CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Waste is associated with virtually all human activities and it is inseparable from life because as

long as man is alive he stores, uses and disposes off materials. Moreover, the complexities of

waste which modern civilization produce is directly related to the living standards, socio-

economic and cultural attributes of that particular environment (Hoornweg, 1999). Solid waste

streams could be characterized by their sources, type of waste (solid, liquid, or gaseous states)

produced as well as generation rate and composition. He classified wastes into eight namely

residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, constructional and demolition, municipal

services, process and agriculture. Huang (2008) however sees solid wastes as solid or semisolid

materials resulting from human and animal activities that are useless, unwanted, or hazardous.

In their study, Ogedengbe et al (2006) showed that the rate of change in municipal solid waste

quantities and composition in developing and developed countries is unprecedented. They

opined that generally the greater the economic prosperity and the higher percentage of urban

population, the greater the amount of solid waste generated and as lifestyles rapidly change, the

related conveniences and products-mobile phones, electronics, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics,

disposable diapers pose special waste disposal challenges. As initiated by our forefathers, who

always said that “cleanliness is next to godliness’ waste management in any community should

be a business of all as the careless attitude to this could be devastating since the risk posed by

waste to human beings and to the environment could lead to plague. Wikipedia sees waste

management as the collection, transport, processing or disposal, managing and monitoring of

waste materials. It states that the term usually relates to materials produced by human activity,

and the process is generally undertaken to reduce their effect on health, the environment or

aesthetics. The Wikipedia further opines that all wastes materials, whether they are solid, liquid,

gaseous or radioactive fall within the remit of waste management. Management for non-

hazardous waste residential and institutional waste in metropolitan areas is usually the

responsibility of local government authorities but this is fast changing, while management for

1

non-hazardous commercial and industrial waste is usually the responsibility of the generator

subject to local, national or international controls.

The question as to whether solid waste landfills affect residential property values has long been a

subject of controversy and debate. Previous studies have resulted in mixed conclusions. The fact

has been established that the establishment and operation of a landfill in any location creates

negative externalities which include environmental stigma and damage resulting to negative

impacts such as the formation and accumulation methane gas and groundwater contamination.

Quite apart from the above mentioned damages, dumping of solid waste could also give rise to

bad odours, vermin and flies, while litters may spread from the landfill if not properly kept and

policed. In addition, the covering and compacting of the solid waste with soil creates airborne

dust could prove hazardous to neighbouring residents and passer-by as well. The economic

impact that a landfill has on the value of properties in close proximity to it is important for a

number of reasons. First, disparity in prices between like properties different only in distance

from a landfill, provide information regarding the welfare effect on households situated in the

vicinity. Second, affected property owners want to know what effect, if any, the presence of a

landfill has or will have on the value of their assets. Third, in the event where a landfill project is

subjected to cost-benefit analysis, estimates of property price effects can be incorporated into the

cost-benefit profile. Prior studies on the impact of sanitary landfills on residential properties have

found negative relationship between residential house prices and proximity to landfills.

Indication via these studies point out that values of residential properties situated within a six

kilometre radius from any prominent landfill site rise by approximately 5 to 7% per 1.6 km

distance away from the said site. Negative value effects have been rarely found for properties

located in excess of six kilometres away from landfills. Property values, however, fall more

dramatically (that is, between 21 and 30 percent) the closer (that is, in a 400m to 800m radius)

the properties are situated to a landfill site. A few recent studies, however, have found no

statistically significant relationship existing between house prices and proximity to modern

landfills.

2

1.2 Statement of Research Problem

It is important to know if and to which extent proximity to waste disposal sites or treatment

plants depresses residential property values for many reasons. Whether as a measure of the

impact of the sites on health and general welfare of the resident, or to ascertain the degree of

monetary depression that would be suffered by property investors or even for future planning, it

is imperative to know how these sites impact on the lives of the residents.

1.3 Aim and objectives

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect that solid waste disposal (of the Olusosun

Dumpsite) has on property values along Olatunji Street, Ojota, Lagos. The objectives for this

project are:

1. To identify the composition of solid waste in the environment.

2. To identify problem militating against solid waste management in the vicinity.

3. To know the demand and supply of property rent in the vicinity.

4. To measure the relationship between solid waste dumpsite and demand for

accommodation.

5. To suggest appropriate and effective measure of solid waste disposal in the vicinity.

1.4 Significance of study

This project is important in that since proximity to landfills and hazardous waste sites can

severely affect property values, property owners close to the dumpsite will be able to know the

effect that this facility may have on their property in terms of demand for accommodation, value

for sale or health wise. The agency in care of its management too will be able to take decisive

measures in improving the activities at the site. Any property close to an active landfill might

probably be devalued depending on how close the property lies to the site, whether the site is still

active, and (if not active) if the waste has been properly encapsulated or removed, or by the

presence or lack of other amenities. For example, if an active landfill is declared "closed" and

proper measures are taken to ensure that there is no risk of contamination from the waste therein,

the value of a nearby property may rise from the low value it had from being located near an

active waste site. Devalued property may further regain some of its previous value if the former

waste site is improved or developed commercially. The immediate influence of environmental

3

characteristics is manifested in the form of a pull and push effects of the neighborhood on the

prospective house buyers and rent/lease values. Under this situation, environmental

considerations in most cases outweigh other factors in the choice of where to live (Bello and

Bello 2008). The issue here is how the Nigerian real estate market is reflecting the significance

of environmental factors as major determinants of property values. The question of what effects

solid waste facilities and landfills has on residents’ health and property values have long been a

subject of debate (Bouvier et. al., 2000). From past studies, the effects of landfills and other solid

waste facilities on nearby residential properties cannot be easily generalized; some academic

research are from the school of thought that residential property values are not necessarily

adversely affected by close proximity to such facilities, while from another school of thought,

some researchers are also of the opinion that it has little or no effects on the health of the people

living close to the landfill site.

1.5 Research Questions

a. What is the effect of landfills on nearby residential property values?

b. What are the environmental damages and health effects attached with siting landfills in a

residential area?

c. Is there any relationship between proximity to landfill and property value?

1.6 Research Hypothesis

H1: Waste dump site has no significant effect on proximate residential property values.

Ho: Waste dumpsite has significant effect on proximate residential property values.

1.7 Scope of Study

This study does not exhaustively consider the effect of dumpsites on economic activities of the

state, it does not investigate very closely the internal operations of the management of the

dumpsite, health and environmental issues were not investigated and the opinions of all

stakeholders were not sought but only that of estate managers who have conducted research

earlier on property values due to locational factors. In effect, this study considers the effects of

the Olusosun facility and activities on surrounding property values, limited to the analysis of

residential properties on Olatunji Street in the area.

4

1.8 The Study Area

The Olusosun landfill was first identified and used by the Nigeria Military in the 1960s/1970s as

a Shooting Range for Condemned Armed Robbers and Coup Plotters alike. The site was later

excavated and turned into a Soil Mining site to provide filling materials for roads and

foundations of new building projects. The Olusosun Dumpsite is traversed by a large burrowed

pit which resulted from the long term uncontrolled excavation/sand mining by most developers

from all parts of the Lagos Metropolis. This site was later identified and selected by Lagos State

Waste Management Authority (LAWMA) for a Landfill site and dumping of refuse as well as

scavenging of recoverable refuse had been going on there since 1992. Historically, Olusosun is a

spontaneous Auto-ignition burning (auto-ignition) dumpsite. Residential houses are not too far

away from the dumpsite, Industrial and Commercial activities even lie contiguous to the waste

facility. Mention must also be made of the activities of waste pickers and miscreants who

rummage through heaps of refuse at the dumpsite on a daily basis. The Olusosun dumpsite is

presently under the management of the LAWMA. Open dumps generate various environmental

and health hazards, because the decomposition of materials produces methane, which results in

periodic spontaneous fire outbreaks and explosions in open dumpsites, generating smoke and

contributing to air pollution. This spontaneous burning that usually takes place at the Olusosun

dumpsite is now being checked and prevented by LAWMA. The major facilities within the

Olusosun Dumpsite includes: Two (2) Weighbridges (In/Out, Two (2) Entrances/Exits Gates,

Three (3) Major Tipping Platforms (A, B and C), Leachate Ponds, Five (5) Internal Roads, an

Administrative Block and a Kraft Recycling Building. The Olusosun Dumpsite is located right

within the Oregun/Ojota locality of Lagos State. Adjoining landuse is mainly industrial with

admixtures of Residential and of Commercial landuses. Major landuses in its vicinity include the

Motor Ways, Seven Up Company, UAC Group of Companies, Ojota Intra-State Motor Garage,

Ojota Inter-State Motor Garage, Philips Company, Fuel Filling Stations, Banks and Eateries.

The Olusosun Dumpsite is owned and operated by the Lagos State Government and is being

patronised by LAWMA Trucks, PSP Trucks, Highway Managers, Cart Pushers and Waste

Pickers. Its catchment area extends to all parts of Lagos Metropolis and receives the greatest

5

proportion of solid waste, more so with the high number of Private Sector Participation (PSP)

Operators.

1.9 Limitations of Study

Times will change, government may be more pro-active, new methods and technology about

managing waste will emerge and man continues to better his living conditions, so this study is

limited and particular for this time that it is carried out. There are also many dumpsites in Lagos

but only one has been investigated in this study so its data capture is small compared to the

number of solid waste sites. The results of this project can not be generalized as demographics

situations and locational factors will affect particular dumpsites. Time to carry out extensive

investigation was not available and so this project has analyzed data that was collected with

limited financial resources.

References

Hoornweg D. (1999). What a waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia. The International Bank

for Reconstruction and Development for the World Bank.

Huang, J. Y. C. (2008). Solid Waste Disposal. Microsoft Encarta, 2009 (DVD).

Ogedengbe, P. S & Oyedele, J. B. (2006). Effect of waste management on Property values in

Ibadan, Nigeria. Journal of land use and development studies, Vol 2, No 1.

Bouvier, R.A., J.M. Halstead, K.S. Conway, and A.B Manalo. 2000. “The Effect of Landfills

on Rural Residential Property Values: Some Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Regional

Analysis and Policy 30(2); 23-37.

Bouvier, R.A., Halstead, J.M., Conway, K.S. and Manato, A.B. (2000). “The Effect of Landfill

on Rural Residential Property Values. Some Empirical Evidence”. The Journal of Regional

Analysis and Policy , 30(2): 23-34.

Bello, M.O. and Bello, V.O. (2008), ‘Willingness to pay for better environmental services;

evidence from the Nigerian real estate market’. Journal of African Real Estate Research.1(1), 19

-27.

6

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Introduction

Nigeria is rapidly moving towards industrialization. Before the oil boom, economic growth was

slow but with an increase in foreign exchange from the oil sector and the introduction of second

tier foreign exchange market, individuals as well as government were able to finance

development programs which place Nigeria on the way to industrial revolution, and industrial

revolution go hand in hand with production and its associated waste generation (George, 2000).

2.1.1 Literature Review

The quantity and generation rate of wastes in Nigerian cities have increased at an alarming rate

over the years with lack of efficient and modern technology for the management of the wastes

(Babayemi and Dada, 2009). Waste is anything that is no longer of use to the disposer. It can

also be defined as any unavoidable material resulting from an activity, which has no immediate

economic demand and which must be disposed of (NISP, 2003). Waste is commonly classified

into three. These are liquid, gaseous and solid wastes. Liquid wastes are waste dissolved in water

emanating from industrial processes known as effluent, domestic liquid, acid waste and waste oil

from workshop (NISP, 2003). Solid wastes could be defined as non-liquid and nongaseous

products of human activities, regarded as being useless. It could take the forms of refuse, garbage

and sludge (Lenton and Omotosho, 2004). In most urban centers in Nigeria, wastes are disposed

of by dumping in open areas, which produces health and pollution problems by encouraging the

growth of organisms that can transmit diseases to people living around that vicinity (Freeman,

1979). Recent experience has shown that both the government approved and illegal dumpsites

are being poorly managed thereby becoming ready sources of pollution with a great consequence

on human health and properties (Adewusi and Onifade, 2006). It must be noted that the ever

increasing volume of waste has overwhelmed the urban administrators’ capacity. Cities in

Nigeria, being among the fast growing cities in the world are faced with the problem of solid

waste generation (Onibokun and Kumuyi, 1996). The implication is serious when a country is

growing rapidly and the wastes are not efficiently managed. Waste generation scenario in

7

Nigeria has been of great concern both locally and globally, and of the different categories of

wastes generated, solid wastes had posed a hydra-headed problem beyond the scope of various

solid waste management systems in Nigeria as the streets experience continual presence of solid

waste from commercial activities (Geoffrey, 2005). The effect of uncontrolled solid waste, as

environmental contaminants, is not limited to human life but its effect is significantly observed

on property value and life span. According to Simon (2002), properties affected by

environmental contamination (refuse dumps) are expected to sell for a discount price compared

with clean and comparable properties in neater environment. The generation rate, collection and

disposal of solid wastes are functions of several factors which if well considered and

appropriated could bring the desired solution to the waste management problems in Nigeria.

However, the reverse in some cases affect the real estate development and investment. A push

effect like the presence of waste dumpsite may affect property value and the satisfaction the

occupants derive from the environment and the property they occupy (Jackson, 2001). Bello and

Bello (2005) affirmed that the presence of solid wastes normally affect the value of a property. It

must be understood that environmental contamination resulting from solid wastes can affect the

full spectrum of property types in an area. Various researchers have undertaken to study

dumpsites location, solid waste generation pattern, residents’ satisfaction in Nigeria but there

appear to be no agreement on their views on the effect on property values. Many factors

interplay to create property values (Bello and Bello, 2006, Udo and Egbenta, 2007). This could

be economic, institutional or environmental. Factors that negatively affect the value of real

property injure ownership motives and goals. They also damage the investor’s interest and

discourage subsequent investment. Bouvier et al (2002) studied the effect of landfills on rural

residential property values. The study examines six landfills, which differ in size, operating

status, and history of contamination. The effect of each landfill is estimated by the use of

multiple regressions. In five of the landfills, no statistically significant evidence of an effect was

found. In the remaining case, evidence of an effect was found, indicating that houses in close

proximity to this landfill suffered an average loss of about six percent in value. Bello (2005)

using empirical evidence from refuse dumps located at Oke-Afa (Isolo), Abule Egba and Ojodu

in Lagos metropolis discovered that rental values of the properties adjoining the dumpsites have

reduced rent as much as 37% in Oke- Afa for blocks of flats and 33% in Ojodu for tenement

building. Ukabam (2005) examined the impact of waste dumpsite on housing prices. The

8

comparison method, mean, correlation and factor analysis were adopted in determining the

impact of Olusosun and Solus dumpsites on residential property values on Howson Wright and

Johnkay Estates, the study confirms the negative externalities of waste dumpsite on housing

prices. Ogedengbe and Oyedele (2006) examined the effect of waste on property values in a

Nigerian city (Ibadan). The data collected were analyzed using chi-square, frequency

distribution, mean and percentages. The results show that the waste dumps have significant

negative impact on the values of the properties in the area. Adewusi and Onifade (2006)

examined the effects of urban solid wastes on physical environment and property transactions in

Surulere local government area of Lagos State. The data collected were analyzed using

descriptive statistics, the result shows that rents paid on properties located far away from

dumpsites and property transaction rate became very slow and unattractive as one approaches a

dumpsite. Bello and Bello (2008) conducted a research on the willingness to pay for

environmental amenities in Akure Nigeria. The study included environmental amenities such as

waste water disposal, water and electricity supplies, neighbourhood roads and other locational

services. The study used a two-staged hedonic model to examine the willingness to pay for better

environmental services by residents of two neighbourhoods in Akure, Nigeria. He combined

multiple regressions and predictive model to determine property values as a function of housing

attributes and logistic model as willingness to pay. The study identified households’ income,

distance away from the refuse dump site and regularity of electricity supply as the major factors

that influenced household’s willingness to pay for better environmental services. Bello (2009)

carried out a study on the effects of waste dump sites on proximate property values in Lagos,

Nigeria using three dump sites located at Olusosun, Abule Egba and Solous adopting 1km

distance measurement to assess the effects of the dumpsite on the neighbourhoods. The research

sampled 334 residents from the three waste dump sites and 107 Estate Surveying and Valuation

firms in metropolitan Lagos. The study was in the main to measure the effect of waste dump on

property values and to develop an appropriate valuation methodology to carry out valuation of

properties affected by waste dump sites. A combination of valuation methodologies was adopted

such as Paired Sales Analysis, Contingent Valuation Analysis, Option Pricing Model and

Hedonic Approach. The study found that there was a weak linear relationship between rental

value and satisfaction of occupants in the neighbourhood of the waste dumps. Ukabam (2005)

established that residents of properties in close proximity to waste dumpsites in Lagos metropolis

9

suffer existence of dis-amenities, the effect of which include void and lower rental values. This

carries with it an indirect implication of reduction in property tax, longer period to recoup capital

invested, repayment of mortgage and overall reduction in the country’s gross domestic product

(GDP). Results from most of previous studies generally support the notion that waste dumpsites

have negative effects on property values. Specifically property values decreases with closeness

to the dumpsites. However, Udo and Egbenta (2002) examined the effects of domestic waste

dumpsites on rental values of residential properties in Enugu, Nigeria. The study differed from

the foregoing popular belief that waste dumpsite affect property values negatively. Other factors

could be harnessed to boost rental values of properties in our cities. Akinjare et al (2011) studied

the prediction of residential property values around landfill neighborhoods in Lagos, Nigeria.

This study established a predictive model for residential property values within 1,200m

proximity to the four landfills in Lagos State by examining their varying sizes, operating status

and history inclusive of diminution tendencies. The relationship between each landfill and

property values were measured based on interval of 300 meters up to 1,200 meters in concentric

rings. The resultant model validates the findings of the study that across the four landfill sites,

increases in property values were evident as distance away from the landfills increased indicating

that residential houses in close proximity to the landfills suffered value loss. Property

appreciation relative to distance averaged 5.75% within the concentric rings for all four landfills.

The study suggested the closure of all landfills within residential areas and a relocation of such to

uninhabited areas in the city’s outskirt in order to promote sustained value appreciation. Ijasan et

al (2012) studied depressionary effect of proximate of residential properties to waste dump site in

Nigeria using Solous land fill as a case study. This study takes a special focus on the resident’s

perspective based on the linear proximity to waste disposal sites. 260 questionnaires were

distributed to residents within 1km to the site and Estate Surveyors in the area. The correlation

between respondent’s profile and opinions are analyzed and it revealed that the site has major

impacts on the residents perceived quality of life, security and total outlook of the area. It also

showed that there is a negative correlation between the distance from landfill and the perceived

quality of life of residents. Mmom and Mbee (2013) examined the impact of landfill on real

estate values in Port Harcourt metropolis. 2 real estates within 500 metres radius from landfill

sites were identified and about 600 property owners/agents representing 30 percent of the entire

real estate owners were sampled for study. The study thus observed that there is low pricing of

10

property contiguous to landfill, in most cases people are less willing to live or acquire properties

near landfill locations. Similarly, occupants are unwilling to rent houses near landfill sites

thereby demeaning the value of such real estate.

2.1.2 Concept of dumpsites

Waste is associated with virtually all human activities and it is in-separable from life because as

long as man is alive he stores, uses and disposes off materials. Moreover, the complexities of

waste which modern civilization produce is directly related to the living standards, socio-

economic and cultural attributes of that particular environment (Hoornweg, 1999). He also

asserted that solid waste streams could be characterized by their sources, type of waste (solid,

liquid, or gaseous states) produced as well as generation rate and composition. He classified

wastes into eight namely residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, constructional and

demolition, municipal services, process and agriculture. Huang (2008) however sees solid wastes

as solid or semisolid materials resulting from human and animal activities that are useless,

unwanted, or hazardous. In their study Ogedengbe and Oyedele, (2006) showed that the rate of

change in municipal solid waste quantities and composition in developing and developed

countries is unprecedented. They opined that generally the greater the economic prosperity and

the higher percentage of urban population, the greater the amount of solid waste generated and as

lifestyles rapidly change, the related conveniences and products-mobile phones, electronics,

polyvinyl chloride plastics (PVC plastics), disposable diapers pose special waste disposal

challenges. As initiated by our forefathers, who always said that “cleanliness is next to

godliness’ waste management in any community should be a business of all as the lackadaisical

attitude to this could be devastating since the risk posed by waste to human beings and to the

environment could lead to plague. Wikipedia sees waste management as the collection, transport,

processing or disposal, managing and monitoring of waste materials. It states that the term

usually relates to materials produced by human activity, and the process is generally undertaken

to reduce their effect on health, the environment or aesthetics. The Wikipedia further opines that

all wastes materials, whether they are solid, liquid, gaseous or radioactive fall within the remit of

waste management. Management for non-hazardous waste residential and institutional waste in

metropolitan areas is usually the responsibility of local government authorities but this is fast

changing, while management for non-hazardous commercial and industrial waste is usually the

11

responsibility of the generator subject to local, national or international controls. Nigeria, being

the most populous developing black nation in Africa with a continuous growing population of

approximately 150 million people, its waste disposal and management programs cannot be over

looked vis-a-vis its impact on the environment and specifically residential property values. In his

work, Ossai, (2006) discovered that waste generation nationally was alarmingly on the increase

with an estimated annual rate of about 0.5 – 0.7% and current figures ranging from 0.4 to 0.8

Ton /capital /annum. He further said that complexity in waste is also increasing with

biodegradable waste currently accounting for over 50% amounting to an annual average

approximately 50 million tons per annum of waste burden on the nation with less than 10%

waste management capacity. He further reiterated that this challenge is accompanied by

increased inefficiency in waste disposal as domestic biodegradable wastes (paper, plastics, rags,

food materials) in individual states of the federation are dumped and burnt in open areas beside

individual dwelling and collectively as illegal dumpsites. With over thirty five percent (35%) of

the Nigerian population living in the cities vis-a-vis a growing urbanization rate of about 7% per

annum and less than ten percent (10%) of the city’s population enjoying marginal waste

management services, health and pollution problems have triggered the thrive of micro-

organisms living in the environment.

Whether, and to what extent, a landfill negatively impacts nearby property values is of interest

for several reasons. First, property value differences reveal information about the landfill’s

welfare impact on nearby households. Second, property owners are keenly interested in knowing

the degree to which their asset is or will be devalued by a landfill. Third, estimates of property

value impacts can be inputs in a cost-benefit or regulatory impact analysis. In Pennsylvania, for

example, the state Department of Environmental Protection is required to consider property

value impacts as part of a harms-benefit analysis when making landfill permitting decisions.

Several studies have estimated empirical relationships between residential property values and

proximity to a landfill or set of landfills. These studies estimate a hedonic price function, where

the price of a house is regressed on both characteristics of the house and its proximity to a

landfill. Many of these studies have found that houses located near a landfill sell for lower prices

than similar houses located farther away. A widely-cited study is that by Nelson et al (1992),

12

who found that property values were depressed within 2 miles of the landfill studied, with an

estimated property value gradient of 6.2% per mile. However, some landfill studies show no

statistical relationship between proximity and house price (Gamble et al, 1982; Bouvier et al,

2000; Zeiss and Atwater 1989). Solid waste industry representatives have pointed to these

studies as evidence that landfills need not have negative impacts on nearby property values

(Parker, 2003). However, each of these studies was based on relatively small samples of house

sales, so that the sampling variability in the estimated relationship between proximity and house

price was high. It is possible that the landfills studied had negative impacts on nearby property

values, but that the relationship could not be statistically identified due to small sample sizes.

There has not yet been a large-sample study that conclusively demonstrated small or nonexistent

property value impacts from a landfill. The first purpose of this study is to add to the stock of

empirical estimates of the impact of a landfill on nearby property values. A hedonic price

function is estimated for a region containing three landfills that differ in size and in their

prominence in the landscape. The results show that the three landfills differ in their impact on

nearby property values. While two of the three landfills have statistically significant negative

impacts on nearby property values, the smallest, least prominent landfill does not. This lack of

impact is notable because, in contrast to previous studies that have failed to find a statistically

significant impact of landfill proximity on house prices, the regression coefficient on landfill

proximity for this landfill is estimated with high precision. Having demonstrated that property

value impacts vary from landfill to landfill, and are in some cases small or nonexistent, the

second purpose of this study is to use meta-analysis to investigate factors that might influence

the magnitude of the property value impact from a landfill, and to generate a distribution of

impacts across landfills. Previous meta-analyses of hedonic pricing studies have focused on

identifying a point estimate of the average impact of a class of disamenities (Simons et al, 2007;

Farber, 1998). The meta-analysis conducted here represents an advance in modeling in that it

distinguishes between variation among landfills in their house price impacts and sampling error

in each estimated impact. In this way, the distribution of house price impacts across landfills is

identified. This distribution could serve as a subjective prior distribution for a landfill whose

impacts have not yet been measured, or for a proposed landfill that has not yet been built.

13

Domeniq (1995) studied the trend of waste in Austria and laws guiding the management of

waste. He examined the Austrian Federal Environmental Agency and elaborated on the

generation of waste, treatment and the utilization of such wastes generated and the goals, which

could be achieved in years to come. Oreyomi (1998) maintained that improper disposal of solid

waste poses serious danger to the handlers and the people living around the wastes as disposal

sites carry along rodents, insects and other vermin, which could transmit diseases such as typhoid

fever, dysentery, diarrhea, cholera, yaws, onchocerciasis, salmonellas, and other diseases. In

their study, Akinola and Salami (2001) noticed that management of solid waste generated within

the Civil and Environmental Research urban centers has become one of the most obstinate

problems of development. Their study revealed that in the last two decades, there had been a

phenomenal increase in the volume and range of waste generated in many developing countries

of the world, Nigeria inclusive. The rapidly growing metropolis in developing countries has been

identified as one of the major factors responsible for solid waste problems. They posited that

private sector participation in waste management would be more effective in waste management

and that the local government should review its strategy by withdrawal of poor operators from

the services, set monitoring team, get rid of cart pushers and make trucks and other equipment

available to the operators at subsidized rate. Akaninyere et al (2001) examined the typology,

characteristics and future trends of solid waste and asserted that the major components of waste

are degradable materials (food remnants, paper, and rags) and non-biodegradable plastics, tins,

metals, bottles, glass, and bones. Food remnants contributes substantially more than other

components, this could be explained by the fact that most activities which affect the environment

stem from the need for food; its production, processing and preparation. Moreover, the high

proportion of food remnants could be viewed from the fact that this component of waste

embraces all forms of food waste from both domestic and commercial sources. Ogedengbe et al

(2006) studied the effects of waste management on property values in Ibadan and found a

relationship between the closeness of dump sites and the value of rental properties in the area.

The study discovered that the rental values placed on such properties were reduced as a result of

the presence waste dumps. A study carried out by Olotuah, (2006) in Oba-Ile, Nigeria shows that

frequency of collection refuse is a predictor variable for housing quality. The study also

discovered that the quality of housing in the study area would improve significantly with an

increase in the collection of refuse.

14

2.2 Conceptual Framework

2.2.1 The Theory of Hedonic Pricing

The theoretical foundation for empirical analyses of residential property values is based on the

work of Rosen (1974). In the context of residential real estate, a single family home is

considered as a collection of attributes, characterized as a vector, z. The elements of z typically

include physical characteristics of the house (square footage, age and size) as well as

characteristics tied to location (proximity to a central business district, school district quality or

distance from centre of city). The hedonic (or implicit) price function, P(z), is the empirical

relationship between the market price of a given house and the levels of its attributes. This

function describes the equilibrium set of house prices, given the population of buyers and the

available housing stock. The hedonic price function is of policy interest because it reveals

information on buyers’ preferences over z. Buyers search the set of available houses, and choose

one that maximizes their indirect utility function, given by V(W-P( z), z), where W is the wealth

of the household. For each single house attribute, zi, the first-order condition for this

maximization is

(1) ∂P/∂zi = (∂v/∂zi)/( ∂v/∂W)

The left side of this equality is called the marginal implicit price (MIP) of attribute zi. The right

side is the household’s marginal rate of substitution between attribute zi and money. For

marginal changes in zi, then, the MIP of zi measures the household’s marginal willingness to pay

for additional zi. The most common approach to estimate the impact of a landfill on property

values is to include some continuous measure of proximity to the landfill as one of the elements

of z. Linear distance is the most common measure of proximity, though inverse distance and

natural log of distance have also been used. If zi measures linear distance to the landfill, then the

estimated MIP associated with zi measures the change in house price associated with a one-unit

change in distance to the landfill.

While equation (1) can provide an estimate of a household’s marginal willingness to pay to

change its proximity to the landfill, it is usually of more interest to consider a non-marginal

change, for example comparing house price in the presence of the landfill to what price would be

in the absence of the landfill. If z0 measures the attributes of a house located near a landfill, and

15

z1 measures the same house’s attributes absent the landfill, then ∆P = P( z1) - P( z0) is the

impact of the landfill on the property’s value. This provides an exact measure of the benefit or

cost to the household only if moving costs to relocate are minimal, and the change affects only a

small number of houses. If moving costs are substantial, the implicit price function can still

provide useful information. Specifically, ∆P is an upper bound on the household’s willingness to

pay to remove a nearby landfill, or a lower bound on the amount a household would need to be

compensated to accept a new landfill that does not currently exist.

2.2.2 House Price Relationship To Landfill Proximity

Using the approach outlined above, several studies have found that house price was significantly

related to landfill proximity. One of the first studies of this type (Havlicek et al, 1971) found that

house prices increased $0.61 per foot of distance from landfills in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Similar

results were obtained for landfills in Minnesota (Nelson et al, 1992, 1997), Baltimore (Thayer et

al, 1992), Columbus (Hit et al, 2001), and Toronto (Lim et al, 2003). Not all studies have found

significant positive relationships between distance to the landfill and house price, however.

Gamble et al (1982) estimated hedonic price regressions for house sales near a landfill in

Boyertown, Pennsylvania. When the dataset was split and separate regressions estimated by year

of sale, the estimated coefficients for distance to the landfill were not statistically significant at

the 5% level. One of these estimated implicit prices was even negative, implying higher prices

closer to the landfill. This last result has been cited as evidence that modern landfills need not

have negative impacts on property values (Cartee 1989, Parker 2003). However, the negative

implicit price was estimated with very low precision due to the small sample size (n=45). In a

model that pooled observations across years, the estimated coefficient on distance from the

landfill was positive and significant at the 10% level, implying that the landfill does depress

nearby property values.

Reichert, Small and Mohanty (1992), in a hedonic regression for houses located near a landfill in

Cleveland, Ohio, also find that the estimated MIP for distance was negative, implying higher

prices near the landfill. Again, this estimated MIP was statistically insignificant, with high

sampling variability. The authors argue that the lack of relationship between proximity and

house price was due to unmodeled heterogeneity in neighborhood quality. Using a smaller, more

16

homogeneous study area, they find that houses near the landfill sell for $6000-$8000 less than

houses farther away. Bouvier et al (2000) estimate hedonic regressions for houses located near

six landfills in central and western Massachusetts, two of which were open and active during the

study period. For these two landfills, the estimated MIP of distance was positive for one and

negative for the other, but statistically insignificant in both cases. Again, the estimated negative

coefficient had high sampling variability due to small sample size.

Zeiss et al (1989) estimate hedonic price regressions for three neighborhoods located near a

landfill in Tacoma, Washington. Though they do not report the estimated MIP values, they do

report that for two of the neighborhoods, a statistically significant relationship between house

price and landfill proximity did not exist. For the third, they find that houses located nearer the

landfill have higher prices, but attribute the result to new homes built near the landfill, and not to

the landfill itself. To summarize, most available studies that have included distance from a

landfill in a hedonic regression have found a statistically significant positive relationship

between house price and distance. While some studies did find that house price and distance

from the landfill were not significantly related, in all such cases the estimated MIP has high

sampling variability. While these studies could not reject a null hypothesis of no impact, that is

not equivalent to concluding that the landfills have no impact on property values. Using the

reported standard errors from the original studies, it is possible to construct 95% confidence

intervals for each of the statistically-insignificant MIP estimates discussed above. In all cases

where a statistically insignificant MIP is reported, a 95% confidence interval for the MIP

includes the value 5% per mile. In other words, if we posit a null hypothesis that every landfill

has a negative impact on nearby property values with a gradient of 5% per mile, none of these

studies would statistically reject that null hypothesis. Thus, no study to date has demonstrated,

with statistical confidence, that the impact of a landfill on nearby property values is small (less

than 5% per mile).

2.2.3 Property Value Impacts of Three Landfills

The effects of landfills and other solid waste facilities on nearby residential properties cannot be

easily generalized; however, academic research and other evidence indicate that residential

property values are not necessarily adversely affected by close proximity to such facilities. In

17

some circumstances, the impact can be positive. State-of-the-art, environmentally safe landfills,

transfer stations, and waste-to-energy facilities are able to contribute to healthy land values

through host community fees, tax revenues, jobs, reliable waste disposal services, energy

generation, and infrastructure improvements. Parker cites several examples, such as a study in

Texas for a planned landfill, which concluded, “Throughout the state, research at other landfills

has shown no decline in property values and, in many cases, nearby property values have

actually increased around well-designed and operated facilities.” Parker comments,

“Generalizations and misinformation about the community impacts of these needed facilities

only exacerbate the problem. The nature of this problem is aptly summarized by the First Law of

Garbage, which is: ‘Everybody wants it picked up, but nobody wants it put down.’ And, the

second part of this Law is: ‘Nobody wants it put down anywhere near them.’ “NSWMA supports

efforts to reduce our waste generation and to reuse and recycle as much as we can,” Parker adds.

“Over the past decade, states and local communities have been successfully moving in that

direction. But safe, environmentally protective disposal facilities will be needed regardless of

how much waste can be reduced or recycled.” Parker notes there is a “growing compatibility”

between modern, highly engineered landfills and the physical and economic environments of

communities. In support of this view, he points to the statement of a former official of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency: “Landfills and communities can work together and accept

each other and actually benefit from each other.”

2.3 Dump Site Models

2.3.1 Lagos Landfills

According to Ijasan et al (2012), there are four major landfills in Lagos state namely Olusosun

landfill in Ikeja Local Government Area, Abule-Egba landfill in Agege Local Government, and

Solous landfill in Alimosho Local Government and Gbagada in Kosofe Local Government Area.

The landfills are under the control and management of Lagos State Waste Management

Authority (LAWMA). The Solous landfill is situated at Igando in Alimosho Local Government

Area of Lagos State. The landfill is located within 6033'0N and 3015'0E. It is on 7.8 hectares of

land. It started operations in the year 1996 with a projected life span between 5 and 6 years, it is

surrounded by residential, commercial and industrial set-ups. It is bounded by the North with

Ayobo/Ipaja Local Government at the Oponu swamp behind Ijan, Olorunnisola and Ashipa

18

communities to the south is Amuwo-Odofin at the Ijeododo community through Ijegun, Isheri-

Osun road and boundary with Iba Local Government at the swamp behind Obadore Community

and to the East is Isheri Osun swamp up to Ikotun Egbe junction at Ikotun while to the West is

Boundary of Iba Local Government area up to Ogun State boundary at Owu stream. Solous

landfill receives waste from entire Lagos and the site receives an average of about 2,250m3 of

waste per day and about 5,271.40 tons per week.

2.3.2 Solid Waste Landfills and Residential Property Values

A recent staff paper by two Pennsylvania State University professors, “The Impact of Open

Space and Potential Local Disamenities on Residential Property Values in Berks County,

Pennsylvania,” examined the impact of neighboring land use on residential property values in a

predominantly rural county. Included in the category of land uses (“potential local

disamenities”) were: landfills, airports, mushroom production, large-scale animal production,

sewage treatment plants, and high-traffic roads. Among the staff paper’s conclusions was that

the residential property values-price distance relationship was most significant for landfills and

large-scale animal production facilities. The National Solid Wastes Management Association

(NSWMA) offers the following comments on the Pennsylvania State University study:

1. Other academic studies – including a 1982 Penn State study -- reach very different conclusions

regarding the impact of landfills on property values. In fact, today’s state-of-the-art landfills

provide a variety of economic, employment and community-enhancement benefits that typically

contribute to property values.

2. The staff paper’s findings cannot be generalized, and should not stand for the proposition that

home values automatically suffer when located near a landfill. Indeed, the authors caution

against “extrapolating the results of this research” beyond the rural county studied. Thus,

sweeping generalizations about the effect of a landfill or other solid wastes facilities (e.g. transfer

stations, material recovery & recycling facilities, waste-to-energy plants) on a community should

not be accepted as universally true.

3. It has become increasingly more difficult to site or expand modern, state-of-the-art landfills,

which are fully protective of the environment and public health in compliance with federal and

state laws and regulations. Generalizations and misinformation about the community impacts of

these needed facilities only exacerbates the problem. The nature of this problem is aptly

19

summarized by the First Law of Garbage, which is: “Everybody wants it picked up, but nobody

wants it put down.” And, the second part of this Law is: Nobody wants it put down anywhere

near where they live, the so-called “not in my back yard” syndrome (NIMBY), or “locally

unacceptable land use” (LULUs).

4. Some argue that NIMBY is acceptable, that we can reduce, reuse and recycle waste at the

source to such an extent that our need for landfills will simply disappear. NSWMA supports

efforts to reduce our waste generation and reuse and recycle as much as we can. Over the past

decade states and local communities throughout the nation have been successfully moving in this

direction. But safe, environmentally protective disposal facilities will be needed regardless of

how much waste can be reduced or recycled. Modern landfills are still an important part of U.S.

EPA’s hierarchy of options to safely and economically manage our solid waste.

2.3.3 Information on Landfills and Property Values

Penn State research that is inconsistent with 2003 staff paper: A 1982 study by Penn State

researchers sought to isolate from other variables the effect that proximity to a landfill might

have on real property values, that is, actual sales. Essentially, this study determined that there

was no “conclusive” evidence that these landfills had any adverse impact on the rate of

community development in surrounding areas. The researchers found that different variables,

such as property characteristics, and other factors led to nearly the identical result: property

characteristics other than distance to the landfill appeared much more important in explaining

prices. Furthermore, the study concluded that even in those cases where distance to a disposal

facility would weigh heavily in the equation, there would probably be sufficient depth to the real

estate market to prevent property depreciation.

2.3.4 The Riverview Model

“The Town That Loves Trash”: A 1992 segment of ABC’s television program, 20/20, featured

the community of Riverview, where an affluent residential development of over 100 homes sits

across the street from one of the state’s largest active landfills. A scan of the new homes shows

beautiful properties selling for as high as $500,000. According to the Mayor, “Garbage is good

for Riverview.” ABC’s John Stossel, who narrates this story, reports that revenue from hosting

the landfill has allowed Riverview to refurbish the firehouse, buy a new fire engine, two new

20

ambulances, and the community has the lowest tax rate in the community. Moreover, Riverview

built a 27-hole golf course around the landfill to provide quality recreation for the homeowners.

The Detroit News: Eight years after the “20/20” story on Riverview, The Detroit News did a

feature article on Riverview, pointing out that new homes across from the landfill range in price

from $400,000 to $800,000. A homeowner who bought her home in 1994 for $264,000 notes

that “we just had it appraised at $410,000.” The article reports that in Northville Township,

Michigan, “the Stonewater development boasts million-dollar homes in view of the Arbor Hills

West landfill less than one mile away,” and that “other states already have caught on to the value

of property adjacent to landfills.” For example, two landfills outside Chicago, Illinois, “added

golf courses to their landfills.” And in Commerce City, Colorado, a landfill was annexed by city

officials “to help contribute to development” and “half-million dollar homes and millions in

commercial and office development are planned just blocks from the landfill.”

Chicago Tribune: A 1994 Chicago Tribune article 5 reported on the growing examples of

upscale residential developments being built adjacent to or in close proximity to landfills:

“Amid the farmhouses, cornfields and winding roads of rural Lake County, Illinois,” a 317 single

family home development on 670 acres, with purchase prices from $190,000 to $300,000, is

located near an 80 acre landfill.

2.3.5 Los Angeles Landfill

San Fernando Valley: A 1991 study of the effects on neighborhood property values from a

landfill concluded that the “results suggest that a landfill, if well-designed and managed, can be a

good neighbor and have no statistically measurable negative impact on surrounding property

values.” The study analyzed 1,628 house sales in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles from

1978 to 1988. The target neighborhood, located adjacent to the landfill, was compared to two

other neighborhoods that were similar in demographics, socioeconomic characteristics, and other

factors, but were outside the area affected by the landfill.

Phoenix, Arizona: The San Fernando Valley study above and another with a similar finding,

was relied on by the city of Phoenix, Arizona, in 2002, in response to potential questions

regarding the effect on residential property values in conjunction with a planned landfill to be

21

sited near the town of Buckeye, Arizona. The city also said that “recent studies in Arizona reflect

these findings.”

2.3.6 Texoma Area Solid Waste Authority (TASWA)

The Authority, composed of three Texas cities and two counties, advised the public that its

planned state-of-the-art landfill would not result in a reduction in property values: “Throughout

the state, research at other landfills has shown no decline in property values and, in many cases,

nearby property values have actually increased around well- designed and operated facilities.”

Moreover, “landfill operations, including landfill employees and vendors, will contribute

significantly to the local economies which will, in turn, benefit area services including schools.”

Real Estate Appraisal Review: Several unpublished articles on the impact of landfills on

property values, suggest that landfills do not have a large impact on real estate development

activities and prices. In one case, the development of a landfill required a large investment in

infrastructure improvements, such as roads, utilities, drainage, etc., and an increase in value

actually resulted.

Tacoma Washington: In Tacoma, Washington, the effects were studied of a 200-acre landfill

on 665 residential properties sold between 1983 and 1986. There were three distinct

neighborhoods within this area, and the results were statistically insignificant in two of these

cases. In the third neighborhood the results were statistically significant, and the landfill had a

positive impact on the surrounding property values. In fact, a new development complex was

built directly adjacent to the landfill.

2.3.7 Case of Landfill that Causes Increase In Value

Philadelphia Magazine: An article in 2002 recounted how taxes had fallen, the public

infrastructure had improved, businesses had moved in, and property values had gone up in Falls

Township, Bucks County, as a result of a major landfill expansion in 1995. “Falls [Township]

got a deal worth an estimated $95 million in fees over 10 years. Falls’s debt was retired by

December 2000, taxes have gone down every year since, millions have been spent on parks, 50-

year-old roads have been repaved, other large businesses have moved in, and, amazingly,

property values have gone up, despite, perhaps even because of, the landfill,” the article said.

While the above examples of high residential property values in close proximity to a landfill may

22

not be typical and are influenced by many variables, they represent the present and growing

compatibility of a modern, highly engineered landfill with its community’s physical and

economic environment. A former official with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

said it best: “Landfills and communities can work together and accept each other and actually

benefit from each other.”

In fact, communities throughout the country have embraced modern landfills as a significant

business opportunity - a source of economic stimulus, new jobs, more revenue infusion and

improved civic services. The “host community” fees, property taxes, license fees and business

taxes that a community receives from hosting a landfill have allowed for the elimination or

substantial reduction in residential property taxes, construction of playgrounds and other

recreational facilities, building new schools, hiring police and firemen, the purchase of new fire

trucks and police cruisers, and making infrastructure improvements. Moreover, rather than

reduce residential property values, these substantial community benefits should help to add value

or, at least, reduce any marginal negative influence in the price-distance relationship of

residential property to a landfill.

As individual states of the federation strive towards self-sustenance financially, the tendency to

industrialize has become pronounced. Industrialization within states have sky rocketed the

volume of urban waste and its complexity. Generated complex wastes comprising heavy

industrial wastes (asbestos, cadmium and lead compounds, textile dyes) which require special

disposal techniques in designated landfills are consciously disposed of indiscriminately by

manufacturers into aquatic bodies and dumpsites via road side drainages and other conveyance

channels. This invariably has fostered a partial or total breakdown of waste management in many

towns and cities as failure to meet acceptable standards have had consequential injury on real

estate and the environment (Ogedengbe et al, 2006). The contents of household wastes are

majorly food materials and others are papers, broken furniture, plastic materials, disposable

diapers, worn-out fabrics, etc. Most of these wastes are biodegradable, hence attract organisms,

insects and rodents that can transmit diseases to humans and this spreads very fast when in close

proximity to residences. (Ogedengbe et al, 2006). This subsequently has negative effect on the

quality of the environment and hence the adjourning buildings. The quality of man‘s

23

environment is an integral contributor to the overall quality of families and individuals quality of

life (Adedeji, 2005). It is expected that when the environmental sanitation standards of a city

improves, there will be an upliftment in the living condition and health security for the

inhabitants as well as improvement in the quality and aesthetics of the environment at large.

Although trends of solid waste have been examined, not much has been done in the area of

housing values based on management of solid waste.

References

1. www.ccsenet.org/ijms, International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2; May

2011. Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

2. Hays B. Gamble, Roger H. Downing, James S. Shortle and Donald J. Epp., “Effects of

Solid Waste Disposal Sites on Community Development and Residential Property

Values, Pennsylvania State University Institute for Research on Land and Water

Resources, Research Dept. LW 8214, Final Report for the Pennsylvania Bureau of Solid

Waste Management, Department of Environmental Resources (1982).

3. Texoma Area Solid Waste Authority, All About TASWA, Facts and Questions (FAQ’s) http://www.taswa.com/allabout.htm, (2002).

4. Bouvier, R.A., J.M. Halstead, K.S. Conway, and A.B Manalo. 2000. “The Effect of Landfills on Rural Residential Property Values: Some Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy 30(2); 23-37.

5. Farber, S. 1998. “Undesirable Facilities and Property Values: A Summary of Empirical Studies.” Ecological Economics 24:1-14.

6. Gamble, H. B., R. H. Downing, J. S. Shortle, and D. J. Epp. 1982. “Effects of Solid Waste Disposal Sites on Community Development and Residential Property Values." Final Report for The Bureau of Solid Waste Management (Department of Environmental Resources, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania).

7. Parker, B.J. 2003. “Solid Waste Landfills and Residential Property Values.” White Paper, National Solid Wastes Management Association, Washington, DC. 6 pp.

8. Zeiss, C., and J. Atwater. 1989. Waste facility impacts on residential property values. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 115(Sept.): 64-80.

9. Civil and Environmental Research, www.iiste.org ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online) Vol.6, No.9, 2014

10. Akaninyere.M. & Atser. J. (2001). Solid Waste Characterization and Management Issues In Uyo Municipalities, Nigeria. Libro-Gem, Lagos, Nigeria.

24

11. Domeniq. M. (1995) Non-Hazardous Waste- Part A: Domestic Waste. Compiled for the Austrian Federal Waste Management Plan. Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 14, page 460

12. Hoornweg D. (1999). What a waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for the World Bank. Huang, J. Y. C. (2008). Solid Waste Disposal. Microsoft Encarta, 2009 (DVD). Redmond, WA. Microsoft Corporation.

13. Ogedengbe, P. S & Oyedele, J. B. (2006). Effect of waste management on Property values in Ibadan, Nigeria. Journal of land use and development studies, Vol 2, No 1.

14. Olotuah, A. O. (2006). Housing quality in suburban areas: An empirical study of Oba–Ile, Nigeria.15. Reichert, A.K., M. Small, and S. Mohanty. 1992. “The Impact of Landfills on

Residential Property Values.” The Journal of Real Estate Research 7(3):297-314.16. Cartee, C. (1989). A review of sanitary landfill impacts on property values. Real Estate

Appraiser and Analyst, (Spring), 43-47.

17. Akinjare, O. A., Ayedun, C. A., Oluwatobi, A. O., & Iroham, O. C. (2011). Impact of sanitary landfills on urban residential property value in Lagos State, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development , 4(2),48-60.

18. www.ccsenet.org/ijms, International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2; May 2011, ISSN 1918-719X E-ISSN 1918-7203 70

19. Bello, V. A. (2007). The effects of Ojota waste dump site on surrounding property values in Lagos metropolis. Journal of Environmental Conservation and Research, 1(1&2), 136-142.

20. Bello, M. O., & Bello, V. A. (2008). Willingness to pay for better environmental services: Evidence from the Nigerian real estate market. Journal of African Real Estate Research, 1(1), 19-27.

21. Bello, V. A. (2009). The effects of waste dump sites on proximate property values in lagos Nigeria, (Unpublished Ph.D Dessert), Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria.

22. Bouvier, Halstead, Conway, & Malano, (2000). The effect of landfill on rural residential property values: Some empirical analysis. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 370(2), 23-33.

23. Zeiss, C., Atwater, J., 1989. Waste facility impacts on residen- tial property values. Journal of Urban Planning and Devel- opment 115 (2), 64–80.

24. Nelson, A., Genereux, J., Genereux, M., 1992. House price effects of landfills. Land Economics 68 (4), 359–365.

25. Rosen, S., 1974. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy 82, 34–55.

25

26. Havlicek, J., Richardson, R., Davies, L., 1971. Measuring the impacts of solid waste disposal site location on property values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 53 (5), 869.

27. Nelson, A., Genereux, J., Genereux, M., 1992. House price effects of landfills. Land Economics 68 (4), 359–365.

28. Ijasan, K.C., Oloke, O.C., Adeyemo, O.A., Gbadamosi, A.F. 2012, Depressionary effect of proximity of residential properties to waste disposal sites in Nigeria http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ejesm.v5i4.S18

26

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

This section explains in detail, the step by step measures to be taken to actualize the objectives of

this project.

3.1 Research Design

There have been some studies on Olusosun Dump Site and some other sites across the country,

but there is no exact study on the effect of this dump site on the value of the properties in its

vicinity. This project is to examine the effects of waste dumpsites on proximate property values

using the Olusosun Dump Site and its effect on properties on Olatunji Street as the case study.

This study used both qualitative and quantitative research methods of gathering information. The

relationship between value of property and what people are willing to offer as rent on Olatunji

street is compared to value of same type of property in a similar area of Lagos but without a

dump site in its vicinity, the time factor, that if the effect has any correlation with . Descriptive

research method is also used to analyse feelings of residents and interviews conducted where the

LAWMA Boss, Olamuyiwa Adejokun, points out some of the reasons it might seem like the

refuse is back, and the measures his agency is taking to stay on top of the situation.

3.2 Data Requirement

Data is the foundation and source of raw information collected that will be analysed to test the

theoretical hypotheses or research questions. Moderate data volume is required in this type of

study as the site is within a specific location and all stakeholders ad affected persons can be

easily contacted for necessary information. Data that was required was sourced from both

primary and secondary sources. This includes primary data collected raw through a well

articulated questionnaire and interview of the LAWMA boss. Both bio-data information of the

respondents and questions pertaining to the research questions were included in the

questionnaire. Secondary sources of data include journal articles, seminar papers, thesis,

unpublished projects and e-materials. It is from these that this study was undertaken to establish

the nature of the effect that waste dumpsite has on proximate property values with particular

focus on the environs of Olusosun, Lagos.

27

3.3 Target Population

The target population was drawn from definite and real universal matrix including

(a) The entire residents of Olatunji Street, Olusosun, Ojota, Lagos

(b) Residents living up to 2 Km away from the dumpsite

(c) Appropriate State Government officials of the Ministry of Health

(d) Appropriate State Government officials of the Ministry of Environment

(e) Appropriate officers of LAWMA

(f) Lagos State Society of Estate Surveyors and Valuers

(g) Lagos State Central Body of PSP operators

3.4 Sample Frame

Both the residents of the residential properties within 1km radius from the landfill site in the

study area, the registered Estate Surveyors and Valuers’ firms in Ojota, Lagos state, PSP

operators and the LAWMA officials will be chosen on the basis of random picking.

The sample frame for the research was collated from the lists of the affected residents,

appropriate officers of State ministries, members of the Estate Surveyors and Valuers’ firms who

manage properties in the area, appropriate officers of LAWMA and PSP operators who bring

refuse to the site.

3.5 Sample Size

It is necessary to accurately determine a sample size appropriate for a particular study. Sample

size is a part of study that ca influence the detection of significant differences, relationship or

interactions in a population (Peers, 1996). The sample should not be too large so as not to waste

resources analysing it nor too small as it will not be sufficient to detect a significant effect. Our

population is made up of 2,575 people. Since the larger the sample size, the larger the accuracy

to be achieved. Using the Wiliams (1978) formula, the estimated sample size is expressed as

sz= n__

1+(n/N)

where sz = the estimated sample size

n= sample size estimate using this equation

N = size of the population

28

3.6 Sampling Technique

The self selected sampling technique is used in analysing the data collected. This made it

possible for the researcher to give out the questionnaire and conduct interview with identified,

particular people within the population. Further, the probability method is adopted whereby the

population elements have equal chance of being chosen for inclusion in a sample (Azika, 2004).

In this, the multi-stage type of probabilistic sampling technique was used since the population of

this research is different categories of heterogeneous units. The LAWMA boss was also

scheduled for interview.

3.7 Questionnaire Design

By means of questionnaires, conceptualized items can be measured ad objectivity is maintained

by the reliability of one’s questionnaire, replication can be carried out by using the same research

instrument in another setting (Fajana cited in Imoisili, 1996). The questionnaire option therefore

provides a better opportunity for use of quantitative method, it gives room for operational

definition ad causality characteristics. Primary data was collected by observation, personal

interview and questionnaire which were taken to the research area, distributed and collected back

personally. Combination of multiple choice questions that made it possible to represent the

gradation of feelings, interest or preference was used in addition to open-ended questions that

allowed respondents to make free comment about certain issues. The respondents characteristics

were captured in their bio-data information to facilitate analysis of their responses.

3.7.1 Questionnaire Type

Same questionnaire was used and administered on all, it focused on the dumpsite which is the

meeting point of all concerned and all stakeholders.

A schedule was also prepared for the interview of the LAWMA boss. This was a list of questions

on the activities of the agency, cooperation ad collaboration with relevant government ministries,

operations of the PSP and future plan to improve on waste clearing and disposal.

29

3.8 Method of Data Analysis

In order to accurately process the data collected for the research, the use of descriptive statistics,

weighted mean score ad the chi-square test were employed. These facilitated ease of

communicating the results while at the same time proved its validity.

Descriptive statistics find useful application in that it permits description of very large data with

relatively small number of indices and that the descriptive statistics computed o the sample data

provides the basis for additional computation on which inferences will be made by the researcher

about the population. The variants of descriptive statistics used include frequency distribution

and percentages. The weighted mean score was used in the evaluation of the perception of the

residents in relation to their willingness to pay despite the dumpsite.

The evaluation of factors will be based on a 5-point Likert scale. The weighted mean score is

determined as:

Weighted Mean Score = 5n5 + 4n4 + 3n3 + 2n2 + n1

n5 + n4 + n3 + n2 + n1

where n5 is umber of respondents that answered ‘strongly agreed’

n4 is umber of respondents that answered ‘agreed’

n3 is umber of respondents that answered ‘undecided’

n2 is umber of respondents that answered ‘disagreed’

n1 is umber of respondents that answered ‘strongly disagreed’

30

31

QUESTIONNAIRE

Section 1NameAgeSexMarital statusNumber of childrenFamily income/annumSocial statusEthnic originEducational background Type of WorkProfession

32

Section 2 Legend: Strongly Agree SA, Agree A, Undecided U, Disagree D, Strongly Disagree SD

SA A U D SD1 I will not even consider renting or buying a property if close to a

waste dump site2 Lagosians help in keeping the city clean by properly disposing their

wastes properly3 Waste dump site negatively affect the value of near-by properties4 Waste dump sites have significant effect on value of proximate

properties5 Heaps of rubbish remain prominent on our roads and highways,

despite the presence of highway cleaners and waste collectors at work

6 The ban of cat-pushers has significantly affected the effective disposal of wastes in Lagos

7 State needs more recycling centres to be effective8 Dump sites within the city should be closed and new ones open far

away from centre of the city9 PSP operators are not yet effective in the collection of waste10 Waste can be of great economic value to the state11 LAWMA can help PSP operators who bitterly complain of residents

refusing to pay12 People should get involved in waste management, considering that

it’s not the responsibility of the government alone.13 About cart-pushers, their activities are counter-productive by

dumping refuse at wrong places or canals14 Residential property values are not negatively affected by close

proximity to a landfill15 Waste dump site benefits that contribute to healthy property values

include host community fees, tax revenues, job creation, energy from landfill gas and civic improvements

16 There is little or no compliance by Lagosians of the tenets of environmental laws

17 The every Thursday environmental sanitation exercise has greatly created awareness for the need to take care of our area

18 Modern landfill and dump site do not have negative effect on prices of near-by houses

19 I will prefer to live far away from dump site due to health reasons20 Lagos State Government and regulatory agencies comprising the

Ministry of Environment and Planning and the Health Management Board (HMB) should do more to put the Olusosun site in good order considering its location.

33