Abstract

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

1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 6 is a cross tabulation of the two variables in terms of observed data frequencies. This result indicates that the study must reject the null hypothesis since the X² computed lie in the critical region of the normal distribution curve. This means that there is a significant relationship between a person’s perceptions of responsibility for sanitation and willingness to pay for sanitation, that is X² (4, n=100) = 88.75, p < .05 (compared with X²_critical (4, n=100) = 9.49, p < .05). Thus, in the general population, the majority who agree that sanitation is everybody’s business and everyone should pay for it have the willingness to pay more for improved sanitation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Discussion

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

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

5. Conclusion and Policy Recommendation

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

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

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

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

References