ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION
PRACTICES IN THE CORE OF IKORODU,
LAGOS STATE
By
BELLO, Hafis
URP/2001/027
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
3
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
5
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
14
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
Source: Federal Office of Statistics, 1997
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)
Source: Federal Office of Statistics, 1997
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)
Source: Federal Office of Statistics, 1997
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)
Operation and maintenance
$1.5M rising to $6.2M/yr
$45M rising to $380M/yr
Rehabilitation $0.1B(av. $5M/yr)
-
Rural New facilities $0.4B(av. $20M/yr)
$1.3B(av. $65M/yr)
Operation and maintenance
$1.5M rising to $5.3M/yr
$45M rising to $320M/yr
Rehabilitation $30M/yr $10M/yrTotal New facilities $390M/yr $425M/yr
Operation and maintenance
$103M rising to $442M/yr
$155M rising to $1200M/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)
Source: Data Analysis, 2007
Method of water purification
In a related manner, information contained in Table 7 showed
that two significant methods of water purification the area are
boiling and use of chemical purifiers. This method accounted for
47.2 percent and 22.0 percent respectively. The remaining 30.7
percent do not use any form of purification. Majority of those in
the last category claimed that they use pipe-borne water and
thus do not need purifiers. Some others noted that there wells
are well covered and are clean for domestic use.
Table 7: Method of water purification
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative 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
Source: Data Analysis, 2007
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)
Source: Data Analysis, 2007
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
Source: Data Analysis, 2007
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
Source: Data Analysis, 2007
Information contained in Table 9 showed that the waste
storage receptacle mostly used in the area is the covered refuse
bins representing 59.6 percent while the use of abandoned
buckets and paper cartons for waste storage recorded least
significance among the respondents with equal proportion of
17.4 percent. The use of covered bins would reduce the pollution
and health risk attached to waste storage systems. Flies and
other harmful insects are often attracted to waste bins if they
are not covered. The use of covered refuse bins would also
facilitates the activities of the activities PSP operators that
collect waste components in the area.
4.3 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
Source: Data Analysis, 2007
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
Source: Data Analysis, 2007
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
Source: Data Analysis, 2007
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
Source: Data Analysis, 2007
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
Source: Data Analysis, 2007
The result of the correlation co-efficient (R) shows that there
is a high relationship between the duration of drainage
clearance and the independent variables in the analysis.
The R2 in this case is 57.3 %. This shows that the independent
variables were able to explain 57.3 % of the total variation in
drainage clearance in the area.
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
Source: Data Analysis, 2007
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
Top Related