i
WATER MANAGEMENT AND BASIC SANITATION PRACTICES AMONG RURAL
WOMEN IN KATSINA-ALA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA, BENUE STATE,
NIGERIA.
BY
KIMBI, DINAH NGUAMO
PG/M.Ed/09/50897
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION,
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA
SEPTEMBER, 2013
i
Title page
Water Management and Basic Sanitation Practices among Rural Women in Katsina-Ala
Local Government Area, Benue State, Nigeria.
By
Kimbi, Dinah Nguamo
Pg/M.Ed/09/50897
September, 2013
ii
Approval Page
This project work has been approved for the Department of Health and Physical
Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
By
__________________ __________________
Tr. Prof. E.S. Samuel Dr. C.C Igbokwe
Supervisor Internal Examiner
__________________ __________________
Dr. Maria M. Ikorok Prof. O.C. Ene
External Examiner Head of Department
__________________
Professor Ik. Ifelunni
Dean
Faculty of Education
iii
Certification
Kimbi Dinah Nguamo, a postgraduate student in the Department of Health and Physical
Education with registration number PG/M.Ed/09/50897 has satisfactorily completed the
requirements for Masters Degree in Public Health. The work embodied in this is original and has
not been submitted in part or in full for any other diploma or degree of this or any other
university.
______________________ _____________________
Tr. Prof. E.S. Samuel Kimbi. Dinah Nguamo
Project Supervisor Candidate
iv
Dedication
This project is dedicated to the Almighty God for his favour in given me admission into
this University to read this course.
v
Acknowledgements
The researcher appreciates Almighty God for his love, faithfulness, blessings, and
mercies towards her throughout the course of this study. I am very grateful to my supervisor,
Professor Tr. E.S. Samuel for his criticisms, comments, suggestions, corrections and overall
thorough supervision of this work.
The researcher appreciates her content and design readers in persons of Professor. C.E.
Ezedum and Dr. G.C. Nji for their contributions in directing the focus of this study especially at
the proposal level. The researcher also appreciates all her examiners for making this work
successful.
The researcher appreciates the following persons: Dr J.E. Umefekwen, Dr. C.C. Igbokwe,
Dr. Mrs C.N. Ogbuji, Professor I.C. Obizoba for validating the instruments used in this study.
Their advice helped to improve the quality of this work. The researcher appreciates Professor
C.O. Ene for the letter of introduction from him, which facilitated her data collection for this
study.
The researcher appreciates her mother Saamo and her aunt Mgbedoon for their moral
support, which led to the successful completion of this work. The researcher is also thankful to
all her respondents for their time taken in the course of obtaining information for this study.
Kimbi D. Nguamo
vi
Table of Contents
Title page - - - - - - - - - i
Approval page - - - - - - - - - ii
Certification - - - - - - - - - - iii
Dedication - - - - - - - - - - iv
Acknowledgements - - - - - - - - - v
Table of contents - - - - - - - - - vi
List of tables - - - - - - - - - - viii
Abstract - - - - - - - - - - ix
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
Background to the Study - - - - - - - - 1
Statement of Problem - - - - - - - - - 12
Purpose of the Study - - - - - - - - - 13
Research Questions - - - - - - - - - 13
Hypothesis - - - - - - - - - - 13
Significance of the Study - - - - - - - - 14
Scope of the Study - - - - - - - - - 16
CHAPTER TWO: Review of related literature
Conceptual Framework - - - - - - - - 17
Factors affecting water management and basic sanitation practices - - - 31
Water management and basic sanitation practices among rural women - - 34
Theoretical Framework - - - - - - - - 40
Empirical studies on water management and basic sanitation practices - - 44
Summary of Literature Review - - - - - - - 51
CHAPTER THREE: Method
Research Design - - - - - - - - - 53
Area of the Study 53
vii
Population of the Study - - - - - - - - 54
Sample and Sampling Technique - - - - - - 54
Instrument for Data Collection - - - - - - -- 54
Validity of the instrument - - - -- - - 55
Reliability of the instrument - - - - - - - 55
Method of Data Collection - - - - - - - - 55
Method of Data Analysis - - - - - - - - 56
CHAPTER FOUR: Results and Discussion
Results - - - - - - - - - - - 57
Summary of findings - - - - - - - - - 74
Discussion of findings - - - - - - - - 75
CHAPTER FIVE: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
Summary - - - - - - - - - - 82
Conclusions - - - - - - - - - - 84
Recommendations - - - - - - - - - 85
Suggestions for Further Study - - - - - - - 85
References - -- - - - - - - - 86
Appendices -- - - - - - - - - 93
viii
List of Tables
1. Sources of water - - - - - - - - 57
2. Water collection - - - - - - - 58
3. Water storage - - - - - - - - 58
4. Water treatment methods - - - - - - - 59
5. Solid waste disposal - - - - - - - - 59
6. Sewage waste disposal - - - - - - - 60
7. Water management practices of rural women according to level of education 61
8. Water management practices of rural women according to age - - 63
9. Sanitation practices of rural women according to level of education - - 65
10. Sanitation practices of rural women according to age - - - 67
11. Result of one-way ANOVA statistic testing water management practices adopted by rural
women are not significantly dependent on level of education - - 69
12. Result of one-way ANOVA statistic testing water management practices adopted by rural
women are not significantly dependent on age - - - - 71
13. Result of one-way ANOVA statistic testing basic sanitation practices adopted by rural
women are not significantly dependent on level of education - - 72
14. Result of one-way ANOVA statistic testing basic sanitation practices adopted by rural
women are not significantly dependent on age - - - - 73
ix
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to find out water management and basic sanitation practices among rural women in Katsina-Ala Local Government Area, Benue state, Nigeria. To achieve the purpose of the study, ten research questions were formulated and four null hypotheses postulated and tested at .05 level of significance. The descriptive survey research design was utilized. The instrument used for data collection was the researcher designed questionnaire on water management and basic sanitation practices among rural women in Katsina-Ala L.G.A. the population for the study consisted 71711 rural women in Kafsina Ala Local Government Area of Benue State. Stratified random sampling technique was used in order to arrive at the sample. This yielded a sample of 1434 respondents. The data collected were analysed using mean scores to answer research questions and one-way ANOVA was used to test hypotheses. The findings of the study showed that: on sources of water, the rural women moderately used hand dug well, bore-hole and rain water. The containers moderately use to collect and store water were open buckets, basins, jerry cans and rubber pots respectively. Chlorine and filtration were the methods they use for water treatment. Landfill or controlled tipping, crude or uncontrolled dumping, toilet with sewer connection, simple pit latrine, and bush were the methods of solid and sewage waste disposal they practiced respectively. Finally there was no significant difference in water management and basic sanitation practices adopted by rural women according to level of education and age. Major recommendation is the rural women should be health educated generally on water management and sanitation practice.
1
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Background to the Study
Access to safe water and basic sanitation is considered a basic human need and a basic
human right for all people, yet this basic right remains unrealized for a large majority of people
in developing countries, especially in rural communities. Global figures that describe the lack of
water and sanitation services are alarming. More than 1.1 billion people do not have access to
improved drinking water supplies. Lack of sanitation is even the larger problem; an estimated 2.6
billion individuals live without improved sanitation services World Health Organization and
United Nations International Children Education Funds (WHO &UNICEF, 2004). Additionally,
about eighty per cent of the world is covered with water and yet millions around the world suffer
from water shortages, and lack access to safe water, leading to disease, death, crop failure and
famine (Sander, 2007).
Areas without adequate supplies of safe water and basic sanitation services carry the
highest burden of diseases which disproportionately impact on children under five years of age.
UNICEF (2006) stated that children weakened by frequent diarrhea episodes are more likely to
be seriously affected by malnutrition and infections such as pneumonia and they can be left
physically and mentally stunted for the rest of their lives .Evans (2005) maintained that
approximately 88 per cent of all diarrhea infections worldwide are attributed to unsafe water
supply, lack of safe hygiene practices and basic sanitation infrastructures. Similarly high
incidence of vector borne disease, intestinal diseases and trachoma in developing countries is
strongly correlated with unsanitary practices and the absence of nearby sources of safe water.
Olusegun (2010) maintained that in Nigeria, the inadequacy of safe water and improved
sanitation services is manifested in the prevalence of water and sanitation related diseases.
Diarrhoea, which results from poor sanitary/hygiene habits and consumption of water of poor
quality, is the second main cause of infant mortality after malaria, and the third main cause of
under-five mortality. The prevalence of diarrhea is higher in the rural than in the urban areas and
in the northern zones than in the south. According to United Nation (2005), the scale of the
problem is immense, nearly twice as many people lack access to sanitation compared with water
supply.
2
Water is acclaimed the key to health and the general contention is that water is even more
basic than all other essential things of life and living including immunization and therefore, must
be given the first and highest priority. Regardless of his status and his domicile, man
compulsorily requires regular and accessible supply of water which as a biological imperative
forms a major component of his body cells, about 75 per cent of the liquid content of the human
body (WHO & UNICEF, 2008).
Water is a clear sparkling, colourless, odourless and tasteless fluid. It contains two
hydrogen and one atom of oxygen hence its chemical formular is H2O. According to Mathur
(2007), water is a great cleaning agent both externally and internally. In the context of this study
water is referred to as clear liquid without colour, smell or teste. It has essential requirement for
vital physiological and biochemical processes such as digestion, respiration, excretion and
circulation. The available quantity of fresh water is also linked to human in several ways, such as
water for ingestion, water for hygiene and water for food production. Even when water is
available it requires adequate sourcing, collection, transportation, storage, treatment and
sanitation practices. This means that water needs proper management.
Balogun (1981) maintained that management is a process of tactfully controlling or
bringing various elements to work together for some particular purpose. Onah and Thomas
(1993) see management as a process through which group efforts or activities are directed
towards the achievement of preconceived objectives. American Association of School
Administrators AASA, (1995) defined management as the totality of the process through which
appropriate human and material resources are made available and made effective for
accomplishing the purpose of an enterprise or organization. Ogbonnaya (1997) viewed
management as a process of getting things accomplished or done through the assistance of other
people. When management relates to water, it is called water management. Therefore, water
management is the process of tactfully controlling or bringing various elements such as sourcing,
storage, treatment and sanitation practices to work together for some health purpose. In this
context Water management is the activity of planning, developing, distributing, and making the
optimum use of water sources.
Water sources means locations or places where fresh water flow abundantly in the form
of river, lake, pond or stream. In this study water sources refers to locations or origin where
water that are useful or potentially useful to man comes from. According to WHO (2000)
3
improved drinking water sources should be constructed and design to protect the water source
from outside contamination, in particular from fecal matter. Sources that meet the definition of
improved drinking water include: a household connection pipe, public pipe borne water,
borehole, protected dug well, protected spring or rainwater collection. WHO (2004) asserted that
drinking water comes from different sources depending on where people live. Three sources that
are used to collect drinking water are rain water, surface water and ground water. Park (2009)
opined that water sources must conform to two criteria. The quantity must be sufficient to meet
present and future requirement and the quality of water must be acceptable. Wallace (2009)
posited that most suitable water source to be developed for use by any community depends on
the quantity and quality of the source under consideration for development. The selection of the
most appropriate water source for human use in a specific region may result from a wide variety
of options available which include ground water, surface water and rain water.
Rain water is a product of a natural process of distillation. Dhaar and Robbani (2008)
asserted that rain water is the prime source of all the water, a part of the rain water sinks into the
ground to form ground water, part of it evaporates into the atmosphere and some runs off to form
streams and rivers, which flow ultimately into the sea. Rain water is the purest in nature. Surface
water normally originately from precipitation and is widely distributed in nature. According to
Dhaar and Robbani (2008) surface water is the commonest source of water for most people in the
developing countries. Oceans are the largest storehouse of surface water in the world. In the land
area, surface water exist either in the moving state as in rivers and streams or in stationary
condition as in tanks, ponds and impounded reservoirs. Ground water is universally distributed
both as a natural outpouring of an aquifer in the form of spring and as wells excavated in earth,
to reach an aquifer. According to Dhaar and Robbani (2008) ground water contains excess of
inorganic matter and little or no organic impurities. It is free from suspended matter and
comparatively with surface water, it is less aerated and less agreeable to taste. Ground water
drawn from adequately protected deep wells is naturally free from pathogens when it is properly
collected.
Water collection means taking water from a natural source and feeding into a distribution
system. The source can be an underground reservoir, a body of standing water, a body of flowing
water or any natural substance from which water can be extracted. In this study water collection
is the haversting of water from a natural body or from rain and directing it to a desired place.
4
Clasen and Roberts (2006) observed that contamination of water can occur during and after
collection often because of poorly designed open containers and improper hygiene and handling
during transportation.
Water transportation means movement of water over large distance to another place. In
this study water transportation is the process of moving water from one location to another. The
benefits of protected sources on water quality and health are limited unless safe transportation
and storage can be assured.
Water storage means keeping water in a special place while it is not being used. In the
context of this study water storage means keeping water away from sources of contamination and
using a clean and covered container to hold it. Wikipedia (2000) asserted that water storage
container may be a reservoir, a water bottle, jerry can, clay pot, rubber pot, basin, bucket with lid
drum and tank. The container should prevent hand, cups and dippers from touching the water so
that the water does not get recontaminated. Storage containers should be well protected from
outside contamination and use for no other purpose other than the storage of clean water. In a
study conducted by Okoga (2007) found that the higher a woman’s level of education, the more
likely she is to be conscious of her health and that of her family. She is also more likely to take
positive actions that are capable of promoting good health. She can have education on safe
storage of water and treatment of unsafe water for domestic use. Conversely, the illiterate women
may lack the basic education on efficient use and pollution prevention, even as they may have
learned strategies to conserve safe water.
Wikipedia (2000) further asserted that water should only be stored in material that is
created specifically for long term storage of liquids intended for consumption. It is important that
hygienic containers should be used to store water as some containers can leak, crack, degrade or
otherwise cause problems to the stored water. Sometime it is difficult to find or buy a good
storage container, but the most important things are to make sure that it is covered and the water
stored undergoes adequate treatment so that it can be safe for drinking.
Faust and Aly (1998) viewed water treatment as a physical and chemical processes for
making water suitable for human consumption and other purposes. Safe Drinking Water (2000)
defined water treatment as the process for enhancing the quality of water so that it meets the
water quality criteria for its fitness for the intended use. They further asserted that water
treatment originally focused on improving the qualities of drinking water. According to WHO
5
(2000) water purification is the removal of contaminants from raw water to produce safe water
that is pure enough for human consumption. Substances that are removed during the process of
water treatment include bacteria’s, algae, viruses, fungi, minerals and man-made chemistry
pollutants. Osmonics (2004) opined that water treatment is any procedure or method used to alter
the chemistry composition or natural “behavior” of water. In the context of this study water
treatment is a process of removing harmful substances and odour from a raw water source. Water
available in nature from surface or underground sources is described as raw water. It requires
treatment before it can be supplied for human consumption. The nature of treatment is
determined by the quality of raw water and the impurities present in it, ground water may need
only partial treatment. Surface water especially that obtained from a river may require complete
treatment before it can be released for supply.
Treatment of water comprises methods of water treatment which include: natural and
artificial methods. Controlling pollution by dilution is a natural way in rivers and stream water.
Amount of sewage or polluting matter, which enters river or stream, gets diluted so much that it
loses its bad effect on human health. Dilution is an important means of purification.
Sedimentation is a physical treatment process used to reduce the turbidity of water. Boiling is the
best method to destroy all organisms and it makes water sterile but this method is not always
practical in large scale purification. Adding alum or aluminum sulphate is the most common
used coagulant. They are cheap, readily available and non-corrosive. Chemical disinfection is
aimed at killing pathogenic organisms in the water; the most common form of chemical
disinfection is chlorination. Filtration is quite an important stage in water purification or
treatment because 98-99 per cent of the bacterial are removed by filtration apart from other
impurities. Sunder (2010) asserted that the objective of filtration is to make water safe by
removing pathogenic organism.
Safe water is one that is free from pathogenic microorganisms, toxic substances and
excessive amount of minerals which could produce undesirable physiological effects. Dhaar and
Robbani (2008) stated that drinking water must be safe for the consumers as well as acceptable
to them. Water which fails to meet the safety and acceptability criteria is regarded as unsafe
water. Unsafe water is one which contains harmful microorganism and substances, possesses
colour, odour or taste due to dissolved minerals. All communities have some access to water, but
the safety of the water they consume is less often assured. In areas where there may be unsafe
6
water, women play the major role of domestic water management. In these areas women are
typically responsible for collecting, storing, purification, sanitation and hygiene practices.
Bathia and Fakemark (2006) however, pointed that the easier and less time consuming in
fetching water the more likely the aged women adopt in hauling or treating water and hygiene
practices.
Sanitation is the hygienic means of promoting health through prevention of human
contact with the hazards of wastes. Lucas and Giles (2007) pointed that hazard can be either
physical, microbiological, biological or chemical agents of disease. The key to man’s health lies
largely in his environment. Safe sanitation promotes health, improves the quality of the
environment and thus, the quality of life in a community.
Grey (2002) viewed sanitation as the hygienic disposal or recycling of waste materials,
particularly human excreta. He further maintained that sanitation is an important public health
measure, which is essential for the prevention of disease. International Water and Sanitation
(2004) posited that sanitation refers to the facilities and hygienic principles and practices related
to the safe collection, reuse and or disposal of human excreta and domestic waste water. Victor
and Ernest (2007) opined that sanitation refers to the maintenance of hygienic conditions,
through services such as garbage collection and waste disposal.
The term sanitation can be applied to a specific aspect, concept, location or strategy such
as basic sanitation. Basic means necessary and important to all people e.g. basic human rights.
Therefore, basic sanitation refers to the management of human faeces at the household level.
This terminology is the indicator used to describe the target of the Millennium Development
Goal on Sanitation. The United Nations Millennium Development Goal (MDG) for sanitation is
to halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking
water and basic sanitation. The United Nations Millennium Project (2008) defined basic
sanitation as access to and use of excreta and waste water facilities and services that provide
privacy and dignity while at the same time ensuring a clean and healthful living environment
both at home and in the immediate neighbourhood of users.
Access to sanitation means the availability of a hygienic facility to human excreta
disposal within a convenient distance from the user’s dwelling i.e not too far away to discourage
its use. The technology selected should give the user the highest service level that is willing and
able to pay and at the same time has capacity to maintain (UNICEF, 1999). The Millennium
7
Project Task Force (2004) maintain that basic sanitation is the lowest-cost option for securing
sustainable access to safety hygienic and convenient facilities and services for excreta and
sullage disposal that provide privacy and dignity while ensuring a clean and healthful living
environment both at home and in the neighbourhood of users. National Sanitation Task Team
(2002) asserted that sanitation means collecting and disposing in a hygienic manner, of waste,
including human excreta, household waste, water and rubbish, if this is not done, neighbourhood
become dirty and people get sick. In the context of this study basic sanitation refers to the
principles and practices relating to the collection, removal or disposal of human excreta,
household waste water and refuse as they impact upon people and the environment. WHO
(2011) defined basic sanitation as group of methods to collect human excreta and urine as well as
community waste waters in a hygienic, way, where human and community health is not altered.
Basic sanitation addresses the issue of solid waste disposal, sewage disposal and water
sanitation. Waste as the term implies is any solid, liquid or gaseous substances or materials
which being a scap or being super flows, refuse or eject is disposed of or required to be disposed
as unwanted. The United Kingdoms Environmental Protection Act (1990) defined waste as any
substance which constitutes a scap material or an affluent or other unwanted surplus substance
arising from the application of any process and substance or article, which requires to be
disposed of as being broken, worn-out, contaminated or otherwise spoiled. Dawodu (2009)
maintained that waste could be any material which has been used and is no longer wanted for
example, because the valuable or useful part of its has been taken out. Nnamani (2000) opined
that solid waste refers to all materials that the processor or owner no longer considers of
sufficient value to retain.
Solid waste in this context refers to leaves, bottles, cans, maize husk and so on. Solid
waste disposal therefore, refers to how individuals, societies or organization stow away solid
waste. There should be an efficient system for its periodic collection, removal and final disposal
without risk to health. Kiely (1998) defined solid waste as all the waste collected by private or
public authorities from domestic, commercial and other industrial sources which constitute
danger to the health of man and animals in the environment. Lucas and Giles (2007) pointed that
waste that can cause problems are animal and human faeces, solid waste, domestic waste water
(sewage, urine, sullage, greywater) industrial waste and agricultural.
8
Sewage is a raw water or waste water or human or animal excreta plus water. Hornby
(2006) defined sewage as the mixture of waste from the human body and used water, that is
carried away from houses and factories through pipes. According to Park (2009) sewage is waste
from a community containing solid and liquid excreta, derived from houses, street and ward
washing, factories and industries. Joseph (2006) opined that sewage is liquid refuse or waste
matter usually carried off by sewers. In rural areas, the majorities of them go to the fields for
defecation and thereby pollute the environment with human excreta. Proper disposal of human
excreta is a fundamental environmental health service to improve the state and community
health. The solution to the problem is through hygienic disposal of human excreta which is the
corner-stone of all public health services. Sewage disposal therefore, is the act of getting rid of
used water and waste substances, that are carried away from houses and factories through special
pipes. According to Akintola (2007) disposed methods include: off-site disposal, this involves
the immediate removal of sewage through the net work of sewage to the sewage treatment plant.
This method of sewage disposal is considered to be the safest because sewage is removed from
the house and its surrounding immediately. If properly managed, the sewage system is
convenient and comparatively hygienic.
On-site disposal, this involves a process whereby sewage is disposed into a latrine or
septic tank within the residential plot until the pit is full and arrangement is made to evacuate its
content by a vacuum tanker. This method includes, the use of septic tank pour-flush latrines,
ventilated improved pit latrine, simple pit latrine and composting latrines.
Improving sanitation practices among women will help improve well being of the
population directly including inhabitants of Katsina-Ala where the present study is located. It has
been shown, for instance, that adequate provision, access to and effective practice of sanitary
measures can relieve about the same total burden of disease (measured in daily adjusted life
years) as do improvement in public health care. Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative
Council WSSCC, (1998) asserted that women’s failure to maintain adequate sanitation practices
put their households at the risk of contracting diseases. Water borne diseases can be prevented
through paying meticulous attention to good sanitation practices. The council further stated that,
the most effective way of reducing the burden of disease is through desirable sanitation practices
and with the maintenance of good personal hygiene. When sanitation and hygienic practices are
promoted, it goes a long way to prevent disease.
9
Simpson and Weiner (1991) defined practice as a habitual action–custom. Webster
(1980) viewed practice as something done habitually or customarily. Robinson and Davidson
(1998) described practice as a habitual activity, procedure or custom. Funks and Wagnals (2003)
defined practice as any customary action or proceeding regarded as individual’s habit. Practice in
this context is conceived as particular way of doing something regularly. There are some
undesirable practices which include fetching water from unprotected sources, poor collection and
storage, non use of treatment measures, and unhygienic disposal of solid and sewage waste.
These practices may be common or uncommon among rural women in Katsina-Ala Local
Government Area of Benue State.
Rural area, according to Jorgensen (1982), implies all areas notably villages and
communities, which have a major part of their population solely engage in subsistence
agriculture and their people are related culturally and traditionally, and they lack the basic social
amenities such as hospitals, electricity, well established industries, markets, motorable roads and
pipe-borne water. Rural women are women who live in small communities like a village other
than the one surrounding major urban centres. Abert (2009) defined rural women as those who
live outside urban metropolitan areas. That means women living in small cities, with a
population of 5,000 will be considered as living in a rural area. As earlier stated there may be
some undesirable water management and basic sanitation practices existing among these rural
women. These include: poor water sourcing, poor collection and storage and there may be no
treatment and sanitation practices.
There are some factors that may affect water management and basic sanitation practices
of rural women. They are age, level of education, lack of fund. In most societies, women have
the primary responsibility for management of water supply, sanitation and health at the
household level. UNICEF (2006) stated that the burden of fetching water from distant sources
and travelling to sanitation facilities outside the home takes time away from productive activities,
child-care, education or leisure. The report further stated that in the rural Sub-Saharan Africa,
women spend an average of just under half an hour for each trip to a water source. Since in most
cases several trips are made per day, this represents a significant amount of time lost. The time
spent in search of water may force some to resort to any source that is available.
Roberts and Shif (2001) perceived that in rural areas women choose to continue the use
of traditional unwholesome water sources. The decision to use a particular water source is
10
influenced by preferences, knowledge and perceptions about water quality. Goni (2003)
observed that when water is scarce, supplies is irregular and water quality is poor, the elderly
women cannot withstand the stress of walking long distances to fetch water, spending hours per
day burdened under heavy containers and suffering acute physical problems, especially in
drought prone areas. Consequently the elderly women are disproportionately and among the poor
they tend to be most adversely hit by the lack of water and sanitation services. This will lead to
continued use of unsafe water as well as limited access to existing water sources. Furthermore, a
lack of adequate sanitation will endanger their health as there will be no proper defecation and
urinary facilities. (DFID, 1998).
The rural communities may face higher cost for water in addition to their lower incomes.
The lack of network water connection for the urban poor or of any water service for the rural
typically leaves them buying from water vendors at high price per liter, waiting in long lines or
walking long distances to sources of water and incurring additional cost for storing and boiling
water. When water is expensive, either in cash terms or in the time and energy needed to collect
it, the elderly women often cut total consumption and cut back on bathing thus basic personal
and hygiene requirements neglected (DFID 1998).
The constraints militating against good sanitation are the lack of funding, education,
water, proper planning, unwillingness of rural communities to incur cost (with the children being
denied access to facilities) and lack of funds to pay for users systems. These have led to
continued spread of water and sanitation related diseases.
Mosleh and Sudhir (2005) stated that an increasing amount of literature suggests that
health problems result from the lack of sanitation facilities. Invariably, it is the rural poor and
illiterate who suffer the most from the absence of safe water and sanitation because they lack not
only the means to provide such facilities but also the information on how to minimize the ill
effects of the unsanitary conditions in which they live. Nwachukwu (2008) asserted that in
developing countries, people in the rural communities rarely consider an inadequate exacta
disposal system a problem. In the absence of sanitation systems, some communities rely on
natural processes, defecation takes place in the open fields, or on surface water, in the later
option, human waste is directly disposed off into the rivers, canals for transport and eventual
dilution leads towards a severe environmental problem.
11
Federal Ministry of Water Resources (2000) stated that one of the fundamental reasons
for the inadequate water supply has been the failure of the state water agencies (SWAs) to
generate enough revenue to cover even their operating expenses and the costs of routine
maintenance. As a result, the SWAs have depended on government subsidies, which have proven
insufficient to ensure proper maintenance, let alone to finance adequate levels of capital
investment. In effect, the resources of state governments have been diverted into subsidizing
normal operational costs, leaving very little if any resources for the investments needed to make
up for the deficit in water supply and keep pace with the growth of population
The study is guided by three theories. Systems theory in management, the health belief
model and the theory of reasoned action. Systems theory of management is based on the
principle of interdependence of subsystems to the whole system for effective functioning. A
system is described as a collection of interrelated parts, which form some whole (Finnegan &
Vadallekalam, 1975). The subsystems of water management and basic sanitation are the sources,
collection, storage, treatment and sanitation practices. All these are interdependent on each other
and must work harmoniously to produce an efficient water management and basic sanitation
practice system. The health belief model stipulates that a person’s health related behaviour
depends on a person’s perception in other words, it is assumed that the rural women in Katsina-
Ala who believe that getting water from safe sources, practicing appropriate storage, treatment
and sanitation will improve and promote their health will practice it. The theory of reasoned
actions states that the individual performance of a given behaviour is primarily determined by a
person’s intention to perform that behaviour. The rural women in Katsina-Ala who have the
intention of getting their water, through safe sources and practice appropriate storage, treatment
and basic sanitation practices will do so but those who do not have the intention will not do so.
The study on water management and basic sanitation practices was carried out in
Katsina-Ala Local Government Area of Benue State. The Local Government Area lies some 126
kilometers away from Makurdi, the state capital in the Eastern part of the state. It shares
boundaries with Logo and ukum Local Government Areas to the North and North East
respectively. It also shares boundaries with Taraba state to the East, Kwande Local Government
Area to the south west, Katsina-Ala Local Government is essentially inhabited by the Tiv people.
The rural residents of Katsina-Ala need adequate water supply for good health and
hygienic purposes. It may be certain that most of them use shallow yard wells, river, ponds,
12
streams and lakes. The prevalence of shallow yard wells, river, pond, stream and lake as sources
of water supply and inadequate sanitation practices for most people raises serious concern over
the years. Most of the inhabitants in rural area of Katsina-Ala Local Government who suffer
from diseases such as diarrhea, cholera, typhoid, hepatitis and other water borne and sanitation
related diseases may be as a direct result of poor water supply and sanitation practices in the
area. This situation is worrisome and unacceptable. This is why the researcher deems it necessary
to find out water management and basic sanitation practices among rural women in Katsina-Ala
Local Government Area of Benue.
Statement of the Problem
Access to basic services like water supply and sanitation is a moral and ethical imperative
rooted in the cultural and religious tradition of societies around the world. The United Nations
had affirmed the right to water in 2002, recognizing that the right to water is indispensable for
leading a life in human dignity and a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights. It
states that the human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically
accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic use. The statement echoes the
importance of adequate water supply and sanitation for the health, economic, social development
and for an ecological balance of the world.
Availability of wholesome drinking water for domestic consumption and fulfillment of
industrial purposes enhances maintenance and promotion of personal and community health.
However, potable water can only be conveyed to the people through adequate safe water supply
facilities such as boreholes with hand pumps, public standpipes and hand dug wells. Inadequacy
and non-utilization of water supply facilities can hinder access to wholesome drinking water,
which eventually may lead to consumption of contaminated water with attendant consequences.
Many rural women in Katsina-Ala local Government Area of Benue state seem to collect
their drinking water from several sources such as shallow yard well, river, pond, streams and
lake which may not be treated or stored under good hygienic conditions before consumption. The
actual practices of these rural women are not certain and appear to be a source of worry to the
researcher. Based on the foregoing, the researcher finds it necessary to find out the actual water
management and basic sanitation practices among rural women in Katsina-Ala Local
Government Area of Benue State with a view to addressing undesirable practices if so found.
13
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to find out water management and basic sanitation practices
among rural women in Katsina-Ala Local Government Area of Benue State, Nigeria.
Specifically, the study seeks to find out:
1. Sources of water used by rural women in Katsina-Ala L. G. A.
2. Water collection practices among rural women in Katsina-Ala local government area.
3. Water storage practices among rural women in Katsina-Ala local government area.
4. Water treatment practices prior to drinking among rural women in Katsina-Ala L.G.A.
5. Solid waste disposal practices among rural women in Katsina-Ala local government area;
6. Sewage disposal practices among rural women in Katsina-Ala local government area.
7. Water management practices among rural women according to level of education
8. Water management practices among rural women according to age
9. Basic sanitation practices among rural women according to level of education
10. Basic sanitation practices among rural women according to age;
Research Questions
The following research questions have been posed to guide the present study:
1. What are the sources of water used by rural women in Katsina-Ala LGA
2. What are the water collection practices among rural women in Katsina-Ala LGA?
3. What are the water storage practices among rural women in Katsina-Ala LGA?
4. What are the water treatment practices prior to drinking among rural women in Katsina-
Ala LGA?
5. What are the solid waste disposal practices among rural women in K/Ala LGA?
6. What are the sewage disposal practices among rural women in K/Ala LGA?
7. What are the water management practices among rural women according to level of
education?
8. What are the water management practices among rural women according to age?
9. What are basic sanitation practices among rural women according to level of education?
10. What are the basic sanitation practices among rural women according to age?
Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses guides the study, and each was tested at .05 level of
significance:
14
1. Water management practices adopted by rural women in katsina-Ala are not significantly
dependent on level of education.
2. Water management practices adopted by rural women in katsina-Ala are not significantly
dependent on age.
3. Basic sanitation practices adopted by rural women in Katsina-Ala are not significantly
dependent on level of education.
4. Basic sanitation practices adopted by rural women in Katsina-Ala are not significantly
dependent on age.
Significance of the Study
The findings regarding water sources among rural women in Katsina-Ala will be
beneficial to health educators and Ministry of Water Resources. Health educators will organize
seminar for the rural women on good sources of water which they can use for good health and
that of their families. Ministry of Water Resources will find the information useful in that, they
will dig public boreholes for the rural residents to boost their water supply.
The findings on water collection practices will be of benefit to the women because they
will improve on their water collection i.e. from improved water sources and proper handling of
water during collection process, so that the water does not get contaminated.
The findings on water storage practices will be of benefit to women because they will
improve on their water storage practices. They will seek means of getting standard containers for
storing water. These women will also educate their household members on sanitizing container
before storing water.
Furthermore, findings on water treatment or purification practices among rural women
will be beneficial to the health educators and women. Health educators will sensitize the women
on sound water purification methods and encourage them to keep it up for their betterment. The
women will benefit because those who were not practicing any method of water purification will
adopt one and those who were purifying their water before will be more encourage continuing
with it.
The findings on solid waste disposal practices among rural women will be beneficial to
Waste Management Authorities and the rural residents. Waste Management Authorities will
collect refuse from households and public containers on a regular basis both in the rural and
urban communities, so that the environment will be clean. The rural residents will benefit
15
because, they will desist from open dumping of solid waste so as to avoid the breeding of flies
and vermin and resort to appropriate waste disposal method of their choice.
Moreover, the findings on sewage disposal practices among rural women will be
beneficial to Environmental Health Officers. They will check the sanitary facilities of each
household and advice on the improved sanitary facilities in the home that will separate the
human contact with excreta. They will also advice the community on the monthly sanitation to
keep the environment clean. This will go hand in hand on hygiene promotion covering hygiene
behaviuor, solid waste manage, sewage disposal, drainage and other sanitary risk in the area.
This will also prevent the residents from noxious effects of sanitation related diseases.
The findings on water management practices among rural women according to level of
education will be of beneficial to Health educators in the sense that, they will organize extensive
teaching on water management practices i.e. the sourcing, collection, storage and treatment
practices to all women both educated and illiterate.
The findings on water management practices among rural women according to age will
also be beneficial to the aged women because they will change their negative attitude and
behaviour. Proper water management will be their priority.
The findings on basic sanitation practices of rural women according to level of education
will be beneficial to Health Educators, community residents and women. The Health Educators
will organize health talk in the community on solid waste and sewage disposal methods. They
will advice the community on proper solid waste and sewage disposal. Indiscriminate waste
dumping constitute health hazard to the community. Improper disposal of solid waste increases
incidence of vector borne diseases. Improper sewage disposal will cause soil pollution, water
pollution, contamination of food and propagation of flies. The community residents or each
household will adopt any method of their choice that is cheap and simple to maintain. Women
both educated and illiterate will be adviced on the sanitary practices in the home.
The findings on basic sanitation practices of rural women according to age will benefit
women both young and aged because they will keep their homes and the surrounding
environment clean. They will also advise their house help to keep the environment clean.
Finally, in the field of public health and health education, the findings will contribute to
the pool of existing data in the fields, thus enriching available knowledge and literature on water
16
management and basic sanitation practices. The findings of the study will provide a platform for
further studies.
Scope of the Study
The study was carried out in Katsina-ala Local government area of Benue state. The
study covered three communities which are of the rural setting. They include Shitile, Ikyurav and
Tongov respectively. The study was concerned with finding out water management and basic
sanitation practices among rural women in Katsina-Ala local government area of Benue State.
This consisted of water sourcing, water collection, water storage and water treatment. Basic
sanitation practices consisted of solid waste disposal and sewage disposal practices of the rural
women in the Local Government Area.
17
CHAPTER TWO
Review of Related Literature
There are a lot of literature that exist on water management and basic sanitation practices
in developed and developing countries. Literature pertinent to the study has been reviewed under
the following sub-headings.
1. Conceptual Framework
� Water and Water Management
� Components of Water Management Practices.
� Basic Sanitation and Components of Basic Sanitation Practices
� Factors Affecting Water Management and Basic Sanitation Practices.
� Water Management and Basic Sanitation Practices among Rural Women
2. Theoretical framework
� Systems Theory in Management
� Health Belief Model
� Theory of Reasoned Action
3. Empirical Studies on Water Management and Basic Sanitation Practices
4. Summary of Review of Related Literature.
Conceptual Framework
Water is a clear sparkling, colourless and tasteless fluid. It contains two hydrogen and
one atom of oxygen; hence its chemical formular is H2O. According to Mathur (2007) water is a
great cleaning agent both externally and internally. In the context of this study water is referred
to as clear liquid without colour, smell or teste. It has essential requirement for vital
physiological and biochemical processes such as digestion, respiration, excretion and circulation.
The available quantity of fresh water is also linked to human health in several ways, such as
water for ingestion, water for hygiene and water for food production. Even when water is
available for all these, it requires adequate sourcing, storage, treatment and sanitation practices.
This means that water needs proper management.
Balogun (1981) maintain that management is a process of tactfully controlling or
bringing various elements to work together for some particular purpose. Onah and Thomas
(1993) see management as a process through which group efforts or activities are directed
towards the achievement of preconceived objectives. American Association of School
18
Administrators AASA (1995) defined management as the totality of the process through which
appropriate human and material resources are made available and made effective for
accomplishing the purpose of an enterprise or organization. Ogbonnaya (1997) viewed
management as a process of getting things accomplished or done through the assistance of other
people. When management relates to water, it is called water management. Therefore, water
management is the process of tactfully controlling or bringing various elements such as sourcing,
storage, treatment and sanitation practices to work together for some health purpose. In this
context Water management is the activity of planning, developing, distributing and making the
optimum use of water sources.
Water sources means locations or places where fresh water flow abundantly in the form
of river, lake, pond or stream. In this study water sources refers to locations or origin where
water that are useful or potentially useful to man comes from. According to WHO (2000)
improved drinking water sources should be constructed and design to protect the water source
from outside contamination, in particular from fecal matter. Sources that meet the definition of
improved drinking water include: a household connection, borehole, protected dug well,
protected spring or rainwater collection. WHO (2004) asserted that drinking water comes from
different sources depending on where we live. Three sources that are used to collect drinking
water are vain water, surface water and ground water. Park (2009) opined that water sources
must conform to two criteria. The quantity must be sufficient to meet present and future
requirement and the quality of water must be acceptable. Wallace (2009) posited that most
suitable water source to be developed for use by any community depends on the quantity and
quality of the source under consideration for development. The selection of the most appropriate
water source for human use in a specific region may result from a wide variety of options
available which include ground water, surface water and rain water.
Rain water is a product of a natural process of distillation. Dhaar and Robbani (2008)
asserted that rain water is the prime source of all water, a part of the rain water sinks into the
ground to form ground water, part of it evaporates into the atmosphere and some runs off to form
streams and rivers, which flow ultimately into the sea. Rain water is the purest in nature.
Physically it is clear, bright and sparkling. Chemically, it is very soft containing only traces of
dissolved solids. Bacteriologically, rain water from clean districts is free from pathogenic agents.
Rain water tends to become impure when it passes through the atmosphere it picks up suspended
19
impurities from the atmosphere such as dust, soot and microorganisms and gasses such as carbon
dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen and ammonia.
Surface water normally originates from precipitation and is widely distributed in nature.
According to Dhaar and Robbani (2008). Surface water is the commonest source of water for
most people in the developing countries. Oceans are the largest storehouse of surface water in the
world. In the land area, surface water exists either in the moving state as in rivers and streams or
in stationary condition as in tanks, ponds and impounded reservoirs. Surface water is generally
well aerated; it is neither hard nor acidic in nature. It may be contaminated with human excreta
and as a result may contain intestinal pathogens. As surface water is heavily contaminated by
suspended and dissolved impurities and also by pathogenic organisms, it can never be
recommended for human consumption unless it is subjected to sanitary protection and
purification before use. Auta (2006) stated that the sources of surface water in rural areas are
streams, rivers, sea, ponds or small lakes. Water from all these sources are not normally potable
without elaborate treatment operations. They can constitute important foci of guinea worm
transmission in those areas where cyclops are contained in the water during dry season when
streams and rivers stop flowing.
Rivers are natural water sources of immense value to man. Rivers are examples of
surface water. Many rivers furnish a dependable supply of water. Some communities rely on
river water for their needs. The chief drawback of river water is that it is always grossly polluted
and is quite unfit for drinking without treatment. River water is turbid during rainy season. It
may be clear in other seasons. Clarity of water is no guarantee that the river water is safe for
drinking. The impurities of river water are derived from surface washing, sewage and sullage
water, industrial waste and drainage from agricultural areas. The customs and habits of the
people like bathing, animal washing and disposal of dead bodies, all add to the pollution of
water. Basavanthappa (2008) described sea water as salty, and may contain a lot of waste. Sea
water does not constitute a source of domestic water for most African countries. However, it is of
high commercial value because of the abundance of sea foods and some minerals especially
crude oil.
Ponds are excavations of earth that store water. They are produced incidentally when soil
is excavated for construction purpose and the rainwater is collected in these excavations. They
are used as water supply in villages for washing, bathing and drinking purposes. Akinsola (2006)
20
asserted that ponds are the most easily polluted source of water because they are stagnant. Thus
biological vectors of diseases, such as cyclops, which are the intermediate host for
schistosomiasis, thrive well in ponds. In most African countries, such as Kenya, Nigeria and
South Africa, during the dry season, due to non-availability of potable water in poor rural
communities, people often resort to drinking water from the ponds and this is the factor that is
usually responsible for the epidemic of water borne diseases annually.
Ground water is universally distributed both as a natural outpouring of an aquifer in the
form of springs and as wells excavated in earth, to reach an aquifer. According to Dhaar and
Robbani (2008) ground water contains excess of inorganic matter and little or no organic
impurities. It is free from suspended matter and comparatively with surface water it is less
aerated and less agreeable in taste. Ground water drawn from adequately protected deep wells is
naturally free from pathogens when it is properly collected.
Water collection means taking water from a natural source and feeding into a distribution
system. The source can be an underground reserve, a body of standing water, a body of flowing
water or any natural substance from which water can be extracted. In this study water collection
is the harvesting of water from a natural body or from rain and directing it to a desired place.
Clasen and Roberts (2006) observed that water collection is caused by contamination that occur
during and after collection often because of poorly designed open containers and improper
hygiene and handling during transportation. Water transportation is the movement of water over
large distance to another place. In this study water transportation is the process of moving water
from one location to another. The benefits of protected sources on water quality and health are
limited unless safe transport and storage can be ensured.
Water storage means keeping water in a special place while it is not being used. In the
context of this study water storage referred to as keeping water away from sources of
contamination and using a clean and covered container to hold it. Wikipedia (2000) asserted that
water storage container may be a reservoir, a water bottle, jerry can, clay pot, rubber pot, with lid
drum and tank. The container should prevent hands, cups and dippers from touching the water so
that the water does not get recontaminated. Storage container should be well protected from
outside contamination and use for no other purpose other than the storage of clean water. In a
study conducted by Okoga (2007) found that the higher a woman’s level of education, the more
likely she is to be conscious of her health and that of her family. She is also more likely to take
21
positive actions that are capable of promoting good health. She can have education on safe
storage of water and treatment of unsafe water for domestic use. Conversely, the illiterate women
may lack the basic education on efficient use and pollution prevention, even as they may have
learned strategies to conserve safe water.
Wikipedia (2000) furthermore, asserted that water should only be stored in a material that
is created specifically for long term storage of liquids intended for consumption. It is important
that hygienic containers should be used to store water as some containers can leak, crack,
degrade or otherwise cause problems to the stored water. Sometimes it is difficult to find or buy
a good storage container, but the most important things are to make sure that it is covered and the
water stored undergoes adequate treatment so that it can be safe for drinking. Families need good
containers for the hygienic collection and storage of water, without such containers the good
work of providing water fit for human consumption at the point of distribution is likely to be lost.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2002) opined that before storing water, it is
usually a good idea to wash and sanitize the container. This can be done by mixing one teaspoon
(5ml) of liquid house hold chlorine bleach to one quart (1 liter) of water. Bleach that has scents,
additives or thickeners should not be used. Potable water containers should not be kept near
sources of gasoline, kerosene or other petroleum products, pesticides or other poisons or
chemicals. The fumes from these products can and will penetrate the plastic water container
material and be absorbed by the stored water.
According to Mathur (2007) storage of river water kills a large number (99%) of typhoid
baciliz in one week and coliform bacteria (90%) in three weeks. According to Park (2009) water
storage is a natural purification process of water. The process include; physical, chemical and
biological. Physical; by mere storage, the quality of water improves because about 90 per cent of
the suspended impurities may settle down in 24 hours by gravity. The water becomes clearer.
This allows penetration of light, and reduces the work of the filters. Chemical; certain chemical
changes also take place during storage. The aerobic bacterial oxidize the organic matter present
in the water with the aid of dissolved oxygen. As a result, the content of the ammonia is reduced
and a rise in nitrates occurs. Biological, during this storage a tremendous drop takes place in the
bacteria count. The pathogenic organisms gradually die out. It is found that when river water is
stored, the total bacterial count drops by as much as 90 per cent in the first 5-7days. This is one
of the greatest benefits of storage. The optimum period of storage of river water is considered to
22
be about 10-14 days. If the water is stored for long periods, there is a likelihood of development
of vegetable growth such as algae which impart a bad smell and odour to water. The process of
storing and using household water has considerable risk of microbial contamination even if the
water comes from treated pipe sources.
Faust and Aly (1998) viewed water treatment as a physical and chemical processes for
making water suitable for human consumption and other purposes. Safe Drinking Water (2000)
defined water treatment as a process for enhancing the quality of water so that it meets the water
quality criteria for its fitness for the intended use. They further asserted that water treatment
originally focused on improving the qualities of drinking water. According to WHO (2000) water
purification is the removal of contaminants from raw water to produce safe water that is pure
enough for human consumption. Substances that are removed during the process of water
treatment include bacterials, algae, viruses, fungi, minerals and man-made chemistry pollutions.
Osmonics (2004) opined that water treatment is any procedure or method used to alter the
chemistry composition or natural “behaviour” of water. In the context of this study water
treatment is a process of removing harmful substances and odour from a raw water source. Water
available in nature from surface or underground sources is described as raw water. It requires
treatment before it can be supplied for human consumption. The nature of treatment is
determined by the quality of raw water and the impurities present in it. Ground water may need
only partial treatment, surface water, especially that obtained from river, may require complete
treatment before it can be released for supply.
Treatment of water comprises methods of water treatment which include natural and
artificial methods. Controlling pollution by dilution is a natural way in rivers and stream water.
Amount of sewage or polluting matter, which enters river or stream gets diluted so much that it
loses its bad effect on human health. Dilution is an important means of purification.
Sedimentation is a physical treatment process used to reduce the turbidity of water. Turbid water
looks cloudy, dirty or muddy and is caused by sand, silt and clay that are floating in the water.
Turbid water usually has more pathogens, so drinking it increases chances of becoming sick. If
water is allowed to stand or stored in a reservoir or tank, it is exposed to natural sunlight and air
which lead to aeration adding oxygen to water and organic matter is oxidized to a large extent.
Ultraviolet rays help to destroy the harmful organisms. The suspended organic matter
(bacteria, protozoa) and inorganic settle down at the bottom, if the water is allowed to stand in
23
reservoir tank for 24 hours or longer. This is the common method used in water purification for
piped water supply system. Aquatic plants, which grow at the bottom of tank over a time period
help oxidize the organic matter and trap harmful microorganisms.
In the artificial methods of water purification, there are three methods available for
purifying water on individual or domestic scale. These are boiling, chemical disinfection and
filtration. These methods can be used singly or in combination.
Boiling is the best method to destroy all organisms and it makes the water sterile but this
method is not always practical in large scale purification. It can be practised at individual,
household and for high risk individuals. Boiling is a satisfactory method of purifying water for
house hold purposes. To be effective, the water must be brought to a rolling boil for 5-10
minutes. It kills all bacterial, spores, cysts and ova and yields sterilized water. Boiling also
removes temporary hardness by driving off carbon dioxide and precipitating the calcium
carbonate. The taste of water is altered, but this is harmless. While boiling is an excellent method
of purifying water, it offers no residual protection against subsequent microbial contamination.
Water should be boiled preferably in the same container which it is to be stored to avoid
contamination during storage.
Chemical Disinfection: is another method of water purification, the most common form
of chemical disinfection is chlorination. Disinfection is aimed at killing pathogenic organisms in
the water. In municipal treatment plants chlorine gas is often used whereas on a small scale other
forms of chlorine are used, such as granules or tablets. One of the most common forms is
granules of calcium hypochlorite containing a 70 per cent concentration of chlorine. Blumenthal
and Ruttember (1995) stated that disinfection notably chlorine is added to the water to destroy
bacteria and viruses before being pumped into distribution systems. Other types of chemicals that
can be used for disinfection include ozone, bromine, chloramines or ultraviolet light.
Filtration is quite an important stage in water purification because 98-99 per cent of the
bacterial are removed by filtration, apart from other impurities. Sunder (2010) asserted that the
objective of filtration is to make water safe by removing pathogenic organism.
Safe water is one that is free from pathogenic microorganisms, toxic substances and
excessive amount of minerals which could produce undesirable physiological effects. Dhaar and
Robbani (2008) stated that drinking water must be safe for the consumers as well as acceptable
to them. Water which fails to meet the safety and acceptability criteria is regarded as unsafe
24
water. Unsafe water is one which contains harmful microorganism and substances, possesses
colour, odour or taste due to dissolved minerals. All communities have some access to water, but
the safety of the water they consume is less often assured. In areas where there may be unsafe
water women play the major role of domestic water management. In these areas women are
typically responsible for collecting, storing, purification, sanitation and hygiene practices Bathia
and Fakemark (2006) however, pointed that the easier and less time consuming in fetching water
the more likely the aged women adopt in hauling or treating water and hygiene practices.
Sanitation is the hygienic means of promoting health through prevention of human
contact with the hazard of wastes. Lucas and Giles (2007) pointed that hazard can be either
physical, microbiological, biological or chemical agents of disease. The key to man’s health lies
largely in his environment. Safe sanitation promotes health, improves the quality of the
environment and thus, the quality of life in a community.
Grey (2002) viewed sanitation as the hygienic disposal or recycling of waste materials,
particularly human excreta. He further maintained that sanitation is an important public health
measure, which is essential for the prevention of disease. International water and sanitation
(2004) posited that sanitation refers to the facilities and hygienic principles and practices related
to the safe collection, reuse and or disposal of human excreta and domestic waste water. Victor
and Ernest (2007) opined that sanitation refers to the maintenance of hygienic conditions,
through services such as garbage collection and waste disposal.
The term sanitation can be applied to a specific aspect, concept, location or strategy such
as basic sanitation. Basic means necessary and important to all people e.g. basic human rights.
Therefore, basic sanitation refers to the management of human faeces at the household level.
This terminology is the indicator used to describe the target of the millennium Development
Goal on sanitation. The United Nations Millennium Development Goal (MDG) for sanitation is
to halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking
water and basic sanitation. The United Nations Millennium Project (2008) defined basic
sanitation as access to and use of excreta and waste water facilities and services that provide
privacy and dignity while at the same time ensuring a clean and healthful living environment
both at home and in the immediate neighbourhood of users.
Access to sanitation means the availability of a hygienic facility to human excreta
disposal within a convenient distance from the user’s dwelling i.e. not too far away to discourage
25
its use. The technology selected should give the user the highest service level that is willing and
able to pay and at the same time has capacity to maintain (UNICEF, 1999). The Millennium
Project Task Force (2004) maintain that basic sanitation is the lowest-cost option for securing
sustainable access to safety hygienic and convenient facilities and services for excreta and
sullage disposal that provide privacy and dignity while ensuring a clean and healthful living
environment both at home and in the neighbourhood of users. National Sanitation Task Team
(2002) asserted that sanitation means collecting and disposing in a hygienic manner, of waste,
including human excreta, household waste, water and rubbish, if this is not done, neighbourhood
become dirty and people get sick. In the context of this study basic sanitation refers to the
principles and practices relating to the collection, removal or disposal of human excreta,
household waste water and refuse as they impact upon people and the environment. WHO (2011)
defined basic sanitation as group of methods to collect human excreta and urine as well as
community waste waters in a hygienic, way, where human and community health is not altered.
Basic sanitation addresses the issue of solid waste disposal, sewage disposal and water
sanitation. Waste as the term implies is any solid, liquid or gaseous substances or materials
which being a scap or being superflows, refuse or eject is disposed of or required to be disposed
as unwanted. The United Kingdoms Environmental protection Act (1990) defined waste as any
substance which constitutes a scap material or an affluent or other unwanted surplus substance
arising from the application of any process and substance or article, which requires to be
disposed of as being broken, worn-out, contaminated or otherwise spoiled. Dawodu (2009)
maintained that waste could be any material which has been used and is no longer wanted for
example, because the valuable or useful part of its has been taken out. Nnamani (2000) opined
that solid waste refers to all materials that the processor or owner no longer considers of
sufficient value to retain.
Solid waste in this context refers to leaves, bottles, cans, maize husk and so on. Solid
waste disposal therefore, refers to how individuals, societies or organization stow away solid
waste. There should be an efficient system for its periodic collection, removal and final disposal
without risk to health. Kiely (1998) defined solid waste as all the waste collected by private or
public authorities from domestic, commercial and other industrial sources which constitute
danger to the health of man and animals in the environment. Lucas and Giles (2007) pointed that
26
waste that can cause problems are animal and human faeces, solid waste, domestic waste water
(sewage, urine, sullage, greywater) industrial waste and agricultural.
Storage of refuse or solid waste need sufficient containers or bins to cope with the
volume of waste prior to collection. The containers need to be suitable by limiting opportunities
for vectors of disease such as flies and rats to feed on and breed in the waste. According to
Akinsola (2007) collection of waste should be at regular and consistent intervals. Basavanthappa
(2008) opined that house to house collection is by far the best method of collecting refuse and
people are expected to dump the refuse in the nearest public bins. The frequency of collection
will often depend on the capacity and quality of the storage containers used. Collection workers
need protective clothing and education in order to reduce the risk of infection to themselves.
The correct disposal of waste is very important and there are a number of options
available. Mathur (2007) posited that disposal of refuse is done in three steps collection of refuse
from its source, its removal to the place of disposal and final disposal of refuse by incinerations
that is burning or dumping or compost formation. According to Akinsola (2007) waste disposal
method include Landfill or controlled tipping, landfill is probably the most common method of
waste disposal. Basically it consist of four steps: Depositing waste in a planned controlled
manner, spreading and compacting it in layers to reduce the volume, covering the material with
layers of earth, and compacting the earth cover.
Burning or incineration, burning is possible where the moisture content of the waste is
low. This method can be hazardous to health because of the danger of atmospheric pollution, fire
hazard and breeding of vectors of diseases, such as cockroaches, flies and ants. If there are
enough fund, a modern incinerator can be built in place of the open air burning often practiced in
urban and rural areas of tropical countries especially in market places. Modern incinerator have
chinneys to control the flow of smoke, it also allows more complete combustion and they are
free from pest infestation. Hospital refuse which is particularly dangerous is best disposed of by
incineration.
Composting, this is a cheap and convenient method of waste disposal, especially in rural
areas. Refuse or waste are heaped in alternative layers into a plot about 2.4 square metre to a
depth of about 1.5 metres and then covered with grass or earth. After a while the refuse is ripe
and may be applied on land as fertilizer. Crude or uncontrolled dumping, this is unsanitary
method of refuse disposal therefore, the use of this method should be discouraged.
27
The lack of adequate waste collection and disposal system in developing countries causes
public health problems resulting in disease, which aggravates poverty and leads to negative
consequences such as loss of income due to illness, increased spending on health care, and the
deprivation of the poors capacity to live in a safer environment world Bank (2001). Solid waste
management in Nigeria is characterized by inefficient collection methods, insufficient coverage
of the collection system and improper disposal of solid waste (Joseph 2006). Hutom and Haler
(2004) maintained that in small towns refuse collection is almost non-existent with only 1% of
household enjoying such service, and about two thirds of households resort to open dumping of
solid waste, with the risk such methods entail for health and the environment. The situation is
made worse by the fact that only 14% of small towns have organized public waste disposal sites.
Sewage is a raw water or waste water or human or animal excreta plus water. Hornby
(2006) defined sewage as the mixture of waste from the human body and used water that is
carried away from houses and factories through pipes. According to Park (2009) sewage is waste
from a community containing solid and liquid excreta, derived from houses, street and ward
washing, factories and industries. Joseph (2006) opined that sewage is liquid refuse or waste
matter usually carried off by sewers. In rural areas, the majorities of them go to the fields for
defecation and thereby pollute the environment with human excreta. Proper disposal of human
excreta is a fundamental environmental health service to improve the state and community
health. The solution to the problem is through hygienic disposal of human excreta which is the
corner-stone of all public health services. Sewage disposal therefore is the act of getting rid of
used water and waste substances that are carried away from houses and factories through special
pipes. According to Akintola (2007) disposal methods include: off-site disposal, this involves
the immediate removal of sewage through the net work of sewage to the sewage treatment plant.
This method of sewage disposal is considered to be the safest because sewage is removed from
the house and its surrounding immediately. If properly managed, the sewage system is
convenient and comparatively hygienic.
On-site disposal, this involves a process whereby sewage is disposed into a latrine or
septic tank within the residential plot until the pit is full and arrangement is made to evacuate its
content by a vacuum tanker. This method include, the use of septic tank pour-flush latrines,
ventilated improved pit latrine, simple pit latrine and composting latrines.
28
Toilet with sewer connection or septic tank, this is common in the towns, urban villages
and cities in Africa, especially in the areas occupied by middle and socio-economic groups. In a
house that has a water carriage system, the sewage is carried by pipes into a big septic tank, some
distance away from the building. In the tank the sewage is treated by the action of bacteria,
which later renders it harmless. Every few years, the sludge must be emptied. The harmless fluid
very slowly flows away into a soak pit (soakaway) and then through the soil. The septic tank is
built into the ground and always kept covered.
Pour-flush latrine, the structure of pour flush latrine correspond in principle ventilated
improved pit latrine. In pour-flush latrine, there is a u-formed water seal, which prevent flies to
enter and odours to form. The latrine is flushed with a couple of litries of water after every use.
Pour-flush latrine can be used when water is needed to cleaning purposes, enough water is
available, ground is permeable and climate does not alter water seal to freeze (Conant 2005). If
only one pit is used in the latrine, it can be utilized until the pit is full. Thereafter a new pit has to
be dug or empty the pit before usage can continue. Latrine can be constructed initially with two
pits, when the excreta can be directed to the second pit with the help of a valve after the first pit
is full. Then the excreta left in the first pit can be convered and left to decompose while the
second pit fills. When the second pit is full, the excreta left in the first pit has decomposed and
pathogens have disappeared. At this time the pit can be emptied safely and the decomposed
material can be used as fertilizer (Conant 2005).
A ventilated improved pit latrine (VIP) is a dry on-site sanitation system consisting of a
well-ventilated top structure with a ventilated pipe and fly screen built over a pit in which
organic material decompose and is emptied approximately every five years. In some cases two
pits are dug and when one is full, it is sealed and the other used until such time as the first pit can
be emptied and reused. VIPS are appropriate in water-scarce and less densely population areas.
VIPS can be upgraded to other sanitation technology types. Usually this involves the closure of
the pit, reuse of top-structure with the removal of the pedestal and refiting with a flush-type,
additional plumbing, drainage system and facilities for the treatment and disposal of waste.
(Department of Human Settlement 2010).
Pit latrine, a pit dug into the ground remains as one of the most simple and used latrine
type in the world until today. According to Akinsola (2007), a pit latrine consist of a hole in the
ground, a squatting plate, and a hut to give privacy and protection from the weather. The pit
29
should be dug at least two meters deep and one meter in diameter. A lid is constructed from
concrete or local material e.g. a wood. A hole is made to the lid, where both the solid excreta and
urine drops to the pit. The drainage system should be constructed from the floor of the hut to
channel water away. The latrine should be situated away from the houses and particularly from
wells and other sources of water. The latrine must be at least 15 meters away from any water
source. The pit needs to cover with a handle to prevent breeding of flies in latrine and
surrounding areas. A big pipe should be used as the air outlet. It should be extended from the pit
and hang on top of the roof, high enough for the gas air to be carried off and dispersed by the
wind. The pit is used until it fills where after a new pit is dug. If well maintained pit latrine keep
faeces safe from flies and polluting the environment. The surrounding of the pit should be
washed with a mixture of water and strong disinfection solution and a long brush.
Composting pit latrine, a pit with a depth of one meter is dug and a lid e.g. concrete is
constructed. The pit needs to be low enough to prevent water entering the pit and leaching the
ground waters. Composting latrine can also be built above the ground surface on top of small hill
(Warner 2005).
The simplest way is to construct a light protection from e.g. hay or bamboo around the pit
that can be moved after the pit is full. Fill pit is then covered with 30 cm of ground and left to
decompose. The decomposed material can be dug up after approximately one year and utilized as
fertilizer. Thereafter, the pit can be used again. Latrines can also be constructed with two pits. A
couple of months after the pit have filled; nutrients can be utilized for example by planting fruit
trees or tomato sapling on top of the pits. (Warner 2005).
Different latrine types have different tending and maintenance instructions according to
utilization and possible waste handling of the latrine. Conant (2005) pointed that latrine needs to
be cleaned on daily basis. Floor and defecation hole can be either brushed or washed clean with a
broom specifically meant for this purpose only. Conant (2005) furthermore, maintained that in
dry latrines, it is important to prevent too great of amount of water entering the pit. Floor of the
latrine can also be brushed with ash, which has a disinfecting effect.
Fly screen should be checked every month and if holes appear changed immediately.
Spider webs and dead flies are rinsed off by pouring a few litres of water through vent pipe.
Condition of latrine facilities is to be checked on regular basis and possible problems fixed
30
immediately. If the latrine facilities do not function properly and fixing problems is postponed
possible hygiene problems increase remarkably (Enwell 2005).
Improving sanitation practices among women will help improve well being of the
population directly including inhabitants of Katsina-Ala where the present study is located. It has
been shown, for instance, that adequate provision, access to and effective practice of sanitary
measures can relieve about the same total burden of disease (measured in daily adjusted life
years) as do improvement in public health care. Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative
Council WSSCC, (1998) asserted that women’s failure to maintain adequate sanitation practices
put their households at the risk of contracting diseases. Water borne diseases can be prevented
through paying meticulous attention to good sanitation practices. The council further stated that,
the most effective way of reducing the burden of disease is through desirable sanitation practices
and with the maintenance of good personal hygiene. When sanitation and hygienic practices are
promoted, it goes a long way to prevent disease.
Simpson and Weiner (1991) defined practice as a habitual action–custom. Webster
(1980) viewed practice as something done habitually or customarily. Robinson & Davidson
(1998) described practice as a habitual activity, procedure or custom. Funks and Wagnals (2003)
defined practice as any customary action or proceeding regarded as individuals habit. Practice in
this context is conceived as particular way of doing of doing something regularly. Thus water
management practices is referred to as correct ways by which women source, collect and store
waters undergo befitting treatments and cleanliness of water. There are some undesirable
practices which include fetching water from unprotected sources, poor collection and storage,
non use of treatment measures and unhygienic disposal of water. These practices may be
common or uncommon among rural women in Katsina-Ala Local Government Area of Benue
State.
Rural area, according to Jorgensen (1982) implies all areas notably villages and
communities, which have a major part of their population solely engage in subsistence
agriculture and their people are related culturally and traditionally, and they lack the basic social
amenities such as hospitals, electricity, well established industries, markets, motorable roads and
pipe-borne water. Rural women are women who live in small community like a village other
than the one surrounding major urban centres. Abert (2009) defined rural women as those who
live out side urban metropolitan areas. This means women living in small cities, with a
31
population of 5,000 will be considered as living in a rural area. As earlier stated there may be
some undesirable water management and basic sanitation practices existing among these rural
women. These include: poor water sourcing, poor collection and storage and there may be no
treatment and sanitation practices.
Factors affecting water management and basic sanitation practices.
There are some socio-demographic factors that may affect water management and basic
sanitation practices of rural women. They include age, level of education, and lack of funds. In
most societies, women have the primary responsibility for management of water supply,
sanitation and health at the household level. UNICEF (2006) stated that the burden of fetching
water from distant sources and travelling to sanitation facilities outside the home takes time away
from productive activities, child-care, education or leisure. The report further, stated that in the
rural sub-Saharan Africa, women spend an average of just under half an hour for each trip to a
water source. Since in most cases several trips are made per day, this represents a significant
amount of time lost. The time spent in search of water may force some to resort to any source
that is available.
Roberts and Shif (2001) perceived that in rural areas women choose to continue the use
of traditional unwholesome water sources. The decision to use a particular water source is
influenced by preferences, knowledge and perceptions about water quality. Goni (2003)
observed that when water is scarce, supplies is irregular and water quality is poor, elderly women
cannot with stand the stress of walking long distances to fetch water, spending hours per day
burdened under heavy containers and suffering acute physical problems, especially in drought
prone areas. Consequently the elderly women are disproportionately and among the poor they
tend to be most adversely hit by the lack of water and sanitation services. This will lead to
continued use of unsafe water as well as limited access to existing water sources. Furthermore, a
lack of adequate sanitation will endanger their health as there will be no proper defecation and
urinary facilities. (DFID, 1998).
The rural communities may face higher cost for water in addition to their lower incomes.
The lack of network water connection for the urban poor or of any water service for the rural
typically leaves them buying from water vendors at high price per liter, waiting in long lines or
walking long distances to sources of water and incurring additional cost for storing and boiling
water. When water is expensive, either in cash terms or in the time and energy needed to collect
32
it, the elderly women often cut total consumption and cut back on bathing thus basic personal
and hygiene requirements neglected (DFID 1998).
The constraints militating against good sanitation are the lack of funding, education,
water, proper planning, unwillingness of rural communities to incur cost (with the children being
denied access to facilities) and lack of funds to pay for users systems. These have led to
continued spread of water and sanitation related diseases.
Federal ministry of water resources (2000) stated that one of the fundamental reasons for
the inadequate water supply has been the failure of the state water agencies (SWAs) to generate
enough revenue to cover even their operating expenses and the costs of routine maintenance. As
a result, the SWAs have depended on government subsidies, which have proven insufficient to
ensure proper maintenance, let alone to finance adequate levels of capital investment. In effect,
the resources of state governments have been diverted into subsidizing normal operational costs,
leaving very little if any resources for the investments needed to make up for the deficit in water
supply and keep pace with the growth of population
WHO (2001) stated that rapid urbanization in developing countries is often accompanied
by overwhelming demands in existing water systems and illegal connections to distribution
system in poor neighbourhoods. Many systems have cracks and are highly leaked. Bukar (2000)
maintain that inadequate maintenance and investment, as well as large number of illegal
connections, have resulted in a very high rate of water loss as high as 65 per cent while irregular
power supplies are an additional problem, disrupting the pumping equipment. In 1991, an
international survey of water loss as a per centage of water supplied reported that in
industrialized countries water loss ranged from 8 per cent to 24 per cent. However, in middle
income or newly industrialized countries, water loss ranged from 15 per cent to 24 per cent and
in developing countries, water loss was estimated at between 25 per cent and 45 per cent.
Yakubu (2002) observed that consumers in both industrialized and developing countries
are generally not well informed about the impact of water and sanitation on health or potential
water and sanitation choices. Consumers may be more likely to value water taste and
convenience or the perceived status of a flush toilet over health and sustainability concerns. Boss
(2007) opined that women lack access to improved water due to population growth and rapid
urbanization, the number is estimated to rise rapidly in the coming years unless serious measures
are undertaken to stem the tide.
33
In recent years, international investment in water and sanitation have been declining
despite growing awareness of water issues. Official development assistance for water supply and
sanitation projects from countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development and the major international financial institutions has dropped from $3.4 billion per
year (average between 1996 and 1998) to $3.0 billion per year (average between 1999 and 2001)
(Gleik, 2003). Gleik further pointed out that half of this water related aid goes to developed
countries, where as only 12 per cent of this aid goes to the countries where a high proportion of
the population has no access to improved water supplies. This observation suggests that water
aid is used more as a political tool than as a means to reduce disparities in access.
Sanitation issues are often found difficult to solve especially due to strong prejudices,
beliefs and other cultural matter. Water is often experienced as condition of life, what is certainly
is, but sanitation is seen as inevitable burden. Sanitation solutions can be very expensive and
technically hard to handle (Hutom and Haler, 2004).
Fewtrell & Colford (2004) maintained that available water supplies are under threat
worldwide. Due to poor management, over use, pollution and other factors, there is insufficient
safe water available to meet the needs of people. Competition for water is now the norm,
increasingly at the local level pitting community members against each other, and it is often the
poor household, poor farmers and poor communities who are mostly affected. The result is
increased hunger and poverty.
The non availability of funds has always posed a major problem to the development of
water resources programmes and projects. Most of the developments in this sector are
government financed. The dwindling of resources at the government disposal has also adversely
affected successive allocation of money to water resources projects. The Federal Government
allocations have declined, while states government releases only 20-30% of their budgeted
expenses to water supply. Most projects therefore remain uncompleted and those whose systems
have broken down are financially stunted and can not be easily rehabilitated all over the country
(Burrows 2004).
Stefanie and Maria (2005) posited that, in the past water supply was typically planned
and operated by the central government or a national authority, but budget constrains, low
revenues and short fall in operation and maintenance have resulted in insufficient expansion of
34
the system and gradual degradation of services at the same time that water demands increased
and scarcity worsened.
Mosleh and Sudhir (2005) stated that an increasing amount of literature suggests that
health problems result from the lack of sanitation facilities. Invariably, it is the rural poor and
illiterate who suffer the most from the absence of safe water and sanitation because they lack not
only the means to provide such facilities but also the information on how to minimize the ill
effects of the unsanitary conditions in which they live. Nwachukwu (2008) asserted that in
developing countries, people in the rural communities rarely consider an inadequate excreta
disposal system a problem. In the absence of sanitation systems, some communities rely on
natural processes, defecation takes place in the open fields, or on surface water, in the later
option, human waste is directly disposed off into the rivers, canals for transport and eventual
dilution leads towards a severe environmental problem.
El-Hoz (2008) pointed out that a lot of fund has similarly been invested on the national
borehole programme, a programme designed to assist the states in bringing potable water to the
rural areas of the country. Despite the huge investment, the programme is yet to be completed.
Only 330 of the 851 productive boreholes drilled have been commissioned to date. There has
been no sufficient fund to procure the foreign input of pumps, generators and tank materials.
Okeke (2009) asserted that the proper planning, implementation and management of
water resources programme and project depend principally on the availability of competent
personnel. It is a common knowledge that in Nigeria, there has been a marked shortage of
manpower in water resources particularly at professional and sub-professional levels. This
paucity of trained personnel in the middle technical and management levels has been limiting the
scale of success of various developments. The professional and sub-professional are very few in
number and some of them inexperienced. The few available ones have been spread too thingly
on the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the existing projects. In order to cope
with the challenges in the next decade, there is need to step up manpower training.
Water management and basic sanitation practices among women
According to Park (2009) water is not only a vital environmental factor to all forms of
life, but it has also a great role to play in socio-economic development of human population. One
of the essential public health care element is safe drinking water and sanitation. Water quantity is
as important as water quality. Washing hands after defecation and before preparing food is of
35
particular importance in reducing disease transmission but, without abundant water near our
homes, hygiene becomes difficult or impossible. The lack of water supply is the primary reason
why diseases transmitted via faeces are so common in developing countries. The physiological
requirement for drinking water has been estimated at about 2 litres per head per day. This is just
for survival, but, from the stand point of public health and improvement of the quality of life,
water should be provided in adequate volume. It will help to reduce the incidence of many water
related disease among the people.
Sobsey and Bartram (2003) observed that the consumption of water depends upon
climate conditions, standard of living and habits of the people. A daily supply of 150-200 litres
per-person is considered as an adequate supply to meet the needs for all domestic purposes.
Unfortunately, water supply from the government source is generally irregular and unreliable
thus, inadequate to meet the needs of the households. Consequently, most households use
additional or supplementary sources of water from yard well, bore holes and water vendors
(truck pushers). The quality of such water is generally considered to be poor (not drinkable).
United Nations (1999) asserted that consumption of contaminated water precipitates
water-related diseases such as cholera, hepatitis, diarrhea, dengue fever, schistosomiasis and
gastroenteritis. To them, this phenomenon in developing nations is as result of inadequate
provision and non-utilization or under-utilization of water supply and sanitation facilities in
urban and rural centres.
There is an important linkage between water supply and sanitation. Lafond (1995)
submitted that sanitation and water supply are inseparable concepts, which are needed for
maintenance and promotion of health, well-being, survival and prevention of water and
sanitation-related diseases. Man’s health may be affected by the ingestion of contaminated water
either directly or through food, and by the use of contaminated water for purpose of personal
hygiene and recreation. UNICEF (2004) stated that water quality and sanitation are irrevocably
intertwined, poor sanitation leads to water contamination. In most parts of the world, the main
source of water contamination is due to sewage and human waste.
Water purification is one of the major control measures for guinea worm diseases
(Adesioye, 1995). According to him, water is essential to life and the essence of this life giving
substance in the environment is evident during draught and famine while the surplus as can be
seen in heavy rainfalls and floods which can be catastrophic. Similarly, where water is consumed
36
without purification, the outcome can be grave. He suggested that purification of water can be
achieved by combination of some of the following measures: protection of the sources, storage,
coagulations and sedimentation, filtration, disinfection and boiling. Even when sourced water is
deemed safe, poor hygiene during collection, storage and handling of water can result in
contamination (World Bank, 2004). For example, reduction in diarrhea diseases is doubled when
water is treated immediately before use (Fewtrell, L et al, 2005). Therefore, for maintaining the
quality of treated water within the home, safe storage is an important complement of point of
use.
Bartam (2003) asserted that diarrhea is a major cause of disease and death, especially
among young children in low-income countries. Dehydration is the major threat, though diarrhea
also reduces the absorption of nutrients, causing poor growth in children, reduced resistance to
infection, and potentially long-term gut disorders. Among infectious diseases, diarrhea ranks as
the third leading cause of both morbidity and mortality after respiratory infections and
HIV/AIDs, placing it above tuberculosis and malaria.
A recent report (WHO, 2008) estimated that almost 10 per cent of the global burden of
illness is related to water, through contaminated drinking water, inadequate or non-existent
sanitation and hygiene, and poor water management. WHO (2006) published guidelines for
drinking water quality intended for use by countries as a basis for the development of standards,
which if properly implemented, will ensure the safety of drinking water supplies. The guidelines
for drinking water quality recommended by WHO explained that it should be free from
microbiological, chemical and physical qualities. However, it is stressed that microbiological
quality is the most important since this is biggest cause of illness and death around the world.
WHO (1997) stated that lack of sanitation and poor hygiene cause water borne diseases,
such as diarrhea, cholera, typhoid and several parasitic infections. Moreover, the incidence of
these diseases and others linked to poor sanitations (e.g., round worm, whip worm, guinea worm
and shistosomiasis) is highest among the poor, especially school-aged children. Nokes and
Bundy, 1993, Miguel and Krener (2003) observed that these diseases have a strong negative
impact on the children’s state of health, their nutrition and their learning capacities, and
contribute to significant absences from school. The social and environmental health costs caused
by ignoring the need to address sanitation are thus, far too great.
37
UNICEF work in more than 90 countries around the world to improve water supply and
sanitation facilities in schools and communities and to promote safe hygiene practices. All
UNICEF WASH programme are designed to contribute to the millennium development Goals
for water and sanitation to have by 2015 the proportion of people without sustainable access to
safe water and basic sanitation (UNICEF 2011).
Meeting the MDGs for water and sanitation in the next decade will require substantial
economic resources, sustainable technological solutions and courageous political will. Improved
water and basic sanitation must not only be provided to those who currently lack these
fundamental services, but also to ensure that these services provide safe drinking water, adequate
quantities of water for health, hygiene, agriculture and development and sustainable sanitation
approaches to protect health and the environment. Improvement of environmental sanitation is
therefore crucial for the prevention of disease and promotion of health of individuals and
communities.
El-Hoz (2008) pointed that a lot of fund has been invested on the national borehole
programme, which are temporarily abandoned for lack of fund. The investment should not be
allowed to go down the drain, rather, the projects should be salvaged by completing them. It is
only then that the full benefits of these projects can be realized. The revenue to accrue the
economy is considerable and the issue of completing existing projects should be a priority.
Park (2009) stated that in selecting a source of water, attention must be given to possible
future developments that may influence the continued suitability of the source. Other
consideration according to him: quantity (source capacity) (the quantity of water should be
sufficient to meet continuing water demands, taking into account daily and seasonal variations
and projected growth in the size of the community being served); quality, (the quality of raw
water should be such that, with appropriate treatment, it meets the drinking water standards.);
protection: (the watershed must be protected from pollution with human excreta, industrial
discharge and agricultural run-off); feasibility: (the source should be available at reasonable cost)
and treatability: (the raw water should be treated adequately under locally prevailing conditions.)
Park (2009) further asserted that potential raw sources should be examined in the field by
qualified and experienced sanitary surveyors and physical, bacteriological and chemical analysis
should be carried out for a period covering seasonal variations prior to final selection of the
source. It is preferable to choose the source that requires the least treatment. The source should
38
be protected from contaminants emanating from septic tanks, sewers, cess pools, sullage water
and flooding and from contamination by users. Maintaining adequate residual chlorine levels in
the distribution system is the most reliable indicator of protection again contamination resulting
from cross-connection, back siphonage leaks.
There is a growing awareness by decision makers in governments and stakeholders that
water, sanitation and hygiene are critical for ensuring sustainable development and reducing
poverty. This recognition is based on a better understanding of the links between water,
sanitation, and hygiene and the economic and social development of countries and nations. In a
recent study, WHO (2006) estimates that if every one has access to basic water and sanitation
services, the health sector would save over I billion US dollars in treatment cost and people
would gain 5.5 billion productive days per year due to reduced diarrhea disease.
In most parts of the world, women and girls are traditionally responsible for domestic
water supply and sanitation, and maintaining a hygienic home environment. As managers at the
household level, women also have a higher stake in the improvement of services and in
sustaining facilities. Effective programmes recognize this by ensuring that women are directly
involved in the planning and management of water supply and sanitation programmes, and that
hygiene promotion interventions are specifically designed to reach women and girls. (Banda,
Sarkar and Gopal 2009)
The only way to reduce the burden of repeated dirarrhoea episodes and related serious
long-term health consequences is through improved water, sanitation and hygiene. Specifically,
improved hygiene practices, the use of toilets or latrines and the use of safe drinking water.
Estimates based on the assessment of rigorous impact studies now show that water sanitation and
hygiene intervention can reduce the burden of diarrhea disease by interventions that focus on
improving hygiene practices seem to have the greatest impact. UNICEF (2006).
Hygiene is the maintenance of health and healthy living. UNICEF (1995) described
hygiene as those behaviours related to the safe management of human excreta, or the safe
disposal of children’s feaces, or hand washing with soap. Hygiene is a very personal subject, and
encouraging changes in hygiene requires skills and care. These challenges are the subject of
hygiene promotion. Hygiene promotion is a planned approach which encourages people to adopt
safe hygiene practices and behaviours. To promote better hygiene practices, hygiene education
programmes can help increase peoples knowledge.
39
Hygiene education usually means teaching people about what makes them ill and what
they must or must not do. UNICEF (1995) pointed out that hygiene education is concerned with
teaching people about how diseases spread for example, through the unsafe disposal of excreta or
by not washing your hands with soap after defecation. UNICEF (1995) further more asserted that
hygiene education is mostly understood as explaining the links between unsafe behaviour (open
defecation, not washing hand, drinking untreated water) and health, discouraging poor hygiene
practices and encouraging good ones. When people know better how water and sanitation
diseases are transmitted, they will drop unhygienic practices and adopt improved ones.
Brocklehurst (2007) maintained that when people are motivated to practice good hygiene
especially hand washing with soap health benefit are significantly increased. Hand washing with
soap can prevent water and sanitation related diseases and high mortality rate of children under
the age of five, UNICEF has made it a programme priority. Global hand washing day was
created on 15 October in 2008 by the global public private partnership for hand washing, and
UNICEF to encourage and promote a global awareness/habit of hand washing with soap. This
programme help to promote hygiene behaviour change by advocating for instance, funding for
hygiene activities and the inclusion of hygiene in sectoral policies and strategies.
If water management i.e. sources, storage, treatment and basic sanitation practices is properly
management by women, it will lead to good health, but if not well manage it will lead to ill
health.
or
Sources
Storage
Treatment
Basic Sanitation
Water
management
practices
Rural
Women
Good health
Ill health
Figure 1: Schematic representation of conceptual framework
40
Theoretical Framework
Theories are constructs or postulations that guide or suggest ways in which individual
perceive phenomenon and act or behave which inturn influenced the nature and level of what
they know or practice. According to Wallace (2009) theories are used in health behaviour
research in a number of ways. First, theory is used to identify variables that explain and predict
behaviour and as a result, guide studies conducted to provide empirical evidence on postulated
determinants of behaviour. Second, theories are used to guide the design of interventions. The
selection of variables to target for intervention and the development of specific messages with in
intervention are both guided by theory. This study is therefore guided on certain theories that are
related. They are systems theory in management, health belief model and theory of reasoned
action.
Systems theory in management (STM).
This theory is based on the principle of interdependence of subsystems to the whole
system for effective functioning. A system is described as a collection of interrelated parts,
which form some whole (Finnegan & Vadakekalam, 1975). Typical systems include the human
body, solar system, communication networks and social systems. Systems may be “closed” or
“open”. Closed systems are those systems, which practically are self-supporting, so do not
interact with their environment (e.g. an astronaut’s life support pack). Open systems are those,
which do interact with their environment on which they also rely for essential inputs. They
discharge their system outputs into the environment as well. A key feature of open system is
their interdependence with the environment.
Most systems can be divided into parts or subsystems. For example, the human body,
which is a total system, encloses a number of subsystems such as cardiovascular, respiratory,
urinary, central nervous, skeletal, reproductive and integumentary subsystems. All these
subsystems of the human body work harmoniously to maintain a healthy functioning body. If
any of the subsystems is malfunctioning, it will affect the others, which will invariably lead to
ill-health. Also, in systems theory approach, the theorist studied the key elements that make up
an organization, their interaction with one another and their interaction with external
environment. Coleman (1982), a system’s theorist described organizations as complex social
systems, responsive to a number of interdependent and important variables. According to him,
the key variables of greatest interest to those who adopt a systems theory approach to
41
management processes include the following: people, technology, organization structure and
environment.
In relation to water management and basic sanitation practices, the whole water
management consist subsystems such as sources, storage, treatment and sanitation practices. All
these are interdependent on each other and must work harmoniously to produce an efficient
water management and basic sanitation practices. This is because problem arising from one
subsystem will automatically affect the others just as explained by the system theory and
exemplified in the human body system. For example, contaminated water source, improper
collection and storage practices will pose danger to safety and health of the people in the family
or the general public. Treatment subsystems cannot be effective if the women have non-chalent
attitude towards water treatment. Basic sanitation practices, if it is faulty, there is tendency that
water sources will be contaminated leading to health hazards, epidemics of water borne and
sanitation related diseases.
Health Belief Model.
The Health Belief Model is one of the oldest and most widely used theoretical models of
health behaviour (Janz, Champion and Streche, 2002). It was created by Becker and Rosenstock
in 1958, in an attempt to understand why many people failed to take advantage of the free
tuberculosis screenings. The general assumption of the model is that people will perform health
promoting behaviours if they believe that these behaviours will reduce either their susceptibility
to the condition or the severity of the condition, and if they believe that the benefits of
performing the behaviour outweights the barriers to performance. For example, the model
predicts that people will be more likely to obtain screening tests for a disease if they believe that
they personally are at risk for the disease, if they believe that the disease would seriously
compromise their quality of life, they believe that the screening test can really detect the disease
and that early detection would lead to better outcomes, they believe that they are not blocked
from obtaining the screening by financial, schedule, transportation or other concerns and
something reminds them to obtain the screening.
The model has four main components. Perceived susceptibility, that is the individuals
estimate of the probability of getting the disease, perceived severity, that is the individual’s
perception of how severe the health and social consequences of the disease would be. Perceived
benefits, are the positive consequences that the individual believes will occur as a result of
42
performing the health behaviour. For example, if an individual believes that getting water from
improved sources will prevent him/her from getting diarrhea disease he will seek the means of
getting water from good sources. Perceived barriers, are factors that made it difficult for the
individual to perform the health behaviour. Factors like non availability of access to improved
sources of water, cost of buying water storage containers, cost of buying some chemicals for
water treatment, and non availability, of sanitary facilities may hinder an individual from
observing the sanitary measures. It is important to note that the susceptibility, severity, benefits
and barriers all will refer to the individual’s perceptions, which may or may not be accurate. For
example, an individual may under estimate the probability of getting a specific disease or
underestimate the severity of the disease, and he may overestimate the barriers of preventing him
from performing a health promoting behaviour.
The focus of the HBM is on the individual’s perception of susceptibility to and severity
of the disease, and perception of the relative benefits and barriers of the preventive behaviour.
Therefore, the goal of interventions is to alter the individual’s unrealistic perceptions. For
example, if an individual believes that he is not at risk of drinking any water source, the goal of
health education would be to inform him of the actual risk of contracting diarrhea disease
through contaminated water. If he believes that diarrhea disease is not a severe health problem,
because many people take it to be a common thing, the goal of health education would be to
inform him that drinking contaminated water has many other health problems that are
complicated. If he does not believe that water management and basic sanitation practices has
benefits, the goal of health education would be to inform him that water management and basic
sanitation practices can greatly improve the health and quality of life of people. If he believes
that there are too many barriers for managing water and practicing improved sanitation (e.g time
consuming, money), the goal of health education would be to help him brainstorm ways to
overcome these barriers (e.g. using simple method of water purification and simple method of
solid and sewage disposal eg. boiling, simple pit latrine).
Theory of reasoned action (TRA).
The theory of reasoned action (TRA) propounded by Ajen and Fishbein in 1980 to
explain not just health behaviour but all volitional behaviours. This theory is based on the
assumption that most behaviours of social relevance are under volitional control. In addition, a
43
person’s intention to perform or not to perform the behaviour is the immediate determinant of
that behaviour. The goal is to not only to predict human behaviour but also to understand it.
According to this theory, a person’s intension to perform a specific behaviour is a
function of two factors: attitude (positive or negative) towards the behaviour and the influence of
the social environment (general subjective norms) on the behaviour. The attitude towards the
behaviour is determined by the person’s belief that a given outcome will occur if he performs the
behaviour and by an evaluation of the outcome. The social or subjective norm is determined by a
person’s normative belief about significant others think he should do and by the individual’s
motivation to comply with those other peoples’ wishes or desires. Women in Kastina-Ala who
have the intension of getting their water through safe sources or desirable practices, good storage
and appropriate treatment and sanitation practices may do so but those who do not have the
intension will not do so. Again women who have negative attitude toward these practices are
likely not to do it but those who have positive attitude toward the practices may do it.
Figure 2: Schematic representation of theoretical framework
Systems theory
in management
Health belief
model
Interdependence of
sourcing, collection,
storage treatment and
sanitation practices
Benefits e.g.
positive
consequences
Attitude
Desirable
Theory of reasoned
action
Good health
or
Ill health
Water management and basic
sanitation practices
44
System Theory in Management is based on interdependence, that is sources, storage,
treatment and sanitation practices are interdependent on each other and must work harmoniously
to produce an efficient water management which will positively impact on good health if not ill
health. The women who think they will benefit from obtaining water from good sources, and
undertake good storage, treatment and sanitation practices will adopt the Health Belief Model
because of the benefits she thinks she can derive from it. While the theory of Reasoned Action
focus on attitude of the individual either negative or positive towards behavior.
Empirical Studies on Water Management and Basic Sanitation Practices
Salaru (2000) conducted a study on the quality of water, sanitation and hygiene practices
in the pre-university institutions in the republic of Moldova. A cross-sectional study was used,
per centages was used to analyze the data. The study was conducted in all the pre-university
institutions 526 schools of the Republic of Moldova. During the study, water samples were
collected, water supply and sanitation systems were assessed in each pre-university institution,
and interviews with students in 82 schools were conducted to assess hygiene practices. The
sample of interviewed students were 4,817 students of which 57.3 per cent were girls and 42.7
per cent boys was representative and covered all the administrative territorial units country wide,
interviews being held in one lyceum in each urban and rural areas.
Results showed that pre-university institutions in the Republic of Moldova do not ensure
universal access for children to safe drinking water, inadequate hygiene conditions, a finding
which mostly concerns children in rural schools. Those who were more frequently exposed to the
risk of illness due to consumption of unclean water, poor hygiene conditions in schools were
students in rural schools. Measures for ensuring disinfection and cleaning of water for human
consumption was insufficient, since 61 per cent of students were exposed to a moderate to major
health risk conditioned by microbial pollution and excess of nitrate, fluride and boron in drinking
water. Almost one in four students was exposed to a major risk and one in three students to a
moderate risk of consuming water that was non-compliant with the sanitation norms. In total,
20.8 per cent of students drank water over saturated with nitrates, 17 per cent drank microbe-
polluted water, 13.5 per cent indicated water non-compliant in terms of adding fluoride and to a
smaller extent, 2.4 per cent of the study had clearly highlighted the fact that the conditions of
sanitation systems were much below the standard in most pre-university institutions in the
republic of Moldova, which did not allow ensuring the universal access for students to adequate
45
hygiene conditions and building and applying the hygiene practices. The population should be
educated to comply with adding of fluoride in water.
Stoveland and Bassey (2000) conducted a study on sources of water supply in small
towns in rural area in Lagos, Nigeria, those with a population of 5,000. Survey research was
used. A study was conducted on water supply in 37 small towns, frequencies and per centages
were used to analyzed the data. The result found that only 0.4 per cent of households enjoyed
pipe-borne water. About 45 per cent obtained water from ground water sources (wells and
boreholes) while 27 per cent relied on surface sources such as rivers and streams. Reliance on
water vendors and cistern tankers is remarkably high in the small towns. The study also found
that only 21 per cent of the household expressed satisfaction with their water supply. The rest
were dissatisfied, due to the poor quality of the water, the inconvenience of the sources and the
irregularity of water supply. About 50 per cent of house holds considered their water to be
unsuitable for drinking, while 45 per cent indicated that their main water source was not always
available. The very low access to piped water reflect the low level and ineffectiveness of public
investment in water systems in the small towns. It has been observed that successive
governments largely ignored the needs of small towns.
Telmo (2002) conducted a study to assess the water supply and sanitation situation in the
village of Gouansolo. A rural village in the south western part of Mali. Forty four households
were included in the survey. The population for the study was 836. Questionnaire, observation
and interview were used as instrument for data collection. Frequencies and per centages were
used to analyzed the data. There were 38 water sources in the village. There were two types of
water supply technologies present, these were hand dug wells and borehole pumps. There were
three types of hand dug wells: improved traditional wells, not improved traditional wells and
modern wells. Well depths ranged from 5.2 to 9.0 meters. Twenty-seven out of 38 water sources
had water available year round, and all household had access to a water source with a year round
availability. The distance travelled to collect water ranged from 3 to 260 meters and the average
distance travelled was as 44 meters. Simple pit latrines were the only type of sanitation facilities
present in the village and they were considered to be improved sanitation.
Result showed that although all household had reasonable access to a water supply, not
all household collect water from improved source. The findings also showed that 48 per cent of
the households in Gouansolo used improved water supplies (i.e. borehole pumps) and 91 per cent
46
used improved sanitation facilities (i.e. simple pit latrine). The most common water supply
problems were erosion at the top and bottom of traditional hand dug wells and seasonal
availability of water in these wells. The most common sanitation problem was deterioration of
latrine floors. Lack of financial means was identified to be the main obstacle to the improvement
of water supply and sanitation and the achievement of 100 per cent coverage in the village. It
was proposed that the most appropriate improved water supply and sanitation technologies to use
in the village are protected hand dug wells and simple pit latrines.
Akpan Usoro (2003) conducted a study on problems associated with improper
management of house hold waste in Uyo metropolis of Akwa Ibon state. The purpose of the
study was to determine type of household waste generated in Uyo metropolis; the various
methods employed by households in managing waste, specific disposal and techniques that could
help households in effective management of their waste. The population used in the study was
made up of 150 men and 150 women totaling 300. The instrument used for data collection was
questionnaire. The data collected was analysed using per centages and chi-square.
The findings revealed that the household in the area of study generated more solid waste
than liquid and gaseous waste. The problem associated with improper waste management within
the area is unsightly environment due to indiscriminate dumping or heaping on roads and in
quarters. Households lack adequate knowledge on how to recycle waste and make them
beneficial. Households should be educated on waste recycling.
Ogbuji (2003), conducted a study on health implications of water management practices
among women in a typical Nigerian rural community, Ovoko. To carry out the study, a cross-
sectional survey research design was utilized, and the sample consisted of 200 house wives
drawn from fifteen villages in Ovoko. The instrument for the study consisted of an interview
schedule, which was analyzed using per centages.
The results showed that the main sources of water for domestic use were rainwater,
which was collected and stored in clay pots and drums, or harvested as affluent or surface water
and stored in ponds called ‘Ogele.’ The results also showed that this source of water exposed the
people to so many water borne diseases. It was recommended that Health Educators should
organize health education programmes for the rural women to educate them on methods of
purifying and storing water in order to maintain health.
47
Ogbuji, (2003) conducted a study on indigenous water sourcing technology in Ovoko
rural community in Enugu and its implications for health education. To carry out the research, a
walk through survey design was used and the sample consisted of 150 households drawn from
fifteen villages in Ovoko in Igbo-Eze South Local Government of Enugu State using the multi-
stage and purposive sampling techniques. The instrument for the study consisted of in-depth
interview and observation schedules. The data collected were analyzed using per centages.
The result showed that the facilities for sourcing water in Ovoko consisted of shallow
wells or ponds called “Ogele”. The result also showed that some of the wells were cemented.
Other smeared with Dikanut paste to prevent water from sipping into the soil. The result also
showed that such water sourcing facility exposed the people to many water-borne diseases. It
was recommended that the government should construct bore-holes and provide pipe-borne
water for the community. In addition the study recommended that health education should be
carried out in Ovoko to educate the people on better and more effective methods of water
purification.
Trevelt, Carter and Tyrrel (2004) conducted a study to evaluate the post-supply drinking
water quality in Honduran. Cross section survey was used. Mean was used to analyse the data.
Water quality was examined in 43 households using samples from either a protected hand dug
well or borehole supply. Twenty six of them used water from hand dug well and 17 used
borehole water. Membrane filtration was used to compare thermotolerant coliform levels in the
samples taken.
The results showed that water from borehole was better than any of the hand-dug wells.
Ground water levels in all sources were approximately 5 to 10 meters below ground level with
some seasonal variations. It was noticed that substantial post-supply deterioration occured. The
calculated probability values demonstrated that water quality became significantly worse
following collection and storage. It was also evident that household stored water originating from
the borehole was of significantly better quality than that drawn from hand-dug well. Observation
of household water management shows that there was multiple points during the collection to use
sequence where pollution could occur. The community should be encourage to sink borehole
instead of hand wells, and are to be health educated.
Afolabi (2005) carried out a study on household refuse disposal methods and its health
implications to families in Taraba state. The purpose of the study was to examine some problems
48
posed by household refuse disposal methods and its health implications. The population for the
study was made up of 180 respondents. The research instrument used for data collection was
questionnaire. The data collected was analysed using mean and standard deviation. The findings
of the study revealed that household practiced unwholesome waste disposal, they lack refuse
disposal containers, there are inadequate dumpsite, irregularity in household solid waste
collection by government sanitation officials and household are faced with the problem of
diseases resulting from improper disposal of household refuse. It is recommended that household
should desist from unwholesome waste disposal and also government should make provision for
regular collection and disposal of waste so that households will achieve good health.
Samson (2006) conducted a study in Nsukka Urban of Enugu State. The study was to
investigate constraints to provision and utilization of basic water supply and sanitation facilities
in Nsukka Urban in Enugu State. A cross-sectional survey research design was adopted. The
population for the study comprised 311,997 residents of Nsukka Urban. A sample of 1015
respondents was used for the study by simple random sampling technique of balloting without
replacement to draw ten clusters out of the fourteen clusters that made up Nsukka Urban.
Instrument for data collection was questionnaire. Frequencies and per centages were used to
analysed the data. The result indicates that finance, institutional problems and government
legislation were identified as constraints to provision of household water supply and sanitation
facilities. The findings from the in-depth interview conducted indicated that logistics, funding
limitations, institutional problems, lack of political commitment, inadequate cost-recovery,
insufficient information and communication and lack of sector coordination constituted
constraints to provision of adequate public water supply and sanitation facilities.
recommendation was Enugu State Government in conjunction with State Ministries of water
Resources, Health and Enugu State Waste Management Authorities should issue subsidies on
Water and sanitation facilities, release funds for renovation of facilities and implement massive
over haul of obsolete public water supply and sanitation facilities.
Peletz (2006) conducted a study that was titled: providing safe drinking water to the
Northern Region of Ghana by selling household water treatment and safe storage devices as a
sustainable business. In the study, fifty household were surveyed including the homes that had
and had not purchased the pure home water products in order to obtain baseline data and product
feedback. Targeted participants were mothers of the household with children under five. At each
49
household drinking water samples were collected and analyzed for bacteria contamination with
hydrogen sulfide (HS) and membrane filtration testing techniques. Per centages and frequencies
were used to analyzed the data. Over all result showed that there was great need for safe water
and sanitation in the Northern Region of Ghana with 30 per cent of respondents not having
access to an improved water source and 54 per cent not having access to an improved sanitation
facilities. In the rural traditional communities households were more likely to suffer from
diarrhea illness, lack improved drinking water and lack sanitation facilities. The community
should be educated on how to improve their drinking water and also have improved sanitation
facilities.
Ifegbesan (2009) conducted a study to examined the level of awareness and practices of
secondary school students with regard to waste management. A total of 900 hundred students
were surved from 6 secondary schools in two of the four educational zones of Ogun State. One
hundred and fifty students each were randomly selected from each secondary school. However,
only six hundred and fifty of the returned questionnaire were found to be properly completed and
were used for data analyses. Data collected were subjected to per centages, mean, standard
deviation, t-test and chi-square statistical analyses.
Findings revealed that secondary school students in Orgun State are aware of waste
problems on their school compounds. The result further reveals that only 26.2 per cent of the
students claimed not worried about the waste around their school premises. 44.3 per cent and
28.8 per cent gave very worried and worried responses respectively. More than 59.4 per cent
acknowledged their interest in waste management on their compound, while 36.4 students also
reported that they placed great importance on the way colleagues dispose of waste, 34 per cent of
the respondents stated very important, 33.2 per cent important, 24.6 per cent not important while
16.0 per cent were not sure. More than half 55.8 per cent of the respondents expresses
dissatisfaction in the way waste are disposed within schools, 33.2 per cent said they were
satisfied, while only 10.9 per cent express very satisfied with the way waste are disposed within
their school. On how satisfied they are with the way waste are handled by their school
management, 20.2 per cent responded very satisfied, 28.5 per cent satisfied and 49.7 per cent and
1.7 per cent dissatisfied and very dissatisfied respectively.
The result also showed that open dumping 61.8 per cent is the most common method in
use for disposing waste in secondary schools in Ogun State. A total of 23.4 per cent claimed to
50
use landfill site, while 6.9 per cent each identified composting and incinerator respectively. This
results indicates that recycling is not being practiced as clearly evidence. The study further
reveals that male students had significantly higher awareness scores for each of the item than the
female, while female students could be said to have positive waste management practices than
their male counterpart. It was recommended that the schools authorities should consider
indiscriminate waste disposal as a very serious health problem, and therefore, make provision for
students to disposed of their waste appropriately.
Denslow et al (2010) conducted a study in Nicaragua. The aim of the study was to assess
the relationship between water and latrine infrastructure and the prevalence of diarrhea in the
region. Women enrolled in the study were 198. A population based cross-sectional survey of
women of reproductive age was conducted in the Northern Region of Nicaragua. Households
were selected by two stage cluster sampling methodology. A questionnaire was administered
with assessment of household and socio-economic conditions, sanitation practices, and health
care access. Diarrhea prevalence difference at the household level over a two weeks recording
period were estimated with a standardized instrument which included assessment of water
treatment and latrine use and maintenance.
The results showed that, the use of water purification methods such as chlorine and
filters, and latrine ownership were not associated with reduced prevalence of household diarrhea
in the two weeks reporting period. Latrine overflow, however, was associated with an increased
prevalence of diarrhea during the same two weeks period. (Adjusted prevalence difference and
95 per cent cl.0.19 (0.03,0.36). Simple low cost interventions that improved water and latrine
infrastructure was suggested as a measure to reduce the prevalence of diarrhea disease in the
isolated regions of Nicaragua and central America.
Obute (2010) conducted a study on service Delivery, constraints and prospects of potable
water supply and sanitation in Benue State. The study utilized case study research design. The
three instruments for data collection include: checking of records, observation and the researcher
constructed service delivery, constraints and prospect of potable water supply and sanitation
questionnaire. The sample for the study comprised 351 staff of Water Aid Nigeria, Benue Office,
Service Providers and adults in WASH project communities of the state. Systematic random and
purposive sampling techniques were utilized to draw the sample.
51
The results revealed that potable water supply, refuse disposal services and sewage
disposal services were inadequate. The respondents identified inadequate funding, lack of
government legislation and inadequate manpower as constraints to the provision of potable water
supply and sanitation.. Based on the findings the recommendations included that there was need
for the Benue State Government and donors to provide safe and adequate water supply and
sanitation to all the people in the state to bridge the existing gap. The government should also
provide adequate funding of water and sanitation project and recruit additional qualified staff.
This was to ensure the desired improvement as well as raise the standard of living of the
beneficiaries.
Summary of Review of Related Literature
From the foregoing literature review various concepts have been defined such include:
water is clear liquid without colour, smell or taste. Water management is the activity of planning,
developing, distributing and managing the optimum use of water resources. Water sources means
locations or places where fresh water flow abundantly in the form of river, lake, pond or stream.
Improved drinking water sources are sources that by nature of its construction and design is
likely to protect the water sources from outside contamination, in particular from feace matter.
Thus, improved drinking water sources include: a household connection, borehole, protected dug
well, protected spring or rainwater collection.
Literature reviewed also indentified the following concepts: water storage means keeping
water away from sources of contamination and using a clean and covered container to hold it,
water treatment is a process of removing harmful substances and odour from a raw water
sources. while basic sanitation refers to the principles and practices relating to the collection,
removal or disposal of human excreta, household waste water and refuse as they impact upon
people and the environment. Solid waste disposal refers to how individuals, societies or
organization stow away solid waste. Sewage disposal is the act of getting rid of used water and
waste substances that are carried away from houses and factories through special pipes. Practice
is something done habitually or customarily or a way of doing something regularly.
It is evident from literature that certain factors affects water management and basic
sanitation practices among women all over the world such factors include lack of access to
improved water due to population growth and rapid urbanization, lack of basic education on
efficient use of pollution prevention, international investments in water and sanitation have
52
decline in recent years, lack of financial resources, lack of consumer awareness of the health
hazards associated with poor water quality and sanitation practices.
The review also presented the substance of some theoretical models which have been
developed to operationalize complex and multifaceted issue of water management and basic
sanitation practices. These model/theories provide some theoretical frameworks to be utilized in
research on explaining public health problems including water management and basic sanitation
practices. Among these are systems theory in management STM, health belief model HBM and
theory of reasoned action – TRA
The literature also indicates that there have been variable attempts by researchers in the
field of health education, public health and environmental health at consciously investigating
water management and basic sanitation practices among specific populations and different
geographical locations. Some work indicated several variables of water supply and sanitation.
For instance, variables such as age, level of education, and lack of fund have been found to be
determinants of water management and basic sanitation. These will provide some guide in this
study.
It is imperative to bear in mind that studies conducted in the developed countries of
America, Europe, developing nations of Latin America, Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa can not be
transplanted completely into the Nigerian context. This phenomenon points to the need to
investigate water management and basic sanitation practices among rural women in Katsina-Ala
Local Government Area of Benue State which should aimed at preventing water borne diseases
and sanitation related diseases among the populace. None of such studies seem to have so far
been conducted among rural women in Katsina-Ala. This situation justifies the present study.
53
CHAPTER THREE
Methods
This chapter presents the description of the research design, area of the study, population
for the study, sample and sampling technique, instrument for data collection, method of data
collection and data analysis.
Research Design
The descriptive survey research design was utilized. This research is concerned with the
collection of data for the purpose of describing and interpreting existing conditions on practice,
beliefs attitude and so on. The purpose of descriptive, research is to describe systematically the
facts, qualities or characteristics of a given population, event or area of interest concerning the
problem under investigation. According to Osuala (2005) the descriptive survey is more realistic
than the experiment in that it investigates phenomena in their natural setting. Dwem, Ome and
Ozokwe (2007) successfully used this design to investigate attitude to and practices of basic
sanitation among staff of University of Nigeria Nsukka. The descriptive survey research design
will therefore, be considered appropriate for use to study and describe water management and
basic sanitation practices among rural women in Katsina-Ala local government area of Benue
state as they exist in their natural settings.
Area of the Study
The study was carried out in Katsina-Ala Local Government Area of Benue State. The
Local Government Area lies some 126 kilometers away from Makurdi, the state capital in the
Eastern part of the state. It shares boundaries with Logo and Ukum Local Government Area to
the North and North East respectively. It also shares boundaries with Taraba State to the East,
Kwande Local Government Area to the South West, Katsina-Ala Local Government is
essentially inhabited by Tiv people. The inhabitants are mostly farmers who produce assorted
crops. The Local Government has a river called River Katsina-Ala, used for yearly fishing
festival and Katsina-Ala picnic respectively. This serves as a tourist attraction of the local
Government. There are four autonomous communities that made up Katsina-Ala Local
Government Area. The four communities are Katsina-Ala Township with one political council
ward, Tongov and Ikyurav Tiev Communities have two political council wards each while
Shitile Community has seven political council wards. All these communities are of a rural
location except Katsina-Ala Township which is in the urban. In all these communities, it is
certain that most of them use shallow yard wells, river, ponds, stream and lakes as their sources
of water supply and use it for drinking cooking bathing and laundry without treatment. Again
water for all purpose is often costly in terms of mone
quality varies from safe to extremely hazardous.
Population for the Study
The population for this study consist
Government Area of Benue state. The total population of the rural women
Population Commission 2006).
Sample and Sampling Technique
The sample for this study consist
in Katsina-Ala Local Government Area
rule of the thumb which states that, if the population is in several thousands 2
population will be considered representative. Stratified random sampling
techniques divides the population into strata. After division, the random sampling
each stratum to select the needed sample size. Proportionate stratified random sampling
to select the women. Shitite women
Note that 538+ 479+417 =1434 (i.e. sample size)
Instruments for Data Collection
The instruments for data collection
management and basic sanitation practices among rural women inscribe with the acronym
WMBSPQ (see Appendix A). The questionnaire
demanded the bio-data of the respondents. Section B comprise
water. Section C comprised of t
five items on water treatment methods while Section E contain
certain that most of them use shallow yard wells, river, ponds, stream and lakes as their sources
of water supply and use it for drinking cooking bathing and laundry without treatment. Again
water for all purpose is often costly in terms of money time and energy expenditure, and its
quality varies from safe to extremely hazardous.
The population for this study consisted of all the rural women in Katsina
of Benue state. The total population of the rural women was 71711 (National
Sample and Sampling Technique
The sample for this study consisted of 1434 subjects representing 2 per-cent
nt Area of Benue State. This is accordance with Nwana’s (1990)
rule of the thumb which states that, if the population is in several thousands 2-
population will be considered representative. Stratified random sampling
ques divides the population into strata. After division, the random sampling
each stratum to select the needed sample size. Proportionate stratified random sampling
to select the women. Shitite women were 26904, Ikyurav 23943, Tongvon 20864 = 71711
Note that 538+ 479+417 =1434 (i.e. sample size)
Instruments for Data Collection
The instruments for data collection was the researcher designed questionnaire on water
basic sanitation practices among rural women inscribe with the acronym
). The questionnaire was divided into five sections. Section A
data of the respondents. Section B comprised of eight items on sources of
d of ten items on water collection and storage, section D contain
five items on water treatment methods while Section E contained ten items on basic sanitation
54
certain that most of them use shallow yard wells, river, ponds, stream and lakes as their sources
of water supply and use it for drinking cooking bathing and laundry without treatment. Again
y time and energy expenditure, and its
of all the rural women in Katsina-ala Local
s 71711 (National
cent of rural women
. This is accordance with Nwana’s (1990)
-5 per-cent of the
population will be considered representative. Stratified random sampling was used. This
ques divides the population into strata. After division, the random sampling was done on
each stratum to select the needed sample size. Proportionate stratified random sampling was used
20864 = 71711
the researcher designed questionnaire on water
basic sanitation practices among rural women inscribe with the acronym
divided into five sections. Section A
of eight items on sources of
items on water collection and storage, section D contained
items on basic sanitation
55
practices. The respondents were required to answer most frequently used; moderately use,
occasionally use and least use.
Validity of the instrument.
The face validity of the instrument was established by giving the draft questionnaire,
including purpose of the study, objectives, research questions and hypotheses to five experts.
Three in the Department of Health and Physical Education and two in the Department of Home
Science, Nutrition and Dietetics, all of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Their main task was
to critically examine the instruments and to ascertain that the instruments covers objectives of the
study. They were required to check for the appropriateness of each item in terms of the language
used as well as the suitability of the questionnaire items for inclusion in the instrument and make
corrections as they deem fit. Their constructive criticisms and suggestions was used to produce
the final version of the instrument that was used for the data collection for this study.
Reliability of the instrument.
For the establishment of the reliability of the instrument, the split half method was used
to establish the internal consistency. Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias (2006) explained split
half method, as a method of assessing the reliability of an instrument by dividing the items into
two equivalent parts and correlating the scores in one part with the scores in the other. For the
purpose of this study, thirty copies of the questionnaire was administered to thirty rural women
in Logo local government area of the state who had the same characteristics with the study
population. The questionnaire was collected back on the sport and assigned even and odd
numbers. The responses of each half was compared for degree of internal consistency, using
Crombach alpha (1951). Ogbazi and Okpala (1994) explained that in a reliability test, if the
correlation co-efficient index obtained is up to .60 and above, that instrument is considered
reliable.
Method of Data Collection
In order to gain access to the respondents a letter of introduction from the Head,
Department of Health and Physical Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka seeking to carry
out the research on water management and basic sanitation practices among rural women in
Katsina-Ala Local Government Area of Benue State was presented to the chiefs in the three
communities in which the researcher was carrying out the research. Copies of questionnaire was
administered to the respondents in each community by the researcher and three research assistant
56
who were trained and given orientation on how to fill the instrument. The researcher
administered the instruments with the help of the research assistant. The respondents who were
able to complete the copies of the questionnaire did so and returned immediately, meanwhile
those who did not complete at the spot were given two days to complete while the researcher
assistant went back for follow up.
Method of Data Analysis
The returned copies of the questionnaire was properly cross-checked for completeness of
information. Those ones with incomplete information were discarded. The information from the
questionnaire was coded using the special package for social science (SPSS) batch system to
analyzed the data. In determining the water management and basic sanitation practice of the
respondents, the four points scale ranging from Most frequently used (MFU), Moderately used
(MU), Occasionally used (OU), Least used (LU) was used with corresponding scores of 4,3,2
and 1 respectively. The research questions was answered using a criterion mean of 2.5. The
criterion mean score for the study was obtained by summing up 4,3,2, and 1 and dividing by 4,
thus
5.24
10
4
1234==
+++
Hence, a criterion mean value of 2.5 was used in decision making. Where the mean score
is equal to or greater than the criterion mean value of 2.5, it was concluded that the water
management and basic sanitation practices of rural women is positive but, where the mean score
is less than the criterion mean value, it was concluded that the WMBSPS of rural women is
negative. Mean was used to analyzed the data while one-way ANOVA statistic was used to test
all the null hypothesis at .05 level of significance at the appropriate degree of freedom.
57
CHAPTER FOUR
Results and Discussion
The chapter presents the analysis and findings of the study in accordance with the
research questions and hypotheses, which guided the study. The results of the study were also
discussed with reference to the information from the review of related literature.
Results
Research question one
How often do you use the under listed sources of water? Data answering this research
question are contained in Table 1.
Table 1
Sources of Water (n = 1060)
S/N Sources of Water __
x Decision
1. Pipe borne water 2.22 OU
2. Bore hole 2.73 MU
3. Hand dug well 3.45 MFU
4. River 2.01 LU
5. Stream 1.12 LU
6. Lake 1.63 LU
7. Pond 1.73 LU
8. Rain water 2.60 MU
Key:
3.00 – 4.00 = Most Frequently Used (MFU)
2.50 – 2.99 = Moderately Used (MU)
2.00 – 2.49 = Occasionally Used (OU)
1.00 – 1.09 = Least Used (LU)
Table 1 reveals that hand well (__
x = 3.45), bore hole (__
x = 2.73), and rain water (__
x
2.60) had mean scores which are above criterion mean of 2.50. This implies that rural women
moderately used these sources of water. The table further shows that pipe borne water (__
x =
2.22), stream (__
x = 2.12), river (__
x = 2.01), pond (__
x = 1.73) and lake (__
x = 1.63) had means
58
scores which are less than the criterion. This implies that rural women occasionally used these
sources of water.
Research question two
Which container do you use to collect water? Data answering this research question are
contained in Table 2.
Table 2
Water Collection Practices (n = 1060)
S/N Water Collection Practices −
x Decision
9. Open buckets 3.60 MFU
10. Buckets with lid 2.46 OC
11. Jerry cans 2.74 MU
12. Clay pots 2.28 OC
13. Basins 2.68 MU
Table 2 shows that open buckets ( x = 3.60), jerry cans ( x = 2.74) and basins ( x = 2.68)
have mean scores which are above the criterion of 2.50. This indicates that rural women
moderately used these containers to fetch water. The table further reveals that containers such as
bucket with lid ( x = 2.46) and clay pot ( x = 2.28) had the mean scores which are less than the
criterion mean score of 2.50. This implies that rural women occasionally used these containers to
fetch water.
Research question three
Which containers do you use to store water? Data answering this research question are
contained in Table 3
Table 3
Water Storage Practices
S/N Water Storage Practice −
x Decision
14. Rubber pots 3.18 MFU
15. Jerry cans 2.96 MU
16. Tanks 1.96 LU
17. Drums 1.99 LU
18. Reservoir/under ground tanks 1.92 LU
59
Table 3 reveals that rubber pots ( x = 3.18) and jerry cans ( x = 2.96) had mean scores
which are above the criterion mean of 2.50. This implies that rural women moderately stored
their water in these containers. The table further shows that tanks ( x = 1.99), drums ( x = 1.92)
and reservoir/underground tanks ( x = 1.65) had means which are less than the criterion of 2.50.
This implies that the rural women occasionally stored water in these containers.
Research question four
Which of the following methods do you use to treat water before drinking? Data
answering this research question are contained in Table 4.
Table 4
Water Treatment Methods (n = 1060)
S/N Water Treatment Methods −
x Decision
19. Chlorine (water guard) 2.76 MU
20. Alum 2.39 OC
21. Sedimentation 2.44 OC
22. Boiling 2.43 OC
23. Filtration 2.92 MU
Table 4 shows that filtration ( x = 2.92) and chlorine ( x =2.76) had means scores above
the criterion of 2.50 indicating that rural women moderately treated water using these methods
before drinking. The table further shows that sedimentation ( x =2.44), boiling ( x = 2.43) and
alum ( x = 2.39) had mean scores which are less than the criterion of 2.50. This implies that rural
women occasionally treat water using these methods before drinking.
Research question five
Which of the following do you use as your solid waste disposal methods? Data answering
this research question are contained in Table 5.
Table 5
Solid waste Disposal Method (n=1060)
S/N Sanitation practices −
x Decision
24. Landfill or controlled tipping 2.65 MU
25. Burning r incineration 2.39 OU
26. Composting 2.07 OU
27. Crude or uncontrolled dumping 2.52 MU
60
Table 5 reveals that landfill or controlled tipping ( x = 2.65) and crude or uncontrolled
dumping ( x =2.52) had mean scores which are above the criterion mean of 2.50. This implies
that the rural women moderately practised these methods of solid waste disposal. The table
further reveals that burning or incineration ( X = 2.39) and composting ( X =2.07) had mean
scores which are less than the criterion mean. This implies that rural women occasionally
practiced these solid waste disposal method.
Research question six
Which of the following do you use as your sewage waste disposal methods? Data
answering this research question are contained in Table 6.
Table 6
Sewage waste Disposal Methods (n=1060)
S/N Sanitation practices −
x Decision
28. Toilet with sewer connection 2.75 MU
29. Pour-flush latrine 2.70 MU
30. Simple pit latrine 2.58 MU
31. Ventilated improved pit latrine 2.14 OU
32. Composting pit latrine 2.01 OU
33. Bush 2.46 OU
Table 6 reveals that toilet with sewer connection ( x =2.75), pour-flush latrine ( x =2.70)
and simple pit latrine ( x =2.58) had mean scores which are above criterion mean of 2.50. This
implies that rural women moderately used these sewage disposal method. The table further
shows that bush ( x =2.46), ventilated improved pit latrine ( x =2.14) and composting pit latrine (
x =2.0) had means scores which are less than the criterion. This means that rural women
occasionally used these sewage disposal method.
61
Research question seven.
What are the water management practices among rural women according to level of
education? Data answering this research question are contained in Table 7
Table 7
Water Management Practices According to Level of Education
S/N
Non-formal
education
(n1 = 100) x 1
Primary
education
(n2 = 69) x 2
Secondary
education
(n3 = 90) x 3
Tertiary
education
(n4 = 80) x 4
Sources of Water
1. Pipe borne water 1.93 2.10 2.24 2.26
2. Bore hole 2.42 2.62 2.74 2.77
3. Hand dug well 3.44 3.42 3.53 3.44
4. River 2.17 2.06 2.27 1.96
5. Stream 2.12 2.64 2.29 2.06
6. Lake 1.71 1.75 1.63 1.61
7. Pond 1.66 1.88 1.79 1.72
8. Rain water 2.42 2.70 2.56 2.62
Grand mean 2.23 2.39 2.38 2.31
Water Collection
9. Open bucket 3.73 3.54 3.58 3.59
10. Bucket with lid 2.29 2.43 2.43 2.49
11. Jerry can 2.65 2.75 2.67 2.76
12. Clay pot 2.42 2.32 2.30 2.26
13. Basin 3.06 2.86 2.64 2.63
Grand mean 2.83 2.78 2.72 2.75
Water Storage
14. Rubber pot 3.11 3.14 3.26 3.18
15. Jerry can 2.91 2.77 3.00 2.97
16. Tank 1.87 1.84 1.93 2.03
17. Drum 1.97 2.06 2.00 1.87
18. Reservoir/underground tank 1.49 1.51 1.68 1.69
Grand mean 2.27 2.26 2.37 2.34
Water Treatment Method
19. Chlorine 2.65 2.74 2.86 2.77
20. Alum 2.42 2.32 2.24 2.41
21. Sedimentation 2.32 2.30 2.23 2.49
22. Boiling 2.50 2.55 2.37 2.42
23. Filtration 2.94 2.62 2.91 2.94
Grand mean 2.57 2.51 2.52 2.61
62
Data in Table 7 reveal that rural women in all the levels of education had grand mean
scores which are between 2.00 – 2.49 in sources of water collection (non formal education X =
2.23, primary education X = 2.39, secondary education X = 2.38 and tertiary education X =
2.31). This implies that they occasionally used these sources of water.
The Table again shows a grand mean scores across all levels of educational attainment
which are between 2.50 and 2.99 in water collection practices (non formal education x = 2.83,
primary education x = 2.78, secondary education x = 2.72 and tertiary education x = 2.75). This
implies that the rural women across all levels of educational attainment moderately practised the
use of these containers to collect their water.
The Table further shows a grand mean scores which were between 2.00 - 2.49 across all
the levels of education in water storage practices (non formal education X = 2.27, primary
education X = 2.26, secondary education X = 2.37 and tertiary education X = 2.34). This
implies that these rural women occasionally practiced storing water in these containers.
The Table further also shows a grand mean scores which were between 2.50 and 2.99
across the four levels of education, in water treatment methods (non formal education X = 2.57,
primary education X = 2.51, secondary education X = 2.52 and tertiary education X = 2.61).
This implies that the rural women moderately treat their water prior to drinking.
63
Research question eight
What are the water management practices among rural women according to age? Data
answering this research question are contained in Table 8
Table 8
Water Management Practices among Rural Women According to Age
S/N
18-30 years
(n = 808) x 1
31 – 40 years
(n2 = 159) x 2
41 and above
(n = 93) x 3
Sources of Water
1. Pipe borne water 2.26 2.28 1.76
2. Bore hole 2.76 2.74 2.39
3. Hand dug well 3.44 3.50 3.41
4. River 2.01 1.95 2.13
5. Stream 2.07 2.33 2.18
6. Lake 1.62 1.71 1.60
7. Pond 1.74 1.71 1.72
8. Rain water 2.63 2.69 2.26
Grand mean 2.32 2.36 2.18
Water Collection
9. Open bucket 3.59 3.59 3.69
10. Bucket with lid 2.48 2.52 2.24
11. Jerry can 2.78 2.55 2.77
12. Clay pot 2.28 2.40 2.15
13. Basin 2.62 2.92 2.84
Grand mean 2.75 2.79 2.74
Water Storage
14. Rubber pot 3.18 3.16 3.12
15. Jerry can 2.97 2.98 2.82
16. Tank 2.01 1.91 1.97
17. Drum 1.92 1.90 1.89
18. Reservoir/underground tank 1.69 1.53 1.59
Grand mean 2.35 2.30 2.28
Water Treatment Methods
19. Chlorine 2.78 2.72 2.69
20. Alum 2.44 2.21 2.26
21. Sedimentation 2.45 2.50 2.23
22. Boiling 2.42 2.48 2.45
23. Filtration 2.92 3.01 2.80
Grand mean 2.60 2.58 2.49
64
Data in Table 8 indicate grand means which are between 2.00 – 2.49 for various aged
groups for water sources (18-30 years x = 2.32, 31-40 years x = 2.36, and 41 years and above x =
2.18). This implies that the rural women in all these aged groups occasionally practiced using
these sources of water.
The Table further indicates that the rural women in all the aged group have grand means
which are between 2.50 – 2.99 in water collection practices (31-40 years x = 2.79, 18-30 years x
= 2.75, and 41 years and above x = 2.74). This implies that the women moderately practised
using these containers for water collection.
The Table further indicates grand mean scores which are between 2.00 – 2.49 in water
storage practices of all the age groups (18 – 30 years x = 2.35, 31 – 40 years x = 2.30, and 41
years and above x = 2.28). This implies that rural women occasionally store water using these
containers.
The Table furthermore, shows grand mean scores which are between 2.50 – 2.99
regarding water treatment methods except in women aged group 41 years and above (18-30 years
x =2.60, 31-40years x = 2.58 and 41 years and above x = 2.49). This implies that these rural
women practised the use of these water treatment methods moderately while women aged 41
years and above used these water treatment methods occasionally.
65
Research question nine
What are basic sanitation, practices among rural women according to level of education?
Data answering this research question are contained in Table 9.
Table 9
Sanitation Practices Among Rural Women According to Level of Education
Sanitation practices;
Non-formal education
(n1 = 100) x 1
Primary education (n2 = 69) c2
Secondary education
(n3 = 90) x 3
Tertiary education
(n4 = 80) x 4
Solid waste disposal methods
24. Landfill or controlled tipping 2.53 2.51 2.76 2.66
25. Burning or incineration 2.40 2.42 2.37 2.39
26. Composting 2.05 2.14 2.00 2.07
27. Crude or uncontrolled dumping 2.63 2.14 2.50 2.54
Grand mean 2.40 2.30 2.41 2.42
Sewage Disposal Methods
28. Toilet with sewer connection 2.59 2.74 2.48 2.81
29. Pour-flush latrine 2.31 2.45 2.61 2.78
30. Simple pit latrine 2.49 2.87 2.72 2.55
31. Ventilated improved pit latrine 2.11 2.46 2.14 2.12
32. Composting pit latrine 2.03 2.19 2.07 1.99
33. Bush 2.76 2.74 2.56 2.39
Grand mean 2.38 2.58 2.43 2.44
Data in Table 9 show that the grand mean scores of rural women across all the levels of
education are between 2.00 – 2.49 in solid waste disposed methods. (Tertiary education x = 2.42,
secondary education x = 2.41, non-formal education x = 2.40 and primary education x = 2.30).
This implies that the women occasionally practised these methods of solid waste disposal.
S/N
66
The Table also reveals that all the levels of education had mean scores between 2.50 –
2.99 in landfill or controlled tipping practice, (secondary education x = 2.76, tertiary education
x = 2.66, non formal education x = 2.53 and primary education x = 2.51). This implies that
rural women moderately practiced landfill or controlled tipping. The table further shows that all
the levels of education had mean scores between 2.50 – 2.99 in crude or uncontrolled dumping
except primary education (non formal education x = 2.63, tertiary education x = 2.54, secondary
education x = 2.50 and primary education x = 2.14). This implies that the rural women
practised crude or uncontrolled dumping moderately.
The Table also shows mean scores between 2.00 – 2.49 in burning or incineration and
composting practices in all the levels of education. (Burning; primary education x = 2.42, non
formal education x = 2.40, tertiary education x = 2.39 and secondary education x = 2.37).
Composting ;(primary education x = 2.14, tertiary education x = 2.07, non formal education x
= 2.05 and secondary education x = 2.00). This implies that all the rural women of these levels
of education practised these methods of solid waste disposal occasionally.
The table further shows grand mean scores between 2.00 – 2.49 in all the levels of
education in sewage disposal methods except in primary education (primary education x = 2.58,
tertiary education x = 2.44, secondary education x = 2.43 and non formal education x = 2.38).
This indicates that the rural women occasionally practised these methods. The table again shows
mean scores between 2.50 – 2.99 in bush method in all the levels of education except tertiary
education (non formal education x = 2.76, primary education x = 2.74, secondary education x
= 2.56 and tertiary education x = 2.39). This indicates that the rural women moderately
practised this methods. The table again shows mean scores between 2.50 – 2.99 in simple pit
latrine across all the levels of education except non formal education (primary education x =
2.87, secondary education x = 2.72, tertiary education x = 2.55 and non formal education x =
2.49). The table further indicates mean scores between 2.50 – 2.99 across all the levels of
education except secondary education in toilet with sewer connection (tertiary education x =
2.81, primary education x = 2.74, non formal education x = 2.59 and secondary education x =
2.48). This indicates that the rural women moderately practise these methods.
67
The table further shows mean scores which ranged between 2.50 – 2.99 in two levels of
education and mean scores between 2.00 – 2.49 in the other two levels of education in pour-flush
latrine (tertiary education x = 2.78, secondary education x = 2.61, primary education x = 2.45
and non formal education x = 2.31). This implies that the two levels of education practise
pourflush latrine method moderately while the other two levels of education practiced it
occasionally. The table finally reveals mean scores between 2.00 – 2.49 in the following:
ventilated improved pit latrine and composting pit latrine. Ventilated improved pit latrine
(primary education x = 2.46, secondary education x = 2.14, tertiary education x = 2.12 and
non formal education x = 2.11). Composting pit latrine: (primary education x = 2.19, secondary
education x = 2.07, non formal education x = 2.03 and tertiary education x = 1.99). This
implies that all the rural women across the levels of education practiced the two methods
occasionally.
Research question ten
What are the basic sanitation practices among rural women according to age? Data
answering this research question are contained in Table 10.
Table 10
Sanitation Practices Among Rural Women According to Age
S/N
Sanitation Practices
18-30 years
(n = 808) x 1
31-40 years
(n = 159) c2
41 and above
(n = 93) x 3
Solid Waste Disposal Methods
24. Landfill or controlled tipping 2.64 2.64 2.71
25. Burning or incineration 2.39 2.38 2.39
26. Composting 2.07 2.16 1.85
27. Crude or uncontrolled dumping 2.54 2.43 2.55
Grand mean 2.41 2.40 2.38
Sewage disposal methods
28. Toilet with sewer connection 2.74 2.75 2.87
29. Pour-flush latrine 2.78 2.48 2.31
30. Simple pit latrine 2.57 2.65 2.51
31. Ventilated improved pit latrine 2.12 2.29 2.06
32. Composting pit latrine 2.01 2.05 1.95
33. Bush 2.43 2.54 2.58
Grand mean 2.44 2.46 2.38
68
Data in table 10 shows grand mean scores of all the rural women according to age group
are between 2.00 – 2.49 in solid waste disposal methods. This implies that the women
occasionally practiced these methods of solid waste disposal. The table again shows mean scores
between 2.50 – 2.99 in landfill or controlled tipping in all the age group (41 years and above x
= 2.71, 31 – 40 years x = 2.64 and 18-30 years x =2.64).This implies that the women
moderately use landfill or controlled tipping. The table further indicates mean scores between
2.50 – 2.99 in crude or uncontrolled dumping in all the age group except 31-40 years (41 years
and above x = 2.55, 18-30 years x = 2.54 and 31-40 years x 2.43). This again indicates that
they moderately use this method except 41 years and above. The table however, indicates mean
scores between 2.00 – 2.49 in all the age group in burning or incineration and composting
practices. Burning or incineration (18 – 30 years x = 2.39, 41 years and above x = 2.39 and 31
– 40 years x = 2.38). This implies that the women occasionally practiced these methods of solid
waste disposal.
The table further revealed grand mean scores of all the rural women according to age
group are between 2.00 – 2.49 in sewage disposal methods. This indicates that the women
occasionally practised these methods. The table again revealed mean scores between 2.50 – 2.99
in sewage disposal methods in the following: toilet with sewer connection, simple pit latrine and
bush methods except age group 18 – 30 years in bush method. Toilet with sewer connection, 41
years and above x = 2.87, 31 – 40 years x = 2.75 and 18 – 30 years x =2.74. Simple pit latrine,
31 – 40 years x = 2.65, 18 – 30 years x =2.57 and 41 years and above x = 2.51. Bush, 41 years
and above x = 2.58, 31 – 40 years x = 2.54 and 18 – 30 years x = 2.43. This indicates that the
women moderately practiced these methods.
The table further show mean scores between 2.50 – 2.99 in pour flush in age group 18 –
30 years x = 2.78, and mean scores between 2.00 – 2.49 in age group 31 – 40 years x = 2.48
and 41 years and above x = 2.31. The table however, revealed mean scores between 2.00 – 2.49
in ventilated improved pit latrine and composting pit latrine. Ventilated improved pit latrine (31
– 40 years x = 2.29, 18 – 30 years x = 2.12 and 41 years and above x = 2.06). Composting pit
69
latrine (31 – 40 years x = 2.05, 18 – 30 years x = 2.01 and 41 years and above x = 1.95). This
implies that the women occasionally use these methods.
Hypothesis one
Water management practices adopted by rural women in Katsina-Ala Area are not
significantly dependent on level of education. Data testing this hypothesis are presented in Table
11.
Table 11
Result of One-Way ANOVA Statistic Testing Water Management Practices Adopted by
Rural Women.
Sum of squares
Df Mean square
F P-value
Sources of water Between groups 101.253 3 33.751 2.249 .081
Within groups 15847.611 1056 15.007
Total 15948.864 1059
Water collection Between groups 18.477 3 6.159 .815 .486
Within groups 7978.086 1056 7.555
Total 7996.562 1059
Water storage Between groups 26.768 3 8.923 1.124 .338
Within groups 8382.128 1056 7.38
Total 8408.966 1059
Water treatment Between groups 29.187 3 9.729 1.060 .365
Within groups 9694.748 1056 9.181
Total 9723.935 1059
Table 11 shows the calculated F values for sources of water (F = 2.249, p = 0.081), water
collection (F = .815, p = .486), water storage (F = 1.124, p = .338) and water treatment (F =
1.060, p = .365) with their corresponding P values which were greater than .05 level of
70
significance at 3 and 1056 degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis of no significant difference in
the water management practices adopted by rural women was therefore accepted. This means
that water management practices of rural women did not significantly differ according to level of
education.
Hypothesis two
Water management practices adopted by rural women in Katsina-Ala are not significantly
dependent on age. Data testing this hypothesis are presented in Table 12.
Table 12
Result of One-Way ANOVA Testing Water Management Practices Adopted by Rural
Women in Katsina-Ala
Sum of squares
Df Mean square
F P-value
Sources of water Between groups 128.041 2 64.020 4.277 .014
Within groups 15820.823 1057 14.968
Total 15948.864 1059
Water collection Between groups 8.661 2 4.331 .573 .564
Within groups 7987.901 1057 7.557
Total 7996.562 1059
Water storage Between groups 21.130 2 10.565 1.331 .265
Within groups 8387.836 1057 7.936
Total 8408.966 1059
Water treatment Between groups 29.296 2 14.648 1.597 .203
Within groups 9694.639 1057 9.172
Total 9723.935 1059
Table 12 shows the calculated F values for sources of water (F = 4.277, p = .014), water
collection (F = .573, p = .564), water storage (F = 1.331, p = 265) and water treatment (F =
71
1.597, p = 203) with their corresponding P values which are greater than .05 level of significance
at 2 and 1057 degrees of freedom except in sources of water. The null hypothesis of no
significance difference in the water management practices adopted by rural women was therefore
accepted. This means that water management practices of rural women did not significantly
differ according to age.
Table 13
Multiple Comparison Sheffe’s Analysis of Group Mean Score Base on Age
(I) Age (J) Age Mean difference
(I-J)
Std. Error P-value
18-30 years 31-40 years
41 and above
-.372
1.076*
.336
.424
.541
.040
31 – 40 years 18-30 years
41 and above
.372
1.448*
.336
.050
.541
.017
41 and above 18-30 years
31-40 years
-1.076*
-1.448
.424
.050
.040
.017
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level
The table above presents the mean differences from the paired mean comparison of age in
water management practices adopted by rural women on three age range groups of women (18-
30 years, 31-40 years and 41 years and above) with their respective P-values based on water
management adopted by rural women. From the Scheffe’s table, the paired mean difference for
18-30 years and 41 years and above (1.076, P-value = .040), and 31-40 years and 41 years and
above (1.448 P-value .017) with their corresponding P values which are less than .05 level of
significance. This implies that the water management practices adopted by rural women age 18-
30 years differed from other age brackets.
72
Hypothesis three
Basic sanitation practices adopted by rural women in Katsina-Ala are not significantly
dependent on level of education. Data testing this hypothesis are presented in Table 13.
Table 14
Result of One-Way ANOVA Statistic Tesing Basic Sanitation Practices Adopted by Rural
Women are not significantly Dependent on Level of Education
Sum of squares
df Mean
Square
F P-value
Solid waste disposal method Between groups 12.417 3 4.139 .714 .543
Within groups 6118.640 1056 5.794
Total 6131 1059
Sewage waste disposal methods
Between groups 57.840 3 19.280 .1730 .159
Within groups 11766.494 1056 11.143
Total 11824.335 1059
Table 14 shows the calculated F values for solid waste disposal methods (F = .714, p =
.543) and sewage waste disposal methods (F = 1.730, p = .159) with their corresponding P values
which are less than .05 level of significance at 3 and 1056 degrees of freedom. The null
hypothesis of no significance difference in basic sanitation practices adopted by rural women
was therefore accepted. This means that basic sanitation practices of rural women did not
significantly differ according to level of education.
73
Hypothesis four
Basic sanitation practices adopted by rural women in Katsina-Ala are not significantly
dependent on age. Data testing this hypothesis are presented in Table 14.
Table 15
Result of One-Way ANOVA Testing the Null Hypothesis that Basic Sanitation Practices
Adopted by Rural Women are not significantly Dependent on Age.
Sum of squares
df Mean
Square
F P-value
Solid waste disposal method Between groups 1.856 2 .928 .160 .852
Within groups 6129.201 1057 5.799
Total 6131.057 1059
Sewage waste disposal method
Between groups 15.319 2 7.660 .686 .504
Within groups 11809.016 1057 11.172
Total 11824.335 1059
Table 15 shows the calculated F values for solid waste disposal method (F = .160, p =
.852) and sewage waste disposal method (F = .686, p .504) with their corresponding P-values
which are greater than .05 level of significant at 2 and 1057 degrees of freedom. The null
hypothesis of no significance difference in basic sanitation practices adopted by rural women
was therefore accepted. This means that basic sanitation practices of rural women are not
dependent significantly on age.
74
Summary of major findings
1. Rural women moderately use hand dug well ( x = 3.45), borehole ( x = 2.73) and
rainwater ( x = 2.60) as their sources of water (Table 1).
2. Rural women moderately used open bucket ( x = 3.60), jerry cans ( x = 2.74) and basins
( x = 2.68) to fetch water (Table 2).
3. Rural women moderately used rubber pots ( x = 3.18) and jerry cans ( x = 2.96) to store
water (Table 3)
4. Filtration ( x = 2.92) and chlorine ( x = 2.76) were mostly used as methods of treating
water prior to drinking (Table 4).
5. Landfill or controlled tipping ( x = 2.65) and crude or uncontrolled dumping ( x = 2.52)
were moderately used methods of solid waste disposal (Table 5).
6. Rural women moderately used toilet with sewer connection ( x = 2.75) pour-flush latrine
( x = 2.70) and simple pit latrine ( x = 2.58) as methods of sewage disposal (Table 6).
7. Women in all levels of education adopted all the listed sources of water and water storage
practices occasionally while they use the listed water collection containers and water
treatment methods moderately. (Table 7).
8. Women in all the age group adopted all the listed sources of water and water storage
practices occasionally while they used water collection containers and water treatment
methods moderately except women in age group 41 years and above (Table 8).
9. Women in all the levels of education practise burning or incineration and composting
methods of solid waste disposal occasionally while they practise landfill or controlled
tipping and crude or uncontrolled dumping moderately. They furthermore, practiced
ventilated improved pit latraine and compositing pit latrine occasionally while all the
women practiced the following sewage disposal methods moderately: toilet with sewer
connection except secondary education, simple pit latrine except non formal education,
bush method except tertiary education (Table 9).
10. Women in all the age group practise burning or incineration and composting methods of
solid waste disposal occasionally while they practiced landfill or controlled tipping and
crude or uncontrolled dumping moderately. They furthermore practise ventilated improve
75
pit latrine and composting pit latrine occasionally while they practise toilet with sewer
connection, simple pit latrine and bush methods of sewage disposal moderately except in
age group 18 – 31 years in bush method. They also practise pour-flush method in age
group 18 – 31 years moderately (Table 10).
11. Water management practices of rural women are not dependent on level of education.
12. Water management practices of rural women are not dependent on age.
13. Basic sanitation practices of rural women did not significantly differ according to level of
education (Table 13)
14. Basic sanitation practices of rural women did not significantly differ according to age.
(Table 14)
Discussion
1. Sources of water
2. Water collection
3. Water storage methods
4. Water treatment methods
5. Sanitation practices
6. Differences in the water management and sanitation practices of rural women.
Sources of water
Table 1 reveals that rural women moderately use hand dug well, borehole and rain water
as their sources of water. The findings on hand dug well and borehole were expected and
therefore not surprising because all communities have some access to water, but the safety of the
water they consume is less often assured. The findings is in line with Telmo (2002) who assessed
the water supply and sanitation situation in the village of Gouansolo and found that there were
two types of water supply technologies present; these were hand dug wells and borehole pumps.
There were three types of hand dug wells, improved traditional wells, not improved traditional
wells and modern wells. Twenty-seven out of 38 water sources had water available year round,
and all household had access to a water source with all year round availability. Although all
household had reasonable access to a water supply, not all household collect water from
improved source. The result on rain water is also expected and not a surprise. It agrees with the
study of Ogbuji (2003) on health implications of water management practices among women in a
typical Nigerian rural community, Ovoko Enugu State. The findings showed that the main source
76
of water for domestic use is rain water which was collected and stored in clay pots and drums, or
harvested as affluent or surface water and stored in ponds called ‘ogele’. This source of water
exposed the people to so many water borne diseases because it was not well harvested and
stored. There should be health education on improved water sources and methods of storing
water.
Water collection.
The findings in Table 2 showed that rural women moderately used open bucket, jerry
cans and basins to fetch water. The result on open buckets and basins were expected and
therefore not a surprise because observation shows that rural women fetch water using open
containers like buckets and basins. This is why when the water is being carried from long
distances there are chances of contamination to the water before it reaches home. This agrees
with Clasen and Roberts (2006) who observed that water is caused by contamination that occur
during and after collection often because of open containers and improper hygiene and handling
during transportation. Health education on proper collection and handling of water to avoid
contamination during collection and transportation. The findings on jerry cans is not expected
and is therefore surprising because the researcher observed that women in the rural areas do not
use jerry cans in fetching water. Jerry cans are normally used by urban youths who feel can give
a helping hand to their mother in fetching water.
Water storage.
Table 3 reveals that rural women moderately used rubber pots and jerry cans to store
water. The findings was expected and not a surprise, though the findings negates the study of
Ogbuju (2003) who found that rural women collected their water and stored in clay pots and
drums or stored in ponds called ‘ogele’. For maintaining the quality of treated water within the
home, safe storage is important complement of point of use. The most important thing in water
storage is to keep the container clean and prevent hands and dippers from touching the water.
Health educators should organize health education programmes for the rural women to educate
them on how to store water in order to maintain health.
Water treatment methods.
Table 4 shows that filtration and chlorine were mostly used as methods of treating water
before drinking. The result is not expected and therefore surprising. This disagrees with Salaru
(2000) who conducted a study on the quality of water, sanitation and hygiene practices in the
77
pre-university institutions in the republic of Moldova. The result showed that pre-university
institutions in the republic of Moldova do not ensure universal access for children to safe
drinking water, inadequate hygiene conditions, measures for ensuring disinfection and cleaning
of water for human consumption was insufficient, since 61 per cent of students were exposed to
health risk conditioned by microbial pollution in drinking water. The residents should be
conscious of treating their water before drinking.
Sanitation practices-solid waste disposal methods.
Table 5 reveals that landfill or controlled tipping and crude or uncontrolled dumping
were moderately used as solid waste disposal methods. The result on landfill or controlled
tipping was not expected and is therefore a surprise. The researcher who also lives in the village
observed that this method is not been practised. Generally, solid waste management in Nigeria is
characterized by insufficient collection methods, insufficient coverage of the collection system
and improper disposal of solid waste. The result on crude or uncontrolled dumping is expected
and not surprising. This is perhaps why Huton and Haler (2004) maintained that in small towns
refuse collection is almost non-existent with only one per cent of household enjoying such
service, and about two thirds of households resort to open dumping of solid waste, with its
attendant risk for health and the environment. There should be organized health education in the
rural areas pertaining their solid waste disposal methods.
Sewage disposal.
Table 6 reveals that toilet with sewer connection, pour flush latrine and simple pit latrine
were moderately used as methods of sewage disposal. The result was not expected and therefore
surprising because they are expensive to build, the unwillingness of rural communities to incur
cost with the children being denied access to facilities. The result on simple pit latrine is
expected and not surprise. The finding agrees with the study of Telmo (2002) who assessed the
water supply and sanitation situation in the rural village of Gouansolo. The finding shows that 91
per cent of the household use improved sanitation facilities that is simple pit latrine. The most
common problem was deterioration of latrine floors. The villagers should be health educated on
other improved sanitation facilities as well.
78
Differences in the water management and sanitation practices of rural women.
Tables 7 and 8 reveal that women in all levels of education and age groups adopted all
the listed sources of water and water storage practices occasionally while they used all the water
collection containers and water treatment methods moderately except women in age group 41
years and above in water treatment method. The result on sources of water was expected and
therefore not surprising because inhabitants living in rural areas use so many sources of water
ranging from hand dug well, rivers, stream, borehole and so on, but the safety of the water they
consume is less often assured. There may be some improved sources of water within the
community but most of the women may be ignorant about improved sources of water and not all
of the household may collect water from improved source. This finding agrees with the
Stoveland and Bassey (2000) who conducted a study on sources of water and the result showed
that only 0.4 per cent of household use pipe borne water, about 45 per cent obtain water from
ground water sources such as wells and boreholes while 27 per cent relied on surface sources
such as rivers and streams. Reliance on water vendors and cistern tankers is remarkably high in
small towns. The finding also agrees with Walace (2009) who posited that the selection of the
most appropriate water source for human use in a specific region may result from a wide variety
of options available which include ground water, surface water and rain water. Women should be
advise to treat any source of water they find themselves to use. Improved sources should also be
made known to them.
The finding on water storage containers are expected and not surprise because families
need good containers for the hygienic collection and storage of water without such containers the
good work of providing water fit for human consumption at the point of distribution is likely to
be lost. This is in line with Wikipedia (2000) assertion that it may be difficult sometimes to find
or buy a good storage container, but the most important things are to make sure that it is covered
and the stored water undergoes adequate treatment so that it can be safe for drinking. Women
should be health educated on water storage. On the other hand, the finding on water sources and
water storage containers was not expected and therefore surprising because one expects to see a
difference between one level of education and another, and between one age group and another.
Respondents with tertiary level of education suppose to have a higher understanding pertaining
to improved sources of water and appropriate water storage practices. Similarly, one expects to
79
see a difference between the elderly and the young women. But it is surprising that all exhibited
gross ignorance by being in the same category.
The result on water collection containers is not expected and therefore a surprise.
Experience shows that majority of rural women are fond of fetching drinking water in any
container. The women should be enlightened on appropriate water collection containers as open
containers can cause contamination to the water if the distance is long. They should be advise on
using covered containers while transporting water from long distances.
The result on water treatment methods is not expected and therefore surprising as all the
levels of education and aged groups practised these methods of water treatment except aged
group 41 years and above. Bathia and Fakemark (2006) pointed that the easier and less time
consuming in fetching water the more likely the age women adopt in hauling or treating water
and hygiene practices. This could be applicable to all the women not only the aged women.
There is general lack of water every where especially in rural areas and women spend a lot of
time in search of water or queuing up for water. This, couple with other household cores, can
make them become tired The rural women should be made to know that, water that looks clear
does not necessary mean it is good for drinking. No matter how tied they are, they should adopt
water treatment method to make it clean.
Data in Tables 9 and 10 revealed that woman in all the levels of education and age group
practised burning or incineration and composting methods of solid waste disposal method
occasionally while they practise landfill or controlled tipping and crude or uncontrolled dumping
moderately. They furthermore, practiced ventilated improved pit latrine and compositing pit
latrine occasionally while all the women practiced the following sewage disposal methods
moderately: toilet with sewer connection except secondary education, simple pit latrine except
non formal education, bush method except tertiary education.
Results on landfill or controlled tipping is not expected and therefore a surprise. The
findings contradict the study of Ifegbesan (2009) who examined the level of awareness and
practices of secondary school students with regard to waste management. Result revealed that
more than half 55.8 per cent of the respondents expressed dissatisfaction in the way waste were
disposed within the school by their school management The result on crude or uncontrolled
dumping is expected and not a surprise. This finding is in consonance with Ifegbasan (2009)
finding that open dumping (61.8%) is the most common method in use for disposing waste in
80
secondary school in Ogun state. A total of 23.4 per cent claimed to use landfill site, while 6.9 per
cent each identified composting and incineration respectively.
The findings once again agrees with Afolabi (2005) whose study revealed that
households practised unwholesome waste disposal, they lacked refuse disposal containers, there
were inadequate dumpsites, irregularity in household solid waste collection by government
sanitation officials and household were faced with the problem of diseases resulting from
improper disposal of household refuse. Household should desist from unwholesome waste
disposal and also government should make provision for regular collection and disposal of waste
so that households will achieve good health.
The finding on bush method is also in line with that of Nwachukwu (2008) assertion that
in developing countries, people in the rural communities rarely consider an adequate excreta
disposal system a problem. In the absence of sanitation systems, some communities rely on
natural processes, defecation takes place in the open fields, or on surface water, in the later
option, human waste is directly disposed of into the rivers, canals for transport and eventual
dilution leads towards a severe environmental problem.
The results on toilet with sewer connection is surprising because in the rural communities
one can hardly see a toilet with sewer connection. This is because there are expensive to build
and there can be seen in the areas occupied by middle socio-economic groups. It is, therefore, a
surprise as all the levels of education had high mean scores in it except secondary education. The
result on simple pit latrine is expected and not surprise. By observation, most rural communities
use simple pit latrine because it is cheap and simple to construct, except with non formal
education which contradicts the result by having less mean scores. The result on pour flush
latrine having high mean scores in the age group 18-30 was expected and not surprise. This
could be as a result of their educational awareness on improved sewage disposal methods. The
rural women should be health educated on improved sewage disposal methods. The result on
bush method is expected because experience show that most rural communities defecate in the
bush. This agrees with Joseph (2006) opinion that in rural areas, majority of them go to the fields
for defecation and thereby pollute the environment with human excreta.
The result on crude or uncontrolled dumping is expected. This is in line with the study of
Akpan and Usoro (2003) on problems associated with improper management of household waste
in Uyo metropolis of Akwa Ibom state. The result showed that problem associated with improper
81
waste management within the area is unsightly due to indiscriminate dumping or heaping on
roads and in quarters. Households lack adequate knowledge on how to recycle waste and make
them beneficial. Households should be educated on waste recycling.
The result on toilet with sewer connection is not expected. By my observation this
method of sewage disposal is commonly seen in urban areas and not rural areas. The result on
simple pit latrine is expected because the rural communities mostly go on the simple and cheap
method that they can afford because of their low socio-economic status.
The implication of this study to health is that water of poor quality can cause ill health to
individual, community and the populace in general. While poor sanitation facilities will cause air
pollution eg odour. Consequently pollution from disposal site via flooding of block drains and
land degradation. Finally, flies can carry germs on their bodies and legs and also excrete them on
our food thereby causing ill health as well.
82
CHAPTER FIVE
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
Summary
The purpose of the study was to find out water management and basic sanitation practices
among rural women in Katsina-Ala local government Area, Benue State, Nigeria. In order to
accomplish this purpose, ten specific objectives and corresponding research questions were
formulated. Four null hypotheses using two independent variables were postulated and
literature pertinent to the study were reviewed under the following headings: conceptual
framework, theoretical framework, factors affecting water management and basic sanitation
practices, water management and basic sanitation practices of rural women, empirical studies on
water management and basic sanitation practices among rural women. The descriptive survey
research design was utilized. The population for the study consisted of 71711 rural women in
Katsina-Ala Local Government Area, Benue State, Nigeria. Stratified random sampling
technique was used in order to arrive at the sample.. This yielded a sample of 1434 respondents
which was 2 percent of the rural women in Katsina-Ala Local Government Area, Benue state.
The instrument used for data collection was the researcher designed questionnaire of
quantitative data on water management and basic sanitation practices which was divided into
five sections. Four experts in health and physical education and home science, nutrition and
dietetics departments validated the instruments respectively.
Crombach’s Alpha reliability was used to test the reliability. Mean scores was used for
answering the research questions while one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were utilized for
testing of the null hypotheses. Out of 1434 copies of questionnaire distributed, 1060 valid copies
were used for data analysis. The following were the summary of major findings.
1. Rural women moderately use hand dug well ( x = 3.45), borehole ( x = 2.73) and
rainwater ( x = 2.60) as their sources of water (Table 1).
2. Rural women moderately used open bucket ( x = 3.60), jerry cans ( x = 2.74) and basins
( x = 2.68) to fetch water (Table 2).
3. Rural women moderately used rubber pots ( x = 3.18) and jerry cans ( x = 2.96) to store
water (Table 3)
83
4. Filtration ( x = 2.92) and chlorine ( x = 2.76) were mostly used as methods of treating
water prior to drinking (Table 4).
5. Landfill or controlled tipping ( x = 2.65) and crude or uncontrolled dumping ( x = 2.52)
were moderately used methods of solid waste disposal (Table 5).
6. Rural women moderately used toilet with sewer connection ( x = 2.75) pour-flush latrine
( x = 2.70) and simple pit latrine ( x = 2.58) as methods of sewage disposal (Table 6).
7. Women in all levels of education adopted all the listed sources of water and water storage
practices occasionally while they use the listed water collection containers and water
treatment methods moderately. (Table 7).
8. Women in all the age group adopted all the listed sources of water and water storage
practices occasionally while they used water collection containers and water treatment
methods moderately except women in age group 41 years and above (Table 8).
9. Women in all the levels of education practise burning or incineration and composting
methods of solid waste disposal occasionally while they practise landfill or controlled
tipping and crude or uncontrolled dumping moderately. They furthermore, practiced
ventilated improved pit latraine and compositing pit latrine occasionally while all the
women practiced the following sewage disposal methods moderately: toilet with sewer
connection except secondary education, simple pit latrine except non formal education,
bush method except tertiary education (Table 9).
10. Women in all the age group practise burning or incineration and composting methods of
solid waste disposal occasionally while they practiced landfill or controlled tipping and
crude or uncontrolled dumping moderately. They furthermore practise ventilated improve
pit latrine and composting pit latrine occasionally while they practise toilet with sewer
connection, simple pit latrine and bush methods of sewage disposal moderately except in
age group 18 – 31 years in bush method. They also practise pour-flush method in age
group 18 – 31 years moderately (Table 10).
11. Water management practices of rural women are not dependent on level of education.
12. Water management practices of rural women are not dependent on age.
13. Basic sanitation practices of rural women did not significantly differ according to level of
education (Table 13)
84
14. Basic sanitation practices of rural women did not significantly differ according to age.
(Table 14)
Conclusions
Base on the findings and discussions of the study the following conclusions were drawn.
1. Hand dug well, borehole and rain water were the sources of water moderately used by the
rural women.
2. Open buckets, jerry cans and basins are containers that were moderately used by the rural
women to fetch water
3. Rubber pots and jerry cans were identified as containers moderately used by rural women
to store water
4. Filtration and chlorine were identified as methods of treating water before drinking
5. Landfill or controlled tipping and crude or uncontrolled dumping were identified as solid
waste disposal methods.
6. Toilet with sewer connection, pour flush latrine and simple pit latrine were the methods
of sewage disposal identified by rural women.
7. Women in all levels of education adopted all the listed sources of water and water storage
practices occasionally while they use the listed water collection containers and water
treatment methods moderately.
8. Women in all the age group adopted all the listed sources of water and water storage
practices occasionally while they used water collection containers and water treatment
methods moderately except women in age group 41 years and above.
9. Women in all the levels of education practiced burning and composting methods of solid
waste disposal occasionally while they practised landfill or controlled tipping and crude
or uncontrolled dumping moderately. They also, practised ventilated improved pit latrine
and compositing pit latrine occasionally while all the women practised the following
sewage disposal methods moderately: toilet with sewer connection except secondary
education, simple pit latrine except non formal education, bush method except tertiary
education.
10. Women in all the age group practise burning and composting methods of solid waste
disposal occasionally while they practiced landfill or controlled tipping and crude or
85
uncontrolled dumping moderately. They also practiced the use of ventilated improved pit
latrine and composting pit latrine occasionally while they practice the use of toilet with
sewer connection, simple pit latrine and bush methods of sewage disposal moderately
except in age group 18 – 31 years who practiced bush method. Age group 18 – 31 years
pracitsed pour flush method moderately.
11. Water management practices of rural women are not dependent on level of education.
12. Water management practices of rural women are not dependent on age.
13. Basic sanitation practices of rural women did not significantly differ according to level of
education.
14. Basic sanitation practices of rural women did not significantly differ according to age.
Recommendations
Based on the findings, discussion and conclusions of the study, the following
recommendations were made.
1. The rural women should be health educated on improved sources of water. Again covered
containers should be used to fetch, collect and transport water when it is from distant sources.
2. Water for community consumption and other essential utilization has to be safe and free from
pathogenic influence. It should be well treated so as to prevent individuals, families and even
animals from infection. This can be done through tracing the source of water supply and
providing adequate purification measures.
3. Health education on appropriate storage of water so as it does not get recontaminated.
4. Solid waste and sewage waste should be disposed of in the safest reliable method to avoid
environmental pollution.
Suggestion for further studies
1. A similar study should be conducted to compare urban and rural residents in Katsina-Ala local
government
2. A similar study should be conducted in another local government within the state to compare
with Katisna-Ala local government.
86
References
Abert, S (2009). Status of rural women office. Ministry of Advance Education Employment and Labour Retrieved online 13/4/2012
Afolabi, G.F. (2005). Household refuse disposal methods and its health implications on families. Unpublished B.Ed thesis. Department of Vocational Teacher Education, University of Nigeria. Nsukka.
Agbaje, A.S (2006). Constraints to provision and utilization of basic water supply and sanitation facilities in Nsukka urban. A project Report presented to the Department of HPE in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the masters degree.
Akpan, A.E. & Usoro (2005) Problems associated with improper management of household waste. Journal of home economic research 6(2) 2000-2005.
Auta T.T (2006) Introduction to primary health care for basic student nurses and midwives and
health workers in developing countries. Minna. Ola Jacobs Publication.
Bandura, A., & Palo Alto, C.A (2001) social cognitive theory: An Agentic perspective, In Annual Review of Psychology.
Baranowski, T. Perry, C. & Parcel, G (2002). How individuals, environments, and Health behaviour interact. Social cognitive theory: In Ghanz IL, Riner, B. Lewis F, eds. Health Behaviour and Health Education Theory, Research and Practice (3rd ed) San Francisco, C.A Jossey – Bass.
Basavanthappa, B.T (2008) community health nursing (2nd edition) New Delhi Jitendar publishers.
Bathia, R & Fakenmark, M. (2006) Water resources polices and the urban poor: Innovative approaches and policy imperatives. Water and sanitation currents. United Nations Development programme World Bank water and sanitation programme.
Batram, J. (2003). “New water forum will repeat old message.” Bulletin of the world Health organization 8(3) 158-160.
Boss, R. (2007). Water, sanitation, hygiene and health. WHO media centre. Geneva.
Brin, G (2003). Ghana: The Bradt Travel Guide, (3rd edition), Guilford, Connecticut; Bradt Travels Guides, Ltd.
Burrows, G (2004) Water and sanitation. The education drain. Education media report. Available at http://www.wateraid.org
Butterwoth, I. & Soussan, J (2001) Water supply and sanitation and integrated water resources management: why seek better integration Virginia: WASH. 34-37.
87
Cairncross, S. Reachem, R.G (2006). Environment Health Engineering in the tropics. London. John Wiley publishers.
Checkley, W & Rober, H (2004) Effect of water and sanitation on childhood health in poor pervian. The LANCET. Vol 363 Janurary 10, 2004. www.thelancet.com
Clasen, T.E & Claincoss, H (2004). Household water management; refining the dominant paradign. Trop. Med. In Health.
Clasen, T.F & Cairncross, S. (2004) Household water management refining the dominant
parading. Trop med int. Health. Vol. 9 No 2 p 187-191.
Coleman, G.A (1982). Management Theory and Practice. Winchester: D.P Publications.
Conant (2005). Sanitation and cleanliness for a healthy environment. Hesperian foundation, Berkeley. USA web http://wwwhesperian.org/pdffilies/EHBsanitationENlowres.pdf Retrieved 8/6/2012.
Crump, J.A (2005). Household based treatment of drinking water with Floculant Disinfection for
preventing diarrhoea in areas with turbid source water in rural Western Kenya: cluster
randomized controlled, trial BMJ online first, BMJ publishing Group Ltd.
Daniele, S., Lantagne, P.E & Galo, W. (2008) safe water for the community: A Guide for Establishing a community-Based safe water system programme.
Dawodu, O.S. (2009). Economic meltdown and child mortality in Lagos, Nigeria. A text of the 2009 African conference on environment, science and technology in Africa” at the University of Texas at Austin USA. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance 2(22) Quarter 1 2011. Retrieved 8/6/2012.
Denslow etal (2010) improvement to water purification and sanitation infrastructure may reduce the diarrhea burden in marginalized and flood prone population in remote Nicaragua B.MC International Health and Human Rights Retrieve online on 15/3/2011. http/www.bionecentral.com 1472-698x/1030.
Department of Human Settlements (2010). Annexure: For outcome and delivery/agreement. Sustainable human settlements and improved quality of household life. http://www.info.gov.za/view/downloadfieldaction:d135746. Retrieved 8/6/2012.
DFID (1998) “Measuring the health impact of water and sanitation”. Technical brief. No.10.
Dhaar, G.M. and Robbani, I (2008) Foundations of community medicine (2ed) India. Elsevier publication.
Dibels, A. (2007). Placing a student in intervention. London BMT publishing Group.
Dwem, S.S. Omeje, N.J.P Ozokwelu, N.M (2007). Attitude to and practices of basic sanitation among staff or University of Nigeria, Nsukka Unpublished Thesis.
88
Ekiye, E & Luo, Z (2010). Water quality monitoring Journal of American science
El-Hoz, M (2008). Factors influencing household water supply and waste management behaviour. Department of civil Engineering. The university of Balamand Po 1-00, North Lebanon.
El-Zanay, F & Way, A.A (2003). Egyptian interim demographic and health survey. Cairo. Ministry of health and population. Egypt, National population council.
Enwell (2005).. Water and sanitation project. The finished Red Cross.
Faust, S.D. and Aly, O.M. (1998). Chemistry of water treatment (2ed).
Feaching, R MC Garry, M & Maria D 92003). Water waste and health in hot climates. Chichester. John Valley.
Federal Republic of Nigeria (2005). National Rural water supply and sanitation programme: A strategic framework. Draft final prepared by department of water supply and quality control federal ministry of water resources.
Fewtrell, I & Colford, J.M. (2004). Water sanitation and hygiene: interventions and diarrhea: a systematic review of meta-analysis. Health, Nutrition and population Discussion paper. Washington. DC. World Bank.
Fewtrell, L. etal (2005). Water, sanitation and Hygiene, interventions: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. Lencet.
Finnegan, E.G & Vadakekalam, T (1975). New Webster’s Dictionary. New York consolidated Book publishers.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C.P. Nachmias, D (2006). Research methods in the social sciences. London: Hodder Armold.
Goni, I.B (2003). The challenges of meeting domestic water supply in Nigeria. /Min Ego/42(1) 51-55.
Grey, D (2002). Water resources and poverty in Africa: Breaking the vicious cycle. Paper presented at the African ministerial committee meeting on water, Abuja.
Hornby, A.S. (2010). Oxford Advanced learners dictionary (8ed) UK Oxford university press.
Hutom, G and Haler, I. (2004). Evaluation of the costs and benefits of water and sanitation improvements of the global level. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland,http://www.who.int/ watersanitationhealthwsh0404/eh
Ifegbesan, A. (2009). The level of awareness and practices of secondary school students with regard to waste management. International Journal of environmental and science
education. 5(4) 201-215. Available on line http://www.ijese.com Retrieved on 17/6/2012.
89
Janz, N. Chapion, V & Strecher V (2002). The health believe model. In K Glanz BR, FM Lewis (ed.) Health Behaviour and Health Education; Theory Research and practice Sam. Francisco, C.A Jossey-Bass.
Jensen, P.K & Ensink, H (2002). Domestic transmission voutes of pathogens. The problem of in-house contamination of drinking water during storage in developing countries. Too Med in Health.
Jorgensen, R. (1982). Water supply problem in rural Africa: The implication for women. Denmark, centre for Development Resources, WHO.
Kankanala, V. (2001). Qualitative analysis of athletic skills. Ibadan: Wisdom publishers Limited.
Katsha, S. & White, A.U (2000). Women, water and sanitation: Household behavioural patterns. Water international.
Lagbo, N.N (2001). The study on utilization of safe water and sanitation facilities among household in Nakhon Pathom, Thailand water and environmental sanitation plan position
paper series, 2, 13-14.
Mathu, J.S (2007). Preventive and social medicine. A comprehensive text book. New Delhi, Satish Jumar Publishers.
Miguel, E & Krener, M. (2003). “Worms: identifying impacts on Education and Health in the presence of Treatment Externalities” Department of Economics, Harvard University, draft.
Mosleh, U.S. & Sudhir, K.G. (2005). Environment sanitation promotion: A social, institutional legal challenge for the rural poor. Mosleh @ bdonline com Retrieved online 24/3/2012.
Nath, K.J, Sally B, & Martin J. (2006). Household water storage Handling and point of use treatment. International scientific Forum and Home Hygiene http//ww.itfh-homehygiene.org.
Nokes, C & Bundy, D.A.P (1993). Compliance and absenteeism in school children implications for helminthes control. Transactions of the Royal society of Tropical medicine and
Hygiene . 87:148-152.
Nwachukwu, M.A. (2008). Environmental sanitation enforcement and compliance, best management strategies for Nigeria proceedings http://www.sciencepub.net/rural
Nwana, O.C (1990). Introduction to educational research. Ibadan: Thomas Nelson.
Nwana, O.C. (1986). Introduction to educational research. Nigeria statesman: June 28 pg 3.
90
Obute, J.A (2010). Service Delivery constraints and prospects of potable water supply and sanitation in Benue state: A case study of water Aid Nigeria. A project Report presented to the Department of Health and physical Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka in fulfillment for the Award of masters Degree (M.Ed) in public Health Education.
Ogbuji, C.N (2003). Health implications for water management practices among women in a typical Nigerian rural community. Journal of Health Education and Sport Science
(JOHESS). Department of physical and health Education, University of Maiduguri, Nigeria.
Ogbuji, C.N (2003). Indigenous water sourcing Technology in Ovoko rural community of Enugu state: Implications for Health Education. Nigerian Journal of Health Education Vol. 1, No 1.
Okeke, O.C. and Ozoh (2009). Towards achieving sustainable water resources management in Nigeria. Global J Geo Sci 7(1) 85-92.
Okoga, T (2007). Water quality and business aspects of Sachef vended water in Tanale, Ghana, Massachusets Institute of Technology.
Olusegun, K.A (2010). Threats to Nigerian Environment. A call for Positive Action. A paper presented at the 7th Chief S.L Education memorial lecture held at Ondo State town hall.
Onah, J.O. and Thomas, M.J. (1993). Marketing management. Obosi: Pacific publishers.
Onugba, A. Yaya, O.O (2008). Sustainable ground water development in Nigeria. in Adelena SWA, McDonald AM (ed) Applied ground water studies in Africa JAH selected papers in Hydrogeology, CRC Press Bakema, Leden Netherlands. Retrieved Online 13/4/2012.
Park, K. (2009). Preventive and social medicine 20th (ed). India M/S Banarsides Bhanot publishers.
Parker, A (2004). Safe water systems and Hand washing. DRAFT.
Path Safe water project (2008). Partnerships for commercialization of household water treatment and storage product. Retrieved 16/2/2011 from http://www.path.org/files/TS. Safe.water.briefpdf.
Peletz, R.L (2006). Study on water and sanitation practices in the Northern region of Ghana. Online Retrived on 6/10/2011.
Poku, N.A. (2006). Ghana: gender integration in a Rural water project in the samari-Nkwanta community. In: office of the special Adviser on Gender issues and Advancement of women. Gender, water and sanitation: case studies on best practices. New York, United Nations.
91
Sander, J.M. (2007). Access to safe drinking water, improving sanitation needs greater efforts. http//:www.who.int/mediacentre/news/…/en/index.htm/
Satcher, D. (2008). Youth violence: A report of the surgeon General Accessed from www.surgeon-general.gov/library/youthviolence/ on 10th July, 2008.
Stefanie, E. & Marria, I (2005). Improved water supply in the Ghanaian Volta Basin: A paper presented at the panel on water policy and Agricultural production at the global and River Basin levels, of the international Association Agricultural Economists in Durban, South Africa.
Stoveland & Bassey (2000). Source of water supply in urban and small towns. Children’s and women’s right in Nigeria: a wake-up call. Nigeria. National Planning commission Publishers.
Sule T.O & Akomolafe A.V (2011). Bacteriological quality of water stored Exteriorly in storage Tanks. Research Journal of Environmental sciences 2011 Academic journals Inc.
Sunder, L et al (2010). Text book of community medicine preventive and social medicine (2ed) New Delhi. Satish Kumar Publishers.
Sunder, L. Adarsh & Pankas (2010). A Textbook of community medicine preventive and social medicine (2nd edition) India. CBS publishers.
Telmo, A.C. (2002). A water supply and sanitation study of the village of Gouansolo in Mali. West Africa. A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of masters of science in environmental engineering. Michigan Technological University retrieved online 18/6/2012
Trivelt, A.F. Carter, R.C and Tyrrel, S.F. (2004). A study of household drinking water quality in rural Honduras online. Retrived on 6/10/2011.
UNICEF – Nigeria (1999). An independent Evaluation Report on Rusafiya project retrieved online 24/3/2012.
UNICEF (1999). Knowledge, attitude and practice studies retrieved online 24/3/2012.
UNICEF (1999). Towards better programming. A water hand book. Water Environment and sanitation. Technical guideline series No 2 United Nations children Fund New York Available at http://www.unicef.org/wes.
UNICEF (2011). Water, sanitation and hygiene efforts: Milenium development goals. Drinking water target met. Global hand washing day 15 October. http://www.unicef.org/wash/index 4307.
92
Victor, M.E & Ernest, W.S (2007). Municipal and Rural sanitation (7th ed) New York. McGraw Hill publishers.
Wallace, R.B (2007). Public health and preventive medicine (15th edition) London. United state of America.
Warner (2005). Cultural influences that affect the acceptance of compost toilets: psychology, religion and gender center for soil and environmental research, As, Norway. http://www.gtz.defecosan/down/oad/warner_culturalinfluence_acceptance.pdf cited 8/6/2012
Water Aid (2001). Looking back: The long term impacts of water and sanitation projects. A condensed vision of the water aid research water aid. Org.
WHO & UNICEF (2011). Progress on drinking water and sanitation. Special focus on sanitation Retrieve online http:www.whomitoplc/sanitation/en on 2/9/2011.
WHO (1997). Strengthening interventions to reduce helminthes infections: An entry point for the development of health promoting schools. Geneva. http//ww.un.org/esa/ susdev/ documents/WSSDPD/English/POITOC.htm.
WHO (2000). Global water supply and sanitation 2000 report. London. Earthseam publication ltd.
WHO (2001). Leakage management and control. A Best Training manual. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
WHO (2004). Wellness through water: An introduction to household water treatment and safe storage. Website:http://www.who.int/householdwater/en/
WHO (2005). Water for life: making it happen. WHO/UNIEF joint monitoring programme for water supply and sanitation, Geneva, http//www.who.int/ water sanitation health/monitoring/imp2005/en/index.html
WHO/UNICEF (2008). Progress on drinking water and sanitation. Special focus on sanitation. UNICEF, New York, USA and WHO, Geneva, Switzerland, Available of www.vssinto.org/en/40MGD2008.htm/
World Bank (2004). Rural water supply and sanitation in Africa case study World Bank Washington. DC.
Yakubu, S. (2002). Nigeria: Growing water crisis. Daily Trust, pp 16-17.
93
Appendix I
Department of Health and physical education,
University of Nigeria,
Nsukka.
Dear Respondents,
I am a post graduate student of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka currently conducting a
study on water management and basic sanitation practices among rural women in Katsina-Ala
Local Government Area of Benue State, Nigeria.
You are kindly requested to give your honest responses on the questions below. The
information you will give will be of help for the purpose of this research work. No name is
required in the questionnaire. Your maximum cooperation will be highly appreciated.
Thanks for your valuable time and assistance.
Yours
Kimbi Nguamo D.
(Researcher)
94
Section A: Bio-data
Indicate by a tick ( �) in the boxes provided below against the options as they best apply to you.
1. How old are you?
a. 18-30 years b. 31 – 40 years c. 41 and above
2. What is your level of education?
a. Non-formal education b. Primary c. Secondary d. Tertiary
3. Occupation
a. Business woman b. Civil servant c. Farming d. House wife
Please, read the following statements in each of the sections B-E and indicate the degree of use
in the space provided as it best applies to you by placing a tick ( �) against it.
Most frequently used (MFU-- daily),
Moderately used (MU-- three times a week),
Occasionally used (OU—two times a week),
Least used (LU--- once a week).
Section B sources of water How often do you use the under listed sources of water?
MFU MU OU LU
4 Pipe borne water
5 Bore hole
6 Hand dug well
7 River
8 Stream
9 Lake
10 Pond
11 Rain water
Section C water collection and storage
Which container do you use to collect water?
MFU MU OU LU
12 Open bucket
13 Bucket with lid
14 Jerry can
95
15 Clay pot
16 Rubber pot
17 Basin
Which container do you use to store water?
MFU MU OU LU
18 Rubber pot
19 Basin
20 Tank
21 Drum
22 Reservoir
Section D. Water treatment methods
Which of the following do you use to treat water before drinking?
MFU MU OU LU
23 Chlorine (water guard)
24 Alum
25 Sedimentation (keep water to
settle down
26 Boiling
27 Filtration
Section E: sanitation practices
Which of the following do you use as your solid waste disposal method?
MFU MU OU LU
28 Landfill or controlled tipping
29 Burning or incineration
30 Composting
31 Crude or uncontrolled dumping -
Open dumping
96
Which of the following do you use as your sewage waste disposal method?
MFU MU OU LU
32 Toilet with sewer connection
33 Pour-flush latrine
34 Ventilated improved pit latrine
35 Simple pit latrine
36 Compositing pit latrine
37 Bush
![Petroleum Potentials of the Nigerian Benue Trough and ... · the Central Benue Trough[30] perhaps caused by a com- pressional event In the Central Benue Trough, [31,32]. the regressive](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5f08f7a67e708231d42497ec/petroleum-potentials-of-the-nigerian-benue-trough-and-the-central-benue-trough30.jpg)
