Assessment of Awareness, Attitude and Willingness of People To Participate in Household Solid Waste Recycling Programme in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria

J .J . Momoh and D.H. Oladebeye, 2010.
Assessment of Awareness, Attitude and Willingness of People to Participate

in Household Solid Waste Recycling Programme in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria.

J ournal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation, 5 (1): 93-105.

93

Research Paper

ASSESSMENT OF AWARENESS, ATTITUDE AND WILLINGNESS OF PEOPLE
TO PARTICIPATE IN HOUSEHOLD SOLID WASTE RECYCLING PROGRAMME
IN ADO-EKITI, NIGERIA

J.J. MOMOH* and D.H. OLADEBEYE

Mechanical Engineering Department, School of Engineering, The Federal Polytechnic, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria
*Corresponding Author: Phone: +2348034155891; E-mail: jjmomoh@gmail.com

Received: 24
th
October 2009; Revised: 21
st
November 2009; Accepted: 6
th
January 2010

Abstract: Indiscriminate dumping of household solid wastes on our streets, rivers and
drainages has contributed in no small measure to drainage blockage, flooded road and
the spread of offensive odours and diseases. Recycling has been viewed as a veritable
tool in minimizing the amount of household solid wastes that enter the dump sites. It
also provides the needed raw materials for industries. More so, it has been established
that, it is the best, efficient and effective method of solid waste management system.
Awareness and attitude of people in the community appear to be crucial as their points
of understanding of household solid waste management ultimately play an important
role in providing answer to environmental problem. For a successful recycling
programme, householders support cannot be ruled out. In this study, the success of
AdoEkiti Plastic Bag Waste Recycling Innovation (APBWRI) was tested and gauged
by investigating the awareness, attitude and willingness of householders to participate.
The research methods employed include questionnaire, interviews, and observational
study within the administrative boundary of Ado Ekiti. Chisquare test was carried
out, using WINKS SDA Statistical Data Analysis Software Package. It was discovered
that awareness of household solid waste recycling activities in Ado-Ekiti was still at its
lowest ebb. There is a positive attitude towards recycling in Ado-Ekiti with an inclination
towards a pro-environmental attitude and ecological motives for participation in the
programme.

Keywords: APBWI, attitude, recycling, solid waste, willingness to participate

INTRODUCTION

The issue of waste disposal and management were not problems to early man, due to the
fact that there were no population explosion and technological advancement at that time.
However, with the growing population at an alarming rate coupled with technological

ISSN 0126-2807

Vol ume 5, Number 1: 93-105, January-March, 2010
T2010 Depart ment of Envi ronment al Engi neeri ng
Se p u l u h No p e mb e r I n s t i t u t e o f T e c h n o l o g y , S u r a b a y a
& Indonesian Society of Sanitary and Environmental Engineers, Jakarta
O p e n A c c e s s h t t p : / / w w w . t r i s a n i t a . o r g

J .J . Momoh and D.H. Oladebeye, 2010. Assessment of Awareness, Attitude and Willingness of People to Participate


94
advancement over time, waste disposal and management began to constitute serious problem to
human race [1]. In urban areas, especially in the rapidly urbanizing cities like Ado-Ekiti, the
problems and issues of solid waste management are of immediate importance. However, it has
been discovered that most households are struggling with how to manage their waste. Waste is
accumulating day-in day-out, as there is no waste management. In Ado- Ekiti, the methods of
solid waste disposal as indicated by [2] include dumping of refuse to gutters, drains, roadside,
unauthorized dumping sites and stream channels during raining season and burning of wastes on
unapproved dumping sites during the dry season.
The problem of waste management in Ado-Ekiti, when combined with rapid urbanization and
unplanned development is expected to be of such magnitude that significant reasons exist to
initiate immediate action for improvement of this appalling situation. It was on this note that the
Ekiti State Government has recently procured waste disposal equipment worth Four Hundred
Million Naira (N400m). These equipments include fifteen 30-tons Waste Bins, three Dino Bin
Trucks, three 20-tonnes tippers, 21 motor cycles and radio communications [3]. According to Ekiti
State Commissioner for Environment, about 128 metric tons of waste is being generated daily in
Ado Ekiti, and in furtherance to the realization of the Waste to Energy Project of the Ekiti State
Government, more wheeling Bins would be provided for households in the state [4]. The essence
of this study is to educate and encourage the people of Ado-Ekiti to reduce the rate of solid waste
generation by cultivating the habit of waste recycling
It has been established that for a nation to attain an improved sustainable environment that
is devoid of nuisance, pollution etc., the participation of the citizens must be encouraged and
promoted. The problem of waste management has arisen recently in developing countries where
there is little history of the implementation of formal and informal community environmental
education awareness program [5]. The initiation of such program in Ado-Ekiti is essential to
rapidly educate the public and facilitate the development of environmental friendly community
waste behaviour. The program is designed to engage the public not only in increasing their
environmental awareness but their environmental skills, attitudes and behaviors as well. The
initial stage in this program was to assess the awareness by age group covering level of
awareness and its sources [6 - 8]. Assessment was also carried out on attitude and willingness to
participate.
According to [9] and [10], household is defined as a social unit comprising people living in
the same house, with a head, and pooling their incomes together for the management of their
dwelling unit. Oftentimes the word waste is used interchangeably with refuse. For clear
understanding, it is imperative to differentiate the two words. According to 11], when waste is
disposed of in the same container and mixed together, causing unpleasant odour and pollution,
and making it impossible to reuse, it is called refuse. Conversely, when the disposed objects are
handled correctly, they can have value and are called waste. Waste generally refers to all
unwanted and economically unusable materials that result from human activities, discarded
purposefully or accidentally into the environment [12-14]. Therefore, household solid waste is
defined as the day-to-day rubbish, garbage and other forms of waste such as kitchen waste, food
packaging etc originating from the household.
Waste generation describes those activities in which materials identified as no longer of
value are either thrown away or gathered together for disposal. Although, there are numerous
types of wastes generated from human activities, but for the purpose of this study, the focus will
be on household solid waste. Segregation of waste is the separation of waste into different
categories. It is believed that larger portion of waste generated from household can be reused. It
is only a smaller portion of a real waste that is considered useless and has to be thrown away.



95
Waste composition is the identifiable component of a typical waste collection from a specific
household. The generation and composition of disposed wastes usually vary with household and
location. According to [15], the quantity of solid waste generation and composition depends upon
factors such as standard of living, nutritional habits and degree of commercial activities and the
quality of the waste also varies with season as quality of waste in dry season is not the same with
quality of waste in raining season. Table 1 shows solid waste generation and composition from
selected regions in the world.

Table 1: Solid Waste generation and composition from selected regions in the world [32-36].
Materials
Location
Rate
(kg/person/year)
Paper Food Plastics Glass Metals Textile Others
China 285 3 60 4 1 0 2 -
Denmark 520 30 37 7 6 3 17 -
France 560 30 25 10 12 6 17 -
Iran 324 8 74 5 3 1 2 -
Mexico 320 14 52 4 6 3 20 -
Poland 290 10 38 10 12 8 23 -
USA 730 38 23 9 7 8 16 -
Abidjan 24 4 63 5 1 1 1 25
Ibadan 153 15 42 4 6 21 1 10

Waste collection describes the activities involved in pickingup waste from their point of
generation and transfer to the disposal site. According to [16], the collection system is influenced
by storage method, pickup points requirement, type and composition of waste and kind of
equipment, labour availability and cost. Waste collection is one of the most costly functional
elements of solid waste management. Full waste collection coverage is a key to a hygiene
environment. If wastes are not fully collected from the neighborhood, it will provide a breeding
ground for pathogens. This situation portends great health hazards and also constitutes a public
eyesore.
Waste recycling is often seen as an important aspect of an efficient and effective solid waste
management system [17]. Many substances in refuse have value. They include glass, wood,
fiber, paper products and metals. Scientists have developed ways of recycling many wastes so
that they can be used again. As defined by [18] recycling as the process through which materials
previously used are reused. Recycling program can only be successful if people support and
actively participate in it. As pointed out by [19], diversion of waste to recycling will depend not
only on the number of people who participated, but on how well they do so and how effectively
they participated.
A review by 18] showed that past studies had focused on personal factors that influence
recycling behaviours. The personal factors also investigated include attitude, knowledge,
demographic variables, and personality variables. According to [19] and [20], it is difficult to
measure quantitatively the performance of recycling programmes on a consistent and standard
base. However, four useful performance measures have been defined, capture rate, participation
rate, recycling rate and diversion rate.
In household waste recycling programme, success is likely to be measured by participation
rates and recycling rates. High participation rate will translate into high capture and diversion
rates. The results of some studies show that virtually 50% of solid wastes are recyclable [21] and
recycling of solid waste before disposal is economical [22]. The organization of Solid Waste



96
Disposal predicts that if half of the papers in solid waste are recycled, it will be equal to
maintaining 8 million hectares of forests [23].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present Ado Local Government was created on 4
th
October, 1989 out of the erstwhile
Ekiti Central Local Government which consisted of both the present Ado and Irepodun/Ifelodun
Local Governments located in Ekiti State South-West geopolitical zone in Federal Republic of
Nigeria. Ado-Ekiti town assumed the status of a state capital with the creation of Ekiti state on 1
st

October, 1996. The town has long been a commercial and industrial centre among towns and
villages in Ekiti state. According to 2006 National Census figure, Ado-Ekiti Local Government is
the largest town in Ekiti state with population of about 308,626. Map of Ado-Ekiti township, village
and farmsteads is shown in Figure 1.
N
(
T
O
W
N
S
H
I
P

M
A
P
,

V
I
L
L
A
G
E
S

A
N
D

F
A
R
M
S
T
E
A
D
S
)
(
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D

B
Y
:

O
J
O

A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
.
R
e
g
d

B
u
i
ld
in
g

D
e
s
ig
n
e
r
s

&

B
u
i
ld
e
r
s
.
A
d
o
-
E
k
i
t
i
J
u
l
y

1
9
9
0
A
D
O
-
E
K
I
T
I

L
O
C
A
L

G
O
V
E
R
N
M
E
N
T
M
A
P

O
F

A
D
O
-
E
K
I
T
I

L
O
C
A
L

G
O
V
E
R
N
M
E
N
T
L
o
c
a
l G
o
v
t B
o
u
n
d
a
ry
F
e
d
e
ra
l R
o
a
d
S
ta
te
R
o
a
d
L
o
c
a
l G
o
v
t R
o
a
d
R
iv
e
rs / B
rid
g
e
A
d
o
-E
kiti L
o
c
a
l G
o
v
t S
e
c
re
ta
ria
t
Im
p
o
rta
n
t F
a
rm
F
a
rm
S
e
ttle
m
e
n
t
T
e
c
h
n
ic
a
l S
c
h
o
o
l
H
o
te
l
Im
p
o
rta
n
t P
la
c
e
s
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
ry
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
o
lic
e
Sta
tio
n
C
h
u
rc
h
e
s
S
ta
d
iu
m
R
o
c
k
H
ig
h
e
r In
s
titu
tio
n
R
o
u
n
d
A
b
o
u
t
S
ta
ff Q
ua
te
rs
F
a
c
to
ry
H
o
sp
ita
l / M
e
d
ic
a
l C
e
n
tre
P
riv
a
te
H
e
a
lth
C
a
re
E
sta
b
lish
m
e
n
t
A
d
o
-E
kiti C
ity
M
a
p
B
o
u
n
d
a
ry
V
illa
g
e
s

Fig 1: Study area Map

A
D
O
-
E
K
I
T
I

L
O
C
A
L

G
O
V
E
R
N
M
E
N
T

(
T
O
W
N
S
H
I
P

M
A
P
,

V
I
L
L
A
G
E
S

&

F
A
R
M
S
T
E
A
D
)



97
The data of this study were gathered through oral interview and questionnaires. 500
questionnaires were administered within Ado-Ekiti metropolis; 364 of the questionnaires
administered were filled and returned. The study covers major streets in Ado-Ekiti Township.
Although, there are numerous residential areas and streets in Ado-Ekiti, but for simplicity and the
purpose of this study, residential areas in Ado-Ekiti were grouped as: North, South, East, West,
and Central residential areas. Authors fieldwork in 2009 showed the major streets under each
group are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Residential Areas
North Residential
Area
South Residential
Area
East
Residential
Area
West Residential
Area
Central Residential
Area
Adebayo
Sinmiloluwa
State hospital
School of nursing
Nova
Opopogbooro
Federal/State
Housing
Adehun
Pathfinder
Ajilosun
Moferere
Omolayo/Olujoda
Bamgboye
Gbajumo
Oke-Oniyo
Oke-Bola
Ekute
Odo-Ado
Igirigiri
Olokemeji
Bola clinic
Immigration
Ureje
Poly road
Basiri
Egbewa
Falegan
Ile-Abiye
Govt Reserve Area
(GRA)
Textile
New Iyin Road
Bank Street
Ijigbo
Okeyinmi
Ojumose
Okesa
Irona
Oke-Ila
Dallimore/Stadium

Questionnaire survey data about the awareness of, attitudes towards and participation in
household waste recycling were analyzed using descriptive statistical methods in the WINKS
SDA Statistical Data Analysis Software Package which was used to find the relationship between
the householders willingness to participate in the household solid waste recycling programme,
namely AdoEkiti Plastic Bag Waste Recycling Innovation (APBWRI), and their socio
demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. The willingness of householders in different
residential areas is also compared.
The relationships were analyzed by performing cross tabulations and chisquare test. A
five percent level of pvalue was used as a guideline for determining the significance of the
relationships, when the value of p > 0.05, there is no significant relationship and when p 0.05,
there is some significant relationship between a particular variable and willingness in the
APBWRI.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

General Information About Respondents
This section focuses on the inter-relationships between the socio-demographic
characteristics (gender, age, education and number of persons in a household) and the socio-
economic characteristic (employment status, income, housing tenure and type of housing of
respondents). All these variables were investigated and analyzed vis--vis the respondents
attitude and their willingness to participate in the APBWRI. The chi-square test is used to
determine the significance.
From Table 3, it was observed that the south residential area was the area where high level
of responses was recorded with about 24.7%. The chi-square test (p = 0.543) shows that the
willingness to participate is not dependent on the residential area. The population of men is



98
about 52.7%, which is more than that of women and the chi-square test (p = 0.853) indicated that
respondents willingness to recycle is not significantly related to their sex. There is no significant
relationship between respondents willingness to participate and age. It was revealed that the
middle aged of 22-50 years old with 53.6% response is most willing to participate in the recycling
programme, while the younger and older respondents are less willing.

Table 3: Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents
Variables Frequency Percentage %
Residential Area
North residential area 71 19.5
South residential area 90 24.7
East residential area 64 17.6
West residential area 67 18.4
Central residential area 72 19.8
Gender
Male 192 52.7
Female 172 47.3
Age
18-21 84 23.0
22-50 185 53.6
Older than 50 85 23.4
Education
Standard 6/primary school Education 37 10.2
Modern school/Secondary School 31 8.5
Diploma/NCE 105 28.8
Degree 191 52.6
Household size
1-2 people 52 14.3
3-4 people 75 20.6
5-7 people 92 25.3
8-10 people 67 18.4
More than 11 people 78 21.4

In some instances it has been found that young people of 18-21 years age bracket recycle
more when they receive money in exchange for recycling products [24]. Also it has been argued
that geographical location and level of development may have impact on the way people of
different ages participate in recycling [25, 26].
It was discovered that the respondents with university degrees, constituting 52.5% response;
are most willing to participate, closely followed by the respondents with Diploma/Nigerian
Certificate of Education (NCE) of 28.8% response. The p-value of the chi-square test (p = 0.638)
shows that respondent willingness to participate in APBWRI is not significantly dependent on the
educational level. According to [27], the educational level is a great determinant of responsible
consumption with people having higher education levels investing great effort in recycling
activities.
The p-value of the chi-square (p = 0.01) indicates a significant relationship between the
number of persons in respondents households and willingness to participate. The middle-sized
families of 5-7 people seem to be more willing to participate in recycling programme, with about
25.3% response.



99
Table 4 shows that the majority of the respondents were civil servants with about 36.8%.
The p-value of the chi-square test (p=0.01) indicates that the relationship between employment
status and willingness is significant. All of the students and job seekers surveyed and the
majority of the self-employed and civil servants are willing to participate in the APBWRI. The chi
square test (p=0.432) shows that there is no significant relationship between income and
willingness to participate in the recycling programme. The majority of respondents are willing to
participate, but interestingly, it is the medium-income earners with about 46.7%, who tend to be
more willing to participate than the low and high income earners.

Table 4: Socio-economic characteristics of respondents
Variables Frequency Percentage %
Employment Status
Civil servant 134 36.8
Self employed 112 30.8
Applicant 46 12.6
Student 72 19.8
Income rate
Low level income 160 44.0
Medium level income 170 46.7
High level income 34 9.3
Housing tenure
Owner 127 34.9
Tenant 237 65.1
Housing type
Residential 247 67.9
Commercial 75 20.6
Institutional 42 11.5
Period of tenement
Below 1 year 90 24.7
1 10 years 134 36.8
11 20 years 91 25.0
Above 21 years 49 13.5

According to [28] a useful socio-economic factor which explains recycling behaviour is
housing tenure, which is sometimes compiled with type of housing or / and household
composition. In this study, it was discovered that tenants were predominated with about 65.1% of
the total responses. The chi-square test (p=0.792) indicates no significant relationship between
households willingness to recycle and housing tenure. It is notable that home owners showed a
lesser willingness to participate in APBWRI than tenants.
The chi-square test (p=0.276) shows that the willingness to participate is not dependent on
the type of housing. The residential housings were predominated with about 67.9%. The
commercial and institutional housings showed a greater willingness to participate than the
residential housing
The p-value of the chi-square test (p=0.243) shows an insignificant relationship between the
respondents housing period and their willingness to participate in recycling programme. It was
noted that the respondents with 1-10 years housing period were predominated in this study with
about 36.8%.



100
Participation in and Attitude towards Solid Waste Recycling in Ado-Ekiti
For the purpose of this study attitude means the extent to which people are aware of, care
about and view household waste recycling in their areas. In order to determine householder
participation in household solid waste recycling, it became necessary to find out how much
respondents are actually aware of the recycling initiatives in their areas.
Respondents were asked if they were aware of any household waste recycling activities in
Ado-Ekiti town, the source of information about recycling if any, and if the respondents have been
participating in any form of recycling.
In Table 5, it was revealed that when the respondents were asked about their awareness of
any household recycling activities in Ado-Ekiti, 96.7% were not aware and 3.3% were aware.
Initially, only 12 respondents consented that they had learnt about recycling through one means
or the other. After follow-up questions and explanations, 15.4% claimed that they recycled their
household solid wastes. When asked the reasons for practising and not practising recycling. The
reasons adduced are spelt out below:

Table 5: Participation in and attitude of the respondents towards solid waste recycling in Ado-Ekiti
Question and Response Frequency Percentage %
Knowledge about and awareness of domestic waste recycling in Ado-
Ekiti

Yes 12 3.3
No 352 96.7
Sources of waste recycling information
Media 5 1.4
Municipality 4 1.1
Friends and neighbor 3 0.8
No information at all 352 96.7
Whether they recycled their solid waste or not
Yes 56 15.4
No 308 84.6
Method of participating in recycling
Make compost 3 0.8
Separate waste into different recyclables for collection 25 6.9
Take recyclables to community bins 28 7.7
Non participation 308 84.6
Collection method
Individual / trolley collectors 226 62.1
Self deposit in community bins 138 37.9
Collection Frequency
Once in a week 242 66.5
Twice in a week 122 33.5
Whether they were paying monthly charges for the removal of
household solid waste

Yes 12 3.3
No 352 96.7

According to [29], the reasons for individual participation in household recycling are
determined by several factors, which related to environmental motivation, social pressure and
economic incentives. In this study, the reason given by respondents for their participation in



101
recycling can be classified into three categories, namely, ecological, environmental and economic
and the results are discussed as followings.
(a) Ecological Arguments
Some respondents recycled because of the benefits that recycling offers the natural
environments; most importantly it tends to conserve our natural resources.
(b) Environment concern
Other respondents recycled in order to keep their environments clean and unpolluted. They
explained that the more they maintain a cleaner environment, the more they keep germs
and diseases abated.
(c) A few respondents mentioned that they earned income from selling recyclables like bottles,
plastics, textiles, paper, etc. to either rag pickers or buy-back centers. It is also worth
mentioning here the cases of scavengers and itinerant waste merchants who buy scraps and
other recyclables. They take out a living by selling to the buy-back centers.
(d) According to [18] and [30], the most common reasons provided for not participating in
recycling programmes are inconvenience, lack of time, effort required for recycling, and lack
of incentives or general commitment. In this study, the reasons cited for non-participation are
(i) recycling requires too much time (ii) it requires too much effort (iii) lack of knowledge about
recycling and (iv) lack facilities for recycling.
(e) According to [31] composting is a method of handling and processing organic wastes at a
domestic level, to produce humus-like material which may be used as soil-conditioner for
gardens or as top dressing for lawns. The practice is not very common as only about 0.8% of
respondents made compost from their wastes. The separation at household level by
householders themselves is called source separation. In this study 6.9% respondents
indicated that they separate newspapers, books, plastics, bottles from other household
wastes for recycling.

Willingness to participate in Ado-Ekiti Plastic Bag Waste Recycling Innovation (APBWRI)
In this section, householders willingness and perception were investigated and analyzed
through some designed questions like;
Are you willing to participate in APBWRI?
Are you willing to sort your recyclable?
What type of sorting option will you prefer?
Are you willing to buy two household waste plastic bags? (One waste plastic bag for
recyclable and one for non recyclables).
In Table 6, 76% of the respondents indicated that they are willing to take part in the recycling
programme while about 24% of the respondents said that they are not willing to take part in the
recycling programme. The chi-square test (p=0.003) shows that there is a statistically significant
positive relationship between respondents willingness to sort household waste and willingness to
participate in the APBWRI. Hence, the respondents who are willing to participate in APWRI are
also willing to sort their household waste.
About 74.7% of the respondents declared their willingness to sort. Respondents were asked
to give reasons why they are willing or unwilling to sort householder waste into recyclables and
non-recyclables. The reasons given are spelt out below:
Reasons for willingness to sort waste are:
(i) For the purpose of recycling
(ii) If separate bags for recyclables and non-recyclables are provided



102
(iii) For benefits to the natural environment to avoid litter and maintain cleaner and unpolluted
surroundings
(iv) Because of environmental awareness which emphasizes reduction of waste and recycling.
(v) If the cost or charges that accrued to it is affordable.
Reasons for unwillingness to sort waste are:
(i) It is time-consuming
(ii) It is also requires some effort

Table 6: Perception and Willingness of respondents towards APBWRI
Question and Response Frequency Percentage %
Willingness to participate in APBWRI
Yes 278 76.4
No 86 23.6
Willingness to sort recyclables
Yes 272 74.7
No 92 25.3
Preferred Sorting option
Sorting into two bags 226 83.1
Sorting into different bags 46 16.9
Willingness to buy waste plastic bags
Yes 244 67.0
No 120 33.0
Preferred collection method
Individual / trolley collectors 34 9.3
Municipality 13 3.6
Recycling Company 202 55.5
Self delivery to sorting site 39 10.7
Self delivery to community recycling bins 76 20.9
Do you prefer collection of recyclables and non recyclables to be
carry out the same day

Yes 323 63.7
No 132 36.3
Willingness to pay extra service charge for the recyclables
collected

Yes 44 12.1
No 320 87.9

About 83.1% of the respondents preferred sorting into two bags that is one for recyclables
and one for non-recyclable while 16.9% of the respondents preferred sorting into different bags
that is, one for each recyclable. This result looks promising for the APBWRI. The respondents
were asked whether they were willing to procure two waste bags, one for recyclables and one for
non-recyclable waste. 67% of the respondents agreed to buy two waste bags, while 33% of the
respondents did not subscribe to the idea of buying two waste bags. The respondents who did
not support the idea of buying two waste bags were asked for any reasons that motivated their
actions. The reason adduced majorly is the cost of the additional household waste bag for
recyclables. 56% of respondents showed preference for the recycling company to collect
recyclables, 20.9% preferred self-delivery to community recycling bins, because it signifies the
right to and responsibility to participate in solid waste recycling; Preferences are given to
municipality and the recycling company, because they are better characterized by less effort and
trolley people are said to be cheapest of all waste collectors. When the respondents were asked



103
how often they would prefer to have their recyclables collected, nearly 59% cited once a week,
about 31% preferred collection twice in a week. More so, about 63.7% of the householders
preferred the collection of their recyclables and non recyclables to take place on the same day.
The responses of the survey revealed that more than three quarter of the respondents were
unwilling to pay any extra service charge for their household solid waste removal. When asked
the reasons that motivated their responses, they reasoned that paying extra service charge will
constitute additional strain on their meager income.

CONCLUSIONS

The householders willingness to participate in the APBWRI was used to gauge their
potential co-operation and commitment to a household solid waste recycling programme. About
77% respondents showed their willingness to participate in the programme. It was found that
willingness to participate in the recycling programme is not reliably explained by socio
demographic and socio economic variables. However, middle sized families and employment
status showed a significant relationship with both groups being more willing to participate.
Willingness to sort household waste at home by householders is directly related to participation in
the programmes. Willingness to buy two waste bags, one for recyclables and one for non
recyclables showed no significant relationship to willingness to participate in the APBWRI.
It was recommended for successful implementation of a household solid waste recycling
programme in AdoEkiti the followings must be put into consideration:
Governments should make adequate provision for recycling facilities and infrastructure.
Governments should introduce and enforce the laws and regulations which the community
should observe.
Fine should be levied on any householder that violates the recycling regulations
Governments should promote house tohouse awareness campaign about recycling and its
importance.
Provision should be made for at least a sorting centre in each residential area.
More buyback centers should be created.
The householders must be sensitized and educated through mass media about waste
management programme.
Private bodies who are interested in recycling programmes should be encouraged by the
government, by providing enabling ground for them to operate.
The government should focus on providing all the necessary means and incentives to
improve voluntary recycling.

References
1. Olufayo, O and B. J. Omotosho, 2007. Waste Disposal and Waste Management in Ado-Ekiti Nigeria.
The Social Science. 2 (2): 111115.
2. Adebayo, W. O, Bamisaye, J. A, Akintan, O. B and O. S. Ogunleye, 2006. Waste Generation,
Disposal and Management Techniques in an Urbanizing Environment: A case study of Ado-
Ekiti, Nigerian Research Journal of Applied Science. 1 (1): 6366.
3. Olayinka, L, 2009. Ekiti State Government Information Portal, Retrieved Octber 5, 2009 from
http://ekitinigiria.net/latest/EKITI-GOVENRMENT-BUY-N291.3-MILLION-WASTE-
MANAGEMENT -EQUIPMENT.html.



104
4. Lade, N, 2009. Ekiti State Government Information Portal, Retrieved Octber 5, 2009 from
http://ekitinigiria.net/latest/EKSG-PROCURES-N400M-WASTE-DISPOSAL-
EQUIPMENT.html.
5. Ehrampoush, M.H and B.M.H. Moghadam, 2005. Survey of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of
Yard University of Medical Sciences Students about Solid wastes Disposal and Recycling,
Iranian Journal of Environmental Engineering. 2 (2): 2230.
6. Palmer, J.A, 1995. Environmental thinking in the Early Year: Understanding Misunderstanding of
Concepts related to Waste Management. Journal of Environment Urbanization.11 (2): 1415.
7. Caneer, B, 1997. What recyclying means to me? Survey at the Marshal Space Flight Center.
Available www.recycle.mcfc.nasa.gov/survey/survey/html.
8. Tucker, P, Murney, G and J. Lamont, 1998. Predicting Recycling Scheme Performance: A process
Simulation Approach. Journal of Environmental Management. 52 (1): 31-48
9. Ellis, F, 1998. Peasant Economics: Farm Households and Agrarian Development. Wye Studies
Agricultural and Rural development, Cambridge University Press. UK.
10. Kamara, J.A, 2006. Household Participation in Domestic Waste Disposal and Recycling in the
Tshwane Metropolitan Area: An Environmental Education Perspective. MED Thesis.
Department of Environmental Education, University of South Africa.
11. Ojeda, B S, Armijo, V. C. and B. M. Ramirez, 2000. The Potential For Recycling Household Waste: A
case study from Mexicali, Mexico. Environment and Urbanization 2 (12): 163173.
12. UNEP, United Nations Environmental Programme, 1994. Environmental Data Report 1993/1994. A
Report for Global Environmental Monitoring System. Brazil. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
13. Gerrans, G.C, 1994. Waist Deep in Waste Reduce, RE- Use, Recycle. Spectrum. 32 (1): 3236.
14. Van Beukering, P., Sehker, M., Gerlagh, R., and V. Kumar, 1999. Analyzing Urban Solid Waste in
Developing Countries: A Perspective on Bangalore, India. International Institute for
Environmental and Development (IIED). Working Paper No. 24 CREED Working Paper
Series. Amsterdam.
15. Oyaide, A. E. L, 2007. Solid Waste Management. The Nigerian Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 3
(2): 34.
16. Oluwasola, E.A., and A.O. Ogunsola, 2008. Assessment of Solid Waste Management in Osun State.
A Case Study of Osogbo. Proceedings of 4
th
Engineering Forum, Federal Polytechnic, Ado
Ekiti. October 14 17, pp. 5054.
17. Rabinson, W. D, 1986. The Solid Waste Handbook: A Practical Guide. John Willey, New York, USA.
18. Schultz, P.W., Oskamp, S., and T. Mainjeri, 1995. Who Recycles and when? A Review of Personal
and Situation actors. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 15 (1): 105121.
19. Thomas, C, 2001. Public Understanding and its Effects on Recycling Performance in Hampshire and
Milton Keyenes. Resources. Conservation and Recycling. 32 (4): 259274.
20. Spencer, D. B, 1994. Recycling. Handbook of Solid Waste Management. Kreith, F (ed) MaGrawhill,
New York.
21. Rahmani, H and H Elyasi, 2000. Physical Combination of Yazd Waste. 4
th
national Congress of
Environmental Health, Yazd, Iran.
22. Omrani, G. A, 1995. Solid Waste, The Center of Scientific Publication of Islamic Azard University,
Iran.1
st
edition, vol 2.
23. Payam, E. S, 1995. Efforts to Protection of Natural Resources, 2
nd
Issue, Isfahan Industrial
University, Iran.
24. DeYoung, R, 1991. Some Psychological aspects of Living Lightly: desired Lifestyle Partens and
Conservation Behaviour. Journal of Environmental Systems. 20 (1): 215227.
25. Cooper, J, 2002. Rio 10 Years on and we are still Wasting Resources. Local Environment, 7 (3):
325330.
26. Taylor, L, 2004. International lessons in Municipal solid waste recycling. Resources and Waste
Management. 7 (1): 2123.



105
27. Scott, D and F. K. Willits, 1994. Environmental Attitude and Behaviour. A Pennislavia Survey.
Environmental and Behaviour. 26 (1): 239260.
28. Oskamp, S., Harrington, M.J., Edwards, T.C., Sherwood, D.L., Okuda, S.M., and D.C. Swanson,
1991. Factors Influencing the household recycling behavior. Environmental and Behavior. 23
(4): 494519.
29. Li S, 2003. Recycling behavior under Chinas Social and Economic transition: The case of
Metropolitan Wuhan. Environment and Behaviour. 35 (6): 784801.
30. McDonalds, S. and C. Oates, 2003. Research for non participation in a curbside recycling scheme.
Resources, conservation and recycling. 39 (1): 369385.
31. Judais R.S, 1986. Whiel South African Knowledge about Attitudes towards, and practice in respect of
the Voluntary Recycling of Domestic Solid Waste. Report No. S137. Pretoria: Human
Sciences Research Council.
32. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1993. Environmental Data, Compendium
1993. OECD, Paris.
33. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1997. Environmental Data, Compendium
1997. OECD, Paris.
34. Attahi, F, 1999. Abidjan, CotedIvoire (Chapter 2). In: A.G. Onibokun (Ed.) Managing the Monster:
Urban Waste and Governance in Africa. IDRC, pp. 11 48.
35. Onibokun, A., and A. J. Kumuyi, (1999. Ibadan, Nigeria (Chapter 3). In A.G Onibokun (Ed.) Managing
the Monster; Urban Waste and Governance in Africa. IDRC, pp. 49 100.
36. Lusugga, K.J.M, 1999. Dares Salaam Tanzania. In: A.G Onibokun (Ed.) Managing the Monster:
Urban Waste and Governance in Africa. IDRC, pp. 101 172.



106

[This page is intentionally left blank]

Assessment of Awareness, Attitude and Willingness of People To Participate in Household Solid Waste Recycling Programme in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Assessment of Awareness, Attitude and Willingness of People To Participate in Household Solid Waste Recycling Programme in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

J .J . Momoh and D.H. Oladebeye, 2010.

Assessment of Awareness, Attitude and Willingness of People to Participate

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen