Assessment of Solid Waste Disposal Practice Among Neighbourhood in Enugu Urban

ASSESSMENT OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICE AMONG NEIGHBOURHOOD IN ENUGU URBAN

EKE FAITH UKAMAKA PG/M.Sc/08/47603

CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA ENUGU CAMPUS

MARCH, 2015

TITLE PAGE

ASSESSMENT OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICE AMONG NEIGHBOURHOOD IN ENUGU URBAN

EKE FAITH UKAMAKA PG/M.Sc/08/47603

A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF SCIENCE (M.Sc.) DEGREE IN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL

CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA ENUGU CAMPUS

SUPERVISOR: PROF. C.N MADU

MARCH, 2015

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that Eke Ukamaka with Registration Number PG/MSc./08/47603 was a Postgraduate student of the Department of Center for Environmental Management and Control, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus. She has satisfactorily completed the requirements of the course for the award of Master of Science (M.Sc)Degreein Center for Environmental Management and Control. This project embodies an original work and has not to the best of our knowledge been submitted in part or whole for the award of any other degree in this or to any other University.

______Eke, Faith Ukamaka Date (Researcher)

______Prof C.N. Madu Date (Supervisor)

______Prof C.N. Madu Date Director CEMAC

APPROVAL PAGE

This project was red and approved by the Department of Center for Environmental Management and Control, University of Nigeria Enugu Campus.

______EkeFaith Ukamaka Date (Researcher)

______Prof C.N. Madu Date (Supervisor)

______Prof C.N. Madu Director CEMAC Date

DEDICATION

This research project was dedicated to God Almighty, who is the source of inspiration and knowledge

ACKNOWLEDGMENT I am very grateful to the God Almighty for His infinite mercies, grace and knowledge giving to me to carry out this work. I am grateful to my project supervisor, Prof C.N. Madu, Dr. H.Eze, Ogbuene Emeka, Livinus Eze who devoted their time diligently guiding me in my project through constructive criticism without which the successful completion of the project would not have been possible. My appreciation also extends to lecturers and other academic staff members of the Department of Center for Environmental Management and Control for making this work see the light of the day. I will never forget the contributions of my family for their encouragement, prayer,moral and financial support that saw me through in this project. I also express my sincere appreciation to my typist for job well done and other well-wishers and to all my classmates for their encouragement and support to me during my study. May God bless you all.

ABSTRACT One of the major problems confronting Enugu urban today is poor solid waste disposal practice. In spite of the efforts made by the government to address the problem, there has been no remarkable solution. This study centered on the assessment of solid waste disposal practice among neighbourhood in the study area. The aim of this study was designed to (1) Examine the methods of solid waste disposal and management practice among neighbourhood. (2) To investigate the frequency of solid waste collection by the Authority responsible for it. (3) To determine the number of solid waste dumpsters in the study area. (4) To find out problems of solid waste disposal practice among neighbourhood. In order to effectively carryout the project, four research questions and four hypothesis were postulated. Primary and secondary data were collected to give substance to the work. Again, sample size of 400 households in six neighbourhoods was used while stratified random sampling techniques were used in administering questionnaires to the neighborhoods. The distribution sample was obtained by using the Yamani’s formular of 5% allowable error. Data collected were presented inform of tables. Hypothesis one to four was tested by using ANOVA. The research findings revealed that solid waste disposal and management practice differs among neighborhood to another p = 0.000 which is less than critical value of 0.01. Hence, the result show a significant difference of solid waste disposal method and management practice among the neighbourhood of the study area. The difference of solid waste collection by the Authority responsible differs among different neighbourhood of the study area p = 0.000 is less than critical value 0.01. Hence, the result showed a significant difference in the frequency of solid waste collection by Authority responsible among different study locations. Number of solid waste dumpsters among neigbhourhood in the study areas were significantly different p =0.00; Hence, the result p = 0.000 in this study is less than critical value 0.01. the problems of solid waste disposal practice differ among neighbourhood were significantly different p 0.000; Hence, result in this study is less than critical value 0.01. Based on the findings, the following recommendations were made to improve on solid waste disposal practice among neighbourhood in Enugu urban. (1) The authority should provide more dumpsters that will meet the volume of solid waste being generated by neighbourhood. (2) Creating awareness and enlightenment to individuals in each neighbourhood on the right methods of solid waste disposal. (3)The authority should dispose solid waste at least twice a week in every part of Enugu urban, and also efforts should made to recycle some of these waste products.

Table of Contents

Title page i Certification ii Approval page iii Dedication iv Acknowledgment v Abstract vi Table of contents vii List of tables x List of figures xi Appendices xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the study 1 1.2 Statement of research problem 3 1.3 Aim and objectives of the study 4 1.4 Research questions 4 1.5 Hypothesis 5 1.6 Scope of the study 5 1.7 Limitation of the study 5 1.8 Definition of terms 5 CHAPTER TWO: CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Concept of solid waste treatment hierarchy. 7 2.2 Conventional metropolitan solid waste management 10

CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW 3.1 Reviews on municipal solid waste management 13 3.2 An assessment of ground water quality and characterization of leachates and impact on landfills leacheates 24 3.3 Literature review on health implications of urban solid waste disposal 30 3.4 Literature research gaps 31

CHAPTER FOUR: THE STUDY AREA 4.1 Historical background 32 4.2 Geographical location 33 4.3 Physical features 38

CHAPTER FIVE: METHOD AND PROCEDURES 5.1 Types and sources of data 41 5.2 Sampling population / Sample size 42 5.3 survey and methods of data collection 46

5.4 Description of the statistics used for analysis and validation of the research 64

CHAPTER SIX: DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 9

6.1 Data presentation 51 6.2 Test of Hypothesis 80 6.3 Summary of research findings 84 CHAPTER SEVEN: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 7.1 Recommendations 88 7.2 Conclusions 88 References 90 Appendices 98

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 5.1 Population of the selected neighbourhoods 43 5.2 The percentage ratio of sample size of 400 distributed 44 Questionnaires in each of the six neighbourhoods 44 6.1: Questionnaire return rates from respondents in the sample neighbourhoods 51 6.2 Sex of respondents 52 6.3 Marital status of respondents 52 6.4 Age of respondents 53 6.5 Family size 54 6.6 Length of stay in the neighbourhood 55 6.7 Educational attainment of respondents 56 6.8 Occupation of respondents 57 6.9 Religion background of respondents 57 6.10 Monthly income distribution of respondents 58 6.11 Types of solid waste disposal method used by the respondents 59 6.12 The Rate at which authority evaluate off solid waste in the Neighborhoods 62 6.13 Number of solid waste dumpster 65 6.14 Organs that collects solid waste in the neighbourhoods 68 6.15 ANOVA of difference in solid waste disposal method and

management Practice 81 6.16 ANOVA of difference in frequency of solid waste collection in the study area 82 6.17 ANOVA of difference in number of dumpster 83 6.18 ANOVA of problems of solid waste disposal 83 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 2.1 Waste Treatment Hierarchy 9 2.2 Conventional metropolitan solid waste management 12 3.1 Map of Nigeria Showing Enugu State 34 3.2 Map of Enugu showing area of coverage 35 3.3 Map of Enugu North 36 3.4 Map of Enugu South 37 3.5 Map of Enugu East 38 10

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page 1. Marthus exponential formula 98 2. Data analysis 99 3. Questionnaire 103

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.0 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Solid waste disposal and management is a disturbing issue in most developing countries like Nigeria. Solid waste disposal is a disturbing issue in most developing countries like Nigeria. The alarming rate of domestic waste generation exploding population and increasing urbanization outweighs the approaches adopted by government on solid waste disposal. (Adejobi and Oloruninbe 2014). The poor disposal of solid waste is one of the major causes of bad quality environment in many cities and towns in Africa today. In recent time, urban centres in Africa have shown that the problem of solid waste management has become a major concern for authorities, state and federal government, environmentalist, planners and other related professionals alike (YUSUF and Chukwuemeka 2015).

Enugu Urban is presently facing poor environmental quality due to ineffective disposal of solid waste. the rate of solid waste generation is so high that it has outpaced the rate of collection transportation and disposal by the authority responsible for it. The large volume of solid waste in the city is attributed to the increase in urban neighbourhoods. Some neighborhoods of the city dump solid waste indiscriminately on roads, drainage system on the streets, in market place, churches and in open areas. Many parts of the city and environs are now characterized by unsightly mountains of refuse dumps. Household refuse and solid waste are used to block water channels, resulting to flooding. In Abakapa, the issue of refuse is a disturbing nuisance. Large amount of solid waste is being generated daily with little or no effort made by the Waste Management Authority to dispose of it. Some of the roads in the area have been partially covered by solid waste, since adequate space is not provided for refuse dump for the neighbourhoods (Longe 2015).

Solid waste disposal remains a continuous issue with no end in sight in Enugu urban. Refuse are thrown on roadways and road media particularly during environmental sanitation exercise, thus compounding the flood problem during the rainy season. It becomes so bad that a pragmatist approach was adopted requiring residents to spend the last Saturday morning of each month to clean their environment. However, 12 evidence shows that the problem of solid waste disposal and management in Enugu urban continues to worsen despite the monthly environmental sanitation exercise (Onwuka and Ugwu 2012)

The State Government, through Enugu Waste Management Authority (ESWAMA) took the sole responsibility of solid waste collection and disposal. However, from 2004 to 2006, the government had a partnership with a private sector for solid waste collection, transportation and disposal. This sector made a lot of effort to solve solid waste management problems in the state. They equally adopted house to house method of solid waste collection, and the residents paid the service charge. It was until 2007 that the state government decided to take full responsibility of solid waste management Authority (ESWAMA) During this period, monthly environmental Sanitation exercise was observed in the Urban area. Urban residents organizations, companies and commercial centers paid for the services being rendered by the Authority. Despite these efforts by the state governments, solid waste collection, transportation and disposal system in the city has not improved significantly. The problem has remained difficult to solve (Emeribe and Banole 2013).

Solid waste stands out as a serious hazard in Enugu urban, particularly neighborhood solid waste (Senkwe and Nwale 2001). They are wastes from human, animal and economic activities in the neighbourhood. These wastes could be solid organic substances that are biodegradable e.g. cash crops, peels, grasses and vegetables and in-organic substances that are non-degradable e.g. plastic, bottles and metals. The generation and disposal of solid waste practice by neighbourhood have become an increasing problem in urban areas due to increasing population density, urbanization, industrialization, the inefficiency of waste collecting systems

Solid waste disposal has become a problem experienced by all countries in the world. It is an issue mostly witnessed in urban areas as a result of high surge in population growth rate and increase in per capital income thus posing a danger to environmental quality and human health (Javaheri, 2006). Due to its nature, it has remained one of the major environmental problems man continues to face. Solid waste disposal in an unwholesome manner constitutes a major urban environmental paralysis, a clog in the wheel of progress in terms of urban environmental purity and sanitation (Slue, 2009). 13

Solid waste disposal practice among households has become a serious problem in Nigerian cities. In Enugu, for instance it is not unusual to see heaps of garbage in the major cities littering the streets, dump in drains, vacant plots, and water bodies, and this has in many cases resulted in spread of communicable diseases. The situation appears to continue unabated due largely to the factors of urbanization, population growth, improved life style and insufficient funds to properly manage solid waste.

This study therefore aims at assessing the solid waste disposal practice among household in Enugu urban with a view to prescribing the most effective and efficient method of its management

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

The problem of solid waste disposal practice is becoming more worrisome in Enugu Urban. Domestic and municipal solid waste is commonly found on the roads, and in the major streets of the Urban area. The waste is left in piles for weeks, which creates unsanitary scenes that smell bad and, worst of all, create diseases such as typhoid fever, diarrhea, cholera and malaria. Solid wastes generated in Enugu Urban are most often disposed of in open dumps gutters and at the back of houses by residents that generate them. (Stirrup 2011).

The problem is further complicated by the rapid group in population and urbanization, which has influence an increase in the volume of waste being generated and also on solid waste disposal services. (Zerbock, 2013)

The State Government, in order to provide solution to the problem, engaged the services of private sector between 2004 to 2006. However, from 2007, the government took the sole responsibility of disposal of solid waste through her agency known as Enugu State Waste Management Authority (ESWAMA). The Authority has developed different strategies to solve the problem, but to no avail. The Authority is empowered to prosecute defaulters of sanitation laws while providing solid waste management facilities such as bags, vehicles, etc.

The study, therefore, intends to solve the problem by determining which disposal practice or strategy is more result oriented. The outcome of this study is capable of enhancing policy towards adequate solid waste disposal practice among 14 neighbourhoods in Enugu Urban. The body in charge has mandate to check the illegal dumping of refuse at roadsides, enclosures, streams in neighbourhoods and drains. The agency is empowered to prosecute defaulters of sanitation laws while providing waste management facilities such as ESWAMA bags, vehicles

Hence, the study intends to solve the problem by determining which of the strategy is more result oriented. The outcome of this study is capable of enhancing policy towards adequate solid waste disposal practice among neighbourhoods in Enugu urban

1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The aim of this study is to assess the solid waste disposal practice among neighbourhoods in Enugu urban. In other to achieve this aim, the specific objectives are to: 1. Examine the methods of solid waste disposal and management practice among neighbourhood in Enugu urban. 2. Investigate the frequency of solid waste collection by the authority responsible for it 3. Determine the number of solid waste dumpsters in Enugu urban 4. Find out problems of solid waste disposal practiced among neighbourhoods in Enugu urban

1. 4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Based on the solid waste disposal practice among neighbourhood in Enugu urban, the following constitute the research question of the study. 1. What are the methods of solid waste disposal and management practice among neighbourhood in Enugu urban? 2. What are the frequency of solid waste collection by the authority responsible for it? 3. What is the number of solid waste dumpsters in Enugu urban? 4. What are the problems of solid waste disposal practice among neighbourhood in Enugu urban?

1.5. HYPOTHESIS In accordance with the research objectives, the following hypothesis were postulated for testing this study. Ho : There is no significant difference among solid waste disposal methods and management practice among neighbourhood in Enugu urban. Ho : There is no significant difference in frequency of solid waste collection by the authority responsible for it Ho : There is no significant difference in the number of dumpster among neighbourhood in Enugu urban. Ho : The problems of solid waste disposal practice do not differ significantly among neighbourhood in Enugu urban.

1.6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY The study is on assessment of the solid waste disposal practice among households in Enugu urban. Also the study particularly concentrates on solid waste (refuse) disposal and did not involve liquid or gaseous waste in Enugu urban. The study will not involve the chemistry of waste treatment, recycling nor any other ways of waste management. The study concentrated on six neighbourhoods in Enugu urban in other to represent the high, medium and low income earner. The neighbourhoods include GRA, Trans Ekulu, Achara Layout, New layout, New Haven and Abakpa.

1.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The following limitations were encountered on the course of carrying out this research. Uncooperative attitude of some of the respondents made them refuse bluntly to be interviewed while others returned their questionnaire blank. It may be that they thought their responses would implicate them. Also, there is lack of some vital information from the waste management authorities.

1.8 DEFINITION OF TERMS

Waste: They are substances or objects discarded as worthless or unwanted defective and of further value to the user and should be disposed.

Solid waste: Is unwanted, or any discarded materials arising from human’s activities and which are not free flowing. 16

Waste Management: Is defined as that discipline associated with the control of generation, storage, collection, transfer, transportation, processing and disposal of solid or gaseous waste in a manner that is in accordance with the best principle of public health, economic engineering, conservation, aesthetic and other environment considerations that is also responsible to public attitude.

Solid Waste Management: Is the handling process of solid waste materials from generation at the source to its disposal.

Solid Waste Disposal: This process of getting rid of solid waste from the collection point or dumpsite so that they do not constitute odour nuisances in the environments.

Waste Treatment: Is waste treatment techniques seek to transform the waste into a form that is more manageable, reduce the volume or reduce the toxicity of the waste thus making the waste easier to dispose of. Waste reduction and reuse of product are both methods of waste prevention. They eliminate the production of waste at the source of usual generation and reduce the demands for large scale treatment and disposal facilities.

Recycling refers to the removal of items from waste stream to be used as raw materials in the manufacture of new products. It occurs in three phases: First the waste is sorted out before recycling can be carried out effectively and recyclables collected, the recyclables are used to create raw materials such as glass, plastic, papers and tyres. These raw materials are then used in the production of new products.

Resources Recovery: Is the process of turning what has been considered as waste into useful products for use.

Sanitary Landfill: Is define as a controlled method of disposing of wastes by spreading them in layers, compacting them into smallest practical volume and covering them with soil anytime the operation is performed in order to reduce environmental health nuisances

CHAPTER TWO 2.0 CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Waste may be defined as any substance be it solid, liquids or gaseous that remains a residue or and incident by product of the processing of the substance and for which no use can be found by the organism or system that produces it (Allaby, 2012). In other word, waste are substances or objects discarded as worthless or unwanted defective and of no further value to the user and should be disposed (Ekpo, 2010). Waste could also be explained to mean leftovers, used products whether liquid Solid or gaseous having no economic value or demand and which must be disposed or thrown away (Olouwande and Bartone 2002).

Solid Waste: Is unwanted or useless, solid materials generated from combined residential, industrial and commercial activities in a given area. It may be categorized according to its origin (domestic, industrial, commercial, construction or institutional; according to its contents (organic material, glass, metal, plastic paper); or according to hazard potential (toxic, non- toxic, flammable, radioactive infections (Okonkwo, 2014). It is also defined as unwanted. or any discarding materials arising from human activities and which are not free flowing.

Waste Management: Is a process as “that discipline associated with the control of generation, storage, collection, transfer, transportation, processing and disposal of solid as gaseous waste in a manner that is in accordance with the best principle of public health, economic engineering, conservation,aesthetic and other environmental considerations that is also responsible to public attitude (Ukabam, 2010). Waste management as “the collection, transportation, storage, treatment and disposal of waste (Oyideran, 2009). Waste management as the generation, separation, collection, transportation and disposal of waste in a way that takes into account public health and aesthetic quality of environment (Eze, 2015). Solid waste management is the handling process of solid waste materials from generation at the source to its disposal (UN, 2007).

Solid waste disposal: This is the process of getting rid of solid waste from the collection point or dumpsite so that they do not constitute odour nuisances in the 18 environments. The disposal operation of solid waste consists of the activities directed at the ultimate removal of the waste in a satisfactory manner (Haynes, 2011)

Waste Treatment: The techniques seek to transform the waste into a form that is more manageable, reduce the volume or reduce the toxicity of the waste, thus making waste easier reduce the to dispose of. Treatment methods are selected based on the composition, quantity, and form of the waste material. Some waste treatment methods being used today include subjecting the waste to extremely higher temperatures, dumping on land or landfiling and use of biological processess to treat the waste. (Gertsaki and Lewis, 2003).

Solid was hierarchy a list of approaches to managing solid waste arranged in order of preferability. The waste hierarchy is widely used as a simple communication tool for waste management, which is the strategies to avoid products becoming waste and seek to find a use for waste (Gertsakis and Lewis, 2003).

The concept of solid waste hierarchy is extensively used by governments, industry, educator and environment groups as a guiding principle for solid waste policy and programms, which specifically states that waste should be managed in accordance with the following order of preference: reduce, reuse recycle, recovery of energy and landfill (Gertsakis and Lewis, 2003). 19

Figure 2.1 Waste Treatment Hierarchy

Source: (Gertsaks and Lewis, 2003).

Waste reduction and reuse

Waste reduction and reuse of product are both methods of waste prevention. They eliminate the production of waste at the source of usual generation and reduce the demands for large scale treatment and disposal facilities. Methods of waste reduction include manufacturing products with less packaging, encouraging customers to bring their own reusable for packaging, encouraging the public to choose reusable products such as cloth napkins and reusable plastic and glass containers, backyard composting and sharing and donating any unwanted items rather than discarding them (Ogboi and Okosun 2003).

Recycling

Recycling refers to the removal of items from the waste stream to be used as a raw material in the manufacture of new products. Thus from definition recycling occurs in three phases: First the waste is sorted and recyclables collected, the recyclables are used to create raw materials such as, papers, plastic and tyres. These raw materials are then used in the production of new products. The sorting of recyclable may be done at the source (i.e within the household) for selective collection by the municipality or to dropped off by the waste producer at a recycling centers (Okoli, 2013).

Resources recovery

Resources recovery is the process of turning what has been considered as waste into useful product for use (Wilson 2015)

Sanitary landfill

Sanitary landfill is define as a controlled method of disposing of wastes by spreading them in layers, compacting them into smallest practical volume and covering them with solid anytime the operation is performed in order to reduce environmental health nuisances (Richard 2013)

2.2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The responsibility of managing the neighbourhood waste stream lies with the central SWM program. The framework can be simplified to the basic elements of a conventional solid waste management SWM program. The focus of the simplified model is on the SWM program, with the general neighborhood waste situation implicit within program planning. The basic nature of this model facilitates comparative and general analysis on the wide range of diverse conventional and tribal communities, and is used in the remainder of this work.

However, community behavior is important for both conventional and tribal SWM programs because it creates the waste circumstances that must be dealt with. Essentially, for any solid waste situation, the local SWM program carries out mandates from the several levels of government agencies, including those dealing with health, SWM, and general environmental matters, as conceptualized in the in the 21 figure below, central administrative functions and management decisions of the program are separated from the program’s three practical functions, ISWM, enforcement, and education. In other words, the SWM manager’s decisions are reflected in the "administration box", and enforcement, education and daily ISWM implementation are reflected in their respective boxes as demonstrated below (www.zendergroup.org/diss/chapter2.pdf)

For example, the decision to construct a landfill is affected by regulatory requirements that prescribe to a large degree what the City Council and/or SWM program will be deciding. How the landfill is affected by administrative factors such as costs, jobs created, etc., are examined, as well as any impacts on enforcement, education, and ISWM. Enforcement and education might be considered in light of their greater need in convincing the community to use the new facility. In terms of ISWM, the landfill is compared with other alternatives and present services. Again, the model is quite general, and intended to demonstrate only the major aspects of SWM program decision making and plan implementation. (www.zendergroup.org/diss/chapter2.pdf) 22

Figure 2.2: Conventional Metropolitan Solid Waste Management. Source: Foundation and Practice of Conventional Solid Waste Management

CHAPTER THREE REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 3.1. REVIEWS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Goorah (2009) reported that the impact of solid waste on health and environment has been an issue of global concern over the years. He reported that solid wastes are sources of environmental pollution through introduction of chemical substances above their threshold limit into the environment.

Minghua (2009), studied the management practices carried out of the solid waste from Pudong New Area, China. They have illustrated important aspects of waste management, such as the current status of waste collection, transport and disposal in the Pudong area. Moqsud and Hayashi (2006) evaluated solid waste management practice in Japan and found out that 20.3% of total solid waste generated in Japan is land filled including ash from incineration Approximately 75% of the gross amount of municipal solid waste that Japan generates annually is incinerated providing an estimated 2.5 million kilowatts of electricity generated for this process.

Mahar (2007) reported the review and analysis of solid waste management situation in urban areas of Pakistan. According to him, poor solid waste management is one of the major causes of environmental degradation in Pakistan. According to Rajput (2009), municipal solid waste generation showed different trend and a positive correlation with economic development in term of kg/capita/day solid waste generation at world scale. During the study of Scenario of solid waste management in the present Indian context, they reported that waste generation varied form 200- 600kg/capita/day and collection efficiency ranges form 50-90% in India.

Anothony (2007) stated that municipal solid waste generated daily in Kano metropolis at 2000 tones out of which only 800 tones could be evacuated.

Nabegu, (2010) observed that in Kano metropolis, the solid waste is disposed “in a more or less uncontrolled manner”. In some cases dumpsites develop all of a sudden at any empty space, including metropolitan roads. He also observed that the management of municipal solid waste should involve a detailed study of the characteristics of waste. 24

Danbuzu, (2011) stated that when different categories of waste are not considered during collection and disposal, effective management of solid waste becomes difficult. This study aims to characterize the household waste generated in the Sabon – gari area of Kano in Northern Nigeria with a view to prescribing the most effective and efficient method of its management.

Bai and Sutano (2002) observed that the characteristics of household solid waste generated by Sabon – gari residents (neighborhood) in Kano urban area have been determined. He also observed that there is the need to establish a formal composting (57.5% of the waste) and recycling facilities (for almost 25% of the waste) within Sabon – gari area using the result of this characterization study as a guide. The participation of private firms in the collection processing and disposal of the municipal solid waste is also recommended.

Sule (2011) Stated that the main cause of the problem of Nigerian city’s poor environmental condition can be ascribed to improper management of solid wastes and the lack of seriousness in the enforcement of solid waste disposal code. Karley (2013) identified that the main problem facing Nigerian city’s as the lack of suitable sites for disposal of solid waste, of which we attribute to the failure of social and economic development to keep pace with the natural population increase and rural –urban migration.

Nze (2009) noted that weaknesses have been attributed to lack of logistics and financial management, people’s attitudes towards waste management should not be ignored. He also outlined several factors, which have conspired to promote the massive build up of urban garbage and waste. He resulted from inadequate and deficient infrastructure, inadequate structures for environmental administration, disregard for basic aesthetics, industrial and commercial growth and other human factors. According to him, urban waste in Nigeria are regarded as “non resources” having at best a nuisance value and therefore not surprising that an equally negative posture has been adopted in managing wastes from urban concentration in the country. This is an undeniable fact, because Nima residential area in Accra is 25 seriously facing that problem due to poor planning, lack of logistics, and poor attitudes towards solid waste handling.

Benneh (2010) observed that residential domestic waste forms the bulk of all sources of solid waste produced in urban areas. These neighbourhood wastes are known to have high densities with high moisture content and the organic component of solid wastes, which properly accounts for about 70% to 90% while tins, cans and paper are probably responsible for about 5% to 10% of the total waste produced. He further argued that because the capacity to handle all of the neighbourhood waste generated is still weak, about 83% of the population dump refuse in either authorized or unauthorized sites in their neighbourhood which creates unsanitary conditions. He also argued that insufficient communal facilities can lead to open defecation along beaches, drains, and open spaces and the tendency for faecal materials to become intermixed with neighnourhood refuse.

According to Stirrup (2011) Observed that the method of solid waste disposal must be related to the nature of the community served, its financial capacity, the type of materials arising, climatic conditions, the desirability of utilizing, materials in certain instances compared with the imperative need to utilize them in order to assist in the provision of vital raw materials.

Abrokwah (2012) observed that the ignorance, negligence, lack of law to punish sanitary offenders, and low level of technology in waste management are the major causes of waste management problems in Kumasi, Accra is no different from these observations. He suggested that awareness should be created among residents to manage household waste and educate them on the hazard that ill – disposed waste could pose to the environment and to themselves.

Songsore (2010) observed that solid waste management has remained one of the intractable problem with the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA). His argument supports the fact that waste producers generate large volumes of waste but not dispose of waste in an acceptable manner. This is important to the study because peoples attitudes towards waste management are questionable. He also observed that indiscriminate disposal of waste has resulted in the clogging of the few built drainage 26 channels and natural water courses with garbage and silt, which are not remove regularly. This argument is not peculiar to Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) alone, the problem reflects the situation in most urban areas. The city of Accra for instance has been engulfed in refuse, with drains and gutters mostly choked with rubbish.

Edmunson (2011) stated that the study on waste management in Kumasi, pointed out that most sites used for refuse dump are chosen without taking into consideration the distance to be covered by residents. He recommended that sanitary sites should be cited close to waste generators. Adelaide (2008) observed that disposal sites in Accra are situated quite a distance away from inhabitants or sellers from one cannot dispute the fact that long distance disposal sites discourage inhabitants and sellers from making use of them. He therefore resort to litering their surroundings. He also argues that inhabitants, sellers, shoppers, and industrialists dispose of waste on the street, into troughs, and at other unauthorized places he attributes these unacceptable habits of indiscriminately disposing of waste to the public’s lack of waste disposal culture as well as inadequacy of waste disposal facilities. This testifies to the importance of attitude in waste management issues.

Abankwa (2012) found that household of high income and single dwelling unit generate an average dry refuse of three kilogrammes per day, while the low income and compound dwelling units generate about five kilogram. Five kilograms of refuse in the low income units, garbage constitutes four points two five kilograms, and rubbish constitutes zero point five kilograms. The wastes invariably consist of items like vegetables and tube remains. This is relevant to the study for the fact that area is a low – income settlement.

Foo (2008) reported that solid waste management continues to be a major challenge in urban areas throughout the world but particularly in the rapidly growing cities and towns of the developing world. Akinola and Salami 2010 reported that solid waste management have become a serious problem in Nigeria cities. The mountainous heaps of solid waste that deface Nigerian cities, and the continuous discharge of industrial contaminants into stream and rivers without treatment motivated the Federal Government of Nigeria to Promulgate Decree 58 for the establishment of a Federal 27

Environmental protection Agency (FEPA) on 30th December 1988. Despite the formulation of FEPA and National Environmental Policy, the environment has not been adequately protected with respect to solid waste generation.

Yadav and Devi (2009) conducted studies on solid waste management in mysore, city. They made detailed investigation regarding the methods of practices associated with sources, quantity generated, collection, transportation, storage, treatment and disposal of municipal solid.

Akinola and Salami (2010) reported that Solid Waste Management has become a serious problem in Nigerian cities. The mounkinous heaps of solid waste that deface Nigerian cities, and the continuous discharge of industrial contaminants into streams and rivers without treatment motivated the federal government of Nigeria to promulgate decree 58 for the establishment of a Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) on 30th December 1988.

Despite the formulation of FEPA and National Environmental Policy, the environment has not been adequately protected with respect to solid waste generation. Waste collection is irregular and restricted to certain areas in the cities while improperly sited open dumps deface several other areas thereby endangering public health by encouraging the spread of odour and disease. Uncontrolled recycling of contaminated goods and pollution of water resources, Solid waste generated by an average Nigeria per day is estimated to be around 0.49kg while commercial centres and households contributed almost 90% of the total wastes found in urban centres (Solomon, 2009).

Ugwunwa (2005) observed that poor solid waste management has resulted in ever increasing heaps of solid waste often found on the streets and major roads, which have become a common feature of Nigeria’s urban landscape.

Oyediran (2007) noted that the visible feature of most urban centres in Nigeria today is the refuse “mountains” which emit foul odours, as well as a breeding ground for pathogenic agents. Ogbalu (2004) observed that solid waste management problems in Enugu urban have become very serious. 28

According to him, this informed various conferences organized by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in Nigeria, which were geared towards controlling the effects of environmental pollution arising from poor solid waste management system. He observed that the need to tackle the poor environmental condition in Enugu underlines that call by the United Nations on all the member nations to devise effective waste management strategies.

Oluwade and Okpala (2008) studied the solid waste management in some Nigerian cities with the aim of finding effective solution to the problem. They observed that the present sanitary conditions in most Nigerian cities are far from being satisfactory inspite of various measures undertaken to address the problems. Eze and Asadu (2003) observed that one of the most pervasive problems of contemporary cities in all regions of the world, especially the developing countries is solid waste management problem accumulated by process of urbanization and urban development. In developing a new approach for efficient solid waste management in Nigeria, they observed that there is need for proper sensitization of all stakeholders. This will enable them to agree, adopt and implement realistic action plans. They called of re- orientation of Nigerians towards achieving attitudinal changes through sound education and technological developments in the area of environmental management.

Ubani (2006), noted that in almost all the cities the menace of solid waste management have possed great environmental problems due to the inability of solid waste management agencies to carry out their responsibility. This is evidenced by the indiscriminate disposal of refuse on the streets, drainage on water bodies in most Nigeria cities. He observed that despite the government involvement in solid waste management, there has been no remarkable improvement. He recommends a policy that will anchor on community/private sector participation on solid waste make.

Ogbazi (2008) noted that effective solid waste management needs the effort of every citizen in the society. He stated that participatory planning, involves an institutional arrangement whereby members of the public have the power to take part in arriving at decisions and policies that affects them, in implementing and assessing outcomes”, she further stated that public participation supports democracy and makes citizens have chances to influence and control the making of decision that affect them. The urban design and Research Team (ND), Federal University of Technology Akure, 29 supported the above idea. Public participation, according to the Team, gives the people an opportunity to have input into community plans, designs and implementation of policies and proposals that affect them.

Ogawa (2005) reported that effective solid waste management requires the co- operation of every citizen. He reported that if the interests of the general public and decision makers in improving solid waste management are built up, there would be a significant improvement of the sustainability of solid management projects in the cities. In the words of Palezynski (2002), community based urban waste management involves households, community based organizations and small informal enterprises engaged in collection and disposal, re use and recycling of solid waste materials. He added that community participation in solid waste management involves total authorities, non Governmental Organization (NGOs) market associations, traditional rulers, religious leaders, teachers as well as youths and politicians.

Nwachukwu (2008) stated that solid waste management is a capital intensive project which is very costly in finance. Therefore, its management should not be left for government or its agents alone, but should be the responsibility of all the stakeholders, industry and community. Participatory programme, Participatory environmental management should have the people as its focus and up hold their needs, perceptions, knowledge and values. It will however, be necessary to remove the obstacles to effective public participation in environmental policies.

Techobanoglous (1993) stated that solid wastes comprise all wastes arising from human and animal activities that are normally solid, discarded as useless or unwanted. Okpala (2002) stated that poor solid waste management in the developing countries is a major threat to public health and environmental quality, and reduces the quality, and reduces the quality of life, particularly for the poorer residents in both urban and rural areas. One of the principal reasons for the inefficient solid waste management systems in the developing countries is said to be based on their financial misappropriation, mismanagement and constraint, as solid waste management is given low priority in the developing countries budget.

Nswai (2009) reported that solid Waste was not considered as a big threat in the beginning. However, as cities grew exponentially, the absence of planned scientific 30 landfill for municipal solid waste started showing high impact on soil quality and the health of the population living in close vicinity. Dawei (2012) reported that each year, billions of tones of solid wastes are generated which are in need of proper treatments. Improper management of solid wastes has direct adverse effect on soil and water quality.

Omofonmwan and Eseigbe (2009) examined effects of solid waste on the quality of underground water in Benin Metropolis, Nigeria. Further they recommended that solid waste should be recycled instead of taking them to dumpsites and there is need for environmental awareness through enlightenment campaigns.

Afroz (2009) stated that Municipal solid to waste management in developing countries is predicted to face challenge in the future owning to their rapid urbanization and economic growth Empirical analyses using macro economic data indicates that he per captia generation solid waste is at least 0.3-014 kilograms per day even for the poorest people. In general, a one percent increase in population is associated wit a 1.04 percent increase in solid waste generation, and a one percent increase in population is associated with a 0.34 percent increase in total solid waste generation.

Okpala (2002) reported that in Nigeria, solid waste problem started with the rapid increased in urban growth resulting partly from the increase in population and more importantly with the increase in its immigration status Eguuniobi (1996), no town in Nigeria can boast of haven found a lasting solution to the problem of filthy and huge piles of solid waste, rather the problem continues to assume monstrous dimensions. To urban and city dwellers, public hygiene starts and ends in their immediate surrounding and indeed the city would take car of itself. The situation has so deteriorated that today the problem of solid waste has become one of the nations most serious environmental problem.

Senkoro (2003) indicated that for many African countries, only less than 30% of the urban population has access to proper and regular garbage removal Attaf and Deshazo (2009). The current practice of collecting, processing and disposing municipal solid wastes is also considered to be least efficient in the developing countries. The typical irregular collection services, crude open dumping and burning without air and 31 inefficient water pollution control, the breeding of flies and vermin, and the mishandling and uncontrolled informal waste picking or scavenging activities (Bartone, 2000).

Ogbuene et al (2010) argued that some of the obsenable impact of solid waste is demonstrated through increased disease transmission, contamination of ground and surface water, damage to the ecosystem, emission of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants. Currently, the Enugu waste Management Authority (ESWEMA) has just been involved in waste transportation from point sources to Ugwuaji dumpsite. They are yet to evolved waste management strategy, thus authority leaves much to be desired, and illegal refuse dumps are still noticed at road junctions and in undeveloped land areas in Enugu. The impacts of solid waste on soil quality and biodiversity degradation among others need urgent management action and attention.

Zhuang (2008) stated that waste management in Enugu city is becoming an increasing problem daily and a complex task. The Enugu State waste management agency (ESWAMA) was established to develop and implement policies on the management of solid and liquid wastes that would promote the health and well being of the people. To this end, ESWAMA has the responsibility to ensure effective and efficient collection, removal, treatment and disposal of all kinds of wastes. It also has a mandate to check the illegal dumping of refuse at roadside, enclosure’s streams in neighbourhood and in drains. The agency is further empowered to prosecute defaulters of sanitation laws, while providing waste management facilities.

Osumanu (2007) adopted different methods of solid waste disposal in Enugu state of Nigeria one time, the incinerator machines were used and recently solid waste conversion vehicles are used and yet solid waste still constitute a major health hazard in the Enugu urban. It is believed that the refuse disposal vehicles are insufficient to cover their designated areas. The areas that are more susceptible to the endemic problem are areas with in the Enugu urban of Abakpa-Nike, Trans-Ekulu, Ogbete Market, New Market, Obiagu, Adora, layout, owning to the highly populated nature of the areas. Some people who were recently arraigned in the Environmental Court for waste disposal related offences claimed to lack knowledge of where and how to properly dispose or manage their wastes. 32

Schubeler (2012) noted that solid waste management become has become a major concern in a industrialized developing country, like Nigeria and in Enugu in particular, considering the high growth-rate of population and industrialization in the city. It’s in this regards that this study seek to investigate and examine the current state of the waste management strategy being employed by the waste management agency (ESWAMA) in the Enugu urban to actually ascertain the state of waste management in the area to help the government and planners take adequate steps and decisions towards ensuring and improved standards of living the safety within Enugu urban.

Oyelola and Babatunde, (2008) (a) reported that effect of municipal solid waste on the levels of heavy metals in Olusosun dumpsite soil, Lagos state, Nigeria. Their result slows that the municipal wastes are contributing significantly to the metal concentrations in dump soil samples. Faryal (2007) reported the effect waste water irrigation on soil along with its micro and macro flora.

Yelola, and Babatunde (2008) (b) have stated that waste management is an important element of environmental protection, proper characterization of municipal solid waste management is fundamental for the planning of municipal waste management services. They studied characterization of domestic and market solid wastes at source in English urban, Nigeria. Gawaikr and Decphande (2006) have reviewed the source, specific quantification and characterization of municipal solid waste. According to them, the source, specific quantification and characterization of municipal solid waste assumes great significance which will enable accurate assessment of waste load and it would be easier for proper planning of solid waste management system. This would help in achieving the objective of proper utilization of available resources and protection of environment and public health. Hence they highlighted the importance of source specific quantification and characterization of municipal solid waste.

Sharholy (2001) studied the municipal solid waste management and its characteristics for Enugu city. They concluded that segregation of waste at source and promotion of recycling or reuse of segregate materials reduces the quantity of waste and the burden on landfills, and provides raw materials for manufacturers. Johnson (2006) stated that waste materials do migrate beyond the geometric confines of the initial placement location; environmental effects have been experienced from disposal of municipal, 33 agricultural, and toxic chemical wastes, and utilization of presently known science and engineering principle in sitting operating solid waste disposal facilities would make a significant improvement in the containment capability of shallow land disposal facilities. They studied effects from past solid waste disposal practices.

Sahu, (2007) worked on the present scenario of municipal solid waste dumping grounds in India. He found that, in recent days the dumping grounds are being used for construction purpose which is a common practice in metropolitans like Mumbai,Delhi. The environment is adversely affected causing damage of property like electronic equipments, sensitive computers, severe rooms due to release of pollutants such as Methaie (CH4), Hydrogen Sulfide CH3SH Methyl Mercaptans

(H3SH). This is the very important finding in elation to the use of dumping grounds for construction purpose.

Puri (2008) studied the municipal solid waste management and its impact on community health in Jalandhar city. They recommended various strategies for better solid waste management in Enugu City. They reported the occurrence of vector bore diseases due to solid waste dumping in Marthandan, (2007) reported that the improper disposal of solid waste leads to spread of communicable diseases and also spoil biosphere as whole. He reported the status of urbanization and solid waste management.

Ogwueleka (2009) emphasized that municipal solid waste management has emerged as one of the greatest challenges facing environmental protection agencies in developing countries. He studied the municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Nigeria. His study presents the current solid waste management practices and problems in Nigeria. He concluded that solid waste management is characterized by insufficient collection methods, insufficient coverage of the collection system and improper disposal. Shivayoginath (2007) carried out a research on municipal solid waste management in Raichur city. He thoroughly studied all components of municipal solid waste management and also suggested scientific management. 34

Agawal (2005) investigated recycling of the municipal solid waste in Enugu capital city. He found out that an informal sector comprising waste recyclists and a hierarchy of recyclable dealers play important role in the management of solid waste.

Sharhly et al (2008) reviewed the status of municipal solid waste management in Enugu city. They reported that municipal solid waste management is one the major environmental problems of Enugu urban. Improper management of municipal solid waste causes hazards to inhabitants. Upadhyary (2005) highlights the present scenario of waste management and the options available to convert the waste into useful products.

3.2 AN ASSESSMENT OF GROUND WATER QUALITY AND CHARACTERIZATION OF LEACHATES AND IMPACT ON LANDFILLS LEACHEATES

Pandey and Tiwari (2009) studied the ground water quality in different parts of Enugu. They have analyzed different physico chemical characteristics of the ground water and associated problems in various places of different states. They found variation in the characteristics of ground water quality at different places in Enugu. Chenini and Khemiri, (2009), Adefemi and Awokunmi (2010) have conducted the water quality studies in Bangladesh, China, Turisia, Enugu, Pakistan and Nigeria respectively. The study shows that leachates affect the underground water quality in the urban areas. Glenn and Su (2008) had tried to assess the effect of a dumpsite to ground water quality in Enugu. They compared the water quality data of the well around the dumpsite and the control samples and found significant difference in the water quality parameters. The ground water quality of Enugu town in Enugu North local Government Area of Enugu State was studied by Alexander (2008) to examine the suitability or otherwise of their use of the groundwater for drinking and domestic purposes. Their result reveals that the water samples were slightly acidic to slightly alkaline but still good enough for drinking purpose. Moeini and Paenafrakaty (2008) studied the groundwater quality and sources of pollution in Watersludge. They found that the agents that adversely affect the quality of ground water come from a variety of sources, including geology (Marl and evaporation deposits that contain anhydrite and gypsum), domestic waste water (urban waste water) and the industries (oil and gas) in Enugu, Nigeria. 35

Moeini (2008) studied the groundwater quality and the sources of pollution in Baghan Watershed. He found that the agents that adversely affect the quality of groundwater come from a variety of sources, including geology (Marland evaporation deposits that contain anhydrite and gypsum), domestic waste water (urban waste water) and the industries (oil and gas) ion Baghan watershed.

Laluraj (2005) studied the ground water chemistry of shallow aquifers in the coastal zones of Cochin, India. The results indicate that the ground waters in the shallow aquifers were found to be deteriorated. He also used the piper trillinear diagram to confirm the results and for that some of the dug wells were characterized by high amount of sodium and chloride (>200mg/l) indicating the influence of saline water incursion. He reported that the presence of E., coli in all dugwells indicated potentially dangerous fecal contamination. Al-Agha and Nakhai (2004) studied the hydrochemical facies of groundwater in the Gaza Strip, Palestine. They reported the groundwater facies for different areas and also reported that seawater intrusion and extensive pumping play a minor role in the distribution of they hydrochemical facies.

Laluraj (2005) studied the groundwater chemistry of shallow acquifers in the coastal zones of Enugu; their results indicate that the ground waters in the shallow acquifers were found to be deteriorated. He also use the pipe/trill near diagram to confirm the results and of that some of the dug wells were characterized by high amount of sodium and chloride (>200mg/l) indicating the influence of saline water incursion. He reported that the presence of E.coli in all hand dug wells indicated potentially dangerous fecol contaminations. Agha and Nakhal, (2004) studied the hydro chemical facies ground water in the gaza strip palestone. They recorded groundwater facies for different areas and also reported that seawater intrusion and extensive pumping play a minor role in the distribution of the hydrochemical facies.

Sadashivaiah (2008) have studied the hydrochemical analysis and evaluation of groundwater quality in Enugu state, and India. He studied around 269 stations during pre-Monsoon and 279 locations during post-Monsoon and reported their results. According him Ca-Mg-HCO3 type water predominates in the study area in both pre- post Monsoon. He found that the water is not suitable for irrigation in the study sea but it may be used in the well drained soils. A statistical approach on some physicochemical characteristics of groundwater in Enugu was studied by Sindhu and 36

Sharma in 2007. They studied 25 water samples and reported that the water quality is very poor and unsuitable for drinking purpose. They also recommended that top priority should be given to water quality monitoring and indigenous technologies should be adopted to make water fit for drinking after treatment such as defluoridation and desalination.

Mohammad (2007) created the water quality index for an open municipal landfill area at Kelantan, Malaysia and South China Sea. He studied 32 variables of groundwater quality and used 7 variables for creation of water quality index, after developing the index. He found the index value 26.67 which indicating the poor water quality. Ramakrishnaiah (2009) carried out assessment studies of water quality index for the groundwater in Tumkurtaluka, Karnataka State, India. He reported that the high value of water quality index (WQI) has been found to be mainly from the higher values of iron, nitrite, total dissolved solid, hardness, fluoride, bicarbonate and manganese in the groundwater and suggested treatment to the water prior to consumption.

Sahasrabudhe (2003) studied the changing status of urban water bodies and associated health concern in Pune, India. He reported that increasing urbanization coupled with industrialization during the past few decades are depleting water ecosystems goods and services irreparably in Pune city, Western India, as indicated by high LPI (Living planet Index) hence he assessed the impact of urbanization on the water quality of the rivers Mula, Mutha and Pashan Lake with a focus on ongoing changes in biotic communities.

Rashed and Hitnavi (2006) studied the domestic septage characteristics and co treatment impacts on Albireh wastewater treatment plant efficiency; Igbinosa and Okoh (2009) reported the impact of discharge waster water effluents on the physiochemical qualities of a receiving watershed in a typical community of the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Over the 12 months during study they measured various parameters of treated effluent and found that chemical oxygen demand, nitrate, nitrite, Orthophosphate, dissolved oxygen and turbidity are crossing the standard permissible limits; Quan 2004 studied the contamination of groundwater due to subsurface disposal of sewage in east Portland, Oregon. He also concluded that the infiltrating precipitation and sewage effluent migrates downstream to the water table. 37

Luezkiewiez (2006) stated that soil and ground water contamination as a result of sewage sludge land application. He assessed leaching of chemical compounds (NNo3,

NNH4, Norg, Pp04 and Ptot) and trace elements (Cd, Cu, Cr, Ni, Zn and Pb) from sewage sludge and their migration through the soil profile. He discovered that nitrogen compounds, such as a nitrate (NN03) and ammonium (NNH4), as well as some heavy metals (Ni and Cd) originating from the sewage sludge can reach deeper than 0.8m and cause the contamination of potential shallow acquifers.

Law (200) studied the sewage pollution in Kelang River and its Estuary. He reported high fecal Coliform counts in Kelang River and revealed that the River is being heavily polluted by domestic sewage discharge. Longe and Ogundrpe (2010) studied the assessment of wastewater Discharge Impact form a Sewage of Treatment plant on lagoon water, Lagos, Nigeria. During study they concluded that the lagoon is being polluted by effluents discharge from the University treatment plant thereby exposing the health of local residents who use it for recreation and for food production purposes. Kakar (2006) examined the quality, distribution and heavy metals in sewage water used for irrigation in and around of Quetta city Pakistan. They analyzed various physiochemical parameters and heavy metals. Ahmed (2009) studied the effect of treated domestic wastewater on physical and chemical characteristics of soils.

Abimbole and Odukoya (2010) carried out the assessment of contamination of groundwater around two solid waste dumpsite in lagoons, Nigeria. They concluded that the water around most of the dumpsite areas exceeded the acute and chronic effect levels proposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 2010. Maity (2002) studied the ground water quality status of the waste disposal sites in the eastern part of Kolkata. They concluded that chloride, Hardness and total dissolved solids in al the samples are significantly higher than the stipulated standard values.

Ramakrishnaiah (2009) carried out assessment studies of water quality index for the groundwater in Enugu State. He reported that the high value of water quality index (WQI) has been found to be mainly form the higher values of iron, nitrate, total dissolved solids, hardness, fluorides, bicarbonate and manganese in the groundwater and suggested treatment to the water prior to consumption. Mohammad (2007) have created the quality index for an open municipal landfill area at Enugu. He studied 32 38 variables of ground water quality and used of variables for creation of water quality index. After developing the index they found the index value 26.67 which indicating the poor water quality.

Anand (2006) studied the Bacteriological water quality status of Idaw River in Enugu. Their study reveals the impact of diverse anthropogenic activities as well as the Monsoon effect of the bacterial population of Idaw-River in Enugu urban. Microbial population contributed mainly through human activities prevailed in the entire stretch of Idaw River with reduction in bacterial counts during Monsoon period due to fluching effect. Luczkiewicz, (2006) studied soil and groundwater contamination as a result of sewage sludge land application. He assessed leaching of chemical compounds (NNO3, NNH4, Norg, Pp04 and Ptot) and trace elements (Col, Cu, Cr, Ni, Zn and Pb) from sewage sludge and their migration through the soil profile. He discovered that nitrogen compounds, such as nitrate (NNo3) and ammonium (NNH4), as well as some heavy metals (Ni and Cd) originating from the sewage sludge can reach deeper than 0.8m and cause the contamination of potential shallow acquifers. Quan (2007) studied the contamination of ground water due to subsurface disposal of sewage in Enugu State, Nigeria. He concluded that the infiltrating precipitation and sewage effluent migrates downstream to the water table.

Oyoh and Evbomwan (2008) studied characterization of leachates composition from solid waste dumpsite in Enugu, Nigeria. They collected samples of leachates during dry and wet season and analyzed for different physico-chemical characteristics. Banar (2006) has carried out the studies on the characterization and identification of major pollutant parameters by paying attention to the organic chemical pollution for unregulated dumping site leachate Ugwu aji. After study, they recommended that Ugwu-aji dumping site should be urgently rehabilitated and new sanitary landfill should be constructed. Selic (2007) studied the biodegradability of leachate of municipal solid waste landfills. According to them the quantitative and qualitative composition of municipal solid waste (MSW) differs significantly. He have tried to evaluate whether these differences also lead to dissimilar leachates during storage or landfill.

Maranon (2003) studied the composition and treatment of leachates from sanitary landfills and suggested that the kind of treatment used to treat landfill leachate 39 depends fundamentally on the age of the landfill. When the landfill is young, biological treatment is adequate but when the leachate is produced in an old landfill, physical chemical treatment is needed. Schiopu (2009) studied impact of landfill leachate on soil quality in Enugu. He described some aspects regarding characterization of the leachate originating from Enugu landfill as well as quality assessment of the local environment considering the results of this research. Raman and Narayanan (2008) studied the solid waste effect on ground water and soil quality nearer to Enugu solid waste landfill site in Enugu urban and they found that the soil is contaminated with the soil waste material dumped in the area.

Khitoliya (2009) studied groundwater contaminate by municipal solid waste landfill in the vicinity of a Enugu landfill sites. He found out that the landfill in these areas have contaminated the groundwater and the depth analysis of the groundwater’s shows that the leachate contaminating them is having high organic content and heavy metal concentration. They also reported that the main reason of groundwater pollution in these areas is due to the absences of leachate and landfill gas control equipment. Aluko (2003) have identified characteristics of leachates from municipal solid waste landfill sites in Enugu, Nigeria. He reported the variation in the leachate qualities during dry and wet season. He concluded that solid waste management has been a very serious problem in urban centers, waste taken to a dump site for disposal yield leachate, which causes serious problem through contaminating the nearby land and water resources. Developing countries such as Nigeria have not been able to address these problems due to high costs involved Omofonmwan and Eseigbe (2009) examined the effects of solid waste on the quality of groundwater in Enugu, Nigeria. He recommended that solid waste should be recycled instead of taking them to dumpsites and there is need for environmental awareness through enlightenment campaigns.

Slomezynska and Slomezynski (2004) studied the physical, chemical and toxicological characteristics of leachate. They reviewed the literature on the quantity and physico-chemical characteristics of leachates from municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill.

3.3 LITERATURE REVIEW ON HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF URBAN SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

Fielder (2006) stated that there are various risks associated with the waste generated in the urban especially for the communities who are living near to the waste disposal sites. Hence many researchers tied to evaluate the health problems of urban waste. He carried out the retrospective analysis studies on assessment of impact on health of residents living near landfill site. He compared indices of health in a population living near landfill site with a population matched for socio economic status and reviewed environmental monitoring data. After he concluded that, the area surrounding the landfill site has an increase rate of reported congenital malformations, which predated the opening of the landfill, although the cluster of cases gastroschisis postulated its opening several chemicals emitted form the site, including hydrogen sulphide and benzene, were found in air samples in the nearby community.

Oyelola et al (2009) reported some health problems of solid waste disposal during the study of Ugwuaji dumpsite, Enugu, Nigeria. Their study describes correlation of the exposure factors (smoke, odor and dust) with health hazards of its workers. They found the positive correlation between eye irritation and dust as well as between difficulty in breathing and smoke, likewise between typhoid and dysentery and also malaria. The percentage of research diseases as they afford the dumpsite workers and the scavengers are 86% eye irritation, 66% difficult in breathing, 48% asthma, 90% cough, 10% pneumonia, 82% malaria, 46% typhoid, 44% dysentery, 42% cholera and 96% fatigue. This shows that open dump solid waste disposal affects the health of the dumpsite workers. Selvapathy and Madhavan, (2003) assessed the risks of dumping household batteries in the municipal solid waste. They reported the higher concentrations of heavy metals in the leachate and non carcinogenic risks obtained by the risk assessment study also exceeded the stipulated limit. Hence they suggested separate disposal of the battery waste considering it as a hazardous waste.

Yongsi (2008) studied the environmental sanitation and health problems in urban settings and also tried to find out relationship between household refuse and diarrhea in Enugu cities. He concluded that the levels of diarrhea attacks varied consistently from one neighborhood to another. Yongsi et.al (2009) conducted a cross-sectional epidemiological study to examine the health problems of different waste disposal 41 system in Enugu. The study found 14% diarrhetic prevalence among the respondents and a strong statistical association was found between household refuse management methods and incidence of diarrhea among respondents.

Abul (2010) examined health problems of solid waste management residents around the dumpsite in Enugu. The respondents were stratified by the distance of their homes to the dumpsite. The first groups are those having their homes within 200 meters and beyond the dumpsite in Enugu. The study, which was conducted among residents, found a negative relationship between the distance of residential apartments form dumpsite and being affected by the dumpsite pollution. This study has adopted similar approach towards the determination of health, economic and labour supply problems of living around waste dumpsites in Nigeria.

Adejobi and Olorunnimbe (2012) assessed health problems of improper waste disposal and management on the city dwellers. They examined that factors influencing household participation in waste disposal. They revealed that there is a low level of household awareness about the environmental problems of improper domestic waste disposal and management in the city. They also reveal significant relationships between socio-economic variables and participation in domestic was disposal and management.

They concluded that there is need for environmental education, particularly on waste disposal and management approach towards improving the household participation in domestic waste disposal and management in the city.

3.4 LITERATURE RESEARCH GAPS

From my review of literature, the following research gaps were observed: • The researcher found out that no much work has been done, which addressed the proliferation of illegal dumping sites in Enugu Urban. • Lack of appropriate awareness and enlightenment on the right methods of solid waste disposal in Enugu urban. • Henceforth, insufficient coverage and collection of waste by the appropriate authority.

CHAPTER FOUR THE STUDY AREA

4.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The founding of the settlement known today as Enugu was influenced by the discovery of coal by an itinerant party of Geologists between 1908 to 1909. The exploration team was led by a British Mining Engineer Mr. Kitson (Hair, 1954). Following the expedition in 1914 another following expedition in 1914, another British Mining Engineer W.J. Lack, arrived accompanied by a group of labourers needed by Mr. Alfred Inoma (Hair, 1954). named W.J. lack arrived accompanied by a group of labourers needed by Mr. Alfred Inoma (Hair, 1954). The Britons settle at the Hill Top and Alfred and his team settled, in Alfred’s Camp now known as “Ugwu Alfred” prior to this discovery the virgin land hard no historical, economic or political importance. The city developed as a result of the Coal Mining activities with some human settlements forming around the Mining Points, Udi Siding, Ugwu Aaron, Ugbo-odogwu, Agu-Obuowa and Agu-abor. These were all rural settlements in nature. The colonial master developed the Ekulu area as a Government Reserved Area for whites only. The natives spread from Alfred’s Camp to Ogbete area. Coal camp became the first organized layout for the natives who were mostly coal mine workers.

In 1917, Enugu was declared a second class township under the name Enugu-Ngwo. The Ngwo was dropped in 1928 to distinguish the town from the village. It was from Enugu that the colonial administration was able to spread their influence over the southern province of Nigeria. In 1929, Enugu served as the headquarters and the metropolis for central and later Southern provinces. It was the headquarters of Eastern provinces in 1939, and the capital of the East central State and later became the Anambra State Capital after the creation of the Eastern region into States in 1976. It is now the capital of Enugu State created in 1991.

The initial development of residential quarters in the city was mainly to accommodate the staff of the colliery department, the European colonial Masters and the railway staff. These quarters are coal camp, Government Reservation Area and Iva-Valley. Other established neighbourhoods in the city include New layout, New Haven, and Achara layout, Trans Ekulu, Asata and Abakpa. 43

4.2 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION Enugu is the capital of Enugu State, and is an administrative, industrial and institutional centre in the South Eastern part of Nigeria. Enugu urban is situated between latitude of 06o21 and 06o30N and longitude 07o,26 and 07o,37E of Greenwich Meridian. Enugu urban is bounded by Enugu North local Government Area to the North, Nkanu West local Government Area to the South, Udi local Government Area to the West and Nkanu East local Government Area to the East Enugu is derived from two Igbo Words Enugu and Ugwu meaning hill and top’ capturing the city’s hilly topography: Enugu is situated at an elevation of about 232.6 meters above sea level and is actually located at the first of an escarpment and not a hill (Udo, 1970). It is also located in the Cross River Basin and Benue Trough much of the escarpment stretches from Enugu to Orlu and has been ravanged by soil and gully erosion (Egboka, 1985). The Enugu urban covers an area of 145.8sqkm, and is made up of three local Government Areas namely: Enugu North, Enugu south and Enugu East.

It passes through the heart of the urban area touching such area as Aria Market and Southern part of Ngwo, GRA, Abakpa and New Haven before joining the Asata River near the Hotel presidential in Independence layout. From it source to the confluence with the Asata river, it is about 5kms long. It is known as Mmiri Ocha at certain places where it passes.

Enugu Metropolis is bounded in the East by Nkanu East Local Government Area, in the West by Udi Local Government Area, in the North by Enugu East Local Government Area and in the South by Nkanu West Local Government Area. (Ugwuoke 2010). See figure figures 1 and 2. 44

FIGURE 3.1: MAP OF NIGERIA SHOWING ENUGU STATE

Source: Planning Division, Ministry of Land and Survey, 2007

FIGURE 3.2: MAP OF ENUGU STATE SHOWING THE THREE

Source: Planning Division, Ministry of Land and Survey, 2007

Fig 3.3: Map of Enugu North

Source: Google Map Data, 2014

Fig. 3.4: Map of Enugu South

Source: www.igboguide.org,2014. 48

Fig. 3.5: Map of Enugu East

Source: www.igboguide.org,2014.

4.3 PHYSICAL FEATURES 4.3.1 TOPOGRAPHY Enugu city lies on an attitude of 223 metres above sea level. It is located at the first of the Udi Hills, where the Plateau referred to as Enugu Okigwe Guests, which gives way to the plains. Generally, the city has an undulating terrain, and that accounts for its good natural drainage. The availability of hills in the city brought about rivers such 49 as Aria river, Ekulu River and Asata river which flow towards the eastern part of the Enugu urban.

4.3.2 CLIMATE CONDITIONS The annual temperature is approximately 30,8oC, and the variation within the season is normally below 10oC. The relative humidity changes between 40 and 80 percent. The prevailing winds are the local Monsoons: the North-East Trade wind and the South West Trade wind. The North East Trade wind blows form across the sahara desert, bringing dry and dusty wind over the area, and this result to the dusty hamattan weather or the dry season. The dry season usually lasts form November to March. The South west trade wind that blows form the Atlantic Ocean brings about the rainy season, which lasts from April to October, with a short break in August (Koppen, 1967).

4.3.3 TEMPERATURE Due to its latitudinal location, the study area receives abundant and constant geographic isolation. The mean daily maximum temperature is usually above 27oC all above the year. It is highest between Februarys to April, but does not usually exceed 34oC in March, which is the hottest month in the area. The mean annual temperature for the urban area is about 33oC (Monanu, 1975) and the daily temperature range is higher than annual range or seasonal variation.

4.3.4 RAINFALL Rainfall occurrence in the study area is high with mean annually total of 1600mm. Rain season starts in march and ends in November. Average monthly rainfall ranges from 350mm in April to 420mm in October (Walter, 1967). In 2006, the town recorded a total of 1.788mm of rainfall and more than three quarters of the rain fall between the months of July and September (Obasike, 2007). This seasonal rainfall pattern has a lot of implications for water resources in the area. Firstly, many rivers and streams dry up during the period of November to March when the area experiences virtually no rain, and those that survive in this period experience low stage. Secondly, as the rain come, the rivers begin to rise and progress until they reach a peak discharge in the middle of October. Rainfall determines the agricultural 50 calendar of the populace in the study, especially those who live the peri urban environmental and engage in agriculture.

4.3.5 VEGETATION AND SOIL The main vegetation of the study area is the derived savanna with fringing forests along the river courses (Adejuwon, 1971); Igbozurike, 1978; Areola, 1980). The savanna has been derived form the forests, which has now been cleared because of farming and other socio-economic activities. Oji (2001) observed that once the original forest is cleared, the soils become more prone to seasonal drought. The soil types in Enugu urban environment are clay gravel, loamy, sand, stone and laterite soils. The soils in these water bodies have properties that relate to parent materials from which they re found. Sundy soils, which are coarse, but moist, are seen in eh as well as sand stone obtained at some parts of the rivers and lateritic crust in parts of Abakpa Nike and Emene.

4.3.6 DEMOGRAPHIC According to the National Population Commission (2006). Enugu urban area has an estimated population of 722.664 (NPC 2006) a land areas of 72.9 square kilometers. It is home to the Igbos of South Eastern Nigeria. The population of Enugu is predominantly Christian (Ike, 1998). The indigenous people of Enugu include the Ogui-Natives and the Nike people. The Ogui-Nike people live in areas surrounding Hotel Presidential, Obiagu, Ama Hausa, Ihewuzi and Onu-Asta. Other groups include the Awkunanwa people who live mainly in the Achara layout and Uwani areas. The Enugwu-Ngwo people live in the Hilltop on the west part of the city with their farmland sprawling all over the valley. Other Nike people live around Abakpa Iji- Nike and Emene areas of the city.

CHAPTER FIVE

METHODS AND PROCEDURES Methods and procedures This chapter described the methodology and procedures used for collection of data, presentation and analysis of data for the study. 5.1 TYPES AND SOURCES OF DATA The Types and sources of data comprised Second any and primary data.

5.1.1 SECONDARY DATA COMPRISES PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED SOURCES Published sources: These data were extracted from various publications of the following establishment. (a) National Population Commission (NPC) office Enugu. The 1991 population and the populations of various neighborhoods in Enugu Urban were used in the study. (b) Libraries, Nigerian Institute of Town planners’ (NITP) Annual Conferences, Internets. Other data were obtained from textbooks, NITP journals, journal on Environmental management safety and presented papers, internet publications. These sources centered mainly on participatory planning and good urban governance. Unpublished sources: These data comprises of unpublished sources. They are focused on the following areas. (a) Methods of solid waste disposal and solid waste generation. They were obtained from dissertations, seminar papers, handbooks, Department For International Development (DFID), government offices, lectures note, newspapers (b) The number of dumpsters was gotten from Enugu State Waste Management Authority.

5.1.2 PRIMARY DATA Primary data used for this study were collected through personal [direct] observation, face to face oral interview and questionnaire survey methods.

5.1.3 PERSONAL OBSERVATION The observation was carried out to identify the location of solid waste collection points and number of dumpsters in them. This helped to find out the magnitude of solid waste generation and their problems in the environment the frequency of solid waste collection through this field survey this helped to identify illegal solid waste dumps on the streets markets and other public places.

5.1.4 QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY This survey was carried out for some residents in the selected neighborhoods. The questionnaire was divided into two sections A and B. SECTION A: It was centered on the personal and socio economic data of the respondents. Data were collected on age, sex, marital status, household size, educational attainment, occupation and income. SECTION B: It was centered on assessment of solid waste disposal practice among neighborhood. 5.2 SAMPLING POPULATION / SAMPLE SIZE 5.2.1 POPULATION OF THE STUDY The population used in this research was that of the selected neighbourhoods. The selected neighbourhoods and their corresponding populations are shown in table 5.1.

BASIS OF SELECTING THE NEIGHBOURHOODS: The study was on the three local Government Areas in Enugu Urban. From these neighbourhoods, were selected randomly. Abakpa and Trans –Ekulu- Enugu East LGA Ogui New Layout New Haven and GRA - Enugu North LGA Achara Layout –Enugu South LGA Again, Abakpa and Ogui New Layout are high density neighbourhoods; Achara Layout and New Haven are medium density neighbourhoods; while GRA and Trans. Ekulu are low density areas.

Table 5.1: Population of the selected Neighbourhood Neighborhood 1991 population 2014 population

Abakpa 90619 164867

Ogui New Layout 41237 75024

New Haven 50248 34118

Achara Layout 18753 91418

GRA 19600 35659

Trans Ekulu 11474 20875

Total 231931 42961

Source: National Population Commission, Enugu, 2006 In order to get the total projected population of the selected neighbourhoods, the population projection formular was applied thus: n Pn =P1 (1+r) Where Pn = projected population P1= base population R= growth rate (0.032) N= number of years to be projected I= constant.

5.2.2 SAMPLE SIZE The sample size was determined using Yaro Yamene’s (1968) formular, as was suggested by Okeke, (1995). The formular is shown below S = N 1 + N(e)2 Where S = Sample size 54

N = Estimated population of the selected neighborhoods. I = Constant E = Allowable error (5% or 0.01)

S = 421961 1 + 421961 (0.01)2 S = 421961 1 + 421961 x 0.0025 S = 421961 1055.90 S = 399.6 S = 400 For the purpose of this research, a total number of 400 questionnaires were prepared for the same neighborhoods.

5.2.3 DISTRIBUTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES The size of each neighborhood was considered when allocating questionnaire that were distributed in the selected neighborhoods was shown in the table below.

Table 5.2 The Percentage Ratio Of Sample Size Of 400 Distributed Questionnaires In Each Of The Six Neighborhoods. Neighborhood 1991 population 2014 % of 400 No. of population questionnaires questionnaires administered to administered per different neighborhood neighborhood Abakpa 90619 164867 39.00 156 Ogui New Layout 41237 75024 17.75 71 New Haven 50248 34118 8.00 32 Achara Layout 18753 91418 21.75 87 GRA 19600 35659 8.50 34 Trans Ekulu 11474 20875 5.00 20 Total 231931 42961 100 400 Source: Field work 2014 55

Sample size of each neighborhood = X x Q Y

Where X = Population of each selected neighborhood Y = Total population of all the selected neighborhood (ie 421961) Q = Number of questionnaires to be distributed (ie 400).

5.2.4 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE In this research, stratified random sampling techniques was employed in administering questionnaires. The technique was used in order to give some residents in the selected neighbourhoods the same chance of being sampled. Enugu urban was divided into three strata using neighborhood densities namely: High density medium density and low density.

The names of neighbourhoods were written and grouped under their respective densities. However, each oof the neigghbourhoods, in each deusity, was written in a paper, folded and put in a bag. Finally, six neighbourhoods… addition of three buildings. After this, two neighbourhoods from each density were randomly selected, one are after another, without replacement. Finally, six neighbourhoods Abakpa and Ogui New Layout, Achara Layout and New Haven, Trans Ekulu and Government Reserved Area (GRA) were randomly picked, two from high density, medium density and low density, respectively. The stratification is shown below (a) High density: Abakpa, Asata, Iva Valley Ogbete (Coal Camp), Ogui New Layout, Uwani, Udi siding, Emene and Ogui urban. (b) Medium density: Awkunanaw, Idaw River, Maryland, New Haven, Secretariat Quarters and Achara Layout. (c) Low density: GRA, City Layout, Independence Layout, Republic Layout, River side, Thinkers Corner and Trans Ekulu. Afterwards, the names of the streets in each selected neighbourhood were written on pieces of paper and were put in lucky dip bag. Ten streets were simply randomly picked from the bag without replacement, from each of the six selected neighbourhoods. Questionnaires were administered to the fourth building after the 56 first randomly selected only on the street. This means that the subsequent ones were addition of three buildings.

5.3 SURVEY AND METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION Data to be collected in a field survey in Enugu urban Number and types of useful dumpsters. Ø Location of legal dumpsites Ø Number of illegal dumpsites Ø Magnitude of solid waste dumped in the dumpsites Ø Roads and streets dumpsites been located

5.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE STATISTICS USED FOR ANALYSIS AND VALIDATION OF THE RESEARCH Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). These one way analysis of variance were used to test first to fourth hypotheses. Ho: There is no significant difference among solid waste disposal method and management practices among neighborhoods in Enugu urban. Ho: There is no significant difference in the frequency of solid waste among neighborhoods of the study. Ho: There is no significant difference in the number of dumpsters among neighbourhoods in Enugu urban. Ho: The problems of solid waste disposal practice do not differ significantly among neighbourhoods in the study area. The tools were used to determine whether a significant difference exists between the dependent variables (y) and the independent variables (x) The estimated formular for analysis of variance

SSY = SS between + SSwithin 2 Where Ssy = ∑1 ∑1 (y1 - y ) 2 SsBetween = ∑1 N1 (y1 – y ) 2 Sswithin = ∑1 ∑ i (yii – y )

Plate 5.1 : Solid Wastes Wrapped inside Polyethene Bags and dumped inside Dumpsters Source :Researchers field work, 2015

Plate5. 2: Solid Wastes Wrapped inside polyethene Bags and dumped inside Dumpsters Source : Researchers field work, 2015

Plate 5.3 : Solid Wastes indiscriminately dumped at the site Source : researchers fieldwork, 2015

Plate 5.4: Dump site- Solid watses scattered at the site Source : Researchers fieldwork, 2015

Plate 5.5 Solid watses blocking the drainage system Source : Researchers fieldwork, 2015

CHAPTER SIX 6.0 DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS This chapter presents the data collected during the field work in order to show the various responses and the opinions to the variables in the questionnaires by the respondents in the study area. The data would further be analyzed and the findings revealed.

6.1 DATA PRESENTATION

QUESTIONAIRES RETURNS RATE FROM SAMPLED NEIGHBOURHOODS This shows the actual number of questionnaires that were completed by the respondents and collated by the researcher. It shows the number of questionnaires that were properly filled and used for the analysis. Table 6.1.1 shows that out of the 400 questionnaires that were administered, 385 were recovered, 7 were not properly filled and were later discarded due to errors, leaving a total of 378 questionnaires on which analysis was based on. This represents about 94.5% of the questionnaires were distributed.

Table 6.1: Questionnaire return rates from respondents in the sample neighbourhoods. Sample No of No of Q No of Q No of Q No of Q % neighbourhood Q returned not not properly properly issued returned properly filled filled filled Abakpa 156 153 3 3 150 39.7 Ogui new layout 71 68 3 3 66 17.7 New haven 32 29 3 0 29 7.6 Achara layout 87 84 3 1 83 22.0 GRA 34 33 1 0 33 8.7 Trans Ekulu 20 18 2 1 17 4.5 Total 400 385 15 7 378 100 Source: Researcher’s Field survey,2014

Table 6.2 reveals that females in all the sample neighbourhoods is greater than that of males. The study investigates 109 females in Abakpa and 41 males, while in Ogui 62

New Layout 41 female, and 25male, New Haven 20 and 9male, Achara Layout 58female and 25male, GRA 21female and 12male, while in Transekulu 12female and 5male were issued with questionnaire. This pinpoints that the majority of respondents are females. This is true because females are more involved in the generation and dumping of solid waste is dumpsites than males.

(SECTION A) TABLE 6.2: SEX OF RESPONDENTS DIFFERENT STUDY LOCATIONS IN ENUGU URBAN Sex response Abakpa Ogui New New Haven Achara GRA Trans- Layout Layout Ekulu Q1 Sex (a) Female 109 41 20 58 21 12 (b) Male 41 25 9 25 12 5

The data in table 6.3 indicate that majority of the single population are married. In Abakpa the study recorded 82 married 41 simple, 3 divorced and 23 widowed, while in Ogui New Layout 41 married, single 20, divorced 2, and widowed 3, New Haven married 17, single 17, single 8, divorced 1 and widowed 3, while Achara Layout Married 62, single 15, divorced 1 and widowed 5, while in GRA married 22, single 8, divorce 1 and widowed 2 and in Trans-Ekulu married 9, single 4, divorced 1 and widowed 3 respectively. TABLE 6.3: MARITAL STATUS OF RESPONDENTS DIFFERENT STUDY LOCATIONS IN ENUGU URBAN Marital Abakpa Ogui New Haven Achara GRA Trans-Ekulu status New Layout Layout Q2 Marital status (a) Married 82 41 17 62 22 9 (b) Single 42 20 8 15 8 4 (c) Divorced 3 2 1 1 1 1 (d) Widowed 23 3 3 5 2 3

The data in table 6.4 reveals that age range from 18-28 in Abakpa 28 was studied, another 55 respondents age range from 29-28, 39 age range from 39 – 48, while 21 age range 49 – 58 and also 7 age range from 59 and above respectively. Ogui New Layout, 12 studied their age range from 18 – 28, 35 studied their age range from 29 – 38, 8 studied their age range from 29 – 48, while 7 responded from age range 49 – 58, while 4 studied their age range from 59 and above, New Haven, 7 responded age range from 18 – 28, 9 studied their age range from 29 – 38, 8 studied their age range from 39 – 48, 4 studied their age range from 49 – 58, while another 1 responded age range from 59 and above, in Achara Layout 21 carried out their age range from 18 – 28, 35 responded from age range 29 – 38, 16 studied their age range from 39 – 48, 10 also responded with age range from 49 – 58, 1 studied their age range from 59 and above, while in GRA, 10 studied their age range from 29 – 38, 7 studied their age range from 39 – 48, 3 studied their age range from 49 – 58 while 1 responded with age range from 59 and above. In Trans-Ekulu, 3 studied their age range from 18 – 28, 5 responded from age range from 29 – 38, 2 carried out their studied from age range 39 – 48, while another 4 responded with age range from 49 – 58, and also 3 studied their age range from 59 and above respectively.

TABLE 6.4: AGE OF RESPONDENTS DIFFERENT STUDY LOCATIONS IN ENUGU URBAN Age options Abakpa Ogui New New Haven Achara GRA Trans-Ekulu Layout Layout Q3 Age (a) 18 – 28 28 12 7 21 10 3 (b) 29 – 38 55 35 9 35 12 5 (c) 39 – 48 39 8 8 16 7 2 (d) 49 – 58 21 7 4 10 3 4 (e) 59 and above 7 4 1 1 1 3

In 6.5 reveals that Abakpa recorded 46 of the respondents have family sixe of 1 – 3, 53 have household size of 4-6, 34 recorded the family size 7-10, while 17 have household size and above 10. In Ogui New Layout 19 were recorded the family size of 1-3, 26 of the respondents have family size of 7-10, while 17 have household size 64

and above 10. In Ogui New Layout, 19 were recorded the family size of 1-3, 26 of the respondents have family size of 4-6, 11 have household size of 4-6, while 7 respondents have family size of 7-10, 5 have household size and above 10. In New Haven, 8 respondents have family size of 1-3, 9 have household size of 4-6, 7 have household size of 4-6, 7 have household size of 7 – 10 while 5 recorded of the respondents have family size and above 10 respectively. In Achara Layout, 30 were recorded that the family size of people amount from 1-3 while another set from 4-6 amounted 18, 30 also have household size 7 – 10, and the same 30 respondents have family size of 7 – 10 respectively, and 5 recorded of the respondents have family size and above 10. GRA, 6 have household size of 1-3, 15 respondents have family size of 4-6, 9 have household size of 7 – 10 while another set above amounted 3. In Trans – Ekulu were recorded the family size of people amounted 3 from 1-3, 4 respondents have family size of 4-6, 8 have household size of 7-10 while another set above 10 amounted 2. All these shows increase in population of people as well as increase in generation of solid waste in Enugu Urban.

TABLE 6.5: FAMILY SIZE DIFFERENT STUDY LOCATIONS IN ENUGU URBAN Family size Abakpa Ogui New New Haven Achara GRA Trans- options Layout Layout Ekulu Q4 Family size (a) 1 – 3 46 19 8 30 6 3 (b) 4 – 6 53 26 9 18 15 4 (c) 7 – 10 34 11 7 30 9 8 (d) Above 10 17 10 5 5 3 2

The data 6.6 shows that greater respondents that has live long from 0-5 years in Abakpa were 43, 6 – 10 years were 41, 11 – 15 years 31, 16 – 20 years were 23, 16 – 20 years were 21, while 21 and above were 12. In Ogui New Layout, sample neighbourhoolds respondents who live from 0-5 years in Ogui New Layout were 12, 6 – 10 years were 20, 11 – 15 years were 27, 16 – 20 years were 5, while 21 and above was 2. In New Haven respondents live from 0 – 5 years were 9, 6-10 years were 8, 11 – 15 years were 5, 16 – 20 years were 4, while 21 and above were 3. In Achara 65

Layout, respondents for residents who live between 0 – 5 years were 23, 6-10 years were 31, 11 – 15 years were. In GRA the respondents that lived in the areas from 0 -5years were 8, 6 – 10 years were 12, 16 – 15 years were 6, 11-20 years were 4, and 21 and above were 3. In Trans-Ekulu, the lest respondents for residents who live between 0 – 5years were 3, 6- 10 years were 6, 11 – 15years were 3, 16 – 10 years 3, while 21 and above were 2.

TABLE 6.6: LENGTH OF STAY IN THE NEIGHBOURHOODS DIFFERENT STUDY LOCATIONS IN ENUGU URBAN Options Abakpa Ogui New New Haven Achara GRA Trans- Layout Layout Ekulu Q5 Length of stay (a) 0 – 5 years 43 12 9 23 8 3 (b) 6 – 10 41 20 8 31 12 6 (c) 11 – 15 years 31 27 5 20 6 3 (d) 16 – 20 years 23 5 4 3 4 3 (e) 21 and above 12 2 3 6 3 2

Table 6.7 reveals that many of the respondents attended formal education. In Abakpa 22 obtained no formal education, 18 obtained primary school in Abakpa, while greater respondents of them obtained secondary and tertiary education, education with 35 and 75. In Ogui New Layout, 15 obtained no formal education, 16 obtained primary school, and secondary and tertiary 20 and 15. In New Haven 3 obtained no formal education, I obtained primary school, while secondary and tertiary 7 and 18. In Achara Layout, 11 obtained no formal education, 7 obtained primary school, and greater respondents of both secondary and tertiary education knowledge with 23 and 42. In GRA 2 obtained no formal education, 5 obtained primary school, while in secondary and tertiary education knowledge obtained 10 and 16. In Trans-Ekulu, 2 obtained no formal education, 3 obtained primary school and 5 and 7 obtained secondary and tertiary education knowledge. This implies that they could answer the questions correctly and to the level required for the research.

TABLE 6.7: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF RESPONDENTS DIFFERENT STUDY LOCATIONS IN ENUGU URBAN Options Abakpa Ogui New New Haven Achara GRA Trans Layout Layout Ekulu Q6 Educational attainment (a) No formal education 22 15 3 11 2 2 (b) Primary school 18 16 1 7 5 3 (c) Secondary school 35 20 7 23 10 5 (d) Tertiary 75 15 18 42 16 7

In table 6.8, civil servant in Abakpa have respondents of 28, while business and trading in Abakpa have the highest respondents with 50, while unemployed, self employed and students in Abakpa have 22, 27 and 23. In Ogui New Layout civil servant have respondents of 9, while business and trading have respondents of 21, while unemployment self employed and students have respondents of 19, 13 and 4. In New Haven civil servant have respondents of 12, 5 have respondents for business and trading, while unemployed self employed and students have respondents of 3, 5 and 4. In Achara Layout civil servants have highest respondents with 47, and business and trading have respondents of 12, while unemployed, self employed and students have respondents of 4, 15 and 5. In GRA civil servants have respondents of 14, while business and trading have respondents of 6, while unemployed, self employed and students have respondents of 1, 10 and 2. In Trans-Ekulu civil servant have 4 respondents, and 5 have respondents for business/trading while unemployed, self- employed and students have respondents of 2, 1 and 5. This reveals that Enugu Urban is made up of mainly civil servants and business men/traders. This is why solid waste is a major issues in our environment when compared with liquid and other waste.

TABLE 6.8: OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENTS DIFFERENT STUDY LOCATIONS IN ENUGU URBAN Options Abakpa Ogui New New Haven Achara GRA Trans-Ekulu Layout Layout Q7 Occupation (a) Civil servant 28 9 12 47 14 4 (b) Business/trading 50 21 5 12 6 5 (c) Unemployed 22 19 3 4 1 2 (d) Self employed 27 13 5 15 10 1 (e) Student 23 4 4 5 2 5

The data in table 6.9 every zone in Nigeria has its own dominant religious worshipers. The implication in table 6.9 is that Enugu urban is mainly Christians whom dominate the South East Zone of the country. Christianity in Abakpa have the highest respondents of 114. While Islam, Traditional and others have respondents of 3 and 33. In Ogui New Layout, they have respondents of 49, while Islam, traditional and others have respondents of 1 and 16. In New Haven respondents of 24, while Islam, traditional and others have respondents of and 4. In Achara Layout have respondents of 61, and Islam, traditional have respondents of 3 and 19. In GRA have respondents of 25 while Islam, traditional and others have respondents of 1 and 7. In Trans-Ekulu, they have respondents of 13 and Islam, traditional and others have respondents of 1, 3 and 0 respectively. They generate different kinds of solid waste, which is as a result of foods they eat.

TABLE 6.9: RELIGION BACKGROUND OF RESPONDENTS DIFFERENT STUDY LOCATIONS IN ENUGU URBAN Options Abakpa Ogui New New Haven Achara GRA Trans- Layout Layout Ekulu Q8 Occupation (a) Christianity 114 49 24 61 25 13 (b) Islam 3 1 1 3 1 1 (c) Traditional 33 16 4 19 7 3 (d) Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 68

In table 6.10 shows the analysis of monthly income of the sample population earner. In Abakpa from N5,000-9,999 have respondents of 9, while N10,000-14, 999 have respondents of 11, while N15,000-19,999, N20,000 – 24, 999 and N25, and above have 55, 26 and 49. In Ogui New layout from N5,000-9,999 have respondents of 15 and from N10,000-14,999 have respondents of 30, while from N15,00-19,999 have respondents of 30, while from N15,00-19,999, N20,000 29,999 and N25,000 and above have respondents of 11, 6 and 4. In New Haven from N5,000-9,999 have respondents of 3, while from N10,000 – 14,999 have respondents of 3, while from N15,000-19,999, N20,000 – 24,999 and N25,000 and above have respondents of 8, 4 and 11. In Achara Layout from N5,000 – 9,999 have respondents of 7, and from N10,000 – 14,999 have respondents of 13, while from N15,000 – 19,999, N20,000 – 24,999, and N25,000 and above have respondents of 16, 20 and 27. In GRA from N5,000 – 1,999 have respondents of 3, and from N10,000 – 14,999 have respondents of 5, while from N15,000 – 79,999, N20,999 and N25,000 – above have respondents of 6, 8 and 11. In Trans-Ekulu from N5,000-999 have respondents of 3, while from N10,000-14,999 have respondents of 5, while from N15,000 – 19,999, N20,000 – 24,999 and N25,000 and above have 2, 3 and 4 respectively. TABLE 6.10: MONTHLY INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS DIFFERENT STUDY LOCATIONS IN ENUGU URBAN Monthly Abakpa Ogui New New Haven Achara GRA Trans- distribution option Layout Layout Ekulu Q9 Monthly income (N) (a) N5,000 – 9,999 9 15 3 7 3 3 (b) N10,000 – 14,999 11 30 3 13 5 5 (c) N15,000 – 19,999 55 11 8 16 6 2 (d) N20,000 – 24,999 26 6 4 20 8 3 (e) N25,000 and above 49 4 11 27 11 4

(SECTION B) TABLE 6.11: TYPES OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL METHOD USED BY RESPONDENTS DIFFERENT STUDY LOCATIONS IN ENUGU URBAN Solid waste disposal options Abakpa Ogui New Achara GRA Trans- New Haven Layout Ekulu Layout Q10 Types of solid (a) Incineration 43 25 19 20 19 10 (b) Sanitary landfill 77 30 6 45 11 5 (c) Waste/recycling 15 10 2 15 2 1 (d) Re-used method 15 1 2 3 1 1 (e) Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q11 Method of treatment of solid waste (a) Compositing 90 40 20 40 25 7 (b) Converting into 28 14 3 23 1 5 energy/electricity, fuel and gas (c) Re-recycling 25 10 5 17 5 3 (d) Re-used 7 2 1 3 2 2 (e) Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q12 Storage of solid waste (a) Nylon bag 30 18 9 17 7 3 (b) Waste bin 45 21 8 20 4 4 (c) Basket 4 1 1 1 1 1 (d) Polythene bag 35 6 2 20 6 2 (e) ESWAMA bag 36 20 9 25 15 7 Q13 Medium of disposal of solid waste (a) In collecting bin 88 54 17 48 14 11 (b) Burning 13 3 3 2 4 3 (c) On surface water 36 8 7 30 11 2 (d) Street 13 1 2 3 4 1 70

(e) Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q14 Rate evacuation of solid waste from waste bin (a) Daily 18 13 7 9 3 4 (b) Every two days 83 27 18 55 21 7 (c) Weekly 40 24 2 15 6 3 (d) Every two weeks 7 1 1 3 1 1 (e) Every month 2 1 1 1 2 2 Q15 Sources of households solid waste generation (a) Kitchen waste 19 19 6 8 2 3 (b) House sweeping 1 4 1 2 2 1 (c) Descartes properties 7 1 1 3 1 1 (d) Indiscriminate littering of 26 5 6 40 15 7 refuse around surrounding (e) Household refuse 97 37 15 30 13 5 Q16 Dumping of solid waste generated (a) Inside ESWAMA dumpsters 66 42 17 62 19 8 (b) Inside drainage system/street 18 6 3 2 3 1 (c) Inside rivers/streams 19 2 1 13 9 1 (d) Incinerator/space 24 2 2 3 1 2 (e) Opens dumping 23 14 6 3 6 9 Q17 Source/media of information on solid waste management (a) Television/radio 95 48 19 60 17 9 (b) Newspapers/magazine 1 1 1 1 2 1 (c) Friends/colleagues 48 15 2 20 12 4 (d) Telephone/mobile phone 6 2 2 2 2 3 (e) Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q18 Techniques adopted on solid waste management (a) Sanitary landfill 65 23 15 50 18 8 71

(b) Incineration 44 7 4 13 3 1 (c) Resources/recovery 11 3 3 4 5 1 (d) Compositing 9 18 5 15 4 6 (e) Open dumping 21 15 2 1 3 1 Q19 Reasons for adopting the method stated above (a) Cheap 1 3 2 4 1 2 (b) Efficient of technology 70 10 9 19 10 4 (c) Hygiene 75 51 15 55 20 9 (d) Revenue generation 4 2 3 5 2 2 (e) Others 0 0 0 0 0 0

SECTION C: TABLE 6.12 RATE THE AUTHORITY EVACUATE OF SOLID WASTE IN THE NEIGHBOURHOODS DIFFERENT STUDY LOCATIONS IN ENUGU URBAN Rate Options Abakpa Ogui New Achara GRA Trans- New Have Layout Ekulu Layout n Q20 The rate Authority evacuate solid waste in the neighbourhood. (a) Daily 5 6 3 1 2 1 (b) Every two days 78 12 8 75 16 9 (c) Weekly 50 41 15 5 11 5 (d) Every two weeks 14 6 2 1 2 1 (e) Every month 3 1 1 1 2 1 Q21 Rate of solid waste dump (a) Weekly 135 53 25 69 25 9 (b) Monthly 9 10 2 9 5 5 (c) Quarterly 5 2 1 3 2 2 (d) Twice a year 1 1 1 2 1 1 (e) Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q22 Techniques used on solid waste collection (a) House to house collection method 4 6 1 3 2 3 (b) Curbside collection method 37 23 10 26 2 5 (c) Communal container collection 16 5 5 6 6 1 method (d) Drop off container collection 93 32 13 48 23 8 (e) Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q23 Techniques adopted on solid waste frequency (a) Sanitary landfill 24 13 9 16 3 1 (b) Incineration 45 16 6 12 5 2 (c) Resources/recovery 6 2 1 2 1 3 73

(d) Open dumping 70 31 11 10 6 5 (e) Compositing 5 4 2 43 20 6 Q24 Reason(s) for adopting the techniques on solid waste frequency (a) Cheap 20 3 2 2 6 1 (b) Revenue generation 11 7 3 12 2 3 (c) Efficient of technology 18 18 10 23 1 5 (d) Hygiene 101 38 14 46 24 8 (e) Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q25 Participation in general monthly environmental sanitation exercise (a) Usually 116 51 18 64 20 9 (b) Once in a while 30 11 7 13 9 3 (c) Never 1 3 3 4 3 3 (d) Not practiced in my locations/area 3 1 1 2 1 2 (e) Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q26 Payment of service charge (a) N500 – 1000 20 6 1 3 3 1 (b) N1,500 – 2000 61 4 3 8 6 3 (c) N2000 – 3,000 35 2 12 14 6 3 (d) N3,500 – 4,000 30 49 10 55 13 8 (e) None 4 5 3 3 5 2 Q27 Efficiency of solid waste frequency (a) Sanitary landfill 53 22 12 15 9 3 (b) Recycling 43 26 8 56 6 5 (c) Compositing 16 10 4 3 11 3 (d) Incineration 30 5 3 4 6 5 (e) Open dumping 8 3 2 5 2 1 Q28 Payment for solid waste collection (a) Very high 26 10 3 5 6 1 (b) High 49 24 7 15 12 5 (c) Moderate 65 36 15 60 12 8 74

(d) Very poor 6 2 3 1 2 2 (e) Poor 4 1 1 2 1 1 Q29 General level of effectiveness of solid waste collection method (a) Very satisfactory 13 16 2 4 7 3 (b) Satisfactory 90 33 17 65 19 9 (c) Fairly satisfactory 45 11 7 10 4 4 (d) Unsatisfactory 2 6 3 4 3 1 (e) Others 0 0 0 0 0 0

SECTION D TABLE 6.13 NUMBER OF SOLID WASTE DUMPSTER DIFFERENT STUDY LOCATIONS IN ENUGU URBAN

Solid waste dumpster Options Abakpa Ogui New Achara G.R.A Trans New Haven layout - layout Ekulu Q30number of solid waste dumpster (a)500 3 7 3 2 1 1 (b)700 5 3 1 3 4 2 (c)900 6 13 3 7 1 3 (d)1000 45 16 7 20 10 6 (e)1,200 91 27 15 51 17 5 Q31 Dumping of solid waste generated (a) Inside dumpsters 66 38 20 45 18 9 (b) inside drainage channel/on the street 11 4 3 5 2 1 (c) inside rivers/stream 5 2 2 2 1 2 (d)open dump/space 28 10 3 11 7 4 (e) ESWAMA bags & drooping inside 35 12 1 15 5 1 the dumpsters Q32 Distance of solid waste dumpsters (a)30m-100m 35 20 11 43 7 2 (b) 110-500m 96 38 12 35 20 10 (c)510-1000m 15 5 4 3 5 3 (d)1010m-1500m 4 3 2 2 1 2 (e) Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q33 reaction of respondents to the heaps of solid waste (a)Uncomfortable 105 38 24 61 22 11

(b) comfortable 2 6 1 4 4 1 76

(d) No change 3 4 2 6 1 1

(e)Others 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q34 performance of ESWAMA on disposal of sold waste (a)Very good 44 28 5 32 8 2 (b) Good 70 30 15 41 15 7 (c) Very poor 4 1 1 1 2 1 (d) poor 8 1 1 3 1 1 (e)fair 23 6 7 6 7 6 Q35solid waste dump

(a) Open ground dump 6 2 2 6 3 1

(b) concrete built-up dump 9 4 1 1 2 3

(d) Incineration 27 6 3 10 5 3

(e)Recycling 3 4 1 2 1 2

Q36Solid waste bin (a)Metal bin 15 8 2 6 1 3 (b) plastic basket bin 30 11 4 3 2 1 (c) ESWAMA bin 97 43 19 66 27 8 (d) Nylon 3 1 1 2 1 1 (e)POLUTHENE BAG 5 3 3 6 2 4 Q37 Distance of solid waste disposal site located (a)Less than 1km 46 12 4 23 6 1

(b) 1-2km 83 50 16 50 20 11

(d) 3-4km 9 1 2 3 1 1 77

(e) up to 5km 5 1 3 1 1 2

Q38 ways of disposal of solid waste

(a)Burning 5 16 4 16 1 3

(b) Dumping into Sea 2 2 1 6 3 1

(d) in collecting bin 96 31 17 43 20 11

(e)Others 0 0 0 0 0 0

SECTION E TABLE 6.14 ORGANS THAT COLLECTS SOLID WASTE IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS DIFFERENT STUDY LOCATION Organ options Abakpa Ogui New Achara G.R.A Trans New Haven layout Ekulu layout Q39 organs that collects solid waste (a)ESWAMA 101 50 21 67 26 13 (b) By neighborhood 7 1 1 3 1 1 (c) By private arrangement 9 5 2 7 2 1 (d)By private contractors 33 10 5 6 4 2 (e) Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q40 problems ESWAMA encounter while clearing solid waste (a) Lack of vehicle trucks 53 19 6 21 12 4

(b)Shortage of workers 9 5 3 4 1 2

(d) Lack of co-operation from the 23 5 12 5 3 3 people (e) Lack of fund 62 35 7 50 16 7

Q41 body that can be blamed on the problems of solid waste disposal (a)The agencies ESWAMA 2 3 3 1 1 3 (b) Public 53 15 12 7 11 5 (c) Government 86 36 13 70 18 9 (d) Everybody 9 12 3 5 1 2 (e) Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q42 Common Environmental Problems (a) Air pollution 36 24 5 11 23 4 79

(b) Noise pollution 1 2 5 1 1 1 (c) Water pollution 60 12 2 13 1 1 (d) Land &soil pollution 26 3 3 40 2 3 (e) Solid waste 33 25 14 18 6 8 Q43 Work of ESWAMA on solid waste collection (a) Unsatisfactory 4 5 9 4 3 1

(b) Fairly 50 13 3 22 7 4

(d) very satisfactory 25 7 1 5 3 2

(e) others 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q44 mode of collection of solid waste (a) Vehicle trucks 129 51 24 76 15 9 (b) Wheel barrow 2 1 1 1 2 1 (c) Head carrier 3 2 1 2 3 1 (d) Hand carrier 16 12 3 4 13 4 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q45 Distance of disposal site (a) About 1km away 57 20 8 42 15 2 (b) About 2km away 75 40 11 31 1 12 (c)About 4km away 13 3 5 8 1 1 (d) About 6km away 4 2 3 2 1 1 (e) Above 6km away 1 1 2 2 1 1 Q46 source of information in how to manage and maintain solid waste disposal (a) School 6 2 1 5 3 1 (b) Television/Radio 80 36 18 43 20 9 (c) News paper 1 1 1 2 1 1 (d) Magazine 1 1 1 1 1 1 80

(e) Public seminars/announcement 62 26 9 32 8 3 Q 47 rate of Collection of solid waste (a) Daily 1 2 1 1 1 1 (b) Every two days 4 1 2 1 3 1 (c) Weekly 42 23 5 8 7 3 (d) Every two weeks 95 35 16 60 17 10 (e) Every monthly 8 5 5 13 5 2 Q 48 rate of the authority’s performance solid waste collection (a) Very poor 1 1 1 1 1 2 (b) poor 4 1 1 2 1 1 (c)Fair 52 13 9 30 17 6 (d) Good 64 31 13 38 11 4 (e) every good 28 20 5 12 3 4

SECTION B

Table 6.11 TYPES OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL METHOD USED BY

RESPONDENTS

The data in table 6.11 shows that the type of solid waste disposal method used by

respondents. This sets of data is used to achieve objectives. In Abakpa Sanitary

Landfill disposal method have the highest respondents of 77, while Ogui New Layout

Sanitary Landfill have 30 respondents and New Haven incineration have greater

respondents, while Achara Layout Sanitary Landfill have 45, as the highest

respondents. In GRA incineration have 19 respondents. In Trans-Ekulu incineration

got the highest respondents of 10 respectively.

Table 6.12: METHOD OF TREATMENT OF SOLID WASTE

The data in table 6.12 shows the method of treatment of solid waste adopted by respondents. In Abakpa compositing have highest respondents of 90. Ogui New

Layout compositing have respondents of 40. In New Haven compositing got 20; In

Achara Layout compositing have respondents of 40. In GRA compositing have respondents of 25 and Trans-Ekulu compositing have respondents of 7.

Table 6.13 STORAGE OF SOLID WASTE

In table 6.13 below, only 45 waste bin made use in Abakpa, while in Ogui New

Layout only 21 waste bin were used, in New Haven, 9 Nylon bag and ESWAMA bag were used; In Achara Layout, 25 ESWAMA bag were used. In GRA only 15

ESWAMA bag were used, while Trans-Ekulu 7 ESWAMA bag were used respectively.

Table 6.14: MEDIUM OF DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE

In table 6.14 collecting bin in Abakpa have the highest respondents with 88; In Ogui

New Layout have respondents of 54 in collecting bin. In New Haven have respondents of 17 in collecting bin. In Achara Layout have respondents of 48, while in GRA, 14 collecting bin were used, In Trans-Ekulu have respondents of 11 in collecting bin.

Table 6.15: RATE OF EVACUATION OF SOLID WASTE FROM WASTE

BIN

In table 6.15 shows the rate of evacuation of solid waste bin from the dumpsites in all the areas of daily basis by respondents. In Abakpa 83 supported that it was done in every two days; Ogui New Layout 27 supported that it was being done in every two days. In New Haven, 18 support it was being done in every two days. In Achara 82

Layout, 55 supported that it was being done in every two days. In GRA, 21 supported that it was being in every two days and in Trans-Ekulu 7 supported that it was being done in every two days respectively.

Table 6.16: SOURCES OF HOUSEHOLDS SOLID WASTE GENERATION

In table 6.16 shows household refuse in Abakpa have the highest respondents with 97.

In Ogui New Layout have respondents of household of refuse 37. In New Haven have household refuse respondents of 15. In Achara Layout indiscriminate littering of refuse around surrounding have respondents of 40. In GRA indiscriminate littering of refuse around surrounding have respondents of 15 and Trans-Ekulu indiscriminate littering of refuse around surrounding have respondents of 5.

Table 6.17: DUMPING OF SOLID WASTE GENERATED

In table 6.17, in Abakpa about 66, Ogui New Layout, 42, New Haven 17, Achara

Layout 62, GRA 62 dumped inside ESWAMA dumpers for appropriate disposal by the Authority. Generated on Open dump method. This might be one of the reasons why many streets/roads are now clean since the Authority finds it easier to dispose the waste when wrapped in bags.

Table 6.18: SOURCE/MEDIA OF INFORMATION ON SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT

In table 6.18 shows means of information on solid waste management. In Abakpa have 97 as their source from television /radio, Ogui New Layout 48, New Haven 19,

Achara Layout 60, GRA 17 and Trans-Ekulu 9 respectively. This implies generally that means of information on solid waste management was through television/radio.

Table 6.19: TECHNIQUES ADOPTED ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

In table 6.19, shows techniques adopted on solid waste management used in the study area. In Abakpa greater respondents of 65 adopted sanitary landfill, Ogui New Layout

23, New Haven 15, Achara Layout 50, GRA 18 and Trans-Ekulu 8 respectively.

Table 6.20: REASONS FOR ADOPTING SOLID WASTE METHOD

Reasons for Adopting the method stated above in table 6.20 in Abakpa hygiene have the highest respondents with 75, Ogui New Layout 51, New Haven 15, Achara Layout

55 GRA 20 and Trans-Ekulu 9 respectively.

SECTION C

Table 6.21: RATE THE AUTHORITY EVACUATE OFF SOLID WASTE IN

THE NEIGHBHOURHOODS.

The data in table 6.21 shows that the authority is improving on rate of disposal of solid waste in Enugu Urban. In Abakpa about 78, Ogui New Layout 12, New Haven

8, Achara Layout 75, GRA 16 and Trans-Ekulu 9 confirmed that solid waste are being cleared from the dumpsters every two days respectively.

Table 6.22: RATE OF SOLID WASTE DUMP

The data in table 6.22 shows the rate of solid waste dump in the study area. In Abakpa have the highest respondents with 135, Ogui New Layout 53, New Haven 25, Achara

Layout 69, GRA 25, and Trans-Ekulu 9 on weekly basis respectively. This brought the unclean nature of the urban area, causing air pollution, visual in trusion as well as reduction in aesthetic quality of the environment.

Table 6.23 TECHNIQUES USED ON SOLID WASTE COLLECTION

The data in table 6.23 shows the techniques used on solid waste collection. In Abakpa

Drop of container collection method have respondents with 93 as the highest Ogui

New Layout 32, New haven 13, Achara Layout 48, GRA 23 and Trans-Ekulu 8 respectively.

Table 6.24: TECHNIQUES USED ON SOLID WASTE COLLECTION

The data in table 6.24 shows the techniques used on solid waste collection. In Abakpa drop of container collection method have respondents with 93 as the highest Ogui

New Layout 32, New Haven 13, Achara Layout 48, GRA 23 and Trans-Ekulu 8 respectively.

Table 6.25: REASON(S) FOR ADOPTING THE TECHNIQUES ON SOLID

WASTE FREQUENCY

The data in table 6.25 shows the reasons (s) for adopting the techniques on solid waste. In Abakpa greater respondents got hygiene as the highest, with 101 followed by Ogui New Layout 38, new Haven 14, Achara Layout 46, GRA 24 and Trans-Ekulu

8 respectively.

Table 6.26: PARTICIPATION IN GENERAL MONTHLY ENVIRONMENTAL

SANITATION EXERCISE

The data in table 6.26 indicates that in every density, the respondents in Abakpa participated usually with 116, Ogui New Layout 51, New Haven 18, Achara layout

64, GRA 20 and Tran-Ekulu 9 respectively. According to the respondent, they have the zeal to participate in the general monthly environmental sanitation exercise.

Table 6.27: PAYMENT OF SERVICE CHARGE

In table 6.27 shows improvement on the payment of service charge in Enugu urban. In

Abakpa paid highest of N1,560-2000, with 61 respondents, Ogui New Layout paid the highest of N3,500,-4,000 with, 49, New Haven paid greater amount of N2000-3,000 with 12, Achara Layout 55, GRA 13 and Trans-Ekulu 8 respectively. They complained that the charge was too costly for them, and it affected their annual income.

Table 6.28: EFFICIENCY OF SOLID WASTE FREQUENCY

In table 6.28 shows efficiency of solid waste in Enugu Urban. In Abakpa sanitary land fill were highly adopted by respondents with 53; in Ogui New layout recycling were highly adopted by respondents with 26, New Haven sanitary landfill12, while Achara

Layout recycling were highly adopted by respondents with 56; GRA compositing were highly adopted by respondents with 11, and Trans-Ekulu compositing /recycling with information highly adopted by respondents with 5, 5 respectively.

Table 6.29: PAYMENT FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION

The data in table 6.29 shows payment for solid waste in the study area. In Abakpa moderate payment respondents complied with is 65, Ogui New Layout 36, New

Haven 15, Achara layout 60, GRA moderate/ very high were 12, and Trans -Ekulu 8 respectively.

Table 6.30: GENERAL LEVEL OF EFFECTIVENESS OF SOLID

COLLECTION METHOD

In table 6.30 shows the general level of effectiveness of solid waste collection method in Enugu Urban. In Abakpa satisfactory have the highest respondents with 90, Ogui 86

New Layout 33, New Haven 17, Achara layout 65, GRA 19 and Trans-Ekulu 9 respectively.

SECTION D

Table 6.31: NUMBER OF SOLID WASTE DUMPSTER

In table 6.31 shows the number of solid waste dumpster in Enugu Urban. In Abakpa

1,200 have greater respondents with 91 number of solid waster dumpster, followed by Achara layout with 51, Ogui New layout 27, GRA 17, New Haven 15, and Trans-

Ekulu 1000 have respondent with 6 numbers of solid waste dumpster.

Table 6.32: DUMPING OF SOLID WASTE GENERATED

The data in table 6.32. In Abakpa 66 respondents dump their solid waste generated inside dumpsters, Ogui new Layout 38, new haven 20, Achara layout 45, GRA 18, and Trans-Ekulu 9 respectively. About 99% use the collect method of dumping of solid waste for appropriate disposal by the Authority.

Table 6.33: DISTANCE OF SOLID WASTE DUMPSTERS

In table 6.33 shows the distance of solid waste dumpsters in the study area. In Abakpa

110-500m have highest respondents of 96, Ogui New Layout 38, New Haven 12,

Achara Layout 35, GRA 20, and Trans-Ekulu 10 respectively.

Table 6.34: REACTION OF RESPONDENTS TO THE HEAPS OF SOLID

WASTE

In table 6.34 reveals that many sample population in all the neighourhoods reacted negatively for poor performance of the authority. In Abakpa uncomfortable have respondents with 105, Ogui New Layout 38, New Haven 24, Achara layout 61, GRA

22, and Trans-Ekulu 11 respectively. From the oral interview conducted, those who 87 are uncomfortable said that solid waste supposed to be cleared at least every two days to avoid odour nuisances and diseases.

Table 6.35: PERFORMANCE OF ESWAMA ON SOLID WASTE

The data in table 6.35 shows that agency perform duty as expected by Urban

Residents. In Abakpa 70 respondents respondent that the agency was good in her performance, ogui new layout 30, New Haven 15, Achara layout 41, GRA 15, and

Trans-Ekulu 7 respectively. This indicates that in Enugu urban the agency was up to average in her performance.

Table 6.36 SOLID WASTE DUMP

In data in table 6.36 shows solid waste dump in Enugu Urban. In Abakpa ESWAMA bin have highest respondents with 105, Ogui New layout 50, New haven 22, Achara

Layout 64, GRA 22, and 8 Trans-Ekulu 8 respectively.

Table 6.37: SOLID WASTE BIN

In data table 6.37 shows solid waste bin in the study area. In Abakpa ESWAMA have highest respondents with 97, Ogui New Layout 43, New Haven 19, Achara Layout

66, GRA 27, and Trans-Ekulu 8 respectively.

Table 6.38: DISTANCE OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE LOCATED

The data in table 6.38: in Abakpa 1-2km have respondents of 83, Ogui New Layout

50, New Haven 16, Achara Layout 50, GRA 20, while Trans-Ekulu have respondents of 11 respectively.

Table 6.39: WAYS OF DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE

The data in table shows ways of disposal of solid waste in Enugu urban. In Abakpa in collecting bin have highest respondents with 96, followed by Achara Layout, Ogui

New Layout 31, GRA 20, New Haven 17, and Trans-Ekulu 11 respectively.

SECTION E

Table 6:40: ORGAN THAT COLLECTS SOLID WASTE IN THE

NEIGHBOURHOODS

The data in the table 6.40; In Abakpa ESWAMA have highest respondents with 101,

Ogui new Layout 50, New Haven 21, Achara layout 67, GRA 26, and Trans-Ekulu

13 collects their solid waste respectively.

Table 6.41: PROBLEMS ESWAMA ENCOUNTER WHILE CLEARING

SOLID WASTE

The data in the table 6.41 shows that ESWAMA encounter problem of solid waste. In

Abakpa lack of fund have respondents of 62, Ogui New layout 35, Achara Layout 50,

GRA 16, Trans-Ekulu 7, while New Haven lack of c0operation from the people have respondents of 12 respectively.

TABLE 6.42: BODY THAT CAN BE BLAMED ON THE PROBLEMS OF

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

The data in table 6.42 shows the body that can be blamed on the problems of solid waste disposal in Enugu Urban. In Abakpa government have respondents of 86, followed by Achara layout 70, Ogui New Layout 36, New Haven 13, GRA 18 and

Trans-Ekulu 9 responded that the government should be blame on the problems of solid waste disposal.

Table 6.43: COMMON ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

The data in table 6.43 shows the common environmental problems in the study area.

In Abakpa water pollution have respondents of 60, while Achara Layout land and soil pollution have respondents of 40, Ogui New Layout solid waste have respondents of

25, GRA Air pollution have respondents of 23, New Haven solid waste have respondents of 14 and Trans-Ekulu solid waste have respondents of 8 respectively.

Table 6.44: WORKS OF ESWAMA ON SOLID WASTE COLLECTION

The data in table 6.44 means that the Authority is improving on solid waste collection in Enugu Urban. In Abakpa 68 confirmed that the Authority on solid waste collection are satisfactory, Ogui new layout 41, new Haven 16, Achara layout 51, GRA 20, and

Trans-Ekulu 10 respectively..

Table 6.45: MODE OF COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE

Table 6.45 shows that the mode of collection of solid in the study area. In Abakpa 129 of respondents testified that the mode of collection by Authority are use of vehicle trucks, followed by Achara 76, Ogui new Layout 51, New haven 24, GRA 15, and

Trans-Ekulu 9 respectively.

Table 6.46: DISTANCE OF DISPOSAL SITE

Table 6.46: the data in table 6.46 shows the distance of disposal site in Enugu Urban.

In Abakapa about 2km away have respondents distance of disposal site with 75, while

Ogui New Layout 40, New Haven 11, and Trans-Ekulu 12, while Achara layout and

GRA is about 1km away have respondents of and 15 respectively.

Table 6.47: SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON HOW TO MANAGE AND

MAINTAIN SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

The data in table 6.47 shows that the source of information on how to manage and maintain solid waste disposal in Enugu urban. In Abakpa Television and Radio have highest respondents of 80, followed by Achara Layout 43, Ogui new layout 36, GRA

20, New Haven 18, and Trans-Ekulu 9 respectively.

Table 6.48: RATE OF COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE

The data in table 6.48 shows that the rate of collection of solid waste by agency in the study area. In Abakpa every two weeks got the highest respondents of 95, Achara

Layout 60, Ogui New Layout 35, GRA 17, New Haven 16 and Trans- Ekulu 10 supported that the rate of collection was being done in every two weeks.

Table 6.49: RATE OF AUTHORITY PERFORMANCE ON SOLID WASTE

COLLECTION

The data in table 6.49 below shows that the Authority performed their duty as expected by Urban residents. In Abakpa good have respondents of 64, Ogui New layout 31, New Haven 13, Achara layout 38, GRA 17 and Trans-Ekulu 6, have fair respondents respectively.

6.2 TEST OF HYPOTHESIS

6.2.1 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA) ON SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL METHOD AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICE The ANOVA result in table 6.14 was obtained for hypothesis number one, with states “Ho: there is no significant difference on solid waste disposal method and management practice among neighborhood in Enugu urban”. The ANOVA was carried out with data in table 6.10 of this study.

Table 6.15: ANOVA of difference in sold waste disposal method and management practice among Sum of Mean Model Squares D/f Square F Sig. 1. Regression 296.783 5 59.357 26.182 .000(a) Residual 88.417 39 2.267 Total 385.200 44 (Source: Author’s SPSS ANOVA, 2015)

The result showed a P-value of 0.000 which is less than critical value of 0.01. Hence the P-value of 0.000 showed a statistical significant. Therefore, the result showed a significant difference on solid waste disposal method and management practice among the neighborhood of the study area (p = 0.000).

Decision: Considering the P-value of 0.000, which is less than the critical value of 0.01, hypothesis one, which states “Ho: there is no significant difference on solid waste disposal method and management practice among neighborhood in Enugu Urban” is rejected.

Consequently, the alternative hypothesis, which states “H1: there is significant difference on solid waste disposal method and management practice among neighborhood in Enugu urban” is accepted.

6.2.2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA) OF FREQUENCY OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION BY RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY The hypothesis number two, which states “Ho: there is no significant difference in frequency of solid waste collection by the responsible authority among the different study locations”. The ANOVA was conducted with data in table 6.11 of this research work.

Table: 6.16 ANOVA of difference in Frequency of Solid Waste Collection in the Study Area Sum of Mean Model Squares D/f Square F Sig. 1. Regression 229.448 5 45.890 17.674 .000(a) Residual 75.295 29 2.596 Total 304.743 34 (Source: Author’s SPSS ANOVA, 2015)

The result of P-value of 0.000 is less than critical value 0.01. This implies that P-value of 0.000 showed statistical significance in this study.

Hence, the result showed that there is a significant difference in the frequency of solid waste collection by the responsible authority among the different study locations (p = 0.000).

Decision: Based on the P-value of 0.000 which is less than the critical value of 0.01, hypothesis two, which states “Ho: there is no significant difference in frequency of solid waste collection by the responsible authority” is rejected.

Consequently, the alternative hypothesis, which states “H1: there is significant difference in frequency of solid waste collection by the responsible authority” is accepted.

6.2.3 ANOVA OF DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF DUMPSTER The ANOVA result shown in table 6.16 was carried out for hypothesis number three, which states “Ho: there is no significant difference in the number of dumpster among neighborhood in Enugu urban”. The ANOVA was conducted with data in table 6.12 of this study.

Table 6.17: ANOVA of difference in number of dumpster Sum of Mean Model Squares D/f Square F Sig. 1 Regression 223.985 5 44.797 59.934 .000(a) Residual 16.444 22 .747 Total 240.429 27 (Source: Author’s SPSS ANOVA, 2015)

The result of p-value of 0.000 in this study is less than critical value of 0.01. This shows that p-value of 0.000 is statistical significant.

Decision: Based on p-value of 0.000, hypothesis three, which states “Ho: there is no significant difference in the number of dumpster among neighborhood in Enugu Urban” is rejected.

As a result, the alternative hypothesis, which states “H1: there is significant difference in the number of dumpster among neighborhood in Enugu Urban” is accepted.

6.2.4 ANOVA OF DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF DUMPSTER The ANOVA result shown in table 6.17 was also carried out for hypothesis number three, which states “Ho: the problems of solid waste disposal practice do not differ significantly among neighborhood in Enugu urban”. The ANOVA was derived with data in table 6.13 of this study.

Table 6.18: ANOVA of problems of solid waste disposal Sum of Mean Model Squares D/f Square F Sig. 1 Regression 420.384 5 84.077 40.988 .000(a) Residual 82.051 40 2.051 Total 502.435 45 (Source: Author’s SPSS ANOVA, 2015) The result of p-value of 0.000 in this study is less than critical value of 0.01. This shows that p-value of 0.000 is statistical significant.

Decision: Based on p-value of 0.000, hypothesis three, which states “Ho: the problems of solid waste disposal practice do not differ significantly among neighborhood in Enugu urban,” is rejected. As a result, the alternative hypothesis that states “Ho: the problems of solid waste disposal practice differ significantly among neighborhood in Enugu urban” is accepted.

6.3 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS The findings of the study include:

6.10.1 Findings from the methods of solid waste disposal and management practice among neighborhood in Enugu urban (objective 1).

The findings indicates that solid waste disposal and management practice differ from one neighborhood to another (P=0.000). This was explained with data in table 6.10 of the study. Solid waste disposal method observed in different neighborhood includes incineration, scanty, landfill, waste re-cycle and reuse method.

The study observed that Abakpa area practice incineration very much more than other area such as Ogui New layout, New Haven among others. The data in the table also showed that sustainable waste management techniques such as waste re-cycle and reuse is not adequate practice. This constitutes serious environmental impactions in the area. This is relating to the work done by Foo (2008), Akinola and Salami (2010). Their work emphasized that solid waste management is a major challenges of urban area. They also pointed that improper solid waste management could cause air, wastes or soil pollution.

This study shows that solid waste disposal practices differ from one neighbourhood to another (P=0.000). The implications are variation in environmental quality which is highly link to waste management practice. This is in agreement with the work of Mahar (2007) and Ogbuene (2010). Their study maintained that improper solid waste management increase diseases transmission, contaminated ground and surface water, damage ecosystem, emission of greenhouse gases and others air pollution. Their 95 finding is highly related to burning of waste materials which is more practice in the study area.

6.11.2 FINDINGS FROM THE FREQUENCY OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION BY THE AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT (OBJECTIVE 2) The frequency of solid waste collection by the Authority responsible differs among different neighborhoods of the study area (P=0.000). This reveals data in table 6.11 of this study.

The frequency of solid the authority solid waste collection in different neighbourhood include daily, every two days, weekly, every two weeks and every month.

The study observed that Abakpa in the study area practice Every two days solid waste collection more than other study area such as Ogui new layout, New heaven, Achara layout GRA and Trans-Ekulu. It also shows that Evacuation of solid waste collection such as every two weeks and every months not adequately practice with study area. They are used based on their ability to ensure effective and efficient waste collection with study area. This was related to the work done Zuhuang (2008) they observed that solid waste collection in Enugu urban is becoming an increasing problem daily and complex task. The Authority responsible for waste collection was established to develop and implement policies on the management of solid and liquid waste that would promote the health and wellbeing of the people and also ensure effective and efficient collection removal, treatment and disposal of all kinds of wastes. The study showed that frequencey of solid waste collection by Authority responsible for it, differ among different neighbopurhoods in Enugu Urban (P = O. 000). This resulted to variation Environmental quality which is highly linked to solid waste collection. This was also in agreement with the work of ogbuene (2010) and schubeler (2012).

6.12.3 FINDINGS FROM THE NUMBER OF SOLID WASTE DUMPSTERS IN ENUGU URBAN (OBJECTIVE 3) The findings indicate that the number of solid waste dumpsters differ amongst neighbourhood in the study area at P=0.000. Table 6:12 shows the data in the study 96 area. The number of solid waste dumpsters placed in different neighbourhood which include the following number 500, 700, 900, 1000 and 1,200 respectively.

The study noted that Abakpa area have highest number of solid waste dumpster of 1,200 and followed by Achara layout of 1000 solid waste dumpster, than others such as Ogui New layout New haven, GRA and Trans-Ekulu. The findings in table 6.12 showed that there are inadequate number of solid waste dumpster in Enugu Urban. This constitutes a serious environmental problems in Enugu urban According to Osumanu (2007) stated the solid waste dumpster are insufficient to cover their designated areas. The areas that are more susceptible to the endemic problem are areas within in Enugu urban of Abakpa, Ogui new layout, new heaven, Achara layout, GRA and Trans-Ekulu and this present study emphasized that the numbers of solid waste vary significantly within the neighborhood to another (P=0.000). In a similar study, Benneh adopted different method of solid waste disposal

6.13.4 FINDINGS FROM THE PROBLEMS OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICE AMONG NEIGHBOURHOOD IN ENUGU URBAN (OBJECTIVE 4) The findings showed that the problems of solid waste disposal practice differ among the neighborhoods of Enugu urban (p=0.000). This was explained with data in table 6.13 of the study. The findings showed that the problems of solid waste disposal encounted by the Enugu State Waste Management Authority (ESWAMA) include inadequate trucks for transportation of solid waste, shortage of workers, lack of cooperation from the people and inadequate fund. The study noted that Abakpa area have problems of lack of fund more than Achara layout and other area such as Ogui new layout, new haven, GRA and Trans- Ekulu.

This constitutes serious environmental implications in the study area. This is related to the work done. Nze (2009) noted that lack of logistics and financial management, peoples attitudes towards waste disposal should not be ignored. He also outlined that they resulted from inadequate and deficient infrastructure, inadequate structures of environmental administration disregard for basic aesthetics, industrial and commercial growth, and other human factors. 97

This our present study emphasized that problems of solid waste disposal practice differ among the neighborhood of Enugu urban (P=0.000). The implications is variation in environmental quality which is highly link to improper waste management practice.

This is related to the work done by Abrokwah (2012). The study emphasized that ignorance, negligence, lack of law to technology in waste management are the major causes of waste management problems Sule (2011) stated that the main cause of the problems of Nigeria city’s poor environmental condition can be ascribed to improper management of solid wastes and lack of seriousness in the enforcement of solid waste disposal code. Their findings is highly related to improper disposal of solid waste materials which is more practice in the study areas.

CHAPTER SEVEN RECOMMENDATIONS The study on assessment of solid waste disposal practice among neighbourhood in Enugu urban has been carried out with a view of buttressing the policy implications of this study as well as recommendations and conclusions.

Based on the findings, the following recommendations have been proffered. (1) The authority should provide more dumpsters that would meet the volume of solid waste being generated by the neighborhoods. (2) Individuals in each neighbourhood must be encouraged to learn how to manage their solid waste products. The authority should be encouraged to go on rapping the waste in black polythene bags and dropping them inside the dumpsters. (3) Solid waste should be disposed more regularly (at least twice a week) in every part in Enugu urban. (4) The authority should continue to apply the methods they should use in disposal of solid waste, and also make more improvements. (5) Efforts should also be made to recycle some of these waste products. This would serve as source of revenue for the government and also generate employment for the people of Enugu state.

Finally, government alone cannot efficiently handle waste managements. It is recommended that waste management should be contracted to privates firms as it is being practiced in some cities in Nigeria.

CONCLUSION In this study, it is now very clear that effective solid waste disposal in Enugu urban lies on the method applied by the authority responsible for the disposal of solid waste. Effort has been made to understand the waste disposal method and management in Enugu by authority responsible, but it was discovered that the issue of waste disposal system and maintenance are not well addressed.

Though the state has established the parastal responsible for monitoring and managing solid waste disposal and their effort cannot match up with the dumpster disposed by the neighbourhood. The study also proves that active participation and compliance of the urban residents to law and responsibilities expected of them is a right direction towards alleviating solid waste problems in Enugu urban. The efforts of both the authority and the urban dwellers are needed to achieve sound aesthetic environments. It is hoped that if the stated recommendations would continue to be applied or executed, the services of Enugu state waste management authority (ESWAMA) would more be improved leading to high quality of the environments in Enugu urban.

The study concluded that there is need for environmental education, particularly on waste disposal and management approach towards improving the neighbourhood participation in domestic waste disposal and management in the city. 100

REFERENCES

Abankwa, B. (2012) “The Problems of Waste Management in Atonsu Agogo, Kumasi” Status Report on Population, Human Resource and Development Planning and Policy in Ghana National Population Council, Ashanti Press, Kummasi

Abrokwah, K. (2012) “Refuse Management Problems in Central Kumasi”. Status Report on Population, Human Resource and Development Planning and Policy in Ghana 1960 to 1991. National Population Council, Ashanti Press, Kumasi.

Adefemi, B. and Awokunmi I. (2010). The Practice and Challenges of Solid Waste Management in Singapore, Waste Management, 557-567.

Adejobi O, OLorurmbe . R (2014). Challenges of waste management and climate change in Nigeria: Lagos Sate Metropolis experience. American international journal of contemporary remotely 2 (5): 228-236

Adelaide, A. (2008). Waste Management and Sanitation at James Town and Accra Central. A dissertation Submitted to the Department of Sociology, University of Ghana, Legon.

Agukonroye, O. C. (2005) The Roles of Town Planning in the Location of Telecommunication Masts and Towers in Nigeria, in Ugwu, I. C. (ed), Global Satellite Mobile Telecommunication (GSM) and the Environment, pp. 30 – 47.

Agunwamba, J.C (2003), “Least Cost Management, of Solid Waste Collection” Journal of Solid Wastes Technology and Management, 29(3).

Akinola S. and Salami, R. 2001. An Assessment of the Effectiveness of private Sector Participation Initiatives in Solid Waste Management in Muslin Government Area, Lagos State Nigerian Journal of Social and Education Research.

Akinola, S. and Salami R. (2010). An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Private Sector participation initiatives in solid waste management in Mushin Local Government Area, Lagos State. Nigeria Journal of Social and Educational Research A Publication of the Nigerian Association of Social and Educational Research, University of Ado-Ekiti.

Allende, R. (2009). Waste History in the Gambia Thesis (MSC), University of the Gambia.

Anthony J. (2007) Nigeria: Kano Needs resources for refuse disposal. Vanguard (Lagos) August 14, 2001 available at: htpp://www.vanguard.com (Accessed 12 April 2012). 101

Attah P. A. (2010). Public Attitude towards waste Disposal in New Karu, Nasarawa State. An Unpublished M.Sc Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Sociology, Nasarawa State University, Keffi.

Bai, R. and Sutanto, M. (2002). The Practice and Challenges of Solid Waste Management in Singapore, Waste Management, 22; 557 – 567.

Banar, M. and Acar, I. (2006). Choosing a Municipal Landfill site by Analytical Network Process, Environmental Geology 52, 747-751.

Banole and Emeribe, A.E. (2013). Environmental Solid Waste Management for Sustainable. Development in Nigeria: Some new perspectives, policy and Contending Issues in Nigeria National Development strategy. John Jacob classic publishers, Enugu

Bartone, C. R. (2000), Strategies for Improving Municipal Solid Waste Management: Lesson from adecade of World Bank Lending. Regional Conference Partnership in Municipal Solid Waste Management, Caro, 10 – 12 April 2000. World Bank, Washington DC, USA.

Bartone, C. R; (1995). “The Role of the private sector in Developing Countries: Keys to success” conference Paper Presented at the ISWA Conference on Waste Management, Role of the Private Sector, Singapore

Bartone, C.R. (2000). Strategies for Improving Municipal Solid Waste Management: Lesson from a Decade of World Bank Landing Regional Conference Partnership in Municipal Solid Waste Management Cairo, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Benneh, G., Songsore, J., Nabila S. J. Amuzu A. T., Tutu K. A. Yaugyorn (2010). Environmental Problem and Urban Household in Greater Accra Metropolitan Area (GAMA). M.A.C. Stockholm, Ghana.

Buckle and Smith (2008) Solid Waste Handling in Metropolitan, United States Public Health Service (USPHS) Publication Washington DC.

Buckle and Smith, (2000). Solid Waste Handling in Metropolitan, United States Public Health Service (USPHS) Publication WashingtonDC.

Chukwuemeka E, Yusuff R (2015). Application of Gis to Municipal Waste management. In:y Fawehinmi (ed): Urban Finance and infrastructural Development in Nigeria Atantris, pp 135-148

Cointreau Levine. S. N. D. (2003). Occupation and Environmental Health Issues of Solid Waste Mana http://www.LSr.org/recycling/other/dctransfer/ochealth.pdf (Accessed May 2003). 102

Cointreau S. J. (2007). Environmental Management of Urban Solid Waste in Developing Countries Urban Technical Paper No. 5, Washington: The World Bank.

Cointreau. S, J. (2005). Environmental Management of Urban Solid Waste in developing countries. Urban Technical Paper No5, Washington: The World Bank.

Danbuzu, A. (2011). Composition and Spatial distribution solid waste collections points in urban Kastina, Northern Nigeria. Available at: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/R4D/Output/173004/Default.aspx (Accessed 2 April 2012)

Dara S. S. (2004). Environmental Chemistry and Pollution Control New Delhi: S. Chand and Company Ltd, India.

Dawei Han (2012). Concise Environmental Engineering. Dawei Han and Ventus Publishing APS. ISBN 978-87-403-0197-7

Edmunson R. (2011). Solid Waste and Pollution “People’s Daily Graphic October 9, 2008, pp. 6.

Enugu Master Plan (1979),Map of Enugu States

Eze G. O (2015)Issue in Nigeria Underdevelopment Vinez publishers, Lagos

Ezerah, C. C. (2006) “The Need to Improve on Existing Solid Waste Management Strategy in Enugu Urban”, BURP Dissertation, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus.

Foo, T. S. (2008) Recycling of Domestic Waste: Early Experience in Singapore Habitat International, 21, 277 – 289.

Foundation and Practice of Conventional Solid Waste Management. Available online at www.zendergroup.org/diss/chapter2.pdf

Gertsakis J. and Lewis H., 2003 Sustainability and the Waste Management Hierarchy, 2003: a discussion paper for EcoRecycle Victoria, RMIT,

Gilpin, Alan (1976). Dictionary of Environmental Terms, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.

Hardoy, J. E. (2003). Environmental Problems in an Urbanising World, Finding Solutions for Cities in Africa, Asia and Latin America. UK: Earthscan Publication Ltd. 103

Hardoy, J.E. (2001). Environmental problems in an Urbanizing World, Finding Solutions for Cities in Africa, Asia and Latin America. UK: Earthscan Publication Ltd.

Haynes, C. G. (2007). Managing Solid Waste Economics Technology and institutions preager publishers inc. USA

Issam, A. (2007). Treads and problems of Solid waste Management in developing countries: A case study is Seven Palestinian Districts, Waste Management 27 (12) 1910-1919.

Javaheri, H. (2006). Site Selection of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Using Analytical Hierarchical Process Method in a Geographical Information Technology Environment in Giroft. Iran Journal of Environmental Health Science Engineering .3, 177-184.

Javaheri. H. (2006). Site Selection of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Using Analytical Hierarchical Process Method in a Geographical Information Technology Environment in Giroft. Iran Journal of Environmental Health Science Engineering 3, 177 – 184.

Karley, N. A. (2013) “Solid Waste and Pollution” People’s Daily Graphic October 9, 2013

Klundert A.V (2000). UWEP Programme Policy Meeting 1. Workshop Report, Balgalore, India.

Klundert, A. Van de (2011). UNEP Programme Policy Meeting 11. Workshop Report Bangalore, India.

Kyessi, A and Mwakalinga, V. (2009). Gis Application in Coordinating Solid Waste Collection: A case of Sinza neighbourhood in KinondoniMunicipality, Dares. Salaam City, Tanzania. FIG Working Week 2009.

Lasisi, A. (2009). Appraisal of Municipal Solid Waste Management in LagosState, Ibadan: Longman Press.

Leton T.G and Nweke V.N. (2003) Health Risk of Domestic Solid Waste Scavenging, Journal of Environmental and Behaviour: Pp 35-38.

Longe E, Longe O, (2015). People’s perception on household solid management, Iran journal of Environmental Health Science, 6 (3): 209-216

M.S Aibor & J.O Olurunda (2006). A Technical Handbook of Environment Health in the 21st Century: ISBN: 978-075-734-1.

104

Microsoft Encarta (2004), Map of Nigeria

Muhammad I. (2011). Effect of Solid Waste on heavy Metal Composition of Soil and Water at Nathiagali – Abbotta bad. J. Chem. Soc Pak, vol 33, No 6, 2011

Nabegu, A. B. (2010). An analysis of municipal solid waste in Kano Metropolis, Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology; 31 (2): 111-119.

Napoleon S. (2011). Mitigating the Impact of solid waste in urban centres in Nigeria Journal of Human Ecology 34 (2): 125-133.

NSWAI (2009) Capping Needs and Methodology for Old Dumping grounds in India: Urban Municipal Waste management News Letter http://www.nswai.com

Nwachukwu C.C. (2008). “The Effect of Solid Waste Management on Property Values. A Critique of Owerri Urban. A Seminar Paper Presented in Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria.

Nze, F. C. (2009). Managing Urban in Nigeria for Social and Economic Developments” Journal of Management Studies, Lagos Vol 5, Nigeria.

Ogawa, H. (2005), “Sustainable Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries”, WHO Western Pacific Regional Environmental Health Centre (EHC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. www.gdrc.org/vem/waste/sum.

Ogbalu A. I. (2004), “Refuse Management: The Role of Health Education. “Environmental Studies and Research Journal Vol. 4 No 3. Pp. 42 – 54

Ogbalu, A.I. (2004). “Refuse Management: The role of Health education” Environmental Studies and Research Journal Vol. 4 No. 2 Pg, 41-53.

Ogboi, K.C and Okosun, A,.E (2003),”The Role of Scavengers in Urban Solid waste management in Nigeria.” Ezenagu, V.C (ed,) Environmental studies and research journal., Vol, 3 No. 2

Ogbuene E. B. (2010), Analysis of Rainfall Disparity on land degradation and Biodiversity Loss in South Eastern Nigeria Environment. 1st West Africa International Workshop and Conference on Landslides and other Geo- Hazards.

Ogwueleka, T. C. (2009). Municipal Solid Waste Characteristics and Management in Nigeria. Iran Journal of Environmental Health Science 6 (3): 173 – 180.

Okpala, D.C (2007). “Institutional problems in the Management of Nigerian Environment. NISER Monograph Series No. 15, Ibadan. 105

Okpala, N. (2009). Changing Perspective of Solid Waste Management in Anambra State J. Env. Stud, pp. 47 – 59.

Okoli, J. (2013). Refuse Disposal and public Health” Daily times july 22nd.

Okonkwo .C. (2014). “public participation on Domestic solid waste disposal in Enugu Urban : A case study of Enugu metropolis”. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Award of BURP. Degree, university of Nigeria Nsukka .

Oluwande, P.A. and Bartone, C.R (2002). An Overview of urban Solid presented Management in Nigeria. A paper presented at the world shop on waste disposal Environmental Pollution and Community Health Industrial Unit and Technology University of Ibadan.

Onwuka E, Ugwu J (2012). The challenges of waste management of Nigeria suataritable development: A study of Enugu state international journal of Research, studies in management, 1 (2): 79-87

Oyedran, A.B (2009). “Waste Generation and Disposal in Nigeria” A keynote Address in perceptive in Environmental Management proceedings of NEST Workshops, Ibadan, Nigeria

Oyelola O. T. and Babatunde A. I. (2008). Health Implications of Solid Waste Disposal: Case study of Olusosun dumpsite, Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Science and Environmental Managemnt 13 (3), 83 – 88.

Pandey R. (2009). Environmental Population: Case and Consequences of air population in Kathmandu Valley. Unpublished Seminar Paper, Presented in Department of Geography, T. U., Kathmandu 2009.

Pandey, R. (2009). Environmental Pollution: Causes and Consequences of air Pollution in Kathmandu Valley, Unpublished Seminar paper, presented in Department of Geography, T.U, Kattmandu 2004.

Population Census (2006), Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazatte (FGP 71/52007/2500(0<.24); Legal Notice ion publication of the Details of the National/state provisional total 2006 census.

Pugh, C. eds. (2004). Sustainable cities in developing countries, Theory and practice at the Millennium, London: Earthscan Publication Ltd.

Richard, J. P (2013).”Study on solid waste management options for African,” In African development bank project report. Abidjan, coted’ voire;

106

Sharholy et.al (2008). Municipal Solid Waste Characteristics and Management in Nigeria, Iran Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering 6 (3) 173-180. Available from http.journals, tums,ac.ir/uploadfiles/pelf/13922.pdf.(Accessed January, 2010).

Solomon, U. U. (2009). The State of Solid Waste Management in Nigeria, Wuhan, Hubei, Dept, of Environmental Engineering, China University of Geosciences. Wuhan. Hubei.

Songsore, J. (2010), Review of Household and Environmental Problems in Accra Metropolitan Area, Accra.

Stirrup, F. C. (2011) Public Cleansing, refuse disposal, Percamon Press, Oxford.

Sule R. A. (2001). Urban Environmental Pollution: A Critical Analysis. A synopsis presented at the University of Calabar.

Sule R. A. (2011) “Management of Solid Wastes in Nigeria Towards a Sanitary Urban Environment” quarterly journal of administration, Lagos vol. 15. Nigeria.

Tchobanglous G. and Zender M. (2008) Manual for Assessment of open dumping on India Land Portland (OR); 185 P.

Tchobanoglous, G. (1993). Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issue. International Ed McGraw – Hill Book Co Singapore pp. 1-83.

Ubani, O. J. (2006) “Municipal Waste Generation and Management in Nigeria: Sustainable Option” in Ezenagu V. C. (ed). Environmental Studies and Research Journal vol. 3, No. 2.

Ukabam, K .O (2010). Current public Attitude Forwards Solid Waste Management; A case study of Engugu Urban.BURP Degree, UNN.

UN Habitat (2011). Collection of Municipal Solid Waste: Key Issues for decision Makers in Developing Countries.

US EPA 2002. Illegal Dumping Prevention Guidebook. EPA905-97-001). Available onwww.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ facts.html.

USEPA (2011) Communicating the benefits of recycling: United State Environmental Protection Agency: Available at www.epg.gov/osw/conserve/tools/localgov/benefits/indexhtm (accessed 17 August 2012). 107

WHO (2009). Substance Development: Five Years After the Earth Summit, Executive Summary, Geneva.

Wilson .D. (2015). Waste Management planning Evaluation, Oxford University Press

Zeng M. (2008), New Zealand Landfill where to Now? Waste Management Institute Now, Zealland 8th Annual Conference proceedings Nov. 2008.

108

APPENDIX 1 MARTHUS EXPONENTIAL FORMULAR This is a population projection formula used to obtain the estimated population of the sample neighbourhood in 2014. Pn = P1 (1+r)n Where Pn = projected population P1 = base population R = growth rate (3.2%) N = number of years to be projected I = constant

Yaro yameni formula This was used to determine the sample size or number of respondent that answered the questionnaires. S = N 1+N(e)2

Where S = Sample size N = Estimated population of the selected neighborhood I = Constant e = allowable error (5%) 109

APPENDIX 2: DATA ANALYSIS

HYPOTHESIS 1

Variables Entered/Removed(b)

Mode Variables Variables l Entered Removed Method 1 Solid waste disposal method in Abakpa; Ogui New Layout; Enter New Haven; Achara Layout; GRA and Trans- Ekulu(a) (Source: Author’s SPSS ANOVA, 2015)

ANOVA(b) Mode Sum of Mean l Squares Df Square F Sig. 1 Regressio 296.783 5 59.357 26.182 .000(a) n Residual 88.417 39 2.267 Total 385.200 44 (Source: Author’s SPSS ANOVA, 2015) 110

HYPOTHESIS 2

Variables Entered/Removed(b) Mode Variables Variables l Entered Removed Method 1 Frequenc y of solid waste collection in: Abakpa; Ogui New Layout; . Enter New Haven; Achara Layout; GRA and Trans- Ekulu(a) (Source: Author’s SPSS ANOVA, 2015)

ANOVA(b) Mode Sum of Mean l Squares Df Square F Sig. 1 Regressio 229.448 5 45.890 17.674 .000(a) n Residual 75.295 29 2.596 Total 304.743 34 (Source: Author’s SPSS ANOVA, 2015)

111

HYPOTHESIS 3 Variables Entered/Removed(b) Mode Variables Variables l Entered Removed Method 1 Number of dumpster in: Ogui New Layout; New . Enter Haven; Achara Layout; GRA and Trans- Ekulu(a) (Source: Author’s SPSS ANOVA, 2015)

ANOVA(b)

Mode Sum of Mean l Squares Df Square F Sig. 1 Regressio 223.985 5 44.797 59.934 .000(a) n Residual 16.444 22 .747 Total 240.429 27 (Source: Author’s SPSS ANOVA, 2015)

112

HYPOTHESIS 4

VARIABLES ENTERED/REMOVED(B)

Mode Variables Variables l Entered Removed Method 1 Problems of solid waste disposal practice in: Ogui New Layout; . Enter New Haven; Achara Layout; GRA and Trans- Ekulu(a) (Source: Author’s SPSS ANOVA, 2015)

ANOVA(b)

Mode Sum of Mean l Squares Df Square F Sig. 1 Regressio 420.384 5 84.077 40.988 .000(a) n Residual 82.051 40 2.051 Total 502.435 45 (Source: Author’s SPSS ANOVA, 2015)

113

APPENDIX III QUESTIONNAIRE

Center for Environmental Management and Control, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, March, 2015.

Sir/Madam,

I am a postgraduate candidate for the above named centre at the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus and working on the topic: Assessment of Solid Waste Disposal Practice among neighborhoods in Enugu Urban.

The questionnaire was designed to generate information and data that would be relevant to the study.

Your response would be treated in strict confidence and you are not expected to disclose your identity.

Thanks for your anticipated co-operation.

Yours faithfully,

Eke Faith Ukamaka

114

Please in answering the questions below, fill the blank spaces and tick √ on the correct option. SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA 1. Residential Neighborhoods? (a) Abakpa (b) New Haven (c) Achara layout (d) GRA (e) Trans-Ekulu (f) Ogui New layout 2. Gender: (a) Female (b) Male 3. Marital Status: (a)Married (b) Single (c) Divorced (Widowed 4. Age: (a) 18 – 28 (b) 29 – 38 (c) 39 – 48 (d) 49 -58 (e) 59 and above 5. Family size (Household size:) (a) 1 – 3 (b) 4 – 6 (c) 7 - 10 (d) Above 10 6. Length of stay in neighbourhoods (a) 0 – 5 years (b) 6 – 10 years (c) 11 – 15 years (d) 16 – 20 years (e) 21 and above 7. Educational Attainment: (a)No formal education (b) Primary school (c) Secondary school (d) Tertiary 8. Occupation: (a) Civil servant (b) Business/Trading (c) Company staff (d) Self employed (e) Unemployed (f) Student 9. Religion: (a) Christianity (b) Islam (c) Traditional (d) Others specify ………………………………………………….. 10. Monthly income: (a) Below N5,000 (b) N5,000 – N9,999 (c) N10,000 – 14,999 (d) N15,000 – 19,999 (e) N20,000 – N24,999 (f) N25,000 – N29,999 (g) N30,000 and above

115

SECTION B: METHODS OF HOUSEHOLDS SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 11. What type of solid waste disposal method do you use? (a) Incineration (b) Sanitary landfill (c) Waste/recycling (d) Re-use method (e) Other specify ------12. How do you treat your solid waste? (a) Compositing (b) Converting into energy/electricity, fuel and gas (c) Re-cycling (d) Re-use (e) Others ------13. How do you store solid waste in households? (a) Nylon bag (b) Waste bin (c) Basket (d) Polythene bag (e) ESWAMA bag (f) Metal bin 14. How do you dispose off your waste? (a) In collecting bin (b) Burning (c) On surface water (d) The street (e) Other specified ------15. How often do the waste collectors empty your waste bin? (a) Daily (b) Ever two days (c) Weekly (d) Every two weeks (e) Every month (f) 2 months - 6months 16. What are your sources of households solid waste generation? (a) Kitchen waste (b) Housing sweeping (c) Discarded properties (d) Indiscriminate littering of refuse around surrounding (e) Household refuse (f) Other specified ------17. Where are you dumping the solid waste you generated? (a) Inside ESWAMA dumpsters (b) Inside drainage system/on street (c) Inside rivers/streams (d) Incinerator/space (e) Open dump (f) ESWAMA bag and dropping inside dumpster 18. Where do you get information on solid waste management? (a) Television/radio (b) Newspapers/magazine (c) Friends/colleagues (d) telephone/mobile phone (e) Other specified ------19. What techniques do you adopted on solid waste management in Enugu Urban? (a) Sanitary landfill (b) Incineration (c) Resource/recovery (d) Compositing (e) Open dumping

116

20. Why do you adopt method stated above? (a) Cheap (b) Efficient of technology (c) hygiene (d) Revenue generation (e) Other specified ------

SECTION C: FREQUENCY OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION BY THE AUTHORITY (ESWAMA) 21. How frequency does the authority evacuate off your solid waste in your neighbourhood? (a) Daily (b) Ever two days (c) Weekly (d) Every two weeks e) Every month ((f) 2 months - 6months 22. How frequency is the solid waste dump in your neighbourhood cleared from your observation? (a) Weekly (b) Monthly (c) Quarterly (d) Twice a year (e) Once a year (f) Other specified …………………………………………….. 23. What techniques does ESWAMA use in solid waste collection? (a) House to House collection method (b) Curbside collection method (c) Communal container collection method (d) Drop-off container collection method (e) Others specified ……………………………………………………….. 24. What techniques adopted on solid waste frequency in Enugu Urban? (a) Sanitary landfill (b) Incineration (c) Resources recovery (d) Open dumping (e) Compositing (f) Recycling 25. Why do you adopt the method stated above? (a) Cheap (b) revenue generation (c) Efficient of technology (d) Hygiene (Others specified ………………………………………………. 26. How frequency did you participate in a general monthly environmental sanitation exercise? (a) Usually (b) Once in a while (c) Never (d) Not practiced in my area (e) Others specified ………………………………… 27. How much were you paying for the service charge? (a) N500 – N1000 (b) N1,500 – N2000 (c) N2000 – N3,000 (d) N3,500 – N4,000 (e) N4,500 and above (f) None 117

28. What would you advice ESWAMA or authority responsible for it for efficiency of solid waste frequency practice among neighbourhoods Enugu Urban? (a) Sanitary landfill (b) Recycling (c) Compositing (d) Incineration (e) Burning (f) Open dumping 29. How do you assess your payment for solid waste collection? (a) Very high (b) High (c) Moderate (d) Very poor (e) Poor (f) Not at all 30. How do you assess the general level of the effectiveness of the waste collection method in your neighbourhoods? (a) Very satisfactory (b) Satisfactory (c) Fairly satisfactory (d) Unsatisfactory (e) Others specified ………………………………………………………

SECTION D: NUMBER OF SOLID WASTE DUMPSTERS 31. What are the number of solid waste dumpsters in Enugu Urban? (a) 300 (b) 500 (c) 700 (d) 900 (e) 1000 (f) 1,200 32. Where were you dumping the solid waste you generated? (a) Inside dumpsters (b) On street/inside drainage channel (c) Inside rivers/stream (d) Open dump/space (e) ESWAMA bags and dropping (f) Others specify …………………………………………………………… 33. How far was the nearest dumpsters to your neighbourhood? (a) 30m – 100m (b) 110 – 500m (c) 510 – 1000m (d) 1010m – 1500m (e) Above 1500m (f) Others specify………………………………………….. 34. How did you fell about the heaps of solid waste in your area? (a) Uncomfortable (b) Comfortable (c) Unsecured (d) No change (e) Others specify…………………………………………….. 35. What is your perception of the performance of ESWAMA is disposal of solid waste among neighbourhood in Enugu Urban? (a) Very good (b) Good (c) Very poor (d) poor (e) Fair (f) Others specify………………………… 118

36. What type of solid waste dump do you have in your area? (a) Open ground dump (b) Concrete built up dump (c) ESWAMA bin (d) Incineration (e) recycling 37. What type of solid bin do you have in your neighbourhood? (a) Metal bin (b) Plastic bucket bin (c) ESWAMA bin (d) Nylon bag (e) Polythene bag (f) Tin bin 38. How far solid waste disposal sites located from your neighbourhood? (a) Less than 1km (b) 1 – 2km (c) 2 – 3km (d) 3 – 4cm (e) Up to 5km 39. How do you dispose off your solid waste? (a) Burning (b) Dumping into sea (c) Compositing (d) In collecting bin (e) In the street (f) Others specify …………………………………………………….

SECTION E: PROBLEMS OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICE AMONG NEIGHBORHOOD 40. What organ collects your solid waste? (a) ESWAMA (b) By neighbourhood (c) By private arrangement (d) By private contractors (e) Others specified …………………………………….. 41. What do you feel is the major problems the ESWAMA encounter while clearing these solid waste in your neighbourhood? (a) Lack of vehicle trucks (b) Shortage of workers (c) No seriousness (d) Lack of co-operation from the people (e) Lack of fund 42. Do you think that the problems of solid waste disposal can be blamed on the part of? (a) The agencies ESWAMA (b) Public (c) The government (d) Everybody (e) None of the above 43. Which of these is the most common environmental problems in Enugu urban? (a) Air pollution (b) Noise (c) Water pollution (d) Land and soil pollution (e) Solid waste

119

44. How do asses the work of ESWAMA on solid waste collection in your neighbourhood? (a) Unsatisfactory (b) Fairly satisfactory (c) Satisfactory (d) Very satisfactory (e) Others specified………………………………………. 45. What mode do they use in collection of your solid waste in your neighbourhood? (a) Vehicle trucks (b)Wheel barrow (c) Head carrier (d) Hand carrier (e) All of the above 46. How far is the disposal site to your neighbourhood? (a) About 1km away (b) About 2km away (c) About 4km away (d) About 6km away (e) Above 6km away 47. Where do you get information on how to manage and maintain your solid waste disposal? (a) School (b) Television (c) Newspaper (d) Magazine (e) Public seminars/announcement 48. How often does the authority collects your solid waste in your neighbourhood? (a) Daily (b) Everyday (c) Every two days (d) Weekly (e) Every two weeks (f) Every month 49. How do you rate the authority’s performance on solid waste collection in your neighborhood? (a) Very poor (b) Poor (c) Fair (d) Good (e) Very good (f) Other …………………………………………………..