Hudson Dissertation

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND URBAN LIVEABILITY IN MUBENDE
DISTRICT: A CASE OF KYENDA TOWN COUNCIL
BY
MUHANGWE HUDSON MUGUME

22/MMSUBG/KLA/AUG/00119
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF CIVIL SERVICE, PUBLIC

ADMINISTRATION & GOVERNANCE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MASTERS DEGREE
IN MANAGEMENT STUDIES (URBAN GOVERNANCE &
MANAGEMENT) OF UGANDA MANAGEMENT
INSTITUTE
OCTOBER, 2023
DECLARATION
I, MUHANGWE HUDSON MUGUME, declare that this dissertation entitled “Solid Waste
Management and Urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council” is my original work and it has not
been presented to any other institution for any academic award. This has been duly acknowledged
where other people’s work has been used.
Sign ……………………………………. Date………………………………..

MUHANGWE HUDSON MUGUME
22/MMSUBG/KLA/AUG/00119
i
APPROVAL
This is to certify that this dissertation by MUHANGWE HUDSON MUGUME entitled, “Solid
Waste Management and Urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council.” has been submitted for
examination with my approval as Institute supervisor.
Sign ……………………………………. Date………………………………..
Dr. Michael Galukande Kiganda
SUPERVISOR
Uganda Management Institute
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family members, especially my dear wife, my children, and
my parents, for their support and moral encouragement.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am deeply indebted to my research supervisors Dr. Michael Galukande Kiganda his patience as
he guided me through the research process. Without their parental and professional input, this
research would have been difficult to elevate to its current level.
I acknowledge with gratitude the contributions and cooperation made by the respondents from
Kyenda Town Council for their willingness to provide the necessary information during the
research process. Without their cooperation, this study would have been impossible to
accomplish.
I also thank my colleagues at Uganda Management Institute, persons who dealt with secretarial
work, and those who read through the questionnaires and perfected the draft report.
I deeply treasure the above persons' contributions and ask God Almighty to richly bless them.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION............................................................................................................................i
APPROVAL...................................................................................................................................ii
DEDICATION..............................................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...........................................................................................................iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................................xi
LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................xii
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................xiii
CHAPTER ONE............................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Background of the Study...........................................................................................................1
1.2.1 Historical background.............................................................................................................1
1.2.2 Theoretical background..........................................................................................................4
1.2.3 Conceptual background..........................................................................................................5
1.2.4 Contextual background...........................................................................................................6
1.3 Statement of the problem...........................................................................................................7
1.4 Purpose of the study...................................................................................................................8
1.5 Specific objectives.....................................................................................................................8
1.6 Research questions.....................................................................................................................8
1.7 Hypotheses of the study.............................................................................................................8
1.8 Conceptual framework...............................................................................................................9
v
1.9 Justification of the study..........................................................................................................10
1.10 Significance of the study.......................................................................................................10
1.11 Scope of the study..................................................................................................................11
1.11.1 Content scope......................................................................................................................11
1.11.2 Geographical scope.............................................................................................................11
1.11. Time Scope...........................................................................................................................12
1.12 Operational Definitions of Terms and Concepts...................................................................12
CHAPTER TWO.........................................................................................................................13
LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................................14
2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................14
2.2 Theoretical review...................................................................................................................14
2.3 Actual Literature Review.........................................................................................................15
2.3.1 Solid Waste Management and Urban Liveability.................................................................15
2.3.2 Waste recycling and re use on urban liveability...................................................................16
2.3.3. Waste disposal and urban liveability...................................................................................19
2.3.4 Waste composting and urban liveability...............................................................................20
2.4 Summary of Literature Review and Gaps Identified...............................................................22
CHAPTER THREE.....................................................................................................................22
METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................23
3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................23
3.2. Research design......................................................................................................................23
3.3 Study population......................................................................................................................23
3.4 Determination of the sample size............................................................................................23
3.5 Sample techniques and procedures..........................................................................................24
3.6 Data collection methods..........................................................................................................25
vi
3.6.2 Interview...............................................................................................................................25
3.6.3 Observations.........................................................................................................................26
3.6.4 Document Review Method...................................................................................................26
3.7 Data collection instruments.....................................................................................................26
3.7.1 Questionnaire........................................................................................................................26
3.7.2 Interview guide.....................................................................................................................27
3.7.3 Observation checklist............................................................................................................27
3.7.4 Document Review Checklist................................................................................................27
3.8 Data quality control.................................................................................................................28
3.8.1 Validity of instruments.........................................................................................................28
3.8.2 Reliability of instruments.....................................................................................................30
3.8.3 Conformability of instruments..............................................................................................30
3.8.4 Transferability of instruments...............................................................................................31
3.9 Procedure of data collection....................................................................................................31
3.10 Data analysis..........................................................................................................................31
3.10.1 Quantitative analysis...........................................................................................................31
3.10.2 Qualitative analysis.............................................................................................................32
3.11 Variable measurement...........................................................................................................32
3.11 Ethical consideration.............................................................................................................33
CHAPTER FOUR.......................................................................................................................34
PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION, AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS..................................34
4.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................34
4.2 Response Rate..........................................................................................................................34
4.3 Background Information..........................................................................................................34
4.3.1 Administrative level..............................................................................................................34
vii
4.3.2 Age of respondent.................................................................................................................35
4.3.3. Sex of the respondent...........................................................................................................36
4.3.5 Employment status................................................................................................................37
4.3.6 Highest level of education....................................................................................................38
4.4 Findings per Objective.............................................................................................................38
4.4.1 Urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council..........................................................................39
4.4.2 Waste recycling and urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council.........................................42
4.4.2 Waste disposal and urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council...........................................45
4.4.3 Waste composting and urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council.....................................47
4.5 Multiple Regression analysis on Solid Waste Management and urban liveability.................50
CHAPTER FIVE.........................................................................................................................54
SUMMARY, DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............54
5.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................54
5.2 Summary of the Study.............................................................................................................54
5.3 Discussion of findings.............................................................................................................54
5.4 Conclusions..............................................................................................................................56
viii
5.5 Recommendations....................................................................................................................58
5.6 Limitations of the study...........................................................................................................60
5.7 Areas recommended for further study.....................................................................................60
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................61
APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................66
APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RESPONDENTS....................................................66
APPENDIX II: INTERVIEW GUIDE......................................................................................71
APPENDIX III: OBSERVATION CHECKLIST....................................................................72
APPENDIX III: SAMPLING GUIDE.......................................................................................73
APPENDIX IV: PLAGIARISM REPORT...............................................................................74
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Sample size determination …………………………………………………………….23
Table 3.2: A summary of content validity for the questionnaire………………………………….29
Table 3.3: Reliability test results of research instruments………………………………………...30
Table 4.4: Response rate…………………………………………………………………………..34
Table 4.5: Administrative level for the Respondents.…………………………………………….35
Table 4.6: Sex of the Respondents………………………………………………………………..36
Table 4.7: Employment status for the Respondents………………………………………………37
Table 4.8: Opinions of respondents on Urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council……………..39
Table 4.9: Opinions of respondents on Waste recycling and Urban liveability in Kyenda Town
Council…………………………………………………………………………………………….42
Table 4.10: Opinions of respondents on Waste disposal and urban liveability in Kyenda Town
Council…………………………………………………………………………………………….45
Table 4.11: Opinions of respondents on Waste composting and urban liveability in Kyenda Town
Council…………………………………………………………………………………………….47
Table 4.12: ANOVA for Solid Waste Management on urban liveability………………………...50
Table 4.13: Multiple regression results for Solid Waste Management on urban liveability……...51
Table 4.14: The regression coefficient of determination for Solid Waste Management on urban
liveability………………………………………………………………………………………….52
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Shows the effect of solid waste management on urban liveability in Kyenda Town
Council……………………………………………………………………………………………...9
Figure 3.2: Content Validation Procedure………………………………………………………...28
Figure 4.3: Age of respondents……………………………………………………………………35
Figure 4.4: Time spent on the job (in years);………………………………………………..........37
Figure 4.5: The highest level of education………………………………………………………..38
xi
LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS
APEC: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
EIU: Economic Intelligent Unit
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
ILO: International Labor Organization
LMICs: Low-to Middle-Income Countries
MSW: Municipal Solid Waste
NEMA: National Environmental Management Authority
SDGs: Sustainable Development Goals
UN: United Nations
UNDESA: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
xii
ABSTRACT
The study examined the contribution of Solid Waste Management to urban liveability in Kyenda
Town Council. The study was specifically premised on the following research objectives; to
examine the contribution of waste recycling to urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council, to
determine the contribution of waste disposal to urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council and to
assess the contribution of waste composting to urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council. Out of
159 questionnaires issued, 103 were returned fully completed, constituting (65%), On the other
hand, the researcher held, (15) interview sessions, out of the planned (10), resulting in a (60%)
percentage return. The study employed cross sectional survey design was both quantitative and
qualitative data were used in the study. The results of ANOVA indicated that the regression
model was significant, F Ratio (F = 3, 103) = 13.076, p = 0.00, meaning, Solid Waste
Management can lead to improved urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council. Computing
Pearson Correlation Coefficient, Adjusted R2 = 0.539 indicated that the regression model with the
three dimensions (waste recycling, waste disposal, and waste composting) accounted for 54% of
that variation in urban liveability was explained by Solid Waste Management while other
variables not mentioned in the model explain the remaining variance of 46%. Results for the
coefficient of determination revealed that each of the respective independent variables was
significant since the P- value < 0.05 (waste recycling β = 0.436, p= 0.01, waste disposal β =
0.405, p= 0.000, waste composting β = 0.669, p = 0.003). The study recommended that the
Kyenda Town Council government should increase funding towards solid waste management and
Kyenda Town Council to avail enough resources for proper solid waste management. Town
council should introduce waste taxes that will generate revenue for effective management of solid
waste. A link should be established between recycling companies and communities’ groups. This
will serve two purposes, one it will reduce the amount of garbage entering the waste stream and as
such costs of having to transport it to the landfill where companies currently collect it. And two, it
will create employment and income for the communities while at the same time reduce on the
garbage problem and saving landfill space. Resource recovery facilities may be built on the way
to or near the final disposal sites so that residual wastes from recovery facilities can be brought
efficiently for disposal. Community level composting may be efficient and easier to manager
xiii
community level composting can be undertaken at the local level, thus it will save money and
resources for the Town Council.
xiv
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
International agendas such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the New Urban
Agenda, and the Healthy Cities movement increasingly call for urban settings to promote health
and environmental resilience (Wahab, 2018). The prioritization of creating healthy, liveable and
sustainable cities responds to an established evidence base supporting the link between cities and
health and wellbeing outcomes as well as responding to the global trends of rapid population
growth and urbanization. For example, already half of the world’s population lives in cities, and
an estimated two-thirds of people was living in urban settlements by 2050, with the most rapid
rates of urbanization occurring in Low-to Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) (World Economic
Forum, 2018). Livability indicators that are grouped under five weighted categories, namely,
stability (25%), healthcare (20%), culture and environment (25%), education (10%), and
infrastructure (20%). As shown in Table 1, cities are rated between 0 (intolerable) and 100 (ideal)
based on their performance or fulfillment of the livability measures.
The increasing urbanization rising standards of living and rapid social and economic development
associated with population growth has resulted in to increased solid waste generation by
domestic, industrial, trading and commercial activities (Ackerman, 2020). This study examined
the effect of solid waste management on urban livability in Kyenda Town Council. This chapter
presents the background of the study, the problem statement, the purpose of the study, objectives
of the study, research questions, and conceptual framework. The chapter also presents
significance of the study, scope of study and definitions to key concepts and terms.
1.2 Background of the Study
This section highlights the background of the study, developed from the four dimensional
approach of the historical, the theoretical, the conceptual and the contextual background, as
advanced by Amin (2005).
1.2.1 Historical background
The history of urban livability can be traced in the late 1950s, where it emerged as a key concept
in Dutch rural geography against the background of concerns over rural citizenship. In the
1960s and 1970s, livability was at the core of post-materialist values that rose to prominence
in the urban arena (APEC, 2015). Urban social movements used the concept to contest the
1
excesses of the prevailing growth-centered urban politics and the doctrine of modern
functionalism. In the 1970s and 1980s livability was also used by urban government to
promote a new kind of active citizenship, while in the 1990s livability was increasingly used
by urban government and housing corporations to influence the social composition of urban
neighborhoods (Ellis & Mark, 2016). Despite the wide-ranging and relatively subjective
interpretations of the latter constructs, numerous indices and measurement tools were
developed over the last three decades to rank cities according to the amenities and
opportunities afforded to their residents and visitors. Surveys and interviews are conducted
around the world, and the representative samples of respondents are drawn from Asia (30%),
the Americas (30%), Europe (30%), and other parts of the world (10%). The EIU livability
ranking compares 127 world cities and publishes annual reports that do not only list the top
10 best and worst cities in terms of livability but also cities that have achieved remarkable
progress in their livability over the last 5 years (Chiwanza, 2018).
Liveability studies in Africa have received less attention owing to numerous challenges facing the
continent. Besides, case studies are also limited due to few interventions. Demographic shift and
infrastructural milieu are some of the major challenges affecting liveability in urban settlements in
the continent (Mfune et al. 2016). Africa is the second largest and also the second most populous
continent with 1.1 billion people (in 2013) constituting about 15% of the world’s total population.
Estimates indicate that Africa was predominantly urban by 2030 (World Bank 2009; UN-Habitat
2022). African settlements have undergone rapid urbanization in the last 50 years (UN-Habitat
2011). Africa has 17 of the world’s 100 fastest growing cities (Hoornweg and Pope 2017; World
Economic Forum, 2018). If the current trend is maintained, Africa could, in 2050, be the home of
a quarter of the world urban population (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Population Division 2015; Hoornweg and Pope 2017; World Economic Forum 2018).
Unfortunately, this observed form of urbanization in Africa has been dubbed the “urbanization of
poverty” triggered by hinterland migration induced by elusive employment opportunity, famine,
crisis/war, political instability, and/or environmental degradation Rapid rate of urbanization,
particularly the growth of large cities and the challenges associated with unemployment, poverty,
inadequate healthcare facilities, poor sanitation and water provision, burgeoning slum, and
squalor and environmental degradation, are formidable challenges. These challenges are rendering
the living environment vulnerable to disasters in many developing countries. Within this
2
precarious situation, the urban poor have to make difficult choices with regard to where they
reside in Africa (UN-Habitat 2007, 2011, 2012; Agbola 2011; Kasim 2018).
In Uganda improving urban liveability and prosperity has been often set as a priority in urban
development plans and policy around the world (UN-HABITAT, 2013). Annually, several
reports produced by international consulting firms (Mercer, 2017), media (Monocle, 2017) or
global agencies (UN-HABITAT, 2013) rank urban liveability based on a set of indicators to
explore the quality of life in cities. Kampala is ranked as the best liveable city in East Africa
mainly because of the low cost of living, incl. cheap prices of food, shelter, electricity as well
as high personal safety, considered as a crucial factor for multinational companies sending
employees abroad (Maryam et al., 2019). Despite the good place in the ranking, however, the
city’s infrastructure is struggling to keep up with the rapid pace of urban expansion. Around
70% of 1.5 million inhabitants in Kampala lives in informal settlements and poor quality
housing relying on communal standpipes, water vendors and public wells (Heymans, Eales,
and Franceys, 2014). The figure for water access in Kampala is estimated to be 80% while
less than 1% of (around 400,000) households own a toilet facility (UBoS, 2017).
The development of cities and towns, with their concentrations of population and land use density
created the need for organized solid waste management (Herbert, 2007). Religion, aesthetics and
concerns for public health lay at the foundation of solid waste management systems in ancient
cities as early as 2000 BC. By 500 BC the Greeks had organized the first acknowledged
"municipal dumps" in the Western world and issued the first known edict against throwing
garbage in the streets (Hickman et al, 2010). The littering of organic wastes creates favorable
conditions for rodents and other vectors of disease. Indeed, the plague or Black Death in
fourteenth century Europe may be partly attributed to the practice of littering of organic wastes in
the unpaved streets, roadways and vacant land in cities of that era. Solid waste management
during this period was conducted by or on behalf of individual property owner (Al-Jarrah & Abu-
Qdais, 2006). It consisted of removing the waste from the building and discarding it onto the land,
either uncovered or buried. Human and animal waste was often applied to the land as fertilizer. In
some cases, Solid waste was used as fuel for indoor burners and destroyed in fireplaces or outdoor
bonfires. Food waste was often fed to animals, particularly swine. Waste was also deposited in
open bodies of water, such as ponds, bogs, lakes, rivers and the ocean. However, for the most
part, pre-industrial cities in both Europe and America suffered from poor sanitation and an
3
absence of waste management services.
In Asia, an estimated 1.2 billion tons of municipal solid waste was generated in 2016, and this
figure is anticipated toincrease to 1.5 billion tons by 2030, and 1.9 billion tons by 2050 (World
Bank, 2018). Despite this alarming increase, managing municipal solid waste (MSW) remains a
low priority for most Asian cities, particularly when compared with investment in sectors such as
infrastructure and transport. Moreover, municipal solid waste disposal in Asia relies heavily on
landfill sites, due to lower costs compared to recycling, incineration, or composting (Terazono et
al. 2005). Rapid urban expansion, failure to separate waste at source, complicated collection
processes, open dumping, and unregulated GHG emissions are critical problems exacerbating
Asia’s SWM problem (Dhokhikah and Trihadiningrum, 2012).
Inclusion of the public in decision making in Solid Waste Management (SWM) in East Africa
began in the late 1990’s where the focus was and remains primary on collection services. The
International Labour Organization (ILO) began to experiment with micro franchising in 1998 in
Dar es Salaam and since then has disseminated this inclusive service model to many East African
cities. Moshi is one of the reference cities in starting to expand collection coverage with micro-
franchising. Nairobi, is another reference city that has embraced private collection zones on a
private-private arrangements which the Nairobi city council begun to regulate in 2006 (UN-
habitant 2020). Various Urban councils have different ways of managing their solid waste of
collecting, transporting and disposing of waste.
Solid Waste Management (SWM) is a major responsibility of urban authorities which consumes
between 20% and 50% of the Municipal budgets in developing countries. In Uganda, Solid Waste
Management is a decentralized function to the respective urban Authorities according to the Local
Government Act, 1997 and the Constitution of Uganda 1995. In addition, the Ministry of Local
Government has developed the Harmonized Participatory Planning Guide for Lower Local
Governments (Nabukera, 2020), as well as the District and Urban Development Planning
Guidelines (2006), all of which were developed to empower Local and Urban Councils to
embrace Community participation.
1.2.2 Theoretical background
The study was guided Waste Management Theory of Prongracz et al (2004). The Waste
Management Theory is a unified body of knowledge about waste and its management. It is
founded on the expectation that waste management is to prevent waste to cause harm to human
4
health and environment and promote resources’ use optimization. It is argued that waste
management theory is built under the paradigm of Industrial Ecology, and their side-by-side
advancement can greatly contribute to the development of a sustainable agenda of waste
management.
The Theory of Waste Management is based on the assumption that waste management is to
prevent waste causing harm to human health and the environment, and application of waste
management leads to conservation of resources. However, Industrial Ecology successfully
combines waste minimization and resources use optimization measures, and ensure that resources
are effectively circulated within ecosystems. Research continues to evolve the Theory of Waste
Management, which helps in incorporating environmental concerns into industrial process and
product which explains how the problem of solid waste management could be addressed through
reduction in consumption, hence less solid waste.
The theory advocates activities which include: avoidance of waste creation/ prevention, reduction
of waste, recycling and resource recovery, storage, transportation and disposal using appropriate
technologies. In this study, the Theory of Waste Management explains or underpins effective
Solid waste management. It concerns prevention of waste creation on streets and in public places
which requires the community to work in partnership for a sustainable environment. With less
solid waste, solid waste management costs collection and disposal are reduced. This theory agrees
with the waste management methods of reduce, reuse, recycle and recover in attempt to consume
less and less. It is this theory that seems to have informed policy in Uganda on solid waste
management regulation (Ministry of Local Governments, 2003); it draws attention to the need for
an integrated approach that ensures the full participation of all in waste management.
1.2.3 Conceptual background
This section looks at the definitions from various scholars regarding the variables in the study.
The term solid waste is used to refer to municipal waste and can be categorized in seven
groups. They are residential (or household or domestic waste, commercial, institutional street
sweeping) construction and demolition, sanitation and industrial waste (Gombya &
Mukunya, 2020). Another scholar, Danbuzu (2021), defined Solid waste management as the
scientific way or established procedure and sanctioned legalization for the collection,
transportation and disposal of waste products which is economically feasible and
environmentally viable. Solid waste management involves activities that begin from the point
5
of generation to the final disposal and can be grouped into functional dimensions which
include: waste generation, waste handling and sorting storage and processing at source,
collection, sorting and processing transformation transfer and transport.
Reuse and recycling: The reuse of waste is the next most desirable option. It is any operation
where products or materials that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which they
were intended (Ziouzios et al., 2022). Reusing waste often requires collection but relatively little
or no processing. It involves checking, cleaning, repairing, and/or refurbishing, entire items or
spare parts. Recycling of waste is the next step in priority. It is any activity that includes the
collection of used, reused, or unused items that would otherwise be considered waste (Nunes,
2021).
Composting operations of solid wastes include preparing refuse and degrading organic matter by
aerobic microorganisms (Abu Qdais et al., 2019). Refuse is presorted to remove materials that
might have salvage value or cannot be composted and is ground up to improve the efficiency of
the decomposition process. The refuse is placed in long piles on the ground or deposited in
mechanical systems, where it is degraded biologically to humus with total nitrogen, phosphorus
and potassium content of 1 to 3%, depending on the material being composted (Hemidat, et al.,
2018). Those of no value in composting can be taken to the tip as cover materials. After about
three weeks, the product is ready for curing, blending with additives, bagging and marketing as
organic fertilizer.
According to Aleluia and Ferrão (2020), waste disposal is any operation that involves the
dumping and incineration of waste without energy recovery. Before final disposal, a
considerable amount of pre-treatment may be necessary to change the characteristics of the
waste in order to reduce the quantity or harmfulness of the waste and that may include
physical, thermal, chemical, or biological processes. Landfills are the most common form of
waste disposal and the final disposal option.
Urban liveability refers to the expectation of service with actual service delivered with
effectiveness and efficiency. It is viewed as the responsiveness of service as the willingness
of service providers to promptly provide service that match accurately with consumer
expectations. It is the ability to deliver service as desired by customers and to deal effectively
with any consumer complement (Rafew & Rafizul, 2021).
1.2.4 Contextual background
6
Kyenda Town Council is one of the administrative units of Mubende District. Mubende District
is located in the Central region of Uganda. It borders with Kassanda district in the East,
Kiboga and Kyankwanzi in the North, Sembabule and Gomba in the South, Kyegegwa and
Kakumiro in the West. The district headquarters is located 160 Kilometres West of Kampala.
While Kyenda Town Board plays completed this part for more than 10 years at this point, the
social waste assistance is unsatisfactory; In addition, the majority of the town features scenes
of piles of solid waste that have not been collected. As a result, residents are reluctant to
collaborate on solid waste management. The formal collection and disposal management and
organization structures are not well-organized. There is only one removal location. There are
insufficient dumpsites and collection trucks in this. The assortment and removal of waste are
also determined by this removal site. It implies that only those locations that are closest to
landfills benefit. A government policy to regulate solid waste management is contained in the
urban liveability act of 1999 (NEMA regulations, No. 52, 1999). To confine the NEMA Act
in the different nearby specialists, the strong waste administration guidelines incorporate bye
regulations. Tragically, there are no strong waste administration bye regulations in Kyenda
town. Illegal dumping, littering, improper solid waste disposal, and a lack of solid waste
sorting are all consequences. This study focused on solid waste management and its effects
on urban liveability in the Kyenda Town Council of the Mubende District.
1.3 Statement of the problem
Sustainable cities constitute a critical factor on the development focus of nations, but of greater
importance in developing countries because of the experience of burgeoning urbanization.
The rapid urbanization often culminate into land-use practices that disregard future
generations' needs and inevitably cause problems such as urban sprawl, haphazard
development, and the collapse of public services, brownfields, and overcrowding. This
situation has led to sedimentation of watersheds, urban pollution, and increase in natural and
man-made risks, soil degradation and damage to pristine natural landscapes. Various policies
have been put in place to regulate and discourage undesirable practices while strengthening
and promoting appropriate practices in society. For instance, to reconstruct and upgrade 80%
of the road network to improve mobility and connectivity, create more work spaces, improve
the quality of life and develop the human capital needed to support Town Council economic
development, create an enabling environment for establishment and growth of businesses and
7
put in place the necessary systems to support public service delivery (Kyenda Town Council,
2020). In the broader context, policies ought to guide society in managing particular waste
streams for instance, plastics, electronics, metals, and others (Ssemugabo, 2020; Maphosa
and Maphosa, 2020).
Despite the above efforts, infrastructure is struggling to keep up with the rapid pace of urban
expansion, around 70% of inhabitants in Kyenda Town Council, lives in informal settlements
and poor quality housing relying on communal standpipes, water vendors and public wells
(Muheirwe, Kombe & Kihila, 2022). Spring water sources are often free of charge or cost
less than other sources, but the quality is very low because of diffuse and/or point source
infiltration of waste water throughout the spring recharge areas, lack of access to sanitation
facilities, lack of community access roads and dumping sites for waste disposal (Kyenda
Town Council performance reports, 2022). These not only hamper people’s livelihood, but
also the environment. Consequently, each and every of these problems cannot only a ffect
slum dwellers’ day-to-day life, but the city and the environment as a whole. This will
consequently cause serious environmental and health problems which affect the, livability of
the urban population and beauty of the urban areas as well as the financial budgets of urban
local governments because of the increased need of resources to manage the waste
(Ackerman 2020). Unless the problem of urban livability is addressed urgently, there is
likely to occur an outbreak of epidemics like cholera which all questions the level of urban
liveability in that particular place. It is against this background that the study examined the
effect of solid waste management on urban liveability in in Kyenda Town Council.
1.4 Purpose of the study
The purpose of the study is to examine the effect of Solid Waste Management and urban
liveability in Mubende district: a case of Kyenda Town Council
1.5 Specific objectives
The study was guided by the following specific objectives
i. To examine the effect of waste recycling on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council
ii. To examine the effect of waste disposal on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council
iii. To examine the effect of Waste composting on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council
1.6 Research questions
The following questions was interrogated in this study
8
i. What is the effect of waste recycling and re use on urban liveability in Kyenda Town
Council?
ii. What is the effect of waste disposal on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council?
iii. What is the effect of Waste composting on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council?
1.7 Hypotheses of the study
The following mathematical statements was tested
H1: There is a (+ve) significant effect of waste recycling on urban liveability
H2: There is a (+ve) significant effect of waste disposal on urban liveability
H3: There is a (+ve) significant effect of waste composting on urban liveability
1.8 Conceptual framework
A conceptual framework is a hypothesized model that identifies the concepts under study and
their relationships, providing an outline of the preferred approach in the research as well as
the desired effects forming independent and dependent variables respectively (Swaen &
George, 2022). The conceptual framework of the study is shown in the figure below, but the
elements used to measure the different variables are not limited to those on the respective
lists.
Solid Waste Management (IV)
Waste recycling
Urban liveability
 Checking (DV) and
(Processing
treatment
 Cleaning (Sorting)
 Access to fresh water,
 Repairing (Collection)
 Community access roads
Waste disposal
 Dumping sites for waste
 Open dumping
disposal
 Sanitary landfill
 Greener environment
 Incineration
Waste composting
 Preparing refuse
 Degrading organic matter
 Composition stock feed
9
Source: Adopted from Ssemugabo, (2020) and improved by the Researcher, (2023)
Figure 1.1: Shows the effect of solid waste management on urban liveability in Kyenda
Town Council.
From the Figure 1 above the independent variable (IV) is Solid Waste Management and the
dependent variable is urban liveability (DV). The independent variable is measured in terms
of waste recycling and reuse with subthemes of checking, cleaning, repairing, waste disposal
with subthemes of open dumping, sanitary landfill and incineration and waste composting
with subthemes of preparing refuse and degrading organic matter. The dependent variable is
measured in terms of access to fresh water, community access roads, dumping sites for waste
disposal and greener environment. It is hypothesized that any changes in the independent
variables will bring a change to the dependent variable by the same magnitude.
1.9 Justification of the study
Whereas, there are many previous studies on the problem of Solid waste management worldwide
(Sriel, 2019), no earlier study on the effects of solid waste management methods on urban
liveability in Kyenda Town council is available. Many authors have pointed out how expensive it
is to collect Solid waste but no study has investigated the connection between solid waste
management and urban liveability. This study is one of those that will make a contribution
towards filling that gap. There were inadequate facilities for the storage (skips) and disposal
(trucks) of solid waste. As a result, indiscriminate damping of solid waste was in practice, refuse
found littered on to streets, drainage channels, onto roads and roadsides. And where skips are
availed, they were observed overflowing with the accompanying nuisances of flies and offensive
smells all of which are a danger to public health and the environment at large.
Adequate solid waste management on the community in Kyenda Town Council was much more
than a technological issue; it involved institutional, social, legal, financial aspects and
coordinating. Managing a large work force and collaborating with many stakeholders as well as
the general public. The preparation and management of a better solid waste management system
needed inputs from a range of disciplines and careful consideration of local condition aspects
therefore, decisions regarding solid waste management needed to be well informed. The research
results would be a milestone for different stakeholders, policy makers and decision makers at
ward, division, district and regional levels who were interested in developing feasibility
assessment of different sold waste management options with respect to the environmental impact
10
and economy. It would also determine what was possible to be implemented in the presence of
different conflicting interests.
1.10 Significance of the study
Successful accomplishment of the study means that its findings can be used in the following
ways:
Help policy makers in the environmental sectors to formulate practical solid waste management
policies for urban centres. For example, Hazardous waste management policy that gives
directives on disposal of hazardous waste in landfill.
Guide local leaders in Kyenda Town Council and other municipalities to provide course of
action on how to promote a pollution free environment through proper handling of Solid
waste collection; for example, by-laws on indiscriminate disposal and penalties attached.
Inform the public on proper solid waste disposal and management such as use of compost pits
for bio degradable solid waste s that can again be a useful source of fertilizer to restore soil
fertility, use of incineration for combustible non-hazardous waste and land filling for
hazardous waste.
Provide more information to the public health officers and direct them in sensitizing the public
on proper solid waste disposal and management in order to prevent diseases, Safe hygiene
and sanitation practices such as disposal of human faeces in latrine pits, not disposing solid
waste in drainage, swamps or near protected springs which avoided leachate seepage
contaminating drinking waters.
The result from its findings will task the community to think in line with zero waste
sustainability and realize a circulatory economy waste management strategy geared towards
effective use of all resources and protect the eco system as well.
Finally the study will guide policy makers in the government agencies, top management of the
hotels and other key stakeholders in the formulation of policies governing hotel operations and the
environment.
Practically, the study can be beneficial to hotel operators in understanding the best waste
management practices and its contribution on organizations operational performance. The paper
will also provide a theoretical understanding to readers to recognize the effect of waste
management practices and organizations operations performance and suggest best ways to
enhance performance.
11
1.11 Scope of the study
This section presented the scope of the study as content scope, geographical scope and time
scope.
1.11.1 Content scope
The study examined the effect of the solid waste management on urban liveability in Kyenda
Town Council. Specifically, the study focused on the these objectives; to examine the effect
of waste recycling and re use and urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council, to examine the
effect of waste disposal and urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council and to examine the
effect of Waste composting and urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council.
1.11.2 Geographical scope
The study was carried out in Kyenda Town Council. The Town Council is one of the
administrative units of Mubende District. Mubende District is located in the Central region of
Uganda. It borders with Kassanda district in the East, Kiboga and Kyankwanzi in the North,
Sembabule and Gomba in the South, Kyegegwa and Kakumiro in the West. The district
headquarters is located 160 Kilometres West of Kampala
1.11. Time Scope
The study focused on the effect of solid waste management and urban liveability between the
period 2017 and 2023. The researcher chose that particular period because it’s when Kyanda
Town Council got solid waste management challenges. This is because of huge amount of solid
waste was seen at every corner, along all the service lanes and overflowing skips. Some garbage
was carelessly and indiscriminately dumped by the roadside in swampy areas and almost all open
spaces in the central ward. This created filthy and unsanitary conditions leaches and garbage
odors.
1.12 Operational Definitions of Terms and Concepts
Urban liveability is a composite of interrelated social, economic, and ecological indicators that
promote and enhance quality of life and sustainability. It is a dynamic concept that is related
to time and space.
Urban liveability encompasses those elements of home, neighborhood, and metropolitan area
that contribute to safety, economic opportunities and welfare, health, convenience, mobility,
and recreation.” The concept of liveability is clearly more of a qualitative construct
representing a set of characteristics that relate to the attractiveness of an area as a “desirable”
12
place to live, work, invest, and conduct business.
A Community: In this study is referred to as a group of people who lived in the same area and
share common interests.
Solid waste collection: In this study is referred to as household refuse, market waste, street
sweeping and waste material from Institutions such as schools, medical and commercial.
Solid waste management: In this study is referred to as the collection, transportation and disposal
of solid waste collection.
Solid waste: Solid wastes are any non-liquid wastes that arise from human and animal activities
that are normally solid, comprising organic and inorganic waste materials such as product
packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, kitchen refuse, paper,
Reuse: It is any operation where products or materials that are not waste are used again for the
same purpose for which they were intended. Reusing waste often requires collection but relatively
little or no processing. It involves checking, cleaning, repairing, and/or refurbishing, entire items
or spare parts.
Recycle: It is any activity that includes the collection of used, reused, or unused items that would
otherwise be considered waste recycling involves sorting and processing the recyclable products
into raw material and then remanufacturing the recycled raw materials into new products.
Disposal: The last resort is disposal and is only considered once all other possibilities have been
explored. Disposal is any operation that involves the dumping and incineration of waste without
energy recovery.
13
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presented existing literature on the effect of Solid Waste Management and urban
liveability in Mubende district: a case of Kyenda Town Council. Literature study was based on
the following objectives for instance, to examine the effect of waste recycling on urban liveability
in Kyenda Town Council, to examine the effect of waste disposal on urban liveability in Kyenda
Town Council and to examine the effect of waste composting on urban liveability in Kyenda
Town Council. Literature was drawn from secondary sources such as journal articles, policy
documents, physical planning Acts, the constitution of the Republic of Uganda, and reports. The
literature study chapter constituted the theoretical, conceptual, the actual study concerning the
specific objectives of this study and the summary of the literature study.
2.2 Theoretical review
The study was guided Waste Management Theory of Prongracz et al (2004). The Waste
Management Theory is a unified body of knowledge about waste and its management. It is
14
founded on the expectation that waste management is to prevent waste to cause harm to human
health and environment and promote resources’ use optimization. It is argued that waste
management theory is built under the paradigm of Industrial Ecology, and their side-by-side
advancement can greatly contribute to the development of a sustainable agenda of waste
management.
The Theory of Waste Management is based on the assumption that waste management is to
prevent waste causing harm to human health and the environment, and application of waste
management leads to conservation of resources. However, Industrial Ecology successfully
combines waste minimization and resources use optimization measures, and ensure that resources
are effectively circulated within ecosystems. Research continues to evolve the Theory of Waste
Management, which helps in incorporating environmental concerns into industrial process and
product which explains how the problem of solid waste management could be addressed through
reduction in consumption, hence less solid waste.
The theory advocates activities which include: avoidance of waste creation/ prevention, reduction
of waste, recycling and resource recovery, storage, transportation and disposal using appropriate
technologies. In this study, the Theory of Waste Management explains or underpins effective
Solid waste management. It concerns prevention of waste creation on streets and in public places
which requires the community to work in partnership for a sustainable environment. With less
solid waste, solid waste management costs collection and disposal are reduced. This theory agrees
with the waste management methods of reduce, reuse, recycle and recover in attempt to consume
less and less. It is this theory that seems to have informed policy in Uganda on solid waste
management regulation (Ministry of Local Governments, 2003); it draws attention to the need for
an integrated approach that ensures the full participation of all in waste management.
2.3 Actual Literature Review
2.3.1 Solid Waste Management and Urban Liveability
Solid waste is generated, collected and managed using several methods. Waste is subjected to
treatment by incineration, solidification. While waste disposal takes a forum of land filling,
underground injection wells, waste piles land treatment and in less developed countries wastes are
disposed in following rivers (Moeller, 2020). Solid wastes from markets in Jakarta were usually
collected by the local government workers using hand carts and taken to the nearby storage sites
on the road sides (Yayasane, 2017). He further noted that Jarkarata streets in commercial zones
15
were swept by local government employees from 6am – 9am in the morning and from 5pm – 7pm
in the evening. Waste reached temporary storage sites in large bins or designated road side arrears
in many ways like the household would place rubbish in containers in front of their property
where it would be collected and taken to disposal sites or sometimes it would be dropped on to the
truck (Beede, 2021). Managing solid wastes is one of the most costly urban services which is
estimated to consume 20 to 40% of the municipal revenue (Sandra, 1994). Solid wastes are
managed at different stages, which all require planning. These stages include the generation,
storage collection, transportation and final disposal.
Garbage storage; Solid waste storage can be done as primary storage and or secondary storage.
This can be by use of temporary containers either card board, plastic or metallic containers Sandra
(2020). Garbage collection Solid waste collection can be done by several techniques, container
systems, block collection, Kerdside collection, and door – to – door collection and street sweeping
as well as drain cleaning UNHCS (2018). With increasing urban population, by people who pay
no tax or very little, urban councils are not in a position to cope with garbage collection nor are
they able to change for the collection where residents are poor. Residents tend to think that urban
councils have a duty to collect garbage, without changing them. However in Nairobi, private firms
are already collecting garbage, either on behalf of the council or private individuals contract them
with consent of the council. Kampala is already planning to do the same. However, individuals
already employ private firms to collect garbage in some areas of Kampala New Vision of April
16th 2001.
The most recent planning approaches associate urban livability with other all-encompassing
terms, such as “sustainability,” “biodiversity,” and “ecosystem” (Ruth and Franklin, 2018). Each
of these terms requires further study to define and understand their implications for the existence
and continuity of human life on Earth. In the broadest sense, these terms relate to the concept of
“balance of nature.” Natural ecosystems experience fluctuations and undergo successive
adaptations that have previously led to a state of homeostasis or internal stability because of the
coordinated response of the parts to external stimuli or forces that tend to disturb the natural
balance. Humans, animals, plants, and their surrounding physical environments interact to create a
state of equilibrium that has been sustained over a long period. Environmentalists and modern-day
ecologists suggest that such natural balance is currently being violated by the explosive growth of
the human population. Moreover, modern advances have facilitated a massive exploitation of
16
natural resources to satisfy benefits and demands that are perceived as essential to enhancing
quality of life. In this process, humans degrade the environmental quality of their surroundings
and disrupt the ecological harmony that is required to sustain their physical well-being.
The city, with its industrial, commercial, and residential functions, constitutes an imposed
physical presence over the natural terrain. Such presence affects natural biodiversity and
ecological stability by modifying the natural landscape and emitting different kinds of wastes and
pollutants to the environment. To improve the overall livability of the region, cities must
minimize their influence on the environment. Many scholars have affiliated the idea of urban
livability with the concepts of sustainability, biodiversity, and ecosystem given the present
awareness on these issues. Some scholars conceptualize the city as a biological system with
resource inputs and waste outputs (Newman, 2021).
2.3.2 Waste recycling and re use on urban liveability
According to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2017), recycling of solid waste in
Denmark has been boosted by the introduction of waste taxes. EPA (2017) highlights that 1987
and 1007 witnessed re–use and recycling of construction materials by over 100 percent recycling
paper. Kyayesimira and Muheirwe (2021) shows that recycling of solid wastes reduces the
pressure on the collection, disposal and handling systems of waste. At the same time the activity
of recycling creates further economic benefits such as employment creation and income
generation. EPA 2015 points out the benefits or recycling to include conservation of resources for
children’s future prevents emissions of many greenhouse gases and water pollutants, saves energy
supplies valuable raw materials to industry thus creates jobs, stimulates the development of
greener technologies and reduces the need for new landfills. The first step in the collection
process is to sort the waste by type and define which will and won’t be disposed of. Once the
waste has been sorted, usually by the residents putting it in the proper bin or container, the next
step in collection can take place. It would seem that the easiest and most effective way to manage
solid waste is to reduce the amount of waste to be disposed. However the amount of waste
produced, even in developed, countries, is often a function of culture and affluence. An emphasis
on mass production and development of cheap consumer goods has caused quality and longevity
of goods to be sacrificed in the name of lowest market price, causing people to be more likely to
simply throw away and replace items instead of repairing or maintaining them (Nuwematsiko et
al., 2021).
17
Muheirwe, Kombe, and Kihila (2022) argue that recycling is the answer to all those plastics
littered over the streets. This approach has worked in many developed countries which do not
restrict the use plastics on average, a person in the developed country generates more than a
hundred fold the plastic waste an average Ugandan does. Recycling in organic materials from
municipal solid waste is often well developed by the activities of the informal sector although
such activities are seldom recognized, supported, or promoted by the municipal authorities. Some
key factors that affect the potential for resource recovery are the cost of the separated material, its
purity, its quantity and its location. The costs of storage and transport are major factors that decide
the economic potential for resource recovery. In many low income countries, the fraction of
material that is won for resource recovery is very high, because this work is done in very low
incomes. Recycling has the advantage of reducing costs of the disposal facilities, prolonging the
site span and also reducing the environmental impact of disposal sites as the organics are largely
to blame for polluting leache and methane problems (Muiruri, Wahome & Karatu, 2020).
According to Muheirwe et al (2023) there is usually marked variation in waste packaging and
collection in municipal settlements. Residents in the more affluent zones store their waste in
containers always put near their yards from where the waste collectors would empty to take to
secondary destinations. In high density zones the residents store waste in buckets and old sacks
where they would carry away on their heads or bicycles to unofficial sites next to main roads for
secondary collection sites as was also noted by Squire and Nkurunziza (2022). Effective waste
services would require collecting directly from each household every day but this would mean
much higher costs, but would require an alternative operation service as observed by UN-Habitat
(2022) for efficiency and effectiveness. The study thus endeavored to establish the extent to which
variation in solid waste storage containers in the various residential zones impact on the efficiency
and reliability of waste collection operations in Kyenda Town Council.
Recycling is normally done by the informal sector in Nepal. Rag pickers and scavengers pick up
recyclable solid waste from dumping sites and scrap dealers collect directly from the households.
The recyclable waste such as paper, plastic, metal, bottle, can, etc. are collected and sold to the
recycling dealers or recycling companies. Some municipalities such as Hetauda and Bhagalpur
have initiated separate plastic waste collection programs. Both Hetauda and Bhagalpur
municipalities have joined hands with the local community groups and the private sector to start a
plastic waste collection program. In these municipalities, a simple metal hook called “suiro” is
18
distributed to Households so that plastic waste can be recovered and stored easily (Moqbel et al.,
2020). In developing countries, organic fraction of solid waste is generally higher; composting is
the best solution as far as practicable. It is found that rural areas (15% to 100% Households) are
practicing it but in urban areas where less land is available within Households, it is generally not
practiced (less then 10% of Households). However, community or municipal composting exists to
some extent and is also in planning phases in some municipalities. Composting provides fertilizer
for farmers wherein they need to buy less chemical fertilizer. This will reduce large stream of
solid waste to be handled and much less burden in terms of quantity for final disposal into a
landfill.
Muiruri, Wahome and Karatu (2020) observed that recycling and re-use involves the recovery of
products such as plastics, paper and metals and food peelings. Food materials such as banana
peelings, cassava and potato peelings are collected to feed animals (Tukahirwa et al, 2011). The
recovery of re-usable materials is performed by people working in informal sector driven by
poverty and this activity acts as source of income to many poor communities as observed by
(Shyam et al., 2017) in India. In Democratic Republic of Congo and many cities in the country,
solid waste recycling and scavenging has been a traditional norm associated with the low -income
groups; many of whom survive on it directly or indirectly (Squire & Nkurunziza, 2022). This
shows the useful roles played by the urban poor in maintaining urban sanity indirectly as their acts
help to reduce on the waste volume which in most cases is not directly recognized by the
Municipal authorities. This involves the segregation of solid waste at either the generation or
temporal dump point to get re-usable items from the waste stream. Shyam et al., (2017) says the
recovery of reusable materials is performed by people working in informal sector driven by
poverty and the activity act as source of income to these communities. The recycled and re-used
wastes include plastics, metal scraps, food waste, polythene bags and sludge.
2.3.3. Waste disposal and urban liveability
Combustion is the controlled burning of waste in a designated facility to reduce its volume and, in
some cases, to generate electricity. Combustion is carried out for waste that cannot be recycled or
composted and is sometimes selected by communities where landfill space is limited. While the
combustion process can generate toxic air emissions, these can be controlled by installing control
equipment such as acid gas scrubbers and fabric filters in combustors (Sewak et al., 2021).
Combustion of solid waste can help reduce amount of waste going to landfills. It also can reduce
19
reliance on coal, one of the fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases when burned. In Nepal,
combustion of solid waste is practiced openly near the banks of river and on the dumping sites.
The uncontrolled combustion of solid waste leads to a serious health hazards and environmental
pollution. This study aims at covering these research gaps.
Uncontrolled dumping of waste can contaminate groundwater and soil, attract disease carrying
rats and insects, and even cause fires. Properly designed, constructed, and managed landfills
provide a safe alternative to uncontrolled dumping. For example, to protect groundwater from the
liquid that collects in landfills (leachate), a properly designed landfill has an earthen or synthetic
liner. As waste decomposes, it emits methane, a greenhouse gas that can also cause fires. To
prevent fires, a properly designed landfill should have a way to vent, burn, or collect methane.
Landfill operators can also recover this methane thereby reducing emissions and generate
electricity from the captured gas (Serge & Simatele, 2020). In Nepal, the disposal practices by
most of the municipalities are open dumping and river bank dumping. Usually these sites do not
have any precautionary measures such as cover material, a leachate collection mechanism,
drainage facilities, and fencing to prevent unauthorized personnel and this study aims at filling
these study gaps.
In order to achieve waste reduction at source Karimi, Richter and Ng (2020) recommends user
cooperation regarding storage of household waste, waste separation placement of household
containers discipline in the use of public collection points and source reduction, for example use
of cloth instead of disposable diapers or bring ones bag to the market. Similarly, Medina (2015)
describes waste reduction as a preventive action that seeks to reduce the amount of waste that
individuals, businesses and organizations generate. By not creating waste fewer collection
vehicles and fewer number of refuse collection trips would be needed; few and smaller waste
handling facilities would be required and it would extend the life of landfills. The UN-Habitat
(2022) reports that recovery of materials occurs in all stages of waste materials flow but most
extensively waste pickers who live next to the dumpsite and the main items of importance are
paper, textile, glass, metal and bones. Another scholar, Wang and You (2021), reports that in
Cairo the zabbaleen of Cairo constituted to an effective re-use collection and recycling system.
They used donkeys to collect waste from 350 households in a day. After sorting the garbage the
collectors feed the edible portion to pigs, sell pig droppings and human excreta to farmers as
fertilizers and scrap metal glass, paper and plastic to middlemen who would then sell the materials
20
to craftsmen or industries for recycling (UN-Habitant, 2022). Financial and institutional
constraints are one of the main reasons for inadequate disposal of waste, especially where local
governments are weak or underfinanced and rapid population growth continues and this study will
cover these gaps in the study.
According to Dianati et al (2021), the efficient route selection for waste collection and the proper
distance between houses determines the waste collection system. Accordingly, the location
distance between houses, utilities, and container (skip point) turns out to be the primary factor,
which affects citizens’ waste disposal behavior. The long distance of the location and the
proximity of the skip point determine the municipal solid waste management, inducing the public
to dispose and throw household wastes into open space (Pinha & Sagawa, 2020). As a result, this
inappropriate and inconvenient location of skip point and infrequent collection of skip-point
creates not an only health threat to the dwellers of the community but also deteriorate the quality
of the amenity environment. A landfill also known as a dump or rubbish dump is a site for
disposal of waste materials by burial. In modern terms it is called a sanitary land fill since the
waste disposal here is done in a manner that protects the environment by spreading the waste in
thin layers, compacted to the smallest practical volume and covering it with compacted soil by the
end of each working day. This method is used in urban places where waste is collected by
municipal waste crew or private waste collectors contracted by the municipal authorities as is the
case with KCCA. The study thus endeavored to establish if land filling is in use in Kyenda Town
Council waste management.
2.3.4 Waste composting and urban liveability
Modupe, Oluwaseyi, Olubukola and Olu (2020) describe compost as a plant matter that has been
decomposed and recycled as a fertilizer and soil amendment. Compost is a key ingredient in
organic farming. At its most essential, the process of composting requires simply pilling up waste
out doors and waiting a year or more modern, methodical composting is a multi-step closely
monitored process with measured in puts of matter, adding water and ensuring proper aeration by
regularly turning the mixture worms and fungi further break up the material. Aerobic bacteria
manage the chemical process by converting the inputs in to heat, carbon dioxide and ammonium.
The ammonium is further converted by bacteria into plant, nourishing nitrites and nitrates through
the process of nitrification Compost can be rich in nutrients. It is used in gardens, land scraping,
horticulture and agriculture. The compost itself is beneficial for the land in many ways, including
21
as a soil conditioner, a fertilizer, addition of vital humus or humic acid, and as a natural pesticide
for soil. In ecosystems, compost is useful for erosion control, land and steam reclamation, wet
land construction and as land fill cover.
Pergolaa et al (2018) submitted that composting involves the decomposition of refuse through
bacterial action into humus material similar to peat moss in appearance and application, but the
end product is useful as a soil conditioner and fertilizer. Composting requires segregation of
organic biodegradable wastes and inorganic non-biodegradables from the waste streams though
clear knowledge of waste fermentation. The current study therefore endeavored to establish
whether municipal dwellers value their organic solid wastes and had prior knowledge in the
practice of segregating, fermenting and utilizing them for soil conditioning in their gardens.
Shevchenko and Aliiev (2021) cited lack of enforcement of policies and laws as a major
institutional issue that greatly contributes to the mismanagement of solid waste in the developing
world. Citing an example of this to be seen in Kenya; although there is sufficient legislation
covering waste management, local authorities lack the capacity to implement them. Tibihika et al
(2021) also noted failure by local the leaders in Kenya to mount laws against littering by
community as social pressure to prevent littering, absence of realistic penalties or consistent
enforcement, and lack of knowledge of the environmental effects of littering. The study intended
to establish the extent to which the existence and enforcement of policies and laws on solid waste
management has affected solid waste collection and disposal in Kyenda Town Council by
covering these research gaps.
Compositing is a somewhat more low- technology approach to waste management. The waste of
many developing nations would theoretically be idea for reduction through compositing, having a
much higher composition of organic material than industrialized countries. For example,
generally, in developing countries, the average city’s municipal waste stream is over 50% organic
material (Sayara, Basheer-Salimia, Hawamde & Sánchez (2020). Studies in Bandurg, Indonesia
and Colombo, Serilanka have revealed that residential waste composed of 70% and 81%
computable material, and market waste 89% and 90% composting has not been overwhelmingly
successful and wide spread in practice throughout the developing world. Although well
documented in china and other areas of Eastern Asia, compositing projects have had a sporty
record throughout Africa, Latin America and elsewhere, and have had the largest number of failed
facilities worldwide (Sultana et al., 2021). Environmentally, the process by which compositing
22
decomposes organic waste is preferable to land fill processes. In a landfill, bacteria break down
organics an aerobically in the absence of oxygen, resulting in the releases of methane gas. This
study aims at covering these research gaps.
2.4 Summary of Literature Review and Gaps Identified
Waste characteristics; the study characterized the waste generated into biodegradable and Non-
biodegradable giving their types, but did not point out their ranking in generation in most
households as would be best expected. On waste collection the literature looked onto collection
operations such as door to door, communal collection containers, but did not consider the
conditions and types of those containers in relation to waste transportation to temporal dumps.
On municipal waste disposal the cited literature stressed on the various disposal methods used, but
did not stress on the availability of the space for temporal dumps and their security in terms of
ownership.
On the factors influencing waste dumping all the literatures did not consider how the intensity of
law enforcement, adequacy of temporal dump sites, container conditions, age brackets and
personal conviction would impact on waste packaging and sanity. The study also employed a
scientific model to get the actual and specific factors in Kyenda Town Council which other the
literatures did not address. On constraints the literature spelt out in adequacy in transport vehicle,
but did not stress on their mechanical conditions, did not explore much on extent of and severity
of waste law enforcement, attitude of generators and collectors. On opportunities not much
concern was given to organization and municipal investments on tapping waste resources and
other risks that could be erased as a result of sustainable management practices such as waste
sorting etc.
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presented the research design, the study population, sample size and sampling
design. It will further discuss the instruments and methods to be used in data collection and
analysis. Detailed description of data collection procedures, data analysis, measurement of
23
variables and measures undertaken to enhance data validity and reliability will also be discussed.
3.2. Research design
A research design is the strategy, plan and structure of a research project (Sileyew, 2020). The
study adopted a cross sectional survey design. A Cross sectional design was used to obtain
information from a large group of respondents just one time, in a single session without any
follow-up once the information is obtained (Sileyew, 2020). In supplement, the study adopted a
triangulation of both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative approaches enabled collection
of numerical data in order to explain, describe, understand, relationship. It enabled the researcher
to quantify the views of respondents towards certain variables and draw statistical conclusions.
For this matter, qualitative approaches were used to capture feelings, opinions and other
subjective variables.
3.3 Study population
According to Stratton (2021), a population is a complete set of the entire group or individuals with
a common observable characteristic. The target population for this study comprised of 250
elements including technical and residents in Kyenda Town Council, Councilors on Sectoral
Committee and Member of the executive committee. The study population set clear direction on
the scope and objective of the research and data types. It helped to define the characteristic
variables of the individuals who qualify for the study and provide the scope of the total population
or universe for determining sample size.
3.4 Determination of the sample size
According to Mooney (2019), a sample size is defined as a subset of a particular selected
population. A sample size of 174 was considered for this study using the using statistical tables of
Krejcie & Morgan. The statistical table provides accurate and scientifically proven sample size for
each population hence easy to calculate.
Table 3.1: Sample size determination

Category Population Sample Sampling Data collection Data
(K) (S) Technique method collection
tool
Technical 10 10 Purposive Interview method Interview
personnel sampling guide
24
Residents 200 127 Convenient Questionnaire Questionnaire
(Approx.) sampling method
Member of the 05 05 Purposive Interview method Interview
executive sampling guide
committee
Councilors on 35 32 Convenient Questionnaire Questionnaire
Sectoral sampling method
Committee
Total 250 174
Source: Researcher (2023)
3.5 Sample techniques and procedures
The study employed both Convenient and purposive sampling techniques.
3.5.1 Purposive sampling
Purposive sampling is a non-probability method for obtaining a sample where researchers use
their expertise to choose specific participants that helped the study meet its goals. These subjects
have particular characteristics that the researchers need to evaluate their research question. In
other words, the researchers pick the participants “on purpose” (Rahi, 2017). This helped the
researcher to select significant respondents to provide in depth information which was used to
analyze and triangulate data collected from the respondents. This technique is considered since it
is less costly and saves time; it enabled the researcher to acquire an in-depth understanding of the
problem and to gain richer, useful and focused information (Thomas, 2020). Purposive sampling
was used to select technical personnel.
3.5.2 Convenient sampling
Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling method where units are selected for
inclusion in the sample because they are the easiest for the researcher to access. This can be due to
geographical proximity, availability at a given time, or willingness to participate in the research
(Nikolopoulou, 2022). This sampling technique involves choosing people who are easy for the
researcher to reach and get in touch with (Thomas, 2020). This technique was used because it is
inexpensive to create samples. The money and time invested in other probability sampling
methods are quite large compared to convenience sampling. It allows researchers to generate
more samples with less or no investment and in a brief period. It is easy to do research; the name
of this surveying technique clarifies how samples are formed. Elements are easily accessible by
25
the researchers and so, collecting members for the sample becomes easy. Through use of this
technique, residents were used as study population from which a small sample was drawn.
3.6 Data collection methods
The study was categorized into secondary and primary data collection method. Quantitative and
qualitative methods were utilized to collect primary data. The study used both primary and
secondary sources of data collection. Quantitative and qualitative methods were utilized to collect
primary data (Taylor, 2021). Self-administered questionnaires supported the collection of primary
data. Secondary data was obtained by reviewing documents such as Kyenda Town Council annual
reports, physical planning project reports, journal articles, magazines.
3.6.1 Questionnaire survey method
According to Muhammad and Kabir (2018), a questionnaire is a method of survey data collection
in which information is gathered through oral or written questionnaires. The questionnaires were
self-administered to residents to obtain required information for the study. Questionnaires enabled
the researcher to collect a large sample of information in a short time and at a reasonably low cost
and give similar or standardized questions to the subjects making it easier for comparison and
generalization. The questionnaires were adopted because the response option for a close ended
question is exhaustive and mutually exclusive. In this case questionnaires (with close ended
questions) were administered to the respondents with aid of research assistants. This was used to
obtain their views in relation to the study phenomena (Mutepf, 2019).
3.6.2 Interview
Interview is a conversation between two or more people where questions are asked by interviewer
to elicit facts or statements from the interviewee. It’s a person-to-person verbal communication in
which one person or a group of persons is interviewed at a time (Seidman, 2013). Interviews were
conducted with the key informants such as technical personnel who are well informed about the
study problem. Interviews were conducted because they have the advantage of ensuring probing
for more information, clarification and capturing non-verbal expressions of the interviewees. It
gives the researcher time to revisit some of the issues that have been an oversight in other
instruments and yet is deemed vital for the study.
Personal interviews were conducted with key informants such as technical personnel where
questions were asked and responses noted down. This interview technique enabled the scholar to
probe in depth description on the views of the respondents. The interview process involved a
26
professional interaction between the researcher and the interviewee with strengthened social
norms, values (Sileyew, 2019).
3.6.3 Observations
Observation is way of gathering data by watching behavior, events, or noting physical
characteristics in their natural setting (George, 2023). Observations can be overt (everyone knows
they are being observed). The benefit of covert observation is that people are more likely to
behave naturally if they do not know they are being observed. Observations can also be either
direct or indirect. Direct observation is when you watch interactions, processes, or behaviors as
they occur; for example, observing waste handling processes and disposal methods. Indirect
observations are when you watch the results of interactions, processes, or behaviors.
3.6.4 Document Review Method
Document review is a data collection technique where the researcher analyses existing documents
that contain information on the study phenomenon (Sileyew, 2019). Evaluation reports on Solid
Waste Management, journal articles, magazines and annual performance reports on urban
liveability were used in relation with questionnaires and interview guide. This enabled the
researcher to collect supplementary information which might not have been captured during the
interview process. The researcher studied existing documents from the Kyenda Town Council and
any other relevant documents which align to the objectives of this study.
3.7 Data collection instruments
The researcher adopted a mixed method for data collection whereby self-administered
questionnaires, key informative interview guide and documents review checklist was utilized for
the process of collecting data as discussed below.
3.7.1 Questionnaire
According to Muhammad and Kabir (2018), a questionnaire is a method of survey data collection
in which information is gathered through oral or written questionnaires. The questionnaires were
self-administered to residents to obtain required information for the study. The questionnaires
were adopted since they are easier to administer, less costly, timely and they allow the aspect of
confidentiality (Budianto, 2020). The researcher designed the questionnaires in accordance to the
study objectives and variables employed in the conceptual framework. In this case close ended
questions was administered to the respondents with aid of research assistants. This was used to
obtain their views in relation to the study phenomena (Mutepf, 2019). The questionnaires enabled
27
the respondents to have ample time to reflect on answers to avoid hasty responses which enhanced
accuracy and validity. Anonymity was adhered to create trust among the respondents in order to
get silent findings.
3.7.2 Interview guide
Interviews guide is an alternative tool of data collection whereby researchers collect data through
direct verbal interaction while recording respondent’s answers using interview guide to
supplement other data collection methods (Budianto, 2020). Interviews were conducted with the
key informants such as technical personnel who are well informed about the study problem. This
method was considered since it enabled the researcher to obtain in depth qualitative information
on the study phenomenon. This furthered enrich this study by providing more relevant
information which might not have been obtained through the questionnaires method as well as
allowing further probing (Wang, 2018). The interview guide was used by the researcher to have a
face to face professional interaction with the respondents to obtain comprehensive explanations of
their perception this study.
3.7.3 Observation checklist
An observation checklist is a list of things that an observer is going to look at when observing a
class. This list may have been prepared by the observer or the teacher or both. This technique
reminds the observer of the key points of observation as well as the topics of interest associated
with each, and It acts as the impetus for a reflexive exercise in which the observer can reflect on
his/her own relationship and contribution to the observed at any moment in time (how the
observer was affected by the observations).
3.7.4 Document Review Checklist
Document study checklist is a data collection tool where the researcher analyses existing
documents that contain information on the study phenomenon (Sileyew, 2019). Documentary
study checklist facilitated the researcher to access a broad range of data and supplementary
evidence on the study phenomena. This process comprised of appraising documents to obtain
secondary data from the Kyenda Town Council. This involved examining the already existing
documents such as, Academic thesis, Journal articles and annual reports among others.
28
3.8 Data quality control
The researcher pre-tested the data collection instruments in order to approve their reliability and
validity as per the acceptable standards for this study.
3.8.1 Validity of instruments
The validity of a research instrument refers to the extent to which the instrument (such as a
questionnaire) accurately measures what it intends to measure (Kothari, 2008; Mugenda &
Mugenda, 2003). In other words, it assesses whether the instrument is measuring the specific
construct or concept it claims to measure and whether the results obtained from the instrument are
genuinely reflective of the underlying phenomenon Chetwynd (2022). The researcher adopted
Yusoff’s six steps to quantify the Content Validity of the questionnaire as illustrated in Figure 3
below.
Step 1. Step 2. Step 3.

Prepare content Select review Conduct content
validation form panel validation
Step 4.
Step 6. Step 5.
Review domain
Calculate CVI Score each item
and items
Figure 3.2: Content Validation Procedure.

Source: Yusoff 2019
Procedure to perform content validity in research:
The research defined the constructs or variables that had to be measured within the questionnaire
(Yusoff, 2019). This was followed by reviewing the relevant literature to understand the key
concepts, variables, and dimensions related to the study “Solid Waste Management and Urban
liveability”, to identify the important aspects to be reflected in the questionnaire. Based on the
literature reviewed, and construct definition, the researcher generated a pool of potential items or
29
questions that could be included in the questionnaire. These items were diverse and covered
various aspects of Waste recycling, Waste disposal, and Waste composting. Thereafter, the
researcher sought input from two experts in the subject matter. These experts helped to evaluate
the relevance and clarity of each item in the questionnaire. They can also suggest additional
important items. The Content Validity Index (CVI) was adapted to calculate the validity of the
questionnaire (Yusosff, 2019)
a.) Item-CVI: This method assesses the content validity of each item in the questionnaire. Experts
rate each item for relevance on a scale (for example, 1 to 4 or 1 to 5), where higher ratings
indicate greater relevance. Calculate the Item-CVI for each item by dividing the number of
experts who rated it as relevant by the total number of experts. An Item-CVI score of 0.80 or
higher is often considered acceptable.
b.) Scale-CVI: If the questionnaire consists of multiple items that are meant to measure the same
construct (e.g., a Likert scale), calculate the Scale-CVI to assess the overall content validity of the
scale. This is typically done by averaging the Item-CVI scores for all items within the scale.
The study adapted Scale-CVI.
Before conducting your main study, the questionnaire that was validated was tested through a
pilot study on a small sample to identify any potential issues with wording, comprehension, or
item difficulty. The researcher finalized the questionnaire by making necessary revisions based on
the pilot test results.
CVI = Number of items considered relevant
Total number of items.
Findings are illustrated in Table 3.2 below.
Table 3.2: A summary of content validity for the questionnaire
Dimensions No of Items Relevant CVI
Waste recycling 09 07 0.778
Waste disposal 08 07 0.875
Waste composting 09 07 0.778
Urban liveability 09 08 0.888
Source: Primary Data (2022)
Table 3.2 presents averages of 0.829 (0.778, 0.875, 0.778 and 0.888) respectively on all four
variables that had CVIs that were above 0.7, implying that the tool was valid since it was
30
appropriately answering/measuring the objectives and conceptualization of the study. According
to Mugenda and Mugenda (2003), the tool can be considered valid where the CVI value is 0.7 and
above as is the case for all the four variables provided above.
3.8.2 Reliability of instruments
The reliability of a questionnaire refers to its ability to yield the same data when it is re-
administered under the same conditions (Learnovate, 2022; Hassan, 2023). Reliability for
quantitative research ensures that the results obtained are not just due to random fluctuations or
measurement errors. It helps researchers ensure that the data they collect are consistent and can be
used to make valid inferences about the underlying construct of interest. To assess the reliability
or internal consistency of a set of items in a questionnaire or a test, the Indeed Editorial Team
(2023) proposed doing a stability test using the test-retest method on a 10% population with
similar characteristics to the study population small population during the pilot study. Cronbach’s
alpha reliability coefficient was computed.
Cronbach's alpha ranges from 0 to 1, where; If alpha is close to 1, it indicates high internal
consistency, meaning that the items in the scale are measuring the same construct consistently. If
alpha is close to 0, it suggests low internal consistency, meaning that the items in the scale are not
measuring the same construct consistently. A threshold of 0.7 and above was considered reliable
(Scribbr, 2019; Hair, et al., 2019). An average Cronbach Alpha of 0.823 was obtained as
illustrated in Table 3.3 below.
Table 3.3: Reliability test results of research instruments.
Study variables Cronbach’s Alpha
Waste recycling 0.786
Waste disposal 0.815
Waste composting 0.895
Urban liveability 0.795
Average Cronbach Alpha coefficient 0.823
Results in Table 3.3 revealed the reliability of the questionnaire to be 0.823.
3.8.3 Conformability of instruments
Conformability is the degree to which others agree or corroborate with the research findings. Each
qualitative research is unique in itself, but the researcher can still adopt means such as
31
documenting the procedures for rechecking data, unearth negative instances that contradict
previous observations, play devil’s advocate and more to ensure conformability (Middleton
(2023). For instance, in a study on customer patronage of a retail store, the researcher can cross-
check data generated on the number of visitors to the store and their buying preference to the sales
billing maintained by the store. The researcher can also refer to earlier studies or market research
that may cover a similar sample, even if the purpose of such study was different, and more.
3.8.4 Transferability of instruments
External validity in quantitative research refers to the extent to which the same methodology
applied to another set of sample works in a similar way and produce similar results (Middleton
(2023). The validity of qualitative research depends rather on transferability. Transferability is the
ability to generalize, or the extent to which the results of the research apply to other contexts or
settings. Qualitative research with descriptive research context and assumptions generally has
greater transferability compared to research with lesser descriptive contexts and fewer
assumptions. The application of transferability however remains subjective, and depends on the
specific case (solid waste management and urban liveability).
3.9 Procedure of data collection
The researcher obtained an introduction letter from Uganda Management institute (UMI) after
successful proposal defense and present it to the authorities in Kyenda Town Council to obtain
approval to carry out the research. The researcher piloted the questionnaire on a sample of ten
respondents and the interview guide on two respondents. The researcher used the comments from
these respondents to improve the questionnaire and interview guide. At this point, research
assistants was recruited, trained on the ethical considerations. The researcher contacted relevant
authorities in Kyenda Town Council to come up with agreeable schedule so that work is not
affected. The researcher delivered the questionnaires personally to respondents with support from
research assistants after getting permission from Kyenda Town Council. The researcher
conducted face to face interviews with the key respondents which involved a question and answer
session. The research instruments were collected and the information was recorded, coded,
interpreted and analyzed.
3.10 Data analysis
Data assessment is the strategy associated with bringing solicitation, plan, and importance to the
mass of information amassed. The research encouraged both qualitative and quantitative methods
32
of data analysis before the analysis of the data that is discussed in this section.
3.10.1 Quantitative analysis
Quantitative data analysis, which calls for employing both descriptive and inferential statistics,
was carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS). Descriptive statistics
describe the characteristics of a data set. Descriptive statistics were computed using frequency
distributions, mean, and standard deviation. Inferential statistics focused on making predictions
about the contribution of Strategic physical planning to the urban liveability. The data was
presented in comprehensive tables displaying the responses to each category of variables after
being edited, coded, and entered
3.10.2 Qualitative analysis
The term "qualitative analysis" was coined by Borgstede and Scholz (2021) to describe a method
that "provides insights and understanding of the problem setting.” Narrative analysis of qualitative
data was consolidated given how the outcomes connect with the exploration questions. The
researcher collected data from a collection of written, oral, or visual texts (such as books, papers,
magazines, talks, and meetings) to identify patterns in written correspondence to conduct
Narrative analysis (Marsh, et al., 2020; Luo, 2022).
3.11 Variable measurement
According to IvyPanda (2020), a measurement variable is an unidentified attribute that can
measure a specific entity and can take one or more values. It is frequently used for scientific
research. A variable that is used to name, label, or classify specific characteristics that are being
measured is referred to as a nominal variable. A nominal variable is the simplest measurement
variable in the two categories of categorical variables. Some examples of nominal variables
include gender, name, and phone number (Bhandari, 2022). A measurement variable whose
values can be sorted or ordered is known as an ordinal variable. They are constructed on nominal
scales by assigning numbers to objects to represent an attribute's rank or order. The independent
and dependent variables were measured using the Likert scale, which has five points (1-strongly
disagree, 2-disagree, 3-not sure, 4-agree, and 5-strongly agree). Since it gives a mathematical
score at each point, this scale was decided to measure the respondent's demeanor. In studies of
social attitude, the summated scale is also the one that is used the most frequently. The study
variables were calculated in a predetermined order using the nominal and ordinal measurement
levels. The Likert scale was utilized during the information assortment interaction to decide
33
respondents' sentiments and impressions of the formed factors. On a scale of 1 to 5, factors
addressed by emphatically deviate, dissent, not certain, concur, and firmly concur were measured
using ordinary and plausible estimations.
3.11 Ethical consideration

Morals in research allude to the standards that recognize satisfactory and unsatisfactory ways of
behaving (Cammaerts, 2020). The researcher was aware of the significance of ethics in this study,
which prioritized honesty, integrity, and attribution.
Confidentiality and privacy: It refers to the obligation of an individual or organization to
safeguard entrusted information. The research participant’s privacy was assured by the researcher,
who kept all the information safely locked up during the research process.
To ensure privacy, the respondents were informed that indeed their names were required, that they
have the right to leave questions unanswered for which they do not wish to offer the requisite
information, and that the study could not put the respondent under pressure if this happens.
Informed Consent: The researcher sought informed consent before conducting the data collection
process. Informed consent for research requires that the respondents or subject must be competent
to understand and decide, receive full disclosure, comprehend the disclosure, act voluntarily, and
consent to the proposed action to which this study adhered.
Plagiarism: presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent by
incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgment. All published and unpublished
material, whether in manuscript, printed, or electronic form, is covered under this definition. This
was minimized by paraphrasing, citing, quoting, citing quotes, citing own material, and
referencing.
Voluntary participation: The research participants were informed that their participation in the
study was not to be rewarded in any way; it was entirely voluntary. All the research participants
were informed of their rights to refuse to be interviewed or to withdraw at any point for any
reason, without any prejudice or explanation.
34
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION, AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the findings, analysis, and interpretations of the findings on the effect of
Solid Waste Management and urban liveability in Mubende district: a case of Kyenda Town
Council. The study was specifically premised on the following research objectives; (1) to
examine the effect of waste recycling on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council, (2) to
examine the effect of waste disposal on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council and (3) to
examine the effect of waste composting on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council. This
chapter is stretched starting with the introduction, followed by the response rate,
demographic data of the respondent, and descriptive and inferential statistics.
4.2 Response Rate
In the study, the researcher used both the interview guides and self-administered questionnaire to
aid the collection of data.
Table 4.4: Response rate
Tool (Planned/Scheduled) (Received/ Held) Percentage (%)
Questionnaires 159 103 65%
Interviews 15 10 67%
From the Table 4.4 above, results returned indicate that out of 159 questionnaires issued, 103
were returned fully completed, constituting (55%). On the other hand, the researcher held, (15)
interview sessions, out of the planned (10), resulting in a (67%) percentage return. According to
Amin (2005), a response rate above 50% is good enough to represent a survey.
4.3 Background Information
In order to get a detailed and more concrete picture of the study sample, the study examined the
background information, which included; gender, age of respondent and level of education,
35
employment status and duration of service. These results show the characteristics of the
institution.
4.3.1 Administrative level
The study looked at the administrative level of the respondents by using frequency distribution.
The results obtained on the item are presented in Table 4.5 below.
Table 4.5: Administrative level for the Respondents.

Administrative level Frequency Percentage
Top Management 15 15
Middle management (principal & senior officers) 79 77
Program officers 09 09
Total 103 100
Results in Table 4.5 revealed that the majority of the respondents 79(77%) were in the Middle
management level, followed by 15(15%) in the top management and 09(09%) respectively. This
implied that most of the respondents had considerable knowledge and practice on the subject
matter which enabled them to get reliable information since they were in the middle level of the
organization.
4.3.2 Age of respondent
The study looked at the age distribution of the respondents by age using frequency distribution.
The results obtained on the item are presented in Figure 4.3 below.
36
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Below 30 years 30-40 years 40-50 years 50 years and above
Source: Primary Data, (2023)

Figure 4.3: Age of respondents
Findings from the study in Figure 4.3 reveal that 34% of the respondents were aged below 30
years, 36% were aged between 30-40 years, 22% were aged between 40-50 years and 9% were
aged 50 and above. This indicated that all categories of respondents from different age groups
were represented in this study. The findings can be linked to the fact that most of the respondents
were of mature age 33(54%) and fully understood the value of having good waste management
practices within their localities. Secondly, given the nature of the work in the road sectors, it
attracts the youth, middle-aged, and those in advanced age.
4.3.3. Sex of the respondent
The sex characteristics of respondents were investigated for this study, and findings are presented
in Table 4.6 below.
Table 4.6: Sex of the Respondents
Sex of the respondent Frequency Percentage
Male 66 64
Female 37 36
Total 103 100
37
Results in Table 4.6 indicate that the majority of the respondents were male 66(64%) and female
37(36%). This implies that although there were gender disparities in favor of the males, it is
evident that the study was ultimately gender representative since 36% of females is also a
significant representation of the sample and the population at large. Furthermore, it can be argued
that Waste management practices are a concern of both genders and therefore, to achieve urban
liveability, both sexes have to be involved in the planning, implementation, and maintenance
within their communities. Through the execution of different duties both sexes contribute to urban
liveability and ensure that their communities have good waste management practices for better
access to markets, schools, and health units among others.
4.3.4 Time spent on the job (in years)

The respondents were also asked to indicate their time spent on the job (in years) in the
organization which is illustrated in Figure 4.4 below.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
3-5 years 5-10 years 1-2 years 10 years and Less than 1 year
above
38
Figure 4.4: Time spent on the job (in years);
Findings in Figure 4.4 indicate that the majority of the respondents 43(42%) had worked with the
organization between 3-5 years, 27(26%) of respondents had worked between 1-2 years,
11(11%) had worked between 5-10 years, 06(06%) had worked for over 10 years and above
whereas 16(16%) had worked for less than one year. This meant that the majority of the
respondents had working experience in the organization, thereby having enough knowledge
to provide relevant information on the contribution of Solid Waste Management to urban
liveability in Kyenda Town Council.
4.3.5 Employment status
The employment status of respondents was investigated for this study, and findings are presented
in Table 4.7 below.
Table 4.7: Employment status for the Respondents
Employment status Frequency Percentage
Permanent staff 63 67
Contract staff 40 33
Total 103 100
Findings from Table 4.7 reveal that the majority of the respondents 41(67%) were permanent staff
while 20(33%) were contract staff. This also contributes to the performance of the institution
since no one will take it for granted that they are permanently employed.
4.3.6 Highest level of education
The respondents were also asked to indicate their education levels which is illustrated in Figure
4.5 below.
39
Masters Certificate
11% 12%
Diploma
23%
Bachelors
54%

Figure 4.5: The highest level of education
Results in Figure 4.5 above indicates that the majority of the respondents 56(54%) were
Bachelor’s holders, Master’s degree were 11(11%), diploma holders were 24(23%), certificate
holders were 12(12%) respectively. These results indicate that the respondents had good
qualifications and the right skills and knowledge to deliver. Besides, the respondents were able to
understand, read, and interpret the questionnaire and give relevant responses. Secondly, it can be
concluded that most of the respondents in the study were capable of participating in the planning,
implementation, and maintenance of community, thus contributing to ensuring that there was
better service delivery in the areas under study.
4.4 Findings per Objective
In this chapter, the section comprises of the detailed findings from the field of study using both
the interview and questionnaire methods. The findings presented descriptively based on the
specific objectives of the study, which include; examining the relationship between Waste
recycling and urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council, the relationship between Waste disposal
and urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council, as well as the relationship between Waste
composting and urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council. For all descriptive findings in this
section, item statements were administered to respondents to establish the extent to which they
agreed with them. The responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1 =
Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Not Sure, 4 = Agree, and 5= Strongly Agree). Descriptive
40
data was analyzed using frequency, mean, and standard deviation statistics. It was then
collaborated with qualitative data using narrative analysis.
4.4.1 Urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council
The items on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council were structured basing on the objectives
of the study. Items were measured on a five-point Likert scale where code 1 = Strongly Disagree,
2 = Disagree, 3 = Not sure, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree. The data is presented and analyzed
basing on eight (08) items, which are statistically tabulated and presented in the table below with
the frequencies and percentages according to the responses collected.
Table 4.8: Opinions of respondents on Urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council
Statements [Percentage). (%)/Frequency] Mean SD
SD D NS A SA
There is access to fresh water and 10% 13% 22% 45% 7% 3.26 1.12
drainage channels in Kyenda Town (11) (14) (23) (47) (8)
Council
Existing community access roads in 8% 16% 17% 39% 17% 3.41 1.20
Kyenda Town Council are clear very (9) (17) (18) (41) (18)
clear to the current strategic leadership
There are proper dumping sites for 6% 53% 15% 16% 7% 2.58 1.06
waste disposal in Kyenda Town (7) (55) (16) (17) (8)
Council
Proper waste management enhance 4% 8% 10% 54% 21% 3.68 1.03
greener environment in Kyenda (5) (9) (11) (56) (22)
Town Council
There are vehicle pass ways to access 8% 4% 6% 69% 9% 3.77 1.02
households/business premises (9) (5) (7) (72) (10)
during waste collection.
Garbage collection is done in the slums 12% 17% 6% 6% 56% 3.76 1.56
of Kyenda Town Council where (13) (18) (7) (7) (58)
roads are not accessible.
Urban authorities and community 4% 12% 22% 57% 2% 3.60 0.92
members have implemented the (5) (13) (23) (59) (3)
reuse method of solid waste
management
The set Town Council system has 6% 9% 20% 47% 15% 3.45 1.08
ensured effectiveness in service delivery (7) (10) (21) (49) (16)
by working on all access roads within
Kyenda Town Council
Findings from the study in table 4.8 indicate that 10% of the total respondents strongly disagree
that there is access to fresh water and drainage channels in Kyenda Town Council, 13% disagree,
41
22% not sure, 45% agree, while 7% strongly agree. This is also supported by the mean value of
3.26 that indicates the respondents who were unsatisfied with the statement and the standard
deviation of 1.12 that shows the dispersion of responses close to the mean value. This implies that
when the needs of the people are not taken into consideration, waste management remains a
challenge, which affects the business and community at large.
Findings also reveal that 39% of the total respondents strongly disagree that existing community
access roads in Kyenda Town Council are clear very clear to the current strategic leadership, 16%
disagree, 17% not sure, 8% agree, while 17% strongly agree. This is also supported by the mean
value of 3.41 indicating those who are not satisfied with the statement and standard deviation of
1.20 indicating those with indicating responses from the statement.
As to whether there are proper dumping sites for waste disposal in Kyenda Town Council, 53% of
the total respondents strongly disagree with the statement, 15% of the respondents were not sure,
whereas minority of the respondents 16% agreed with the statement. This is supported by the
mean value of 2.38 indicating the respondents who were unsatisfied with the statement and the
standard deviation of 1.06 that show less dispersion of the responses from the mean. This implies
that there is limited involvement of community members in planning has led to resistance of the
waste management rules and regulations in the Town Council. The findings are supported by the
key informant who asserts that:
That there should be elected committees at the village level responsible for solid waste
management, this would make it easier to find out the needs and priorities of the
people. Such village committees can also be responsible for mobilization and
sensitization of the public for effective planning. It is during planning stage that
the communities are enabled to find out their responsibilities as regards solid
waste management. It should be noted that planning and decision making for SWM
isn’t done appropriately at the ward level and this has affected implementation
negatively (KII/002/20/10/2023)
Findings indicate that 8% of the total respondents disagree that proper waste management
enhance greener environment in Kyenda Town Council, 10% not sure, whereas 54% of the
respondents agreed with the statement. The mean value of 3.78 indicates the respondents who
were satisfied with the statement and standard deviation of 1.03 indicate those with deviating
responses from the statement.
42
On the statement there are vehicle pass ways to access households/business premises during waste
collection, 8% of the total respondents disagree with the statement, 6% of the respondents were
not sure, majority of the respondents 69% agree with the statement. This is also supported by the
mean value of 3.67 indicating those who were satisfied with the statement and standard deviation
of 1.02 indicate those with deviating responses from the statement. The findings are supported by
the key informant who asserts that:
Even when the truck collecting waste is in the community there is no specific means of
communication for the people to bring waste to the truck. She said that sometimes
people arrive when the truck has already left and they end up throwing garbage by
the road side. She also said that whenever the truck arrives to collect waste, the
waiting period is so short and most people end up not able to dispose waste. Her
suggestion was that Town council workers should have a megaphone to announce
the arrival and departure of the truck so that people can be able to come on time to
dispose waste (KII/001/20/10/2023)
On the statement garbage collection is done in the slums of Kyenda Town Council where roads
are not accessible, 17% of the total respondents disagree with the statement, 07% of the
respondents were not sure, while 56% of the respondents agreed with the statement. Findings are
supported by the mean value of 3.76 indicating those who were satisfied with the statement and
standard deviation of 1.56 indicating those with deviating responses.
Findings do reveal that 12% of the total respondents disagree that urban authorities and
community members have implemented the reuse method of solid waste management, 22% of the
respondents were not sure, 57% of the respondents agree with the statement. This too is supported
by the mean value of 3.60 indicating those who were satisfied with the statement and the standard
deviation of 0.92 that show the dispersion of responses close to the mean value. The findings are
supported by the key informant who revealed that:
In Kyenda Market, the leaders of the traders and vendors said that there are no clear
guidelines for participation in planning for SWM. A respondent revealed that,
technocrats only care about collecting taxes but do not care about the needs of the
market traders and vendor (KII/001/20/10/2023). Therefore, even though there is
analysis of needs and priority setting, this only ends at the level of committee
meetings.
43
As to whether the set Town Council system has ensured effectiveness in service delivery by
working on all access roads within Kyenda Town Council, 47% agreed of the respondents agreed
with the statement, 20% of the respondents were not sure, whereas the minority of the respondents
6% of the respondents disagreed with the statement. This is also supported by the mean value of
3.45 indicating those who were fairly satisfied with the statement and standard deviations of 1.08
indicating those with deviating responses from the statement.
4.4.2 Waste recycling and urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council
The items on Waste recycling were structured basing on the objectives of the study. Items were
measured on a five-point Likert scale where code 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Not
sure, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree. The data is presented and analyzed basing on seven (07)
items, which are statistically tabulated and presented in the table below with the frequencies and
percentages according to the responses collected.
Table 4.9: Opinions of respondents on Waste recycling and Urban liveability in Kyenda
Town Council
Statements [Percentage (%)/ Frequency] Mean SD
SD D NS A SA
Kyenda Town Council supports/promotes 15% 2% 7% 22% 53% 3.57 1.43
recycling of waste. (16) (1) (8) (23) (55)
Communities are involved in the design 3% 65% 6% 18% 5% 2.81 0.98
and implementation of recycling (4) (67) (7) (19) (6)
programs
Community is aware of need to reduce 2% 2% 11% 67% 18% 3.88 0.68
waste production and facilitating (1) (2) (12) (69) (19)
recovery for the purpose of recycling;
Waste recycling is practiced by the 8% 4% 6% 69% 9% 3.97 1.02
community of Kyenda Town Council (9) (5) (7) (72) (10)
Recycling is practiced by community / 12% 17% 6% 6% 56% 3.76 1.56
residents in Kyenda Town Council (13) (18) (7) (7) (58)
Recycling is a source of revenue in 4% 57% 2% 12% 22% 2.40 0.92
Kyenda Town Council (5) (59) (3) (13) (23)
Kyenda Town Council has high potential 6% 47% 20% 9% 15% 2.55 1.08
for recycling waste. (7) (49) (21) (10) (16)
Findings from the study in Table 4.9 above reveal that 15% of the total respondents strongly
disagree that Kyenda Town Council supports/promotes recycling of waste, 7% of the respondents
44
not sure, 22% agreed, while 53% of the respondents agreed with the statement. This is supported
by the mean value of 3.57 indicating the respondents who were satisfied with the statement and
the standard deviation of 1.43 indicating those with deviating responses from the statement.
Findings from the study also reveal that 65% of the total respondents disagreed that communities
are involved in the design and implementation of recycling programs, 6% of the respondents were
not sure, whereas majority of the respondents 18% agreed with the statement. This is supported by
the mean value of 2.81 indicating those who were satisfied with the statement and standard
deviations of 0.98 indicating those deviating responses from the statement. This implies that there
is a big gap in mobilization of communities for solid waste management. Just as stated above that
there are committees for coordination but they are not active. Because of limited mobilization,
most citizens are not sensitized about their responsibility and this has led to poor solid waste
management in Kyenda Town Council.
On the statement community is aware of need to reduce waste production and facilitating
recovery for the purpose of recycling; 67% of the respondents agreed with the statement, 11% of
the respondents were not sure whereas minority of the respondents disagreed with the statement
respectively. This is also supported by the mean value of 3.88 that show that most respondents
were satisfied with the statement and the standard deviation of 0.68 indicating those with
deviating responses from the statement. This implies that recycling has the advantage of reducing
costs of the disposal facilities, prolonging the site span and also reducing the environmental
impact of disposal sites as the organics are largely to blame for polluting leache and methane
problems.
Findings from the study also reveal that 8% of the total respondents disagree that waste recycling
is practiced by the community of Kyenda Town Council, 6% of the respondents were not sure,
where majority of the respondents 69% agreed with the statement. This is also supported by the
mean value of 3.97 indicating those who were satisfied with the statement and standard deviation
of 1.02 indicating those with deviating responses from the stamen. This implies that recycling has
the advantage of reducing costs of the disposal facilities, prolonging the site span and also
reducing the environmental impact of disposal sites as the organics are largely to blame for
polluting leache and methane problems.
Findings also reveal that 17% of the total respondents disagree that recycling is practiced by
community / residents in Kyenda Town Council, 6% of the respondents were not sure while
45
majority of the respondents 56% agreed with the statement. This is supported by the mean value
of 3.76 indicating those who were satisfied with the statement and standard deviation of 1.56
indicating those with deviating responses from the statement. This implies that recycling of solid
wastes reduces the pressure on the collection, disposal and handling systems of waste. At the
same time the activity of recycling creates further economic benefits such as employment creation
and income generation.
Findings also reveal that majority of the respondents 59% disagreed that recycling is a source of
revenue in Kyenda Town Council, 2% of the respondents were not sure, whereas 22% of the
respondents agreed with the statement. This is also supported by the mean value of 2.4 indicating
those who were satisfied with the statement and the standard deviation of 0.92 that show the
dispersion of responses close to the mean value.
Findings also reveal that 47% of the total respondents disagree that Kyenda Town Council has
high potential for recycling waste, 20% of the respondents were not sure, whereas minority of the
respondents 15% disagreed with the statement. This is also supported by the mean value of 2.55
indicating those who were unsatisfied with the statement and standard deviations of 1.08
indicating those with deviating responses from the statement.
4.4.2 Waste disposal and urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council
The items on solicitation planning were structured basing on the objectives of the study. Items
were measured on a five-point Likert scale where code 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 =
Not sure, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree. The data is presented and analyzed basing on seven
(06) items, which are statistically tabulated and presented in the table below with the frequencies
and percentages according to the responses collected.
46
Table 4.10: Opinions of respondents on Waste disposal and urban liveability in Kyenda
Town Council
Statements [Percentage (%) /Frequency] Mean SD
SD D ND A SA
Picking up garbage around my 10% 5% 15% 65% 2% 3.63 1.03
community is my responsibility as a (11) (6) (16) (67) (3)
Kyenda Town Council resident.
I mix all the waste in one bin / container 9% 12% 11% 61% 4% 3.60 1.08
without sorting (10) (13) (12) (63) (5)
Kyenda Town Council uses sound reliable 60% 31% 4% 2% 2% 1.24 0.99
trucks and hand driven carts to collect (62) (32) (5) (1) (3)
Garbage all over the town.
The community practices garbage 9% 17% 2% 64% 7% 3.64 0.89
disposal in Kyenda Town Council (10) (18) (1) (66) (8)
I use different containers for bio- 54% 14% 14% 10% 5% 1.30 1.12
degradable non and bio-degradable (56) (15) (15) (11) (6)
waste
Kyenda Town Council residents practice 9% 15% 23% 41% 9% 3.30 1.12
less waste (10) (16) (24) (43) (10)
Findings in Table 4.10 above reveal that 10% of the total respondents strongly disagree that
picking up garbage around my community is my responsibility as a Kyenda Town Council
resident, 15% of the respondents were not sure, whereas majority of the respondents 65% agreed
with the statement. This is also supported by the mean value of 3.63 indicating those who were
satisfied with the statement and the standard deviation of 1.03 that show the dispersion of
responses close to the mean value.
On the statement community mix all the waste in one bin / container without sorting, 12% of the
total respondents strongly disagree with the statement, 11% of the respondents were not sure,
whereas majority of the respondents 61% agreed with the statement. This is also supported by the
mean value of 3.680 indicating those who were satisfied with the statement and standard
deviations of 1.08 indicating those with deviating responses from the statement.
More findings show that 60% of the total respondents strongly disagree that Kyenda Town
Council uses sound reliable trucks and hand driven carts to collect Garbage all over the town, 4%
of the statements were not sure while minority of the respondents agreed with the statements. This
is also supported by the mean value of 1.24 that show that most respondents were not satisfied
with the statement and the standard deviation of 0.99 that show less dispersion of the responses
47
from the mean. The issue here was that the Town Council does not have enough equipment to
collect all solid waste in Kyenda Town Council. Sometimes trucks breakdown and take long to be
fixed, the area where it’s expected to collect waste from, that day is missed so the citizens have to
wait sometimes for another week to dispose off waste. This has in some instances brought about
indiscriminate disposal of waste in open spaces, road side and drainage channels in the
community. The fin findings are supported by the key informant who asserts that:
Even when the truck collecting waste is in the community there is no specific means of
communication for the people to bring waste to the truck. She said that sometimes
people arrive when the truck has already left and they end up throwing garbage by
the road side. She also said that whenever the truck arrives to collect waste, the
waiting period is so short and most people end up not able to dispose waste. Her
suggestion was that Town council workers should have a megaphone to announce
the arrival and departure of the truck so that people can be able to come on time to
dispose waste. (KII/005/21/10/2023)
As to whether community practices garbage disposal in Kyenda Town Council, majority of the
respondent 64% agreed with the statement, 2% of the respondents were not sure whereas minority
of the respondents 17% disagreed with the statement. This is also supported by the mean value of
3.64 indicating those who were satisfied with the statement and standard deviation of 0.89
indicating those with deviating responses. This implies that properly designed, constructed, and
managed landfills provide a safe alternative to uncontrolled dumping. For example, to protect
groundwater from the liquid that collects in landfills (leachate), a properly designed landfill has an
earthen or synthetic liner.
Findings also reveal that 54% of the total respondents disagreed on the statement that the
community uses different containers for bio-degradable non and bio-degradable waste 54% of the
respondents disagreed with the statement, 14% of the respondents were not sure, whereas
minority of the respondents 10% agree with the statement. This is supported by the mean value of
1.30 indicating those who were unsatisfied with the statement and standard deviation of 1.12
indicating those with deviating responses. These findings revealed irregularity in the waste
collection including a lack of members of the community to cooperate with Council Authority in
SWM in Kyenda Town Council. The findings are supported by the key informant who asserts
that:
48
The solid waste collection service is not regular in most parts of the town council. It is
done perhaps once after two-three weeks. Another issue is that even the garbage
collection containers need maintenance from time to time but I have never seen
any in my area being maintained so far(KII/004/20/10/2023)
As to whether Kyenda Town Council residents practice less waste, 43% of the respondents agreed
with the statement, 23% of the respondents were not sure whereas minority of the respondents
disagreed with the statement. This is supported by the mean value of 3.30 indicating those who
were unsatisfied with the statement and the standard deviation of 1.13 indicating those with
deviating responses from the statement.
4.4.3 Waste composting and urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council
The items on contract management were structured basing on the objectives of the study. Items
were measured on a five-point Likert scale where code 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 =
Not sure, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly Agree. The data is presented and analyzed basing on eight
(07) items, which are statistically tabulated and presented in the table below with the frequencies
and percentages according to the responses collected.
Table 4.11: Opinions of respondents on Waste composting and urban liveability in Kyenda
Town Council
Variable (N=103) [Percentage (%)/Frequency] Mean SD
SD D NS A SA
We use different bins /containers for 17% 54% 8% 8% 10% 1.86 1.28
organic and non-organic waste (18) (56) (9) (9) (11)
Most of my organic waste is composited 6% 67% 7% 9% 8% 2.61 1.01
in farms (7) (69) (8) (10) (9)
Solid Waste in Kyenda Town Council is 7% 64% 2% 11% 13% 1.68 0.99
adequately managed. (8) (66) (3) (12) (14)
Solid Waste in Kyenda Town Council is 55% 10% 2% 12% 39% 2.54 0.80
collected to gazette collection centers (36) (11) (1) (13) (40)
There are increased dump sites in 6% 7% 25% 52% 7% 3.57 1.00
Kyenda Town Council (7) (8) (26) (54) (8)
Kyenda Town Council collects garbage 4% 44% 17% 19% 14% 2.57 0.80
daily (5) (45) (18) (20) (15)
There are enough Tracks and Metallic 20% 18% 00% 29% 24% 2.83 1.03
bins that are used in the collection of (21) (19) 00 (30) (25)
waste.
49
Findings in Table 4.11 above reveal that 54% of the total respondents disagreed that the
community use different bins /containers for organic and non-organic waste, 8% of the
respondents were not sure, whereas the minority of the respondents agreed with the statement.
This is also supported by the mean value of 1.86 that indicated those who were unsatisfied with
the statement and the standard deviation of 1.28 that shows the dispersion of responses close to
the mean value.
Findings also reveal that 67% of the total respondents disagree with the statement most of organic
waste is composited in farms, 7% of the respondents were not sure, whereas minority of the
respondents 9% agreed with the statement. This is also supported by the mean value of 2.61
indicating those who were unsatisfied with the statement and standard deviations of 1.01
indicating those with deviating responses forma the statement.
Findings from the study further reveal that 64% of the total respondents disagreed that Solid
Waste in Kyenda Town Council is adequately managed, 2% of the respondents were not sure,
13% not sure, whereas minority of the respondents 13% agreed with the statement. This is also
supported by the mean value of 1.68 indicate those who were unsatisfied with the statement and
the standard deviation of 0.99 that shows less dispersion of the responses from the mean. This
implies that monitoring of waste management practices in the town is very poor. In fact, such
monitoring does not exist. Monitoring and supervising waste management practices such as
ensuring every store has an “effective” waste bin and supervising the disposal of waste to
discourage dumping of waste materials anywhere in the town would enhance waste management
practices in marketplaces. The findings are supported by the key informant who revealed that:
The Town Council is responsible for implementation of the regulation and monitoring
of activities of waste generators of solid waste. It has to follow the byelaws put in
place for waste materials practices. However, the community operates without any
monitoring or supervision by the council (KII/006/20/10/2023)
Findings from the study do reveal that 35% of the total respondents disagree that solid Waste in
Kyenda Town Council is collected to gazette collection centers, 2% of the respondents were not
sure, while 39% of the respondents agreed with the statement. This is also supported by the mean
value of 2.54 indicating those who were fairly satisfied with the statement and standard deviation
of 0.80 indicating those with deviating responses.
Findings from the study confirm that 44% of the total respondents disagreed that Kyenda Town
50
Council collects garbage daily, 17% of the respondents were not sure, whereas minority of
respondents 19% agreed with the statement. This is supported by the mean value of 2.57
indicating those who were unsatisfied with the statement and standard deviation of 1.00 indicating
those with deviating responses.
The results indicate that 20% of the total respondents disagreed that there are enough Tracks and
Metallic bins that are used in the collection of waste, whereas 29% of the respondents agree with
the statement respectively. This was supported by the mean value of 2.83 indicating those who
were unsatisfied with the statement and standard deviation of 0.80 indicating those with deviating
responses. This implies that even when the truck collecting waste is in the community there is no
specific means of communication for the people to bring waste to the truck. She said that
sometimes people arrive when the truck has already left and they end up throwing garbage by the
road side. She also said that whenever the truck arrives to collect waste, the waiting period is so
short and most people end up not able to dispose waste.
Preparation of Data for Inferential Statistics
When analyzing hypotheses in research testing, researchers typically make several underlying
assumptions to ensure the validity and reliability of their findings. These assumptions provide the
foundation for various statistical tests and methods used in hypothesis testing. The specific
assumptions can vary depending on the statistical test or method being used. This study adopted
the parametric test (Analysis of Variance/ ANOVA) to analyze the hypothesis.
4.5 Multiple Regression analysis on Solid Waste Management and urban liveability
Multiple regression analysis is a statistical technique that was used to analyse the relationship
between a single dependent (criterion) variable urban liveability and several independent
(predictor) variables (Waste recycling, Waste disposal, and Waste composting). The objective of
multiple regression analysis was to use the independent variables whose values were known to
predict the single dependent value that was selected by the researcher. A regression model
equation was used to explain the variation in the criterion variable.
Y (Dependent Variable) = Intercept + Slope line × Independent Variable
Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + e
Where Y = Urban liveability
a = Constant/ y-intercept
b1X1 = Slope line x Waste recycling
51
b2X2 = Slope line × Waste disposal
b3X3 = Slope line × Waste composting
e = prediction error (residual)
To assess the overall significance of the regression model for Solid Waste Management on urban
liveability, an Analysis of Variance was done and the results are presented in Table 4.12 below
Table 4.12: ANOVA for Solid Waste Management on urban liveability
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square Sig.
Regression 46.668 27.210 13.076 .000b
Residual 9.071 103 .088
Total 106
a. Dependent Variable: Urban liveability
b. Predictors: (Constant), Waste recycling , Waste disposal , Waste composting
Source: Primary Data.2023
Table 4.15 shows the test of the significance of the model using ANOVA. The results show that F
Ratio (F = 3, 103) = 13.076, p = 0.000. This shows that the model is significant since p=0.000<
0.05therefore we reject the null hypothesis “There is no significant contribution of Solid Waste
Management (Waste recycling , Waste disposal , and Waste composting ) on urban liveability in
Kyenda Town Council ” and accept the alternative that Solid Waste Management contributes to
urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council . In other words, improved Solid Waste Management
can lead to improved urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council and vice versa. It also implies
that the challenges of urban liveability are brought about by the gaps in Solid Waste Management
(Waste recycling, Waste disposal, and Waste composting).
When the P-value for the multiple regression model for Solid Waste Management and urban
liveability is < 0.05, it means that there is at least one Independent variable that has a significant
contribution to urban liveability. Multiple regression was run to examine the contribution of Solid
Waste Management to urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council. Considering the Model
summary, the correlation coefficient (R), R Square, and Adjusted R Square were generated as
shown in Table 4.13 below.
Table 4.13: Multiple regression results for Solid Waste Management on urban liveability
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
52
.579 .435 .539 .381
a. Predictors: (Constant), Waste recycling , Waste disposal , Waste composting
Source: Primary Data 2023
Table 4.13 shows Pearson Correlation Coefficient R = 0.579, R Square = 0.435 and Adjusted R
Square = 0.539. An R = 0.579 means that Solid Waste Management has a moderate positive
contribution to the urban liveability. Adjusted R 2 = 0.539 indicates that the regression model with
the three dimensions (Waste recycling, Waste disposal and Waste composting) accounted for 54%
of that variation in urban liveability explained by Solid Waste Management while other variables
not mentioned in the model explain the remaining variance of 46%.
To identify the variable (s) that has a significant contribution to urban liveability, the coefficient
of determination was computed to identify which of the three variables was significant. The
equation for the line Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + e was computed using an unstandardized
Coefficient. Findings are revealed in Table 4.14 below;
Table 4.14: The regression coefficient of determination for Solid Waste Management on
urban liveability
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta Sig.
(Constant) .610 .306 7.982 .000
Waste recycling .339 .205 .436 3.440 .001
Waste disposal .568 .139 .405 1.934 .000
Waste composting .104 .112 .669 2.983 .003
a. Dependent Variable: Urban liveability
b. Predictors: (Constant), Waste recycling , Waste disposal , Waste composting
Source: Primary Data 2023
Findings in the regression model, Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3
Urban liveability = 0.610 + 0.339X1 +0.568X2+0.104X3
To determine whether the slope for Waste recycling, Waste disposal, and Waste composting are
significant, the p-value should be <0.05. Results in Table 4.14 for the coefficient of the
determination indicate that each of the respective independent variables was significant since the
P-value < 0.05(Waste recycling = 0.01, Waste disposal = 0.000, Waste composting = 0.003). This
53
led the researcher to reject all the three null hypotheses as stated in chapter one.
H01 = Waste recycling does not significantly contribute to urban liveability.
To establish the contribution of Waste recycling on urban liveability, the researcher considered
the corresponding standardized coefficient Beta values for Waste recycling, β = 0.436. This
implies that for every one-unit increase in Waste recycling will lead to an increase of 0.436 units
of urban liveability. The researcher therefore rejected the null hypothesis and concluded that
Waste recycling significantly contributes to urban liveability.
H02 =Waste disposal does not significantly contribute to urban liveability.
To establish the contribution of Waste disposal on urban liveability, the researcher considered the
corresponding standardized coefficient Beta values for Waste disposal, β = 0.405. This implies
that every one-unit increase in Waste disposal will lead to an increase of 0.405 units of urban
liveability. The researcher therefore rejected the null hypothesis and concluded that Waste
disposal significantly contributes to urban liveability.
H03 = Waste composting does not significantly contribute to urban liveability.
To establish the contribution of Waste composting on urban liveability, the researcher considered
the corresponding standardized coefficient Beta values for Waste disposal, β = 669. This implies
that every one-unit increase in Waste disposal will lead to an increase of 0.669 units of urban
liveability. The researcher therefore rejected the null hypothesis and concluded that Waste
composting significantly contributes to urban liveability.
Overall, the multiple regression model indicated that strategy physical planning had a positive
significant contribution to urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council. Specifically, the
Standardized coefficient beta values revealed that Waste composting had a bigger contribution to
urban liveability followed by Waste recycling and then Waste disposal quality assurance system
accreditation. The overall coefficient of determination for the model summary of 0.539 revealed
that the three dimensions of Solid Waste Management (Waste recycling, Waste disposal, and
Waste composting) accounted for 54 % of the variation in the urban liveability in Kyenda Town
Council .
The regression model Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + e
Urban liveability = 0.610 + 0.339X1 +0.568X2+0.104X3+e
54
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a summary of the findings, discussion, conclusion, and recommendations
on the effect of Solid Waste Management and urban liveability in Mubende district, Kyenda
Town Council. The study was specifically premised on the following research objectives; (1)
to examine the effect of waste recycling on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council, (2) to
examine the effect of waste disposal on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council and (3) to
examine the effect of Waste composting on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council.
5.2 Summary of the Study
The results indicate that waste recycling had a coefficient of estimate which was statistically
significant based on (p-value=0.001) which is below 0.05 level of significance. This implies that
waste recycling contributes to urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council. The β = 0.436
Coefficient implies that a 0.436 unit change in waste recycling will lead to a 0.436 unit change in
urban liveability.
The results indicate that waste disposal had a coefficient of estimate which was statistically
waste disposal affects urban liveability. The β = 0.405 Coefficient implies that a 0.405 unit
change in waste disposal will lead to a 0.405 unit change in urban liveability.
The results indicate that waste composting had a coefficient of estimate which was statistically
waste composting contributes to urban liveability. The β = 0.669 Coefficient implies that a 0.669
unit change in waste composting will lead to a 0.669 unit change in urban liveability.
5.3 Discussion of findings
55
The results indicate that waste recycling had a coefficient of estimate which was statistically
significant based on (p-value=0.001) which is below 0.05 level of significance. The findings are
supported Kyayesimira and Muheirwe (2021) who indicated that recycling of solid wastes reduces
the pressure on the collection, disposal and handling systems of waste. At the same time the
activity of recycling creates further economic benefits such as employment creation and income
generation. Further still, EPA 2015 points out the benefits or recycling to include conservation of
resources for children’s future prevents emissions of many greenhouse gases and water pollutants,
saves energy supplies valuable raw materials to industry thus creates jobs, stimulates the
development of greener technologies and reduces the need for new landfills. The first step in the
collection process is to sort the waste by type and define which will and won’t be disposed of.
The findings are in agreement with Muheirwe, Kombe, and Kihila (2022) who argued that
recycling is the answer to all those plastics littered over the streets. This approach has worked in
many developed countries which do not restrict the use plastics on average, a person in the
developed country generates more than a hundred fold the plastic waste an average Ugandan does.
Recycling in organic materials from municipal solid waste is often well developed by the
activities of the informal sector although such activities are seldom recognized, supported, or
promoted by the municipal authorities. Some key factors that affect the potential for resource
recovery are the cost of the separated material, its purity, its quantity and its location. The costs of
storage and transport are major factors that decide the economic potential for resource recovery.
The findings concur with Muiruri, Wahome and Karatu (2020) who observed that recycling and
re-use involves the recovery of products such as plastics, paper and metals and food peelings. The
recovery of re-usable materials is performed by people working in informal sector driven by
poverty and this activity acts as source of income to many poor communities. This shows the
useful roles played by the urban poor in maintaining urban sanity indirectly as their acts help to
reduce on the waste volume which in most cases is not directly recognized by the Municipal
authorities. This involves the segregation of solid waste at either the generation or temporal dump
point to get re-usable items from the waste stream.
The results indicate that waste disposal had a coefficient of estimate which was statistically
significant based on (p-value=0.001) which is below 0.05 level of significance. The findings
56
concur with Serge and Simatele (2020) who indicated that uncontrolled dumping of waste can
contaminate groundwater and soil, attract disease carrying rats and insects, and even cause fires.
Properly designed, constructed, and managed landfills provide a safe alternative to uncontrolled
dumping. For example, to protect groundwater from the liquid that collects in landfills (leachate),
a properly designed landfill has an earthen or synthetic liner. As waste decomposes, it emits
methane, a greenhouse gas that can also cause fires. To prevent fires, a properly designed landfill
should have a way to vent, burn, or collect methane. Landfill operators can also recover this
methane thereby reducing emissions and generate electricity from the captured gas.
Findings also indicated that, in modern terms it is called a sanitary land fill since the waste
disposal here is done in a manner that protects the environment by spreading the waste in thin
layers, compacted to the smallest practical volume and covering it with compacted soil by the end
of each working day. This method is used in urban places where waste is collected by municipal
waste crew or private waste collectors contracted by the municipal authorities.
The findings are consistent with Karimi, Richter and Ng (2020) who recommends user
cooperation regarding storage of household waste, waste separation placement of household
containers discipline in the use of public collection points and source reduction, for example use
of cloth instead of disposable diapers or bring ones bag to the market. Similarly, findings revealed
that waste reduction as a preventive action that seeks to reduce the amount of waste that
individuals, businesses and organizations generate. By not creating waste fewer collection
vehicles and fewer number of refuse collection trips would be needed; few and smaller waste
handling facilities would be required and it would extend the life of landfills.
The results indicate that waste composting had a coefficient of estimate which was statistically
significant based on (p-value=0.001) which is below 0.05 level of significance. The findings are
in agreement with Pergolaa et al (2018) who submitted that composting involves the
decomposition of refuse through bacterial action into humus material similar to peat moss in
appearance and application, but the end product is useful as a soil conditioner and fertilizer.
Composting requires segregation of organic biodegradable wastes and inorganic non-
biodegradables from the waste streams though clear knowledge of waste fermentation.
The findings are also consistent with Shevchenko and Aliiev (2021) who cited lack of
enforcement of policies and laws as a major institutional issue that greatly contributes to the
57
mismanagement of solid waste in the developing world. Citing an example of this to be seen in
Kenya; although there is sufficient legislation covering waste management, local authorities lack
the capacity to implement them. Tibihika et al (2021) also noted failure by local the leaders to
mount laws against littering by community as social pressure to prevent littering, absence of
realistic penalties or consistent enforcement, and lack of knowledge of the environmental effects
of littering.
5.4 Conclusions
Based on the study findings and discussions, several conclusions were made according to the
research objectives in Chapter One. This section concludes the key findings to formulate the
recommendations of the study.
The findings indicated that although policies and regulations existed, there was lack of
enforcement and sanctions placed for noncompliance. Waste management was governed by
national laws and Kyenda Town Council byelaws, which provides for legal and institutional
framework for sustainable SWM. However, poor means of introducing of these laws to the
community left the policy ineffective on waste management activities. Though the responsibility
of raising awareness lies on both the local and central authorities, little had been done to enforce
it, which in consequence left the community with an impression that waste was a responsibility of
the Town Council.
The Town Council is presently constrained by the absence of transportation and disposal
facilities. The facilities have a financial implication and therefore require prior budgeting. The
Town Council therefore has to keep on its toes in providing some services that motivate the public
to participate constructively to the management of solid waste. The resource constraint on the part
of the Kyenda Town Council is in a way limiting the level of public participation in SWM
because what the Town Council contributes is what acts as a motivation for the public to engage
in SWM. It is therefore imperative to conclude that the observed poor waste planning exhibited in
Kyenda Town Council was attributed to failure by the authorities to care for the safety or security
of waste workers while handling the waste given that the workers were not given gloves, shoes or
any kind of safety equipment while handling the waste.
58
It was established that the level of SWM monitoring and evaluation was still low at both the Town
Council and community levels. Also, it was indicated that the level of public involvement in
SWM monitoring in Kyenda Town Council was low. There ought to be inclusive planning for the
analysis of needs and setting of priorities enhanced by all stakeholders concerned, this may lead to
reduction on solid waste challenges. Communication amongst stakeholders is also vital. This can
help in resolving conflicts and action on feedback.
Outcomes of the conducted study also revealed that there is still limited participation in
monitoring through performance reports and tracking performance for effective solid waste
management in the urban authorities. All stakeholders should be involved in the monitoring
exercise; solid waste management requires combined efforts from stakeholders.
5.5 Recommendations
The following are some of the recommendations from the study with regard to the gaps identified
during the discussion. The recommendations are derived from the specific objectives of the study.
Urban authorities should enhance their collaboration and communication strategies to encourage
community’s participation in planning for SWM in Kyenda Town Council. This should also
include diverse participants like media, community based organizations, NGOs and faith based
organizations, health facilities, schools and other associations to enhance their capacity about
SWM strategies for efficiency and effectiveness.
The recycling of waste is another important requirement for sustainable waste management
practices to reduce on the effects. In the case of Kyenda Town Council of formalized waste
recycling or recovery system, should be undertaken by the municipality. NGO’s or private firms
may be enlisted in organizing and including the non-formal recycling sector as part of the formal
system. Rag pickers or itinerant buyers should be allocated in such a manner that the maximum
amount of waste is recovered for recycling.
Central government should increase funding towards solid waste management and Kyenda Town
Council to avail enough resources for proper solid waste management. Town council should
introduce waste taxes that will generate revenue for effective management of solid waste.
There is need for the Kyenda Town Council to formulate bylaws regarding solid waste
management. Through community mobilization and sensitization on natural population growth
59
and rural urban shift, the intervention of the local councils and community leaders in ensuring
solid waste management activities will go a long way in curbing the challenges of solid waste
management.
A link should be established between recycling companies and communities’ groups. This will
serve two purposes, one it will reduce the amount of garbage entering the waste stream and as
such costs of having to transport it to the landfill where companies currently collect it. And two, it
will create employment and income for the communities while at the same time reduce on the
garbage problem and saving landfill space.

Disposal of the wastes should be undertaken in a prescribed scientific manner. A sanitary landfill
designed specificancy for the final disposal of wastes should be build. Sanitary landfills minimize
the risks to human health and the environment associated with solid wastes. Formal engineering
preparations with an examination of geological and hydrological features and related
environmental impact analysis should be carried out before a sanitary land fill is build. Staff
working in the sanitary landfill should be properly equipped and trained.
An integrated approach is needed from segregation at source and collection to resource recovery
and final disposal. Resource recovery facilities may be built on the way to or near the final
disposal sites so that residual wastes from recovery facilities can be brought efficiently for
disposal. Smaller municipalities may gradually improve their final disposal method from open
dumping to controlled dumping (with soil cover and controlled access), engineered landfill
(including careful site selection, waste compaction, and surface and groundwater monitoring), and
finally full-fledged sanitary landfill (including an impermeable liner, and leachate collection and
treatment), as financial and technical capacity constraints permit.
An adequate number of skip containers must be provided at the collection Centre, along with
frequent collections. Alternatively trolleys of a bigger size could be placed to collect the solid
waste, since they could also be easily transported to the dumping site. The study recommended
that disposal site should be equipped with proper solid waste disposal facilities include sanitary
land fill.
Composting is a preferable recommendation for the high amount of biodegradable waste
60
generated by the division. The compost could be very useful for making agriculture and urban
gardening productive and non-biodegradable solid waste should be collected, segregated and
transported to recycling centers.
Large scale composting can be expensive hence the focus should be on developing it at divisional
level, or preferably community level, small scale composting processes. Community based
composting helps in diverting a major portion of the waste generated close to the source of
generation, thereby, significantly reducing transportation costs and prolonging the life span of
landfills.
Furthermore, community based composting may enhance recycling activities and facilitate the
final disposal of waste in a proper manner. People who are from economically backward
categories may be employed for composting schemes. This can be a source of employment and
income generation for both the people employed for composting and the Town Council as well.
Community level composting may be efficient and easier to manager community level
composting can be undertaken at the local level, thus it will save money and resources for the
Town Council.
5.6 Limitations of the study
The study registered a number of limitations and these majorly included; some respondents
deliberately failed to answer the questionnaire, this gave the researcher hard time but she had to
resource and replaced such people with the same people in the target population.
Secondly, some respondents wrongly filled the questionnaires; this came as a result of time
constraints as some of them rushed to answer the question so as to attend to their work. However,
the researcher managed to recover most of the questionnaires well filled; those which were
wrongly filled were ignored.
5.7 Areas recommended for further study
Solid Waste Management and urban liveability is a multidisciplinary field that involves various
areas of research. The key areas of research related to this topic may include; the researcher
recommends that future research can focus on how stakeholders can partner with Community
Based Organizations, Faith Based Organizations and Non-Governmental Organizations to
fully promote solid waste management through their spheres of influence.
Studies can also be carried out on assessing the factors affecting implementation of modern
disposal technology. It is very important to assess the impact of SWM to budget every financial
61
year.
REFERENCES
Amirrudin, M., Nasution, K., & Supahar, S. (2021). Effect of variability on Cronbach alpha
reliability in research practice. Journal Matematika, Statistika dan Komputasi, 17(2), 223-
230.
APEC (2015). Building better cities: competitive, sustainable and livable metropolises. In: Eco
Summit, Philippines.〈www.pwc.
Bhandari, P. (2022). Levels of Measurement | Nominal, Ordinal, Interval and Ratio. Scribbr.
Retrieved March 28, 2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/levels-of-
measurement/
Bhandari, P. (2022). What Is Face Validity? | Guide, Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved
March 27, 2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/face-validity/
Borgstede M and Scholz M (2021) Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Generalization and
Replication–A Representationalist View. Front. Psychol. 12:605191. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.605191
Budianto, A. (2020). Legal Research Methodology Reposition in Research on Social Science.
International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 9, 1339-1346.
Caulfield, J. (2022). How to Do Thematic Analysis | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples. Scribbr.
Retrieved March 28, 2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/thematic-analysis/
Chetwynd, E. (2022). Critical analysis of reliability and validity in literature reviews. Journal of
Human Lactation, 38(3), 392-396
62
Chiwanza TH (2018) The ten least livable cities in the world – African cities dominate the
list. The African Exponent, 14 August. Available
at: https://www.africanexponent.com/post/9071-africa-cities-dominate-the-list-for-the-ten-
least-liveable-cities-in-the-world
Dianati, K., Schäfer, L., Milner, J., Gómez-Sanabria, A., Gitau, H., Hale, & Davies, M. (2021). A
system dynamics-based scenario analysis of residential solid waste management in
Kisumu, Kenya. Science of the Total Environment, 777, 146200.
Ellis, P., Roberts, Mark, (2016). Leveraging Urbanization in South Asia: Managing Spatial
Transformation for Prosperity and Livability. World Bank Group, Washington, DC
〈www.worldbank.org〉.
George, T. (2023). What Is an Observational Study? | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved May
27, 2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/observational-study/
Heymans, Christiaan, Kathy Eales, and Richard Franceys. 2014. The Limits and Possibilities of
Prepaid Water in Urban Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank Water and Sanitation
Program.
Howley P, Scott M, Redmond D (2009) Sustainability versus liveability: an investigation of
neighborhood satisfaction. J Environ Plan Manage 52(6):847–864
IvyPanda. (2020). Variables and Measurements in Research.
Karimi, N., Richter, A., & Ng, K. T. W. (2020). Siting and ranking municipal landfill sites in
regional scale using nighttime satellite imagery. Journal of environmental management,
256, 109942.
Kinobe, J.R., Niwagaba, C.B., Gebresenbet, G., Komakech, A.J. and Vinnerås, B., (2015).
Mapping out the solid waste generation and collection models: The case of Kampala City.
Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 65(2), pp.197-205.
Kyayesimira, J., and Muheirwe, F. (2021). Health concerns and use of biomass energy in
households: voices of women from rural communities in Western Uganda. Energy Sustain.
Soc. 11, 1–13. doi: 10.1186/s13705-021-00316-2
Luo, A. (2022). Content Analysis | Guide, Methods & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved March 28,
2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/content-analysis/
Maryam Nastar, Jennifer Isoke, Robinah Kulabako & Giorgia Silvestri (2019): A case for urban
liveability from below: exploring the politics of water and land access for greater
63
liveability in Kampala, Uganda, Local Environment, DOI:
10.1080/13549839.2019.1572728
Mfune O, Mutisya E, Popoola L, Mungai D, Fuh D, Olayide OE (2016) Changing rural urban
linkages in Africa in a globalizing economy. Afr J Sustain Dev 6(2):109–134
Middleton, F. (2023). Reliability vs. Validity in Research | Difference, Types and
Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved March 28, 2023, from
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/reliability-vs-validity/
Modupe, S.A., Oluwaseyi, S.O., Olubukola, O.B., Olu, O. (2020). Waste Management through
Composting: Challenges and Potentials. Sustainability, 12:4456. DOI:
10.3390/su1211445
Monocle. 2017. Winkontent Limited (trading as Monocle) 2017. Accessed October 15, 2017
https://monocle.com/film/ affairs/quality-of-life-survey-top-25-cities-2017/.
Mooney, D., Coxon, C., Richards, K. G., Gill, L., Mellander, P. E., & Danaher, M. (2019).
Development and optimisation of a multiresidue method for the determination of 40
anthelmintic compounds in environmental water samples by solid phase extraction (SPE)
with LC-MS/MS detection. Molecules, 24(10), 1978.
Moqbel, S., Abu-Zurayk, R., Bozeya, A., Alsisan, R., and Al Bawab, A. (2020). Assessment of
sustainable recycling at The University of Jordan. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 21, 1111–
1129. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-11-2019-0334
Muheirwe F, Kihila JM, Kombe WJ and Campitelli A (2023) Solid waste management regulation
in the informal settlements: A social-ecological context from Kampala city,
Uganda. Front. Sustain. 4:1010046. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2023.1010046
Muheirwe, F., Kombe, W., and Kihila, J. M. (2022). The paradox of solid waste management: A
regulatory discourse from Sub-Saharan Africa. Habitat Int. 119, 1–9. doi:
10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102491
Muiruri, J., Wahome, R., and Karatu, K. (2020). Assessment of methods practiced in the disposal
of solid waste in Eastleigh Nairobi County, Kenya. AIMS Environ. Sci. 7, 434–448. doi:
10.3934/environsci.2020028
Mutepfa, M. M., & Tapera, R. (2019). Traditional survey and questionnaire platforms. Handbook
of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences, 541-558.
Nuwematsiko, R., Oporia, F., Nabirye, J., Halage, A. A., Musoke, D., Buregyeya, E., et al.
64
(2021). Knowledge, Perceptions, and Practices of Electronic Waste Management among
Consumers in Kampala, Uganda. J. Environ. Public Health 3846428, 1–11. doi:
10.1155/2021/3846428
Pergolaa, M., Piccolob, A., Palesea, A.M., Ingraoc, C., Di Meod, V. Celanoe, G. (2018). A
combined assessment of the energy, economic and environmental issues associated with
on-farm manure composting processes: Two case studies in South of Italy. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 172:3969– 3981. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.111
Pinha, A. C. H., & Sagawa, J. K. (2020). A system dynamics modeling approach for municipal
solid waste management and financial analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 269,
122350.
Rafew, S. M., & Rafizul, I. M. (2021). Application of system dynamics model for municipal solid
waste management in Khulna city of Bangladesh. Waste Management, 129, 1-19.
Richter, A., Ng, K. T. W., Vu, H. L., & Kabir, G. (2021). Waste disposal characteristics and data
variability in a mid-sized Canadian city during COVID-19. Waste Management, 122, 49-
54.
Sayara, T.; Basheer-Salimia, R.; Hawamde, F.; Sánchez, A. (2020) Recycling of organic wastes
through composting: Process performance and compost application in agriculture.
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1838. [CrossRef]
SDG. 2015. United Nations, Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgsproposal.
Serge Kubanza, N., and Simatele, M. D. (2020). Sustainable solid waste management in
developing countries: a study of institutional strengthening for solid waste management in
Johannesburg, South Africa. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 63, 175–188. doi:
10.1080/09640568.2019.1576510
Sewak, A., Deshpande, S., Rundle-Thiele, S., Zhao, F., and Anibaldi, R. (2021). Community
perspectives and engagement in sustainable solid waste management (SWM) in Fiji: A
socioecological thematic analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 298, 1–12. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113455
Shevchenko, I. Aliiev, E. (2021). Improving the efficiency of the process of continuous flow
mixing of bulk components. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies,
65
6/1(108):6–13. DOI: 10.15587/1729-4061.2020.216409
Squire, J. N., and Nkurunziza, J. (2022). Urban Waste Management in Post-Genocide Rwanda:
An Empirical Survey of the City of Kigali. J. Asian Afr. Stud. 57, 760–772. doi:
10.1177/00219096211035430
Ssemugabo, C. (2020). Status of household Solid waste management and associated factors in a
slum community in Kampala, Uganda; Department of Disease Control and Environmental
Health, School of Public Health, Makerere University College of Health Sciences,
Kampala, Uganda.
Stratton, S. J. (2021). Population research: convenience sampling strategies. Prehospital and
disaster Medicine, 36(4), 373-374.
Sultana, M.; Jahiruddin, M.; Islam, M.R.; Rahman, M.M.; Abedin, M.A.; Solaiman, Z.M. (2021)
Nutrient Enriched Municipal Solid Waste Compost Increases Yield, Nutrient Content and
Balance in Rice. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1047. [CrossRef]
Swaen, B. & George, T. (2022, November 15). What Is a Conceptual Framework?. Scribbr.
Retrieved May 23, 2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/conceptual-
framework/
The UN-HABITAT (2013). State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013: Prosperity of Cities. New
York: Routledge.
Tibihika, P.D.; Okurut, T.; Lugumira, J.S.; Akello, C.; Muganga, G.; Tumuhairwe, J.B.; Nsereko,
M.; Kiguli, D.; Mugambwa, R (2021), Characteristics of municipal fresh solid wastes from
the selected large urban centres in Uganda: Implication for re-use and soil amendment
strategies. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2021, 71, 923–933. [CrossRef]
UBoS (2017). The National Population and Housing Census 2014 – Area Specific Profile Series.
Kampala, Uganda: Uganda Bureau of Statistics
UNHABITAT (2022) Towards achieving SDG 11 in Uganda: Making Cities and Human
Settlements Inclusive, Liveable, Safe, Resilient, Productive and Sustainable. Available
online: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019-05/un-habitat_
Wahab B (2018) Transforming Nigerian informal settlements into Liveable communities:
strategies and challenges. In: Ogbazi J (ed) Enhancing the Liveability of informal
settlements in Nigeria. Abuja, Nigerian Institute of Town Planners, pp 3–121
Wang, W. J., & You, X. Y. (2021). Benefits analysis of classification of municipal solid waste
66
based on system dynamics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123686.
World Economic Forum (2018). African cities will double in population by 2050. Here are 4 ways
to make sure they thrive. Retrieved on 25 December, 2018 from
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/Africaurbanization-cities-double-population-
2050-4% 20ways-thrive
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RESPONDENTS
Dear Sir/Madam
My name is MUHANGWE HUDSON MUGUME, a student of Uganda Management Institute,
pursuing a Master’s degree in Management Science (Urban Governance and Management). I
am conducting a study on the effect of solid waste management on urban liveability in
Mubende district: a case of Kyenda Town Council. I am doing study in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the award of a Master of Management Science of Uganda Management
institute. Any information provided in this questionnaire was kept confidential and will
strictly be used for academic purposes. Your participation in this study is voluntary. The
study seeks to achieve the following objectives; to examine the effect of waste recycling and
re use on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council, to examine the effect of waste disposal
on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council and to examine the effect of Waste composting
on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council.
Questionnaire code:
67
SECTION A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A1. Administrative level
a) Top Management
b) Middle management (principal & Senior officers)
c) Program officers
A3. Age of respondent
a) Below 30 years
b) 30-40 years
c) 40-50 years
d) 50 years and above
A4. Sex of the respondent
Male Female
A4. Highest level of education
a) Certificate
b) Diploma
c) Bachelors
d) Masters
e) PHD
A5. Time spent on the job (in years)
a) Less than one year
b) 1-2years
c) 3-5 years
d) 5 -10 years
e) 10 years and above
A6. Employment status
a. Permanent staff
b. Contract staff
SECTION B: INDEPENDENT VARIABLE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
B1. Waste recycling and re use
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following observations about waste
recycling and re use and urban liveability.
68
Use a scale of; 5=Strongly agree, 4=Agree, 3=Undecided, 2=Disagree, 1=strongly disagree.
Statement 1 2 3 4 5
B1.1 Kyenda Town Council supports/promotes recycling of waste.
B1.2 Communities are involved in the design and implementation of
recycling programs
B1.3 Community is aware of need to reduce waste production and
facilitating recovery for the purpose of recycling;
B1.4 Waste recycling is practiced by the community of Kyenda Town
Council
B1.5 Recycling is practiced by community / residents in Kyenda Town
Council
B1.6 Recycling is a source of revenue in Kyenda Town Council
B1.7 Kyenda Town Council has high potential for recycling waste.
B1.8 Kyenda Town Council has waste recycling facilities which are
functional (in use)
B1.9 There are groups of people formed for recycling garbage in Kyenda
Town Council
B2: Waste disposal

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following observations about Waste
disposal and urban liveability.
Statement 1 2 3 4 5
B2.1 Picking up garbage around my community is my responsibility as
a Kyenda Town Council resident.
B2.2 I mix all the waste in one bin / container without sorting
B2.3 Kyenda Town Council uses sound reliable trucks and hand driven
carts to collect Garbage all over the town.
B2.4 The community practices garbage disposal in Kyenda Town
Council
B2.5 I use different containers for bio-degradable non and bio-
degradable waste
B2.6 Kyenda Town Council residents practice less waste
B2.7 My Community practices Solid waste disposal
B2.8 I receive incentives when I participate in reduction of solid waste
management
69
B2.9 People throw garbage on the streets and in the drains and gullies
because they have no other means of getting rid of (disposing of)
their garbage.
B3: Waste composting

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following observations about Waste
composting and urban liveability.
Statement 5 4 3 2 1
B3.1 We use different bins /containers for organic and non-organic
waste
B3.2 Most of my organic waste is composited in farms
B3.3 Solid Waste in Kyenda Town Council is adequately managed.
B3.4 Solid Waste in Kyenda Town Council is collected to gazette
collection centers
B3.5 There are increased dump sites in Kyenda Town Council
B3.6 Kyenda Town Council collects garbage daily
B3.7 There are enough Tracks and Metallic bins that are used in the
collection of waste.
B3.8 The refuse generated by all households/business premises is
collected.
B3.9 Kyenda Town Council has enough refuse collection trucks.
70
SECTION C: DEPENDENT VARIABLE
C1: Urban liveability
Indicate the extent to which you agree with the following observations about urban liveability in
Kyenda Town Council.
Statement 1 2 3 4 5
C1.1 There is access to fresh water and drainage channels in Kyenda
Town Council
C1.2 Existing community access roads in Kyenda Town Council are clear
very clear to the current strategic leadership
C1.3 There are proper dumping sites for waste disposal in Kyenda Town
Council
C1.4 Proper waste management enhance greener environment in Kyenda
Town Council
C1.5 There are vehicle pass ways to access households/business
premises during waste collection.
C1.6 Garbage collection is done in the slums of Kyenda Town Council
where roads are not accessible.
C1.7 Urban authorities and community members have implemented the
reuse method of solid waste management
C1.8 The set Town Council system has ensured effectiveness in service
delivery by working on all access roads within Kyenda Town Council
C1.9 Since the government has put in place the financial support,
timeliness in the construction of Town Council roads has been enhanced.
Thank you for your participating in this study
71
APPENDIX II: INTERVIEW GUIDE
This interview is intended for academic purposes (A ward of a master’s degree in Management
science) only. I assure you of the utmost confidentiality of the responses given. It is intended
to examine the contribution of solid waste management to urban liveability. The study has
the following objectives; -
1. To examine the effect of waste recycling and re use on urban liveability in Kyenda Town
Council
2. To examine the effect of waste disposal on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council
3. To examine the effect of Waste composting on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council
As a key informer, you have been selected to participate in this study, your participation is
voluntary.
Questions:
1. What is your opinion on the effect of solid waste management on urban liveability in
Mubende District?
2. What are the current gaps in solid waste management on urban liveability in Mubende
District?
3. What is your opinion on the effect of waste recycling and re use on urban liveability in
Kyenda Town Council?
4. What are the current gaps in waste recycling and re use on urban liveability in Kyenda
Town Council?
5. What is your opinion on the effect of waste disposal on urban liveability in Kyenda Town
Council?
6. What are the current gaps in waste disposal on urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council?
7. What is your opinion on the effect of waste composting on urban liveability in Kyenda
Town Council?
8. What are the current gaps in waste composting on urban liveability in Kyenda Town
Council?
Thank you so much for participating in this study
72
APPENDIX III: OBSERVATION CHECKLIST
The study will review the following documents from the Local Councils: -
i. Waste Evaluation Reports,
ii. Garbage collection reports,
iii. Annual performance reports
73
APPENDIX III: SAMPLING GUIDE
74
APPENDIX IV: PLAGIARISM REPORT
75

Hudson Dissertation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hudson Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND URBAN LIVEABILITY IN MUBENDE

DISTRICT: A CASE OF KYENDA TOWN COUNCIL

MUHANGWE HUDSON MUGUME

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF CIVIL SERVICE, PUBLIC

Sign ……………………………………. Date………………………………..

1.2 Background of the Study...........................................................................................................1

1.2.1 Historical background.............................................................................................................1

1.2.2 Theoretical background..........................................................................................................4

1.2.3 Conceptual background..........................................................................................................5

1.2.4 Contextual background...........................................................................................................6

1.3 Statement of the problem...........................................................................................................7

1.4 Purpose of the study...................................................................................................................8

1.5 Specific objectives.....................................................................................................................8

1.6 Research questions.....................................................................................................................8

1.7 Hypotheses of the study.............................................................................................................8

1.8 Conceptual framework...............................................................................................................9

1.10 Significance of the study.......................................................................................................10

1.11 Scope of the study..................................................................................................................11

1.11.1 Content scope......................................................................................................................11

1.11.2 Geographical scope.............................................................................................................11

1.11. Time Scope...........................................................................................................................12

1.12 Operational Definitions of Terms and Concepts...................................................................12

2.2 Theoretical review...................................................................................................................14

2.3 Actual Literature Review.........................................................................................................15

2.3.1 Solid Waste Management and Urban Liveability.................................................................15

2.3.2 Waste recycling and re use on urban liveability...................................................................16

2.3.3. Waste disposal and urban liveability...................................................................................19

2.3.4 Waste composting and urban liveability...............................................................................20

2.4 Summary of Literature Review and Gaps Identified...............................................................22

3.2. Research design......................................................................................................................23

3.3 Study population......................................................................................................................23

3.4 Determination of the sample size............................................................................................23

3.5 Sample techniques and procedures..........................................................................................24

3.6 Data collection methods..........................................................................................................25

3.6.4 Document Review Method...................................................................................................26

3.7 Data collection instruments.....................................................................................................26

3.7.2 Interview guide.....................................................................................................................27

3.7.3 Observation checklist............................................................................................................27

3.7.4 Document Review Checklist................................................................................................27

3.8 Data quality control.................................................................................................................28

3.8.1 Validity of instruments.........................................................................................................28

3.8.2 Reliability of instruments.....................................................................................................30

3.8.3 Conformability of instruments..............................................................................................30

3.8.4 Transferability of instruments...............................................................................................31

3.9 Procedure of data collection....................................................................................................31

3.10 Data analysis..........................................................................................................................31

3.10.1 Quantitative analysis...........................................................................................................31

3.10.2 Qualitative analysis.............................................................................................................32

3.11 Variable measurement...........................................................................................................32

3.11 Ethical consideration.............................................................................................................33

PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION, AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS..................................34

4.2 Response Rate..........................................................................................................................34

4.3 Background Information..........................................................................................................34

4.3.1 Administrative level..............................................................................................................34

4.3.3. Sex of the respondent...........................................................................................................36

4.3.5 Employment status................................................................................................................37

4.3.6 Highest level of education....................................................................................................38

4.4 Findings per Objective.............................................................................................................38

4.4.1 Urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council..........................................................................39

4.4.2 Waste recycling and urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council.........................................42

4.4.2 Waste disposal and urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council...........................................45

4.4.3 Waste composting and urban liveability in Kyenda Town Council.....................................47

SUMMARY, DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............54

5.2 Summary of the Study.............................................................................................................54