






1

1.
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..1
2.
Introduction……………………………………………………………………..…..2
3.
Study area………………………………………………………………………...…6
3. Methods………………………………………………………………………….….7
3.1. Study design………………………………………………………………..7
3.2. Data collection and analysis…………………………………………….….8
3.2.1. Locality and distribution of illegal dumpsites……………………8
3.2.2. Impacts on vegetation…………………………………………….9
3.2.3. Impacts on water quality………………………………………….9
3.2.4. Perceptions and attitudes towards illegal dumping……………….9
3.2.5. Key informant interviews………………………………………..10
4. Results and Discussion………………………………………………………………11
4.1. Extent of illegal dumping in Grahamstown …………………………….....11
4.2. Environmental impacts of illegal dumping ……………………………......13
4.2.1. Vegetation assessment…………………………………………...13
4.2.2. Water quality assessment……………………………………...…15
4.3. Effects of illegal dumping on quality of life……………….……………...17
4.4. Reasons for dumping and people responsible……………………………..19
4.5. Combatting illegal dumping……………………………………………….21
5. Conclusions and Recommendations…………………………………………………23
6. Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………….25
7. Reference list ………………………………………………………………………..26
8. Appendix……………………………………………………………………………..30
2

Owing to an increase in human populations, industrial and technological revolutions, there has been a considerable increase in global consumption levels leading to pressure being placed on waste management services. This had led to consequential practices such as illegal dumping.
Illegal dumping is the disposal of solid waste in inappropriate manners such as dumping on streets, in drains, near rivers and on public and private land. This problem has been documented as a major concern in much of the world as well as in southern Africa. Grahamstown is not exempt from this issue and therefore this study aims to assess and determine the extent and impacts of illegal dumping of waste in Grahamstown. Data was collected using a mixedmethods approach to achieve the objectives. It was found that illegal dumping is a major problem in Grahamstown with 208 sites being located in the suburbs and township. Illegal dumpsites were found to have varying environmental impacts. MiniSASS sensitivity scores of zero indicated critically modified water quality. However, there was no significant difference in species richness and rubbish cover at staggered distances from the dumps. Surveys indicated that illegal dumpsites have substantial negative impacts on quality of life by affecting aesthetics, health and general living conditions of residents. Reasons for improper waste disposal were perceived to be peoples’ laziness and poor service delivery from the municipaility, however, it was found that the residents themselves were the main offenders.
The municipality have attempted to implement several schemes to combat illegal dumping although all of these have failed due to lack of community involvement. Therefore it is suggested that an adaptive co-management strategy whereby a multi-scale governance system linking community members, counsellors and the municipality is initiated is implemeted to solve this issue.
3

Waste management and illegal dumping
Owing to an increase in human population, industrial and technological revolutions, waste management has become increasingly complex (Akinbile & Yusuf, 2011). Marshall and
Farabahksh (2013), state that population growth and subsequent innovations have not only led to changing consumption patterns across borders but it has also placed considerable pressure on waste management services. This is so because as the world races towards its’ urban and more complex future, the by-product of the urban lifestyle, waste, is growing at even faster rates. At present, global solid waste generation is growing approximately at 1.3 billion tonnes per year and is expected to double by the year 2025 (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). The pressure placed on waste management services has consequently led to widespread inefficiencies that are mainly due to lack of funds, improper infrastructure, inadequate waste collection services, unlicensed waste management activities, insufficient waste minimisation and limited waste related legislation (Nahman & Godfrey, 2010). Inefficient waste management services have also led to extensive illegal dumping. According to Zurbrugg
(2002), illegal dumping refers to an instance where solid waste is disposed of in inappropriate manners in places such as in drains, roads, near rivers and on private and public land that is not legally approved for such a use. Dumped materials typically include furniture, garden waste, discarded appliances, household rubbish, building rubble, broken glasses, old tyres, hazardous materials such as illegal pestilences and metal contamination and abandoned automobiles
(United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998).
Illegal dumping of waste products is a recognised problem in much of the world and Southern
Africa. At a global level, dumping has resulted in increased costs associated with clearing and clean-up efforts. For instance, in Britian, clearing waste that is dumped every 35 seconds has cost the government millions (BBC news, 2005). There have also been instances of developed countries dumping waste in the less developed countries. A recent occurrence is the dumping of old and broken television sets in Ghana by one of the United Kingdoms’ leading waste and recycling companies. This is said to have been done in violation of the laws in relation to the flow of waste to developing countries (Wasley, 2011). In the city of Abidjan situated in Côte d'Ivoire, vast amounts of toxic waste released by a tanker registered under a Dutch Oil Trader resulted in the death of ten people and left many others suffering from diarrhoea, vomiting and nosebleeds (Johnson, 2006). It is uncertain as to how the toxic pollutants entered the country.
4

Such occurrences thus make it important for countries to monitor and to enforce policies that ensure proper waste disposal services.
The South African municipal systems Act 2000 mandates municipalities to provide waste collection, disposal and cleansing services to all its residents (City of Johannesburg, 2011).
According to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, local governments or municipalities are appointed by the national government to perform certain duties that include
(South African Government, 1996):

Providing democratic and accountable government for local communities;

Ensuring the provision of services to communities in a sustainable manner;

Promoting social and economic development;

Promoting a safe and healthy environment; and

Encouraging the involvement of communities and community organisations in the matters of local government.
While the responsibilities of local government and municipalities are clearly outlined, Nahman and Godfrey (2010) argue that the waste management condition in South Africa is uncoordinated and poorly funded. A direct implication of this is the evidence of an existing gap between policy and its subsequent implementation. This is so because there are several recorded cases of illegal dumping in South Africa. Recently, during the year 2009, the
Environmental Management Inspectorate, Green Scorpions, unearthed vast amounts of disposed medical waste in an abandoned brick factory. Such waste was in the form of used bandages, pills, needles and vials. In response to this, the former Minister of Water &
Environmental Affairs, Buyelwa Sonjica, made it clear that laws relating to such environmental offences needed to be tightened (Gabara, 2009). Furthermore, by population, Johannesburg is the largest city in South Africa, waste collected from illegal dumping in this city adds up to
16.5% of the total waste composition (City of Johannesburg, 2011). In an interview conducted by the Rosebank Killarney Gazette, Pikitip Managing Director Lawrence Boya says that “if all residents of Johannesburg could put litter where it belongs, this would save up to R60 million per year”. This is so because it costs the city an enormous amount of money to hire tipper trucks, front-end loaders and labour to collect the waste dumped illegally (Rosebank Killarney
Gazette, 2011). The above examples are evidence of why several countries have had to re-
5

evaluate regulations for illegal dumping (Ichinose & Yamamoto, 2011). One can deduce that managing solid waste is a fairly demanding service that requires full municipal capacities in expertise pertaining to management, ongoing funding, an efficient labour force and an operational service sector. A final prerequisite that is essential to the overall functionality of the municipal service delivery is a strong social contract between the community and the municipality (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012).
Makana Municipality incorporates some of these intentions in their vision as they “strive to ensure sustainable, affordable, equitable and quality services in a just, friendly, secure and healthy environment, which promotes social and economic growth for all” (Makana
Municipality, 2014). In order to achieve this, Makana Municipality has certain bylaws in place that are intended to provide a framework for its operation and management. This in terms of illegal dumping, two regulations can be found in the bylaws (Makana Municipality, 2014):
1.
Notwithstanding any other regulation, no person shall dump, accumulate or place or cause or permit to be dumped, accumulated or placed any matter on any land or premises within the Municipality, except at such places as the Council may from time to time set aside or approve for such purposes.
2.
When any matter has been dumped, accumulated or placed on any land or premises in contravention of Regulation 2, the Council may serve on the owner of such land or premises or other person responsible for such dumping, accumulation or placing, a written notice calling upon such owner or other person to remove such matter within 7 days from the date of such notice or such an extension thereof as the Council may grant, failing which such owner or other person shall be guilty of an offence, and liable on conviction to a penalty of R300 or in the case of a continuing offence, to a further penalty of R10 for each day during which such offence continues, or such other penalty as shall be determined by the Council from time to time.
Bylaws for illegal dumping are clearly presented but the enforcement of these regulations is unclear. This is so because Grahamstown also has issues concerning waste management and recorded cases of illegal dumping. According to Etengeneng, in the suburban areas of
Grahamstown, garbage that is not contained in black plastic bags such as garden refuse is illegally dumped (Etengeneng, 2012). The Grahamstown Township is subject to worse conditions. The main reason for this is because in the past, solid waste management historically focussed on the formerly white areas of Grahamstown. However, since 1994 efforts have been
6

made to supply waste management and improve services to all sectors of Grahamstown.
Although this is the case, Makana municipality still fails to provide adequate waste clearance facilities, enough garbage bags and efficient waste removal infrastructure (Etengeneng, 2012).
Impacts of illegal dumping
Dumped waste has serious dual implications for both the environment and the quality of life.
Dumped waste contaminates both soil and water. This occurs when water from rainfall seeps through dumped waste and mixes with substances within the waste and forms a substance known as leachate. According to Akinbile & Yusuf (2011), leachate released from waste sites also poses a high risk to groundwater and surface water if it is not properly managed. Dumpsites also make the surrounding areas prone to flooding as the different components of waste can block drains, creeks and culverts (United Nations Environment Programme, 2005). In an attempt to combat illegal dumping and mitigate its effects, residents in rural areas burn sites, this however, has a direct impact on the environment because fires cause severe erosion due to burning of trees which limits vegetation growth. Small animals such as birds are also affected as they die from feeding on materials from waste sites and by being stuck in debris (Project
Green Sweep, 2011). The presence of an illegal dumpsite can cause serious health problems for nearby residents as it is an ideal breeding ground for disease vectors such as rats and mosquitoes (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). Certain respiratory illnesses such as asthma and tuberculosis are also linked to illegally dumped waste
(Etengeneng, 2012). The occurrence of illegal dump sites not only effects health and the environment but also the quality of life. According to Madava (2001), illegal dumpsites have adverse effects on the basic human rights of people with regards to the standard of living. This is so because hazardous wastes are prospective pollutants of the biophysical and human environment. This is so because the presence of dumpsites does not only deteriorate the quality of the environment but also breaches human rights as it has an impact on community pride.
More often than not, the sight and smell that emerges from illegal dumpsites is unpleasant and diminishes land value. Illegal sites that mostly constitute of flammable substances and gases are vulnerable to fires. This not only has an impact on the aesthetic appeal of landscapes but it also diminishes the value of surrounding properties significantly, forcing residents to vacate their homes to further places (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998).
7

Although there are a number of examples of these impacts found in literature, there are none that are specific to Grahamstown, therefore it is against this background that our study aims to assess and determine the impacts of illegal dumping of waste in Grahamstown.
The specific objectives of our study are:
1.
To identify and map out illegal dumpsites in Grahamstown.
2.
To assess the size and characteristics of these illegal dumpsites.
3.
To determine the environmental impacts of illegal dumping
4.
To determine the local perceptions regarding the quality of life and environmental impacts of illegal dumping.
5.
To understand the reasons driving illegal dumping of waste and who is responsible.
6.
To understand any actions and strategies by communities and the municipality to combat and manage illegal dumping and to make suggestions of mechanisms to tackle illegal dumping.
Grahamstown is a town in the municipality of Makana which forms parts of the Cacadu district in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. The town is found at 33°18′S 26°32′E and is located 55 km inland from the town of Port Alfred between Port Elizabeth and East London
(Snowball et al ., 2008). The largest population group in Grahamstown is black African at 72
% with Xhosa being the majority language, spoken by 66.53 % of the population (Statistics
South Africa, 2011). Since the introduction of democracy in 1994 there has been a large scale rural-urban migration of people from the former Ciskei and Transkei homelands, which lie to the north east of Grahamstown (Snowball et al ., 2008). The 2011 census places the population of Grahamstown at 80,390 with a population density of 18 persons/km² (Statistics South Africa,
2011). The average household size is 3.75 people per household
Grahamstown is also home to Rhodes University, a number of schools both public and private as well as a provincial High Court (Snowball et al., 2008). These various institutions as well as the population growth rate of 0.65% add pressure on solid waste management infrastructure by increasing and fluctuating the demand (Statistics South Africa, 2011). Grahamstown has a total of 21,388 households as of the 2011 census (Statistics South Africa, 2011). Grahamstown West is home to in what was formally demarcated as white residential areas. These areas are mostly made up of middle to upper income households. Grahamstown East is larger than
8

Grahamstown West and comprises what were formerly black residential areas. Grahamstown has high levels of unemployment at an average of 32.5% and youth unemployment of 42.3% and a large proportion of households that fall within a low income bracket (Statistics South
Africa, 2011). According to Statistics South Africa there are 1,776 households in Grahamstown with no income, along with 7,553 unemployed residents between the ages of 15 and 64 as well
16,391 residents that are economically not active (Statistics South Africa, 2011). Grahamstown also has a dependency ratio of 44.1% (Statistics South Africa, 2011). These factors as well as the high population density in Grahamstown add pressure to the existing solid waste management infrastructure and creates an environment conducive to illegal dumping. The
Makana municipality provides one black plastic bag per household per week for the disposal of solid waste. These plastic bags are collected weekly and taken to a landfill site. However distribution and delivery of these refuse bags is sporadic and for households that cannot afford to attain more plastic bags than the one supplied by the municipality it is often not enough and this leads to illegal dumping (Etengeneng, 2012). The main factors contributing to illegal dumping in Grahamstown are:
• Waste management services are irregular and inadequate, and have resulted in ineffective waste management systems (Snowball et al., 2008).
• Waste management systems are under severe stress due to the extension of municipal boundaries to cover previously disadvantaged areas (Etengeneng, 2012).
• Human resource and staffing issues- positions can be left unfilled for months and municipal staff responsible for waste management is responsible for other services as well (Etengeneng, 2012).
• Grahamstown has a growing population thus increasing pressure on the existing municipal infrastructure (Statistics South Africa, 2011).
3.1. Study design
The methodology chosen was a mixed-methods approach which integrated Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) mapping, qualitative and quantitative research (Bryman, 2006).
This approach was selected to ensure that our data presented a holistic view of the issue at hand. Using a mixed-methods approach allowed us to create links and triangulations between
9

the data, validate our findings, and to identify trends and deviations within the results (Bryman,
2006).
The methods were conducted in succession as the information gained from one method was needed to accomplish the subsequent method.
3.2. Data collection and analysis
3.2.1. Locality and distribution of illegal dumpsites
In order to map out illegal dumpsites throughout the city, they first needed to be located. This involved a systematic approach whereby the illegal dumpsites were identified by driving all around the city. The city was divided into 6 sections, using a printed orthophoto map of
Grahamstown, and Google Earth was used to identify road names. The process involved identifying a horizontal divide ‘line’ across the city, using road names as a reference, with approximately the same area on either side of the line. Following this, 3 more vertical ‘lines’ were established in the same manner to section the city into 6 zones. The zones were purely to make the data collection process more efficient. These zones allowed for no part of
Grahamstown to be left out, as the boundaries were clearly defined through identifying road names. Given the nature of the city’s history the western side is classified as a suburban area whereas the eastern side is classified as the township.
Upon locating a dump, two things were done: firstly, the GPS co-ordinates of the dumpsite were recorded using a GPS; and secondly a classification sheet was filled out that recorded visual features of the dump (Appendix 1). Once all the dumpsites had been located the GPS co-ordinates were entered into Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software called
ArcMap. This software used the coordinates to generate a map displaying the location of each dumpsite. An attribute table was related to each dumpsite point with the information collected from the classification sheet.
For this method it is assumed that when locating dumpsites by driving around the allocated zones that none were missed. This is possible if they are located beyond street view or covered by a landscape feature.
10

3.2.2. Impacts on vegetation
Four dump sites were randomly chosen using an excel spreadsheet for the vegetation cover, rubbish cover and species richness study. Two sites were chosen from the surburban residential area and two sites from the township.
At each dump site two directional lines of 50 m were chosen randomly by spinning a bottle to determine the direction of the line. At the 10 m, 25 m and 50 m a 5 x 5 m quadrate was used to assess vegetation cover and rubbish cover using a visual estimation. For species richness, 1×1 m quadrat was used to undertake a species count at each of 10 m, 25 m and 50 m. An ANOVA and a Tukey Post-Hoc test was used to determine any significant difference between the distance from the illegal dumpsite.
During data collection a possible drawback was the visual estimation of the vegetation cover and rubbish cover. This was done over a 5 x 5 m quadrat therefore estimations were approximate and therefore not measured. They were however done by the same people who ensured similarity at the different sites sampled
3.2.3. Impacts on water quality
To determine the quality of water sources located within 200 m of an illegal dumpsite, six sites with water sources within 200 m of an illegal dumpsites were randomly selected using an excel spreadsheet and a miniSASS was performed. A miniSASS test gives an indication of water quality by looking at the presence of invertebrate groups in the water source. Each invertebrate group is assigned a sensitivity score (Graham et al , 2010). This sensitivity score indicates how sensitive the organism is to water pollution. The lower the sensitivity score the more pollution or modified the water source is. At each site a net was used to collect invertebrates. The invertebrates caught were identified using a dichotomous key of macroinvertebrates and the scores were recorded. The average sensitivity score for all the invertebrates found in a site was calculated to determine the water quality.
3.2.4. Perceptions and attitudes towards illegal dumping
Data collection commenced by randomly selecting six sites to sample using a stratified random sampling technique which allowed us to select a sample that is representative of the entire population and to generalise our findings to the whole population. Two of these sites were in the suburb areas, and four were in the township because majority of the Grahamstown
11

population lives in the township. A total of 60 questionnaires were administered, one in each household and 10 per the six dumpsites chosen, as part of a structured interview.
Questionnaires were administered over a two week period to households that are in close proximity to the dumpsites and were answered by the heads of the households. We monitored how the participants responded to the questions and if there were any uncertainties about the questions, we explained them or translated the questions into a an appropriate language.
The survey was used to obtain data on the socio-economic background of the respondents and to also identify local perceptions with regards to the quality of life, the rationale behind illegal dumping and possible solutions for combatting it. With the aim of acquiring and understanding public attitudes and views, the questionnaire was designed to include dichotomous, likert, rating, checklist and open-ended type questions. Surveys were deemed appropriate for this study as they are easy to complete, convenient, provide entry into communities and can gather detailed and large quantities of data in a standardised manner. (Kariuki, 2008).
Prior to the commencement of actual data collection, the questionnaires were pilot tested. A total of 10 questionnaires were randomly distributed in the suburb part the study area. This was important for the study as it enabled us to identify the processes for recording the responses, issues in the design of the questionnaire and to ensure that the respondents understand the intended meaning of the questions. The responses obtained were reviewed and if changes needed to be made, the questions were modified.
Once the data was collected, it was organised and coded then captured in Excel so that it could be analysed. Through the use of Excel, descriptive statistical techniques and chi-square tests were used to analyse the data then the data was summarised and presented using tables.
A few of the questions that related to environmental impacts were hard for our respondents to understand. Furthermore, some of the responses were unanswered and this decreased our sample size. We also found that the process was time consuming as the respondents would answer questions that are not related to the questions that they were being asked.
3.2.5. Key informant interviews
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with two participants- Ndumiso Nongwe and
William Froneman. Mr Nongwe is the Environmental Manager for Makana Municipality and his job involves operating environmental protocols, policies, and functioning as well as ensures that practices are in line with environmental legislation. This interview was focused towards
12

gaining a perspective from the municipality as well as attaining information on health, environmental and social impacts of illegal dumping and what is being done to combat illegal dumping. Mr Froneman is a Grahamstown community member who lives in a suburban area where an illegal dumpsite was previously located. He was part of the successful community efforts to clear and fence off the site. This interview was focused on obtaining a more detailed perspective from a community member towards the issue of illegal dumping as well as looking at ideas towards tackling this issue. Voice recorders were used to ensure that the interview ran efficiently and no details were left out. A limitation to this method was obtaining key informants, as several other potential informants did not respond or did not agree to participate.
4.1 Extent of illegal dumping
We found 208 illegal dumpsites in Grahamstown. The majority of illegal dumpsites are found in the eastern sections, which is the township area of Grahamstown, as shown in figure 1. From the map it is evident that the suburban areas of Grahamstown west have the least number of illegal dumpsites and the number of dumpsites increases dramatically towards the eastern side.
The size of the dumpsites were categorised by the area over which the dump was spread (m
2
).
The highest percentage of dumpsites were medium sized (43%) and the lowest percentage were very large (9%) (Table 1).
Table 1: Percentage of illegal dumpsites in different size classifications.
Number of dumpsites
Percentage of dumpsites (%) Size classification
Very large (>25 m
2
)
Large (16-25 m
2
)
Medium (5-15 m
2
)
Small (<5 m
2
)
19
43
90
56
9
21
43
27
13

Figure 1: Location of illegal dumpsites in Grahamstown
Signs were present at 16% of the sites (Table 2). Two types of signs were noted: “Garden refuge only” and “Strictly no dumping.” Skips were present at only 9% of the sites (Table 2).
It was noted that people are dumping in sites that aren’t designated for dumping and this was particularly problematic in the township. However, in the suburbs people tended to dump domestic waste into dumps that had skips with signs saying “Garden refuge only.” This did also occur in the township in the few dumpsites which also had skips and signs.
There is evidence of clearing by the municipality at only 7% of the sites and this could be due to two reasons: either the municipality do not know about all the illegal dumpsites or they lack the resources to clean all the dumpsites. This is problematic because it heightens the environmental and quality of life issues that arise with the presence dumpsites, with specific regards to polluted waterways, foraging animals, children playing in the dumps as well as being a security hazard.
14

Table 2: Presence and absence of particular features at the illegal dumpsites.
Characteristic
Fence
Evidence of clearing
No
194
155
Percentage
(%)
93
75
Yes
14
15
Percentage
(%)
7
7
Sign
Skip
175
189
84
91
33
19
16
9
4.2. Environmental impacts of illegal dumping
4.2.1. Vegetation assessment
The percentage vegetation cover was significantly higher (Tukey, p < 0.0001) at 25 m (94.25
±33.7%) (Fig. 2) compared to 10 m and 50 m and there is no significant difference between percentage vegetation cover at 10 m and 50 m (Tukey, p > 0.05). The mean species richness was greatest at 50 m (4 ±0.9%) from the dumpsite and the lowest species richness was found closest to the dumpsite at 10 m (0.75 ±26.8%) (Fig. 2), however, there was no significant difference in species richness at the different distances (ANOVA, p > 0.05). According Ali et al. (2014), one would expect vegetation cover and species richness to increase as one moves further way from the dumpsite because vegetation growth is directly linked to soil quality. Soil quality is lowest closest to the dumpsite because of leachates originating from the dumpsite.
These leachates can include heavy metals due to fluid leakage from the waste such as copper, chromium, zinc and lead (Ali et al ., 2014). It has been found that these heavy metals that seep into the ground have the ability to kill off many of the plant species which do not have the ability to withstand the leachates (Ali et al ., 2014). The low level of vegetation cover at 10 m could also be attributed to the mechanical clearing and the use of vehicles to access the dumpsite
15

120
100
80
60
40
20
0 a a b a a a
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Vegetation cover
Species richness
10 m 25 m
Distance (m)
50 m
Figure 2: Mean vegetation cover (%) and mean species richness at the different distances (m)
(n= 8) from the illegal dumpsites. Error bars denote SD. Different letters indicate significant difference between distances (ANOVA).
The local perceptions of environmental impacts indicated that 47.5 % of respondents believed that the presence of illegal dumpsites has a significant impact on the growth of the surrounding vegetation and 50 % of respondents believed that illegal dumpsites impact the environment through soil contamination. This indicates that only half of the respondents are aware of the environmental impacts that illegal dumpsites are having on the surrounding vegetation and soil.
The township communities are particularly unaware of the environmental impacts that illegal dumping causes and numerous citizens are more concerned with the cleanliness of their own possessions opposed to the surrounding community. This mentality is described by Mart'inez-
Alier and Alier (2003), as ‘environmentalism of the poor’ or ‘livelihoods ecology’. This idea is rooted in the notion that poorer people prioritize their livelihoods over sustainable development or nature conservation as their resources are limited and the environment is simply a source and a surrounding (Mart'inez-Alier and Alier, 2003). This theory is based on the idea of meeting immediate needs without consideration of the future impacts or consequences of their actions (Mart'inez-Alier and Alier, 2003). Once poorer people are ‘stuck’ in their environmental situation, they become accepting instead of protesting it i.e. they continue dumping instead of acting on the problem (Mart'inez-Alier and Alier, 2003). In all areas of Grahamstown the dumping of waste in common-pool areas can also be attributed to
Hardin’s (1968) theory, ‘tragedy of the commons’. In this particular situation the issue is not
16

with people overexploiting common land but rather a problem of putting something in (Hardin,
1968). In terms of this theory, the rationale behind illegal dumping is that by placing one’s waste in a common area the costs are less as they are shared by the community as opposed to the costs involved in disposing of the waste properly (Hardin, 1968).
60
50
40
30 a
20
10 a a
0
10 25
Distance from dump (m)
50
Figure 3: Mean rubbish cover at the different distances (m) (n= 8) from the illegal dumpsites.
Error bars denote SD.
Rubbish cover was greatest closest to the sight at 10 m. When the skips are cleared the waste around them is disregarded and therefore the excess is left to spread to the surrounding houses or streams. However, after performing an ANOVA it was found that there is no significant difference in percentage rubbish cover amoung the different distances from the dumpsite.
Therefore no definite conclusions can be drawn from these results about the spread of rubbish cover as one moves away further from the dumpsite.
4.2.2. Water quality assessment
Site one has a sensitivity score of six (Table 3) which indicates that the water at that site is largely natural and of a good quality with few modifications. This is possibly because the water source predominantly flows through natural habitats and not urban habitats before the sampling site. Therefore there have been few other factors modifying water quality before the presence of the illegal dumpsite located within 200 m of the water source. Sites two to six have sensitivity scores of zero (Table 3), that indicates that the sites are seriously/critically modified
17

and have very poor water quality. This very low score could be due to two factors: firstly, the water source had been flowing predominately through the urban areas which may have caused the modification of the water quality through activities associated with urban living, such as the illegal dumping of waste products; and the second possible option for the sites’ low sensitivity score is that many of the water sources were flowing over manmade structures such has channels. This would account for a lack of habitat being available for species to grow on and thus indicates a limitation to our methods of assessing water quality.
Table 3: MiniSASS sensitivity scores of water sources located within 200 m of an illegal dumpsite.
Site
Score
1
8
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
It was found that 57.5% of respondents perceived that illegal dumpsites have severe environmental effects due to the pollution of water sources. Previous studies have found that dumpsites adjacent to water sources can contaminate water during rainy days through the transporting of leachates and rubbish by surface runoff (Simanjuntak, 2014). The polluted water emanating from the dumpsite in events such as rain, poses a serious threat to the community’s water sources (Fig. 4) (Simanjuntak, 2014).
Figure 4: Community water source in the Grahamstown Township showing evidence of water pollution from activities such as illegal dumping.
18

From the method of using miniSASS to assess water quality it can be concluded that illegal dumping may be considered a contributing factor to the poor water quality in a number of sites, however, the extent to which the illegal dumps are contributing to poor water quality is unknown and many other factors associated with urban living may also be large contributors to the poor water quality.
4.3. Effects of illegal dumping on quality of life
There are several impacts associated with the proximity of illegal dumpsites around households as they pose threats to residents’ health and quality of life. Table 4 depicts the responses from interviewees on their perceptions of the impacts that dumpsites have with regards to their quality of life. In the township areas 92.1% of the respondents complained that the smell of dumpsites was having an effect on their quality of life, whereas in the suburban areas 93.3% of residents complained that they disliked the sight of the dumpsites.
Table 4: Local perceptions of illegal dumping effects on the quality of life
Question
Effects on quality of life
Smell
Visual
Aesthetics
Township
N=38
Number of Responses (%)
Suburbs
N=15
Totals
N=53
92.1
68.4
30
66.7
93.3
66.7
85
75
40
Attracts vagrants
Unwanted animals
Health concerns
21.1
36.8
23.7
40
40
33.3
26
38
26
A possible explanation for this may be due to two reasons: firstly it was noted that ‘illegal dumping’ in the suburban areas constituted as the wrong waste being dumped in the allocated
19

dumpsites (i.e. not adhering to the “garden refuge only sign”) whereas in the township the number of illegal dumpsites was greater and they were found on the side of the roads, in open plots and in close proximity to people’s houses thus worsening the smell; secondly it was observed that the township dumpsites have a greater variety of waste, including dead dogs and cats, diapers, and sanitary towels. This phenomenon was confirmed by an enraged local resident who said, “I have even seen an ambulance dumping foetuses.” Another local resident commented that “In summer, we can’t even open our windows.” This could be attributed to the wind which blows the smell towards the direction of the resident’s houses. More often than not, dumpsites have a hostile effect on the open air that people inhale and the intolerable smell that emerges from these sites is usually a cause of various illnesses (Abul, 2010).
This problem is not only common in Grahamstown as there have been several reported cases in other places, such as the Indonesian town of West Jakarta where residents’ complained of a foul odour that emerged from four nearby dumpsites therefore administration had no other choice but to clear the sites (Simanjuntak, 2014), as it should be happening in Grahamstown.
The presence of dumpsites also has a major impact on the visual and aesthetic appeal of the area. This is so because in most instances, illegal dumping lowers the visual pleasantness of the land. This is often seen in the sharp and protruding objects and appliances which lower the value of the land thus making it less desirable for people that are interested in recreational activities (NSW Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). The impact of the aesthetic appeal of dumps was much higher in the suburbs (66.7%) than the township areas (30%) (Table 4) and this can again been attributed to the concept of ‘environmentalism of the poor’ where people are more concerned with their livelihoods than how the nature around them is affected/looks .
It is noted that in both the township and suburb areas the percentage of respondents concerned about the health impacts is low, indicating that majority of people are unaware/uneducated of the possible health problems associated with dumpsites which is a concern (Table 4). However, respondents that were aware of the health impacts gave an idea of the possible threats they bring: the most striking response was from a street-cleaner who complained that her six year old child has had tuberculosis five times; and another resident also complained that children who play in the dumpsites also develop severe skin-rashes. This is so because disposed material such as old tyres have still puddles of water that are breeding grounds for mosquitoes and fleas that can be the cause of several sicknesses and diseases such as malaria (Bockarie, 2011). From
20

this, one might argue that there is evidence of a positive correlation that exists between the increase in recorded health related problems and residents proximity to the dumpsites.
According to Vrijheid (2000), illnesses often associated with living near dumpsites typically include a wide range of health problems such as respiratory symptoms; irritation of skin, nose, and eyes; gastrointestinal problems; fatigue; headaches; psychological disorders; and allergies.
In a local town, Buffalo City, Parkside tip and Second Creek dumpsites were closed due to a series of health related complaints from the residents. This, however, did not stop local companies from illegally dumping waste as several trucks were seen dumping waste at night
(Linden, 2014). This did not only result in piles of waste but it also attracted scavenging dogs, foul odours and loitering people in the area (Linden, 2014).
Illegal dumpsites can also draw vagrants and unwanted animals to an area. In the suburban areas 40% of the respondents complained of dumpsites attracting unwanted vagrants whereas in the township only 21.1% of people mentioned vagrants. This could be because the vagrants perhaps find items of more value to them in suburban dumpsites, such as glass bottles and plastic for recycling and potenital meals.
4.4. Reasons for illegal dumping and people responsible
According to the surveys it was discovered that the municipality cleared household waste on a weekly basis and the designated skips every few months. The township (21%) and suburb residents (31.3 %) (Table 5) believed that illegal dumping was related to non-existing or unreliable waste collection services. This is one of the reasons that people dump their waste illegally, but the most prevalent reason, with 81.3 % and 68.4 % of the suburb and township responses respectively, was found to be people’s laziness and carelessness, as seen in Table 5.
21

Table 5: Local perceptions of who is responsible for illegal dumping
Question Number of Responses (%)
Township
N=38
Suburbs
N=16
Totals
N=54
Who contributes to illegal dumping?
Construction & demolition 18.4 50 28
Garden
Vehicle repairs
Scrap collectors
Waste pickers
Locals
5.3
2.6
2.6
5.3
89.5
31.3
0
6.3
31.3
75
13
2
4
13
85
Table 6: Reasons behind illegal dumping
Question
Reasons behind illegal dumping
Number of Responses (%)
Township
N=38
Suburbs
N=16
Totals
N=54
Don’t know what else do to with it
10.5 18.8 15
Costly proper disposal
Don’t care/lazy
0
68.4
12.5
81.3
4
81
Missed refused collection day 2.6 12.5 6
No/unreliable waste services
Unaware of available services
21
2.6
31.3
18.8
27
8
22

The majority of the respondents from both the township and suburbs, 89.5 % and 75 % respectively, cited local residents as the major contributors to illegal dumping as it is not restricted to race, class, gender and age. Although this is true, a large majority of the dumpsites were found in the township so one can sumize that poorer people are more inclined to dump waste illegally than middle to higher class income people. Although the municipality supplies plastic bags and they are collected on a weekly basis, some households cannot afford to attain more plastic bags or there are not enough and this leads to illegal dumping of excess waste
(Etengeneng, 2012). Poorer people are also less inclined to pay for extra waste removal means.
Mr Froneman explained that in his suburb the residents tended to throw their rubbish in the garden refuge sites on days when they forgot to put the rubbish out. The second highest contributor to dumping is construction and demolition (Table 5) and it was noted in many of the surveys that several construction companies continuously dump their waste (cement bags, rubble, wiring) in sites that are designated to garden refuse. In one of the major dumpsites it was found that the hospital had been dumping old medical equipment, such as needles, as well as human waste. Waste pickers were also significant contributors in the suburbs (31.3 %) as they tend to travel to high-income residential areas and rummage through waste on collection days (Froneman, pers-comm).
4.5. Combatting illegal dumping
The bylaws for illegal dumping are clearly presented but the enforcement of these regulations is absent. There are no negative physical consequences to dumping waste illegally and Mr
Nongwe confirms this by saying “this is where the municipality sometimes fails in that you need to find that person dumping and take them to court”. The municipality does not have an efficient monitoring system for these illegal dumpsites and do not know who needs to be fined for dumping or where all the illegal dumpsites are actually located. Illegal dumping is an extremely complex issue and therefore implementing management plans requires all stakeholders, including the government, local municipality, counsellors and community members, to participate if this problem is to be eradicated. Mr Nongwe explained that there is only so much that the municipality can do in terms of waste management and that “cleanliness is not only dependant on the municipality”.
When asked what services the municipality can improve to combat illegal dumping, the majority of people (39.5% of the township respondents and 66.6% of the suburban respondents,
Table 7) stated that this could be done by providing waste containers to specific locations. The
23

municipality expressed an issue in the township areas where there are numerous people living in one home or extra tenants living on properties so the municipality does not know how many black bags they must provide. These bags have also been used for other purposes other than rubbish accumulation therefore the municipality are finding this initiative ineffective in tackling illegal dumping.
The second most prevalent answer, 34%, was to employ more municipal workers (Table 7).
Another programme that the municipality tried to implement to combat illegal dumping involved contracting people to pick up litter in the area. This program was suspended as community members were purposefully littering with the hopes of receiving a job.
Environmental awareness programme are also currently being promoted by the municipality whereby student workers go out and educate people on the environmental risks involved in illegal dumping as well as read the municipal bylaws. The municipality has also approached several township communities to get their opinion on where they would prefer certain dumpsites to be and these areas are busy being fenced off and formalised as new legal dump sites. According to Mr Froneman, in his neighbourhood the community combatted illegal dumping by working together to fund a fence to demarcate their local dumpsite and prohibit further illegal dumping.
The main problem identified by the municipality is the lack of community involvement in tackling the issue of illegal dumping. Mr Nongwe states that “the residents need to take responsibility for themselves by not littering in the first place”. The municipality removes the waste weekly, which residents confirmed, yet the same dumping spots continue to reappear.
There have been numerous complaints to the municipality about certain dump sites because of the health, aesthetics and quality of life impacts that these dumpsites have yet it is their own community members that continue to do the illegal dumping. Alternatively the community feels as though the municipality is not concerned with their issues and though they may clear some of the registered legal sites, the other dump sites are left to be the communities’ problem.
Of the participants, 82 % said that they are willing to get involved in combatting illegal dumping yet no progress has been made thus far and there are no community based programs in place. Almost half of the participants (43%) said they would contribute their time to the matter but feel as if they need some form of compensation and 31% said that they would not contribute anything to the cause and this was the second most common answer to this particular question. This demonstrates the there is a desperate need to raise awareness of the impacts of illegal dumping to the Grahamstown community.
24

Table 7: Local perceptions of combatting illegal dumping
Question Number of Responses (%)
Services municipality can improve to combat dumping
Provide waste containers
Employ more workers
Timely waste collection services
Fence off area
Other
Contributions to combatting illegal dumping
Money
Petition
Time
Nothing
Other
Township
N=38
39.5
34.2
15.8
36.8
21
N=38
0
18.4
39.5
39.5
2.6
Suburbs
N=15
66.6
33.3
40
26.6
20
N=16
6.7
46.7
53.3
13.3
33.3
Totals
N=53
47
34
23
34
19
N=54
2
26
43
31
11
It is clear that illegal dumping and waste management are highly prevalent problems in
Grahamstown. These problems are having an impact in various ways including on the environment, quality of life and health of the civilians. There are a number of factors contributing to illegal dumping making it a complex problem. Makana Municipality inefficiently monitors and regulates this issue and does not enforce the relevant bylaws effectively. However, it was found that the local residents are the predominant offenders responsible for the illegal dumping of waste in all areas of Grahamstown. Thus, there is only so much that the municipality can do in terms of service delivery but community cleanliness is the peoples’ responsibility. The underlying issue prohibiting the ability to combat illegal
25

dumping is the lack of involvement, action and communication between the various community actors.
In order to address this issue we suggest an approach that encompasses community involvement where the principles of adaptive co-management can be used to solve illegal dumping. Adaptive co-management can be defined as “a long term management structure that permits stakeholders to share management responsibility with a specific system of natural resources, and to learn from their actions” (Ruitenbeek and Cartier, 2001: 8). More specifically
‘adaptive co-management’ involves managing specific areas on the basis of their unique characteristics using community based systems (Cundill and Fabricius, 2008). Adaptive comanagement relies on the involvement of multiple level actors managing natural resources and promotes building relationships between these levels in order to having a functional and reliable management system (Cundill and Fabricius, 2008). This management paradigm is primarily focused on natural resources but it is relevant in this context as the core components can be applied to dealing with illegal dumping.
In Grahamstown, councillors of the different wards play a crucial role in managing community issues. For many of these areas the counsellors are not fulfilling their duties and there is a gap between the municipality and the civilians. Counsellors need to start involving citizens in decision making and action so that a community-mentality is gained whereby people act towards bettering their own area for the greater good of the whole community. If communities were more educated on the impacts of illegal dumping and identified this as a social deviation, this could potentially begin to change their habits (McKinlay and Starkey, 1998).
As suggested by Mr Nongwe community management forums should be implemented where the municipality, ward counsellors and community members meet in order to discuss the issue at hand and seek solutions in a collaborative manner. Community forums will also help the municipality to highlight the relevant bylaws and involve people in implementation and regulation. In doing so it will create stronger relationships between the levels of governance and the community will be more educated and encouraged to get involved in combatting illegal dumping.
A campaign that intends to inform and influence decision-making within communities is a grassroots approach to tackling illegal dumping that should be implemented in Grahamstown.
This could involve prearranged neighbourhood clean-up days, programs raising awareness in schools, and encouraging locals to report incidences of illegal dumping. Ultimately, in order
26

for this problem to be overcome, there needs to be a change in the communities’ attitudes and behaviours towards waste management.
We would like to thank Professor Sheona Shackleton for her valuable input and guidance throughout the study. Thank you to Mr William Froneman and Mr Ndumiso Nongwe for their time and participation in our research. Finally we appreciate all the input gained from the environmental science department.
27

Abul, S. 2010. Environmental and health impact of solid waste disposal at mangwaneni dumpsite in Manzini: Swaziland, Journal of Sustainable development in Africa, 12 (7):
64-78.
Akinbile, C.O. & Yusoff, M.S. 2011. Environmental impact of leachate pollution on groundwater supplies in Akure Nigeria. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development , 2: 81-89.
Ali, S.M., Pervaiz, A., Afzal, B., Hamid, N. & Yasmin, A. 2014. Open dumping of municipal solid waste and its hazardous impacts on soil and vegetation diversity at waste dumping sites of Islamabad city. Journal of King Saud University-Science, 26:59-65.
BBC News. 2005. Illegal dumping 'costs millions' . [Online]: Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4310267.stm. [01/04/2014].
Bockarie, A.O. 2011. Illegal dumping sparks fury.
[Online]. Available: http://standardtimespress.org/?p=2316. [28/08/2014].
Bryman, A. 2006. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? SAGE
Journals, 6 (1): 97–113.
Chromy, J. & Abeyasekera, S. 2005. Statistical analysis of survey data . [Online]. Available: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/hhsurveys/finalpublication/ch19fin3.pdf. [25/08/2014].
City of Johannesburg. 2011. Integrated waste management policy . [Online]: Available: www.pikitup.co.za/upload/files/iwm_policy2011.pdf. [01/04/2014].
Cundill, G. & Fabricius, C. (2008). Adaptive co-management under resource-poor conditions:
Lessons from South Africa. In Burns, M. & Weaver, A. (ed .). Exploring sustainability science: a southern African perspective . Stellenbosch: African Sun Media. p. 537-563.
Etengeneng, D. 2012. Municipal solid waste management in Grahamstown, Republic of South
Africa . Novia: Novia University of Applied Sciences. (Degree thesis) [pdf].
Gabara, N. 2009. Sonjica talks tough on illegal dumping . [Online]. Available: http://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/sonjica-talks-tough-illegal-dumping .
[28/08/2014].
28

Graham, P.M., Dickens, C.W. & Taylor, R.J. 2004. MiniSASS—A novel technique for community participation in river health monitoring and management. African Journal of
Aquatic Science, 29: 25-35.
Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science , 162: 1243-1248.
Hoornweg, D. & Bhada-Tata, P. 2012.
What a Waste : A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management. Urban Development , 15: 22-32.
Ichinose, D. & Yamamoto, M. 2011. On the relationship between the provision of waste management service and illegal dumping. Resource and Energy Economics , 33: 79-93.
Johnson, K. 2006.
Toxic dumping in Africa elicits calls for better controls . [Online]: Available: http://www.nationalgepgraphic.com/news/2006/10/061030-toxic-waste.html
.
[29/09/2014].
Kariuki, P. 2008. Examining consumers’ perceptions on water supply and sanitation services: A case study of Ohlange Township, Durban, South Africa . Durban: University of KwaZulu-
Natal (MA thesis) [Pdf].
Linden, A. 2014. Illegal dumping sparks fury . [Online]. Available: http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/news/illegal-dumping-sparks-fury. [29/08/2014].
Madava, T. 2001. Illicit dumping of toxic wastes breach of human rights. Review of African
Political Economy , 28: 288-290.
Makana Municipality. 2014. Makana Municipality - Eastern Cape, South Africa . [Online].
Available: http://www.makana.gov.za/. [27 /08/ 2014].
Marshall, R.E. & Farahbakhsh, K. 2013. Systems approaches to integrated solid waste management in developing countries. Waste Management, 33: 988-1003.
Mart’inez-Alier, J. & Alier, J. M. 2003. The environmentalism of the poor: a study of ecological conflicts and valuation . Edward Elgar Publishing.
McKinlay, A. & Starkey, K. (Eds.). 1998. Foucault, management and organization theory: From panopticon to technologies of self. Sage.
29

Nahman, A. & Godfrey, L. 2010. Economic instruments for solid waste management in South
Africa: Opportunities and constraints. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 8: 521-
531.
New South Wales (NSW) Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Consequences of illegal dumpsites.
[Online]. Available: http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/waste/OnlineIllDumpRes/Consequences.htm [25/08/2014].
Project Green Sweep. 2011. Environmental, health and economic effects of illegal dumping .
[Online]: Available: http://pulse.pharmacy.arizona.edu/resources/EffectsofDumping.pdf
[30/03/2014].
Rosebank Killarney Gazette. 2011. Illegal dumping costs the city 'R60 million' a year.
[Online]
Available: http://www.looklocal.co.za/looklocal/content/en/rosebankkillarney/rosebank-killarney-newsgeneral?oid=4709165&sn=Detail&pid=217831&Illegal-dumping-costs-the-city--R60million--a-year [25/04/2014].
Ruitenbeek, J. & Cartier, C. M. 2001. The invisible wand: adaptive co-management as an emergent strategy in complex bio-economic systems. Centre for International Forestry
Research , 34:51.
Simanjuntak, T.P. 2014. West Jakarta administration closes 4 illegal dumpsites . [Online].
Available:http://beritajakarta.com/read/en/2561/West_Jakarta_Administration_Closes_4
_Illegal_Dumpsites. [29/08/2014].
Snowball, J.D. & Willis, K.G. & Jeurissen, C. 2008. Willingness to pay for water service improvements in middle-income urban households in South Africa: A stated choice analysis. South African Journal of Economics, 76: 705-719.
South African Government. 1996. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
Johannesburg:
Government of the Republic of South Africa.
Statistics South Africa. 2011. Statistics South Africa, Makana Municipality . [Online]. Available: http://beta2.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=993&id=makana-municipality. [31/03/2014].
30

United Nations Environment Programme. 2005 . Closing and open dumpsite and shifting from open dumping to controlled dumping and to sanitary landfilling . [Online] Available: http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Publications/spc/SPC_Training-Module.pdf [25/09/2014].
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Illegal dumping prevention handbook .
[Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region5/waste/illegal_dumping/downloads/ildmpng.pdf [28/08/2014].
Vrijheid, M. 2000. Health effects of residence near hazardous waste landfill sites: a review of epidemiologic literature. Environmental health perspectives, 108 (1): 101-112.
Wasley, A. 2011. UK e-waste illegally dumped in Ghana. The Guardian . [Online]. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/16/uk-ewaste-dumped-ghana .
[28/08/2014].
Zurbrügg, C. 2002. Urban solid waste management in low-income countries of Asia: How to cope with the garbage crisis. Urban Solid Waste Management Review Session . Durban,
South Africa.
31

32

Informal dumping in Grahamstown: Associated impacts
As members of the Environmental Science 302 class, we are conducting a research study on illegal dumping in relation to the location of illegal dump sites and their impacts. We would appreciate your assistance and time in completing this questionnaire. If you feel uncomfortable with any particular question you have the choice to decline answering or you can choose not to be part of the study.
Admin only:
Household number:
Section A: Basic Details
Street name:
1.
Gender (tick)
Male
Female
2.
Employment (tick)
Yes No
3.
How long have you lived here? (tick)
Less than a year 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10 years More than 10 years
4.
How many people live in your household
Section B: Awareness and extent of illegal dumping
5.
Are you aware of the illegal dump site located in your neighbourhood? (tick)
Yes No
6.
If yes, how many sites have you noticed? (tick)
0-1 2-5 More than 5
7.
Do you think illegal dumping is a problem in your neighbourhood? (tick)
Yes No
33

8.
If yes, how would you rate the severity of the problem? (circle)
Minor Moderate Neutral Severe Highly Severe
9.
How frequently does the problem occur? (tick applicable)
Daily Weekly Monthly Seasonally Annually
Other (specify)
10.
How long has it been occurring? (tick)
A few weeks A few months A year 2-5 years 6-9 years >10 years
11.
Who do you think contributes to this illegal dumping? (tick applicable)
Construction, demolition, remodelling, roofing or landscaping contractors
Garden services
Vehicle repair or tyre shops
Scrap collectors
Waste pickers local residents
Other (specify)
12.
Why do you think people dump waste illegally? (tick applicable)
They don’t know what else to do with it
Proper disposal is costly
They don’t care/ lazy
Missed refuse collection day
No/unreliable waste collection services
Unaware of the services available to them
34

Other (specify)
Section C: Tackling illegal dumping
13.
On a scale of 1 to 5, how important is it to eliminate illegal dumping? (tick)
Extremely
Important
1
Quite
Important
2
Don’t know/Neutral
3
Not Very
Important
4
Explain answer?
14.
What services can the municipality improve upon to prevent illegal dumping? (tick applicable)
Not
Important
5
Provide waste containers to specific locations
Employ more workers
Timely waste collection services
Fence off area
Other (specify)
15.
Is the community involved in combatting illegal dumping?
Yes No
16.
How would you be willing to combat illegal dumping in your area? (tick)
Money
Petition
Time
Nothing
Other
35

Section D: Illegal dumping effects
17.
Does having a dump site in your neighbourhood effect your quality of life in any way?
Smell
Visual
Aesthetics
Vagrants
Unwanted animals (stray dogs, donkeys)
Other (specify):
18.
Has the problem affected you, your family or pets?
Yes
If yes, how
No
19.
Do you think the illegal dumpsite have negative effects on the environment
Yes No
20.
If yes, in what way? (tick applicable)
Vegetation growth
Soil pollution
Water pollution
Harmful to animals
Other (specify):
21.
How would you rate the severity of these environmental impacts? (circle)
Minor Moderate Neutral Severe Highly Severe
Thank you for your time.
36