4.2 Modes of waste disposal in Berekum and Dormaa

Basically results from the data analyzed on waste disposal in the Berekum Municipality confirmed that three ways of waste collection exist in Berekum including House-to-house collection, communal dumpsites and open dump site (Table 1). From the survey, majority (62%) of the respondents disposed of their waste into communal containers. This is followed by 29% of the respondents who indicated that their waste was collected directly from their houses (which are mostly found in the new residential areas). A total of 16% indicated that they emptied their waste into open dump sites. Similar responses were observed in the Dormaa Municipality as most (63%) of the respondents indicated that waste was disposed of into communal containers. While 20% of the respondent said that waste was collected directly from their house, 17% also indicated that they emptied their waste into open dam sites.

In the Berekum Municipality, the data analyzed shows that the House-to-house service of refuse disposal is primarily practiced in the new residential areas including Nyamenae and Awerempe-Estate. Similar results showed the same trend in the Dormaa Municipality as residential areas such as Kumidaa Street and Asikafo Amantem were found to be practicing house-to-house waste collection. These modes of waste collection were verified with key stakeholders (the Assemblymen, WMD and Private waste company). The introduction of this service in the municipalities reflect the trending urban form of solid waste management since such areas compose of settlements which house middle to high income earners who are in the position to pay for such service. As Oduro-Kwarteng [39] asserted in the formal introduction of this service in the urbanized areas in the two major cities in Ghana (Accra and Kumasi). Other towns and cities have grabbed this concept to enhance service delivery as far as SWM is concerned. All the respondents from these residential areas where house-to-house waste collection service takes place in the Berekum Municipality are required to pay a monthly charge of GH¢15 (US\$3) per 120 liter dustbin. In the Dormaa Municipality, service beneficiaries pay an amount of GH¢10 (US\$2) per 120 liter dustbin. The results show that service beneficiaries in the Dormaa Municipality slightly pay lower price than amount paid in the Berekum Municipality. According to the Assemblymen this charge was exorbitant and as a result accounted for the lack of patronage in the Municipality. Secondly, there was lack of patronage because the companies did not regularly and routinely collect waste in these areas. In view of this some people turned to burning as a means of dealing with their waste.

Communal collection was mainly carried out in the old town residential areas of Kyiritwede Zongo and Amangoase for Berekum and Atoase, Ahantrase Ahenbronofor Dormaa Municipal. This mode of waste collection does not require


#### Table 1.

Modes of waste disposal in Berekum and Dormaa.

any monthly fee or pay as you dump charges. Residents go to a central container and dispose of their waste. The next mode of collection is the open dump site collection this is seen in the suburbs; communities, who dispose of their waste at the open dump site, are emerging communities that the Assembly together with private companies have failed to supply with containers. In view of this, the people throw their waste in open dump pit this is seen in some part of Atonotia and the light industrial area of Berekum municipal and in New Dormaa for Dormaa Municipal. This findings supported studies by [42] who asserted that open refuse dumps are most commonly located at the perimeter of major urban centers in open lots, and are generally sited based on considerations of access to collection vehicles.

## 4.3 Households involvement in solid SWM in Berekum and Dormaa

This study also examined the extent to which the various households in the two municipalities participate in waste management services in relation to the mechanism for cost recovery, the eagerness-to-pay for service charge, eagerness to separate waste at source and monitoring of service quality. Table 2 presents the household's views on the assessment on who ought to bear the cost of waste collection in the municipality. The study shows that, 58% of the respondents within the two municipalities who utilize the house-to-house waste service perceived both the Assembly and the individuals who generates the waste have to work very hard to recover more than 50% of the cost incurred if not all in waste collection and disposal. On the other hand, 24% opted for the generators to incur all the cost involved in waste management without any prejudice. Whereas 18% said the Assembly alone should incur the cost for waste management services.

Regarding communal collection about 54% of the respondents said the Assembly alone should pay for the cost of waste collection, while about 45% indicated that the generator and the Assemblies have to collectively pay for waste services. Moreover, only 5% said only generators should pay for waste services. In view of the above, it is quite obvious that the companies need to be more responsible for results and to be more responsive to their client. This also implies that much attention must be given


#### Table 2.

Opinion on who ought to bear the cost of waste collection services.

to household involvement to make sure the households are well informed about the fiscal problem confronting the Municipalities and the necessity to pay for service improvement.
