Satisfaction with public-private partnership in solid waste management in Ghana

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of CCMA.

Figure 2. Map of STMA.

Table 1. Sample details for the various categories of respondents

Study population	CCMA	STMA	Total
Household heads	376	374	750
Staff of Metropolitan Assembly	4	4	8
Assembly members (Social Services sub-Committee)	7	7	14
Representatives of WMCs	2	3	5
Total	389	388	777

Source: Author’s construct (2018).

Table 2. Households having contractual arrangements with WMCs

Residential class	CCMA (%)		STMA (%)		Total (%)
	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
High	90 (45.0)	43 (24.4)	123 (32.9)	–	213 (37.1)	43 (24.4)
Middle	80 (40.0)	67 (38.1)	204 (54.5)	–	284 (49.5)	67 (38.1)
Low	30 (15.0)	66 (37.5)	47 (12.6)	–	77 (13.4)	66 (37.5)
Total	200 (53.2)	176 (46.8)	374 (100.0)	–	574 (76.5)	176 (23.5)

Source: Field survey (2018)CCMA: ($\mathit{\chi }$² = 51.070; df = 2; p-value = 0.001).

Table 3. Extent to which SWM contract meets the needs of household heads

Response	CCMA (%)			STMA (%)			Total (%)
	High	Middle	Low	High	Middle	Low	High	Middle	Low
Low	37 (41.1)	33 (41.3)	15 (50.0)	–	41 (20.1)	9 (19.1)	37 (17.4)	74 (26.1)	24 (31.2)
Don’t know	–	–	–	–	10 (4.9)	10 (21.3)	–	10 (3.5)	10 (13.0)
High	53 (58.9)	30 (37.5)	15 (50.0)	64 (52.0)	117 (57.4)	24 (51.1)	117 (54.9)	147 (51.8)	39 (50.6)
Very high	–	17 (21.3)	–	59 (48.0)	36 (17.6)	4 (8.5)	59 (27.7)	53 (18.7)	4 (5.2)
Total	90 (45.0)	80 (40.0)	30 (15.0)	123 (32.9)	204 (54.5)	47 (12.6)	213 (37.1)	284 (49.5)	77 (13.4)

Source: Field survey (2018) F-statistic = 11.931, df = 2, p-value = 0.001.

*n = household heads who had SWM contract with WMCs (574).

Table 4. Level of satisfaction of service users with the PPP arrangement in SWM

Response	CCMA (%)			STMA (%)			Total (%)
	High	Middle	Low	High	Middle	Low	High	Middle	Low
LS	44 (33.1)	94 (63.9)	23 (24.0)	31 (25.2)	81 (39.7)	33 (70.2)	75 (29.3)	175 (49.9)	56 (39.2)
I	9 (6.8)	9 (6.1)	18 (18.8)	8 (6.5)	13 (6.4)	–	17 (6.6)	22 (6.3)	18 (12.6)
S	53 (39.8)	37 (25.2)	30 (31.3)	59 (48.0)	70 (34.3)	11 (23.4)	112 (43.8)	107 (30.5)	41 (28.7)
VS	27 (20.3)	7 (4.8)	25 (26.0)	25 (20.3)	40 (19.6)	3 (6.4)	52 (20.3)	47 (13.4)	28 (19.6)
Total	133 (100.0)	147 (100.0)	96 (100.0)	123 (100.0)	204 (100.0)	47 (100.0)	256 (100.0)	351 (100.0)	143 (100.0)

Source: Field survey (2018).

LS = Less satisfy, I = Indifferent, S = Satisfy, VS = Very satisfy.

Table 5. A comparative analysis between level of satisfaction of service users with the PPP arrangement in SWM and level of income

Income levels (GHȻ)	CCMA (%)			STMA (%)			Total (%)
	NS (%)	I (%)	S (%)	NS (%)	I (%)	S (%)	NS (%)	I (%)	S (%)
≥1000	25 (15.5)	24 (66.7)	72 (40.2)	71 (49.0)	10 (47.6)	43 (20.7)	96 (31.4)	34 (59.6)	115 (29.7)
≤1001–3000≥	85 (52.8)	10 (27.7)	41 (22.9)	39 (26.9)	7 (33.3)	87 (41.8)	124 (40.5)	17 (29.8)	128 (33.1)
≤3001–6000≥	36 (22.4)	2 (5.6)	39 (21.8)	23 (15.9)	3 (14.3)	40 (19.2)	59 (19.3)	5 (8.8)	79 (20.4)
≤6001	15 (9.3)	–	27 (15.1)	12 (8.3)	1 (4.8)	38 (18.3)	27 (8.8)	1 (1.8)	65 (16.8)
Total	161 (100.0)	36 (100.0)	179 (100.0)	145 (100.0)	21 (100.0)	208 (100.0)	306 (100.0)	57 (100.0)	387 (100.0)

Source: Field survey (2018).

NS = Not satisfied, I = Indifferent, S = Satisfied.

Table

Categories	Communities	No. of households	Sample proportion	Sample
CCMA
High	Nkanfoa	1,361	0.206	78
	Third Ridge	963	0.146	55
	Sub-total	2,324	0.352	133
Medium	Ola	1,125	0.170	64
	Ekon	1,450	0.220	83
	Sub-total	2,575	0.390	147
Low	Amisano	367	0.056	21
	Kakumdo	1,333	0.202	75
	Sub-total	1,700	0.258	96
Total		6,599	1.000	376
STMA
High	Anaji Estate	7,668	0.228	85
	East Tanokrom	3,384	0.101	38
	Sub-total	11,052	0.329	123
Medium	Effiakuma	16,101	0.479	179
	Adiembra	2,278	0.068	25
	Sub-total	18,379	0.547	204
Low	Assakai	2,147	0.064	24
	Ntankoful	2,052	0.061	23
	Sub-total	4,199	0.125	47
Total		33,630	1.000	374

Source: Author’s construct (2018).

Table

	Value	df	Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	51.070^a	2	0.000
Likelihood Ratio	45.905	2	0.000
Linear-by-Linear Association	35.694	1	0.000
N of Valid Cases	750

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have an expected count of less than 5. The minimum expected count is 33.56.

Table

	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	25.001	2	12.501	11.931	0.000
Within Groups	598.253	571	1.048
Total	623.254	573

Table

(I) Residential class	(J) Residential class	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Lower Bound
High	Medium	0.29930*	0.09278	0.004	0.0813	0.5173
	Low	0.63088*	0.13611	0.000	0.3110	0.9507
Medium	High	−0.29930*	0.09278	0.004	−0.5173	−0.0813
	Low	0.33158*	0.13151	0.032	0.0225	0.6406
Low	High	−0.63088*	0.13611	0.000	−0.9507	−0.3110
	Medium	−0.33158*	0.13151	0.032	−0.6406	−0.0225

*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. 10.6084/m9.figshare.24310225 N/A