978-3-659-88343-9-1.pdf

         
               
                 
                             !                       "             #                    $   %                       &                                        "              '( )              *'+,-                     !                %                 
 
   

                      .  /! 0     1    2      
03)  0  4            
 
   
       
     
 
   
       
    
  !  
 

  
  

 
   

     
 
 
 


     
 
  
 



  ! 
  
"

 

 
# 

 
 $  !%
 !

   
& 
$
 '  

 
'  

($
 
 ' 

# %
 %
)   %
*   % '  
 $

 
'
 

 
  + 
 


" %

 
 

&
 '  !

#   



 
$, 
 

( 

$
    
  
 
-
 
 
   
.   
   
 
 
 

 
     
 
  
 

  

 
 
 ! 
"-
 
 

 
 


 


( 
   %
 

 
 


  

    

 
  

. 
 

 
  %
    %

  %
 
  %
 
 


$ 
   
 

 
$



$ -


 

 
  
 
 -

 

  

  

  
  
 
  


 

 
-
- /

/
 
$$$    0 

  1"
1"#23.
" 
   






  
 4& 
)*
5
/
+)     6
78%
99:::
&  %
 2 
 ;    

) - * 
 

&
 


 
 
 <

"
-
= -


& %
.  ) /- 
>
7?:9
4& 
)*
5
/
+) "
3 
 

"
 
 
&  
7?:9  HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT IN BOLGATANGA MUNICIPALITY: THE ISSUES OF URBAN GHANA Bright Yintii Buzong Maurice Mustapha Braimah ABSTRACT Many urban areas in Ghana are heavily polluted with plastic waste and the Bolgatanga Municipality is not an exception. The inability of the Bolgatanga Municipal Assembly and Zoomlion Ghana limited to tackle the problem, calls for the participation of the general public, Households as a subset of the public consume more plastic products and subsequently generates enormous amount of waste. In addition, their waste management practices affect the environment. In view of this, the study was carried out with the following objectives; to ascertain the plastic waste situation, to identified households’ plastic waste management practices and challenges and as well as the way forward to reducing plastic waste. The questionnaire based study was carried out in 12 Electoral Areas that were randomly selected. 81.67% of households believed the plastic waste situation was bad. Household waste management practices identified included; temporal storage of waste in dustbins, boxes, buckets and large polythene bags. Plastic waste was generally thrown together with other waste and gotten rid out of the household. 54.77% of households finally disposed their waste at approved dumping site while 34.77% burned their waste. A percentage of 8.92% disposed their waste at any available open space whilst 1.54% buried their waste. Challenges of household waste management identified were distance of dumpsites, lack of dumpsite and dustbins as well as irregular collection of waste by waste management firms. Households however believed that dealing with the problem required a change of attitude towards waste disposal, discontinuation of plastic use, recycling, and all stakeholder participation in waste management. Recommendations made included the establishment of a recycling plant, creation of awareness and carrying out educational campaigns, the use of environment R’s and support for the Municipal Assembly in managing waste at the household level.  ŝŝ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We would like to express our gratitude to all persons who were directly or indirectly involved to add their efforts to the accomplishment of this work. We would particularly like to extend our heartfelt thanks and appreciation to my supervisors Mr. Maxwell Anim-Gyampo and Dr. Shamsu-Deen Ziblim, for their follow-up, devotion of their precious time, valuable suggestions, comments and systematic guidance to improve the content of this work. They also deserve our utmost gratitude for his encouragement, on time responses and cooperation relevant materials. My special gratitude and deepest thanks also to Mr. Boniface Sigme Boinde, Clifford Tampouri, Ajaab Rogatus and Patrick Swanzy for their support, advice and comments on the research work. We would like to extend our thanks to Ministry of Food and Agriculture Organisation Navrongo and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for assisting with relevant secondary data during this study.  ŝŝŝ DEDICATION We dedicate this work to Almighty God  ŝǀ dĂďůĞŽĨŽŶƚĞŶƚƐ ^dZd͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ŝŝ <EKt>'DEd͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ŝŝŝ /d/KE͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ŝǀ ,WdZKE͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭ ϭ͘Ϭ/EdZKhd/KE͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭ ϭ͘ϭĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭ ϭ͘ϮdŚĞŽŶĐĞƉƚŽĨ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂŶĚƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŽŶŝŶǁĂƐƚĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͘ϰ ϭ͘Ϯ͘ϭĞĨŝŶŝƚŝŽŶŽĨŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƚĞƌŵƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰ ϭ͘Ϯ͘Ϯ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶŝŶǁĂƐƚĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϲ ϭ͘ϯWƌŽďůĞŵ^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϳ ϭ͘ϰ'ĞŶĞƌĂůŽďũĞĐƚŝǀĞ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϵ ϭ͘ϱ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐŽďũĞĐƚŝǀĞƐŽĨƚŚĞƐƚƵĚLJ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϵ ϭ͘ϲ:ƵƐƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϵ ,WdZdtK͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϮ Ϯ͘Ϭ>/dZdhZZs/t͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϮ Ϯ͘ϭdŚĞ,ŝƐƚŽƌLJŽĨƉůĂƐƚŝĐƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϮ Ϯ͘ϮdLJƉĞƐŽĨƉůĂƐƚŝĐƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϮ  ǀ Ϯ͘ϯ'ůŽďĂůWůĂƐƚŝĐƐƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϯ Ϯ͘ϰWůĂƐƚŝĐǁĂƐƚĞ͕ĐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϱ Ϯ͘ϰ͘ϭ^ŽƵƌĐĞƐŽĨƉůĂƐƚŝĐǁĂƐƚĞ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϲ Ϯ͘ϱŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨƉůĂƐƚŝĐƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϳ Ϯ͘ϲWůĂƐƚŝĐƵƐĞĂŶĚǁĂƐƚĞDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŝŶƐƵďͲ^ĂŚĂƌĂŶĨƌŝĐĂ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϭ Ϯ͘ϳĂƌůŝĞƌƉůĂƐƚŝĐǁĂƐƚĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŝƚŝĂƚŝǀĞƐŝŶ'ŚĂŶĂ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϯ Ϯ͘ϴ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƉůĂƐƚŝĐǁĂƐƚĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϱ Ϯ͘ϵƵƌƌĞŶƚĂŶĚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨƉůĂƐƚŝĐƐǁĂƐƚĞ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϲ Ϯ͘ϵ͘ϭ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞͬŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƉůĂƐƚŝĐǁĂƐƚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŝŶ 'ŚĂŶĂ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘Ϯϳ Ϯ͘ϵ͘Ϯ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŚƌŽƵŐŚWŽůŝĐLJ͕>ĞŐĂůĂŶĚ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶĂů &ƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϭ Ϯ͘ϵ͘ϯŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϮ Ϯ͘ϵ͘ϰtĂƐƚĞZĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ͕ZĞĐLJĐůŝŶŐĂŶĚZĞƵƐĞ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϯ Ϯ͘ϭϬDĂũŽƌĐŽŶƐƚƌĂŝŶƚƐĂŶĚĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐƚŽǁĂƐƚĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŝŶ'ŚĂŶĂ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϯ ,WdZd,Z͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϰ ϯ͘ϬDd,KK>K'z͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϰ ϯ͘ϭ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϰ ϯ͘ϮůŝŵĂƚĞĂŶĚǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϱ  ǀŝ ϯ͘ϯdŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚLJĂŶĚĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϱ ϯ͘ϰ'ĞŽůŽŐLJĂŶĚ^ŽŝůdLJƉĞƐϯ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϲ ϯ͘ϱĞŵŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϲ ϯ͘ϲ^ĂŵƉůŝŶŐWƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϳ ϯ͘ϲ͘ϭ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJĚĂƚĂĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϳ ϯ͘ϲ͘ϮWƌŝŵĂƌLJĂƚĂĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϳ ϯ͘ϲ͘ϯYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶŶĂŝƌĞƐĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϯϵ ϯ͘ϲ͘ϰĂƚĂWƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŶŐĂŶĚŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰϬ ϯ͘ϳ>ŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞƐƚƵĚLJ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰϬ ,WdZ&KhZ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰϭ ϰ͘ϬZ^h>d^E/^h^^/KE͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰϭ ϰ͘ϭWůĂƐƚŝĐǁĂƐƚĞĨůŽǁĂŶĚŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞŽůŐĂƚĂŶŐĂŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰϭ ϰ͘ϮWůĂƐƚŝĐƌĞĐLJĐůŝŶŐĞĨĨŽƌƚƐŝŶƚŚĞŽůŐĂƚĂŶŐĂDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰϰ ϰ͘ϯĞŵŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐŽĨƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞŶƚƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϰϳ ϰ͘ϰZĞĂƐŽŶƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƉƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĨŽƌƉůĂƐƚŝĐƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱϬ ϰ͘ϱ^ŽƵƌĐĞƐŽĨƉůĂƐƚŝĐƐƚŽƚŚĞŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱϭ ϰ͘ϲDĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨƉůĂƐƚŝĐƐďƌŽƵŐŚƚŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱϮ ϰ͘ϳKƉŝŶŝŽŶŽŶƉůĂƐƚŝĐǁĂƐƚĞĐĂƵƐŝŶŐƚŚƌĞĂƚƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱϰ ϰ͘ϴWŽƐƐŝďůĞĞĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĨƉůĂƐƚŝĐǁĂƐƚĞ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱϱ  ǀŝŝ ϰ͘ϵ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚǁĂƐƚĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱϴ ϰ͘ϵ͘ϭWĞƌƐŽŶƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŽĨŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚǁĂƐƚĞ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱϴ ϰ͘ϵ͘ϮdĞŵƉŽƌĂů^ƚŽƌĂŐĞŽĨŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚǁĂƐƚĞ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϱϵ ϰ͘ϵ͘ϯDĞƚŚŽĚƐŽĨŝƐƉŽƐĂůŽĨ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚtĂƐƚĞĂŶĚdŝŵĞƐƉĞŶƚ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϲϭ ϰ͘ϵ͘ϰDŽĚĞŽĨĚŝƐƉŽƐŝŶŐƉůĂƐƚŝĐǁĂƐƚĞ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϲϰ ϰ͘ϭϬ ŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐŽĨŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚǁĂƐƚĞĚŝƐƉŽƐĂů͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϲϲ ϰ͘ϭϭ /ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶƐƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌǁĂƐƚĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞƐƚƵĚLJĂƌĞĂ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϲϳ ϰ͘ϭϮ ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚ ǁŝůůŝŶŐŶĞƐƐ ƚŽ ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞ ƉůĂƐƚŝĐ ĨƌŽŵ ŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚ ǁĂƐƚĞ ďĞĨŽƌĞ ĚŝƐƉŽƐĂů͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϳϬ ϰ͘ϭϯ dƌĞŶĚŽŶƵƐĞŽĨƉůĂƐƚŝĐƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƐŝŶŽůŐĂƚĂŶŐĂ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϳϭ ϰ͘ϭϰ ,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚŝŶǀŽůǀĞŵĞŶƚŝŶƉůĂƐƚŝĐǁĂƐƚĞŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϳϯ ϰ͘ϭϱ ŶƵŵĞƌĂƚŝǀĞŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϳϳ ,WdZ&/s͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϴϱ ϱ͘ϬKE>h^/KEEZKDDEd/KE^͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϴϱ ϱ͘ϭ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϴϱ ϱ͘ϮŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϴϲ ϱ͘ϯZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϴϳ Z&ZE^͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϵϬ WWE/^͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϬϱ  ǀŝŝŝ WWE/y/͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϬϲ            ŝdž   ͳǤͲ   ͳǤͳ ƒ ‰”‘—† Plastics are man-made organic materials that are produced from oil and natural gas as raw materials. They are relatively cheap, durable and versatile material. Products made from plastics have brought benefits to society in terms of economic activity, jobs and quality of life. Plastics can even help reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in many circumstances, even in some packaging applications when compared to the alternatives (European commission DG ENV, 2011). The benefits driven from plastics compel manufacturers to increase production. According to Spokas (2007) and Geographical (2005) around 500 billion of plastics bags are used worldwide. A United Kingdom group Wasteonline also puts annual global production of plastic around 100 million tonnes per year. In a study conducted in Switzerland in 2010, approximately 1000,000 tonnes or 125 kg of plastic material was used or consumed per head. According to the same report, the world produces 20 times more plastic today than 50 years ago. As plastic consumption is increasing, more and more plastic waste is being generated (World Bank, 1996; Yankson, 1998). FOEN (2003) indicates that, plastics form around 15% of household refuse and according to a report published in December 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) determined that, the United States alone generated 30 million tonnes of plastic waste in 2009. It is believed after their entry into the environment, plastics can persist up to 100 years without being decomposed by sunlight and/or microorganisms (Stevens, 2001 and UNEP, 2005a). The issue of plastic waste management is therefore a major global phenomenon that has crept up over the decades, and really requires a global and comprehensive  ϭ solution that includes systemic rethinks about usage and production (Wassener, 2011). It is a crucial problem not only for developing countries but for the developed countries as well. As enormous amount of plastic waste is generated throughout the world, the most crucially posed question is how to manage it effectively and efficiently to save the environment and the continuous existence of mankind (Wienaah, 2007). Many municipalities, cities and towns the world over continue to grapple with the problem because it imposes negative environmental externalities. It is usually nonbiodegradable and therefore can remain as waste in the environment for a very long time (EC, DG ENV, 2011) it may pose risks to human health as well as the environment; and it can be difficult to reuse and/or recycle in practice. An issue of particular concern is that, giant masses of plastic waste have been discovered in the North Atlantic and Pacific Ocean; the full environmental impacts of which are not yet fully understood but which cause severe damage to seabirds, marine mammals and fish (EC DG ENV, 2011).In Ghana, most of the concern for plastic waste management is with the urban areas than the rural areas. Urban areas in Ghana produce a variety of these plastic wastes because of the adoption of a more hygienic mode of packaging food, beverages, “iced water” and other products. This has brought plastic packaging to replace the existing cultural packaging methods (leaf wrappers, brown paper and metal cup uses) in cities and towns (Adarkwa and Edmundsen, 1993; KMA, 1995; World Bank, 1995; Schweizer and Annoh, 1996). This widespread replacement of the modes of packaging with plastics is an indication of the uniqueness of plastic properties such as versatility, inertness and flexibility, especially in the application areas of packaging. As a result of their unique properties, plastics have become the most favoured packaging materials in commerce with firms making windfall profits and transferring the environmental cost associated with cleaning plastic waste on the general public. The shift to this new form of plastic packaging in Ghana has equally created or generated huge quantities of waste and created pressing sanitation problem as many  Ϯ towns and cities are overwhelmed with management of wastes. According to a study conducted in Accra, Ghana by GOPA Consultants in 1983, Plastic Waste accounted for 1-5% (of net weight) of the total amount of waste generated (Lardinois and Van de Klundert, 1995). The majority of these wastes are sachet water bags. This is so because, the public have developed a strong taste for such sachet water since it is portable and can easily be carried from one place to another. There is also a perception that such sachet water is cleaner and more mineralized than tap water. After gulping down the liquid content, these bags are discarded indiscriminately thereby littering the whole environment. These bags now constitute a major proportion of the plastic waste generated throughout the urban areas in Ghana (Wienaah, 2007). Statistics released by the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) Waste Management Department and other waste management bodies indicated that about 9000 tonnes of waste is generated daily, out of which 315 tonnes are plastic related (Amankwah, 2005). In addition to the plastic sachet that poses problems, other forms of plastics include plastic bottles, polythene bags and wrappers. It is estimated that, there are over 40 plastic producing industries in the country producing over 30,000 metric tons per annum of assorted plastic products. In addition, about 12,000 metric tons of finished plastic products are imported annually into the country. These add to compound the plastic waste problem in the country. At least about 20-30% of these end up as waste in the streets. With very few recycling facilities in the country, the issue of post-consumer plastic waste has become a major issue of concern. However, there have been serious attempts to address the problem. Plastic wastes are sent to dumpsites, but majority end up in drains, streams and open places. Some plastic wastes are disposed of by open dumping, open burning, controlled burning and tipping at dumpsites. These methods employed in the management of plastics over the years have only proved unsuccessful. The current state of plastic waste management leaves much to be desired. Less than 40% of urban residents are served with waste collection services. The traditionally applied methods of dealing with wastes including burning, burying and open space  ϯ dumping have been unsuccessful, and the resulting contamination of water and land has led to growing concern over the absence of an integrated approach to waste management in the country. This therefore implies that, there is no single solution to the challenge of plastic waste management. Generally, waste management process is usually framed in terms of generation, storage, treatment and disposal, with transportation inserted between stages required. Hence, George, (2008) indicated that a combination of source reduction, recycling, incineration and burying in landfills and conversion is currently the optimal way to manage domestic waste which includes plastic waste. However in order to achieve this optimal way of managing waste in general, participation by all stakeholders including households is key. ͳǤʹ Š‡ ‘ ‡’– ‘ˆ ‘—•‡Š‘Ž† ‹ Ž—•‹‘ ƒ† ’ƒ”–‹ ‹’ƒ–‹‘ ‹ ™ƒ•–‡ ƒƒ‰‡‡– ͳǤʹǤͳ ‡ˆ‹‹–‹‘‘ˆŠ‘—•‡Š‘Ž†ƒ†‘–Š‡”–‡”• A number of authors have described the concept of household in different ways relating to different social context (Solomon, 2011). According to Oostterveer and Spaargaren (2010), the household is important because it is the place where people live and sometimes also work together, producing, storing, separating and reusing domestic waste. Niechof (2004a,b) describes household as the locus of livelihood generation, where resources are generated, organised, managed and used for economic activities as well as of household members and care. According to Mtshali (2002), the concept of family and household are often regarded as interchangeable, but they are not (Solomon, 2011). The household is the most important institution in which people live. It is a basic unit of society where individuals both cooperate and compete for resources. Dharmawan (1999) however describes a household as an organisation of human beings living in a common residence that disposes resources and pools incomes of its members and uses it by way of productive and reproductive activities for ensuring it members existence, in which socio-economic relations that  ϰ are internal and external to the household unit, are continually formed for enabling in meeting such needs. Nombo (2007) has describes households as the unit into which livelihood generation is anchored. It is the arena where much of daily live takes place and centre of processes that determines the welfare and wellbeing of the individual members. Furthermore, NBS (2002) defines household in two forms. First as: ‘A oneperson household where a person lives alone in a whole or part of a housing unit and has independent consumption and second as: ‘A multi-person household where a group of two or more persons occupy the whole or part of a housing unit and share their consumption. Usually members of household of this type include a husband, wife and children. Relatives, boarders, visitors and other persons are included as members of the household if they pool their resources and share their consumption. The UN (2004) defines a household as a group of two or more persons living together who make common provision for food or other essentials for living. It consists of family and non-family members that share a housing unit and their resources. The household is seen as an arena where much of the daily life takes place and the centre of processes that determine the welfare and wellbeing of individual members. Source of waste: A source of waste is a point at which waste is generated and introduced into the environment. Commercial/Municipal sources: These include plastic waste originating from stores, restaurants, markets, shops, auto repairs shops, print shops among others. Household/Residential sources: Includes wastes from all residential areas. This also include waste from single-family and multifamily dwellings, low-medium and high rise apartment. Institutional/Organisational sources: Include waste from institutions or organisations. Waste junction: The waste junction refers to a point at which waste is temporally stored by the generator to be collected by waste management firm. It includes a  ϱ container or transfer point, an approved dumping site and dustbins especially for those who receive door to door waste collection services (Solomon, 2011). Primary and secondary phase of waste management: The phase at which waste generated is under the control of the generator. The primary phase ends at the point at which the generator finally dumps his waste for collection by a waste management firm. The secondary phase however starts from the point at which the waste management firms come in to collect waste through the final disposal site. That is to say that, it starts with the transfer point and ends with the final disposal site (Solomon, 2011) ͳǤʹǤʹ ‘—•‡Š‘Ž†‹ Ž—•‹‘‹™ƒ•–‡ƒƒ‰‡‡– The household is paramount in contemporary waste management because of its integrative role between production and consumption of plastics. Based on their consumption behaviour and waste management practices, they determine the amount of plastic material flow from manufacturers as well the amount of post-consumer plastic waste in the environment. This has therefore calls for the consideration and inclusion of such an important unit in all waste management initiatives (Chambers, 2007a, 2007b; Freedman, 1997; Bliss, 1999; Kuhn, 2000; and Harris, 2007). According to Davies, (2001) current systems for waste management plans require a statutory duty on the part of the local authority to incorporate publics in the waste planning process. Increasing public participation in policy making within the environmental sphere has been proposed as a means to establish institutional credibility, develop citizen empowerment, foster social responsibility and enhance information dissemination. Justifications for improved public participation are often couched in terms of the rights of citizens to have an influence on decision making and as a mechanism through which a range of views in a diverse and complex society can be accessed. However calls for greater participation in environmental policy emanating from international regimes are congruous with Agenda 21 of the UN millennium development goals (UNCED, 1992).  ϲ In addition, the centrality of the household has over the past 3 decades become even more crucial in the wake of the unprecedented urban population growth, increased industrialization and the changing lifestyles from the hitherto rudimental to a more affluent one (UN-Habitat, 1993). As a group, households are the single largest generator of municipal waste and account for more than 50% of the total waste in the cities (Sarkhel, 2006). In some urban area, approximately 80% of the municipal waste is generated within households of which plastic waste constitutes 25% (Practical Action, 2005). During the past three decades, most urban areas the world over, has experienced a series of innovative activities around plastic waste management springing from the consistent decline of the capacity of their national and city authorities to provide adequate and efficient solid waste management services (Mitchell, 1991; Clapham, 2002; Milliken and Krause, 2002; Nyongo, 2006 and Oosteveer, 2008). These innovations are bidimensional in nature: recycling of post-consumer plastic wastes and use of alternative packaging bags. The outcome of these emerging practices towards bridging the gap between plastic production and waste management systems which promises to be the panacea for sustainable plastic waste management largely depends on the perspective of the household. As McDonald and Ball (1998) explicitly put it, “Without the public’s conscious, collective decision to support an alternative route to their waste, there will be no material for the postconsumer waste recycling industries.” ͳǤ͵ ”‘„Ž‡–ƒ–‡‡– The Bolgatanga municipality like any other urban area in Ghana is also battling with the issue of waste especially plastic waste. The Municipal is engulfed with filth as a result of plastic waste disposal. There are numerous efforts from the municipal assembly and private sector waste management authorities like Zoomlion to address the problem, but the situation is not improving. Plastic waste is often deposited in unauthorised places like gutters, open places within residential and market areas, around waste containers and along the roadside. When these plastic wastes are  ϳ collected and taken to dumping sites by waste management bodies, it is believed that it is not properly managed. They are often left in piles for weeks and later set on fire which in turn generates toxic gases that could be dangerous to inhabitants of a location and the environment. In addition when wind blows or during the rainy season some of these plastic materials are brought blown or washed back into neighbouring communities. Furthermore, the inappropriate disposal of these plastic waste especially where they turn to choke gutters promotes flooding during rains. Some choked gutters and small plastics containers such as margarine and pomade containers collect rainwater and serve as breeding sites for mosquitoes. There is also a formidable build-up of unseen plastic waste from discarded domestic and industrial tools, appliances and containers. These include toothbrushes and containers for powder, body/hair cream, detergents, cooking oil, machine oil, as well as broken toys, and plastic chairs, buckets and utensils. These same categories of plastic waste have been identified by Banjo et al (2009) in Nigeria. While plastics material like the bottles, buckets and chairs are put to use or reused, others like pure water sachets and polyethene bags are not reuse and form majority of the plastic waste found in the municipality. When these plastics waste end up in the environment, they can cause serious threats to land, water, atmosphere, wildlife and aquatic life as well. From observation, the current environmental situation confirms the fact that Bolgatanga Municipal Assembly together with Zoomlion (the only private waste management firm in Bolgatanga) are unable to cope with the problem and needs the help of general public especially households, because they are directly involved in the generation and disposal of plastic waste. On the bases of the above problems, the study has the following research questions: 1. What is the plastic waste situation in the Bolgatanga Municipality? 2. How do households manage plastic waste? 3. What problems do households face in the disposal of plastic waste? 4. What is the best possible way of reducing plastic waste in the Bolgatanga municipal?  ϴ ͳǤͶ ‡‡”ƒŽ‘„Œ‡ –‹˜‡ The general objective is to identify from the household perspective, the roles of households in the reduction of plastic waste in the Bolgatanga Municipality. ͳǤͷ ’‡ ‹ˆ‹ ‘„Œ‡ –‹˜‡•‘ˆ–Š‡•–—†› 1. To determine the plastic waste situation in the Bolgatanga municipality from the household perspective. 2. To determine how households handle plastic waste in the municipality. 3. To identify the challenges of household plastic waste management. 4. To ascertain from householders the best possible way of managing plastic waste. ͳǤ͸ —•–‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘ There are increasing concerns expressed by many stakeholders, various government organizations, environmental NGOs and the public at large with regards to the increase in plastic waste in the Ghana. Apart from that, plastic waste manufactures and importers in Ghana, have also been challenged to provide alternative ways for disposing waste or face a temporarily ban on plastic manufacturing and importation. In view of this, there are efforts from both the government and private sector to find a lasting solution to the plastic waste menace in Ghana in order to secure the environment and improve human health. This research is therefore one of such researches that try to look at the way forward in reducing plastic waste from the household perspective. The study is therefore important because findings will contribute to the ongoing endeavours in Ghana, Africa and the world at large to bring about a pattern of sustainable consumption and production of plastic products and plastic bags in particular. The findings will also provide insight to the citizens, government officials and nongovernmental organizations who might want to help resolve the plastic waste management crisis at the national and regional level and also in the Bolgatanga Municipality. Furthermore, the earth’s natural resources are also fast dwindling and therefore changing our consumption pattern together with  ϵ identifying and adopting new ways of managing waste will save the available scarce resources from being depleted faster.In addition, outcome of this study will shape the functioning of innovations around plastic waste management.    Figure 1.1: Conceptual framework of the study In Figure 1.1, household is central because it is the largest contributor of waste into the municipal waste stream (Sarkhel, 2006). It generates waste from household activities through dependence on commercial centres (such as small shops, supermarkets and the common markets), industries as well as and institutions. Household dependence on these entities leads to introduction of goods including plastic products into the household. Once plastic goods are introduced into the household, a series of activities are initiated. These series of activities are consumption, generation of waste, handling of such waste and reception of waste management services as indicated on Figure 1.1 and linked in a sequence by the arrows labelled A, B and C respectively. This sequence is so because after consumption, waste is generated and must be handled or managed by the household. To augment household waste management efforts, waste management services are  ϭϬ provided by both government and the private sector. Furthermore, household consumption pattern of plastics, waste management practices as well as the kind of waste management services received can negatively or positively affect the macro environment as depicted by the positive (+) and negative (-) sign in figure 1.1 above. The current situation in the Bolgatanga Municipality indicates that, the environment is under threat by disposal of plastic waste and based on, Sarkhel (2006) observation in Kolkata India, households are responsible for this hence consideration of household as the central unit of this conceptual framework. The conceptual framework was to help in the examination of household preference, uses and management of plastic waste. In addition it helped to ascertain the kind of waste management services received by households and from the household perspective the best possible way of curbing the plastic waste menace. An exploration of all these with households would help them assess their waste management practices and also help in defining their roles in the effective management of waste in general. This would improve the macro environment positively.  ϭϭ   ʹǤͲ    ʹǤͳ Š‡ ‹•–‘”›‘ˆ’Žƒ•–‹ • From a historical viewpoint, the development of plastics can be regarded as one of the most important technical achievements of the twentieth century. In just 50 years, plastics have permeated virtually every aspect of daily life, paving the way for new inventions, and replacing materials in existing products. The success of these materials has been based on their properties of resilience, resistance to moisture, chemicals and photo- and biodegradation, their stability, and the fact that they can be moulded into any desired form (Kershaw et al., 2011). The original breakthrough for the first semi- synthetic plastics material, cellulose nitrate, occurred in the late 1850s and involved the modification of cellulose fibres with nitric acid. Cellulose nitrate had many false starts following its invention by a Briton, Alexander Parkes, who exhibited it as the world’s first plastics in 1862. The world’s first plastics were produced at the turn of the twentieth century, and were based mainly on natural raw materials. Only in 1930 were thermoplastics, made from the basic materials like styrene, vinyl chlorine and ethylene, were introduced onto the market. But the main growth of the plastics industry did not take place before the 1960s, reaching a peak in 1973, when production reached over 40 million tonnes per year (Saechtling, 1987). Following a temporary drop in production during the oil crises and the economic recession in the beginning of the 1980s, the world production of plastics continued to increase to approximately 77 million tonnes in 1986 (Saechtling, 1987), and 86 million tonnes in 1990(Schouten and Van der Vegt, 1991). ʹǤʹ›’‡•‘ˆ’Žƒ•–‹ • According to Plastic Europe, (2012), there are different types of plastics with a variety of grades to help deliver specific properties for each application. The “big  ϭϮ six” plastic types that stand out in terms of their market share are shown depicted on Table 2.1 below. Table 2.1: Types of plastics, symbols and uses SYMBOL ABBREVIATION USES PET (6.5%) HDPE (12%) PVC (11%) Polyethylene terephthalate - Fizzy drink bottles and oven-ready meal trays. High-density polyethylene - Bottles for milk and washing-up liquids. Polyvinyl chloride - Food trays, cling film, bottles for squash, mineral water and shampoo. LDPE(17%) PP (19%) PS (7.5%) Low density polyethylene - Carrier bags and bin liners. Polypropylene - Margarine tubs, microwaveable meal trays. Polystyrene - Yoghurt pots, foam meat or fish trays, hamburger boxes and egg cartons, vending cups, plastic cutlery, Protective packaging for electronic goods and toys. OTHER (20%) Any other plastics that do not fall into any of the above categories. - An example is melamine, which is often used in plastic plates and cups. Source: (PEMRG, 2011) ʹǤ͵ Ž‘„ƒŽŽƒ•–‹ •’”‘†— –‹‘ Since 1940, plastic production globally has been increasing steadily. However there was a temporary drop in production during the oil crises and the economic recession  ϭϯ in the beginning of the 1980s. According to Mudgalet al. (2011) global plastics production grew from 1.5 million tonnes (Mt) per annum in 1950 to 245 Million tonnes in 2008, with 60 Million tonnes in Europe alone. Production during the last 10 years equalled production during the whole of the 20th century combined. In 2009, around 230 million tonnes of plastic were produced and around 25 per cent of these plastics were used in the EU. Currently worldwide plastic production is estimated to be 280 million tonnes, according to first rough estimates published by Plastics Europe. This represents around 4% increase from 2010, when 270 million tonnes of plastics were produced. It is estimated that 66.5 Mt6 of plastic will be placed on the EU market in 2020 and global plastic production could triple by 2050 (Wurpel, et al., 2011). Figure 2.1: World Plastics Production 1950-2011, (PEMRG, 2011) About 50 per cent of the plastics produced globally are used for single-use disposable applications, such as packaging, agricultural films and disposable consumer items (Hopewell et al., 2009). The drivers for plastic production and use are its improved physical and chemical properties compared to alternatives, its low cost and the  ϭϰ possibility of mass production. Drivers for its reduction therefore lie in a desire to minimize the use of resources (Kershaw et al., 2011). Production of plastic has leveled off in recent years, however, it is not declining and may well increase in the future as applications for plastic increase and its use continues to grow in developing and emerging economies (Global Industry Analysts, 2011). Without appropriate waste management, this will lead to increased plastic waste, which will add to the ‘back log’ of plastic waste already in existence. There is no agreed figure on the time that plastic takes to degrade, but it could be hundreds or thousands of years (Kershaw et al., 2011). ʹǤͶ Žƒ•–‹ ™ƒ•–‡ǡ Žƒ••‹ˆ‹ ƒ–‹‘ƒ†•‘—” ‡• Plastic waste can be classified according to various criteria. Joosten (2001) divides plastic waste, depending on its origin and quality, into three groups: production or processing waste (the best quality for recycling), sorted post-consumption plastic waste (of medium quality), and finally mixed plastic waste (low quality fraction, difficult to recycle). Tchobanoglous et al. (1993) however classifies types of solid waste in relation to the sources and generation facilities, activities, or locations associated with each type. The sources of waste include; Residential/household, Commercial/Municipal, Industrial waste, opens areas, Treatment plant sites and Agricultural. Once plastic waste forms part of solid waste, it is not out of place to say sources of solid waste could also be considered as sources of plastics waste. According to Wiennah (2007) there are basically two types of plastic waste that is generated in Ghana namely primary and secondary waste. A distinction between these is relevant for recycling/reprocessing. Primary waste plastics are generated within the plastics producing and goods manufacturing industries themselves. They are normally of high quality comparable to virgin plastics. Primary plastic waste is usually homogeneous and therefore its recycling is comparatively economical and easier.  ϭϱ The term “secondary waste” refers to waste plastics from sources other than the industrial ones. This type of plastic waste is enormous in Accra, Ghana due to the consumption and littering habits of the inhabitants. These plastic wastes are impure, i.e. they may be contaminated and often consist of mixtures of various types of plastics. The direct reprocessing of such mixed results in products with poor mechanical properties because of the different characteristics of the plastics they contain. The potential for marketing these materials is relatively low (Wiennah, 2007). ʹǤͶǤͳ ‘—” ‡•‘ˆ’Žƒ•–‹ ™ƒ•–‡ According to Wiennah (2007) the main sources of plastic waste in Ghana can be classified as industrial, commercial and municipal sources. Industrial Waste Industrial wastes are rejected materials (so-called primary waste) that originate from large plastics processing, manufacturing and packaging industries. Most of this waste material has relatively good physical characteristics, i.e. it is sufficiently clean, since it is not mixed with other materials. Commercial Waste These refer to waste originating from workshops, craftsmen, shops, supermarkets and wholesalers. A great deal of such waste is likely to be in the form of packaging material made of PE, either clean or contaminated. Hotels and restaurants also falls within this category are often sources of contaminated PE material. Municipal Waste This refers to waste originating from residential areas (domestic or household waste), streets, parks, collection depots and waste dumps. In Ghana, considerable amounts of plastic waste can be found within the Municipal Solid Waste stream due to the littering habit of the population. The most common type of plastic waste within the municipal waste stream is the “sachet” water film bags that are discarded indiscriminately soon after consuming its contents.  ϭϲ ʹǤͷ ˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ‹’ƒ –•‘ˆ’Žƒ•–‹ • According to Clapp et al. (2008), after the end of the short service life of plastics they become waste. Once they enter into environment they are carried by wind to distant places due to their lightness in weight, and can create serious damages in large urbanized areas of the world (Flores, 2008; Seema, 2008; Macur and Pudlowski, 2009).Some of the problems associated with plastic waste are more obvious and can be clearly proven, for example, the entanglement of marine wildlife. Others are subtler and not well understood, such as the transport and possible concentration of contaminants by plastic waste. UNEP (2006) claims that plastic waste causes the death of up to a million seabirds, 100,000 marine mammals and countless fish through various impacts. This figure according literature is useful in raising awareness and was derived from the scaling up of smaller samples from a study in Canada (NOAA, 2010). Probably a more accurate representation is that compiled by Laist (1997), which reported that at least 267 different species are known to have suffered from impacts of plastic waste. This includes 86 per cent of all sea turtle species, 44 per cent of all seabird species and 43 per cent of all marine mammal species (Laist, 1997). This is likely to be an underestimate as the list was compiled over ten years ago and, even with updating, there are probably a large number of species that have not been studied and therefore impacts are not included. There is a huge amount of literature on ingestion and entanglement (Gregory, 2009). In Ghana, a workshop organised by The Ministry of Environment Science and Technology (MEST), in collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Plastic Waste Management Awareness Creation and Public Education programme in May 2012, the vice president Mr. Mahama indicated that, plastic waste was beginning to have a negative impact on fishermen. Fishermen often catch plastics instead of fish when they reel their nets. Sometimes, fish are found floating on the water suffocated by a plastic bag, while others consume the plastic and  ϭϳ literally choke to death. This necessitates for proactive measures in order to safeguard animal species against extinction (EPHC, 2002; Brown, 2003; Flores, 2008; UNEP, 2006; Verghese et al., 2009a; Macur and Pudlowski, 2009; Narayan, 2001). Plastic waste contributes to climate change especially when it is burned resulting in the emissions of greenhouse gases (Verghese et al., 2006; Muthu et al., 2011; Pilzet al., 2010).). There is also release of toxic organic compounds into the environment that cause different health risks, such as respiratory health problems (Boadi and Kuitunen, 2005; Rayne, 2008). Plastic waste buried beneath the ground have the potentials to leach their chemical components and toxins into soil and water sources, which can be passed to humans, resulting in serious health hazards. Pollution of water bodies by plastic bags have also been reported in some countries. As Mangizvo (2012) observed in the Tyume River in Alice, South Africa. Plastic waste especially polyethene bags deteriorates the natural beauty of the environment as a result of indiscriminate and open dumping of waste by people (Girum, 2005; Seema, 2008; Boadi and Kuitunen, 2005). Deterioration of natural beauty of the environment by plastics have been confirmed by Mangizvo (2012) and Adane and Muleta (2011) as a problem associated with plastic bag wastes. These observations are consistent with reports on environmental problems of plastic bag wastes in other countries (UNEP, 2005b). In Ghana, deterioration of environment by plastics has also been noted by Anomanyo (2004) and Wiennah (2007). Moreover, plastic bags been noted to be used for the storage of solid wastes generated within households including human fecal matter “flying toilets” (Tekola, 2006; Boadi and Kuitunen, 2005). Similar practices have been observed in many residential areas and commercial centers of Jimma City. This is in agreement with previous reports (ELCI, 2005; Njeru, 2006; Cointreau, 2006; Tekola, 2006; WHO, 2010) demonstrating that in several cities of developing (low-income) countries, human fecal matters are often placed in plastic bags and thrown to the surrounding open areas (Njeru, 2006). The sanitary problems associated with such practices had to do  ϭϴ with the contamination of home environment with helminthes (Ascaris lumbricoides) as was observed in Jimma City in Ethiopia. This was attributed to the lack of public awareness about the direct and long-term impacts of these wastes on human health. Further research findings have also indicated that reusable plastic bags posed serious human health problems (Cliver, 2006; Maule, 2000; Gerba et al., 2010). The studies showed that reusable plastic bags can become habitats for pathogenic microorganism. Gerba et al., (2010) for instance reported that reuse of plastic bags to carry groceries could cause a significant risk of cross contamination of food by pathogenic bacteria such as coliform and E. coli. The effects of plastic waste especially bags on animals is also well noted (Adane and Muleta, 2011). A study conducted by Ramaswamy and Sharma (2011) in Gondar City of Ethiopia, on impacts of plastic bag usage on environment and cattle health, indicated that plastic bags posed several cattle health problems including deaths. Moreover, ingestion of plastic bags (along with other foreign bodies) was reported to cause reduction in milk yield (Ramaswamy and Sharma, 2011). According to Tiruneh and Yesuwork, (2010) and Ramaswamy and Sharma, (2011) domestic animals that were most affected were ruminants (cattle, sheep and goats) and dogs. Recent reports by other authors have showed the recovery of large quantity of plastic products particularly plastic shopping bags from domestic animals after they were slaughtered. During the time of shortage of food, such domestic animals eat plastic bags (especially those wastes containing food leftovers) lie indiscriminately. This result is complications including digestive system blockage, suffocation, internal infections, false sensation of fullness or satiation (Njeru, 2006; Ramaswamy and Sharma, 2011). If untreated timely, this could lead to the death of animals and economic loss to their owners as it has been observed in developing countries of Africa and India (World Watch, 2004; Edwards, 2000; Forum for Environment, 2010; Ryan and Rice, 1996). Another problem of plastic bags that has to do with their ability to block drain systems resulting in flooding any time it rained (Adane and Muleta 2011). This has been supported by Seema, (2008), Boadi and Kuitunen, (2005), Smith, (2009) in a  ϭϵ report on consequence of blockade of sewerage systems by plastic bag wastes. Similar observations have been made in cities and towns in Ghana. Fobil and Hogarh, (2006), indicated that, 11,000 tonnes of waste was produced daily in Accra, and out of this 1,980 tonnes came from plastics. Thirty percent (30%) of the plastic waste reached landfills, while 70% ended up in drains or other open spaces. These plastic wastes virtually choked the drainage system in the urban centres of the country to such an extent that it took only the slightest of rainfall to precipitate floods in major cities like Accra, Kumasi and Takoradi. According to a March 16, 2005 Daily Graphic report, rains in Accra exposed the havoc caused by plastic waste. Just an average of one or two hours of rain in Accra on March 15, 2005 led to flooding in certain parts of the city. The same intensity and duration of rain, a decade ago, would not have resulted in flooding some years back. Also in 2005, the Mumbai flooding incidence that killed over 1000 people and at least 1000 animals and livestock, was attributed to plastic bags that clogged the city's storm drains and prevented the monsoon rains from leaving the city (Smith, 2009). Moreover, the blocked storm drains also created pools of stagnant water, allowing mosquitoes and other insects to breed more easily within a city, and transmit a variety of lethal diseases such as dengue, malaria, yellow fever and several forms of encephalitis (Boadi and Kuitunen, 2005; Rayne, 2008; Ellis et al., 2005). Therefore, a due attention should be paid to proper disposal of plastic bag wastes in order to avoid clogging of drainage systems of the city. This, in turn, would help to avoid flooding problems which have been observed in many cities having no proper plastic waste disposal (Smith, 2009).Furthermore, plastic waste affects agricultural soils or farmlands (Adane and Muleta, 2011). Plastic bags are resistant to decomposition, and stay long in the environment. Where they have existed in large quantity in soil, they have prevented air and water circulation results in reduction of productivity of farm lands (Ellis et al., 2005; Rayne, 2008; Njeru, 2006).  ϮϬ ʹǤ͸ Žƒ•–‹ —•‡ƒ†™ƒ•–‡ƒƒ‰‡‡–‹•—„ǦƒŠƒ”ƒˆ”‹ ƒ In many West African countries, it is very common to see food vendors selling food and drinking water to the general public in the open space. These are usually near offices, market places, public schools, churches and in any available open space in the central business districts (CBDs) within the cities. The most common of this kind of trade is that practised by vendors of drinking water and food who use walkways and pavements as the premises of their businesses to market their merchandise to people in moving vehicles (Fobil and Hogarh 2006). In the late 1970s, the spread of food and water borne diseases as typhoid, cholera and dysentery in events of epidemics was intricately linked with these cultural practices in food and water industry. This resulted in the imposition of safety requirements on street vendors to institute new ways of food and water handling that would be safe and healthy so as to minimise the risk of the incidence of disease associated with the marketing of cooked-food and drinking water. The growing awareness in safe and proper modes of food packaging as well as increased need for more hygienic methods of handling drinking water to safeguard public health triggered off a decade of tremendous increase in the use of plastic products in West Africa. However, packaging process dates back to medieval times when in those days packaging was perceived as a simple process of wrapping with leaves and tree barks. Historically, it has undergone considerable revolution over the centuries and transgressing from the simple process to more sophisticated industrial packaging technology today. In those olden days, food products were carried in leaves from markets and from commercial centres, in palm fronts and in banana leaves from farms in the rural areas. Until as late as in the 70s, leaves were still used as packaging materials in the sale of food by wayside food vendors in the major cities across the sub-region (KMA, 1995; Schweizer & Annoh, 1996; Archer et al., 1997). Typical examples include the ‘waakye’ (mixture of cooked rice and beans) sellers and fishmongers who use leaves called “bede” (Thaliade albata from the family Marantaceae) to wrap their products. Today, this mode of packaging is still common among many rural communities in  Ϯϭ West Africa. Over time, however, pressurised to lift food and water packaging standards by public health authorities, the business community switched to the use of paper as conventional packaging materials. Brown paper, with a common name “cement paper”, was most preferred for use in packaging in Ghana as a consequence of its relative toughness and malleability, which made it easily modelled into cone shaped receptacles and used to carry food products such as “gari”, fish, “kenkey” (local food made from maize flour), salt and many other varieties of products. Much later in the late 1980s and early 1990s the use of paper in conventional packaging gave way for polyethylene film bags and other plastics as stringent quality standards were required in food and water packaging industries so as to minimize the incidence of food and water related epidemics in the region. Several properties of polyethylene films make them unique and give them comparative advantage over the other packaging materials such as leaves and paper that were previously in use. They are lightweight, tough with low bending to rigid properties, inert and relatively unreactive. These properties make them more convenient as carrier and hygienic packaging materials as compared to paper and leaves. Utilised basically in the iced water business initially, their application in the packaging industry was adopted in a variety of other areas such as food and beverages packaging, groceries, pipelines for potable water supply, construction and agriculture. Indeed, their application is widespread in West Africa and highly demanded in practically all sectors of human activity across West Africa. Their use in iced-water business replaced the more primitive ways of iced-water sale, through multiple uses of cups by several people, which was a major source of spread of most epidemics. Proliferation of plastic materials addressed the health issues relating to food and water packaging, but it also created the problem of plastic waste in the region. In Ghana, per capita generation of plastic wastes stands at 0.016–0.035 kg/person/day, and plastics make up between 8–9% of the component materials in the waste stream (Fobil, 2000). Now most products are packaged in polyethylene films, which form about 70% of the plastic waste in the municipal waste stream. According  ϮϮ to Fobil (2000), the plastic materials in commerce across the sub-region include lowdensity polyethylene (LDPE) commonly called polyethylene films, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and other plastics such as polypropylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The analysis of the historical trend of plastic waste composition in the waste stream in Ghana shows that in 1979 the percentage by component was 1.4% and by 1993 it had risen to 4% (Schweizer and Annoh, 1996). In 1996/97, the proportion of plastic waste in the waste stream was 5% (Schweizer and Annoh, 1996; Archer et al., 1997) and by 1999/2000 its proportion increased to 8% (Fobil, 2000). This was a consequence of huge profits from the sale of plastics and the existing large domestic market, propelling private enterprises to begin to commit huge capital into plastic industry, and, by 1996, there were about 20 plastic producing establishments in Ghana. This included those of plastic films, with notable ones such as Poly Products, PolyTank and Sintex (Adarkwa and Edmundsen, 1993; Archer et al., 1997; Accra Sanitation Workshop, 1998; Agyenim-Boateng, 1998). By the turn of this century, it was reported that there were about 40 plastic manufacturing companies producing about 26,000 metric tonnes of assorted plastic products annually in Ghana, with 90% of the companies in the Accra-Tema Metropolitan Area. Additionally, over 10,000 metric tonnes of finished plastic products are imported annually into Ghana (Fobil, 2001). ʹǤ͹ ƒ”Ž‹‡”’Žƒ•–‹ ™ƒ•–‡ƒƒ‰‡‡–‹‹–‹ƒ–‹˜‡•‹ Šƒƒ Irresponsible disposable culture by the plastic consumer public and weakness of proper disposal interventions over the years has resulted in significant visual pollution of the Ghana’s urban environments (Archer et al., 1997; Agyenim-Boateng, 1998; Accra Sanitation Workshop, 1998; Yankson, 1998). The problem called for great concern among waste managers, urban planners, politicians, public health workers and the general public, with several unsuccessful attempts to arrest the trend in the past decade. In the past years however, there have  Ϯϯ been renewed discussions on correcting the plastic waste problem. Such corrective attempts have included developing an efficient and sustainable intervention schemes to minimise and arrest the adverse effects of plastics in the urban environments. It was in this light that in March 1996, a presidential committee was set up which charged the Industrial Research Institute (IRI) of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to explore the feasibility of the establishment of a plastic recycling programme in Ghana. The Institute came out with a report of its findings in October 1996 recommending that a pilot plastic recycling plant be set up in Pokuase, near Accra. A year later, a plastic waste management committee (PWMC) was set up on 20th August 1997 to augment the efforts of the Institute. The committee was drawn from nine agencies and institutions with interest in plastic wastes, including EPA-Ghana, Waste Management Department (WMD) of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), Town & Country Planning (TCP), Public Works Department (PWD), Ghana Standards Board (GSB), Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLRD), Ministry of Health (MOH) and the private sector or NGOs (Accra Sanitation Workshop, 1998). The discussions finally ended up giving birth to the plastic waste-recycling programme at Pokuase in Ghana through private sector initiative (Agyenim-Boateng, 1998; Accra Sanitation Workshop, 1998). However, since the onset of the plastic waste recycling programme at Pokuase in Ghana, the impact of the programme at mobilising plastics from the environment has hardly been felt possibly because plastic wastes continue to increase in Ghana’s urban environment from year to year, despite the recycling programme that was put in place. There were two explanations given including the capacity of the recycling plant being too small to absorb all the plastics being generated or there is was no any plastic waste collection programme sustainable enough to mobilise the plastics from the system and feed the recycling plant. People argued that more plastic waste recycling plants needed to be established in Accra to complement the current one at Pokuase. But with concerns that even the Pokuase plant was being under-utilised, the  Ϯϰ limitations in plastic waste management in the country may be pointing to the lack of sustainable plastic waste collection in the country (UN, 2010). ʹǤͺ ‘—•‡Š‘Ž†’Žƒ•–‹ ™ƒ•–‡ƒƒ‰‡‡–’”ƒ –‹ ‡• Household waste may come in different form that is, as solid and liquid. However, literature on only plastic wastes as a component of solid waste has been review here. According to the Waste Management Department (WMD) and ZoomLion Ghana Limited as cited by Puopiel (2010), plastic waste constitutes the largest percentage of waste originating from household and in terms of composition includes plastic bags (polyethen bags), water packaging plastics such as pure water sachet and plastic bottles, plates, buckets, broken chairs, tooth brushes, combs, cans for powder and creams among other (Banjo et al, 2009). With regards to how household temporally storage of waste in generally at the household level, a wide diversity of containment materials has been identified. These include dustbins, baskets, boxes, buckets (metal and plastic buckets with or without lids), sacks, and polythene bags (Puopiel, 2010; George 2008). Similar containment materials have been identified by Banjo et al., (2009) in Ijebu Ode, Southwest Nigeria as well as in Kolkata, India (Dobbs, 1991). Waste that are temporally stored in these containment materials are not left in the household forever. They are carried out from the household and their content final dump several places including, in the open, gutters, undeveloped lands, roadsides, skip, and at approved dumping sites for collection by waste management firms. Some also decide to bury or burn (Anomanyo, 2004; Puopiel, 2010; Banjo et al., 2009). In some situation household have their waste collected directed from their homes by waste management firms (Anomanyo, 2004; Puopiel, 2010). According to Sarkhel (2006) observation in Kolkata, India, itinerant buyers in some case bought household waste plastic components thus serving as linkage between households and the informal recycling sector.  Ϯϱ According to Banjo et al (2009) members of households responsible for waste management at household levels included fathers, mothers, children and domestic helps. In Ijebu Ode, Southwest Nigeria, he found out that 4.3% (13) of fathers; 43.3% (130) of mothers; 30% (90) of children and 15.4% (46) domestic help were responsible for waste management at the household level. Banjo et al, (2009) also added that inhabitants (households) of Ije Ode state did not undertake any form of sorting of their waste before disposal. This was evident by the fact that all 300 respondent indicated no form of sorting was carried out before disposal. Challenges of household waste management that have been identified are irregular collection of waste (Tsibo and Marbell, 2004), lack of dustbins or skips, lack of dumpsites, distance of dumping sites, higher charges from waste management firms providing door to door service (Edmunson, 1981; Adelaide 1995; Puopiel, 2010). ʹǤͻ —””‡–ƒ†’”‘’‘•‡†‡ƒ•—”‡•–‘”‡†— ‡‹’ƒ –•‘ˆ’Žƒ•–‹ •™ƒ•–‡ There are several measures that have been proposed and employed the world over to reduce the negative impacts of plastic waste. These measures include ban of the production and distribution of plastic bags (clap, 2008; KNCPC, 2006; Watson, 2009;AECOM, 2010; Convery, 2007; Hasson et al., 2007; Rayne, 2008; Ayalona et al., 2009; Clapp and Swanston, 2009; Xing, 2009). Ethiopia for instance is one of those African countries that have partially banned plastic bags by setting a minimum thickness of the bags to be manufactured in the country and/ or imported into the country (UNEP, 2005b). However, different reports (Bjerkli, 2005; Tadesse, 2008) showed that plastic bags still cause severe environmental pollutions. This has been attributed to poor waste management and perhaps lack of awareness about the negative impacts of plastic bags (Tiruneh and Yesuwork, 2010; Ramaswamy and Sharma, 2011). Other attempts include voluntary initiatives by individuals to reduce plastic bag use and/or plastic bag problems in environment (UNEP, 2005b), adopting proper disposal methods of plastic bag (Smith, 2009), adopting low price alternative  Ϯϲ reusable materials or bags made of paper, cloth which are biodegradable and have low impact on environment (Smith, 2009; Li et al., 2010; Muthu et al., 2010; Song et al., 2009; O’Brine and Thompson, 2010), provisions of adequate skips and regular waste collection as well as proper management of landfilling sites, adequate resourcing of waste management institutions (Puopiel 2010), creation of awareness of the negative effects of plastics, proper attitude towards waste management, inclusion or participation of the general public in waste management (Chambers, 1992, 2004, 2007a, 2007b). Other equally valuable sources that illuminate this school of thought of participation are Freedman (1997), Bliss (1999), Kukn (2000) and Harris (2007). A common argument found in all these cases is that collective decision making in which all stakeholders are involve is a necessary requirement for effective and efficient implementation of waste management programmes. Looking at the diversity of problems posed by plastic waste, one management approached that has been adopted by developed and some developing countries is recycling. McKinney and Schoch, (2003) however have indicated that recycling in some developing countries has been impractical because of economic and quality reasons. ʹǤͻǤͳ ‘˜‡”‡–”‡•’‘•‡Ȁ‹–‡”˜‡–‹‘•–‘”‡†— ‡’Žƒ•–‹ ™ƒ•–‡‹’ƒ –•‹ Šƒƒ According to Fobil and Hogarh, (2006) the government realised the need for some structured plastic waste collection process for addressing the plastic waste menace in the country and for that matter, the Ministry of Tourism and Modernisation of the Capital City together with the Accra Metropolitan Assembly proposed that plastic waste producers in the city of Accra bear the cost of collection of the plastics, declaring a levy of 11,000 Ghanaian cedis (about 1.2 US dollars) per kilogram of plastic raw material. The Ghana Plastic Manufacturing Association (GPMA) however rejected this levy, citing, among other things, the following critical issues: that the issue of plastic litter on the streets was not restricted to only Accra, but it is a national issue whose solution demands a holistic approach to cover every city, town and village; that litter resulted from aberrant consumer behaviour and irresponsible social  Ϯϳ attitudes and that solution must be geared towards the consumer as well; that imposing the same levy on all plastic raw material imports in total, without closely identifying and separating them into actual use of raw materials, was incorrect, since low density plastic materials constitute majority of the plastic wastes; and that many other non-plastic producing companies use plastic packages that are also indiscriminately disposed off on the streets, which need to be factored in as well. It is clear that there is lack of policy direction with regard to sustainable plastic waste collection in Ghana. With no apparent headway in the plastic tug of war, government authorities at one point threatened to ban plastic manufacturing in the country if the GPMA members did not pay the proposed levy. According to Fobil and Hogarh, (2006), the proposed tax system for plastic waste collection scheme in Ghana is shown in figure 3 below. Figure 2.2: Proposed tax system for plastic wastes collection scheme in Ghana Fig.2.2 illustrates fractional contributions of all actors involved in the plastic production, distribution and utilisation chain-process to the burden of plastic waste pollution in developing cities. Plastic production, plastic retail and plastic use all contributed to the plastic littering in the environment. In principle, the only processnode that does not create plastic litter in the environment is the recycling node. Hence, the first choice of managing the plastic wastes is to recycle them. But this is  Ϯϴ not feasible, in the absence of local sustainable mechanisms for retrieving the plastic wastes from the environment. Indeed, the lack of sustainable plastic waste retrieval process in Ghana is a major limiting factor to plastic waste management in the country. Therefore a tax system for plastic waste collection that would embrace all the actors is required. So far levy considerations on actors in plastic industry have been weak, as it has targeted predominantly the sachet water producers, who incidentally constitute only a small subset of all the actors in the plastic industry in Ghana. Hence, it is necessary that one looks wider and beyond to include all the other contributors to plastic pollution as a sustainable plastic waste retrieval mechanism is formulated, which anticipate the imposition of well-defined plastic pollution responsibility charges that equally target all plastic producers and retailers whose products litter the streets, as well as consumers of plastics or plastic users. This would constitute a more holistic approach to evenly distributing the local plastic pollution responsibility in a magnitude corresponding to pollution levels. For instance, as the drainage system in Ghana is equally choked with plastics such as ice-cream wrappers, black polyethylene-film bags and other plastic materials, all producers of these products need to be made to bear well-calculated pollution responsibility in order to achieve a long-term solution to the plastic waste problem. Consumers of plastics and plastic products are also liable to pollution control charge since they are the terminal actors in the plastic pollution chain, who finally leave these plastic materials in the streets. There is a need to define a new scope of coverage and appropriately devise ways of making all actors in plastic pollution accountable for retrieving the plastic wastes from the surroundings. How can this be done? A suggestion of the way out in a model of tax system is offered as follows. Given that any undertaking or activity that generates residuals into the environment and/or degrades the environment should contribute to environmental cleaning under the “Polluter-Pays” arrangement, such undertakings and activities have a social and corporate responsibility to contribute to a plastic collection and environmental cleaning tax fund (pollution responsibility charges). As such, for the retrieval of  Ϯϵ plastic wastes from the environment in Ghana, a plastic polluter pays (PPP) levy system is advocated. This calls for an appropriate incremental levy system which will take into account the margin of plastic pollution to be placed on all actors. A weighted proportion of the levy should be borne by producers of the plastics (production pollution levy) and a corresponding weighted proportion also borne by the consumers who patronise the plastics or plastic packaged products (consumption pollution levy). Under this incremental levy system, it is possible to estimate the production capacity of the plastic producer and then calculate on monthly basis. This production pollution levy will be a fraction of its marginal profit and the quantity of plastics produced by the producer, which then can return into the environment to cause environmental pollution, if uncollected. Now, consumers of plastic products incur consumption pollution charges by buying plastics or plastic packaged products. This will be a certain percentage of the production pollution charges calculated based upon the rate of consumption. The consumer PPP levy is meant to instill discipline in consumers regarding the way they dispose off plastics and this levy is retrievable by the consumer based on a tax refund system (or cash-back), which is part of the proposed levy system. The administration of the PPP levy system would be such that several plastic collection points are set up in various towns and cities across the country. This should give plastic consumers or thrash pickers an opportunity to be given cash back when they return plastic wastes to any of these points. Cash back may be dependent on a kilogram of plastic returned or any other acceptable calculation. It should be convenient for the populace to reach these plastic collection points, which can be established both in residential and commercial places, as well as in some supermarkets. In this case, when one drinks, for instance sachet iced-water, there is financial motivation to keep the sachets and return them in exchange for cash-back on the product. Similarly, people would be encouraged to return their black plastic carrier bags to the collection points for some cash back. Otherwise, anybody who collects plastic wastes from the floor and takes back to the collection point would enjoy the corresponding  ϯϬ cash back. If the plastic wastes are not returned to the collection point, then city/town authorities have the responsibility to use the consumer PPP levy on the plastics to pay scavengers to collect these wastes from the corridors of the cities and towns. In effect consumers of plastic products would bear a portion for the collection of the plastic wastes. The consumers, however, have the choice not to bear this levy when they return the plastic waste to the collection point. This kind of system has already proven to work informally in many cities in sub-Sahara Africa as some low-income groups often pick-up potentially useful waste materials from the curbside for resale to the public. As shown in the theoretical model in figure 3, the pollution responsibility charges should result in a consolidated plastic waste cleaning fund, which, if properly managed, should be large enough to offset the cost of plastic collection and recycling. There should be a well-defined set of guidelines for the application of such a fund for purposes of plastic waste management so as to avoid inherent embezzlement and misapplication of the fund. ʹǤͻǤʹ ‘˜‡”‡– ”‡•’‘•‡ –Š”‘—‰Š ‘Ž‹ ›ǡ ‡‰ƒŽ ƒ† •–‹–—–‹‘ƒŽ ”ƒ‡™‘”• In an effort to address the problem of waste management, Government has over the years put in place adequate national policies, regulatory and institutional frameworks. An Environmental Sanitation Policy was formulated in 1999. This policy has currently been amended and strategic action plans developed for implementation. Various relevant legislations for the control of waste have also been enacted. These include the following: Local Government Act, 1990 (Act 462); Environmental Assessment Regulations, 1999 (LI 1652); Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29); Water Resources Commission Act, 1996 (Act 522); Pesticides Control and Management Act, 1996 (Act 528); National Building Regulations, 1996 (LI 1630) (MLGRD (2009). In addition to the above policies and legislations, the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology, the EPA, Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development and the Ministry of Health have prepared the following guidelines and  ϯϭ standards for waste management: National Environmental Quality Guidelines (1998); Ghana Landfill Guidelines (2002); Manual for the preparation of district waste management plans in Ghana (2002); Guidelines for the management of healthcare and veterinary waste in Ghana (2002); Handbook for the preparation of District level Environmental Sanitation Strategies and Action Plans (DESSAPs) (MLGRD, 2009).) The District Assemblies are the key institutions responsible for the management of sanitation and waste at the local and community level. They are however, supported in this task by a number of other institutions and organisations. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives technical support to the District Assemblies by setting environmental standards and guidelines on waste management; administration of Environmental Assessment Regulations; undertaking environmental education and awareness programmes; and monitoring environmental quality. Ghana Environmental Assessment Regulations, 1999 (LI 1652) make provisions for existing undertakings, which are required to submit Environmental Management Plans. A National Environmental Sanitation Policy Co-ordination Council has been established within the Ministry of Local Government and Rural to oversee to the implementation of the policy objectives (MLGRD 2009). ʹǤͻǤ͵˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ†— ƒ–‹‘ƒ†™ƒ”‡‡••”‡ƒ–‹‘ Various capacity building programmes, seminars and workshops have been organized and/or are still on-going. For example, the 35th Annual General Meeting of the Ghana Institute of Engineers organized lectures held in March 2004 on “Sanitation and Waste management in Ghana: Way Forward”; the Inter-Faith Waste Management Initiative – November 14, 2005 etc. All of these workshops came out with very practicable solutions to the waste management menace, however, the evidence on the ground points to the fact that there is still a lot to be done. A National Environmental Sanitation Day has been established and observed annually to sensitize the general public in keeping their environment sound and clean (MLGRD, 2009).  ϯϮ ʹǤͻǤͶƒ•–‡‡ ‘˜‡”›ǡ‡ › Ž‹‰ƒ†‡—•‡ In Ghana, some have found waste recycling to be an economically viable option despite the considerable cost of collection. Some few industries are using waste recycling technologies to circumvent the need for treatment and the discharge and disposal of large volumes of waste and to reduce demand for raw materials, energy and water. In many instances, these industries have found waste recycling as effective way of improving the economic competition of their products. One of such industries is Guinness (Ghana) Limited, Kumasi, which derives part of its revenue from the sale of yeast and spent grain used as animal feed. However, most major industrial establishments still practice very little recycling (MLGRD, 2009). With regards to recycling, scavengers play a vital role in the waste recycling process. However, they have generally, been considered as a hindrance to municipal waste disposal operations. There is a school of thought that if they are officially incorporating into the municipal waste operations, waste recycling could be improved considerably. For example, they can be designated as official used-materials merchants and given training and status upgrading (Fobil and Hogarh, 2006). ʹǤͳͲ ƒŒ‘” ‘•–”ƒ‹–•ƒ† ŠƒŽŽ‡‰‡•–‘™ƒ•–‡ƒƒ‰‡‡–‹ Šƒƒ According MLGRD, (2004), the problem of waste in Ghana is a direct result of a growing urban population, the changing patterns of production and consumption, the inherently more urbanized life-style and industrialization. The situation of waste management has been summarized as follows: • Poor planning for waste management programmes; • Inadequate equipment and operational funds to support waste management activities; • Inadequate sites and facilities for waste management operations; • Inadequate skills and capacity of waste management staff; and • Negative attitudes of the general public towards the environment in general  ϯϯ    ͵ǤͲ    ͵Ǥͳ –—†›”‡ƒ The Bolgatanga Municipality is located in the center of the Upper East Region between latitude 10° 47' 50" N and Longitude 0° 52' 40" W. It has a total land area of 729 sq km and is bordered to the North by the Bongo District, South and East by Talensi-Nabdam District and Kassena-Nankana East and West Districts to the West. It was established by LI 1797 (DMTDP Draft report, 2010). Figure 3.1: Map of the Bolgatanga Municipality The majority of the inhabitants of the Municipality are from northern ethnic origins with the indigenous inhabitants of the area being the Grunes. Other settlers mainly in the Bolgatanga Township include the Akans, Ewes, Ga-Adanbge. These have come into the Town because of its regional capital status. Most of these ethnic groupings are organized around chiefs and elders, whiles others come together as social groupings (DMTDP Draft report, 2010).  ϯϰ The Family is the basic social grouping among the people. There is the nuclear and the extended Family. The Family and the traditional system of Government serve as the rallying point for Community participation in developmental activities and social action. The People have two Festivals; the Adakoya celebrated by the people of Bolgatanga after the farming season and the NabaYesika celebrated by the people of Sherigu to outdoor their Chief. Agriculture is the main occupation of the People (DMTDP Draft report, 2010). ͵Ǥʹ Ž‹ƒ–‡ƒ†˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘ The climate is classified as Guinea Savannah Zone with a single rainy season in a year that runs from May to October. The long dry season stretches from October to April, with hardly any rains. Mean annual rainfall is 950 mm while maximum temperature is 45°C in March and April with a minimum of 12°C in December. The one rainy season means most Agricultural activities must be carried out at this time to get the food requirements for the year. As this is normally not achieved, this has to be supplemented with irrigation farming in the dry season (DMTDP Draft report, 2010). The natural vegetation is that of Guinea savannah woodland consisting of short deciduous trees, widely spaced and a ground flora, which gets burnt by fire or scorched by the sun during the long dry season. The most common economic trees are the Shea-nut, dawadawa, baobab and acacia. The Municipality has a forest reserve, which primarily protects most of the water bodies in the area. There is high incidence of bush fires because of the drying up of the ground flora during the dry season which sometimes burns some of these economic trees (DMTDP Draft report, 2010). ͵Ǥ͵ ‘’‘‰”ƒ’Š›ƒ††”ƒ‹ƒ‰‡ The municipality generally has gentle slopes ranging from 1% to 5% with some isolated rock outcrops and some uplands which have slopes over 10%. The main  ϯϱ rivers are the White Volta, Red Volta, and their tributaries (DMTDP Draft report, 2010) ͵ǤͶ ‡‘Ž‘‰›ƒ†‘‹Ž›’‡• The Municipal falls within the Birrimian rocks of Ghana. Minerals Deposits includes gold and manganese is found along Kalbeo and Sherigu areas. Large deposits of clay are found throughout the Municipality around Zaare, Gambigbo, Yikine and Kalbeo (DMTDP Draft report, 2010). Most of the soils in the Municipality are developed over shale, which contains abundant iron concretions and iron pan in their sub-soils. These soils constitute the groundwater laterite and occupy about 50% of the interior savannah. The groundwater laterite, due to impervious iron pan or clay pan in the sub-soil, is characterized by water logging at the peak of the rains and the resultant perennial floods around August and September which are the peak of the rainy season. The soils are quite good along the valleys. Alluvial valleys are quite extensive and suitable for rice production. There is considerable soil erosion in the district becoming severe around most of the valleys. This is due to bad farming practices and rampant burning of bush (DMTDP Draft report, 2010). ͵Ǥͷ ‡‘‰”ƒ’Š‹ Šƒ”ƒ –‡”‹•–‹ • The population of the Bolgatanga Municipality according to the 2010 population census is 131,550. The sex distribution of Males and females are 62,783 (48%) and 68, 767 (52%) respectively. The total household numbers of the municipal stands at 26,706. There are about 213 communities in the Municipality. Bolgatanga is the biggest settlement with a population (2008) of 73,808 people. The settlement pattern is predominantly rural (about 95%) with dispersed buildings (DMTDP Draft report, 2010).  ϯϲ ͵Ǥ͸ ƒ’Ž‹‰”‘ ‡†—”‡ ͵Ǥ͸Ǥͳ‡ ‘†ƒ”›†ƒ–ƒ ‘ŽŽ‡ –‹‘ The researcher obtained secondary data from books, articles, newspapers and the internet for review of literature. Data gathered from the Municipal Assembly included their coverage area in terms of waste management; the final destination of all waste gathered from the municipality as well as challenges confronting them. Data gathered also included Assembly’s partners in waste management. Data gathered from Zoomlion included waste flow in the Municipality as well as its coverage area in terms of percentages. Other secondary data gathered from both the Assembly and the Municipal Assembly include household waste management practices. ͵Ǥ͸Ǥʹ”‹ƒ”›ƒ–ƒ ‘ŽŽ‡ –‹‘ The researcher used stratified multistage sampling, simple random sampling and convenience sampling. Direct observation was also employed to document the actual household waste management situation on the ground. The total numbers of Electoral areas (EA) within the Bolgatanga Municipality were identified as indicated on Table 3.1 below.  ϯϳ Table 3.1: EA’s in the Bolgatanga Municipality 1. Atulababis 12. Bukere 23.Zuarungu- 34. Basengo 2. Kotokoli-zongo 13. Zaare-East Central 35. Kalbeo 3. Gumbisi-zongo 14. Zaare-West 24. 4. Damweo 15. Nyariga South 37. 5. Tindonmolgo 16. Soe 25. Zono Gambibgo 6. Tindonsoligo 17. Soe-yipaala 26.Zuarungu east 7. Sabon-zongo 18. Yorogo 27.Katanga- 8. Tanzui-zobisi 19.Yorogotengre dacheio 9. Yikene 20. Dulugu 28. 10.Dapoore-tindongo 21. Kumbosgo mosi 11.Tindonsheo/lagos 22. Yarigabisi 29. Azorebisi town Zuarungu 36. Dorongo Zuarungu- 30. Amogrebisi 31. Kolbia 32. Kolgu/agusi 33. Kumlingo/boligo Source: Electoral Commission, Bolgatanga, (2011) Considering the time and resources available it was not possible to carry out the study in all the EAs. Simple random sampling was therefore used to select 12 Electoral Areas as the study site. These are shown in Table 3.2 below. Table 3.2: Electoral Areas that the study was conducted in  1. Atulbabisi 5. Kumbosgo 9. Tindonmolgo 2. Bukere 6. Soe 10.Zaare 3. Dapoore-Tindongo 7. Tindonsoligo 11. Yekene 4. Kotokoli-Zongo 8. Tanzui- Zobisi 12.Yarigabisi ϯϴ Figure 3.2: Bolgatanga Municipal map showing EA’s that the study was carried out Within each of the selected EA’s a total of thirty households were interviewed. Houses were randomly selected and at least one member of each household was interviewed for convenience. ͵Ǥ͸Ǥ͵ —‡•–‹‘ƒ‹”‡•ƒ†‹‹•–”ƒ–‹‘ The main data collection tool was the questionnaire which was used in interviewing the householders. A total of 360 questionnaires were self-administered to collect indepth household information including demographic data, methods of waste management, level of awareness on plastic waste, problems of plastic waste as well as household roles with regards to the reduction of plastic waste. Question asked were both closed and opened type depending on the information required.  ϯϵ ͵Ǥ͸ǤͶƒ–ƒ”‘ ‡••‹‰ƒ†ƒŽ›•‹• Data gathered through questionnaire administration was checked for completeness, accuracy and consistency of responses in order to identity and eliminate errors. The data was then entered into the computer using Epinfo version 3.1; a data entry software and then processed with Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPPSS) into statistical tables and charts for interpretation and further discussions. ͵Ǥ͹ ‹‹–ƒ–‹‘•‘ˆ–Š‡•–—†› A research like this requires huge finances, time and a wider coverage area in order to reveal the true picture of the problem under investigation. However because of inadequate financial support and the shortness of the time available to the researcher to undertake the research, only twelve EAs within the Municipality were chosen for the study was carried out.  ϰϬ    ͶǤͲ    This chapter first presents the plastic waste flow as well as recycling efforts in the Bolgatanga Municipality and a discussion of the data obtained from the field which has been discussed under two parts; descriptive analysis and enumerative analysis. ͶǤͳ Žƒ•–‹ ™ƒ•–‡ˆŽ‘™ƒ†ƒƒ‰‡‡–‹–Š‡‘Ž‰ƒ–ƒ‰ƒ—‹ ‹’ƒŽ‹–› Figure 4.1: Plastic waste flow and management in the study area. Waste management in the Bolgatanga Municipality is carried out by the Municipal Assembly and Zoomlion Ghana limited. The Municipal Assembly which has more  ϰϭ communal dustbins claims it manages about 60% of the total waste generated in the municipal while Zoomlion Ghana manages 40%. At the time of the study, it appeared waste collection was carried out by Zoomlion Ghana limited. According to the Municipal Assembly this was so because their waste trunk had broken down and for that matter they had contracted the private waste management firm to collect the Assembly’s waste. Currently, there is no management plan for plastic waste within the short term. Plastic waste generated at various sources is generally disposed together with other household waste. Figure 4.1 above depicts the sources, flow and management of solid waste in the municipality. However since plastic waste is part of solid waste, the chart could equally be used to represent the origin, flow and management of plastic waste. In this case, the sources of solid wastes in the chart are the same as sources Commercial/Municipal, of plastic waste Residential/Household and and have been identified as Institutional/Organisational sources. These sources generate different types of plastics including plastic bottles, polyethene bags and pure water sachets etc. Plastics waste originating from households forms the majority of waste within the solid waste stream. This is so because, households activities results in the generation of plastic waste. In addition, household depends on commercial centres, industries and institutions for services and goods. Once materials are introduced into the household from these entities, consumption takes place. After consumption, waste is generated which adds up to the waste already originating from household activities. This therefore makes the household the single largest generator of waste in general. While the relationship or link between households and commercial centres is strong, that between households and industries is weak. This is so because; there are many commercial centres in the municipality as compared to industries and organisation. Heavy manufacturing industries are virtually non-existent in the municipality. This therefore presupposes that, the amount of plastic waste entering households from commercial sources is more than that entering the household from the institutions.  ϰϮ The waste generated from the three sources outline in figure 4.1 ends up at the waste junction or the transfer station. The transfer station is not only seen as a central point to which all waste are brought and stored temporally for collection by waste management firms, but also refers to any place within the household or worksite that waste is deposited or stored temporally for collection. A typical waste or transfer junction within a neighbourhood would be is an approved dumping site where waste is dumped for collection by a waste management firm. A junction with regards to the commercial centres is a dustbin where waste is temporally stored. The stage at which waste is in the hands of the generators before it actually goes into the hands of waste management firms is known as the primary phase of waste management as depicted in figure 4.1 above. When waste is dumped at the waste junction or central collection point, its management is absolutely in the hands of the either the Municipal Assembly or Zoomlion Ghana limited. This phase is known as the secondary phase of waste management. The waste is collected by the waste trunks from the various waste junctions or central point and sent to the final dumping site. Both the Municipal Assembly and Zoomlion Ghana limited dumps all waste collected from the Bolgatanga Municipal at Sherigu in a crude form (plate 1 and 2), that is it is dump in the raw form without being treated. However, the Sherigu crude dumpsite which serves as the final disposal site for waste in the Bolgatanga Municipality appears not to be receiving the best of treatment in terms of management.  ϰϯ Plate 1: Entrance and inside view of the crude dumping site Plate 2: left and right hand view from the entrance of the dumping site ͶǤʹ Žƒ•–‹ ”‡ › Ž‹‰‡ˆˆ‘”–•‹–Š‡‘Ž‰ƒ–ƒ‰ƒ—‹ ‹’ƒŽ‹–› There are no plastic recycling firms in the Bolgatanga Municipality. However, certain individuals have taken it upon themselves to collect some types of plastics not because they want to reduce the amount of plastic waste in the environment but because of economic purposes. Some in the Municipality encourage children to collect pure water sachets and other forms of polythene to be woven into school bags for them. Because of this it is very common to see children in some parts of the Bolgatanga Township busily collecting these plastic products. There are others interested in plastic products such as broken chairs, cups, bowls and gallons. These  ϰϰ they obtain by going from one dumpsite to another in order to collect them. Some people voluntarily also give their old plastic chairs, cups, gallons and bowls out while others sell them out to the waste collectors. According to one waste collector, a broken plastic chair sells between1.0 Ghana cedis and 1.50 Ghana cedis while a kilo of broken plastics cups and bowls sells for 0.04 Ghana cedis. An old gallon weighing 1 kilo also sells for 0.40 Ghana cedis. It is probably because of the economic value attached to these categories of plastic products that has resulted in their lesser numbers in the environment as compared to pure water sachets and polythene bags. According to the some individuals in the plastic collection business, some recycling firms in Kumasi and Accra have kept systems in place for household to gather pure water sachets as well as other forms of plastics for recycling. However, in Bolgatanga such systems are non-existent probably as a result of the absence of recycling firms. Obtaining 1 kilo of pure water sachet or polythene can be very hectic and for that matter waste collectors concentrate on the plastic products such as the chairs, cups, gallons, bowls as already mentioned above. This has therefore reduced the interest in pure water sachets and polythene bags by the waste collectors thus their numbers increasing in the environment. When the plastic waste collectors have gathered enough harder plastics, they are crashed by a machine into smaller pieces, sieved, sorted and package in sacks to allow easier transportation to Accra where they are used to produce new plastic products. Below are images taken at a location near Timber Market in Bolgatanga showing the types of plastics collected and the process they go through to transform them into chips.  ϰϱ Plate 3: Plastics materials collected and yet to be crashed into chips Plate 4: Improvised machine and sieve for crashing and sieving plastic chips Plate 5: Packaged multi-coloured plastics chips obtained after crashing and subsequent sieving  ϰϲ ͶǤ͵‡‘‰”ƒ’Š‹  Šƒ”ƒ –‡”‹•–‹ •‘ˆ”‡•’‘†‡–• Table 4.1: Distribution of Gender Gender Number of responses Percentage (%) Female 217 60.28 Male 143 39.72 Total 360 100.00 Out of the total sample size of 360, 217 (60.28%) of them were females and whilst 143 (39.71%) were males. This is have been depicted on Table 4.1 above. Table 4.2: Summary Statistics of age and household size Variable Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Age 27.68 10.08 15 63 Household size 4.97 2.38 1 21 Table 4.2 above indicates that, the average age represented in the study sample was approximately twenty (28) years. The minimum and maximum age represented was fifteen (15) and sixty-three (63) years respectively. However, the table above shows that the data was widely dispersed in respect of age. Also, the average household size stood at approximately five (5) households per structure with a minimum and maximum value of one and 21 respectively. This also indicated that household data were widely dispersed with a standard deviation of 2.38.  ϰϳ 40 56.11 36.94 20 Number of Responses (%) 60 Marital Status of Respondents 4.72 0.83 0.83 0 0.56 Divorced Married Source: Field Survey Missing Non response Separated Single Widow Figure 4.2: Marital Status of Respondents Figure 4.2 indicates that 56.11% of the respondents were not married, whilst 36.94% were married couples. However, less than 10% of the respondents fell into other categories either than single and married couples with a 0.56% non-response rate. Occupation of Respondents Unemployed 8.939% Student Private Business 24.86% 48.88% 17.32% Civil Service Source: Field Survey Figure 4.3: Occupational Status of Respondents The study sample randomly included 48.88% of students leaving in the study communities. From figure 4.3, 24.86% of the respondents were operating private  ϰϴ businesses whilst 17.32% were in the civil service category. However, 8.94% of the respondents included in the study sample were unemployed. Level of Education of Respondents Primary Vocational 3.63% None 7.54% 4.75% Secondary 37.15% Tertiary 46.93% Source: Field Survey Figure 4.4: Educational Status of Respondents Figure 4.4 shows 46.93%, 37.15%, 4.75% and 3.63% of the respondents of the study had tertiary, secondary, primary and vocational education respectively. The percentage of respondents who had no education was 7.54%. Table 4.3: Religious affiliation of respondents Religion Number of responses Percentage (%) Christianity 257 71.39 Muslim 95 26.39 Others 8 2.25 Total 360 100.00 Table 4.3 shows that out of the 360 respondents, 257 were Christians whilst 95 were Muslims. 8 respondents however belonged to other religion.  ϰϵ ͶǤͶ ‡ƒ•‘•ˆ‘”Š‘—•‡Š‘Ž†’”‡ˆ‡”‡ ‡ˆ‘”’Žƒ•–‹ ’”‘†— –• Household reasons for using plastic products is paramount in effective management of plastic waste, hence was ascertained. Households within the Bolgatanga Municipality preferred plastic products for a number of reasons. Figure 4.5 below shows that 33.50% preferred plastic products because of the lack of alternative materials while 53.06% and 49.44% preferred plastics products because it was common and light in weight respectively. The majority of households however preferred plastics products because they were virtually cheap compared to other similar products made of different material other than plastics. These reasons for people’s preference of plastic products have also been observed by the European Commission (2011). According to the European Commission (2011), general preference of plastic products lies in the fact that they are relative cheap, versatile and durable materials. Similar observations have been made by Adane and Muleta (2011) in Jimma City in Ethiopia and Mangizvo, (2012) in Alice, South Africa. The findings are also consistent with other reports describing that light weight, cheap price, excellent fitness for use and resource efficiency as main reasons for widespread use of plastic bags by billions of customers worldwide (Verghese, et al., 2006) 80 Reason for Plastic Preference 60 53.06 40 49.44 20 32.50 0 Number of Responses (%) 65.83 Alternative Cheap Common Source: Field Survey Figure 4.5: Reason for choosing plastic products  ϱϬ Weight ͶǤͷ ‘—” ‡•‘ˆ’Žƒ•–‹ •–‘–Š‡Š‘—•‡Š‘Ž† Determining the major sources of plastics into the household is an important factor in any effort to effectively manage plastic waste hence its importance in this study. Two main sources of plastics into the households were identified. These were commercial centers and industries. The commercial centers included the common market, supermarkets, small shops and kiosk. They accounted for most of the plastics introduced into households within the Municipality. However, even though most householders agreed that industry could be a contributor of enormous amount of plastics into the household, it was not responsible for the plastic waste menace in the Bolgatanaga Municipality because they were virtually no industries in the Municipality. This was reflected in their response as can be shown on table 4.4 below. Table 4.4 indicates that, a total of 342 (95%) households admitted that, the largest source of plastic to the household was commercial centers as elaborated above. Only 18 (5%) believed the industries were the largest source of plastics to the household. Wiennah, (2007) and Tchobanoglous et al, (1993) have also confirmed that sources of plastics include commercial and industrial sources. The findings that commercial or business centres like the common and supermarkets are the largest contributors of plastics into the household have been supported by Mangizvo (2012). Based on Fobil’s (2001) findings that there are about 40 plastic manufacturing companies producing about 26,000 metric tonnes of assorted plastic products annually in Ghana with 90% of such companies being in Accra-Tema Metropolitan Area, it is very obvious that in such areas industries contributes a lot of plastics directly into household which is not so in the Bolgatanga Municipality.  ϱϭ Table 4.4: Sources of plastics to the household Source Number of responses Percentage (%) Commercial centers 342 95.00 Industries 18 Total 360 ͶǤ͸ 5.00 100.00 ƒŒ‘”‹–›‘ˆ’Žƒ•–‹ •„”‘—‰Š–‹–‘–Š‡Š‘—•‡Š‘Ž† Knowledge of the types of plastics brought into the household is very important because, it can inform management to use appropriate methods to effectively deal with the various types of plastics introduced into the household. Figure 4.6 below shows that majority of the plastic products brought into the household were polythene bags and pure water sachets representing a percentage of 98.06 and 98.89 respectively. The situation was so because, most of the households had a preference for pure water because it is believed to be treated and well packaged. Even in homes where taps were available, households said they still preferred purchasing pure sachet water as drinking water. In addition, almost everything bought in the market or supermarket is virtually wrapped in a polythene bag hence these two formed the majority of plastics introduced into the households. In terms of rate of introduction, these products are also introduced into the household at a very faster rate and subsequently disposed at a faster rate when, hence forming majority of the plastic waste originating from households. The Municipal Assembly also agreed to the fact that, the pure water sachet and the polyethene bags formed majority of the plastic waste originating from household however, it did not the furnish the researcher with any figures. The low percentages of 4.72% and 17.78% for plastic utensils and bottles respectively could possibly be as a result of the fact that such products have a longer  ϱϮ life span with regards to usage in the household compared to the pure water sachet and polyethene bags. With the pure water and the polyethene bags once the content is removed it is thrown away. However plastic utensils and bottles once bought can be use and reused. These were not much found in the environs where the research was conducted because of the economic value attached to them. Some individuals went around to collected these old and broken household utensils and bottles from the dump site or possible bought them from householders who were aware of the market value attached to them. According to the World Bank, (1996), environmental groups estimate that, every year 500 billion to one trillion of the bags are manufactured and used worldwide and this results in a proportionate rise in plastic waste in the municipal solid waste streams in large cities in sub-Sahara Africa. Mangizvo, (2012), also observed that plastic bags used among inhabitant of increased of Alice in South Africa despite legislation by the government to ban it production and use. Jimma City of South Eastern Ethiopia, Adane and Muleta (2011) made similar observations whereby; out of the 230 respondents, (76.52%) used plastic bags in high frequency as compared to other plastics products. This was followed by the usage of plastic bottles (40%), plastic buckets, barrels and baskets (19.13%) and plastic shoes (11.30%). Similar increased use of plastic bags was also found in the Bolgatanga Municipality as depicted on figure 4.5. The observation of more plastic bags (polyethene bags) brought to households is consistent with the report of Ramaswamy and Sharma, (2011) among the residents of Gondar City in Ethiopia. The increase use of plastic bags lies in the fact that modern society shows a high preference for it Li et al., (2010).  ϱϯ 98.89 40 60 80 98.06 20 Number of Responses (%) 100 Majority of plastics brought to the house 17.78 0 4.72 Plastic Utensils Plastic bottles Polythene bags Pure Water Scakets Figure 4.6: Majority of plastics brought to the house ͶǤ͹ ’‹‹‘‘’Žƒ•–‹ ™ƒ•–‡ ƒ—•‹‰–Š”‡ƒ–• Households view on the effects of plastics can be a determining factor in the way households handles plastic products and the waste arising after consumption. Table 4.5 below shows that out of the total households of 360, 1.94% were not aware plastics could cause any threat whilst 97.50% households were very much aware of the threats caused by plastics. This is an indication that, majority of households in the Municipality are actually aware of the effects of plastic and for that matter should have reflected in the manner they handle their household plastic waste. The current plastic waste situation simply means that despite households knowing plastics can be dangerous, they are not putting more efforts to properly dispose the waste. Table 4.5: Opinion on effects of plastic waste  Opinion Number of responses Percentage (%) NO 7 1.94 YES 351 97.50 Missing 2 0.56 ϱϰ ͶǤͺ ‘••‹„Ž‡‡ˆˆ‡ –•‘ˆ’Žƒ•–‹ ™ƒ•–‡ Table 4.6 above indicates that majority of respondents (97.50%) in the Municipality were aware that plastics waste caused threat. Only (1.94%) did not think that plastic waste caused threat while less than 1% (0.56) did not answer the question with this attribute. Several literatures exist to support people awareness of the possible effects of plastic waste. (Butte Environmental Council 2001; Lane 2003, Girum 2005; Seema 2008 and Boadi and Kultunen 2005). Based on their response, it was paramount to ascertain whether they actually knew the type of threats it possess. Table 4.6 below presents households opinion on the threats that plastic waste can cause. Almost all household within the Municipality agreed that plastic waste created a diversity of problems including chocking of gutters (350, 97.22%), creation of unsanitary environmental conditions (97.22%), forming breading grounds for mosquitoes (66.22%), causing animal death (59.72%), polluting water bodies (52.50%), affecting human health (50%) and Agricultural soils (59.44%). This is depicted on the Table 4.6 below. Table 4.6: Possible effects of plastic products Number of responses Percentage Environmental 350 97.22 Chocking of gutter 350 97.22 Mosquito Breeding grounds 224 62.22 Causes animal death 215 59.72 Pollute water bodies 189 52.50 Affect human health 180 50.00 Unsanitary conditions  ϱϱ Some unsanitary conditions caused by plastic waste observed during the study Plate 6: Plastic waste lying in open places and behind house at residential areas Plate 7: Plastic waste lying near a waste container and along the roadside Plate 8: Plastic waste lying in gutterand around the Ramsey sport stadium in Bolgatanga The trend observed in the Bolgatanga Municipality is similar to other cities of developing countries (Girum, 2005). With regards to impacts of plastic bags, a similar research by Adane and Muleta, (2012) revealed the following; animal death  ϱϲ (72.60%), blockage of sewage system (70.48%), deterioration of natural beauty of environment (62.60%) and human health problems (51.73%). Many observations by several researchers on impact of plastic waste exist and are elaborated below. With regards to plastic waste deteriorating the environment, several literatures exist to support this. Anthony, (2003) observed that accumulation of plastic waste especially plastic bags causes environmental pollution resulting in deterioration of natural environment. This is also consistent with Mangizvo (2012) findings in which he indicated that, plastic bags had become a symbol of Alice landscape. Other literature confirming this are UNEP, (2005b) and in Ghana by Anomanyo (2004) and Wiennah (2007). In addition, it has been noted that when plastic waste finds itself beneath the ground of farm lands they can reduce plant growth as a result of reduce water and air movement in the soil (Butt Environmental Council, 2001, IRIN, 2005; Lane, 2003). The effects of plastic waste on drainage systems are also well established by the following; Seema, (2008); Boadi and kultunen (2005); Smith, (2009). According to Smith, (2009), the 2005 Mumbai flooding incidence that killed over 1000 people and at least 1000 animals and livestock was attributed to plastic bags clogging the city’s drainage system, thus preventing the monsoon rains from leaving the city. When plastic bags or container collects water or traps water in drainage system they serve as breeding grounds for mosquitoes (Aziegbe, 2007; Smith, 2009). Impacts of plastics waste on animals have been observed by Ramaswamy and Sharma, (2011) in Gondar City where cattle were affected. In that same study ingestion of plastic bags reduce milk production in cattle. In severe cases the animals dies (World Watch, 2004; Edwards, 2000; Forum for Environment, 2010). Thiel, (2003); UNEP, (2006) and Laist, (1997) observed that plastics waste had negative impacts on marine animals such as marine birds, turtles, seals and Whale. It is not impacts on only animal that have been well established but impacts on humans as well. In a report reuse of plastic bags can cause a cross contamination of food by microorganism (Gerba et al., 2010; Cliver, 2006; Maule 2000) The presence of  ϱϳ different forms of plastic waste in the Mcklin dam in Bolgatanga Municipality actually confirms the respondent’s assertion that such materials could pollute water bodies. This is consistent with Mangizvo’s findings in Alice City in South Africa where pollution of the Tyume River by plastic bags have been reported. ͶǤͻ ‘—•‡Š‘Ž†™ƒ•–‡ƒƒ‰‡‡–’”ƒ –‹ ‡• ͶǤͻǤͳ ‡”•‘•”‡•’‘•‹„Ž‡ˆ‘”ƒƒ‰‡‡–‘ˆŠ‘—•‡Š‘Ž†™ƒ•–‡ Figure 4.7 below shows that within households in the Bolgatanga Municipality, 45.71% of mothers; 45.18% of children and 9.11% of fathers are responsible for managing waste. It can then be concluded that waste management at the household level is virtually the work of mothers and children. In majority of the households, the mothers clean the homes and collect the rubbish and the children carried out the final disposal from the homes. Some households had children completely in charge of cleaning, collecting and disposing of waste from the home. In most home, fathers did not play any role in waste management. In household that males managed waste, they were either single or married with their partners elsewhere. Generally fathers were not very much involved in household waste management. Household level management of plastic waste Children Mothers 45.18% 45.71% 9.11% Fathers Source: Field Survey Figure 4.7: Responsibility for waste management at household level  ϱϴ In a similar research on waste in Ijebu Ode, South Nigeria, Banjo et al, (2009) share similar view. Banjo et al revealed that 4.3%nof fathers; 43.3% of mothers; 30% of children and 15.4% domestic help were responsible for waste management. When the situation in the Bolgatanga Municipality is compared with that of Ijebu Ode in Nigeria, it is very obvious that few fathers (Males) handle waste while mothers (Females) forms the majority of those handling waste. This pattern was also evident in Tsibo and Marbell, (2004). However they indicated that, in the institution of marriage, it is the duty of the woman to cook, fetch water and clean, dispose of waste and keep the house in order. In addition, since it is the woman who produces waste as a result of her domestic activities, it beholds on her to find the means to dispose her waste. They argued that since men are normally out of the house most of the time and as such produces less refuse as compared to the other members of the household they are not bothered and should not be bothered. This is possibly the reason why they were few men involved in plastic waste management at the household level in the Bolgatanga Municipality. ͶǤͻǤʹ ‡’‘”ƒŽ–‘”ƒ‰‡‘ˆŠ‘—•‡Š‘Ž†™ƒ•–‡ The manner in which households stores their waste temporally at the household level can positively or negatively affect the environment especially the household immediate environment. When households have good temporal storage systems, the environment is enhanced and vice versa. Figure 4.8 below indicates that, 48.74% of households handled waste in trash bins with lid; 30.25% in buckets, 14.29% in trash bins without lid, 3.64% in large polythene bags whilst 3.08% handled their waste in other objects.  ϱϵ Handling of waste at the household level large polythene bagsOthers 3.64% 3.08% trash bin without lid 14.29% Buckets 30.25% trash bin with lid 48.74% Source: Field Survey Figure 4.8: Handling of waste at the household level Paper box Metal bucket with lid  Old plastic bucket Plastic dust bin without lid ϲϬ Zoomlion dustbin Polythene bag Plate 9: Some household temporal waste storing containers observed during the study The used of wide variety of containments systems like dustbins, baskets, boxes, cement bags, concrete vats, metal bins, buckets, sacks and polythene bags have was observed (plate 9). Similar observations were made by Puopiel (2010) and George (2008) in Ghana; Banjo et al., (2009) in Nigeria and Dobbs, (1991) in Kolkata, India. ͶǤͻǤ͵ ‡–Š‘†•‘ˆ‹•’‘•ƒŽ‘ˆ ‘—•‡Š‘Ž†ƒ•–‡ƒ†‹‡•’‡– According to Puopiel (2010), the method of disposal of household solid waste which generally includes plastic waste is one of the functional elements in the management of waste. From figure 4.9 below, the commonest place of plastic waste disposal is the dumpsite with 54.77% of respondents disposing their waste there. Most respondents within these EAs; Atulbabisi, Soe, Bukere and Dapoore-Tindongo virtually depended on dumpsites some of which were self-designated. Out of 178 respondents the following percentages 76.97%; 12.36%; 5.62% and 2.81% are between 5-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25 and 26-30 minutes walking distance from the household. This is depicted on Table 4.7 below. Some respondents however were not comfortable spending more time to disposing their waste and indicated that they often resorted to disposing it at any bushy or undeveloped space around the household environment.  ϲϭ Table 4.7: Distance of dumping site from household Distance (minutes) Number responses of Percentage (%) 5 – 10 137 76.97 11 – 15 22 12.36 16 – 20 10 5.62 21 – 25 5 2.81 26 – 30 4 2.25 Total 178 100.00 This observation is consistent with Puopiel, (2010) findings in Tamale. He observed that respondents at different location of his study area spent different minutes in disposing of their waste. 79.2% spent above 10 minutes in disposing their waste and out of the 79.2%, 63.3% of the respondents said it inconvenienced them to spend such time to dispose their waste in the nearest skip. This presupposes that household’s waste disposal practices can improved if dump sites are located somehow closed them. With regards to how households finally disposed their waste, a wide diversity of methods were identified. From figure 4.9, 34.77% of household disposed their plastic waste by burning. Households within EAs like Kumbosgo, Yarigabisi and Yekene disposed plastics by burning in the open place. Some, households within these same EA’s who did not have approved dumping sites or skips disposed their waste on any available open space. They accounted for the 8.92%. A small percentage of households disposed their plastic waste by burying representing 1.54% as shown on Figure 4.9 below. Generally, almost all respondents admitted having to burn plastic waste some time.  ϲϮ 60 Disposal of plastic waste from household 40 34.77 20 Number of Respondents (%) 54.77 8.92 0 1.54 Burning Burying Dumping Site Open Space Figure 4.9: Disposal of plastic waste from household Approved dumpsite (skip)  Burning of plastic waste ϲϯ Unapproved dumpsite Undeveloped lands Plate 10: Observed ways through which households final disposed of their plastic waste These methods of doing away with household waste have been reported by a number of researchers. Among some of the methods of household final disposal of waste observed are; dumping in open space, gutters, undeveloped lands, roadsides, skip and approved dumpsite for collection by waste management firms (Anomanyo, 2004; Banjo et al., 2009; Puopiel, 2010; Adane and Muleta, 2012). Banjo et al. (2009) observed in Ije Ode, that inhabitants waste management practices as burning (65, 21.7%), burying (22, 7.3%), depositing into gutter (45, 15%), putting on road side for waste managers (150, 50%) and dumping on undeveloped land (18, 6%). Adane and Muleta, (2011) on the other hand observed that 137 (59.56%), 94 (40.86%) and 43 (18.69) disposed their waste through open dumping, burning and burying respectively. ͶǤͻǤͶ‘†‡‘ˆ†‹•’‘•‹‰’Žƒ•–‹ ™ƒ•–‡ Knowledge of how household dispose plastic waste is an important function in the effective management of plastic waste. According to a staff of Zoomlion  ϲϰ (Bolgatanaga), the manner in which plastic waste is found in the environment can make the work of waste management firms easier or difficult, hence the need to ascertain how household disposed of their plastic waste. Table 4.8 below indicates that, out of the 360 households examined, 74 (20.56%) separated plastics from household waste before final disposal whilst a total of 282 (78.33%) disposed their household waste together with other household waste. This is to say that household waste is thrown together with its plastic components without the necessity to sort. One reason giving for not sorting was the fact that they were not going to be paid for that. Another had to do with the absence of a recycling firm in the Municipality. Those few respondents (74, 20.56) who did some form of separation or sorting did that so that they could burn the plastics components of the waste and in some cases to sell some component such as plastic bottles and broken plastic buckets and chairs. Table 4.8: Mode of disposing plastic waste Number Mode of plastic waste disposal of Percentage responses (%) 74 20.56 282 78.33 Missing 4 1.11 Total 360 100.00 Separated from household waste Thrown together with household waste Similar observation was made in Ije Ode in Nigeria but in this case there was no sorting of waste at all. Banjo et al., (2009) observed that all the 300 respondents of Ije Ode state did not undertake any form of sorting of waste before disposal. In a study on sustainable plastics waste management in Accra, Wiennah (2007) observation revealed the importance of plastic waste separation if recycling efforts were to be effective.  ϲϱ ͶǤͳͲ ŠƒŽŽ‡‰‡•‘ˆŠ‘—•‡Š‘Ž†™ƒ•–‡†‹•’‘•ƒŽ Households within the Municipality faced numerous challenges in disposing of their waste. The most common challenge was the problem of irregular collection of waste as depicted on figure 4.10 below. This problem was common to those households dumping waste at approved dumpsite with waste containers and a section of those received door to door services. According to the Municipal Assembly’s boss, their waste collection vehicle had been down for almost three (3) years and for that matter they had to rely on Zoomlion Ghana Limited to do the collection of waste for them. Considering the fact that, the private waste management has its own client it would have to deal with first before attending to the areas covered by the Municipal Assembly, the issue of irregular collection often arises and for that matter is the most common problem encountered by households. The second largest challenge encountered by household is the lack of dumpsites with 35.28 of households confirming this as indicated on figure 4.10 below. Other challenges that household encounter in their disposal of waste were the lack of dustbins and the fact that the distance of some dumping sites were far as indicated figure 4.10 as 22.5% and 20.56% respectively. Distance of dumping site 20.56 Irregular collection 48.89 Lack of dumping sites 35.28 Lack of dustbins 22.5 0 10 20 30 Number of Respondents (%) Source: Field Survey  ϲϲ 40 50 Figure 4.10: Challenges in disposing waste materials Similar observations were made by observations were made by Puopiel, (2010) where inhabitants identified some of the above problems as major challenges militating against the effective disposal of waste in the Tamale Metropolitan Area. Other challenges confronting household waste disposal includes, lack of dustbins and the farness of dumping sites( Tsiboe and Marbell, 2004); higher charges from waste management firms providing door to door services (Edmunson,1991; Adelaide, 1995). Such challenges when continuously are not being address leads to the use of in appropriate dumping strategies by households such as dumping in gutters, roadsides, behind houses, in water bodies and any available open spaces. This could possibly be the reason why the Bolgatanga Municipality has an increase in plastic waste (polyethen bags and pure water sachets) in its environment and for that matter a total of 294 (81.67) respondents felt that, the environment situation was bad. While 57, (15.83%) said the situation was fair, that is not too good and not too bad, 4 (1.11%) said the environmental situation was good. 5 (1.39%) of respondents were not sure about the environmental situation. This information is depicted on Figure 4.10. ͶǤͳͳ •–‹–—–‹‘•”‡•’‘•‹„Ž‡ˆ‘”™ƒ•–‡ƒƒ‰‡‡–‹–Š‡•–—†›ƒ”‡ƒ With regards to waste collection from approved dump sites, the Municipal Assembly and the private waste management firm (Zoomlion Ghana Limited) are responsible. Out of the 178 households that disposed their waste at approved dumpsites, 50% said the Municipal Assembly was responsible for collecting waste from their approved dumpsite while 40% believe it was Zoomlion; a private waste management firm that was responsible for collecting waste from their approved dumpsite. However, a 10% of households did not know who was responsible for collecting their waste from the approved dumpsite. These figures are clearly confirmed on figure 4.11 below.  ϲϳ Person responsible for collecting waste from dumping site don't know 10% Municipal Assembly Private WM firm 50% 40% Source: Field Survey Figure 4.11: Institutions responsible for waste management in the study area The observation above points to the fact that there are only two waste management firms in the Bolgatang Municipality namely the Bolgatanga Municipal Assembly and ZoomlionGhanalimited a private waste management firm. Waste management is therefore a partnership between government and the private sector. Such observations were equally made by Tsiboe and Mabell (2004) in Accra; and Puopiel (2010) in the Tamale Metropolitan Area. He however added that door to door waste management services were only provided by private by Zoomlion. This is consistent with the findings in the Bolgatanga Municipality where 55 (15.28%) respondents admitted receiving indoor waste management services and a whopping 305 (84.72%) did not receive any indoor service. This is depicted on Table 4.9 below. Areas that received such services indoor waste management services included the Tindonsobligo (SNNIT area) and some parts (newly developed areas) of Zaare (Hospital area), Yarigabisi (new developing areas) and Yekene. It is therefore very obvious that the coverage of indoor waste management services is limited and more to the point some household simply did want to benefit from door to door services due to the supposed high charges and inefficiencies such as the irregular collection of waste. Similar observations were made by Puopiel (2010) where most homes equally were not  ϲϴ interested in the door to door services because of the inefficiencies. Some who even receive such services equally complained of not being satisfied with their services. Out of the 55 respondents who had access to indoor services most (41, 74.55) were satisfied with services provided by Zoomlion even though they admitted there were challenges sometimes. Satisfaction with indoor services was higher especially in SNNIT area where the residential area was well planned compared to other areas. 14, (25.45%) of respondents however were not satisfied with the services of Zoomlion for its indoor waste management services it provided them. This is depicted on Table 4.10. Table 4.9: Recipients of indoor service Response of households on indoor Number of Percentage waste management services responses (%) NO 305 84.72 YES 55 15.28 Total 360 100.00 Table 4.10: Satisfaction obtained from waste management service Number of responses Percentage (%) Satisfied 41 74.55 Not Satisfied 14 25.45 Total 55 100.00 Table 4.11: Opinion on plastic waste situation in the Municipality  Number of responses Percentage (%) Good 4 1.11 Bad 294 81.67 Fair 57 15.83 Not sure 5 1.39 Total 360 100.00 ϲϵ Based on the assertion by most respondents (294, 81.67%) that the environmental situation was bad in the Bolgatanga Municipality, they were asked to identify the most polluted areas in the Municipality. The areas identified as being polluted were the market, crowded residential areas, gutters, roadsides and parks representing 95.56%, 73.33%, 72.78%, 72.56% and 68.89% respective. This information is depicted on Figure 4.12 below. Crowded Residence 73.33 Gutters 72.78 Markets 95.56 Parks 68.89 Roadsides 70.56 0 20 40 60 80 100 Number of Respondents (%) Source: Field Survey Figure 4.12: Most polluted areas of the municipality ͶǤͳʹ ‘—•‡Š‘Ž† ™‹ŽŽ‹‰‡•• –‘ •‡’ƒ”ƒ–‡ ’Žƒ•–‹  ˆ”‘ Š‘—•‡Š‘Ž† ™ƒ•–‡ „‡ˆ‘”‡ †‹•’‘•ƒŽ In countries where plastic waste management especially recycling has been effective, households have played important roles in the area of sorting or separating plastics from other household waste. The importance of sorting of plastics at both the point of generation and the point of recycling have been observed by Wiennah (2007) in Accra. In the Bolgatanga Municipality, there are virtually no recycling firms as confirmed by respondents and depicted on Table 4.13 however, households were willing to separate plastics from other household waste but only if they will get some direct benefits or were aware of recycling firms. Their willingness to separated plastic waste is depicted on Table 4.12 below. Out of a total of 360 households, 122  ϳϬ (33.89%) indicated that they were not willing to separate plastics waste from household waste before disposal whilst 236 (65.56%) were willing to do so. Respondent who did not answer the question with this attributes was 2 (0.56%). This is consistent with Oyake-Ombis (2009). Oyake-Ombis (2009) observed that a profound large size of respondents (71.6%) affirmed their willing to separate waste generated in Kenya. Those who respondent otherwise were 22.1% and the rest (6.3%) did not respond to the questions on this attribute. Table 4.12: Willingness to separate plastic from household waste before disposal Number of responses Percentage (%) Not Willing 122 33.89 Willing 236 65.56 Missing 2 0.56 Total 360 100.00 Table 4.13: Knowledge on the presence of recycling firm in Bolgatanga Knowledge on recycling firm Number of responses Percentage (%) NO 347 96.39 YES 11 3.06 Missing 2 0.56 Total 360 100.00 ͶǤͳ͵ ”‡†‘—•‡‘ˆ’Žƒ•–‹ ’”‘†— –•‹‘Ž‰ƒ–ƒ‰ƒ With regards to the trend of use of plastic products especially polythene bags and pure water sachets, respondents believed there was an increase in use. This is depicted on Table 4.14, where most respondents 315 (87.50%) said there was an increased in use. 43 (11.56) respondents however said there was a decrease in plastic  ϳϭ use while 2 (0.56%) of respondents did not know whether there was an increase or not. Table 4.14: Trend on use of plastic products in Bolgatanga Number of responses Percentage (%) Increasing 315 87.50 Decreasing 43 11.94 Don’t know 2 0.56 Total 360 100.00 Based on the increased use of such products, 140 (38.89%) respondents wanted continued use of plastics products whilst 216 (60%) wanted a discontinued use of plastics. 4 (1.11%) of respondents did not answer the question with this attribute. In all, majority of household wanted the discontinuation of plastics products (pure water and polythene) but on the condition that there were alternatives. This is consistent with the findings of Adane and Muleta, (2011) in which 120 (52.17%) respondents of Jimma City wanted utilization of plastic bags be discontinued while 110 (47.82%) want utilization of plastic bags be continued. Table 4.15: Opinion on the use of plastic products Opinion Number of responses Percentage (%) Continued 140 38.89 Discontinued 216 60.00 Don’t know 4 1.11 Total 360 100.00 Furthermore, respondents that opted for a discontinuation of use of plastics believed it was the responsibility of the government to carry that out. This was confirmed by 207 (57.50%) respondents as shown below on Table 4.16. This has been confirmed  ϳϮ by a report on solid waste management, (2007) and UNEP, (2005b) which indicated that some government of Sub-Saharan Africa have tried to regulate the use of plastic bags by partially banning them and setting a minimum thickness of the bags to be manufactured or imported. One of such countries is Ethiopia, but current reports shows that plastic bag use are still causing threats in such areas Adane and Muleta (2011). On the other hand, 56 (15.56%) respondents believed discontinuation of the use of plastics could be achieved by households by stopping the use of plastics while 82 (22.78%) respondents said felt it is the responsibility of the private waste management firm to discontinue plastic use. This information is shown on Table 4.16. Table 4.16: Body responsible for ensuring discontinuity of plastic products Number of respondents Percentage (%) Households 56 15.56 Government 207 57.50 Private WM firm 82 22.78 ͶǤͳͶ ‘—•‡Š‘Ž†‹˜‘Ž˜‡‡–‹’Žƒ•–‹ ™ƒ•–‡ƒƒ‰‡‡– According to Davies, (2001) current systems for waste management plans require a statutory duty on the part of the local authority to incorporate the public in the waste planning process. Other equally valuable sources that support this school of thought are Freeman (1997), Bliss (1999), Kuhn (2000) and Harris (2007). They all agree that collective decision making involving all stakeholders is necessary requirements for effective and efficient implementation of programmes. However the situation was different in the Municipality where out of the 360 respondents examined, 335 (93.06%) indicated they had never been involved in any decision making in the area  ϳϯ of waste management. Only 22 (6.11) indicated they had been involve in some decision making of some sort related to waste management. This is depicted on Table 4.17 below. Based on this is very clear that people are involve in decision making process by authorities in waste management which could possibly be the reason for failures in most waste management programmes. Table 4.17: Involvement in waste management decision making Number of Percentage responses (%) NO 335 93.06 YES 22 6.11 Missing 3 0.83 Total 360 100.00 Furthermore, households within the Bolgatanga Municipality were very much aware that they had a role to play in the management of not only plastic waste but waste in general. This is shown clearly on Table 4.18, where 339 (94.17%) respondents clearly indicated that, they had a role to play in waste management. However, 18 (5%) of respondents believed households had had no role to play in the management of waste. 3 (0.83) respondents however did not know whether households had a role to play or not as depicted by Table 4.18 below.  ϳϰ Table 4.18: Respondents' opinion on household involvement in plastic waste management Number of responses Percentage (%) Households has no role 18 5.00 Households has a role 339 94.17 Don’t know 3 0.83 Total 360 100.00 The participation of the general public is important in waste management yet they are neglected as was observed in the Bolgatanaga Municipality and by Oyake-Ombis (2009) in Kenya. For instance in Ghana where the only medium scale recycling company, Blowplast Limited operates, it engages about 100 people in collecting plastic waste sachets (Wiennah, (2007). These people therefore form a link between the sources of plastic waste including the households and recycling companies.McDonald and Ball (1998) emphasize the importance of the general public by explicitly putting it that, “Without the public’s conscious, collective decision to support an alternative route to their waste, there will be no material for the post-consumer waste recycling industries.”  ϳϱ Table 4.19: Household opinion on the best possible way of managing plastic waste Number Response respondents Reduce consumption of plastic products Stop consumption of plastic products Support plastic recycling efforts Proper attitude towards disposal of waste Be involved in decision making process of Percentage (%) 232 64.44 12 3.33 259 71.94 300 83.33 185 51.39 When respondents were asked about the possible way of dealing with plastics the following observations were made. Almost all respondents believed there was no one single approach to dealing with the problem. Among some of these approaches included; reduction in consumption of plastics, stopping consumption of plastics, supporting recycling efforts, change in attitude as well as the inclusion of the general public in waste management decision making. However majority (83.33%) of respondents believed a change in attitudes towards waste management was paramount. (71.94%) of respondents said supporting recycling efforts was equally important. The rest were reduction in consumption of plastic products, people’s involvement and discontinuing use of plastics representing 64.44% (232), 51.39% (185) and 3.33% (12) respectively as shown on Table 4.19 above. Similar measures are also being employed in some countries. These measures include ban of the production and distribution of plastic bags (clap, 2008; KNCPC, 2006; Watson, 2009;  ϳϲ AECOM, 2010 Convery, 2007; Hasson et al., 2007; Rayne, 2008; Ayalona et al., 2009; Clapp and Swanston, 2009; Xing, 2009). In Ethiopia for instance there is a partial ban of plastic bags by setting a minimum thickness of the bags to be manufactured in the country and/ or imported into the country (Solid waste management, 2007; UNEP, 2005b). However, plastics waste still cause pollution in this area (Bjerkli, 2005; Tadesse, 2008) Other attempts include voluntary initiatives (UNEP, 2005b), adopting proper disposal methods of plastic bag (Smith, 2009), adopting low price alternative reusable materials or bags made of paper, cloth which are biodegradable (Smith, 2009; Li et al., 2010; Muthu et al., 2010; Song et al., 2009; O’Brine and Thompson, 2010), provisions of adequate skips and regular waste collection as well as proper management of landfilling sites (Puopiel,2010), adequate resourcing of waste management institutions (Puopiel, 2010), creation of awareness of the negative effects of plastics, proper attitude towards waste management, inclusion or participation of the general public in waste management (Chambers, 1992, 2004, 2007a, 2007b) and recycling even though it is impractical in some countries due to economic and quality reasons (McKinney and Schoch, 2003). ͶǤͳͷ —‡”ƒ–‹˜‡ƒŽ›•‹• Table 4.20 shows the relationship between gender and the reason for choosing to use plastic products.  ϳϳ Table 4.20: Relationship between gender and reason for choosing to use plastic products Reason for choosing plastic products Light in Lack Gender Cheap Common Female 26 (7.26) 44 (12.29) 76 (21.23) 69 (19.27) 215 (60.06) Male 8 (2.23) 38 (10.61) 49 (13.69) 48 (13.41) 143 (39.94) Total 34 (9.50) 82 (22.91) 125 358 weight (34.92) alternatives 117 (32.68) Total (100.00) likelihood-ratio ‫ ݔ‬ଶ (3) = 5.5613 Pr = 0.135 The number in each cell of the table represents the count or frequency, whilst the number in parenthesis indicates the cell percentage. For instance, out of the 215 female respondents, 26 of them indicated that they preferred plastic products because they are cheap. This constituted 7.26% of the total respondents. The chi square test performs a hypothesis test to determine whether or not to reject the idea that the row and column classifications are independent. Since the p-value 0.135 is greater than 5% level of significance, there is a failure to reject the null hypothesis of independence of gender and reason for choosing to use plastic products. However, the observed value for gender for a particular case may bear no relation to its corresponding value of reason for chosen to use plastic products.  ϳϴ Table 4.21 shows relationship between marital status and reason for choosing to use plastic products. Table 4.21: Relationship between marital status and reason for choosing to use plastic products Reason for chosen plastic products Marital Light in Lack Cheap Common Single 12 (3.35) 45 (12.57) 74 (20.67) 71 (19.83) 202 (56.42) Married 15 (4.19) 26 (7.26) 48 (13.41) 44 (12.29) 133 (37.15) Widow 5 (1.40) 7 (1.96) 3 (0.84) 2 (0.56) 17 (4.75) Separated 2 (0.56) 1 (0.28) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.84) Divorced 0 (0.00) 3 (0.84) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.84) Total 34 (9.50) 82 (22.91) Status weight 125 (34.92) alternatives 117 (32.68) Total 358 (100.00) likelihood-ratio ‫ ݔ‬ଶ (12) = 33.5661Pr = 0.001 The likelihood ratio ‫ ݔ‬૛ test performed on the relationship between marital status and the reason for the respondent choosing to use plastic products resulted in a p-value of 0.001 which is highly significant (Table 4.21). It can however be concluded that there is enough statistical evidence not to accept the null hypothesis of independence of the row and column classifications. Thus, the marital status of the respondents is related to the reasons for their choice of using plastic products.  ϳϵ Table 4.22 depicts relationship between marital status and reason for choosing to use plastic products. Table 4.22: Relationship between educational status and reason for choosing to use plastic products Reason for chosen plastic products Educational Light in Lack Cheap Common No education 5 (1.40) Primary 4 (1.12) Secondary 11 (3.07) Tertiary 11 (3.07) 23 (6.42) Vocational 3 (0.84) 6 (1.68) 2 (0.56) 2 (0.56) 13 (3.63) Total 6 (1.68) 9 (2.51) 9 (2.51) 8 (2.23) 32 (8.94) Status Total weight alternatives 10 (2.79) 9 (2.51) 3 (0.84) 27 (7.54) 5 (1.40) 2 (0.56) 6 (1.68) 17 (4.75) 38 47 (10.61) (13.13) 65 (18.16) 37 (10.34) 69 (19.27) 133 (37.15) 168 (46.93) likelihood-ratio š ଶ (12) = 38.7418Pr = 0.000 The likelihood ratio test on the relationship between level of education of the respondent and the reason why they chose to use plastic products indicated at the 5% level of significance that the reason for the choice of plastic products was largely dependent on the educational status of the respondent with a p-value of 0.000.  ϴϬ Table 4.23 depicts relationship between occupation and reason for chosen to use plastic products. Table 4.23: Relationship between occupation and reason for chosen to use plastic products Reason for chosen to use plastic products Occupation Cheap Common Light in Lack weight Student 12 (3.35) 42 (11.72) 61 alternatives 60 (16.76) (17.04) Civil service 4 (1.12) 10 (2.79) 19 (5.31) Total 175 (48.88) 29 (8.10) 62 (17.32) Private business 12 (3.35) 21 (5.87) 36 20 (5.59) (10.06) Unemployed 6 (1.68) 9 (2.51) 9 (2.51) Total 34 (9.50) 82 (22.91) 125 (34.92) 89 (24.86) 8 (2.23) 32 (8.94) 117 (32.68) 358 (100) likelihood-ratio ‫ ݔ‬ଶ (9) = 16.3224Pr = 0.060 From Table 4.23, the likelihood ratio statistic (16.3224) with a p-value of 0.060 was not statistically significant. Hence, we failed to reject the null hypothesis of statistical independence of the level of education of the respondent and their reason for choice of plastic products.  ϴϭ Table 4.24 shows the relationship between level of education and opinion on plastic waste as a threat. Table 4.24: Relationship between level of education and opinion on plastic waste as a threat Opinion of plastic waste as a threat Educational status Not a threat A threat Total No education 2 (0.56) 25 (6.98) 27 (7.54) Primary 1 (0.28) 16 (4.47) 17 (4.75) Secondary 4 (1.12) 129 (36.03) 133 (37.15) Tertiary 0 (0.00) 168 (46.93) 168 (46.93) Vocational 0 (0.00) 13 (3.63) 13 (3.63) 7 (1.96) 351 (98.04) 358 (100) Total ଶ likelihood-ratio ‫( ݔ‬4) = 11.1708Pr = 0.025 Educational status of respondents, on the other hand, has a statistical relationship with the opinion of plastic waste as a threat to the society. This was evident from Table 4.24 where the likelihood ratio statistic (11.1708) with a p-value of 0.025 was significantly less than the 5% level.  ϴϮ Table 4.25 shows the relationship between level of education and ways of disposing plastic waste. Table 4.25: Relationship between level of education and ways of disposing plastic waste Ways of disposing plastic waste Level of Separated from Disposed with Total education household waste household waste No education 3 (0.84) 23 (6.46) 26 (7.30) Primary 1 (0.28) 16 (4.49) 17 (4.78) Secondary 27 (7.58) 105 (29.49) 132 (37.08) Tertiary 42 (11.80) 126 (35.39) 168 (47.19) Vocational 1 (0.28) 12 (3.37) 13 (3.65) Total 74 (20.79) 282 (79.21) 356 (100) likelihood-ratio‫ ݔ‬ଶ ((4) = 7.9621 Pr = 0.093 The analysis indicated that the way in which respondents in the study communities disposed off waste products has link with their level of education, according Table 4.25 since the p-value reported from the likelihood ratio test is greater the 5% level.  ϴϯ Table 4.26: Relationship between individual and ways of disposing plastic waste Ways of disposing plastic waste Person Separated from Disposed with responsible household waste household waste Children 26 (7.30) 69 (19.38) 95 (26.69) Mothers 45 (12.64) 209 (58.71) 254 (71.35) Fathers 3 (0.84) 4 (1.12) 7 (1.97) Total 74 (20.79) 282 (79.21) 356 (100) Total Likelihood-ratio ‫ ݔ‬ଶ (2) = 5.5734 Pr = 0.062 Table 4.26 also shows the relationship between the person responsible for managing plastic waste at the household level and the ways in which plastic waste are disposed off from the house. The likelihood ratio test statistic (5.5734) with a p-value of 0.062 did not support the rejection of the null hypothesis statistically. However, the way in which plastic waste in the household level are being disposed off has relation to the person responsible for managing such waste products.  ϴϰ    ͷǤͲ   ͷǤͳ—ƒ”› This research looked at the household perspective of plastic waste management in urban Ghana, specifically, the Bolgatanga Municipality. The study targeted households in some Electoral Area of the Bolgatanga Municipality. The study started by developing a conceptual framework that clearly pointed out the roles and central position of households in waste management. Households consume plastic products, generate waste, manage waste as well as receive waste management services. Households as a subset of the public consume more plastic products and subsequently generates enormous amount of waste. In addition, their waste management practices affect the environment. In view of this, the plastic waste situation was ascertained as well as household waste management practices. Identified were also the challenges and solutions to the plastic waste menace in the Bolgatanga Municipality. Questionnaires were used in 12 Electoral Areas that were randomly selected. 81.67% of households believed the plastic waste situation was bad. The household waste management practices identified included; temporal storage of waste in dustbins, boxes, buckets and large polyethene bags. Plastic waste was generally thrown together with other waste out of the household. 54.77% of households finally disposed their waste at approved dumping site while 34.77% burned their waste. A percentage of 8.92% disposed their waste at any available open space whilst 1.54% buried their waste. Household waste management challenges identified were distance of dumpsites, lack of dumpsite and dustbins as well as irregular collection of waste by waste management firms. From the household perspective, the solutions to the problems of the plastic menace include; change of attitude towards waste disposal, discontinuation of plastic use, recycling, and all stakeholder participation in waste management.  ϴϱ ͷǤʹ‘ Ž—•‹‘ The four objectives of the study were achieved at the end of the study period. With regards to first objective which sort to ascertain the plastic waste situation of the Bolgatanga Municipality, 81.67% of respondents made it clear that, the situation was bad. Only a small percentage believed the situation was fair, that is not too bad and not too good. Objective two was aimed at identifying household waste management practices. The study did reveal that at the household level waste was basically managed by mothers and children while most fathers or grown up men did not play any active role in waste management. With regards to temporal storage of waste at the household, plastic waste was generally stored with other waste in dustbins with and without lids, buckets, paper boxes and large polyethene bags. Some households did not have any medium for temporal storage of waste and disposed waste immediately after generation in any available open space around the home. Final disposal of waste from household was at approved dumping sites, any available space, burying and burning of waste was practice. The objective three however sort to identify the challenges faced by households in their waste management. These were identified as distance of approved dumping, lack of dumpsites, lack of communal dust bins and irregular collection of waste on the side of waste management firms which was the common problem most households faced. Objective four, the last aimed at ascertaining from households the best possible way of dealing with the plastic waste menace. (94.17%) respondents within the Bolgatanaga Municipality believed households had a role to play if waste management was to be effective. They presented a number of alternatives including reducing consumption, stopping the use of plastics, supporting plastics recycling, developing a proper attitude towards waste disposal and finally involvement of households in waste making decision process.  ϴϲ ͷǤ͵‡ ‘‡†ƒ–‹‘• The researcher sees it necessary to for authorities to take action now to address the problem. The following recommendations are therefore made. • Public awareness and education campaigns The creation of awareness among households and all in society regarding indiscriminate use and disposal of plastic bags will be a good option to overcome the problem in future. Even though household are already aware of the impacts of plastics such awareness and educational campaigns must still be carried to remind people continuously. This could be done through antilittering campaigns and promotions where residents are educated on the dangers posed by plastic bags. Awareness campaigns should be used to encourage behavioural change on plastic bag use. It is important to educate the public on the ills of plastic bags and ensure that information on the possible safe alternatives is available. There already are numerous alternatives to plastic shopping bags which include paper bags, green bags and degradable bags. Such education campaigns should encourage men to be much involved in household waste management since they have a greater common and influence at that level. • Use of environmental R’s Even though the government of Ghana is taking measures to regulate the use of plastic bags, this seems not to achieve the intended objectives. Instead, the application of the environmental R’s could curtail the use of plastic bags. The government, environmental Non-Governmental Organisations and concerned stakeholders should utilize the three environmental R’s (reduce, recycle and reuse) to mitigate the use of plastics. Producers and users should be encouraged to reduce the use of plastics. A reduction in the use of plastics means that alternatives such as paper and other biodegradable bags should replace the plastic ones; and new strategies of packaging should be practiced. Customers should have a mind-set that accepting plastic bags at the point of sale such as  ϴϳ supermarket is unfashionable. In addition, households should be encouraged to (re)use plastic bags and bottles as many times as possible thus curtailing their production. With sound campaigns people should be educated to carry old plastic bags when going for shopping. They could be reused to carry books by school going pupils. They could also be utilised as carrier bags in various sectors. Plastic bottles could be used as water bottles and milk containers. In some communities they are reused as paraffin containers. This will prevent unnecessary discarding of these bottles. • Support for the Bolgatanga Municipal Assembly The Bolgatanga Municipal Assembly should be supported especially in the area of skip trunks since they have the largest number of communal dumpsites. One skip trunk for the Assembly is woefully inadequate. As at the time this research was conducted, the Municipal Assembly had its skip trunk broken down and was dependent on the one used by Zoomlion Ghana Limited. The private waste management firm could only extend a helping a hand after it had finish with it territory. This was the main problem giving rise to the irregular collection of waste as outline by most households especially in areas covered by the Assembly. The Municipal Assembly should consider creating more communal dumpsites for households. Most EAs that fell under the study area did not have communal dumping sites and for that matter waste including plastics was disposed at any available space or undeveloped lands. Such disposal methods only give the opportunity to the wind to blow the plastic waste especially the light ones like polythene bags and pure water sachet. This compounds the plastic waste situation. • Involvement of the general public in waste management decision making process Households must be actively involved in the whole decision making process of waste management so that they would also have the opportunity to make inputs. Failure to do this will only make them feel neglected and not willing to comply with waste management reforms that may be formulated by authorities.  ϴϴ • Establishing a recycling facility in the Bolgatanga Municipality Once plastic waste is common and forms majority of waste in the municipal waste stream and the largest generated by households in many urban areas, they is the need to establish recycling facilities to recycle waste. Blowplast is one of such recycling firm in Accra. It should be the priority of government to at least ensure there is a recycling firm in all the ten regions of Ghana to reduce the stress people go through in carrying plastic waste from other region to Accra, Kumasi and Takoradi where some recycling facilities exist.    ϴϵ   Accra Sanitation Workshop (1998).Report of the Discussion Group on Financing and Cost Recovery Options.AMA, Accra. Adane, L. and Muleta, D. (2011). Survey on the usage of plastic bags, their disposal and adverse impacts on environment: A case study in Jimma City, Southwestern Ethiopia. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Sciences Vol. 3(8) pp. 234-248. Adarkwa, K. K. and Edmundsen A. R. (1993).Urban Waste Management in Ghana, a Study of Eleven Urban Centers. University of Science and Technology, Kumasi. Adelaide, A. (1995). Waste Management and Sanitation at James Town and Accra Central. A dissertation submitted to the Department of Sociology, University of Ghana, Legon. AECOM Technical Services (AECOM) (2010). Economic impact analysis proposed ban on plastic carryout bags in Los AngelesCounty. A report prepared for Sapphos Environmental, Inc. Pasadena, California. Project No. 18373, pp. 5-24. www.aecom.com. Accessed on February 2011 Agyenim-Boateng, K. (1998). Solid Waste Management: Background and Approach to Private Sector Participation. MLRD Publication, Accra. Amankwah, A. (2005). Plastic Waste Wahala. [Access on 08 June, 2006 from http:www.ghanaweb.com/publicagenda/arcticle] Anomanyo, D.E. (2004). Integration of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Accra, Ghana: Biofactor treatment technology as an integral part of the management process. Presented to Lund University, Sweden.  ϵϬ Anthony, A. (2003). Plastics and the environment. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey, pp. 379-397. Archer, E., Larbi, B. and Anim, A. (1997).Privatization of Refuse Management in Atonsu, Kumasi, Ghana. Research Papers No. 7, University of Science and Technology, Kumasi and University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Ayalona, O., Goldratha, T., Rosenthal, G., Grossman, M. (2009). Reduction of plastic carrier bag use: An analysis of alternatives in Israel. WasteManage., 29(7): 20252032. Aziegbe, F.I. (2007). Seasonality and Environmental Impact Status of Polyethylene (Cellophane) Generation and Disposal in Benin City, Nigeria. J. Human Ecol. 2007; 22(2): 141-147. Banjo,A. D., Adebambo, A.A.R. and Dairo, O.S. (2009). Inhabitants’ Perception on Domestic Waste Disposal in Ijebu Ode, Southwest Nigeria. African Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences 1 (3-4): 62-66. Bliss, F. (1999). “Theory and Practice of Participatory Project Planning. Good concepts but difficult to realize” Development and Cooperation, 1, 20-23. Boadi, K.O., Kuitunen, M. (2005). Environmental and health impacts ofhousehold solid waste handling and disposal practices in third worldcities: the case of the Accra Metropolitan Area, Ghana. J. Environ.Health, 68(4): 32-36. Brown, S. (2003). ‘Seven Billion Bags a Year’. Habitat Australia, 31(5):28. Butte Environmental Council, (2001). “Reducing plastic waste tops 2001 legislative agenda.” Environmental news http://www.becnet.org/ENews/01sp_plastic.html, p. 10.  ϵϭ (Spring). Bjerkli, C.L. (2005). The cycle of plastic waste: an analysis on the informal plastic recovery system in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Masters thesis. Norwegian Univ. Sci. Technol., pp. 40-49 Chambers, R. (1992) “Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and Participatory” Institute of Development Studies, Working Paper No. 311, University of Sussex, Brighton. Chambers, R. (2004) “Ideas for Development: Reflecting Forwards” Institute of Development Studies, Working Paper No. 238, University of Sussex, Brighton. Chambers, R. (2007a). “From PRA to PLA and Pluralism: Practice and Theory”, Institute of Development Studies, Working Paper No. 286, University of Sussex, Brighton. Chambers, R. (2007b). “Who counts? The Quiet Revolution of Participation and Numbers” Institute of Development Studies, Working Paper No. 296, University of Sussex, Brighton. Clapham, C. (2002).“The Challenge to the state in a Globalised World”.Development and Change, 33: 5, 775-795. Clapp, J., Swanston, L., Williams, J. (2008). Single-use plastic shopping bags: Issues for the region of Waterloo to consider University of Waterloo, Faculty of Environmental Studies, Waterloo, USA, pp. 2-13. Clapp, J. and Swanston, L. (2009). Doing away with plastic shopping bags: international patterns of norm emergence and policy implementation. Environ. Pol. 18(3): 315-332. Cliver, D.O. (2006). Cutting boards in Salmonella cross-contamination. JAOAC Int., 89: 538-542. Cointreau, S. (2006). Occupational and environmental health issues of solid waste management special emphasis on middle- and lower income countries. The  ϵϮ International bank for reconstruction anddevelopment/The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 3-7. Convery, F., McDonnell, S., Ferreira, S. (2007).The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy. Environ. Res. Econ. 38: 1–11. Davies, A.R. (2001).What Silence Knows – planning, public participation and environmental values, Environmental Values, 10, 77-102. Dharmawan, A. H. (1999). Farm Household Livelihood Strategy, Multiple Employment and Socie-economic changes in Rural Indonesia: case studies from West Java and West Kalimantan. Disscussion paper: Institute of Rural Development, the University of Goettingen. Dobbs, I. M. (1991). “Litter and waste management: Disposal taxes versus user charges.” Canadian Journal of Economics 24: 221-27. Edmunson, R. (1981). Refuse Management in Kumasi. Land administration research Centre Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and technology, Kumasi. Edwards, R. (2000). “Bags of rubbish.” The Ecologist, 30(8): 52. Draft 2010-2013 District Medium Term Development. (2010) Ellis, S., Kantner S, Saab A, Watson, M. (2005). Plastic grocery bags: The ecological footprint. Environmental changes are spreading infectious diseases-UN study, Victoria, pp. 1-19. Environment Liaison Centre International (ELCI), (2005).Breaking free from plastics.Ecoforum environmental solutions. Nairobi, p. 18. EPHC, (2002). “Plastic shopping bags in Australia”, National plastic bags working group report to the national packing covenant council. Environment protection and heritage council, Australia, pp. 9-11.  ϵϯ European Commission DG ENV (2011). Plastic waste: Ecological and human health impacts [Available on: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dN9mJqFIRaoJ:ec.europa.eu /environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/IR1.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl =gh&client=firefox-a] Flores, M.C., (2008). Plastic materials and environmental externalities: Structural causes and corrective policy. Lethbridge Undergraduate Res. J., 3(2). Fobil, JN. (2001). Factors to be considered in the design of an integrated municipal solid waste management in the Accra metropolis’, A master’s Thesis, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra Fobil, J.N. and Hogarh, J.N. (2006). The Dilemmas of Plastic Wastes in a Developing Economy: Proposals for a Sustainable Management Approach for Ghana. West Afri. J. Appl. Ecol.; 10(1): 221-229. The Situation, Forest, timber, game, natural hazard (2003). Federal office of FOEN. [Available on www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikaton/00763/index.html?lang=en] Forum for Environment (2010). Assessment of the solid waste management System of Bahir dar town and the gaps identified for the development of an ISWM plan, Bahirdar, Ethiopia, p. 10. Freedman, J. (1997).“Accountability in the Participatory mode”.Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 18 (special issue), 767-784. George, F. (2008).Problem of Solid Waste in Accra. A dissertation Submitted to the Department of Environmental Science University of Ghana. Geographical, (2005). “Waste: An Overview.” Geographical, 77(9): 34- 35.  ϵϰ Gerba, C.P., Williams, D., Sinclair, R.G. (2010). Assessment of the potential for cross contamination of food products by reusable shopping bags. Obtained through internet: http.uanews.org [Accessed on 26 August, 2010]. Global Industry Analysts, (2011). Molded Plastics: A Global Strategic Business Report. Global Industry Analysts Inc. Obtained on the internet: http://www.prweb.com/releases/molded_plastics/HDPE_LDPE_PVC/prweb8075824. htm [Accessed on 26 June, 2011]. Girum, B. (2005) Sustainable management of plastic bag waste. The case of Nairobi, Kenya.Lund, Sweden, pp. 3-52. Gregory, M.R. (2009).Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings – entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 364:2013-2025. Harris, C. (2007). “Pedagogy for Development: Some Reflections on Methods”, Institute of Development Studies, Working Paper No. 289, University of Sussex, Brighton. Hasson, R. and Leiman, A., Visser, M. (2007). The economics of plastic bag legislation in South Africa.SouthAfri. J. Econ. March; 75(1): 66-83. IRIN, (2005a). “Kenya: Researchers Recommend Ban on Use of Thin Plastic Bags.” IRIN news.(UN office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs). Jollands, M.C. and Majundar, J. (2007). The plastic bag – ban it or bury it? Local Gov. Report.; 5(7): 90-94. Joosten, L. A. J. (2001). The industrial metabolism of plastics: analysis of material flows, energy consumption and CO2 emissions in the lifecycle of plastics, doctoral thesis, Universiteit Utrecht.  ϵϱ Kaps, R. (2008). Comparative Environmental Evaluation of plastic Waste Management at National level on example of Polish and Austrian systems. Doctoral Thesis submitted to the Poznan University: Faculty of commodity science, institute for product ecology. www.wbc.poznan.pl/Content/161463/S4125KapsRenata.pdf [Accessed August 2011]. Kershaw, P., Katsuhiko, S. and Lee, S. (2011). Plastic Debris in the Ocean in UNEP Year Book 2011: Emerging issues in our global environment, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. KMA, (1995).Strategic Sanitation Plan for Kumasi 1996–2005. Kumasi, Ghana KNCPC (Kenya National Cleaner Production Centre), (2006). A Comprehensive plastic waste management strategy for the city of Nairobi prepared for the pilot project on plastic waste management in Nairobi, pp. 1-26. Kuhn, B. (2000) “Participatory Rural Appraisal Ten Years After: Did it fulfil the Expectations?” Development and Cooperation, 1, 21-22. Laist, D. W., (1997). Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Coe, J. Lardinois, I. & Klundert van de, (1995). Plastic waste. Options for small scale resource recovery. Urban Solid Waste Series 2. Waste consultant. Lane, M. (2003). “Why Can’t We Recycle All This Plastic?” BBC News September 19. Accessed on December 18, 2010.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3116318.stm. Li, Y., Muthu, S.S., Hu, J.Y., Mok, P.Y., Ding, X. and Wang, L. (2010). Eco-impact of shopping bags: consumer attitude and governmental policies. J. Sustainable Dev., 3(2): 71-83.  ϵϲ Macur, B.M. and Pudlowski, Z.J. (2009).Plastic bags- a hazard for the environment and a challenge for contemporary engineering educators.World Trans. Engineer. Technol. Educ., 7(2): 122-126. Mangizvo, R. V. (2012). The Incidence of Plastic Waste and their effects in Alice, South Africa. Journal of Social Sciences Research; 2(1): 49-53, Maule, A. (2000). Survival of verocytotoxigenicEscherichia coli O157 in soil, water and on surfaces.Symp. Ser. Soc. Appl. Microbiol., 29: 71S-78S. McDonald, S. and Ball, R. (1998). Public participation in plastics recycling schemes. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 22: 123-141. McKinney, M.L. and Schoch, R.N. (2003). Environmental Science: Systems and solutions. Mississauga, ON: Jones and Bartlett Publishers cited by Adane and Muleta, (2011). Milliken, J. and Krause, K. (2002). “State failure, state collapse and state reconstruction: concepts, lessons and strategies” Development and Change, 33 : 5, 753-774. Mitchell, T. (1991). “The limits of the state: beyond statist approaches and their critics”. American Political Science Review, 85: 1, 77-96. MLGRD (2009). National Report for Ghana Waste Management 2009, 18th Section of United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. www.un.org/National Reports/ghana). [Accessed on 22nd July 2011] MLGRD(2004).SanitationCountryProfileGhana(2004).(www.un.org/esta/agenda21./g hana/sanitationGHANA04.pdf). Accessed on 12th October, 2009 Mtshali, S.M. (2002). Household Livelihood Security in Rural Kwa Zulu-Natal, South Africa, Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen University, 289 pp.  ϵϳ Mudgal, S., Lyons, L., Bain, J. et al. (2010).Plastic Waste in the Environment – Final Report for European Commission DG Envi-ronment.Bio Intelligence Service. Downloadable from http://www.ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/plastics.pdf Mudgal, S., Lyons, L., Bain, J. et al., (2011). Plastic Waste in the Environment – Revised Final Report for European Commission DG Environment. Bio Intelligence Service. Downloadable from http://www.ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/plastics.pdf Muthu, S.S., Li, Y., Hu, J.Y., Mok, P.Y. (2010). An exploratory comparative study on eco-impact of paper and plastic bags. J. Fiber Bioeng. Inf., 1: 307-320. Nyong’o, P. A. (2006). “Reflections of social policy and development strategies in Kenya”. Paper presented at the forum on Mijadala on social policy, Governance and Development in Kenya, May 31, Nairobi. Narayan, P. (2001). Analysing plastic waste management in India: Casestudy of poly bags and PET bottles. Lund: Lund University, pp. 37-49. NBS, (2002). Tanzanian Household Budget Survey 2000/2001. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Dar es Salaam. Dar es Salaam: Tanzania, National Bureau of Statistics, pp. 220. Available at: http://www4.worldbank.org/afr/poverty/databank/docnav/default.cfm. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2010). Plastic Marine Debris; What We Know. Downloadable from http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/plastic.html Niehof, A. (2004a). The Significance of Diversification for Rural Livelihood Systems. Food Policy, 29, 321-328. Niehof, A. (2004b). Why should households care? Medische Antropologie, 16 (2), 282-289.  ϵϴ Njeru, J. (2006).The urban political ecology of plastic bag waste problem in Nairobi, Kenya.Geoforum; 37: 1046–1058. Nombo, I.C. (2007). When AIDS meets Poverty: Implications for Social Capital in a village in Tanzania, Wageningen: Wageningen University, 280pp. O’Brine, T. and Thompson, R.C. (2010).Degradation of plastic carrier bags in the marine environment.Marine Pollution Bulletin 60:2279-2283. Oosterveer, P. (2008). Addressing urban environmental problems and the role of the state in East Africa: Between neo-development and network views. Paper prepared for PROVIDE workshop, Arusha-Tanzania. Oosterveer, P. and Spaargaren, G. (2010). Meeting Social Challenges in Developing Sustainable Environmental Infrastructures in East African Cities. In: B.J.M. van Vliet, G. Spaargaren and P. Oosterveer (eds.), Social Perspectives on the Sanitation Challenge. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, pp. 11-30. Oyake-Ombis L. (2009). Household Perspectives of Innovative Plastic Waste Management in Kenya: Perceptions, Practices and Linkages [Available on: http/www.kadinst.hk/sdconf10_pdf/p41.pdf] Plastics Europe – The Facts (2012).From The Compelling Facts about Plastic, Plastics Europe (2011), p8. Pilz, H., Brandt, B. and Fehringer, R. (2010).The impact of plastics on life cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. Summary report by denkstatt for Plastics Europe. Practical Action, (2005) Re-thinking plastics, de-clogging the Globe Environmental Sanitation, (10) pp.12.  ϵϵ Puopiel, F. (2010). Solid waste management in Ghana: The case study of Tamale Metropolitan Area. A master’s thesis submitted to the department of planning, Kwame Nkrumah University of Sceince and Technology. Ramaswamy, V. and Sharma, H.R. (2011).Plastic bags – threat to environment and cattle health: a retrospective study from Gondar City of Ethiopia. The IIOAB Journal: special issue on Environ. Manage. Sustain. Develop. 2(1): 7-12. Ryan, P.G. (2008) Seabirds indicate changes in the composition of plastic litter in the Atlantic and south-western Indian Oceans Marine Pollution Bulletin 56:1406-1409. Rayne, S. (2008).The need for reducing plastic shopping bag use and disposal in Africa. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 3: 1-3. Ryan PG, Rice N. (1996). The ‘Free’ Shopping-Bag Debate: Costs and Attitudes. South Afri. J. Sci.; 92(4): 163-64. Saechtling, H. (1987). International Plastics Handbook for the Technologist, Engineer and User, 2nd edition. Hanser Publishes, Munich. Schouten, A.E. and Van der Vegt, A.K. (1991). Plastics, 9th edition. Delta Press BV, Amerongen. Sarkhel, P. (2006). Economics of household waste management in Kolkata: propose steps towards improved efficiency. Http://www.google.com.gh/search?Q=HOUSEHOLDS+AND+PLASTIC+WASTE+ MANAGEMENT&btng=Search&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3AenUS%3Aofficial&client=firefoxa [Accessed 22nd July, 2012] Solomon, O. A. (2011). The role of households in solid waste management in East Africa capital cities. Thesis, WageningenUniversity, Wageningen. Available on: http://edepot.wur.nl/179704  ϭϬϬ Schweizer F. and Annoh C. K. (1996). Privatization of Solid Waste Management in Ghana, Trialog48: 50. A thesis submitted to the University of Science and Technology in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Development policy and planning. Seema, S. (2008). Ecologically oriented behavior in consumers (Report). Abhigyan.Foundation for Organizational Research and Education, the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA. Smith, L.C. (2009). Paper or plastic? The economic implications of plastic carrier bag legislation in the United States. A Thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of Economics and Business, The Colorado College, In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Arts, pp. 34-36. Song, J.H., Murphy, R.J., Narayan, R. & Davies, G.B.H. (2009).Biodegradable and compostable alternatives to conventional plastics.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364: 2127-2139. Spokas, K.A. (2007). Plastics: still young, but having a mature impact. Waste Manage., 28(3): 473-474. Stevens, E. (2001). Green Plastics: An introduction to the new science of biodegradable plastics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.15-30. Tadesse, T., Ruijs, A. and Hagos, F. (2008).Household waste disposal in Mekelle city, Northern Ethiopia. Waste Manage., 28(10): pp. 2003-2012. Tekola, B., Tefalet, D., Mhreteab, E., Mussie, R., Tefera, T. and Tafere, Y. (2006).Ethiopian urban studies, Kolfe Area, Addis Ababa, pp. 11-23. Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H. and Vigil, S. (1993). Integrated Solid Waste: Engineering principles and management issues. McGraw-Hill Publishing company, USA.  ϭϬϭ Thiel, M., Hinojosa, I., Vásquez, N. and Macaya, E. (2003).“Floating Marin Debris in Coastal Waters of the SE-Pacific (Chile).Marine Pollut. Bull. 46: 224-231. Tiruneh, R. and Yesuwork, H. (2010). Occurrence of rumen foreign bodies in sheep and goats slaughtered at Addis Ababa Municipal Abattoir. www.oalib.com/papere/133654#.uwnRfsw40 [Accessed June 2012) Tsiboe, I.A. and Marbell, E. (2004).A Look at Urban Waste Disposal Problems in Accra.Roskilde University, Denmark. UN (2004). United Nations Demographic Yearbook review. New York, NY, USA: UN UNCED (1992). Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June. New York, NY, USA: United Nations UNEP, (2006).Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Deep Waters and High Seas.UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 178.UNEP/ IUCN, Switzerland 2006. ISBN: 92-807-2734-6. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), (2005a). Plastic bag ban in Kenya proposed as part of a new waste strategy. UNEP press release. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2005b). Report on employing economic instruments in solid waste management in Kenya, UNEP, New York, USA, UN-Habitat (2003): The Challenge of Slums; Global Report on Human Settlements 2003 (United Nations Human Settlement Programme) Verghese, K., Jollands, M., Allan, M. (2006). The Litterability of plastic bags: Key design criteria. A report presented on 5th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment: Achieving business benefits from managing life cycle impacts, Melbourne, pp. 1-10.  ϭϬϮ Verghese, K., Lewis, H., Fitzpatrick, L. and Hayes, G.M. (2009a). Environmental impacts of shopping bags. Report for Woolworths Limited, Ref. number: SPA1039WOW-01. pp. 1-36. Wassener, B. (2011). Raising Awareness of plastic waste. [Available on :http://bagitmovie.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/raising-awareness-ofplastic-waste-by-bettina-wassener-of-the-new-york-times] Watson, A. (2009). Plastic shopping bag reduction and recycling (PW07155b), (City of Hamilton - City Wide), pp.1-8. WHO (2010). Somalia’s Situational Environmental Health Assessment of Three Zones Somaliland, Punt land and South Central-Mogadishu Prepared for: WHO Office for Somalia Project Period: From June 21st –September 20th, 2010, pp. 5-10. Wienaah, M., (2007).Sustainable plastic waste management – A case of Accra, Ghana. http://www2.lwr.kth.se/Publikationer/PDF_Files/LWR_EX_07_10.PDF [Accessed 2nd July 2012]. World Bank,(1995).Ghana, Growth, Private Sector, and Poverty Reduction, a Country Economic Memorandum. Washington D.C. World Bank, (1996).Urban Environmental Sanitation Project, Staff Appraisal Report, Republic of Ghana, Africa Regional Office.Washington. World Watch (2004). ‘The ubiquitous plastic bag. World Watch. 17(1) preceding 1. Wurpel, G., Van den Akker, J., Pors, J. and Ten Wolde, (2011). Plastics do not belong in the ocean. Towards a roadmap for a clean North Sea.IMSA Amsterdam, p. 39.  ϭϬϯ http://www.plasticmarinelitter.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/PML100_reportplastics-do-not-belong-in-the-ocean-DEF.pdf Yankson, P. W. K. (1988). The Urban Informal Economy Accommodation, Growth, Linkages, Health and Environmental Impact.The Case of Greater Accra Metropolitan Area (GAMA). Ghana University Press, Accra. Xing, X. (2009). Study on the ban on free plastic bags in China. J. Sustain. Dev., 2: 156-158.  ϭϬϰ   APPENDIX I QUESTIONNAIRE ON HOUSEHOLD PERSPECTIVE OF PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE BOLGATANAGA MUNICIPALITY QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER:.......................................................................... ELECTORAL AREA:………………………………………………………….. SECTION A (DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION) Sex: Female [ ] Male [ ] Age: [ ] Marital Status: Single [ ] Married [ ] Window [ ] Separated [ ] Divorced [ ] Occupation: Student [ ] Government Employed [ ] Private business [ ] Unemployed [ ] Educational Level: Primary [ ] Secondary [ ] Tertiary [ ] Vocational No education [ ] Religion: Christian [ ] Muslim [ ] other………………………………. Household size: [ ]  ϭϬϱ SECTION B 1. Why do you prefer plastic products? Cheap [ ] Common and everywhere [ ] Light in weight [ ] Lack of alternatives [ ] 2. Which of the following is/are the source of plastics to the household? Commercial centre’s (shops and supermarket) [ ] Common markets [ ] Industries [ ] 3. Do you thick plastic waste causes threats? Yes [ ] No [ ] 4. If YES as in Q3 above, which is/are the possible effects of plastics? Unsanitary Environment conditions [ ] Chocking of gutter [ ] Serve as breeding grounds for mosquitoes [ ] Causes animal death [ ] Pollute water bodies [ ] Affect human health [ ] Affect Agriculture [ ] 5. Which of the category of plastics do you consider most problematic in the municipality? Pure water sachets [ ] Black polythene bags [ ] Plastic bottles [ ] Plastic cup, bowls and buckets [ ] 6. How is waste general stored in the household temporally? In buckets [ ] Trash Bin with lid [ ] Trash bin without lid [ ] In large polythene bags [ ] other………………………………….. 7. How is plastic waste finally disposal? Separated from household waste and thrown away [ ] Thrown together with household waste [ ] 8. If thrown together with other household waste, will you be willing to separate plastics from other household waste if value is added to plastic waste? Yes [ ] No [ ] 9. Who is responsible for final disposal of waste from the household? Children [ ] Father [ ] Mother [ ] Other………………………….  ϭϬϲ 10. How is plastic waste finally disposed from the household? Any available open spaces [ ] Burning [ ] Burying [ ] Approved dumping site [ ] 11.If dumping at approved dump site, how long does it take to reach there? 5-10m [ ] 10-15m [ ] 15-20m [ ] 20-25m [ ] 25-30m [ ] 12.Who is responsible for collecting waste from dumping site? The community [ ] Municipal Assembly [ ] Private waste management firm (e.gZoomlion) [ ] 13.Do you receive any door to door waste management services? Yes [ ] No [ ] 14.If YES, who provides these services? Government [ ] Private Sector [ ] Other …………………… 15.Are you satisfied with the services provided? Yes [ ] No [ ] 16.Which of the following are problems that you face in disposing of waste generally? Lack of dustbins [ ] Lack of dumping sites [ ] Distance of dumping site Irregular collection of waste [ ] 17.Do you have knowledge of any recycling institution/firm in the Municipality? Yes [ ] No [ ] 18.How would you describe the plastic waste situation in the Bolgatanag Municipality? Good [ ] Bad [ ] Fair (Not to good and not too bad) [ ] 19.Which parts of the Municipality are seriously polluted by plastics waste? Crowded residential areas [ ] Roadsides [ ] Markets [ ] Gutters Parks [ ] 20.How would you describe the use of plastics in the Bolgatanga Municipality? Increasing [ ] Decreasing [ ]  ϭϬϳ 21.If decreasing, what do you think are the reason/reasons? Aware of the negative externalities of plastics [ ] Available alternatives [ ] Other………………………………………… 22.What is your opinion about the use of plastic? Should be continued [ ] Should be discontinued [ ] 23.If should be discontinued, who is responsible for ensuring that? Households [ ] Government [ ] NGO [ ] Private waste management firms [ ] 24.Do you think households have a role to play in the reduction of plastic waste in the municipality? Yes [ ] No [ ] 25.What are the roles of the household? Reduce consumption of plastic products [ ] Stop consumption of plastic Products [ ] Support plastics recycling efforts [ ] Proper attitude towards disposal of waste in general [ ] Be involved in the decision making process of waste management projects? [ ] 26.Have you ever been involved in any decision making process pertaining to waste management? Yes [ ] No [ ]  ϭϬϴ APPENDIX II INSTITUTE FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION AND INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH UNIVERSITY FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES INTERVIEW GUIDE ON HOUSEHOLD PERSPECTIVE OF PLASTIC WASTE REDUCTION FOR THE MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLE AND ZOOMLION GHANA LIMITED 1. Do you have any plastic waste management plan for the Municipality? 2. What are types of plastics found in household waste? 3. What are the effects of plastic waste in the Municipality? 4. How do households disposed of plastic waste? 5. Are they recycling firms in the Municipality? 6. Are you the only firm managing waste? 7. Which areas in the Municipality are you responsible for collecting waste? 8. Where do you dispose all the plastic waste collected from the Municipality? 9. What is the distribution of skips and dustbins for waste storage in the Municipality? 10.What is your opinion on the plastic waste situation in the Municipality? 11.Which areas are the most polluted in the Municipality? 12.Do you have any management plan for the sherigu disposal site? 13.Should plastic used be encourage or discourage? 14.What roles can household play in the effective management of plastic waste?  ϭϬϵ