Figure 1: Heaps of solid waste along Yola road in Jalingo metropolis

Figure 2: Measurement Model for strategies employed in waste management
Source: SPSS AMOS version 26

Figure 3: Modified Measurement Model for strategies employed in waste management
Source: SPSS AMOS version 26

Figure 4: Structural Model for strategies employed in waste management
Source: SPSS AMOS 26 version 26

 

WMG

LS

ST

WS

E.S.

Mean

3.982

3.869

3.752

4.391

3.907

Median

5.000

4.000

5.000

5.000

4.000

Maximum

5.000

5.000

5.000

5.000

5.000

Minimum

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

Standard Deviation

1.286

0.872

0.691

0.829

0.714

Skewness

-0.689

-1.720

-1.583

-1.896

-0.729

Kurtosis

-0.864

2.682

2.591

2.733

1.958

Sum

1472

1596

1721

1619

1834

Observations

350

350

350

350

350

Table 1:Descriptive statistics
Source: Analysis using SPSS version 21

Pilot test (n=35)

Final test (n=350)

Variables

No. of items

Alpha (α)

No. of items

Alpha (α)

Waste management

4

0.821

4

0.761

Laws & Sanctions

5

0.796

5

0.828

Sensitisation

5

0.815

5

0.789

Designated waste dump sites

4

0.879

4

0.891

Routine Environmental Sanitation

4

0.842

4

0.816

Table 2:Reliability Coefficients for pilot and final test
Source: Analysis using SPSS version 21

Factor Loading ≥0.5

Constructs

Items

1st Order
CFA

2nd order
CFA

AVE≥.5
MI>15

Waste Management (WMG)

0.502

WMG1

0.73

0.59

WMG2

0.62

Deleted

(MI>15)

WMG3

0.59

0.61

WMG4

0.56

0.51

Laws and Sanctions (L.S.)

0.518

LS1

0.66

0.62

LS2

0.71

0.61

LS3

0.65

Deleted

(MI>15)

LS4

0.64

0.55

Sensitisation (S.T.)

0.535

ST1

0.70

0.69

ST2

0.69

0.60

ST3

0.61

Deleted

(MI>15)

ST4

0.67

0.51

Designation of waste dump sites (W.S.)

0.510

WS1

0.63

0.64

WS2

0.68

0.55

WS3

0.62

Deleted

(MI>15)

Routine Environmental Sanitation (E.S.)

0.527

ES1

0.71

0.64

ES2

0.68

0.59

Table 3:Convergent Validity and Construct Reliability using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on strategies employed in waste management Source: Author’s computation using SPSS Version 21
Note: AVE: Average Variance Extracted, MI: Modification Index

Variable

Min

Max

Skewness

c.r

Kurtosis

c.r

WMG1

1.000

5.000

-0.412

-3.276

-1.330

-5.294

WMG3

1.000

5.000

-0.759

-6.038

1.116

-4.441

WMG4

1.000

5.000

-0.689

-5.479

-0.977

-3.889

LS1

1.000

5.000

-0.753

-5.993

-0.258

-1.027

LS2

1.000

5.000

-0.785

-6.247

-0.180

-1.716

LS4

1.000

5.000

0.328

2.614

-0.269

-1.069

ST1

1.000

5.000

-0.109

-0.867

-1.268

-5.047

ST2

1.000

5.000

-0.337

-2.683

-0.830

-3.303

ST4

1.000

5.000

-0.743

-5.917

-1.099

-4.372

WS1

1.000

5.000

-0.819

-6.515

-0.893

-3.555

WS2

1.000

5.000

-0.970

-7.772

-1.210

-4.813

ES1

1.000

5.000

-0.412

-3.276

-1.143

-4.459

ES2

1.000

5.000

-0.300

-2.384

-0.779

-3.181

Multivariate

 

 

 

 

32.084

22.078

Table 4:Assessment of Normality
Source: Analysis using SPSS version 21
Note: Min=Minimum, Max=Maximum, c.r=Critical Ratio

Hypothesised relationships

B

S.E.

C.R.

ρ

WMG <--- LS

0.623

0.072

       0.719

2.974

0.001

WMG <--- ST

0.039

0.054

       0.433

1.431

0.000

WMG <--- WS

0.172

0.049

       0.268

0.875

0.038

WMG <--- ES

0.319

0.053

       0.384

2.721

0.007

R2=0.36

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5:Unstandardized and Standardized Regression Weight in the Hypothesised path Model
Source: Analysis using SPSS version 21
Note: WMG=Waste Management, LS= Laws and Sanctions, ST= Sensitization on proper waste disposal, WS= designated Waste Dump Sites, ES= routine Environmental Sanitation