Timothy and Madu

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/368392525
Determinants of Households’ willingness to pay for Improved Residential

Solid Waste Management in Makurdi Metropolis, North Central Nigeria
Article · February 2023
CITATIONS READS
0 60
2 authors:
Timothy Ishi Ignatius Ani Madu

University of Nigeria University of Nigeria
6 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS 58 PUBLICATIONS 629 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Timothy Ishi on 10 February 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Israeli and African Studies
A publication of the Association of Culture and Isreali Studies
Volume 1, Number 1, 2022

Journal of Israeli and African Studies (JIAS) Volume 1, Number 1, 2022
Determinants of Households’ willingness to pay for Improved Residential Solid Waste

Management in Makurdi Metropolis, North Central Nigeria
T.T Ishi and I.A Madu
timothy.ishi.pg00657@unn.edu.ng and tervertimothy@yahoo.com

07063244605 and 08037321468
Department of Geography University of Nigeria Nsukka.
Abstract
The management of solid waste is a major challenge in urban households’ for most parts of the
world, especially in developing countries. The challenge is aggravated by paucity of fund, lack
of policies, regulations and efficient municipal solid waste management programs in
developing countries. Worse still there is a common notion that people are opposed to paying
for solid waste management services since it is the responsibility of government.
Unfortunately,the underlying factors for the willingness to pay remain uninvestigated. This
study was therefore aimed at ascertainingthe determinants of household WTP for solid waste
management service in the residential neighbourhoods of Makurdi municipality by employing
the contingent valuation method (CVM).This is the most widely applicable preference methods
to establish empirical grounds for pricing the services of a new household solid waste
management (HSWM).The data were collected through a closed-ended questionnaire survey
with 398 households.A multistage sampling technique was adopted for the study while the data
generated were analyzed using descriptive and multiple logit regression models (MLRM).The
results showed that household income (HINCOME), household occupancy status (HOCSTAT)
and willingness to pay amount (WTPA) has the highest odds ratio of 12.809, 3.852 and 18.238
respectively and are the most significant factors in determining the WTP status of respondents
in the study area with a P<0.05. The mean household WTP amount was calculated to be
N750.The findings have some important implications for the urban household solid waste
planning and household solid waste development process in Makurdi. The study recommends
for setting up of socially acceptable fee for household solid waste collection in order to avoid
the free rider problem while government should subsidize for private waste management in the
new household solid waste paradigm.
Keywords: Willingness to Pay, Contingent Valuation, Households, Residential
Neighbourhood, Makurdi.
1.0 Introduction
Globally, waste generation and management are becoming problematic, with the rise of
towns and cities particularly in developing countries (Maimado and Ahmed, 2020). The urban
solid waste situation in many developing countries' cities is a major problem and is getting
worse. This is because most governments of developing countries are not responsive to the
management of household solid wastes. Rather, the waste management at the household level
12
has been left for individual with only a few households considering paying for private waste
collection as an alternative (Cheng and Urpelainen, 2015). Also, most of the developing
countries lack policies, regulations and efficient municipal solid waste management programs
(Mbah and Nzeadibe (2017).
In Makurdi municipality in North Central Nigeria, for instance, the Benue State
Environmental and Sanitation agency (BENSESA) the agency responsible for municipal waste
management has neglected the primary collection (waste removal from houses) of household
solid waste and this near absent collection has leads to indiscriminate household waste disposal
within the residential neighbourhoods of the Metropolis (Ishi, 2021). As a result, a significant
amount of household waste generated is either burnt on the streets or end up in drainage
channels, marshy areas, roads divide and available undeveloped plots of land.
Currently, in Makurdi municipality apart from the profiling of solid waste situation in
the Municipality by Aguoru and Alu, 2015; Sha’Ato et al, 2007; Awopetu et al, 2013 and
Ekwule et al 2020) no study on households’ willingness to pay for solid waste management
service presently exist in city, despite the existence of National Policy on Solid Waste
Management which introduced Polluters Pays Principle (PPP) in the country (NPSWM, 2018).
In order to close the research gap, this study applied a contingent valuation method (CVM) to
investigate the determinants of household willingness to pay for solid waste management
service in order to provide an empirical evidence for designing households’ willingness to pay
plan for sustainable solid waste collection service in Makurdi Municipal Area.
The valuation is necessary because waste is a material which is increasingly becoming
a subject of commoditization in cities around the world. Indeed, recent research on waste
geographies of the global South has attempted to extend its focus from the challenges of
governance to the production of value and materiality (Millington and Lawhon 2018).
13
Consequently, the changing concepts of garbage geographies are shifting understanding of
solid waste from merely being material requiring collection, handling and ultimately, disposal
to now embrace the resource management paradigm (Moore 2012; Velis et al. 2012; Wilson
and Velis 2014; Nzeadibe, 2019). Under this new framing, waste is seen as a value-laden
material whose exploitation provides significant socioeconomic benefits. Therefore, rather than
looking at household solid waste from the prism of urban poverty and environmental
degradation alone, the introduction of household WTP in household solid waste management
will improve the wellbeing of residents and also promote healthy environment and contribute
to the economic growth of urban centres.
Against the background, the study specifically was aimed at ascertaining the
determinants of households’ willingness to pay for improved solid waste management service
in Makurdi Municipality. The following were the specific objectives:
1. Identify and analyse the determinants of households’ willingness to pay (HWTP) for
better SWM service in the Municipality.
2. To model evidence based HWTP strategy for solid waste management service that
would promote sustainable household solid waste management and address the challenges
facing household solid waste management in the municipality.
2.0 Analytical Framework And WTP Model
The CVM was selected for the study. Compared with other economic techniques, it is
considered very flexible and adaptable to some valuation tasks that alternative economic
valuation techniques cannot handle (Fontaet al, 2008). This is important because the success of
the strategy is to a large degree dependent on acceptance by the households. Environmental
quality value can be estimated from what people are willing to pay (WTP) to improve or to
14
restore their environment (Ezebilo, 2013). Willingness to pay (WTP) is the maximum amount
a person would desire to pay or sacrifice in exchange for any commodity, goods or services.
Contingent Valuation method is a non-market valuation method commonly used to find
the economic value of environmental commodities. It is a method that uses hypothetical survey
questions to elicit people’s preferences for environmental goods by finding out what they are
willing to pay for specified improvements in them (Ezebilo, 2013). The contingent valuation
method has been used by several scholars to study willingness to pay for solid waste
management services (Altaf et al., 1996; Zain, 1999; Fonta et al., 2008, Jin et al., 2006, Basili
et al., 2006 ,Ezebilo, 2013, Banga et al,2011 and Addai and Danso-Abeam,2014)).
These studies used the random Utility approach proposed by Hanemann (1984) and did
not go further to re-parameterize the coefficients in order to explain the marginal contributions
of the independent variables to the underlying WTP. This study takes the approach proposed
by Cameron and James (1987) and Cameroon (1988), which went further to explain how the
coefficients of the explanatory variables can be easily interpreted as marginal contributions to
the dependent variable.
To identify the factors influencing willingness to pay for improved solid waste
management by households, the household responses to the WTP question was regressed
against the households WTP potential and other socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics of the household. For the purpose of regression it is coded 1 if a household is
willing to pay and 0 if otherwise. The regression logit model is specified as:
𝑌= 1𝑧 -------------------------------- (1)
1+𝐸𝑥𝑝
Where Y= responses of households’ WTP
Z= 𝛽0 + 𝛽1𝑋1+𝛽2𝑋2 + − − − − − − + 𝛽8 𝑋8
15
X1= Sex
X2= Age
X3= Marital status
X4= Level of education
X5= Income
X6= Household occupancy status
X7= Household size
X8 WTP amount (Price)
The pseudo-R square and the chi-square were used to measure the goodness of fit of the model
and the significance of the model used.
3.0 THE STUDY DESIGN
3.1 Study Area.
Makurdi Metropoliswhich doubles as Makurdi LGA is bounded by Guma Local
Government Area to the North, Gwer Local Government Area to the South, Gwer-West Local
Government Area to the South-west and Doma Local Government Area in Nasarawa State to
the North-West. The 16km radius city is considered metropolitan because, its rural population
is negligible and the municipality is fast growing as the seat of both state and local government
headquarters. Makurdi metropolis is strategically located on the North-South transportation
grid both by road and rail accordingly which makes the city accessible by all tribes in Nigeria
(ishi, 2013) as seen in figure 1while figure2 presents map of the studied residential
neighbourhoods’.
16
Figure 1: Benue State showing the Makurdi Municipal Area.

Source: Benue State Ministry of Lands and Survey as modified by GIS Lab
Department of Geography, Benue State University Makurdi, 2021.
17
Figure 2:Makurdi Municipality showing Residential Neighborhoods.

Source: Benue State Ministry of Lands and Survey as modified by GIS Lab
Department of Geography, Benue State University Makurdi, 2021.
18
3.2Data and Methods
All the 16 residential neighbourhoods of Makurdi municipality were considered for the
study. Makurdi metropolis which doubles as Makurdi local government has a population of
239,889 as of 1991 population census. The population was projected to 534,113 in 2019 using
the national growth rate of 2.9%. Hence, the target population was households and the national
household size average was 6, the households in Makurdi metropolitan area were extrapolated
to be 89,019. The 1991 enumerations areas were carefully superimposed on the residential
neighbourhood map with the aid of traditional rulers and relevant stakeholders that were
familiar with the communities during the 1991 census. 398 respondents were sampled for the
study and the research team interviewed household heads and in case where the household head
was not around, they interviewed someone who was involved in household solid waste
decision-making. The need to employ a sampling technique that would ensure a proper
representation of the population of the town was also necessary. Hence, a multistage sampling
method was employed for the study. The multi-stage sampling technique is the sampling that
is done sequentially across two or more hierarchical levels. Slovins’s formula was used to
determine the sample size;
𝑁
𝑛= 2 ………………………… (2)
1+𝑁𝑒
Where:
n = Sample size
N= Total number of households in the study area (89,019) e=
Acceptable error size which is 0.05
1= Constant.
Based on the formula;
19
𝑛=
Therefore, the sample size is 398
Bowleys proportional technique was used to determine the number of respondents in each
residential neighbourhood. , it is given as:
𝑛ℎ
𝑛𝑖 = ----------------------------- (3)
𝑁
Where;
N= total households population n= total sample size h= total
household population for each residential neighbourhood ni=
sample size for each residential neighbourhood
The breakdown of each residential neighbourhood’s household population and sample size is
given in table 1.
Table 1: Sample size per residential Neighbourhood.
Residential Household Sample size

Neighbourhoods’ population
North Bank I 3629 16
North Bank II 1642 8
Modern Market 4098 18
Ankpa Quarters 1219 6
High Level 56225 251
Idye 919 4
Wadata 3347 15
Wurukum 1326 6
Kanshio 852 4
Logo 1553 7
Lobi 652 3
Akpehe 1241 6
Apir 4246 19
Gaadi 4089 18
Fiidi 3219 14
Gyado Villa 762 3
Total 89019 398
Source: Author’s computation, 2020.
20
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.
4.1 Qualitative Assessment of Households’ WTP for SWM
4.1.1 Households’ WTP
In order to determine the WTP of residents for better and improved household SWM in
Makurdi municipality, a question was asked whether householders were willing to pay for
improved SWM in their residential areas and majority of respondents representing 71.6%
agreed to pay for improved household SWM while 28.4% were not WTP for improved
household solid waste management system as presented in figure 1. In spite of this, if a proper
bottom-top approach of waste management is instituted by the municipal waste management
authority more residents can key into the SWM strategy of paying for the refuse they generate.
28.40%
WTP for better SWM
Not WTP for better

SWM
71.60%
Figure 3: WTP Question for households’ SWM in Makurdi Municipality
4.1.2 Factors responsible for non-payment for improved household SWM service. It is
important to note the factors that cause non-payment for improved system of SWM in Makurdi
21
metropolis. This showed the preferences and reasons for which people were not WTP for an
improved waste management system. To capture those elements a question was asked from the
respondents to state the reasons for which they were not WTP for the improved SWM service.
The major reason for not paying and adopting new system of improved household solid waste
management were that householders were satisfied with the existing management practices as
this account for 35.7% of the sampled respondents’ while 33.4% of the respondents think that
it is government responsibility to provide such basic services. The third most important factor
for rejecting the new system was that only few people would use the service (17.3%) while
9.5% of the respondents claimed that the service will not be reliable. The reason for this
mistrust might be due to the fact that the current service providers have failed to meet up with
the demands of residents efficiently as such the residents were not satisfied with their
performance. Therefore, in order to tap people’s WTP in this sector, service providers must
satisfy residents by providing excellent and efficient services to their clients.
Table 2: Factors for non-payment of improved SWM service in the study area.
Factors Frequency percentage
I don’t like private company 16 4.0
Its government responsibility 133 33.4
Satisfied with the existing system 142 35.7
Service not reliable 38 9.5
Only few people would use the service 69 17.3

Total 398 100
Source: Author’s fieldwork, 2020
Nonetheless, the household solid waste management apathy in the study area can be
neutralize if municipal waste management authority either by itself or with the private sector
22
collaboration provide the households with new, improved and efficient system of SWM service
almost all residents could positively respond to the new service regime.
4.1.3 Monthly WTP Bid Amount
Figure 2 showed frequencies of households’ responses to bid amount they were willing
to pay for households’ SWM. The result shows that 28.4% (113) of respondents were of the
opinion that they were not WTP for any improved household SWM in their residents hence
they bided for (no bid) zero. They may view municipal SWM as the responsibility of the
government and its waste management agencies, therefore were not willing to commit any of
their resources to the cause of environmental cleanliness in the municipality. Findings showed
that majority of respondents representing 58.3% of them were willing to commit N500 for
improved SWM while 9.5% of them were willing to pay N1000, 2.3% and 1.5% of them agreed
to pay N1500 and >N1500 respectively.
From the foregoing, it is clear that households’ propensity to pay for improved SWM
in the municipality decreases as the amount increases. Nonetheless, once waste mangers are
ready to provide regular, effective and sustainable household solid waste management service
in the municipality, household WTP could be achieved almost 100%.
The logistic result showed that the respondents’ were willing to pay an estimated
average of (1.259) that is 750 (US 1.6 dollars) naira per month (see Appendix A- estimation
sample logistic results). Since the number of households in the study area was 89,019 therefore
aggregating the mean willingness to pay amount over the number of households, the total
perceived benefits for the improved household waste management service in Makurdi
metropolis is estimated to be NGN 801,171,000 (US 1,741,676 dollars) each year. This may in
23
the long run improve the welfare of the municipal waste management agency which may in
turn boost the wellbeing of residents and promote environmental quality.
250
200
150
100
50
0
No bid wtp500 wtp1000 wtp1500 wtp>1500
Bid amount
Figure 4: Monthly Bid amount for improved households’ SWM in Makurdi

Municipality
4.2 Quantitative Assessment of Households’ WTP for Improved SWM Service
After having a grasp of a general trend from the qualitative analysis, we would use more
sophisticated techniques to have a deeper view of households’ WTP for environmental goods
in Makurdi metropolis. Hence, in order to have quantitative analysis to find out the
determinants that influences households’ WTP preference in the study area.
4.2.1 Households’ WTP determinants’.
In order to estimate and to capture the effects of different independent variables of
households’ WTP, the binomial logistic regression statistic was applied. Households’ WTP was
defined in two categories i.e. zero and one, according to the response given by the households’
24
during the survey. Zero WTP depicted that the household is not WTP for improved SWM
service while the integer one showed that the household is WTP for improved SWM service.
The responses (i.e. households’ WTP) were considered as dependent variable. On one hand,
the factors which influence households’ WTP (i.e. independent variables) consisted of sex, age,
and marital status, level of education, income, occupancy status and household.
Hence, after finalizing the variables, the regression results are presented in table 3.
Table 3: Logit result for determinants of WTP for improved households’ SWM.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robust
WTP | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| M.effects Odds ratio
-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sex| -0.277 2.257 -0.12 0.902 -0.002 0.758
Age| 0.165* 0.0856 1.93 0.054 0.009 1.179
Marital status | 2.898** 1.004 -2.89 0.004 0.016 0.055
Level of Edu| 0.436** 0.497 -0.88 0.031 0.024 0.647
Income | 2.550*** 0.714 3.57 0.000 0.014 12.809
Occupancy Stat | 5.780** 1.767 3.27 0.001 0.032 3.852
Household size | - 0.107* 0.244 0.44 0.066 0.0061.113
WTP amount| 3.843*** 0.842 -4.56 0.000 -0.021 18.231
Cons| -0.824 10.255 -0.08 0.936 0.439
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of obs = 398
LR chi2 = 9.74
Prob> chi2 = 0.000***
Pseudo R2 = 29.27%
Log likelihood = -11.773716

Number of groups = 10
Hosmer-Lemeshow chi2 = 8.45
25
P = 0.04
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Model Output, 2020
Note: ***1% significance level, ** 5% significance level and * 10% significance level
To examine the factors that might have influenced the respondents’ willingness to pay
for the improved household solid waste management in the study area, a binary logit model
was estimated as presented in table 3.Note must be taken of the fact that, estimated probability
was put at classification cut off 0.5. The default cut-off probability of 0.5 in this model gives
quite good results. Therefore, P=0.5 and any predictor variable whose P>0.500 is significant
and its inclusion in the model is likely not by chance. The likelihood ratio had a chi square
statistic of 9.74 and was statistically significant at 1% level of significance while the
HosmerLemeshow statistic had the P- value of 0.04. This shows that the binary logit model
displays a good fit hence the explanatory variables can significantly predict the dependent
variable. The pseudo R2 is 29.27% implies that percentage of the variation in the probability of
being willing to pay or not is explained by the variables included in the model
The effects of the independent variables on the dependent variable as estimated in logistic
regression was presented by using the coefficient sign and P- value of each predictor variable.
However, the interpretation and/or meaning of each significant predictor variable in this
particular study conducted by using its marginal effect. The marginal effect explains the
marginal effect of predictor variable on dependent variable in terms of the expected value of
the dependent variable when the variable of interest takes the value of zero and when it takes
the value of one for discrete independent variables while marginal effects for continuous
variables were calculated by the mean of the independent variable of interest. The odds ratio
indicates the degree of importance of each predictor variable in explaining its importance in
households’ WTP for improved solid waste management service in the study area.
26
The coefficient associated with sex of household head is negative – not correctly signed
(-0.277) and not statistically significant. This implies that the variable is not significant in
explaining the willingness to pay status of sampled respondents in the study area.
The age of household head of a sampled respondent has positive relationship (0.165) to the
willingness to pay status and is statistically significant at 10% level of significance. This
implies that the sampled respondent age has influence on the probability of a sampled
respondent paying for household solid waste management in the study area. Table 3 also shows
that the probability of sampled respondents WTP for solid waste management in the study area
can be explained 9% by change in the age of the respondents.
The coefficient of marital status of household head had a positive-correctly signed and
statistically significant at 5% level of significance. This implies that marital status of household
head has influence on the WTP for household solid waste management in the study area. Again,
the marginal effects of the respondents marital status shows that married headed households’
head were 16% more likely WTP for household solid waste management.
The coefficient associated with level of education of household head is correctly-
positively signed and statistically significant at 5% level of significance. This indicated that
more educated household heads were WTP for their solid wastes. In other words, the level of
education attained by the head of household has a significant effect on the WTP for solid waste
management at household level. The P-value of 0.381 indicates that the inclusion of the variable
in the model is not by chance, while the marginal effects of 0.024 shows that respondents’ who
are educated were 24% more likely to pay for household solid waste management in the study
area.
This finding agrees with the work of Bizatu and Negga, (2010), Ezebilo, (2013) and
Yusuf et al, (2007) who found in their separate studies that individuals who has spent many
27
years in schooling were more willing to pay for improved waste management service.
Education gives people greater access and understanding of information concerning
environmental goods, for instance, people with more formal education may understand more
certainly how paying for environmental goods can offer access to cleaner environment,
improve environmental quality and reduce the incidence of environmental effluence and
associated diseases.
The parameter estimate for household income is correctly- positively signed and
statistically significant at 1% level of significance. The P- value of 0.000<0.5 further
strengthens the significant nature of household income in explaining the WTP for solid waste
management in the study area. The marginal effect of this variable shows that as household
income increases, the probability of WTP for solid waste management service also increases
by 14%. There is general agreement in environmental economics literature on the positive
relationship between income and demand for an improvement in environmental quality (Akilu,
2002). Therefore as we expect, income has a significant effect on households’ WTP for solid
waste management service positively and significantly in the study area.
The results further show that, the coefficient for household occupancy status is also
positive (0.780) –correctly signed and statistically significant at 5% level of significance,
implying that an increase in the ownership of the house will increase the willingness to pay for
household waste management. The marginal effects of this variable can be interpreted that as
household occupancy status changes from 0 to 1 (i.e. 0 = tenant and 1 = owner occupier), the
possibility of WTP for solid wastes management at household level also increase by 32%. This
finding agrees with the work of Ramadhan, (2015) that owners of houses would usually have a
higher demand for environmental sustainability and this could persuade the owner to look for
effective solid waste management service.
28
The result of the model shows that the coefficient associated with family size of
respondents is negatively- incorrectly signed but statistically significant at 10% level of
significance. This implies that households’ with small family size of sampled respondents tends
not to increase the WTP for solid waste management in the study area. This may be due to the
fact that in the study area, a small household size belongs to a group of dependents. High
dependency ratio is more likely to throw sampled respondents’ inability to pay for solid waste
service than if the case is otherwise. The marginal effects of 0.006 shows that the WTP of a
sampled respondent could be explained 6% by family size.
The coefficient for willingness to pay amount is correctly –positively signed and
statistically significant at 1% level of significance. Again, the value and sign of the marginal
effects reflected the responsiveness expressed in magnitude and direction of the WTP amount
for household solid waste management service. The marginal effect of -0.21 showed that a unit
increase in the value of the explanatory variable will reduce the willingness to pay of a sampled
respondent by 21%. This agrees with the economic theory that the higher the price, the lower
the demand for goods and services.
Lastly, the coefficients associated with household income, household occupancy status
and WTP amount have the highest odds ratios (12.809, 3.852 and 18.142 respectively). In other
words, the respondents with better household income, owners-occupancy status and the
willingness to pay amount are 12.8, 3.8 and 18.1 times more likely WTP for household solid
waste management in the study area. This means that the coefficient associated with the
explanatory variables with the highest odds are not only statistically significant but are also
very important in determining households’ WTP abilities for solid wastes management in the
study area.
29
4.3 CORRELATION AND MULTICOLLINEARITY TEST BETWEEN PAIRS OF

VARIABLES
Table 4 is known as correlation matrix. It lists the variable names (X1-X8) down the
first column and across the first row. The diagonal of the correlation matrix always consists of
ones; this is because the correlation between each variable and itself is perfectly correlated.
Table 4: Correlation matrix for factors influencing willingness to pay
e(V) | X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 _cons
-------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X1 | 1.0000
X2 | 0.8798 1.0000
X3 | 0.4784 0.2355 1.0000
X4 | 0.3435 0.1979 0.5218 1.0000
X5 | 0.2191 0.3480 -0.4211 -0.3799 1.0000
X6 | 0.5903 0.5927 0.0792 0.1232 0.6877 1.0000
X7 | -0.3228 -0.4347 -0.4196 -0.4875 0.3276 0.0341 1.0000
X8 | 0.3498 0.1857 0.6773 0.4307 -0.7115 -0.3965 -0.4502 1.0000 _cons
| -0.9593 -0.8704 -0.5366 -0.4243 -0.2878 -0.7079 0.2917 -0.2795 1.0000 Source:
Model output, 2020.
Where; X1 = SEXHH, X2 = AGEHH, X3 = MSTATHH, X4 = EDUHH, X5 = HINCOME, X6 =

HOCSTAT, X7 = FSIZE and X8= WTPA
The correlation table is used to test multicollinearity indicated by correlation between variables
of .6, .7 and above as well as correlation between pairs of variables. At a glance, there is absence
of multicollinearity in the model results. The coefficients of correlation express the degree of
linear relationship between the row and column variables of the matrix. The closer the
coefficient is to zero, the lesser the relationship; the closer to one, the greater the relationship.
30
A negative sign indicates that the variables are inversely related. To interpret the coefficient,
square it and multiply by 100. This will give the percentage of variation common for the data
on the two variables.
The coefficient of correlation between sex of household head (SEXHH =X1) and age of
household head (AGEHH = X2) is 0.8798 which indicates a very high but positive relationship
between X1 and X2. Again, the correlation of 0.8798 between X1 and X2 means that 0.87982
x 100 = 77.4 percent of the variation of the 398 sampled respondents on these two
characteristics is in common. This further shows that 77.4 percent of SEXHH of these sampled
respondents can be predicted from their AGEHH. This synergy between X1 and X2 is likely to
make sampled respondents willing to pay for household solid wastes by 77.4 times. The
correlation matrix table further shows that there is a low but positive correlation between
AGEHH (X2) and MSTATHH (X3) indicated by 0.2355. This correlation between X2 and X3
means that 0.23552 x 100 = 5.546025 percent of the variation of the 398 sampled respondents
on these two characteristics is in common. This implies that 5.546025 percent of X3
(MSTATHH) of these sampled respondents can be predicted from their X2 (AGEHH). The
synergy between X2 and X3 shows that a sampled respondent is 5.546025 times more likely
WTP for his or her household solid waste by his or her age and marital status.
The table indicates that there is a negative but low correlation between X7 (FSIZE) and X8
(WTPA) of the sampled respondents indicted by -0.3965. The correlation of -0.3965 between
X7 and X8 means that -0.39652 x 100 = 13.653025 percent of variation of the 398 sampled
respondents on these two characteristics is in common. This implies that 13.653025 percent of
X8 (WTPA) of the respondents can be predicted from their X7 (FSIZE) and vice – versa. This
synergy shows that a sampled respondent is 13.653025 times more likely WTP for household
solid waste services by his or her FSIZE (X7) and WTPA (X8).
31
If we assume that the households’ sample is random, and the 399th were randomly added to
the sample and only his or her AGEHH (X2) is known, then his or her SEXHH (X1) could be
predicted within 77.4 percent and MSTATHH (X3) within 5.546025 percent of the true value.
Using the correlation matrix table, the reader can peruse for the relationship between other pairs
of variables and the interpretation remains the same.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The result of this study has shown that a high proportion of households were willing to
pay for improved solid waste management service. This is contrary to the common belief that
people are opposed to paying for solid waste management service arguing that it is the
responsibility of government. The mean household WTP obtained in the survey was N750 and
is an indicator of what people were willing to pay on average for effective household solid
waste management service per month. Multiplying the number of households in Makurdi
municipality by the estimated mean WTP of N750 monthly, the new SWM facility yields a
total monthly WTP of roughly N96.12 million per month. This amount is significant for
municipal waste management agency to develop a policy that will encourage private waste
managers to invest in environmental sanitation and key into the National Policy of Polluters
Pays Principle (PPP) as enshrined in the National Policy on Solid Waste Management in the
country. This will boost the environmental economy of the municipality which will in turn
translate into all round well-being of the residents.
REFERENCES
Addai, K.N., Danso-Abbeam, G. (2014). Determinants of willingness to pay for improved solid
waste management in Dunkwa-on-Offin, Ghana. Journal of Environmental and
Agricultural Sciences, 3, 1–9.
Afroz, R. and Masud, M.M. (2011). Using Contingent Valuation Approach for Improved Solid
Waste Management Facility: Evidence from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste
Management, 31, 800-808.
32
Aguoru C.U and Alu C.A (2015). Studies on solid waste disposal and Management in Makurdi
and its Environs North Central Nigeria. Grenner Journal of Environmental
Management and Public Safety 4(2) 019-027
Awopetu M.S, Akinwale C.O, Awopetu A.G, Awopetu O.S, Colin A.B, Micheal A.F, Felix
H.N and Kim T. (2013). Reduction, Reuse and Recycling of solid waste in the
Makurdi metropolitan area of Nigeria: public opinions and perceptions.
International Journal of Education and Research 1(11).
Banga M., Razack B.L and Adolf F.M. (2011).Households’ willingness to pay for improved
solid waste collection services in Kampala City, Uganda. Environment and
Development,20(4), 53-62.
Basili, M., Matteo, M.D., Ferrini, S. (2006). Analysing Demand for Environmental Quality: A
Willingness to Pay/Accept Study in the Province of Siena (Italy). Waste
Management, 26, 209-219.
Cameron, T.A. (1988). A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-Market Goods Using Referendum
Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15, 355-379.
Cameron, T.A. and James, M.D. (1987). Efficient Estimation Methods for Closed-ended
Contingent Valuation Survey Data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 69,
269-276.
Cheng, C and Urpelainen, J. (2015).who should take the garbage out? Public opinion on waste
management in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Habitat International, 46 (2015),
pp.111-118
Ekwule, O.R, Nwafor E.O and Ufedo I.M (2020) Percapita solid waste generation in
Makurdi metropolis, Nigeria. Journal of Engineering and Sciences Kastamonu
University 6(1) 33-40
Ezebilo, E.E. (2013). Willingness to pay for improved residential waste management in a
developing country. Int. J. Environ. sci. Technol. 10: 413-422
Fonta, W.M., Ichoku, H.E., Ogujiuba, K.K. and Chukwu, O.J. (2008).Using a Contingent
Valuation Approach for Improved Solid Waste Management Facility: Evidence
from Enugu State, Nigeria. Journal of African Economies, 17(2), 277-304
Hanemann, W.M. (1984). Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with

Discrete Responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66, 332-341.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1240800
Ishi, T.T. (2013). Assessment of Determinants of household poverty in Makurdi Urban area,
Benue State. Unpublished master’s thesis, Benue State University, Makurdi.
33
Ishi, T.T (2021). Patterns and determinants of household solid waste management in Makurdi
Municipal area of Benue State, Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University
of Nigeria Nsukka.
Jin, J., Wang, Z. and Ran, S. (2006). Comparison of Contingent Valuation and Choice
Experiment in Solid Waste Management Programs in Macao. Ecological
Economics, 57, 430- 441.Kriström, B
Madu I.A, (2016). Georaphic Perspectives: the missing link in Nigeria’s quest for Rural
Development. 110 inaugural lecture, University of Nigeria Nsukka.
MaidodoA.M, and Ahmed A.A, (2020). International Transaction Journal of Engineering,

Management, and Applied Sciences and Technology. Thhp://TuEngr.com
Mbah, P.O and Nzeadibe, T.C. (2017). Inclusive municipal solid waste management policy in
Nigeria: Engaging the informal economy in post-2015 development agenda.
Local Environment 22(2), 203-224.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2016.1188062
Millington, N., and Lawhon, M. (2018). Geographies of waste: Conceptual vectors from the
global south. Progress in Human Geography. DOI:
10.1177/0309132518799911
Moore, S.A.(2012). Garbage matters: Concepts in new geographies of waste. Progress in

Human Geography, 36(6), 780-799.
National Policy on Solid Waste Management, (2018).
Nzeadibe, T.C. (2019). Value Reclamation by Municipal Solid waste Pickers and Scrap dealers
in Nigerian Cities. Guest lecture Presented at School of Public Health, University of
Western Cape, South Africa.
Sha’Ato, R., Aboho, S.Y., Oketunde, I.S., Eneji, G., Unazi, S. and Agwa, S. (2007).Survey of
solid waste generation and composition in a rapidly growing urban area in
central Nigeria. Waste management 27.352-358.
Velis, C.A., Wilson, D.C., Rocca, O., Smith, S.R., Mavropoulos, A., and Cheeseman
C.R.(2012). An analytical framework and tool (“InteRa‟) for integrating the
informal recycling sector in waste and resource management systems in
developing countries. Waste Management & Research 30(Suppl.9):43–66.
Wilson, D.C. and Velis, C.A.(2014). Cities and waste: Current and emerging issues. Waste
Management and Research 32(9) 797–799
Zain, K.K. (1999). The Right garbage Collection Service Charge Estimated Through
Contingent Valuation Method: The Case of Istambul. Bilkent University
34
APPENDIX A
**************Estimation sample logistic Results******************

. estat summarize
Estimation sample logistic Number of obs = 398
-------------------------------------------------------------
Variable | Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
-------------+-----------------------------------------------
WTP | .9929825 .0836232 0 1
X1 | 1.326316 .4696891 1 2
X2 | 44.42807 10.20939 21 74
X3 | 1.968421 .3967997 1 3
X4 | 2.477193 .9440357 1 4
X5 | 2.824561 1.320515 1 5
X6 | 1.722807 .4713696 1 3
X7 | 5.891228 1.739787 1 20
X8 | 1.259649 .6189097 1 4
------------------------------------------------------------
35
36
View publication stats

Timothy and Madu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Timothy and Madu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Timothy and Madu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Determinants of Households’ willingness to pay for Improved Residential

Article · February 2023

Timothy Ishi Ignatius Ani Madu

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Volume 1, Number 1, 2022

Determinants of Households’ willingness to pay for Improved Residential Solid Waste

T.T Ishi and I.A Madu

timothy.ishi.pg00657@unn.edu.ng and tervertimothy@yahoo.com

(Mbah and Nzeadibe (2017).

The valuation is necessary because waste is a material which is increasingly becoming

Consequently, the changing concepts of garbage geographies are shifting understanding of

to the economic growth of urban centres.

in Makurdi Municipality. The following were the specific objectives:

better SWM service in the Municipality.

facing household solid waste management in the municipality.

2.0 Analytical Framework And WTP Model

the strategy is to a large degree dependent on acceptance by the households. Environmental

Contingent Valuation method is a non-market valuation method commonly used to find

coefficients of the explanatory variables can be easily interpreted as marginal contributions to

the dependent variable.

characteristics of the household. For the purpose of regression it is coded 1 if a household is

Where Y= responses of households’ WTP

and the significance of the model used.

3.0 THE STUDY DESIGN

3.1 Study Area.

Makurdi Metropoliswhich doubles as Makurdi LGA is bounded by Guma Local

headquarters. Makurdi metropolis is strategically located on the North-South transportation

Figure 1: Benue State showing the Makurdi Municipal Area.

Figure 2:Makurdi Municipality showing Residential Neighborhoods.

3.2Data and Methods

determine the sample size;

N= Total number of households in the study area (89,019) e=

Acceptable error size which is 0.05

Based on the formula;

Therefore, the sample size is 398

residential neighbourhood. , it is given as:

N= total households population n= total sample size h= total

household population for each residential neighbourhood ni=

sample size for each residential neighbourhood

Table 1: Sample size per residential Neighbourhood.

Residential Household Sample size

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.

4.1 Qualitative Assessment of Households’ WTP for SWM

4.1.1 Households’ WTP

bottom-top approach of waste management is instituted by the municipal waste management

Not WTP for better

Figure 3: WTP Question for households’ SWM in Makurdi Municipality

satisfy residents by providing excellent and efficient services to their clients.

Factors Frequency percentage

I don’t like private company 16 4.0

Its government responsibility 133 33.4

Satisfied with the existing system 142 35.7

Service not reliable 38 9.5

Only few people would use the service 69 17.3

Source: Author’s fieldwork, 2020

4.1.3 Monthly WTP Bid Amount

to pay N1500 and >N1500 respectively.

in the municipality, household WTP could be achieved almost 100%.

Estimation sample logistic Results****