mikuro thesis 2012-perception to dumpsites-case of dandora

DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF

AGRICULTURE and TECHNOLOGY

B.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 2012/13

M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Significance of urban solid waste disposal sites on people perception of landscape aesthetics


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page i

DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis is my original work and to the best of my knowledge has not been presented in any other university for examination or any

other such purposes.

The work forms part of the fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Landscape Architecture from the School of

Architecture and Building Sciences, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology.

Signed: (Author) Date:

Mikuro Aloyse Maigo, AB 242-0134/07, B.L. Arch. V, 2012/13 JKUAT

Signed: (Supervisor); Date:

Mrs. Muchogu Josephine, B.Arch. (Hons) JKUAT; Master of Urban Design (MUD) JKUAT

Signed: (C.O.D); Date:

Mr. Toroitich Caleb, B. Arch (Hons) JKUAT, Master of Landscape Architecture (MLA) University of Cape Town (UCT)


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page ii

DEDICATION

To my dad, brothers and sisters...your motivation is impressive and God sent.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page iii

INSPIRATION “If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance.”

(Orville Wright-first aviator/ Wright brothers 1871-1948)

“Discovery involves seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought”

(Albert Szent-Gyorgyi –Physiologist 1893-1986)


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT My sincere gratitude goes to my supervisor, Mrs. Muchogu. Your invaluable help and support to this research thesis have been

unwavering. You have contributed your precious time to advice, direct and contribute to this study.

To my father and family, you are my inspiration to whom I’ve grown to be. I owe it all to you. You taught me a lot and I have not stopped

learning. Dad, your concern with what I am doing always has been more love than I can ever ask for from a dad.

To my classmates, thank you for the moral support and challenge to press on through the thick and thin.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page v

TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ..................................................................................................................................................................... I

DEDICATION .......................................................................................................................................................................II

INSPIRATION...................................................................................................................................................................... III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................................... V

LIST OF ACRONYMS........................................................................................................................................................... XI

LIST OF FIGURES & GRAPHS .............................................................................................................................................. XII

LIST OF MAPS .................................................................................................................................................................. XIII

LIST OF PLATES ............................................................................................................................................................... XIV

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................................... XVII

CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

1:0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

1:1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM ................................................................................................................................... 1

1:2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 4

1:4 STUDY OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

1:4:1 IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1:4:2 ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

1:5 RESEARCH VARIABLES ................................................................................................................................................... 5


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page vi

1:6 SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................................................................................................ 5

1:7 JUSTIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. 5

1:8 SCOPE OF STUDY ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

1.8.1 THEORETICAL SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

1.8.2 GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

1.8.3 METHODOLOGICAL SCOPE ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

1:9 RESEARCH ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 9

1:10 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 9

1:11 RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................................................................................................. 10

1.11.1 ASSESSING LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................................................................... 10

1:11.2 DATA SOURCES .................................................................................................................................................................................................11 1:11:2:1:1 Standardized questionnaires .................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 1:11:1:1:2 Observation checklists ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 1:11:1:1:3 Drawings and sketches ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 1:11:1:1:4 Photographs .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 1:11:2:2 Secondary Data ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11

1:12 STUDY ORGANIZATION .............................................................................................................................................. 12

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................ 14

2.2 WASTE ......................................................................................................................................................................... 14

2.2.1 WASTE TYPE BY CHARACTERISTICS; ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14

2.2.2 WASTE TYPE BY PRODUCER; ................................................................................................................................................................................ 15

2.3 MATERIAL FLOW ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 16

2.4SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN NAIROBI, KENYA ......................................................................................................... 16

2.4.1 BRIEF HISTORY ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page vii

2.4.2 POPULATION AND WASTE VOLUME ........................................................................................................................................................................ 17

2.4.3 WASTE APPROACHES .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

2.4.4 WASTE COLLECTION AND DUMPING ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18

2.4.5 PROCUREMENT OF WASTE COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ................................................................................................................... 20

2.4.6 WASTE RECOVERY AND RECYCLING ....................................................................................................................................................................... 20

2.4.7 DANDORA DUMPSITE AND ITS FUTURE ................................................................................................................................................................... 21

2.4.8 ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23

2.4.9 PROBLEMS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 23

2.5 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ACCRA, GHANA .......................................................................................................... 26

2.5.1 BRIEF HISTORY ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26

2.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 26

2.5.3 WASTE IN GHANA .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 27

2.5.4WASTE COLLECTION AND TRANSFER ..................................................................................................................................................................... 30

2.5.5 WASTE RECOVERY AND RECYCLING ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32

2.5.6 COMPOSTING .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32

2.5.7 WASTE DISPOSAL ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

2.5.7 WASTE STAKEHOLDERS IN ACCRA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 35

2.6 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN U.S.A ......................................................................................................................... 37

2.6.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37

2.6.2 CURRENT WASTE ISSUE ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 37

2.6.3 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 38

2.6.4 STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE IN USA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 39 2.6.4.1 Reduction Strategies .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 39 2.6.4.2 Reuse Strategies ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 39 2.6.4.3 Recycling ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

2.6.5 WASTE TREATMENT .................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 2.6.5.1 Composting ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 2.6.5.2 Resource Recovery - Incineration ............................................................................................................................................................................... 40 2.6.5.3 Ultimate Disposal - Landfill ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 41

2.6.6 CASE OF BOULDER, COLORADO-ZERO WASTE ......................................................................................................................................... 41


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page viii

2.7 AESTHETIC VALUES ...................................................................................................................................................... 45

2.7.1 VISION .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 45

2.7.2 SMELL .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 45

2.7.3 TACTILITY.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45

2.7.4 SOUNDS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45

2.7.5 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45

2.8 LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................................................. 46

2.8.1 MODES OF LANDSCAPE PERCEPTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 46

2.8.2 APPROACHES TO LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................................................ 47

2.8.3 MEASUREMENT OF SCENIC PERCEPTION ................................................................................................................................................................. 49

2.8.4 PARAMETERS OF MEASURING LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS AND THEIR VARIABLES .............................................................................................................. 49

2.9THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................................................................... 51

2.10 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................................................ 52

2.11 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES ............................................................................................................................................ 53

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 55

3.2 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................... 55

3.2.1 RESEARCH APPROACH ................................................................................................................................................................................. 55

3.2.2 RESEARCH SITUS ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 56

3.2.3 RESEARCH METHODS IN STUDY OF AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................................................... 56

3.3 SOURCES OF DATA ....................................................................................................................................................... 56

3.3.1 PRIMARY DATA ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 57

3.3.2 SECONDARY DATA ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 57

3.4 SAMPLING DESIGN ....................................................................................................................................................... 57

3.4.1 TYPES OF SAMPLING DESIGN ...................................................................................................................................................................... 58


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page ix

3.4.2 SAMPLE SIZE ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 58

3.5 DATA COLLECTION METHODS ...................................................................................................................................... 58

3.5.1 OBSERVATION CHECKLISTS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 58

3.5.2 QUESTIONNAIRES ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 60

3.6 DATA PRESENTATION .................................................................................................................................................. 60

3.6.1 GRAPHS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 60

3.6.2 BAR CHARTS AND PIE CHARTS .................................................................................................................................................................... 61

3.6.3 PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 61

3.7 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 61

3.7.1 DATA PROCESSING ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 61

3.7.2 DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 61

3.7.3 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 62

3.7.4 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 62

3.8 RESEARCH ETHICS ....................................................................................................................................................... 62

CHAPTER 4: STUDY AREA

4.1 BACKGROUND TO STUDYAREA: DANDORA DUMPSITE ................................................................................................. 64

4.2 PLAN OF THE RESEARCH AREA ..................................................................................................................................... 65

CHAPTER FIVE: DATA ANALYSIS

5.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................ 67

5.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS .......................................................................................................................... 68

5.2.1 GENDER ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 68

5.2.2 MARITAL STATUS .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 69

5.2.3 LEVEL OF EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................................................................... 70

5.2.4 OCCUPATION DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 71

5.2.5 AGE DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 72


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page x

5.3 USER EXPERIENCE OF DUMPSITE .................................................................................................................................. 73

5.3.1 DUMPSITE VISIT AND PERIOD OF STAY IN DANDORA ............................................................................................................................................... 73

5.3.2 PURPOSE FOR DUMPSITE VISITS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 74

5.3.3 GENERAL AESTHETIC PERCEPTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 75

5.4 PREFERENCE AREAS IN PHOTOS ................................................................................................................................... 79

5.5 OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 81

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 84

6.2 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. 84

6.2.1 GLOBAL WASTE APPROACHES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 84

6.2.2 INVESTIGATING WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS AND THEIR IMPACTS ................................................................................................................................. 84 6.2.2.1 Landfills ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 85 6.2.2.2 Open dumpsites .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 85

6.2.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WASTE DISPOSAL SITES AND LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................ 86

6.2.4 PERCEPTION TO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IN NAIROBI ................................................................................................................................................ 87

6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 88

6.3.1 IN COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 88

6.3.2 RECOVERY ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 88

6.3.3 IN DISPOSAL OF UNRECOVERABLE MATERIAL ........................................................................................................................................................... 89

6.3.4 IN BOOSTING ENVIRONMENTAL AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................................................................... 89

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 91

APPENDIX 2: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................................................................. 95

APPENDIX 3: SAMPLE CHECKLIST .................................................................................................................................... 100

APPENDIX 4 ..................................................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page xi

APPENDIX 5 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 104

APPENDIX 6 .................................................................................................................................................................... 107

LIST OF ACRONYMS CBOs -Community Based Organizations

CCN - City Council of Nairobi

JICA – Japan international cooperation agency

MSWM -Municipal solid waste management

POPs- persistent organic pollutants

UNEP – United Nations environmental programme

SWM –Solid waste management

NGO – Non-governmental organisation

OSU- Ohio State University

AU- Anna University


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page xii

LIST OF FIGURES & GRAPHS Figure 2.1 Simplified material flows in cities 16

Figure 2.2 Nairobi’s historical and projected population, 1950-2025 16

Figure 2.3 Characteristics of solid waste generated in Nairobi 17

Figure 2.4: Flow chat of solid waste source to disposal channels in Nairobi 19

Figure 2.5 Weigh bridge statistics at Dandora 21

Figure 2.6 Waste Characteristics in the Accra Metropolis 28

Figure 2.7 Waste Characteristics in the Accra Metropolis 29

Figure 2.8 Layout of ideal Lombardi’s Eco Cycle Zero Waste Parks 43

Figure 2.9 Summary of parameters of aesthetics 50

Figure 4.1: Study area sketch 65

Figure 5.1 Gender and marital status 68

Figure 5.2 Occupation 69

Figure 5.3 Level of education 70

Figure 5.4 Occupation distribution 71

Figure 5.5 Age distribution 72

Figure 5.6 Dumpsite visit and period of stay in Dandora 73

Figure 5.7 Purpose for dumpsite visits 74


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page xiii

Figure 5.8 Complexity 75

Figure 5.9 Legibility of form 76

Figure 5.10 Coherence 77

Figure 5.11 Mystery 78

Figure 5.12 Observations 81

LIST OF MAPS Map 1.1 Kenya within Africa 7

Map 1.2 Kenya indicating Nairobi 7

Map 1.3 Nairobi 8

Map 1.4 Dandora dumpsite in Nairobi 8

Map 2.1 Ghana’s position in Africa 26

Map 2.2 Ghana showing Accra to the south 26

Map 3.1: Dandora dumpsite 56


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page xiv

LIST OF PLATES Plate 1.1 Waste collection in India 1

Plate 1.2 Resource recovery at Dandora dumpsite 1

Plate 1.3 Unplanned garbage heaps, Nairobi 2

Plate 1.4 Burning of waste, Dandora dumpsite 2

Plate 1.5 Section of Staten landfill NY, USA 3

Plate 1.6 Proposed Fresh Kills Park NY, USA 3

Plate 1.7 Dandora dumpsite 4

Plate 1.8 Uncontrolled dumping block storm water drains 4

Plate 2.1 solid waste at Dandora dumpsite 16

Plate 2.2 Industrial waste water is discharged straight into the river, Mater Hospital Bridge, Nairobi 16

Plate 2.3 Careless roadside dumping in Nairobi’s Dandora 17

Plate 2.4 Paper bag littered in Southlands estate, Nairobi 18

Plate 2.5 Waste transport in Nairobi 18

Plate 2.6 Waste sorting at Dandora 20

Plate 2.7 Reselling centre for recovered waste, Dandora 20

Plate 2.8 The weigh bridge, Dandora dumpsite 22


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page xv

Plate 2.9 Sorting waste in poor conditions, Dandora 23

Plate 2.10 Roadside dumping, Eastleigh Nairobi 24

Plate 2.11 Waste disposal container on a street of Accra. 29

Plate 2.12 Trucks used in Accra . 30

Plate 2.13 Garbage containers at Accra’s dumpsite. 31

Plate 2.14 Garbage containers at Accra’s dumpsite. 31

Plate 2.15 View of waste items salvaged at the dumpsite in Accra. 32

Plate 2.16 View of the solid waste disposal site Accra 33

Plate 2.17 The weight bridge at the Malami dumpsite. 33

Plate 2.18 Waste pickers at Malami dumpsite. 34

Plate 2.19 Refuse compactor at work. 34

Plate 2.20 open burning at Dandora dumpsite 42

Plate 2.21: Human senses abstract 45

Plate 4.2: Open dump piles area 64

Plate 4.1: Sorting area 64

Plate 5.1: Locals playing pool at the dumpsite 71

Plate 5.2: Un-colourful Dandora dumpsite 75

Plate 5.3: Garbage mounds at Dandora 76


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page xvi

Plate 5.4 Part of planting at Dandora 77

Plate 5.5 Lonely paths characteristic of the dumpsite 78

Plate 5.6 Part of the heap mounds 81

Plate 5.7 Well defined road, Dandora dumpsite 82

Plate 5.8 Sorted trash at Dandora 82

Plate6.1 Disorderly collection 91

Plate6.2 Orderly sorting at source 91

Plate6.3 Smoke pollution at Dandora 92

Plate6.4 Sculptural topiary as monument 92


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page xvii

ABSTRACT Solid waste is an inevitable product of our daily living. Every individual is a consumer and we all generate different volumes of paper, plastic, metal,

chemical and even organic waste. Inappropriate waste disposal spells disaster for the environment and generally affects comfort of communities

around disposal facilities. In Kenya dumpsite is the most widely used method of disposal for all municipal council in the country. Open waste disposal

in illegal and legal dumpsites degrade the quality of our urban spaces. Aesthetic appeal of neighbourhoods is reduced with open dump sites and un

collected waste heaps. This research was carried out around a section of Nairobi’s Dandora dumpsite. It was designed to gauge aesthetic appreciation

by residents. This involved measurement of parameters defined in earlier theories of gauging aesthetic appeal of spaces. Data was retrieved from

questionnaires, observations and secondary sources. Analysis of this data proved that open dump sites generally reduce aesthetic appeal of our

environment. Some modern solid waste handling and disposal approaches may however help improve the beauty of our environment. The study

found a need for such approaches to be applied in Kenya for improvement in aesthetic quality of disposal sites.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page

xviii

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Insight on careless waste solution against ideal landscapes


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 1

1:0 INTRODUCTION Natural resources are converted in industries every day into consumer products. After

consumption, a need arises for us to get rid of what we can no longer derive utility value from.

The waste generated may be liquid or solid depending on the composition of consumed

products. Poor disposal of waste leads to environmental degradation and to some extent

aesthetic depletion. Solid waste disposal will be the main area of investigation of this

research. It will look into how more can be derived from solid waste disposal areas. It will also

largely look into the landscape aesthetic issues that waste disposal sites pose. This chapter

will introduce us to the research problem, objectives, the justification for this study and the

research situs.

1:1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM Waste disposal has been an issue ever since early man. Waste handling can be traced to

400BC when the first municipal council was established in ancient Athens (Trash timeline,

www.bfi-salins.com,retrieved May 4, 2012). Cleaning up of waste dates back to the year 200

A.D. when the first sanitation force was created by the Romans. Teams of two men walk along

the street, pick garbage and load it onto a wagon. Designated dump was set up at Athens

where it all ended up. Waste included animal dropping, organic plant waste, wood and metals.

Variation in waste content has changed how it’s handled. (Trash timeline, retrieved May 4,

2012). The cart is still in use in some developing countries like India (plate 1.1).

Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) involves the functions of collection, transfer,

resource recovery (plate1.2), recycling, and treatment of household, commercial and

industrial waste. MSWM targets to protect the health of the population, promote

environmental quality, develop sustainability, and provide support to economic productivity

(KENAO, 2007). As rapid urbanization and economic development increases, the largest

impact is on society’s solid waste disposal.

Plate 1.1 Waste collection in India

Source: Goog.e

Plate 1.2 Resource recovery at Dandora dumpsite

Source: Author


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 2

A study by World Bank in 1999 in Asian countries revealed that due to a variety of constraints,

waste management has failed in various places. The state of the dumping are, sadly, too

similar globally: indiscriminately dumped, seemingly unplanned heaps of uncovered wastes

(plate1.3), sometimes burning (plate1.4), pools of outstanding polluted water, insects and

rodent infestations, and families of waste scavenger picking up any valuables from waste

(Pugh, 1999).Uncontrolled open dumps not only make an environmental threat but are also a

visual eyesore (World Bank, 1999).

In the first world countries like the United States, China, England and Germany,

comprehensive frame works are in place for waste handling. Sanitary landfills for example,

have been used in England since 1920s while in US since 1951 (World of Earth Science, 2003).

This is a shift from open dumps. Here sorting of garbage starts at collection points and

disposal is only done after all reusable material has been extracted. Landfill mining has also

been employed in buried trash for incineration and energy in England, Italy, Sweden and

Germany (Hogland et al, 1995). The global trend seems to be a move from open dumps to

Landfills. The later allows covering up of residue waste after sorting with top soil.

Landfills though have had their downsides with leakage of landfill effluent polluting ground

water. Complaints by the look of Staten Island landfill closed in 2001 saw the need for design

of a more appealing landscape. This is an indication that landfills are not enough as solutions

for ugly dumps. Design plays a vital role. Since 2006, Urban designer James Corner working

with NY city’s Department of Parks and Recreation embarked on the transformation of the

island into a park and energy farm. It will be referred to as Fresh Kills Park (Freshkills, retrieved

April 5, 2012) (before Plate1.5; proposed park plate 1.6).

The residue waste volume is however of great concern globally since dumpsites and landfills

are quickly filling up. London’s recycling rate for example is 17% with about two thirds (64%)

of waste going to landfills (Mckinsey, 2008). Rising landfill taxes mean there’s need for more

ecologically and economical solutions. The recycling of general waste (glass, metal, plastic)

Plate 1.3 Unplanned garbage heaps, Nairobi

Source: Author

Plate 1.4 Burning of waste, Dandora dumpsite

Source: Author


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 3

combined with anaerobic digestion for organic waste seems the most attractive option. A

need rises to check on residue waste volume to avoid filling up disposal spaces and further

environmental degradation.

Appreciation of our environments appearance is growing to be important. The CCN has

embarked on several beautification programs for the city (CCN, 2007). Beautiful landscapes

improve quality of our daily spaces and, where carefully planned, help in protection of the

environment form pollution and other harm.

1:2 PROBLEM STATEMENT Open dumps have been in existence for a long time. They are the easiest waste disposal

method as opposed burying, landfills, and incineration (AU, retrieved 31st March 2012).

However, man has of late been keen on the appearance of his landscapes. Environmentalist

and landscape architects are shaping our environments into appealing spaces. This study will

look into ways of employing this to dump disposal areas.

The onset of responsible waste management in Kenya may loosely be traced back to the early

establishment of the Nairobi local government in 1919 (Kenya guide,

www.kenyainformationguide.com, retrieved 6th May 2012). Since the late 1960's until 1980

Nairobi City has had to change its dumping site at least 7 times. In 1980, the council

established a 26.5 ha dump-site in Dandora (Plate 1.6), in the Eastland’s suburb of Nairobi.

This has grown over the years and is still in use but is largely underexploited. The dump-site’s

edge runs along the Nairobi River which eventually flows to the Indian Ocean (CCN, 1992).

Solid waste handling in other major towns is handled by the local government councils.

Uncollected garbage is any town’s nightmare. Illegal disposal sites are even the worst visual

feature for any town. Well managed dump areas are vital infrastructure in any modern

society. On average, Nairobi’s daily waste output lies between 1900 and 2400 metric tonnes

Plate 1.5 Section of Staten landfill NY, USA

Source: Google

Plate 1.6 Proposed Fresh Kills Park NY, USA

Source:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/subcats/studies.shtml


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 4

(JICA, 2010: UNEP, 2010).According to City of Nairobi Environmental Outlook (2007) an

increase in waste production has not been countered with increased capacities for local

authorities in dealing with the problem.

This research will be geared to gauging visual perception to waste disposal sites. It will also

look into global solutions to waste to help downsize residue waste volume after sorting and

processing. Uncontrolled waste disposal (plate 1.8) appears a time bomb for the environment

and appeal of our spaces. It is important to look for sustainable waste measures that allow

environmental aesthetics improvement.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS The study will seek to answer the following questions

Does waste affect aesthetics of the environment in Nairobi?

What characteristics of waste have impact on aesthetics?

Is waste an issue to realisation of environment aesthetics in other countries

1:4 STUDY OBJECTIVES

1:4:1 IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE Investigate global solid waste approaches to promote aesthetic appeal

Investigate waste disposal options and their impacts

To establish relation between landscape aesthetics and waste disposal

To measure perception to solid waste disposal in Nairobi/ Dandora dumpsite

Plate 1.7 Dandora dumpsite

Source: Author

Plate 1.8 uncontrolled dumping block storm water

drains

Source: Author


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 5

1:4:2 ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE To investigate the role of comprehensive solid waste management in promoting environmental aesthetics in urban areas

1:5 RESEARCH VARIABLES

Dependent variable

‘Urban solid waste disposal sites’ is the dependent variable (cause)

Independent variable

‘People perception of environmental aesthetic’ is the independent variable (effect)

1:6 SIGNIFICANCE This research hopes to provide direct benefit by contributing to enhancement of urban

landscape aesthetics. The indirect benefits of this study are to provide insight to the urban

communities in Kenya ways of waste disposal that care for the look of the environment. It also

hopes to results of this research will create awareness on possible solutions for further

extraction of resource from waste other than what may be known to them. It also seeks to add

to the body of knowledge on landscape aesthetics appraisal.

1:7 JUSTIFICATIONS


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 6

Aesthetically appealing landscapes have often been assumed as luxury for the rich. However,

appealing landscapes are important for all. Natural environments fascinate human beings

.They like natural environment better than urban environments (Nasar, 1988). A need

therefore rises to make urban landscapes imitate nature where possible. Solid waste dump

sites are often on large pieces of open land. Inadequate processing of residue waste results in

huge undesirable waste mounds. These affect the appearance of the urban landscapes.

Cap 87 of the EMCA (1999) stipulates that discharge of waste should not be in any way that

may pollute the environment or affect health of any person. It also stipulates that transport

vehicles and disposal sites should only be ones approved by authority. Waste released to

disposal sites should therefore be sorted out properly and avoid any adverse effect to the

appeal and well being of the environment.

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de

Janeiro, Brazil in 1992 was a landmark event. The conference made it plain that we can no

longer think of environment, economic and social development as isolated fields (UNEP,

1992). It produced two international agreements, a statement of principles and a major plan

of action (Agenda 21). Agenda 21 covers the broad field of sustainable development, offers

objectives, targets, strategies and activities that, if implemented, would make our world a

better place to live in.

Protection of the environment is vital to development. According to Principle 4 of the Rio

Declaration on Environment and Development (UNEP, 1992), in order to achieve sustainable

development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development

process and cannot be considered in isolation from it. A need therefore rises to step in proper

management of waste disposal to save the environment.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 7

1:8 SCOPE OF STUDY

1.8.1 THEORETICAL SCOPE The study will dwell in investigating the how waste disposal sites affect environmental

aesthetics. Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, this study will employ theories related

with attitudes to objects. The theories to be employed here include the ‘theory of likability’

and ‘Gestalt psychology’ advanced by psychologist Max Wertheimer (1880-1943). It suggests

that during perception, the whole is of greater importance than individual components that

make it as it is.

1.8.2 GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE The study will look into areas with established waste disposal sites. The area under study will

be a dumpsite neighbourhood in Kenya (map 1.2) in East Africa (map1.1). It is hoped the

neighbours and working within such an infrastructure are in a better position to explain how

they relate to it. The benefits they derive from it and their visual perception of its contribution

to environmental aesthetic state will also be queried.

Nairobi has a population of around 3million residents and its residents generate 2.4 tonnes of

waste daily. The city depends on Dandora dumpsite as its major waste disposal space.

The neighbourhood to be investigated will be of the Dandora dumpsite (map1.4) in Nairobi

(map 1.3). The dumpsite is located between Dandora phase III and IV. Dandora is located in the

eastern Nairobi region. It is sandwiched by residential living areas and covers 26.5 acres (CCN,

1992). It’s flanked by the Nairobi River over its northern boundary and bounded by John Osogo

Rd to the south.

The neighborhood has both informal settlements and high-rise housing. Despite there being a

perimeter wall around part of the site, access to pedestrians is largely unrestricted. Vehicular

access however is primarily via the South off John Osogo Rd.

Map 1.2Kenya indicating Nairobi

Source: Google

Map 1.1 Kenya within Africa

Source: Google


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 8

Map 1.3 Nairobi

Source: CCN, 2007

Map 1.4 Dandora dumpsite in Nairobi

Source: Google maps


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 9

1.8.3 METHODOLOGICAL SCOPE The research method to be used will be descriptive. It will have a both qualitative and

quantitative approach on how the dump sites impact the people’s lives and their environment

and how they appreciate it.

1:9 RESEARCH ASSUMPTIONS That waste disposal sites have no other use other than keeping aside residue waste.

That consideration to impact on landscape aesthetics has been ignored in waste

disposal sites

Waste disposal strategies currently employed are not sustainable

1:10 LIMITATIONS Respondents’ attitude: Some of the respondents may withhold information for fear of being

investigated. It is essential therefore, to explain to the respondents that the study is only for

academic purposes and framing questions to avoid the impression of being a breach of

privacy.

Time: this study is supposed to be conducted within four weeks. Owing to the extensive

research population, it’s not possible to conduct observation and full interaction with

dumpsite community and spaces, data collection and analysis within the time framework of

the study. However, this will be overcome by selecting a small sample size which is

manageable within the given time.

Finances: Its limitation will affect data collection methods, access to information through

interviews and questionnaires, travelling possibilities from site to site, data processing and


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 10

presentation. This will be overcome by limiting the sample size and major use of observation

and where possible literature on the issue for data collection and analysis.

1:11 RESEARCH METHODS The research methods employed will include data collection, data processing, analysis and

methods to evaluate the accuracy of the results obtained to minimize the occurrence of error.

The research method will employ administration of structured interviews and questionnaires,

photographs, observation checklists and utilization of secondary data.

1.11.1 ASSESSING LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS Two basic approaches have been considered in the field of landscape aesthetics – objective

and subjective approaches (Lothian, 1999; Daniel, 2001). From the objective point, the

aesthetic values of landscape are due to its attributes, whereas the subjective approach

regards landscape value as a product of the human mind.

The objective approach is based on certain assumptions adopted by experts. Landscape is

assessed according to these assumptions (Lothian, 1999). For example, Jessel (2006) claims

that the aesthetic values of landscape are due to a range of landscape attributes and

landscape character, or due to a combination of these attributes. The subjective approach

regards the aesthetic quality of landscape as a product of the human mind based on an

interpretation of what we perceive (Lothian, 1999).

Measurement of this will be through direct method, involving researcher’s own observation

and interpretation of the landscape. The other measurement will be through indirect method

which involves asking people questions on the same.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 11

1:11.2 Data sources

1:11:2:1 Primary Data 1:11:2:1:1 Standardized questionnaires

They will be administered to professionals in waste management, to the residents living around Dandora dumpsite and also those working around the dumpsite. They will be used to derive knowledge of activity in waste sorting, benefits to the people and the perception on Dandora as a waste deposit site.

1:11:1:1:2 Observation checklists This involves systematic recording of observations made at different periods designated. They will help gain first hand information through own perception by observation. The tool will help generate information on condition of the current dumpsite landscape

1:11:1:1:3 Drawings and sketches The forms and location of activity at the open dumpsites will be sketched, in elevations and maps respectively.

1:11:1:1:4 Photographs Photographs will be used to show record the dumpsite conditions. Some will be in cooperated in data collection questionnaires while others as accompanying imagery for this research

1:11:2:2 Secondary Data Information on mapping, waste handling activity, and landscape aesthetics appraisal will be sourced from secondary data sources to help support this study. Print literature, imagery and maps will be used.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 12

1:12 STUDY ORGANIZATION Chapter 1

This chapter introduces the study by defining the problem and justifying the research. It goes on to state the study objectives, research questions, assumptions and limitations.

Chapter 2

This chapter reviews the literature regarding relevant topics in this research. These include the broader topic of aesthetics and the landscape design in urban renewal of spaces. It entails the relationship of visual perception and user experience of spaces. It also includes case studies of waste management.

Chapter 3

This chapter addresses the relevant research methodology akin to the study of landscape aesthetics. This includes mention of tools used for data collection

Chapter 4

This chapter will have information on the study area. It gives a description on the area to be used for data collection with brief description of character of the site.

Chapter 5

This chapter contains analysis and interpretation of data collected in field and literature.

Chapter 6

This contains conclusions and recommendations derived from results.

Chapter 7

This chapter is the appendices section. It contains bibliography, sample research tools and articles that support this research.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 13

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

A look into sustainable waste solutions and dump site perception over time


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 14

2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter will look into solid waste and its management. It will seek to explain structures in

use regionally and across the world in this management. Matters on aesthetics and urban

landscape appreciation will also be delved in. Sources will be across all printed media- books,

journals, magazines, encyclopaedia and online resources.

2.2 WASTE EMCA (1999) prescribes waste to be any matter whether liquid, solid, gaseous or radioactive,

which is discharged, emitted or deposited in the environment in such volume, composition or

manner likely to cause an alteration of the environment. For example accumulated litter along

roadsides. The Act also defines the “environment” to be the physical (e.g. land, water, and

climate), biological (plants and animals) and social factors of aesthetics that surround human

beings.

Waste is a moveable object with no direct use that is discarded permanently (Everett, 2004).

He furthers that waste are of generally of two kinds defined by their characteristics and

producers;

2.2.1 WASTE TYPE BY CHARACTERISTICS; Solid waste-these are dense and don’t flow like water. They include glass, paper, soil, plastic, and even metal (plate 2.1),. This waste may be hazardous or nonhazardous. Nonhazardous solid waste pose different problems; leachate from the infiltration of water through the waste, aesthetic issues (litter, smoke and odours), and off-gases resulting from biodegradation. They are commonly handled by recycling, combustion, land-filling, open dumping and composting (Everett, 2004).

Liquid waste-flow like water and must be transported in containers or through pipes. Examples include sewage, contaminated groundwater, and industrial liquid discharges (plate

Plate 2.2: Industrial wastewater is discharged straight into

the river, Mater Hospital Bridge, Nairobi

Source: Google images, undated

Plate 2.1 solid waste at Dandora dumpsite

Source: Author


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 15

2.2). They are often handled at wastewater treatment plants, followed by discharge to the environment. However, direct discharge may be allowed in some cases (Everett, 2004).

Sludge waste- is a viscous and may contain both liquid and solid waste in different ratios. They are the result of liquid waste treatment in sedimentation tanks. It may contain biological pathogens, heavy metals and other toxins. Handling may be through treatment, combustion, land filling and application on land.

Gaseous waste-are vapour in state. They are result of combustion and industrial processes. May have odour or may be toxic. Adverse implication includes smog, ozone depletion and global warming. May be released into the atmosphere or captured with pollution control equipment (Everett, 2004).

Hazardous wastes- They can be solid, sludge, liquid, or gas. They possess at least one of the following characteristics: corrosive, ignitable, reactive, and toxic. They pose a substantial present or potential danger to human health or the environment (EMCA, 1999) and are commonly handled by recycling, combustion, stabilization, chemical-physical-biological treatment, and land filling.

Medical wastes- generated at medical facilities. They can be infectious, toxic, and/or radioactive. Though they may have hazardous characteristics, they are not regulated as hazardous wastes. Some medical wastes are sterilized, disinfected, or incinerated, especially infectious wastes (Everett, 2004). Recycling and land filling are also used to dispose of them.

2.2.2 WASTE TYPE BY PRODUCER; Municipal waste- generated from household premises, markets, parks and roadsides. Include plastics, paper, organic substances, metals, glass, yard waste and electronic waste (KENAO, 2007).

Commercial- Majorly solid waste-paper, plastic and electronic waste

Industrial –includes construction waste and industrial plant waste. Vary from solid, liquid, gas and even sludge. They may possess toxic substances and odours.

Figure 2.1: simplified material flow in cities

Source: Dalemo, 1999.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 16

Agricultural-fertilizer packaging, organic plant residue from harvest, animal droppings and feed residue

2.3 MATERIAL FLOW ANALYSIS In recent years, more attention has been given to the development of modelling tools for the

analysis of materials flows in society.MFA refers to accounts in physical units (usually in terms

of tons) of the flow of materials or substances in the economy or environment and has now

evolved into a science. MFA studies are meant to support environmental decision-making

(Danlemo, 1999). Figure 2.1 shows a summary of how material flows in society.

Knowledge of the flow of solid waste will help this study in understanding of the waste

streams’ content. In gauging the return rate of material back into consumer chain and how

much goes back to the commons (land) (author).

2.4SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN NAIROBI, KENYA

2.4.1 BRIEF HISTORY Nairobi occupies an area of about 700 km2 at the south-eastern end of Kenya’s agricultural

heartland. At 1 600 to 1 850 m above sea level, it enjoys tolerable temperatures year round

(CBS, 2001; Mitullah, 2003). It originated as the headquarters of the Kenya Uganda Railway,

established when the railhead reached Nairobi in June 1899. The city grew into British East

Africa’s commercial and business hub and by 1907 became the capital of Kenya (Mitullah,

2003; Rakodi, 1997).

Following its founding in 1902, Nairobi took roughly 40 years to exceed a population of 100

000 people. By independence, 20 years later it had reached around 350 000 people (Olima,

2001). Rapidly increasing population has been ongoing since, surpassing one million in the

Figure 2.3: Characteristics of solid waste generated in Nairobi

(Source: CCN, 2007)


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 17

1980s, two million in the 1990s and now approaching three million residents. While the annual

rate of growth has at times exceeded ten per cent, it has more recently decreased to below

four per cent per year — still very high by global standards. The Kenya National Bureau of

Statistics (KNBS) projects Nairobi to top 3.8 million by 2015 (Figure 2.2).

2.4.2 POPULATION AND WASTE VOLUME Nairobi’s large and growing population is one of the main forces driving the city’s

overwhelming environmental challenges. Ongoing rural to urban migration, high natural birth

rates, and poor or inappropriate city planning conspire to continue degrading the city’s water

and air quality. In turn, environmental degradation has impacts on human health and

economy.

Currently, the city has about 3.2 million Inhabitants. On average, solid waste generation

ranges around 1900 to 2400 metric tonnes (JICA, 2010; UNEP, 2010). Back in 1992, 800 to 1

000 tonnes of solid waste was generated in Nairobi every day, of which less than ten per cent

was collected. By 2002, the amount had grown to 1 530 tonnes per day of which 40 per cent

was either uncollected, or disposed of by burning or illegal dumping (Syagga 1992, CCN 2007).

The appeal of streets and roadside is affected by uncontrolled dumping and un-collection in

residential estates like Dandora (plate 2.3).

Waste in Nairobi comes from a variety of household, service, and industrial processes in the

following proportions: domestic sources: 68 per cent; industrial: 14 per cent; roads: 8 per cent;

hospitals: 2 per cent; markets: 1 per cent; and 7 per cent from other sources (NEMA, 2003).

Food waste, plastic (plate 2.4), and paper are the most dominant forms of solid waste in

Nairobi (Figure 2.3). The high quantity of organic waste could be used in composting and

production of manure.

One of the most ubiquitous forms of visible waste is the plastic bag (UNEP, 2005). By 2007,

over two million plastic bags were being handed out every year in Nairobi alone. Once

Plate 2.3: Careless roadside dumping in Nairobi’s Dandora estate

(Source: Author)

Plate2.4 Paper bag littered in Southlands estate, Nairobi

Source: KENAO,2007


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 18

released in the environment, they choke wildlife, pollute the soil, and serve as breeding

grounds for mosquitoes. In the footsteps of several other African countries, as of 1 January

2008, Kenya imposed a national ban on the importation and distribution of plastic bags less

than 30 microns in thickness (NEMA, 2008).

2.4.3 WASTE APPROACHES In general, at the household level in low-income peri-urban areas, resource recovery begins

with the reuse of plastic bags, bottles, paper, cardboard, and cans for domestic purposes,

there by extending their useful life. The rate of reuse in this instance is high, and these

materials enter the waste stream only when they are no longer fit for domestic use.

2.4.4 WASTE COLLECTION AND DUMPING The CCN has the obligation of collecting waste from around the city estates, roadsides,

markets and industrial areas. In some sections of the city, the city council has sourced help of

privately operating waste handlers to collect, transport (plate 2.5) and deposit waste (KENAO,

2007). Some residential communities also have CBOs that manage their garbage for a fee.

Figure 2.4 shows Nairobi’s summary of waste handling from collection to dumping.

From residential sources, the waste may go to the designated dumpsite or an illegal one. In

either case, material recovery occurs. As earlier noted generation stood at 800 to 1 000 tonnes

of solid waste in Nairobi every day, of which less than 10% was collected. By 2002, the amount

had grown to 1 530 tonnes per day of which 40 per cent was either uncollected, or disposed of

by burning or illegal dumping (Syagga, 1992, CCN, 2007). Low collection rate is greatly

contributed by the lack of adequate personnel and vehicles (KENAO, 2007).

Waste collection and disposal rate on average stood at 33% of the total generated daily in

2009 (JICA, 2010; UNEP, 2010). The uncollected volumes contribute to decline in aesthetic

quality of our spaces, blockage of storm drains and rise in illegal dumpsites. The three main

players involved in collection and disposal include CCN, CCN contractors, Private companies


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 19

Figure 2.4: flow chat of solid waste source to disposal channels in Nairobi

Source: CCN, 2007


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 20

and Community Based Organisations (CBOs). In 2009, besides CCN, there were 21 CCN

contractors, 44 registered Private service providers (26 unregistered ones) and up to 140

CBOs; all involved in different levels of waste management (JICA, 2010). Out of the 33% of

daily collected waste, the CCN collects 5%, contractors 73%, private companies and CBOs

22%.

2.4.5 PROCUREMENT OF WASTE COLLECTION AND TRANSPORTATION

SERVICES The Council through its procurement Department advertises for waste collection services in

the local newspapers. The contracts are for a period of one financial year but often last for

more than this period. The contractors are required to submit their bids in the prescribed

forms and provide background information on themselves on such matters as ownership

structure of their businesses and the number of vehicles they will deploy in transporting

waste.

They are required to provide services in collection, transport and disposal depending on the

description of their contract. Most service providers participate in more than one or all

(KENAO, 2007).

2.4.6 WASTE RECOVERY AND RECYCLING Waste sorting is vital for recovery of resources. Sorting out enables reduce residue waste

volumes and furthers the renewal of material. At Dandora dumpsite, sorting out (plate 2.6) is

done by contract scavengers who retrieve desired plastics, paper and metal for cash (CCN,

2007). For the case of waste handling in Nairobi city, recovery happens mostly at the

dumpsite.

Small scale resellers operate in Dandora area. They trade in collected material (plate 2.7).

They resell to larger firms who recycle such. Residents also purchase the material for small

scale paper making, metal forging and welding businesses.

Plate 2.7 Reselling centre for recovered waste, Dandora

(Source: Author)

Plate2.6 Waste sorting at Dandora

(Source: Business Daily, Friday April 13, 2012)


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 21

2.4.7 DANDORA DUMPSITE AND ITS FUTURE The disposal site has been in use since 1981 (CCN, 2007). The site is an open dumpsite and has

had no facilities installed to protect the local environment from waste pollution. Waste

dumped at the site is not treated but is left to decompose (KENAO, 2007).

The dumpsite had a weigh bridge (plate 2.8) installed in 2006.Data collected from records in

that year show a progressive increase in volume of tonnage received per day (figure 2.5). In

the past, the City Council only approximated the amounts of disposed waste, based on the

number of vehicles and approximate tonnage.

Figure 2.5 Weigh bridge statistics at Dandora

(Source: Netwas, undated)


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 22

This was misleading and did not help much in planning. With the weighbridge, the council

also implemented a waste collection contract based on nine operational zones in line with the

constituency boundaries for Nairobi. These contracts have improved the efficiency of waste

collection by the City Council of Nairobi in almost every part of Nairobi even though the

impact has only been felt in the CBD, where collection levels are above 80 per cent (CCN,

2007).

The dumpsite is a hazard to its residents and pollutes the Nairobi River with leachate. It is still

the main dumpsite for Nairobi. However plans are underway to move it to a quarry site in

Ruai, Nairobi (JICA, 2010; Omondi, 2011). The site will be replaced with a recreation park with

energy generation facilities. The process will go hand in hand with the commissioning of a

landfill in Ruai, another proposed venue for gas and electricity generation.

The planned capital projects are expected to significantly raise City Hall's internal generated

revenues which stand at Sh9.6 billion according to the council's 2010/11 budgetary estimates.

Previous estimates put monthly earnings from the proposed electricity project alone at Sh150

million. Council Hall has already submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

reports for both the Dandora and Ruai sites to environmental regulator outlining its new land

use (Omondi, 2011).

Kenya Alliance of Residents Association (KARA) have raised outcry that the planned

decommissioning will disrupt the livelihoods of more than 1,000 families who depend on the

Dandora dumpsite. "A sorting ground should be put in place to secure the livelihoods of the

families currently depending on the dumpsite as it will ensure only the biodegradable

garbage is transferred to the landfill", said KARA's CEO Mr. Stephen Mutoro (Omondi, 2011).

Well designed, large-scale urban waste-to-energy projects can benefit the urban poor who

are already involved in waste collection, sorting, recycling and disposal (Karekezi 2002).

Plate 2.8 The weigh bridge, Dandora dumpsite

(Source: Author)


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 23

2.4.8 Environmental administration

Mandate of the City Council of Nairobi (CCN) over the City is derived from the Local

Authorities Act (Cap.265) of the Laws of Kenya (KENAO, 2007). The Local Government Act

allows the council to administer the city and provide essential services to residents as well as

build and maintain public infrastructure. The three main players involved in collection and

disposal include CCN, CCN contractors, Private companies and Community Based

Organizations (CBOs).

The National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) is a government agency

responsible for the management of the environment, and the environmental policy. NEMA

runs under the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act of parliament of 1999. It

oversees the council activities in environmental issues. The CCN environmental l department

works in coordination with this agency.

2.4.9 PROBLEMS Recovery of Waste is inefficient and is not adequately supported by the City Council

The council has not created formal structures that would facilitate its partnership

with the numerous community groups as well as commercial enterprises involved in

recycling and re-use of waste (KENAO,2007 pg xi)

Much garbage that is not waste, estimated by recyclers to be as much as 80% of loads

delivered at the dumpsite, is transported at high cost to the dumpsite only to be

separated there under difficult circumstances (plate 2.9) and the recoveries

transported back to their place of intended use at unnecessary expense to the

residents of the city (KENAO,2007 pg xi)

The rate of collection of waste is low and the means unreliable

Plate 2.9 Sorting waste in poor conditions, Dandora

(Source: Author)


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 24

Weak criteria for appointing contractors to collect waste allow bidders lacking

requisite technical and financial capacity to win tenders (KENAO,2007 pg vi-xiii)

The Council has not constructed collection points or provided dust bins in residential

areas for residents in informal settlements and other low income areas to deposit

waste for collection (KENAO,2007 pg vi-xiii).Plate 2.10 show waste roadside waste

accumulated in Eastleigh estate Nairobi.

More than half of daily generated waste is uncollected (JICA, 2010)

The City Council lacks a sufficient number of vehicles to transport waste and those hired

are inappropriate for the purpose and often unreliable.

The serviceable fleet of vehicles and equipment owned by the Council falls far short

of the number required for effective transportation of waste to the designated

disposal site (KENAO,2007 pg vi-xiii)

Firms lacking adequate capacity in finance, management and equipment win tenders

which they however fail to execute in a satisfactory manner. the trucks used by the

Council to transport waste do not conform to requirements set in the respective

waste collection and transportation contract provisions, the Environmental

Management Act or the Solid Waste management Regulations issued by the National

Environmental Management Authority(KENAO, 2007).

Comprehensive policies, regulations and initiatives on prevention of Waste are lacking

City’s By-laws including the newly adopted ones gazetted by the Minister for Local

Government in 2007 do not contain provisions on the prevention of waste (KENAO,

2007 pg xi). Residents are not required to separate waste at source as there are no

policy or operational guidelines on the matter established by the Council.

Furthermore, the City Council has not formulated an elaborate strategy or launched a

sustained campaign to educate the residents of the city on the importance of proper

Plate 2.10 Roadside dumping, Eastleigh Nairobi

(Source: Author)


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 25

waste management to protecting the environment, enhancing the cleanliness of the

city as well as ensuring the health of the residents themselves (JICA, 2010).

In the absence of an effective public education and information campaign, the

improvement in cleanliness in the city has been achieved out of added waste

collection efforts of the City Council. The efforts have included deploying its

Cleansing Section workers beyond the normal working hours (KENAO, 2007 pg xi).

This is most evident along major roads and highways where any failure by the

Department of Environment to deploy cleansing gangs regularly results in the places

getting littered from waste dropped by motorists

The designated dumpsite does not conform to set regulations, has been encroached upon

and is difficult to manage

The City’s designated waste disposal site is an open dumpsite located near a

residential area and a river. The site is therefore a threat to the health and lives of

residents of the city and beyond as it carries the risk of contaminating the air, soil and

both surface and underground water sources. Access to the site is constrained by

waste spilled over access roads and the neighboring residential area. Many waste

transporters therefore dump waste outside the dumpsite. Also, the Council exercises

only limited control over the site as unauthorized groups have encroached on its

management charging fees and restricting access to only those who pay up

(KENAO,2007 pg vi-xiii).

Numerous dumpsites not authorized by the Council have sprang up in various parts of

the city near water sources and residential areas likewise creating unsightly

surroundings and posing risks to the environment and the health of the city’s

residents in neighboring areas (KENAO,2007 pg vi-xiii).


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 26

2.5 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ACCRA, GHANA

2.5.1 BRIEF HISTORY Accra is the capital and the largest City of Ghana, situated on the Gulf of Guinea. The City is

an important commercial, manufacturing and communication centre. The city has a

population of 1.4 million, which is growing at an estimated rate of 4%, and occupies around

2% of the total land area of Ghana. Accra is the site of an international airport and focus of

the country's railroad system, including a link to nearby Tema, which since 1962 has served as

the City's deepwater port. Industries include vehicle and appliance assembly, petroleum

refinery and other manufacturing facilities.

Natural hazards, which Accra faces, include erosion and flooding, while man-made hazards

include indiscriminate disposal of all kinds of solid waste, noise pollution and discrepancies in

both refuse and human waste management (Richard, 2002).

Accra is generally unplanned and characterized by overcrowding, substandard housing, and

inadequate sanitation as well as other municipal services, especially in low-income areas. The

poor throughout the metropolis tend to be concentrated in core indigenous settlements and

in migrant residential areas, which are economically depressed, high-density

neighbourhoods. Accra has prepared two master plans, one in 1944 and another in 1958.

Some of the provisions of the 1958 Master Plan are now being implemented, for example the

construction of the main Independence Avenue and the Accra-Tema Motorway Extension

2.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS Critical environment development issues in Accra include (Richard, 2003):

Map 2.1 Ghana’s position in Africa

(Source: Graphicmaps.com, undated)

Map 2.2 Ghana showing Accra to the south

(Source: Graphicmaps.com, undated)


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 27

Overcrowded and unsanitary markets, truck and bus depots;

Traffic congestion and vehicular/pedestrian conflicts;

Land degradation from sand-winning and quarrying;

Obsolete infrastructure, over-densification and poor housing stock in low

income residential areas;

Inadequate solid waste management;

Inadequate sanitation in the high density residential areas plus a general lack

of infrastructure and services in the fast-growing urban fringe;

Decay of the City's Korle Lagoon due to pollution from streams feeding the

lagoon;

Poor drainage contributing to flooding of residential areas; and

Shoreline erosion.

2.5.3 WASTE IN GHANA The estimation of total waste quantities and quantities per capita is required for planning

efforts and the estimation of investment needs. According to Accra municipality officials the

average waste quantity generated in Accra is 1,500 tons per day (personal communication:

Ben Laryea, Waste Management Department, AMA, Accra, Oct 26, 2000) (Richard, 2002).

Approximately 200 tons of organic waste is directed into Accra’s composting plant and 300

tons is left uncollected. The remaining 1,000 tons is transferred to the Malami dumpsite.

Accra is divided into five administrative districts. Within these districts the City is arbitrarily

divided into three zones populated by high-, medium- and low-income groups. Solid waste

composition is strongly correlated to income levels and economic productivity of each group.

Figure 2.6 shows waste characteristics for low, middle and high income groups.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 28

It can be seen that an individual in the high income group generates more waste than in the

other two groups, almost twice as much as that in the low income group. However, most of

waste in Accra comes from the middle class group.

Figure 2.6 Waste Characteristics in the Accra Metropolis

(Source: Richard, 2002)


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 29

As shown in figure 2.7, considerable waste quantity is available for composting, over 360,000

tones per year. A similar quantity of waste is classified as combustible with total energy of

combustion equal to 6.443 giga Joule (6.443 x 10 9J). This amount of energy could produce

substantial power if combusted in the waste-to-energy incineration plant. However, high

content of ash and sand (up to 35%) could hinder the combustion process and generate a

large quantity of ash.

Figure 2.7 Waste Characteristics in the Accra Metropolis


Plate 2.11 Waste disposal container on a street of Accra.



M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 30

2.5.4WASTE COLLECTION AND TRANSFER Solid waste collection is a problem in Accra where at least 42% of people practice open waste

disposal. The 300,000 tons of solid waste collected per year alone represent only 60% of

waste generated. Solid waste collection in Accra involves removal of waste from

neighborhoods and transport to a discharge point, which is the Malami dumpsite. This is the

most expensive part of the solid waste management system in Accra, requiring over 70% of

the total solid waste management budget. Main cost components includes equipment capital

cost, running costs of fuel, spare parts, tires, etc. Labor cost constitutes a much smaller

amount that of equipment.

City & Country Waste Limited (CCWL) is the appointed waste management company for

Accra. It is determined to make the metropolis cleaner and safer to aid good health by the

end of the first decade of the new millennium. The inventory of CCWL equipment includes 52

compactor trucks, 15 roll on/off trucks, two bulldozers, a tanker truck, a tipper truck, a refuse

compactor, and a weight bridge at the entrance to the landfill. The company has technical

expertise to ensure the smooth running of waste management (Ghanaian Chronicle,

November 10, 1999) (Richard, 2002).

CCWL has optimized the cost of collection by analyzing the following factors: roads

accessibility, road conditions, traffic speeds, distance of collection zones to disposal site,

interest rates on capital, and cooperation from residents with collection containers and

schedules

The most common collection vehicles are open tipper trucks and rear-loading compaction

trucks (Plate 2.12) for door-to-door service where the residents use household garbage bins

which total 20,000 across Accra. Container hoist trucks, such as skip and arm roll trucks are

also in use for communal service to inaccessible areas or those where residents are too poor

to procure and use household dustbins. In these places, large waste disposal containers are

accessible for residents without charge.

Plate 2.12 Trucks used in Accra .



M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 31

When the container is full, it is taken to the disposal site and replaced by the empty one. In

some places containers are picked up as often as three times per day. A typical area container

in south part of Accra is shown in plate 2.13. Different sizes of containers are also in use. Plate

2.14 shows smaller containers awaiting discharge at the dumpsite.

The CCWL waste collection territory covers an area 35 km in diameter. Approximately 250

employees work 8 hour or 11 hour shifts. The first shift starts at 2 a.m. or 4 a.m. This depends

on traffic and density of population. The average speed of a garbage truck is 20 miles/hour.

CCWL subcontract a part of waste collection and disposal operation to 11 private operators

who use their own equipment.

As stated by the General Director of CCWL (personal communication: Jacques Marquis,

Accra, Oct. 23, 2000) (Richard, 2002), collection and treatment/disposal of about 80% of the

solid waste generated in Accra could be achieve by implementing the following:

Introduction of a central container collection system in low-class residential areas;

Introduction of appropriate systems for collection and treatment of hospital waste;

Rehabilitation and operation of a compost plant and introduction of

decentralized composting system; and

Site selection, construction and operation of sanitary landfill sites.

Plate 2.13 Garbage containers at Accra’s dumpsite.


Plate 2.14 Garbage containers at Accra’s dumpsite.



M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 32

2.5.5 WASTE RECOVERY AND RECYCLING For various reasons, informal resource recovery, either by micro-entrepreneurs or by

communities, has not received the support it deserves. In Accra and Tema, where

unregulated dumping is the cheapest means of waste disposal, activities in this field are

poorly stimulated and supported by local governments. Municipal policies undermine small-

scale recovery activities (Richard, 2002).

In Accra, waste pickers sort through refuse from incoming garbage trucks, before and

immediately after unloading. They often prevent the compactor from levelling and

compressing the newly disposed waste. Picked items are stored on side of the road until sold

to the recyclable waste buyer. Recovered items awaiting sale are shown in Plate 2.15.

City & Country Waste Limited recycles plastic waste, which is not biodegradable and

therefore harmful to the environment. As a component of the company's national clean-up

campaign under which CCWL, together with the metropolitan assemblies, provides for

collection of used plastic containers for recycling.

Basically, there is only a limited proportion of recoverable material in the waste stream in

Accra. The material is kept away from the waste at the household level where such items as

empty bottles, plastic containers, metal cans, etc, are salvaged and kept for domestic use.

They are additionally collected on site and sold for a small profit to the middleman who

occasionally collects recyclables.

2.5.6 COMPOSTING Accra Metropolitan Authority (AMA) operates the Teshie Nongua composting plant which

has an operational capacity of 200 tons per day. The plant has been in operation since 1974.

Existing equipment, such as the compost turner and screening unit, have been in operation

for almost 30 years. As a consequence of its age it breaks down frequently; this negatively

impacting the production capacity. A private company has been subcontracted to collect

Plate 2.15 View of waste items salvaged at the

dumpsite in Accra.



M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 33

compostable waste in the City specifically for this composting plant. There is demand for

fertilizer produced at the plant and more compost could be sold, if it was made available.

AMA intends to build a new composting plant if receives the financial means.

Through the support of the German government, financially self-sustainable composting of

pumped septage and municipal solid waste was implemented in Accra. The compost plant

consisted of a simple windrow turning operation, followed by screening. The mixture

composted was 50% solid waste and 50% treated human waste sludge. The windrow piles for

composting were turned every six weeks, for a period of about eight months.

Turning was done by pay loader and screening of compost product by sieving drums. The

compost quality was analyzed and considered excellent in terms of its nutrient content

(0.48% nitrogen, 0.97% phosphate, and 0.46% potassium). Farmers using Accra’s compost

were able to reduce their fertilizer input by 50 to 80% and still obtain the same crop yields.

The cost of the product was US$9.2 per cubic meter of compost. With 50 kg plastic bag priced

at US$1.10, full cost recovery was achieved. The savings in land cost was about US$1 / m3 of

solid waste converted to compost (Meinel, 1996).

2.5.7 WASTE DISPOSAL A semi-controlled dump is the first stage in the country’s efforts to upgrade landfills.

Controlled dumps operate with some form of inspection and recording of incoming waste,

the practice of extensive waste compaction, tipping front control and the application of soil

cover. Operated dumps, however, implement only limited measures to mitigate other

environmental impacts. The Malami dumpsite is the only open, semi-controlled solid waste

disposal facility in Accra. The dumping section of the site is shown in plate2.16.

The site is served by approximately 20 employees of CCWL who supervise and participate in

landfill operation. All garbage trucks must enter and leave the site through the weight bridge.

Plate 2.16 View of the solid waste disposal site for

Accra


Plate 2.17 The weight bridge at the Malami

dumpsite.



M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 34

They are billed based on the weight of waste discharged at the dumpsite. The weight bridge

at the Malami dumpsite is shown in plate 2.17.

After entering the dumpsite, trucks are directed by the site supervisor to the discharge point.

Disposed waste is sifted by scavengers (plate 2.18) and then levelled and compacted by the

refuse compactor shown in Plate 2.19.

Malami dumpsite practices unmanaged contaminant release and does not take into account

environmental cautionary measures such as leach ate and landfill gas management. This is

especially relevant during the rainy season in West Africa. There is a possibility of

groundwater contamination at dumpsite areas where many houses have been constructed.

The dumpsite has reached its maximum capacity and will be closed in 2005. As the City

grows and produces more waste and as its solid waste collection system becomes

more efficient, the environmental impact from open dumps has become increasingly

intolerable. The conversion of open or operated dumps to engineered landfills and

sanitary landfills was an essential step to avoid future costs from past

mismanagement.

A new Kwabenya landfill serving the Accra municipality was commissioned in 2004. It

was properly designed engineered landfill located at a former borrow pit, 15 km from

the City centre. The landfill area will be six km2 with the operational capacity of 1000

tons of waste per day. The ₤7 million investments have been provided by the United

Kingdom.

Plate 2.18 Waste pickers at Malami dumpsite.


Plate 2.19 Refuse compactor at work.



M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 35

2.5.7 WASTE STAKEHOLDERS IN ACCRA Waste stakeholders in Accra include the national government, international organizations,

the municipal government, informal sector and private firms. At a national level, the

Environmental Protection Council (EPC) was established in 1974 as an institutional framework

for the country's environmental management. At the time, without a coherent national

environmental policy, attempts to address Ghana's critical environmental problems were

largely fruitless. In the late 1980s, with the help of the World Bank and USAID, Ghana

developed a National Environmental Action Plan to deal with six key environmental areas,

including waste management (Richard, 2002).

At the beginning of the eighties, the management of solid and liquid wastes in Accra had

collapsed and the common practice of uncontrolled dumping of wastes posed considerable

health and environmental risks to the citizens. In response, the Waste Management

Department (WMD) under the Accra Metropolitan Assembly was established in 1984 and

since 1985 has been supported by German Financial and Technical Cooperation. The WMD is

authorized to raise and retain revenues through direct user charges.

Strengthening of the organizational structure and overall performance of the Waste

Management Division has been achieved by introduction of strategic planning and

privatization and organizational development and training measures. International

involvement includes the Accra Sustainable Programme which is funded and supported by

the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Centre for

Human Settlements (Habitat) (Richard, 2002). Other partners include:

Denmark (Danish Technological Institute)

DANIDA - financial support

UNICEF - support to Working Group

PACIPE – investment

UMP - funding mini consultation


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 36

The Accra Sustainable Programme is implemented by the Accra Metropolitan Assembly in

collaboration with the Ministry of Local Government and the Asiedu Keteke Sub-metro

Council, with the assistance of the following local partners (Richard, 2002):

The Ministry of Works and Housing

The Town and Country Planning Department

The Mines Department

The Waste Management Department

The Greater Accra Regional Administration

Ghana Water Company Ltd.

NGOS, CBOs and research institutions

To help the government in solid waste management, the private sector has organized the

Association of Private Waste Management Contractors (PWMC). The PWMC identified lack of

data on refuse collection, poor enforcement of bylaws, and lack of dumpsite monitoring and

night operations.

In recent times, and in view of the trend towards private sector participation in the

environmental sector, certain aspects (e.g. billing and collection, waste disposal) have been

contracted out to the private sector. The activities of these private entities are being

monitored to see how well they fare as part of the commercial measures to reduce waste

burden and to improve the waste collection ratio (Richard, 2002).


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 37

2.6 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN U.S.A

2.6.1 INTRODUCTION Each person in the United States generated 4.5 pounds of solid waste per day in 2000. In

Ohio, nearly a ton of locally generated residential and commercial waste per resident is land

filled during a year (CDFS-140-05, undated). If industrial waste is included, almost 1.8 tons of

locally generated waste is land filled per resident per year. Throughout the country, solid

waste management is a major issue. A few states have mandated up to a 50 % reduction in

waste going to landfills. Some communities are establishing mandatory recycling programs.

Waste is no longer out-of-sight and out-of-mind. Waste is now visible as part of public policy

(Bonaparte, 2002).

2.6.2 CURRENT WASTE ISSUE Waste, garbage, trash, junk, debris, and refuse are all names given to that material that is no

longer useful in its current form. In contemporary society, many of the items used daily are

designed to be used and discarded. Single-use packaging and disposable items, from diapers

to razors to cameras, define many of our consumer patterns. With the increased availability

of disposables has come the added problem of how to get rid of all this waste (Bonaparte,

2002).

The most predominant form of disposal is the permitted and licensed modern landfill, a

relatively new system that has been around less than five decades (US EPA, 1988). One of the

very real problems facing society today is the management of old closed and abandoned

dumps. Many of these are considered hazardous, even though, at the time of their use, they

were considered the ideal disposal method. While abandoned dumps pose a unique set of

problems (CDFS-140-05, undated), innovative strategies are needed to deal with the waste

we produce today to prevent it from causing problems for future generations.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 38

2.6.3 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT As waste management issues gain public awareness, concern has risen about the

appropriateness of various disposal methods. Within our modern scheme of waste

management, disposal is the last phase (US EPA, 1988). Most people acknowledge that

disposal will always be needed (the exception being those advocating zero-waste policies).

The most widely used disposal method, the modern landfill (CDFS-137-05, Landfills: Science

and Engineering Aspects; CDFS-138-05, Landfill Types and Liner Systems).

Solid waste professionals realize that the ideal way to reduce the stress on disposal systems is

to reduce the amount of waste that is produced. The emphasis in modern solid waste

management is on reduction, reuse, and recovery before disposal (US EPA, 2007). These

three words are at the centre of the discussion of integrated waste management systems.

Reduction is using fewer disposable goods. Reuse is using items again after their initial

consumer use is past. Recovery is recapturing the material or energy value of the item at its

highest point.

No single solution completely answers the question of what to do with our waste. Every

community or region has its own unique profile of solid waste. The composition of the waste

varies, depending on such diverse variables as urbanization, commercial enterprises,

manufacturing, and service sector activities (Bonaparte, 2002). Similarly, the attitudes of

people in different states and regions of the country vary regarding waste management

practices. This is often referred to as the waste management ethic and includes the recycling

ethic and litter ethic of a community as subcategories. Community diversity and waste

diversity are two reasons why no single approach to waste management has been accepted

as the best method.

The strategy used to develop an integrated waste management system is to identify the level

or levels at which the highest values of individual and collective materials can be recovered.

For this reason, the list starts with reduction - using less and reusing more, thereby saving


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 39

material production, resource cost, and energy. At the bottom of the list is ultimate disposal -

the final resting place for waste (Bonaparte, 2002).

2.6.4 STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE IN USA 2.6.4.1 Reduction Strategies

Reduction strategies are any approaches a community may use to lower the amount of waste

being produced. Examples include a surcharge on excess bags, containers, or household

refuse or an incentive program for commercial/industrial reduction efforts. Some simple

reduction activities that individuals within a community can do are backyard composting (this

reduces the amount of waste disposed of in landfills) and two-sided copying on paper

(Palmer, 2005).

A waste exchange program also contributes to reduction. In any of the change strategies

(reduction, reuse, and recovery), public education and involvement are crucial, and in the case

of reduction, they are imperative. Reduction assumes the commitment and involvement of all

citizens. Source reduction strategies have many favourable environmental impacts, including

reducing greenhouse gas production, saving energy, and conserving resources, in addition to

reducing the volume of the waste stream (Palmer, 2005)..

2.6.4.2 Reuse Strategies

Reuse does not require reprocessing and, therefore, has lower energy requirements than

recycling. Reuse strategies include making donations to charity, reusing packaging (including

boxes and bags), using empty jars for food storage, and participating in a paint collection and

reuse program (US EPA, 2007). For reuse, waste may be recycled, composted or have energy

derived from them.

2.6.4.3 Recycling

US recycle at a national rate of 33.4% and includes in this figure composted materials (US

EPA, 2007).In recycling, waste materials are processed industrially and then reformed into


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 40

new or similar products. Recycling includes pre-consumer waste, such as factory cuttings or

shavings, as well as post-consumer waste items, including cardboard, newspapers, plastic

bottles, and aluminium cans. Although recycling is often viewed as a resource conservation

activity, it may offer greater return for many products in terms of energy savings.

2.6.5 WASTE TREATMENT 2.6.5.1 Composting

Predominant use of composting programs throughout the United States is in yard wastes. In

urban areas, the composting of leaf and tree waste alone can reduce landfill dependency by

up to 12 percent. The segregation of yard waste from other organic (biodegradable) wastes is

necessary to avoid contamination of the compost which might render the mulch or end

product less desirable.

In 2001, the combination of recycling and composting diverted 68 million tons of U.S. refuse

from landfills and incinerators. In addition to reducing the necessity for sitting and

constructing new landfills and incinerators, recycling also helps to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions and pollutants.

2.6.5.2 Resource Recovery - Incineration

The third approach to value recapture is to incinerate waste and use the heat for energy.

Although many combustibles are recyclable, there is often a higher total value (due to

processing costs) in burning the waste for energy than in recycling. Often, many

combustible/recyclable materials are contaminated and rendered difficult and/or expensive

to recycle. By developing an incineration program with a materials recovery component,

furnace and processing equipment life is usually extended because glass and ferrous and non-

ferrous metals are removed during material recovery. Incineration reduces the volume of

refuse by up to 90 percent, leaving behind only ash, and resulting in less need for landfill

space.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 41

2.6.5.3 Ultimate Disposal - Landfill

Beginning in the 1950s, in the USA and a number of other countries, the open-landfill, with or

without burning, method of solid waste disposal was changed to what became known as the

“sanitary” landfill, where burning was stopped and a few inches of soil was placed over the

waste at the close of each day (US EPA, 1988). In the year 2000, more than 50 % of all waste

generated nationally ended up in landfills. The continuing development of more stringent

requirements for landfills is making this ultimate disposal option less environmentally

offensive, but more costly.

The increasing ability to recover methane from landfills is providing a positive use for what

has historically been a non-valued disposal method. Bioreactor landfill technology has the

potential to further reduce the environmental impact of landfills and maximize methane

recovery from these systems (CDFS-139-05, Bioreactor Landfills, undated).

As society moves waste to the forefront of public policy, it is more apparent that what we

discard annually contains a multitude of valuable and recoverable materials. An integrated

waste management system entails a careful analysis of what is in the waste stream and offers

ideas on practices to recover the various materials at the point of highest value. The best

strategy for a community is to match its unique position with the mix of activities that will

best serve it now and far into the future.

2.6.6 CASE OF BOULDER, COLORADO-ZERO WASTE In a culture reluctant to face the consequences of over consumption and a throw away

lifestyle, Eco-Cycle of Boulder, Colorado concentrates on trying to cut one strand of the

Gordian knot known as global warming or climate change (Ecocycle , retrieved 8th May, 2012).

The developing green revolution is heavily involved in minimizing waste.

http://www.ecocycle.org/


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 42

After 33 years (by 2010), the pioneering organization has been catapulted into the recycling

spotlight. Originally a volunteer grass-roots effort, Eco-Cycle now has 60 employees, an

annual payroll of $2 million and is recognized as being in the forefront of community

recycling. Many communities have recycling programs, but Eco-Cycle has taken the effort to a

high level by promoting the Zero Waste goal of diverting 90 % of Boulder County’s trash away

from landfills.

Eric Lombardi, executive director of Eco-Cycle, developed a plan for a Zero Waste Park, which

could dramatically reduce a city’s waste stream. By shifting their operations away from piling

up trash to a new approach, landfill companies can receive materials pre-sorted by the

community and can screen remaining waste for potential additional recoverable resources

(Ecocycle, retrieved 8th May, 2012).

After hearing about Boulder’s progress toward the Zero Waste by applying the principles of

resource recovery through recycling, composting and reuse, a private landfill company in

Vancouver, Canada, paid Lombardi to speak at a conference of urban planners about

replicating the program there.

Municipalities with dwindling landfill capacity are finding it more and more difficult to find

acceptable new sites for their trash, for example the case of Nairobi’s Dandora-Ruai saga

(Omondi, 2011). Elected officials have discovered that siting new landfills has become a

political third rail. As an alternative, communities often contemplate establishing incinerators

and open burning (plate 2.11) only to find that that route has its own negatives, especially

from the release of toxins into the air. This is where the Zero Waste concept can become an

ally. Trash companies that run the landfills face loss of business, even extinction, as landfills

close. Landfills are like black holes where resources go in and never come out (Lombardi,

2010).

Plate 2.20 open burning at Dandora dumpsite

(Source: Author)


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 43

Figure 2.8 Layout of ideal Lombardi’s Eco Cycle Zero Waste Parks

(Source: http://www.worldchanging.com/zero%20waste%20park%20illustration_large.jpg)


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 44

Just as the auto industry is realizing the need to switch to fuel-efficient vehicles if it expects to

remain in business, landfill companies are recognizing the necessity to change their modes of

operating. Piling up mountains of trash is not sustainable. Eco-Cycle looks at a polluting

eyesore and sees reusable, recyclable, compostable resources (Ecocycle, retrieved 8th May,

2012).Lombardi’s ideal waste park (figure 2.8) constitutes the following facilities;

Material recovery facility

Residue facility

Eco Cycle office and education centre

Construction and demolition waste facility

Centre for Hard to recycle

Reuse centre

Composting facility

If we reached zero waste, cities would still need residue facilities, but that zero-waste cities

could expect to eventually down actual residual trash to about 10 percent or less of all the

waste we throw away. This 10 percent would still be land filled, but to further reduce its

volume Lombardi suggests adhering to a policy of first composting all mixed waste residuals

before land filling, so that any mixed-in organic material decomposes and the leftovers don't

cook underground and release methane ( Julia ,2008)

Eco-Cycle works nonstop to educate the population of Boulder County and keeps a high

public profile in the local newspaper and with community organizations and businesses (Julia,

2008).

Eco-Cycle also keeps the goal of Zero Waste in the public consciousness by highlighting public

events that recycle or compost all of the trash that such occasions usually produce. Perhaps,

at least in Boulder, one strand of that Gordian knot is beginning to fray (Ecocycle , retrieved

8th May, 2012).

http://www.worldchanging.com/bios/julialevitt.html





M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 45

2.7 AESTHETIC VALUES

Human senses (Plate 2.21) enable us to experience scenes and give judgements. More than

80% of what our senses receive is visual. When the term ‘perception’ is used, it almost always

refers to visual appreciation. Psychologist, urban designers and landscape architects all stress

vision as the chief mode of knowing about our world

2.7.1 VISION Vision is the most dominant sense in human beings. It provides for more information than all

the other senses combined. Vision is not pictorial (Rapport 1977): it’s rather active and

searching. Visual perception depends on space quality, colour, shape, texture and contrast

gradients.

2.7.2 SMELL Environmentally, smell is even more information poor yet emotion richer than sound or vision.

For waste disposal sites, analysis of smell may be vital in determining acceptability.

2.7.3 TACTILITY The hepatic sense produces a touch scape. The skin is the largest sensory organ and is

extremely sensitive. Touch is vital for well-being. We gain information by handling things.

2.7.4 SOUNDS Sound is the only other sense apart from vision that is extensively studied. Unlike visual space

which is pictorial, acoustic space is non-location, spherical and all surrounding. It has no

obvious boundaries.

2.7.5 CONCLUSION

Plate 2.21: Human senses abstract

Source: Google images


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 46

In the environment, spaces can comprehensively be described through a combination of the

senses. The identity of places is multi-sensory, but in some cases, more sense perceptions

may be dominant Sensory interaction is vital; people who hear more, for example, also see

more(Southworth,1969).

2.8 LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS This involves all the senses of the body in appreciation of desirable characteristics of our

environment. However majority of how we perceive things is by how we see them with our

eyes. An aesthetic experience leads to a judgment with the basic categories of artistic

aesthetics: beautiful and ugly (Valenta, 2008).

A quality is generally defined as an attribute or property of a thing answering the question

“how good is it?”. In the context of landscape assessment, quality may be perceived in a range

of very different ways (Daniel, 2001). Landscape quality may be presented in terms of

providing for basic human physical needs (food, water, refuge, recreation, etc.), in terms of

mental and psychological needs (self-identification with nature, feeling of power, etc.) or in

terms of its natural value Two basic approaches have been considered in the field of landscape

aesthetics – objective and subjective approaches (Daniel,2001). From the objective point, the

aesthetic values of landscape are due to its attributes, whereas the subjective approach

regards landscape value as a product of the human mind

2.8.1 MODES OF LANDSCAPE PERCEPTION The objective approach

The objective approach is concerned with objectification and knowledge. Assuming an

understanding of beauty, until recent times most philosophers tended toward this approach.

The objective approach is based on certain assumptions adopted by experts. Landscape is

assessed according to these assumptions (Lothian, 1999).


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 47

The aesthetic values of landscape are due to a range of landscape attributes and landscape

character, or due to a combination of these attributes (Jessel, 2006). Landscape that attracts

the observer with a legible and memorable structure or with its unusual character, its

appearance, its smell, the sound of natural or artificial attributes (e.g. a group of trees, some

bushes, a church, or mill) is usually assessed as having a high level of aesthetic value (Vorel,

2006). assume that the aesthetic value of landscape is due to natural and cultural values, a

harmonic scale and relation in the landscape.

The objective approach to landscape aesthetic values results in a kind of aesthetic standard

determining people’s taste, and vice versa. It is Important, to differentiate aesthetic standards

within different types of landscape according to the level of human influence (Michal, 2003), It

is also important to realize that not only landscape but also human society is dynamic system.

That is why points out that it is necessary to bear in mind that future generations will most

likely have different aesthetic preferences (Jessel, 2006).

The subjective approach

People’s landscape preferences differ as a result of different ways of perceiving. The

subjective approach regards the aesthetic quality of landscape as a product of the human

mind based on an interpretation of what we perceive (Lothian, 1999). The external features of

landscape are considered to be an impulse that evokes a relevant psychological response

(Vorel, 2006).

2.8.2 APPROACHES TO LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT Aesthetic valuation is always, to a certain degree, a subjective activity (Sklenicka, 2003). It

provides an object with an aesthetic value but does not change it physically. Two approaches

are used in the assessment of landscape aesthetics: comprehensive and cognitive (Valenta,

2008).


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 48

2.8.2.1 Comprehensive approach

The approach views landscape as something which influences the observer unconsciously.

Landscape aesthetics values manifest through the sensual perception of the observer. The

observer perceives the shape of the attributes, the organization of the attributes, colouring

and texture, the smells, coolness and breeze etc (Vorel, 2006). The result is generalised with “I

like it/I don’t” (Michal, 2000)

2.8.2.2 Cognitive approach (expert and perception based)

This approach considers landscape as an image we look for qualities expected and defined by

humans (Valenta, 2008).the evaluation in this approach is based on defined criteria and rules

of aesthetic valuation. It may be impossible to use rational analysis (a cognitive approach).in

the natural landscape, changes in different season’s dictates aesthetics assessment (Michal,

2000).

Expert based assessment

This is based on cognitive approach. It aims at defining landscape scenery qualities and

attributes. Landscapes scenery ate characterised using variables that define their shape,

structure and even colour. These attributes are subsequently connected with properties such

as variety, unity, uniqueness and distinctiveness (Daniel, 2001).

Perception based assessment

This assessment is a subjective approach. It focuses on an individual as the perceiving subject

with his/her feelings, needs and imagination. It includes all aspects of the relation between

man and nature (Jessel, 2006). This approach combines psychological procedures, visual

simulation of landscape and statistical analysis (Lothian, 1999).


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 49

2.8.3 MEASUREMENT OF SCENIC PERCEPTION In determining beauty of the landscape, a combination of characteristics is used. Elements

such as landforms, vegetation, cultural features and water characteristics are put into

consideration. Landforms patterns and features include character of rocks, land form and

their connection to one another (Michal, 2000). Surface water characteristics includes features

of interests like mirror effect of a lake, a waterfall’s gush or even the roar and vibrancy of the

sea. Vegetation patterns portray an idea of potential vegetative community. The cultural

features give a feel of past and present that have shaped the current environment.

The visual character and scenic value of landscape elements vary with time; change is very

slow and may be undetectable (Michal, 2000). These elements may be rated at various levels

of scenic attractiveness.

Class A- Distinctive: for this case, landform, vegetation, water characteristics and cultural

features combine to provide unique or outstanding scenic beauty.

Class B- Typical: a combination of the visual elements gives an ordinary or common scenic

quality

Class C- Indistinctive: often water and rock forms miss in this class. The scenic quality at this

level is low. Such landscapes miss variety, unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, harmony,

uniqueness, pattern and balance.

2.8.4 PARAMETERS OF MEASURING LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS AND THEIR

VARIABLES In reacting to the visual environment, people seem to relate to the information they pick up in

two quite different ways. They react both to the visual array, the two-dimensional pattern, as

if the environment in front of them were a flat picture, as well as to the three-dimensional

pattern of space that unfolds before them Kaplan (1988). He summarized four informational


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 50

factors through which humans perceive their environment. These include complexity and

coherence (for 2-D data); legibility and mystery (for 3-D data) summarised in figure 2.9

Complexity is the "involvement" component at this surface level of analysis. It is also referred

to as ‘diversity’ or ‘richness’ refers to how much is going on a picture plane (Appleton, 1975).

Preference may be low where an open field is in a sunrise background and a plain sunset.

Figure 2.9 Summary of parameters of aesthetics

Parameter of aesthetics Justification in dump sites Measurable variable

Complexity Identifies most admirable component of complex scents

for further analysis.

No. of identifiable objects from any given point of view

Intricacy in detailing

Variety- in colour, order, pattern

Coherence Is vital in analysis of landscapes which the observer can

understand.

Regularity

Balance e.g. between tall and short

Unity

Legibility How much a space makes sense to its users is vital Rhythm

Pattern

Repetition

Easily recognizable

Mystery This will be employed in discovering how much the

dump areas intrigue the human senses

Vagueness

Unexpectedness

(Source: Author)


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 51

Coherence is the "making sense" component at this surface level of analysis. Readily

identifiable components aid in giving a sense of coherence. These include repeated elements

and smooth textures that identify a "region" or area of the picture plane. Something that

draws one's attention within the scene should turn out to be an important object or a

boundary between regions or some other significant property Kaplan (1988).

Mystery involves not the presence of new information, but its promise. Scenes high in

mystery are characterized by continuity; there is a connection between what is seen and what

is anticipated (Appleton, 1975). A scene high in mystery is one in which one could learn more if

one were to proceed further into the scene Kaplan (1988).

Legibility refers to the possibility of making sense within a three-dimensional space. Like

mystery, legibility entails a promise, a prediction, but in this case not of the opportunity to

learn but to function Kaplan (1988).

2.9THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK In various fields, theories and propositions about concepts and relationships have been

formulated [Mugenda, 1999]. The theory employed was the ‘Gestalt psychology’ advanced by

psychologist Max Wertheimer (1880-1943) (Sternberg, 2003)

Gestalt psychology is a school of thought that looks at the human mind and behaviour as a

whole (Sternberg, 2003). It suggests that during perception, the whole is of greater

importance than individual components that make it as it is. In the research, the overall

landscape appearance of the dump is the whole; and components are strewn waste, pollution,

poor disposal (Allen,1981).


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 52

2.10 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

NATURAL RESOURCES

INDUSTRIES

CONSUMER

SORTING,

COLLECTION ,

TRANSPORT

DISPOSAL

RECYCLE/ COMPOSTING/

ENERGY GENERATION

REUSE

UNWANTED

DUMPSITES- Smoke, pollution of water , smell, noise, inadequate plant cover, inadequate sorting, large waste volumes roadside

dumping

WANTED

Beautiful landscapes, water protection, soil protection, reduced waste volume, cleaner approaches to disposal, designed

sanitary landfills


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 53

2.11 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES Alternative Hypothesis (Ha)

Solid waste disposal sites affect landscape aesthetic appreciation

Null hypothesis (Ho)

Solid waste disposal do not affect landscape aesthetic appreciation


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 54

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 55

3.1 INTRODUCTION Research methodology refers to a scientific and systematic search for crucial information on a

particular topic towards solving a problem in research. It consists of a research problem,

hypothesis formulation, data collection, and analysis and searching for conclusions, (Kothari,

1990). Although direct investigation of a person’s experience of his environment is

methodologically difficult, people can articulate their perception through semantic

differential; verbal technique used to elicit respondent’s image of the physical environment.

This chapter will elaborate on the research methods, techniques and tools used for collecting

data on aesthetic perception to waste disposal .

3.2 METHODOLOGY

3.2.1 RESEARCH APPROACH

A descriptive study was used in examining how solid waste management in cities affect

environment aesthetics. This research seeks to find the respondents feelings about the

character of their environment as influenced by solid waste handling and disposal

approaches. There are three phases of landscape evaluation (Unwin, 1975).

Landscape measurement: an inventory of what actually exists in the

landscape;

Landscape value: an investigation and measurement of value judgements or

preferences in the visual landscape;

Landscape evaluation: an assessment of the quality of the objective visual

landscape in terms of individual or societal preferences for different

landscape types.

http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/ccw/task-two/evaluate.html#ref


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 56

Both qualitative and quantitative research methods were applied to achieve the study’s

objectives. A qualitative research explores attitudes, behaviour and experiences through such

methods as unstructured interviews and landscape appraisal questionnaires. It is more

focused on the collection and analysis of numerical data and statistics.

Quantitative research helped generate statistics through the use of large scale survey

research using methods such as questionnaires and structured interviews. It’s concerned with

counting and measuring things, producing in particular estimates of averages and differences

between groups

3.2.2 RESEARCH SITUS The research setting was natural, in Dandora dumpsite area of Nairobi County. This is of

importance because it allowed the study of phenomena as it occurs. A situation and its

contents cannot be fully observed if certain portions are excluded from the study as they

might be f the situation were transferred to a contrived setting. (Zeisel, 1981).

The target population was the residential and working community around Dandora

dumpsite.

3.2.3 RESEARCH METHODS IN STUDY OF AESTHETICS People have varied personal experiences. The visual characteristics of a place also vary

considerably. However, personal experiences as well as visual qualities of a place are

measurable variables of landscape aesthetics that can be ascertained by studying people’s

feelings and how they respond to these places verbally when they are within such areas.

3.3 SOURCES OF DATA The study was be carried out in both natural setting and controlled. The sources of data,

therefore, included the following:

Map 3.1: Dandora dumpsite



M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 57

3.3.1 PRIMARY DATA This includes observations recordings, questionnaires, sketches and photographs taken on

site. They are collected with relevance to the important variables therefore ideal for analysis

of the problem.

3.3.2 SECONDARY DATA This includes the already collected and documented data, obtained from books, journals,

newspapers etc. (see appendix for references)

3.4 SAMPLING DESIGN The sampling units used included research situs, sampling of observation time and day. The

research situs is in a natural setting (field). The research will consider the following in the

study.

Sampling unit is the geographical unit for this research will be the people within

Dandora dumpsite, and those in the immediate neighbourhood.

Size of sample is the total number of items to be selected to constitute a sample.

Nature of universe which is the universe may be homogenous or heterogeneous. A

homogenous one will be used here. The research will be carried out in its natural

setting, Dandora dumpsite area.

Parameters of interest is the objects of interest are those involved in waste handling,

ordinary residents and passers-by

Availability of finances will consider a sample size small enough to work within the

availed budget.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 58

3.4.1 TYPES OF SAMPLING DESIGN These are based on the basis and the element selection techniques. This research used both

probability and non probability sampling. In the non probability sampling, the items are

selected deliberately by the researcher. The probability sampling follows a system of defined

factors.

The research area was chosen by non probability sampling. It is hoped the section of Dandora

chosen will be a representation of perception of all Dandora dumpsite neighbourhoods.

Selection of respondents will follow a probability sampling procedure (stratified random

sampling). Every other 10th person met walking past the junction of John Osogo road and the

dumpsite will be chosen. Plate 3.1 shows Dandora dumpsite and its immediate

neighbourhood.

3.4.2 SAMPLE SIZE A sample size is the optimum number of subjects which can fulfil the requirements of

efficiency, representation, reliability and flexibility (Kothari, 2004). Due to the limited time

and resources, a sample size of 40 respondents will be targeted in this research. According to

Mugenda (1999), A sample size of 30 and above enough as a representative.

3.5 DATA COLLECTION METHODS The following methods of data collection were used;

3.5.1 OBSERVATION CHECKLISTS This is the most commonly used method in relating to behavioural science (Kothari, 2004). In

this technique, data was collected by observing solid waste handling and the resident’s

response to it and also impacts of waste to the environment .This involves watching people

use their environment. Individuals, pairs of people, small groups and large ones will be in


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 59

scope. The observations will look at how the physical environment of dumpsites affects

activities of individuals.

Behaviour observation helps generate data about people’s activities and relationship needed

to sustain them, about regularity of the behaviour, about expected uses and misuse of a

place. Also helps gain understanding of constraints that the physical environment provides.

The advantage of using this technique is that observation of environmental behaviour is:

Empathic- allows researcher get a feel of the character of the situation. Allows researcher get

into a setting

Direct-observing behaviour is personal and may unearth behaviour that may otherwise not be

reported.

Dynamic-observations over a period give the researcher insight to various changes during the

day and how time affects activities.

Type of observation

This refers to the observer’s vantage point, with them either choosing to be outsiders or

participant of the activities on site. As outsider, they may be secret observers or recognized

ones; as participant observer, either marginally or fully in the activities. In our case, an

outsider vantage point was used.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 60

Data recording devices were used in observation include,

a) Pre-coded checklists-descriptive notes providing a qualitative understanding of

what’s taking place.

b) Still Photographs- capture what’s going on. They are illustrative.

c) Notes- of observed features and attributes both from verbal descriptions and visual

analysis

3.5.2 QUESTIONNAIRES Questionnaires lack bias from the interviewer since the respondent answers and fills

questions on their own. They allow time to give better thought out answers.

The questionnaires was organised in a way that focus on,

Rapport- a good relationship between the researcher and the respondent should be created.

Questions that intrude privacy will be avoided.

Conditioning- early questions are to prepare the respondents for later ones

Fatigue- the questions will be structured into short ones that obtain maximum information while

minimising fatigue of the respondents.

3.6 DATA PRESENTATION The following methods were used to represent results of data collected.

3.6.1 GRAPHS This is a useful graphical tool when two or more variables are being compared or plotted

against each other.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 61

3.6.2 BAR CHARTS AND PIE CHARTS They are useful in comparing parts of a whole. The percentage of waste recycled,

composited, or sent to dumpsites may be represented this way for example.

3.6.3 PHOTOGRAPHS They represent information as it is on site.

3.7 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS Data processing and analysis includes editing both field and central levels to ensure accuracy

and consistency of data collected with other facts gathered. It helps ensure uniformity of data

collected (Zeisel, 1984).

3.7.1 DATA PROCESSING This Involves careful scrutiny of completed interview schedules, compilation and comparison

of collected data (Mugenda, 1999). Responses were coded and then classified to put them

into limited number of categories for simplification of analysis by reducing raw data into

homogenous groups.

3.7.2 DATA ANALYSIS It involves computation of respondent’s distribution in terms of their responses, and their

estimation of values of unknown parameters of the problem. Its concerned with the study of

one or more variables affects changes in another variable (Kothari, 1984). Casual analysis was

employed. It aids in determining whether and independent variable predicts a given

dependent variable.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 62

3.7.3 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS This refers to non-empirical analysis, covering the areas of study that may not require

quantifiable data. This is such as observed data.

3.7.4 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS The purpose of this analysis will be meaningfully describing a distribution of scores or

measurements using a few indices or statistics. Each statistic here has a purpose and depends

on the type of variable in the study and the scale of measurement (Mugenda, 1999)

MEASURE OF VARIABILITY

This range is used to measure variability. This is the difference between the highest and

lowest score in a distribution. The range is determined by subtracting the lowest score from

the high score

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Validity of data collected is concerned with checking respondents account. This was achieved

by pre-coded follow up questions to assert the initial response. Validity was censured by

active observation of conditions.

Reliability is concerned with consistency (Zeisel, 1984). The reliability in this study was

maintained by use of standard questions for respondents.

3.8 RESEARCH ETHICS This research has not been presented in this or any university for examination purposes. The

data collected during the field study is confidential and for academic purposes only.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 63

CHAPTER FOUR

STUDY AREA


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 64

4.1 BACKGROUND TO STUDYAREA: DANDORA DUMPSITE Solid waste handling in other major towns is handled by the local government councils. In

1980, the council established a 26.5 ha dump-site in Dandora in the Eastland’s suburb of

Nairobi. This has grown over the years and is still in use but is largely underexploited. Passing

at the dump-site’s edge is the Nairobi River which eventually flows to the Indian Ocean (NCC,

1992).

The Dandora serves as a sorting area and final disposal area for waste from Nairobi city and

some of its environs. The dumpsite receives an average of 1.4-2.4 tonnes of garbage daily

(JICA, 2010). Out of this, less than half is sorted and the rest is spread out using graders.

The residential space to be studied is the periphery of Dandora phase 1 along the John Osogo

road. This section of Dandora is the primary motor-able route into the dumpsite. The

research questionnaires and observations were administered to residents and passersby

along this road. The site however has some other access ways as it is not completely fenced

off from its neighbourhood. However, these are mostly accessible only by pedestrians. Figure

4.1 is the author’s sketch of extent of the dumpsite showing the area of study.

The dumpsite comprises basically 3 sections. The entrance houses council office and a

weighbridge facility. A small parking area hosts graders used at the dumpsite. The second

section is a sorting area. This space is adjacent to the office and the weighbridge. Sorting out

of arrived waste vehicles takes place here as shown in plate 4.1. Further down the site are the

final disposal grounds, partly shown in plate 4.2.

Plate 4.2: Open dump piles area

Sources: Author

Plate 4.1: Sorting area

Sources: Author


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 65

4.2 PLAN OF THE RESEARCH AREA

Figure 4.1: Study area sketch

Source: Author.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 66

∑

Δ𝑦

Δ𝑥

CHAPTER FIVE

DATA ANALYSIS

level of education

1st Qtr

2nd Qtr

3rd Qtr

4th Qtr


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 67

5.1 INTRODUCTION This research points to a relationship between waste disposal areas visual aesthetics and the

experience of residents and workers within and around it. Landscape perception is a very

important approach to putting value on any landscape. How a landscape is perceived by its

users determines whether they feel comfortable to participate in it or not.

This research has used various modes of collection of data which includes questionnaires and

observation. This was important to gauge the people’s perception of various scenes in waste

water treatment areas. The areas of interest were derived from the various likability scales

provided.

Waste disposal sites are usually avoided in most societies. The combination of what keeps or

attracts people to these spaces was the data of interest in this research. Elements used to

gauge aesthetics of these spaces include characteristics of circulation, air and noise quality,

surface water quality, plant pattern, land use patterns and cultural factors. The variables of

interest included complexity, coherence, legibility and mystery, have been employed in

analysis of landscape aesthetic experience.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 68

5.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS

5.2.1 GENDER

SOURCE: AUTHOR

The gender distribution in the sample was slightly biased. More females responded to

questionnaires than male (figure 5.1). This may indicate that Dandora has more women than

men. This may also suggest that more women than men work and visit Dandora dumpsite.

49%

51%

Figure 5.1 Respondents' gender distribution

MALE

FEMALE


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 69

5.2.2 MARITAL STATUS

Source: author

Majority of the sample were single while widowed were the least score of

respondents (figure 5.2). This may be an indicator that single people comprise a

majority of the Dumpsite neighbourhood population. This may be an indication of a

larger majority of youth than any other age group.

45%

15% 15%

10%

15%

SINGLE MARRIED DIVORCED WIDOWED OTHER

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Figure 5.2 Respondents' marital status

Column1


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 70

5.2.3 LEVEL OF EDUCATION

Source: author

Secondary school education is the mode level of education of the respondents (figure

5.3). Primary education is a close second. Slightly more than half the respondents

have less than secondary education levels. This may reflect a high number of youth

respondents or a high level of school dropout.

Education levels above secondary school account for about 32%. The overall literacy

level is roughly 85% and raises the confidence in data validity of this research. The

level of education of respondents may be an indicator of how many understand the

questions.

20%

33%

17%15% 15%

PRIMARY SCHOOL SECONDARY SCHOOL TECHNICAL SCHOOLS COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY OTHER

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Figure 5.3 Respondents' level of education

percentage


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 71

5.2.4 OCCUPATION DISTRIBUTION

Source: author

Unemployed respondents formed the largest % of respondents. Their “idleness” may

be the reason for their great availability to respond to questionnaires (figure 5.4).

Self employment comes at a close second. This may be an indicator of social trend in

Dandora. The result indicates initiative of residents. Those who filled ‘other’ ranged

from retirees and employed. Plate 1.1 shows some youth enjoying a game pool within

the dumpsite. It’s a common pastime among Kenyan youth.

25%

35%

22%

18%

SELF EMPLOYED UNEMPLOYED STUDENT OTHER

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Figure 5.4 Respondents' occupation distribution

percentage

Plate 5.1: Locals playing pool at the dumpsite

Source: Author


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 72

5.2.5 AGE DISTRIBUTION

Source: author

The youth were the most interviewed group in the research (figure 5.5). This may

reflect a high population of youth in Dandora than any other age group. This may also

be the reason for the high number of notable youth working at the dumpsite.

The high number of mature respondents (youth upwards) suggests a more critical

approach in answering questions. It raises confidence in the data arrived at from

collection.

10%

50%

23%

17%

MINOR YOUTH MIDDLE AGED SENIOR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Figure 5.5 Respondents' age distribution

%


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 73

5.3 USER EXPERIENCE OF DUMPSITE

5.3.1 DUMPSITE VISIT AND PERIOD OF STAY IN DANDORA

Source: author

The research sought to seek knowledge of period of residence and whether the

individuals visited the dumpsite (figure 5.6).. A majority (80%) of those queried visit

13%

2%

35.00%

5%

35%

2.50%

YES NO

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Figure 5.6 Dumpsite visit and period of stay in Dandora

≤10 YEARS

≤5-10YEARS

≥ 5 YEARS


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 74

the dumpsite. As read from the bar chart, the higher the period of stay in Dandora,

the higher the likelihood of one visiting the dumpsite.

5.3.2 PURPOSE FOR DUMPSITE VISITS

Source: author

Half of individuals interviewed work at the dumpsite (figure 5.7). This may be

attributed to the study situs chosen. The questionnaires were administered near the

gate entrance to the site. Probability of passersby on the route having direct

involvement in dumpsite activity is high.

50%

33%

18%

Figure 5.7 Dumpsite activity by respondents

EMPLOYMENT

WASTE DISPOSAL

OTHER


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 75

5.3.3 GENERAL AESTHETIC PERCEPTION Aesthetic perception was measured using variables of complexity, legibility,

coherence and mystery.

COMPLEXITY Complexity is used to identify scenes that attract interest. Variety in colour, texture

and form can be used to describe items in this analysis. Colour was used in this case.

Adjectives describing extremity in colour were used to judge preference. On average,

the assessment found that a greater number of respondents (70%) found the

Dandora dumpsite landscape having less complexity while 21% found it varied in

colour. 9% were undecided (figure 5.8).

SOURCE: AUTHOR

The random colour distribution of different waste material may be the cause of this

result. A more concentrated colour pattern such as the green of a grove of trees or a

3%

10%

9%

9%

12%

22%

36%

Figure 5.8 Complexity

very varied

varied

slightly varied

neutral

slightly monotonous

monotonous

very monotonous

Plate 5.2: Un-colourful Dandora dumpsite

Source: Author


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 76

vast lawn may have more impact than a collage of different colours. Plate 5.2 shows a

section of the dump with a largely white colour stressed by paper waste.

LEGIBILITY

SOURCE: AUTHOR

Legibility was measured through rating of forms at the dumpsite. Regularity of these

forms was used in the scale. Forms were found to be largely irregular as indicated in

Figure 5.9. Plate 5.3 illustrates a section of some of the garbage mounds that form

the morph scape of the dumpsite.

5%6%

9%

8%

12%

25%

35%

Figure 5.9 Legibility of forms

regular

slightly regular

neutral

slightly irregular

irregular

very irregular

Plate 5.3: Garbage mounds at Dandora

Source: Author


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 77

COHERENCE

SOURCE: AUTHOR

The arrangement of patterns of the dumpsite was used to test this. Respondents were advised

to relate this to planting, appearance of landforms and circulation. The adjective ‘rhythmic’

was used to rate this. The coherence of patterns at the dumpsite was found to be very un-

rhythmic shown figure 5.10. This may draw a conclusion that the dumpsite is poorly arranged.

5%8%

12%

5%

15%

40%

10%

Figure 5.10 Coherence (patterns)

very rythmic

rythmic

slightly rythmic

neutral

slightly random

random

very random

Plate 5.4 Part of planting at Dandora

Source: Author


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 78

MYSTERY

Source: author

Mystery involves the interest a place generates. Other emotions may also arise. This

research sought to enquire the appeal of the dumpsite and whether this landscape

generates interest. Averages of safety, smells and noise were used in this rating. The

results are represented in the pie chart above with interesting as the adjective used to

explain the combination of these. Low noise levels, less distasteful smells and safety

to users are considered interesting.

The dumpsite was found to be uninteresting (figure 5.11). It scored low on noise levels

(is quiet), smells however rated highly as offensive and safety also highly (the site is

unsafe). Walking around the dumpsite felt unsafe as most sections are lonely. Plate

5.5 shows one such lonely section lined with monstrous garbage heaps.

8%

10%

12%

5%15%

40%

10%

Figure 5.11 Mystery (safety and interest)

very interesting

interesting

slightly interesting

neutral

slightly uninterestinguninteresting

very uninteresting

Plate 5.5 Lonely paths characteristic of the dumpsite

Source: Author


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 79

5.4 PREFERENCE AREAS IN PHOTOS

Most liked photos

The most liked photos were 1, 12, 6, 9, 7 and 5. The average of the respondents rating was

used to determine this. Photographs 1, 12 and 6 rated highest and may be considered the

most ideal landscapes. They possess a rich variety in colour, form, patterns and mystery.

Photo 6

Coherence -6 Complexity-6

Legibility- 5 mystery-4

Photo 5



Photo 12



Photo 7



Photo 9



Photo 1




M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 80

Most disliked photographs

The most disliked photos were 8,3,4,10,11 and 2. They received lowest ratings across all

attributes under study. This series composed of dumpsite pictures. Photos 8, 4 and 2 are of

Dandora dumpsite. They were used to derive appreciation of the dump’s qualities. All having

scored low, the dumpsite’s landscape may be said to be ‘unappealing’ to the public.

Photo 4



Photo 11



Photo 10



Photo 8



Photo 3



Photo 2




M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 81

5.5 OBSERVATIONS

SOURCE: AUTHOR

A pre-coded observation checklist, notes and photographs were also used in interpretation of

the dumpsite landscape. Circulation, landform patterns, plant presence, land use and cultural

practice and surface water characteristics were under scrutiny.

The dumpsite appears to have high degree of landform patterns (figure 5.12). The mounds of

waste form an interesting pattern (plate 5.6). Enhancement of the same through planting

may give beautiful results.

Circulation Landform patterns Flora prescence Landuse & cultural practice Surface water characteristics

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Figure 5.12 Observation

coherence

complexity

legibility

mystery

Plate 5.6 Part of the heap mounds

Source: Author


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 82

The circulation presented the highest level of mystery. His may be due to the poorly designed

road. Access to some places also feels unsafe. Coherence of the parameter was high as the

paths are well defined (Plate 5.7). They are motor able but not very pedestrian friendly.

Understanding of the land use and cultural practice was clearer than any other parameter

under observation. Sorting out of waste was main activity on site (plate 5.8). Complexity of

this parameter scored lowly as it’s simplistic and can be read directly

Plate 5.8 Sorted trash at Dandora

Source: Author

Plate 5.7 Well defined road, Dandora dumpsite

Source: Author


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 83

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 84

6.1 INTRODUCTION This research describes how the appearance and feelings generated by experiencing

dumpsites affects people’s appreciation of such landscapes. Landscape aesthetics is vital in

our perception of our spaces. The results of the research explain the findings with reference

to the variables of ‘people perception’ and ‘condition of waste disposal sites’

6.2 CONCLUSIONS

6.2.1 GLOBAL WASTE APPROACHES From the literature review, this research finds that;

There is a move from dumpsite to sanitary landfills (Ghana, USA and now Kenya’s

Ruai proposal)

Use of separation at source to aid in proper recovery, recycling and disposal of non

reusable waste

Material recovery given high priority as first step of treating waste (Zero waste

approach in US)

Open disposal sites around residential a health risk, aesthetic degrading and

environmental hazard (Nairobi’s Dandora and Malami in Accra)

There is massive effort to reduce volume of material to be land filled (Zero waste

approach in US, material recovery strategies in Kenya and Ghana, composting for

organic waste)

6.2.2 INVESTIGATING WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS AND THEIR IMPACTS The research sought to determine how waste is handled in other parts of the world. It also

seeked to know impacts of these options.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 85

6.2.2.1 Landfills

This seems to be the ultimate trend for most cities. The properly designed landfills allow for

recovery of methane that can be used to provide energy.

The environmental issues of primary concern to the community include;

1. Water pollution - i.e. discharges of pollutants to ground and surface waters.

2. Air pollution - i.e. emissions of pollutants to the atmosphere.

3. Land management and conservation-All land is valuable, and the impact of its use

as landfill needs to be sustainable.

4. Hazards and loss of amenity-include fire, birds, dust, odour, pests, vermin and

litter.

It’s important to note that these hazards may occur onsite or offsite.

Landfills however have benefits too;

1. Gas mining

2. In the case of sanitary landfills, waste piles are covered with layer of soil allowing

room for landscaping

3. Leaching levels are kept under control where protective base is applied

4. Less smell

6.2.2.2 Open dumpsites

Open dumpsites are majorly used in developing countries as the main disposal method.

Abandoned land or otherwise designated land is chosen for throwing away of non retrievable

waste substances. In most cases, it’s the lack of capacity and innovation that allows this

disposal.


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 86

Advantages

1. Social benefits-employment

2. Is a disposal option therefore ridding us of waste

3. Source of revenue for Councils

4. Source of recyclable materials

Disadvantages

1. Air pollution-smoke, smell, blowing away of trash

2. Soil and water pollution-leachate

3. Social problems- insecurity

4. Little recovery of energy possible

6.2.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WASTE DISPOSAL SITES AND LANDSCAPE

AESTHETICS Landscape is appreciated by 4 main parameters of coherence, legibility, complexity and

mystery. In the primary data collection, responses for the measure of these parameters

revealed;

Colour was used in this case to measure coherence. Adjectives describing extremity in colour

were used to judge preference. On average, the assessment found that a greater number of

respondents found the Dandora dumpsite landscape having less complexity. This against the

high appreciation for colourful landscape pictures provided shows a desire for the later.

Complexity was viewed in the arrangement of patterns of the dumpsite was used to test this.

Respondents were advised to relate this to planting, appearance of landforms and circulation.

The adjective ‘rhythmic’ was used to rate this. The coherence of patterns at the dumpsite was


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 87

found to be very un-rhythmic. Desire was found for the more orderly landscapes assessed via

photos.

Legibility was measured through rating of forms at the dumpsite. Regularity of these forms

was used in the scale. Forms were found to be largely irregular in Dandora. Strong liking was

found for both regular and irregular forms in the ideal landscapes presented in photos.

The dumpsite was found to be uninteresting in the measure for mystery. It scored low on

noise levels (is quiet), smells however rated highly as offensive and safety also highly (the site

is unsafe). Walking around the dumpsite felt unsafe as most sections are lonely. Mystery in

the pictures sampled scored highly. According to this research’s scale of judgement, appeal

lies to mystery of spaces.

6.2.4 PERCEPTION TO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IN NAIROBI An appreciation for;

Efforts in after hours clean up by the local councils

Creation of employment through waste handling

Solid waste disposal sites as source of material

A dislike for;

Unpicked litter along roadsides

Poor sorting strategies a risk to scavengers

Air pollution by open dumpsite burning a threat to health and interferes with

enjoyment of our spaces

Water pollution by waste


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 88

6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS The experience of people living around dump sites is greatly affected by the quality of their

space. The chain of movement of waste from consumers to disposal spaces also affected

appreciation of the environment.

6.3.1 IN COLLECTION Sorting out of waste at collection points. Educate the public on waste benefits and

sorting helps. This is important to achieve greater levels of resource recovery. More

orderly waste is less irritating to visual experience. Careless waste piling in street s

(Plate 6.1) is distasteful while clearly labelled is rather appealing (plate 6.2). Order

may boost aesthetic value of spaces.

Adequate provision of waste bins and papers to accommodate clients (whether public

or private )

Regular waste collection to avoid overflow spilling and tearing at bags and bins by

animals and scavengers.

Use of covered trucks in transport to avoid spillage of waste along roads

6.3.2 RECOVERY Community involvement by educating on importance of material recovery and

encouraging reuse and recycling. This reduce entry of waste to the environment

Proper sorting out space at disposal area in dump areas for safe working conditions

Plate6.1 Disorderly collection


Plate6.2 Orderly sorting at source


Box 2.5 Components of engineered landfill

• Liner system at the base and sides of the landfill - prevents migration of leachate or gas to the surrounding environment;

• Leachate collection and treatment system - collects and


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 89

6.3.3 DISPOSAL OF UNRECOVERABLE MATERIAL Land filling of waste with no further use. Intense recovery reduces the volume of

material going to landfills .this reduces environmental impacts of waste.

Covering up of waste in landfills reduces chances of blowing away hence reduces

air pollution. Also cuts down on smoke pollution often witnessed in open dumpsite

burning (plate 6.3).

Biog degrading through composting to reduce volume of landfill waste

6.3.4 IN ENHANCING LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS Proper landscaping of dump sites to boost landscape aesthetics. Variety of planting

with consideration to toxins removal from soils and air quality improvement other

than boosting visual excitement.

Engineered landfills to avoid pollution of water by open dumpsites

Harvesting of methane gas in sanitary landfills will help reduce impacts of waste

smells on air quality appreciation.

Introducing monumental features (Plate 6.4) in the landscape to identify with the site.

Appeal leans to familiarity with spaces and it components.

Plate6.3 Smoke pollution at Dandora

Source: author

Plate6.4 Sculptural topiary as monument

Source:Google images


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 90

Questionnaire

1

APPENDICES


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 91

again

APPENDIX 1: REFERENCES 1. Allen R. Barlow: Gestalt Therapy and Gestalt Psychology. Gestalt – Antecedent Influence or Historical Accident, in: The Gestalt Journal, Volume

IV, Number 2, Fall, 1981

2. Anna University (AU), Dumpsite Rehabilitation and Landfill Mining, retrieved 31st March 2012

3. anonymous ,www.Kenyainformationguide.com/history_of_Nairobi,retrieved 7th May,2012

4. Appleton, J. 1975. The experience of landscape. 292 p. Wiley, London

5. Bell, J. (1999) Doing your research project: A guide for first time researchers in education and social science. 3rd Edition. Buckingham: Open

University Press

6. Bonaparte, R., Daniel, D., Koerner, R., “Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment Systems”

US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research Development EPA/XXX/R-02/XXX Cincinnati, OH March (2002).

7. CBS (2001). “Counting our People for Development” Population and Housing Census. Vol.1. Central Bureau of Statistics, Nairobi

8. CCN (2007). “City of Nairobi Environment Outlook”. City Council of Nairobi, UNEP and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlement.

86p.http://www.unep.org/DEWA/Africa/docs/en/NCEO_Report_FF_New_Text.pdf(Accessed on 16 June 2012)

9. CCN, A Strategic Health Plan for the Nairobi Area - Development Solution for Africa. Nairobi City Council, 1992, Nairobi, Kenya

10. Dalemo M. (1999) Environmental systems analysis of organic waste management: The ORWARE model and the sewage plant and anaerobic

digestion sub-models, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

11. Daniel T. C. (2001). Measuring Landscape Aesthetics. The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. Fort Collins Collorado; USDA forest service

Research Paper RM-167

12. EAUC. “Waste management” .Online. May 27,2012.http://www.eauc.org.uk/waste_management

13. Ecocycle, http://www.gmafoundations.com/?p=1664, retrieved 8th May, 2012

14. EMCA act ,G.o.K, 1999

15. US EPA (2007), US EPA, Municipal Solid Waste Fact Sheet 2007, http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-fs.pdf

16. Everett, Jess. "Waste". Pollution A to Z, 2004. Encyclopedia.com. retrieved May 27, 2012

17. Freshkills , http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/fkl/fkl_index.shtml, retrieved April 5, 201

18. Gochfeld, Michael. "Municipal Solid Waste." Encyclopaedia of Public Health”. 2002. Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 27 May. 2012

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

http://encyclopedia.com/

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404000560.html

http://encyclopedia.com/


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 92

again 19. Hogland, K.H.W., Jagodzinski, K. and Meijer, J.E. (1995). “Landfill Mining Tests in Sweden”. In: Process. Sardinia 95, Fifth International Landfill

Symposium, 2-6 October 1995, Cagliari, Italy.

20. Jessel, J.A. (2006),the visual element of landscape, Amherst M.A. University of Massachusetts press

21. JICA (1998) the Study on Solid Waste Management in Nairobi city (Master plan of solid waste management in Nairobi) Japan International

Cooperation Agency,

22. JICA (2010)., Preparatory survey for integrated Solid Waste Management in Nairobi city (Master plan of solid waste management in Nairobi),

JICA

23. Julia ,2008 , Eric Lombardi's Zero Waste Park, http://www.worldchanging.com/ retrieved May 10th 2012

24. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. (1988). The experience of nature. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

25. Karekezi, S. (2002). Renewables in Africa – meeting the energy needs of the poor. Energy Policy 30(2002) 1059-1069. Elsevier. Oxford, UK.

26. KENAO (2007),”Managing solid waste in Nairobi City”, KENAO pdf

27. Kenya guide, www.kenyainformationguide.com, retrieved 6th may 2012

28. Kenya Vision 2030, (2007) Kenya Vision 2030. G.O.K

29. Kothari CR, 1990; Research Methodology; Methods and Techniques; New Delhi: Wishwa Prakashan.

30. Lombardi (2010), http://www.gmafoundations.com/?p=1664, retrieved 8th May, 2012

31. Lothian A. (1999), Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape duality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?

Landscape and urban planning 44:177-198

32. McKinsey & company, Sustainable urban infrastructure-London edition, Siemens AG,2008

33. Meinel, j., 1996. Solid waste advisor to Accra, Accra gazette, October 16.

34. Michal R.A (2003) Aesthetic judgement. New York, Crowell

35. Mitullah, W. (2003). “Understanding Slums: Case Studies for the Global Report on Human Settlements 2003: The Case of Nairobi, Kenya”.

UNHABITAT, Nairobi

36. Mugenda, M and Mugenda, 1999: Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches ; Nairobi ACTS Press

37. Nasar Jack, 1988, “Environmental aesthetics”, Cambridge University Press pg343

38. NEMA (2003). State of the Environment Report for Kenya, 2003. National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), Nairobi NEMA (2008)

39. NETWAS (undated). Resource Booklet on Pollution Monitoring Activities. Nairobi River Basin Programme Phase III. Network for Water and

Sanitation (NETWAS), Nairobi.



M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 93

again 40. Olima, W (2001). “Dynamics and Implications of Sustaining Urban Spatial Segregation in Kenya – Experiences from Nairobi Metropolis”. A

paper presented at the International Seminar on Segregation in the City held at Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in Cambridge, USA, World

Health Organization (WHO)

41. Omondi George (2011), Business Daily, 31st Oct, 2011,www.nationmedia.co.ke,retrieved 30th May,2012

42. OSU Extension Bulletin 792-95, the Composting Process.

43. OSU Extension Fact Sheet CDFS 108-98, Recycling.

44. OSU Extension Fact Sheet CDFS 112, Community and Household Recycling Efforts.

45. OSU Extension Fact Sheet CDFS 114-98, The Consumer’s Role in Plastic Recycling.

46. OSU Extension Fact Sheet CDFS 115-91, Office Paper Recycling.

47. OSU Extension Fact Sheet CDFS 121, Recycling Newsprint in Ohio.

48. OSU Extension Fact Sheet CDFS-137-05, Landfills: Science and Engineering Aspect

49. OSU Extension Fact Sheet CDFS-138-05, Landfill Types and Liner Systems. OSU Extension Fact Sheet CDFS-137-05, Landfills: Science and

Engineering Aspects.

50. OSU Extension Fact Sheet CDFS-139-05, Bioreactor Landfills.

51. OSU Extension Fact Sheet COM-0001-99, Composting at Home. 52. Palmer, Paul (2005). Getting to Zero Waste. Purple Sky Press. ISBN 0-9760571-0-7. http://www.gettingtozerowaste.com/.

53. Pugh M. (1999) “The path to affordable landfills”, Journal of Waste Management, October 1999,pp. 58-59

54. R.K. Henry et al. / Waste Management 26 (2006) 92–100“Managing solid waste in Nairobi City”,KENAO,2007.pdf

55. Rakodi, C. (1997). “The Urban Challenge in Africa: Growth and Management of its Large Cities”. United Nations, University Press, Tokyo.

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu26ue/uu26ue00.htm (Accessed on 29 December 2008)

56. Rapport A (1977) Human Aspects of Urban Form. Oxford; Pergamon

57. Richard j. Palezynski (2002) study on solid management options for Africa

58. Sklenička p., 2003. Základy krajinného plánování. Praha,n. Skleničková: 209–285.

59. South worth M. (1969) the sonic environment of cities. Environment and behaviour 1;49-70

60. Sternberg, Robert, (2003)Cognitive Psychology Third Edition, Thomson Wadsworth© 2003

61. Syagga, P. (1992). “Problems of Solid Waste Management in Urban Residential Areas in Kenya”. In The Proceedings of African Research

Network for Urban Management (ARNUM) Workshop: Urban Management in Kenya, (ed. J. Malombe), University of Nairobi

62. Trash timeline, www.bfi-salins.com/kids_trash_timeline-printer.cfm)

http://www.bfi-salins.com/kids_trash_timeline-printer.cfm


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 94

again

63. UNEP (1992) Rio declaration on environment and development, United Nations publication,. Sales No. E.73.II.A.14 and corrigendum), chap. I.

64. UNEP (2005), Selection, design and implementation of Economic instruments in the Solid Waste Management Sector in Kenya, the Case of

Plastic bags

65. UNEP (2010), Integrated solid waste management plan for the City of Nairobi, Kenya 2010-2020

66. UNEP 2000. Pollution Assessment Report of the Nairobi River basin Project. Prepared by Africa Water Network. P. F. Okoth and P. Otieno

(eds.), UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.

67. Unwin, K.I. (1975) the relationship of observer and landscape in landscape evaluation. In Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,

no.66, 130-133.

68. US EPA, (1988)“Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,” US Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, D.C., July (1988b).

69. Valenta C.W (2008) The Experimental Psychology of Beauty. London; Methuen

70. Vorel B. H (2006) Abstract and specific physical attributes and the experience of landscape. Journal of environmental management,34,159-177

71. World Bank (1999),” What a waste – Solid waste management in Asia” Urban and Local Government Working Papers, The International Bank

for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK, 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

72. Zeisel, J,(1981)Enquiry by design, Cambridge University Press

73. Zube E.H. et al (1982). Landscape perception: research, application and theory; landscape planning. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson

and Ross


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 95

APPENDIX 2: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE

JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY

P.O. BOX 62000-00100, TEL 067-52181, 52711


[email protected]

QUESTIONNAIRE 1

Topic: Significance of urban solid waste disposal areas on environmental aesthetics

Declaration: Information gathered from this study is for academic study only

This study is based on Dandora dumpsite visual scene. Therefore questions are in reference to the particular Dumpsite.

A: Personal details

a) Gender : Male Female

b) Marital status: Single Married Divorced Widowed

Other........................................................

CHAPTER FOUR


NO:...................

TOOL 1/2

mailto:[email protected]


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 96

again c) Occupation : Self employed Unemployed Student Other...........

d) Age : Minors Youth Middle aged Senior

e) Education : Primary sch. Secondary sch. Technical sch. College/uni

Other............................................................................................

B: User experience

i) How long have you lived/worked around Dandora dumpsite?

Less than 5years ≤5-10years ≤10years Never

ii) Do you visit the dumpsite?

Yes No

iii) If yes, how often do you visit the dumpsite?

Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Other

iv) Why do you visit the dumpsite?

Waste disposal Employment Other

v) How would you rate Dandora dumpsite; ?(4 being neutral)

Beautiful [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] Ugly


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 97

again How would you rate the dumpsite in terms of?

a). Colour : Vibrant [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] Monotonous

b). Texture : Rough [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] Soft

c). Plant pattern : Rhythmic [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] Random

d) Physical features: Clear [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] Vague

e) Form : Not regular [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] Regular

vi) How would you rate the smells from the dumpsite

Not offensive [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] offensive

vii) How would you rate the noise originating from the dumpsite?

Loud [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] soft

viii) How would you rate waste separation at the dumpsite?

Good [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] bad

ix) How do you feel around the dumpsite?

Safe [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] unsafe

x) What challenges does the dumpsite bring to this area?


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 98

c: Scene appreciation

Photo 4

Photo 11

Photo 10

Photo 6

Photo 5

Photo 12

Photo 7

Photo 9

Photo 8

Photo 3

Photo 2

Photo 1


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 99

again How would you rate the appeal of the landscapes above in terms of;

a). Colour (how beautiful) b) patterns (how varied) c) forms(how regular) d)mystery (how interesting)

1 represents least value while 7 is the highest. For example, ticking 7 for colour means it is very beautiful. 4 represents neither beautiful nor not

beautiful (average).

Photo

1

Colour [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Patterns [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Forms [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Mystery [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Photo

2

Colour [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Patterns [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Forms [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Mystery [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Photo

3

Colour [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Patterns [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Forms [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Mystery [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Photo

4

Colour [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Patterns [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Forms [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Mystery [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Photo 7 Colour [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Patterns [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Forms [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Mystery [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Photo

8

Colour [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Patterns [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Forms [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Mystery [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Photo 9 Colour [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Patterns [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Forms [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Mystery [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Photo

10

Colour [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Patterns [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Forms [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

Mystery [1 2 3 4 5 6 7]


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 100

again

APPENDIX 3: SAMPLE CHECKLIST

JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY

P.O. BOX 62000-00100, TEL 067-52181, 52711


[email protected]

OBSERVATION CHECKLIST

Declaration: Information gathered from this study is for academic study only

Valued landscape elements such as landforms, water characteristics, flora, fauna, and cultural features are featured used in determining the measure of scenic attractiveness of waste water.

LANDSCAPE

ELEMENTS

PARAMETERS OF

AESTHETICS

LOCATION AND

ACCESSIBILITY

SAFETY IN

LANDSCAPE

ELEMENTS

CONDITION OF

LANDSCAPE

ELEMENTS

NO:...................

TOOL 2/2

CHAPTER FOUR


mailto:[email protected]


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 101

Circulation

characteristics e.g.

paths, walkways, roads

1. Complexity

Colour

Texture

Form

2. Formality

Regular

Irregular

3. Legibility pattern

Rhythmic

Random

Good

Average

Poor

Good

Average

Poor

Good

Average

Poor

Landform patterns and

features e.g. rock

features, shapes

1.Complexity

Colour

Texture

Form

2Formality

Regular

Irregular

3Legibility pattern

Rhythmic

Random

Good

Average

Poor

Good

Average

Poor

Good

Average

Poor


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 102

again

Flora presence 1.Complexity

Colour

Texture

Form

2Formality

Regular

Irregular

3Legibility pattern

Rhythmic

Random

Good

Average

Poor

Good

Average

Poor

Good

Average

Poor

Land use and cultural

practices

1.Complexity

Colour

Texture

Form

2Formality

Regular

Irregular

3Legibility pattern

Rhythmic

Random

Good

Average

Poor

Good

Average

Poor

Good

Average

Poor


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 103

again Surface water

characteristics

1.Complexity

Colour

Texture

Form

2Formality

Regular

Irregular

3Legibility pattern

Rhythmic

Random

Good

Average

Poor

Good

Average

Poor

Good

Average

Poor


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 104

APPENDIX 4 http://nairobi.wantedinafrica.com/news


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page 105

APPENDIX 5 http://nationmedia.co.ke/news

http://nationmedia.co.ke/news


M i k u r o A . M . A b 2 4 2 - 0 1 3 4 / 0 7

Page

106

APPENDIX 6

www.nationmedia.co.ke

mikuro thesis 2012-perception to dumpsites-case of dandora

Documents