CHAPTER 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter addresses the generation introduction of the solid waste

generation and management in Gosa/Gwagwa Abuja Municipal Area
Council (AMAC). It also highlights the theoretical framework, statement of
problem, purpose of the research, significances, limitation, scopes and
terminologies.

1.2 RATIONALE/ THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Solid waste generation and management is the major problem in the

developed cities like Abuja due to the high rate of population of people in
the city. This is especially witnessed in the section of solid waste generation
and management in different developed countries, while the quantity of
waste produced in cities continues to increase daily, the effectiveness of the
means of handling waste in terms of collection and disposal remains
undesirably low.

Solid waste is any material, which comes from domestic, commercial,

and industrial sources arising from human activities, which has no value to
people who possess it and is discarded as useless. In the early days, waste
disposal did not pose difficulty as habitations were sparse and land was
plentiful. Waste disposal became problematic with the rise of towns and
cities where large numbers of people started to congregate in relatively small
areas in pursuit of livelihoods (Shafiul and Mansoor, 2003). While the
population densities in urbanized areas and per capita waste generation
increased the available land for waste disposal decreased proportionately.
Solid waste management thus emerged as an essential, specialized sector for
keeping cities healthy and livable.

Waste generation is the weight or volume of materials and products that

enter the waste stream before recycling, composting, land filling, or
combustion takes place. Also can represent the amount of waste generated
1
by a given source or category of sources. According to the World Bank
estimates of (1992), between 0.7 and 1.8 Kg per capita of waste is
Produced everyday in developed countries’ urban areas and approximately
0.4 to 0.9 kg is produced in the cities of developing countries. Waste
generation therefore tends to increases with an increase in population and
economic growth, which together add up to the problem of waste
management posed not only on the environment but also on the public
health. While environmental problems are mostly related to the effect of
waste pollution, open landfills and blocked drainage systems exposes severe
health problems to the population and especially the children in many
developing countries. Most municipalities like Gosa/Gwagwa Abuja
municipal area councils lack the efficient collection techniques as a result
not all of the waste generated is collected. The increasing dumpsites,
abandoned wastes, and deposit in the city streets and open places in
residential areas further evidence this. The uncollected waste piling up then
becomes a breeding ground for disease carrying organisms leading to
diseases such as cholera and malaria.

Sangodoyin (1993), stated that open dumping of wastes serves as breeding

place for flies, insects and rats. The proliferation of flies, insects and rats
near a refuse dump site is due to the presence of putrescible components.
The flies are capable of transmitting diseases through contact with food and
water such as dysentery and diarrhea. The spread of rates to neighboring
house near a refuse dump site could also link with disease such as
salmonellosis, leptosperosis and Lassa fever respectively.

Furthermore, it warns that a possibility for waste generation to increase by

approximately five times when we reach 2025 is quite big (ADB, 2002).

Solid waste management (SWM) is one of the basic services that are
currently receiving wide attention in the urban agenda of many developing
countries. Seik (1997) has reported that lack of effective SWM can result in
environmental health hazards and has negative impact on the environment.
This extends wider than just the geographical boundaries of the town or
municipalities.

2
1.3 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

This section describe an issue currently existing which needs to be

addressed and it also provides the context for the research study and
generates the questions which the research aims to answer.
The problems encounter the residential in Gosa/Gwagwa Abuja municipal
area council (AMAC) are:
 Population: Increased population is positively correlated with
increased generation of different types of wastes.
 Poor or inadequate waste management method
 Absence of bylaws and standards on waste disposal and
management
 Lack of institutional framework in the communities.

1.4 PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH

The main purpose of this study is to examine the factors affecting and
responsible for solid waste generation and management in the municipal
area of Gosa/Gwagwa and as well suggest possible measures to tackle the
problem.

. To access the type and components of solid waste generated in the area of
study.
. Examine means of waste disposal by household (place of disposal)
. Analyze the mode and frequency of solid waste collection.
. Assess the capacity of the waste management initiations in managing solid
waste in the study area.
. Make recommendation for the effective management of solid waste in the
study area.

3
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTION AND/OR HYPOTHESIS

Hq: Solid waste management has not been effective in Gosa/Gwagwa Abuja
municipal area council

Ha: Solid waste management has been effective in Gosa/Gwagwa Abuja

municipal area council.

The following research questions below were addressed in order to achieve

the objectives of the study.

. What are the major type source and composition of solid waste generation
in Gosa/Gwagwa major areas?
. What are the waste management methods available and in practice in the
study area, for handling the enormous waste generated daily?
. What is the significant impact on the environmental health condition of the
people in the area?
. What are the efforts made the appropriate agencies in waste evacuation
dumped illegally in the area?

1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The following are the significance of this study:

1. This study will educate the public, stakeholders in environmental

management, students, government and policy makers on the
problems of solid waste management focusing on Gosa/Gwagwa
Abuja municipal area council with a view of identifying management
strategies to combat the menace associated with poor solid waste
management.

2.  This research will also serve as a resource base to other scholars and
researchers interested in carrying out further research in this field
4
subsequently, if applied will go to an extent to provide new explanation to
the topic.

1.7 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The following hindered the smooth completion of the study, these are
enumerated below:
 Time constraint- The researcher will simultaneously engage in this
study with other academic work. This consequently will cut down on
the time devoted for the research work.

Financial constraint- Insufficient fund tends to impede the efficiency

of the researcher in sourcing for the relevant materials, literature or
information and in the process of data collection (internet,
questionnaire and interview).

Language barrier- The researcher has difficulties in communicating

with people around the area because of language barrier.

1.8 SCOPE/DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY

This study covers on how the solid waste are generate and managed in the
two communities of Abuja municipal Area council (Gosa/Gwagwa AMAC).
The basis for covering this study is to show whether there have any
significant contributions of solid waste management in FCT.

5
1.9 OPERATIONAL DEFINATION OF THE TERMS

Solid waste can be defined as garbage, refuse and other discarded

materials including waste resulting from industrial, commercial and
agriculture operations and from community activities or waste that are
normally solid and that are discarded as useless or unwanted (Tchobangolus,
1983). The solid content is technically known as refuse while the liquid
substances are called effluent (Ahmed, 2002).

According to Environmental Protection Department Air

Management Group, EPDA (2001), waste involves categories of household,
municipal, commercial and industrial wastes, some hazardous and toxic.

Municipal solid waste includes wastes generated from residential,

commercial, industrial, institutional, construction, demolition, process, and
residential Single and multifamily dwellings generate food wastes, paper,
cardboard, plastics, textiles, leather, yard wastes, wood, glass, metals, ashes,
special wastes
Commercial and industrial waste: the solid components of the waste stream
arising from commercial, industrial, government, public or domestic
premises but not contain listed waste, hazardous waste or radioactive waste.

.Compost: Pasteurized materials resulting from the controlled

microbiological transformation of compostable organic waste under aerobic
and thermophillic conditions for at least six weeks.

.Composting: The controlled process where compostable organic wastes are

pasteurized and microbiologically transformed under aerobic and
thermophillic conditions for a period not less than six weeks including the
pasteurization phase.

.Disposal: is the final handling of solid waste, following collection,

processing, or incineration. Disposal most often means placement of wastes
in a dump or a landfill.

.Domestic waste: The waste produced in the course of domestic activity.

.Incineration: is the thermal destruction of waste for the primary purpose of

disposal, with or without recovery of energy.

6
.Integrated waste management (IWM): is the management of the entire
waste process including generation, storage, collection, transportation,
resource recovery, treatment and disposal.

.Lift is the completed layer of compacted waste in a cell at a landfill

.
.Land filling is the final disposal of solid waste by placing it in a controlled
fashion in a place intended to be permanent. The Source Book uses this term
for both controlled dumps and sanitary landfills.

.Land filling gases are gases arising from the decomposition of organic
wastes; principally methane, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide. Such
gases may cause explosions at landfills

.Environmental risk assessment is an evaluation of the interactions of agents,

humans, and ecological resources, Comprised of human health risk
assessment and ecological risk assessment, typically evaluating the
probabilities and magnitudes of harm that could come from environmental
contaminants.

.Energy recovery is the process of extracting useful energy from waste,

typically from the heat produced by incineration or via methane gas from
landfills.

.Hazardous waste is waste that is reactive, toxic, corrosive, or otherwise

dangerous to living things and/or the environment. Many industrial by-
products are hazardous.

.Inorganic waste are waste composed of material other than plant or animal
matter, such as sand, dust, glass, and many synthetics.

.Organic waste is technically, waste containing carbon, including paper,

plastics, wood, food wastes, and yard wastes. In practice in MSWM, the
term is often used in a more restricted sense to mean material that is more
directly derived from plant or animal sources, and which can generally be
decomposed by microorganisms.

.Open dump is an unplanned "landfill" that incorporates few if any of the

characteristics of a controlled landfill. There is typically no leachate control,
no access control, no cover, no management, and many waste pickers.
7
.Pollution is the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the
discharge of waste or other offensive materials.
.Recycling is the process of transforming materials into raw materials for
manufacturing new products, which may or may not be similar to the
original product.

.Reuse is the use of a product more than once in its original form, for the
same or a new purpose.

.Waste characterization is an analysis of samples from a waste stream to

determine its composition.

.Source separation: is the Physical sorting of the waste at the point of

generation into specific components suitable for resource recovery from
residual component.

8
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter examine the review of related literature of study in the

country and others countries. it also explores literature on solid waste
management and examines key concepts, methods and problems of waste
management. The chapter concludes with the summary of key lessons learnt
from the review and a conceptual framework that guides the study.

2.2 RELEVANT AND RELATED SECTIONS

Solid waste management is the process of collecting, storing, treatment

and disposal of solid wastes in such a way that they are harmless to humans,
plants, animals, the ecology and the environment generally.
Yhdego Ibid, (1985) defines SWM as the entire process of generating waste,
collecting and transporting waste, and storing waste at transfer stations,
street cleaning, disposing waste and waste recovery, recycling and reuse.

A definition of Solid Waste or municipal solid waste as referred in this

report is described according to Medina, (2000) as materials generated from
the result of human daily activities resulting from areas such as households,
public places and city streets, shops, offices and hospitals. These wastes
have frequently been the responsibility of government authorities for
collection, transportation and later disposal. In addition waste from
industrial sectors have usually not been considered municipal however
should not be underestimated when dealing with solid waste in general
because in most cases they all end up in the same municipal solid waste
stream. Moreover, municipal solid waste in developing countries is
composed of wastes from household refuse, institutional wastes, commercial
wastes, streets sweepings and remains from various construction works.

9
Most of the developing countries consist of mainly two Systems of handling
waste. The first is a formal system, which is managed by the government. It
normally involves the cities’ municipalities whereby the municipality has
the responsibility to ensure safe, reliable and cost effective collection and
final disposal of solid waste. This often requires large financial resources
than in most cases allocated on the public budget therefore making it almost
impractical to deal with the extent of the problem of waste management.
(Gombya, 2000) In addition this type of system is frequently characterized
as inefficient and expensive. The second is the informal system, which
engages mainly private dealers such as communities of scavengers and
private associations, they represents a significant part of the economy as
they recognize the potential part of certain materials such as plastic, bottles,
paper and cans for domestic purposes. In some areas, this operation includes
charging some amount of money to residents for picking up their garbage.
The involvement in municipal waste includes collecting, sorting, recycling
and selling waste. (UNIDO, 2003) The two systems however are subjected
to having very little interference and cooperation in all aspects of waste
handling making the problem of waste management even worse and
persistent.

The main problem of waste management in an African context is however

not only brought about by the amount of waste accumulated in the cities but
also the incapability of the governments and waste management authorities
to keep up with the scope of the problem itself. In addition, approximately
more than 70% of the daily waste generated is left near the houses, on the
streets, markets or in drainage channels (Kizito Nkwabi, 2008).

Solid waste management in European countries has evolved over the last

two decades from a focus on disposal methods to a greater focus on
prevention and recycling. Moving municipal waste management up the
'waste hierarchy' (i.e. waste prevention, preparing for reuse, recycling,
recovery and disposal) is a key way of extracting more value from resources
while reducing the pressures on the environment and creating
jobs. However, while progress has been made, 'resource use is still largely
unsustainable and inefficient, and waste is not yet properly managed'.

In Kenya the capital city of Nairobi, solid waste generation ranges from
about 800-1000 tons per day. However, the city municipality has a capacity
of collecting only 400 tones daily (ADB, 2002). Likewise, in Malindi, a
secondary largest town in Kenya estimates for 1991 indicates that less than
10
21% of waste generated reached the dumping sites. A parallel situation is
also observed in Kinshasa, which is the capital and largest city of the
Democratic Republic of Congo where waste is only collected in the minority
of households while in the rest of the city it is left scattered as in the case of
Gosa/Gwagwa AMAC. (Onibokun et al 1999, UNIDO 2003)

For centuries, efforts to address the urban planning and management have
been guided by conventional approaches (Armstrong, 1987, Mattingly 1988;
Halla, 1999, Majani, 2002). In developed countries mechanisms of
conventional approaches have successfully tackled these challenges and
many evidences of such successes are remarkable in the United States of
America, the United Kingdom, Germany and the rest of Europe (Halla,
1999,2002). The same approaches have been used to tackle similar
challenges in the developing countries including Nigeria with very little
success not able to provide significant solutions to major problems including
solid waste management.
Management of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) presents a major challenge
for many Sub -Sahara African cities where rapid growth, social and cultural
changes, wide spread poverty, inadequate and weak local governance and
limited financial resources all contribute to increasing pollution and waste
disposal problems. (Onibokun, 1999 in Karanja et al). The inability of
responsible local authorities to provide effective and reliable solid waste
management services including solid waste disposal (Kalwani ,2003)

Onibokun, (1999) also found that there are several problems related to SWM
caused by conventional approaches. For example, inappropriate solid waste
management causes air, soil and water pollution leading not only to
environmental degradation but also to a growing catalogue of human health
problems. Irresponsible solid waste dumping contaminates surface and
ground water supplies. In industrial and urban areas, washing "away" solid
wastes can clog drains, creating stagnant water for insect breeding and
potential for floods in rainy seasons. Uncontrolled burning and irresponsible
incineration has a significant influence on air pollution. Organic wastes
dumped in landfills generate greenhouse gases, and untreated leachate
pollutes surrounding soil and water bodies such as ground water supplies.
These environmental problems include only the impacts of solid waste
disposal; they exclude the impact of environmental damage resulting from
extraction of resources and processing materials, and the World Bank
estimates that 95 percent of a product's environmental impact occurs before
it is discarded as solid waste.
11
Problems of waste accumulation have become a serious threat to the health
situation of many of its inhabitants. Overall, mechanisms of conventional
approaches have been failing to address urban challenges (World Bank
1986, in Halla 1999:94 World Bank 2001:13). According to B.K Majani,
(2000), the failure of the conventional approaches has resulted into a set of
complex environmental problems that require more effective approaches to
address. The conventional approaches have failed to address problems due to
their serious conceptual and practical weaknesses, Halla, (1994).

The diagram below illustrates the conventional approach (see figure No 1).

12
 To fully understand the fundamental problems in the management of solid
waste it is important to scrutinize on the governance atmosphere in
connection with the policies structure, implementation strategies as well as
the economic framework of a country. Moreover, some key elements in the

13
process of governance, which are essential for the performance of the
management systems in use, have to be considered these include the
effectiveness of the managerial and organizational structure, accountability
and transparency in decision-making.

Furthermore, the degree of participation with informal structures such as

community based institutions, the public and private organizations and the
coordination between formal and informal structures for collection,
transportation and disposal of waste (Onibokun et al, 1999).

In general the problems of solid waste management and their solutions are
different in Africa and the rest of developing countries as compared to those
in developed nations not only on the various differences in their waste
composition but also on the standards of waste management services.
While in developed countries, concentration is more on maximizing the
recovery of resources from wastes, in developing countries more attention is
given to attaining proper collection, treatment and disposal. One of the
means to go about this problem would be through incorporating a waste
management approach which attests to be environmentally accepted,
economically feasible and socially enviable. Integrated Solid Waste
Management (ISWM) is one of most recommended and compatible
approach for waste management, which provides a framework for the
development of a sustainable municipal solid waste service. Moreover, it
presents a use of various collection, transport and treatment options (White
et al, 1999)

Table 2.1: waste generated in urban cities in Nigeria.

City Population Agency

Lagos 8,029,200 Lagos state management authority

Kano 3,348,700 Kano state environmental protection agency

14
Ibadan 307,840 Oyo state environmental protection commission
Kaduna 1,458,900 Kaduna state environmental protection agency
Port Harcourt 1,053,900 River state environmental protection agency
Makurdi 249,00 Urban development board
Onisha 509,500 Anambra state environmental protection agency
Nsukka 100,700 Enugu state environmental protection agency
Abuja 159,900 Abuja environmental protection agency
All sites engineering ltd (Ogwueleka, 2009).

2.2.1 SOURCES, TYPES OR CHARATERISATION OF SOLID

WASTE

Waste characterization is fundamental component in any municipal waste

management scheme (MWMS) of urban solid waste in a city but such data
are not commonly complied in cities across Africa (Guodaplupe et al, 2009).
Waste characterization data consist of information on the types and amounts
of materials (paper, food waste, plastic, yard waste etc) in the waste stream.
It depends on a number of factors such as food habits, cultural tradition,
socioeconomic and climatic conditions. It varies not only from city but even
within the same city itself (Gawai’ka, 2004).

2.3 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA

In Nigeria waste stream generally consist of putrescribes, plastics, paper,

textile, metal, glass. It is generally reported that enormous quantities of Solid
Waste are generated daily in the major cities of Nigeria as shown in Table
2.1 are high.
However, exact figures are difficult to determine because the authorities
responsible do not keep proper records of collection and disposal. Waste
generation and composition is greatly influenced by population, income,
economic growth, season, climate and social behavior.

15
 In Nigeria waste density generally range from 280-370 kg/m3, Waste
generation rate is 25 million tons annually and at a daily rate of 0.44-0.66
Kg/capital/day (Ogwueleka, 2009). Per capital rate of MSW production
in Lagos, Nigeria is reported to range from about 0.21 kg/day/person
(Bamgbose et al., 2000; World Bank, 2004) to about 0.35 kg/day/person
(CSL,
2002; Aboyade, 2004).

Uchegbu (1988) remarked that big cities like Abuja, lagos, Kano, etc in
Nigeria produced on the average 46kg of solid waste per person, per day. As
living standards rise, people consume more and generate more
waste.Atuegbu (2007) reports that between 500 and 850 metric tons are
generated daily in Abuja city.

Table2.1 shows the typical waste generation and facilities, activities and
location associated with various sources of solid waste.

SOURCES TYPICAL LOCATION TYPES OF SOLID WASTE

Residential Single family and multifamily Food waste, rubbish, ashes, special
dwellings, low, medium and high- waste.
rise apartments.
Commercial/market Stores, restaurants, markets, Food waste, rubbish, construction
place offices, hotels, print shops, waste, special waste (occasionally
medical facilities etc. hazardous).
Industrial Construction, infrastructure, light Food waste, rubbish, ashes,
and heavy manufacturing, demolition waste, special waste
chemical plants, mining, and hazardous waste
demolition.
Open areas Street alleys, parks, vacant places, Special wastes and rubbish
playground, beaches, high ways
and residential areas.
Institutions Classrooms, playgrounds Food wastes, rubbish, ashes and
hospitals, and schools. special waste.
Treatment plant sites Waste waters individual treatment Treatment plant wastes,
processes, power plant industrial particularly composed of resident
etc. sludge.
Agricultural Field and new crops, vineyards, Special waste, food waste,

16
 foul feeds, dairies farms. agricultural waste, rubbish, and
hazardous wastes.
Source: Tchobanoglous et al 1993 P.52.53

2. 3 .1 PROBLEMS OF MANAGING SOLID WASTE IN NIGERIA

According to Ogawa (2005), a typical solid waste management system

in a developing country displays an array of problems, including low
collection coverage and irregular collection services, crude open dumping
and burning without air and water pollution control. He categorized these
challenges into technical, financial, institutional and social constraints. He
further discussed these constraints in relation to the sustainability of solid
waste a developing countries.

Technical problems: According to Ogawa (2005), in the most developing

countries there are inadequate human and resources at both the national and
local levels with technical expertise necessary for solid waste management
planning and operation.

Financial problems: Ogawa (2005) intimated that solid waste management

is given a very low priority in developing countries, except perhaps in
capital and large cities. As a result, very limited funds are provide to the
solid waste management sector by the government and the level of service
required for protection of public health and the environment are not attained
unlike Gosa/Gwagwa AMAC. Solid waste management suffers neglect by
government in the area is yet to be fully developed according to the master
plan of FCT administration.

Institution problems: Ogawa (2005) indicates that several agencies at the

national level are usually involved at least particularly in solid waste
management and no single agency or committee designated to coordinate
their project and activities. The lack of effective legislation for solid waste
17
management, which is a norm in most countries, is partially responsible for
the roles functions of the relevant national agencies not being clearly defined
and lack of coordination among them.

2.3. 2 STRATEGIES FOR SOLVING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS (Ruslikin, 2009)

Creating awareness: This involves the use of mass media awareness

campaign and every other means of sensitizing the public on the
consequences of reckless, indiscriminate waste disposal and the environment
benefits of good waste management.
Public awareness and attitudes to waste can affect all Stages in the solid
waste management process. This has an impact on household waste storage,
waste segregation, recycling, collection frequency, littering and fly-tipping,
willingness to pay for waste management services, and the level and type of
opposition to waste treatment and disposal facilities. In general, people in
Abuja have a poor attitude towards waste management (Agunwamba, 2003).
People who handle waste are regarded as dirty, poor and inferior, and
carrying household waste to bins is often regarded as a duty for children.
Both the government and the private sector in Abuja have made efforts to
increase public awareness of solid waste management issues, and there have
been televised discussions on waste management. The side effects of
improper waste disposal have been well publicized. However, most people
still do not appreciate that environmental quality is not just the responsibility
of the government and that the individual has an important role.

User pay principles: This principle requires that the users of the resources
bear the financial cost of those who provide waste management services for
their enterprise. This discourages wasteful consumerism.

Polluter’s pays principle: This entails the producers of the waste to pay
directly for the damage caused by their waste. According to Trevor (2010),
18
the principle that is use for allotting cost of pollution stoppage and control to
ensure the rational use of environmental resources is called polluter-pay-
principle.

Product stewardship principle: It requires the manufacturers or importers

of wastes to take responsibility of the environmental impact of their
products.

2.3. 3 CONTEMPORARY METHOD OF MANAGING SOLID

WASTES:

In contemporary era, the method managing solid waste include

prevention of waste, source reduction, sanities landfills, compositing,
recycling and incineration (Danison and Ruston, 1990).

Solid waste prevention: Waste Prevention remains the best form of waste
management because it is the most effective way of reducing the amount of
waste that is generate. It is also the environmental friendly means; it has
absolutely no effect on the environment. It reduces pollution, saves
electrical, and saves for more than all other means of waste prevention.
(Vallero 2004, Finkbeiner 2003) stated that the number one priority in waste
management should be waste prevention as it is the best way to stop the
accumulation of waste and in reduction in less of resources. The primary
approach of waste prevention and reduction is for the manufacturers to
resign and package their products with the lowest toxicity and less volume
of materials.

Sanitary Landfill: In a sanitary landfill, garbage is spread out in thin layers,

compacted and covered with clay or plastic foam. In the modern landfills,
the bottom is cover with an impermeable liner, usually several layers of clay,
thick plastic and sand. The liner protects the ground water from being
contaminated due to percolation of leachate. Leachate from bottom is pump
and sent for treatment. When landfill is full it is covered with clay, sand,
gravel and top soil to prevent seepage of water. Several wells are drilled near
19
the landfill site to monitor if any leakage is contaminating ground water.
Methane produced by anaerobic decomposition is collected and burnt to
produce electricity or heat.

Sanitary Landfills Site Selection:

i. Should be above the water table, to minimize interaction with

groundwater.

ii. Preferably located in clay or silt.

iii. Do not want to place in a rock quarry, as water can leech through the
cracks inherent in rocks into a water fracture system.

iv. Do not want to locate in sand or gravel pits, as these have high leeching.
Unfortunately, most of Long Island is sand or gravel, and many landfills are
located in gravel pits, after they were no longer being used.

v. Do not want to locate in a flood plain. Most garbage tends to be less dense
than water, so if the area of the landfill floods, the garbage will float to the
top and wash away downstream.

According to Kreith (1994), some wastes are simple not recyclable; many
recyclable wastes eventually reach a point where their intrinsic value is
completely dissipated and they no longer can be recovered and recycling
itself produces residual he further highlighted that the technology, and
operation of modern landfill can assure the environment. Landfill also has
some disadvantages as it costly to construct and maintain, can destroy
ground water through leaching etc.

Incineration: The term incinerates means to burn something until nothing is

left but ashes. An incinerator is a unit or facility used to burn trash and other
types of waste until it is reduce to ash. An incinerator is constructes of
heavy, well-insulated materials, so that it does not give off extreme amounts
of external heat.

The high levels of heat are kept inside the furnace or unit so that the waste is
burned quickly and efficiently. If the heat were allowed to escape, the waste
would not burn as completely or as rapidly. Incineration is a disposal
method in which solid organic wastes are subjected to combustion to convert
them into residue and gaseous products. This method is useful for disposal
20
of residue of both solid waste management and solid residue from
wastewater management. This process reduces the volumes of solid waste to
20 to 30 per cent of the original volume. Incineration and other high
temperature waste treatment systems are sometimes described as “thermal
treatment”. Incinerators convert waste materials into heat, gas, steam and
ash. Incineration is carried out both on a small scale by individuals and on a
large scale by industry. It is used to dispose of solid, liquid and gaseous
waste. It is recognized as a practical method of disposing of certain
hazardous waste materials. Incineration is a controversial method of waste
disposal, due to issues such as emission of gaseous pollutants.

Composting: Due to shortage of space for landfill in bigger cities, the

biodegradable yard waste (kept separate from the municipal waste) is
allowed to degrade or decompose in a medium. A good quality nutrient rich
and environmental friendly manure is formed which improves the soil
conditions and fertility.

Composting is a biological process in which micro-organisms, mainly fungi

and bacteria, convert degradable organic waste into humus like substance.
This finished product, which looks like soil, is high in carbon and nitrogen
and is an excellent medium for growing plants.

The process of composting ensures the waste that is produced in the kitchens
is not carelessly thrown and left to rot. It recycles the nutrients and returns
them to the soil as nutrients. Apart from being clean, cheap, and safe,
composting can significantly reduce the amount of disposable garbage.

According to Tyler and Scolt, (1999) almost 70% of the waste streams in
developing countries are compostable.

Recycling: According to Momoh and Oladebeye (2010:1) recycling has

been viewed as a veritable in minimizing the amount of household solid
wastes that enter the dump sites. It also provide the needed raw materials for
industries. According to them, it has been established. it is the best efficient
and effective method of solid waste management system.

However, in developing countries like Nigeria the United States

environmental protection agency (USEPA) 1999, has recommended
recovery for recycling as one of the most effective waste management
techniques.

21
 According to USEPA, recycling turns materials that would otherwise
become waste into valuable resources and it yields environmental, financial
and social returns in natural resources conservation and competitiveness.
Kreith (1994) has also added that recycling is the most positively perceived
and doable of all the waste management options. According to him recycling
will return raw materials to market by separating reusable products from the
rest of the municipal waste streams.

2. 3.4 INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Although many government and other agencies in tackling waste related

problems are making considerable efforts, therefore still major gaps to be
filled in this area UNEP (2009). According to UNEP (2009) the world bank
estimates that in developing countries to spend 20-50% of their available
budget on solid wastes remains, uncollected and less than 50% of the
population is served.

Figure 2.2 shows the model of the ISWM

22
2.4 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW

Solid waste generation and management encompass waste collection,

storage, transportation, and final disposal. The various methods in disposal
of solid waste are sanitary landfill, composting, recycling, incineration,
reduction and prevention from source, and integrated solid waste. However,
in Gosa/Gwagwa, open dumps are mainly used for final waste disposal. Also
there are two more mode of waste collection in Gosa/Gwagwa normal;
house to house door to door and communal. Even today, people still resort to
unscrupulous methods of disposing solid waste such as dumping into
gutters, drain roadside among other without minding the health implication.
Therefore solid waste management should be the primary responsibility of
all but not only the management authorities, the government should as well
make the community of Gosa/Gwagwa a good environment pending when
proper relocation excises will take place.
Furthermore, the provision of solid waste collection facilities, frequency
of waste collection and temporal disposal site should be allocated. More
attention need to be give to this community hence any health problem

23
encountered in the sub urban, the urban centre is definitely going to contact
them.

24
 CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with the method of data collection, method of data
analysis, population of the study, sample size and sample techniques,
research design and instruments.

3.2 RESEARCH METHOD AND DESIGN

Primary and secondary sources of data collection have been employed. The
study uses three sources of information for the primary data collection. This
includes interviews, survey; collection of Information from a group through
interviews or application of questionnaire and observation.
Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to collect primary and
secondary data in the form of self-administered questionnaires that were
used to obtain important information about solid waste collection in
Gosa/Gwagwa area. Each item in the questionnaire was developed to
address a specific objective of the study. The methodological technique has
been selected based on the fact that Yin (1994) suggests “multiple sources of
evidence as the way to ensure construct validity”.

Research design is the plan on how the researcher intends to carry out his
research work. It is a systematic plan of what is to be done, how it will be
done and how the data will be analyzed. It shows what the major topics in
the research are and their details.
This study used observative method to arrive at the result in the
subsequent chapter.

25
3.3 POPULATION OF THE STUDY

Gosa/Gwagwa is a sub-urban area very closed to Abuja city centre.

Populated by about 101,000 populace from various works of life. mostly
26
working class and homemaker, children living in a much-closed range with
mutual, social interaction. There are peace loving people, living together
with the hope of having good environment like Maitama, Asokoro, Wuse,
Gari and others developing areas in Area.

Study area: The Gosa/Gwagwa is located at Idu Local Government Area,

F.C.T., Abuja, with coordinates 09o 02.047N 0070 20.216E along Airport
road (Hour Degree Minute) with an altitude of 100 ±3m. This coordinates
was taken with a handheld GPS (Global Positioning System) (ETREX)
using the WGS84 coordinate system. The area has rough topography with
few elevated areas. The study area enjoys a tropical type of climate generally
characterized by two extreme temperatures. The mean annual rainfall of the
area is 1040mm. The wet/ rainy season last for 5-6 months between
April/May to October with the heaviest in August. During the dry season,
temperatures ranges from a minimum of 15-24oc in December/ January to a
maximum of 32-39ocin April/May. The soil consists of well-drained sandy
loam and clay loam soil on the Gosa/Gwagwa site.

This research was also carried out in major areas around the study area of
Gosa/Gwagwa municipal: Old Karmo Angwan shawo, Shaba market,
Karmo market, idu karmo, Angwanthieve, Tasha 1 and 11, Jiwah, Saburi,
Kuchibena and several other communities. The study area is densely
populated and houses many institutions of learning, churches, hospitals and
clinics, markets and other commercial centers. This entire establishment plus
the various homes and other business outfits constitutes sources of solid
waste generation.

Table 3.1 showing Physical Characterization Household Wastes at Gosa

Dumpsite during the Wet Season of 2016.

Wastes type Mass (kg) Percentage (%)

Fabrics ------- ------------

Food/petruscible 19.1 56.2

Glass/ceramics 2.6 7.6

Metals 0.9 2.6

27
Paper 3.4 10.0

Plastics 2.5 7.4

Rubber 3.6 10.2

Others 1.9 5.6

Total 34.0 100.0

3.4 SAMPLING PROCEDURES

A stratified sampling procedure was employed using a sampling frame of

1041 was considered and a sample size of 100 cases representation130%
spread over the study area through the base maps by the use of stratified
sampling method. The analysis focused on the physical conditions as well as
the general environmental conditions of the dwelling units. Single factor
descriptive analysis was used to analyze the data retrieved from the
questionnaires.

3.5 INSTRUMENTATION

The research employs both primary and secondary data ot achieves its
observation. The secondary data is derived from library documents,
publication, internet, and relevant materials. While primary data derived
questionnaire survey and face to face interview. Instrument used is a well-
28
structured questionnaire to elicit required information relating to socio
economic, and environmental conditions of the households as well as
characteristics of the dwellings in the people live.

3.6 DATA COLLECTION (PROCEDURE)

An open and closed ended questionnaire administered on face-to-face

bases, out of 100 copies administered, 100 questionnaires were retrieved;
totaling 100% of the administered number. Administration and collection of
instrument lasted six (6) weeks.

3.7 DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

Data analysis is the collecting and organizing of data so that a

researcher can conclude. Data analysis allows one to answer questions, solve
problems and derive important information. Once the questionnaire has been
administered, the masses of raw data collected were systematically
organized in a manner that facilitated analysis. Both descriptive and
statistical analysis was anticipated; therefore, the responses in the
questionnaire were assigned numerical values, coding entering data and
analysis was done using tables and pie chart.

29
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the results of the study findings, taking into
consideration the research survey objectives and questions. The chapter
takes an overview and description of the area of study. Waste generation and
management is viewed in terms of geographic location and socio economic
levels of the residents. The chapter further discusses the findings of the study
linking with the various sections of the study such as the literature review
and study methodology. The results have been compared and contrasted with
other support findings and studies.

4.2 RESERCH QUESTIONS/HYPOTHESIS AND RESULTS

Data were collected by means of a questionnaire, which was specifically

designed for this study by the researcher, based on literature review and the
investigative questions to be answered. The questionnaire was divided into
three sections.
The first part covers qualitative data and is divided into two sections.
The first section reports on the following the demographics variables:
Gender, age, educational level, employment information and income. The
second section covers the role of local government and the last section will
focus on the specific waste management variables.
Each of the variables were analysed independently and then paired up to
assess their impact on solid waste management within the community.

30
4.2.0 Demographics

Demographics is the study of the behaviors and other characteristics of

groups of human beings in terms of statistics (Rouse, 2005). These are
socioeconomic groups characterized by age, income, sex, education,
occupation, etc.

4.2.1 Gender of respondents

As indicated in the pie chart below, of the 100 employed respondents 30

were males and 70 were females (Figure 4.1). This is to be expected because
of the historical exclusion of women from formal employment especially in
professional positions. This composition is reflective of the report on labour
survey (Stats S.A, 2013). With the changing social changes, transformation
within organizations, employment opportunities and other career options
which were previously reserved for men have now opened for women.

Figure 4.1

GENDER OF RESPONDENTS

MALE
FEMALE
130

170

31
4.2.2 Age of respondents

Figure 4.2 presents data on the age of household respondents who

participated in the study.

Figure 4.2

AGE OF RESPONSES
13 11

21-29
30-39
17 40-49
50-59
60 above
34

25

The population under study was largely youthful ranging from 30-
39, which was the modal class as shown in the table 4.2 above: this age class
is the most influential in the society as far as enforcement of the laws
governing solid waste management is concerned. The age cohort that mostly
constitutes the population of the area under study is the upcoming middle
class with high rates of waste generation emanating from their lifestyles with
ever improving economic abilities.

4.2.3 Educational level of respondents

A large number of respondents (29 %) had post high school education

(certificate, diploma and degree). 18% had high school education, 23 % had
32
Intermediate school education and 30 % had no formal schooling. The high
number of individuals who completed post high school education augurs
well for the city’s waste management endeavors’ and economy.

Figure 4.3

Educational level of the respondents

30 29
High sch.edu,certificate,diploma
and degree
High school education
Intermediate school
No formal schooling

18
23

4.2.4 HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS

Analysis of data in table 4.2 below shows the home ownership status
of the respondents in both areas. It reveals that average of 69 % of the
respondents rented the apartment/rooms they live while 31% are the
homeowners.

Table 4.1: Respondents home ownership

Items
Gosa/Gwagwa percentage
Area
Owner occupier/Landlord 31 31.0
Rented house/ Tenants 69 69.0
Total 100 100.0
33
Source: field survey 2016

4.2.5 STATE OF BUILDING OF RESIDENTS

Analysis of state of building in table 4.2 below shows that 3.6% of
them are in sound state 12.4 requires minor repairs 20.2% needs major
repairs while 63.8% of them are dilapidated. Finding show that most of the
building in the two neighborhoods is in very poor state as only about 3.6%
of them are in sound condition. A greater proportion of the building requires
minor or major repairs to bring them to good quality hence no standard
house is found in the areas.
The state of repairs of the building takes into consideration the soundness of
the roofs, walls, floors and foundation. The soundness of the floors means
there is presence of cracks, surface wear, tearing or peeling off surfaces
plastic and paints. Houses in this areas are build with mud blocks some may
not even plaster the wall and whenever there is heavy rain fall, the wall
weaned completely and as a result the building fall and part of the materials
also constituted solid waste. Socio economic characteristic of the inhabitants
of the building such as household size, income classification as shown in
table 4.4, significantly contributes to poor state of repair of the building.

Table 4.2 state of building in the area neighborhoods

State Gwagwa (%) Gosa (%) Average (%)
Sound building 4.4 2.8 3.6
Require minor repair 13.6 11.2 12.4
Require major repair 21.9 18.5 20.20
Dilapidated houses 60.1 67.5 63.8
Total 100 100 100
Source: field trip 2016

34
4.2.6 MONTHLY INCOME OF RESIDENT

The analysis of the average monthly income of household heads in

table 4.3 shows that 65% of the house hold heads earn below N7, 500.00
monthly,175% earn between N25,000.00 and N40.000.00 while 60% earn
N40,000.00 monthly and above. On this reason, residents do everything
possible to earn a living therefore make the environment unfit.

Table 4.3: Average monthly income of head of households

Items Gosa/Gwagwa percentage
Area
Below 7,500 25 25%
N7,500-N25,000 40 40%
N25,000-40,000 35 35%
Total 100 100

4.2.7 ASSESSMENT OF THE SOURCES OF WASTE GENERATED

Assessment of the types of waste generated showed that the major

components of waste generated is commercial/market waste with the
average waste generated amount to 31.0% and residential home 26% and as
well open areas 16.0% as shown in table 4.5 below. The findings agrees with
earlier work by oil resources and allied investment limited (2005) which
gave the figure of biodegradable wastes as 54%. The finding also consistent
with the results obtained from waste types generated in selected Africa cities
as compiled by Asomani, boating and heights (2008) which gave the
percentage organic wastes as thus: Kumas 83%, Accra 85%, Ibadan 55.8%,
Kampala 75% and Kigali 94%.
Gosa/Gwagwa is Suburban areas where low income and residents are
mostly civil/public and business men and women peti-tradders. The
economics and social status of the village could be mainly for the huge
amount of biodegradable wastes generated. Investigation into the major
sources of solid waste generation presented market/commercial area of the
municipality as the major source. This finding differed from the view of
Obere, UN (Personal interview) of the ministry of petroleum and
35
environment who regard residential homes as the major sources. It is certain
that market are centers of commercial activities in any city and
accommodates greater number of people than any other sector at any given
time the increased human population and activities in markets could account
for the huge quantities of different kinds of waste around the markets in the
municipality and its environs.

Table 4.4: Respondents to major type and sources of solid waste generated

Item Gosa% Gwagwa% Average%

Residential 30.0 23.0 26.5
Commercial/market 28.0 34.0 31.0
Institutional 12.0 13.0 12.5
Open areas 12.0 20.0 16.0
Agricultural 18.0 10.0 14.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

4.2.8 WASTE GENERATION, GARBAGE PILED UP AND THE

FREQUENCY OF WASTE COLLECTION.

The private and public participations in waste generation and evacuation

heralded by poor road networks to the areas where the served and the
garbage during site. Individual efforts geared towards waste collection and
disposal in Gosa/Gwagwa has been far much over stretched as many
respondents admitted yes that their waste has been collected are 30% ,
68%responds NO and 2% were not sure as shown in table 4.6 below.
Majority of respondents as well-said yes, meaning garbage are piled up in
various corners in the areas, hence there are few collectors. 96-responded
wastes are collected 2-3 times a week, followed by 34 respondents who
admitted that garbage is collected once in week but not in a proper manner.

36
The wastes collected by them are even littered around on their way to the
dumpsite as said by the household head.

Table 4.5: Responds to frequency of waste collection

Garbage pile up
Frequency of collection No Yes Not sure Total
Daily 5 4 1 6
Once a week 20 11 0 33
2-3 times a week 18 6 1 25
Once every 2 weeks 10 6 0 16
Monthly 15 8 0 23
Total 68 30 2 100

Table 4.6 Rating of performance of waste collection service

Valid Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
percent percent
Bad 48 30.0 30.0 30.0
Fair 67 41.9 41.9 71.9
Good 38 23.8 23.8 95.6
Very good 5 3.1 3.1 98.8
Excellent 2 1.3 1.3
Total 160 100.0 100.0 100.0

4.2.9 Assistance from the government

Table (4.7)below shows percentages of people from the 100 respondents

who receive assistance from the government. This sort to find out any
assistance that the respondents receive from the national government;

37
example; social grants. And also assistance that the government as an
employer can provide to the people, example, medical aid subsidy and
housing allowance. A large number of respondents, 70 %, disagreed that
there is adequate support from the government. One can infer that this
problem might depend on the relevant skills or educational qualifications or
work experience of the candidate.

Table 4.7 Response on if Government assisted

Options Frequency Percentage

Agree 30 30.0
Disagree 70 70.0
Total 100 100.0

4.3 PROXIMITY OF DUMP SITE TO THE RESIDENCE

Analysis in table 4.8 shows the proximity of the dumpsites to the

residence. An average of 58.5% of the respondents in Gosa/Gwagwa areas
responded that there are all over illegal dumpsites, which are very close to
the residential house, about 50metres from residences, yet majority of them
dump their ignorance on the dangers posed by improper disposal of waste.
27.5% responsed that there is no dumpsite but waste are disposed off in an
area of about 50-100m away from residential homes, while 14.0% said
people disposed waste about 100m away from their home.

Table 4.8: Response to distance of residential home to dumpsite

Items Gwagwa(%) Gosa(%) Average (%)
Below 50m 56.0 61.0 58.5
50m-100m 33.0 22.0 27.5
Above 100m 11.0 17.0 14.0
Total 100 100 100
Source: field survey 2016

38
4.3.1 MONITORING AND EVACUTION OF WASTE

From the view of the respondents, AEPB was not effectively

carrying out its mandate of monitoring and evacuating the waste. The
Gosa/Gwagwa attracted this to the low budgetary allocation coupled by
massive corruption at the municipal council. The resources are being
channels to the wrong areas of development of the city. The service provider
also recorded no form of monitoring and evacuation by the authorities
charged with the responsibilities.

Table 4.9: shows their responses as to whether they had been

monitored.
Option Frequency Percentage
Yes 21 21.0
No 79 79.0
Total 100 100.0

4.3.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

The state of refuse disposal as revealed in table 4.10 below is

generally absorbed which emanates from the laissez-fair approach of the
people towards indiscriminate dumping of refuse and delay in evacuation by
the waste management authority, and the house-house collection by
individuals. Refuse dumped littered the environment, which were an eye
sore, 68.5% dispose their refuse indiscriminately out of which 41.2 dump
theirs in open spaces. Such constitutes breeding ground for rodents, flies,
mosquitoes, snakes and harbor for other dangerous animals as well as
laundering the free flow of runoff. 12.2% burnt theirs within the residential
environments, thereby causing air pollution while 27.3% dispose theirs in
gutters and other ways. However, interview conducted with the waste
management board revealed that they do not visit Gosa/Gwagwa areas due
to bad road that hinder access to such areas and there is no waste disposal
vehicles designated for that area moreover the residents will not pay to buy
containers from the AEPB. The research carried out shows that frequency of

39
waste collection is a predictor variable for housing and environmental
quality as well as healthy life.

Table 4.10: Response to waste management method applied

Items Gosa (%) Gwagwa (%) Average
( %)
Open dumping 39.2 43.2 41.2
Burning 13.2 11.2 12.2
Composting 7.7 6.1 6.9
Waste separation 12.0 12.8 12.4
Dumping in gutters and 27.9 26.7 27.3
others
Total 100 100 100

4.3.3 INDISCRIMINATE DUMPING OF WASTE

Table 4.11 below give the underlying reasons for improper refuse disposal
in the study area. Majority of the respondents dumped their waste because of
closeness of illegal dumpsite to their residence (46.5%). This shows that
they are ignorant of environmental and health effects of such actions. An
average of 19.00% responded that they do so because the waste management
authority does not visit their areas for refuse collection while 14.0% has no
response and 20.5% has no any alternative than to throw away waste hence
it has been generated.

Table 4.11: Response to dumping indiscriminately

Items Gosa Gwagwa Average
Proximity to residence 48.00 45.00 46.50
No affordable alternative 21.00 20.00 20.50
The waste management authority 18.00 20.00 19.00
Does not come to the area 13.00 15.00 14.00
Total 100 100 100

40
4.3.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The residents have an important in the garbage collection and disposal

and general environmental hygiene of Gosa/Gwagwa areas. The public were
the generators of the solid waste and were therefore an important stakeholder
as far as effective solid waste management was concerned. This was both a
policy formation and implementation levels. The public formed an important
medium of transmitting information about solid waste management. The
participation of the public in the initiatives geared towards solid waste
management was therefore paramount.
When asked who paid for waste collection in their residential areas, majority
of 73.75% said it was they themselves. Table 4.12 below shows the
responses to distribution of payments for services among the respondent.
18.75% said it was their landlords who paid for the services while 7.5%
admitted it is AEPB. This shows that the government neglects
Gosa/Gwagwa.

Table 4.12 Response of who pays for waste collection.

Valid Frequency % Valid % Cumulative
Ourselves 118 73.75 73.75 73.75
Landlord 30 18.75 18.75 92.5
AEPB 12 7.5 7.5 100
Total 100 100 100

The public were therefore the backbone of the operational role, it plays
paying for the garbage collection services.

4.3.6 HEALTH HAZARDS AND THEIR CAUSATIVE FACTORS

The most prevalent diseases and the ecological problem identified in

the area as shown in figure 4.1 as malaria, fever accounting for 29.6%.
Others in their order of magnitude include typhoid fever, measles, diarrhea,
cholera, dysentery and some communicable diseases prevalent in the tropics.

41
Their identified causative factors include inadequate sanitary services
57.4%, poor water supply 14.8%, and unkempt environment 14.8%, over
crowding 12.2% and poor drainage system 0.9%. Other health issue
investigated involved the availability of health institution within the areas.
About 77.3% indicated non-availability of health centers within their reach.
They are located far in wuse, maitama etc. only 26.1% are sure of having at
least a chemist store or mini health clinic owned by a private business man
within their neighborhood, thus low level of health care and environmental
education

Figure 4.4: Environmental related problems and disease in the study

area.

Response to environmental related problem

6.4
20.1
11.5 Diarrhea
Cholera
Malaria
Typhoid
9.2 Measles
Dysetary

29.6

23.8

42
4.3.7 Analysis of Hypothesis
The solid waste collection and disposal practice in the two areas of
Gosa/Gwagwa was similar due to the high rate of population and scatter
houses around the areas. The collection capacity is low, not able to reach
most of the community members. 33% of the residents said YES that solid
waste management has been effective in Gosa/Gwagwa Abuja municipal
area council, while 73% said NO that solid waste management has not been
effective in the areas.

Table 4.13: Is solid waste management effective in Gosa/Gwagwa?

Frequency Percentage%
Yes 33 33.0
No 73 73.0
Total 100 100.0

4.3.8 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This study is based on the data obtained from survey questionnaires.

It covered selected areas survey of Gosa/Gwagwa in Abuja Municipality.
The data confirms that majority of the respondents generate waste without
appropriate waste management methods in place. Respondents did not
dispose their waste properly in protection of the environment; this has
adversely affected the residential environment within the study area. A close
look at the areas can be described as slum that was the reason that prompted
FCT administration to relocate the residents of the area to enhance
appropriate development. There is a need to ensure these areas attained the
minimum required quality for residential homes. In Gosa/Gwagwa and its
environs the main component of generated waste is biodegradable and the
major source is market and residential/household. The adoption of open
dumping as the predominant method of waste management, the
consequences include pollution, environmental hazard like road blockage,
accident, fire out breaks and aesthetic degradation, which were not
investigated but formed part of the consequence. This shows that there is a
cause and effects relationship between proper solid waste management and
people health conditions and economic growth. It is when solid waste are
efficiently handled, that the environment becomes pristine/friendly and

43
protected from diseases. This calls for a synergy between government,
private sector, groups, individuals and the media.

44
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter assesses the implications of the study, made suggestions

for the further study and as well recommendations based on findings of the
research.

5.2 IMPLICATION OF STUDY

1. There are enormous health implications where residents got infected

as reported by the health personnel in various degrees. Diseases such
as malaria, diarrhea, dysentery etc, where prevalent.

2. Improper arrangements of residential buildings, lack of infrastructural

facilities, building material are high cost and the residents could not
afford them to build standard houses. Therefore, their houses opened
them to environmental hazards such as collapse of buildings, flooding
and fire disaster.

3. Waste dump on roads, channels can result to blockage of waterways

and such may destroy the road by creating pot-holes along the high
way which result to motor accidents.

4. Lack of full recognition by authorities of the important role of local

declaimers in the landfill.

5. Long-term and focused awareness campaign in solid waste

management has not been implemented in Gosa/Gwagwa area.

All the above problems call for structural and institutional framework in the
area for waste management by government and all agencies concerned with
waste management.
45
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

Considering the environmental and health implications of improper

solid waste management, the following recommendations are made.

1. Urgent attention is needed in the areas for public enlightenment and

environmental health education. Residents of the areas should be
educated on the effects of improper dumping of refuse and the impact
to health.
2. Sensitization of Abuja residents on the dangers of poor solid waste
management.
3. Provision of near-by solid waste collection points with segregation
facilities to enhance easy collection and disposal of solid waste from
households.
4. Enactment of waste management laws with stiffer penalties on
offenders to ensure compliance.
5. Establishment of solid waste recycling plants to reduce the quantity of
solid wastes generated.
6. Effective monitoring of waste contractors to ensure that their
performance is up to expectation.
7. Provision of waste collection equipment place house to house for
waste storage and as well as vehicles for transporting waste to
dumpsite.
8. Provision of incinerators for conversion of solid wastes into ash.
9. Effective monitoring of monthly clean-up activities to ensure general
participation.
10.Appointment of sanitary/health inspectors for the supervision of solid
waste management at the household level in Abuja.

46
5.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES

1. The researcher recommends further study on recycling initiatives and

the practices on how the waste can be turn into wealth through
recycling.
2. The researcher was not able to do case studies on best practices in
Gosa/Gwagwa because of the constraints of funds. The researcher
therefore recommends case studies on best practices from successful
cities in Nigeria.
3. The researcher was unable to detail study the environmental impact of
flooding, desertification gaseous emissions due to financial
constraints, therefore recommends further study on the area.

5.5 CONCLUSION

The study focused on the solid waste generation and management

processes involve in Gosa/Gwagwa municipal and its environs. Emphasis
was put on the factors influencing the rate of generation, the characterization
of solid waste generation, types, composition and sources of environmental
management process from collection, storage to final disposal and as well as
the environmental problems. Data was collected from 100 respondents using
interviewer-administered questionnaires and 25 keys informant interviews.
The key informant includes household heads, health supervisors, community
heads, AEPB officials, mini-waste collectors, heads of institutions, etc. The
response rate was very high for the questionnaires as all 100 respondents,
100% were interviewed in 6weeks.

The results of the processed data have been given in tables and a description
given for each variable of study. The results aim at useful to stakeholders in
the solid waste management sector in the municipalities.

47
 REFERENCES

Adegoke OS 1989. Waste Management within the Context of Sustainable

Development. Proceedings of the Environment and Sustainable Development
in Nigeria Workshop, 25 – 26 April, Abuja Nigeria, pp. 103 – 110
.
Agunwamba 1998. Solid waste management in Nigeria problems and
issues. Environmental Management, 22(6): 849 – 856.

Federal Military Government 1988. Federal Environmental Protection Agency

Decree No. 58: A 911 – A 932.

FEPA 1998 (Federal Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. National Policy

on the Environment. Nigeria: FEPA, P. 22.

FRN (Federal Republic of Nigeria) 1991. Official Gazette 78 (42): B15 – B37.

Njoku Jude 2006. Iddo: Where human waste is dumped with
impunity. Vanguard, Monday, September 18, 2006, P. 42.

Okecha SA 2000. Pollution and Conservation of Nigeria Environment. T

Afrique International Associates Owerri Nigeria

Singh SK 1998. Solid waste management: An overview of environmental

pollution. Environmental Control Journal, I(3): 50-56.

Uwaegbulam Chinedu 2004. World is meeting goals of safe drinking water but
falling behind on sanitation, says UN. The Guardian, Monday, August 30,
2004. P. 50

Aboyade, A:2004. Potential for climate change miligation in Nigeria solid

waste disposal sector: A case study from Lagos. A thesis presented in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the Lund university International Masters
programme in Environmental science ,Sweeden.

Tchobanoglous, G; H. Theisen and S. Vigil, 1993a. Integrated solid waste

management issues. McGraw-Hill International edition, Singapore.

Kumar, S; J.K. Bhattacharyya, A.N. Vaidya T. Charkrabarti, S. Devotta and

A.B Akolkar,2009. Assessment of the status of municipal solid waste
48
management in metro cities, state capitals, class I cities and class II towns in
india: An insight. Waste manag; 29(2):883-895.

Federal Ministry of Environment Report, L.I; 2004. Integrated Waste

Management Facility Study for Abuja.

Imam, A,A. Mohammed, D.C. Wilson and R. Cheeseman, 2008. Solid waste
management in Abuja, Nigeria. Waste Manag;28:468-471.

Babayemi, J.O and K.T Danda, 2009. Evaluation of solid waste Generation,
Categories and disposal options in developing countries; A case study of
Nigeria. J. Appl. Sci. Environ.Manage;13(3):83-88

49
 QUESTIONNAIRE

I am Ukpong Mercy Eno, a student of National Open University of Nigeria

pursuing the first degree of science in environmental studies and resource
management of the university. As part of my coursework, I am expecting to
present a report towards that fulfillment. My project is on “solid waste
generation and management in Gosa/Gwagwa Abuja municipal Area
Council”. The questionnaire is therefore, needed to enable me gather
information toward this endeavor. You are therefore urged to be as impartial
as much as possible in giving your information. Responses given would be
treated with much confidentiality and for academic purposes only, Thank
you.

SECTION ONE

1. Gender: Male Female

2. Marital status: (a) Married (b) Single (c)Divorced

(d) Widow

3. Age: under 20 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59

60 and above

4. House ownership: Landlord Tenants

5. Numbers in a buildings: 1-3 4-5 6 and above

6. What is the state of building in the area? Sound minor repair

major repair dilapidated

50
7. What is your occupation? Unemployed Civil servant
self employed Business person privately employed

8. What is your income? Below 7,500 7,500-10,000

15,000-25,000 25,000-30,000 35,000-40,000
40,000 and above

9. Where do you stay in Gosa/Gwagwa? Old Karmo Angwann

shawo Shaba Idu Angwanthieve Jiwa
Tasha Saburi Kuchibena Zauba Ereke

10.How long have you stayed in Gosa/Gwagwa? Less than 1 year

1 year

1-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years over 10 years

SECTION TWO

11.Do you generate waste? Yes No

12.What are the major types or sources of waste generated? Agricultural

Household Market Institutional Open areas

13.How frequent do you gather waste? Daily 2-3 times per week
once a week once in two weeks once in month none

14.Is there garbage pile up in your area? Yes No Not sure

51
 15.Who pays for garbage collection? AEPB Yourself
landlord

16.Is the collector able to cope with garbage in your area? Yes No

17.Is there any available waste management method? Yes No

18.If the answer to question 17 above is yes, what could be the waste
management method? Burning open dumping
composting waste separation dumping in gutters and others

19.People dispose their waste indiscriminately because. No affordable

alternative proximity to residence no response
waste management authority doesn’t come

20.Distance of residential houses to dump site? Below 50m 51m-

100m above 100m

21.Diseases frequently affected by residents? Diarrhea Cholera

Malaria Typhoid Measles Dysentery

22.Are you satisfied with the waste collection services in your area? Yes
No Not sure

23.Do you know of any organization dealing with waste collection

in Gosa/Gwagwa? Yes No

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANT

How can you rate their performance of residence? Tick appropriately

Performance 1 2 3 4 5
Disposing at right dumping sites
Frequency of collection from points
Coping with volume of work
Performance during bad weather

Key: 1=bad
2=fair
52
3=good
4=very good
5=excellent

53