Page 1 of 31
European Journal of Applied Sciences – Vol. 11, No. 4
Publication Date: August 25, 2023
DOI:10.14738/aivp.114.15405
Simwambi, A., Kapembwa, M. A., & Kapanda, K. (2023). Effects of Poor Solid Waste Management on Faecal Sludge Emptying,
Treatment and Disposal Services in Lusaka. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(4). 330-360.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Effects of Poor Solid Waste Management on Faecal Sludge
Emptying, Treatment and Disposal Services in Lusaka
Aubrey Simwambi
BORDA Zambia and University of Zambia
Mwila Angela Kapembwa
BORDA Zambia
Kapanda Kapanda
Lusaka Sanitation Project and University of Zambia
ABSTRACT
High urbanization rates but deficient basic service provision facilities in Zambian
towns presents major challenges for municipalities in the collection, recycling,
treatment and disposal of increasing quantities of produced human waste. Due to
lack of proper functional systems for the management of solid waste in some Peri- urban areas (PUAs) of the city, some solid waste is disposed in some sanitation
containment systems. Existing solid waste management practices in most PUA’s
includes the throwing of waste in pit latrines. About 22 percent by weight of sludge
emptied from latrines in Lusaka is solid waste. This solid waste possesses negative
effects on efforts to improve sanitation access for people in PUA’s; especially on the
improvement of faecal sludge management (FSM) services from emptying to
treatment and the end use or disposal of sludge products. This is because contained
solid waste in sludge has made it difficult for pit-emptier’s and treatment plant
operators to effectively empty and treat pit latrine sludge respectively due to
cumbersome tasks of separating the waste from the sludge. Therefore, current
methods for pit emptying remain mostly manual. Field performance tests on three
pit latrine emptying technologies tested in Lusaka showed that none of the current
innovative technologies offer any advantage over the currently used manual
emptying methods (i.e., the use of an elongated scoopers). The failure of innovative
pit emptying machines in sludge emptying entails there is need for households to
stop current practices of waste management through disposal in pit latrines,
otherwise proper sanitation services shall not be attained at household levels
especially where need for emptying is required. The study explores the effects that
solid waste presents on sanitation especially in FSM interventions from sludge
emptying, treatment, reuse and disposal and recommends measures for FSM to
have successful outcomes in accessible, affordable, and hygienic service provision.
Keywords: Solid waste, sanitation, faecal sludge, peri-urban, emptying
Page 2 of 31
331
Simwambi, A., Kapembwa, M. A., & Kapanda, K. (2023). Effects of Poor Solid Waste Management on Faecal Sludge Emptying, Treatment and Disposal
Services in Lusaka. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(4). 330-360.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.114.15405
INTRODUCTION
Waste can be defined as solids and liquids that are discarded as useless or unwanted and arise
from human and animal activities [1]. And as waste is a universal consequence of most human
activities, has a link to population, urbanization and affluence [2]; [3]; [4]. Most human activities
generate a certain amount of solid waste hence making it inevitable by nature. Solid waste can
be any garbage, refuse, or sludge and other discarded material, including solid or semisolids
resulting from domestic, industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations [5]; [6].
The composition of solid waste varies from country to country depending on the economic
situation, industrial structure, waste management regulations and life style and the generation
rates also tally according to conditions [7]. In solid waste, waste generated from households,
shops, supermarkets, and open market places are termed as municipal waste and semi-solid
waste can be described in the form of human excreta. Municipal waste is disposed either in
landfills, open dumpsites or incinerators [8] and human excreta is either conveyed through
centralized sewer systems or managed through decentralized containment and treatment
systems. Most developing countries experience poor waste collection and management and this
leads to indiscriminate dumping of the waste – negatively impacting public health [9]; [10].
With increasing population, prosperity and urbanization especially in developing countries,
collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of increasing quantities of waste is a major
challenge for municipalities. The upsurge in population, high urbanization rates, and economic
development have resulted in increased human waste production henceforth overloading
current waste management systems [11]. Waste generation in developing countries has been
increasing enormously at an average annual rate of 8.96% [12]. To exasperate the condition,
the waste sector in developing countries has not been able to provide adequate and sustainable
waste management services to the citizens [13]. In African cities, the rapid urbanization rates
imply a rapid accumulation of unwanted waste material [4] and poor sanitation conditions.
Sanitation is defined as “the provision of facilities and services for the safe disposal of human
urine and feces. It also refers to the maintenance of hygienic conditions, through services such
as garbage collection and wastewater disposal [14].
In Zambia, about 40 percent of the population live in urban areas hence it is marked as one of
the fastest urbanizing cities in Sub-Saharan Africa [15]. The rapid urbanization results in the
formation of low-income settlements known as peri-urban areas (PUAs). They are
characterized with inadequate access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services, poor
quality of housing, overcrowding or high population density and insecure residential status.
These areas account for the highest number of Zambia’s urban population and form a major
feature of the country’s cities landscape [16]. The rapid increase of population has exerted
pressure on infrastructure and this has resulted in many complex problems regarding
settlement, solid and liquid waste management. Lusaka’s (the capital city of Zambia) population
is expected to grow by 4.9% per annum to reach approximately five million people by 2035.
The generation of solid waste is on the rise in the city of Lusaka due to this rapid increase in
population, changing life styles and popularity of fast foods and disposable utensils. Only a
fraction of this generated solid waste is collected and disposed at designated sites. Despite the
existence of various efforts on solid waste collection, still the quantity of solid waste collected
is small compared to the solid waste generated. The remaining uncollected solid waste is
managed on-site by households, left on the streets, at roadsides and/ or in drainages. Between
Page 3 of 31
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 332
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 4, August-2023
1996 and 2011, the annual average amount of solid waste increased from 220, 000 tons
recorded to 530, 000 tons respectively, an increase of 141% [17]. Therefore, solid waste
management has become a major concern for the city of Lusaka. The problem is not only in
Lusaka but also in unplanned settlements in other Sub-Saharan cities like Dar-es-Salaam where,
ineffective solid waste collection is contributed to by haphazard solid waste disposal highly
contributing towards environmental pollution. Solid waste in urban areas is generated by
domestic sources, street sweeping, hospitals, commercial and industrial activities [18]. The
resulting effect is that the task of managing solid waste has become an enormous challenge for
the institutions charged with the responsibility of solid waste management [19]. Limitations on
solid waste service delivery are mostly affected by inter alia: financial constraints [20];
technical factors [21]; [22], inadequate service coverage and operational inefficiencies of
services [23]; [21]. Others include unwillingness of the users to pay for the solid waste
collection services [24]; [25] and poor infrastructures [21]; [7]. These reportages indicate that,
due to these constraints most of the wastes generated within municipalities are inadequately
collected and managed thereby causing a serious contribution to environmental deterioration
and public health risks especially in the peri-urban areas and adjoining high density areas.
Improving access to sanitation is one of the most effective means to improve public health [10].
It is reported that only about 63.3 percent of Zambia’s population in urban areas had access to
acceptable sanitation [26]. To increase access to sanitation services for the residents of Lusaka,
faecal sludge (FS) management services especially in the PUAs, have been under establishment
since 2012 to service households using on-site sanitation (OSS). Although there are
encouraging successes in Chazanga and Kanyama areas where faecal sludge management
(FSM) services were first introduced in 2012, the FSM services have however been facing
immerse challenges. The frequency of total sludge collection in terms of pit latrine and septic
tanks emptying, treatment and disposal is so far not known, but it is unquestionably still low
for the formal pit emptiers. The Lusaka Sanitation Mapping Assessment (LSMA) in 2018
established that only about 52% of the latrines are emptied when they fill up and owners of the
housing units (landlords) are almost exclusively responsible for organizing the emptying while
46% are replaced or their contents emptied into pits dug adjacent to them. Therefore, the
challenge of developing affordable, accessible and hygienic services to most of the poor is yet
to be fully overcome. This study aims to show the consequences of poor solid waste
management services on sanitation particularly on faecal sludge management (FSM) along the
sanitation service chain in the city of Lusaka. It takes a particular focus on the types of sanitation
facilities in the city and the effects of disposal of solid waste into sanitation facilities and how
this affects sanitation service delivery in the emptying, treatment and disposal of faecal along
the FSM service chain. It also explores challenges that SWM possess in the professionalization
of FSM services and the subsequent hindrance to the promotion of public health by the
improper management of solid waste at household level. It analyses challenges faced by pit
emptiers and pit emptying equipment in pit latrine emptying, the challenges faced during the
treatment of sludge into safe products at the treatment plant and the effects solid waste has on
treated and processed sludge products on their end use or in disposal processes. The specific
objectives in the research are to quantify the average amount of solid waste that is found in
sludge pits during emptying of faecal sludge; evaluate sludge emptying technologies which can
operate effectively with the current conditions and quantities of solid waste in pit latrines in
Page 4 of 31
333
Simwambi, A., Kapembwa, M. A., & Kapanda, K. (2023). Effects of Poor Solid Waste Management on Faecal Sludge Emptying, Treatment and Disposal
Services in Lusaka. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(4). 330-360.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.114.15405
Lusaka; and it provides recommendations on an alternative solid waste management method
to avoid solid waste being dumped in the sanitation facilities.
METHODS
Study Sites
The case study area is Lusaka city, the capital of Zambia which has a total surface area of
360km2 with an average population density of 7,017 people/km2 [27]. Lusaka is sited on a flat
plateau with a mild slope as low as 0.2%. Consequently, most areas of the city experience
localized but often extensive flooding during the rainy season. Rocks underlying the City of
Lusaka consist of schists interbedded with quartzite’s and dominated by thick and extensive
sequences of marbles (Lusaka Dolomites or Lusaka Limestone). The Lusaka dolomite consists
of an integrated and well-developed system of conduits and solution channels. Most of the City
also lacks artificial drainage systems hence in times of heavy rainfall, severe localized flooding
occurs which results in disruption of access to social services, property damage, increased
vulnerability to disease outbreaks and even loss of life [28]. The city has about 33 peri-urban
areas and these peri-urban areas have little access to adequate sanitation services as well as
have poorly developed public health infrastructure. About 90 percent of peri-urban households
use pit latrines for their wastewater sanitation needs. Most of pits in these areas can be
classified as “unimproved” according to the Joint Monitoring Program’s sanitation ladder [29];
[28]. The other 10 percent of peri-urban residents use septic tanks, or cesspools and in some
densely populated areas there are isolated cases of open defecation (estimated at 1-2 percent)
[30]; [28]. in addition, 60 percent of Lusaka’s water supply is derived from fairly shallow
groundwater abstracted within the city, which is prone to contamination through fissures in
the underlying rock [28]. This leads to deadly breakouts of water-borne diseases such as
cholera and typhoid, which results in thousands of infections and hundreds of deaths [31].
The study was done in four out of the 33 PUAs of Lusaka namely Chazanga, George, Chawama,
and Kanyama. The four PUA’s were chosen for the study as they entirely rely on on-site
sanitation and have had access to established FSM services the inception of services in the city
in 2012 [32]. In all the four PUAs, SWM services are provided by Community Based Enterprises
(CBEs) – these are individuals or a group of individuals engaged by the city council’s waste
management unit to collect waste from households to a central’s location for transportation to
the dumpsite by private companies [33]. However, due to failures by the engaged CBEs to
provide adequate services to some low-income neighborhoods, informal sanitation service
providers often fill the gap in service provision particularly for pit emptying.
• Chazanga is a peri-urban unplanned settlement located about 7.5 km north of the city
center. Chazanga covers an estimated area 24 km2, with a population density of
approximately 9,361 people/ km2 with an average sharing of 15 people per single pit
latrine facility [34]. Chazanga is a mixture of big smallholding/farm plots in the north
and typical high density shanty compound properties in the south. The high property
development occurs in the northern part where there is bare land. Chazanga Water
Trust is mandated to provide water and sanitation services to Chazanga. The Trust
operates a number of boreholes located within the areas. Chazanga Water Trust operate
a Faecal Sludge Management (FSM) facility which used to receive and treat faecal sludge
from pit latrines. The facility however is none functional due to inadequacy and
maintenance challenges. The pit emptying services are run by the Water Trust.
Page 5 of 31
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 334
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 4, August-2023
• George is a peri-urban settlement located 13 kilometres north-west of the city centre.
George PUA covers an estimated area of 2.05 km2, with a population density of
approximately 31,000 people/ km2 [34]. It is a peri-urban sprawl of substandard
housing units. Most residents of George Compound depend on pit latrines for faecal
containment with most poorly built and shared by households. There are a few VIP and
flush toilets connected to individual septic tanks. Some parts of the settlement are
water-logged and in turn regular flooding is experienced during the rainy season. This
situation causes pit latrines to overflow, emptying their contents to road drains and
water sources, thereby causing serious health and environmental problems. Flooding
also causes pit latrines and houses to collapse. Water supply to the area is provided by
LWSC through stand taps and water kiosks with a few individual connections. At the
time of the study, there were no formal providers for FSM services in the area.
• Chawama is a peri-urban settlement located about four (4) kilometres south of the city
centre. Chawama covers an estimated area of 4.08 km2, with a population density of
approximately 30,984 people/ km2 [34]. The houses in Chawama are arranged into
sections with passable roads in between. However, the structures are generally poorly
built. They are very close to each other and some share sanitation facilities. Most people
in Chawama use pit latrines for faecal sanitation. Only few houses have septic tanks.
Most of the pit latrines are shared by a number of households, and hence fill up fairly
quickly. The area is subject to flooding during the rainy season due to poor or non- existent drainage infrastructure and poorly drained soils. The flooding often leads to
contents of toilets being washed away into natural ground and surface water courses,
leading to outbreaks of waterborne diseases such as cholera and dysentery. Water
Supply to the area is provided by LWSC through stand taps and water kiosks with a few
individual connections. At the time of the study, there were no formal providers for FSM
services in the area.
• Kanyama is located on the western side of Lusaka city center, approximately 7km from
the central business district (CBD). Kanyama covers an estimated area of 14.25 square
kilometers, with a population density of approximately 13,800 people/ squared
kilometer [34]. It is the biggest, most highly built and densely populated PUA in Lusaka
as its residents are primarily migrants from the rural areas coming to seek for
employment opportunities in the city. Kanyama sits on Lusaka city’s main aquifer and
the aspect of its predominant reliance on on-site sanitation threatens the safety of water
resources [28]. The PUA has Kanyama Water Trust (KWT) which provides water supply
and FSM services to the residents offering sludge empting services in the area and its
surrounding communities, under a delegated management contract with LWSC. It is the
first PUA were LWSC introduced FSM services in 2012 [32].
Some of the other peri-urban areas were secluded out of the study as they have wastewater
sewer line implementation projects underway and some are ear-marked for installation of
sewer systems in the nearest future. Therefore, toilet mapping for improved on-site sanitation
service provision in these areas was not necessary as residents will connect to the sewer system
and the pit latrines will be decommissioned and on-site sanitation service provision will not be
offered.
Page 7 of 31
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 336
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 4, August-2023
to collect data on the solid waste handling and disposal practices of households in the three
mentioned peri-urban areas, solid waste collection frequency by waste collectors, cost of solid
waste collection and disposal services and a description of the service providers. The mapping
of the facilities and features was done using questionnaires as data collection tools. The
questionnaires were coded and loaded onto hand held data collection devices and the collection
was done using a mobile mapping and data collection application TruField. TruField is a data
collection application that launches directly from OpenDataKit (ODK) – an open-source
software for collecting, managing, and using data in resource-constrained environments. The
application allows both online and offline base maps that are used for location and also
collecting data at the exact feature. The application also allows field papers to be embedded
directly. TruField data application collects survey questions which are geo-tagged with a point
or polygon. To improve locational accuracy, georeferenced and digitized base maps were
loaded in the mapping application. This eliminated positional errors by combining GPS
positioning capabilities of the handheld GPS with visual observation of the feature being
mapped (on the basemap) so that the mapped feature is placed at the exact location. All the
base maps used were georeferenced to Arc 1950, the coordinate and datum system suitable for
use in Zambia.
The data collected during the mapping exercise included location coordinate of sanitation
facilities, type of facility, features of the facility, number of users, owner contact details, and
information on operations and maintenance of the sanitation facility. In addition, water points,
solid-waste dump sites, educational facilities health facilities and commercial places were also
mapped to supplement the toilet data [34]. The idea was to pick all the relevant features
required to create thematic maps that, not only depict the sanitation facilities, but also the
spatial characteristics of the project areas. This data is intended for use by many stakeholders
in the sanitation sub-sector, including public service providers (LWSC, Council, and Water
Trusts etc.), regulators (NWASCO, Ministry of Water Development, Sanitation and
Environmental Protection etc.) and private service providers (Vacuum Tanker operator etc)
[34]. For the purpose of this research, the mapping of toilets, water points and solid waste
dumping sites was used and is summarized in Table 1 below. The total number of facilities
mapped in all the project areas was 29,650 with 23,125 being toilets; 6147 water points while
the solid waste dump sites were 378. The mapping was done with four (4) teams – a team per
PUA. The number of enumerators per team differed among the areas depending on the size of
the area. The Chazanga team had twelve (12) enumerators, the George team had 6 enumerators,
while the Chawama Team had thirteen (13) enumerators. The total number of enumerators
was 31. Each area was divided into sizable sub-areas equal in number to the number of
enumerators in the team. Each enumerator was assigned a distinct area and asked to map all
the toilets in that particular area. The location data processing was done using a combination
of different software including QGIS, ArcGIS and OpenStreetMap.
Table 1: Mapped Facilities studied on OSS in three per-urban compounds of Lusaka
Area Chawama Chazanga George Total
Household Sanitation Facilities 5,927 13,189 4,009 23,125
Community Water Points 1,227 4,101 819 6,147
Solid Waste Disposal Sites 103 116 159 378
Total number of mapped facilities 7,257 17,406 4,987 29,650
Page 11 of 31
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 340
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 4, August-2023
RESULTS
The collected data from the study was analyzed quantitatively and the results were segmented
according to three stages of the sanitation service chain – capture, storage and emptying,
presenting all the findings of the methodologies for each stage and accompanying challenges
presented by solid waste.
Sludge Capture & Storage and Solid Waste Management
A total of 16,500 toilets were surveyed in the mapping of sanitation facilities in Kanyama all of
which were on-site sanitation facilities. From this, 12,000 toilets of the mapped facilities were
found to be pit latrines of varying quality, including Ventilated Improved Pits (VIP), lined and
unlined pits, and disused and/or buried pits and the remaining 4500 were pour flush facilities
connected a treatment facility such as a septic tank (Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor,
2018). The mapping signified that 73% of sanitation facilities in the PUAs are pit latrines. In the
second sanitation mapping exercise for Chazanga, Chawama and George, Table 2 shows the
types of toilets found in the project areas.
Table 2: On-Site sanitation facilities and their attributes in three study PUA's of Lusaka
Toilet Type Chawama Chazanga George Grand Total %
Flushing toilets 391 2088 188 2667 12%
Ordinary pit latrines 4963 9545 3330 17838 77%
Pour flush toilets 451 1050 412 1913 8%
UDDT toilets 5 46 19 70 0%
VIP latrine 117 460 60 637 3%
Grand Total 5927 13189 4009 23125 100%
Lined 4597 7523 3102 15222 66%
Unlined 610 2909 532 4051 18%
Septic Tank and Soak away 720 2757 375 3852 17%
Grand Total 5927 13189 4009 23125 100%
The results showed that approximately 80% of surveyed household population in the PUA’s
rely on pit latrines of which the majority 77% are ordinary pits and 3% are VIP latrines. The
remaining 20% use flush systems which are either full or pour flush connected to either a septic
tank or a cesspit. For sub-structure facilities, 83% of the containment facilities are lined and
out of which 66% are pit latrines and the other 17% are either septic tanks or soak ways. The
remaining 18% were unlined earth pits. The low levels of water water-borne toilets in study
areas were attributed to low water accessibility levels as water supply is either not there or
reported to be erratic. Figure 1 shows graphical presentation of the predominant methods of
faecal management by households in three of the four PUA’s in which the study was done.
Page 14 of 31
343
Simwambi, A., Kapembwa, M. A., & Kapanda, K. (2023). Effects of Poor Solid Waste Management on Faecal Sludge Emptying, Treatment and Disposal
Services in Lusaka. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(4). 330-360.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.114.15405
Table 4: Sludge emptying service levels by formalized service groups in PUA's of Lusaka
Kanyama Water Trust FSTP Chazanga Water Trust FSTP
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017 No of pits Vol (m3) No of pits vol (m3) No of pits vol (m3) No of pits Vol (m3) No of pits Vol (m3) No of pits Vol (m3) No of pits Vol (m3) No of pits vol (m3) No of pits
vol (m3)
JAN _ _ 32 36.72 40 56.16 28 38.4 _ _ _ _ 7 7.68 12 30.72 18 24.48
FEB 12 15.36 45 10.32 14 25.44 _ _ 57 82.32 _ _ 7 14.64 21 40.32 15 20.88
MAR 36 47.52 31 32.64 25 29.76 _ _ 21 29.04 _ _ 11 21.36 29 15.12 22 31.68
APR 39 45.6 28 55.44 18 46.8 _ _ 24 28.32 _ _ 16 31.44 11 1.44 24 34.32
MAY 31 33.6 42 51.36 33 40.32 _ _ 20 27.12 _ _ 25 21.12 1 3.36 32 43.92
JUN 32 38.16 28 37.44 36 46.08 _ _ 17 24.48 _ _ 17 36.48 2 8.4 _ _
JUL 36 38.88 44 60.48 16 19.68 _ _ _ _ _ _ 28 38.64 5 20.4 _ _
AUG 27 29.52 46 56.88 7 5.76 _ _ _ _ 13 18.48 29 19.2 16 43.92 _ _
SEPT 45 53.52 58 80.16 33 41.76 34 52.56 _ _ 6 6.48 16 44.64 27 51.36 _ _
OCT 47 52.08 56 77.52 35 43.44 62 88.08 _ _ 14 13.2 33 42.48 31 54.24 _ _
NOV 56 64.32 57 75.36 29 38.16 54 67.2 _ _ 15 15.84 32 46.08 37 39.6 _ _
DEC 30 37.68 43 53.04 25 32.88 _ _ _ _ 12 12.96 37 15.84 29 24.72 _ _
Avg 36 41 43 52 26 36 45 62 28 38 12 13 22 28 18 28 22 31
Figure 4: Sludge Service levels by the Water trusts in Lusaka by percentage by percentage
Emptying containment facilities for equal sludge volumes but containing solid waste was
reported to take twice as much time compared to pits with no solid waste in them. This was
attributed to the fact that pits with solid waste required additional tools and processes for the
removal of the sludge and solid waste together. However, the required time for emptying varied
from pit to pit depending on the quantity of solid waste contained in the sludge being emptied.
To easy the removal of sludge containing solid waste from containment facilities, manual pit
emptying teams add water into facilities during the pit emptying process. This is done in order
to liquefy the content of pits and for ease of scooping the sludge emptied from the facilities. A
60 liters barrel of fresh water is added into the pit for every six barrels of 60 liters of sludge to
be emptied translating to 16% of the total volume of FS to emptied to be fresh water added for
2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
11 12 12 4 5 5
12 12 5
36 43
26 45
28
12
22 18 22
1.17
1.23
1.37
1.38
1.38
1.12
1.32 1.51 1.40
41.48
52.28
35.52
61.56
38.26
13.39
28.30 27.80 31.06
1.89
2.38
1.61
2.80
1.74
0.61
1.29 1.26 1.41
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017
Kanyama Water Trust FSTP Chazanga
Average volume
of sludge Emptied
daily
Average sludge
volume Emptied
Monthly
Average Volume
of sludge emptied
per pit
Average No of
pits Emptied
Monthly
Months of
Operation per
year
Page 23 of 31
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 352
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 4, August-2023
The sludge reaching the treatment plant needs to be separated out of the solid waste for it to
be treated according to the required sludge product. At the two existing faecal sludge plants in
Lusaka, solid waste is separated from the faecal waste in two receiving bays by means of
vertical steel meshes placed between receiving bays at the inlets. This solid waste separation
mechanism has been observed to work effectively, though small particles of solid waste find
themselves in the treatment facilities. The trapped solid waste is then removed from the
receiving bays using a garden fork and is immediately put into a barrel (same as used for pit
emptying) before being taken to solid waste drying racks. At this time the solid waste still
contains a substantial amount of faecal waste and is very watery, and the use of a barrel does
not allow for drainage of liquids before being placed on the racks. The collected solid waste is
spread out to dry on the racks for an average of about seven days. As the solid waste still
contains a substantial amount of water and organic waste when it is dumped on site, it thus
requires a long drying time and results in a substantial amount of solid waste accumulating on
site, creating untidy conditions at the transfer station site. However, it has been observed that
before the sludge is completely dried, it is put in plastic bags. This stops the solid waste from
drying thoroughly and thus the bags are heavier than necessary. Particularly in the dry season,
the material should be completely dried in the sun. In addition to making the material lighter
and easier to handle, this also provides disinfection. Sometimes, barrels from containment
facilities mainly containing solid waste are emptied directly on the grounds of the treatment
facilities and spread out to dry. This solid waste still has a substantial amount of organic matter
remaining.
The separated and measured wet weight of the solid waste at the treatment plants still contains
faecal contaminated of organic matter as not all the organics could be washed out and treated.
It thus requires a long drying time and this presents a daily accumulative solid waste at the site
creating untidy conditions at the transfer station site. To create space at the drying bay area
some solid waste is packages in bags before it completely dries and this this prevents the solid
waste from drying thoroughly and thus the bags are heavier than necessary. Particularly in the
dry season, the material should be completely dried in the sun to make the material lighter and
easier to handle for disposal and this also provides disinfection.
And in the need to properly manage the dry solid waste at the treatment plant, FTSP managers
highlighted that about 5% of pit emptying generated income is used in properly managing and
disposing the solid waste at the municipal dumpsite. The resources are used to buy bags in
which the dried solid waste is placed in wait for transportation to the dumpsite and in hiring a
truck for the transportation of the packed solid waste to the dumpsite. On an average, a sack is
required to package solid waste coming from a cubic meter of sludge and each bag costs the
service about USD 0.08 and the transportation of the waste to the dumpsite costs about USD 55
for a truck load of about 40 bags thereby bringing the monthly total cost attributed to solid
waste handling and dumping to approximately USD 58. However, the dumping of solid waste
from sludge treatment plants at the municipal dumpsite brings is a public health challenge and
concern as there are scavengers at the dumpsite who try to pick out items for sale to
unsuspecting residents of Lusaka. These scavengers are exposed to faecal contaminated waste
as they do not usually care to know the source of the waste. And in times the waste is disposed
at locations where trucks from supermarkets also dispose their waste, high levels of
contamination are brought onto the scavengers as they could pick and consume food stuffs
Page 24 of 31
353
Simwambi, A., Kapembwa, M. A., & Kapanda, K. (2023). Effects of Poor Solid Waste Management on Faecal Sludge Emptying, Treatment and Disposal
Services in Lusaka. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(4). 330-360.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.114.15405
right there and then. Some of the food stuffs might also find its way into the communities where
it could be consumed and thereby igniting epidemics.
CONCLUSION
A cornerstone of sustainable development in developing countries is the establishing of
affordable, effective and truly sustainable waste management practices. Solid waste is found in
most pit latrines due to social behavior trends of dealing with solid waste in most communities
and the lack of a functional system for the collection and management of municipal solid waste.
Cultural myths especially when it comes to menstrual hygiene products and baby products also
lead to the containment of solid waste in sanitation facilities. Myths lead to menstrual hygiene
products and baby diapers finding themselves thrown into sanitation systems. The contained
solid waste provides challenges for pit-emptiers in separating it from the faecal sludge during
sludge emptying from containment facilities. The results from the studies reveal that high
amounts of waste are prevalent in areas lacking solid waste management services provided by
either community-based organizations or the municipality. The study show that high volumes
of solid waste are emptied from pit latrines while flush system containment facilities mostly
contain menstrual hygiene products due to their consideration of them being a taboo to be
openly seen. Therefore, most households either throw them in toilets, burn them or bury them
with the easiest option being to throw into sanitation facilities. The challenges brought about
by improper solid waste management methods bargain those methods for pit emptying will
remain mostly manual and haulage to treatment facilities will always be tedious and expensive.
The lack of success by innovative pit emptying machines and the need for them to have high
suction power and diluted sludge before emptying begs the need for households to stop the
trend of waste management through pits otherwise proper sanitation services shall not be
attained at household levels especially wherever the need for emptying is required. The
presence of solid waste also means that there is a high risk of contamination of the operators
both during emptying and at the treatment plant and also further risk the ignition of an
epidemic in communities near municipal solid waste dump site. The FSM approach in the areas
surveyed PUA’s of Lusaka shows potential for a sustainable business opportunity however
further analysis to develop an appropriate business model which also approaches and
considers the proper management of solid waste at household. The model will require the
incorporation of appropriate technologies for the containment facilities, collection,
transportation and treatment of both faecal sludge and solid waste. Therefore, for sanitation
especially in FSM interventions to have a successful outcome, accessible, affordable, and
hygienic service provision in solid waste in PUA households has to attained. And for this to be
successful aspects of solid waste management policies, strategies and plans have to be
established and be embraced by all stakeholders.
RECOMMENDATION
Sanitation is one of the basic determinants of quality of life and human development index. It is
a fundamental requirement to ensure safe health, environment and the overall wellbeing of
society. Unless proper, functional sanitation facilities are in use and complemented with the
right types of hygiene behaviors, communities will be vulnerable to recurrent incidences of
water and sanitation-related diseases. From the above case study, it is recommended that
awareness on solid waste management must be enhanced in all communities especially for
them to stop the disposal of solid waste in on-site sanitation facilities as the solid waste can
Page 25 of 31
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 354
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 4, August-2023
come back into the community and ignite a public health emergency. However, solid waste
management and sanitation campaigns in communities must be run in parallel with waste
collection service e delivery. Lusaka City Council (LCC) should also develop a sustainable waste
management strategy to deal with consistent garbage collection and emptying of septic tanks
and pit latrines especially in peri urban areas. Marketing of formal and proper onsite sanitation
services should be done as matter of urgency. This will provide residents with an option to deal
with pit latrines that are full. Therefore, for FSM interventions to have a successful outcome in
PUA of Lusaka, aspects of solid waste Policy and Planning have to be established and Waste
Management Strategies or Plans have to be embraced by all stakeholders. It must however be
emphasized that multiple public health, safety and environmental co-benefits accrue from
effective waste practices which concurrently reduce GHG emissions and improve the quality of
life, promote public health, prevent water and soil contamination, conserve natural resources
and provide renewable energy benefits [37] . In order to ensure sustainability and great benefit
for the beneficiaries; it’s important that the key players who have the responsibility for service
provision have adequate capacity in terms of human capital and equipment. It is therefore
recommended for LCC, the national Water and Sanitation Council (NWASCO) to work with the
Zambia Bureau of Standards and the Lusaka Province Planning Authority (LPPA) and develop
standards for lined and other improved latrines/containments that do not allow human
waste/faecal sludge to be in contact with the environment before it’s properly treated. In order
to improve the knowledge and attitudes of the population on sanitation and hygiene matters,
there should be extensive awareness campaigns. This should be done way before the rainy
season in order to avert the annual cholera outbreaks; the campaigns should to be done in the
familiar language so that most residents can get the intended message. Furthermore, there is
need to conduct periodic knowledge, attitude and practices study to ascertain adoption of safe
hygiene and sanitation practices by the residents. The Lusaka City Council (LCC) together with
other partners such as the ministry of health should also intensify public health inspections to
ensure residents and business owners are compliant with safe hygiene and sanitation practices.
References
[1] S. H. Pearvy, R. D. Rowe and G. Tchobanoglaous, Environmental Engineering, New York: Mcgraw Hill, 1985.
[2] H. Daniel and B. T. Perinaz, "What a Waste in: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management.," Scientific
Research Publishing Inc, no. 15, 2012.
[3] Productivity Commission Inquiry, "Productivity Commission Inquiry Report No 36, 2006.," Waste
Management., no. 36, 2006.
[4] S. A. Ahmed and M. Ali , "People as partners: Facilitating people's participation in public–private
partnerships for solid waste managemen," habitat International, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 781-796, 2005.
[5] S. Abul, "Environmental and health impact of solid waste disposal at Mangwaneni dumpsite in Manzini,
Swaziland," J Sustain Dev Afr, vol. 12, no. 7, 2010.
[6] United States Environmental Protection Agency, "CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN
THE UNITED STATES: 1999 UPDATE," EPA, 2001.
Page 26 of 31
355
Simwambi, A., Kapembwa, M. A., & Kapanda, K. (2023). Effects of Poor Solid Waste Management on Faecal Sludge Emptying, Treatment and Disposal
Services in Lusaka. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(4). 330-360.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.114.15405
[7] P. Riitta, S. Chhemendra, Y. Masato, W. S. A. Joaoa and G. Qingxian, "Waste Generation, Composition and
management data," in Guidelines for national Greenhouse gas Inventories , IPCC, 2006, p. 23pp.
[8] O. M. Ogundele, O. M. Raphael and A. M. Abiodun, "Effects of Municipal Waste Disposal Methods on
Community Health in Ibadan - Nigeria," Polytechnica, Ibadan, 2018.
[9] M. K. Karija , Q. Shihua and Y. S. Lukaw , "The Impact of Poor Municipal Solid Waste Management Practices
and Sanitation Status on Water Quality and Public Health in Cities of the Least Developed Countries: the
Case of Juba, South Sudan," International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 87-99,
2013.
[10] J. Colón, Forbis-Stokes, A. Aaron and Deshus, , "Anaerobic digestion of undiluted simulant human excreta
for sanitation and energy recovery in less-developed countries," Energy for Sustainable Development, 2015.
[11] N. Scarlet, N. Scarlet and N. Scarlet , "Evaluation of Energy Potential of Municipal Solid Waste from African
Urban Areas," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 50, pp. 1269-86, 2015.
[12] M. A. I. Chowdhury, G. M. J. Hasan , B. Karanjit and L. R. Shrestha, "Solid waste management in Katmandu,"
Journal of Solid waste technology and management , vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 1088-1697, 2006.
[13] L. A. Guerero, G. Maas and W. Hogland , "Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing
countries," Waste Management, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 220-232, 2013.
[14] WHO, "World Health Organisation African Region," 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://www.afro.who.int/node/5691. [Accessed 20 02 2023].
[15] UN-habitat, "National Report on the Third United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban
Development, Zambia final report," 2015.
[16] Y. Tembo, "Rapid Urbanisation in Zambia. The challenges facing our cities and towns," Grin Verlag, Munich,
2014.
[17] Environmental Council of Zambia , "State of the Environment in Zambia 2000," ECZ-Zambia, Lusaka, 2001.
[18] B. Reed, "Sustainable Environmental Sanitation and Water Services," Calcutta, India, WEDC, 2002.
[19] S. E. Kasala, "Critical Analysis of the Challenges of Solid Waste Management Initiatives in Keko Machungwa
Informal Settlement, Dar es Salaam," Journal of Environmental Protection , Dar es Salaam , 2014.
[20] M. J. Aery, B. W. Baetz, P. D. M. MacDonald and P. H. Byer, "Use of mixed probability distributions for the
analysis of solid waste generation data," Waste manage, vol. 11, pp. 387-402, 1993.
[21] J. R. Holmes , managing solid waste in developing countries, John Wiley and Sons Inc, 1984, p. 316pp.
[22] E. Gidarankos, G. Havas and P. Ntzamilis, "Municipal solid waste composition determination supporting the
integrated solid waste management system in the island of crete," Waste Management , vol. 26, no. 6, pp.
668-679, 2006.
Page 27 of 31
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 356
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 4, August-2023
[23] C. Yu and V. Maclaren, "A comparison of two waste streams quantification and characterization
methodologies," Waste manage, no. 13, pp. 343-361, 1995.
[24] D. Carboo and J. N. Fobil , "Physico-chemical analysis of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the Accra
Metropolis," West african Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 7, pp. 31-39, 2005.
[25] R. Steffen , O. Szolar and R. Braun, "Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion," Institute of Agrobiotechnology,
University of Agriculture sciences , Vienna, 1998.
[26] NWASCO, "Urban and Peri-Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Report 2017," NATIONAL WATER
SUPPLY AND SANITATION COUNCIL, Lusaka, 2018.
[27] CSO , "2010 Census of Population and Housing. Population and Demographic Projections 2011 - 2035,"
Central Statistics Office, Lusaka, 2013.
[28] SMEC-LWSC, "Consultancy Services To Carry Out Feasibility Studies And Preliminary Designs For The
Lusaka," LSP, Lusaka, 2016.
[29] World Bank , "Lusaka Sanitation Program. Project Appraisal Document," World Bank , Washington, 2015.
[30] MLGH, "National Urban and Peri-urban sanitation strategy (2015-2030)," Ministry of local Government
and Housing, Lusaka, 2015.
[31] C. L. Mulenga , "The case of Lusaka, Zambia," University College London , London , 2003.
[32] A. Simwambi, H. Sophia, B. Pietruschka and P. Hawkins, "Approaches to Faecal Sludge Management in Peri- Urban Areas A Case Study in the City of Lusaka," FSM 4, Implemention of Faecal Sludge Management
Programs, vol. Case Studies, 2017.
[33] D. Chibinda , "Municipal solid waste in a circular economy perspective: A case study of Lusaka City in
Zambia," Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, 2016.
[34] GIZ-CFS Lusaka, "FACILITIES MAPPING AND KAP STUDY REPORT," CLIMATE FRIENDLY SANITATION IN
PERI-URBAN AREAS OF LUSAKA (CFS-LUSAKA), Lusaka, 2018.
[35] Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor, "Mapping sanitation in peri-urban Lusaka: a toilet database,"
Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor, Lusaka, 2018.
[36] A. Olschewski and V. Casey, "The Technology Applicability Framework (TAF) - a participatory tool to
validate low-income urban WASH technologies," Technologies for Development , pp. 185-197, 2015.
[37] J. Bogner, M. A. Ahmed , C. Diaz, A. Faaij, Q. Gao and S. Hashimoto , "Bogner, J., Ahmed, M.A., Diaz, C., Faaij,
A., Gao, Q., Hashimoto, S., Mareckova, K., Pipati, R. and Zhang, T. (2007) Waste Management. In Climate
Change: Mi-tigation," Waste management, 2007.
[38] L. Kappauf, A. Heyer, T. Makuwa and Y. Titova, "SFD Report Lusaka," Susana, Lusaka, 2018.
Page 28 of 31
357
Simwambi, A., Kapembwa, M. A., & Kapanda, K. (2023). Effects of Poor Solid Waste Management on Faecal Sludge Emptying, Treatment and Disposal
Services in Lusaka. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(4). 330-360.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.114.15405
[39] P. Mwesigye, J. Mbogoma and J. Nyakango, "Africa Review Report on Waste Management Main Report.
Integrated Assessment of Present Status of Environmentally-Sound Management of Wastes in Africa,"
2009.
[40] S. C. Newenhouse and J. T. Schmit, "Qualitatitive methods add value to waste characterisation studies,"
Waste manage , vol. 18, pp. 105-114, 2000.
APPENDICES
Toilet Mapping Questionnaire
1. What category of premises is this toilet located?
a. Residential plot
b. School
c. Clinic
d. Market
e. Church
f. Police station
g. Bus stop
h. Industry
i. Shopping complex
2. Who owns it? (name of owner) ________________________________________________________
3. Phone number of the owner ___________________________________________________________
4. Address/ plot number where toilet facility is located? ________________________________________
5. How many households use this toilet? ___________________________________________________
6. What type of toilet is it?
a. Flushing toilet
b. VIP latrine
c. Ordinary pit latrine
d. Pour flush toilet
e. UDDT
7. Does it have a concrete slab?
a. Yes
b. No
8. What type of interface/toilet seating does it have?
a. Toilet bow
b. Flat hole
c. Squat pan
d. Hole with raised sit
9. What type of containment?
a. Septic tank/soakaway
b. Lined pit
c. Unlined pit
10. Containment depth _____________________________________
11. Containment width _____________________________________
12. Containment length ____________________________________
13. Has the toilet or septic tank ever filled?
a. Yes
b. No
If yes:
When was the last time it filled? ________________________________
What did you do when I filled? _______________________________________________________
14. For public toilets. is there a Ramp, and wide door or guard rails especially for public facilities?
a. Yes
b. No
15. What type of roof is on the toilet?
Page 29 of 31
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 358
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 4, August-2023
a. Asbestos
b. iron sheets
c. cardboard
d. wood
e. no roof
16. What type of walls does it have? ________________________________________
17. What type of floors does it have? ________________________________________
18. Is there a light bulb within the facility (for night access)?
a. Yes
b. No
19. What type of floor does it have? ___________________________________________
20. What is the level of sludge in the containment structure? __________________________________
21. Is there an emptying interface?
a. Yes
b. No
If yes:
What type of emptying interface is there? _________________________________________
22. What type of road leads to the toilet?
23. Is the road leading to the toilet accessible throughout the year?
a. Yes
b. No
24. What type of vehicle can be used for accessing the toilet for emptying?
a. Motorbike
b. Push-carts
c. Pick-up
d. Truck
e. Tanker
KAP Questionnaire
Section A: Household Economic and Demographic Data
Name ..................................................................... Sex .....................................
Marital status ........................................ Education level ...........................................
Occupation ............................................................... Age ......................
Number of people in the household ...............................
Age groups of household members ..........................................................
Possessions ...............................................................................................................
Terms of resident status (i.e. home owner, resident landlord, absentee landlord and tenant)
..............................................................................................
Section B: Household Water Source
Characteristics of water source:
1. What is the source of drinking water? .......................................................................
2. What is the source of domestic water? ......................................................................
3. How reliable are the sources of water? .....................................................................
4. How much is paid for water access? .........................................................................
5. How do you store your drinking water? .....................................................................
6. How do you treat your drinking water? ......................................................................
7. What alternative sources of water do you have? ............................................................
Section C: Toilet Facility
Characteristics of sanitation facility:
1. What type of sanitation facility is used? ...............................................................
2. When was the sanitation facility built? ...................................................................
3. How much did it cost to build the sanitation facility? ...........................................................
4. Is the sanitation facility in use/ functional? ....................................................................
Page 30 of 31
359
Simwambi, A., Kapembwa, M. A., & Kapanda, K. (2023). Effects of Poor Solid Waste Management on Faecal Sludge Emptying, Treatment and Disposal
Services in Lusaka. European Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol - 11(4). 330-360.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.114.15405
5. How many people use the sanitation facility? ...................................................................
6. Is the sanitation facility clean? ....................................................................................
7. Is the sanitation facility suitable to menstrual hygiene management? .........................................
Section D: Willingness to Pay
Data was elicited from participants through experimental components, randomly assigned in specific ways.
Section E Operation and Maintenance
1. What methods are used to empty the sanitation facility? .........................................................
2. How often do you empty the sanitation facility? ............................................................
3. Is the sanitation facility accessible to emptying service provider? .............................................
If no, what are the limitations to access the sanitation facility?
.....................................................................................................
4. What are the filling variations in different seasons?
Cold season .........................................................................
Dry season ...........................................................................
Wet season ...........................................................................
5. How much does it cost for emptying service? .........................................................
Section F: Solid Waste
1. What are the solid waste practices of disposal? ......................................................
2. What is the solid waste collection frequency? ......................................................
3. How much does it cost to collect solid waste? ......................................................
4. Who are the solid waste service providers? ...............................................................
Section G: Hand Washing
1. What material are used for handwashing? ...................................................
2. When are hands washed? .........................................................
3. Are there any hand washing facilities and stations around? ...................................................
Section H: Attitudes
1. What is your understanding of sanitation and hygiene? ...................................................
2. Why do you think you need to maintain good hygiene? ......................................................
3. What are the ways to maintain good hygiene/be hygienic? ......................................................
4. In your opinion, when do you think are the critical times to wash your hands? ..............................
5. What are the ways to maintain good sanitation? ......................................................
6. How does a person get diarrhoea? ..........................................
7. What are the 3 most important ways to prevent diarrhoea? .............................................
Faecal Sludge Quantification and Characterisation Questionaire: Households
Survey Questionnaire
Section 1
User Approval _________________________________________________________________
Section 2: Toilet Usage information
2.1 How many households/institutions use the toilet?
______________________________________________________________________
2.2 How many people use the toilet?
______________________________________________________________________
Section 3: Toilet facility information
3.1 What type of on-site treatment is it?
a) Lined pit latrine
b) Unlined pit-latrine
c) Septic tank
Page 31 of 31
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 360
European Journal of Applied Sciences (EJAS) Vol. 11, Issue 4, August-2023
3.2 When was the facility implemented constructed?
______________________________________________________________________
3.3 What is the dimension of the implemented facility?
Length
Width
Depth
3.4 Is the pit accessible for emptying from the inside?
Yes
No
3.5 Is there any water connected to the containment facility treatment facility and from which system is the water
from (e.g. shower, laundry, kitchen water, etc.)? Circle the applicable answer
Yes
No
If yes, please specify __________________________________________________________
3.6 How many times has the pit been emptied? ( 0=none,1=once, 2= twice etc.) ________________
3.7 When last was the pit emptied? ___________________________________________
3.8 Who emptied it? ______________________________________________________
3.9 What method of emptying was used? (vacuum truck, water trust pit emptier, neighbourhood emptier or
household) __________________________________________________
3.10 Where was the emptied solid waste taken?
3.11 Does the Solid waste enter the Faecal Sludge containment?
Yes
No
If yes, what types (e.g. hygiene products, food waste, other)?
3.12 Do you add bio-additives?
Yes
No
If yes, how often? ___________________________________________________
3.13 If Septic Tank, how many chambers? __________________________________
Section 4: Desludging
4.1. How many drums of faecal sludge have been emptied at the time of the last emptying?
______________________________________________________________________
4.2. Was water added and how much water was added?
Yes
No
4.3. How much solid waste was removed? _____________________________________
4.4. What is the volume of sand? (assessment done by technical team) ______________________
Section 5: Site Condition
5.1. What is the ground condition of the emptying? Tick the applicable
Soil
Soft rock
Hard rock
Section 6: The Solid Waste Situation
6.1. Are there any existing solid waste management practices at the households?
Collection
Segregation
Disposal
6.2. What is the amount and type of solid waste generated (kg/day, kg/month, kg/year)?