Final Report

Informal dumping in Grahamstown: Distribution and socio-economic impacts

Group 8 Roxanne Starkey 12s4762 Kirstin Stephens 12s1308 Namso Nyamela 11n4490

Roger Van Tonder 11v0939 Angus Allen 12a1233 Timothy Merkel g14M0039

Table of Contents

List of Figures.........................................................................................................................................3

Abstract.................................................................................................................................................4

Acknowledgements...............................................................................................................................5

Introduction...........................................................................................................................................6

1.1. Objective and Key Questions.............................................................................................9

2. Study Area...................................................................................................................................10

3. Methods......................................................................................................................................11

3.1. Informal dump site density and size................................................................................11

3.2. Household surveys and key informant interviews...........................................................12

3.3. Data analysis....................................................................................................................12

4. Limitations...................................................................................................................................13

5. Results.........................................................................................................................................14

5.1. Grahamstown demographics in East and West...............................................................14

5.2 The extent of informal dumping and how it differs between different socio-economic sectors of Grahamstown..............................................................................................................15

5.2.1 Size and distribution of dump sites.....................................................................................15

5.3 Perceptions of informal dumping and how it differs between different socio-economic sectors of Grahamstown..............................................................................................................................17

5.3.1 Service delivery............................................................................................................20

5.4 The health risks associated with informal dumping in Grahamstown.............................21

5.4.1 Quality of life...............................................................................................................22

5.4.2 Health impact perceptions...........................................................................................22

5.5 The effects of informal dumping on land value on and around dump sites in Grahamstown..............................................................................................................................24

6 Discussion....................................................................................................................................26

6.1 The extent and perceptions of informal dumping and how it differs between different socio-economic sectors of Grahamstown....................................................................................26

6.2 The health risks associated with informal dumping in Grahamstown.............................29

63. The effects of informal dumping on land value on and around dump sites in Grahamstown30

7 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................30

8 References...................................................................................................................................32

9 Appendix......................................................................................................................................35

1

Information (for admin only)...............................................................................................................35

Section 1: Demographics.....................................................................................................................35

Section 2: Informal dumping awareness.............................................................................................36

2.8 Does having a dump site in your neighbourhood effect your quality of life in any way?..........37

Section 3: Service delivery...................................................................................................................37

Section 3: Health impact from informal dumping...............................................................................37

Section 4: Land value...........................................................................................................................38

List of Figures

Figure 1. Grahamstown Map (Google Maps, 2014).............................................................................10Figure 2. A Map of Post-Apartheid Grahamstown showing different areas according to race (Fox, 2012)...................................................................................................................................................11Figure 3. A comparison of size of dump sites between Grahamstown West and Grahamstown East (small: <5m, medium: 5 – 15m, large: 15 – 25m, very large: >25m)....................................................15Figure 4. Distribution and size of all informal dump sites located in Grahamstown……………………… 16

Figure 5. Percentage of respondents who answered yes to a number of questions pertaining to dump site awareness in their area.................................................................................................................17Figure 6. Number of dump sites respondents were aware of in their area, as a percentage of total respondents.........................................................................................................................................17Figure 7. Reasons why respondents use the dump sites in Grahamstown East and West..................18Figure 8. Reasons given by respondents as to why people make use of informal dump sites, as a percentage of total responses per category. *Other includes; job creation, municipality backlogged with work, dump site close to township, pickers leaving found waste................................................19Figure 9. Most common waste materials dumped according to respondents in Grahamstown West and East...............................................................................................................................................20Figure 10. Ways in which the dump sites may affect the respondent’s quality of life in Grahamstown East and West as a percentage of total responses per category. *Other includes; stress, pests, endangers children, environmental concerns and issues....................................................................22Figure 11. Respondents replies as to whether they have experienced any health related impacts from the dump site in their area (Grahamstown East and West), as well as general health risk knowledge...........................................................................................................................................23Figure 12.Health issues that respondents have experienced due to the presents of a dump site in their area (Grahamstown East and West)...........................................................................................24Figure 13. Responses from Grahamstown East and West concerning property value........................25Figure 14. Respondents reasons for why they think the presents of a dump site in their area affects their property values in Grahamstown East and West. *Other includes; health impacts, safety issues and dump site proximity......................................................................................................................26

Table 1. Social and economic structure of households in Grahamstown East and West.....................14

2

Abstract

Waste management is a global issue, however, in developing countries deficiencies in resources and

infrastructure, as well as low stakeholder involvement in the waste management process, often lead

to the issue of Informal dumping. In South Africa, waste management problems are often unequally

experienced across socioeconomic divisions, due to the unequal distribution of resources that

occurred during Apartheid. This study was conducted about the different perceptions and extent of

informal dumping in Grahamstown, a small town in South Africa composed of two distinctly different

socioeconomic districts. GIS and GPS technologies were used to construct a map of informal dump

sites in Grahamstown and to calculate the density of dump sites, and surveys were conducted with

80 households near these dump sites in both sections of town. It was found that Grahamstown East,

the poorer area of town, contained a higher density of dump sites than Grahamstown West. This

was most likely because of uneven service delivery and a lack of education about waste

management in Grahamstown East. Respondents in Grahamstown East experienced more health

related impacts and both areas felt that informal dump sites decreased their land value. Therefore,

the informal dumping problem was found to be more severe and thus have greater impacts in

Grahamstown East. Nevertheless, as this research was based upon perceptions, more research is

needed to determine the actual cause of the differences in extent of dumping between

Grahamstown East and West. This information, could be useful to Makana municipality in terms of

waste management and improving the issue of informal dumping in Grahamstown.

Keywords: informal dumping, Grahamstown, waste management, respondents, household

3

Acknowledgements

Our sincerest appreciation goes to all of our participants who willingly opened their homes and

shared their views in aid of our research. We also thank the estate agents, doctors and clinic

workers: Ms Gill Armitage (Meyer), Ms Debi Brody, Dr Francios Zietsman, Dr Dario Berenisco, and all

those that requested to remain anonymous. Thank you for sharing you expert knowledge and

wisdom towards the development of our research. Most of all, we would like to thank our

supervisor, Dr Georgina Cundill, for her guidance, assistance and support throughout the formation

and procedure of our research, as well as the Environmental Science Department and Rhodes

University for the opportunity to conduct this research.

4

Introduction

Population growth, urbanisation, economic growth and an increase in the standard of living are all

associated with greater generation of solid waste in urban areas, particularly by households, and

have led to the need for solid waste management (Guerrero, Maas & Hogland, 2013). Waste

management is an essential social service provided by municipalities to keep their regions clean

(Asnani, 2006). It involves the collection, transportation, treatment, disposal and trade of waste

(Zotos et al., 2009). Ineffective waste management strategies can result in the informal dumping of

household and other waste.

Developed countries generally have effective waste management programmes compared to

developing countries (Zotos et al., 2009). This is achieved through investing in waste management

infrastructure to provide safe, effective, efficient, economically and environmentally friendly

management (Finnveden et al., 2007; Zotos et al., 2009). Such infrastructure can include provision of

bins, separation of waste, street sweeping, and promotion of recycling, as well as the re-using and

converting of biodegradable waste into energy, composting, incineration, sanitary landfills and gas

landfill recovery (Asnani, 2006; Zotos et al., 2009). Other strategies include encouraging private

sector participation in waste management as a means of lowering costs, as well as authorities and

bodies that are dedicated to meeting waste management goals (Zotos et al., 2009).

Some developed countries make use of policies and regulations that have heavy penalties for illegal

dumping (Ichinose & Yamamoto, 2011). These policies can be effective in deterring activities that

would harm the public and natural resources (Muoghalu, Robinson & Glascock, 1990). However,

such efficiency does have its disadvantages, such as the issue of waste distancing (Clapp, 2002). This

occurs when people are not aware of the effects of the waste they produce and thus are unwilling to

change their behaviour (Rathje & Murphy, 2001). To overcome this, developed countries make use

of education methods that promote environmentally responsible choices (Clapp, 2002).

Developing countries, on the other hand, tend to have relatively weak waste management strategies

(Zotos et al., 2009; Guerrero et al., 2013). This is a result of many issues. The rapid urbanization of

developing countries has produced a considerable strain upon already insufficient or incomplete

waste management resources (Zotos et al., 2009; Guerrero et al., 2013). There are often limitations

in funding and resources, which consequently result in infrastructural limitations, such as insufficient

waste collection vehicles, poor roads, limited disposal facilities, and poor communication networks

(Guerrero et al., 2013). Limitations in monetary resources can also result in limited training and pay

5

for waste management workers, causing poor motivation and productivity. Additionally, developing

countries can suffer from inefficient monitoring strategies, lack of stakeholder education about the

sustainable ways of consumption, and a deficiency in stakeholder participation and social

responsibility for waste management (Godfrey, 2008; Zotos et al., 2009). These factors often result

in irregular and unreliable municipal waste collection programmes, and citizens may resort to

informal dumping to remove waste from their homes (Godfrey, 2008).

South Africa also has significant issues with providing effective waste management services, but

standards vary across the country and within smaller areas (Matete & Trois, 2008). Historically, the

apartheid government divided all urban areas according to race, and provided different resources

and standards of service delivery depending on the racial group (Maylam, 1990; McDonald, 2008).

White communities were typically well provided for in terms of infrastructure and service delivery,

while black communities were provided much less substantial services (McDonald, 2008; McDonald

& Pape, 2002). After the new democratic government came into place, it attempted to rectify these

inequalities (Maylam, 1990). In 1996 the South African Constitution placed waste removal, disposal,

and cleaning services under the jurisdiction and mandate of local municipalities, with the aim of

ensuring that all South Africans live in an environment that is not detrimental to their health or

wellbeing (Etengeneng, 2012). In 2000, the Municipal Systems Act (No. 32) required municipalities to

deliver services in a financially and environmentally sustainable way (Matete & Trois, 2008). The

White Paper for Integrated Pollution and Waste Management for South Africa (Notice 227 of 2000)

aimed policy at finding an integrated management system for pollution prevention and minimisation

of waste at point sources (Etengeneng, 2012). Most recently the National Environmental

Management: Waste Management Act (2007) promoted environmental awareness and

sustainability, waste minimisation, pollution prevention and waste services improvement

(Etengeneng, 2012). Despite all this, however, suburban areas still receive more municipal services

than townships (McDonald & Pape, 2002). Since the advent of democracy, improving waste service

delivery has been a low priority, and finances allocated for improvement have been poorly utilised

(McDonald & Pape, 2002; Matete & Trois, 2008). The result is that infrastructure in townships still

needs to be improved, while suburban infrastructure largely remains in place from the apartheid

system (McDonald & Pape, 2002). Therefore, today, previously black areas, such as townships

experience more challenges than previously white suburban areas, such as informal dumping

(McDonald & Pape, 2002).

In terms of informal dumping, South Africa faces similar challenges to most developing countries.

Case studies across South Africa done by Afrika (2010) found that informal dumping of household

waste increased when municipal collection services were irregular and unreliable. Asnani (2006)

6

suggests that collection services could be inadequate due to improper infrastructure with regards to

bin collection systems, poor roads and insufficient vehicles for collection and transportation, as well

as poor communication on collection time schedules (Guerrero et al., 2013). In addition, the

availability and pricing of waste treatment facilities can lead to the problem of informal dumping; for

instance, in the Central Business District of Johannesburg shopkeepers avoid payment of waste

disposal fees by dumping their waste on the pavement (Swilling & Hutt, 1999). Although informal

dumping is usually publicly considered unacceptable, it often occurs at night, making it hard to

impede (Swilling & Hutt, 1999).

The frequency of informal dumping increases when there is a lack of waste treatment facilities or

absence of adequate waste removal services (Ichinose & Yamamoto, 2011). The fewer waste

treatment facilities there are, the more the price of waste collection and subsequent disposal will

increase, leading to an unwillingness of companies to correctly dispose of their waste, and an

increased preference to resort to informal dumping (Ichinose & Yamamoto, 2011). In addition, if

penalties for informal dumping are poorly enforced or small relative to proper treatment costs, or if

a population is not adequately educated about the need for proper and sanitary waste disposal,

informal dumping is more likely to occur (Muoghalu et al., 1990). Informal dumping has significant

ecological, social and economic consequences. It is aesthetically displeasing and leads to the

depreciation of land value (Yuan, et al., 2011). After having been subjected to informal dumping, the

cost of recovering land to a natural state is high, and represents an additional cost to waste

management budgets (Swilling & Hutt, 1999; Yuan, et al., 2011). Because of the additional cost,

municipalities are less likely to prioritise recovery activities, and waste from informal dump sites can

build up unhindered (Swilling & Hutt, 1999).

Informal dumping can significantly decrease land productivity and functionality, depending on the

nature of waste: certain materials are organic and decompose easily, but other materials can be

quite toxic, contaminating soils and groundwater and poisoning natural biota. (Pap, 2004; Swilling &

Hutt, 1999). In general, informal dumping contaminates the environment, causing a decline in the

strength and resilience of natural ecosystems, as well as having negative impacts upon biodiversity

and causing loss of ecosystem services (Swilling & Hutt, 1999; Yuan, et al., 2011). Over time,

informal dumping may also block storm drainage and cause floods in the event of heavy rain

(Medina, 2005).

Informal dump sites can have significant negative effects on human health (Medina, 2005). The

accumulation of untreated rubbish provides havens for pests which can be household nuisances or

be vectors for dangerous diseases, as well as allowing for the proliferation of harmful bacteria

7

(Swilling & Hutt, 1999; Medina, 2005). Informal dump sites can contain the carcasses of dead

animals, which also release bad odours and may contain disease (Swilling & Hutt, 1999). In addition,

informal dumping can cause a loss in both the cultural and economic services that land can provide,

by decreasing both its aesthetic value and its economic worth.

This study will examine a town in the Makana Municipality of the Eastern Cape Province. Makana

has a small population size and area, and the quantity of waste produced should therefore be

smaller and easier to manage than that of a larger area (Godfrey, 2008). However, Makana still

suffers significantly from waste disposal issues, as it is an economically poor area and has significant

limitations in terms of resources, as well as deficiencies in the distribution of those limited resources

(Godfrey, 2008). For example, in Makana, garden skips are placed in the streets to be utilised for

garden refuse, but many of these skips are in poor condition, rusted and contain large holes

(Ekelund & Nyström, 2007). In addition, residents of Makana do not confine their uses of these skips

to garden refuse, but will additionally engage in informal dumping of household waste both in and

around these skips (Ekelund & Nyström, 2007). Thus, informal dumping is a major problem in

Makana and forms the subject of inquiry of this study.

1.1. Objective and Key Questions

The objective of this study was to assess the distribution and socio-economic impacts of informal

dumping in Grahamstown. In order to achieve this objective, the following key questions were

explored:

(1) How does the extent of informal dumping differ between different socio-economic sectors

of Grahamstown?

(2) How does the perceptions of informal dumping differ between different socio-economic

sectors of Grahamstown?

(3) What are the health risks associated with informal dumping in Grahamstown? and

(4) What are the effects of informal dumping on land value on and around dump sites in

Grahamstown?

Health risks and the effect of informal dumping on land value were investigated in terms of both

professional opinion and residents perceptions.

8

2. Study Area

Grahamstown (33.3°S, 26.5°E, Figure 1) is located in the Makana Municipality, South Africa. Due to

South Africa's history of Apartheid, Grahamstown, like most other South African towns still has areas

with the feature of race as a dividing line between the socioeconomic classes (Figure 2). Although

black South Africans were not resettled during Apartheid in Grahamstown, the divide was enforced

by the laws of Apartheid (Møller et al., 2001). Today, although there are no laws in place to prevent

integration, the divide is still evident due to the extensive levels of poverty that prevent

Grahamstown East (former black area) residents from integrating into Grahamstown West (former

white area) (Christopher, 2012). Additionally, with little economic investment in Grahamstown East

(the former black township) during Apartheid, it has remained as an area with lower levels of income

among residents and low service delivery (Møller et al., 2001).

In the latest census report, the Grahamstown population was estimated at 50 217 (Frith, 2011).

Grahamstown West has a total population of 9 541 with a population density of density of 267 per

km², Grahamstown East has a total population of 35 499 with a population density of 4 471 per km²

(Frith, 2011). Almost 75 % of households pay a service levy and the majority of it is used for water

and refuse removal (Møller et al., 2001).

Figure 1. Grahamstown Map (Google Maps, 2014)

9

Figure 2. A Map of Post-Apartheid Grahamstown showing different areas according to race (Fox, 2012)

3. Methods3.1. Informal dump site density and size

In order to assess the extent of informal dumping between the different socio-economic sectors of

Grahamstown, ArcMap 10.1 (Geographic Information System (GIS) software) and a Global

Positioning System (GPS) was used to map all the dump sites in Grahamstown. The two groups

working on informal dumping in Grahamstown were divided into pairs and each given an area of

Grahamstown. Every street in each area was explored and any informal dump sites that were found

were recorded using a GPS.

At each dump site, information was recorded about the dump site including size and presence of

children. In order to determine size a scale was used; dump sites were classified as small (<5m),

medium (5 – 15m), large (15 – 25m) or very large (>25m). The presence of children was recorded in

order to assess our key question: What are the health risks associated with informal dumping in

Grahamstown? This was simply recorded as presence or absence.

In order to compare the extent of informal dumping between the different socio-economic areas,

Grahamstown was divided into Grahamstown East and Grahamstown West and the density of

informal dump sites in each area was calculated using ArcMap 10.1. To do this, the area of

Grahamstown was digitised into two polygons that made up Grahamstown East and West. This was

10

done under the projection Transvers Mercator, Longitude 27, with the datum D_WGS_1984, as this

is the common projection for South African Maps (Carter, 1997). This was important as it enabled

the calculation of the area of Grahamstown East and West in square kilometres (Esri, 1995). The

location of each dump site was then mapped as points over the polygons, Grahamstown East and

West, as recorded using GPS. The points were then colour coded according to their size.

3.2. Household surveys and key informant interviews

In order to assess the effect of informal dumping on perceptions, health and land value, eight dump

sites, four from each socio-economic area (Grahamstown East and Grahamstown West), were

randomly selected. This was done using Microsoft Excel and the dump sites were only selected from

the large and very large dump sites that were found. Household surveys (see appendix) at each

dump site were then conducted using targeted door-to-door sampling with the first ten households

that were willing to participate. Eighty household surveys were conducted in total, 40 from each

socio-economic area. These household surveys were conducted during August 2014. In

Grahamstown East two translators were used (Nkosekhaya Hlitane and Vuyo Ntamo) as the more

common language spoken was isiXhosa. In addition, several key informant interviews were

conducted: two with estate agents, two with doctors and one with a clinic worker. This was in order

to get a professional opinion on the effects of dump sites on health and land value.

3.3. Data analysis

The density of the dump sites per socio-economic area was calculated using the total number of

informal dump sites in each area divided by the size of the area in square kilometres (density =

number of dump sitesarea[km2]

). Data from the household surveys was analysed using descriptive statistics

and coding for qualitative analysis. Descriptive statistics gives a platform of illustrating, describing

and analysing data in a simple and meaningful way in order to demonstrate the prominent features

of the data such as patterns and the spread of data (Laerd Statistics, 2013).

Our data analysis made use of percentages, diagrams such as pie charts and graphs as well as tables.

Demographics were shown using tables, the extent of dumping in the two areas was shown

according to size using a map and pie charts, and people’s perceptions were illustrated using

percentages and bar graphs.

11

4. Limitations

Limitations encountered during method application included, difficulty in defining some of the dump

sites because litter trails connected dump sites, making it difficult to distinguish between dump sites.

To solve this litter trails were not considered as part of the dump site, groups of litter less than 1m

across were considered litter trails. Then when mapping, due to time constraints and the large

number of dump sites, Grahamstown was divided between two groups working on dump sites. This

could have led to sampling error with regards to the data collection as with so many people

collecting data, sampling effort likely differed amongst the data collectors. However, in order to

avoid this, when recording information about the dump sites we used the same data sheet.

Also, there are concerns about overlapping GPS points in our map, however, to calculate density the

hard copy data sheets were used to count the number of dump sites in each area, instead of the

points on the map. This ensured that the density was calculated according to the actual number of

dump sites found on each side of Grahamstown.

A buffer zone could have been used; a section of about three streets between Grahamstown East

and West where interviews were not conducted. This is because the boundary between

Grahamstown East and West is not distinct and therefore a buffer zone would have made for more

accurate samples. Additionally, when it came to the key informant interviews, most estate agents

dealt with houses in Grahamstown West (which is only one of the study areas), far from informal

dump sites. Thus their insight about dump sites and land value in Grahamstown East is mostly based

on general knowledge.

During survey collection in Grahamstown East additional translators were hired to increase

efficiency, however, there were translators that were not a part of the Environmental Science course

and therefore did not fully understand the purpose and methods of the project. Thus they were less

inclined to ask further leading questions related to the aims of the project and encourage answers

more related to our project aims. Then, when conducting the surveys residents were not ranked

according to their distance from the dump site, perceptions of residents living closer to the dump

site were different from those living further away. By using a ranking system this trend could have

been shown and used to explain some of the differences in perceptions between residents.

12

5. Results5.1. Grahamstown demographics in East and West

An average household in Grahamstown East consisted of two people in the working age class of 17-

59 years, at least one child (<16 years) and one pensioner (>60 years), making up an average

household of four people (Table 1). This however, differed in Grahamstown West as only one out of

every five houses had someone living there above the age of 60 years.

In Grahamstown West there was at least one person employed within the household whilst in

Grahamstown East 0.8 people were employed per household. There was a greater percentage of

respondents permanently employed in Grahamstown West at 84% compared to 51% of respondents

being permanently employed in Grahamstown East. Grahamstown East had a greater percentage of

temporary and ad hoc employed respondents compared to Grahamstown West (Table 1).

Grants played a larger role in household income in Grahamstown East, with one in every five

households receiving grants whilst in Grahamstown West only one in 25 households received a grant

(Table 1). Overall, the reliance of Grahamstown East households on grants and temporary or ad hoc

employment suggests that Grahamstown East is of a lower economic level than Grahamstown West.

Table 1. Social and economic structure of households in Grahamstown East and West

Category Grahamstown East

Grahamstown

West

Average number of people in

household

<16 1 ± 1.2 1 ± 0.8

17-59 2 ± 1.1 2 ± 0.9

>60 1 ± 0.6 0.2 ± 0.5

Employment

Average number of

people employed in

household 0.8 ± 0.8 1.4 ± 0.8

Permanent (%) 51 86

Temporary (%) 24 4

Ad hoc (%) 24 9

Grants (pension, child,

disability etc.)

% of households 20 5

13

5.2 The extent of informal dumping and how it differs between different socio-economic sectors of Grahamstown

5.2.1 Size and distribution of dump sites

Most dump sites in Grahamstown West were small (37%) whereas in Grahamstown East most dump

sites were medium (47%) (Figure 3). Although the majority of dump sites in Grahamstown East were

bigger in size, very large dump sites made up a greater proportion (14%) in Grahamstown West than

in Grahamstown East (8%).

Small; 37%

Medium; 29%

Large; 20%

Very Large; 14%

Grahamstown West

Small; 25%

Medium; 47%

Large; 21%

Very Large; 8%

Grahamstown East

Figure 3. A comparison of size of dump sites between Grahamstown West and Grahamstown East (small: <5m, medium: 5 – 15m, large: 15 – 25m, very large: >25m)

There were 175 dump sites recorded in Grahamstown East whereas only 35 dump sites were located

in Grahamstown West. The density of dump sites in Grahamstown East was 13.5 per km2 compared

to 1.7 per km2 (Figure 4).

14

5.3 Perceptions of informal dumping and how it differs between different socio-economic sectors of Grahamstown

Almost all of the Grahamstown East respondents acknowledged that there was a dump site in their

area (Figure 5). This differs to Grahamstown West households as 75% of respondents acknowledged

that there was at least one dump site in their area. Sixty five percent of respondents from

Grahamstown East said that they knew of two to five dumping sites compared to 35% of

Grahamstown West respondents (Figure 6).

Aware of d

ump site

Made u

se of d

ump sites

Secreti

ve ab

out dumping

0102030405060708090

100

Grahamstown EastGrahamstown West

% o

f res

pond

ents

Figure 5. Percentage of respondents who answered yes to a number of questions pertaining to

dump site awareness in their area.

0 to 1 2 to 5 >50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Grahamstown EastGrahamstown West

Number of dump sites noticed

% o

f res

pond

ents

Figure 6. Number of dump sites respondents were aware of in their area, as a percentage of total respondents.

15

Forty percent of Grahamstown East respondents and 30% of Grahamstown West respondents had

made use of a dump site (Figure 5). Dump sites were used for convenience and during strikes,

however, Grahamstown West respondents mainly used dump sites designated for garden refuse,

whilst Grahamstown East respondents made use of them because the municipality did not fetch

their waste (Figure 7).

Waste not collected Convenience Skip for garden refuse0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Grahamstown EastGrahamstown West

Reasons

% o

f res

pond

ents

Figure 7. Reasons why respondents use the dump sites in Grahamstown East and West

Grahamstown East respondents believed that others make use of the dump sites because the people

who dump have not been educated on the consequences of dumping, nor as to where it is legal to

dump certain wastes (Figure 8). Grahamstown West respondents felt however, that people make

use of the informal dump sites due to convenience and then municipal strikes. A respondent

explained that when strikes occur they do not know where to put their waste and because they do

not want it in their yards or outside their homes, they make use of the informal dump sites.

16

Dispose

of wast

e

Strike

s

Low "educati

on" / se

nsitivit

y to dumping

Convenien

ce

*Other

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Grahamstown EastGrahamstown West

Reasons

% o

f re

spon

dent

s

Figure 8. Reasons given by respondents as to why people make use of informal dump sites, as a percentage of total responses per category. *Other includes; job creation, municipality backlogged with work, dump site being close to the township, pickers leaving found waste

The most commonly dumped waste materials in Grahamstown East were household waste and

sanitary waste (such as nappies), this was followed by dead animals and garden refuse (Figure 9).

Grahamstown West households indicated that household or domestic waste was the most

commonly dumped material followed by garden refuse and building rubble (Figure 9). This differs to

what we observed, in Grahamstown West the most commonly dumped waste was garden and

building rubble, followed by household waste.

17

Household w

aste

Garden

refuse

Building r

ubble

Sanita

ry

Medica

l

Dead an

imals

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Grahamstown EastGrahamstown West

Waste material

% o

f res

pond

ents

Figure 9. Most common waste materials dumped according to respondents in Grahamstown West and East

5.3.1 Service delivery

It was found that in Grahamstown East, according to the majority of respondents, the informal dump

sites are cleared monthly or never, this was closely followed by the opinion that the dump sites are

seldom cleared. In Grahamstown West, the majority of respondents indicated that the informal

dump sites were cleared either weekly or seldom or they didn’t know. Additionally, eighty percent of

people felt that the sites were cleared inefficiently and ineffectively. Grahamstown East

respondents’ opinions were equally distributed as 50% thought it was and 50% thought it wasn’t

cleared efficiently. However, 72% of Grahamstown West respondents felt that the dumps sites were

not efficiently or effectively cleared.

In Grahamstown West, it was found that Municipal waste was collected on a weekly basis according

to 92% of the respondents and 71% of households found this sufficient. Ninety six percent of

respondents in Grahamstown East indicated that Municipal waste was collected weekly. However,

50% of Grahamstown East respondents thought this was insufficient.

18

5.4 The health risks associated with informal dumping in Grahamstown

According to the medical professionals the main health risks were from household waste. Decaying

organic matter or human waste can lead to gastro-intestinal infections if contamination occurs. Ecoli

from faeces can cause a bacterial infection and food poisoning can lead to diarrhoea and vomiting.

Other potential bacterial infections include tetanus if someone gets wounded at a dump site. Also,

people could get injured obtaining chemical injuries and burns. In addition, the presence of inorganic

chemical toxins such as paint, methylated spirits etc. can also cause illness. If physical agents such as

turpentine or paraffin are inhaled it can lead to Pneumonia.

There is also a chance of heavy metal poisoning through metals such as lead and mercury. Viral

diseases that can be obtained at a dump site include Hepatitis A and B, HIV through the transmission

of body fluids (unlikely but still possible), or through contact with animals and their skins,

Haemorrhagic fever virus, Rabies from dogs and rodents and Pasteurella (similar to the bubonic

plague). Dump sites are unsightly and this can lead to depression and other mental health issues.

When dump sites burn they can cause environmental pollution, aggravating respiratory tract

infections. Furthermore, offensive smells can also trigger asthmatic or allergic reactions. Lastly, if

dump sites are in close vicinity to water there is potential for pollution of drinking water and the

possibilities of diseases are amplified as water can act as a vector spreading diseases such as Typhoid

and Cholera.

The Middle Terrace Clinic mostly treated patients that resided in Grahamstown East. Health issues

the clinic worker suggested to be related to dump sites included an itchy throat, coughing and

phlegm. This can be due to playing in the water next to the dump sites, and from breathing the dirty

air and fumes from when people burn the rubbish. Additionally, there are lots of germs that can be

caught from dump sites if time is spent near them, according to the clinic worker, many children get

sick because they play in and around the dump sites. Not all patients live close to dump sites, so it is

not always certain if health issues are caused by dump sites, the cause is only known if they say that

they live close to a dump site.

The clinic worker indicated that many people came to the clinic with rashes on their arms and legs

and also other areas, this can often be related to the dump sites. Other injuries include general sores

and scalp infections, but it is not always known if these are directly caused by dump sites.

19

5.4.1 Quality of life

Ninety three percent of Grahamstown East respondents felt that the presence of a dump site in their

area affects their quality of life. Only 73% of Grahamstown West residents felt that their quality of

life was impacted by the presence of a dump site in their area. The most common explanation was

that “the dump site is too far away from my house” or “I don’t live directly opposite it so it doesn’t

bother me”.

Grahamstown East respondents indicated that bad odour given off from the dump sites was the

main factor affecting their quality of life, Grahamstown West residents on the other hand did not list

bad odour as being an issue (Figure 10). Instead, they indicated that the major factor affecting their

quality of life was that the dump sites are aesthetically displeasing, followed by the increased crime

and safety issues dump sites cause by attracting the wrong kind of people.

Health Risk

s

Poor air q

uality

Waste b

lown around

Astheti

cally

displea

sing

Crime a

nd safty i

ssues

Bad odour

*Other

05

101520253035404550

Grahamstown EastGrahamstown West

Impacts on quality of life

% o

f res

pond

ents

Figure 10. Ways in which the dump sites affected the respondent’s quality of life in Grahamstown East and West as a percentage of total responses per category. *Other includes: stress, pests, endangers children, environmental concerns and issues.

5.4.2 Health impact perceptions

The majority of Grahamstown East residents (82%) perceived to have experienced health issues from

the dump site in their area compared to 42% of Grahamstown West respondents (Figure 11). The

16% of Grahamstown East and 11% of Grahamstown West respondents who did incur injuries

explained that it was only minor cuts and scrapes (Figure 11). It was found that 51% of Grahamstown

20

East and 47% of Grahamstown West respondents said that they had no knowledge of the health

impacts that dump sites in general may pose. Associated dump site health risks which the remainder

(49%) of Grahamstown East respondents and Grahamstown West respondents (53%) knew of

included: respiratory illnesses such as asthma and children and animals getting sicknesses from

playing and eating in the dump sites, however, they could not explain what illnesses (see Figure 11).

Health im

pacted

Experi

enced

injurie

s

Knowledge

of gen

eral d

ump site r

elated

health

risks

0102030405060708090

Grahamstown EastGrahamstown West

Responses

% o

f res

pond

ents

Figure 11. Respondents replies as to whether they have experienced any health related impacts from the dump site in their area (Grahamstown East and West), as well as general health risk knowledge.

The biggest heath issues Grahamstown East respondents had experienced were respiratory illnesses,

such as asthma and general sickness mainly in children (Figure 12). Additionally, they indicated that

TB was a possible health risk as medical waste and household waste is dumped on dump sites and

one could easily contract the disease. Grahamstown West respondents however, indicated that the

dump sites were unhygienic, cause respiratory illnesses and bring about flies and pests such as rats

(Figure 12).

21

Unhygien

icPest

s

Respira

tory illn

esses

Sanita

ry

Genera

l sickn

ess TBTo

xins

Sores

/Rash

Not sure

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Grahamstown EastGrahamstown West

Health risks

% o

f res

pond

ents

Figure 12.Health issues that respondents have experienced due to the presents of a dump site in their area (Grahamstown East and West)

More children were present near dump sites in Grahamstown East (41%) as compared to

Grahamstown West (9%). This could suggest that more children are vulnerable to injuries and health

impacts from the dump sites in Grahamstown East than in Grahamstown West.

5.5 The effects of informal dumping on land value on and around dump sites in Grahamstown

According to key informants there are multiple factors that contribute to the decrease of property

price. These include the presence of informal dump sites, the state of the economy and the suburb.

The price of the property is determined mainly by the suburb it is located in. The more expensive the

suburb is, the greater the decrease when there is an informal dump site. Issues with having a dump

site nearby include: increased crime rates, fire hazards, smell, aesthetics, insects and inviting more

strangers to the area.

Seventy three percent of Grahamstown East respondents felt that the presence of a dump site in

their area affected their land value (Figure 13). Eighty two percent of respondents in Grahamstown

West said that the dump sites affected their property values. Grahamstown East and West property

values depreciate because the dump sites are either aesthetically displeasing or people simply do

22

not want to live close to an informal dump site (Figure 14). The 27% of respondents from

Grahamstown East and the 8% from Grahamstown West, said the dump sites did not affect their

property value because the dump sites are either not very obvious or close to their household.

The majority of people were not moving from the area due to there being a dump site present and

57% of Grahamstown East and 72% of Grahamstown West respondents would not move away from

their area even if funds would allow (Figure 13). Reasons given by respondents for this finding is that

they don’t live directly opposite the dump sites.

Lastly it was found that more Grahamstown East respondents (86%) would not buy a property

knowing there is a dump site nearby, whereas only 67% of Grahamstown West would not by the

property. Ten percent of Grahamstown West respondents indicated that they would buy a property

close to a dump site if the dump site was or could be managed, if it was a biodegradable dump site

and if it was small.

Affects la

nd value

People

moving a

way fro

m area

Presen

ce en

courages

moving t

o another

area

Would buy near

dump site

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Grahamstown EastGrahamstown West

Responses

% o

f re

spon

dent

s

Figure 13. Responses from Grahamstown East and West concerning property value

23

Poor aest

hetics

People

don’t wan

t to liv

e close

to dump sites

Lowers sta

ndard of li

ving

*Other

05

10152025303540

Grahamstown EastGrahamstown West

Reasons

% o

f res

pond

ents

Figure 14. Respondents’ reasons for why they think the presents of a dump site in their area affects their property values in Grahamstown East and West. *Other includes; health impacts, safety issues and dump site proximity.

6. Discussion6.1 The extent and perceptions of informal dumping and how it

differs between different socio-economic sectors of Grahamstown

Grahamstown East had a more extensive dumping problem with larger dump sites and a greater

density of dump sites. Due to the high density of dump sites in Grahamstown East, respondents from

Grahamstown East were more likely to live in close proximity to a dump site and therefore were

more aware of and knew of more dump sites located in their area than Grahamstown West

residents.

More Grahamstown East respondents said that they make use of dump sites than Grahamstown

West respondents. This partly explains the higher density of dump sites in Grahamstown East. Out of

the people who made use of the dump sites, the majority of Grahamstown West residents utilised

the dump sites as they are designated for garden refuse whereas Grahamstown East residents used

the dump sites because their waste was not collected. This suggests that mostly garden refuse is

dumped in Grahamstown West whereas mostly household waste is dumped in Grahamstown East.

However, Grahamstown West residents perceived household waste to be the most commonly

24

dumped and only secondly garden refuse. Although we observed garden refuse to be the most

commonly dumped material in Grahamstown West, perhaps residents saw household waste being

dumped as a bigger problem and thus mentioned it above garden refuse. This is because household

waste was being dumped in skips designated for garden refuse and because household waste causes

a greater risk to your health as mentioned by one of our medical practitioner key informants and

Medina (2005) (Ekelund & Nyström, 2007). Thus more research is needed to quantify the type of

waste dumped in Grahamstown West and East to clarify the difference between residents’

perceptions and our observations.

The dumping of garden refuse in Grahamstown West could be because of the cost of disposing of

garden waste, in Grahamstown West disposing or garden waste often requires residents to drive to a

skip, an extra cost and effort. The increasing cost of disposal can result in informal dumping as

people try to avoid the extra cost (Fullerton and Kinnaman, 1995). If cost is the cause of dumping in

Grahamstown West, penalties could be a potential solution for illegal dumping as they can be

effective at reducing its occurrence (Muoghalu et al., 1990; Ichinose & Yamamoto, 2011).

Grahamstown East households found household waste and sanitary waste to be the most commonly

dumped, this suggests that informal dumping is more of a problem in Grahamstown East due to the

lack of service delivery. Furthermore, Grahamstown East respondents said that they used the dump

sites because their waste was not collected and they on average found that dump sites were cleared

less often as compared to Grahamstown West residents. Additionally, more Grahamstown East

residents indicated that their waste was not always collected weekly or often enough, suggesting

less regular service delivery in Grahamstown East. In South Africa, low income areas have low service

delivery as funds and infrastructure have been allocated to the higher income areas as priority is

given to residents who pay for these services (Miraftab, 2004; McDonald, 2008). As a result,

infrastructure in previously black areas still needs to be improved and more challenges such as

informal dumping are experienced, while previously white suburban infrastructure largely remains in

place from the apartheid system (McDonald & Pape, 2002). Potential solutions include encouraging

private sector participation in waste management as a means of lowering costs, as well as

appointing authorities that are dedicated to meeting waste management goals (Zotos et al., 2009).

Overall, the lack of service delivery in the lower income areas leads to a larger problem of informal

dumping. This is shown by the higher density of dump sites in Grahamstown East and the perceived

lack of service delivery according to respondents.

Problems with dumping in both areas may be that, as a developing country, South Africa’s service

delivery is not always efficient due to a lack of funding; this leads to informal dumping (Samson,

25

2004). Lack of funding can lead to limited training and pay for waste management workers, causing

poor motivation and productivity. A large cause of the lack of service delivery in South Africa is the

insufficient collection of tax revenues because of many people that do not pay (Fjeldstad, 2004). This

results in inadequate service delivery as well as higher taxes for those who do pay (Fjeldstad, 2004).

Additionally, on a smaller scale, Makana municipality has problems with informal dumping as it has

limited resources, distributed ineffectively and is an economically poor area (Godfrey, 2008). This

was reinforced by the Grahamstown West respondents who felt that lack of service delivery led to

informal dumping. Additionally, from all respondents there was a lack of clarity on how often the

informal dump sites were cleared, suggesting that it is not always a regular occurrence. Conversely,

most respondents stated that the municipality came weekly to collect their waste. Therefore

research on the actual efficiency of service delivery in Grahamstown is needed to determine

whether it is the main cause of informal dumping.

Most Grahamstown East respondents viewed lack of sensitivity/education about dumping as the

causes of informal dumping. This result is because these respondents were in close proximity to

dump sites and therefore they themselves felt that others dumped because they did not understand

the repercussions it had on those living closest to the dump sites. Thus they perceive that if the

others that use the dump sites knew how much it impacted those closest to the dump sites they

would be less inclined to dump. This suggests that if the issue of informal dumping is not due to a

lack of service delivery, it may be because people need to be educated on the consequences of

informal dumping. In developing countries like South Africa, there is often a lack of stakeholder

participation and social responsibility for waste management, usually as a result of poor education

(Godfrey, 2008; Zotos et al., 2009). Communities often use educational programs to discourage

informal dumping and it has been found that education can reduce the amount of informal dumping

by promoting environmentally responsible choices (Muoghalu et al., 1990; Miranda & Aldy, 1998;

Clapp, 2002; Hasan, 2004). Thus more research is needed into people’s knowledge of the

consequences of informal dumping in Grahamstown. The limited research we did on people’s

perceptions on the consequences of informal dumping seems to suggest that education is needed as

only about half of respondents knew that there were health risks from informal dump sites.

Grahamstown West respondents felt that convenience was the main reason for informal dumping.

This could be because Grahamstown West residents have a higher level of employment and

therefore have less time, encouraging dumping as an option as it is more convenient.

26

6.2 The health risks associated with informal dumping in Grahamstown

The higher density of dump sites in Grahamstown East was found to result in more health impacts

and effects on quality of life for Grahamstown East respondents than Grahamstown West

respondents. Furthermore, as household and sanitary waste were more common in Grahamstown

East the risk of health related impacts was higher as stated by our key informants. Additionally,

uncollected household waste can pose a significant risk to human health (Medina, 2005). In

Grahamstown East the most common effect on quality of life was listed as bad odour which can

trigger asthmatic reactions which were found to be common in Grahamstown East. These and other

health impacts such as sicknesses in children were more common in Grahamstown East.

Additionally, more people were injured in Grahamstown East and this can lead to tetanus if the

wound is contaminated.

In Grahamstown West the most common effects from dump sites were that they are aesthetically

displeasing, increase crime, unhygienic, and bring about flies and pests such as rats. Pests can spread

diseases such as Pasteurella and Rabies (Swilling & Hutt, 1999; Medina, 2005). Thus more serious

health impacts were found in Grahamstown East due to the higher density of dump sites as well as

more children playing near dump sites. Grahamstown East is a poorer area as shown by the lower

level of employment, thus there is less recreational opportunities for their children and therefore

they are more likely to play in a dump site and thus affect their health. Conversely, Grahamstown

West residents focused more on their mental wellbeing as compared to Grahamstown East residents

who focused on their physical wellbeing. This is probably because Grahamstown East residents

experience more health impacts, living closer to dump sites than Grahamstown West residents.

Respiratory illnesses were found to be common in both Grahamstown East and West, although

slightly more common in Grahamstown East, most likely due to the density of dump sites.

Respiratory illnesses can occur when dump sites burn and cause environmental pollution (Medina,

2005). In particular children and the elderly already with chronic respiratory illnesses were found to

be the most vulnerable (Rushton, 2003). This is an issue in Grahamstown East where more elderly

residents were found to make up the household.

In terms of perceived general health impacts of dump sites Grahamstown East respondents

mentioned TB as a potential consequence. TB cannot be spread by dump sites, it is transferred

between people and is transmitted via the air (Health 24, 2011). Thus this is a misconception

probably due to the lower income and thus education levels of Grahamstown East residents.

27

63. The effects of informal dumping on land value on and around dump sites in Grahamstown

Most respondents felt that having a dump site near them would affect their land value. Other

research on informal dumping has found that dump sites do decrease land value (Lakshmikantha,

2006; Yuan, et al., 2011). Grahamstown West respondents most likely felt that dump sites decreased

their land value because there would be a greater decrease in their land value as Grahamstown

West is a higher income area (as mentioned by one of our estate agent key informants). Both areas

stated that the reason for decreased land value was that dump sites were aesthetically displeasing,

people don’t want to live near dump sites and that dump sites lower your standard of living. Nelson,

Genereux & Genereux (1992) and Lakshmikantha (2006) found that debris, odour and appearance

can affect land value and that dump sites can decrease your standard of living and the aesthetics of

the area. This is why most residents would not buy a property knowing there was a dump site

nearby. Thus it was found that in both areas dump sites decreased aesthetics, which made the

property price decrease. Although most respondents do not want to move themselves because of

the dump site, of those who do want to move are mostly Grahamstown East residents. Also, more

Grahamstown East residents would not have bought a property with a dump site nearby. This is

probably because the informal dumping problem is more severe in Grahamstown East.

7. Conclusion

In conclusion we were able to achieve our objective of assessing the distribution and socio-economic

impacts of informal dumping in Grahamstown. This was done by answering our key questions. In

terms of the extent of informal dumping in Grahamstown, there was a difference between the two

different socio-economic sectors. The lower economic sector, Grahamstown East, had a more

extensive dumping problem than the higher economic sector of Grahamstown West due to a higher

density of dump sites per kilometre squared.

In terms of the differing perceptions of informal dumping between the different socio-economic

sectors, more respondents in Grahamstown East made use of dump sites to dump household waste

because their waste was not collected. Also, Grahamstown East respondents perceived household

waste to be the most frequently dumped waste due to a lack of service delivery. In South Africa, due

to lack of funding, priority is given to residents who pay for these services and thus, as a lower

income area, service delivery could be a larger issue in Grahamstown East. A potential solution is to

encourage private sector participation in waste management as a means of lowering costs. However,

28

Grahamstown East respondents believed the cause of dumping to be poor education. This could be

the case as low education on waste management issues often leads to informal dumping. Therefore

further research is needed on education and the efficiency of service delivery in both socio-

economic areas to determine the actual cause of informal dumping.

In Grahamstown West, respondents mostly dumped garden refuge. This could be to avoid the extra

cost involved in disposing of garden refuse. Penalties for illegal informal dumping could be

implemented to balance out the costs associated with not disposing of the waste. However,

respondents perceived household waste to be the most commonly dumped. Nonetheless, we

observed that garden waste was the most common material dumped in Grahamstown West.

Perhaps residents saw household waste being dumped as a bigger problem and thus mentioned it

above garden refuse. Therefore, more research is needed to quantify the different types of waste

dumped to clarify the difference between residents’ perceptions and our observations.

The health risks associated with informal dumping In Grahamstown were experienced by more

respondents in Grahamstown East. This was due to the higher density of dump sites in

Grahamstown East and thus, quantity of household waste which poses a health risk. The perceived

health risks identified by respondents included but aren’t limited to; respiratory illness, sicknesses in

children and injuries. It was found that Grahamstown East respondents perceived that dump sites

impacted their physical health more than mental health. Grahamstown West respondents mostly

perceived mental well-being, such as decreased aesthetics.

In terms of the perceived impacts on informal dumping, it was found that all respondents in

Grahamstown East and West perceived that land value would be affected by the presence of an

informal dump site in their area. This was due to the perception that informal dump sites decrease

aesthetics as well as standard of living. Additionally, it was found that of those who wanted to move

because of the dump site or who would not buy a property knowing that there was a dump site

nearby, it was mostly Grahamstown East residents due to the higher density of dump sites in their

area.

Therefore, informal dumping is a problem in Grahamstown affecting both socioeconomic areas in

terms of health impacts and land value. Overall, informal dumping is a more serious problem in

Grahamstown East, with a higher density of dump sites per square kilometre. This is most likely

because of uneven service delivery and a lack of education about waste management. Nevertheless,

as this research was based upon perceptions, more research is needed to determine the actual

cause of the differences in extent of dumping between Grahamstown East and West. This

29

information, could be useful to Makana municipality in terms of waste management and improving

the issue of informal dumping in Grahamstown.

8. References

Afrika, M., 2010. Toolkit-South Africa's good waste management practices: lessons learned. Free State waste summit, Bloemfontein.

Asnani, P., 2006. Solid waste management. In: Rastogi, A. India infrastructure report 2006: Urban infrastructure. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Carter, J., 1997. What is the Gauss conform system? [Online]. Available: http://www.dwaf.gov.za/iwqs/gauss/node4.html . [17/09/2014].

Christopher, A.J., 2012. Urban Segregation in Post Apartheid South Africa. Sage Journals, 51(6): 449-466.

Clapp, J., 2002. The distancing of waste: Overconsumption in a global economy. In: Princen, T., Maniates, M. and Conca, K. (eds.). Confronting consumption. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Ekelund, L. and Nyström, K., 2007. Composting of Municipal Waste in South Africa: Sustainability aspects. Upsala Universitet.

Esri, 1995. ArcGIS Help 10.1: Calculating area, length, and other geometric properties. [Online]. Available: http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.1/index.html#//005s00000027000000 . [09/09/2014].

Etengeneng, D., 2012, Municipal Solid Waste Management in Grahamstown, Republic of South Africa. Bachelor of Natural Resources Thesis, Degree Programme in Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Novia University of Applied Sciences.

Finnveden, G., Björklund, A., Reich, M.C., Eriksson, O. and Sörbom, A., 2007. Flexible and robust strategies for waste management in Sweden. Waste Management, 27(8): S1-S8.

Fjeldstad, O., 2004. What's trust got to do with it? Non-payment of service charges in local authorities in South Africa. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 42(04): 539-562.

Fox, R., 2012. Grahamstown’s Urban Development: Maps, Photo Pairs, Excursion Guide. [Online]. Available: http://roddyfox.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/population-census-2011-makana-municipalitys-age-sex-data/. [31/03/2014].

Frith, 2011. Census 2011. [Online]. Available: http://census2011.adrianfrith.com/. [21/09/2014].

Fullerton, D. and Kinnaman, T.C., 1995. Garbage, recycling, and illicit burning or dumping. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29(1): 78-91.

Godfrey, L., 2008. Facilitating the improved management of waste in South Africa through a national waste information system. Waste management, 28(9): 1660-1671.

Google Maps, 2014. Grahamstown. [Online]. Available: https://www.google.co.za/maps/@-33.3052282,26.5574273,13z. [31/03/2014].

30

Guerrero, L.A., Maas, G. and Hogland, W., 2013. Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Management, 33(1): 220-232.

Hasan, S., 2004. Public awareness is key to successful waste management. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 39(2): 483-492.

Health 24, 2011. What causes TB? [Online]. Available: http://www.health24.com/Medical/Tuberculosis/Transmission/What-causes-TB-20120721. [30/08/2014].

Ichinose, D. and Yamamoto, M., 2011. On the relationship between the provision of waste management service and informal dumping. Resource and Energy Economics, 33(1): 79-93.

Laerd Statistics, 2013. Descriptive and Inferential Statistics. [Online]. Available: https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/descriptive-inferential-statistics.php . [22/09/2014].

Lakshmikantha, H., 2006. Report on waste dump sites around Bangalore. Waste Management, 26(6): 640-650.

Matete, N. and Trois, C., 2008. Towards zero waste in emerging countries–a South African experience. Waste Management, 28(8): 1480-1492.

Maylam, P., 1990. The Rise and Decline of Urban Apartheid in South Africa. African Affairs, 89(354): 57-84.

McDonald, D., 2008. World City Syndrome: Neoliberalism and Inequality in Cape Town. New York: Taylor and Francis Group.

McDonald, A and Pape, J., 2002. Cost Recovery and the Crisis of Service Delivery in South Africa, Cape Town: Human Science Research Council Publishers.

Medina, M., 2005. Serving the unserved: informal refuse collection in Mexico. Waste management & research, 23(5): 390-397.

Miraftab, F., 2004. Neoliberalism and casualization of public sector services: the case of waste collection services in Cape Town, South Africa. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(4): 874-892.

Miranda, M.L. and Aldy, J.E., 1998. Unit pricing of residential municipal solid waste: lessons from nine case study communities. Journal of environmental management, 52(1): 79-93.

Møller, V., Manona, C. W., van Hees, C., Pillay, E., & Tobi, A., 2001. Living in Grahamstown East/Rini: A social indicators report (No. 6). Institute of Social and Economic Research, Rhodes University.

Muoghalu, M. I., Robinson, H. D. and Glascock, J. L., 1990. Hazardous waste lawsuits, stockholder returns, and deterrence. Southern Economic Journal, 57: 357-370.

Nelson, A.C., Genereux, J. and Genereux, M., 1992. Price effects of landfills on house values. Land Economics, 68(4): 359-365.

Pap, R., 2004. Solid Waste Management in Jamaica: Household and Institutional Perspectives. In: Haugestad, A. K. and Wulfhorst, J.D. Future as Fairness: Ecological Justice and Global Citizenship. Netherlands: Rodopi.

31

Rathje, W. L. and Murphy, C., 2001. Rubbish!: the archaeology of garbage. New York: University of Arizona Press.

Rushton, L., 2003. Health hazards and waste management. British medical bulletin, 68: 183-197.

Samson, M., 2004. Organizing in the informal economy: a case study of the municipal waste management industry in South Africa. SEED Working Paper No. 66. Geneva: International Labour Office.

Swilling, M. and Hutt, D., 1999. Johannesburg, South Africa. In: Onibokun, A. G. Managing the monster: Urban waste and governance in Africa. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

Yuan, H. P., Shen, L. Y., Hao, J. J. and Lu, W. S., 2011. A model for cost–benefit analysis of construction and demolition waste management throughout the waste chain. Resources, conservation and recycling, 55(6): 604-612

Zotos, G., Karagiannidis, A., Zampetoglou, S., Malamakis, A., Antonopoulos, I., Kontogianni, S. and Tchobanoglous, G., 2009. Developing a holistic strategy for integrated waste management within municipal planning: Challenges, policies, solutions and perspectives for Hellenic municipalities in the zero-waste, low-cost direction. Waste Management. 29(5): 1686-1692.

32

9. Appendix

Informal dumping in Grahamstown: Distribution and

socio-economic impacts(Household questionnaire)

Information (for admin only)

Area (West or East)Street name

Section 1: Demographics

1.1.Household compositionPlease provide details on the composition of your household

Age <16 17-59 >60Number of people in your householdMalesFemales

1.2.Employment

1.2.1. How many adults are employed? ______

1.2.2. What are the types of employment?

Type of Employment Number of peoplePermanentTemporaryAd hoc

1.2.3. Does anyone receive grants? (circle)

33

Pension Child Grant Disability Unemployment None

Section 2: Informal dumping awareness

2.1. Are you aware that there is a dump site located in your neighbourhood?

Yes No

2.2. If yes, how many dump sites have you noticed in your neighbourhood?

0-1 2-5 More than 5

2.4. Have you made use of the dump site in your neighbourhood?

Yes No

2.5. If yes, why? If no, why do you think other people use the dump site? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.6. Do you think people are secretive about dumping?

Yes No

2.7. In your area, what is the most common waste material dumped?

34

2.8 Does having a dump site in your neighbourhood effect your quality of life in any way?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Section 3: Service delivery

3.1. How often are the informal dumps cleared? (Circle)

Daily Weekly Monthly Every few months

Seldom Never

3.2.In your opinion, are they cleared efficiently and/or effectively?

Yes No

3.3 How often does the municipality collect household waste?

Weekly Monthly Seldom Never

3.4 In your opinion is this sufficient?

Yes No

Section 3: Health impact from informal dumping

3.1 Do you think the dump site affects your health in any way? Please explain

35

3.2 Have you experienced injuries from the dump site? Please explain

3.3 Are you aware of any health impacts from dump sites (in general)? Please Explain

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Section 4: Land value

4.1. Do you think the dump site affects your land value?

Yes No

4.1.1 Why?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4.2. Do you think people are moving away or selling because of the dump site?

Yes No

4.3. Does the presence of dump sites in your area make you want to move?

Yes No

4.4 Would you buy a property knowing there is a dump site in the neighbourhood?

Yes No

36