Financial inclusion and households’ choice of solid waste disposal in Ghana | BMC Public Health

In this section, the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents as well as the bivariate and multivariate (regression) results of the study are presented (Tables 1, 2 and 3).

Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents
Table 2 Bivariate analysis of solid waste disposal methods and categorical independent variables
Table 3 Effect of financial inclusion on the choice of solid waste disposal method among households in Ghana

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents and bivariate analysis

In Table 1, we find that as regards the choice of method for households’ disposal of solid waste, 47.96% of them use public dump, followed by collected (21.72%), burning (19.45%) and indiscriminate dumping (10.87%). It is worrying to note that only few of the households use the collection method of solid waste disposal.

Concerning the main independent variable; financial inclusion, we find that 55.99% of the household heads have a form of financial inclusion, while 44.01% do not have. Also, majority of the household heads are males (66.62%) and have some form of formal educational qualification (69.75%). Statistics of the remaining socio-demographic variables can be found in Table 1.

In Table 2, as regards the bivariate analysis, the Pearson Chi2 results show that there are statistically significant associations between all the categorical independent variables (financial inclusion, region, religion, educational qualification, sex, residence type and rent agreement) and the choice of solid waste disposal method, all at 1% level of significance. These therefore necessitate a multivariate analysis to find out the effect of financial inclusion on the choice of households’ solid waste disposal method, while controlling for other factors since the bivariate analysis takes care of only two variables at a time. The percentage distributions of categorical independent variables with regard to solid waste disposal method, can be found in Table 2.

Regression analysis of the effect of financial inclusion on the choice of solid waste disposal method

The multinomial probit results of the effect of financial inclusion on the choice of solid waste disposal method are presented in this sub-section (Table 3, (1)). Moreover, we present results of  how financial inclusion affects the choice of solid waste disposal method through a rise in income (Table 3, (2)).

In Table 3 (model without the interaction term (1)), we find that households whose heads are financially included are less likely to choose burning (Coefficient: − 0.22, p < 0.05), public dumping (Coefficient: − 0.26, p < 0.05) and indiscriminate dumping (Coefficient: − 0.52, p < 0.01) of solid waste over the collection method, relative to households whose heads don’t have any form of financial inclusion.

We also find that male-headed households are more likely to choose burning (Coefficient: 0.32, p < 0.01) and indiscriminate (Coefficient: 0.36, p < 0.01) waste disposal over the collection method, relative to female-headed households. Also, households whose heads have formal educational qualification are less likely to choose burning (Coefficient: − 0.37, p < 0.01), public dumping (Coefficient: − 0.36, p < 0.01) and indiscriminate dumping (Coefficient: − 0.52, p < 0.01) of solid waste over the collection method, as compared with households headed by people without any formal educational qualification (Table 3, (1)).

Also, concerning religion, Christian-headed households are less likely to opt for burning (Coefficient: − 0.74, p < 0.01), public dumping (Coefficient: − 0.45, p < 0.01) and indiscriminate dumping (Coefficient: − 0.58, p < 0.01) of solid waste over the collection method, relative to households whose heads don’t belong to any religion. Similarly, Muslim-headed households are found to be less probable to choose burning (Coefficient: − 1.15, p < 0.01), public dumping (Coefficient: − 0.44, p < 0.05) and indiscriminate dumping (Coefficient: − 0.78, p < 0.01) of solid waste over the collection method, as compared with households whose heads don’t belong to any religious faith. Also, households whose heads belong to the traditional or other faiths are less likely to choose public dumping of solid waste (Coefficient: − 0.52, p < 0.1) over the collection method relative to those whose heads are without any religious faith (Table 3, (1)).

The region of residence is also found to play a significant role with regard to the choice of solid waste disposal method. Households in the Central (Coefficient: 0.50, p < 0.05), Volta (Coefficient: 0.91, p < 0.01), Eastern (Coefficient: 0.88, p < 0.01), Brong Ahafo (Coefficient: 0.98, p < 0.01) and Upper East (Coefficient: 0.72, p < 0.05) regions are more likely to burn than opt for collection method of solid waste disposal, as compared with those in the Western region. Nonetheless, households in the Greater Accra region are less likely to choose burning (Coefficient: − 1.07, p < 0.01), public dumping (Coefficient: − 2.59, p < 0.01) and indiscriminate dumping (Coefficient: − 1.40, p < 0.01) of solid waste over the collection method, relative to those in the Western region. Similar results are found among households in the Ashanti region relative to those in the Western region. Further, rural households are found to be more likely to burn (Coefficient: 1.06, p < 0.01), publicly (Coefficient: 1.23, p < 0.01) and indiscriminately (Coefficient: 1.65, p < 0.01) dump their solid wastes than opt for the collection method, relative to urban households (Table 3, (1)).

As expected, total household wage income (income) is found to be linked with a decrease in the likelihood of public (Coefficient: − 0.00001, p < 0.01) and indiscriminate (Coefficient: − 0.00001, p < 0.1) dumping of solid waste relative to the collection method. Similarly, rising age of the household head is found to be associated with a decrease in the likelihood of burning (Coefficient: − 0.01, p < 0.01), public dumping (Coefficient: − 0.005, p < 0.05) and indiscriminate dumping (Coefficient: − 0.01, p < 0.01) of solid waste relative to the collection method. Conversely, rising household size is found to be associated with a higher likelihood of resorting to public dumping (Coefficient: 0.03, p < 0.1) relative to the collection method. We find those who rent to be less likely to opt for burning (Coefficient: − 0.64, p < 0.01), public dumping (Coefficient: − 0.23, p < 0.1) and indiscriminate dumping (Coefficient: − 0.44, p < 0.01) of solid waste over the collection method, relative to those who own their dwellings. Similarly, those in rent free dwellings are found to be less likely to opt for burning of solid waste (Coefficient: − 0.33, p < 0.01) over the collection method, relative to those who own their dwellings (Table 3, (1)).

Regarding the interaction term model (Table 3, (2)), we still find financial inclusion to be associated with a lesser likelihood of choosing public (Coefficient: − 0.19, p < 0.1) and indiscriminate (Coefficient: − 0.40, p < 0.01) dumping of solid waste relative to the collection method. As regards the interaction between financial inclusion and total household wage income, we find it to be associated with a lesser likelihood of opting for burning (Coefficient: − 0.00002, p < 0.1) as well as  public (Coefficient: − 0.00002, p < 0.05) and indiscriminate (Coefficient: − 0.00003, p < 0.05) dumping of solid waste over the collection method.

The results of majority of the other variables in the model with the interaction term are not qualitatively different from those in the model without the interaction term.

Source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.