Assess the Attitude of Waste Workers Towards Waste Management Practices Carried Out in Abia State, Nigeria.

CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH STUDY
The city of Aba in Abia state is one of the most highly commercialised cities in Nigeria. The city generates large amount of waste as a result of industrialisation and dense population. The current waste management practice in the city which involves dumping of waste at dump sites, and by road sides for pick up by refuse collectors, thus damaging the environment, and making it aesthetically unpleasant too.
This study explores the waste management practices in the city of Aba in Abia State, with the aim of using the knowledge derived from this study to make recommendations for a sustainable waste management practice rather than the indiscriminate dumping of waste at dump sites, and along the roads.

1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY
Human activities generate waste materials that are often discarded because they are considered useless. However, many of these materials can be reused, and thus they can become a resource for industrial production or energy generation, if managed properly (Tchobanoglous and Kreith, 2002).
Third world countries face particular challenges in the management of solid waste, as in other aspects of environmental management. Some of the issues are very similar to those in the industrialised countries, but there are a number of fundamental differences that are shared by most countries of the developing world. It is essential to take cognisance of the wider economic, social and cultural context of the developing world in order that the challenge may be met (Thomas-Hope, 1998, pp 1- 2).
The extent and nature of urbanisation in developing countries have major implications for solid waste management. Approximately 30 to 50 % of the population of developing countries is urban and generates a disproportionately high volume of waste. The greater proportion, some 75 %, is domestic waste (Thomas-Hope, 1998, pp 1 - 2).
According to Thomas-Hope, (1998), ‘the social aspect of the challenge is further reflected in the population that derives a livelihood from scavenging at refuse collection points and dump sites. This is consistent with the high level of informal economic activity that occurs in developing countries, especially among the poor. The marginal socio-economic position of so many people in third world cities also makes it difficult for the authorities to achieve behaviour modifications through education and sensitisation programmes’. Furthermore, in tackling waste generation in developing countries, as in other aspects of environmental management, there is a general lack of a culture of cooperation that would produce a disposition for corporate effort. Besides, there are usually no well-developed enforcement mechanisms that would effectively coerce the mass of the population to comply with the stringent regulatory and legal frameworks required for effective management of waste (Thomas-Hope, 1998, pp 1 - 2).
The current problems associated with solid waste lie not only in the increased quantities and greater urban concentrations of waste generated but also in waste varieties which have to be managed, and in transnational potential for contamination. This complex problem underlies the necessity for a comprehensive, multi-sectoral approach. The approach must incorporate a proactive dimension in order to reduce not only the amount of waste generated or discarded, but also to redirect the minds and behaviours of populations towards a new level of positive participation for maintenance of environment health, ecological protection and aesthetic satisfactory condition (Thomas-Hope, 1998, pp 1 - 2).
The challenge lies in finding an appropriate strategy that can combine acquisition of financial means of closing existing gaps between technological need and capability in various aspects of environmental management. The creation of local methods addresses problems within the particular economic and social-cultural constraints and opportunities of each country. The challenge also deals with the current existence of waste accumulation and inappropriate practices, at the same time planning a future comprehensive and sustainable management strategy (Thomas-Hope, 1998, pp 1 - 2).
The increasing population and increasing waste generation rates are due to increased consumption of a range of products and its associated packaging, MSW heaps along major roads, stream channels, riverbanks and in open spaces are very common in Nigeria (Ogbonna et al., 2002). In recognition of the monumental challenges of MSW management, past Nigerian governments have attempted to tackle waste management issues through the “task force” approach. This approach involves; designation of solid waste collection centres on major roads and public markets; and use of local contractors or agencies to evacuate generated waste.
However, this approach has been found to be counter-productive in the long run as it has created more problems due to lack of coordination on the government’s part and inadequate solid waste management knowledge of responsible agencies. Solid waste dumped along roadsides are usually left over a long time to decompose naturally, eaten by animals, picked by scavengers or washed away by floods into the larger creeks and rivers thus affecting surface water quality (Nweke, 2000).
In addition to the physical environment degradation, it impacts the natural environment aesthetically and health-wise. They harbour flies, fleas, mosquitoes, rats and other disease vectors, which could cause several diseases such as Lassa fever and malaria (Ekugo, 1998).
The constant presence of litter may be psychologically depressing to a city dweller and clearly stands in way of tourism development. Uncollected litters can also attract more litters perpetuating poor solid waste management practices. The unsustainable and wasteful utilisation of resources gives rise to polluted rivers and lakes. This result in extensive fish depletion and destruction of other forms of aquatic life due to increased organic load and concomitant depletion of dissolved oxygen in the water (Emongor et al., 2005).
However, the lack of adequate data on solid waste has resulted in ineffective planning for solid waste management (PAI Associates, 1982; Onokerhoraye, 1985). This has greatly contributed to indiscriminate dumping of wastes on roads, stream channels, bush lands and open spaces (Ekere, 2003), thus defacing city landscapes and in turn causing flooding and the spread of vector borne diseases.
Previous governments employed sanitary inspectors or public health workers to monitor waste generation and management. This method is no longer operational due to insufficient funds and governmental complacencies. The issue of sanitation in cities has been left to inexperienced contractors that rather see solid waste management simply as moving from one dump point to another. Though, it has been argued that the effectiveness of solid waste management in a city is one of the indices for assessing good governance (Whiteman et al., 2001). In recent years, the problem posed by solid waste mismanagement in this city appeared intractable. Through a combination of initiatives, the solid waste problem in the city is being tackled with a view to providing lasting solution to it, and in so doing yield more immediate and tangible poverty reduction outcomes. Although Aba, like other Nigerian cities, lacks the formal – three tier approach programme for reuse, reduce and recycling. It therefore should be noted that increased waste generation creates more environmental problems in this area, as Aba is not able to manage wastes due to institutional, financial, technical, regulatory, knowledge, and public participation shortcomings. The consequence of inadequate waste disposal management leads to environmental degradation. Factors which influence and/or impact waste disposal comprises of the following: * the contamination of surface and groundwater through leachate; * soil contamination through direct waste contact or leachate; * air pollution through burning of wastes; * spreading of diseases by different vectors like birds, insects, and rodents; * odour in landfills, and * uncontrolled release of methane by anaerobic decomposition of waste
Although past governments have formulated policies for environmental protection, these policies for one reason or other have not been implemented. Thus the magnitude and nuisance of the solid waste management problem in Aba has motivated this project’s choice. Like in many developing cities, Aba’s solid waste sector, which could be taken to generally represent the situation of Abia State, is largely characterised by low coverage of solid waste management services, pollution from uncontrolled waste dumping, inefficient public services, chaotic or unregulated private sector participation and lack of key solid waste management infrastructure.

1.2 LOCATION OF STUDY
Aba is one of the most commercialised cities in Nigeria. It was created in August 1991 by the federal military government, covering a landmass of 924 square kilometres (www.nigeria.unfpa.org). It is the commercial nerve centre with a population of 494,152 people (National Population Commission (NPC), 2001). The annual population growth rate is 2.8 %, while total fertility rate (TFR) of 6.5. Life expectancy is estimated at 55 years for men and 57 years for women. The main occupation includes agriculture, and petty-trading and civil service (www.nigeria.unfpa.org).

Figure 1.Map of Nigeria showing Abia State
Source: (www.nigeria.unfpa.org./unfpastates.htm)

Figure 2.map of Abia State showing Aba and its Environs.
Source: (www.nigeria.unfpa.org./unfpastates.htm)
The Aba area comprises of Aba north, Aba south, Osisioma-Ngwa, Obioma-Ngwa, and Ugwunagbo local government areas. The two selected study areas for this research are Aba North and Aba South which lie at the same latitudinal and longitudinal setting and on latitude 5°20′N–5°50′N and longitude 7°26′E–8°03′E of the Greenwich Meridian.

1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY
The scope of this study covers Aba north and Aba south, and is limited to municipal solid waste. The focus will be on municipal solid waste management, as this study is intended to provide some insight into how Aba north and Aba south compares with other developed cities in term of progress towards achieving a more sustainable solid waste management. Considering the decision to concentrate on municipal waste generation, the definition of municipal waste varies, though the emphasis is on municipal waste, Tchobanoglous and Kreith, (2002), defines municipal waste as all waste generated from residential households and apartment buildings, commercial and business establishments, institutional facilities, construction and demolition activities, municipal services and treatment plant sites.

Questionnaires were sent to area of study and the method used in data collection includes: * Desk review of journal publications and records * Use of structured questionnaires to collect data from the respondents

1.4 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
The overall aim of this research is to assess the attitude of waste workers towards waste management practices carried out in Abia State, and give recommendations for improvement. * By determining the (waste workers) attitude to a sustainable waste management using a questionnaire. * By reviewing the waste management practices applicable in the area. * Drawing on waste management in other countries to propose recommendations on the benefit of a sustainable municipal waste management system.

CHAPTER 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT FROM A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
Waste is generated by activities in all sectors of the economy and is generally regarded as an unavoidable by-product of the economy. The generation of waste reflects a loss of materials and energy.
Today, solid waste management as cited in Chapter 1.0 is problematic in almost all developing cities, though many Western cities have grappled with this problem in the past and some probably are still improving on their already existing advancements. Considering their legislations are being strictly followed, the current waste management principles in the 2008 directive EU recommends the support and promotion of actions enabling the EU to achieve continuous improvement of quality of life for current and future generations through the creation of sustainable communities capable of managing resources efficiently (Cited in Pires et al., 2010). These as speculated by Pires et al., (2010) will bring about a sense of urgency in SWM. The most recent legislation published by European Commission (EC) is the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC (EU, 2008), which reflects EU SDS and brings new challenges to SWM systems (Pires et al., 2010). This legislation buttresses the point about the advancements made by developed cities in the world, while on the part of the developing cities, distinct differences exist between them. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), (2005), state that:
‘‘As developing countries achieve economic growth coupled with population growth the environmental and economic burdens of solid waste management will increase’’ Cited in Pires et al., (2010).
It is therefore needful for developing countries to be guided in taking the appropriate steps in developing sustainable waste management systems, as this is important because, the more environmental degradation in a particular region, the greater the effort required to restore its quality (UNEP, 2005), considering the fact that most developing cities are burdened by high influx rate of goods and personnel.
Lessons can be drawn from experiences in developed countries to guide developing countries improve on existing MSWM systems, since waste management systems have evolved over the years in developed countries, and presently still is (Wilson, 2007).
From past records, it seems certain that new difficulties with respect to physical, biological and social change, not currently widely anticipated, will arise sooner than later. This is because scientific knowledge of each of these systems is incomplete, the human population and its demands are increasing relentlessly and the possible human adjustments and adaptations, including technology, are multiplying (White, 1996). The price for that is a growing problem of how to handle all the generated wastes.
Tchobanoglous and Kreith, (2002), defined Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) as any waste; i.e. generated wastes from residential households and apartment buildings, commercial and business establishments, institutional facilities, construction and demolition activities, municipal services and treatment plant sites.
On the part of recycling in the waste hierarchy (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recovery and Disposal) (Waite, 1995, p 3), in the western world could be reached through several measures. Though, some analysts claim that 50-80 % of the western world 's natural resource could be recycled or reused by the year 2012, and some measures to achieve this also taken. These measures include enacting a national bottle bill into law, banning disposable plastic items, requiring labels on products made with recyclable materials and the percentages used, using education and advertisements to discourage the "throwaway" mentality, requiring households to separate wastes for recycling (or offering financial incentives for doing so), decreasing subsidies for virgin-material industries, and providing subsidies for secondary-material industries and waste reduction programs (Tyler, 1990).
Improving on existing legislations, with simplification and modernisation effects on waste definition, end-of-waste criteria, recycling, recovery and disposal activities is one of the guidelines which is crucial to a sustainable waste management system globally. Most developing countries, including Nigeria, do not have formal government-driven or private industry-driven extended producer responsibility (EPR) programmes for waste management. This is worsened by the governments’ attitude toward indiscriminate waste dumping and the prevailing low-end “crude” recycling activities. Governments and their officials in most developing countries appear to be far removed from the environmental implications of municipal waste in their countries (Osibanjo and Nnorom, 2007).
There is therefore an urgent need for the introduction of both government-driven (mandated) and industry-driven (voluntary) EPR programs in the developing countries to check environmental contamination, otherwise called Private and Public sector Participation (PPP). The mass of waste produced in the world has been growing considerably for many decades especially in affluent countries ' (World Bank, 1992; OECD, 2008). Though data on waste arising is often incomplete and in some cases unreliable, recent estimates suggest that the municipal solid waste alone generated globally exceeded 2 billion tonnes per year at the turn of the millennium (Key Note, 2007).
As less developed countries such as China and India industrialise and their populations urbanise, huge amounts of municipal waste are disposed of, though the production per capita (less than 0.5 kg/day/capita in India and less than 0.9 kg/day/capita in China) is still relatively small compared to the production in most individual OECD counties (up to 2.1 kg/day/capita in the USA). However, this masks the fact that a large proportion of the MSW is produced in urban centres. In 2002, more than 1 billion tonnes of industrial waste (about five times the amount of MSW) was produced in China, mostly mine tailings, coal ash, and slag, and by 2030 China is expected to generate approximately twice as much municipal waste as the USA, while India will overtake the USA (EASUR, 2005). These figures clearly demonstrates the fact that the developed economies generate more waste than the developing, little wonder when in the near future what the world would be without a sustainable global waste management system, as less developed countries industrialise and their populations urbanise, and huge amounts of municipal waste are disposed off.
A waste management hierarchy based on the most environmentally sound criteria favours waste reuse, wastes reduce, recycling, and composting. In many countries, a large percentage of waste cannot presently be re-used, re-cycled or composted and the main disposal methods are land-filling and incineration (Giusti, 2009).
Overall, recycling is increasing in Western Europe, though a lack of data makes it difficult to identify trends for Eastern Europe (Giusti, 2009). Despite important technological advancements, improved legislation and regulatory systems in the field of waste management, and more sophisticated health surveillance, the public acceptance of the location of new waste disposal and treatments facilities is still very low due to concern about adverse effects on the environment and human health. Health issues are associated with every step of the handling, treatment and disposal of waste, both directly (via recovery and recycling activities or other occupations in the waste management industry, by exposure to hazardous substances in the waste or to emissions from incinerators and landfill sites, vermin, odours and noise) or indirectly (e.g. via ingestion of contaminated water, soil and food). In the past, the performance of a large number of landfills and incinerators has been quite poor, including landfills that were built with a containment barrier (a clay liners or a synthetic membrane (Giusti, 2009).

2.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW IN THE DEVELOPING NATIONS
Municipal solid waste in developing countries has been characterised by operational inefficiencies of services, limited utilisation of recycling activities, inadequate non -industrial hazardous waste management landfill disposal, and service coverage (Zurbrügg and Schertenleib, 1998).
It is becoming widely recognised that an integrated approach to waste management leads to the sustainability of the waste management system. The concept of integrated waste management (IWM) according to McDougall et al., (2001) takes an overall approach and manages waste in an environmentally effective, economically affordable and socially acceptable way. It involves usage of a range of treatment options at a local level and considers the entire solid waste stream.
The importance of establishing a regulated waste management framework has been widely recognised but progress with regard to legislation, collecting system and construction of formal recycling facilities is slow especially in developing countries (Liu et al., 2006).
Until recently, municipal wastes have rarely been high on the political agenda in developing countries. Nevertheless, the risks to human health and environment from uncontrolled disposal of a country 's municipal wastes may be considerable. The challenges of MSWM sector are growing continuously with rapid urbanisation; a trend in the developing world. The world’s urban population is expected to double to over five billion in the next 35 years, with 90 % of this growth taking place in developing countries (World Resources Institute, 1997).
A World bank report estimates that solid waste in urban areas of East Asia alone will increase from 760,000 tonnes/day to 1.8 million tonnes/day within 25 years, while waste management costs will almost double from US$ 25 billion to US$ 47 billion by 2025 (Urban Age, 1999). It is clear that SWM in future will expand in scope and complexity. It will also consume a considerable proportion of city budgets. The SWM sector, therefore, deserves careful attention for striking a balance between quality of service and cost effectiveness. This challenge is particularly significant for developing countries, where resources are limited but urbanisation is occurring rapidly.
Developing countries often experience great difficulty in controlling their wastes. Their available resources must be concentrated on the most urgent problems. Interim solutions may be required to bring such problems under immediate control whilst more permanent facilities are developed. Even in the long term, there will be further need for compatible solutions with limited resources available.
Public and private sectors are active in handling SWM in developing countries. Actors from each sector are presented in view of their particular advantages and constraints. Public sector agencies in SWM generally mean municipalities or city corporations operate under certain inherent limitations. For instance, rigidity of laws, compounds the difficulty in bringing about operational changes. Moreover, the public sector employs workers e.g. street sweepers, waste loaders and drainage cleaners. Consequently, labour unions often wield considerable influence over the whole organisation. However, the sector suffers from low staff productivity, inadequate supervision and unsatisfactory equipment (Salahuddin and Shamim, 1992).
Furthermore, vibrant ‘informal’ private sectors exist in almost all cities in the developing world which plays a significant role in SWM. People not engaged by the public sector livelihoods’ solely or partially depending on solid waste may be grouped as the private sector. Most of the private operators are ‘informal’ workers. The term ‘informal’ sector is used in reference to economic activities possessing the following characteristics: non-permanence and casualness, outside the scope of existing company law or government regulations, carried on in small-scale by less capitalised establishments mostly relying on household labour (Salahuddin and Shamim, 1992). Informal sector activities are not regulated or controlled by government agencies-they exist and operate because of market forces or other socio-economic factors (Ali, 1999). The above definition very well describes the activities carried out by multitude of people who depend on solid waste to earn or supplement their income in developing countries. In low-income countries, the size of informal sector is significant due to poverty, unemployment or underemployment. There are also comparatively formal entities active in the sector. These are community-based organisations and small business enterprises.
The private sector, should work alongside public sector as in many developed countries. The extent of private sector participation depends on a number factors including demand for service, ability to pay, poverty and regulations. When it comes to privatisation, governments generally only consider full privatisation without considering partnerships with all levels of the private sector (Ali, 1999).
According to Ahmed and Ali, (2004), public–private partnerships are considered as alternatives to full privatisation, in which government and private companies assume co-responsibility and co-ownership for the delivery of city services. Through these partnerships, the advantages of the private sector—dynamism, access to finance, knowledge of technologies, managerial efficiency, and entrepreneurial spirit—are combined with social responsibility, environmental awareness, local knowledge and job generation concerns of the public sector. Under mutually favourable circumstances it is advantageous to have public and private sectors playing active roles, thus capitalising on each sector’s strengths.
PPPs could offer the best of both sectors, and one may believe that such alliances are naturally inclined to form. In reality, partnership between the two sectors is not easy to achieve. Certain enabling environment is necessary to foster trust and working relationship. PPP is more than the public sector merely offering co-operation to the private sector to facilitate the profitability of local firms. It is far more than occasional meetings between the city council and local business organisations. Partnerships are shared commitments to pursue common goals (Kolzow, 1994).
Although, Onibokun and Kumuyi, (1999) suggest that policy frameworks and implementation strategies must be accompanied by new forms of governance to increase efficiency and effectiveness, and maximise popular participation in service provision. An increasing interest in public–private community partnerships is evident. However, this is often related to technical or financial issues, rather than political, sociological and environmental relationships. Onibokun and Kumuyi, (1999) commented further that techno-financial approaches have failed to develop an institutional set-up necessary to empower citizens to participate effectively.
Some health impacts have also been identified considering the attitude of waste managers in the developing countries, where open landfill is predominant; as Fatta et al., (1999) has acknowledged it as one of the major threats to groundwater resources, Guisti, (2009); has identified congenital malformations as the strongest association with human health. Sever, (1997), made emphasis on the increased risk of birth defects and some cancers for populations living near landfill sites, as Guisti, (2009); recognizes the main pathways of exposure as; inhalation from landfills, and consumption of water (contamination of water supplies by landfill leachate).
At last, attitude is a supposed construct, that being inaccessible to direct observation, must be inferred from measurable responses, In other words, it reflects whether the developing nations perceives that a significant number of people endorse/disapprove the behaviour of interest as it regards to waste management. For instance, if an individual believes they have little control because of lack of necessary resources to undertake the behaviour, then their behavioural intentions may be negatively influenced, despite positive attitudes and/or subjective norms (Ajzen et al., 1992).
Overall, the more favourable the attitude and subjective norm of an individual or a people, the greater the willingness (intention) to perform that activity (Ajzen, 1991).

2.3 WASTE MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW IN DEVELOPED NATIONS
Municipal solid waste management is an integral part of urban environmental planning, which is evident in developed cities in recent times. According to Zhang et al., (2010), to promote a sustainable development, waste management has evolved into material flow management in many developed countries, and includes careful handling of raw materials and reduction of emissions as well as climate/environment protection.
Using the European cities as instances, after the commitments made at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, (1992), the European Council in 2001 adopted the first EU Sustainable Development Strategy. The overall aim of the renewed EUSDS was to support and promote actions enabling the EU to achieve continuous improvement of quality of life for both current and future generations. This is expected to be achieved through the creation of sustainable communities capable of managing resources efficiently, tapping the innovation potential of the economy, ensuring prosperity, environmental protection and social cohesion. The most recent legislation published by European Commission is the Waste framework Directive 2008/98/EC (EU, 2008), it reflects EU SDS and brings new challenges to SWM systems. New definitions for waste, by-products’ and end-of-waste, result in the need for choosing appropriate technologies that aim at improving the protection of human health and environment, promoting reuse and recycling, enhancing waste prevention programs via bio waste separate collection, and implementing extended producer responsibility collectively. Sustainable consumption and production, related to waste prevention programs have received wide attention in the nexus of resources conservation, recovery, and reuse. Social factors, including population growth and migration, become essential for the accurate forecasting of waste generation and estimation of the proper capacity of the SWM facilities. Public health which used to be considered by Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) impact categories must be included through the application of a quality assurance system (QAS) for product control. All of them compound the structure of current SWM systems and deepen the need for systems analysis within the EU member states.
EIONET, (2007a), has observed From a life-cycle view point, that an all-encompassing MSW management system includes fundamental operational units from collection, transporting, treatment, recycling, and to disposal, however the existing European regulations still promotes the hierarchy of waste management inevitably to involve a wealth of waste management Practices tied to policies, institutional settings, financial mechanisms, technology selection, and stakeholder participation, and that Some of the EU member states have applied economic instruments including Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) and an organic waste tax to create economic incentives for residents to divert BMW from regular waste streams normally being collected by municipalities to specific collection avenues as Cited in Pires et al., (2010).
This is observed in the BMW system and Landfill Allowance Trading System (LATS) in the United Kingdom (UK), and was launched to provide local authorities with the flexibility to manage waste streams more effectively. The LATS system, which is made to revolve around transferable allowances, will enable the greatest amount of waste diversion to occur in areas where it is cheapest, and most practicable to do so.
The “EPR system” and the “deposit-refund system” are practical waste management systems that have been set to ensure the maximum reuse and recycling of waste, and the most well-known EPR system is the packaging waste Duales System Deutschland (DSD) (or Green Dot system) that was firstly applied in Germany in the 1990s and later on all over Europe (Buclet, 2002).
MSW management is normally seen as a major decision making issue with respect to sustainable development in all EU local communities and other developed nations, as seen in building plans, etc. (Pires et al., 2010). In western nations, proposed strategies for waste management are subject to public opinion, as can be seen in the document ‘road map to maximise waste diversion in London’ (City of London, 2007) that the citizen’s views are sought and utilised in implementing waste management plans for the nations. The citizen is at the centre of waste management in the city and it ensures that citizens and city authorities hold themselves accountable to waste management strategy adopted, which makes the system sustainable. . Developed countries possess heavily industrialized recycling activities that are more or less removed from the daily life of a citizen (e.g., sophisticated curbside recycling programs). Therefore, research on waste recycling in the developed world focuses on technical applications such as models and tools (Daskalopoulos et al., 1998) The significant strides made in achieving the current success level in the developed nations waste management system is broadly due to the belief that sustainable waste management system is based on sound guiding principles, strong service delivery values with as many locally based solutions as possible and moving at a fiscally responsive pace (Asase et al., 2009).

2.4 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN OTHER NIGERIAN CITIES AS COMPARED WITH THAT IN THE COMMERCIAL CITY OF ABA
Many households, industries, and institutions have effective arrangements for disposal of their wastes: either by emptying wastes into trash receptacles which are kept in front of the house, collected by local government disposal agents, and sent to landfills, or by arranging to send the wastes directly to landfills. The latter is true mainly of some industries and institutions (Adelman and Morris, 1971). However, in Nigeria in particular, there seems to be an over-estimation of (Friedmann, 1986) and an over-response to (Adepoju, 1975), the productive superiority of the cities.
According to Abumere, (1983) it would therefore be reasonable to expect variations in the spatial distribution and management of solid waste within cities. The industrial and institutional zones generate the smallest volumes. This is not only because there are relatively few industrial and institutional entities in Nigerian cities at this stage of Nigeria 's development, but also because such bodies are most likely to have private arrangements for disposing off or managing their wastes effectively without allowing accumulation within and around their premises (Omuta, 1987). In Nigeria, there are two broad systems of SWM – public and private; the former being the more conventional and traditional. In the public SWM system, the “waste disposal unit” seems to have been the most common arrangement, varieties of which have at different times been established in Ibadan (Onokerhoraye, 1977), Benin City (Omuta, 1985), Enugu, Onitsha, Warri and Kaduna (FMHE, 1983) among other urban centres. Usually the waste disposal unit is established at the local council level, as an operational section of the Health Department, and is headed almost invariably by health superintendents. Operationally, the unit is responsible for locating public garbage collection depots in different parts of the city where residents deposit their domestic solid wastes. The disposal unit also ensures that collected wastes are disposed off. However, this arrangement has either been completely broken down or where it still exists, non-functional due to lack of staff, institutional relations, city’s structure, infrastructure and equipment.
However, since the efficiency of management is a function of relationship between the rates of generation and disposal, the number of personnel alone cannot determine environmental quality. A lot also depend on the quantity and quality of the equipment at the disposal of staff (Sada, 1984).
On the contrary, should staff and equipment function adequately, urban structure poses a real constraint on SWM. It is generally argued that urbanisation is a 20th-century phenomenon in Third World countries; however, Nigeria is known to have a good number of pre-colonial cities. For the most parts, these traditional cities are characterised by uncontrolled development and grossly deficient physical layout. The most relevant element of this process for SWM is the lack or difficulty of physical access. To appreciate the seriousness of associated problems with urban structure, it has to be appreciated that the core areas of the traditional city are occupied predominantly by poor segments of the population who generate more voluminous, biodegradable and odoriferous organic refuse, as reported by (Adedibu, 1983) using Ilorin and Offa as case studies. More emphasis has been addressed in relating physical layout to SWM in Ibadan (Onokerhoraye, 1976). Egunjobi, (1983) reported the lack of good road and street infrastructure hamper garbage collection and evacuation in the traditional core areas. Similar problems have been reported in Benin City (Akpovi, 1981). In such situations, where waste bins are necessarily located at accessible points for easy collection, two inter-related negative scenarios arise.
First and foremost, the walking distance to reach refuse depots tends to discourage residents usage. Also, Omagbemi, (1983) commented that many traditional residential neighbourhoods are not provided with depots as they are inaccessible. Another structural problem of SWM is its lack of satisfactory (formal) provision for final disposal sites. The removal of refuse from depots or private homes, however flags up some environmental concerns should it result in non-sanitary disposition. In this regard, what most urban authorities appear to have implemented is to relocate potential solid waste problems from built-up areas to urban fringe. Okafor, (1983) makes note of this fact that routes to cities have almost always been characterised by unsightly hills of refuse. Designated disposal solid waste sites have also been problematic e.g. in Sokoto, a disposal site 3.21 Km from Gidan Kwano village has polluted its wells.
Perhaps one important institutional problem facing urban solid waste management in Nigeria is finance. This problem may be regarded as an imposed problem because the task of SWM has been assigned to a level of government, which, although rightly closer to the source of generation, is the most fiscally incapacitated. The other important institutional constraint is the jurisdictional arrangement for solid waste management, and non implementation of legislations. In many cases, the city as a whole is regarded as one unit for the purpose of solid waste management (Onokerhoraye, 1977). Though, in the central government, the landmark Federal legislation on environmental protection in Nigeria was established by the Federal government (cited in section 2.3.4). Its role also include, establishing monitoring stations for controlling leachate disposal from dumpsites into surface water and groundwater systems (Onibokun, 1999).
The Abuja Environmental Protection Board (AEPB) is responsible for SWM in the central government and its responsibility comprises of the following: * Disposal of domestic, commercial and industrial waste. * Maintenance of public drainage facilities, street cleaning and confiscation of untaxed and non-road worthy vehicles. * Registering of private waste collection companies. * Preparation and periodically up-dating the master plan of waste collection and disposal. * Approval and monitoring of all disposal systems. * Implementation recycling as a waste management option for industries and government agencies. * Recommendation of basic standard requirements for solid, liquid, gaseous or toxic waste management which do not conflict with standards of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA). * Recommendation of acceptable safe methods of collection and disposal of hazardous and toxic waste products in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) * Education of the general public on various disposal methods acceptable for domestic and industrial waste products. * Initiation of environmental protection legislation and existing legislations to be constantly reviewed to reflect latest SWM discoveries and observations. * Organisation and mobilisation of public active participation in regular clean-up exercises and beautification of their environments (Imam et al., 2008).
From the current situation in Abuja:
The amount of waste generated has increased in both quantity and diversity without adequate investment in collection, transport, treatment and disposal facilities. These problems are further complicated by political, economic and social factors. The average waste generation rate in Abuja is 0.55–0.58 Kg per person per day (Solid Waste Audit Report, 2004). This is influenced by time of year, local culture, traditions and personal income. The main components of waste in Abuja are food residues, plastics, paper, glass bottles and metals (Federal Ministry of Environment, 2004).
At present there are 12 private companies currently in waste collection. Collection of kerbside deposited waste tends to be quite irregular. Informal sector collection workers also operate house-to-house collection services; they often separate out recyclable materials and dump unwanted degradable waste around the area. As a result, such informal collectors are officially banned from certain districts, and their carts are regularly impounded by the authorities. Collection and transportation of waste is both labour and capital intensive. It has been estimated that waste transportation, including labour and machinery, accounts for between 70- 80 % of the total cost of SWM in Nigeria (Oluwande, 1984). Traffic conditions often interfere with waste collection and transport in Abuja. Collecting and transporting waste at night has been tested by the AEPB, although this proved to be problematic because of security implications for householders.
A shortage of waste collection vehicles in Abuja is due to lack of funding and inadequate maintenance. Efficient collection depends on proper selection of vehicles; this needs to take account of road conditions, traffic density, availability of spare parts, servicing requirements and haulage distances. Manual collection equipment used by informal sector waste collectors includes push carts, wheel barrows and pedal tricycles. Other basic implements used by the informal sector (for waste sorting) include hand-rakes, shovels and iron sorting rods (Solid Waste Audit Report, 2004).
In terms of Resource recovery and recycling the average recyclable content of waste in Nigeria is estimated at 28 % (Solid Waste Audit Report, 2004). The only recycling in Abuja is carried out by the informal sector. Limited amounts of cans, plastics, bottles and newspapers are stored in homes and sold to itinerant buyers, and house-to-house collection of these materials has significant potential for expansion.
Most recycling appears to be carried out by segregation from mixed waste. Such sorting is undertaken by the informal sector collectors from their carts; by the collection crew from waste vehicles; and by scavengers, from street bins and at the dumpsite. Scavengers normally have no formal education, vocational training or access to appropriate equipment and do not normally have alternative employment opportunities in the formal sector. The scavengers and other informal sector recyclers generally sell their recovered materials to middlemen, who in turn sell to small and large scale processing and manufacturing industries. For example, collected glass is processed and recycled locally as cullet for use in the glass industry; whole bottles are cleaned and reused as syrup, drinks and juice containers; the bases of broken bottles are sold to small scale industries that cut and polish the glass to manufacture items such as ash trays and candle holders (Imam et al., 2008). Looking at treatment and disposal, despite the good intentions of the Master Plan, there are no sanitary landfills in the FCT for waste disposal. Solid waste from formal collection system in various Abuja districts is transported to a single dump site at Mpape. Problems associated with odours and air pollution from burning wastes at the site has been significantly reduced recently due to introduction of relatively simple on-site improvements in management of wastes. Illegal disposal is also common. Piles of solid wastes are often found along roads, underneath bridges, in culverts and drainage channels and in other open spaces. One source is the informal collection workers, but there are many others involved in such ‘fly-tipping’ (Imam et al., 2008).
In general, Abuja residents have a poor attitude towards waste management (Agunwamba, 2003). People who handle waste are regarded as dirty, poor and inferior, and carrying household waste to bins is often regarded as a duty for children. Efforts have been made by both the government and the private sector in Abuja to increase public awareness of solid waste management issues, and there have been televised discussions on waste management. The side effects of improper waste disposal have been well publicised. Efforts have been made by governmental and private sector to increase awareness of SWM issues e.g. televised discussions on waste management. However, most people still do not appreciate environmental quality and delegate it as governmental responsibility (Imam et al., 2008).
Abia state Environmental protection Agency (ASEPA) is also responsible for waste management, but due to the lack of amenities and infrastructure as stated earlier, demonstrates institutionalised waste management in Aba as compared with other Nigerian cities have fallen short of its responsibilities. However, the grassroots must be effectively educated and mobilised in order for the leadership of ASEPA and the present government to produce results.

2.4.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND URBANISATION IN NIGERIA
Urbanisation in the third world has resulted in expansion of “slum areas” and creation of new ones. The international institute for environment and development (IIED), 2002), reported that the process of globalisation has reinforced problems of rapid urbanisation in Nigeria and other areas of the developing world.
Globalisation is seen as a process of geographical realignment of networks of production and consumption and sites of power (Beall, 2002).
The urban Nigerians have acquired much scientific technology and capacity and can consume over ten times more materials and gadgets than their rural counterparts. In an attempt to continue this consumerist bent by demanding ever-greater quantity of material goods from ever declining rural resources they have grossly polluted, disorganised and blighted the environment. The social linkage between public uncalculated costs and privately anticipated benefits is steadily increasing. In the long run, preservation of urban Nigerian and preservation planning concern for the environment are indistinguishable (Uyanga, 1985).
The forces behind unprecedented urban growth in Nigeria are many. Rural-urban migrations, natural population increase, engulfing of peripheral rural settlements by urban expansion and in some cases, conflicts have as root cause. The push factors from rural areas have been declining agricultural productivity or low prices, lack of employment opportunities, basic physical and social infrastructure. Also, better employment opportunities and lifestyles in cities are alluring (Harsch, 2001).
Globalisation and urbanisation have come to stay. They have benefits as well as a many irking problems. Problem solving solutions associated with urbanisation and globalisation brings about positive prospective alternatives. The ability to deal with this new situation requires effective capacity building for cities and communities toward participatory and good governance (Achankeng, 2003).

2.4.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND NIGERIA’S POPULATION CHANGE
Population has always affected waste generation, collection and invariably disposal due to rapid urbanisation and higher standards of living. Using Lagos State as an instance, the population rose from 1,443,569 (1963) to 5,685,981 (1991) and to 6,947,191 in December 1996. This has impacted negatively on both the environment and waste generation in the State. Lagos is the most densely populated state in Nigeria due to its commercial activities. The quality of waste generated is proportional to population size; as population increases, waste generated also increases. Like many other cities in the urban developing world, cities in Nigeria are faced with the twin problems of population increases and rapid expansion. These phenomena have no doubt brought increasing strain on urban infrastructural facilities such as in waste management. The existing system appears to be incapable of coping with the mountain load of waste generated and heaped on the surface (Taiwo, 2009).
Many state governments spend a good percentage of their funds on domestic waste management. For example Lagos State Government spends between 20 – 25 % of its funds on waste management and a projected population that runs into millions. it is estimated that the average individual generates an average of 0.115 kg of waste daily. The funds available or at least earmarked for domestic waste management is grossly inadequate to fund public agencies and other Private Sector Participants (PSP), population growth goes hand in hand with increased pollution and environmental decay (Taiwo, 2009).

2.4.3 Standard of living in Nigeria vis-à-vis waste management
Standard of living is generally measured by variables such as income per person and poverty rate. Other measures such as access and quality of health care, income growth inequality and educational standards are also used. Examples are access to certain goods or measures of health such as life expectancy. It is the ease by which people living in a time or place are able to satisfy their needs and/or wants. Most third world cities lack resources to meet the demand for such services as water, sanitation and SWM. The insufficient services results in a deterioration of urban environments (air, water and land pollution) that poses risks to human health and environment (Medina, 1997).
In Nigeria employee productivity is low due to certain factors such as sociological, felt in manifested lack of a sense of belonging in an organisation, and tendency by employees to perceive a job as another’s business. This negative attribute to work has impacted on waste management efforts of the state. Poor attitude to work, poor coordination and inadequate communication among workers and institution saddled with SWM responsibilities due to bureaucratic impediment and administrative hitches have resulted in chaos, confusion and ineffectiveness in delivering many urban public services. Ignorance coupled with poverty may also be adduced to the habit of most people especially in densely populated areas. It is dis-heartening to find humans defecating in broad daylight on the side of Highways or urinating on the sidewalk or gutter in full glare of the public or indiscriminate discharge of garbage into drains and at times on the highways (Taiwo, 2009).
The standard of living has led to scavenging. Scavenging is a ubiquitous occurrence throughout the developing world, and is very prominent in Nigeria. The World Bank has estimated that up to 2 % of the population in third world countries survives by recovering materials from waste. Scavengers salvage materials to sell for recycling, as well as repairable and reusable items that can sell or use themselves (Medina, 1997). The concept of standard of living has in recent decades increasingly approached economists ' idea of a utility function in which wellbeing depends on a wide variety of pecuniary and non-pecuniary circumstances. Whiteman et al., (2001) argued that the effectiveness of solid waste management in a city is one of the indices for assessing good governance’’.
The standard of living in Nigeria needs not be over emphasised as it is evident from the way waste is generated, and clearly evident by the rate at which waste is managed in third world cities which is clearly a mirror image of their standard of living in Nigeria for instance.

2.4.4 EXISTING LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA
The instrumental basis for implementing strategic plan comprises of a legal and regulatory framework which is elaborated in the form of bylaws, ordinances and regulations concerning SWM, and includes corresponding inspection and enforcement responsibilities and procedures at national, state, and local levels. This legal or regulatory framework, if consciously implemented can bring about a sustainable waste management system (Schübeler et al., 1996).
FEPA was established by Decree No. 58 of 1988 and charged with the responsibility for environmental protection. Following the upgrading of the agency to a Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv) in 1999, the Ministry was mandated to coordinate environmental protection and natural resources conservation for sustainable development.

Table 1 SHOWING THE EXISTING NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS S/N | Regulations | Year | Provision | 1 | National Environmental Protection (Effluent Limitation) Regulations | 1991 | The Regulation makes it mandatory for industrial facilities to install anti-pollution equipment’s, makes provision for effluent treatment and prescribes a maximum limit of effluent parameters allowed. | 2 | National Environmental Protection (Pollution and Abatement in Industries in facilities producing Waste) Regulations. | 1991 | Imposes restriction on release of toxic substances, and stipulates requirements for monitoring of pollution. It also makes it mandatory for existing industries and facilities to conduct periodic environmental audits. | 3 | National Environmental Protection (Management of Solid and hazardous Waste) Regulations. | 1988 | Regulates the collection, treatments and disposal of solid and hazardous waste from municipal and industrial sources. | 4 | Harmful Waste (Special Criminal Provisions, etc.) Decree No: 2. | 1992 | Provides legal framework for effective control of the disposal of hazardous waste into any environment within the confines of Nigeria. | 5 | Environmental Impact Assessment Act (Decree No: 86). | 1991 | The decree makes it mandatory for an EIA to be carried out prior to any industrial project development | 6 | National Guideline and standard for Environmental Pollution Control | 1987 | The regulations provide guidelines for management of pollution control measures. | 7 | Workmen Compensation Act | 1992 | Occupational health and safety. | 8 | Urban and Regional Planning Decree No: 88 | | Planned development of urban areas (To include and manage waste sites). | 9 | Environmental Sanitation Edicts’, Laws and enforcement Agencies | | General environmental health and sanitation. Enforcing necessary laws. | 10 | State Waste Management Agencies | | Ensure proper disposal and clearing of wastes. | 11 | Public Health Laws | | Covering public health matters. |
Source: Federal Republic of Nigeria Medical Waste Management Final Report 2007
Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv): has responsibility to administer and enforce environmental laws in Nigeria. The specific responsibilities of the ministry include: 1. Monitoring and enforcing environmental protection. 2. Enforcing international laws, conventions, protocols and treaties on the environment. 3. Prescribing standards for and making regulations on air quality, water quality pollution and effluent limitations, atmosphere and ozone protection, control of toxic and hazardous substances; and 4. Promoting cooperation with similar bodies in other countries and international agencies connected with environmental protection.

State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA): Each state within Nigeria is empowered to make laws for the protection of its own environment, within its jurisdiction. SEPAs are responsible for the assessment of all public or private projects activities within the states. The roles of SEPAs in this project include; 1. Conducting public enlightenment on environmental sanitation and management; 2. Co-operating with the Federal and Local Governments, Statutory bodies and Research Agencies on matters relating to the project; 3. Pollution control and environmental health in the states; Collaborating with FMEnv and other agencies to achieve effective prevention of abatement of trans-boundary movement of waste; (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2007).
Presently, it’s been observed that Nigeria is experimenting with the privatisation of the waste sector, as states like Lagos state have established municipal solid waste management policies to encompass private sector participation in waste collection and transfer to designated landfill sites (Ogwueleka, 2009).

2.4.5 Existing Waste Management Capabilities in Nigeria
There are a number of companies in Nigeria collecting and transporting MSW. Their capabilities are rudimentary for collection and transportation. Waste management treatment and disposal infrastructure is currently underdeveloped in Nigeria; for example landfills are still at the stage of municipal dumps rather than sanitary or ‘engineered’ landfills. This is the situation mostly in almost every parts of the country. In Abuja the federal capital territory for instance, there are no sanitary landfills in the FCT for waste disposal. Solid waste from the formal collection system in the various districts of Abuja is transported to a single dumpsite at Mpape.
The average recyclable content of waste in Nigeria is estimated at 28 % (Urban Development Bank of Nigeria (UDBN), 1998). The only recycling in Abuja is carried out by the informal sector. Scavengers generally, normally have no formal education, vocational training or access to appropriate equipment and do not normally have alternative employment opportunities in the formal sector. The scavengers and other informal sector recyclers generally sell their recovered materials to middlemen, who in turn sell to small and large scale processing and manufacturing industries. For example, collected glass is processed and recycled locally as cullet for use in the glass industry; whole bottles are cleaned and reused as syrup, drinks and juice containers; the bases of broken bottles are sold to small-scale industries that cut and polish the glass to manufacture items such as ash trays and candle holders (Imam et al., 2008).
In Enugu city, the capital of Enugu State of Nigeria developed with discovery and mining of coal in the 1920s (Okoye, 1975), waste recovery, exchange and recycling activities are concentrated at specific points in the urban space of Enugu. Scavenging is not a recent occupation in this city, as women have been known to pick up used up bottles to hawk water, and all kinds of drinks (Agunwamba, 2003). According to Salahuddin and Shamim, (1992), over 20,000 women work as paper pickers in Ahmedabad city, it appears to have intensified with the development and operation of the Ugwuaji landfill facility. There is a concentration of recoverable and recyclable materials at the landfill site as the landfill is currently the only designated waste disposal site in the entire city, and all PSPs tip waste they collect. In addition, waste pickers have unrestricted access to the site.
Waste paper, cardboard and polyethylene packaging materials are usually not recovered because there are currently no market outlets. As a result, pickers have no incentive to salvage them. Recovered materials such as bottles and plastics are transported with pick-up vans and sometimes push-carts, from landfills to bottle and plastic banks, scrap metal dealers, artisan shops and small-scale manufacturers located at various locations in the state. These shops collect, sort, and carry out some pre-processing. Some of these materials are also processed along the access road leading to landfills or sold – usually without processing – onsite to scrap buyers then transport the wares to various destinations (Nzeadibe and Eziuzor, 2006).
It has been observed that regardless of the informal sector waste workers un education they possess skills both directly related to waste recovery and recycling as well as for locating markets and potential customers (Nzeadibe, 2008).
Registration and licensing of scavengers or even employment of scavengers could be considered as an avenue to retain and possibly improve their skills while also providing more sustainable livelihoods to recyclers. These guarantees a certain level of economic security, and also encourage the present capability while also ensuring that the maximum amount of materials is recovered from the landfill for a sustainable waste management practice in the country (Nzeadibe, 2008).

2.4.6 THE ABOUNDING EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA
Waste management as an Informal sector, its activities are not regulated or controlled by government agencies—they exist and operate because of market forces or other socio-economic factors (Ali, 1999). This definition very well describes the activities carried out by the multitude of people who depend on solid waste to earn or supplement their income. In low-income countries the size of the informal sector is significant because of poverty, unemployment or underemployment (Ahmed and Ali, 2004).
Recently, Nigeria’s urban waste management – especially the work of the informal sector – has increasingly attracted the attention of researchers and policy makers. Studies of waste management in Nigerian cities are paying more attention to the linkages between waste management and urban governance on one hand (Onibokun and Kumuyi, 1999) and economic, environmental, socio-political and spatial aspects of informal waste management on the other (Imam et al., 2008).
In all these investigations, however, the developmental capacity of the informal sector for improved SWM and need to support the activities of the sector have been largely ignored (Nzeadibe, 2008). Little thought has been given to encourage graduates to make a career in the informal waste management sector in spite of the development contributions made by the sector.
However, Nzeadibe, (2008), observed that the economic impact of the informal sector in Enugu State South Eastern Nigeria has been found to be significant, as the average waste picker earned more than the minimum wage in Enugu State.
It has been estimated that up to 150,000 waste pickers are active in Municipal Corporation of Delhi area (Chaturvedi, 1998).
‘‘Small-scale recyclers, as seen in the case of Enugu’’ according to Okoye, (1975), purchase items like glass, metal cans and plastics. Using these wastes as raw materials, they manufacture saleable products. However, a young population, high unemployment, low incomes and increasing solid waste indicate that sustainable waste management system could provide much needed jobs if the government and private sectors attach more importance to it rather than sole reliance on oil sector as a major source of employment.

2.5 PROCEDURAL APPROACH TO WASTE MANAGEMENT
A procedural approach to waste management will have to take into account community and regional-specific issues and needs to formulate an integrated and appropriate set of solutions unique to each context. This can also be most complimented by people’s attitude towards waste, otherwise would be an effort in futility (Van de Klundert et al., 2001). As with any issue in developing nations, solutions which work for some countries or areas will be inappropriate for others. Specific environmental conditions will dictate the appropriateness of various technologies, and the level of industrialisation and technical knowledge present in various countries and cities will constrain solutions. Studies on MSW issues however repeatedly discuss certain approaches as being at least adaptable to many developing nation scenarios. These approaches emphasise waste reduction (creation of less waste and increased material recovery) and appropriate disposal options as part of an integrated evaluation of needs and conditions.
However, when considering a procedural approach to waste management, the "waste hierarchy" concept set out in the government 's waste strategy should be a useful tool. This procedure relates to generation, handling, keeping, safe storage, transport, collection and disposal of all city-generated waste. All wastes must be collected and transported by an approved waste contractor and in accordance with the Waste Regulations, as applicable, and where necessary fulfil the regulatory requirement for the carriage of generated waste.
However, various factors are involved in the effort to develop a more sustainable waste management system. It includes the following; regulatory frame work that guides implementation of bylaws on waste management by various environmental protection agencies because this alerts citizens of their knowledge and responsibilities are, how to keep costs down in the effort to develop a sustainable waste management system, and clear the city of enormous amount of waste, and cross application of human resource from scavengers, and then designing an acceptable system such as a conscious and sustainable cost effective waste management program to run first on a pilot for a couple of months and then responsibility transferred gradually to citizens via local authorities with the application of bylaws as a deterrent.
But as far as is reasonably practicable, the waste management procedure should be practiced through the waste hierarchy approach, as indicated in 2.0 above. The priority, quite rightly should be to reduce the amount of waste that we produce by minimising the quantities of natural resources that we convert into products and then discard (Waite, 1995, p 3). However, the suggested approach for developing countries according to Thomas-Hope, (1998, pp 276-277), is also very highly recommendable.

2.6 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN ABIA STATE; A TACTICAL REVIEW OF WASTE MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES IN THE COMMERCIAL CITY
Aba is one of the most commercialised cities in Nigeria has been known as a garbage city, because of the governments’ inability to build a sustainable waste generation management structure. This probably would be as a result of a national system failure as observed by Ukwu, (1985b), which states:
‘‘The history of Infrastructure in Nigeria is marked by unsteady and uneven development’’. In the colonial era the primary concern of government was to “open up” the country to external trade. Hence, initial emphasis was on transport development based on ports and railways and development of urban centres along the railways for the collection and export produce and the distribution of imported manufactures. In the run-up to Independence and introduction of regionalism, new regional governments assumed responsibility for a wide range of Infrastructural facilities and services. General social infrastructural development such as it were, reflected the widely different priorities and capacities of local governments and communities (Ukwu, 2002). Another significant development during the military regime was the introduction of a uniform local government system. Local governments were assigned specific roles including major roles in infrastructural development. Most local governments have never had sufficient funds to fulfil their statutory roles adequately. In the current dispensation, there is much uncertainty about the status, resources and responsibilities of local government. These have to be resolved if the local governments are to become viable and reliable agents of local development (Ukwu, 2002). On a general note, planning is deciding in advance what to do, how to do it, where to do it, who to do it and even why it should be done (Koonts et al., 1980).
The essence of planning is, therefore, to initiate a proactive form of management that is not only feasible, but also attainable. More attention needs to be drawn to general environmental management and protection. This is because environmental irresponsibility affects other sectors. Plan and policy development usually define the course, goal, execution, success or failure of any public utilities initiative, solid waste management has not been an exception. The need for an acceptable and sustainable solid waste generation and other environmental management system in Abia State cannot therefore, be over emphasised. Currently, according to Abia State Government, the state has spent over N5 million in provisions of refuse buckets and trucks for solid waste disposal in Umuahia and Aba. This is in addition to Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC). The challenge however, is still immense (Abia State of Nigeria, 2005). Staff training in waste management can be said to be mostly of average standard. In Aba and Umuahia 10.5 % and 28.8 % of the staff do not have any formal training. Generally, it is believed that poor training standard affects staff efficiency and output, which in turn adversely affect waste management (Uchegbu, 2009).
Waste management infrastructures in Aba are rarely maintained and as such have led to aggravated waste disposals. This situation brings to mind the presumption of Caincross, (1988), that; waste management systems can work better when adequately managed and maintained, than increasing its numbers.
However, infrastructure is the basic physical and organisational structure needed for the operation of a sustainable waste management system, or services and facilities necessary for its function. The term typically refers to the technical structures that supports a society, if viewed functionally; this infrastructure will facilitate the sustenance of management structure, and if not adequately maintained could collapse.

2.7 POSSIBILITIES FOR THE INTEGRATION OF WASTE TO WEALTH PRACTICES INTO WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CITY
Before looking at the possibilities for the integration of waste to wealth, it is important to distinguish the sources of this waste;
Table 2 Sources and Types of Waste S/No | Sources | Types of waste | I | Market | Mostly organic with plastics, nylon and glass | II | Schools | Mainly papers cardboards, nylon and some organic | III | Industries | Spent chemicals, scrap metals, plastics and glass | IV | Residential | Mixed refuse | V | Commercial centres | Scrap metals, woods, organic materials, nylon, plastics | VI | Automobile workshops | Scrap metals, plastics, nylon | VII | Supermarket/grocery stores | Papers, nylon, plastics and garbage. |
Source: Adapted from Federal Republic of Nigeria Medical Waste Management Final Report 2007.
Sources of solid waste generation in Nigeria among others are commercial, industrial, household, agricultural and educational establishments. The solid waste types include paper, nylon, wood, dust, cloth, metal scraps, electronic gadgets, bottles, food remnants and vegetables; saw dust, ashes, rubber, bones and plastics. Of total solid waste generated in Aba, 66.1 % are domestic, 20.3 % commercial and 11.4 % industrial (Adewumi et al., 2005).
Having known the sources and estimated amount generated, there is therefore a need to enlighten the populace on the wealth inherent in their organic, plastic and paper wastes.

REUSE AND RECYCLING
There has been an emergence of biodegradable solid waste in the production of organic fertiliser and possible use in the production of biogas. There are great potentials in Nigeria’s municipal solid wastes to produce enormous amount of methane gas (Yusuf and Oyewumi, 2008).
Plastics can also be shredded to smaller particles and converted to pellets and sold to other recycling companies in Lagos, Oyo and Anambra States for further processing. Increasingly, it is becoming difficult for the Project to meet high market demands for Pellets (Olanrewaju and Ilemobade, 2009).

2.8 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW
Though the level of awareness of waste management schemes and regulations is said to be relatively high in Aba, the key assumption is that awareness campaigns will create the willingness for behavioural change, thereby bridging the value-action gap. But Blake, (1999) has argued that responsible environmental behaviour is not just down to awareness, when he accurately noted, there are no blueprints for encouraging pro-environmental action, so different strategies must be designed for different audiences. Exactly because behaviours are deeply embedded in socio-cultural contexts (Jackson, 2005), HWP behaviour is more likely to have many predictors that cross further than what can be encapsulated as ‘awareness’.
The proportion of those who use other indiscriminate solid waste disposal methods like, open burning and dumping, and dumping in drainages can be said to be higher.
In cities throughout Africa, itinerant collectors recover high-value recyclable materials, and can be essential to improved waste minimization. Encouraging recycling can help build capacity among local micro-enterprises and reduce the waste handled by landfills and dumps (EGSSAA, 2009).
The quantity and the rate of solid wastes generation in Nigeria have outgrown the capacity of nature to naturally absorb them (Babayemi and Dauda, 2009).
Therefore the issue of a sustainable waste generation management system is an all-inclusive arrangement, and can further be solved when according to Thomas Hope, (1998), the business community starts making money out of solving the environmental problems.
The challenge then lies in developing an indigenous environment industry which will not only help to solve the problem of environmental degradation but will also provide jobs and contribute to gross national product of the State, and the Country at large (Thomas-Hope, 1998, p 296).

CHAPTER 3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 STUDY APPROACH
A desk-top study research for materials relevant to the project such as past and related literatures and journals have been observed to assess SWM in developed nations and in other Nigeria cities as compared with the commercial city of Aba, to investigate how waste has been managed to improve and sustain an efficient SWM practice. The questionnaires were solely distributed amongst SMW workers due to their direct work practices.
Two hundred (200) questionnaires were sent out with the help of a benevolent waste manager. Of these, 42 completed questionnaires were successfully returned i.e. a 21 % return rate. Due to the distance, time constraints and present political situation in Nigeria, interviews were unable to be conducted.
3.2 RESEARCH ETHICS
The research conformed to legislation relating to data protection; because there was no provision for participant’s names on the questionnaire and confidentiality/anonymity was met according to the University code of ethics.
3.3 DATA TREATMENT
The data herein considered are for analysis purposes only.
In order to enable a more statistical description and avoidance of any confusion of the different response sample sizes, each group response was converted as a percentage of the group sample size. Unless otherwise stated, the percentages shown represent the total number of respondents in each group. The raw data are represented in the tables, and percentage graphically represented below in each table.
The percentage is calculated as thus;
(The number of response (For each question) × 100) / The total number of respondents (i.e. 42).

CHAPTER 4.0 RESULTS
Data was collected with a series of questions with intent to elicit information pertaining to SWM in Aba and presented with the aid of tables and graphical representations. They are then followed by interpretation and discussion.

4.1 General Questions
Question 1. What do you see as the major issue currently affecting Aba’s natural environment? Please tick as appropriate Table 4.1 Major issues affecting the environment. Issues of concern | No of response | No of response | Issues of concerns | Automobile exhaust | 6 | 16 | Household garbage | Sewage pollution from pits and toilets | 9 | 6 | Cutting down trees | Farming | 1 | 4 | Exposed landfill sites | The individual person | 3 | 11 | Dangerous solid waste such as chemicals, waste from factories, and mechanical workshops or garages | Factories | 6 | 2 | Pesticides and herbicides used in farming | No answer | 17 | | |

Fig.4.0.Extent to which major issues affect the natural environment.

From the 42 respondents, only 25 of them responded to this question, which is approximately 60 %. Since they had an option of more than one response, a majority 64 % of the 25 respondents have agreed that household garbage was the major issue currently affecting the natural environment in their locality. Only about 44 % of the 25 respondents reported that dangerous solid waste was seen as the major issue affecting the natural environment, and about 37 % of them suggest that sewage pollution from pits and toilets have a high effect on the natural environment, while about 16 % suggest that exposed landfill sites were the major issues affecting the natural environment, and 24 % each suggest that automobile exhaust, factories and cutting down trees were the major issues affecting the environment, 8 % of the 25 respondents suggest pesticides, 12 % of them see the individual person and 4 % of the respondent only were of the view that farming was the major issue affecting the natural environment.

Question 2. How much effect does your organisation have on the environment, do you have: No effect, Some effect, A lot of effect, No opinion No answer

Table 4.2.Level of organisational environmental effect Criteria | No. of response | No effect | 4 | Some effect | 9 | A lot of effect | 11 | No opinion | 3 | No answer | 15 |

Figure 4.1.Extent of organisational effect.

Out of the 42 respondents approximately 10 % claimed their organisation had no effects, about 21.4 % believed their organisations had some effects, while 26 % were of the opinion their organisations had lots of effect, and about 7.1 % claimed to have no opinion to how much effects their organisation had on the environment. And 36 %had ‘‘no answer’’.
Question 3. Concerns about solid waste management
Table 4.3 Organisational concern about solid waste. For the following questions, please put your views across by ticking the appropriate column. | Concerned | Not concerned | No opinion | No answer | How concerned is your organisation about health risks related to burning garbage? | 33 | 6 | 2 | 1 | How concerned is your organisation about illegal dumps polluting rivers, streams, and wells? | 36 | 4 | 2 | 0 | How concerned is your organisation about diseases that are related to improper storage and disposal methods. | 39 | 1 | 2 | 0 | How concerned is your organisation about flooding due to garbage blocking drains and gullies? | 38 | 4 | 0 | 0 | How concerned is your organisation about the reduction of natural resources that are used to make the products we buy and use (such as, oil for plastic bottles and trees for paper and fuel)? | 28 | 4 | 10 | 0 | How concerned is your organisation about the service provided by the garbage truck in Aba? | 30 | 3 | 5 | 4 | How concerned is your organisation about litter in Aba? | 33 | 4 | 2 | 3 | How concerned is your organisation about illegal dumping in Aba | 34 | 3 | 1 | 4 | How concerned is your organisation about the presence of rats in this area? | 29 | 7 | 5 | 1 | How concerned is your organisation about garbage in Aba? | 38 | 3 | 0 | 1 |

Figure.4.2.Extent of concern about solid waste.

Regarding the concerns of the respondent’s organisations about solid waste management, majority of the public respondents have expressed their organisations concerns. In the issue of respondent’s organisations concerns, about health risks related to burning garbage, from the 42 respondents, about 79 % of respondents were of the view that their organisation was concerned, 14 % of respondents claimed their organisation was not concerned, and about 5 % of respondents were of the no opinion, while only 2.4 % of the respondents did not answer, this could be attributed to over-sight, or that the respondents were less concerned. The high rate of concerned response may be attributed to the increased risk of birth defects and some cancers, as Sever, (1997) and Johnson, (1997, 1999), had emphasised. About their organisations concern regarding illegal dumps polluting rivers, streams and wells, the results show that 86 % of the respondents claimed their organisations were concerned, about 9 % of the respondents claimed their organisations were not concerned, while almost 5 % had no opinion, and with regards to the “no answer” column, there were no response. This suggests the level of concern, evidenced in respondents concern. On the issue of diseases related to improper storage and disposal methods, the survey showed that 93 % of the respondents were concerned, with 2.4 % of the respondents not concerned, and about 4 % of the respondents not having an opinion of their organisations concern. Regarding the organisations concern on the issue of flooding due to improper disposal of garbage, the results showed that about 90 % of the respondents claimed their organisation was concerned, while the other almost 10 % of the respondents admitted their organisations were not concerned, and none of the respondents had no opinion. On how concerned the organisation had regarding the reduction of natural resources, the survey result showed that 67 % of the respondents claimed their organisations were concerned, 9.5 % of the respondents claimed their organisations were not concerned, while the other 24 % of the respondents were of the no opinion. Observing the trend of concerns, from the results of the reduction of natural resources the number of respondents was quite low as compared to other concerns, this which may be attributed to the economic challenge in the region. About the services provided by the garbage truck, about 71 % of the respondents claimed the organisation was concerned, about 7.1 % of the respondents claimed the organisation was not concerned, another 12 % of the respondents were of the no opinion, while we had a 9.5 % of respondents who did not think their organisations were not apprehensive either way. The high number of concern could be attributed to the amount of heaps deposited all around the city, as shown on figure 5. As to how concerned the organisation was about litter in the city, the results show there was a high response from those who were concerned, about 79 % of the respondents were concerned, unexpectedly though, 9 % of the respondents claimed their organisations were not concerned, and about 5 % of the respondents were of the no opinion, while the result had 7 % of respondents who may be were not bothered. Again, the high rate of concerns could be attributed to the high rate of indiscriminate garbage littered all over the city. About their concerns for illegal dumping, the survey results show that 81 % of the 42 respondents were concerned, with 7.1 % of the respondents not being concerned, and 2.4 % of the respondents were of the no opinion, with about 9.5 % of the respondents not thinking their organisation was concerned, thereby not providing an answer to the question.
On the organisations concern about the presence of rats in the area, about 69 % of the respondents claimed the organisation was concerned, while about 17 % of the respondents claimed the organisation was not concerned; and 12 % of the 42 respondents had no opinion, while the other 2 % of the respondents choose not to answer.
On the issue of the organisations concern about garbage, the results survey showed that respondents supposed their organisation had a high concern, about 91 % of the respondents claimed the organisation was concerned, and about 7 % of them claimed the organisation was not concerned, this which can be attributed to difficulty in controlling their wastes, as a result of operational, inefficiency as Zurbrügg and Schertenleib, (1998), has observed, while the other 2 % were probably not bothered.

Question.4. Briefly, do you have any suggestions for improving the managing of garbage in this city (Please answer in the space below)?
Out of the 42 respondents, about 69 % showed a suggestive recommendation to provision of basic waste management facilities, and infrastructures, like disposal trucks for regular collection, trash cans etc, and the employment of more waste collectors, while of the other 31 %, less than 2 % of the 31 % advocated for the ‘‘No trash campaign’’ presently carried out by the government to be taken more seriously, while others did not think of any suggestions on how to improve the managing of garbage in the area. Possibly, because most of them felt their suggestions would not be considered, which perhaps could be as a result of techno-financial approaches that have failed to develop an institutional set-up necessary to empower the workers to participate effectively, contrary to what was obtained in developed nations, where proposed strategies for waste management are subject to opinions, and the citizens views were sought and utilised in implementing waste management plans for the nations. Or maybe, they were not bothered to give any suggestions at all as was the case in most of the questions asked, which in itself a problem that needed to be addressed.

Question.5. Awareness and participation of waste management
Table.4.5. Awareness and participation of waste management. For the following questions, please answer by ticking appropriate column(s) | Yes | No | Don’t know | No answer | Has your organisation ever heard about composting? | 30 | 7 | 4 | 1 | Has your organisation ever heard about recycling? | 32 | 6 | 2 | 2 | Would your organisation be willing to participate in a program to compost food and yard waste? | 30 | 2 | 9 | 1 |

Figure.4.3.Extent of awareness of waste management.
Overall, 71 % of the 42 respondents said the organisation is aware of composting, 17 % claimed the organisation is unaware, about 10 % of them claimed the organisations do not know, while the other 2 % of the respondents did not bother to give any response. On whether their organisation had heard about recycling, 76 % of the respondents answered that the organisation had heard, 14 % answered No the organisations had not heard about recycling, 5 % of the respondents answered they do not know if the organisation had heard about recycling, while another 5 % did not bother to give answers as to if the organisation had heard about recycling.
On whether they would be willing to participate in a program to compost food, 71 % of the respondents said yes that the organisation would be willing to, another 5 % answered no the organisation would not be willing to participate, 22 % of the other respondents answered that they did not know if the organisation would be willing to participate, while 2 % of the respondent did not bother to give any response.
To summarise, as would be expected the higher percentage of the respondents answered yes that their organisations had heard about composting and recycling, and would be willing to participate in a program for composting, based on the responses of the respondents.

Question 6. Solid waste management attitude. This question refers to their personal views.
Table 4.6 Waste management attitude. For the following 11 questions, please answer by ticking appropriate column(s) | Agree | Disagree | No opinion | No answer | Do you play an important role in the management of garbage in your community? | 25 | 10 | 7 | 0 | Environmental education should be taught in schools. | 37 | 0 | 0 | 5 | The purchase decisions that I make can increase or decrease the amount of garbage my household must get rid of (dispose off). | 28 | 8 | 5 | 1 | I don’t care that burning garbage can be bad for my health and the health of others. | 7 | 35 | 0 | 0 | People throw garbage on the streets and in the drains and gullies because they have no other means of getting rid of their garbage. | 15 | 27 | 0 | 0 | The government is not doing enough to fix the garbage problem. | 36 | 6 | 0 | 0 | Correct garbage management should not be taught in schools. | 11 | 30 | 1 | 0 | Other personal issues (like crime, unemployment, and cost of living) are more important to me than a garbage-free community. | 12 | 20 | 10 | 0 | Regular collection of garbage is the only solution to the garbage problem. | 20 | 18 | 3 | 1 | Picking up garbage around my community is my responsibility as an Abia state citizen. | 14 | 24 | 2 | 2 | Public education about proper garbage management is one way to fix the garbage crisis. | 37 | 2 | 2 | 1 | Is it very important that the Government of Abia state put recycling laws and programs in place? | 38 | 1 | 2 | 1 |

Figure 4.4.Waste management attitude
This question deals specifically with the respondent’s attitude toward solid waste management.
According to the responses given for the question regarding to their role in the management of garbage in their community, of the total number of 42 responses, nearly 60 % of them agreed that they played important roles in the management of garbage in their communities, about 23.8 % of the respondents disagreed that they do not play important roles in the management of garbage in their community, while 16 % of the respondents were of the no opinion.
On whether environmental education should be taught in schools, of the responses, a high response of about 88 % agreed that environmental education should be taught in schools, none of the respondents disagreed, nor were of the no opinion, but 12 % of the respondents had no responses made at all.
As regards the purchase decisions they make affecting the amount of their household garbage, from the responses gotten almost 67 % of the respondents agree that their purchase decisions would either increase or decrease their garbage amount, while 19 % of them disagree and the other nearly 11.9 % claim to have no opinion, with about 2 % of the respondents not giving any response at all.
As to whether burning garbage can be bad for their health and that of others, from the responses gotten, 17 % of the respondents agree that they do not care that burning garbage can be bad for their health and that of others, while the other 83 % of the respondents disagree, meaning that they do care, and none of them was of the no opinion.
On the issue of people throwing garbage on the streets and in the drains and gullies because there were no other means of getting rid of them, of the 42 respondents, 36 % agreed that people did not have were to throw them which was why they threw garbage on the streets and in the drains, while the remaining 64 % disagreed.
By perception, one could conclude from this response that people would litter if there were no nearby bins.
On the issue of whether the government was doing enough to fix the garbage problem, 86 % of the respondents agreed the government was not doing enough, while the remaining 14 % disagreed that the government was not doing enough, this which could be attributed to why most people still saw the issue of waste management as a responsibility of the government, as earlier observed by Imam et al., (2008).
According to the survey, as to whether correct garbage management should be taught in schools, the results show that 26 % agreed that garbage management should be taught in schools, while 72 % of the respondents disagreed, and the other 2 % of the respondent were of the no opinion.
Regarding to whether other issues like crime, employment etc are more important than a garbage-free community 28.6 % agreed that other personal issues were of more importance to them, 47.6 % said they disagreed while the remaining 24.8 % were of no opinion.
Whether regular collection was the only solution to garbage problem in the area, the survey results show that out of the 42 responses, 48 % of the respondents agreed it was, 43 % disagreed, 7 % claimed not to have an opinion, and 2 % had no answer.

Question 7.
How often is waste collected in your neighbourhood?
Table 4.8.showing rate of waste collection. Regular basis | Periodic | Irregular basis | 12 | 23 | 7 |

Figure 4.5. Showing rate of wastes collection in the area.

Figure 4.5 compares the regularity of waste collection in the area.
Of the 42 responses, 29 % of them claimed their wastes were collected on a regular basis, while 55 % claimed it was periodic, or rather interrupted. The other 16 % claimed it was irregular. This was actually to determine the degree of its regularity.

Question 8.How is waste collection carried out, by regular staff/outside collectors?
Regular staff
Outside collectors
Table.4.9 showing how waste is collected in the area. Regular staff | Outside collectors | No response | 22 | 14 | 6 |

Figure.4.6 showing rate of how waste is collected in the area

In question 8, 53 % of the 42 respondents claimed that waste collection was carried out by the regular staff of the waste organisation, while 33 % said it was carried out by outside collectors’ i.e. private companies, and the other 14 % of the respondents were not bothered to respond.

Question 9. List approximate number of:
Non-mechanical collection devices.
Refuse Collectors...........
Wheelbarrows................
Pushcarts........................
And,
Mechanical collection vehicles
Open-back trucks……...
Compactor trucks……..
Trailers………………..
Question 9 attempts to estimate the number of collection facilities available to the disposal of the respondents. When asked to give the approximate numbers of Non-mechanical collection devices like refuse collectors, wheel barrows and pushcarts, and the mechanical collection vehicles, 69 % of the 42 respondents claimed not to have an idea, while the other 31 % gave estimates of within 2 - 20 for refuse collectors, 1 - 100 for wheelbarrows, and pushcarts 1 - 40 for the non-mechanical collection devices. For the mechanical devices, estimates of about 1 - 13 open-back trucks were given, for the compactor trucks, 1 - 4 was estimated, while that for the trucks was estimated to be between 1 - 7.

(Question 12). Waste Collection, Transfer and Disposal
Does the surrounding community have an established municipal waste collection system?
Yes No

Table 4.13 showing if there is an established waste collection system in the area. Yes | No | No answer | 16 | 22 | 4 |

Figure 4.7 showing the surrounding community established level of waste collection.

In relation with questions 7, 8 and 9, this question was intended to identify how established surrounding communities collected, transferred and disposed of their waste. From the results, 38 % of the 42 respondents claimed the surrounding communities have an established waste collection system, an enormous number of about 52 % of the respondents answered no, that the surrounding communities do not have an established system, and 10 % out of the total number of respondents were either not bothered to respond, or were not aware if there is an established waste collection system, or most likely that there is no established system, but choose not to respond.

Question 10. If your organisation is involved in waste disposal please state which kind of disposal system you operate or supervise:
Open dumps? Yes No
Controlled dumps? Yes No
Sanitary landfills? Yes No
Not involved in this
Table 4.11 showing kind of disposal system operated. Open dumps | Controlled dumps | Sanitary landfills | No answer | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | | 28 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 11 | 4 |

Figure 4.8 showing kind of disposal system operated.

Out of the 42 respondents, 67 % answered “yes” that the organisation operated an open dump system, while 14.3 % answered “no”. As to whether the disposal system was a controlled dump system, 24 % of the respondents answered yes and 21.4 % of the respondents answered no which means that the dumpsites were being controlled, contrary to perception earlier, that the state is largely characterised by low coverage of solid waste management services, and pollution from uncontrolled waste dumping. Whether it is a sanitary landfill system in operation, 17 % of the respondents answered yes, and 26.2 % answered no. Of all the responses about 9.52 % of the respondents could not be bothered to respond to the kind of disposal system in place.

Question 11. Are Official waste disposal sites in your area (dumps, landfills); Maintained by municipal workers?
Yes No
By private sector on contract, lease, or other arrangement?
Yes No (please specify, if other arrangements)
Equipped with adequate equipment owned by municipality Yes No

Table 4.12 showing how disposal sites are maintained. Municipal workers | Private sector on contract, lease, or other arrangement | Equipped with adequate equipment | Yes | No | No answer | Yes | No | No answer | Yes | No | No answer | 23 | 15 | 4 | 21 | 9 | 12 | 5 | 25 | 12 |

Figure 4.9 showing rate of how disposal sites are maintained

After asking what kind of disposal system was in operation, the respondents were asked how these disposal systems were maintained. The respondents were asked to choose if the disposal systems were maintained by the municipal workers, or the private sector, and if the maintenance was done with adequate equipments owned by the municipality.
The results shown on figure 4.11 shows that 54.8 % of the respondents answered yes to the disposal systems being maintained by the municipal workers, 50 % of the respondents claimed it was maintained by the private sector, and 11.9 % of the respondents claimed the disposal sites were maintained by adequate equipment owned by the municipality.
On the other hand, 35.7 % of the respondents answered ‘‘no’’ it is not maintained by the municipal workers, 21.4 % of them answered ‘‘no’’ it is not maintained by the private sector either, while a vast number of about 59.5 % said the maintenance of the disposal sites were not done with adequate equipments owned by the municipality. 9.5 % of the 42 respondents who responded to this option, did not respond to whether the disposal sites were maintained by municipal workers, neither did 28.6 % respond to whether it was maintained by the private sector, similarly 28.6 % did also not respond to whether the maintenance was done with adequate equipment, which could be pointing to the fact that by perception there were no adequate equipments, or that they were not bothered to know how the disposal sites were maintained.

Question 13.How can you describe policy of your organisation in dealing with waste pickers/scavengers?
Fair Unfair
Please comment very briefly on their involvement in different stages of solid waste management (picking at the source, transfer station, dump/landfill, approximate number of waste pickers, etc.). Table 4.14 describing how scavengers are dealt. Fair | Unfair | No answer | 13 | 24 | 5 |

Figure 4.10 showing the level of how scavengers are dealt.

The results show that only 31 % of the 42 respondents believe the policy of the organisation is fair, and 57 % of them still believe their organisations policy is unfair, while the other 12 % seem to not have been bothered.

(Question 21). Do you encourage scavenging?
Yes
No
If yes, what safety measures are in place to protect them?

Table.4.20 showing respondents support for scavenging. Yes | No | No answer | 17 | 23 | 2 |

Figure 4.11 showing respondents level of support for scavenging.
From the response, 40 % of 42 respondents i.e. 17 of the respondents encouraged scavenging, 55 % of the respondents answered that they do not support scavenging, whereas the remaining 5 % were not bothered. The 21 % who commented on the safety measures in place to protecting the scavengers have all claimed that there were no safety measures in place

Question 14. Does the present government have an integrated, comprehensive plan for an environmentally solid waste management?
Yes No
Table 4.15 showing the present governments plan for an integrated SWM. Yes | No | No answer | 14 | 24 | 4 |

Figure 4.12 showing the governments plan for an environmental SWM.

From the results33 % of the 42 respondents, claimed there is an integrated comprehensive plan for an environmentally solid waste management, while 57 % of them answered that there is no integrated comprehensive plan, while the other 10 % did not respond, perhaps the 10 % respondents were not bothered.

Q.15. Do you, as individual, think empowering local authorities would help in improving waste management in the state?
Yes No
Table 4.17 showing respondents’ thoughts to empowering local authorities. Yes | No | No answer | 40 | 1 | 1 |

Figure 4.13 showing level of response of respondents to local empowerment.

The survey results, shows that generally the respondents understood the significance of empowering local authorities, as respondents who think empowering local authorities would help improving the waste management in the state far outnumbered those who said no, and who did not bother to make any response. The result shows that 95.2 % of the 42 respondents said yes, that empowering local authorities would help improve waste management in the area, and 2.4 % of the other respondents left said no, while the other 2.4 % left did not respond. This which could be suggesting that empowering the local authorities should be adequately considered.

Question 16. Briefly describe what the current funding source for operating the public solid waste management services in the state is.
This question was an open-ended question, out of the 42 respondents, only about 55 % of the 42 respondents answered, and the general response from the 55 % of the respondents consented to the fact that the only source of funding was from the state government, which most of them claimed was insufficient, while the other 45 % did not think they knew what the current funding source is, or did not bother to make a comment.

Question 17. What do you think the public’s opinion of Abia State Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA) is?
This open ended question, took into account the perception of the public towards the waste workers.
An interesting observation here, is that of the 42 respondents, 69% of them, think the public is of the view they are not doing too badly, as they think the public believes they are underfunded according to the responses made, therefore can only perform to their ability, while the other 31% did not respond.

Question 18. What is the governments view on public and private collaboration on solid waste management, i.e. collecting, disposing, financing, and regulating?
This question was intended to find out from the workers themselves what they think the governments view on public and private collaboration on solid waste management is, from the 42 respondents, 52.4 % responded, and from their response the general response was that the government welcomes a favourable public private collaboration, at all levels of government, but most were not sure why there has been non in place, and the other 47.6 % of the 42 respondents did not respond to this open-ended question.

Question 19. Is the government solely responsible for funding ASEPA?
Yes No
Table.4.18 showing ASEPA’s funding source. Yes | No | No answer | 26 | | 16 |

Figure 4.14.showing respondents response to ASEPA’s funding

Earlier in question 16, 23 of the respondents agreed the only source of funding was from the state government, from the results as to who was solely responsible for funding the organisation, as 62 % of the respondents established the fact that ASEPA’s only source of funding was from the government, while the other 38 % did not give any response. This is an important finding, but provides little guidance on the nature of funding that is desired by respondents.

Question.20. what technological if any and human resources are currently being used for waste reduction practices by ASEPA?
Recycling
Composting
Source reduction
None of the above
Table.4.19.showing which of the resource is used by ASEPA. Recycling | Composting | Source reduction | None of the above | No answer | 11 | 10 | 3 | 21 | 3 |

Figure.4.15 showing resource used by ASEPA

Most of the respondents choose more than one option, the percentage value for each response is thus considered by the total response. The result of the survey showed that 26 % of the respondents claimed recycling to be the present resource used for waste reduction practice by the organisation, while 24 % of them choose composting as resource currently being used. 7 % of the respondents said source reduction is currently being used, while a huge 52 % of the respondents claimed that none of the mentioned resource is presently used by the organisation, and 7 % did not respond.
Chapter 5.0 Discussion
The first objective of this study was to assess the attitude of waste workers to a sustainable waste management system in Aba. In line with this objective, questionnaires were given out to the organisation to collect primary data on the waste situations there (Appendix 1). Analysis of the data has shown that the waste workers have a good attitude towards solid waste management practices, a situation which seems to contradict what has been reported in other cities of the developed world (Agunwamba, 2003).
Though, the positive attitude was unsubstantiated by the general response of the study.
On the other hand data observations showed very poor environmental conditions due to inadequate disposal of solid waste, this which is reflected in journals and publications like Taiwo, (2009), where he observed the indiscriminate discharge of garbage into drains and at times on the highways, and the worsening sanitary conditions in Aba and its environs with each passing day, though, Nweke, (2000), observed that past approaches by past governments have been found to be counter-productive in the long run as it has created more problems due to lack of coordination on the government’s part and inadequate solid waste management, which has led to solid waste being dumped along roadsides and usually left over a long time to decompose naturally, eaten by animals, picked by scavengers or washed away by floods into the larger creeks and rivers thus affecting surface water quality. A casual look around most Nigerian cities shows piles of refuse, choked and smelly gutters and polluted streams. In the central business areas of major cities such as Umuahia, Port-Harcourt and Lagos, it is common to see overflowing refuse containers, with refuse sprawling on the streets, whilst the choked gutters stink. There is, therefore, growing concern about the increasing levels of garbage in the cities and its impact on public health and the environment. Besides, the issue of final waste disposal has also become a headache to the authorities due to scarcity of disposal sites. In Aba and other large cities, the authorities continue to struggle to find appropriate disposal sites usually amidst protests from residents of communities near the areas earmarked for waste disposal. Waste management therefore presents a real challenge to waste management authorities in the country.
Population dynamics and economic activities have had significant impacts on the volume of waste generated in a city and this has been the case in Aba. Due to continued rural-urban migration and high rates of natural increase in the country’s urban population, cities in Nigeria continue to add to their populations at a rather rapid rate.
However, in order to be able to attempt a concise and detailed discussion of the possible reasons for the results obtained in this project using the respondent’s response, the discussion shall be divided into eight subsections. The first part shall attempt to look into the respondent’s perception on the major issues currently affecting Aba’s natural environment taking into account the issues of concern, the second will attempt to look at how much impact respondent’s organisation have on the environment, their concerns and how they can improve waste management in the area, the third will look into the awareness, willingness of the respondents to participating in waste management practices and their attitude, the fourth will attempt to consider the kind of collection and disposal system in place, the fifth will look into the role, effectiveness and the policy of respondents organisation towards scavengers, the sixth will consider the governments integrated plan for an environmental SWM and funding, the seventh will attempt to describe the perception of the respondents towards the government and a public private collaboration, while the eight will attempt to look into the kind of technological resource used for waste reduction in the area.

5.1 Respondents perception on the major issues currently affecting Aba’s natural environment
On the major issues affecting the natural environment; Aba is an important administrative, commercial and industrial centre in Nigeria. Besides its resident populations, it also attracts traders and visitors from all parts of the country and beyond. The production and consumption activities of both the resident and floating populations generate enormous solid waste issues on a daily basis that would likely affect the natural environment. A number of issues listed in table 4.1 are expected to contribute to the growing volumes of solid waste that would affect the natural environment. The major effect on the environment of agriculture is based on the variety of agricultural activities mentioned in Figure 4.0, and the adverse consequences of these activities have contributed to the environmental in balances experienced in the environment, for which ways must be found to balance the needs and wants of man with the environmental impact. Some of the human impacts of agriculture are most obvious in the biophysical environment where the use of pesticides and herbicides are prominent, which is a fundamental contributor to the green revolution, as it is released into the environment because they kill crop eating insects. Environmental challenges are complex, and a variety of stakeholders are involved in each case. Humans have not intended to cause environmental damage intentionally, but rather intended to meet human needs. For instance to feed humans have had to farm, sustain their crops by using pesticides and herbicides, and acquire farming space by cutting down trees. The federal republic of Nigeria report (2007) has shown that chemicals which could include pesticides and herbicides are among the types of waste of which its major source are the industries can have significant human health consequences. UNEP (2005), in one of its reviews have linked the effects of chemicals like pesticides and herbicides to cancer, and immune system deficiencies, as these effects are caused by skin contact, when the products are handled, by inhalation and ingestion. The farm workers are themselves at a higher risk, as they prepare and apply these pesticides to the crops. However for the majority of the population, a principal vector is through the ingestion of food contaminated by pesticides and herbicides. The degradation of water quality by pesticides and herbicides runoff has two principal human impacts, first by consumption of fishes contaminated by this chemicals, as this can also be a problem for subsistence fish farming, and the second by the direct consumption of contaminated water. Nevertheless, the respondents inconsequential view of farming and agricultural activities generally as major issues affecting the natural environment, could be linked with the fact that majority of the people in the area have farming as an occupation as observed (www.nigeria.unfpa.org). However a total 68 % of the 42 respondents did not respond to any of the issues (Fig. 4.0), this could be suggested to be that they do not perceive any of this as a major issue affecting the environment. The response of the respondents indicated the intensity of effects these issues as sources of waste have on the natural environment, as adopted by (Adewumi et al., 2005). On the issue of sewage pollution from pits and exposed landfill sites, wastes deposited here are subjected to either groundwater underflow or infiltration from precipitation, as the dumped solid waste gradually releases its by-product, leachate. This leachate accumulates at the bottom of the landfill and percolates through the soil and contaminates the groundwater, which poses a risk to the natural environment. However, World Resources Institute, (1997) argued that municipal wastes have rarely been high on the political agenda in developing countries, nevertheless, the risks to the natural environment from open landfill sites may be considerable, as the challenges of MSWM sector are growing continuously with rapid urbanisation; becoming a trend in the developing world. Though, Onibokun, (1999), has observed that one of the roles of the environmental organisations also include, establishing monitoring stations for controlling leachate disposal from dumpsites into surface water and groundwater systems. On the issue of automobile exhaust, 24 %(Fig.4.0) of the respondents claimed automobile exhaust is the main issue affecting the natural environment, this would be connected to the significant environmental impact it has as it is a major user of petroleum, and contributes to global warming. The health impact of automobile exhaust is a concern.
However, of all the issues listed, 64 % (Fig. 4.0) of the 25 respondents have agreed that household garbage is the greatest issue affecting the natural environment, this would not be unconnected to the fact that Adewumi et al., (2005), has identified householders as one of the major generators of solid waste, however Tchobanoglous and Kreith, (2002), defines municipal waste as all waste generated from households. Taiwo, (2009), observed that residents indiscriminately discharge garbage into drains and at times on the highways. To a reasonable extent therefore this view of household garbage being the current issue affecting the natural environment could be argued with Taiwo, (2009), observation that Nigerians are permanently used to dirt, and current lack of infrastructures as Akpovi, (1981) observed can hamper garbage collection and evacuation by waste collectors from householders, thereby compelling a demand of heaped household waste.

5.2 How much respondents as an organisation impact the environment, their concerns and suggestions for improving waste management practices.
On how much impact the organisation has on the environment, 36 % (Fig.4.1) of the respondents choose not to respond to this question, which may perhaps be attributed to a shortfall in supervision of waste management exercises by the organisation, which is likely the grounds a greater number of the public have not responded to how much their different organisations have effects on the environment, as Salahuddin and Shamim, (1992) have observed. The respondent that claimed the organisation had some and a lot of effect aggregated about 47.4 %,(Fig.4.1) this is a very significant finding for the organisation, as it confirms that the large majority of the respondents are aware that they incur impacts on the environment as a result of their actions, implying that they see themselves as part of the wider environmental issue, and not only as waste managers as this population dynamics will have considerable impacts on the waste management. For these respondents, this acknowledgement might translate into a deeper sense of responsibility about their personal environmental footprint.
Consequently, the organisation could improve municipal waste management practices impacts through campaigns, as this might have a greater impact. On the organisational concern, the results indicate the respondents are concerned about waste management issues, this could be attributed to the side effects of improper waste disposal being well publicised, though efforts have been made by the government to increase awareness of SWM issues, however Imam et al., (2008) had observed that most people do not appreciate environmental quality and still delegate it as governmental responsibility. From the aforementioned responses and observations from the literature review, thus, sufficient information is driven to indicate the level of the respondent’s concerns about solid waste management in the area, as the not concerned and no opinion of the public indicated the lowest level.
In view of their suggestions to an improved garbage management in the city, the high response rate for suggestions on improving the management of garbage in the city will not be unconnected to the observation made by Taiwo, (2009), where it was observed that Nigerians are permanently used to dirt, as evidenced in their everyday way of indiscriminate discharge of garbage into drains and at times on the highways, therefore their suggestions for improving the management of garbage in the area, though, Akpovi, (1981) has perceived that garbage management infrastructures are currently lacking in Nigeria, and a lack of provision of this infrastructures can hamper garbage collection and evacuation by municipal authorities in the traditional core areas.
Their suggestive recommendations marks the contrast between the developed and undeveloped countries, as Pires et al., (2010) had observed that the management of garbage is more often than not, seen as a major decision making issue in all local communities of the EU and other developed nations, where garbage management has evolved into material flow management, and gone pass the phase of infrastructural and facilities provision and development, to the phase of research on waste recovery strategies, and also possess heavily industrialised facilities that are more or less removed from the daily life of a citizen (e.g., sophisticated curb side recycling programs). The developed world focuses on technical applications such as models and tools (Daskalopoulos et al., 1998).Lessons can be drawn from experiences in developed countries to guide developing countries as they seek to improve on existing MSWM systems, since waste management systems have evolved through many steps over the years in developed countries (Wilson, 2007), as inadequate funding had been a barrier to the lack of provision of these amenities, Ukwu, (2002) noted in his remark, that the developed nations has had sufficient funds to fulfil their statutory roles adequately.

5.3 Respondents awareness, willingness to participating in waste management practices and Attitude
In spite of the high awareness and willingness to participating observed from the data, the rate of waste was still much higher than as was expected. This suggests that this schemes irrespective of how much they are aware of them are infrequently or inefficiently used, as the lack of environmental awareness among the respondents can, in turn, be attributed to the government’s low commitment to environmental issues and the waste problem in particular which makes it fail to sensitise the populace to environmental hygiene and the need to live in harmony with the environment. This could be attributed to no visible evidence of government effort to sensitise the population on the need for sound waste disposal practices and living in harmony with the environment. Studies from the literatures indicate that enormous opportunities exist for the government to educate the people on environmental sanitation and waste handling including the electronic and print media.
Awareness campaigns would create the willingness for behavioural change, thereby bridging the value-action gap. However, Blake, (1999) argued that responsible environmental behaviour is not just down to awareness, as Jackson, (2005), has stated that because behaviours are deeply embedded in socio-cultural contexts HWP behaviour is more likely to have many predictors that span further than what can be encapsulated as ‘awareness’. While these responses made by some of the respondents in the organisation showed their awareness of this waste management practices, many of the respondents seem to lack the necessary authority to influence them. Apart from the 76 %, and 71 % (Fig.4.3) respectively who claimed to be aware of the waste management scheme, it is likely that the literacy rate and educational attainment among the population could affect significantly their awareness of this practices which are aimed at improving waste management.
As an attitude, if picking up garbage was the responsibility of individual residents, the results of the survey showed 33.3 % agreed (Fig.4.4) it was their responsibility, 57 % disagreed (Fig.4.4), 4.7 % (Fig.4.4) of the respondents were of the no opinion, while to the other 5 %(Fig.4.4) there was no answer, this however could be attributed to the respondents believing it is solely a responsibility of the government.
Out of the responses gotten from whether public education about proper garbage management was one way to fix the garbage crisis 88 %(Fig.4.4) of the respondents agreed it was, 5 % (Fig.4.4) of the respondents disagreed another 5 % (Fig.4.4) claimed they had no opinion, and the other 2 % of the respondent had no answer (Fig.4.4), suggesting the need for a good general waste management education.
As to if it is important that the state puts up recycling laws and programs in place, of the 42 responses, 90.5 % (Fig.4.4) of the respondents agreed that laws and programs needed to be put in place, 2.4 % (Fig.4.4) of the respondents astonishingly disagreed, 4.7 % (Fig.4.4) were of the no opinion, and 2.4 % (Fig.4.4) had no answer to give.
Results from this survey showed that the respondents agreed to a greater extent the approach of waste management which indicates however that respondents in general could have a good attitude towards waste management, contrary to Agunwamba, (2003), observation, though, Ajzen et al., (1992) had recommended that to encourage this attitude, the workers must be positively influenced.
However, it has to be acknowledged that people generally appear concerned about the environment in opinion surveys, and consistently overstate their pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours. This can have implications to a research such as this. The reason being that respondents may feel embarrassed to admit openly that their behaviours do not conform to what might be seen as expected norms.
Nevertheless, to encourage positive attitudes, it might be advantageous to enlighten the waste workers adequately about the benefits and real costs behind waste management and generation.

5.4 Waste collection and disposal
On the issue of waste collection, the results suggest that the degree of waste collection in the area is not far-reaching. Giving credit to Egunjobi, (1983) observation, that the lack of good road and street infrastructure, could impede garbage collection in the areas, as Akpovi, (1981), had also reported similar problems. Solid Waste Audit Report, (2004), also observed a shortage in waste collection facilities due to lack of funding, this which most of the respondents had also suggested in their response to question 4.However, Sada, (1984) recommends that since the efficiency of management is a function of relationship between the rates of generation and disposal, the number of personnel alone cannot determine environmental quality. A lot also depend on the quantity and quality of the equipment at the disposal of staff.
While data is generally lacking in the waste sector of developing countries, available studies suggest that solid waste management is generally characterized by inefficient collection methods, insufficient coverage of the collection systems and improper disposal of municipal waste (Onibokun and Kumuyi, 1999). With regards to the mounting waste production, the waste management authorities seem unable to organise adequate collection and safe disposal of waste within their jurisdictions. As a result, urban settlements in Aba are saddled with a worsening solid waste situation which proves to be intractable and threatens public health and the environment.
On the issue of how waste is collected, the results show a low percentage of collection by outside collectors advocating the need for more private sector participation. The technologies employed in municipal solid waste management in most developing countries are said to be inappropriate and inadequate, the shortage of these facilities irrefutably would make waste collection very irregular as having been identified by Solid Waste Audit Report, (2004), where it had consented that a shortage in waste collection facilities can be attributed again, to the lack of funding. Taiwo, (2009), complemented this when it was observed that the existing infrastructural facilities are incapable of coping with the mountain load of waste generated and heaped on the surface which undoubtedly had brought increasing strain on the waste management system. Onibokun and Kumuyi, (1999) have noted of Ibadan and other Nigerian cities where equipment for waste management are unavailable in the desired quantities and the existing ones are difficult to maintain due to lack of expertise and funds to purchase the needed spare parts. At the time of their study in 1999, only about one-third of the 43 pieces of equipment for the Ibadan waste management office were in working order. From these results therefore, it is obvious that there is the need to design and manufacture more non-mechanical, appropriate and inexpensive waste management equipment that is suitable for the conditions in developing countries. This calls for research into waste management technologies that will suit local conditions. Regarding whether the surrounding communities have an established municipal waste collection system, Ogwueleka, (2009) had earlier observed that the federal government has instituted a National Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management Intervention Programme in some Nigerian cities. However the respondents had a 52 % ‘‘no’’ response (Fig.4.7), as this could be attributed to Onokerhoraye, (1977), Omuta, (1985), and FMHE, (1983) observations where they have observed that at different times, waste disposal systems seemed to have been established at the local levels in different states, but had either been broken down or non-functional due to lack of staff, institutional relations, city’s structure, infrastructure and equipment where it still existed.
In an attempt to consider the kind of disposal system in operation, from the survey results, 67 % (Fig.4.8) of the respondents answered ‘‘yes’’ that the organisation operated an open dump system, while 14.3 %(Fig.4.8) of the respondents unexpectedly answered no, this however not surprising, as Nweke, (2000) had reported a high level of scavenging, which the open dump system would really encourage scavenging, when it was observed that solid waste dumped in the open dump over a long time are picked by scavengers. As to whether the disposal system was a controlled dump system, 24 % (Fig.4.8) of the respondents answered yes and 21.4 % of the respondents answered no these views slightly defer, which indicates that the dumpsites were either or not being controlled, this though slightly contradicts perception, that the state is largely characterised by low coverage of disposal services, and pollution from uncontrolled waste dumping. Whether it is a sanitary landfill system in operation, 17 % (Fig.4.8) of the respondents answered yes, while 26.2 % (Fig.4.8)of them answered no, this view held up when UDBN, (1998) stated that landfills are still at the stage of municipal dumps rather than sanitary or ‘engineered’ landfills, and categorically that there are no sanitary landfills in developing countries. However, of all the responses about 9.52 %( Fig.4.8) of the respondents could not be bothered to respond to the kind of disposal system in place.
To this regard, the results suggest that what is most obtainable here is the open dump system, and is sustained by the observation made by UDBN, (1998), as currently, the waste disposal facilities in most Nigerian cities are landfills, which are generally poorly maintained. By these observations, it can be said that the final disposal of solid waste in major Nigerian cities occurs in poorly maintained landfills with severe environmental effects in the host communities.
Apart from the lack of professional staff in the waste management sector, the data gathered have shown a low level of private sector participation from the respondents’ response. In Abia state, the agency and their contractors are all unable to employ enough workers to do the collection of this waste, due to the lack of funds to pay their salaries. Considering the important roles to be played by both professional and operational staff in the organisation of municipal waste management, the shortage of personnel in the waste sector can be regarded as a major contributory factor to the poor waste situation in the study area and other Nigerian cities. It can be deduced from this analysis that the low private sector participation is partly responsible for the inability of waste contractors to keep to their schedules for waste collection in the cities, as the rate of waste to be collected might seem to be too much for them. Onibokun and Kumuyi (1999) who investigated in Ibadan found this situation to be regular with almost all Nigerian cities including the streets, drains and water bodies.
Besides, very limited funds are made available to the waste management agency to finance their infrastructure and services including solid waste management. This situation makes it very difficult for the city authorities to organise effective waste management. Among other things, they are unable to pay the private waste contractors promptly, employ personnel and acquire equipment for the maintenance of disposal sites. Besides, the issue of final waste disposal has also become a headache to the authorities due to scarcity of non-mechanical and mechanical maintenance of disposal sites.

5.5 Role, effectiveness and policy of respondent’s organisation towards scavengers
Describing the guiding principle of the waste organisation in dealing with waste pickers/scavengers. The general perception would have thought it to be fair, considering that Imam et al., (2008), had observed most recycling and sorting to be carried out by scavengers, who generally sell their recovered materials to middlemen, who in turn sell to small and large scale processing and manufacturing industries, contrary to the view from the results, 57 % (Fig. 4.10). indicates an unfair guiding principle. On briefly commenting on the involvement of this scavengers involvement in different stages of solid waste management, out of the 42 respondents, only 14.3 % had views on sex involvement with regards to scavenging, of which they identified the females as those who were more in the scavenging business, generally the responses were of the view that the scavengers only scavenged what they needed most in their business of scavenging. From this response, it was observed that most of the respondents described the policy of their organisation to scavengers as unfair. This apparently could be identified as a reason for the low level support for scavenging from the respondents, as 40 % of the respondents answered yes (Fig.4.11) that they support scavenging; however this would not be unconnected to the people’s standard of living which has led to scavenging, and has been described as a prominent occurrence throughout the developing world by Medina, (1997). Why it is not encouraged by the respondents then becomes an issue of concern in spite of the economic challenges and low standard of living earlier on identified, though could be due to the lack of safety measures, as the results show that 55 % (Fig.4.11) of the respondents said they do not support scavenging, as however again could be attributed to Imam et al., (2008) observation, that people who handle waste are regarded as dirty, poor and inferior.

5.6 The governments plan for an integrated plan for an environmental SWM, and funding of the organisation
Whether the government had an integrated plan for an environmental SWM, the results however demonstrates that 33 % (Fig.4.12), claimed there is an integrated comprehensive plan for an environmentally solid waste management, while 57 % (Fig.4.12) of them answered that there is no integrated comprehensive plan, while the other 10 % (Fig.4.12) did not respond, perhaps these 10 % respondents were not bothered.
However, from the results the 57 % of ‘‘No’’ as a response could be attributed to what the lack of adequate data on solid waste management which Onokerhoraye, (1985) has identified may have resulted in ineffective planning for solid waste management and also Ekere, (2003), agrees has greatly contributed to indiscriminate dumping of wastes, particularly in places like Aba.
On the issue of empowering local authorities as part of its integrated plan in order to solve the solid waste problem confronting local authorities in the area, it is imperative for the central governments to empower local authorities, and to make waste management a priority and allocate funds for research to generate accurate, reliable and comprehensive data for the planning and organization of waste management activities. Making waste management a priority has been observed by EIONET, (2007a), as it had promoted BMW management systems, which focus on building separate collection systems provided by local authorities through specific bins provision because they are empowered to do so, and a mandatory BMW treatment systems in developed nations, this scheme which are launched to provide local authorities with the flexibility to manage waste streams more effectively, has been the fore runner of a sustainable waste management system in the developed countries. Therefore, empowering the local authorities as an integrated plan, through a regulatory frame work that guides the implementation of bylaws on waste management by various environmental protection agencies will also alert citizens of what their knowledge and responsibilities are, and how to keep costs down in the effort to develop a sustainable waste management system, which will in turn clear the city of enormous amount of waste, little wonder 95.2 %(Fig.4.13) of the respondents agreed that empowering local authorities would go a long way in improving the SWM in the area. London Waste Action, (2007), also observed that the local authorities can have an effective sustainable waste management co-ordination between the producers of goods, retailers, and manufacturers, the public, and all concerned with the management of waste and reusable materials and equipment. Therefore designing an acceptable system such as a conscious and sustainable cost effective waste management program to run first on a pilot for a couple of months and then responsibility transferred gradually to citizens via local authorities with the application of bylaws as a deterrent will benefit and empower local authorities a great deal, and the state at large. The situation, therefore, calls for central government commitment and support to the local authorities to enable them deal with the waste menace. Although, the required commitment is, however, not forthcoming from the central government which seems to lack a sense of urgency of the worsening solid waste situation in the cities and its impacts on public health, the environment and the image of the city, as a result of limited funding to the local authorities. This situation however makes it very difficult for the city authorities to organise an integrated and effective waste management, adequately funded.
However, this study has observed that the waste management agency is heavily dependent on government funding for the provision of waste management, with no accent on other sources of revenue, as the data from the survey shows that the 55 % of 42 respondents have claimed. Officials at the waste management agency confirmed the view that the only funding was done by the government and this is inadequate for waste management, thus affecting the ability of the waste workers to collect waste from the city environment, as mentioned earlier. The limited funding of the waste sector does not only make it impossible for the agency to employ enough professional staff to handle the technical aspects of waste management (such as maintenance of equipment), but also hinders the recruitment of enough labourers to undertake regular cleaning of the street and market grounds. The same finance problem will make it difficult for the waste agency to pay their contractors promptly where there is any, and to encourage them to work with enthusiasm. Thus, the waste sector is characterised by a vicious cycle of obligations that deals a debilitating blow to efforts to keeping the city environments clean and healthy. While most of the operational costs of waste management in both Abia state in general, and Aba are incurred in waste collection, most residents of the city do not seem to pay levies for waste disposal. This situation denies the waste management authorities the much needed funds for waste management, as, Solid Waste Audit Report, (2004) has also mentioned earlier that a shortage of all waste management efforts is due to insufficient funding. Ogawa (2002) also observed that in many cases, solid waste management programmes have collapsed in the hands of local management due to the lack of expertise and loss of funding. To a large extent, therefore, inadequate funding of waste management is a major factor contributing to the poor solid waste situation in Abia state and Aba specifically. On the issue of the agency being directly funded, the data (Fig.4.14) from the survey makes it evident that the agency main source of funding is directly from the government; as such the limited funding of the waste sector will only make it impossible for the agency to carry out its responsibilities adequately, as records have also shown that the provision of adequate funding for solid waste management on an ongoing basis is a major problem, as this has collapsed waste management programmes.

5.7 Respondents view on the government stand on public private participation, and the perception of the public towards waste workers
On the issue of what the workers consider the governments view on public and private collaboration on SWM is, it was observed that there is an urgent need for the introduction of both Private and Public sector collaboration. Despite the fact that, Ahmed and Ali, (2004), had noted that a public–private collaboration are considered as alternatives to full privatisation, in which government and private companies assume co-responsibility and co-ownership for the delivery of city services, Ali, (1999), had argued that factors like ability to pay (funding), poverty and regulations, will determine the extent to which this collaboration can be achieved. However, the advantages of these partnerships, with the private sector are dynamic, Kolzow, (1994) has observed that it gives access to finance, knowledge of technologies, social responsibility, environmental awareness, local knowledge and job generation concerns of the public sector. Under mutually favourable circumstances it is advantageous to have public and private sectors playing active roles, thus capitalising on each sector’s strengths.
PPPs could offer the best of both sectors, and one may believe that such alliances are naturally inclined to form. In reality, partnership between the two sectors is not easy to achieve. Certain enabling environment is necessary to foster trust and working relationship. PPP is more than the public sector merely offering co-operation to the private sector to facilitate the profitability of local firms. It is far more than occasional meetings between the city council and local business organisations. Partnerships are shared commitments to pursue common goals (Kolzow, 1994). Although, an increasing interest in public–private community partnerships can be perceived, but will often be related to technical or financial issues.
However, , 52.4 % of the respondents who responded were of the view that the government welcomes a favourable public private collaboration, at all levels of government, but were not sure why there has been non in place,
Regarding the public’s perception of the waste workers, an interesting observation was that 69 % of respondents, in spite of the shortcomings of the agency; still think the public perceive their effort as not being too bad, as they think the public believes they are underfunded, therefore can only perform to their ability, while the other 31 % did not respond. This information is also very significant as it contradicts Imam et al (2008) view, that people who handle waste are regarded as dirty, poor and inferior.

5.8 Type of technological resource used for waste reduction
About the type of technological resource encouraged by the organisation for waste reduction practice, most of the respondents choose more than one option, the percentage value for each response was thus considered by the total response, however the result of the survey showed that 26 % (Fig.4.15) of the respondents claimed recycling to be the present resource used for waste reduction practice by the organisation, while 24 % (Fig.4.15) of them argue composting as resource currently being used. And 7 % (Fig.4.15) of the respondents answered that source reduction is currently being used, while a huge 52 % (Fig.4.15) of the respondents claimed that none of the mentioned resource is presently used by the organisation, and 7 % (Fig.4.15) did not respond. However the survey result sustains Liu et al., (2006), observation, that recycling facilities is slow especially in developing countries, and UDBN, (1998), supports this claim, as it estimated the amount of recyclable contents in Nigeria at 28 %, which Okoye, (1975) had mentioned as he had observed small scale recycling in Enugu. However, this observation brings to bear that if attention is giving to the recycling sector, as having been observed in small patches would yield much more than is presently observed.
On the issue of composting and source reduction, however the respondents claimed to be aware of these waste reduction resources, it could be assumed that most of the respondents have identified these waste reduction resources at small scale as is the case with recycling, and may have responded by perception. While those who did not answer assumedly may be of the opinion that none of the waste reduction resource were applicable.
However, the analyses of these results are done assuming that all the respondents are genuine in their responses.
Bringing to a close the discussions of this study, the findings have observed that the vast majority of the studied population shared a high environmental ‘‘concern’’, and generally appeared to endorse pro-environmental values. In contrast, however, evidence also shows that there is a broad difference between the numbers of respondents that stated high environmental orientations, and the numbers of respondents that appeared to ‘‘undertake’’ the pro-environmental activities as shown from the general survey response.

5.9 Limitations
Despite the interesting findings and implications that emerge from this study, it is important to recognise its limitations and the need for additional research.

* As a general rule, the larger the sample size, the more accurate the findings of the survey. However, time and practical constraints limited the size of the sample of this study. Clearly, this raises issues of representativeness that imply that the population characteristics might not be truly reflected in the studied sample. However, this research study could have been improved by sampling a larger number of respondents to gain a more representative view of the attitudes of the waste workers towards municipal waste management and acquiring sufficient information’s from the respondents like age and gender.

* The questionnaire survey was useful in showing trends in attitudes and actions, but in some cases it was less informative however. Consequently, for future studies we will take into consideration other instrument such as interviews, in order to understand more clearly why some waste management workers behave in an environmentally friendly or unfriendly way.

* The question was initially built also to be in two parts, with the second part ignored by the local contact that was expected to help distribute the questionnaire.

Chapter 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
Given the inevitable drive to have a sustainable waste management, these surveys have proved to a reasonable extent to be valuable. It has helped to establish the attitudes of the waste workers toward waste management in the organisation. The waste workers surveyed are generally aware of waste problems; however the survey has drawn interest to a number of areas where more attention could be given.
Respondents ' attitudes were generally positive, so there is awareness of their work. Though, by perception their attitude is pitiable as evidenced in the respondents response in the survey, as majority of the workers just could not be bothered, considering that these are the people who ought to have all the information’s required, supporting the observations from the literature, that In Nigeria factors such as sociological, felt in manifested lack of a sense of belonging in an organisation, and tendency by employees to perceiving a job as another’s business, has impacted on waste management efforts of the state. This is reflected in a poor attitude to work, poor coordination and inadequate communication among workers and institution saddled with SWM responsibilities due to bureaucratic impediment and administrative hitches. This negative attribute to work have resulted in chaos, confusion and ineffectiveness in delivering many urban public services.
Inadequate waste collection, equipments and basic facilities, and effective public private sector collaboration
From the response from question 7, the periodic and irregular waste collection sum up to over 72 %. The constant presence of litter as observed in the literature can be psychologically depressing to a city inhabitant and clearly stands in way of tourism development. Also, uncollected litters can perpetuate poor solid waste management practices. In addition to the physical environmental degradation, it also impacts the natural environment aesthetically and health-wise.
The response from question 8 also suggest that waste collection is carried out by regular staff, which advocates the need for an all-inclusive and effective public-private collaboration, which 52.4 % of the waste workers themselves suppose the government welcomes. These which identifies another area where there should be increased attention, which is empowering the local authorities, and in question 9, 69 % of the respondents had no idea the number of mechanical and non-mechanical collection devices and vehicles available at their disposal.
Waste treatment and disposal
From the response in question 10, it is evident that the kind of disposal system in operation is the open dump system. This kind of system encourages scavenging, which 21 % of the respondents had claimed had no safety measures in place.
Establishing an incorporated comprehensive plan for an environmentally solid waste management
From the survey questions 14, a general view of the results from the respondents show that over half of the respondents agree the government does not have an all inclusive plan for an environmentally solid waste management. This is which is very important the economy, as it will ensure prosperity, environmental protection and social cohesion.
Funding
Lack of funding leads to the shortage of everything, from the response in question 16 and 19, over half of the respondents attested to the fact that the organisations only source of funding was from the government, which could imply that organisations in the area are either not taxed, or that there are no policies for proper taxing of the people who generate waste. This also identifies another major area that requires urgent attention which is laws and policies.
Non implementation of laws, policies and regulations
This issue is a very important one, as by perception, has been observed that the non-implementation of legislations, and the jurisdictional arrangement for solid waste management as an important institutional constraint, as 90% of the respondents in question 6 agree that laws be put in place.

Recommendations
The very apparent message this research has made obvious is that the respondents are aware of aspects of waste management, and are seemingly willing to carry out waste management practices, but for the general job attitude of the people of the area towards waste management, lack of funding and provision of some basic and infrastructural facilities, and the fact that their attitude to the survey has shown they are less conversant, as 10 % of the respondents did not indicate on the questionnaires whether they were males or females, while from the 52 %, and 38 % male and female respondents respectively, some of them did not indicate their age ranges therefore making it difficult to consider this information’s. Therefore, further enlightening them on the need to respond adequately and positively to surveys like this would help improve waste management in the area.
Furthermore, this study has recognized some areas where immediate actions need to be taken without delay, these areas are; * Implementation of policies, laws and regulations.
Simply having laws in place is not enough to deal with the ever increasing waste management challenges, the government must find ways to ensure that the community meets the requirements put forth in the environmental laws and their implementing regulations. Environmental compliance and enforcement requires strong and consistent institutional and societal commitments to resolve this waste challenges through effective implementation of environmental laws, as strengthening environmental compliance and enforcement requires collective efforts among institutions and individuals.
One of the root causes of this non-implementation includes institutionalized discrimination because of disparities due to socio economic status and unaccountable government policies and regulation.
To address this, there is need to have in place a forum that will bring together stakeholders to discuss issues and explore means of collaborating with and assisting each other in the enforcement of environmental legislations that fall within their mandates and responsibilities.

* Organising seminars, workshops and in house training for the workers, and exposing them to recent waste management schemes with the private sector and stakeholders. Such activities would encourage waste workers to the importance of a good waste management practice. * Incorporating an active public- private sector, and involving the community, as this has been observed to be effective in developing countries.
Ultimately, most of these recommendations would have been made but have again, the issue of implementation as a problem, therefore setting up an all inclusive working group to monitor these recommendations, becomes eminent, in the case they have been made before.

Figure 5. Adapted from Baabereyir, 2009.

Figure 6. Adapted from Baabereyir, 2009.

REFERENCES 1. Abia State of Nigeria, (2005), Abia State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy. 2. Abumere, S.I., (1983), City Surface Solid Waste In Nigerian Cities, Environment International, vol. 9, pp. 391-396. 3. Achankeng, E., (2003), Globalization, Urbanization and Municipal Solid Waste Management in Africa, African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific 2003 Conference Proceedings - African on a Global Stage. 4. Adedibu, A.A., (1983), “A Comparative Analysis of Solid Waste Composition and Generation in Ilorin and Offa, Kwara State”, Paper presented at the National Conference on Development und the Environment, Organized by NISER. University of Ibadan, Ibadan. 5. Adelman, I. and Morris, C.T., (1971), Society Politics and Economic, Development, The MIT Press, Baltimore. 6. Adepoju, A., (1975), “Migration and the Urban Poor in Nigeria’s Medium-Size Towns”, Poverty in Nigeria, The Nigerian Economic Society, Ibadan. 7. Adewumi, I.K., Ogedengbe, M.O., Adepetu, J.A. and Fabiyi, Y.L., (2005), Planning organic fertilizer industries for municipal solid wastes management, Journal of Applied Sciences Research, vol.1 (3), pp 285 -291. 8. Agunwamba, J.C., (2003), Analysis of scavengers’ activities and recycling in some cities of Nigeria, Environmental Management, vol. 32 (1), pp 116–127. 9. Ahmed, S.A. and Ali, M., (2004), Partnerships for solid waste management in developing countries: linking theories to realities, Habitat International, vol. 28, pp 467–479. 10. Ajzen, I., (1991), The Theory of Planned Behaviour, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, pp 179 - 211. 11. Ajzen, I., Madden, T.J. and Ellen, P.S., (1992), A Comparison of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Theory of Reasoned Action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 18 (1), pp 3 - 9. 12. Akpovi, S.V., (1981), “Provision of Environmental Sanitation: The Problem of Refuse Disposal in Benin City”, Paper presented at the CenSCER Seminar Series. University of Benin, Benin City. 13. Ali, M., (1999), The informal sector: What is it worth? Waterlines, vol.17, pp 10–12. 14. Asase, M., Yanful, E.K., Mensah, M., Stanford, J. and Amponsah, S., (2009), Comparison of municipal solid waste management systems in Canada and Ghana: A case study of the cities of London, Ontario, and Kumasi, Ghana, Waste Management, vol.29, pp 2779–2786. 15. Baabereyir, A., (2009), Urban environmental problems in Ghana: a case study of social and environmental injustice in solid waste management in Accra and Sekondi-Takoradi. Thesis. University of Nottingham, for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 16. Babayemi, J.O. and Dauda, K.T.J., (2009), Evaluation of Solid Waste Generation, Categories and Disposal Options in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Nigeria Appl. Sci. Environ. Manage, vol. 13(3), pp 83 – 88. 17. Beall, J., (2002), "Globalization and social exclusion in cities: framing the debate with lessons from Africa and Asia." Environment and Urbanization, vol. 14(1), pp 41-51. 18. Blake, J., (1999), Overcoming the ‘Value-Action Gap’ in Environmental Policy: tensions between national policy and local experience, Local Environment, vol.4 (3), pp 257 - 278. 19. Buclet, N., (2002), Municipal Waste Management in Europe – European Policy between Harmonisation and Subsidiarity, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 20. Caincross, S., (1988), Water Supply and the Urban Poor, In the Poor Die Young Housing Management and maintenance of existing waste management systems can work better than merely increasing its number. 21. Chaturvedi, B., (1998), Public waste private enterprise, Heinrich Boel Stiftung, Berlin. 22. City of London, (2007), A Road Map to Maximize Waste Diversion in London. <http:// www.london.ca> (accessed on 20.10.10). 23. Daskalopoulos, E., Badr, O. and Probert, S.D., (1998), Municipal solid waste: a prediction methodology for the generation rate and composition in the European union countries and United States of America, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 24 (2), pp 155 - 166. 24. EASUR, (2005), Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations. Urban Development Working Papers, East Asia Infrastructure Department, World Bank, Working Paper No. 9, East Asia and Pacific Urban Development Sector Unit (EASUR). 25. Egunjobi, T.O., (1983), “Problems of Solid Waste Management in Nigerian Urban Centres”, Paper Presented at the National Conference on Development and the Environment organised by NISER, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. 26. EIONET (European Environment Information and Observation Network), (2007a) United Kingdom. 27. Ekere, T.O., (2003), “Planning a solid waste management system in Obio Akpor local government area of Rivers State”, MPhil thesis, Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, pp 128 . 28. Ekugo, E.I., (1998), “Public health and urban sanitation”, Environmental News, vol.5 No. 7. 29. Emongor, V., Kealotswe, E., Koorapetse, I., Sankwasa, S. and Keikanetswe, S., (2005), “Pollution indicators in Gerone effluent”, Journal of Applied Sciences, vol.5, pp 147-150. 30. EPA, (2008), Municipal Solid Waste, Basic Information, US Environmental Protection Agency. <http://www.epa.gov/msw/facts.htm> (accessed on 05.08.10). 31. Epstein, E., (2003), Land Application of Sewage Sludge and Biosolids, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, USA. 32. EU, (2005), Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Taking Sustainable Use of Resources Forward: A Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste COM 666 http://eur- ex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0666en01.pdf.(Accessed on 05.08.10) 33. EU, (2008), Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives http://eur lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do%3Furi=OJ:L:2008:312:0003:0030:EN:PDF. (Accessed on 05.08.10) 34. Eurostat, (2002), Waste Generated in Europe, New Cronos Database. 35. Fatta, D. Papadopoulos A. and Loizidou, M.,(1999), A study on the landfill leachate and its impact on the groundwater quality of the greater area, Environ. Geochem. Health, vol. 21(2), pp 175-190. 36. Federal Ministry of Environment Report, (2004), LAGA International, Integrated waste management facility study for Abuja. 37. Federal Republic of Nigeria, (2007), Avian Influenza Control and Human Pandemic, Medical Waste Management Plan Preparedness and Response Project, Medical Waste Management Plan, Final Report January 2007. 38. Friedmann, J., (1986), Regional Development Policy: A Case Study of Venezuela. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 39. Giusti, L., (2009), A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health, Waste Management, vol.29, Issue 8, pp 2227-2239. 40. Harsch, E., (2001), "African cities under strain: Initiatives to improve housing, services, security and governance," Africa Recovery, vol.15 (1-2) p 30. 41. IIED, (2002), Globalization and cities. Environment and urbanization, London. 42. Imam, A., Mohammed, B., Wilson, D.C. and Cheeseman, C.R., (2008), Country Report Solid waste management in Abuja, Nigeria. Waste Management, vol.28, pp 468–472. 43. Jackson, T., (2005), Motivating sustainable consumption, A review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change [Internet – Document], Sustainable Development Research Network, London. Available at: http://www.sdresearch.org.uk/researchreviews/sustainableconsumption.php >, (Accessed on 05:07:11). 44. Johnson, B.L., (1997), Hazardous waste: human health effects, Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol.13 (2–3), pp 121–143. 45. Johnson, B.L., (1999), A review of the effects of hazardous waste on reproductive health, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 181 (1), S12–S16. 46. Key Note, (2007), Global Waste Management Market Assessment, Key Note Publications Ltd. 47. Kolzow, D.R., (1994), Public/private partnership: Economic development organization for the 90s, Economic Development Review, vol.12, pp 4–356. 48. Koonts, H., Donnell, C., Weihrich, H., (1980), Management, International Student, London, pp 11–12. 49. Liu, X., Tanaka, M. and Matsui, Y., (2006), Electrical and electronic waste management in China: progress and the barrier to overcome, waste and electronic waste management in China: progress and the barrier to overcome, Waste Management and Research, vol. 24, pp 92–101. 50. London Waste Action, (2007), Promoting Sustainable Waste Management in london. Available at:: http://www.londonwasteaction.org/. (Acessed on 03:04:11). 51. McDougall, F., White, P., Franke, M. and Hindle, P., (2001), Integrated Waste Management: A Life Cycle Inventory, second ed. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, ISBN: 0 632 05889 7 Female 52. Medina, M., (1997), El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana, Mexico. Globalization, Development, and Municipal Solid Waste Management in Third World Cities. 53. NPC, (2001), A Report of the National Population Commission, Lagos, Nigeria. 54. Nweke, A.A. (2000), “Impact of organic waste pollution on the macro-benthos and fish fauna of Elechi Creek”, PhD thesis, Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt. 55. Nzeadibe, T.C. and Eziuzor, O.J., (2006), Waste scavenging and recycling in Onitsha urban area, Nigeria, CIWM Scientific and Technical Review, vol.7(1), pp 26–31. 56. Nzeadibe, T.C., (2008), Solid waste reforms and informal recycling in Enugu urban area, Nigeria Habitat International, vol.33, pp 93–99. 57. OECD, (2008), Key Environmental Indicators, OECD Environment Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France. <http://www.oecd.org/env/> (Accessed 05.08.10) 58. Ogawa, H., (2002), Sustainable Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries. WHO Western Pacific Regional Environmental Health Centre (EHC). Kuala Lampur, Malasia. Available at: http://www.gdrc.org/eem/waste/swm-fogawa1.htm. (Accessed on 13:02:10). 59. Ogbonna, D.N., Ekweozor, I.K.E. and Igwe, F.U. (2002), “Waste management: a tool for environmental protection in Nigeria”, Ambio, vol.31 No.1, pp 55-57. 60. Ogwueleka, T.C., (2009), Municipal Solid Waste Characteristics and Management In Nigeria, Iran. J. Environ. Health. Sci. Eng., vol.6, No.3, pp. 173-180. 61. Okafor, F.C., (1983), “Urban Development and Environmental Pollution in the Urban Fringe of Nigerian Cities”, Paper Presented at the National Conference on Development and the Environment. Organised by NISER, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. 62. Okoye, T.O., (1975), Enugu, In G.E.K. Ofomata (Ed.), Nigeria in maps: Eastern states Benin: Ethiope, pp 87–88. 63. Olanrewaju, O.O. and Ilemobade, A.A., (2009), Waste to Wealth: A Case Study of the Ondo State Integrated Wastes Recycling and Treatment Project, Nigeria, European Journal of Social Sciences, vol.8. p.13 64. Oluwande, P.A., (1984), Assessment of metropolitan solid waste management problems in China and Africa, In: Holmes, J.R. (Ed.), Managing Solid Waste in Developing Countries, J. Wiley, Chichester, UK). 65. Omagbemi, A., (1983), “Domestic Waste Disposal Systems in Benin City”, Unpublished B.Sc. Project, Department of Geography and Regional Planning, University of Benin, Benin City. 66. Omuta, G.E.D., (1985), “Intra-Urban Environmental Quality: A Case Study of Neighbourhoods in Benin City, Nigeria”, Mimeo, Department of Geography and Regional Planning, University of Benin, Benin City. 67. Omuta, G.E.D., (1987), Urban Solid Waste Generation and Management in Nigeria towards an Environmental Sanitation Policy, HABfTATiNTL, vol.11, No.2, pp 77- 87. 68. Onibokun, A.G. and Kumuyi, A.J., (1999), Governance and waste management in Africa, In: Onibokun, A. G. Ottawa (Eds.), Managing the monster: Urban waste and governance in Africa, Canada: IDRC, p 5. 69. Onibokun, A.G., (1999), Managing the Monster: Urban Waste and Governance in Africa, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa 70. Onokerhoraye, A.G. (1985), “Case studies of urban shims and environmental problems in Nigerian cities”, paper presented at the National Policy Seminar on Environmental Issues and Management in Nigeria, pp 25-27. 71. Onokerhoraye, A.G., (1976), ‘Urban Environmental Problems and Planning Strategies in Tropical Africa: The Example of Nigeria”, The Annals of Regional Science, vol.10, No.2, pp 24-35. 72. Onokerhoraye, A.G., (1977), “Public Involvement in Urban Development Planning: The Case of Environmental Sanitation in Ibadan, Nigeria”, J. Admin. Overseas, vol.10, pp 171-177. 73. Osibanjo, O. and Nnorom, I.C., (2007), The challenge of electronic waste (e-waste) management in developing countries, Waste Manag Res, vol. 25(6), pp 489–501. 74. PAI Associates (1982), Solid Waste Management in Fifteen Cities and Urban Areas in Nigeria, PAI Associates International for Federal Ministry of Housing and Environment, Lagos. 75. Pires, A., Martinho, G. and Chang, N.-B., (2010), Department of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL 32816, USA Available online 30 December 2010. 76. Sada, P.O., (1984), Urbanization and Living Conditions in Nigerian Cities, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 77. Salahuddin, K. and Shamim, I., (1992), Women in urban informal sector: Employment pattern, activity types and problems, Women for Women, Dhaka, Bangladesh, vol.18, pp 4–5. 78. Schübeler P., Wehrle, K. and Christen, J., (1996), Urban Management and Infrastructure Conceptual Framework for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Low-Income Countries, SKAT August 1996 Working Paper No.9. 79. Sever, L.E., (1997), Environmental contamination and health effects: what is the evidence? Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol.13 (2–3), pp 145–161. 80. Smargon, A.J., (1999), Global Perspectives on Solid Waste Management. 81. Solid Waste Audit Report, (2004), Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, 82. Taiwo, A.A., (2009), Waste management towards sustainable development in Nigeria: A case study of Lagos state, International NGO Journal, vol.4 (4), pp 173-179. 83. Tchobanoglous, G. and Kreith, F., (2002), Handbook of Solid Waste Management, Second Edition, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. 84. The EarthWorks Group, (1990), The Recycler 's Handbook, The Earthworks Group, New York. 85. Thomas-Hope, E., (1998), Solid Waste Management, Critical Issues For Developing Countries, Canoe Press University of the West Indies. 86. Tyler, M.G., Jr. (1990), Living in the Environment: An Introduction to Environmental Science, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA. 87. Uchegbu, S.N., (2009), Effective planning and management as critical factors in urban water supply and management in Umuahia and Aba, Abia State, Nigeria, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, vol.34, pp 23–27. 88. UDBN, (1998), Solid Waste Sector Appraisal Report 89. Ukwu, U.I., (1985b), "Infrastructure and Regional Development" Commissioned Paper at the Annual Conference of the Nigerian Economic Society, 1985. 90. Ukwu, U.I., (2002), The State of Infrastructure in Enugu Zone. 91. UNEP, (2005), Principles of solid waste management, Solid Waste Management, vol.1, pp 1–8. 92. Urban Age, (1999), What cities do with their waste, vol.6, pp 32–33. 93. Uyanga, J., (1985), The environment and environmental education in Nigeria Habitat International, vol.9, Issue 1, pp 45-54. 94. Van de Klundert, A., Scheinberg, A., Muller, M., Dulac N. and Hoffman, L., (2001), "Integrated Sustainable Waste Management - A Set of Five Tools for Decision-makers - Experiences from the Urban Waste Expertise Programme (1995-2001): ISWM - The Concept, Micro- and Small Enterprises, Financial and Economic Issues, Community Partnerships, The Organic Waste Flow". Gouda, Netherlands: WASTE 2001 95. Waite, R., (1995), Household Waste Recycling, Earthscan Publications Limited, pp 3-8. 96. White, G.F., (1996), Emerging issues in global environmental policy, Ambio, vol.25 (1), pp 58–60. 97. Whiteman, A., Smith, P. and Wilson, D.C., (2001), Waste management: an indicator of urban governance, Paper prepared for the UK DFID submitted for the Global Habitat Conference on Urban Development, New York. 98. Wilson, D.C., (2007), Development drivers for waste management, Waste Management and Research, vol. 25, pp. 198–207. 99. World Bank, (1992), World Bank, World Development Report 1992, Development and the Environment, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 100. World Resources Institute, (1997), World resources report 1996–1997, New York, USA: Oxford University Press. 101. www.nigeria.unfpa.org./unfpastates.htm. 102. Yusuf, R.O. and Oyewumi, M.O., (2008), Qualitative assessment of methane generation potential for municipal solid wastes: a case study Environmental Research Journal, Medwell Journal, vol.2 (4), pp 138-144. 103. Zhang, D., Keat, T.S. and Gersberg, R.M., (2010), A comparison of municipal solid waste management in Berlin and Singapore Waste Management, vol.30, Issue 5, pp 921-933. 104. Zurbrügg, C. and Schertenleib, R., (1998), Main problems and issues of municipal solid waste management in developing countries with emphasis on problems related to disposal by landfill., Presented at Third Swedish Landfill Research Symposia, Lulea, Sweden.

APPENDIX 1
GENERAL SECTION
BACKGROUND:
Please tick the box that applies to you
GENDER: M F
AGE RANGE:-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, +50
Q.1. What do you personally see as the major issue currently affecting Aba’s natural environment? Please tick as appropriate | Automobile exhaust | Household garbage | | | Sewage pollution from pits and toilets | Cutting down trees | | | Farming | Exposed landfill sites | | | The individual person | Dangerous solid waste like chemicals, waste from factories, and mechanical workshops/garages | | | Factories | Pesticides and herbicides used in farming | |

Q.2. How much effect does your organisation have on the environment, do you have: No effect, Some effect, A lot of effect, No opinion

Q.3. Concerns about solid waste management For the following 5 questions, please put your views across by ticking the appropriate column as to the degree of local sustainability in terms of waste disposal and management | Concerned | Not concerned | No opinion | | 2 | 1 | 0 | How concerned is your organisation about health risks related to burning garbage? | | | | How concerned is your organisation about illegal dumps polluting rivers, streams, and wells? | | | | How concerned is your organisation about diseases that are related to improper storage and disposal methods, like leptospirosis and malaria? | | | | How concerned is your organisation about flooding due to garbage blocking drains and gullies? | | | | How concerned is your organisation about the reduction of natural resources that are used to make the products we buy and use (such as, oil for plastic bottles and trees for paper and fuel)? | | | | How concerned is your organisation about the service provided by the garbage truck? | | | | How concerned is your organisation about litter in Aba? | | | | How concerned is your organisation about illegal dumping in Aba | | | | How concerned is your organisation about the presence of rats in this area? | | | | How concerned is your organisation about garbage in Aba? | | | |
Q.4. Briefly, do you have any suggestions for improving the managing of garbage in this city?

Q.5 For the following 11 questions, please answer by ticking appropriate column(s) | Yes | No | Don’t know | | 2 | 1 | 0 | Has your organisation ever heard about composting? | | | | Has your organisation ever heard about recycling? | | | | Would your organisation be willing to participate in a program to compost food and yard waste? | | | |

Refer to the following definitions if the respondents are unfamiliar with the terms in questions
Recycling involves the collection of materials and products that humans are done using, then processing these materials and making them into new products. For example, collecting plastic bottles to make other bottles or other things. Composting is a natural process of breaking down organic garbage (vegetable peelings etc) into a soil like material which can be used for farming and gardening. Reuse is the practice of using an item more than once, for example, using a glass jar to store supplies, or using scandal bags as trash bags.

This question refers to your personal views rather than those of your employer
Q.6. Solid waste management attitude For the following 11 questions, please answer by ticking appropriate column(s) | Agree | Disagree | No opinion | Do you play an important role in the management of garbage in your community? | | | | Should Environmental education be taught in schools?. | | | | The purchase decisions that I make can increase or decrease the amount of garbage my household must get rid of (dispose of). | | | | I don’t care that burning garbage can be bad for my health and the health of others. | | | | People throw garbage on the streets and in the drains and gullies because they have no other means of getting rid off their garbage. | | | | The government is not doing enough to fix the garbage problem. | | | | Correct garbage management should not be taught in schools. | | | | Other personal issues (like crime, unemployment, and cost of living) are more important to me than a garbage-free community. | | | | Regular collection of garbage is the only solution to the garbage problem. | | | | Picking up garbage around my community is my responsibility as an Abia state citizen. | | | | Public education about proper garbage management is one way to fix the crisis. | | | | Is it very important that the Government of Abia state put recycling laws and programs in place? | | | |
Q.7. How often is wastes collected in your neighbourhood?
Regular basis Periodic

Q.8. How is waste collection carried out, by regular staff/outside collectors?
Yes No

Q.9. List approximate number of: Non-mechanical collection devices. Refuse Collectors........... Wheelbarrows................ Pushcarts........................
And,
Mechanical collection vehicles Open-back trucks……... Compactor trucks…….. Trailers………………..

Q.10. If your organisation is involved in waste disposal please state which kind of disposal system you operate or supervise:
Open dumps? Yes No
Controlled dumps? Yes No
Sanitary landfills? Yes No
Not involved in this

If yes, for each of the above comments, what is the estimate of deposited waste, leachate and landfill gas control, health and environmental impacts (waste burning, leachate),separation of hazardous waste, approximately in percentage? To answer this, you’ll need to draw up a table for the respondent to complete

Q.11. Are Official waste disposal sites in your area (dumps, landfills);
Maintained by municipal workers?
Yes No

By private sector on contract, lease, or other arrangement?
Yes No (please specify, if other arrangements)

Equipped with adequate equipment owned by municipality Yes No

Q.12. Waste Collection, Transfer and Disposal
Does the surrounding community have an established municipal waste collection system?
Yes No

Q.13. How can you describe policy of your organisation in dealing with waste pickers/scavengers?
Fair Unfair
Please comment very briefly on their involvement in different stages of solid waste management (picking at the source, transfer station, dump/landfill, approximate number of waste pickers, etc.)

Q.14. Does the present government have an integrated, comprehensive plan for an environmentally solid waste management?
Yes No

Q.15. Do you, as an individual, think empowering local authorities would help in improving waste management in the state?
Yes No

Q.16. Briefly describe what the current funding source for operating the public solid waste management services in the state is.

Q.17. What do you think the public’s opinion of Abia State Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA) is?

Q.18. What is the governments view on public and private collaboration on solid waste management, i.e. collecting, disposing, financing, and regulating?

Q.19. Is the government solely responsible for funding ASEPA?
Yes No

Q.20. What technological if any and human resources are currently being used for waste reduction practices by ASEPA?
Recycling
Composting
Source reduction
None of the above

Q.21. Do you encourage scavenging?
Yes No
If yes, what safety measures are in place to protect them?

Personal Section

Questions 21 – 23 refer to your views about waste as in individual.

Q.21. Do waste collection and disposal services in the city meet your expectations?
Yes No

Q.22. Are there organisations in the area/state that participate in public awareness/public education programs? Yes No

If Yes, can you briefly describe how (ads in the mass media, public sessions, radio programs, (etc)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If No, briefly state reasons (no need, lack of funds, not sufficient infrastructure, etc.)________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q.23. HOW WILLING ARE YOU, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, TO PARTICIPATE For the following 11 questions, please answer by ticking appropriate column(s) | Yes | No | Don’t know | | 2 | 1 | 0 | Have you ever heard about composting? | | | | Have you ever heard about recycling? | | | | If a recycling program was set up, that collected materials like plastic, paper, metals, etc, would you be willing to separate these into separate bags for collection purposes? | | | | Would you be willing to pay for pickup of these recycling materials from your home? | | | | Would you be willing to participate in a program to compost food and yard waste? | | | | If you were paid for every plastic bottle that you returned to the grocery store, would you participate in a program to return the plastic bottles? | | | | Would you be willing to purchase less throwaway products (such as, plastic bottles) to help reduce the amount of garbage you get rid of, if an alternative product of the same cost was provided? | | | | Would you like more information about how and what types of garbage you can compost, reuse, and recycle in order to reduce the amount of garbage that you need to get rid off? | | | | If a skip was located in your community, would you be willing to carry your garbage to it? | | | | Would you be willing to participate in building the skip for your community? | | | | Would you be willing to participate in the maintenance of this skip? | | | |

Thank you for your time and participation in answering the questionnaire.

References: 1. Abia State of Nigeria, (2005), Abia State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy. 2. Abumere, S.I., (1983), City Surface Solid Waste In Nigerian Cities, Environment International, vol. 9, pp. 391-396. 3. Achankeng, E., (2003), Globalization, Urbanization and Municipal Solid Waste Management in Africa, African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific 2003 Conference Proceedings - African on a Global Stage. 4. Adedibu, A.A., (1983), “A Comparative Analysis of Solid Waste Composition and Generation in Ilorin and Offa, Kwara State”, Paper presented at the National Conference on Development und the Environment, Organized by NISER. University of Ibadan, Ibadan. 5. Adelman, I. and Morris, C.T., (1971), Society Politics and Economic, Development, The MIT Press, Baltimore. 6. Adepoju, A., (1975), “Migration and the Urban Poor in Nigeria’s Medium-Size Towns”, Poverty in Nigeria, The Nigerian Economic Society, Ibadan. 7. Adewumi, I.K., Ogedengbe, M.O., Adepetu, J.A. and Fabiyi, Y.L., (2005), Planning organic fertilizer industries for municipal solid wastes management, Journal of Applied Sciences Research, vol.1 (3), pp 285 -291. 8. Agunwamba, J.C., (2003), Analysis of scavengers’ activities and recycling in some cities of Nigeria, Environmental Management, vol. 32 (1), pp 116–127. 9. Ahmed, S.A. and Ali, M., (2004), Partnerships for solid waste management in developing countries: linking theories to realities, Habitat International, vol. 28, pp 467–479. 10. Ajzen, I., (1991), The Theory of Planned Behaviour, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, pp 179 - 211. 11. Ajzen, I., Madden, T.J. and Ellen, P.S., (1992), A Comparison of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Theory of Reasoned Action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 18 (1), pp 3 - 9. 12. Akpovi, S.V., (1981), “Provision of Environmental Sanitation: The Problem of Refuse Disposal in Benin City”, Paper presented at the CenSCER Seminar Series. University of Benin, Benin City. 13. Ali, M., (1999), The informal sector: What is it worth? Waterlines, vol.17, pp 10–12. 15. Baabereyir, A., (2009), Urban environmental problems in Ghana: a case study of social and environmental injustice in solid waste management in Accra and Sekondi-Takoradi. Thesis. University of Nottingham, for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 16 17. Beall, J., (2002), "Globalization and social exclusion in cities: framing the debate with lessons from Africa and Asia." Environment and Urbanization, vol. 14(1), pp 41-51. 18. Blake, J., (1999), Overcoming the ‘Value-Action Gap’ in Environmental Policy: tensions between national policy and local experience, Local Environment, vol.4 (3), pp 257 - 278. 19. Buclet, N., (2002), Municipal Waste Management in Europe – European Policy between Harmonisation and Subsidiarity, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 20. Caincross, S., (1988), Water Supply and the Urban Poor, In the Poor Die Young Housing Management and maintenance of existing waste management systems can work better than merely increasing its number. 21. Chaturvedi, B., (1998), Public waste private enterprise, Heinrich Boel Stiftung, Berlin. 22. City of London, (2007), A Road Map to Maximize Waste Diversion in London. &lt;http:// www.london.ca&gt; (accessed on 20.10.10). 24. EASUR, (2005), Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations. Urban Development Working Papers, East Asia Infrastructure Department, World Bank, Working Paper No. 9, East Asia and Pacific Urban Development Sector Unit (EASUR). 25. Egunjobi, T.O., (1983), “Problems of Solid Waste Management in Nigerian Urban Centres”, Paper Presented at the National Conference on Development and the Environment organised by NISER, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. 26. EIONET (European Environment Information and Observation Network), (2007a) United Kingdom. 27. Ekere, T.O., (2003), “Planning a solid waste management system in Obio Akpor local government area of Rivers State”, MPhil thesis, Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, pp 128 . 28. Ekugo, E.I., (1998), “Public health and urban sanitation”, Environmental News, vol.5 No. 7. 29. Emongor, V., Kealotswe, E., Koorapetse, I., Sankwasa, S. and Keikanetswe, S., (2005), “Pollution indicators in Gerone effluent”, Journal of Applied Sciences, vol.5, pp 147-150. 30. EPA, (2008), Municipal Solid Waste, Basic Information, US Environmental Protection Agency. &lt;http://www.epa.gov/msw/facts.htm&gt; (accessed on 05.08.10). 31. Epstein, E., (2003), Land Application of Sewage Sludge and Biosolids, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, USA. 34. Eurostat, (2002), Waste Generated in Europe, New Cronos Database. 35. Fatta, D. Papadopoulos A. and Loizidou, M.,(1999), A study on the landfill leachate and its impact on the groundwater quality of the greater area, Environ. Geochem. Health, vol. 21(2), pp 175-190. 36. Federal Ministry of Environment Report, (2004), LAGA International, Integrated waste management facility study for Abuja. 37. Federal Republic of Nigeria, (2007), Avian Influenza Control and Human Pandemic, Medical Waste Management Plan Preparedness and Response Project, Medical Waste Management Plan, Final Report January 2007. 38. Friedmann, J., (1986), Regional Development Policy: A Case Study of Venezuela. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 39. Giusti, L., (2009), A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health, Waste Management, vol.29, Issue 8, pp 2227-2239. 40. Harsch, E., (2001), "African cities under strain: Initiatives to improve housing, services, security and governance," Africa Recovery, vol.15 (1-2) p 30. 41. IIED, (2002), Globalization and cities. Environment and urbanization, London. 42. Imam, A., Mohammed, B., Wilson, D.C. and Cheeseman, C.R., (2008), Country Report Solid waste management in Abuja, Nigeria. Waste Management, vol.28, pp 468–472. 44. Johnson, B.L., (1997), Hazardous waste: human health effects, Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol.13 (2–3), pp 121–143. 45. Johnson, B.L., (1999), A review of the effects of hazardous waste on reproductive health, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 181 (1), S12–S16. 46. Key Note, (2007), Global Waste Management Market Assessment, Key Note Publications Ltd. 47. Kolzow, D.R., (1994), Public/private partnership: Economic development organization for the 90s, Economic Development Review, vol.12, pp 4–356. 48. Koonts, H., Donnell, C., Weihrich, H., (1980), Management, International Student, London, pp 11–12. 50. London Waste Action, (2007), Promoting Sustainable Waste Management in london. Available at:: http://www.londonwasteaction.org/. (Acessed on 03:04:11). 51. McDougall, F., White, P., Franke, M. and Hindle, P., (2001), Integrated Waste Management: A Life Cycle Inventory, second ed. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, ISBN: 0 632 05889 7 Female 52 53. NPC, (2001), A Report of the National Population Commission, Lagos, Nigeria. 54. Nweke, A.A. (2000), “Impact of organic waste pollution on the macro-benthos and fish fauna of Elechi Creek”, PhD thesis, Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt. 55. Nzeadibe, T.C. and Eziuzor, O.J., (2006), Waste scavenging and recycling in Onitsha urban area, Nigeria, CIWM Scientific and Technical Review, vol.7(1), pp 26–31. 56. Nzeadibe, T.C., (2008), Solid waste reforms and informal recycling in Enugu urban area, Nigeria Habitat International, vol.33, pp 93–99. 57. OECD, (2008), Key Environmental Indicators, OECD Environment Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France. &lt;http://www.oecd.org/env/&gt; (Accessed 05.08.10) 58 59. Ogbonna, D.N., Ekweozor, I.K.E. and Igwe, F.U. (2002), “Waste management: a tool for environmental protection in Nigeria”, Ambio, vol.31 No.1, pp 55-57. 60. Ogwueleka, T.C., (2009), Municipal Solid Waste Characteristics and Management In Nigeria, Iran. J. Environ. Health. Sci. Eng., vol.6, No.3, pp. 173-180. 61. Okafor, F.C., (1983), “Urban Development and Environmental Pollution in the Urban Fringe of Nigerian Cities”, Paper Presented at the National Conference on Development and the Environment. Organised by NISER, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. 62. Okoye, T.O., (1975), Enugu, In G.E.K. Ofomata (Ed.), Nigeria in maps: Eastern states Benin: Ethiope, pp 87–88. 63. Olanrewaju, O.O. and Ilemobade, A.A., (2009), Waste to Wealth: A Case Study of the Ondo State Integrated Wastes Recycling and Treatment Project, Nigeria, European Journal of Social Sciences, vol.8. p.13 64 65. Omagbemi, A., (1983), “Domestic Waste Disposal Systems in Benin City”, Unpublished B.Sc. Project, Department of Geography and Regional Planning, University of Benin, Benin City. 66. Omuta, G.E.D., (1985), “Intra-Urban Environmental Quality: A Case Study of Neighbourhoods in Benin City, Nigeria”, Mimeo, Department of Geography and Regional Planning, University of Benin, Benin City. 67. Omuta, G.E.D., (1987), Urban Solid Waste Generation and Management in Nigeria towards an Environmental Sanitation Policy, HABfTATiNTL, vol.11, No.2, pp 77- 87. 68. Onibokun, A.G. and Kumuyi, A.J., (1999), Governance and waste management in Africa, In: Onibokun, A. G. Ottawa (Eds.), Managing the monster: Urban waste and governance in Africa, Canada: IDRC, p 5. 69. Onibokun, A.G., (1999), Managing the Monster: Urban Waste and Governance in Africa, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa 70 71. Onokerhoraye, A.G., (1976), ‘Urban Environmental Problems and Planning Strategies in Tropical Africa: The Example of Nigeria”, The Annals of Regional Science, vol.10, No.2, pp 24-35. 72. Onokerhoraye, A.G., (1977), “Public Involvement in Urban Development Planning: The Case of Environmental Sanitation in Ibadan, Nigeria”, J. Admin. Overseas, vol.10, pp 171-177. 73. Osibanjo, O. and Nnorom, I.C., (2007), The challenge of electronic waste (e-waste) management in developing countries, Waste Manag Res, vol. 25(6), pp 489–501. 74. PAI Associates (1982), Solid Waste Management in Fifteen Cities and Urban Areas in Nigeria, PAI Associates International for Federal Ministry of Housing and Environment, Lagos. 75. Pires, A., Martinho, G. and Chang, N.-B., (2010), Department of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL 32816, USA Available online 30 December 2010. 76. Sada, P.O., (1984), Urbanization and Living Conditions in Nigerian Cities, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 77. Salahuddin, K. and Shamim, I., (1992), Women in urban informal sector: Employment pattern, activity types and problems, Women for Women, Dhaka, Bangladesh, vol.18, pp 4–5. 78. Schübeler P., Wehrle, K. and Christen, J., (1996), Urban Management and Infrastructure Conceptual Framework for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Low-Income Countries, SKAT August 1996 Working Paper No.9. 79. Sever, L.E., (1997), Environmental contamination and health effects: what is the evidence? Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol.13 (2–3), pp 145–161. 80. Smargon, A.J., (1999), Global Perspectives on Solid Waste Management. 81. Solid Waste Audit Report, (2004), Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, 82 83. Tchobanoglous, G. and Kreith, F., (2002), Handbook of Solid Waste Management, Second Edition, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. 84. The EarthWorks Group, (1990), The Recycler 's Handbook, The Earthworks Group, New York. 85. Thomas-Hope, E., (1998), Solid Waste Management, Critical Issues For Developing Countries, Canoe Press University of the West Indies. 86. Tyler, M.G., Jr. (1990), Living in the Environment: An Introduction to Environmental Science, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA. 87. Uchegbu, S.N., (2009), Effective planning and management as critical factors in urban water supply and management in Umuahia and Aba, Abia State, Nigeria, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, vol.34, pp 23–27. 88. UDBN, (1998), Solid Waste Sector Appraisal Report 89 90. Ukwu, U.I., (2002), The State of Infrastructure in Enugu Zone. 91. UNEP, (2005), Principles of solid waste management, Solid Waste Management, vol.1, pp 1–8. 92. Urban Age, (1999), What cities do with their waste, vol.6, pp 32–33. 93. Uyanga, J., (1985), The environment and environmental education in Nigeria Habitat International, vol.9, Issue 1, pp 45-54. 96. White, G.F., (1996), Emerging issues in global environmental policy, Ambio, vol.25 (1), pp 58–60. 97. Whiteman, A., Smith, P. and Wilson, D.C., (2001), Waste management: an indicator of urban governance, Paper prepared for the UK DFID submitted for the Global Habitat Conference on Urban Development, New York. 98. Wilson, D.C., (2007), Development drivers for waste management, Waste Management and Research, vol. 25, pp. 198–207. 99. World Bank, (1992), World Bank, World Development Report 1992, Development and the Environment, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.