water contamination, soil contamination, air and water pollution and global warming (Memon, 2010). Poorly collected or improperly disposed solid wastes can have a dangerous impact on the environment (Coad, 2005). Chemicals which are found in trash can run away into soil and water and these chemicals will damage plants and fish in lakes. Inadequately managed landfills may cause air and other environmental pollutions across the world (Charlotte, 2012).

The major composition of solid wastes generated in most part of Africa is biodegradable organic wastes (Krause and Townsend, 2014). Solid waste management is a major public health and environmental concern in cities of many Africa countries (Achankeng, 2003). In many Africa countries, the amount of solid waste generated is continuously increasing due to the expansion of the urban population through growth and rural urban migration (Yongsheng, 2014). Because of the development of cities and increase in the number of population the country is practicing opposite boost in waste disposal (Zurbrugg and Vaccari, 2014).

Ethiopia is one of the developing countries in which the practices of managing solid waste are the most intractable (Zebenay Kassa, 2010). Consequently the society is exposed to different waste related diseases (Melaku Tegegn, 2008). Dumping of solid waste in open field is extensively practiced in Ethiopian cities example Adama city (Lemma Kebede, 2007).

As municipality is unable to manage solid waste in modern ways, most urban people tend to use the traditional rural sanitation practices which are often inappropriate to densely populated urban environment (Kuma Tadesse, 2004).

A study conducted in Bahir Dar city indicated that most towns in Ethiopia do not have a proper solid waste management service, such as solid waste collection and disposal facilities (Gebrie Kassa, 2009). As a result, residents and other waste generators use traditional dumping ways in their house yard, nearby vacant places, foot path and drainage channels as well as a street (Degnet Abebaw, 2003). The dumping place hence serves for breeding of flies and pests, rats and mice, cockroaches and parasites fleas and lice, bedbugs other scavengers and transforming agents of communicable diseases and it poses health problem to human and the environment (Fesseha Tefferi, 2007).

Waste volumes have increased in urban areas of SNNPR due to the growing urban population, concentration of industries, consumption of residents, adequate finance and facilities to manage waste collection and disposal (Central Statistical Authority, Statistical Bulletin No. 563, 2012).

As reported from Masha Health Center, on average ten percent of residents are affected yearly by the diseases related with improper solid waste management, and the problem is more sever particularly for children (MMPD, 2010). Regardless of this, there is no proper documentation and quantification of the type and amount of the solid waste generated in the town. Lack of such a significant data hinders the municipality to develop appropriate solid waste management plan. Hence this research is found to be important to narrow the knowledge gap in this regard.

1.2. Statement of the problem The management of waste in urban areas of Ethiopia is the responsibility of the city municipality. However, due to lack of adequate technology, human capital, institutional set up and financial constraints the sector has been mistreated (Gilbert, 2013). Collecting and managing solid and human waste is an important challenge for countries across the world. The implementation of effective waste management practices has been identified as essential for economic development in low-income countries in particular (Scheinberg, 2011).

Masha town is characterized by rapid population growth and urbanization. Such rapid increase in population coupled with rapid development of the town has produced increasing solid wastes generation rate. Moreover, the amount and type of solid wastes generated is now a day is induced time to time. Solid waste management practice of the Masha town is poorly organized and implemented because of factors such as lack of adequate infrastructure, skilled manpower, financial constraints and absence institutional arrangements and also no research was conducted so far regarding its solid waste generation rate, composition and separation practice at household level.

To fill in the gap, this study was focused to quantify solid waste generation rate, composition and separation practices at household level within Masha town. Doing so the status of solid waste management practices in Masha town.

1.3. Objective of study 1.3.1. General Objective The general objective of the study was to assess the existing practices and associated problems of household solid waste management in Masha Town.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives The specific objectives of the study were to:- 1. Quantify the amount of solid waste generation rate per household per day, per month and per year; 2. Determine the composition of solid waste generated at household level in Masha town; 3. Assess the existing practices of household solid waste management practice in Masha town; 4. Investigate the impact of improper solid waste management in the study area; 5. Identify the level of community participation in solid waste management in the town;

1.4. Research Questions 1. What is the rate of daily, monthly and yearly household solid waste generation at household level in Masha town? 2. What is the physical composition of solid wastes generated at household level? 3. What is the status of solid waste management practice in Masha town? 4. What are the impacts of improper solid waste management of the town? 5. At what level is the community participation to manage the solid waste generation into the town?

1.5. Significance of the study Lack of information on solid waste generation rate, its composition and organization practice at household level and the existing status of household solid waste management practice is one of the major factors that lead to inappropriate waste management. In this respect, this study provides baseline data on solid waste generation rate, physical composition and sorting practices of solid waste at household level and the existing status of household solid waste management practice of Masha town. Furthermore, it may serve as a starting point for further study and also could serve as a document for future use.

1.6. Scope and Limitation of the Study The study was limited geographically to Masha town, South Nation Nationality People of Region; specifically to purposively selected kebeles. Moreover, the study was limited by time and mainly by financial constraints to extend the study to other sub cities and kebeles than presently proposed. In terms of scope, despite the fact that, there are other kinds and sources of waste, this study is limited to study on solid waste generation, physical composition and separation practice at household level, and also the impact and level of community participation in solid waste management in Masha town. Any other aspects not specified here are outside the scope of this study.

1.7. Definition and General Concepts of Solid Waste Managements Composting:- Composting is described as an economically viable method compared with other processes and also effective in contributing to the reduction in the amount of material that should be taken to the landfill (Barr et al., 2004). Household solid waste:- is considered as a type of municipal solid waste (MSW) and consists mainly of plastics, paper, glass, metals, organics, wood and others. These wastes must be predisposed accurately to assist keep environmental quality and human health, as well as to preserve natural resources (Oteng, 2010). Incineration:- Burning process of burnable wastes in an incinerator, to reduce the volume of waste an d some times change it to ash (UNCHS,1995). Industrial ecology:- is defined as “an approach to the design of industrial products and processes that evaluates such activities through the dual perspectives of product competitiveness and environmental interactions” (Graedel and Allenby, 2010). Integrated Solid Waste Management /ISWM/:- Waste management methods cannot be uniform across regions and sectors because individual waste management methods cannot deal with all potential waste materials in a sustainable manner (Staniskis, 2005). Landfills:- Engineered area where wastes are placed into land (Techonbagolus et al., 1993). Municipal Solid Waste (MSW):- These kinds of wastes can be generated by everyday activities of households, schools, hotels, businesses and institutions. These wastes are collected and treated by municipalities; that’s why they are called municipal solid wastes. Much of these wastes include unwanted and useless materials includes street clean-up (plastic, metals, packaging, bottles and others), leaves, food waste, agricultural, commercial, construction and office supplies (Charlotte, 2009). Open dump:- Uncontrolled area where wastes have been placed in an environmentally unsound manner (Festum Haile, 2005). Public Participation:- according to the Oxford English Dictionary, participation is “the action or fact of contribution. Participation as a concept came to the lime light as a result of rising advocacy for the end of the top-down strategies to development action, in favor of greater inclusion of the subjects of the development programs (Mugambwa, 2009).

Recycling:- is an activity of collecting, sorting and processing of used or discarded materials into useful products to its original form or for other purposes (USEPA, 1998). Solid waste:- Useless/unwanted/ discarded materials including garbage, rubbish and trash also called refuse. It is also a waste which is neither waste water nor atmospheric emission, which may be semi solid or solid (Rush, 1999). Solid Waste Generation Rate:- Refers to the “amount of waste disposed during a given period of time and the quantification of it involves different methods: by measurement at the point of generation, through use of vehicle survey and by examination of records at the disposal facility” (UNEP, 2009). Solid Waste Management:- Refers to the collection, transfer, treatment, reuse, recycling and disposal activities of solid waste in urban areas (Awetash, 2003). Transport:- the transport of solid waste transferred from collection vehicles to a facility or disposal site for further processing or actions (Rush, 1999). Waste:- is material that is thrown or aside as worth less. It can be defined based on its source of generation in the process of development. Thus, we can classify wastes based on their source as, commercial, industrial, household and institutional etc, based on their form, organic and inorganic, liquid and solid and gaseous and they are also classified based on their potential of harm that they impose on living things and their environment (Agizew, 2001). Waste Collection:- The act of removing accumulated containerized and non-containerized SW from the generating sources; in addition, collection may occur at centralized points where generators deliver their solid wastes for collection (Wilson, 2007). Waste Sorting:- is the process by which waste is separated into different elements. Waste sorting can be done manually at the household level and/or done using automatic separator of materials at recovery facilities or mechanical biological treatment systems (Tchobanoglous, 1993). Waste Prevention:- It is also known as source reduction in the design, manufacture, purchase, or use of materials and products to reduce the amount and/or toxicity of discarded waste (USEPA, 2002). Waste Streams:- is often described as the waste that is produced from residential and industrial (non-process wastes), commercial and institutional sources with the exception of

6 hazardous and universal wastes, construction and demolition wastes, and liquid wastes (Charlotte, 2012). Zero waste:- refers to waste management and planning approaches which emphasize waste prevention as opposed to end of pipe waste management (Young, 2010).

1.8. Organization of the Thesis This paper is organized in to five chapters with four parts. The first part is chapter one which is an introductory part of the paper. The second chapter deals with literature review obtained from various published and unpublished reference materials. The second part of the thesis is chapter three that describe the background of the study area. The third part is result and discussion which present analysis and interpretation of data about the household generation rate, physical composition and separation practice at household level; its impact and also level of community participation. The fourth and the last part of this study is chapter five which is conclusion and recommendation. Bibliographies and questioners are also attached at the end of the paper.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Solid Waste management practices from the world and Continental perspective Ten years ago there were 2.9 billion urban residents who generated about 0.4 kg of MSW per person per day, and 0.68 billion tons per year (Chertow, 1998). In the United Kingdom, in contrast, land contaminated by waste solid is less likely to be seen as a hazard, and the government appears to have taken a less careful approach (WASET, 2014). Germany, which is backing away from nuclear power by announcing it will shut down all nuclear reactors in the country by 2020, identified a massive underground salt chamber for storage in 1977, but research there was stopped in 2000 because of political challenges (Cointreau et al., 2000).

Solid Waste management practices differ between developed and developing countries, between urban and rural areas, and between residential and industrial producers (Mugambwa, 2009). Solid Waste management in most of the Africa counters has two problems: lack of accurate data on waste generation and characterization and a corresponding lack of information about waste collection, processing, and disposal (Tchobanoglous et al., 2002). A July 2002 report by the African Development Bank has found, for instance, that no country has specific waste management legislation, although some statutes are being drafted, and virtually no integrated waste management programs are being implemented (UNEP, 2009). A lack of information has also been major contributory factors to poor solid waste management in many African countries (Ayotamuno et al., 2004).

2.2. Solid Waste management practices in Ethiopia Collecting and managing solid waste is an important challenge for countries across the world. This problem is often magnified in cities where a dense concentration of people leads to a substantial amount of waste generation (Contireau, 2004). In developing countries like Ethiopia, this problem is increased by an influx of people moving to urban centers (Dereje Tadesse, 2001). Densely populated areas are more susceptible to health risks as disease can be spread quickly (Chertow, 2007). The implementation of effective waste management practices has been identified as essential for economic development in low income countries in particular (Scheinberg, 2010).

Urban centers are usually the hardest hit as efforts to develop and grow lead to an influx of economic opportunities and people (Gilbert, 2013). In the Middle Ages the Bubonic Plague swept through cities as solid waste was improperly disposed of in the roads (Awetash, 2003). Given the tragic consequences of the past, it is vital that improving waste management practices in the growing cities of Ethiopia be a top priority (Kuma Tadesse, 2004). Waste management in Ethiopia is important because only a small percentage of the country’s inhabitants have access to safe drinking water, i.e. 21% in rural areas, 84% in urban areas, and 30% countrywide. Additionally, only 7% of populations in rural areas, 68% in urban areas, and 15% of people countrywide have adequate access to latrines or other improved human waste disposal options (Degnet Kassa, 2009). Access to latrines is a critical aspect of waste management, especially since the practice of open defecation is prevalent in the country, which can contaminate ground water and lead to disease (WHO, 2006).

Most of them tend to focus on the technical dimensions of the municipal waste management, such as estimating the amount of solid waste composition (i.e. 89.4% around in Adama city) (Lemma Kebede, 2007). Systems that should be put in place (e.g. new sanitary landfill, transfer stations, composting sites, new trucks and containers, data on waste generation, and waste composition) in order to improve the capacity of the management in the city (Dereje Tadesse, 2001). The city’s suffers from poor solid waste management and refer to lack of data on waste generation, of recycling activities, lack of proper transport schedules, a poor sanitary landfill, and a low level of awareness among the citizens as the main obstacles (Zelke Zewde, 2005).

Waste management is complex and, has technical, social, economic, cultural, and political aspects. Some studies have followed the neoliberal discourse, and attempted to explore households’ willingness to pay for waste services as well as the role of the private sector in the provision of waste management (Oteng, 2010). As Ethiopia’s urban areas increase in number and expand in geographical and population size, solid waste is swiftly emerging as a significant issue in environmental management (NEMA, 2005).

2.3. Source and types of Solid Wastes

Tchobanoglous et al., (1993) classified types of solid waste in relation to the source of generation, generation facilities or activities, and locations. However, Charlotte, (2009) Classified solid waste types based on their origin as food waste (60%), rubbish (5%), ashes and residues (25%), demolition and construction (7%), and agriculture waste (3%). On the other hand, Cheremisinoff, (2003) classified solid waste based on their biological characteristics as biodegradable (80%) and the other (20%) is non- biodegradable wastes. Solid wastes could also be classified based on the risk potentials associated with the waste as hazardous waste (16%) and non-hazardous waste (84%) (Zurbrugg, 2003). Household items that are frequently separated include newspapers, magazines, scrap paper, boxboard, plastic bags, food and drink cans and containers, and in some cases, organic wastes and bulky goods (Simoes, 2012). A review (Barr, 2004) on recycling and recovery routes of plastic solid waste: about (87%) emphasize that sorting is the most important step in the recycling loop irrespective of how efficient a recycling scheme might be.

Table 1. Source and types of Solid Wastes

NO. Source wastes Typical activity or where Types of solid waste they are generated. 1 Commercial Waste from shops, offices, Packaging materials, office hotels, restaurants. supplies and food wastes. 2 Institutional Waste from schools, Infectious and hazardous hospitals, clinics, materials. government offices, military bases. 3 Residential generated from household Food preparation, cleaning, activities fuel burning, old cloths, furniture, and equipment, packaging, newsprint, and garden wastes. 4 Industrial wastes Waste depends on the kind Packaging materials, plastics, of industries involved. papers and metal items. 5 Highway sweepings Dust, soil, paper, etc. Fruit and vegetable residues, household wastes dumped along roads, drain cleanings, animal manure and plant remains. 6 Construction and Depends on type of Soil, brick, stone, concrete, demolition wastes construction materials. ceramic materials, wood, packaging materials.

Source: (Zurbrugg, 2003)

2.4. Solid Waste Generation, Characteristics and compositions For effective and efficient management of solid waste generated in a particular city is (i.e. 2.9%/day in Teppi Town) adequate knowledge and data about the characteristics of solid waste is essential (Abyot Aseres, 2014). In order to decide or determine types of facilities

11 required for solid waste management, best disposal options, and projecting future needs requires precise information about quantities, compositions, densities, moisture content and calorific value of solid waste produced in a city (Rush,1999). Information on the composition of solid wastes is important in evaluating alternative equipment needs, systems and management programs and plans. For example if the daily solid waste generated rate 2.27% per daily around Yeki Town. At the commercial facility consists of only paper products, the use of special processing equipment such as shredders and balers, may be appropriate (Seada Yasin, 2011).

Municipal solid waste is produced as the result of economic productivity and increase in consumption pattern of the people in low income countries, there is relatively less commercial and industrial activity, as the result there is lower waste generation rate (Cointreau, 2004). The implication of this growth is that pollution issues such as solid waste management and the provision of adequate safe water alongside acceptable levels of sanitation coverage will need closer attention (Memon, 2010). In general, solid Wastes which are generated in low-income countries are less than solid waste which is generated in high- income countries (Cointreau, 2004).

Table 2. Solid Waste Generation in Relation to the Income Levels

Nature and Low-income Middle-income High income measurement country(kg) country(kg) Country(kg) Mixed urban 0.5-0.75 0.55-0.95 0.75-1.8 waste, large city kg/capita/day Mixed solid waste 0.35-0.65 0.45-0.75 0.66-1.5 medium city kg/capita/day Mixed residential 0.25-0.45 0.35-0.65 0.55-1.0 waste kg/capita/day

Sources: (Cointreau, 2004).

Table 3. Solid Waste Characteristics in income Levels

No. Composition of raw waste Low income Middle income High income (by weight in %) country country country 1 Vegetables 40-85 20-65 20-50 2 Paper and carton 1-10 15-40 15-40 3 Plastic 1-5 2-6 2-10 4 Metal 1-5 1-5 3-13 5 Glass 1-10 1-10 4-10 6 Rubber 1-5 1-5 2-10 7 Fines (sand, ash, broken 15-50 15-40 5-20 glass) 8 Moisture 40-80 40-60 20-30

Source: (Tchobanoglous and Kreith, 2000).

2.5. Factor influencing Solid Waste Management in Ethiopia The poor management structure and institutional inefficiency in Ethiopia has resulted in weak work coordination, insufficient controlling, and monitoring and evaluation system and aggravated the existing obstacles (Zeleke Zewde, 2005). Community participation in solid waste management must start at home, with house being involved in separation of waste at source and being responsible for strict control over storage hygiene (Gebre Amanuel, 1994). For further understanding some of these factors are discussed below.

2.5.1. Management factors According to some authors example (Joardar, 2000), poor management of local authority who are responsible for the handling. In addition municipal waste management is key factor to consider inadequate provision of facilities for waste management (kuma Tadesse, 2004). Low skill workers; Inadequate of sensitivity and consciousness to understand the needs of the public are also important factors for weak management of municipal wastes (Ayotamuno et al, 2004). The garbage collection process is not systematic and practically ineffective for disposal (Staniskis, 2005). In many countries, particularly in developing countries there is

13 also no approach to monitoring and supervision of all activities associated with the waste management (Ayotamuno, 2004; Asase, 2009).

2.5.2. Lack of skills, knowledge and equipment in solid waste management Ineffective management system, absence of reasonable and systematic method adopted the weaknesses in the provision of equipment for the implementation of services, poor infrastructure (Chaturvedi, 2006). Lacks of awareness restrictions of the technical work in solid waste management are other important factors to hinder the effective management of solid waste (Coffey, 2009). Limitation of knowledge in the waste management organization including weakness of action policies from government are important to mention and to act up on to improvement (Hazra and Goel, 2009).

2.5.3. Lack of Policy Enforcement and Responsibility Often it is not the environmental legislation itself that is at the heart of the problem and also lack of enforcement that is the real challenge to sustainable waste management in Ethiopia (Gebrie Kassa, 2009). This lack of enforcement of policies and laws is a major institutional issue that greatly contributes to the mismanagement of solid waste. An example of this can be seen in Addis Ababa; although there is insufficient legislation covering waste management, local authorities lack the capacity to implement them (Degnet Abebaw, 2003). Immoral scattering habits and attitudes of people, lack of awareness among communities, support and public interest in the solid waste management (Ali and Snes, 2006).

2.5.4. Risks and problems associated with solid waste It is fact that, if solid wastes are not managed properly there are many negative impacts on aesthetic, human health and environment (NEMA, 2007). Therefore, In order to control the management activity in a good manner and have a proactive measure for such negative impact, one must have a good understanding about (85%) the effects and risks that may arise from improperly managed solid wastes (WHO, 1996).

The following are some of the most important impacts because of uncontrolled solid waste disposal systems.  Flies and Mosquitoes breed in some constituents of solid wastes, and flies are very effective vectors that spread disease (Staniskis, 2005).  Waste dumps are good shelter for rats. Rats consume and spoil food, spread disease, damage electrical cables and other materials and uncollected wastes cause blockage of drains, which result in flooding and unsanitary conditions (Jayarama, 2011).  Uncollected wastes degrade the urban environment, discouraging efforts to keep the streets and open places in a clean and attractive conditions (Unnisa and Rav, 2013).  Dangerous items such as broken glass (23%), razor blades (12%), needles and other healthcare wastes (34%), aerosol cans and potentially explosive containers, (31%) may pose risks of injury or poisoning, particularly to children and people, who sort through waste (Staniskis, 2005).  Waste items that are recycled without being cleaned effectively or sterilized can transmit infection to later user (Barr, 2004).  Polluted water (leachate) flowing from waste dumps and disposal sites can cause serious pollution of water supplies (Tasi, 2007).  Waste that is treated or disposed of in unsatisfactory ways can cause a severe aesthetic nuisance in terms of smell and appearance (Zurbrugg, 2003).  Fires on disposal sites can cause major air pollution (32%), causing illness (23%) and reducing visibility (4%), making disposal sites dangerously unstable, causing explosions of cans (8%), and other related diseases (32%) possibly spreading to adjacent property (Landreth and Rebers, 1993).

2.6. Components of Good Solid Waste Management System Solid waste consists of many different materials. Some are combustible others are non- combustible (2%), recyclable (1%), and non-recyclable (2%), biodegradable (94%) and non- biodegradable 1% around in Debremarkos Town (Zebenay Kassa, 2010). The combustible materials that may be included in a waste stream include paper, plastics, yard debris, food waste, wood, textiles, disposable diapers, and other organics are (89.6%) and the non-

15 combustibles materials also include glass, metal, bones, leather and aluminum (10.2%) in Adama city(Lemma Kebede, 2007).

2.6.1. Waste Recycling and Reuse In developing countries it is acknowledged that (85%) the recovery of materials such as iron, steel, copper, lead, paper plastic and glass will decrease the investment in importing these materials and save energy (Melaku Tegegn, 2008). The formal sector has concentrated on the collection and final disposal; although (10.4%) recycling is viewed as an option, its application is very weak. In the same way, the attitude of the formal waste management sector towards informal recycling often is very negative regarding it as backward, unhygienic and generally incompatible with modern waste management systems in Addis Ababa city (Kuma Tadesse, 2004). Materials are converted into new products for local use; some examples are the smelting of aluminum cans (45%) and scrap metals (23%) into household utensils, and paper and plastic residues (21.2%) into products for tourists, but a number of strong problem at household (Fesseha Tefferi, 2005). For example in Kenya, Cameroon, Nigeria, Botswana, etc. recycling has gained importance due to the increasing costs of raw materials. Initially (65%) it was carried out informally by poor people, but it is now emerging at an industrial level (Zurbrugg and Vaccari, 2004).

2.6.2. Composting

High organic content of the waste streams of developing countries is ideal for composting, but municipal services operators do not have enough and adequate information only (17%) used for compost in Addis Ababa (Gebre Emanel, 1994). Even though they may be familiar with the application of composting in agriculture (83%) is not considered as a way to solve their urban wastes generated at household problem (Arroyo, 1998). Composting is a widely utilized practice in Western countries, in Chongqing, one of the four largest municipalities in China, it is rarely used due to reasons such as the low application of source separation, low acceptance of compost by farmers, limited usefulness of compost in comparison with chemical fertilizers and strict regulations, monitoring and quality standards of the product (Zhuang, 2008). In India, composting is a tradition mainly in rural areas; utilization of large-

16 scale about (83-89%) and centralized composting plants during the 1970´s had not been economically feasible (Chung, 2008). Studies have determined that composites difficult to use because the waste arrives mixed and with high quantities or inorganic materials (Suttibak and Nitivattananon, 2008).The use in agriculture, as soil conditioner or fertilizer, is one of the most usual ways to take advantage of the compost obtained with the processing of MSW; however the quality of the product is subordinated to variables such as the design of the composting facility, type and proportions of feed stock used, composting procedure and maturation period (Joardar, 2000).

2.6.3. Incineration Waste Incineration is an approach in the waste management hierarchy, about (72.8%) which is majorly used in European and American countries, instead of disposing the waste in the landfill (Gebrie Kassa, 2009). The residue after burning the waste is used to extract some of the non-combustible materials like glass (4%), metals (12%) and rest of the fly ash is used as a mixture for engineering purposes (20%) (Zebenay Kassa, 2010). The advantages of incineration are it majorly minimizes (76-79%) the volume of waste being dumped in the landfill, produce energy with the heat produced during combustion (Mugambwa, 2009). The volume of solid waste is reduced to more manageable level there by reducing transportation cost to ultimate disposal site. It also reduces the land requirement at least by 30% of the residue after incineration is free from degradable materials and hence no longer source of pollution (UNCHS, 1995).

2.6.4. Land filling The most commonly used method of solid waste treatment and disposal is land filling in developing cities. It is relatively cheap when we compare with other solid waste disposal methods and reduce road damages (Yongsheng, 2014). Because of these, many countries in the world prefers and commonly used land filling method. In this method generated wastes are dumped beneath the soil in an isolated manner and are commonly used methods for the disposal of waste (Cord, 2005). It is more appropriate in large urban centers of Ethiopia where significant amount of solid wastes may be generated within a day (Techonbagolus, 1993).

Solid waste generation

Solid waste handling, separation, storage, processing at final disposal sites.

source Collection

Transformation Separation, processing and transportation and transformation

Disposal

Figure 1. The interlink between functional elements of solid waste management system.

Sources: (Anomanyo, 2004; Techonbanglus, 1993).

2.6.5. Anaerobic Digestion Anaerobic digestion is a natural biological decomposition process of organic matters by maintaining the heat, pH value and moisture content in the absence of oxygen (Cotton and

Westlake, 1999). The biogas consists of 60% of CH4 and remaining 40% of CO2 and it is separated. Methane is extracted and is used as fuel for vehicles or may be used as heat and electricity (Arold and Koring, 2008). After the extraction of biogas the remaining residue (1- 5%) i.e. digestive is used as fertility for the agricultural lands. Organic waste like sewage sludge, organic farm waste, municipal solid waste, green waste, industrial and commercial waste are used in anaerobic digestion processes (Arroyo et al., 1998).

2.7. Future prospective of public participation in solid waste management

2.7.1. Communication among Stakeholder Community participation in waste management, about (92%) communication is considered as favorable factor for the sustainability of community participation in solid waste management. She stressed that communication inessential to generate abroad based understanding on waste issues (Festum Haile, 2005). Communication is also important to know the willingness of the community and a two way communication can allows the identification of conflicts and constraints of storage problem at household is only (14.5%) (Gebrie Kassa, 2009). Effective communication is also important to get community in evolvement and support of further efforts will be made (Chaturvedi, 2006).

2.7.2. Local leaders Some researchers believe the selection of leader by democratic way is a means to ensure success of community participation in waste management. It is difficult to have community participation if the selection of local leader is not accepted by the community (Coad et al., 2005). Community leaders is essential in promoting community responsibility to contribute in the collection of waste by ensuring that communities paying a fee, to promote waste separation and supervise the performance of the services by local authorities (Chung and Poon, 2001). Effective leadership is a key element in determining whether an environmental group will be successful. Leadership responsibilities may be vested in a single individual or in a small core membership that work together closely (Coffey, 2009).

2.7.3. Empowerment/ Sense of ownership By giving the communities power to make their own decision, it invested interest in the project and create sense of ownership to participate (Ali and Snes, 2006). This empowerment also includes the process by which communities control of these factors and any decisions that will affect their lives (Agizaw, 2001). Empowerment is a boost to public participation because the parties involved in any game, everyone wants to play an important role in it. This allows the community to understand how little contributions from them can give effects of the overall effort. The use for discussion in planning, budgeting, job details and specification

19 of work needs to be done for clarification and enough time required to convince the community (Degnet Abebaw, 2003).

2.7.4. Private sector involvement It is undeniable that most of the waste related activities are given to municipality or the town health institutions (WHO, 2016). Waste generation, collection treatment and disposal leads to a serious problem of environmental pollution and human health too (Zhu, 2008). Private companies have been able to bringing the necessary finance and operating efficiencies that can help the municipalities to save money while achieving successful solid waste results (FDRE, Proclamation No. 513/2007). Moreover, including the private sectors in waste management, which is generated from any sources, also allow the establishment of performance standards that the involved private sectors are required to follow. This performance standard is defined in the contract that they may sign for the work (Wells, 1996).

2.7.5. Public awareness, cooperation and participation Public education or awareness of waste and its management is very essential to improve management system (CSA, 2010). Attitudes may be positively influenced through awareness building measure on the negative impacts of inadequate waste collection with regard to public health and environmental conditions, and the value of effective disposal (Green Environmental Consultant, 2010). Besides delivering required and related information to the public, it is also very crucial to recognized that waste management collection requires the participation of households, as generator, who involved in storage of the wastes in households, transferring wastes to communal containers, and the payment of the user fees (Degnet Abebaw, 2003).

2.8. Collaboration and Partnership between Community and Organization

Most of researchers agree that collaboration or partnership between community and organization is essential to participation success (Oteng, 2010). Community partnership has been gained; political leaders and local authorities may actively promote partnership with neighborhood communities (Nathan and Pragasen, 2012).

To develop partnerships, transpiration of all information and activities must be transparent because the community will be more open to participate in a transparent and honest deal (Tchobanoglous et al., Hilary and Samuel, 1993). Collaborative and social learning are strategies for engaging stakeholders and experts to work together for settlement of complicated issue by exploring options, collecting data and learning about potential solutions (Masood and Barlow, 2014).

2.8.1. Community Awareness Community based waste management participation of households in the new collection scheme is rising, especially after each round of awareness raising (Lliyas, 2008).The impact of awareness campaigns could definitely be improved if they succeeded in exploiting all the potential in a community, whether this means its social customs (scheduling meetings, taking local behavior into account for clean-up actions) or the added value of the grass-roots scale of action (Khan, 2011). The success of an awareness campaign also greatly depends on the role played by volunteers, on the level of training they have in waste management matters, and thus on recruitment strategies (Paode and Holsen, 1996). The emphasis on community responsibility and a role in maintaining hygiene and health may create awareness a mong the community. A local authority has to ensure the community will be provided with clear explanation. This has to explain clearly of their role and responsibility to the community, so that community is aware of limitation of local authority services and community can help the authorities to solve waste management problem (Ahsan et al., 2014).

2.8.2. Role of Women The role of women in the community is one of the factors for participation to success. Special attention should be paid to the role of women (Joarder, 2000). In many situations women are the first to be affected by a deterioration of the environment and are most willing to participate in projects that improve their living conditions (Jayarama, 2011). As residents and citizens, women play a determining role in the small scale activities, and they form important channels of communication thanks to their numerous opportunities to meet one another. Collective action does not always take account of female customs (Asase, 2003). The integration of women into management structures or awareness-raising activities for collection services neglects to take into account their domestic circumstances (Mahar, 2010).

2.8.3. Incentive

One of the important aspects must be considered to get success in participation is an incentive (Khan, 2011). Community participation can be achieve and can be successful with incentive by giving a reward to the effort exerted by the community and it is one of the initiative to encourage them to participate in any waste management activity (Adeel et al., 2012). In most of the places, people seemed to be unsure about the benefit sharing process for the services (Korai et al., 2014).

2.8.4. Information and Knowledge Opportunities to engage people in local environmental issues must provide understandable and meaningful information to get success in participation (Charlotte, 2012). People need information that makes sense and allows them to understand well for the current goal of the project and any possibilities (Piipo, 2013). The organization should ensure the information for the issues is well informed to the community if they become involved in the decision- making processes (Ogaw, 2000). Providing appropriate information in a forum requires that organizers understand what the audience knows and where it tends to become confused (Pokhrel and Viraraghavan, 2005). It also requires that credible experts are involved to present technical and complex information, as long as the presentations do not make participants feel stupid or helpless, but rather satisfy people’s need to learn, explore and be involved ( Hazra and Goel, 2009). In addition, the more technical or complex the issue, the less likely the public is to have sufficient background knowledge to be meaningfully engaged (Yongsheng, 2014).

2.9. Methods of solid waste collection Integrated Waste Management

Waste management methods (84%) cannot be uniform across regions and sectors because individual waste management methods cannot deal with all potential waste materials in a sustainable manner (Festum Haile, 2005). Conditions vary; therefore, procedures must also vary accordingly to ensure that these conditions can be successfully met. Waste management systems must remain flexible in light of changing economic, environmental and social conditions (Young, 2010). In most cases, waste management is carried out by a number of

22 processes, many of which are closely interrelated; therefore it is logical to design holistic waste management systems, rather than alternative and competing options (Zhuang, 2008). A well designed framework can help managers address waste management issues in a cost effective and timely manner. It can spur the improvements of existing plans or aid in the design of new ones (Joardar, 2000). Public collection

A system of collection in which individuals bring their waste directly to a central point from which it is collected. Households discharge their wastes at predetermined locations contains some form of communal storage facilities (6.8%) and (4.5%) refuse collection vehicles visit these sites at frequent intervals once or twice a week (Zurbrugg, 2014).

Block and Door-to-door collection

Are fuse vehicle travels at predetermined (86%) not route at prescribed intervals usually every two or three days. and stops at selected locations and takes out the container (2%) and sets it back after emptying the waste in to collection vehicle (UNEPA, 1995).

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Description of the Study Area Sheka zone is located in the Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Regional State South West Ethiopia. Sheka Zone covers about 2387.54km2 (MMPD, 2010). The administration center of Sheka Zone is located 676 km South West of Addis Ababa. Geographically the Zone lies between 7024’-7052’ N latitude and 35013’-35035’E longitude and consists of three districts, namely the Masha, Andracha and Yeki. The zone is bordered by Oromia Regional State to the North, Gambella Regional state to the west, Kaffa zone to the East and Banch Maji Zone to the South. There are different ethnic groups in the Sheka Zone including Shekacho, Sheko, Mejengir, Kafficho, Amhara, Oromo and Bench. The first three are indigenous peoples. The ethnic composition of Sheka Zone is Shekacho (34.7%), Kafficho (20.5%), Amhara (20.5%), Oromo (9.6%), Sheko (5%), Bench (4.8%) and Mejengir (2%). These people do have their own culture, language and life styles. Shekacho and Sheko were from Omotic and Mejengir from Nilotic language origins. This study focused on Masha Town, inhabited by three major ethnic groups namely Shekacho, Amhara and Oromo (CSA, 2010).

According to CSA (2012), Masha Town has the total population of 27,487 of which 12,925 are male and 14,562 are female with annual growth rate of 4.3%. Besides to natural increase, rural urban migration contributed to the high population growth rate of the Town. The climate of the Town is categorized under woinadega type of agro-climate zone. The total land area administered by the town administration comprises 16,311 hectares. It has two kebeles namely kebeles 01and 02. According to the urban local government proclamation no. 65/2003 of the South Nation Nationalities and Peoples Regional State, Masha Town at its current location has given fourth grade town.

MAP OF STUDY AREA MAP OF SHEKA ZONE

Figure 2. Map of the study Area

Soures: (MMPD, 2010)

Temperature

According to Southern Region Meteorological Service Agency, the mean annual minimum temperature of Masha Town is 16.19°C is recorded in summer (i.e. July), while the mean maximum temperature of Masha town is 19.47 °C is recorded in December.

C 0 15

Min 10

Max Temperature in

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Years

Figure 3. Annual mean minimum and maximum Temperature of Masha Town

Soures: (MMPD, 2016) Rain fall Masha Town is one of the parts of the southwest Ethiopia highlands which receive the highest amount of rainfall in Ethiopia. This is attributable to the presence of ever green forest (rich in bio-diversity) cover on top of the wind ward location to the moist rainy season wind. The mean annual minimum rainfall of the Woreda is 1444.2mm, while the mean maximum is 1557.8mm. The largest amount of rainfall occurs between May and September. The highest rainy months are May, June, July, and August while December, January, February and March are relatively drier months and October and November are transitional months (MMPD, 2010).

2000 1800 1600 1400

1200

1000 mm Min 800 Max 600 400 200 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Years

Figure 4. Annual mean minimum and maximum rainfall of the Masha Town

Soures: (MMPD, 2016) 3.2. Topography of Masha town The relief of the town is characterized by hills, plains, gorges and steep slopes. There are also mountains and marsh areas. In the town, territory topography and slope of the town is characterized by rigid terrain with an average altitude of 2240 meters above sea level. The altitude of the town increases as one move from west to the center. Similarly the altitude increases as one move east to the center of the town on the other hand it decreases from center to wards north. The highest point of the town is found in the center and the lowest point is found in the eastern part (MMPD, 2010).

Soil

Although detailed soil studies were not conducted in the study area, in general the major soil types are dystric Nitsol, Arcitic, Acrisal, chromic and public vertical, from which Dystric Nitosoil covers 40-60% as stated on Baro-Akobo drainage basin, but most of the soil type in this area consists of 60% Brown and about 40% Brown reddish (MMPD, 2010).

The Economy

The economy of the study area is based on commercial trade activities, service sector and agricultural activities. 55% of the population of the town engaged tertiary actives such trading and government workers while the 45% are in agriculture (MMPD, 2010).

Table 4. Economic conditions of the communities in the study area

No. Type of activities Quantity % share 1 Retailers shop 68 91.9 2 Whole sellers shop 1 1.35 3 Hotels 4 5.4 4 Cafes 1 1.35 Total 74 100

Sources: (MMPD, 2010).

3.3. Methods 3.3.1. Sampling Design

Masha Town was purposively selected for the assessment of solid waste management practices. The Town contains two kebeles. Following filed observation on solid waste composition and generation rate; a questionnaire was prepared to collect data to categorize households as per their income, gender, family size and educational level. Key informants were selected from each kebeles for formal interview. In the case of interview, primarily the households were selected based on random sampling method. Moreover, an interview was held with the head of the municipality due to his position for planning, leading and controlling the overall work of solid waste management and administration.

Based on questionnaire results, solid waste generation rate and its physical co mposition data was grouped into three categories income level, family size, and education level. Each categories was divided to their respective classes (income level: high and low, family size: large, and small, education level: Illiterate, grade 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, Certificate and above).

A sample size (n) of households who participated in the study was determined using the formula developed by (Pagoso et al., 1981) as follows:

Where, n = desired sample size N = Total number of households of the selected kebeles e = the level of statistical significance (error, 0.1)

According to the above formula 76 respondents were sampled. Following the sample size determination, random sampling technique was used to select the respondents from the total population of 310 household.

Table 5. Households sample selected methods in Masha town

No. Kebeles Total no of HHs in No. of sample HHs Percent (%) kebeles 1 Kebele 01 216 53 69.73% 2 Kebele 02 94 23 30.26% 3 Total 310 76 100

Source: (Survey data, 2017)

3.4. Data Collection Methods In this study, both primary and secondary data sources were used. Primary data was gathered using structured questionnaires, field measurements and observations. On the other hand, secondary data was obtained from different sources including published and unpublished materials from internet, library, and administrative offices reports.

3.4.1. Questionnaires Questionnaires were prepared in English but later translated in to Amharic to making it easier for respondents to collect data from households. Questionnaires (closed and open-ended) were designed carefully to obtain all the necessary information such as sex of householder,

29 family size, and family’s income, household waste handling system, disposal practices and impact of improper solid waste management of the town.

3.4.2. Field Observations and Measurement During this period field observation was employed to determine spatial distribution of households’ solid waste handling practices, solid waste collection, separation, and disposal site. At household level, measurement was carried out to examine households’ solid waste generation rate and physical composition and separation by distributing plastic bags to the selected households. Each household were given three plastic bags label with yellow color for non-biodegradable, pink color for hazardous, black color for biodegradable and label with different sacks by different colors for Glass, Metal, Plastic and other solid wastes. During each collection day, another plastic bags and sacks with the same label were given for the next day data collection and this process were continuing for 30 days consecutive days. Finally, components of the waste were separate in to major components, weighed and recorded. Daily Solid waste generation rates (DSWGR) of the town at household level were calculated as follow (Pagse et al., 1981).

DSWGR =

PCPDSWGR =

Based on the current population of Masha town the daily solid waste generation rate was calculated = PCPDSWGR * Total population of the town

Monthly solid waste generation rate of household = daily generation rate * 30 days

Annual solid waste generation rate of household = daily solid waste generation rate of household * 365 days.

3.4.3. Focus Group Discussion The researcher gathered information about the level of community participation and the impact of improper solid waste management to obtain qualitative data. The individuals in focus were selected from each of the surrounding kebeles. Therefore, four focus discussion groups were organized. The discussion issue was directed by predetermined set of questions which were prepared by the investigator. The number of participants in each group were determined by depending on the number of concerned with, local leaders, kebeles managers, municipal manager, municipal chief workers, health officers and chairpersons or representatives of Masha town in each representative group. The discussions were held with each group at different times per a weak with convenient for the participants of the group.

3.4.4. Secondary Data Collection Secondary data were obtained from journals, books, articles, national and international reports, newsletters and other useful materials on the internet and also published and unpublished materials.

3.5. Data Analysis and Presentation The statistical identification of the main sources of solid waste in the study area comparison among different categories and classes were analyzed using non parametric and multiple pairwise comparisons using Two-tailed and Microsoft Excel would be used to analyze the data from the household. The analyses were using statistical software (XLSTAT version 2015).

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. Background of the respondents

4.1.1. Response rate The Purpose of assessing response rate is to provide a measure of how successfully is the survey obtained from the sample. This study was conducted based on the determined sample sizes that were administered by questionnaires to the respondents and to officials. Seventy six questionnaires were distributed to respondents among which sixty seven responded where as nine did not. Therefore, it is possible to analyze, discuss, generalize and draw conclusion.

4.1.2. Household Heads by Gender Of the total 67 household respondents (61.2%) were females. The high response rate of females could be due to the fact that most of the time female stay and work inside their house rather than working outside. On the other hand, the response rate of males was (38.8%). Solid waste generation and composition showed that a great variation related with various socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the respondents.

4.1.3. Family size of the respondents Considering the family size of the respondents, the highest percentage of household size were between 5-8 with about (46.3%) and, about (33%), (15%), and (6%) of the respondents were in 1- 4, 9-10 and more than 10 family sizes, respectively. Moreover, the larger family size waste generation rate is higher than smaller family size household, but not significantly different. Table 6. Family size of the Respondents

Items Frequency Percent

1-4 22 33 5-8 31 46.3 9-10 10 15 >10 4 6 Total 67 100

4.1.4. Marital Status of Respondents The Marital status of the respondents indicated the largest proportion of married coupled with a higher HHs size account for the corresponding huge generation of solid waste compared to the lowest percentage of single and widowed; which had less number of families regarding solid waste generation.

Table 7. Marital Status of Respondents

No. Marital status Number of Percentage respondents 1 Single 6 9 2 Married 51 76 3 Widowed 10 15 4 Divorced - - Total 67 100.0

4.1.5. Educational back ground of the respondents The distribution of educational levels showed that there was varied understanding of waste management issues by respondents. The informants with high academic performance have a good opportunity to create awareness regarding integrated solid waste management by reading newspapers, through media and conferences. Those can read, write, and can understand the issue of ISWM more than those who do not have ability in reading and writing.

Table 8. Education level of the respondents

No. Educational Status Number of Percent Respondents 1 Illiterate 0 0 2 1-4 grade 1 1.5 3 5-8 grade 10 14.9 4 9-12 grade 12 17.9 5 Certificate 27 40.3 6 Diploma 10 14.9 7 Degree 5 7.46 8 Above first degree 2 3 Total 67 100.00

4.2. Solid Waste Generation Rate in the study area

The present study showed that the solid waste generation rate of Masha town at the household level is 2.55 kg/day, 76.5 kg/month and 930.75 kg/year. This finding is slightly higher than 2.27 kg/day reported by Seada Yasin (2011), around Yeki Town. On the other hand, the result was lower than that of Abyot Aserese (2014), 2.9 kg/day around Teppi Town. The per capita solid waste generation rate is 0.48 kg/cap/day. Based on the current population of Masha town the calculated daily, monthly and annual solid waste generation rates are 13193.7, 395812.8 and 4814496 respectively. Solid waste generated rate is directly related with the level of development and the number of people dwelling within the Town. Commercial and Residential areas are also a common solid waste generated zone in study area. The reason could be attributed to the fact that Municipal solid waste is produced as the result of economic productivity and increase in consumption pattern of the people. Therefore, the solid waste generation rate found in the site is possibly used as data for the municipality to determine the amount of waste disposed during a given period of time.

4.2.1. Relationship between waste generation and income level

According to Figure 5, the categorized household data analysis showed that higher income household waste generation rate is significantly higher than the lower income household. This finding agrees with Wells (1996), income level and solid waste generation rate have a direct relationship. Income level is the most important factor influencing the type and quantity of waste generation rate at household level.

Percentages 20

0 Low<1000 Mid.2000-4085 High above 4085 Income Levels

Figure 5. Income level of the household 4.2.2. Relationship between waste generation and Education level The household waste generation rate increase with education level increase. This might happen because when people acquire more education, they get better job with higher income that raise the income level of the household. This result was consistent with the finding Cointreau (2004), showed that income level is the most important factor influencing the type and quantity of waste generation rate at household level.

4.2.3. Relationship between waste generation rate and family size As the figure below revealed that, the household solid waste generation rate showed positive relationship with family size. When family size increases waste generation rate also increases. The main reason for this relationship might be the increase in household members’ leads to increase in resource consumption resulting increase in waste generation at their houses.

percntage 10

0 1-4 family 5-8 family 9-10 family >10 family Family size

Figure 6. Relationship between waste generation rate and family size

4.3. Solid waste composition in the study area The physical composition of the solid waste generated in Masha town is predominantly made up of organic (left over, food, fruit etc.) component (90%), followed by paper (2%), plastics (2%), hazardous (1%), other waste (textile, old shoes) (2%) glass (2%), and metal (1%). Thus higher proportion of solid waste in Masha town was biodegradable. Among the above organic solid waste types, agricultural wastes and animal residue is the highest. This result was consistent with the finding reported by Lemma Kebede (2009), (89.6%) around Adama Town. However, it is lower than the findings of Zebenay Kassa (2010), who documented an overall dominance of biodegradable solid wastes (94.4%) around Debremarkos Town. This variation mainly due to community participation improves the handling, separation, and storage as well as disposal practice of recyclable materials. The physical composition of solid

36 waste can be possibly used as baseline data for the municipality to determine types of vehicles needed for collection and transfer, requirements for final disposal, and resource recovery alternatives. Hazardous solid waste in the site is alarming. So, it should be properly managed.

Hazardous Others Glass Metal 1% 2% 2% 1% Plastic 2% Paper 2%

Organic 90%

Figure 7. Solid waste composition

4.4. Status of Existing Solid Waste Management’s practice in Masha Town Most of the solid wastes at the study area were not managed properly. This could be due to, lack of knowledge about how to handle or properly manage solid wastes at household level. 4.4.1. Solid waste handling in household level According to survey data more than (91.04 %) of the handling system is traditional method. The handling system is mostly managed by the women. Whereas, the male account only (9 %) of the responsibility of waste handling system at home. This result was consistent with

37 the finding reported by Festum Haile (2005), 87.9%. Moreover, integration of women waste handling, collection, disposal and transfer service in household level is more traditional.

4.4.2. Solid Waste Generated at HHs level About (89.6 %) of the respondents thought that, solid waste at household level was controlled by Bio-degradable wastes (that is like Animal & plant resides) and the remaining 10.4% non- biodegradable waste like plastic sheet, plastic bottle. This result was reliable with the finding reported by Arroyo (1998), 85.8% in Latin America.

4.4.3. Waste storage as problem at HHs level The finding of this study showed that, solid waste generated in households were stored in different containers. About (30 %), (10.4%), (7.5%) of the HHs respondents used sack, plastic bags and other containers as temporary storage at home respectively. However, (52.1%) of the respondent did not use any storage materials (that is dispose near at home open area, road and ditch).This shows that the public awareness about storage of solid wastes is still very low. This outcome was reliable with Fesseha Tefferi (2005), around in Addis Ababa.

Figure 8. Households illegally damping of solid waste in ditch near to home, road side and at open area

4.4.4. Solid waste separation

About (83.58 %) of the respondents did not sort waste before disposing at home. But, only (16.41 %) of respondents did separate store solid wastes before disposing, which are to use as fertilizer (8.95%) and about (7.46%) use as feeding animal. This result was consistent with Lemma Kebede (2007), around in selected kebeles of Adama. Waste sorting was not common practice at household level in the study area. This may be because of inadequate knowledge or awareness regarding the importance of solid waste sorting for recycling process and treatment of waste material in order to reduce the amount of wastes generated. Sorting is an essential component of solid waste management. It makes the process easy and simple. However, it should not be an overnight activity. Thus, awareness must be created about waste separation procedure at household level that helps to protect the environment. 4.4.5. Waste reuse As the respondents’ stated that there is practice of waste reuse in their home like paper (1.5%) and metallic waste (6%). This is because metal can be reused constantly and it can be recycled to other long lasting useful materials: used plastic and plastic materials (7.5%). But, (85.1%) of the respondents did not reuse any solid waste materials in their home. There are reports which agree with current findings Melaku Tegegn (2008), documented (84%) in Jimma Town.

Table 9. Type of SW materials re-used

No. Types of solid waste Percent

1 Paper 1.49 2 metallic materials 5.97 3 plastic and plastic materials 7.46 4 Total 14.92 5 Did not reuse any solid wastes 85.07 materials

4.4.6. Solid Waste Exchange About (89.6%) of the respondents had no knowledge on recycling solid waste generated at home. Whereas, (10.4 %) of the respondents had knowledge on recycling of waste generated. Households were recycling the waste in their home sellable to “Quraleos” and exchangeable with “Liwach”. According to respondents, the dominant types of such wastes include: metals (3 %), plastic materials (6 %), Glass, bottles, textile and old shoes (1.5 %), are exchangeable with “Liwach”. This outcome was dependable with the finding report of Kuma Tadesse (2004), around in Addis Ababa City.

Table 10. Solid waste Exchange

No. SW Types Percent

1 Metals 3 2 plastics materials 6

3 Glass, bottles, 1.5 textile& old shoes 4 Did not exchange any SW 89.6 material

4.4.7. Composting From the result of the study about (82.1%) of the households had no knowledge and experience on compost preparation from organic matters at home. Only (17.9 %) of the respondents knew solid waste serve as a compost. About (4.5%), (4.5%), (3%), and (6%) of respondents were used ash, plant residue, food waste, animal dung used for compost preparation in at home respectively. This result was reliable with the finding report of Gebre Amanuel (1994), in Addis Ababa city.

Table 11. Practice of composting wastes at household level

No. Types of SW Percent

1 Ash 4.5

2 food waste 3 3 Animal dung 6

4 Plant residues (e.g fruit, leaf and 4.5 grass). 5 Did not practiced 82.1

4.4.8. Door to door collection service for households According to survey data, solid waste collection service provides for household (13.4%) once in a month, (7.5%) two days in a month, (6%) three days in a month and (4.5%) four days in a month. But, about (69%) of respondents did not provide solid waste. None of the households have access to daily waste collection service delivered from municipality. The municipality has extremely low transportation and collection accesses of solid wastes by the container and disposal site. This deduction was dependable with the finding report of UNEPA (1995).

Figure 9. Solid waste collection and transportation in the study area

4.5. The Impact of Improper solid waste management in study the Area From the result of the findings, about (66 %) of the respondents had no awareness about the impact of improper solid waste management. 4.5.1. Health Impact According to table 12, the major health problems of the study area are due to open dumping of solid wastes near to home, road side and at open area. Upper respiratory tract infections were among the most common diseases with the prevalence of (27%) (320/1182), while Common cold was the least infections with the prevalence of (4.1%) (48/1182). The vector- born, water-born and air-born diseases such as, Cholera, Diarrhea, Amoeba, Giardiasis and other disease were commonly observed due to absence of effective waste management in the area. This result is comparable to Staniskis (2005), reported in Netherland. Table 12. Top ten diseases recorded in Masha health center in 2014

No. Name of ten top diseases No. of treated percentage patients 1 Upper respiratory tract infections 320 27.07 2 Pneumonia 168 14.21 3 Tapeworm 146 12.35 4 Helmentiasis 137 11.59 5 Diarrhea 103 8.71 6 Trachoma 82 6.94 7 Asccaries 66 5.58 8 Gastroenteritis 58 4.91 9 Abdominal disturbance 54 4.57 10 Common cold 48 4.10

4.5.2. Infrastructure damage The present studies showed that, about (80.6%) of the respondents were openly dumping solid waste along the road. It causes damage of road culverts in the area. This is resulted in difficulty of road usage for cars. Among the risk factors assessed in the present study, lack of adequate knowledge about openly thrown solid wastes blocked drainage channels which

42 create storm water. This result was consistent with the decision described by Yongsheng (2014), around Nairobi, Kenya.

Figure 10. Damaged roads by stagnant storm water in the area, particularly in summer seasons

4.5.3. Socio-Economic Impact As the table showed that poor and improper solid waste management problems were cause cost of health and road maintenance as well as reduces productivity of the community. Moreover, people do not want to carry their businesses in the polluted and disturbed area. This clue was reliable with the conclusion pronounced by WHO (2016).

Table 13. Cost for road maintenance and medication treatment

No. Items Percent

1 For vaccine 10.44

2 For treatment 44.77

3 For road maintenance 10.44

4 For other medication 34.32

4.5.4. Environmental Impact In the study area, generated solid wastes are simply dumped in an open field, along the road and river channels. The environmental aesthetics of the area is extremely depleted due to such activities practiced by the community. Solid wastes which are blowing by the wind cause disturbing the convenient environment. This indication was dependable with the conclusion noticeable by FDER (No.513, 2007).

Figure 11. Openly accumulated solid wastes with packing materials along the street and river banks

4.6. Level of Community Participation in Solid waste Management in the study Area The result of the finding showed that, there was no as such an organized framework to involve the community in municipal service delivery process such as solid waste collection and disposal services. Public participation is a key instrument to solve any environmental, health and socio-economic problems of the community. This suggestion was reliable with the finding report of Degnet Abebaw (2003), in Addis Ababa. Financial constraints, poor coordination among the community, lack of incentives, lack of awareness and poor implementation of the solid waste management and handling rules were the risk factors in the study site. This result was consistent with the finding reported by Khan (2011), in Pakistan.

Table 14. Status of community participation in solid waste management

No. Status of community Percentage

participation

1 Excellent 0

2 Very good 1.5 3 Good 6 4 Poor 92.6

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Conclusion Composition of the solid waste generated in Masha town is predominantly of organic component (90%), paper (2%), plastics (2%), hazardous (1%), other waste (2%) glass (2%), and metal (1%). Families earning more income per month have the tendency to generate a larger quantity of solid waste each day than lower income households. The household solid waste generation rate of Masha town is 2.6 kg/day, 76.5 kg/month and 931 kg/yea. Moreover, large family size have higher waste generation rate than smaller family size households. Currently, in the study area at the household level separation of waste generation rate into reusable and non-reusable for waste minimization was not a common practice.

Many human diseases are directly or indirectly related to the sanitation problem that arises from improper management of solid waste. Improper management of solid waste in the site threatens a number of risks to the environment and the public health. The street roads were damaged due to long open dumping of solid waste and closed drainage channels .Such phenomena hindered free mo vement of the people. More or less seventeen types of diseases seen in the area are related to improper solid waste management. Effective management of solid waste reduces public health risk and increase the aesthetical value of our environment.

People in study area are not in a position of participating in Municipal Service and Delivery awareness of residents are also low that aggravates more problems. The residents also raised many factors that hinder their participation in such activities. Therefore, great effort needs to create public awareness and the participation of the community in urban service provision and solid waste management of the Town. Environmental rules, regulations and policies in relation to solid waste management were inefficient in implementation.

5.2. Recommendations The following recommendations were forwarded because of the gaps on our findings and conclusions.

 Integrated solid waste management system which combines a range of solid waste treatment options like source reduction, composting, recycling and waste to energy transformation were needed.  Effective planning and implementation of community-based solid waste management system is essential to support the local community about the disposal mechanisms.  Handling and separation practices at households’ level should be improved through awareness creation.  Encouraging the Youth Associations that are participating in solid waste collection and transportation.  Purchasing Dust bin containers and place them in major sources such as market place, hotels, chat exchange place.  The government should encourage Micro enterprises that involve in solid waste collection from premises and create proper integration with them to avoid the current problems encountered in the city due to Private Sector Collection System.  Organizational arrangements should be improved by Strengthening illegal solid waste dumping and enable the agency that is Sanitation, Beautification and Park Agency to have better integration in order to current information.  Finally, the government and other stakeholders should enable the community to improve the handling, separation, and storage and disposal practice of recyclable materials.

REFERENCES Abyot Aserse (2014). Environmental Management of Urban Solid Waste in Teppi Town, Mizan Teppi University (un published) South Weste Ethiopian. Achankeng, E. (2003). Globalization, “Urbanization and Municipal Solid waste Management in Africa”, African Studies Association of Australasia and Pacific, Conference Proceedings African on a Global Stage. Adeel A., Zeeshan A. and Siddiqui M. (2012). Issues with solid waste management in South Asian countries, a situational analysis of Pakistan, Journal of Environmental occupation. 1(2):129 – 131. Agizew Nigussie (2001). Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution: Journal of Model Development Application Stockholm. 1(2):3-9. Ahsan A., Alamgir M., El-Sergany M., Shams S., Rowshon M. and Nikdaud N. (2014). Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Management System in Developing Countries. Ali and Snes (2006). The journal entitled “Community based Creativities in waste” Wageningen University, Netherlands. 2(1):4-6. Arold, H. and Koring, C. (2008). Analysis of Waste Disposal System in Europe. Arroyo, J., Rivas, F. and Lardinois, I. (1998). Solid Waste Management in Latin America: The Case of Small and Micro enterprises and Cooperatives, Minimum Requirements or Waste Disposal by Landfill, 2nd edition, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Asase, M.Y. (2003). Comparison of Municipal Solid Waste Management Systems in Canada and Ghana: A case study of the cities of London, and Kumasi, Akera.Waste Management. pp. 2779-2786. Awetash Atsbaha (2003). The Impact of Quarry Production on the Environment and Human Settlement (The case of Bole-Cotebe District). ECS, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia. Ayotamuno, J. Gobo, A. (2004). Municipal Solid Waste Management in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Barr, S. (2004). Sustainable Household waste management in UK. Sustainable Development. Central Statistical Authority (2010). Household consumption and expenditure survey. Statistical Bulletin (No. 563). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Central Statistical Authority (2012). Agricultural sample enumeration reporton livestock and farm in implement IV, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp. 26-136.

Chaturvedi, B. (2006). ‘Privatization of solid waste collection and transportation in Delhi: The Impact on the informal recycling sector’, paper prepared as partial fulfillment of course On Urban Issues in Developing Countries, School for Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Washington DC. Charlotte, A. (2012). A Guide to the Green Revolution: Proper Waste Management. Printed in the USA. Charlotte, W. (2009). Outgoing waste management. Minneapolis Publications Company Washington DC. Cheremisinoff, N. (2003). Solid waste management and waste minimization technologies. Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann. pp. 466- 477. Chertow, M. (1998). The Eco-industrial park model reconsidered. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 2(3): 8-10 Chertow, M. (2007). "Uncovering" industrial symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 11 (1): 11-30. Chung, S. & Poon (2001). Accounting for the Shortage of solid waste disposal facilities in Southern China. Coad, A. (2005). Private Sector Involvement in Waste Management: Avoiding Problems and Building on Successes, CWG publication series no 2, Collaborative Working Group on Solid Waste Management in Low and Middle Income Countries, St. Gallen, Switzerland. Coffey, M. (2009). Collection of Municipal Solid Waste in Developing Countries, 2nd edition, UN-Habitat, Nairobi, Kenya. Cointreau, S., Gopalan, P., Coad, A., (2000). Private Sector Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Management: Guidance Pack (5Volumes). SKAT, St. Gallen, Switzerland. Contireau, L. (2004). Private Sector Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Services in Developing Countries, Washington DC. Degnet Abebaw (2003). Determinants of Solid Waste Disposal Practices in Urban Areas of Ethiopia: A Household level Analysis Project, Ethiopian Economic Association/ Economic Policy Research Institute. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Dereje Tadesse (2001). Financial Urban Infrastructure and Services in Ethiopia: The Case of Adama Town, Ethiopia.

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE) “Solid Waste Management Proclamation,” Federal Negarit Gazeta of the FDRE, Proclamation No. 513/2007. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Fesseha Tefferi (2007). Solid waste management status report unpublished. Addis Ababa Environmental Authority. Festum Haile (2005). Sold waste management study existing situation of waste management in urban areas of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Gabre Amanuel Teka (1994). Human Waste Disposal in Ethiopia. United printer Private Limited Corporation Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Gebrie Kassa (2009). Management of Domestic Solid Waste in Bahir dar Town: Analysis and Assessment of Solid Waste Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Gilbert Alan (1913). “Third World Cities: The Changing National Settlement System.” Urban Studies. Graedel, T. and Allenby, B. (2010). Upper Saddle River. Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Engineering. 3(5): 2-6. Green Environmental Consultant (2010). “Implementing market-based municipal solid waste management study in Adama”. In collaboration With FDRE Ministry of Urban works and Plan development and Adama City administration, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Guerrero, L. and Hogland, W. (2013). Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. pp. 234-256. Hazra, T. and Goel, S. (2009). Solid waste management practices and challenges in Kolkata, India. Lliyas M. (2008). Public Health and Community Medicine, 7th edition, Karachi. pp. 261 – 273. Jayarama, R. (2011). Municipal solid waste management. India: Boca Raton, FL: CRC press. Joardar, D. (2000). Urban Residential Solid Waste Management in India. Issues Related to Institutional Arrangements Public Works Management and Policy. Khan, A. (2011). The Feasibility of Waste to Energy Recovery technologies at Lahore, Pakistan, Master Thesis. Korai, M., Mahar, R. and Uqaili, M. (2014). Assessment of power generation potential from municipal solid wastes: a case study of Hyderabad city, Sindh, Pakistan, Environ. Chem. pp. 18 – 27.

Krause, M. and Townsend, T. (2014). Rapid Waste Composition Studies for the Solid Waste Assessment Systems in Developing Countries 1(6): 4-8. Kuma Tadesse (2004). Dry Waste Management in Addis Ababa city. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia. Landreth, R. and Rebers, P. (1993). Municipal Solid Waste Problems and Solutions .New York. Lemma Kebede (2007). “Household Solid Waste Generation Rate and Composition Analys two Selected Kebeles of Adama Town” MSc. Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. Mahar, R. (2010). Current Status of Municipal solid waste management; Integrated Sustainable solid waste management in Asia. European Commission funded Coordination and Support Actions”, Beijing, P.R.China. Masha Master Plan document unpublished (2010). Masha Master Plan document unpublished (2016). Masood, M. and Barlow, C. (2014). Status of solid waste management practices in developing countries, a case study at Lahore, Pakistan, waste management. pp. 838 – 839. Melaku Tegegn (2008). Household Solid Waste Generation Rate and Physical Composition Analysis, in Jimma Town, Ethiopia. Memon, M. (2010). Integrated solid waste management based on the material cycles and waste management. Nairobi, Kenya. Mugambwa, E. (2009).“Sanitation: “The hygienic means of promoting health” Indian Journal of Public Health. 2(1): 6-11. National Environment Management Authority (2005). State of the Environment Report for Uganda 2004/2005. Kampala, National Environment Management Authority. National Environmental Management Authority (2007). Environment Report for Uganda 2006/2007. Kampala, National Environment Management Authority. Nathan, C. and Pragasen, P. (2012). Biogas prediction and design of a food waste to energy system for the urban environment. pp. 200 – 209. Ogaw, H. (2000). Sustainable Solid Waste Management accessed http:// www org/vem/waste/SWM to gawa /htm. Oteng, M. (2010). Private sector involvement in solid waste management in the Greater Accra metropolitan area in Ghana.

Pagos, Cristobel M., George, G. and Cynthia G.L (1981), Fundamental Statistics for College Students, 3rd Edition, Sinagtala Publishers, Inc. pp. 230-241. Piipo, S. (2013). Municipal Solid Waste Management in Finland. Finland Green settles publications. Paode, R. and Holsen, T. (1996). Modeling the energy content of municipal solid waste using multiple regression analysis, Journal of the Air and Waste Managt Association. 2(1): 65- 69. Pokhrel, D. and Viraraghavan, T. (2005). Municipal solid waste management practices and challenges in Nepal. Rush, B. (1999). Solid Waste Landfills in middle and lower Income Countries, Technical Guide, World Bank. Saadullah, A. (2013). Sustainable Solid Waste Management for Secondary Cities and Small Towns, International Union for Conservation Nature (IUCN), USA. Scheinberg, A. (2010). Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities. UN-Habitat’s. Third Global Water Sanitation in the World’s Cities. Earthscan, London. Scheinberg, A. (2011). “Value added: modes of sustainable recycling in the Modernization of waste management systems”. PhD. Wageningen University, Netherlands. Seada Yasin (2011). Private Sector Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Services in Yeki Town, Southern Ethiopia Jimma University, Ethiopian. Simoes, N. (2012). Marques the performance of private partners in the waste sector. pp. 214- 221. Staniskis (2005).Integrated Waste Management: Environmental research engineering and management of Netherlands. 3(5): 40-46. Suttibak.S.and Nitivattananon (2008). Resources, Conservation and Recycling Assessment of factors influencing the performance of solid waste recycling programs. Tchobanoglous, G. (1993). Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management issues. McGraw-HillInc., New York. Tchobanoglous, G., Hilary. T. and Samuel. V. (1993). Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA. Tchobanoglous, G., Karagiannidi. A., Leverenz, H., Cadji. M. & Antonopoulos, S. sofocles.I, (2002). Sustainable waste management at special events using reusable dishware: The

example of whole earth festival at the University of California, Davis. Fresenius. Environmental Bulletin. pp: 206-246. Tchobanoglous, G. and Kreith F. (2000). Hand book of Solid Waste Management, McGraw- Hill, New York, and USA.CEST2015_00321. Tsai, T.H. (2007). The Impact of Social Capital on Regional Waste Recycling Sustainable Development. Nairobi, Kenya. UNCHS, (1995). Private Sector Participation in Municipal Solid waste Services in Developing Countries, Washington DC. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1995). Municipal Solid Waste Source Reduction: A Snapshot of State Initiatives, Washington DC, Solid Waste and Emergency Response. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1998). Municipal Solid Waste Source Reduction: Snapshot of State Initiatives, Washington DC, Solid Waste and Emergency Response. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002). Safer Disposal for Solid Waste: The Federal Regulations for Landfills, Washing to DC, Solid Waste and Emergency Response. United Nation Environmental Protection (2009). “Integrated Waste Management Score on a board; a tool to Measure Performancein Municipal Solid Waste Management”. Nairobi, Kenya. Unnisa, S. & Rav, S. (2013). Sustainable solid waste management. Toronto Academic press. pp: 56-60. Wells, D. (1996). “Environmental Policy: Abnormal Perspective to the Twenty F irst Century.” New Jersey, USA. World Halth Orgnazation (1996). Guides for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Pacific countries.Health Cites, Health Islands Document Series.No.6.World Health Organization and Western Pacific Region. World Halth Orgnazation (2006). Regional Guidelines on Integrated Solid Waste Management. Prepared by an International Consortium of Expert Consultants. World Halth Orgnazation (2016). Environmental Protection Agency Solid Waste and ergency Response.

Wilson, D. (2007). Development drivers for waste management.JournalofWasteManagement and, Research Washington DC.2 (3) 19-27. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET) (2014). International Journal of Environmental, Chemical, Ecological, Geological and Geophysical Engineering 8(9): 660- 676. Yongsheng, Z. (2014). Municipal solid waste management challenges in developing countries Kenyan case study. Young, N, (2010). Zero waste environment in Taiwan. Waste management & research: the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association. 2(3): 4-9. Zebenay Kassa (2010). The Challenges of Solid in Urban Areas, the Case of Debremarkos Town.M.sc.thesis, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. Zeleke Zewde (2005). SWM in A.A: Problems, Prospects and Strategic Actions. A study intended to contribute to Efforts for Making Radical Change on the overall Urban Management Improvement. Zhu, D. (2008). “Improving Solid Waste Management in India: A Source book for Policy Makers and Practitioners”, The World Bank, Washington DC. Zhuang, S. (2008). Source separation of household waste: a case study in China. Waste Management. pp. 2022-2030. Zurbrug, C. (2003). Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries. Retrieved from http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/sandec/publikationensswm/downloads swm/basicsofSWM.pdf. Zurbrug, C. and Vaccari. M, (2014). Assessment methods of solid waste management in developing countries.Chungkong, China.

APPENDICES I- Personal details

Age a) 18- b) 26-

d. any Educational qualification under grade 4- under grade 10- B.A and above Annex 1 1. How can you evaluate the solid waste management system of the municipality? A. Very good B. Fair C. very poor 2. Where you throw your solid wastes? A. Everywhere B. Basket C. Secondary storage (Ganda) 3, Are you participated in solid waste management system of the municipality? A. Yes B.NO 4. If your answer is yes in what ways? A Fiancé B.Labor C.material D. any other. 5. If your answer is no, what do you think the factors affecting community? A.lack of municipal capacity B .lack of awareness c lack of rule and regulation 6. How solid waste is transported to disposal site? A.in vehicle B.animal C. human D. any other 7. What are the types of solid waste handling practices in the town? A. Fertilizer sack B.plastic /festal C. dust bin D.othes 8 In what ways solid waste is disposed? A. Open dump B. inclination (burning) C. River D. Sanitary fill 9. What would be the main sources of solid waste releasing into the town? A.residential B. commercial C. institutions D.mixed solid waste 10. What is the status of solid waste management practice in Masha town? A. Very good B.fair C. very poor

Annex 2

Questioners for head of municipality and departments of Urban Beatification and Sanitation of the municipality. I- Personal detail Sex ------Age ------Educational qualification ------Years of duration in municipality ------1. Does the municipality have annual plans for solid waste management? 2. Is there localized polices, guideline, strategies and rules related to solid waste management? 3. What would be the main sources of solid waste releasing into the study area? 4. In what methods solid waste is collected? 5. What are the major challenges that affect management practices of solid wastes? 6. How solid wastes are transported to disposal site? 7. Is there any association engaged in solid waste collection in the town? 8. Is there any hazardous waste in your area? If so mentioned------9. What are solid waste storage system do the town use inside the plot/house yard? 10. What are solid waste disposal system do the town use? 11. What do you suggest to solve the problem of improper solid waste management in the town? 12. What is the physical composition and separation of solid wastes generated at household level? 13. What is the rate of household solid waste generation at household level in Masha town? 14. What is the rate of the monthly and yearly solid waste generation rate in Masha town? 15. What is the status of solid waste management practice in Masha town? 16. At what level is the community participation to manage the solid waste generation into the town?

Annex 3

Questioners for head of Masha Health Center. I- Personal detail Sex ------Age ------Educational qualification ------Years of duration in the Health Center ------1. How do you create awareness of community about the solid waste problem? 2. What is the common health problems observed in the kebeles? 3. What are the dominant diseases and what steps are you taking to reduce the diseases? 4. What are the top ten diseases identified in your health center and give the list of it? 5. Are there diseases associated with solid waste problem with in this top ten leading diseases in your health center? 6. What are solid waste management systems in the kebeles looks like? 7. What are the systems used to dispose solid waste in the kebeles to prevent solid waste related diseases? 8. How strong is the relationship between the municipality solid waste management section and your office? 9. How do you create awareness of the community about the solid waste problems? 10. What possible solutions you to suggest improving the quality of health service in the kebeles? 11. What is the physical composition and separation of solid wastes generated at household level? 12. What is the rate of household solid waste generation at household level in Masha town? 13. What is the rate of the monthly and yearly solid waste generation rate in Masha town? 14. What is the status of solid waste management practice in Masha town? 15. What are the impacts of improper solid waste management of the town? 16. At what level is the community participation to manage the solid waste generation into the town? 17. Please suggest other ideas that you think important for study?