Status of Financial Resources and Willingness to Pay for Solid Waste Management in Juba City, South Sudan

Status of Financial Resources and Willingness to Pay for Solid Waste Management in Juba City, South Sudan

Chol Daniel Deng Garang¹, John Leju Celestino Ladu², Yahya Ibrahim Said³, Dr Akashraj Devanga^4*

¹Department of Geography, School of Education, University of Juba

²Department of Environmental Studies, School of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, University of Juba

³Department of Geography, School of Education, University of Juba

⁴Department of Economics, School of Social and Economic Studies, University of Juba, South Sudan

^*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.905000193

Received: 17 May 2025; Accepted: 19 May 2025; Published: 06 June 2025

ABSTRACT

Juba City councils establish and strengthen a fee collection system for securing financial resources and establishing transparent and systematic budget compilation, execution, and reporting processes to stabilize and restore the finances of Solid Waste Management. In the mid-term plan by 2025, the current fee collection system is planned to be reviewed, and systematic budget management using independent accounts is introduced. The fee collection from households by the blocks and quarter Councils and the department of environment and sanitation of Juba City Council strengthen the fee collection for market and commercial waste collection, it is strengthening the waste collection system of Juba through the procurement of waste collection vehicles by the JICA Grant Aid Project and relation-building with the private sector. Following the plans, it is important to secure the financial resources by strengthening the fee collection system. The findings of the study showed that (66.7%) of the respondents are willing to pay for solid waste management services in Juba from 2000 – 4000 SSP per household, per month. According to the survey conducted by JICA (2020), approximately 80% of the residents were willing to pay for the wastes collection fees and the results showed that 430 SSP per household, per month would be appropriate and the average monthly income of the residents in the study area was 5,200 SSP, which represents about 8% of their monthly income. The Department of Environment and Sanitation of Juba City Council has an independent account specialized in Solid Waste Management, but they don’t make good use of the account. It is recommended to improve the transparency of the budget including revenue and expenditure, by using the account. In the long-term plan by 2030, it is planned to introduce a budget assessment for the transparency and sustainability of the budget requested to understand the whole SWM activities in Juba, it is important to compile the annual report and the annual plan for the following fiscal year on SWM every year (SWM Master Plan in Juba, 2020).

Keywords:  Financial, Resources, Solid Waste, Management, willingness

INTRODUCTION

In Developing Countries, resources are scarce, and the dissemination of these limited resources is mishandled. Many municipalities are struggling to achieve an acceptable quality of service due to this financial problem (McAllister, 2015). The important essential terms, long-term financial costs as well as short-term operating costs, must be taken into account, and financial aspects for SWM concern budgeting, cost accounting, Cost reduction, Capital investment, and cost recovery (Schubeler, 1996; Coffey and Coad, 2010). Adequate budgeting, cost accounting, financial monitoring, and financial evaluation are important to the effectiveness of solid waste management (Schubeler, 1996). The ways to improve waste management are to improve the status of financial resources, operating costs, and management cost recovery (Hufane, 2015). Solid Waste Management in developing countries is mainly attributed to technical inefficiencies and displays an array of problems (Shubeler et al., 2015; Coffey and Coad, 2010). Financial Pressure experienced by almost all local governments encourages the tendency to concentrate only on the short-term operating costs and ignore the longer-term financial costs. This tendency will result in a crisis in a few years (Coffey & Coad, 2010). Financial constraints, inadequate service coverage, equipment, inadequate landfill disposal, operational inefficiencies, ineffective technologies, and limited utilization of recycling initiatives are all constraints of solid waste management (McAllister, 2015).

Financing, the city government should allocate enough money for the provision of solid waste management, improving payment rates for collectors, providing incentives, and designing revenue generation mechanisms (Muche, 2016). However, to improve the financial situation, the municipalities must adopt strategies like waste segregation, and door-to-door collection with waste being collected daily or twice a week, and the waste that cannot be composted or recycled should be landfilled (Yaday, Devi & Singh, 2010). The financial effectiveness of municipal solid waste management (MSWM) is based on life cycle costs and long-term economic impact. Financial analysis is a very crucial input to strategic planning and investment programming (Yaday et al, 2010), unless funds are continuously available without any delay, it is impossible to run a regular collection service and any system that has been set up will collapse rapidly and come to stop (Coffey and Coad, 2010). According to Zurbrugg (2003), the main reason for inadequate collection services is the lack of financial resources to cope with the increasing amount of waste generated. The largest portion of the financial cost is spent on street sweeping, waste collection, and waste transportation, and no financial cost is allocated for modern disposal systems such as landfilling or incineration due to insufficient funding (Alam, Chowdhury, Hasan, Karanjit, and Shrestha, 2008). Also, Christen and Berne (1996) stated that improvement of financial aspects in municipalities’ solid waste management can be achieved by attaching solid waste fees to the billing for another service, such as water supply (Schubeler, 1996).

The types of finance in Juba are own revenue and subsidy from the state government, and the subsidy is allocated for the City Council to cater for administration and operational costs. Juba City Council (JCC) gets its finances from approval fees for business, construction, tax, and license fees for commercial vehicles, charges for issuing trading licenses, and revenue from the blocks, including rental fees for assets such as exhausters, license fees for shops, and property tax. The revenue of the Department of Environment and Sanitation, in consultation with the Juba City Council (JCC) administration, sets the prices of the monthly fee for waste collection services. It collects fees for solid waste dischargers in big restaurants, hotels, Companies, UN compounds, NGO compounds, Institutions, Ministries, National parliament, Airport, Hospitals, Shops, Residents, Schools, factories, Petrol stations, Sewages, warehouses, Supermarkets, Radio/TV, Private electricity distributors, health Centre’s, Environmental damages. The blocks collect fees from those various areas in Juba City (Samuel, J. Luate, 2015).  

Basic Concept of finance on solid waste management in Juba, South Sudan Revenues,

Solid waste management (SWM) revenues in Juba come from three sources such as waste collection fees, issuing permission to sewerage tankers and waste collection vehicles, and fines and penalties. Most of the revenue comes from the waste collection fees, with the fees collected from markets accounting for 62% of the total. Markets: SSP 11,159,276 Hotels: SSP 2,070,000 Institutions: SSP 492,000 Issuing Permission to Sewerage Tanker: SSP 3,298,000 Issuing Permission to Waste Collection Vehicles: SSP 576,000 Fines and Penalties: SSP 500,000 Grand Total: SSP 18,095,276.

Expenditure: The total expenditure amount of the Department of Environment and Sanitation of JCC in FY2016/17 was about SSP 18 million: Wages & Salaries: SSP 8,382,186, Use of goods and services: SSP 9,100,290, Capital Expenditure: SSP 612,800, Grand Total: SSP 18,095,276. Currently, there is no official tariff for waste collection services. Waste management costs represent 30% of the city’s budget, and costs represent 30% of the city’s budget, which is a heavy burden on the city’s finances. Indeed, the City Council relies on its budget, which is not supplemented by the national government. If the national and state governments were contributing up to 30% to support SWM, it would reduce the financial burden and result in return in the improvement of the service delivery and waste collection system.  The rate schedule details the financial aspects of expenditures for the service delivery. Tariffs will be paid by households, private collection service providers, business sectors, government institutions, non-governmental organizations, etc. Today, three Block Councils, operating under the supervision of the Juba City Council, have communicated with the citizens about the Waste Collection Fee Policy of the local government/Juba City Council. There has been a positive response from citizens.

Revision of Fee Collection System: The fee collection system for SWM in Juba. The primary sources of revenue of the Department of Environment and Sanitation of Juba City Council are market waste collection fees, commercial waste collection fees from large-scale dischargers, licensing fees for private collectors, penalties, and fines. As of 2020, Juba City Council has a private waste collectors registration system, but the number of officially registered collectors is very small. Instead, a lot of waste collectors, more than the registered collectors, were found during the incoming vehicle survey conducted in 2020, and some of them usually dump waste illegally within Juba. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the collection of fees for licensing of private collectors, penalties, and fines. The target for charging penalties and fines is not only waste collectors but also dischargers who dump waste illegally. In the case of private dischargers such as hotels and markets, the Department of Environment and Sanitation of the Juba City Council needs to collect the penalties and fines. In the case of residents, each block should charge the cost to them. The waste collection vehicles to be procured by the JICA Grant Aid Project will be provided to the Department of Environment and Sanitation of Juba City Council and blocks, but the Department has a responsibility for the management of all the vehicles. However, the blocks will bear the expenses for regular maintenance and repair of their waste collection vehicles, hence, the Department will charge the cost of the blocks every month. The main sources of revenue for the blocks are household waste collection fees. The blocks collect tax for all administrative services, but the waste collection fee is excluded. Since the procedure for changing the tax system is expected to be unclear and difficult, the blocks will collect waste collection fees separately from the tax. These resources will be used to secure operation and maintenance costs on SWM. However, it is difficult to secure funds for the procurement of new waste collection vehicles with only that revenue, therefore, it is necessary to consider external funds from international aid agencies.

Start of Fee Collection for Household Waste Collection: As of 2020, Juba doesn’t collect fees from the residents since they don’t provide sufficient household collection services to them. In the mid-term plan, fee collection for household waste will be started following the implementation of community-participatory waste collection and strengthening the officers and workers of municipalities. The collection of household waste shall be carried out by “fixed-time and fixed-place waste collection”, and it is assumed that the target area is gradually expanded, and fee collection shall also be implemented according to the waste collection plan. Rate collectors of blocks visit each household and collect the fee for waste collection. Detailed information regarding fee collection, such as the amount of fee to be collected from each household, target, fee collection date, and method, etc, will be noted in “Regulation for Fee Collection”. The rate and amount of the fee will be changed before and after the JICA Grant Aid Project. Until 2022, the standard amount will be 250 SSP / household/month based on the results of the household waste collection experimentally conducted by blocks in 2020. After 2023, the standard amount will be 430 SSP / household/month based on the results of the social awareness survey in some target areas by JICA in 2020. According to the survey, approximately 80% of the residents answered that they were willing to pay the waste collection fee, and the result showed that 430 SSP / household/month would be appropriate. The average monthly income of the residents in the study area was 5,200 SSP, which represents about 8% of their monthly income. According to “What a Waste 2.0 (World Bank, 2018), the average amount of waste collection fee in Sub-Saharan Africa is 10 – 40 USD / year (108 – 434 SSP monthly equally); therefore, 430 SSP / household/month is reasonable.

Strengthening Fee Collection for Market and Commercial Waste Collection: The Department of Environment and Sanitation of Juba City Council aims to establish sustainable SWM through strengthening fee collection for market and commercial waste collection, which is one of the main sources of revenue of the Department Regarding market waste collection, rate collectors of the Department will visit the shops of each market and collect the fee directly from them. As preparation, the Department is required to make a list of markets and shops in collaboration with the Chamber of Commerce at each market. This list is important to grasp the number of shops and calculate the amount of fee to be collected, and it must be updated accordingly. When the rate collectors visit markets, they need to bring the list and request the shops that paid the waste collection fee to sign the list after the fee collection. This list can help to distinguish the shops which already paid the fee and the other shops that don’t pay it every month. If some shops do not accept the payment of fees, rate collectors need to follow up on those shops by visiting them again and again. The Department of Environment and Sanitation of Juba City Council and/or JRSWMG are required to request the shops as a supervisor if the situation does not change. The amount of fee, target, frequency, and method will be described in “Regulation for Fee Collection.

Transparent and Planned Budget Management Using Independent Accounting: The Department of Environment and Sanitation of the Juba City Council has a bank account for SWM. Originally, the SWM costs should be managed in this bank account, but now the fee collected is managed without being deposited in the account. The SWM costs of the Department of Environment and Sanitation of the Juba City Council are planned to be independent from the general account of the Juba City Council. However, expenditures often exceed revenues, and they are financially supported by the central government, the state government, and the Juba City Council Headquarters, therefore, it is not ensuring financial independence and transparency. Improving fiscal and budgetary transparency and planning is a requirement for the stable operation of appropriate SWM, hence, Juba aims to review and strengthen its budget management system by making effective use of existing bank accounts. The fee for household waste collection shall be collected by rate collectors of blocks, and the fee for market and commercial waste collection shall be collected by rate collectors of the Department of Environment and Sanitation of Juba City Council. The fees collected by the rate collectors shall be delivered to the officers in charge of finance of each organization with a list of collection results, including payees and the amount collected, etc. After confirming that the actual amount of money collected and the records match, the officers in charge of finance shall deposit money into the bank account for the management of SWM costs. The officers in charge of finance need to keep an account book according to the flow of money. The amount of revenues and expenditures can be accurately grasped by recording the flow of money in the books. Bank account records and account books can be used effectively when considering future SWM project plans.

Concept of Budget Assessment: Budget assessment is to examine the suitability and adequacy of the budget requested for SWM plans. To implement stable financial management in the future, it is necessary to prepare an appropriate budget plan for each fiscal year and implement projects according to the plan. The municipalities need to introduce a budget assessment to expand their services with a limited budget.

 Implementation of Budget Assessment: The management flow of budget assessment is shown in Figure 3-16. Budget assessment can be divided into three steps: (1) Compilation and submission, (2) Explanation and discussion, (1) Compilation and submission, (2) Explanation and discussion, and (3) Assessment. The budget plan will be prepared and submitted by the blocks and the Department of Environment and Sanitation of the Juba City Council as the implementing organization for SWM. Each block needs to prepare its budget plan and explain it to the Department of Environment and Sanitation of Juba City Council, and the Department is required to explain the overall budget plan to the officers and managers in charge of budget management in the Department. After the assessment, it is necessary to report the result to the senior management, such as the director and deputy director of the Department, for approval.

Budget Compilation, the blocks are supposed to submit their budget plan to the Department of Environment and Sanitation of the Juba City Council. Officers in charge of budget planning for each organization need to set standard unit prices referring to the past SWM cost, and determine the budget request content. In the case of continuing projects, the budget plan will be prepared by using the basic unit price set regarding the operating expenses of the previous fiscal year. In the case of new projects, it is impossible to set standard unit prices from their experience, hence, the cost shall be calculated based on the implementing plan on SWM. On the other hand, officers in charge of budget assessment shall confirm questions regarding the budget estimation with the officers in charge of budget planning based on the document submitted by them. During the assessment, the officers in charge of the budget assessment need to request corrections if they find any errors in it. The officers in charge of budget assessment are required to confirm whether the budget requested is suitable with the budget compilation policy and the SWM plan. The budget plan shall be revised if it is difficult to approve. Through this process, the final budget plan shall be compiled by the Department of Environment and Sanitation of Juba City Council, submitted to the implementing body of JRSWMG, and requested for the approval of the executive body of JRSWMG. After the Mayor, the leader of JRSWMG, approves, the budget shall be allocated to each organization. The management flow of budget compilation is shown in Figure 3-17. Since the entire process is expected to take about five to six months, it is necessary to calculate the budget back from the first month of the new fiscal year.

Compilation of Annual Report and Annual Plan: Annual Report of Solid Waste Management. The implementing body of JRSWMG needs to prepare the annual report of SWM in collaboration with the Department of Environment and Sanitation of Juba City Council and the blocks every year. This report is necessary to be submitted to the executive body of JRSWMG and approved by the mayor as the leader of JRSWMG. Annual Plan of Solid Waste Management, the Annual Plan of Solid Waste Management which shows the activities plan for the following fiscal year, is prepared by the implementing body of JRSWMG, the Department of Environment and Sanitation of Juba City Council, and Blocks. After the annual plan is submitted to the executive body of JRSWMG and approved by the mayor as the leader of JRSWMG, the annual plan becomes valid. The annual plan will be prepared based on the results from the previous year.

Willingness to Pay for Solid Waste Management

Several studies have been conducted on the willingness to pay for solid waste management. Mahar et al (2007) investigated the current situation of waste garbage services in urban areas of Pakistan. The study was for the five major cities of Punjab in Pakistan. The study found that with the increasing population, the size of waste increased, which showed that poor-income households suffered more health problems as compared to higher-income households. The final results of the study indicated that many factors contributed to the collection of solid waste management. Inappropriate policies are used in the collection of urban waste in the five major cities; however, proper policies should be used to resolve this issue in urban areas.

Oyawole et al. (2016) State that the determinants of household payment to improved solid waste management services in Nigeria. In poor regions, many households suffer from many problems, including air pollution, and as a result, people from low-income families face severe health diseases. The reason behind these significant issues is that in developing countries, most households are unaware of environmental problems and have enough resources to increase their willingness to pay to improve solid waste management services according to their will. So, lower payments to improve solid waste management services increase the risk of health diseases. However, four villages were chosen from five Nigerian districts. The logistic regression model was used to understand the concept. The result indicated that nighty two percent (92%) of families are fully aware of the problem of garbage waste, while sixty-four percent (64%) are willing to pay to improve solid waste management. The indicated their willingness to pay is affected by various demographic factors such as education, gender, age of family head, size of families, and employment level of household head in South-eastern Nigeria. This study recommends proper policy implications to improve the economic status of households in poor-income families.

According to Rahji and Oloruntoba (2009), the different factors that are affecting households and personal preferences of interest in ward waste services in Nigeria. The purpose of this study is to find different factors that affect the household’s willingness to pay for private disposal systems for solid waste in urban areas of Ibadan. Primary data has been used to collect the information of five hundred fifty-two (552) households in Ibadan. For the analysis of this study, logit models have been used. The final result of this study indicated that education, gender, income, occupation, and wealth owned by households have a positive impact on willingness to pay for private solid waste management services. The study provides some implications to improve the behavior of households’ payment for private solid waste management. Akhar et al. (2017) investigated the household willingness to pay (WTP) to improve solid waste management services in Lahore. The main purpose of the study was to know the views of the Gulberg community of Lahore, considered the most densely populated area of Lahore, toward households willing to pay (WTP). The result showed that only wealthy households are more interested or willing to pay to improve solid waste collection than poor households or families. For the reduction of this problem among households willing to pay for solid waste management, we need some measures and policy suggestions to get rid of this problem in the future.

Thirumarpan and Dilsath (2016) analyzed the willingness behavior of the family head toward solid waste in Sri Lanka. Solid waste management and environmental degradation increase continuously, which harms human health and causes many severe diseases. The study was based on data from five divisions of Batticaloa, Sri Lanka, in this paper. Therefore, different variables affect a household’s interest in paying for this purpose. The study used a binomial logistic regression model to understand this concept. The result of this study indicated that a lower proportion of the population was willing to pay to get rid of this waste garbage, fifty-nine percent (59%), and the remaining population is not interested in improving waste services. The average income of the household is between thirty thousand (30,000) to thirty-five thousand (35,000), but eighty-six percent (86%) population is interested in paying every month, not daily. The quantity of waste produced by each household daily is three kilograms, which means the monthly payment ratio by each household is only sixty rupees, but at a very low rate, they are not interested in increasing the pay rate to improve solid waste management services. The result of this study showed that positive relationship between the number and spending activities of households and a negative relationship between genders, the number of wastes produced daily, and the disposal services of waste garbage. This concluded that higher-educated families attain a higher value of pay for solid waste management as compared to families that are comprised of lower-educated individuals. In the end, this study suggests some policy recommendations to increase the socioeconomic status of poorly educated families. In this way, we increase the household desire to improve solid waste management services.

In addition, Alhassan et al (2017) investigate different demographic factors that affect households’ willingness to pay in Ghana. The study explained the important factors that are affecting household willingness to pay for solid waste management because many studies have been conducted to know the variables that are affecting household willingness to pay (WTP) to improve Solid waste management. However, due to some limitations, they do not find important factors that affect households’ willingness to pay (WTP). Moreover, Boateng et al. (2019) examined household payments for improved solid waste management in four major cities: Accra, Takoradi, Kumasi, and Tamale in Ghana. Globally, two billion households are shortages approach to solid waste management. In descriptive statistics, logistic regression analysis is used, but the survey did not show good results. Only fifty-three-point-seven percent (53.7%) of households showed motivation or willingness to pay to improve solid waste management services. The result of this study showed that household willingness to pay is affected by many factors such as the education of the household head, income, and employment level of households, gender, and occupancy status of the household. Social influences are best presented by using financial services, but some needs of efforts and expertise are needed to improve household sustainable willingness to pay for solid waste management in Ghana. It is also emphasized that we need some efforts to improve measurement tools for better assessment of household willingness to pay for solid waste management.

Dika et al. (2019) assess the payment of household willingness to improve solid waste management in Addis Ababa. The secondary data was used to collect information on household willingness to pay by the contingent valuation method. The study used a logistic regression model to understand this concept. The result showed that a more significant number of families are fully aware of the problems of garbage waste, but not ready to pay more than seventy-eight percent (78%) and seventy-six percent (76%) of households are willing to cooperate only to improve solid waste management services, but not ready to pay. The final result of the study showed a positive relationship between the income of the household, family size, and the age of the household head, and a negative relationship between gender and education. This study recommends proper policy implications to improve the economic status of households’ implications to improve the economic status of households and increase household willingness to pay to improve solid waste management.

All in all, Mulat et al. (2019) investigated different factors that affect household willingness to pay for improved solid waste management in Etopia. This study used primary data from Addis Ababa town, Injibara. The result of this study indicated that there is a positive relationship between education and willingness to pay for improved solid waste management and a negative relationship between gender and willingness to pay for solid waste management decreases with the increased population size of families, occupancy status indicated a positive relationship with the cost of solid waste management, if homeowner have not personal place, then he had to pay more cost of solid waste management as compared to those families that have personal land for living. This study recommended that proper policies should be adopted that improve household willingness to pay for solid waste management. The summary of this literature review provides knowledge about household willingness to pay. Now this study will bridge the gap in respect and make a valuable addition to the body of knowledge. This study will find out the household willingness to pay to improve solid waste management and household demographic factors that influence household willingness to pay.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Monthly Household Income level in South Sudanese Pounds (SSP).

The findings show that the majority of the respondents had a household monthly income level of 3000 – 5000 SSP, represented by 41.7% of the total respondents. Followed by 29% of the respondents, had a monthly income that varied between 7000 – 9000 SSP. 16% of the respondents represented a monthly income of 13000 SSP and above. About 13.3% of the respondents had a monthly income ranging between 11000 – 13000 SSP. Very few households were in the category of high incomes, as represented by 10% of the households that had monthly incomes of 11000 – 13,000 SSP and above. The standard amount for waste proposals was 430 SSP per household, per month, based on the results of a social awareness survey by JICA (2020) in Juba. According to the survey conducted by JICA (2020), approximately 80% of the residents were willing to pay the waste collection fee and the results showed that 430 SSP per household, per month would be appropriate and the average monthly income of the residents in the study area was 5,200 SSP, which represents about 8% of their monthly income. According to World Bank (2018), the average amount of waste fee in Sub-Saharan Africa is $10 – $40/year (108 – 434 SSP monthly equally), however, 430 SSP per household, per month was reasonable.

This indicates that low per capita incomes in Juba city will result in low volume generation of solid waste, which can pose a lesser threat to environmental quality and human health. These results are consistent with the World Bank (2012) that the per capita income is below the global $57.00 per month ($1.90 per day), as well as the mean per capita income in Sub-Saharan Africa, which stands at $1.70 per day or $51.00 per month. Studies by Afroz et al. (2011), Gu et al. (2015), Kayode and Omole (2011), Maskey et al. (2016), Ogwueleka (2013), Sankoh et al. (2012), and Sujauddin et al. (2008) showed monthly income to have a positive impact on waste generation. With higher income, it is expected that increase demand for commodity products will increase, the consumption of which will ultimately produce more waste. Bandara et al. (2007) explained that the relatively high food consumption trends of higher income groups increased purchases of packaged products and reading materials, which will result in higher waste generation. Qu et al. (2009) in China found that family income hurts waste generation. Trang et al. (2017) classified those having higher income who dine outside more frequently than cook at home, whether it be at work or for leisure, thus generating less waste. Another study in China by Xu et al. (2016) explained that per capita household waste and income cannot be simply linearly correlated. Oftentimes in the early stages of urbanization, growth in family income leads to material consumption, which increases waste amount. However, as the urbanization level matures, it will have a gradual weakening positive effect, and in an advanced stage, the growth of income will barely have any positive effect (Table 1)

Table 1. Monthly Household Income level in South Sudanese Pounds (SSP).

Source: Field data (2023)

Payment for own Solid waste 

The finding of the study showed that majority (79.7%) of the respondents during the data collections don’t pay for their solid wastes while 20.3% of the respondents pay for their solid wastes to the Payams, County and Juba City Councils because there was awareness made by Juba city council and JICA on the collection of household wastes and the agreed amount being charge per household. Sankoh et al. (2012) showed number of rooms has a positive impact on generating more waste. Lebersorger & Beigl (2011) found that the percentage of buildings with solid fuel heating was one of the important factors influencing MSW. Kayode & Omole (2011) found a positive influence of the type of building on waste generation. While all these studies included certain features of dwelling, this study assesses how living in their own house impacts waste generation compared to tenants. During the test survey, it was observed that those who live in their own house are more caring about their surrounding and thus are more cautious in keeping their surroundings clean, which might impact their waste-generating behavior. Conversely, tenants might not care as much about their surroundings because they do not have a strong sense of belonging to that place; they are there only temporarily. Although most households live in their own house, households residing in rented houses have been increasing in urban areas of Nepal (CBS, 2014a) in Table 2

Table 2. Payment for own Solid waste   

Source: Field data (2023)

Monthly payment of Solid waste management in South Sudanese Pound (SSP)

The majority (50%) of respondents pay between 2000 and 4000 SSP for their waste, while 26.7% pay between 4000 and 6000 SSP per month for their households. About 13% of respondents pay between 6000 and 8000 SSP per month, and only 10% agree to pay 8000 SSP and above each month. This last group includes small-scale businesses, hotels, restaurants, universities, schools, churches, companies, hospitals, clinics, shops, NGOs, and factories in Juba County. The study categorized respondents based on household income variations (Table 3).

Table 3. Monthly payment for Solid waste management in SSP

Source: Field data (2023)

Private trucks for waste collection from door to door in residential areas

The majority (58%) of respondents have never used private trucks for door-to-door solid waste collection from residential areas. However, some burn, bury, or throw their waste in open spaces or on the street, dig holes around their houses, and dispose of their solid waste in various ways. In contrast, 42% of respondents indicated that the Department of Environment and Sanitation of Juba City Council (JCC) and the Payams utilize many private collectors with dumping trucks and open trucks for waste collection. Despite this, few companies in Juba employ compactors for waste collection, and households pay 2,000 SSP, 4000 SSP, 6000 SSP, and 8000 SSP for waste collection services, depending on the level of service. The Department of Environment and Sanitation of Juba City Council has a registration system for private waste collectors and charges 20,050 SSP for each collector. The requirements for registration include providing their name, vehicle number, collection service area, and contact information. They are not permitted to collect waste from unregistered areas. In March 2020, about 10 private waste collectors were registered, but many unregistered private collectors were observed during the survey of incoming waste collection vehicles. A proposal for developing a management system for private collectors needs to be established. (JICA Project Team, 2020) as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Private trucks for waste collection from door to door in residential areas

Source: Field data (2023)

Willingness to Pay for Solid Waste Management Services 

The findings of the study showed that a large majority of the respondents (66.7%) are willing to pay for solid waste management services in Juba, and they were willing to pay from 2000 – 4000 SSP per month. According to the survey conducted by JICA (2020) in Juba, approximately 80% of the residents were willing to pay for the wastes collection fees and the results showed that 430 SSP per household, per month would be appropriate and the average monthly income of the residents in the study area was 5,200 SSP, which represents about 8% of their monthly income. According to World Bank (2018), the average amount of waste fee in Sub-Saharan Africa is from $10 – $40/year, however, 430 SSP per household, per month was reasonable. And only 33.3% of the respondents were represented by those who were not willing to pay for solid waste management services fees.

Anjum, 2013, Eshum &Nyarko, 2011, Jones et al, 2010, Karthigarani & Elangovan, 2016, Mahima & Thomas, 2013, Roy & Deb, 2013, about 61% are willing to pay for the improved waste collection services. Thirumarpan and Dilsath (2016) analyzed the willingness behavior of the family head toward solid waste in Sri Lanka. Solid waste management and environmental degradation have increased continuously, which has brought a negative impact on human health and caused many severe diseases. The study used a binomial logistic regression model to understand this concept. The result of this study indicated that a lower proportion of the population was willing to pay to get rid of this waste garbage, 58%; the remaining population is not interested in improving waste services. The average income of a household is between 30,000 -35,000, but 86% population is interested in paying monthly, not daily. The quantity of waste produced by each household daily is 3 kg, which means the monthly payment ratio by each household is only sixty rupees, but at the very low rate, they are not interested in increasing the pay rate to improve solid waste management services. The result of this study showed that a positive relationship exists between the number and spending activities of households, and a negative relationship exists between genders number of waste produced daily and the disposal services of waste garbage. This concluded that higher educated families attain a higher value of pay for solid waste management as compared to those families that comprise lower educated families. In the end, this study suggests some policy recommendations to increase the socio-economic status of poor, educated families; in this way, we increase the household desire to improve solid waste management services.

According to Akhar et al. (2017) investigated the household willingness to pay to improve solid waste management services in Lahore was investigated. The main purpose of the study was to know the views of the Gulberg community of Lahore, that considered the most densely populated area of Lahore, toward households willing to pay. The result showed that only rich households are more interested or willing to pay to improve solid waste management as compared to poor households or families. For the reduction of this problem among households willing to pay for solid waste management, we need some measures and policy suggestions to get rid of this problem in the future (Table 5).

Table 5. Willingness to pay for solid waste management services

Source: Field data (2023)

The charges levied for solid waste.

The findings show that majority of the respondents (51%) indicated that the charges levied on solid wastes were high while 24% of the respondents’ charges were at average, 15% of the respondents don’t know charges on solid wastes and 10% of the respondents’ rated charges on solid waste low. During the key informants’ interviews with Sebit (2023), stated that the Juba city council referred a charge fee of SSP 2000 for solid waste collection. According to Monyoncho (2012) argued that the best way of managing solid wastes is the internalization of costs or levying charges for the use of the services. This is especially beneficial when a command-and-control policy is not effective and government intervention is necessary for this (Table 6).

Table 6. The charges levied for solid waste

Source: Field data (2023)

Waste collection services for the household

The finding showed that less than half of the respondents (32%) stated that the collection of waste services was provided twice a week to households. About 28.3% of the respondents cited that the collection of waste services is provided once a week, and 15% of the respondents stated that the collection of waste services is done every day. 12.3% of the respondents were others for whom the wastes didn’t reach, followed by 7% of the respondents’ collected waste services once a month, and only 5.3% of the respondents cited that the collection of waste services was twice a month. These are consistent with the study conducted in Ghana that a high rate of urbanization in African Countries contributes to a rapid accumulation of solid waste. Moreover, social and economic development that most African Countries have witnessed since the 1960s has also contributed to an increase in the waste generated per capita (Owusu et al, 2012; Ahmed and Ali, 2011). These results are consistent with Gabriel (2015), who noted that most households in major towns of South Sudan are not served by any waste collection and disposal service provider and therefore are forced to initiate their way of managing their solid waste, as indicated in Table 7.

Table 7. Waste collection services

Source: Field data (2023)

Solid waste services ranking.

The findings of the study showed that the majority of the respondents (55%) ranked waste collectors’ services as poor, while 20% of the respondents ranked the waste collectors’ services as good. About 16.7% of the respondents ranked waste collectors’ services very poor, and only 8.3% of the respondents who had ranked the waste collectors’ services very good, as indicated in Table 8.

Table 8. Solid waste services ranking

Source: Field data (2023)

Stakeholders for Solid Waste Management

The majority of the respondents (50.5%) were for the Juba City council under the Department of Environment and Sanitation, with the support of three blocks, while 29% of the respondents were for the County government (Juba County). About 10.8% of the respondents were for Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) JICA, UNMSS and UNICEF, 6.3% of the respondents were for National Government such as National Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Ministry of finance, Ministry of Health and only 3.3% of the respondents were for State government (State ministry of Environment and forestry, State Ministry of finance, State of Health. Solid waste in Juba is managed by the Department and Sanitation of the Juba City Council. Solid waste quantities, which are produced in Juba city, are large and expanding with the developing prosperity and improved standard of living. Municipal waste generation normal rate coming to 0.57kg/per person/day, the population of Juba is 1.500.000 million; such population produces roughly 950 tons of waste per day. The rainy season has a higher waste generation rate. Solid waste generation changes per day in addition to the recurring seasonal variation, and the collection recurrence also influences waste generation in common; a more visit collection produces more municipal solid waste. Expanding urbanization is one of the influences on the overall rate of solid waste production in South Sudan and many nations. The quantity of generated waste could be a financial indicator and a function of the degree of a nation’s improvement. The distinction in waste generation between cities in developed nations (1.5-2kg/person/day) and those in developing nations (generally less than 1kg/inhabitant/day) is essential. This critical distinction is due to utilization modes as industrialized nations devour more items and utilize more packaging (Juba City Chamber 2017), as indicated in Table 9.

Table 9. Stakeholders for solid waste management

Source: Field data (2023)

Challenges faced in the management of Solid Wastes.

The findings of the showed that majority of the respondents (24%) lack awareness while 20% of the respondents has mentioned lack of finance, respectively were a major challenge towards solid waste management, 14% of the respondents has stated that low waste collection rate and poor sanitation, 13% of the respondents argued that lack of legal system and policies for solid wastes management. About 12% of the respondent was lack of management of resources by Juba city council and Juba County, 10% of the respondents were waste collection from markets and institution where are not implemented regularly and 7% of the respondents was the corrupted government officers, which is the biggest challenges faced management of solid waste in Juba.

The findings of the study from the interviews with key informants showed that many challenges contributed to poor solid waste management in the study area. First of all, most residents lack proper information on solid waste management and also know-how on the best practices applicable in waste management in an urban setup. There is also a lack of funds on the part of residents to be able to finance waste management practices consistently. There is hardly any environmental policy in place by the government to combat poor solid waste disposal in the study area. These findings are in consistent with the study carried out in Kampala by the Namilyango college (2011) that identified several challenges related solid waste management which included lack of dumpsites due to ignorance of the community about the need for proper waste disposal, lack of finance, lack of legislation, lack of awareness among the public, lack of political support and lack of trained personnel for waste management.

These are consistent with the study done in Ghana by Peter (2002), which states that problems are encountered at all levels of waste management in particularly collection, transportation, and disposal. Generally, existing public facilities, including sanitary facilities are inadequate to serve the user population and the sheer volume of municipal solid waste generated in the Country’s Urban center is overwhelming while existing waste disposal facilities are inadequate to deal with the quality and quantity of waste generated more sophisticated system are expensive and their maintenance requirements are high as indicated on the (Table 10).

Table 10. Challenges faced in the management of Solid Wastes.

Source: Field data (2023)

Sources of funding for Solid Waste Management practices

The findings of the study showed that 25% of the respondents find their sources for funding from the local revenue collections, and 23% of the respondents get their sources of funding from the County Government. About 17% of the respondents were donations from partners, 16% from the State government, 10% from the respondents from the Juba City Council, and 9% of the respondents from the National government. These are consistent with the study done in Khulna in Bangladesh by Norley (2009) that local governments are responsible for the collection and disposal of the wastes generated within their jurisdictions as well as for the operation and maintenance of their equipment. However, local government usually lacks the authority and resources to provide a satisfactory and economically viable service. Effective and efficient solid waste management depends upon an equitable distribution of responsibilities, authority, and revenue between the national government and all the local governments. In addition, according to Lusaka City Council (2004), solid waste management is the responsibility of the Lusaka City Council waste management unit. The waste management unit has partnered with Community-Based enterprises (CBEs) and was responsible for the day-to-day management of the waste system in peri-urban areas, as indicated in Table 11.

Table 11. The sources of funding for solid waste management

Source: Field data (2023)

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were made: Major sources, types, methods and quantity of solid wastes that were generated and disposed in Juba include residential wastes such as streets sweeping, follow by Agriculture such as food waste, Commercial waste which was the markets, hospital medical wastes, hotels and restaurant, Institutional wastes such as universities, colleges, schools and government ministries and construction wastes including demolition waste, and others wastes in Juba include: worn wastes, metallic wastes, hazardous wastes, plastic wastes, container wastes a significant portion of population does not have access to waste collection services and only a fraction of the generated wastes are collected by door to door collection system introduced by Juba City Councils (JCC), Japanese International Cooperation Agent (JICA) Non-governmental Organization (NGOs) and private companies.

The majority of the respondents knew solid waste disposal methods as represented by those digging a hole around the house and disposing, dumping, or burning. Some throw it in open space or on street of Juba for the collection, disposed on the backyards of the house, bury their wastes, throw it wastes in to the nearby the rivers/streams and throw in to the nearby ditches, most of the residents had little knowledge on solid wastes disposal, types of diseases and diseases vectors associated to solid wastes which is caused by poor waste disposal while small portion of the respondents had moderate advanced knowledge on solid waste disposal, types of diseases and diseases vectors caused by poor wastes disposal in Juba Controlled Dumping Site (JCDS) and Mogoro Illegal Dumping site.

Open dumping was the popular method of waste disposal. Others are digging a hole around the house and disposing of, burning, throwing it on the streets, composting, and reusing. The majority of the respondents were not aware of the segregation of solid waste. Long distance to the JCDs dumping site, lack of environmental policies, lack of equipment, lack of vehicles, lack of skill, lack of environmental bills, lack of collection points, lack of awareness, lack of protective equipment for workers, misused of funds collected for solid wastes management and lack of understanding with National and State Ministries of Environment and forestry were the major challenges faced on solid waste management efforts by residents.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The National, State government, Juba city Council (JCC), and Japanese International Cooperation (JICA) should vigorously launch a widespread awareness campaign to deal with the negative perceptions and low knowledge of the community toward solid waste disposal methods. Government and JICA efforts to build more waste disposal sites in the study area should be supported, and the necessary budget allocated for solid waste in the Country. Improve on dumping sites road infrastructures in the area to support waste disposal. Since there are no waste collection bins, these should be strategically placed in identified central sites to reduce indiscriminate dumping and ease waste collection by Juba City Council and Juba County vehicles. The state government has to educate the residents on solid waste management. Government efforts to formulate policies on the solid waste Management, other types of solid waste, and incorporate with the existing order that will ban the use of plastic bags in Juba. The best arrangement is a public and private partnership working together to educate the people about the service providers and services. Organized cooperative solid waste companies should be encouraged to run their daily activities; the local authorities could provide the private collectors with the facilities or grant funding, and give them advice on how to run the services effectively.

The private sector can be contracted for waste service and treatment, local government needs to focus more on administration, monitoring, public education, and planning. Local governments need to enhance their capacities to arrange and support waste planning by coordinating with various agencies within the government, improving information transparency for public consultation, and collecting reliable basic data on waste properties and market demand for recycled products. To address these three aspects in practice, city and provincial governments need to alter their role and mindset, no longer acting only as service providers but rather as managers and coordinators. MSWM is an expensive undertaking if it is conducted in an environmentally sound manner. Involving the private sector should result in greater efficiencies. Preparing a strategic, integrated solid waste management plan for the city. The plan should be drawn taking into account the waste generation sources, quantity, characteristics, and the socio-economic and cultural structure of the city.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author acknowledges and highly appreciates the support offered by Rumbek University of Science and Technology and, particularly, the School of Education, School of Natural and Environmental Studies, University of Juba, South Sudan.

REFERENCES

1. Abila, B., and Kantola, J. (2013). Municipal Solid Waste Management Problems in Nigeria: Evolving Knowledge Management Solution. International Journal of Environmental, Ecological, Geological and Mining Engineering, 7(6), 172-177.
2. Achankeng, E. (2004). Sustainability in Municipal Solid Waste Management in Bamenda and Yaounde, Cameroon. Schools of Social Sciences.
3. Adhikari, B. K. a. B., S. (2006). “Predicted growth of world Urban food waste and methane production,” Waste Management and Research 24.
4. AESSL. (2007). Report on Solid Waste Management in the Developed World. SIDA Swedish International Development Agency and SI Swedish Institute Thursday, August 30^th, 2001.
5. Agunwamba, J. C. (1998). Solid Waste Management in Nigeria: Problems and issues. Environmental Management Vol. 22, No. 6, pp849-856.
6. Ahmed, S, and Ali, S. (2011). People as partners: facilitating people’s participation in public-private partnership for solid waste management. Habitat Int. 30, 781–796.
7. Ajayi, V.O., & Angora, M.T. (2017). Do guided and structured inquiry instructional strategies have any comparative effects on students’ achievement in basic science and technology? A field report. Journey of Education and Practice, 8(33), 81-88.
8. Alam, S. M. (2016). Strategic Institutional Capacity in Solid Waste Management: The cases of Dhaka North and South City Corporations in Bangladesh.
9. Aleluia, J., & Ferrão, P. (2016). Characterization of urban waste management practices in developing Asian countries: A new analytical framework based on waste characteristics and urban dimension. Waste Management, 58, 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.008.
10. Ali, A. (2009). Characterization, management, and improvement Strategies for household waste in Nairobi, Thesis (PhD), University of Nairobi.
11. Anderson, C.N.K., Chan, Hadly, E.A., and Ramakrishna, Y.L. (2007). Serial Simcoal: a population genetics model for data from multiple populations and points in time. Bioinformatics, 21, 1733-1743.
12. Anjum, R. (2013). Willingness to pay for solid waste management services: A case study of Islamabad (No. 3). Islamabad, Pakistan.
13. Awosan, et al. (2017). Knowledge, Risk Perception and Practices Regarding the Hazards of Unsanitary Solid Waste Disposal among Small-Scale Business Knowledge, Risk Perception and Practices Regarding the Hazards of Unsanitary Solid Waste Disposal among Small-Scale Busi, (October). https://doi.org/10.9734/IJTDH/2017/36491
14. Badran, M; and El-Haggar, S. (2006). Optimization of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Port Said-Egypt. Waste Management, 26, 534-545.
15. Bandara, N. J. G. J., Hettiaratchi, J. P. A., Wirasinghe, S. C., & Pilapiiya, S. (2007). Relation of waste generation and composition to socio-economic factors: A case study. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 135(1–3), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9705-3
16. Banerjee, A., & Chaudhury, S. (2010). Statistics without tears: populations and samples. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 19(1), 60-65.
17. Beede DN, Bloom DE. The economics of MSW. The World Research Observer 1995;10 (2):113. 50.
18. Bird, C. (2016). Perspective on Data Science for Software Engineering
19. Boateng, K. S., Agyei-Baffour, P., Boateng, D., Rockson, G. N. K., Mensah, K. A., & Educe, A. K. (2019). Household willingness-to-pay for improved solid waste management services in four major metropolitan cities in Ghana. Journal of environmental and public health, 2019.
20. Bourn, Douglas. 2015: The Theory and Practice of Development Education: A Pedagogy for Global Social Justice. New York: Routledge. 222 pp. £95.00 clothbound, £29.99 paperback, £23.51 e-book. ISBN: 978-1-138-80476-0 (clothbound). ISBN: 978-1-138-80477-7 (paperback). ISBN: 978-1-315-75273-0 (e-book).
21. Bournay, E. (2006). Waste recyclers and recycled. In Planet in peril: An Atlas of current threats to people and the Environment, UNEP/GRID-Arendal and Le Monde diplomatique.
22. Boyce, Carolyn & Neale Pallene (2006), Conducting in-depth interviews: a guide for designing and conducting In-depth interviews for evaluation. Input.
23. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
24. Bryman, A.; Bell. (2015). Business Research Methods, Oxford University Press.
25. Burnley, S. J. (2007). A review of municipal solid waste composition in the United Kingdom. Waste Management, 27(10), 1274-1285. Doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.06.018.
26. Burnley, S.J. (2007). A review of municipal solid waste composition in the United Kingdom. Waste Management, 27(10), 1274. Doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.06.018.Carlton, R., Thompson, H. (2009). Product stewardship: Is there a role for better collaboration? Outlooks on Pest Management, 20(3), 126-127 Doi: 10.156/20 Jun 09.
27. CED (2003) Study of the Attitude and Perception of Community towards Solid Waste Management: A Case Study of Thiruvananthapuram City – Phase II. A project submitted to Kerala Research Program on Local Level Development, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.
28. Central Bureau of Statistics [CBS]. (2014). National population and housing census 2011: Urban tables (Vol. 07, Part I). Kathmandu, Nepal: Central Bureau of Statistics.
29. Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization (CPHEEO). Manual on municipal solid waste management. New Delhi: Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India; 2000.
30. Chattopadhyay, S., Dutta, A., and Ray, S. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in Kolkata, India: A review. Waste Management, 29, 1449–1458.
31. Chol, D., Deng, (2017). The impact of urbanization on the livelihood of the Bor community in Bor County of Jonglei State, South Sudan
32. Clein, J. (1999). The relationship between the level of academic education and reversible and irreversible processes of probability decision-making. Higher Education, 37, 323-339.
33. Coffey, M. and Coad, A., Collection of Municipal Solid Waste in Developing Countries, UN-HABITAT, Malta, 2010.
34. Cointreau, S., Gopalan, P. and Coad, A., Private Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Management: Guidance Pack (5), 2000, SKAT, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
35. Cointreau-Levine, S. (1996). Sanitary Landfill Siting and Criteria. Washington, DC: World Bank Infrastructure Notes, Urban No. UE-12.
36. Cointreau- Levine S. (1997) Project preparation: solid waste management: Section IV. In urban waste management, guidelines. Tools and practices in Sub-Saharan Africa (ed. Obeng L & Cointreau -Levine, S.) Infrastructure Family, African region, The World Bank.
37. Cooper, J. (1999).” The challenges of environmental Management in Urban Areas.
38. Creswell, J., W., Plano Clark, V., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods design. In A. Tichakorn & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed method research in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Dalen, H. M., & Halvorsen, B. (2011). Gender differences in environmentally related behavior. Statistics Norway. Retrieved from https://www.ssb.no/a/english/publikasjoner/pdf/rapp _201138_en/rapp_2011 38_en.pdf
40. Davis, G. Herat, S. (2008). Electronic Waste: The Local Government Perspective in Queensland, Australia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52, 1031-1039. Doi: 0.1016/j. resconrec. 2008. 04.00.
41. Davis, M. (2006). Planet of Slums. London; New York: Verso.
42. Densin, N. K., & Lincolm, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The handbook of qualitative research (3^rd). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Dlamini, S., et al. (2019). “Municipal solid waste management in South Africa: waste to energy recovery through waste to energy technologies in Johannesburg 24(3): 249-257.
44. Dudley, P. (2011). Lesson Study: what it is, how and why it works, and who is using it, teaching expertise.com
45. Eerd, M. Van. 1996. The Occupational Health aspects of waste collection and recycling, UWEP Working document 4, Part 1, waste, Gouda.
46. ENVILEAD (2005). Fostering Active and Effective Civil Society Participation in Preparations for Implementation of the Stockholm Convention: A Study on Waste Incineration Activities in Nairobi that Release Dioxin and Furan into the Environment. The International POPs Elimination Project (IPEP)- Environmental Liaison, Education and Action for Development (ENVILEAD), Kenya, 2005.
47. Final Report on Waste Amount and Composition Survey in Juba, South Sudan, April 2023
48. Fischer, T., Potter, K., Donaldson, S., and Scott, T. (2011). Municipal Waste Management Strategies, Strategic Environmental Assessment and the Consideration of Climate in England. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 13(4), 541–565.
49. Flick, U. (2009), An Introduction to qualitative research (4^th Ed), Oliver’s Yard, Sage Publications, London.
50. Folorunsho, R., and Awosika, L. (2000). Flood Mitigation in Lagos, Nigeria through the Wise Management of Solid Waste: The Case of Ikoyi and Victoria Islands. UNESCO Environment and Development in Coastal Regions and Small Islands – Coastal Region and Small Island Papers 12: papers.
51. Fortman, L., and Kusel, J. (1990). New voices, old beliefs: forest environmentalism among the new
    And long-standing rural residents. Journal of Rural Psychology, 214-232.
52. Friends of the Earth. (2004, January). Briefing on Incinerators and Deprivation. Retrieved February 10, 2015, from Friends of the Earth website: www.foe.co.uk.
53. Gabriel, K. (2015). The Role of National Radio in Solid Waste Management in Juba: A Case Study of South Sudan Radio. University of Nairobi, Kenya.
54. Gakungu N. ; Gitau A. N. (2012). Solid waste management in Kenya: a case study of public technical training institutions. Department of Environmental and Biosystems Engineering, University of Nairobi, Kenya.
55. Gasim, A.L. K. (Municipal Solid waste management in Juba City: A case study of Juba City, South Sudan.
56. Gidarakos, E., Havas.G. Ntzamilis, P. (2006). Municipal solid composition determination supporting the integrated solid waste management in the Island of Crete. Waste Management (New York, N.Y) 26(6), & 668-79.doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.05.018.
57. Global Water Intelligence, 2011. South Sudan faces up to its water challenges. Market-Leading Anal. Int. Water Ind.., 12(3).
58. Golafshani, N. (2003), Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research, The Qualitative Report, 8(4). http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol8iss4/6 Accessed 17th march 2020
59. Goven, J.; Langer, E.R. (2009). The potential of public engagement in sustainable waste management: designing the future for bio-solids in New Zealand Journal of Environment Management, 90, 921-930.Doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.02.006
60. Gu, B., Wang, H., Chen, Z., Jiang, S., Zhu, W., Liu, M., … Bi, J. (2015). Characterization, quantification, and management of household solid waste: A case study in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 98, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.03.001
61. Guermoud, N., Ouadjnia, F., Abdelmalek, F., & Taleb, F. (2009). Municipal solid waste in Mostaganem city (Western Algeria). Waste Management, 29(2), 896–902.
62. Henry, R. K., Yongsheng, Z., & Jun, D. (2006). Municipal solid waste management challenges in developing countries: Kenyan case study. Waste Management, 26, 92–100.
63. Hoornweg, D., & Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: A global review of solid waste management (Urban Development Series – Knowledge Papers No. 15). Washington, DC, USA: World Bank.
64. Hufane, M. A. (2015). Challenges Facing Solid Waste Management in Borama Town, Somaliland.
65. Jarry, D. and J. Jarry (1995). Collins Dictionary of Sociology. Glasgow. HarperCollins Publishers
66. JCC, 2013. Draft Waste Recycling Policy, Juba City Council, 2013.
67. JICA report data collection survey on solid waste management in Juba or Wikipedia, Juba, accessed 7 March 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juba.
68. JICA (2010). Preparatory Survey for Integrated Solid Waste Management in Nairobi City in the Republic of Kenya, Draft final report volume 3: Supporting report section H, Financial and Economic aspect.
69. John, G. M. (April, 2017). “Assessment of solid waste management practices in Bor town, South Sudan.
70. L. C. Ladu (2014). Assessment of the Municipal solid waste pollution problem in the Newest County: Case study of Juba, South Sudan
71. Jurczak, M. G. (1997). Ecological Awareness of Nature Teachers in Poland: Kraków: Jagiellonian University.
72. Kaseve, M.E.; Mbulingwe, S. E, (2005). Appraisal of solid waste collection following private sector involvement in Dar el Salaam City, Tanzania. Habitat International. 29, 353-366.
73. Kayode Adekunle Oloko, 2016. Evaluation of Improvement Priorities for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Ogun State, Nigeria, using experiences from Finland.
74. Kayode, A. M., & Omole, F. K. (2011). Some socio-economic factors affecting solid waste generation and disposal in Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Issues and Agriculture in Developing Countries, 3(1), 55–64.
75. KENAO2006, Kenya National Audit Office Specialized Audits, Nairobi: Kenya National Audit Office, Specialized Audits Department, Government of Kenya.
76. Journal of Agriculture Science and Technology, 13(1), 65–78. NEMA. (2015). The National Solid Waste Management Strategy. Nairobi: National Environment Management Authority (NEMA).
77. Kituo cha Sheria, (2010). Report on The Dandora Dumping Site Visit Carried out on 5th March 2010 (Legal Aid & Education Department).
78. Kothari, C. R. (2005). 2nd ed. Research Methodology: Methods and Technology, New Age International Publishers. Pp 40
79. Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W., (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
80. Kungskulniti, N., 1990. Public Health Aspects of a Solid Waste Scavenger Community in
    Thailand, Waste Management & Research 8(2), 167-170.
81. Luzadis, et al. (2002). Towards a More Integrated Ecosystems Model Society and Natural Resources 15: 89-94.
82. Machlis, et. al. (2005). The Structure of Human Ecosystems, V.05.2.
83. Magram, S.F.J.I.J.O.S. and Technology (2011). Worldwide solid waste recycling strategies: a review.” 4(56):692-702.
84. Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: contrasting quantitative and qualitative research, Political Analysis, 14, 227-249.
85. MAJERCAK, J. (2002). “Turning Garbage into Gold, Washington D.C., United States Environmental Protection Agency.” Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
86. Mamady, K. (2016). Factors influencing attitude, safety behavior, and knowledge regarding household waste management in Guinea. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 16 (9), 9305768.
87. Mamady, K; and Hu, G. (2011). A step forward for understanding the morbidity burden in Guinea: A national descriptive study. BMC Public Health, 11, 436.
88. Mamady, K; and Mafoule, S. (2014). Cholera in Guinea: The implications for safe water sources and sanitation. Open Journal of Preventive Medicine, 4, 535-544.s
89. Manaf, L. A., Samah, M. A., & Zukki, N. I. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in Malaysia: Practices and challenges. Waste Management, 29, 2902–2906.
90. Marshall, R.E. & Farahbakhsh, K. (2013). Systems approaches to integrated solid waste management in developing countries. Waste Management. 33,988 – doi: 10.1016/j. wasman.2012.12.023.
91. Maskey, B., Maharjan, K. L., & Singh, M. (2016). Ecological solid waste management act and factors influencing solid waste management in Barangay Pansol of Quezon City, the Philippines. Journal of International Development and Cooperation, 22, 37–45.
92. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative research. 2^nd Edition, Sage Publications, London
93. Mbande, C. (2003). An appropriate approach to measuring waste generation, composition, and density in developing areas. Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, 45, 2-10.
94. McCallister, J. (2015). Factors Influencing Solid Waste Management in the Developing World. Moore, S. A. (2012). Garbage matters: Concepts in new geographies of waste. Progress in Human Geography, 36(6), 780–799.https://doi.org/10. 1177/ 0309 13 2512437077.
95. McDougall, F., White, P., Franke, M., & Hindle, P. (2001). Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Life Cycle Inventory. London: Blackwell Science.
96. Medina, M. (2002). Globalization, Development, and Municipal Solid Waste Management in Third World Cities.
97. Medina, M. (2008). “The Informal Recycling Sector in Developing Countries – Organizing Waste Pickers to enhance their Impact.
98. Minghua, Z., Xiumin, F., Rovetta, A., Qichang H., Vicentini, F., Bingkai, L., & Yi, L. (200). Municipal solid management in Pudong New Area, China. Waste management, 29(3), 1227-1233. Doi: 10.1016 /j. wasman.2008.07.016.
99. Ministry of Environment, 2012. South Sudan National Environment Policy 2012. Government of the Republic of South Sudan, Juba.
100. Monyoncho G.O. (2013). Solid Waste Management in Urban Areas of Kenya: A case study of Lamu Town. Department of Real Estate and Construction Management. University of Nairobi
101. Muche, G. Z. (2016). School Of Graduate Studies Solid Waste Management Practice and Factors Influencing Its Effectiveness. 2016.
102. Mugenda, O. M. & Mugenda, A. G. (2003). Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, (2nd Ed.). Nairobi: Acts Press.
103. Mwaura B. (2015). Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for Kawangware Slum. A research Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning. University of Nairobi (Doctoral dissertation). Print.
104. Nabegu, A.B. (2010). An analysis of municipal solid waste in Kano metropolis, Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 31 (2), 111–119.
105. Nagabooshnam, J.K. (2011). Solid Waste Generation and Composition in Gaborone, Botswana, Potential for resource recovery, Master thesis, Energy and environmental engineering, Department of Management Engineering, Linköping University, Sweden.
106. Nagabooshnam, J.K. (2011). Solid Waste Generation and Composition in Gaborone, Botswana, Potential for resource recovery, Master thesis, Energy and environmental engineering, Department of Management Engineering, Linköping University, Sweden.
107. Najeeb, A. (2014). Institutional theory and human resource management. In H. Hasan (Eds.), Being Practical with Theory: A Window into Business Research (pp. 25-30). Wollongong, Australia: THEO.
108. National Bureau of Statistics, Oct 2014. Population Projections for South Sudan, 2008-2015. (PDF) Juba, South Sudan. Available at http://www.ssnbs.org/statistical-year-book/PDF (30th/Jun/2015).
109. National Environment Management Authority, Kenya (NEMA). (2015). The National Solid Waste Management Strategy. National Environment Management Authority, Nairobi, Kenya. Print.
110. National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA). (2014). Retrieved March 5, 2014, from National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency Web site: http://www.nesrea.org/faq.php.
111. NBS (2015): Population Projections by County: 2015–2020. National Bureau of Statistics. Juba, South Sudan. March 2015.
112. Ndum, A.U. (2013). Bottom-Up Approach to Sustainable Solid Waste Management in African Countries. PhD thesis. Brandenburg University of Technology in Cottbus.
113. Nguyen, P. e. a. (2011). “Assessment of plastics waste generation and its potential recycling of household waste in Can Tho City, Vietnam. “Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 175, No. 1-4: 23-35.
114. Nze, F. C. (1978). “Managing Urban waste in Nigeria for Social and economic development.” Management studies.
115. Ogwueleka, T. C. (2009). Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Nigeria. Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering, 6(3), 173-180.
116. Okot-Okumu, J. (2012). Solid waste management in African cities, East Africa, Waste Management, An Integrated Vision, ISBN: 978-953-51-0795-8, Intech, http://dx.doi.org /10.5772/50241
117. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2014). Greening household behavior: Overview from the 2011 survey – Revised edition (OECD Studies on Environmental Policy and Household Behavior). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787 /9789264214651-en.
118. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe [OSCE]. (2009). Gender and environment: A guide to the integration of gender aspects in the OSCE’s environmental projects. Vienna:
119. Oribe-Garcia, I., Kamara-Esteban, O., Martin, C., Macarulla-Arenaza, A. M., & Alonso Vicario, A. (2015). Identification of influencing municipal characteristics regarding household waste generation and their forecasting ability in Biscay. Waste Management, 39, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.02.017
120. Oxford, 2013. Dictionary of Environmental Conservation, Oxford. Oxford UK.
121. Patton, M. and Cochran, M. (2002) A guide to using qualitative research Methodology in medicines San Frontières, Parish
122. Patton, M. and Cochran, M. (2002) A Guide to Using Qualitative Research Methodology. Médecins Sans Frontières, Paris.
123. Patz, J. A., (2000). “Effects of environmental change on emerging parasitic diseases.” International Journal for Parasitology 30(12-13): 1395-1405.
124. Peter, S.A. (2002). Are the Municipal Solid Waste Management Practices Causing Flooding during the Rainy Season in Accra, Ghana? W Afri J Environ Assess Manage. 4, 56–62.
125. Petts, J. (2000). Municipal waste management: inequities and the role of deliberation. Risk Analysis, 20(6), 821–832.
126. Petts, J., & Edulijee, G. (1994). Environmental Impact Assessment for Waste Treatment. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
127. Piippo S (2012) Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) in sparsely populated Northern areas: Developing an MSWM strategy for the city of Kostomuksha, Russian Federation. Master’s thesis, University of Oulu.
128. Pokhrel, D., & Viraraghavan, T. (2005). Municipal solid waste management in Nepal: Practices and challenges. Journal of Waste Management, 25, 555–562.
129. Qu, X., Li, Z., Xie, X., Sui, Y., Yang, L., & Chen, Y. (2009). Survey of composition and generation rate of household wastes in Beijing, China. Waste Management, 29(10), 2618–2624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.05.014.
130. Raghupathy, L; Krüger, C; Chaturvedi, A; Arora, R; and Henzler, M.P. (2010). E-waste Recycling in India: Bridging the Gap between the Informal and Formal Sector. Available: http: //www.iswa.org/fileadmin/galleries/General%20Assembly%20and%20WC%202010%20 %20Hamburg/Presentations/Krueger.pdf
131. Rajamanikam, R.., Poyyamoli, G., & Kumar, S. (2014). The role of non-governmental organizations in residential solid waste management: A case study of Puducherry, a coastal city of India. Waste Management & Research, 32(9), 867-881.online.
132. Rand, T., Haukohl, J., and Marxen, U. (2000). Municipal Solid Waste Incineration. A Decision Maker’s Guide Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, World Bank.
133. Revenue of the department of Environment and Sanitation for FY 2021/2022, Juba City, South Sudan.
134. Revised Solid Waste Management Master Plan draft November, 2020 (preparatory survey on the Project for Improvement of waste management in Juba, the Republic of South Sudan).
135. Samuel Justin luate, (2015) identifying gaps in solid waste management in juba city minor project thesis submitted by Teri University.
136. Sankoh, F. P., Yan, X., & Conteh, A. M. H. (2012). A situational assessment of socioeconomic factors affecting solid waste generation and composition in Freetown, Sierra Leone. Journal of Environmental Protection, 3, 563–568. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2012.37067.
137. Schubeler, P. (1996). Conceptual framework for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Low Income Countries. United Nations Development Program, UMP Working Paper Series no. 9. St. Gallen, Switzerland: SKAT.
138. Sersgeldin, I., Cohon M., and Sira Ramakrishnan, K. (1994). The Human Face of the Urban Environment: Proceedings of the second annual World Bank conference on Environmentally Sustainable Development held at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C.
139. Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G., & Trivedi, R.C. (2008). Municipal Solid waste management in Indian cities – A review. Waste management, 28(2), 459-467.
140. Singh J, Sai G. Biomass conversion to energy in India a critique. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2010; 14:1367-78.
141. Smith, A. (2014). Older Adults and technology use. Pew Research center. Retrieved from http://wwww.pewinternet.org/2014/04/03/older-adults-and-technology-use/
142. Soukopová, J., Struk, M., & Hiebicek, J. (2016). Population age structure and the cost of municipal waste collection. A case study from the Czech Republic. Journal of Environmental Management, 1-9.
143. Sujauddin, M., Huda, S. M. S., & Hoque, A. T. M. R. (2008). Household solid waste characteristics and management in Chittagong, Bangladesh. Waste Management, 28(9), 1688–1695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.06.013
144. Suocheng, D., Tong, K., & Yuping, Y. (2001). Municipal solid waste management in China: sing commercial management to solve a growing problem. Utilities Policy, 10, 7-11.
145. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management (IJARM), 5, 18-27. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205035
146. Tan ST, Hashim H, Lim JS, Ho WS, Lee CT, Yan J (2014) Energy and emissions benefits of renewable energy derived from municipal solid waste: analysis of a low carbon scenario in Malaysia. Applied Energy 136:797–804.
147. Tan, Y. J. (2012). The management of residential solid waste in Mombasa, Kenya.
148. The European environment (EEA) (2008) Waste state and impacts (Turkey), http:// www. eea. europa. eu/soer/countries/tr/waste-state and-impacts-turkey. 1 June 2015.
149. The Local Government Act 2009. Juba. The Ministry of Local Government, CES. The National Environment Protection Bill, (Draft), 2013. The Ministry of Environment, 2015.
150. The National Environment Protection and Sustainable Development Policy, 2014- 2024. Ministry of Environment, 2014.
151. The National Environment Protection Bill, (Draft), 2013. The Ministry of Environment, 2015.
152. Trang, P. T. T., Dong, H. Q., Toan, D. Q., Hanh, N. T. X., & Thu, N. T. (2017). The effects of socio-economic factors on household solid waste generation and composition: A case study in Thu Dau Mot, Vietnam. Energy Procedia, 107, 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.12.144
153. Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H. and Vigil, S. (1993). Integrated Solid Waste: Engineering principles and management issues. McGraw-Hill Publishing company, USA.
154. Tukahirwa, J. (2011). Civil society in urban sanitation and solid waste management: the role of NGOs and CBOs in metropolises of East Africa. Wageningen University, (Doctoral Dissertation).
155. UNEP, (2005). Selection, design and implementation of economic instruments in: Solid Waste Management, Nairobi.
156. UNEP, (2005): Plastic bag ban in Kenya proposed as part of the new waste
157. UNEP, (2009). Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan- Training Manuals Volume1: Waste Characterization and quantification with Projections for future.
158. UNEP, (2009). Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan- Training Manuals Volume2: Assessment of Current Waste Management System and Gaps therein.
159. UNEP, (2009). Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan- Training Manuals Volume4: ISWM Plan.
160. UNEP, (2009). Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan-Training Manuals Volume3: Targets and issues of Concern for ISWM.
161. UNEP, 2013. Health and Safety Guidelines for Waste Pickers in South Sudan. Available http:// postconflict.unep.ch/publications/UNEP, South Sudan Health and Safety Waste Pickers.pdf.
162. UNEP, 2013. Municipal Solid Waste Composition Analysis Study, Juba, South Sudan. Available at http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/UNEP South Sudan Juba Waste composition 2013.pdf.
163. UNEP, 2013. Preliminary Environmental Assessment. Municipal Solid Waste Open Dump Site. (pdf) Juba, South Sudan. Available athttp://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/ UNEP South Sudan Juba Waste preliminary 2013.pdf.
164. UNEP, 2015 Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM). Process to Develop ISWM Plan. Available at http://apps.unep.org/publications/pmtdocuments/ISWMPlan Vol1.pdf.
165. UNEP, Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. Training manual Volume 2: Assessment of Current Waste Management System and Gaps therein. Osaka/Shiga, Japan. Available at http://www. unep.org/Portals/136/Publications/Waste%20Management/IWM Plan_Vol2.pdf.
166. UNEPA, U.N.E.P.A (2006) Informal Solid Waste Management
167. UNES, (2004) University of Nairobi Enterprises and Services Limited: National Inventory of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) under Stockholm Convention.
168. UNHABITAT, (2010). Collection of municipal solid waste in Developing Countries. London: Gutenberg Press.
169. UNHABITAT, (2010). Solid Management in the World Cities: Water and Sanitation in the World Cities. London: Gutenberg Press.
170. United Nations Human Settlements Programme UN-HABITAT, (2010a). State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011: Bridging the Urban Divide. London: Earthscan.
171. United Nations Human Settlements Programme UN-HABITAT, (2010b). the State of African Cities 2010: Governance Inequality and Urban Land Markets. Nairobi: Earthscan.
172. USEPA U.S.E.P.A (1998). “Municipal Solid Waste Source Reduction: A Snapshot of State Initiative, Washington D.C. “Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
173. USEPA, U.S.E.P.A (2002) Solid waste management: A local challenge well Global Impacts, Washington D.C. “Solid waste and Emergency Response.
174. Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove (2016). Theme Development in Qualitative Content Analysis and Thematic Analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6, 100-110. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v6n5p100.
175. Valkenburg, C; Walton, C.W; Thompson, B.L; Gerber, M.A; Jones, S; and Stevens, D.J. (2008). Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) to Liquid Fuels Synthesis, Volume 1: Availability of Feedstock and Technol. PNNL 18144, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
176. Veolia, C. (2009). “From Waste to Resource: An Abstract of World Waste Survey, Paris.
177. Wagner, T., & Arnold, P. (2006). A new model for solid waste management: an analysis of the Nova Scotia MSW strategy. Journal of cleaner production, 16, 410-421.doi: 10.1016/ j. jclepro. 2006.08.016.
178. Wangatia M.V. (2013). Socioeconomic implications of solid waste management practices on participating Households, Kenya.
179. Watson, D. (2013). Municipal Waste Management in the United Kingdom. Retrieved March
     25, 2015, from European Environment Agency Web site: eea.europa.eu/ waste/united-kingdom-municipal-waste-management.
180. Wilson C, David, (2006). Role of informal sector recycling in waste management in developing countries. Habitat International, 30 (2006), pp. 797-808.
181. Wilson, D., Rodic, L., Scheinberg, A., Velis, C., and Alabaster, G. (2012). “Comparative Analysis of Solid Waste Management in 20 Cities.” Waste Management & Research. Who (2004). “Health care waste management.” fact sheet
182. World Bank (1999) what a waste: solid waste management in Asia. Urban waste management, Page no 20, Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A
183. World Bank. (2012). What A Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. World Bank.
184. Xiang, Y. L., et al., (2019). “Study of the effect mechanism of municipal solid waste gasification conditions on the production of H-2 and CO using modeling technique.” Journal of Environmental Management 230.
185. Xu, L., Lin, T., Xu, Y., Xiao, L., Ye, Z., & Cui, S. (2016). Path analysis of factors influencing household solid waste generation: A case study of Xiamen Island, China. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 18(2), 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-014-0340-0.
186. Yadav, I. C., Devi, N. L., & Singh, S. (2010). Evaluating financial aspects of municipal solid waste management in Mysore Evaluating financial aspects of municipal solid waste management in Mysore City, India Ishwar Chandra Yadav Ningombam Linthoingambi Devi Surendra Singh, (January). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJETM.2010.038009.
187. Yunus, M., and Kadir, K. (2003). The development of solid waste treatment technology based on refuse derived fuel and bio gasification integration. International Symposium on Renewab.
188. Zurbrugg, C. (2003). Urban Solid Waste Management in Low-income Countries of Asia, how to Cope with the Garbage Crisis, Available in the website: http;//www.sandec (Retrieved on 22nd March, 2009.