Survey on Household Awareness and Willingness to Participate in E-Waste Management in Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria

: Nearly 290,000 tons of electronic waste was generated in Nigeria during the year 2017, which is likely to increase further due to high population growth rates, accelerated urbanization, high demand for electronic products, as well as disposal at their end-of-life. At the same time, e-waste is associated with negative human health impacts, as well as environmental pollution. Therefore, environmental awareness on this waste stream is crucial in its management and possible minimization. In this paper


Introduction
In 2016 and 2017, approximately 45 and 46 million tons of electronic waste (e-waste) was generated globally, respectively [1]. Balde et al. [1] projected that the amount of e-waste generated is likely to increase to 52.2 million tons by the year 2021. Mishra et al. [2] suggested that with an annual growth rate of 4% to 5%, e-waste is becoming one of the fastest growing waste streams in the world. European countries generate approximately 8.3 to 9.1 million tons of e-waste per annum, with Wu et al. [3] 1.
What types of electronic devices are used by households within this metropolis? 2.
How much awareness and knowledge exists amongst households regarding e-waste? 3.
Is there any willingness amongst households to participate in e-waste management? 4.
What methods are used in disposing away e-waste in this metropolis?
In addition to these research questions, two different hypotheses were formulated to help validate and illuminate our results while enriching existing theory on e-waste management in the study area: • There are no significant differences in the knowledge and awareness levels amongst households according to their socio-demographic characteristics.

•
There are no significant differences in household willingness to participate in e-waste management depending on their socio-demographic characteristics.

E-Waste Classification and Sources
E-waste refers to all electrical and electronic equipment which are discarded by their owners because they are considered no longer useful unless they are reused and recycled. The environmental regulatory body of Nigeria, the National Environmental Standards and Regulatory Enforcement Agency, which was established in 2007 [27] defines e-waste as "any Waste Electrical Electronic Equipment (WEEE) that is old and near its end of life or any discarded electrical/electronic appliance that uses electricity". Furthermore, the European Union Directive (2018/849) [28] has reviewed the classification of e-waste from nearly 10 to only six categories or classes for international use (Table 1). Table 1. Electronic (e-waste) waste categories [28].

E-Waste Awareness and Management
E-waste is generated from several sources which include industries, institutions, and households [29][30][31]. Some of the electronic devices have very shorter life spans and are frequently changed, thus leading to increased waste generation rates [32,33]. For instance, mobile phones have a higher disposal rate due to the accelerated rates at which they are being improved.
E-waste contains both valuable and harmful components which can be toxic to human health and the environment [23,[34][35][36][37][38]. This point is also corroborated by Machete [39] and others [40,41] that e-waste exposes people to hazardous elements such as lead, mercury, calcium, and arsenic. Moreover, some diseases such as pulmonary and cardiovascular illnesses, as well as respiratory and neurological ailments, may be exacerbated by exposure to the hazardous materials stemming from this waste Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 4 of 16 stream [13,19,23,34,42,43]. Unfortunately, large quantities of e-waste are accumulating in households and offices as they become obsolete and are no longer optimally useful [36,39,44]. With this waste accumulation comes storage and disposal problems.
According to Afroz et al. [45], most households in the urban areas of Africa have at least one piece of electronic product ranging from mobile phones and laptops to very large appliances such as television sets as well as refrigerators. However, when these electronic devices are purchased, consumers are rarely given any detailed information on how to handle and properly discard them at the end of their useful period, thus leading to ineffective e-waste management [46]. Consequently, the resulting waste is simply stored indefinitely inside offices, government storehouses, as well as households with a view to dispose of them some time in the future [47]. Given these trends, inappropriate disposal of e-wastes is becoming a serious environmental and public health problem throughout many African countries and is accentuated by lack of suitable community waste collection and recycling facilities [10,21,33,48].
To this extent, several studies have raised the importance of e-waste knowledge towards the successful management of this waste stream [15,25,[48][49][50]. Methods for the disposal of e-waste are largely a function of attitudes and awareness levels amongst stakeholders, including households. As highlighted by Bhat and Patil [51], "consumer awareness plays a major role to route e-waste to the authorized collection centers and authorized recyclers for safe disposal". Thus, many international studies have highlighted the importance of individual recycling attitudes, behavioural dispositions, and waste disposal habits in moderating the effectiveness of waste management [12,[52][53][54]. According to Shah [46], for effective e-waste collection and enhanced recycling rates to occur, there is a need for greater public awareness. Similarly, other studies attribute shortfalls in e-waste management to poor recycling attitudes, while existing awareness levels are not always enough for the proper management of e-wastes [50,55].

The Study Area
This survey was conducted amongst households in the Jos metropolis (Nigeria). Jos is the administrative capital of Plateau State in Nigeria and has a total land mass of about 249.7 km 2 ( Figure 1). This city is located at an elevation of 1238 m (i.e., 4062 ft) above sea level [56] and is comprised of two local Government Areas (LGAs), namely, (1) Jos South and (2) Jos North as shown in Figure 1. households and offices as they become obsolete and are no longer optimally useful [36,39,44]. With this waste accumulation comes storage and disposal problems. According to Afroz et al. [45], most households in the urban areas of Africa have at least one piece of electronic product ranging from mobile phones and laptops to very large appliances such as television sets as well as refrigerators. However, when these electronic devices are purchased, consumers are rarely given any detailed information on how to handle and properly discard them at the end of their useful period, thus leading to ineffective e-waste management [46]. Consequently, the resulting waste is simply stored indefinitely inside offices, government storehouses, as well as households with a view to dispose of them some time in the future [47]. Given these trends, inappropriate disposal of e-wastes is becoming a serious environmental and public health problem throughout many African countries and is accentuated by lack of suitable community waste collection and recycling facilities [10,21,33,48].
To this extent, several studies have raised the importance of e-waste knowledge towards the successful management of this waste stream [15,25,[48][49][50]. Methods for the disposal of e-waste are largely a function of attitudes and awareness levels amongst stakeholders, including households. As highlighted by Bhat and Patil [51], "consumer awareness plays a major role to route e-waste to the authorized collection centers and authorized recyclers for safe disposal". Thus, many international studies have highlighted the importance of individual recycling attitudes, behavioural dispositions, and waste disposal habits in moderating the effectiveness of waste management [12,[52][53][54]. According to Shah [46], for effective e-waste collection and enhanced recycling rates to occur, there is a need for greater public awareness. Similarly, other studies attribute shortfalls in e-waste management to poor recycling attitudes, while existing awareness levels are not always enough for the proper management of e-wastes [50,55].

The Study Area
This survey was conducted amongst households in the Jos metropolis (Nigeria). Jos is the administrative capital of Plateau State in Nigeria and has a total land mass of about 249.7 km 2 ( Figure  1). This city is located at an elevation of 1238 m (i.e., 4062 ft) above sea level [56] and is comprised of two local Government Areas (LGAs), namely, (1) Jos South and (2) Jos North as shown in Figure 1.  Jos is also one of the coolest cities in Nigeria with temperatures ranging from 22 to 32 • C (minimum and maximum, respectively) and has attracted many settlers from different parts of Nigeria, as well as foreigners from other countries. The Dilimi River is an important source of water to many other states in Nigeria, both for domestic and agricultural activities, especially for irrigation farming.
Jos city was chosen for this survey mainly because of the importance of prevailing economic activities, an accelerated pace of urbanization, and a population size of about 1 million people, along with the increased burden of municipal waste management [57]. According to Peter et al. [58], the urban population in Jos is increasing at a rate of 5.5%, and similarly the proportion of e-waste is expected to rise concomitantly. Furthermore, this metropolis serves as the business hub of Plateau State, thus is home to some of the largest electrical and electronic stores which include household brands such as PZ, LG, and Samsung. Given this background, large amounts of e-wastes are generated from this city, thus necessitating the need for more empirical research to provide solutions to this environmental management problem.

Survey Procedures and Sampling Framework
The aim of this survey was to investigate knowledge and awareness levels related to e-waste and related issues amongst households in Jos. Similarly, with an e-waste survey conducted by Nduneseokwu et al. [59] in the city of Onitsha in Anambra State (Nigeria), the respondents for the present survey were selected randomly across Jos. Household heads were the main targets for face-to-face questionnaire-administered interviews. The principle of random sampling in our survey was intended to bring statistical credibility, as well as data representability, thus in line with previous research approaches adopted to investigate the willingness and behaviour of residents towards e-waste recycling in Beijing (China) [60]. Moreover, Bhat and Patil [51] followed a random sampling approach in attempting to understand the consciousness, as well as the disposal practices of residents of Pune city in India.
In total, 300 questionnaires were administered to households' respondents during our survey although only 228 were successfully populated, thus yielding a response rate of 76%. Such interviews were conducted mostly in English although there were translations into the regional indigenous language known as 'Hausa' whenever respondents experienced difficulties in understanding interview questions.

Data Collection Methods
The survey collected mainly quantitative primary data through interviews from June 2018 until September 2018. The questionnaires were comprised of close-ended questions that were grouped into four different sections that are summarized as follows: • Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of respondents.

•
Knowledge and awareness of electronic wastes.

•
Reasons for changing electronic products.

•
Environmental problems associated with e-waste management.
From an ethical point of view and consonant with the research policy of the University of Johannesburg, interviews for collecting primary data occurred only when respondents offered prior informed consent for their participation in this survey. Such consent meant that the respondents understood the purpose of the surveys and gave permission for interviews while their privacy and anonymity were being protected.

Data Analyses
Primary data collected during interviews were stored in MS Excel (Version 2016) for further processing and coding. Subsequently, the data were subjected to both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses by making use of the SPSS 25 version. The hypotheses were subjected to t-tests and Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 6 of 16 analysis of variance (ANOVA). Regarding the testing of these hypotheses, a probability level of 0.05 (p < 0.05) was taken into consideration. The results are presented in the next section by means of tables and different types of statistical illustrations. Table 2 summarizes the demographic data of respondents. Out of the 228 respondents, 73.7% (n = 168) were men while 26.39% (n = 60) were women. Since we interviewed only household heads who are traditionally men, it is not surprising that women were highly under-represented. The highest percentage (51%; n = 116) of respondents was in the 31 to 40 age category whereas individuals aged 51 to 60 years were less represented (7%; n = 1). Most of the respondents had attained tertiary educational qualifications (93.27%; n = 208), while fewer respondents either had no education at all (0.45%; n = 1) or had completed only primary schooling (0.45%; n = 1). In terms of marital status, most respondents were married (75%; n = 171) whereas single individuals amounted to only 25% (n = 57). Although most occupations occurred in nearly the same proportions (i.e., 10.53% for informal trading and 12.72% for others) amongst the respondents, most of them were employed as civil servants (46.1%; n = 105) ( Table 3). Nearly 58% (57.9%; n = 132) of the respondents earned incomes between $83.3 and $250 while the proportions of those earning between $252.7 and $416.6, as well as $419.4 to $583.3 were 14.5% (n = 33) and 16.2% (n = 37), respectively. Given these results, those who received earnings below $83.3, which is the national minimum wage in Nigeria, are equivalent to 29% (n = 66) while the rest (71%; n = 162) received monthly incomes that exceeded this minimum wage.

Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents
Regarding family size, 34.64% (n = 79) and 29.8% (n = 68) of respondents accounted for households occupied by three to four or five to six persons, respectively, while families with nine or more people were represented by only 5.3% (n = 12) of the respondents. Depending on the age and income levels of the respondents, family size may give an indication of how many electronic goods and devices they would probably buy, and how much e-waste could be expected.

Knowledge and Awareness of Electronic Wastes
In Figure 2, the proportions of several types of electronic devices used by members of households are depicted. Both cell phones (93%) and television sets (82%) were mentioned by most respondents. Nowadays, cell phones are some the most ubiquitous and indispensable electronic products inside households, as affirmed by a study conducted by Okoye and Odoh [61] in Onitsha (Nigeria). Furthermore, devices such as radio (59%), laptops (59%), DVDs (61%), kitchen appliances (64%), and refrigerators (66%) were reported by nearly an equal proportion of respondents. According to a study conducted in India [47], increased purchases of electronic devices can be ascribed to the rising economic growth, although some electronic devices in our study were least mentioned by the respondents. Such devices entailed food warming appliances (microwaves) (39%), media players (43%), and desktop computers (43%). As noted by Saritha et al. [62], regardless of the type of electronic goods being bought at household level, at one stage they will reach the end of their life span, thus necessitating the need for disposing them away.

Knowledge and Awareness of Electronic Wastes
In Figure 2, the proportions of several types of electronic devices used by members of households are depicted. Both cell phones (93%) and television sets (82%) were mentioned by most respondents. Nowadays, cell phones are some the most ubiquitous and indispensable electronic products inside households, as affirmed by a study conducted by Okoye and Odoh [61] in Onitsha (Nigeria). Furthermore, devices such as radio (59%), laptops (59%), DVDs (61%), kitchen appliances (64%), and refrigerators (66%) were reported by nearly an equal proportion of respondents. According to a study conducted in India [47], increased purchases of electronic devices can be ascribed to the rising economic growth, although some electronic devices in our study were least mentioned by the respondents. Such devices entailed food warming appliances (microwaves) (39%), media players (43%), and desktop computers (43%). As noted by Saritha et al. [62], regardless of the type of electronic goods being bought at household level, at one stage they will reach the end of their life span, thus necessitating the need for disposing them away.  The results depicted in Table 4 indicate that 67.5% (n = 154) of respondents are aware of e-wastes, although 68% (n = 155) claimed that they have not received detailed education on the handling and disposal of this waste stream. Not receiving education on e-waste handling protocols is typical of many developing countries such as Nigeria and others where there is a lack of resources and institutional support for increased dissemination of applicable knowledge on e-waste [48,50,61]. Regardless of these limitations, many of the respondents mentioned that they are aware of the toxicity or harmfulness (68%; n = 155) of this waste stream and inherent health risks (60.5%; n = 138) associated with unsafe disposal practices, and hence the special treatment it requires for safe disposal (50.9%; n = 166). By comparison, such relatively higher awareness levels on e-waste amongst households have also been reported by another study conducted in Enugu West Senatorial District in Nigeria [63]. Consequently, in the present study 90.8% (n = 207) of respondents expressed the opinion that e-waste sorting is important (Table 4). Figure 3 indicates the results regarding the different sources of learning about e-waste at household level in the Jos metropolis. To a greater extent, most of the knowledge sources on e-waste were mentioned by relatively fewer respondents-schooling (13.2%; n = 30), television (11.4%; n = 26), and workplaces (11%; n = 25). Moreover, other learning avenues such as information received from national or community radios (6.1%; n = 14) and local awareness programs (3.9%; n = 9) were mentioned by even fewer respondents. On the other hand, the proportion of respondents who have not been exposed to any source of e-waste learning was comparatively higher (32.5%; n = 74), thus denoting the generally low level of priority that is placed on e-waste learning in the study area. The results depicted in Table 4 indicate that 67.5% (n = 154) of respondents are aware of e-wastes, although 68% (n = 155) claimed that they have not received detailed education on the handling and disposal of this waste stream. Not receiving education on e-waste handling protocols is typical of many developing countries such as Nigeria and others where there is a lack of resources and institutional support for increased dissemination of applicable knowledge on e-waste [48,50,61]. Regardless of these limitations, many of the respondents mentioned that they are aware of the toxicity or harmfulness (68%; n = 155) of this waste stream and inherent health risks (60.5%; n = 138) associated with unsafe disposal practices, and hence the special treatment it requires for safe disposal (50.9%; n = 166). By comparison, such relatively higher awareness levels on e-waste amongst households have also been reported by another study conducted in Enugu West Senatorial District in Nigeria [63]. Consequently, in the present study 90.8% (n = 207) of respondents expressed the opinion that e-waste sorting is important (Table 4). Figure 3 indicates the results regarding the different sources of learning about e-waste at household level in the Jos metropolis. To a greater extent, most of the knowledge sources on e-waste were mentioned by relatively fewer respondents -schooling (13.2%; n = 30), television (11.4%; n = 26), and workplaces (11%; n = 25). Moreover, other learning avenues such as information received from national or community radios (6.1%; n = 14) and local awareness programs (3.9%; n = 9) were mentioned by even fewer respondents. On the other hand, the proportion of respondents who have not been exposed to any source of e-waste learning was comparatively higher (32.5%; n = 74), thus denoting the generally low level of priority that is placed on e-waste learning in the study area.

Reasons for Changing Electronic Products
There are different reasons for changing and acquiring new electronic devices and the results on these aspects are summarized in Figure 4. Most respondents strongly agreed that they were acquiring Sustainability 2020, 12, 1047 9 of 16 electronic devices mainly because of product damages (35.1%), upgrades (32.9%), theft (26.33%), and the market introduction of newer designs (25.4%). These findings concur with conclusions made by Saritha et al. [62] that the acquisition of electronic goods is accelerated by damages incurred on existing products, as well as the introduction of newer product designs. Four key reasons that influence the change of electronic devices among respondents are evident from Figure 4, namely damage, product upgrades, new designs, and theft.

Reasons for Changing Electronic Products
There are different reasons for changing and acquiring new electronic devices and the results on these aspects are summarized in Figure 4. Most respondents strongly agreed that they were acquiring electronic devices mainly because of product damages (35.1%), upgrades (32.9%), theft (26.33%), and the market introduction of newer designs (25.4%). These findings concur with conclusions made by Saritha et al. [62] that the acquisition of electronic goods is accelerated by damages incurred on existing products, as well as the introduction of newer product designs. Four key reasons that influence the change of electronic devices among respondents are evident from Figure 4, namely damage, product upgrades, new designs, and theft.  . Storing ewaste at home is probably accentuated by the lack of a door-to-door collection program in the Jos metropolis. Such home storage of e-waste has also been reported in other studies due to the lack of feasible options for disposing it away effectively or reclaiming it for other uses [46,64]. With these state of affairs in the study area, residents are likely to dump their e-waste anywhere outside of their homes, thus in line with findings from other researchers in Nigeria which attest to poor e-waste management practices. However, Figure 5 also shows that some of the e-wastes are sold to individuals for possible reuse (17.50%; n = 40), which is a relatively more sustainable practice of dealing with this waste stream. Furthermore, to a lesser extent, e-wastes are burned at household level (7.90%; n = 18), thus contributing to local air pollution in the vicinity of households, or simply throwing it away at nearby dumpsites (6.70%; n = 15) ( Figure 5). However, some of the e-waste is sold to recyclers (7.5%; n = 17) or is donated (7.90%; n = 18) to people who need it, although these proportions are relatively lower compared to the preponderance of environmentally unsustainable practices in the handling and disposal of these wastes.  Figure 5 illustrates the various methods of handling and discarding e-wastes in the study area. Approximately the same percentages of respondents are simply storing e-waste in their homes (27.6%; n = 63) or dumping and mixing it with general household wastes (25%; n = 57). Storing e-waste at home is probably accentuated by the lack of a door-to-door collection program in the Jos metropolis. Such home storage of e-waste has also been reported in other studies due to the lack of feasible options for disposing it away effectively or reclaiming it for other uses [46,64]. With these state of affairs in the study area, residents are likely to dump their e-waste anywhere outside of their homes, thus in line with findings from other researchers in Nigeria which attest to poor e-waste management practices. However, Figure 5 also shows that some of the e-wastes are sold to individuals for possible reuse (17.50%; n = 40), which is a relatively more sustainable practice of dealing with this waste stream. Furthermore, to a lesser extent, e-wastes are burned at household level (7.90%; n = 18), thus contributing to local air pollution in the vicinity of households, or simply throwing it away at nearby dumpsites (6.70%; n = 15) ( Figure 5). However, some of the e-waste is sold to recyclers (7.5%; n = 17) or is donated (7.90%; n = 18) to people who need it, although these proportions are relatively lower compared to the preponderance of environmentally unsustainable practices in the handling and disposal of these wastes. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16 Figure 5. Methods of handling and disposing away e-waste by households.

Environmental Problems Associated with E-Waste Management
Based on Figure 6, most respondents regarded e-waste as a serious (26.30%; n = 60) to very serious (31.40%; n = 71) eyesore in the study area while nearly equal proportions regarded it as an important (28% to 30.30%) source of fugitive atmospheric emissions. Similarly, the mismanagement of e-wastes in the study area is associated with serious (28.5%) to very serious (27.60%) ineffective municipal solid waste management while it is also being blamed for being a source of diseases among people.

Households' Willingness to Participate in Waste Management
The results on households' willingness to participate in e-waste management are shown in Table  5. Determining such willingness was based on the different statements (Table 5) provided to the respondents during the survey. To a large extent, there was willingness amongst respondents to pay for proper e-waste disposal (68.9%; n = 157). Depending on their level of commitment and willingness, with such payments the local municipalities may find a source of revenue for providing drop-off facilities, thus enhancing collection rates and recycling effectiveness of e-wastes in the study area. However, such observed willingness to pay for e-waste disposal contrasts with findings

Environmental Problems Associated with E-Waste Management
Based on Figure 6, most respondents regarded e-waste as a serious (26.30%; n = 60) to very serious (31.40%; n = 71) eyesore in the study area while nearly equal proportions regarded it as an important (28% to 30.30%) source of fugitive atmospheric emissions. Similarly, the mismanagement of e-wastes in the study area is associated with serious (28.5%) to very serious (27.60%) ineffective municipal solid waste management while it is also being blamed for being a source of diseases among people.

Environmental Problems Associated with E-Waste Management
Based on Figure 6, most respondents regarded e-waste as a serious (26.30%; n = 60) to very serious (31.40%; n = 71) eyesore in the study area while nearly equal proportions regarded it as an important (28% to 30.30%) source of fugitive atmospheric emissions. Similarly, the mismanagement of e-wastes in the study area is associated with serious (28.5%) to very serious (27.60%) ineffective municipal solid waste management while it is also being blamed for being a source of diseases among people.

Households' Willingness to Participate in Waste Management
The results on households' willingness to participate in e-waste management are shown in Table  5. Determining such willingness was based on the different statements (Table 5) provided to the respondents during the survey. To a large extent, there was willingness amongst respondents to pay for proper e-waste disposal (68.9%; n = 157). Depending on their level of commitment and willingness, with such payments the local municipalities may find a source of revenue for providing drop-off facilities, thus enhancing collection rates and recycling effectiveness of e-wastes in the study area. However, such observed willingness to pay for e-waste disposal contrasts with findings

Households' Willingness to Participate in Waste Management
The results on households' willingness to participate in e-waste management are shown in Table 5. Determining such willingness was based on the different statements (Table 5) provided to the respondents during the survey. To a large extent, there was willingness amongst respondents to pay for proper e-waste disposal (68.9%; n = 157). Depending on their level of commitment and willingness, with such payments the local municipalities may find a source of revenue for providing drop-off facilities, thus enhancing collection rates and recycling effectiveness of e-wastes in the study area. However, such observed willingness to pay for e-waste disposal contrasts with findings associated with households in California (USA) who expressed some unwillingness to pay extra charges for effective e-waste disposal [65]. Be that as it may, we need to emphasize that the California study was conducted nearly thirteen years ago, of which it is not clear if their public willingness to pay for e-waste disposal has not improved for the better in recent times. In addition, the need for more education to improve knowledge and awareness levels in Jos was widely recognized (89.9%; n = 205). In the same way, the role of the extended producer responsibility (EPR) policy (86.8%; n = 196) amongst the manufacturers and vendors of electronic products was seen as a viable means to manage e-waste disposal in a relatively more efficient manner. However, judging the effectiveness of such an intervention would require further engagement and collaboration with other relevant stakeholders, notably those who will finance its implementation and logistical arrangements.  Table 6 indicates the results from t-tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for assessing the relationships or differences between variables such as the respondents' awareness of and willingness to participate meaningfully in e-waste management based on their socio-demographic characteristics. Our results showed no significant differences between the mean score of male (3.575; SD 2.135) and female (3.892; SD 2.143) respondents regarding their awareness of e-waste. Similarly, we found no significant differences in the willingness of respondents to participate in e-waste management according to their socio-economic characteristics ( Table 6). Table 6. T-tests on the awareness and willingness to participate in e-waste management. Furthermore, the one-way ANOVA test (Table 7) showed no significant differences between the awareness and willingness of respondents to participate in e-waste management according to their educational levels, marital status, as well as age.

Conclusions and Recommendations
In our survey, we investigated household awareness on e-waste and the associated willingness to participate in its management in Jos (Plateau State of Nigeria). Sound knowledge and awareness of e-waste is essential towards safe disposal, reuse, as well as its recycling, along with minimizing exposure to harmful components. Based on the findings from our survey, the following conclusions and recommendations are made.
Most (70.2%) of the respondents were men because many of them are household heads while the most (50.9%) represented age group amongst respondents were in the category of 31 to 40 years old. In terms of income levels, about 71% of respondents earned incomes above the Nigerian minimum monthly wage of $83.3, thereby raising the likelihood of increased capacity to purchase electronic goods as indicated in several studies.
Electronic devices mentioned by most households included cell phones (82%), televisions sets (82%), DVDs (61%), as well as laptops (59%). Similarly, the level of awareness on e-waste amongst the respondents was relatively high (67.5%), although many seemed to lack detailed knowledge and proper education (73%) on the proper handling and management of e-wastes. For example, 32.5% of respondents have never received any training from any source regarding e-waste management. Given this weakness, community-based interventions to improve awareness levels on e-waste management are recommended.
The most predominant reasons for acquiring more electronic devices amongst respondents entailed damage to existing products, theft, product upgrades, as well as the introduction of newer versions. Furthermore, several environmental problems from the perspective of the respondents were linked to poor practices of disposing away e-wastes in their neighbourhoods, the most important being the negative impacts it has on aesthetics, ambient air quality, as well as weak municipal management to deal effectively with this waste stream.
The majority of respondents were willing to participate in e-waste management programmes (68.9%), as well as become involved in the extended producer responsibility schemes (84.2%). However, existing literature [66][67][68] shows that to adequately evaluate the viability of introducing such schemes would require further engagement, interactions, and collaboration with computer manufacturers, associated vendors, and other stakeholders who are likely to be affected by the financial and logistical impacts involved.
Furthermore, the survey revealed some of the factors that may help moderate e-waste knowledge and awareness amongst respondents, as well as their willingness to participate in its management and possible recycling. Based on the hypotheses formulated for this survey, levels of awareness and knowledge amongst respondents were not affected by any of the socio-demographical characteristics of respondents. Similarly, there were no significant differences amongst respondents in terms of their willingness to participate in e-waste management.

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.