Much time is spent collection as on waste is manually loaded onto trucks by urban council
workers. Percent of waste collected vary between 35 and 68, which is comparable to other
urban councils in developing countries (Vidanaarachchi et al., 2006; Palcznki, 2002;
Supriyadi et al., 2000; Scheinberg, 2011). The introduction of private operators has increased
solid waste collection levels compared when it was dependent entirely on the urban
councils (Kaseva & Mbuligwe 2005; Oberlin 2011; Okot-Okumu & Nyanje 2011). However
most of these reported collection efforts only apply to wastes that have reached community
collection points (Transfer points).
....................................................................................................................................................................
Figure 4. Typical waste management scheme in EAC urban centres (source: Okot-Okumu & Nyenje 2011
with modifications)
.........................................................................................................................................................................
10 Waste Management – An Integrated Vision
This means a higher percentage of urban solid waste do not reach the legal disposal points
but end up in the environment. Open dumping is the most common waste disposal methods
in urban areas (Oberlin 2011; Okot-Okumu & Nyenje 2011). Where skips and waste bunkers
are too far the communities dump wastes indiscriminately and some disposal points are
often overflowing with uncollected wastes (Figure 2). The use of skips has been terminated
in many parts of Kampala since 2002. Skips were found to be linked to lack of cleanliness
and most urban residents were dissatisfied with its use (Katusiimeh pers comm). The current
operating systems in Kampala are open ground disposal and in the remaining skips.
Communities without access to transfer stations resort to open disposal methods which
include burning, burying, using of wastes as animal feeds and indiscriminate disposal.
There is rampant littering caused by the indiscriminate disposal of wastes in storm drainage
channels, road verges and open lots. The carelessly disposed wastes block storm water
drains causing floods and also cause health hazards and poor aesthetic.
.................................................................................................................................................................
Institutions like universities, schools, hospitals and business complexes are often served by
the private companies, while those not served transport their wastes individually to
community collection points. The urban poor receive very low to no waste collection
services due to inaccessible roads, unplanned facilities and neglect by the urban councils.
Waste collection in East African urban centres is not based on the total amount of waste
generated but rather on the level of income of the service area (Kaseva & Mbuligwe 2005;
Okot-Okumu & Nyenje 2011). Satisfaction level for waste collection is higher for private
operators compared with the urban councils. This can be attributed to the low waste
collection frequency causing nuisance to communities. In most urban areas only a small
fraction of the wastes generated daily is collected and safely disposed. For example in the
cities 45% (Rotich et al., 2006), 43% (Okot-Okumu 2008; Okot-Okumu & Nyenje 2011) and
30% (Oberlin, 2011) are collected for Nairobi, Kampala and Dar es Salaam respectively.
Collection of solid wastes is usually concentrated in the city centres and high income
neighbourhoods and even then these are irregular. Common collection and transport
modes are covered compressor trucks, open trucks and trailers. Wastes on transit are often
uncovered causing littering, odour and aesthetics problems (Fig 5).
.....................................................................................................................................
เวลาเป็นชุดที่ใช้จ่ายในเสียเองโหลดไว้บนรถบรรทุก โดยสภาเมืองคนงาน เปอร์เซ็นต์ของเสียที่เก็บรวบรวมแตกต่างกันระหว่าง 35 และ 68 ซึ่งจะเทียบได้กับอื่น ๆสังคายนาในเมืองในประเทศกำลังพัฒนา (Vidanaarachchi และ al., 2006 Palcznki, 2002Supriyadi และ al., 2000 Scheinberg, 2011) แนะนำตัวดำเนินการส่วนตัวได้เพิ่มขึ้นระดับชุดแข็งเสียเมื่อขึ้นอยู่ในการเมืองสภา (Kaseva & Mbuligwe 2005 Oberlin 2011 Okot-Okumu และ Nyanje 2011) อย่างไรก็ตามทั้งนี้รายงานความพยายามรวบรวมเท่ากับเสียมาถึงชุมชนเก็บคะแนน (โอนย้ายคะแนน)....................................................................................................................................................................รูปที่ 4 แผนการจัดการขยะทั่วไปในศูนย์กลางเมือง EAC (แหล่งที่มา: Okot Okumu และ Nyenje 2011มีการปรับเปลี่ยน).........................................................................................................................................................................จัดการขยะ 10-วิสัยทัศน์การรวมซึ่งหมายความว่าเปอร์เซ็นต์ของขยะเมืองสูงไม่ถึงจุดกำจัดตามกฎหมายแต่สิ้นสุดขึ้นในสภาพแวดล้อม การถ่ายโอนข้อมูลเปิดมีวิธีการกำจัดขยะมูลฝอยทั่วไปในพื้นที่เขตเมือง (Oberlin 2011 Okot-Okumu และ Nyenje 2011) ที่ข้าม และเสียบังเกอร์อยู่ไกลถ่ายโอนข้อมูลชุมชนขยะ indiscriminately และบางทิ้งคะแนนมักจะเทียบกับกับ uncollected เสีย (รูปที่ 2) ถูกยกเลิกการใช้กระโดดในหลายส่วนของคัมปาลาพ.ศ. 2545 กระโดดพบลิงค์การขาดของความสะอาดและอาศัยอยู่ในเมืองส่วนใหญ่มีความพอใจกับการใช้ (Katusiimeh pers ไช) ปัจจุบันoperating systems in Kampala are open ground disposal and in the remaining skips.Communities without access to transfer stations resort to open disposal methods whichinclude burning, burying, using of wastes as animal feeds and indiscriminate disposal.There is rampant littering caused by the indiscriminate disposal of wastes in storm drainagechannels, road verges and open lots. The carelessly disposed wastes block storm waterdrains causing floods and also cause health hazards and poor aesthetic..................................................................................................................................................................Institutions like universities, schools, hospitals and business complexes are often served bythe private companies, while those not served transport their wastes individually tocommunity collection points. The urban poor receive very low to no waste collectionservices due to inaccessible roads, unplanned facilities and neglect by the urban councils.Waste collection in East African urban centres is not based on the total amount of wastegenerated but rather on the level of income of the service area (Kaseva & Mbuligwe 2005;Okot-Okumu & Nyenje 2011). Satisfaction level for waste collection is higher for privateoperators compared with the urban councils. This can be attributed to the low wastecollection frequency causing nuisance to communities. In most urban areas only a smallfraction of the wastes generated daily is collected and safely disposed. For example in thecities 45% (Rotich et al., 2006), 43% (Okot-Okumu 2008; Okot-Okumu & Nyenje 2011) and30% (Oberlin, 2011) are collected for Nairobi, Kampala and Dar es Salaam respectively.Collection of solid wastes is usually concentrated in the city centres and high incomeneighbourhoods and even then these are irregular. Common collection and transportmodes are covered compressor trucks, open trucks and trailers. Wastes on transit are oftenuncovered causing littering, odour and aesthetics problems (Fig 5)......................................................................................................................................
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..