Equity in
Access to
Waste
Management
Services and
Infrastructure in
a Small South
African Town
Environmental Science 302
Final Report
Zama Mcube
Vuyo Ntamo
g10N0940Group 4:
Gregory Crichton
Steven Ellery
Shannon Herd-Hoare
Samantha Houghting
Roberto Malgas
g12M3076
g11C2500
g12E4394
g12H0176
g12H0687
g10M0507
Supervisor Dr Georgina Cundill
Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Waste Management in a Global Context ......................................................................... 2
1.2 Waste Management in Africa .......................................................................................... 3
1.3 Waste Management in South Africa ................................................................................ 4
1.4 Objectives and Key Questions ......................................................................................... 6
2. Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Background Information .................................................................................................. 6
3. Methods................................................................................................................................ 10
3.1.
Is there an adequate availability of rubbish bins within historically advantaged and
disadvantaged commercial areas in Grahamstown? ............................................................ 10
3.2Are there differences in perceptions of efficiency, reliability and effectiveness in waste
collection between the historically advantaged and historically disadvantaged areas of
Grahamstown? ..................................................................................................................... 11
3.3.Are there sufficient resources (e.g. number of trucks; number of staff; funds) available
to the Grahamstown Municipality for waste collection? ..................................................... 11
3.4 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 12
4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 12
4.1. Availability and suitability of waste service delivery in the central business district of
Grahamstown. ...................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.1. The density of dustbins in the CBD of Grahamstown and perceptions of their
sufficiency. ....................................................................................................................... 12
4.2. Perceptions of equity and access to waste service delivery in suburban areas ............. 18
5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 19
5.1. Availability and suitability of waste service delivery in the central business district of
Grahamstown. ...................................................................................................................... 19
5.2. Perceptions of equity and access to waste service delivery in suburban areas ............. 21
6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 22
7. Reference List ...................................................................................................................... 23
i|Page
ii | P a g e
Abstract
Solid waste is a serious threat to environmental, social and political structures if it is not
managed properly. Unfortunately, solid waste management as a deliverable service is only
sufficiently provided to a certain number of people around the globe, and insufficiently to a
great number of others. In a South African city – Grahamstown – delivery of solid waste
management services is hypothesized to be inequitable as a result of the apartheid regime. The
apartheid regime separated the infrastructure and services provided to different communities
based on race and the aim of this project is to assess whether or not these divisions are still
visible today. One aspect of the study was conducted in the central business district (CBD) of
Grahamstown, where the equitable distribution of bins was assessed between the formerly
white and black areas. The second aspect of the study was conducted in the formerly white and
black suburban areas of Grahamstown where the equitability of solid waste removal service
delivery was assessed. The perceptions of people in each of these study areas were used as the
main source of data and information. Using interviews and questionnaires and the p-median
problem as the main sources of data it was found that in the CBD of Grahamstown there
appeared to be an inequitable distribution and maintenance of bins. The formerly white
business district had a much higher density of bins than the formerly black business district,
and this was reflected in the opinion polls that were conducted in these two areas. Using
questionnaires and interviews again in the suburbs of Grahamstown, it was found that there
was equitable delivery of waste removal services in the formerly white and black suburban
areas of Grahamstown. This study concluded that the service delivery of solid waste removal
in Grahamstown suburbs is equitably distributed, but the infrastructure of bins in the CBD is
not equitably distributed.
iii | P a g e
1. Introduction
Municipalities serve to satisfy the needs of people within a given political sphere, and there are
certain standards that have to be met by these institutions (Frederickson, 1990). Municipalities
may be required to provide adequate water, sanitation, waste removal infrastructure and
electricity to a community dependent on the job description. Prior to 1968, the globally
recognised responsibilities of such public administrations were to provide these services
efficiently and economically (Frederickson, 1990). In 1968, when inequality based on race was
at its pinnacle in various places around the world, such as the United States of America and
South Africa, a third responsibility or pillar that public administrators should adhere to was
suggested (Frederickson, 1981). This third responsibility detailed that public services should
be provided in an equitable manner throughout the populous. This would allow for the
accomplishment of one aspect of social equity. While its definition is complex, social equity
can only be achieved through the equitable distribution of government services within a country
(Frederickson, 1981). Unfortunately there are very few places in the world where these services
are equitably distributed. This research paper focuses on the equitable distribution of waste
removal service delivery in Grahamstown, South Africa. Under Section B, Schedule 5 of the
South African constitution, it states that one of the services that a local municipality is required
to provide to the people within its jurisdiction is adequate waste removal and waste disposal
facilities (Makana Municipality, 2000). This is mirrored by the globally accepted view that
service of waste removal and disposal is the responsibility of the administrative powers within
a country.
Sufficient infrastructure and services for waste removal are a basic human right in South Africa
(South African Constitution, 1996). South Africa experienced apartheid for nearly fifty years
however, and this caused major equity issues when it came to focussing on human rights. One
of the effective residues of the apartheid regime in the broader South African society is the
unequal provision of service delivery and infrastructure to previously disadvantaged areas
(McLennan, 2012). This has been a result of the struggle by the government to depoliticise
service delivery and infrastructure provision in a highly unequal society and make it purely
about delivering the services needed to all people (McLennan, 2012). There are still inherent
issues with service delivery and infrastructure disparities that exist in very near proximity to
one another in towns such as Grahamstown (Ozler, 2007).
1|Page
1.1 Waste Management in a Global Context
Unmanaged solid waste is a global problem that has to be dealt with on a global scale. The
issue of solid waste has been exacerbated by rapid urbanization which has led to a major
increase in solid waste production. The global population reached the 7 billion mark in 2011,
with more than half of the global population living in urban spaces (Adeniyi et al., 2012). On
average, the human population is able to produce over 1.6 billion tons of solid waste annually,
as the population increases, so does our ability to produce waste (Ahmed & Ali, 2006).This
can be attributed to an increase of goods passing through consumer markets, because an
increased number of people buying goods, means that more goods need to be produced and
hence more waste will ultimately be produced. While household choices will determine the
amount of waste produced, the increase in urban population leads to an increase in urban waste
through the production and consumption of goods. The mismanagement of solid waste results
in a number of environmental and social problems like water bourne diseases, environmental
degradation, pollution and the loss of vital and valuable natural resources. Unfortunately due
to inequitable distribution and allocation of waste services, these problems are concentrated in
certain parts of countries as waste management might not have been prioritised by local
municipalities. According to Brunner and Fellner (2007), the main aims of solid waste
management therefore are to protect both human wellbeing and environmental integrity. In
order to combat some of these problems, efficient, effective, economical, equitable and reliable
waste management practices should be implemented, some of which include: provision of an
adequate number of bins, frequent removal of waste from bins and households and suitable
disposal methods for the solid waste.
There is no universal method for effective waste management; therefore each country has
adopted their own situation specific waste management approach. This means that these
different approaches may vary in effectiveness and efficiency. As a result of the resources
available to governments and how they consider these resources should best be used, developed
and developing countries manage solid waste differently (Poerbo, 1991). The different socioeconomic statuses between developed and developing countries means that in developing
countries, there are seemingly ‘more important’ problems than solid waste management to
which the local government might devote it’s available resources such as provision of clean
water, education and sewage disposal (Henry et al., 2006).
2|Page
In developing countries, as mentioned above, waste management is a rising concern as a result
of its heightening inadequacy in service delivery. As a result of poor economic development,
developing countries often battle to address solid waste management issues because of a
general lack of resources. Furthermore, high levels of rural-urban migration, poor infrastructure
and maintenance, lack of functioning bins, lack of funding and expertise and skewed political
agendas exacerbate the situation (Henry et al., 2006). A study in three cities in countries
characterised by different economic conditions was conducted in order to investigate the
possible way in which economic conditions might affect waste management strategies
(Brunner & Fellner, 2007). The study found that in the developing cities, only a limited number
of resources could be spent on each person for waste collection and disposal, meaning that
often these collection and disposal methods aren’t always the most effective.
1.2 Waste Management in Africa
The issue of waste management is especially prevalent in Africa. 20-50% of African
governmental budgets are dedicated to waste removal, and yet despite these efforts only 2080% of waste is effectively removed (Achankeng, 2003). During times of economic crisis or
war, waste removal is not prioritised. Achankeng (2003) estimates that African cities generate
waste at a rate of between 0.3 and 1.4 kg per capita per day, as opposed to the average 1.22 kg
of waste generated in a developed country per capita per day. This could be attributed to more
goods and services being available in developed countries to the citizens as well as the buying
power of the consumers that exist within those countries. From a case study done in Kenya,
key problems with regards to waste management are poor economic growth; rural-urban
migration, political interference like war or apartheid like regimes and dictatorships, poor
infrastructure and maintenance and lack of funding (Henry et al., 2006). Rapid and
uncontrolled growths of urban populations in developing countries make waste management a
vitally important issue because of the possible repercussions of inadequate waste removal
(Ghose et al., 2006). This is due to the inability of many of the governments in Africa to
equitably provide sufficient waste removal services and infrastructure.
Many African communities and populations are depending less on governmental incentives,
and look towards individual communities for waste management schemes. Non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and community-based organisations (CBOs) allow members of the
community to get involved in waste management schemes (Godfrey, 2007). City authorities in
Nigeria for example place large movable containers at designated service points along the
3|Page
shoulders of accessible roads for the storage of municipal waste (Adeniyi et al., 2012). This
system has a shared responsibility approach, where communities must work with the
government for the sake of efficiency. It requires the generators of waste to place waste into
the containers provided at designated service points and it requires the municipality to allocate
dustbins to different parts of the city, as well as collect and dispose of the contents (Adeniyi et
al., 2012). However, these containers are only provided to those people who live in poor
economic conditions in these countries for the most part. Those that live in high income areas
have an efficient waste removal service where the waste is collected from their doorsteps
because they are able to pay for it (Miraftab, 2004). The delivery of waste removal services
and infrastructure becomes an issue of equity when it is poorly implemented in certain
communities and not in others.
1.3 Waste Management in South Africa
According to the South African constitution, people have the right to live in an environment
that is not detrimental to their health, and the government and its local municipalities are to
ensure that this law is respected and made known to every South African citizen (South African
Constitution, 1996). In South Africa, waste is dealt with on a municipal level which involves
the provision of regularly emptied and optimally located bins, removal of household waste on
a frequent basis as well as appropriate treatment and disposal techniques, all done in an
equitable manner (Brunner & Fellner, 2007).
Governments in developing countries lack the resources and the expertise to efficiently manage
the collection and disposal of solid waste. A key factor of this is the availability of dustbins. In
a study conducted by Govender et al., (2011), it was indicated that the residents of low-income
areas in Cape Town (Driftsands, Greenfield, Masipumelela and Tafelsig) had very little or no
access to waste bins. 68% did not have access to a dustbin, while 25.9% disposed of waste in
the streets or via storm drains.
South Africa generates 533.6 million tons of solid waste annually, the majority of which is still
dumped in large landfill sites. Unfortunately only 10% of these landfill sites are properly
maintained and meet the minimum requirements set out by the Department of Water Affairs
(Karani & Jewasikiewitz, 2006). According to reviews done by both the Department of Water
Affairs and the Department of Environmental Affairs, there are 1203 landfill or dumping sites
in South Africa, 43.6% of which are legal (Karani & Jewasikiewitz, 2006).
4|Page
One of the main issues inherent within the framework of solid waste management in South
Africa is the fact that there are large disparities between the service delivery and infrastructure
afforded to different communities that live within the country (Miraftab, 2004). Returning to
the idea of equitable public administration, this inequitable distribution of these services is
largely viewed as a remnant of the apartheid legacy. Many areas that were formerly classified
as ‘white-only’ (previously advantaged) areas have a frequent and reliable waste removal
system that existed throughout the apartheid era and has perpetuated through the years of
democracy (Miraftab, 2004). This is done through regular door-to-door rubbish collection and
street sweeping activities. However, the heavily populated townships or formerly ‘black’ areas
(previously disadvantaged) are often forced to discard of their rubbish in open spaces or
unsealed communal skips. When refuse workers are available they are often unable to manage
the large volume of uncollected waste (Miraftab, 2004). This quality of service delivery was
also experienced throughout the apartheid era in these areas and is thought to have perpetuated
to some degree through the years of democracy too.
According to Karani and Jewasikiewitz (2005), the problem of solid waste management in
South Africa lies within the inadequate capacity of the local municipal administrators to
facilitate proper waste management programmes and the inability to collect rates and taxes for
effective management of these programmes. However the lack of governance might not be
entirely to blame for the poor state of waste and litter removal. Research has shown that middleclass South Africans are among the most wasteful users of resources and producers of waste in
the world (Qatole et al., 2001). Qatole et al. (2001) argue that by leaving in place the
infrastructure that makes the high standards of living possible, government has essentially
condoned over-consumption habits and practices amongst the middle and upper classes.
Naidoo (2009) believes that the unstable waste management practices such as littering, illegal
burning and pollution are a result of the poor people’s lack of education and awareness. Since
people have not been made aware about the impacts of waste mismanagement, they do not
separate their waste and therefore dispose of it wherever they please.
If South Africa is trying to promote equality, a society that rejects discrimination and promotes
environmental consciousness, something seemingly as simple as sufficient waste management
service delivery could be a huge step towards this.
5|Page
1.4 Objectives and Key Questions
This study has two objectives:
The first main objective of this paper is to assess provision of dustbins to the different areas
characterised by their associated histories to the apartheid era in the central business district
(CBD) of Grahamstown. This objective is assessed by considering the distribution of dustbins
in the different areas of the CBD. The assessment also considers the services provided by the
municipality and whether or not they are sufficient in catering for the needs of the respective
areas.
The second main objective of this paper is to assess whether or not there is equitable waste
removal service delivery in different communities within the previously advantaged and
disadvantaged suburbs of Grahamstown. The assessment of this objective will be done by
investigating key aspects of waste management in Grahamstown.
These objectives are assessed according to the following key questions:
1. Is there an adequate availability of rubbish bins within historically advantaged and
disadvantaged commercial areas in Grahamstown?
2. Are there differences in perceptions of efficiency, reliability and effectiveness in waste
collection between the historically advantaged and historically disadvantaged areas of
Grahamstown?
3. Are there sufficient resources (e.g. number of trucks; number of staff; funds) available
to the Grahamstown Municipality for waste collection?
2. Study Area
2.1 Background Information
Segregation played a major in sculpturing the history of South Africa. Segregation in South
Africa has been represent since the time the Dutch first arrived (Irvin, 2012). Segregation in
South Africa before the 19 century was not based largely on race. This is evident in the
residential areas like Sophia town, District 6 and Meadowlands whereby people of all different
races and cultures lived in the same area (Beningfield, 2006).
Segregation by race was predominated in the 20th century with the induction of the native Act
in 1923 and Apartheid laws (Maylam 1995). Although in East London Racial segregation was
instituted in 1849 (Maylam 1995). This was a result of when a government notice was issued
6|Page
requiring “fingoes and other coloured native” to live locations (Maylam 1995). All other major
cities in the Eastern Cape like Cradock, Graaff-Reinet and Grahamstown saw racial segregation
in the mid-ninetieth century when apartheid was introduced. Under apartheid there were many
laws which separated races physically and economically (Irvin, 2008). Since white race was
seen as superior because it received all the benefits of the apartheid regime (Irvin, 2008). Under
apartheid there were different developments of amenities and services in the different racial
residential areas (Irvin 2008). This development included education, infrastructure health care
and all other essential needs.
Grahamstown is situated within Makana Municipality (Figure 1), which is part of the Cacadu
District Municipality. The Makana Municipality covers an area of 4 375.63 km² with a density
of 18.37 people per km2 and 4.89 households per km2 (Frith, 2011). The Makana Municipality
consists of a racially diverse population, of which the black population group forms the largest
percentage (78%) (Frith, 2011).
Figure 1: Map of Makana Municipality
The city of Grahamstown (Figure 2) forms the centre of the Makana Municipality and has the
largest population of any settlement in the municipality. Grahamstown covers an area of
62.67km2, has a population of 50 217 people (with a density of 801.35 people per km²) and
consists of 13 427 households (density of 214.26 per km²) (Frith, 2011).
7|Page
Figure 2: Map of Grahamstown
As with Makana Municipality the majority of the population consists of white, black and
coloured people. (Table 1).
Table 1: Different population groups in Grahamstown (Frith, 2011)
Population group
People
Percentage
Black
36,549
72.78%
Coloured
7,178
14.29%
White
5,636
11.22%
Indian or Asian
472
0.94%
Other
382
0.76%
This study focused on the formally white and black areas within Grahamstown. In this study
formerly white areas will be referred to as previously advantaged areas and formerly black
areas will be referred to as previously disadvantaged areas. Specifically, formally black and
white areas in the CBD were identified for the purpose of this study. Similarly, a formally black
8|Page
residential area and formally white residential area were also identified for the purpose of this
study (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Former black (red) and former white residential areas (white)
The formally black area within the CBD was made of up of Beaufort Street, Bathurst Street
and lower High Street. The formally white area with the CBD was made up of upper High
Street (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Former black (blue) and white (yellow) areas in the CBD
9|Page
3. Methods
3.1.
Is there an adequate availability of rubbish bins within historically advantaged and
disadvantaged commercial areas in Grahamstown?
In order to address the objective of this project, which focused on solid waste bin availability,
two separate research methods were employed and compared.
The problem lies in determining the best distribution of dustbins, taking into account distance
between each dustbin and how often the dustbins will be emptied. A possible analytical tool to
approach this problem is the p-median method (Adeniyi et al., 2012). The p-median method is
a program that can calculate the optimal location of dustbins within a given area. The p-median
was tested in the city of Ilorin, a large urban centre in Nigeria (Adeniyi et al., 2012). Here the
p-median technique was implemented and dustbins were installed in what is thought to be the
most cost-effective and efficient way (Adeniyi et al., 2012). Nigeria is still a developing
country much like South Africa. As such we can postulate that the same results could possibly
be achieved in South Africa. With sophisticated planning about the number of collection points,
South Africa could achieve the same results as Ilorin and possibly come up with a more
effective way of positioning dustbins.
In order to utilize this research tool all the solid waste generation points within the study area
were identified and counted (Adeniyi et al., 2012). The average distance between these solid
waste generation points and dustbins was measured and calculated to determine whether or not
solid waste bins were optimally located within the study are. The p-median was employed
along upper High Street which falls within the previously advantaged area of Grahamstown as
well as Bathurst, Beaufort and lower High Street which fall within the previously
disadvantaged area of Grahamstown.
Secondly, random opinion polls were used to assess people’s perceptions of whether they
believed there were enough solid waste bins situated in different commercial areas of
Grahamstown for the foot traffic to dispose of their waste. Random opinion polls were carried
out within the study areas so as to compare the results produced by the p-median formula to
the public perceptions of solid waste bin availability and distribution. These were conducted in
the form of closed ended questions accompanied by a few follow up questions and/explanations
where necessary. In order to ensure that the research participants were randomly selected the
group was split into pairs. Each pair stood at a designated point within the study area. Once
this point had been reached there was a waiting period of five minutes before the first willing
10 | P a g e
participant was interviewed. This process was repeated until each pair had a sufficient number
of respondents, between 30 and 50. The p-median problem and random opinion poll was
conducted in order to answer our first research question which has been stated above.
3.2Are there differences in perceptions of efficiency, reliability and effectiveness in waste
collection between the historically advantaged and historically disadvantaged areas of
Grahamstown?
Random household surveys were employed in order to answer the research question of whether
there are differences in the perceptions of efficiency, reliability and effectiveness in waste
collection between the historically advantaged and historically disadvantaged areas of
Grahamstown. The same method was again employed to answer the third research question
which focused on whether people perceive these differences to have changed.
The random household surveys were conducted in the form of open as well as closed ended
questions. The random household surveys were aimed at determining how long the interviewee
has been residing in Grahamstown, their perceptions and opinions on the quality of municipal
waste removal services and whether they thought that municipal waste removal service
delivery had changed over time. The household selected as interview candidates were randomly
selected using the grid method. A grid was overlaid on an orthophoto of Grahamstown. The
resolution of the orthophoto and the area being surveyed determined the size of the grid blocks.
Larger grid blocks were used for the previously advantaged area of Grahamstown because the
size of these properties was generally larger than those found within the formally disadvantaged
area of Grahamstown. The house located at the top right hand corner of each grid block was
chosen as a survey candidate. Forty-four surveys were conducted were conducted in the
previously advantaged area and thirty-four were conducted in the previously disadvantaged
area
3.3.Are there sufficient resources (e.g. number of trucks; number of staff; funds) available
to the Grahamstown Municipality for waste collection?
A key informant interview was conducted with Mr Esterhuizen, the assistant director for
Environmental Health and Cleansing. The interview took the form of open ended questions
and was aimed at gaining an in depth understanding of the inner workings of the municipal
solid waste removal service. The interview was recorded using a pen and paper and with a
voice recorder.
11 | P a g e
3.4 Data Analysis
The data collected from the p-median, random opinion polls and household surveys was
collated and put into spreadsheets in Microsoft Excel. Then, graphs were created in order to
compare data from the previously advantaged and previously disadvantaged areas and to see
any possible trends. The p-median data from upper High Street, lower High Street, Beaufort
Street and Bathurst Street was analysed using a t-test. The t-test was used as this is an accepted
method to evaluate differences in the means between two groups. The data obtained via the pmedian problem was converted into means and, as such a t-test is an an appropriate means to
analyse this data.
The random opinion polls and household surveys were analysed using Chi-squared tests. The
Chi-squared test is used when dealing with categorical data and is appropriate for frequency
problems. The Chi-squared test determines whether a relationship exists between variables.
The data obtained from the random opinion polls and household surveys were converted into
frequencies for the purpose of this study. The data obtained was also categorical. This makes
the Chi-squared test appropriate to the analysis of this data. Furthermore purpose of analysing
the data obtained from the random opinion polls and household surveys was to determine
whether a relationship existed between the variables being looked at. When taking these factors
into account, the Chi-squared test is suited to the analysis of this data.
In addition, comments from the key informant interview were incorporated in order to compare
the perceptions of the public to that of the municipality.
4. Results
4.1. Availability and suitability of waste service delivery in the central business district of
Grahamstown.
4.1.1. The density of dustbins in the CBD of Grahamstown and perceptions of their
sufficiency.
The p-median method was adapted and used to assess the physical placement, distribution and
density of bins in the central business district of Grahamstown. As seen in Figure 5 there is a
difference between the previously advantaged and previously disadvantaged areas in the CBD
in relation to the average closest walking distance from waste generation point to dustbin. The
difference is very highly significant (p-value = 0.001) between these two means. The area of
12 | P a g e
the previously black CBD is 160 ha while the area of the previously advantaged CBD is 80 ha.
There were 26 dustbins located in the previously advantaged area, and 68 waste generation
points while there were 39 bins and 201 waste generation points in the previously
disadvantaged area. This means that in the previously advantaged area of the CBD, there was
one dustbin every 3.1 ha, and each dustbin caters for 2.6 waste generation points. In the
previously disadvantaged area of the CBD however, there was one dustbin every 4 ha and each
dustbin caters for 5.2 waste generation points.
60
Average distance (m)
50
40
30
20
10
0
Previously Disadvantaged
Previously Advantaged
Area of CBD
Figure 5: The average distance between waste generation points and the closest bins in the
previously advantaged and previously disadvantaged areas in the CBD in Grahamstown
There is a highly significant difference between the percentage of respondents who thought
that there were enough dustbins on upper High Street and lower High Street (p-value = 0.02);
on upper High Street and Beaufort Street (p-value = 0.001) and on upper High Street and
Bathurst Street (p-value = 0.02) (Figure 6). The three other streets were compared to upper
High Street as it is situated in a previously advantaged area while the others are regarded as
being in previously disadvantaged areas.
13 | P a g e
100
90
Respondents (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Upper High Street Lower High Street Beaufort Street
Bathurst Street
Street
Figure 6: Perceptions of the sufficiency of dustbins on upper High Street, lower High Street,
Beaufort Street and Bathurst Street
Figure 7 combines the data from Figure 6 so that a comparison can be made of perceptions
among respondents regarding the sufficiency of dustbins in the previously disadvantaged area
(lower High Street, Beaufort Street and Bathurst Street) and the previously advantaged area
(upper High Street). A very highly significant difference (p – value = 0.001) was found between
the perceptions of respondents regarding dustbin availability in the previously disadvantaged
and previously advantaged areas of Grahamstown CBD (Figure 7).
100
90
Respondents (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Previously Advantaged
Previously Disadvantaged
Area in CBD
Figure 7: Perceptions of the sufficiency of dustbins in previously advantaged and previously
disadvantaged areas of the CBD in Grahamstown
14 | P a g e
Figure 8 shows the percentage of respondents who perceived the dustbins on each street to be
emptied frequently enough. There is no significant difference between responses on upper
High Street and lower High Street (p-value = 0.06) and upper High Street and Bathurst Street
(p-value = 0.06) but the difference in responses between upper High Street and Beaufort Street
(p-value = 0.01) is highly statistically significant. A very highly significant difference was
found between the responses in the previously disadvantaged and previously advantaged areas
of the CBD (p-value = 0.01) (Figure 9).
100
90
Respondents (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Upper High Street Lower High Street Beaufort Street
Bathurst Street
Street
Figure 8: Perceptions of whether dustbins are emptied frequently enough on Upper High Street,
Lower High Street; Beaufort Street and Bathurst Street
100
90
Respondents (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Previously Advantaged
Previously Disadvantaged
Area in CBD
Figure 9: Perceptions of whether dustbins are emptied frequently enough in previously
advantaged and previously disadvantaged areas in Grahamstown CBD
15 | P a g e
56.88% of the entire sample was only willing to walk a maximum distance of 25 m to throw
away their litter (Figure 10). 29.38% were willing to walk 45 m at most while only 6.25% of
Respondents over the entire sample
(%)
the entire sample was willing to walk further than 100 m to throw away their litter (Figure 10).
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0-25
26-45
46-80
81-100
100+
Distance willing to walk to throw away litter (m)
Figure 10: The distance that the entire sample is willing to walk to find a rubbish bin
The p-median is used to assess the maximum recommended distance between waste generation
and service points for a given density of waste generation points in a given area, thus if the
average walking distance that is measured is greater than the one suggested by the p-median
method, it can be said that there might be a shortage of bins. As mentioned above, the maximum
average distance that is suggested by the p-median method for Grahamstown is 125 m. The
calculation of the average distance between waste generation points and service points or
dustbins was just below 20 m (Figure 5) which is well below this suggested value. This allowed
for a comparison between what the p-median recommended and what people’s perceptions
were. In both the previously advantaged and previously disadvantaged area of the CBD, the
majority of the people responded by saying that they thought there were not enough dustbins
on the street (Figure 7) whereas the p-median suggested that there were plenty of dustbins.
When comparing the results from random opinion polls and the data collected from the pmedian method, it can be seen that in the previously advantaged area of the CBD, the majority
willing walking distance is not within the average distance from waste generation points and
the nearest dustbin (39.97 m). In the previously disadvantaged area, the average distance from
waste generation point and the nearest dustbin (16.85 m) was well within the majority’s
16 | P a g e
walking range. This could mean that there would be more litter in the previously advantaged
area as respondents in that area are less likely to find a dustbin within the distance they are
willing to walk to throw away their litter. However, this is not supported by the perceptions of
litter on the relevant streets. On every street surveyed the majority (>50%) of the respondents
feel that litter is a problem (Figure 11).
100
90
Respondents (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Upper High Street Lower High Street Beaufort Street
Bathurst Street
Street
Figure 11: Perceptions of whether litter is a problem on upper High Street, lower High Street,
Beaufort Street and Bathurst Street
There is no significant difference between the various methods of litter disposal if a dustbin
cannot be located, as can be seen from the overlapping error bars (Figure 12). Therefore, one
cannot say whether one disposal method is more frequent than another and cannot draw
conclusions as to whether or not these results could shed some light on why the majority of
respondents felt that there are not enough dustbins on the streets surveyed.
f respondents
35
30
25
20
17 | P a g e
Figure 12: Respondents’ chosen method of disposal of litter across entire sample
4.2. Perceptions of equity and access to waste service delivery in suburban areas
A fairly similar proportion of respondents within the previously advantaged and previously
disadvantaged suburban areas of Grahamstown were satisfied with the number of times
household waste is removed by municipal services (Figure 13). Respondents in the previously
advantaged suburban area did state that this satisfaction was relative to the number of strikes
occurring within the waste removal sector of the municipality. No significant difference was
found between satisfaction levels in the two areas (p-value = 0.06).
100
90
Respondents (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Previously advantaged
Previously disadvantaged
Suburban Area
Figure 13: Percentage of respondents who were satisfied with the amount of times their
household waste is removed
18 | P a g e
The majority of respondents in previously advantaged and disadvantaged suburban areas felt
that their rubbish was removed entirely and on the allocated day of removal.
38% of previously advantaged respondents perceived waste removal to have decreased in the
area; 60% perceived it to have remained consistent while no respondents perceived the service
delivery of waste removal to have increased over the last 5 years (Figure 13). A similar trend
was found in the previously disadvantaged area where 20% perceived waste removal service
delivery to have decreased; 70% saw it to have remained consistent and 7% perceived it to
have increased over the last 5 years. A significant difference was found between the responses
of people in the previously advantaged and previously disadvantaged suburban areas (p-value
= 0.001).
100
90
Respondents (%)
80
70
60
50
Previously advantaged
40
Previously disadvantaged
30
20
10
0
Increased
Consistant
Decreased
Change in waste service delivery quality
Figure 14: Perceptions of whether waste removal service delivery has changed over the last 5 years.
5. Discussion
5.1. Availability and suitability of waste service delivery in the central business district of
Grahamstown.
One of the main objectives of this paper is to assess the equitable provision of dustbins to the
different areas characterised by their associated histories to the apartheid era in the CBD of
Grahamstown.
The upper part of High Street was classified as the previously advantaged area in the CBD
(Figures 3 and 4). The lower part of High Street, Bathurst Street and Beaufort Street were then
classified as the previously disadvantaged areas (Figure 3). One of the important factors to
19 | P a g e
consider when addressing the issues of litter is whether it is actually perceived to be a problem
and therefore whether or not the municipality needs to address it. The perceptions of the people
within the study area were that litter is a problem (Figure 13). The problem of litter in
Grahamstown could be resultant of a number of social issues, such as the deficiency of
infrastructure and service delivery and the unequal distribution of such entities (McLennan,
2012).
Disparities were found between the previously advantaged and previously disadvantaged areas
of the CBD with regards to dustbin availability and service delivery regarding these dustbins.
Interestingly, when comparing the p-median data calculated using a method adapted from
Adeniyi et al., (2012) to the opinion polls, the perception was that there were an insufficient
amount of dustbins in both areas (Figure 6) whereas the p-median showed there to plenty (with
regards to the number of waste generation points). There was also a much higher bin to waste
generation point ratio in the formerly advantaged areas. This could be as a result of the legacy
of apartheid and the unequal distribution of infrastructure along racial lines (Ozler, 2007). As
stated by the UNDP (2009) in their Human Development Report 2009, fifteen years after
apartheid ended, South Africa still has one of the highest Gini coefficients in the world. This
means that there is still vast inequality that exists within the country, and the unequal
distribution of dustbins within the previously advantaged and disadvantaged areas in the CBD
of Grahamstown could be an example of that. However, in an interview with Mr Esterhuisen
(assistant director for Environmental Health and Cleansing at the Makana Municipality), the
question of sufficient numbers of dustbins in the different areas was posed. He was under the
impression that there are plenty of dustbins to cater for the needs of the community in both
areas, but was unsure as to whether all of the dustbins that had been mapped out and installed
were still functional.
It was acknowledged that the amount of litter on the street at the time that the random opinion
polls were conducted could have had an effect on the responses given and the perceptions that
might have been portrayed by respondents. The state of the streets could have been attributed
to the number of dustbins available to the pedestrians, but also could have been attributed to
the number of times a week the dustbins were emptied. The majority of the respondents in both
areas stated that the frequency of waste removal from the bins was insufficient because often
the dustbins were overflowing and there were still large amounts of litter visible on the street
(Figure 8). Many of the respondents attributed this to incompetent management of the
municipality; while many others alluded to the fact that there are frequent strikes and that they
20 | P a g e
were having an effect on the state of the streets in Grahamstown. According to Alexander
(2010), the widespread civil service protests have had a major effect on national service
delivery, but they are necessary if there is to be social justice and equality achieved in South
Africa. The presence of litter in the previously disadvantaged commercial areas could have
been a result of the fact that there are fewer dustbins located in these areas, and they might
require more frequent emptying in order to keep up with the demand for dustbin space. The
dustbins in the previously disadvantaged commercial areas may not have been upgraded as
structural change would take longer than a change in services (McLennan, 2012). The
frequency of removal of waste from dustbins is a service that is provided by the municipality.
In the interview with Mr Esterhuisen it was determined that the dustbins on all the streets were
emptied once a day. If the dustbins are emptied at this frequency, then it can be assumed that
there is another explanation for the presence of waste on the streets.
Another one of the consistent responses given by people that were interviewed was that many
people were actually too lazy to discard their waste in the provided dustbins on the streets.
Many of the respondents, when asked how far they were prepared to walk to throw their litter
away, said that they were not prepared to walk further than 25 m (Figure 10). When asked what
they would do with their litter if there were no dustbins in their ‘walking range’, many of the
respondents said that they would throw it on the ground (Figure 12). The perceived laziness of
people can be seen as a contributing factor to the state of the Grahamstown streets. There is a
lower dustbin to waste generation point ratio in the formerly disadvantaged area and, along
with the other factors that have been discussed above, it is possible to say that there is an
amalgamation of issues that contribute to the perceived waste problems in the formerly
disadvantaged areas.
5.2. Perceptions of equity and access to waste service delivery in suburban areas
The other main objective of this paper is to assess whether or not there is equitable waste
removal service delivery in different communities within the suburbs of Grahamstown. Both
the respondents in the previously advantaged and previously disadvantaged suburban areas
perceived there to be sufficient and efficient waste removal. The majority of respondents in
both suburban areas also perceived waste removal services in their area to have remained
consistent over the past 5 years (Figure 14). Many of the respondents made reference to the
frequent strikes and that these strikes often affected the removal of waste, but not for any great
lengths of time.
21 | P a g e
The equitable distribution of waste removal in the suburbs is more a question of service
delivery than it is of the provision of infrastructure. One might assume however, that with the
disparities in infrastructure in the CBD, there also might be an inequitable provision of waste
removal services between previously advantaged and previously disadvantaged suburbs,
another residue of the apartheid era (Miraftab, 2004).
In this study, there appeared to be no real disparities and inequality that existed within the
previously advantaged and previously disadvantaged suburban areas when considering waste
removal service delivery. This is different to results found by Miraftab (2004) in Cape Town,
where they still are plagued with waste removal service inequality between previously
advantaged and previously disadvantaged areas.
In McLennan (2012), the idea was posited that the provision of basic services such as waste
removal was much easier to implement equally after apartheid whereas the equal distribution
of infrastructure was much harder to achieve. This is because infrastructure requires time,
finances, planning and investment from local authorities, many of which local authorities are
incapable, or not willing to give. Services such as waste removal still require the aforementioned entities, but to a much lesser degree. In a small town such as Grahamstown, it would
have been relatively easy for the municipality to provide all of the residents with sufficient
waste removal in relation to providing all of the residents with adequate water, sanitation and
waste disposal services.
6. Conclusion
This study has provided insight into the waste management infrastructure and service delivery
in the post-apartheid space of Grahamstown. It was found that the apartheid legacy of
inequitable service delivery and infrastructure was perceived to only exist in one area of the
waste management sector. In the CBD of Grahamstown it was found that there were a
significant number of people that perceived there to be a shortage of bins in Grahamstown.
There was general consensus that the previously disadvantaged streets had insufficient bins
whereas the previously advantaged streets had more bins and a fewer proportion of respondents
identifying the bin number to be insufficient. The p-median method confirmed that there was
a much higher ratio of bin to waste generation points in the previously advantaged area in
relation to the previously disadvantaged area, but the average shortest distance between bin
and waste generation point for both areas was well below the recommended distance calculated
22 | P a g e
for Grahamstown. If future studies were to be done in Grahamstown, it would be recommended
that the p-median method be reconstituted and reconceptualised in order to give a more detailed
and perhaps more holistic view of the location and density of bins in the CBD of Grahamstown.
In the suburban areas however, there appeared to be a much more equitable distribution of
waste removal services between the previously advantaged and previously disadvantaged
areas. This was reflected in the majority of the interviews that were done in both areas. If there
were to be any future studies conducted in the suburbs of Grahamstown on waste removal
service delivery, it might be advisable to have a more extensive data set. The results that were
obtained in this study might be useful to the Makana Municipality when the time for budget
planning arrives. This study might be useful in showing where resources need to be allocated
in order for equitable distribution of waste removal infrastructure in the CBD to become a
reality in Grahamstown. Waste removal services in Grahamstown may seem like a trivial
problem, but uncontrolled waste can possibly affect many aspects of the Grahamstown life in
a negative way and may cause the rift caused by apartheid to be opened once again. If South
Africa is aiming to wash away the inequalities of the past and move forward to a brighter,
cleaner and more equal country, delivery of waste services and infrastructure could be seen as
a big step towards this.
7. Reference List
Achankeng, E. 2003. Globalization, urbanization and municipal solid waste management in
Africa. In Proceedings of the African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific 26th
Annual Conference.
Adeniyi, S., Aremu, A., Sule, B., Downs, J., and Mihelcic, J. 2012. ‘Framework to Determine
the Optimal Location and Number of Municipal Solid waste Bins in a Developing World Urban
Neighbourhood’. Journal of Environmental Engineering 138(6): 645-653.
Ahmed, S., and Ali, S. 2006. ‘People as partners: Facilitating people's participation in public–
private partnerships for solid waste management’. Habitat International 30(4): 781-796.
Alexander, P. 2010. ‘Rebellion of the poor: South Africa’s service delivery protests – a
preliminary analysis’. Review of African Political Economy 37(123):25–40.
Beningfield, J. 2006. The frightened land: Land, landscape and politics in South Africa in the
twentieth century. Abingdon: Routledge.
23 | P a g e
Brunner, P., and Fellner, J. 2007. ‘Setting Priorities for waste management strategies in
developing countries’. Waste Management & Research 25(1): 234-240.
Esterhuizen, I. (2014) Discussion on Waste Management in Grahamstown [Conversation].
Personal communication (26/08/2014).
Frederickson, G. 1981. The New Public Administration. Tuscaloosa: The University of
Alabama Press.
Frederickson, G. 1990. ‘Public Administration and Social Equity’. Public Administration
Review 50(2): 228-238.
Frith, A. Census 2011. 2011. http://census2011.adrianfrith.com/ (date consulted 25/08/2014).
Ghose, M., Dikshit, A., and Sharma, S. 2006. ‘A GIS based transportation model for solid
waste disposal – A case study on Asansol municipality’. Waste Management 26(1): 1287-1293.
Godfrey, L. 2006. ‘Facilitating the improved management of waste in South Africa through
national waste information system’. Waste Management 28(1): 1660-1671.
Govender, T., Barnes, J., and Pieper, C. 2011. ‘Housing conditions, sanitation status and
associated health risks in selected subsidized low-cost housing settlements in Cape Town,
South Africa’. Habitat International 35(1): 335-342.
Henry, R., Yongsheng, Z., and Jun, D. 2006. ‘Municipal solid waste management challenges
in developing countries – Kenyan case study’. Waste Management 26(1): 92-100.
Irvine, P. M. 2012. “Post-apartheid racial integration in Grahamstown: a time-geographical
perspective”. Masters Dissertation. Grahamstown: Rhodes University.
Karani, P., Jewasikiewitz, S., and Da Costa, J. 2008. ‘A Comparative Analysis of Waste
Management and Sustainable Development in South Africa and Mozambique: Implications for
Development Financing and the Role of Knowledge Management’. Waste Management
Research Trends 8(1): 388-399.
Makana Municipality. 2000. General powers and functions of the Municipal Council.
http://www.makana.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Local-Government-Functions-andObjectives.pdf (date consulted 14/07/2014).
24 | P a g e
Maylam, P. 1995. ‘Explaining the apartheid city: 20 years of South African urban
historiography’. Journal of Southern African Studies 21(1): 19-38.
McLennan, A. 2012. The promise, the practice and the politics: Improving service delivery in
South Africa. http://www.capam.org/_documents/adjudicatedpresent.mcclennan.pdf (date
consulted 22/08/2014).
Miraftab, F. 2004. ‘Neoliberalism and casualization of public sector services: the case of waste
collection services in Cape Town, South Africa’. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 28(4): 874-892.
Naidoo, K. 2009. “An analysis of municipal solid waste management in South Africa using the
Msunduzi Municipality as a case study”. PhD Thesis. Cape Town: University of the Western
Cape.
Ozler, B. 2007. ‘Not Separate, Not Equal: Poverty and Inequality in Post‐Apartheid South
Africa’. Economic Development and Cultural Change 55(3): 487-529.
Poerbo, H. 1991. ‘Urban solid waste management in Bandung: towards an integrated resource
recovery system’. Environment and Urbanization 3(1): 60-69.
Qotole, M., Xali, M., and Barchiesi, F. 2001. The Commercialisation of Waste Management in
South Africa. Research Series Occasional Papers 3. www.queensu.ca/msp (date consulted
23/04/2014).
Republic of South Africa. (1996). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of
1996. Government Gazette, 378.
UNDP. 2009. Human Development Report 2009. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
25 | P a g e