Assessment of The Implementation of One-Household Onebin Sanitation Intervention in ABOKOBI Community.

ABSTRACT

Background: In Ghana, rapid human population growth without efficient and proper waste management interventions continue to seriously affect sustainable development of waste management practices. In particular, poor solid waste management in rural and urban Ghana associated with unlawful disposal into drainages continues to have attendant negative impacts such as pollution on health, leading to death and value loss. To address this surging indiscriminate solid waste disposal menace around the country, Zoomlion Ghana Limited in 2015 implemented the One-household One–bin Sanitation Intervention in support of rural and urban communities. As part of efforts, registered individual households were provided with free Zoomlion litter bins for proper waste packaging at a monthly disposal cost of between GHS20.00 to GHS30.00 depending on the volume of waste. This intervention notwithstanding, is still a challenge. This study therefore assesses the implementation of the One-household One–bin intervention at Abokobi in the Ga East municipality. Specifically, the following issues are addressed i) what the different approaches to solid waste management by rural and urban communities are ii) in what form(s) households package their waste for disposal iii) what the cost implication(s) is /are iv) what the general perception is about improper waste disposal and consequences are and, v) recognizable challenges with the well-meaning intervention(s) 1H-1B and extent to which its full potential can be achieved Method: The study used both quantitative and qualitative survey methods to arrive at an outcome. To do so, a total of 204 household respondents, along with 2 Officers each from Zoomlion and the District Assembly respectively were interviewed. For qualitative data, in-depth interviews were recorded and analyzed manually. Quantitative data was also analyzed using Stata version 15 a statistical computer software to obtain descriptive statistics and carry out regression analysis to measure the odds that determine the strength of association between the independent and outcome variables. Result: In this study, five (5) solid waste disposal approaches are reported; use of plastic/metal dustbins by individual households, common use of community dustbin by different households, incineration, collection by private motorized trucks and illegal dump site use. For packaging of solid waste for the afore-mentioned approaches, 53.93% respondents reported the use of plastic/metal dustbins. Of the above percentage, only 21.08% actually received Zoomlion plastic/metal dustbins supply for household use as an intervention. In terms of waste volumes and relative monthly surcharges for lifting solid waste, 54.1% of respondents reported payment of prices that range from GHC 10.00 to GHC 40.00. On the issue of knowledge of impacts of improper solid waste management by sampled households, 99.51% respondents were notably conscious of such causatives as disease outbreaks. Furthermore, 33.82% of the respondents see solid waste management essentially as an act of collecting and dumping refuse only. A major challenge found with the implementation of 1H-1B intervention in this study is, customer failure to honor timely payment of their monthly surcharges coupled with the high cost of dustbins supplied by the service provider, Zoomlion. In conclusion, after adjusting for the independent variables associated with owning a plastic/metal dustbin by households, the study revealed that household income levels, type of waste generated (e.g. plastic or food waste) and the xii free distribution of waste bins as intervention by the service provider are significant predictors of household’s ability to own a plastic/metal dustbins for efficient and effective waste management. The results show that respondents with no formal education had 76% reduced odds of having ownership of dustbins compared to those with some formal education (AOR= 0.24; 95% CI=0.087-0.636), monthly income level ranging from GHC 950 to GHC 1500 (AOR= 4.30; 95% CI=1.416-13.083) and income level above GHC1500 (AOR= 4.04; 95% CI=1.152-14.188)