ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION PRACTICES IN THE CORE OF IKORODU, LAGOS STATE, NIGERIA

ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION PRACTICES

IN THE CORE OF IKORODU, LAGOS STATE

By

BELLO, Hafis

URP/2001/027

[email protected]

BEING A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AND

MANAGEMENT

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQIUREMENTS

FOR THE AWARD OF A BACHELOR OF SCIENCE

DEGREE IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING,

OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY, ILE IFE, OSUN

STATE.

DECEMBER, 2007

1

CERTIFICATION

I certify that this project was carried out and written by BELLO, Hafis; of the

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Obafemi Awolowo University;

under the supervision of Dr. Abel Omoniyi AFON.

……………………………

Dr A. O. Afon

Project Supervisor

……………………………

Dr L. M. Olayiwola

Head of Department,

Urban and Regional Planning.

2

DEDICATION

This project is dedicated to Almighty God for His Guidance and Protection, and

to my beloved parents Late Alhaji A. F. O. Bello and Mrs. Mujidat Bello.

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I thank Almighty God, the giver of knowledge and wisdom; who has provided

me the opportunity to complete this research exercise.

I wish to appreciate the Head of Department, Dr. L. M. Olayiwola. I

acknowledge the constructive, objective and highly intelligent criticisms and

corrections of my supervisor, Dr. A. O. AFON. I also appreciate the academic and

moral supports of Prof. L. O. Olajuyin, Prof. E. A. Ogunjumo, Prof. S. O. Fadare,

Dr Okewole, Dr. E. O. Omisore, Dr. A. O. Adeleye, Dr. P. O. Olawuni, Dr. S. A.

Adeyinka, Mr. A. A. Abegunde, Ms Okereke, and Ms Olayiwola.

My gratitude goes to the staff of the Lagos State Ministry of Environment and

the Lagos State Waste Management Agency for their support especially towards

gathering the required data for this study. Foremost in this category are Mr.

Alugo, and Mr. Jeje.

I appreciate the financial and moral support of my mother, Mrs. M. Bello; and

my Uncle, Mr M. A. Bello, and his wife Mrs. T. A. Bello. My profound gratitude

goes to Alhaji and Mrs. A. O. Oguntade; Mr. D. A. Emiola; my siblings- Wasiu,

Taoheed, Idayat, Abideen, Tosin, Mistura, Idris, Zainab and Ahmad Bello. My

special thanks go to Mr. and Mrs. Oyebamiji, Mr. and Mrs. Badmus, and Mr. and

Mrs. Lawal for their constant advices. I also thank my fiancée-Rakayat Adenike

Lawal for her scrutiny and intelligent contributions to this project.

Finally, I wish to thank all those who have in one way or the other, assisted in

this project work. May God Almighty assist everyone and reward you abundantly.

Thank you all and God Bless.

4

TABLE OF CONTENT

Pages

Title Page iCertification iiDedication iiiAcknowledgement ivTable of content v-viiList of Tables viiiList of Plates ixList of Figures xAbstract xi-xii

Chapter One 1-6

INTRODUCTION 1-3

1.1The Problem 3-4

1.2 Aim and Objectives of the Study 5

1.3 Justification of Study 5-6

Chapter Two 7-31

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Sanitation Related Diseases 8-9

2.2 The Sanitation Challenge 9-14

2.2.1 Poverty 11-12

2.2.2 Inadequate Sanitation Facilities 12

2.2.3 Environmental Sanitation Practices 13-14

2.3 Aspects of Environmental Sanitation Practices 14-16

2.4 Spatial Nature of Sanitation Problems 16-23

2.4.1 The Case of Kigali, Rwanda 16-17

2.4.2 The Case of Bangladesh 17

2.4.3 The Nigerian Experience 17-23

2.5 Core Areas of Human Settlements 23-24

2.6 Issues on Improving Sanitation 24-30

5

2.6.1 Financing 25

2.6.2 Technology Transfer and Innovation 25-26

2.6.3 Institutional Capacity 26

2.6.4 Demand-responsive approaches to sanitation 26-27

2.6.5 Communication /Awareness Programmes 27-30

2.7 Efforts of the Government towards Improving

Sanitation Practices in Nigeria 30-31

Chapter Three 32-34

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 32

3.1.1 Method of data collection 32-33

3.1.2. Method of data analysis 33-34

Chapter Four 35-38

THE STUDY AREA 35-37

3.1 Land Use Activities in the Core Areas of Ikorodu 37

3.2 Environmental Sanitation in the Core of Ikorodu Town 38

Chapter Five 39-62

ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION PRACTICES

CORE OF IKORODU 39

4.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of Residents

in the Study area 39-43

4.2 Sanitation Facilities Available in the Area 43-

50

4.2.1 Water Supply 43-45

4.2.2Cooking Facilities 45-46

4.2.3 Household Sanitation Facilities 46

4.2.3.1 Kitchen facilities 47

6

4.2.3.2 Bathroom 47

4.2.3.3 Soak away pit, Septic tank, Waste water pit

and Drainage 47-48

4.2.3.4 Toilet facilities 48-49

4.2.4Waste storage items 49-50

4.3 Location of Household Sanitation Facilities 51

4.4 Waste Management Issues 52-57

4.4.1 Duration of waste collection/disposal 52

4.4.2 Methods of waste disposal 53-57

4.5 Response to Inadequacy of the Sanitation Facilities 57-58

4.5.1 Kitchen Facilities 57

4.5.2Toilet Facilities 57

4.5.3 Bathroom Facilities 58

4.5.4Waste water pits 58

4.6 Health Situation in the area 58-59

4.7 The Monthly Sanitation Exercise 59

4.8 Relationship between selected variables and the

duration of drainage clearance 60-61

4.9 Relationship between education and

method of water purification 62

4.10 Relationship between occupation and

method of water purification 62

Chapter Six 63-68

CONCLUSION 63

6.1 Summary of Findings 63-67

6.2 Recommendation 67-68

REFERENCES 69-74

7

APPENDIX 75-79

8

List of Tables

Pages

Table 1: Distribution of Households by Water Supply

in Nigerian Urban Centres (In %ages) 19

Table 2: Regular Sources of Water to Urban Households 20

Table 3: Order of Cost Estimates for the Water Supply

and Sanitation Sector in Nigeria 22

Table 4: Education Status of Respondents 41

Table 5: Type of Building 42

Table 6: Sources of water in the area 44

Table 7: Method of water purification 45

Table 8: Household Sanitation Facilities 47

Table 9: Waste Storage Items 50

Table 10: Method of Waste Disposal 55

9

List of Plates

Pages

Plate A: Map of Nigeria showing Lagos State 35

Plate B: Map of Lagos state showing the study area 36

10

List of Figures

Pages

Figure A: The Sanitation Challenge 10

Figure B: Type of Toilet Facilities in the

Urban Centres (1991/92) 20

Figure C: Type of Toilet Facilities in the

Urban Centres (1995/96) 21

Figure D: Communication Planning Process 27

Figure E: Cooking facilities used in the area 46

Figure F: Type of toilet facilities 49

Figure G: Location of Household Facilities 51

Figure H: Duration of waste storage before

collection/disposal 52

Figure I: Health cases reported by the residents 59

11

ABSTRACT

This study evaluated the sanitation facilities and services available in the city

core areas with a view to identifying the different environmental sanitation

behaviours emanating from the level of adequacies of these amenities. Ikorodu

town in Lagos state was the focus of the study.

Data used for the study were collected from primary and secondary sources.

Primary data collection was through questionnaire administration and

observations made by the researcher. The questionnaires were administered

using the systematic random sampling technique whereby every tenth house

within central area of the town was selected for study. A respondent was

sampled in each of the selected buildings. From the above, 218 houses were

sampled altogether. Descriptive and inferential statistical tools were used

for the study. The descriptive tools used include frequency tables, bar

diagrams and line graphs while regression analysis and chi-square were

used to make inferences.

The study established that the major land uses were commercial (49.5%)

and residential (34.2%). The average monthly income in the area is

approximately N15,000. The study also indicated that 46.8% of the

residents had secondary school qualification while 17.9% had vocational

training. The findings revealed that the use well water regularly represents

30.3 %. Respondents that use pipe-borne water regularly accounted for

43.6 % while 8.7 % use stream water. It was established that only 56% of

the buildings have kitchen facilities; 81.7 % have toilet facilities while 78 %

have bathroom facilities. Buildings with soak away pit, septic tank, waste

water pit and drainage were 43.1 %, 17.4 %, 34.4 % and 20.2 % respectively.

It was also established the use of water closet gained highest prominence in

the area. The finding also indicated that the waste storage receptacle

mostly used in the area is the covered refuse bins representing 59.6 %.

12

Solid waste disposal through PSP operators gained highest significance.

The study established that 61 % of those who do not have adequate kitchen

facilities manage the available space, 26 % cook in their rooms while 13 %

cook on the corridor. Responses to inadequate sanitation amenities were

not environmentally friendly. For instance, the study established that

47.4% of the residents without toilet facilities do throw their excreta in the

drains while 65.5% of the households without waste water pits discharge

their waste water on the street. The regression analysis showed that there

is significant relationship between the socio-economic variables and the

duration of drainage clearance. The R2 value of 57.3 % showed that the

independent variables were able to explain 57.3 % of the total variation in

drainage clearance in the area. Findings from the survey also showed that

there is a relationship between the education of the respondents and the

duration of waste storage before disposal. This assertion was confirmed by

the chi-square value of 91.329.

The study concludes that the poor environmental sanitation conditions

noted in the area were determined by the inadequate supply of amenities

and resident’s response to the inadequacies.

13

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION

A healthy living environment is sine-qua-non to national growth and

development. Such condition can be achieved through an effective

environmental sanitation practice.

Roland et al. (2004) noted that environmental sanitation

‘comprises the proper collection, transportation, disposal andtreatment of human excreta, solid waste and waste water,control of disease vectors and provision of washing facilitiesfor personal and domestic hygiene.’

Bindeshwar (1999) also viewed sanitation as ‘a basic condition for

development.’ It is aimed at improving the quality of life of the individuals;

contributes to social development and abatement of diseases. Sadalla et al

(2001) noted that the environmental problems may be caused by

inadequate provision of facilities and residents’ behaviour in communities

Despite its importance in human life, Mosleh Uddin and Sudhir (2005)

observed that the provision of sanitation facilities and services is poor in

developing countries. Roland et al (2004) added that a significant number

of people in these countries ‘lack access to adequate water supply,

environmental sanitation services and food security’. This, according to

Bindeshwar (1999), contributes to the ‘death of millions of children below

14

the age of five every year; and about 50 diseases are linked with poor

sanitation’.

The negative environmental practices of individuals are also

contributory to this menace. In fact, the provision of adequate sanitation

facilities could at best be referred to as means to an end since the attitude

and behavioural practices of the stakeholders determine the end. Public

perception of the need for proper sanitation goes a long way in providing

desired solutions that would mitigate the consequences. Generally, poor

sanitation practices could result from overcrowding, inadequate facilities

and amenities, low level of education and awareness on sanitation

practices, low income level, unplanned housing development, among

others.

Several studies have shown that problems of environmental sanitation

are not limited to a particular residential zone. Such studies reveal that

such problems occur in the traditional core areas, urban centres and peri-

urban areas or suburbs. Studies based on the sanitation problems in the

core areas include for example those on Lagos (Adedibu and Okekunle,

1989; Kenneth et al, 2003; and Afon, 2006); Ibadan (Egunjobi, 1989) in

Nigeria. Such studies also exist outside Nigeria. These include those on

Addis Ababa in Ethiopia, and India (Bindeshwar, 1999 and Sabur, 2006);

Bangladesh (Musleh Uddin and Sudhir, 2000); and Nakhon Pathon in

Thailand (Lagho, 2001).

15

None of these studies examined the relationship existing between the

provisions of environmental sanitation facilities and the responses or

behaviour due to the adequacy of facilities in core areas Ikorodu in Lagos

state.

1.1 The Problem

The core area of any settlement is the point of reception, the hub of

activities and distribution of internal and external goods and services

(Tanimowo, 2001). It is the point of major commercial and residential land

uses. Consequently, core areas often have more facilities compared to other

parts of their respective settlements. These facilities and services do attract

people from other parts of the settlement. This results in overcrowding

with the diverse negative effects. Olayiwola and Omisore (2001) and

Nwaka (2005) observed that such effects include poor accessibility, high

occupancy ratio, lack of proper drainage, inadequate infrastructure and

social amenities, environmental pollution and poor sanitation.

Nwaka (2005) noted that residential neighbourhoods in the core areas

are being developed without effective planning and adequate provision of

basic services and facilities including transportation, health, employment,

security and sanitation facilities. Other problems identified with these

areas include overcrowding, inadequate provision of basic services and

poor network of public transport modes.

16

These features of the core areas aggravate the unwholesome living

condition of the residents. Consequently, there are growing cases of water-

borne and filth related diseases especially diarrhea, cholera and malaria

(Roland et al, 2004). These contribute to loss of lives and man-hour which

results to colossal loss to economic growth and development. The problems

are worsened in developing countries like Nigeria, where there is

inadequate health facilities to alleviate the problems (Nwaka, 2005). Of

interest to the study is to provide answers to questions like: what are the

sanitation facilities in the core areas? How do the residents respond to

inadequacies in the provision of these facilities? What is the health

implication of non-provision of these facilities?

17

1.2 Aim and Objectives of the Study

This study is aimed at evaluating the sanitation facilities and services

available in the city core areas with a view to identifying the different

environmental sanitation behaviours emanating from the level of

adequacies of these amenities.

The objectives include to:

- identify the different sanitation facilities available in the area

- identify the various level of adequacies of the amenities

- examine the residents’ responses to the level of adequacies

- determine the environmental sanitation problems emanating from

residents’ behaviour.

1.3 Justification of Study

The importance of clean environment to a healthy living condition for

man cannot be over-emphasized. This has necessitated the need for

effective and regular sanitation activities the world over. The provision of

adequate sanitation facilities, urban infrastructure and enabling

environmental sanitation policies influence the achievement of a high

quality living condition for man and his environment.

There is already a growing concern by the government and the public on

the environmental conditions and provision of sanitation facilities in the

major cities of the world. This has necessitated the huge finances

18

concentrated on the provision and improvement of sanitation facilities in

these cities. This is not the case in core areas of the developing countries.

The fact that these areas offer employment opportunities and offer

cheapest housing especially to new migrants (Adedibu and Okekunle,

1989) has made them most overcrowded in the cities. Consequently,

various environmental sanitation problems are often encountered in these

areas (Egunjobi, 1989).

19

Chapter Two

LITERATURE REVIEW

Environmental sanitation has generated concerns among various

professionals in different fields of endeavour. Environment is the

combination of influences which modify and determine the development of

life and the character of any organism (Porters, 1976). Generally, the

environment can be viewed from the physical, human and cultural

perspectives.

Sanitation can be defined as the measure to protect the public through

proper solid waste disposals, sewage disposal, and cleanliness during food

processing and preparation (Microsoft Encarta, 2008); and the use of safe

water for domestic purposes. It describes the act of maintaining clean and

hygienic conditions that help prevent diseases through services such as

garbage collection and waste water disposal (WHO/UNICEF, 2006).

Rochester (2005) also viewed sanitation as the process capable of

mitigating the number of microbial contaminants to a relatively safe level.

It could be referred to as the sum total of activities embarked upon to

protect human bodies from illness, transmission of diseases or loss of life

due to unclean surroundings, the presence of disease-transmitting insects

or rodents, unhealthful conditions or practices in the preparation of foods,

beverages and the care of belongings. Musleh Uddin and Sudhir (2005)

20

observed that safe sanitation promotes health; improves the quality of

environment and the living standard of the community. While inadequate

sanitation can cause several diseases, which are transmitted from different

sources to human via contaminated hands, soils, water, animals and

insects.

2.1 Sanitation Related Diseases

WHO and UNICEF (2000) and POSTnote (2002) noted that the

following diseases can be largely prevented with basic sanitation and

hygiene. They also identified their impact on human race as thus:

• Diarrhea causes an estimated two million deaths per year, mostly

among the children under the age of five

• Cholera: as of September, there were 106,547 reported cases of

cholera and a total of 3,155 reported deaths in 2002.

• Schistosomiasis (bilharza) infects 200 million people, of which 20

million people suffer consequences. Improved water and sanitation may

reduce it by ~77 percent (POSTnote, 2002)

• Trachoma causes blindness in 6-9million people. Access to

sanitation may reduce it by ~25% (POSTnote, 2002)

• Intestinal worms infect about a third of the population in developing

countries; improved sanitation would control their transmission.

21

• Hookworms cause malnutrition. Using concrete slabs to cover pit

latrines can prevent them from being transmitted to humans

Other related diseases identified are Hepatitis A and B, Dysentery,

tropical diseases like malaria, and skin infections.

2.2 The Sanitation Challenge

The figure below shows that the world’s population is expected to

increase from 6.1 billion in 2000 to 7.2 billion in 2015. in 2000, 40% of

people (2.4 billion) had inadequate sanitation. The sanitation target is to

halve this proportion to 20% of people in 2015 (POSTnote, 2002). Meeting

this target means an additional 2.1 billion people will need to be served

with adequate sanitation. However, 1.4 billion people will remain without

adequate sanitation. Meeting this target is a great challenge.

WHO and UNICEF (2000) observed that 1 billion people across the

world gained access to sanitation hardware between 1999 and 2000;

achieving the target will require sanitation to be provided more than twice

as quickly as in the 1990s. It also noted that 62 percent of people in rural

areas do not have access to sanitation, compared with 14 percent in urban

areas. In total numbers, more people will lack basic sanitation in urban

areas by 2015, due to rapid urbanization. The paper concluded that China

and India have the bulk of the world population without access to basic

sanitation

22

Figure A: The Sanitation Challenge

Source: WHO and UNICEF (2000)

Inadequate sanitation is not a new concern- indeed; the 1980s was the

United Nation’s Decade. At that time, the international community set a

target of achieving 100percent coverage in water supply and sanitation

across the world by 1990 (POSTnote, 2002). It was an ambitious target and

program over the decade could not keep up with the population growth. By

2000, the World Health Organisation estimated that 1.1 billion people still

lack access to basic sanitation (WHO and UNICEF, 2000). Unless

something is done urgently, this proportion may still increase due to the

growth rate. The world’s population increase by about 77 million human

beings each year (Microsoft Encarta, 2008). The Population Division of the

United Nations (UN) predicts that the world’s population will increase

from 6.23 billion in 2000 to 9.3 billion people in 2050. The UN estimated

that the population will stabilize at more than 11 billion in 2200. As the

number of people increases, crowding generates pollution, destroys more

23

habitats, uses up natural resources and creates additional sanitation

problems. Musleh Uddin and Sudhir (2005) identified other causes of

sanitation problems to include poverty, inadequate sanitation facilities and

unhygienic sanitation practices.

2.2.1 Poverty

Poverty refers to the condition of having insufficient resources or

income. In its extreme form, poverty is lack of access to basic human

needs, such as adequate and nutritious food, clothing, housing, clean

water, and health services. Extreme poverty can cause terrible suffering

and death, and even modest levels of poverty can prevent people from

realizing many of their desires. The world’s poorest people-many of whom

live in developing areas of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and eastern Europe-

struggle daily for food, shelter, and other necessities. They often suffer

from severe malnutrition, epidemic disease outbreaks, famine, and war. In

wealthier countries such as the United States, Canada, Japan, and those in

western Europe- the effects of poverty may include poor nutrition, mental

illness, drug dependence, crime, and high rates of disease (Microsoft

Encarta, 2008).

Inadequate sanitation and unhygienic practices among the poor lead to

illness. Inadequate sanitation almost always accompanies inadequate

shelter and monetary resources. Because the poor in the developing

24

nations commonly have no running water or sewage facilities, human

excrement and garbage accumulate, quickly becoming a breeding ground

for diseases. In cities, especially in ghettos and shanty towns that building

mainly the poor, overcrowding can lead to high transmission rates of air

borne diseases, such as tuberculosis. The poor are also often uneducated

about the spread of the diseases (Microsoft Encarta, 2008). Musleh Uddin

and Sudhir (2005) also noted that the poor are badly affected not only

because they lack the means to provide such facilities but they also lack the

information on how to minimize the ill-effects of the unsanitary conditions

in which they live.

2.2.2 Inadequate Sanitation Facilities

Conclusions from the various sanitation studies have suggested that

health problems result from the lack of sanitation facilities (Musleh Uddin

and Sudhir, 2005). Sanitation facilities include standpipes, toilet amenities

like water closet, solid waste disposal amenities and infrastructural

facilities. Acey et al (2004) observed that when faced with limitations in

sanitation facilities; the poor use various techniques to compensate, often

in ways that adversely impact human dignity and public health, and that

are destructive to surrounding infrastructure. Such practices include

disposal of solid waste and excreta on vacant lands, drainage paths and

water bodies; discharge of waste water on streets, and taking bath in the

open before dawn, among others.

25

2.2.3 Environmental Sanitation Practices

Environmental sanitation is crucial to –the overall national growth and

development. It refers to the promotion of hygiene, prevention of diseases

and other consequences of ill-health which relates to environmental

factors. WHO and UNICEF (2000) noted that environmental sanitation

includes issues safe excreta disposal, solid waste management, medical

waste management, site drainage, personal hygiene facilities, vector and

pest control, and food hygiene.

The Oxford Advanced English Dictionary defined practice as an activity

carried out regularly, a habit or custom. Environmental sanitation practice

refers to the conscious efforts and pattern adopted by individuals towards

achieving clean environment. It refers to various hygiene practices of

communities, and requires basic knowledge and skill as well as socio-

cultural factors concerning health, lifestyle and environmental awareness.

Tuan (1972) noted that each individual views the world in different

perspectives. Afon (2004) observed that the preferences, evaluation,

decision and subsequent behaviour and practices are therefore based on

these different perspectives, rather than in the world of objective reality.

Saarinen (1964) further observed that no two individuals or group of

individuals make precisely the same evaluation of the same environment.

The various subjective factors that modifies environmental practices of

man include: experience (Lynch 1977, Porters 1976); socio-economic class

26

and status (Goodchild 1974; Sadalla et al 1999); age and sex (Carter 1975);

race and culture (Hunter et al 2001), quantity and quality of information

available (Hart 1999); adjustments and adaptation capacity to issues

perceived (Holman 1998); the socio-economic effects of what is being

perceived (Afon, 2005)

2.3 Aspects of Environmental Sanitation Practices

From the definitions above, the basic aspects of environmental

sanitation practices can be identified as:

• Personal practices

• Household practices, and

• Community practices

Personal Sanitation Practices

The personal sanitation practices include hygiene considerations on using

latrines, hand washing with soap after use of toilet, cleaning sanitation

facilities and safe water consumption and food hygiene. Hygiene behaviour

contributes immensely to improvement of public health (POSTnote, 2002).

In addition, Sabur (2006) noted that total sanitation behaviour should

focus and comprise of:

• Total use of hygienic toilets, that is, no open defecation or open/hanging

toilets in use

• Hygienic toilets well maintained

27

• Good personal hygienic practices

• Using sandals when defecating

• Effective hand washing after defecation and before taking or handling

food

• Water points well managed

• Safe water use for all domestic purposes

• Food and water covered

• Garbage disposal in a fixed place and cow dung disposed of in a hygienic

way

• Waste water disposal in a hygienic way

• Clean courtyards and roadsides

• No spitting in public places

Household Sanitation Practices

These include household cleaning, kitchen safety, toilet and bathroom

cleanliness, proper disposal of solid waste and waste water, safe excreta

disposal, and vector and pest control. These practices help protect the

home from sanitation-related diseases and ailments.

Community Sanitation Practices

These activities include proper solid waste management and disposal

systems, street cleaning, public enlightenment and awareness programme

on environmental safety, monitoring of sanitation activities in the various

28

households and focus on stopping open defecation. These practices

eliminate outbreak of plague, epidemics and reduce social problems.

Schools are an important place for promoting hygiene, as children can be

agents of behavioural change within the households.

2.4 Spatial Nature of Sanitation Problems

Sanitation problems are noticed in different countries of the world.

These include South America (Microsoft Encarta, 2008); Senegal and

Rwanda (Acey et al, 2004); Bangladesh (Musleh Uddin and Sudhir, 2005);

China and India (WHO and UNICEF, 2000); Nigeria (Adeagbo, 2001 and

Nwaka, 2005), among others.

2.4.1 The Case of Kigali, Rwanda

Acey et al (2004) observed that the human and physical devastation in

the 1994 genocide has led to inadequate supply of water and sanitation

facilities in Rwanda. Sanitation infrastructure was and remains much less

developed as only 55 percent of urban Rwandans have access to improved

sanitation with no existent sewerage connections in the country. Acey et al.

further noted that the poor sanitation practices in the country include

shared open-pit and bucket latrines; inadequate refuse collection and poor

disposal system. In the Rwandan capital of Kigali, solid waste management

is largely in the province development associations. These associations are

usually run by women, who combine traditional waste management

29

practices with the new biomass processing technologies to manage

community and household garbage.

2.4.2 The Case of Bangladesh

Mosleh Uddin and Sudhir (2005) observed that ‘safe sanitation is the

greatest challenge to the people of Bangladesh’. They noted that only 33

percent of the population in the country has access to hygienic latrine

facilities. Lack or inadequate sanitation, impacts the economy by adversely

affecting productivity loss due to sickness and the overall quality of life.

Health statistics indicate that ‘approximately 125,000 children below five

(5) years are dying each year, 342 children are dying everyday for lack of

sanitation’.

2.4.3 The Nigerian Experience

Nigeria is the most populous nation in Africa. Its present population is

estimated to be 140,003,542 persons in then 2006 census count. The past

few decades have experienced decline in the will and capacity of the

government to effectively cope with the provision of the basic needs of the

people (Adeagbo, 2001). The inadequate supply of sanitation facilities like

public toilets, drainage, sewerage networks, waste water treatment and

disposal facilities (FRN, 2000); and poor sanitation practices have

contributed to various social and health problems in the country.

FRN (2000) noted that ‘malaria is the predominant disease affecting the

population of Nigeria’. Many other sanitation-related diseases are reported

30

through the country. These include Gastro-intestinal diseases, dysentery,

diarrhea, infectious hepatitis, hookworm, guinea worm, and other parasitic

infections. The Federal government report observed that an estimated

150,000 to 200,000 diarrhea-related deaths occur among children each

year, some 650,000 people are seriously affected by guinea worm causing

an annual loss of more than 400 million naira in rice production alone, and

more than 6 million are stricken with Onchocerciasis.

It is estimated that currently ‘only about 50pecent of urban and

20percent of semi-urban population have access to reliable effective water

supply’ (FRN, 2000). The rest rely on crowded and sometimes distant

communal water tapped, or draw water from wells, streams or from

itinerant water vendors. Also, less than half of urban households in

Nigerian cities have flush toilets (Nwaka, 2005 and Ajanlekoko, 2001).

Various families often share available pit latrines and buckets. People

commonly defecate in the open or in nearby bushes. This causes easy

contamination of food and water. FRN (2000) further stated that ‘except

for Abuja and limited parts of Lagos, no urban community has a sewerage

system’. This means that sewage in the remaining areas either lies stagnant

or is disposed through storm water drainage system. This results in

flooding and erosion (Nwaka, 2005).

31

Table 1: Distribution of Households by Water Supply in Nigerian Urban

Centres (In percentages)

State Treated

pipe-

borne

water

Untreate

d pipe-

borne

water

Well

water

(piped)

Well

water

(not

piped)

Borehole Stream Pond

s

Others

Anambra 56.10 7.00 2.46 5.80 3.60 12.70 10.60 3.00Kaduna 35.71 11.69 7.14 38.98 0.50 5.84 0.64 0.00Kano 62.93 12.69 11.53 10.71 2.14 0.00 0.00 0.00Oyo 79.90 0.00 0.48 15.74 1.94 0.97 0.97 0.00Lagos 60.50 3.70 13.60 16.50 5.20 0.50 0.00 0.00Rivers 80.98 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 9.03 0.00 0.00All states 60.04 6.95 2.46 17.84 6.77 3.30 0.87 1.79

Source: Federal Office of Statistics, 1994

Table 1 indicates the proportion of urban households in Nigeria with

water supply. It shows that about 40percent of the households lack treated

pipe borne water supply. As at 1996, the proportion of urban dwellers that

had access to pipe borne water remained 26.7percent. As shown in Table 2,

those who relied on well, stream or pond constituted 30.7percent and

32.1percent respectively. This indicates a declining water supply.

Table 2: Regular Sources of Water to Urban Households

32

Source PercentagePipe borne water 26.7Borehole 10.4Well 30.7Stream/Pond 32.1Total 99.9


Problems of inadequate toilet facilities were represented in the Figures B

and C below:

Figure B: Type of Toilet Facilities in the Urban Centres

(1991/92)


Information contained in figure B showed that seven out of every ten

Nigerian urban dwellers make use of pit latrines while less than one-fifth

had access to water closet as at 1992. By 1996 the proportion of those with

access to water closet had reduced to less than one-tenth as shown in

Figure C.

33

Figure C: Type of Toilet Facilities in the Urban Centres

(1995/96)


The 1997 survey also showed that about 60percent of Nigerians

discharge their waste water directly to the environment with no

consideration of the safety and environmental beauty (FRN, 2000).

Drainage in many areas is bad thereby providing good breeding areas for

mosquitoes and other infectious insects. The pattern of solid waste disposal

also creates environmental problem. Although, most residents in areas like

Lagos do dispose their waste through government agencies and ‘barrow

boys’ (Afon, 2006), and private support participation (PSP) operators

(Bello, 2007); there are still several cases of solid waste disposal in water

bodies and bushes.

34

Table 3: Order of Cost Estimates for the Water Supply and Sanitation

Sector in Nigeria

Water supply Sanitation/waste water

Rehabilitation $0.8B (av.$20M/yr)

$0.2B(av. $10M/yr)

Urban New facilities $6.0B(av. $300M/yr)

$5.4B(av. $270M/yr)

Operation and maintenance

$100M rising to$430M/yr

$65M rising to $500M/yr

Rehabilitation $0.1B(av. $5M/yr)

-

Small towns

New facilities $1.4B(av. $70M/yr)

$1.8B(av. $90M/yr)


$1.5M rising to $6.2M/yr


Rehabilitation $0.1B(av. $5M/yr)

-

Rural New facilities $0.4B(av. $20M/yr)

$1.3B(av. $65M/yr)


$1.5M rising to $5.3M/yr


Rehabilitation $30M/yr $10M/yrTotal New facilities $390M/yr $425M/yr




Source: FRN, 2000

Table 3 showed that rehabilitation of sanitation facilities would cost a

total of $10milion in a year while provision of new sanitation facilities

would gulp a total amount of $425million per year. The operation and

maintenance of the sanitation facilities would cost a total of $155 million to

$1.2 billion in a year. The analysis showed that adequate provision,

35

maintenance and rehabilitation of sanitation facilities would cost much

amount of money.

2.5 Core Areas of Human Settlements

The average African city can be broadly delineated into three zones. Afon

(2006) identified these zones as the sub-urban, intermediate or

transitional and the core or traditional centres.

Murphy and Vance (1959) and Keeble (1969) defined the core of a

settlement as the central area which attracts large number, varied and

complex urban activities and people as well as a centre of high land value

with concentration of buildings and land use, particularly for commerce.

Akinola (2007) observed that the core areas often receive more

government attention on the provision of facilities and infrastructure.

Whitefield and Kanaan (1972) noted that the core areas are the focal point

of employment, retailing and recreation. Abler et al (1972) also submitted

that the core areas naturally generate a great deal of movement. It is

usually the most accessible area to the residents in any settlement

However, the problems and challenges posed by rapid urbanization are

more pronounced in the core areas (IIED/Danida, 2001; Kelay et al., 2006;

Zuleeg, 2006 and Segrave, 2007). Olayiwola and Omisore (2001) noted

that the core of many cites are inaccessible or poorly paved, lacked proper

drainage, and social amenities like schools, health facilities and

recreational opportunities are grossly inadequate. Onibokun (1987) also

36

noted that housing, water, electricity and waste disposal facilities are

grossly inadequate in the core areas. Paderson (1980) further submitted

that problems of congestion, noise, dirt and odours are noticeable these

areas.

Nwaka (2005) further observed that the inadequacy has affected the

environmental sanitation practices of the residents in most core areas of

the developing countries. Unless holistic strategies are implemented

urgently, these problems would continue to increase due to massive

movement of people from the rural and less developed areas to the core

areas of major cities and towns.

2.6 Issues on Improving Sanitation

Different approaches needed consideration towards proving sanitation

facilities and improving sanitation practices. These, according to POSTnote

(2002) include:

• Financing

• Technology transfer and Innovation

• Institutional capacity

• Demand responsive approaches to sanitation

• Communication/Awareness Programmes

37

2.6.1 Financing

POSTnote (2002) observed that public health aspect of sanitation and its

environmental benefits make it a public good, but sanitation is also private

good at the household level. Hitherto, most countries and donor agencies

treated sanitation as a public good that could not be provided by the

market, and which needed to be subsidized to provide greater incentives to

expand coverage. However, wrong targeting of government subsidies has

affected government plans for increasing access to sanitation, as subsidies

did not reach those who needed them most.

Most of the financing for meeting the target is likely to come from users

of the facilities, either through their purchasing of materials or through

cost recovery schemes. Low interest bank loans are one option to help

ensure that the poor can generate enough money to purchase adequate

sanitation facilities. Some NGOs and community groups have resisted full

cost recovery for basic services to poor people, as they see this as

exacerbating poverty, but others note that many basic services are already

paid for by users (POSTnote, 2002).

2.6.2 Technology Transfer and Innovation

One way of increasing local capacity for technical innovation is to assist

developing countries’ institutions to adapt solutions to suit local

conditions. Some locations may require innovative solutions, for example

in wetland areas where groundwater contamination is an issue; or, in

38

extremely poor areas, where technologies might need to be more

affordable. Technical innovation can slow aid sanitation suppliers by

improving their products and incorporation local materials and building

practices into the design of new technologies.

2.6.3 Institutional Capacity

Sanitation programmes need planners, decision-makers, and sector

professionals who are trained in evaluating different approaches to

providing, operating and maintaining sanitation (POSTnote, 2002).

However, there is severe shortage of engineers and field workers to provide

the technical, social and scientific skills to develop sanitation programmes.

This could jeopardize efforts to meet the sanitation target.

Some point out that meeting the target and sustaining its progress

require an increase in the capacity and accountability of the public sector to

promote, coordinate and regulate sanitation provision.

2.6.4 Demand-responsive approaches to sanitation

Saywell and Cotton (1998) observed that past experiences by

development agencies have indicated that the main problems in achieving

sustainable sanitation projects were an over-reliance on supply-driven

approaches, neglect of user requirements and an emphasis on large scale

projects. Agencies found that for projects to be sustainable there was a

critical need to focus on the demand for sanitation at the household level.

However, the demand-responsive approach may be constrained by poor

39

people not having enough purchasing power to gain access to improved

sanitation. Similarly, sanitation suppliers may not be able to meet demand

(POSTnote, 2002).

2.6.5 Communication /Awareness Programmes

Improving sanitation practices require proper re-orientation and

awareness programmes. These according to Mckee (1992) could be

achieved through properly planned communication programme targeted

towards behavioural change. As shown in Figure D below, these can be in

three broad terms:

• Programme communication

• Social mobilization

• Advocacy

Figure D: Communication Planning ProcessSource: Mckee, 1992

40

Programme Communication

This communication line has direct link to general public through field

work. It brings about behavioral change. The components required include

health workers, NGO field staff, support material that would be circulated

through media sources like television, radio and folk media.

Social Mobilization

Social mobilization involves passing sanitation messages through social

gathering and alliance building. The components for this stage include

religious leaders, service clubs, artists and entertainers private

sector/corporations and schools.

Advocacy

This involves bringing sanitation issues directly to policy makers to

improve political and social commitment. The stakeholders in this category

include the political leaders, administrators and donors- both local and

international.

The prevention of disease and the promotion of health depend on the

social conditions in which people live. Increasing access to sanitation is a

key component of development and poverty reduction, as it has major

41

health benefits as well as associated social, economic and environmental

benefits (POSTnote, 2002). The benefits were identified as:

• Public health-diseases related to inadequate sanitation and poor

hygiene are among the highest causes of illness and death in developing

countries, especially among children under age of five (POSTnote, 2002).

Providing adequate sanitation could help reduce it and achieve

international target.

• Public services-the public health consequences of inadequate

sanitation puts pressure on health services in developing countries.

• Human dignity- provision of adequate sanitation facilities would

ensure privacy, safety, dignity, a cleaner environment and greater

convenience to users.

• Gender- without access to household sanitation, women and girls

face safety and dignity issues. They may only be able defecate at certain

times to ensure privacy and/or avoid harassment and sexual assault. Lack

of school sanitation is a barrier to girls enrolling and staying at school,

especially during menstruation.

• Poverty elimination and economic growth- illness and death from

poor sanitation results in lost economic activity, which reduces agricultural

production and tourism, which can impact national economies.

42

• Water supply- when human excreta enter a drinking water supply, it

compromises safety. Improving sanitation and hygiene practices

maximizes the benefit of investment in water supply.

2.7 Efforts of the Government towards Improving Sanitation

Practices in Nigeria

The military administration of General Buhari was so dissatisfied with

the conditions of the urban environment that it discontinued the idea of

central planning and initiated an aggressive campaign for environmental

awareness and sanitation as the focus of the fifth phase of the so-called

‘War Against Indiscipline’ (WAI) (Nwaka, 2005). A large number of

environmental task forces were set up by State Edicts to organize public

enlightenment campaigns, and to enforce environmental discipline

through mobile sanitation courts. Special days of the month were set aside

for general clean-up. It mandates everybody to unblock drains, clean

residences and work places, and remove heaps of rubbish. The cleanest

cities were promised a prize of one million naira, and a definite

improvement of the environment appeared to have been achieved (Nwaka,

2005). Military officials operate on major streets during such days to

ensure compliance and improved environmental sanitation practices.

This approach later became bedeviled with several problems. These

include the maltreatment of civilians by over-zealous military officials. At

43

the moment, not all the states of the federation participate in the

mandatory monthly environmental sanitation exercise. The major

complaint has been that there is inadequate fund to finance the scheme.

However, states like Lagos and Oyo still participate in the exercise.

44

Chapter Three

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This segment of the study describes the methods and techniques

utilized. Under this heading, the following issues are discussed:

-Method of data collection

-Method of data analysis

3.1.1 Method of data collection

Data were gathered from two sources:

-Primary Source

-Secondary Source

Primary data were gathered through the use of questionnaires and

observations made by the researcher.

Sample Frame

This study covers all buildings within the central part of Ikorodu town.

The total buildings in this area amounted to two thousand one hundred

and eighty (2,180).

Sample size

Systematic random sampling technique was adopted in the

administration of questionnaires to these buildings. Ten (10) percent of

these buildings were included in the sample. A respondent was sampled in

45

each of the selected buildings. Thus, 218 buildings or respondents were

sampled in the study area.

Questionnaire Administration Technique

Every tenth building within central area of the town was included in the

sample. Buildings were selected through systematic random sampling

technique. The first building was randomly selected using a system

whereby numbers 1-10 were written on pieces on paper thoroughly

wrapped and kept in a box. The buildings sampled amounted to 10 percent

of the total buildings in the study area.

Secondary Data

These refer to data gathered from existing works. Secondary data for this

study were gathered from relevant and related journals, textbooks,

government publications and gazettes, lecture notes, research findings, and

the internet.

3.1.2. Method of data analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Scientists was used for the data

analysis. Both descriptive and inferential statistical tools were utilized for

the study.

Descriptive statistical tools describe the data and group them in a

specified order. Descriptive tools used include frequency tables, bar-

diagrams, line graphs, mean, standard deviation and Relative Importance

Index (RII).

46

Inferential statistical tools establish the relationships that exist between

or within variables so as to allow for comparison and inferences. The tools

used in this category include chi-square, regression analysis and Pearson

correlation matrix.

47

Chapter Four

THE STUDY AREA

The study focuses on Ikorodu Local Government Area of Lagos state.

Lagos state is located within Latitudes 60 23’N and 60 41’N and Longitudes

20 42’E and 30 42’N. The state is flanged from the North by Ogun state, in

the West by the Republic of Benin and the South by the Atlantic

Ocean/Gulf of Guinea. The total land mass of the state is about 3,345 sq.

km, which is just about 0.4% of the total land area of Nigeria. It is the

physically smallest but one the most highly populated states in Nigeria

based on the recent Census Report for the entire country. The report also

showed that the state has over 9 million inhabitants as at 2006.

Plate A: Map of Nigeria showing Lagos State

Source:Walling et al. (2005)

48

Plate B: Map of Lagos state showing the study areaLagos state is presently made up of 20 local governments including

Ikorodu. Ikorodu local government is a growing residential, commercial

and industrial town located on the fringes of Lagos and Ogun states. The

town has recently witnessed monumental increase in its population base

due to the mass movement of people from rural settlements and less

developed areas. Ikorodu has been the focus of the state government in

recent times. In an attempt to decongest central Lagos, the state

government has embarked on the construction of various housing estates

and location of new industrial facilities. These include the Fish Farm

Estate, Waste-to-Wealth programmed, millennium housing, among others

in the area. Various public and private institutions could also be found in

the town.

The town has various public and private primary and secondary schools

like the Oriwu Grammar School. It also accommodates one of the

campuses of the Lagos state Polytechnic. Various banks, offices and other

49

interests are also located in the area. Public and private health institutions

in the area include the General Hospitals. Government agencies and

institutions in Ikorodu include local government offices, tax revenue office,

among others.

The history of the town dates back to the pre-colonial days. The core

areas of Ikorodu accommodate the palace, market centre and residential

districts. The royal head is titled-Ayangburen of Ikorodu. The king is in

charge of customary issues and titles, settles disputes among the different

clans in the area, among various other functions. The town is one of the few

areas in Lagos state that still maintains its cultural values. Various

traditional festivals like the Eyo, Egungun and Oro are still being

practiced.

The various facilities and dynamic land use activities require a robust

and highly functional central area. As a result, the core of Ikorodu town is

fast taking new dimensions and outlook.

3.1 Land Use Activities in the Core Areas of Ikorodu

The core areas of Ikorodu comprise different land use activities. The

predominant land uses are commercial and retailing, residential and public

and private institutions. Investigation revealed that more than 43.5 percent

of the total buildings were use for commercial purposes. As experienced in

most other core areas (Adedibu and Okekunle, 1989, and Egunjobi, 1989),

50

these land uses generate traffic and dynamic human activities on a daily

basis.

3.2 Environmental Sanitation in the Core of Ikorodu Town

Due to the mass movement of people from the rural and less developed

areas to the core areas in search of employment and better living

conditions, the provisions of basic facilities have been in short supply in

the core areas of Ikorodu. Inadequate supply of sanitation facilities has

resulted in different practices by the residents. It is common to see children

defecate in the open while adults are found urinating anywhere especially

in the core of the town. The drainage system is blocked and generates flies

and other harmful insects. Consequently, there are growing cases of

flooding in the area especially during heavy rainfall. General assessment of

the overall developments in area revealed that the area is not well planned,

and may not be able to meet the emerging demands from the new

development activities. Apart from the major road that linked the core of

town to the central areas of Lagos state, most of the roads are not tarred

and are in deplorable conditions.

51

Chapter Five

ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION PRACTICES IN THE CORE OF

IKORODU TOWN

Data collected for this study were analyzed under following

sections.

4.1: Socio-economic Characteristics of Residents in the Study

area

This section examines the socio-economic characteristics of the

respondents. Variables considered include age, gender, income level,

marital status, occupation, years of living in the area and educational status

of the residents.

The area has good representation of both gender groups. The findings

revealed that most of the respondents are male. This category represents

60.6 percent of the respondents while the remaining 39.4 percent are male.

This could be attributed to the fact that most of female members were not

available during the period of the survey. Moreover, some of the women

often preferred their husbands to respond wherever they are available.

Related to issue of gender is the marital status of the respondents. The

residents have different marital status. Of the total respondents, one

hundred and two (102) representing 46.8percent were single while eighty

seven (87) representing 39.9percent of the total respondent were married.

52

Respondents who are divorced, widowed or separated represented 4.6

percent, 4.1 percent and 4.6 percent respectively. The high proportion of

the singles could be further explained by the age structure in area.

Residents in the study area were mainly within the working group. The

analysis indicated that the average age in the area is 29.92 with a standard

deviation of value of 14.43. This showed that there is a fairly strong

variation among the age groups. It also suggested that majority of the

respondents are agile and active; and could give the required information

on sanitation activities in the area. Also, the fact that most of the

respondents have lived in the area for average of 10 years would help

provide relevant information on sanitation activities in the area overtime.

The residents engage in different occupation to sustain their livelihood.

The survey showed that most of the respondents were students. This

category represented 38.5 percent while 25.7 percent were traders.

Respondents who were civil servants accounted for 22.5 percent while

those who are self employed accounted for 13.3 percent. The relative high

proportion of students in the area could be attributed to the fact that the

students of the Lagos state polytechnic reside off-campus and there are

many other educational institutions in the area. This could also affect the

income level of the area. The study indicated that the minimum and

maximum average monthly incomes in the area were N1,200 and N80,000

respectively. The mean monthly income is 14922.50 with a very high

53

standard deviation. This showed that there is wide disparity among the

various categories. The variation could be attributed to the differences in

occupation. As student are not likely to earn as high as workers or traders

in a month. Also, the average household size in area is 10 persons with a

standard deviation value of 6.38. This showed that the area is mostly

occupied by high density population. The relatively low standard deviation

among in this category confirmed this assertion.

Educational Status of Respondents

Residents in the area are educated. Information contained in Table 4

showed that most of the respondents had post primary qualification. This

category represents 46.8 percent while 17.9 percent had vocational

training. Respondents with primary qualification represent 13.8 percent

while those with tertiary qualification accounted for 12.4 percent. Most of

the respondents with the secondary education were the students in tertiary

institutions but do not possess the qualification yet. The findings also

imply that the most respondents can easily understand and review events

around them.

Table 4: Education Status of Respondents

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Primary 30 13.8 13.8 Secondary 102 46.8 60.6 Tertiary 27 12.4 72.9 Vocational training

39 17.9 90.8

54

None 20 9.2 100.0 Total 218 100.0 Source: Data Analysis, 2007

Table 5: Type of Building

Frequency Percent Cumulative

Percent Duplex 9 4.1 4.1 Blocks of flats 115 52.8 56.9 Self contained 56 25.7 82.6 Traditional

courtyard

38 17.4 100.0

Total 218 100.0 Source: Data Analysis, 2007

Most of the respondents in the area live in blocks of flat. This category

represents 52.8 percent of the respondents while 25.7 percent occupy self-

contain apartments. Respondents who live in traditional courtyard

represent 17.4 percent. The remaining respondents live in duplexes. Most

of the respondents that chose blocks of flat were either using them for

residential and commercial purposes. The findings showed that the

respondents preferred multiple family dwellings to single family dwellings.

This could be attributed to the affordability of the housing in the area. The

study also showed that the owners also live most of the buildings with

other residents. Buildings occupied by their owners accounted for 57.3

percent of the survey buildings while 42.7 percent were not occupied by

their owners. The advantage of the owner living in the building is the likely

reduction in the rate of abuse of the dwelling unit as the owner would not

55

tolerate such. Buildings not occupied by their owners are managed by

caretakers.

4.2 Sanitation Facilities Available in the Area

Sanitation facilities available in the area would be examined under the

following sub-headings:

1. sources of water supply and methods of water purification

2. cooking items

3. household sanitation facilities- kitchen, toilet, bathroom, soak

away pit, septic tank, waste water pit, drainage and electricity

4. waste storage receptacles

4.2.1 Water Supply

Sources of Water

Various sources of water are utilized in the area. The survey showed that

these sources include well, pipe borne water, stream, rainfall, borehole and

purchase. The Table below showed that respondents that use well water

regularly represent 30.3 percent. Respondents that use pipe-borne water

regularly accounted for 43.6 percent while 8.7 percent use stream water.

None of the respondents use rainfall water regularly. This is

understandable since rainfall is not throughout the year. The proportion

that use water from borehole and purchase sources regularly represent 8.7

56

percent and 4.6 percent respectively. The findings showed that pipe-borne

water is most utilized by the households than others sources. The rate of

usage of well water is also very significant considering the fact that wells

are often found in different places across the town.

Table 6: Sources of water in the area

Sources of water

Rate of usageRegular (%) Seldom (%)

Well 66 (30.3) 47 (21.6)Pipe-borne water 95 (43.6) 9 (4.1)Stream 19 (8.7) 47 (21.6)Rainfall - (0) 56(25.7)Borehole 19 (8.7) 102 (48.6)Purchase 10 (4.6) 84 (38.5)

Source: Data Analysis, 2007

Method of water purification

In a related manner, information contained in Table 7 showed that two

significant methods of water purification the area are boiling and use of

chemical purifiers. This method accounted for 47.2 percent and 22.0

percent respectively. The remaining 30.7 percent do not use any form of

purification. Majority of those in the last category claimed that they use

pipe-borne water and thus do not need purifiers. Some others noted that

there wells are well covered and are clean for domestic use.

Table 7: Method of water purification

Frequency Percent Cumulative

57

Percent No purification 67 30.7 30.7 Boiling 103 47.2 78.0 Use of chemical purifiers

48 22.0 100.0

Total 218 100.0 Source: Data Analysis, 2007

Provision of water facilities

It was gathered that the borehole water are either provided by the

government or by private individuals. The former are made available free

of charge to the public while the latter are often paid for. Well water are

made available free of charges to the public while charges for pipe-borne

water are paid to the Lagos state water corporation.

4.2.2 Cooking Facilities

The figure below showed that there were various cooking facilities

utilized in the area. These include kerosene stove, electric stove, gas

cooker, firewood, sawdust and charcoal. Information in figure E therein

revealed that kerosene stove is used regularly than other methods. This is

followed by the regular use of gas cooker while the use of electric stove

ranked third. Few of the respondents also use firewood and charcoal

regularly. None of them use sawdust on a regular basis. The findings could

be linked with the popularity of the methods and available of their

components. It a general fact that the use of kerosene stove is common in

most western parts of the country due to the level of civilization. In cities

58

like Lagos, the use of gas cooker and electric stove are also common.

Firewood and charcoal are often during festivals and ceremony due to the

large number of persons to be served. Thus they not used regularly.

Figure E: Cooking facilities used in the area


4.2.3 Household Sanitation Facilities

Household sanitation facilities in the study area include kitchen,

bathroom, toilets, soak away pit, septic tank, waste water pit and drainage

Information gathered from the survey revealed and presented in table 9

revealed thus:

4.2.3.1 Kitchen facilities

59

It was gathered that 56 percent of the buildings have kitchen facilities

while 44 percent do not have.

Table 8: Household Sanitation Facilities

Facilities Available (%) Not available (%)Kitchen 122 (56) 96 (44)Toilet 178 (81.7) 40 (18.4)Bathroom 170 (78) 48 (22.0)Soak away pit 94 (43.1) 124 (56.9)Septic tank 38 (17.4) 180 (82.5)Waste water pit 75 (34.4) 143 (65.6)Drainage 44 (20.2) 174(79.8)


4.2.3.2 Bathroom

The survey indicated that one hundred and seventy eight (170)

respondents representing 78 percent of the buildings have bathroom

facilities while 22 percent do not have.

4.2.3.3 Soak away pit, septic tank, waste water pit and

drainage

These facilities are very crucial for the safety of human life in any

environment. The release from human body represents waste which should

be properly disposed to avoid negative consequences on man and his

environment. Findings from the survey revealed that proportions of

buildings that have soak away pit, septic tank, waste water pit and drainage

are 43.1 percent, 17.4 percent, 34.4 percent and 20.2 percent respectively.

Of the buildings with soak away pits, 66.1 percent do not have lined

soak-away pits while the remaining 33.9 percent have soak away pits that

60

were lined. The implication of this finding is that there is likelihood of

water seepage from soak away pit to ground water. This would result in

water pollution and various health problems to the consumers. The fact

that well water is the second source of water supply in the area create

further risk especially for those who do not purify their water before use.

Drainage Clearance

Information gathered from the survey indicated that 82.2 percent of the

respondents clear their drainage in a week while remaining 17.8 percent

claimed that they clear their drainage bi-monthly or at more convenient

times. The findings indicated that the residents are aware of the need to

clear their drainage regularly.

4.2.3.4 Toilet facilities

The importance of these facilities to human health and dignity cannot be

over-emphasized. Information contained in Table 9 showed that 81.7

percent of the buildings have toilet facilities while 18.4 percent do not have

these facilities.

Type of toilet facilities

The three major toilet facilities utilized in the area were pit latrine, water

closet and bucket latrine. Information gathered form the survey showed

that the use of water closet gained highest prominence in the area. This is

61

followed by the use of pit latrine while the use of bucket latrine ranked

third. The safety attached to the use water closet could have made it gained

prominence in the area. The use of pit latrine and bucket latrine could be

very risky as germs could easily enter the body while defecating. This is

even worse for the female especially during the menstrual periods.

Figure F: Type of toilet facilities


4.2.4 Waste storage receptacles

The findings from the survey showed that various storage receptacles

were utilized in the study area. These include jerry can, nylon/polythene

bag, metal drum, plastic containers, abandoned buckets, covered refuse bin

and paper cartons.

Table 9: Waste Storage Items

Items Frequency Percentage

62

Jerry can 57 26.1Polythene bag 75 34.4Metal container/drum 47 21.6Plastic 95 43.6Out of use buckets 38 17.4Covered refuse bin 130 59.6Paper carton 38 17.4Source: Data Analysis, 2007

Information contained in Table 9 showed that the waste storage

receptacle mostly used in the area is the covered refuse bins representing

59.6 percent while the use of abandoned buckets and paper cartons for

waste storage recorded least significance among the respondents with

equal proportion of 17.4 percent. The use of covered bins would reduce the

pollution and health risk attached to waste storage systems. Flies and other

harmful insects are often attracted to waste bins if they are not covered.

The use of covered refuse bins would also facilitates the activities of the

activities PSP operators that collect waste components in the area.

4.3Location of Household Sanitation Facilities

The household sanitation facilities were either located within or outside

the buildings. Information contained in Figure G showed that most of the

kitchen, bathroom and toilet facilities were located within the residence.

The fact that these three facilities can be utilized at any point in time either

63

during the day or at night could have been the factor responsible for their

locations. Locating them outside the residence could by be risky.

The major water sources were located outside the building premises.

These are well, pipe-borne water and borehole. The location of these

facilities outside the building would allow for access to them by both the

residents of the buildings and outsiders who may need water.

Figure G: Location of Household Facilities


4.4 Waste Management Issues

This section examines duration of waste before collection or disposal,

and the methods of waste disposal in the area.

4.4.1 Duration of waste collection/disposal

64

The duration of waste collection is very important to the safety of the

environment. Information contained in Figure H showed that the most

prominent duration of waste storage before disposal is between 5-7 days.

This could be linked to the fact that the PSP operators do collect waste

items on a weekly basis. Respondents who claimed to store and dispose

their waste items at a longer duration could be those who do not generate

much waste items or those that are not always available during the visit of

the PSP operators.

Figure H: Duration of waste storage before

collection/disposal


4.4.2 Methods of waste disposal

This section examines the methods of waste disposal in the study

area. The Relative Importance Index (RII) was used to determine the most

widely used waste disposal methods and the preference of the residents on

65

any of the methods. Table 10 shows that the various methods of waste

disposal are used differently in the study area.

Relative Importance Index (RII)

The Likert’s Scale (Very often, Often, Not often, Rare and Very rare)

used in the data collection was ranked from values (5-1) respectively. The

number of respondents in support of any of the methods of waste disposal

was multiplied with the corresponding value for that category.

RII= {Ranking} Overall Total/Total Number of Respondents.

5-very often 4-often3-not often2-rare1-very rare

Table 10 shows that the most widely used method of waste disposal in

the study area is through the PSP Operators in waste management. This is

followed in rank by disposal through barrow/cart pushers while disposal

through Lagos State Waste Management Authority (LAWMA) ranked

third. Waste disposal through burning ranked fourth, disposal of waste on

designated disposal sites ranked fifth while dumping of refuse on open

spaces ranked sixth. Dumping of waste in the drains, and in nearby bushes

ranked seventh and eight respectively while dumping water bodies ranked

ninth. Disposal of waste in uncompleted buildings occupied the last

position.

66

The finding implied that waste disposal through PSP operators gained

highest significance. This is at variance with a study carried out on Ikeja

area of Lagos state whereby disposal through Lagos state Waste

Management Agency (LAWMA) gained highest prominence (Bello, 2007).

The difference could be attributed to the fact that Ikeja is the capital city

and needs urgent government attention to maintain its level of beauty and

aesthetics.

Table 10: Method of Waste Disposal

Methods (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) RII Dump in open

space

47 (235) 10 (40) 30 (90) 10 (20) 121 (121) 506/218=2.32 6th

67

Burning of waste 57 (285) 20 (80) 39 (117) 19(38) 83(83) 603/218=2.77 4th

Burying of waste 10 (50) 40

(160)

39 (117) -(0) 129 (129) 456/218=2.09 10th

Dump in the

drains

19 (95) 20 (80) 49 (147) 29 (58) 101 (101) 481/218=2.21 7th

Dump in water

bodies

27 (135) 9 (36) 39 (117) 30 (60) 113 (113) 461/218=2.11 9th

Dump in nearby

bush

10 (50) 20 (80) 56 (168) 40 (80) 92 (92) 470/218=2.16 8th

Designated

disposal site

30 (150) 18 (72) 29 (87) 20 (80) 121 (121) 510/218=2.34 5th

Barrow/cart-

pushers

49 (245) 56

(224)

57 (171) -(0) 56 (56) 696/218=3.19 2nd

Dumping at road

junction

-(0) -(0) 49 (147) 38 (76) 131 (131) 354/218=1.62 13th

Vacant plots -(0) -(0) 49 (147) 48 (96) 121 (121) 364/218=1.67 12th

Uncompleted

building

-(0) -(0) 39 (117) 48 (96) 131 (131) 344/218=1.58 14th

Local

government

10 (50) 30

(120)

19 (57) 9 (18) 150 (150) 395/218=1.81 11th

PSP Operators 66 (330) 57 (228) 38 (114) 20 (40) 37 (37) 749/218=3.43 1st

LAWMA 36 (180) 67

(268)

58 (174) 9 (18) 48 (48) 688/218=3.16 3rd


The high presence of PSP operators in solid waste management in

Ikorodu town confirms the decision of the state government to reduce

waste disposal problems across the state. The Private Support Programme

(PSP) in waste management is an initiative which allows the private

companies to collect waste components from households in designated

areas within the state. The PSP Operators were then paid monthly through

LAWMA. Their payments are usually determined by the volume of waste

68

collected from the households for the particular month. On the other side,

the volume of waste is measured at the designated dumpsites. The

operation of the PSP Operators is one in such a way that all forms of waste

components from each household in any designated area are collected

without segregation or demand for money. This gives the residents the

feeling that they do not have to pay for the quantity of waste generated, and

as such they reserve their waste components until the PSP Operators come

around.

Some of the respondents still dump waste in nearby bush, drains and

water bodies so as to avoid the monthly waste disposal fees imposed by the

state government. These fees are charged based on the type of buildings

and the number of rooms. For instance, a fee of N500 is imposed on a 3

bedroom flat in Mushin area of the state. Others practice these methods

whenever the PSP Operators fail to show at their streets for a particular

period or when they have hazardous or highly filthy waste to be disposed.

The respondents in this category confirmed that they were aware of the

hazards of their activities which include a filthy environment and flooding.

Waste disposal in uncompleted buildings gained least significance in the

area. The dependence of most of the residents on PSP operators,

barrow/cart pushers and LAWMA has enhanced the sanitation activities in

the area.

69

4.5 Response to Inadequacy of the Sanitation Facilities

4.5.1 Kitchen Facilities

Those who do not have these facilities either cook in their rooms, in the

corridor or manage the available space. The survey indicated that

proportions of respondents in these categories were 26 percent, 13 percent

and 61 percent respectively. Either of these responses could generate

smoke which can result in respiratory problems or fire outbreaks.

Toilet Facilities

Households that do not have toilet facilities either throw their excreta in

nearby river, on vacant land or in the drains. These proportions are 26.3

percent, 26.3 percent and 47.4 percent respectively. These responses could

result in environmental pollution and health problems in the area.

4.5.3 Bathroom Facilities

The inadequacies in bathrooms were responded to through taking bath

in the open before dawn or in nearby uncompleted buildings. Of the

responses, taking bath in the open is most significant with a proportion of

73.7 percent while the remaining 26.2 percent have their bath in

uncompleted buildings. These responses downgrade human dignity and

70

could be more dangerous for ladies who may face sexual assault during the

process.

4.5.4 Waste water pits

Of the responses to inadequacy in waste water pits, discharge of waste

water on the streets is most significant. It represented 65.5 percent of the

total responses while the waste water disposal at the backyard of the

buildings represented 34.5 percent. This could result in cholera, dysentery

and pollution.

4.6 Health Situation in the area

The residents are fully aware of the need to use the health facilities in

the area.

Illnesses Reported

Most of the respondents visited the health clinics for the treatment of

malaria. Information contained in Figure I confirmed this assertion. The

next in rank is the cases of dysentery while typhoid occupied the third

position in the order. Cases of cholera and asthma occupied the fourth and

fifth positions respectively.

71

Figure I: Health cases reported by the residents


4.7 The Monthly Sanitation Exercise

Most of the respondents claimed that monitoring of the mandatory

sanitation activities by government is effective. A significant proportion

also confirmed that drainage clearance, collection and disposal of

sanitation waste were effective in the area.

4.8 Relationship between selected variables and the duration

of drainage clearance

The multiple regression analysis was used to examine this relationship.

The independent variables to be examined include:

72

• Number of years spent on education

• Years of living in the area

• Average monthly income, and

• Household size

R R Square Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate .757 .573 .557 .714 Source: Data Analysis, 2007

The result of the correlation co-efficient (R) shows that there is a high

relationship between the duration of drainage clearance and the

independent variables in the analysis.

The R2 in this case is 57.3 %. This shows that the independent variables

were able to explain 57.3 % of the total variation in drainage clearance in

the area.

B Beta Sig.(Constant) 4.222

Education 0.09396 .107 .412 Years of living in the area 0.03848 .230 .91 Average monthly income -0.00001927 -.374 .593 Household size 0.07871 .176 .00


73

Beta coefficient from the multiple regression analysis shows that the

number of years of living in the area contributed mostly to the level of

drainage clearance with a beta value of 0.230. Followed in order of

importance is the household size through 0.176, education is 0.107 while

average monthly income is -0.374.

Beta coefficient shows that out of the socio-economic variables

examined, the number of years of living has the highest effect on drainage

clearance. This is followed by the household size and education

respectively. The findings show that the longer the years of living in the

area, the higher the level of drainage clearance. The fact that owner-

occupation of residences has the least importance on drainage clearance

showed that there has no significant difference in drainage clearance on

the basis of the owner living in the premise.

4.9 Relationship between education of respondents and

duration of waste storage before disposal

Findings from the survey also showed that there is a relationship between

the education of the respondents and the duration of waste storage before

disposal. This assertion is confirmed by the chi-square value of 91.329.

74

4.10 Relationship between occupation of respondents and

duration of waste storage before disposal

Findings from the survey further showed that there is a relationship

between the occupation of the respondents and the duration of waste

storage before disposal. This assertion is confirmed by the chi-square value

of 69.819 at a degree of freedom of 12.

Chapter Six

CONCLUSION

The chapter summarizes the findings in this study and suggests ways to

improve environmental sanitation in the core area of Ikorodu town.

6.1 Summary of Findings

75

The study established that Ikorodu is one of the towns in Lagos state

with related problems of poor environmental sanitation practices. The

study showed that the average age of the residents was approximately 30

years. It also established that 46.8% were single while eighty seven (87)

representing 39.9% of the total residents were married. The residents have

lived in the area for average of 10 years. The survey further showed that

38.5 % of the residents were students, 25.7 % were traders while 22.5 %

were civil servants. The minimum and maximum average monthly incomes

in the area were N1,200 and N80,000 respectively. The mean monthly

income is approximately N15,000. The study also indicated that 46.8 % of

the residents had secondary school qualification while 17.9 % had

vocational training.

The study revealed that 52.8 % of the residents live in blocks of flat. It

was also established that the residents preferred multiple family dwelling

units to single family units due to the price variation and affordability. The

study further indicated that 57.3 % of the surveyed buildings were owner-

occupied.

The study established that the sources of water in the area include well,

pipe-borne water, stream, rainfall, borehole and purchase. The findings

showed that the use well water regularly represents 30.3 %. Respondents

that use pipe-borne water regularly accounted for 43.6 % while 8.7 % use

stream water. The proportion that use water from borehole and purchase

76

sources regularly represent 8.7 % and 4.6 % respectively. None of the

respondents use rainfall water regularly. The study also showed that two

significant methods of water purification in the area are boiling and use of

chemical purifiers representing 47.2 % and 22.0 % respectively. It was also

established that most of the residents who rely on pipe-borne do not use

any form of water purification. Furthermore, the most significant method

of cooking in the area is the use of kerosene stove. Others methods of

cooking include use of electric stove, gas cooker, firewood, sawdust and

charcoal.

The study identified the major household sanitation facilities in the area as

toilet, kitchen, bathroom, soak way pit, waste water pit, drainage and septic

tank. It was established that only 56 % of the buildings have kitchen

facilities; 81.7 % have toilet facilities while 78 % have bathroom facilities.

Buildings with soak away pit, septic tank, waste water pit and drainage

were 43.1 %, 17.4 %, 34.4 % and 20.2 % respectively. It was also established

that 82.2 % of the respondents clear their drainage in a week. The study

showed the three major toilet facilities utilized in the area were pit latrine,

water closet and bucket latrine. The use of water closet gained highest

prominence in the area. The findings also showed the waste storage

receptacles used in the area are jerry can, nylon/polythene bag, metal

drum, plastic containers, abandoned buckets, covered refuse bin and paper

cartons. It was revealed that the waste storage receptacle mostly used in

77

the area is the covered refuse bins representing 59.6 % while the use of

abandoned buckets and paper cartons for waste storage recorded least

significance with equal proportion of 17.4 %.

The household sanitation facilities were either located within or outside

the buildings. The study revealed that most of the kitchen, bathroom and

toilet facilities were located within the residence while well, pipe-borne

water and borehole were located outside the buildings. The prominent

duration of waste storage before disposal is between 5-7 days. Various

methods of waste disposal were used in the area. The Relative Importance

Index (RII) used to determine the most widely used waste disposal

methods solid waste disposal through PSP operators, LAWMA and

barrow/cart pushers gained highest significance.

The residents respond to inadequacy in provision of sanitation facilities

in different ways. The study established that 61 % of those who do not have

manage the available space, 26 % cook in their rooms while 13 % cook on

the corridor. The study further showed that 47.4 % of the residents without

toilet facilities do throw their excreta in the drains while 26.3 % throw it on

vacant lands. Also, 73.7 % of the households without bathrooms do have

their bath in the open before dawn while the remaining 26.2 % use

uncompleted buildings. Furthermore, 65.5 % of the households without

waste water pits discharge their waste water on the street while 34.5 %

discharge the waste water at the backyard of their buildings.

78

The residents were fully aware of the need to use the health facilities in

the area. Most of the respondents visited the health clinics for the

treatment of malaria. Other health cases reported are typhoid, dysentery,

cholera and asthma. The study also established that monitoring of the

mandatory sanitation activities by government, drainage clearance,

collection and disposal of sanitation waste were effective in the area was

effective.

The regression analysis showed that there is significant relationship

between the socio-economic variables and the duration of drainage

clearance. The R2 value of 57.3 % showed that the independent variables

were able to explain 57.3 % of the total variation in drainage clearance in

the area.

The study indicated that there is a relationship between the education

and occupation of the respondents and the duration of waste storage before

disposal. This was confirmed by the chi-square value of 91.329 and 69.819

at degrees of freedom of 8 and twelve respectively.

6.2 Recommendation

The study has shown that sanitation facilities were not adequately

provided in the area. This has affected the environmental sanitation

practices of residents in the area. The result has been the sanitation-related

79

health problems reported in the area. To reduce correct this situation, the

following points are recommended:

• Government should provide enabling environment for private

sector participation in environmental sanitation and awareness

programme for the residents in the area.

• Households without basic sanitation facilities should be

encouraged to do so through subsidies

• The monthly environmental sanitation exercise should be made

participatory through enlightenment programmes on its

importance

• The activities of private sector participation in solid waste

collection and disposal should be further intensified.

• Government should provide drainage facilities along the road

networks

• There should be adequate provision of the basic infrastructural

facilities to enhance the health condition of the residents.

• Residents who fail to cooperate with the basic sanitation

conditions should be sanctioned through a competent court of

law.

80

REFERENCES

Abler R., Abrams A. S. and Gowld D. (1972): Spatial Organisation: The

Geographers’ View of the World, Prentice Hall Inc; London.

Acey et al (2004): The Peripheralization of the Urban Poor in the Local

Manifestations of the Global Economy; UCLA

Adeagbo, D. (2001): Security of Lives and Property in the Peri-Urban: An

Assessment of the Efforts of Landlords/Tenants Associations; Physical

Development Department, NISER; Ibadan.

81

Adedibu and Okekunle (1989): ‘Environmental Sanitation in Lagos

Mainland: Problems and Possible Solution’, In: International Journal

of Environmental Studies; Vol. 33, Pages 99-109

Afon, A. O. (2004): “Residents’ Satisfaction Index in Selective

Rehabilitation of An Urban Core Residential Area in Ogbomoso, Oyo

State”. Journal of Nigerian Institute of Town Planners Vol. xvii, pp.

45 – 58.

Afon A. O. (2006): Informal Sector Initiative in the Primary Sub-system of

Urban Solid Waste Management: The Third World Experience;

Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife.

Afon A. O. (2006)a: The Areal Analysis of Solid Waste Generation in

Traditional African City: the Example of Ogbomosho, Nigeria

Ajanlekoko (2001): Sustainable Housing Development in Nigeria- The

Financial and Infrastructural Implication; Nigeria.

Akande R. O. (1987): Problems of Uncontrolled Development in Ibadan

Fringe: A Case Study of Ogbere, Ibadan; (Unpublished) B. Sc Thesis,

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Obafemi Awolowo

University, Ile Ife.

Akinola S. R (2007): ‘Coping with Infrastructural Deprivation through

Collective Action among Rural People in Nigeria’ In: Nordic Journal

of African Studies, 16(1): 30-46.

Bello, A. H (2007): Evaluation of Solid Waste Scavenging Activities in

Ikeja, Lagos State; (Unpublished) Independent Project on Nigeria,

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Obafemi Awolowo

University, Ile Ife.

Bindeshwar P. (1999): ‘Sanitation is the Key to Healthy Cities: A Profile of

Sulabh International’, In: Environment and Urbanization; Vol. 11, No.

1, April, 1999

Carter, A. (1975): The Study of Urban Geography. Edward Arnold.

82

Coren (1989): ‘Urban Unfinished Bank’ In: Journal of Public Health

Policy; Vol. 10, No. 2, pp 214-221.

Egunjobi Layi (1988): Perception of Urban Environmental Problem: A

pilot Study of the City of Ibadan, Ibadan. Nigeria

Egunjobi L. (2002): ‘Planning the Nigerian Cities for Better Quality of Life’

In: S. O. Onakomaiya and O. O. Oyesiku, Environment, Physical

Planning and Development in Nigeria, College Press, Ibadan; pp. 89-

107.

Faluyi, O.O. (1982): Lagos City Motor Park: A geographical analysis. B.Sc.

Dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Lagos, Lagos,

Nigeria.

FOS (1994): Social Statistics in Nigeria, Federal Office of Statistics; Abuja

FOS (1997): Social Statistics in Nigeria, Federal Office of Statistics; Abuja

FRN (2000): Water Supply and Sanitation Interim Strategy Note;

November, 2000; Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Goodchild, B. (1974): Class Differences in Environmental Perception.

Urban Studies II, pp. 157 – 355.

Hardoy J. E and Satterthwaite D. (1989): Squatter Citizen: Life in Urban

Third World, Earthscan, London

Hartt, H. (1999): Communicating about Environmental Risk with

Stakeholders. Report of Research on Commmunity about Risk with

Stakeholders. Technical Report prepared for BP – Amuco, Cheveland,

OH.

Hunter, L.M., White, M.J., Little, J.S. and Sutton, J. (2001):

Environmental Hazards, Migration and Race: Research Report:

NICHD and NIEHS Grant ROLHD – 95 – 002.

IIED/DANIDA (2001): Urban Environmental Improvement and Poverty

Reduction, London.

83

Keeble, L. (1969): Principles and Practice of Town and Country Planning;

The Estate Gazette, London.

Kelay, T., Chenoweth, J and Fife-Schwa, C. (2006): ‘Report on Consumer

Trends, Cross-cutting Issues across Europe’; TECHNEAU, pp. 46

Lagho (2001): The Study on Utilization of Safe Water and Sanitation

Facilities among Households in Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.

Lynch (1977): The Image of the City in Loewenstein L.K. (ed) Urban

Studies: An Introductory Reader London, The Free Press pp. 352 –

371.

McGranahan G. et al (1999): Environment Change and Human Health in

Countries of Africa, the Carribbean and the Pacific, SEI Stockholm.

Mckee (1992): Social Mobilization and Social Marketing in Developing

Communities: Lessons for Communicators; Penang, Malasia.

Microsoft Encarta (2008): Microsoft Students Encarta- A Software

Encyclopedia, Microsoft Incorporated.

Murphy, R. E. and Vance, J. E. (1959): ‘Delimiting the Central Business

District’, Economic Geography; Vol 30, No. 4.

Musleh Uddin and Sudhir (2000): Environmental Sanitation Promotion: A

Social, Institutional and Legal Challenge for the Rural Poor; ADB;

Asia.

Nwaka G. (2005): The Urban Informal Sector in Nigeria: Towards

Economic Development, Environmental and Social Harmony, In:

Global Urban Development, Vol. 1, Issue 1, May, 2005

Olayiwola L.M and Omisore, E. O. (2001): ‘Local Government and Urban

Planning Administration in Nigeria: Problems and Challenges’ In: Ife

Planning Journal, ICOMDEST, OAU, Ile Ife; Osun State.

Onibokun, A. G. (1987): ‘The Policy Implication of Emerging Metropolises

in Nigeria’, In: Urban and Regional Planning Policy Formulation in

84

Developing Countries’ (ed.) by Faniran, et al; pg 91-104; Ibadan.

University of Ibadan Press.

Osaghe, M. (1972): “Benin City Motor Terminals and Their Spheres of

Influence” cited in Adesanya A.A., Location and Design of Inner-city

Passenger Terminals: A Case of Abeokuta. NIJs Publishers,

Abeokuta.

Oyebami, B. (1980): Inadequacy of Terminals in Ibadan. H.N.D project,

Department of Town and Regional Planning, The Polytechnic, Ibadan,

Nigeria.

Paderson, E. O. (1980): Transportation in Cities; Pergamon Press, New

York.

Porters, J.D. (1976): Environment and Behaviour: Planning and

Everyday Urban Life. New York, Victoria Press.

POSTnote (2002): Access to Sanitation in Developing Countries,

December, 2002, Number 190.

Pryor (1968): ‘Defining the Rural-Urban Fringe’ In: American Journal of

Social Forum; Vol. 47, 1968.

Rochester R. C. (2005): Towards effective Environmental and Town

Planning Policies for Delta State, Nigeria.

Roland et al (2004): An Integrated Approach to Environmental Sanitation

and Urban Agricultural, Ueberland Strasse; 133; ch-8600,

Duebendourf

Sabur (2006): Community-led Total Sanitation: Different Approach to

make Difference; WaterAid, Bangladesh.

Sada, P. O. (1970): ‘The Rural-Urban Fringe of Lagos, Population and Land

Use’ In: Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. 12,

No.2, pp 225-241.

Saariren, T.F. (1964): Perception of Environment Research paper No. 5,

Association of American Geographers.

85

Sadalla, E., Swanson, T and Velesiw, J. (1999): Residential Behaviour and

Environmental Hazards in Arizona-Sonora Colonial. Research Report

Project number EH98-2

Saywell, D. and Cotton, A (1998): Strategic Sanitation Approach;

POSTnote, 2002.

Segrave, A. J. (2007): ‘Report on Trends in the Netherlaands’ TECHNEAU,

pp. 113

Smith, T. L. (1939): The Population of Louisiama: Its Composition and

Changes; Louisiama Bulletin, No. 1837, pp 203

Tanimowo (2001): ‘Transportation Pattern in the Central Business District

of Pre-1900 Nigerian Cities: A Case Study of Akesan in Oyo Town’, In:

Ife Planning Journal, ICOMDEST, OAU, Ile Ife; Osun State.

Tuan, Y.F. (1972): Discrepancies of Environmental Attitude and Behaviour:

Examples from Europe, and China in English, P.W. and Mayfield, R.C.

(eds) Man, Space and Environment. London, Oxford University press,

pp. 69 – 80.

Walling, E. et al (2005): Waste Management in Developing Countries: A

Case Study of Waste Dumpsite in Aba, Nigeria.

Whitefield, D. K. and Kanaan, G. E. (1972): ‘Zoning Parking and Traffic

Connection’ Eno Foundation for Transport.

WHO and UNICEF (2000): Global Water Supply and Sanitation

Assessment 2000 Report. Geneva.

WHO/UNICEF (2006): ‘Meeting the MDG Drinking Water and Sanitation

Target: The Urban and Rural Challenge of the Decade’, WHO and

UNICEF, pp. 41

Zuleeg, S. (2006): Trends in Central Europe (Germany/Switzerland)’

TECHNEAU, pp.83

86

APPENDIX

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY, ILE-IFE.

QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Sir/Ma,

This questionnaire is aimed at obtaining information on the sanitation practices in the

sub-urban area of Lagos. It is an academic exercise; hence any information given would be

treated with utmost confidentiality.

1. Gender of respondent: Male ( ) Female ( )

2. My age is? …………………..

87

3. Marital Status: Single ( ) Married ( ) Divorced ( ) Widowed ( )

Separated ( )

4. Occupation: Student ( ) Self-employed ( ) Civil servant ( )Trader ( ) Artisan ( )

Farmer ( )

5. Educational status: Primary ( ) Secondary ( ) Tertiary ( ) Vocational ( ) None ( )

Others ( )

6. How long have you been living in this area? -----------

7. My average monthly income is? --------------

8. How many are you in your household? ---------------

9. What type of building do you live in? Duplex ( ) Brazilian type ( ) Block of

flats ( ) Self contained ( ) Traditional courtyard ( )

10. Are you the owner of this building? Yes ( ) No ( )

11. If no, does the owner live in this building? Yes ( )No ( )

12. Indicate the different sources of water in your building

Water Sources Used Not in use Regularly Seldom

WellPipe borne waterStream Rain BoreholePurchaseRain water13. How do you purify your drinking water? No purification ( ) Boiling ( ) Use of

chemical purifiers ( ) Others (please specify) ……………

14. Kindly indicate the cooking items you use in your apartment?

Cooking items Used Not in use Regularly Seldom

Kerosene stoveElectric stoveGas cookerFirewoodSawdust Charcoal Others (Please specify)

88

15. Indicate the facilities available in your building

Facilities Adequate Inadequate Not availableKitchenToilet Bathroom Soak away pitSeptic tank Waste water pitDrainage 16. Is your soak away pit lined? Yes ( ) No ( )

17. If there is/are toilet(s), what type is/are they? Pit latrine ( ) Water closet ( )

Bucket latrine ( )

18. If the facilities listed in 15 (above) are inadequate or unavailable, how do you

respond to such inadequacy?

Kitchen: I cook in my room ( ) I cook in the corridor ( ) I manage available space ( )

Others (please specify) -------------------------------------------

Toilet (I dispose my faeces): In nearby bush ( ) In the drain ( ) On nearby open

field( ) On vacant land ( ) Nearby river ( ) Nearby uncompleted buildings ( )

Others---

Bathroom (I have my bath): In the open before dawn ( ) In nearby uncompleted

building ( ) Others (Please specify)____________________

Waste water tank: Wastewater is disposed on the street ( ) It is disposed at the

backyard ( )

19. How often do you clear your drainage system? Daily ( ) Fortnightly ( ) weekly ( )

Bi-monthly ( ) others (specify) …………..

20.Indicate the location of the following facilities in your residence

Facilities Within the building Outside the building Not availableKitchenToilet Bath Well Pipe borne waterBorehole 21. kindly indicate the condition of the following facilities in your residence

Facilities Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

89

KitchenToilet Bath Soak away pitSeptic tank Waste water pitDrainage Electricity supply22.Indicate the different materials you use to store waste generated in your household

before disposal?

Materials Used Not used Jerry can Nylon/Polythene bagMetal container/drumPlastic containerBucket out of useCovered refuse bin Paper cartons 23. Duration of waste storage before collection/disposal? Less than 4 days ( ) 5-7days ( ) 2

weeks ( )

3-4 weeks ( ) Above 4 weeks ( )

24.Indicate how often you use any of methods of waste disposal listed below:

Waste disposal methods Very often Often Not often Rare Very rareDump in open spaceBurningBuryingDump in the drains Dump in water bodiesDump in nearby bushDesignated disposal siteBarrow/cart pushersRoad junctions Vacant plotsUncompleted buildingLocal government PSP operatorsLAWMA25. Kindly rate the effectiveness of the following in relation to the mandatory

environmental sanitation in the area

Issues Highly effective Effective Ineffective Highly ineffectiveNot at all effective

90

Monitoring of sanitation

exercise by government

officials Clearing of drainage Collection of the

sanitation waste Disposal of the

sanitation waste

26.Do you use the health centre? Yes ( ) No ( )

27. If yes, how often do you visit the place? Very frequent ( ) frequent ( ) fairly

frequent ( ) Not frequent ( ) Not at all frequent ( )

28.Indicate as many of the illnesses listed below as you were treated of? Malaria ( )

Typhoid ( ) Dysentery ( ) Cholera ( ) Asthma ( ) Others (specify)

29.Who are those monitoring the mandatory sanitation exercise? LAWMA officials ( )

The Health Officers of the LGA ( ) PSP operators ( ) KAI officials ( ) others (please

specify)……

30.What would you recommend as ways to improve environmental sanitation practice

of residents in this area?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The End.

Thanks for your cooperation.

91

Date post:	16-May-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	iium
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION PRACTICES IN THE CORE OF IKORODU, LAGOS STATE, NIGERIA

Documents