Solid Waste Management Service (SWMS) is an important public good, although most local governments in developing countries have failed to effectively provide it to their populace. Ineffective SWMS has serious environmental and public health ramifications. Consequently, other players such as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), private companies and Community Based Organizations (CBOs) have to be involved in the delivery of SWMS. This study assessed the level of beneficiary for households' satisfaction with SWMS as rendered by Okoa Maisha Project (OMP - the Swahili translation for project of saving lives) operating under the auspices of Where Talent Lives (WTL) - a local CBO located in Mnarani Village in Kilifi County in Kenya. The study revealed that majority of the respondents (52.4%, n=152) were very satisfied with the overall SWMS as rendered by OMP. The satisfaction was mostly due to quality variables such as householders' education on solid waste management (54%, n=157), neatness of waste collection crew (52.4%, n=152) and reliability of waste collection (49.7%, n=144). Relative to other indicators, the respondents ranked low quality variables such as frequency of waste collection from households and the behaviour of the waste collection crew towards the residents. The study concludes by emphasising on the need for assessment of SWMS as provided by CBOs for improved service delivery. The study recommends routine supervision of the SWMS rendered by donor or government sponsored projects for effective and sustainable service delivery to the beneficiary householders and the community.
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) also simply known as garbage or trash are wastes generated every day and comprise of paper, tin cans, bottles, clothes, glass, metals, e-wastes and hazardous wastes such as paint and aerosol spray (
Solid Waste Management Service (SWMS) entails the collection, transportation, processing, recycling or disposal of waste materials (
In the poorest communities (many of which are in sub Saharan Africa), 80-90% of wastes generated are not collected for safe disposal (
Various factors are responsible for the ineffective SWMS - regarded as one of the most challenging areas of modern environmental management (
Taking into consideration the various components of the budget, it becomes challenging for municipalities to devote huge sums of money solely to waste collection and management (
In many developing countries in Africa, the public sector took monopoly of providing solid waste management services in urban cities and this was largely blamed for the mess in SWM (
Consequently, many CBOs are involved in the provision of SWMS in which they mainly focus on the less privileged urban communities serving more than half the population compared to urban councils and private companies combined (
In Kenya today, it is now common practice for CBOs to engage in provision of SWMS. As a result of this increased involvement of the CBOs in provision of SWMS, studies on the quality and efficiency of SWMS delivered by the private sector are becoming common (
Table 1: Indicators for measuring customer satisfaction with solid waste management service
|
|
1 | Frequency of waste collection from household |
2 | Reliability of waste collection |
3 | Prompt response to user complains |
4 | Vehicles and equipment used to collect and dispose waste |
5 | Final disposal site where vehicles dispose waste |
6 | Cleanliness of service area |
7 | Behavior/attitude of collection crew towards residents |
8 | Neatness of waste collection crew, wearing of protective clothing |
9 | Household education on waste management |
10 | Overall service deliver |
11 | Handling of waste containers during transportation |
12 | Public monitoring and sanctioning by the Municipal Assembly |
Source: Akaateba and Yakubu (
This study evaluated the performance of a community based SWMS implemented by OMP in Mnarani Village under the auspices of Where Talent Lives (WTL). Mnarani Village is located in Kilifi County - one of the six coastal counties forming the coastal region of Kenya. Being in close proximity to Kilifi Town, Mnarani has experienced an increase in population as people from various parts of the country migrate to the area to establish business and seek employment opportunities. This has accelerated generation of solid waste beyond the management capacity of the Kilifi County Government. As a result, a group of youths organized in the form of a CBO - “Where Talent Lives” formed OMP in 2007 with the sole objective of addressing the challenge of environmental degradation due to poor solid waste management. The youths held workshops to mobilize and sensitize the entire community on the importance of an effective SWMS for environmental protection and public health. Key stakeholders such as religious leaders, local administrators and local government officials were also invited to the workshops to get their buy in.
This study therefore assessed householders’ level of satisfaction with solid waste collection services delivered by OMP. The study adopts the first 10 of the 12 indicators (
Mnarani Village is located in Kilifi County - one of the six counties forming the coastal region of Kenya. The village is made up of private homes and small businesses with a cosmopolitan population comprising coastal and upcountry tribes. The population of Mnarani is estimated at 9,000 persons (
The target population in this study are the 9,000 people living Mnarani Village while the accessible population are the 800 householders currently being served by OMP
A sampling size (N) of 384 persons was calculated using the equation adopted from Mugenda and Mugenda (
Where N = the desired sample size (if target population is greater than 10000)
z = the standard normal deviation at the required confidence level (in this case 1.96)
p = the proportion in the target population estimated to have characteristics being measured which is 0.50.
q = 1–p and d = the level of statistical significance set which is 0.05.
Since the target population was below 10,000, the final sample size (nf) was then calculated as follows:
Where; nf = desired sample size (when target population is less than 10,000);
n = desired sample size (when target population is greater than 10,000);
N = the desired sample size (target population). Therefore, nf =
Adjusting for non-response rate at 10% gave a required sample size of 286, which was approximated to 290.
Systematic random sampling method was used to select respondents. The approximate target population of 800 households was divided by the required sample size, 290 to get the sampling interval of 3. The first household was selected at random and every 4th household was interviewed until the total number of 290 households was reached.
A semi structure questionnaire was used to collect data from respondents.The first section of the questionnaire gathered socio-demographic and economic data of the respondents, which included gender, age, level of education, household size and economic activity. In the second section, the beneficiary householders were asked to assess the extent to which they were satisfied with SWMS by responding to the 10 statement touching on quality variables.
Data gathered was processed and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM-SPSS Inc. version 20.0). Descriptive statistics (frequency, percentages, mean and standard deviation) were largely used for the analysis. Data on respondents’ feedback on each of the 10 statements analyzed using a Likert scale. A mean range of above 4 was considered “high satisfaction” while a mean of below 3 was considered to indicate “dissatisfaction”. The study also used a Chi-square test to investigate differences among householders’ level of satisfaction based on their education level.
Majority (54%; n =157) of the respondents were females, while 46% (n =133) were males (
Table 2: Socio-economic characteristics of respondents
|
|
|
|
||
Female | 157 | 54 |
Male | 133 | 46 |
|
||
< 20 Years | 39 | 13.4 |
20 - 30 Years | 126 | 43.4 |
31 - 50 Years | 102 | 35.2 |
> 50 Years | 23 | 7.9 |
|
||
Primary | 41 | 14.1 |
High School | 89 | 30.7 |
College | 101 | 34.8 |
University | 59 | 20.3 |
|
||
1-5 Persons | 54 | 18.6 |
6 - 10 Persons | 74 | 25.5 |
10 -15 Persons | 92 | 31.7 |
Over 15 Persons | 70 | 24.1 |
|
||
Farming | 25 | 8.6 |
Fishing | 37 | 12.8 |
Trading | 100 | 34.5 |
Employment | 122 | 42.1 |
Others | 6 | 2.1 |
Source: Field Survey, 2018.
The study assessed the extent to which householders are satisfied with SWMS provided by OMP by using a set of 10 quality variables responding to the question:
Table 2: Socio-economic characteristics of respondents
|
|
Not Satisfied n (%) | Not Sure n (%) | Satisfied n (%) | Very Satisfied n (%) |
|
7 (2.4) | 6(2.1) | 3(1.0) | 173 (59.7) | 101 (34.8) |
|
3 (1.0) | 9 (3.1) | 0 (0) | 134 (46.2) | 144 (49.7) |
|
5 (1.7) | 11 (3.8) | 1 (3) | 131 (45.2) | 142 (49.0) |
|
6 (2.1) | 12 (4.1) | 2 (0.7) | 127 (43.8) | 143 (49.3) |
Final Disposal Site Where Vehicles Dispose Waste | 3 (1.0) | 12 (4.1) | 1 (0.3) | 127 (43.8) | 147 (50.7) |
Cleanliness of Service Area | 5 (1.7) | 12 (4.1) | 2 (0.7) | 122 (42.1) | 149 (51.4) |
Behaviour/Attitude of Service Crew | 10 (3.4) | 18 (6.2) | 0 (0) | 115 (39.7) | 147 (50.7) |
Neatness of Waste Collection Crew towards Residents | 3 (1) | 12 (4.1) | 3 (1.0) | 120 (41.4) | 152 (52.4) |
Household Education on Waste Management | 7 (2.4) | 9 (3.1) | 2 (0,7) | 115 (39.7) | 157 (54,1) |
Overall Service Delivery | 9 (3.1) | 7 (2.4) | 5 (1.7) | 117 (40.3) | 152 (52.4) |
High School | 89 | 30.7 | |||
College | 101 | 34.8 | |||
University | 59 | 20.3 | |||
|
|||||
1-5 Persons | 54 | 18.6 | |||
6 - 10 Persons | 74 | 25.5 | |||
10 -15 Persons | 92 | 31.7 | |||
Over 15 Persons | 70 | 24.1 |
Majority (52.4%, n-152) of the householders in Mnarani Village were very satisfied with the overall service delivery by OMP(
Likert scale scores: 1= Very Dissatisfied; 5 Very Satisfied. a the first five highest ranking statements
The results indicate that the respondents were satisfied with all the quality variables of SWMS as rendered by OMP (
The householders ranked relatively low variables such as the behaviour of the waste collection crew towards the residents and the frequency of waste collection from households. Similar results were reported by Anestina et al. (
The study also examined the relationship between the level of education and householders’ level of satisfaction with the SWMS. Respondents were asked:
The study has demonstrated that overall, the beneficiary householders are very satisfied with the SWMS as rendered by OMP. Majority of the respondents (52.4%) indicated that they were very satisfied while 40.3% of the respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the SWMS provided by OMP. Satisfaction of the beneficiary householders was due to quality aspects such as reliability of waste collection, neatness of waste collection crew and householders education on solid waste management that were ranked highly by the respondents. The respondents also reported higher levels of satisfaction with quality variables such as final disposal site where vehicles dispose waste, cleanliness of service area, prompt response to user complaints and satisfaction with the vehicles and equipment used to collect and dispose waste. Quality variables that were ranked relatively low (
The study concludes by emphasising on the need for assessment of SWMS as provided by CBOs for improved service delivery. The study recommends routine supervision of the SWMS rendered by donor or government sponsored projects for effective and sustainable service delivery to the beneficiary householders. The supervisory role can be played by the respective department of the County Government.
Given the role played by CBOs in the management of MSW in many developing nations, this study has highlighted the relevance of assessing donor funded waste management systems for improved service delivery. Results from this study also provide useful new knowledge about user perception with regard to the community-based approach in the management of solid waste. This knowledge will no doubt contribute towards the improvement of SWM especially in areas neighbouring Kilifi County that share similarity in the socio-cultural context.
We acknowledge the Chief Executive Officer