Article Type: Research Article Article Citation: Adewole W.A., Ayoade A.R.,
and Oladapo E.O. (2021). ATTITUDE OF RURAL
HOUSEHOLDS OF SOUTH WESTERN NIGERIA TOWARDS UTILIZATION OF WATER SANITATION
FACILITIES. International Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH, 9(3), 291-300. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v9.i3.2021.3566 Received Date: 17 February 2021
Accepted Date: 31 March 2021 Keywords: Attitude Households Sanitation Facilities The study examined the Attitude of rural households of south west
Nigeria towards utilization of water sanitation facilities the study
specifically described the socio-economic characteristics of the rural
household heads; identified various sources of water supply and their
providers; determined the attitude of respondents to the utilization of water
sanitation facilities and identified the constraints to water sanitation
facilities utilization. The population of the study comprised of all the rural
households in Ondo and Oyo States in Southwestern of Nigeria. The sampling
procedure employed was multistage sampling technique to select 355 household
heads comprising a total of 167 rural household considered out of 278 rural
households from the selected cells in Oyo state while a total of 188 rural
household heads selected out of 314 rural household heads from the selected
cells in Ondo State for the study. The data for the study were analyzed with
descriptive statistics such as frequency count, percentage, mean and standard
deviation while inferential statistical tools such as logistic regression
analysis model and Pearson Product Moment Correlation analysis. The result revealed a mean
age of the respondents from Ondo State was 47 years while that of respondents
from Oyo State was 45 years. Rain water collection was
the major source of improved water supply from Ondo State (87.4%) and Oyo State
(86.7%). Majority had favourable attitude towards
utilization of water sanitation facilities while the level of utilization of
water sanitation facilities is still on moderate level. The result of the
Regression analysis model indicated that years of schooling (t=-3.758***;
p=0.000) and households’ size (t=-2.089**; p=0.037) were significantly related
to utilization of water sanitation facilities. It was therefore concluded that
the utilization of water sanitation facilities was influenced by income level,
household size and people’s attitude/disposition towards water sanitation
facilities. Since income level is a strong determinant of utilization of water
sanitation facilities, there is need to make credit available to the rural
households in case of breakdown of the facilities to enable immediate repairs
thereby enhancing their health and utilization level.
1. INTRODUCTIONWater constitutes over 70% of the human body
and is considered as the most vital component of life after oxygen (Doe, 2007).
Available trends show that water also covers about 70% of the earth’s surface
and that only 1% of it is available to human for drinking. A recent report
revealed that about 783 million people worldwide lack access to safe water
supply while 2.5 billion people have no access to adequate sanitation (UNESCO,
2013). Water is needed in all aspects of life. It is not only human being that
require a basic supply of reasonably good quality water in
order to survive; water is needed for the survival and productivity of
every life endeavour and all ecosystems, (World
Health Organization and United Nation Children Educational Fund (WHO and
UNICEF, 2014). Humans depend on a wide range of ecosystem services for multiple
biological, economic, social and cultural needs. Water
is not only essential for basic drinking, cooking, hygiene
and ecosystem functioning, but also for producing food, energy, and indeed all
the material products needed for daily life (Jerven,
2014). It also plays a dominant role in the spiritual and aesthetic lives of
billions of people globally. The
importance of water is not only related to drinking but also plays a crucial
role in cooking, washing, bathing, and other domestic activities. However,
about 6 to 8 million people die annually from consequences of disasters and
water related illnesses, inadequate sanitation and
poor hygiene information (Moe, 2006). Water is also the main driver of
illnesses such as diarrhea and typhoid, cholera and
dysentery (Bradley et al., 2007).
Such water related illnesses are often the major cause of premature death in
children. This implies that any process that compromises the supply and
distribution of safe water threatens human health, survival, growth
and development which in turn affect involvement in agricultural production and
other livelihood activities of the people negatively. The
adequate supply of efficient infrastructural facilities is a major headache of
governments globally due to the enormous financial and capital outlay needed in
their planning and implementation. Population surge and unpredictable weather
condition resulting in climate change issues also affect effective supply of
services that mostly rely on nature such as water provision. For example,
rainfall and drought, the availability of water bodies like rivers, lakes and
dams adversely affect provision of water services. The
Institute of Medicine (IOM, 2009) revealed that, though poverty has been a
major impediment to accessing safe drinking water and sanitation facilities in
many parts of the sub-Sahara Africa, access to, availability, and utilization
of safe water sanitation facilities is a prerequisite to sustainable growth and
development of communities around the world. Hunter et al., (2010) established a strong correlation between safe water
supply and livelihoods, whether for productive or domestic uses. Water supply and
water facilities maintenance play a major role in laying the foundation for
economic growth, by increasing the assurance of supply as well as by improving
water quality and therefore human health (Phillips et al., 2006). The
general effects of safe WATSAN facilities supply cannot be overestimated.
Infectious diarrhea and other serious waterborne illnesses are leading causes
of general ill health and mortality, particularly, infant mortality and
malnutrition. Their impacts extend beyond health to economic in the form of
lost work days and school absenteeism especially among
the girl children. Investment in this area is to killer diseases like diarrhoea just as what immunization is to measles- a life-saver. The situation has further worsened as a result of the over reliance on primary agriculture
production, low technological advancement, hiking population growth, climatic
change, a blurred democratic governance environment and more recently
corruption. These factors, among others, have resulted in fruitless attempts to
improve many sectors of the economy including WATSAN in order
to reduce poverty especially in the southern part of Nigeria. Consequently, the issue is compounded because
of low population growth in these areas coupled with rural housing pattern
where housing units are dispersed and scattered. This makes provision of WATSAN
facilities capital intensive looking at the facility cost and the population to
a facility. 2.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
2.1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
The
distribution of respondents by age revealed that 8.7% were less than or equal
to 8.7%, 21.7% were between 31 and 40 years, 38% were between 41 and 50%, 20.6%
were between 51 and 60 years of age while 11% were above 60 years of age.
Majority (69%) were male while 31% were female. 10% were single, majority (82%)
were married, 2.8% were divorced, 2.3% separated while another 2.8% were
widowed. 60.3% were Christians, 39.7% were Muslims. According to level of
education, 21.7% did not have formal education, 36.6% completed Primary School,
31.3% had Secondary education, 2.5% attended College of Education and
Polytechnic while 5.4% attended University. 4.2% had 1 and 2 household size,
16.9% had 3 and 4, 54.4% had between 5 and 6 while 24.5% had above 6 household
size. A little below half (48.5%) were Farmers, 31.8% were traders, 8.5% were
Civil servants, 10.1% were into Artisanship while 1.1% belong into category of
unspecified others. Table 1: Socio-economic Characteristics of
Respondents
Source: Field Survey, 2020 2.2. SOURCES OF WATER FACILITIES AND THEIR PROVIDERS
Based on
the result in the Table 2, the unimproved sources of water facilities
identified from in the rank order include surface water (river, dam, lake,
pond, stream, canal, irrigation channels) (75.4%), unprotected dug well
(36.2%), bottled water (13.8%), unprotected spring (10.1%), vendor provided
water (5.3%) and tanker-truck provider (1.6%). Moreover, Community Development
Association (CDA) was the major provider of majority of unimproved water
facilities in Oyo State which include surface water (river, dam, lake, pond,
stream, canal, and irrigation channels) (57.4%), unprotected dug well (13.3%)
and unprotected spring (10.1%). Individual households (self) were the major
providers of surface water (river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal, irrigation
channels) (15.4%), bottled water (9.0%), unprotected dug well (4.8%) and vendor
provided water (2.7%). Furthermore, neighbour and
friends (N/F) were major providers of unprotected dug well (18.1%), vendor
provided water (1.6%), bottled water (1.1%) and surface water (river, dam,
lake, pond, stream, canal, and irrigation channels) (1.1%). Moreover, Local
Government Council (LGC) was one of the major providers of bottled water
(2.1%), tanker-truck provider (1.1%) and surface water (river, dam, lake, pond,
stream, canal, and irrigation channels) (1.1%). Also, MWR was one of the
providers of bottled water (1.1%). Also, the finding indicates that surface
water (river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal, irrigation channels) was the major
unimproved sources of water facilities among rural households in Oyo State. The
finding from this study also indicates that many rural households depend on
unimproved sources of water facilities through diverse avenues. This
development often times expose them to numerous waters
borne diseases with attending reduction in time devoted to their farming and
other livelihood activities and eventual reduction in production and income
from their livelihood activities. In line with this assumption, Onesmo and Holmes (2006) established that lack of potable water and basic sanitation services remains one of the
world’s most urgent health issues. Similarly, Hunter (2010) claimed that access to a
safe water supply for drinking, cooking, and personal hygiene is an essential
prerequisite for health. Table 2: Distribution of respondents by
sources of water facilities and their providers
KEYS:
UNICEF: United Nation Children Education Fund, WHO: World
Health Organization, WATSAN: Water and Sanitation Agency, WMR: Ministry of
Water Resources, FBO: Faith Based Organizations, N/F: Neighbors and Friends,
LGC: Local Government Council, CDA: Community Development Association. WMS = Weighted Mean Score *Multiple Response Source: Field Survey, 2020 2.3. ATTITUDE OF RESPONDENTS TOWARDS WATER
FACILITIES UTILIZATION
The
results (Table 3), respondents’ attitude
to the utilization of water sanitation facilities in the rank order include the
fact Contaminated water poses health risks that can be reduced by improved
storage conditions and household treatment
and The use of good water treatment prevents microbial contamination
(WMS=3.88), Water must be stored in neat and closed containers to prevent germs
(WMS=3.84), Getting water from improved sources will deliver me and my
household from waterborne diseases (WMS=3.83), Latrine must be sited far away
from water sources or facilities to prevent contamination (WMS=3.78), Treated
community water supplies generally re of high microbiological quality and
therefore safe with respect to waterborne microbial disease risks (WMS=3.75),
Safe disposal of refuse and the use of clean and covered containers are
necessary to prevent germs and diseases (WMS=3.74), Regular utilization of
water from borehole will prevent infection like cholera and dysentery
(WMS=3.68), Water from the borehole is preferable because it can be used
directly without waiting for it to settle or looking for additional treatments
(WMS=3.66) while Water of good quality has no taste (WMS=3.05), Frequent
breakdown of the facilities without immediate repairs has made us loss interest
(WMS=2.95), The facilities are difficult to operate and maintain (WMS=2.77),
Lack of training on the operation of water pumps does not make us to use it
(WMS=2.59), The facility is a bait by political class to get us to pledge our
alliance or loyalty to them (WMS=2.27), Treated water may contain some
sediments or residues that may be dangerous or injurious to health (WMS=2.26),
The providers of the facilities are exploitative and have hidden
agenda(WMS=1.88), The distance to the facility from my house is too long, so it
is a waste of time and energy (WMS=1.85). Table 3: Distribution of respondents by
their attitudinal Statements in pooled data
WMS = Weighted Mean Score Source: Field Survey, 2020 2.4. CONSTRAINTS TO UTILIZATION OF WATER
SANITATION FACILITIES
Table 4.
showed the distribution of respondents by pooled, the constraints to water and
sanitation facilities utilization in their rank order include Financial
constraint in case of breakdown of the facilities (WMS = 2.90), Poor
maintenance culture (WMS = 2.90),
Unwillingness of the users to cooperate (WMS = 2.82), Ineffective promotion of
public support (WMS = 2.66), Inadequate training on the operation and
maintenance (WMS = 2.45), Poor support from the donors in terms of maintenance
and operation (WMS = 2.43 Wrong site selection (2.25) Long distance to water
source (WMS = 1.61). Others include complexity of operation (WMS = 1.35) 4and
Non-compatibility with the culture and religion (WMS = 1.31). Table 4: Distribution of respondents by constraints
to the utilization of water and sanitation facilities in pooled data
WMS = Weighted Mean Score Source: Field Survey, 2020 2.5. LEVEL OF UTILIZATION OF WATER SANITATION
FACILITIES
The
utilization of Clean and covered containers was ranked highest among utilized
water sanitation facilities with a weighted mean score (WMS) of 2.92. Others in
their rank order include use of Soapy water (WMS = 2.91), hand washing (WMS =
2.90), boiling (WMS = 2.86), protected well (WMS = 2.78), improved sewage
containers (WMS = 2.73), hand pump (WMS = 2.60), point of use water treatment
with additives (WMS = 2.56), borehole (WMS = 2.45), public stand pipes (WMS =
1.03), solar disinfectant (WMS = 0.90), filter technology (WMS = 0.85), hand
sanitizers (WMS = 0.75) and Ultraviolet filtration device (WMS = 0.62). The use
of clean and covered container was the major method used by the respondents in
the southwestern Nigeria. Table 5: Distribution of respondents by
utilization of Water Sanitation Facilities in pooled data
WMS = Weighted Mean Score Source: Field Survey, 2020 Hypotheses Testing 2.6. CORRELATION BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE OF WATER SANITATION FACILITIES
AND LEVEL OF UTILIZATION OF WATER SANITATION FACILITIES
H01: There is no significant relationship
between knowledge of water source contamination and level of utilization of
water sanitation information The
result of the Pearson’s Products Moment Correlation (PPMC) analysis in Table 6 indicated that the joint effect of the
combination of all the knowledge of water source contamination (INDEXK) (r=0.064; p=0.227) was
positive but not significantly related to level of
utilization of water sanitation facilities. However, individual variable (water source contamination) such as locating latrine close
to the water source (r=0.196***; p=0.000), water not flowing/stagnant water
body/pond (r=0.093*; p=0.081), disposing trash near the water source
(r=-0.090*; p=0.092), not properly plugging in the holes of the water pipe
(r=0.210***; p=0.000), well not having walling (r=0.113**; p=0.034), no
cover/lid to protect the well (r=0.100*; p=0.060), collection of acidic rain
(r=-0.163***; p=0.002) and poor storage practices (r=-0.180***; p=0.001) was
significantly related to level of utilization of water sanitation facilities at different significant levels. For
instance, locating latrine close to the water source (1%), water not
flowing/stagnant water body/pond (1%), not properly plugging in the holes of
the water pipe (1%) and well not having walling (5%) were positively related to
level of utilization of water sanitation facilities. However, disposing trash
near the water source (1%), collection of acidic rain (1%) and poor storage
practices (1%) were inversely related to level of utilization of water
sanitation facilities. Positive and significant relationship implying that the
probability of utilization of water sanitation facilities increases with
increasing knowledge of water source contamination among rural households. The inverse and
significant relationship implying that the probability of utilization of water
sanitation facilities decreases with decreasing knowledge of
water source contamination among rural households. On the overall, the odd of the joint effect of
the combination of all the knowledge of water source contamination favours
increase in the utilization of water sanitation facilities as more
rural households as their knowledge of water source contamination increases. Table 6: Summary of correlation between
the knowledge of water source contamination and level of utilization of water
sanitation facilities
NS=Not
Significant S=Significant **=Significant
at 5% level **=Significant
at 5% level Source: Data Analysis, 2020 3.
CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATION
The study
concluded that the utilization of water sanitation facilities was influenced by
income level, household size and people’s attitude/disposition towards water
sanitation facilities. Since income
level is a strong determinant of utilization of water sanitation
facilities, there is need to make
credit available to the rural households in case of breakdown of
the facilities to enable immediate
repairs thereby enhancing their health and utilization level. SOURCES OF FUNDING
This
research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The
author have declared that no competing interests exist. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
None. REFERENCES
[1] Doe, N. (2007). Problems of ground
water contamination with focus on water borne diseases, causes and prevention.
Applied Science Report. 5 (1), 34-41. [2] Hunter PR, MacDonald AM, Carter RC
(2010) Water Supply and Health. PLoS Med 7(11):
e1000361. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000361International
Assessment United Nations. Development Programme. New
York. [3] Jerven, M (2014). Benefits and Costs of
the Data for Development Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda:
Post-2015 Consensus. Copenhagen Consensus Center Working Paper. http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com//publication/post-2015-consensus-data-development-assessment-jerven [4] Moe, C. L., and Rheingans, R. D. (2006) Global challenges in water, sanitation and health. Journal of water and health, 4(S1),
pp.41-57. Monitoring Programme on Water Supply and
Sanitation. WHO/UNICEF [5] Phillips, D., Daoudy,
M., McCaffrey, S., Ojendal, J. and Turton, A. (2006)
Trans- boundary Water Cooperation as a tool for water sanitation information
prevention and for a broader benefit-sharing. Windhoek, Namibia: Phillips
Robinson and Associates. [6] UNESCO, (2013). State of the World
population: Unleashing the potential of urban growth. 220 East 42nd Street,
23rd FL New York, NY 10017 ¬. S.A.www.unfpa.org [7] UNICEF (2014), ‘Drinking Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene in Schools: Global Baseline Report’, New York, United
Nations Children’s Fund and World Health Organization.
This work is licensed under a: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License © Granthaalayah 2014-2020. All Rights Reserved. |