ROLE written or published by other people
ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS IN SUCCESSFUL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN MACHAKOS COUNTY, KENYABYCHRISTINE MUSYAWA NDONYEMASTERS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (CORPORATE MANAGEMENT)KCA UNIVERSITY 2018ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS IN SUCCESSFUL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN MACHAKOS COUNTY, KENYACHRISTINE MUSYAWA NDONYEA RESEARCH DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (CORPORATE MANAGEMENT) AT KCA UNIVERSITY.October, 2018DECLARATIONI declare that this dissertation is my original work and has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere for an award of degree. I also declare that this contains no material written or published by other people except where due reference is made and author duly acknowledged.
Student name: Christine Musyawa Ndonye Reg No. 17/02970Sign ______________________________ Date: _______________________I do hereby confirm that I have examined the master’s dissertation ofChristine Musyawa NdonyeAnd have approved it for examinationSign _______________________________ Date: ______________________________Dr. Lucy WamalwaDissertation supervisorABSTRACTRapid population growth and urbanization has resulted to serious problem in solid waste management. This is due to indiscriminate disposal due to inadequate involvement of waste stakeholders, finances and human resources.
The problem of concern is lack of synergy between various stakeholders in solid waste management who include: Central government, local authority, NGOs and landlords and the role they play in management of solid waste management. The study was conducted in Machakos County due to its strategic location and its status of being part of Nairobi Metropolitan Region. Specifically, Machakos County acts as a dormitory to residents most of whom work in Nairobi and Machakos town. Moreover, it has many industries which contribute to a lot of solid waste. Unfortunately, there has not been good management of the services due to inadequate stakeholder engagement in their respective roles within the framework. The objectives of the study were: to evaluate the role of each stakeholder in solid waste management in order to achieve effective solid waste management (SWM). The study used descriptive research design.
A total population of 97 persons from households, local authority and National government were randomly sampled and interviewed. From the results, it is evident that there is no successful engagement of the key stakeholders in solid waste management within Machakos County. Therefore, the recommends that a clear strategy for engagement among the stakeholders, which include, creating awareness, training employees, coordination and knowledge sharing. Keywords: Waste, Stakeholders, SWM, ISWM, public participation, Management, municipal wasteACKNOWLEDGEMENTI would like to acknowledge the staff of county government of Machakos, NEMA- Machakos offices, the residents of Machakos County for facilitating me with adequate information and for their time during data collection period.
In addition I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Lucy Wamalwa and the entire fraternity of KCAU who gave me unconditional support throughout my research project. Lastly I thank my family and friends who were by my side when doing the research. TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC o “1-3” h z u DECLARATION PAGEREF _Toc526519921 h iiABSTRACT PAGEREF _Toc526519922 h iiiACKNOWLEDGEMENT PAGEREF _Toc526519923 h ivTABLE OF CONTENTS PAGEREF _Toc526519924 h vLIST OF FIGURES PAGEREF _Toc526519925 h viiLIST OF TABLES PAGEREF _Toc526519926 h viiACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS PAGEREF _Toc526519927 h viiiDEFINITION OF TERMS PAGEREF _Toc526519928 h ixCHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc526519929 h 11.1.Background of the Study PAGEREF _Toc526519930 h 11.
2.Problem Statement PAGEREF _Toc526519931 h 61.3.Objectives of the Study PAGEREF _Toc526519932 h 91.4.
Specific objective PAGEREF _Toc526519933 h 91.5.Questions of the study PAGEREF _Toc526519934 h 101.
6.Justification of the study PAGEREF _Toc526519935 h 101.7.
Scope of the study PAGEREF _Toc526519936 h 11CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW PAGEREF _Toc526519937 h 122.1.Introduction PAGEREF _Toc526519938 h 122.
2.Theoretical Framework PAGEREF _Toc526519939 h 122.2.
1.Stakeholders’ Theory PAGEREF _Toc526519940 h 122.2.2.Resource Dependency Theory PAGEREF _Toc526519941 h 132.
2.3.Network Theory PAGEREF _Toc526519942 h 152.
2.4.Institutional Theory PAGEREF _Toc526519943 h 162.
3.Empirical review of literature PAGEREF _Toc526519944 h 182.3.1.The effect of Local Authority in Successful Solid Waste Management PAGEREF _Toc526519945 h 182.3.
2.The effect of Landlords’ involvement in successful Solid Waste Management PAGEREF _Toc526519946 h 202.3.
3.The effect of NGOs’ Engagement in Successful Solid Waste Management PAGEREF _Toc526519947 h 222.3.4.The effect of National Government’s Engagement in Successful Solid Waste Management PAGEREF _Toc526519948 h 252.4.Summary and Gaps in the literature PAGEREF _Toc526519949 h 272.
5.Conceptual Model and Framework PAGEREF _Toc526519950 h 292.6.
Operationalization of variables PAGEREF _Toc526519951 h 312.7.Integrated Sustainable Solid Waste Management. PAGEREF _Toc526519952 h 32CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY PAGEREF _Toc526519953 h 333.1.Introduction PAGEREF _Toc526519954 h 333.
2.Research Design PAGEREF _Toc526519955 h 333.3.
Population of the Study PAGEREF _Toc526519956 h 333.4.Sampling Size and Sampling Technique PAGEREF _Toc526519957 h 343.5.Instrumentation and Data Collection PAGEREF _Toc526519958 h 353.6.Reliability and Validity PAGEREF _Toc526519959 h 363.
7.Data Analysis and Presentation PAGEREF _Toc526519960 h 373.8.Ethical Considerations PAGEREF _Toc526519961 h 373.9.Diagnostic Test PAGEREF _Toc526519962 h 38CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION PAGEREF _Toc526519963 h 394.1.
Introduction PAGEREF _Toc526519964 h 394.2.Response rate PAGEREF _Toc526519965 h 394.3.
Social demographic characteristics of the respondents PAGEREF _Toc526519966 h 394.4.Descriptive analysis PAGEREF _Toc526519967 h 434.
5.Inferential statistics PAGEREF _Toc526519968 h 47CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. PAGEREF _Toc526519969 h 525.1. Introduction PAGEREF _Toc526519970 h 525.2.Summary of the findings PAGEREF _Toc526519971 h 525.
3.Operationalization factors PAGEREF _Toc526519972 h 535.4.Discussions PAGEREF _Toc526519973 h 545.4.1.
Local Authority Engagement in Successful Solid Waste Management PAGEREF _Toc526519974 h 545.4.2.Landlords’ Engagement in Successful Solid Waste Management PAGEREF _Toc526519975 h 555.
4.3.National Government Engagement in Successful Solid Waste Management PAGEREF _Toc526519976 h 565.
5.Conclusion and Recommendations PAGEREF _Toc526519977 h 565.5.1.Conclusions PAGEREF _Toc526519978 h 565.
5.2.Recommendations PAGEREF _Toc526519979 h 575.6.Areas for further studies PAGEREF _Toc526519980 h 58REFERENCES PAGEREF _Toc526519981 h 59APPENDICES PAGEREF _Toc526519982 h 64APPENDIX I: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc526519983 h 64APPENDIX II: RESEARCH STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE PAGEREF _Toc526519984 h 65APPENDIX III: RESEARCH STUDY WORKPLAN PAGEREF _Toc526519985 h 70APPENDIX IV: RESEARCH BUDGET PAGEREF _Toc526519986 h 71LIST OF FIGURESFigure: 2.1: Conceptual Model and Framework…………………………………….
………30LIST OF TABLESTable 2.1: operationalization of variables…………………………………………………….…31Table 3.1: Sample Population…………………………………………………………………..34Table 4.
1: Age distribution of respondents in Machakos County, Kenya………
2: Gender distribution of respondents in Machakos County, Kenya………………….40Table 4.3: Educational level of respondents in Machakos County, Kenya…………………….40Table 4.4: Duration in the Department/Estate…………………………………………..
41Table 4.5: Local authority’s engagement in successful solid waste management……………….42Table 4.6: Landlord’s successful engagement in solid waste management……………….……..44Table 4.
7: The National governments successful engagement in solid waste management……..45ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSCBOs: Community Based OrganizationsISWM: Integrated Solid Waste ManagementNEMA: National management authorityNGOs: Non-Governmental OrganizationsNWMS: National waste management strategyPPPPublic Private PartnershipRDT: Resource Dependency TheorySPSS: Statistical Package for Social SciencesSWM: Solid Waste ManagementUNEP: United Nations Environmental ProgrammeWHO: World Health OrganizationDEFINITION OF TERMSPublic Participation: public participation as used in this study refers to a process where the subjects or the target communities and stakeholders collaborate in particular way, on the implicit assumption that their contribution is a means to some further action, on their part, to bring about specific change. It is primarily about the people and development of their communities or regions and as Barnes (2005) observes, public participation is adopted as a catalyst to success of a beneficial undertaking in a community.
Stakeholder: This term is used in the study to refer to Individual or organizations with established interest in solid waste management and therefore need to be engaged. They include enterprises, organizations, households and all others who are engaged in some waste management activity (Sciarelli & Tani, 2013). On the other hand, they either generate waste, function as service providers or participate as state or local government departments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other organizations concerned with certain aspects of waste management.
Solid Waste: Any item/material that is discarded by its owner and that is not discharged in gaseous form to the atmosphere, to a pit latrine or via a pipe or channel. According to UN HABITAT (2010), solid waste also refers to any useless, unwanted, or discarded material that is not a liquid or gas. Solid waste is also known as garbage and is not different from municipal waste.
Additionally, it refers to “organic and inorganic waste materials produced by households, commercial, institutional and industrial activities that have lost value in the sight of the initial.Waste: as used in this study, waste refers to any item or a substance that is either damaged beyond repair or can no longer be put to its intended use and is therefore to be discarded or parted with (KENAO, 2006/2007). Waste also refers to refuse (resources that are to be discarded that are perceived as useless). According to UNEP, waste refers to substances or objects, which are disposed of or are intended to be disposed of or are required to be disposed of by the provisions of national law.Municipal Waste: For the purpose of this study, municipal waste refers to refuse from households, industrial, commercial and institutional establishments. Others are market waste, yard waste and waste from street sweepings.
According to Cointreau-Levine and Coad (2000), municipal waste refer to ” wastes from domestic, commercial, institutional, municipal and industrial sources, but excluding excreta, except when it is mixed with solid waste”. Management: the term as used in this study refer to a cyclical process of setting objectives, establishing long term plans, programming, budgeting, implementation, operation and maintenance, monitoring and evaluation, cost control, revision of objectives and plans (Najeeb, 2014). Currently, the term has been broadened to cover all functions of an organization; hence, it also refers to the general organizational management.Solid Waste Management: in this study, the term has been used to refer to all activities of controlling of generation, storage, collection, transport, and disposal of solid wastes. According to (NEMA, 2015), It also includes all the necessary institutional operations and individual actions to remove solid wastes from the sources of generation to the disposal sites and the activities performed at the landfill to ensure environmental safety.CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTIONBackground of the StudySolid waste management generally refers to the application of techniques that would ensure an organized execution of various functions of collection, transport, processing, and treatment, and disposal of municipal solid waste (Henry, Yongsheng & Jun, 2006)).
Specifically, the management of Municipal solid waste encompasses planning, engineering, organization, administration, financial, and legal aspects of activities related to the solid waste management. Therefore, Sharholy et al. (2008) observes that solid waste management is closely linked to generation, storage, collection, transfer, transport, processing, and disposal of waste in a manner that is in line with best principles of public health, economics, engineering, conservation, public attitude, and other environmental considerations. Therefore, solid waste management is complex endeavor that requires the cooperation between the organization tasked with the main responsibility, and the households, communities, private enterprises, as well as Non-governmental organizations.Solid waste management is not only complex, but also dynamic. Its first instance is the area of generation where the management should begin.
Indeed, effective solid waste management requires that the generation of the waste is reduced. The next critical step, knows the composition of the waste so that appropriate management strategy is prioritized for solid waste management. For instance, biodegradable waste is a type of waste, typically originating from plant or animal sources, which may be degraded by other living organisms. On the other hand, wastes that cannot be broken down by other living organisms are called non-biodegradable. Notably, Biodegradable waste can be commonly found in municipal solid waste as green waste, food waste, paper waste, and biodegradable plastics. Other biodegradable wastes include human waste, manure, sewage, slaughterhouse waste.
According to Marinela (2009) biodegradable waste can often be used for composting or must be a resource for heat, electricity and fuel in future. Mostly, this produces additional biogas and still delivers the compost for the soil.The world all over has recorded a significant increase in solid waste management. This trend is associated with tremendous growth in population size, around the world which has led to matching growth in industrialization, urbanization and economic growth. Solid waste generation in municipalities shows different trends and positive correlation with economic development in terms of kg/capita/ day on solid waste generation at world scale.
Fundamentally, these challenges are exacerbated by poor management within institutions tasked with the responsibility to manage solid waste. Ideally, these institutions should operate like corporate organizations and form a strategy of inters institutional collaboration.The roles and responsibilities of stakeholders who include the producers, manufacturers, brand owners, importers and consumers in respect of the environmental impact of their products have been ignored for some time. Extended producer responsibility, product take-back programme and the recycling of packaging products are identified as forms of stakeholder participation in solid waste management (Carlton & Thompson, 2009, & Dussault, Gendron, Juneau, & Savoie, 2008). A number of states in the USA have enacted legislation to ensure collection, recycling and reuse of electronic products through the engagement of producers and brand owners. The Electronic Product Recycling Law enacted in 2006 in Washington State requires the manufacturers of computers, monitors, laptops, and televisions to provide recycling services at no cost to consumers.
In California, consumers are charged advanced recycling fees for electronic goods (Kahhat et al. 2008). In Canada, most of the provinces have adopted strategies to restrict the burning of waste and have introduced tipping fees as an attempt to encourage minimization of waste and to make consumers responsible for its disposal (Wagner & Arnold, 2006). Similarly, in New Zealand, a waste disposal levy has been enacted from July 2009 to reduce the amount of waste disposed (MfE, 2010b). So, the overall responsibility of stakeholders: i.
e. designers, producers, brand owners, manufacturers, retailers, importers and consumers, is to ensure active participation in recycling, reuse and finally disposal of hazardous waste, as well as in traditional waste management systems implemented by the local authorities (Wagner & Arnold, 2006; Kahhat et al., 2008).In Nepal waste is more of a problem in urban area than rural area. This is due to the fact that wastes generated in the rural areas are more of biodegradable and mostly used as compost for the farms (Gautama & Herat, 2000).
According to the Local Self-Governance Act, 1999, municipalities are responsible for managing solid waste. But the municipalities do not have the proper and skilled resources to manage the solid waste. Budget is allocated for this purpose but it is not used in the efficient way (Water aid, Ibid).
Despite this, Anschutz (1996) put forward the idea that sometimes a municipality plays a highly positive role in stimulating community-based solid waste management. In cases where other groups are involved in the management municipalities can assist community-based solid waste systems in different ways like providing with the facilities (equipment, composting sites, among others), establishment of legislation, financial assistance, promotion of waste management. However, there are cases where the attitude of the municipality remains till the elections and some policies get discontinued. There are examples where there is mutual distrust between elected officials and informal community leaders in managing the solid waste. Community organizations that have proved their capacity to achieve improvements, are however, often able to convince the municipality of the need to help them.
But this depends also on political circumstances. Community participation has become important in today’s context because the circumstances have also developed in the same way for example the inability of the government body to handle the problems and especially in my case solid waste management. Community participation is considered important because it is believed that the involvement of the community in an activity like waste management helps them decide about their life and the issues that affect their daily life. It is also believed that community participation gives efficiency and effectiveness to the work. It helps them decide their priorities.The current operating systems in Kampala city in Uganda are open ground disposal and in skips. Communities without access to transfer stations resort to open disposal methods which include burning, burying, using of wastes as animal feeds and indiscriminate disposal.
There is rampant littering caused by the indiscriminate disposal of wastes in storm drainage channels, road verges and open lots. The carelessly disposed wastes block storm water drains causing floods and also cause health hazards and poor aesthetic. In the same city, Institutions like universities, schools, hospitals and business complexes are served by the private companies, while those not served transport their wastes individually to community collection points. The urban poor receive very low to no waste collection services due to inaccessible roads, unplanned facilities and neglect by the urban councils. Waste collection in East African urban centers is not based on the total amount of waste generated but rather on the level of income of the service area (Kaseva ; Mbuligwe 2005; Okot-Okumu ; Nyenje, 2011).
They also state that, Satisfaction level for waste management is higher for the part of community that is willing to participate in waste management compared to those who have little or no interest in the same. In Kenya, the challenge of solid waste Management is real. About 80% of collection transport is out of service or in urgent need of repair (Gakungu ; Gitau, 2012). In Nairobi often, service providers ask citizens to pay for the solid waste management services without consultation and involvement (Tukahirwa ; Mol. 2012). In Kakamega County for example, the public do not actively participate in collection, transfer, or disposal of solid waste (Nyayiemi.
2012). It is due to this, that a holistic and integrated effort to minimize the quantity of solid waste generated requires the cooperation and participation of waste generators, particularly the public (Samahet et al.2012).
Public concern and awareness have acted as solid waste management drivers in high-income countries (Marshall ; Farahbakhsh, 2013). The public’s willing to cooperate and participate in waste management relies on their awareness and attitude and extending service coverage to all citizens by eliminating uncontrolled dumping of wastes remain key priorities in most low and lower-middle income countries (Wilson &Ingo, 2013). In Kenya, participation of all stakeholders is essential for improving service delivery. However, collaboration between the public and the service providers is low, and this affects access to services (Tukahirwa, Mol & Oosterveer 2010).
Solid waste management often takes a big amount of the total recurrent municipal budget. Despite the high financial burden, the counties usually struggle in provision of proper SWM services. From the USAID records, the developing countries spend around 20-50 % of their budget on managing their solid waste.
This majorly affects the distribution of the remaining budget to serve the population on other needs. Oskamp (2005) notes that local authorities are analyzing whether to allow the private sector to do the SWM services or not. The reason behind this is that the public sector have lagged behind and has been inefficient in SWM due to poor management and the high costs involving SWM practices (Zaman & Lehmann 2011).
Increasingly public–private partnerships (PPP) have been viewed as the solution to improve municipal performance in SWM at lower costs. But even with a new partnership approach the financial aspects of municipal solid waste management remain critical for ensuring sustainability of the system. This concerns budgeting, cost accounting, financial monitoring and evaluation aiming at recovering sufficient money to cover recurrent operational expenditures of the collection service as well as to stock up capital for new investments or large maintenance. These methods are too seldom employed and the municipality rarely knows the actual cost of providing the service (Alcott, 2005). While external capital may often be needed for major investments, the recurrent costs should by preference be covered by a combination of user fees, and local taxes. Also, cross-subsidization and/or financing from governmental sources may be needed to ensure equitable access to service (Alcott, 2005). It is against this backdrop this study seeks to fill the knowledge gap on factors influencing public participation in solid waste management in Machakos County.
Problem StatementSolid Waste Management is an emerging issue most global urban administrations are grappling with the huge solid waste generation. According to the UNHABITAT (2010), about 1.7-1.9 billion metric tons of waste is generated in the urban areas worldwide.
In Machakos County, solid waste management is becoming a serious public health concern. This is due to population increase, rapid urbanization and industrialization, lack of proper and well-maintained waste management systems, inadequate stakeholder’s engagement, efficient solid waste collection and transportation, inadequate personnel capacity and equipment and designated solid waste disposal site. This situation calls for synergy between all stakeholders from central government to the community to work together in order to be able to provide effective as well as efficient solid waste management system that can guarantee a healthy environment to their inhabitants.Historically solid waste management was a prime roles and responsibilities of central and local government (Gidarakos, Havas ; Ntzamilis, 2006; Davies, 2009). However, according to Rajamanikam, Poyyamoli ; Kumar, (2014) municipal authorities has no capacity to tackle the problem. This is due to lack of organizational financial resources and system complexity (Burntley, 2007). Consequently, urban areas within developing countries have been placed in increasingly difficult situations regarding waste management.
For instance, increasing population, urbanization, and change in living standards accelerate solid waste generation at the municipal level (Minghua et al.2009). As a result, urban areas are environmentally polluted and public health is under threat from widespread waste hazards calling for the need to incorporation all stakeholders in management process (Goven ; Langer, 2009).There are thesis and dissertations investigating the determinants and operations of SWM in urban areas across Kenya. Notably, some of them include in areas towns like Eldoret (Kipkoech, 2014), Lamu (Monyoncho, 2013), and frequently Nairobi (Ongoro, ; Musembi, 2012). Certainly, the dense literature continues to validate the concern of improper SWM across Kenya and has provided data on waste generation quantity and composition, household disposal methods with regards to accessibility, common trends of SWM challenges in Kenya, and has identified key informal stakeholders (Schlueter, 2017).
Notably, the local research community in this field has raised concerns about the capacity and willpower of government officials who hold a major stake in SWM. In light of post-devolution governance, long-term strategic plans, foreign development loans, and the building pressure of urbanization, the current role of local government with regards to SWM has not yet been established an evidence that, this particular area is often overlooked. Yet, there is value in analyzing the perspectives of local authorities and other SWM stakeholders in order to form a clearer understanding of their role in practice. With such an understanding, effective steps can be taken to improve SWM thereby improving local health and the development of Machakos County.Stakeholders’ engagement has proven to be both productive and unproductive depending on how the power and motive of the stakeholders is perceived by the organization. According to Roomie & Wijen, (2006), little consideration is given to the power and influence of stakeholders to affect the process or content of organization. The dual state learning is a quasi-autonomous process unaffected by motives and power of stakeholders meaning that the opinion of stakeholders does not count.
Deloitte report on Stakeholder Engagement Standard (2011), & Accountability (2008), states that, the success of the Deloitte Company is highly attributed to its stakeholders. The report further emphasizes that a robust stakeholder engagement model is vital for companies to be able to understand and respond to legitimate stakeholder concerns. However, according to the report, this process is often ad-hoc for many organizations without a formal structure and process in place. Lastly, IRC, (2011); & King III, (2009) argued that, The recent global financial crisis, corporate scandals, increased socio-economic inequality, the growing evidence of resource constraints, climate change and changing expectations regarding the roles and responsibilities of public and private organizations is as a result of poor stakeholder engagement. To literate the above, (King III, 2011) in his report “The King Code of Governance Principles for South Africa 2009” recommended the implementation of ‘Integrated Reporting’ by all key stakeholders as a key element of good corporate governance. However, the integrated external reporting is impossible without sustainable internal management strategies (Eccles & Krzus, 2010; King, 2011; Perkins, 2010).
For integrated reporting to be successful it relies on interactive communication with key stakeholders (King, 2011). Interactive and continual communication between a company, acting as corporate citizen, and his key stakeholders increases the company’s knowledge of his stakeholder’s interests and expectations (Eccles & Krzus 2010; King III, 2011; Roberts et al., 2002). In the light of the above, it is clear that solution lies in engagement of all stakeholders to solve this mayhem. It is expected that all stakeholders should use their dynamism and flexibility, to fill in the service delivery gaps by working together. This dissertation examines the role each stakeholder should play in solid waste management.
Objectives of the StudyThe main objective if the study is to evaluate role of stakeholders’ in successful solid waste management in Machakos County. The following are the specific objectivesSpecific objectiveTo establish the effect of local authority engagement in successful solid waste management in Machakos CountyTo find out the effect of landlords’ involvement in successful solid waste management in Machakos CountyTo determine the effect of NGOs’ engagement in successful solid waste management in Machakos CountyTo find out the effect of national government engagement in successful solid waste management in Machakos CountyQuestions of the studyWhat is the effect of local authority engagement in successful solid waste management in Machakos County?What is the effect of landlords’ involvement in successful solid management within Machakos County?What is the effect of NGOs’ engagement in successful solid waste management within Machakos County?What is the effect of national governments’ engagement in successful solid waste management within Machakos County? Justification of the studySolid Waste Management is an area that has been taken for granted in our urban centers for a long time. However, it’s increasingly obvious that the current practice of public financed and operated solid waste management is becoming inadequate for today’s needs especially in light of the growing urban populations.
One fundamental area that the actors within solid waste management are yet to appreciate is that most of the challenges affecting the waste management sector are basically management related. For instance, some of them include inadequate management skills, bad governance, inadequate organizational skills, poor coordination among stakeholders and employees as well as improper financial planning. Therefore, this study is not only timely but also long overdue. Indeed, it will help the county government of Machakos to identifying the institutional management laps that exacerbate solid waste management challenges, and make relevant department adjustments to their administrative strategy.
Additionally, it will help the National Government find out areas with inadequacy within the solid waste management framework. For instance, there are various policies within this sector, but few focus on the area on strengthening institutional capacity for effective solid waste management. Indeed, this is an area that the national government can take interest in and act appropriately with a response that will not only benefit Machakos County but also the rest of 46 counties. More importantly, this study adds to the body of knowledge by identifying research gaps and areas that can form part of future research issues.Scope of the studyMachakos County is an administrative County in the eastern part of Kenya. The County has 8constituencies which are; Machakos Town, Masinga, Yatta, Kangundo, Matungulu, Kathiani, Mavoko and Mwala.
The County covers 6,208 square kms and has a population of 1,098,584 as per 2009 census(Male – 49 %,Female – 51 %); with an age distribution of 0 to 14 years at 39%, 15 to 64 years 56% and 5% above 65 years-break down this age distribution more (0-14, 15-29, 30-64 and over 64) (CIDP, 2015). Its population annual Growth Rate is 1.7 % with a current estimate of 264,500 households of which only 17% accessing electricity (CIDP, 2015).
Its capital town Machakos is cosmopolitan and is located 64 kilometers southeast of Nairobi Also due to its proximity to Nairobi City and being served by two major highways (Mombasa Road and Namanga Road) Machakos County acts like a dormitory for the workers who work in Nairobi, Kajiado and Machakos county and therefore it has experienced a rapid population growth over the years which in return has contributed to increased industrial, commercial, clinical/medical and domestic waste generation sub-passing the sub-county ecological footprint.CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEWIntroductionThis chapter highlights the role of various stakeholders within the Solid waste management system. Specifically, it begins by underscoring the role of various institutions within the Solid waste Management framework. Notably the discussion in this chapter is in line with the objectives of the study and seeks to evaluate the role of each level of solid waste management and the loop holes within these roles.
Additionally, it evaluates various theories of management and how they relate to the multi-stakeholder solid waste management. Finally, it identifies gaps in literature that need to be addressed for sustainable stakeholder’s engagement in solid waste management.Theoretical FrameworkThere are various theories that apply and are relevant in the stakeholders’ role in the Solid Waste Management. Notably, these theories are common within management study and are discussed as follows;Stakeholders’ TheoryStakeholder Theory was developed in the ’80s in the works of Freeman (1984) and Freeman and Reed (1983) as observed by (Sciarelli & Tani, 2013). Notably, its core point is that the creation and the ongoing operations of each organization are the results of several actors’ activities.
Specifically, the theory views organizations’ main goals as a combination of the various interests central to the actors. Moreover, Stakeholder Theory is built upon ideas developed in the Stanford Research Institute, considering several works from organizational behavior, and resource dependence theory, (Freeman et al. 2010). Remarkably, a central role of the interactions between the organization and the stakeholders in the environment it operates has been developed into the resource dependence theory. Another root of the Stakeholder Theory can be found in the strategic planning approach to management (Sciarelli & Tani, 2013).
Quoting Dill (1975), Sciarelli & Tani (2013) defines the three main challenges of strategic prowess as the need for management to understand the environment, to respond to it, and to deal with the individuals and the organizations trying to influence management’s strategic decision-making processes. Relevance to the StudyThe Stakeholder Theory has been a managerial approach since its own foundation. Indeed, it has been developed to give managers a broader perspective on their responsibility for organizations activities and for the related value creation processes (Sciarelli ; Tani, 2013). Observably, its main goal is to help managers find the balance between the various relationships that can impact upon the organization and affect it while trying to reach for its own goals (Freeman ; Philips, 2002). For instance, the waste management stakeholders in Machakos County can rely on the theory to collaborate in their activities for effective solid waste management. Undoubtedly, this approach views the organization as a bundle of relationships between its activities and various stakeholders. Therefore, Managers has to combine the efforts by the various actors so to make them interact in value creating processes (Freeman et.
al., 2010). Observably, it offers theoretical framework upon which solid waste management stakeholders in Machakos County can operate.
Resource Dependency TheoryResource dependence theory (RDT) has become one of the most influential models in organizational philosophy and strategic management. According to Hillman, Withers, ; Collins (2009), the theory was first published in 1978 by Pfeffer and Salancick. Particularly RDT recognizes the influence of external factors on organizational behavior and, although constrained by their context, managers can act to reduce environmental uncertainty and dependence. Central to these actions is the concept of power, which is the control over vital resources (Hillman, Withers, ;Collins (2009). Organizations attempt to reduce others’ power over them, often attempting to increase their own power over others.
Furthermore, Sciarelli & Tani (2013) concurs that this theory sees the environment and the organizations as strongly interconnected. For instance, Davis, & Adam (2010), observe that the enterprise will depend on some of the actors in the environment in order to get access at resources they control. In a similar way some other actors will depend on the organization, as they will need to get access to some kind of resources that the enterprise controls.Relevance to the StudyIn the context of Solid waste management, stakeholders get into this interdependence in order to succeed in their role of solid waste management. Therefore, the organizations who are stakeholders within the solid waste management system need to be active and engage each other in terms of working together to achieve efficient solid waste management (Davis, & Adam, 2010).
A fundamental assumption of RDT is that dependence on “critical” and important resources in?uences the actions of organizations and that organizational decisions and actions can be explained depending on the particular dependency situation (Najeeb, 2014). Conceivably, organizations within the waste management system have resource dependences in both products and services. To achieve optimum quality and support achievement of organizational aims in the context of Resource Dependency Theory, they can rely on collaboration or outsourcing related strategies. Undoubtedly, this will help to both focus and improve core competence related capabilities.
Network TheoryNetwork refers to social relation among individuals or among organizations contractual relationships; which include stakeholders, involved in strategic alliances, buyer-supplier contracts, or joint ventures. Informally, it refers to inter-organizational relationships that flow through people: director interlocks, employee mobility, social networks that cross organizational boundaries. Therefore, these networks are important for working together among stakeholders especially those engaged in solid waste management.This approach encloses those models asking managers to focus on the most relevant stakeholders in order to let the organization reach for its own goals (Sciarelli & Tani, 2013).
Fundamentally, the concept acknowledges that the organization can be subject to conflicting requests by the various stakeholders and they try to give managers various tools to identify the most relevant ones and to select the most appropriate strategies in dealing with each of them. The identification problem is faced while providing some common criteria to identify the most important actors for a given organization. The network theory envisions that after the identification of the relevant stakeholders, their relationship with the organization is evaluated to define the most appropriate strategy to adopt in order to answer each specific request (Sciarelli & Tani, 2013). Nonetheless how networks and their structure should be used in stakeholder management is still under debate.
Relevance to the StudyEnvironmental issues directly related to ineffective Solid Waste Management (SWM) have drawn the attention of researchers who seek to evaluate the operation of such systems on a global scale (Barton, 2012). Notably, actions aimed at improving SWM practices, specifically those of developing countries, are negatively affected by resource scarcity, socio-economic inequality, and excessive urbanization; among other cultural, social, political, and economic aspects (Marshall & Farahbakhsh, 2013). Therefore, it is imperative to employ network approach to overcome obstacles for achieving a more sustainable SWM paradigm. Network theory therefore offers great viable strategy for understanding how organizations can network to achieve sustainable solid waste management.
The more frequent the interactions between the stakeholders become the easier it is for the various stakeholder to share behavioral expectations so their goals tend to align and create a stronger pressure on the organization. The tighter the organizations are linked the more they are able to control information and resource flows becoming more influential in the network. Therefore, Managers should focus on the network defined by the organizational stakeholders and the relative web of relationships to fully grasp the way stakeholders’ interactions can impact on the organization.Institutional TheoryThe study of institutions traverses the academic fields of economics, sociology, political science, and organizational theory (Najeeb, 2014). An underlying assumption in the study of institutions is that organizations are deeply embedded in the wider institutional context. According to Kessler (2013), Institutional theory is an approach to understanding organizations and management practices as the product of social rather than economic pressures.
It has become a popular perspective within management theory because of its ability to explain organizational behaviors that defy economic rationality. It has been used, for example, to explain why some managerial innovations become adopted by organizations or diffuse across organizations in spite of their inability to improve organizational efficiency or effectiveness (Najeeb, 2014). Notably, the theoretical explanation is based on the key idea that the adoption and retention of many organizational practices are often more dependent on social pressures for conformity and legitimacy than on technical pressures for economic performance (Kaufman, 2011). Therefore, institutional theory of organizations puts institutions at the core of the analysis of organizations’ design and conduct.
From this point of view, organizations are local instantiations of wider institutions. Relevance to the StudyUnderstandably, complying with institutionalized prescriptions is considered a means for gaining legitimacy, decreases uncertainty, and increases intelligibility of organization’s actions and activities (Berthod, Grothe-Hammer ;Sydow, 2017). Normally organizations do not operate in a vacuum. According to Berthod, Grothe-Hammer ; Sydow (2017) organizations must deal with a multitude of external in?uences, such as cultural differences, legal requirements, conventions, and norms, and with the demands raised by a diversity of actors, e.
g., suppliers, customers, regulatory agencies, NGOs, or trade unions. Therefore, the resulting beliefs, rules, and persisting expectations explain choices in formal structures and organizational practices. Institutions, broadly speaking, are those beliefs, rules, roles, and symbolic elements capable of affecting organizational forms independent of resource ?ows and technical requirements (Kessler, 2013). Such beliefs, rules, roles, and symbolic elements can be of different natures such as regulative, cognitive or normative.
For instance, an NGO will receive more funds from charities if its headquarters are in the right building or city and appear powerful. Similar, a government body will get more support if it is considered transparent and accountable in its operations. In the case of Solid waste management, developing adequate institutional capacity is necessary for the efficiency in operations and stakeholder’s collaboration.
Empirical review of literatureThe success of any solid waste management plan relies upon the cooperation of several different stakeholder groups. Certainly, the expected roles and responsibilities of these groups must be clearly outlined so that they are made aware of the expectations placed upon them, and to allow for an element of accountability. According to Davidson (2011), sustainable solid waste management differs from various municipals due to the wide range of services being offered by the firms, and the unique waste streams they have to deal with. Therefore, a wide range of stakeholders will invariably be involved with Solid waste management (Okot-Okumu, & Nyenje, 2011)). Additionally, stakeholders need to be identified and taken into consideration, while some roles may need to be created to implement and oversee a proper solid waste management.
The effect of Local Authority in Successful Solid Waste ManagementIn urban areas, especially in the rapid urbanizing cities of the developing world, problems and issues of SWM in low income settlements are of immediate importance (Schlueter, 2017)). Therefore, the Local authorities have to carry out their mandate to contribute to successful solid waste management. Traditionally, Solid waste management encompasses generation, collection, transportation, and disposal of urban waste.
Urban authorities have the responsibility to ensure safe, reliable and cost-effective removal, and disposal of solid waste, which takes up a large proportion of available resources which are not adequate to cope with the magnitude of the problem. In Kenya, the local authorities are under the supervision of the County governments which by extension provide county specific laws, rules, and guidelines for the management of the solid waste.Specifically, the county local authorities according to the NWMS (2015) have the role of waste collection, transportation, disposal, and issuance of relevant license to actors within the waste management system.
Under waste collection, the Local authority has the responsibility to ensure that the waste collection areas are zoned as well as timely and regular collection of all solid wastes either through door to door collection or from centralized collection points. Additionally, it ensures waste collection facilities such as skips; bulk containers and waste cubicles are regularly emptied and do not become nuisance (NEMA, 2015). Under Waste transportation the local authorities have responsibility of ensuring all the collected waste is transported using NEMA licensed vehicles to designated disposal sites; while on waste disposal, it is the role of the local authority to ensure that there is a designated and approved disposal site for solid waste disposal. Additionally, the local; authority ensure the disposal site is secured with a fence and a gate manned by a county government official to control dumping and spread of waste outside the disposal site. Moreover, it is the duty of the local authority to ensure that all incoming waste is weighed or estimated and the quantities recorded in tons. Furthermore, it is the responsibility to develop and maintain motorable roads inside the site to ensure ease of access during disposal as well as ensuring that the waste is spread, covered, and compacted at regular intervals. According to the NWMS (2015), the local authority ensures there is appropriate control measures for the management of dumpsite fires and enhance security as well as control of the disposal sites so that illegal activities are contained.
With regards to the Requirement for licensing, the Local authority has the duty to ensure waste transportation vehicles have NEMA licenses and acquire licenses to operate waste disposal sites. Therefore, it the County Governments and their relevant local authorities in Kenya are have the general mandates of ensuring continuous improvement of collection methods, transportation and disposal facilities. Understandably, careful administration of these responsibilities is expected to realize Effective waste management systems will deliver a clean and healthy environment for all as granted by the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.However, most towns and cities have inefficient waste collection and disposal systems. Nairobi for instance has poor waste collection of about 30-40% of waste generated not being collected and with a 50% deficit of the population served. On the other hand, Nakuru only collects 45% of the waste generated is collected of this, only 18% is recovered while the rest accumulate in the environment (NEMA, 2015).
On the other hand, waste transportation is largely rudimentary using open trucks, hand carts, donkey carts among others. These poor transportation modes have led to littering, making waste an eye-sore, particularly plastics in the environment. Similarly, waste disposal in major towns in Kenya including Machakos County, remains a major challenge since the local authorities are grappling with management issues.
Particularly, there is poor management and exhibited through lack of stakeholders’ collaboration.The effect of Landlords’ involvement in successful Solid Waste ManagementThe landlords have the responsibility over the commercial wastes produced within their premises. Under the duty of care, properties that are let, residentially or commercially are considered a business and therefore any waste produced as a result of this business activity is classed as commercial waste. In order for waste to be safely stored and disposed of from rented properties, it is clear that Landlords/Letting Agents need to work with their tenants to make sure that everyone’s obligations are fulfilled.
Particularly, Waste created as part of building improvements, repairs or alterations to rental properties falls under the responsibility of the Landlord/Letting Agent. This includes any fixtures and fittings that are supplied under the terms of the lease which later become waste, such as faulty white goods, damaged carpets/curtains/furniture. Furthermore, where a Tenant vacates a property and leaves waste that they have generated during their tenancy but failed to dispose of, this waste also becomes the responsibility of the Landlord. In Kenya, the Landlords are expected to include solid waste collection measures during construction and operation of their premises. Therefore, the landlords help the local authority in the collection of the solid waste at the householder level for collection, transport, and disposal either by the local authority or their private waste disposal agents.Additionally, the landlords have the responsibility of setting up adequate waste storage point within their premises, to prevent littering around the area either by wind or tenants. According to Okot-Okumu, ; Nyenje (2011), the main function of storage facilities is to keep the solid waste generated in a relatively hygienic condition until the arrival of collection services.
Besides, a good storage facility would prevent attraction of pests and disease vectors like mosquitoes and rats, as well as keep the leachate produced from the rotting of organic waste contained. The type of storage facility used would depend upon the volume of solid waste generated and the frequency of collection services. In most cases, the landlords construct a small room outside the gate of the residence that serve as solid waste storage as well as collection points. In the slum areas where the local authority provides collection points and facilities, it is the responsibility of the landlords to ensure that their tenant dispose their waste at the designated waste storage sites such as large bins or the open temporary collection point. Notably, the storage areas provided by the landlords help in containing the waste and minimizing the contact between the waste and the surrounding.
At the same time, the process of removing the waste becomes more efficient and less likely to flick up pollutants and dust into the air, causing environmental pollution.However, the landlords are yet to maximum fulfill their role in solid waste management due to poor compliance and implementation of waste management regulation. Particularly, the department the public health under the county with the mandate of enforcing these requirements, are understaffed There is no clear communication that would lead to a sense of responsibility among the landlords and the tents, and indication of poor management within the local authority and departments which are supposed to engage the landlord.
In most cases for instance, the Landlords fail to provide the solid waste storage points, while the tenants fail to dispose wastes to these points even in cases where it is provided. Eventually, this leads to littering of the neighborhood exacerbating the solid waste management menace.The effect of NGOs’ Engagement in Successful Solid Waste ManagementThe Non-Governmental Organizations provide critical role within the solid waste management system. The term NGOS may refer to such diverse organizations as churches, universities, labor organizations, environmental organizations and lobbies. Indeed, even donor organizations can sometimes fall under this heading.
According to Mwaura (2015), Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are intermediate organizations which are not directly and continuously involved in community projects. Particularly, NGOs not only advocate, they can also be involved in awareness-raising, advocacy, and decision-making. NGOs can act as intermediaries between grassroots initiatives (CBOs) and the local authorities or serve the ideological, political, or altruistic interests of international organizations. They can advocate interests on a larger scale than the single community and provide support and advice to CBOs, but also to marginal groups in the society, such as waste pickers at dump sites and street children. Donors as NGOs, provide donor funds that can support the local authorities in acquiring equipment for efficient solid waste management. Tan, (2012) notes that World vision for instance is an NGO working with community-based organizations in waste management in Mombasa.
Particularly, the NGO Keeps records and have the database of solid waste management actors within the county.NGOs are essential actors within the solid waste management system due to their operative nature within the public. Therefore, they find it easy to create awareness among the public and their participation along with CBOs is essential and integral part for efficient solid waste management (Ch. Raghumani Singh & Mithra Dey, 2015). Under the National Solid Waste Management Strategy (2015), the NGOs and the civil society organizations are classified together with similar roles of promoting or undertaking income generating ventures in waste management initiatives. Besides, they represent the public’s interest in the solid waste management agenda, nationwide and in support in identification of illegal waste related activities. Besides, the policy provides that the NGOs and the Civil Society organizations have the duty of advocate for change in the public’s knowledge, attitude and practice towards sustainable waste management (NEMA, 2015).
However, Tukahirwa in a study about the role of NGOs and CBOs in metropolises of East Africa, argues that the NGOs works closely with the CBOs and as such, their roles are somewhat overlapping. Therefore, NGOs have been acknowledged for their significant contributions towards increased access to basic services including sanitation and solid waste (Tukahirwa, 2011). Occasionally, NGO involvement is heavily supported and even co-organized by foreign donors, essentially sidestepping conventional governmental roles and activities in environmental service provision. In all these modes, the NGOs take up new roles and create new balances in public-private arrangements in sanitation and solid waste management (Tukahirwa, 2011).
In most cases, these NGOs develop into company-like structures, where significant amounts of finances are handled and thus threatening their philanthropic tendencies. The ability (flexibility) of NGOs to adjust in case of changes in local (economic, political, natural, demographic) conditions of the area in which they operate is considered an important contributing factor to their attractiveness (Tan, 2012). According to, Rajamanikam et al. (2014), NGOs’ programs within the solid waste management system, enhance the much-needed awareness and education, encourage source separation, door-to-door collection, and utilize wastes as raw materials that can be relied on to generate more job opportunities. However, these organizational are equally faced with the challenges of financial constraints that limit the NGOs operation within the waste management system.
In situations where donors offer funding, Mwaura (2015) notes that they in most cases dictate aspects of the waste management where the funds must be put. In such cases, the NGOs fail to respond to the local communities’ priority area of solid waste management. The resultant effect is that the role of the NGOs in Solid waste management has not been adequately felt by the local community. The effect of National Government’s Engagement in Successful Solid Waste ManagementThe constitution of Kenya 2010 established two levels of government which are distinct but are interrelated and dependent.
Under the waste management for instance, the entire responsibility lies with the County government and its relevant departments such as the town as well as urban authorities. However, the national government still retains the overall policy role in so far as waste management is concerned. For instance, The Kenya National Environment Policy (2013) under waste management provides that the government has the role of developing an integrated NWMS, and promote the use of economic incentives to manage waste. Additionally, the national government has the overall responsibility to establish facilities and incentives for cleaner production, waste recovery, recycling, and re-use.
In 2016 for instance, the government banned the use of polythene bags in Kenya to as a way of reducing solid waste menace in the country. Under the national government still, the National Treasury has the duty of channeling funds to the respective government agencies and institutions for development of waste management initiatives and facilities (NEMA, 2015). The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) is the principle national governments agency on matters environment, including solid waste management. Under the National Solid Waste management strategy (2015), NEMA has the mandate of formulating policies, legislations and economic instruments relevant to achieving sustainable waste management. Besides, NEMA develops and disseminates public information on the regulatory requirements for waste management in Kenya, which include the solid waste management. Indeed, their responsibility has direct bearing on the counties, since they also enhance the capacity of the county governments on waste management systems and approaches applicable in their respective counties.
To ensure that there is adequate public information on solid waste management, the agencies hold public awareness sessions (for example, school workshops, public consultation exhibitions and public events) on waste management initiatives, and support the dissemination of waste management research and development findings to the public. More importantly, it undertakes enforcement activities of the laws developed on solid waste management and surveillance exercises on illegal waste related activities. Notably, urban areas such as Machakos County relies on the policy and directions of the NEMA, as provided through the County governments in solid waste management. Therefore, county government acts as the central governments for the various towns and urban areas under its jurisdictions. Under the National Solid waste Management Strategy, the county governments have the mandate of drawing up action plans for implementation of applicable solid waste management systems within their counties.
Besides, the counties have the role of Sourcing for adequate funding for development of sustainable waste management initiatives in the entire cycle. In view of the various stakeholders within the waste management system, the county is required to Put in place measures for enhanced Public-Private-Partnerships (PPP), benchmark on best practices of appropriate technologies, and undertake periodic clean-up activities within their counties. Notably, the urban and town managers work under the stewardship of the county governments, in this regard therefore, the counties role is to provide equipment for waste segregation and transport systems, zone the waste operational areas, and continuously manage activities/facilities to ensure all the waste is transported to the designated waste disposal sites. Moreover, the County governments ensure wide coverage and no littering of waste through improved collection methods and facilities, and progressively improve the designated official county disposal site towards a sanitary landfill. However, these government agencies are serious constrained in terms of finance, technical and staff capacity.
Therefore, there is no efficient solid waste management within towns such as Machakos County.Summary and Gaps in the literatureThe general strategy of solid waste management in Kenyan towns is almost the same countrywide. Mainly, the approach is characterized by legislation and regulatory framework; establishing institutions with a mandate over urban waste management.
Indeed, the Constitution of Kenya 2010 has devolved solid waste management to the County government; which has subsequently handed the implementation duty to the local urban or town management authority. Conceivably, the legislative and regulatory frameworks have incentives and instruments that are expected to influences individuals’ solid waste management conscious. Additionally, the legislation and regulations have provisions that control, directs, and supervise the roles of other stakeholders within the waste management framework.
Observably, Legislation and the rules are set up for particular purposes and are often difficult to adapt to new circumstances. In particular, the legislative and regulatory context for solid waste management is dispersed, fragmented, and incomplete, and so does not tend to facilitate the formation of cross-sectoral partnerships (White, Dranke, & Hindle, 2012). If such partnerships nevertheless come into being, existing legislation normally provides few tools to enhance their coordination and management.However, this legislation and regulatory framework have generally failed in realizing effective solid waste management. Particularly, there is not the only duplication of roles, but the agencies are riddled with financial constraints as well as general institutional constraints. Given a large number of individual issues and specific problems in various municipal solid waste management systems, it would be imperative to address individual issues as they arise and apply local fixes, to keep collection and disposal services operating continuously as efficiently as possible.
Indeed, in the short term, this is likely to be a good approach. In the long term; however, it is apparent from the scope of problems, and the external factors brought to bear upon municipalities that a broader, more integrated set of solutions will be necessary to adequately address SWM systems in the future.Notably, information about NGOs involvement in urban services’ provision is rare due to limited data on the numbers and types of NGOs; the communities they serve; the kind of sanitation and solid waste activities they are engaged in; and their effectiveness as well as funding mechanisms. Furthermore, limited evidence and little systematic knowledge exist of the actual contribution from NGOs to sanitation and solid waste improvement. Indeed, this observation proves that the contribution of NGOs in the field of Solid waste management has not been well documented. Therefore, there is inadequate understanding of the exact role of these organizations and their actual or potential contribution to the sanitation and solid waste sectors. Conceivably, the growth and diversity of the NGO initiatives require a more in-depth review of their contributions to sanitation and solid waste management.
Similarly, there is little information on the role of Landlords and their contribution to solid waste management. Indeed, this could explain why there is no responsibility on the side of the tenants especially while disposing solid waste. Furthermore, public awareness and attitudes about waste can affect the whole process. An attitude – behavior gap often emerges due to a variety of reasons including convenience, social norms, lack of public participation, lack of education and awareness of effective waste management techniques. Within this attitude gap exists an inconsistency between one’s values and actions. This specifically refers to the discrepancy between people’s concern over the environmental harm posed by household waste and the limited action by those same people to reduce their waste or engage in other pro-environmental behavior. Finally, County government and local authorities are generally responsible for the provision of solid waste collection services and are therefore required, in principle, to enforce bylaws and regulations, and to mobilize their resources required for solid waste management.
However, they hardly do this efficiently in collaboration with various stakeholders due to variation in strategy, duplication of roles, and general capacity constraints. Consequently, this thesis attempts to dissect and understand the work, impact, and sustainability of these stakeholders within the solid waste management framework in satellite town like Mavoko and Machakos towns. Specifically, the thesis aims to go beyond the normal generalization that has been evident from literature, instead choosing a specific town and evaluating the role of these key actors in the townConceptual Model and FrameworkConceptual framework is a scheme of concept (variables) which the researcher uses to show link between his/her variables of study. A variable is a measure characteristic that assumes different values among subject.
Independent variables are variables that a researcher manipulates in order to determine its effect of influence on another variable, states that independent variable also called explanatory variables is the presumed change in the cause of changes in the dependent variable; the dependent variable attempts to indicate the total influence arising from the influence of the independent variable Mugenda ; Mugenda, (2003).Fig: 2.1: Conceptual Model and FrameworkIndependent VariablesDependent Variables -58293043180Local Authority Reliable Collection Safe disposalCost effective transportLicensingEnforcement 00Local Authority Reliable Collection Safe disposalCost effective transportLicensingEnforcement 80382935808600-1219203625851737360114935Solid Waste Management OutcomesIntegrated Sustainable solid waste management Institutional efficiency/capacityAccountabilityReliabilityCollaborationCommunication00Solid Waste Management OutcomesIntegrated Sustainable solid waste management Institutional efficiency/capacityAccountabilityReliabilityCollaborationCommunication-2628265187960Landlords Setting up temporary storage pointMaintaining hygieneCreating awareness among tenants00Landlords Setting up temporary storage pointMaintaining hygieneCreating awareness among tenants802005340995-121920100965-123825325120-581025125730NGOs AdvocacyAwarenessTrainingLinkageFunding 00NGOs AdvocacyAwarenessTrainingLinkageFunding -2624455245745National GovernmentPolicy and regulationOversightEnforcementFunding 00National GovernmentPolicy and regulationOversightEnforcementFunding -114300369570Source: Author 2018Operationalization of variablesTable 2.
1: operationalization of variablesIndependent variable Indicators MeasurementLocal government Reliable Collection Safe disposalCost effective transportAll private actors licensed Compliance with lawsDesignated land for dumping solid wasteEnforcement of solid waste collection at household levelInteragency Collaboration 5-point Likert scale The median of the responses was used to demonstrate the level of engagement Landlords Availability of storage pointHygiene neighborhoodResponsibility among tenantsLimited quantity of waste disposedWaste segregation 5-point Likert scale The median of the responses was used to illustrate the level of engagement NGOs Accountability TransparencyResource allocationAwarenessReliable linkage 5-point Likert scaleThe median of the responses was used to indicate level of engagement National government Adequate Policy and regulation on solid waste managementAdequate EnforcementSufficient Funding Security Clean and healthy environmentInteragency collaboration 5-point Likert scale The median of the responses was used to show level of engagementDependent variable Integrated sustainable Solid waste management Transparency among institutions Accountability among institutionsEfficiency among relevant institutionsDesired strategy among institutions s individuals (Reduction, reuse, and recycling, of solid waste) 5-point Likert scaleThe median of the responses was used to show the level of engagement.Integrated Sustainable Solid Waste Management.A sustainable integrated approach to waste management will have to consider community and area-specific issues and come up with an appropriate set of solutions unique to each context.
According to UNEP (1996), these are sound practices that function together to achieve defined solid waste policy goals, while appropriately responding to the entire set of conditions that constrains the choices available in specific management levels. For Integrated Sustainable Waste Management (ISWM), there is the need for the system to be inclusive, represent the full spectrum of recognized as well as unrecognized stakeholders and be financially sustainable. Notably, solid waste management consists of a variety of activities, including reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting. Furthermore, it rests on the base of sound institutions and pro-active policies as well as a strong and transparent institutional framework is essential to strategic management of solid waste. The waste management hierarchy serves as an entry strategy for waste reduction practices. It is prioritizing waste management guide to achieve the best overall environmental outcome.
The general priority of the waste hierarchy is prevention, reduction, reuse, and recycling. Therefore, the implementation strategy will ensure institutions networking with other stakeholders to share roles and resources for effective management. Conceivably, Participatory waste management as an approach guarantees more durable decision-making and contributes to the construction of more sustainable communities. For example, participatory resource management involving the informal recycling sector as stakeholders is effective in tackling crucial challenges in waste management. Conceivably, the strategies will lead to better management within public institutions.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGYIntroductionThis chapter presents the research design, target population, sample size, sampling procedure and data collection methods used in investigating the study problem. It also discusses the techniques that were used to analyze the data collected from the field.Research DesignThis study adopted a survey design where samples was be selected randomly in the population under study.
According to Bryman, and Bell (2015) research design collects data from members of a population and describes existing phenomena by asking individuals about their perceptions, attitudes, behavior, or value. It is economical, the data obtained is standardized, and easy to compare. Generally, it employed quantitative research methods. Particularly, quantitative method is prioritized since it is precise. Mugenda ; Mugenda, (2003) affirms that quantitative method is a vital attribute for decision making while selecting a research method. Specifically, it can be faster compared to qualitative methods for it is possible to Since Dissertation projects are limited in time, quantitative method is therefore appropriate for this project.Population of the StudyA population is the total collection of elements with common observable attributes about which some inference can be drawn.
A large set of observation is referred to as a population, while a smaller is called a sample. The target population for this study was drawn from the eight sub-counties of Machakos; with specific focus on the department. The sub-counties include: Mavoko, Machakos, Mwala, Kathiani, Matungulu, Kangundo, Yatta, and Masinga.
The main areas for consideration during the study were the markets, relevant departments within the County. Additionally, about two local companies involved in Manufacturing, were in included in the study. Others were the administration of various solid waste management institutions, such as local authorities, NGOs/ Civil Societies, and representative of the National government such as the county commissioners and NEMA office.
Furthermore, the landlords of two estates within Machakos County; and one estate within Machakos Sub-county was part of the study. There are four Stakeholders engaged in solid waste management within Machakos County. Among these stakeholders, the target populations are the staff and landlords. The national government and local authority have 2 and 3 departments respectively within these departments, the target respondents are 50 employees from the departments including (Housing, Environment, Public health, Lands, National Environment Management Authority, and the Sub-County Administration). Besides, there are about 3 NGOs operating within Machakos County each having at least five staff. Of the three estates within the selected Sub-Counties, the study focused on ten households per estate (CIDP, 2013).
Therefore, the target population in the study is 105 persons.Sampling Size and Sampling TechniqueThere are two types of sampling that were employed in the study; probability and non-probability sampling techniques. According to Bryman and Bell (2015), probability sample presents nonzero equal chance for each population element to be selected; and they included; simple random, systematic, stratified, purposive, and cluster sampling techniques. On the other hand, non-probability sampling includes convenience as well as snowball sampling techniques. The study adopted convenience and snowball sampling technique to reach out to the NGOs. Besides, convenience sampling was used to access landlords or their agents for the purpose of data collection.
Purposive random sampling on the other hand was used to reach out to institutions and departments that were involved in the study.Table 3.1: Sample PopulationNo Stakeholders No. Of departments/estate Target Population Sample Population1 National Government 2 20 92 Local authority 3 30 233 NGOs 3 15 64 Landlord 3 30 15Total 10 105 53Instrumentation and Data CollectionThe data for the study was collected through structured self-administered questionnaire among the officers working within the identified departments, NGOs’ managers, and Landlords or their representatives. Indeed, all variables were operationalized using the literature on the role of each stakeholder within the solid waste management and to what extent this is done. The first part of the questionnaire included questions about the respondent’s personal information such as their name, age and designation.
Additionally, it entailed the duration in the position and the role with the waste management. The second part consisted of questions measuring all the variables on the solid waste management. The respondents are expected to rate these questions based on a Likert scale only indicating whether they agree, strongly agree, disagree, or strongly disagree on each variable. The questions were mostly closed ended to facilitate fast decision making and acquire specific information. Open ended question were also used to get in-depth clarification of the data sought, or help the respondents put their own opinion.
The questionnaires as instrument of data collection are preferred because they are easy to use, and cost effective. The data was collected among the staffs of the five departments within Machakos County Government and three NGOs; staff and landlords within a total of twelve housing units in two main estates within the town. Procedurally, an introductory was obtained from the University and a permit from the local authority such as the local chief to make the study transparent and valid. Thereafter, there was a pre-visit to the respondents; especially the departments for the purpose of introducing the intention to carry out the study and familiarize with the environment of the study. During this period, respondents were approached and those ready to respond to the questions in the study instrument were given a go ahead, while those willing to remain with the questionnaires for later collection were also be given some. During the second visit; which was the official day of administering questionnaires to individuals, the researcher was directly involved in guiding the respondents appropriate.
Reliability and Validity Reliability analysis based on Cronbach alpha was computed to determine the internal inconsistency of the variables under study. The questionnaires were pre-tested within the faculty and sent to academics who are experts in the field of management research; including the supervisor for purposes of establishing their reliability and validity. Indeed, this helped in preventing any vagueness and misunderstanding with minor adjustments to wording and sequence of the questions (Bryman, and Bell 2015).
Additionally, the pilot test was conducted in the department of environment Machakos County, to establish the questions’ wording, and formatting as well as their adequacy.Data Analysis and PresentationThe questionnaires and field notes were edited to validate the data and make them tidy as well as complete. Data processing and analysis will begin as soon as the execution of each step of the study is complete.
Both descriptive and quantitative techniques will be utilized in the processing, analysis and presentation of data. This is because descriptive methods tend to be strong in validity but weak in reliability while quantitative techniques tend to be strong in reliability but weak in validity. Data collected from the field was coded and entered into the computer for analysis using the Microsoft Excel package. Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistical tools such as frequencies, percentages and means (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003). Besides, Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used in data analysis, where descriptive statistics and regression analysis was conducted, analyzed and tabulated. The quantitative data was presented in terms of chats and descriptive essay. Ethical ConsiderationsBefore the study, a request letter was sent to the institutions requesting for the permission to carry out the study.
Particularly, the letter gave an undertaking that the data sought was solely be used for the study. Additionally, the revised questionnaires were administered to the respondents with a cover letter explaining the academic purpose of the study and assurance that no third party was to get access to their data.Diagnostic TestThe paper applied logistic regression in analyzing the correlation between the variables.
According to Gogtay, Deshpande, & Thatte (2017), logistic regression analysis is generally used when the dependent variable is binary in nature. The predictor variables can be quantitative or qualitative in nature; for instance, true/false, yes/no, agree/disagree etc. Unlike linear regression, logistic regression does not require a linear relationship between independent and dependent variables. In this study, the independent variables are not internally related and there is adequate sample size; thereby qualifying logistic analysis for its correlation. The study regression model that was adopted is presented here below:Y = ?0 + ?1X1+ ?2X2+ ?3X3+?4X4+ ?Where:Y = Level of Success in Solid waste management?0 = Constant (The intercept of the model)?1X1= Local Authority?2X2= Landlords?3X3= Non-Governmental organizations?4X4= Central government?= error termCHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATIONIntroduction This chapter presents the results and interpretations of the study guided by the research objectives. Data analysis was done using statistical, descriptive statistical, and regression analysis. Descriptive analysis was used to address the profile of stakeholders’ involvement in solid waste management and regression analysis was used to establish the effect of the research objectives on the involvement of stakeholders involvement for successful solid waste management in Machakos county.
Lastly ANOVA test was used to compare the relationship of the objectives (independent variables) to ISWM (dependent variable).Response rateOut of 53 questionnaires administered, 38 were filled and returned which was 71.6%.
The 28.4% different in return rate was due to the fact that, questionnaires on NGO’s were not filled as during the study it was found out that they have e either became inactive or relocated to other counties like Nairobi. Therefore, no responses on NGOs were filled.Social demographic characteristics of the respondentsThis refers to a group defined by its sociological and demographic characteristics. Demographic characteristics refer to age, sex, working experience and education level.
Sociological characteristics are objective traits that help in evaluation the strength of the response given on particular issue under consideration under the substantive objectives. Gender The study sought to determine the gender distribution among the participating respondents in NEMA, Machakos County SWM department, department Public Health and Sanitation and the representatives of the housing units in the three stated estates. The participants were requested to indicate their gender and the obtained.
The results are as shown in the table below: Table 4.1: Gender distributionFrequency PercentMale 22 57.9Female 16 42.1Total 38 100.0From the table, it is evident that most of the respondents are male at 57.
9% while the Female are very close at 42.1%. This is an indication that there are more Male involved in solid waste management than females. Nonetheless, there are more females at the solid waste department, which is responsible for the close gender gap. Age Study sought to determine the age of the respondents from the housing units, departments of Public health, Environment-solid waste, National Environment Management Authority all working within Machakos County.
The estates that were considered in the study are Syokimau, Athi River, and Mlolongo and Machakos Township. Also Athiriver and Machakos markets were considered in the study. Particularly, this was to help in the determination of the age distribution for respondents. The Response is shown in the table below. Results showed that most respondents were in age brackets of 26-35 years 56.
6%, followed by those at 36-45 years at 28.9%. From the statistics it is evident that most of the participating respondents were aged 26-45 years. This meant that majority of respondents were of mature age and understood the role of stakeholders’ in successful solid waste management, in Machakos county.Table 4.
2: Age group distributionFrequency Percentbelow 25 years 1 2.626-35 years 20 52.636-45 years 11 28.
946-55 years 5 13.2above 55 years 1 2.6Total 38 100.0Education The study evaluated the formal education levels of the participants. This was to determine whether education levels of respondents had an influence the role of stakeholders’ in successful solid waste management, in Machakos County.
Participants were requested to indicate their level of education and the results were shown in table below. The level of education was also tested in the questionnaire. As shown by the table below, the secondary level was dominant with 31.
6%, followwd bt degree with 26.3% and a tie of diploma and masters level with 13.2 %. The outcome means that the respondents have knowledge of questions and know how to fill the questionnaire giving effective answers.Table 4.3: Educational levelFrequency PercentPrimary 3 7.
9Secondary 12 31.6Certificate 2 5.3Diploma 5 13.2Degree 10 26.
3Masters 5 13.2Others 1 2.6Total 38 100.0Duration in the department/estateThe study sought to find out the duration that the officers have taken in the department, or the housing unit representatives have been at there.
For the officers, this helped in determining their level of experience, while for the housing unit representatives; it helped to determine the strength of information given. The results are shown in the table below. From the results, it is evident that 39.5% have been working or stayed in the county for less than five years while 42.1% have been either stayed in the estates or worked in the departments for 5-10 years. Similarly, 13.8% have been working in the department or lived in the estate for 11-20 years and 5.
3% have either worked in the county or managed a resident for more than 20 year. The import of these results is that most of the respondents had enough experience, knowledge, and skills in the role of stakeholders’ in successful solid waste management, in Machakos County. The results also indicate that the competence and skill increases with increase in years of performing the Job.Table 4.4: Duration in the Department/EstateFrequency PercentLess than 5 years 15 39.55-10 years 16 42.
111-20 years 5 13.2Above 20 years 2 5.3Total 38 100.
0Descriptive analysisThis division represents the descriptive analysis of the outcome of local authority engagement, landlords’ involvement and national government engagement. The role of stakeholders involvement was undertaken to determine to which extend it affects the successful solid waste management in a Likert scale. The range was strongly disagree (1), to strongly agree (5). The scores of little involvement had been taken to represent a variable which had a mean of less than 2.5 on the continuous Likert scale.
The scores of moderate involvement have been represented a variable with a mean of 2.5-3.4, while the mean score of 3.5-5 on the continuous Likert scale represents great or very great involvement.
A standard deviation of > 0.9 implies a significant difference on the effect of the variables among respondents.The effect of local authority engagement in successful solid waste management The effect of local authority engagement in successful solid waste management in Machakos County was the first objective of the study. The respondents rated on the Likert scale, and the responses were obtained in table 4.5. The low standard deviation of 1.202 indicates that the variation between the respondents was low. The respondents were further in agreement there is adequate enforcement of solid waste management regulations and laws at household level (mean 2.24), reliable collection of solid waste in the county (mean 2.34), cost effective transportation of solid waste and no designated dumpsite in the county (mean 2.47), licensing of private waste collector (mean 2.58), compliance with regulations and laws of solid waste (mean 2.63) and safe disposal of solid waste (mean 3.39). From the mean of local authority engagement which is 2.58, it is clear that local authority has not been fully engaged in solid waste management.Table 4.5: Local authority’s engagementN Mean Std. DeviationThere is adequate enforcement of solid waste management regulations and laws at household level 38 2.24 1.261There is reliable collection of solid waste in Machakos County 38 2.34 1.400The transportation of solid waste within Machakos County is cost effective 38 2.47 1.202There is no designated land meant for dumping solid waste within Machakos County 38 2.47 1.720All private actors in solid waste management are licensed 38 2.58 1.244There is no compliance with solid waste management laws and regulations within machakos county 38 2.63 1.496There is safe disposal of Solid waste within Machakos County 38 3.39 1.534The effect of landlords’ involvement in successful solid waste management in Machakos CountyThe effect of landlords’ involvement in successful solid waste management in Machakos County was the second objective of the study. The low standard deviation of 1.353 indicates that the variation between the respondents was low. The respondents were further in agreement that the tenants engage in segregation of solid waste before disposal (mean 2.76), adequate engagement of landlords by the relevant county departments (mean 2.76), waste is disposed at the designated site (mean 2.84), safe and accessible storage/collection point (mean 2.89), neighborhood is littered with waste (mean 3.00) and quality of waste collected from the designated collection point is limited (mean 3.18). From the mean of landlords’ involvement which is 2.92, it is clear that landlords are not fully engaged in solid waste management.Table 4.6: Landlords’ involvementN Mean Std. DeviationThe tenants engage in waste segregation before disposal 38 2.76 1.497There is adequate engagement of Landlords by the Departments of housing, environment, public health 38 2.79 1.417Disposal of waste at designated collection point 38 2.84 1.516There a safe and accessible waste storage point/collection site within the resident 38 2.89 1.705The neighborhood is littered with solid waste 38 3.00 1.507The waste collected from the designated storage point is very limited in quantity 38 3.18 1.353The effect of NGOs’ engagement in successful solid waste management in Machakos CountyThe effect of NGOs engagement in successful solid waste management in Machakos County was the third objective of the study. During the study no data was collected from the NGOs. I t was found out that they have e either became inactive or relocated to other counties like Nairobi. The effect of national government engagement in successful solid waste management in Machakos CountyThe effect of National Government engagement in successful solid waste management in Machakos County was the fourth objective of the study. The low standard deviation of 1.297 indicates that the variation between the respondents was low. The respondents were further in agreement that, there is accountability in SWM (mean 3.37), there is adequate awareness and information about SWM (mean 3.42), there is reliable linkage and engagement of stakeholders in SWM (mean 3.32), there is policy by national government supporting effective SWM (mean 2.87), there is adequate regulations by the national government agencies supporting SWM (mean 3.11), there is adequate security at the designated dumpsite and clean and healthy environment free from Solid waste nuisance and hazards (mean 3.68), National government is adequately engaged by the local authority in SWM (mean 3.79) and There is inadequate financial allocation for SWM (mean 3.05). From the mean of national government engagement which is 3.4, it is clear that national government is highly involved in SWM.Table 4.7 National GovernmentN Mean Std. DeviationThere is accountability within the Solid waste Management in Machakos County 38 3.37 1.441There is adequate awareness and information about solid waste management within Machakos county 38 3.42 1.328There is reliable linkage and engagement of stakeholders within the solid waste management within Machakos-County. 38 3.32 1.338There is adequate policy by the National government to support effective solid waste management 38 2.87 1.436There are adequate regulations by National Government agency like NEMA to support Solid Waste Management 38 3.11 1.521There is inadequate enforcement of the regulations and laws on solid waste management 38 3.24 1.384There is adequate security within areas designated for solid waste sites. 38 3.68 1.297There is a clean and healthy environment free from Solid waste nuisance and hazards 38 3.68 1.416The National government is adequately engaged by the local authority in solid waste management 38 3.79 1.298There is inadequate financial allocation for Solid Waste Management 38 3.05 1.335Inferential statisticsCorrelation results were generated using inferential analysis, model of fitness and analysis of regression coefficient and variance.4.1. Correlation analysisThe relationship between the dependent and independent variables were examined using correlation analysis using Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and p-value analysis. A correlation was perceived significant when the probability value was less than 0.05 (p-value < 0.05). Correlation values close to zero meant weak relationship and values close to one a strong relationship.From the table below, the results of correlation analysis revealed that engagement of local authority and ISWM are positively and insignificantly related (r=0.102, p=0.542). It also indicates that the involvement of landlords and ISWM are positively but significantly related (r=0.346, p=0.033). Lastly it indicates that national government engagement and ISWM are positively and significantly related (r=0.549, p= 0.000). This implies that increase in any unit of the variables leads to ISWM.Table 4.8: Correlation matrixISWM Local authority engagement Landlords involvement National government engagementISWM Pearson Correlation 1 .102 .346* .549**Sig. (2-tailed) .542 .033 .000N 38 38 38 38Local authority engagement Pearson Correlation .102 1 .216 .343*Sig. (2-tailed) .542 .193 .035N 38 38 38 38Landlords involvement Pearson Correlation .346* .216 1 .383*Sig. (2-tailed) .033 .193 .018N 38 38 38 38National government engagement Pearson Correlation .549** .343* .383* 1Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .035 .018 N 38 38 38 384.5.2. Regression analysisThe results in table 4.9 represent the summary model used in regression explaining the study phenomena. Coefficient of determination explains the extent to which changes in the dependent variable can be explained by the change in independent. The three independent variables studied (local authority engagement, landlords’ involvement, and national government engagement); explain only 33.5% of ISWM in Machakos County. Meaning other factors that are not studied contribute to 66.5% of ISWM.Table 4.9: Model SummaryModel R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate1 .578a .335 .276 1.24795 Analysis of varianceThe p-value in statistics significance test indicates the relation of independent variables to the dependent variables. If the significance number is less than the critical value (p) which is 0.05, then it will be concluded that the model is significant in explaining the relationship. Table 4.9 provides results do analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results indicate that the model was statistically significant and that the independent variables are good predictors of ISWM as supported by F statistics of 5.697 and p value (0.003) which is less than 0.05 significance level.Table 4.10: ANOVAaModel Sum of Squares dfMean Square F Sig.1 Regression 26.615 3 8.872 5.697 .003bResidual 52.951 34 1.557 Total 79.566 37 Dependent Variable: ISWMb. Predictors: (Constant), national government engagement, local authority involvement, landlords’ involvement Regression CoefficientRegression of coefficients results in table 4.11 below indicates that, in regards to local authority engagement, B= -2.10 and p-value= 0.450. Since p is greater than 0.05 there is level of insignificant. Therefore it can be concluded that local authority engagement relationship is negative and insignificant and cannot be used as predictor of ISWMLandlords’ involvement was tested and from the results B= 0.313, p= 0.272. Since p is greater than 0.05 there is level of insignificance. Therefore it can be concluded that the relationship between landlords’ involvement and ISWM is positive but insignificant.Lastly in National government engagement, the results it indicates that has B=1.339 p=002. Since p is less than 0.05 there is level of significance. This implies that the relationship between National governments’ engagement is positive and significant and therefore it can be used as predictor o ISWM.Table 4.11: multiple regression modelModel Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) -1.893 1.281 -1.477 .149Local authority involvement -.210 .274 -.114 -.764 .450Landlords engagement .313 .281 .170 1.116 .272National government engagement 1.339 .405 .523 3.308 .002a. Dependent Variable: ISWMFrom the data the established regression equation wasY= -1.893+ -0.210×1 + 0.313×2+1.339×3 + ?Where:Y = Level of Success in Solid waste managementX1= Local Authority engagementX2= Landlords’ involvement?3X3= Central government?= error termThe model show that national government engagement has a positive coefficient which implied it was directly proportional to ISWM. This means that an increase in a unit in landlord involvement and national government will increase ISWM with 0.313 and 1.339 units respectively. Similarly and a change in local authority engagement unit will result to a decrease in ISWM by 0.210 and with all independent variables held constant there will be a decrease I ISWM by 1.893 units.In conclusion the inferential statistics implied that ISWM was explained by the independent variables; local authority engagement, landlords’ involvement and National government engagement.CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 5.1. IntroductionThis chapter presents the summary of the findings, discussions, conclusion, and recommendation. It also suggests areas for further study.Summary of the findingsThe study had the following objectives; to establish the effect of local authority engagement in successful solid waste management in Machakos County, and; to find out the effect of landlords’ involvement in successful solid waste management in Machakos County. Others are to determine the effect of NGOs’ engagement in successful solid waste management in Machakos County and to find out the effect of national government engagement in successful solid waste management in Machakos County. Most of the respondents were in the age bracket of 26-59 years, indicating that majority of them are mature and with considerable experience to understand the effects of successful engagement among the waste management stakeholders within Machakos County Indeed, this is the age group pf most employees, both in the offices and the field areas where solid waste collection is done. Additionally, most mangers of the residential units fall within this age bracket.In terms of gender, it is evident from were females eve the there is no significant variation from that of the male. Nonetheless, the results indicate that the county has more female employees in the departments charged with the ma management of solid waste. Within the offices, most of the staffs are either graduate with Bachelor’s degree or diploma. Indeed, it in the environment department where most of the workers have secondary as their highest level of education. It is imperative to note that those at the management level are holders of higher education some having Maters Degree and it is therefore expected that they should have good managerial skills that result in effective engagement with other stakeholders in solid waste management. Although respondents have experience of less than five year, a good number as indicated by the data have been here for 10-20 years thereby giving them more capacity to initiate and have knowledge about successful stakeholders engagement in solid waste management. Observably, education level and experience played a key role in understanding the need for successful engagement among stakeholders. Indeed, those with bachelor’s degree and have worked in a department for more than five years, had better understanding of the roles each stake holder is supposed to play, and objectively rated the performance. For instance, they were able to understand the prospects of integrated sustainable solid waste management, in terms of its efficiency, reliability and effectiveness in achieving successful stakeholders’ engagement in solid waste management.Operationalization factors Various functional factors which include the roles of various stakeholders and how they exercise them were evaluated among the respondents. Generally, the result of the data points to the fact that there is inadequate stakeholders’ engagement, while some vital stakeholders like the NGOs are not even operational within the county. For instance, the most respondents for the department of the local authority are either not sure or disagree with information that are originally their mandate. Particularly 47.62% are not sure whether there is safe disposal of solid waste within the county. Granted, this can be reflected on the level of education, but on a serious note, it demonstrates lack of information sharing within the relevant departments like that of environment and public health. Indeed, the overall picture is that there is no successful engagement of the local authority in solid waste management within Machakos County. Discussions Under each objective a number of variables essential to successful engagement among stakeholders were tested among the respondent. The outcome of the response is discussed as follows;Local Authority Engagement in Successful Solid Waste Management Observably, there is general inefficiency in the management of the solid waste within Machakos County. Particularly, this is well captured within the response as there is a general disagreement that the collection of solid waste is unreliable and there is no safe disposal of solid waste. One way of gauging the efficiency of the management is the cost effectiveness with which the services are conducted. According to the results most respondents are either not sure or disagree that there is cost effective transportation of solid waste thereby indicating lack of accountability and transparency in the operations of the departments. Indeed, this is a sign of poor management. The situation is made worse by the fact that not all private actors within the waste management system are licensed; hence, they operate outside the law demonstrating lack of oversight among the agencies.The public’s compliance with the solid waste management laws is essential for successful operations of the institutions in charge. However, results show the contrary in Machakos County. For instance, there is a general noncompliance with the laws, which has been enabled by poor enforcement of the laws in spite of there being laws to enable this. Indeed, these findings give a wide perspective of lack of successful engagement of the local authority within the solid waste management system I Machakos County.Landlords’ Engagement in Successful Solid Waste Management The landlords are at the main center of successful solid waste management within the county for the reason that the generation occur at the household level/. Therefore, its envisioned that an effective engagement of the landlord with other agencies with responsibility under this sector, will go a long way in improving solid waste management in the county. However, the results of the study indicate a general lack of successful engagement of the landlord in the solid waste management and the landlords equally do not engage their tenants. For instance, there is no safe and accessible waste storage points in most estates that took part in the study. Consequently, this means there is no designated collection point, and indication that the wastes especially in housing units of Mlolongo and Athiriver, disposing their solid wastes haphazardly. Certainly, the respondents confirm this with 60% concurring that their neighborhood is littered with solid wastes and tenants do not dispose waste at the designated points. If there were good engagement of the landlords and tenants as key stakeholders within the solid waste, management, then there would be good management within household level with segregation of waste. However, that is not the case in Machakos County as sixty percent of the respondents disagree that there is any segregation of the waste before disposal. However, it is noted that the waste generate are actually recyclable and do not need to be disposed if there were good utilization of the recyclable waste. Observably, the results clearly demonstrate lack of successful engagement of the landlords by other agencies responsible for solid waste management like the local authority. National Government Engagement in Successful Solid Waste Management The national government agency in the solid waste management is NEMA. Generally, the agency has supervisory role and development of the policies used by stakeholders in the management of solid waste. Under this objective, the results indicate that there are laws to support successful engagement in solid waste management among stakeholders ; nonetheless, they are inadequate. In fact, both policies and laws are inadequate according to the results of the study in spite of the existence of solid waste management strategy. Observably, this is an indication of lack of communication among the stakeholders. Even though there is agreement that there is adequate financial allocation to the sector, the enforcement of these laws are generally inadequate and the environment is not clean of solid waste. Additionally, there is a general good will between the national government and the local authority in terms of collaboration, but this has not been replicated to other Departments within the county government. The overall outcome is that there is unsuccessful solid waste management due to lack of adequate standards for engagement; a pointer that the local national government is failing in its supervisory role.Conclusion and RecommendationsConclusions There is general lack of stakeholders’ successful engagement in solid waste management within Machakos County. Observably, this is due to poor organizational management strategies within the institution concerned. For instance, there is poor or inadequate communication among the stakeholders, in spite of finances being available. Besides, there are no engagement strategies among the institutions due to poor organizational management within the departments. The existing laws and best coordination strategies are not communicated due to absence of NGOs within the County to do advocacy. The landlords on the other hand would want to cut cost in their management while the public have general poor attitude towards solid waste. If not well supervised with successful engagement, then the outcome is poor management of solid waste within the CountyRecommendationsLocal AuthorityShould explore the prospects of Integrated Sustainable solid waste, management which is the approach proposed by the natural resources managers to take the interest of the stakeholders. This approach enables the system to be inclusive, represent the full spectrum of recognized as well as unrecognized stakeholders and be financially sustainable.Employ skilled personnel or train the existing ones on communication and collaboration with stakeholders in solid waste management.Educate the public on the essence of solid waste separation at the source before disposal.Employ solid waste management hierarchy (reduces, reuse, and recycle)Enhance collaboration among the departments relevant in the effective solid waste management within the county. LandlordDesignate solid waste collection point, to make it easy for disposal and facilitate efficient collection of the waste.Ensure that the disposal sites are closed and protected from wind, and pests.Create awareness among the tenants to adopt waste hierarchyNational GovernmentWork with the local authority on strategies to enhance coordination with all stakeholders tasked with solid waste, management.Enhance their supervisory roles over other agencies with the responsibility in solid waste management. Encourage Non -Governmental organizations and community based groups to focus on education, awareness, and advocacy on issues of solid waste management.Educate the public and institutions on various laws and policies dealing with the management net of solid waste.Areas for further studies A study should be conducted to find out why NGOs are not interested in the successful solid waste management within Machakos County.The issues of inadequate solid waste management are not unique to Machakos County. Therefore, a similar study should be conducted in other counties within the Republic of Kenya to ascertain if the same results can be achieved.A study should be carried out to establish why there is a general lack of coordination between employees and departments tasked with solid waste management.REFERENCESAlam, S. M. (2016). Strategic Institutional Capacity in Solid Waste Management: The cases of Dhaka North and South City Corporations in Bangladesh.Alcott, B. (2005).Jevons’ paradox (PDF).Ecological Economics54: 9– 21.Arnold, V. D. K. ; Lardinois, I. (2010). Community and Private (formal and informal) Sector Involvement in Municipal Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries. Waste Consultants, Advisers on Urban Environment and Development, Nieuwehaven 201, 2801 CW Gouda, the Netherlands.Berthod, O., Grothe-Hammer, M., ; Sydow, J. (2017). Network ethnography: A mixed-method approach for the study of practices in inter-organizational settings. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 299-323.Bryman, A ; Bell. (2015). Business Research Methods, Oxford University press.Burnley, S. J. (2007). A review of municipal solid waste composition in the United Kingdom. Waste Management, 27(10), 1274-1285. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.06.018.Carlton, R., ; Thompson, H. (2009). Product stewardship – is there a role for better collaboration? Outlooks on Pest Management, 20(3), 126-127. doi: 10.1564/20jun09.Creswell, J.D. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods. Cooper, R.D., William, E. Business research methods (1994). McGraw Hill.Davidson, G. (2011). Waste management practices: literature review. Dalhousie University, Office of Sustainability, 1-59. Davis, G. F., ; Adam Cobb, J. (2010). Chapter 2 Resource dependence theory: Past and future. In Stanford’s organization theory renaissance, 1970–2000 (pp. 21-42). Emerald Group Publishing Limited Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. UK: Cambridge University Press.Davis, G., & Herat, S. (2008). Electronic waste: The local government perspective in Queensland, Australia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52, 1031-1039. doi:0.1016/j.resconrec.2008.04.001 Dussault, M., Gendron, A., Juneau, N., & Savoie, P. (2008).Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) current status, challenges and perspectives (ISBN 978-2-550-52503-5).Quebec, Canada: Development Durable, Environment.Eccles, R.G. and Krzus, M.P. (2010) One Report: Integrated Reporting for a Sustainable Strategy, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.Freeman, R. E& Philips, R. (2002). Stakeholder Theory: A Libertarian Defense. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(3): 331-349.Gakungu N. K. & Gitau A. N. (2012). Solid waste management in Kenya: a case study of public technical training institutions. Department of Environmental and Biosystems Engineering University of Nairobi, KenyaGautam R., & Herat S. (2000). Environmental issues in Nepal and solving them by using the cleaner production approach. Journal of Cleaner Production; 8:225-232.Gogtay NJ, Deshpande S, Thatte UM. (2017) Measures of Association. J Assoc Phy Ind; in pressGoven, J., & Langer, E. R. (2009). The potential of public engagement in sustainable waste management: Designing the future for bio-solids in New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 921-930. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.02.006 Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of management, 35(6), 1404-1427.Gidarakos, E., Havas. G., & Ntzamilis, P. (2006). Municipal solid waste composition determination supporting the integrated solid waste management system in the island of Crete. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 26(6), and 668–79. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2005.07.018Henry, R. K., Yongsheng, Z., & Jun, D. (2006). Municipal solid waste management challenges in developing countries–Kenyan case study. Waste management, 26(1), 92-100.Joseph K. (2006). Stakeholder participation for sustainable waste management. Habitat International. ; 30(4):863-871. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.09.009Kahhat, R., Kim, J., Xu, M., Allenby, B., Williams, E., & Zhang, P. (2008). Exploring e-waste management systems in the United States. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52, 955-964. doi:0.1016/j.resconrec.2008.03.002 Kaseve, M.E., & Mbulingwe, S. E, (2005). Appraisal of solid waste collection following private sector involvement in Dar el Salaam City Tanzania. Habitat international. 29, 353-366.Kaufman, BE (2011). Comparative Employment Relations: Institutional and Neo-institutional Theories’, in M Barry ;A Wilkinson (eds.), Research Handbook of Comparative Employment Relations, Edward Elgar Publishing.Kessler, E. H. (Ed.). (2013). Encyclopedia of management theory. Sage Publications.King III. (2010) King Committee on Governance Principles for South Africa. Issued by The Institute of Directors in Southern Africa. Juta: Cape Town.Machakos County Integrated Development Plan, 2015Malenya K. M. (2015). The effective solid waste management in Kakamega County. Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture ; Technology (JKUAT), KenyaMarshall, R.E ; Farahbakhsh, K. (2013). Systems approaches to integrated solid waste management in developing countries. Waste Management.33, 988– 1003.doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2012.12.023.Marinela, B. (2009). The Concept of Waste Management. Analele Universit??ii din Oradea, Fascicula: Protec?ia Mediului, 14, 669-673.Méndez-Fajardo, S., ; Gonzalez, R. A. (2014). Actor-Network Theory on Waste Management: a university case study. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation (IJANTTI), 6(4), 13-25.MfE. (2010b). Waste disposal levy. Retrieved from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/waste/progress-and-outcomes/waste-disposal-levy.html.onn. On 12 August, 2018.Minghua, Z., Xiumin, F., Rovetta, A., Qichang, H., Vicentini, F., Bingkai, L., ;Yi, L. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in Pudong New Area, China. Waste Management, 29(3), 1227-1233. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.07.016.Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. National Environment Policy, 2013.GoK printers. NAROBI, Kenya. Print. Mugenda, O. M. ; Mugenda, A. G. (2003). Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, (2nd Ed.). Nairobi: Acts PressMugambi, ; Gichuki, N. (2017). Factors Influencing House Hold Functional Solid Waste Management in Meru Town, Meru County, Kenya. 2, 141-160.Musembi P. W. (2012). Factors Affecting Realization of Integrated Solid Waste Management in Kenya: A Case of Nairobi County, University Of Nairobi Kenya.Mwangi, C. M. (2012).Assessment of household solid waste management in Makina informal settlements, Nairobi Kenya (Doctoral dissertation). Print.Mwaura.B. (2015).Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for Kawangware Slum. A research Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements of the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning. University of Nairobi (Doctoral dissertation). Print.Monyoncho G.O. (2013). Solid Waste Management in Urban Areas of Kenya: A case study of Lamu Town. Department of Real Estate and Construction Management. University of NairobiNajeeb, A. (2014). Institutional theory and human resource management. In H. Hasan (Eds.), Being Practical with Theory: A Window into Business Research (pp. 25-30). Wollongong, Australia: THEONational Environment Management Authority, Kenya (NEMA). (2015). The National Solid Waste Management Strategy. National Environment Management Authority, Nairobi, Kenya. Print.Nyayiemi S.K. (2012). The effective solid waste management in Kakamega Municipality, Department of planning and management, University of Nairobi Nairobi, KenyaOkot-Okumu, J., ; Nyenje, R. (2011). Municipal solid waste management under decentralization in Uganda. Habitat International, 35(4), 537-543.Ongoro E. (2012). Solid waste management challenges in developing countries: A case study of Nairobi city, Kenya, Eastern Africa. University of Nairobi, KenyaOskamp, S. (2005). Resource conservation and recycling: Behavior and policy. Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 157-177. Rajamanikam, R., Poyyamoli, G., ; Kumar, S. (2014). The role of non-governmental organizations in residential solid waste management: A case study of Puducherry, a coastal city of India. Waste Management ; Research, 32(9), 867-881. OnlineRoberts, S., Keeble, J. and Brown, D. (2002) the Importance of Stakeholder Engagementin_Managing_Corporate_Reputations. The Business Case for Corporate Citizenship. Roomie N. J. ; Wijen F. (2006). Stakeholder Power and Organizational Learning in Corporate Environmental Management Published in Organization Studies, Erasmus University, Netherlands. 27(2), pp. 235-263Joseph, K., Rajendiran, S., Senthilnathan, R. ; Rakesh, M. (2012) Integrated approachto solid waste management in Chennai: An Indian metro city. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 14: 75–84. Scott. W. (2013). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, Identities. Sage, Thousand OaksSchlueter R. (2017). Solid Waste Management in the Developing World: The Role of Local Government in Kisumu, School for International Training Kenya: Urbanization, Health, and Human Rights.Sciarelli, M., ; Tani, M. (2013). Network approach and stakeholder management. Business Systems Review, 2 (2), 175-185. DOI: 10.7350/BSR.V09.2013.Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G., ; Trivedi, R. C. (2008). Municipal solid waste management in Indian cities–A review. Waste management, 28(2), 459-467.Singh, C. R., ;Dey, M. (2015). Role of NGO’s in Solid Waste Management: A Study in Different Municipalities of Manipur, India. Current World Environment, 10(1), 161.Online.Tan, Y. J. (2012). The management of residential solid waste in Mombasa, Kenya.Tukahirwa, J. (2011). Civil society in urban sanitation and solid waste management: the role of NGOs and CBOs in metropolises of East Africa. Wageningen University, Wageningen. (Doctoral Dissertation).Tukahirwa, J.T., A.P.J. Mol & Oosterveer P. (2010), ‘Civil society participation in urban sanitation and solid waste management in Uganda.’ Local Environment 15 (1): 1 – 14UN-HABITAT, (2010).Solid Waste Management in the World Cities: Water and Sanitation in the World Cities. London: Gutenberg Press.UN-HABITAT, (2010). Col lection of Municipal Solid Waste in Developing Countries. London: Gutenberg Press.United Nations Human Settlements Programme ed. (2010). Solid waste management in the world’s cities: water and sanitation in the world’s cities 2010. London; Washington, DC: UNHABITAT/Earth scans.Wagner, T., & Arnold, P. (2006). A new model for solid waste management: an analysis of the Nova Scotia MSW strategy. Journal of Cleaner production, 16, 410-421. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.08.016White, P., Dranke, M., & Hindle, P. (2012). Integrated solid waste management: a lifecycle inventory. Springer Science & Business Media.Wilson C, David, (2006). Role of informal sector recycling in waste management in developing countries. Habitat International, 30 (2006), pp. 797-808Zaman, A. U., Lehmann, S. (2011).Challenges and opportunities in transforming a city into a Zero Waste City.Challenges2 (4): 73–93.APPENDICESAPPENDIX I: LETTER OF INTRODUCTIONDear Sir/Madam, RE: ACADEMIC RESEARCH PROJECT I am a Postgraduate student at The KCA University pursuing a Master’s Degree in Business Administration (corporate management). I wish to conduct a research on “Role of Stakeholders in successful Solid Waste Management in Machakos County”. I am kindly requesting that you grant me permission to collect information on this important subject. Please note that the information you provide will be treated confidentially and will only be used for academic purposes. Ethics will be observed to ensure confidentiality and the study outcomes and reports will not include reference to any individuals. I immensely appreciate your consideration and contribution towards the success of this study. Yours SincerelyChristine MusyawaNdonyeAPPENDIX II: RESEARCH STUDY QUESTIONNAIREI am conducting a research on “Role of Stakeholders in successful Solid Waste Management in Machakos County”. This research is purely for academic purposes. I kindly request you to cooperate and fill out the questionnaire which seeks your views on this issue. The information that you give shall be treated confidentially and will only be used for academic purposes. Tick your appropriate answer. SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATIONGenderMale Female Age of the respondentBelow 25 years 25-35 years 36-45 years 46-55 years Above 55 years level of educationPrimary education Secondary education Certificate Diploma Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree Other (specify)………… ………………………Department/estate…………………………………………………………For how long have you in your worked/lived in this department/estate respectivelyLess than 5 years 5-10 years 11-20 years Above 20 years SECTION 2: The effect of Local Authority’s InvolvementThe following table indicates statements regarding the extent at which the Local Authority (County Government of Machakos, Environment department, Lands, and public health), are involved in Solid Waste management. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement by ticking on the appropriate column, using the scale below.1-(Strongly Agree), 2-(Agree), 3-(Not Sure), 4- (Disagree), 5- (Strongly Disagree)Statements 1 2 3 4 5There is reliable collection of solid waste in Machakos County There is safe disposal of Solid waste within Machakos County The transportation of solid waste within Machakos County is cost effective All private actors in solid waste management are licensed There is no compliance with solid waste management laws and regulations within Machakos County There is no designated land meant for dumping solid waste within Machakos County There is adequate enforcement of solid waste management regulations and laws at household level. The there is adequate stakeholder engagement in the solid waste management within Machakos County initiated by the local authority departments Section 3: The effect of Landlords’ Engagement The table below indicates statements regarding the Landlords role and the level of their engagement within the solid waste management within Machakos County. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement by ticking on the appropriate column, using the scale below.1-(strongly Disagree), 2-(Disagree), 3-(Not Sure), 4- (Agree), 5- (strongly Agree)Statements 1 2 3 4 5There a safe and accessible waste storage point/collection site within the resident The neighborhood is littered with solid waste The tenants dispose waste at the designated collection point The tenants engage in waste segregation before disposal The waste collected from the designated storage point is very limited in quantity There is adequate engagement of Landlords by the Departments of housing, environment, public health SECTION 4: effect of NGOs’ Engagement The table below indicates statements regarding the role of NGOS in solid waste management within Machakos County, and the extent at which they are engaged. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement by ticking on the appropriate column, using the scale below.1-(strongly Disagree), 2-(Disagree), 3-(Not Sure), 4- (Agree), 5- (strongly Agree)Statements 1 2 3 4 5There is accountability within the Solid waste Management in Machakos County There is transparency within the solid waste management in Machakos County There is enough resources to support sustainable Solid Waste Management within Machakos County There is adequate awareness and information about solid waste management within Machakos County There is reliable linkage and engagement of stakeholders within the solid waste management within Machakos County. SECTION 5: The effect of National Government’ Involvement The table below indicates statements regarding the national government’s involvement in Solid waste management and effectiveness of that involvement. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement by ticking on the appropriate column, using the scale below.1-(Strongly Agree), 2-(Agree), 3-(Not Sure), 4- (Disagree), 5- (Strongly Disagree)Statements 1 2 3 4 5There is adequate policy by the National government to support effective solid waste management There are adequate regulations by National Government agency like NEMA to support Solid Waste Management There is inadequate enforcement of the regulations and laws on solid waste management There is inadequate financial allocation for Solid Waste Management There is adequate security within areas designated for solid waste sites. There is a clean and healthy environment free from Solid waste nuisance and hazards. The National government is adequately engaged by the local authority in solid waste management SECTION 6: Integrated Sustainable Solid Waste Management (ISWM)The table below indicates statements regarding the prospect of an integrated sustainable Solid Waste Management within Machakos County. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement by ticking on the appropriate column, using the scale below.1-(strongly Disagree), 2-(Disagree), 3-(Not Sure), 4- (Agree), 5- (strongly Agree)Statements 1 2 3 4 5ISWM improve management within institutions charged with solid waste management within Machakos County ISWM will bring accountability in resource s management among institutions charged with Solid Waste Management in Machakos County ISWM will promises efficiency among the institutions responsible for Solid Waste management within Machakos County ISWM will lead to best strategy of Solid waste Management among the institutions and individuals responsible within Machakos County. Desirable waste hierarchy(Reduction, Reuse, Recycle) APPENDIX III: RESEARCH STUDY WORKPLANACTIVITY July- August 2018 Sept- Oct 2018 October 20181. Proposal Write-Up And Presentation 2. Preparation Of Research Tools 3. Pilot Study 4. Field Work (Data Collection) 5. Data Entry And Analysis 6. Project Write-Up 7 Project Submission APPENDIX IV: RESEARCH BUDGETITEM AMOUNTSTATIONERY 15,000PHOTOCOPYING 10,000SECRETARIAL SERVICES 6,000TRAVELING EXPENSES 20,000SUBSISTENCE 5,000BINDING 6,000INTERNET 7,500MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES 5,000TOTAL 54,500