Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study aims to examine solid waste generation, composition, and characteristics, thereby evaluating household resource recovery practices and the factors influencing these practices. A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted, combining quantitative and qualitative methods, including a household survey and detailed proximate and ultimate analyses of waste. Relevant data were collected from 820 systematically selected households through a structured survey, complemented by measurements of solid waste generation and composition using an adapted standard checklist for solid waste composition analysis. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and ordinal logistic regression. The results indicate a solid waste generation rate of 0.653 kg per person per day in Jimma. The organic components accounted for 55.5%, recyclable products accounted for 23.97%, and reusable materials accounted for 11.02% of the total municipal solid waste, suggesting a 90.5% resource recovery potential. Despite huge resource potential, households’ engagement in waste recovery practices is very low due to limited knowledge and tenure status, underscoring the need for targeted education and resource-oriented waste management strategies. Therefore, this study recommends targeted awareness campaigns, formalization of informal solid resource recovery sectors, household composting, and equitable infrastructure investments to align local waste management with sustainable urban development.

Keywords

municipal solid waste waste composition waste generation waste management reusing recycling resource recovery practices Jimma city

Introduction

Driven by rapid global urbanization and evolving consumption patterns, solid waste management has become one of the most pressing socio-economic and environmental challenges of the 21st century. This is particularly self-evident in the urban centers, with the global municipal waste generation projected to reach 3.4 billion tons annually by 2050, disproportionately affecting developing nations.¹ In many low- and middle-income countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, open dumping due to limited municipal waste management infrastructure, compounded by inadequate resource recovery, increases the environmental burden, leading to greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and serious health risks.² In this regard, Ethiopia is not an exception, where rapid urban growth, rising incomes, and changing consumption habits are driving increased waste generation that exceeds municipal management capacity.³ The current formal solid waste management model in Jimma city is a municipality-led, micro-enterprise-supported approach combining communal and door-to-door waste collection, transportation, and landfill disposal.

The composition of municipal solid waste (MSW) in Ethiopia, as in many developing countries, differs markedly from that of industrialized contexts. Organic waste, including food scraps and other biodegradable materials, is the largest component, accounting for around 70% of the total solid waste composition in Ethiopia.⁴ In contrast, high-income countries typically have much lower organic fractions, with organics comprising around 32% of MSW.¹ The high organic-rich solid waste composition presents both challenges and opportunities. Solid waste treatment through direct combustion requires high energy input due to the waste’s high moisture content and specialized waste-to-energy facilities, which are currently not feasible given the city’s infrastructure and capital limitations. Biological treatment is more suitable given the organic nature of the waste and offers the benefits of renewable energy generation and nutrient recovery with lower emissions, though it requires appropriate infrastructure and waste sorting aligned with local conditions.⁵ Over 85% of MSW in Ethiopia is either compostable, reusable, or recyclable, with 73.13% comprising biodegradable materials. Despite this potential, only around 31.8% of municipal solid waste (MSW) is formally collected, while the remaining 68.2% is managed by informal collection systems. Informal waste collectors play a significant role in recovering recyclable materials and reducing waste, although their activities often lack formal oversight and infrastructure. Households were also practicing solid waste management that varies, including composting, open incineration, and disposing of waste in nearby open spaces and water bodies, which can pose environmental challenges.³ In high-income countries, the national average percentages of solid waste collections were more than 96%, while in low-income countries, they were less than 40%.⁶

MSW management in the city was performed by both formal and informal systems. The formal waste management system refers to municipal solid waste collection and management services provided and regulated by the municipality and authorized micro-enterprises.^7,8 These formal systems are responsible for waste collection, transportation, and disposal, but are currently underperforming due to limited infrastructure, insufficient budget allocation, and weak regulatory enforcement. Informal waste management operates outside of official legal and regulatory frameworks and includes activities by informal waste pickers and private collectors. Although not formally regulated, informal collectors play a vital role in resource recovery by collecting, sorting, and selling reusable and recyclable materials, particularly to recycling factories concentrated in major urban centers of the country, like Addis Ababa. However, some waste not recovered by formal or informal systems is disposed of in open fields and water bodies, presenting environmental risks. The end-of-life pathways for reusable and recyclable materials collected by informal actors often involve resale to intermediaries or direct transport to recycling facilities, though traceability remains a challenge. Composting has particularly emerged as an environmentally sound and economically viable strategy, mainly due to the predominance of organic waste.⁹ In fact, households and informal waste pickers play a pivotal role in resource recovery, engaging in source segregation, reuse, and recycling activities, often driven by economic necessity.¹⁰ However, the integration of these grassroots practices into formal waste management systems remains limited, constraining the overall efficiency of recovery efforts.¹¹ Lower levels of recovery practices are attributed to a range of socio-economic and demographic factors, including income, family size, gender of household head, market access, public awareness, cultural attitudes, and spatial variation in the availability of municipal infrastructure and service coverage.¹²

Despite growing recognition of MSW management challenges and opportunities, there remains a scarcity of localized data on solid waste composition, physicochemical properties, and determinants of its utilization in Jimma city. Previous studies in Jimma and other Ethiopian cities have highlighted inefficiencies in waste sorting, collection, and disposal, underscoring the need for sustainable management strategies tailored to local conditions. However, none of them have comprehensively assessed household-level solid waste generation rates, physicochemical characteristics, and recovery practices together with their influencing factors. This study advances current knowledge by providing a holistic assessment by identifying key bottlenecks in household solid waste recovery and presenting empirical evidence to support targeted interventions. By focusing on grassroots practices and contextual socioeconomic factors, the findings offer novel insights that can inform policymakers, urban planners, and development practitioners aiming to enhance the urban circular economy and improve environmental health in Jimma City. By identifying the bottlenecks of household solid waste recovery, the findings are expected to enhance the benefits of transforming waste outputs into relevant resources at the grassroots level. The study also provides informative insights that support policymakers, urban planners, and development experts in decision-making processes aimed at advancing the urban circular economy and improving urban environmental health.

Methods and Materials

Description of Study Area

This study was conducted in Jimma city. The city is located about 356 km southwest of Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia. The city is found at 7° 40′ 0″ N to 7° 43′ 20″ N latitude and 36° 48′ 20″ E to 36° 53′ 20″ E longitude.¹³ Jimma city has a land area of 114.17 km², subdivided into 17 administrative units known as kebeles. As of 2024, there are 56 607 households with an estimated total population of 283 233.¹⁴ The local economy is driven by agriculture, trade, and small-scale industries.

According to the municipality report on solid waste management, the city municipality primarily oversees waste collection services through communal containers and small-scale micro-enterprises providing door-to-door collection services for households, hotels, and markets. The solid waste collection was carried out by 63 micro- and small enterprises (SMEs), supported by over 300 municipal sweepers and safety net workers. Infrastructural facilities available for solid waste transportation were 6 heavy-load tracks (Sino-Track), 1 loader, 6 tractors, and 10 temporary collection containers, facilitating transportation to a constructed landfill. The main resource recovery activities in the city were composting and sorting of recyclable materials, performed by organized small-scale micro-enterprises.¹⁴

Research Approach and Design

This study used a community-based cross-sectional study design involving a quantitative research approach. The quantitative research approach involves data collected through surveys and solid waste measurements and characterizations. A detailed description is presented in the data collection section and in the Supplemental File 1.

Sample Size and Sampling Technique

This study primarily targeted the household heads as primary respondents due to their comprehensive knowledge of household practices and decision-making processes. The sample size was determined using a single population proportion formula by¹⁵ Cochran (1977), assuming a 95% confidence interval, 5% margin of error, 55% population proportion, 10% non-response rate, and a design effect of 2¹⁶:

n = \frac{{(Z α / 2)}^{2} P (1 - P)}{d^{2}}

The formula suggested a sample size of ≅ 837 households, but 16 were rejected for incomplete responses to survey questions, resulting in a final sample of 820 households. Accordingly, 820 participants were selected using a systematic random sampling technique. To account for spatial variation, the 17 kebeles of Jimma city were grouped into 3 strata: inner city, intermediate, and outskirts, considering proximity to the central business district and availability of solid waste management infrastructure. The density and accessibility of solid waste management services and infrastructure decreases progressively from the inner city through the intermediate areas to the outskirts. From each stratum, 2 kebeles were randomly selected (inner: Bacho Bore and Hermata Mentina, intermediate: Ginjo Guduru and Mendera Kochi, outskirts: Jiren and Bore), ensuring better representation.

Data Collection

Survey Data Collection

Relevant quantitative data on socio-demographic characteristics, solid waste generation, and resource recovery behavior were collected from sample households through surveys conducted during the dry season from January 1, 2024, to March 1, 2024. The households within the selected kebeles were selected using a systematic random sampling technique, where every nth household was selected after determining a random starting point.

Solid waste samples were also collected during the dry season from the selected households in the 6 kebeles representing diverse socioeconomic and geographic settings.

Waste Quantification and Characterization

Household solid waste was quantified by measuring the total mass collected over 7 days in kilograms and calculating the per capita generation rate by dividing the average daily household waste by the number of household members. Waste composition was determined by weighing each waste fraction in representative samples and expressing it as a percentage of the total sample weight.¹⁷

Laboratory Sample Collection and Preparation

Samples of household solid waste from different households, collected in municipal collection containers and transported to landfill sites by collection vehicles in 6 kebeles representing diverse socioeconomic and geographic settings, were used to obtain composite samples with sufficient quantity and space for coning, quartering, and sorting, after which the resulting sub-samples were subjected to laboratory analysis. Approximately 200 kg of mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) was retrieved from both upper and lower layers to minimize stratification bias, then homogenized by the coning and quartering method. The Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste (OFMSW) was manually sorted and reduced to a 10 to 20 kg fraction to process further laboratory-based analysis.¹⁸ Samples were air-dried, ground, and milled using a heavy-duty food grinder, sieved through a 0.5 mm mesh, and stored in airtight polyethylene bags.²

Proximate Analysis

Proximate analysis of the OFMSW samples was conducted following established ASTM and European standard methods. The moisture content (MC) was determined by oven drying at 105°C to constant weight, following ASTM D3173-11.¹⁹ Volatile matter (VM) was measured by heating the dried samples at 950°C for 7 minutes in a covered crucible, following ASTM D3175-20.²⁰ Ash content (AC) was determined by igniting the residue after VM determination at 750°C for 1 hour, as per ASTM D3174.²¹ Fixed carbon (FC) was calculated based on the ASTM D3174 procedure as: FC (%) = 100 – (MC + VM + AC).²² The carbon (C) content was determined by Loss on Ignition at 550°C according to the European standard.²³

Ultimate Analysis

Ultimate analysis of OFMSW was performed by using standardized chemical and instrumental methods to quantify essential elemental components. Nitrogen (N) was measured using the Persulfate Digestion Method.²⁴ Phosphorus (P) was determined following the GLOSOLAN-SOP-10 method, using ammonium molybdate reagent as described by FAO.²⁵ Potassium (K) was analyzed gravimetrically with sodium tetraphenylborate.²⁶ Sulfur (S) content was measured by combustion-titration based on ASTM D4239-18.²⁷ Oxygen (O) content was estimated using the modified Unterzaucher method.²⁸ Finally, Hydrogen (H) was calculated by difference: H (%) = 100 – (C + N + S + O + Ash content.²⁹

Estimation of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste Recovery Potential

In this study, the potential of the OFMSW for resource recovery was assessed by estimating compost output, daily nutrient recovery (including nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium), and the energy recovery potential. Compost output is measured in terms of nutrient potential, using a yield factor of 0.50 (50%).³⁰

\begin{array}{l} C o m p o s t O u t p u t \\ (tons / day) = C o m p o s t a b l e W a s t e (tons / day) \\ \times C o m p o s t Y i e l d F a c t o r \end{array}

Then, daily nutrient recovery was estimated based on the nutrient concentrations in the compost.³⁰

\begin{array}{l} N u t r i e n t R e c o v e r y (kg / day) = C o m p o s t O u t p u t (kg / day) \\ \times N u t r i e n t C o n t e n t (%) \end{array}

Meanwhile, the energy recovery potential of OFMSW was estimated by using ultimate elemental analysis data and calculating higher and lower heating values using modified Dulong’s formula, suggested by Progga.³¹

\begin{array}{l} H H V (kJ / kg) = 337 C + 1419 (H - 0.125 O) \\ + 93 S + 23 N \end{array}

In the equation, C, H, O, N, and S stand for the elemental percentages of carbon (44.04%), hydrogen (5.11%), oxygen (41.72%), nitrogen (1.53%), and sulfur (0.22%) in solid waste.

The lower heating value (LHV) accounts for the latent heat of vaporization, calculated as:

LHV = HHV − 2.766 × WLHV = HHV − 2.766 × W, where W is the water formed from hydrogen combustion, which was computed as: W = 9 × H%W = 9 × H%, with H% representing the proportion of hydrogen content in percentages.

Determining Household Waste Recovery Practices

This study examines solid waste resource recovery practices among households in Jimma city. Waste recovery refers to practices aimed at reclaiming valuable resources, nutrients, and energy from municipal solid waste by preparing for re-use, recycling, energy recovery, or other viable mechanisms. In this study, waste resource recovery (SWRec) practices refer to household operations in which discarded solid materials are retrieved to serve a useful purpose through waste reusing, composting, utilization for energy, selling, and/or exchange of solid waste, and were evaluated by using Likert scale methods.

The independent variables or explanatory factors were selected based on available empirical literature on waste recovery behavior in Ethiopia and similar contexts globally. Accordingly, socio-demographics, dwelling ownership, income category, knowledge, attitude, family size, solid waste generation rate, and place of residence were treated as the explanatory factors that determine households’ levels of engagement in solid waste resource recovery.

Data Analysis

Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed, using Microsoft Excel and Stata software (Version 18). Descriptive statistics (eg, means, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages) were used to summarize household characteristics, waste generation rates, and waste composition.

Furthermore, the researchers have performed ordinal logistic regression (OLR) to identify determinants of solid waste recovery practices among the households, consistent with previous studies by.³² In the same manner, Kayamo utilized the OLR model to assess willingness-to-pay for improved SWM in Hawassa, Ethiopia.³³ Therefore, this study employed OLR or cumulative logit, after testing model fitness and fulfilling the standard proportional-odds assumption for the dependent variable.³⁴ OLR is a fitting model as it readily accommodates the mix of different variables, allowing dummy (indicator) variables for nominal factors and other ordinal covariates, while returning interpretable odds ratios.³⁵ However, cluster-adjusted standard errors were implemented in the OLR model to account for the nested data structure and ensure valid statistical inference; the details were in the Supplemental File 1. The results are presented alongside odds ratios (OR) and average marginal effects (AMEs) to improve the interpretability of regression outcomes.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Jimma University. Formal permission was also secured from the relevant municipal authorities in Jimma City. All participants in the household surveys and waste collection efforts were fully informed about the study’s objectives, procedures, and their right to withdraw at any time. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. The privacy of all participant responses was strictly maintained throughout the study by de-identifying data and storing it securely. Waste collectors involved in the study were provided with appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE; gloves, masks, safety boots) and received safety training to minimize exposure to hazards.

Results

Quantification of Household Solid Waste

The analysis of municipal solid waste in Jimma reveals a remarkable daily solid waste generation rate shown as Household solid waste generation rate (HHSWGR) and individual solid waste generation rate (ISWGR). The analysis of municipal solid waste in Jimma shows a daily waste generation rate of 0.653 kg/per person. With this rate, the city can generate approximately 185 tons of waste every day, despite varying generation rates between the sample categories Table 1.

Table 1.

Household Solid Waste Generation Rates (Mean ± Std. Dev.).

Kebele	Sample households	No. of persons	Total HHSWG (kg/day)	Ave. HHSWGR (kg/day) ± SD	Ave. ISWGR (kg/day) ± SD
Hermata Mentina	108	489	278.31	2.58 ± 1.08	0.73 ± 0.68
Mendera Kochi	113	518	275.40	2.44 ± 0.54	0.69 ± 0.62
Bacho Bore	199	991	443.83	2.23 ± 0.23	0.54 ± 0.30
Ginjo Guduru	84	433	195.02	2.32 ± 0.20	0.53 ± 0.27
Jiren	51	276	118.67	2.33 ± 0.24	0.50 ± 0.23
Bore	265	914	1054.15	3.98 ± 0.88	1.73 ± 1.28
Total	820	3621	2365.38	2.88 ± 0.53	0.65 ± 0.56

The above results indicate that, among all the kebeles, Bore has the highest solid waste generation rate, with approximately 45% of the total daily waste, more than twice the overall per capita generation rate in the study area. Hermata Mentina and Mendera Kochi demonstrate relatively moderate levels of waste output, with HHSWGR of 2.58 and 2.44 kg/day, respectively, implying a comparable pattern in household consumption behavior. The lowest household solid waste generation rates were observed in Bacho Bore, Ginjo Guduru, and Jiren, with 2.23 to 2.33 kg/day, with lower standard deviations, suggesting relative resemblance in lifestyle or socio-economic conditions.

Composition of Household Solid Waste

The household’s solid waste composition result is presented in Table 2. As shown in the table, food waste constitutes 19.17% followed by wood, animal dung, and agricultural residue, accounting for 16.44% (Table 2).

Table 2.

Household Solid Waste Composition.

Type of waste	Amount (kg/day)	Proportion (%)
Food waste	453.74	19.17
Woods, animal dung & agri. waste	389.04	16.44
Paper & cardboard	252.50	10.67
Leaves & grasses	219.06	9.26
Rubber & leather	98.40	4.16
Textile	162.49	6.87
Plastic	252.74	10.68
Metals	105.66	4.47
Electronics	105.95	4.48
Glass	102.89	4.35
Ashes	102.94	4.35
Others^*	121.03	5.11
Total	2366.45	100.00

Others include discarded batteries, sanitary pads, diapers, pumpers, and chemical materials like cosmetics, insecticides, pharmaceuticals, and personal care, etc.

The household’s solid waste composition result per kebele is presented in Table 3. As shown in the table across all kebeles, food waste is the dominant fraction. Higher-generation kebeles such as Bore and Bacho Bore produce markedly larger absolute quantities of food waste, paper/cardboard, plastics, textiles, and rubber/leather than Jiren, Hermata Mentina, Ginjo Guduru, and Mendera Kochi, suggesting more intensive consumption of packaged and non-essential goods in these areas.

Table 3.

Household Solid Waste Composition by Geographic Locations/Kebele.

Kebele	Food waste	Woods, animal dung & agr. waste	Paper & cardboard	Leaves & grasses	Rubber & leather	Textile	Plastic	Metals	Electronics	Glass	Ashes	*Others
H. Mentina	59.5	52.5	36.4	22.5	5.7	8.2	30.4	5.5	5.5	4.9	9.4	12.4
M. Kochi	69.5	57.0	32.4	27.3	7.5	11.0	33.3	7.1	7.1	6.5	11.8	14.4
B. Bore	115.1	96.2	52.5	41.4	10.0	14.1	55.1	9.2	9.2	8.1	17.9	23.9
G. Guduru	54.2	41.6	22.6	18.0	3.9	5.4	23.6	3.6	3.6	3.1	7.4	10.2
Jiren	31.1	25.4	14.9	11.4	2.7	3.6	14.0	2.2	2.2	1.9	5.5	6.0
Bore	124.5	116.3	93.7	98.4	68.6	120.2	96.4	78.1	78.4	78.4	50.8	54.1
Subtotal	453.7	389.0	252.5	219.1	98.4	162.5	252.7	105.7	106.0	102.9	102.9	121.0
%	19.2	16.4	10.7	9.3	4.2	6.9	10.7	4.5	4.5	4.3	4.3	5.1

Others include discarded batteries, sanitary pads, diapers, pumpers, and chemical materials like cosmetics, insecticides, pharmaceuticals, and personal care, etc.

The results indicate that household solid waste composition is highly dominated by organic components, accounting for 55.5% of the total (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Categories of solid waste by recovery potential.

Potentially recyclable materials from plastic, metals, electronics, and glass products accounted for 24% of total MSW, while potentially reusable waste components from used textiles, rubber, and leather constituted about 11%.

Physico-Chemical Analyses

Proximate analysis revealed that food waste contains the highest proportion of moisture and volatile contents Table 4.

Table 4.

Proximate Analysis Results of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste.

Characteristics	Food waste (%)	Other organic waste (%)
Moisture content	71.3 ± 0.65	55.1 ± 0.61
Volatile matter	77.7 ± 0.42	66.23 ± 0.12
Fixed carbon	6.59 ± 0.15	8.52 ± 0.15
Ash content	5.12 ± 0.21	7.85 ± 0.17

As shown in the table above, food waste generated by households has the highest moisture content (71.3%) compared to other organic waste (55.1%), making it more biodegradable. Furthermore, food waste is also characterized by a huge amount of volatile content (77.7%), which suggests greater potential for energy recovery through mechanisms such as combustion if moisture content is properly managed. Non-food organic waste exhibits relatively higher proportions of fixed carbon, suggesting suitability for thermal treatment methods.

The elemental composition of the waste result is presented in Table 5, indicating that food waste contains the largest proportion of essential nutrients, compared to other organic waste products.

Table 5.

Ultimate Analysis Results of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste.

Parameter	Food (mean ± SD)	Other organic (mean ± SD)
N (%)	2.23 ± 0.16	1.53 ± 0.10
P (%)	0.90 ± 0.12	0.54 ± 0.12
K (%)	1.84 ± 0.38	0.29 ± 0.04
O (%)	40.60 ± 1.65	41.72 ± 1.44
S (%)	0.45 ± 0.03	0.22 ± 0.02
C (%)	50.96 ± 3.98	44.04 ± 1.94
H (%)	6.36 ± 0.27	5.11 ± 0.40
pH	6.24 ± 0.24	6.92 ± 0.30
C/N	22.85 ± 0.71	28.91 ± 1.30

The above results show that food waste contains 2.23% nitrogen, 0.90% phosphorus, and 1.84% potassium, suggesting a strong potential for composting or use as organic fertilizer due to its rich nutrient profile. The highest sulfur content (0.45%) in food waste also reinforces its nutrient density. Moreover, food waste has the highest carbon (50.96%) and hydrogen (6.36%) content, making it the most energy-rich and biodegradable, with a lower carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio (22.85) that supports faster decomposition.

Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste Recovery Potentials

Compost and Nutrient Recovery

Nutrient analysis estimates highlight the potential of composting as a sustainable waste management strategy and soil nutrient recovery. Given that a total of 184.95 tons/day of HHSW is generated, 102.72 tons/day is identified as compostable, yielding over 51 tons/day of compost after processing. The resulting compost contains significant amounts of essential plant nutrients, including approximately 1 ton/day of nitrogen, 0.40 tons/day of phosphorus, and 0.67 tons/day of potassium (K). The mean nutrient composition of compost derived from OFMSW indicates that compost contains 1.53% nitrogen, 0.54% phosphorus, and 0.29% potassium. These figures for the essential macronutrients (NPK) are within acceptable ranges for organic fertilizers, indicating the potential for well-balanced compost that is suitable for improving soil fertility, particularly in nitrogen- and potassium-deficient soils. This suggests a significant nutrient recovery potential of OFMSW that supports urban agriculture initiatives, reduces dependency on chemical fertilizers, and promotes the circular economy.

Energy Potential

The energy content assessment revealed that OFMSW possesses significant energy recovery potential. With a Higher Heating Value (HHV) of 17 431.82 kJ/kg and a lower heating value of 17 284.82 kJ/kg, this shows the OFMSW contains considerable energy content, making it suitable for waste-to-energy (WTE) applications such as incineration and refuse-derived fuel (RDF) production, contributing to the renewable energy supply. Hence, household OFMSW can be utilized as a source of energy, constituting another crucial mechanism of solid waste resource recovery besides nutrient recovery benefits.

Solid Waste Recovery Practices and Its Determinants

Solid Waste Recovery Practices

Household solid waste recovery practices mean transforming solid waste toward productive use through engagements such as recycling, utilizing waste for energy purposes, composting, and the retrieval of income through selling and exchanging discarded materials. In the study area, the actual levels of engagement in solid waste resource recovery are generally very limited, with selling being the most common practice, and energy recovery being the least.

The survey results indicate that 15.98% of households engage in recycling, 10.24% use waste for energy, 11.46% practice composting, and 29.51% sell reusable materials Table 6.

Table 6.

Household Solid Waste Resource Recovery Practice.

Kebele	N	Recycle (%)		Energy use (%)		Compost (%)		Sell (%)		Exchange (%)
Kebele	N	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
Hermata Mentina	108	83.33	16.67	95.37	4.63	90.74	9.26	50.0	50.0	59.3	40.7
Mendera Kochi	113	79.65	20.35	75.22	24.78	74.34	25.66	66.37	33.63	71.7	28.3
Bacho Bore	199	86.43	13.57	92.96	7.04	88.94	11.06	62.81	37.19	76.9	23.1
Ginjo Guduru	84	88.1	11.9	94.05	5.95	91.67	8.33	75.0	25.0	76.2	23.8
Jiren	51	74.51	25.49	76.47	23.53	56.86	43.14	94.12	5.88	90.2	9.8
Bore	265	84.91	15.09	92.45	7.55	98.49	1.51	80.38	19.62	79.6	20.4
Total	820	84.02	15.98	89.76	10.24	88.54	11.46	70.49	29.51	75.5	24.5

Ginjo Guduru and Bacho Bore show especially lower recycling engagement. Jiren stands out with the relatively highest recycling rate (25.49%), possibly reflecting a lack of readily available or alternative consumer items in peripheral kebeles, which necessitates reuse. Nearly a quarter of the households in Mendera Kochi and Jiren kebeles utilize their waste for energy purposes, notably using combustible waste for cooking or heating. Hermata Mentina, Bacho Bore, and Bore exhibit significantly lower levels of energy use, with 4.6%, 7.04% and 7.6% engagement rates, respectively.

Composting activities are more prevalent in Jiren, with a 43.14% involvement rate. Bore, despite being the largest source of waste, has the lowest (1.5%) levels of composting practices. Meanwhile, half of the sample households in Hermata Mentina, about a third or more in Mendera Kochi, and Becho Bore reported selling reusable waste items. Only 5.9% of sample households in Jiren are engaged in selling recyclable waste. These results suggest that remarkable waste-selling activities are found among inner city kebeles, whereas waste recovery practices in outskirt kebeles, such as Jiren, may be more household-centered rather than economically driven.

Determinants of Households’ Solid Waste Recovery Practices

Consistent with the literature, this study examined the prevalent socio-demographic, economic, and spatial factors that influence households’ waste recovery practices, as indicated in Table 7.

Table 7.

Factors Associated With Solid Waste Recovery Practices.

Dependent variable: solid waste resource recovery
Summary Statistics: No. of obs.: 820	Pseudo R²: 0.0761	Wald Chi²(17): 124.33	Prob. > Chi²: 0.001
Predictors	Coefficients	Odds ratio	AME
Household Head (Ref. Female)
Male	−.252	.777	−.0027
Dwelling Ownership (Ref. Rent)
Own	.779***	2.18	.0084
Income Category (Ref. Lower)
Middle income	−.077	.925	−.0008
Higher income	−.343	.709	−.0037
Knowledge (Ref. Lower)
Moderate	1.09***	2.97	.0117
Higher	1.65***	5.187	.0178
Attitude (Ref. Unfavorable)
Moderate	.429	1.535	.0046
Favorable	.221	1.247	.0024
Family Size (Ref. Small)
Medium	.228	1.256	.0025
Large	.42	1.522	.0045
Waste Gen. per cap. (Ref. Small)
Medium	−.179	.836	−.0019
Large	−.762**	.467	−.0082
Kebele (Ref. Hermata Mentina)
Mendera Kochi	.019	1.019	.0002
Bacho Bore	−.697**	.498	−.0075
Ginjo Guduru	−.994***	.37	−.0107
Jiren	−.663*	.515	−.0071
Bore	−.592*	.553	−.0064
Cutoff 1	.81	.	.
Cutoff 2	2.2***	.	.
Cutoff 3	3.82***	.	.
Cutoff 4	5.83***	.	.

P < .05. ^**P < .01. ^***P < .001.

Table 6 reveals that the gender of the household head does not have a statistically significant effect on solid waste recovery practices, despite a marginal effect of −.27% for male-headed households, indicating slightly better recovery practices among female-headed households. The results also reveal that higher-income households are not significantly different from low-income households in terms of solid waste recovery practices, while the marginal effects show a decreasing likelihood of being in the highest rank of resource recovery by .37% for those in the top income category. Besides, family size shows a positive but not statistically significant relationship with waste management behavior, with large families slightly more likely to engage in solid waste recovery compared to small-sized families, potentially due to greater human resources or internal labor distribution. Household attitude has a modest positive effect on waste recovery outcomes, increasing the probability of being in the highest waste recovery category by .46% for household heads with more favorable attitudes compared to their counterparts.

However, knowledge of solid waste management is a key determinant of household solid waste recovery. Households headed by a person with higher knowledge are 5 times more likely to engage in recovery practices compared to those with lower levels of knowledge, with a statistically significant coefficient of 1.65. The computed marginal effects affirm this claim as the households with moderate and high knowledge are 1.17% and 1.78% respectively, more likely to adopt top-ranked resource recovery practices. Similarly, dwelling ownership is a statistically significant and substantively important predictor. Households that own dwellings are significantly more likely, twice as much as tenants residing in rented houses, to engage in solid waste recovery. The marginal effect of dwelling ownership on being in the highest waste recovery category increases by about .84% at statistically significant levels, further confirming the effect of tenure security and household stability on environmental responsibility.

A particularly important finding emerges with respect to solid waste generation per capita. Households that generate a large volume of waste per person are significantly less likely to engage in waste resource recovery activities, with a −.76 coefficient. Holding other things constant, households with large waste generation rates, relative to the reference groups, have 0.82% less likelihood of being in the top-ranked waste recovery engagements. Finally, solid waste resource recovery practices significantly vary based on spatial conditions. Compared to inner-city kebeles, intermediate and peripheral administrative units such as Ginjo Guduru, Bacho Bore, Jiren, and Bore exhibit significantly lower levels of engagement in solid waste recovery, with decreasing likelihood (0.64%-0.75%) of being in the highest rank of resource recovery.

Overall, the OLR results demonstrate that knowledge, homeownership, and lower per capita waste generation rate are the most consistent and powerful predictors of solid waste recovery and reuse among households. While attitudes, family size, income, and gender show mild or weaker effects, the spatial conditions, as captured by kebele-level variation, significantly affect solid waste recovery practices among households in Jimma City.

Discussion

Synthesizing the results obtained from evaluation of waste sample characteristics, lab-based element analyses, and regression outputs, 3 themes emerge: (i) evolving solid waste generation and characteristics, (ii) solid waste resource recovery potential versus household practice gap, and (iii) prime drivers of household engagement with solid waste resource recovery.

Waste Generation and Characteristics

This study revealed that solid waste generation in Jimma city is substantial, with about 185 tons produced daily. Despite significant spatial unevenness in waste output across kebeles and households, the average household waste generation rate is 2.88 and 0.653 kg/day for an individual, significantly surpassing Ethiopia’s national urban average of 0.38 kg/day.³ The waste generation patterns observed in the city reveal a spatial distribution that challenges typical urban assumptions about waste generation and socio-economic status. Contrary to the conventional expectation that central areas inhabited by higher-income households generate the most waste, our data show that Bore kebele, located on the outskirts of the city, produces the highest household waste generation rate and per capita waste, substantially exceeding the rates in inner kebeles such as Hermata Mentina and Bacho Bore. This pattern suggests that in Jimma’s context, higher socio-economic status households and greater consumption patterns may be concentrated in specific outskirt neighborhoods rather than exclusively in the city center, reflecting localized urban development and residential patterns that deviate from conventional center-periphery income gradients observed in other cities.

The composition analysis supports this socio-economic interpretation. Bore and Bacho Bore kebeles, which generate larger total quantities of waste, also show proportionally higher amounts of packaged goods such as plastics, paper/cardboard, textiles, and rubber/leather, all typically associated with greater consumption of non-essential goods and higher purchasing power. In contrast, the lower-generation kebeles such as Jiren and Ginjo Guduru produce less absolute waste overall and lower quantities of these recyclable materials, indicating more modest consumption patterns and material flows. This strong correlation between waste generation level and the prevalence of higher-value recyclables underscores the link between socio-economic status and waste characteristics in Jimma’s households.³⁶ These elevated generation rates reflect increasing urban consumption trends driven by rapid population growth and socio-economic transition, change in lifestyle, aligning with similar patterns in Ethiopian and other Sub-Saharan urban centers.³⁷

The per capita MSW generation rate in Jimma City aligns with lower-middle-income country averages and below high-income countries, where average municipal waste generation can exceed 1.8 kg/person/day in countries like the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom.^6,38 The OFMSW remains dominant, with about 56% of Jimma’s waste being organic, a figure comparable to other low-income urban settings but substantially higher than that in high-income regions (which average only 28%-32% organic content).^38,39 This high organic content presents logistical, environmental, and economic challenges as it leads to greater moisture content and rapid decomposition, complicating collection, transport, and landfill operations.

This rising volume of MSW generation presents a challenge to waste resource recovery activities. As OLR results indicated, a larger waste generation rate poses difficulty in sorting, reusing, or storing, suggesting that practical constraints significantly reduce household involvement in waste recovery practices.⁴⁰ In particular, the institutional and service gaps related to the availability of space for sorting at the household level, scarce or poorly accessible solid waste recovery centers, and low recovery facility availability further hinder households’ ability to sort, reuse, and store waste effectively. Findings from comparable low-income settings, such as Nigeria and Bangladesh, have shown that higher per capita solid waste generation often leads to lesser segregation and resource recovery, reflecting logistical and operational burdens of households.⁴¹ Therefore, Jimma city’s solid waste management clearly reflects universal challenges in rapidly urbanizing low-income regions dominated by organic waste and insufficient recovery infrastructure.⁴² In contrast, high-income countries benefit from well-funded infrastructure and policy-driven systems that support both high collection coverage more than 96% and advanced recycling or composting programs.^6,38

The environmental implications of solid waste generation and composting in Jimma areas are significant. Overburdened formal collection infrastructure and low rates of source segregation led to widespread open dumping, burning, and uncontrolled landfill use. This exposes communities to public health hazards (such as vector-borne diseases, water and air pollution) and accelerates greenhouse gas emissions from decomposing organic matter. Economically, missed opportunities for composting, recycling, or energy recovery represent unrealized value, especially in a setting where more than two-thirds of generated waste is biodegradable and could support urban agriculture or local fertilizer markets where it is effectively processed.^6,39

Waste Resource Potential versus Household Recovery Practices

As alluded to, MSW characteristics and composition analysis indicated that more than half of the household solid waste is organic and biodegradable, mainly food waste, livestock byproducts, paper, and plant residues. Recyclable materials such as plastics, metals, glass, and electronics account for about 24%, while reusable components such as textiles, rubber, and leather contribute around 11%. These figures are consistent with previous findings that revealed the solid waste stream in the city is predominantly organic (56%), with substantial fractions (35%) of reusable and recyclable materials, reinforcing the high theoretical recovery potential identified in the context.⁴³ International assessments indicate that in low- and middle-income cities, organic waste represents half to two-thirds of MSW.⁴⁴ Proximate and ultimate analyses further affirmed that the major organic component, that is, food waste, has high moisture and volatile content, making it suitable for composting, though difficult to transport. Besides, food waste is rich in nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium nutrients, making it particularly valuable for soil enrichment. Other components have higher fixed carbon, supporting thermal treatment.

The above compositional analyses provide insights into diverse recovery opportunities through both composting and energy conversion, affirming the potential to shift Jimma’s solid waste system toward circularity, supporting SDG-aligned sustainability.⁴² Comparably, paired approaches that biologically treat wet organics and thermochemically convert higher-calorific residuals are widely promoted to cut landfill methane, substitute fossil fuels, and recover secondary materials in urban systems.¹ The results, inter alia, substantiate the dual valorization pathways: organic-rich fractions are highly amenable to biological treatments such as composting and anaerobic digestion due to their superior moisture and nutrient contents.⁴⁵ In addition, higher levels of fixed carbon-rich components present viable feedstock for thermochemical conversion, aligning with circular economy imperatives and resource efficiency frameworks endorsed across emerging economies.⁴⁶

On the one hand, the estimated 102.72 tons/day of compostable household solid waste in Jimma could yield over 51 tons/day of compost enriched with significant macronutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Findings of the current study, 1.53% N, 0.54% P, and 0.29% K nutrient contents, fall within the ranges reported in similar studies, suggesting sufficient concentrations to produce organic fertilizers, simultaneously improving soil quality and crop yields.⁴⁷ Thus, nutrient recovery through composting of OFMSW in Jimma diverts organic waste from landfills, which reduces reliance on costly chemical fertilizers, while also significantly contributing to agronomic value for urban and peri-urban agriculture, offering a sustainable alternative to synthetic fertilizers and contributing to broader food security targets.⁴⁵

On the other hand, the higher heating value (HHV) of OFMSW of Jimma’s waste stream (17,431 kJ/kg) is comparable to biomass fuels, above the 6000 kJ/kg lower threshold required for incineration. This substantial combustible energy content aligns with conventional standards that non-compostable waste fractions in Ethiopian urban centers offer pragmatic waste-to-energy (WTE) avenues.⁴⁰ Similar HHV values for MSW and refuse-derived fuel (RDF) have been reported in other Ethiopian cities, such as Mekelle and Addis Ababa, where HHVs range between 12 and 17.5 MJ/kg.^48,49 These calorific values suggest strong potential for waste-to-energy (WTE) technologies, including direct incineration and RDF production. Studies show that RDF substitution for coal can substantially reduce CO₂ emissions and provide a competitive levelized cost of energy compared to fossil-based alternatives.⁵⁰ Thus, the energy characteristics of Jimma’s household solid waste indicate, alongside composting, WTE recovery mechanisms that could contribute significantly to local livelihoods, renewable energy supply, and environmental sustainability. However, as highlighted in international guidance, such WTE options should be designed hierarchically after waste prevention, reuse, recycling, and composting, so that energy recovery complements rather than competes with higher-value material recovery pathways.⁵¹

Despite an estimated 90% resource recovery potential inherent in the municipal solid waste composition, actual household participation in recovery practices remains starkly low, below 30%, predominantly limited to market engagements like selling recyclables, which is driven by immediate economic incentives. In contrast, several high-performing countries report combined household recycling and composting rates exceeding 50% to 60%, with some regions achieving household recycling rates above 60% through comprehensive source-segregation systems, economic instruments, and long-term public engagement.⁵² This highlights a pervasive gap in resource recovery practices in Sub-Saharan Africa’s urban solid waste management.⁵³ Composting and energy recovery are practiced by no more than one-fifth of households, illustrating a systemic disconnection between resource potential and operational recovery practices.⁵⁴ This gap not only undermines the circular economy but also perpetuates environmental pollution through unmanaged landfill accumulation, exacerbating urban health risks.⁵⁵ This gap highlights structural barriers encompassing economic conditions, knowledge deficits, infrastructural inadequacies, weak institutional governance, and fragmented interactions between the formal and informal sectors.⁵⁶ These constraints mirror international findings that improved access to segregation infrastructure, stable market outlets for recyclables and compost, inclusive integration of informal actors, and targeted financial and behavioral incentives are essential to unlock the economic and environmental value embedded in municipal solid waste.⁵⁷

Key Determinants of Household Waste Recovery

Behavioral analysis underscores knowledge as the principal driver of recovery behavior. Households with high environmental literacy are over 5 times more likely to recycle solid waste, substantiating findings from Addis Ababa and other Ethiopian urban centers.⁵⁸ Thus, the strong positive association between higher knowledge and recovery engagement among households illustrates the pivotal role of targeted educational and awareness campaigns in shifting behaviors.⁵⁹

In this study, the economic considerations also emerge as another prime driver influencing solid waste recovery practices. This aligns with findings that lower-income households may exhibit higher recovery out of economic necessity, representing a form of “poverty-driven sustainability” noted in other SSA cities.⁴⁰ The relatively higher uptake of recyclable material sales is justifiable by direct monetary returns in a context where livelihood diversification is vital. Notwithstanding widespread favorable attitudes toward waste reduction, translation into sustained action is contingent upon enabling infrastructure and policy support, highlighting the classic attitude and behavioral gap documented globally.⁶⁰ The positive association with homeownership suggests that tenure security fosters stewardship in solid waste management, as observed in similar socio-urban contexts.⁶¹

Residence tenure further stratifies recovery engagements, with homeowners demonstrating significantly higher participation, which is attributable to greater autonomy and access to resources, whereas renters, often residing in spatially constrained, densely populated compounds, face practical limitations that inhibit recovery.^62,63 Besides, spatial inequities manifest notably, with peripheral kebeles exhibiting substantially low recovery engagement due to limited proximity to waste collection infrastructure, recycling hubs, and institutional support.⁶⁴ Moreover, the predominantly informal, fragmented waste management landscape lacks robust regulatory frameworks, impeding system-wide efficiency and equitable service delivery.⁴⁹

Accordingly, the findings of the current study testify that the waste recovery practices in the City resemble those of most sub-Saharan African countries, marked by rapid urbanization outpacing institutional capacities, prevalent informal sector dominance, and limited policy enforcement.⁶⁵ The City’s solid waste resource recovery potential and SDG targets, specifically SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 13 (Climate Action), are compelling, situating household waste management as a vital lever for achieving environmental and socio-economic resilience.⁶⁶ However, realizing this alignment requires integrated policies combining municipal investments, community empowerment, and innovative public-private partnerships strategies demonstrated to be effective in SSA. Robust municipal planning, integrated with service reliability, incentive mechanisms, and institutional supports from strengthening segregation-at-source infrastructures to formalizing informal actors and developing viable markets, is crucial for converting recovery potential into realized environmental and socio-economic benefits, advancing SDG commitments.⁶⁷

Overall, the City’s solid waste recovery enhancement demands strategic importance of adapting such models within localized frameworks, integrating socio-cultural, economic, and governance dimensions to foster sustainable solid waste resource recovery in urban circular economies. Targeted interventions that formalize informal actors and implement structural reforms focusing on infrastructure expansion, tenure security enhancement, and inclusivity of municipal services in peripheral kebeles. These efforts should be accompanied by meaningful behavioral change endeavors to build knowledge-based waste management skills and enabling environments and accessible tools, sorting spaces, and accessible composting facilities.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study revealed that households in Jimma city generate a relatively high volume of solid waste per capita, surpassing the national urban average. The waste stream is rich in compostable and recyclable materials, highlighting significant untapped potential for nutrient and energy recovery through composting, anaerobic digestion, and thermal conversion technologies. Findings from proximate and ultimate analyses further underscore the value of food waste for composting and biogas, while mixed and high-carbon fractions are suitable for energy recovery. However, actual household engagement in reuse, composting, and recycling remains limited, with economic incentives (eg, selling recyclables) being the main driver of participation.

To improve solid waste resource recovery, policy and practical interventions should prioritize awareness-raising campaigns to improve household knowledge, which was found to be the most influential predictor of recovery practices. Formalizing and supporting informal waste markets can expand participation in recycling, while decentralized composting facilities in peri-urban areas can address both waste management and soil fertility needs. Targeted support for renters and high-waste-generating households, as well as place-based infrastructure in underserved peripheral kebeles, is essential to achieving equitable and scalable outcomes. Leveraging Jimma’s favorable climate, agrarian base, and growing urbanization, the city could align its waste management practices with Ethiopia’s Climate Resilient Green Economy (CRGE) strategy and broader circular economy goals.

Future research should investigate longitudinal trends, pilot decentralized waste management interventions, and conduct lifecycle analyses to quantify the environmental and economic benefits of composting and energy recovery systems. Investigating the role of policy enforcement and public-private partnerships in scaling up resource recovery efforts would also offer valuable direction for more sustainable solid waste management in Jimma and beyond.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ehi-10.1177_11786302251414485 – Supplemental material for From Waste to Resource: Opportunities and Barriers for Household Solid Waste Recovery in Jimma City, Ethiopia

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ehi-10.1177_11786302251414485 for From Waste to Resource: Opportunities and Barriers for Household Solid Waste Recovery in Jimma City, Ethiopia by Gutama Haile Degefa, Kasahun Eba, Fikadu Tolossa Ayanie, Zewdie Birhanu and Gudina Terefe Tucho in Environmental Health Insights

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Jimma University, Institute of Health, for supporting this study. We gratefully acknowledge the study participants for their voluntary participation. We thank the municipality workers and kebele administrators for their support during data collection.

ORCID iDs

Gutama Haile Degefa

Fikadu Tolossa Ayanie

Consent to Participate

All participants in the household surveys and waste collection efforts were fully informed about the study’s objectives, procedures, and their right to withdraw at any time. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Author Contributions

GHD, GTT, KE, and ZB undertook conceptualization and methodology. GHD has conducted survey studies, laboratory analysis, interpretation, and written the draft manuscript. GHD, GTT, KE, ZB, and FT have curated data, undertaken statistical analysis, and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are within the manuscript and its supporting information files.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Kaza

Yao

Bhada-Tata

Van Woerden

What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. World Bank Publications; 2018.

Ali

Leta

Hussen

Alemu

Resource recovery potential from source-separated organic municipal solid waste: opportunities for organic fertilizer production and creating sustainable urban agriculture in Ethiopia. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag. 2023;25(4):2417-2430.

Gebrekidan

Gebremedhin

Weldemariam

Teferi

MK.

Municipal solid waste management in Ethiopia – physical and chemical compositions and generation rate: systematic review. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2024;74(12):861-883.

Debele

Fereja

WM.

Municipal solid waste challenges in Ethiopia and valorizing the potential of the organic waste fraction for composting and bioenergy. Int J Chem Eng. 2024;2024(1):7999719.

Girma

Teshome

Multicriteria spatial model to select landfill sites for solid waste management in Tercha town, Southwest Ethiopia. Cogent Soc Sci. 2023;9(2):2264626.

Maalouf

Mavropoulos

Re-assessing global municipal solid waste generation. Waste Manag Res. 2023;41(4):936-947.

Federal Negarit Gazeta. Solid Waste Management Proclamation. No 513/2007. Published online 2007.

Cheever

. Environmental Policy Review: Waste Management in Ethiopia. Key Issues in Ethiopia; 2011:133.

Hirpe

Yeom

Municipal solid waste management policies, practices, and challenges in Ethiopia: a systematic review. Sustainability. 2021;13(20):11241.

10.

Kassahun

Assefa

Henzler

, et al. Firsthand report on solid waste management practice in the major town of Addis Ababa-Adama economic corridor, Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2025;11(2):e41699.

11.

Pariaker

. Integration of the informal sector in solid waste management for resource recovery. In: Singh

Mohapatra

Jong

(eds) Solid Waste Management for Resource-Efficient Systems: Circularity in Action. Elsevier; 2024:255-269.

12.

Daoud

Ahmed

Alzaatreh

Anane

The impact of socio-economic factors on recycling behavior and waste generation: insights from a diverse university population in the UAE. Cleaner Waste Systems. 2025;11:100266.

13.

Abebe

Derebew

Gemeda

. Exploiting temporal-spatial patterns of informal settlements using GIS and remote sensing technique: a case study of Jimma city, southwestern Ethiopia. Environ Syst Res. 2019;8(1):3.

14.

Jimma City Plan and Development Office. Jimma City Annual Plan Document. Unpublished municipal report, Jimma City Administration; 2024.

15.

Cochran

WG.

Sampling Techniques. Johan Wiley & Sons Inc; 1977.

16.

Chernet

Sema

Gebeyehu

Wogayehu

BT.

Willingness to pay for improved solid waste management and associated factors among households in Debre Berhan town, North Shoa Zone, Amhara, Ethiopia, 2022. Front Sustain. 2024;5:1463777.

17.

Miezah

Obiri-Danso

Kádár

Fei-Baffoe

Mensah

MY.

Municipal solid waste characterization and quantification as a measure towards effective waste management in Ghana. Waste Manag. 2015;46:15-27.

18.

American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste. ASTM International. 2016;D5231:1. doi:10.1520/D5231-92R16

19.

ASTM. Standard Test Method for Moisture in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke. Vol 05.06. 11th ed. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM); 2017.

20.

ASTM. Standard Test Method for Volatile Matter in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke. Vol 05-06. 3175th-20th ed. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM); 2020.

21.

ASTM. Standard Test Method for Ash in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke from Coal. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM); 2018: ASTM D-3174, 2018

22.

Dewi

Sumardi

Isnanto

Analysis of fixed carbon and volatile matter briquettes of pine sawdust and coconut shell waste. Jurnal Rekayasa Mesin. 2023;14(3):901-907.

23.

European Standard. Chemical analyses-determination of loss on ignition in sediment, sludge, soil, and waste. 2003.

24.

Studt

Campbell

Westrick

Kinnunen-Skidmore

Marceau

Campbell

WH.

Non-toxic total nitrogen determination using a low alkaline persulfate digestion. MethodsX. 2020;7:100791.

25.

FAO. Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations. Vol 1. 1st ed. (By the Review Panel, ed.). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2021. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules

26.

Wang

, et al. A portable determination method for the soil rapid available potassium via enhanced NaBPh₄ turbidimetry. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2024;55(16):2478-2487.

27.

Musagala

Ssekaalo

Mbabazi

Ntale

A spectrophotometric method for quantification of sulphite ions in environmental samples. J Toxicol Environ Health Sci. 2013;5(4):66-72.

28.

Santrock

Hayes

JM.

Adaptation of the Unterzaucher procedure for determination of oxygen-18 in organic substances. Anal Chem. 1987;59(1):119-127.

29.

Razmjoo

Pourzamani

Teiri

Hajizadeh

Determination of an empirical formula for organic composition of mature compost produced in Isfahan-Iran composting plant in 2013. Int J Environ Health Eng. 2015;4(1):3.

30.

Dahal

Adhikari

An assessment of resource recovery potential and management of municipal solid waste in Jeetpur Simara Sub-Metropolitan City, Nepal. Hydro Nepal J Water Energy Environ. 2018;23:93-96.

31.

Saha

Raaz

Badruzzaman

ABM

. Assessing the fuel potential of fecal sludge and coal through co-combustion. In: Arthur

Saitoh

Hoque

(eds) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering. ICACE 2022. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 368. Springer; 2024.

32.

Aroge

Anifowose

Adarabioyo

Waste disposal practices, health awareness and challenges in rapidly growing populations: a case study of Ede, Southwestern Nigeria. Geographica Pannonica. 2025;29(1):37-47.

33.

Kayamo

SE.

Willingness to pay for solid waste management improvement in Hawassa city, Ethiopia. J Environ Manag. 2022;302:113973.

34.

Agresti

Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data. John Wiley & Sons; 2010.

35.

Williams

Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. Stata J. 2006;6(1):58-82.

36.

Degefa

Eba

Roba

, et al. Determinants of sustainable solid waste management in Jimma City, Southwest Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2025;20(9):e0333170.

37.

Debere

Gelaye

Alamdo

Trifa

ZM.

Assessment of the health care waste generation rates and its management system in hospitals of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2011. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):28.

38.

Hoornweg

Bhada-Tata

. What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers No. 15. World Bank; 2012:17-37.

39.

Ricci-Jürgensen

Gilbert

Ramola

Global assessment of municipal organic waste production and recycling. ISWA- Global assessment of municipal organic waste production and recycling 3. ISWA-Global assessment of municipal organic waste production and recycling 2. ISWA. 2020.

40.

Diriba

Meng

XZ.

Rethinking of the solid waste management system of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J Adv Environ Heal Res. 2021;9(1):7-22.

41.

Chikarmane

Narayanan

Pune waste pickers’ innovative efforts to fund the extension of decent work and social protection. Resource Document WIEGO. 2023.

42.

UNEP. Climate action annual report. 2024. Accessed September 3, 2025. https://wedocs.unep.org

43.

Amogne

Yalew

KW.

Assessment of household solid waste characteristics, quantity, and management practices in Dangila Town, Ethiopia. Environ Monit Assess. 2024;196(10):894.

44.

Wilson

Velis

Rodic

. Integrated sustainable waste management in developing countries. Proc Inst Civ Eng Waste Resour Manag. 2013;166(2):52-68.

45.

Arosemena Polo

Toboso-Chavero

Adhikari

Villalba

Closing the nutrient cycle in urban areas: the use of municipal solid waste in peri-urban and urban agriculture. Waste Manag. 2024;183:220-231.

46.

Tadesse

Kassahun

Kiflie

Effects of operational parameters on torrefaction performance of coffee husk and cotton stalk mixed biomass: a surface response methodology approach. Biomass Convers Biorefinery. 2023;13(9):7955-7970.

47.

Obsa

Tadesse

Kim

, et al. Organic waste generation and its valorization potential through composting in shashemene, Southern Ethiopia. Sustainability. 2022;14(6):3660.

48.

Bahta

Shishay

Gebreslassie

MG.

Development of a small-scale municipal solid waste-to-energy conversion system for localized energy solutions in Ethiopia. Proc IMechE, Part A: J Power and Energy. 2025;239:981-994. doi:10.1177/09576509251328759

49.

Gebreslassie

Gebreyesus

Gebretsadik

Bahta

Birkie

SE.

Characterization of municipal solid waste’s potential for power generation at Mekelle City as a waste minimisation strategy. Int J Sustain Eng. 2020;13(1):68-75.

50.

Wojtacha-Rychter

Smoliński

Multi-case study on environmental and economic benefits through co-burning refuse-derived fuels and sewage sludge in cement industry. Materials. 2022;15(12):4176.

51.

Expósito

Velasco

Municipal solid-waste recycling market and the European 2020 Horizon Strategy: a regional efficiency analysis in Spain. J Clean Prod. 2018;172:938-948.

52.

Taušová

Ivanková

Khouri

Cehlár

Municipal waste recycling in the EU: a multi-method analysis of determinants and country profiles (2005–2023). Front Environ Sci. 2025;13:1670365.

53.

Adedara

Taiwo

Bork

HR.

Municipal solid waste collection and coverage rates in sub-saharan African countries: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Waste. 2023;1:389-413.

54.

Asfaw

Asnakew

Sendkie

, et al. Perceived social, economic, environmental and health effects of solid waste management practices in Logia town, Afar, Ethiopia. Discov Sustain. 2024;5(1):308.

55.

Islam

Bushra

Shafi

. Environmental governance in Bangladesh: challenges and opportunities of solid waste management in semi-urban areas. In: Intersecting Environmental Governance With Technological Advancements. 119-148.

56.

Gebreeyessus

GD.

Towards the sustainable and circular bioeconomy: insights on spent coffee grounds valorization. Sci Total Environ. 2022;833:155113.

57.

Brown

Household waste practices. OECD Environment Working Papers. Published online 2024.

58.

Eshete

Desalegn

Tigu

Knowledge, attitudes and practices on household solid waste management and associated factors in Gelemso town, Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2023;18(2):e0278181.

59.

Awino

Apitz

SE.

Solid waste management in the context of the waste hierarchy and circular economy frameworks: an international critical review. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2024;20(1):9-35.

60.

Churko

Asfaw

Zerdo

Knowledge, attitude, practices and associated factors towards trachoma among people living in Arba Minch Zuria District, Gamo Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:3075-3085.

61.

Arifwidodo

Chandrasiri

The relationship between housing tenure, sense of place and environmental management practices: a case study of two private land rental communities in Bangkok, Thailand. Sustain Cities Soc. 2013;8:16-23.

62.

Zand

Heir

Tabrizi

AM.

Investigation of knowledge, attitude, and practice of Tehranian women apropos of reducing, reusing, recycling, and recovery of urban solid waste. Environ Monit Assess. 2020;192(7):481.

63.

Mamo

Kassa

Ingale

Dondeyne

Evaluation of compost quality from municipal solid waste integrated with organic additive in Mizan-Aman town, Southwest Ethiopia. BMC Chem. 2021;15(1):43.

64.

Chen

Wang

Lei

Wang

Optimization of the rural domestic waste recycling network based on the path planning site selection model. Front Environ Sci. 2024;12:1450959.

65.

Makarichi

Kan

Jutidamrongphan

Techato

KA.

Suitability of municipal solid waste in African cities for thermochemical waste-to-energy conversion: the case of Harare Metropolitan City, Zimbabwe. Waste Manag Res. 2019;37(1):83-94.

66.

Tahiru

A-W

Cobbina

Asare

. A circular economy approach to addressing waste management challenges in Tamale’s waste management System. World. 2024;5(3):659-682.

67.

Snehalatha

Jamuna Bai

Anil Kumar

Sachan

Patil

. Municipal solid waste recycling and management: formal and informal sectors. In: Pandey

Suthar

T.T. Amesho

(eds) Solid Waste Management. Springer; 2025.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB

From Waste to Resource: Opportunities and Barriers for Household Solid Waste Recovery in Jimma City,Ethiopia

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods and Materials

Description of Study Area

Research Approach and Design

Sample Size and Sampling Technique

Data Collection

Survey Data Collection

Waste Quantification and Characterization

Laboratory Sample Collection and Preparation

Proximate Analysis

Ultimate Analysis

Estimation of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste Recovery Potential

Determining Household Waste Recovery Practices

Data Analysis

Ethical Considerations

Results

Quantification of Household Solid Waste

Composition of Household Solid Waste

Physico-Chemical Analyses

Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste Recovery Potentials

Compost and Nutrient Recovery

Energy Potential

Solid Waste Recovery Practices and Its Determinants

Solid Waste Recovery Practices

Determinants of Households’ Solid Waste Recovery Practices

Discussion

Waste Generation and Characteristics

Waste Resource Potential versus Household Recovery Practices

Key Determinants of Household Waste Recovery

Conclusion and Recommendations

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ehi-10.1177_11786302251414485 – Supplemental material for From Waste to Resource: Opportunities and Barriers for Household Solid Waste Recovery in Jimma City, Ethiopia

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Consent to Participate

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Supplemental Material

References

Supplementary Material