31
4.5 Waste categories generated in the 6 LCDAs Table 5: Categories of waste generated Waste categories generated Frequency Percentage of n all the categories
80 40.0% at least 3
of the categories 119 59.5%
valid responses 199 Source. Researcher’s field data, Lagos, March 2018 Figure 11. Pie chart indicating waste categories The categories of waste listed in the questionnaire survey areas follows (a)
food waste, (b) paper waste, (c) nylon waste (e.g.
bread nylon, pure water sachet, etc, (d) other plastics (e.g. pet bottles) and (e) electronic waste. Due
to the nature of this question, the responses were coded in two ways viz those who ticked at least 3 of the stated waste categories (also includes those who chose four categories) and those who ticked all. The idea here is to ascertain the nature of waste generated in the study area to enable the researcher to suggest the number of waste bins that should be considered for source separation inline with international best practice. Approximately 59.5% of the total of 199 respondents to this question ticked at least three of the above categories while 40% said all the categories are generated. In reality, field data shows that a larger section of the respondents to this
question ticked options a to d, which means they agree that all those waste categories are generated daily in their households while just a few said they rarely generate electronic waste and for those who do, they sell them to traders in electronic waste. Across the 6 LCDAs, those whose responses fall in the category of at least 3’ were more
31
32 than those whose choices fall in the category of all. One things that is clear from
the responses is the fact that, the research has been able to establish the categories of household waste generated in the study area, which would be useful in the suggestion of
recommendations on waste bins, inline with one of the objectives of this research.
Share with your friends: 
