Vol-09 Issue 01, January-2025 ISSN: 2456-9348

Impact Factor: 7.936

International Journal of Engineering Technology Research & Management

Published By:
https://www.ijetrm.com/

SOLID WASTE SEGREGATION AS A STRATEGY FOR IMPROVED WASTE

MANAGEMENT IN PORT HARCOURT

Ogboeli Goodluck Prince1, Gospel Chimenma Dimkpa2, Priscilia Nyekpunwo Ogbonda3, Cookey-
Gam, Idawarifa Frank4, Ogba Amaka Azubuike5 & Samuel Dagogo6
Institute of Geoscience and Environmental Management, Rivers State University1
Department of Public Health Sciences, Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Nigeria2-5
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Nigeria6
Corresponding Author: Goodluck.ogboeli@ust.edu.ng

ABSTRACT
The diverse composition of municipal solid waste complicates its management significantly. Waste segregation,
essential for effective solid waste management, has yet to be embraced by Nigerian society. Failure to properly
segregate waste can lead to diseases such as diarrhea. This research aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of solid waste
segregation as a means to enhance waste management in Port Harcourt. A quasi-experimental design was utilized, and
a multistage sampling method was employed to select 30 households. A self-administered questionnaire with a semi-
structured format was utilized, consisting of demographic information, a 14-point knowledge scale, and a 14-point
practice scale. The knowledge and practice results were classified into three categories: poor (≤4), fair (4-8), and good
(above 8). Unlabeled jute sack bags were distributed to households for a week to gather solid waste. The waste collected
was categorized and weighed before the intervention took place. Afterward, households received labeled, color-coded
jute sack bags (Black for biodegradable and White for non-biodegradable waste), and training on how to use them was
provided over a span of 2 weeks. Following the intervention, the questionnaire was re-administered to the chosen
respondents. Waste generated from households was gathered and weighed over a week following the intervention on
solid waste segregation. Non-degradable waste was sorted, analyzed, and its individual components were recorded and
weighed. The collected data underwent analysis using descriptive statistics and a t-test with a significance level of
p=0.05. The average age of the respondents was 28.6±2.6 years. The educational backgrounds of the respondents
included non-formal education (23.3%), primary education (26.7%), secondary education (20.0%), and tertiary
education (30.0%). The respondents’ knowledge score before the intervention was 2.7±0.2, while their practice score
was 2.2±0.1. The results of this intervention indicate that waste segregation at the source is a feasible and sustainable
method for improving solid waste management in the country. These findings will enhance the planning, development,
implementation, and assessment of solid waste management within the community, state, and Nigeria. It is strongly
recommended that there be an increase in community-based public awareness initiatives, that the government provide
bags as incentives to encourage source segregation of waste, and that buy-back recycling centers be established by the
government.

Keywords:
Solid Waste Segregation, Waste Management, Waste Reduction, Waste Sorting, Environmental Sustainability

Introduction
Effective solid waste management practices are a crucial part of the environmental infrastructure in communities. These
practices include all activities that take place from when waste is produced to when it is finally disposed of. In most
urban areas of Africa, the responsibility for solid waste management falls primarily to Municipal Councils, while in
many rural regions, waste is managed and disposed of at the household level (Frank, 2006). Solid Waste Management
(SWM) is a significant environmental concern, especially for municipalities in numerous developing countries that face
various environmental challenges. Alamgir, Donald, Roehl, and Ahsan (2005) emphasize that both urban population
growth and economic advancement are vital factors in generating Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). The rapid and
unplanned growth of cities, combined with the prevailing attitude of "out of sight, out of mind" regarding waste,

IJETRM (http://ijetrm.com/) [92]

 Vol-09 Issue 01, January-2025 ISSN: 2456-9348
Impact Factor: 7.936

International Journal of Engineering Technology Research & Management

Published By:
https://www.ijetrm.com/

contributes to an increase in solid waste generation and exacerbates environmental issues, leading to chaotic waste
disposal in many municipalities. SWM is often a primary challenge for local governments and towns in various nations,
and Nigeria is no different (ADB, 2012).
Waste segregation involves categorizing waste into dry and wet types. Dry waste consists of solid materials like wood
products, metals, and glass, among others. Wet waste generally refers to organic or liquid waste typically produced by
food establishments, and it is heavier due to its moisture content. The amount of waste being generated is on the rise,
while a significant portion is disposed of at improperly situated and managed dumpsites, leading to serious
environmental and health repercussions. Additionally, Mtey (2005) and Vincent (2000) indicate that between one-third
and one-half of the solid waste produced in many cities across low and middle-income nations goes uncollected. This
waste often ends up as illegal dumping on streets, in open areas, and wetlands, adversely affecting local flora and fauna.
The Ministry of Infrastructure further states that improving solid waste management is essential through a national
policy and regulatory framework to address these environmental challenges.
Port Harcourt's waste still consists of approximately 70 percent organic, biodegradable material, while in rural areas,
this proportion exceeds 95 percent. Waste sorting, composting, and recycling efforts were initiated only recently, and
as of 2015, Nigeria began investing in environmentally friendly landfills. The operational dumpsite manages around
400 tons of unsorted solid waste daily, totaling 140,000 tons annually (MININFRA, 2013). Common environmental
issues associated with such rudimentary dumpsites include persistent fires, methane leaks, landslides, and
contaminations threatening rivers and groundwater (Hogan, 2004). The prevailing view is that inadequate waste
management primarily stems from the failure of current institutions to effectively tackle waste-related challenges
(Yekeen, 2010). Any efforts to enhance the capabilities of urban institutions must be both appealing and supportive of
environmental protection. To aid in capacity building and evaluation, which seeks to identify existing capabilities and
those required to fulfill tasks, understanding and assessing capacity must involve all levels, both formal and informal
(NUDB, 2008; Yekeen, 2010).
Material and Method
Nigeria's Niger Delta encompasses Port Harcourt, located at approximately 4.8157° N latitude and 7.0499° E
longitude. The city is near the Gulf of Guinea, where the Imo and Bonny Rivers converge. To the east, it is bordered
by the Atlantic Ocean, while the northern side is flanked by the hinterlands of Rivers State, and the west is dotted with
wetlands and rivers. Ogunwale et al. (2022) highlight the city’s strategic position as an important port and industrial
hub. The population of Port Harcourt is rapidly increasing due to urbanization and migration. Current estimates
suggest that the population stands at 1,865,000. According to Ezeh and Udo (2021), Port Harcourt has one of the
highest population densities in Nigeria, which places considerable pressure on the city's infrastructure and services,
particularly in waste management. Port Harcourt has a tropical rainforest climate, characterized by consistently high
temperatures and substantial rainfall throughout the year. Nnamdi and Obinna (2022) note that this warm and humid
climate is typical for the Niger Delta region. The average yearly temperature ranges from 24.6°C to 31°C. Omojola
and Oladipo (2023) mention that sustained high temperatures contribute to a generally warm climate.
This research utilized a quasi-experimental design. The primary goals included assessing knowledge, attitudes, and
behaviors regarding solid waste segregation, categorizing and weighing the discarded waste, and supplying training
along with color-coded waste collection bags. A stratified random sampling method was adopted to select 30
households from AMAC. The study population consisted of 574 households in AMAC. Participants were chosen
based on mutual consent. The following criteria were considered for selecting the community included in the study:
it is a semi-urban area, it features a mix of high- and low-density populations, and it is located within the state capital.
The sample size was determined using the statistical hypothesis testing or power analysis formula detailed in
"Sampling: Design and Analysis" by Sharon L. Lohr (2010).
n= [Zα (2P(1-P))1/2 + Z β (p1 (1-p1) + p2 (1-p2))1/2 ]2/(p1-p2) 2
An approximate formula is given below
n= (Zα + Z β)2 {p1 (1-p1) + p2 (1-p2)}/ (p1- p2)2
p1 = proportion with event in group 1꞊0.5, p 2 = proportion with event in group 2꞊0.5
p = average of p1 and p2
Zα is standard normal deviate corresponding to level of significance (usually 5%)
Z β is standard deviate corresponding to power of 1-β

IJETRM (http://ijetrm.com/) [93]

 Vol-09 Issue 01, January-2025 ISSN: 2456-9348
Impact Factor: 7.936

International Journal of Engineering Technology Research & Management

Published By:
https://www.ijetrm.com/

Using 90 power꞊ 1.28

N N→α 5.25
nr =An attrition or non-response rate (nr) of 10% for household survey as suggested by WHO/UNAIDS (2009) was
further considered.
(Nx1/1-nr) 5.25 x 1/1-0.1 = 5.83
To achieve greater accuracy, the sample size was increased to 15, resulting in a total of 30 individuals across both
locations. The research followed the sampling technique suggested by the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS, 2010).
AMAC was divided into two categories: the housing estate (low-density area - LD) with 40 households and the actual
communal settlement (high-density area - HD) consisting of 534 households. A total of 30 households were chosen for
the research study.
The survey was structured into five sections, labeled A, B, C, and D. Section A included questions aimed at capturing
the socio-demographic details of the participants, while section B featured questions designed to evaluate the
knowledge of solid waste segregation at the source. Section C encompassed inquiries regarding the participants'
attitudes toward segregation at the source. Section D of the semi-structured questionnaire assessed the actual practices
of solid waste segregation at the source among the respondents. The questionnaire was designed to measure both
baseline and post-intervention knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to waste segregation. The development of the
questionnaire was informed by a review of pertinent literature and the identification of relevant variables associated
with solid waste segregation at the source. A self-administered questionnaire was chosen to minimize interviewer bias
and to reduce costs.
Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices were evaluated using scales of 14, 10, and 14 points, respectively. Knowledge and
Practice scores were categorized as poor, fair, and good with scores of 0≤4, ≥4-8, and ≥8. Similarly, Attitude scores
were classified as poor, fair, and good with ranges of 0≤4, ≥4-7, and ≥7. During the development of the instruments,
experts from Environmental Health, Epidemiology, Health Promotion, and Education were consulted.
To improve the face and content validity of the tool, it was presented to experts in Environmental Health, Epidemiology,
and Health Promotion and Education within the Public Health faculty for their input. Necessary adjustments were made
after the evaluation by these specialists and were subsequently reviewed by my Research supervisor. The questionnaire
was translated into the Izon language and then translated back into English. This procedure was carried out to ensure
that the instrument preserved its original meaning.
To evaluate its reliability, the instrument was initially tested with 15 households in Port Harcourt, a community that is
different yet shares similar characteristics with the targeted group. The questionnaires that were pretested were cleaned,
coded, and later entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences, SPSS (version 16). The reliability was assessed
using Cronbach's alpha coefficient analysis, which measures internal consistency based on the average inter-item
correlation. The reliability coefficient calculated was 0.92, indicating that the instrument was highly reliable.
The questionnaires were compiled and revised by the researcher along with the help of field assistants. They were
reviewed for completeness and given serial numbers for easy identification. Each questionnaire's responses were
manually coded using a coding guide that the researcher developed after carefully analyzing all the responses. A
template was created in SPSS (version 16) for entering the coded data. The data from each questionnaire was inputted
into SPSS 16 software. Descriptive statistics and a t-test were used to analyze the data, with a significance level set at
p=0.05. The findings were displayed using tables, pie charts, and bar graphs..

Result and Discussion

Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
A total of 30 individuals from the community were interviewed, with ages varying from 15 to 45 years. The average
age of the respondents in the community is 28.6±2.6 years. The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents
from the community are presented in Table 4.1.
Knowledge of Respondents on Solid Waste Segregation

IJETRM (http://ijetrm.com/) [94]

 Vol-09 Issue 01, January-2025 ISSN: 2456-9348
Impact Factor: 7.936

International Journal of Engineering Technology Research & Management

Published By:
https://www.ijetrm.com/

The average knowledge score among the 30 respondents interviewed before the intervention was 2.7±0.2. A percentage
of 73.3% reflects a deficiency in knowledge, while 26.7% indicates a reasonable level of knowledge. Tables 4.2, 4.5,
and figure 4.1 illustrate the respondents' knowledge levels regarding solid waste segregation.
Attitude of Respondents to Solid Waste Segregation
Out of the 30 community members interviewed, 86.7% exhibited a poor attitude, while only 13.3% displayed a fair
attitude. The attitude levels of the respondents towards solid waste segregation at the source are illustrated in Tables
4.3, 4.6, and Figure 4.1.
Practice of Solid Waste Segregation
The average practice score for solid waste segregation among the 30 respondents interviewed was 2.2±0.1. Of this total,
70.0% of the respondents exhibited poor practice, while 30.0% demonstrated fair practice, as illustrated in tables 4.4,
4.7, and figures 4.1, respectively.
Age Distribution of Respondents

AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS

15-19
10%
30-45
33%

20-24
37%

25-29
20%

Sex Distribution of Respondents

Sex Distribution of Respondents

40%
60% Male
female

IJETRM (http://ijetrm.com/) [95]

 Vol-09 Issue 01, January-2025 ISSN: 2456-9348
Impact Factor: 7.936

International Journal of Engineering Technology Research & Management

Published By:
https://www.ijetrm.com/

Marital Status of Respondents

Marital Status of Respondents

20 16

15

10
5 4
2 3
5

0
Married Divorced Single Separated Widow

Educational Status of Respondents

Educational Status of Respondents

9
10 8
7
8 6
6
4
2
0
No formal Primary education Secondary Tertiary education
education education

Occupation Status of Respondents

IJETRM (http://ijetrm.com/) [96]

Vol-09 Issue 01, January-2025 ISSN: 2456-9348
Impact Factor: 7.936

International Journal of Engineering Technology Research & Management

Published By:
https://www.ijetrm.com/

Occupation Status of Respondents

18 17
16
14
12
10
8
6 5
4 3 3
2
2
0
Unemployed Trading Civil servant Corporate body Fisherman

Table 4.1: Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

Variable Total
Age:
15-19 3 (10.0%)
20-24 11 (36.7%)
25-29 6 (20.0%)
30-45 10 (33.3%)
Mean ± SD 28.6±2.6
Sex:
Male 12 (40.0%)
female 18 (60.0%)
Marital Status:
Married 16 (53.3%)
Divorced 5 (16.7%)
Single 4 (13.3%)
Separated 2 (6.7%)
Widow 3 (10.0%)
Educational status:
No formal education 7 (23.3%)
Primary education 8 (26.7%)
Secondary education 6 (20.0%)
Tertiary education 9 (30.0%)
Occupation:
Unemployed 3 (10.0%)
Trading 2 (6.7%)
Civil servant 17 (56.7%)
Corporate body 5 (16.7%)
Fisherman 3 (10.0%)

IJETRM (http://ijetrm.com/) [97]

 Vol-09 Issue 01, January-2025 ISSN: 2456-9348
Impact Factor: 7.936

International Journal of Engineering Technology Research & Management

Published By:
https://www.ijetrm.com/

Table 4.2: Respondents knowledge on solid waste segregation

Variable At Pre-intervention
Total (%)
Do you know any form of solid waste
management:
good 1 (50%) 6 (21.4%) 7 (23.3%)
poor 1 (50%) 14 (50.0%) 15 (50.0%)
Fair 8 (28.6%)
Do you think solid waste can be converted into
useful material:
good 2 (100%) 5 (17.9%) 7 (23.3%)
poor 20 (71.4%) 20 (66.7%)
Fair 3 (10.7%) 10 (10.0%)
Do you know that solid waste can be separated
at the source of generation:
good 2 (7.1%) 2 (6.7%)
poor 2 (100%) 19 (69.9%) 21 (70.0%)
Fair 7 (25.0%) 7 (23.0%)
Do you know that waste can be reused,
recycled and recovered:
good 1 (50%) 5 (17.9%) 6 (20.0%
poor 1 (50%) 18 (64.3%) 19 (63.0%)
fair 5 (17.9%) 5 (16.7%)
Do you think waste segregation at source is
beneficial to health:
good 5 (17.9%) 5 (16.7%)
poor 2 (100%) 13 (46.4%) 15 (50.0%)
fair 10 (35.7%) 10 (33.3%)
Do you know if there are useful materials in
solid waste:
good 2 (100%) 8 (28.6%) 10 (33.3%)
poor 17 (60.7%) 17 (56.7%)
Fair 3 (10.7%) 3 (10.0%)
Do you think it’s ideal to put all your waste in a
single waste bin:
good 2 (100%) 8 (28.6%) 10 (33.3%)
poor 18 (64.3%) 18 (60.0%)
fair 2 (7.1%) 2 (6.7%)
Note; LD= Low Density and HD= High Density.

IJETRM (http://ijetrm.com/) [98]

 Vol-09 Issue 01, January-2025 ISSN: 2456-9348
Impact Factor: 7.936

International Journal of Engineering Technology Research & Management

Published By:
https://www.ijetrm.com/

Table 4.3: Respondents attitude to waste segregation

Variable At pre- intervention
LD HD Total (%)
Solid waste segregation at the
source is necessary in AMAC

good 0 (0%) 6 (21.4%) 6 (20.0%)

fair 0 (0%) 8 (28.6%) 8 (26.7%)
bad 2 (100%) 14 (50.0%) 16 (53.3%)
Training of households on solid
waste segregation is necessary in
AMAC
good 0 (0%) 2 (7.1%) 2 (6.7%)
fair 1 (50%) 3 (10.7%) 4 (13.3%)
bad 1 (50%) 23 (82.1%) 24 (80.0%)
Solid waste segregation at the source
enhances waste minimization and
resource maximization

good 1 (50%) 5 (17.9%) 6 (20.0%)

fair 0 (0%) 10 (35.7%) 10 (33.3%)
bad 1 (50%) 13 (46.4%) 14 (46.4%)
Solid waste management should be left
for the waste management authority an
government alone
Good 0 (0%) 11 (39.3%) 11 (36.7%)
fair 0 (0%) 5 (17.9%) 5 (16.7%)
Bad 2 (100%) 12 (42.9%) 14 (46.7%)
Solid waste segregation enhances a clean
and healthy environment
good 0 (0%) 7 (25.0%) 7 (23.3%)
fair 1 (50%) 5 (17.9%) 6 (20.0%)
bad 1 (50%) 16 (42.9%) 17 (56.7%)
Note; LD= Low Density and HD= High Density.
Table 4.4: Respondents practice of waste segregation

Variable At Pre-intervention
LD HD Total (%)
Do you separate valuables in waste Good
1 (50%) 3 (10.7%) 4 (13.3%)

poor 1 (50%) 25 (89.3%) 26 (86.7%)

IJETRM (http://ijetrm.com/) [99]

Vol-09 Issue 01, January-2025 ISSN: 2456-9348
Impact Factor: 7.936

International Journal of Engineering Technology Research & Management

Published By:
https://www.ijetrm.com/

Fair 0 (%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Do you use separate containers or bags for the
collection/storage of different category of 0 (0%) 5 (17.9%) 5 (16.7%)
valuables good

poor 2 (100%) 19 (67.9%) 21 (70.0%)

Fair 0 (0%) 4 (14.3%) 4 (13.3%)
Do you separate valuables into different
categories good 0 (0%) 6 (21.4%) 6 (20.0%)

poor 2 (100%) 16 (57.1%) 18 (60.0%)

Fair 0 (0%) 6 (21.4%) 6 (20.0%)
Do you sell some of your waste items good
0 (0%) 6 (21.4%) 6 (20.0%)

poor 2 (100%) 19 (67.9%) 21 (70.0%)

Fair 0 (0%) 3 (10.7%) 3 (10.0%)
Do you keep plastics, bottles, and tin cans in
separate place after using their contents good 2 (100%) 6 (21.4%) 8 (26.7%)

Poor 0 (0%) 19 (67.9%) 19 (63.3%)

Fair 0 (0%) 3 (10.7%) 3 (10.0%)
Does your neighbour do what is asked in
question above good 2 (100%) 8 (28.6%) 10 (33.3%)

Poor 0 (0%) 14 (50.0%) 14 (46.7%)

Fair 0 (0%) 6 (21.4%) 6 (20.0%)
Have you exchanged waste materials for any
valuable good 2 (100%) 8 (28.6%) 10 (33.3%)

poor 0 (0%) 10 (35.7%) 10 (33.3%)

Fair 0 (0%) 10 (35.7%) 10 (33.3%)
Note; LD= Low Density and HD= High Density.

IJETRM (http://ijetrm.com/) [100]

 Vol-09 Issue 01, January-2025 ISSN: 2456-9348
Impact Factor: 7.936

International Journal of Engineering Technology Research & Management

Published By:
https://www.ijetrm.com/

Table 4.5: Respondents level of knowledge of solid waste segregation

2
Level of knowledge χ P - value

Poor (%) Fair (%) Good (%)

Location at 22 (73.3%) 8 (26.7%) 0 (0%) 5.893† 0.064

Preintervention

†FT = Fisher‘s exact test (4 cells (66.6%) has expected count less than 5)
Relationship was not significant

Discussion of Result
The majority of community responders were women aged 15 to 45, with an average age of 28.6±2.6 years, as indicated
in Table 4.1. This may be attributed to the fact that women often take on the role of primary caregivers in their
households, and even if they are employed, many return home to fulfill family responsibilities such as cleaning.
According to Margret (2011), there is a strong link between gender and the separation of solid waste; she suggests that
women are more inclined to separate solid waste compared to men. This tendency is likely because it is women within
the home who understand and determine what is deemed useful and what is considered waste. Research conducted in
Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Ho Chi Minh City also shows that women partake in source separation more than men do
within the household (Beall, 2007; Du, 2005). Similarly, Ekere et al. (2009) reported results in Uganda that aligned
with these findings regarding the segregation of agricultural residues.
Participants exhibited a limited understanding of waste separation at the point of origin prior to the intervention, as
indicated in Table 4.5, which shows that 73.3% had poor knowledge while 26.7% had fair knowledge. This could have
been linked to their differing educational backgrounds; however, this does not appear to be the case since respondents
with both tertiary and secondary education displayed minimal awareness of solid waste segregation at the source. This
implies that a person's educational attainment does not inherently provide knowledge about solid waste segregation at
the generation source. According to Sridhar et al. (2009), awareness regarding the segregation of solid waste can only
be cultivated through ongoing and well-structured educational programs delivered by trained professionals in solid
waste management. WHO (1999) and Cookey (2005) state that effective waste segregation implementation relies on
thorough training for personnel from various institutions regarding what healthcare waste entails, its categorization,
the significance of segregation, the types of waste involved, the different colored containers or bags assigned to
specific wastes, their designated locations, and the intended use for each type of segregated waste. Nonetheless,
following the intervention, the knowledge of respondents improved, as demonstrated in Table 4.16, where 64.3%
exhibited good knowledge and 7.1% had poor knowledge.
After the intervention, the various elements of dry waste (non-biodegradable) that were sorted included polythene,
metals, paper, plastics, glass (bottles), clothing, wood, shoes, human hair, and tetra packs. According to Sridhar et al.
(2010), an average person in Nigeria produces around 0.43 kg of solid waste daily, with organic materials, plastics,
polythene, and scrap metals accounting for approximately 60 to 80 percent of total waste generated. The results of this
research indicate an immediate need to develop policies and create programs that promote solid waste segregation.
This change would significantly enhance our current waste management practices. It is also crucial to prioritize public
awareness and community involvement. The community should be effectively engaged in the planning, development,
implementation, and assessment of any solid waste management initiatives. Promoting household composting is
essential. Environmentally friendly composting methods should be adopted and practiced within the community to
help alleviate the amount of organic waste and provide fertilizer for gardens. A thorough and appropriate legal
framework should be established when formulating policies and programs related to solid waste management.

IJETRM (http://ijetrm.com/) [101]

Vol-09 Issue 01, January-2025 ISSN: 2456-9348
Impact Factor: 7.936

International Journal of Engineering Technology Research & Management

Published By:
https://www.ijetrm.com/

Authorities across all tiers must show the determination to enforce effective waste segregation methods right from the
point of generation.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The outcomes of this intervention indicate that implementing waste segregation at the source is a feasible and
sustainable method for enhancing solid waste management in Port Harcourt. However, collaboration among all
stakeholders is crucial, particularly in terms of advocacy, raising public awareness, establishing buy-back recycling
centers, fostering community involvement, and creating public-private partnership frameworks. The insights gained
from this study will contribute to the planning, development, execution, and assessment of solid waste management
in the community, particularly in Port Harcourt.
It is strongly advised that:
1. Enhanced public awareness initiatives at the community level be implemented.
2. The government provide bags as an incentive for encouraging waste separation at the source.
3. Buy-back recycling centers should be established by the government.
4. Prior to the adoption of any solid waste management policies, research on the current status of solid waste
generation and practices should be conducted.
5. Promotion of waste segregation at the point of generation should be encouraged.
6. Community involvement should be actively promoted.
7. Home-based composting of waste should be encouraged.
8. Sufficient legislation and enforcement mechanisms should be provided.
References
Adedibu A.A, (1983). Solid waste Characteristics in Ilorin. Journal of the Nigeria Institute of Town Planners. 3 (1):17-
21.
Ahmed S.A. and Ali S.M. (2004). Partnership for Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries. Habitat
international. 28:467-479.
Akintola F.O. (1987). Prospects of Solid Waste Management in Ibadan City. Seminar paper, Department of
Geography, University of Ibadan: 6-8.
Ali S.M. (1997). Separation at Source: A Case Study of Karachi, Pakistan. Amsterdam: UWEP: 52.
Amadi A.N (2011). ABC of Environmental health, Nationwide Printers and Publishers co ltd: 4-6.
Amadi A.N. (2009). Modern Environmental Sanitation, Nationwide Printers and Publishers co ltd: 80-85.
Anschütz J. (1996). Community-Based Solid Waste Management and Water Supply Projects: Problems And Solutions
Compared A Survey of the Literature: 14-16.
Ayotamuno M.J. and Gobo E. (2004). Municipal Solid Waste Management in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, Obstacles and
Prospects, Management of Environmental Quality; An International journal 6 (15): 3-39.
IEARN GEN 1, (2011). A survey of Household Solid waste management in Otukpo; A case study of Residents around
Wesley high School Otukpo, Benue state Nigeria: 5-7.
IETC, (1996). International source book on environmentally sound technologies for municipal solid waste
management. International Environmental Technology Centre, UNEP, Shiga, Japan: 10-17.
Ipadeola S.F. (1988). Solid waste Generation Management: Towards an Environmental Sanitation Policy
Environmental Issues and Management in Nigeria Development, Heineman, Ibadan: 77-87.
Johannessen, Lars M, Dijkman M, Bartone C, Hanrahan D, Boyer, M. Gabriela,Chandra Candace, (1999). Health Care
Waste Management Guidance Note. Urban Development Division, Infrastructure Group, Environment
Department and Health, Nutrition and Population Team.The World Bank, Washington, D.C: 64.
Karanja, 1998. Improved solid waste incinerators: 64-85.
Klundert van de A and Lardinois I., (1995). Community and private (formal and informal) sector involvement in
municipal solid waste management in developing countries. Background paper for the UMP workshop in
Ittingen: 12.
Kulkari S. (2008). Solid waste management at Garware wall ropes ltd: 4-9.
Lapid and Danilo G. (1997): Computerized information inquiry system for junk shops andrecyclers. In Dungate, D./
Fernandez, A./ Oya, K. (eds.): Recycling in Asia.Nagoya: United nations Centre for Regional Development
(UNCRD)4(2): 125-136.

IJETRM (http://ijetrm.com/) [102]

Vol-09 Issue 01, January-2025 ISSN: 2456-9348
Impact Factor: 7.936

International Journal of Engineering Technology Research & Management

Published By:
https://www.ijetrm.com/

Lardinois I. andFuredy .C, (2012). Analysis of Case Studies from Pakistan, the Philippines, India, BrazilArgentina
and the NetherlandsUrban Waste Series. 7: 21-31.
Lardinois.Iand van de Klundert A, (1994). Organic Waste, Urban Solid Waste Series, Amsterdam and Gouda: Tool,
Transfer of Technology for Development and WASTE Consultants. 1(3): 8-30.
Levine S. (1994). Private sector participation in municipal solid waste services in developing countries. Urban
Management and the Environment, UNDP/UNCHS (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements), World
Bank, Washington DC. 1(13): 52.
Maclaren V.W. and Yu, C.C. (1997). "Solid Waste Recycling Behaviour of IndustrialCommercial-Institutional (ICI)
Establishments", Growth and Change quarterly. 28(1): 93-109.
Margret B., (2011). Household Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices in Solid Waste Segregation andRecycling: The
Case of Urban Kampala: 10.
Mehta Meera and Satyanarayana V., (2011). Pricing and Cost Recovery For Urban Services: A CityPerspective - Case
of Pune Municipal Corporation. Paper presented at the Seminar on 'Pricing and Cost Recovery of Urban
Infrastructure and Services' organised by National Institute of Urban Affairs, National Institute of Public
Finance and Policy, and Community Consulting international in Novemberat New Delhi: .35.
Moreno J.A, Rios F.R., Lardinois I., (1999). Solid waste management in Latin America: the role of micro- and small
enterprises and co-operatives. IPES/ACEPESA/WASTE.Urban Waste Series.5: 10.
Morenzo C., (1996). Guidelines for solid waste management for developing countries. A manual prepared for UNCHS,
Nairobi, Kenya: 10-15.
Shridhar, M. C. K., Coker, A. O. (2009). Treatment and Disposal of Healthcare Waste; Health
Care Waste Management- A Handbook for developing countries. Ibadan University Press, Ibadan,
Nigeria: 18-25.
Sridhar M.C.K., Wahab B, Ayorinde D, Asamu S.O and Tairu T A, (2010). Report on Characterization of Solid Wastes
in Ibadan: A Rapid Appraisal Survey in Four Residential Communities: 8.
Sridhar M.C.K., (2013). Integrated Waste Management Strategy. Lecture notes (unpublished): 4.
Tay, (1996). Solid waste management in humanitarian Response: 5217-5222.
Tchobanoglous G., Theisen H., Vigil S.A., (1993). Integrated Solid Waste Management Engineering principles and
Management. 2(13): 978.
Ukpong B., (2006). Strategy for sustainable solid waste management in the federal capital territory (garki, wuse, and
karu). Unpublished MSc thesis: 9.
UNEP-IETC, (1996). International Source Book on Environmentally Sound Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste
Management.Technical Publication Series, Osaka/Shiga: UNEP International Environmental Technology
Centre. 6: 421-427.
UNESCO, (2011). UNESCO and Education ―Everyone has the right to Education‖pais United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural organization: 14.
Van Beukering, Verma M, Yadav P.P, Pandey P, (1999). Integrated modelling of solid waste in
WASTE, (2005).www.Edugreen.teri.res.in/explore/solwaste/seg.,http://www.waste.nl (Accessed May 10th, 2013: 3-
16.
WHO, (1999). Improving Health through Schools; National and International strategies. School health components of
WHO mega county network for Health promotion: 25.
WHO, (2001-2011). Health care Waste management; the eight (8) steps along the waste stream: 15.
WHO/UNAIDS, (2009). Global Health Risk, Selected Major Risks; Mortality and Burden of Diseases Attributable:
96.
Yuwono, A.S. and Lammers, P.S. (2004). Odor Pollution in the Environment and the Detection Instrumentation.
Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Journal of Scientific Research and Development.7:6.
Zamadar, (2010). Management of municipal solid waste of N.A.C India: 2-3

IJETRM (http://ijetrm.com/) [103]