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.

1

DECEMBER, 2007

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.

4

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.

6

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.

7

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

1.1 The 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

8

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

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

9

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

10

4.2.2 Cooking Facilities

45-46

4.2.3 Household Sanitation Facilities

46

4.2.3.1 Kitchen facilities

47

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

4.2.4 Waste 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

4.5.2 Toilet Facilities

57

11

4.5.3 Bathroom Facilities

58

4.5.4 Waste 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

6.1Summary of Findings 63-

67

6.2 Recommendation

67-68

REFERENCES 69-74

APPENDIX 75-79

12

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

13

List of Plates

Pages

Plate A: Map of Nigeria showing Lagos State

35

Plate B: Map of Lagos state showing the study area

36

15

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

16

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

17

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 %. 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.

18

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.

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.’

19

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

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

20

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).

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.

21

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.

22

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?

23

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

24

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 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).

25

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.

26

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) 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

27

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.

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

28

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

29

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

30

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

As the number of people increases, crowding generates

pollution, destroys more 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

31

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 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

32

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.

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.

33

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 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

34

(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

35

• 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

36

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 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

37

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 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

38

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 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.

39

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).

Table 1: Distribution of Households by Water Supply in

Nigerian Urban Centres (In percentages)

State Treate

d

pipe-

borne

Untreat

ed pipe-

borne

water

Well

water

(piped

)

Well

wate

r (not

piped

Borehol

e

Strea

m

Pond

s

Other

s

40

water )

Anambr

a

56.10 7.00 2.46 5.80 3.60 12.70 10.6

0

3.00

Kaduna 35.71 11.69 7.14 38.98 0.50 5.84 0.64 0.00

Kano 62.93 12.69 11.53 10.71 2.14 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oyo 79.90 0.00 0.48 15.74 1.94 0.97 0.97 0.00

Lagos 60.50 3.70 13.60 16.50 5.20 0.50 0.00 0.00

Rivers 80.98 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 9.03 0.00 0.00

All

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

41

Source Percentage

Pipe borne water 26.7

Borehole 10.4

Well 30.7

Stream/Pond 32.1

Total 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

42

1996 the proportion of those with access to water closet had

reduced to less than one-tenth as shown in Figure C.

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

43

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.

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

44

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, 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

45

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 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

46

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

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.

47

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 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

48

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 people

not having enough purchasing power to gain access to improved

49

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

50

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

51

reduction, as it has major 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.

52

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.

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

53

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 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.

54

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

55

-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 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.

56

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).

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.

57

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

58

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)

59

Plate B: Map of Lagos state showing the study

area

Lagos 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.

60

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 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.

61

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), 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

62

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.

Chapter Five

ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION PRACTICES IN THE CORE

OF IKORODU TOWN

Data collected for this study were analyzed under

following sections.

63

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. 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

64

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

65

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

mean monthly income is 14922.50 with a very high 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.

66

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

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

Table 5: Type of Building

Frequenc

y

Percen

t

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

67

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

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

68

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 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 usage

Regular (%) Seldom (%)

69

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)


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 Percent

No purification 67 30.7 30.7 Boiling 103 47.2 78.0 Use of chemical 48 22.0 100.0

70

purifiers 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

71

kerosene stove is common in most western parts of the country

due to the level of civilization. In cities 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

72

Information gathered from the survey revealed and presented

in table 9 revealed thus:

4.2.3.1 Kitchen facilities

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

73

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 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

74

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 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.

75

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

Jerry can 57 26.1

Polythene bag 75 34.4

Metal

container/drum

47 21.6

Plastic 95 43.6

Out of use buckets 38 17.4

76

Covered refuse bin 130 59.6

Paper carton 38 17.4


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.

4.3 Location 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

77

facilities can be utilized at any point in time either 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

78

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

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

79


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 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

80

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.

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.

81

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=2.3

2

6th

Burning of

waste

57

(285)

20 (80) 39

(117)

19(38) 83(83) 603/218=2.7

7

4th

Burying of

waste

10 (50) 40

(160)

39

(117)

-(0) 129

(129)

456/218=2.0

9

10t

h

Dump in the

drains

19 (95) 20 (80) 49

(147)

29

(58)

101

(101)

481/218=2.2

1

7th

Dump in water

bodies

27

(135)

9 (36) 39

(117)

30

(60)

113

(113)

461/218=2.1

1

9th

Dump in

nearby bush

10 (50) 20 (80) 56

(168)

40

(80)

92 (92) 470/218=2.1

6

8th

Designated

disposal site

30

(150)

18 (72) 29 (87) 20

(80)

121

(121)

510/218=2.3

4

5th

Barrow/cart- 49 56 57 -(0) 56 (56) 696/218=3.1 2nd

82

pushers (245) (224) (171) 9

Dumping at

road junction

-(0) -(0) 49

(147)

38

(76)

131

(131)

354/218=1.6

2

13t

h

Vacant plots -(0) -(0) 49

(147)

48

(96)

121

(121)

364/218=1.6

7

12t

h

Uncompleted

building

-(0) -(0) 39

(117)

48

(96)

131

(131)

344/218=1.5

8

14t

h

Local

government

10 (50) 30

(120)

19 (57) 9 (18) 150

(150)

395/218=1.8

1

11t

h

PSP Operators 66

(330)

57

(228)

38

(114)

20

(40)

37 (37) 749/218=3.4

3

1st

LAWMA 36

(180)

67

(268)

58

(174)

9 (18) 48 (48) 688/218=3.1

6

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 collected from the households for the particular month.

On the other side, the volume of waste is measured at the

83

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,

84

barrow/cart pushers and LAWMA has enhanced the sanitation

activities in the area.

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

85

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 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

86

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.

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.

87

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:

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

.75

7

.573 .557 .714


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.

88

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


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

89

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.

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.

90

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

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

91

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

sources regularly represent 8.7 % and 4.6 % respectively. None

92

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

93

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 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

94

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.

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.

95

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 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

96

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.

97

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.

Adedibu and Okekunle (1989): ‘Environmental Sanitation in

Lagos Mainland: Problems and Possible Solution’, In:

International Journal of Environmental Studies; Vol. 33,

Pages 99-109

98

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.

99

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.

100

IIED/DANIDA (2001): Urban Environmental Improvement and

Poverty Reduction, London.

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

101

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 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.

102

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.

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.

103

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

104

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? …………………..

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

105

Well

Pipe borne water

Stream

Rain

Borehole

Purchase

Rain water

13. 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 stove

Electric stove

Gas cooker

Firewood

Sawdust

Charcoal

Others (Please specify)

15. Indicate the facilities available in your building

Facilities Adequate Inadequate Not available

Kitchen

Toilet

Bathroom

Soak away pit

Septic tank

106

Waste water pit

Drainage

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 available

Kitchen

Toilet

Bath

Well

Pipe borne water

Borehole

107

21. kindly indicate the condition of the following facilities in your

residence

Facilities Very good Good Fair Bad Very bad

Kitchen

Toilet

Bath

Soak away pit

Septic tank

Waste water pit

Drainage

Electricity supply

22. Indicate the different materials you use to store waste generated in

your household before disposal?

Materials Used Not used

Jerry can

Nylon/Polythene bag

Metal container/drum

Plastic container

Bucket out of use

Covered 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 rare

Dump in open space

Burning

108

Burying

Dump in the drains

Dump in water bodies

Dump in nearby bush

Designated disposal site

Barrow/cart pushers

Road junctions

Vacant plots

Uncompleted building

Local government

PSP operators

LAWMA

25. Kindly rate the effectiveness of the following in relation to the

mandatory environmental sanitation in the area

Issues Highly effective EffectiveIneffective Highly ineffectiveNot at all effective

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 (

)

109

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.

110

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

Documents

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