Abstract
Background: The use of an integrated municipal solid waste management system has been shown to be essential for improving overall compliance in solid waste management. The Municipal Council of Mbabane is the representative example of many local municipalities in Eswatini that have been facing solid waste management issues.
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the compliance in the management of solid waste in Mbabane city, Eswatini.
Methods: A quantitative study with a sample size of 247 was conducted in Mbabane city, Eswatini located in the Hhohho region. A questionnaire was administered as a method of data collection. Data analysis was performed whereby crudes odds ratios (OR) were obtained by using EPIINFO while Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) were obtained by using multivariate analysis in SPSS and 95% confidence interval was used to determine the statistical significance.
Results: The study revealed that socio-demographic factors were statistically significant in the compliance to solid waste plan and it included being in age group 19 – 30 years (AOR) = 7.17, 95% CI (1.39 – 37.00); and in age group 51 – 60 years (OR) = 0.36, 95% CI (0.14 – 0.89); being female OR= 3.03, 95% CI (1.33 – 6.93); single OR= 3.60, 95 % CI (1.92 – 6.94); semi-skilled OR= 0.23, 95% CI (0.11 – 0.48); skilled OR= 0.23, 95% CI (0.11 – 0.48); had tertiary education (OR) = 0.01, 95% CI (0.00 – 0.09); and had worked for more than 5 years in current position (AOR)= 0.11, 95% CI (0.31 – 0.37).
Household waste level was not known AOR = 7.90, 95% CI (2.21 – 28.26). Shop waste level was usually high AOR= 0.13, 95% CI (0.03 – 0.61), or moderate AOR= 10.17, 95% CI (0.03 – 0.87), but at times the level was not known OR= 6.30, 95% CI (1.46 – 27.15). Restaurant waste level was either moderate AOR= 0.14, 95% CI (0.03 – 0.58), or high AOR= 0.19, 95% CI (0.06 – 0.55), but other times it was not known OR=10.23, 95% CI (1.36 – 77.15). Hospital waste level varied between high AOR= 0.00, 95% CI (0.00 – 0.04), very high AOR= 0.18, 95% CI (0.05 – 0.67), and moderate OR= 0.11, 95% CI (0.02 – 0.56). Plastic waste level was high OR= 0.24, 95 CI (0.07 – 0.80), but occasionally the level was not known OR= 4.76, 95% CI (1.10 – 20.67). Paper waste level was rarely low AOR= 0.10, 95% CI (0.02 – 0.48), as it was mostly high AOR= 0.21, 95% CI (0.08 – 0.54). Bottle waste level was high AOR= 0.35, 95% CI (0.14 – 0.84). Metal waste level was not known OR= 3.57, 95% CI (1.33 – 9.56), and compostable waste level was also not known AOR= 5.84, 95% CI (1.11 – 30.79). Electronic waste level was not known OR= 3.18, 95% CI
vi
(1.23 – 8.23) because it was usually not done or collected AOR= 0.07, 95% CI (0.01 – 0.80), but on the instances when it was collected, it was low OR= 0.10, 95% CI (0.20 – 0.80). Construction waste level was high AOR= 0.08, 95% CI (0.02 – 0.41) when collected, but in some instances it was not done or collected AOR= 0.07, 95% CI (0.02 – 0.22).
The municipality has a solid waste database OR= 0.04, 95% CI (0.02 – 0.08). To those monitoring waste generation and collection, the municipality was coping with waste generation rate AOR = 0.09, 95% CI (0.03 – 0.28), but to those not involved in the planning and monitoring of waste collection it was not known if it was coping with the waste generation rate or not OR= 7.42, 95% CI (1.66 – 33.17). The municipality had a yearly solid waste budget OR= 0.03, 95% CI (0.02 – 0.06). The municipality reported results OR= 0.07, 95% CI (0.03 – 0.15); in some instances, it did not report the results OR= 0.03, 95% CI (0.00 – 0.28); sometimes the results were reported OR= 0.03, 95% CI (0.00 – 0.22). Door-to-door campaigning was mostly highly successful AOR= 0.03, 95% CI (0.01 – 0.15), although it did happen that at times they were unsuccessful OR= 0.03, 95% CI (0.01 – 0.22); moderately successful OR= 0.21, 95% CI (0.06 – 0.73); or not done at all OR= 0.41, 95% CI (0.19 – 0.86). Clean up campaigning was usually highly successful AOR= 0.04, 95% CI (0.01 – 0.35), although it would occasionally be moderately successful AOR= 0.01, 95% CI (0.00 – 0.08) or even unsuccessful AOR= 0.01, 95% CI (0.00 – 0.08) at times, sometimes, and sometimes. Meetings campaigning varied as they were highly unsuccessful AOR= 0.11, 95% CI (0.03 – 0.40), unsuccessful AOR= 0.04, 95% CI (0.01 – 0.31), but at times moderately successful AOR= 0.06, 95% CI (0.02 – 0.19). School level campaigning was highly successful when done OR= 0.07, 95% CI (0.01 – 0.39), but sometimes it was not done plan OR= 7.32, 95% CI (1.30 – 41.20) and at times its level of success was not known OR= 3.14, 95% CI (1.12 – 8.77). The mass communication campaigning was highly successful AOR= 0.22, 95% CI (0.07 – 0.74), but its level of success was not known AOR= 3.53, 95% CI (1.09 – 11.41) by other people.
The frequency of household waste collection was not known AOR=20.80, 95% CI (4.63 – 93.43). Shop waste was collected once a week AOR= 0.13, 95% CI (0.03 – 0.70), but in other sections or areas the frequency of shop waste collection was not known OR= 5.30, 95% CI (1.22 – 22.93). Restaurant waste was collected once a week AOR= 0.22, 95% CI (0.07 – 0.74), but in other areas the frequency of restaurant waste collection was not known OR= 3.07, 95% CI (1.03 – 9.11). Hospital waste was collected once a week AOR= 0.10, 95% CI (0.03 – 0.35), but its collection
vii
frequency was not known AOR= 4.41, 95% CI (1.12 – 16.89) to those who do not collect hospital waste. The responses of waste collection were sometimes AOR= 0.09, 95% CI (0.01 – 0.53), not collected AOR= 0.19, 95% CI (0.04 – 0.90) and collection not known AOR = 4.75, 95% CI (1.00 – 22.55), respectively. It was not known if the slaughterhouse waste was collected or not AOR= 12.15, 95% CI (3.81 – 38.72), on the other hand construction waste was not collected AOR= 0.17, 95& CI (0.06 – 0.47). Closed containers were used for waste storage AOR= 0.06, 95% CI (0.01 – 0.72), while the waste transportation times were daytime and nighttime AOR= 0.30, 95% CI (0.12 – 0.77). Brooms sufficiency did not apply to certain waste management duties. Trucks were sometimes sufficient OR= 0.34, 95% CI (0.14 – 0.83) and at times trucks sufficiency did not apply to certain waste management duties AOR= 26.24, 95% CI (7.12 – 96.64). Waste bins were sometimes sufficient AOR= 4.25, 95% CI (1.46 – 12.37). Secondary storage waste bins were not provided within the municipality limits AOR= 0.07, 95% CI (0.01 – 0.50); were sometimes movable OR= 0.03, 95% CI (0.00 – 0.32); but other storage waste bin types were not movable AOR= 7.86, 95% CI (1.68 – 36.76). Secondary storage bins were sometimes covered OR= 0.16, 95% CI (0.03 – 0.98); and in other times not covered AOR= 9.36, 95% CI (2.38 – 36.78). The waste disposal facility was distant from households AOR= 0.07, 95% CI (0.01 – 0.57); had a gate AOR= 0.07, 95% CI (0.01 – 0.57); a gatekeeper AOR= 0.07, 95% CI (0.01 – 0.57); and it was fenced AOR= 0.07, 95% CI (0.01 – 0.57). The level of public education on solid waste management was either very low OR= 4.67, 95% CI (1.52 – 14.30), or just low OR= 2.63, 95% CI (1.36 – 5.08). The level of public awareness on proper solid waste management was either very low OR= 15.64, 95% CI (2.06 – 119.04), or just low OR= 2.10, 95% CI (1.12 – 3.95). Public conformity to waste management regulations was low OR= 2.97, 95% CI (1.13 – 7.80). The waste disposal land was not known OR= 3.29, 95% CI (1.56 – 6.92). Budget amount allocated was usually low AOR= 0.01, 95% CI (0.00 – 0.13), but it would occasionally be high AOR= 0.07, 95% CI (0.01 – 0.56).
Conclusions: The study found out that in as much as there is something good being done by the Municipal Council of Mbabane, it still needs improvement and commitment, more especially the social and technical aspects. There is still a lot to be done in educating the public on proper solid waste management matters, this will as a result create public awareness on proper solid waste management which can be helpful in encouraging the public to adhere to proper solid waste management regulations.
Key words: Municipal Council of Mbabane, waste management compliance, non-compliance, solid waste management, Mbabane City, Eswatini.