Challenges and Prospects of Public Participation in Solid Waste Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ABBREVIATIONS/NOMENCLATURE

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF APPENDICES TABLE

LIST OF APPENDICES FIGURE

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Justification
1.2 Statement of the Problem
1.3 Research Objectives
1.3.1 General Objective
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
1.4 Research Questions
1.5 Significance of the Study
1.6 Scope of the Study
1.7 Organization of the Thesis

Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Definitions and Concepts
2.1.1 Solid Waste
2.1.2 Municipal solid waste
2.1.3 Solid Waste Management
2.1.4 Integrated Solid Waste Management
2.2 Challenges in Solid Waste Management
2.3 Public participation
2.3.1 Strategies of Public Participation
2.3.2 Importance of Public Participation in Solid Waste Management
2.4 Overview of solid waste management in Ethiopia
2.5 Waste management policy and proclamation in Ethiopia and Amhara Region
2.6 Empirical Evidences
2.7 Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

Chapter 3. RESERACH METHODOLOGY (MATERIALS & METHODS)
3.1 Description of the study Area
3.2 Research Approach
3.3 Research Design
3.4 Data Collection Method
3.4.1 Structured Interviews
3.4.2 Semi-Structured Interviews
3.4.3 Focused Group Discussions
3.4.4 Observations
3.5 Sampling Technique and Sample Size
3.5.1 Sampling Technique
3.5.2 Sample Size
3.6 Data Processing and Analysis Methods
3.6.1 Quantitative Data
3.6.2 Qualitative Data

Chapter 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics of Respondents (n=271)
4.2 Current Solid Waste Management Practices of Bahir Dar city
4.3 Prospects of Public Participation in Solid Waste Management in Bahir Dar city
4.4 Major Factors that Affects Public Participation in Solid Waste Management: Descriptive Analysis & Inferential Statistics
4.5 Major Factors that Affects Public Participation in Solid Waste Management: Econometric Analysis

Chapter 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
5.2 Recommendations

REFFERNCES

APPENDIX

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1. Major solid wastes generated by the household (n=271)

Table 4.2. Proportion of household by kind of waste container they use (n=271)

Table 4.3. Frequency of SMEs collect wastes (n=271)

Table 4.4. Proportion of respondents preferred time to dispose waste

Table 4.5. Strategies for public participation in solid waste management

Table 4.6.Who should be responsible for better solid waste management

Table 4.7. Number of respondents by sex and Chi-square Output

Table 4.8. Proportion of respondents by educational level and lambda Output

Table 4.9. Number of respondents replied on participating in social activities and Chi-square Output

Table 4.10. The place they live have road access or not and Chi-square Output

Table 4.11. The place they live far from the main road or not and Chi-square Output

Table 4.12. Family Size of Respondents

Table 4.13. Ordered Logistic Regression Output

Table 4.14. Ordered Logistic Regression Output Odds Ratio Report

LIST OF APPENDICES TABLE

Figure 2.1. Waste Management Hierarchy (UNEP, 2011)

Figure 2.2. Conceptual framework of the study

Figure 3.1. Map of the study Area

Figure 3.2. Research Design

Figure 3.3. Sampling Procedure

Figure 4.1. Proportion of households who have a waste container

Figure 4.2. Proportion of households sorting their wastes (n=271)

Figure 4.3. Satisfaction of services provided by SMEs (n=271)

Figure 4.4. Role can play by the community for better solid waste management (n=271)

Figure 4.5. Efforts made by the municipality in providing solid waste management services

Figure 4.6. Ways of community participation in solid waste management (n=271)

Figure 4.7. Proportions of respondents have got lesson about solid waste management

Figure 4.8. Proportions of respondents willingness to pay for waste collection service

Figure 4.9. Follow up on implementation of rules & regulation by government bodies

Figure 4.10. Age Distributions of Respondents

LIST OF APPENDICES TABLE

Appendix Table 1. Multicollinearity test for continuous variables

Appendix Table 2. Multicollinearity test for discrete variables

Appendix Table 3. Summary of inferential statistics for continuous variables

Appendix Table 4. Summary of inferential statistics for discrete variables

Appendix Figure 1. Waste Management Process of Bahir Dar city

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First I would like to acknowledge Almighty God for all blessings and this study is become end.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my supervisor Dr. Dessalegn Molla for his indispensable support, guidance, counseling and valuable comments during the whole period of the study.

My gratitude is goes to Bahir Dar University for gave me the opportunity. The department, Lecturers and classmates are made the teaching and learning process simple, smooth and attractive.

I would like to thank Ms.Selamawit and Ms.Shemesya, data enumerators; Mr. Zelaiem, head of city sanitation and beautification; Ms. Askal, head of Green Visions waste collectors Association; Mr. Getachew Alemnew, public relations of Dream Light Pic waste collectors; Shimbet sub city waste collectors; respondents, interviewees and focus group discussants for providing me valuable data and information.

The last but not the least, I would like to thank to my families, parents and friends for your advice, moral and support to be completed this study.

ABBREVIATIONS/NOMENCLATURE

illustration not visible in this excerpt

ABBREVIATIONS/NOMENCLATURE (Continued)

illustration not visible in this excerpt

ABSTRACT

Solid waste management is becoming a major public health and environmental concern in urban areas of many developing countries including Ethiopia. Bahir Dar is one of the cities in the country solid waste management is a problem. The main objective of the study to investigate the challenges and prospects of public participation in solid waste management. The study area has nine sub cities. Simple random sampling was used to select two sub cities and one zone from each selected sub cities. Finally, systematic random sampling was used to select 271 respondents. The survey data was collected by using structured interview. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interview, focus group discussion and observation. The data was entered and analyzed in SPSS 16 version. Descriptive statistics, t­test and chi-square test were used to determine association between dependent variable with explanatory variables. Ordered logistic regression model was used to identify major factors that affects public participation in solid waste management. The survey result showed that the community can play a great role for better management of solid wastes by putting wastes in container (38%), participate in waste management activities (34%), pay money for waste collectors (21%) and sorting wastes (7%). The majority of respondents (68.63%) replied that community conversation, awareness creation (22.88%) and enforcement mechanism (8.49%) are better strategies for participating the community in solid waste management. The empirical evidence indicates that significant positive impact of awareness, rules & regulations and social participation on public participation which has a positive impact on solid waste management and are significant at 5%, less than 1% and 5% of significant level respectively. This implies that the major factors that hindered the public from participating in solid waste management are; low awareness, low social participation and low implementations of rules and regulations. To conclude, public participation in solid waste management is poor because the government is given less attention (limited budget, poor follow up and poor implementations of rules, regulations & strategies).Therefore, the concerned government bodies should give much emphasis for public participation because the communities have its own skills, knowledge, resources and expertise to solve their own problems.

Key words: Public Participation, Solid Waste Management, Logit, Bahir Dar

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Justification

Solid waste management is a major challenge in urban areas throughout the world. Without an effective and efficient solid-waste management program, the waste generated from various human activities, both industrial and domestic, can result in health hazards and have a negative impact on the environment. Understanding the waste generated, the availability of resources, and the environmental conditions of a particular society are important to developing an appropriate waste management system (APO, 2007).

In addition, according to UNEP (2004), solid waste management is becoming a major public health and environmental concern in urban areas of many developing countries. The situation in Africa, particularly in the capital cities is severe. The public sector in many countries is unable to deliver services effectively, regulation of the private sector is limited and illegal dumping of domestic and industrial waste is a common practice. In general, solid waste management is given a very low priority in these countries. As a result, very limited funds are provided to the solid waste management sector by the governments, and the levels of services required for protection of public health and the environment are not attained. The problem is acute at the local government level where the local taxation system is inadequately developed and, therefore, the financial basis for public services, including solid waste management, is weak.

The gap between waste management policy and legislation and actual waste management practices is widening, because of capacity constraints or non-existence of waste management facilities for the different waste streams. Resolving this capacity gap will require major investments and access to technical knowhow. Waste generation is expected to increase significantly as a result of industrialization, urbanization and modernization of agriculture in Africa. This will further aggravate the currently-existing capacity constraints in waste management (ЕСA, 2009). Waste generation increase with population expansion and economic development (UNEP, 2012). Urbanization has increased in higher speed and scale in recent decades, more than half of the world’s population now living in urban centers (Tacoli, 2012; UNDP, 2012a; cited in UNEP-GEAS, 2013). By 2050, urban dwellers probably will account for 86% of the population in developed countries and 64% of the population in developing countries (UNDP, 2012a, cited on UNEP-GEAS, 2013).

Poorly managed solid waste causes risk for human beings and the environment. It causes a variety of problems such as contaminating water, attracting insects and rodents, increasing flood due to blocked drainage canals and increases greenhouse gas(GHG) emission (UNEP, 2012). Poorly managed waste has an enormous impact on health, local and global environment, and economy; improperly managed waste usually results in down-stream costs higher than what it would have cost to manage the waste properly in the first place (World Bank, 2012).

Solid waste management in its scope includes all administrative, financial, legal, planning, and engineering functions involved in the solutions to all problems of solid waste. The solutions may involve complex interdisciplinary fields such as political science, city and regional planning, geography, economics, public health, sociology, demography, communications, and conservation, as well engineering and materials science (APO, 2007).

The current global municipal solid waste generation levels are approximately 1.3 billion tons per year and are expected to increase to approximately 2.2 billion tons per year by 2025 which is increase in per capita waste generation rates from 1.2 to 1.42 kg per person per day in the next fifteen years (World Bank, 2012).Thousands of tons solid waste is generated daily in Africa. The solid waste generation rates are approximately 0.5 kg per person per day but in some cases reaching 0.8 kg per person per day (EGSSAA, 2009). Waste generation in sub- Saharan Africa is approximately 62 million tons per year and per capita generation is a range between 0.09 to 3 kg per person per day (World Bank, 2012). In most of sub-Saharan Africa solid waste generation exceeds collection capacity due to rapid urban population growth although only 35 percent of the population lives in urban area (EGSSAA, 2009).

According to the World Bank (2014), Ethiopia is the sub-Saharan low income developing country and its population is 94.10 million in 2013 with its GDP (currency US $) of $ 46.87 billion in similar year. Annual population growth rate from 2009 to 2013 is 2.6. Ethiopia has achieved the fast economic growth for ten consecutive years (M0FED, 2013).In Ethiopia, solid waste management is a major problem on one side due to fast growing in economy, expansion of urbanization and industries in the major cities of the country and on the other side the government have not sufficient means to solve the problem owing to lack of finance, skilled manpower and capacity to work in partnership with the community (Edwards, 2010).

In addition, there is no clear cost recovery structure related to solid waste management in Ethiopia which results extremely low level of returns for efforts. Since 2001, most municipalities and city councils in Ethiopia have become aware of the negative consequences of poor solid waste management and have implemented a system to collect and dispose of solid waste that involves waste collection associations. A study conducted in 2004 by UNDP in Bahir Dar, Mekele, Adama, and Hawassa showed that their municipalities collected and disposed of 46%, 48%, 54%, and 50% of the solid waste generated daily respectively (UNDP, 2004). Besides, at the time of the study almost all of the municipalities used open dumping systems for the collected solid waste. Even though its implementations much remain to be done, the government enacted a solid waste management proclamation in 2007 (Edwards, 2010). Bahir Dar is one of the growing cities of the country and solid waste management is the problem that needs to be addressed.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The environment is largely exploited by changing life style, advancement of new technologies and scientific development. The most common problem faced by all the developing countries is the disposal of solid waste (Masheke, 2011). Besides, one of the commonest characteristics of developing nations has been unbalanced between rapid population growth and sanitation infrastructure provision which is worsened by the challenges of poor waste management practices affecting on the deteriorating ecosystem of the fast growing cities of these countries (Elias et.al, 2012). Furthermore, in many developing countries, rapid population growth and increasing economic activities combined with lack of training in modern solid waste management practice complicate the effort to improve the solid waste services (ISWA and UNEP, 2002). According to UN-HABITAT (2009), solid waste management is the major challenge for many cities in developing and transitional countries. The urban areas of Asia were estimated to spend about $25 billion on solid waste management each year in 1998 (Moornweeg and Thomas, 1999; cited in UN-HABITAT, 2009). Solid waste management may represent 20-50% of city’s budget with 80-90% of that spent on waste collection (World Bank website cited in UN-HABITAT, 2009).

In all African regions of urban centers, less than half of solid waste processed is collected and ninety five percent of that amount is either throw away at various dumping sites on the periphery of urban centers or at a number of temporary sites which is typically empty lots of scattered throughout the city (Mohammed, 2003; cited in Nigatu Regassa et.al., 2011).

The solid waste management problem is severe in Ethiopia. Like any other countries of the city councils and municipalities have not sufficient means to solve the problems of solid waste management. The major causes of the problem are lack of manpower, finance and the capacity to work in partnerships with the local communities (Edwards, 2010).

In the capital city of Amhara National Regional State (hereafter, ANRS), Bahir Dar is one of among the fast growing cities in the country. Population migration from rural to the city and from other town to the city is increasing alarmingly. Besides, urbanization and industrialization is increasing time to time. However, due to the change mentioned on the above, causes difficult to manage wastes. Although some studies were conducted in similar study area by Fesseha Hailu (2008) on liquid waste management and Edmealem Bewuket (2013) on the factors that influence the sustainability of solid waste collection and transport services of Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs). The issues related to challenges & prospects of public participation in solid waste management are not yet studied. Therefore, this study was designed to fill this gap.

1.3 Research Objectives

1.3.1 General Objective

The main objective of the study was to investigate the challenges and prospects of the public participation in solid waste management.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

- To identify the major challenges that hinders the public from being participating in solid waste management in the study area.
- To identify the roles of the public participation in solid waste management in the study area.
- To explore the present strategies of public participation in solid waste management and recommends the best strategies for the future.

1.4 Research Questions

The following research questions were used in this study. These are;

i- What are the main challenges that prevents the public from being participating in solid waste management in Bahir Dar?

i- What roles can the public play to ensure better solid waste management practice in the city?

i- What strategies are in place to improve public participation in solid waste management?

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study has many benefits. First, as stated in statement of the problem part, similar study was not conducted in the study area. Therefore, the researcher believed that this study made awareness about solid waste management among different stakeholders. Second, this study provides an information about the current solid waste management practices of the town for intervention by the government, private and NGOs. Third, this study will also initiate the new scholars or researchers to conduct further study and serve as supporting or reference document on this area of investigation.

1.6 Scope of the Study

Especially, this study is conducted in Bahir Dar city. However, solid waste management problem is not only the problem of merely in the study area rather it is the concern of entire cities in Amhara region as well as the whole cities in Ethiopia. Therefore, the study was better conducted in a wider area like in region or country level but because of time and budget limitation, this study was conducted at the town level. Contextually, this study has been conducted to assesses the challenges that lags the public from being participated in the solid waste management of the town.

1.7 Organization of the Thesis

This thesis consists of five chapters. The first chapter is the introduction which includes background & justification, statement of the problem, objectives, research questions, significance of the study & scope of the study. The second chapter contains the literature review which explains different related topics and terms in line with this thesis including the conceptual framework. The third chapter of the thesis deals with about the research methodology which explains description of the study area, data collection, sampling and analyzing methods used. The fourth and fifth chapters were about the result & discussion and conclusions & recommendations respectively.

Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Definitions and Concepts

2.1.1 Solid Waste

Although different scholars define solid waste in different ways, the meaning is the same. According to Zurbrugg (2013), solid waste is a material that is not in liquid or gas form. Solid waste are “garbage”, “trash”, “refuse” and “rubbish”. Solid waste includes all those waste which are neither waste water discharges nor atmospheric emission (World Bank, 1982). Solid wastes are “include all domestic refuse and non-hazardous wastes such as commercial and industrial wastes, street sweeping and construction debris” (AIT/UNEP, 2010). According to Abul (2010), solid waste can be classified into different types, depending on their source; household waste is generally classified as municipal waste; industrial waste as hazardous waste, and biomedical waste or hospital waste as infectious waste.

2.1.2 Municipal solid waste

It is refer to solid waste driving from houses, shops, offices and hospitals lying on the street and in public places (Zurbrugg, 2013). Municipal solid waste (MSW) is the term usually applied to a heterogonous collection of wastes produced in urban areas, the nature of which varies from region to region due to difference in living standard, lifestyle and abundance & types of the region’s natural resources. Urban waste can be subdivided in to two major components that are organic and inorganic. The primary difference between wastes generated in developing countries and those generated in developed countries is the higher organic content of its characteristics of the former (UNEP, 2005).

Besides, according to UN-HABITAT (2009), the definitions of municipal solid waste (MSW) vary among countries. It is “ wastes generated by the households and wastes of similar nature generated by commercial and industrial premises, by institutions such as schools, hospitals, care homes and prisons, and from public spaces such as streets, markets, slaughter houses, public toilets, bus stops, parks and gardens”.

According to Defeo and De Gisi (2010); Nixon and Saphores (2009) cited in O’Connell (2011), the recovery of materials from municipal solid waste remains below 50% in most of developed countries. But, less than 10% in the developing countries (Metete and Trios, 2008); (Troscinetz and Mihelcic, 2009) cited in O’Connell (2011). Therefore, understanding how to increase participation of different stakeholders in recycling is an important part of moving to a more sustainable waste management system (O’Connell, 2011).

According to Khatib (2011), the main problem facing the proper management of MSW in many developing countries are the lack of adequate administrative and financial resources. There is no clear reliable framework by which the solid waste sector is administered from the collection, transformation to disposing or treatment phases. This situation is usually coupled with limited investment allocated for the MSW sector with complications of collecting or raising proper service fees. The management activities of MSW are considered public services which are directly controlled by governmental institutions. Such management arrangement is considered weak as it lacks the market mechanisms, and in this case economic incentives cannot be used to improve and develop the MSW management services.

2.1.3 Solid Waste Management

Solid waste management is defined as a systematic administration of activities that provide for the source separation, storage, collection, transportation, transfer, processing, treatment, and disposal of solid waste (Squires, 2006). Solid waste should be managed through a number of activities such as prevention, recycling, composting, controlled burning, or land filling (USEPA, 2002). Besides, solid waste management may be defined as the discipline associated with the control of generation, storage, collection, transfer and transport, processing, and disposal of solid wastes in a manner that is in accordance with the best principles of public health, economics, engineering, conservations, and that is also responsive to public attitudes (Tekele Tadesse, 2004).

Solid waste management (SWM) is one of the most important services provided by municipal authorities' in the world. The ways of handling, collection and disposal of the waste can pose risks to the environment as well as the public health (Abiot et ak, 2012).

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 2.1. Waste Management Hierarchy (UNEP, 2011)

Waste Prevention: It is mostly called source reduction which means reducing waste by not producing it. Waste prevention includes purchasing durable long lasting goods and seeking products and its packaging is free from toxic substances (USEPA, 2002). Besides, according to Conn (1988) cited in Lober (1994), source reduction is “the prevention of waste at its source by redesigning products or changing patterns of production and consumption. Preventing waste through efficient use of resources and raw materials is the best option for solid waste management (UNEP-GEAS, 2013).

Waste or source reduction initiatives (including prevention, minimization, and reuse) seek to reduce the quantity of waste at generation points by redesigning products or changing patterns of production and consumption. A reduction in waste generation has a two-fold benefit in terms of greenhouse gas emission reductions. First, the emissions associated with material and product manufacture are avoided. The second benefit is eliminating the emissions associated with the avoided waste management activities (World Bank, 2012).

Recycling: It makes use of materials that are wastes by turning it in to valuable resources (USEPA, 2002). Recycling is widely practiced by the informal sector “waste pickers” or by the solid waste management staff themselves for extra income. Collection of recyclable waste can be done in several steps such as door to door, transfer station and in disposal sites. The main items that are recycled include soft and hard plastics, glass, steel, paper, cardboard, aluminum, alloys etc. (Visvanathan and Glawe, 2006). Evidence shows that recycling rates achieved by the informal sector can be quite high, often in the range from 20-50% that matches the recycling targets from developed countries (GTZ and CWG, 2007; David c Wilson et al, 2009 ; cited in UN-BAB ITAT, 2009).

The key advantages of recycling and recovery are reduced quantities of disposed waste and the return of materials to the economy. In many developing countries, informal waste pickers at collection points and disposal sites recover a significant portion of discards (World Bank, 2012).

Composting: Composting is the other preferred method of solid waste management due to the high percentage of organic materials in the waste composition (Visvanathan and Glawe, 2006). It is the controlled aerobic biological decomposition of organic matter such as food scraps and plant matter in to humus- soil like materials (USEPA, 2002).

Besides, according to EGSSAA (2009), composting is organics make up 30-80 percent (~70 percent on average) of the waste stream in Africa although this varies with the incomes of the neighborhood, region or country. If this part of the waste stream could be used for compost or methane production, many adverse impacts of open dumps and landfills would be reduced. Landfills would require less space, last longer, and produce less leachate which is the liquid produced in a landfill from the decomposition of waste within the landfill.

Composting with windrows or enclosed vessels is intended to be an aerobic (with oxygen) operation that avoids the formation of methane associated with anaerobic conditions (without oxygen). When using an anaerobic digestion process, organic waste is treated in an enclosed vessel. Often associated with wastewater treatment facilities, anaerobic digestion will generate methane that can either be flared or used to generate heat and/or electricity. Generally speaking, composting is less complex, more forgiving, and less costly than anaerobic digestion. Methane is an intended by-product of anaerobic digestion and can be collected and combusted. Experience from many jurisdictions shows that composting source separated organics significantly reduces contamination of the finished compost, rather than processing mixed MSW with front-end or back-end separation (World Bank, 2012).

Combustion/Incineration: It is the controlled burning of waste in a designated facility to reduce its volume and in some cases to generate electricity. Combustion is an Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) option for wastes that cannot be recycled or composted and is sometimes selected by the communities where landfill space is limited (USEPA, 2002).

Incineration of waste (with energy recovery) can reduce the volume of disposed waste by up to 90%. These high volume reductions are seen only in waste streams with very high amounts of packaging materials, paper, cardboard, plastics and horticultural waste. Recovering the energy value embedded in waste prior to final disposal is considered preferable to direct land filling assuming pollution control requirements and costs are adequately addressed. Typically, incineration without energy recovery (or non-autogenic combustion, the need to regularly add fuel) is not a preferred option due to costs and pollution. Open-burning of waste is particularly discouraged due to severe air pollution associated with low temperature combustion (World Bank, 2012).

Land filling: Uncontrolled dumping of waste can contaminate ground water and soil, attract diseases carrying rats and insects, and even cause fires. Properly designed, constructed and managed landfills provide a safe alternative to uncontrolled dumping (USEPA, 2002). According to Platt and Lombardi (2008) cited in O’Connell (2011), explained in their study, landfills are the major anthropogenic source of methane. Furthermore, Themelis and Ulloa (2007) cited in O’Connell (2011) they estimated the global landfill emission of methane 45 billion tons. Methane has 20-23 times the atmospheric warming potential of carbon dioxide (Akunna et.al, 2009) cited in (O’Connell, 2011). The amount of methane released in to the atmosphere by landfills across the world is equivalent to one billion tons of carbon dioxide (Themelis and Ulloa, 2007) cited in (O’Connell, 2011).

Landfills are a common final disposal site for waste and should be engineered and operated to protect the environment and public health (World Bank, 2012). Disposal or land filling activities are used to manage waste that cannot be prevented or recycled. One way to dispose of waste is to place it in properly designed, constructed, and managed landfills, where it is safely contained. If the technology is available, properly designed, constructed, and managed landfills can be used to generate energy by recovering methane (USEPA, 2002).

2.1.4 Integrateci Solid Waste Management

The concept of integrateci waste management has evolved recently and it relies on a number of different means to manage waste. It is a holistic approach waste management from generation to disposal and between in all stages (ISWA and UNEP, 2002).Integrated solid waste management (ISWM) reflects the need to approach solid waste in a comprehensive manner with careful selection and sustained application of appropriate technology, working conditions, and establishment of a ‘social license’ between the community and designated waste management authorities (most commonly local government) (World Bank, 2012).

According to USEPA (2002), Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) is a comprehensive waste prevention, recycling, composting, and disposal program. An effective ISWM system considers how to prevent, recycle, and manage solid waste in ways that most effectively protect human health and the environment. ISWM involves evaluating local needs and conditions, and then selecting and combining the most appropriate waste management activities for those conditions. The major ISWM activities are waste prevention, recycling and composting, and combustion and disposal in properly designed, constructed, and managed landfills. Each of these activities requires careful planning, financing, collection, and transport, all of which are discussed in this and the other fact sheets.

The activities associated with managing solid waste from the generation point to final disposal normally include generation, reduction, reuse, recycling, handling, collection, transfer and transport, transformation (e.g., recovery and treatment), and disposal. Depending on site specific conditions, a sound waste-management program can be established by combining some of the necessary activities into integrated solid-waste management (APO, 2007).

The first step in an integrated waste management system is to reduce the volume of waste at the source. Households are encouraged to reduce the amount of waste generated, and to separate organic and non-organic rubbish prior to disposal. Once waste is transported to the dump, it is sorted. Organic waste is transported to composting facilities, while inorganic materials are further separated into recyclable and поп-recyclable materials. Reusable materials go to recycling plants and only поп-recyclable materials remain to be disposed of in landfills or by other means. Integrated waste management not only reduces the overall volume of solid waste, but also generates additional revenues and protects the environment (IUCN, 2009).

Existing waste collection and transport systems often cannot handle the amount of waste generated by large cities with growing populations. When this occurs, waste is disposed in uncontrolled dumps or openly burned. This type of unmonitored and uncontrolled waste disposal has negative consequences on human health and the environment. Improvements to waste collection and transport can create jobs, decrease open dumping and burning, increase appeal for tourism, and significantly improve public health (USEPA, 2002).

Integrated solid waste management (ISWM) involves using a comprehensive approach to managing all aspects of municipal solid waste in a manner that accounts for local needs and conditions across a wide range of sectors. An effective ISWM program can help overcome the many financial, demographic, and other challenges to waste management, and result in numerous human health, environmental, economic, and social benefits for cities and national governments (CCAC, 2010).

According to EGSSAA (2009) states that:

The adverse impact t are best addressed by establishing integrated programs where all types of waste and all facets of the waste management process are considered together. Despite their importance, limited resources may prevent these programs from being implemented, and only a piecemeal solution may be possible. However, the long-term goal should be to develop an integrated waste management system and build the technical, financial, and administrative capacity to manage and sustain it(p. 1).

2.2 Challenges in Solid Waste Management

Solid waste management is a challenge for the cities’ authorities in developing countries mainly due to the increasing generation of waste, the burden posed on the municipal budget as a result of the high costs associated to its management, the lack of understanding over a diversity of factors that affect the different stages of waste management and linkages necessary to enable the entire handling system functioning (Guerrero et.ah, 2012).

According to Zurbrugg (2003), there are many challenges in solid waste management especially in developing countries such as inadequate service coverage for waste collection and operational inefficiencies of services due to lack of financial resources to cope with the increasing amount of generated waste produced by the rapid growing cities and due to inefficient institutional structures, inefficient organizational procedures, or deficient management capacity of the institutions involved as well as the use of inappropriate technologies; limited utilization of recovery and recycling activities due to high cost of storage and transportation; inadequate landfill disposal due to the financial and institutional constraints are the main reasons for inadequate disposal of waste especially were local governments are weak or under financed and rapid population growth continues; and inadequate management of hazardous and health care waste.

The immense financial, technological, and capacity demands of managing solid waste make proper municipal solid waste (MSW) management a significant challenge for many cities. This challenge is complicated by a number of external stressors. For example, economic growth leads to increased consumption and waste generation. In addition, economic growth often leads to consumption of new types of goods such as electronics that are difficult to recycle. Population growth also leads to increased waste generation. In addition, this growth often occurs in densely populated areas of cities, which can exacerbate difficulties in collecting waste (CCAC, 2010).

The low level of public awareness and lack of consistent separation at the source, particularly from households, results in 70-75 percent of the organic decomposable waste, which can be used for making compost or producing methane to generate energy, being taken to the landfill/dumpsite. The challenges for operators in solid waste management include: insufficient budget and absence of a cost recovery mechanism; lack of proper truck maintenance; absence of incentive systems; low private sector involvement; and lack of properly planned landfill (Edwards, 2010). There are also challenges coming from the producers of solid waste at all socio-economic levels as well as the industries and service producers. These include: lack of promotion and education on waste reduction, recycling, recovery, composting and energy generation; rapid, basically unplanned, increase in the populations of cities through both births and rural-urban migration increasing the volume of the waste generated; and communal containers are not properly collected and emptied when full, causing the areas around skips to become littered and foul smelling, thus encouraging illegal dumping (Ibid).

According to Tekele Tadesse (2004), the problems of solid waste management have been classified in to five major components such as low participation of households like in low community priority for solid waste management, low willingness to participate in collection and recycling, low willingness to keep public spaces clean, and low willingness to pay; management problems in the form of low willingness to manage, lack of accountability to the community and unrepresentative management; social operation problems such as low salary of operators, low status and bad working conditions, unreliable service, competition from private entrepreneurs and space problems; financial problems like cost recovery problems, inadequate fee collection and low ability to pay; and failing cooperation with municipalities such as direct obstruction of community-based solid waste management and lack of assistance from the municipality.

2.3 Public participation

Public participation is defined as the deliberative process by which interested or affected citizens, civil society organizations, and government actors are involved in policy-making before a political decision is taken (ΕΓΡΡ, 2009). Public participation is not only a matter of procedural justice, but also a precondition for achieving well-being (UNEP, 2007). Public participation can generally be defined as allowing people to influence the outcome of plans and working processes. However, there are different levels of influence (WDEU, 2002).

According to Abbot (1996) cited in Wongputarugsa et.al. (2010), since 1990s, public participation has been considered as a necessary component of public service delivery at the local level and participatory approach is important in sectors like in education, health, water and sanitation. Moreover, public participation involves establishing and maintaining an effective public-local government communication channel which involves the local government deciding clearly and reaching consensus on what the local government should do and the public should do (PEPA, 2005).

Public participation may be defined as the involvement of individuals and groups that are positively or negatively affected by a proposed intervention (e.g., a project, a program, a plan, a policy) subject to a decision-making process or are interested in it. Levels of participation in vary from passive participation or information reception (a unidirectional form of participation, to participation through consultation such as public hearings and open-houses), to interactive participation such as workshops, negotiation, mediation and even CO­management (Andre et.al. 2006).

Public participation is considered an essential element of good environmental governance and the development of environment programme was itself a product of an inclusive participatory process (MRC, 2005).

2.3.1 Strategies of Public Participation

Different scholars put the way how to participate the public in any community development activities in different ways. According to PEPA (2005), through information and education processes can increase public participation in different community development works largely in many ways including; media: leaflets, posters, notice boards, books, stories, games, videos, newspapers, radio, television. Events: public meetings, community discussion groups, competitions, drama/street theatre/music, theme days, cleanup days.

According to Tekele Tadesse (2004), public can be participate in solid waste management in the form of consultation such as answer preparatory research questions, attending meetings, elect leaders, representatives who manage waste collection, elect members of micro­enterprises and give feedback about collection system/waste services to operating team or management; and in the form of highest administration and management level such as take part in committees, become member of a community based organization (CBO) involved in waste collection, environmental education, etc. and participate in decision-making during meetings.

2.3.2 Importance of Public Participation in Solid Waste Management

The main purpose of public participation is to improve decision-making, by ensuring that decisions are soundly based on shared knowledge, experiences and scientific evidence, that decisions are influenced by the views and experience of those affected by them, that innovative and creative options are considered and that new arrangements are workable, and acceptable to the public (WDEU, 2002).

Public awareness and public participation is a very vital in effective implementation of the solid waste management system. The cooperation from citizen is an important for solid waste management. The social aspect cannot be separated from the overall waste management system (Visvanthan and Glawe, 2006). Public participation becomes a significant factor for a successful solid waste management. As it is argued that, even if the municipal authority operates the solid waste management through the sophisticated system, the solid waste problem cannot be solved at all without the participation of the public people in solid waste program (Sakulrat et al, 2001 cited in Wongputarugsa et.al. 2010).

Besides, public participation is envisaged to be the first step towards further community participation in operational waste management activities. Central to this issue of public/community participation is the responsibility of the relevant authority to make available any waste management information through the provincial/local government Waste Information Systems (WIS) (Mazinyo, 2009).

The growth of the waste management sector and the implementation mechanisms that involve public in terms of participation and/or employment has been improved recently. But, the public had been negative perception of the waste industry (ISWA and UNEP, 2002).

According to Kennedy et.al, (2009) cited on O’Connell (2011) there is existed positive correlation between knowledge and environmentally responsible behavior. But, Mckenzie- Mohr and Smith (1999) cited in O’Connell (2011), emphasized the need for information about environmentally responsible behavior like recycling and waste minimization should be incorporated in culturally as well as emotionally.

To ensure sustainability in waste management, it is vital to consider the roles, interests and power structures of the practice of waste management with different stakeholders. Therefore, the experience of many countries has shown that cooperation and coordination among the different stakeholders like city council, government service users, NGOs, CBOs, the private sectors both the formal and the informal and donor agencies lead to enhance the sustainability of the waste management system like change in behavior and sharing of financial responsibilities (Visvanthan and Glawe, 2006).

2.4 Overview of solid waste management in Ethiopia

Waste management is a growing public concern in Ethiopia (Abebaw, 2008; cited in Bizatu and Negga, 2010). In many cities of the country, waste management is poor and solid wastes are dumped along roadsides and into open areas, endangering health and attracting vermin (Tewodros, 2008; cited in Bizatu and Negga, 2010). Access to sanitation is also among the lowest in the world. Sixty percent of the population still practices open field defecation. Only 12 percent (8% in the rural and 29% in the urban) of the population use improved sanitation facilities. Urban households are more than three times as likely as rural households to have access to improved toilet facilities (UNICEF and WHO, 2010; cited in Bizatu and Negga, 2010).

However, studies conducted by Research Inspired Policy and Practice Learning in Ethiopia and the Nile Region (RIPPLE) in the SNNPR indicate a substantial increase in the number of household latrines since the deployment of Health Extension Workers. It shows an increase in a few years, from 16% to 94% coverage in Mirab Abaya Woreda and 10% to 69% in Alaba Special Woreda. Nevertheless, these studies indicate hand washing facilities and practice to be still poor (Terra, 2008; cited in Bizatu and Negga, 2010).

Lack of provisions to proper sanitation facilities can hinder the development of a country. This may be a challenge to achieve Millennium Development Goal. Provision of adequate sanitation facilities is not only a socioeconomic and developmental issue, but also an issue of self-respect, human dignity and public health (Legesse, 2006; Bizatu and Negga, 2010).

For all major Ethiopian urban centers, including Addis Ababa, the challenge is for effective community action in waste management. Over sixty percent of the wastes generated in Addis Ababa are organic materials that could be recycled to generate biogas and organic fertilizer, particularly compost. The percentage of potentially recyclable organic materials in the waste of the other urban centers is likely to be higher (Country Profile of Ethiopia Johannesburg submit 2002).

In Ethiopia, as in all the other countries of the south, city councils and municipalities have insufficient means to solve the problems of solid waste management. The major source of these problems is the lack of resources in terms of manpower and particularly finances. There is no clear cost recovery structure related to solid waste management in Ethiopia, hence, there is an extremely low level of returns for efforts put into dealing with solid waste. The solid waste management institutions not only lack funds, but their capacity to work in partnership with the local communities is also limited (Edwards, 2010).

Since the year 2001, most municipalities and city councils in Ethiopia have become aware of the negative consequences of poor solid waste management and have devised and implemented a system to collect and dispose of solid waste that involves waste collection associations (Edwards, 2010).

2.5 Waste management policy and proclamation in Ethiopia and Amhara Region

Proclamation no. 513/2007 aims to promote community participation in order to prevent adverse effects and enhance benefits resulting from solid waste. It provides for preparation of solid waste management action plans by urban local governments (FDRE-M0I, 2014).

Therefore, Solid Waste Management Proclamation No. 513/2007 states (Article 5.1) that Urban Administrations shall ensure the participation of the lowest administrative levels and their respective local communities in designing and implementing their respective solid waste management plans. In Article 5.1 each Region or urban administration shall set its own schedule and, based on that, prepare its solid waste management plan and report of implementation. Further information on preparation and implementation of solid waste management plans may be obtained from the Regional Environmental Protection Authorities and federal EPA. Measures related to waste handling and disposal: any person shall collect waste in an especially designated place and in a manner, which does not affect the health of the society and no person shall dispose solid, liquid or any other waste in a manner which contaminate the environment or affects the health of the society (FDRE-M0I, 2014).

Solid waste management in urban centers of Ethiopia are under the jurisdiction of Municipal Division of Health, all municipalities (except Addis Ababa) and certified urban centers are mandated by Proclamation Number 206 of 1981 to provide, maintain and supervise environmental health services along with their other activities in their municipalities and urban centers. Thus, solid wastes management services, are the responsibilities of these municipalities and urban centers. Most of them have no institutional set up and resources for discharging their duties effectively. This is aggravated by the low priority usually accorded to sanitation activities (Tekele Tadesse, 2004).

The Environmental Policy of Ethiopia (EPE), which was approved on April 1997, constitutes eleven-sectorial and eleven cross-sectorial policy elements. Its overall policy goal is “to improve and enhance the health and quality of life of all Ethiopians, and to promote sustainable social and economic development through the sound management and use of natural, human-made and cultural resources and the environment as a whole, so as to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. However, the EPE emphasis only the need for arresting land degradation (FDRE-EPA, 2004).

2.6 Empirical Evidences

Although studies were conducted on challenges and prospects of public participation in solid waste management, the study area and their findings were different. The study conducted by Mukisa (2009) in Kira town council, Uganda showed that the challenges that were prevented the public from being participated in solid waste management were lack of financial resources for the town council and illegal dumping of solid waste because of absence of punishment or incentive mechanisms of the town council as well as the community.

Furthermore, the study conducted by ARIJ (2009) the challenges of solid waste management in the city of Nablus, Palestine revealed that due low tax collection rate which causes uncovering of costs of transferring wastes, inadequate facilities and equipment, lack of public awareness and participation, lack of municipality communication capacities, absence of an effective waste management legal framework, and lack of planning at the national level. Masheke (2011) revealed that in his study, there is no linkage existing between the government and the community in solid waste management in Lusaka city. According to Agwu (2012) findings revealed that Port-Harcourt city residents from the sampled zones are aware of solid waste management problems in their environment but possessed poor waste management practices. Moreover, Babalola et al. (2010) findings revealed that the existing solid waste management system is inefficient as the present practice rely on monthly collection and disposal of waste using an open dump site.

In addition, the study was conducted to investigate the rate of participation in sustainable waste and environmental management activities in Abuja and the study revealed that increase funding, provision of recycling collection points, enforcement of laws and policies, the development of effective policies and regulatory framework amongst others are some of the measures that can encourage public participation in sustainable waste management programs in Abuja (Hasnain, 2015). Similarly, according to Mukisa (2009), there are plans for formal disposal facilities, use of the legal instrument and awareness-raising in Kira town council would be the future opportunities to manage solid waste by the public. Besides, Masheke (2011) identified that the availability of human resources and government-industry partnership are potentials for waste recycling and reuse.

The study conducted by Nigatu Regassa et.al. (2011) on challenges and opportunities in municipal solid waste management in Addis Ababa city, Ethiopia revealed that the poor performance of municipal solid waste management were the followings: technical problem identified are inaccessibility of the city due to the geographical and urban structure, lack of properly designed collection route system and time schedule, inadequate and malfunctioning operation equipment, open burning of garbage, poor condition of the final dump site, littering of the corner around the skips which encouraged illegal dumping. Insufficient funds as well as lack of promotion on-waste reduction: recycling, absence of cost recovery, practice of energy option, waste separation and composting are among the financial challenge. Social problems encountered include: lack of public awareness, illegal dumping, poor condition of waste workers, lack of private sector and community involvement. Incompetence of organizations in terms of equipment required for operation and man power /staff qualifications, training and human resource developments/ and unreliable service are the institutional challenge that the city encountered in the sector.

As a result, this research found similar findings with regards to the problems that hindered the public being participated in solid waste management in the study area. To mentioned some of them are; poor awareness, lack of manpower who are coordinate and work in partnership with different stakeholders including the community at the city administration level, shortage of budget by the city administration, poor social participation causes poor solid waste management, poor rules and regulations implementation regarding to solid waste management and shortage of equipment.

2.7 Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of this study was developed based on literatures and personal observation of the study area. The assumption is that the challenges and prospects of public participation in solid waste management are influenced by many factors that include socio­cultural, economic, demographic, institutional, environmental, technological and personal behavior. Therefore, the conceptual framework shows the relationships between explanatory variables and the dependent variable.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own framework, 2015

Figure 2.2. Conceptual framework of the study

Chapter 3. RESERACH METHODOLOGY (MATERIALS & METHODS)

3.1 Description of the study Area

Amhara national regional state is the second largest region which covers 157,128 square kilometers (15%) of the nation, 20 million (25%) of the country population live in the region. Climatic condition of the area is high land (2500-4620) 20%, semi high land (1500­2500m) 44.7% and low land (800-1500m) 34.6%. The region is also known in livestock population-i.e. 35%, 24%, and 18% of the country cattle, sheep and goat respectively are found in Amhara region. The region has 167 woredas, which 38 are urban and 129 are rural woreda administrations (ANRS Bureau of Finance and Economy Development, 2015).

Bahir Dar is the capital city of the Amhara National Regional State in North West of Ethiopia. The city is located at 11” 38’N, 37” 10Έ on the southern side of Lake Tana where Blue Nile river starts and 564 kilometers far from Addis Ababa. The altitude of the city is about 1801m above mean sea level and covers an area of 16,000 hectares (Solid Waste Characterization and Quantification of Bahir Dar City report, 2010). Bahir Dar city administration population is increasing time to time and currently has the total of 241,754 (male is 116,950 and female is 124,804) population which is not included the rural kebelles (ANRS Bureau of Finance and Economy Development, 2015). The city has nine (9) sub-cities. Namely, Sefeneselam, Fasilo, Tana, Shimbet, Gishabay, Shumabo, Belay Zeleke, Ginbot 20, and Hidar 11. Moreover, each sub city has divided in to sub kebelles or zones.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own analysis, 2015

Figure 3.1. Map of the study Area

3.2 Research Approach

The researcher has deployed both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The rationale behind using both methods are seek to explain in more detail through qualitative research the initial quantitative statistical results and quantitative provides the opportunity to gather data from a large number of people and generalize results, whereas qualitative permits an in-depth exploration of a few individuals (Creswell, 2012).The mixing of methods can be a valuable research strategy for the validation of findings in terms of their accuracy; checking for bias in research methods; and the development of research instruments. The use of more than one method can enhance the findings of research by providing a fuller and more complete picture of the thing that is being studied, and as means for compensating the strengths and weaknesses of particular methods (Denscombe, 2007).

The primary data has been collected from users, government officials particularly from the city administration and the service providers. Besides, quantitative data has been collected from users through structured interview questions whereas qualitative data has been collected through focused group discussions, semi-structure interviews and observations. However, qualitative data were used for triangulation purpose.

3.3 Research Design

The researcher used sequential explanatory model design which is characterized by the collection and analysis of quantitative data followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data. The priority typically is given to the quantitative data, and the two methods are integrated during the interpretation phase of the study. The purpose of the sequential explanatory design typically is to use qualitative results to assist in explaining and interpreting the findings of a primarily quantitative study (Creswell, 2003).

However, according to Creswell (2009), survey design that provided for a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population by studied a sample of that population whereas case study strategy used to explored in depth program, event, activity, process or one or more individuals and collected detail information using a variety of data collection procedures.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own design, 2015

Figure 3.2. Research Design

3.4 Data Collection Method

3.4.1 Structured Interviews

Structured interview questions were developed and necessary quantitative information was collected from service users. As a result, structured interviewed questions were filled by the recruited personnel because most of respondents were illiterate. Similarly, some researchers Denscombe (2007), supported that structured interview could be administered face to face with a respondent and used a predetermined list of questions to which the respondents were invited to offer closed ended responses and leads to the collection of quantitative data.

3.4.2 Semi-Structured Interviews

Interviewing all the respondents are a difficult job and selecting few of them is vital to collect needy information. Through interviewed some residents, private service providers and the city administration, qualitative data was collected to support the quantitative results. In semi- structured interview the main open ended questions were designed and allowed the respondents to answer as they want and notes were taken. Neville (2007) suggested that prepare a list of themes and areas to be covered but may omitted or added to some of these questions or areas, depending on the situation and the flow of the conversation is very important to collect good qualitative data.

3.4.3 Focused Group Discussions

Two focused group were formed, each group was comprised of 6 people and qualitative data were collected. The focus group was formed by the individuals selected randomly from each sub cities of residents. According to Denscombe (2007), focus group discussion should consist of between six and nine people. This allows for a fair range of opinions and experiences to be included among the participants and used to explore attitudes and perceptions, feelings and ideas about a specific topic. Similarly, Neville (2007) added that focus group discussion are used to gather data in the forms of opinions from a selected group of people on a particular and pre-determined topic.

3.4.4 Observations

Observations accompanied by transect walks were conducted on landfill site, collected solid wastes at villages, waste collectors while they were collecting and loading solid wastes (see appendix figure 1). Therefore, through observations, qualitative data was collected and analyzed to support the quantitative data.

3.5 Sampling Technique and Sample Size

3.5.1 Sampling Technique

Bahir Dar city administration has nine sub-cities such as Tana, Shimbet, Ginbot 20, Fasilo, Belay Zeleke, Serene selam, Shumabo, Gishabay and Hidar 11. Besides, each sub-city has divided in sub-kebelle/zones and therefore, Serene SelamA(04),B(05),C(06); Gishabay A(01),B(02),C(12); Fasilo A,B,C,D; Belay Zeleke A,B,C,D,E; Hidar 11 A,B,C,D,E; Shimabo A(08),B(09),C(10); Shimbit A,B,C,D; Ginbot 20 A,B,C,D,E,F and Tana A,B,C,D. Simple random sampling technique was used and two sub-cities was selected randomly such as Fasilo and Serene Selam. Furthermore, from each selected sub-city, one sub-kebelle/zone selected, A (04) and c zones selected randomly from Serene Selam and Fasilo sub-cities randomly. Finally, systematic random sampling technique was employed to select representative sample from the total population.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own sampling procedure, 2015

Figure 3.3. Sampling Procedure

3.5.2 Sample Size

A sample size is “determined by the style of the research”. As a result, if the research is survey study, there should be the need for a representative sample of the population whereas in purely phenomenological study; the smaller amount of sample data would be collected for qualitatively. However, in mixed techniques, the sample might not necessarily representative of the population (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2000:93 cited in Mukisa, 2009).

However, to determine the sample size according to Krejcie and Morgan (1970), for finite or known population size the following formula used.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Where

s = required sample size.

X = the table value of chi-square for 1 degree of freedom at the desired confidence level (3.841).

N = the population size.

p = the population proportion (assumed to be .50 since this would provide the maximum sample size).

d = the degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion (.05).

Therefore, the total number of population is 920 from both selected zones 318 and 602 Fasilo C-zone and Serene Selam A-zone respectively. Based on the above formula:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

However, to allocate proportion the sample for each sub city based on their respective population size, 177 samples has been selected from Serene Selam sub-city of A zone/sub­kebele, this zone mostly trade centers and the respondents were traders and 94 samples were selected from Fasilo sub-city of c zone/sub-kebelle, most of respondents were residents. However, to avoid the chance of samples collected from specific area or place, systematic random sampling technique was used. Moreover, for semi-structure interviews, the total of 20 respondents were conducted that means 10 from each cluster was done which is comprises 16 from users, 2 from the city hygiene and beautification department, 2 from private service providers of solid waste management and 12 members of two focus group discussion from selected sub cities.

3.6 Data Processing and Analysis Methods

3.6.1 Quantitative Data

Quantitative data was collected through developed structured interview questionnaires from the residents. After the data was collected, coded, entered in to SPSS version 16, edited and analyzed.

When dependent variables are ordinal rather than continuous, conventional OLS regression techniques are inappropriate. The ordered logit model, also known as the proportional odds model, is a popular method in such cases (Williamms, 2010). Therefore, ordered logit model was used because the dependent variable is ordered in low, medium and high.

Variables are measured in such a way that:

Ordered Dependent Variable: Public Participation; low (1), medium (2), high (3)

Independent variables:

Xl=Sex: male (1); female (2)

X2=Age: entered as the number of years

X3=Education: as category of grade level adult education, religious education, 1-4 grade, 5-8 grade, 9-10 grade, 11-12 grade and college/university level (coded 1-7 respectively).

X4=Occupation: category variable such as house wife, civil servant, petty trade & others (coded 1, 2, 3 & 4 respectively).

X5=Family size: entered as number of family

X6=H0use ownership: own (1); Rental (2)

X7=Household income: entered as ETB on monthly basis

X8=Re-using wastes: yes (1); no (2)

X9= Awareness :( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

X10=Willingness to pay: yes (1); no (2) Xll=Social participation: yes (1); no (2) X12=R0ad access: yes (1); no (2)

X13=Distance to the main road: yes (1); no (2) X14=Rules & Regulations presence: yes (1); no (2)

Ordered logistic regression model was used for analysis of variables due to the fact that dependent variable (public participation) is ordered response from low to high. As a result, the model is specified as follows.

Using the concept of Williams (2015), the ordered logistic regression model for the major challenges and prospects of public participation on solid waste management can be specified as:

(1) There is an observed ordinal variable, Y.

(2) Y is the function of another variable, Y* that is not measured latent variable and has various threshold points, (k is the Greek small letter kappa). The value on the observed variable Y depends on whether or not has a crossed a particular threshold. In the case of public participation, M=3.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

(3) This model can be estimated

illustration not visible in this excerpt

The ordered model estimate part of the above is that:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

К ßs and M-l ks are parameters that need to be estimated.

The corresponding sample estimates for each case can be computed:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

In the case of M=3, 1

illustration not visible in this excerpt

(4) Therefore, using the estimated value of z and the assumed logistic distribution of the disturbance term, the ordered logit model can be estimated the probability that the unobserved variable Y* falls within the various threshold limits.

3.6.2 Qualitative Data

As it mentioned above, qualitative data was collected through semi structured interview, focus group discussions and observations. Therefore, before analyzing the qualitative data, it was produced an interview and focus group discussion summary after each interview or focus group has taken place based on the main focus area to be explained more qualitatively. The mixing of the quantitative results and qualitative findings was done in the final interpretation and discussion part of the research.

Operational Definition of Variables

Dependent Variable

Public Participation: public can be participating in solid waste management ranges from low to high. The ways of participation might be different and can be participating in labor, money, in coordination and etc. Public participation is ordered as low, medium and high. For the purpose of regression, high is coded 1, medium is coded 2 and low is coded 3.

Independent Variables

Independent variables are variables that influence the dependent variable which mean that public participation in solid waste management is influenced by many factors. Independent variables are categorized in demographic, personal behavioral, socio-cultural, economic, environmental and technological factors.

1. Sex: is a dummy variable coded 1 for male and 2 for female for regression purpose. It is expected that female is more participating in solid waste management than male.

2. Age: is a continuous variable is entered as the age of respondents. When age is increasing, participation in solid waste management is decreasing. Therefore, age and participation in solid waste management is inversely related.

3. Education: a category variable range from adult education, religious, 1-4, 5-8, 9-10, 11-12 grade and college/university and coded 1-7 respectively. It was expected that there was a positive relationship between education and participation in solid waste management.

4. Occupation: category variable such as house wife, civil servant, petty trade & others (coded 1, 2, 3 & 4 respectively). It would be expected that house wife is more participated than the other categories of occupation.

5. Family Size: is the continuous variable and it was expected to have negative relationship with participation in solid waste management. Due to the fact that when the family size increases, volume of waste generating increases and any of family members is reluctant to participate in solid waste management.

6. House Ownership: is a dummy variable and coded as 1 for own house and 2 for rent house. It is expected that those who own house is more participating in solid waste management than rent house.

7. Income: is a continuous variable and expected to have positive relationship with participating in solid waste management.

8. Reusing Wastes: is a dummy variable and coded as 1 is reusing wastes and 2 not reusing wastes. Those who are reusing wastes (recycling with their own technology) are more participating in solid waste management than not reusing wastes.

9. Awareness: Had positive relation to participation in solid waste management. When awareness increases, participation in solid waste management increases. It was coded 1-5 scale, starting from very high, high, medium, low and very low respectively.

10. Willingness to Pay: is a dummy variable and coded as 1 is willing to pay for waste collectors and 2 if not. Therefore, those who are willing to pay for waste collectors are more participating in solid waste management than not willing to pay.

11. Social Participation: is a dummy variable and coded 1 is participating in social activities and 2 is not participating in social activities.

12. Road Access: is a dummy variable and coded 1 is the accessibility of road to transport wastes and 2 is inaccessibility of road. As a result, it is expected that the accessibility of road is positive relationship with participation in solid waste management.

13. Distance from main road: is a dummy variable and coded 1 is the distance is not far from the main road and 2 is far from the main road.

14. Rules & Regulations: is a dummy variable and coded 1 is the presence of rules and regulations and 2 if not. It was expected that the presence of rules and regulations has positive relationship with participating in solid waste management.

Chapter 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter is the main body of the thesis. To address each of specific objectives, the survey data analyzed through descriptive, inferential statistics which helped to assess strength of the relationship between independent variables and dependent variable whereas econometrics model used to analyzed data to determine the main variables that affect dependent variable. In addition, the qualitative data that had been collected through interview, focus group discussion and personal observation is presented here. The first part of this chapter discusses the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of respondents, the second part tell US the current solid waste management practices of Bahir Dar city; the third part presents the prospects of public participation in solid waste management. The fourth and fifth part of the thesis elucidates the inferential statistics (t-test for continuous variables & chi-square test for discrete variables) and econometric analysis results which determine the major factors that affects public participation in solid waste management respectively.

4.1 Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics of Respondents (n=271)

From 271 respondents, 201 are females and only 70 are males. Therefore, female respondents are 2.87 times of male respondents participated in structured interview. The majority of respondents (98) is in the age range of 24-34 and 85, 75 and 13 respondents are in the age range of 45-100, 35-44 and 18-24 respectively. From this we can said that young people are less participated in face to face interview.

Moreover, 36.5% of respondents are diploma and above holder, 20.7%, 12.5%, 11.4%, 10.3%, 6.6% and 1.8% are grade 11-12, adult education, grade 9-10, grade 5-8, grade 1-4 and religious educational level respectively. Similarly, 123 respondents are civil servants, 118, 22 and 8 respondents are engaged in house wife, petty trade and other activities. In regards to house ownership characteristics of the respondents, 51.7% of them are living on their house and 48.3% of respondents are living in rental house. The monthly income categories of respondents showed that 31%, 21.4%, 15.5%, 12.2% and 11.8% of respondents are in the range income of 1501-3500, -5000, 3501-5000, 501-1500 and less than 500 birr respectively. However, 8.1% of respondents are not replied on earning monthly income.

4.2 Current Solid Waste Management Practices of Bahir Dar city

In this section, the current waste management of the town particularly solid waste management practices of the city is analyzed and discussed using the survey result and qualitative information. The second research question which was the role of public participation in solid waste management is also presented in this section. Moreover, the third research questions that is the current ways or strategies of public participation in solid waste management were presented, discussed and future strategies were recommended.

As per researcher’s personal observation and the survey result, most of solid wastes are not dumped illegally and there is no any solid waste collecting village sites that would be caused for health hazard and environmental pollution of the surroundings. Solid wastes are managed at each residents home until waste collectors collected it.

Table 4.1. Major solid wastes generated by the household (n=271)

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

The survey result indicated in the Table 4.1 revealed that the major solid wastes generated by the residents in Bahir Dar city was food residuals that accounts 55.35% of the total solid wastes generated by the household which took the lions share, others which includes house dirties, plastics and ash had been ranked second, third and fourth respectively.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Figure 4.1. Proportion of households who have a waste container

The selected sample respondents were asked the question that enables to know whether they use a waste container or not. Accordingly, almost all of them (99%) responded that they use waste container (Figure 4.1). As indicated in Table 4.2, the majority (82.16 %) of the respondents are using sack as a waste container. Whereas, (10.41 %) and (7.43 %) are using basket and plastic bags as waste storage respectively. The focus group discussions were also confirmed that sack is the priority storage material used for solid wastes by the residents and commonly they put in their compound at the corner of their fences.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 4.2. Proportion of household by kind of waste container they use (n=271)

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Figure 4.2. Proportion of households sorting their wastes (n=271)

As depicted in Figure 4.2, the survey result confirms that 85.34% of the respondents are sorting wastes at the time of generated. Although sorting is an initial stage of waste management, 14.66% respondents are not sorted wastes. The interview result was also confirmed that waste collectors found broken and sharpen materials, liquid wastes and needle in solid wastes and they were injured by such materials. Therefore, education and awareness creation about sorting of wastes is important for residents.

It has been earned from the interview conducted with the head of the city administration sanitation and beautification office, Bahir Dar city administration is divided in to nine sub cities and managing the waste is the responsibility of the municipality. He added that thepractice of solid waste management was the municipality put huge containers at the main villages and when it became full, transport to the dumping sites. Since July 2009, Dream Light which is private waste collectors is established and started its operation in all sub cities.

However, according to the city administration sanitation and beautification department head, waste generation and expansion of the town increases time to time and waste collection by Dream Light was not affordable. The city Small and Micro Enterprises (SMEs) office organized and established 5 SMEs associations that had started their operation in 5 sub cities. Following the establishment of the SMEs, Dream Light has reduced its operations area (location) from 9 to 4 sub cities in 2012. The objective was to create competition among waste collectors to provide better services and solve compliance from the community.

Table 4.3. Frequency of SMEs collect wastes (n=271)

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Although the city administration is tried to solve the compliance of the community and service quality problems of the private waste collector (Dream light), the problem of not collecting the waste on time continues. Managing wastes in home more than a week is very difficult and expected that waste collectors should collect wastes regularly every week. However, the survey result showed that waste collectors are not collecting wastes every week (see Table 4.3). The majority of the respondents 49.45% and 34.32% replied that waste collectors are collecting once per month and once per two weeks respectively. The interview results are also confirmed that there are irregularities and less frequent of waste collectors.

Table 4.4. Proportion of respondents preferred time to dispose waste

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Regarding the preferred time to dispose waste by residents as depicted in the Table 4.4, there exists difference among respondents in their prefer time to dispose wastes. Accordingly, the majority of respondents (64.2%) revealed that their prefer time to dispose waste at the morning, 33.2% and 2.6% of respondents preferred to dispose wastes at MSEs set time and at the evening respectively. From this one can understand that there is the difference in residents prefer time to dispose and waste collectors time to pick up wastes which creates gap in provision of services.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Figure 4.3. Satisfaction of services provided by SMEs (n=271)

Concerning the satisfaction of the community with the service provided by the waste collectors, most of the respondents (79.7%) were not satisfied by the service rendering by waste collectors (see Figure 4.3). In addition, the focus group discussants were also confirmed that the service rendered by waste collectors is not satisfactory. They were mentioned some of the reasons such as waste collectors are less motivated, shortage of vehicle, less incentive or salary, shortage of waste collecting materials such as glove and max, lack of support from different government levels and so on. Waste collector associations (Green Vision and Shimbet) raised vehicle shortage as the main challenges to accomplish their tasks properly. However, according to the public relation personnel of Dream Light, their problem is not shortage of vehicle rather fuel.

The department of sanitation and beautification has one vehicle for 5 established waste collector associations, the department facilitates the vehicle on rental basis but the rental cost is very high which leads to the profit margin of the associations to be minimal as the head of Green Vision waste collectors mentioned. According to the head of Green Vision waste collectors association, when the vehicle is on maintenance, waste collectors program could be postponed and will result in the waste generated by the households to wait for many days at their home or at village which might create environmental pollution and health hazards.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Figure 4.4. Role can play by the community for better solid waste management (n=271)

In line with the roles the community can play in the management of solid waste, according to the interview conducted with head of town sanitation and beautification, the community is playing a great role in solid waste management like by reducing wastes at sources, sorting wastes and cleaning waste canals (drainages) in the city. As one can see from the survey result in Figure 4.4, the majority of respondents replied that they are playing a role in putting wastes in container (38%), 34%, 21% and 7% were taken by participating in any waste management activities, paying money for waste collectors and sorting wastes in their locality respectively. Moreover, as per the finding from the focus group discussion, the community can play a role like keeping the morale of waste collectors and informing for concerned bodies if waste collectors are not coming regularly. From this one can understand that the community is ready to support the government and waste collectors for better management of solid wastes.

Table 4.5. Strategies for public participation in solid waste management

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

As shown from Table 4.5 above, the respondents were asked ‘what strategies they may recommend for better participation in solid waste management’ and the majority of respondents (68.63%) recommended that community conversation should be given priority. The second major proportion of respondents that is 22.88% recommended that awareness creation should be emphasized and 8.49% of the respondents suggested enforcement mechanisms had better to be applied. The focus group discussion result indicates that the city administration is expected to do more on awareness creation through health extensionworkers and incentive mechanism for the better management of solid wastes. Although the public participation is poor, the city administration has community participatory waste management strategy since 2001 and the community is participating in waste management through contributing in labor, money, and education or awareness creation. From this one can understand that the current strategies of participating the community in solid waste management are not effective.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Figure 4.5. Efforts made by the municipality in providing solid waste management services

The sanitation and beautification department is the responsible body to organize, manage and facilitate the solid waste management process of the city. As one can see in Figure 4.5, the respondents asked how they evaluate the efforts made by the municipality in providing solid waste management services. The survey result showed that on Figure 4.5, the majority of respondents (43.54%) replied poor efforts have been made by the municipality, 29.15%, 19.56%, 5.54% and 2.21% respondents replied fair, good, very good and very poor respectively. However, the municipality is undertaking many things in regard to the solid waste management activities but providing information for the community is vital because the gap might be filled through the community participation. In line with this, the head ofsanitation and beautification department mentioned the main challenges of solid waste management in the city includes lack of awareness of the community, shortage of budget, less attention given by the government, the volume of wastes increment is not adjusted accordingly and made the solid waste management process difficult.

To summarize about the waste management process of the city, solid wastes is collected from the residential houses or trade centers by waste collectors and put at center of village. Then when the vehicle is available, the waste collectors load and transport to the dumping sites which is 7 km from the city commonly called around Sebatamit (rural kebelle) (see appendix Figurel). But, another problem is observed in the area where the waste is dumped. To mention it, the dumping site is adjacent to the farm land of the rural people whose livelihood depends on it. As plastic waste dumped float on the air it directly falls on the farm of the rural residents and it in turn affects the harvesting activity. Apart to this the smoke emanated from the burning of the waste on the dumping site throughout the year is also affecting the health of rural dwellers. One of the rural dweller’s said that they are drinking contaminated water and the government wants to displaced from their farm land, nobody listen them. Therefore, from the concerned body needs an immediate action like instead of dumping, using recycling technology is recommended.

However, Dream Light waste collector’s has established a recycling technology in Ginbot 20 sub city around unique police station and started to produce charcoal, biogas and compost. They started bakery with start of electricity and then using biogas. But, they closed before a year because of externality problem on unique police station. Therefore, from the responsible bodies needs attention to restart recycling technology and attracting or inviting other investors’ who want to work on wastes recycling technologies is vital. The current practice is cleaning the urban area from their wastes but the rural periphery suffered from the wastes generated by the urban dwellers. As a result, the waste management particularly solid waste is partial. Therefore, the town waste management system needs to be avoided this negative externality and the waste management system needs to be sustainable.

4.3 Prospects of Public Participation in Solid Waste Management in Bahir Dar city

Waste management particularity solid waste should not be considered as the responsibility of a single party rather for many stakeholders. Especially, the cooperation between the community and the government is vital for good solid waste management system. As depicted Table 4.6 below, the respondents were asked who should be responsible for better solid waste management and the majorities of them (42.4%) replied the community, 33.9%, 23.2% and 0.4% replied private, government and (CBO, FBO and NGO) respectively. Although the respondents said so, solid waste management is the responsibilities and cooperation of all concerned bodies stated above. All stakeholders are needed work together in order to alleviate the solid waste management problems of the city although coordination, facilitation and implementation of it is better to be taken by the city administration. Therefore, the future participation of the community in solid waste management is promising in Bahir Dar city.

Table 4.6.Who should be responsible for better solid waste management

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

The city administration particularly department of sanitation and beatification uses different mechanism in order to participate the community in solid waste management activities. As one can see from Figure 4.6, the respondents were asked in what ways they are participating in solid waste management and the majorities of the respondents (67%) replied in paying money for waste collectors, 26% , 5% and 2% were replied in coordination, in contributing labor and other respectively. Although the respondents were said so, the participation is not enough and it is poor. The government is better to use enforcement mechanism, incentive mechanism, education/awareness and so on to participate the community more in the solid waste management. In addition, the city administration had better to work with CBOs, FBOs and NGOs in order to give quality services for the dwellers.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Figure 4.6. Ways of community participation in solid waste management (n=271)

For the future, community participation in solid waste management should not be limited only to money, labor, and coordination rather it should be extended to work hard on changing the attitude and thought of the community through education, incentive mechanism for those who are managing wastes in home or village in best way, enforcement mechanism like penalizing those who are not managing wastes in home or village properly.

4.4 Major Factors that Affects Public Participation in Solid Waste Management: Descriptive Analysis & Inferential Statistics

This section describes and analyzes all the explanatory variables which affect the dependent variable public participation based on categories such as demographic, economic, institutional, socio-cultural, environmental and technological factors. Different statistical methods were used to test the association between dependent and explanatory variables. Therefore, independent sample t- test and one sample t-test was used to determine the relationship between dependent variable that is public participation and continuous variables such as age, family size and household monthly income. Whereas, chi-square/lambda test were used to find the association between public participation and all discrete variables like education, occupation, sex, house ownership, reusing wastes, awareness, social participation, willingness to pay, road access, distance, and rules & regulations.

Discrete Variables

Sex: The number of female respondents accounts 74.2% and male respondents were 25.8% in which the number of female respondents is greater than male by two-third (see Table 4.7). A Pearson chi-square test was conducted to examine whether there was a relationship between sex and public participation. The results revealed that there was a significant relationship between the two variables (Chi square value = 7.187, df =2, p = .028) (see Table 4.7). There was similar proportion of male (41.4%) reported that they would participate in solid waste management compared with female (42.3%) (see Table 4.7).

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Education: Educational level range from adult education to college/university level and 36.5% of respondents were college/university level whereas 11-12 grade level took 20.7%. Besides, adult education and religious took 12.5% and 1.8% respectively. However, Chi- square test was not appropriated to measure relationship between education and public participation because four cells were presented value below 5. Therefore, instead of Chi- square, lambda was used to test association between variables. A lambda test was conducted to examine whether there was a relationship between education and public participation. The results revealed that there was a significant relationship between the two variables (lambda value = .49, p = .065). A significantly larger proportion of grade 11-12 (46.4%) and college/university (45.5%) reported that they would participate in solid waste management compared with only 20 percent of religious people (see Tables 4.8).

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 4.8. Proportion of respondents by educational level and lambda Output

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Lambda value=0.49, p=0.065

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Occupation: the last but the not the least demographic factor is occupation. As a result, 45.4% respondents were civil servants and 43.5% of respondents were housewife. Moreover, 8.1% and 3% of respondents were petty traders and others respectively (see appendix Table.4). A Pearson chi-square test was conducted to examine whether there was a relationship between occupation and public participation. The results revealed that there was no a significant relationship between the two variables (Chi square value =6 .997, df =6, p = .32) (see appendix Table.4).

Awareness: is a personal behavioral factor and likert scale is used to measure the awareness of the respondents. The likert scale is measured from 1 to 5 which is from very high awareness to the very low awareness. It was tried to measure their general understanding of respondents after they were asked questions about solid waste management and it was filled by interviewer judgment without asked them directly. Based on the survey result, 41.7% of respondents had medium awareness and 35.4% of respondents had high awareness. Both very high and low awareness respondents had 11.4% equally. Unfortunately, there is no respondent scored very low awareness based on the judgment of the interviewees (see appendix Table.4). The cumulative percentage of medium and high level of awareness accounts for 77.1%. In addition, 147 (54.2%) respondents have got lesson about solid waste management and 143 (97.3%) of them have got through health extension workers. However, 123 (45.4%) respondents haven’t got any lesson about solid waste management. One respondent didn’t replied either yes or not whether he/she got lesson about solid waste management (see Figure 4.7).

A Pearson chi-square test was conducted to examine whether there was a relationship between awareness and public participation. The results revealed that there was a significant relationship between the two variables (Chi square value = 26.869, df =6, p = .000) (see Appendix Table.4). This result tells US that there was statistically high significant relationship between awareness and public participation in solid waste management at less than 1% of significant level (see appendix Table.4). From this we can conclude that when awareness of the community increases, participation in solid waste management increases and vice versa. On the other hand, there is a positive relationship between awareness and participation in solid waste management. This finding is similar with Ashenafi (2011) and he found that the higher the households’ perception or understanding to their generated wastes, the higher the probability to manage it effectively.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Figure 4.7. Proportions of respondents have got lesson about solid waste management

Willingness to pay: the respondents were asked whether willing to pay or not for waste collection service. As shown in Figure 4.9, 56.83% of respondents were willing to pay for waste collection services provided by companies or individuals. Whereas, 43.17% of the respondents were not willing to pay. Those who are not willing to pay, they reason out that it is not because of high payment for waste collection service rather because of dissatisfaction of the services provided by waste collectors.

A Pearson chi-square test was conducted to examine whether there was a relationship between willingness to pay and public participation. The results revealed that there was a significant relationship between the two variables (Chi square value = 9.936, df =2, p = .007).The chi- square result also confirmed that there was statistically significant association between willingness to pay and public participation. There was a positive relationship between willingness to pay and participation on solid waste management. Therefore, willingness to pay is significantly affects public participation in solid waste management at less than 1% of significant level (see appendix Table.4).

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Figure 4.8. Proportions of respondents willingness to pay for waste collection service

House Ownership: The types of house whether owned or rental is a factor in solid waste management participation. Based on the survey result, 51.7% of the respondents were with owned houses and 48.3% were with rental house which is nearly equal (see appendix Table.4). The chi-square result as showed on appendix Table.4, there was not statistically significant association between house ownership and public participation in solid waste management activities.

Social Participation: It is believed that social participation contributes for participation in solid waste management. Therefore, the respondents were asked whether social participation is important for public waste management or not. As a result, 71.2% of the respondents responded that social participation is important for solid waste management and 28.8% of the respondents replied that social participation is not important (see appendix Table.4). A Pearson chi-square test was conducted to examine whether there was a relationship between social participation and public participation. The results revealed that there was no a significant relationship between the two variables (Chi square value =3.654, df =2, p = .161) (see appendix Table.4). However, there was a difference between those who are not participating in social activities (46.2%) reported that they would participate in solid waste management compared to those who are participating in any social activities (40.4%) (see Table 4.9).

Table 4.9. Number of respondents replied on participating in social activities and Chi-square Output

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Reusing wastes: Respondents were asked whether they are reusing wastes or not. As a result, 93.7% of the respondents were not reusing wastes, whereas only 6.3% of the respondents were reusing wastes (see appendix Table.4). Based on the chi-square result, there was no statistically significance association between reusing wastes and public participation in solid waste management (see appendix Table.4).

Rules and regulations: in order to answer the questions of institutional factor, the respondents were asked whether the presence and its implementations of rules and regulations in solid waste management in the study area has effect on public participation or not. As a result, 57.6% of the respondents answered yes and 42.4% of respondents answered no (see appendix Table.4). This implies that only 57.6% of the respondents knew the presence of rules and regulations in Bahir Dar city. A Pearson chi-square test was conducted to examine whether there was a relationship between rules & regulations and public participation. The results revealed that there was a significant relationship between the two variables (Chi square value = 18.000, df =2, p = .000). The chi-square result showed that there was highly statistically significant association between rules & regulations and public participation in solid waste management at less than 1% of significant level (see appendix Table.4). Therefore, the concerned bodies give attention to inform about the presence and importance of rules and regulations for solid waste management for the town residents.

In addition, it is believed that rules and regulations are important for the implementation of solid waste management activities. However, the presence of rules and regulations by itself is not enough rather follow up is vital whether rules and regulations are well implemented or not. Therefore, the respondents were asked whether follow up made by responsible bodies regarding the implementation of rules and regulations in solid waste management or not. As a result, most of respondents (54.24%) answered weak follow up, 35.79% of respondents replied medium follow up and 6.27% of respondents said strong follow up and 3.69% of respondents responded no follow up at all as shown in Figure 4.10. Interview conducted for the head of city beatification and sanitation confirmed that they have policy, rules and regulations ratified by the town council but not well implemented because of lack of attention and follow up. From this we can conclude that follow made by responsible bodies is less but the implementations of rules and regulations by responsible bodies is vital for the better solid waste management.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Figure 4.9. Follow up on implementation of rules & regulation by government bodies

Road access: the presence of road access is vital to participate in solid waste management. The survey result showed that 77.9 % of respondents replied that their villages have road access but 22.1 % of respondents answered have not road access (see Table 4.10). A Pearson chi-square test was conducted to examine whether there was a relationship between road access and public participation. The results revealed that there was no a significant relationship between the two variables (Chi square value =3.264, df =2, p = .196) (see appendix Table.4). A large portion of those who have not road access (45%) reported that they would participate in solid waste management compared with (41.2%) those who replied road access (see table 4.10).

Table 4.10. The place they live have road access or not and Chi-square Output

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Distance from the main road: similarly, distance is another environmental factor and the respondents were asked the place they live is far from the main road or not. The survey result showed that 35.8 % of the respondents said yes it is far and 64.2 % of the respondents said no. A Pearson chi-square test was conducted to examine whether there was a relationship between distance from the main road and public participation. The results revealed that there was no a significant relationship between the two variables (Chi square value =0.043, df =2, p = .979) (see appendix Table.4). There was no difference between those who live near to the main road (42.5%) reported that they would participate in solid waste management compared to those who live far from the main road (41.2%) (see Table 4.11).

Table 4.11. The place they live far from the main road or not and Chi-square Output

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Continuous Variables

Age: The age of respondents’ ranges from 18 to 100 and the average mean age is 40.18. The majority of the respondents concentrated between age of 25 and 40 as shown Figure 4.7. This implies that the respondents were under the active age group of the population . The t-test result showed that age is statistically significant in medium & low participants’ categories in solid waste management at 5% of significant level and highly significant in full sample at less than 1% of significant level (see appendix Table.3).The age of the respondents is negatively affects participation in solid waste management. When age increases, participation in solid waste management decreases and vice versa.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Figure 4.10. Age Distributions of Respondents

Family Size: Respondents’ family member ranges from 1 to 10. The majority of respondents (31%) have a family size of 4 but least of respondents( 1.5%) have a family size of 10 members. Moreover, these respondents with 3 and 5 family members shared 18.1% equally and 2, 6, 7 and 8 family size of respondents were took 5.5%, 14.4%, 5.2% and 4.4% respectively (see Table 4.12). The t-test result showed that family size is not statistically significant at high, medium and low level of participation but highly significant at full sample size at less than 1% of significant level (see appendix Table.3).

Table 4.12. Family Size of Respondents

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Own survey result, 2015

Household Monthly Income: the mean monthly income of the respondents’ was 3,705.70 ETB per month. The t-test result showed that there is no statistically significant of household monthly income among high, medium and low participants in solid waste management (see appendix Table.3). Therefore, there is no difference among higher income group, medium income group and lower income group participation in solid waste management.

4.5 Major Factors that Affects Public Participation in Solid Waste Management: Econometric Analysis

In this section, econometric analysis used in order to identify the major factors that hindered the public from being participated in solid waste management in the study area is presented. Therefore, 14 explanatory variables were identified that would be affected the dependent variable public participation. Due to the fact that the dependent variable is ordered (low, medium and high) ordered logistic regression model is used as explained in the methodology. Prior to the analysis, multicollinearity test was conducted for continuous and discrete variables differently through linear regression and bivariate correlations.

According to Jeeshim and Kucc (2002), multicollinearity is high degree of correlation or linear dependency among several independent variables. The symptoms of multicollinearity may be observed in the situations; small changes in data produce wide swings in the parameter estimates, coefficients may have very high standard errors and low significant levels even though they are jointly significant and the R for regression is quite high, and coefficients may have wrong sign or implausible magnitude (Greene, 2000 cited in Jeeshim, 2003). The three continuous variables such as age, family size and income has been tested through SPSS and found that income has low significant, opposite direction and unreasonable magnitude of un-standardized coefficients (see appendix 1). As a result, income is removed from the model to avoid multicollinearity problem.

In addition, multicollinearity test for discrete variables was done and as a rule of thumb, the collinearity among explanatory variables is greater than 0.5, there is multicollinearity between variables. Therefore, the correlation between social participation and road access at 95% of confidence interval is .662 and drop one of the variable is inevitable to avoid multicollinearity problem. As a result, compared the significant level of the two variables, social participation is more significant for the model and road access is dropped from the model (see appendix 2).

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Log Likelihood= -265.96552 Number of Observation= 271 Chi = 0.0046 Source: Model output, 2015

As indicated in the above Table 4.13, the overall significance and fitness of the ordered logistic regression model is determined by its chi-square result (0.0046); therefore, explanatory variables can significantly predict the dependent variable. However, most of the variables such as sex, age, family size, house ownership, reusing wastes, willingness to pay, and distance are not statistically significant. Therefore, significant variables like awareness, social participation and rules & regulations would be explained one by one particularly their direction, significance and odds ratio report. Each significant variable was interpreted the coefficients in terms of ordered log-odds (logits) and proportional odds below respectively.

Awareness: This is the ordered log-odds estimate for a one unit increase in awareness on the expected public participation level given the other variables are held constant in the model. If were to increase awareness by one unit, the ordered log-odds of being in a higher public participation category would increase by 0.34 while the other variables in the model are held constant (see Table 4.13).

As expected, awareness is significant and has positive sign for participation in solid waste management. If awareness increases, participation in solid waste management increases and vice versa. Awareness is significant on participating in solid waste management at 5% of significant level (see Table 4.13). This implied that awareness has positive impact on public participation which has a positive impact on solid waste management. Therefore, awareness is very vital variable that determined the public being participated or not in solid waste management activities.

Rules & Regulations: This is the ordered log-odds estimate for a one unit increase in rules & regulations on the expected public participation level given the other variables are held constant in the model. If were to increase rules & regulations by one unit, the ordered log­odds of being in a higher public participation category would increase by 0.88 while the other variables in the model are held constant (see Table 4.13).

Rules and regulation has positive sign as expected and highly significant for participation in solid waste management at less than 1% of significant level (see Table 4.13). The presence and its implementations of rules and regulations in solid waste management is very import for public participation as discussed in descriptive part. The presence and well implementation of rules and a regulation increases public participation in solid waste management and vice versa. If the rules and regulation is there but its implementation is less, the communities are less governed by it.

Social Participation: This is the ordered log-odds estimate for a one unit increase in social participation on the expected public participation level given the other variables are held constant in the model. If were to social participation one unit, the ordered log-odds of being in a higher public participation category would increase by 0.68 while the other variables in the model are held constant (see Table 4.13). The ordered logistic regression model result above confirmed that participation in the society positively related to participation in solid waste management and it was significant for participating in the solid waste management at 5% of significant level (see Table 4.13).

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Log Likelihood= -265.96552 Number of Observation= 271 Chi = 0.0046 Source: Model output, 2015

Awareness: This is the proportional odds ratio for a one unit increase in awareness on public participation level given that the other variables in the model are held constant. Thus, for a one unit increase in awareness, the odds of high public participation versus the combined middle and low public participation categories are 1.41 times greater, given the other variables are held constant in the model. Likewise, for a one unit increase in awareness, the odds of the combined high and middle public participation versus low public participation are 1.41 times greater, given the other variables are held constant (see Table 4.14).

Social Participation: This is the proportional odds ratio for a one unit increase in social participation on public participation level given that the other variables in the model are held constant. Thus, for a one unit increase in social participation the odds of high public participation versus the combined middle and low public participation categories are 1.51 times greater, given the other variables are held constant in the model. Likewise, for a one unit increase in social participation, the odds of the combined high and middle public participation versus low public participation are 1.51 times greater, given the other variables are held constant (see Table 4.14).

Rules and regulations: This is the proportional odds ratio for a one unit increase in rules & regulation on public participation level given that the other variables in the model are held constant. Thus, for a one unit increase in rules & regulation, the odds of high public participation versus the combined middle and low public participation categories are 2.42 times greater, given the other variables are held constant in the model. Likewise, for a one unit increase in rules & regulation, the odds of the combined high and middle public participation versus low public participation are 2.42 times greater, given the other variables are held constant (see Table 4.14).

Chapter 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Solid waste management is becoming a major public health problem and environmental concern in urban areas of many developing countries particularly in the capital cities of Africa. In many countries, public sector is unable to deliver services effectively. Regulation of the private sector is limited, limited funds are provided to the solid waste management and illegal dumping of domestic and industrial waste is a common practice. The problem is aggravated in Ethiopia because of the municipalities haven’t deliver sufficient solid waste management service. The solid waste management problem is high in major cities of the country like Bahir Dar, which little attention is given for solid waste management because of small budget and it is considered as less priority area of activity by the government bodies.

The major solid waste of the city is found to be food residuals which comprise 55.35% of respondents’ that took the lions share followed by others (house dirty) 21.77%, plastics (12.18%) and ash (10.70%). Most of the residents (82.16%) used sack as a waste container. The majority of the residents (99%) are sorting wastes and few of them are not. They put liquid and solid wastes together, they put unnecessary materials like sharpens and non-solid wastes in to solid wastes.

Waste collectors are not collecting wastes regularly and they do once per month as most of respondents response (49.45%). The main reasons are shortage of vehicle and lack of coordination between the city administration (department of beautification and sanitation) and waste collector associations/plc. As a result, the service delivering by waste collectors is not satisfactory.

The community is playing a great roles in solid waste management such as reducing wastes at source, sorting wastes and cleaning waste canals or drainage. Moreover, the survey results identified many roles that the community can play like paying money for waste collectors on time, putting wastes in proper containers, participating in any waste management activities, keeping the morale of waste collectors and informing or providing any information to the concerned government bodies if there is any waste management problems faced or observed.

The city administration has its own strategies for participating the community in solid waste management. The strategies emphasis that the solid waste management is participatory based approach, the community could participate in labour, money, and education/ awareness through health extension workers. In addition, strategies for community participation in solid waste management that has been identified through survey results are community conversation, enforcement mechanism (penalizing those who are not managing their wastes properly) and incentive mechanism (rewarding or paying for those who are managing their wastes or their surroundings properly).

The efforts made by the city administration in providing solid waste management services are poor. Most of respondents (79.7%) replied that they are not satisfied the services rendering by the city administration regarding to solid waste management. In addition, most of respondents (54.24%) replied that there is weak regulatory and follow up by the concerned government bodies about the implementation of solid waste management system of the city.

There are many factors that affecting public participation in solid waste management. These are personal behavioral, socio cultural, economic, environmental, institutional and technological factors. The descriptive analysis is conducted through t-test and chi-square test for continuous and discrete variables respectively for the purpose of determining the association between dependent variables and independent variables. As a result, the chi- square test showed that there is statistically significance association between sex and public participation in solid waste management at 5% of significant level. Similarly, there is highly statistically significant association between willing to pay, awareness, rules & regulation and public participation in solid waste management at less than 1 % of significant level. However, education, occupation, house ownership, reusing wastes, social participation, road access, and distance were not significant based on the chi-square test result. Moreover, t-test result revealed that age is statistically significant mean difference between different participation levels and at 5% and less than 1% of significant level for medium and low participants respectively. However, there is no statistically significant mean difference between family size and household monthly income variables with different participation levels.

Finally, solid waste management is not the responsibilities of a single party rather it is the responsibilities of all stakeholders such as the community, the government, individuals, NGOs, FBOs and CBOs. However, the facilitation and coordination role is better to be taken by the government. The community has its own resources, skills, knowledge and experiences to solve their own problems. But, they are less participating in solid waste management in the study area. The major factors that hinders the public from participation in solid waste management are identified through ordered logistic regression analysis. Therefore, the empirical evidence found that awareness, rules & regulations and social participation have positive impact on public participation which is in turn a positive impact on solid waste management and are significant at 5%, less than 1% and 5% of significant level respectively.

5.2 Recommendations

Based on the research findings, the following recommendations had been drawn and forwarded. Five established associations and Dream Light pic are collecting wastes in all sub cities of the city. However, waste collectors are not collecting wastes regularly and the service providing by them is not satisfactory. The problem is because of shortage of vehicle provided by the city administration for established associations and shortage of fuel which creates inconvenience in providing regular services for the community by Dream Light. Therefore, the city administration should facilitate credit system to buy vehicle for established associations and provided especial support during shortage of fuel faced in the town for Dream Light. In addition, the city administration should also provide technical support and coordinate the overall activities of waste collector associations and Dream Light.

The solid waste management process of the town starts from residents or trade centers where waste collectors are collecting wastes and transport to dumping site. However, waste dumping site is the farm land of the rural people and it affects their health. Moreover, plastics flowing on their farm land which causes preventing the land from harvesting. The waste management process of the town is partial made urban dwellers free from their wastes but rural dwellers are suffering by the wastes of urban dwellers. Therefore, the city administration should advocate recycling technology by attracting investors and support to restart stopped recycling plant of Dream Light.

Although the city administration is using education/awareness creation and penalty as strategies to participate the community in solid waste management, the overall participation of the community in solid waste management is very low. Therefore, in addition to the above strategies, the city administration should use community conversation and incentives mechanism (rewarding or paying for those who are managing their wastes or their surroundings properly) for better participation of the community in solid waste management.

The empirical evidence result showed that the main factors that hindered public participation which in turn affects solid waste management are awareness, social participation and rules and regulations. Therefore, the concerned bodies should give emphasis on public participation through awareness creation, social participation and the implementations of rules and regulations for better solid waste management of the city.

The support for overall solid waste management of the city by concerned government body at each authority level is poor. The main reason identified for poor support by the government includes: limited budget, low implementation, low follow up, insufficient necessary waste management equipment, poor system and less attention given by the government in general. Therefore, concerned government bodies should allocate enough money (budget), conduct continuous follow up, establish strong system, fulfill waste management equipment and give more attention for solid waste management tasks.

REFFERNCES

Abiot Abera, Akhila s. N. & Zuberi, M.12012. Household solid waste generation rate and Physical composition analysis: Case of Hosa'ina city, SNNPRS, Ethiopia.

Abul, s. 2010.Environmental and Health Impact of Solid Waste Disposal at Mangwaneni Dumpsite in Manzini: Swaziland; Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa (Volume 12, N0.7, 2010).

Agwu 2012. Issues and Challenges of Solid Waste Management Practices in Port-Harcourt City, Nigeria- a behavioral perspective.

AIT/UNEP 2010. Municipal Waste Management Report: Status-quo issues in southeast and East Asian Countries.

André, P., Enserink, B., Connor, D. and Croal p. 2006. Public Participation International Best Practice Principles, Special Publication Series No. 4. Fargo, USA: International Association for Impact Assessment.

ANRS Bureau of Finance and Economic Development 2015 report.

APO 2007.Solid Waste Management: Issues and Challenges in Asia.

ARIJ 2009. Challenges of Solid Waste Management in the City of Nablus.

Ashenafi Haile (2011). Determinants of Effective Household Solid Waste Management Practices: the Case of Ambo Town - West Showa Zone. Master Thesis presented for Mekelle University, Ethiopia.

Babalolal, A., Ishaku,H.T.,Busu,I.,andMajid, M. R.2010. The Practice and Challenges of Solid Waste Management in Damaturu, Yobe State, Nigeria.

Bizatu Mengistie and Negga Baraki 2010.Community based assessment on household Management of waste and hygiene practices in Kersa Woreda, Eastern Ethiopia.

CCAC 2010. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Key Concepts and Benefits.

Creswell, J.w. 2003.RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative, Quantitative, and mixed methods Approaches, 2nd edition.

Creswell, J.w. 2009. Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd edition, SAGE Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J.w. 2012 .Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 4th Edition, Pearson Education, Inc., 501 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116. ľd

Dawson, c. (2007). A Practical Guide to Research Methods, 3 edition, Spring Hill House, Spring Hill Road Begbroke, Oxford OX5 1RX, United Kingdom.

Denscombe, M. 2007. The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research projects, 3rd edition, Typeset by Refine Catch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk, Printed in Poland EU by OZGraf s. A.

ECA 2009. Integrated Assessment of Present Status of Environmentally -Sound Management of Wastes in Africa.

Edmealem Bewuket (2013). Assessment of the sustainability of solid Waste collection and transport service delivery by MSEs: the case of Bahir Dar city, Ethiopia. Master Thesis presented for Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Edwards, s. 2010. Ethiopian Environment Review No. 1. Forum for Environment, Addis Ababa.

EGSSAA 2009.Solid waste: generation, handling, treatment and disposal. www.encapafrica.org. (Retrieved on August 12, 2014).

ΕΓΡΡ 2009. Public Participation in Europe An international perspective

Elias, M., Gumbo,T., and Gondo,T. 2012. Waste Management Threats to Human Health and Urban Aquatic Habitats -A Case Study of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

FDRE-EPA 2004.the 3rd National Report on the Implementation of the UNCCD/NAP in Ethiopia

Fesseha Hailu (2008). Liquid waste management: The case of Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. Master Thesis is presented for Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia.

Guerrero, L.A., Maas, G., and Hogland, w. 2012.Solid waste management challenges for Cities in developing countries

IUCN 2009.Environmental Fiscal Reform in Abbottabad: Solid Waste Management was Prepared by IUCN Pakistan.

ISWA & UNEP, 2002.Industry as a partner for sustainable development: Waste Management, United Kingdom.

Jeeshim & Kucc 2002. Multicollinearity in Regression Models Hasnain,S.A 2015. Analysis of Public Participation in Sustainable Waste Management Practice in Abuja, Nigeria.

Khatib I. A.2011. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries: Future Challenges and Possible Opportunities, Integrated Waste Management - Volume II, Mr. Sunil Kumar (Ed.).http://www.intechopen.com/books/integrated-waste- management-volume, retrieved on August 12, 2014.

Krejcie, R. V. & Morgan, D. w. 1970. Determining Sample Size for Research Activities: Educational and Psychological Measurement.

Lober, D. J. 1994. Municipal Solid Waste Policy and Public Participation in Household Source Reduction, Waste Management &Research 14, 125-143.

Masheke, м.м. 2011 .What Economic Opportunities are there for Government-Industry Partnerships& Community Participation in Solid Waste Management׳. A Case Study of Lusaka City. Master thesis presented for Murdoch University.

Mazinyo s. p. 2009. Community Participation in Solid Waste Management in High-Density Low-Income Areas: The Case of С-Section in Duncan Village.

M0FED 2013. Quarterly Bulletin Voi. 8 No 29, Ethiopia.

MRC 2005.Public Participation in the Lower Mekong Basin.

Mukisa, P.K. 2009. Public Participation in Solid Waste Management: Challenges and Prospects. A case of Kira Town Council, Uganda. Master thesis is presented for the University of Agder, Kristiansand.

Neville, c. 2007. Introduction to Research and Research Methods.

Nigatu Regassa, Sundarra,R.D. and Bizunesh Bógale 201 !.Challenges and Opportunities in Municipal Solid Waste Management: The Case of Addis Ababa City, Central Ethiopia.

O’Connell, E. J. 2011. Increasing Public Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Reduction. The Geographical Bulletin 52: 105-118.

PEPA 2005. Guideline for Solid Waste Management.

Schuppert, A.2009. Binomial or Binary Logistic Regression: Statistics Seminar, spring 2009.

Squires c.o. 2006.Public Participation in Solid Waste Management in Small Island Developing States, a Research Paper.

TekeleTadesse 2004. Solid Waste Management Lecture notes for Environmental and Occupational Health Students.

UNEP 2004.Overview of solid waste management in developing countries.

UNEP 2005. Solid Waste Management (Volume I).

UNEP 2007. Global Environment Outlook: Environment for Development.

UNEP-GEAS 2013.Ecosystem management, Environmental governance, Harmful substances and hazardous waste.

UNEP-IETC, undated, Integrated Solid Waste Management, Osaka Japan.

UN-HABITAT 2009.Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities.

US-EPA 2002. Solid Waste Management: A Local Challenge with Global Impacts.

Visvanathan, c. and Glawe, u. 2006.Domestic Solid Waste Management in South Asian Countries - A Comparative Analysis, Presented at 3 R South Asia Expert Workshop, 30 August - 1 September, 2006 Kathmandu, Nepal.

WDEU 2002. Guidance on Public Participation in Relation to the Water Framework Directive.

Williams,R. 2015. University of Notre Dame, http://www3.nd.edu/~rwilliamEast revised February 21, 2015.

Wongputarugsa, A., Choosu, c., Kittitornkul J., and Patanasakpinyo c. 2010. Public Participation in Community-based Solid Waste Management of Somwang Community,Songkhla Municipality. The 2nd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences April 10th, 2010 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University.

World Bank 2012. WHAT A WASTE: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management.

World Bank 2014.http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW(retrieved on August 18, 2014).

Zurbrugg, c. 2013. Assessment methods for waste management decision-support in Developing countries.

Zurbrugg,c. 2003.Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries. 2010. Solid Waste Characterization and Quantification of Bahir Dar City report.

APPENDIX

Appendix Table 1. Multicollinearity test for continuous variables

illustration not visible in this excerpt

a. Dependent Variable: PARTICIPATION

Appendix Table 2. Multicollinearity test for discrete variables

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Appendix Table 3. Summary of inferential statistics for continuous variables

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Appendix Table 4. Summary of inferential statistics for discrete variables

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Appendix 5 : Structure Interview Questions

Dear Respondents,

I am a student of Bahir Dar University continuing a master‘s degree in Rural Development Management. Conducting research is a requirement to complete the program on the second year of study. I am conducting a study on challenges and prospects of public participation in solid waste management in Bahir Dar city. Therefore, I request you to permit to ask some questions on the above issue and you can answer as you like. The information you provided will not be used for another purposes but for this research only and it is strictly confidential.

Thank you so much.

PARTI

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

illustration not visible in this excerpt

1. Sub-city:

1. Fasilo

2. Serene Selam

2. Sex

1. Male

2. Female

3. Age:

4. Level of education (grade)

1. Adult education

2. Religious

3. 1-4 grade

4. 5-8 grade

5. 9-10 grade

6. 11 -12 (prep aratory) grade

7. College/University

5. Occupation:

6. Family size:

7. Type of House Ownership

1. Owned

2. Rental

8. If you said in question 7 rental type of the house, the household lives

1. Apartment (condominium)

2. Single house

3.

9. Approximate household monthly income

PART II

illustration not visible in this excerpt

ATTITUDES AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

10. What are the major solid wastes generating by the household?

1. Ash

2. Food residuals

3. Plastics

4. Others Specify

11. Do you have a waste container?

1. Yes I

2. No I

12. If your answer in question 11 is yes, what kind of container you use?

1. Plastic bags

2. Sack

3. Basket

4. Other Specify

13. If your answer in question 11 is No, what way you dispose your waste?

1. Throwing away along the road side

2. Illegally dumping on village sites

3. Putting on private dump place

4. Other specify

14. Do you sorting the waste materials?

1. Yes I

2. No

15. Are you reusing any waste materials by yours?

1. Yes

2. No I

16. In question 15 if you said yes, in what way?

1. Culturally

2. Modem

17. If in question 16 your answer is modem, are you using machine? Please explain it.

18. What is their general understanding of respondents about solid waste management? It is to be filled by the interviewer without asked them.

1. Very high

2. High

3. Medium

4. Low

5. Very low

PART III

illustration not visible in this excerpt

SOLID WASTE MANGEMENT PRACTICES AND FACTORS

19. Are there any waste collectors (MSEs) to collect the wastes from your home or trade place?

1. Yes I

2. No I

20. If you said yes in question 19, are you willing to pay for waste collectors?

1. Yes I

2. No I

21. How often MSEs collect your wastes?

1. Once per week

2. Twice per week

3. Once per two weeks

4. Once per month

22. What is your prefer time to dispose wastes?

1. Morning

2. Evening

3. Mid-day

4. MSEs’ settime

23. Do you think that the service providing by MSEs is satisfactory?

E Yes I

2. No I

24. If you answered no in question 23, what do you think that the main problems?

1. Haven’t enough vehicle

2. Shortage of manpower

3. Lack of coordination

4. Lack of support from the community and government

5. Others Specify

25. Are you participating in any social activities?

1. Yes I

2. No I

26. In question No 25 if you said yes, what are the benefits you want to mention?

1. Information sharing

2. Learning from others

3. Creating positive pressure

4. Others specified

27. Dou you think that is it necessary to set any enforcement mechanisms for better management of solid waste?

1. Yes I

2. No I

28. Have you ever seen violators of regulation in solid waste management are penalized?

1. Yes I

2. No

29. How do you evaluate the follow up made by the responsible bodies to rules and regulations of solid waste disposal practice?

1. Strong follow up

2. Medium follow up

3. Weak follow up

4. No follow up at all

30. Is the road where you live accessible for transportation of solid wastes by yours or waste collectors?

1. Yes

2. No I

If no, please specify

31. Do you think that the distance from you live far to collect the solid waste by waste collectors from the main road?

1. Yes I

2. No I

32. Do you think that public participation is important for better solid waste management?

1. Yes I

2. No I

33. What is your degree of participating in solid waste management?

1. High I

2. Medium

3. Low

34. If you said low in question 30, what is/are the reason/s?

1. Lack of time

2. Lack of money

3. It is the task of municipality

4. Nobody ask me to participate

5. The task is not attracting me

6. I don’t have enough skill & knowledge

7. Others Specify

35. If you said high in question 30, what is/are your reason/s?

1. It is ту concern

2. It affects my health

3. It affects the environment

4. Other Specify

36. Have you ever got information or lesson about solid waste from town municipality?

1. Yes I

2. No I

37. If your answer is yes in question 37, in what way did you get the information or lesson?

1. In kebele meeting

2. In Idir meeting

3. In HEWs meeting

4. Other specify

38. Have you ever taken training about solid waste management?

1. Yes I

2. No I

39. In question 39 if you said yes, who was/were provided the training?

1. Government

2. NGO I

3. Private

4. HEWs I

5. Others Specify

40. What is/are your ways of participating in solid waste management?

1. Contributing Labour

2. Contributing Money

3. Coordination

4. Other Specify

41. Who is responsible for better solid waste management?

1. Government

2. CBO,FBO & NGO I

3. Private

4. Community

42. From question number 42 you selected above, what is the rationale behind you said so?

43. Do you know rules and regulations are there in Bahir Dar city about solid waste management?

1. Yes

2. No I

44. Do you think that laws, rules and regulations are important for better solid waste management?

1. Yes I

2. No I

45. Could you tell me the solid waste management practices in Bahir Dar city?

46. What role can play by the community for better solid waste management?

1. Putting wastes in container

2. Sorting wastes

3. Paid money for waste collectors

4. Participate in any waste management activities

5. Others specify

47. What are the strategies that you recommend for public participation in better solid waste management in Bahir Dar city?

1. Awareness creation should be done by the concerned bodies regularly

2. Community conversations should be organized by different stakeholders

3. Enforcement mechanism should be set by the concerned bodies

4. Others specify

48. How do you evaluate the efforts made by the municipality in providing solid waste management services?

1. Very good

2. Good

3. Fair

4. Poor

5. Very poor

Appendix 6: Interview Guide Questions

1. What do you think the main problems of solid waste management in Bahir Dar city? What are the main causes of it? How to alleviate this problem?
2. Do you think that public participation is important for solid waste management? In what ways are you recommend the public to be participated more?
3. What role can play by the community for better solid waste management? Who should to take the lion share of it? The community? The municipality? The MSEs? Why?
4. What strategies are using the public to be participated in better solid waste management currently? Are the strategies implemented well and effective as well? If not what are the main causes and what other new strategies you recommend?
5. Are there policies, rules and regulations formulated for the town regarding to solid waste management? Are these implemented? If not what are the main reasons? Note that: Question 5 particularly important for City Administration Department of Sanitation & Beautification.

Appendix 7: Focus Group Discussion Guide

1. Where you put the waste generated?
2. How you put the solid waste? Is the volume of waste is managed before collection is done by MSEs?
3. The service quality rendering by MSEs and the willingness to pay by the community
4. What is the role of city administration, community and SMEs in solid waste management?
5. What things are expected to be done more by the city administration and the public?

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Researcher, 3 April 2015

Appendix Figure 1. Waste Management Process of Bahir Dar city