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

ABSTRACT

The choice of household disposal methods continues to be an area of concern globally. Several pieces of research have been conducted to identify the determinants of the choice of disposal methods. Unfortunately, these pieces of research have not explored all the factors that can influence households’ choices of disposal methods. Premised on this, the paper contributes to existing literature by exploring the factors that influence households’ decision to adopt a particular solid waste disposal method. Using the Oforikrom Municipality, as a case study, the paper relies on household surveys and in-depth interviews with key informants from the relevant institutions. Field observations and spatial analysis were also conducted to gather further evidence. The study reveals that the factors that informed households’ decision to adopt particular disposal methods were educational levels, type and nature of dwelling unit, urbanized nature of the community, waste disposal facilities, and environmental concerns of the households. Other identified factors include household size, affordability, and convenience of the household. The study recommends that a key to success in terms of proper waste disposal among residents is to ensure the availability and accessibility of disposal facilities and the proper regulation of waste management organizations as well as disposal sites. These will contribute to minimizing the adverse effects of poor solid wastes disposal practices.

Implications: This article is intended to deepen the understanding of solid wastes disposal practices in urban areas and to contribute to literature on the factors that influence the choice of a particular disposal method among residents in these areas. Findings and recommendations from this research are intended to inform policy decisions on how to effectively improve solid waste management, specifically at the household level, in urban areas in Ghana, and beyond.

Background

Promoting effective solid waste management practices is pivotal in both developed and developing countries. The intricacy of solid waste management varies from country to country (Boamah 2011). According to Awomeso et al. (2010), the mode of solid waste disposal is critical to effective solid waste management. Solid waste disposal practices in developing countries contribute to the poor state of solid waste management systems in the global south (Ifeoluwa 2019). Poor solid waste disposal practices are a threat to the public health and the environment of many countries in the global south as the trajectory of urbanization and industrial development continues (Abalo et al. 2017). Globally, the negative impacts of indiscriminate solid waste disposal practices on public health and the environment have received attention (Ikhlayel (2018); Fernando (2019); Serge Kubanza and Simatele 2019)).

The growing concerns of indiscriminate solid wastes disposal result from the unprecedented rate at which wastes are generated in cities around the world (Abate and Goshu 2017). Adu-Gyamfi, Brenya, and Nana Egyir (2017) assert that solid wastes occur because of domestic and commercial activities which include kitchen activities, weeding, sweeping, manufacturing, market activities, mining, wastes from business activities, among others. These can be categorized as organic, inorganic, flammable, and nonflammable. The volume of solid waste generated around the world is increasing. Cities across the globe generate approximately 2.01 billion tonnes of solid waste annually and this is expected to reach 2.5 billion tonnes per year by 2025, with an average of 0.74 kg per person per day which is likely to increase to 1.44 kg per person per day (Daniel and Perinaz 2012). Tiseo (2019) mentioned that the waste generations in cities have increased due to urbanization, population growth, economic development, changing lifestyles, and the use of disposable materials. City authorities in most developing countries have not been proactive in developing targeted strategies for addressing or counteracting the solid waste disposal menace (Kyere, Addaney, and Akudugu 2019). The inability of city officials to manage solid waste from generation by individuals to disposal by waste management authorities has created several environmental hazards. These environmental hazards account for an estimated 25% of the total disease burden worldwide (World Bank 2012). Indiscriminate solid wastes disposal practices have been dubbed the main cause of poor waste management and environmental problems in developing countries (Kubanza & Simatele, 2019).

Cities in Africa face serious public health and environmental problems resulting from indiscriminate solid waste disposal. Africa generates about 125 million tonnes of solid wastes annually, of which about 65% are generated in Sub-Saharan Africa (Scarlet et al. 2015). The rapid generation of solid wastes in cities in Sub-Saharan Africa has resulted in the inappropriate management of solid wastes (Simatele and Etambakonga 2015). Guneralp et al. (2017) observed that Africa is known to be the least developed region in the world with 38% urbanization but has a huge volume of municipal garbage that has a significant impact on people’s well-being and safety. Affirmatively, recent studies in Africa have revealed that the issue of managing wastes is related to their disposal by inhabitants in most cities. Okot-Okumu (2012) revealed in his study conducted in East African cities that the difficulty in managing solid wastes stems from the bulk density of household solid wastes generated and the inappropriate disposal practices among urban dwellers (especially the urban poor). Urban centers in Africa are characterized by uncollected wastes and illegal dumping along roads, drainage channels, open lots, wetlands, etc. which are caused by humans. Bello et al. (2016) identified wastes disposal practices by households as one of the major causes of waste management issues in Africa. Solid waste disposal by households in both developed and developing countries is a stinging and pervasive problem in managing wastes in urban as well as rural areas (Abdel-Shafy & Mona, 2018). Many cities suffer from severe poor waste management, a large amount of refuse is poorly disposed of by residents, thereby endangering the environment as well as health (Adu-Gyamfi, Brenya, and Nana Egyir 2017).

For instance, Ghana faces problems of waste disposal as huge volumes of unregulated and uncontrolled solid wastes are evident in the country’s cityscape. Miezah et al. (2015) revealed that Ghana generates about 12,710 tonnes (0.51 kg per person per day), with levels of improperly collected solid waste ranging between 7,020 and 8,775 tonnes. Household waste represents 55–80% of the country’s solid waste generated (Miezah et al. 2015). The situation of improper collection of solid wastes in Ghana is largely influenced by disposal methods practiced by inhabitants. Adzawla et al. (2019) identified open dumping, the use of private containers, burying and burning, and dumping at public waste disposal sites as the prevailing solid wastes disposal systems in Ghana. Even though several attempts have been made by city authorities to prevent and reduce the solid waste disposal menace in various cities in Ghana, the issue still remains. The indiscriminate solid waste disposal approaches practised among residents in urban communities create an unsatisfactory and even worse situation of a poor living environment which has been largely overlooked. Yoada et al. (2014) revealed in a study conducted in Accra – Ghana that a lot of individuals are already aware of the possible health implications of improper solid wastes disposal as well as the ineffective management of solid wastes, but people still neglect the practice of proper waste disposal.

Kodua & Anaman (2020) opine that several explanatory factors influence households’ decision to adopt a specific method of disposing of solid waste. Generally, sex composition, age, marital status, household size, level of education, income and expenditure, availability and access to wastes facilities, and the location and type of dwelling units have been identified as determinants of the choice of disposal methods among households (Abebaw (2008); Tadesse, Ruijs, and Hagos (2008); Ng'ang'a (2012); Alhassan and Mohammed (2013); Yoada et al. (2014); Babaei et al. (2015); McAllister (2015); Alhassan et al. (2018); Ma et al. (2018); Vassanadumrongdee and Kittipongvises (2018); Adzawla et al. (2019); Alhassan et al. (2020); Mongtoeun, Fujiwara, and Vin (2019); Tweneboah Kodua and Asomanin Anaman (2020); Massoud et al. (2021)). Investigations by Alhassan and Mohammed (2013) and Yoada et al. (2014) revealed that attitudes and concerns about the environment influence household waste management practices in developing countries. Mongtoeun, Fujiwara, and Vin (2019) further revealed in their study that the discharge of solid wastes in households is influenced by waste sorting activities and the career/profession of households. According to Tweneboah Kodua and Asomanin Anaman (2020), the availability of electricity in the premise of the house, which increased wastes production, increased the likelihood of adopting a particular disposal method among households in urban areas in Ghana. In addition, municipal control and regulation of household wastes are crucial in determining households’ disposal practices. Massoud et al. (2021) report that poor waste infrastructure and management practices, particularly the lack of accountability, influence people’s attitudes and behavior toward waste disposal. The lack of accountability in terms of addressing the concerns of residents and the inadequacy of waste facilities propagated improper disposal practices such as dumping and burning of wastes in open areas. Just like all other factors, level of education has also been tagged as significant in determining the household choices in many studies, directly and indirectly (McAllister (2015); Alhassan et al. (2018); Ma et al. (2018); Massoud et al. (2021)). Households with a higher level of education usually have positive attitudes and are more willing to pay for disposal services to protect the environment. Vassanadumron & Kittipongvises (2018) provided evidence on how knowledge through education and awareness positively influenced households’ decision to pay for good waste disposal services as compared to those with little or no education. Meneses and Palacio (2005), on the other hand, documented that education has no significant effect on household waste practices. Tadesse, Ruijs, and Hagos (2008) and Bowan, Anzagira, and Anzagira (2014) also argue that demographic features such as sex composition, age, and educational levels are insignificant in determining the choice of disposal methods.

These studies conducted on the determinants of the choices of waste disposal methods among residents did not explore all the factors involved. For instance, a study conducted by Tadesse, Ruijs, and Hagos (2008) in Northern Ethiopia did not explore the institutional variables (regulation and control) which could be vital in shaping household wastes disposal practices. Mongtoeun et al.’s (2019) study conducted in the capital city of Cambodia, Phnom Penh city, identified only socioeconomic variables as the driving factors influencing wastes disposal among households, without considering other factors such as the regulation of wastes by institutions, wastes disposal facilities, etc. Another study conducted by Adzawla et al. (2019) in Ghana identified only socioeconomic factors as the major determinants of residents’ choices of waste disposal methods in Ghana. However, municipal regulation and control play a significant role in determining the choice of disposal methods and should be critically explored. This is because they influence the price levied on wastes disposal, serve as providers of wastes disposal infrastructure, and regulate the activities of waste management organizations operating in the municipality. Also, most of these studies were based solely on quantitative analysis and did not consider the attitude, perception, and behavior of households regarding waste disposal and reasons for such practices. Alhassan et al. (2019) spell out the important role socio-psychological factors such as attitudes and behavior play in household waste disposal practices. It is based on these premises that this study was conducted. This paper identifies the factors that determine the choice of solid wastes disposal methods by households in an urban settlement. The paper contributes to the ongoing discussions by researchers (see, for example, Tadesse, Ruijs, and Hagos (2008); Ng'ang'a (2012); Alhassan and Mohammed (2013); Yoada et al. (2014); Adzawla et al. (2019); Alhassan et al. (Mongtoeun, Fujiwara, and Vin (2019); Massoud et al. (2021)) on the explanatory factors for the solid waste disposal choices among households in urban areas, using the Oforikrom Municipality, Ghana as the case. Peculiarly, the paper assesses these factors taking into consideration the perception, attitudes, and behaviors of residents. The findings in this paper, aside from contributing to literature, will inform government and waste management organizations’ practices and approaches in effectively managing the solid waste disposal menace in urban cities.

Theoretical framework

The study is anchored on the tenets of the theory of bounded rationality in decision-making. Bounded rationality, coined by Herbert Simon in 1947, tried to understand how human beings reason when the conditions for rationality are not met. The theory was developed from the dissatisfaction of the “comprehensive rational” decision model of choice. It postulates a process where humans make rational decisions/choices from several alternatives in the context of limited information, time, and mental capabilities (Simon, 1990) cited in Mallard. The theory relies on two critical conceptions: Firstly, the theory claims that the capacity of the human mind is limited in solving problems required for rational behavior in the real world. Thus, they do not possess all the cognitive capabilities (the inability to process all required information) to make optimal decisions. These limitations put decision-makers in a situation where they rely on alternative cognitive approaches to make decisions. Secondly, in order to overcome their cognitive constraints, humans concentrate entirely on searching for a satisfactory outcome when making these decisions (satisficing). In a given context or situation, human beings taken on a heuristic approach in making decisions. That is, they are constrained by the inability to understand the consequences or consider other alternatives thoroughly due to the limited information. As a result, they approach the situation thinking solely about their gains with little considerations on the associated losses of the situation. This confirms the assumption of the theory that people are much more sensitive to gains than to losses in situations where they must make decisions within a shorter period based on the information available and their mental capacity. The theory also opines that once a decision is made based on the idea of “satisficing,” human beings find it difficult to move away from it.

Given these, the proposition that many households will take decisions that will satisfy their needs within the contexts of limited analytical skill, imperfect information, and limited time suggests the existence of a phenomenal context that will shape the choice made. These decisions are made with inadequate considerations or predictions of the consequences of the choices made. It is undesirable, therefore, that factors that can influence households’ decisions on a type of waste disposal method are predefined by the research. An exploratory approach was therefore adopted to identify all the influential factors in households’ choices of disposal methods. It allowed for as many influencing factors to be identified as possible; each based on what the sampled household considers important. The influential factors identified and adopted for the study include household demographic characteristics such as age, sex composition, household headship, household size, marital status, and educational levels. Other predefined factors include the type of dwelling unit, income and expenditure, availability of waste facilities, environmental concerns, nature of the community, municipal control, and distance to disposal points. Notwithstanding, the environment within which choice is made was implicitly accounted for through provision made for skews resulting from the incomplete information, limited analytical capacity, and households’ interests (and what it perceives as important) which yield the varied choice decisions that in turn shape in the household solid waste disposal turf. Aside from the predefined factors, the study also considered and explored the perceptions, attitudes, and behavior of households as determinants of waste disposal methods. These observations were linked to the conception of the theory of bounded rationality that households make decisions in consonance with their quest for satisfaction.

Setting and methods

Setting

The study was conducted in the Oforikrom Municipality (OfMA) in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. Waste management practices in the Municipality, especially household waste disposal and collection, have been a major issue to city officials. According to the 2018 Medium Term Development Plan (MTDP) for the Municipality, there has been an increasing rate of wastes generation in the Municipal Area due to human activities. The management of these wastes in the municipality is a continuous challenge to the city authorities. The Municipality’s most common method of “solid waste disposal by households” is door-to-door collection by waste collectors, and fixed-point/collection points (OfMA, 2018). The house-to-house method is carried out by compactor trucks and tricycles which move from house to house. Depending on the area, the frequency of emptying the household bins is generally once a week. The payment for the door-to-door collection ranges from GH¢20.00 to GH¢60.00.00 per household bin and is based on the classification of the area (Oforikrom Municipal Assembly (OfMA) 2018). About 10% of households in the Municipality dispose of their wastes improperly (Oforikrom Municipal Assembly (OfMA) 2018). This is a result of the inability of some households to pay for the amount charged for either collecting or dumping at the communal refuse sites. Alternative methods for the disposal of household wastes are burning, dumping in open spaces, into drains, and in rivers. This phenomenon partly explains the poor and filthy environmental condition that has engulfed certain communities in the Municipality. In line with the increase in wastes generated in the community, there is growing pressure on municipal wastes collection and disposal services in many urban areas (Figure 1).

Sampling and data

The study adopted a case study approach and used the convergent mixed method in the gathering and analysis of data. Using the EPI Info software with an anticipated frequency of 50%, confidence interval of 95%, and margin of error of 5%, a sample of 359 households was drawn from the sample frame (5,604 households). The municipality was mapped out using ArcMap 10.5 software and random sampling (using the lottery method) was then applied to select the households, using the houses as a proxy indicator. A semi-structured questionnaire was employed to capture data on the factors that determine the choice of waste disposal methods among residents in urban areas in the Municipality. It captured demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the respondents, household solid wastes disposal practices (covering the generation and disposal of solid wastes), and the factors that determine/influence the choice of disposal methods. A pretest was conducted with eleven (11) randomly selected household heads and feedback was used to refine the questions. The data collection process was conducted within six (6) days (25^th March 2020–31^st March 2020). The head of the Municipal Environmental Health and Sanitation Unit was purposively sampled as a key institutional informant and interviewed using an interview guide.

Data analysis

Qualitative and quantitative analysis

Descriptive statistics such as percentages, mean, and mode were calculated and applied in the analysis of the data obtained. Statistical test of significance was performed using the Fisher’s Exact Test and Cramer’s V to test the degree of association of the factors that influence the choice of disposal methods among residents. Information obtained from the key informant interview facilitated the explanation of the relationship between the variables and allowed the researchers to support the outputs from the household survey conducted. The results are presented using tables and charts.

Fisher’s exact test

Using the Fisher’s Exact Test, the relationship/association between the dependent (disposal methods) and the independent variables (determinants) were determined. The test was basically conducted to significantly accept or reject the null hypothesis. Accepting the null hypothesis indicates that there is no relationship/association between the two variables. On the other hand, rejecting the null hypothesis means that there exists a relationship between the two variables (the independent variables help predict the dependent variables. To measure/determine the strength of the relationship between the variables, Cramer’s V criteria were used. Table 4 presents the results from the Fisher’s Exact Test conducted and Table 1 indicates the Cramer’s V criteria adopted. The results from the test in Table 4 reveal that there exists a relationship between the variables, hence rejecting the null hypothesis. This is because the asymptotic values from the test were less than the significance level, that is, 0.05 (95.0%).

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

Source: (Akoglu 2018).

Spatial analysis

Proximity analysis was conducted to determine the range of households that have access to fixed-point disposal facilities in the municipality. Using ArcGIS software, specifically ArcMap 10.5, and a geoprocessing tool (Buffer tool), access zones were created based on the average distance (600 ft (150 m) according to the Zoning Guidelines and Planning Standards of TCPD (2011)) a household is expected to travel to access a fixed-point waste disposal facility. The analysis relied on a series of spatial queries and processes which is indicated in the model in Figure 2. The Make Feature Layer Tool used a selection by attribute approach to select all identified fixed-point disposal sites in Ayeduase after which a separate layer was created. Based on this selection, a buffer of 150 meters was performed using the Buffer Tool to create approximate access zones to these disposal facilities.

Figure 1. Map of Oforikrom municipality.

Source: Author’s Construct, July 2021.

Figure 2. Model for accessibility analysis.

Source: Author’s Construct, July 2021.

Results

Household survey

Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics

The sex of the 359 respondents was almost evenly split with males constituting 52% and females, 48%. The mean age of the respondents is 42 with a modal age group of 31–40. About ninety-seven percent (96.7%) of the respondents are considered literates which are higher than the national rate, 63% (Ghana Labor Force Reports, 2015). About 34.3% of respondents ended their education at the tertiary level while 28.8% and 24% had attained junior high school and senior high school respectively. About 3.3% had no form of education. Most of the respondents were found living in compound-houses, detached and semi-detached houses with a few living in flats and hostels which are typical dwelling units in urban cities in Ghana. A large proportion (88.9%) of the respondents was employed and 11.1% were unemployed. Table 2 presents the summary of household demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Source: Author’s Field Survey, March 2020.

Solid wastes disposal practices among residents

Table 3 shows the major types of solid wastes generated in households, the storage facilities used, and the disposal methods adopted by household in the community. Household solid wastes form a major portion of wastes generated in the municipality (Oforikrom Municipal Assembly (OfMA) 2018). Organic matter and non-degradable materials are the most common types of waste generated by households in the community. Residents stored their solid wastes in dustbins, litter bins, plastic bags, containers, sacks, buckets, and open gallons. Burning, door-to-door, and fixed-point disposal methods are largely practiced by households in the community. About 42.1% of households patronize door-to-door services provided by micro-scale private waste operators, 32% is provided by individuals (Tricycle Operators), and 4.5% by government waste operators. The predominant private waste company operating in the municipality is a small-scale company – “Asadu Royal Seed and Waste Management.” Table 2 presents the results from the survey.

Source: Author’s Field Survey, March 2020.

The thrust of the study was to identify the factors that determine households’ choice of solid waste disposal methods. Households adopted particular disposal methods based on certain factors. In order to identify these factors, respondents were questioned about the reasons and factors that influenced their decision to adopt the selected methods of waste disposal in the household. The questionnaire captured some possible factors but provided room for other factors that were not listed in the options. Table 4 presents the factors identified from the study that influence households’ choice of disposal methods.

Source: Author’s Field Survey, March 2020.

Institutional survey

Using an interview guide, an in-depth interview was conducted with the Head of the Environmental Health and Sanitation Unit at the Oforikrom Municipal Assembly to gather shreds of evidence to buttress the findings from the household survey. The interview focused on two main sections about the research objective: thus, waste generation and disposal practices, and the management of solid wastes in the Municipality. This section highlights some of the major points made by the key informant.

Firstly, the interviewee was questioned about waste generation in the Municipality. Accordingly, when questioned about the amounts of solid wastes generated in Municipality and the percentage that constitute household wastes, the respondent stated that:

“Since the Municipality is newly carved, there are no adequate statistics to reveal the amounts of solid waste generated. But household solid wastes constitute a larger portion of municipal solid wastes (about 80%). The Municipality is an urbanized jurisdiction and as such an increasing population would contribute to the generation of huge amounts of waste day-in-day-out. The majority of these wastes are made of organic matter and non-degradable materials. I will say hazardous wastes would have the least percentage.”

Wastes generated are disposed of in different ways by households in the Municipality. The Head of the Environmental Health and Sanitation Unit mentioned that:

“The approved solid waste disposal methods in the Municipality are Door-to-Door and Fixed-point (Pay As You Dump) methods. Despite these, other households practice burning, dumping into rivers, drains and along roads, as well as burying, which has been and will continue to be detrimental to human health and the environment if they prevail.”

Practicing indiscriminate waste disposal characterizes Municipality’s waste management practices. Few households dispose of their wastes improperly not because they want to but as a result of accessibility. The interviewee pinpointed in a statement that:

“Some households during the formulation of the Medium-Term Development Plan (2018–2021) revealed that they have had difficulties adopting Door-to-Door and Fixed-point methods due to the cost and convenience respectively. People cannot pay for the services and others find it difficult conveying their huge volumes of wastes to disposal points because of the distance to these facilities.”

Secondly, the respondent was asked about how solid waste is managed in the municipality and the entities involved. Fundamentally, waste management is the sole responsibility of the Municipality and is overseen by the Environmental Health and Sanitation Unit in collaboration with other units. In contrast, the private sector has been featured in waste management significantly due to the poor performance of the Municipality. The respondent said that:

“The management of solid waste has been difficult for the Municipality alone to handle, financially and logistically. That is why we partner with private organizations to assist in running these services but under some agreed regulations. You will also find individuals (tricycle operators) assisting in the collection of wastes. Even though it is not approved by the department, we cannot do anything because they are helping us do something we have not been able to do.”

Lastly, a discussion about households’ behavior toward the disposal of wastes and what accounted for such behavior. The information from the respondent reported that some households are not entirely responsible for some of their practices. They are influenced by certain factors to adopt particular disposal methods.

“We all know that waste management at the household level is the sole responsibility of every member of the household, especially the household head. I have realized that their disposal practices are usually influenced by certain factors. To my point of view, I would say, for example, our inability to provide skips at vantage points has informed dumping, burning, and burying. Also, higher municipal door-to-door service fees have turned households to utilize the private operators and tricycle operators because theirs is cheaper as compared to ours. But individuals should be able to consider the environmental implications of certain methods.”

Discussions

Factors influencing choice of disposal methods

Households resort to a particular disposal method based on certain factors they consider. Given this, this study was to identify the factors that determine the choice of disposal method among residents in urban areas in the Municipality. To achieve this, the study sought to identify and interview households on the methods of solid wastes disposal practised, ascertain the factors that influence their choice of disposal methods and the challenges faced in disposing of their solid wastes.

Organic matter and non-degradable materials are the most common types of waste generated by households in the communities. Organic wastes according to the households include food wastes, paper, and yard wastes. Non-degradable wastes materials identified were mainly plastics polythene, glass, and metals. Non-degradable wastes generated by households could find an explanation in the fact that most households traded in food items, sachet water, and other rubber and plastic materials within or around their houses. The Head of the Environmental Health and Sanitation Unit at the Municipality confirmed that a larger percentage of the municipal wastes constitute organic and non-degradable materials from households. This confirms findings from previous studies that suggest that non-degradable wastes, especially plastics, are a core component of wastes generated by households in urban areas (Azeez 2006; Yoada et al., 2014). The generation of these solid wastes among households in the various communities is determined by the size of the household, their consumption patterns, and income levels. This is in line with the evidence provided by Wegedie (2018) on the significant role income and household size play in the generation of wastes. Solid wastes generated in the community are mostly stored in dustbins, plastic bags, litter bins, sacks, containers, buckets, and open gallons before disposal.

Mainly, the methods of disposing of these wastes generated in the communities are burning, door-to-door, and fixed-point solid waste disposal methods. These methods, specifically door-to-door and fixed-point are known to be provided and regulated by government authorities, private entities, and sometimes individuals. The door-to-door services are provided by private waste operators, individuals (Tricycle Operators), and government waste operators. A majority of households patronize services from private waste operators and individuals. This is because government services are much higher than the alternatives. The Environmental Health and Sanitation head stated that “higher municipal door-to-door service fees have turned households to utilize the private operators and tricycle operators because theirs is cheaper as compared to ours.” Households practising burning preferred burning because “it is free of charge,” as stated by some of the households. It is evident that households practising burning and dumping do not pay anything for disposal. Households practicing the door-to-door method of wastes disposal, pay for the services provided by the waste providers. 26.2% of households pay between Ghana cedis (Ghc) 1.00 – Ghc 3.00 daily at the appearance of the individual wastes collectors (Tricycle Operators). 23% also pay for disposing of their solid wastes on weekly basis (Ghc 5.00 – Ghc 10.00) and 50.8% pay monthly which is mostly to the government and private wastes organizations (Ghc 20.00 – Ghc 45.00). With the fixed-point method, households pay Ghc 2.00 anytime they visit the disposal site. It was clearly stated by households patronizing disposal services from individual wastes operators that “the payment for disposing of solid wastes depends on the quantity of wastes generated.” Yoada et al. (2014) in a study conducted in Accra-Ghana revealed a similar situation where waste collectors charge individuals for disposal services based on the volume of wastes generated.

The study identified distance, environmental concerns, household size, urbanity, the availability and accessibility of waste disposal facilities, municipal control/regulations, type and nature of dwelling units, and educational level as the key factors influencing the choice of household disposal methods. The majority of these determinants concur with the findings from previous research works conducted by (Abebaw (2008); Tadesse, Ruijs, and Hagos (2008); Ng'ang'a (2012); Alhassan and Mohammed (2013); Yoada et al. (2014); Adzawla et al. (2019); Mongtoeun, Fujiwara, and Vin (2019); Alhassan, Kwakwa, and Owusu-Sekyere (2020); Tweneboah Kodua and Asomanin Anaman (2020); Massoud et al. (2021)). Evidently, the study confirms that municipal control, affordability, waste composition, and convenience also play a critical role in the determination of the choice of disposal methods among households. The study also indicates that demographic factors including age, sex, marital status, and the income levels of households are reflected to be insignificant determinants of the choice of disposal methods. This confirms the finding from Tadesse, Ruijs, and Hagos (2008), Mongtoeun, Fujiwara, and Vin (2019), and Massoud et al. (2021) who revealed that age and sex composition of households, as well as financial status, do not affect the choice of disposal methods. These findings on the other hand are against the odds of Saphores, Ogunseitan, and Shapiro (2012) and Alhassan, Kwakwa, and Owusu-Sekyere (2020) that the sex composition of households influences their choices of disposal methods. Also, the insignificance of household income levels on their choice of disposal methods contradicts Alhassan, Kwakwa, and Owusu-Sekyere (2020) who reported that income influences households’ decision to adopt the door-to-door method of disposing of their wastes.

Fundamentally, households consider the environment when deciding on their solid waste disposal method. The statistical test reveals that environmental concerns have a very strong influence on a household’s decisions to adopt a particular disposal method. All households agreed that if wastes are improperly disposed of it can pollute the environment. Also, the households mentioned that their priority concern about waste disposal is to minimize its effects on human health and the environment. As a result, residents preferred door-to-door and/or fixed-point disposal methods because of their perceived concerns about the environment. Similarly, Yoada et al. (2014) and Alhassan and Mohammed (2013) also revealed in their study that households adopt a particular disposal method based on their attitude and concerns about the environment.

Distance has an influence on the choice of disposal method with a Cramer’s value of 0.446 indicating a very strong relationship. Households consider the number of minutes they will have to move to access a site to dispose of their wastes. Radically, it is uncomfortable and inconvenient to move longer distances just to access disposal sites. In accordance, all the households practising fixed-point disposal adopted the method due to their closeness to the disposal sites. The Zoning Guidelines and Planning Standards of Ghana (2012) states that one should not travel more than 600 ft (150 m) in high-density residential areas to access a disposal facility. The analysis reveals that about 23.8% of households fall within the access zones. Households who cannot access communal skips (76.2%) decided to adopt door-to-door or burning. Burning is practised by those who cannot patronize door-to-door services and are not close to disposal sites.

Figure 3 confirms the fact that long-distance and inadequate access to waste disposal facilities influence households’ choice of disposal methods in some of the communities. The figure refers to the Ayeduase community in the Oforikrom Municipality as a typical example and it gives a clear picture of how distance and access to disposal facilities inform people’s disposal methods. Given this, the figure expands on the discussions on the distance and access to disposal sites.

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

Source: Author’s Construct, May 2020.

Also, the level of education gives a fair and broader spectrum of opinions or ideas from the households on the effects of using particular disposal methods on the environment and individuals. With a Cramer’s value of 0.136, the level of education of households moderately influences the choice of disposal methods, according to the study. This confirms the findings from previous studies conducted by ((Ng'ang'a 2012); Alhassan and Mohammed (2013); Yoada et al. (2014); Adzawla et al. (2019); Tweneboah Kodua and Asomanin Anaman (2020)). Households with a higher level of education adopt the appropriate methods of solid wastes disposal in the community (Door-to-door and/or fixed-point). This is as a result of their readiness and willingness to pay for better disposal services. Ideally, due to the fact that education improves peoples’ perception, knowledge, and attitude on the importance of a healthy and hygienic environment. One of the respondents stated that; “education teaches the effects of improper disposal on the environment.” On the other hand, households without knowledge adopt burning as their means of disposing of their solid waste. The adverse effects of burning are known through education. A respondent clearly stated that “it is inappropriate to dump or burn solid wastes and besides not all solid wastes can be burnt.”

The nature of the community (urbanity) also has a very strong influence (Cramer’s V = 0.271) in determining their choice of disposal method. Households found in urban areas practice door-to-door waste disposal methods other than practising dumping openly or burning. Due to the urbanized nature of the community, there are no open spaces that people could convert into dumpsites. A respondent stated that “the place is an urban community; you cannot throw rubbish anywhere.” Another person stated that “Due to the absence of dumpsites nearby as a result of urbanization, tricycle operators were the best option.” Meanwhile, the effects of urbanization have resulted in the difficulty of accessing improved waste disposal facilities and services in the municipality. Even though making these facilities available, residents still find it difficult in accessing these facilities due to their inadequacy. Access to waste disposal facilities affects the choice of disposal methods among residents. The unavailability or inaccessible wastes disposal facilities at vantage points are likely to result in households discharging their solid wastes in unauthorized places. With a statistically significant value of 0.001, wastes disposal facilities played an important function in determining households’ choice of disposal methods. About 33.15% of respondents selected their disposal method based on the waste disposal facilities available to them. Households patronize door-to-door services because of the access to disposal facilities (dustbins) and their willingness to pay. Others mentioned that they do not have access to these facilities due to their inability to pay for them. Also, there are only three communal skips in the community which are not accessible to all due to distance. These confirm the results from previous studies conducted by Tadesse, Ruijs, and Hagos (2008), Ng'ang'a (2012), and Adzawla et al. (2019). They revealed that the nature of a community and the availability of waste disposal facilities play a significant role in the choice of disposal methods adopted by households in most communities, especially in urban areas.

In reference to the statistical test conducted, household size recorded an exact value of 0.000 with a measure of association of 0.360. This implies that household size has a very strong influence on households’ decisions on the choice of a disposal method. This coincides with findings from Abebaw (2008) and Alhassan, Kwakwa, and Owusu-Sekyere (2020) that household size positively affects their choice of disposal methods. It was reported that most households with large sizes end up practicing burying and/or burning as their main disposal method. Based on the survey, observations and responses from the respondents revealed that households with larger household sizes preferred burning their solid wastes due to the generation in huge quantities whereas those with smaller households sizes adopted the door-to-door method of disposing of their solid wastes. Some households with large sizes stated that they cannot afford to pay for disposal services frequently nor carry wastes to disposal sites as a result of huge quantities of solid wastes generated, therefore burning becomes their preferred disposal method. Similarly, the head of the Environmental Health and Sanitation Unit clearly stated that some households practise burning, burying, and dumping due to their inability to provide skips at vantage points to enhance accessibility.

In addition, the study revealed that the type of dwelling unit moderately influenced disposal practices in the community with a measure of association of 0.145 (Cramer’s V). The majority of the households living in detached and semi-detached houses, practice door-to-door or fixed point/communal skips methods of disposing of their solid wastes. Adzawla et al. (2019) observed that people living in their own homes are willing to pay for disposing of their wastes to keep their surroundings clean. Also, most of the households found in flats, compound houses, and hostels adopted door-to-door or fixed points. This is because compound houses and flats are densely populated due to the presence of several households which set the pace for the generation of a huge volume of wastes. They clearly stated that their landlords decided on the type of disposal method to which they practice since they are tenants and in other cases, each household is responsible for their wastes.

Furthermore, the study justifies that municipal control/regulation influences the choice of disposal methods among households in urban areas. The statistical test reveals a strong relationship between the two variables recording a Cramer’s V value of 0.190. A respondent declared that “the services of the government waste operators are too expensive as compared to tricycle operators.” Due to the increasing rate at which waste is generated in the municipality, management and controlling it has become an issue for the Assembly. According to the Head of the Environmental Health and Sanitation Unit, inadequate funding has been a leading factor affecting their performance in the management of wastes in the municipality. They face issues in providing wastes facilities and collecting wastes municipal wide. This has resulted in increasing the charges for wastes management and allowing the private sector to assist in the management of wastes in the municipality. An increasing rate of government waste management and control deter households from patronizing the services and thereby relying on private organizations and individuals.

Waste composition, affordability, and convenience are also identified as a factor that informs households’ decision to adopt a particular disposal method. 31% and 10% of households adopted door-to-door and fixed-point methods respectively because it is affordable and available. Others stated that using the door-to-door method is an appropriate and convenient way of disposing of solid wastes. Convenience has been previously reported by Babaei et al. (2015) as a determiner of certain types of disposal practices. Waste composition (type of wastes generated), according to some respondents influenced their choice of disposal methods. For instance, some households revealed that they burn their garden wastes instead of taking them to the disposal site.

Conclusion and recommendations

Household solid wastes disposal is an important area of concern to Ghana’s development. The choice of disposal methods by residents has been a challenge and needs attention. It is based on this the study was conducted to identify and understand the various factors that influence households’ choice of disposal methods in the Municipality. The findings of this work identified these factors and also contributed to literature in the area of household solid waste disposal. The study revealed that demographic factors (sex, age, and marital status) and income levels of households are insignificant in determining the choice of disposal methods among households. This contradicts the findings of (Ng'ang'a (2012); Saphores, Ogunseitan, and Shapiro (2012); Alhassan and Mohammed (2013); Yoada et al. (2014); Adzawla et al. (2019); Mongtoeun, Fujiwara, and Vin (2019); Alhassan, Kwakwa, and Owusu-Sekyere (2020); Tweneboah Kodua and Asomanin Anaman (2020)) which indicates sex composition, age, and marital status as key determinants of the choice of disposal methods. Further investigations identified educational levels, type of dwelling unit, nature of community, environmental concerns, municipal control, and waste disposal facilities as the major factors influencing the choice of disposal methods among residents. Other factors such as household size, waste composition, affordability, and convenience had little influence on the choice of disposal methods among the residents in urban areas. These findings confirm the claims of the theory of bounded rationality that people make decisions based on limited information, mental capabilities, and time. Households decisively adopted methods considering their satisfaction level, without considering the depth of the decision made. Thus, these identified factors informed their decision to adopt methods that solved their problems of waste disposal without considering the consequences of the decisions made.

Considering these determinants, there is an urgent need for city officials to put in appropriate measures to resolve the solid wastes management menace in the community. In view of this, the study recommends, based on its findings that:

• The location of disposal facilities largely influences households’ decisions to burn or dump their wastes. Therefore, increasing the number of communal skips and ensuring that these facilities are accessible to all households is necessary for improving proper wastes disposal in particular neighborhoods. In this regard, the Environmental Health and Sanitation Unit in collaboration with other departments in the municipality, together with other wastes operators working in the municipality should ensure that waste disposal facilities especially communal skips are provided and located at vantage points in communities. The Assembly can strengthen its partnership with private waste operators within the municipality to aid in the provision, distribution, and regulation of fixed-point disposal sites.

• There should be proper management of disposal sites in the communities by the providers to avoid or minimize its effects on the environment and human health. Effectively, regulations and maintenance such as promoting segregation at disposal sites, on-time pick-up of skip containers to final disposal sites, proper compensation of site operators, encouraging the implementation of regular site clean-up exercises in communities, and revamping some of these sites, could be adopted and promoted by the municipality to contribute to addressing waste disposal issues through plans and policies. In addition, the Unit Committees could be given ample authority by the Assembly to ensure the implementation and regulation of these mechanisms at the community level.

• The prices levied on disposing of wastes by individual wastes operators are unstable and affect households’ choice of disposal method. The Assembly can also move an extra step in identifying individual wastes operators (specifically, tricycle operators) in the municipality and creating an association/union for them. The formation of this association could be done to identify, register, and regulate these informal operators which could help stabilize their pricing system by establishing a minimum and maximum price system to be charged for the collection, transportation, and disposal of household solid wastes. It is also an important approach to help protect and legalize their operations within the municipality. Identification and registration can be done by undertaking campaign programs to call all informal operators to participate in this new development.

The recommendations of this study, if taken into consideration could positively improve household solid waste disposal in the municipality which could serve as a model for other districts and the country as a whole.

Limitations

The study focused on quantitative and qualitative analysis as well as observational analysis of factors that determine the choice of disposal methods for households. The study recorded an inadequacy of qualitative data from the purposively selected institution (Environmental Health and Sanitation Unit, OfMA) due to the unavailable of up-to-date data to buttress the quantitative data. Despite this, the study made use of the shift-share approach to obtain ample evidence to support the findings from the study. Although municipal control/regulation in this study appeared to affect the practices of household waste disposal, it was not explored thoroughly. For instance, the study could not explore the role and practices of private organizations operating within the municipality in managing solid wastes. Therefore, further investigation of the institutional aspect as such requires research. Another area of concern this study identified has to do with the segregation of solid wastes. Waste segregation is an essential aspect of wastes disposal and key to waste reduction at the household level. It is crucial for effective waste disposal and minimizes the environmental and human health effects of waste. It was observed that in the community, households practised the segregation of waste poorly. This study did not address the aspects of waste segregation as a behavior in waste disposal. Research to assess the influence of waste segregation on waste disposal at the household level is therefore suggested.

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology’s (KNUST’s) Policy on Ethical Review, August 2018 (KNUST Policy 0006). The Committee for Human Research Publications and Ethics approved the study.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

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.

Additional information

Funding

No funds, grants, or other support were received for conducting this study.

Notes on contributors

Jim Kaaranmwine Anbazu

Jim Kaaranmwine Anbazu A graduate assistant and a master of community planning student at the University of Cincinnati. Jim has a background in development planning and has engaged in research activities in diverse fields including urban planning, environmental planning, water and sanitation, and regional development planning.

Kafui Afi Ocloo

Kafui Afi Ocloo is currently a senior lecturer with the Planning Department at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Ghana. She has years of experience in the field of development planning and the management of development projects. Her fields of experience include endogenous development, per-urban development, regional development planning, institutional development, and water and sanitation.

Eric Oduro-Ofori

Eric Oduro-Ofori is currently a senior lecturer with the Department of Planning at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Ghana. He has a background in Development Planning and Management, Local Governance, and Local Economic Development. His fields of interest are primarily local governance, local economic development, and urban spatial development management.