Solid Waste Management and Recycling

COLLECTION,TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL IN NAIROBI 69

the middle-income areas, 75 percent of the low-income areas, and 74 percent of the
surrounding area were not served.

Communal (or station) and door-to-door are the predominant waste collection
methods used in Nairobi, the former being used more by the NCC and the latter more
by private companies. In 1998, the communal method accounted for 91 percent and
48 percent of total NCC’s and private companies’ waste collection respectively (JICA,
1998). The shares for the door-to-door method were 9 percent for NCC and 52 percent
for private companies. Private collectors prefer the door-to-door method, as it facili-
tates collection of charges. The communal method is one where households deposit
their waste in a designated area or large container for collection. Though not found in
the JICA survey, block and kerbside waste collection methods are also used on a
small-scale. Block collection is used in estates with block-shaped structures that have
a common gate for several households (Kibwage, 1996). The kerbside method is used
in commercial areas and flats and housing complexes where enormous quantities of
waste are generated.

Table 4.2. Relative importance of solid waste collection agencies, 1997.

Solid waste
collection agency

Activity area (clients served)

Residential* Institutions Industrial Commercial

NCC
Private companies
CBOs
Personal initiative
Total

1 (1%)

57 (73%)

5 (6%)

15 (19%)

78 (100%)

4 (3%)

58 (45%)

5 (4%)

61 (48%)**

128 (100%)

4 (21%)

6 (32%)

• 
  

  9 (47%)
  19 (100%)

  
  

  10 (50%)

  
  

  10 (50%)
  20 (100%)

  
  

3 (16.7%)

3 (16.7%)

• 12 (66%)
  18 (100%)

Note:

• the second column contains data from our 1998 fieldwork
  ** the figure refers to those households that indicated that they did not have any collector.

Source: Esho (1997) and own survey (1998)

Table 4.3. The income level of households and source of CTD service used.

Income level NCC Private companies No collector CBOs Total

High income
Middle income
Low income
Slum
Total

1

3

• 4

20

27

11

• 58

8

11

13

29

61

• 
  


• 
  

  5

  
  


• 
  

  5

  
  

29

38

32

29

128

Source: own survey (1998)