Environmental Science 302 Final Report /
Group 4: Gregory Crichton g11C2500 Steven Ellery g12E4394 Shannon Herd-Hoare g12H0176 Samantha Houghting g12H0687 Roberto Malgas g10M0507 Zama Mcube g12M3076 Vuyo Ntamo g10N0940 /
Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Waste Management in a Global Context
1.2 Waste Management in Africa
1.3 Waste Management in South Africa
1.4 Objectives and Key Questions
2. Study Area
2.1 Background Information
3. Methods
3.1.Is there an adequate availability of rubbish bins within historically advantaged and disadvantaged commercial areas in Grahamstown?
3.2Are there differences in perceptions of efficiency, reliability and effectiveness in waste collection between the historically advantaged and historically disadvantaged areas of Grahamstown?
3.3.Are there sufficient resources (e.g. number of trucks; number of staff; funds) available to the Grahamstown Municipality for waste collection?
3.4 Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Availability and suitability of waste service delivery in the central business district of Grahamstown.
4.1.1. The density of dustbins in the CBD of Grahamstown and perceptions of their sufficiency.
4.2. Perceptions of equity and access to waste service delivery in suburban areas
5. Discussion
5.1. Availability and suitability of waste service delivery in the central business district of Grahamstown.
5.2. Perceptions of equity and access to waste service delivery in suburban areas
6. Conclusion
7. Reference List
Abstract
Solid waste is a serious threat to environmental, social and political structures if it is not managed properly. Unfortunately, solid waste management as a deliverable service is only sufficiently provided to a certain number of people around the globe, and insufficiently to a great number of others. In a South African city – Grahamstown – delivery of solid waste management services is hypothesized to be inequitable as a result of the apartheid regime. The apartheid regime separated the infrastructure and services provided to different communities based on race and the aim of this project is to assess whether or not these divisions are still visible today. One aspect of the study was conducted in the central business district (CBD) of Grahamstown, where the equitable distribution of bins was assessed between the formerly white and black areas. The second aspect of the study was conducted in the formerly white and black suburban areas of Grahamstown where the equitability of solid waste removal service delivery was assessed. The perceptions of people in each of these study areas were used as the main source of data and information. Using interviews and questionnaires and the p-median problem as the main sources of data it was found that in the CBD of Grahamstown there appeared to be an inequitable distribution and maintenance of bins. The formerly white business district had a much higher density of bins than the formerly black business district, and this was reflected in the opinion polls that were conducted in these two areas. Using questionnaires and interviews again in the suburbs of Grahamstown, it was found that there was equitable delivery of waste removal services in the formerly white and black suburban areas of Grahamstown. This study concluded that the service delivery of solid waste removal in Grahamstown suburbs is equitably distributed, but the infrastructure of bins in the CBD is not equitably distributed.
1 | Page
1. Introduction
Municipalities serve to satisfy the needs of people within a given political sphere, and there are certain standards that have to be met by these institutions(Frederickson, 1990). Municipalities may be required to provide adequate water, sanitation, waste removal infrastructure and electricity to a community dependent on the job description. Prior to1968, the globally recognised responsibilities of such public administrations were to provide these services efficiently and economically (Frederickson, 1990). In 1968, when inequality based on race was at its pinnacle in various places around the world, such as the United States of America and South Africa, a third responsibility or pillar that public administrators should adhere to was suggested (Frederickson, 1981). This third responsibility detailed that public services should be provided in an equitable mannerthroughout the populous. This would allow for the accomplishment of one aspect of social equity.While its definition is complex, social equity can only be achieved through the equitable distribution of government services within a country (Frederickson, 1981). Unfortunately there are very few places in the world where these services are equitably distributed. This research paper focuses on the equitable distribution of waste removal service delivery in Grahamstown, South Africa. Under Section B, Schedule 5 of the South African constitution, it states that one of the services that a local municipality is required to provide to the people within its jurisdiction is adequate waste removal and waste disposal facilities (Makana Municipality, 2000). This is mirrored by the globally accepted view that service of waste removal and disposal is the responsibility of the administrative powers within a country.
Sufficient infrastructure and services for waste removal are a basic human right in South Africa (South African Constitution, 1996). South Africa experienced apartheid for nearly fifty years however, and this caused major equity issues when it came to focussing on human rights. One of the effective residues of the apartheid regime in the broader South African society is the unequal provision of service delivery and infrastructure to previously disadvantaged areas (McLennan, 2012). This has been a result of the struggle by the government to depoliticise service delivery and infrastructure provision in a highly unequal society and make it purely about delivering the services needed to all people (McLennan, 2012). There are still inherent issues with service delivery and infrastructure disparities that exist in very near proximity to one another in towns such as Grahamstown (Ozler, 2007).
1.1 Waste Management in a Global Context
Unmanaged solid waste is a global problem that has to be dealt with on a global scale. The issue of solid waste has been exacerbated by rapid urbanization which has led to a major increase in solid waste production. The global population reached the 7 billion mark in 2011, with more than half of the global population living in urban spaces (Adeniyiet al., 2012). On average, the human population is able to produce over 1.6 billion tons of solid waste annually, as the population increases, so does our ability to produce waste (Ahmed & Ali, 2006).This can be attributed to an increase of goods passing through consumer markets, because an increased number of people buying goods, means that more goods need to be produced and hence more waste will ultimately be produced. While household choices will determine the amount of waste produced, the increase in urban population leads to an increase in urban waste through the production and consumption of goods. The mismanagement of solid waste results in a number of environmental and social problems like water bourne diseases, environmental degradation, pollution and the loss of vital and valuable natural resources. Unfortunately due to inequitable distribution and allocation of waste services, these problems are concentrated in certain parts of countries as waste management might not have been prioritised by local municipalities. According to Brunner and Fellner (2007), the main aims of solid waste management therefore are to protect both human wellbeing and environmental integrity. In order to combat some of these problems, efficient, effective, economical, equitable and reliable waste management practices should be implemented, some of which include: provision of an adequate number of bins, frequent removal of waste from bins and households and suitable disposal methods for the solid waste.
There is no universal method for effective waste management; therefore each country has adopted their own situation specific waste management approach. This means that these different approaches may vary in effectiveness and efficiency. As a result of the resources available to governments and how they consider these resources should best be used, developed and developing countries manage solid waste differently (Poerbo, 1991). The different socio-economic statuses between developed and developing countries means that in developing countries, there are seemingly ‘more important’ problems than solid waste management to which the local government might devote it’s available resources such as provision of clean water, education and sewage disposal (Henry et al., 2006).
In developing countries, as mentioned above, waste management is a rising concern as a result of its heightening inadequacy in service delivery. As a result of poor economic development, developing countries often battle to address solid waste management issues because of a general lack of resources. Furthermore, high levels of rural-urban migration, poor infrastructure and maintenance, lack of functioning bins, lack of funding and expertise and skewed political agendas exacerbate the situation (Henry et al., 2006). A study in three cities in countries characterised by different economic conditions was conducted in order to investigate the possible way in which economic conditions might affect waste management strategies (Brunner & Fellner, 2007). The study found that in the developing cities, only a limited number of resources could be spent on each person for waste collection and disposal, meaning that often these collection and disposal methods aren’t always the most effective.
1.2 Waste Management in Africa
The issue of waste management is especially prevalent in Africa. 20-50% of African governmental budgets are dedicated to waste removal, and yet despite these efforts only 20-80% of waste is effectively removed (Achankeng, 2003). During times of economic crisis or war, waste removal is not prioritised. Achankeng (2003) estimates that African cities generate waste at a rate of between 0.3 and 1.4 kg per capita per day, as opposed to the average 1.22 kg of waste generated in a developed country per capita per day. This could be attributed to more goods and services being available in developed countries to the citizens as well as the buying power of the consumers that exist within those countries. From a case study done in Kenya, key problems with regards to waste management are poor economic growth; rural-urban migration, political interference like war or apartheid like regimes and dictatorships, poor infrastructure and maintenance and lack of funding (Henry et al., 2006). Rapid and uncontrolled growths of urban populations in developing countries make waste management a vitally important issue because of the possible repercussions of inadequate waste removal (Ghoseet al., 2006). This is due to the inability of many of the governments in Africa to equitably provide sufficient waste removal services and infrastructure.
Many African communities and populations are depending less on governmental incentives, and look towards individual communities for waste management schemes. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and community-based organisations (CBOs) allow members of the community to get involved in waste management schemes (Godfrey, 2007). City authorities in Nigeria for example place large movable containers at designated service points along the shoulders of accessible roads for the storage of municipal waste (Adeniyiet al., 2012). This system has a shared responsibility approach, where communities must work with the government for the sake of efficiency. It requires the generators of waste to place waste into the containers provided at designated service points and it requires the municipality to allocate dustbins to different parts of the city, as well as collect and dispose of the contents (Adeniyiet al., 2012). However, these containers are only provided to those people who live in poor economic conditions in these countries for the most part. Those that live in high income areas have an efficient waste removal service where the waste is collected from their doorsteps because they are able to pay for it (Miraftab, 2004). The delivery of waste removal services and infrastructure becomes an issue of equity when it is poorly implemented in certain communities and not in others.
1.3 Waste Management in South Africa
According to the South African constitution, people have the right to live in an environment that is not detrimental to their health, and the government and its local municipalities are to ensure that this law is respected and made known to every South African citizen (South African Constitution, 1996). In South Africa, waste is dealt with on a municipal level which involves the provision of regularly emptied and optimally located bins, removal of household waste on a frequent basis as well as appropriate treatment and disposal techniques, all done in an equitable manner (Brunner & Fellner, 2007).
Governments in developing countries lack the resources and the expertise to efficiently manage the collection and disposal of solid waste. A key factor of this is the availability of dustbins. In a study conducted by Govenderet al.,(2011), it was indicated that the residents of low-income areas in Cape Town (Driftsands, Greenfield, Masipumelela and Tafelsig) had very little or no access to waste bins. 68% did not have access to a dustbin, while 25.9% disposed of waste in the streets or via storm drains.
South Africa generates 533.6 million tons of solid waste annually, the majority of which is still dumped in large landfill sites. Unfortunately only 10% of these landfill sites are properly maintained and meet the minimum requirements set out by the Department of Water Affairs (KaraniJewasikiewitz, 2006). According to reviews done by both the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of Environmental Affairs, there are 1203 landfill or dumping sites in South Africa, 43.6% of which are legal (KaraniJewasikiewitz, 2006).
One of the main issues inherent within the framework of solid waste management in South Africa is the fact that there are large disparities between the service delivery and infrastructure afforded to different communities that live within the country (Miraftab, 2004). Returning to the idea of equitable public administration, this inequitable distribution of these services is largely viewed as a remnant of the apartheid legacy. Many areas that were formerly classified as ‘white-only’ (previously advantaged)areas have a frequent and reliable waste removal system that existed throughout the apartheid era and has perpetuated through the years of democracy (Miraftab, 2004). This is done through regular door-to-door rubbish collection and street sweeping activities. However, the heavily populated townships or formerly ‘black’ areas (previously disadvantaged)are often forced to discard of their rubbish in open spaces or unsealed communal skips. When refuse workers are available they are often unable to manage the large volume of uncollected waste (Miraftab, 2004). This quality of service delivery was also experienced throughout the apartheid era in these areas and is thought to have perpetuated to some degree through the years of democracy too.
According to Karani and Jewasikiewitz (2005), the problem of solid waste management in South Africa lies within the inadequate capacity of the local municipal administrators to facilitate proper waste management programmes and the inability to collect rates and taxes for effective management of these programmes. However the lack of governance might not be entirely to blame for the poor state of waste and litter removal. Research has shown that middle-class South Africans are among the most wasteful users of resources and producers of waste in the world (Qatoleet al., 2001). Qatoleet al. (2001) argue that by leaving in place the infrastructure that makes the high standards of living possible, government has essentially condoned over-consumption habits and practices amongst the middle and upper classes. Naidoo (2009) believes that the unstable waste management practices such as littering, illegal burning and pollution are a result of the poor people’s lack of education and awareness. Since people have not been made aware about the impacts of waste mismanagement, they do not separate their waste and therefore dispose of it wherever they please.
If South Africa is trying to promote equality, a society that rejects discrimination and promotes environmental consciousness, something seemingly as simple as sufficient waste management service delivery could be a huge step towards this.
1.4 Objectives and Key Questions
This study has two objectives:
The first main objective of this paper is to assess provision of dustbins to the different areas characterised by their associated histories to the apartheid era in the central business district (CBD) of Grahamstown. This objective is assessed by considering the distribution of dustbins in the different areas of the CBD. The assessment also considers the services provided by the municipality and whether or not they are sufficient in catering for the needs of the respective areas.
The second main objective of this paper is to assess whether or not there is equitable waste removal service delivery in different communities within the previously advantaged and disadvantaged suburbs of Grahamstown. The assessment of this objective will be done by investigating key aspects of waste management in Grahamstown.
These objectives are assessed according to the following key questions:
- Is there an adequate availability of rubbish bins within historically advantaged and disadvantaged commercial areas in Grahamstown?
- Are there differences in perceptions of efficiency, reliability and effectiveness in waste collection between the historically advantaged and historically disadvantaged areas of Grahamstown?
3. Are there sufficient resources (e.g. number of trucks; number of staff; funds) available to the Grahamstown Municipality for waste collection?
2. Study Area
2.1 Background Information
Segregation played a major in sculpturing the history of South Africa. Segregation in South Africa has been represent since the time the Dutch first arrived (Irvin, 2012). Segregation in South Africa before the 19 century was not based largely on race. This is evident in the residential areas like Sophia town, District 6 and Meadowlands whereby people of all different races and cultures lived in the same area (Beningfield, 2006).
Segregation by race was predominated in the 20th century with the induction of the native Act in 1923 and Apartheid laws (Maylam 1995). Although in East London Racial segregation was instituted in 1849 (Maylam 1995). This was a result of when a government notice was issued requiring “fingoes and other coloured native” to live locations (Maylam 1995). All other major cities in the Eastern Cape like Cradock, Graaff-Reinet and Grahamstown saw racial segregation in the mid-ninetieth century when apartheid was introduced. Under apartheid there were many laws which separated races physically and economically (Irvin, 2008). Since white race was seen as superior because it received all the benefits of the apartheid regime (Irvin, 2008). Under apartheid there were different developments of amenities and servicesin the different racial residential areas (Irvin 2008). This development included education, infrastructure health care and all other essential needs.