Submit manuscript...
MOJ
eISSN: 2379-6383

Public Health

Research Article Volume 7 Issue 6

The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria

Raimi Morufu Olalekan, Odubo Tonye Vivien, Omidiji Adedoyin O, Ochayi Ekoja Owobi

Department of Community Medicine, Niger Delta University, Nigeria

Correspondence: Raimi Morufu Olalekan, Department ofCommunity Medicine, Environmental Health Unit, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, Niger Delta University, College of Health Sciences, Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa State, Nigeria, Tel +2347038053786

Received: January 01, 1970 | Published: November 30, 2018

Citation: Olalekan RM, Vivien OT, Adedoyin OO, et al. The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria. MOJ Public Health. 2018;7(6):30410.15406/mojph.2018.07.00265

Download PDF

Abstract

Background: It has been estimated that 100million Nigerians still lack basic sanitation facilities and 63 million also do not have access to portable drinking water and as many as 80% of all diseases worldwide are related to unsafe water as well as poor environmental hygiene. Most infectious, diseases are caused by living organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, or parasitic worms, and a disease is transmitted by the passing of these organisms from one person's body to another or through intermediate hosts. The World Bank reports that 30% of the total disease burden in developing countries results from contamination at the household level and that 75% of life years lost within this 30% are due to lack of good water supply and sanitation and the prevalence of risky hygiene behaviour. This study aimed to assess the sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State.

Materials and method: The study designs adopted for this research work were quantitative analysis and descriptive research method. The study population covered all housing units in the randomly selected communities in the central senatorial district of Bayelsa state. The 400 sample size for housing units was determined using the Taro Yamane formula, and systematic sampling method was used with a sampling interval of three. A 26-item administered closed-ended structured questionnaire was used. Data was collected from 296 out of 400 questionnaires and analysed using descriptive statistics with frequency counts and simple percentages using SPSS.

Results: The result identified multiple sources of water supply which includes rain, river/stream, pipe borne, borehole and hand-dug well with borehole being the major source (91%). The major toilet facility used was the flush toilet (45%) and majority of residents clean their toilet once weekly (60%), however, about half of the residents (51%) practice unsafe excreta disposal. Hygiene practices such as bathing occurred among all resident at least once daily and hand washing was frequent after toilet visit (73%) but not before eating (35%).

Conclusion: Water supply was seen to be relatively adequate, but its quality was poor, necessitating treatment. Unsafe excreta disposal is still widely practiced. Critical hand washing practice was still poor amongst residents. The State and Local Government including Oil companies in oil producing communities in Central Senatorial District should provide adequate portable water and sanitation facilities in public places with hygiene enlightenment campaign.

Keywords: environmental sanitation, water supply, excreta, health, houses, hygiene, critical

Introduction

Although the world has progressed in the area of water and sanitation, more than 2.6billion people still live without access to sanitation facilities and some are unable to practice basic hygiene WHO1 & Raimi et al.,2 It is known that water covers 71% of the Earth’s surface and is vital for all known forms of life and about 96.5% of the planet’s water is found in oceans, 1.7% in ground water, 1.7% in glaciers and the ice caps of Antarctica and Greenland, a small fraction in other large water bodies and 0.001% in the air as vapour, clouds and precipitation. The role of water in carrying out standard sanitary and hygiene practices cannot be over emphasized; hence a good knowledge of its source(s) will be of great benefit improving sanitation and hygiene practices. Hence, many people in developing countries, including Nigeria, are without safe water supply, adequate sanitation and lack good hygiene practices; which according to Tebutt3 & Raimi et al.,4 can result in water related diseases in these areas with far reaching consequences. This is further aggravated by trace concentrations of impurities found in drinking water and may lead to long term health hazards which has raised concern, with particular attention to potentially carcinogenic compounds.4‒6 According to United Nations Children’s Fund,7 as at 2004, 54% of the Nigerian population lack access to adequate drinking water sources, of which, 69% are from the rural population and 33% are from the urban areas. This will translate to about 73million people not having access to portable drinking water source out of the approximately 189million people living in Nigeria. Also, only 44% of the population had access to improved sanitation facilities, which on the other hand, is 36% in the rural areas. However, access to water supply increased to 67% while that of sanitation facilities remained at about 41% as at 2013. About 63 million Nigerians do not have access to portable drinking-water while about 100 million lack basic sanitation facilities which has resulted in open defecation being practiced by about a third of rural dwellers and about 12% of the urban settlers.8

Current outbreaks of cholera and other water related diseases in some parts of Nigeria has again brought to the forefront the need for appropriate methods to tackle and prevent the spread of such diseases. Even though efforts are being made by government agencies, local organizations and NGOs, the safe water supply and basic sanitation in many schools in Ibadan and other major cities in Nigeria remains poor.9 Large numbers of both urban and rural schools and health centres and houses lack access to adequate sanitary facilities like latrines and hand washing facilities. It is believed that if the local communities are aware of the dangers and threat posed by waterborne and sanitation related diseases, they will be more equipped both technically and morally to mitigate the spread of such diseases. This will also enhance a common front to fight against the outbreaks of such disease as cholera, dysentery and diarrhoea as knowledge gained from this project can be shared by households, communities and local levels Raimi et al.4 Being an oil producing area, there is the possibility of oil pollution of the water ways which in itself is a major contributor to health-related issues because of hydrocarbons entering the drinking water sources.10

Some of the recent water quality studies include: health risk assessment on heavy metal ingestion through groundwater drinking pathway for residents in an Oil and Gas producing area of Rivers State, Nigeria by Raimi et al.,5 a survey of hand washing behavior and awareness among health care workers in health care facilities in Kubwa District of Bwari Area Council, F.C.T Abuja, Nigeria by Raimi et al.5 Corporate civil liability and compensation regime for environmental pollution in the Niger Delta by Premoboere & Raimi.,6 an assessment of trace elements in surface and ground water quality in the Ebocha-Obrikom oil and gas producing area of Rivers State, Nigeria by Raimi & Sabinus,2 Morufu & Clinton,10 water-related problems and health conditions in the oil producing communities in central senatorial district of Bayelsa State by Raimi et al.4 In most parts of the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, the major challenge of survival is the provision of good quality (potable) water because of environmental pollution and degradation.11 In most cities, towns and villages in this region, valuable man-hours are spent on seeking and fetching water of doubtful quality to meet specialized needs.12,13 So therefore, the objective of this study is to identify the different sources of water supply in oil producing communities in Central Senatorial District; determine the types of sanitation facilities in oil producing communities in Central Senatorial District and assess the effectiveness of personal hygiene practices in oil producing communities in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State, Nigeria.

Material and methods

Description of the study area

The study was conducted in the oil producing communities in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State. It is one of the three senatorial districts, after East and West Senatorial Districts. Of the eight local government areas that make up Bayelsa State, Central Senatorial District has three (Yenegoa, Southern Ijaw and Kolokuma- Opokuma). East Senatorial District has two L.G.As (Sagbama and Ekeremor), while the West Senatorial District has three L.G.As (Ogbia, Nembe and Brass). The Central Senatorial district, which is the area of the present study lies between latitudes 4o 321’ and 5o 331’ North of equator and longitudes 7o251’ and 8o251’ East of the Greenwich Meridian. The Central Senatorial district has a total landmass of 27,241 square kilometers. It is bounded by Rivers State on the North; East Senatorial district on the East, West Senatorial district on the West, and the Atlantic Ocean on the south. It has a population of 750,049 people based on the 2006 National Population Census Report.14,15 Oil drilling operations are extensively carried out in Southern Ijaw Local Government area by Shell, Sephron and Agip Companies. The communities affected by oil operations in Southern Ijaw include Oporoma, Agiama, Agiama-gbene, Onyoma, Peremabiri, Olugbobiri, Olugbo-uboro, Ogboinbiri, Oki-ama, Koliama 1 and 11, Kemebiama, Azuzuama, Ondowari, Koro-korosei, Ikebiri, Tebidaba and Igbematoru. In Yenegoa Local Government Area, the communities where oil operations are carried out are Bisani, Okordia, Zarama, Ogboloma, Okolobiri, Agudama –Ekpetiama, Tombia, Akaibiri and Polo-aku. In Kolokuma-Opokuma local Government area, the communities affected by oil operations are Opokuma, Sabagreia, Sampou and Kaiama. Within the Central Senatorial District, there are hospitals (Federal Medical Centre, Yenegoa; General hospital, Oporoma in Southern Ijaw L.G.A.); Primary Health Care Centre in Oporoma Local Government Area; and Health Centre in Opokuma. These offer health care services to patients of water related health problems(Figure 1).

Figure 1 Map of Bayelsa state showing the study area.

Research design

The study designs adopted for this research work were quantitative analysis and descriptive research method. Aggregate data were analyzed for the purpose of this research. The data were used to determine the sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practice in oil producing communities in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State. Structured questionnaires were used for collection of primary data.

Target population

The population of the study 750,049 residents of Central Senatorial District comprising of 398,396 males and 351,653 females16 and the population was projected to 2018 using annual exponential growth rate of 2.9% as population growth rate as at the 2006 National Census (Federal Republic of Nigeria Gazzete, 2007). This gave a projected population of 105, 6998 people. The breakdown is shown in Table 1 below. The study population covered all the randomly selected housing units as represented by an adult member in that unit, regardless of the level of education, and has live for at least two years in oil producing communities in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State and are using the facilities within the Central Senatorial District.

Local government at central senatorial district of bayelsa state

2018 projected population

Southern Ijaw

450129

Yenagoa

497,946

Kolokuma/Opokuma

108,923

Total

105,6998

Table 1 Components of the study population
Source Author’s compilation (2018)

Sample size determination

A sample size of 400 was estimated using Taro Yamane formula as presented below:

n= N 1+N ( e ) 2 MathType@MTEF@5@5@+= feaagKart1ev2aaatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq=Jc9 vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0=yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr=x fr=xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaqcLbsacaWGUb Gaeyypa0tcfa4aaSaaaeaajugibiaad6eaaKqbagaajugibiaaigda cqGHRaWkcaWGobqcfa4aaeWaaeaajugibiaadwgaaKqbakaawIcaca GLPaaalmaaCaaajuaGbeqaaKqzadGaaGOmaaaaaaaaaa@44CE@

Where, N = population size = 1056998, e = level of significance = 0.05.

n= 1056998 1+1056998 ( 0.05 ) 2 MathType@MTEF@5@5@+= feaagKart1ev2aqatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq=Jc9 vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0=yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr=x fr=xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaqcLbsaqaaaaa aaaaWdbiaad6gacqGH9aqpjuaGdaWcaaGcpaqaaKqzGeWdbiaaigda caaIWaGaaGynaiaaiAdacaaI5aGaaGyoaiaaiIdaaOWdaeaajugib8 qacaaIXaGaey4kaSIaaGymaiaaicdacaaI1aGaaGOnaiaaiMdacaaI 5aGaaGioaKqbaoaabmaak8aabaqcLbsapeGaaGimaiaac6cacaaIWa GaaGynaaGccaGLOaGaayzkaaqcfa4damaaCaaaleqabaqcLbmapeGa aGOmaaaaaaaaaa@4F44@

n= 1056998 1+1056998( 0.0025 ) MathType@MTEF@5@5@+= feaagKart1ev2aqatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq=Jc9 vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0=yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr=x fr=xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaqcLbsaqaaaaa aaaaWdbiaad6gacqGH9aqpjuaGdaWcaaGcpaqaaKqzGeWdbiaaigda caaIWaGaaGynaiaaiAdacaaI5aGaaGyoaiaaiIdaaOWdaeaajugib8 qacaaIXaGaey4kaSIaaGymaiaaicdacaaI1aGaaGOnaiaaiMdacaaI 5aGaaGioaKqbaoaabmaak8aabaqcLbsapeGaaGimaiaac6cacaaIWa GaaGimaiaaikdacaaI1aaakiaawIcacaGLPaaaaaaaaa@4DF6@

n= 1056998 1+2642.495 MathType@MTEF@5@5@+= feaagKart1ev2aqatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq=Jc9 vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0=yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr=x fr=xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaqcLbsaqaaaaa aaaaWdbiaad6gacqGH9aqpjuaGdaWcaaGcpaqaaKqzGeWdbiaaigda caaIWaGaaGynaiaaiAdacaaI5aGaaGyoaiaaiIdaaOWdaeaajugib8 qacaaIXaGaey4kaSIaaGOmaiaaiAdacaaI0aGaaGOmaiaac6cacaaI 0aGaaGyoaiaaiwdaaaaaaa@476E@

n= 1056998 2643.495 =399.8486852 MathType@MTEF@5@5@+= feaagKart1ev2aqatCvAUfeBSjuyZL2yd9gzLbvyNv2CaerbuLwBLn hiov2DGi1BTfMBaeXatLxBI9gBaerbd9wDYLwzYbItLDharqqtubsr 4rNCHbGeaGqiVu0Je9sqqrpepC0xbbL8F4rqqrFfpeea0xe9Lq=Jc9 vqaqpepm0xbba9pwe9Q8fs0=yqaqpepae9pg0FirpepeKkFr0xfr=x fr=xb9adbaqaaeGaciGaaiaabeqaamaabaabaaGcbaqcLbsaqaaaaa aaaaWdbiaad6gacqGH9aqpjuaGdaWcaaGcpaqaaKqzGeWdbiaaigda caaIWaGaaGynaiaaiAdacaaI5aGaaGyoaiaaiIdaaOWdaeaajugib8 qacaaIYaGaaGOnaiaaisdacaaIZaGaaiOlaiaaisdacaaI5aGaaGyn aaaacqGH9aqpcaaIZaGaaGyoaiaaiMdacaGGUaGaaGioaiaaisdaca aI4aGaaGOnaiaaiIdacaaI1aGaaGOmaaaa@4F0C@

Hence, the sample size was approximated to 400.

Sampling methods

To enhance the reliability of the research work and achieve the desired goal, simple random sampling techniques were used in selecting the communities. The systematic sampling method was used in selecting the housing units while respondents were randomly selected. The sample size was distributed evenly among the proposed oil producing rural communities. Eight (8) major areas were visited in oil producing communities in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State (Table 2).

Oil producing rural community

Sample size

Southern Ijaw

 

Angiama

50

Peremabiri

50

Azuzuama

50

Igbematoru

50

Yenagoa

 

Okolobiri

50

Polaku

50

Kolokuma-Opokuma

 

Sampou

50

Kaiama

50

Total

400

Table 2 Sample distribution of oil producing rural communities
Source Researcher’s computation (2018)

Study procedure/data collection process

The data for this study was gathered from the questionnaire. Out of the 400 questionnaires distributed, 104 were not useful due to improper filling, difficulty in retrieving some of the questionnaires due to the recent flooding being experience in Bayelsa State and damage from rain water. Thus, 296 questionnaires were finally used for the analysis in this study.

Data analysis

Data obtained from the research instrument (questionnaire) was analysed using descriptive analysis and inferential statistics. Data was analysed descriptively using frequency and percentage with statistical package for social science (SPSS) version 21. This was used to analyse the demographic variables and the research questions while result was presented in tables.

Results and discussion

Response Rate/ Completeness of Data

The response rate was 100%, however, out of the 400 questionnaires administered and retrieved, 104 were not useful due to incomplete filling, difficulty in retrieving some of the questionnaires due to the recent flooding being experience in Bayelsa State and damage from rain water, therefore only 296 were used, leading to incomplete data (74% complete). The 296 questionnaires were finally used to analyse the demographic variable (information) and research questions.

Socio-demographic characteristics

The Table 3 above expresses the demographic information of respondents in frequencies and simple percentages. Among the age brackets, 31-40 had the largest proportion (49%), followed by 41 & above (27%) and 18-30(21%) while 10 respondents did not fill their age which constitute 3%. The sample of respondents with the highest percentage (49%) are within the age brackets of 31-40 and the age bracket of 18-30 is 21%, however it can be seen that majority (70%) of the respondents are young people. The marital status was grouped into single, married, separated, divorced, widow/widower and cohabiting. 38% of the respondents are single, 34% are married, 12% are separated, 9% are cohabiting, 4% are divorced and 3% widow/widower as at the time of the study. However, the study discovered that over two-thirds of the participants are either single or married.

Demographic information

 Frequency=296

Percentage (%)

Age

18-30years

61

21

31-40years

145

49

41years & above

80

27

No response

10

3

Total

296

100

Gender

Male

119

40

Female

177

60

Total

296

100

Marital status

Single

112

38

Married

101

34

Separated

34

12

Divorced

13

4

Widow/Widower

10

3

Cohabiting

26

9

Total

296

100

Level of education attained

Primary

16

5

Secondary

166

56

Tertiary

106

36

None

8

3

Total

296

100

Table 3 Socio-demographic information of respondents showing age, gender, marital status and level of education attained

In the gender distributions, 60% of the respondents in the sample are females while 40% are males, showing female predominance in the population. This can be explained by the fact that most chores relating to water, sanitation and hygiene are carried out by females. In the respondents’ level of education, the highest in the sample survey is the secondary school leavers (secondary level) with 56% followed by those who possess higher degree of any form, either B.Sc., B.Ed., M.Sc. etc (tertiary level). In Table 4 regarding the respondents’ occupation, trading (which covers any kind of legal business ranging from photocopying to selling of other items) and civil servants were the highest at 33% and 25% respectively. The high percentage of the two occupations is as a result of the presence of government hospitals and oil companies in the study area. Fishing (23%), is the third highest and was the predominant occupation of the people before the establishment of government hospitals and oil companies in the central senatorial districts.

Demographic information

 Frequency=296

Percentage (%)

Occupation

Fishing

69

23

Farming

33

11

Trading

96

33

Civil Servant

75

25

Others

23

8

Total

296

100

Family size

2-Jan

58

20

4-Mar

101

34

6-May

109

37

7 & Above

28

9

Total

296

100

Ownership of house

Own

228

77

Rented

68

23

Total

296

100

Table 4 Socio-demographic information of respondents showing occupation, family size and ownership of house

In terms of family size, the category of family size 3-4 (34%) and 5-6 (37%) represents the highest group; and together with the group of 7 & above (9%), are mostly native of the community. The relatively high percentage of the family size of 1-2 (20%) is as a result of the student population in the community and those having businesses around. As regards ownership of the house, 77% of the houses are owned by respondents while 23% of respondents are living in rented apartments and they could either be oil workers or non-natives residing in the community because of their business. Table 5 above shows multiple responses on sources of water. Majority of the respondents use water from borehole (91%) mainly because it is of good quality, followed by rain water (61%) which is not bought but only available during the rainy season. Pipe borne water is at 33%, although it is of good quality, it is not readily available since it is poorly managed by the state government. River/stream is only 13% even though it is readily available. This could be because of its poor quality. In Table 6 above, some respondents had multiple answers. Drinking borehole water constitute the highest frequency of 156(53%) followed by rain water at 56(19%). It is clear to say that most of the respondents depend on borehole water for drinking, but almost equal number of respondents utilise borehole (38%) and rain water (35%) for cooking. This can be attributed to the fact that cooking is already a form of treatment for the rain water leading to almost equal use as borehole water for cooking. For bathing, borehole water is by far the most utilised, due to the fact that the other sources, apart from pipe borne water, will need treatment to prevent skin diseases. Except rain water (33%) and borehole water (25%), the other sources of water are almost equally utilised for washing as respondents do not bother much on treatment before use. Table 7 shows multiple responses and almost half (45%) of respondents do not treat their water before use. This can be attributed to the fact that most of these respondents source their water from boreholes that are already treated. However, it can be noted that some others treat their water by filtering (24%), boiling (20%), use of chemical (21%) or a combination of either.

Sources of water

frequency

 Percentage (%)

Rain

182

61

River/stream

37

13

Pipe borne

98

33

Borehole

268

91

Hand dug well

10

3

Table 5 Sources of water in oil producing communities in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State

Use

 Rain

River/Stream

 Pipe-borne

 Borehole

 Hand dug well

Drinking

 56(19%)

 1(0%)

 23(8%)

 156(53%)

 2(1%)

Cooking

 103(35%)

 7(2%)

59(20%)

111(38%)

7(2%)

Bathing

 47(16%)

 23(8%)

 38(13%)

 107(36%)

 2(1%)

Washing

97(33%)

31(10%)

 44(15%)

 73(25%)

 5(2%)

Table 6 Uses of water by respondents in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State

Water treatment methods

 Frequency

 Percentages (%)

None

134

45

Filtering

72

24

Boiling

59

20

Use of Chemical

62

21

Table 7 Water treatment methods used by respondents in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State

In Table 8 there are complains of colour (20%), taste (13%), particles (14%) and odour (4%) amongst respondents, however majority of the respondents (59%) have no complains about their water which is from borehole or pipe borne water.

Perception of water quality

Yes(%)

 No(%)

Coloured

 58(20)

 238(80)

Taste

 38(13)

 258(87)

Particles

 42(14)

 254(86)

Odour

 11( 4)

 285(96)

None

 174(59)

 122(41)

Table 8 Perception of water quality by respondents in central senatorial district of Bayelsa state

In Table 9 above, the highest category of water usage is 61-80L at 28% which is not significantly different from the 27% of 41-60L and 81-100L categories. The other categories are between 1% and 8%. The high usage of water can be attributed to the flush type toilet facility that utilizes more water. In Table 10 compares the average amount of water used per capita per day in this study (64) i.e. between 61-80 to recommended amount by some organisations. Table 11 indicates that most of the respondents use close storage container (81%) as opposed to open container (19%). Table 12 above shows that all respondents wash their storage container.

Amount of water used

 Frequency

 Percentages (%) per capita per day(Liters)

≤ 20

21

7

21-40

23

8

41-60

81

27

61-80

84

28

81-100

80

27

101-120

5

2

> 120

2

1

Total

296

100

Table 9 Amount of water used by respondents per capita per day (Litres) in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State

Amount of water used

Organisation

 per capita per day(Liters)

64

 Index study

20

WHO/UNICEF

20-40

WHO/World Bank

30

 National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation
Strategic Framework

120

 NWSSP

 

Table 10 Amount of recommended water usage against index study

Storage container used

 Frequency

 Percentages (%)

Open

57

19

Close

239

81

Total

296

100

Table 11 Storage container used by respondents in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State

Do you wash your storage container?

Frequency

 Percentages (%)

Yes

296

100

No

0

0

Total

296

100

Table 12 Washing of storage container in central senatorial district of Bayelsa state

It is shown in the table above Table 13 that 52% of the respondents wash their storage container weekly, while 36% do same every two weekly and 12% do it monthly. No respondent was found to be involved in daily washing of their storage container. From Table 14 above, 45% of the respondents in the study area uses flush toilets, while 32% use pier/jetty, 19% defecate in the open and 4% use VIP latrine. In Table 15 above, 60% of the respondents in the study area wash their toilet once weekly, while 36% does so twice in a week. The two extremes of cleaning daily and occasionally had the least at 2% each. In Table 16, 56% of the respondents in the study area dispose their refuse in the river, while 20% burn their refuse. Disposing by bush and pit dump constitutes 19% and 5% respectively. Table 17 above shows participants multiple responses to hand washing. Majority of respondents wash their hands after toilet visit (73%) but only less than half do so after cleaning baby’s buttocks (48%) and before eating (35%). However, only a few do so before feeding children and before cooking as reflected by 28% and 21% respectively. The significant difference between hand washing after toilet visit (73%) and after cleaning baby’s buttocks (48%) is due to the belief that most people do not see a baby’s faces as a contaminant. The Table 18 highlights the use of bathroom by a large portion of the respondents (74%), while open type bathing and bathing in the river are 8% and 18% respectively. The low rate in the last two types can be attributed to influx of oil companies’ workers changing the possibly preferred river bathing popular amongst riverine communities to the bathroom type. In Table 19 majority of respondents take their bath either once daily (46%) or twice daily (48%), on the other hand 6% take their bath thrice daily, while for bathing once every two days, there was no respondent. Closed place of cooking (57%), as seen in Table 20, is only slightly higher than the open type (43%). This goes to show that there are still many housing units of the older model that do not have inbuilt kitchen leading to the marginal difference. The food preservation methods in Table 21 above depict multiple preservation methods, although almost evenly distributed amongst the three; steaming (65%), refrigeration (62%) and smoking/drying (58%).

Frequency of washing

Frequency

 Percentages(%) storage container

Daily

 -

0

Weekly

154

52

Two weekly

106

36

Monthly

36

12

Total

296

100

Table 13 Frequency of washing storage container in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State

Type of toilet

 Frequency

 Percentages (%)

Bush/field(Open defecation)

55

19

Pier/jetty

95

32

VIP latrine

13

4

Flush toilet

133

45

Total

296

100

Table 14 Type of toilet used by respondents in central senatorial district of Bayelsa state

Frequency of cleaning toilet

 Frequency

 Percentages (%)

Daily

7

2

Twice weekly

106

36

Once weekly

177

60

Occasionally

6

2

Total

296

100

Table 15 Frequency of cleaning toilet in central senatorial district of Bayelsa state

Place of refuse disposal

 Frequency

 Percentages (%)

River

167

56

Burning

59

20

Bush

55

19

Pit dump

15

5

Total

296

100

Table 16 Place of refuse disposal in central senatorial district of Bayelsa state

Hand washing

 Frequency

 Percentages (%)

After toilet visit

271

73

After cleaning baby’s buttocks

142

48

Before eating

105

35

Before cooking

63

21

Before feeding children

83

28

Table 17 Hand washing practice by respondents in central senatorial district of Bayelsa state

Place of bathing

 Frequency

 Percentages (%)

Bathroom

219

74

Open type

23

8

River

54

18

Total

296

100

Table 18 Place of bathing in central senatorial district of Bayelsa state

Frequency of bathing

 Frequency

 Percentages (%)

Once every 2 days

 -

0

Once daily

136

46

Twice daily

142

48

Thrice daily

18

6

Total

296

100

Table 19 Frequency of bathing by respondents in central senatorial district of Bayelsa state

Place of cooking

 Frequency

 Percentages (%)

Open(outside)

127

43

Closed(kitchen)

169

57

Total

296

100

Table 20 Place of cooking in central senatorial district of Bayelsa state

Food preservation

Frequency

 Percentages (%)

Refrigeration

184

62

Steaming

192

65

Smoking/drying

172

58

Table 21 Food preservation methods in central senatorial district of Bayelsa state

Discussion

The study showed various sources of water supply in the study area. However, the most frequently used are borehole, rain water and pipe borne water, and are amongst those listed by Raimi et al.,4 that communities depend on; indicating that access to water is not the problem as majority of residents (58%) in the Central Senatorial District use at least 61 litres of water per capita per day. This is lower than the 120 litres recommended by the national water supply and sanitation policy but higher than the 20 litres defined by WHO and UNICEF as reasonable access.17 This result (58%) is less than the UN18 survey in Nigeria showing that access to water supply was 67% as at 2013. There is however problem with the quality of some of the sources of water which is indicated by the presence of colour, particles, odour and taste as perceived by respondents, since water of satisfactory quality should in addition to its chemical and microbiological qualities be colourless, odourless and tasteless.5,10,20 The poor quality of a few of this water sources may be due to the presence of high sodium (due to saline intrusion from the sea), iron and manganese in boreholes drilled in some communities in the Niger delta as proposed by Ordinioha.20 The presence of poor water quality as perceived by a few residents in the Central Senatorial District would have also necessitated the fewer percentage of water treatment amongst them, as compared to the 45% that do not use any form of treatment who, on the other hand, have good water quality (59%). This is similar to the work done by Miner et al.,21 in a community in Plateau state which showed that 54% (55% in this study) of respondents practiced at least one method of purification in their household, the commonest of which was the addition of alum (43.3%), while the commonest treatment option in this study is filtering (24%) and is probably due to fewer percentage of water with particles (14%). However, the treatment options of boiling, filtering and use of chemical are similar to those described by Ordinioha.20 The study showed that all residents wash their water storage container at least weekly (52%) or two-weekly (36%).

From the result of the study, about half of the residents in the Central Senatorial District use flush toilet (45%) and VIP latrine (4%) as a means of safe excreta disposal, while the other half still make use of the unsafe methods like the pier/jetty (32%) and bush/field (19%), and this is higher than both WHO22 survey that says, about 15% of the Nigerian population did not have access to safe excreta disposal facilities; and UN18 which indicated 36% in rural areas. However, this is not expected for a Central Senatorial District hosting a oil companies but can be attributed to many house owners having buildings without toilet facilities. However, the bush/field (19%) excreta disposal type is less than UNICEF7 report which indicates that open defecation is still practiced by about a third of the rural population but almost similar to WHO/UNICEF23 report that 22% of Nigerians are estimated to defecate in the open. The study also showed that most residents who use safe excreta disposal facilities wash their toilets at least twice weekly (36%) or weekly (60%). Refuse disposal method is also very poor in this Central Senatorial District as 56% of residents dispose off their refuse in the river, which happens to be one of the sources of water for 13% of residents and which one out of 296 respondents drink. The others either burn (20%) or dump their refuse in the bush (19%) or pit dump (5%). This poor sanitation habit can counteract the effect of potable water supply as preventable diseases such as cholera, typhoid, diarrhoea, guinea worm and schistosomiasis can result from contaminated water and poor sanitary conditions.24 It can affect recreational activities like swimming, fishing etc.

As regards personal hygiene, bathroom facilities are mostly used by residents (74%), other residents however either bath in the river (18%) or bath in the open (8%). Similarly, most residents of the community wash their hands after toilet visit (73%) and this is similar to the study done on hand washing amongst mothers of under five children in Nigeria by Aigbiremolen AO et al.,25 and India by Datta et al.,26 with figures of 79.6% and 73.18% respectively. However, lesser number of persons does so after cleaning baby’s buttocks (48%) and this is less than the 63.91% in India.26 Furthermore, far less people wash their hands before cooking (21%), before eating (35%) and before feeding children (28%), similar to the 20.92%, 21.44% and 29.98% respectively in the Indian study26 and this indicates poor compliance of hand washing at critical times as stated by Raimi et al.,5 Ordinioha.20 The similarity between the three studies could be attributed to the fact that all study areas were rural. All residents in the community bath at least once daily with just under half of them bathing either once (46%) or twice (48%) daily.27‒50 This study also identified a close margin between those cooking in the kitchen (57%) and those cooking outside (43%). This may be as a result of the type of old buildings present in the Central Senatorial District that lacked inbuilt kitchens in the apartments. Food preservation was mainly by steaming (65%) and refrigeration (62%), although more than half of the residents also smoke or dry(58%) to preserve food.51‒82

Conclusion

The most frequently used water sources are borehole, rain water and pipe borne water. It was observed that water supply was adequate, since it is higher than the 20 litres defined by WHO and UNICEF as reasonable access, but its quality was poor in some instances as perceived by respondents, necessitating treatment. Unsafe excreta disposal is still widely practiced despite the presence of oil companies in the Central Senatorial District. Critical hand washing practice was still poor amongst residents; however, bathing at least once a day is common to all.

Acknowledgments

None.

Conflicts of interest

Author declares that there is no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Water sanitation and hygiene standards for schools in low cost settings. 2009.
  2. Raimi Morufu Olalekan, Sabinus CE. An Assessment of Trace Elements in Surface and Ground Water Quality in the Ebocha-Obrikom Oil and Gas Producing Area of Rivers State, Nigeria. International Journal for Scientific and Engineering Research (IJSER). 2017;7(8).
  3. Tebutt THY. Principle of water quality control. 3rd edn. Pergamon Press; 1983.
  4. Raimi MO, Pigha, Tarilayun K, et al. Water-Related Problems and Health Conditions in the Oil Producing Communities in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research. 2017;3(6):780‒809.
  5. Raimi Morufu Olalekan, Omidiji Adedoyin O, Abdulraheem Aishat Funmilayo, et al. A Survey of Hand Washing Behavior and Awareness among Health Care Workers in Health Care Facilities in Kubwa District of Bwari Area Council, F.C.T. Abuja, Nigeria. Annals of Ecology and Environmental Science. 2018;2(2):1‒18.
  6. Premoboere Edna Ateboh, Raimi Morufu Olalekan. Corporate Civil Liability and Compensation Regime for Environmental Pollution in the Niger Delta. International Journal of Recent Advances in Multidisciplinary Research. 2018;5(6):3870‒3893.
  7. UNICEF. Information sheet: Water, sanitation and hygiene in Nigeria. 2007.
  8. United Nations. Water global analysis and assessment of sanitation and drinking water in Nigeria. 2014.
  9. Water Initiative Nigeria. Water sanitation, health and hygiene education in local communities in Ibadan South- west Nigeria. 2011.
  10. Morufu Raimi, Clinton Ezekwe. Assessment of Trace Elements in Surface and Ground Water Quality. Lambert Academic Publishing; 2017;144.
  11. Efe SI. Spatial Variation in Acid and Some Heavy Metal Composition of Rainwater Harvesting in the Oil Producing Region of Nigeria. Natural Hazard. 2010;55:307‒319.
  12. Ayoade JO. Tropical Hydrology and Water Resources. Ibadan: Agbo Areo Publishers; 2003:206‒209.
  13. Ovrawah L, Hymore FK. Quality of Water from Hand-Dug Wells in the Warri Environs of Niger Delta Region. African Journal of Environmental Studies. 2001;2:16‒17.
  14. National Population Commission. Bayelsa State, Yenagoa LGA; 2006.
  15. National Population Commission. 2006 Housing population Census: Population on distribution by age and sex: State and Local Government Area. Abuja, Nigeria: Priotity able: 2010;4:54‒58.
  16. National Population Census-NCP. Bayelsa State Population Census, National Population Census. Federal Republic of Nigeria; 2006.
  17. Oloruntoba EO, Agbede OA, Sridhar MKC. Seasonal variation in physico-chemical quality of household drinking water in Ibadan, Nigeria. African Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences. 2006;34:154‒165.
  18. World Health Organization. UN-Global analysis and assessment of sanitation and drinking water: Nigeria. Geneva; 2015.
  19. Jeje JO, Oladepo KT. A study of sources of microbial contamination of packaged water. Transnational Journal of Science and Technology. 2012;2(9).
  20. Ordinioha B. Principles and practice of environmental health in Nigeria. Rural Health Forum; 2010.
  21. Miner CA, Dakhin AP, Zoakah AI, et al. Household drinking water; knowledge and practice of purification in a community of Lamingo, Plateau State, Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Research. 2015;6(3):230‒236.
  22. World Health Organization. Guidelines for drinking-water quality, Volume 3: surveillance and control of community watersupplies. 2nd edn. Geneva;1997.
  23. WHO/UNICEF. Joint monitoring programme for water supply and sanitation, 2010 estimates for water and sanitation. 2011.
  24. Federal Republic of Nigeria- Federal Ministry of Water Resources. Draft final national water sanitation policy. Department of Water Supply and Quality Control; 2004.
  25. Aigbiremolen AO, Abejegah C, Ike CG, et al. Knowledge and practice of hand washing among caregivers of under-five children in a rural Nigerian community. Public Health Research. 2015;5(5):159‒165.
  26. Datta SS, Singh Z, Boratne AV, et al. Knowledge and practice of hand washing among mothers of fewer than five children in rural coastal South India. Int J of Med Public Health. 2011;1(1):33‒38.
  27. Ademiluyi IA, Odugbesan JA. Sustainability and impact of community water supply and sanitation programmes in Nigeria: An overview. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2008;3(12):811‒817.
  28. Ajao IO, Obafemi OS, Ewumi TO. Household sanitation and mortality rate in Nigeria: An expository analysis. Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation. 2011;6(3):333‒342.
  29. Anthony MT, Anthony N. Cross-sectional of improved sanitary facilities’ availability in an urban setting of Ghana. Open Access Library Journal. 2015:1‒10.
  30. Bryan GW, Langston WJ. Bioavailability accumulation and effects of heavy metals in sediments with special reference to the United Kingdom estuaries: A review. Environ Pollut. 1992;76(2):89‒131.
  31. Bariweni PA, Tawari CC, Abaowei JFN. Some environmental effects of flooding in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2012;1(1):35‒46.
  32. Cairncross S, Feachem R. Environmental Health Engineering in the Tropics. 2nd edn. Chichester: Wiley and Sons Ltd; 1999.
  33. Clackson O. Local government as an instrument for rural development: A case study of Southern Ijaw Local Government Area of Bayelsa State. University of Nigeria Research Publications;2001.
  34. Creswell J, Clark P. Designing and conducting method research. California: Thousand Oaks, CA Sage; 2007.
  35. David OO, Dominic EA, Tayo OG, et al. The relevance of policy and practice of sanitation effort in developing nations: The experience of semi-urban city in South-West Nigeria. Proceedings of ICER Conference. 2014.
  36. Dubreuil C. The right to water: From concept to implementation. In: Buena Onda, editor. World Water Council; 2006.
  37. Egbinola CN, Amanambu AC. Water supply, sanitation and hygiene education in secondary schools in Ibadan, Nigeria. In: Szymańska D, Środa-Murawska S, editors. Bulletin of Geography Socio-economic Series. Toruń: Nicolaus Copernicus University; 2015;29:31–46.
  38. Emmanuel MA. Water meanings, sanitation practices and hygiene behaviours in the cultural mirror: A perspective from Nigeria. Journal of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development. 2012;2(3):168‒181.
  39. Emuedo OA, Anoliefo GO, Emuedo CO. Oil pollution and water quality in the Niger Delta; implications for the sustainability of the mangrove ecosystem. Global Journal of Human-Social Science: B Geography, Geosciences, Environmental Disaster Management. 2014;14(6B).
  40. Evans B. Securing sanitation: The compelling case to address the crises. Report produced by the Stockholm International Water institute (SIWI) in collaboration with the WHO. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.
  41. Ezeji JI. Water and sanitation in Nigeria: An input to the United Nation’s Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD 12). 2002:1‒12.
  42. Federal Republic of Nigeria. Water supply and sanitation interim strategy note. 2000.
  43. Fasina FF. Household sanitation and child morbidity: It’s impact on child survival. Covenant International Journal of Psychology (CIJP). 2015;1(1):35‒49.
  44. Fatoki OS, Lujizan O, Ogunfowokan AO. Trace metal pollution in Umatariver water SA. 2002;28(2):183–189.
  45. Ibrahim SI, Alaci DSA, Ajibade LT. Assessing domestic water demand and supply adequacy in medium-sized towns of Niger State Nigeria: Challenge for sustainable development. Journal of Water Resource and Hydraulic Engineering. 2014;3(4):81‒89.
  46. Ige SO, Adetunji AA. On some socio-economic factors affecting household sanitation in Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria. Journal of Environment and Earth Science. 2014;4(9):35‒41.
  47. Isikwue MO, Lorver D, Onoja SB. Effect of depth on microbial pollution of shallow wells in Makurdi metropolis, Benue State, Nigeria. British Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2011;1(3):66‒73.
  48. Joseph M. Health implications of water scarcity in Nigeria. European Scientific Journal. 2012;8(18):111‒117.
  49. Karavoltsosa S, Sakellaria A, Mihopoulosb N, et al. Evaluation of the quality of drinking water in regions of Greece. Desalination. 2008;224:317–329.
  50. National Population Commission, Federal Republic of Nigeria. Final report on Nigeria demographic and health survey. Calverton, MD, USA: ORC Macro; 2013.
  51. Nwadinigwe CA, Nwaorgu ON. Metal contaminants in some Nigerian well–Head crudes: Comparative Analysis. J Chem Soc Nigeria. 1992;24:118–12.
  52. Nwankwoala HO. Sustainable groundwater development and management in Nigeria; mission achievable or mission impossible? Water Resource J. 2009;19:63–68.
  53. Olalekan RM, Omidiji AO, Nimisngha D, et al. Health Risk Assessment on Heavy Metals Ingestion through Groundwater Drinking Pathway for Residents in an Oil and Gas Producing Area of Rivers State, Nigeria. Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil. 2018;3(3):191‒206.
  54. Oloruntoba EO, Agbede OA, Sridhar MKC. Seasonal variation in physicochemical quality of household drinking water in Ibadan, Nigeria. ASSET- An International Journal, Series B. 2006;5(1):70‒81.
  55. Oloruntoba EO, Sridhar MKC. Bacteriological quality of drinking water from source to household in Ibadan, Nigeria. Afr J Med Med Sci. 2007;36(2):169–175.
  56. Onyekakeyah, Luke. Water: New realities and challenges. The Guardian Nigeria. 2006:1.
  57. Osita KE, Kingsley EA, Michael JD, et al. The Impact of water and sanitation on childhood mortality in Nigeria: Evidence from demographic and health surveys, 2003–2013. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(9):9256‒9272.
  58. Robert VK, Daryle WM. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement. 1970;30:607–610.
  59. Shalom NC, Obinna CN, Adetayo YO, et al. Assessment of water quality in Canaan Land, Ota, Southwest Nigeria. Agricultural and Biological Journal of North America. 2011;2(4):577‒583.
  60. Shittu OB, Olaitan JO, Amusa TS. Physicochemical and bacteriological analysis of water used for drinking and swimming purpose in Abeokuta, Nigeria. African Journal of Biomedical Research. 2008;11:285‒290.
  61. Taro Y. Statistics, an introductory analysis. 2nd edn. New York: Harper and Row; 1967.
  62. United Nations. Water task force on indicators, monitoring and reporting. Final report monitoring and progress in the water sector: A selected set of indicators. 2010.
  63. United Nations Development Programme. GOAL WASH Programme: Country sector assessments volume 2. Governance, advocacy and leadership for water, sanitation and hygiene. New York: United Nations Development Programme; 2010.
  64. UNICEF/WHO. Joint monitoring programme for water supply and sanitation report. 2010.
  65. UNICEF/WHO. Joint monitoring programme for water supply and sanitation. 2015.
  66. UNICEF. Life skills-based hygiene education. 2004.
  67. UNICEF & IRC. Water, sanitation and hygiene education for schools. Roundtable proceedings and framework for action. 2005.
  68. United States Geographical Survey. 1984.
  69. Valerie C, Bernadette K. Hygienic, happy and healthy: A set of 4 hygiene promotion manuals. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; 1998.
  70. WHO. Excreta disposal for rural areas and small communities. 1958.
  71. washwatch.org/en/blog/why-has-number-children-dying-diarrhoeal-disease-due-poor-wash-s/
  72. Water Aid. Meeting the MDG of water supply and sanitation target in Nigeria. 2007.
  73. Water Aid. 2016.
  74. Water Initiatives Nigeria. Water sanitation, health and hygiene programme in local communities in Ibadan, South West Nigeria. 2011.
  75. Water org. Water: Facts. 2016.
  76. World health report. Make every mother and child count. 2005.
  77. WHO/UNICEF/WSSCC. Global water supply and sanitation assessment 2000 report, Geneva: World Health Organization/United Nations Children’s Fund Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council. 2004.
  78. www.data.worldbank.org/country/nigeria
  79. www.maps-streetview.com/nigeria/amassoma
  80. www.un.org/melliniumgoals/
  81. www.who.int/topics/sanitation
  82. www.tiptopglobe.com/city
Creative Commons Attribution License

©2018 Olalekan, et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.