Skip to main content

Advertisement

We're creating a new version of this page. See preview

  • Research note
  • Open Access

Willingness to pay for improved solid waste management and associated factors among households in Injibara town, Northwest Ethiopia

BMC Research Notes201912:401

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4433-7

  • Received: 24 January 2019
  • Accepted: 5 July 2019
  • Published:

Abstract

Objective

Globally, cities generate 1.3 billion tons of solid waste per year, amounting to a rate of 1.2 kg per person per day. Solid waste management is an important challenge to both the developed and developing countries. This study aimed to assess the willingness to pay for the improved solid waste management and associated factors among households in Injibara town, Ethiopia.

Results

A total of 903 household heads participated in the study. The finding indicated that 81.06% were willing to pay for the service. The average amount of money the participants would be willing to pay per month was 29.7 ETB ($1.07)). The study revealed that sex (β = 3.24, (95% CI 1.98, 4.50)), age (β = − 0.09: 95% CI − 0.19, − 0.01), educational status (β = 6.19: 95% CI 3.54, 8.84), occupation (β = 2.43: 95% CI 1.009, 3.86), amount of solid waste generated (β = 1.74: 95% CI 0.19, 3.29), distance from dump site (β = 1.58: 95% CI 0.45, 2.72), satisfaction with the existing service (β = 3.89, (95% CI 2.75, 5.06) and wealth status (β = 2.43: 95% CI 1.0, 3.86) were statistically significant. Therefore, the level of premium load should consider the amount of waste generated, wealth status and the distance from the dump site.

Keywords

  • Willingness to pay
  • Solid waste
  • Tobit model
  • Injibara

Introduction

Globally, the amount of municipal solid waste is growing faster than the rate of urbanization. In 2012, the world’s cities generated 1.3 billion tons of solid waste per year, amounting to a rate of 1.2 kg per person per day. With rapid population growth and urbanization, municipal waste generation is expected to rise to 2.2 billion tons by 2025. In sub-Saharan Africa, waste generation is approximately 62 million tons per year ranging from 0.09 to 3.0 kg per person per day, with an average of 0.65 kg/capita/day [14].

In developing countries, waste management requires a large expenditure of 30–50 percent of municipal operational budgets. However, cities collect only half of the wastes generated [5, 6].

In Ethiopia, the per capita amount of waste generated ranges from 0.28 to 0.83 kg/person/day [7] and it lacks the financial resources and institutional capacity to provide the needed municipal infrastructure for adequate solid waste management (SWM) [8]. In Ethiopia, the government realized that it is impossible to address the problem of environment, particularly solid waste management, without involvement of local communities [9].

Traditional mode of transportation, irregular waste picking up program, having few required equipment and no fence for dumpsites are the prevailing problems in Ethiopia [10]. To minimize these problem the participation of local communities or service receivers is important in providing solutions to problems of SWM [8].

Households which are the primary producers of solid waste and suffer from the effects of uncollected solid waste should be able to participate in improving SWM. Accordingly, the contribution of urban dwellers on SWM service plays a great role for better improvement of SWM at the community [11]. However, there is limited evidence on the willingness to pay (WTP) for improved solid waste management (ISWM) and associated factors in the study area. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the WTP for ISWM and associated factors among households in Injibara town, Ethiopia.

Main texts

Methods

Community based cross-sectional study was conducted from March to April, 2018 in Injibara town, 447 km away from Addis Ababa. It is the administrative center of the Agew Awi Zone in the Amhara Region. According to the town Administration report, the town has a total population of 35,846 and 7169 households. It is divided into five administrative kebeles (the smallest administrative units in the country). There are two private waste collectors and three waste dumping sites in the town.

The source population of this study was all household heads living in Injibara town, and the study population of this study was all household heads in the randomly selected kebeles in Injibara town. Household heads residing in the selected kebeles were included in the study; and those household heads lived for less than 6 months in the selected kebeles were excluded for the study.

The sample size was calculated by using single population proportion formula assuming: 95% confidence level, 3% margin of error, and 83.5% proportion of WTP(P) [12], 10% non-response rate, and 1.5 design effect. Accordingly, the final sample size was 970 household heads.

Multi-stage sampling procedure was used to select the study participants. In the first stage, three out of five kebeles of the town were randomly selected. In the second stage, the total sample size was proportionally allocated to the number of households in the selected kebeles. Finally, systematic random sampling technique was used to select every 4th participant.

Study variables

The dependent variable of the study was WTP for ISWM. The independent variables were sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics (age, gender, marital status, educational status, occupation, family size, time spent in the area, household ownership, wealth status), awareness about SWM, service-related factors (quantity of waste generated, satisfaction with current service, distance of waste disposal site). WTP for ISWM service is measured by bid contingent valuation method (CVM) where the respondent was first asked whether they would be willing to pay initial bid of specific amount (20 Birr) and probing the question using a higher or lower bid value depending on the respondent’s response to the first question until the maximum amount of money participants were willing to pay.

A pretested and standardized interviewer administered and semi-structure questionnaire was used to collect the data. The pretest was done on 48 individuals in Kebele 02, one of the kebeles found in the town.

After appropriate coding, the data were entered using Epi data version 7 software, and exported to STATA version 14 for further analysis.

Tobit model was used to analyse factors associated with WTP and the maximum amount of money that individuals were willing to pay. This model reveals both the probability of WTP and the maximum amount of money the respondents are willing to pay.
$${\text{y}} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}l} {1\quad {\text{i}}\;{\text{MWTP}} = {\upbeta \text{o}} + {\upbeta^{\prime}}{\text{Xi}} + {\text{e}} > 0} \\ {0\quad {\text{if}}\;{\text{MWTP}} \le 0} \\ \end{array} } \right.$$
where Y: outcome, X: predictor, βo: slope, β′: coefficient, E: error term, 0: no, 1: yes, and MWTP: maximum willingness to pay.

The model estimates marginal effect of an explanatory variable on the expected value of the dependent variable. To be free from serious data error, the assumptions of Tobit model such as normality, linearity, multicollinearity and equal variance were tested. A p-value  ≤ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.

Results

Socio-demographic and economic characteristics of study participants

A total of 903 (with a response rate of 93%) household heads participated in the study. The study revealed that, among the study participants, 71% were males, 48.17% were Amhara, 89% were orthodox and 83% were married. The mean age, mean family size, and mean time of stay in the study town of the participants were 38 ± 7.89 years, 4 ± 1.25, and 14 ± 9.2 years, respectively (Table 1).
Table 1

Socio-demographic and economic characteristics of the study participants in Injibara town Northwest Ethiopia, 2018 (n = 903)

Variable

Description

Frequency (%)

Sex

Male

640 (70.87)

Female

263 (29.13)

Age (years)

< 30

138 (15.3)

30–39

484 (53.6)

40–49

209 (23.1)

≥ 50

72 (8)

Religion

Orthodox

802 (88.82)

Muslim

36 (3.99)

Protestant

65 (7.20)

Ethnicity

Amhara

435 (48.17)

Awi

434 (48.06)

Tigre

17 (1.88)

Oromo

17 (1.88)

Marital status

Married

751 (83.17)

Single

108 (11.96)

Widowed

17 (1.88)

Divorced

27 (2.99)

Occupation

Civil servants

422 (46.73)

Merchants

240 (26.58)

House wife

106 (11.74)

Daily labour

39 (4.32)

Self-employer

96 (10.63)

Education

Can’t read and write

31 (3.43)

Can read and write

79 (8.75)

Primary school (1–8)

157 (17.39)

Secondary school (9–12)

214 (23.70)

College and above

422 (46.73)

House ownership

Yes

628 (69.55)

No

275 (30.45)

Family size

1–4

637 (70.5)

≥ 5

266 (29.5)

Time of stay (years)

< 8

247 (27.4)

8–13

225 (24.9)

14–20

257 (28.5)

> 20

174 (19.3)

Wealth of the household

Poor

301 (33.33)

Medium

302 (33.44)

Rich

300 (33.22)

Service and solid waste related characteristics of households

Six hundred forty-four (71%) of household heads used the existing SWM service, 14.6% of respondents disposed wastes at community dump site, 10% burnt in their compounds and 4% threw outside their compound into rivers and sewerage lines. Fifty nine percent of the study participants were satisfied with the existing service. Besides, 55% of participants lived near the waste dump site and 63% of participants generated one sack of solid waste per week. Among household heads 89% had awareness about the environment (Table 2).
Table 2

Service and solid waste related characteristics of households in Injibara town Northwest Ethiopia, 2018 (n = 903)

Variable

Description

Frequency (%)

Distance of the dump site

Near (< 1 km)

493 (54.60)

Far (≥ 1 km)

410 (45.40)

Amount of solid waste generated per week

< 1 sack of 50 kg

239 (26.47)

1 sack of 50 kg

571 (63.23)

2 sack of 50 kg

93 (10.30)

Perceived satisfaction about the service (n = 644)

Not very satisfied

44 (6.83)

Not satisfied

205 (31.83)

Neutral

14 (2.17)

Satisfied

343 (53.26)

Very satisfied

38 (5.90)

Household awareness about the environment

Good awareness

804 (89.03)

Poor awareness

99 (10.97)

Willingness to pay (WTP) for improved solid waste management service

In this study, 81.06% (95% CI 78.5, 83.6) of participants were willing to pay for improved SWM. The mean(± SD) amount of money the study participants were willing to pay per month was 29.7 (95% CI = 29.08, 30.37) ETB (± 8.89) or 1.07 $USD (Additional file 1: Figure S1).

Factors associated with willingness to pay for improved solid waste management

This study showed that male participants were WTP 3.24 ETB more than those female participants by holding other variables constant (β = 3.24, 95% CI (1.98, 4.50), dx/dy = 0.000084).

As the age of participant increased by 1 year their WTP for SWM service decreases by − 0.09 ETB holding other variables constant (β = − 0.09, 95% CI (− 0.194, − 0.006), dx/dy = − 2.43e−06). Additionally, those who were satisfied with the service were WTP 3.9 ETB more than those who were dissatisfied with holding other variables constant (β = 3.89, 95% CI (2.75, 5.06), dx/dy = 0.0001).

Participants with secondary and college education were WTP 6.2 ETB and 3.5 ETB more than those who were not educated with holding other variables constant (β = 6.19, 95% CI (3.54, 8.84), dx/dy = 0.00006).

Study participants who were living far from the dump site were WTP 1.6 ETB more than those who were near the dump site with keeping other variables constant (β = 1.58, 95% CI (0.45, 2.72), dx/dy = 0.00004).

Study participants who generate one or more sack of waste per week were WTP 1.7 ETB more than those who generate less than one sack with holding other variables constant (β = 1.74, 95% CI (0.19, 3.29), dx/dy = 0.00004).

Households with better income were WTP 2.43 ETB more than those who were poor with holding other variables constant (β = 2.43, 95% CI (1.009, 3.86), dx/dy = 0.00003).

Furthermore, participants who were employed in civil sectors were willing to pay 3.4 ETB than those who were unemployed with holding others constant (β = 3.43, 95% CI (1.28, 5.58), dx/dy = 0.00005) (Table 3).
Table 3

Tobit regression results of factors affecting willingness to pay for improved waste management services in Injibara town North west Ethiopia, 2018 (n = 903)

Parameter for MWTP

Coefficients

Standard error

t-value

p-value

95% CI

Marginal effect (dy/dx)

Sex (ref. female)

 Male

3.24

0.64

5.06

0.000***

1.98, 4.50

0.00008

Age

− 0.09

0.05

− 2.01

0.044*

− 0.188, − 0.002

− 2.4e−06

Education (ref. no education)

 Primary school

0.93

1.19

0.79

0.431

− 1.39, 3.27

 

 Secondary school

3.53

1.14

3.11

0.002**

1.29, 5.760

 

 College and above

6.19

1.35

4.58

0.000***

3.54, 8.84

0.00006

Occupation(ref. unemployed)

 Self-employees

0.55

0.85

0.64

0.521

− 1.12, 2.21

 

 Civil servants

3.43

1.09

3.14

0.002**

1.28, 5.58

0.00005

Family size

0 .34

0.28

1.19

0.235

− 0.22,0.89

 

Marital status (ref. other than married)

 Married

0.38

0.94

0.40

0.687

− 1.47, 2.23

 

Solid waste generated (ref. < 1 sack)

 ≥ 1 sacks

1.74

0.79

2.20

0.028*

0.19, 3.29

0.00004

Distance of dump site (ref. near)

 Far

1.58

0.57

2.75

0.006**

0.45, 2.72

0.00004

Awareness (ref. poor awareness)

 Good awareness

0.12

1.25

0.09

0.927

− 2.33, 2.56

 

Homeownership (ref. No)

 Yes

0.59

0.80

0.73

0.463

− 0.99,2.17

 

 Time stay in the Town

0.005

0.04

0.14

0.891

− 0.067, 0.077

 

Perceived satisfaction (ref. dissatisfied)

 Satisfied

3.89

0.58

6.67

0.000***

2.75, 5.05

0.0001

Wealth status (ref. poor)

 Medium

0.74

0.74

0.99

0.322

− 0.72, 2.20

 

 Rich

2.43

0.72

3.35

0.001**

1.009, 3.86

0.00003

* Significant with p-value ≤ 0.05

** Significant with p-value ≤ 0.01

*** Significant with p-value ≤ 0.001

Discussion

The study showed that 81.06% of the participants were willing to pay for the service which was lower than studies done in other parts of Ethiopia and Nigeria about WTP for ISWM which were 92% and 87%, respectively [8, 13]. This might be due to differences in study setting. However, this study result was in line with a study done in Ethiopia (Jimma town) which was 83.5% [12], but higher than studies done in Tanzania 63% [14], South east Nigeria 64.4% [15], Ghana 57% [16], Nepal 61% [17] and India 63% [18]. The possible reason might be due to difference in study areas, period, design and demography.

The average amount of money respondents were WTP was 29.7 ETB ($1.07) which is higher by 10 ETB than the current fee. This shows households have an interest to contribute for environmental service, even more than the existing fee. The result of this study was higher than a study done in Nepal ($0.72), Ethiopia (Jimma and Mekelle) which were 17.26 Birr and 11.89 Birr [8, 12, 17], and lower than a study done in Ghana (Kumasi metropolis) which is $1.74 [16]. This might be due to the difference in study time and socio economic like per capita income of Ethiopia $2161, Nepal $2679 and that of Ghana is $4729 [19].

The study reveals that sex of household heads (being male) had statistically significant association with WTP. This finding is supported by a study conducted in China [20]. The possible explanation might be females had less economic decision power than males.

The household wealth status had statistically significant association with the WTP. This is similar to studies done in different parts of the world such as Ethiopia [8, 12], Nigeria [15], Nepal [17, 21] and Ghana [22].This might be due to the fact that a consumer with higher wealth status has a greater demand for waste management and more WTP.

This study showed that educational status of household heads had significant association with WTP. This is consistent with studies conducted in Ethiopia [8, 12] and Nigeria [23, 24]. The possible explanation may be due to the fact that educated people can understand easily the consequences of mismanagement of waste.

This study also showed that age of participants was negatively associated with WTP which was consistent with finding of studies done in Ethiopia [8], Nigeria [23], and Uganda [22]. The possible explanation may be those who are younger are more exposed to different health related information.

The amount of solid waste generated had significant relationship with the WTP for SWM. This finding was consistent with studies conducted in Tanzania and Ghana (Kumasi) [14, 16].This could be due to difficulties to dispose larger amount of waste and it needs high cost.

Distance from solid waste dumping sites had a positive relationship with the participants’ WTP for SWM service. This is similar with studies conducted in Ghana (Kumasi and Tema) [16, 25]. This is because in the longer the distance the more complicate problem of SWM as people would have to walk along distances to dispose waste.

This study also reveals that participants ‘perceived satisfaction with the service had a positive relationship with WTP for SWM. This result is similar with studies conducted in Ethiopia [12, 26]. This may be due to the rational behavior of customers, as their interest is maximizing utility or consumers are willing to utilize and pay for those services and goods that maximize their utility [27].

Limitation of the study

Even though this study lies on the large sample size with high response rate (93%) due to our effort to include all households; the study has on limitation response biases which may overestimate or underestimate the results of WTP due to the use of self-reporting. The possibility of bias related to CVM and relied on cross-sectional data, restricting our ability to infer the causal directions underlying the observed associations.

Abbreviations

CVM: 

contingent valuation method

CI: 

confidence interval

ETB: 

Ethiopian Birr

ISWM: 

improved solid waste management

MWTP: 

maximum willingness to pay

SPSS: 

Statistical Package for Social Science

SWM: 

solid waste management

US$: 

United States Dollar

WTP: 

willingness to pay

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We deeply express our gratefulness to University of Gondar for financial support without which this project would have not been possible. Our special thanks and sincere appreciation also goes to Amhara Regional Health Bureau, Agew Awi Zone health department and Injibara town Administration. Moreover, we would also give a gratitude for the study participants, data collectors and other individuals or organizations that has participated directly or indirectly into the study.

Funding

This study was funded by College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar (25000ETB). The views presented in the article are the authors and not necessarily express the views of the funding organization. University of Gondar did not involve in the design of the study, data collection, analysis and interpretation.

Authors’ contributions

SM conceived the original idea, involved in proposal writing, designed the study was responsible for data collection, analyzed the data and drafted of manuscript and participated in all phases of the project. WW supervised the research process contribute in its design and interpretation of the data and the results, involved in critically revising the manuscript. Moreover, WW participated at all stages of the research project. AM supervised the research process, participated in its design and interpretation of the data and the results, involved in revising the manuscript. AM participated at all stages of the research project. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical clearance was obtained from the ethical review bored of Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, and University of Gondar. Official letter of permission was also obtained from Amhara Regional Health Bureau, Awi Zonal Health Department and Injibara town Administrative Health Office and. Written consent from study participant was obtained after explaining the purpose of the study and confidentiality was assured for the information provided by using coding system and questionnaires did not have any personal identifiers.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Planning and Monitoring and Evaluation Officer of Awi Zonal Health Department, Amhara Regional Health Bureau, Injibara, Ethiopia
(2)
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety, Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia
(3)
Department of Health Systems and Policy, Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Gondar, P.o. Box:196, Gondar, Ethiopia

References

  1. Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Mombo F, Bigirwa D. The role of Sub-Saharan Africa Countries’ households waste charges on sustainable cities development. Int J Waste Resour. 2017;7(265):2.Google Scholar
  3. Programme U.N.E. Global environment outlook 2000, vol. 1. Abingdon: Routledge; 2013.Google Scholar
  4. Montgomery MR. The urban transformation of the developing world. Science. 2008;319(5864):761–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Medina M. Solid wastes, poverty and the environment in developing country cities: Challenges and opportunities. 2010: Working paper//World Institute for Development Economics Research.Google Scholar
  6. Gedefaw M. Assessing the current status of solid waste management of Gondar town, Ethiopia. Int J Sci Technol Res. 2015;4:28–36.Google Scholar
  7. Act, C.A., R. Act. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Report on Carcinogens, 2006; p. 168.Google Scholar
  8. Hagos D, Mekonnen A, Gebreegziabher Z. Households’ willingness to pay for improved urban waste management in Mekelle City, Ethiopia. 2012.Google Scholar
  9. Cheever M. Environmental Policy Review 2011: waste Management in Ethiopia. In: Environmental policy review: key issues in Ethiopia 2011; p. 133.Google Scholar
  10. Cheru S. Assessment of municipal solid waste management service in Dessie town. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University, School Of Graduate Studies; 2011.Google Scholar
  11. Ezeah C, Fazakerley JA, Roberts CL. Emerging trends in informal sector recycling in developing and transition countries. Waste Manag. 2013;33(11):2509–19.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Batu MM, Fikadu Tolosa EA. Determinants of households’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste management in Ethiopia: the case study of Jimma Town. J Environ Earth Sci. 2016;6(2224–3216):75.Google Scholar
  13. Adepoju A, Salimonu K. Household willingness to pay for improved solid waste management in Osun State, Nigeria. Plenary Paper Session I: Water, 2010; p. 51.Google Scholar
  14. Mussa J. Residents’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste management in Dodoma municipality, Tanzania. 2015, Sokoine University of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  15. Oyawole F, et al. Willingness to pay for improved solid waste management services in an urbanizing area in South-East Nigeria. Ethiop J Environ Stud Manag. 2016;9(6):793–803.Google Scholar
  16. Awunyo-Vitor D, Ishak S, Seidu Jasaw G. Urban Households’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste disposal services in Kumasi Metropolis. Ghana. Urban Stud Res. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/659425.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Maskey B, Singh M. Households’ willingness to pay for improved waste collection service in Gorkha municipality of Nepal. Environments. 2017;4(4):77.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Roy AT, Deb U. Households willingness to pay for improved waste management in Silchar municipal area: a case study in Cachar district, Assam. IOSR J Hum Soc Sci (IOSR-JHSS). 2013;6(5):21–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. World Bank. World Bank national accounts data, and OECD National Accounts data files. Washington DC: World bank group. 2017. 2017.Google Scholar
  20. Trang PT, Toan DQ, Hanh NT. Estimating household willingness to pay for improved solid waste management: a case study of Thu Dau Mot City, Binh Duong. InMATEC web of conferences 2017 (Vol. 95, p. 18004). EDP Sciences, 2017.Google Scholar
  21. Bhattarai K. Households’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste management in Banepa municipality, Nepal. Environ Nat Resour J. 2015;13(2):14–25.Google Scholar
  22. Niringiye A. Determinants of willingness to pay for solid waste management in Kampala City. Curr Res J Econ Theory. 2010;2(3):119–22.Google Scholar
  23. Yusuf SA, Salimonu KK, Ojo OT. Determinants of willingness to pay for improved household solid waste management in Oyo State, Nigeria. Res J Appl Sci. 2007;2(3):233–9.Google Scholar
  24. Ayanshola A, et al. Evaluation of municipal solid waste management system and willingness-to-pay for its improvements in Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria. Niger J Technol. 2015;34(4):868–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Nkansah E, Dafor NK, Essel-Gaisey F. Willingness to pay for improved solid waste disposal in Tema metropolis. UDS Int J Dev. 2015;2(1). http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/455.
  26. Woretaw E, Woubishet D, Asmare W. Households’ preferences and willingness to pay for improved solid waste management interventions using choice experiment approach: Debre Tabor Town, Northwest Ethiopia. J Econ Sustain Dev. 2017;8(7):16–32.Google Scholar
  27. King RG, Plosser CI, Rebelo ST. Production, growth and business cycles: I. The basic neoclassical model. J Monet Econ. 1988;21(2):195–232.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2019

Advertisement