THE WASTE MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM IN LOW INCOME AREAS OF

JOS, NIGERIA: THE CHALLENGES
AND WASTE REDUCTION
OPPORTUNITIES

JANET AGATI YAKUBU

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements of the University of
Brighton for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy

October 2017
ABSTRACT
An estimated 2 billion people do not have access to waste collection services, and 3
billion do not have access to controlled waste disposal. This lack of services and
infrastructure has a detrimental impact on public health and the environment with
waste being dumped or burnt in communities. With waste levels projected to double
in Less Economically Developed Countries (LEDCs) by 2025 there are significant
challenges facing municipalities who already lack the basic resources needed to
manage waste. The United Nations acknowledged the problems of poor sanitation
and waste management in the Sustainable Development Goals which sets targets to
address these challenges, including the target by 2030 to substantially reduce waste
generation through prevention, reduction, reuse and recycling.

Jos, the capital of Plateau state in Nigeria, shares the waste management challenges
facing cities in LEDCs. The population of Jos is projected to increase from 1.3
million in 2007 to 2.7 million in 2025, with much of the population living in densely
populated areas that lack basic sanitation and controlled disposal of waste.

This thesis presents the results of a detailed investigation into the current waste
management system in Jos with a focus on low income areas. Through the adoption
of mixed methods the thesis identifies how waste is currently being managed and
establishes the challenges to sustainable waste management. The existing waste
management system was found to be grossly inadequate with 64 communal
collection containers being used to collect waste for the entire city, this equates to
20,313 citizens per container. The system leads to most residents disposing of their
waste through open dumping in public space and water bodies, and open burning,
with impacts to public health and the environment. Key challenges identified include
the lack of suitable resources, political interference, poor governance, overlapping
responsibilities of agencies, lack of waste awareness amongst the public, and poor
infrastructure. 13 recommendations are presented to help develop an improved waste
management system in the study area.

Despite reduction and reuse being the priorities of the waste hierarchy there is a
paucity of research on the potential of waste prevention within LEDCs especially
low income areas. With waste levels projected to increase, waste prevention
interventions could play an important role. Following waste analysis and a review of
waste prevention initiatives adopted globally, a shortlist of options suitable for the
study area was developed. This shortlist was assessed using Ketso and SWOT
analysis facilitated in focus groups representing the waste industry and the
community. Community composting was identified as waste prevention intervention
with the most potential due to 65.2% of the waste stream in the study area being
biodegradable, and only 5.2% of the community currently composting. Benefits of
this approach would be less pressure on the waste collection system, reductions in
waste being indiscriminately dumped, increased awareness of waste issues, and
compost production that could be utilised in the community.

2
7 recommendations are presented that in the long term could help to promote waste
prevention in the study area including training of community volunteers, engagement
with community leaders, and the developmenttof holistic waste awareness
campaigns.

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. 2
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... 8
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... 10
LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................. 12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................... 19
DECLARATION ....................................................................................................... 21
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 22
1.1 DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE ............................................................. 22
1.2 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH ....................... 25
1.2.1 Waste management in LEDCs ............................................................. 25
1.2.2 The waste hierarchy and the importance of waste prevention ............. 29
1.2.3 An introduction to Jos, Plateau State ................................................... 31
1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................... 33
1.4 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE ...................................................... 36
1.4.1 Existing research on SWM in Nigeria ................................................. 36
1.4.2 Gaps and proposed contribution to knowledge .................................... 36
1.5 AN OUTLINE OF THE THESIS STRUCTURE ....................................... 38
2 A REVIEW OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN
NIGERIA ................................................................................................................... 41
2.1 BACKGROUND TO NIGERIA ................................................................. 41
2.1.1 Geography and demographics .............................................................. 41
2.1.2 Socio-economic status .......................................................................... 45
2.1.3 Governance structure in Nigeria – waste management ........................ 48
2.2 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA ............... 51
2.2.1 History of waste management in Nigeria ............................................. 51
2.2.2 Development of national waste policy ................................................. 52
2.2.3 Solid waste generation ......................................................................... 54
2.2.4 Municipal solid waste composition in Nigeria .................................... 56
2.2.5 Municipal solid waste collection.......................................................... 57
2.2.6 Municipal solid waste management options ........................................ 58
2.2.7 Impacts of waste management ............................................................. 69
2.2.8 Challenges to sustainable waste management in Nigeria .................... 77
2.3 Summary of chapter .................................................................................... 86
3 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN JOS ............................... 87
3.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 87
3.1.2 Growth in low income areas and infrastructure ................................... 89
3.1.3 Demographics of residents ................................................................... 91
3.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN JOS ............................................................ 92
3.2.1 Levels of waste generation ................................................................... 92

4
 3.2.2 Waste composition ............................................................................... 94
3.2.3 Municipal waste collection .................................................................. 94
3.2.4 Waste disposal in Jos ........................................................................... 95
3.2.5 The impacts on public health and the environment ............................. 95
3.2.6 Resource recovery ................................................................................ 96
3.2.8 Challenges to waste management in Jos .............................................. 97
3.3 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ....................................................................... 99
4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN ........................................... 100
4.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 100
4.2 RESEARCH PROCESS ............................................................................ 101
4.2.1 Nature of research .............................................................................. 101
4.2.2 Research Approach ............................................................................ 102
4.2.3 Research Strategy ............................................................................... 103
4.2.4 Pilot testing of questionnaire.............................................................. 107
4.2.5 Sampling ............................................................................................ 107
4.3 DATA COLLECTION STRATEGY ........................................................ 108
4.3.1 Overview ............................................................................................ 108
4.3.2 Background fieldwork ........................................................................ 111
4.3.3 Direct observations............................................................................. 111
4.3.4 Focus group discussions ..................................................................... 112
4.3.5 Semi structured Interviews ................................................................. 115
4.3.6 Questionnaire ..................................................................................... 118
4.3.7 Waste composition analysis ............................................................... 121
4.3.8 Identifying waste prevention opportunities........................................ 124
4.3.9 Secondary data ................................................................................... 127
4.4 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 128
4.4.1 Thematic analysis ............................................................................... 128
4.4.2 Statistical analysis .............................................................................. 129
4.5 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ............................................................ 129
4.6 ETHICAL ISSUES.................................................................................... 131
4.7 SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 131
5 RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 132
5.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 132
5.2 NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA........... 133
5.2.1 Housing .............................................................................................. 134
5.2.2 Access to utilities and sanitation ........................................................ 136
5.2.3 Demographics of residents ................................................................. 137
5.3 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE IN JOS ..................... 139
5.3.1 Role and responsibility of stakeholders ............................................. 139
5.4 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN LOW INCOME AREAS of jos .. 144
5.4.1 Data on the levels of waste generation ............................................... 144
5.4.2 Funding of the waste management service ........................................ 145
5.4.3 Storage of waste ................................................................................. 145

5
 5.4.4 Waste collection in Jos ....................................................................... 147
5.4.5 Waste management behaviour of households in Jenta and Tudun Wada
158
5.4.6 Waste disposal.................................................................................... 160
5.4.7 Impacts of the waste management system ......................................... 162
5.4.8 Environmental Sanitation Day and enforcement of environmental
regulations ........................................................................................................ 164
5.4.9 Reuse and recycling activity in Jos .................................................... 165
5.4.10 Recommendations from stakeholders to improve the waste
management system ......................................................................................... 176
5.5 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER ..................................................................... 177
6 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................. 178
6.1 CHALLENGES TO SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT IN LOW
INCOME AREAS ................................................................................................ 178
6.1.1 Role of government ............................................................................ 179
6.1.2 Solid waste management practices in low income areas of Jos ......... 184
6.1.3 Resource allocation ............................................................................ 186
6.1.4 Attitude of the public towards waste.................................................. 193
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 195
6.2.1 Changes to the political structure ....................................................... 195
6.2.2 Resourcing of the waste management system .................................... 196
6.2.3 Education and engagement ................................................................ 199
6.3 LIMITATIONS TO THE RESEARCH IN PARTA ................................. 201
6.4 SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 202
PART B .................................................................................................................... 203
7 WASTE PREVENTION .................................................................................. 203
7.1 WASTE PREVENTION IN CONTEXT .................................................. 203
7.2 WASTE COMPOSITION ANALYSIS .................................................... 203
7.2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 203
7.2.2 Results and analysis ........................................................................... 204
7.2.3 Discussion .......................................................................................... 211
7.3 SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 218
8 WASTE PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES .................................................. 219
8.1 AN OVERVIEW OF HOUSEHOLD WASTE PREVENTION .............. 219
8.2 IDENTIFICATION OF WASTE REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES ...... 220
8.2.1 Development of a longlist of waste prevention initiatives ................. 220
8.2.2 Focus groups ...................................................................................... 235
8.2.3 Results ................................................................................................ 236
8.3 Discussion ................................................................................................. 245
8.3.1 Home and Community composting ................................................... 245
8.3.2 Reusable bags ..................................................................................... 248
8.3.3 Eco-Schools programme .................................................................... 248

6
 8.3.4 Public awareness campaigns on waste prevention ............................. 250
8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 251
8.5 LIMITATIONS TO THE RESEARCH IN PART B ................................ 254
8.6 SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 255
9 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 256
9.1 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE .................................................... 256
9.2 RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE WORK ...................................... 258
REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 260

7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Sources, producers, and types of solid waste ................................................ 24
Table 2 World Bank classification of countries ......................................................... 25
Table 3 Waste generation rate per capita (kg/capita/day) by income level ............... 26
Table 4 Summary of methods used in this research to achieve set objectives........... 35
Table 5 A comparison of Nigeria’s characteristics with other SSA countries ........... 44
Table 6 Tiers of Government and their Functions ..................................................... 49
Table 7 Statutory regulations guiding solid waste management in Nigeria .............. 53
Table 8 Estimates of future waste generation figures ................................................ 55
Table 9 Waste generation in urban centres in Nigeria ............................................... 56
Table 10 Diseases in Nigeria linked with poor waste management practice ............. 72
Table 11 Identified sustainable solid waste management challenges in Nigeria ....... 78
Table 12 Summary of methods used to collect data, and the objectives achieved .. 110
Table 13 Summary of focus group discussions conducted for phase 2 of this research
.................................................................................................................................. 113
Table 14 Categories used for waste composition based on Bichi & Amatobi (2013)
.................................................................................................................................. 124
Table 15 Documents recommended to researcher during interviews ...................... 127
Table 16 Methods used for data collection .............................................................. 132
Table 17 Household size distribution based on questionnaire returns ..................... 137
Table 18 Educational level of residents based on questionnaire returns ................. 138
Table 19 Profession of residents based on questionnaire returns ............................ 138
Table 20 Households monthly income based on questionnaire returns ................... 138
Table 21 Waste container used based on questionnaire returns ............................... 146
Table 22 Quality of waste collection service ........................................................... 151
Table 23 Municipal waste collection and transportation vehicles owned by PEPSA
.................................................................................................................................. 152
Table 24 Responses to the question of the main way the resident disposes of waste
.................................................................................................................................. 158
Table 25 Questionnaire responses to the reason why they manage waste in the
manner stated ........................................................................................................... 159
Table 26 Responses to questions on recycling behaviour........................................ 166
Table 27 Responses to questions on reuse behaviour .............................................. 166
Table 28 Information on waste materials being reused or recycled in Jos based on
data collected ............................................................................................................ 168
Table 29 Response to the question on composting .................................................. 175
Table 30 Questionnaire responses on interventions to improve waste management in
the community.......................................................................................................... 176
Table 31 Questionnaire responses on willingness to pay for waste collection service
.................................................................................................................................. 177
Table 32 Overall composition of waste sampled by weight and percentage ........... 204
Table 33 Maximum, minimum, mean and median quantities of waste components –
kg/household/week................................................................................................... 208

8
Table 34 Household size and mean waste generation per capita per day ................ 214
Table 35 Income and mean waste generation .......................................................... 216
Table 36 List of waste prevention initiatives ........................................................... 222

9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 A typical low income residential area in Jos, Nigeria ................................. 28
Figure 2 Waste Hierarchy .......................................................................................... 29
Figure 3 Location of Jos, Plateau State in Nigeria ..................................................... 32
Figure 4 Map of Africa showing Sub Saharan Africa (SSA) and Nigeria ................. 41
Figure 5 The governance structure of Nigeria and roles in waste management ........ 50
Figure 6 Waste stream composition from different cities in Nigeria by weight ........ 57
Figure 7 Waste collection vehicles being used in most Nigerian states .................... 58
Figure 8 Controlled and uncontrolled management methods .................................... 59
Figure 9 Metals separated from waste at a dumpsite, Rukuba road Jos, Nigeria ...... 64
Figure 10 A truck of metal scraps at Owode Onirin, Ikorodu Lagos ......................... 65
Figure 11 Waste dumped at Ariaria Market, Aba, Nigeria ........................................ 67
Figure 12 Waste disposed in a stream in Delta, Nigeria ............................................ 67
Figure 13 Waste disposed in drainage channels at Mararaba, Abuja, Nigeria .......... 67
Figure 14 Burning household wastes at a courtyard in Aba, Nigeria ........................ 69
Figure 15 Open burning of waste at a dumpsite ........................................................ 69
Figure 16 Map of Plateau State highlighting the study area (Jos North and Jos South)
.................................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 17 Population trends in Jos ............................................................................. 88
Figure 18 Map of low income areas and the study area in Jos .................................. 89
Figure 19 Nature of houses in Jenta ........................................................................... 91
Figure 20 Estimated quantity of waste generated in Jos from 1982 to 2010 ............. 93
Figure 21 Heaps of ash waste on a farm in Jos .......................................................... 97
Figure 22 The Research Onion ................................................................................ 101
Figure 23 Design of research strategy and data collection ...................................... 109
Figure 24 Adoption of the Ketso approach for the focus group discussion ............. 125
Figure 25 Map of low income areas in Jos including the study area ....................... 133
Figure 26 A crowded informal settlements in Jenta, Jos, Nigeria ........................... 134
Figure 27 Image showing the unplanned nature of houses in Tudun Wada, Jos,
Nigeria ...................................................................................................................... 134
Figure 28 Housing in close proximity in Jenta, Jos, Nigeria ................................... 135
Figure 29 Stream water in Tudun Wada used for washing and drinking................. 136
Figure 30 Stray pig eating on waste dumped in the community by stream ............. 136
Figure 31 Water in jerry cans sold by water vendors in Jenta ................................. 137
Figure 32 Ad hoc male staff shovelling waste into an open truck at Jishe, Jos ....... 142
Figure 33 Ad hoc male staff clearing waste from open dumps on the street ........... 142
Figure 34 Examples of containers used for waste storage ....................................... 146
Figure 35 Distribution of public waste containers in the four zones of Jos and the
location of dumpsites in use at the time of fieldwork .............................................. 148

10
Figure 36 Example of a public waste container filled to capacity at Tafawa Balewa
Street ........................................................................................................................ 149
Figure 37 Uncollected waste around public waste containers in Jos ....................... 150
Figure 38 Waste dumped around Tudun Wada market area (left) and heaps of waste
at a roadside in Jenta (right) ..................................................................................... 150
Figure 39 A public waste container waiting to be repaired ..................................... 155
Figure 40 Example of the smaller waste and sidewalk bins being used in Jos ........ 156
Figure 41 Burning of waste at Guratop open dumpsite is common practice in Jos . 161
Figure 42 An open dumpsite located in Kwang – note the close proximity of housing
.................................................................................................................................. 161
Figure 43 Waste dumped on the banks of the Dilimi River..................................... 163
Figure 44 Examples of reuse and recycling activity in Jos ...................................... 171
Figure 45 Examples of products made in Jos using scrap aluminium ..................... 173
Figure 46 Identified challenges to SWM in low income areas of Jos ...................... 178
Figure 47 A broken down truck undergoing repair .................................................. 188
Figure 48 A stack of wheeled bins at the Ministry of Environment ........................ 190
Figure 49 Overall waste composition of the study area by weight .......................... 205
Figure 50 Examples of food waste sampled mainly stems and peelings ................. 205
Figure 51 Variation in food waste levels of households sampled (in relation to total
waste for household) – kg/household/week ............................................................. 206
Figure 52 Box plots of maximum, minimum and median waste components sampled
.................................................................................................................................. 209
Figure 53 Composition for each household sampled based on biodegradable,
recyclable and residual waste components .............................................................. 210
Figure 54 Examples of plastics littering the study area ........................................... 213
Figure 55 Per capita waste generation rate vs household size ................................. 215
Figure 56 Per capita waste generation rate and household income levels ............... 216
Figure 57 SWOT feedback on home composting from the focus groups ................ 236
Figure 58 SWOT feedback on community composting from the focus groups ...... 239
Figure 59 SWOT feedback on reusable bags from the focus groups ....................... 241
Figure 60 SWOT feedback on the Eco-Schools programme from the focus groups
.................................................................................................................................. 242
Figure 61 SWOT feedback on public awareness campaigns from the focus groups
.................................................................................................................................. 244

11
LIST OF ACRONYMS

AEPB Abuja Environmental Protection Board

AFR Africa

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ALCO Abidjan Lagos Transport Corridor

APO Asian Productivity Organization

ARFs Advanced Recycling Fees

AYU African Youth Union

BHCC Brighton and Hove County Council

CBOs Community Based Organizations

CDAs Community Development Associations

C&D Construction and Demolition waste

CDCP Centre for Disease Control and Prevention

CDPH California Department of Public Health

CECOD Conservation Efforts for Community Development

CERAG Chintan Environmental Research Action Group

CFR Case Fertility Rate

C&I Commercial and Industrial waste

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CIWEM Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental

Management

CIWM Chartered Institution of Wastes Management

CISP Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply

COPD Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

CPE Centre for People and Environment

CPHEEO Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering

Organisation

12
CSL Cygnet Services Limited

CUG Clean up Ghana

DCSF Department for Children, Schools and Families

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DETR Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

DIGs Deputy Inspector General of police

DLA Direct Labour Agency

DOE Department of Energy

DOE Department of Environment

EAP East Asia and the Pacific

EC European Commission

ECA East and Central Asia

ECN European Compost Network

ECWA Evangelical Church Winning All

EEA European Economic Agency

EEE Electrical and Electronic Equipment

EFTA European Free Trade Association

EFInA Enhancing Financial Innovation and Access

EHOs Environmental Health Officers

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ELRI Environmental Law Research Institute

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPR Extended Producer Responsibility

ERP Environmental Resource Planning

ESDO Environment and Social Development Organisation

EU European Union

EWWR European Week for Waste Reduction

13
FCT Federal Capital Territory

FEC Federal Executive Council

FEE Foundation for Environmental Education

FEPA Federal Environmental Protection Agency

FGN Federal Government of Nigeria

FMCG Fast Moving Consumer Goods

FME Federal Ministry of Environment

FMH Federal Ministry of Health

FRN Federal Republic of Nigeria

GCOML Grand Cereal and Oil Mill Limited

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GHG Green House Gases

GIS Geographic Information System

GJMP Greater Jos Master Plan

GM General Manager

GNI Gross National Income

GNP Gross National Product

GRA Government Reserve Area

HCV Hepatitis C Virus

HDI Human Development Index

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus

HRM Human Resources Management

IETC International Environmental Technology Centre

IGP Inspector General of Police

ILO International Labour Organization

IOM International Organization for Migration

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

14
ISR Informal Sector Recycling

ISSWM Integrated Sustainable Solid waste Management

JUSUN Judicial Staff Union of Nigeria

JUTH Jos University Teaching Hospital

KOEE Kenya Organization for Environmental Education

JMDB Jos Metropolitan Development Board

LAC Latin America and the Caribbean

LAWMA Lagos State Waste Management Authority

LEDC Less Economically Developing Country

LGA Local Government Area

MCC Mennonite Central Committee

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MEDC More Economically Developed Country

MENA Middle East and North Africa

MRF Material Recovery Facility

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

MSWM Municipal Solid Waste Management

NBS National Bureau of Statistics

NA Native Authority

NAFDAC National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and

Control

NASWDEN National Association of Scrap and Waste Dealers Employers

of Nigeria

NCC Norfolk County Council

NDHS Nigerian Demographic and Health Survey

NEP National Environmental Protection

NESREA National Environmental Standards & Regulations

Enforcement Agency

15
NEST Nigerian Environmental Study Action Team

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NHP National Housing Policy

NIMBY Not-In-My-Back-Yard

NIPSS National Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies

NIUA National Institute of Urban Affairs

NLWA North London Waste Authority

NMC Nigerian Mining Corporation

NOSDRA National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency

NP Nigerian Police

NPC National Population Commission

NSIWC National Salaries, Income and Wages Commission

NYC New York City

NYCCC New York City Community Composting

NYCCP New York Care Coordination Program

OCHA Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PAHO Pan American Health Organization

PBB Polybrominated Biphenyls

PBDEs Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PCDD Polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins

PCDF Polychlorinated dibenzofurans

PEPSA Plateau State Environmental Protection and Sanitation Agency

PGMs Platinum Group Metals

PLHA Plateau House of Assembly

16
PLSG Plateau State Government

POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants

PPP Polluters Pays Principle

PPP Public Private Partnership

PRS Planning Research and Statistics

PSCDB Plateau State Capital Development Board

PSIRS Plateau State Internal Revenue Service

PSP Private Sector Participation

PSWMA Plateau State Waste Management Agency

PSSH Plateau State Specialist Hospital

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SEPA Scottish Environmental Protection Agency

SEPA State Environmental Protection Agency

SG State Government

SES Socio-Economic-Status

SNV Stichting Nederlandse Vrijwilligers

SRI Stanford Research Institute

SSA Sub Saharan Africa

SWDS Solid Waste Disposal Service

SWM Solid Waste Management

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats

TAM Team Action Management

UN United Nations

UNAIDS United Nations Programme on Aids

UNCHS United Nations Centre for Human Settlements

UNDESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

17
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization

UNFPA United Nations Population Fund

UN-HABITAT United Nations Human Settlement Programme

UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund

UNIJOS University of Jos

URP Urban and Regional Planning

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGAO United States Government Accountability Office

WB World Bank

WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

WESP World Economic Situation and Prospects

WESSA Wildlife and Environmental Society of South Africa

WFD Waste Framework Directive

WFP World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organization

WRAP Waste and Resources Action Programme

WREP Waste and Resources Evidence Programme

WtE Waste to Energy

18
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated in memory of my late parents who inspired and invested in
my education. They passed away during this PhD process. My father retired Pastor
James Ambadu Agati passed away on the 14th day of August 2014, and Mrs
Christiana Angyalku Agati on the 25th day of December 2015. Your labour of love,
support and sacrifice shall never be forgotten. I remain deeply indebted to both of
you.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This thesis has been produced with the support, assistance, advice and
encouragement of many people, all of whom I would like to thank very much.

First and foremost, I would like to sincerely appreciate my lead supervisor, Dr Ryan
Woodard for his invaluable support, guidance, patience and encouragement
throughout this programme. Your questioning stance for more details made me feel
you were too hard on me, however the result of that is this beautiful well-articulated
research thesis which I proudly own. Thank you for imparting this knowledge on me.

Also special thanks go to my third supervisor Dr Emmanuel Aboagye-Nimo, for his

assistance with the research methodology, your expertise in this area sharpened my
knowledge on why I was doing what I was doing. Thank you very much for your
support and encouragement especially during moments of my anxiety.

I acknowledge the contribution of Dr Kassim Gidado my second supervisor at the

beginning of this research process. Thank you for the useful suggestions you made
towards the research proposal.

I am also grateful to staff of the Doctoral College, among who are Professor Neil
Ravenscroft, Dr Susan Sandeman, Sarah Longstaff and Rose Taylor for being pillars
of support during this research process. My gratitude also goes out to Professor Huw
Taylor, Dr Poorang Piroozfar, Dr Niall Burnside and other staff of the School of
Environment and Technology for their encouragement and contributions in one way
or the other.

To my sponsors Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund) and the University of Jos,
without you this PhD process would have been impossible.

To the numerous friends I have made on this research programme, some of who have
graduated and others still around, especially Adeni, Sabrina, Laura, Samantha,
Nagham, Lujain, Melina, Bahar, Adora, Richard, Yahya, Oday, Isa, Musa, Ahmad,
Ahmed, Amir, Celis, Peshwar, Mohammed, Grace, Carmy, Yinka and Joy. You all
made this journey memorable.

19
To my best friends back home in Nigeria, Mary, Regina, Evelyn, Flora, Elizabeth,
Thomas, Dibal, Abu and Cecilia, thank you for keeping in touch even while I was
away.

To my field assistants Sani, Yenne, Ayuba and Caleb, thank you for being there for
me.

To my siblings, aunties, uncles, cousins, nephews, nieces and in-laws’ thank you for
keeping the family bond intact, and for your prayers and encouragement.

Finally, special thanks to my lovely husband Ayuba Dabot Yakubu, and children
Pankyes, Tapji, Retshak and Dyelshak. Thank you for your everlasting love and
belief in me. If not for your prayers and encouragement this success story would not
have been realized. I could not have done this without you all. Thank you.

20
DECLARATION
I declare that the research contained in this thesis, unless otherwise formally
indicated within the text, is the original work of the author. The thesis has not been
previously submitted to this or any other university for a degree, and does not
incorporate any material already submitted for a degree.

Signed

Dated 4th October 2017

21
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE
Solid waste has many definitions, for instance, the European Union defined waste as
“Any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to
discard” (Council Directive 2008/98/EC). In Nigeria, there is no formal government
definition of waste however, several academics have proposed definitions from a
Nigerian perspective. Oyedele (2009) defines solid waste as leftovers arising from
human, animal or plant activities that are discarded as useless and not having any
consumer value. Babayemi & Dauda (2009) define solid waste as any useless,
unwanted, non-liquid, and non-gaseous material that results from human and animal
activity. Festus & Omoboye (2015) state that wastes are materials or substances that
are either spoiled, rejected or no longer required for their original purpose. This
implies that any surplus unwanted material that is worn out, broken or contaminated
is waste. However, the Nigerian Environmental Society (Undated) defines waste as
“any material that lacks utility or an object or substance that the owner or generator
voluntarily or involuntarily relinquishes ownership”. The researcher therefore
adopts the definition by the Nigerian Environmental Society1.

Given the level of scavenging on waste heaps in Nigeria for materials to be reused or
sold, it can be argued if solid waste is indeed useless and unwanted material (Butu &
Mshelia, 2014): waste is very much a resource (Sridhar & Hammed, 2014). In
Nigeria, terms such as garbage, trash, refuse, and rubbish are commonly used to
describe solid waste. Wastes are usually classified as gaseous, liquid, or solid-
wastes, depending on their form. This research is concerned with solid waste.

Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata (2012) categorised the sources of solid waste as residential,
industrial, commercial, institutional, construction and demolition (C&D), medical,
agricultural and other wastes. Table 1 shows the sources of waste, the waste
producers and the types of material within each category. Residential waste is waste
generated from households, and as shown in Table 1 in its non-separated form, it
encompasses a heterogeneous mix of materials including food waste, paper,
cardboard, plastics, textiles, glass, metals, ash, household hazardous wastes and e-
waste. It forms part of municipal solid waste which is defined by some Nigerian
scholars as all waste collected by private or public authorities from households,
industry (non-hazardous), commerce, and institutional establishments (including
hospitals), and street sweepings (Igoni et al. 2007; Ogwueleka, 2009). In this
research, materials from households which fall within the solid-waste category form
the focal point of this study. It is important to note that in Nigeria waste from small

1
The Nigerian Environmental Society (NES) is a professional, non-profit oriented, non-governmental
body which is committed to advocacy and actions towards environmental protection, sustainable
environmental development and promotion of environmental professionalism within Nigeria and in
the global arena. It is recognized as the Premier Environmental Society and watchdog of the
environment in Nigeria.

22
business or micro enterprises may end up in the waste stream alongside household
waste.

Data is not published by the Nigerian government on the national levels and
breakdown of waste arisings, however studies have been completed to understand
local levels and sources of waste. For example, a review by Kayode & Omole (2011)
equated levels for Ibadan, Nabegu (2013) for Kano, and Okey et al. (2013) for Uyo.
Table 1 includes a breakdown of minimum and maximum levels for each waste
stream based on a review of these studies. There is inconsistency in these studies
with some overlap in waste streams and definitions. For Nigeria, data on agricultural
waste and C&D in particular is limited.

23
Table 1 Sources, producers, and types of solid waste
Source Typical producers Types of material % of waste in
Nigeria
Min. Max.
Residential Single and multifamily dwellings Food, paper, cardboard, plastics, textiles, leather, yard waste, 49.0 78.9
wood, glass, metals, ash, bulky items, household hazardous
wastes (e.g. gas tanks, waste containing mercury, motor oil),
e-waste (e.g. computers, phones)
Industrial Light/heavy manufacturing, Packaging, food wastes, hazardous wastes, ashes, special 2.3 16.1
fabrication, power/ chemical plants wastes
Commercial Stores, hotels, restaurants, markets, Paper, cardboard, plastics, wood, food wastes, glass, metals, 14.4 28.3
office buildings hazardous wastes, e-wastes
Institutional Schools, hospitals (non-medical Similar to commercial 5.8
waste), prisons, government buildings
Construction New construction sites, road repairs, Wood, steel, concrete, dirt, bricks, tiles Low awareness of
and demolition renovation sites, demolition C&D waste in
(C&D waste) Nigeria
Medical waste Hospitals, nursing homes, clinics Infectious wastes (e.g. bandages, gloves, cultures, swabs, In many parts of
blood and body fluids), hazardous wastes (e.g. sharps, Nigeria still
instruments, chemicals), radioactive waste from cancer collected together
therapies, pharmaceutical waste with MSW
Agricultural Crops, orchards, vineyards, dairies, Spoiled food waste, agricultural waste (e.g. rice husks, Low awareness of
farms cotton stalks, coconut shells, coffee waste), hazardous agricultural waste
wastes (e.g. pesticides) in Nigeria
Other wastes Street cleaning, landscaping, parks, Wide range of materials depending on source 0.3 1.9
beaches, wastewater treatment plants
Source: Collated from Adewumi et al. (2005); Fakere et al. (2012); Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata (2012); Kayode & Omole (2011); Nabegu
(2013); Obi et al. (2016); Okey et al. (2013); Ukoje, (2011); Wodele et al. (2016); Wokekoro (2007)

24
1.2 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT OF THE
RESEARCH
1.2.1 Waste management in LEDCs
Solid Waste Management (SWM) has been recognized as one of the biggest
challenges facing municipal authorities across the world, as a result of population
growth, urbanization, and poverty (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012; Tacoli, 2012;
United Nations (UN), 2013; UNDP (United Nations Development Programme),
2012a). Less Economically Developing Countries (LEDCs), in general, have a
higher population-growth rate of 2.4% per year compared to 0.8% in More
Economically Developing Countries (MEDCs) (UNDP, 2011). Since 2007 more
than half of the world’s population has been living in urban centres (Tacoli, 2012;
UNDP, 2012) and the figure is expected to exceed 70% by 2050 (UN, 2013). The
UNDP (2012) estimate that by 2050 urban dwellers will account for 86% of the
population in the MEDCs, and 64% in LEDCs. The growth of population in urban
areas of LEDCs is a result of rural-to-urban migration with people seeking
employment opportunities and a higher standard of living. In addition, people seek
better medical facilities which mean a lower infant mortality rate (UNDP, 2011).

The criterion typically used to categorise countries based on their economic status
are Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 2, Gross National Product (GNP) 3, Gross
National Income (GNI) 4, level of industrialization, Human Development Index
(HDI) 5, level of infrastructure and general standard of living (UN, 2014). The World
Bank has classified countries as high-income, upper middle income, lower middle
income and low-income based on GNI (see Table 2).

Table 2 World Bank classification of countries

Country income GNI per capita Examples of countries in
division the income group
Low income countries <US$1,025 (£790) 6 Benin, Chad, Mali, Niger,
Uganda, Zimbabwe
Lower middle income US$1,026 - US$4,035 Cameroon, Ghana, India,
countries (£790- £3,109) Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan,
Upper middle income US$4,036 - US$12,475 Brazil, China, Iraq, Libya,
countries (£3,110 - £9,614) South Africa, Turkey
High income countries >US$12,476 (£9,615) Australia, Canada, France,
Japan, UK, USA
Source: World Bank (2016)

2
GDP - the total value of goods and services produced by a country in a year.
3
GNP - the total economic output of a country, including earnings from foreign investments.
4
GNI - GDP plus net property income from abroad
5
HDI - is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, which
are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development. It was developed by the United
Nations as a metric to measure the social and economic development levels of countries.
6
Based on the exchange rate of $1.00=£0.78 April 2017 derived from xe.com. This exchange rate is
used throughout the thesis.

25
MEDCs, also referred to as developed or industrialized countries are sovereign states
that have a highly developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure
relative to other less industrialized nations. The World Bank (2016) defines MEDCs
as countries with a GNI of over £9,615 per capita. Examples of MEDC are Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan United Kingdom and United States of America.

The World Bank (2010) classifies all low and lower middle-income countries as
LEDCs but states that the use of the term is for convenience, it is not suggesting that
all economies in the group are experiencing comparable development. Classification
by income also does not necessarily reflect development status however, in general,
LEDCs are relatively poor countries that have a higher birth rate, higher infant
mortality rate, higher death rate, lower life expectancy and a lower literacy rate
compared to MEDCs (Revision World, 2017). Sullivan & Sheffrin (2003) suggest
that LEDCs are nations with an underdeveloped industrial base and a low Human
Development Index relative to other countries.

This study is focused on a lower middle income country, Nigeria, and other
examples of countries in this income group include Bangladesh, Cameroon, Ghana,
India and Pakistan. Lower middle income countries have an average life expectancy
of 67.3 years, GNI per capita of between US$1,026 (£790) - US$4,035 (£3,109), and
a combined total population of 2.9 billion (World Bank, 2015).

Generally high economic development and high rates of urbanization result in larger
amounts of waste being produced, as such MEDCs generate more waste than
LEDCs. Table 3 displays the waste generation per capita by income level, indicating
the average value and the lower and upper boundary for each income category.
Hornweg & Bhada Tata (2012) observed that high-income countries produce 2.1 kg
per capita per day compared to 0.79 kg in lower middle, and 0.60 kg in lower income
countries.

Table 3 Waste generation rate per capita (kg/capita/day) by income level

Income level kg/capita/day Waste
Lower Upper Average collection
boundary boundary rates
High 0.70 14.0 2.1 98%
Upper middle 0.11 5.5 1.2 85%
Lower middle 0.16 5.3 0.79 68%
Lower 0.09 4.3 0.60 43%
Source: Hornweg & Bhada Tata (2012)

26
Global municipal solid waste generation levels were an estimated 1.3 billion tonnes
in 2012, and as the income level and rate of urbanization increases in LEDCs, global
levels are expected to increase to approximately 2.2 billion tonnes by 2025
(Hornweg & Bhada Tata, 2012). The implication of this is that the cost of SWM will
globally increase from £131.5 to £240.3 billion over this period. The projected
increases in waste costs would be greater than five times for lower income countries,
and four times for lower middle income countries like Nigeria.

Waste collection rates vary depending on the income of a country and also political
will. As shown in Table 3 lower income countries have an estimated 43% of their
waste collected compared to 98% in high income countries. Within LEDCs there is a
variation in waste management systems, with the affluent areas receiving developed
services while in the more deprived areas waste services can be non-existent. UN-
HABITAT (2010) states that currently waste management in LEDCs is inadequate
and that challenges will increase because of competing resource and economic
demands and limited availability of disposal sites especially in the urban centres.

A number of studies have been undertaken in LEDCs highlighting the serious solid
waste management (SWM) challenges being faced including the work of Aliu et al.
(2014), Guerrero et al. (2013), Harir et al. (2015), Henry et al. (2006), Khatib (2011),
Njoku et al. (2015), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2013), and
Wilson et al. (2012). Identified challenges from literature include increasing waste
generation, inadequate waste collection, improper waste disposal, lack of legislation,
lack of finance, lack of organisational leadership, perception that the service should
be provided for free, and unskilled workers. Other challenges include increasing
population, rapid urbanization, industrialization, economic development and lack of
involvement of householders.

These challenges have resulted in solid waste being managed poorly, leading to
waste being dumped openly in streets, streams, and open burning, with consequent
adverse health, social and environmental effects on society (Butu et al. 2013).
UNEP & Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) (2011) has
reported on the loss of lives, spread of diseases and flooding as a consequence of
poor waste management. Hardoy et al. (1993: p.4) describe LEDC urban
environments as “among the most health and life threatening of all human
environments”. UNEP (2015) has warned that this global problem has to be handled
properly otherwise it is a danger to public health and the environment. It emphasized
that it is an issue related directly to the way society manufactures and consumes
goods, and it concerns everyone.

Nigeria is the focus of this research and it shares in the chronic waste management
problems being faced by other LEDCs. It has an estimated population of over 183
million people (World Bank, 2015), and with a growth rate of 2.8% per annum, the
population will rise to 239.8 million by 2025. The current population of Nigeria is
49.9% urban and 50.1% rural, and by 2025 it is expected to rise to 52% urban and

27
48% rural at a growth rate of 3.5% per annum (United Nations Department of
Economic & Social Affairs (UNDESA), 2014). Rafei & Tabary (2014) placed
Nigeria as having the 9th largest urban population in the world, and also the highest
urban population in Africa. This growth of urban population has led to the
development of informal settlements (Kayode & Omole, 2011). UN Habitat (2013)
define informal settlements as residential areas with no land security, and usually
lack basic sanitation services and city infrastructure, with houses not complying with
current planning and building regulations, and often situated in physically and
environmentally unfavourable areas. The majority of residents are low income
households, and henceforth in this thesis these settlements are referred to as low
income areas. Jos is the case study for this research and almost half of the urban
population in Jos live in low income areas (Ibrahim, 2015). Figure 1 shows a typical
example of such an area in Jos.

Figure 1 A typical low income residential area in Jos, Nigeria

Source: Moore (2006)

The World Bank (2014) reported that Nigeria is in acute poverty, with the per capita
national poverty rate placed at 33.1%. It ranked Nigeria 3rd on World Poverty Index
after India and China respectively. Those who fall under the poverty line, as defined
by the World Bank, earn less than $1.25 (0.96 GBP) per day. The report also stated
that 7% of 1.2 billion people living below the poverty line worldwide are Nigerians.
The National Housing Policy (2006) estimated that approximately 80% of the
population of Nigeria is classified as low income, and receive inadequate solid waste
management services.

28
It is estimated that 0.49 kg of waste is generated per capita per day in Nigeria with
households accounting for about 90% of the municipal solid waste generated
(Solomon, 2009). The increasing population of low income areas coincides with
subsequent increases in municipal solid waste generation (Hoornweg & Bhada Tata,
2012). The total municipal solid waste generated in urban areas in Nigeria was
estimated to be 40,959 tonnes per day in 2012, and by 2025 it is estimated it will rise
to 101,307 tonnes per day (Hoornweg & Bhada Tata, 2012). According to Aliyu &
Amadu, 2017) Nigeria faces many challenges in meeting the needs of the growing
urban population including provision of infrastructure, employment, as well as basic
services such as health care and solid waste management. Less than 50% of solid
waste is collected in Nigeria and only 5% is recycled (Ibrahim, 2015). Inadequate
access to solid waste management contributes towards illnesses such as diarrhoea,
dysentery and typhoid. Literature indicates that much attention has been given to
waste management problems in Nigeria (Uwadiegwu & Chukwu 2013), but
household waste management in low income areas is one of its greatest challenges.

Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata’s (2012) prediction on the global waste increases by 2025
is concerning, and with the rising population, rapid urbanization, increasing waste
levels, and already limited infrastructure, LEDCs like Nigeria face increasing
challenges in managing their waste (Abila & Kantola, 2013). These challenges could
be addressed through the introduction of sustainable waste management practices
based on the waste hierarchy with greater emphasis on waste prevention.

1.2.2 The waste hierarchy and the importance of waste prevention

The waste hierarchy (see Figure 2) is used worldwide as the best option for
managing waste based on the principles of sustainability (UNEP, 2011).

Figure 2 Waste Hierarchy

Source: Adapted from Council Directive 2008/98/EC 2008
29
UNEP (2013) suggest that the waste hierarchy is capable of identifying the most
resource-efficient, long term move towards sustainable waste management.

Waste reduction is the priority of the waste hierarchy, and it means reducing the
amount of waste being generated (CIPS, 2007). It involves governments,
manufacturers, retailers and consumers working together to reduce waste at source,
since waste that is not produced does not attract any management costs. For instance,
government could introduce legislation to encourage the reuse of products such as a
charge on single use plastic bags. Manufacturers could redesign their products
thereby reducing the amount of packaging used, or longer lasting products that could
be more easily repaired. Consumers could purchase products with the least amount
of packaging and could be less wasteful by purchasing only items that they really
need, or buying products that are more durable and repairable. All these could help
in reducing the quantity of waste being generated, thereby conserving resources for
future generations and contributing to a cleaner environment.

Re-use means using materials, products or items over and over again for the same or
different function (New York City, NYC, 2017). For example, containers for food or
drinks, such as glass jars and bottles, could be reused to store food. In LEDCs plastic
drums or jerry cans are often reused to store water in homes for kitchen and laundry
use. Other examples include giving unwanted clothes to those who need them, and
using cloth nappies instead of disposable nappies.

Recycling implies the use of waste materials to produce new products (Waste
Management Resources, WMR, 2009). This can include dry recyclables such as
plastics, glass and metals and also processing organic waste to produce compost to
be used on farms and gardens. Recovery refers to recovering energy from waste.
This could be through biological processes such as anaerobic digestion, or thermal
processes such as energy from waste plants. The least sustainable option is sending
waste to landfill.

In the context of this research waste prevention encompasses reduction at source and
reuse, the top two tiers of the waste hierarchy. It includes home and community
composting since it reduces the amount of waste generated that needs to be collected
by the municipality. Home composting as well as community composting according
to Wilson (2005) would eventually be seen as a waste prevention strategy, it has
historically been placed on the same tier as recycling.

In global terms, particularly in MEDCs, managing waste has traditionally focused on

disposal rather than options higher up the hierarchy. However within the past few
decades there has been increasing focus on recycling and now finally the importance
of prevention is slowly being realised. Moving waste management up the waste
hierarchy is an important way of maximising value from resources and generating
more jobs, whilst lessening the burdens on the environment.

30
In the European Union (EU) the Waste Framework Directive (2008) required
countries for the first time to establish a national waste prevention programme by
December of 2013 consequently highlighting the important role that waste
prevention through reduction and reuse can play.

UNEP (2015) emphasises the importance of waste prevention, stating that an ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of cure, hence waste prevention is the most desirable
option in the waste management hierarchy and an important goal and guiding
principle of future waste strategies. The tenth meeting of the Conference of the
Parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal took place in Cartagena in October 2011. The
resulting Cartagena Declaration (2011) called for the active promotion and
implementation of more efficient strategies to achieve prevention and minimization
of the generation of hazardous and other wastes. A preventive waste management
approach offers the best chance for reversing the current trends in waste generation
(Sitarz, 1994). Wilson et al. (2010: 192) believes that “the question of how to bring
waste growth under control is critical whatever the state of the waste management of
any city or country, otherwise, attempts to improve standards of environmental
control over waste disposal will likely end up as running hard simply to stand still as
waste quantities increase”.

UNEP (2015) argue that LEDCs need to develop and implement innovative and
effective policies and practices to promote waste prevention in order to stem the
relentless increase in waste per capita as economies grow.

1.2.3 An introduction to Jos, Plateau State

Figure 3 shows the location of Plateau State in the central part of Nigeria. It is one of
the 36 states in Nigeria, and the city of Jos became the administrative capital of
Plateau State in 1976. It is a colonial creation that was founded in 1902 by tin miners
(Bingel, 1978; Morrison, 1976). The tin mining activities attracted migrants from all
over the world to work in the mines and the related service industries (Freund, 1981;
Plotnicov, 1967). The discovery of tin in Jos also led to the influx of tribes from
other parts of Nigeria including the Hausa, Igbo, Urhobo, and Yoruba who now
constitute more than half of the population of Jos. This melting pot of nationalities,
ethnic groups and religions makes Jos an attractive place for other Nigerians, as such
Plateau State is known in Nigeria as the 'home of peace and tourism'. There
continues to be migration into Jos leading to increases in accommodation costs and
land. The increases in population have partly been caused by the ongoing internal
political instabilities in Nigeria.

In 1999 Sharia law was introduced in 12 northern states leading to riots mainly
involving non-Muslim minorities within these states. One such riot killed over 100
people in Kano State in October 2001 (British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC),
2004; Voice of America, 2001). More recently the challenges caused by Boko
Haram in north-eastern Nigeria have contributed in population increases in Jos since

31
it is one of the safest and closest places to relocate (Ajiji & Larab, 2016). Boko
Haram is an Islamic militant group that believes politics in northern Nigeria has been
seized by a group of corrupt, false Muslims. It wants to wage a war against them,
and the Federal Republic of Nigeria generally, to create a pure Islamic state ruled by
Sharia law.

Figure 3 Location of Jos, Plateau State in Nigeria

Source: Anekoson (2013)

There is limited reliable data on the population of Jos. In 2008 the National
Population Commission (NPC) (2008) estimated the population was 1.3 million and
growing at 2.8% per annum. Fola Consult (2009) projected that the population
would reach 2.7 million by 2025. Currently 52% of the population live in urban
areas and 48% in rural. Specifically the urban population has been increasing at a
rate of 5.5% per annum, thus increasing the quantity of waste generated that needs to
be managed (Ogwueleka, 2009; Peter et al. 2014). There has not been commensurate
development in the rate at which social services and infrastructural amenities are
provided especially in terms of solid waste management (Oyeleye, 2013).
DungGwom et al. (2008) observed that over the last thirty years the city has been
struggling with the challenge of handling its own waste. As a result of these
challenges, the current waste management system is poor and sharing the same
challenges faced by other Nigerian cities and LEDCs in general. The lack of services
and infrastructure has often resulted in urban residents being confronted with waste
dumped throughout the community in backyards, public spaces, drains, streets and

32
streams (Agunwamba, 1998; Daffi & Kassam, 2013). These actions have a negative
impact on the environment and public health.

1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate the solid waste management problem (the lack of waste collection and
controlled disposal services) this study has the following aim and objectives:

AIM:

The following research aims to develop an in-depth understanding of solid waste

management practices in low income areas of Jos, in order to evaluate the
management challenges and identify opportunities for waste prevention.

OBJECTIVES:

1. To investigate the existing systems for managing household waste in low

income areas in Jos.

2. To identify the challenges (including future challenges) to achieving the

sustainable management of solid waste in the study area, and to identify
recommendations to improve current practice.

3. To understand the levels of waste generated and the composition of

household waste in low income areas in Jos.

4. To review the existing waste prevention interventions currently being used in

other parts of the world.

5. To evaluate the feasibility and impact of waste prevention opportunities in

the study area.

In order to meet the aim and objectives of this research, the author adopted a mixed
methods approach. A summary of the methods used for the investigation are shown
in Table 4 along with the objective they helped to meet.

In order to understand the waste management system in Nigeria and low income
areas of Jos, an initial comprehensive literature review was conducted. The review
included consideration of how the waste management system has developed, the
roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, legislation, collection and
disposal systems used and associated environmental and public health impacts.

The review was followed by direct observations, focus group discussions, and
structured interviews with stakeholders in order to understand the waste management
system in existence in Jos. Questionnaires with community members followed to
help understand the behaviour of citizens in the study area.

33
The information collected helped to satisfy Objectives 1 and 2, with challenges to
sustainable waste management being identified and recommendations to improve the
current system proposed.

As covered in Chapter 1.2.2 waste prevention has been identified as an opportunity

to address the waste management challenges in LEDCs. In order to develop an
effective waste prevention strategy, it is imperative that the composition of the study
area waste stream is understood. Key materials and associated interventions can then
be implemented to address the identified priority materials. The author conducted
waste composition analysis in order to establish the level of waste generation and
composition from households, thereby helping to satisfy Objective 3.

In order to understand the waste prevention interventions being used in other parts of
the world the author conducted a systematic literature review on existing waste
prevention practices globally. From this a longlist of waste prevention initiatives was
developed. These were assessed against five criteria in order to develop a shortlist of
the most applicable interventions for the study area thereby meeting Objective 4.

In order to meet Objective 5 and evaluate the feasibility and impact of the shortlisted
waste prevention opportunities in the study area, the author organised two focus
groups with PEPSA 7 officials and household members from the study area. These
were conducted in order to gauge the views and opinions on the most applicable
waste prevention opportunities using Ketso 8 and SWOT 9 analysis (see Chapter
4.3.8.1 for more detail on both methods). Recommendations are proposed to
implement the identified waste prevention opportunities in Jos.

7
Plateau State Environmental Protection and Sanitation Agency (PEPSA). As covered in 3.2 PEPSA
have the responsibility for managing waste in Jos Bukuru Metropolis.
8
Ketso is an approach used to help document the opinions of stakeholders during discussion with
participants recording their views on different coloured paper.
9
SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis) is a framework for
identifying and analysing the internal and external factors that can have an impact on the viability of a
project, product, place or person.

34
Table 4 Summary of methods used in this research to achieve set objectives
Method Literature Direct 4 focus group 5 interviews 678 Literature Waste 2 focus group
review on observation discussions were conducted questionnaires review on composition discussions on
Objective SWM was of the study held with 32 with different were national waste analysis was waste prevention
conducted area by the participants stakeholders of administered to prevention carried out on initiatives was
researcher from the SWM in Jos householders initiatives was 74 households conducted with
study area from the study conducted from the study 15 participants
area area from the study
area
1. To investigate the     
existing systems for
managing household
waste in low income
areas in Jos.
2. To identify the     
challenges to achieving
the sustainable
management of solid
waste in the study area,
and to identify
recommendations to
improve current practice.
3. To understand the      
levels of waste generated
and the composition of
household waste in low
income areas in Jos.
4. To review the existing   
waste reduction
interventions currently
being used in other parts
of the world.
5. To evaluate the   
feasibility and impact of
waste reduction
opportunities in the study
area.

35
1.4 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE
1.4.1 Existing research on SWM in Nigeria
Solid waste management has received attention in Nigeria with many publications
looking at the effects of waste management on the environment and public health,
for example work by Daffi & Kassam (2013), Egbere et al. (2001), Longe &
Williams (2006), Momodu et al. (2011), Oyelola et al. (2009), and UNEP (2002).
Research has also focused on waste generation and composition which is a vital
aspect to enable its planning and management, for example the work of Ayotamuno
& Gobo (2004), Babayemi & Dauda (2009), Ogwueleka (2009), Ogwueleka (2013),
Sha’Ato et al. (2007). Similarly there has been published research on waste
governance, regulation and legislation by Adama (2007), Ezeah & Roberts (2014),
and Nzeadibe et al. (2010). More recently the role of the informal sector in waste
management has been recognized as they utilize waste as a resource, and make
invaluable contributions to society and often to the economy of a nation. Studies
include Ezeah et al. (2013), Konya et al. (2013), Oumarou et al. (2012), and Zia et al.
(2008). There are also publications on waste management and sustainability by
Adewole (2013), Agbesola (2013), Batagarawa (2011), and Ezeah & Roberts (2012).
E-waste management is another aspect that has been researched by many scholars for
example Adediran & Abdulkarim (2012), Amachree (2013), Bates (2013), E-Terra
Technologies (2016), Nigerian Custom (2011), Osuagwu & Ikerionwu (2010), and
Umesi & Onyia (2008). The investigations by E-waste scholars have ranged from an
appraisal of regulations and current practices, to disposal, and challenges facing the
effective management of e-waste including the way forward for its management in
Nigeria. These studies include identification of the key barriers to achieving
sustainable solid waste management in Nigeria which include poverty, corruption,
disposal habits of citizens, inadequate waste plants and equipment, high population
and rapid urbanization.

1.4.2 Gaps and proposed contribution to knowledge

The author identified two main gaps in knowledge: waste management in low
income areas and the potential role of waste prevention in LEDCs.

Waste management specifically in low income areas is a subject that has been under
researched both in Nigeria and globally. Low income areas prevail in many cities in
Nigeria including Jos with 80% of its population made of low income earners (The
National Housing Policy, 2006). Sani (2003) established that the low income group,
and by implication the low income areas, do not sufficiently benefit from
government programmes or services. Solid waste management is an area of great
concern to the general public, since lack of services has serious negative
consequences on public health and the environment. Although literature exists
highlighting some of the challenges to SWM management in Nigeria in general by
Ezeah (2010), no studies have been done to identify the challenges that are specific

36
to the low income areas in general in Nigeria. Therefore, studying the low income
areas fills the current gap in knowledge and could lead to improved SWM practice.

Research studies by Afun (2009) and Ajibade (2007) have recommended waste
prevention to be used as a strategy for reducing waste generation in Nigeria. Ajibade
(2007) believes that the approach which could reduce waste to the barest minimum is
the most desirable for Nigeria, while Afun (2009) advised that the waste hierarchy
should be a fundamental element of the national policy thrust for waste management.
Even though studies have recommended waste prevention for Nigeria, no study has
specifically looked at waste prevention in detail as a strategy. Waste prevention is
still at an embryonic stage in Nigeria hence it has not been defined within any
national strategies. In addition very little has been done on waste prevention in
LEDCs per se, and even in MEDCs, Wilson et al. (2010) observed that it had taken
over 30 years to focus more seriously on waste prevention, but now its importance is
fully recognized and even considered a priority. Waste prevention is recognised as
the priority of the waste hierarchy and it offers the best chance for reversing the
current trends in waste generation in Nigeria and other LEDCs. Moreover, many
waste prevention interventions are ‘low-to-no-cost’ thereby presenting cost-effective
and viable solutions. They are also actions individuals can take thereby reducing
over reliance upon government. The research contributes to increasing our
knowledge of the role and opportunities of waste prevention in Nigeria with outputs
applicable to other LEDCs with low income areas.

Even though waste management has been researched in Jos, studies have not focused
on the waste management system and challenges in low income areas or identifying
waste prevention opportunities. For example Peter & Ayuba (2014) presented a
desktop review of the waste management system in Jos including information
gleaned from diploma and undergraduate students; Ngwuluka et al. (2009) examined
waste management in health care establishments, Ola Adisa et al. (2015) studied
knowledge, attitudes/beliefs, and practice associated with medical waste
management; Binbol et al. (2013) evaluated the waste management activities of
PEPSA; Egbere et al. (2001) researched the health impacts associated with waste
handling; Jatau (2013) and Ola-Adisa et al. (2015) researched attitudes and practices
to waste; Peter et al. (2014) and Musa et al. (2008) looked at planning aspects of
waste management in Jos.

This research contributes towards developing a better understanding of the waste

management challenges being faced in low income areas with recommendations for
improvement. The significance of the study is tied to the challenges of
environmental protection, public health, as well as resources that can be gained from
using a more efficient waste management system. The research contributes towards
our knowledge on waste prevention opportunities in LEDCs, an area where there is
little existing research. With the projected increases in waste and urban population
growth, this makes the research very important and timely.

37
The research also contributes rich quantitative and qualitative data to better
understand the waste management system and the behaviour of citizens.

1.5 AN OUTLINE OF THE THESIS STRUCTURE

This thesis is organized into the following structure as outlined below. Chapter 2 to 6
are Part A and focus more on the waste management system and challenges towards
sustainable waste management. Chapters 7 and 8 make up Part B where the focus is
on the role of waste prevention to address waste management challenges in the study
area.

Part A

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 is presented in five subsections. The first section provides the varied
definitions of solid waste and goes on to explain the main categories of waste, the
types of waste producers and the materials within each category. The second section
presents the background and context of the research, starting with waste management
in LEDCs, the waste hierarchy, and the importance of waste prevention. Also
included in this section is a brief introduction to the study area, Jos in Nigeria. The
third section sets out the aims and objectives of the study, highlighting the methods
used in order to achieve the set objectives. The fourth section sets out the
contribution to knowledge of this study. The final section presents an outline of the
thesis structure.

Chapter 2: Literature review on municipal solid waste management in Nigeria.

Chapter 2 presents the literature review of municipal solid waste management in

Nigeria. The chapter provides a holistic introduction to Nigeria, its geography,
demographics, socioeconomic status and governance structure. The chapter moves
on to present the municipal solid waste management system starting with the history
of waste management, development of national policies, the waste management
processes from generation to disposal, and the impact of improper waste
management on the environment and public health. The challenges militating against
sustainable solid waste management identified in past literature are presented.

Chapter 3: Literature review on municipal solid waste management in Jos

Chapter 3 focuses specifically on Jos, the focus of the research. The chapter starts by
introducing Jos and provides information on its population and development. The
chapter sets into context low income areas and their access to sanitation. The World
Health Organisation (WHO) defines sanitation as the provision of facilities and
services for the safe disposal of human urine and faeces. Inadequate sanitation is a
major cause of disease world-wide and improving sanitation is known to have a
significant beneficial impact on health both in households and across communities.
Sanitation also refers to the maintenance of hygienic conditions, through services

38
such as waste collection and wastewater disposal. The chapter moves onto review
existing waste management studies undertaken in Jos and presents information from
waste generation through to waste disposal including its impact on public health and
environment.

Chapter 4: Research methodology and design

Chapter 4 presents the methodology adopted in this study. The chapter starts by
setting out the research problem and setting research questions in order to fulfil the
aim and objectives. The chapter moves onto to reflect on research philosophy
explains how this influenced the research design process. The study adopted a mixed
method approach and each method is explained and justified with consideration of
research skills literature. The chapter also considers reliability and validity of the
data collected and ethical concerns/issues.

Chapter 5: Results

This chapter presents results from the fieldwork. It starts by presenting more detail
on the nature and characteristics of the study area including housing, access to
utilities, sanitation and demographics of residents. The subsequent section provides
information on the solid waste management structure in Jos as well as the role and
responsibilities of different stakeholders identified during the fieldwork. The chapter
moves on to focus on the waste management system in the low income areas
including waste storage, collection, disposal and impacts of the waste management
system. Key challenges towards the sustainable management of waste in Jos are
identified. The chapter also includes information on existing waste reduction, reuse
and recycling activity.

Chapter 6: Discussion

Chapter 6 discusses the results from fieldwork. The chapter is structured around the
challenges identified during fieldwork to achieving sustainable waste management in
the study area. These challenges are discussed with reflection on past studies, and
recommendations presented to overcome these issues. Limitations of the fieldwork
conducted for Part A of this study are also considered.

Part B

Chapter 7: Waste Prevention

In Chapter 7 the research focuses on the second part of this research which is waste
prevention. The chapter introduces the concept of waste prevention and goes on to
present the waste composition analysis conducted to understand the waste generation
levels and composition in the study area. The results are presented and discussed and
identify the materials desirable to target for waste prevention.

39
Chapter 8: Waste Prevention Opportunities

Chapter 8 focuses specifically on evaluating the waste prevention opportunities for

the study area. Following a literature review of existing waste prevention
interventions, a longlist was developed and evaluated based on their suitability for
the study area. After which a short list of waste prevention interventions was
generated with more detailed information on the interventions presented. The short
list of interventions was tested with stakeholders from the study area in order to
assess their suitability. The chapter presents the results from each stage along with
discussion and consideration of limitations from Part B of the research.

Chapter 9: Conclusions and recommendations

Chapter 9 concludes on the main outcomes of the research and also highlights the
contribution to knowledge, and suggests areas for further investigation.

The appendices supporting this thesis are provided on the accompanying CD.

40
2 A REVIEW OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA

2.1 BACKGROUND TO NIGERIA

2.1.1 Geography and demographics
Nigeria is officially known as the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), Abuja became
its capital on December 12th 1991. With 183 million people Nigeria is the most
populous country in Africa and is the seventh most populous country in the world
(World Bank, 2015).

Africa is depicted in Figure 4 with Sub Saharan Africa (SSA) shaded in green.
Nigeria lies in west SSA on the Gulf of Guinea, and it shares a border with Benin to
the west, Niger to the north, Chad and Cameroon to the east (CIA, 2011). It lies
between latitudes 4° and 14°N, and longitudes 2° and 15°E. It covers 923,770 km2
made up of 910,770 km2 land and 13,000 km2 water.

Figure 4 Map of Africa showing Sub Saharan Africa (SSA) and Nigeria
Source: CIA (2013) and UN (2013)

41
Nigeria emerged as the largest economy in Africa with a GDP of US$510 billion in
2014 (The Economist, 2014; The Guardian, 2014). Despite the latest GDP figures
dropping to US$481 billion, Nigeria’s GDP is still higher than South Africa (US$
312 billion) and Angola (US$ 102 billion).

Oil had been the dominant source of government revenue, energy and foreign
exchange (Odularu undated), since the 1970s and Nigeria is now the twelfth-largest
producer of petroleum in the world. Regulatory constraints and security risks have
restricted new investment in oil and natural gas, and Nigeria's oil production has
dropped from 2012 to date. However, the Nigerian economy has continued to grow
at a rapid rate of 6-8% per annum, with services contributing 57% of the GDP,
manufacturing and agriculture contributing 9% and 21% respectively, with the
remainder through oil. The economy is thus diversifying and is becoming more
service-oriented, in particular through retail and wholesale trade, real estate, and
communications (African Economic Outlook, 2015). In order to sustain the annual
growth rate, the Nigerian Government is privatizing important sectors of the
economy, promoting public-private partnerships, and encouraging strategic alliances
with foreign firms, especially for infrastructure development and technology
acquisition in critical sectors such as security, power generation, agriculture,
transport, and healthcare.

Table 5 compares the characteristics of Nigeria with other countries within SSA. The
author’s rationale for choosing these specific countries was to ensure a fair
geographic representation of SSA and they are presented in alphabetical order.

The population is distributed 52% urban and 48% rural and Nigeria has the highest
population density in Africa with 200 people per km2 (World Bank, 2015). The
global literacy rate for people aged 15 and above is 86.3%. Specifically for SSA the
literacy rate is 64.0% with women representing almost two-thirds of the illiterate
adults (CIA, 2015; UNESCO 2015). Nigeria’s literacy level is 66.2% and it trails
other countries in SSA including Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda,
and Zimbabwe where literacy levels exceed 80%. According to the latest WHO data
published in 2015, life expectancy in Nigeria is 54.5 years which gives Nigeria a
World Life Expectancy ranking of 171 out of 193 countries (WHO, 2016).

The Human Development Index (HDI) is published by the United Nations

Developement Programme (UNDP) and is an indicator for assessing long-term
progress in three dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access
to knowledge, and a decent standard of living. A country scores a higher HDI when
they are performing well, for example life expectancy, education levels and GDP are
high. The UNDP classifies each country into one of three development groups:

• Low human development for HDI scores between 0.0 and 0.5.
• Medium human development for HDI scores between 0.5 and 0.8.
• High human development for HDI scores between 0.8 and 1.0.

42
In terms of HDI, Nigeria was placed 152nd out of 188 countries and territories in
2015 with a score of 0.527, meaning that Nigeria is considered to have a medium
level of human development (UNDP, 2016). The comparative value for SSA in 2015
was 0.523, and for Europe and Central Asia both 0.756, and the world average 0.717.
The 2015 HDI value for Nigeria was however an improvement on the country’s
previous HDI values of 0.500 (2010), 0.514 (2012), 0.521 (2013) and 0.525 (2014).

[THIS SPACE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

43
Table 5 A comparison of Nigeria’s characteristics with other SSA countries
Country Population Area Population Literacy GDP Life Human
2
(millions) (km ) density (persons rate (%) (Billion expectancy Development
per km2) US$ in (years) Index (HDI)
2015)

Angola 26 1,246,700 20.4 72.2 102.64 51.7 0.53

Benin 11 112,622 97.9 45.5 8.48 59.2 0.48
Cameroon 24 475,442 49.7 79.4 29.2 54.9 0.51
Central African Republic 5 622,984 7.9 36.8 1.5 49.5 0.35
Chad 15 1,284,000 11.1 46.2 10.89 51.1 0.39
Ghana 28 238,540 116.3 83.7 37.86 60.0 0.58
Kenya 48 580,370 80.4 82.0 63.4 60.6 0.55
Nigeria 183 923,770 199.9 66.2 481 54.5 0.51
South Africa 55 1,221,037 44.9 96.7 312.8 57.1 0.67
Tanzania 56 947,300 57.3 80.4 44.9 64.1 0.52
Uganda 41 241,040 164.5 80.5 26.37 53.2 0.48
Zimbabwe 16 390,760 40.3 89.1 13.89 54.8 0.51

Source: Adapted from UNESCO (2016), UNDESA (2015), UN (2016), World Bank (2016), and UNDP (2015)

44
2.1.2 Socio-economic status
Despite having the largest economy in Africa, Nigeria is considered a poor country
because of the high number of people living in poverty (Dauda, 2016). It is an acute
problem in Nigeria with the World Bank (2014) stating that 33.1% of Nigeria’s
population is living under the international poverty line which is defined as the
minimum level of income deemed adequate in a particular country. The common
international poverty line was originally set to roughly $1 a day (Sachs, 2005) but it
has now been updated to $1.90 a day due to inflation (World Bank, 2015). Most
scholars agree that $1.90 a day is a better reflection on the current situation, and
particularly the new price levels in LEDCs (Lingnau, 2016). The World Bank
(2014) ranked Nigeria 3rd in the World Poverty Index after India and China
respectively. The World Bank (2014) also stated that 7% of 1.2 billion people
globally living below the poverty line are Nigerians, and Ferreira et al. (2015)
believe that over 85% of extremely poor people could be from SSA.

Dauda (2016) stated that Nigeria’s poverty rate has continued to increase despite
being home to abundant resources such as crude oil, minerals and rich fertile soil.
Ofoche (2012) assumed that this poverty has been caused by the overwhelming
socio-economic problems facing Nigeria in particular population increase. Egunjobi
(2002) and Oyesiku (2002) stated that Nigeria’s uncontrolled growth in population
and urban development has resulted in a decline in the country’s national wealth.
With an annual growth rate of 2.8%, Nigeria’s current population of over 183
million is expected to be 200 million in 2019 and over 440 million in 2050, taking it
into the top five most populous countries in the world (UN, 2015). The poor
economic climate and low industrial development are additional reasons for the
levels of poverty and high unemployment rate 10 (Chete et al. 2016).

Other issues such as lack of funds, lack of visionary leadership, corruption, and
undue political interference has made it difficult for the Nigerian government to plan
and provide effective social services to the people in terms of water supply and
sanitation, housing provision, and job opportunities particularly for the urban poor
(Bakare, 2012; Boris, 2015; DungGwom et al. 2008; Lawal & Oluwatoyin, 2011;
Mathews 2002;). As a result, urban economic development is not proportionate with
measures required to alleviate poverty and create economic opportunities to improve
the standard of living and quality of life of the people (Oyesiku 2002; UN Habitat,
2004).

The socio-economic and environmental effects of these failures fall greatly on the
poor, who are left out from the benefits of urban prosperity, leaving them with low
income. The Daily Independent (2014) observed that less than 10% of the country’s
population amasses and controls over 90% of the country’s wealth and resources. A
consequence of which is the high rate of crime, corruption, violence and insecurity in

10
The World Bank (2012) has put the unemployment rate in Nigeria at 22%, and the youth
unemployment rate at 38%.

45
the country as documented by Allafrica.com (2011), Chikezie & Ikemitan (2011),
Lawal (2010), Okeshola (2007), Okeshola (2014), and Onwuka et al. (2015). Many
reasons have been given by these scholars regarding the spate of insecurity including
the unemployment of youths, political and electioneering conflicts, socio-economic
agitations, ethno-religious crises, ethnic militias, boundary disputes, cultism, god-
fatherism 11 and poverty. These problems individually and collectively constitute
threats to the peace, security and development of the country.

To address the levels of poverty the Nigerian government has an established

minimum wage of which all employers (including small, medium and large
establishments) are required to pay their workers. Fapohonda et al. (2012) describes
the minimum wage not only as the smallest hourly wage that an employee is paid as
mandated by federal law, but also as a social protection which requires the effort,
commitment and collaboration of all stakeholders. This corresponds with the
International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 131 of 1970: 9, which
stipulates “that the minimum wage is the sum payable to a worker for work
performed or services rendered within a given period, whether calculated on basis of
time or output, which may not be reduced either by individual or collective
agreement, which is guaranteed by law and which may be fixed in such a way as to
cover the minimum need of the worker and his/her family in the light of economic
and social condition”. In Nigeria this wage is fixed by the government with inputs
from different commissions, and revised every 5 years. The government’s
involvement in setting a minimum wage dates backs to the colonial period with the
Hunt Commission of 1934 (Ekwoaba & Olusanya, 2011).

In 2011, the Minimum Wage (Amendment) Act, which replaced the Minimum Wage
Act of 2004, was signed by former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan revising the
national minimum wage upward from NGN7,500 (£18.43) 12 to NGN18,000 (£44.22)
per month. Currently the national minimum wage is NGN18,900 (£46.43) per month
and both the public and private sectors are required to abide by it and those who can
afford to pay more can do so, but no employer is allowed to go below it (Ahiuma-
Young, 2013). However, there is a general lack of implementation and enforcement,
resulting to a high percentage of people being paid below the minimum wage
including part time workers, single parents, the retired and students.

Until recently unemployed youth were not given any stipend or allowance, and had
been left on their own to struggle for daily survival. However, in 2016 the
government announced that unemployed youth would receive of NGN5, 000
(£12.28) every month to support them (Nwabughiogu 2015; Tukur 2015). Anecdotal

11
God-fatherism is a form of political corruption in which an influential member of a party or a
person in power or of financial capability puts another person in a leadership position and influences
their decision making in order to get an advantage/wield power.
12
Based on the exchange rate of NGN1.00=£0.002 April 2017 derived from xe.com. This exchange
rate is used throughout the thesis – however due the volatility of the Nigerian economy the exchange
rate can significantly fluctuate.

46
evidence shows that whilst some payments have been made there are logistical and
political problems impacting its roll out.

Low-income households are defined by National Salaries, Income and Wages

Commission (NSIWC) (2012) as households whose income falls below NGN43, 164
(£106.05) per month. Enhancing Financial Innovation and Access (EFInA) (2011), a
top international consulting company, used a slightly higher threshold of NGN50,
000 (£135.50). EFInA (2011) stated that the average monthly individual income
across Nigeria ranges from NGN5, 000 to NGN40, 000 which is equivalent to
£12.28 to £98.27. In reality, most employees who work outside the public sector or
outside the organized private sector, as well as many self-employed Nigerians, earn
well below the national minimum wage. This, by implication indicates that about
seventy percent (70%) of Nigerians earn less than NGN500, 000 (£1,228.4) per
annum and fall into the low income category. Studies by The National Housing
Policy (NHP) (2006), and Aluko & Amidu (2006) broadly agree and state that about
80% of the population of Nigeria is classified as low income.

EFInA carried out a year survey in order to understand the characteristics of the low
income population in Nigeria. The survey revealed that low income earners work in
both the formal and informal sectors, many of whom are married householders
engaged in small businesses on a subsistence basis (EFInA, 2011). Okpoko &
Oluwatayo (2014) found that home-based enterprises play an important role in
contributing to household income, and providing some level of social protection.
EFInA (2011) adds that most of the low income earners engage in menial jobs like
farming, truck pushers 13, okada riders (taxis), barbers, tailors, artisans and
entrepreneurs. Under these arrangements the minimum wage does not apply, and
they would still be classified as unemployed as they are not in formal employment
through government or private companies.

Income in the informal settlements of Nigeria is low, intermittent and uncertain. The
continuing growth of informal settlements can be attributed to the decline in both
formal and informal sector employment. The unemployment rate in Nigeria has been
rising from 6.4% in January 2015 to 10.4% in January 2016 to the current 14.2% in
January 2017 (Trading Economics 2017). This conflicts with data from the World
Bank (2012) which put level of unemployment in Nigeria at 22%, and the youth
unemployment rate at 38% in 2012.

Nigeria’s economy slipped into recession in early 2016 and since then many people
have lost their jobs with banks, companies and other organisations, and this has
contributed to the rise in unemployment rate. Moreover, there has been an embargo
on employment by government because of financial limitations. Though the informal
sector has always been part of the urban economy in Africa in general and Nigeria in
particular, many urban residents are involved in multiple livelihood strategies, as

13
Truck pushers are also known as wheel barrow pushers or cart pushers.

47
people are compelled to employ diversified means of income generation through the
acquisition of additional jobs (Trading Economics, 2017).

2.1.3 Governance structure in Nigeria – waste management

Nigeria has a three tier system of governance made up of the national government,
36 state governments which are divided into 774 Local Government Areas (LGAs).
Each tier has a distinct function as stipulated by the constitution and independent of
each other (Afon, 2007). Table 6 shows the different tiers of government with their
varying functions. Note that whilst there are 6 regions in Nigeria there is no regional
government in place.

The national government is made up of the Legislature, Federal Executive Council

(FEC), and the Judiciary (see Table 6 for an explanation). This governance structure
is also replicated at state level. The local government tier however only has two arms
of government, made up of the Legislature, who are councillors representing
different wards in the council, and the Local Government Executive.

In terms of environmental issues, the Federal Ministry of Environment at national

level is divided into four sections comprising of the technical and service
departments, the parastatals and units. The Ministry’s main functions revolve around
policy, enforcement and intervention. Its mission is to ensure environmental
protection, natural resource conservation and sustainable development, with one of
the Ministry’s main thrust being effective waste management which is the focus of
this research.

In terms of solid waste management, Figure 5 provides an overview of the tiers of

government and their responsibilities. The Federal Ministry of Environment at
national level coordinates the formulation of waste management policies and
legislation. It supports the implementation of these policies through the allocation of
funds to state and local government. In addition, the Federal Ministry of
Environment administers and enforces environmental laws in Nigeria through the
National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency
(NESREA).

Based on the constitution of Nigeria, local governments are primarily responsible for
providing frontline waste services including collection and disposal (Afun, 2009),
however in practice this is not always the case as often they are not able to provide
effective and efficient solid waste services due to costs (Isa, 2015). As a result the
state government steps in to supplement the efforts of local government, particularly
in those cities that are state or regional capitals (Afun, 2009). This is the situation in
Jos where Plateau Environmental Protection and Sanitation Agency (PEPSA) fulfil
the role of the local government and collect and dispose of waste. In the context of
this study, the Plateau State Government manages waste through the state Ministry
of Environment, and PEPSA, an agency of the Ministry of Environment, are directly
responsible for waste management.

48
Table 6 Tiers of Government and their Functions
Tier System Functions
Federal Nigeria runs a presidential system of government consisting of three arms: The FGN renders services to its citizens through 26 federal
Government Legislative: National Assembly of 109 Senators and 360 Representatives. ministries, 15 agencies and 19 councils and commissions. These
of Nigeria The National Assembly has the responsibility for making laws for have a wide range of responsibilities. Among them is the
(FGN) governance. The Legislative is made up of specialised committees who focus Federal Ministry of Environment which is responsible for solid
on different aspects of national life. waste management issues. It develops the national policy and
Federal Executive Council: President plus Ministers and Heads of legislation that governs SWM.
Parastatals. The Federal Executive Council implements laws made by the
National Assembly.
Judiciary: A wide range of courts including the Federal High Court, Court of
Appeal, Supreme Court. The Judiciary is responsible for the interpretation of
the laws in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
State Nigeria has 36 States plus FCT Abuja. Similar to the Federal Government, Plateau State (where this research is based) is one of the 36
Government each State has three arms of government as follows: states of Nigeria. The state serves its populace through 17 state
(SG) Legislature: Members of House of Assembly. It comprises of representatives ministries, 10 departments, 12 agencies, 12 boards, 8
from all the local government areas within the State. It exercises identical commissions and 5 others. There is the State Ministry of
functions at the State level with those of the National Assembly at national Environment and Mineral Development, and Plateau State
level. They make laws for the state, and act as a check and balance on the Environmental Protection and Sanitation Agency which are
powers and actions of the Governor. responsible for SWM in Plateau State.
State Executive Council: Governor plus Deputy Governor, Commissioners,
and Heads of Parastatals.
Judiciary: As per the Judiciary at national level.
Local Nigeria has 774 Local Government Areas (LGAs). Each local government Local government serve the public through different
Government area is administered by a Local Government Executive Council consisting departments, including waste collection and disposal.
(LG) of a chairman who is the Chief Executive of the LGA, and Legislatures who Mandatory functions include planning, monitoring, service
are elected members from the different wards in the council and referred to as delivery, law making and enforcement, policy development and
Councilors. advocacy. Some of these functions are performed exclusively by
the local government like the maintenance of cemeteries,
markets and motor parks. Being the tier of government closest to
the people, it is considered an important facilitator of economic
and social development at the grassroots.
Source: Afon (2007) and Nigerian Constitution (1999).

49
Figure 5 The governance structure of Nigeria and roles in waste management

Key

FME = Federal Ministry of Environment

PEPSA= Plateau State Environmental and Protection Agency

50
2.2 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN
NIGERIA
2.2.1 History of waste management in Nigeria
Onibokun (1989) stated that the history of urban management, including waste, in
Nigeria is tied to that of local government which has gone through four evolutionary
stages. Before colonialism areas with substantial urban population in the north, west
and south of Nigeria were controlled by a hierarchy of local chiefs 14 with defined
areas of jurisdiction and administration. The inhabitants of those communities lived
by a system of well-defined rules and functional differentiations, such that public
places were swept in rotation by groups of women. According to Onibokun (1989)
household and other waste from public spaces was discarded in the surrounding
bushes where it was left to decompose.

Following colonialism, the British masters adopted a policy of indirect rule. From
the beginning of the proper period of colonial British rule in 1800, the colonial
economic development policies and plans had little or no rules, to conserve the
natural environment, and it was not clear which agency was responsible for the
regulation and management of waste (Walling et al. 2004). Adelegan (2004)
documented the development of environmental legislation and management since the
early 1900s and his opinion is that the formative years of Nigerian environmental
policy was characterised by a lack of established aims and objectives.

Subsequently the colonial masters introduced ordinances to strengthen

administration with the first ordinance being the Public Health Act of 1909 which
laid the foundation for improved sanitation. Sanitary inspectors were introduced and
they went from house to house to make sure that houses and surroundings were
clean. If they were not, those found guilty were sanctioned through the payment of
stipulated fines.

The Township Ordinance No. 29 of 1917 classified urban settlements into three
categories of cities, and the Town and Country Planning Ordinance of 1947
recognised the need for a separate administration to complement the local
government councils to handle town and country town planning functions (Udoh,
2014). However neither considered waste, and a major short coming of the colonial
era as identified by Onibokun (1989) was that the British colonial masters treated
Nigeria as a rural country, therefore they made no effort to solve the emerging urban
problem especially that of sanitation.

The third stage marked the immediate pre and post-independence period with the
introduction of the Local Government ordinances of 1950 and 1954 which were
subsequently amended. These ordinances introduced the three tier system of
government as set out in Table 6. In addition to the three tiers, the ordinances

14
Including emirs, obas, and igwes.

51
recognised the special needs of metropolitan areas 15 and urban centres, and created
specific local government types such as municipal councils for the big cities like
Lagos and Abuja, and urban councils for the smaller towns (Onibokun, 1989).

The last stage was the introduction of the Local Government edict of 1976 which
established a unified and common local government system. 301 local government
councils were created and the number has since increased to 774, with each expected
to function as an effective third tier of government and empowered to exercise
substantial control over local government affairs (Onibokun, 1989).

2.2.2 Development of national waste policy

Ikhariale (1989) stated that before 1988 Nigeria had no defined and clearly
articulated national policy on the environment so it responded to most environmental
issues on an ad hoc basis. Nwufo (2010) explained that the environment became an
issue of concern to the world in 1970, and that led to the United Nations conference
on the Human Environment in 1972. Although Nigeria was in attendance and a
signatory to that conference, it did not develop an environmental policy or a strong
legal framework for the protection of the environment until the toxic waste incidence
of 1987 (Nwufo 2010). The discovery of toxic waste dumped at Koko in Warri Delta
State by an Italian company made the national government to promulgate the
Harmful Waste Decree 42 of 1988, which facilitated the establishment of the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA).

In 1989 the government formally launched the National Policy on Environment with
the aim to define a framework for environmental governance in Nigeria. Both FEPA
and the National Policy on Environment emphasized sanitation and waste
management as part of an integrated holistic and systematic view of environmental
issues (FEPA, 1990). The government has subsequently taken positive measures to
improve the management of the environment by introducing acts and establishing
many governmental authorities and agencies to ensure efficient and effective means
of managing waste in the country. Table 7 sets out the key acts since 1988 relating to
the management of solid waste in Nigeria.

15
Metropolitan areas are made up of more than one local government areas

52
Table 7 Statutory regulations guiding solid waste management in Nigeria
Act Explanation
The Federal Environmental Established the Federal Environmental Protection Agency.
Protection Agency Act of The Agency administers and enforces environmental laws,
1988 (FEPA Act), Decree ensuring that waste management is carried out within laid
No.58 of 1988 and No.59 of out standards and procedures. It is responsible for the
1992 as amended. protection and development of the environment in general,
including initiation of policy in relation to environmental
research and technology.
The Harmful Waste (Special The Decree provides a legal framework for the management
Criminal Provisions), Decree of hazardous waste. It prohibits the carrying, depositing and
42 Act of 1988. dumping of harmful waste on any land, territorial waters,
contagious zone, exclusive economic zone of Nigeria or its
inland water ways and prescribes the penalties for any
person found guilty of any crime.
The National Guidelines and Sets out the protocol for monitoring and controlling
Standards for Environmental industrial and urban pollution.
Pollution Control in Nigeria,
1991.
The National Effluents Makes it mandatory that industrial facilities install
Limitations Regulations equipment to tackle pollution, make provision for effluent
S.1.8 of 1991. treatment, prescribes maximum limits of effluent parameters
allowed for discharge, and sets out penalties for violation.
The National Environmental Imposes restrictions on the release of toxic substances and
Protection (NEP) (Pollution stipulates monitoring of pollution to ensure permissible
Abatement in industries and limits are not exceeded. It also covers incidents of unusual
Facilities Generating and accidental discharges, development of contingency
Wastes) Regulations S.1.9 of plans, generator's liabilities, strategies for waste reduction,
1991. and safety of workers. In terms of waste reduction it
emphasized that any industry or a facility shall adopt in‐plant
waste reduction and pollution prevention strategies.
Environmental Impact This law states that before undertaking any project which is
Assessment (EIA) Act, likely to have a substantial impact on the environment, an
Decree No.86 of 1992. Environmental Impact Assessment must be done in order to
establish what these impacts will be and how best to cope
with them.
The Management of Solid This regulates the collection, treatment and disposal of solid
Hazardous Wastes and hazardous wastes from municipal and industrial sources,
Regulations (Guidance on and provides a comprehensive list of chemicals and chemical
hazardous Chemical wastes by toxicity categories.
Management 2001).
The National Environmental After repealing FEPA Act of 1988, the act became the major
Standards and Regulations statutory regulation instrument guiding environmental
Enforcement Agency matters in Nigeria. It specially makes provision for solid
(NESREA ACT), Act 2007 waste management and its administration and prescribes
(repealed FEPA Act of sanction for offences or acts which run contrary to proper
1988). and adequate waste disposal procedures and practices
National Environmental This regulation provides the legal framework for the
Regulations (Sanitation and adoption of sustainable and environment friendly practices in
Waste Control) S. I. No. 27 environmental sanitation and waste management to minimise
of 2009 pollution.
Source: ELRI (2009)

53
The national government created the Federal Ministry of Environment (FME) in
1999, and as a result FEPA’s functions were absorbed by the FME. With these
institutional reforms, the National Environmental Standards and Regulations
Enforcement Agency (NESREA) were established and is Nigeria’s lead
environmental protection agency (Federal Ministry of Environment, 2015).
NESREA is responsible for the protection and development of the environment,
biodiversity, conservation and sustainable development of Nigeria’s natural
resources in general. It is also responsible for liaison with relevant stakeholders
within, and outside, Nigeria on matters of developing and enforcing environmental
standards, regulations, rules, laws, policies and guidelines.

Most state governments in Nigeria, in line with national government, have

established State Environmental Protection Agencies (SEPA) in order to further
address environmental issues in their jurisdiction (Ogwueleka, 2009). At local
government level, all environmental regulation and management functions are left
with their environmental health service departments. The Fourth Schedule of the
1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Amended 2010) states that the
issue of refuse collection and disposal should remain the responsibility of the local
government agencies (LGAs).

The general perception that there is no regulation, or legislation on waste in Nigeria

is untrue (Ezeah & Roberts, 2012), however it is poorly enforced (Afun, 2009;
Agunwamba, 1998; Ikhariale, 1989; Walling et al. 2004). Ijaiya & Joseph (2014)
state that the Nigerian Police is empowered to ensure, monitor and enforce the laws
on environmental activities in Nigeria. To enforce regulations they can conduct a
warrantless search on any building, land, or vehicle which they have reasons to
believe is related to crime. The Nigerian police cooperate with the National
Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) to carry
out its mandate to enforce environmental laws. Although NESREA is responsible for
enforcing environmental laws, it has been problematic and with limited success.
Therefore, the police often step in to assist in ensuring that laws and regulations
concerning SWM are enforced.

Adewole (2009) believes that for effective sustainable waste management there
needs to be the enforcement of environmental laws and regulations by the police and
other agencies in the state. Afun (2009) stressed that legislation, or regulations, if not
strictly enforced do not succeed, and Nigeria could solve their waste management
problems through more robust and strict enforcement of the relevant legislation both
at the national and state level. Sustainable development will be slow to achieve
without rules, regulations and strict enforcement.

2.2.3 Solid waste generation

In Nigeria solid waste is generated at a rate beyond the capacity of authorities to
handle in order to maintain a sustainable environment (Adejobi & Olorunnimbe
2012; Amuda et al. 2014). This has resulted in a poor solid waste management

54
system impacting on the environment and public health in most Nigerian towns and
cities (Afon & Afolabi, 2007). Although it is generally reported that large quantities
of solid waste are generated daily in Nigeria, the exact figure is difficult to determine
as proper records and data on waste generation or disposal are not kept. Michael-
Aguike & Ekpete (2012) and Nnaji (2015) decried the lack of data on this subject.

Afon & Okewale (2007) reported on a number of studies conducted in the 1980s to
estimate the quantity of waste generated from residential areas in Nigerian cities, but
each had a number of flaws. Examples of such studies include those by Adedibu
(1983, 1988), Filani & Abumere (1982, 1986) and the results were criticised because
of some methodological errors, such as the criteria used to choose participants, not
taking a representative population, or being poorly structured.

Analysis of more recent studies have estimated that the levels of solid waste
generation in Nigeria have been increasing from 9 million tonnes in 1993 (Uchegbu,
1998), to 13 million tonnes in 1995 (Chikwendu, 1997), to 17.9 million tonnes in
2006 (US EPA, 2010), while Ogwueleka (2009) reported an annual generation of 25
million tonnes in 2009. More recently Bakare (2016) estimated 32 million tonnes of
solid waste was generated in 2016.

Atta et al. (2016) projected estimations of waste generation up to 2020. The

estimates were based on using a baseline population of 158 million in 2011 from the
2006 census, a population growth rate of 2.5% based on World Bank (2011), and
baseline waste generation rate of 0.5 kg/person/day. Two scenarios were calculated
based on low (0.8%) and high (1.2%) economic growth rates. Table 8 shows the
result of their estimates with annual waste arisings ranging between 35.08 to 35.92
million tonnes in 2017 with the quantity of waste generated by 2020 between 38.69
to 40.09 million tonnes.

Table 8 Estimates of future waste generation figures

Year Projected Rate of waste generation Overall quantity of waste
population (kg/person/day) generated (million
(million) tonnes/annum)
Low (0.8%) High (1.2%) Low (0.8%) High (1.2%)
2011 158 0.50 0.50 28.84 28.84
2012 162 0.50 0.51 29.79 29.91
2013 166 0.51 0.51 30.78 31.03
2014 170 0.51 0.52 31.80 32.18
2015 174 0.52 0.52 32.86 33.38
2016 179 0.52 0.53 33.95 34.63
2017 183 0.52 0.54 35.08 35.92
2018 188 0.53 0.54 36.24 37.26
2019 193 0.53 0.55 37.45 38.65
2020 197 0.54 0.56 38.69 40.09
Source: Atta et al. (2016)

55
Research has been carried out to estimate waste generation per capita in Nigeria.
Ogwueleka (2009) reported a variation in the generation rate of between 0.44-0.66
kg/capita/day for rural and urban areas respectively (see Table 9). A number of other
studies have put the average national figure between 0.45-0.55 kg/capita/day (Centre
for People and Environment (CPE), 2010; Ogwueleka, 2009; Ossai, 2006; Solomon
2009). Solomon, (2009) estimated 0.49 kg/person/day with households accounting
for 90% of the municipal waste generated.

Table 9 Waste generation in urban centres in Nigeria

City Population Tonnes per Waste Density kg/capita/
month (kg/m3) day
Lagos 8,029,200 255,556 294 0.63
Kano 3,348,700 156,676 290 0.56
Ibadan 307,840 135,391 330 0.51
Kaduna 1,458,900 114,443 320 0.58
Port Harcourt 1,053,900 117,825 300 0.60
Makurdi 249,000 24,242 340 0.48
Onitsha 509,500 84,137 310 0.53
Nsukka 100,700 12,000 370 0.44
Abuja 159,900 14,785 280 0.66
Source: Ogwueleka (2009)

The quantity and rate of solid waste generation in the different states of Nigeria
depends on the population, level of industrialization and urbanization, socio-
economic status of the citizens, and the kinds of commercial activities being
undertaken (Babayemi & Dauda 2009; Ojo et al. 2015). Family size, level of
education and monthly income also influences the rate of waste generation
(Sujauddin et al. 2008). Kadafa et al. (2013) has shown a high correlation between
income level and the quantity of waste generated.

2.2.4 Municipal solid waste composition in Nigeria

Whilst no specific waste composition studies have been undertaken in low income
areas in Nigeria, a number of studies have investigated the municipal solid waste
composition in Nigeria. Figure 6 shows a comparative analysis of waste composition
from these studies, including a city from each of the 6 regions in Nigeria and the
capital Abuja. It is important to note that all the publications used for this
comparison focused on municipal solid waste only, which implies that it included
residual and in some cases recycling waste if householders did not separate it out for
collection. Across the studies the major constituent of the waste stream was
putrescible 16 varying from 26% in Maiduguri to 56% in Nsukka. Some other studies
have suggested levels of putrescible waste could be as high as 78%-90% (Cointreau,
1982; Ogwueleka, 2009; Otti, 2011). Paper varied from 6.0% in Akure to 25% in
Abuja, plastics between 7.7% in Akure and 18.1% in Maiduguri, metal 3.1% in

16
Putrescible is solid waste that contains organic matter capable of being decomposed – typically
food waste and garden waste. This is sometimes referred to as organic waste or biowaste.

56
Abuja to 17.2% in Portharcourt, glass 2.5% in Nsukka and 13.5% in Portharcourt,
and textile 2.5% in Makurdi and 7.6% in Port Harcourt. The remaining was made up
of other wastes like ash, dust, ceramics, rubber, soil, bones, e-waste, scrap tyres,
nappies and sanitary waste.

100%
90%
80%
70%
% of waste stream

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Nsukka Abuja Makurdi Kano Portharcourt Lagos Maiduguri

Putrescible Plastics Paper Textile Metal Glass Others

Figure 6 Waste stream composition from different cities in Nigeria by weight

Source: Collated from Abuja Environmental Protection Board (AEPB) (2012),
Dauda & Osita (2003), Igoni et al. (2007), Kofoworola (2007), Nabegu (2010),
Ogwueleka (2003)

2.2.5 Municipal solid waste collection

Household waste in most Nigerian states is generally not collected directly from
households, but residents take waste and deposit it in communal public waste
containers prior to collection by the municipal waste collectors. The exception is a
few states including Lagos, Calabar and Abuja, who engage the services of the
private sector, and they collect waste directly from households. However in these
states the system is not universal, rural and low income areas rarely receive such
services (Iriruaga, 2012).

An assorted range of vehicles are used for solid waste collection and transfer to
disposal sites including trucks, side loaders, rear loaders, mini trucks, tippers, skip
trucks and open back trucks (Abur et al. 2014; Ogwueleka, 2009). Figure 7 shows
examples of some of the waste collection vehicles used for waste collection and
transportation in Nigeria. Vehicles are often in-short supply or out of service due to
frequent breakdown as a result of overuse (Agunwamba, 2003). For example
Ogwueleka (2009) observed that 60% percent of trucks available for waste collection
in Nigeria are in a state of disrepair or out of service at any one time. This has
partially led to inadequate service coverage in most urban areas and non-collection in

57
rural areas resulting in improper waste disposal. For that reason many scholars have
varied waste collection rates across Nigeria. For instance Ogwueleka (2003)
suggested 60% of waste is collected, Iriruaga (2012) mentioned 50%, Agboje et al.
(2014) stated 20-80% while Bakare (2016) said 20-30%.

Figure 7 Waste collection vehicles being used in most Nigerian states

Source: New Agency of Nigeria (NAN, 2017); Uwaegbulam (2017)

2.2.6 Municipal solid waste management options

There are two ways of managing municipal solid waste, controlled or uncontrolled.
Figure 8 shows the controlled and uncontrolled pathways of managing waste.

58
Figure 8 Controlled and uncontrolled management methods

The most common controlled ways of disposing of waste are sanitary landfill,
incineration, composting, anaerobic digestion, and recycling (Alhassan &
Mohammed, 2013; Nwachuckwu et al. 2010). The main uncontrolled methods are
open dumping or burning either centrally or in communities, and disposal in streams,
rivers and drains (Akpoghiran, 2016; Butu et al. 2013; Igoni et al. 2007; Obasioha,
2015; Uchendu, 2016). The majority of waste in Nigeria is managed through
uncontrolled methods. This approach is considered naive, illegal and dangerous, as it
impacts on the environment, society and public health (Ayuba et al. 2013; Ojewole,
2014). Evidence exists to show the dangers linked with improper solid waste
disposal in Nigerian cities (Butu et al. 2013; Modebe, 2009; Momodu et al. 2011) –
this is covered in more detail in Chapter 2.2.7.

2.2.6.1 Controlled approaches and consideration of initiatives in Nigeria

2.2.6.1.1 Sanitary landfill
Historically landfills have been the most common method of organized waste
disposal and remain so in many places around the world. Sanitary landfills involve
burying and managing waste within a controlled environment. Ogwueleka (2009)
explains that a sanitary landfill has controls in place to collect gases generated,
leachate management systems and other mitigations in place to control the impact on
59
the environment and society. Sanitary landfills are an environmentally accepted
method of waste disposal but are capital intensive at roughly 3-8 times more
expensive than open dumping (Ogwueleka, 2009; Sridhar & Hammed, 2014).

In Nigeria there are no sanitary landfills (Agunwamba, 2003; CPE, 2010; Imam et al.
2008; Nkwocha & Emeribe 2004) although some sites such as Mpape in Abuja have
controls in place such as covering waste with soil (CPE, 2010). Sanitary landfills
were introduced in Lagos and Onitsha two decades ago, but currently the landfills
are not operating (Ogwueleka, 2009; Nwosu et al. 2016) because they require much
greater initial investment and hence higher operating costs than uncontrolled or open
dumps.

In response to the state of poor waste management, the Senate Committee Chairman
of the National Assembly in Abuja in August 2010 called for the establishment of
sanitary landfills and controlled waste management sites in Abuja. The call was
made when the senator took a tour of the various dumpsites scattered along the
suburbs of the city, and decried the poor management of dumpsites which were
mostly located within settlements. However action is yet to be taken in response to
this call as Abuja continues to use the Gosa and Ajata open dumps, while Nwosu et
al. (2016) emphasized that there is no organized sanitary landfill site.

2.2.6.1.2 Incineration
Incineration is the combustion of waste at high temperatures which converts waste
into ash, flue gas, and heat (Ogwueleka, 2009). Knox (2005) emphasized that flue
gases must be cleaned of gaseous and particulate pollutants before they are dispersed
into the atmosphere. In some cases, particularly in MEDCs, the heat generated by
incineration can be used to generate electricity and are therefore referred to as
Energy from Waste plants or Energy Recovery Facilities.

Two of the primary advantages of incineration are that waste volumes are reduced by
an estimated 80-95% and the need for landfill space is greatly reduced
(Greentumble, 2015). For urban areas, this can be especially important, as urban land
is often at a premium.

In Nigeria incineration is not widely practiced (Afun, 2009; Obasioha, 2015;

Ogwueleka, 2009) except in hospitals where medical waste is sometimes incinerated
at a small scale but without energy recovery. Main (1993) and Phillips (1999)
reported that 3 modern incinerators were built in Lagos with a European Economic
grant at a cost of $30 million (£23 million) but they were never used. In 1989, a
decade after they were built, the government decided to dismantle two of these plants
and convert the third one into a civic centre (NEST, 1991).

Sridhar and Hammed (2014) stated that incineration is a capital and energy intensive
option which is about 5-10 times more costly than sanitary landfill. Though
expensive, WHO (2004) and ALCO & World Bank (2007) believe that it is still the

60
best choice for the disposal of health care wastes which contain infectious or
hazardous components.

2.2.6.1.3 Composting
Composting is a process in which waste materials are subjected to natural
decomposition, facilitated by microbial activities under aerobic or anaerobic
conditions (Adekunle, 2009). A number of studies such as Adekunle (2009),
Adeoye et al. (1994), Gbolagade (2006), Iwegbue et al. (2007), and Sridhar &
Bammeke (1986) show that composting has not been fully developed in Nigeria.
Publications by Awomeso et al. (2010), Hoornweg et al. (1999), Olarenwaju (2009),
and Sridhar & Hammed (2014) have highlighted the levels of biowaste in LEDCs
including Nigeria. These wastes contain valuable resources in the form of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and potassium (Hammed et al. 2011). Microorganisms play an
important role in biogeochemical cycles and convert these valuable resources into
useful compost.

Odon & Guobadia (2011) and Taiwo (2011) stated that composting should be
encouraged by government authorities because of its benefits to the country and the
public at large. Some of the benefits of composting include being cheaper than other
options, large fractions of waste are turned into a useful product to enable increased
food production, reducing the quantity of waste for disposal by as much as 65%
leading to lower operational cost (Adekunle et al. 2011; Harir et al. 2015; Khadafa et
al. 2013). Composting minimises air pollution, reduces water pollution, and reduces
greenhouse gases by as much as 82% compared to a landfill (Farrell & Jones, 2009;
Harir et al. 2015; Nabegu, 2011). Akinbile (2012) stated composting is the most
viable waste management option for LEDCs because it is sustainable and
environmentally friendly, and it uses limited land compared to landfilling. Odon &
Guobadia (2011) added that government should encourage and support individuals,
communities and private organisations to initiate home or community composting.
They observed that the success of this project would require source segregation of
organic waste in order to make composting easier.

There is limited record of composting in Africa, including Nigeria (Taiwo 2011),

though Sridhar et al. (2013) posits that composting has been practiced in Nigeria on
a limited basis for over 50 years. The practice is still largely neglected. Composting
can be undertaken at centralised facilities or at home or community level.

As the name implies, home composting is carried out in homes on a small scale. In
MEDCs households often buy pre-moulded plastic composting units in order to
compost at home, however in Nigeria home composting is still at an elementary
stage where households either dig holes or select spots at their backyards to dispose
waste, and allow it to decompose before collecting it for onward application to their
gardens and farmlands. Olowomeye (1991) reported that traditional Nigerian
households made effective use of composting as a management strategy for solid
waste generated within their surroundings and that waste from households like yam

61
peels, banana leaves, maize cobs, and egg shells were deposited in the backyard,
where they were allowed to decay before subsequent utilization as compost during
the planting season.

Composting at community levels is also referred to as decentralized composting,

where small neighbourhood sites are used to compost the material close to where it
was generated (Coker, 2006). Simple community composting was reported by
Lewcock (1995) in a study of farmers’ use of urban waste in Kano. Waste was
dumped at specific sites in the community and left to breakdown. Lewcock stated
that farmers in Kano then collected and used this slightly composted urban solid
wasteto fertilize their farms. Mortimore (1972) in a road side survey in 1962
recorded 1,447 donkeys, and in 1969 1,137 donkeys carrying ‘taki’ (manure from
household waste and street sweepings and ash) out of Kano city to farms located 10-
15km away from the city centre. The ‘taki’ represented about 140-185 tonnes of
waste per day, and it could fertilize a farm of 1.5 hectares. Lewcock observed in the
mid-1990s that farmers continued to use urban waste on a large scale.

Despite this long-standing tradition of composting, many Nigerian communities still

make limited or no use of composting as a waste management strategy. Lewcock
(1995) reported that there was significant potential for compost production in Kano
but has not been maximised as a result of government apathy in providing the
required structures. Lewcock (1995) mentioned that all farmers interviewed stressed
the importance of urban waste to their farms, and because it was in high demand the
method of collection changed from using a donkey to using the Kano State waste
management tipper lorries. Studies undertaken by Sridhar et al. (2013) at the
University of Ibadan reveal that communities can be effective in initiating
composting projects if properly mobilized. The role of home and community
composting is considered in more detail later in this thesis (see Chapter 8.2.1.1 and
8.2.1.2).

2.2.6.1.4 Anaerobic digestion

Anaerobic digestion is one of the oldest technologies in the world (Ngumah et al.
2013), and was introduced in Africa between 1930 and 1940 (Deublein &
Steinhauser, 2008). Anaerobic digestion is a collection of biological processes in
which microorganisms break down biodegradable waste material in the absence of
oxygen (Okoro-Shekwaga & Horan 2015). The process can be used for industrial or
domestic purposes to manage waste or to produce fuels. Anaerobic digestion is
usually used for the treatment of animal waste and sewage sludge resulting from
wastewater treatment plants. It is the most environmentally friendly option for the
treatment of food waste (Okoro-Shekwaga & Horan, 2015). The main outputs are
biogas which can be harnessed locally for cooking or lighting or put onto the grid,
and a bio-fertilizer.

In spite of its early start in Africa, biogas technology on the continent is still at an
embryonic stage. Specifically in Nigeria, the status of biogas technology remains

62
very poor, with no record of any existing commercial size plants that could
contribute electricity to the national grid. The earliest record of biogas technology in
Nigeria was in the 1980s, when a simple biogas plant that could produce 425 litres of
biogas per day was built at Usman Danfodiyo University, Sokoto (Akinbami et al.
2000; Dangogo & Fernado, 1986; Sambo 2010). Since then about 21 small scale
pilot digesters with a capacity of between 10m3 to 20m3 have been set up in different
parts of the country (Chima et al. 2013). Chima et al. (2013) reports that the national
government through universities and research centres are carrying out more research
on anaerobic digestion, with a view to fully embrace and establish this technology.
However, to date, biogas technology in Nigeria has stagnated at the institutional
research and pilot stages rather than being rolled out commercially. Okoro-
Shekwaga & Horan (2015) cite a range of barriers including ignorance, lack of a
coordinating framework, and lack of political will from government. Moreover
research at universities is frequently considered as being too academic and as such is
rarely implemented in real life. On the other hand biogas technology is spreading
across other African countries with Kenya taking the lead and further examples in
Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Burkina Faso (Stichting Nederlandse
Vrijwilligers, (SNV) 17 2017).

Chima et al. (2013), Ngumah et al. (2013) and Okoro-Shekwaga & Horan (2015)
have enumerated the benefits of anaerobic digestion including being a source of
energy leading to less dependency on fossil fuels, it is carbon neutral and converts
organic waste to a high quality fertilizer. The gas burns cleaner than wood-fuel,
kerosene, and undigested biowaste. Furthermore it decreases deforestation by
providing renewable alternative to wood-fuel and charcoal. It contributes towards an
integrated waste management system which reduces the likelihood of soil and water
pollution compared to the disposal of untreated biowastes. Economic benefits
include provision of cheaper energy and fertilizer, creation of job opportunities, and
decentralization of energy generation and environmental protection.

2.2.6.1.5 Recycling
Although recycling exists in Nigeria (Kofoworola 2007), it has not received the
attention of government and the waste management authorities, either in the past or
at present. Therefore whilst recycling is common in most Nigerian cities (Otitoju
2014) it is normally implemented by the informal sector (uncontrolled recycling 18)
rather than government agencies (controlled recycling). Recycling can bring a range
of benefits including economic growth, litter control, prolonging the lifespan of
landfill, and conserving resources and energy (Adebola 2006; Adekunle et al. 2010;

17
SNV is a non-profit, international development organisation, established in the Netherlands in
1965.
18
Uncontrolled recycling activities are known to generate and release heavy metals and POPs into the
environment, which can then be re-distributed, bioaccumulated, and biomagnified, with potentially
adverse human health effects, while controlled recycling minimises the impact of heavy metals on the
environment.

63
Ezeah et al. 2013; Kofoworola, 2007; Konya et al. 2013; Nzeadibe, 2009;
Oguntoyinbo, 2012; Oumarou et al. 2012; Wilson et al. 2006; Wilson et al. 2009).

In Nigeria whilst there is an emerging awareness of the need to recycle, as

mentioned above the activity is driven by entrepreneurs who seem to be light-years
ahead of government (Umaru, 2010). Recycling of solid waste in Nigeria is mainly
uncontrolled and revolves around the activities of informal workers, while controlled
recycling is rarely practiced since government is not involved, and there are no
formal recycling collection schemes. In local parlance (particularly in northern and
central Nigeria) they are referred to as ‘Yan Bola’ (Guardians of the garbage), ‘Yan
Panteka’ (Motor scrap cannibals), ‘Yan Gwangwani’ (Metal scrap collectors), ‘Yan
Makera’ (Metal fabricators/smiths) or ‘´Yan Tinka’ (Tin boys). Informal workers
recover items of value from household garbage bins, construction sites, garages,
markets and factories (Kofoworola, 2007; Nzeadibe, 2009; Umaru, 2010). In
addition many people survive in Nigeria by scavenging open dumpsites for materials
that could be sold (Ogwueleka, 2009). The materials are separated either at source or
at dumpsites sites (Figure 9 shows a heap of metals separated at a dumpsite in
Nigeria), before subjecting it to some level of processing, such as washing and
drying then sold to the market. The price varies depending on type, quality and
fluctuation of supply and demand in the market. After analysing the activities of
scavengers and recycling in Nigeria, Aguwamba (2003) noted that well planned
recycling and composting activities could result in cost savings of 18.5% and 57.7%
in waste management and landfill avoidance respectively.

Figure 9 Metals separated from waste at a dumpsite, Rukuba road Jos, Nigeria
Source: Image taken by the researcher during fieldwork 2014.

64
According to Nzeadibe (2009) the informal recycling system consists of
scavengers/waste pickers, middlemen, artisans, and small-scale enterprises that
recover, re-manufacture or reuse waste. Some actors in the informal recycling sector
produce finished goods from secondary raw materials for direct use by consumers
and others convert the recovered materials into intermediate products using various
processing steps. For example plastic wares might be pelletized or cut into smaller
units to enable easy packaging for transportation to Onitsha or Lagos where more
specialised recyclers further process them for the re-manufacture of various products
(Nzeadibe & Eziuzor, 2006; Nzeadibe & Iwuoha, 2008). Figure 10 shows a truck
loaded with metal scraps at Owode Onirin in Ikorodu Lagos for onward
transportation to the foundries for recycling. The vehicle body parts can be seen
flattened out in order to save space in the truck. The ‘Yan Bola’ underground
economy has created a new class of entrepreneurs in the country’s environment
industry (Umaru 2010). These shows a strong indication that the ‘Yan Bola’ business
can progressively be the vanguard of advancing entrepreneurial development in
Nigeria.

Figure 10 A truck of metal scraps at Owode Onirin, Ikorodu Lagos

Source: Uthman (Undated).

The materials collected through controlled and uncontrolled recycling are sold onto
large businesses of which many derive a significant income selling products onto the
international market. For instance Agwu (2013) cited the case of a Nigerian
recycling company, Sun and Sand Industries Ltd, which made over $61 million (£49
million) from exporting metals. Over 95% of the raw materials they source are
metallic wastes that are recycled for export to manufacture cars and ship parts. Since
2005, the company had been exporting metallic waste from Nigeria to Japan, Hong
Kong, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and India. Agwu (2013) quoted the manager
saying “Recycling is an industry that adds value to the Gross Domestic Product of a
country and is always welcomed by any country that wants to create wealth and

65
generate employment (such as Nigeria). Waste recycling here in Nigeria, is an
untapped business that if you decide to go into today you are sure of making your
cool money. The fun of it is that you might even decide to start now without you
having necessary capital at hand and still be making your money from the business”.

The first Material Recovery Facility (MRF) in Nigeria was located in Lagos
(Adegboye, 2015). The facility was developed by the West Africa Energy Group in
collaboration with the Lagos State Government to ensure environmental
sustainability through recycling and the creation of small scale entrepreneurial
schemes in the area. The MRF receives, separates, and prepares recyclable materials
for the end users. The facility provides materials for plastic, paper and metal
manufacturers and creates jobs. No other state in Nigeria, including the capital
Abuja, has a MRF hence there is heavy reliance on the informal sector in these
states. UN-Habitat (2010) speculates that informal sector recycling is fuelled and
maintained by a failure of the government, while Wilson et al. (2006) believes that
recycling helps society to move up the waste hierarchy by preventing waste and
supplying secondary raw materials industry. In addition Ezeah et al. (2014) suggest
that the informal sector should be recognized and integrated into the waste
management system as important elements for achieving sustainable waste
management in Nigeria and LEDCs in general.

2.2.6.2 Uncontrolled approaches

2.2.6.2.1 Open dumping and disposal of waste in streams, rivers and drains
Open dumping is the common alternative to sanitary landfill in most African
countries (Remigios, 2010). Nigeria commonly practices open dumping where waste
is dumped in uncontrolled landfills (dumpsites) by trucks conveying wastes from
urban or city centres (Ogwueleka, 2009). These open dumping sites are often
approved by government and could last for many years. Usually the dumps are
without regulation or standards that provide environmental protection. Ojo (2014)
added that open dumpsites do not usually have liners, fences, leachate control
systems, compactors or soil cover. Open dumpsites are cheap to manage and operate,
and are generally sited on vacant open plots of land, gully erosion sites or low-lying
areas, so that they can be reclaimed for future development. For instance in Plateau
State most open dumpsites are on lands devastated by tin mining activities, gully
erosion sites or abandoned mine ponds.

Conversely when households receive limited waste collection services from waste
management authorities waste might be dumped in the community itself (Nnaji
2015). As shown in Figures Figure 11 to Figure 13, wastes from households is
illegally dumped in communities including in open spaces, alongside highways and
backyards (Babayemi & Dauda; 2009; Ojo, 2014; Onwughara et al. 2010).

66
Figure 11 Waste dumped at Ariaria Market, Aba, Nigeria
Source: Uchendu (2016)

Figure 12 Waste disposed in a stream in Delta, Nigeria

Source: Obasioha (2015)

Figure 13 Waste disposed in drainage channels at Mararaba, Abuja, Nigeria

Source: Butu et al. (2013)

67
Households in low income areas in Nigeria often dump waste within their
communities in a manner most convenient to them, and in the locations above
because of non-provision of waste collection services. Solid waste is also commonly
disposed of in streams, rivers and drains (WHO, 1991). Nigerians dispose of waste
into these bodies of water to allow water to transport it out of their sight (Igoni, et al.
2007). Ojo (2014) stated that 87% of Nigerians use these unsanitary methods of solid
waste disposal. This practice can cause health risks and reduce the aesthetic value of
the surrounding environment, deteriorate the urban environment, as well as
contaminate natural resources (Ogu, 2000). It is an eyesore, produces an unpleasant
odour, and creates a breeding ground for pests and diseases. Other impacts of open
dumping include being a health hazard to informal workers, pollution of ground
water, and spread of infectious diseases (Momodu et al. 2011). The dumping of
waste can eventually result in the blockage of drains, streams and culverts thus
leading to flooding in urban areas (Kofoworola, 2007).

Solid waste disposal in Nigerian urban areas has presumed appalling magnitudes as
refuse heaps welcome visitors to major cities and urban centres (Osuocha, 1999).
Open dumping cannot be considered as a long-term method of disposal as it results
in threats to the environment and public health (Agaji & Wajiga, 2012),
unfortunately in Nigeria open dumping is the most common approach for managing
waste.

2.2.6.2.2 Open burning

The open burning of waste is common practice. This could be through households
burning their waste at home, waste contained in public waste container inadvertently
or advertently being set on fire, or systematic burning of waste on dumpsites. Some
households burn their waste in their backyards as they consider it a cheap and easy
way of disposing of their wastes. This method according to Araba (2010) is mostly
used by households in low income areas who do not receive waste collection
services. When waste is burnt on dumpsites this is conducted to reduce the volume
of the waste (Araba, 2010; Igoni et al. 2007). Adebayo et al. (2006), Olufayo &
Omotosho, (2007), Nabegu (2010), and Ngwuluka et al. (2009) have testified that
burning waste at open dumpsites pollutes the air. In addition open burning waste can
lead to fires getting out of control leading to the loss of lives (Aderemi & Otitoloju
(2012). Figures Figure 14Figure 15 provide examples of open burning causing
environmental pollution and a public health risk.

68
Figure 14 Burning household wastes at a courtyard in Aba, Nigeria
Source: Uchendu (2016)

Figure 15 Open burning of waste at a dumpsite

Source: Bakare (2016)

2.2.6.2.3 Burying of waste

Another method that is being practiced to a lesser extent in some parts of Nigeria
involves disposing of waste by digging holes in the ground or filling existing holes
such as abandoned wells or pit latrines around houses or neighbourhood (Dauda &
Osita, 2003; Efe, 2013; Igoni et al. 2007). Residents dig holes around their houses in
order to get sand for filling foundations of their house during construction. When
they move into the house they use the hole to bury their waste. The hole is covered
when filled up with waste and another one is dug and the cycle continues. Though
similar to landfill, this method is practiced locally at individual household level.
Igbinomwanhia (2011) reported that burying of waste is wildly practiced in Benin
metropolis. It has however not received much attention because it is the least
practiced method of waste disposal.

2.2.7 Impacts of waste management

Literature indicates that waste management in Nigeria is poor, resulting from
irregular waste collection and indiscriminate disposal of waste. Khadafa et al. (2013)
observed that waste is one of the three major environmental problems affecting

69
Nigeria, the others being flooding and desertification. The way in which waste is
managed can have a profound impact on the environment, public health and quality
of life (Agbede & Ajagbe, 2004). The impacts of waste on public health and the
environment are discussed in detail in the following sections.

2.2.7.1 Impact on public health

Studies have been undertaken across Nigeria investigating the impact of waste on
public health including work by Butu et al. (2013), Egbere et al. (2001), Longe &
Williams (2006), Modebe et al. (2009), Momodu et al. (2011), Nwanta et al. (2010),
Owaduge (2010), and Oyelola et al. (2009).

Poor domestic waste handling practices, and inadequate provision of solid waste
management facilities in Nigeria, have resulted in many households and
municipalities disposing waste indiscriminately thus posing a threat to the health of
urban residents. This according to Simon (2008) and Modebe et al. (2009) is
worrisome, as it encourages proliferation of houseflies, pests, mosquitoes, rats and
other vermin that aid in the spread of infectious diseases. Table 10 presents the
outcome of a review on diseases experienced in Nigeria that have been linked with
poor waste management provision. It includes information on how the disease is
spread and details of studies documenting the impact in Nigeria. Some of the studies
have emphasized the negative effects of poor waste management on children
(Kogers et al. 2005), and adults (Obirri et al. 2010) and loss of flora (Shagal et al.
2012).

Olukanni et al. (2014) observed that inappropriate medical waste management is a

major concern in LEDCs including Nigeria. According to Longe & Williams (2006)
most hospitals in Nigeria employ the services of state owned solid waste
management companies for final collection and disposal of their medical waste at
government official dumpsites. The implication of this is that medical waste is
dumped alongside other waste streams. Many scholars (Abah & Ahimain, 2011;
Adegbite et al. 2010; Coker et al. 2009; Nguluka et al. 2009; Oke, 2008; WHO,
1999; WHO 2002) highlight that the incorrect handling and disposal of medical
waste is a health risk to medical staff and other members of the public. Those
exposed to medical waste are at higher risk of diseases such as Meningitis,
Tuberculosis, Lassa fever, Ebola, Hepatitis and HIV/AIDS.

The open burning of waste could cause air pollution and health risks to those directly
exposed to the smoke (Babayemi & Dauda 2009; Igoni et al. 2007). Onwughara
(2010) reports an abundant release of poisonous gas substances into the environment
as a result of burning of polystyrene foam and obsolete e-wastes. Open burning
especially affects people with sensitive respiratory systems. Njoku et al. (2015)
posits that smoke released during the burning of waste has a significant impact on
human respiratory systems. Kram et al. (2014) stated that some of the pollutants
contained in the smoke include dioxins, furans, arsenic, mercury, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and

70
hydrochloric acid. Some of the pollutants can also be left behind in the ash. Kram et
al. (2014) and Nwaogu (2014) observed that toxic gases such as nitrogen oxide and
sulphur dioxide which are released into the atmosphere through burning of waste
later accumulate and fall as acid rain. Several kinds of human cancer and birth
defects have been reported to be associated with the burning of municipal solid
waste (Onwughara, 2010). For example burning tyres are known to emit dioxins and
benzene derivatives which have been linked with reproductive impairment and
cancer in humans (Aderemi & Otitoloju, 2012). In addition Cointreau (2006) states
that exposure to smoke can cause headache, nausea, and rashes and worsen
respiratory issues.

[THIS SPACE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

71
Table 10 Diseases in Nigeria linked with poor waste management practice
Disease Causative Agent Impact on public health in Nigeria and context with waste
Cholera Transmitted through water The first recorded case of cholera in Nigeria was in a village near Lagos on December 26th
or food contaminated with 1970 (WHO, 2011a). This led to an epidemic of 22,931 cases and 2,945 deaths with a Case
the bacterium Vibrio Fatality Rate of (CFR) of 12.8% in 1971. Since then intermittent outbreaks have been
cholera, as a result of poor occurring, and is associated with poor waste management. The later part of 2010 was marked
waste management with severe outbreaks starting in northern Nigeria involving approximately 3,000 cases with
781 deaths (Adagbada et al. 2012). Another outbreak started in May 2013 and continued up
until 12 October 2014, with a total of 40,608 cases with 898 deaths, giving a CFR of 1.95%
(Interhealth Worldwide, 2014). More than 34,000 suspected cases and 664 deaths were
reported from January 2014 to 12 October 2014. Suspected cholera cases have been recorded
in 19 out of 37 states (51%) including Bauchi, Borno, Adamawa, Katsina, Kebbi, Kaduna,
Kano, Plateau and Zamfara.

Many studies have been undertaken in order to understand the disease and find ways of
treating it (Ariba, 2015; Dalhat et al. 2014; Interhealth Worldwide, 2014; Marin et al. 2013;
and WHO 2014). Cholera is a threat, particularly, in overcrowded areas with poor sanitary
conditions, where good quality drinking water and effective sewage and SWM systems are
not available to the public.
Diarrheal Diarrhea can be caused by Joshua (2013) reported that diarrheal diseases kill an estimated 2.5 million people each year,
diseases many types of bacteria, with 60-70% of them being children under 5 years (Cesar et al. 2000; Ruxin, 1994). It is a
viruses and parasites, widely recognized cause of childhood deaths in LEDCs, especially in SSA (Yilgwan &
(mainly rotaviruses) and are Okolo, 2012) where about 25% of under-five mortalities are directly attributed to diarrhoea
associated with poor (Cesar et al. 2000; Gutierrez et al. 1996; Ruxin, 1994). Literature links diarrhea to lack of
hygiene due to improper safe water, basic sanitation, and hygiene (Oloruntoba et al. 2014), as a result of poor waste
solid waste management. management. Other factors include lack of washing hand with soap and water after
defecation and before food preparation, and poor sanitation including inadequate SWM
leading to clogged drains and stagnant water presenting breeding grounds for flies/insects.
Hepatitis Liver disorder contracted Hepatitis is a major cause of liver disease morbidity and mortality worldwide (Musa et al.
from contaminated blood 2015). It is caused through unsafe injections, and also very poor management of medical
and hypodermic needles waste. Worldwide, injections cause an estimated 8 – 16 million cases of Hepatitis B virus
disposed of carelessly, due (HBV) infection, 2.4 – 4.5 million cases of Hepatitis C (HCV) virus infection. The WHO

72
Disease Causative Agent Impact on public health in Nigeria and context with waste
to poor management of estimates that about 20 million Nigerians are infected, with about 5 million dying of the
medical waste. consequences (WHO, 1999). Medical waste in Nigeria is often disposed together with other
waste and this increases the risk of contracting hepatitis. The problem of Hepatitis in Nigeria
has been documented by Onyekwere et al. (2002); Forbi et al. (2008); Adoga et al. (2009),
and Adoga et al. (2010).
HIV/AIDS Multiple sexual partners, HIV remains a public health issue in Nigeria (Awofala & Ogundele, 2016). Globally 9% of
delivery in unhealthy the people living with HIV are Nigerians (UNAIDS, 2014). Awofala & Ogundele recently
facilities, female genital estimated that about 3.2 million people live with HIV in Nigeria and about 220,393 new HIV
mutilations, use of unsterile infections occurred in 2013 with 210,031 deaths from AIDS related cases. Nigeria now has
blood, traditional markings the second largest HIV disease burden in the world behind South Africa which has 6.8
and tattoos, and exposure to million cases (Federal Ministry of Health, 2013; Nigeria National Agency for the Control of
medical waste which is AIDS, 2014; United States Agency International Development, 2013). Poor management of
poorly managed. medical wastes contributes to the spread of HIV. In Nigeria medical waste is often disposed
together with other waste in unsanitary conditions.
Lassa Fever Transmitted to humans from Lassa fever is a haemorrhagic fever common in four African countries including Nigeria. In
contact with food or items 2012 more than 2,900 cases were reported in widespread outbreaks that occurred across
contaminated with rodent many states in Nigeria (WHO, 2012). It breaks out annually during the dry season in Nigeria
excreta. Rats live and (WHO, 2015). WHO reported a high Case Fatality Rate of about 37.9%, affecting Bauchi,
multiply more in dirty areas Edo, FCT, Kano, Nasarawa, Niger Oyo, Plateau, Rivers and Taraba. Choon (2016) estimates
where food waste is poorly that there are 300,000 cases yearly with 5,000 deaths. Lassa fever is mainly transmitted by
managed. rodents, and rodents are associated with solid waste and dirty environments. However Choon
(2016) stated that lassa fever could also be transmitted through human-to-human contact.
Malaria Mosquitoes are responsible Malaria is a major public health problem in SSA including Nigeria where it accounts for
for the transmission of more cases and deaths than any other country in the world (Aribodor et al. 2016). In 2013,
malaria through their bites. there were 2 million reported cases of malaria killing an estimated 584,000 people, 70% of
Dirty environments with whom were children under five with over (UNICEF, 2016; WHO 2014). Nigeria accounts for
waste blocking drains are 25 percent of the world’s malaria burden (WHO, 2012). Poor waste management can lead to
breeding sites for stagnant water which is a breeding ground for mosquitoes.
mosquitoes.
Typhoid Caused by the bacteria There is an estimated 12-33 million cases leading to 216,000-600,000 deaths annually. The
Fever Salmonella Typhi or disease is common where there is a general warm humid climate, poor sanitary practice as a

73
Disease Causative Agent Impact on public health in Nigeria and context with waste
Paratyphi. It spreads result of poor waste management, poverty and ignorance. It is a disease that is prevalent in
through contaminated food LEDCs due to poor waste management (sanitation and hygiene) (Okore et al. 2015). WHO
and water supplies in areas (2008) stated that it is spread by eating food or drinking water contaminated with faeces of an
with poor sanitation infected person. In addition the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) (2007)
resulting from poor waste observed that it can be transmitted by flies such as Musca domestica.
management.
Yellow Transmitted through the The WHO estimates that yellow fever causes 200,000 infections and 30,000 deaths every
Fever bites of infected mosquitoes, year, with almost 90% of these occurring in Africa (Tolle, 2009). Yellow fever is transmitted
as in the case of malaria by mosquitoes belonging to the aedes and haemogogus species, when they come in contact
above with non-immunized humans. The different mosquito species live in different habitats, some
breed around domestic houses others in jungles (WHO, 2017). Densely populated cities are
particularly vulnerable, as stagnant water, which could be caused by poor waste
management, provides good condition for mosquito larvae to thrive.
Non Results from direct The impact of non-infectious respiratory disease in Nigeria is still unknown because limited
Infectious inhalation of airborne dust research has been carried out, as such no national data on the prevalence of COPD exists
Respiratory particles and smoke (Akanbi et al. 2009). However, the burden of infectious and non-infectious respiratory
Disease contaminated with disease appears to be on the increase. Wood is an important cooking fuel in many homes in
also known pollutants resulting from the Nigeria, and COPD resulting from such exposures has been reported by Erhabor & Kolawole
as Chronic burning of waste. (2002). In addition behavioural factors such as smoking and the burning of waste also
Obstructive contribute to the increase of respiratory diseases in Nigeria.
Pulmonary
Disease
(COPD)

74
Dioxins are environmental pollutants belonging to the so-called “dirty dozen” - a
group of dangerous chemicals known as persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which
adversely affect human health and the environment (Zhang et al. 2011).
Polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/PCDF) constitute
POPs. Fiedler (2007) and Zhang et al. (2011) have identified open burning of waste
as the largest source of unintentionally generated POPs in LEDCs. Gullett et al.
(2007) and Tang et al. (2010) state significant amounts of POPs could also be
generated through the process of burning e-waste to recover metals. E-waste contains
valuable metals including copper (Cu), platinum group metals (PGMs) as well as
potential environmental pollutants, especially lead (Pb), antimony (Sb), mercury
(Hg), cadmium (C), nickel (Ni), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Burning e-waste generates dioxins, furans,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polyhalogenated aromatic hydrocarbons
(PHAHs), and hydrogen chloride chemicals which contaminate the environment
(Robinson, 2009).

Exposure to dioxins and furans has been associated with certain types of cancer, liver
problems, and impairment of the immune system, endocrine system, heart attacks
and reproductive functions.

Dioxins and furans produced from the open burning of waste can be deposited on
plants, which may be eaten by animals, and they can stay in the food chain until it
ends up in the meat and dairy products consumed by humans. Over 90% of human
intake of dioxins and furans is from food mainly meat and dairy products, fish and
shellfish. Robinson (2009) specified that e-waste workers suffer negative health
effects through skin contact and inhalation, while the wider public are exposed to the
contaminants through smoke, dust, drinking water and food.

Oyelola et al. (2009) has recorded cases of diseases resulting from the burning of
solid wastes and gaseous emission from dumpsites. Similarly Owaduge (2010) has
established an association between waste burning and the incidence of respiratory
diseases among adults and children in Nigeria. Smoke from the burning of waste has
harmful health effects on city residents through breathing in of particulates in the air
containing carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulphur dioxide, and it is worst
amongst households that burn their own waste. Akanbi et al. (2009) specifies that
biomass smoke is an important risk factor for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary
Disease (COPD). Wood is an important cooking fuel in Nigeria, and COPD resulting
from such exposure has been reported by Erhabor & Kolawole (2002).

75
2.2.7.2 Impact on the environment
Alabi et al. (2012) and Modebe et al. (2009) observed that improper handling,
storage and disposal of wastes is a major cause of pollution of air, soil, groundwater
and surface water sources.

Globally the most serious environmental problem in terms of solid waste is the
emission of greenhouse gases (Longe & Williams, 2006; Osinowo, 2001; Ngwuluka
et al. 2009; Walling et al. 2004). Greenhouse gases and their effect on the
environment has gained the attention of researchers and environmentalists in recent
times due to its overwhelming impact in terms of global warming (Achike and
Onoja, 2014; Aderogba, 2011; Anomohanran, 2012). The open dumping of organic
waste releases methane which is a potent greenhouse gas.

Soil contamination results from waste being dumped in open spaces or dumpsites.
According to Omonfonmwan & Esa-Edoh (2008) the growth and development of
urban centres, coupled with improper waste management have worsened the aspect
of soil pollution in Nigeria. Waste dumps lead to the contamination of soil with
heavy metals and elements. Yusuf (1983) observed that chemical elements released
from waste dumps into soil profiles in Kano metropolis contributed to the pollution
of soil in that locality and the same was reported by Butu et al. (2013) in Karu. The
contamination of soil by heavy metal can cause adverse effects on human health,
animals and soil productivity (Smith et al. 1996). Waste contains a variety of metals
which get transferred to plants through water within the soil or seep into
underground water (Voutsa et al. 1996). Elements such as Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn can
change the soil chemistry and impact on the animals and plants that depend on that
soil for their nourishment (Ali et al. 2014).

Dumpsites pollute surface and ground water (UNEP, 2015) and they discharge
unwanted biological, chemical, and physical waste materials into bodies of water
causing water pollution (Adelegan, 2004). Studies have shown impairments of
groundwater quality as a result of leachate generated from dumpsites (Longe &
Kehinde, 2005; Longe & Enekwechi, 2007).

Enekwechi (2007) described leachates outflow and infiltration as the most critical
source of groundwater contamination from the existing solid waste management
practices in Lagos, thus constituting potential public and environmental problems.
Onwughara et al. (2010) believes that water contamination by leachate can transmit
bacteria and diseases such as typhoid fever which is a common problem for people
from LEDCs who cannot afford to dig wells deep enough to reach fresh water
aquifers. Longe and Balogun (2010) stated that some Nigerians still depend on
shallow wells for their water supply and a great percentage get their domestic and
drinking water from ponds and streams. Hence water pollution is a major concern
that places the health of about 40 million Nigerians at risk of diseases such as
76
cholera, dysentery, diarrhoea, and typhoid fever (Adelegan, 2004; Orubu, 2006;
WHO 2017). The incidence of these diseases can put additional burden on the
inadequate health services available in Nigeria, consequently leading to severe
economic burdens on both the country’s struggling health system, and the populace
majority of whom are extremely poor (Okonkwo et al. 2014). Daffi and Kassam
(2013) notes the National Environmental Sanitation Policy, developed by the Federal
Ministry of Environment in 2005, was to ensure sound environmental sanitation
practices that will promote sustainable development, public health, and good quality
of life however environmental sanitation remains very poor in many
neighbourhoods.

Butu et al. (2013) observed that waste blocking gutters contain decomposable waste
which generates an unpleasant smell and attracts flies and also contain harmful
bacteria which are pathogenic to humans. Studies have also shown that waste in
gutters and waterways contribute to flooding (Kofoworola 2007, Toyobo et al.
2013). Folorunsho & Awosika (2001) have related the flooding in Lagos to clogging
of drainage channels by dumped solid waste, and this is replicated in most cities.
Toyobo et al. (2013) observed that pure water sachets disposed in gutters caused the
blockage of drains which flood during heavy rain. The current state of plastic bag
waste pollution in Nigeria is alarming. Other impacts from plastic bags reported by
Ogwo et al. (2013) include choking of animals, and water and soil contamination
from plastics breaking down in the environment.

2.2.7.3 National Environmental Sanitation Day

In order to address the impacts of waste on communities, the National
Environmental Sanitation Day has been in operation since March 1984. The
initiative sets aside 7am -10am on the last Saturday of the month for cleaning the
environment. During this time movement is restricted and all residents are expected
to remain at home and clean their houses and surroundings including clearing
gutters, cutting grass, tending to overgrown vegetation or tidying up premises in
general. This practice has been ongoing since March 1984 (Omonisa, 2015). More
information on this initiative in the context of Jos is covered in Chapter 5.4.8.

2.2.8 Challenges to sustainable waste management in Nigeria

Some of the challenges to the sustainable management of solid waste in Nigeria have
been identified and discussed by Abila & Kantola (2013), Abur et al. (2014),
Adelegan (2004), Agunwamba (1998, 2003), Agwu (2012), Babalola et al. (2010),
Ezeah et al. (2009), Ezeah (2010), Ezeah & Roberts (2012), Iriruaga (2012),
Olowomeye (1991), and Walling et al. (2004). The challenges identified are grouped
under the following sections: societal, institutional/regulatory, political, operational,
economic, and cultural challenges. Table 11 sets out the challenges identified.

77
Table 11 Identified sustainable solid waste management challenges in Nigeria
Category Examples
Societal Unplanned nature of municipalities
Increasing waste generation due to growth in population and
urbanization
Size of country making dumping of waste accessible
Institutional or Insufficient policies for good practice
regulatory Weak regulatory framework
Lack of environmental reforms
No clear plans, strategies and actions
Non-involvement of the public in SWM decisions
Political Political appointment and interferences
Operational Unqualified staff in managerial positions
Low/no training opportunities
Inadequate staffing and poorly paid staff
Operations limited to collect and dumping of waste
Inadequate or obsolete equipment
Economic Inadequate funding
High risk/low return on SWM investment
Cultural Poor public attitude towards solid waste
Non recognition of informal sector or scavengers
Lack of public education and awareness
Source: Abila & Kantola (2013), Abur et al. (2014), Adelegan (2004), Agunwamba
(1998), 2003, Agwu (2012), Babalola et al. (2010), Ezeah et al. (2009), Ezeah 2010,
Ezeah & Roberts (2012), Iriruaga (2012), Olowomeye (1991), and Walling et al.
(2004)

2.2.8.1 Societal challenges

The challenges in this category are set out in Table 11 and range from the unplanned
nature of municipalities, increasing waste generation due to population increases,
and rapid urbanization. Rapid urbanization has completely overwhelmed African
cities (Ogbazi, 2013). Rapid population growth and urbanisation have been closely
linked with unplanned development and informal settlements. The unplanned nature
of municipalities is one of the greatest challenges facing solid waste management in
Nigeria. Nwaka (2005) criticised the role of government in the rapid expansion of
spontaneous settlements and argued that the procedure for obtaining and developing
land became excessively bureaucratized, obstructive, and riddled with corruption.
For example, restrictions on the availability of land, especially for the poor,
encouraged the growth and expansion of more irregular settlements on the fringes of
towns or on vacant public lands.

Nwaka (2005) added that the increase in informal settlements is mainly due to the
the private sector being at the forefront of urban housing. Even though there is a law
on urban and regional planning, no efforts have been made to put the laws into action
78
by government, and for that reason only 20-40% of developments have followed the
urban and regional planning laws, hence most developments are unplanned (Nwaka,
2005).

The limitation of government planning controls, plus the indiscriminate

developments associated with the informal sector have produced uncontrollable and
unhealthy urban environments. Ogbazi (2013) stated that the lack of urban planning
has failed to address waste management in Nigeria. Agunwamba (1998) and Oyeniyi
(2011) observed that the unplanned nature of many cities in Nigeria makes it
difficult for proper collection and disposal of waste, since most houses are built
without adherence to set standards, with narrow and unsurfaced streets makin waste
collection difficult. For example, Nwaka (2005) revealed that government’s lack of
concern for the proper planning of cities has led to random developments observed
in Kano where residential areas are not accessible to waste management agencies. A
survey in Kano (Nabegu, 2010) found that 69% of respondents believe that only a
small fraction of the state has access to waste collection service due to inaccessibility
of most parts of the city. Similarly, Ayotamuno & Gobo (2004) pointed out that as
the villages around Port Harcourt began to develop, there was little or no government
approval and planning. Ogbazi (2013) stated that most government agencies
responsible for urban planning have approached planning development arbitrarily.

A further challenge presented by Imam et al. (2008) is congestion in cities which

hamper collection efforts, this problem is escalated by poor planning (Agunwamba,
1998). In Abuja the waste management agency tried night time collections to
overcome this problem, however it was found to be problematic due to security
concerns.

Nwaka (2005) observes that, in Nigeria, the drainage systems have open drains in the
form of a trenches with little width and depth. As these drains are not covered,
coupled with poor waste collection services, they are usually blocked with waste
materials. Nwaka noted that environmental awareness is still at the elementary level
especially among the informal settlements.

Rapid urbanization also presents challenges in the development of appropriate

disposal infrastructure. Sangodoyin (1993) stated that rapid urbanization increased
the difficulty of getting lands needed for the siting of landfills to accommodate the
increasing waste arisings. Afon & Okewole (2007) pointed out that as the growth in
population continues more land will be needed to cater for the extra waste that will
be generated. They argue that Oyo Townships in Oyo state will need an additional
1.3 acres of land annually to accommodate the projected annual waste growth rate of
3%. They noted that 39.5 acres of land was acquired to cater for the waste arisings of
the 394,632 inhabitants of the town in 2005. Based on their projection they estimated

79
in the next 20-30 years an additional 26.9-48.7 acres (the equivalent of 13.5-24.4
football pitches) will be needed for the dumping of waste in the town.

Conversely the abundance of land available for waste disposal in Nigeria is also an
encouragement for the indiscriminate disposal of waste, and a hindrance to the
expensive but sustainable disposal options such as sanitary landfilling and
incineration. For instance MyLifeElsewhere (2017) observed that Nigeria’s landmass
of 923,768 km2 is about 4 times the size of UK (243,610 km2).

2.2.8.2 Institutional or regulatory challenges

Institutional and regulatory challenges relate to governance and the rules and
regulations controlling the management of waste.

Adelagan (2004) detected that right from the inception of British rule in the 1800s,
colonial economic development policies and plans contained little or no
requirements to conserve the natural environment. Thus the formative years of
institutional environmental regulation in Nigeria were characterized by the absence
of a clear sense of direction and commitment to waste and environmental
management. Ezeah (2010) observed that municipal solid waste management in
Nigeria is still at an emerging stage because of improper organisation and for that
reason gross inefficiencies are common.

Adama (2007) and Imam et al. (2008) identified institutional and legal frameworks
to be the pillar of SWM, yet it is the area where deficiencies are most glaring.
Nabegu & Mustapha (2015) observed that the legal provisions for SWM show a
clear gap leading to lack of coordination and conflict between the federal, state and
local governments. An overlap of regulatory functions across these three tiers of
government has been a major setback as it creates a climate for unhealthy
competition with little progress which could have been achieved if the roles of each
institution were more specific or complimentary.

Ikpeze (2014) adds that lack of environmental reforms with respect to waste
management is the main reason why municipal waste authorities have failed to
execute their mandate to the citizens, thus making Nigeria one of the dirtiest nations
in the world.

Historically the public sector has provided solid waste management services in urban
cities in LEDCs including Nigeria (Akaateba & Yakubu, 2013). However there have
been major lapses resulting from managerial, operational, financial, and technical
incompetence (Olukanni et al. 2016). This has given rise to the more recent
involvement of the private sector in solid waste management. The private sector has
been identified by Ibrahim (2014), Ibrahim et al. (2014), and Okpoko & Oluwatayo
(2016) to have a stake in urban solid waste management in Nigeria. Lagos was the
first state to adopt the public private partnership (PPP) model in 1997 (Lasisi, 2007).
80
In this model both the government (public) and the private sectors share the risks and
benefits of waste management (Aliu et al. 2014; Nwachukwu, 2009). Ogu (2000)
suggests that using the private sector in SWM could enhance service delivery.

Similarly according to Imam et al. (2008) the non-involvement of public members in

SWM issues and governance is detrimental to developing an efficient management
of waste.

2.2.8.3 Political challenges

Political challenges relate to the way power is achieved and used in the country or
society. Ezeah & Roberts (2012) observed that the political class regularly interfere
with solid waste management in Abuja, particularly in the area of appointments of
managers to waste management agencies. Similarly Agunwamba (1998) observed
that the belief that officials tasked with enforcing environmental laws can be bribed,
prevent people from taking environmental laws seriously. Agunwamba (1998) also
noted that politics rather than environmental considerations influence the location of
waste management facilities and argues that this system often leads to illogical and
wasteful decisions. Adewole (2009) also argued that the inability of the previous
Lagos State Waste Management Authority to deliver a sustainable waste
management service could have been due to corruption. Adewale stated that waste
management officials were known to demand money before collecting waste from
markets, while in some cases, the informal waste operators (truck pushers) have been
asked for bribes before they can dispose of their waste on the dump sites thus leading
to illegal dumping. Agunwamba (1998) also opines that personal interests have often
led to delays or stoppage of environmental policies in the country.

2.2.8.4 Operational challenges

Operational challenges relate to the functioning or working of SWM infrastructure.
From literature it is clear that in Nigeria local conditions are not taken into
consideration before the adoption of a waste management strategy.

Ogwueleka (2009) revealed that irrespective of the local conditions most cities in
Nigeria adopt open dumping or uncontrolled landfills as their disposal route. This
may be attributed to the fact that in most cases state environmental bodies are headed
by politicians and their associates who have very little or no training on solid waste
management. A good example of this was illustrated by Leton & Omotosho (2004)
who found that although landfilling is widely used in most Nigerian cities, the
geologic assessment they conducted revealed that open dumps and landfilling are not
suitable for some states in the Niger Delta. This is particularly true in Bayelsa State
due to the fact that the area is overwhelmed with water and highly waterlogged all
year round. The same study suggested that Yenagoa and Bayelsa State as a whole
should adopt alternative disposal or treatment method rather than landfill.

81
The composition and density of waste in Nigeria also presents challenges. Waste
from Nigeria is heterogeneous, dense and high in moisture content (Ezeahl 2010;
Ogwueleka, 2009). As a result waste management solutions from MEDCs may not
be transferrable to Nigeria, and LEDCs per se. Imam et al. (2008) argues that since
the waste composition in Abuja is high in organics, compaction trucks may not be
appropriate yet half of the collection vehicles owned by the state solid waste
management agency are compaction trucks. Furthermore Nabegu, (2010) reveals that
the compaction trucks used in MEDC achieve a low compaction rate in Nigeria, due
to the high density of solid waste. Ezeah & Roberts (2012) observed that some of the
old solid waste collection vehicles brought into the country from developed countries
are quickly abandoned due to unavailability of spare parts. Agunwamba (1998)
concluded that equipment that cannot be serviced or maintained locally will amount
to a waste of resources in the long term.

Main (1993) and Nigerian Environmental Study Action Team (NEST) (1991) earlier
observed that the incineration plants in Lagos were never operational due to
technical issues. Solomon (2009) added that incineration of waste will achieve a
better result in countries with less than 20% water content in their waste. Solomon
observed that the water content of solid waste in Lagos was about 30-40% hence
these incinerators were never used. Some of them were decommissioned while one
was converted to a recreational facility. Hence, it is fairly obvious that incineration
plants for Nigerian cities with the heavy moisture contents in the waste will make
combustion difficult (Ogwueleka, 2009).

A further challenge is the frontline resources available to undertake collection. Ezeah

& Roberts (2012) mentioned instances where basic resources used by waste
collection crews such as bin bags, sacks and plastic receptacles were not available.
Babalola et al. (2010) and Bakare (2016) lamented the inadequate and unreliable
collection services for solid waste management in most Nigerian cities. Ogwueleka
(2009) observed that 60% of collection trucks are out of service at any one time, and
many frequently break down due to overuse (Agunwamba et al. 2003).

Agunwamba (1998) identified limited human capacity and waste management

knowledge as a challenge to solid waste management in Nigeria. Most staff of the
environmental protection agencies and government ministries lack adequate training,
hence they are not up to date in their knowledge of SWM good practices. In addition
staff salaries are poor and often irregularly paid which leads to low morale and
affects staff performance. Ogwueleka (2009) suggested that the low morale among
waste management agencies personnel resulting from poor remuneration, affects
solid waste management performance. The consequence of this is that waste
management responsibilities in Nigeria are handled by less experienced staff, who
have not reached managerial levels in their respective agencies. As a result the heads

82
of agencies or ministries who are political office holders decide on waste
management issues based mostly on political convenience rather than good solid
waste management practice.

2.2.8.5 Economic challenges

Inadequate funding has been identified by several researchers as one of the most
predominant factors affecting SWM in Nigeria (Agunwamba, 2003; Ayotamuno &
Gobo, 2004; Babalola et al. 2010, Ezeah & Roberts, 2012; Igbinomwanhia 2011,
Ogu, 2000; Ogwueleka, 2009). It has been suggested that the financial strength of
environmental agencies in the country has not been able to parallel the rate at which
solid waste is generated and Ogwueleka (2009) argues that environmental agencies
do not have the capacity to perform their duties effectively due to limited budgets.
Afon & Okewole (2007) noted that solid waste management is not regarded as
important or a priority by the three tiers of government in the country hence there are
some long periods of financial neglect of the solid waste management agencies.
Ezeah & Roberts (2012) argue that since waste management agencies are not
involved in budgetary allocations waste management departments are overlooked
and underfunded hence it is difficult for them to employ and retain experts in waste
management. Ezeah & Roberts (2012) pointed out that as a result of a shortage of
funds waste management agencies are unable to purchase equipment needed for
efficient service delivery. Agunwamba (1998) noted that the low level of funding
seriously hinders the operations of the waste management agencies and commented
that collection operations are sometimes cancelled or delayed due to lack of fuel for
collection vehicles. In addition Ezeah & Roberts (2012) criticised the poor funding
of waste management bodies, stating that shortage of funds often leads the agencies
to purchase old or used machineries from Europe which as covered previously may
not be appropriate.

As a result of the inadequate funding, a number of authors have been arguing for the
implementation of charges to citizens to help develop better services. In Port
Harcourt for instance, like most states in the country, the state government is the sole
financier of solid waste management (Ayotamuno & Gobo, 2004). Ayotamuno &
Gobo argued that this system of funding is not sustainable. Hence, Imam et al.
(2008) suggested that some form of user charge might help reduce the burden of
funding on the government. Similarly Ogbonna et al. (2007) noted the findings of the
Rivers State Ministry of Environment & Agip Oil Company Limited who estimated
there was an increase of 25.4% in the volume of waste generated in Port Harcourt
between 2000 and 2001. They concluded that solid waste management agencies
should adopt an approach which charges residents according to the volume of waste
they generate.

A study of waste management in Benin, Nigeria showed that waste management is

capital intensive (Ogu, 2000). The study added that despite the financial implications
83
of waste management, there was no concrete plan being made for the recovery of
some of the cost from residents. This was attributed to the fact that people are not
used to paying for municipal waste management. Furthermore Omuta (1987)
explains that as much as 30% of the locally generated revenue by the Benin local
council is spent on solid waste management. Omuta suggested that nationally at least
5% of the country’s revenue should be earmarked to improve the solid waste
management system. In addition, he advised that a fee should be charged for the
service however such fees should take the low level of income into consideration.

Agunwamba (1998) advised that in order to improve on solid waste management,

adequate funding arrangements should be put in place and suggested that this should
be done through private initiative and cooperation with the private sector. However
since the private sector is profit driven, the present economic circumstances in
Nigeria as a whole have tended to negatively influence the inflow of private capital
for municipal solid waste management. In addition to this, he suggested that funding
should also be provided for waste management research in Nigeria.

2.2.8.6 Cultural challenges

One of the most important factors in solid waste management is the cooperation of
the public. Imam et al. (2008) pointed out that there is a wide spread lack of
environmental awareness and concern on environmental issues. Adewole (2009)
reported that the negative waste disposal habit of most people in Lagos is fuelled by
ignorance and poverty. He added that the manner in which people discharge garbage
into drains or highways seems to suggest that Nigerians are permanently accustomed
to dirt. Agunwamba (1998) and Amasuomo et al. (2015) have reported a general
careless attitude of the public and government towards waste management. Rahji &
Oloruntoba (2009) argue that there is a need for government to engage in
environmental campaigns in order to enlighten the public on best environmental
practice and suggested that increasing the awareness of the people may have a
positive impact on their attitude towards the environment.

Nabegu (2010) observed that in Kano waste was dumped indiscriminately on the
streets and in public places and water bodies. His study showed that householders
were only interested in their immediate vicinity. Only 11% of the people interviewed
as part of the study express concern for environmentally sound and safe waste
disposal.

Imam et al. (2008) concluded that the level of awareness and the attitude of the
population can greatly affect solid waste management process. They observed that
the level of awareness can impact on domestic waste storage, segregation, littering
and fly tipping and recycling. Furthermore Nabegu (2010) pointed out that the level
of environmental awareness will influence the effectiveness and sustainability of a
municipal waste management system.
84
Omuta (1987) in his study of Benin explained that improvements can be observed if
the public is carried along during the planning and implementation of solid waste
management programmes. He suggests that community leaders should be engaged in
the policy making process and that successful engagement with the community may
improve cooperation.

Kofoworola (2007) suggested that government should use all media resources
available to them to enlighten the people on the need to dispose their wastes at
designated drop off points. Omuta (1987) added that educational programmes should
be aimed at developing skills for the prevention of environmental degradation. He
added that school curricula should also ensure proper environmental habits. Nabegu
(2010) argues that it is not enough to enlighten the public; his view is that efforts to
build awareness should be backed up by improvement in waste collection services.
In addition, Agunwamba (2003) commented that enlightenment programmes should
be sensitive to the particular needs and the socio economic needs of the people. He
suggests that programmes should be geared towards encouraging a reuse and recycle
and that the impact on the environment, economy and health of not engaging in these
activities should be explained properly.

Abila & Kantola (2013) and Moruff (2012) synthesized the problems of waste
management in Nigeria and categorically stated that cultural belief is a major barrier
to efficient management of waste. Cultural beliefs are the norms, values, standards,
and expectations a culture has generated for its members. Moruff (2012) suggested
that the incessant urban environmental problems arising in Ibadan are as a result of
cultural factors, such that the identified urban environmental issues are closely
associated with the lifestyles of the people either as responses to urbanization or their
spatial heritage.

Efforts of some waste management agencies in Nigeria to involve members of the

public in waste management operations have not yielded a positive response from
the public. For instance Amasuomo et al. (2015) observed that the waste
management agency in Abuja adequately provided waste bins for waste storage at
home and in public places to encourage residents to participate in sustainable waste
management practices, nonetheless there was low public participation from
residents. Amasuomo et al. (2015) revealed that the obstacles to public participation
in waste management includes; lack of funding, inadequate government policies,
environmental programmes, and behaviour of the public.

The informal sector is not recognized in SWM in Nigeria, for instance Salau et al.
(2016) mentioned that in Lagos State there is no official recognition of the informal
sector in waste management, although tens of thousands of cart pushers and
scavengers exist on the streets and landfills collecting and recycling waste materials
which constitute a viable component of the SWM. In order to promote a sustainable
85
SWM system and increase recycling rates, Imam et al. (2008) has called for co-
operation between communities, the informal sector, the formal waste collectors and
the government authorities. Mbah & Nzeadibe (2016) are soliciting that government
should come up with a comprehensive policy to integrate the entire informal waste
economy in municipal SWM.

2.3 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER

Overall the literature highlights the current poor state of waste management in
Nigeria which is having a significant impact on public health and the environment.
Many challenges exist which hamper the development of a sustainable waste
management system including societal, institutional/regulatory, political, operational,
economic and cultural.

The thesis now moves on to focus on the case study area for this research, Jos.

86
3 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
IN JOS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
As shown in Figure 16 Jos is the capital of Plateau State. It consists of 17 local
government areas including Jos South and Jos North – these two areas make up the
city of Jos, also referred to as the Jos Bukuru Metropolis, which is the focus of this
research.

Figure 16 Map of Plateau State highlighting the study area (Jos North and Jos
South)
Source: Meseko et al. (2012)

3.2 DEMOGRAPHICS OF JOS

3.2.1 Population growth

According to DungGwom et al. (2008), in the 1960s and early 1970s, was a small
but well-managed town with the services running smoothly. This changed from the
early 1980s due to its rapid growth and urbanization, coupled with the absence of
planning and management due to administrative ineffectiveness, has led the city to
become increasingly unsanitary. Figure 17 shows how the population of Jos has
87
changed from 1930 with estimates to 2025. The data used in Figure 17 was collated
from publications based on estimates; as such the current population is likely to be
much more than this considering the rate of population growth.

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000
Population

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0
1930 1950 1973 1991 2006 2025

Figure 17 Population trends in Jos

Sources: DungGwom et al. (2008); Fola Consult (2009); NPC (2008)

While the country’s population is increasing by 2.8% per annum, the rate of urban
growth is as high as 5.5% per annum (NPC, 2008) which is the highest urbanization
rate in the world (DungGwom et al., 2008). DungGwom et al. (2008) reported that
the urban population in Nigeria in 1962/63 was 20%, increasing to 36% in 1991 and
to 45% in 2006, and is projected to be 60% by 2020. This rate of urbanization and
urban growth is thought to be replicated in Jos with the population increasing from
1.3 million in 2006 to 2.7 million in 2025.

Population growth in Jos has been exacerbated by its location. Ajiji & Larab (2016)
noted that the wave of migration into Jos assumed an alarming rate from the 1980s
as a result of religious violence witnessed in Kano, Bauchi, Jimeta, Jalingo, due to
the Maitatsine riots. The Maitatsine riots were a series of violent uprisings originated
by Islamist militants in northern Nigeria between 1980 and 1985. The riots prompted
ethno-religious discord between Muslims and Christians. The reintroduction of the
Sharia law system in some northern states in 1999 and the crises that followed, also
lead to substantial influx of people into Jos from these areas (Ajiji & Larab, 2016;
Okpanachi, 2012). The situation is now exacerbated with refugees fleeing the north
eastern part of the country as a result of the ongoing Boko Haram attacks. Ajiji &
Larab (2016) observed that people had to migrate to safer places on the basis of
religion.

88
3.1.2 Growth in low income areas and infrastructure
Oladosu et al. (2015) stated there has been no effective administrative control over
urban development in Jos and the 1973 Jos Master Plan had not been followed which
set out the vision for developing the city in a controlled way. As such there has been
a rapid increase in low income areas 19 in the city. Figure 18 presents a map of low
income areas in Jos including Tudun Wada and Jenta, which are the focal points of
this research.

Figure 18 Map of low income areas and the study area in Jos
Source: Produced for this study based on data from observations and literature

Tudun Wada has approximately 2,445 households and Jenta 3,450 households.
These areas have been impacted by the aforementioned ethno-religious problems that
affected Nigeria. Enwerekowe (2011) reported that Mado Village which is part of
19
See Chapter 1.2.1 for definition of low income areas.
89
Tudun Wada area has witnessed a surge in population of low income families who
relocated from more violent areas in the northern parts of Jos. In Jos currently
Christians and Muslims find it difficult to live together, hence migrants and residents
tend to settle in areas of dominance of their religion. Gyang & Ashano (2010)
believe that most of the people who live in these low income areas cannot afford
land in preferred areas of the city because of their low income status.

The population growth in Jos means housing in low income areas is built arbitrarily
without proper planning (Ajiji & Larab, 2016). Even with a conservative growth rate
of 5%, the population of Jos would have doubled within 18 years from 2007 to 2025.
Bearing in mind the rate at which the population of Jos has been growing, and the
trend of growth from 2006, if the present rate of expansion of the city is not curtailed
then more congested low income areas without planning or the necessary
infrastructure would develop within the city.

Some of the inhabitants of low income areas acquire land from landowners and
construct houses on disadvantaged lands such as on rock or hill tops, because land on
plains or flat areas is expensive (Gyang & Ashano, 2010). Figure 19 shows the kind
of terrain and houses in Jenta. According to Vivan et al. (2015) most houses in these
areas are old, built 11 to 15 years ago with cement blocks, and roofed with
corrugated iron sheets. The walls and roofs of most of the buildings are in bad
condition, and 86% of the houses are compounds with shared facilities such as
toilets, bathrooms and kitchens. Due to the unplanned nature and clustering of
houses, most compounds have poor ventilation, and most of the streets are unpaved
with a poor drainage system. Based on the work of Oladosu et al. (2015) 45.5% of
the population at Gangare and Angwan Rogo get power supply through the national
grid, while the rest of the houses either illegally tap power, use kerosene lamps
(17.5%), generators (16.9%) or use rechargeable lamps (20.2%).

The major source of water for household use and drinking is from hand dug wells
(Daffi and Kassem, 2013; Dawang et al. 2015). Others sources include streams,
which are highly polluted, rain water, taps, and buying from water vendors. Most of
these water sources have a high nitrate value attributed to latrines, sewage and refuse
dumps (Beka et al. 2009). Gyang & Ashano (2010) observed industrial effluents
being discharged directly into streams by companies in Anglo Jos. This polluted
water is directly used by farmers for irrigation along the stream channels.

90
Figure 19 Nature of houses in Jenta
Source: Image taken by the researcher during fieldwork 2014

3.1.3 Demographics of residents

Onwubiko (2013) stated that there is no accurate statistical data on the number of
Nigerians that are unemployed, and no separate unemployment data exists for Jos.
As covered in Chapter 2.1.2 there is much variation in estimated unemployment
levels with the World Bank (2012) estimating the unemployment rate in Nigeria at
22%, and the youth unemployment rate at 38%. Uwa et al. (2016) suggests 60% of
Nigerian youths are unemployed with secondary school-leavers 20, mostly found
among the rural population, accounting for about half of this figure. Adesina (2013)
observed that it is no longer about going to school and graduating or learning a trade,
but about how to face the reality of graduating and joining the group of unemployed
people with little hope of subsistence.

Research by Vivan et al. (2015) on the demographics of low income settlements in

Jos indicate that there are more males than females in most areas, most inhabitants
are married and fall within the age bracket of 40-49. About 70% of these inhabitants
have lived in the area for over 30 years (Oladosu et al. 2015). Most of the residents
are self-employed or entrepreneurs rather than being in formal employment because
of lack of government or formal jobs in private companies. They are traders selling
provisions in corner shops, firewood for fuel, roasted corn and ‘akara’ on road sides,
artisans, farmers and labourers.

A large number of the people acquired vocational education because most cannot
afford tertiary education. According to Education for All (EFA 2015) the education
system in Nigeria consists of six years of primary schooling, three years of
junior secondary, three years of senior secondary and four years of tertiary

20
Typically aged between 16 and 20 years
91
education with both the public and private sector involved in delivery. Government
education is supposed to be free in the majority of the state-owned institutions, but
students are required to purchase books, uniforms and pay for resources costing them
an average of NGN30,000 (£75.55) per child per year which presents a challenge.
Oladosu et al. (2015) in their study on issues and challenges of urban renewal in Jos,
discovered that 29.7% of the inhabitants of Angwan Rogo, Gangare and Dadin Kowa
which are also low income areas did not acquire any formal education partly due to
the cost.

3.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN JOS

Since the FEPA decree in 1988 (see Table 7) state governments are expected to
establish a State Environmental Protection Agency and formulate their own policies
in order to further address environmental issues within their jurisdiction. Specifically
for Plateau State PEPSA was established in 2000 and they are responsible for the
collection and disposal of waste. The Plateau State Environmental Sanitation Edict
of 2007 is the most current strategy document which addresses waste management
and pollution of the environment. Despite these arrangements and strategy, effective
management of waste has been a challenge.

Peter et al. (2014) and Peter (2016) explained that the urban infrastructure is already
strained significantly relative to the required waste management services and
facilities. The low income areas already suffer from poor solid waste management
services due to lack of access roads, inadequate storage of waste before collection,
and lack of waste management facilities. Enwerekowe (2011) observed that SWM
problems are most severe in informal settlements of Jos as a result of their
population and urban density, hence waste management facilities are inadequate,
insufficient and in most cases totally absent.

Gyang & Ashano (2010) and Peter et al. (2014) noted that both the local and national
governments seemed ill prepared or equipped to provide the increasing population
with basic and critically needed infrastructure such as for waste collection and
disposal and water provision, as a result Jos now shares the same difficulties as other
Nigerian cities in terms of solid waste management.

3.2.1 Levels of waste generation

There is limited reliable recent data on waste arisings in Jos. Figure 20 shows how
the quantity of waste generated in Jos has increased from 1982 to 2010 based on data
collated from studies by Efe (2013), Nigerian Environmental Study Team (NEST)
(1991), and Oluwande (1984). Arisings have increased steadily with noticeable
increases in 1990 and 2005. In 2010 an estimated 400,000 tonnes were generated
with levels doubling within a 10-year period.

92
 450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000
Tonnes

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0
1980 1985 1990 2000 2005 2010

Figure 20 Estimated quantity of waste generated in Jos from 1982 to 2010

Sources: Collated from Efe (2013); Nigerian Environmental Study Team; NEST
(1991); Oluwande (1984)

The data should be considered with some degree of caution because of

inconsistencies either in the method of collecting data, estimates made without clear
rationale, incomplete data, and non-representative data. Reliability of solid waste
data from LEDCs could be compromised by seasonal variations, and lack of actual
weight data. The most accurate way of determining the quantity of waste generated
is through direct measurements at source however the generation rate is most often
calculated using waste quantities that arrive at disposal sites. This method of
measurement does not fully represent the waste stream, because waste could have
been diverted before disposal with informal workers removing a large fraction of the
recyclables. Furthermore due to the limited collection services large quantities of
waste do not make it to the final disposal site.

Eche et al. (2015) state that in Jos 45% of waste generation comes from residential
areas, and Plateau Environmental Protection and Sanitation Agency (PEPSA, 2013)
has put the average waste generation rate at between 0.55-0.58 kg/capita/day. The
levels of generation can be influenced by income, season, culture and the tradition of
people. Peter (2016) made projections for waste arisings in Jos using an assumption
of 0.5 kg/capita/day for waste generation (taken from NEST, 1991). Through
projecting population increases, it was estimated 1.4 million tonnes of waste would
be generated in 2025; three times the estimated levels for 2010.

93
3.2.2 Waste composition
The last waste composition analysis in Jos was conducted in 2008 with samples
taken from high and low density areas (PEPSA, 2013). In Nigeria the upper and
middle class often inhabit the low to medium density residential areas, while the
high density areas are left for the poor or low income groups (Yunusa, 2005). This
data was published by PEPSA (2013) and the work integrated into Peter et al.
(2014). However, the author has concerns regarding the reliability and usefulness of
the data as no information was provided on sample size of waste taken for analysis,
and the results are published in an unclear way, for example the percentage values of
the waste stream do not tally to 100%.

3.2.3 Municipal waste collection

In Jos waste collection is currently free for the 1.3 million inhabitants. As explained
PEPSA is the waste management agency and their responsibilities include managing
waste from households, offices, street, industries, hospitals, markets and institutions.
This research is however only concerned with waste generated from households.

Households are not provided waste storage containers (Yawa, 1999), as a result they
store their waste in varied containers such as plastic and metal buckets, baskets and
plastic bags (Eche et al. 2015; Peter et al. 2014; Peter 2016; Yawa, 1999). The waste
containers often used are old and without handles. Households take waste to public
collection containers rather than PEPSA collecting directly from households. PEPSA
is solely responsible for waste collection but due to inadequate resources it is
estimated that only 50% of this waste is collected and often waste is left in
communities (Efe, 2013). Both Eche et al. (2015) and Peter et al. (2014) have argued
the need to improve municipal solid waste collection in Jos.

PEPSA is a public body and they undertake all collections, however public–private
partnerships in solid waste management have been in practiced in Nigeria, and were
adopted in Plateau State from 2005-2007 (Osesienemo, 2008). Under the system 24
private waste companies were registered with PEPSA and these companies were
then contracted to deliver the collection service for 25 different zones (with one
operator handling two zones). The role of the companies was to collect and transport
all waste from zones under their responsibility, and to dump it at designated
dumpsites approved by the Ministry of Environment, under the supervision of
PEPSA. However this process led to problems including political office holders
registering private waste companies just for the sake of collecting the money and
never executing collections. This led to the termination of contracts with all private
suppliers in 2007 and since then no private waste companies have been involved in
municipal collections in Jos.

94
3.2.4 Waste disposal in Jos
There are no sanitary landfills in Jos for waste disposal, and as a result waste is
disposed indiscriminately. Two types of open dumping exists in Jos, the first
involves PEPSA collecting waste from public waste containers and dumping it at
open dumpsites (Peter 2016). The second type reported by Daffi & Kassam (2013),
Eziashi (1997), and Gyang & Ashano (2010) is where waste is indiscriminately
disposed in communities be it on street corners, backyards, open spaces, and water
bodies. Daffi & Kassam (2013), and Musa et al. (2008) have suggested reasons why
waste is indiscriminately dumped in Jos, this include the inadequate number of
public waste containers or non-collection of overflowing public bins so people have
no option other than to dump the waste, non-availability of designated dumpsites,
and the use of open trucks leading to waste being blown out. In addition children are
often sent to dispose of waste, but because they cannot lift them into the community
waste containers they dump it around the container or elsewhere (Daffi & Kassam,
2013).

3.2.5 The impacts on public health and the environment

The poor system results in impacts including flooding, air, water and land pollution,
and also serves as agents of infections and diseases (Gyang & Ashano 2010). For
example the flooding in Jos on July 23rd 2012 led to the loss of 107 lives, 320
houses destroyed, and 1,185 people being displaced (The Nation, 2012). The same
paper reported the outbreak of cholera at the camp for flood victims, with 65 cases
confirmed and referred to hospital. It is thought the cholera outbreak was a result of
people drinking the flood water, and the flooding was attributed to the poor
management system in Jos with waste blocking drains. Ahovi (2017) stated that in
addition to causing flooding in Jos, waste dumped in communities, especially plastic
bags, leads to stagnant water and the mosquitos therefore increasing the risk of
malaria.

Water and land pollution can be seen in parts of Jos where people dig shallow wells
with little or no concern for pollution. A survey of ground water quality in hand dug
wells in Jos by Beka et al. (2009) observed nitrate values which exceeded the WHO
threshold limit value 21 of 3.0mg/l while some exceeded the WHO standard 22 of
45mg/l. The high nitrate values were attributed to sewage, pit latrines and dumpsites.
Daffi & Kassam (2013) recommended that residents should be made aware on the
dangers of dumping solid waste into streams, and provision should be made of solid
waste collection at such places.

21
The threshold limit value of a chemical substance is a level to which it is believed a worker can be
exposed day after day for a working lifetime without adverse effects (Paustenbach 2011).
22
WHO has formed an authoritative basis for the setting of national regulations for drinking water
quality and standards for water safety in support of public health (WHO, 2011b)
95
3.2.6 Resource recovery
Peter et al. (2014) found that most recycling in Jos is carried out by the informal
sector who collect recyclable materials from households, public waste bins or
dumpsites and sell them to the owners of recycling banks, who in turn sell these
materials to processing and manufacturing industries in or outside Jos. Peter et al.
cited examples where glass is collected, processed and recycled to cullet for use in
the glass industry. In addition the bases of broken bottles are sold to small scale
industries that cut and polish the glass to manufacture ash trays and candle holders.
The Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) (2017) reported on their community
project in Jos making accessories from scavenged resources such as seeds to make
beads for jewellery, and plastic bags being woven into purses, bags and mats. They
are rolling out a new project ‘weave of hope’, which pays displaced women to
collect plastic water sachets which are cleaned, sewn and weaved into purses, wallets
and other items for sale.

Jos is one of the most notable providers of waste materials to secondary markets
(Sadiq 2017). Sadiq gave the example of a business man, nicknamed Baban Bola,
who has dealt in scrap material in Jos since 1991. Baban Bola started as an itinerant
waste picker moving from community to community in search of scraps and other
waste materials, but he is now worth billions of naira and is regarded as one of
Nigeria’s most successful solid waste dealers. Baban Bola has branches of his waste
material dealership throughout Nigeria with over 500 employees working for him.
Scrap metal forms the bulk of materials seen leaving Jos for various parts of the
country, especially Ogun, Lagos, Port Harcourt, Benin, Kano or Katsina, for
reprocessing (Sadiq 2017).

Most members of the public in Jos, and Nigeria generally, are engaged in farming on
a small or large scale. In Jos farmers are known to use urban waste as a fertilizer on
their farms. Farmers sometimes pay to have waste dumped on their farmland, while
land owners pay to have it and use it to reclaim their land. Lewcock (1994) and
Lewcock (1995) indicated that urban waste was sought after by farmers, and the
practice of using urban waste has been documented in Jos by Pasquini (2002),
Pasquini (2006) and Pasquini & Harris (2004). The waste is not composted but burnt
and applied directly as ash with other fertilisers (Alexander, 1986; Phillips-Howard
& Kidd, 1991). Pasquini (2002) reported that during the late 1970s, farmers switched
over from chemical fertilizer to using urban waste ash for farming in Jos.

In Jos farmers pay PEPSA to have the waste collected from the municipality
delivered to their farms. The farmers then spread it to dry, and then burn it. The hard
non-combustible waste such as glass bottles and metals are raked and removed for
disposal while the ash from the waste is spread on the farm to fertilize it. Figure 21
shows heaps of ash from burnt waste on a farm in Jos waiting to be spread.

96
Figure 21 Heaps of ash waste on a farm in Jos
Source: Image taken by the researcher during fieldwork 2014

Pasquini & Harris (2004) concluded that the benefits of using ash are that it is a rich
source of nutrients for crops, it raises the pH of the soil, and it also helps in
alleviating waste disposal problems. Conversely Pasquini (2006) examined the
health and environmental risks of using urban waste ash in urban vegetable
production in Jos in terms of heavy metals accumulation in the food chain. Findings
from the study suggest that the soil concentrations of the seven heavy metals
analysed fall within ‘typical’ soil levels, and that there would not be any problems of
either toxicities or deficiencies for plant growth. It is possible that with increasing
development and consumerism on the part of the populace, waste is likely to include
increasing sources of heavy metals. As such Pasquini & Harris (2004) encourage the
pre-sorting of waste to enable biodegradable waste to be collected and safely used on
farms.

3.2.8 Challenges to waste management in Jos

Binbol et al. (2013) observed that PEPSA was finding the management of waste in
Jos very difficult, and attributed it to lack of trucks for waste collection, insufficient
provision of public waste containers and non-provision of permanently designated
waste dumpsites. Peter et al. (2014) and Peter (2016) also noted that PEPSA has
limited containers available for distribution to residents to store their waste, hence
residents mainly use old plastic or metal buckets to store their waste before disposal.
Others challenges identified in literature are insufficient budgetary allocation,
insufficient staffing, role conflict with other agencies, and non-enforcement of waste
regulations. It has been documented that the waste collection resources available in
Jos have been inadequate for decades. Pasquini (2002) observed 23 waste disposal
trucks were commissioned in the 1980s for Jos, but by 2001 these were reduced to
just four, due to vehicle breakdown and the non-maintenance culture of the
municipality.

97
The activities of PEPSA were reported by Mallo & Anigbogu (2009) to have helped
in clearing heaps of garbage indiscriminately disposed around the city, and also in
regulating harmful environmental practices. However PEPSAs overall performance
was rated at only 20% by householders of low income areas. Binbol et al. (2013)
stated that the challenges PEPSA faced were the reasons for their poor rating. Hence
Binbol et al. suggested that effort should be made to solve this problem through the
intervention of government and other private organisations. In addition PEPSA
should acquire more vehicles for waste collection, and provide residents with waste
storage containers in order to reduce environmental pollution resulting from littering.
With the projected increases in population and resulting waste generation, PEPSA
face increasing challenges in delivering effective waste services in the Jos.

A further challenge identified by DungGwom et al. (2008) was historically the

plethora of institutions in the state that performed overlapping functions, and worked
at cross purposes rather than addressing different issues and problems. DungGwom
et al. cited examples of agencies like the Jos Metropolitan Development Board
(JMDB) based in local government, PEPSA, and the Direct Labour Agency, all
crowding for the same functions. The situation has now changed however previously
JMDB performed overlapping functions with PEPSA on waste collection and
management, street and traffic management, control of illegal markets, management
of motor parks and garages, and clearing of drains. The implication of this is that
some of the functions were neglected when one agency expected the other to do it,
while there was duplication on some other functions, especially where this involved
income generation.

A further challenge identified in literature is the public's level of understanding about

the importance and implications of SWM. Agunwamba (2003) observed that
Nigerians inclusive of Jos have a poor attitude towards waste treatment and disposal
because they know little about waste management hence they dispose of waste in
their communities. Peter et al. (2014) noted that public awareness on waste
management can create an impact on all stages of the municipal solid waste
management process. Binbol et al. (2013) suggest that in order to tackle waste
management problems for a healthy environment PEPSA should organize public
awareness programmes. Jatau (2013) added that while promoting awareness on
waste management, those with lower level of education should be the target group as
studies has shown that they have the poorest attitudes towards waste management
practices. This can be achieved through organizing workshops, seminars and
conferences on waste management by government bodies.

98
3.3 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER
Jos has been experiencing increasing levels of waste generation with inadequate
resources to manage this waste. However, the research has highlighted that the
informal sector has an important role in managing waste and that waste ash has been
utilised as a fertilizer.

Whilst some studies have been undertaken on waste management in Jos there
remains a lack of reliable information especially in terms of data on waste generation
levels and composition. Moreover, some of the studies cited have been based on
desktop studies and utilise undergraduate research.

99
4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Literature indicates that municipal solid waste management is a big challenge to
Nigeria, due to the threat it poses to public health and the environment resulting from
poor waste management practice (Abila & Kantola, 2013; Adediran & Abdulkarim,
2012; Adejobi & Olorunnimbe, 2012; Longe & Enekwechi, 2007; Modebe et al.
2009). Research shows that low income areas globally receive little or no attention
from municipalities in respect to solid waste management (Adama, 2007; Mbah &
Nzeadibe; 2016; Onu et al. 2012), with about 80% of the population in Nigeria not
receiving waste collection services. This thesis investigates the challenges faced in
implementing an effective waste management system in low income area of Jos, and
evaluates the potential role of waste prevention. The study has asked the following
research questions in order to gain full understanding of how waste is currently
managed in low income areas and the potential role of waste prevention.

• What are the challenges associated with the sustainable management of solid
waste in Jos?

• How could the management of solid waste in Jos be improved?

• What are the characteristics, and factors influencing the generation and
composition of household waste in Jos, and how efficiently is waste currently
being managed in low income areas?

• What are the current waste prevention opportunities that could be used to
reduce waste? How viable are these waste prevention opportunities for Jos?

• What impact could these waste prevention opportunities have on waste

arisings in Jos? What are the obstacles that could hinder their success?

To address these research questions the Research Onion methodological approach

developed by Saunders et al. (2012) was used (see Figure 22). The Research Onion
illustrates the stages that have to be covered while developing a research strategy,
with each layer of the onion describing a more detailed stage of the research process.
This chapter shall present the different stages of the Research Onion.

100
Figure 22 The Research Onion
Source: Saunders et al. (2012)

The data collection strategy used a mixed methods approach which combined
qualitative and quantitative methods for undertaking the research. The methods used
involved background fieldwork, direct observations, focus group discussions,
interviews, questionnaires, waste composition analysis, screening and Strengths
Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis. Then follows information
on secondary data used, data analysis including thematic and statistical analysis.
Reliability and validity of the results are discussed, followed by ethical
considerations. The researcher provides details on how any concerns were addressed
and managed throughout the course of the study.

4.2 RESEARCH PROCESS

4.2.1 Nature of research
Research could be explanatory, descriptive or exploratory. Explanatory research tries
to determine and report the association amongst variables in a research setting
(Saunders et al. 2012) and tries to address the ‘why’ in the study of phenomena
(Neuman, 2011). It tries to provide a justification to the reasons why things happen.
Descriptive research identifies the constituents of phenomena and methodically
records it giving specific details or a representation of the settings, situation, and
101
relationship of the phenomena (Fellows et al. 2008; Neuman, 2011). Neuman (2011)
observed that the result of descriptive research is usually a detailed depiction of the
research subject or an answer to the research question. Exploratory research is
concerned with discovering and gaining insights about a particular research
phenomenon (Saunders et al. 2012). Research is exploratory once it tries to acquire
further knowledge in order to comprehend what is happening in a research setting
before being able to identify the problem. Embracing an exploratory design helps the
researcher to become familiar with the research phenomena and be able to advance a
hypothesis, after gaining a perception (Babbie, 2007).

This study is therefore both exploratory and explanatory as it tries to acquire a deep
understanding of current SWM practices in low income areas, and also seeks to
identify the factors that could influence solid waste generation and composition. The
study also provides an understanding of what happens in low income areas with
regards to SWM, so as to be able to identify the challenges to sustainable SWM. It
is important to have an understanding of the research phenomenon – waste
prevention before supplementary data is collected so as to address the research
problem – SWM practices in low income areas. This will give a better understanding
of waste prevention and waste prevention initiatives that could help reduce waste
arisings, and the new acquired knowledge could be used to transform SWM
practices.

Exploratory research has the advantage of being flexible and adaptable, and is
effective in laying the foundation for future studies (Dudovskiy, 2016). In adopting
an exploratory and explanatory research design and method for this study,
exploratory research will provide a better understanding of household SWM
practices at low income households so as to inform on the practical ways of
improving SWM practices at households.

4.2.2 Research Approach

Research is a careful search aimed at gathering information to produce or enhance
knowledge (Pole & Lampard, 2002). Knowledge accumulation, according to Bryman
(1988), follows two paradigms; quantitative or qualitative. The research approach is
divided into deductive, inductive and abductive depending on the reasoning of the
researcher (Dudovskiy, 2016). Deductive approach is concerned with evolving a
hypothesis based on a theory that exist, and then planning a research strategy to
collect data in order to test the hypothesis so as to disprove or confirm the theory
(Wilson, 2010). Inductive approach is the opposite of deductive approach as it begins
with observations and data collection which is later used to explore a phenomenon,
and then tries to identify the themes and patterns and create a conceptual framework
through theory generation and building on it (Babbie, 2010). Abductive approach
combines both inductive and deductive approaches; it starts with data collection in
102
order to explore a phenomenon, then identifies themes and patterns and locates them
in their conceptual frameworks, and later tests this through subsequent data
collection. It involves theory generation or modification, incorporating existing
theory where appropriate to build new theory or modify an existing one (Dudovskiy,
2016). According to Saunders et al. (2012) the major differences between deductive,
inductive and abdzuctive research approaches is in terms of logic, generalizability,
use of data and theory.

This research is located within the inductive approach, as fieldwork was undertaken
in order to collect data which was used to gain an in depth understanding of how
households in low income areas managed their waste. Publications exist on
household solid waste management, but no research has been undertaken on
household waste prevention in low income areas particularly in the context of this
research. This research shall provide new knowledge from the data collected.

4.2.3 Research Strategy

The research strategy addresses how the researcher plans to carry out the study so as
to be able to answer the research questions in a systematic manner (Saunders et al.
2007). The strategy could consist of a variety of approaches including experiments,
surveys, case study, grounded theory, action research and ethnography. In such cases
the researcher has to look for the most appropriate methodology that can address
both the research questions and objectives amongst other factors. The other factors
that can influence the choice of a research strategy are the research philosophy,
research approach, and time available, type of project and the research subject, type
of information needed, access to participants, existing literature, and resources
available for the research (Saunders et al. 2012).

Experimental research is a research strategy that examines the result of an

experiment in conjunction with the expected results and the relationship between the
factors compared and contrasted against expected outcomes (Saunders et al. 2007).
Grounded theory uses a qualitative methodology hinged on the inductive approach
where patterns originating from the data are a prerequisite for the study (May, 2011).
For instance interviews can be conducted, transcribed and coded to pull together
general issues connecting participants, which imply that outcomes of the
investigation are resulting from the concluded study instead of probing records to
ascertain if it fits preexisting frameworks (Flick, 2011). Bryman, (2012) observed
this is a research strategy that is commonly used in the social sciences. Action
research is any research initiated to resolve an urgent problem or a progressive
problem, and it is usually led by persons working with others in teams or as part of a
‘community of practice’ to improve the way issues as well as problems are resolved.
There are two types of action research, namely participatory action research and
practical action research. Denscombe (2010) notes that the main rationale for using

103
action research is to solve a particular problem while producing a guideline for best
practice. This type of research is practicable for the nursing and teaching professions
(Wiles et al. 2011). Ethnography according to Bryman, (2012) means personally
observing people in order to systematically study them and their culture. The
researcher has to become part of the people being observed so as to see things from
their perspective. This approach is commonly used in the biological, cultural and
social sciences and communication studies, history - wherever people study ethnic
groups.

Case study investigates a solitary unit for instance a person, a group, or a situation
over time so that its main features can be established and generalizations drawn
(Bryman, 2012). A case study is an empirical enquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real life context, especially when
the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (Yin, 2014).
For example if the study is about a group it can describe the behavior of the group in
general, not the behavior of individuals in the group. Case study research may
involve a distinct case or multiple case studies which might comprise quantitative
data, relying on numerous sources of proof, and as a result benefits from the previous
progression of theoretic suggestions to guide data collection and analysis (Yin,
2009). Hence case studies must not be confused with qualitative research, but is
rather a combination of some quantitative and qualitative data. Yin (2014) specifies
that case study is the best strategy to use in research when addressing the "how" or
"why" questions, where in depth research is needed using a holistic lens, especially
when the researcher has no control over the event. According to Mills et al. (2010)
and Yin (2014) case study research has been used for years in many disciplines and
professions in social sciences, education and administrative science. The difference
between case study and other strategies like experiments and surveys is that the
research subjects are studied within its context. Thomas, (2011) explains it as
follows: “Case study investigates one case or a number of small cases that occur
naturally without controlling any variables or prioritizing data quantification. It
uses a variety of methods and data sources with a large number of features of each,
mainly looking at relationships and processes”.

Creswell et al. (2003) has postulated that using mixed methods can offset the
disadvantages that some of the methods have when used in isolation. Tashakorri &
Teddie, (2003) observed that phenomena cannot be fully understood using either
pure qualitative or pure quantitative techniques. A variety of data sources and
analyses are needed in order to completely understand the multifaceted institutions
and realities, which mixed methods provide. Johnson & Turner (2003) suggest that
methods should be mixed in a way that has complementary strengths. A typical case
in view is the use of case studies in combination with surveys, where one method
gives greater depth, while the other gives greater breadth, and together they could
104
expectantly give accurate results (Tashakorri & Teddlie, 2003). Greene et al. (1989)
gives additional support for the usefulness of mixed methods by proposing five
functions for the method, which are triangulation, complementarity, development,
initiation, and expansion. The first two functions (triangulation and
complementarity) are related to the fact that mixed methods lead to multiple
inferences that confirm or complement each other, while the other three
(development, initiation, and expansion) are related to mixed methods studies in
which inferences made at the end of one phase (qualitative) lead to questions and or
design of the second phase (quantitative).

The design of a case study project is of great significance as it gets criticized for
lacking sturdiness as a research tool (Zainal, 2007). Scholars adopt either the single
case or multiple case designs dependent on the issue in question.

Research on household SWM has been undertaken by Araba (2010) and Solomon
(2011) and they both have used the case study research strategy employing mixed
research methods to collect their data. This research has similarly adopted the single
case study research strategy using mixed methods to collect data from the study area.
The use of these methods aided the researcher to reach research findings that are
valuable, as quantitative research has wider coverage while qualitative research gives
a deeper understanding.

Gerring & Cojocaru (2015) specify that a case study should focus on one or several
cases that are explored in depth, integrate diverse styles of evidence, and potentially
shed light on a broader population which it represents. Hence the case(s) have to be
chosen logically for them to provide an in-depth understanding of the research
phenomena (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Most often the study aim(s) and research
question(s) are the key determinants in the selection of cases (Eriksson &
Kovalainen; (2008). This is captured by Yin, (2014: p.28): “You need sufficient
access to the data for your potential case – whether to interview people, review
documents or records, or make field observations…You should choose the cases that
will most illuminate your research questions”.

The case study for this research was selected based on the criteria suggested by
Miles & Huberman (1994: p.34), which are as follows:

i. The relevance of the sample to the conceptual framework and research

questions. The case selected for this study was relevant to the research questions set
out for this study (see Chapter 4.1). The questions were set within the research
context and demonstrate the problems being looked into by this study.

ii. The appearance of the phenomenon of concern of the study in the case. This
is concerned with the possibility of available data on the phenomena of study, in this
case SWM concerns within low income households. The selected case study has
105
been recognized to display the problem under investigation in Jos. For instance the
study area formed the greatest concentration of poorly serviced unplanned low
income settlements. These types of settlements are homes to the urban poor or low
income group (UN Habitat, 2011), which are characterized by a lack of basic
infrastructural services such as inadequate solid waste management resulting to
negative impacts on public health and the environment.

iii. The ability of the sample to enhance ‘generalization’ of findings. The phrase
‘generalisation’ does not refer to statistical generalisation rather generalisation to
theory where empirical findings supports or refutes existing theory (Eriksson &
Kovalainen, 2008). Hillebrand et al. (2001) argues that a researcher can establish
theoretical generalisation by demonstrating causal relationship on the basis of both
structural similarity of cases and logical argumentation. Hillebrand et al. (2001:
p.654) further sustains this argument by maintaining that causal relationships can be
established by “setting up a reasoning based on empirical facts, logical
argumentation and formerly accepted theories which in turn are based on empirical
facts, logic and even earlier accepted theories”. In consideration of these, the
selected case (Tudun Wada and Jenta) have structural similarity with a majority of
informal settlements (low income areas) in sub Saharan Africa and LEDCs at large
(Hove et al. 2013; Morakinyo et al. 2012). Hence the conclusions can allow for a
theoretical generalisation only with reference to the crucial factors researched in this
study.

iv. The sample should produce ‘believable’ descriptions and explanations true
to real life. The case study for this study was selected based on the evidence of the
existence of the research problem. Observations in the case study give a believable
description of the SWM practices.

v. The feasibility of the sample place. This implies the resources available to the
researcher to undertake the research; time, money, access to the people and the
researcher’s work style (Miles & Huberman, 1994). It also includes the researcher’s
expertise in terms of language and communication skills, ability to relate participants
with their experience or the researcher/participant’s ability to cope with the
circumstances under which data collection might be obtained (Curtis et al. 2000). In
this study language and communication skills were an important feasibility factor of
the choice of the case study. In Nigeria, apart from English and Pidgin English there
are many regional languages, for example in the south-west Yoruba, south-east Igbo,
south-south Ijaw, Itsekiri, Efik, Isoko, Urhobo, Ogoni. In northern Nigeria, where
the study is located, the population mainly speak Hausa and English. The
significance of language and communication skills was considered in the selection of
the case study. The researcher being from the case study area was fluent in Hausa
and this reduced problems that would have been encountered in communication if

106
undertaken in another community. In addition, the researcher being a member of
staff at the University of Jos and being a resident of Jos, has background knowledge
of the environment, the culture and the people. Hence the researcher was accepted by
the research participants as one of them.

vi. The ‘ethicality’ of the sampling plan. This deals with the method of selection,
whether or not it addresses ethical concerns such as informed consent, potential
benefits and the risks associated with participation in the study, and the relationship
between the researcher and the participants. Section 4.6 addresses ethics for this
study.

4.2.4 Pilot testing of questionnaire

A pilot test is a preliminary study conducted to evaluate the feasibility and
appropriateness of a research method. The pilot can help to understand the logistics
needed, costs, adverse events, and sample size (statistical variability) to improve
upon the study design prior to undertaking a full-scale research project (Hulley,
2007). It also provides an opportunity to validate the wording of the tasks,
understand the time required and may supply additional data. Bryman (2012)
specified that pilot testing research questions ensures that the methods adopted
function well and help in fine tuning the approach leading to more reliable results
(Schade, 2015). In this study questionnaires were initially tested with supervisors
and some staff of the Department of Geology, University of Jos. The main reason for
using staff of the University of Jos was because they were familiar with the setting
and had knowledge of solid waste management, which helped in validating the
content of the questions (Saunders et al. 2015). Another reason for testing the
questions was to make sure that the aim for their formulation was achieved. The
comments and critiques received enabled the researcher to address and clarify areas
of concern. Thereafter the questions were tried in the field with a few household
members from similar settings, and were found to be suitable for the study.

4.2.5 Sampling
Sampling refers to the process of choosing a representative sample from a target
population and collecting data from that sample in order to understand the
characteristics of the whole population (Martinez-Meza et al. 2016). Sample size is
important in determining the accuracy and reliability of research (Zamoni, 2017).
Morse (2000) recommended factors to guide researchers in determining sample sizes
including the scope of the study, the nature of the topic, and the quality of data.
These were carefully considered whilst deciding on the sampling strategy and size
for this research.

Non probability sampling for specific purposes was suggested by Saunders et al.
(2012) to be embraced for interviews. Non-probability sampling is a sampling
technique where the samples are gathered in a process that does not give all the
107
individuals in the population equal chances of being selected. In this research
purposive sampling was embraced in the selection of participants for both focus
group discussions and interviews. Purposive sampling involves the identification and
selection of participants that have knowledge of the subject, and could provide
information that fits into the study criteria (Creswell & Plano Clark; 2011; Palinkas
et al. 2015; Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). The stakeholders of SWM who participated in
the focus group discussions and interviews were precise groups within the study area
who could provide relevant information to answer the research questions.

A combination of random and convenience sampling was embraced for waste

composition analysis and questionnaires. In random sampling everyone in the entire
target population has an equal chance of being selected (Yates, 2008), and it is
important to sample randomly to ensure a true representation of the population.
Random sampling was used to recruit households whose waste samples were
collected for waste quantification (completed for 74 households out of 80 that were
recruited see Chapter 4.3.7 for more detail), while convenience sampling was
utilized for 604 participants who completed questionnaires (see Chapter 4.3.6 for
more details). Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling technique where
subjects are selected because of their convenient accessibility and proximity to the
researcher. Convenience sampling became necessary as some households selected
for participation declined to take part in the questionnaire survey. This necessitated
the change of plan in administering the questionnaire, to involve those who were at
home and willing to participate in the research.

4.3 DATA COLLECTION STRATEGY

4.3.1 Overview
This study was designed to take place in four phases (see Figure 23). The first phase
marked the literature review period, formulation of the research questions and
development of the methodology. A review of literature was undertaken and this was
presented in Chapter 2 (on Nigeria) and Chapter 3 (on Jos). The review identified the
gap in knowledge on waste management in low income areas and the potential role
of waste prevention. Afun (2009), Ajibade (2007), and Ezeah (2010) recommended
waste prevention to be used as a strategy for reducing waste generation in Nigeria.

The second phase describes the experimental period which involved the collection
of primary and secondary data from the study area using mixed methods including
observations, focus group discussions, interviews and questionnaires. The results are
presented in Chapter 5. In the third phase the results are analysed to identify the
challenges to sustainable waste management in low income areas in Chapter 6.

108
Figure 23 Design of research strategy and data collection

The final phase focused on waste prevention to identify intervention opportunities

for the case study area. Waste composition analysis was undertaken to identify
priority materials to focus on for prevention. The author conducted a comprehensive
review of global waste prevention and produced a longlist of waste prevention
opportunities. The list was assessed using five criteria which were: key materials in
the waste stream, quick wins, economically viable, building on what already exists,
and likelihood of the initiative working in Jos and Nigeria. Using the aforementioned
criteria a short list of the 5 most applicable waste prevention opportunities was
established. In order to further evaluate the appropriateness and impact of these
activities two focus groups discussions were organised with PEPSA and household
members of Tudun Wada and Jenta. The most applicable and viable options were
selected and recommended for implementation in the study area.

Table 12 provides an overview of each of the methodologies applied and how they
contributed towards meeting the stated objectives. Each method is discussed in more
detail below including justification for the sampling size.
109
Table 12 Summary of methods used to collect data, and the objectives achieved
Phase 1 2 4
Method Literature Direct 4 x focus 5x 678 x Literature Waste 2 x focus groups
review observation groups – 32 interviews questionnaires review – analysis x 74 on waste
Objective participants waste households prevention - 15
prevention participants
1. To investigate the existing     
systems for managing household
waste in low income areas in
Jos.
2. To identify the challenges to     
achieving the sustainable
management of solid waste in
the study area, and to identify
recommendations to improve
current practice.
3. To understand the levels of      
waste generated and the
composition of household waste
in low income areas in Jos.
4. To review the existing waste   
reduction interventions currently
being used in other parts of the
world.
5. To evaluate the feasibility and   
impact of waste reduction
opportunities in the study area.

110
4.3.2 Background fieldwork
Background fieldwork was undertaken in Jos by the author for two weeks in July
2014. This fieldwork helped the author to identify the location of the study area and
to establish contact with relevant officials and gatekeepers including pastors and
ward leaders who could assist in the research.

The University of Jos was sought for collaboration and assistance in view of the
fieldwork. An informal discussion with a lecturer who had been teaching waste
management at the University helped to identify published and unpublished literature
on SWM to provide information on previous research. A meeting with Plateau State
Environmental Protection and Sanitation Agency (PEPSA) made it possible for the
author to interact with officials from the agency.

To assist the author in data collection two research assistants from the Department of
Geology, University of Jos (Ezekiel Y. Yenne & Sunday S. Daku) and one from
Plateau State Polytechnic Barakin Ladi (Ayuba Y. Dabot) were recruited and trained,
henceforth are referred to as the research team. Before the commencement of
fieldwork the research team met on the 29th October 2014 where the author
officially introduced the research project, and also explained their role as research
assistants. The researcher trained the research assistants on how to handle and
conduct focus group discussions, administer questionnaires and household waste
analysis. Plans were agreed upon by the research team as to how and when the
project was to start and end. Throughout the duration of primary data collection the
author led the research assistants through the research process in order to give
direction, clarification and explanation where necessary, so that the field-work could
run smoothly.

4.3.3 Direct observations

Structured direct observation was used in this research because it is the most
appropriate when consistent information needs to be collected. Observations can be
made in real life situations, allowing the researcher access to the context and
meaning surrounding what people say and do. Many researchers in waste
management have used it as a method of study. For example Longe et al. (2009)
used this approach on a study of people’s perception on household SWM in Ojo
local government, while Solomon (2011) used it when studying the role of
households in SWM in East African capital cities. Solomon (2011) reported that
direct observation at households is time consuming therefore in this study the
researcher mostly monitored the community and the municipality rather than certain
households.

Direct observation is also known as observational study (Holmes, 2013). This

method of data collection involved the author going to the field to physically see and
collect reliable data using a checklist of information. The checklist of information
used for direct observation in the field included:
111
 • Types of waste generated by households
• How waste is being stored
• Methods of waste collection
• Who collects it
• Who is responsible for handling waste at household level
• What do they do with the waste/Where does it go to
• What are the waste streams
• Any existing waste prevention activity

The checklist was used to directly observe the situation on the ground in Jos and to
record information on the spot. The observation was intended to provide the author
with a holistic understanding on how waste was being managed on the ground
including: the types of waste generated, how it was stored, methods of collection and
transfer, who provides the service, what householders do with the waste, and
characteristics of households. The author also observed the process of flow of waste
from generation by households through to disposal at dumpsites. As part of
observation the author went out with PEPSA’s waste collection crew to the different
zones and recorded GPS coordinates of the public waste containers that were sighted
in order to map them. Data collected was in form of pictures and field notes and the
information gleaned helped to inform subsequent data collection. Direct observations
lasted for a period of three months.

4.3.4 Focus group discussions

A focus group is a small group of people selected from a wider population and
sampled for open discussion allowing participants to give their opinions on a
particular subject or area (The American Heritage, 2017). Focus group discussion
was used as a research method and it was chosen because it provides a rich
understanding of people’s experiences and perspectives, situated within the context
of their particular circumstances and settings (Murphy et al. 1998). Morgan &
Krueger (1997) posit that focus groups are a unique and independent form of data
collection, which serve to improve the overall practice of qualitative research. In
addition it is believed to complement other methods in research, especially for
triangulation (Morgan, 1998) and for checking validity. Focus groups were used by
Ezeah (2010) in a study on analysis of barriers and success factors affecting
sustainable municipal solid waste management in Abuja, and Solomon (2011) on the
role of households in solid waste management in East African capital cities.

In all six focus group discussions were conducted with four focus groups held during
Phase 2, two each with household members from Tudun Wada and Jenta. The other
two focus group discussions were held during Phase 4 of this research with PEPSA
staff and household members from Tudun Wada and Jenta focusing on waste
prevention options (see Chapters 4.3.8.1 and 8.2.2).

112
Table 13 Summary of focus group discussions conducted for phase 2 of this
research
Place T/Wada T/Wada Jenta Jenta
(FGDT1) (FGDT2) (FGDJ1) (FGDJ2)
Date 3/11/14 4/11/14 12/11/14 13/11/14
Venue Residence Wakili School Residence Bishop’s
of Business court
Studies
Attendance 8 11 6 7
(people)
Duration 90 120 95 90
(minutes)
Language Hausa Hausa Hausa/English English
conducted

The research team gained access to the study area and participants by using the
gatekeepers. Saunders et al. (2012) defined gatekeepers as the person through whom
researchers gain access and control to the study area and participants. Sadler et al.
(2005) views gatekeepers as the ideal partners in helping the researcher gather a
varied research sample. Sadler et al. (2012) believe that gatekeepers know the
community better, and have a range of expert information dissemination skills and
insights, and have well-established working relationships with members of their
community.

Consultations were held with the Pastor of the ‘Evangelical Church Winning All
(ECWA) Good News’ who was the gatekeeper for the recruitment of household
members for focus group discussions in Tudun Wada. The Pastor introduced the
author to his counterpart at ECWA Church Jenta Adamu to enable for the
recruitment of focus group members in Jenta. He also introduced the author to the
ward leaders in both areas. The pastors and ward leaders were used as the recruiting
agents for both communities.

All participating members of the focus group discussions were selected based on
guidance from the gatekeepers, and were community members who were open, and
could provide information on solid waste management. To ensure that the focus
groups were successful the participating members were contacted by the research
team and informed about the objectives of the meeting and the intended topic of
discussion.

The gatekeepers liaised with the participants and the research team, and dates, times
and venues of the meeting were agreed upon before holding the meeting. The groups
were constituted bearing in mind the homogeneity, gender and age, so that members
could freely make contributions without holding back for any reason. Homogeneity
is the quality of being similar or comparable in kind and nature. Homogeneity levels
the playing field, and reduces inhibitions among people who may never see each

113
other again, and is important in maximizing disclosure amongst focus group
participants. Krueger (1988) acknowledged that homogeneity in focus group
discussion is important. Research by Kreuger (1988) and Kreuger (1994) provided
the plan upon which the steps for conducting the focus group discussions were built.
There are many advantages to interaction between participants and many see
interaction as the key to the method (Kitzinger, 1994). The idea is that group
processes can help people to explore and clarify their views and attitudes efficiently,
and encourages participation from those who feel that they have little to say
(Kitzinger, 1995). Kitzinger (1994) viewed interactive communication amongst
participants as very important because it helped to clarify similarities and differences
in expressed opinions and/or values. Members give answers and build on what others
in the group have said.

The recommended number of participants in a focus group discussion can range

from 6 to 12 and should be drawn from a study population of interest (Lewis, 2000;
Morgan, 1992; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). In this research, focus group
discussions involved 6 to 11 persons per group. This number of participants is small
enough to allow everyone in the group to contribute (Krueger, 1994), yet large
enough to share diverse opinions across the whole group rather than fragmenting into
smaller parallel discussions. It was easy to moderate discussions as subgroups were
not formed and everyone had enough time to express their view. Holding 4 focus
group discussions in a single research study was in agreement with Glaser & Strauss
(1967), and Patton (1990) who suggested having between 3-5 focus groups per
project. Each group discussion took between 1 ½ to 2 hours within the guidelines of
Stewart & Shamdasani (1990) that stated group discussion should generally last
between 1-2 hours, or until the topic has been covered to satisfaction by the
participants. The age of the participants ranged between 20 to 70 years old.

The first four focus group discussions in phase 2 were facilitated by one person
(Sunday S. Daku), a field assistant who is a lecturer in the Department of Geology,
University of Jos. The field assistant had experience of speaking in public being a
lecturer, a former local government council member, a rapporteur at weddings and
other public functions. The field assistant had also helped in conducting focus group
discussions as a facilitator for a Professor at the Faculty of Education, University of
Jos.

The role of the facilitator was to encourage group interaction, and ensuring that no
individual participant dominated the discussion, and also lead the discussion through
the range of topics from the beginning to the end. The facilitator was supported by a
guide containing questions which directed the discussion (see Appendix 1). The
guide was produced by the author in English and translated to Hausa for those
groups who opted to use Hausa as the language of communication. The discussion
guide was divided into four sections. The first section was mainly concerned with

114
self-introduction in order to make the participants comfortable. Thereafter an
explanation was made for the purpose of the meeting after which the discussion
procedure and ground rules were outlined, and consent of participants sought. They
were also informed about their rights to leave whenever they felt uncomfortable in
the group, or could ask further questions for clarification. The third section was on
SWM practices at households. These questions were prepared during the literature
review stage and were supplemented with direct observations from the field.
Examples of topics discussed were participants’ views on waste management in their
community, the main problems of solid waste management, and solid waste
management practices in their homes. The last section was to find out from the
participants how they as individuals could contribute to improve the process of solid
waste management from their households and community, and also if they had
anything to say which they had not mentioned.

The author’s role in focus group discussion was to listen and write down all the
different views of participants, and also to clarify issues that the author felt the
participants did not understand. The author recorded the focus group discussion with
a Dictaphone in order not to miss out on anything said that was not written down in
the notes. The different focus groups and members were coded in order to easily
identify contributions when writing up the results. The documented views and
opinions gathered from members in the group discussion could be explored further
or verified when interviewing stakeholders. Appendix 2 includes copies of the
consolidated transcripts for the two Jenta focus groups.

4.3.5 Semi structured Interviews

Interviews are the most common method of data collection used in qualitative
research (Gill et al. 2008), and were an important method of study adopted in this
research. Seidman (1998) acknowledges that interviewing is an efficient mode of
enquiry and adds that recounting narratives of experience has been the major way
throughout history that humans have made sense of their experiences. Silverman
(2000) believes that interviews provide a ‘deeper’ understanding of social
phenomena than would be obtained from purely quantitative methods, such as
questionnaires. They are therefore appropriate where little is already known about
the study phenomenon or where detailed insights are required from individual
participants. They are also particularly appropriate for exploring sensitive topics,
where participants may not want to talk in a group environment (Gill et al. 2008).
Compared to structured interviews, semi-structured interviews are flexible and allow
for the finding or clarification of information that may be significant to the
participant but may not have been thought of as relevant by the researcher. Semi-
structured interviews are made up of questions that assist in defining the subject to
be explored, but also lets the researcher or interviewee deviate in order to pursue an
idea or response in more detail (Britten, 1999). Interviews help to obtain detailed
information about the personal feelings, perceptions, and opinions of the

115
interviewees. The interviews were conducted to complement the data collected
through direct observation and focus group discussions. Likewise some of the
information obtained during observations and focus groups discussions informed
some of the questions asked. The main reason for using interviews was to extract in-
depth information and insight from stakeholders, based on their knowledge and
experience in the waste management industry. It was an opportunity for the author to
meet personally with the stakeholders in a relaxed and quiet atmosphere to learn
more about their experiences through structured interviews.

The researcher referred to Jacob & Furgerson (2012) for guidance on how to conduct
the interviews. In preparing the list of topics to be discussed the author endorsed the
recommendations made by Stewart & Shamdasani (1990) and Stewart et al. (2007).

A review of literature helped in establishing the list of stakeholders responsible for

solid waste management in the study area and Plateau State in general. The
following stakeholders were interviewed: one representative each from the State
Ministry of Environment, PEPSA, academia, a private recycling entrepreneur, and
manager of a private local recycling enterprise. These different stakeholders were
interviewed due to their different roles in waste management in the state.

The semi structured interviews started with self-introduction, signing of a consent

form (see Appendix 3), an explanation of the objectives of the research, and finally
discussing issues of solid waste management in Jos and low income areas. Each
interview was recorded using a Dictaphone for later transcription as well as writing
down notes. The author sought more clarification on ambiguous answers and probed
further depending on responses from the interviewee. Interviews were transcribed
later and compared with written notes to verify unclear responses and matters
requiring further clarifications were referred back to the respondents, after which
results were coded and processed. The first three interviews were conducted in
English while the last two were conducted in Hausa. Interviews lasted between 30-
120 minutes depending on the organization represented and how much information
was required from them. Yin (2003) specified that interviews could take a maximum
of 60 minutes, but Jacob & Furgerson (2012) stated that interviews could take as
long as 90 minutes, however they believed that it was more appropriate to range two
to three shorter interviews than conducting one longer one. In this research the
interview with PEPSA lasted for about 120 minutes because so much information
was required from them. An overview of each interview is provided in the following
sections.

4.3.5.1 Plateau State Ministry of Environment representative

The interview started with the representative 23 of Plateau State Ministry of
Environment. The main objective was to gain an overview of the current way of

23
For confidentiality the role of the representative is not disclosed in this research.

116
managing waste in Jos, and also to find out about more information waste
responsibilities in the city. Other issues concerning waste management like
institutional arrangements, bye-laws, policies, regulations were also discussed.
Views were sought on how to improve solid waste management within Jos and low
income areas. This interview was necessary because the Ministry of Environment is
responsible for implementing government policies and directives and they also
initiate and advise higher government on environmental matters.

The questions asked were based on information that the researcher needed to know
so as to be able to address the research questions, and some questions were based on
observations and discussions with focus group members.

4.3.5.2 PEPSA representative

The interview with the representative 24 of PEPSA helped the researcher to
understand the current situation with waste management in Jos, especially in the low
income areas. The role of PEPSA in waste management, the type of waste generated,
the factors influencing waste generation, and challenges to the waste management
system were topics covered. The interviewee also gave their opinion on how to
improve the waste management system.

This interview was important since PEPSA was accountable for solid waste
management in Jos. Questions were prepared prior to the interview and again
informed by focus group discussions and observations. For example the focus group
members in Tudun Wada accused PEPSA of not providing them with black plastic
bags for waste collection as they had done in the past, and the author asked the
PEPSA representative to explain the situation.

4.3.5.3 Academic
Interview was conducted with a Professor from one of the tertiary institutions in the
State. The aim was to establish previous research conducted on solid waste
management in Jos, and to understand what they consider to be the major causes of
poor solid waste management especially among the low income areas. In addition
the author sought to find out the impact of research on improving the solid waste
situation in the city. This interview was necessary as it helped the author to acquire
new information on research conducted that they were not aware of. The academic
gave an insight into waste management research that had been undertaken at the
University.

4.3.5.4 Private recycling entrepreneur

An interview was conducted with an entrepreneur who set up and now manages a
private recycling business. The interview and site visit was conducted to obtain
information on the kind of reusable and recyclable waste they deal with, where they
obtain the materials from, who they sell to, how much they buy and sell, their

24
For confidentiality the role of the representative is not disclosed in this research.

117
motivations, and the challenges they face. This interview helped the researcher
understand the current reuse and recycling activity taking place in Jos.

4.3.5.5 Manager of a local recycling enterprise

Another interview was conducted with a manager of a local recycling enterprise
manufacturing pots and other metal items from scrap metal. This was conducted to
get information on how they source the recyclable materials, prices, and what they
produce with the material. Again this information helped the researcher understand
the current reuse and recycling activity taking place in Jos.

Full transcripts for all interviews are included in Appendix 4.

4.3.6 Questionnaire
A questionnaire is a structured technique for collecting primary data. It is generally a
series of written questions for which the respondents has to provide the answers
(Bell, 1999). Questionnaires are the most commonly used research method in social
sciences. Mathers et al. (2007) state that it is a flexible research approach used to
investigate a wide range of topics. Some of its advantages include practicality, ease
of analysis and objectively, simple to administer, familiar format to most
respondents, and a significant amount of data can be collected from a large number
of people in a short period of time at relatively low cost. The disadvantages and
limitations include reliability in responses, lack of conscientious responses,
miscommunication, accessibility issues, and skipping of questions. Bulmer (2004)
believes that the use of questionnaire is a practical and well-established tool within
social sciences research to acquire information on social characteristics of
participants. Questionnaires have been used by Zorpas & Lasaridi (2013) in their
study on measuring waste prevention, and by Sujauddin et al. (2008) on household
solid waste characteristics and management.

The questionnaire survey was designed by the author and embraced the steps listed
by Mathers et al. (2009). The questionnaire was designed in such a way as to cover
the research questions, aims and objectives, some of which include gathering data on
waste management practices in the community, and how individual households
managed their waste. It was also to determine the flow of waste from homes to
disposal and to get their insights regarding the provision of waste management
services in their communities to complement the other data already collected. As
suggested by Krishnaswami & Ranganatham (2007) the questionnaire was pre-tested
and revised, before administration by the author and three other research assistants.
The pre-test exercise was carried out with five lecturers at the University of Jos,
afterwards all suitable changes were made and the questionnaire finalised. The aim
of the pre-test was to discover if households were at ease with the questionnaire,
whether their answers provided the requisite information, if all words were
understood, and to determine the time it took to administer a questionnaire.

118
The questionnaire is attached in Appendix 5 and took between 15-20 minutes to
answer. Although it appeared long, most of the questions were closed and were easy
to respond to, and had sub questions which not all respondents needed to complete.
The survey covered background information of the participants, such as how long
they have lived in the community, how old they were, educational level and
profession. A section focused on variables that could influence the level of waste
generation for example how many people lived in the household including the
number of children, and the household monthly income. Another section focused on
how waste was managed including who was responsible for managing waste, who
collects it and frequency. If waste was not collected correspondents were asked how
they disposed of their waste. Other questions covered the perceived environmental
impacts in the community caused by the waste management system, if they paid for
waste services and their opinions on the current waste management system in Jos
and how could it be improved.

The remainder of the questionnaire focused on the top three tiers of the waste
hierarchy with questions on waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. This included
questions on if they were aware of what these activities are, and if they participated
in them. In the context of prevention, questions were posed on composting, food
waste prevention and the use of reusable nappies.

These questions were important to the author so as to provide a clear understanding

on the demographics of residents and their waste management behaviour.

The questionnaire mainly adopted the use of close ended questions combined with a
few open ended questions. Close-ended questions according to Mathers et al. (2009)
are questions whose possible answers have been defined in advance and so the
respondent is limited to one of those pre-coded responses, while the open ended
questions are open to any response but allow the respondent to interpret the
questions in their own way. The open-ended questions were incorporated into the
questionnaire for the purpose of receiving the deep answers from the respondents.
Polit & Becks (2008) mentioned the advantages of open ended questions include
allowing respondents to give a richer and fuller perspective on the topic of interest,
explaining that some of the richness may be lost when responses are classified. They
also added that it gives freedom to the respondent, and therefore offers spontaneity
and elaboration.

All respondents were asked the same questions in the same order, thus making it
uniform and consistent (Reja et al. 2003). A few questions were asked that used the
Likert scale. A Likert Scale is a type of rating scale used to measure attitudes or
opinions (Bertram, 2016). Through this scale, respondents are asked to rate items
based on their level of agreement, for example, strongly agree, agree, neutral,
disagree, and strongly disagree.

119
In order to determine a suitable sample size, the author used a sample size calculator
provided by Creative Research (2015) using a confidence level of 99% and
confidence interval of 5% to calculate the sample size for the study area. The low-
income study area had an estimated 5,895 households 25 and a sample size of 666
households was calculated in accordance with the procedure stipulated by Creative
Research. The insistence on representativeness in statistical sampling is because it
allows the researcher to make assumptions for the entire population.

In selecting the households that would participate in the study, the research team
made an effort to recruit 750 households, more than the 666 household sample size.
This was done as it was expected that some householders might not be cooperative
or decide to opt out. On the first day of questionnaire administration 80
questionnaires were handed out to residents at their homes in the study area in person
with an explanation on how to fill out the questionnaire for collection two days later.
Upon collection the research team discovered that 42 questionnaires (52.5%) from
the households responding were incomplete and instructions had not been followed
and therefore withdrawn. 21 households (26.3%) filled the questionnaire
accordingly, with the remaining 17 households (21.3%) not filling the questionnaire
at all. As a result the author decided to change the method of administering the
questionnaire in order to improve completion rate and generating more reliable data.
The team agreed that the most appropriate method of administering the questionnaire
was face-to-face with the research team working through the survey with residents,
and moving from house to house engaging only with households willing to
participate in the research. Baabeyir (2009) used this method in his research on
social and environmental injustice in SWM in Accra, Ghana.

The research team made up of 4 people working in pairs administered the

questionnaires on a face-to-face basis with household members from the study area
for 6 weeks. The research team visited the study area on a daily basis from 8.00am to
6.00pm from Monday to Saturday and moved from one household to another
introducing themselves and explaining the purpose of the survey. Household
members were invited to partake in the research and were assured of their anonymity
and confidentiality, and only those who consented were administered questionnaires.

At the end of this exercise a total of 678 questionnaires were available for use in the
research, 42 were withdrawn because they were wrongly completed. This equates to
94.1% of the questionnaires being returned and used in the data analysis, while 5.9%
of the questionnaires were incomplete and discarded. Face-to-face questionnaire
administration was labour intensive, but remained the best way to achieve high
quality data and high return rates (Mathers et al. 2007). This method enabled the
research team to explain to the participant any questions that they did not understand.
In addition Reja et al. (2003) observed that respondents feel more motivated to

25
Based on data from the cartographer at the University of Jos.

120
complete a whole questionnaire without abandoning it while interacting with the
interviewer. Probing was useful particularly for questions with multiple possible
responses and for open ended questions. However face to face interviews can be
intrusive and need to be handled with skill in order not to be bias, it can be a problem
when more than one questionnaire administrator is involved since delivering
consistent reactions can be difficult to manage. In addition, participants may have
concerns about their privacy and anonymity when responding to questions on a face
to face basis, and may not give honest answers to sensitive questions. There could
also be a limit to the number of participants to be surveyed depending on the number
of people administering the questionnaire (Alreck & Settle, 2004; Holbrook et al.
2003; Szolnoki & Hoffmann, 2013; and Wyse, 2014).

4.3.7 Waste composition analysis

Waste Composition Analysis (WCA) provides information on the types and amounts
of materials that are in a given waste stream and usually involves obtaining samples
of these waste streams and sorting them into pre-defined categories which are then
weighed (Zero Waste Scotland, 2013). Waste composition according to Burnley
(2007) is important because it provides information that can be used in designing
municipal solid waste management strategies, and it also helps in establishing the
basic character of municipal solid waste. Waste composition data was collected from
households in the sample area as there was no data available specifically on waste
generation levels and composition within the low income areas which was the focus
of this research. As highlighted in Chapter 3.2.2 the last waste composition study
had been completed in 2008 (PEPSA, 2013) but there was a lot uncertainty in the
rigour of the data. Moreover the data would be integrated into the criteria for
identifying priority waste prevention interventions for the area by highlighting
abundant materials being generated.

There are no existing guidelines in Nigeria for undertaking household waste

composition and many different approaches have been adopted. Burnley (2007)
reviewed a number of studies that had been undertaken on the composition of
municipal solid waste in the UK and reported that they were not carried out in a
systematic or consistent way, so limited information could be derived from
comparisons of the result. Dahlén & Lagerkvist (2008) reviewed 20 different
methods for conducting household waste composition studies and observed that
there is no working international standard on how to conduct composition analysis,
which methods ranged from sampling individual households, bulk samples, vehicle
loads, civic amenity site waste, commercial waste, street litter, street sweepings,
waste diaries and bulky waste.

The author chose to use guidance produced by Zero Waste Scotland (2013). The
guidance was chosen because the methodology had been recently updated and the
author believes it is a methodology that can be used internationally for household

121
waste composition analysis. The methodology guarantees a standard approach for
the purpose of understanding the composition of waste within a particular area.

There are two main approaches to collecting samples. Bulk analysis involves
collecting samples from a community to provide an overview of the composition
from the given area. The alternative approach is collecting samples from individual
households. Parfitt et al. (1997) reviewed both approaches and decided that if waste
composition analysis was being conducted to obtain information on the recyclables,
compostable, or packaging elements of the waste stream, then sampling waste from
individual households was the superior option. Advantages of individual household
sampling included identifying the discarded materials in the waste stream, tracking
the results back to individual addresses, and knowing the total amount of waste
generated from specific homes. Individual household waste analysis provides
reliable data that is detailed, accurate and informative and can be combined with
demographic information to identify factors that affect waste generation (Solomon,
2011). However Bandara et al. (2007) and Zero Waste Scotland, (2013) observed
that individual household waste sampling was a more expensive approach than bulk
household waste sampling.

The approach used in this research was to sample waste from individual households
rather than bulk analysis. This approach would return more detailed data allowing
analysis to the identify levels of waste per capita and variations in generation of
individual materials across the households sampled. The gatekeepers played an
important role in recruiting households in the analysis, and accompanied the author
when approaching households to participate. Households were visited and the aim of
the study was explained to them. They were also informed how the data was going to
be used, after which their consent to participate in the research was sought. Only
those who consented to participate in the research had their waste sampled.

The households recruited for this study were selected independently of other
households. After recruiting the first household, every fifth household was
considered for selection and this continued until the required sample size was
achieved. Random selection was done in order validate the study by eliminating bias.
In designing the sampling technique the researcher followed the guidelines provided
by Zero Waste Scotland (2013). Their report however considers that in practice the
size of the sample is often limited by the resources available in terms of time and
cost and the practicalities of how much waste a team can collect and sort in a day.
The report recommends that the minimum number of households to be sampled
within each stratum is 50 based on the natural variation in different categories of
waste across households. A stratum for example could be an area with more affluent
retired households, an area with low income households, or an area with households
that have mostly young children and served by the same waste collection authority.

122
In this study the author considered the population of 5,895 households and a 361
sample size calculated based on 95% confidence level and 5% confidence interval
(Creative Research, 2015). However waste composition analysis from 361
households would be difficult to achieve. The author decided to adopt Zero Waste
Scotland (2013) recommendation of sampling not less than 50 households for this
research, besides the households fall within the stratum of low income households.
After considering other contingencies a total of 80 households were recruited for
sampling in this study, but then 6 households were dropped because their data was
incomplete at the end of the study. As a result 74 households participated in this
study and their data forms part of the results. Results of the waste quantification
analyses are presented and discussed in Chapter 7.

The procedure for waste composition analysis commenced with the research team
providing households with plastic bags in which they were asked to put out all waste
including materials that they might sell for recycling. The plastic bags were retrieved
after 48 hours, and households were provided a fresh set of plastic bags. The
research team returned in total three times throughout the week to collect, weigh, and
sort each sample collected from households. This was planned by the research team
bearing in mind that unlike in the UK where residual waste is collected fortnightly,
in Jos waste is not collected so household might dispose the waste every day.

The solid waste was taken away on each collection day to the government designated
dumpsite at Zaria Road. The contents were emptied and spread onto a plastic sheet
and sorted into 13 pre-determined categories (see Table 14). The author adopted the
primary level categories for waste analysis as used by Bichi & Amatobi (2013),
Ejaro & Jiya (2013), Gawaikar & Deshpande (2006) and Okeniyi & Anwan (2012).
All weights were recorded into the data sheet, after which the waste was bagged for
disposal at the dumpsite.

The households sampled also participated in answering the same questionnaire as set
out in 4.3.6. Therefore the author was able to interrogate data from the questionnaire
and composition for each individual household and calculate the per capita waste
generated per day and look for other trends in the data.

123
Table 14 Categories used for waste composition based on Bichi & Amatobi
(2013)
S/N Primary category Examples of materials included in this category
1 Food waste Left over food, bread, peels, vegetables, bones
2 Paper Newspaper, magazines, cardboard and other paper
3 Glass Glass, bottles and jars
4 Metals Drink cans, tins, nails, and other types of metals
5 Plastic films/bags Plastic bags, plastic films, water sachets
6 Dense plastics Plastic bottles, packaging, other rigid plastic
7 Textiles Clothing, textiles
8 Ash/unburnt wood 26 Ash and wood unburnt from fires
9 Electrical Parts of phones, chargers, ear pieces, bulbs
10 Others Batteries, drugs, disposable nappies, sanitary towels
11 Miscellaneous Weavon 27 and other combustible materials
combustible
12 Fines Soil, dust
13 Garden waste Leaves and grass, other garden waste

4.3.8 Identifying waste prevention opportunities

4.3.8.1 Development of a long and shortlist of initiatives
A comprehensive review of global waste prevention was undertaken (see Appendix
6), to generate a long list of initiatives that could help to reduce waste levels (see
Chapter 8.2). The list was screened and assessed using the following five criteria:
key materials in the waste stream, quick wins, economically viable, building on what
already exists, and the likelihood of the initiative working in Jos. Full details of these
criteria are presented in Chapter 8.2.1 - Development of a long list of initiatives.

The author based the identification of waste prevention opportunities on a traffic

light system where green was allocated two points which meant that the waste
prevention initiative completely satisfied the criteria, amber was allocated one point
which means that the initiative partially satisfied the criteria, while red was allocated
zero points which meant that the initiative failed to satisfy the criteria. Variations of
this traffic light screening have been applied in other industries such as employment
when screening the suitability of candidates (Know Your Candidate, 2016), in
Strategic Environmental Assessment when appraising different strategy options
(ERM, 2007), and in Environmental Impact Assessment when evaluating the
suitability of potential sites against defined criteria (Terence O’Rourke, 2005). The
scoring was informed by data gleaned by the author in Part A of the research, and
understanding the local situation. This screening exercise enabled the author to
shortlist the preferred waste prevention interventions as they had the highest points.
However the author also acknowledge that in order for any waste prevention
intervention to succeed there needed to be a more holistic approach to raising

26
To help with analysis residents were asked to bag up ash/unburnt wood separately.
27
Weaveon is artificial hair for women.

124
awareness of waste issues in the community, and therefore the role of general waste
awareness campaigns was also considered.

To further evaluate the appropriateness and impact of the shortlisted interventions,

two focus groups discussions were held with PEPSA and household members from
Tudun Wada and Jenta. The researcher was again supported by two field assistants,
Mr Ezekiel Y. Yenne from the University of Jos and the Mr Ayuba. Y. Dabot from
the Plateau State Polytechnic Barakin Ladi. The author integrated both Ketso and
SWOT analysis in the focus group discussion. Figure 24 shows a group of household
members from Tudun Wada and Jenta in a focus group discussion using the Ketso
approach.

Figure 24 Adoption of the Ketso approach for the focus group discussion
Source: Fieldwork

Ketso is a research approach that was first used in Lesotho in the mid 1990s and it
means ‘action’ in the Sesotho language (Ketso, 2012). It is a tool that can be used in
a variety of research methods – instead of being a method per se, it is an information
gathering instrument that can be used to: stimulate discussion; ensure that everyone
has a say; help participants to visualize and order their thinking and responses to
questions; and capture their ideas in the form of written notes on coloured papers
(Abigo, 2016). It is particularly useful for stakeholders who need to work together to
explore new ideas and develop a plan before taking action within a limited time
frame. It has been used to facilitate interactive communication in focus group
discussions, with a small group of people discussing key issues at a table with a
researcher, and in larger workshops, with a number of groups at once, which can
allow for the gathering of information (Ketso, 2012). It has been used in
environmental management and sustainability planning, teaching and training and in
research by PhD students. For instance Ketso has been used by community planners,
teachers, trainers, facilitators, and people running team meetings in private
companies. It has also been used in projects at over half of UK Universities

125
including: Brighton (Abigo, 2016), Glasgow (Njiraini, 2015) Manchester (Hall,
2010), Southampton (Sarky, 2016). It has been used for social vulnerability
assessment in Ouagadougo, Burkina Faso and Cameroon, and is being used in
research looking at adaptation to climate change in five African Cities (Climate
Change and Urban Vulnerability in Africa, CLUVA (undated).

Ketso uses coloured papers to capture each participant’s ideas, thus giving everyone
a voice, not just those whose voices are loudest. It also makes it easy for
participants’ to follow the conversation and see all their ideas at a glimpse (Ketso,
2012).

The Ketso approach was used in the focus group discussion session for this study
with participants writing down their ideas on paper, concerning the strengths,
weakness, opportunities and threats of the five shortlisted waste prevention
interventions. This was in order to select the most appropriate waste prevention
intervention for the study area.

SWOT is an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (The

Economic Times, 2017). It is an analytical framework that assesses these four
elements and can be used in different contexts be it of an organization, project or
business venture. It involves identifying the objective of the subject, then assessing
its internal strengths and weaknesses, alongside the potential opportunities and
threats. These internal and external factors could be favourable or unfavourable for
subject depending on their effects on the objectives. Strengths entail the
characteristics of the subject that give it an advantage over others, while weaknesses
mean the characteristics that place the subject at a disadvantage in relation to others.
On the other hand opportunities are elements of the subject that could be exploited to
its advantage, whereas threats are elements in the environment that could cause
trouble for the business or project.

Humphrey (2005) and Humphrey (2012) have used SWOT analysis within business
development. Ifediora et al. (2014) has also utilized the SWOT method in
investigating an organization’s stability and productivity. SWOT has been used in
community work to identify positive and negative factors that could promote or
inhibit the successful implementation of a social service and social change efforts
(Community Toolbox, 2014). It can also be utilized as a preliminary resource for
assessing impact in a community of NGOs (Westhues et al. 2001). In addition it
could be used in pre-crisis planning and preventive crisis management, as well as in
making recommendations during viability studies or before developing a strategic
plan (Our Community, 2014). SWOT is beneficial for community studies as it helps
communities to find solutions to their problems and decide on most effective
direction to take (Community Toolbox, 2014).

126
Unlike the four previous focus groups, these two focus group discussions were
facilitated by the author. This was due to the technicalities of the topic being
discussed. In the focus group the participants were presented with a list of 5 waste
prevention initiatives; each of the initiatives were introduced and explained. In
addition the waste composition from the study area was introduced and displayed as
it partially formed the basis on which the participants were going to make their
choices. Thereafter participants were requested to ask questions or seek clarifications
on areas that they did not understand. As per the Ketso approach each theme was
recorded on different coloured paper: green for strengths, yellow for weakness, blue
for opportunities and red for threats. This arrangement was chosen in order to assist
the author with efficient collation of information from the focus group members. The
information was collated and analysed by the author to evaluate the feasibility of
each intervention.

4.3.9 Secondary data

Important information on SWM practices and Jos were collected during the literature
review from journals, published/unpublished sources, newspapers, and internet
sources. Many policy documents were also used as a source of secondary data. Table
15 displays the list of documents recommended to the researcher following
interviews with stakeholders.

Table 15 Documents recommended to researcher during interviews

Document Key information acquired
Greater Jos Master Plan This plan helped to provide useful information on Jos
(2008-2025) including information on the local government areas that make
up Jos, detail on low income settlements within the study area,
infrastructural projections, population projections, information
about the informal sector, water supply and waste management
issues, and environmental problems affecting the study area.
National Environmental Information on Nigeria’s commitment to protecting and
Sanitation Policy of the ensuring a quality environment and the policy to address
Federal Republic of sanitation problems.
Nigeria (2005)
Plateau State Outlines duties of an owner/occupier of a tenement, the powers
Environmental of Environmental Health Officers, the power and duties of the
Protection Law 2001, authority, information on prohibited acts, general penal
amended 2003 provision and prosecution of offences, administration and
enforcement and repeals.
Environmental Useful information on Nigeria including the concepts and
Management and definitions of environmental management, environmental
Protection by Uchegbu problems, solid waste constituents and disposal methods,
(1998) composting.
Plateau State It is a collection of environmental laws such as Public health
Compendium of law, Public health rules/regulations, Plateau state urban
Environmental Laws development law, Plateau state rural water supply and
sanitation agency law, Plateau state environmental law.
Study for the Overview of solid waste management in Jos, the problems of
Construction of enforcement of relevant waste management legislation, health

127
Document Key information acquired
Integrated Waste and safety of personnel handling waste, waste characterisation,
Management Facility in collection, solid waste transfer, solid waste disposal and
Jos, Plateau State, management techniques.
volume 1, 2 & 3
Some unpublished MSc Some unpublished MSc Theses from the University of Jos
theses from University document issues like type and sources of waste generated,
of Jos composition, existing waste collection and disposal practices
within the study area. Community participation in refuse waste
management, polythene waste materials management, agencies
concerned with solid waste management and its responsibility,
Jos Metropolitan Development Board (JMDB) and solid waste
management, and the operations of private solid waste
companies in Plateau State from 2005-2007.

4.4 DATA ANALYSIS

The analysis of data collected during research involves summarising the mass of data
and the presenting the results in a way that communicates the most important
findings or features. In this research both qualitative and quantitative data were
collected. Qualitative data was analysed thematically, while quantitative data was
analysed statistically.

4.4.1 Thematic analysis

Guest & Namey (2012) affirm that thematic analysis is the most common form of
analysis in qualitative research. It is an analytical method for identifying and
analysing (recurrent) patterns or themes arising from the qualitative data (Clarke &
Braun, 2013). Thematic analysis is a conducive approach for reducing and managing
large volumes of data, for organizing and summarizing data, and for focusing the
interpretation (Boyatzis, 1998) and allows for detailed and complex description of
data (Javadi & Zarea, 2016).

A wide range of data sources can be used in thematic analysis which includes
transcripts, field notes, supporting documents (journals or historical papers),
information written by participants (diaries), research memos, pictures, drawings,
maps, digital audio files and video files (Guest & Namey, 2012; Joffe & Yardley;
2003; Lapadat, 2010). Thematic analysis was the most appropriate approach for
analysing the qualitative data collected and has been used in many other studies to
interrogate qualitative data sets such as Abigo (2016) in their study of facilities
management of urban marketplaces in Nigeria and Gellatly’s (2011) work on mental
health.

In this study the researcher used thematic analysis to analyse results from
observations, focus group discussions, and interviews in order to describe SWM
practices in low income areas, and to identify recurrent patterns and meaning of

128
themes. Focus group discussions and interviews were transcribed verbatim and
compared with field notes for a cross check. Individual transcripts were coded
thematically in order to reveal pertinent and developing themes. The transcripts were
further organised and analysed in order to identify themes, concepts and
relationships within the data and also between the data and literature. In regard to
ethical principles concerning participant’s privacy, participants for both focus group
discussion and interviews were given codes as a substitute for their actual names.

4.4.2 Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was used for interrogating quantitative data in order to draw
meaningful conclusions from the study (Ali and Bhastar, 2016). The main advantage
of using statistical analysis is that it enables the researcher to score and analyse large
sets of data quickly and accurately (Bryman and Cramer, 2001).

Statistical analysis is used in most experiments by researchers, and there are two
types of statistical method used: descriptive statistics and inferential statistics.
Descriptive statistical analysis involves the use of frequencies, percentages, means
and standard deviation to describe various patterns in data encountered during a
study. In this research descriptive statistics were employed for analysing quantitative
data obtained from the household questionnaire and waste composition analysis. In
the composition study maximum, minimum, mean and median quantities of waste
components were determined, and graphical techniques such as tables, pie charts, bar
charts and box plots were also used to present results from this analysis. This
analysis was undertaken in order to generate a descriptive picture of the data
gathered on the demographics of residents, waste management behaviour and waste
levels and composition.

Examples of other waste studies that have used this descriptive statistical analysis
approach are Guerrero et al. (2013) when studying solid waste management
challenges for cities in developing countries, and Ezeah (2010) in his analysis of
barriers and success factors affecting the adoption of sustainable management of
municipal solid waste in Abuja, Nigeria. This approach to analysing waste
composition data is also recommended by Zero Waste Scotland (2013) in their
guidance on undertaking waste analysis.

4.5 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

Joppe, (2000 p. 1) defines reliability as “the extent to which results are consistent
over time and an accurate representation of the total population under study is
referred to as reliability and if the results of a study can be reproduced under a
similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be reliable”.
Joppe, (2000 p. 1) also defines validity as: “Validity determines whether the
research truly measures that which it was intended to measure or how truthful the
research results are. In other words, does the research instrument allow you to hit

129
"the bull’s eye" of your research object? Researchers generally determine validity by
asking a series of questions, and will often look for the answers in the research of
others”.

From the view point of qualitative research, reliability and validity are theorized as
trustworthiness, rigor and quality. It is also through this association that the way to
achieve validity and reliability of research get affected from the qualitative
researcher’s perspectives which are to eliminate bias and increase the researcher’s
truthfulness of a proposition about some social phenomenon (Denzin, 1978) using
triangulation. Triangulation is defined by Creswell & Miller, (2000, p.126) to be “a
validity procedure where researchers search for convergence among multiple and
different sources of information to form themes or categories in a study”.

Patton, (2001 p. 247) supports the use of triangulation by asserting that

“triangulation strengthens a study by combining methods. It means that using
different kinds of methods or data, including using both quantitative and qualitative
approaches”.

The idea behind triangulation is that the more different data sources agree on a
particular issue, the more reliable the interpretation of the data. This makes sure that
the subject is not looked at from one side, but somewhat through a multiplicity of
lenses which allows for many facets of the phenomenon to be exposed and
understood (Baxter & Jack, 2008).

Several methods were used to guarantee reliability and validity of the research.
Direct observations, focus groups, interviews, questionnaires and secondary data
were used to triangulate the results. Yin (2003) specified that data from interviews
are often corroborated with data from other sources to increase the validity of the
research.

Research assistants who could work effectively with participants and communicate
in both English and Hausa were selected and used in this research, so that
moderators could clearly explain the research questions to enable the collection of
reliable data. Interviews were conducted in quiet places to enable the author to hear
and record all responses by the participants. All questions were made simple and
clear to avoid ambiguity, and were asked in a logical manner using a guide.
Information from both focus groups and interviews were recorded using a voice
recorder as well as hand written to enable comparison so that no information was
lost. In addition if there was any information that appeared confusing from
interviews, the author got back to the participant to verify such information. The
research team identified gatekeepers within the study area to help ensure cooperation
from households. The author was present at all times with the research team in order
to clarify any issues raised by participants. Sample size was an important feature of

130
this study and as explained there was clear rationale behind the sample sizes used.
All these steps were taken to ensure that the results obtained were reliable and valid.

4.6 ETHICAL ISSUES

The author understood the main ethical issues in the research, which enabled the
design and execution of an ethically acceptable study. In this research which
involved human participants, it was important to observe all ethical guidelines.
Punch (1994) observed that the majority of ethical guidelines for research
concerning human subjects within the western cultural tradition require that
anonymity or confidentiality is guaranteed, consent is informed, dignity is
maintained, and on balance, the individual and society receive more benefit than
harm. In addition the author followed the ethical principles of beneficence, non-
malfeasance, autonomy and justice which are the four pillars of ethics and
governance listed by Scholes (2014). Furthermore the guidelines stated by Bera
(2011) concerning the ethics of respect with the person, knowledge, democratic
values, quality of educational research and academic freedom, alongside the “Code
of Practice and Regulations for Research Degrees” of the University of Brighton
were enshrined in this research.

During the fieldwork the author sought approval and consent from participant
stakeholders before collecting any primary data. Similarly consent from households
was sought before collecting and taking their waste away for quantification and
characterization. Participants were informed about the nature, duration, the methods,
purpose and possible risks of the research before they decided to participate.
Participants were allowed to decide freely whether or not to participate, and also had
the option to withdraw anytime they felt they could not continue. They were asked to
fill and sign forms to show their acceptance to take part in the research. The author
was responsible for ensuring anonymity and confidentiality of the participants
throughout the research process. At the end of fieldwork all data collected was
stored, used and reported in a manner that ensured no one, but the author, knows the
source of the data thereby guaranteeing confidentiality and anonymity.

4.7 SUMMARY
This study used an exploratory and explanatory research approach that espouses the
use of mixed methods. A single case study plan using a pragmatist ideology was
embraced for this study. Direct observation, focus group discussion, semi-structured
interviews, questionnaires and waste composition analysis were the data collection
methods used in this study. Data was analysed using themes and statistics. Ethical
guidelines were strictly followed throughout the research process.

Chapter 5 presents the results and analysis of the data collected for Part A of the
research focusing on the waste management system in Jos.

131
5 RESULTS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the results of investigation concerning how waste is managed
in the case study area using a mixed methods approach. The study was undertaken in
order to understand the current waste management practice using direct observations
in the community and at household level to gain understanding of the real situation
on the ground. In addition information was collected from focus groups,
questionnaires, and interviews with stakeholders. Table 16 gives a summary of the
data collection methods adopted – these are coded and referred to throughout the
chapter.

Table 16 Methods used for data collection

Method code Summary Number of participants
OBS Observations by the author in the study areas --
and Jos in general
FGDT1 Tudun Wada focus group 1 8 residents
FGDT2 Tudun Wada focus group 2 11 residents
FGDJ1 Jenta focus group 1 6 residents
FGDJ2 Jenta focus group 2 7 residents
IWMP1 Interview with the representative of the 1
Ministry of Environment
IWMP2 Interview with the representative of PEPSA 1
IA1 Interview with academic representative of 1
tertiary institutions
IIS1 Interview with recycling entrepreneur 1
IIS2 Interview with representative of a local 1
recycling enterprise manufacturing pot
products in Jos from metal
QS Questionnaire survey with households residing 678
in the study area

In respect to focus groups, where information or a quote is attributed to a particular

participant this is denoted by a number – e.g. FGDT2 001 = Focus Group Tudun
Wada 2 participant 1. Where applicable this information has also been supplemented
by secondary information that was recommended by those interviewed or
subsequently found by the author.

Due to a mixed methodology being adopted there is a crossover of waste

management issues in the results from each method. To reduce repetition the results
have been synthesized under themes and information presented throughout the
chapter. The first section explains in detail the nature and characteristics of the study
area. It is followed by the SWM structure in Jos including the roles and
responsibilities of key stakeholders. This is followed by waste management practices
in Jos per se, and then in low income areas. Under this section the process of waste

132
management is presented including collection, current reuse and recycling activity,
and final disposal. The barriers and challenges that stakeholders face in managing
solid waste in Jos and low income areas are also presented. Finally some challenges
and recommendations to improve the existing system of managing waste have been
raised.

5.2 NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

STUDY AREA
As set out in Chapter 3.1 the city of Jos is made up of two local government areas,
Jos North and Jos South. Figure 25 shows the study area made up of Tudun Wada
and Jenta located in the Jos North local government area.

Figure 25 Map of low income areas in Jos including the study area
Source: Produced for this study based on data from observations and literature.

133
These areas are mainly residential intermingled with small traders, a few hotels,
police stations, healthcare facilities, schools and churches.

5.2.1 Housing
Jenta and Tudun Wada are located mainly on rocky terrains surrounded by hills and
valleys with limited access roads and drainage. Figures Figure 26 to Figure 28 show
the nature and type of houses in the study areas.

Figure 26 A crowded informal settlements in Jenta, Jos, Nigeria

Source: Image taken by the researcher during fieldwork in 2014

Figure 27 Image showing the unplanned nature of houses in Tudun Wada, Jos,
Nigeria
Source: Image taken by the researcher during fieldwork in 2014

134
Figure 28 Housing in close proximity in Jenta, Jos, Nigeria
Source: Image taken by the researcher during fieldwork in 2014

The majority of housing is compounds – this is a building that has many single
rooms, two rooms (a bedroom and a sitting room) or three rooms (two bedrooms and
a sitting room) that can accommodate many families. For example a compound can
be shared by five different family units, with each family having their rooms but
sharing facilities such as toilets and bathrooms, most often such houses have no
kitchens.

The areas are unplanned with further observations showing that the buildings are old
and closely packed together with no spaces between adjoining buildings such that the
roof of one building overlaps the other (see Figure 28). This constitutes a safety risk
especially with respect to fire outbreaks. It also presents problems due to the lack of
access roads for fire fighting vehicles and waste haulage trucks. The buildings are
inferior and mainly made of cement and mud blocks with corrugated iron roofing
sheets. However unlike in other low income areas there are few squatter shacks – the
structures are permanent (OBS).

Both representatives of PEPSA (IWMP2) and the Ministry of Environment

(IWMP1) affirmed that Jenta and Tudun Wada areas are like slums which they
described as follows:

“Tudun Wada and Jenta areas are quite old and unplanned settlements, with no
spaces, untarred narrow roads, poor electric pole alignment, and lack access roads
for SWM vehicles among others” (IWMP2).

“Tudun Wada and Jenta are poorly planned, very unregulated pattern of buildings,
people just build anyhow, no access road for our trucks to pass through, not only our
trucks, but even the fire brigade and other vehicles cannot pass through to perform
their duties, and streets are not provided as people just build anyhow” ( IWMP1).

135
Due to the close proximity of housing very few had yards or gardens. However it
was observed that throughout the community in vacant plots or alongside streams
some residents had set up small gardens for the production of food such as spinach
and tomatoes. For example Figure 29 shows a stream along which residents have set
up a garden.

5.2.2 Access to utilities and sanitation

Tudun Wada and Jenta lack safe and secure water and electricity supply. Most
households rely exclusively on well water from shallow hand dug wells, with some
dependent on stream water or buying water from water vendors – there is no mains
water supply. Figures Figure 29 and Figure 30 show examples of streams from
which some households depend for domestic water supply, while Figure 31 shows a
push cart with water in jerry cans waiting to be sold to households in the study area
(OBS).

Figure 29 Stream water in Tudun Wada used for washing and drinking
Source: Image taken by author during fieldwork in 2015

Figure 30 Stray pig eating on waste dumped in the community by stream

Source: Image taken by author during fieldwork in 2014

136
Figure 31 Water in jerry cans sold by water vendors in Jenta
Source: Image taken by author during fieldwork in 2015

This inadequate water supply affects the level of sanitation of residents in the study
area. Stagnant water was seen around some of the houses because of lack of drains
for water coming out of their bathroom and toilets which causes the environment to
be infested with insects, vectors and pathogens. Some households depend on
unreliable power supply from the national grid, or use generators while those who
cannot do these use kerosene lamps. Observations (OBS) show that it is very
common for the areas to lose power, sometimes for months on end.

It was further seen that residents of both locations keep animals such as dogs, pigs,
birds, sheep and goats which often move about freely without restriction which
further worsens the sanitary conditions of the study area. The animals upturn and
scatter waste that is packed for disposal. The condition of the study areas leads one
to assume that these areas have suffered long neglect from government especially in
regard to infrastructural development, provision of basic social amenities, and
enforcement of development control standards (OBS).

5.2.3 Demographics of residents

Based on questionnaire survey household size ranged from 2 to 15 people with
50.9% of households consisting of 4-6 people, with the average household size being
5.9 (see Table 17). The composition of households in the study area is complex – it
is unusual to find a nuclear family living alone and it is common for grandparents,
grown up children and extended family to make up a household.

Table 17 Household size distribution based on questionnaire returns

Household Size Number of participants Percentage
(sample 678) (%)
1 0 0.0
2-4 136 20.0
4-6 345 50.9
>6 197 29.1

137
Results show that 38% of residents attended secondary school, 32% of the residents
have first degree certificates, while 18.6% stopped at the primary school level – this
would mean they left education at the age of 10-11 (see Table 18).

Table 18 Educational level of residents based on questionnaire returns

Educational level Number of participants Percentage
(sample 678) (%)
Primary 126 18.6
Secondary 258 38.0
Graduate 217 32.0
Postgraduate 24 3.5
Other 53 7.8

Table 19 Profession of residents based on questionnaire returns

Profession Number of participants Percentage (%)
(sample 678)
Unemployed 81 11.9
Artisans 193 28.5
Civil servants 176 26.0
Entrepreneurs 140 20.6
Professionals 28 61 9.0
Retirees 27 4.0

Table 19 presents the profession of residents and confirms that they are mainly made
up of artisans 29 (28.8%), civil servants (26.0%) and entrepreneurs (20.6%) with
11.9% unemployed. The monthly income levels for households varied significantly
with 22.6% earning less than NGN18,000 (£48.78) to 2.9% earning over
NGN150,000 (£406.5) (see Table 20). 69.4% could be classified as low income
households as defined EFInA (2011) as those who earn NGN50, 000 (£135.5) and
below.

Table 20 Households monthly income based on questionnaire returns

Household Number of Percentage (%) Category based
monthly participants on EFInA (2011)
income (NGN) (sample 678)
<18,000 153 22.6 Low income
18,000 – 50,000 317 46.8
50,000 – 143 21.1 Middle/high
100,000 income
100,000 – 45 6.6
150,000
>150,000 20 2.9

28
Professionals are persons engaged or qualified in a profession such as lawyers, doctors, surveyors.
29
Artisans are workers in a skilled trade, especially one that involves making things by hand.

138
This highlights the complexities of the area with 30.6% of households earning over
NGN50, 000 per month. Based on the EFInA (2011) definition these would be
classified as middle to high income households.

5.3 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE IN

JOS
5.3.1 Role and responsibility of stakeholders
From undertaking the research the main stakeholders involved in SWM in Jos were
identified. The key stakeholders are Plateau State Ministry of Environment, PEPSA,
ad hoc workers, widows, the informal sector and community leaders. Their roles and
responsibilities are described in the respective sections below.

5.3.1.1 Plateau State Ministry of Environment

The representative of the Ministry corroborated information from the literature
review that in Nigeria environmental issues are overseen by the Federal Ministry of
Environment at the national level, State Ministry of Environment at state level, and
Environmental Health departments at local government level. The State Ministry of
Environment adopt the policies and guidelines concerning SWM from the national
government and implement them in the state (IWMP1). Each state is also
empowered to make laws that protect the environment within their own jurisdiction.
The official stated that the Federal Ministry of Environment organises regular
meetings of the National Council on Environment which is an all-inclusive body of
environmental stakeholders across Nigeria, and is often attended by all principal
administrators from the State Ministries of Environment. The meetings provide a
forum for policy and discussion on existing environmental issues as well as offering
solutions to some of the problems identified (IWMP1).

The management of solid waste in Jos is the responsibility of the State Ministry of
Environment, established in 1999 with eight departments which include the
Environmental Health and Sanitation department which is in charge of SWM in the
state. The main goal of the Ministry is to preserve and protect the environment from
both natural and man-made disasters and to ensure a clean and healthy environment.
The Commissioner for Environment heads the Ministry assisted by the Permanent
Secretary (IWMP1).

Responsibilities of the State Ministry of Environment include implementing relevant

national and state legislation, establishing data on SWM, providing land for siting
SWM facilities, and providing logistical support including finance to facilitate
private sector participation. The State Ministry of Environment are required to
inform the State Government about the Ministry’s financial and resource
requirements on environmental matters. IWMP1 gave the examples of if the Ministry
needed to acquire land for the disposal of waste, purchase more public waste
containers, or procure more trucks for waste collection they would submit these
139
requests. If the State Government accepts and releases these funds, then PEPSA (see
Chapter 5.3.1.2) would undertake the work under the supervision of the Ministry of
Environment.

Whilst the Ministry has a clear range of responsibilities in reality some of these are
often neglected due to the appointment of politicians to head key management
positions and that could affect the management of solid waste in the state. For
example interviewees stated that:

“The Ministry of Environment is usually led by the Commissioner for Environment

who is politically appointed and could be a novice who does not know the technical
definition of the environment not to talk of the importance of safeguarding it.
Policies could be implemented based on political bias, sentiments, and the rest of
them like who gave us the highest number of votes, is who we would want to appoint,
not really on professionalism. As such the will power to execute programmes that
have direct bearing to the people would not be there, hence the management of
waste would encounter some setbacks”. (IWMP1)

“There are always changes going on like in the Ministry of Environment for instance
this year alone they have changed three commissioners to satisfy political demands,
and you know once a commissioner is removed their plans go with them, so how can
progress be achieved with such frequent changes ?”. (IWMP2)

5.3.1.2 PEPSA and Environmental Health Officers

It was confirmed by the representatives of the State Ministry of Environment
(IWMP1) and PEPSA (IWMP2) that before the establishment of PEPSA,
management of waste in Jos had passed through various organisations. Initially the
Jos Metropolitan Development Board was responsible for waste management. They
were established in 1974 and lasted until 1984 after which the military through a
coup took over governance and introduced Plateau State Capital Development Board
(PSCDB). PSCDB metamorphosed to a task force on Environmental Sanitation, then
to Plateau State Waste Management Agency (PSWMA) which finally disbanded to
the present Plateau Environmental Protection and Sanitation Agency (PEPSA). The
aforementioned organisations undertook the same function of managing waste in the
state at one stage from 1974 until 2000 when PEPSA was established. Jos
Metropolitan Development Board however has continued to carry on the role of
infrastructure development and maintenance in the state thereby indirectly assisting
PEPSA in the management of waste in Jos.

PEPSA was established as an agency under the State Ministry of Environment in

2000 by an act of the Plateau State Parliament. It was empowered to protect and
improve the environment (water, air and land, forest and wildlife) by ensuring the
delivery of an efficient and effective waste management system in the state. PEPSA
is led by a General Manager who is accountable to the Director of Environmental

140
Health and Sanitation in the Ministry of Environment. The representative of PEPSA
stated during interview that they are exclusively responsible for managing waste in
the state – essentially they are the delivery body of the Ministry of Environment.
IWMP1 listed the responsibilities of PEPSA to include the daily collection,
transportation and final disposal of waste, sanitary inspection of premises
(residential, commercial, industrial, institutions and organisations), and the
implementation/enforcement of all sanitary laws. In addition it is responsible for
public education on solid waste management. Despite the responsibility of SWM
vested on PEPSA it still operates as a unit in the Ministry of Environment and does
not have financial autonomy (IWMP1). So essentially if PEPSA need any resources,
their request would initially go to the State Ministry of Environment, who if they
approve the request in turn pass this onto the State Government for consideration.

PEPSA has 97 permanent staff out of which 92 are Environmental Health Officers
(EHOs). EHOs are also referred to as Sanitary Inspectors (SI) and their role is
mainly to monitor the management of waste from sources of generation through to
disposal. They provide technical advice to Plateau State Government and enforce
laws and regulations on public health standards. EHOs educate households and
communities on sanitation and hygiene matters in order to preserve the health and
well-being of the public and the environment (IWMP1/ IWMP2).

5.3.1.3 Ad hoc staff

Whilst it is PEPSA’s responsibility to undertake waste collection and disposal, this
function is conducted by ad hoc staff. These are typically less privileged members of
society employed by Plateau State Ministry of Environment on a contract basis to
ensure a clean environment. They are 1,500 in number and in addition to collecting
waste their responsibilities include clearing grass and shrubs within Jos (IWMP2).

It is important to note that no waste collection is undertaken directly from

households and residents are required to take waste to designated collection points:

“We [sic] visit streets not homes where households are expected to bring their waste
to the waste collection centre’s (public waste containers) for disposal, and it is our
responsibility (PEPSA) to remove the waste from the collection centre’s to
designated dumpsites far away from the city centre”. (IWMP2)

Ad hoc crews collect and shovel up this waste (see Figure 32) and take it to
dumpsites, often they are led by a PEPSA EHO. They also clear waste
indiscriminately dumped in communities (see Figure 33). As can be seen there is a
lack of uniform and personal protective equipment. As can be seen collection is
rudimentary with crews making the most of the limited resources they have. Waste is
also transported in open vehicles, which means it can be blown away during
collection (OBS).

141
Figure 32 Ad hoc male staff shovelling waste into an open truck at Jishe, Jos
Source: Image taken by author during fieldwork in 2015

Figure 33 Ad hoc male staff clearing waste from open dumps on the street
Source: Image taken by author during fieldwork in 2015

5.3.1.4 Widows
The term widow in the context of this research is the same as the wider meaning:
women who have lost their spouse by death and not married again. They are
employed by the Plateau State Government Ministry of Environment as street
sweepers in observance of the “Keep Jos Clean Programme” of the State
Government. Widows sweep public spaces and gather waste in one place for
collection. The State Government introduced this programme and employs 3,500
widows in order to provide them with financial support to take care of their children
while providing the service of keeping the streets of Jos clean. They regularly sweep
the streets and other public spaces to keep them clean and free from litter and
rubbish. They are also responsible for clearing drains and gutters in order to
minimise flooding after heavy rains (IWMP1/IWMP2).

142
Their services had helped in addressing the problem of poor sanitation in the state,
but because of irregular payment of salaries they sometimes embark on strikes
leading to accumulation of heaps of waste and littering in the city centre.

To avoid all doubt, confusingly the widows and ad hoc male staff are independent of
PEPSA, they are employed by the State Ministry of Environment.

5.3.1.5 The informal sector

The informal sector is also known as the “grey economy” 30 (Henshaw, 2017), and it
makes up about 80% of Nigeria’s population (NHP, 2006). The informal sector is
made up of two types (Onwe, 2013) – traditional informal sector and modern
informal sector. The category of reference in this research is the traditional informal
sector. The traditional informal sector is on the increase in LEDCs including Nigeria,
and provides employment and income for the poor. The traditional informal sector
refers to those workers who are self employed, or who work for those who are self
employed. People who earn a living through self employment in most cases are not
on payrolls, hence are not taxed. Many traditional informal sector activities are
unrecognised, unrecorded, unprotected, unregulated and are in unsecured places
(Onwe, 2013). They are largely characterized by low level entries, small-scale
operations, skills acquired outside of formal education, and labour-intensive methods
of production. They are also defined according to different categories in terms of
activity, employment, location of actors, and income and employment enhancing
potential. Examples of traditional informal sector include petty traders, small-scale
producers, and a variety of casual jobs. In the context of this research, the traditional
informal sector encompasses waste pickers or scavengers, recycling entrepreneurs
and waste suppliers/dealers.

This research identified numerous people involved in collecting, sorting and

reprocessing materials for reuse and recycling in the study area. This included a
recycling entrepreneur (IIS1) who buys and sells recovered materials such as
plastics, metals, papers and a host of others, and a pot maker (IIS2) making house
wares from scrap metal. These were both interviewed and more information on their
activities and the reuse and recycling activity in Jos is presented in 5.4.9.1.

5.3.1.6 Community leaders

The representatives of academia (IA1) and the Ministry of Environment (IWMP1)
stated that in pre-colonial days when there was not much development, sanitary
inspectors used to work with the Native Authority31 to enforce sanitation laws.
During this time sanitary inspectors would go around and inspect houses, drains, and
communities, and whoever was found wanting in terms of poor sanitation was
penalized.

30
Grey economy is the part of an economy that is neither taxed, nor monitored by any form of
government.
31
During pre-colonial and colonial times the chief was referred to as the Native Authority.

143
In post-colonial Nigeria, chiefs continue to play an important role in society. A chief
is an individual that has been appointed to a traditional position of authority by their
community and confirmed by the State Governor. They are a direct member of the
government in the state, and in Nigeria a chief commands respect from their people
and have considerable influence on them. Responsibilities include being the chief
executives of their localities which means that it is through them that government
decisions can be enforced in the neighbourhood. They are a good link between the
people and government, assist in community developmental activities, education,
and awareness campaigns and bringing people together.

Nigeria is divided into wards of approximately 10,000 people. These wards

collectively make up districts and local government areas. Ward heads essentially
replicate the role of chiefs in local communities. They are patrons of community
organizations including community development associations and youth
organisations. They work hand in hand with chiefs to assist government in
improving the situation within their communities. As explained in Chapter 4.2.2.3
ward heads are gate keepers and assisted in facilitating fieldwork for this study.

Both chiefs and ward heads could have an important role to play in influencing the
behaviour in their communities towards waste (IA1/IWMP1).

5.4 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN LOW INCOME

AREAS OF JOS
This section covers SWM practices in Jos and the low income areas of Jenta and
Tudun Wada. The results are synthesised from the mixed methods applied. The
section covers data on the levels of waste arisings, funding of services, and the
collection and disposal system. Challenges are also highlight that impact on the
delivery of an effective waste management system.

5.4.1 Data on the levels of waste generation

A gap identified in the literature review was reliable data on the levels of waste
being generated. Interviews with both the representatives of the Ministry of
Environment (IWMP1) and PEPSA (IWMP2) confirmed that there was a poor
understanding on the levels of waste being generated in Jos:

“A study was undertaken by PEPSA funded by UN Habitat in 2007. The study was
an analysis of solid waste generation and composition in Jos Bukuru metropolis, but
the study could not establish the volume of waste generated in the city, it established
the composition and percentages of the different categories of waste generated from
residential areas, market places, and commercial areas. It is my expectation that one
day somebody or a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) would help do that for
the government”. (IWMP1)

144
“Records show that research has been carried out by PEPSA for UN Habitat on
waste categories in residential and commercial areas of Jos metropolis, but there
are no publications to show of such works done. I believe the consistent changes in
the administration of PEPSA and the Ministry of Environment is the reason why we
have nothing to show for all works done. This is the situation we [sic] find
ourselves”. (IWMP2)

In Jos both stakeholders (IWMP1 and IWMP2) attributed the estimated increases in
household waste generation to increases in population and economic activities being
undertaken at household level.

5.4.2 Funding of the waste management service

As interviewees explained households in Jos do not contribute directly towards the
cost of the waste management service:

“Currently no client pays for any waste collection service, we [sic] are doing it as a
social service, where all residents (high, middle, and low income) do not pay any
money to have their waste collected”. (IWMP2)

Participating focus group members stated that there was no specific payment for
solid waste collection. A participant (FGDJ1 004) observed that even areas where
public waste containers are provided, no payments are made. Results from the
questionnaire survey confirm that all participants do not pay for waste collection
services.

Members of the public pay a tax of only NGN50 (12 pence) per month to the Plateau
State Internal Revenue Service (PSIRS) who are responsible for collecting all forms
of taxes within its jurisdiction. As confirmed by the PEPSA representative this is
meant to fund waste and other services:

“These people (members of the public) pay a tax of just NGN50 only per month and
they want government to evacuate their waste daily for 365 days in a year, they want
government to provide them with light, water, roads, and hospital, and it is this
NGN50 that covers for the provision of all these things”. (IWMP2)

It should be noted that this is not the only source of funding for the State
Government – it receives a monthly allocation from the Federal Government. The
tax described above helps to complement the allocated funds.

5.4.3 Storage of waste

Most households in Jenta and Tudun Wada were observed to have waste storage
containers including buckets made from plastic, metal, and raffia (see Figure 34).

145
Figure 34 Examples of containers used for waste storage
Source: Images taken by author during fieldwork in 2015

These containers often did not have covers or lids preventing vermin from getting to
the waste. The containers are either kept in the kitchen or at the backyard.
Householders use these containers to transport waste to public waste containers
(OBS). Results from questionnaire (see Table 21) showed that 46.5% use plastic
buckets, 34.5% used polythene bags, 14.7% used metal buckets, and the remaining
4.1% used baskets to store and transport their waste.

Table 21 Waste container used based on questionnaire returns

Type of waste container Number of people (sample 678) Percentage (%)
Plastic bucket 315 46.5
Polythene bags 235 34.5
Metal bucket 100 14.7
Basket 28 4.1

The issue of waste storage was discussed in focus groups. Some participants
(FGDT2 001, 005, 009) stated that they did not have rigid waste storage containers
and they would normally collect waste from their household using any plastic bag
which they would then burn behind their house. During the rainy season they would
throw waste into a stream allowing the water to carry the waste away.

146
A participant (FGDJ1 003) stated that sharing a waste storage container in their
compound was a big problem because other people in the compound would dump
waste of any kind including dog faeces, dead chickens, or chicken litter into the
waste container, which if not disposed of immediately would smell and attract flies
and vermin. A further issue raised was taking responsibility for emptying the
communal bins and taking them to the public waste containers. During observations
and talking to community members it was also indicated that some compounds in Jos
previously had used old metallic drums to store waste. In this situation the waste was
burnt in situ since it was difficult to move such a container. Due to these conflicts it
is common practice for households who live in compounds to manage their own
waste only and not to have a central bin.

It was observed that the containers households used were often in poor condition
making them hard to carry waste to the public waste containers. Most members of
the focus group discussion lamented that government was not providing households
with waste storage containers, and appealed that government should look into it and
provide households with appropriate containers for storing and transporting the
waste. They stated that government used to provide them with plastic bags to dispose
their waste. This was corroborated by the PEPSA official who explained an initiative
where residents were given free polythene bags to put waste in for storage and
transportation to the public waste containers. However, residents discovered that the
bags could be used to preserve and store foods like beans and maize, hence they sold
them for NGN100 (21 pence) each at open local markets. Due to this PEPSA
stopped supplying bags.

5.4.4 Waste collection in Jos

As set out in Chapter 5.3.1.2 the collection of waste in Jos is the responsibility of
PEPSA. Observations revealed that Jos was divided into sections in order to make
waste collection easy and effective. This was confirmed during the interview with
PEPSA:

“Jos Bukuru metropolis is divided into zones for easy realization of waste collection
and management. There were up to 25 zones for waste collection in Jos Bukuru
metropolis in the past, but because of the State Governments’ inability to provide
trucks for all the 25 zones, PEPSA had to collapse the 25 zones into 4 zones which
are still currently in operation, and these zones are Jos central 1, Jos central 2,
Bukuru zone, Abattoir Zone. These zones are helping us to manage waste in Jos
Bukuru metropolis”. (IWMP2)

Figure 35 shows the distribution of the public waste containers in the four zones of
Jos.

147
Figure 35 Distribution of public waste containers in the four zones of Jos and
the location of dumpsites in use at the time of fieldwork
Source: Figure developed by author based on data collected during fieldwork

As explained in Chapter 4.3.3 the author went out with the collection crews for the
different zones and recorded the GPS coordinates to allow the locations to be
mapped. The four zones comprised of Jos Central 1 where 15 public waste
containers were located, Jos Central 2 which had 12 public waste containers,
Abattoir Zone had 16 public waste containers, and Bukuru Zone with 16 public
waste containers (OBS). In total 59 public waste containers were seen in Jos at the
time of this study and this was corroborated by PEPSA and the Ministry of
Environment. Figure 36 shows an example of a typical public waste container – a
roll on/off container with a typical capacity of 10-15 cubic meters. This container is
usually picked up by a truck which positions itself and hooks the metal handle of the
bin then rolls it on the truck until it is comfortably and firmly seated, and then it is

148
hauled away for disposal. At the disposal site the truck rolls off the waste bin and
empties it then brings back the container to its location to drop (OBS).

Figure 36 Example of a public waste container filled to capacity at Tafawa

Balewa Street
Source: Image taken by author during fieldwork in 2014

The collection service serves all households of Jos as long as the waste is deposited
in a public waste container. Taking waste from home to the container was observed
to be mainly the responsibility of children. However questionnaires did not agree
with that finding with responses showing that 65.0% of women and 34.5% children
were responsible for managing waste from households – for only 0.5% of
households were men responsible. Small shop owners engage the services of ‘yan
barrow’ (wheel barrow pushers) to convey their waste to these containers
(OBS/IWMP2).

Larger businesses and institutions need to make their own arrangements – this would
involve paying a private company who would then dispose of the waste. It should be
noted that these private companies are not waste management specialists and
typically builders or businesses that have truck who collect and dispose of waste a
side line (OBS/IWMP2).

Although PEPSA is mandated to manage waste within the whole of Jos, observations
indicated that their presence and service did not cover the whole metropolis
especially the low income areas. In general the results collated from all methods
showed that the collection service in Jos was very poor with public waste containers
overflowing and waste dumped throughout the community.

Observations showed it was standard for waste to be dumped in public spaces in

Tudun Wada and Jenta and not collected (see Figures Figure 37Figure 38). Waste
was often left unattended for weeks or even months. Collection of waste from the
public waste containers was expected to be carried out twice a week by PEPSA
(IWMP2), but this was seldom done.

149
Figure 37 Uncollected waste around public waste containers in Jos
Source: Images taken by author during fieldwork in 2014

Figure 38 Waste dumped around Tudun Wada market area (left) and heaps of
waste at a roadside in Jenta (right)
Source: Images taken by author during fieldwork in 2014

In respect to the waste collection system interviewees and focus group members
expressed their dissatisfaction with the service:

“A major problem that Jos has is that it doesn’t have an organized household waste
collection system, like in other countries where they are provided with waste bins or
waste bags, public waste bins and they are even expected to sort out their waste
before government comes to collect from their doorsteps and take it away for proper
disposal. However here in Jos we [sic] don’t have that kind of system at households,
especially in low income areas where there is no proper access to organized waste
collection system because the houses are just built anyhow”. (IA1)

Focus group members in Tudun Wada (FGDT1 001, 002) and (FGDT2 009)
complained that there is no waste collection service leaving residents to manage their
waste by themselves. One of the participants stated that:

“I would say waste collection both in the city and Tudun Wada is poor, because even
in the city where government has good roads and waste collection containers, there
is still waste littered all over around the waste bins because the bins are always
filled to capacity without being collected”.

150
FGDT1 002 observed that public waste containers placed by government for waste
collection in public places like schools, markets, junctions are always filled up to the
rim, and often overflowing being left unattended by government for weeks. Hence
the environment was looking very dirty.

Questionnaire participants were asked to rate the quality of waste collection service
being offered. Table 22 presents the result of responses from the participants.
Unsurprisingly 67.8% rated the service as very poor and 26.3% poor. Only 1.9%
stated they were satisfied with the services they received.

Table 22 Quality of waste collection service

Quality of waste collection Number of participants (sample Percentage (%)
service 678)
Very poor 460 67.8
Poor 178 26.3
Satisfied 13 1.9
Don’t know 27 4.0

The results contain a variety of causes leading to the inadequacies in the waste
collection system. These are considered below.

5.4.4.1 Poor governance and funding

A common issue raised in interviews was poor governance and inadequate funding
having a direct impact on front line services:

“All problems of SWM are hinged on lack of finance; even the regular workers are
not being paid regularly in Plateau State”. (IA1)

“We [sic] make budget proposals yearly; we want to buy trucks, public waste bins,
and septic tank emptier, accessible vans and so on. The governor signs and says this
is an approved budget, but then no money is released because of lack of funds and
this happens often, it is like there is no budget discipline in government as the
politicians just divert the money the way they feel like leaving nothing behind for
service to the populace. How possible can SWM be without money to finance it?”.
(IWMP1)

“I told you today we [sic] worked with only 5 trucks and it is because of lack of
funds to put those broken down vehicles into order. For example there are times
when N2000 (£5.70) will keep a vehicle down for weeks or months without working.
A vehicle which has been down for about a month now just got repaired yesterday
with the sum of N1800 (£5.10) and we had to remove the kick starter of one vehicle
that stopped working last week to put in this one that we used today because there
are no funds to buy a new one”. (IWMP2)

“Sometimes the PLSG does not buy the type of trucks that PEPSA recommends,
which are standard refuse collection waste trucks, but instead government gives

151
contracts to their associates to supply waste trucks in order to empower them, and in
the process they supply ordinary open body tippers and PEPSA has no choice but to
accept it. Using the open body tipper trucks without covering, during the
transportation of waste it makes it easy for wind to blow and scatter the waste which
is quite risky”. (IWMP1)

“SWM can be greatly enhanced if government lives up to its responsibility by

making available more funds”. (IWMP1)

“If all provisions are made financially, logistically, and otherwise we [sic] will
involve whoever is supposed to be involved for the improvement of this activity
(SWM) in the state”. (IWMP2)

“Nigerian politics and governance can be likened to a criminal enterprise for

advancing and promoting self-interest over public interest, that is why the politicians
in government just divert public money the way they feel like for their selfish interest
and nothing happens”. (IA1)

5.4.4.2 Lack of collection vehicles

Directly linked to funding was the lack of bins and collection vehicles. Table 23
presents data from PEPSA on the fleet available.

Table 23 Municipal waste collection and transportation vehicles owned by

PEPSA
Type of vehicle Number in Number functioning % functioning
existence
Tippers 4 3 75%
Roll on Roll- off 4 3 75%
Skip vehicles
Tractors 2 1 50%
Automatic compactor 4 1 25%
trucks
Side loader trucks 2 2 100%
Pail loader 1 0 0%
Back hoe/bucket loader 1 1 100%
Total 18 11 61%
Source: Data from document supplied by PEPSA (2013).

In total they only have 18 vehicles of which 61% are functional. 4 of PEPSA
vehicles are compactors however the composition of waste from Jos is highly
organic, so the compaction vehicle is disadvantaged in terms of reducing the density
of waste (Imam et al. 2008). It is clear that the fleet is too small to serve Jos
efficiently and effectively.

IWMP2 acknowledged that PEPSA lacked equipment for managing solid waste:

152
“Jos Bukuru metropolis alone needs not less than 50 trucks, but at the moment there
are only 18. However as at today the 18th of December 2014 only 9 trucks were
functional (5 trucks and 4 roll on roll off), and a pail loader. Roll on roll off (hook
loaders) are special vehicles which are ideal for waste transfer and general waste
disposal. Each of these trucks uses 2 fork shovels, 2 shovels and a digger which are
the requirements per a single vehicle but these are hardly available. PEPSA is
expected to have a bulldozer a D7D or preferably a D9 bulldozer with a low bed, but
it doesn’t have. A bulldozer is a requirement because anytime waste is disposed on a
dumpsite, the D9 rolls this waste into the pit and drives over it so that it would
compact the waste while continuing to use the facility. About 124 public waste bins
are required to cover Jos Bukuru metropolis, but currently only 64 public waste bins
are available which is absolutely insufficient to cover the area. How then do you
expect PEPSA to serve Jos metropolis with such limited equipment in operation? I
tell you if PEPSA were to be given 50 functional trucks for Jos Bukuru metropolis
today, PEPSA will be scavenging or hunting for waste in the city”. (IWMP2)

The representative of PEPSA mentioned that each roll on roll off truck was expected
to empty at least 5 public waste containers per day. Based upon the assumption of 3
roll on/off trucks being operational, 118 required pickups per week (59 containers x
2 pickups) and working over 7 days, this seems viable. However as observed this is
inadequate as public waste containers were overflowing, therefore more containers
or more frequent collections would be needed. Moreover problems arise such as
strikes, vehicles break down or lack of money to maintain or fuel trucks.

5.4.4.3 Number and location of public waste containers

The lack of public waste bins was highlighted as being an issue:

“There are inadequate public waste collection bins in use within the whole of Jos
Bukuru metropolis, as there were only 64 bins instead of 124 waste bins that were
initially planned for Jos Bukuru metropolis”. (IWMP2)

Figure 35 shows the location 59 public waste collection containers as mapped by the
author as against the 64 mentioned by the PEPSA representative. A problem
highlighted was that often containers would be moved to different locations for
political reasons:

“I can give you[sic] the locations of most of the 64 public waste bins sited in Jos
Bukuru metropolis based on paper work, but if you go there you might discover that
they are not there, they may have been relocated because Commissioner “A” may
not have been opportune to be in the Ministry before their siting, but today he is
posted to the Ministry, so he would want to use his power being the official head of
the Ministry of Environment to provide for his people. The commissioner would then
order the removal of a public waste bin from point A to point C, and most times
when it is removed, the drivers do not know the new location. These drivers are most

153
times ad hoc drivers because when they get better jobs they move on and a new man
comes on board who would give him the ‘paper’ locations, meanwhile the public
waste bins has been moved. These locations may not even be known to the PEPSA
officer in charge but only to the Commissioner of Environment and his people. As a
result the waste bin may never be emptied, but the waste in it would be burnt from
time to time. How then do you expect the best from PEPSA when there is interference
in their duties?” (IWMP2)

“If you go to some hotels in Jos city today you would see some of PEPSA’s public
waste bins right inside the hotel premises, at their back yards. These waste bins were
illegally removed from some other public location to the present location in the
hotel. How would PEPSA get to know the where about of such public waste bins if
not told? Such abuse of office is one of the reasons why PEPSA is not able to
function effectively as you can see”. (IWMP2)

As presented in Figure 35 the distribution of the public waste containers in the zones
is not equal, as two zones had 16 public waste containers each, one zone had 15 and
the other had 12 public waste containers. The 59 public waste collection containers
shared by the four zones in Jos is grossly inadequate for a population estimated to be
about 1.3 million people. Observations show that only three public waste containers
were located in the specific study area, one around the market area, and another at
Nigerian Mining Corporation (NMC) junction in Tudun Wada, while the only one in
Jenta is located at Alheri Private School. With only three containers to cater for the
waste of at least 5,895 households it is unsurprising that residents are dissatisfied
with the service and indiscriminately dump their waste.

The author observed that some household members were aware of the location of the
public waste containers but because of the distance they had to travel to deposit
waste, they would opt to manage their waste in the most convenient way to them:

“Managing waste in my household is difficult, because there is no public waste

collection bins nearby so it leaves us with a big burden about where to dispose our
waste”. (FGDT1 008)

Another member added: “In my compound we (all tenants) used to collect waste
together in a drum, but because government does not come to collect the waste from
households, neither does government provide waste collection points or centres
around, individual families now prefer to collect their own waste and dispose of it”.
(FGDT1 004)

It is possible that the distance of the public waste containers from households
discouraged residents from taking their waste to the collection points. Some focus
group discussion members mentioned that they have to walk 500 metres to 1km in
order to access the containers.

154
Focus group members decried that government was not making enough provision for
public waste collection containers in communities. The representative of the tertiary
institutions argued that there should be more collection points:

“Ideally there should be public waste dumps within communities who don’t have
access to public waste bins, where members of the public could be encouraged to
dump their waste so that vehicles could come to collect the waste from there to the
official dumpsites, but such are non-existent in Jos. As a result littering of waste in
low income communities is common” (IA1).

Observation and information collected from stakeholders reveal the significance of

placing containers in convenient and accessible locations for all households as this
can minimise littering as well as encourage residents to dispose waste correctly.

It was observed that some public waste containers had been damaged and needed
repair (see Figure 39). Though damage is not obvious from the image, IWMP2 had
pointed out that a part of the container which hooks onto the roll on roll off truck
was broken making it non-functional.

Figure 39 A public waste container waiting to be repaired

Source: Image taken by author during fieldwork in 2014

5.4.4.4 Theft
As observed there are also smaller litter bins throughout Jos. Figure 40 shows typical
examples of the smaller waste and side walk bins in situ. However numbers of these
bins have been diminished due to theft:

“There are those other smaller public waste collection bins located within Jos
Bukuru metropolis, they were about 300 of them, but if you go round now you will
not get up to 100 of them available. Informal recyclers have stolen them and sold to
the local black smith to produce hoes for farming and gardening”. (IWMP2)

“Jos –Bukuru metropolis had over 2000 walk side bins, but now you cannot see any
because they have all vanished in to recycling plants”. (IWMP2)

155
Figure 40 Example of the smaller waste and sidewalk bins being used in Jos
Source: Images taken by author during fieldwork in 2014

5.4.4.5 Lack of adequate staffing

As well as physical resources the results suggest there is a lack of adequate staffing –
this links back to poor governance and funding covered in Chapter 5.4.4.1. Issues
were raised regarding the lack of Environmental Health Officers (EHOs):

“Politicians would prefer to go and build a clinic in the village which is something
tangible they can hold and point to say we did this and that, instead of employing
more EHOs to go and give good doses of health education from house to house ,
such as this is what you should do, you should cover your wells, make aprons around
your wells, don’t leave containers of water around your compounds it will breed
mosquitoes, and things like that which is what EHO’s are supposed to do. However
nobody is willing to employ more EHO’s because at the end of the day if the
politicians say our achievement is that we employed more EHO’s the people may not
see it as an achievement. Hence the politicians would prefer to build a gigantic
clinic without provision for medical personnel and drugs, and people will see it and
say hey they have done something tangible”. (IWMP1)

“The staffing capacity of the Ministry of Environment is not adequate because there
are a lot of ad hoc staff or street cleaners but the technical people like the EHO’s or
sanitary inspectors are quite few”. (IWMP1)

“At the moment there is an embargo on employment and it is yet to be lifted, hence
as few as the EHOs are we [sic] have to continue to manage them since government
is not employing for now”. (IWMP1)

“The numbers of our EHO’s are inadequate with only 92 of them taking charge of
about 1.3 million people in Jos Bukuru metropolis”. (IWMP2)

“The responsibilities of EHO’s are much, they are expected to go from house to
house for sanitary inspection and public education awareness for the whole of the
populace, they work from 6am to 6pm and when there is an overflow of waste within
the city centre they call for intervention and can work longer”. (IWMP2)

156
“The official implored government to employ more EHO’s so as to send them to low
income areas for public educate awareness in order to curtail/prevent the outbreak
of communicable diseases that may arise from indiscriminate dumping of waste”.
(IWMP2)

“I advise that more hands or more trained professionals (EHOs) should be

employed, since every year professionals are retiring and with globalization the
numbers of people moving into the city are increasing likewise waste generation”.
(IWMP1)

“To improve household waste management in Jos I [sic] think government needs to
improve on the welfare of the few professionals (EHO’s) in the field, you see once
the professionals are motivated they will live up to expectation, motivation is the key
thing. In addition government should employ more professionals as we [sic] need a
reasonable number of professionals, so as to ensure households receive adequate
information on SWM”. (IWMP2)

Moreover stakeholders felt there needed to be more front line staff undertaking
collections:

“Manpower is another problem because the number of evacuators is not enough we

are lacking”. (IWMP2)

Apart from employing more staff to manage solid waste in the municipality, the
stakeholders specified that training of the solid waste workers was paramount to a
successful solid waste management system plus the appointment of appropriate staff:

“For quite a long time now there has not been any training opportunities for solid
waste workers on sustainable methods of municipal SWM, it is high time for Plateau
State to introduce such in order to improve the management of waste in the state”.
(IWMP1)

“The professional solid waste workers need to receive more training because as we
move forward (advancement) things are changing so the scope of professional
knowledge needs to be improved as well”. (IWMP2)

“Government should discourage the appointment of non-professionals to head the

waste management agencies, for example in this state since the inception of the
agency in 2000, this is the first time we [PEPSA] are having a professional
appointed as a General Manager of PEPSA. The professional got appointed as a
GM in 2013, and one year after things are beginning to improve”. (IWMP2)

Concerns were also raised regarding the resources available to staff when handling
waste. IWMP2 explained that the store room for collection staff was expected to be
stacked with all required equipment for the proper management of waste including
personal protective clothing, boots, goggles, ear plugs, helmets, chemicals,

157
detergents, nose masks, and gloves. These things according to the officer are a
mandatory requirement based on regulation S.1.15 of 1991 32 to be provided either
daily (face masks) or weekly, because they are important to protect the safety of
workers, but most often they are not available.

The officer specified that waste collectors should be given a tin of milk after
completing each collection round as it reduces the effect of inhaled dust and fumes,
but this is not done and milk is never provided. IWMP2 cited only in exceptional
circumstances were the required resources purchased to protect staff. The official
cited the example of a bomb blast that occurred at Terminus on December 11th
2014, it was only after this incident that the State Government through the Ministry
of Environment bought nose masks for PEPSA staff to use and evacuate the dead
bodies.

5.4.5 Waste management behaviour of households in Jenta and

Tudun Wada
As explained in Chapter 5.4.4 waste collection system in Jos involves households
taking waste to public waste collection containers however the system is inadequate
which means bins are overflowing and the public often find alternative ways of
managing their waste. Table 24 presents the results from the questionnaire of
residents on the main way in which they dispose of waste.

Table 24 Responses to the question of the main way the resident disposes of
waste
Way of disposing of waste Number of participants Percentage (%)
(sample 678)
Burning at backyard 305 45.0
Throwing in water bodies 211 31.1
Takes to public waste container 149 22.0
Throwing in to the pit 13 1.9

Only 22% took their waste to the public waste containers with 45% of residents
burning their own waste and 31.1% throwing their waste into water bodies, with
1.9% disposing their waste into shallow pits dug around the house. Under Plateau
State Environmental Law (2003) burning waste is unlawful and problematic having a
detrimental impact on public health and the environment (see Chapter 2.2.7.1 for
literature on the impacts of burning of waste). Unfortunately this is one of the
commonest ways of disposing waste by households in the area.

The researcher observed indiscriminate waste dumps behind houses or within

communities as a result of people disposing of their waste. This was corroborated in
focus groups:

32
Regulation S.1.15 of 1991: National Environmental Protection (Management of solid and
hazardous wastes).

158
“I have personally quarrelled and fought with some members of my community for
coming out at night to throw their waste behind my house. I had to monitor to
personally see who throws the waste and at what time. My household have suffered
the smell from the dump and flies around the house so we decided to clear the waste
and put a signpost directing people not to dump waste there anymore, but the
signpost was ignored and dumping continued. I personally dump waste far away
from my house using the community waste bin, but some other people would not do
that, they prefer to inconvenience others by throwing waste in the dark corners
within the community. Look at how my neighbourhood is dirty and it smells and I
cannot even open my windows”. (FGDJ1 007)

Another participant observed that:

“It is now rather a usual practice or tradition in Tudun Wada for residents to wake
up to their daily activities and find waste littering the streets because of poor
handling by children who are sent to dispose the garbage at night or early hours of
the morning”. (FGDT2 002)

Observations show that using children to dispose of waste increases the level of
littering in communities as for some it is too much effort to take waste to the
collection points and therefore dump waste where it is convenient. It is interesting to
note that members of the community know that dumping and littering is not good,
and choose to do that at night when no one sees them. From the observations and
focus groups it is interesting to note that people who live directly near the streams or
indiscriminate waste dumps do not dispose solid waste into them and they also try to
prevent local residents from doing so due to health implications.

Questionnaire participants were asked for the main reason why they disposed of
waste in the manner stated. Table 25 shows that 49.3% lacked facilities, 22.6% for
convenience, while 22.0% said it was the proper way of disposing waste 33 with 3.8%
of them stating lack of awareness and the remaining 2.4% stated lack of penalty.

Table 25 Questionnaire responses to the reason why they manage waste in the
manner stated
Reason for waste disposal Number of participants Percentage (%)
(sample 678)
Lack of facilities 334 49.3
For convenience 153 22.6
Proper way of disposing waste 149 22.0
Lack of awareness 26 3.8
Lack of penalty 16 2.4

33
i.e. they took it to the public waste container.

159
Interviews highlighted some other interesting reasons for behaviour. The PEPSA
representative reported that a resident of Tudun Wada told a street cleaner that they
(residents of Tudun Wada) litter so that the cleaner can continue to earn their salary
through sweeping the street. The PEPSA official also highlighted differences in
behaviour between residents of Government Reserved Areas (GRAs) who are high
income resident, and that of those in the low income areas. They stated that residents
in GRAs contain their waste in bags and take waste to the public waste containers
supplied hence EHOs and street cleaners don’t have problems with those areas
(IWMP2). The official put this down to greater awareness of sanitation issues
amongst the high income group. This was corroborated by IA1 who felt low income
residents lack of understanding of the need to protect the environment due to the lack
of public education and shortage of EHOs to sensitize them on the dangers of
indiscriminate disposal.

IA1 and some focus group members also believe that the attitude of low income
residents is poor due to weak regulations and non-enforcement of public health
legislations and bye laws. However only 2.4% of questionnaire respondents stated
that the main way in which they managed waste was due to the lack of penalties and
enforcement.

5.4.6 Waste disposal

Both representatives of the Ministry of Environment and PEPSA confirmed that
there is no sanitary landfill in Jos, and the final disposal sites are mostly uncontrolled
open dumps. They emphasized that many of these sites exist because of a lack of
permanent disposal site:

“I can tell you for now there is no sanitary landfill in Jos, so we [sic] find some
other ways of disposing waste. For example Jos is full of burrow pits because of tin
mining activities of the past, so there are lots of waste lands, what we [sic] normally
do is to solicit with land owners and they give us [sic] their waste lands which we
convert to an open dumpsite, and once it is filled up, we leave it for the land owner
and seek for another one. This method of disposing waste is the crude open dumping,
not the standard sanitary landfill as government is yet to acquire land and develop
for final disposal of waste”. (IWMP1)

“The state government is in the process of acquiring an accelerated waste dumpsite

which would be developed and used as a sanitary landfill, but for now PEPSA is
using the colonial open dumping method (crude dumping) because there is no
sanitary landfill in the State”. (IWMP2)

The representative of the Ministry of Environment emphasized that every year the
Ministry budgets to acquire land for a sanitary landfill site, and the State
Government approves the budget but the money is never released for that purpose

160
and so the Ministry finds other ways of disposing waste from the municipality. This
reinforces some of the governance issues highlighted in Chapter 5.4.4.1.

Figures Figure 41 and Figure 42 shows the typical designated waste dumpsites
PEPSA were using to dispose of waste at the time of fieldwork.

Figure 41 Burning of waste at Guratop open dumpsite is common practice in

Jos
Source: Image taken by the researcher during fieldwork in 2014

Figure 42 An open dumpsite located in Kwang – note the close proximity of

housing
Source: Image taken by the researcher during fieldwork in 2014

The designated waste dumpsites were located in Kwang, Guratop, Bukuru Lowcost,
and around the market supplying building materials. These were open dumpsites and
they remain the cheapest way of disposing of the increasing quantity of waste
generated (OBS). Arrangements are made between PEPSA and land owners who
want the waste for a variety of reasons. Some of the land owners are farmers and
request PEPSA to dump waste there, after which the land owners burn the waste,
then use it to farm a variety of crops instead of buying chemical fertilizers. Another
reason could be that the land was devastated with mining activities that took place in
the state and the land owner wants to reclaim the land. The land may have been
affected by gully erosion and the land owner may want to halt further degradation of

161
the land, and so arranges for waste to be dumped there. Population increases and
urbanisation makes the land owners want to add value to their lands by reclaiming
and levelling the land in preparation to sale for construction of houses or other uses
(IWMP1). The PEPSA representative added that the sites are arbitrarily picked
through agreements with land owners and the government pays them a stipend for
using their lands as a dumpsite (IWMP2).

Open dumpsites are usually maintained through the continuous burning of waste in
order to reduce the quantity of waste at the dumpsite (IWMP1). A typical example
of an open dumpsite with waste being burnt is seen in figure 41above.

IWMP1 and IWMP2 stated that these open waste dumpsites are often located far
away from human habitation because of the nuisances of smoke, bad odours, and
vermin. However observations contradict this showing that some dumpsites are in
close proximity to houses increasing the potential impact on public health (see
Figure 42). The dumpsites were observed to not be fenced off and are open to
informal workers to sort through the waste to recover items of value.

5.4.7 Impacts of the waste management system

In terms of the impact of waste disposal on the environment and the general public,
the representative of PEPSA recognized underground water pollution as one of the
biggest impacts. The officer explained:

“The sites where PEPSA dumps waste are not developed; therefore there could be
leachate leakages during the rainy season when the water table is high and this
could enter the water source leading to underground water pollution”. (IWMP2)

“We [sic] use unlined burrow pits to dump waste and these burrow pit allow
seepage and overflow, so definitely a mixture of those waste that we (PEPSA)
collect from communal bins and dump without sorting is dangerous to the
environment and public health. When there is seepage leachate moves into the water
source and people drink this water, as well as wash the vegetables (spinach, carrots,
and tomatoes) that we eat. Here in Jos if you visit those places where spinach and
carrots are produced and you see where they wash them you will not want to eat
them again”. (IWMP2)

The PEPSA official clarified that the public waste containers in Jos were provided as
a way of keeping the Dilimi River free from waste otherwise this could have a
serious health impact on the general public. The Dilimi River starts from Plateau
State and passes through many other states in Nigeria (Bauchi, Gombe, Jigawa,
Kano, Taraba, Yobe and Borno) before flowing into Lake Chad. Therefore any
pollution into the Dilimi River can have a substantial effect on the population living
downstream as it is the major source of water supply to government and citizens of
the communities that are along its channels. Citizens of those communities are

162
mostly subsistent farmers and the river helps them immensely during their dry
season farming activities. Hence the pollution of Dilimi River in the long run could
prove disastrous (Onyenekenwa, 2011). In addition the Jos Plateau is the source of
many other rivers in Northern Nigeria including Kaduna, Gongola, and Benue rivers.

As already covered in Chapter 5.4.4 the results show that the waste management
system is adequate. Despite efforts waste is still being dumped along the banks and
in the river itself (see Figure 43). During the rainy season the rain and surface
discharge washes waste from the bank into the river and transports it downstream.

Figure 43 Waste dumped on the banks of the Dilimi River

Source: Images taken by author during fieldwork in 2014

The representative of PEPSA pointed out the lack of control of open dumpsites can
have a negative impact on the environment and public health for example from the
burning of waste, attraction of vermin, and ground water contamination. Most focus
group members were in agreement that the environment around dumpsites is dirty
and odorous harbouring vermin.

A focus group member (FGDT1 008) stated they had lost an aunt and two child
relatives during a flood at Angwan Soya in Jos in 2012, as a result of waste blocking

163
drains and water ways during a heavy rain storm. The flood of that year rendered
many families homeless while others suffered losses of their loved ones.

Some other focus group members (FGDJ1 001, 002, 003,005, FGDJ2 006, 007,)
mentioned concern regarding contact with waste and diseases such as Lassa fever,
Typhoid fever, cholera, malaria, and ascaris. FGDJ1002 observed that smoke from
the burning waste is choking and irritating thus making it difficult to breathe.
Another member of the focus group discussion (FGDT1 006) pointed out that the
aesthetic beauty of the environment is often spoilt as a result of scavengers littering
the waste in search of recoverable items.

5.4.8 Environmental Sanitation Day and enforcement of

environmental regulations
As set out in the previous section waste is having a detrimental impact on public
health and the environment. As covered in Chapter 2.2.7.3 Environmental Sanitation
Day has been in operation since March 1984 where residents are required to clean
their communities.

In the context of Jos, IWMP1 stated that when the Environmental Sanitation Day
was first introduced EHOs went round to enforce the movement restriction order in
Jos and they made sure citizens cleaned their environments, while mobile courts
tried offenders who broke the law, with fines and corporal punishment meted out.
This still happens in Jos every month, as it was confirmed by both representatives of
the Ministry and PEPSA. Evidence that this still exists was captured by Saiki (2016)
from an announcement from the press secretary to the governor of Plateau state
saying:

“The general public are enjoined to note that the Environmental sanitation exercise
has not been suspended and as such they are to ensure that the exercise is observed
in their various neighbourhoods and residences. Environmental sanitation officers
who are EHO/SI mentioned above have been directed to ensure enforcement within
the designated time of 7-10am”.

Environmental Sanitation Day was mentioned in focus discussion and a participant

pointed out that communities occasionally collaborate to clear such waste for
example:

“In my community we engage the youths on Environmental Sanitation days to clear

all waste dumps within the community by sweeping and packing them together and
burning”. (FGDT2 005)

Some focus group members stated that despite the nonchalant attitude towards waste,
the monthly Environmental Sanitation Day should be forced on them and their
communities. They stated that the government should collaborate with ward heads to

164
make them participate in cleaning all areas around their surroundings, and take waste
to the public waste containers for collection.

The Ministry of Environment has been making efforts to enforce total compliance
with the Environmental Sanitary Day but have been faced with some challenges.
Ibrahim (2015) reported that over 15 people were arrested for evading the state
Environmental Sanitary Day exercise but were warned and released without any
penalty because of the strike action embarked upon by Judicial Staff Union of
Nigeria (JUSUN) in the state. When the judiciary is on strike the issue of
enforcement by fine or penalty cannot hold, the court is the only body that can
prescribe penalty for offenders.

A range of other statements were made regarding enforcement:

“Some of the major problems or constraints to waste management in Jos city are
obsolete laws and non-enforcement, as a result littering is a serious problem in Jos
Bukuru metropolis”. (IWMP2)

“Another impediment to the enforcement of these laws is the political will of the
people, because if you try to force the people today they have their associations and
political wards, they will move to the house of assembly and before you realize it, the
house of assembly will throw their big hammer on your agency saying that you are
infringing on the rights of the people”. (IWMP2)

“We [sic] don’t have problem with legislation per se but we have problems with
enforcement. In those days it was easy to enforce the laws because the sanitary
inspectors worked hand in hand with the native authorities or the chiefs but
nowadays security is a big challenge so laws are not being enforced”. (IWMP1)

“You can see that we [sic] don’t have strong public health legislation and bye laws
to enforce on SWM”. (IA1)

5.4.9 Reuse and recycling activity in Jos

5.4.9.1 Current reuse and recycling activity
Data collection highlighted there were no formal recycling collections in Jos
however extensive reuse and recycling was found to be taking place. Most focus
group members acknowledged that they practiced both reuse and recycling.
Questionnaires supported this with 68.7% of participants stating that they recycled
while 77.6% reused (see Table 27). Materials commonly recycled were metals
(97.9% of those that recycled), plastic (84.3%) and paper (26.6%). Reuse was
prevalent (see Table 27) including clothes (88.0% of those that reused), food
(43.7%), plastic bags (31.4%), and electrical products (30.6%).

165
Table 26 Responses to questions on recycling behaviour
Question Reponse Number of participants Percentage
(sample 678) (%)
Do you recycle? Yes 466 68.7
No 212 31.3
Question Reponse Number of participants Percentage % of all
answering Yes (sample (%) questioned
466) (sample 678)
If yes which Metals 456 97.9 67.3
materials? Plastics 393 84.3 58.0
Paper 124 26.6 18.3
Glass 19 4.1 2.8

Table 27 Responses to questions on reuse behaviour

Question Reponse Number of participants Percentage
(sample 678) (%)
Do you reuse? Yes 526 77.6
No 152 22.4
Question Reponse Number of participants Percentage % of all
answering Yes (sample (%) questioned
526) (sample 678)
If yes which Clothes 463 88.0 68.3
materials? Food 230 43.7 33.9
Plastic 165 31.4 24.3
bags
Electrical 161 30.6 23.7
products
Batteries 117 22.2 17.3
Furniture 79 15.0 11.7
Other 56 10.6 8.3

Observations showed that households sell reusable or recyclable materials to the

informal sector who were established to be of two kinds: those who go from house to
house picking or collecting useful items from the bins (itinerant waste pickers), and
those who operate only at the dumpsites, collecting recyclable materials from waste
being dumped. Those who operate at the dumpsite appeared more organized.

The representative of PEPSA described the recycling scenario in Jos as the

following:

“Recycling in Jos for now is a no and yes answers, but the “no” is affirmed because
there is no official registered company for recycling waste and so government is not
practising it. The “yes” part is because many small outfits exist which I know that
recycle waste such as the one along police training school on Zaria Road. They buy
slipper wastes and other plastic rubber and recycle to produce plastic kettles and
buckets”. (IWMP2)

166
Materials for reuse and recycling are recovered from households and dumpsites by
informal workers for onward selling to recycling entrepreneurs. Information on all
reuse and recycling activity observed during the fieldwork has been collated and
presented in Table 28 with each material/item listed and along with detail of the
reuse and recycling activity.

[THIS SPACE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

167
Table 28 Information on waste materials being reused or recycled in Jos based on data collected
Materials How it is reused How it is recycled
Clothes Second hand clothes are called ‘gonjo’ (Hausa), ‘okrika’ (Igbo) -
or ‘bend down boutique’ (English), and can be bought or sold at
many markets in Jos (FGDT1 003, FGDJ2 006) (see Figure 44).
They are also given out to family members who need them to
use again or as rags. 68.3% of those questioned stated they
reused clothes.
Food waste Food waste can be reused as animal feed to reduce the cost of It can be incorporated into materials that can be composted
buying animal food (FGDT2 004). It can be reused as leftover (IWMP1, IWMP2).
food by warming it to eat.
Food waste (Yam Yam peels are dried and grounded into yam flour to make -
peels) ‘amala’ (food from dried yam peels) (FGDJ2 001) (see Figure
44).
Bones and Horns - Bones are recycled into chicken feed also at Katako market
(IWMP2, IIS1). Observations confirmed this was happening at
local feed production stores. Horns are used to produce buttons
(IIS1).
Plastic and glass Plastic bottles are reused for local drinks like ‘kunu’ 34 (see Observations and interviews show that lots of plastic are
bottles Figure 44), to store items like palm oil or ground nut oil, or to collected for recycling in Jos.
light fires for cooking (FGDT1 001, FGDT2 005).
Glass bottles are reused in exchange when buying a new bottled (IA1) stated that plastic bags are recycled by artisans and
drink (FGDJ1 002). However there are some counterfeit drinks moulded into statuettes of people and animals and sold in Jos.
such as gin, wine and beer in shops today as a result of reusing The representative also stated that people collect wasted bags,
bottles (IWMP2) (see Chapter 5.4.9.2). clean and shred them in Rantya (Jos) to make feedstock for new
Plastic bags Observations and focus group discussions show that these are products. The plastic is transported for sale to Lagos, Kano,
reused as shopping bags or waste bags, to store items, to light Kaduna and other states, and used for production of bathroom
fire for cooking. 24.3% of those questioned stated they reused slippers, plastic overhead tanks, and other products. The same
plastic bags. happens with other dense plastics (IIS1, IWMP2).
Plastic jerry cans, These are reused for fetching and storing water, or as storage for

34
Kunu is a local Nigerian drink made from guinea corn.

168
Materials How it is reused How it is recycled
drums and buckets other items like beans (FGDT2 003). Figure 44 Examples of Observations confirmed this at a shredding centre at Katako
reuse and recycling activity in Jos Market, and at police training school along Zaria Road, Jos.

shows plastic buckets/drums waiting to be sold for reuse.

Metals - large milk These large milk tins are reused as storage tins for other things Due to its value unsparingly lots of metal is recycled in Jos and
tins such as Dano, like oil, flour, and other items that need to be stored in air tight 67.3% of people questioned said they recycled metals.
Nido, Peak containers (FGDJ1 007, 004) Aluminium drinks can, left over aluminium roofing sheets, and
Metals - small liquid These small milk tins are reused as a measuring tool to get the other aluminium metals are recycled by blacksmiths at Katako
milk tins right quantity of either rice or beans to cook. Market women in market in Jos to produce cooking pots, and other utensils
Nigeria use them to measure and sell gari, oil, flour, sugar and (IWMP2, IIS1, and FGDJ1 005). Most focus group members
salt. They are also used for making ‘moin moin’ (FGDT1 005, affirmed they had benefited from these products. See Figure 45
FGDJ1 003). for examples of products.
Metal – Mechanics use parts to repair cars; carpenters use them to
miscellaneous metals produce doors, buckets, pails, stoves and other products (IIS1). Other examples include iron rods and other metals being melted
including aluminium at Katako market to produce new rods or other products (IIS1,
and iron items, metal IIS2). IIS1 stated that copper was being recycled into earrings
drums, and car parts and necklaces, brass to make locks, door knobs, ammunition
Metals - wheels from There are local outfits in Jos who produce gauze for roasting, casing and tutiya for handbags and button (IIS1).
motor cycle and the smoking or drying meat and fish (IWMP2). Figure 44
wire mesh from the
Examples of reuse and recycling activity in Jos
rims of tires
shows a gauze 35 for roasting or smoking meat and fish
Metal - copper See recycling
Metal - brass
Metal - tutiya 36
Electrical products - Observations show that there is a high rate of electrical products Observations and literature show that old unrepairable electrical
TVs, fridges, repaired and reused in Jos – 23.7% of questionnaire respondents products are crushed and useful components are picked and used
generators, DVD reused electrical items. They are also being sold openly as to produce new electronic products.

35
A very fine wire mesh.
36
Zinc oxide is a metal known as tutiya.

169
Materials How it is reused How it is recycled
players, and phones second hand products in the market as new ones are very
expensive and beyond the reach of low income families.
Electrical products are voluntarily given or donated to other less
privileged family members and friends (FGDT2 001). Figure 44
Examples of reuse and recycling activity in Jos

shows WEEE products being sold for reuse.

Ash, Chicken litter - Literature and observations indicate that ash and chicken litter
can be used as fertilizer for farming or incorporated into
compost (Pasquini, 2002).
Papers - newspapers Focus group members disclosed that newspapers are reused as Observations show that newspapers are collected and sent back
packaging materials for foods like ‘akara’, ‘suya’, ‘masa’. to the industries to be reused again in printing or recycled in the
community to make egg cartons.
Papers - Cartons are reopened and turned inside out, and then stamped -
cartons/cardboard with the name of new products and repackaged for reuse
(IWMP2). However as explored in Chapter 5.4.9.2 this leads to
problems of counterfeit goods.
Batteries Batteries are refurbished for reuse (IIS1), some batteries can be -
recharged.

170
Figure 44 Examples of reuse and recycling activity in Jos
Source: Images taken by author during fieldwork in 2015. Clockwise from top left - market for second hand clothes (gonjo) in Jos; dried
yam peels waiting to be milled for amala; Kunu packaged in reused plastic bottles; a gauze for smoking or roasting meat made from a
reused wheel; repaired/reused WEEE products on sale; plastic buckets and plastic drum ready for reuse.

171
Observations showed that in Farin Gada and Bauchi Road there were many private
recycling entrepreneurs handling a range of materials including plastics, metals, tin
cans, cartons and car parts – images of activity are presented in Figure 44.

Recycling entrepreneurs sell the recovered materials to small scale or large scale
processing industries outside of Jos. There are also businesses that reprocess
recyclable material in Jos. The recycling entrepreneur (IIS1) and the representative
from a recycling enterprise (IIS2) were able to provide a wealth of information on
reuse and recycling activities in Jos. Both representatives had been playing active
roles in waste management for the past 10 years.

IIS1 stated that currently there are 5 people involved in managing their recycling
business sourcing and selling recyclable materials. IIS1 stated monthly revenue
depends on how much material they receive, but stated that they gain NGN50 (13
pence) on every kg of aluminium sold to other organisations, for example they buy a
kg of aluminium for NGN100 (26 pence) and sell for NGN150 (39 pence). They sell
materials to both local and bigger companies that require them. They handle a wide
range of materials - for example they buy bones at NGN45/kg (12 pence) and sell
them for NGN55/kg (15 pence) to Grand Cereal and Oil Mill Limited (GCOML)
who are the major producers of chicken feed in Jos. The representative emphasized
that recycling is a good business which is not capital intensive and has made them
self-dependant since they earn their own money. It also helps them to take care of
their needs and that of their families. Despite this there are negatives including
working in sometimes dangerous conditions:

“When we cut the metals it can wound us and that means we have to get treated
because of tetanus infection, and we do inhale dust as well in the process of cleaning
the items which is dangerous to our health, but in life everything that has an
advantage also has a disadvantage. We feel quite happy and comfortable because
our business gives us a source of livelihood, many do not have what to do but we are
earning money from this business”. (IIS1)

IIS2 stated 8 people are involved in their business of producing local pots, stands,
spoons and other products from recycled metal. Examples of their products are
shown in Figure 45. It was observed that the pot producing enterprise was thriving.
They buy the aluminium from informal workers, entrepreneurs, or householders, and
explained that there are times they exchange the metals for already made pots or
other items they make – hence metal becomes a currency.

172
Figure 45 Examples of products made in Jos using scrap aluminium
Source: Images taken by author during fieldwork in 2015. Clockwise from top left -
a stack of pots produced from recycled aluminium products; a pan for making masa;
pot stands designed for a local stove; a pot and spoon.

5.4.9.2 Quality of products and counterfeit goods

Under Nigerian law any company wanting to embark on the production of an item
needs to register with the Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON) so they can
check on the items to ensure their quality. However there is a lack of enforcement of
these regulations and it is therefore not surprising that substandard or counterfeit
products exist in Jos. Businesses package up counterfeit goods in reused packaging
and sell the produce. PEPSA official pointed out that:

“There is a counterfeit Niger bar soap in the market as a result of many outlets
producing bar soaps and repackaging them in cartons to look as if they are original
Niger bar soap while they are not”. (IWMP2)

173
“There are some gin, wine and even beer in shops today in Jos as a result of buying
their bottles to reuse”. (IWMP2).

When there is a report of such activity, the enforcement agency takes action by
investigating and penalizing the outfit involved. For example IWMP2 stated that
many such businesses were closed down some time ago at Rukuba Road in Jos by
National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC).

5.4.9.3 The role of government in recycling

Interviews suggested that the stakeholders thought government should be taking a
more active role in promoting and supporting recycling:

“Government is not recycling anything, but there are scavengers that move from
dump to dump, house to house, trying to source for metals, plastics and other
categories of recyclable waste. The scavengers collect and sell to local recycling
entrepreneurs or transport it to sell to larger companies in cities like Kano, Lagos
and the rest in trailers. That is what I[sic] often observe; I have not seen any
government recycling plant yet in this city”. (IWMP1)

“Government should embrace recycling because it is the happening thing in the

world today, and Plateau State should take its turn to benefit from such laudable
programmes which would help catapult the economy of the state, as well as improve
the management of solid waste within Jos Bukuru metropolis, thus promoting a
cleaner environment and good health”. (IWMP2)

5.4.9.4 Composting
There was no obvious sign of composting seen in Jos at household or community
level during observations and this was confirmed during interviews with the
stakeholders. As highlighted in the statements below it appears there have been
attempts to engage in composting but without any success:

“Currently the PLSG is not practicing composting, but it is a well-known fact that
compost grown fruits are the best because they have no side effects on the people
consuming it, and that is the reason why government needs to invest in compost
production in order to protect the people”. (IWMP1)

“Composting is not taking place in Jos now but during former governor Dariye’s
regime a fertilizer blending company was set up mainly for that purpose in Bokkos.
At that time the GM of JMDB together with a colleague were always packing ash to
go and have some trials on composting in preparation for the take-off of the fertilizer
blending plant, but somehow that did not happen, so composting is not going on
now”. (IWMP2)

“Communal waste management can be possible because what the community needs
to do is to create awareness in the community and secure a land for the community
to dump all their waste to enable for primary sorting, and thereafter begin to make

174
compost. Compost can be produced and used by the people or sold to the public to
make money”. (IA1)

“Farmers will buy it (compost), especially the fadama 37 farmers because they know
the importance of this organic manure, and they even give money to PEPSA drivers
to take the waste and dump on their farms for them to burn and use as fertilizers”.
(IA1)

“There was a research commissioned by the European Commission and another by

Jos-Durham, which was not on waste per se but on the resources and ecology of Jos
Plateau environment, but a component of that research was on how they could use
some of the solid waste manure (compost) as organic nutrient to enrich the fadama
irrigation that was taking place in Jos”. (IA1)

“One or two people have made attempts to produce these organic manure
(compost), the former General Manager (GM) of JMDB actually became interested
and around Kwang village some years back tried recycling to produce organic
manure (compost) but one organization (ECWA) came and packed the organic
manure (compost) to try on their farm in Makurdi Benue State, but never came back
to pay, and that was how his company collapsed”. (IA1)

Focus group discussions highlighted that members of the public did not know much
about composting, likewise the questionnaire survey (see Table 29) indicated that
94.8% participants were not composting. The main reasons stated by those not
composting (94.8%) include lack of space (43.7%), not knowing how to compost
(30.0%), lack of awareness (22.1%) and that it consumes time (3.3%). However
5.2% of respondents claimed to compost.

Table 29 Response to the question on composting

Do you Number of Percentage (%) Of those not composting the main
compost? participants reason given (sample 643 – 94.8%)
(sample 678)
Yes 35 5.2 -
No 643 94.8 - Lack of space (43.7%)
- Don’t know how to (30.0%)
- Lack of awareness (22.1%)
- Consumes time (3.3%)

Both IWMP1 and IWMP2 acknowledged that farmers often solicited waste to be
disposed on their farms. The author accompanied trucks loaded with waste for
disposal on two different occasions to farms located at Kwang and Du areas, not far
from Jos. Observations confirmed that PEPSA drivers were given money by farmers
to dump the waste collected. It is interesting to note the paradox in financial
transactions with on one hand farmers covertly giving money to PEPSA drivers to

37
Fadama is a Hausa name for irrigable land—usually low-lying plains with shallow aquifers found
along major river systems.

175
dump waste collected from public waste containers on their farms so that they could
use it as fertilizer, and secondly the government through PEPSA paying land owners
so that they can use the land as a dumpsite. The reason why the farmer would pay is
that there are different sites competing for the waste and therefore payment to the
crews is necessary to ensure they get the waste.

5.4.10 Recommendations from stakeholders to improve the waste

management system
Throughout the chapter some challenges and recommendations to improve the
existing system have been raised. The specific issue of recommendation to improve
the waste management service was covered in the questionnaire with participants
asked “What could improve the management of waste in the community?”

Responses varied as can be seen from Table 30 with respondents only allowed to
choose one option. The most popular recommendation with 44.7% was community
education and workshops, 30.8% said community involvement, while 22.4%
preferred effective house to house collection, and 2.1% incentives.

Table 30 Questionnaire responses on interventions to improve waste

management in the community
Intervention Number of participants Percentage (%)
(sample 678)
Community education & 303 44.7
workshops
Community Involvement 209 30.8
Effective house to house 152 22.4
collection
Incentives 14 2.1

Given the low income study area, one would have expected a higher number of
participants choosing incentives but the opposite was the case. This could possibly
be because they have lost faith in the Plateau State Government where some of them
work as they have not been paid their salaries for months – therefore they would be
sceptical that an incentive would ever come into fruition. A case in point is that of
the ad hoc male staff and widows contracted by the Ministry of Environment. At the
time of fieldwork they had not been paid for over seven months and many had
stopped working. Also surprising was the low number who would support
collections directly from home rather than public waste containers – this is explored
in more detail below.

It was interesting to note the popularity of raising awareness through education. The
representative of PEPSA stated public awareness campaigns have not been carried
out in Jos since 2000. A key reason cited was that due to the insecurity in Jos the
EHOs, who would carry out the awareness raising, would need to work with the

176
police when embarking on such campaigns. However there are inadequate police
available to support such activities.

As highlighted in Chapter 5.4.2 and 5.4.4.1 there are issues with funding waste
services in Jos. Residents were asked if they were prepared to pay for collection
services to improve the waste management system. Unsurprisingly 65.5% were not
willing to pay for the service, while 34.5% were willing to pay (see Table 31).

Table 31 Questionnaire responses on willingness to pay for waste collection

service
Willingness Number of participants Percentage (%) Of those not willing to pay the
to pay? (sample 678) main reason given (sample 444
– 65.5%)
Yes 234 34.5 -
No 444 65.5 - Government
responsibility/Social Service
(52.6%)
- Non-provision of waste
collection services (47.4%)

Of the 444 people not willing to pay, 52.6% believed it was government’s
responsibility to collect waste as a social service, while 47.4% said they would not
pay due to non-provision of waste collection services. This could relate back to the
low number of respondents who thought collections from homes would improve the
waste management service – they are sceptical this would ever happen.

5.5 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER

This chapter has contributed in providing a better understanding of the current waste
management system in Jos, including Jenta and Tudun Wada. It is clear from the
research that both of these low income areas lack access to SWM services. The
Plateau State Ministry of Environment, through PEPSA, is responsible for waste
services. The results have highlighted gross inefficiencies in service provision with
5,895 households of the study area being serviced with only 3 public waste
collection containers. Therefore, it is unsurprising that waste is strewn throughout
the community with residents openly dumping and burning their waste.

The results have also highlighted the lack of reliable data on waste generation, lack
of implementation of an effective strategy and poor enforcement of regulations. The
waste service is grossly underfunded and poorly resourced and suffers from poor
governance. However, there is a rich culture of reuse and recycling taking place due
to the informal sector. The following chapter discusses the results and considers the
challenges posed to sustainable waste management and reflects on some
recommendations to overcome these challenges.

177
6 DISCUSSION
6.1 CHALLENGES TO SUSTAINABLE WASTE
MANAGEMENT IN LOW INCOME AREAS
Results of data collected from fieldwork show that the study area faces many
challenges to sustainable solid waste management. These have been categorized into
four major themes as set out in Figure 46: the role of government, solid waste
management practice, resource allocation, and the attitudes of the public towards
waste. Each theme and associated subthemes are subsequently discussed in the
following sections.

Solid Waste
Attitude of the
Role of Government Management Resource Allocation
Public
Practice

Increasing waste
Political due to population Lack of Public
Lack of Finance
Appointments levels and Education on Waste
urbanization

Poor Engagement
Lack of access to low with Residents and
Poor Governance Lack of Equipment
income areas Communities on
SWM Decisions

Lack of Storage
Conflicting Roles Inadequate Staffing
Space

Non Adherence and Lack of Formalized

Enforcement of Recycling and Lack of Key Solid
Waste Management Composting Waste Data
Laws Programmes

Non Involvement of Non Provision of

the Private Sector in Storage Containers
SWM in The State at Home

Non Implementation Lack of Organiation

of Research Findings for Waste Collection

Number and
Location of Public
Waste Containers

Lack of Sanitary
Landfill

Figure 46 Identified challenges to SWM in low income areas of Jos

178
6.1.1 Role of government
Data collected from fieldwork through observation, focus group discussion,
interviews and questionnaires highlights that the governance structure presents
challenges to developing effective waste management in Jos. Identified challenges
are political appointments, poor governance, lack of adherence and enforcement of
waste management laws, lack of involvement of the private sector in SWM, and lack
of implementation of research findings. Each of these challenges is considered below
with reflection on how these challenges are considered in existing literature.

6.1.1.1 Political appointments

Nigeria operates a democratic system where the elected governor is at liberty to
appoint people whom he/she feels can assist in governance of the state through
various ministries. In terms of SWM in Jos the State Commissioner for Environment
is such an appointee on the basis of party politics. The Commissioner is the political
head of a Ministry and provides leadership and guidance in the implementation of
government policies and directives. Data collected during this study (interviews with
IWMP1/IWMP2) suggests that the appointment of the Commissioner based on party
politics contributes to the waste management problems experienced. The
Commissioner is expected to be a professional who is knowledgeable on issues of
SWM so as to improve it, but is often not (Uwadiegwu, 2013, Uwadiegwu & Iyi,
2014). Being a non-professional on SWM issues means the Commissioner can be
less concerned about the topic or not understand its implications for public health,
environment and economic development. They may make decisions based on party
politics rather than sound science thereby prioritizing issues that could make their
political party more popular, rather than address issues which are of concern to
members of the public. Political appointees often lack political will power and
commitment to execute SWM programmes that have direct bearing on the
population.

Data collected from fieldwork through observations, focus group discussions and
questionnaires during this research has highlighted the significant problems with the
system in Jos with 94.1% of questionnaire respondents rating the service as poor or
very poor, however the government has not taken any serious measures towards
solving the situation. The representative of PEPSA (IWMP2) emphasized that there
has not been any concrete plans and strategies ever in terms of SWM in Jos because
of frequent changes in the State Ministry of Environment as a result of politics. The
official revealed that proposals may be written by one person today, but tomorrow
that person may not be there to continue, and another person would come on board
with completely new ideas, therefore there is no continuity.

The problem of political appointees supports the findings of Peter (2016) and his
work on Jos, while Ezeah (2010) and Iriruaga (2012) suggest that this is common to
other Nigerian cities. The stakeholders (IWMP1, IWMP2, and IA1) suggest that
Government should refrain from playing politics on issues that impact directly on
179
public health and appoint professionals who understand the challenges and develop
long-term sustainable solutions.

6.1.1.2 Poor governance

Poor governance is the inability of government to manage public affairs and
resources well in order to meet the needs of society. In terms of SWM the Federal
Ministry of Environment is responsible for drafting policies and passing it down to
the states to implement in their areas of jurisdiction. Poor governance has been
identified as one of the challenges to efficient SWM services in Jos as this simply is
not happening and policy is not being implemented at all.

The findings of this research concerning poor governance (IWMP1, IWMP2, and
IA1) support the opinions of Adama (2007), Ezeah & Roberts (2014), and Nzeadibe
et al. (2010) who have all attributed the poor state of SWM in Nigeria to poor
governance. The lack of environmental reforms in Nigeria has worsened the situation
of waste management in urban areas. For instance whilst some states such as Lagos
and Calabar have shown a considerable level of resolve to take proactive steps in
fighting waste management challenges, the rest of the states including Plateau have
merely been paying lip services to issues of waste management indicating a lack of
interest to develop the waste sector (Bakare 2016).

6.1.1.3 Conflicting roles in managing waste

A key issue identified in this research in Jos was the arrangement between the
Plateau State Ministry of Environment and PEPSA. The constitution of Nigeria gives
the responsibility of managing waste to the local government councils. However in
situations where more than one local government makes up a city, waste
management responsibilities become that of the state government. This arrangement
is not enshrined in the constitution and the origins appear to be linked with financial
drivers with politicians wanting money diverted to state level where they have more
control (IWMP1, IWMP2).

This is the case in Jos which is made up of 3 local government areas, therefore
management of waste in the city becomes the responsibility of Plateau State
Government. PEPSA is an agency within the Ministry of Environment and their
function is to collect and dispose of waste, clear streets, enforce regulations and
engage with the public on waste education. The representative of the Ministry of
Environment specified that although PEPSA is currently in charge of SWM it is not
given a free hand to operate (IWMP1). It receives instructions and directives from
the Ministry of Environment, and this administrative protocol makes it difficult for
PEPSA to function effectively leading to tension and ineffective services (IWMP2,
IWMP1). These can be confirmed from the statements of the representatives of
PEPSA and the ministry of environment below:

PEPSA is answerable to the ministry of environment which is a serious impediment

to the management of waste in Jos, as our entire request for funds, equipment and
180
other logistics for SWM from government has to go through the ministry, and unless
the ministry endorses it there will be no such releases. Any release of funds,
equipment and others are made to the ministry, and the ministry manages them on
our behalf, how do you expect us to function effectively? (IWMP2)

The representative of the ministry of environment stated that the institutional

arrangement between the ministry of environment and PEPSA is not good. For
example the ministry manages the funds, provide trucks, repair and maintain trucks,
and fuels the trucks. PEPSA only collects the trucks daily to use them and bring them
back to the ministry. There are times when these trucks are not available for PEPSA
to use due to breakdown or lack of fuel. At such times the ministry will blame the
governor for not providing the money for fuel, and repairs, and when the city is dirty
the populace blames PEPSA for failing to perform its duty. This kind of arrangement
can cause disaffection between the ministry and PEPSA, leading to inadequate
service delivery (IWMP1).

For example there is a long winded and inefficient system for procuring the required
resources, this was evident when IWMP1 accepted that PEPSA always makes yearly
budget proposals and the proposals are on a regular basis approved, but often with no
cash backing. PEPSA could identify the resources they need and make the request
from the state government through the Ministry of Environment. If the Ministry then
decide that they support this request it is passed onto the state government for
consideration. Stakeholders even cited examples where the finances were approved
but no money filtered down leading to the purchase of the resources required.
Moreover even though PEPSA is responsible for delivering the service they have no
control in regards to the recruitment of staff (IWMP2, IWMP1).

The representative of PEPSA (IWMP2) stated that unless there is separation of

powers to show who is responsible for SWM, with funds, equipments, and other
logistics released to them directly removing undue protocol, hence making SWM
easier and better.

DungGwom et al. (2008) highlighted that conflicting roles in waste management is

not a new issue, also in the past there were overlapping functions on waste
management between Jos Metropolitan Development Board (JMDB), Direct Labour
Agency (DLA), and PEPSA making them work at cross purposes rather than address
different issues and problems. Afun (2009) identified there is no clear allocation of
roles and responsibilities in terms of SWM in Nigeria, and emphasizes that an
overlap in the agencies responsible for enforcement of the various laws create
problems for effective waste management. Adewole (2009) gave an example where
Lagos State Waste Management Authority is the agency responsible for waste
collection and disposal in Lagos however it is competing with other bodies including
the local government authorities and Lagos State Environmental Protection Agency

181
in the management of waste leading to an inefficient system. Therefore the situation
in Jos is replicated in other parts of the country.

6.1.1.4 Non adherence and enforcement of waste management laws

There are many laws and regulatory measures that have been put in place by
government to promote sustainable waste management (see Chapter 2.2.2). For
example the National Environmental (Sanitation and Waste Control) Regulations, S.
I. No.28 of 2009 provides the legal framework for the adoption of sustainable and
environment friendly practices in sanitation and waste management in order to
minimise pollution. Although such laws exist they are not enforced, and as a result
waste is not managed as expected, for example Under Plateau State Environmental
Law (2003) burning waste is unlawful and problematic having a detrimental impact
on public health and the environment. However as highlighted in the questionnaire
45.0% of residents stated that burning of waste is the main way in which they
manage their waste, and burning of waste is widespread on dumpsites endorsed by
PEPSA. Therefore PEPSA who are expected to enforce the regulations are
themselves breaking them. This was confirmed by the representative of PEPSA
when he stated that the wastes at public dumpsites are most often managed through
burning in order to reduce the volume of the waste. In addition observations and
literature (Abila & Kantola, 2013) have found that wastes are often burned at public
dumpsites.

Non adherence and enforcement of waste management laws is a barrier to

sustainable SWM in Jos. Failure of the state government to enforce SWM
legislations in the municipality is a clear sign of lack of concern for SWM issues in
the state. Non adherence and enforcement of waste management laws is in
agreement with Peter’s (2016) findings on Jos, while Afun (2009), and Imam et al.
(2008) state that the regulatory structure that supports SWM in Nigeria is totally
inadequate. Afun (2009) added that most legislations or regulations will succeed if
they are understood and accepted by the entire public, and strictly enforced.

Non adherence and enforcement of waste management laws in Jos and Nigeria is
similar to other countries in LEDCs as stated by Mrayyan & Hamdi (2006) in terms
of lack of waste regulations, and Seng et al. (2010) in terms of weak regulations, lack
of implementation and enforcement, which often lead to waste producers using the
cheapest means to dump their waste (UNEP, 2015). Therefore government at the
federal and state levels need to revive its regulatory frameworks and enforcement in
order to enhance SWM.

6.1.1.5 Non-involvement of the private sector in SWM in the state

The private sector has not been engaged in SWM in Jos since the system failed in
2007, where 24 contractors were appointed with many failing to collect waste (see
Chapter 3.2.3). Since then PEPSA has been exclusively responsible for the

182
management of waste within Jos. As highlighted SWM is a challenging task for
PEPSA due to insufficient waste collection equipment and personnel.

Some stakeholders believe that engaging the private sector in SWM in Jos is a good
idea because they appear more organised and could be effective, especially for the
low income areas since government is not able to serve them effectively. Peter
(2016) supports this approach with Binbol et al. (2013) suggesting government needs
to invest heavily in waste management and consider reengaging with the private
sector. Similar problems with SWM across Nigerian cities have been reported by
Alakinde (2012), Ezebilo & Animasaun (2012), Ibrahim (2014), and Ogu (2000) and
they are in agreement that in order to improve the waste management system Private
Sector Participation (PSP) in SWM is unavoidable. Ibadan, Lagos and Kano already
engage with the private sector in solid waste management in their states helping to
improve the service (Ibrahim, 2014; Ibrahim et al. 2014; World Bank, 2017).

6.1.1.6 Non implementation of past research findings

Non implementation of past research findings (see Chapter 4.3.9) is another barrier
to sustainable waste management in Jos. In spite of the fact that studies have been
conducted in Jos which all advocate for improvements, evidence on the ground
indicates little has been implemented hence improvement is lacking. During
interviews stakeholders (IWMP1 and IWMP2) acknowledged that there was
collaborative research between UN Habitat and PEPSA on SWM in Jos. Both
representatives directed the researcher to the General Manager of PEPSA to collect
the report. The researcher made many trips to the office but could not have access to
the report as they claimed they did not know its whereabouts.

A stakeholder identified that non implementation of research recommendations as

one of the biggest challenges against developing an efficient waste management
system in Jos and Nigeria as a whole. The stakeholder stated that:

“The application of past research findings in Nigeria is almost tending towards zero,
because even when research results have been published, public officers don’t tend
to use it or implement it, so is a very big issue, as a result the linkage between
universities and governance is not really useful” (IA1).

In addition some of the participants were reluctant to take part in the research
because research has been conducted in the past with nothing useful coming out of it,
hence they felt it was a waste of their time responding to questions or questionnaires
since nothing will change. This was corroborated by the academic representative of
tertiary institutions (IA1), when he accepted that there have been many researches on
SWM in Nigeria in the past, but the application or implementation of these research
findings is almost zero. According to the scholar even when research results have
been published, public officers do not have a tendency to use or implement it, hence
eroding the trust placed in researches.

183
The PEPSA official stated that whilst such research studies might have been useful,
the continual changes in government mean a long term sustainable waste strategy
have not been developed.

6.1.2 Solid waste management practices in low income areas of Jos

Solid waste management practices in low income areas refer to the handling of waste
materials from generation at source, through to collection and disposal processes at
both Tudun Wada and Jenta. Field investigations show that SWM practices in Jos
and low income areas encounter challenges such as increasing levels of waste
generation due to continuous population increases, lack of access to low income
areas, lack of storage space for waste in homes, and lack of formalized recycling and
composting programmes. These challenges are considered below.

6.1.2.1 Increasing levels of waste due to population increases and urbanization

The population of Jos has been increasing over the years, so also is the rate of
urbanisation. Binbol et al. (2013) rightly pointed out that Tudun Wada is an all
comer’s zone and shares similar characteristics with Jenta, being densely populated
and characterised by low planning standards. Literature (Ogwueleka, 2009) has
established that population dynamics often have significant influence on the level of
waste generation in communities, and this development is the geneses of waste
management problems in Jos especially in low income areas. The results of the study
clearly show that the existing system for managing waste is inadequate, let alone
capable of catering for the projected increases due to population growth.

6.1.2.2 Lack of access to low income areas

Lack of access to low income areas emerged as a key barrier to solid waste
collection from the study area. Results show the study area lacks infrastructure and
access due its unplanned nature, location on rocky terrain, haphazardly and densely
built housing without access roads for the provision of waste management and other
services. The buildings are old with no spaces between adjoining buildings such that
the roof of one building overlaps the other. The conditions of the study area have led
one to assume that these areas have suffered long neglect from government
especially in regard to infrastructural development, provision of basic social
amenities, and enforcement of development control standards. As a result of the
aforementioned features, the stakeholders interviewed likened the areas to slums. UN
Habitat (2013) defines slums as neglected parts of cities which are unplanned and
lack basic amenities or services, with substandard houses, overcrowded with
unhealthy living conditions.

The bad and narrow roads could be the reason why waste in the community is
neglected. Focus group participants emphasized the need for government to create
accessible roads so that trucks can have access to collect waste that is left in open
spaces within their neighbourhood. In addition the representatives of the ministry of
environment and PEPSA (IWMP1, IWMP2) emphasized the need for Tudun Wada,

184
Jenta and other low income areas which have accessibility problems to be re-planned
in order to make them more accessible, hence enhancing SWM. IWMP1 opined that
collaboration between the Ministry of Lands and Survey (who have responsibility for
the planning and development of urban cities) and the Ministry of Environment
could make it possible for low income areas in Jos to be re-planned, thereby
enhancing SWM in the state. This finding corresponds with that of Binbol et al.
(2013) for Jos, and Kayode & Omole (2011) for Nigeria who argue that low income
areas need to be redeveloped to improve accessibility and sanitation.

6.1.2.3 Lack of storage space for waste in homes

Lack of storage space for waste at households was an issue raised by focus group
discussion members (FGDT1 003, FGDT1 005). They argued that it was the reason
for disposing of waste immediately it is generated as they have no space to keep it.
More so that the nature and kind of waste they generate quickly rots, creating odours
and attracting flies and vermin. Others stated that when the waste is put outside the
house it gets vandalized, or scattered by dogs. Observations confirmed the lack of
space in and around their homes. Houses are built without any standards or provision
for waste storage, and the nature of the waste generated from households makes it
difficult to be stored within the homes. As a result of lack of storage space in the
homes households tend to dispose of waste immediately. As highlighted in the
questionnaire residents use the option quickest and most convenient for them with
45.0% burning their own waste and 31.1% discarding of waste into waterbodies. The
lack of storage space might also be a reason why only 22.4% of questionnaire
respondents identified collections from the home as their preferred option to improve
waste collection in the community (see Chapter 5.4.10), there might be concerned
that they do not have the space to store several days waste prior to collection.

Otitoju (2014) in his investigation of individual attitudes towards recycling of

municipal solid waste in Lagos, reported that one of the reasons for not recycling
was a lack of storage space, likewise Okorhi et al. (2017) established that a key
factor influencing e-waste management is lack of storage space.

6.1.2.4 Lack of formalised recycling and composting programmes

Majority of the focus group members stated that they were recycling, while 68.7% of
questionnaire respondents also recycled. Although reuse and recycling is going on in
the study area and Jos in general, no formal recycling system exists in Jos – however
there is an active informal sector. However no information on the scale or impact of
these activities was established since the author could not ascertain the number of
people engaged in these activities in Jos. Peter et al. (2014) has reported on similar
practice in Jos, and the informal sector is common across Nigerian cities (Nzeadibe
& Ajaero, 2010) and globally.

Observations and focus group discussions show that little is known about
composting in the study area; questionnaires corroborated this findings with 94.8%

185
of residents stating that they did not compost. This could be because government is
not actively supporting it.

Non-involvement of government in supporting recycling and composting and

helping to set up formal systems, or supporting the informal sector, is a barrier to
sustainable SWM. The informal sector recycles in a crude manner hence degrading
the environment. Composting can be particularly helpful to communities managing
their waste, thus reducing the waste that needs to be managed by the municipality
and its subsequent impact on the environment. Two of the stakeholders interviewed
(IWMP2 and IA1) stated that attempts have been made to produce compost but
failed partly due to the lack of support from government. They both emphasized the
need for government to support composting. IA1 noted that if compost is embraced
and produced it could be bought by fadama farmers and other farmers who are
already using ash derived from burning of waste as a fertilizer, and compost could be
a more attractive proposition due to its richer nutrient content.

It is important that government supports the informal sector. This would enable the
sector to grow and help support the development of the economy in the state.
Though some of the jobs the informal sector provides maybe low paid and without
security, it still helps in alleviating poverty. The informal sector provides an
opportunity for a large number of people and they contribute to the economy of the
nation through output and employment. The informal sector activities though
unrecognised, unrecorded, unprotected, and unregulated by government, are not only
restricted to peripheral activities but also comprise profitable enterprises in
manufacturing activities.

The informal sector should be strengthened through policy restructuring for its
optimal contribution to the development of the economy. Moreover over time the
formal sector developments has been managing waste in Jos, attempts should be
made to integrate the informal sector, not to replace it.

6.1.3 Resource allocation

The research has highlighted a lack of resourcing is underpinning the waste
management system in Jos. Resource allocation is a vital driver for SWM and
without it many aspects of the management are impacted. Challenges identified in
this research are lack of finance, lack of equipment, inadequate staffing, lack of
reliable solid waste data to help plan services, non provision of storage containers at
home, lack of organisation for waste collection, the number and location of public
waste containers, and lack of sanitary landfill.

6.1.3.1 Lack of finance

The Plateau State Government relies mainly on the annual budgetary allocation from
the Federal Government and the collection of all taxes by the Plateau State Internal
Revenue Service (PSIRS) for its funding. Locally members of the public pay a tax of

186
only NGN50 (12 pence) per month to PSIRS. As confirmed by the PEPSA
representative this is meant to fund waste and other services, which according to the
PEPSA representative is clearly too little to develop an effective waste system.

Both annual budgetary allocation and taxes collected by PSIRS have not been able to
yield adequate funds to finance waste management in the state especially with
increasing population and resulting waste generation. In addition there is stress on
the national budget from competing priorities which makes it very difficult to get
sufficient allocation of funds to finance waste management. The outcome of this
financial limitation leads to many aspects of SWM being affected.

The stakeholders reflected on the political appointments that do not see waste as a
priority area. IWMP2 and IWMP1 reiterated that every year PEPSA proposes to buy
new trucks and public waste containers. They submit their request to government,
but for as long as government official see waste being collected from government
house 38 and the secretariat 39 to collect their own waste, they are not concerned for
the rest of the community. Until the government is convinced about the need and
importance of a programme they will not just release funds for environmental
matters.

Some focus group members highlighted there are wider financial issues including the
non-payment of salaries to State civil servants (FGDJ1 003, FGDT2 002). The
author learnt that at the time of this fieldwork some staff at the Ministry of
Environment, including the widows and ad hoc staff used for collecting waste, had
not been paid for 7 months. This leads to demotivated staff members who do not
fulfil their responsibilities. Moreover if staff salaries have not been paid for this
length of time it would affect the revenue being generated in the state through taxes
thus limiting the resources of the state which have many competing demands.

Peter (2016) shares the same thoughts about limited finance for SWM in his study of
Jos, while Agbola (2003), Fobil (2010) and Iriruaga (2012) have similar opinions for
Nigeria. Another study by Babalola et al. (2010) revealed that inadequate
infrastructure and funding are obstacles to a successful waste management system.
Iriruaga (2012) stated that without monetary resources to buy waste trucks and waste
bins, build and maintain waste sorting facilities, local government are completely
incapable of operating successful waste management facilities.

6.1.3.2 Lack of equipment

Results from this research have highlighted that waste services in Jos are poor
because of the lack of waste management equipment and resources. Effective
collection, transportation and disposal of waste depend on the availability of suitable
equipment and money for its maintenance and management.

38
Government House is the office and residence of the Governor.
39
Secretariat is the office of all state ministries.

187
A variety of vehicles are used to collect solid waste from the study area (see Table
23). It can be seen that the fleet has a limited number of functioning vehicles; hence
PEPSA finds it difficult to serve the increasing population of Jos. This is in
agreement with the findings of Binbol et al. (2013) who stated that PEPSA was
finding the management of waste in Jos difficult because of insufficient vehicles.
However it has been on record that the resources for waste haulage in Jos has been
inadequate for decades with Pasquini (2002) reporting that Jos city commissioned 23
waste disposal trucks in the 1980s, but by 2001 these were reduced to just four due
to vehicle breakdown and non-maintenance culture of the municipality. On the day
of interview with IWMP2 there were only nine trucks available and the author
witnessed a vehicle being repaired (see Figure 47). In addition the PEPSA
representative explained that there are trucks that have broken down since 2008
which have still not been repaired.

Figure 47 A broken down truck undergoing repair

Source: Image taken by author during fieldwork in 2014

The lack of equipment for managing waste in Jos is comparable to other cities in
Nigeria as observed by Adewole (2009) and Ogwueleka (2009). Ogwueleka
specified that 60% percent of trucks available for waste management in most
Nigerian cities are out of service at any one time, which Agunwamba et al. (2003)
attributes to overuse as a result of shortage.

This research has also highlighted the lack of other resources that are required to
protect staff under the Regulation S.1.15 of 1991: National Environmental Protection
(Management of Solid and Hazardous Wastes) including boots, gloves and clothing.
It should be noted that the research has shown that resources do exist however it is
not always spent appropriately. For example a new public waste container (Dino bin)
was seen lying stationary at the Ministry of Environment. This had been purchased
by the Ministry but PEPSA were unable to use it as they did not have the required
truck. Similarly the Ministry of Environment found funds to purchase masks

188
following the bomb blast of December 11th 2014 – they act in a reactive rather than
proactive way.

6.1.3.3 Inadequate staffing

Inadequate staffing, especially of technical and professional staff, is a challenge to
sustainable SWM in Jos.

The representative of the Ministry of Environment assessed the staffing capacity of

the Ministry of Environment and PEPSA. The officer (IWMP1) declared that
staffing is unbalanced and made up mainly of inexperienced staff members that have
no formal training on waste handling. For example the Ministry of Environment has
162 permanent staff on their payroll including PEPSA, out of which 92 are
Environmental Health Officer (EHOs) who are involved in a variety of activities as
set out in Chapter 5.3.1.2. These 92 40 EHOs are deemed inadequate given the
diversity of their role and covering a population of 1.3 million people. According to
the official, the Ministry of Environment has not been able to increase EHO numbers
because of the embargo placed on employment by government as a result of lack of
finance. The inability of government to increase the number of EHOs contributes to
the poor waste management system – for example in regards to enforcement and
raising public awareness of waste issues. The stakeholders stated that any
improvement in SWM would require the employment of more professionals and that
the ad hoc involved in collecting the waste should be trained in order for them to
improve their handling of waste. The issue of inadequate staffing and training in
waste is supported by Ola-Adisa et al. (2015), while similar views regarding the lack
of both skilled and unskilled staff were made by Kayode & Omole (2011) for
Ibadan, and Iriruaga (2012) and Uchendu (2016) for Nigeria.

6.1.3.4 Lack of key solid waste data

The availability of accurate information on waste generation rates and composition is
a prerequisite for effective SWM planning in any setting. In Jos municipality no
reliable records exist of the quantity of MSW generated from households to enable
for proper planning and management of the waste. As covered in Chapter 6.1.1.6,
even when work has been commissioned it can go missing and recommendations not
acted on.

This is in consonance with Peter’s (2016) investigation on Jos, similarly literature

shows that systematic records of waste data are virtually non-existent or not easy to
come by in Nigeria (Afun, 2009; Agunwamba, 1998; Enete, 2010). Peter (2016)
while investigating planning for municipal SWM stated that lack of accurate waste
generation data and characterisation is one of the factors that constrains effective
planning and organisation of municipal waste management in Nigerian
municipalities. Proper waste audits are required in order to determine the actual

40
The remaining 70 staff made up of administrative staff, security, cleaners and messengers in the
office.

189
waste generation rates including composition so as to plan an effective SWM in Jos
including low income areas.

6.1.3.5 Non provision of storage container at home

Households in the study area store their waste in any available container such as
plastic or metal buckets, polythene bags, and baskets (see Chapter 5.4.3) before
disposing of it – PEPSA does not provide containers for waste storage at home.
Yawa (1999), Peter et al. (2014), Peter (2016), and Eche et al. (2015) have each
reported similar ways of storing waste by low income households in Jos.

Focus group members identified non provision of storage containers as a barrier to

sustainable management of waste from their homes. FGDT1 003 mentioned non
provision of a proper waste container to store waste in the house makes it difficult
for households to properly manage their waste. According to the participant
householders use any containers available to them which ordinarily do not have
proper handles and cover, hence waste stored in them generally smells and attracts
flies. The containers were old and often broken making it difficult for households to
carry their waste to the designated collection points – this could be a contributing
factor to waste being burned or dumped in close proximity as its too much effort to
carry the waste. This supports the findings of Yawa (1999) who highlighted poor
container provision was a barrier to effective waste management.

Focus group members suggested that government should provide appropriate waste
containers with a cover so that waste can be stored and taken to the public collection
points for proper disposal. Interestingly the author came across a stack of wheeled
bins at the Plateau State Ministry of Environment lying in waste without being put to
use (see Figure 48). Further investigations revealed that the contractor who supplied
the storage containers had a case with the state government in court; as such the
containers were not available for use.

Figure 48 A stack of wheeled bins at the Ministry of Environment

Source: Image taken by the researcher during fieldwork in 2014

190
There seems to be a contradiction in the results with participants on one hand
demanding the provision of an appropriate waste storage container, yet the same
participants are complaining of a lack of storage space for waste in their homes.
Perhaps the provision of appropriate containers with handle and cover, which could
be used to help transport the waste for disposal at the public waste containers, and
therefore useful to households, could overcome the concern of storage space.

6.1.3.6 Lack of organisation for waste collection

Even if the residents could carry their waste to the public waste containers it is clear
that Jos lacks organisation for waste collection. Collection of waste from public
waste containers by PEPSA is expected to be carried out twice a week; however this
is not often the case as many public waste bins spend weeks without collection. The
research supports the findings of Binbol et al. (2013) and Peter et al. (2014) that
waste is not collected in many locations within Jos especially the low income areas.
Some focus group discussion members opined that the lack of organisation in waste
collection is because of non-involvement of the private sector, and communities,
hence they called on government to involve the communities in order to reorganize
waste collection. The poor service can be linked to the lack of resources as covered
in Chapter 6.1.3.

Due to lack of waste collection services, focus group discussions with householders
established that most residents of the study area burned (45.0%) and openly dumped
(31.1%) their own waste corroborating the findings of Babayemi & Dauda (2009),
Daffi & Kassam, (2013), Igoni, et al. (2007), Onwughara et al. (2010), and Peter
(2016). Araba (2010) found that Nigerians consider dumping and burning a cheap
and cost effective way of disposing of their waste.

6.1.3.7 Number and location of public waste containers

The research has highlighted the inadequate number and location of public waste
containers. 59 public waste containers were seen in Jos at the time of this field study
to cater for the needs of 1.3 million people – each bin is scheduled to be collected
twice a week. Figure 35 shows the location of these bins across the 4 zones of the
city. It is important to note that the zones vary in population density - Jos central
zones 1 and 2 (where Jenta and Tudun Wada are located) have a higher population
density than Abbatoir and Bukuru zones. It is difficult to estimate the population
density of the low income areas, however the population density of Jos North was
given as 1,913.1 inhabitants per km² (City Population, 2015). Observations indicated
that public waste containers were not allocated based on density of areas, but rather
on the ease of waste containers being collected for disposal. IWMP1 and IWMP2
stated that the unplanned and inaccessible nature of low income areas made it
difficult for PEPSA to provide public waste containers in good locations. IWMP2
observed that in high income areas like the Government Reserved Area (GRA) there
were often more public waste containers there than anywhere else because of

191
accessibility and convenience, and being a planned area there is also enough space to
place public waste bins in good locations.

Top level calculations suggest that 20,313 41 persons are allocated per public waste
container. Based on this figure, when multiplied by the per capita waste generation
rate of 0.47 kg/cap/day determined from the waste composition analysis (20,313 x
0.47 kg/cap/day), it means 9.5 tonnes of waste is generated per day for each bin. The
average capacity of the public waste container was established from the
representative of PEPSA to be 13 tonnes. It then means that two days’ worth of
waste generation is enough to overfill each bin. Therefore collecting waste from
public waste containers twice a week is not realistic, more so that the population
must have changed since the population count ten years ago and this does not take
into account additional waste from businesses and other sources.

The specific low income areas in this study have only three public waste containers
allocated to them: two in Tudun Wada and one in Jenta. The population of Tudun
Wada was estimated to be 61,000 (NPC, 2006) meaning 30,500 people rely on each
public waste bin. This number of people when multiplied by the per capita per day
(30,500 x 0.47) would generate 14.3 tonnes of waste per day exceeding the 13 tonnes
bin capacity in one day only. Even if the public waste container was being emptied
everyday it is still inadequate.

Focus group discussion members from Tudun Wada corroborated the claim of
improper location of public waste containers by stating that one of the public waste
containers in Tudun Wada is located by the market place, which is far from most
residents hence their only option is to burn it or dump it. This is a common practice
in Nigeria and has been acknowledged by many scholars (Araba 2010; Daffi &
Kassam 2013; Dauda & Osita 2003; Igoni et al. 2007; Nabegu 2010).

Most members of the focus group discussions were of the opinion that government is
not serious about SWM issues, “they just often pay lip service without any
accompanying action, and if not how can government provide only two public waste
bins to manage waste in the whole of Tudun Wada area?” Another member added
that “even the two waste bins provided, they don’t come to empty it as it is often
burnt in place, so where is the waste management here?” (FGDT1, 004, 007).

As mentioned previously stakeholders have argued for the re-planning of low

income areas therefore improving accessibility and the number of suitable sites for
bin location. In addition IWMP2 advised that Plateau State Government should
provide more public waste containers in the future especially with due consideration
to the growing populace in order to take care of new settlements and the ever
expanding low income areas within Jos. Alternatively IA1 stated that ideally there

41
Based on 1.3 million in 2008 (National Population Commission, 2008) and assuming 64 public
waste containers are in place as per information from PEPSA

192
should be designated public waste dumps within communities where residents could
dump their waste, from which waste collection trucks could come to collect the
waste for proper disposal at the government designated dumpsites. This is not being
practiced in Jos but does happen in other parts of Nigeria. Of course all of these
things require proper funding and resourcing from the state government.

6.1.3.8 Lack of sanitary landfill

The safe disposal of solid waste through controlled methods is a fundamental
element of a SWM system. Investigations established that no sanitary landfills exist
in Jos for waste disposal, and this situation is replicated across Nigeria (Centre for
People and Environment (CPE), 2010). The stakeholders interviewed emphasized
that lack of a sanitary landfill is a major barrier to SWM in Jos, as this encourages
PEPSA to continue to dump waste openly in government designated open dumps.
All the open dumps visited located at Kwang and Zaria, Guratop and Bukuru
Lowcost were not fenced off and had settlements in close proximity. Linking back to
poor governance, the research identified that funds and land had been approved for
the development of a sanitary landfill but this have never come into fruition.

6.1.4 Attitude of the public towards waste

The attitude of the public towards waste was identified as a key issue towards
improving the waste management system. Specific challenges were identified on the
general lack of public education on waste within the study area, plus poor
engagement with residents and communities when making SWM decisions.

6.1.4.1 Lack of public education on waste

The way people think and feel about solid waste determines their waste behaviour. In
Nigeria waste is viewed as dirty and so no one wants to be associated with it
(Oyeniyi, 2011). The lack of concern from residents of Jos, PEPSA, and government
officials who lack the will power to improve the management of waste is a challenge
supporting the findings of Iriruaga (2012). In general the attitude and perception of
people towards environmental issues affects how they obey environmental policies
and engage with environmental programmes. For instance a person who does not
think proper waste management is important to their personal or community health
may not comply with waste collection service requirements even if all arrangements
are in place for it (Uchendu, 2016). Therefore a nonchalant attitude is a challenge to
effective SWM. Currently there is a lack of awareness and concern on environmental
issues which influences waste behaviour. Adewole (2009) and Nabegu (2010)
reported similar behaviour in Lagos and Kano due to ignorance and poverty.

The stakeholders interviewed and focus group members highlighted the attitude of
residents towards waste was a challenge to effective waste management in Jos. Poor
attitude towards waste was observed in the way household members from Jenta and
Tudun Wada handled waste, discarding it anyhow in public spaces without regards
to public health and the environment. Discarding of waste throughout the community

193
instead of designated public waste containers, makes it difficult to collect waste,
resulting in unsanitary environments.

Some focus group members acknowledged that government has some good policies
and intentions but the impact of these interventions are impacted by the attitude and
behaviour of residents. For example as discussed in the focus group and highlighted
by IWMP2, initiatives to give bags to residents to contain waste were abused by
residents who ended up selling them. The residents of Tudun Wada were observed
setting the public waste container around the market on fire. A further example is
the theft of small public waste bins and side walk bins from the streets in Jos by
residents to sell to recycling entrepreneurs. These small waste bins and side walk
bins are meant for the collection of waste from passers-by from public spaces. The
absence of small public waste bins and side walk bins from the streets escalates the
levels of littering.

IWMP2 stated the low level of understanding of waste from the public was one of
the biggest challenges being faced. In order to improve waste management in the
study area, residents and the community need to be educated on how to manage
waste safely and effectively so as to protect their health and environment. From the
results it was established that for the past 17 years there has not been any form of
government led public awareness education for the general public, mainly due to
lack of funds and insecurity in the state. In order to develop an effective waste
management system the appropriate services are required coupled with education so
the public understand why and how they should use these services as the two works
in tandem. Public awareness campaigns for Jos were supported by Binbol et al.
(2013), Jatau (2013) and Peter et al. (2014), as they all believed that public
awareness on waste management can create an impact on all stages of the municipal
solid waste management process, especially when those with lower level of
education are targeted as studies (Jatau 2013) has shown that they have the poorest
attitudes towards waste management practices.

The inability to educate members of society on SWM issues could be the principal
reason behind the indiscriminate disposal of waste in Jos. It could also be
responsible for the public’s poor awareness of important issues relating to the
environment and public health.

A contributing issue towards the lack of waste awareness programmes is that the
police would be needed to accompany EHOs on public awareness campaigns
because of the security situation in Jos. A tradition in Nigeria is to hold rallies or
events in public places when trying to raise awareness of important civil society
issues – however these could be a potential target for terrorists. The lack of EHOs
coupled with limited police and resources, which have priorities elsewhere, are a
barrier to rolling out programmes. Members of the public have developed a habit of
shunning public places because they have been targeted for incessant bombings in

194
the city. The state of insecurity due to Boko Haram activities has crippled public
awareness programmes in Jos since EHOs and the general public cannot move about
freely.

6.1.4.2 Poor engagement with residents and communities on SWM decisions

Interview with a stakeholder (IWMP2) and focus group discussions (FGDT1 002)
with households has highlighted that government has not been engaging with
residents and communities in discussions regarding SWM. This can be confirmed
through statements with stakeholders:

Currently households and communities are not involved in SWM decisions because
government laws or policies have not made it possible (IWMP2)

A member of the focus group discussion (FGDT1 002) observed that the state
government is managing waste in isolation without engaging with us the
householders and generators of the waste, and not even engaging with our
community leaders or ward heads.

The implication is that residents and communities feel neglected; as such they
manage waste in the most convenient way for them. This situation is common to
urban cities in Nigeria and LEDCs as observed by Nabegu & Mustapha (2014).

Whilst there has been considerable attention on the need for community participation
and involvement in wider processes of public decision making (Barstein, 2000;
UNEP-IETC, 2003; Zurbrügg & Ahmed 1999) to date there has been little evidence
of such participation in Jos.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings from the research, the author has made recommendations
under three themes to address and improve the management of solid waste from
households in low income areas. It is acknowledged that some of the
recommendations are long term and aspirational, and under the existing governance
system would be difficult to implement.

6.2.1 Changes to the political structure

i. Political appointments
The study has shown that political appointments create problems and hamper
the development of an effective waste management system. There is a need
for government to dissociate politics from governance by appointing only
professionals of SWM into key positions of the Ministry of Environment and
PEPSA.

195
 ii. Autonomy for PEPSA
Due to the current bureaucratic relationship between the Ministry of
Environment and PEPSA, waste management issues are not being addressed
appropriately. PEPSA need autonomy to function freely, independently and
effectively. By doing this PEPSA would have direct responsibility for
purchasing the equipment they need and the recruitment of staff which they
do not currently have.

6.2.2 Resourcing of the waste management system

iii. Provision of sufficient funds
In order to improve the waste management system the declining financial
sources for waste services need to be dealt with. Both the Federal and State
governments have to improve the financial allocation to waste management if
the desired improvements are to be achieved. Specifically in Jos additional
funds are needed for PEPSA to deliver an effective service. Moreover
PEPSA is encouraged to find ways to generate additional revenue to help
fund their operations. The provision of funds could be through the
involvement of qualified financial and accounting staff that can identify
viable sources of funds, for example charging larger businesses and waste
generators for waste services as at present they are receiving these services
for free.

The contribution of households towards waste management services also

needs to be considered. Households pay NGN50 (12 pence) per month to
Plateau State Internal Revenue Board and this revenue is divided across all
services including health, education, water provision and waste. At present
waste is treated as a social service and although some revenue from local
taxes is generated to fund waste services, the amount is paltry.

Although most residents of low income areas are not willing/or are unable to
pay for waste collection, the case may be different with middle and high
income areas. Moreover as highlighted in the research 30.6% of households
were middle and high income households and therefore have the means to
potentially fund improved services. Improving the funding of waste services
will help to acquire and maintain infrastructure and equipment to provide
better waste collection and disposal service. The research has noted that
money is wasted on buying the wrong containers or equipment that is never
used – there needs to be a smarter use of the funds available. A further option
is to seek funding from international bodies and donors.

iv. Increase staffing levels

Inadequate staffing of EHOs and technical staff is an obstacle to the waste
management system. A solution to this problem is for the government to lift

196
 the embargo placed on employment so that more EHOs and technical staff
can be employed. Apart from employing more staff there is a need for
training to upskill those working in providing waste services to better
understand the implications of poor waste management and also the health
and safety issues relating to waste collection. As per Recommendation iii the
government need to increase funding for SWM to take care of increased
staffing. This as part of a wider strategy would help to improve the waste
management system. The upskilling of these workers would also increase
their long term job prospects.

v. Improved container infrastructure at household and community level

At present households are not provided with containers to contain their waste
and often have to travel long distances to make use of the public waste
containers. This leads to waste being poorly contained at home with waste
often being accessible to vermin and waste strewn throughout communities.
Moreover the public waste containers are often overflowing or waste burnt in
situ. Therefore a more strategic approach is needed from the authorities.
Containers should be provided to households to help properly contain the
waste and help to facilitate waste being taken to the public waste containers.
Moreover the public waste containers need to be more strategically located
thereby encouraging use by households. It is clear that there are insufficient
containers at present and the capacity needs to be increased. If budgetary
requirements prevent the purchase of further containers, satellite sites should
be allocated in the community where householders can take waste for
disposal which can then be cleared by the municipality.

vi. Improved accessibility

As highlighted in this research a barrier at present is accessibility of
collection vehicles to low income areas. In order improve the waste
management system it is crucial that the State Government empowers and
authorizes the Ministry of Land and Survey to re-plan and restructure low
income areas by coming up with new or different plans especially in the
layout of buildings and roads in order to make them more accessible so that
waste collection trucks can have access to the area, and public waste bins
placed in strategic locations (IWMP1, IWMP2). Literature (Peter, 2016) has
shown that if proper planning is effected and public waste containers are
strategically and conveniently located, households would be encouraged to
dispose waste rightly thereby enhancing SWM.

Where this is not possible an alternative model could be developed where

informal workers of these areas could be paid by PEPSA to collect this waste
and manually transport it to more accessible central collection points. This

197
 would mean more money but would improve the local environment whilst
also creating local employment.

vii. Development of sanitary landfill

Further to providing funds for the purchase of equipment and logistics, it is
important to also provide land and investment for the development of a
sanitary landfill sites for waste disposal in Jos. The State Government should
engage the services of professionals in identifying and acquiring a suitable
land bearing in mind the environmental and social impacts of the site. There
are numerous examples of sanitary landfill sites which have been funded and
developed through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The Clean
Development Mechanism is a mechanism set out in the Kyoto Protocol
(IPCC, 2007) which aims to reduce global emission of greenhouse gases.
Infrastucture projects that lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
generate Certified Emission Reduction unit (CERs). These CERs can be
traded and sold, and used by MEDCs to help meet their emission reduction
targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Companies work with governments to
invest in LEDCs to improve local environmental conditions, such as
developing sanitary landfills that result in greenhouse gas savings, who in
turn trade in the resulting CERs.

viii. Embracing the informal sector

Recycling is a very important aspect of waste management (IWMP2), and
currently there is a glaring absence of formal recycling in Jos. As a result, the
informal sector has taken up the responsibility of filling the gap. There is no
published data on the recycling rate in Jos, but anecdotally the informal
sector is helping to achieve significant levels of recycling, plus the associated
social and environmental benefits. Nationally the government needs to enact
a clear policy on solid waste management and recycling that recognises the
informal sector. Legislative changes that incorporate inclusive policies and
approaches to SWM involving the informal sector would help to improve the
waste management system, create awareness and improve attitudes towards
waste (Adama 2012, Nzeadibe, 2009). The informal sector could specifically
be engaged with to help collect waste and recycling in low income areas
which are inaccessible to PEPSA.

ix. Involvement of the private sector

Literature (Ezeah et al. 2013) has shown that other Nigerian cities have
worked effectively in partnership with the private sector to improve the waste
management system. Working with the private sector has helped generate
additional finance and resources that the public sector alone may not have
been able to supply. Whilst previous attempts to work with the private sector

198
 in Jos proved to be unsuccessful this is something that decision makers need
to revisit.

x. Intelligence-led decision-making
There is a lack of reliable data on municipal solid waste in Jos. For example
no data on waste arisings, how waste is being managed and the composition
of materials – this research helps to fill some of these gaps. This lack of
intelligence inhibits planning an effective waste management system. In
order to overcome this problem the government and its agencies should
develop a new data collection protocol to in order to generate reliable and
ongoing data on the waste situation in Jos. This should include working
alongside the University of Jos and other research organisations to increase
capacity and assist in the planning and implementation of SWM operations.
Students at the University of Jos have undertaken many past studies on waste
and they could provide critical mass to help collect and analyse this data on
an ongoing basis.

6.2.3 Education and engagement

xi. Greater awareness of waste

The poor solid waste situation can be partially dealt with through increasing
public education and awareness campaigns of waste issues. The campaigns
could be integrated with a range of approaches adopted.

Due to the limited resources available and the ongoing security issues thereby
inhibiting the role of EHOs, a more community based approach could be
adopted. Greater awareness of waste education could be undertaken through
churches, schools, mosques and the media working closely with community
gatekeepers, the chiefs, ward heads and religious leaders. Whilst a holistic
approach should be adopted to reach all of society the research has shown
that women and children are mainly responsible for managing waste in the
household – therefore some targeted campaigns could be developed to
increase awareness, change behaviour and promote waste prevention. There
needs to a concerted national effort through radio, television and newspapers
to raise awareness amongst the general public. In Nigeria government still
has a key role in television and radio broadcasting. Nationally there is the
National Television Authority (NTA) and Federal Radio Corporation of
Nigeria (FRCN), and states have their own stations, for example in Plateau
State there is the Plateau State Radio & Television Corporation (PRTVC).
Being state run these stations have minimal broadcasting costs and an
effective strategy could be developed for dissiminating information to the
public on waste. It should be noted that most residents in the study area have
small transistor radios and many have televisions.

199
 Waste and sanitation should be introduced into educational programmes in
Nigeria and made an integral part of the basic education curriculum, while
Universities and Polytechnics should be encouraged to introduce
programmes on environmental management, including courses on solid waste
management, to train qualified personnel for the sector thereby increasing
critical mass.

xii. Inclusive policy making

The National Environmental Sanitation Policy (2005) sets out to achieve a
clean and healthy environment for all Nigerians. A clean and healthy
environment can only be possible when all stakeholders, from waste
producers to waste managers, are involved in the process (Ahmed and Ali,
2004). However residents or communities who are among the biggest
generators of waste have not been involved in making decisions concerning
SWM in the study area. The solution to this problem is for the government
and PEPSA to engage with the chiefs, ward heads and other community
leaders, in all decisions concerning SWM including the development of
collection services and location of disposal sites. The chiefs, ward heads and
other community leaders are respected in the community and will greatly
influence the behaviour of residents. This research recognizes household
involvement as being vital to sustainable and effectual SWM in Nigeria and
other low income countries.

xiii. Increased role of waste prevention

As acknowledged in this research some of the recommendations require
significant changes in political structures, resources and funds. Whilst there is
a significant level of reuse already underway in the study area, more could be
done to promote waste prevention, especially using low to no cost
interventions. Research (Mbah & Nzeadibe, 2016) has shown that Nigerian
authorities have a tendency to overlook the importance of waste prevention
strategies in spite of them being the priority of the waste hierarchy. There is
the opportunity to build upon the existing behaviour in the community to
help reduce the quantities of waste that need to be managed.

This research established an increasing waste generation and complexity in

composition of waste as a result of increases in population, urbanization and
consumerism. In order to solve this problem or improve on it, government is
advised to pursue an alternative path that attempts to prevent the problem
which is adopting waste prevention measures.

200
6.3 LIMITATIONS TO THE RESEARCH IN PARTA
The author acknowledges some limitations in the research. A key issue was the
ongoing security situation in Jos. Although there have been ethno-religious tensions
since 1992, the security situation escalated during fieldwork with Boko Haram
targeting and bombing Jos many times. Two bombings in May 2014 killed 118
people, another bombing in December 2014 killed 30 people, and in July 2015 44
people were killed. This boko haram attacks has led to tension and suspicion in the
city. Undertaking research under these conditions was challenging especially when
trying to interview persons in authority. The security situation on ground made
movements difficult when collecting primary data.

Another challenge was the political situation at that time of undertaking fieldwork.
Elections were held in March 2015 and in the build-up there was much political
tension. The author had to reschedule interviews and focus group meetings several
times due to subsequent clashes with political rally dates and meetings. It is
important to understand that politics works very differently in Nigeria than in
Europe. For example, at political rallies people attend because they know they will
receive money from those seeking election, hence they would rather attend a rally
than be engaged in fieldwork.

Electricity and power failure was an issue during the fieldwork. For example one
focus group was moved from 2pm to 6pm at Tudun Wada to accommodate a
political rally, however not long after the discussion started there was power failure.
The research team had to look for lamps and torches so that the venue could be lit
allowing for discussion to progress.

The author noted that some residents were reluctant to participate in the research.
This was partly due to the political and security situation meaning people are
suspicious of strangers. They are also sceptical of research as residents do not see
developments and improvements within their community. Some participants said
people have been coming to do research year in year out but they do not see any
useful outcomes, hence it amounts to a waste of their time granting interviews and
responding to questionnaires. To overcome these challenges the author tried to utilise
gate keepers to get buy in from residents.

From undertaking the fieldwork it was clear the awareness of waste issues in the
community was low and this could impact on the reliability of the responses to
questionnaires. Attempts were made to clarify any points by the research team
during administration of questionnaires, however this could have inadvertently
influenced the responses. On reflection the questionnaire itself contained some
questions which were not useful and not included in analysis. Similarly the
questionnaire was conducted prior to the waste composition analysis (see Chapter 8)
and the survey contained questions on food waste prevention activity. However, it

201
was evident from the survey and from the composition that very little unavoidable
food waste was generated hence some of the questions were not needed.

For the majority of the duration of research the author was based in the UK. This
impacted on when it was possible to undertake fieldwork in Jos which was further
complicated by the security situation as described above. Some activities including
organising primary data collection, and follow up work to corroborate queries, had to
be conducted long distance.

6.4 SUMMARY
The data collected during this research shows that Tudun Wada and Jenta face a lot
of challenges to sustainable waste management. These challenges have been
categorized into four major themes: the role of government, solid waste management
practice, resource allocation and the attitude of the public towards waste.

Based on the findings from this research which include poor management of solid
waste inspite of the increasing quantity of waste being generated due to some
challenges, the author has made recommendations under three themes to address
these challenges. Some of the recommendations are long term and aspirational, and
under the existing governance system could be difficult to implement.

Part A of this research has helped the author to develop an understanding of how
waste is managed in Jos, and identified the challenges to developing the sustainable
waste management system, as well as present recommendations to address these
challenges thereby satisfying Objectives 1 and 2.

As highlighted in this research there are already limited resources to manage the
current waste levels. Given the poor existing waste management system, the
projected increases in population and waste arisings are concerning. One approach to
help address this problem is in implementing an effective waste prevention strategy.
Part B of this thesis evaluates the waste prevention options available to improve
waste management in the study area and to address some of the challenges identified.

202
PART B

7 WASTE PREVENTION
7.1 WASTE PREVENTION IN CONTEXT
Waste generation and resource shortages have long been recognized as the two
utmost challenges facing society (Hou et al. 2012). The quantity of waste currently
being generated is increasing, and the nature of waste is also changing due to
changes in society and technology (Hornweg & Bhada Tata, 2012). The products
now contain a mixture of materials such as plastics, metals and hazardous materials
that are problematic to deal with safely. The EU (2013) states that good waste
management starts with waste prevention, since what is not produced does not have
to be disposed of. As global population increases and eats away at our limited
resources, waste prevention is becoming increasingly important. Waste prevention
has been embraced in MEDCs even though Wilson et al. (2010) observed that it had
taken over 30 years to focus more seriously on waste prevention, but only now is its
significance becoming fully recognized.

In LEDCs, including Nigeria, little is being said and done about waste prevention in
spite of its increasing benefits, however reuse and recycling culture has been very
common (Abila & Kantola, 2013; Bakare, 2016; Nnaji, 2015). As presented so far
large parts of low income areas hardly receive even the most basic waste services.
Some of the benefits of waste prevention to society include reduction in the cost of
waste management, protection of the environment and public from the harmful
effects of pollutants, and promotion of resource efficiency (EC, 2013). Waste
prevention offers the best chance for reversing the current trends in waste generation
in Nigeria and other LEDCs. The funds and costs associated with waste can be
prohibitive in LEDCs however many waste prevention interventions are low to no
cost, thereby presenting effective and viable solutions. These are actions individuals
could take thereby reducing over reliance on government. Similarly there is a lack of
research in low income areas and this makes the research very important and timely.

7.2 WASTE COMPOSITION ANALYSIS

7.2.1 Introduction
Household waste analysis was conducted within the study area in order to determine
the quantity and composition of solid waste generated. The methodology used for the
waste characterisation study has been presented in Chapter 4.2.5. A weeks waste was
collected from 74 households and characterised at the Zaria Road dumpsite. Analysis
was conducted for each individual house rather than bulk analysis, therefore
generating more detailed results and analysis. Participating households also

203
completed the same questionnaire as used in Part A to collate information on their
household characteristics and waste management behaviour. The key objectives of
the study were to calculate the per capita generation rate of household waste from the
study area, to determine the composition and relative quantities of the household
waste stream, and identify priority materials for waste prevention.

7.2.2 Results and analysis

Table 32 and Figure 49 Overall waste composition of the study area by weights how
the composition of solid waste collected. The total quantity of waste generated from
the 74 households was 658.19 kg, with 466 persons residing in the households
sampled, this equates to 0.47 kg/capita/day.

Table 32 Overall composition of waste sampled by weight and percentage

Category Total waste (kg) % of waste sampled
Food 192.1 29.2
Ash/unburnt wood 121.2 18.4
Plastic films/bags 89.7 13.6
Fines 44.7 6.8
Misc. comb 32.0 4.9
Paper/card 30.8 4.7
Textile 29.2 4.4
WEEE 24.3 3.7
Glass 23.7 3.6
Metals 21.0 3.2
Others 20.6 3.1
Dense plastic 17.9 2.7
Garden waste 10.9 1.7
Total 658.2 100.0

204
 Metals Other Dense plastic Garden waste
3.2% 3.1% 2.7% 1.7%
Glass
3.6%

Food waste
WEEE
29.2%
3.7%
Textile
4.4%
Paper/card
4.7%

Misc. comb
4.9%
Ash/unburnt wood
Fines
18.4%
6.8%
Plastic films/bags
13.6%
Figure 49 Overall waste composition of the study area by weight

The largest fraction was food waste which made up 29.2% of the total waste
sampled. The food items were unprocessed with high moisture content consisting
mostly of unavoidable waste materials. Figure 50 provides examples of unavoidable
food waste sampled including bitter leaf stems, spinach stems, ogwu ribs, mango and
yam peelings.

Figure 50 Examples of food waste sampled mainly stems and peelings

Source: Image taken by author during fieldwork in 2015

Figure 51 shows the level of food waste in relation to the total waste generated for
each household. It can be seen that the levels of food waste from households varied
from 0.65 kg/household/week to 7.05 kg/household/week.

205
 30.0

25.0

20.0
kg/household/week

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

Food Other

Figure 51 Variation in food waste levels of households sampled (in relation to total waste for household) – kg/household/week

206
The percentage of ash/unburnt wood in the waste stream 18.4% reflecting the
lifestyle of the households sampled. Plastic films/bags constituted 13.6% of the
waste stream. This is due to plastic films/bags being prevalent in Nigeria to package
items from markets and shops. In addition the consumption of sachet water is
common due to the lack of good quality drinking water within the study area. In the
methods adopted all plastic films and bags were grouped together, anecdotally it is
estimated that 3/4 were single use plastic bags representing 10.2% of the overall
waste stream.

Fines, consisting of soils and dust, made up 6.8%. The level might be due to most
floors in compounds or homes not being cemented and made up of soil.

Paper/card formed 4.7% of the waste stream made up mainly of newspapers, cartons
and cardboard packaging. Textile made up 4.4% of the waste stream, the majority
was offcuts from tailoring works, as some households had tailoring shops within
their yards. Electrical and electronic waste materials were mainly broken phones and
chargers, ear phones and calculators, and constituted 3.7% of the waste stream. Glass
was 3.6% of the waste and made up of bottles, broken glass windows. 3.2% of the
waste was metals of different kinds ranging from pieces of iron bars, nails, drink
cans and pieces of roofing sheets.

Dense plastics made up of plastic bottles, plates, cups and pieces of broken buckets
and jerry cans contributed 2.7% of the waste. The low percentage of dense plastic in
the waste could be attributed to levels of reuse and recycling taking place (see Figure
44).

A wide variety of other materials were present including drugs, sanitary towels,
nappies, and hazardous items like batteries. Miscellaneous combustibles included
weave on (hair extensions) as some householders used their homes to do hair
dressing/platting. Analysis of the variation of waste components is very important,
as it helps municipalities and waste planners to plan on its management.

Table 33 shows the maximum, minimum, mean and median quantities of waste
components from households in the study area, this was for the purpose of plotting
boxplots. Figure 52 presents the boxplots of this waste components showing
maximum/minimum, mean and median values. Boxplots provide comparative data
on waste composition for the different waste groups.

Waste materials were grouped into three broad categories based on their
composition: biodegradable, recyclable and residual (see Table 33 Maximum,
minimum, mean and median quantities of waste components – kg/household/week).
65.2% of the waste was classified as biodegradable, 13.2% recyclable and 21.6%
residual. Figure 53 provides a breakdown of results for each household sampled.
Biodegradable materials in the waste stream per household ranged from 1.7 kg to

207
18.3 kg per week. The recyclable materials produced by households varied from 0.4
kg to 2.9 kg and residual waste ranged from 0.6 kg to 6.0 kg per week.
Table 33 Maximum, minimum, mean and median quantities of waste
components – kg/household/week
Kg/household/week
42
Category Classification Maximum Minimum Mean Median
Food Biodegradable 7.1 0.7 2.6 2.1
Ash/unburnt Biodegradable 4.3 0.1 1.6 1.7
wood
Plastic films/bags Residual 5.2 0.4 1.2 1.1
Garden waste Biodegradable 3.5 0.3 0.9 0.6
Fines Biodegradable 2.1 0.1 0.7 0.7
Misc. comb Residual 1.3 0.1 0.5 0.4
Paper/card Recyclable 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.4
Textile Biodegradable 1.1 0.1 0.4 0.4
WEEE Recyclable 1.2 0.1 0.4 0.3
Glass Recyclable 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.3
Others Residual 1.2 0.1 0.3 0.3
Metals Recyclable 1.1 0.1 0.3 0.3
Dense plastic Recyclable 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.2

42
It is note that for some materials there is an overlap between biodegradable and recyclable.

208
 8.0

7.0

6.0
kg/household/week

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

Figure 52 Box plots of maximum, minimum and median waste components

sampled

209
210
kg/household/week

10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0

0.0
5.0
JSK4
TWD27
JSK5
TWD11
JAD1
TWD10
TWD4
TWD19
JMK2
TWD3
TWD34
TWD24
TWD15
JTU6
JSK6
TWD5
TWD12
JAD3
TWD25
TWD20
TWD29
TWD21
TWD16
JSK7
JTU5
JTU2
TWD18
JSU2
TWD31
JTU4
JSU4
Biodegradable

JTU3
JAD4
JMN1
JSK3
JAD2
TWD7
TWD28
JSU6
Recyclable

TWD14
TWD6
JAD6
JSU1
TWD13
JSK2
TWD8
Residual

TWD17
JMK5
JTU1
JAD5
JMK1
JSU5
TWD32
JMN7
TWD9
JMN6
JAD7
JMN3
TWD30
JSU3
JMN2
TWD33
JMK6
TWD26
JMK4
TWD23
TWD2
JMN5
JMN4
TWD1
Figure 53 Composition for each household sampled based on biodegradable, recyclable and residual waste components

JTU7
TWD22
JMK3
JSK1
7.2.3 Discussion
7.2.3.1 Composition
7.2.3.1.1 Food waste
The waste composition study indicated that 29.2% of the waste is made up of food
waste consisting mainly of vegetable, fruits and other scraps resulting from food
preparation. The result differs from household waste characterisation studies carried
out in other Nigerian cities by Abur et al. (2014), Bichi & Amatobi (2013), and
Igbinomwanhia et al. (2014). Abur et al.(2014) in their study of Abuja discovered
that 52.0% and 56.2% of waste generated was food during the dry and rainy season
respectively. Bichi & Amatobi (2013) putting food waste at 57.5% in Kano with
Igbinomwanhia et al. (2014) reported 51.3% to be food waste in Amassoma in Niger
Delta. Although the percentage of food waste reported in this study falls below that
of other cities in Nigeria, it clearly shows that food waste constitutes the highest
percentage of the Jos waste stream. The total biodegradable waste was 65.2% - it
could be that there were methodological differences in this study with those cited
above, and that they included other biodegradable wastes within their food waste
category. Moreover as mentioned in Nigeria many households have businesses that
operate from home, and it could be that these other studies had higher levels of food
based businesses operating from home compared to the study area. There is variation
in other studies on the reported biodegradable waste level in Nigeria range from 50%
to 90% of the total waste (Cointreau, 1982; Nabegu, 2012; Ogwueleka, 2009; Otti,
2011) – therefore the findings from this study falls within these levels. The presence
of other waste materials will also influence the contribution of food waste to overall
arisings – for example in this study the levels of ash/unburnt wood were high.

7.2.3.1.2 Ash/unburnt wood

Ash/unburnt wood 43 constituted the second largest component in the waste stream at
18.4%. Participating households were asked to bag up their ash thereby making it
easier to analyse and not contaminate the other waste sampled. The levels were
similar to the findings of Nabegu (2010) who stated ash/dirt made up 22.5% of the
waste stream in Kano. However it is difficult to compare the level of ash and unburnt
wood with other studies because it is often grouped together with other categories.
For example Abur (2014) observed that 25.6% of waste from Abuja was made up of
‘other’ forms of waste among including ash and unburnt wood. Similarly an analysis
of household waste by Amori et al. (2013) from junior staff quarters in selected
tertiary institutions in Nigeria show that 14% of the waste stream was made up of
other wastes including ash and unburnt wood.

The high level of ash and unburnt wood at 18.4% was mainly due to low income
households being unable to afford cooking fuel such as kerosene and gas, so they use
firewood and charcoal to cook with. In addition ash is dense and tends to dominate

43
Wood that was placed on a fire but only partially set alight or fully broken down to ash.
211
the weight of the waste stream. In this research ash/unburnt wood has been included
in the biodegradable element – this was based on the work of Pasquini (2002), focus
group discussions and interview (IWMP2) which indicated that households were
using household waste ash as a fertilizer on their farms. Observations also confirmed
that household members from the study area had a habit of collecting ash from their
daily cooking with wood and spreading it on farms 44 as fertilizer. Literature
(Pasquini & Harris, 2004; Pasquini, 2006) exists on the use of household refuse and
ash waste in urban agriculture around Jos.

7.2.3.1.3 Plastics
Plastics constitute 16.3% of the total waste stream from households, comprising of
plastic films/bags (flexible plastic) (13.6%) and dense plastic (2.7%). The results
compared closely with studies carried out by Oyelola & Babatunde (2008) at
11.32%, Amori et al. (2013) at 13.0% (bags only), Bichi & Amatobi (2013) at 17.6%
in Sabongari, Kano, and Obateru (2016) 20.0% for Nigeria.

Observations show that plastics are seen littered everywhere in the study area
especially plastic bags (see Figure 54). The impacts of plastic bags include pollution,
clogging of drains and water channels thus causing flooding in urban settlements.
During collection and disposal at waste dumps, plastic bags get blown around by
wind hence littering the environment and constituting an eyesore and a source of
danger to animals when eaten. The impact of plastics on the environment and public
health in Jos has been documented by Ahovi (2017).

Plastics are displacing traditional materials used in everyday life. For example in the
past people would collect banana leaves to prepare moin moin 45. They would use the
leaves to wrap food for steaming, however for convenience people are now using
plastic films which is to the detriment of the environment because plastics are non-
biodegradable.

Dense plastic included water bottles, jerry cans, plastic buckets and plastic plates.
These were however few in quantity because observation showed that they were
highly being reused by households as can be seen in Chapter 5.4.9. In spite of the
fact that some plastics are being reused to package items, they remain a challenge to
the environment.

44
In Nigeria it is common practice for citizens to farm on available land that is not being utilised.
45
A traditional Nigerian dish made from beans that have been steamed.
212
Figure 54 Examples of plastics littering the study area
Source: Images taken by author during fieldwork in 2014/2015

7.2.3.1.4 Other materials

Materials such as electrical and electronic waste, glass, and metals made up 3.7%,
3.6%, and 3.2% of the waste respectively – again as covered in Chapter 5.4.9 there is
an established informal infrastructure in place to reuse and recycle these materials in
Jos.

7.2.3.2 Solid waste generation rates

Achi et al. (2012) used a questionnaire to derive the waste generation rate for
Abeokuta. Achi et al. stated it was however difficult to conclude an accurate value
because 58.1% of the respondents could not estimate their solid waste generation
rate, therefore an estimated value of 0.60 kg/cap/day was assumed. The approach
adopted in this study of collecting weight data and information on household size
overcame the challenge encountered by Achi et al. (2012), thereby generating a more
reliable data.
The average household size from those sampled was 6.3 46 and the generation rate
was 0.47 kg/capita/day. This is in line with World Bank data for LEDCs which is
between 0.30 to 0.60 kg/capita/day (Hoornweg and Bhada Tata, 2012). Similarly it is
comparable with other studies undertaken in Nigeria: Sha’ato (2007) obtained
0.48kg/capita/day for Makurdi, Bichi and Amatobi (2013) found 0.31 kg/capita/day
46
This compares with 5.9 persons per household from the main questionnaires presented in 5.2.3. The
median value for the sampled households was 6.0 persons per household.
213
for Kano, while Solomon (2009) had presented 0.49 kg/capita/day for average
Nigerian communities with households and commercial centres.
7.2.3.3 Factors affecting solid waste generation in households
Literature (Kayode & Omole, 2012) lists factors that could affect the characteristics
and composition of waste from households, other examples include Afroz et al.
(2010), Grover & Singh (2014), and Sivakumar & Sugirtharan (2010). Nnaji (2015)
cited factors such as time of the year, economic status, population density,
lifestyle/habits, coverage of the study in terms of time and space and seasonality
(rainy or dry season). The research method applied in the study helped to identify
some of these factors influencing waste generation rates.
7.2.3.3.1 Household Size
Household size refers to the total number of people living in a household – this was
captured from questionnaires. The average household size was found to be 6.3 this
compares with the average household size in Nigeria at 4.6 (Nigerian Demographic
and Health Survey (NDHS), 2013) while that of Jos Bukuru Metropolis was 5.5
(Knoema, 2016). This shows that the average household size for the low income
areas in Jos is higher than the national average and that of greater Jos.
As set out in Table 34 the household size varied from 1 to 15 while the median was
6.3.
Table 34 Household size and mean waste generation per capita per day
Household size Number of Average per capita generation
households rate (kg/capita/day)
3 6 0.45
4 7 0.47
5 15 0.48
6 14 0.48
7 13 0.45
8 10 0.48
9 5 0.52
10 3 0.34
15 1 0.60

It also shows the difference in the per capita waste generation rate against household
size in the study area (also see Figure 55). There seems to be no direct relationship
between household size and the average per capita waste generation rate, and the low
sample size is noted. Ogwueleka’s (2013) survey of household waste composition
and quantities in Abuja revealed no statistically significant difference between
household size and daily per capita household waste generation in low-income
group.

214
 0.7

0.6

0.5
kg/capita/day

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
3 (6) 4 (7) 5 (15) 6 (14) 7 (13) 8 (10) 9 (5) 10 (3) 15 (1)
Household size (values in brackets denote sample size)

Figure 55 Per capita waste generation rate vs household size

It is important to note that majority of the households claimed that their household
size was not stable, as family members come and go back to school, and relations
and friends also come for holidays either from the village or other parts of the
country. As mentioned in Chapter 5.2.3 the typical make up of households in the
study area is complex and it is usual to find grandparents, grown up children and
other relations making up extended family households, with only a few nuclear
families.

7.2.3.3.2 Income
The minimum wage in Nigeria is currently NGN18, 900 (£47.54) per month and
households that earn less than NGN50, 000 (£135.50) are classified as low income
households (EFInA, 2011). Responses from the questionnaire show that only 43.2%
of households sampled had an income of less than NGN50, 000 per month with
56.8% having middle to high income. As with the research in Part A (see Chapter
5.2.3), the results show that the demographics of low income areas are complex and
that they are home to middle and high income earners. Table 35 on income and
average waste generation was used to plot the relationship between waste generation
per capita and the household income (see Figure 56).

215
Table 35 Income and mean waste generation
Household Number of Average waste Category
monthly households generation rate based on
income (NGN) (kg/cap/day) EFInA (2011)
< 18,000 15 0.31 Low income
18,000 – 50,000 17 0.45 (43.2%)
50,000 - 26 0.49 Middle/high
100,000 income
100,000 – 11 0.56 (56.8%)
150,000
>150,000 5 0.70

0.8

0.7

0.6
kg/capita/day

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
< 18,000 (15) 18,000-50,00050,000-N100,000 100,000–150,000 >150,000 (5)
(17) (26) (11)
Household income - NGN/month (values in brackets denote sample size)

Figure 56 Per capita waste generation rate and household income levels

In this study there is a relationship between the quantities of solid waste generated
and level of income of the households. Figure 56 shows that households with the
highest income of more than NGN150, 000 per month had the highest per capita
daily waste generated at 0.7 kg, compared to 0.31 kg for households on less than
NGN18, 000. It can be observed that there is a consistent increase in the per capita
waste generated with increasing income. Ogwueleka (2013) associated the
consumption pattern of households to increases in income resulting in changes to the
composition and quantities of household waste generated. In a survey of household
waste composition and quantities in Abuja, Ogwuleka (2013) discovered that even a
slight increase of income caused eating patterns of people to change.

216
This study is in agreement with Hoornweg & Bhada Tata (2012), Ogwueleka (2009),
and Sivakumar & Sugirtharan (2010) that the quantity of solid waste generation
depends on the income level of households, which applies to both LEDCs and
MEDCs (Visvanathan & Trankler, 2006) including high and low income households
(Sujjaudin, 2008). The implication of income on consumption is that as the
economic situation of households improves their living standard goes up, changing
consumption patterns leading to increased waste generation. In the same manner the
increase of waste is associated with growth of GDP per capita (Shan, 2010).

7.2.3.3.3 Lifestyle related activities

Lifestyle in the context of this research refers to how citizens live their everyday life;
their actions can influence waste generation levels. Some of the lifestyle
characteristics which were observed during this research include daily cleaning,
economic activities within households, recovery of materials, and cooking and eating
habits.

Observations showed that waste resulting from business activities taking place at
households could contribute in increasing the quantity of waste produced from
households. Some households were observed to carry out business activities from
home as their main source of income. Examples included food vendors (mama put 47)
where food is prepared from home before being taken to be sold in public places. As
well as influencing food waste levels, associated waste such as ash could be
increased from escalated cooking activity. Two households (JSU7 and TWD23)
were observed to be food vendors who prepared most of their foods at home: JSU7
generated 5.45 kg/week food waste and 4.40 kg/week ash/ unburnt wood, while
TWD23 generated 6.30 kg/week food waste and 3.15 kg/week ash/unburnt wood –
this compares to median values for of the sample of 2.05 kg and 1.65 kg for food and
ash respectively.

Corn millers had milling machines in their yards where customers come with their
corn to mill and leave the chaff with the millers. JMN3 ran a corn milling enterprise,
the food waste generated from their home was 7.05 kg/week, most of all households
sampled. Other home-based business activities included having small shops,
tailoring, hairdressing, selling fire wood or charcoal, roasting yam, dodo 48 or maize,
shoe repairs, selling fruits and vegetables, and keeping poultry in homes. Further
research needs to be carried out on households that conduct these businesses in order
to determine the impact of these economic activities on waste levels.

As explained in Chapter 7.2.3.1.2, the use of firewood and charcoal as a cooking fuel
was observed with households therefore ash/unburnt wood made up 14.3% of the

47
Mama put is a Nigerian term for food vendor. It refers to women who sell food around business,
office, school or market areas.
48
Plantain.
217
waste stream. It is also a common practice in low income areas to see people using
plastics, paper or grass to ignite fires.

Domestic food making and consumption patterns would also impact on the levels of
waste. Observations indicated that some households cook once a day in the evening.
In such households, members usually leave home in the morning and buy either
‘akara’, ‘masa’, ‘akamu’, ‘moinmoin’ or ‘chinchin’ from food vendors or hawkers
for their breakfast and eat on their way. They also use ‘mama put’ or food vendors
for their lunch at their workplace, market, office or school. This would reduce the
quantity of waste generated in their homes. Direct observations revealed that the
high quantity of food waste was as a result of consuming unprocessed foods such as
yam, potatoes, vegetables and fruits, while the low content of metal waste materials
was the result of not eating canned foods or selling metals to the informal workers.

In the study area observations were made where household members were seen
sweeping their houses, yards and surroundings in the morning – this is typical in
Nigeria. This could have an effect on the waste characteristics, as all wastes resulting
from the cleaning process would enter the residual waste stream. As explained some
yards and houses had soil floors and this would impact the levels of fines present.

7.3 SUMMARY
The main findings from the waste composition study show that the waste generated
from the study area was made up of biodegradables (65.2%), recyclables (13.2%)
and residuals (21.6%). The waste materials that are of priority for prevention are the
biodegradables which could potentially be composted and used as organic fertilizer.
These materials consist of food waste, ash/ unburnt wood, fines, paper, textile and
garden waste. Those which can be reused or recycled are dense plastic, electrical and
electronic waste, glass, and metals. This means that 78.4% of the waste stream from
households of the study area could be managed through waste prevention or
recycling.

The data collected from the composition analysis was used as criteria to identify
priority waste prevention interventions for the study area. The process of identifying
these waste prevention interventions is presented in the following chapter.

218
8 WASTE PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES
8.1 AN OVERVIEW OF HOUSEHOLD WASTE
PREVENTION
From an environmental perspective, waste prevention is the preferred option for
managing waste compared to recycling, energy recovery and landfill (Cleary, 2010;
Gentil et al. 2011). Waste prevention is internationally recognised, and it is clear that
increasing waste quantities, varying waste types, and associated threats, have
intensified the necessity for governments to strongly pursue waste prevention as a
vital plan for a sustainable future (OECD, 2000).
In Europe waste prevention was identified as one of the top priorities in the EU’s 6th
Environment Action Programme (EC, 2013b). The Roadmap to a Resource Efficient
Europe recognised the need for additional efforts to reduce waste generation both per
person and in absolute terms (EU, 2013). The amendments to the European Union
Waste Framework Directive required all member states to formulate a national waste
prevention programme which aims to break the link between economic growth and
the environmental impacts associated with the generation of waste (Eionet, 2015).
However, the European Environment Agency (EEA) (2015) note that effective waste
prevention measures in some member states have not been established. There are
many grassroots and community organisations throughout Europe that are
campaigning for waste prevention such as Zero Waste Europe.
In the UK, DEFRA established the Waste and Resources Evidence Programme
(WREP) in 2003, and waste prevention was made a priority (Cox et al. 2010). For
this reason research on waste prevention was increased and many studies were
commissioned by DEFRA such as Fell et al. (2010), Sharp et al. (2010a) and Sharp
et al. (2010b).

The progress towards waste prevention has been slow. Wilson et al. (2010) specified
that it took over 30 years for MEDCs to focus more seriously on waste prevention;
nonetheless it is now considered a priority however there is still work to be done.
The Chartered Institution of Waste Management has acknowledged the important
role that prevention has to play. Bates (2016) in her inaugural Presidential Lecture
placed further emphasis on waste prevention through increased policy focus on
waste prevention and reuse. Bates said: “Although the ways in which we treat and
recycle waste are constantly improving, I am concerned that we focus too much on
these aspects of the waste hierarchy without sufficient consideration of the options at
the top, which will, I believe, be essential to delivering on a circular economy –
whatever our (UK) version of a circular economy may be”.
Waste prevention has been adopted in some LEDCs such as Argentina and Brazil
(Bortoleto, 2014). For instance, in 2005 the City Council in Buenos Aires passed

219
Integral Management of Solid Urban Waste (Goldstein, 2008). The law established
goals and milestones to reduce the volume of municipal solid waste going to landfill
for disposal. The first milestone was a 30% reduction of waste to landfill by 2010,
which was followed by a 50% reduction by 2012, and a 75% reduction by 2017. The
law prohibited landfilling of biodegradable and recyclable waste by 2020.

Whilst in Nigeria there is rich culture of reuse and recycling mainly informally,
waste prevention has received very little attention from government and wider
society. As already discussed the poor enforcement of environmental laws, and the
myriad of challenges facing municipal solid waste management could be a reason
why waste prevention has received little attention. More so that Wilson (2007)
pointed out that some countries including Nigeria are more concerned about their
survival than issues of waste management, hence waste management issues are
relegated to the background without featuring strongly on the list of public concerns.
As a result municipalities of such countries are predominantly preoccupied with
waste collection and disposal services rather than education and preventative actions.
Although it is true that the principle of waste prevention is generally acknowledged,
the practice has a long way to go in order to achieve its potential (Bortoleto, 2014).
Zorpas and Lasaridi (2013) observed that some nations struggle with the concept of
waste prevention and “understanding something that is not there”. Recycling is an
easy concept to explain as you have the materials which can be quantified, but
prevention is a harder approach to articulate. For this reason it is necessary to make
members of the public understand waste prevention and how it can positively affect
them. McAllister (2015) suggested that in order to make progress in SWM, countries
and communities would need to embrace new systems for SWM that are
participatory such as waste prevention.

8.2 IDENTIFICATION OF WASTE REDUCTION

OPPORTUNITIES
8.2.1 Development of a longlist of waste prevention initiatives
For this research a comprehensive review of global waste prevention was carried out.
For brevity and to not interrupt the flow of information, the review is included in
Appendix 6. The review was aimed at developing a long list of waste prevention
initiatives that could potentially be applied in the study area to address the waste
management challenges identified.
In Nigeria and other LEDCs poor attitude is one of the fundamental problems linked
with SWM (Ifegbesan, 2009) hence the management of waste from households is
tied to perceptions and socio-cultural beliefs and practices of residents (Banjo et al.
2009). Communication is capable of raising public awareness, perceptions and
attitudes to solid waste management (Patrick & Ferdinand, 2014). The public have
an important role to play in waste prevention; once they are educated and
220
knowledgeable their general attitude and behaviour can change towards waste, as a
result they would engage in waste prevention activities. Following the identification
of the challenges to waste management in the study area, a recommendation was to
implement waste awareness campaigns which could integrate waste prevention
messages. Therefore approaches to increasing waste awareness were included in the
interventions considered. More detail on the methodology adopted is presented in
Chapter 4. The long list was then screened and assessed against five criteria to
evaluate the applicability of the initiative for Jos:

i. Key materials in the waste stream: It is imperative that the initiatives which
address materials prevalent in the waste steam are prioritized. For example, as shown
from the waste composition analysis (see Chapter 7.2.2), targeting food waste would
have a larger impact than focusing on metals.

ii. Quick wins: For waste prevention to gain impetus it is important to consider its
ease of implementation. This includes waste prevention initiatives that have fast,
immediate impacts so that the public can see the benefits and be encouraged.

iii. Economically viable: It is important that a waste prevention intervention is

economically viable. The more affordable a waste preventive activity is, the more
feasible it would be for Jos.

iv. Building on what already exists: As identified there is already a lot of reuse and
recycling of waste taking place by individuals and the informal sector in Jos. This is
mainly on a local scale since government is not involved. Communities need to be
recognized and supported to build on the good work they have started. Money and
effort has already been invested by the informal sector and they have become experts
in the topic. It is important that interventions can build on what already exists.

v. Likelihood of the initiative working in Jos (Applicability to Nigeria): Not all

interventions identified might be applicable to Jos. This might be due to cultural
differences, the material the initiative tackles, the economic/political context, and the
resources needed.

Each waste prevention initiative was graded against the 5 criteria. If the initiative
fulfilled the criteria it scored 2 (green), if it partly fulfilled the criteria it scored 1
(amber) and if it did not fulfil the criteria it scored 0 (red).

Table 36 displays the long list of waste prevention initiatives, a brief explanation of
what it entails and an evaluation on the applicability of each intervention against the
5 criteria described. The total score for each intervention was summed, initiatives
ranked based on the total score, and an explanation provided on if it was shortlisted.
The initiatives are presented in order under the following themes: 1-2 strategies for
biodegradable waste, 3-9 reuse interventions, 10-15 awareness raising programmes
and 16-17 governance.
221
Table 36 List of waste prevention initiatives
Waste prevention initiatives 1. Key materials in 2. Quick wins 3. Economically viable 4. Building on what 5. Likelihood of the Score Shortlist?
the waste stream already exists initiative working in Jos
1. Home composting - Composting at 2 - Based on the 1 - On one hand there is 1 - This depends on the 1- Some limited evidence 2 - Very applicable as can 7 Y - Shortlisted due to the levels of
home by residents. This could be composition analysis the immediate benefit approach adopted i.e. if of composting in the be adopted at a household compostable material in the waste
through a composter they build 65.2% of the waste of waste being diverted, households make their community (5.2% based level and handles much stream therefore having a
themselves or a pre-moulded unit. The was biodegradable however it will take a own units or if fabricated on the questionnaire) of the waste stream significant impact on waste
output would be compost that could be and much could be number of months units are made available. identified. diversion.
used for growing food or flowers. composted. before the compost is Costs would also be
Based on the composition analysis produced incurred due to training.
65.2% of the waste was biodegradable
and much could be composted.
2. Community composting - 2 - Based on the 1 - On one hand there is 1 - Costs needed to 1- Some limited evidence 2 - Very applicable as can 7 Y - Shortlisted due to the levels of
Composting practiced at a community composition analysis the immediate benefit resource the intervention of composting in the be adopted at a compostable material in the waste
level. 65.2% of the waste of waste being diverted, - for example preparation community on larger community level and stream therefore having a
was biodegradable however it will take a of the land, and scale on farms handles much of the significant impact on waste
and much could be number of months equipment. There could waste stream identified. diversion and the potential for
composted. before the compost is potentially be income income generation.
produced though this generated through
would be quicker than compost sales.
home composting.
3. Reusable Nappies - Cotton nappies 0 - Very few 0 - As households 0 - This could be 2 - Further promotion 2 - Already working in 4 N - Reusable nappies already
can be washed and reused over again in disposable nappies in already use reusable expensive to administer would build upon existing Jos. prevalent in Jos.
preference to disposable nappies the waste stream as nappies. in purchasing nappies practice in the
households already plus an unnecessary use community.
use washable nappies of funds as nappies were
made from cotton not identified as being a
squares. problem.
4. Reusable shopping bags - Reusable 2 – Single use plastic 2 - Immediate benefits 1 - This would require the 1- The questionnaire 1 - The scheme could 7 Y - Shortlisted due to the number
bags in place of single use plastic bags bags made up 10.2% cutting down on plastic support of government (24.3%)/focus group work in Jos but as in of plastic bags in the waste stream
for shopping. At present in Nigeria of the waste stream. bag use. and businesses to make results indicated that other countries where and littering the community
single use plastic bags are given away In addition plastic bags available for free or some householders were similar initiatives have
freely to customers. bags were noted to subsidised to make them reusing plastic bags been implemented could
be littering the accessible. already (however this require government or
community. could have been to business intervention.
dispose of waste). There are also
perceptions of citizens in
regards to reusing
bags/liking free bags
every time they go
shopping.

222
Waste prevention initiatives 1. Key materials in 2. Quick wins 3. Economically viable 4. Building on what 5. Likelihood of the Score Shortlist?
the waste stream already exists initiative working in Jos
5. Shops selling used products - Shops 1 - Due to the type of 0 - As presented in the 1- This would involve 2 - There are many 2 - Already working in 6 N - Although this intervention
selling second hand products that might initiative a wide results there is already a entrepreneurs setting up examples already in Jos. would have benefits it mimics
have been repaired or reused. These are range of materials rich culture of reuse businesses which would place. what is already in situ.
varied and could include everyday could be handled. and repairing in Jos, incur costs.
items, furniture through to building and Nigeria per se.
materials.
6. Refillable water bottles - Rather 2 - Lots of plastic 2 - Immediate benefits 0 - Significant economic 1 - Observations from the 1 - As mentioned a 6 N - Whilst this intervention has
than using water in single use water sachets present
cutting down on plastic implications. Outlay community show that barrier would be the promise as outlined a key issue is
packaging - be it plastic bottles or in the waste stream bag use. would be required from some residents are accessibility of water to providing the infrastructure for
sachets, households are given a reusable (these would be government/business to already reusing bottles. refill bottles. secure water supply.
container which can be filled up from included in the make bottles available for
taps. plastic bag/film free or at a subsidised
category). rate. However a more
pressing issue the
availability of water -
90% of people require
boreholes or wells for
water. There is not a
secure supply of water or
taps in public spaces
hence the reliance on
water contained in
sachets.
7. Rechargeable batteries - The use of 0 - Batteries were 0 - Very few batteries 1 – Rechargeable 1 - 9.2% of residents 1- This could work 3 N - A good idea in principle
rechargeable batteries in preference to included in the in the waste stream, batteries could be stated that they reused however there would however restricted due to the costs
disposable batteries. hazardous category there would be limited subsidised by the batteries - however it is need to be subsidy of the incurred and poor power
in the composition impact. government to make likely this would be rechargeables to make infrastructure of Jos.
analysis and made up them more accessible to referring to mobile them accessible.
less than 1% of the households, however this phones rather than Moreover there is
waste stream. could require significant household batteries. unreliable power supply
However it is noted expenditure. which could impact on
that batteries would Rechargeables are more the viability of recharging
be generated expensive than batteries - thereby
infrequently. disposables and therefore citizens could prefer to
rarely used. use disposables for
reliabilty.

223
Waste prevention initiatives 1. Key materials in 2. Quick wins 3. Economically viable 4. Building on what 5. Likelihood of the Score Shortlist?
the waste stream already exists initiative working in Jos
8. Online material exchanges - Online 1 - Due to the type of 1 - Potentially however 1 - Typically set up by 1 - There are already 1 - This is already 5 N - Online exchanges already
exchanges which promote reuse of initiative, a wide not all residents will private many examples of online working in Jos. work in Jos, and more widely in
goods directly (or indirectly). range of materials have internet access. businesses/entrepreneurs. exchanges in Nigeria e.g. Nigeria. Combined with the shops
could be addressed. OLX. selling second hand products, it is
likely that most products of value
are already being reused/sold. It is
also likely that low income
households would have very
limited internet access.

9. Clothing reuse - There are multiple 0 - Textiles made up 0 - It would have very 2 - Cheap as it is 2 - Already a rich 1 - This is already 5 N - The reuse of clothing is
ways in which old clothing can be 4.5% of the waste little impact due to the undertaken by the infrastructure in place for working in Jos. already prevalent in Jos therefore
reused: donations to charities, passing stream - however levels of clothing. individual. the reuse of clothing. any initiative will have minimal
down to family members, using old most of the textiles impact.
clothing to make new clothes or were offcuts from
products, selling. tailoring operating
from home rather
than garments that
could have been
reworn.
10. No junk mail promotion - No junk 0 - Although 0 - It would have very 2 - Cheap to introduce 0 - No such initiatives. 0 - Unlikely due to the 2 N - The initiative does not transfer
mail campaigns are popular in MEDCs Paper/card made up little impact due to the with minimal costs. limited junk mail in well from MEDCs as there is
due to the amount of unsolicited 4.6% of the waste levels of junk mail. circulation, postal system. limited junk mail in circulation
mail/leaflets posted through the letter stream most of this Moreover households and most households do not have
box. Campaigns typically would was not junk mail but do not have letter boxes letter boxes.
involve householders placing 'no junk newspapers or and receive mail
mail' stickers on their letter box. packaging. typically through
institutions or have post
boxes.
11. General waste prevention 1 - Due to the type of 1 - This depends on the 1 - This depends on the 0 - No examples of such 1 - As with Eco-Schools 4 Y - Although not ranking higher
campaign - This is the generic term for initiative, a wide type of initiative form of campaign in initiatives in Jos. The last there is a lot of potential for any waste prevention scheme
campaigns which aim to increase range of materials including which terms of approaches used waste education however this depends on to succeed there needs to be wider
awareness of the problems and impacts could be addressed. materials are being to deliver messages, programmes in Jos were the resources available awareness of waste issues.
associated with waste and encourage targeted and the form of partners involved, and the in 2000. and the strategic approach Therefore it was shortlisted in
waste prevention. This could be campaign. geographic reach of the adopted. order to get input from focus
delivered through a wide range of campaign. group members on how such an
activities including workshops, tv and approach could be implemented in
radio adverts and literature. Jos.

224
Waste prevention initiatives 1. Key materials in 2. Quick wins 3. Economically viable 4. Building on what 5. Likelihood of the Score Shortlist?
the waste stream already exists initiative working in Jos
12. Promote smart shopping - This 1 - Smart shopping is 1 - Very few targeted 1 - This would require 0 - No examples of such 0 - Schemes need the 3 N - Whilst smart shopping
encourages people to think when they fairly generic materials present in the government/NGO initiatives in Jos. support of government promotions are popular in MEDCs
go shopping to reduce levels of waste.however it waste stream. involvement which and NGOS - moreover they are addressing issues not
For example buying products with less predominantly would incur costs. focusing specifically on necessarily applicable to Jos i.e.
packaging and only buying food that isfocuses on packaging smart shopping does not food waste and packaging.
needed. and food waste. The address key issues
composition analysis prevalent in Jos.
highlighted that there
was limited
packaging in the Jos
waste stream and the
food waste that was
generated was largely
unavoidable
(peelings etc.).
13. Food waste awareness schemes - 1- Whilst food waste 1 - For the reasons 1 - This depends on the 0 - No examples of such 1 - The initiative could 4 N- Most food waste in Jos is
Due to levels of avoidable food waste is prevalent in the stated this would have form of campaign in initiatives in Jos. work but would have unavoidable and as such this
dedicated food waste campaigns such waste stream at limited impact. The terms of approaches used limited impact. intervention would have limited
as 'Love Food Hate Waste' are popular 29.0%, the majority residents waste little to deliver messages and impact. However as Nigeria
in MEDCs. These provide guidance to of this was avoidable food. use of community develops longer term such an
householders on how to reduce waste unavoidable such as partners. initiative could become more
through purchasing, and food peelings, bones, relevant.
management in the home through stems.
correct storage, using food before it
goes off and recipes encouraging the
use of leftovers.
14. Eco-Schools - Eco-Schools is an 1 - Due to the type of 1 - This is a longer term 1 - It requires 0 - No examples of such 1 - The initiative has 4 Y - Although not ranking higher,
international initiative which promotes initiative, a wide strategy that requires government investment initiatives in Jos. much promise and could as with the 'general waste
sustainability and environmental issues range of materials planning and and resources including facilitate broader prevention campaigns' there needs
with children. The philosophy is that could be addressed. implementation. the training of teachers. behaviour change across to be wider awareness of waste
children subsequently influence the the community in Jos. issues. Therefore Eco-Schools was
behaviour of their family and peers. However as addressed shortlisted in order to get input
would require suitable from focus group members on
resourcing. how such an approach could be
implemented in Jos. Moreover as
identified in the questionnaire, in
34.5% of households surveyed
children were responsible for
managing waste. Therefore
educating children could have a
positive and wider impact in the
community.

225
Waste prevention initiatives 1. Key materials in 2. Quick wins 3. Economically viable 4. Building on what 5. Likelihood of the Score Shortlist?
the waste stream already exists initiative working in Jos
15. Waste prevention directory - A 1 - Due to the type of 1- Uncertain however1 - Due to the power 0 - No directory already 1 - A directory could 4 N - It is likely that residents would
directory of waste prevention initiative, a wide the information would
issues and very few exists. work. already know of initiatives in the
interventions and initiatives in the local range of materials need to be compiled.residents having access to community and as such the
community - either hosted on the could be addressed. the internet, a hard copy directory could have limited
internet or as a hardcopy. would need to be impact or become out dated
produced which has quickly. Anecdotal evidence
economic implications. suggests that residents might not
Moreover there would be even look at it.
costs compiling the
directory.
16. Establish waste minimisation 1 - Due to the type of 0 - As highlighted there 2. No financial 0 - As presented there is a 0 - As explained there is a 3 N - Premature for such targets due
targets - Some countries have set waste initiative, a wide are more pending waste implications setting lack of existing strategy general lack of strategy at to the poor existing strategy and
minimisation targets to encourage range of materials management problems targets. to address waste issues. present. system in place. Setting such
initiatives to reduce waste. could be addressed. in Jos and there is not targets would be meaningless and
reliable data to measure due to the lack of reliable data
progress against. progress would not be able to be
measured.

17. Restricting volumes - In some 1 - Due to the type of 0 - Due to the existing 0 - The resources already 0 - The existing waste 0 - As explained this 1 N - This approach seems to work
countries local authorities set limits on initiative, a wide waste management are limited, therefore the management system is would not work due to well MEDCs but is unrealistic for
how much waste households can put range of materials system in place, and additional resources poor and there are no the existing system. Jos.
out for collection e.g. the number of could be addressed. limited resources, required for enforcement existing limits.
bags or size of bin. This encourages implementation of such would be unlikely.
residents to reduce their waste in order an intervention is
for their waste to be collected. unrealistic.

226
After assessing the long list of waste prevention interventions the following shortlist
of five initiatives were chosen:

• Home composting
• Community composting
• Reusable bags
• Eco-Schools programme
• General waste prevention campaign

8.2.1.1 Home composting

Home composting refers to composting by citizens at home (Open BIO, 2014). It is
considered as a waste prevention method at source (European Week of Waste
Reduction (EWRR), 2014; Harris 2012), and is one of the most rewarding and
popular prevention methods. Literature frequently mentions home composting as a
waste prevention activity (Cox et al. 2010; EC 2012) since biodegradable waste is
treated at the point of origin and diverted from being collected and disposed. Many
local authorities in MEDCs have established home composting schemes to
encourage individual homeowners to compost their own organic waste. In Europe
home composting is widely practiced in Belgium, France, Finland, Germany,
Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the UK (Boldrin, 2009; Colon et al. 2010; European
Bioplastics, 2013; European Compost Network (ECN) 2014; Gray & Toleman,
2014; and Sollod, 2013).

WRAP has been promoting home composting in England and Scotland since 2003
and has published many studies providing estimates of the quantity of biodegradable
waste diverted. WRAP (2009) established that home composting can divert 150 kg
per household per year of organic waste from disposal. WRAP also estimate that
about 40% of an average waste bin content is suitable for composting, thereby
helping to cut down on the quantity of waste collected. Research by Cox et al. (2006)
suggest that the public’s behaviour is more likely to be influenced by fellow
members of their community rather than the council. There are many examples of
initiative where members of the public are trained on how to compost, and then they
offer support and offer advice to households in their community. For example in
Flanders, Belgium over 4,000 Masters of Compost have been trained up over the
past 15 years. It is estimated 52% of households’ in Belgium compost and the
Masters of Compost offer assistance. In West Sussex the Waste Prevention Advisor
scheme has been running since 2006 where similar advice is offered, not just on
composting, but waste prevention in general (Woodard, personal communication, 8th
August 2015).

Home composting exists in LEDCs though not as common as in MEDCs. UNEP

(2005) reviewed sustainable consumption and production in Africa and reports that
home composting has been in operation in Benin, Cameroon, Kenya, Ghana and

227
South Africa. However the practice is often localised on a small scale rather than
being widely adopted thereby having an insignificant impact on waste levels across a
jurisdiction (UNEP, 2005). Moreover anecdotal evidence suggests that home
composting in some of these countries is conducted in more affluent areas rather
than low income areas. For example in South Africa it is common to see
prefabricated home composting units in use, but these rarely seen in low income
parts of the country (Woodard, personal communication, 16th July 2015).

The raw materials which are appropriate for home composting from the household
waste stream include vegetable and fruit waste and yard waste such as leaves, grass
and cuttings (Hoornweg et al. 1999). All of these biodegradable materials are freely
found in municipal waste generated in LEDCs.

One of the principal advantages of home composting is that the point of waste
generation is also the point of management since the compost produced is used
directly by the producer. Encouraging residents to participate in home composting
schemes has major potential advantages. It provides the householder with the
opportunity and motivation to take responsibility for their own waste and potentially
offers an effective method of diverting biodegradable matter from dumpsites or
landfills thus reducing methane emissions. It is the lowest cost alternative for
reducing the amount of waste produced at source, since the waste does not have to
incur collection and transportation cost to centralized facilities. It also removes
biodegradable materials from people's bins, thus keeping the rest of the rubbish
cleaner and easier to recycle. It reduces the need for chemical fertilizers, enriches
soil moisture content and supplies essential nutrients, and reduces erosion (Bell &
Platt, 2014; Boldrin, 2009; Colon et al. 2010; ECN, 2014; EPA, 2016; Platt, 2016;
Platt & Goldstein, 2014; Slater et al. 2010; Sollod, 2013).

8.2.1.2 Community or Decentralized Composting

Slater et al. (2010) observed that community composting (or decentralized
composting) involves collecting biodegradable waste from households and
composting it at a neighbourhood or communal level by a group of people at a
relatively low cost. It is an extension of home composting and it deals with the
waste as close as possible to the source of its production. This approach is suitable
for households, shop owners, schools and others, who are interested in composting
but have limited space to compost, but instead use public spaces or community
gardens to compost. WRAP (2017) encourages this type of composting especially
where home composting is not viable due to spatial constraints. This approach is
different to centralised composting which is done on a larger scale, is more
mechanized and capital intensive, and is typically undertaken for economic reasons
to produce compost to generate revenue.

This type of composting arrangement could be supported by local government

through land provision, helping with start-up costs, public education, while using the
228
compost in public spaces. Community composting is one of the most sustainable
ways of managing organic waste because of the environmental, economic, social and
personal benefits (Ali, 2004; Kibbler, 2007). The compost produced is often used by
households participating in the scheme, hence closing the loop of waste generation
and use. UNEP (1996) mentions that care should be taken to ensure that the
composting operation is environmentally and socially acceptable. They suggest some
requirements when developing such as sites including making the site accessible to
all individuals who use it, the site is approved by the local community, it has
adequate controls to prevent the site from becoming an area for local dumping, and
having appropriate drainage to accommodate the leachate.

According to Dohogne (undated) there are many examples of community

composting programme in Europe. For instance in 2008, 69 active community
composting parks were in operation in Flanders extending over 46 local authorities.
Zürich began a comprehensive community composting scheme in 1992 and by 2008
there were more than 900 active community composting sites. These sites exist in all
forms and sizes, ranging from smaller initiatives with 2–10 participating families, to
bigger initiatives where over a 100 families participate. Hundreds of community
compost sites exist in New York City with 225 of these affiliated with New York
City Community Composting (NYCCP) (2014). Community composting can create
jobs, develop skills transfer and helps to protect the local area (Platt et al. 2013). It
brings members of the community together and reduces the cost of managing waste.

In terms of community composting in LEDCs there is a legacy in India since the

1990s where small scale composting sites have been in operation with various levels
of successes. The projects were initiated by communities, NGOs, community-based
organizations, or motivated individuals and supported by international funds (Ali,
2004). The National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA, 2015) compiled a collection
of good practice in urban solid waste management in Indian cities including
examples of decentralized composting in Bangalore, Chennai, Pune, and Mumbai.
Zurbrügg et al. (2004) specified that 17 community composting sites were in
operation in these cities as of 2002. These composting operations were often carried
out on vacant plots within the communities. Studies have documented practice in
other LEDCs, for example Lardinois and van der Klundert (1993) in Brazil, Kinobe
et al. (2010) in Uganda, Enayetullah et al. (2006) in Bangladesh, and Jaza (2005),
Jaza (2008) in Cameroon.

UNEP (2005) reviewed waste reduction in Africa and also in Nigeria and reported
that in addition to home composting, community composting has been in operation
in Benin, Cameroon, Kenya, Ghana and South Africa. In Nigeria, Jaza (2008)
recounted that subsistence farmers have usually depended on community composting
and livestock manure to improve soils. For instance the Ibo’s use tree branches for

229
mulching, apply goat or cow dung to individual plants, and have been composting
household waste since the 1970s.

8.2.1.3 Reusable bags

A reusable shopping bag is a type of bag which can be reused numerous times and
used as a substitute for single use plastic bags. It can be produced from a variety of
materials such as canvas, jute, or heavy plastic which are stronger than single use
plastic bags. This type of bag is at times called a Bag for Life in the UK and their use
is encouraged due to the numerous benefits that they bring (Future Centre Trust,
2010). Guidelines on how to safely use these bags and prevent the contamination of
food products have been developed by the California Department of Public Health
(CDPH) (Undated) while similarly Williams et al. (2011) recommends that the
public are educated on the proper use of reusable bags. Literature has shown that an
average EU citizen uses about 500 plastic bags each year of which 92.5% are single
use plastic bags (EC, 2014). The majority of European citizens (92%) agree that
measures should be taken to reduce the use of single-use plastic items, such as
shopping bags. According to Zero Waste (2016) over 100 billion single use plastic
bags are utilized annually in Euro-centres and most end-up in landfills, incinerators
or litter in communities and aquatic environments.

A number of nations and cities across the world have taken steps to lessen the use of
single use plastic bags, including outright bans, bans on free provision, levies, as
well as voluntary agreements. Examples include England, Hong Kong, Japan,
Mexico, New Zealand, Sao Paolo in Brazil and South Korea (Strange, 2011). Some
EU countries such as Italy (since 2011), France, Denmark, and Spain have already
banned the use of single use plastic bags in preference for reusable plastic bags.

In LEDCs there are numerous examples of initiatives to promote the reduction of

plastic bags. Iwuoha (2016) found that over 15 countries across Africa either ban or
tax the use of single use plastic bags. For instance Rwanda in 2004 barred shops
from giving out free plastic bags to their customers. The government introduced tax
opportunities which inspired companies to recycle instead of manufacturing plastic
bags. This created a new business opportunity for entrepreneurs to produce
alternative shopping bags made from environment-friendly and biodegradable
materials, like paper. In 2013, Mauritania banned the use, manufacture and import of
plastic bags, and anyone who manufactures plastic bag could be jailed for up to a
year (Iwuoha, 2016). Similarly in 2015, Senegal’s National Assembly totally
prohibited the production, import, possession and use of plastic shopping bags.
Iwuoha (2016) stated that Yaounde in Cameroon charge 100 Francs (8 pence) for
single use bags. Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Ethiopia and Malawi are among countries that
have limited the use of plastic shopping bags, and are encouraging the use of
reusable bags in its place. In Kenya the ban on use, manufacture and importation of
plastic bags took effect on August 28th, 2017 (Akwei, 2017). It is the third initiative

230
Kenya has taken in ten years to reduce bag use. In both 2007 and 2011 policy
focused on reducing the thickness of the bags. However this was not very successful
and problems with plastic bags impacting on the environment continued. Kenya’s
2017 Environment Manufacturers and Co-ordination Act stipulates that a culprit
faces not less than a year in prison or a fine of not less than Shillings 2 million
($19,305) with the government vowing to enforce the law to ensure that the ban is
fully implemented.

There has also been much lobbying of governments. For example Environment
Watch in Botswana called upon the government to enforce a levy on plastic bags. It
urged the government to use the proceeds to fund environmental activities in order to
create a cleaner Botswana, while reducing the use of plastic bags. The “Kicking the
Bags Out” campaign in Zambia pushed for a plastic bag ban across Zambia
principally due to the impact plastic bags were having on blocking drains (Zero
Waste Europe, 2015).

The promotion of reusable bags would present Jos with a low cost opportunity to
increase diversion of waste from the waste stream and also to address some of
environmental challenges posed by plastic bags in the community.

8.2.1.4 Eco-Schools Programme

The Eco-Schools programme is referred to as Green-Schools in Nigeria and some
other countries (Elusoji, 2015). It is recognised by United Nations Educational
Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (2014) through the award of
certificates to thousands of schools around the world. Through Eco-Schools
students, teachers, parents, and the local community learn how to improve and
safeguard the environment (UNESCO, 2014). The National Wildlife Federation
(NWF, 2016) has enumerated the many benefits of Eco-Schools. The scheme
educates in order to protect the environment and the people who live in it, including
the communities who depend on it, the businesses that profit from it and the
ecologies which rely on it. Eco-Schools is an important initiative to inspire young
people to get involved with the environment and address environmental challenges
and extends from nursery schools to universities.

Across the world Eco-Schools engages with millions of students from 49,000
schools in 64 different countries, making it the biggest environmental schools
programme in the world, (Eco-School, 2016). It was launched in 1994 in response to
the 1992 UN Rio Earth Summit and is operated by the Foundation for Environmental
Education (FEE) who partner with UNEP and UNESCO.

The Eco-Schools programme exists mostly in MEDCs. For example in England the
Eco-Schools programme supports schools to deliver effective environmental
education for sustainability, as well as acting as a catalyst for positive behaviour
change that flows out beyond the confines of the school, into pupils’ homes and the
231
wider community (Eco-Schools England, 2013). It introduces environmental topics
into the National Curriculum in schools and helps to develop a creative learning
environment for all learners involved. It also helps the pupils to understand the ways
in which different issues are linked together, for instance the connections between
transport and pollution and climate change. An important element is waste and ways
in which to reduce waste and recycle.

When FEE became an international foundation in 2001, its scope increased to

outside of Europe. LEDC countries that became part of Eco-Schools programme
include South Africa and Kenya in 2003, Uganda in 2009, Ghana in 2014 and
Tanzania in 2016. In South Africa, the Wildlife and Environment Society of South
Africa (WESSA) are responsible for the programme, and since 2003 more than
10,229 schools across all nine provinces have participated, reaching 400,000
students and 16,000 teachers (WESSA, 2017). The Kenya Organisation for
Environmental Education (KOEE) manage the initiative in Kenya with 210 schools
involved. In Uganda 377 schools are involved and the scheme is operated by
Conservation Efforts for Community Development (CECOD).

It is a widely held view that children and young people’s participation in Eco-
Schools can have a positive contribution to the school and community in a number
of ways (Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) 2008). For instance
Grodzinska-Jurczak et al. (2003) conducted research on the impact of a school waste
education programme on students’, parents’ and teachers’ environmental knowledge,
attitudes and behaviour. The focus was on primary school students aged 11– 13 in
Krakow, Poland and lasted for four months. At the end of the programme the
students together with their parents and teachers were surveyed using questionnaires.
Findings generally revealed that the programme improved student knowledge and
awareness of municipal waste management, with three quarters of the students
sharing their learning outcomes with their parents. The majority of parents (84.5%)
testified that the programme was very valuable and confirmed frequent family
discussions which often led to a change in household attitudes and improved waste
management practices in their homes. Teachers also evaluated the programme
positively, recommending its implementation in school curricula at all stages of
education as an ideal solution to the national waste management problem. Ballantyne
et al. (2001) had made such similar discovery.

There is evidence that the approach can have wider societal benefits. According to
UNESCO (2017) a school in Uganda worked on the Water Theme of the Eco-
Schools programme. As part of the programme they received a grant from Denmark,
allowing them to buy large tanks to collect rainwater. This helped to improve the
sanitary conditions at the school, so that the girls could have showers. Moreover the
school acted as a hub for the community with excess water being made available to
families in the community, thereby reducing the need to source water from the local

232
river, typically undertaken by women. It is estimated this saved these women 2 hours
per day thereby allowing them additional time to work or make crafts to sell. The
parents in surrounding community were inspired and set up an Eco Parents
Association and began building and installing water tanks at homes. In 2011 only
25% of girls continued schooling after the age of 11/12 years but now 75% continue
their studies and this has been largely attributed to the actions resulting from Eco-
Schools (UNESCO, 2017).

There are limited examples of the Eco-Schools programme in Nigeria. The Caleb
British Academy, a privately owned, co-educational day and boarding Christian
School founded in 2009, held a day of action as part of the Green Schools
Programme, in conjunction with the Lagos State Ministry of Environment (Elusoji,
2015). The theme for the event was ‘Preserving our green heritage’ and featured a
variety of presentations, drama, songs and a quiz on climate change. The event
launched ‘The Anti-Litter Police Squad’ which is an initiative to tackle the waste
problem in the community. Caleb British Academy's vision is to empower children
everywhere to live sustainably and in an environmentally conscious manner. Unlike
in other countries the author understands the Eco-Schools programme in Nigeria is
decentralized, there is no overall coordinating body, and this was a barrier to finding
more examples of the scheme being implemented.

The Eco-Schools programme when adopted in Nigeria could result in improvements

to students’ and parents’ attitudes and behaviour towards the environment. The
involvement of parents in discussing environmental issues with their children could
encourage them to take a more active role in their children’s environmental
education, hence contributing to the development of long-term environmental
awareness and concern (Meucci & Schwab, 1997; Palmer et al. 1999).

8.2.1.5 Public awareness campaigns on waste prevention

One tool commonly used to stimulate behaviour change is public awareness
campaigns (United States Government Accountability Office (USGAO), 2010). A
public awareness campaign has been defined as a comprehensive effort that includes
multiple components (Bouder, 2013). It is about explaining issues and disseminating
knowledge to people so that they can understand and make their own decisions.
Usually, a campaign strives to raise awareness about key issues, and induce desired
positive behavioural change (Coffman, 2002; Zacho & Mosgaard, 2016).

Waste prevention depends on changes in the attitudes and behaviour of households

and businesses and on new paradigms in industrial processes and product design
(EC, 2012). Therefore, public awareness campaigns targeted at individuals and
businesses could bring about a positive change to waste prevention. This research
shall focus on campaigns that target individual behaviour, with the aim to prompt
individuals, including those in positions of authority, to change their knowledge,

233
attitude and practices in relation to SWM. Changes in behaviour could contribute to
embracing waste prevention, thereby reducing waste levels and safeguarding the
public from the impact of solid waste on the environment and public health.
However, public awareness campaigns can sometimes be limited in scope and
impact – they might not reach all parts of the community. Therefore Barr et al.
(2013) and Fell et al. (2010) support the use of stiffer actions such as fiscal and
regulatory measures.

Public awareness campaigns have been used globally to help people understand
waste prevention and to reduce the generation of specific types of waste. For
instance public awareness campaigns can be used to change people’s mind set and
attitude from waste disposal towards waste prevention. A wide range of approaches
and tools could be adopted as part of a public awareness campaign. For example
radio jingles, television commercials, stories on the news, public service
announcements, leaflets, and stands in public spaces, social media, face to face
engagement and freebies.

In the UK in 2009, a one week high profile campaign by Gloucestershire Zero Waste
focused on the reduction of waste. During the challenge residents reduced their
waste to landfill by an average of 3.8 kg per household, with most residents
achieving a 50% drop in the amount of waste they produced (Defra, 2013). This was
achieved with a campaign budget of around £25,000. It was projected that if this
were to be replicated by all households in the county it would have the equivalent
effect of Gloucestershire meeting their 2020 60% recycling target 49. Public
awareness campaigns to reduce waste generation are already operating successfully
in Europe and abroad (EC, 2016), hence it is sustainable. The Helsinki Metropolitan
Area Council in Finland used a range of measures such as waste prevention
education and public awareness campaigns, as well as low-cost incentives to reduce
waste from households, businesses, and local authorities. The results of the
investigation show that the campaign helped to change attitudes towards waste and
increased behaviours with respect to waste prevention (EC, 2016).

In LEDCs there are examples of public awareness campaigns on waste and

environmental issues per se. The African Youth Union (AYU) is a Pan-African
youth organisation that has the largest youth representation in Africa, and it launched
the AYU Green Campaign in 2014 (African Youth Union, Undated). It provides
young people with knowledge to protect Africa’s natural resources and environment.
For example waste management can locally impact of public health but also have
global implications through climate change. It is vital that youths are empowered
with knowledge to take action and inspire their fellow youth to be agents of positive
change in their communities in order to save and protect the climate. The Green
49
Reduced residual waste levels would increase the proportion of waste being recycling.
234
Campaign has increased the number of climate change literate people in Africa and
has inspired people to go green. Currently over 30 African countries with 12
recognized chapters are involved in Green Campaigns.

A study of the perception on domestic waste disposal in Ijebu Ode, Nigeria by Banjo
et al. (2009) revealed that public awareness campaigns through radio and television
were the most obtainable, accessible and the most effective sources of environmental
information. Their study exposed the effectiveness of mass media in creating
awareness about public health and environmental issues. The study found that radio
and television have extensive geographic coverage and at a relative low-cost.
Ojelede (2016) and Rada (2016) suggest that public awareness on the environment
should be increased through public campaigns and education so that public
participation in SWM will improve.

8.2.2 Focus groups

The five shortlisted interventions were considered for more in depth evaluation using
focus groups with PEPSA representatives and householders from within the study
area community. The focus groups were facilitated by the author and the
methodology adopted is presented in Chapter 4.2.8.2.

The first group with PEPSA had eight people in attendance. The participants were
selected based on their relevance and knowledge of the subject and all the
participants had been staff of PEPSA for at least 2 years. The session was held on
Thursday the 21st of January 2016 at the office of PEPSA and it lasted from 2.00-
4.00pm.

The second focus group discussion was held with residents who are householders
from the study area on 23rd of January 2016 at Wakili School of Business Studies in
Tudun Wada. This group had seven people in attendance, and were identified and
recruited by the pastor from ECWA Church Tudun Wada. The session was held from
5.00-7.00pm.

Both focus groups started with the author welcoming the participants and thanking
them for coming to the meeting, thereafter introducing herself and giving the
participants’ time to introduce themselves. The author went on introduce the topic of
discussion and explain the reasons for the discussion. The participants were
presented with a list of 5 waste prevention initiatives; each of the initiatives were
introduced and explained. In addition the waste composition from the study area was
introduced and displayed as it partially formed the basis on which the stakeholders
were going to make their choices. Thereafter participants were requested to ask
questions or seek clarifications on areas that they did not understand. The
participants were requested to examine the list of waste prevention opportunities that
had been presented and placed before them, and give their views and opinions on
each initiative. Ketso and SWOT were integrated into the focus groups (see Chapter

235
4.2.8.2). Participants were asked to determine the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of each waste prevention initiative with each
theme recorded on different coloured paper: green for strengths, yellow for
weakness, blue for opportunities and red for threats. The results were collated and
analysed.

8.2.3 Results
A summary of the key points raised for each initiative are presented in the sections
below under each SWOT and illustrated in Figure 57 to Figure 61. Where applicable
statements or information from individual participants are included and coded
FGDWPIP – from the PEPSA focus group and FGDWPIH from households with the
number denoting the participant number. Each of the initiatives is discussed in the
sections below with each theme considered. Points made by each participant are
included in full in Appendix 7.

8.2.3.1 Home composting

Figure 57 provides a summary of the responses given by the participants who took
part in the focus group discussion.

Figure 57 SWOT feedback on home composting from the focus groups

Strengths
15 people participated in this focus group discussion out of which 7 participants
were of the opinion that home composting was the best initiative for low income
areas (FGDWPIP 001, FGDWPIP 002, FGDWPIP 003, FGDWPIP 005, FGDWPIH
002, FGDWPIH 003, and FGDWPIH 007). A range of strengths were identified by
all participants – the main strength raised by participants was the composition of the
waste stream being conducive to composting.

236
A reoccurring theme was the number of participants that mentioned the economic
benefits of composting. They stated that the handling of waste this way can result in
economic savings for the municipality of less waste will need to be managed. This is
also more convenient for the household as they will have less waste to get rid of. For
instance a member observed:

“If I am to do home compost more than half of the waste coming out from my house
will go into it and my bin would be half empty so I do not have to look for where to
dump waste every day”. (FGDWPIP 003)

Similarly residents commented that compost was an affordable replacement for

chemical fertilizer, it is practically free as it involves householders transforming their
own waste to a resource. FGDWPIP 001 added that he got a WhatsApp message
from a friend informing him of how fruits, vegetables and crops produced with
natural manure 50 are better than those produced with chemical fertilizer. FGDWPIH
002 stated that he would go for compost if given the opportunity because a bag of
fertilizer now costs between NGN7, 500 (£15) and NGN9, 000 (£18).

Other strengths mentioned by participants was that it reduces the quantity of waste
that goes to dumpsites thus reducing the need for dumpsites thus lessening the
environmental impact. It is a better way of handling decomposable waste, it
encourages householders to take responsibility for their waste, and it does not require
any technical expertise since it is on a low scale.

Weaknesses
Three main weaknesses were identified by participants. The lack of knowledge and
understanding of how to compost and the need for space around households for
composting were common concerns raised. It was also perceived as being a dirty
process, and participants were concerned it could spoil the aesthetic beauty of the
environment, be smelly and attract pests like flies, spiders, rats and dogs, thereby
posing potential public health risks. Other weakness mentioned were that it takes
time to produce compost which may discourage participation from householders. It
requires residents to change their attitude and behavior and if they do decide to
compost time and effort is required which might deter participation. For instance
they need to embrace the habit of saving compostable wastes that they would have
ordinarily thrown away (FGDPIP 005). An issue of lack of acceptability was raised
by a participant (FGDWPIP 003) of compost being used in place of chemical
fertilizers for growing food – people would be skeptical it would work.

50
In this context this would include compost.
237
Opportunities
The main opportunity identified was transforming food waste into a natural fertilizer.
Also composting would increase awareness of waste issues the community and
facilitate skill development. It provides an opportunity for government to save
money since the waste is diverted so less resources needed for collection – these
resources to be used to help fund composting. FGDWPIP 001 stated that the
composting process could be used to produce maggots as feed for animals and fish
(see Threats below).

Threats
A key threat expressed by focus group members was that if home composting was
not carried out properly there could be health and environmental risks. A range of
impacts were mentioned: it could attract rats, flies and vectors – impacting on public
health, composting could make the environment dirty and strong poor smell, poor
composting could contribute towards greenhouse gases or potential pollution if
materials were not properly separated and sorted before composting (FGDWP001).

It was clear some participants had a poor knowledge and understanding of

composting – this was identified as being a key threat. For example as alluded to
above FGDWPIP 001 stated that composting was a good opportunity to produce
maggots which could be feed for fish in the community. However a good performing
composter should not attract flies. Some households could lack the will to participate
even though much of their waste could be composted - there would be the need for
proper education on how to compost.

8.2.3.2 Community Composting

Figure 58 summarises the responses of the focus group participants.

Strengths
10 people out of 15 participants strongly opined that community composting was the
best option for the study area. (FGDWPIP 001, FGDWPIP 003, FGDWPIP 004,
FGDWPIP 005, FGDWPIP 006, FGDWPIP 007, FGDWPIP 008, FGDWPIH 001,
FGDWPIH 003, and FGDWPIH 004). It should be noted that community
composting shared many of the identified strengths as presented for home
composting, however most of the participants preferred a community based
approach. A principle reason for this was the space limitation around households in
the study area makes community composting a more desirable option. As with home
composting, the waste stream is conducive for community composting, and it
reduces the quantity of waste that needs to be managed.

238
Figure 58 SWOT feedback on community composting from the focus groups

Participants mentioned the community element of this approach as it promotes unity

among community members. For example (FGDWPIP 006, FGDWPIP 005 and
FGDWPIH 003) believed that community composting encourages cooperation and
develops cohesion. Households may hardly know or interact with their neighbors,
but being engaged in the same venture in the community fosters a good working
relationship. Organic waste generated in the community would be composted and
used for the benefit of the community (FGDWPIP 001, FGDPIH 005, 006).

Weaknesses
The weaknesses of community composting are similar to home composting, however
some additional weaknesses were identified. The key issue was the availability of
land within the community and if spaces would be available and conducive to the
community approach. Moreover when composting on this scale participants were
concerned regarding the resources required and that financial support from
government might be required.

The timescales for composting were also identified – if it takes too long to compost
residents/farmers may prefer to use cow dung/animal manure. If excess compost is
produced this could potentially be sold to farmers in rural areas. However
participants (FGDWPIP 001, 003, FGDWPIP 004, FGDPIH 006) stated that cost of
transporting compost from the urban center to rural areas could be an added cost.

239
Opportunities
The larger scale production of organic fertilizer, compared to home composting, was
seen as a significant opportunity. When composting on this scale participants
mentioned the potential provision of jobs for unemployed youth to collect waste
from households to community compost sites and produce the compost. As touched
on above there is the opportunity to sell excess compost to farmers, therefore helping
to fund this approach. It provides opportunities for families to partake in composting
and for the wider community to increase awareness of composting.

Threats
The key threat mentioned by participants was the concern for potential impacts to
public health and the environment when composting on this scale. Participants listed
the threats of air and water pollution plus odour. The sites could also attract flies, rats
and vermin. Therefore participants were insistent that a community composting site
needs to be managed properly otherwise there could be multiple detrimental impacts.

Another threat mentioned by five participants was that unlike home composting
where residents might be comfortable handling their own waste, in this community
approach those working on the site would be handling materials from multiple
sources hence this potentially increase the risk of infections from inappropriate
materials being taken to the site.

An important threat was the resources required for a community site for example
provision of land and funds for equipment. Lack of financial support from Plateau
State Government could hinder the success of community composting as the
community may not be able to supply these resources themselves. For instance a
member (FGDWPIH 004) observed that the fertilizer blending plant in Bokkos failed
because of non-commitment and support from the state government. The member
emphasized that: “government does not promote compost production because
government itself is not practising it”.

Insufficient knowledge on compost and its benefits is also a threat to compost

production. Finally participants observed that the success of any community
composting scheme was reliant on the cooperation of community members.

240
8.2.3.3 Reusable bags
Summary of the responses provided by the participants with regards to reusable bags
is presented in Figure 59.

Figure 59 SWOT feedback on reusable bags from the focus groups

Strengths
Generally participants agreed that reusable bags are in principle a good idea, and
could reduce impact on the environment. Reusable bags were observed by
participants to have an advantage over single use bags as they are strong and durable
and can be reused many times, thus saving energy in production in addition to
reducing the number of bags that could be thrown into the waste bin or littered
(FGDWPIP 007, FGDWPIH 002). FGDWPIH 002 stated that he uses reusable bags
because of their concern for the environment and consider it the right thing to do.

Weaknesses
A major weakness of reusable bags as mentioned by participants is that they can be
expensive, and could be easily misplaced or stolen. For instance FGDWPIP 007
mentioned that bagco bags 51 in Nigeria cost NGN50 (10 pence) each which puts
people off from using them. Most participants stated that they do not use reusable
bags because they are expensive, and besides single use plastic bags are freely given
out. Another weakness is the need to have at least two reusable bags for food
products and non-food items, in order to avoid contamination or spoilage. For
example putting fresh produce such as spinach, tomatoes in the same bag as other
products such as matches and clothes could lead to problems as the water from the

51
A reusable bag already available in Nigeria made from hessian.
241
fresh produce could spoil other items 52. Having to buy multiple bags was seen as a
weakness. Some of the participants view the use of reusable bags as demeaning,
hence they want to use only single use bags (FGDWPIH 002). Participants stated
that some Nigerians have the attitude of use once and throw away.

Opportunities
A key opportunity mentioned by households is that companies could use logos on
reusable bags to increase awareness of their brands as a marketing strategy. For
example Dangote rice, Dangote cement or Dangote salt are sold in reusable bags and
have aided in their product promotion – citizens reuse the bags over and over again
(FGDWPIH 002).

Threats
The main threat mentioned was that single use plastic bags are issued freely in shops
and all over the markets in Nigeria thereby discouraging people from buying
reusable bags. Therefore for any scheme to succeed it would need the intervention of
government to implement a policy, and this was unlikely.

8.2.3.4 Eco-Schools programme

Responses from participants during focus group discussion concerning eco-school
programme is presented in Figure 60.

Figure 60 SWOT feedback on the Eco-Schools programme from the focus

groups

52
It is important to highlight in Nigeria much of the food is purchased without packaging and
therefore a higher risk of contamination than in MEDCs.
242
Strengths
All participants agreed that Eco-School is a good and needed idea. A key strength of
Eco-School programme was that educating children early in life on waste
management issues benefits many: the children themselves, the parents, the
community and the wider society. The programme encourages and supports the
development of children with interest on the environment (FGDWPIP 008) and it
improves children’s awareness and knowledge of the environment. The children are
empowered to drive change and improve levels of awareness influencing change
amongst parents, communities and the general public (FGDWPIH 004). The long
term benefits would be reduced quantities of waste generated and reduced impact on
the environment.

Weaknesses
The general perception of participants was that the Eco-Schools programme is
expensive and that it takes years before the effects are felt or seen. FGDWPIP 008
noted that it requires government support and legislation for it to succeed.

Opportunities
Participants were of the opinion that Eco-Schools encourage and support the
development of children with an interest in the environment leading to long-term
change in behaviour. Participants observed that children are provided an opportunity
to learn new skills and empowered to lead change in order to safeguard the
environment (FGDPIH 004, FGDWPIP 008). Participants also agreed that
opportunities exist for training more professionals who would work and teach the
students in these schools. In addition Eco schools being international programmes
creates opportunities ‘for developing national and global contacts.

Threats
A major threat recognised by participants to Eco-School programme is the need for
support from government in terms of funding. Members mentioned that funding is
vital in order to support delivery and that legislation is needed requiring schools to
comply with the programme, otherwise it might fail (FGDWPIP 008). Another risk
could be lack of professionals to teach the children about the environment.

243
8.2.3.5 Public awareness campaigns
Figure 61 gives a summary of the responses from participants during focus group
discussion.

Figure 61 SWOT feedback on public awareness campaigns from the focus

groups

Strengths
A key strength of public awareness campaigns is that they disseminate reliable
information to members of the public in order to help them understand issues so that
they can decide on the actions to take (FGDWPIP 002, FGDWPIH 006). For
instance public awareness campaigns on waste prevention could provide information
about the significance of waste prevention to themselves and the environment, after
which they could decide to take positive action hence limiting the impact of waste.

Another major strength recognised by participants is that public awareness

campaigns help to bring about a long term change of attitude and behaviour in
response to the messages received (FGDWPIH 001, FGDWPIP 006). It can also
encourage people already practicing waste prevention and pro-environmental
behaviour to do more. The approach is also versatile and can be designed to deliver
key messages.

Weaknesses
A key limitation of public awareness campaigns as mentioned by participants is that
it can be expensive because of the resources required (FGDWPIP 002, FGDWPIH
001, 006). It requires adequate planning, finance and logistics for it to be successful
(FGDWPIH). Another issue was that no matter the methods used for
communication, the campaigns could still be ineffective if the key points are not

244
planned and addressed properly (FGDWPIH 001, FGDWPIP 006) and it takes time
for its effects to be felt.

Another significant limitation identified by participants is lack of support from

government, institutions, policy makers and political leaders – this would be needed
for a campaign to succeed. The shortage of professional manpower (EHO’s) to
deliver key messages was also seen as a weakness (FGDWPIP 002).

Opportunities
SWM is a challenge for low income households, therefore some participants felt that
the community would be eager and willing to discover things that could help them to
reduce the quantity of waste generated from their home. Participants noted that there
are different ways of educating the public on waste prevention, however FGDWPIP
006, FGDWPIH 001 stated that less expensive methods such as radio and TV can be
used. Public awareness campaigns bring about long lasting changes in behaviour and
attitude of the general public, and generate fresh perceptions on waste prevention
(FGDWPIP 001, 006).

Threats
A key threat to public awareness campaigns is lack of funds for executing and
sustaining the project. In addition lack of will power from government to support
public awareness campaigns’ could lead to its failure. Inadequate staffing is also a
threat, currently there is an embargo on employment (FGDWPIP 002). Insecurity as
currently being experienced in Jos limits face to face engagement therefore other
communication approaches would be needed. The lack of reliable power can limit
communication options – the community could go for long periods without power
and this would impact on accessibility to campaign ran on television and radio.

8.3 DISCUSSION
The sections below reflect on the feedback from the focus group discussions. It was
apparent to the author that the knowledge of the participants on the waste prevention
interventions discussed was limited and therefore there were further points not
addressed by the participants. In the discussion below the author integrates additional
points which are pertinent to reflect on when discussing the viability of the
initiatives.

8.3.1 Home and Community composting

There was overlap in many points raised for home and community composting
therefore for brevity they have been merged under one heading.

Home and community composting were the preferred waste prevention interventions
for the study area based on the strengths and opportunities identified in the focus
groups. They were both popular amongst the focus group discussion members. The
245
strengths identified support previous research conducted in Nigeria stating that
composting is the most sustainable way of managing the biodegradable waste stream
(Harir, et al. 2015; Sridhar and Hammed 2014; Taiwo, 2011). Composting is also
acknowledged by Cointreau (1982), Hoornweg et al. (1999), and Ali (2004) to be a
cornerstone in the sustainable management of waste in LEDCs.
An opportunity for home composting mentioned by some participants was that the
compost produced could be used in their small vegetable gardens. Some households
from the study area had gardens situated near stream sides or water channels not too
far from their residence (an example of this can be seen Figure 29), where this
compost could be used. Composting at home was an opportunity for parents to teach
their children how to compost thereby developing their awareness for environmental
values.
Whilst home composting was a popular intervention, focus group members
identified weaknesses and threats. A key issue discussed in the focus groups was the
lack of space around homes which may make home composting very difficult. Many
people live in compounds and there may not be the required space, and there could
be conflict between the occupants. This reaffirms results from questionnaires
undertaken in Part A of this research where lack of space was perceived to be the
biggest barrier by 43.7% of respondents to composting at home.
A further concern was the lack of awareness of how to compost and the negative
impacts this could have on the community through poor composting practice which
could cause odour and attract vermin. Moreover some focus group members
perceived composting as being dirty and unhygienic and therefore it might be a
challenge to get buy in from residents. Lack of knowledge on composting was seen
as another barrier to composting by 30.0% of respondents to the questionnaire in
Part A.
From the questionnaires and focus groups it was clear there was a low understanding
of composting in the community. This is a key threat as people might be opposed to
composting due to these concerns regarding perceived odour or vermin problems, or
compost wrongly thereby creating these problems. For composting to be successful
it would need to be supported through public awareness campaigns to ensure the
community has a good knowledge of what composting actually is, and how to
actually compost safely and properly. Research by Banjo et al, (2009), Rada, (2016),
and Sitra Studies (2015) have established that public awareness campaigns have
been helpful in stimulating behaviour change thereby leading to positive attitude
towards the environment. Once households are properly educated on the importance
of compost and how to produce it, they would hopefully embrace it.
Given the spatial challenges and the low base understanding of composting, a
community approach was seen as more favourable by focus group participants. This
could be supported through land allocation within communities for community

246
composting as observed by Slater et al. (2010). WRAP (2017) also specifically
encourages community composting where home composting is not viable due to
space constraints. However given the nature of the community with animals moving
about freely, any composting site would need to be secured.
The view of the author is that churches could play an important role in helping
promote community composting in the study area. Some have the availability of land
which could be used to trial community composting and they could also manage the
operations. Moreover they could act as a catalyst to educate community and church
members on composting and enhance co-operation. This community approach could
address some of the waste awareness and educational challenges that are key barriers
to developing a successful compost programme.
Church organizations have for years worked on composting project such as in St
Lucia in Spain where the Laborie Catholic church is participating in a community
compost project (Edinborough, 2009). Similarly there are examples in the UK
including St Peter’s and St Luke’s Churches in Brighton (BHCC, 2017). An example
from LEDCs is a mothers’ union (Eagle) in Uganda made up of members from both
the church and wider community who set up a community composting project
(Parish Magazine, 2017). These schemes have been of great success and could be
used as a template to help address the challenges in Jos. Other community based
organisations (CBOs) could come together to run local community composting
projects.
A further option considered by the author was community composting sites being
located at schools in the community. As highlighted in the questionnaire in Part A, in
34.5% of households children were responsible for managing the waste. If sites were
located on school grounds, children could be encouraged to take waste with them to
school to compost. Moreover composting could be integrated into the curriculum. As
with the church approach, the school would need to take ownership of the site.
However based on how schools function in the community there are some barriers
which could hinder the viability of this approach – see the information on Eco-
Schools in Chapter 8.3.3.
A weakness for community composting identified by participants was finding land
close to the community to set up a site. If a site was long way from where residents
live this could make taking waste for composting difficult for households involved,
and therefore they would not participate. However if sites were located by churches,
residents would be visiting them as part of their daily activities 53.
The compost produced from community composting could be used by the church
and the community for local food production, and in the study area churches
typically have farms for the pastor. The compost could also be given away to

53
Anecdotal evidence from the author suggests that community members visit churches at least 3
times a week.
247
congregation members as an incentive to encourage them to bring their food waste.
Extra compost could be sold to farmers. Again resources would be required which
may depend on government support for provision of the initial starting funds and
equipment, and additional land for non-church led sites.

8.3.2 Reusable bags

The adoption of reusable bags was ranked joint 1st after applying the assessment
criteria when screening the long list. Waste composition analysis indicated that
single use plastic bags formed 10.2% of the waste stream and the questionnaires
from Part A showed that only 24.0% of residents questioned were reusing bags –
hence this approach had some opportunities to address the waste problem.

Focus group discussion members were generally supportive of the reusable bag
approach however a range of weakness and threats were identified which led many
to question the practicality and impact of this intervention without government
involvement. Participants raised the point that reusable bags were already available
to buy in shops, however due to the charge take up of this was low, and also due to
the abundant supply of free single use plastic bags from all retailers.

In most countries where successful bag reuse schemes have been adopted, normally
it is in tandem with policy on single use bags, the government has played an
important role (BBC, 2015). Often government policy has been influenced by
initiatives previously introduced by businesses or communities – the UK is a case in
point where many bag reuse schemes are in place before the charge on single use
bags. A weakness in the Nigerian context is the lack of political will from the
Nigerian government to address this problem (Abutu, 2018)). Moreover it is the
view of the author that it is unlikely that Nigerian businesses and retailers would take
a lead to implement their own initiatives.

Overall globally literature has shown the importance and benefits of using reusable
bags (BBC, 2015, Future Centre Trust 2010) and the environmental impacts of badly
managed plastics on the environment (Biginagwa, et al. 2016; Cole et al. 2013; Gall
and Thompson, 2015; Li et al. 2016; Rochman et al. 2013; and Zero Waste, 2015).
These issues have been the principle drivers for the adoption of policies on reusable
bags in many countries, however the understanding of these issues in Nigeria is at a
low level, and without government intervention it is unlikely that a reusable bag
scheme, on a large scale, would be successful. However there is the opportunity for
community organisations to develop their own small scale projects promoting and
providing subsidised bags.

8.3.3 Eco-Schools programme

The Eco-Schools programme, in principle, was perceived to be a good idea by
participants. Its prominent strengths were stimulating long term behaviour change
amongst the youth, and the potential impact on wider society
248
However some weaknesses and threats were identified by focus group participants –
however in some instances the author questions the validity of the points raised.
There was the perception that in order for the Eco-Schools programme to be
introduced it required government support through legislation, but follow up
research from the author found this was not the case. Participants also mentioned that
the programme could be expensive and complex, requiring the training of
professionals to teach these topics and take a long time to succeed. However the role
of promoting Eco-Schools in other countries running the programme is normally
fulfilled by existing teachers who have an interest in the environment.

At present in Nigeria the majority of the schemes running an Eco-Schools

programme are private; the author was unable to find any examples of the initiative
running in government schools which are those found in the study area. It is
important to note the precarious nature of government schools in Nigeria: some
remain closed for months due to strike action due to non-payment of salaries and
pensions to retired staff members, and the lack of promotion opportunities. Therefore
the success of Eco-Schools could be a challenge in these circumstances due to lack
of motivation amongst staff which is critical for a scheme to succeed.

A further weakness of the current approach is that setting up Eco-Schools takes time
in order for it to succeed as it goes through a series of processes. The model adopted
in South Africa consists of seven stages starting with developing an eco-committee
and finishing with an Eco-School report documenting the changes made at the
school which is used to assess if the school gets the award. This entire process could
take a minimum of five years (WESSA, 2017) 54.

The way in which the Eco-School programme works in Nigeria also presents
boundaries to schools in the study area participating. Fabe International (2017) runs
the scheme and sets out guidelines for participation. For instance the scheme requires
online registration – however the schools in the study area do not have internet
access. Internet access in the study area is non-existent and in the wider community
internet access is low. Even at the University of Jos internet access is extremely
limited. Further the criteria required to join the scheme is ambiguous: “ensuring that
the school is clean, hygienic, disease free, and presentation of a fumigation
certificate”. Due to the way Eco-Schools is set up in Nigeria it is difficult to come
across schools that meet all of these conditions, hence the limited number of schools
involved in Nigeria, let alone the study area.

Overall given the circumstances it would be challenging to implement an effective

Eco-Schools programme in the study area. There is an option of developing a

54
The example of South Africa has been used in this instance due to the lack of information for
Nigeria.
249
localised version which aims to increase awareness of waste issues within schools,
but again this will be down to the motivation of key individuals.

8.3.4 Public awareness campaigns on waste prevention

The key strength of public awareness campaigns is that it is a versatile approach
which can encompass a range of key messages promoting waste prevention activity.
In this study the key waste streams have been identified, hence participants stated
that awareness campaigns can be tailored to fit the waste constituent of concern and
run in-conjunction to complement specific waste prevention interventions. For
example public awareness campaigns have been used worldwide to address specific
types of waste such as food (Sitra Studies, 2015; Wigmore & Lee, 2010), plastics
(Zero Waste, 2015) and junk mail (EC, 2016). Participants mentioned that if
campaign messages are geared towards waste prevention, then the general attitude
and behaviour of the people would change in favour of waste prevention, thus
individuals would be encouraged and confident in engaging in waste prevention. The
opportunities in public awareness campaigns include long lasting effects on
behaviour and attitude of people which could lead to better waste management
practice in the community.

A range of weaknesses and threats of public awareness campaigns were identified.

Rejection of campaign messages by households could be because of lack of
understanding. To address this it is important to make sure a clear plan is developed
before embarking on any public awareness campaign making sure there that the core
message is simple and clear for all to understand. Developing a clear vision setting
goals, assessing the resources available, and setting priorities is imperative. It is
important that community leaders are engaged with at an early stage to help get buy
in into the campaign. This would be followed up with using most appropriate
method to delivering the message be it through media, public events, passive
approaches or working directly with communities. The final stage is to evaluate the
campaign, and see what worked and what did not work which would help to inform
future strategy.

A threat expressed was the issue of finance and resources. In Nigeria, where the
economic and political structures are in disarray, where there are no dedicated funds
to address climate change, it is pertinent to wonder how well the core messages
entrenched in waste awareness can be spread. However this could be addressed by
adopting more community based interactive approaches – thereby long term
investment in people rather than resources. Longer term the lack of will power by
government to support public awareness campaigns could be dealt with through
lobbying. The impact of public awareness campaigns cannot be measured instantly,
but can be felt on the long run.

250
8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
On the surface it could be viewed that it is easy and straight forward to implement
waste prevention initiatives. However as highlighted in this research, there are many
challenges and factors that need to be considered in order to implement an effective
waste prevention strategy. After reviewing existing waste prevention interventions,
and gaining the views of the focus group stakeholders on the five shortlisted waste
prevention initiatives, the author recommends the following to promote waste
prevention in the study area:

i. Pilot community composting

As identified from the study, community composting was the preferred
option over home composting, due to limited space around households of
the study area, and the low level of understanding of how to compost.
This community approach requires the availability of suitable land within
the area, which may not immediately be possible and would require time
since land has to be sought for, by the state or local government.
Government could however seek possible collaboration with churches,
and community based organizations (CBOs) with an interest in the
environment that could provide the land. Moreover the church and CBOs
could act as a facilitator for change to educate the community, and
encourage residents to participate by bringing feedstock. These groups
could also help oversee the running of the site and compost production
plus providing training. The resulting compost could be donated to those
participating in the project as a way to get buy in and as an incentive for
continued involvement. It is recommended that an initial pilot study is
conducted with a church to evaluate its viability and impact. If this
succeeds, then the project could be replicated with other churches.

ii. Pilot home composting – following the successful implementation of

the community approach
A weakness and threat to composting was the lack of understanding from
residents on what composting is, and how to compost. Therefore
householders need to be trained on how they can safely compost. In the
short-term the recommendation is that the focus is on a community
composting approach through which community members can develop an
understanding of how to compost, and gain confidence in composting. If
the community scheme is successful it is recommended that home
composting is piloted in those households which have suitable space, or
land where they currently farm.

iii. General awareness campaigns

251
 In order to influence people’s behaviour there needs to be a carefully
planned engagement strategy. This needs to focus holistically on
increasing awareness of waste issues, the importance and ways of
preventing waste, plus information on how to compost and the benefits. A
suite of enagagement approaches need to be adopted in order to maximize
exposure.

As per the recommendations in Part A, the government has a key role in

television and radio broadcasting in Nigeria. Being state run these
stations have minimal broadcasting costs, and an effective strategy could
be developed for disseminating information to the public on waste issues.
Given the paucity of the waste management system in Jos, it is important
that the campaign encourages initiatives and behaviour in which the
community can actively engage in.

iv. Training of volunteers to support communities

As mentioned in other recommendations it is imperative that in order for
composting to succeed that residents understand how to compost
properly. To advise the public and support their composting efforts, and
general waste prevention behaviour, mechanisms need to be put in place.
Given the current situation in Jos it is unlikely that EHOs will be able to
fulfil this role hence a community based approach would be more
suitable. Community volunteers need to be trained, similar to the Masters
of Composting scheme operating in Flanders, to support waste prevention
efforts.

v. Engagement with community leaders in all initiatives

For waste prevention interventions to be successful, and to obtain buy in
from the public, there has to be a careful plan for engagement. Research
has identified that the behaviour of households and communities are
heavily influenced by ward heads, chiefs and church leaders. In the light
of this, government is advised to consult with the community leaders of
the study area in order to seek the cooperation of communities in
embracing waste prevention. The leaders could help identify churches in
the study area that could be used to pilot community composting, and
work with residents to increase awareness and encourage participation in
the scheme. Further ward heads and chiefs are part of the government
administration and could help government in their communities with the
development of waste prevention awareness campaigns.

vi. Funding to support projects

252
 Any scheme being implemented will require funding. This could be for
the composting units - as in other scheme pre-fabricated units could be
purchased or the units could be produced in the community harnessing
local resources and facilitating job creation. Other costs include training,
public engagement, and for community composting projects the funds for
the preparation of land, and monitoring of the impact. Government could
seek financial support from donor organizations such as UNEP, UNDP,
Banks and other financial bodies in order to cover these costs.

vii. Longer term strategies

Reusable bags could help to address the problems associated with single
use plastic bags. However the practicality and success of implementing
reusable bag initiatives on a large scale without government intervention
is uncertain. In countries where reusable bag schemes have been
successful, government policy has been influenced by initiatives
previously introduced by businesses or communities – the UK is a case in
point where many bag reuse schemes were in place before the charge was
introduced by government. A weakness in the Nigerian context is the lack
of political will from the Nigerian government to address this problem.
Moreover it is the view of the author that it is unlikely that Nigerian
businesses and retailers would take a lead to implement their own
initiatives. Hence this is unlikely to succeed in Nigeria. However, longer
terms could be an option – and indeed other African countries have
introduced similar measures which might facilitate the Nigerian
government to act.

The Eco-Schools programme was perceived by participants as a good

idea, but its feasibility is questioned because at present in Nigeria no
government school are involved in the initiative, and all schools located
within the study area are government schools. Schools operating the
scheme in Nigeria are private and they have the necessary resources to
develop the programme. Moreover as previously explained there is a lot
of disruption in government schools due to non-payment of salaries and
schools remaining closed; hence it is a challenge for these schools to be
part of Eco-Schools programme. There is no doubt that educating
children in waste management issues is imperative and could lead to long
term behaviour change. Given these circumstamces a more appropriate
approach would be churches and CBOs running localised awareness
schemes targeting the youth.

253
8.5 LIMITATIONS TO THE RESEARCH IN PART B
For the waste composition analysis, due to time constraints this study did not look at
seasonal variations such as rainy or dry season changes in waste variation, but it is
well understood that season affects waste generation in Nigerian cities, as well as
other countries (Afon & Okewole, 2007; Ezeah, 2010; Gidarakos et al. 2006;
Roberts et al. 2010, Sha’ato, 2007). The study was carried out between November
2014 and January 2015 which is a dry season and coincides with the harvest period
of many fruits and vegetables, and this could directly impact household waste
generation. Further sampling taking both seasons into account could overcome this
limitation.

Waste composition analysis was based on the primary classification of waste into
broad categories such as dense plastics and plastic films/bags. These broader
categories do not truly reflect the composition of the waste stream and present useful
results. For example there are many types of dense plastic – some of which have
high value, other have little to no value on the secondary market. Similarly plastic
films/bags were grouped together and these should have been classified into more
detailed secondary classes like plastic films, plastic bags, and water sachets. To
overcome this problem the author used anecdotal evidence to calculate the level of
plastic bags, however ideally data would have been collected during the composition
exercise. Similarly food waste was not broken down into avoidable and unavoidable
food waste, rather it was lumped together as food waste.

Previous waste composition analysis studies on waste in Nigeria have used differing
definitions and categories therefore making it hard to make accurate comparisons
between studies. Consistent guidelines for undertaking analysis should be developed
for Nigeria therefore helping to improve the usefulness and comparability of the
data.

Questionnaires from the sample households showed that 68.7% of the participants
recycled while 77.6% reused recovered waste materials. Typical examples of the
items they recycled include metals, plastics, paper and glass, while items they reused
or gave out to others include clothes, plastic bottles, food waste, electrical and
electronic waste – this activity would therefore influence waste levels. In spite of the
instructions given to householders to deposit all the waste generated in the plastic
bags provided, limited recycled materials were seen in the waste stream. This could
have been because most recycled materials were held back for sale to the informal
sector. It is therefore reasonable to say that the result of the waste classification study
do not show the total quantities of wastes being generated.

The number of people in the household was derived at the beginning of the waste
composition analysis. It is also important to note in Nigeria household size is

254
transient therefore the number of people staying or visiting could vary over the week
and this could influence the results.

A limitation was the subject of waste prevention itself. From the focus group some
of the stakeholders’ did not quite understand what it was, hence the author had to do
some explanations. Having limited knowledge of waste prevention responses from
the focus group discussion with stakeholders did not give as much information as
desired by the author, hence limited data to work with. On reflection the author
would have given more time for the focus groups, or conducted them in two parts
giving the participants the time to digest the information, and reflect on the relevant
merits of each intervention.

8.6 SUMMARY
Waste prevention is accepted and practiced in some LEDCs; however in Nigeria it
still has a long way to go in order to achieve its potential in helping to address the
significant waste management challenges faced. A long list of waste prevention
initiatives was developed and screened down to five using five criteria. The short list
was further assessed with stakeholders in order to determine the most viable
prevention initiative for the study area. After which the selected initiatives were
discussed and recommendations made. The final chapter presents the conclusions
from both Part A and Part B.

255
9 CONCLUSION
9.1 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE
Following a detailed mixed method approach this research has identified a complex
range of challenges that are impeding on the development of an effective waste
management system in low income areas of Jos. The research has developed a set of
recommendations to address these challenges with detailed evaluation on the
potential role of waste prevention.

This research is timely as it addresses the challenges posed through increasing waste
generation, at a time when municipalities already face financial and infrastructural
challenges to manage existing waste levels. The consequences of poor waste
management impact upon public health and the environment, hence the importance
of this research. The research is closely associated with the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals particularly Goal 12 to Ensure Sustainable
Consumption and Production Patterns and the target to substantially reduce waste
generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse by 2030.

The empirical study has created a better understanding of the nature and
characteristics of low income areas. Through the methods applied the research has
contributed to existing research on barriers to waste management in LEDCs and the
numerous challenges hindering the sustainable management of waste. The study has
generated a wealth of quantitative and qualitative data contributing to the limited
existing data on waste management in low income areas helping to inform policy
and the design of further research.

The following conclusions can be drawn from this research:

• The existing system for managing household waste in low income areas of
Jos is poor. The residual waste collection system relies on residents taking
waste to communal containers which are meant to be emptied by PEPSA
twice a week – however this rarely happens. For the entire city there are only
64 containers, this equates to 20,313 citizens per bin which is grossly
inadequate. As a consequence, residents of the study area mainly managed
their waste through burning (45.0%) and throwing into water bodies (31.1%)
with subsequent environmental and social impacts.
• A key overarching challenge is that of resources: in addition to the lack of
containers PEPSA have only 11 vehicles to collect waste in the entire city –
some vehicles have been out of service for over a decade.
• There is no sanitary landfill in Jos, as a result if waste is collected by PEPSA
it is taken to open dumpsites with no controls to mitigate impacts on the
environment and public health.

256
• Impacts caused by the poor waste system were identified as groundwater
pollution, air pollution, flooding, risks to public health, and conflicts between
community members.
• Unsurprisingly questionnaire respondents rated the quality of waste
collection service as very poor 67.8%.
• Whilst there is no formal recycling system in place reuse and recycling is
prevalent. 77.6% of residents actively reused items and 68.7% recycled.
Materials commonly recycled were metals (97.9% of those that recycled),
plastics (84.3%), and paper (26.6%). Reuse was common including clothes
(88.0% of those that reused), food (43.7%), plastic bags (31.4%) and
electrical products (30.6%). As presented in Chapter 5.4.9 there are a range
of stakeholders and entrepreneurs engaged in reuse and recycling in Jos.
• The research concludes there are twenty challenges impacting upon the
development of an effective sustainable waste management system in the
study area. These challenges were grouped under four themes: role of
governance, solid waste management practice, resource allocation and the
attitude of the public towards waste.
• 13 recommendations to address these challenges are proposed though some
of them may be long term requiring changes to the governance structure and
further resources.
• PEPSA have responsibility for managing waste in Jos but due to the current
political system they do not have the autonomy to manage their own budget,
recruit their own staff and buy their own resources. This directly impacts on
service delivery – this is a key challenge that needs to be addressed.
• For the past 17 years there has not been any form of government led public
awareness campaigns on waste. Reasons identified were lack of funds and
insecurity in the state. A key recommendation is to increase education and
awareness of waste amongst the population with community groups having
an important role.
• The socio-demographics of the study area are complex. Results show that
households have between 2-15 persons, with an average of almost 6 people.
Whilst the area was perceived to be low income, 30.6% of residents were
middle to high income earners. Within the study area it is common for
businesses to be based at home, in turn this will influence the types and levels
of waste generated.
• From composition analysis the waste generation rate from the study area was
estimated to be 0.47 kg/capita/day, corroborating findings from other
LEDCs.
• The main components were food (29.2%), ash/unburnt wood (18.4%) and
plastic films/bags (13.6%). The waste components belonged to 3 categories:
biodegradable (65.2%), recyclable (13.2%), and residual (21.6%). The

257
 implication of this is that the majority of waste is suitable for composting and
recycling – there are resources in the waste stream that could be utilised.
• Community composting should be prioritised as a waste prevention strategy,
however this needs to be complemented with an effective waste education
and engagement programme. Due to the composition of the waste stream
composting has the potential to play an important role in the development of
an effective waste system for the study area. 94.8% of residents in the study
area were not composting despite the high biodegradable component of the
waste stream. Their main reason was lack of space (43.7%) and don’t know
how to compost (30.0%) – as such a community based approach could be
effective in overcoming these challenges.
• For an effective system to develop stakeholders need to come together. In the
short term the study contends that households and communities in low
income areas have to take responsibility for their waste since government
waste collection services are already insufficient and unless there is a radical
change, politically and in terms of funding, are likely to remain for the
foreseeable future. However as noted the challenging conditions in low
income areas make introducing seemingly simple waste prevention
interventions complex and any interventions would need careful planning,
effective community engagement and the necessary resources.

9.2 RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE WORK

The research has highlighted the prevalence of small businesses based at home in the
study area. Business activity significantly influence the types and quantities of waste
being generated. This was touched on in this research, but there is the opportunity to
research the role of small businesses and their impact on waste levels in more detail.

Waste composition analysis in this research was based on the primary classification
of waste. Including secondary classifications would help to develop a deeper
understanding of the waste stream, for example the breakdown of different plastics
which have varying value. This particular study only considered the composition of
waste during the dry season, further work could establish the variations in waste
levels during the wet season.

Given the poor waste management system in Jos, the wish of the author is that this
study is not wasted but is applied leading to practical benefits to the community.
Further work would be to follow up on the key recommendation from this study, and
evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a community-composting site in Jos.
This would include identifying potential sites, stakeholder engagement to develop
the project, setting up the logistics of collecting and processing the waste, evaluating
the quality of the compost, yields and markets.

258
Reuse and recycling was prevalent in the study area. It is recommended that further
research be conducted to determine the quantity of waste being managed through
these routes and the wider social, environmental and economic benefits.

Further studies need to be carried out in order to calculate actual municipal solid
waste arising in Jos in order to develop an effective waste management strategy, and
the capacity needed to handle waste. Moreover there is a lack of formal maps of the
study area – further work could be undertaken to map these areas using GIS helping
to identify potential bin locations, opportunities to improve accessibility.

259
REFERENCES
Abah, S. O. and Ahimain E. I. 2011: Healthcare waste management in Nigeria: A
case study. Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology. 3 (3), pp.99-110.

Abigo, A, 2016: Facilities Management: enhancing solid waste management

practices for urban marketplaces in Nigeria. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements of the University of Brighton for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, Faculty of Physical Sciences, School of Environment and Technology,
UK.

Abila, B, & Kantola, J, 2013: Municipal solid waste management problems in

Nigeria: Evolving knowledge management solution. International Journal of
Environment, Earth Science and Engineering. 7 (6), pp.1-6.

Abur, B.T, Oguche E.E, & Duvuna G.A, 2014: Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the Federal Capital Abuja, Nigeria. Global Journal of Science Frontier
Research. 14(2), pp. 1-6.

Abutu, A. 2018: Plastic ban where did Nigeria miss it.

th
https://newsdiaryonline.com/plastic-ban-nigeria-miss/. Accessed 10 January 2018.

Achi, H.A, Adeofun, C.O, Gbadebo, A.M, Ufoegbune, G. C, & Oyedepo, J.A, 2012:
An assessment of solid waste management practices in Abeokuta, Southwest
Nigeria. International journal of Biological and Chemical Research. 29 (2), pp.177-
188.

Achike A.I, & Onoja A.O, 2014: Greenhouse Gas Emission Determinants in Nigeria:
Implications for Trade, Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Policies. British
Journal of Environment & Climate Change. 4(1), pp.83-94.

Adagbada, A.O, Adesida, S.A, Nwaokorie, F.O, Nlemogha, M.T, & Coker, A.O,
2012: Cholera Epidomology in Nigeria: An Overview. The Pan African Medical
Journal. pp. 1-12.

Adama, O, 2007: Governing from above: Solid waste management in Nigeria’s new
capital city of Abuja. Doctoral Thesis Stockholm University Sweden.

Adama O, 2012: Privatizing services as if the people matter: SWM in Abuja,

Nigeria. The Nordic Africa Institute. Policy notes 2012/1 Uppsala, Sweden.

Adebayo, W.O, Bamisaye, J.A, Akintan, O.B, Ogunleye, S. O, 2006: Waste

generation, disposal and management techniques in an urbanizing environment: A
case study of Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Science. 1(1) pp. 63-66.

Adebola, O.O. 2006: The roles of informal private sector in integrated solid waste
management in the achievement of the MDG are in Lagos, Nigeria. A paper
260
presented at the solid waste Health and Millennium Development Goals, CWG-
WASH workshop 2006, in Kolkata India.

Adedibu, A. A. 1983: Comparative analysis of Solid Waste Composition and

Generation in Ilorin and Offa, Kwara State. Paper presented at the National
Conference on Development and Environment, organised by NISER, University of
Ibadan, Nigeria.

Adedibu, A.A. 1988: Measuring waste generation in third world cities: a case study
of Ilorin, Nigeria. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 10 (2), pp.89–107 .

Adediran, Y, & Abdulkarim, A, 2012: Challenges of electronic waste management

in Nigeria. International Journal of advances in Engineering and Technology. 4(1),
pp. 640-648.

Adegbite, M.A. Nwafor, S.O. Afon, A. Abegunde, A.A. Bamise, C.T. 2010:
Assessment of dental waste management in a Nigerian tertiary hospital. Waste
Management Research. 28, pp.769-777.

Adegboye, K. 2015: Lagos gets a material recovery facility. www.vanguardngr.com

02/06/2015, Accessed 11 May 2017.

Adejobi, O. S. & Olorunnimbe, R. O. 2012: Challenges of Waste Management and

Climate Change in Nigeria: Lagos State Metropolis Experience. African Journal of
Science Research.7 (1), pp. 346-362.

Adekunle, I.M. 2009: Temperature effect on water extractability of cadmium,

copper, lead and zinc from composted organic solid wastes of south-west Nigeria.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 6, pp. 2397–
2407.

Adekunle, A.A & Adekunle, I.M. 2006: Creating awareness on solid waste re-use as
organic fertilizer in Nigeria. Imobvare, E. (Ed). Proceedings of the 4th Annual
National Conference of the Senate on the Nigerian Environment, held at Port
Harcourt, Nigeria, July 5 – 7: pp.126 –132.

Adekunle, I. M. Adekunle, A. A. Akintokun, A. K. Akintokun, P. O. & Arowolo, T.

A. 2010: Recycling of organic wastes through composting for land applications: a
Nigerian experience. Waste management and Research. 29 (6), pp. 582-593.

Adekunle, I.M 2011: Bioremediation of soils contaminated with Nigerian petroleum

products using composted municipal wastes. Bioremediation Journal. 15 (4), pp. 1-
13.

Adelagan, J. A, 2004: The History of Environmental Policy and Pollution of Water

Sources in Nigeria (1960-2004): The way forward. Department of Civil Engineering

261
University of Ibadan, Nigeria [online]. Available: http://userpage.fuberlin.
de/ffu/akumwelt/bc2004/download/adelegan_f.pdf. Accessed 26 February, 2015.

Adeoye, G.O. Sridhar, M.K.C. & Mohammed, E.O. 1994: Poultry Waste
Management for Crop Production: Nigerian Experience. Waste Management &
Research. 12 (2), pp. 165 -172.

Aderemi, A.O. & Otitoloju, A. A 2012: An assessment of landfill fires and their
potential health effects: A case study of municipal solid waste landfills in Lagos,
Nigeria. International Journal of Environmental Protection. 2 (2), pp. 22-26.

Aderogba, K.A. 2011: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sustainability in Lagos

Metropolis, Nigeria. International Journal of Learning & Development, 1 (2), pp.
46-61.

Adesina, O.S. 2013: Unemployment and Security Challenges in Nigeria.

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 3 (7), p.146-156.

Adewole, A.T. 2009: Waste management towards sustainable development in

Nigeria: A case study of Lagos State. International NGO journal. 4 (40), p.173-179.

Adewole, A.T. 2013: Waste management towards sustainable development in

Nigeria. A case study of Lagos State. African Journal of Environment and Waste
Management. 1(2), pp. 22-27.

Adewumi, I.K. Ogedengbe, M.O. Adepetu, J. A. & Aina, P.O. 2005: Aerobic
Composting of Municipal Solid waste and Poultry Manure. Journal of Applied
Science Research. 1(3), pp. 292 -297.

Adoga, M.P. Banwat, E.B. Forbi, J.C. Nimzing, L. Pam, C.R. Gyar, S.D. Agabi,
Y.A. & Agwale, S.M. 2009: Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Hepatitis B Virus and
Hepatitis C Virus: Sero-prevalence, Co-infection and Risk Factors among Prison
inmates in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, 3:
pp.539-547.

Adoga, M. P. Gyar, S.D. Pechulano, S. Bashayi, O.D. Emiasegen, S.E. Zungwe, T.

Iperepolu, O.H. Agupugo, C. & Agwale, S.M. 2010: Hepatitis B virus infections in
apparently healthy urban Nigerians: data from pre-vaccination tests. Journal of
Infection in Developing Countries. 4(6), pp.397-400.

AEPB. 2012: Abuja Environmental Protection Board, FCT, Abuja, Nigeria.

Afon, A. O. 2007: An analysis of solid waste generation in a traditional African city.

The example of Ogbomosho, Nigeria. Environment and Urbanization. 19 (20), pp.
527-536.

262
Afon, A.O. & Okewole, A. 2007: Estimating the quantity of solid waste generation
in Oyo, Nigeria. Waste Management Research. 25 (4), pp. 371-379.

Afon, A.O. 2012: A survey of operational characteristics and socio economic and
health effects of scavenging activity in Lagos, Nigeria. Waste Management and
Research 30 (7), pp. 664-671.

African Economic Outlook. 2015: Entrepreneurship and Industrialisation.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefoxbab&q=African+Economic+Outlook
+2015+the+economy+is+diversifying&oq=African+Economic+Outlook+2015+the+
economy+is+diversifying. Accessed 16 March 2016.

African Youth Union, (AYU) (Undated): Keep mama Africa Green.

http://unfccc.int/files/cc_inet/application/x-httpd-php/ccinet_getfile.php?file.
Accessed 11 March 2017.

Afroz, R, Hanaki, K, Tudin, R, 2010: Factors affecting waste generation: A study in

a waste management program in Dhaka city, Bangladesh. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment, 179 (1-4), pp.509–519.

Afun, S. 2009: Government Regulations and Legislations will ensure sustainable

waste management in Nigeria. <http://www.iswa.org/uploads/tx-
iswaknowledgebase. Accessed 5 May 2015.

Agaji, I. & Wajiga, G.M. 2012: An object oriented system for the location of
landfills for Nigerian municipals. Science World Journal. 7 (2), pp. 9-12.

Agbede, O.A. & Ajagbe, W.O. 2004: Solid Waste in Southwestern Nigeria.
International Journal of Environmental Issues. 2, pp. 92-100.

Agbesola, Y.O. 2013: Sustainability of municipal solid waste management in

Nigeria: A case study of Lagos: Unpublished M.Sc thesis, Water and Environmental
Studies, Linkoping University.

Agboje, I.A. Adeoti, A. & Irhivben, B.O. 2014: Performance assessment waste
management following private partnership operations in Lagos State, Nigeria.
Journal of Waste Management. 2014, pp. 1-8.

Agbola J.O. 2003: Control of large scale civil service conflicts in Democratic
Nigeria, Strategy Research Project (Carlisle Barracks, PA, U.S. Army War College).
11 June 2003.

Agunwamba, J.C. 1998: Solid waste management in Nigeria, problems and issues.
Environmental management. 22 (6), pp. 849-856.

Agunwamba, J.C. 2003: Analysis of scavengers’ activities and recycling in some

cities of Nigeria. Environmental management. 32 (1), pp. 116-127.
263
Agwu, M.O. 2012: Issues and challenges of SWM practices in Port Harcourt city,
Nigeria- a behavioral perspective. American Journal of Social Management
Sciences. 3(2), pp.83-92.

Agwu, I. S. 2013: Waste recycling: Investment opportunity in Nigeria.

http://wealthmeans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/waste-recycling-in. Accessed 12 March
2016.

Ahiuma-Young, V. 2013: Minimum Wage: Senate is Self-Serving, Anti-People-

Public Sector Unions. www.vangardngr.com/2013/08/minimum-wage-senate-is-self-
serving-anti-people-public-sector-unions.

Ahmed, S. A. & Ali, M.S. 2004: Partnerships for solid waste management in
developing countries: linking theories to realities. Habitat International. 28 (3), pp.
467-479.

Ahovi, I.A. 2017: Indiscriminate disposal of plastics, nylon breed mosquitoes. The
guardian 10 June 2017. https://www.pressreader.com/nigeria/the-guardian-
nigeria/20170610/281986082537324.

Ajibade, L.T. 2007: Indigenous knowledge system of waste management in Nigeria.

Indian journal of traditional knowledge. 6(4), pp. 642-647.

Ajiji, D.N. & Larab, T.A. 2016: The growth of urban slums and conflicts in Nigeria:
A case study of Jos and Environs 1980-2010. International Journal of Social Science
and Humanity. 6(5). p.6.

Akaateba, M.A. & Yakubu, I. 2013: Householders' Satisfaction towards Solid Waste
Collection Services of Zoomlion Ghana Ltd in WA, Ghana. European Scientific
Journal, 9(32), pp.198-213.

Akanbi, M.O. Ukoli, C.O. Erhabor, G.E. Akanbi, F.O. & Gordon, S.B. 2009: Review
Article. The burden of Respiratory Diseases in Nigeria. MERA: African Journal of
Respiratory Medicine. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228958852_The_burden_of_respiratory_di
sease_in_Nigeria. Accessed 12 June 2017.

Akinbami, J.F.K, Ilori M.O, Oyebisi, T.O, Akinwumi I.O, & Adeoti O, 2000: Biogas
Energy use in Nigeria: Current Status, Future prospects and policy implication.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 5:.pp.97-112

Akinbile, C.O. 2012: Environmental impact of landfills on ground water quality and
agricultural soils in Nigeria. Soils and water resources, 7 (1), pp.18-26.

Akpoghiran, P. 2016: Solid waste disposal methods in Nigeria

http://akpatemac.com/2016/10/17/solid-waste-disposal-methods-in-nigeria/.

264
Akwei, I. 2017: Kenya’s quest to succeed in the banning of plastic bags will be
tested a day before the swearing-in of President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta as the fifth
president of the country. http://www.africanews.com/2017/08/17/kenya-s-plastic-
bag-ban-takes-effect-a-day-before-uhuru-s-swearing-in/. Accessed 9 September
2017.

Alabi, O. A. Bakare, A. A. Xu, X. Li, B. Zhang, Y. & Huo, X. 2012: Comparative

evaluation of environmental contamination and DNA damage induced by electronic
waste in Nigeria and China. The Science of the Total Environment, 423: pp.62–72.

Alakinde, M.K. 2012: Private Sector Participation and Sustainable SWM in Ibadan
South West Local Government. Management Science, 3(6), pp.887-892.

ALCO & World Bank. 2007: Simplified Manual for Health-care Waste Management
along the Abidjan-Lagos Transport Corridor. Available [online]: http://www.
modernghana.com/news/425095/1/health-ghs-launches-manual-for-health-care-
waste-m.html. Accessed 24 October 2015.

Alexander, M.J. 1986: Soil characteristics and the factors influencing their
development on mine spoil of the Jos Plateau, Jos Plateau Environmental Resources
Development programme interim report, 2, University of Durham, Durham, UK.

Alhassan, M. & Mohammed, J. 2013: Households’ demand for better solid waste
disposal services: case study of four communities in the new Juaben Municipality,
Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Development. 6 (11).

Ali, M. 2004: Sustainable Composting: Case studies and guidelines for developing
countries. WEDC. Loughborough University, UK. p. 124.

Aliu, I.R. Adeyemi, O.E. & Adebayo, A. 2014: Municipal household solid waste
collection strategies in an African megacity: Analysis of public private partnership
performance in Lagos. Waste Management & Research, 32(9), pp.67 –78.

Aliyu, A.A. & Amadu, L. 2017: Urbanization, Cities and Health: The Challenges to
Nigeria – A review, Annals of African Medicine, 16(4), pp.149-158.

Allafrica.com, 2011: Insecurity- Bane of Investments in the Country. Daily

Independent, 2 July 2011.

Aluko, B.T. & Amidu, A.R. 2006: Urban low income settlements, land deregulation
and sustainable development in Nigeria. Regional Conference Accra, Ghana, March
8-11.

Alreck, P. & Settle, R. 2004: Survey Research Handbook (third ed.), McGraw Hill,
New York.

265
Amachree, M. 2013: Update on e-waste management in Nigeria. Available [online]:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/nigeria.pdf. Accessed
25 August 2017.

Amasuomo, E, Tuoyo, O. J. A, & Hasnain, S.A, 2015: Analysis of public

participation in sustainable waste management practice in Abuja, Nigeria, Journal of
Environmental management and sustainable Development, 4 (1).

Amori, A.A. Fatile, O. Ihuoma, S. & Omoregbee, H.O. 2013: Waste Generation and
Management Practices in Residential Areas of Nigerian Tertiary Institutions.
Available [online]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279192102_Waste_Generation_and_Mana
gement_Practices_in_Residential_Areas. Accessed 15 May 2015.

Amuda, O. S. Adebisi, S. A. Jimoda, L. A. & Alade, A. O. 2014. Challenges and

Possible Panacea to the Municipal Solid Wastes Management in Nigeria. Journal of
Sustainable Development Studies, 6(1), pp. 64-70.

Anekoson, J.I. 2013: A comparative Analysis of Health Indicators of Nigeria and

Rwanda: A Nigerian volunteer’s perspective. American Journal of Public Health
Research, 1(7), pp.177-182

Anomohanran, O. 2012: Determination of greenhouse gas emission resulting from

gas flaring activities in Nigeria, Energy Policy, 45: pp.666-670.

Araba, A.O. 2010: Household attitudes to SWM in developing countries: A case

study of Lagos, Nigeria. Unpublished PhD thesis submitted to the Center for
Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, UK.

Ariba, Y. 2015: Cholera in Nigeria. Available [online]:

https://www.slideshare.net/yinkayvette/cholera-in-nigeria. Accessed 10 May 2016.

Aribodor, D.N. Ugwuanyi, I.K. & Aribodor, O.B. 2016: Challenges to Achieving
Malaria Elimination in Nigeria. American Journal of Public Health Research, 4, (1),
pp.38-41.

Atta, A.Y. Aminu, M. Yusuf, N. Gano, Z.S. Ahmed, O.U. & Fasanya, O.O. 2016:
Potentials of waste to Energy in Nigeria. Journal of applied sciences research 12(2),
pp.1-6.

Awofala, A. A & Ogundele O.E 2016: HIV epidemiology in Nigeria. Available

[online]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319562X16300110.
Accessed 10 June 2017.

266
Awomeso, J.A. Taiwo, A.M. Gbadebo, A.M. & Arimoro, A.A. 2010: Waste disposal
and pollution management in urban areas. A remarkable remedy for the environment
in developing countries. American journal of environmental Science, 6: pp. 26-32.

Ayotamuno, J.M. Gobo, A.E. 2004: Municipal solid waste management in Port
Harcourt, Nigeria. Management of environmental quality: An International Journal,
15(4), pp.389-398.

Ayuba, K.A. Manaf, L.A. Sabrina, A.H. & Sulaiman W. N. A. 2013: Current Status
of Municipal Solid Waste Management Practise in FCT Abuja. Research Journal of
Environmental and Earth Sciences, 5(6), pp.295-304.

Babalola, A. Ishaku, H.T. Busu, I. Majid, M.R. 2010: The practice and challenge of
solid waste management in Damaturu, Yobe State, Nigeria. Journal of
Environmental Protection, 1, pp.384-388.

Babayemi, J.O & Dauda, K.T. 2009: Evaluation of solid waste generation categories
and disposal options in developing countries. A case study of Nigeria. Journal of
Applied science Environment and Management, 13 (3), pp.83-88.

Babbie, E. R. 2007: The Practice of Social Research, Belmont, CA, Wadsworth.

Babbie, E. R. 2010: The Practice of Social Research Cengage Learning.

Bakare, T. 2012: Much Ado about Fuel Subsidy, retrieved on January 17, 2012 from
the world wide web http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/01/much-ado-about -fuel-
subsidy/.

Bakare, W. 2016: Solid Waste Management in Nigeria.

www.bioenergyconsult.com/s-w-m-nigeria.

Ballantyne, R. Fien, J. & Packer, J. 2001: Programme effectiveness in facilitating

intergenerational influence in environmental education: Lessons from the field.
Journal of Environmental Education, 33

Bandara, N. Hettiaratchi, J. & Wirasinghe, P. 2007: Relation of waste generation and

composition to socioeconomic factors: A case study. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment. 135(1), pp.29-39

Banjo A.D. Adebambo A.A.R.I. & Dairo S.S. 2009: Inhabitants perception on
domestic waste disposal in Ijebu Ode, Southwest, Nigeria. African journal of Basic
and Applied Science. 1, 62-66.

Basel Convention. 2011: Informal e-waste management in Lagos, Nigeria-Socio

economic impacts and feasibility of international recycling cooperation.
http://www.basel.int/Portals/4/Basel%20Convention/docs/eWaste/E-
waste_Africa_Project_Nigeria.pdf. Accessed 27 August 2017.
267
Batagarawa, R. 2011: Sustainability appraisal of waste management in Nigeria:
Development and evaluation of index based tool. PhD thesis, University of
Portsmouth.

Bates, M. 2013: Iyalode of waste.

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/microsites/research/iemrc/documents/EventsDocuments/201
3%20Conference/M%20Bates%20iemrc%202013.pdf. Accessed 27 August 2017.

Baxter, S. & Jack, S. 2008: Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and
implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4) pp.544-559.

Beka, N.C. Aga, T. Eziashi, A. C. 2009: Chemical quality of ground water from
hand dug wells in Jos metropolis and environs, North Central Nigeria. The Pacific
Journal of Science and Technology. 10(2), pp. 7-12.

Bell, J. 1999: Doing Your Research Project, (3rd Ed.). Buckingham, ENG: Open
University Press.

Bell, B. & Platt, B. 2014: Building Healthy Soils with Compost to Protect
Watersheds, Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR).

Biginagwa, F.J. Mayoma, B.S. Shashoua, Y. Syberg, K. & Khan, F. 2016: First
evidence of micro plastics in the African Great lakes: Recovery from Lake Victoria
Nile Perch and Nile tilapia. Journal Great Lakes Resarch. 2015 pp. 1-4.

Bera. 2011: Ethical guidelines for educational research, available at<

http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/guidelines. Accessed 21 April 2014.

Bertram, D. 2016: Likert Scales. Retrieved July 18, 2016 from:

http://my.ilstu.edu/~eostewa/497/Likert%20topic-dane-likert.pdf. Accessed 26 May
2017.

BHCC. 2017: Community composting: https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/.

Accessed 15 September 2017.

Bichi, M.H. & Amatobi, D.A. 2013: Characterization of household solid waste
generated in Sabon Gari area of Kano in Nigeria. American Journal of Research
Communication, 1(4)

Binbol, N.L. Ogboji, F. Lohor, A.A. 2013: An assessment of waste management

activities of Plateau State Environmental Protection and Sanitation Agency
(PEPSA). From the selected works of Confluence Journal of Environmental Studies
(CJES), Kogi State University, Lokoja, Nigeria.

Bingel, A.M. 1978: Jos: Origin and growth of the town (1900=1972). Jos, Plateau
State Nigeria. Department of Geography, University of Jos, 1, pp. 1-2.

268
Boldrin, A. 2009: Environmental assessment of garden waste management. PhD
Thesis, Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of
Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.

Boris, O.H. 2015: Challenges confronting local government areas in efficient and
effective social service delivery: The Nigerian experience. International Journal of
Public Administration and Research. 2(5), pp. 12-22.

Bortoleto, A.P. 2014: Waste Prevention Policy and Behaviour - New Approaches to
Reducing Waste Generation and its Environmental Impacts. Edition: 1, Publisher:
Routledge.

Bouder, S. 2013: Critical Components for Public Awareness Campaigns. Advocacy

Unleashed. Retrieved from https://advocacyunleashed.kontribune.com/articles/1371.
Accessed 10 January 2017.

Boyatzis, R. E. 1998: Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and

code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Bremner J. Frost, A. Haub, C. Mather, M. Ringheim, K. & Zuehlke, E. 2010: World

Population Highlights: Key findings from PRB’s 2010 World Population Data Sheet,
Population Bulletin, 65, 2, Population Reference Bureau Publications

Britten, N. 1999: Qualitative Interviews in Healthcare. In: Pope, C. & Mays, N.,
Eds., Qualitative Research in Health Care, 2nd Edition, BMJ Books, London, 11-19.

British Broadcasting Corporation. 2004: Kano Nigeria’s ancient city state.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3708309.stm. Accessed 10 October 2015.

Bryman, A. 1988: Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Routledge.

Bryman, A. & Cramer, D. 2001: Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for
windows: A guide for social Scientists. Routledge, London.

Bryman, A. 2012. Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Bulmer, M. 2004: GE Benchmarks in social research methods.

http://www.uk.sagepub.com/refbooks.

Burnley, S. J. 2007: A review of municipal solid waste composition in the United

Kingdom. Waste Management, 27(10), pp. 1274-1285.

Butu, A.W. Ageda B.R. and Bichi A.A. 2013: Environmental impacts of roadside
disposal of municipal solid waste in Karu, Nasarawa State, Nigeria. International
Journal of Environment and Pollution Research, 1 (1) 1 -19.

269
Butu, A.W. & Mshelia, S.S. 2014: Municipal solid waste disposal and environmental
issues in Kano metropolis Nigeria; Britain Journal of Environmental Sciences 2. (1),
1-16.

CDCP. 2007: Malaria: Life cycle of Plasmodium species, 2007 (Online) Available
http://www.cdcgov/malaria/plasmodium species.html, Accessed on 23 April, 2015.

CDPH. Undated: Practical tips for the use and care of reusable grocery shopping
bags.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CEH/DFDCS/CDPH%20Document%20Library/
FDB/FoodSafetyProgram/GuidelinesRB.pdf. Accessed 13 September 2017.

Cesar, G.V. Bryce, J. Fontaine, O. Monasch. R. 2000: Reducing deaths from

diarrhoea through oral rehydration therapy. Bull World Health Organization 2000;
78:1246-55.

Chete, L.N. Adeoti, J.O. Adeyinka, F.M. & Ogundele, O. 2016: Industrial
development and growth in Nigeria: Lessons and challenges. African Development
Bank Group. Working paper No.8 Learning to complete.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/L2C_WP8_Chete-et-al-
1.pdf. Accessed 9 September 2017.

Chikezie, C. & Ikemitan, S.2011: Insecurity as a Threat to National Development. In

Pilot Daily Newspaper 8 March, 2011.

Chikwendu C.C. 1997: Effective Public/Private Sector for Sustainable

Environmental Mamagernent In Jitney & Otitoloju (Ed.). Environmental Population
and Management. Lagos: Sey PubIishers.

Chima, C. N. Jude N. O. Justina, C. O. & Ekpewerechi S. A. 2013: Biogas Potential

of Organic Waste in Nigeria. Journal of Urban and Environmental Engineering.
7(1), pp. 110-116

Choon, A. 2016: Factors in the current Lassa fever outbreak in Nigeria.

https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bugbitten/2016/03/14/factors-in-the-current-lassa-
fever-outbreak-in-nigeria/. Accessed 10 June 2017

CIA. 2011: The World Fact Book. 2011: Africa: Nigeria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Factbook. Accessed 2 December 2013.

CIA. 2013: The World Factbook 2013-14 [Online]. Washington, DC: Central
Intelligence Agency Available: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/index.html Accessed 10 December 2013.

270
CIA. 2015: The World Factbook 2015-2016 [online].Washington, DC: Central
Intelligence Agency Available: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/ni.html. Accessed 10 August 2016.

CIPS. 2007: How to develop a waste management and disposal strategy.

https://www.cips.org/Documents/About%20CIPS/Develop%20Waste%20v3%20-
%2020.11.07.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2017.

City Population. 2015: Nigeria: Administrative Division, states and local

government areas. https://www.citypopulation.de/php/nigeria-admin.php. Accessed
7/ August 2017

Clarke, V. & Braun, V. 2013. Teaching Thematic Analysis: Overcoming Challenges

and Developing Strategies for Effective Learning. The Psychologist, 26(2) pp. 120-
123.

Cleary, J. 2010: The incorporation of waste prevention activities into life cycle
assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: methodological issues.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15: pp. 579–589.

CLUVA (Undated): Research into climate change vulnerability and adaptation in

urban areas of Cameroon. http://www.ketso.com/examples-case-studies/global-
south#Cameroon. Assessed 20thJuly 2017.

Coffman, J. 2002: Public communication campaign evaluation: An environmental

scan of challenges, criticisms, practice, and opportunities. Harvard Family Research
Project. Cambridge, MA.

Cointreau, S.J. 1982: Environmental management of urban solid waste in developing

countries. A project guide World Bank technical paper, number 5, Washington D.C.

Cointreau, S. 2006: Occupational and Environmental Health Issues of Solid Waste

Management: Special Emphasis on Middle- and Lower-Income Countries.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUSWM/Resources/up-2.pdf.

Coker, C. 2006: Environmental Remediation by Composting. Biocycle, 47, pp. 18-

23.

Coker, A. Sangodoyin, A. Sridhar, M. Booth, C. Olomolaiye, P. & Hammond, F.

2009: Medical waste management in Ibadan, Nigeria: Obstacles and Prospects.
Waste Management. 29, (2), pp. 804-811

Cole, M. Lindequet, P Filemant, E. Halsband, C. Goodhead, R. Moger, J &

Galloway T.S. 2013: Micro plastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environment Science
and Technology. 47 (12) pp. 6646–6655.

271
Colon, J. Martinez-Blanco, J. Gabarell, X. Artola, A. Sanchez, A. Rierdevall, J, &
Font, X. 2010: Environmental assessment of home composting. Resource
Conservation Recycling 54, pp. 893-904.

Community Toolbox 2014: SWOT analysis.

https://www.revolvy.com/topic/SWOT%20analysis&item_type=topic. Accessed 22
February 2014.

Council Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19

November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Official Journal of the
European Communities L 312/51, 22.11.2008, pp. 3-30.

Cox, J., Chabord, E. & Kuss-Tenzer, C. 2006: Establishing the behaviour change
evidence base to inform community based waste prevention and recycling.
Proceedings of Waste 2006 Sustainable Waste and Resource Management, Stratford-
upon-Avon, The Waste Conference, Coventry.

Cox, J. Giorgi, S. Sharp V, Strange, K, Wilson, D & Blakey, N. 2010: Household

waste prevention – A review of evidence. Waste Management and Research 28: pp.
193–219

CPE 2010: Landfill recovery and use in Nigeria (Pre-feasibility studies of using
LFGE)

Creative Research Systems. 2015. Sample Size Calculator [Online]. Petaluma CA:
Creative Research Systems Available:
http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#one. Accessed 28 January 2015.

Creswell, J.W. & Miller, D.L. 2000: Determining validity in qualitative enquiry.
Theory into practice, 39 (3), 124-131.

Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed

Methods Research, London; Los Angeles, SAGE.

Creswell, J. W. Plano Clark, V. L. Guttmann, M. L. & Hanson, E. E. 2003.

Advanced mixed methods research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.),
Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curtis, S. Gesler, W. Smith, G. & Washburn, S. 2000: Approaches to Sampling and

Case Selection in Qualitative Research: Examples in the Geography of Health.
Social Science and Medicine, 50(7) pp. 1001-1014.

Daffi, R.E. & Kassam, P.R. 2013: Surface water pollution in Nigerian urban areas: A
close look at Jos city and its surroundings. A paper presented at the 36th WEDC
conference, Nakuru, Kenya.

272
Dahlén, L. & Lagerkvist, A. 2008: Methods for household waste composition
studies. Waste Management, 28(7), 1100-1112.

Daily Independent. 2014: World Bank Report on Poverty in Nigeria. Available at:
http://dailyindependentnig.com/2014/05/world-bank-report-poverty-nigeria.
Accessed on 5 April, 2015.

Dalhat, M.M. Isa, A.N. Nguku, P. Nasir, S.G. Urban, K. Abdulaziz, M. Dankoli,
R.S. Nsubuga, P. & Poggensee, G. 2014: Descriptive characterization of the 2010
cholera outbreak in Nigeria.
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1167.
Accessed 24 June 2016.

Dangogo, S. & Fernado, C. 1986: A simple biogas plant with additional gas storage
system. Nigerian Journal of Solar Energy. 5: pp. 138-141.

Dauda R.S. 2016: Poverty and Economic Growth in Nigeria: Issues and policies.
Journal of Poverty. 21 (1), pp. 61-79.

Dauda, M. & Osita, O. O. 2003: Solid Waste Management and Re-use in Maiduguri,
Nigeria. Towards the Millennium Development Goals. 29th WEDC International
Conference, Abuja, Nigeria, pp. 20-23.

Dawang, D.N, Aricha, A.A, & John, D.H. 2015: Bacteriological quality of some
hand-dug wells water source of drinking water in Ban village, Plateau State Nigeria.
American Journal if microbiology, 6 (2), pp.44-47.

DEFRA. 2013: Statistics on waste managed by local authorities in England in

2012/13, London: Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

Denscombe, M. 2010: The Good Research Guide: for small scale social research
projects. Maidenhead, Open University Press.

Denzin, N. 1978: The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological

Methods, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. 2005: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research,

Thousand Oaks, Calif, Sage Publications.

Deublien, D. & Steinhauser, A. 2008: Biogas from waste and renewable resources,
27-83. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.KGaA.

Dohogne J.J. Undated: Inventory of good practices regarding bio-waste

minimization in Europe.
http://www.miniwaste.eu/mediastore/fckEditor/file/Miniwaste_good_practices_inve
ntory.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2017

273
Dudovskiy J. 2016: The ultimate guide to writing a dissertation in business studies.
A step by step assisstance

DungGwom, J.Y. Hirse, S.O. & Pwat, S.P. 2008: Four year strategic plan for urban
development and housing in Plateau State (2008-2011). A report submitted to the
Plateau State Strategic Planning committee.

EC. 2012: Preparing a Waste Prevention Programme Guidance document.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/Waste%20prevention%20guid
elines.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2017.

EC. 2013: Prevention is better than cure: The role of waste prevention in moving to a
more resource efficient economy.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/26502
2/pb14091-waste-prevention-20131211.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2017.

EC. 2013b: Waste. Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/. Accessed

23 June 2016.

EC. 2014: Environment: 80 per cent of Europeans want their country to waste less.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-750_en.htm. Accessed on the 23 March
2017

EC. 2015, ‘European Commission — Environment — Moving towards circular

economy' (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm).
Accessed 23 September 2015.

EC. 2016: Waste Prevention Best Practices.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/practices.htm. Accessed on 10
March 2017.

Eche, O.F. Ali, A.Y. Vivan, E.L. Danjuma, A.K. Sohotden, C.D. 2015: An
assessment of PEPSA as a waste management institution in Jos city, Nigeria.
International journal of scientific and Technology Research. 4(2), pp. 163-170.

ECN. 2014: European Quality Assurance Scheme for Compost and Digestate.
Summary document. https://www.compostnetwork.info/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/141015_ECN-QAS-Manual_2nd-edition_final_summary.pdf.
Accessed 30 August 2017.

Eco-Schools England. 2013: Exploring success to inform a new horizon.

http://www.eco-schools.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2014/05/EcoSchools_Report_2013_1183.pdf. Accessed 31 May
2017.

274
Edinborough, F. 2009: The parish of Rio Claro: A caring community, catholic news,
May 10.Port of Spain: Archdiocese of Port Spain, http://www.catholicnews-
tt.net/joomla/index.php?option=com-
content&view=article&=468:parishupdate100509&catid=81:parishupdate$itemid=9
1. Accessed 4 October 2010.

EEA. 2015: Waste prevention in Europe.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/waste/waste-prevention/waste-prevention.
Accessed 30 August 2017.

EFA. 2015: National Review Report.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002310/231081e.pdf. Accessed 28 August
2017.

Efe, S.I. 2013: Waste Disposal Problems and Management in Ughelli, Nigeria.
Journal of Environmental Protection. 4, pp. 4-11.

EFInA. 2011: Understanding the low income population in Nigeria.

http://www.EFInA.org.ng/assets/Documents/EFInAUnderstanding-the-Low-Income-
Population-in-NigeriaFDG-ReportMarch-2011.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2016.

Egbere, O.J. Itelima, J.U. & Opiah, F.O. 2001: Municipal solid waste segregation
and their health hazard: Implication in Angwan Rogo ward of Jos, Plateau State
Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 4(1) pp. 14-20.

Egunjobi, L. 2002: Planning the Nigerian Cities for Better Quality of Life. In
Onakomaiya S.O, & Oyesiku O.O. (Eds). Environment, Physical Planning and
Development in Nigeria, Department of Geography and Regional Planning, Olabisi
Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Nigeria, pp. 89-107.

Eionet. 2015: Future work on the circular economy in the EEA & Eionet (2015-
­‐2020). EEA Waste Prevention Activities. https://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-scp-
waste/library/eionet-workshops/2015-eionet-. Accessed 30 August 2017.

Ejaro, S. P. & Jiya, S. N. 2013: Source Specific Quantification, Characterisation and

Management of Solid Waste in Lapai, Niger State, Nigeria. Ethiopian Journal of
Environmental Studies and Management. 6 (5), pp. 561-569.

Ekwoaba, J.O. & Olusanya, O.A. Undated: National Minimum-wage of 2011 and
labour market situation in Nigeria.

ELRI. 2009: Environmental Law Research Institute (2009). Compilation of

Institutions and Waste Management Regulations in Nigeria. http://www.elri-ng.org.
Accessed 5 September 2017.

275
Elusoji, E. 2015: Nigeria: Students of Caleb British Academy and Others for the
Green Schools Programme. http://allafrica.com/stories/201512150152.html. 30
August 2017.

Enayetullah, I. Rothenberger, S. Maqsood Sinha, A. H. M. & Zurbrügg, C. 2006:

UNESCAP - Decentralised Composting for Cities of low- and Middle - Income
Countries - A Users’ Manual. Bangladesh: Waste Concern.

Enete I. C. 2010: Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Solid Waste Management

in Nigeria. https://earthzine.org/2010/10/04/potential-impacts-of-climate-change-on-
solid-waste-management-in-nigeria/. Accessed 12 May 2017

Enwerekowe, E.O. 2011: An appraisal of waste management system systems for

informal settlement within Jos urban areas in Nigeria. Journal of Sciences and
Multidisciplinary Research, 3

Erhabor G.E. & Kolawole O.A. 2002: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A
ten year review of clinical features in OAUTHS Ile Ife, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of
Medicine. 11, pp. 101-104

Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. 2008: Qualitative Methods in Business Research,

London, Sage.

ERM. 2007: Municipal Waste Management Strategy Annex F - Environmental

Report for the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Municipal Waste
Management Strategy for East Sussex. ERM, Oxford, UK.

E-Terra Technologies. 2016: E-Terra set to transform E-Waste management in

Nigeria. http://techcabal.com/2016/10/12/e-terra-set-to-transform-e-waste-
management-in-nigeria/. Accessed 27 August 2017.

European Bio plastics. 2013: Waste Prevention Toolkit.

http://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/waste-prevention-toolkit/.Accessed 5 March
2016.

Ezeah, C. 2010: Analysis of barriers and success factors affecting sustainable

municipal solid waste management in Abuja, Nigeria. PhD Thesis, University of
Wolverhampton.

Ezeah, C. Fazakerly, J.A. & Roberts, C.L. 2013: Emerging trends in informal sector
recycling in developing and transition countries. Waste Management. 33, pp. 2509-
2519.

Ezeah, C. & Roberts, C.L. 2012: Analysis of barriers and success factors affecting
the adoption of sustainable management of municipal solid waste in Nigeria. Journal
of Environmental Management. 103, pp. 9-14.

276
Ezeah, C. & Roberts, C.L. 2014: Waste governance agenda in Nigerian cities: A
comparative analysis. Habitat International. 41, pp. 121-128.

Ezeah, C. Roberts, C. L. Watkin, G. D. Philips, P. S. & Odunfa, A. 2009: Analysis of

barriers affecting the adoption of a sustainable municipal solid waste management
system in Nigeria. In the proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Solid
Waste Technology and Management, 12 - 15 March, 2009. Widener University,
Philadelphia, P.A, USA, pp. 1556-1564.

Ezebilo, E. E. & Animasaun, E. D. 2012: Public–Private Sector Partnership in

Household Waste Management as Perceived by Residents in South-West Nigeria.
Waste Management and Research. 30(8), pp. 781-788.

Eziashi, A.C. 1997: An evaluation of solid waste disposal methods in Jos metropolis:
Implication for environmental education. In Udh & Akpa (eds). Environmental
education for sustainable development: A focus on Nigeria, FAB educational books,
pp. 182-195.

Fabe International. 2017: Education and Training. http://fabeinternational.org/our-

programs/education-and-training/. Accessed 13 September 2017.

Fakere, A.A. Fadairo, G. Oriye, O. 2012: Domestic waste management and urban
residential environment: Focus on Akure, Nigeria. International Journal of
Engineering and Technology. 2 (5), pp. 878-887.

Fapohonda, T.M. Atiku, S.O. & Lawal I.O. 2012: Minimum Wage Implementation
and Management in a Post-Recession Economy: The Nigerian Experience. European
Scientific Journal. 8 (7), pp. 18-35.

Farrell, M. & Jones, D.L. 2009: Critical Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste
Composting and Potential Compost Markets, Bioresource Technology. 100, pp.
4301-4310.

Fell, D. Cox, J. & Wilson D.C. 2010: Future waste growth, modelling and
decoupling. Waste Management and Research. 28, pp. 281–286.

Fellows, R. Liu, A. & Dawsonera. 2008. Research Methods for Construction,

Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell.

Ferreira, F. H. G. Chen, S. Dabalen, A. Dikhanov, Y. Hamadeh, N. Jolliffe, D.M.

Narayan, A. Prydz, E.B. Revenga, A.L. Sangraula, P. Serajuddin,U. & Yoshida, N.
2015: A Global Count of the Extreme Poor in 2012: Data Issues, Methodology and
Initial Results. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. Washington DC: World
Bank.

277
Festus, I. A. & Omoboye, I. F. 2015: Categorization, Characterisation, Management
and Future Trends of Solid Wastes in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria, Mediterranean Journal of
Social Sciences. 6(4), pp. 628-636.

Filani, M.O. & Abumere, S.I. 1982: Solid Waste Generation in Selected Nigerian
Cities. Department of Geography, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.

Filani, M.O. & Abumere, S.I. 1986: Forecasting solid waste management for
Nigerian cities. In Adeniyi & Bello- Imam (eds) Ibid.

Flick, U. 2011: Mixing methods, triangulation and integrated research—Challenges

for qualitative research in a world of crisis. In N. Denzin & M. Giardina (Eds.),
Qualitative inquiry and global crisis, 132-152. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Fobil, J. Kolawole, O. Hogarh, J. Carboo, D. & Rodriguez, F. 2010: Waste

management financing in Ghana and Nigeria-How the concept of polluter pays
principle (ppp) work in both countries. International Journal of Academic Research.
2(3), pp. 139-142.

Fola Consult. 2009: Greater Jos Master Plan, a report by Fola Consult limited for the
Plateau State Government of Nigeria (2008-2025), p.94.

Folorunsho, R. & Awosika, L. 2001: Flood mitigation in Lagos, Nigeria through

wise management of solid waste: A case of Ikoyi and Victoria Islands. Paper
presented at the UNESCO-CSI workshop, Maputo, 19-23 November 2001.

Forbi, J.C. Onyemauwa, N. Gyar S.D. Oyeleye, A.O. Entonu, P. Agwale, S.M. 2008:
High prevalence of hepatitis B virus among female sex workers in Nigeria. Rev Inst
Trop Sao Paulo. 50: pp. 219-221.

Freund, B. 1981: Capital and labor in the Nigerian tin mines, Ibadan history series,
London, Longman, p.275.

Future Centre Trust. 2010: Fast facts of the benefits of choosing reusable shopping
bags. http://futurecentretrust.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Reasons-to-use-
Reusables-final.pdf. Accessed 13 September 2017.

Gall, S.C. & Thompson, R.C. 2015: The impact of debris on marine life. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 92 (1–2), pp. 170-179.

Gawaikar, V. & Deshpande V. P. 2006: Source Specific Quantification and

Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste- A Review. Journal of the Institution of
Engineers. 86, pp. 33-38.

Gbolagade, J.S. 2006: Bacteria associated with compost used for cultivation of
Nigeria edible mushrooms Pleurotius tuber-regium (f-r) Singer and Lentinus
squarrosulus (Berk). African Journal of Biotechnology. 5, pp. 338–342
278
Gellatly, J.L 2011: Decision-making in stepped care for common mental health
problems. A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of PhD
in the Faculty of Medical and Human Sciences.

Gentil E.C. Gallo D. Christensen T.H. 2011: Environmental evaluation of municipal

waste prevention. Waste Management. 31, pp. 2371–2379.

Gerring, J. & Cojocaru, L. 2015: Case -Selection: A Diversity of Methods and

Criteria. http://blogs.bu.edu/jgerring/files/2015/01/Text_4.pdf. Accessed 20 June
2017

Gidarakos, E. Havas, G. & Ntzamilis, P. 2006: Municipal solid waste composition

determination supporting the integrated solid waste management system in the island
of Crete, Waste Management. 26, pp. 668-679

Gill P. Stewart, K. Treasure, E. & Chadwick, B. 2008: Methods of data collection in

qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal. 204 (6),
pp. 291-5.

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. 1967: The Discovery of Grounded Theory - Strategies for
Qualitative Research. London: Weiderfeld and Nicolson.

Goldstein, N. 2008: Zero waste in Buenos Aires (Argentina), Bio cycle. 49 (6), p. 53

Gray, S. & Toleman, I. 2014: National home composting survey results, 1997-2005.
http://warrr.org/1075/1/116.Gray-Toleman.pdf. Accessed 6 January 2014.

Greene, J. Caracelli, V. & Graham W. 1989: Toward a Conceptual Framework for

Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 11,
255-274.

Greentumble. 2015: Waste incineration: Advantages and disadvantages.

http://greentumble.com/waste-incineration-advantages-and-disadvantages/. Accessed
29 August 2017.

Grodzinska-Jurczak, M. Bartosiewicz, A. Twardowska, A. & Ballantyne, R. 2003:

Evaluating the Impact of a School Waste Education Programme upon Students',
Parents' and Teachers' Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education. 12(2), pp.
106-122.

Grover, P. & Singh, P. 2014: An analytical study effect of family income and size
per capita household solid waste generation in developing countries. Review of Arts
in Humanities. 3(1), pp. 127- 143.

Guerrero, L.A. Maas, G. & Hogland, W. 2013: Solid waste management challenges
for cities in developing countries. Waste Management. 33 (1), pp. 220-232.
279
Guest, G.M, MacQueen, K.M. & Namey, E.E. 2012: Applied Thematic Analysis.
Thousand Oaks California: Sage.

Gullett, B.K. Linak, W.P. Touati, A. Wasson, S.J. Gatica, S. King, C.J. 2007:
Characterization of air emissions and residual ash from open burning of electronic
wastes during simulated rudimentary recycling operations. J. Mater. Cycles Waste
Management. 9, pp. 69-79.

Gutierrez, G. Tapia-Conyer, R. Guiscafre, H. Reyes, H. Martínez, H. Kumate, J.

1996: Impact of oral rehydration and selected public health interventions on
reduction of mortality from childhood diarrhoeal diseases in Mexico. Bull the World
Health Organization; 74, pp.189-97.

Gyang, J.D. & Ashano E.C. 2010: The role of geosciences in sustainable
development of an expanding urban region: A case of the Jos-Bukuru urban region,
North Central Nigeria. The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology. 11 (2), pp.
664-

Hall, J. M, 2010: ‘Trees in Towns: Factors Affecting the Distribution of Trees in

High Density Residential Areas of Greater Manchester’, A thesis submitted to the
University of Manchester for the degree of Ph.D. in the Faculty of Humanities,
School of Environment and Development, Planning and Landscape Department.

Hammed, T.B. Soyingbe, A. A. & Adewole, D. O. 2011: An abattoir waste water

management through composting: A case study of Alesinloye waste recycling
complex. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences. 6(2), pp. 67-78.

Hardoy, J. Mitlin, D. & Satterthwaite, D. 1993: Environmental Problems in Third

World Cities. London: Earthscan.

Harir, A.I. Kasim, R. Ishiyaku, B. 2015: Resource potentials of composting the

organic waste stream from municipal solid waste compositions arising in Nigerian
cities. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 3, pp. 10-15

Harris, E.M. 2012: Visit California Farms: Your Guide to Farm Stays, Tours, and
Hands-On Workshops.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LH8WDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&d
q=Harris+2012+home+composting&source. Accessed 5 September 2017.

Henry, R. K. Zhao, Y. S. & Dong, J. 2006: Municipal solid waste management

challenges in developing countries - Kenyan case study. Waste Management, 26 (1) ,
pp. 92-100.

Henshaw, G. 2017: The informal sector and taxation in Nigeria.

barcode.stillwaterslaw.com/1.1/2017/04/01/the-informal-sector-and-taxation-in-
nigeria. 6th June 2017.
280
Hillebrand, B. Kok, R. A. W. & Biemans, W. G. 2001: Theory-testing using case
studies: A comment on Johnston, Leach, & Liu. Industrial Marketing Management,
30 (8), pp. 651-657.

Holbrook, A.L. Geen, M.C. & Krosnick, J.A. 2003: Telephone versus face-to-face
interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: comparison of
respondent satisfying and social desirability response bias. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 67, pp. 79-125.

Holmes, A. 2013: Direct observations: Encyclopaedia of Autism spectrum disorders,

pp. 980-981.

Hoornweg, D. & Bhada-Tata, P. 2012: What a waste. A global Review of Solid

Waste Management. Urban development series knowledge papers number 15.

Hoornweg, D. Lam, P. & Chaudhry, M. 2005: Waste Management in China: Issues

and Recommendations. Urban Development Working Papers No. 9. East Asia
Infrastructure Department. World Bank.

Hoornweg, D. Thomas, L. and Otten, L. 1999: Composting and its applicability in

developing countries. Published for urban development division. The World Bank,
Washington D.C. 8 Working Paper Series

Hou, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., Guthrie, P. & Watanabe, K. 2012: Sustainable waste and
materials management: national policy and global perspective. Environment Science
and Technology. 46, pp. 2494–2495.

Hove, M. Ngwerume, E.T. & Muchemwa, C. 2013: The Urban Crisis in Sub-
Saharan Africa: A Threat to Human Security and Sustainable Development.
Stability: International Journal of Security and Development. 2(1), pp. 1-14.

Hulley, S. B. 2007: Designing Clinical Research. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins,

pp. 168-169.

Humphrey, A.S. 2005: SWOT Analysis for Management Consulting. SRI Alumni
Newsletter. SRI International, 1. (US).
https://www.sri.com/sites/default/files/brochures/dec-05.pdf. Accessed 7 March 2016

Humphrey, A.S. 2012: The father of Team Action Management (TAM). TAM UK.
Accessed 06 March 2016.

Ibrahim M.A. 2014: The role of private sector participation in municipal solid waste
in Kano metropolis. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science
Invention. 3 (5), pp. 37-42

281
Ibrahim, R.A. Adeyemi, O.E. Adebayo, A. 2014: Municipal household solid waste
collection strategies in an African megacity. Analysis of Public Private Partnership
Performance in Lagos. Waste Management Research, 32(9), pp. 67-78.

Ibrahim, H. 2015: Plateau sensitise communities on refuse evacuation. https:

//www.dailytrust.com.ng/daily/index.php/environment/49069-plateau-sensitise-
communities-on-refuse. Accessed 20 May 2017

Ifediora, C. O. Idoko, O. R. & Nzekwe, J. 2014: Organization’s stability and

productivity: the role of SWOT analysis an acronym for strength, weakness,
opportunities and threat. International Journal of Innovative and Applied Research.
2, (9), pp. 23- 32.

Ifegbesan, A. 2009: Exploring secondary school students understanding and practice

of waste management in Ogun state, Nigeria. International journal of Environmental
Education. 5, pp. 201-215.

Igbinomwanhia, D.I. 2011: Status of Waste Management. Integrated Waste

Management – Volume II, Mr. Sunil Kumar (Ed.),
http://www.intechopen.com/books/integrated-waste-management-volume-ii/status-
of-waste-management. Accessed 06 March 2016.

Igoni, A. H. Ayotamuno, M. J. Ogaji, S. O. T. & Probert, S. D. 2007: Municipal

solid-waste in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Applied Energy. 84 (6), pp. 664-670.

Ijaiya H.O. & Joseph O. T. 2014: Rethinking Environmental Law Enforcement in

Nigeria. Beijing Law Review. 5 (4), pp. 306-321.

Ikhariale, M. 1989: The Koko Incident, the Environment and the Law, in The Law
and the Environment in Nigeria, Shyllon, F., (ed.). lbadan: Vintage Publishers. pp.
73-75.

Ikpeze, N. 2014: Safe disposal of municipal wastes in Nigeria: Perspectives on a

rights based approach. Afe Babalola University: Journal of Sustainable Development
Law and Policy. 3, pp. 1.

ILO. 1970: Convention 131- Minimum Wage Fixing. www.ilo.org/dy/normlex.

Imam, A. Mohamed, B. Wilson, D.C. & Cheeseman, C.R. 2008: Solid waste
management in Abuja, Nigeria. Waste Management 28, pp. 468-472.

Interhealth Worldwide. 2014: Cholera outbreak in Nigeria.

https://www.interhealthworldwide.org/home/health-resources/health-
alerts/2014/november/18/cholera-outbreak-in-nigeria/. Accessed 9 June 2017

IPCC. 2007: "Glossary J-P. In (book section): Annex I. In: Climate Change 2007:
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz et al. Eds.)".
282
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., & New York, N.Y., U.S.A. Accessed
23 April 2016.

Iriruaga, E.T. 2012: Solid waste management in Nigeria. www.d-waste.com>new

ideas.

Isa, M.K. 2015: Nigerian Local Government System and Governance: Lessons,
Prospects, and Challenges for Post 2015 Development Goals. Paper presented at the
International Research Society for Public Management Conference hosted by
College of Social Sciences, School of Government and Society. University of
Birmingham, 30th March to 2nd April 2015.

Iwegbue, C.M.A Emuh, F.N. Isirimah, N.O. & Egun, A.C. 2007: Review on
fractionation, characterization and speciation of heavy metals in compost and
compost amended soils. African Journal of Biotechnology. 6, pp. 67–78.

Iwuoha, J.P. 2016: Plastic shopping bags will soon be history everywhere in Africa.
Here is why… https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plastic-shopping-bags-soon-history-
everywhere-africa-heres-iwuoha. Accessed 28 February 2017.

Jatau, A.A. 2013: Knowledge, attitudes and practices associated with waste
management in Jos South metropolis, Plateau State. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences. 4(5), pp. 119-127

Javadi, M. & Zarea, K. 2016: Understanding thematic analysis and its pitfalls.
Journal of Client Care, 1(1), pp.33-39.

Joffe, H. & Yardley, L. 2003: Content and thematic analysis. In, Marks, David F.
and Yardley, Lucy (eds.) Research Methods for Clinical and Health Psychology.
Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 56-68.

Johnson, R. B. & Turner, L. A. 2003: Data collection strategies in mixed methods

research. In A.Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in
social and behavioral research (297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Joppe, M. 2000: The research process. https://www.ryerson.ca~mjoppe/rp.htm.

Accessed 16 December 2006.

Joshua, O.O. 2013: SWM for sustainable development and public health: A case
study of Lagos State, Nigeria. Universal Journal of Public Health. 1(3), pp. 33-39

Kayode, A.M. & Omole, F.K. 2011: Some socio economic factors affecting solid
wastes generation and disposal in Ibadan metropolis, Nigeria. Journal of
Environmental issues and Agriculture in developing countries, 3(1), pp. 55-64.

Ketso. 2012. User Guide: http://www.ketso.com/resources-

downloads/downloads/user-guide Accessed 28 April 2016.
283
Khadafa, A.A. Latifah, A.M. Abdullah, H.S. Suleiman, W.N.A. 2013: A
Comparative Assessment of the Municipal Solid Waste Management Services. Life
Science Journal, 10.

Khatib, I.A. 2011: MSWM in developing countries: Future challenges and possible
opportunities. In Kumar, S. (ed), Integrated Waste Management. 2, pp. 35-51, Rijeka
Croatia, Intech.

Kibbler, C. 2007: Growing heap. Journal of the community composting network, 40.
http://www.communitycompost.org/growingheap/2007%20Winter.pdf. Accessed 4
September 2017.

Kitzinger, J. 1994: ‘The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction

between research participants’, Sociology of Health. 16 (1), pp. 103-121.

Kitzinger, J. 1995: ‘Introducing focus groups’, British Medical Journal. 311, pp.
299-302.

Knoema. 2016: Nigeria household size by state. http://knoema.com>World Data

Atlas>Nigeria>Ranking.

Know Your Candidate (2016) Implementing Employment Screening for Your

Company. Know Your Candidate, Manchester, UK.

Knox, A. 2005: An Overview of Incineration and EFW Technology as Applied to

the Management of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) (PDF). University of Western
Ontario.

Kofoworola, O.F. 2007: Recovery and recycling practices in municipal solid waste
management in Lagos, Nigeria. Waste Management. 27, pp. 1139- 1143.

Kogers, S.M. Schettler, T. & Weiss, B. 2005: Environmental Toxicants and

developmental disabilities: A challenge for psychologists. American Psychologist.
60(3), pp. 243 –255.

Konya, R.S Zitte, L.F. & Ugwulor, Q.N. 2013: Characterization of waste and their
recycling potentials: A case study of East-West road, Port Harcourt. Journal of
Applied Science and Environmental Management. 17(2), pp. 233-238.

Krishnaswami, O.R. & Ranganatham, M. 2007: Methodology of Research in Social

Sciences, Hyderabad: Himalaya publishing House, pp. 338-339

Krueger, R.A. 1988: Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. London:
Sage. Publications, Inc. Newbury Park: California, U.S.A.

284
Krueger, R.A. 1994: Focus groups: A practical guide to Applied Research, 2nd
Edition. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage publications.

Lapadat, J.C. 2010: Thematic analysis. In Albert, J.M, Gabrielle, D & Elden, W
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (926-927). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lardinois, I. & Van de Klundert A. (eds.) 1993: Organic Waste. Urban Solid Waste
Series 1: Options for small-scale resource recovery. Waste, Gouda, the Netherlands.

Lasisi, K.S. 2007: An appraisal of MSWM in Lagos State. Longman Publications,

Ibadan.

Lawal, T. 2010: Political Thuggery and Violence in Nigeria: The Bane of Women
Participation in Politics.

Lawal, T & Oluwatoyin, A. 2011: National development in Nigeria: Issues,

challenges and prospects. Journal of public Administration and policy research.
3(9), pp. 237-241

Leton, T. & Omotosho, O. 2004: Landfill operations in the Niger delta region of
Nigeria. Engineering Geology. 73(1), pp. 171-177.

Lewcock, C. P. 1994: Case Study of the Use of Urban Waste by Near-urban Farmers
of Kano, Nigeria. Chatham Maritime: Natural Resources Institute, Project No.
A0354.

Lewcock, C. 1995: Farmer use of urban waste in Kano. Habitat International, 19(2),
pp. 225-234.

Lewis, M. 2000: Focus Group Interviews in Qualitative Research. A Review of the

Literature. Action Research Electronic Reader. Available:
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arr/arow/rlewis.html.

Li, W.C. Tse, H.F. & Fok, L. 2016: Plastic waste in the marine environment: A
review of sources, occurrence and effects. Science of the Total Environment. 566–
567, pp. 333-349.

Lingnau, H. 2016: Major breakthrough. Development and cooperation.

https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/what-last-years-update-world-banks-poverty-line-
means. Accessed 9th May 2017.

Longe, E.O. & Balogun M.R. 2010: Groundwater Quality Assessment near a
Municipal Landfill, Lagos, Nigeria. Research Journal of Applied Sciences,
Engineering and Technology. 2(1), pp. 39-44.

Longe, E.O. & Enekwechi, L.O. 2007: Investigation on potential groundwater

impacts and influence of local hydrogeology on natural attenuation of leachate at a
285
municipal landfill. Internation Journal of Environmental Science and Technology.
4(1), pp. 133-140.

Longe, E.O. & M.O. Kehinde. 2005: Investigation of potential groundwater impacts
at an unlined waste disposal site in Agege, Lagos, Nigeria. Proceeding of 3rd
International Conference, Faculty of Engineering, University of Lagos, Lagos, May
23-26, pp. 21-29.

Longe, E.O. & Williams, A. 2006: A preliminary study of medical waste

management in Lagos metropolis, Nigeria. Iranian journal of environmental health
science and Engineering. 3(2), pp. 133-139.

Main, H.A.C. 1993: Urbanisation, rural environmental degradation and resilience in

Africa. In Environment and Development: Views from the East and the West, edited
by Amitav Mukherjee, V.K. Agnihotri. Concept Publishing Company.

Mallo, D.M. & Anigbogu, N.A. 2009: Housing quality between residential
neighborhoods in Jos, Nigeria. In ISA international conference, housing assets,
housing people, Glasgow, September 1-4 2009.

Marin, M. A. Thompson C.C. Freitas F.S. Fonseca E.L. Aboderin A.O. Zailani SB.
2013: Cholera Outbreaks in Nigeria Are Associated with Multidrug Resistant
Atypical El Tor and Non-O1/Non-O139 Vibrio cholerae. 7(2), pp. 1-9.

Martínez-Mesa, J. González-Chica, D. Duquia, R.P. Bonamigo R.R. & Bastos J.L.

2016: Sampling: how to select participants in my research study? Anais Brasileiros
De Dermatologia. May-Jun; 91(3), pp. 326–330.

Mathers, S Sylva, K & Joshi, H 2007: Quality of Childcare Settings in the Millenium
Cohort Study. Nottingham DfES Publications. Research Report Number
SSU/2007/FR/025 http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/e ordering
Download/SSU2007FR025.pdf.

Mathers, N. Fox, N. & Hunn, A. 2009: Surveys and Questionnaires.

https://www.rds-yh.nihr.ac.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/12_Surveys_and_Questionnaires_Revision_2009.pdf.
Accessed 24 February 2015.

Mathews, M. P. 2002: Nigeria current issues and historical background. Nova

Publishers.

May, T. 2011: Social research: Issues, methods and research. London: McGraw-Hill
International.

Mbah, P.O. & Nzeadibe, T.C. 2016: Inclusive municipal solid waste management
policy in Nigeria: engaging the informal economy in post-2015 development agenda.

286
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13549839.2016.1188062?src=recsys&j
ournalCode=cloe20. Accessed 12 June 2017.

McAllister, J. 2015: Factors influencing SWM in developing world. All graduate B

and other reports, paper 528. Utah State University.

MCC. 2017: Making a living with seeds, plastic and what you have.
https://mcc.org/stories/making-living-seeds-plastic-what-you-have. Accessed 20 July
2017.

Meseko C.A. Shittu I.A. Akinyede O. 2012: Seroprevalence of Fowl Pox Antibody
in Indigenous Chickens in Jos North and South Council Areas of Plateau State,
Nigeria: Implication for Vector Vaccine.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237200725. Accessed 10 May 2016.

Meucci, S. & Schwab, M. 1997: Children and the environment: Young people’s
participation in social change. Social Justice. 24 (3), pp. 1-11.

Michael-Agwuoke, M.U. & Ekpete, B.O. 2013: Adding Value to Municipal Solid
Waste in Nigeria through Mapping. FIG Working Week, Environment for
Sustainability, Abuja, Nigeria, 6-10th May 2013.

Miles, M. & Huberman, A. 1994: Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage, London.

Mills, A. J. Durepos, G. & Wiebe, E. 2010: Encyclopaedia of case study research.

London: Sage.

Modebe I.A. Onyeonoro U.U. Ezeama, N.N. Ogbuagu C.N. & Agam N.E. 2009:
Public Health Implication of Household Solid Waste Management In Awka South
East Nigeria. The Internet Journal of Public Health. 1 (1), pp. 1-6.

Momodu, N.S. Dimuna, K.O. & Dimuna, J.E. 2011: Mitigating the impact of solid
waste in urban centers in Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology. 34 (2), pp. 125-133.

Moore, A. 2006: A residential area in Jos, Nigeria.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/andryn2006/3704318665 Accessed 12 March 2016.

Morakinyo, K.O. Ogunrayewa, M. O. Koleosho, B. O. & Adenubi, O. O. 2012:

Urban Slums as Spatial Manifestations of Urbanization in Sub- Saharan Africa: A
Case Study of Ajegunle Slum Settlement, Lagos, Nigeria. Developing Country
Studies. 2 (11).

Morgan, D.L. 1992: Designing focus group research. In tools for primary care
research, Ed.M. Steward, et al, 177- 193. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morgan, D.L. 1998: Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

287
Morgan D.L & Krueger R.A 1997: Focus group kit. Vol. 1-6.Sage Publications
London.

Morse, J. M. 2000. Determining Sample Size. Qualitative Health Research. 10(1),

pp. 3-5.

Mortimore M.J. 1972: Some aspects of rural-urban relations in Kano, Nigeria.

Colloques Internationaux du CRNS, Paris.

Moruff, M. 2012: Cultural understanding of space and waste disposal habit among
the urban populace in Ibadan Metropolis, South Western Nigaria. http://www.jsd-
africa.com/Jsda/Vol14No4-Summer2012B/PDF/Cultural Understanding of Space
and Waste Disposal Habit. 23 August 2017.

Morrison, J.H. 1976: Jos Plateau Societies: Internal change and External Influence,
1800 –1935 PhD Thesis University of Ibadan Department of History.

Mrayyan, B. Hamdi M.R. 2006: Management approaches to integrated solid waste in

industrialized zones in Jordan: a case of Zarqa City. Journal of Waste Management.
26, pp. 195–205.

Murphy, E. Dingwall, R. Greatbatch, D. 1998: Qualitative Research Methods in

Health Technology Assessment: A Review of the Literature. Alton: Core Research,
on behalf of National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment.

Musa, N.Z. Eguaroje, O.E. Olorunfemi, J.F. 2008: Use of geospatial data for
sustainable management of solid waste in Bukuru, Jos, Plateau State Nigeria.
ACCRA2008 - 7th AARSE CONFERENCE: Application of Earth Observation and
Geo-information for Governance in Africa 27-30 Oct. 2008.Centre for Remote
Sensing & Geographic Information Services (CERSGIS), University of Ghana,
Legon, Accra, Ghana.

Musa B. M. Bussell, S. Borodo, M. M. Samaila, A. A. Femi, O. L. 2015: Prevalence

of Hepatitis B Virus Infection in Nigeria, 2000- 2013: A Systematic Review and
Meta-analysis. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice. 18(2), pp. 163-172.

MyLifeElsewhere. 2017: Country Size Comparison.

www.mylifeelsewhere.com/Country-size-comparison/nigeria/united-kingdom.
Accessed 6th July 2017.

Nabegu, A.B. 2010: An Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste in Kano Metropolis,

Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology. 31 (2), pp. 111-119.

Nabegu, A.B. 2011: Solid Waste and Its Implications for Climate Change in Nigeria.
Journal of Human Ecology. 34, pp. 67-73.

288
Nabegu, A. B. 2013: Application of One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in
Exploring Municipal Solid Waste Characteristics in Kano Metropolis, North western
Nigeria, Greener Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research. 3 (2),
pp. 62-67

Nabegu, A.B. & Mustapha, A. 2014: Enhancing awareness and participation of

MSWM in Kano metropolis, Nigeria. Available online at
www.worldscientificnews.com

Nabegu, A.B. & Mustapha, A. 2015: Institutional constraints to municipal solid

waste management in Kano metropolis, Nigeria. International Journal of Innovative
Environmental Studies Research. 3(3), p.13

National Agency for the Control of AIDS. 2014: Nigeria National Agency for the
Control of AIDS Global AIDS Response Country Progress Report (2014) Nigeria.
Accessed 10 June 2017.

NDHS. 2013: Abuja, Nigeria, & Rockville, Maryland, USA: NPC and ICF
International. https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR293/FR293.pdf. Accessed 03
February 2017.

Neuman, W. L. 2011. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches, Boston, Allyn & Bacon.

NHP. 2006: Policy document of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN).

Nigerian Constitution. 1999: Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

http://www.nigeria-law.org/ConstitutionOfTheFederalRepublicOfNigeria.htm.
Accessed 12 December 2015.

Nigerian Environmental Society. (Undated): Waste Management [Online]. Nigerian

Environmental Society. Available:
http://www.nesenviron.com/nes/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3
1&Itemid=39. Accessed 24 April 2016.

NEST. 1991: Nigeria’s threatened environment: a national profile. A book published

by the Nigerian Environmental Study /Action Team.

New Agency of Nigeria (2017): Visionscape to partner local truck dealers on Lagos
waste management. https://theeagleonline.com.ng/visionscape-to-partner-local-
truck-dealers-on-lagos-waste-management/. Accessed 25th February 2017.

Ngumah C.C. Ogbulie J.N. Orji J.C. and Amadi, E.S. 2013: Biogas potential of
organic waste in Nigeria. Journal of urban and environmental engineering. 7 (1), pp.
110-116.

289
Ngwuluka, N. Ochekpe, N. Odumosu, P. John, S.A. 2009: Waste management in
health care establishments in Jos metropolis, Nigeria. African Journal of
Environmental Science and Technology. 3 (12), pp. 459- 465.

NIUA. 2015: Urban Solid Waste Management: Compendium of global good

practices. https://pearl.niua.org/sites/default/files/books/GP-GL3_SWM.pdf.
Accessed 31 August 2017.

Njiraini, N. N. K, 2015: ‘Exploring the importance of critical thinking in creating

capabilities for self-reliance in international community development: A Kenyan
context’. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.

Njoku, N. Lamond, J. Everett, G. and Manu, P. 2015: An overview of municipal

solid waste management in developing and developed economies: Analysis of
practices and contributions to urban flooding in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: 12th
International Postgraduate Research Conference Proceedings, Manchester, UK, 10-
12 June 2015, pp. 200-212.

Nkwocha, E & Emeribe, C.A 2004: Proliferation of unsanitary waste dumpsites in

urban and suburban areas in Nigeria: Need for construction of regional sanitary
landfills. Journal of Environmental Systems, Bay wood.

Nnaji C.C. 2015: Status of municipal solid waste generation and disposal in Nigeria,
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal. 26 (1), pp. 53 –
71.

NPC. 2006: Report of Nigeria's National Population Commission on the 2006

Census. Population and Development Review, 33 (1), pp. 206-210.

NPC. 2008: Demographic and Health Survey 2008 Abuja, Nigeria: National
Population Commission and ICF Macro.

NSWIC. 2012: National Salaries Income and Wages Commission.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-b-
ab&q=nsiwc+2012+national+wages+and+salaries+&oq=nsiwc+2012+national+wag
es+and+salaries. Accessed 10 July 2016.

Nwabughiogu, L 2015: Payment of N5000 to unemployed youths begins next year.

www.vanguardngr.com Accessed 26 November 2015

Nwachukwu, M.U. 2009: Solid waste generation and disposal in a Nigerian City: An
Empirical Analysis in Onitsha Metropolis. Journal of Environmental Management
and Safety. 1 (1), pp. 180-191.

290
Nwachukwu, M.A Feng, H. & Alinnor, J. 2010: Assessment of heavy metal
pollution in soil and their implications within and around mechanic villages,
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 7 (2), pp. 347–358.

Nwaka, G.I 2005: The urban informal sector in Nigeria: Towards Economic
Development, Environmental Health and Social harmony. Global Urban
Development. 1 (1), pp. 1-11.

Nwanta, J.A, Onunkwo, J, & Ezenduka, E, 2010: Analysis of Nsukka metropolitan

Abattoir solid waste and its bacterial contents in Southeastern Nigeria; Public health
implication. Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health. 65 (1), pp.

Nwaogu, C. 2014: Mobility and biogeochemical cycling of base cations during

weathering processes in a sensitive forest ecosystem, Lysina, Slavkov Forest, Czech
Republic. MSc. thesis. Prague: Department of Applied Ecology, Czech University of
Life Science.

Nwufo, C. C. 2010: Legal Framework for the Regulation of Waste in Nigeria.

African Research Review, 4(2).

Nwosu, C. Omokhudu, G. & Ahijo, T. 2016: An Assessment of Open Dumps and

Landfill Management in the Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria- Using Scotland as a
Case Study for Structural Development. Journal of Environment and Earth Science.
6 (7), pp. 78-91.

NYC. 2017: NYC Reuse sector report. https://wwwl.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/docs/2017 -

NYC-Reuse- sector- report- final.pdf. Accessed 10th August 2017.

NYCCP. 2014: NYC Community Composting Report. Submitted to Department of

Sanitation. The city of New York.

Nzeadibe, T.C. & Eziuzor, O.J. 2006: Waste scavenging and recycling in Onitsha
urban area, Nigeria. CIWM Scientific &Technical Review. 7 (1), pp. 26-31.

Nzeadibe, T.C. & Iwuoha, H.C. 2008: Informal waste recycling in Lagos, Nigeria.
Communications in Waste and Resource Management. 9(1), pp. 24-30.

Nzeadibe, T. C. 2009: Solid waste reforms and informal recycling in Enugu urban
area, Nigeria. Habitat International. 33(1), pp. 93-99.

Nzeadibe, T.C & Ajaero, C.K. 2010: Assessment of socio-economic characteristics

and quality of life expectations of rural communities in Enugu State, Nigeria.
Applied Research in Quality of Life. 5 (4), pp. 353-371.

Nzeadibe, T.C. Ayadiuno, R.U. & Akukwe, T.I. 2010: Solid waste governance in
Owerri urban area, Nigeria: Problems and prospects. Waste Management. 30(2), pp.
355-362.
291
Obasioha, B.O. 2015: Waste Management Progress in Nigeria’s Delta State.
www.bioenergyconsult.com/waste-management/Nigeria.

Obateru, T. 2016: Nigeria and the menace of plastic bags.

https://globalreportingblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/nigeria-and-the-menace-of-
plastic-bags/. Accessed 8 September 2017.

Obi, F.O. Ugwuishiwu, B. O. & Nwakaire, J. N. 2016: Agricultural waste concept,

generation, utilization and management. Nigerian Journal of Technology. 35, (4), pp.
957–964.

Obirri, S. Dodoo, D.K. Essumang, D.K. & Armah, F.A. 2010: Cancer and Non
cancer Risk Management from Exposure to Arsenic, Copper and Cadmium in
Borehole, Tap and Surface Water in the Obuasi Municipality. Human Ecological
Risk Assessment. 16(3), pp. 651-665.

Ocheri, M.I. Odoma, L.A. & Umar, N.D. 2014: Groundwater Quality in Nigerian
Urban Areas: A Review. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research. 14 (3),.

Odon, A. & Guobadia, S. 2011: African Environmental Perspectives - Volume 1: An

Academia for green Africa publication.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uQcD91krTXAC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Af
rican+Environmental+Perspectives:+An+Academia+for+green+Africa+public.
Accessed 5 July 2015.

Odularu, G.O. undated: Crude oil and the Nigerian EconomicPerformance.

http://www.ogbus.ru/eng/authors/odularu/-1.pdf.

OECD. 2000: Towards Sustainable Development: Indicators to Measure Progress,

Proceedings of the OECD Rome Conference, Paris.

Ofoche, C.O. 2012: Socioeconomic problems in Nigeria: Causes and Remedy-

Strategy Research Project. Unpublished MSc manuscript submitted to the United
States Army War College, Class of 2012.

Ogbazi, J. U. 2013: Alternative planning approaches and the sustainable cities

program in Nigeria. Habitat International, 40(3), 109-118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.03.001.

Ogbonna, D.N. & Idam, D.Y. 2007: Appropriate Sanitation Systems for Low-
Income Coastal and Water Front Communities in the Niger Delta, Nigeria.

Ogu, V. I. 2000: Private sector participation and municipal waste management in

Benin City, Nigeria. Environment and Urbanization. 12(2), pp. 103-117.

292
Oguntoyinbo, O.O. 2012: Informal waste management system in Nigeria and
barriers to an inclusive modern waste management system: A review, Public Health.
126, pp. 441-447.

Ogwo, P.A. Obasi, L.O. Okoroigwe, D.S. and Dibia, N.O. 2013: From plastic bags
to wealth: A case study of Abia State University, Nigeria. Journal of Environmental
management and safety. 4 (1), pp. 35-39

Ogwueleka, T.C. 2003: Analysis of urban solid waste in Nsukka, Nigeria. Journal of
Solid Waste Technology and Management. 29 (4), pp. 239-246.

Ogwueleka, T.C. 2009: Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in

Nigeria. Iran journal of environmental health science and engineering. 6 (3), pp.
173-180.

Ogwueleka, T.C. 2013: Survey of household waste composition and quantities in

Abuja, Nigeria. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 77, pp. 52-60.

Ojelede A.L. 2016: Promoting environmental sustainability: A case study of waste

management in Nigeria. A presentation at the 29th World Safety Organization
(WSO) symposium, Houston Texas, 18th-21st Sept.2016.

Ojewole, O.S. 2014: Interurban Analysis of Domestic Solid Waste Disposal Methods
in a Sub-Sahara African City. Journal of waste management. 2014, pp. 1-7.

Ojo, M.O. 2014: SWM in Obantoko area of Abeokuta, Nigeria. Journal of Emerging
Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences. 5 (2), pp. 111-115.

Ojo, A.M. Ogbole, E.O. & Ojo, O.A. 2015: Analysis of improved household solid
waste management system in Minna metropolis, Niger State, Nigeria. Scientific
Paper Series, Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural
Development. 15 (2).

Oke, I.A. 2008: Management of immunization solid wastes in Kano state, Nigeria.
Waste Management. 28, pp. 2512-2521.

Okeniyi, J. O. & Anwan, E.U. 2012: Solid Wastes Generation in Covenant

University, Ota, Nigeria: Characterisation and Implication for Sustainable Waste
Management. Journal Material Environmental Science. 3 (2), pp. 419-424.

Okeshola, F.B. 2007: Poverty and Crime in Nigeria in Nigeria: Theoretical Issues.
Zaria Journal of Liberal Arts. 1 (1).

Okeshola, F.B. 2014: Violence and insecurity in Nigeria: The bane of national
development. European Scientific Journal. 7 (26), pp. 148-156.

293
Okey, E.N. Umana, E.J. Markson, A.A. & Okey, P.A. 2013: Municipal solid waste
characterization and management in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State Nigeria. Journal of
Sustainable Development and Planning. VI, 639-648.

Okonkwo, F.O. Chukwunonso, E.C.C. Ejike, U. B. Constanze Schmaling, Rudolf

Schierl & Katja Radon. 2014. Workplace Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs): A Review and Discussion of Regulatory Imperatives for
Nigeria. Research Journal of Environmental Toxicology. 8, pp. 98-109.

Okore, O. O. Ubiaru, P. Chigozirim, N. U. G. 2015: Prevalence of malaria and

typhoid fever Co-infection: knowledge, Attitude and management practices among
Residents of Obuda-Aba, Abia State, Nigeria. American Journal of Public Health
Research. 3, (4), pp. 162-166.

Okorhi, J.O. Amadi-Echendu, J.E. Aderemi, H.O. & Uhunmwangho, R. 2017:

'Socio-economic assessment of e-waste management in South Eastern Nigeria',
Waste Management.

Okoro- Shekwaga K.C. & Horan N. 2015: Suitability of Anaerobic digesters for
Werst Africa: Nigeria a case study. International journal of Environmental Science
and Development. 6 (2), pp. 155-164.

Okpanachi, E. 2012: Ethno-religious Identity and Conflict in Northern Nigeria.

http://www.cetri.be/Ethno-religious-Identity-and?lang=fr. Accessed 16 May 2017.

Okpoko A.P. & Oluwatayo A.A. 2014: Trends in Urbanisation: Implication for
Planning and Low-Income Housing Delivery in Lagos, Nigeria. Architecture
Research. 4(1A), pp. 15-26.

Okpoko A.P. & Oluwatayo A.A. 2016: Private sector participation in domestic waste
management in informal settlements in Lagos, Nigeria. Waste Manag Res. 34(12),
pp. 1217-1223.

Ola-Adisa, E.O. Mangden, Y.P.E. Sati, Y. C. Adisa, J. O. 2015: Knowledge, attitude,

beliefs and practices in medical waste management: An appraisal of Jos North LGA,
Plateau State, Nigeria. International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social
Studies. 2, (12), pp. 43-56.

Oladosu, R.O. Bwala, H.B. Ngalmi, S.M. & Mangga, M.K. 2015: Issues and
challenges of urban renewal in Jos, Plateau States, Nigeria. Journal of
Environmental Science, Toxocology and Food Technology. 9(1), pp. 24-29

Oloruntoba, E. O. Folarin, T. B. & Ayede, A. I. 2014: December). Hygiene and

sanitation risk factors of diarrhoeal disease among under-five children in Ibadan,
Nigeria. African Health Sciences. 14(4), pp. 1001–1011.

294
Olowomeye, R. 1991: The Management of Solid Waste in Nigerian cities. New York
and London. Garland Publishing, Inc.

Olufayo, O. & Omotosho, B.J. 2007: Waste disposal and waste management in Ado-
Ekiti, Nigeria. The Social Science. 2 (2), pp. 111-115

Olukanni, D.O. Akinyinka, O.M. Ede, A.N. Olukanni, D.O. Adeleke, J.O. & Aremu,
D.D. 2016: A Review of Local Factors Affecting Solid Waste Collection in Nigeria.
Journal of Pollution. 2(3), pp. 339-356.

Olukanni, D.O Azuh, D.E. Toogun, T.O, Okorie, U. E. 2014: Medical waste
management practices among selected health-care facilities in Nigeria: A case study.
Scientific Research and Essays, 9(10), pp. 431 - 439.

Oluwande, P.A. 1984: Assessment of metropolitan SWM problems in China and

Africa. In Holmes, J.R. (ed) Managing solid waste in developing countries. John
Wiley, Chichester, UK

Omonfonmwan, S.I. & Esa-Edoh, G.I. 2008: The Challenges of Environmental

Problems in Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology. 23 (1), pp. 53-57.

Omonisa, O. 2015: Nigeria: Environmental Sanitation, the only legacy Buhari

returns to meet. http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/07/environmental-sanitationthe-
only-legacy-buhari-returns-to-meet/. Accessed 11 February 2017.

Omuta, G. E. D. 1987: Urban solid waste generation and management in Nigeria:

Towards an environmental sanitation policy. Habitat International, 11(2), 77-87.

Onibokun, A.G. 1989: Urban Growth and Urban Management in Nigeria, In Stren,
Rands, White (editors), African Cities in Crises; Managing Rapid Urban Growth,
West Press Inc., Boulder Co.

Onibokun, A.G. & Kumuyi, A.J. 1999: Managing the Monster: Urban Waste and
Governance in Africa. International Development and Research Centre Canada.

Onu, B. Price, T. Surenden, S.S. & Ebie S. 2012: SWM a critique of Nigeria’s waste
management policy. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change
Management. 11(4), pp. 373-400.

Onwe, O.J. 2013: Role of the Informal Sector in Development of the Nigerian
Economy: Output and Employment Approach. Journal of Economics and
Development studies, 1 (1), pp.60-74.

Onwubiko, E. 2013: Sports’ Anti-Climax in Jos, Nigeria.

https://www.modernghana.com/news/501028/1/sports-anti-climax-in-jos-
nigeria.html. Accessed 16 May 2016.

295
Onwughara, I.N. Nnorom, I.C. & Kanno, O.C. 2010: Issues of Roadside Disposal
Habit of Municipal Solid Waste, Environmental Impacts and Implementation of
Sound Management Practices in Developing Country, Nigeria. International Journal
Environmental Science and Development. 1(5), pp. 409-418

Onwuka, E.M. Ugwu, K.E. Chukwuma, E.D. & Chijioke, D.E. 2015: Implications of
youth unemployment and violent crime on the economic growth: A case study of
Anambra state Nigeria. International Journal of Economic, Commerce and
Management. 3 (9), pp. 287-403.

Onyekwere, C.A. Anomneze, E.E. & Wali S.S. 2002: Prevalence of serological
markers of chronic hepatitis B virus infection in diabetics in the Lagos University
Teaching Hospital, Lagos. Niger Postgrad Med J; 9, pp. 129–33.

Onyenekenwa, C. E. & Agbazue, V.C. 2011: Protection of Nigeria’s Environment: A

Critical Policy Review. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 4, pp.
490-497.

Open Bio. 2014: Bio based economy.

http://www.biobasedeconomy.eu/media/downloads/2014/07/Deliverable-6.3-home-
farm-composting.pdf. Accessed 16 May 2016.

Orubu, C.O. 2006: Water Resources, Environment and Sustainable Development in

Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology. 19(3), pp. 169-181.

Ossai, R. M. 2006: Moving Solid Waste Management into the 21st Century in
Nigeria. A Paper Presented at 6th National Council on Environment Meeting held at
Katsina State Secretariat Katsina 13 – 17 November, 2006.

Osesienemo, A.R. 2008: An analysis of the operations of private waste companies in

Plateau State from 2005-2007. Unpublished MSc thesis submitted to the department
of Geography and Planning, University of Jos, Nigeria.

Osinowo, F.A.O. 2001: Towards effective waste management in Nigeria. Nigerian

Conservation Foundation, lecture series No.1, a publication of NCF.

Osuagwu, O. E. & Ikerionwu C. 2010: E-cycling E-waste The Way Forward for
Nigeria IT and Electro-mechanical Industry International Journal of Academic
Research. 2 (1), pp. 142-152.

Osuocha, P.C. 1999: Improving Refuse Management in Urban Nigeria, Proceedings,

of a Seminar held at the 25th World Engineering Development Council (WEDEC)
Conference on integrated Development for Water Supply and Sanitation, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 339 – 341.

296
Otitoju, T.A. 2014: Individual attitude towards recycling of municipal solid waste in
Lagos, Nigeria. American Journal of Engineering Research. (7), pp. 77-88.

Otti, V.I. 2011: A model for solid waste management in Anambra State. Nigeria.
Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management, 2(2), pp. 39-42.

Oumarou, M.B. Dauda, M. Abdulrahim, A.T. & Abubakar, A.B. 2012: Municipal
solid waste generation, recovery and recycling: A case study. World journal of
Engineering and Pure and Applied Sciences. 2(5), pp. 143.

Our community. 2014: Accessed 16/03/2014.

Owaduge, S. 2010: Solid Waste Management in Lokoja metropolis.

http://www.greatestcities.com/users/owagde. Accessed 9 July 2010.

Oyedele, O. 2009: Solid waste management as engine for industrial development in

Nigeria. http://www.scitopics.com/index.jsp. Accessed 16/03/2014.

Oyelola, O. T. & Babatunde, A. I. 2008: Characterization of domestic and market

solid wastes at source in Lagos metropolis, Lagos, Nigeria. African Journal of
Environmental Science and Technology. 3 (12), pp. 430-437.

Oyelola, O.T. Babatunde, A.L. & Odunlade, A.K. 2009: Health implications of solid
waste disposal: Case study of Olusosun dumpsite, Lagos, Nigeria..International
journal of pure and applied science, 3(2), pp. 239-251.

Oyeniyi, B. A. 2011: Waste Management in Contemporary Nigeria: The Abuja

Example. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance. 2, (2), pp. 1-18.

Oyesiku, O.K. 2002: Sustainable Urban Public Transport in Intermediate Cities in

Nigeria, Journal of the Nigerian Institute of Town Planners. XVI, pp. 35 –44.

Palinkas, L.A. Horwitz, S.M. Green, C.A. Wisdom, J.P. Duan, N. & Hoagwood, K.
2015: Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed
method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and
Mental Health Services Research. 42 (5), pp. 533-544.

Palmer, J.A. Suggate, J. Robottom, I. & Hart, P. 1999: Significant life experiences
and formative influences on the development of adults’ environmental awareness in
the UK, Australia and Canada. Environmental Education Research. 5 (2), pp. 181-
200.

Parfitt, J.P Flowerdew, R. & Pocock, R.L. 1997: A review of the United Kingdom
household waste arising and compositional data, department of the Environment
Technical Report P240. The Environment Agency for England and Wales, Bristol,
UK.

297
Parish Magazine. 2017: Mothers’ Union Soaring on Eagle Wings.
http://www.mothersunion.org/sites/default/files/Parish%20Magazine%20Downloada
ble%20Article%20Jan%2017_0.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2017.

Pasquini, M.W. 2002: Soil fertility management strategies in irrigated peri-urban

agriculture around Jos, Nigeria an interdisciplinary approach, Durham theses,
Durham University. E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3970/. 16 September
2017.

Pasquini, M.W. & Harris, F. 2004: Efficient use of resources: Urban waste ash and
soil fertility on the Jos, Plateau, Nigeria. Area. 37 (1), pp. 17-29.

Pasquini, M.W. 2006: The use of town refuses ash in urban agriculture around Jos,
Nigeria: Health and environmental risks. Science of the Total Environment. 354, pp.
43-49.

Patrick A.I. & Ferdinard, O. 2014: Adopting Broadcast Media Sensitization

Campaigns for Solid Waste Management. Journal Mass Communication and
Journalism. 4, pp. 1-6.

Patton, M. 1990: Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. California: Sage.

Patton, M.Q. 2001: Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 3rd Edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Paustenbach, D. J. 2011: Occupational exposure limits.

http://www.iloencyclopaedia.org/part-iv-66769/occupational-hygiene-47504/48-30-
occupational-hygiene/occupational-exposure-limits. Accessed 28 August 2017.

Payne, R. B. 1998: A new species of Fire finch (Lagonosticta sanguinodorsalis) from

Northern Nigeria and its association with the Jos Plateau Indigo bird. Vidua maryae.
Ibis. 140, pp. 368-381.

PEPSA, 2013: Report on Solid Waste in Jos, Nigeria.

Peter, G. 2016: Planning for municipal solid waste management: the case of greater
Jos, Nigeria. PhD thesis submitted to Heriot-Watt University, Energy, Geoscience,
Infrastructure and Society. United Kingdom.

Peter, G. & Ayuba, I. G. U. 2014: A Comparative Evaluation Analysis of Municipal

Solid Waste Planning in Greater Jos. Nigeria. International Journal of Sciences and
Energy Research. (3) 2.

Peter, G. Hull, A. Jowitt, P. & Adeloye, A 2014: MSWM in greater Jos, Nigeria. A
paper presented at the North American conference on sustainability, energy and
environment 2014 .Official conference proceedings.

298
Phillips, B. 1999: World: Africa Lagos hopes for change.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/281895.stm. Accessed 18 July 2017.

Plateau State Environmental Law. 2003: A bill to make provision for the Plateau
State Environmental Protection and Sanitation Agency and other matters connected
thereto. p. 27.

Platt, B. Bell, B. & Harsh, C. 2013: Pay Dirt: Composting in Maryland to Reduce
Waste, Create Jobs & Protect the Bay, Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

Platt, B. & Goldstein, N. 2014: State of composting in the US. Bio cycle. 55 (6), p.19

Platt, B. 2016: The benefits of composting and compost use. Institute for Local Self-
Reliance.

Plotnicov, L. 1967: Strangers in the city: Urban man in Jos, Nigeria. University of
Pittsburg Press, p.33.

Pole, C. J. & Lampard, R. 2002: Practical Social Investigation: Qualitative and

Quantitative Methods in Social Research. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Polit & Becks. 2008: Nursing Research: Generating and assessing Evidence for
nursing practice, 8th Edition.

Punch, M. 1994: Politics and ethics in qualitative research. In: Denzin L.K, Lincoln,
Y.S, (eds). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage. Thousand oaks, pp. 83-97.

Rada, E.C. 2016: Solid waste management: Policy and planning for sustainable
society. CRC Press.

Rafei, L. & Tabary, M.E. 2014: Africa’s urban population growth trends and
projections. http://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/africa-s-urban-population-growth-
trends-and-projections. Accessed 7 May 2017.

Rahji, M. A. Y. & Oloruntoba, E. O. 2009: Determinants of households’ willingness-

to-pay for private solid waste management services in Ibadan, Nigeria. Waste
Management and Research the Journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public
Cleansing Association. 27(10), pp. 961-965.

Reja, U Manfreda, K.L. Hlebec, V. & Vehovar, V. 2003: Open-ended Vs Close-

ended Questions in Web Questionnaires. Development in applied statistics. pp. 159-
177.

Remigios, M. V. 2010: An overview of the management practices at solid waste

disposal sites in African cities and towns. Journal of Sustainable Development in
Africa. 12(7), pp. 233 – 239.

299
Revision World. 2017: MEDCs and LEDCs. https://revisionworld.com/gcse-
revision/geography/development/medcs-and-ledcs. Accessed 11 July 2017.

Robinson, B.H. 2009: E- waste: An Assessment of global production and

environmental impacts. Science of the total Environment. 408 (2), pp. 183-191.

Rochman, C.M. Hoh, E. Kurobe, T. & Teh, S.J. 2013: Ingested plastic transfers’
hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic stress. Scientific Reports. 3, pp. 1-7.

Ruxin, J. N. 1994: Magic bullet: The history of oral rehydration therapy. Medical
Histology. 38, pp. 363-397.

Ryeshak, A.G. Amobi, A.K. Lekwot, V.E. Yakubu, A.A. Kwesaba, D. A. 2015:
Population increase and water supply in Nigerian cities: A case study of Jos in
Plateau State, Nigeria. International Journal of multidisciplinary and current
research. 3, pp. 23-31.

Sachs, J. D. 2005: The End of Poverty.

Sadiq, L. 2017: Harvesting Jos city’s goldmine of waste.

https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/news/feature/story/200475.html. Accessed 20 July
2017.

Sadler, K. Fenton, K. Elam, G. et al. 2005: Mayisha II Main Study Report: assessing
the feasibility and acceptability of community based prevalence surveys of HIV
among Black Africans in England. London: Health Protection Agency. Southern
Africa HIV and AIDS Information Dissemination Services (SAfAIDS) (2001) Faith
Responses to HIV. Harare: SAfAIDS.

Saiki, A. 2016: Monthly environmental sanitation: Plateau state government relaxes

restrictions of movement. www.realitynewspaper.com.ng/2016/02/monthly-
environmental-sanitation html. Accessed 20 May 2017.

Salau, O. Sen, L. Osho, S. Adejonwo-Osho, O. 2016: Empirical Investigation of

Formal and Informal Sectors in Waste Recycling of the Municipal Waste
Management System of Developing Countries: The Case Study of Lagos State.
Journal of Environment and Ecology. 7, (2), pp. 21-33.

Sambo, A. S. 2010: Renewable Energy Development in Nigeria:

http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/PkfAE._Bala-
Nigerian_Energy_Commission_Renewal_Energy_Development_In_Nigeria.pdf.
Accessed 2 April 2014.

Sangodoyin, A. Y. 1993: Considerations on contamination of groundwater by waste

disposal systems in Nigeria. Environmental Technology. 14 (10), pp. 957-964.

300
Sani, A.S. 2003: Analysis of low-income housing in Kano, Nigeria. Being a PhD
thesis submitted to St. Clements University Turks and Caicos Islands, British West
Indies.

Sarky, S. 2016; ‘An Evaluation of Participatory Ecotourism Planning Approaches in

the Kurdistan Region of Iraq’, Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,
University of Southampton, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, Geography and
Environment, UK.

Saunders, M. Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. 2007: Research methods for business

students, 5th ed., Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Saunders, M. Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. 2012. Research Methods for Business

Students, Harlow, Pearson.

Saunders, M. Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. 2015. Research Methods for Business

Students, New York, Pearson Education.

Schade, A. 2015: Pilot Testing: Getting It Right (Before) the First Time:
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/pilot-testing/. Accessed 4 October 2016.

Scholes, J. 2014: Ethics and Governance: Introduction to doctoral research

workshop. Doctoral college, University of Brighton, UK, 5 March 2014.

Seidman, I. 1998: Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers college press (interviews)
3rd edition.

Sekaran, U. & Bougie, R. 2013. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building

Approach, Chichester, Wiley.

Seng, B. Kaneko, H. Hirayama, K. Katayama-Hirayama, K. 2010: Municipal solid

waste management in Phnom Penh, capital city of Cambodia. Waste Management
and Research. 29, pp. 491–500.

Sha’Ato, R. Aboho, S.Y. Oketunde, F.O. Eneji, I.S. Unazi, G. & Agwa, S. 2007:
Survey of solid waste generation and composition in a rapidly growing urban area in
central Nigeria. Waste management. 27(3), pp. 352-358.

Shagal, M.H. Maina, H.M. Donatus, R.B. & Tadzabia, K. 2012: Bioaccumulation of
Trace Metal Concentration in Some Vegetables grown near Refuse and Effluent
Dumpsites along Rumude -Doubeli Bye-pass in Yola North, Adamawa State
Nigeria. Global Advanced Research Journal of Environmental Toxicology. 1(2), pp.
18 -22.

Shan, S. C. 2010: Projecting municipal solid waste: The case of Hong Kong SAR.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 54 (11), pp. 759-768.
301
Sharp, V. Giorgi, S. & Wilson D.C. 2010a: Delivery and impact of household waste
prevention intervention campaigns (at the local level). Waste Management and
Research. 28, pp. 256–268.

Sharp, V. Giorgi, S. & Wilson, D.C 2010b: Methods to monitor and evaluate
household waste prevention. Waste Management and Research. 28, pp. 269–280.

Silverman, D. 2000: Doing qualitative Research: A practical hand book, Sage,

London.

Simon, A.M. 2008: Analysis of Activities of Community Based Organizations

Involved in Solid Waste Management, Investigating Modernized Mixtures
Approach. The Case of Kinondoni Municipality, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen University.

Sitarz, D. 1994: Agenda 21: The Earth Summit strategy to save our planet. World
environmental alert series. Boulder. Earth Press.

Sitra studies. 2015: The opportunities of a circular economy for Finland.

https://media.sitra.fi/2017/02/28142449/Selvityksia100.pdf. Accessed 9 September
2017.

Sivakumar. K, & Sugirtharan, M. 2010: Impact of Family Income and Size on Per
Capita Solid Waste Generation: A Case Study in Manmunai North Divisional
Secretariat Division of Batticaloa. Journal of Science University Kelaniya. 5, pp. 13-
23.

Slater, R., Frederickson, J. & Yoxon, M. 2010: Unlocking the potential of

community composting: full project report. Report to the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), London.

Smith, C. J., Hopmans, P, & Cook, F. J. 1996: Accumulation of Cr, Pb, Cu, Ni, Zn
and Cd in soil following irrigation with treated urban effluent in Australia.
Environmental Pollution. 94 (3), pp. 317–323

SNV. 2017: Africa’s largest biogas and clean cooking convention: Fuelling a silent
green revolution. http://www.snv.org/update/africas-largest-biogas-and-clean-
cooking-convention-fueling-silent-green-revolution. Accessed 4 July 2017.

Solomon, O. A. 2011: The role of households in solid waste management in East

Africa capital cities. Environmental policy series-Vol. 4. Wageningen Academic
Publishers.

Solomon, U.U. 2009: The state of solid waste management in Nigeria. Waste
Management. 29, pp. 2787-2790.

302
Sridhar M.K.C. & Bammeke A.O. 1986: Heavy metal contents of some solid wastes
in Ibadan, Nigeria. Water, Air and Soil Pollution. 29, pp. 51–56.

Sridhar, M.K.C. Adeoye, G.O. Omueti, J. & Reece, Z.D. 2013: Waste recycling
through composting in Nigeria. Compost Science and Utilization. 1 (1), pp. 69-74.

Sridhar, M.K.C. & Hammed T.B. 2014: Turning waste to wealth in Nigeria: An
overview. Journal of Human Ecology. 46 (2), pp. 195-203.

Stewart, D.W. & Shamdasani, P.N. 1990: Focus Groups: Theory and Practice.
Newbury Park, USA: Sage Publications.

Stewart, D.W. Shamdasani, P.N. & Rook, D.N. 2007: Focus Groups: Theory and
Practice. Applied Social Research Methods, 20. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage
Publications.

Strange, K. 2011: Plastic bags: national policies and practices, Plastics Europe and
ACR.

Sujjaudin, M. Huda, S.M.S. & Rafique Hoque, A.T.M. 2008: Household solid waste
characteristics and management in Chittagong Bangladesh. Waste management 28,
1688-1695.

Sullivan, A. & Sheffrin, S.M. 2003: Economic principles in action, upper saddle
river, New Jersey 07458: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Szolnoki, G. & Hoffmann, D. 2013: Online, face-to-face and telephone surveys.

Comparing different sampling methods in wine consumer research. Wine Economics
and Policy. 2 (2), pp. 57-66.

Tacoli, C. 2012: Urbanization, Gender and Urban Poverty: Paid work and unpaid
care work in the city. International institute for environment and development:
United Nations Population Fund, London, UK.

Taiwo, A.M. 2011: Composting as a sustainable management technique in

developing countries. Journal of Environmental Sciences and Technology. 4 (2), pp.
93-102.

Tang, X.J. Shen, C.F. Shi, D.Z. Cheema, S.A. Khan, M.I. Zhang, C.K. & Chen, Y.
X. 2010: Heavy metal and persistent organic compound contamination in soil from
Wenling: an emerging e-waste recycling city in Taizhou area, China. Journal of
Hazardous Materials. 173, pp. 653 -660.

Terence O’Rourke. 2005: Newhaven ERF Environmental Statement Part 1. Terence

O’Rourke, London, UK.

303
The American Heritage. 2017: Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition
copyright by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

The Economist. 2014: Falling poverty and rising income inequality in Nigeria.
www.economist.com/news. Accessed 12 September 2014.

The Economic Times. 2017: Definition of 'Swot Analysis'

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/swot-analysis. Accessed 21 April
2017.

The Guardian. 2014: Nigeria becomes Africa’s largest economy- get the data.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2014/apr/07/nigeria-
becomes-africa-largest-economy-get-data. Accessed 9 June 2016.

The Nation. 2012: Jos floods, Nigeria. thenationonline.net/category/news. Accessed

25 July 2012.

Thomas, G. 2011: A Typology for the case study in social science following a
review of definition, discourse and structure. Qualitative Inquiry, 17 (6), pp. 511–
521.

Tolle, M.A. 2009: Mosquito-borne diseases. Current Problems in Paediatric and

Adolescent Health Care. 39(4), pp. 97-140.

Toyobo, A.E. Oyeleke, O.J. & Amao, F.L. 2013: Sachet water Hawking and
Environmental effects in Ikeja, Lagos. International Journal of Physical and Human
Geography. 1(1), pp. 18-25.

Trading Economics. 2017: Nigeria Unemployment Rate (2006-2017)

https://tradingeconomics.com/nigeria/unemployment-rate. Accessed 6 June 2017.

Truttmann, N. and Rechberger, H. 2006: Contribution to resource conservation by

reuse of electrical and electronic household appliances. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling. 48, pp. 249–262.

Tukur, S. 2015: Payment of N5000 to unemployed youths to start in 2016.

www.premiumtimesng.com/news 25/11/15. Accessed 10 May 2017.

Uchegbu, S. 1998: Environmental Management and Protections. Precessions Printers

and Publishers, Enugu.

Uchendu, O. H. 2016: Household Waste Disposal Laws in the Federal Republic of

Nigeria. Georgia State University, 2016.
http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/iph_capstone/38. Accessed 6 June 2017.

Udoh, N. 2014: The Determinants and Implications of Rural-Urban Migration in

Nigeria. African Journal of Social Sciences. 4 (3), pp. 133.
304
Ukoje, J.E. 2011: Analysis of the determinants of participation of stakeholders in
solid waste management in Zaria, Nigeria. Unpublished PhD thesis, Ahmadu Bello
University.

Umaru, I. 2010: Recycling of solid waste and the “Yan Bola” Underground
Economy: A survey of Environmental Entrepreneurs in Central Nigeria. Journal of
Human Ecology. 30 (1), pp. 45-54.

Umaru, M. L. & Uyaiabasi, G. N. 2015: Prevalence of Malaria in Patients Attending

the General Hospital Makarfi, Kaduna – State, North-Western Nigeria. American
Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology. 3 (1), pp. 1-5.

UN 2016: The millennium Development Goals report of 2015 on SSA.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefoxbab&q=UN+2016+SSA&oq=UN+2
016+SSAAccessed 26 June 2016.

UNAIDS. 2014: United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS. The Gap Report:
Children and Pregnant Women Living with HIV (2014) Geneva.

UNDESA. 2014: World Economic Situation and Prospects.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wesp/wesp_current/wesp2014.pdf.
Accessed 18 August 2015.

UNDESA. 2015: World Population Ageing.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WPA20
15_Report.pdf. Accessed 16 February 2015.

UNDP. 2011: World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, medium variant.
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/trends/WPP201
0/WPP2010_Volume-I_Comprehensive-Tables.pdf. Accessed 16 February 2015.

UNDP. 2012: World Urbanization Prospects, the 2011 revision. Department of

Economics and social Affairs, population division, United Nations, New York.
(http://esa.un.org/unup/pdf/wup2011-highlights.pdf. . Accessed 16 February 2015.

UNDP. 2015: Work for Human Development.

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2015_human_development_report.pdf.
Accessed 07 July 2016.

UNDP. 2016: Human Development Report 2016.

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf.
Accessed 02 March 2016.

UNEP. 1996: International source book on environmentally sound technology for

municipal solid waste management. United Nations Programme, United Nations.

305
UNEP. 2002: State of the Environment — Maldives. United Nations Environment
Programme Regional Resource Centre for Asia and the Pacific.

UNEP. 2005: Solid waste management, Cal Recovery.

UNEP. 2011: Towards a green economy: Pathways to a sustainable Development

and Poverty Eradication, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

UNEP. 2013: Guidelines for national waste management strategies moving from
challenges to opportunities.

UNEP. 2015: Global Waste Management Outlook.

http://www.iswa.org/nc/home/news/news-detail/article/press-release-global-waste-
USmanagement-outlook-gwmo/109/. Accessed 24 April 2016.

UN Habitat. 2004: The state of the world’s cities 2004/2005 Globalization and
Urban Culture. Published by Earthscan UK and USA in 2004.

UN Habitat. 2007: What are slums and why do they exist? Twenty first session of
the Governing Council. April 16-20, Nairobi, Kenya.

UN Habitat. 2010: Solid waste management in the World’s cities: Highlights from
the UN-Habitat 2010 book. London: Earthscan.
http://www.wasnet.nl/en/product/solid-waste-management-in-the-worlds-cities.

UN Habitat. 2011: Collection of municipal solid waste: Key issues for decision
makers in developing countries. Nairobi, Kenya.

UN Habitat. 2013: The State of the World Cities Report 2012/13.

UNEP-IETC. 2003: Innovative Communities: Community Centred Approaches to

Sustainable Environmental Management. UNEP-IETC, Osaka, Japan. http://www.
unep.or.jp/ietc/kms/data/226.pdf. Accessed 16 February 2015.

UNEP and OCHA. 2011: A consolidated report on flood situation in Southern Ghana
‐ June 2010 Floods. Report by UNFPA, WFP, WHO, IOM, UNESCO, OCHA,
World Vision, Presbyterian Relief Service and Development, and Ghana Red Cross,
Ghana, July.
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/7C0465B033F05F8D8525776D
00699 FE5‐ Full_Report.pdf. Accessed 10 November 2014.

UNESCO. 2014: ESD and other types of educations. [Online] Available from:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-
internationalagenda/education-for-sustainable-development/education-for-
sustainabledevelopment/esd-and-other-types-of-educations/. Accessed 12 May 2014

306
UNESCO. 2015: Global illiteracy.
http://www.unesco.org/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/pdf/ILD2015-
Literacyfacts1.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2016.

UNESCO. 2016: Regional overview: Sub-Saharan Africa. http://en.unesco.org/gem-

report/sites/gem-report/files/regional_overview_SSA_en.pdf. Accessed 21
December 2016

UNESCO. 2017: Eco-Schools Programme.

http://en.unesco.org/greencitizens/stories/eco-schools-programme. Accessed 28
March 2017.

UNICEF. 2016: Malaria. https://www.unicef.org/health/index_malaria.html.

Accessed 10 June 2017.

USGAO. 2010: Census Communications Campaign Has Potential to Boost

Participation. http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/122012.pdf. 31 August 2017.

Uwa, O.G. Chuke, P. I. Elton, M. E. 2016: Youth Unemployment and Insecurity:

Impediment of Nation Building in Nigeria. Research on Humanities and Social
Sciences. 6 (12), 189-194.

Uwadiegwu, B.O, & Chukwu, K.T. 2013: Strategies for effective urban SWM in
Nigeria. European Scientific Journal. 9 (8), pp. 296-308.

Uwadiegwu, B.O, & Iyi, E.A. 2014: An evaluation of operational efficiency of a

public agency: A case study of Enugu state waste management authority (Eswama)
in Enugu city Nigeria. British Journal of Environmental sciences, 2(2), pp.27-34.

Uwaegbulam C. 2017: Enugu begins solid waste reforms, partners private sector.
https://guardian.ng/property/enugu-begins-solid-waste-reform-partners-private-
sector/. Accessed 25 February 2017.

Visvanathan, C. & Trankler, J. 2003: Municipal solid waste management in Asia- a

comparative analysis. Workshop on Sustainable Landfill Management 3–5
December, 2003; Chennai, India, pp. 3-15.

Vivan, E.L. Bijim, C.K. Balasom, M.K. & Okafor, J.C. 2015: The development of
non-town planning legislations/policies to the development and practice of town
planning in Nigeria. 3 (11), pp. 52-58.

Voice of America. 2001: Obasanjo assesses riot damage in Kano.

https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2001-10-16-32-obasanjo-
67542777/286046.html. Accessed 17 February 2017.

307
Voutsa, D. Grimanis, A. Samara, C. 1996: Trace elements in vegetables grown in an
industrial area in relation to soil and air particulate matter. Environmental Pollution.
94 (3), pp. 325–335.

Walling, E. Walston, A. Warren, E. Warshay, B. & Wilhelm, E. 2004: Municipal

solid waste management in developing countries: Nigeria case study.
http://nswaienvis.nic.in/Waste_Portal/Case_Studies/Municipal%20Solid%20Waste
%20Management%20in%20Developing%20Countries-
%20Nigeria,%20a%20case%20study.pdf. Accessed 17 March 2017.

WESSA. 2017: WESSA Eco-Schools. http://wessa.org.za/what-we-do/schools-

program/wessa-eco-schools/. Accessed 27 March 2017.

Westhues, A. Jean, L. Glen, S. 2001: A SWOT analysis of social work education in

Canada. Social Work Education: The International Journal. 20 (1), pp. 35–56.

WHO. 1991: Surface Water Drainage for Low-Income Communities. Geneva:

World Health Organisation (WHO). URL Accessed: 21 September 2011.

WHO. 1999: Unsafe injection practices and transmission of blood borne pathogens.
Bulletin World Health Organisation. 77, pp. 787-819

WHO. 2002: Wastes from healthcare activities. Fact sheets no 231.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs231/en/). Accessed 12 September 2009

WHO. 2004: Safe Healthcare Waste Management, Policy paper, Fact sheet. Geneva.
http\\ www.who.int/entity/immunization_safety/publications/waste
_management/en/HCWM_policy_paper_E.pdf. Accessed 12 September 2009

WHO. 2008: Typhoid vaccines: WHO position paper. Weekly epidemiological

record. 83(6), pp. 49-59.

WHO. 2011a: Global task force on cholera control: Cholera country profile: Nigeria.
http://www.who.int/cholera/countries/NigeriaCountryProfile2011.pdf. Accessed 13
February 2017.

WHO. 2011b: Guidelines for drinking water quality, 4th edition.

WHO. 2012: Lassa fever in Nigeria: Global alert and response;

http://www.who.int/csr/don/2012_04_04/en/. Accessed January 2016.

WHO. 2012: Roll Back Malaria Partnership, WHO Focus in Nigeria. Progress and
Impact Series. Community Report. 4, p. 58.

WHO. 2014: Africa Office Outbreak Bulletin. 4 (4), 31 October 2014.

308
WHO. 2014: World malaria report 2014.
http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/world_malaria_report_2014/report/en/.
Accessed 23 November 2015.

WHO. 2015: Lassa fever outbreak in Nigeria: Federal Ministry of Health restates
commitment to halt the epidemic. http://www.afro.who.int/en/nigeria/press-
materials/item/8279-lassa-fever-outbreak-in-nigeria.html Accessed 10 June 2017

WHO. 2016: Life expectancy increased by 5 years since 2000, but health inequalities
persist. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2016/health-inequalities-
persist/en/. Accessed 25 March 2016.

WHO. 2017: Yellow Fever. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs100/en/

Accessed 10 June 2017.

Wigmore, G. & Lee, M. 2010: How to campaign for less waste and more recycling.
http://www.theecologist.org/campaigning/recycling_and_waste/530515/how_to_cam
paign_for_less_waste_and_more_recycling.html. Accessed 31 August 2017.

Wiles, R. Crow, G. & Pain, H. 2011: Innovation in Qualitative Methods. Qualitative

Research (in press).

Williams, D.L. Gerba, C.P. Maxwell, S. & Sinclair R.G. 2011: Assessment of the
potential for cross-contamination of food products by reusable shopping bags.
https://arizona.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/assessment-of-the-potential-for-
cross-contamination-of-food-produ. Accessed 13 September 2017.

Wilson, D. C. 2005: The evidence base of household waste prevention: How best to
promote voluntary actions by households. Imperial College London and Research
managing agents, Defra Waste and Resources Evidence Programme, United
Kingdom.

Wilson, D. C. Velis, C. & Cheeseman, C. 2006: Role of Informal Sector Recycling

in Waste Management in Developing Countries. Habitat International. 30 (4), pp.
797-808.

Wilson, D.C. 2007: Development drivers for waste management. Waste

Management and Research. 25(3), pp. 198–220.

Wilson, D.C. Blakey, N.C. & Hansen, J. 2010: Waste prevention: Its time has come.
Waste Management Research. 28 (3), pp. 191-192.

Wilson, J. 2010: Essentials of Business Research: A Guide to Doing Your Research

Project. SAGE Publications.

WMR, 2009: Recycling. www.wrfound.org.uk/articles/recycling.html. Accessed 10

August 2017.
309
Wodele, O. Adewoye A.A. Oparah A.C. 2016: Assessment of medical waste
management in seven hospitals in Nigeria. Biomedical central (BMC) Public health
BMC series. Open access.

Wokekoro, E. 2007: SWM in the construction industry: A case study of Port

Harcourt metropolis. International Conference Waste Management, Environmental
Geotechnology and Global Sustainable Development (ICWMEGGSD
2007).Ljubljana, Slovenia, August 28-30th, 2007.

World Bank. 2010: Country classification as of 29th July 2010.

https://www.oecd.org/tad/xcred/43407491.pdf. Accessed 15 December 2015.

World Bank 2010: Country population data.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?page=2. 12 December 2015.

World Bank. 2011: The World Bank. [Online] Available at:

http://www.worldbank.org Accessed 14 December 2011.

World Bank. 2012: Problems of Unemployment and Poverty in the Developing

World An Annual Report, 2012.

World Bank. 2012: worldbank.org/annual report/2012

World Bank. 2014: Poverty and Equity in Nigeria.

http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/NGA. Accessed 3 April 2016

World Bank. 2015: Population total.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?page=2. Accessed 3 April 2016

World Bank. 2016: World Development Report.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/896971468194972881/pdf/102725-PUB-
Replacement-PUBLIC.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2016.

World Bank. 2017: Nigeria - Private sector participation in solid waste management
activities in Ibadan. Washington, D.C. World Bank Group.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/221251487249039986/Nigeria-Private-
sector-participation-in-solid-waste-management-activities-in-Ibadan. Accessed 6
July 2017.

WR1204: Brook Lyndhurst. 2009: Household Waste Prevention Evidence Review:

A report for Defra’s Waste Resources Evidence Program.

WRAP. 2009: Home Composting Diversion: Household Level Analysis.

http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Home%20Composting%20Diversion%20H
ousehold%20Level%20Analysis.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2017.

310
WRAP. 2017: Food waste reduction. http://www.wrap.org.uk/food-waste-reduction.
31 August 2017.

Wyse, S.E 2014: Advantages and disadvantages of face to face data collection.
https://www.snapsurveys.com/blog/advantages-disadvatages-facetoface-data-
collection/. Accessed 21 July 2017.

Yates, D S. Moore; D.S. Starnes, D.S. 2008: The Practice of Statistics, 3rd Edition.
Freeman.

Yawa, H. 1999: Household solid waste management practices in Sabon Gari area of
Tudun Wada Jos, Plateau State. Unpublished thesis submitted to the Department of
Geography and Planning, Faculty of Environmental Sciences. University of Jos,
Nigeria.

Yilgwan, C. S. & Okolo SN 2012: Prevalence of diarrheal disease and risk factors in
Jos University Teaching Hospital, Nigeria. Ann Afr Med [serial online] 2012
[cited 2017 Jun 9]; 11:217-21. Available
from: http://www.annalsafrmed.org/text.asp?2012/11/4/217/102852. Accessed 13
September 2017.

Yin, R.K. 2003: Case study research and methods. Applied social research methods
series 5, Thousand oaks’ CA, USA: Sage publications.

Yin, R.K. 2009: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks,
California. Sage Publications 4 Edition.

Yin, R. K. 2014: Case Study Research: Design and Methods, London, SAGE.

Yusuf, A.D. 1983: A Study of Solid Waste Composition in Metropolitan Kano.

Unpublished B.Sc. Dissertation, Geography Department, Bayero University Kano,
Nigeria.

Zacho K.O. & Mosgaard M.A. 2016: Understanding the role of waste prevention in
local waste management: A literature review. Waste Management and Research. 34,
(10), pp. 980-994.

Zainal, Z. 2007: Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan. (9), pp. 1-6.

Zamoni, J. 2017: What Is the Meaning of Sample Size?

http://sciencing.com/meaning-sample-size-5988804.html. Accessed 10 June 2016.

Zero Waste Europe. 2015: Plastic Bag Free Day 2015 Global Round-up.
https://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/2015/07/plastic-bag-free-day-2015-global-round-
up/. Accessed 9 September 2017

311
Zero Waste Scotland. 2013: Guidance on the Methodology for Waste Composition
Analysis.
http://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/sites/default/files/WCAMethodology_Jun15.p
df. Accessed 10 July 2017

Zhang, T. Fielder, H. Yu, G. Ochoa, G.S. Carroll, W.F. Gullett, B.K. Marklund, S.
Touati, A. 2011: Emissions of unintentional persistent organic pollutants from open
burning of municipal solid waste from developing countries. Chemosphere. 84 (7),
pp. 994–1001.

Zia, H. Devadas, V. & Shukla, S. 2008: Assessing informal waste recycling in

Kanpur city, India. Management of Environmental Quality. 19, pp. 597-612.

Zorpas, A.A & Lasiridi, K. 2013: Measuring waste prevention. Waste Management.
33, pp. 1047-1056.

Zurbrügg, C. & Ahmed R. 1999: Enhancing community motivation and participation

in SWM. Excerpt out of SANDEC News, No. 4, 1999; Accessed 15 April 2017.

Zurbrügg, C. Drescher, S. Patel, A. & Sharatchandra, H. C. 2004: Decentralized

composting of urban waste: an overview of community and private initiatives in
Indian cities. Waste Management. 24, pp. 655-662.

312