Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

Willingness to Pay for Improved Solid Waste Collection and Its Implication on Business Orientation Practices of Local Governments in Ghana

Alexander Amoah

Department of Political Science, University of Ghana, Legon

Abstract: Once upon a time it was believed that poor sanitation conditions in the Kumasi Central Business Districts were as a result of consumers’ unwillingness to pay for improved solid waste collection. This study sought to investigate consumers’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste collection and the implications it would have on the business orientation practices of local governments in Ghana. This is crucial as the local governments are burdened with increasing sanitation problems, sanitation has become a yardstick for measuring government’s performance and citizens’ demand for improved sanitation is influencing party politics. The study adopted an institutional assessment procedure developed by Cullivan et al . This procedure allowed the use of a mixed-method approach with questionnaire and interview as instruments for gathering data. In all 100 consumers in central business district and 30 experts from service providers including the Waste Management Department, Environmental Health Unit, Zoomlion Ghana Limited, and Freko FD Limited participated in the study. The study showed that contrary to popular believe, consumers were willing to pay for improved sanitation and that poor solid was disposal thrived on institutional ineffectiveness. It was recommended that the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly must improve on its service delivery by recruiting more people into the sector and demonstrate to consumers the Assembly’s readiness to deliver on waste collection, as well as provide adequate dustbins at vintage points as parts of its commitment to improve on solid waste collection and ensure that consumers become responsible in making use of the facilities.

Keywords: solid waste collection, urban sanitation, business orientation, institutional ineffectiveness, and local government

Received October 20, 2018; Revised November 21, 2018; Accepted December 14, 2018

Citation: Alexander Amoah, Willingness to Pay for Improved Solid Waste Collection and Its Implication on Business Orientation Practices of Local Governments in Ghana. American Journal of Environmental Protection, 6 (3). 77-97. January 2018. doi:10.12691/env-6-3-4

1. Introduction

Solid waste management problems have become serious issues for most countries in the developing world [2,3,4]. Franko shows evidence from Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil and Mexico, that points to awful sanitation conditions. In these countries, Franko observed high levels of solid waste generation, inadequate collection of garbage, inadequate sanitary landfills and unsustainable human settlements. Again, in East Asia, Indonesia is a typical example of countries in which the environmental sanitation problem is near crisis proportions. According to the Asian Development Bank [5], a large proportion of solid waste is discharged into the cities’ watercourses (rivers, canals and drainage channels). Thus, in some developing countries in Latin America and Asia environmental sanitation is in deplorable state.

In addition, the urban sanitation conditions of most countries in Africa are similarly appalling [6,7,8]. Nakiboneka’s work on Uganda and Malombe’s on Kenya share some features identified by Mwanza as common to most developing countries. These features include lack of, or less than basic level of municipal services in water, sanitation, waste collection, storm drainage, and inability of local authorities to collect and dispose-off increasing solid waste. For instance, about 12.2 per cent of Ugandan population lived in urban areas and the urban growth rate was 5.5 per cent; meanwhile there was no single town with satisfactory sanitation management system.

Moreover, the problem of poor sanitation in major cities of Ghana is akin to that of the countries above. In their article, “Environmental sanitation and urban agriculture in Ghana” Cofie, Drechsel, Obuobie, Danso, and Keraita, [9] give obvious picture of environmental sanitation in Ghanaian cities as follows: “The current state of environmental sanitation in major cities of Ghana is derived from the increasing amount of waste generated and the inadequacy of waste disposal and treatment facilities. The use of public toilets and open defecation is pronounced, as only 5% of the population is served with a; sewerage network while 20% have no toilets at all. It is a common feature to find open gutters, which were meant for storm water drainage now filled with domestic and industrial wastewater and often choked with solid materials and sediments.”

Admittedly, this general picture of environmental sanitation shows indiscriminate disposal of waste in the developing countries. This informs the present study of what to expect during observation and the need to do comparative analysis to find whether or not there has been improvement in environmental sanitation in Ghana.

The description of environmental sanitation above gives indication of some institutional weaknesses and causes doubt as to whether or not these countries (especially Sub-Sahara Countries) would be able to meet the Millennium Development Goal (MDGs) on sanitation by 2015. By this period the world would still have about 2.4 billion people living without access to basic sanitation unless something is done to improve the current sanitation situations in most developing countries [10]. Failure to achieve the MDGs on sanitation would also affect the success in the other MDGs since there is a “cross-cutting” relationship between the MDG on sanitation and the other MDGs. For instance, sanitation is indispensable to the alleviation of poverty and making economic progress which is the MDG 1 [11]. Thus, environmental sanitation problems, especially indiscriminate disposal of waste, are critical for the developing world and must receive more attention in research and global discussion than presently.

Besides, the increasing costs of poor sanitation in terms of human life and economic costs are so overwhelming that the world can no longer ignore it, according to Patrice Franko [3]. For instance, Franko found that in Brazil 70 per cent of all hospital admissions were due to diseases related to lack of sanitation. Also, dirty water and inadequate sanitation kill over 4,100 children every day [12]. Similarly, according to World Health Organisation (WHO) [13], one child dies approximately every 20 seconds from diarrhoea, which alone causes nearly 1.5 million deaths each year, mostly among young children, and it is the third largest cause of death from infectious disease. Researchers think that provision of adequate safer water, improved sanitation and hygienic practices could have prevented about 90 per cent of those deaths [14,15]. What is more bizarre is that, at present more than 1 of 3 persons is reported to live without improved water and sanitation, and this situation makes Africa the region with the lowest water supply and sanitation coverage in the world [16]. Specifically, Ghana has an encouraging household water supply of 75 per cent and worse household sanitation coverage of 18 per cent with less hope of improvement [13]. The occurrence of many diseases is attributable to lack of effective environmental health management. Malaria alone is said to account for over 40 per cent of all outpatient attendances. Besides, many urban areas in Ghana are endemic of diarrhea diseases and cholera [17]. These make sanitation a serious social and environmental issue of greater concern. As a result, many concerned citizens are calling for appropriate political response to the dirt engulfing the country.

In response to the global environmental health problems, the 1992 UN Conference Report on Environment and Development (Agenda 21) urged governments in developing countries most affected by environmental health problems to respond to the situation through sound local governance [17]. Besides, one of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), adopted by UN General Assembly in September 2000, was to ensure environmental sustainability. To achieve this goal the Johannesburg Plan of implementation, specifically required the world states to: halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation; improve sanitation in public institutions; promote safe hygiene practices in the communities; integrate sanitation into water resources management strategies; implement plans, national policies and incentives for waste minimization and improved recycling and use of waste water [17].

Inspired by UN’s Agenda 21 and responding to public cry for improved sanitation, Ghana launched her National Environmental Sanitation Policy (NESP) in 1999 [15]. Before this policy, adequate provisions for environmental health had been made in a number of laws, acts, and ordinances, including the 1992 Republic of Ghana Constitution, Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462), the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1994 (Act 490), the Environmental Assessment Regulation, 1999 (LI 1652) and the Environmental Sanitation Bye-laws of Metropolitan, Municipal and Districts Assemblies (MMDAs). These laws make local governments responsible for sanitation in their area of jurisdiction. Though general waste management is vested in the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD), which by statutory provision supervises the Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs), the MMDAs are responsible for the collection and disposal of solid and liquid waste through their waste management department (WMDs).

In addition, Ghana has relied on donor agencies and development partners for support in dealing with sanitation. Some estimates indicate that 90 per cent of the total investment in the water and sanitation sector in the 1990s was made by external agencies. These external donors paid about US 500 million dollars of the expenditure on water and sanitation delivery between 1990 and 2003. In 2006, more than 96 per cent of total financing in 2006 was estimated to come from external donors OECD/AfDB [18]. In 2002, for instance, the KMA commissioned a 15 by 23 metre refuse container and 16 hard shoulders constructed at the cost of GH¢1,100,000, (¢11 billion old Ghana Cedis and EURO 1.43 million) under the sponsorship of the government of Ghana and the World Bank. This was to help the assembly manage the communal refuse stations and the Buobai Faecal Treatment Plant. The World Bank also has been providing assistance to the Assembly in embarking upon house-to-house refuse collection scheme, which was introduced in 2002.

As part of their strategies, the MMDAs have been keen in accessing the opportunities that privatisation offers. They have engaged private organisations in waste collection. Private organization have also seen some profit logic in investing in sanitation. Thus far, the private organizations are currently doing about 80 per cent of the solid waste collection in the metropolis. In spite of this privatisation policy, legal frameworks, institutional structures, and external support, the efforts of the Assemblies towards the sanitation canker have not achieved any significant result and the volume of dirt continues to engulf the country. Less than 40 per cent of urban residents are served by a solid waste collection service and less than 30 per cent by an acceptable household toilet facility [17]. There is therefore a continuous indiscriminate disposal of solid waste (IDSW), disfiguring the sewerage systems, and causing air pollution in diverse places and leaving on the grounds high volumes of solid wastes uncollected daily. Indiscriminate Disposal of Solid Waste (IDSW) is the practice by which people dispose unwanted solid substances or wastes in places not designated for such purpose by appropriate authorities. This practice is common in Ghana and most affected are the major business areas in most cities where solid wastes are generated in large quantities and piled up on daily basis.

Some writers attribute the urban sanitation problems in developing countries to demographic and sociological factors including rapid urbanization [3,4,9,19,20,21,22], poverty [3,6,7,23,24], and cultural values [25,26,27]. Politically, the sanitation problem has been attributed to negligence on the part of states and governmental institutions [7,28,29]. According to these scholars, as rapid urbanization is creating huge new demands for infrastructure such as water, sanitation, refuse disposal and electricity, poor countries are not able to cope with environmental sanitation problems. Also, bad cultural practices towards the environment leads to environmental problems; and governments have not prioritized sanitation and hygienic practices.

Some counter arguments can be made against these views. Indeed, it is factual truth that Africa is currently the least urbanised and the continent with the highest rate of increase in urban population. It is also true that rapid urbanisation is partly undermining the capacity of local governments in dealing with waste, but this argument is not strong and it is outliving its essence. This is because as far as government development policies continue to discriminate against rural people, urbanisation of cities will gallop. In support of this view, the Research and Development Office of Kumasi Waste Management Department (KWMD) in an interview said “We cannot stop people from coming into the city, they will always come and we have to expect them.” It is something that local governments should expect, make provisional plans for and work with. Increase in the number of people will definitely result in an increase in waste and this is normal. Thus, by stressing urbanisation and its attendant problems, those scholars miss the point. They fail to recognise that the problem of indiscriminate disposal of waste is not so much about rapid urbanisation. Rather, it is the inability of responsible institutions to plan, take advantage of the positive aspects of rapid urbanisation and fight against the negative consequences of it.

Secondly, should developing countries wait to develop economically before tackling sanitation problems? What level of economic development is enough to salvage sanitation problems? As it stands now, there is a growing idea that local governments should either look beyond poverty and inadequacy of funds or do everything possible to raise funds to improve sanitation. One scholar who has rejected the argument on inadequacy of funds is Kendie [27], who admitted that most African countries faced economic decline in the 1970s and 1980s but thought that “while inadequate funding may have contributed to the poor sanitation of the 1970s and early 1980s, this argument no longer holds in recent years.” He cited recent improvement in growth rate of developing economies to support his argument. This study agrees with Kendie that general poverty is no longer an adequate reason for indiscriminate disposal of waste in Ghana. Besides, waste management is expensive in many countries because agencies and local authorities use inappropriate strategies. In Ghana for instance, local authorities focus on waste collection rather than waste prevention. Waste management activities neither include appropriate business orientations nor provide economic opportunities for both agencies and individuals.

Thirdly, negligence has been considered a significant contributor to the deteriorating sanitation conditions in some African countries. It is believed that until the 1990s the water and sanitation sector in Africa was neglected and even as of now communities and designated institutions have not prioritised or paid needed attention to sanitation and hygienic practices. According to Nakiboneka, the sanitation problem in Uganda was largely due to unrestrained urban growth and neglect of the sector for over 30 years. This negligence manifested in many ways such as the unpopularity of sanitation, lack of national sanitation policy and guidelines, inadequate legislation, and institutional fragmentation inter alia.

Also, in her assessment of “the dilemma of sanitation coverage in Ghana” Fati [28] pointed out that between 1994 and 2008 the national sanitation coverage of the Community Water and Sanitation Agency (CWSA) was 10 percent for both household and institutional latrines. Both Fati and Adomako-Adjei blame the government and communities for the lack of deserved attention on the sanitation sector. This argument supports the view that institutions are rather to blame for the indiscriminate disposal of waste; negligence is an effect of institutional failure since effective institutions set priorities and makes policies accordingly.

Finally, there is no doubt that cultural practices affect sanitation, after all sanitation is a way of life just like any cultural practice. Agbola and Kendie are commended for drawing attention to cultural elements of sanitation. They present a critical issue for institutionalists to consider. However, this argument is quite problematic since culture is dynamic and learned and, as Agbola believes, all cultural derivatives such as beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes can be modified or changed through education. One way of dealing with debilitating cultural values is the use of formal institutional mechanisms such cognition and regulation. Appropriate enforcement of rules and education can alter individuals’ behaviour toward the environment in general and sanitation in particular. This means that when formal institutions exist but are ineffective in terms of problem-solving, it makes sense to blame such institutions. Thus, designated institutions should be blamed for not addressing the sanitation problem from the right perspective if that is behavioural change.

Since the MMDAs are responsible for dealing with environmental sanitation, we deem it fit to consider the problem from institutionalist point of view. The society thought that by establishing the Waste Management Departments (WMD) and Environmental Health Management Department (EHMD) in the MMDAs and providing adequate legal framework and resource capacity these institutions would be able to arrest erstwhile sanitation problems, prevent anticipated problems and ensure sanity. If after a while these institutions are unable to deliver to expectation, then there is a need for some sort of institutional evaluation or assessment. This assessment could focus on the procedures of establishment and strategies adopted by the designated institutions for dealing with the problem at hand. This paper assumes there are adequate legal and procedural frameworks only the designated institutions lack appropriate problem-solving strategies.

For instance, Seraj [30] conducted a study to provide some understandings into sanitation-related strategies taken by the BRAC Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Programme from an economic point of view. Among other things, the study aimed at measuring and identifying the factors that influence willingness to pay for improved sanitation services for the households without any latrine facilities in rural Bangladesh. The study adopted a contingent valuation survey which was carried out in four upazilas under BRAC WASH programme. The study found that 80% of the households were willing to pay for improved sanitation services. Of the total households who were interested in paying for sanitary latrine about 92% preferred payment in monthly instalments. While economic hardship was found to be the major reason for not installing sanitary latrine, health, cleanliness and prestige were found to be three major motivating factors for installing sanitary latrine. In addition, Seraj established a causal relationship between health awareness and willingness to pay for improved sanitation services. However, it was found that even if all the stated conditions are met, there will be some households who would not be able to pay for their latrines and will need some sort of cash incentive or subsidy.

Following Seraj [30] this paper hypothesizes that, (1) there is a significant relationship between respondents’ perception of the quality of service delivery and their willingness to pay extra more for improved IDSW; (2) there is a significant relationship between respondents’ perception of responsibility for sanitation and willingness to pay for improved sanitation; and (3) respondent’s perception of how their monies are used determine whether or not they would pay more for improved sanitation. These hypotheses must form the basis for the business orientation strategy of the MMDAs in Ghana. Business orientation refers to ability of the designated institutions to obtain, raise and effectively utilize its own revenue and how revenue and expenditure budgets are prepared and executed. Effective business orientations are expected to make the designated institutions self-sufficient or at least reduce their dependence on government subventions. Among other things, the study sought to find out (1) whether or not WMD maintain a yearly balance between expenditures and revenues, (2) the sources, of revenue, (3) the viability of the internal revenue generating system, (4) consumers’ willingness to pay for improved sanitation, and (5) factors influencing willingness to pay for improved sanitation.

2. Method

The procedure adopted for this study is the institutional assessment procedure developed by Donald Cullivan, Bruce Tippett, Daniel B. Edwards, Fred Rosensweig and James McCaffery [1]. Cullivan et al defines institutional assessment as “a systematic procedure for assessing the performance of an institution based upon the use of standards or performance indicators. The final output of an institutional assessment is a profile of institutional strengths and weaknesses which have been analyzed by major category of institutional function” by which the institution can be adjudged effective or not. The assessment is the basis for concluding on the effectiveness of the WMD of KMA in dealing with the problem of solid waste in Kumasi.

The institutional assessment was based on nine criteria six of which were developed by Cullivan et al [1] from a series of field works they conducted on institutional assessment. These elements include: (1) Organizational autonomy; (2) Leadership; (3) Developing and maintaining staff; (4) Commercial orientation; (5) Interactions with key other institutions; (6) Law enforcement and Public education; (7) Stability and sustenance and; (8) Technical capability; and (9) Organisational autonomy [1]. Originally, Cullivan et al did not include law enforcement, stability and sustenance as well as public education. These were added to suit the circumstances of the study. The paper presents the findings on only business orientation (or commercial orientation in the words of Cullivan et al) which is critical elements of institutional capacity.

For the purpose of this study, the sample population consisted of people working for KMA, or who work within the five (5) Central Business Areas (CBAs): Kejetia, Central Market, Roman Hill, Dr. Mensah and Adum. The population of the study involved different characteristics. Some respondents were managers and workers of the various designated institutions, and were different from the consumer group which included all the beneficiaries of sanitation services in metropolis. Due to this diversity, the study adopted stratified sampling, purposive and accidental sampling methods for selecting and reaching respondents. A two-stage stratified sampling method was used in the sample selection. The sample size chosen for the study was 130. This comprised of 30 members from designated formal institutions and 100 members of the consumers group. This sample size was chosen based on the nature of the research problem, difficulty in getting information; especially from the service providers, time and financial consideration. The distribution was as follows:

Table 1. Distribution of Respondents

Designated service providers included the Waste Management Department, Environmental Health Unit, Zoomlion Ghana Limited, and Freko FD Limited. At WMD 17 respondents were selected of which 4 were administrative staff, 3 supervisors, and 10 Cleaners. The administrative officers, namely, the Research and Development officer, Transport officer, Finance officer were selected upon direction from the manager, while the manager of the KMA landfill was selected purposefully. All these members were deemed as being in the position to possess more information on activities of sanitation. The main reasons for using this technique were proximity, accessibility, cost reduction and the fact that these respondents were greatly involved in the sanitation activities. Again, the director of the EHMD was selected purposefully while the 2 staff members were selected accidentally depending on whoever the interviewer met in the office at the time of visit, which was usually in the working hours in the morning and afternoon. Likewise, the 10 workers of Freko FD Ltd and Zoomlion Waste Limited and the 10 cleaners of WMD were also chosen accidentally upon visitation during the working hours.

The study could not ensure gender balance in terms of numbers. Gender balance could mean underrepresentation of women since women constitute majority of workers in the CBAs. Consequently, in the accidental sampling, 44 per cent of respondents were male while the majority of 56 per cent were female. This reflects the gender situation in the CBAs. Also, more than a quarter (38 per cent) of respondents were part of the 18-25 age cohort; 28 per cent were aged above 42; 20 per cent were within the 26-33 years, and 14 per cent fell within 34-41 years. The mean and median ages were 29 years and 24 years respectively. The youngest person was 18 years and the oldest person was 72 years. Again, an overwhelming majority (96 per cent) of respondents have had at least formal education. This segment included 32 per cent reaching the senior high level, 18 per cent reaching junior high, middle school, and tertiary levels respectively, 10 per cent reaching primary level. Only 4 per cent of respondents lack formal education. Moreover, a little above quarter (35 per cent) of respondent was in store operators group. The rest were divided as follows: drivers (10 per cent), Food sellers (18 per cent), Hawkers (14 per cent), Artisan (12 per cent), and pavement sellers (11 per cent).

The possibility of biases from individual respondents towards the organisations could not be doubted. To avoid this, the researcher ensured that respondents understood the purpose of the interviews and cross-checked responses with extensive observations and responses from the consumer group. The consumer group was also purposively stratified and 20 people were accidentally selected from each stratum. The selected people included drivers, food sellers, store operators, passengers and hawkers and sellers on pavements and in streets. The purpose for this categorization was to find out the opinions of these beneficiaries about the problem of IDSW, the quality of service provided, and willingness to pay for improved sanitation. Within each stratum, accidental sampling technique was used in selecting respondents for interview. 36 per cent of respondents had work for 1-3 years in the CBAs, another 35 per cent had worked in the CBA for more than 10 years; the others were 4-7 years (16 per cent) and 8-10 years (13 per cent). Within the designated formal institutions cohort, out of the 30 respondents sampled, 5 respondents (16.7%) occupied top-level and middle-level positions while 20 (66.7%) occupied lower-level positions. Majority (56.6%) of the respondents were from the WMD, 16.5% were from Zoomlion Waste Limited, Freko FD Limited and 10% from EHMD.

The study made use of both primary and secondary sources of data for data collection. Direct observation and interviews were the main sources of primary data. Observation was done on weekly intervals and continued throughout the interview period between August 1 and November 6, 2009. The observation followed a checklist and the purpose was to determine the nature of the solid waste problem and confirm some of the answers given by respondents. The interviews were semi-structured to allow for probing on some important issues as were determined during the interview. All interview questions (except for the consumer group) were asked on the 9 performance indicators given above. In all 30 series of structured interviews were carried out with people involved in collection, disposal and management of solid waste in Kumasi. Nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with the following: The Research and Development Officer, Landfill manager, Transport officer, and Maintenance officer of WMD and Director and four sanitary inspectors of the EHMD.

Besides, 100 questionnaires were self-administered in CBAs. The target groups for these questionnaires were the consumer groups. The questionnaire focused on issues of law enforcement, consumer orientation, regulation, waste generation, attitudes toward solid waste disposal, institutional performance, and waste management activities, and logistics. The questionnaire consisted of both closed and open-ended questions. To include areas which might not have been anticipated by the researcher the questionnaire offered respondents the opportunity to state anything they felt strongly about which was not covered in the questionnaire. The open-ended questions gave flexibility in answering questions since respondents were given the leeway to express their views on some issues under consideration in their own way [31]. But to avoid generating too many answers which could be difficult to categorise and analyse, the questionnaire comprised 5 percent of this type of questions and 95 percent of close questions.

The questionnaire design was done in consideration of practicality and relevance, comparability, sequence, language, phraseology, communication and form of data analysis. Besides, the questions were designed in relation to the questions raised in the study. The questionnaire was pre-tested and correction and adjustment made before final administration. Twenty questionnaires were sent to the field for pre-testing, which was done at Racecourse, Kumasi.

Secondary data was collected through existing literature, such as books, journals, official documents, legal and policy documents, working papers and reports and internets sourced documents. The researcher obtained an electronic version of the National Environmental Sanitation Policy of 1999 from the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD), a hardcopy of KMA’s Bye-laws, a written copy of the vison and operational policies of WMD. Data from these sources were used to confirm interview findings or analyse them.

3. Results

Business orientation refers to ability of WMD to obtain, raise and effectively utilize its own revenue and how revenue and expenditure budgets are prepared and executed. Interviews with account officers proved that the WMD did not maintain a yearly balance between expenditures and revenues due to inadequate funding. Revenues were drawn from two sources, from government subventions, and internally generated funds through levies. The PAY-AS-YOU-DUMP system was expected to increase the responsiveness of sanitation providers and strengthen the business orientation of designated institutions. The department was paying close attention to operation of the system, once it became a success it would be extended to all parts of the metropolis. The Research and Development Officer believed that the success of the PAY-AS-YOU-DUMP system would pave way for more strategies to be introduced.

To determine the viability of the internal revenue generating system, the study asked respondents to indicate the amount they pay for sanitation and their willingness to pay extra more for improved services. In the first place, the study asked respondents “How much do you pay to service providers for sanitation in your location?” Answers from respondents are presented in the Table 2 below:

Table 2. Amounts respondents currently pay for sanitation

The result in Table 2 indicates that 20 per cent of respondents did not pay anything for sanitation. Another 20 per cent paid GH¢ 0.50 while 5 per cent paid either GH¢ 0.30 or GH¢ 5.00. The majority of respondents (25 per cent) paid either GH¢ 0.10 or GH¢ 3.00 respectively. The variation in amount respondents pay was accounted for by difference in occupation and location of work. In some locations such as Adum and Kejetia, the amount people pay was determined by the privatization contract between KMA and the private service providers. To be able to pay Freko for sanitation in Kejetia, KMA had approved an amount of 50 Gp to be taken once from each Trotro driver and 30 Gp from each Taxi driver upon entry into Kejetia transport terminal, and 50 GP from hawkers and pavement sellers, excluding store operators, who paid 10 Gp daily to KMA. The 10 GP paid by the store operators were expected to enable KMA meet its financial obligation to sanitation providers.

In Adum, consumers who had registered with Zoomlion paid for GH¢ 3.0 per month for service delivery. However, some respondents who had not registered but enjoyed services of Zoomlion paid either GH¢ 0.50 or GH¢ 1.0 for waste collection. It could be seen that the privatization strategy made the WMD somehow business oriented. According to the Research and Development Officer, the Zoomlion and Freko Ghana Limited were doing more than 80 per cent of the solid waste collection and disposal (SWCD) in the CBAs because of current financial system. The amounts realized by service providers would increase if mechanisms were put in place to ensure that all those who did not pay anything for doing business in CBAs register with one service provider and pay accordingly for the service.

3.1. Respondents’ Perception of Quality of Service Delivery and Willingness to Pay Extra More for Improved SWCD

The study assumed that respondent’s perception of the quality of service delivery might affect their willingness to pay extra more for improved SWCD. As a result, the study asked respondents “How do you rate the quality of service delivery in your location of work?” Five options were given to respondents to choose from, and their responses are displayed in the figure below.

Figure 1. How respondent rate the quality of service delivery (Source: Author’s Field Survey, 2009)

Figure 1 shows how a respondent rated the quality of service delivery by service providers. As can be seen, more than half (69 per cent) of respondents perceived the quality of service delivery as either very low (47 per cent) or low (22 per cent). Only 22 per cent of respondents rated the quality of service delivery as either very high (9 percent) or high (13 per cent). The minority (9 per cent) of respondents were not certain about the quality of services delivery. Low or very low quality of service delivery perceived or real was deemed an impediment to getting consumers pays more for services. If majority of respondents rate the quality of service delivery as low, will they be willing to pay extra more for improved SWCD? How much extra will they be willing to pay?

Moreover, respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they were willing to pay extra more than they were currently paying for improved sanitation services. Despite the fact that most respondents rated the quality of services delivery as ‘very low’, they were exceedingly willing to pay more. This is indicated by an overwhelming majority of 83 per cent of respondents willing to pay extra more for improved solid waste collection and disposal as against only 17 per cent who would not pay more than they are currently paying (Table 3).

Table 3. How respondent rate the quality of service delivery and whether or not they are willing to pay for improved SWCD

A chi-square test of independence was performed to determine whether respondents’ perception of the quality of service delivery was at all related to their willingness to pay for improved SWCD. Table 3 presents the percentage of respondents broken down by willingness to pay for improved SWCD and perception of quality of service delivery. Far from expectation (X 2 critical (4, N = 100) =9.49, P < 0.05) the test revealed that respondents’ willingness to pay more for improved SWCD was not related to the perception of quality of service delivery, X 2 (4, N = 100) = 6.07, P < 0.05. Although the two variables are mutually exclusive, the strength of association between them is relatively modest (V = 0.246). This inconsistency is due to the fact that among the 17 per cent of respondents who were unwilling to pay more than they were currently paying, 4 per cent of them cited inadequacy of services as a reason for their choice.

As can be seen in Table 3, 83 per cent of respondents chose ‘YES’ indicating that they were willing to pay extra more for improved SWCD. Table 4 shows that, out of this majority, 74.7 per cent were willing to pay between One Ghana Cedis (GH¢1) and Twenty Ghana Cedis (GH¢20). The rest of 21.7 per cent were willing to pay between Ten Ghana Pesewas (10 Gp) and Ninety Ghana Pesewas (90 Gp). 3 per cent of them were willing to pay whatever would be demanded by the service providers. Thus, on average, respondents were willing to pay 40 Gp daily and GH¢ 2.30 monthly as sanitation levy. This has implication for the business orientation of the KMA’s sanitation services and will be considered shortly. It is interesting to note that almost a quarter of respondents think that contribution towards sanitation should be made daily.

Table 4. Extra Amount respondents are willing to pay for SWCD

Daily payment may lead to larger sums of money being mobilised than monthly payment. Collaboratively, respondents who pay for cleaning on their compound make payment on daily basis. The question is whether respondents’ indication of willingness to pay for improved service will be translated into action when the need arises. What are the other signs that indicate that indeed consumers would be willing to pay?

3.2. Reasons why Consumers would be willing to pay more for Improved Services

Consumers’ willingness to pay for improved sanitation is reflected in the extra payments they make towards cleaning in their compounds. The survey indicated that majority of respondents took responsibility for cleaning their own compounds, either by employing commercial sweepers or by themselves. This was in response to the question “Who cleans or sweeps your compound/ location?” As it were, a third of respondents (33 per cent) being the majority took responsibility for cleaning their own compounds. Another significant majority (30 per cent) said their compound was cleaned by Freko FD Limited, 16 per cent said Zoomlion Waste Ltd cleaned their compound, and 15 per cent said their compounds were cleaned by commercial sweepers. Put together, these statistics indicate that almost half of respondents take responsibility for cleaning their own environment (48 per cent). A problem arises when it comes to the final disposal of the waste after cleaning.

Table 5. How respondent treats garbage after cleaning

It is essential to know how those who clean their environment by themselves treat garbage after sweeping. The study asked a simple question “How do you treat garbage after sweeping?” The answers given by respondents are presented in Table 5. Majority (17 per cent) of respondents specified that after sweeping the garbage was left on the ground, while 9 per cent took the garbage to central collection container. The others pointed out that garbage was collected by Zoomlion (5 per cent), Freko (10 per cent) and KMA-WMD (7 per cent). These results confirm what was observed in many places where people had swept and gathered the garbage round streetlights poles and at various places. Discussion with some of the respondents indicated that they had a problem with the distance between their location of work and the central collection. Others also said that it was the responsibility of service providers to collect the garbage and theirs was to sweep the compound. It is obvious that inadequate supply of litterbins is indeed responsible for this behaviour. If there were litterbins around people would have many choices and it was likely they would prefer to use the litterbins to leaving the garbage on the round. How much extra do respondents then pay for cleaning activities? To find this, the study asked “If you employ individual sweepers/waste collectors, how much do you pay for services?” Answers given by respondents are depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Amount respondent pay to other than designated service providers (Source: Author’s Field Survey 2009)

Majority of respondents paid between GH¢ 0.10 and GH¢ 0.50 daily (51 per cent), 6 per cent paid GH¢ 0.60 and GH ¢ 0.90 daily, 10 per cent paid between GH¢1.00 and GH¢1.50, another 11 per cent of respondents paid between GH¢ 3.00 and GH¢ 5.00. Another 22 per cent of respondents paid nothing for cleaning because they did it by themselves. 13 per cent of respondents either did not know how much they paid or refused to answer the question. All this was an indication that people in the CBAs were willing to take responsibility for sanitation in the places they operated. Currently, most people paid GH¢ 0.50 (GH¢ 0.60 on average) for waste collection and disposal outside the services of designated services providers but they were not satisfied with sanitation on their compound. This amount though very little could supplement what service providers accrue for providing services.

Will consumer be willing to pay and under what conditions? The contention of the study is that consumers are willing to pay a flat sanitation levy for improved solid waste collection and disposal. The first reason in support of this assertion is respondents’ demand for clean environment that result in they cleaning their own environment and some of them paying extra monies to commercial sweepers (as shown above). Other reasons are based on four propelling independent variables, which are (1) respondents’ perception about who should take responsibility for sanitation, (2) respondents’ knowledge of the benefits of improved sanitation, (3) respondents’ knowledge of the purpose for which the sanitation levies are being collected and, (4) assurance that the monies will be used judiciously for the purpose for which they are collected. The study assumed that respondents’ willingness to pay for improved services would be dependent upon these four factors. What follows is a chi-square test of significant relationship between these variables and the willingness to pay more for improved SWCD.

In the first place, respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statement that “Sanitation is everybody’s responsibility and everyone should pay adequately for it.” Five rating options were given to respondents. As was expected, more than half (53 per cent) of respondents strongly agreed to the statement, another significant majority (25 per cent) agreed, 9 per cent of respondents disagreed, 7 per cent were undecided, while the minority (6 per cent) strongly disagreed. This result indicates that respondents considered it their responsibility to pay adequately for sanitation. How does this relate to respondent’s willingness to pay for sanitation? The study uses chi-square to test the hypothesis that there is strong relationship between a person’s perception of whose responsibility it is to pay for sanitation and willingness to pay.

Table 6 is a cross tabulation of the two variables in terms of observed data frequencies. This result indicates that the study must reject the null hypothesis since the X2 computed lie in the critical region of the normal distribution curve. This means that there is a significant relationship between a person’s perceptions of responsibility for sanitation and willingness to pay for sanitation, that is X2 (4, n=100) = 88.75, p < .05 (compared with X²critical (4, n=100) = 9.49, p < .05). Thus, in the general population, the majority who agree that sanitation is everybody’s business and everyone should pay for it have the willingness to pay more for improved sanitation.

Table 6. Responsibility for Sanitation and willingness to pay for SWCD

Moreover, during interaction with respondents, most of them commended Zoomlion and Freko for their efforts and indicated that they were willing to pay more once the monies would be judiciously used to advance the course of environmental sanitation. So the study asked them to indicate the reason for which they wanted to pay extra more for sanitation. Respondents mentioned the benefits of environmental sanitation. A total of 88 per cent knew the benefits of improved sanitation. For most (33 per cent) of them improved sanitation prevents diseases and sickness; improved sanitation saves hospital attendance (23 per cent), ensure healthy environment (18 per cent), provide good air for breathing (14 per cent) and provides employment (10 per cent).

With 88 per cent of respondents knowing the benefits of sanitation and 83 per cent of people willing to pay for improved sanitation, this is a positive indication that, unlike what Kendie [27] found in the Cape Coast Municipality where 65 per cent of respondents were unwilling to pay for improved sanitation, KMA can take advantage of this to initiate policies that would ensure people adequately pay for improved sanitation.

Furthermore, the study considered respondents’ perception of how their monies were used as very important element in determining willingness to pay. The study asked respondents to indicate this perception by choosing amongst five ratings of their level of agreement that the money they pay were used effectively to improve sanitation in the CBAs.

Figure 3. Level of respondent’s agreement that their money is used to improve (Source: Author’s Field Survey 2009)

As expected, in Figure 3 above, more than a quarter (41 per cent) of respondents strongly disagreed that the monies they pay towards sanitation were used effectively to improved sanitation. Another considerable majority (24 per cent) of respondents disagreed that their contributions were used effectively, 21 per cent agreed, while 9 per cent were uncertain. The minority (5 per cent) of respondents strongly agreed that their monies were used effectively to improve sanitation.

Is there any significant relationship between respondents’ perception of how their monies are used and their willingness to pay for improved sanitation? The study attempts to find this in the following analysis. Table 7 is a cross tabulation of respondent’s perception of how their monies (sanitation levies) were used and their willingness to pay more for improved sanitation.

Table 7. How contributions are used and willingness to pay for SWCD

A chi-square test of significant relationship between these two variables reveal that observed data did not depart from the expectation of no significant relationship between the two variables, that is X2 (4, n = 100) = 6.302, p < .05. The expected chi-square test, X2 critical (4, n = 100) = 9.49, p < .05 is higher than the observed, which means the observed data does not lie in the critical region. This means that, in the general population, people’s perceptions of how their monies were used did not determine whether or not they would pay more for improved sanitation. If people’s perception of how their contributions are used does not significantly determines their willingness to make such contributions, then one may consider this an advantage to service providers. However, this advantage may be short-lived since in the long run majority of contributors shall become wary of service providers misuse of such contribution thereby reducing such willingness to pay. This is exactly what the minority (17 per cent) of respondents said on whether or not they would be willing to pay more than they were currently paying. In fact, it is crucial to point out that this is a potential impediment to the attainment of financial self-sufficiency and independence.

This is because the reasons given by this minority cannot be taken for granted (See Table 7), especially, since the population sample for the study is quite small, and that a larger and a more representative sample might produce a significant relationship. It is essential to point out that most respondents (5 per cent) in the minority group thought that “already paid taxes are not used efficiently”.

Table 8. Reasons why respondents are unwillingness to pay extra for SWCD

Another significant number (4 per cent) also thought that there was no need to pay more for inadequate services. To obtain absolute success in financial self-sufficiency, these issues have to be addressed by the Assembly.

Again, waste processing could also generate revenue for the KMA. The study sought to find out whether or not this occurs in the waste management services. It was found that KMA had not invested in waste processing in a manner that would generate revenue. The only investment made so far was the acquisition of the central landfill. It was observed that the only management activity that went on at the tail end of solid waste management process was burying. According to the manager of the Central Landfill facility, waste could be managed through three strategies-burying system, processing, and recycling. Processing waste into composting is beneficial and effective way of managing waste. According to him, the greater part of waste, particularly, food waste and animal offal could be processed into composting, which could be used for agricultural purposes. The plastics, rubbers, and the metal components of waste could be recycled. KMA or the government has not made any effort on recycling the part of the solid waste that could be recycled. Clearly, processing of waste does not appear in the mission of the WMD.

Table 9. Assessment of Business Orientation

4. Discussion

Evidence suggests that increase in people’s expenditure on sanitation can also lead to improvement in the provision of sanitation services [19,27]. Wittington et al found that households in Kumasi spent very little money on sanitation therefore got very poor service. Similarly, Kendie found that people’s general unwillingness to pay more for waste disposal services affected service delivery in the Cape Coast Municipality. Because success in most of the elements of institutional capacity used for assessments relates to financial strength of service providers, there is a need for service providers to assess ways for attaining costs efficiency and financial independence. This will require providing quality services and ensuring that consumers understand the need to pay more for solid waste collection and disposal. Establishment of levies must depend therefore on provision of improved services and peoples’ willingness to pay more than they are currently paying.

The analysis above indicates a high possibility for KMA to be financially self-sufficient and independent. This possibility lies in appropriate business orientations rooted in such means as effective levy collection system, participatory decision-making and effective delivery of services. So much money could be mobilized if the Assembly will pursue cost-benefit analysis in the delivery services. For instance, if 300 Trotro drivers, 200 taxi drivers, 200 hawkers, 300 pavement sellers are estimated to do business daily in Kejetia and these pay their current contributions daily, the study estimates that an amount of GH¢165,600 would be paid annually in support of sanitation in the Kejetia alone. This amount is enough for the provision of adequate sanitation service in Kejetia. Again, if Twenty Thousand (20,000) out of the five hundred thousand people estimated to do business in the CBAs are eligible to pay sanitation levies, and each person pays GH¢ 0.40 (the average amount consumers were willing to pay) daily as sanitation levy, the KMA would realize GH¢ 8,000 daily, GH¢ 240,000 monthly, and GH¢ 2,880,000 annually. There is no doubt that this amount is adequate and KMA could be financially self-sufficient.

5. Conclusion and Policy Recommendation

In conclusion, in light of the analysis done so far, the study assesses KMA’s business orientation and ability to work towards achieving financial sufficiency as follows. This assessment indicates that KMA’s service delivery system is ineffective in its business orientation. More has to be done if the Assembly is to attain financial independence, effectiveness and efficiency in its commercial activities. As shown above, the WMD department is not able to maintain yearly balance between expenditures and revenues, to invest in waste processing, to maintain attitude of consumer orientation, or espouse a commercial orientation and think of their service function as a business. As far as this trend continues, the KMA would not be able to deal effectively with environmental sanitation and waste collection.

However, KMA can improved on its revenue mobilization since respondents’ perception of the quality of service delivery, and how their monies are used do not pose hindrance to their willingness to pay extra more for improved SWCD. Besides, it is advantageous for KMA that there is a significant relationship between respondents’ perception of responsibility for sanitation and willingness to pay for improved sanitation. These findings must form the basis for the business orientation strategy of the MMDAs in Ghana.

The study recommends that the KMA must improve on their service delivery by recruiting more people into the sector and demonstrate to consumers the Assembly’s readiness to deliver on waste collection and disposal. Secondly, the Assembly must provide adequate dustbins at vintage points as parts of its commitment to improve on solid waste collection and ensure that consumers become responsible in making use of the facilities. Also, public education can enhance the success of the revenue mobilization strategies. Besides, inclusion of the leadership of the various informal groups or associations in sanitation decision could be of tremendous help.

This study did not take into consideration the respondents’ income status and other demographic factors in the analysis. The impacts of these factors on the business orientation strategies of local governments can be the subject of further studies. For example, respondents’ income status could influence the amounts they were willing to pay.

References

Appendix 1A

1.1. Consumer Interview Schedule

1.1.1. Introduction

This is a survey conducted by MPhil student of the Department of Political Science, University of Ghana to find out the view of consumers on the effectiveness of Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly in dealing with the Solid Waste problems in the metropolis. It is an academic exercise and it should add to the state of knowledge on institutions and sanitation in Ghana. You have been accidentally selected and your name is not required. Views expressed shall not be used against you in any way. Thank you for agreeing to answer these questions.

[Instructions: Tick (√) in the box provided and write on the dotted line where applicable. Thank you.]

Note the following abbreviations:

1. KMA: Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly.

2. CBAs: Central Business Areas.

3. WMD: Waste Management Department.

4. EHMD: Environment Health Management Department.

5. SWCD: Solid Waste Collection and Disposal.

6. IDSW: Indiscriminate Disposal of Solid Waste.

1.1.2. Background Information

1. Age.

1. 18-252. 26-333. 34-414. 42+

2. Gender.

1. Male2. Female

3. Level of Education.

1. Primary2. Junior High3. Senior High

4. College/University5. Middle School6. None

4. Occupation/Status.

1. Store Operator2. Driver3. Food Seller4. Hawker

5. Passenger6. Other, Specify

5. Number of years worked or boarded vehicle in the CBDs.

1. 1-32. 4-73. 7-104. 10 and above

6. Location of work or transport station.

1. Kejetia2. Central Market3. Dr. Mensah4. Roman-Hill

5. Adum6. Other, specify

1.1.3. Level of Awareness of Solid Waste Disposal Problems

1. Indiscriminate Disposal of Solid Waste (IDSW) is the practice by which people dispose of unwanted solid substances or wastes in places not designated for such purpose by appropriate authorities.

2. How do you see the problem of indiscriminate solid waste disposal on your location?

1. Can’t tell2. Not at all serious3. Slightly serious

4. Fairly Serious5. Extremely serious

3. How do you see littering on your compound?

1. Don’t know2. Not at all serious3. Slightly serious

4. Fairly Serious5. Extremely serious

4. How do you dispose your waste material any time you are in the CBA?

1. Use public litter bins2. Public dumping site3. Leave waste in the street

4. Add it to other waste on the ground5. Other, specify

5. If yes, how do you rate your contribution to indiscriminate disposal of solid Waste?

1. Can’t tell2. Not at all serious3. Slightly serious

4. Fairly Serious5. Extremely serious

6. Are there litter bins in your compound?

1. YES2. NO

7. If YES, how do you rate the availability of the litterbins in your compound?

1. More2. Few3. Too few4. Not available

8. How do you rate the availability of litterbins in the whole CBAs?

1. More2. Few3. Too few4. Not available

9. How do you see the condition of the litterbins in the CBA?

1. Neat and strong2. Neat but weak3. Dirty but strong

4. Dirty and weak

10. Do you patronise the use of the litterbins?

1. Not at all2. Sometimes3. Always

11. Is there regular emptying of these bins by designated organisation?

1. YES2. NO

12. If YES, how regular?

1. Once daily2. Twice daily3. Thrice daily

4. One in two to three days5. Other, specify

13. How do you see the cleanliness of your compound/location?

1. Satisfactory2. Unsatisfactory3. Can’t tell

1.1.4. Knowledge of Designated Institutions

1. Do you know the organisation responsible for the overall collection and disposal of solid waste in the Metropolis?

1. YES2. NO

2. If YES, identify the organization

1. Zoomlion2. Freko FD Ltd.3. KMA-WMD

3. Which of the organisations identified above cleans or collects waste from your compound?

1. Zoomlion2. Freko FD Ltd.3. KMA-WMD4. Don’t Know

4. Is the service of this organisation regular?

1. YES2. NO3. Don’t Know

5. Do think the designated organisation has adequate workers?

1. YES2. NO3. Don’t Know

6. Do you think workers of designated organisation have adequate tools and working gears?

1. YES2. NO3. Don’t Know

7. Do you think the designated organisation has enough trucks for waste collection?

1. YES2. NO

8. Are you aware of bye-laws that prohibit indiscriminate disposal of waste?

1. YES2. NO

9. If YES, are these laws enforced by the KMA-EHMD?

1. YES2. NO3. Don’t Know

10. Do you obey the bye-laws that regulate waste disposal?

1. YES2. NO

11. If YES, please indicate how frequent you do it.

1. Sometimes2. Less frequent3. Frequent4. Very frequent

12. If NO, give reason(s).

13. Do you or other people speak against or prevent littering?

1. YES2. NO

14. If NO, give reason(s).

15. Do you hear or see public education on best sanitation practice?

1. YES2. NO

16. If YES, please indicate how often you hear or see it.

1. Not often2. Often3. Very often4. Can’t tell

17. What is the mode of the public education?

1.1.5. Attitudes to Solid Waste Collection and Disposal

1. Who cleans or sweeps your compound/location?

1. Zoomlion2. KMA-WMD3. Freko FD Ltd

4. Sweeper employed by me 5. I do it myself

2. If you employ individual sweepers/ waste collectors, how much do you pay for services?

1. 10-50 Pesewas2. 60-100 Pesewas3. GH 1-GH 1.50

4. GH 1.60-GH 2.005. Other, specify

3. How do you treat garbage after sweeping?

1. Left on the ground2. Taking to central collection by sweeper

3. Collected by Zoomlion4. Collected by Freko5. Collected by KMA-WMD

4. Choose 3 the reasons why you think people dispose off waste indiscriminately?

1. Inadequate dustbins2. Lack of law enforcement

3. Availability of cleaners4. Lack of education

5. Disobedience to laws6. Bad attitudes toward the environment

5. Sanitation is everybody’s responsibility and everyone should pay for it.

1. Strongly Agree2. Agree3. Undecided4. Disagree

5. Strongly disagree

6. What benefit do you think people can get from improved solid waste collection and disposal?

1. No benefits2. Prevent diseases and sickness3. Provide good air for breathing

4. Saves hospital attendance5. Ensure healthy environment

6. Provide employment to people7. Other, specify

7. How much do you pay to service providers for sanitation in your location?

1. Daily GH¢2. Monthly GH¢

8. How do you rate the quality of sanitation services delivered by service providers?

1. Very high2. High3. Uncertain4. Low5. Very low

9. Do you agree that the money you pay for sanitation is being used to improve sanitation?

1. Strongly Agree2. Agree3. Uncertain4. Disagree

5. Strongly disagree

10. Are you willing to pay more for improving Solid Waste Collection and Disposal?

1. YES2. NO

11. If yes, how much are you willing to pay?

1. Daily GH¢2. Monthly GH¢

12. If No, why?

1.1.6. Assessment of Designated Providers

1. What is your number one expectation of KMA on sanitation?

2. Do you think your expectation is met by KMA?

1. YES2. NO

3. If effectiveness is defined in terms of regular cleaning, collection and disposal of solid waste, how do you assess the performance of these designated organisations in your CBAs?

A. Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly (WMD)?

1. Less Effective2. Effective3. Very Effective4. Can’t tell

B. Zoomlion Ghana Limited

1. Less Effective2. Effective3. Very Effective4. Can’t tell

C. Freko FD Limited

1. Less Effective2. Effective3. Very Effective4. Can’t tell

1.1.7. The Way Forward

1. What suggestions will you make to improve Collection and disposal of Solid Waste in Kumasi?

Appreciation

It has been nice talking to you. Thank you for sparing so much of your time in the interest of sanitation in Kumasi.

Appendix 1B

1.2. Guidelines for Unstructured Interview (Consumer Group)

1.2.1. Resp/Dept/Level

1. What do see as the cause of solid waste problems in Kumasi?

2. Is the problem scaling or declining? Why?

3. Who are the victims of poor sanitation in Kumasi?

4. Whose responsibility it is to ensure sanitation in Kumasi? What is the coverage of this responsibility?

5. Do you have you have responsibility to ensuring sanitation in your work place?

6. What is the legal source of your responsibility?

7. Do you think people are aware of the need to keep the environment clean? Why or why not?

8. Are there sanitation laws in Kumasi? Do you see these laws at work or being implemented?

9. Why should the laws be enforced? How can it be enforced? Who should enforce it?

10. What do you see as the main challenges facing KMA in providing sanitation to residents of Kumasi?

11. What suggestion/solutions do you have to offer?

Appendix 2A

2.1. Staff Interview Guidelines for WMD and EHMD

(Please indicate your opinion by ticking the appropriate answer option)

2.1.1. Organizational Autonomy as Element of Institutional Capacity

1. Sets own organizational policies and goals and changes them as necessary to provide guidance and direction in achieving the objectives of the institution.

Very LowMediumVery High

2. Develops strategies to achieve organizational goals

Very LowMediumVery High

3. Conducts such studies as may be necessary and carries out long-term planning to meet the expected demands on the institution.

Very LowMediumVery High

4. Prepares annual capital and operating budgets consonant with needs and available revenues; is successful in obtaining approval for the budgets.

Very LowMediumVery High

5. Establishes and implements levels of tariffs and service charges sufficient to meet costs.

Very LowMediumVery High

6. Maintains control over all revenues generated and collected.

Very LowMediumVery High

7. Establishes and maintains staffing levels sufficient to meet needs.

Very LowMediumVery High

8. Employs, discharges, disciplines, and promotes personnel within established and approved guidelines adequate to institutional needs.

Very LowMediumVery High

9. Establishes levels of employee compensation, including salaries and benefits, sufficient to attract and retain capable staff.

Very LowMediumVery High

10. Determines own organizational structure including roles and responsibilities of major divisions.

Very LowMediumVery High

Appendix 2B

2.1.2. Leadership as Element of Institutional Capacity

1. Provides clear sense of mission; articulates mission; involves people with the mission so they get a sense of ownership of mission; gets people excited about the mission, believing in it.

Very LowMediumVery High

2. Serves as a positive role model (e.g., honest, hard working, balances people-needs with organizational needs, believes in hard work, is enthusiastic).

Very LowMediumVery High

3. Has a sufficient level of operational knowledge to inspire trust.

Very LowMediumVery High

4. Works hard and works overtime as required; gets out in the field or visits other offices; is visible to the rank and file.

Very LowMediumVery High

5. Demonstrates competence, is visibly interested in work.

Very LowMediumVery High

6. Is oriented toward producing results which move work toward meeting goals.

Very LowMediumVery High

7. Identifies clear performance standards and is strict but fair; gives positive and negative feedback where due; disciplines where necessary based on performance.

Very LowMediumVery High

8. Listens as well as instructs.

Very LowMediumVery High

9. Is active, has "we can do it" attitude; assertively makes decisions, moves things.

Very LowMediumVery High

10. Maintains sense of balance between future vision and everyday operational matters ("keeping nose to the grindstone and eyes to the hills").

Very LowMediumVery High

11. Demonstrates personal integrity (i.e., does not claim false overtime, take money, or cut corners for personal gain); instils sense of integrity in others.

Very LowMediumVery High

Appendix 2C

2.1.3. Commercial Orientation as Element of Institutional Capacity

1. Maintains yearly balance between expenditures and revenues. Revenues may be partly drawn from subsidies which are phased out according to a planned schedule.

Very LowMediumVery High

2. Requires economic and financial feasibility for its projects and other institutional activities.

Very LowMediumVery High

3. Staff actions throughout the institution are guided by cost effectiveness as well as quality standards.

Very LowMediumVery High

4. Takes into account cost effectiveness when individuals and groups plan and organize work.

Very LowMediumVery High

5. Monitors expenditures against approved budgets.

Very LowMediumVery High

6. Maintains attitude of consumer orientation throughout the institution and is responsive to client needs and requests.

Very LowMediumVery High

7. Invest in waste in processing

Very LowMediumVery High

8. Staff espouses a commercial orientation and thinks of their service function as a business.

Very LowMediumVery High

9. Pay private service providers regularly

Very LowMediumVery High

Appendix 2D

2.1.4. Stability and Sustenance as Element of Institutional Capacity

1. Strategies are developed based on research and experimentation.

Very LowMediumVery High

2. Strategies are cost effective.

Very LowMediumVery High

3. Strategies are welcomed by the consumers

Very LowMediumVery High

4. Management tackle problems from strategies rather than abandon them.

Very LowMediumVery High

5. Sustenance of strategies are cost effective

Very LowMediumVery High

6. Ineffective and inefficient strategies give way to more effective and efficient strategies

Very LowMediumVery High

7. Strategies are used for long time

Very LowMediumVery High

8. Reasons exists for abandoning previous strategies

Very LowMediumVery High

9. Management have the strong will to implement “good” strategies despite consumers’ resentment.

Very LowMediumVery High

10. Consumers are aware of new strategies

Very LowMediumVery High

Appendix 2E

2.1.5. Public education and Law enforcement as Element of Institutional Capacity

1. Staff at every level demonstrates they are oriented toward serving consumers; when observed, their decisions and actions are clearly driven by what is best for the consumer.

Very LowMediumVery High

2. There are identifiable mechanisms for consumers to interact with key areas of the institution over important matters (e.g., emergency hotline, bill disputes, service problems).

Very LowMediumVery High

3. There is clear evidence that the institution responds to complaints, emergencies, and suggestions which consumers make.

Very LowMediumVery High

4. There are identifiable, ongoing, and effective measures to educate the public about sanitation laws and regulations.

Very LowMediumVery High

5. There is indication that people are aware of the bye-laws, regulations and good sanitation practices.

Very LowMediumVery High

6. There is proof that people abide by the bye-laws and regulations.

Very LowMediumVery High

7. There is indication that sanction are applied to people who default the bye-laws

Very LowMediumVery High

8. The institution makes efforts to invite and evoke an effective level of public participation.

Very LowMediumVery High

9. The level of complaints from the public is relatively low.

Very LowMediumVery High

Appendix 2F

2.1.6. Technical Capability as Element of Institutional Capacity

1. Consistently makes sound technical decisions and effectively serves management by conducting technical studies and planning as requested.

Very LowMediumVery High

2. Ensures effective control of the quality of the end product and all other technical operations.

Very LowMediumVery High

3. Have adequate strategies which are cost effective.

Very LowMediumVery High

4. Ensures that technical tasks at all levels are completed properly.

Very LowMediumVery High

5. Develops and maintains staff with adequate technical skills to perform needed services.

Very LowMediumVery High

6. Uses or adapts technology which is suitable for the specific needs of the institution.

Very LowMediumVery High

7. Maintains levels of in-house technical skills adequate for routine technical responsibilities and sub-contracts to outside specialists those tasks which are either beyond the institution's own capabilities or necessary to meet peak needs.

Very LowMediumVery High

8. Conducts practical research and experiments to improve existing uses of technology for local conditions and needs.

Very LowMediumVery High

9. Technical information is routinely shared among planning, design, and construction units to ensure smooth technical coordination.

Very LowMediumVery High

10. Technical staff members demonstrate a strong interest in technical learning and keep up with new information in the field.

Very LowMediumVery High

Appendix 2G

2.1.7. Developing and Maintaining Staff as Element of Institutional Capacity

1. Mechanisms exist and are utilized to promote skill transfer.

a. Organized skill transfer training programs (such as seminars or demonstrations) are designed and used to meet institutional goals.

Very LowMediumVery High

b. There is an informal process (such as internship) to effectively transfer skills.

Very LowMediumVery High

2. Managers are actively involved in skill transfer and training, as supervisors or through delivery of courses.

Very LowMediumVery High

3. Personnel express an interest in learning new ways of doing things.

Very LowMediumVery High

4. A system exists for developing competent managers and supervisors.

Very LowMediumVery High

The institution provides adequate incentives to maintain staff

5. A clear system exists for hiring qualified personnel and firing or disciplining personnel when necessary.

Very LowMediumVery High

6. Employees demonstrate good morale and openly state that the institution is a good place to work.

Very LowMediumVery High

7. Active systems are in place for providing ongoing formal and informal feedback to personnel about job performance.

Very LowMediumVery High

8. Employees feel involved in and informed about the institution’s activities.

Very LowMediumVery High

Appendix 2H

2.1.8. Organizational Culture as Element of Institutional Capacity

1. An observable team spirit exists among the staff.

Very LowMediumVery High

2. People express a sense of ownership and pride about working that is communicated by such statements as "this is a good place to work."

Very LowMediumVery High

3. Employees are able to articulate the history and legends of the organization in positive ways.

Very LowMediumVery High

4. Continuity in the organizational culture is maintained (even with staff turnover at high or low organizational levels).

Very LowMediumVery High

5. Staff place a value on maintaining the physical plant (offices, treatment plants, grounds) of the organization. Facilities look clean, well maintained, and attractive.

Very LowMediumVery High

6. Power and status are defined as something the entire organization shares in varying degrees, especially the status associated with doing a good job.

Very LowMediumVery High

7. Sub-groups and alliances within the organization serve as a positive means of informal communication and a rallying point in the organization during periods of crisis or to support healthy change.

Very LowMediumVery High

Appendix 2I

2.1.9. Interactions with Key External Institutions as Element of Institutional Capacity

1. Top management stays well informed about external policy, financial, and regulatory issues and actions.

Very LowMediumVery High

2. Management maintains direct contact with the key individuals in all important external entities.

Very LowMediumVery High

3. Specific strategies are formulated to influence policies, legislation, and other activities to obtain necessary approvals and resources.

Very LowMediumVery High

4. Programs are developed to influence the public in support of institutional goals.

Very LowMediumVery High

5. Management adapts creatively to obstacles (e.g., supplements inadequate salaries with other kinds of incentives).

Very LowMediumVery High

Appendix 2J

2.2. Service Provider (KMA) Interview Guidelines

2.2.1. Resp/Dept/Level

1. Duration of work with the organisation

2. Cause of sanitation problems.

a. Who do you blame?

b. What has gone wrong?

c. Is it increasing or decreasing?

d. Which places are the dirtiest?

e. How do assess the efforts of your organisation?

3. Motivation of work with the organisation

a. Level of pay

b. Allowances: when, what and how much?

c. Gifts

4. Working conditions

a. Availability of uniform

b. Availability of wellington boots

c. Availability of hand gloves

d. Availability of nose covers

e. How is like working in your department?

5. Rate of littering and nature of waste

a. How often do people litter?

b. What is the component of solid waste?

c. Who are involved in littering?

6. Communication mechanism

a. What complaints are made?

b. Who to complaints to?

c. Reactions to complaints.

7. Challenges

a. What problems do you face with management?

b. What problems do you face with colleague workers?

c. What problems do you face on the job?

d. Any general problems?

8. Interaction with other institutions

a. How do rate the interaction between WMD and EHMD?

b. Do you know about the national environmental sanitation policy?

c. What you know about this policy?

9. Recommendations

a. Can there be solutions to the above problems?

b. How do we solve the sanitation problem?

c. How can the challenges you are facing be solved?

Appendix 3

3.1. Workers Interviews (Private Service Provider Organisation)

3.1.1. Resp/Dept/Level

1. What do see as the cause of solid waste problems in Kumasi?

2. Is the problem scaling or declining? Why?

3. Who are the victims of poor sanitation in Kumasi?

4. Whose responsibility it is to ensure sanitation in Kumasi? What is the coverage of this responsibility?

5. Do you have you have responsibility to ensuring sanitation in your work place?

6. What is the legal source of your responsibility?

7. What is the relationship between your organisation and KMA? Is it contractual or complimentary or allied?

8. What rules govern this relationship?

9. Is your organisation given the needed information to enable you perform?

10. What methods are used in given information?

11. Who do you regard as your sanitation consumers? What do you expect from them?

12. Do you think people are aware of the need to keep the environment clean? Why or why not?

13. Do you have the required logistics to enable you deliver sanitation?

14. How many sanitation workers do you have? How many supervisors do you have?

15. How often KMA do supervises your work?

16. What complaints do they make upon inspection?

17. Are there sanitation laws in Kumasi? Do you see these laws at work or being implemented?

18. What do you see as the main challenges facing KMA in providing sanitation to residents of Kumasi?

19. Is the sanitation problem bigger that KMA can solve? Why?

20. What suggestion/solutions do you have to offer?

Appendix 4

4.1. Observations

4.1.1. The nature of Solid Waste Problem in Kumasi

In order to come into terms with actual nature of solid waste problem, the research relied on direct observation and personal interviews, which sought a vivid description of the actual situation and the reasons underpinning it. The direct observation followed a checklist which involve landfills, solid wastes collection centre, component of solid waste, littering and activities that generate waste, drainage systems, waste management activities-cleaning, picking, transportation, and recycling, availability of equipment and logistics-dustbins. Observation was done between the period of 1st August and 6th November 2009.

4.1.2. Solid Waste Collection Centres

In the first place, it was observed that around the CBAs there were two solid waste collection centres, one at Kejetia, just behind the public toilet, at the south-west of Kejetia and one at Roman-Hill about five meters away from Aboabo transport Station. According to the Research and Development office of the WMD, an exceedingly high volume of about 300 metric tones of garbage is collected from these centres daily. At the Roman-Hill there were six big communal containers for collection of garbage and Zoomlion Ghana Limited is in-charge of emptying these containers on regular basis. These containers could be emptied two times on the average. The volume of waste is unduly high because this collection point serves the needs of several areas, including central market, Adum, Bompata, Zongo, Aboabo station and the nearby surroundings.

Freko FD Limited is also in-charge of the sanitation at the confines of Kejetia and the central collection point, which is supposed to serve the needs of Kejetia, Dr Mensah, and Murom. According to waste collectors these containers are usually emptied three times daily on the maximum and on a minimum of two.

4.1.3. Drainage System

The drainage system within the CBAs was directly observed and rated unsatisfactory. There are adequate gutters to ensure effective draining of running water or liquid waste. However, it was also found that most of the gutters were not covered and were being used as repository for garbage. Most of gutters that were observed were in bad state, either full or nearly full with garbage, disrupting effective drainage and causing obnoxious smells around the places.

Drainage at Papamso, Accra Station (Picture 10/09, 2009)

Drainage at Central market (Picture taken on 10/09/2009)

Central drainage system at Aboabo Station (photo by Author on Friday 11, 2009)

Drainage system at Roman hill (Photo on Friday 17, 2009)

What was more disturbing is that people do business, rest, sell food, and eat just near garbage without considering its health implication on them.

4.1.4. Landfill

In 2004 KMA acquired a 100 acres land size at Kaase-Kuwait for the management of both solid and liquid waste. This landfill is the central waste disposal point for the Kumasi metropolis. It is estimated that this landfill would be used for fifteen years. But looking at the rate of disposal, the manager of the facility thought that the landfill could be used for about thirty years. The reason for this was that not all the waste collected was sent to this place. For the past three years or so, Zoomlion Ghana Limited has been acquiring landfill at Ohwim, on the Barekese road and some waste companies like Freko FD limited has been patronizing this site. If this continued, it might extend the estimated lifespan for the central landfill for the metropolis.

According to Mr Don Awantungo, KMA manager of the central Landfil at Kuwait, an average of about 800 metric tons of solid waste is collected daily at the landfill. This figure could be higher if all waste collected during the day were to be sent to the central landfill. Besides, a significant amount of solid waste is left uncollected and allowed to move through the drains when it rains. The volume of waste that is generated in Kumasi was projected to be 1000 metric tons ten years ago using population statistic. This figure could be higher now due to population increase. But some households manage their waste through method such as open space burning, and community disposal centres or refuse dumps (known in the local language (Twi) as boola).

Pictures of Landfill from it southern view (pictures taken on November 6, 2009)

Appendix 5

5.1. Mission Statement of the Waste Management Department

The waste Management Department is a major service provider in the city in the field of environmental sanitation. Its mission is to keep the city clean and health by the provision and delivery of effective and efficient waste collection services and programmes, and environmentally acceptable disposal. In doing all these, the WMD will effectively collaborate with other Ministries, Departments and Agencies, the Private Sector and Civil Society, including the Traditional Authorities. The Services shall be delivered, at an affordable cost to all sections of the communities and without any adverse impact to the environment, thereby creating and enabling environment for developing and healthy living.

Appendix 6

Cramer’s V statistic is calculated when a researcher is performing a chi-square analysis on a contingency table that is larger than the standard 2 x 2 size. Cramer’s V statistic measures the effect size of a relationship. It is calculated only when the chi-square is statistically significant. Cramer’s V is expressed in as follows:

where

X2 = Chi-Square value calculated.

n = the sample size.

df = is the smaller or either (R-1) or (C-1), where R= rows and C= column.

Standards for interpreting Cramer’s V as proposed by Cohen (1988)

Appendix 7

7.1. Demographic Data

7.1.1. Gender

The study could not ensure gender balance in terms of numbers. Gender balance could mean underrepresentation of women since women constitute majority of workers in the CBAs. Consequently, in the accidental sampling, 44 per cent of respondents are male while the majority of 56 per cent are female. This reflects the gender situation in the CBAs.

7.1.2. Age

More than a quarter (38 per cent) of respondents are part of the 18-25 age cohort; 28 per cent are aged above 42; 20 per cent are within the 26-33 years, and 14 per cent fall within 34-41 years. The mean and median ages are 29 years and 24 years respectively. The youngest person is 18 years and the oldest person is 72 years (Table A).

Table A. Breakdown of Consumer Sample by Age of Respondent

7.1.3. Level of Education

An overwhelming majority (96 per cent) of respondents have had at least formal education. This segment include 32 per cent reaching the senior high level, 18 per cent reaching junior high, middle school, and tertiary levels respectively, 10 per cent reaching primary level. Only 4 per cent of respondents lack formal education (Table B).

Table B. Breakdown of Consumer Sample by Respondent’s Occupation and Level of Education

7.1.4. Job Status of Respondents

A little above quarter (35 per cent) of respondent was in store operators group. The rest were divided as follows: drivers (10 per cent), Food sellers (18 per cent), Hawkers (14 per cent), Artisan (12 per cent), and pavement sellers (11 per cent) (Table B).

7.2. Respondents’ Location of Work

To avoid an underrepresentation of respondents from a particular area, the study makes sure the same numbers of respondents are selected from the five business areas. As a result, the sample is split into equal proportion of 20 per cent. 36 per cent of respondents has work for 1-3 years in the CBAs, another 35 per cent has worked in the CBA for more than 10 years; the others were 4-7 years (16 per cent) and 8-10 years (13 per cent). (Table C)

Table C. Respondents location and the Numbers of years worked a location

Table D. Breakdown of Service provider Sample by Position at work place

Table E. Breakdown of Service Provider Sample Organisation

[1]   | Cullivan, D., Tippett, B. E., Rosensweig, D. B., Rosensweig, F., & McCaffery, J. (1988).Guidelines for Institutional Assessment Water and Wastewater Institutions, Washington DC.: USAID.
[2]   | Beede, D. N. and Bloom D. E. (2000). “Coping with Municipal Solid Waste in Developing Countries” in Yusuf Shahid, Wu Weiping, and Evenett Simon (eds.), Local Dynamics in an era of Globalization, New York: Oxford University Press.
[3]   | Franko, P. (2003). The Puzzle of Latin American Economic Development, (2nd ed.), USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
[4]   | Litvin, D. (2000). Dirt Poor. Developing World, (10thed.). Connecticut: Dusking/McGraw-Hill, pp. 185-186.
[5]   | Asian Development Bank (2005). ‘Republic of Indonesia: Preparing the Metropolitan Sanitation Management and Health Project’, in Technical Assistance Report, (November).
[6]   | Malombe, J. M. (1993). Sanitation and Solid Waste disposal in Malindi, in Barker, P., Coad, A., Ince, M., Shaw, R., Skinner, B., Smith, M. (eds.) Water, Sanitation, Environment and Development: Proceedings of the 19th WEDC Conference, Accra, Ghana, 6-10 September, 1993, pp. 134-136.
[7]   | Nakiboneka, P. (1998). Toward better Sanitation in Uganda. WEDC Conference, 24, pp.37-40.
[8]   | Mwanza, D. D. (2001). ‘Water and Sanitation Services to the Urban Poor’, WEDC Conference, 27 pp. 252-255.
[9]   | Coffie, O., Drechsel, P., Obuobie, E., Danso, G., & Keraita, B. (2003). Environmental sanitation and urban agriculture in Ghana. WEDC International Conference, 29, pp. 9-12.
[10]   | Muwonge, J. (2008). ‘Face up to it’, Global Future: World Vision Journal of Human Development, 1, pp.1-3.
[11]   | Brocklehurst, C. (2008). ‘International Year of Sanitation 2008’, Global Future: World Vision Journal of Human Development, 1.
[12]   | Department for International Development (DFID), (2008). Water: an increasingly precious resource; sanitation: a matter of dignity, United Kingdom: Author.
[13]   | PrüssÜstün, A., Bos, R., Gore, F., & Bartram, J. (2008). Safer water, better health: Costs, benefits and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote health. In Department for International Development (DFID) (Report 2008), DFID, p.10.
[14]   | World Health Organisation (WHO) (2006). Coverage Estimates Improved Drinking Sanitation. Joint Mentoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. http://www.wssinfo.org/pdf/country/GHA_san.pdf.
[15]   | Republic of Ghana. (1999). National Environmental Sanitation Policy. Accra, Ghana: Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development.
[16]   | Mwanza, D. D. (2001). ‘Water and Sanitation Services to the Urban Poor’ WEDC Conference, 27, pp. 252-255
[17]   | Institute of Local Government Studies (ILGS) & Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD) (2007). A handbook: The role of the Assembly Member in Ghana’s Local Government System, Accra, Ghana: MLGRD.
[18]   | OECD/AfDB (2007). African Economic Outlook 2007, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[19]   | Wittington, D., Lauria, D. T., Choe, K., Hughes, J. A., and Swarna, V. (1992). Household Demand for Improved Sanitation Services: A case study of Kumasi, Ghana. Washington: UNDP-World Bank 1992.
[20]   | Griffiths, R. J. (2000). ‘Population, Development and Environment’, Developing World, (10thed.). Connecticut: Dusking/McGraw-Hill, p. 165.
[21]   | Palen, J. J. (2002). The Urban World, (6th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
[22]   | Cunningham, W. P., Cunningham, M. A. and Saigo, B. W. (2004). Environmental Science; a Global Concern, (9th ed.), Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
[23]   | Pathak, B. (1996). The Role of NGOs in the Sanitation Sector. WEDC Conference, 22, p. 12.
[24]   | Perman, J. (1998) “Towards sustainable mega-cities in Latin America and Africa,” in Fernandes, E. (ed.) Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Development in Urban Areas, Lessons from Africa and Latin America .Aldershot: Ashgare Publishing.
[25]   | Agbola, A. M. (1993). ‘Environmental education in Nigerian schools’, in Filho, W. L. (ed.) Environmental Education in the Commonwealth of Learning, Vancouver: The Commonwealth of Learning.
[26]   | Akuoko-Asibey, A. and McPherson, H. J. (1994). ‘Assessing hygiene and related improvements of a rural waste supply and sanitation programme in northern Ghana’, atural Resource Forum, 18 (1).
[27]   | Kendie, S. B. (1998). Do Attitudes Matter?: Waste Disposal and Wetland Pollution in the Cape Coast Municipality of Ghana. Malaysian Journal of Tropical Geography, 29 (2), pp. 61-81.
[28]   | Fati, M. (2008). ‘The Dilemma of Sanitation coverage in Ghana’, WEDC International Conference, 19, pp. 1, 50-53.
[29]   | Adomako-Adjei. T. (2008). ‘Scaling up sanitation delivery: The perspective of Community Water and Sanitation Agency’, WEDC International Conference, 33, pp.3-7.
[30]   | Seraj, K.F.B. (2008). ‘Willingness to Pay for Improved Sanitation Services and its Implication on Demand Responsive Approach of BRAC Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Programme’. Research and Evaluation Division, BRAC. BRAC: Bangladesh.
[31]   | Kumekpor, T. K. B. (2002). Research Methods and Techniques of Social Research, (Section 1-3) Accra, Ghana: SonLife Press &Services. Library of Congress Federal Research Division (November 1994).