Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
Solid waste is a global challenge that is more pronounced in developing countries such as South Africa, where its management is a major concern. The government has recently made a concerted effort to engage the public in sustainable waste management practices to resolve the crisis occasioned by the challenge. This chapter investigates waste management practices in the South African Township of Ekuphumleni and relied on a sample of 353 households to obtain some primary data with a questionnaire on the subject matter. The data collected was analyzed using “R,” and the results were presented using charts, tables, and figures. Data collected revealed that waste paper, cans, used plastics, and bottles were major waste components generated by the respondents and these wastes were generally stored unseparated domestically in plastic bags and home garbage can. Furthermore, the respondent indicated that the municipality does a door-to-door collection of their waste and they were unwilling to pay for waste collection services. While the waste management practice is in tandem with the municipal system, the study recommends that the respondents must be educated on circularity, which will ensure reducing, reusing, recycling, and recovering waste and further aid economic empowerment.
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Pretoria, South Africa
Sijekula Mbanga
Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha, South Africa
Emma Ayesu-Koranteng
Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha, South Africa
Winston Shakantu
Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha, South Africa
*Address all correspondence to: ayoadeniran111@gmail.com
1. Introduction
Waste continues to be generated because of human activities, and as the increase in the human population stimulates urbanisation, it is becoming an issue of global concern [1]. Waste refers to all pieces of objects and items such as garden waste, packing items, vegetables, metals and old paint containers, among others, that owners have no more use for and they aim to discard [2, 3]. The concern for such items stems from the continuous contamination of the atmosphere, soil and water, which endlessly impacts public health and global degradation [4].
It is important to note that the increasing solid waste generation places additional strain on the already overburdened waste management systems, and if waste is not properly managed, it may cause societal problems with the “Not-In-My-Backyard” mindset anticipated to emerge and prevail [5]. Besides, poorly managed solid wastes can have catastrophic environmental implications, such as becoming a breeding ground for disease-spreading vectors, production of leachates which contaminates groundwater, production of methane gas with its subsequent effects on global warming and climate change and increased fire outbreak, to mention a few [6].
Waste management is simply the collection, transportation, processing, or disposal of waste materials [7]. Chand [8] further described waste management as a procedure to mitigate the waste impact on the environment, health, or aesthetics. However, the poor handling of the procedure in urban and rural areas has been a major problem for human health and existence [9].
As a result of the global impact of waste, at least 12 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the 193 UN Member States in September 2015 [10], have a direct association with solid waste management. Furthermore, according to the Global Waste Management Outlook (GWMO), the cross-cutting nature of solid waste management (SWM) and its impact on 12 SDGs emphasise its importance and political priority [11].
Despite the SDG’s focus, waste and its management practices remain a major global challenge [12]. Low-income countries’ main waste procedures and disposal mechanisms are open dumping and open burning [13]. For example, open littering [14], open dump [15], illegal dump sites [16], and incineration [17], among others, are some of the waste management practices still in practice in developing countries.
While no study as to the practice of waste management in Ekuphumleni Township, Ndlambe Municipality has been conducted, this chapter seeks to present the findings of the current practice and make recommendations towards addressing and raising the level of awareness and knowledge of sustainable solid waste management practices in the low-income neighbourhood of emerging nations.
The subsequent sections present the literature works, the methodology employed, findings and recommendations and conclusions of the study.
Waste is unwanted, useless, and discarded material generated daily by human activities [18]. The E.U. Waste Directive defines waste as any object or substance the owner throws away, implying that it is useless [19]. However, several schools of thought, such as Steenmans and Malcolm [20], Thomas [21], and Hannon and Zaman [22], have argued against this definition as the value of waste is deemed to be subjective as what is waste to a consumer is a resource to another.
As a result, Wiprächtiger [23] argues that there is no such element as final waste because its definition will always depend on the degree of its perceived usefulness to its holder. It is then safe to align with van Ewijk [24] that the definition of waste is always contextual and can depend on the prevailing state of technology, the environment, and political ideology.
According to the Basel Convention, waste is categorised into two main typologies: hazardous and non-hazardous [25]. While hazardous waste is regulated at the national level, regulating the non-hazardous is within the purview of the regional and or municipal government [26]. The Basel convention documented hazardous wastes as radioactive, industrial, electronic and medical waste, among others, while the non-hazardous are municipal and non-hazardous industrial waste [27].
Mngomezulu [14] and Adeniran [15] identified the typology of municipal waste to include cans, and other metals, paper, bottles, plastics, food remains, old appliances, glass and construction demolition waste, among others.
Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata [6] further identified the types of waste and their sources to be: glass (broken glassware and bottles, coloured glass and light bulbs, among others); metal (foil, cans, tins, appliances and railings, among others); organic (garden/yard waste, food scraps and wood process residues, among others); paper (newspaper, cardboard, paper scraps and boxes, among others); plastic (packaging, containers, bags and lids, among others); and other (leather, textiles, rubber, multi-laminates and other inert materials).
The growth in waste is alarming in metropolitan areas, and this is due to population movements towards these centres [28]. Waste growth tends to rise proportionately with urbanisation, rising income levels, and population expansion [12, 29]. While the global population keeps growing, its changing demographics are quickly evolving, and such areas are witnessing unprecedented levels of urbanisation, with the majority of this growth occurring in small and medium-sized cities in low-income countries [30]. Amaral [31] indicates that the unprecedented population growth has several environmental consequences, including increased urbanisation and municipal solid waste generation, which is expected to reach 3.4 billion tonnes annually by 2050. This waste growth is unfortunately not being matched with appropriate management practices [32].
Waste management is collecting, storing, treating, and disposing of waste materials in a manner that is safe for humans, vegetation, living creatures, ecosystems, and the environment [33].
As practiced in most emerging countries, households dispose of all forms of waste together [34], and the municipal trucks collect them [35] and when and if not collected, the practice of illegal dumping, littering and open burning of waste is practiced [36].
In South Africa, AWARD [37] indicated that over 90% of the collected waste is disposed of into landfills.
The literature highlighted three types of landfills: the open dump, the semi-controlled landfill, and the sanitary landfill [38]. Despite the attendant challenges posed by the open dump practices, it is still the most used method by urban centres in the developing world [12].
Waste collection and landfill activities have significantly contributed to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change [39]. However, these poor waste management practices have fallen excessively on the poverty-stricken neighbourhoods with little or no influence on the waste products being illegally dumped near them [40].
A waste management system includes appropriate separation and decommissioning, logistics, storage, worker training and disposal facilities [41].
Adeniran [42] posited that numerous policies had been positioned to tackle waste and pollution in Sub-Saharan Africa. However, [43] argues that it is unclear if these policies are actioned as there is little or no progress towards achieving their aims and obligations. In addition, UNEP [44] indicated that the inability of many African governments to enforce waste and environmental regulations had fostered an environment of impunity, thus affecting the performance of waste management. According to David [45], the resultant effect is that industry participants are incapable of keeping up with the increasing waste streams and the timely development of strategies and policies to manage them effectively.
Despite their limited capacity for planning, limited resources, operational monitoring, and contract management, local governments are frequently in charge of an effective waste management system, and these limiting factors make sustainable waste management difficult [46].
Globally, various waste handling and disposal systems are in place; however, the major difference between the systems of advanced and emerging economies is waste separation at the collection point [47], which facilitates waste recycling and reuse, recognised as the most beneficial waste management system.
Mir [48] aver that the population must accept a waste management system to be effective, and [49] underscores the importance of ensuring a higher standard of living for future generations, simply defined as sustainability. Hence a solid waste management system must be socially acceptable, economically viable, and environmentally efficient to be sustainable [50].
Affordability denotes that all sectors of society accept the cost of maintaining a clean environment, whereas societal acceptance denotes that the inhabitants agree to the service offered if it meets their needs [51]. Meanwhile, the waste management system must be environmentally friendly by implementing an environmental conservation strategy, structure, and policy.
Simatele [52] documented that South Africa, like other developing countries, has implemented waste management policies, but their application proved inconsistent. Dlamini et al. indicated that these policies cover a set of efforts to tackle enhancements for environmental and public health quality. Nonetheless, despite the legal importance and quality, the law’s enactment per se does not guarantee improvements in solid waste management [53].
South Africa has 13 pieces of legislation on waste management [54]; the most recent is the National Environmental Management: Waste Amendment Act, 2014 (Act 26 of 2014). The thrust of this legislation is “to protect health and the environment by providing reasonable measures for the prevention of pollution and ecological degradation and for securing ecologically sustainable development”.
The data for this paper were collected between 20th and 24th September 2020 between the hours of 10 h00 and 20 h00 to ensure that respondents who had gone to work were given the opportunity as they are expected to have returned by the evening at the latest. The time frame was chosen because residents are expected to have completed their household chores by 10 h00; those who had left home in the morning would have returned for dinner by the late evening. During the collection period, data were collected on various aspects, including household waste management and disposal practices; thus, this study focuses on the waste management practices of Ekuphumleni households. Ekuphumleni township is adjacent to the Kenton on Sea within the Ndlambe Municipality in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. The township is located approximately 130 km from Port Elizabeth on the Port Alfred-East London corridor.
The estimated population of the township was about 1800 households and using a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error, 317 households were targeted, but we succeeded in reaching a sample of 353 households using convenience sampling to gather primary data from the willing and available representatives of all households during the fieldwork.
Within the COVID-19 protocol, this study utilised a Likert scale-like questionnaire; because of its simplicity in composition, the Likert Scale was the preferred scaling system for applicable statements/questions as it also allows for the use of hidden perceptions and is expected to yield a high accuracy of measurement [55]. The questionnaire covered a wide range of topics and offered information for developing a local economic strategy as the data collection tool. The data collection was managed by the researchers, who also participated in the data collection, assisted by a team of well-trained field workers. There had been several meetings and consultations between all stakeholders regarding the green village project to be developed within the community prior to administering the questionnaire. Ward Councillors, Community Representatives, and Municipality Officials attended these meetings and expressed their support for conducting the study in the area. After approval, potential participants were approached, informed consent was obtained from them, all the participants were assured of anonymity and confidentiality, and their participation was entirely voluntary.
The data collected was analysed using SPSS, and the adopted decision rule was adapted from [56] and presented in Table 1.
Demographic data allows us to determine whether there are differences in the answers provided by the respondents based on personal characteristics, and it also assists us in determining if there are gaps in our data, allowing us to ensure that it reflects the subject in question [57].
4.1.1 The population of households by gender
The data collected on the gender makeup of each household is presented in Figure 1, and it shows that the 353 participating households have a female population of 748 (57.2%) and a male population of 560 (42.8%). This implies that each household has an average of 3.70 people, i.e. the ratio of females to males is 2.12 to 1.58 per household).
Figure 1.
Population of household by gender.
4.1.2 Household headship
The questionnaire did not specify how participants should perceive headship, and no question queried what made a household member the head. However, in most households, the person described as the head of the household was the oldest family member.
As shown in Figure 2, except for one household with a coloured male respondent head, there are more black female-headed households than black male-headed households across all age groups. According to the frequency distribution in Figure 3, the overall mean age of the household head was 46 years.
Figure 2.
Age of household head.
Figure 3.
Distribution of age of household head.
4.1.3 Education level
Using households that are 20 years and above, Table 2 shows that 410 respondents representing 93.0% of the household members either did not attend school, had incomplete or complete primary and incomplete and complete secondary school while 17 Nr (3.9%) have certificate and 10 Nr (2.3%) hold diplomas. It is also interesting to note that the 4 Nr (0.9%) with a bachelor’s degree are all female. Again, these figures apply to household members (20 years and above) whose highest education qualification was reported.
As revealed in Tables 3, 244 households (69.1%) live on an average monthly income of less than R6000, while another 46 households (13%) earn no income. 6.2% earn an average monthly income of between R6000 and above R20000, meaning they are in the mid to high-income strata.
Income band (Rands)
Number of households
Per cent
1 to 1999
114
32.3
2000 to 3999
108
30.6
4000 to 5999
22
6.2
6000 to 9999
9
2.5
10,000 to 12,999
5
1.4
13,000 to 15,999
6
1.7
16,000 to 20,000
1
0.3
>20,000
1
0.3
Unspecified
4
1.1
None
46
13.0
353
100
Table 3.
Household average monthly income.
4.2 Waste management practices in Ekuphumleni township
4.2.1 Types of waste generated and frequency
Taking a cue from Table 1, as seen from Table 4, waste paper, cans, used plastics, and bottles rank first, second, third and fourth with mean scores of 3.13, 3.00, 2.95, and 2.92, indicating that the respondents sometimes generate these materials as waste. On the other hand, food remains, old clothing, old appliances, human waste, hazardous waste and oil are rarely generated as their mean scores ranged between 1.45 and 2.44; decision rule from Table 1, the respondents never generate other types of waste with a mean score of 0.32. With a composite mean of 2.09, there is a sign that waste is rarely generated in the township.
Types of waste
Response
A
O
S
R
N
U
Total
MS
R*
Wastepaper
110
70
56
29
49
39
353
3.13
1
Cans
91
79
59
29
53
42
353
3.00
2
Used plastics
74
85
73
35
45
41
353
2.95
3
Bottles
71
77
83
40
40
42
353
2.92
4
Food remains
38
23
92
59
101
40
353
2.20
5
Old clothing
20
37
71
67
111
47
353
2.00
6
Old appliances
14
15
59
130
91
44
353
1.86
7
Human waste
45
20
26
22
148
92
353
1.63
8
Hazardous waste
14
11
50
55
149
74
353
1.48
9
Oil
22
11
25
40
208
47
353
1.46
10
Others
7
4
10
3
26
303
353
0.32
11
Composite Mean Score = 2.09
Table 4.
Types of waste generated and frequency.
Key: A = Always; O = Often; S = Sometimes; R = Rarely; N = Never; U = Unspecified; MS = Mean Score; and R* = Ranking.
4.2.2 Waste storage material and frequency
Plastic bags with a mean score of 3.45 is often used as storage material by the respondents, as shown in Table 5, and it ranks first. Home garbage cans (MS, 2.11) and cardboard boxes (MS 1.68), ranking second and third respectively, are often used, while municipal plastic drums (MS 1.43), biodegradable sacks (MS 1.20), nearby municipal dumpster (MS 0.92) and into unused open plots (MS 0.75) are never used. With a composite mean of 1.65, there is an indication of general apathy towards storing waste in materials.
Waste storage material
Response
A
O
S
R
N
U
Total
MS
R*
Plastic bags
200
32
20
8
12
81
353
3.45
1
Home garbage can
110
17
14
17
52
143
353
2.11
2
Cardboard boxes
45
21
55
26
68
138
353
1.68
3
Municipal plastic drums
49
20
14
27
85
158
353
1.43
4
Biodegradable sacks
27
16
24
27
100
159
353
1.20
5
Nearby municipal dumpster
8
12
22
35
100
176
353
0.92
6
Into unused open plots
2
9
16
29
116
181
353
0.75
7
Composite Mean Score = 1.65
Table 5.
Waste storage material and frequency.
Key: A = Always; O = Often; S = Sometimes; R = Rarely; N = Never; U = Unspecified; MS = Mean Score; and R* = Ranking.
4.2.3 Waste separation
Table 6 reveals that 323 respondents representing 91.5%, indicated that they do not separate their wastes, while 19 Nr (5.4%) stated that they do and 11 Nr (3.1%) were not specific. The respondents who indicated that they separate the waste, however, stated that they separate them into components of bottles, glasses, plastics, cans, boxes, cardboard and papers.
Separate waste
Number of households
%
No
323
91.5
Unspecified
11
3.1
Yes
19
5.4
Total
353
100.0
Table 6.
Waste separation.
4.2.4 Waste disposal system and frequency
Table 7 shows that the disposal of waste into the Municipal waste truck with a mean score of 4.26 is often used as the means of waste disposal, while community bins (MS 1.82) are rarely used, and others such as recycling facilities, empty plots, landfill sites, abandoned houses and others are generally never used as their mean score is between 0.54 and 0.82. Besides, the composite mean of the waste disposal location stands at 1.58.
Waste disposal location
Response
A
O
S
R
N
U
Total
MS
R*
Municipal waste truck
261
41
9
1
5
36
353
4.26
1
Community bins
87
8
18
31
59
150
353
1.82
2
Recycling facilities
5
9
23
27
105
184
353
0.82
3
Empty plots
3
9
6
27
116
192
353
0.68
4
Landfill sites
1
10
8
24
119
191
353
0.67
5
Abandoned houses
5
5
4
12
136
191
353
0.62
6
Others
0
0
1
1
14
337
353
0.54
7
Composite Mean Score = 1.58
Table 7.
Domestic waste disposal system and frequency.
Key: A = Always; O = Often; S = Sometimes; R = Rarely; N = Never; U = Unspecified; MS = Mean Score; and R* = Ranking.
When further asked about the frequency of the collection, as revealed in Table 8, the respondents indicated that the municipality is the main waste collector with 344 Nr (97.5%) indicating such while 5Nr (1.4%) indicated other and 4 Nr (1.1%) was unspecified.
Collector and place
Number of Households
%
Municipality
344
97.5
Other
5
1.4
Unspecified
4
1.1
Total
353.0
100.0
Table 8.
Waste collector.
4.2.5 Waste collection point and frequency of collection
From the mean score ranking as presented in Table 9, door-to-door collection (MS 2.91) ranked the first in waste collection types, followed by community waste collection point (MS 1.95), while the collection of waste anywhere it is dumped (MS 0.70) and others (MS 0.20) ranks third and fourth respectively.
Collection type
Frequency
D
W
F
M
N
U
Total
MS
R*
Door-to-door collection
5
241
7
1
15
84
353
2.91
1
Community waste collection point
2
155
8
6
22
160
353
1.95
2
Collect waste anywhere it is dumped
4
36
6
9
48
250
353
0.70
3
Other
0
12
3
2
9
327
353
0.20
4
Table 9.
Waste collection point and frequency of collection.
Key: D = Daily; W = Weekly; F = Fortnightly; M = Monthly; N = Never; U = Unspecified; MS = Mean Score; and R* = Ranking.
4.2.6 Pay for waste removal
As shown in Table 10, the number of respondents who indicated that they do not pay for waste removal is 333 (94.3%), and 9 (2.5%) respondents did not specify. Of the number that said that they do pay for waste removal, 5 Nr (1.4%) indicated that the government helps them, and 6 Nr (1.7%) stated that they receive no help from the government.
From the findings, it can be generally inferred that the respondents practice effective waste management in line with the provision of the local municipality and the municipality also fulfils its responsibility of waste collection.
To underscore the representativeness of the study, the findings show that both genders of females and males participated in the study, although the data stated that there were more women than men, and this is supported by Knoema [58], who indicated that there are more women than men in South Africa, with a ratio of 97 men to 100 women. Also, this finding is supported by data from UNDP [59] on South Africa, which states that 51.5 per cent are female, and 48.5 per cent are male. Furthermore, Arcgis [60] stated that the average South African household size in 2019 was 3.3 people, whereas the study revealed an average of 3.70 persons per household, a size within the same range, reiterating the validity of the findings. Literature has, however, indicated that the generation of waste which in turn dictates the waste management practice, is affected not only by the number of people but also by other factors like population structure or way of living and female to male ratio [61].
The survey identified that female household headship was in the majority, and literature indicates that female headship has been on the rise in South Africa, as recorded by the 10-yearly census data on female headship and income [62]. This assertion of [62] gives credence to the finding of this study. Furthermore, Posel [63] observed that the average age of South African heads of households was between 44 and 51 years and the average age of the participants from Ekuphumleni township was 46.32 years. While Anbazu [64] indicate that household heads influence the choice of waste management practice, Uma [65] further observed that many female-headed households utilise informal refuse disposal systems rather than male-headed households.
Using household members that are 20 years and above, the study observed that 12.5% of the respondents indicated that they have no schooling, but the finding of the waste practice showed that they have a good practice in consonance with Chikowore [66]. This finding is also supported by the observation of Mngomezulu [14] that the level of education has no association with waste management practices, but environmental education and a lack of information do.
The study observed that over 60% of the respondents are earning below R4000, putting them in the low-income strata of society. There is much scientific literature on the association of socioeconomic indices such as income with solid waste generation, but there are inconsistencies in the other literature findings. For example, Khan [67] stated that income significantly influences solid waste generation and management. Porpino [68] concluded that low-income households generate more waste, while Omolayo [69] concluded that higher-income households generate more waste than lower-income ones. Machate [70] observed that the causative factor is income, and that waste generation increases as income increases. Namlis [71] posited that the association was dependent on the development stage of a country and hypothesised that as income rises in emerging nations, so would solid waste generation; however, as income increases in advanced economies, waste generation significantly reduced. From the preceding, as expected, the waste generation in this community depended on other influencing factors asides from income.
Waste paper, cans, used plastics, and bottles were the major waste components generated in the township, and these wastes are recyclable. According to Chen [72], estimating the waste types generated and their management method can be useful for predicting future waste management trends. Nineteen case study of municipal solid waste in developing countries, as documented by Troschinetz [73], produces by average recyclable content of 55%. Such organic content includes food waste, paper and paper materials, human waste, bio-degradable plastic, and landscape and pruning waste, among others [9]. The data collected aligns with the literature on the typology of waste generated in developing countries and can be used to predict future trends and waste management systems.
Plastic bags and home garbage cans are indicated to be mostly used by the respondents as domestic storage materials, and according to the documentation of Yoada [74], the two most common storage items for domestic solid waste in Accra, Ghana, were plastic bins, baskets polythene bags, paper boxes and old buckets. Gumbi [75] also indicated that residents’ major types of containers to dispose of waste collected by the municipality ranged from plastic bags to metal bins and plastic bins. The findings of this study show that plastic bag is the popular waste storage material in the township and aligns with other works of literature.
With over 90% indicating that they do not separate their waste, this finding aligns with the general apathy towards waste separation in developing countries where waste separation is uncommon, as observed by Ferronato [12]. According to Babaei [76], while initiatives to strengthen solid waste management in emerging economies have primarily focused on cost-effective practices such as separation, source reduction and recycling, their implementations have experienced social opposition because of low awareness and willingness to participate. Matete [77] also indicates that separation at source, among other things, is not yet accorded a top priority in line with regulatory and legal requirements in South Africa. Hence, it can be inferred that the respondent does not practice waste separation as part of their waste disposal practice.
The municipal waste truck always collects the waste from the respondents weekly from door-to-door as indicated by the respondents. According to the South African legislative provision, the municipality is responsible for solid waste management [78]. This agrees with literature from developed or emerging economies, such as Indonesia [79], Ghana [80], Colombia [81], Turkey [82], South Africa [52], USA [83] and the United Kingdom [84] among others where the municipal truck is the main collector of waste, but the difference is the frequency and efficiency. The finding of this study, where residents indicated that municipal truck comes to remove their wastes, confirms what the literature indicates.
However, Statistics South Africa [85] observed a lack of SWM services in South Africa, with only 66% of the population receiving waste collection services from municipalities or private companies through municipal contracts. With this background, Hlahla [86] indicated that South Africa has a variety of waste collection systems designed to accommodate the unique conditions of a peri-urban community, one of which is door-to-door collection by municipal truck, which is the collection practice in Ekuphumleni.
With over 94% of the respondents stating that they were not willing to pay for waste management services, the study aligns with Omolayo [87], who observed that socioeconomic factors such as income level affect households’ willingness to pay for waste management in South Africa. Therefore, the respondents’ household income level could be inferred to be why the respondents are unwilling to pay for such services.
The United Nations’2030 target continues to prioritise environmental sustainability. As a result, various levels of government in South Africa have implemented various waste disposal avenues for the populace, but there have been reported inefficiency of these program(s) in many parts of the nation. As a result, we investigated waste management practices in the South African township of Ekuphumleni using primary data.
The descriptive statistics findings show an average of 3.70 people (the ratio of females to males is 2.12 to 1.58) per household, and the average household head age of 46 years was recorded. In addition, about 87% of the household heads had formal education and over 60% with a monthly income estimated at below ZAR4000/USD200. The findings further identified that most of the waste generated by the township is recyclable, and that the main disposal method is storing the waste at the household level with some form of plastic material, which is collected weekly at their doors by the municipal truck. Many households perceive littering and the dumping of refuse anywhere as an environmental problem that requires drastic measures for its control or eradication.
Recycling has a mean score of 0.82, indicating the need for sensitisation programmes and incentives to increase household participation in recycling waste products.
Almost none of the respondents pay for waste, which can be attributed to some or all the socioeconomic factors, particularly household income.
The study’s findings imply that the waste management practices of the residents of Ekuphumleni township do not fully align with the sustainable waste management practices of reducing, reusing, recycling and recovering, although a high volume of their waste is recyclable. The waste collected by the municipal trucks end up in landfills, thus contributing to greenhouse gas emission and pollution of the groundwater system.
Therefore, this study concludes that there is a need for sustainable waste management practices in the township. This is achievable by raising awareness and educating the residents on the need for sustainable waste management practices of reducing, reusing, recycling and recovering towards a circular economy. Towards this, the South African government must intensify its efforts on poverty alleviation interventions to improve the socioeconomic status of households and environmental sensitisation programmes through adequate citizen education to facilitate the achievement of zero waste.
We acknowledge the efforts and hard work of the field survey teams who assisted with data collection under the very trying COVID-19 conditions. The cooperation and kind assistance of the Ndlambe Municipal Officials and the residents of Ekuphumleni and Dr. Kabundu for assistance with the statistical analysis. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and Department of Science and Technology (DST) in South Africa funded the research as part of the Ecosun Village Demonstration Project.
1.Karri RR, Ravindran G, Dehghani MH. Wastewater—Sources, toxicity, and their consequences to human health. In: Soft Computing Techniques in Solid Waste and Wastewater Management. Amsterdam, Netherland: Elsevier; 2021. pp. 3-33
2.Adeniran AA, Adewole AA, Olofa SA. Impact of solid waste management on ado Ekiti property values. Civil and Environmental Research. 2014;6(9):29-35
3.Al-Taai SH. Solid waste: A study of its concept, management methods, and environmental impacts. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2022;1002(1):012007
4.Ajibade FO, Adelodun B, Lasisi KH, Fadare OO, Ajibade TF, Nwogwu NA, et al. Environmental pollution and their socioeconomic impacts. In: Ajay K, Vipin KS, Pardeep S, Virendra KM, editors. Microbe-Mediated Remediation of Environmental Contaminants. 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing; 2021. pp. 321-354
5.Sharafi M, Atashkar S, Massahi T. Assessing the quantity of solid waste produced in Kermanshah School of Public Health: Challenges and suggestions. International Journal of Health and Life Sciences. 2021;7(2):1-6
6.Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Washington, USA: World Bank; 2012
7.Demirbas A. Waste management, waste resource facilities and waste conversion processes. Energy Conversion and Management. 2011;52(2):1280-1287
8.Chand S, Shastry CS, Hiremath S, Joel JJ, Bhat CK, Mateti UV. Water, sanitation, hygiene and biomedical waste disposal in the healthcare system: A review. Biomedicine. 2020;40(1):14-19
9.Abdel-Shafy HI, Mansour MS. Solid waste issue: Sources, composition, disposal, recycling, and valorisation. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum. 2018;27(4):1275-1290
10.U.N. Sustainable Development Goals [Internet]. Available from: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ [Accessed: May 25, 2022]
11.Wilson DC, Rodic L, Modak P, Soos R, Carpintero A, Velis K, et al. Global waste management outlook. UNEP. 2015
12.Ferronato N, Torretta V. Waste mismanagement in developing countries: A review of global issues. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(6):1060
13.Ferronato N, Torretta V, Ragazzi M, Rada EC. Waste mismanagement in developing countries: A case study of environmental contamination. UPB. Scientific Bulletin. 2017;79(2):185-196
14.Mngomezulu SK, Mbanga S, Adeniran AA, Soyez K. Factors influencing solid waste management practices in joe Slovo township, Nelson Mandela Bay. Journal of Public Administration. 2020;55(3):400-411
15.Adeniran AA, Shakantu W. The health and environmental impact of plastic waste disposal in south African townships: A review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19(2):779
16.Guerrero LA, Maas G, Hogland W. Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Management. 2013;33(1):220-232
17.Giusti L. A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health. Waste Management. 2009;29(8):2227-2239
18.Okwesili J, Iroko C. Urban solid waste management and environmental sustainability in Abakaliki urban. Nigeria. European Scientific Journal. 2016;12(23):155-183
19.Campos-Alba CM, Garrido-Rodríguez JC, Plata-Díaz AM, Pérez-López G. The selective collection of municipal solid waste and other factors determining cost efficiency. An analysis of service provision by spanish municipalities. Waste Management. 2021;134:11-20
20.Steenmans K, Malcolm R. Transitioning towards circular systems: Property rights in waste. Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental Law. 2020;12(3):219-234. DOI: 10.1108/JPPEL-03-2020-0018
21.Thomas S. Waste, marginal property practices and the circular economy. Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental Law. 2020;12(3):203-218. DOI: 10.1108/JPPEL-02-2020-0012
22.Hannon J, Zaman AU. Exploring the phenomenon of zero waste and future cities. Urban Science. 2018;2(3):90
23.Wiprächtiger M, Rapp M, Hellweg S, Shinde R, Haupt M. Turning trash into treasure: An approach to the environmental assessment of waste prevention and its application to clothing and furniture in Switzerland. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 2022;2022(26):1-17. DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13275
24.van Ewijk S, Stegemann JA. Recognising waste use potential to achieve a circular economy. Waste Management. 2020;105:1-7
25.Awasthi AK, Li J, Koh L, Ogunseitan OA. Circular economy and electronic waste. Nature Electronics. 2019;2(3):86-89
26.Inglezakis VJ, Moustakas K. Household hazardous waste management: A review. Journal of Environmental Management. 2015;150:310-321
27.Raubenheimer K, McIlgorm A. Can the Basel and Stockholm conventions provide a global framework to reduce the impact of marine plastic litter? Marine Policy. 2018;96:285-290
28.Oladunjoye MA, Adeniran MA. Towards efficient Management of Solid Wastes: An overview of dumpsites in Ibadan Metropolis, southwestern Nigeria. The Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management. 2021;47(2):271-284
29.Flores CAR, da Cunha AC, Cunha HFA. Solid waste generation indicators, per capita, in Amazonian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2022;29(22):33138-33151
30.Sun L, Chen J, Li Q, Huang D. Dramatic uneven urbanisation of large cities throughout the world in recent decades. Nature Communications. 2020;11(1):1-9
31.Amaral C, Pedro MI, Ferreira DC, Marques RC. Performance and its determinants in the Portuguese municipal solid waste utilities. Waste Management. 2022;139:70-84
32.Oteng-Ababio M. E-waste: An emerging challenge to solid waste management in Ghana. International Development Planning Review. 2010;32(2):191-206
33.Khan S, Anjum R, Raza ST, Bazai NA, Ihtisham M. Technologies for municipal solid waste management: Current status, challenges, and future perspectives. Chemosphere. 2022;288:132403
34.Xu L, Ling M, Wu Y. Economic incentive and social influence to overcome household waste separation dilemma: A field intervention study. Waste Management. 2018;77:522-531
35.Jaunich MK, Levis JW, DeCarolis JF, Gaston EV, Barlaz MA, Bartelt-Hunt SL, et al. Characterisation of municipal solid waste collection operations. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2016;114:92-102
36.Idowu IA, Atherton W, Hashim K, Kot P, Alkhaddar R, Alo BI, et al. An analyses of the status of landfill classification systems in developing countries: Sub Saharan Africa landfill experiences. Waste Management. 2019;87:761-771
37.Association for Water and Rural Development [AWARD]. South Africa Is Drowning in Its Own Waste-Are Our Regulators Taking This Crisis Seriously? [Internet]. Available from: http://award.org.za/index.php/2019/02/01/south-africa-is-drowning-inits-own-waste-are-our-regulators-taking-this-crisis-seriously/#:~{}:text=South%20Africans%20generate%20roughly%2054,90%25%20is%20landfilled%20or%20dumped [Accessed: May 5, 2022]
38.Muhammad LJ, Badi I, Haruna AA, Mohammed IA. Selecting the best municipal solid waste management techniques in Nigeria using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Reports in Mechanical Engineering. 2021;2(1):180-189
39.Maria C, Góis J, Leitão A. Challenges and perspectives of greenhouse gases emissions from municipal solid waste management in Angola. Energy Reports. 2020;6:364-369
40.Adusei-Gyamfi J, Boateng KS, Sulemana A, Hogarh JN. Post COVID-19 recovery: Challenges and opportunities for solid waste management in Africa. Environmental. Challenges. 2022;6(2022):1-9
41.Röhlig KJ. Waste management policy and strategy. Nuclear Waste. 2022;4(2022):1-12
42.Adeniran AA, Shakantu W. The role of virtual reality in planning for municipal solid waste management. Sustainability Handbook. 2021:130
43.Godfrey L, Ahmed MT, Gebremedhin KG, Katima JH, Oelofse S, Osibanjo O, et al. Solid Waste Management in Africa: Governance Failure or Development Opportunity? Regional Development in Africa2019. p. 235
44.United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]. Enforcement of Environmental Law: Good Practices from Africa, Central Asia, ASEAN Countries and China [Internet]. Available from: http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/9968/enforcement-environmentallaws.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [Accessed: March 21, 2022]
45.David VE, John Y, Hussain S. Rethinking sustainability: A review of Liberia’s municipal solid waste management systems, status, and challenges. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management. 2020;22(5):1299-1317
46.Azage M. Healthcare waste management practices among healthcare workers in healthcare facilities of Gondar town. Northwest Ethiopia. Health Science Journal. 2013;7(3):0-0
47.Ndum AE. Bottom-up Approach to Sustainable Solid Waste Management in African Countries (Doctoral Dissertation). Universitätsbibliothek der BTU Cottbus; 2013
48.Mir IS, Cheema PPS, Singh SP. Implementation analysis of solid waste management in Ludhiana city of Punjab. Environmental Challenges. 2021;2:100023
49.Stern N, Valero A. Innovation, growth and the transition to net-zero emissions. Research Policy. 2021;50(9):104293
50.Farooq A, Haputta P, Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH. A framework for the selection of suitable waste to energy technologies for a sustainable municipal solid waste management system. Frontiers in Sustainability. 2021;2:681690
51.Wilson DC, Rodic L, Scheinberg A, Velis CA, Alabaster G. Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities. Waste Management & Research. 2012;30(3):237-254
52.Simatele DM, Dlamini S, Kubanza NS. From informality to formality: Perspectives on the challenges of integrating solid waste management into the urban development and planning policy in Johannesburg, South Africa. Habitat International. 2017;63:122-130
53.Muheirwe F, Kombe W, Kihila JM. The paradox of solid waste management: A regulatory discourse from sub-Saharan Africa. Habitat International. 2022;119:102491
54.South African Waste Information Centre [SAWIC]. Waste Policy and Legislature, 2015 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.sawic.org.za/?menu=13 [Accessed: May 6, 2022]
55.Pimentel JL, Pimentel JL. Some biases in Likert scaling usage and its correction. International Journal of Science: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR). 2019;45(1):183-191
56.Sarrafzadeh M, Martin B, Hazeri A. Knowledge management and its potential applicability for libraries. Library Management. 2010;31(3):198-212. DOI: 10.1108/01435121011027363
57.Fink A. How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide. Los Angeles, USA: Sage Publications; 2015
58.Knoema. South Africa Male to female ratio, 1950-2018. [Internet]. Available from: https://knoema.com/atlas/South-Africa/topics/Demographics/Population/Male-to-female-ratio [Accessed: February 9, 2022]
59.United Nations Development Programme [UNDP]. Human Development Indices and Indicators 2018 Statistical Update [Internet]. Available from: https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2018_human_development_statistical_update.pdf [Accessed: February 9, 2022]
60.Arcgis. Average Household Size in South Africa [Internet] 2022. Available from: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=582208ececa2424ab6e387d9cdcf01e3#:~:text=Description- [Accessed: February 9, 2022]
61.Talalaj IA, Walery M. The effect of gender and age structure on municipal waste generation in Poland. Waste Management. 2015;40:3-8
62.Sambo, N. and Kennedy, P. Womxn in Big Data South Africa: Female-Headed Households in South Africa [Internet]. Available from: https://www.womeninbigdata.org/womxn-in-big-data-south-africa-female-headed-households-in-south-africa/ [Accessed: July 22, 2022]
63.Posel DR. Who are the heads of household, what do they do, and is the concept of headship useful? An analysis of headship in South Africa. Development Southern Africa. 2001;18(5):651-670
64.Anbazu JK, Ocloo KA, Oduro-Ofori E. Determinants of the choice of disposal methods among residents in urban areas in southern Ghana. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 2022:just-accepted
65.Uma KE, Nwaka ID, Nwogu MU, Obidike PC. What are the triggers of household decision-making on waste disposal choices? A gender-differentiated analysis. Heliyon. 2020;6(12):e05588
66.Chikowore N. Factors influencing household waste management practices in Zimbabwe. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management. 2021;23(1):386-393
67.Khan D, Kumar A, Samadder SR. Impact of socioeconomic status on municipal solid waste generation rate. Waste Management. 2016;49:15-25
68.Porpino G, Parente J, Wansink B. Food waste paradox: Antecedents of food disposal in low-income households. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2015;39(6):619-629
69.Omolayo Y, Feingold BJ, Neff RA, Romeiko XX. Life cycle assessment of food loss and waste in the food supply chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2021;164:105119
70.Machate M. Reflections on the influence of family demographics on food waste generation among the city of Tshwane households, Republic of South Africa. In: Saleh H, editor. Strategies of Sustainable Solid Waste Management. London: IntechOpen; 2021
71.Namlis KG, Komilis D. Influence of four socioeconomic indices and the impact of economic crisis on solid waste generation in Europe. Waste Management. 2019;89:190-200
72.Chen DMC, Bodirsky BL, Krueger T, Mishra A, Popp A. The world’s growing municipal solid waste: Trends and impacts. Environmental Research Letters. 2020;15(7):074021
73.Troschinetz AM, Mihelcic JR. Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in developing countries. Waste Management. 2009;29(2):915-923
74.Yoada RM, Chirawurah D, Adongo PB. 2014. Domestic waste disposal practice and perceptions of private sector waste management in urban Accra. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1-10
75.Gumbi SE. Current Waste Management and Minimisation Patterns and Practices: An Exploratory Study on the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality in South Africa (Doctoral Dissertation). Johannesburg: University of South Africa; 2015
76.Babaei AA, Alavi N, Goudarzi G, Teymouri P, Ahmadi K, Rafiee M. Household recycling knowledge, attitudes and practices towards solid waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2015;102:94-100
77.Matete N, Trois C. Towards zero waste in emerging countries–A south African experience. Waste Management. 2008;28(8):1480-1492
78.De Villiers NF, Van As HJ, Botha JC. The enforceability of the by-laws of district municipalities on local municipalities: The case of solid waste disposal. Stellenbosch Law Review. 2020;31(2):315-343
79.Chaerul M, Mulananda AM. Minimisation of municipal solid waste transportation route in West Jakarta using Tabu search method. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2018;148(1):012026
80.Sulemana A, Donkor EA, Oduro-Kwarteng S. Efficiency of municipal solid waste collection systems in Ghana. The Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management. 2020;46(1):58-65
81.Ortiz-Rodriguez OO, Rivera-Alarcon HU, Villamizar-Gallardo RA. Evaluation of municipal solid waste by means of life cycle assessment: Case study in the South-Western region of the Department of Norte De Santander. Colombia. Environmental Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ). 2018;17(3):611-619
82.Korkut NE, Yaman C, Küçükağa Y, Jaunich MK, Demir İ. Greenhouse gas contribution of municipal solid waste collection: A case study in the city of Istanbul, Turkey. Waste Management & Research. 2018;36(2):131-139
83.Mahmood I, Zubairi JA. Efficient waste transportation and recycling: Enabling technologies for smart cities using the internet of things. IEEE Electrification Magazine. 2019;7(3):33-43
84.Bala A, Raugei M, Teixeira CA, Fernández A, Pan-Montojo F, Fullana-i-Palmer P. Assessing the environmental performance of municipal solid waste collection: A new predictive LCA model. Sustainability. 2021;13(11):5810
85.Statistics South Africa. Census 2016: Community Profiles [Internet]. 2016. Available from: http://interactive.statssa.gov.za/superweb/login.do [Accessed: July 22, 2022]
86.Hlahla S, Goebel A, Hill TR. Green economy: A strategy to alleviate urban poverty and safeguard the environment? KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Urban Forum. 2016;27(1):113-127. DOI: 10.1007/s12132-015-9263-7
87.Omotayo AO, Abeeb BO, Adebola SD, Adebayo IO, Kehinde OA. What drives households’ payment for waste disposal and recycling behaviours? Empirical evidence from South Africa’s general household survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(19):7188
Written By
Ayo Adeniran, Lorato Motsatsi, Sijekula Mbanga, Emma Ayesu-Koranteng and Winston Shakantu
Submitted: 31 July 2022Reviewed: 06 August 2022Published: 03 November 2022
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
