Solid Waste Addis Solyana Aweke

Addis Ababa University
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Assessment of Solid Waste Collection Capacity in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Water Supply and
Environmental Engineering.
By: Solyana Aweke Teferra
Advisor: Dr. Alemtsehay G/Meskel
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

June, 2019
A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Water Supply and Environmental
Engineering.
Approved by Members of Examining Board
_____________________ ___________ _________________
Advisor Date Signature
_____________________ __________ _________________
Internal Examiner Date Signature
_____________________ __________ _________________
External Examiner Date Signature
_______________________ __________ _________________
Chairman Date Signature
Page | i
ABSTRACT
Waste collection and transportation is one of the crucial functional elements of municipal
solid waste management. Available information about this matter is therefore essential for
successful municipal solid waste management. The main objective of this study is to assess the
solid waste collection practice in Addis Ababa.
For the purpose of the study, 250 pre collector groups were selected for field survey of the
primary solid waste collection. Background information was gathered using semi structured
interviews with the pre collector groups and the respective cleansing management agency
officers. To examine the secondary solid waste collection, field observation on the trucks and
interviews with truck drivers and with waste agency officers of the city was carried out.
From the study, the productivity of primary and secondary waste collection was determined;
the collection capacity of the city was estimated and factors influencing the system were
identified. For primary collection, three different collection methods were identified: push cart
method, pushcart–collector method and truck collection method with average productivity of
2.12 m3/ worker/day and 2.81m3/ worker/day and 4.2m3/hr respectively. For secondary
waste collection, the trucks productivity were determined to be 6.29 m3/hr for container
truck, 18.29 m3/hr for compactor (40 m3) and 39.7 m3/hr for compactor (80 m3).
The solid waste collection capacity was determined to be 3,192,868.8 m3/year for the primary
collection and 2,579,183.22 m3/year for the secondary collection. The solid waste generation
rate of the city is determined to be 4, 157469.12m3/year. This shows that, on average, only
76% of the waste generated in the city was collected by primary collectors, and 80% was
collected by the secondary collectors. The result indicates that the current collection system
doesn’t cope with the solid waste generation rate of the city.
The role of solid waste transfer station in solid waste management is great. This study includes
the basis of design and conceptual layout for a new facility of a pilot service area. This design
and operational plan details the features and operational procedures for a municipal solid
waste transfer station to ensure a safe, operationally efficient facility that meets the waste
needs of the given service area.
Page | ii
Declaration
I declare that this thesis is my original work performed under the supervision of research
advisor Dr. Alemtsehay G/Meskel. The work has not been presented as a thesis for a degree in
any other university in Ethiopia. Where material has been used from other sources, it has
been properly acknowledged / referred.
Name: Solyana Aweke
Signature:
Place: Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, Addis Ababa University
Date: June, 2019
Page | iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my advisor Dr. Alemtsehay G/Meskel

for her assistance and support and throughout my project.
My sincere thanks also go to all the heads and officers of the Cleaning Management Agency at
the woreda, sub city and city level in Addis Ababa for their hospitality. Without their
cooperation, this thesis would not have been possible.
I am great full for the primary collector groups, truck drivers and assistants for offering their
time, for sharing their experience and for their willingness to participate in this study.
Page | iv
ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS
CMA Cleansing Management Agency
CSA Central Statistics Agency
EPA Environmental Protection Authority
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
ILO International Labor Organization
KA Kebele Administration
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MSSE Micro and Small Scale Enterprise
NGO Non Governmental Organization
SBPDA Sanitation, Beautification and Park Development Authority
SWM Solid Waste Management
Page | v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................... IV
ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................ V
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ IX
LIST OF FIGURE ................................................................................................................. X
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................... 2
1.3 Objective .................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.1 General objective ................................................................................................ 3
1.3.2 Specific objectives .............................................................................................. 3
1.4 Research Questions .................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 4
2.1 Solid Waste Definition ............................................................................................... 4

2.2 Types and Sources of Solid Wastes ........................................................................... 4
2.3 Solid Waste Management........................................................................................... 6
2.4 Functional Elements of Municipal Solid Waste Management ................................... 7
2.4.1 Waste generation................................................................................................. 7
2.4.2 On site handling, storage and processing ............................................................ 7
2.4.3 Collection ............................................................................................................ 8
2.4.4 Transfer and transport ......................................................................................... 9
2.4.5 Processing and Recovery .................................................................................... 9
2.4.6 Disposal............................................................................................................. 10
2.5 Transfer Station ........................................................................................................ 10

2.5.1 Transfer technology .......................................................................................... 11
2.5.2 Capacity ............................................................................................................ 13
Page | vi
2.5.3 Environmental issues ........................................................................................ 14
2.6 Studies of Solid Waste Management in Addis Ababa ............................................. 14

CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH CONTEXTOF ADDIS
ABABA 17
3.1 Overview of Addis Ababa ........................................................................................ 17

3.2 Organization of Addis Ababa Administration ......................................................... 17
3.3 Organization of the Solid Waste Management ........................................................ 18
3.4 Regulations Governing Solid Waste ........................................................................ 19
3.5 The Solid Waste Management Situation in Addis Ababa ........................................ 20
3.5.1 Waste generation and composition ................................................................... 20
3.5.2 Solid waste services provided to households .................................................... 21
3.5.3 Storage and transportation of solid waste ......................................................... 22
3.5.4 The Repi dump site ........................................................................................... 22
3.5.5 The informal recycling sector in Addis Ababa ................................................. 23
CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 24
4.1 Description of the study area .................................................................................... 24

4.2 Method of Data Collection ....................................................................................... 24
4.2.1 Semi – structured interviews ............................................................................. 24
4.2.2 Field survey....................................................................................................... 25
4.2.3 Document Review............................................................................................. 25
4.3 Sample size ............................................................................................................... 25

4.4 Data Processing ........................................................................................................ 25
4.4.1 Primary Collection ............................................................................................ 25
4.4.2 Secondary waste collection ............................................................................... 28
4.4.3 Transfer station design ...................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................. 29
5.1 Primary Waste Collection ........................................................................................ 29

5.1.1 General characterization of primary collection................................................. 29
5.1.2 Collection methods of pre collectors ................................................................ 29
Page | vii
5.1.3 Transfer at the skipping point ........................................................................... 31
5.1.4 Productivity determination................................................................................ 32
5.1.5 Primary collection capacity............................................................................... 34
5.1.6 Factors affecting the primary collection productivity ....................................... 35
5.2 Secondary waste collection ...................................................................................... 36

5.2.1 General characterization of secondary waste collection in Addis Ababa ......... 36
5.2.2 Determination of trucks productivity ................................................................ 38
5.2.3 Determination of secondary collection capacity in Addis Ababa ..................... 40
5.2.4 Influential factors on truck productivity ........................................................... 41
5.2.5 Influential factor on secondary collection capacity .......................................... 42
5.3 Waste generation rate of Addis Ababa ..................................................................... 42

5.3.1 Population of Addis Ababa ............................................................................... 42
5.3.2 Waste generation rate in Addis Ababa.............................................................. 42
5.4 Transfer station design ............................................................................................. 43

5.4.1 Site Description................................................................................................. 43
5.4.2 Estimation of generated waste .......................................................................... 43
5.4.3 Capacity of transfer station ............................................................................... 44
5.4.4 Transfer technology .......................................................................................... 45
5.4.5 Conceptual design ............................................................................................. 45
5.4.6 Nuisance Management ...................................................................................... 48
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 51
6.1 Summary and conclusion ......................................................................................... 51

6.2 Recommendation...................................................................................................... 52
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 54
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................ 57
Page | viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Different sources and types of solid wastes (Source; World Bank, 2012) .............. 5
Table 2-2: Advantage and Disadvantage of Transfer Station Type ........................................ 12
Table 5-1: Volume per bag ..................................................................................................... 33
Table 5-2: Primary collection capacity ................................................................................... 34
Table 5-3: Operating trucks per sub city................................................................................. 38
Table 5-4: Working shift of the sub cities .............................................................................. 40
Table 5-5: Secondary collection capacity ............................................................................... 41
Table 5-6: Outline of the project ............................................................................................. 45
Page | ix
List of Figure
Figure 5-1: Pushcart method of collection .............................................................................. 30

Figure 5-2: Temporarily stored waste ..................................................................................... 30
Figure 5-3: collection truck ..................................................................................................... 31
Figure 5-4: Distribution of collecting methods for the monitored pre collector groups ......... 31
Figure 5-5: Transfer at the skipping point .............................................................................. 32
Figure 5-6: Transfer at the container site ................................................................................ 32
Figure 5-7: Container truck ..................................................................................................... 37
Figure 5-8: Compactor truck ................................................................................................... 37
Figure 5-9: Number of trucks in operation ............................................................................. 38
Figure 5-10: General performance during 24hr shift .............................................................. 39
Figure 5-11: Duration of truck activities ................................................................................ 39
Figure 5-12: Truck productivity.............................................................................................. 40
Figure 5-13: Plan of transfer station ....................................................................................... 47
Figure 5-14: Main transfer building floor plan ....................................................................... 48
Page | x
Assessment of Solid Waste Collection Capacity in Addis Ababa
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Nearly all human activities produce waste generated during the acquisition of raw materials,
during refining and manufacturing process and when products are used by consumers (Sango
and sackey, 2007). In early times, the disposal of wastes did not pose a significant problem,
because the population was small and the amount of land available for the assimilation of
wastes was large (Alemayehu, 2007). However, when cities began to be more concentrated,
solid waste management (SWM) became a serious and complex issue. Higher standards of
living, increasing population rate and the corresponding increasing levels of consumption
pattern have resulted in an increase in the quantity and variety of waste generated and their
relative negative impacts on the urban environment. Furthermore, the rapid and unregulated
expansions of urban areas have aggravated urban environmental problems including waste
management. Hence, the problem of urban environmental degradation is becoming a common
issue in all countries (Hoornweg, 1999).
SWMis defined asthe collection, transportation, processing, recycling, and disposal of solid
waste materials so as to reduce their effect on health, environment and aesthetics. Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW) is composed of different wastes generated by households, commercial
and industrial premises, institutions such as schools, hospitals, and from public spaces such
as streets, markets, public toilets, bus stops, parks, and gardens (Coffey and Coad, 2010).
Improper solid waste management leads to substantial negative environmental impacts:

pollution of air, water and generation of greenhouse gases from inappropriately managed
landfills. Furthermore, these problems allow the infestation of insects which spread
disease thus affecting the health of human beings (David, Satterthwaite, 1999). SWM is,
therefore, a critical component within urban sanitation and it is also one of the most important
and resource intensive services provided by municipalities (UN-HABITAT, 2010).
The waste management in a given country is directly related to the economic, social and
political status of the country. The challenge of the management is tougher for middle and
lower income countries. Studies show that municipalities in developing countries spend 20-
50% of their available budget on SWM and serve less than average inhabitants (Memon,
2010). They collect and manage only 30-50% of the waste generated while the rest is either
burned or left to decompose in open space or is dumped in unregulated landfills-impacting
Page | 1
the environment negatively (Lemma, 2007). This implies that SWM is of a growing
concern facing the developing countries because of its social, economic and environmental
implications (Krause and Townsend, 2014).
In Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia, rapid urbanization coupled with increased urban
population in the last decade brought immense pressure on municipal services, mainly in the
management of the ever-increasing amounts of solid waste. Due to the insufficient waste
management system in the city, the habitants suffer the site and consequences of accumulated
waste piles on the streets and drains all around the city. Moreover, these piles provide a
breeding ground for insects that can potentially cause the outbreak of an epidemic. They also
cause a nauseating smell and are quite unpleasant to see.
Hence, by critically assessing the current solid waste collection practice in Addis Ababa, this
study attempts to assess the current solid waste collection practice of the city and identify the
influencing factors so as to assist in finding solutions for an improved solid waste management.
1.2 Statement of the Problem

Collection of municipal solid waste is one of the major functional elements of municipal solid
waste management. The collection and transportation of solid waste make the biggest demand
on municipal budgets and have the greatest impact on urban living. Of the total expenditure
incurred in solid waste management, typically 70 to 80 percent is directed towards the
collection and transporting of wastes.
There are only very few sources that deal at length with solid waste collection in Addis Ababa.
The service provided in Addis Ababa is inadequate, with refuse generated in urban areas
remaining uncollected and large areas of the city receiving no regular attention. Local
authorities are becoming increasingly aware of the poor quality of service provided in most
areas in terms of the quantity of solid waste collected and the environmental protection
provided. There is, therefore, growing demand for the provision of an adequate and regular
service to all target areas and for greater efficiency.
Page | 2
1.3 Objective
1.3.1 General objective

The general objective of this study is to assess the solid waste collection capacity in Addis Ababa
1.3.2 Specific objectives

• To determine the productivity of primary waste collection
• To determine the productivity of secondary waste collection
• To identify influential factors affecting the collection system
1.4 Research Questions

• What is the existing solid waste collection practice in Addis Ababa?
• What amount of waste is collected in the city by all pre collectors in one day?
• What amount of waste is collected in the city by secondary waste collectors in one day?
• Is the collection capacity influenced by specific factors?
Page | 3
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Solid Waste Definition

Solid waste refers to the range of garbage arising from animal and human activities that are
discarded as unwanted and useless. Waste can be categorized based on material, such as
plastic, paper, glass, and metal and organic waste. Categorization may also be based on hazard
potential, including radioactive, flammable, infectious, toxic, or non toxic. Categories may also
pertain to the origin of waste, such as industrial, domestic, commercial, institutional or
construction and demolition (Rick, 2017).
Likewise, municipal solid waste refers to solid wastes from houses, streets and public places,
shops, offices, and hospitals, which are very often the responsibility of municipal or
other governmental authorities. Solid waste from industrial processes is generally not
considered as municipal. However, because this waste finally ends up in the municipal
waste stream, it should be taken into account when dealing with solid waste. Synonymous to
solid waste are terms such as “garbage”, “trash”, “refuse” and “rubbish” (Zurbrugg, 2003).
According to Pfeffer (1992), solid waste is defined as any solid material in the material flow
pattern that is rejected by society. On this note, waste is a material that no longer has a value
for the first user and is therefore thrown away. Considering waste as unwanted material can
also be an issue of timing, that is waste can have some value for the person or society
in different circumstances (Louigueur, 2007).
2.2 Types and Sources of Solid Wastes

In order to categorize what exactly municipal solid waste constitutes, there have been
different attempts of categorization based on numerous classification criteria. Some of
those criteria are source from which solid waste emanates, and nature of solid waste
components. On the basis of the nature of items that constitute solid wastes, it can be
classified into organic or inorganic, combustible or non-combustible, and putrescible or non-
putrescible (G/Tsadkan, 2002).
Knowledge of the sources and types of solid wastes, along with the data on composition and
rate of generation, is basic to the design and operation of the functional elements associated
with the management of solid wastes. The source of solid wastes is dependent on the socio-
Page | 4
economic and technological levels of the society (Monroe, 1997).Table 2-1describes different
sources and types of solid wastes.
Table 2-1: Different sources and types of solid wastes (Source; World Bank, 2012)
Source Typical Waste Generators Types Of Solid Waste
Residential Single and multifamily dwellings Food wastes, paper, cardboard, plastics, textiles,
leather, yard wastes, wood, glass, metals, ashes,
special wastes (e.g., bulky items, consumer
electronics, white goods, batteries, oil, tires), and
household hazardous wastes (e.g., paints,
aerosols, gas tanks, waste containing mercury,
motor oil, cleaning agents), e-wastes (e.g.,
computers, phones, TVs).
Industrial Light and heavy manufacturing, Housekeeping wastes, packaging, food wastes,
fabrication, construction sites, construction and demolition materials,
power hazardous wastes, ashes, special wastes.
and chemical plants excluding
specific process wastes if the
municipality does not oversee their
collection)
Commercial Stores, hotels, restaurants, markets, Paper, cardboard, plastics, wood, food wastes,
office buildings glass, metals, special wastes, hazardous wastes,
e-wastes.
Institutional Schools, hospitals (non-medical Same as commercial
waste), prisons, government
buildings, airports
Construction and New construction sites, road repair, Wood, steel, concrete, dirt, bricks, tiles
Demolition demolition of buildings, renovation
site
Municipal Street cleaning, landscaping, parks, Street sweepings; landscape and tree trimmings;
services beaches, other recreational areas, general wastes from parks, beaches, and other
water and wastewater treatment recreational areas, sludge
plants
All of the above should be included as municipal solid waste. Industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI)
wastes are often grouped together and usually represent more than 50% of MSW. Construction and
Demolition waste is often treated separately: if well managed it can be disposed separately. The items below
are usually considered MSW if the municipality oversees their collection and disposal.
Page | 5
2.3 Solid Waste Management

Solid waste management (SWM) is defined as a discipline associated with the control of
generation, storage, collection, transfer and transport, processing, and disposal of solid waste
materials in a way that best addresses the range of public health, conservation, economics,
aesthetics, engineering, and other environmental considerations (Rick, 2017).
In its scope, solid waste management includes planning, administrative, financial, engineering
and legal functions involved in solutions to all problem of solid waste. The solutions may involve
complex interdisciplinary relationship among such fields as political sciences, city and regional
planning, geography, economics, public health, sociology, demography, communications and
conservation, as well as engineering and materials science (WHO, 1999).
Solid waste management practices can differ for residential and industrial producers, for urban
and rural areas, and for developed and developing. The administration of non hazardous waste
in metropolitan area is the job of local government authorities. On the other hand, the
management of hazardous waste materials is typically the job of the generator, subject to local,
nation and even international authorities (Rick, 2017).
Solid waste management is not an isolated phenomenon that can be easily compartmentalized
and solved with innovative technology or engineering. It is particularly an urban issue that is
closely related, directly or indirectly to a number of issues such as urban life styles, resource
consumption patterns, jobs and income levels, and other socio-economic and cultural issues. All
these issues have to be brought together on a common plat form in order to ensure a long term
solution to urban waste (Sandra, 1995). It is apparent that making accurate decisions about
municipal SWM issues can be a complex task. Both long term and short term plan is needed to
get a balance of cost effectiveness and environmental benefit (Yeuan, 2000).
As Michael, 1995 listed, if sold wastes are not managed properly, there are many
negative impacts that may result. Such as;
• The open burning of waste cause air pollution; the products of composition include
dioxins which are particularly hazardous
• Uncollected wastes degrade the urban environment, discouraging efforts to keep streets
and open spaces in a clean and attractive condition.
• Polluted water (leach ate) flowing from waste dumps and disposal site can cause serious
pollution of water supplies.
Page | 6
• Methane (one of the main components of land fill gas) is much more effective than
carbon dioxide as a green house gas leading to climate changes.
The primary goal of solid waste management is reducing and eliminating adverse impacts of
waste materials on environment and human health to support economic development and
superior quality life (Rick, 2017).
2.4 Functional Elements of Municipal Solid Waste Management

In the course of municipal solid waste management there are six functional elements: (i) waste
generation; (ii) on-site handling, storage and processing ;(iii) collection; (iv)transfer and
transport; (v) processing and recovery; and (vi) disposal (Solomon, 2011).
Functional elements are closely interconnected but they are not necessarily presented in every
municipal solid waste management system. In most low and middle income countries, the
system is limited to waste generation, handling at the source, collection and disposal at
landfills. In most developed countries, every functional element is found within the system(Asi,
2013).
Identification of these functional elements allows description of relationships involved in

each element, and development of a framework. As a result, to handle a specific solid
waste management it is obligatory to observe the following six elements in combination.
These are:
2.4.1 Waste generation

Waste generation encompasses activities in which materials are identified as valueless
and either thrown away or gather together for disposal. This functional element is very
important because all activities that lead to identification and understanding of solid waste
generation rate, volume, composition, area specific variations of waste generation and their
expected changes overtime are belong to this component solid waste management. So, this
functional element is a vital stage for acquiring accurate information that is necessary to
monitor existing management system and to make regulatory, financial and institutional
decisions (Gebrie, 2009).
2.4.2 On site handling, storage and processing

This functional element constitutes activities associated with handling, storage, and processing
of solid wastes at point of generation. Waste handling involves activities associated with
Page | 7
management of wastes until they are placed in storage containers for collection. It also
encompasses movement of loaded containers to point of collection. Storage refers stock up of
wastes as soon as they are generated. There are two types of storage activities at source. The
first one is temporary storage done at household level as a part of their hygiene. The second
type is communal solid waste storage system on public solid waste containers prepared by
municipality. While processing at source involves activities such as waste composting and
separation of solid wastes for reuse and recycling. All of these components are important for
protection of public health and aesthetics and environment (Solomon, 2011).
2.4.3 Collection
Collection involves the process of picking up of wastes from collection points, loading them in to
a vehicle, and transporting it to processing facilities, transfer stations or disposal site. In
most municipal solid waste management systems, cost of collection accounts a significant
portion of total cost. For instance, in industrialized countries collection accounts about 60-70%
of total cost, and 70-90% in developing and transition countries (UNEP, 1996). Collection is
structurally similar in developing, transition, and industrialized countries, but there are
important technical and institutional differences in implementation. In most cases,
industrialized countries have more efficiency and effectiveness than developing ones in
terms of their approach of collection, role of municipal governments, private-sector
participation, and demographic and social factors relevant to collection. In developing
countries, collection often involves a face to face transaction between generator and collector.
The level of service is low, and generators often have to bring their wastes long distances and
place it in containers. As a result many collection activities in developing countries carried out
by informal sectors (UNEP, 1996). In general, there are four basic methods of collection
described by (Tchobanolous, 1993):
i. Community bin- they are placed in convenient locations where community members carry
waste and throw it in. This method is comparatively cheaper than other methods, and
most widely adopted method in western countries. For this method to be adopted it is
important that bins are covered, aesthetic, attended regularly, kept clean, easy to handle,
and separate bins are provided.
ii. Curbside collection - homeowner is responsible for placing containers to be emptied at the
curb on collection day and for returning empty containers to their storage location
until the next collection.
Page | 8
iii. Block collection- collection vehicles arrive at a particular place or a set day and time to
collect waste from households. Households bring their waste containers and empty directly
into the vehicle. This method requires a higher homeowner cooperation and scheduled
service for homeowner collaboration.
iv. Door to door collection- waste is placed at doorstep at a set time when waste
collector arrives. In this method, collector of waste has the responsibility to collect
waste separately. This method is very convenient for households, however requires
homeowner cooperation.
2.4.4 Transfer and transport

These activities are associated with transfer of wastes from public storage facilities to
collection vehicle and the subsequent transport of wastes to disposal site. Transfer refers to
movement of waste or materials from primary collection vehicle to a secondary, larger
and more efficient transport vehicle. When location of final disposal site is at a long distance
from points of collection, transfer stations may be used. With respect to transfer stations,
there are two basic modes of operation: direct discharge and storage discharge. In storage
discharge refuse is first emptied from collection trucks in to a storage pit or to a large platform.
While in direct discharge station, each refuse truck empties directly in to larger transport
vehicles (Meenakshi, 2005).
Transportation on the other hand covers all types of vehicles under operation to transport solid
waste from its generation point to transfer station and then to treatment or disposal site. All
vehicles in operation are considered including manually driven small carts, mechanically driven
sophisticated transportation vehicles, and special vehicles for hazardous, bulky, and recyclable
wastes. Generally, a properly design transfer and transportation system highly reduces cost of
collection (Solomon, 2011).
2.4.5 Processing and Recovery

This functional element includes all techniques, equipment and facilities used both to improve
the efficiency of other functional elements and to recover usable materials, conversion
products, produce energy, and compost from solid wastes. In addition it also provides several
advantages. First, it can serve to reduce total volume and weight of waste material that requires
collection and final disposal. Volume reduction also helps to conserve land resources since
land is the ultimate sink for most waste materials. On the other side, it also reduces
total transportation cost of waste to its final disposal site (Uriarte and Filemon, 2008).
Page | 9
Solid waste processing and recovery has been carried out beginning from separation and
processing of wastes at the source. But, separations of mixed wastes usually occur at materials
recovery facility,transfer stations, combustion facilities and disposal sites. It often includes
separation of bulky items, separation of waste components by size using screens, manual
separation of waste components, and separation of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Then they
enter in small and large scale industries for recovery activities. For example, organic fraction
of MSW can be transformed by a variety of biological and thermal processes. The most
commonly used biological transformation process is aerobic composting and, the most
commonly used thermal transformation process is incineration (Solomon, 2011).
2.4.6 Disposal
This is final functional element in solid waste management system. Disposal activities are
associated with final dump of solid wastes directly to a landfill site. Today disposal of wastes by
land filling or land spreading is the ultimate fate of all solid wastes whether they are residential
wastes, or residual materials from materials recovery facilities. However, in most developed
countries this method is officially banned allowing only sanitary landfill for final disposal.
Because sanitary landfill is not a dump it is an engineered facility used for disposing of
solid wastes on land without creating nuisances or hazards to public health and environment
(Techobanglous, 2002). Though it is the most common technology around the world,
conventional and environmental unfriendly methods such as open-burning, open-dumping,
and non-sanitary landfill can still be used as disposal method (UNEP, 2009).
2.5 Transfer Station

Transfer station is one of the elements in solid waste management system. Transfer stations are
facilities at which municipal solid waste is dropped off by relatively small vehicles, loaded into
larger containers or onto larger vehicles, and hauled to an off-site management facility for
further processing or final disposal. It plays an important role in a community’s total waste
management system, serving as the link between a community’s solid waste collection program
and a final waste disposal facility. No long-term storage of waste occurs at a transfer station;
waste is quickly consolidated and loaded into a larger vehicle and moved off site, usually in a
matter of hours.
The primary reason for using a transfer station is to reduce the cost of transporting waste to
disposal facilities. Consolidating smaller loads from collection vehicles into larger transfer
vehicles reduces hauling costs by enabling collection crews to spend less time traveling to and
Page | 10
from distant disposal sites and more time collecting waste. This also reduces fuel consumption
and collection vehicle maintenance costs, plus produces less overall traffic, air emissions, and
road wear.
In addition, a transfer station also provides:
• An opportunity to screen waste prior to disposal.
• Flexibility in selecting waste disposal options.
• An opportunity to serve as a convenience center for public use.
Ideally, a transfer station should be sited as close as possible to the centroid of the population
served, in order to minimize collection costs, or some distance along the haul route to the landfill.
The transfer station should be sited and operated so as to create no environmental or health
hazard, and no nuisance.
2.5.1 Transfer technology

The method used to handle waste at the transfer station from the time it is unloaded by
collection vehicles until it leaves the site is central to any transfer station’s design.
Unloading system
Options for unloading waste from collection or residential vehicles at the transfer station
include:
• Direct Unloading: It involves collection vehicles discharging directly into transfer vehicles or
their loading systems. A two-level arrangement is required, wherein the collection vehicles
drive up a ramp to the upper level in order to discharge into a transfer vehicle parked or
loading system (i.e., conveyors and/or stationary compactors).
• Unloading-to-Storage: It involves collection vehicles discharging into a storage area. From
the storage area, wastes are subsequently loaded into transfer vehicles. The storage area may
be a platform on the same level as the unloading level, in which case only a two-level
arrangement is required. The storage area may be a pit, below the level of the unloading
level, and above the level on which the transfer vehicle is parked, in which case a three-level
arrangement is required. The storage area is commonly designed to hold the peak quantity of
waste generated in one day.
Loading system
There are various systems for loading waste into transfer vehicles. The most common loading
systems include:
Page | 11
• Direct Loading to Transfer Vehicle: Waste discharged from collection vehicles or from the
storage area drops by gravity through a hopper directly into an open-top transfer vehicle
• Compactor System: Waste drops through a hopper into a stationary compactor which is
mounted on the floor of the lower level of the transfer station. The compactor contains a
hydraulically driven ram which pushes the waste from the compactor's receiving
chamber into the body of the transfer vehicle. The body of the transfer vehicle must be
adequately reinforced to take the force of the ram.
• Pre-Load Compactor System: Waste drops through a hopper into a pre-load compactor which
is mounted on the floor of the lower level of the transfer station. The pre-load compactor
contains a hydraulically driven ram which pushes the waste from the compactor's receiving
chamber into a compaction chamber. The compaction chamber is reinforced to take the
force of the ram and sized to make a compacted unit which would readily fit within the body
of the transfer vehicle. Once the compacted unit of waste is fully formed, it is extruded
from the compaction chamber into the transfer vehicle. Because the transfer vehicle does
not receive compaction forces, it does not need to be reinforced to take the force of the ram.
The advantages and disadvantages of each method are summarized in the table below.
Table 2-2: Advantage and Disadvantage of Transfer Station Type

Waste Storage Alternatives
Technology Advantages Disadvantages
Direct dump - Simple arrangement; little potential for - Transfer station cannot accept waste
into transfer equipment breakdown. unless a trailer is positioned to receive
vehicle - Low capital cost. waste.
- Potentially less housekeeping: no tipping - No short-term storage to accommodate
floor pit, or compaction equipment to clean peak inflow periods.
and maintain. - Limited ability to screen and remove
- Much smaller building size unacceptable wastes.
- No opportunity for waste diversion or
materials recovery.
Tipping floor - Simple arrangement; little potential for - Garbage on tipping floor can be messy
waste equipment breakdown. - Requires roll-out space for trucks to pull
storage - Generally less expensive and provides forward when discharging their loads.
more operational flexibility - Requires additional fire control equipment
- Storage provides “disconnect” between (e.g., fire hoses, water cannon) to control
waste receipts and waste loading. fires in waste piles on tipping floor
(Shortage of empty trailers does not shut
down facility.)
- Allows for easy screening and removal of
unacceptable wastes.
Transfer Container and Vehicle Loading Alternatives
Direct - Simple - Odors and litter can escape, and
Loading to - Suitable for a wide range of waste types, precipitation can make the load heavier.
Transfer including construction debris and bulky
Page | 12
Vehicle materials.
Compaction - A trailer or container can be completely - A heavy trailer or container decreases
into trailer closed to prevent rainwater entry and odor effective payload (Trailer must be
and liquid from escaping. structurally reinforced to withstand the
- Compaction usually achieves high pressure of the compactor).
densities - Capital cost of trailer fleet is greater.
- Hydraulic power equipment for compactor
can be noisy.
Preload - Allows use of lightweight trailer or - High capital costs
compaction container to increase effective payload. - Relatively complex equipment; when it
- Trailer or container can be completely breaks down, can shut down transfer station
closed to prevent rainwater entry and odor after short-term storage capacity is full
and liquid from escaping. - Totally dependent on availability of
electrical power.
- A heavy electrical power consumption
system
- Hydraulic power equipment for compactor
can be noisy.
2.5.2 Capacity
A transfer station should have enough capacity to manage and handle the wastes at the
facility throughout its operating life. While selecting the design capacity of a transfer
station, we must, therefore, consider trade-offs between the capital costs associated with
the station and equipment and the operational costs. Designers should also plan
adequate space for waste storage and, if necessary, waste processing. The collection
vehicle unloading area is usually the waste storage area and sometimes a waste sorting area.
When planning the unloading area, designers should allow adequate space for vehicle
and equipment maneuvering. To minimize the space required, the facility should be designed
such that the collection vehicle backs into the unloading position. Adequate space
should also be available for offices, employee facilities, and other facility related activities
(EPA, 1995). Factors that should be considered in determining the appropriate capacity of a
transfer facility include:
• Capacity of collection vehicles using the facility;

• Desired number of days of storage space on tipping floor;
• Time required to unload collection vehicles;
• Number of vehicles that will use the station and their expected days and hours of
arrival;
• Waste sorting or processing to be accomplished at the facility;
• Transfer trailer capacity;
Page | 13
• Hours of station operation;

• Availability of transfer trailers waiting for loading;
• Time required, if necessary, to attach and disconnect trailers from tractors or compactors.
2.5.3 Environmental issues

Developing transfer stations that minimize environmental impacts involves careful planning,
designing, and operation. This section focuses on neighborhood quality or public nuisance
issues and offers “good neighbor practices” to improve the public’s perception of the transfer
station. Design and operational issues regarding traffic, noise, odors, air emissions, water
quality, vectors, and litter are discussed below. Proper facility sitting, design, and operation can
address and mitigate these potential impacts on the surrounding natural environment and the
community.
Careful attention to these issues begins with the initial planning and sitting of a facility and
should continue with regular monitoring after operations begin. Transfer station design must
account for environmental issues regardless of surrounding land use and zoning. Stations sited
in industrial or manufacturing zones are subject to the same environmental concerns and issues
as stations located in more populated zones. Minimizing the potentially negative aspects
associated with these facilities requires thoughtful design choices. Identifying and addressing
these important issues can be a significant part of the overall cost to develop the waste transfer
station.
2.6 Studies of Solid Waste Management in Addis Ababa
Different studies have been carried out regarding the topic of solid waste management in Addis
Ababa. All these studies have their own scope and objectives.
One of the first and major studies on solid waste management in Addis Ababa was carried out
by Norconsult in 1982 and dealt with waste generation using a technical approach to the
management of solid waste in the city. Based on this study, it is estimated that 70% of the
waste was organic, 15% paper, and 15% plastic and metals. It also states that 0.150 kg per
inhabitant per day was generated.
Another study that was made is the Artelia project. The study provides quantitative data on
generation rates and composition of residual waste from households. The research developed a
Page | 14
systematic method to collect data and analyze the waste dynamics in the city. In order to
establish the composition and quantities of household waste generated, a waste
characterization analysis was carried out in five different housing classes. It can be inferred
from the results of the household waste analysis that the waste generation per inhabitant
increases as income and purchasing power rise. Furthermore, it can be identified that organic
wastes correspond to the largest fraction being produced in households. Accordingly, the
composition by mass illustrates that organic waste, i.e. biodegradable waste coming from
kitchens and gardens primarily and miscellaneous organic waste, is (48.8 % – 64.7 %), followed
by the fine fraction (< 10 mm) (12.3 % – 26.6 %). Paper and cardboard, as well as plastics make
up between 3 % and 6 % of household wastes, while wood, textiles, inert material, sanitary
products, and charcoal contribute between 1 % and 6 % of the composition of the waste
depending on the housing class. The estimated average household waste generation per day
was 0.190 kg/cap/day (Artelia, 2013).
Yet other review was made on domestic solid waste management and its environmental impact
by Ali and Eyasu (2017). This review examined the composition and impacts of domestic solid
waste and evaluates the existing waste management practices in the city. The review concludes
that the main burden of the city’s municipal wastes comes from residential areas, making them
the main focus for the waste management strategy. Despite the practice of waste management
for almost 60 years, the progress when compared with the degree of urbanization and
population pressure is not as expected. The author recommends the city administration should
focus on integrated waste management technologies and increasing the capacity of the
informal sector participating in waste management (Ali and Eyasu, 2017).
Additionally, Camilla made a study that deals with the informal plastics recovery system in
Addis Ababa. The objective of the study was to explore the organization and the actors involved
in the system. Furthermore, the study tries to estimate the size of the informal sector, the
amount of materials collected, the quality of the materials, and the economic aspect of the
activities in order to evaluate the performance of the system. This study has shown that
thousands of individuals in Addis Ababa depend on the recovery of plastic materials in order to
make a living. Moreover, the activities have been shown to be economically profitable and to
play an important role in solid waste management. It is argued that both a lack of a formal
system for the recovery of plastic materials and the government’s lack of awareness of the
informal sector has made it possible for the sector to develop without interference. However,
the governmental ignorance of the informal plastics recovery system as well as civil society’s
Page | 15
lack of trust and creditability in the government has proven to be one of the main difficulties
confronting the plastics recovery system today. This article argues that the government’s
approach towards recovery activities is centralized, bureaucratic and ignores the potential
contribution of the informal sector, with little public participation in the decision process
(Camilla, 2005).
Camilla made yet another study that explores the management of solid waste in Addis Ababa.
This study tried to understand the underlying reasons for the poor solid waste management
situation that the city is faced with today by using governance and urban political ecology as a
theoretical framework. It also tried to identify aspects and strategies that should be in place
in order to improve solid waste management and to achieve more equitable
development among the various actors` involved. The study showed how power and politics
affect the way that solid waste is managed in Addis Ababa, and the author argued that
the promise of good governance has not resulted in the official goals being attained, but rather
a rhetorical use of policies and reforms. The Ethiopian Government has adapted good
governance policies to suite its own interests and agendas, and this has not led to improved
governance and a more efficient management of solid waste in the city (Camilla, 2013).
A different study made by Yirgalem(2005) presents the impacts of poor landfill management
on the local community, by investigating the performance of Repi landfill site and public
reaction to its impacts. The study concludes that the growing concerns of health and
environmental risks in the landfill area are now becoming more serious as different
incompatible land uses are surrounding the site. By any standards of waste disposal systems,
it is not acceptable to use the Repi site for disposal purposes. Incompatible land use
activities such as settlements and other public assembly areas are located within
unacceptable distances from the site. The fact that the site has no appropriate cover means the
noxious smells are carried as far as 2 kilometers away by prevailing winds (Yirgalem, 2005).
Another study on solid waste management in Addis Ababa is made by Aklilu regarding
appropriate landfill area. In this study, selected sites for an appropriate landfill area in Addis
Ababa City are determined by using the integration of Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
with Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE) and Remote sensing (RS) technology. At the end of the
analyses, thirteen (13) selected sites are determined. Among all, the most preferable solid
waste landfill site was located in the eastern part at Bole sub-city (Aklilu, 2015).
Page | 16
Chapter 3 BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH CONTEXTOF

ADDIS ABABA
3.1 Overview of Addis Ababa

Addis Ababa is home to 25% of the urban population in Ethiopia and is one of the fastest
growing cities in Africa. It is estimated that today Addis Ababa has 3.7 million inhabitants
and is still growing rapidly (3.69% per year) due to immigration from rural areas and its own
natural increase. The city core has high density (around 15,000-30,000 people per km),
concentrating around 30% of the population on 8% of the land in Addis Ababa (World Bank,
2015).
The city has shown extensive physical growth over the years. In 1920s, the area covered by the
city was estimated to be 33 km2, by 1984 it had grown to 224 km2and by 2003 it was estimated
to be 527 km2 (CSA, 2009). Now, the city covers built - up land area of 647 Km2 (World Bank,
2015).
Addis Ababa is mainly an administrative, commercial and service city. Due to Addis Ababa’s
function as the capital city, the seat of the Ethiopian Government, the African Union and
various international organizations and embassies, over the years the city has been given the
majority of social and economic infrastructure. Despite construction activities in recent years to
provide housing, commercial buildings and new roads, the urban services and infrastructure
cannot cope with the city’s rate of development (Camilla, 2013).
The physical growth and development of the city have been affected by the lack of efficient
urban management. Since the Italian occupation in the period 1936–1941, six master plans
have been prepared for Addis Ababa, but none has been implemented and this has resulted in
spontaneous urban growth and development in the city (Yirgalem, 2008).
3.2 Organization of Addis Ababa Administration

Addis Ababa was comprised of six major administrative zones that were further divided into 28
political regions called Weredas. These in turn were further divided into 345administrative
(and political) entities called Kebeles. However, since the year 2000, administrative changes
have resulted in the creation of new administrative areas (UN - HABITAT, 2003).
Page | 17
The new administrative structure of Addis Ababa is based on the creation of 10 sub-cities, which
were further divided into 102 weredas (the smallest administrative unit).
3.3 Organization of the Solid Waste Management

This section describes how solid waste management has been organized and the reasons
behind the reorganizations of the Solid Waste Authority.
The way that solid waste has been managed and the service provided in Addis Ababa have
changed during the last 18 years. After Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia(FDRE) came to
power, the first organization that took responsibility for waste management was the City
Health Bureau under the department of Environmental Health Care.
From 1994 to 2003, solid waste management was organized under the City Health Bureau in the
Department of Environmental Health Care. In this organization, solid waste management was
overshadowed by many other activities carried out by the bureau. The long bureaucratic chain
also made it difficult to coordinate the different actors and hindered efficient
mobilization and use of resources (SBPDA, 2003, 2004b).
As part of the national decentralization process in 2003, responsibility for solid waste
management was reorganized so that it came under the Sanitation, Beautification and Park
Development Authority (SBPDA). As part of the reform, departments responsible for solid waste
disposal were also established at Sub-City and kebele levels with the aim of
decentralizing the services and increasing their efficiency. The responsibility of SBPDA was to
act as a regulatory and policymaking body to set standards, coordinate activities among sub-
cities, deal with cross-cutting issues, deliver technical support and capacity building, manage
the city’s dump site, run public awareness program, and conduct research. The sub-cities were
responsible for the daily operation of activities within solid waste, such as collection and
transport. In addition, they were responsible for conducting campaigns and undertaking
activities related to composting and recycling. Each Sub-City had its own budget and was
responsible for ensuring long-term management of solid waste, and implementing program and
regulations, as well as monitoring and evaluating them. The kebeles were responsible for the
daily operation of solid waste management in their neighborhoods, control, and reporting
to the sub-cities the services provided.
In 2009, the SBPDA was reorganized in line with business process re-engineering (BPR). The
agency changed its name to the Solid Waste Management Agency and Landfill Project Office.
Page | 18
Compared with the previous organization of the agency, the structures were more or less the
same. The main change was that the Park and Cemetery Department was taken out and
established as an independent agency. Further, the reorganization aimed at giving even more
power to the sub-cities and the kebeles.
A comparison of the structural changes of the agency in the three different periods reveals that
the city administration has decentralized responsibility for solid waste down to Sub-City and
kebele levels. The Solid Waste Management Agency has also become more specialized; it
focuses only on solid waste, is not seen as part of the Health Bureau, and does not have
responsibility for areas such as park and beautification. Currently, the various tasks within
solid waste are organized under different departments, such as the Planning Department
and the Implementation and Operation Department, which reflects how solid waste
management has gained more attention in recent years. However, more than structural
changes are needed to improve the management
3.4 Regulations Governing Solid Waste
Today, there are several laws and regulations concerning the management of solid waste in
Addis Ababa. At the national level, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has the main
responsibility for implementing laws to protect the urban environment and the
management of solid waste (Camilla, 2013).
The first proclamation regarding specifically to solid waste was passed in 2007. The aim of the
policy was to enhance at all levels capacities to prevent the possible adverse impacts while
creating economically and socially beneficial assets out of solid waste (FDRE, 2007:
3525).The proclamation may be cited as Solid Waste Management Proclamation No.513/2007.
The Proclamation has five parts. The first part of the proclamation defines the terms in use and
declares the title and objective. Part two refers to the obligations of urban administrations to
ensure the proper planning, implementation, and monitoring of solid waste. The focus is on city
administrations’ responsibilities and on decentralizing responsibilities to the lowest levels of
administration in order to fulfill the obligations. In the third part, the proclamation
focuses on regulations to manage waste glass, plastic bags, used tires, food, household
waste, and construction waste in a sustainable manner and with focus on proper handling,
segregation, reuse, and recycling. Part four deals with transportation and disposal of solid
waste, where the focus is on technical inspection of vehicles used for transporting solid waste
Page | 19
as well as ensuring proper management of disposal sites in line with the environmental
regulations. The last part of the proclamation declares penalties when these guidelines
are trespassed.
There are two other proclamations relating to waste management and to environmental policy.
The proclamations are ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Proclamation No.299/2002’ and
‘Environmental Pollution Control Proclamation No.300/2002’. The content of these
proclamations is such that it sets the responsibilities of the authorities and actors concerned in
the matter and declared penalties when the bodies fail to meet their responsibilities. The
Environmental Policy of Ethiopia consists of general attitudes to protect and preserve all natural
resources in the country.
3.5 The Solid Waste Management Situation in Addis Ababa

The solid waste situation in Addis Ababa is characterized by increasing waste generation due to
increased levels of consumption, growing immigration from the rural areas, and the city`s own
demography. Waste accumulates in the urban environment, causing bad odors and
clogging the drainage channels, and accumulations of waste have become breeding grounds
for insects and vermin which pose a threat to human health and the urban environment
(SBPDA, 2003).
3.5.1 Waste generation and composition

Addis Ababa City Administration operates with data on waste generation and
composition that were compiled by Norconsult in 1982. Given that the data are 30 years old,
they are no longer representative for the current situation. The Sanitation, Beautification and
Park Development Authority (SBPDA) estimate that currently the generation of waste per capita
per day is 0.221 kg. Based on the study conducted by Norconsult in 1982, it is estimated that
70% of the waste was organic, 15% paper, and 15% plastic and metals. However, these
data are highly questionable, and do not give a representative picture of the waste generation
and composition in the city. Addis Ababa has grown rapidly in recent years, and its population
and physical size have more than doubled since the study was conducted in 1982. Moreover,
the consumption habits have changed as a result of the growing middle-class. New products
have entered the market, and especially plastic and electrical items have increased compared to
30 years ago, in the early 1980s. Enormous construction activities have also taken place in the
city in the last 10 years (i.e. Since the early 2000s) and it can be assumed that the amount of
construction waste has increased dramatically compared to when Norconsult’s study was
Page | 20
conducted. In addition, most of the inorganic materials are reused and then sold or given
away for further reuse or recycling by the informal recycling sector operating in the city,
and are not even entering the municipal waste stream (Camilla, 2005).
According to the SBPDA, 71% of waste is generated by households, 10% is disposed of in the
streets, and 9 % is generated by commercial institutions, 6% by industries, 3% by hotels, and 1%
by hospitals. The estimation was made based on the research conducted in 1982.
3.5.2 Solid waste services provided to households

Between 1994 and 2003 there were mainly two types of collection system offered by the city
administration. One system was a door-to-door service offered to households located close to
the main roads. Shortages of vehicles and frequent breakdowns made it difficult to keep to
schedules, resulting in a poor and inefficient collection system with irregular and few collection
times. In addition to the door-to-door service, waste was also collected via municipal
containers placed near the main roads. Hence, many of the households’ members had to walk
long distances in order to dispose their waste in the containers. Due to lack of containers and
collection trucks and frequent breakdowns of the trucks, it was common to see containers
overflowing with waste. As a consequence, people commonly resorted to either burning or
disposing of their waste in nearby rivers or on open plots of land (Camilla, 2005; Zelalem, 2006).
During this period the informal sector saw the opportunity to start offering to households a
waste collection service either once or twice a week for a monthly fee of 10–15 birr.
In 2003, the informal pre-collectors operating in the city were formalized. The
formalization was part of micro- and small-scale enterprise (MSSE) development in the city and
in line with SDPRP supported by international donors to privatize and improve urban
services and create employment among the urban poor (SBPDA, 2004a). In addition to the
pre-collectors, the container system continued to be offered to those living along the
main roads. However, the containers were placed within neighborhoods and controlled by
officials from the kebeles, in order to ensure that the MSSEs disposed of the waste in a proper
manner. In this period (2003-2005) the solid waste situation improved, but the services
provided were offered only to those who could pay for them, thus leading to
segregation in service provision among the citizens. In addition to the container system and the
door-to-door collection by MSSEs, the city administration also employed 1137 street
sweepers in 2003 (SBPDA, 2004a). However, the street sweepers only cleaned the main roads
and avenues, leaving most of the city without access to the service. In 2009, the MSSEs were
Page | 21
reorganized into cooperatives in line with BPR. The cooperatives were employed by the kebeles
and were paid according to the amount of waste collected per cubic meters. The
reorganization was intended to improve service, increase employment levels, and collect
waste fees through the water bill system. The introduction of the new system meant that
everybody had to pay and everybody should get the service. According to the Solid Waste
Management Agency, the implementation of the new system was successful: it had improved
the amount of waste collected in the city and contributed to the employment of almost 13,000
waste collectors.
3.5.3 Storage and transportation of solid waste

From 1994 to 2003, the city administration had the main responsibility for the transportation of
solid waste. Over the years there have not been enough containers for waste collection in Addis
Ababa and the condition of many of the containers is poor. In 2003, the municipality had
512 (8 m3) containers, which meant that one container served 7500 households. By 2007,
the number had increased to 587, but this did not make any significant difference in terms of
improving the collection capacity (SBPDA, 2003).
However, in 2009, in line with BPR, the responsibility for maintaining and running the
trucks was given to the sub-cities in an attempt to improve the efficiency of the
transportation of waste. Further, the agency bought 44 new trucks in 2010, and implemented
three shifts in 2010 (Camilla, 2012).
3.5.4 The Repi dump site

The current dump site at Repi covers an area of 25 ha and is located in the south-western part
of Addis Ababa, in Kolfe Keraniyo Sub-City, 13 km from the city centre. Repi is the only dump in
Addis Ababa and when the site was established in 1964 it was located on the outskirts
of the city. With the growth and expansion of the city, the site has become surrounded
by settlements and currently it represents a threat to human health and the
environment.
Today, the dump is full and is improperly managed. There is no drainage to capture leakages or
runoff. Further, the dump is not enclosed by a fence and is not covered with soil on a daily base.
Due to lack of a weighbridge, the amount of waste disposed on the site during the years has
been poorly recorded (Yirgalem, 2001). In 2003, there were four bulldozers, but only one was
working (SBPDA, 2003). Further, the road leading to the site is in a very poor condition and
becomes almost unusable during heavy rains. Hence, on some days no waste can be collected
Page | 22
from the city. Currently, the dump is also a work site for 500 scavengers, who make their
livelihood by collecting waste both for their own consumption and for resale (Camilla, 2013).
3.5.5 The informal recycling sector in Addis Ababa

The key role in the informal waste recycling process is played by a market place named
Minalesh Tera. Minalesh Tera is located in Merkato in Addis Ababa; one of the biggest open
markets in Africa. Minalesh Tera is the block where all the useful waste comes to be sold and
recycled again.
The informal recycling system in Addis consists of different actors who are involved in activities
related to the collection, trade, reuse, and recycling of waste. The system consists of
households, foragers, scavengers, Qorqoroalleh, pre-collectors, wholesalers, middlemen,
small-scale craftsmen, and local industries.
At the bottom of the hierarchy there are the scavengers who collect waste materials from the
municipal landfill. It is estimated that today there are 500–600 on-site scavengers who make a
living from collecting waste materials for their own consumption or for reuse or recycling. Most
of the scavengers are individuals who live in the village nearby. The materials collected
for reuse and recycling are stored either at the site or in the village nearby. The most common
practice is to store the materials until there is a large enough amount to sell to middlemen or to
rent a truck and transport the waste to Minalesh Tera.
At the next level, one finds the Qorqoroalleh, who buy materials mainly from households and to
a limited extent from the foragers, pre-collectors. The Qorqoroalleh differ from the foragers
and the scavengers because they buy materials before they enter the waste stream. The quality
of the materials they collect is therefore higher than that collected by foragers and scavengers.
Moreover, the Qorqoroalleh have a strong upward link in the system to the wholesalers who
operate in Minalesh Tera.
Waste materials collected in other cities are transported to MinaleshTera, and traders from
rural areas travel to MinaleshTera to buy materials wholesale for further sale in rural areas.
Ranked above the wholesalers are the small-scale craftsmen, who are mainly located in
MinaleshTera and make use of waste materials to produce local items such as electrical stoves,
large metal plates used to wash clothes, shoes, and cooking equipment, and to repair broken
items such as luggage, old toys, and old shoes. In addition, there are rural traders and industries
who buy waste for recycling (Camilia, 2013).
Page | 23
Chapter 4 METHODOLOGY
4.1 Description of the study area
Addis Ababa is the capital city of Ethiopia. The city is geographically located between 8 0 55’and
9 0 05’ N Latitude and 38 0 40’and 38 0 50’ E Longitude with an average altitude of 2500 above
mean sea level. The city is divided into 10 sub-cities, which were further divided into 102
woredas. The city covers built - up land area of 647 Km2. Currently more than 3.6 million people
resides and it is a big and sprawling city.
4.2 Method of Data Collection

The main data collection methods used in the study was semi-structured interviews and field
survey. Moreover, relevant documents were reviewed in order to collect background
information on the solid waste management situation in Addis Ababa.
4.2.1 Semi – structured interviews

Semi-structured interview was the main method that was used in the study. The interviews
were targeted for stakeholders and decision-makers in the field of solid waste management.
The stakeholders were chosen based on their respective role within the solid waste
management system. Semi-structured interview was chosen because it is open to other
information and aspects that could come up during the interviews that was not thought about
or been aware of in advance.
Regarding primary waste collection, data was collected from representatives of the following
institutions and concerned bodies.
▪ Cleansing Management Agency (CMA): The CMA is responsible for the waste management
in the city. The CMA on city, sub-city and woreda level was interviewed.
▪ Pre collector groups: They are responsible for the collection of waste from households in
their respective woredas. This is done by door- to-door collection.
For secondary waste collection, data was collected from:
▪ Cleansing Management Agency (CMA): The CMA on city and sub-city level was interviewed.
▪ Truck drivers and assistants: they are in charge of the operation of the trucks that transport
the waste to the final dump site.
Page | 24
4.2.2 Field survey

Solid waste management is one of the most visible urban services and thus observation
can provide much information about what is going on in the city. Observation is essential
to gain an understanding of the practices of solid waste management and to compare the
personal observations with the narratives of the various participants .
For primary waste collection, pre collector groups were monitored and their activities were
tracked in a field survey. Data was recorded on matters such as duration of time for different
activities of the pre collectors, how they operate, and volume of waste collected.
For secondary waste collection, the operating trucks were monitored to collect detailed
information on the way of operation, the volume of waste collected by different truck types,
time used up during activities and other relevant data.
4.2.3 Document Review

Data available in municipal documents and reports were reviewed. The secondary data
obtained was used to enhance the understanding of the problem and for triangulation and
verification of the primary data collected.
4.3 Sample size

The sample size was calculated by using online sample size calculator. There are a total of 735
pre collector groups in the city. Accordingly, the sample size for primary waste collection data
survey was determined to be 250 by using 95% confidence level of ±5.
For secondary collection data survey, two samples from each truck type available in the sub city
were selected for monitoring.
4.4 Data Processing

The collected data was processed to determine the productivity of the primary and secondary
collection.
4.4.1 Primary Collection

Productivity of primary collection is defined as volume of waste collected per day divided by the
number of workers:
Vwaste
Pcollection = ……………………………………………………………..Equation 4.1
Nworker
Where: Pcollection = Collection productivity (m3/day/ worker)
Vwaste = Volume of waste per day (m3/day)
Page | 25
Nworker = no of workers
The total collected volume was calculated as:
Vpu = W * H * L …………………………………………………Equation 4.2
Where: Vpu = Volume of push cart (m3)
W = Width (m)
H = Height (m)
L = Length (m)
Collected volume of a tour:
Vtour = Vpu * Pulevel …………………………………….. Equation 4.3
Where: Vtour = Collected Volume of a tour (m3)
Vpu = Volume of push cart (m3)
Pulevel = Pushcart filling level
Total collected volume is:

VT = ∑ V tour ………………………………………………….….Equation 4.4
Where: VT = Total collected volume (m3)
V tour = Collected Volume of a tour (m3)
The total collected volume can also be calculated as:
VT = Nbags * Vavg ………………………………………….…Equation 4.5
Where: VT = Total collected volume (m3)
Nbags = Number of collected bags
Vavg = Average volume of a bag (m3)
Average number of pushcart workers:
∑(Npu worker ∗ t)
Pu worker avg = ……………………….Equation 4.6
Tt
Where: Pu worker avg = Average number of pushcart workers
Npu worker = Number of pushcart workers
t = Working time (min)
Page | 26
T t = Total working time of pushcart workers (min)
Average number of collectors:
∑(Ncollector ∗ t)
Collectoravg = ………………………..…Equation 4.7
Tt
Where: Collector avg = Average number of collectors
Ncollector = Number of collectors
T t = Total working time of collectors (min)
Average productivity of the whole group per day is calculated as:

∑(𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 ∗𝑡)
Pavg = (P𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠 * ) + (P𝑝𝑢 ∗
∑(𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 ∗𝑡)+ ∑(𝑁𝑝𝑢 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑟 ∗𝑡)
∑(𝑁𝑝𝑢 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑟 ∗𝑡)

)
∑(𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 ∗𝑡)+ ∑(𝑁𝑝𝑢 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑟 ∗𝑡)
…….………Equation 4.8
Where: Pavg = Average productivity of the whole group (m3/worker/day)
P𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠 = Average productivity of collectors (m3/worker/day)
P𝑝𝑢 = Average productivity of pushcart workers (m3/worker/day)
Nc = Number of collectors
Npu = Number of pushcart workers
The daily primary collection capacity (m3/day) is equal to
Pavg ∗ Nworker ∗ Ngroup ………………………………………Equation 4.9
Where: Pavg = Average productivity of the whole group (m3/worker/day)
Nworker = Average number of workers per group
Ngroup =Number of groups in the city
Page | 27
4.4.2 Secondary waste collection

Productivity of secondary waste collection is defined as the total volume of waste per hour
picked up at container sites and dumped at the dumpsite during the duration of one shift.
Collection productivity (m3/hr) is calculated as:
Vwaste
Ptruck = ……………………………………..……………..Equation 4.10
t avg
Where: Ptruck = Truck productivity (m3/hr)
Vwaste = Volume of waste per day (m3/day)
t avg = Average working time (hour)
Daily secondary collection capacity (m3/d) is:
Ntrucks ∗ t avg * Ptruck …………….................................Equation 4.11
Where: Ntrucks = Number of trucks
Ptruck = Truck productivity (m3/hr)
t avg = Average working time (hour)
4.4.3 Transfer station design
Step 1: Identify the service area
Step 2: Select a design period
Step 3: Estimate the amount of waste generated within the service area including
projected changes such as population growth and waste volume.
Step 4: Estimate the total demand for the design year
Step 5: Collect the necessary data: The types of vehicles delivering waste, types of
materials to be transferred, the availability of transfer trailers and how fast these can
be loaded.
Step 6: Plan the facility size to accommodate waste deliveries
Page | 28
Chapter 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Primary Waste Collection
5.1.1 General characterization of primary collection

The following section gives general information about primary collection in woredas. It is based
on the questions asked at the CMA of the chosen woredas and the leaders of the sampled pre
collector groups.
The CMA stated that in average there are seven pre collector groups and 52 pre
collectors working in one woreda. There is an average of 10 workers per group. In the
majority (70 %) of the monitored woredas, the number of households per pre collector group is
between 500 and 1250. The criteria that were used for the division of collection area are
administrative borders (55%), no of Households (30 %) and man power of the group (15%). The
decision on how many members work in one pre collector group is made by the respective
woreda.
The equipment the pre collectors’ work is 65% pushcart and 35% collection truck. The collected
waste is brought to communal containers or skipping point, until the pre collectors transfer
them into compactor truck. 36% of the groups stated that they work with containers, while
the remaining 64% work with garbage collection compactor trucks. The container collection
frequency is on average four times a week.
Concerning working days of the monitored pre collector groups, in average they work six days a
week. The frequency of the groups serving an area is on average once a week.
5.1.2 Collection methods of pre collectors

To characterize the different working methods used by the pre collectors, the general
methodology of the primary collection needs to be exemplified first. The pre collectors serve
areas in a door-door collection. Then, the collected waste is transported to a garbage container
or a skipping point, where it stays until the pre collectors transfer them into compactor truck.
The pre collectors’ collection methods can be divided into three categories based on the
equipment used by the groups. These are pushcart method, pushcart - collector method and
collection truck method. The pushcart method is in which all members work directly with the
Page | 29
pushcart. In this mode of collection, the pre collector group own a pushcart and all workers stay
more or less near to it.
Figure 5-1: Pushcart method of collection
The pushcart - collector method, as the name indicates, is in which part of the group work with
the pushcart while the rest of the group work as collectors. Accordingly, some of the workers
walk through the streets knock on doors and take the waste from the households and store it
temporarily at places good to be reached with a pushcart (Figure 5-2). The group with the
pushcart moves from one temporary storage to another point and loads the waste to the
pushcart to discharge it at a municipal container or transfer station.
Figure 5-2: Temporarily stored waste
Page | 30
In the collection truck method waste is set out by the residents at the front street (curb side).
Then, the pre collectors collect the waste by using small volume vehicles.
Figure 5-3: collection truck

The distribution of the three collection methods for the surveyed groups is displayed in
Figure 5-4.
50% 45%
Pushcart
40% 35% method
Percenta ge (%)
30%
20% Pushcart -
20% Collectors
method
10% Collection Truck
method
0%
Collection method
Figure 5-4: Distribution of collecting methods for the monitored pre collector groups
5.1.3 Transfer at the skipping point

The pre collectors collect the waste from households and transport it to the municipal garbage
containers or skipping points. The groups work either with a municipal garbage container
or the waste is collected directly with a compaction truck from the skipping point. If the groups
work with a container, they empty the bags in which they transported the waste, into the
container. If the waste was collected with a compaction truck, the waste was stored in bags at
the skipping points until the truck arrived and then the bags were emptied by the pre collectors
into the truck. The pre collectors had to wait for the truck until it arrived which extended their
working day additionally. The containers are of size eight cubic while the compactors have a
capacity of 40 or 80 cubic meter.
Page | 31
Figure 5-5: Transfer at the skipping point
Figure 5-6: Transfer at the container site
5.1.4 Productivity determination

The productivity of the pre collector groups was determined using Equation 4.1. The
productivity was determined separately for the different working methods. The steps followed
for the different working methods are described below.
5.1.4.1 Average productivity of pushcart workers

For the pushcart collection method, the pushcart volume is calculated first by using Equation
4.2.
Next, the volume of waste collected in the respective tour is calculated using Equation 4.3.
Page | 32
The average productivity of pushcart workers is the total collected volume of waste in a day
divided by average number of pushcart workers. The total collected volume is calculated using
Equation 4.4. The average number of push cart workers is calculated using Equation 4.6.
The average productivity of pushcart workers is then determined using Equation 4.1.
5.1.4.2 Average productivity of collector’s

Since these groups did not work with pushcarts, it was not possible to measure the volume
of the collected waste directly. Therefore, for these groups the volume of the collected waste
is calculated using Equation 4.5.
Determination of the average volume of a bag was done at five of the monitored groups to get
representatively value, because it was not possible to count the number of bags at every
monitored group, as this would have taken time and interrupt the pre collectors’ work. Table 5-
1 shows the volume per bag.
Table 5-1: Volume per bag
Volume (m3) No of bags Volume per
bag (m3)
9.8 139 0.07
6.8 127 0.05
3.9 65 0.06
7.4 131 0.056
5.2 111 0.04
Total 33.1 573
Average volume of a bag (m3) = Total Weight [kg] / Total no of bags

= 33.1/573 = 0.058
Total collected volume (m3) = Number of collected bags * 0.058
The average collectors’ productivity per day is the total collected volume of waste per day
divided by the average number of collectors. The average number of push cart workers is
calculated using Equation 4.7. The average productivity of collectors is then determined using
Equation 4.1.
5.1.4.3 Average productivity of pushcart - collector method

The productivity of this method is calculated by the weighed sum of pushcart and collectors
productivity (Equation 4.8).
The results of the productivity of each of the sampled groups are listed in Annex VII.
Page | 33
On average, the collection productivity is determined to be 2.12 m3/ worker/day for the
pushcart method and 2.81m3/worker/day for the Pushcart - Collectors method.
5.1.4.4 Average productivity of collection truck

For the collection trucks, the productivity is defined as the total volume of waste collected and
dumped at the skipping point during the working hour. Truck productivity is calculated by
dividing the average amount of waste collected during one day with the average working hour.
During the field survey all the activities performed by the pre collectors were observed. The
collection trucks have carrying capacity of 4.5 m3 volumes of waste and the pre collector groups
complete, on average, seven (7) tours in a day. This makes the total volume of waste collected
in a day 31.5m3/day. The average working hour in a day is determined to be 7.5 hour. The
longest time was spent on streets, driving to or from households to the skipping points.
Accordingly, the average productivity of the collection trucks was determined to be 4.2m3/hr.
5.1.5 Primary collection capacity

The daily collection capacity of primary collection that existed at the time of this study is
estimated by taking into account the number of pre collector groups in the city. It was
calculated by using Equation 3.9.
The average productivity of the different working methods and the no of worker per group
were directly taken from the data received during the tracking of the pre collectors. Data from
interview at the Cleansing Management Agency (CMA) of the city was used on the number of
pre collector groups in Addis Ababa. There are 735 pre collector groups in the city. The result
from the calculation is summarized in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2: Primary collection capacity
Collection capacity of pushcart methods
Collection method % age no of Average Productivity Days Annual collection
distribution groups group (m3/worker* per capacity (m3/a)
of collection size day) week
method
Pushcart method 20% 147 4 2.12 5 299174.4
Pushcart - 45% 331 6 2.81 5 1339358.4
collectors method
Collection capacity of the truck method
Truck type % age No of Working Productivity Days Annual collection
distribution truck hour per (m3/hr) per capacity (m3/a)
of collection day (hr) week
method
Collection truck 35% 257 7.5 4.2 4 1554336
Page | 34
Total 3192868.8
5.1.6 Factors affecting the primary collection productivity
5.1.6.1 Collection method

As explained previously, there were two different working methods distinguished. One of the
main influencing factors is the choice of the collection method because the two methods
had different average productivities as shown in Table 5-3.
The groups working with the pushcart - collectors’ method had the highest average productivity
per day. The pushcart method had the second highest productivity per day. The productivity
difference between the pushcart - collectors method and the pushcart method may be
explained with lesser workload of the pushcart in the pushcart - collectors method. The
pushcart is just stopped to load at the temporary waste storage point and to unload it at the
skipping point. Also, the pre collectors working as collectors also have lesser workload, because
they do not have to wait for the pushcart and thus work without discontinuities.
5.1.6.2 Weather
There were no measureable influences detected from the weather on the productivity.
However, effects from the weather were observed during field survey. When it rained, many of
the groups abandoned their work for that day. In addition, the groups stopped working when it
got very hot, because the solid waste starts to emanate very bad odor when hit by the sun.
Therefore, the groups often started work early in the morning and stop their work before noon.
5.1.6.3 Equipment
Another impact on the productivity was the state and size of the pushcarts. Regarding
the state of the pushcarts, variations between new pushcarts that were in excellent condition
and old ones with some parts broken were observed in the field. Also, there was a variation in
the dimensions of the pushcarts, which had impacts on the productivity as well. During the field
survey it was observed that both small sized pushcart and a very big ones do not contribute
to a high productivity. This was because when the pushcart was too big the cart was too heavy
and difficult to handle and it took the groups a lot of energy to push it further. In addition, they
had complications to unload the cart because it was too high to reach the bags at the bottom.
On the other hand, a cart too small can’t be loaded effectively and the group had to cover
additional trips to the container and back.
Page | 35
5.1.6.4 Interaction with Households

The interaction of the pre collectors with the residents also has an impact on productivity. This
is because the collection speed of the pre collectors depends on the time it takes for the
residents to bring the waste. When the pre collectors work early in the morning when residents
were sleeping, it took longer time till the waste is brought outside. It is also preferable if
the waste is stored next to the gate so that that it takes less time than when it has to
be collected behind the house.
5.1.6.5 Motivation
The impact of the pre collectors’ motivation and attitude to work needs to be mentioned. The
motivation of a group cannot be measured in the field; however, it was recognizable. There
was a great difference in productivity when the workers were motivated to walk fast and collect
much waste, and when they work slowly because they were not enthusiastic. It was observed
that the groups were highly motivated with money. They serve households who paid them
additional money more frequently and more devotedly than others.
5.2 Secondary waste collection
5.2.1 General characterization of secondary waste collection in Addis Ababa
5.2.1.1 Organizational structure

In each sub city, there is a waste management office. The offices are responsible for the
secondary collection of waste from different sources. The sub city waste management offices
own the collection trucks and are also responsible for maintenance and refueling.
The schedules according to which waste is collected by the trucks are designed at sub city level.
The sub city offices decide on the appropriate number of drivers and assistants. They can also
request for new trucks to the CMA. Because of this structure, each sub city follows a slightly
different way of managing the secondary collection of municipal solid waste.
5.2.1.2 Equipment
In Addis Ababa, two different types of trucks were used to deliver waste from the container
sites to the dumpsite: container truck and compactors. A container truck is able to pick up the
whole container and transport 8 m3 of waste. A compactor needs to be loaded with waste
manually and has a capacity of 40 m3and 80m3.
Page | 36
Figure 5-7: Container truck
Figure 5-8: Compactor truck
In total, 140 waste trucks are available for secondary waste collection in the sub cities of Addis
Ababa. Out of these, only 97 trucks were functional at the time of the study. Figure 5-9 shows
the distribution of the number of trucks in operation.
Page | 37
60
53
50
no of truck in operation
40
container truck
30
24 compactor (40m3)
20
20 compactor (80m3)
10
0
Truck type
Figure 5-9: Number of trucks in operation
The distribution of the trucks among the sub cities is shown in Table 5-5.
Table 5-3: Operating trucks per sub city

Number of trucks in operation Number of trucks in repair
Compactor Compactor Container Compactor Compactor Container
(80m3) (40m3) (8m3) (80m3) (40m3) (8m3)
AkakiKaliti 0 3 8 - - 5
Nefass Silk Lafto 1 3 11 - - 12
KolfeKeraniyo 2 4 5 - - 3
Gulele 2 3 3 - - 2
Lideta 2 1 0 1 - 0
Kirkos 4 1 1 - - 0
Arada 4 1 3 - - 1
Addis Ketema 2 3 7 - - 3
Yeka 1 2 5 - - 2
Bole 2 3 10 - - 13
Total 20 24 53 41
5.2.1.3 Work shift

The sub cities decide the number of tours (i.e. from a skipping point to the dump site) that has
to be coved in 24 hours. It is up to the drivers to arrange the working time.
5.2.2 Determination of trucks productivity
5.2.2.1 General performance during the 24hr shift

Container trucks carry less volume of waste and thus had to visit the dumpsite more often and
complete more tours than compactors. Consequently, they drove longer distance than
compactors and carried the least amount of waste (Figure5-10).
Page | 38
350 320
300
General performance
250
200 container truck

160
compactor (40m3)
150
compactor (80m3)
100 72
50
8 4 4
0
number of tours volume (m3)
Figure 5-10: General performance during 24hr shift
5.2.2.2 Working hour

During the tracking of trucks, all the activities performed by the workers were observed. The
main activities during one shift are summarized in figure 5-10. In general, the longest time was
spent on streets, driving to or from container site to the dumpsite. Time was also spent at the
container sites/skipping points. The time at the container site depends on the truck type.
Container trucks stayed on average 9 minutes at container site, compactors with a volume of 40
m3 stayed 1.5 hrs and compactors with a volume of 80 m3 stayed 2 hrs. The shortest amount of
time was spent when the waste was unloaded at the dump site, on average 3 min.
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
Time (hr)
dump site (hr)

8
7.5 container site (hr)
7 on street (hr)
6.5
6
5.5
container compactor compactor
truck (40m3) (80m3)
Figure 5-11: Duration of truck activities
Page | 39
5.2.2.3 Truck productivity

The productivity of trucks was determined during the field survey. Truck productivity is defined
as the total volume of waste per hour picked up at container sites and dumped at the dumpsite
during the working hour. Truck productivity is calculated by dividing the average amount of
waste collected during one day with the average working hour. Figure 5-12 shows the volume
of waste collected per hour of the different truck types.
45
39.7
40
35
Productivity (m3/hr)
30
25 container truck
20 18.29 compactor (40m3)
15 compactor (80m3)
10 6.29
5
0
Truck type
Figure 5-12: Truck productivity
5.2.3 Determination of secondary collection capacity in Addis Ababa

The daily collection capacity estimated the collection capacity that existed at the time of this
study, taking into account the number of working hours. The daily secondary collection capacity
was calculated using Equation 4.11.
The average working hour per shift and the average productivity per truck type were directly
taken from the data received during the tracking of the trucks and which was mentioned above.
The number of truck shifts per day was calculated separately for each sub city. Data from
interviews at each sub city offices was used about the number and type of working trucks and
number of shifts. The collected data is summarized in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4: Working shift of the sub cities
Sub city Number of trucks in 24 hour shift

Container Compactor Compactor
truck (40m3) (80m3)
Akaki Kaliti 8 3 0
Nefass Silk Lafto 11 3 1
Page | 40
Kolfe Keraniyo 5 4 2
Gulele 3 3 2
Lideta 0 1 2
Kirkos 1 1 4
Arada 3 1 4
Addis Ketema 7 3 2
Yeka 5 2 1
Bole 10 3 2
Total 53 24 20
The result from the calculation is summarized in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5: Secondary collection capacity
Truck type Number of Working Productivity Days Annual

trucks per hour per (m3/hr) per collection
day shift (hr) week capacity
(m3/yr)
Container
truck 53 10.18 6.29 4 651591.667
Compactor
(40m3)
24 8.75 18.28 4 737049.6
Compactor
(80m3) 20 8.06 39.7 4 1228730.88
Total 2617372.15
The data obtained at the dump site indicates that the amount of waste collected and delivered
to the dumpsite during the Ethiopian year 2010 (September 2017 to August 2018) is
2,579,183.22m3. The amount of waste delivered to the dump site starting from September 2018
to March 2019) is on average 220, 110 m3 per month.
5.2.4 Influential factors on truck productivity
5.2.4.1 Truck type

As shown in figure 5-12, the productivity of trucks was clearly influenced by the truck type.
Compactors showed the highest productivity because they carried the highest volume. Since
container trucks need far less time at container site, they were able to do more tours for the
same time line.
Page | 41
5.2.4.2 Manpower
Mainly Compactors productivities were affected by the manpower available for transferring
waste. The number of people, their age and physical condition contributed in saving time for
transferring waste. Because there is only limited place on trucks for sub city workers to ride on,
this job was loaded the on the pre collectors.
5.2.4.3 Design of schedule

During the working hour, the longest time was spent on streets, driving to or from container
site/skipping point to the dump site. This in turn affects the trucks productivity. In the night,
streets are less crowded with cars and pedestrians. Thus, trucks can drive faster and do not
waste time in traffic jam. The result is higher productivity that can be used to collect waste
faster than day time. Container trucks are particularly affected by the traffic situation because
they cover more no of tours during one shift.
5.2.5 Influential factor on secondary collection capacity
5.2.5.1 Availability of equipment

The number of trucks available for waste collection is a major influence on collection capacity.
31 % of trucks were out of work. The number of trucks available was influenced by the
frequency and severity of breakdowns, time for repair and availability of skilled mechanics and
spare parts. Furthermore, the number of trucks available in the sub cities is not adequate
enough to cover the waste generation rate in the city. According to heads of the cleaning
management agency of all the sub cities, the shortage of number of trucks is also their main
complaint.
5.3 Waste generation rate of Addis Ababa
5.3.1 Population of Addis Ababa

According to the central statistical agency (CSA), the population of Addis Ababa in 2014 was
3,156,057 with a growth rate of 3.69%. This number of population was projected exponentially
to obtain the current population. Accordingly, the current population of the city is 3,795,528.
5.3.2 Waste generation rate in Addis Ababa

Based on the study made by World Bank group on Global Solid Waste Management (2015), the
solid waste generation rate per capita for the city Addis Ababa was determined to be
0.86kg/cap/day or 3.26 liter/cap/day. The current solid waste generation of the city was
Page | 42
estimated by multiplying this value with the current population of the city. Accordingly, the
current solid waste generation rate of the city is assumed to be 4,157,469.12 m3/year.
5.4 Transfer station design
5.4.1 Site Description

The site of the Solid Waste Transfer Station is located within Lideta sub city, in Woreda 3, next
to Lideta manufacturing college. The site is approved to accept waste from the residents of
Woreda 1, Woreda 2 and Woreda 3 of the sub city.
5.4.2 Estimation of generated waste
➢ Selection of design period

The design year selected for this project is 10 years. This design year was selected referring to
several literatures. The planning horizon for the provision of transfer services at a particular site
is recommended to be 10 – 20 years. 10-year design period was selected due to the uncertain
nature of estimating the waste generated.
➢ Population projection
The exponential method was adopted to project the population for the design period.
𝑃𝑡 = 𝑃𝑜 × 𝑒 𝑟𝑛
Where; Pt is the design year population

Po is the current population
r is the annual growth rate
n is the design period
The annual growth rate was calculated as 3.69% using census of previous years. The population
to be serviced by the transfer station is depicted in the table below.
Year 2019 2029

Woreda 1 17,000 24,587
Population
Woreda 2 7,500 10,848

Woreda 3 23,875 34,531
Total 48,375 69,966
Page | 43
➢ Existing generated waste

Based on the study made by World Bank group in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (2015), the
solid waste generation rate per capita for the city was determined to be 0.86 kg/cap/day
or 3.26 liter/cap/day. The amount of solid waste generated in the service area is
summarizes in the table below.
Year 2019
Woreda 1 17,000
Population
Woreda 2 7,500
Woreda 3 23,875
Total 48,375
3
Waste amount (m /day) 157.58
➢ Projected generated waste

Based on the study made by World Bank group on Global Solid Waste Management (2015),
Ethiopia will join the lower middle income economy by 2025 and the solid waste
generation rate per capita for the city Addis Ababa is estimated to reach 1.3 kg/cap/day or 4.9
liter/cap/day. The projected waste amount is summarized in the table below.
Year 2029
Woreda 1 24,587
Population
Woreda 2 10,848
Woreda 3 34,531
Total 69,966
Waste amount (m3/day) 344.53
5.4.3 Capacity of transfer station

Required capacity of the transfer and transport system is calculated by taking into account that
there are 300 working days per year. In year 2029, the required capacity of the system would be
450m3/day.
It should be noted that there is large difference between estimated required capacity of the
transfer system and the actual waste collection amount. The data collected during field survey
indicates that the current amount of waste collected in the service area is 132.36m3/day but the
estimated one is 191.2m3/day.
Page | 44
In order to bridge the difference, it is supposed that the actual waste collection amount would
meet with the estimated one with in the design period. Consequently, waste collection amount
for designing the transfer system is summarized in the table below.
Year 2019 2029

Population
Woreda 1 17,000 24,587

Woreda 2 7,500 10,848
Woreda 3 23,875 34,531
Total 48,375 69,966
Waste amount
(m3/day) 157.58 344.53
Required capacity
(m3/day) 191.72 450
5.4.4 Transfer technology

The type of transfer station recommended for the transfer and transport system is the ‘tipping
floor waste storage’ system. As introduction of the transfer station is the first case in Addis
Ababa and it is expected to expand the facility, the system should be simple to operate
and the facility be flexible . This system has Simple arrangement (little potential for
equipment breakdown). It is generally less expensive and provides more operational flexibility.
The storage provides disconnect between waste receipts and waste loading i.e. shortage of
transfer trucks does not shut down facility. In addition it allows easy screening and removal of
unacceptable wastes.
5.4.5 Conceptual design
➢ Outline of the project

The project is outlined in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6: Outline of the project

Item Specification
Transfer station Type: Tipping floor waste storage
Capacity: 450m3/day
Collection equipment Push cart
Collection capacity: 1.24 m3
Dimension: 1.5x1.18x0.7 (LxWxH)
Truck
Collection capacity: 4.5 m3
Dimension: 2.7x1.5x1.1 (LxWxH)
Page | 45
Transport equipment Compactor truck

Collection capacity: 40m3
Dimension: 6.4mx2.05mx2.57m (LxWxH)
Compactor truck
Collection capacity: 80m3
Dimension: 7.3mx2.2mx2.7m (LxWxH)
Wheel dozer
Dimension: 7.4mx3.3mx3.5m(LxWxH)
➢ Conceptual design
Figure 5-13 shows the proposed site lay out plan of a fully enclosed transfer station and Figure
5-14 shows the main transfer building. This facility has a design capacity of 450 m3 per day. The
Site design plans show the following features:
The transfer station building. Including tipping floor (the floor of the transfer station where
waste is unloaded (tipped) for inspection, sorting, and loading.
Parking areas. Employees, visitors, and transfer vehicles.
Buffer areas. Open space and trees that reduce impacts on the community.
Access roads. Instance and exit of vehicles
Materials Recovery area: Plastics, paper, and metal
Utilities. Wash room, toilet
Guard house: Guards shelter
Store: sanitary equipments, pesticides
Office
Page | 46
Figure 5-13: Plan of transfer station
Page | 47
Figure 5-14: Main transfer building floor plan
5.4.6 Nuisance Management
➢ Litter
Litter management includes:
• Storage of waste and recyclable materials in containers and/or buildings as intended in the
design
• Require all incoming and outgoing loads to be covered.
• Ensure that all incoming and outgoing trucks are leak-proof to avoid leachate spills on
public streets.
• Implement daily litter inspections and pickup at the facility and on surrounding streets.
• Install a perimeter fence to prevent windblown litter from leaving the site.
• Retrieval of litter on the site, surrounding properties, and along roads leading to the site.
Page | 48
➢ Dust
Management of dust includes:
Dust from Vehicles
• Pave all roads on site, or lay gravel as a less expensive option.

• Clean facility roads frequently with street-sweeping equipment.
• Wash waste collection vehicles before they leave the transfer station to remove dust-
generating dirt and debris.
Dust from Waste Handling Operations
• Align building openings to minimize exposure to prevailing winds.

• Install plastic curtains over building openings.
• Keep station doors closed during operating hours, except when trucks are entering or
exiting.
• Install misting systems over tipping areas to “knock down” dust particles.
➢ Odors
Odor management includes:
• Remove all waste at the end of each operating day. Do not allow any waste to remain on
site overnight.
• Frequently clean/wash down the tipping floor or surge pit.
• Install ventilation systems with air filters or scrubbers.
• Plant vegetative barriers, such as trees, to absorb and disperse odors.
• Install plastic curtains on entrances and exits to contain odors when doors are opened to
allow vehicles to enter or exit.
➢ Noise
Mitigation of noise includes:
Structural and Site Layout Approaches
• Totally enclose all waste-handling operations to contain noise.

• Use concrete walls and structures, which absorb sound better than metal structures.
• Install double-glazed windows which contain noise better than single-glazed windows.
• Install shielding or barriers, such as trees and walls, around the facility to block and absorb
noise. Size of the shielding, distance to receptors, and shielding materials all determine
Page | 49
effectiveness. Walls can be made from concrete, stone, brick, wood, plastic, metal, or earth.
Vegetation further mitigates noise and increase aesthetics. Barriers should be continuous,
with no breaks, and long enough to protect the intended receptors.
• Insulate transfer building walls with sound-absorbing materials.
• Locate administrative buildings between sources of noise and community.
• Orient transfer building openings (i.e., doors) away from receptors.
Operational Practices
• Keep doors closed during operating hours, except when vehicles are entering or exiting.
• Establish operating hours that avoid early morning or late night operations.
➢ Vectors
The control of vectors such as rats, mice, cockroaches, and other insects include:
• Seal or screen openings that allow rodents and insects to enter the building, such as door
and window frames, vents, and masonry cracks. Also check for and repair chewed insulation
at points where utility structures, such as wires and pipes, enter the transfer building.
• Treat insect breading areas and eliminate as many of these breading areas as possible.
Implement practices that do not create new breeding areas.
• Implement practices that reduce the likeliness of attracting vectors (e.g., remove all waste
at the end of the operating day, wash tipping areas daily, and pick up litter and other debris
daily).
Page | 50
Chapter 6 CONCLUSION
6.1 Summary and conclusion
Municipal solid waste management (SWM) is one of the most important tasks that have to be
carried out by the government. Collection of municipal solid waste is the most important aspect
of solid waste management. Of the total expenditure incurred in solid waste management,
typically 70 to 80 percent is directed towards the collection and transportation of waste. The
term “solid waste collection” is taken to include the initial storage of waste at the household,
shop or business premises, the loading, unloading and transfer of waste, and all stages of
transporting the waste until it reaches its final destination – a treatment plant or disposal site.
Waste transfer stations play an important role in a community’s total waste management
system, serving as the link between a community’s solid waste collection program and a final
waste disposal facility. This study is focused on assessing the solid waste collection system in
Addis Ababa. Accordingly, the productivity of the primary and secondary waste collection
system of the city was determined, and the influencing factors on the collection capacity were
identified.
The primary waste collection is conducted by pre collector groups. In average one pre collector
group consists of 10 workers. The pre collectors serve areas in a door-door collection. Majority
of the groups (65%) collect the waste by using pushcart while the rest use collection truck.
Concerning the collection mechanism, three different methods were identified: the pushcart
method, the pushcart - collector method, collecting truck method. The average collection
productivity of each collection method was determined to be 2.12m3/worker/day for the
pushcart method, 2.81m3/worker/day for the pushcart - collector method and 4.2m3/hr for
collection truck method. In the secondary collection system, three different types of trucks
were used to deliver waste from the container sites to the dumpsite: container truck (8 m3),
compactors truck (40 m3) and compactors truck (80 m3) with collection productivity of 6.29
m3/hr, 18.29 m3/hr and 39.7 m3/hr respectively.
The primary waste collection capacity of Addis Ababa is determined to be 3192868.8m3 /year
and the secondary waste collection capacity 2,579,183.22 m3/year. This value show that the
current solid waste collection capacity of the city is lacking when compared to the waste
generation rate of the city which is 4, 157469.12m3/year.
Page | 51
The major possible influential factors that affect productivity in primary waste collection were
collection methods, equipment used, and motivation of the workers. For secondary waste
collection, the factors that affected productivity were truck type, manpower, design of schedule
and availability of equipments.
It was also observed during field survey that the city is in need of a safe, operationally efficient
transfer facility that meets the waste needs of the community. In many communities, citizens
have voiced concerns about temporary solid waste solid waste storage sites that are poorly
sited and operated. The current atmosphere is such that gaining public approval for
constructing new facility near population center is challenging.
6.2 Recommendation
The current solid waste collection of Addis Ababa doesn’t cope with the waste generation rate
of the city. Therefore there is a need to address the issue.
The overall collection capacity of the city can be enhanced by promoting the use of best
practices in transfer station sitting, design, and operation to maximize the collection system
effectiveness and efficiency, while minimizing the impact on the community.
In addition to regulatory requirements, public opposition frequently makes sitting a new

transfer station near population centers difficult. Yet transfer stations play an important role in
a community’s waste management system. A sitting process that includes continuous public
participation is integral to developing a transfer station. The public must be a legitimate partner
in the facility sitting process to integrate community needs and concerns and to influence the
decision-making process.
For publicly developed transfer stations, a good first step by public officials in the site selection
process is establishing a sitting committee. The committee’s main responsibility includes
developing criteria to identify and evaluate potential sites. The committee should consist of key
individuals who represent various stakeholder interests. These stakeholders might include:
• Community and neighborhood groups

• Industry and business representatives
• Civic and public interest groups
• Environmental organizations
• Local- and state-elected officials
Page | 52
• Public officials, such as public works employees and solid waste professionals
• Academic institutions
Committee members should be selected to ensure broad geographical representation from

across the area to be served by the transfer station. The government agency responsible for
transfer station compliance also should make a commitment to the community concerning its
role in actively and effectively enforcing all requirements.
In addition, the productivity of primary waste collection can be enhanced by improving the pre
collectors’ equipments. The equipments the pre collectors work with are expected to be
provided by themselves. Therefore there is limitation in capacity to the type, number and state
of the equipment they can work with. The working environment could also be improved by
providing them with safety equipments such as gloves and face mask for mouth and nose. This
would protect the health of the workers and the collection process would get more effective,
increasing their productivity.
To improve the productivity and capacity of secondary waste collection, the sub cities can
practice regular maintenance of trucks. This leads to less number of trucks out of work in the
future. The number of trucks available for waste collection should also be increased for all the
sub cities to fit the collection capacity of the pre collectors. Furthermore, it was observed from
the study that compactors have overall better collection capacity when compared to container
trucks. Therefore the operation system should focus more on compactors. The sub cities could
also use incentives such as extra money to motivate drivers and assistants to operate more
shifts.
Page | 53
REFERENCES
Addis Ababa City Administration (1998). Improving Urban Environmental Conditions in Addis
Ababa
Aklilu A. (2015). Evaluation of Solid Waste Landfill Potential Site Using GIS Based Multi Criteria
Evaluation Method: A Case Study of Addis Ababa. M.sc.Thesis, Addis Ababa University
Alemayehu A. (2007). Hand book on general principles to solid waste management. Addis
Ababa
Ali M. andEyasu E. (2017). Domestic Solid Waste Management and Its Environmental Impacts in
Addis Ababa City, Journal of Environment and Waste Management
Asi E. (2013). Bottom-Up Approach to Sustainable Solid Waste Management in African

Countries, M.Sc. Thesis, Brandenburg University of Technology, Germany
CamillaL.B. (2005). The Cycle of Plastic Waste: An Analysis of the Informal Plastic
Recovery System in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim
Camilla L.B. (2013). Urban Services and Governance: The Case of Solid Waste Management in
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim
CSA (2009).Statistical Abstract of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa: Central Statistical Authority
David, Satterthwaite (1999). The Links between Poverty and the Environment in Urban Areas
of Africa, Asia and Latin America, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the
European Commission (EC), New York
EPHTI (2004). Solid waste management for environment and occupational health students, In
collaboration with the Carter Center, the Ethiopian Minister of Health, and the Ethiopian
Ministry of Education
FDRE (2007). Solid Waste Management Proclamation, Addis Ababa
G/ TsadkanG/M. (2002). Domestic Solid Waste Management in Mekelle City: Tigray Region,
Ethiopia
Gebrie K. (2009). Management of Domestic Solid Waste in Bahirdar Town: Operational

Analysis and Assessment of Constraints that Affect Solid Waste Management, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Hoornweg, R.C. Kirkwood and A.J.Longley (1999). Clean Technology and the Environment,
Great Britain
Lemma (2007).Household solid waste generation rate and composition analysis in two selected
kebeles of Adama town.MSc. Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa
Page | 54
Louigueur D. (2007). Private sector participation in integrated sustainable solid waste

management in low- and middle income countries
Coffey M. and Coad A. (2010).Collection of municipal solid waste in developing countries,

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT). Nairobi, Kenya
Krause M. J. and. Townsend T. G, (2014). Rapid waste composition studies for the assessment
of solid waste management systems in developing countries
Meenakshi P. (2005). Elements of Environmental Science and Engineering, Prentice Hall of India
Private limited, India
Memon M.A. (2010). Integrated solid waste management based on the 3R approach
Monroe T.(1997), Environmental Health, U.S.A
Michael W. (1995). An Integrated Course for Geography, Stanley Thrones Ltd, England
Nigatu R. ,Rajan D.S. and Bizunesh B. S. (2011). Challenges and Opportunities in Municipal Solid
Waste Management:The Case of Addis Ababa City, Central Ethiopia.
Pfeffer JT. (1992). Solid waste management engineering.Prentis-Hall, Inc
Rick L. (2017). An introduction to solid waste management
Sango I.andSackey A. (2007). Course hand book of urban environment management. Ethiopian
civil service college, Addis Ababa
SBPDA (2003). Solid Waste Management Status: Report of Addis Ababa: The Way Forward.
Addis Ababa: Sanitation, Beautification and Park Development Authority
SBPDA (2004a). Assessment of Micro and Small Enterprises Engaged in Solid Waste
Management in Addis Ababa, Addis Ababa: Sanitation Beautification Park and Development
Agency
Solomon C. (2011). Assessment of Municipal solid waste management service in Dessie

Town.M.sc. Thesis, Addis Ababa University
Techobanglous G. (2002).Handbook of Solid Waste Management, McGraw hill International

Edition, USA
Tchobanoglous, T.and B.J., Vigil, (1993).Integrated Solid Waste Management, Engineering

Principle and Management Issues. The McGraw-Hill Companies, New York.
UNDP (2004).Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. New York: UNDP Urban
Harvest Working Paper Series, Paper No. 1.
Page | 55
UNEP (1996). International Source Book on Environmentally SoundTechnologies for Municipal

Solid Waste Management
UNEP (2009). Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan: Training Manual for
Assessment of Current Waste Management System and Gaps therein, Volume 2, Osaka/
Shiga, Japan
UN – Habitat (2003). Urban Inequalities Report: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Uriate J. and Filemon A, (2008). Solid Waste Management and Practices
World Health Organization (1999). Safe Management of Wastes from Health Care Activities
World Bank (2012). What a waste: A global review of solid waste management, Urban
development series
World Bank (2015). Enhancing Urban Resilience: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Yeuan G. (2000). Disposal of Solid Wastes, Point Sources of Pollution, Local Effects and Its
Control, Tsinghua University, Beijing
Yirgalem M. (2001). Land-use Conflict and Impact Assessments of Repi Landfill Site in
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Trondheim
Yirgalem M. (2005). Landfill Management, its Impacts on the local Environment and Urban
Sustainability: The Case of Repi Landfill Site, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Trondheim
Yirgalem, M. (2008). The Growth and Management of Addis Ababa: Visible and Invisible
Actors in Urban Management and Emerging Trends of Infomralization: A Case Study from Kolfe-
Keranio Sub-City, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Doctoral thesis, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, Trondheim
Zelalem F.C. (2006). Controlling the Informal Sector: Solid Waste Collection and the Addis Ababa
City Administration, M.Sc. Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim
Zurbrugg C. (2003). Urban Solid Waste Management in Low-Income Countries of Asia: How to
Cope With the Garbage Crisis
Page | 56
APPENDIX
Assessment of the Solid Waste Collection Practices

of the City Of Addis Ababa
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology
Proposed key informant
CMA at the woreda
• Cleansing management officer

CMA at the sub city
• General manager of solid waste management
• Environmental protection officer
CMA at the city
• Head of the solid waste management
Head of the selected pre collector groups
Truck Drivers
Page | 57
Appendix I - Semi Structured Interview Guide: CMA of the Woredas
Questions Response
1. How many pre collector groups work in this woreda
in total?
2. How many members in average are in one group?
3. How many households are in the woreda?

4. Which criteria are decisive for the division of the
collection areas?
5. Who decides how many pre collectors are in one

group?
Appendix II - Semi Structured Interview Guide: Pre Collectors
Questions Response Supplementary questions

1. How many members are in your How many females are
group? there?
2. What equipment do you have? Who provide you with the
equipment?
3. Where do you bring the collected
waste?
4. Container
a. How many containers do you
work with?
b. How long do you need to fill a
container?
c. How often are the containers
collected?
5. How many days per week do you
work?
serve one area?
Page | 58
Appendix III - Semi Structured Interview Guide: CMA at the Sub City

1. How many woredas are in the sub
city?
2. How many SME’s are in the sub
city?
3. Container
a. How many container sites are Is there a map?
in the sub city?
b. How many containers are
collected per day?
4. Trucks
a. How many trucks are there? How many are in operation?
b. What types of tucks are
there?
c. Where are the trucks starting
from?
5. How many days per week does
the trucks operate?
6. What are the working hours? The number of shifts?
7. How many people are working on Is there a place for extra
one truck? person?
Appendix IV - Semi Structured Interview Guide: Drivers and Assistants

1. How many people usually work in one
truck?
2. What are your responsibilities?
work?
4. Do you always work on same truck? Do you always work together?
5. Do they drive to the same container
site every day?
6. How often do the trucks be
maintained?
Page | 59
Appendix V - Monitoring Sheet for Pre Collectors
Date Start time
Sub city Arrival

container
Woreda End transfer
Pre collector
Stop no. Stop Start Households Bags Workers
10
Page | 60
Appendix VI - Data Collection Sheet of the Trucks
Time Location
Start of work
End of work
At the Containers sites
No Arrival Departure Area of Transferred Sources of Pre collector

time time container site volume (m3) waste groups that
serve the
container
1
At the dump site
No. Arrival Departure Transfer start Transfer end

time time
Page | 61

Solid Waste Addis Solyana Aweke

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solid Waste Addis Solyana Aweke

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solid Waste Addis Solyana Aweke

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Addis Ababa University

Addis Ababa Institute of Technology

Assessment of Solid Waste Collection Capacity in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

By: Solyana Aweke Teferra

Advisor: Dr. Alemtsehay G/Meskel

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Approved by Members of Examining Board

_____________________ ___________ _________________

Advisor Date Signature

_____________________ __________ _________________

Internal Examiner Date Signature

_____________________ __________ _________________

External Examiner Date Signature

_______________________ __________ _________________

Chairman Date Signature

Name: Solyana Aweke

Place: Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, Addis Ababa University

Date: June, 2019

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my advisor Dr. Alemtsehay G/Meskel

CMA Cleansing Management Agency

CSA Central Statistics Agency

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

ILO International Labor Organization

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

MSSE Micro and Small Scale Enterprise

NGO Non Governmental Organization

SBPDA Sanitation, Beautification and Park Development Authority

SWM Solid Waste Management

ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................ V

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... VI

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ IX

LIST OF FIGURE ................................................................................................................. X

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1

1.3.2 Specific objectives .............................................................................................. 3

1.4 Research Questions .................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Solid Waste Definition ............................................................................................... 4

2.4.2 On site handling, storage and processing ............................................................ 7

2.4.3 Collection ............................................................................................................ 8

2.4.4 Transfer and transport ......................................................................................... 9

2.4.5 Processing and Recovery .................................................................................... 9

2.5 Transfer Station ........................................................................................................ 10

2.5.2 Capacity ............................................................................................................ 13

2.6 Studies of Solid Waste Management in Addis Ababa ............................................. 14

3.1 Overview of Addis Ababa ........................................................................................ 17

3.5.2 Solid waste services provided to households .................................................... 21

3.5.3 Storage and transportation of solid waste ......................................................... 22

3.5.4 The Repi dump site ........................................................................................... 22

3.5.5 The informal recycling sector in Addis Ababa ................................................. 23

CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 24

4.1 Description of the study area .................................................................................... 24

4.2.2 Field survey....................................................................................................... 25

4.2.3 Document Review............................................................................................. 25

4.3 Sample size ............................................................................................................... 25

4.4.2 Secondary waste collection ............................................................................... 28

4.4.3 Transfer station design ...................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................. 29

5.1 Primary Waste Collection ........................................................................................ 29

5.1.2 Collection methods of pre collectors ................................................................ 29

_______________ _ _____________

___ _

___ _

_____ _