| Literature DB >> 23209483 |
Yohannes Worku1, Mammo Muchie.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to investigate factors that affect the efficient management of solid waste produced by commercial businesses operating in the city of Pretoria, South Africa.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23209483 PMCID: PMC3503335 DOI: 10.1155/2012/165353
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Comparison with regards to overall efficiency in waste management.
| Characteristic | Efficient ( | Inefficient ( |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural: 1% | Agricultural: 1% | |
| Commercial: 71% | Commercial: 83% | |
| Construction: 6% | Construction: 3% | |
| Category of business | Industrial: 11% | Industrial: 3% |
| Institutional: 2% | Institutional: 3% | |
| Municipal: 6% | Municipal: 5% | |
| Manufacturing: 3% | Manufacturing: 2% | |
|
| ||
| Geographical location of business in the city of Tshwane | Central: 31% | Central: 41% |
| East: 21% | East: 13% | |
| West: 19% | West: 23% | |
| North: 17% | North: 13% | |
| South: 12% | South: 10% | |
|
| ||
| Age of business in years | Less than a year: 5% | Less than a year: 34% |
| 1 to 2 years: 6% | 1 to 2 years: 35% | |
| 3 to 5 years: 29% | 3 to 5 years: 15% | |
| 6 years or more: 60% | 6 years or more: 16% | |
|
| ||
| Status of business operator | Owner: 76% | Owner: 31% |
| Manager: 24% | Manager: 69% | |
|
| ||
| Level of education of operator | College level or better: 76% | College level or better: 39% |
| High school level or less: 24% | High school level or less: 61% | |
|
| ||
| Gender of operator | Male: 76% | Male: 73% |
| Female: 24% | Female: 27% | |
|
| ||
| Use of private contractor for waste management | Yes: 23% | Yes: 16% |
| No: 77% | No: 84% | |
|
| ||
| Sorting waste | Yes: 76% | Yes: 45% |
| No: 24% | No: 55% | |
|
| ||
| Adherence to waste management regulations | Yes: 95% | Yes: 52% |
| No: 5% | No: 48% | |
|
| ||
| Excellent: 9% | Excellent: 0% | |
| Very good: 43% | Very good: 21% | |
| Personal hygiene | Satisfactory: 37% | Satisfactory: 41% |
| Less than satisfactory: 10% | Less than satisfactory: 33% | |
| Poor: 1% | Poor: 5% | |
|
| ||
| Perception on the benefits of proper waste management | Excellent: 3% | Excellent: 1% |
| Very good: 56% | Very good: 6% | |
| Satisfactory: 35% | Satisfactory: 29% | |
| Less than satisfactory: 5% | Less than satisfactory: 55% | |
| Poor: 1% | Poor: 9% | |
|
| ||
| Source reduction of waste | Yes: 80% | Yes: 52% |
| No: 20% | No: 48% | |
|
| ||
| Amount of waste generated in 1,000 kg per week | ≤0.9 : 25% | ≤0.9 : 49% |
| 1 to 1.9 : 46% | 1 to 1.9 : 42% | |
| 2 to 4.9 : 27% | 2 to 4.9 : 8% | |
| 5 to 9.9 : 2% | 5 to 9.9 : 1% | |
| ≥10 : 0% | ≥10 : 0% | |
|
| ||
| Enough trash cans available for customers | Yes: 77% | Yes: 46% |
| No: 23% | No: 54% | |
|
| ||
| Regular inspection of premises by municipality | Yes: 84% | Yes: 41% |
| No: 16% | No: 59% | |
|
| ||
| Familiarity of operator with White Paper on Waste Management | Yes: 86% | Yes: 28% |
| No: 14% | No: 72% | |
List of top 15 significant associations from Pearson's chi-square tests of associations with overall efficiency in waste disposal (P < 0.001).
| Variable of study associated with overall efficiency in waste management | Observed chi-square value |
|
|---|---|---|
| Adherence: degree of adherence to waste management regulations | 716.04 | 0.0000 |
| Perception: perception on the benefits of proper waste management | 705.99 | 0.0000 |
| Trashcan: availability of enough trash cans for customers | 701.42 | 0.0000 |
| Status: status of person operating business (owner or employee) | 469.21 | 0.0000 |
| Frequency: frequency at which business premises are inspected by municipality | 299.57 | 0.0000 |
| Hygiene: personal hygiene of employees at business premises | 251.72 | 0.0000 |
| Maintenance: degree of maintenance of trash bins and their environment in business premises | 167.09 | 0.0000 |
| Cleanliness: degree to which business premises are kept clean | 139.88 | 0.0000 |
| Education: level of education of business operator | 127.52 | 0.0000 |
| Inspection: regular inspection of premises by municipal workers | 115.14 | 0.0000 |
| Volume: volume of waste generated | 109.59 | 0.0000 |
| Contractor: use of private contractors for waste management | 104.44 | 0.0000 |
| White Paper: familiarity with White Paper on waste management | 103.87 | 0.0000 |
| Implement: degree to which a waste management plan is implemented | 100.11 | 0.0000 |
| Sort: sorting waste generated at source | 93.12 | 0.0000 |
Odds ratios estimated from binary logistic regression analysis.
| Variable | Unadjusted OR and 95% C.I.+ |
| Adjusted* OR and 95% C.I.+ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poor adherence | 9.18 (6.43, 12.55) | 0.000 | 9.17 (6.42, 12.54) |
| Wrong perception | 8.84 (6.02, 11.36) | 0.000 | 8.81 (6.01, 11.35) |
| Failure to provide customers with enough trash cans | 3.17 (1.48, 5.89) | 0.000 | 3.15 (1.46, 5.87) |
| Status of operator (owner, manager) | 2.71 (1.69, 4.35) | 0.000 | 2.69 (1.66, 4.32) |
*Adjustment was done for level of education, gender, and location of business.
+C.I.: Confidence interval.
Figure 1Plot of sensitivity/specificity versus probability cut-off point.
Figure 2Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) plot.