Determinants of the choice of disposal methods among residents in urban areas in Southern Ghana

Figures & data

Table 1. Interpretation of statistical significance.

P-Value (0.05)	Cramer’s V ES = Effect Size (with values ranging from 0–1)
When Asymptotic Significance < 0.05 = Statistically Significant. When Asymptotic Significance > 0.05 = Statistically Insignificant.	ES > 0.25 = Very Strong ES > 0.15 = Strong ES > 0.10 = Moderate ES > 0.05 = Weak ES > 0 = Very Weak

Table 2. Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of respondents.

Variables	Frequency (n = 359)	Percentage (%)
Sex
Male	187	52
Female	172	48
Age Composition (Mean = 42)
21–30	80	22.3
31–40	94	26.2
41–50	91	25.3
51–60	62	17.3
60+	32	8.9
Level of Education
No Education	12	3.3
Primary	27	7.5
Junior High School	102	28.4
Senior High School	86	24
Vocational/Technical	9	2.5
Tertiary	123	34.3
Marital Status
Divorced	5	1.4
Married	239	66.6
Single	76	21.2
Separated	19	5.3
Widowed	20	5.6
Religion
Christianity	332	92.5
Islamic	27	7.5
Household Size
1–2	46	12.8
3–4	115	32
5–6	145	40.4
7+	53	14.8
Type of Dwelling Unit
Compound House	137	38.2
Detached House	89	24.8
Semi-detached House	94	26.2
Flats	35	9.7
Others	4	1.1
Employment Status
Employed	319	88.9
Unemployed	40	11.1
Income Levels (Ghana Cedis)
<200	11	3.1
201–500	61	17
501–700	77	21.5
701–900	71	19.8
901+	139	38.7

Table 3. Household waste generation, storage and disposal methods.

Variables	Frequency (N = 359)	Percentage (%)
Waste Generation
Organic Matter	359	100
Inorganic/Non-degradable Materials	359	100
Factors Influencing Waste Generation
Household Size	71	19.8
Consumption Patterns	98	27.3
Income Levels	6	1.67
Business size	20	5.6
Solid Waste Storage
Dustbins	308	85.8
Plastic Bags	100	27.9
Others	38	10.6
Solid Waste Disposal Methods
Burning	38	11.6
Door-to-Door	271	75.5
Fixed-Point/Communal Skips	50	13.9
Types of Door-to-Door Services Patronized
Government Waste Collectors	16	5.9
Private Waste Collectors	140	51.7
Individuals (Tricycle Operators)	115	42.4

Table 4. Determinants of the choice of disposal methods.

Methods Determinants	Burning		Door-to-Door		Fixed-Point Disposal		Fisher’s Exact Test
							Values	Exact Significance (2-sided)	Cramer’s V
n = 359	Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%
1. Household Size	11	3.1	8	2.23	-	-	29.521	0.000	0.360
2. Educational Level	-	-	30	8.36	-	-	8.269	0.04	0.136
3. Type of Dwelling Unit	3	0.84	20	5.57	7	1.95	7.984	0.048	0.190
4. Distance to disposal point	12	3.34	25	6.96	29	8.08	60.043	0.000	0.446
5. Environmental Concerns	-	-	186	51.81	22	6.13	72.450	0.000	0.428
6. Nature of the Community	5	1.39	85	23.68	-	-	34.238	0.000	0.271
7. Waste Disposal Facilities	23	6.41	85	23.68	11	3.06	14.493	0.001	0.207
8. Municipal Control/Regulation	7	1.95	22	6.13	6	1.67	9.225	0.022	0.190
9. Others Wastes Composition Affordability Convenience	17	4.74	59	17.27	4	1.11	16.020	0.001	0.214

Figure 1. Map of Oforikrom municipality.

Source: Author’s Construct, July 2021.

Figure 2. Model for accessibility analysis.

Source: Author’s Construct, July 2021.

Figure 3. Access to fixed-point disposal sites in the ayeduase community.

Source: Author’s Construct, May 2020.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [JKA], upon reasonable request. The data are not publicly available in compliance with the ethical procedures adopted for the research. All authors ensured that all data and materials are in support of this study and comply with the necessary field standards.