Status of Household Solid Waste Management and Associated Factors in a Slum Community in Kampala, Uganda

Table 2

Solid waste management practices at household level.

Variables	Frequency (n = 395)	Percentage (%)
Possession of a solid waste storage container (n = 395)
Yes	339	85.8
No	56	14.2
Type of solid waste storage receptacle used (n = 339)
Plastic bin	36	10.6
Sacs	209	61.7
Polythene bags	63	18.6
Other containers like paper bags and metallic bins	31	9.1
Solid waste storage container which minimises nuisances (n = 339)
Yes	245	72.9
No	94	27.1
Waste storage containers not overfilled (n = 339)
Yes	247	72.9
No	92	27.1
Flies and other vectors not seen around the container (n = 339)
Yes	220	64.9
No	119	35.1
Categories of wastes generated (n = 395)
Biodegradable materials (food remains and vegetation)	224	56.7
Ashes and dust	116	29.4
Paper and cardboard	22	5.6
Plastics	10	2.5
Unclassified debris like wood/leather	23	5.8
Solid waste was segregated (n = 395)
Yes	84	21.3
No	311	78.7
Transportation of solid waste to collection point (n = 395)
On the head	105	26.6
Wheel barrow	49	12.4
Truck	26	6.6
Pulling the sac	215	54.4
Distance to the nearest collection site (metres) (n = 375)
<10	238	63.5
10–20	49	13.1
20–30	31	8.3
>30	57	15.2
Entity collecting waste (n = 395)
City authority	292	73.9
Private companies	51	12.9
Not collected	28	7.1
Do not know	24	6.1
Paid for solid waste collection (n = 395)
Yes	130	32.9
No	265	67.1
Cost of solid waste collection in a week (n = 130)
Less than 1 United States dollars (USD)	121	93.1
Above 1 USD	09	6.9
Aware of waste management laws
Yes	195	49.4
No	200	50.6
Knew the dangers of poor solid waste management
Yes	275	69.6
No	120	30.4
Status of household solid waste management (n = 395)
Improper	232	58.7
Proper	163	41.3

Variables used in calculating scores on the practices on solid waste management at households.