Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Heliyon logoLink to Heliyon
. 2020 Jan 8;6(1):e03040. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e03040

An assessment of house-hold solid waste management in a large Ghanaian district

Stephen T Odonkor 1,∗, Kwasi Frimpong 1, Napoleon Kurantin 1
PMCID: PMC6951088  PMID: 31934650

Abstract

The importance of waste management cannot be overemphasized. Improper waste management and disposal has rippling effect on the environment and human health. The aim of this study is to assess solid waste management among household in a large Ghanaians district. Multi-stage sampling technique comprising a cluster, simple random sampling, and systematic sampling techniques were used to select 600 respondents for the study. Data was analyzed using (SPSS) version 23.0. Results indicates that communal waste collection bins were far from households as confirmed by the majority (57.3%) of the respondents. The majority (56.5%) of the households walked a distance of 11–15 min before reaching the refuse site. The study found that the number of waste collection point in the community were few (1–3 collection bins) as confirmed by majority (92.2%) of the respondents. The distance from the center of the community to the final waste disposal site covered 1–2 h journey. There was a significant relationship between the number of waste disposal sites in the community and the average distance (in kilometers one way) from the city center to a disposing site. In conclusion, the study found that communal waste collection bins were far from households; number of waste collection point in the community were few. This indicates that the distance from the center of the community to the final waste disposal site covered 1–2 h journey. Based on the major findings of the study, we recommend that district assembly should provide waste collection bins to every household to ensure that residents do not dispose their housrhold waste indiscriminately. District by-laws should be strengthened to ensure proper household waste disposal at all districts in Ghana.

Keywords: Environmental science, Waste, Environment, Pollution, Safety

Environmental science; Waste; Environment; Pollution; Safety

1. Introduction

Globally, the rapid increase in population leads to a dramatic upsurge in solid waste production, with austere socio-economic and environmental effects on society (Lagerkvist and Dahlén, 2019). Currently, there is a general consensus on the guidelines for sustainable solid waste management, however, limited efforts have so far been done in this regard, and these are adapted to the specific guidelines and needs of each national or regional authority. New strategies are required to design various and variable urban models for effective waste management.

Today urbanization is one of the major factors contributing to solid waste generation in most part of the world (Kumar and Pandey, 2019; Chen, 2018; Anarfi, 2013). In Africa, waste is unsightly and lowers the morale of communities. Improper waste management is known to create conditions for the spread of diseases (World Bank, 2011; Osei et al., 2010; United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2009). The collection of solid waste (SW) is a key step in all waste management plan. It is one of the greatest challenges confronting waste managers globally.

(Ogra, 2013; Chalkias and Lasaridi, 2009; Tinmaz and Demir, 2005; Environmental Protection Agency, 2002).Irrespective of the strategies and methods of waste management employed, the first step is that waste in which ever form it is must foremost be collected. The waste collection scheme ought be tailored to meet the objective of the intended waste management processing procedure such as landfilling methods or resource recovery. Solid waste collection mostly comprises people and a means of carriage to a transference station, treatment facility, or final dumping site (Oelofse et al., 2018; Worrell, 2012). Collection techniques may differ obviously between developed and developing countries. The phenomenon of house-to-house collection is very common particularly for household solid waste collection in most developed nations (Satterthwaite et al., 2018). However, the application of this method has mostly been very low mainly in developing nations due to several challenges including financial, population expansion and other economic difficulties (Awuak, 2018; Bezama and Agamuthu, 2019).

In Sub-Saharan Africa, waste collection systems such as communal container collection methods appear most dominant in many nations (Awuah, 2018; Lloyd, 2019; Lagerkvist, and Dahlén, 2019). In this kind of system, common containers (waste bins) are provided at dedicated points within neighborhoods for households to drop-off their solid waste. Trash collection vehicles then pick up these containers and empty off the trash at designated disposal spots and return the containers to their original locations. However, this trash collection method is fronted with several difficulties most of the time leading to uncollected. Thus, there is overflow of waste, ground dumping at collection sites, and at unauthorized spaces (Atkinson et al., 2019).

The unplanned siting of dump sites or communal containers could pose threats to water resources, particularly source water sources such as rivers and streams. Eventually borehole, hand-dug wells and other groundwater sources are also affected.

Several gaps exist within efficiency and effective waste domain in Ghana. although some work has been done, more questions remain unanswered (Kretchy et al., 2019; Boateng et al., 2019; Owusu-Nimo et al., 2019).

First an efficient waste management requires data on geographical location of landfill and dumpsites, this is critical for an effective and timely waste management regime. Thus, leading to efficient waste collection and consumer satisfaction; whilst sustained ineffective services leads to dissatisfaction on the part of the client resulting in indiscriminate refuse disposal by various households that may result in environmental pollution and spread of disease (Francis-Xavier et al., 2018).

The efficiency of waste management service as relates to human interface within the waste management delivery domains remains largely unknown. For example, a holistic assessment of clientele perceptions of efficiency across districts regarding the services of a given waste management provider is virtually non-existent. Yet it is critical to have integrated information about the efficiency of waste management delivery as well as customer satisfaction in order to aid policy directions and enhance sustainable waste management. However a holistic assessments of the efficient or quality of waste management services cannot be complete without views from patron of the waste service so provided (Udofia et al., 2018).

The purpose of this study is therefore, to evaluate solid waste management among household aimed at identifying the adequacy of the communal containers; distance from households to the dumping site and distance from the collection point to the final disposing site in a large Ghanaian district.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study design and sample size

The study employed cross-sectional design to obtain quantitative data using questionnaires. The questionnaires though were self-administered, paraphrased into the local language for respondents who for literacy reasons, could not answer in English. Content and face validity of the questionnaire were determined by a panel of experts before and after pre-testing.

2.2. Sampling technique

The study utilized multiple sampling techniques. Thus, a multi-stage sampling technique comprising a cluster, simple random sampling were employed. The district under study was thus divided into six sub-districts called clusters. Two hundred (200) respondents were then selected from each of the three sub-districts for the study. A total of 600 respondents were selected for the study.

2.3. Data collection and analysis

This study took place between 1st December 2017 and 31st March 2018. A standardized structured questionnaire specifically designed to meet the goals of this research was utilized for data collection. Field inspection of questionnaire data was carried out daily after the interview was conducted, and any errors were immediately verified and corrected. The final survey instrument comprised of 30 questions in five major areas: Demographic information (7 items); distance of communal bin (container) from households (9 items); number of collection points in the community (5 items); distance from collection point to disposal site (5 items) and health outcomes (4 items). Final instrument was administered to the subjects via self-administered questionnaire method. It took approximately 25–35 min to complete the instrument.

Five experts in waste management measurement and evaluation, assisted with the determination of face validity of the instrument. The average overall face validity was equal to 95%. Reliability for internal constituency was done by Alpha (Cronbach's) test and it was equal to reliability coefficient of 0.87, which is adjudged high reliability.

3. Ethical consideration

Both verbal and written concern was sought from the respondents before data was obtained. Adequate information was provided to the respondents with regards to the aims of the study. It was made clear to the respondents their participation was voluntary and were at liberty not to participate. They also were assured of confidentiality. All respondents’ personal identifiers were deleted form summarized data, ensuring confidentiality.

4. Statistical analysis

Data obtained from the questionnaires were coded and analysed with SPSS version 23. Discrete variables like gender and educational status were described using frequencies and percentages. Bivariate relationships were analysed using Chi Squared (X2) tests or Cramer's V exact test (Garcia-Perez and Nunez-Anton, 2003; Beasley and Schumacker, 1995). All statistical tests employed in this study were two-tailed and were considered to be significant when alpha = 0.05 or less.

5. Results

The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents include gender, age, religious affiliation, marital status, educational level, occupation, and income level are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents.

Variable Response Frequency Percentage
Gender Male 269 44.8
Female 331 55.2
Total 600 100.0
Age ≤18 19 3.2
19–29 47 7.8
30–39 207 34.5
40–49 168 28.0
50–59 159 26.5
Total 600 100.0
Religious Affiliation Christian 396 66.0
Muslim 142 23.7
Traditional 62 10.3
Total 600 100.0
Marital Status Single 129 21.5
Married 420 70.0
Divorced 41 6.8
Widowed 10 1.7
Total 600 100.0
Educational level Not attended school 161 26.8
Primary 131 21.8
JHS 128 21.3
SHS/TECH 74 12.3
Tertiary 106 17.7
Total 600 100.0
Employment status Farmer 175 29.2
Private sector employee 86 14.3
Civil Servant 77 12.8
Unemployed 86 14.3
Self-employed 176 29.3
Total 600 100.0
Income level Less than GHC 100 82 13.7
GHC 100 -199 193 32.2
GH? 200–299 120 20.0
GH?300–399 112 18.7
More than GH?399 93 15.5
Total 600 100.0
Open in a new tab

Source: Authors Compilation (2018).

5.1. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

The gender distribution shows that majority (55.2%) of the respondents in the study were females whilst the remaining percentage (44.8%) were males. The age distribution showed 207 (34.5%) of the respondents were within the age range of 30–39 years. The ages ranged from 18 to 60 years. The majority (66%) of the respondents were Christians. Large proportions (70%) of the respondents were also married. Besides, a large proportion (26.8%) of the respondents had no form of education as compared to those who had primary (21.8%), JHS (21.3%), SHS/TEC (12.3%), and tertiary (17.7%) education. A good number (N = 176) of the respondents representing 29.3% was self-employed whereas good number (N = 193) of the respondents representing 32.2% (50%) had an income level of GHC100 -199 per month.

5.2. Type of solid waste generated

Table 2 shows that the highest (N = 210) type household solid waste generated is plastic and rubbers with a mean score of 4.38 followed by organic vegetables (N = 177) with a mean score of 3.89.

Table 2.

Type of solid waste generated with respect to occupation of respondents.

Type of Solid Waste Mean N Std. Deviation Maximum Minimum Mean Square F Sig.
Plastic and rubber 4.38 210 1.665 Self-employed Farmer 40.165 17.349 .000
Organic or vegetable 3.89 177 1.488 Farmers Civil servant .588 .254 .615
Glass and ceramic 2.89 32 .942 Self-employed Civil Servant 50.059 21.623 .000
Paper 2.16 116 1.509 Self-employed Farmer 2.315
Textile 2.42 19 1.071 Unemployed Farmer
Wood 3.28 46 1.464 Self-employed Private sec.
Total 3.00 600 1.622 Self-employed Farmer
Open in a new tab

Source: Authors Compilation (2018).

The maximum category of household residents who mostly generated plastics and rubbers was recorded among the self-employed who are mostly traders and minimum was recorded among farmers. The maximum household respondents that mostly generated organic vegetables were farmers whereas the minimum was recorded among civil servants. The finding also indicated that at 95% confidence level and 5% significance level, there was a significant association (p = 0.000) between household occupation and the kind of waste generated in the study area.

Table 3 depicts that chi-square computation of the relationship between sorting of waste before disposal and demographic characteristics of the respondents such as age and education at 95% confidence level and 5% significance level. There was enough evidence that sorting of household waste before disposal was highly associated with age and education level of the respondent with probability values of 0.000, and 0.000 respectively. The findings indicated that majority (N = 441) of the household residents representing 73.5% did not sort their waste at all before disposal whereas the remainder, 159 (26.5%) did sort their waste sometimes.

Table 3.

Relationship between sorting of household waste and demographic characteristics.

Variable Response Sorting of Waste Before Disposal
 Chi-square P-value
Sometimes Not at all Total
Age ≤18 0 19 19
19–29 14 33 47 38.621 0.000
30–39 58 149 207
40–49 67 101 168
50–59 20 139 159
Total 159 441 600
Educational level Not attended school 4 157 161
Primary 33 98 131
JHS 45 83 128
SHS/TECH 27 47 74 79.753 0.000
Tertiary 50 56 106
Total 159 441 600
Open in a new tab

Source: Authors Compilation (2018).

In Figure 1 majority (N = 344) of the respondents, representing 57.3% affirmed that the distance between household and the dumping site was far, 186 (31%) of the respondents also affirmed that the distance was not far whereas 70 (11.7%) of the respondents attested that the distance from place of residence to the waste dumping site was very far.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Distance from place of residence to dumping site.

Source: Authors Compilation (2018).

The results in Figure 2 indicated that majority (N = 339) of the respondents representing 56.5% walked a distance of 11–15 min before reaching the dumping, 126 (21%) of the respondents covered a distance of 6–10 min before reaching the dumping site, 120 (20%) of the respondents covered a distance more than 15 min before reaching the dumping site whereas few,15 (2.5%) of the respondents covered a distance of 1–5 min before reaching the dumping site.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Time required reaching dumping site.

Source: Authors Compilation (2018).

Table 4 shows that at 95% confidence level and 5% significance level, there was a significant association between household payment for the waste generated and their socio-economic statuses such as educational level and income level. The association between occupation of respondents and the payment for the waste generated was found to be insignificant. Finding indicated that the majority (N = 460) of the respondents representing 76.7% did not pay for the waste generated when disposing of whereas the remainder, 140 (23.3%) paid for the waste generated.

Table 4.

Relationship between payment of waste and socio-economic status of households.

Variable Response Payment of Waste Generated
 Chi-square P-value
Yes No Total
Occupation Farmer 47 128 175
Private sector employee 17 69 86 4.758 0.313
Civil Servant 13 64 77
Unemployed 24 62 86
Self-employed 39 137 176
Total 140 460 600
Educational level None 48 113 161
Primary 33 98 131
JHS 13 115 128
SHS/TECH 16 58 74 18.040 0.001
Tertiary 30 76 106
Total 140 460 600
Income Level per month Less than GH? 100 32 50 82
GHC100 -199 50 143 193
GHC 200 - 299 17 103 120 18.928 0.001
GHC300 - 399 22 90 112
More than GHC399 19 74 93
Total 140 460 600
Open in a new tab

Source: Authors Compilation (2018).

The findings in Table 5 indicated that 113 out of the 140 households that paid for the waste generated paid more than GHC10 which represents 80.7%, 19 (13.6%) of the respondents paid between GHC5-10 whereas the remainder, 8 (5.7%) paid less than GHC5. Findings also indicated that at 95% confidence level and 5% level of significance, there was a strong associated between distance to waste dumping site and the amount paid by the household for waste disposal.

Table 5.

Relationship between distance to waste dumping site and amount paid by household.

Distance Amount Paid per Month (GHC)
 Total Chi-square P-value
Less than 5 between 5-10 more than 10 NA
1-5min 0 0 0 15 15 33.527 0.001
6-10min 0 0 27 99 126
11-15min 8 19 52 260 339
> 15 min 0 0 34 86 120
Total 8 19 113 460 600
Open in a new tab

Source: Authors Compilation (2018).

Table 6 shows relationship between estimated number of dumping sites in the community and the number of times waste is disposed of by household per week. At 95% confidence level and 5% level of significance, there was enough evidence that the number of times of waste disposal by household was highly associated with the number of dumping sites available in the community. In communities, whereas the number of waste dumping site was more than 5, the least number of times household disposed of waste per week was 6 times whereas the maximum was more than 10 times. In a community where the dumping site was only one household the minimum number of times household disposed of waste per week was 1 (once) whereas the maximum was 6–10 times. The above finding means that frequent household waste disposal is highly dependent on the estimated number of waste dumping sites available in the community. In other words, the higher the number of waste dumping sites in the community, the higher the rate of waste disposal by households in the community.

Table 6.

Chi-Square Computation of the Relationship Between Estimated Number of Dumping Sites and the Number of Times Waste is Disposed by Household Per Week.

Number of Waste dumping Sites How many times does your household dump solid waste in a week
 Total Chi-square P-value
1-5 times 6-10 times more 10 times
1 68 80 0 148
2 73 231 84 388
3 0 10 8 18 88.391 0.001
More than 5 0 8 38 46
Total 141 329 130 600
Open in a new tab

Source: Authors Compilation (2018).

5.3. Distance from collection point to disposal site

Table 7 shows the relationship between number of waste disposal sites and the average distance from the centre of the town.

Table 7.

Relationship between number of waste disposal sites and the average distance from the centre of the town.

No. of Disposal Sites What is the average distance (in kilometers one way) from the city center to a disposing site?
 Total Chi-square P-value
≤10km 11–20km 21–30km 31–40km >40km
None 16 23 1 2 14 56
2 24 198 79 73 117 491 19.35 0.001
3 4 5 8 7 0 24
4 0 0 17 0 0 17
˃4 0 0 12 0 0 12
Total 44 226 117 82 131 600
Open in a new tab

Source: Authors Compilation (2018).

Table 8 shows the differences in mean regarding diseases that are spread as a result of improper household waste disposal. Findings in the Table 8 indicated that with a high means score of 3.23, the majority of the respondents affirmed that diarrhea is spread as a result of improper disposal of household waste in the community whereas the remaining respondents also identified malaria, and worm infection with means scores of 3.01, and 1.76 respectively.

Table 8.

Diseases caused by improper disposal of waste.

Disease Mean N Std Deviation
Diaarhoea 3.23 296 0.001
Malaria 3.01 259 0.505
Worm Infection 1.76 45 0.515
Total 5.64 600 1.020
Open in a new tab

Source: Authors Compilation (2018).

6. Discussion

The purpose of this study is to assess solid waste management among household in a large Ghanaians district, thus, identifying the adequacy of the communal containers; distance from households to the dumping site and distance from the collection point to the final disposing site in the district.

Urbanization has resulted in increasing waste generation in Ghana. Oduro-Appiah et al. (2019); Miezah et al.,2015). Waste management normally concerns the focused, systematic control of the generation, collection, disposal, processing of waste in a aesthetically regulated, manner (Letcher and Vallero, 2019).

In this current we found that communal waste collection bins were far from household as confirmed by the majority (57.3%) of the respondents. The majority (N = 339) of the households representing 56.5% walked a distance of 11–15 min before reaching the dumping, while others covered a distance of 6–10 min and even more than 15 min before reaching the dumping site. This means that household travels a long distance from their place of residence before reaching communal bins to dispose of their waste generated in the house. This finding agrees with Adu-Boahen et al. (2014) who observe this same phenomenon in their study that sought to assess the challenges and prospects with waste management. The long-distance, therefore, discourages some residents, thus they tend to dispose of waste in open drains and indiscriminately in the community. This also compounds the United Nation Conference on Human Settlement observations (UNCHS, 1996) indicating that one third to one half of solid waste generated within most cities in low- and middle-income countries (including Ghana) are not collected. To salvage this situation, it has been opined that each household is required to place a container in front of the house on specific days and collect the container after its content has been collected (Boateng et al., 2019; Francis Xavier et al., 2018).

We found from this study that major type of waste generated by households in the District was plastic and rubbers with a mean score of 4.38. Other types of solid waste generated by households in the district include organic or vegetables, glasses, and ceramics, papers, metals, textiles, and wood. The maximum category of household residents who mostly generate plastics and rubbers was recorded among the self-employed who are mostly traders and the minimum was recorded among farmers. The maximum household respondents that mostly generate organic or vegetable waste was farmers whereas the minimum was recorded among civil servants. This finding supports Ofori (2008) who reported that household solid waste includes plastics, paper, glass, textiles, cellophane, metals and some hazardous waste from household goods such as paint, garden pesticides, pharmaceuticals, fluorescent tubes, personal care products, batteries containing heavy metals and surplus wood treated with unsafe substances Such as anti-fungal and anti-termite chemicals. Similar studies done by Asibey et al., (2019); Abalo et al. (2018) also made the similar observations.

We also found a significance level, there was a significant association (P ≤ 0.001) between household occupation and the kind of waste generated in the study area. Furthermore, traders and farmers were the major categories of individuals that generate waste mostly. These findings support the view that the quantity and nature of the waste generated vary with the activities and with the level of technological development in a country (Addaney, and Oppong, 2015; Garg, 2012).

The revealed that majority (73.5%) of the households did not sort their waste before disposal. There was enough evidence that sorting of household waste before disposal was highly associated with age and education level of the respondent with probability values of 0.001, and 0.001 respectively. The findings mean that resorting of solid waste before disposal is highly associated with age and educational level of respondents. Individuals who are matured and had higher education stand the chance of sorting their waste before disposing of the waste.

The study found that the number of waste collection point in the community were few (1–3 collection bins) as the confirmed majority (92.2%) of the respondents. Thus, most residents did not have access to waste collections points thereby disposing of waste in open drains. Also, the study showed that the number of times of waste disposal by household was highly depended on the number of dumping sites available in the community. Thus, the frequent household waste disposal is highly dependent on the estimated number of waste dumping sites available in the community. In other words, the higher the number of waste dumping sites in the community, the higher the rate of waste disposal by households in the community. It is for this reason that Anon (2007) and others intimated that in general a single 100-liter bin should be provided for every fifty people in domestic areas, every hundred people at feeding centers and every ten market stalls. Ideally, bins should be emptied daily (Anon, 2007; Alhassan et al., 2017; Samwine et al., 2017), We found that the distance from the center of the community to the final waste disposal site covered 1–2 h journey. We found a significant relationship between the number of waste disposal sites in the community and the average distance (in kilometers one way) from the city center to a disposing site was highly significant (p ≤ 0.001). It is deduced from the above findings that the higher the number of waste disposal sites, the shorter the average distance (in kilometers one way) from the city center to the disposal site. Household waste is supposed to be collected from the collection point to the final disposal site. In this regard, Tchobanoglous et al. (2013) identified the transfer and transport of solid wastes to comprise two principal steps. That is: (i) the transfer of wastes from the smaller collection vehicle to larger transport equipment; and (ii) the subsequent transport of the wastes, usually over long distances, to a processing or disposal site.

The study found several diseases are associated with improper waste management. This is usually attributed to the fact that choked gutters often harbor human excreta, stagnant water, and rotten garbage that facilitate the causation and spread of diseases and infections. In this regard, the majority (85%) of the respondents attested that there were diseases recorded recently with regards to improper waste management. Majority of the respondents with a mean score of 3.23 reported that diarrhea was the major disease recorded in the community as a result of improper waste management. Other diseases also recorded as reported by the respondents include malaria and worm infection. To avoid the occurrence of diseases, it is recommended that ideally, bins should be emptied daily to avoid the occurrence of diseases (Anon, 2007; Adzawla et al., 2019).

7. Conclusions

The study was conducted to assess solid waste management among household in a large Ghanaian district. First the study found that communal waste collection bins were far from households. Secondly, number of waste collection point in the community were few. The study found that the distance from the center of the community to the final waste disposal site covered 1–2 h journey.

Fourthly, we found that improper waste disposal has led to poor sanitation resulting in sickness outbreak of diseases such as cholera related diarrhea, malaria and related diseases.

Finally, the study revealed that the provision of trash contains or dustbins at designated points of collection are the most efficient and effective ways of improving the waste management challenge as it will go a long way to improve sanitation.

8. Recommendations

The importance of effective waste management cannot be over empathized. In fact, the most significant reason for waste collection is to protect of the environment in which we leave and the health of the populace. Rubbish and waste is a potential source of air and water pollution. They can generate harmful gases that mix with the air and subsequently cause breathing complications in. people.

Based on the major findings of the study, the following recommendations are suggested for policy planners and policymakers: First, the district assembly should provide waste collection bins to every household to ensure that residents do not dispose of waste indiscriminately.

Second, the residents should be educated on the adverse health and environmental effects of poor waste management; and the need to properly handled and disposed of waste.

Third, there is a need for the government to strengthen district by-laws to ensure proper household waste disposal at all district in Ghana. To this end develop national rules specifically regarding the management of waste and a compulsory and across-the-board systems for tracking its transport, handling and disposal.

Fourth, upgrade and continuously expand waste treatment plants and corresponding disposal facilities such as landfills, systems for waste water treatment among others.

Finally, there should also be the provision of dustbins at key waste collection points. This should be done by consulting all stakeholders such as the various District Assemblies, registered waste management operatives and the members and opinion leaders of the community members themselves.

Declarations

Author contribution statement

Stephen T Odonkor: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Wrote the paper.

Kwasi Frimpong, Napoleon Kurantin: Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

References

  1. Abalo E.M., Peprah P., Nyonyo J., Ampomah-Sarpong R., Agyemang-Duah W. A review of the triple gains of waste and the way forward for Ghana. J Renew Energy. 2018:2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. Addaney M., Oppong R.A. Critical issues of municipal solid waste management in Ghana. JENRM. 2015;2(1):30–36. [Google Scholar]
  3. Adu-Boahen Waste management practices in Ghana: challenges and prospect, Jukwa Central Region. Int. J. Develop. Sustain. 2014;2004:530–546. [Google Scholar]
  4. Adzawla W., Tahidu A., Mustapha S., Azumah S.B. Do socioeconomic factors influence households’ solid waste disposal systems? Evidence from Ghana. Waste Manag. Res. 2019;37(1 suppl):51–57. doi: 10.1177/0734242X18817717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Alhassan H., Asante F.A., Oteng-Ababio M., Bawakyillenuo S. Do socio-psychological factors influence households' willingness-to-pay for improved solid waste management services? Evidence from Ghana. Int. J. Green Econ. 2017;11(3-4):183–203. [Google Scholar]
  6. Anarfi S.W. Chief Executive Office at Trash Recycling and Management Organization; Accra: Ghana: 2013. Solid Waste Management in Ghana. [Google Scholar]
  7. Anon B. 2007. Household Solid Waste Management.http://www.en.wikipedia.org Retrieved online on June 20, 2015, at. [Google Scholar]
  8. Asibey M.O., Amponsah O., Yeboah V. Solid waste management in informal urban neighbourhoods. Occupational safety and health practices among tricycle operators in Kumasi, Ghana. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2019:1–16. doi: 10.1080/09603123.2019.1569211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Atkinson A., Dávila J.D., Mattingly M. Routledge; 2019. The challenge of Environmental Management in Urban Areas. [Google Scholar]
  10. Awuah K.G.B. The Role of Urban Planning in Sub-Saharan Africa Urban Pollution Management. Urban Pollut: Sci Manag. 2018:385–395. [Google Scholar]
  11. Beasley T.M., Schumacker R.E. Multiple regression approach to analyzing contingency tables: post hoc and planned comparison procedures. J. Exp. Educ. 1995;64(1):79–93. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bezama A., Agamuthu P. SAGE Publications Sage UK; London, Englan: 2019. Addressing the Big Issues in Waste Management. [Google Scholar]
  13. Boateng K.S., Agyei-Baffour P., Boateng D., Rockson G.N.K., Mensah K.A., Edusei A.K. Household willingness-to-pay for improved solid waste management services in four major metropolitan cities in Ghana. J Environ Public Health. 2019:2019. doi: 10.1155/2019/5468381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chalkias C., Lasaridi K. A GIS based model for the optimization of municipal solid waste collection: the case study of nikea, athens, Greece. Technology. 2009;12:11–15. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen Y.C. Effects of urbanization on municipal solid waste composition. Waste Manag. 2018;79:828–836. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Environmental Protection Agency . 2002. Ghana’s State of the environment report EPA, MES, MLGRD, (2002) Ghana Landfill Guidelines: Best Practice Environmental Guidelines. Accra, Ghana. [Google Scholar]
  17. Francis Xavier M.K., Millar D., Tanguo J. An effective solid waste management and environmental sanitation diseases reduction module of Ghana-A case of thetechiman municipal area, brong ahafo region. Ghana. J Environ Toxicol Stud. 2018;2(1) [Google Scholar]
  18. Garcia-Perez M.A., Nunez-Anton V. Cellwise residual analysis in two-way contingency tables. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2003;63(5):825–839. [Google Scholar]
  19. Garg R.K. Vol. 6. 2012. National Solid Waste Association of India (NSWAI) Newsletter; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kretchy J.P., Dzodzomenyo M., Rheinlander T. Actors in waste management: the case of a rapidly urbanising coastal peri-urban community in southern Ghana. Central Inquiry. 2019;1(1):66–85. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kumar S., Pandey A. Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Elsevier; 2019. Current developments in biotechnology and bioengineering and waste treatment processes for energy generation: an introduction; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lagerkvist A., Dahlén L. Recovery of Materials and Energy from urban wastes: A Volume in the Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology. second ed. 2019. Solid waste generation and characterization; pp. 7–20. [Google Scholar]
  23. Letcher T.M., Vallero D.A., editors. Waste: A Handbook for Management. Academic Press; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lloyd J.S. Expanding safe waste management to public health systems. The Lancet. 2019;393(10168):225. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32622-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Miezah K., Obiri-Danso K., Kádár Z., Fei-Baffoe B., Mensah M.Y. Municipal solid waste characterization and quantification as a measure towards effective waste management in Ghana. Waste Manag. 2015;46:15–27. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Oduro-Appiah K., Afful A., Kotey V., de Vries N. Working with the informal service chain as a locally appropriate strategy for sustainable modernization of municipal solid waste management systems in lower-middle income cities: lessons from accra, Ghana. Resources. 2019;8(1):12. [Google Scholar]
  27. Oelofse S.H., Nahman A., Godfrey L.K. United Nations Environment Programme; 2018. Waste as Resource: Unlocking Opportunities for Africa. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ofori G. Clients' role in attainment of sustainability in housing:the case of Singapore and lessons for developing Countries1. J. Constr. Dev. Ctries. (JCDC) 2008;12(2):1–3. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ogra A. Map Asia. 2013. Logistic management and spatial planning for solid waste management systems using geographical information system. India. [Google Scholar]
  30. Osei F.B., Duker A.A., Augustijn E.-W., Stein A. Spatial dependency of cholera prevalence on PotentialCholera reservoirs in an urban area, kumasi, Ghana. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 2010;12:331–339. [Google Scholar]
  31. Owusu-Nimo F., Oduro-Kwarteng S., Essandoh H., Wayo F., Shamudeen M. Scientific African; 2019. Characteristics and Management of Landfill Solid Waste in Kumasi, Ghana. [Google Scholar]
  32. Samwine T., Wu P., Xu L., Shen Y., Appiah E., Yaoqi W. Challenges and prospects of solid waste management in Ghana. Int. J. Environ. Monit. Anal. 2017;5(4):96–102. [Google Scholar]
  33. Satterthwaite D., Sverdlik A., Brown D. Revealing and responding to multiple health risks in informal settlements in sub-Saharan African cities. J Urban. 2018 doi: 10.1007/s11524-018-0264-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Tchobanaglous G., Theisen H., Vigil S. McGraw-Hill; New York: 2013. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tinmaz E., Demir I. Research on solid waste management systems: to improve existing situation in Corlu Town of Turkey. Science Direct. 2005;6(5):34–40. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Udofia E.A., Fobil J., Gulis G. Stakeholders’ practices and perspectives on solid medical waste management: a community based study in accra, Ghana. J. Environ. Prot. 2018;9(13):1295–1313. [Google Scholar]
  37. UNCHS . Oxford University Press; 1996. An Urbanizing World Global Reports on Human Settlements. [Google Scholar]
  38. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) 2009. Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Training Manual, 2: Assessment Of Current Waste Management Systems And Gaps Therein. Osaka/Shiga, Japan. [Google Scholar]
  39. World Bank . Africa Regional Office; Republic of Ghana: 2011. Urban environmental sanitation project, staff appraisal report. [Google Scholar]
  40. Worrell W.A., Vesilind P.A. second ed. Cengage Learning; Stamford: 2012. Solid Waste Engineering. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Heliyon are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES