CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Environmental sanitation refers to the management of waste, water, air, and other
environmental resources in a manner that prevents disease transmission, promotes health,
and protects the environment. It encompasses a variety of practices and technologies
aimed at ensuring clean and healthy surroundings by managing human waste, solid waste,
wastewater, and air quality. Sanitation practices not only affect public health but also
influence the quality of the environment, which, in turn, affects the quality of life for
individuals and communities. Environmental sanitation includes: Ensuring access to
clean, safe drinking water and wastewater treatment, Proper handling, collection, and
disposal of human waste and garbage, the promotion of cleanliness and personal hygiene
to prevent disease spread, reducing pollution and maintaining safe and clean air and
surroundings.

Environmental sanitation is vital for several reasons, primarily concerning public health,
environmental sustainability, and economic development. The benefits of proper
sanitation are far-reaching:

One of the most significant roles of environmental sanitation is the prevention of

diseases, especially those related to water and hygiene. Poor sanitation is a leading cause
of diseases such as diarrhea, cholera, dysentery, and malaria. These diseases are often
caused by contamination of water sources or improper waste disposal, leading to the
spread of pathogens. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), poor
sanitation contributes to nearly 1.8 million deaths annually from preventable waterborne
diseases. Sanitation practices also protect the environment. Proper waste management
helps in reducing pollution of land, water, and air. Improper waste disposal leads to the
contamination of rivers, lakes, and groundwater, which not only affects drinking water
but also harms ecosystems. Moreover, effective sanitation helps in controlling the spread
of pests (e.g., flies, mosquitoes, and rodents), which are carriers of diseases. Improved
environmental sanitation has clear economic benefits. Communities with better sanitation
1
facilities often experience increased productivity due to reduced illness and disease.
According to the World Bank, inadequate sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa alone costs
over $5 billion annually, accounting for 1.3% of the region's GDP. Investment in
sanitation infrastructure can reduce healthcare costs, improve productivity, and promote
economic development by creating safer living conditions. Environmental sanitation also
has significant social benefits. For example, women and children in areas with poor
sanitation often spend large amounts of time collecting water or managing waste.
Improved sanitation facilities free up time for education, employment, and personal
development. Moreover, better sanitation is linked to greater social dignity and gender
equality, particularly for women and girls, as the availability of safe and private toilets
enables greater participation in education and employment. To address growing
sanitation challenges, a variety of international initiatives have been launched:

The United Nations (UN) has made improving sanitation a priority under Sustainable
Development Goal 6, which aims to “ensure availability and sustainable management of
water and sanitation for all by 2030” (UN, 2020). Achieving SDG 6 is seen as critical for
improving public health and environmental sustainability, and global efforts are being
made to close the sanitation gap, particularly in low-income countries.

The World Health Organization (WHO) works globally to promote access to safe
sanitation through its Global Sanitation Strategy. WHO provides guidance on sanitation
best practices, supports countries in developing sanitation infrastructure, and collaborates
with governments and international organizations to reduce sanitation-related health risks
(WHO, 2019).

The World Bank and other development agencies are investing heavily in sanitation
infrastructure in developing countries. They focus on improving access to clean water,
building sanitation infrastructure, and strengthening waste management systems. The
World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) aims to support governments and
communities to scale up sanitation programs (World Bank, 2018)

2
Environmental sanitation is a crucial element for public health, as it is directly linked to
preventing diseases, promoting hygiene, and ensuring environmental sustainability.
Sanitation refers to the safe management of human waste, solid waste, and water
resources in ways that protect health and reduce environmental pollution. Globally, more
than 2.4 billion people do not have access to basic sanitation services, and 1.8 million
people die annually from diseases related to poor sanitation, water, and hygiene (World
Health Organization (WHO, 2021).

In high-income countries, advanced sanitation infrastructure, including sewer systems

and treatment plants, provides a relatively high level of public health protection.
However, even in these countries, environmental sanitation challenges persist, such as
aging infrastructure and industrial waste management (United Nations UN, 2020). On the
other hand, sanitation issues in developing countries remain dire. Sub-Saharan Africa,
South Asia, and parts of Latin America continue to face significant sanitation challenges
due to rapid population growth, inadequate infrastructure, poverty, and political
instability.

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6) aims to ensure universal
access to clean water and sanitation by 2030. However, progress towards this goal is
slow, and many regions, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, are lagging (UN, 2020).
Despite some improvements, the challenge of inadequate sanitation remains one of the
most critical public health issues globally.

In Africa, environmental sanitation issues are widespread, particularly in urban slums and
rural communities. According to the African Development Bank (AfDB), approximately
60% of Africa's population lacks access to improved sanitation, with the highest rates
observed in countries with large rural populations (AfDB, 2019). In urban centers across
Africa, rapid urbanization has exacerbated sanitation challenges, particularly in informal
settlements and slums, where there is a lack of basic sanitation infrastructure.

Sub-Saharan Africa remains vulnerable to sanitation-related diseases such as cholera,

dysentery, and malaria. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that waterborne

3
diseases remain a serious threat to public health, with over 1,000 deaths in Africa from
cholera in 2017 alone (WHO, 2018). Inadequate sanitation and the resulting
contamination of water sources are major contributing factors to these outbreaks.

Environmental degradation in Africa is also linked to poor sanitation practices. Open

defecation and improper waste disposal contribute to pollution of water sources, soil
contamination, and air pollution (UN Environment Programme, 2020). As a result, the
African continent faces not only health challenges but also environmental sustainability
risks that undermine the broader goal of achieving sustainable development.

Nigeria, as the most populous country in Africa, with a population exceeding 200 million
people, faces severe sanitation challenges. The Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey
(NDHS) revealed that more than 47 million Nigerians practice open defecation (National
Population Commission [NPC], 2018). In Nigerian urban centers, poor waste
management is a widespread issue, with urban slums often lacking proper sanitation
services, such as waste collection, sewage systems, and access to clean water.

In rural Nigeria, sanitation practices are similarly inadequate. Open defecation remains
common, particularly in regions with limited access to basic sanitation facilities. A study
by Akinyemi and Fajobi (2019) found that rural Nigerians are more likely to engage in
open defecation due to inadequate infrastructure and cultural practices. These sanitation
practices significantly contribute to the transmission of diseases like cholera, dysentery,
and typhoid fever.

The Nigerian government has attempted to address these challenges through the National
Environmental Sanitation Policy (NESP), which aims to promote sanitation and hygiene
at the national level. However, implementation has been slow, and there are significant
gaps in the management of waste and water resources. According to a report by the
Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv), Nigeria's sanitation infrastructure is
underfunded and underdeveloped, particularly in rural areas (FMEnv, 2020).

4
1.2 Statement of the Research Problem

Despite ongoing efforts to improve sanitation in Nigeria, the lack of proper waste
management, inconsistent water supply, and inadequate public awareness continue to
plague many communities. The widespread practice of open defecation and improper
waste disposal is a critical concern that exacerbates public health issues. Cholera
outbreaks, diarrheal diseases, and malnutrition are frequently linked to poor sanitation,
contributing to a significant disease burden (Akinyemi & Fajobi, 2019).

While the effects of poor sanitation on public health are well-documented, there is a lack
of comprehensive data regarding the specific practices and challenges faced by
communities, especially in terms of cultural, social, and economic influences. This study
seeks to fill this gap by investigating environmental sanitation practices within Nigerian
communities, identifying the factors that contribute to these practices, and exploring
potential solutions for improvement.

The research will address several critical questions: Why do certain communities
continue to engage in poor sanitation practices despite government efforts? What are the
underlying barriers that prevent communities from adopting better sanitation practices?
How do socio-economic, cultural, and political factors influence sanitation behaviors?

1.3 Aims and Objectives

The overarching aim of this study is to evaluate the environmental sanitation practices
within Nigerian communities, focusing on the factors that influence these practices and
their implications for public health and the environment. The objectives of this study are
as follows:

1. To assess the current environmental sanitation practices within Fadukpe

community.
2. To identify the social, cultural, and economic factors influencing sanitation
behavior in Fadukpe community.

5
 3. To evaluate the impact of sanitation practices on public health outcomes, such as
the prevalence of waterborne diseases in Fadukpe community.
4. To analyze the role of government policies, local authorities, and community
leaders in improving sanitation practices.
5. To explore potential strategies for improving environmental sanitation practices at
the community level, including community-driven initiatives.
6. To propose recommendations for sustainable sanitation solutions that can be
adapted to the specific needs of Nigerian communities.

1.4 Research Questions

The following research questions will guide the study:

1. What are the current environmental sanitation practices in selected Nigerian

communities?
2. What are the primary factors influencing sanitation behavior in these
communities?
3. How do sanitation practices in these communities affect public health and the
environment?
4. What role do government policies, local authorities, and community leaders play
in improving sanitation practices?
5. What strategies can be implemented to improve sanitation practices and public
health in these communities?

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study is significant for several reasons:

 Public Health Improvement in Fadukpe: By evaluating sanitation practices, the

study will help identify specific practices that contribute to the spread of diseases
and propose practical solutions for improving public health.

6
  Environmental Policy Development in Fadukpe: The findings will assist Nigerian
policymakers and government agencies in developing more effective policies and
interventions tailored to the unique needs of different communities.
 Community Empowerment: Understanding the barriers to sanitation improvement
can lead to the design of more inclusive, community-driven sanitation programs
that incorporate cultural and socio-economic contexts.
 Global Contribution: The research will contribute to global knowledge on
sanitation challenges, providing insights that can be adapted to other regions
facing similar issues.

1.6 Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This study will focus on evaluating environmental sanitation practices within a
community population in Fadukpe, located in Minna, Niger State, Nigeria. The study will
target the residents of Fadukpe, particularly. This was chosen as they are more likely to
provide answers to the research questions and meeting the objectives

Definition of Terms

1. Environmental Sanitation: The management of waste, water, and other

environmental resources to prevent disease, promote hygiene, and protect the
environment (World Bank, 2018).
2. Sanitation Practices: The actions and behaviors related to managing waste, water,
and hygiene, including the disposal of human waste, solid waste management, and
water treatment (WHO, 2021).
3. Community Population: The group of individuals living within a specific
geographic area, which may include urban or rural settings.
4. Public Health: The health status of the population as a whole, including the
prevention of diseases, promotion of hygiene, and improvement of living
conditions (WHO, 2019).
5. Open Defecation: The practice of defecating in open spaces, typically in the
absence of access to toilets or sanitation facilities (UNICEF, 2020).

7
6. Waste Management: The process of collecting, transporting, processing, and
disposing of waste in a manner that is safe for the environment and human health
(FMEnv, 2020).

Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6): A United Nations goal aimed at ensuring
access to water and sanitation for all by 2030 (UN, 2020).

8
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction

Introduction to Environmental Sanitation Environmental sanitation refers to the principles and

practices aimed at maintaining a clean environment to promote public health. According to the

World Health Organization (WHO), environmental sanitation involves interventions to reduce

exposure to diseases by managing physical environmental factors such as water, waste, and

vector control (WHO, 2010). The importance of environmental sanitation lies in its ability to

prevent communicable diseases and promote a healthy living environment.

2.1 Conceptual framework

2.1.0 Components of Environmental Sanitation

Sanitation encompasses several components including solid waste management, water supply,

drainage, toilet facilities, and vector control (UN-Habitat, 2012). At its core, it involves the

management of factors in the environment that can potentially affect human health. This includes

the proper disposal and treatment of human waste, ensuring access to safe and clean water, and

the effective management of solid waste. Attention is also given to the control of vectors such as

mosquitoes and rodents that spread disease, as well as to the cleanliness of public spaces and

markets. Drainage systems play a critical role in preventing the accumulation of stagnant water,

which can become breeding grounds for disease vectors. Housing and urban planning are equally

vital, as poorly constructed or overcrowded housing can lead to health hazards. Moreover,

environmental sanitation covers food hygiene practices, especially in public places, to prevent

foodborne illnesses. All of these components work together to support public health, prevent

disease, and promote a higher quality of life within a community.

9
 Proper disposal of solid waste, availability of clean water, effective drainage systems, and

hygienic toilet facilities are key indicators of good environmental sanitation practices. These

components must work in synergy to ensure comprehensive sanitation coverage in communities.

2.1.1 Impact of Poor Sanitation on Community Health

Studies have shown a strong correlation between poor sanitation and the prevalence of
waterborne and sanitation-related diseases such as diarrhea, cholera, and typhoid fever (Prüss-
Ustün et al., 2014). The burden is particularly high in low-income communities where
infrastructure is inadequate, and awareness is low. Children and elderly populations are
especially vulnerable. Poor sanitation has far-reaching consequences that extend beyond
individual health concerns and significantly affect the overall well-being and development of a
community. Inadequate sanitation can undermine educational outcomes, particularly for children,
as unsanitary school environments or the lack of proper toilet facilities can lead to absenteeism,
especially among girls during menstruation. Economically, poor sanitation hampers productivity
by forcing individuals to spend time and resources dealing with preventable issues such as water
contamination or waste accumulation. This, in turn, places a burden on public services and local
governments, which must allocate increased funds for emergency interventions and
infrastructure repairs.

Socially, communities plagued by poor sanitation often experience diminished quality of life and
reduced dignity, especially among marginalized groups who are disproportionately affected by
inadequate facilities. This can lead to stigmatization and social exclusion, weakening social
cohesion and trust. Environmentally, improper disposal of waste and wastewater contributes to
the degradation of natural ecosystems, polluting rivers, soil, and groundwater, which further
reduces access to clean resources and negatively affects agriculture and local economies.

In sum, poor sanitation is not merely a health issue but a multidimensional challenge that
impedes sustainable development, disrupts education and economic progress, and exacerbates
social inequality and environmental damage (UNICEF & WHO, 2019).

10
2.1.2 Community Practices and Behavioral Factors

Environmental sanitation is not solely dependent on infrastructure but also on the behavior and

practices of the community. A study by Cairncross et al. (2010) found that hygiene education

significantly influences sanitation practices. Factors such as cultural norms, education level, and

economic status can determine how households manage waste, water, and personal hygiene.

Community practices and behavioral factors play a critical role in shaping the effectiveness of

environmental sanitation, with direct implications for a community’s development, dignity, and

sustainability. The way people interact with their environment—such as their attitudes toward

waste disposal, personal hygiene, water usage, and maintenance of shared facilities—can either

support or undermine sanitation infrastructure. Cultural beliefs, traditional norms, and levels of

awareness heavily influence these behaviors. For instance, in some communities, open

defecation may persist not solely due to lack of infrastructure but because it is culturally

accepted or seen as more convenient. Similarly, resistance to using communal sanitation

facilities may arise from mistrust, stigma, or lack of privacy, which can perpetuate unsanitary

conditions.

Education and community engagement are essential in transforming such behaviors. Where

communities are actively involved in sanitation initiatives, including planning and monitoring,

there tends to be a stronger sense of ownership and responsibility. On the contrary, a lack of

community participation often leads to the misuse or neglect of facilities. Behavioral change is

most effective when supported by consistent public awareness campaigns, social mobilization,

and incentives that align sanitation practices with community values and aspirations. Thus,

improving environmental sanitation is not solely a matter of infrastructure but also of cultivating

behaviors and practices that are rooted in local context and community dynamics (WaterAid,

2017).

11
2.1.3 Role of Local Governance and Policy Implementation

Local governments play a critical role in the provision and maintenance of sanitation facilities.

Effective sanitation policies, regular monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms are essential for

sustainable sanitation systems (Jenkins & Sugden, 2006). Government involvement, coupled

with community participation, has proven successful in numerous sanitation interventions

globally. Local governance and effective policy implementation are central to achieving

sustainable environmental sanitation within communities. Local authorities serve as the primary

agents responsible for translating national sanitation policies into practical, community-based

actions. Their role includes planning, funding, regulating, and monitoring sanitation services, as

well as ensuring equitable access for all segments of the population. When governance structures

are weak or fragmented, it often results in inconsistent service delivery, poor maintenance of

sanitation infrastructure, and a lack of accountability.

Successful policy implementation depends on the coordination between different levels of

government and the integration of sanitation strategies into broader development plans. Local

governments are uniquely positioned to understand the specific needs and cultural contexts of

their communities, which allows them to design and enforce policies that are both relevant and

effective. Moreover, community participation in local decision-making processes enhances

transparency, builds trust, and ensures that sanitation initiatives are aligned with public

expectations.

Budget allocation, enforcement of regulations, and public-private partnerships also fall under the

purview of local governance. When these mechanisms are well-managed, they contribute to the

long-term sustainability of sanitation services. However, the absence of political will, insufficient

12
funding, and lack of technical capacity often hinder progress. Therefore, strengthening local

institutions and building capacity at the grassroots level are essential steps toward improving

environmental sanitation outcomes (UN-Habitat, 2020).

2.1.4 Community-Based Approaches and Participation

Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) is an approach that empowers communities to take

charge of their sanitation needs, emphasizing behavior change rather than subsidies. Research

indicates that participatory methods result in more sustainable and acceptable sanitation practices

(Kar & Chambers, 2008). Community-based approaches and participation are foundational to

achieving sustainable environmental sanitation outcomes, as they emphasize local ownership,

cultural relevance, and long-term engagement. When communities are actively involved in

identifying sanitation challenges and co-developing solutions, interventions are more likely to be

accepted, maintained, and adapted to changing needs. Participation fosters a sense of

responsibility and empowerment, encouraging individuals and groups to take initiative in

managing sanitation facilities, promoting cleanliness, and ensuring that shared spaces are

respected.

These approaches rely heavily on inclusive decision-making processes that engage all

community members—regardless of age, gender, or socioeconomic status. They often involve

local leaders, women’s groups, youth organizations, and civil society, ensuring that diverse

perspectives shape the design and implementation of sanitation initiatives. In many contexts,

community-led total sanitation (CLTS) and other participatory models have demonstrated

success in mobilizing collective action without heavy reliance on external subsidies.

Moreover, such approaches build local capacity through training, education, and technical

support, which strengthens resilience and reduces dependency on external actors. By anchoring

13
sanitation efforts in local knowledge and values, community-based participation ensures that

solutions are contextually appropriate and socially sustainable. Ultimately, it transforms

sanitation from a service delivered to communities into a process led by them (World Bank,

2019).

2.1.5 Challenges in Environmental Sanitation

Common challenges include inadequate funding, lack of political will, insufficient public

awareness, and urbanization pressures. In many developing countries, informal settlements often

lack access to basic sanitation services, complicating intervention efforts (UNICEF/WHO,

2021).

Challenges in environmental sanitation are multifaceted and often stem from structural,

institutional, economic, and cultural barriers that hinder the development and maintenance of

effective sanitation systems. One major challenge is the inadequate infrastructure in many urban

and rural areas, where rapid population growth, informal settlements, and limited planning result

in insufficient or poorly maintained waste disposal and water management systems. These

deficiencies are compounded by limited financial resources, both at the government and

community levels, making it difficult to invest in sustainable solutions or maintain existing

facilities.

Another significant issue is weak institutional coordination. Sanitation responsibilities are often

fragmented across various government departments and agencies, leading to overlaps, gaps in

service delivery, and inefficient use of resources. Additionally, poor enforcement of sanitation

policies and regulations allows harmful practices such as illegal dumping and open defecation to

persist. Public awareness and behavioral factors also present obstacles; in many communities,

14
traditional practices, social norms, or a lack of sanitation education can result in resistance to

adopting improved methods.

Climate change further exacerbates these challenges, as increased flooding, drought, and extreme

weather events can overwhelm sanitation infrastructure and disrupt services. Lastly, disparities in

access and service quality between urban and rural areas, and among different socio-economic

groups, continue to widen, highlighting the need for inclusive, context-sensitive approaches.

Addressing these challenges requires sustained political commitment, cross-sector collaboration,

and the active involvement of communities in planning and implementation processes

(UNESCO, 2020).

2.1.5 Emerging Trends and Innovations

Innovations in environmental sanitation include decentralized waste treatment, ecological

sanitation, and mobile sanitation services. These innovations aim to address the limitations of

conventional methods, particularly in resource-poor settings.

Emerging trends and innovations in environmental sanitation are transforming how communities

address waste management, water supply, and hygiene practices, with a focus on sustainability,

technology, and inclusivity. One significant trend is the integration of smart technologies and

data-driven systems that enable real-time monitoring of sanitation infrastructure, allowing for

quicker response to service disruptions and more efficient resource allocation. Innovations such

as sensor-equipped public toilets, digital platforms for waste tracking, and GIS mapping of

sanitation coverage are helping authorities plan better and engage communities more effectively.

Decentralized sanitation solutions are also gaining momentum, especially in areas where

centralized infrastructure is either unaffordable or impractical. These include modular toilet

systems, eco-san toilets, and localized wastewater treatment units that can be implemented with

minimal environmental disruption. Circular economy principles are increasingly being applied in

15
sanitation, promoting the reuse of human waste as bioenergy, compost, or other valuable

resources, thereby turning waste into a resource and reducing the burden on landfills. Social

innovations, including community-led design and participatory budgeting for sanitation projects,

are encouraging local ownership and long-term viability. Additionally, the role of private sector

partnerships and social enterprises is expanding, bringing in new investment, technological

expertise, and scalable business models to sanitation service delivery. These innovations reflect a

growing recognition that environmental sanitation must be adaptive, inclusive, and resilient to

social, environmental, and technological changes (UNICEF, 2021).

The literature underscores that improving environmental sanitation practices requires a

multifaceted approach that includes infrastructure, education, community involvement, and

effective policy enforcement. Evaluating these practices within a specific community context is

crucial for designing targeted and sustainable sanitation interventions.

2.2 THEORITICAL REVIEW

A theoretical review provides the framework that guides the understanding of environmental

sanitation practices, connecting theory to real-world behavior and outcomes. Several theories

help explain how and why communities adopt or neglect sanitation behaviors. Key among these

are the Health Belief Model, Social Cognitive Theory, and Systems Theory.

2.2.1 Health Belief Model (HBM)

The Health Belief Model, developed in the 1950s, posits that individuals are likely to take

health-related action if they: Perceive themselves to be susceptible to a health issue,

Believe the health issue has serious consequences, Believe taking a particular action would

reduce their susceptibility or severity, and Perceive fewer barriers to taking that action.

In the context of environmental sanitation, the HBM explains why some community members

engage in proper sanitation (e.g., waste disposal, latrine use, hand washing) while others do not.

If individuals perceive the risk of disease from poor sanitation as high and understand the

16
benefits of sanitation practices, they are more likely to act. Public health campaigns can therefore

use this model to influence perception and motivate change.

2.2.2 Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)

Developed by Albert Bandura, SCT emphasizes the role of observational learning, self-efficacy,

and social influence in behavior change. It suggests that people adopt new behaviors not only

through direct experience but also by observing others, especially within their social

environment. In sanitation, individuals are influenced by the practices of family members,

neighbors, or community leaders. If respected figures promote and practice good sanitation,

others are likely to imitate these behaviors. Enhancing self-efficacy (the belief in one’s ability to

perform sanitation-related tasks) is also critical—such as teaching individuals how to build

simple hand washing stations or properly dispose of waste.

2.2.3. Systems Theory

Systems Theory views the community as an interconnected system where various components

(social, political, environmental, economic) interact to influence outcomes. In sanitation, this

means evaluating not just individual behavior but the broader infrastructure, governance,

policies, and cultural norms that affect sanitation outcomes. For instance, even if individuals are

aware of the importance of sanitation, their ability to act may be constrained by a lack of toilets,

poor waste management infrastructure, or absence of community regulations. Systems theory

encourages a holistic evaluation and highlights the need for multi-sectoral collaboration.

2.2.4. Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS):Approach (as a practical theory)

Though not a traditional "theory," CLTS operates on behavior change principles and community

psychology. It emphasizes collective behavior change rather than individual sanitation subsidies.

The approach leverages community shame, pride, and peer pressure to drive behavior change,

and it has been successful in many rural sanitation interventions.

17
CLTS is built on the idea that community members, when triggered emotionally and informed

about the consequences of poor sanitation (like open defecation), will take ownership of their

sanitation needs.

Theoretical models like the Health Belief Model and Social Cognitive Theory help in

understanding how knowledge, perception, and social influence affect sanitation behaviors.

Systems Theory offers a broader lens for evaluating the infrastructural and institutional context

of sanitation practices, while approaches like CLTS provide practical, participatory frameworks

rooted in behavioral psychology. These theories collectively support a comprehensive evaluation

of environmental sanitation practices in community populations."

Linking Theories to Research Objectives

Objective 1: To assess the level of knowledge and awareness of environmental sanitation

practices among community members.

Related Theory: Health Belief Model (HBM)

The HBM helps explain how awareness of disease susceptibility and benefits of action

influences people's motivation to adopt good sanitation practices. This objective can be assessed

by examining perceived risks and benefits related to sanitation behaviors.

Objective 2: To identify the environmental sanitation practices currently adopted by the

community.

Related Theory: Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)

SCT emphasizes that individuals learn sanitation behaviors by observing others. This theory

supports exploring how role models (e.g., community leaders) and peer influence shape

practices.

Objective 3: To evaluate the infrastructural and institutional support for environmental

sanitation in the community.

18
Related Theory: Systems Theory

Systems Theory frames this objective by highlighting the interplay between infrastructure (e.g.,

waste collection systems), policy, and governance in shaping sanitation outcomes.

Objective 4: To examine the challenges faced in maintaining effective sanitation practices.

Related Theory: Systems Theory + CLTS Approach

Systems Theory explains structural challenges (e.g., lack of funding or poor waste systems),

while CLTS provides insight into behavioral and social barriers that prevent sustained practices.

Objective 5: To recommend strategies to improve environmental sanitation practices in the

community.

2.3 Empirical review

Empirical studies on environmental sanitation have consistently highlighted the interplay

between community behavior, institutional frameworks, and infrastructural capacity. A study by

Osumah and Odiase (2020) on sanitation practices in rural Edo State, Nigeria, revealed that poor

waste disposal methods were prevalent due to limited access to waste collection services and low

income levels. The study found that open dumping and burning were the dominant methods,

similar to findings in other low-income communities where municipal waste services are

inadequate or absent.

Ajewole and Fagbohun (2021) conducted a comparative analysis of urban and rural sanitation in

Southwestern Nigeria and found that while urban residents had better access to sanitation

infrastructure, rural communities were more engaged in informal but consistent community

cleaning efforts. The study emphasized that awareness and community leadership play crucial

roles in shaping sanitation behavior, although institutional support was more reliable in urban

settings.

19
In a related study, Iwuafor et al. (2019) examined the role of government policies in sanitation

improvement across several Nigerian states. Their findings revealed that although environmental

policies exist, enforcement remains weak due to corruption, lack of manpower, and insufficient

funding. Moreover, the study indicated that communities with active local governance structures

and engaged traditional leaders showed better sanitation outcomes than those without.

Another empirical investigation by Eze and Okechukwu (2022) focused on the environmental

and health impacts of poor sanitation in peri-urban areas of Enugu State. The study reported

increased cases of vector-borne diseases and contamination of water sources due to improper

waste disposal, and it concluded that both environmental degradation and public health were

being severely impacted by poor sanitation practices.

Furthermore, UNICEF (2021) highlighted in its sanitation innovation report that emerging

community-based models and decentralized waste treatment options have shown promise in

regions lacking infrastructure. The report documented successful interventions in Nigeria and

other Sub-Saharan countries where local participation and technology integration significantly

improved sanitation outcomes.

Collectively, these empirical studies underscore that effective sanitation management depends

not only on infrastructure but also on behavioral factors, policy implementation, and community

involvement. The insights align with the current study’s findings, reinforcing the need for multi-

level strategies that combine public engagement, policy enforcement, and infrastructural support.

20
21
 CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The methodology employed for this research work will be only primary technique.

3.1.1 Data Type

The researcher will employ the utilization of one type of data i.e. quantitative approach and

obtain information on the research problem under study.

3.2 Sources of Data

3.2.1 Primary source

The primary sources will provide direct or firsthand information about the problem investigated,

the questionnaire, interviews and survey of dumpsites or field observation and focus group

discussion techniques will be used.

3.3 Instrument for Data Collection

This research work will use the following instrument as a guide for data collection which

include, questionnaire and GPS for coordinate.

3.3.1 Questionnaire

The design of questionnaire as part of instrument to be used will be structured format, which will

be administered randomly aiming to elicit information on how to achieve the stated objective of

this research work.

3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

According to the National Population Commission 2006 census, (209,917). This population was

projected to 2023 to (359,800). The projection of the population is based on Niger state

population growth rate of 3% (NPC, 2009) using the formula:

22
 Where Pt + n = future population (2023)

Pt = base year population (2006); r = growth rate (3%); n = interval between future

population and base year population (2023 – 2006) = 17 years and e = exponential

Based on the projected population of the study area in 2023 (359,800) using Research Advisors

(2006) table of determining sample size will be used to get the number of respondents for

questionnaire administration.

A total of 152 which was recommended by Research Advisors (2006) will be selected for the

administration of the questionnaire. The questionnaire will randomly be administered to the

selected households in the study area.

Sources of data collection

Secondary data will be sourced from the United State geological agency websites to obtain the

Landsat images needed for the identified years of interest.

3.6 Method of Data Analysis.

The data collected for the purpose of this study will be analyzed using simple percentage

23
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

Age of the respondent

Age range Frequency Percentage

18 – 30 33 21.7

31 – 40 70 46.1

41 – 50 35 23.0

51 and above 14 9.2

Total 152 100

The data below shows that 33(21.7%) of the respondent are within the ages of 18 – 30 years,

70(46.1%) are 31 – 40 years, 35 (23.0%) are 41 – 50 years and 14 (9.2%) are 51 years ad above.

Gender of respondents
Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 127 83.6

Female 25 16.4

Total 152 100

The table above shows that 127 (83.6%) and 25 (16.4%) are male and females respectively. This
shows that most of the respondents are males.

Educational level of the respondent

Educational level Frequency Percentage

Primary 86 56.6

Secondary 56 36.8

No formal 10 6.6
education
Total 152 100

From the response generated from the field, it indicates that 86 (56.6%) of the respondents
attends primary school only, 56 (36.8%) are SSCE holders while 10 (6.6%) have no formal
education

24
Duration of Residence in this Community
Duration Frequency Percentage

Less than 1 year 12 7.9

1 – 5 years 90 59.2

More than 5 years 50 32.9

Total 152 100

The table above indicate 12(7.9%) of the respodents have spent less than 1 year in the
community, 90 (59.2%) have been in the community for 1 – 5 years in the community, while 50
(32.9%) of the have been in the community for more than 5 years.

Current Environmental Sanitation Practices

How often is waste collected or disposed of in your Community

Items Frequency Percentage

Daily 23 15.1

Weekly 21 13.8

Rarely 88 57.9

Never 20 13.1

Total 152 100

The table above shows how often waste is collected or disposed in the community
under study. It indicates that 23 (15.1%) responded that waste is collected daily, 21
(13.8%) indicates weekly, 88 (57.9%) show that wastes are rarely collected while 20
(13.1%) responded that waste are not been collected.

What methods are commonly used for waste disposal in

your area?
Items Frequency Percentage

Open dumping 77 50.7

25
Burning 26 17.1

Waste bin collection 21 13.8

Composting 28 18.4

Total: 152 100

The table above shows that 50.7% practice open dumping method, 17.1% burning their waste,
13.8uses waste bin while 18.4% compost their waste.

Is there a designated public cleaning day or community

sanitation initiative in your area?
Items Frequency Percentage

Yes 0 0

No 152 100

Total 152 100

The table above shows that all the respondent are clear that the community has no cleaning day
in the community.

How would you rate the general cleanliness of your environment?

Items Frequency Percentage

Very clean 19 12.5

Moderately clean 76 50.0

Dirty 34 22.4

Very dirty 29 19.1

Total 152 100

The response from the above table shows that 12.5% of the respondent rate the
community as very clean, 50% rate the community as moderately clean, 22.4% rate
the community as dirty while 19.1 rate it as very dirty.

FACTORS INFLUENCING SANITATION BEHAVIOR

What influences your choice of waste disposal method the most?

Items Frequency Percentage

26
Accessibility 61 40.1

Cost 54 35.5

Awareness 2 1.3

Community norms 35 23.02

Total 152 100

The respondents response from the above table show that 40.1% of the respondents says the
method of waste disposal is influenced by accessibility to any waste disposal method, 35.5%
indicates that the cost of disposing waste influence their choice of method, while 23.02% says
the choice of waste disposal method is influenced by their norms.

Are you aware of any rules or guidelines on proper sanitation in your community?
Items Frequency Percentage

Yes 147 96.7

No 5 3.3

Total 152 100

The table above shows the awareness level of the respondent to any rules guiding proper
sanitation in the community. Almost all the respondents indicates that they are aware of the
guideline governing how sanitation

Who do you believe is responsible for maintaining sanitation in your area?

Items Frequency Percentage

Government 23 15.1

Community leaders 41 27.0

Residents 13 8.6

All of the above 75 49.3

Total 152 100

The table above believes that the government is responsible for sanitation in the community,
27.0% believes the community leaders are responsible, 8.6% believes that residents in the
community are responsible for maintaining sanitation while 49.3% believes that both the
government, community leaders and residents are responsible for maintaining sanitation in the
community.

27
Do cultural or religious beliefs influence sanitation habits in your
community?
Items Frequency Percentage

Yes 103 67.8

No 41 27.0

Not sure 8 5.3

Total 152 100

The table above indicates that religious belief influence sanitation in the community as it account
for 67.8% of the response from the community, however, 27% and 5.3% indicates No and Not
sure respectively.

EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Have you noticed an increase in diseases or infections linked to poor sanitation (e.g.,
typhoid, cholera)?
Items Frequency Percentage

Yes 99 65.1

No 41 27.0

Not sure 12 7.9

Total 152 100

The above table shows 65.1% say they noticed that there is an increase in disease linked to poor
sanitation, 27.0% indicates that they did not notice such while 7.9% indicates that they are not
sure if poor sanitation has linked to any disease.

Are there frequent cases of blocked drainage, stagnant water, or

waste accumulation in your community?
Items Frequency Percentage

Yes 79 52.0

28
Occasionally 41 27.0

Rarely 32 21.1

Never 0 0

Total 152 100

The table above shows that 52.0% that there are cases of blocked drainage stagnant water, or
waste accumulation in the community, 27.0% indicates that the blockage is occasional while
21.1% of the responses shows that such cases are rare in the community under study.

Do you think poor sanitation affects the water bodies, farmlands

or air quality in your area?
Items Frequency Percentage

Strongly agree 112 73.7

Agree 40 26.3

Disagree 0 0

Strongly disagree 0 0

Total 152 100

The result above shows that 73.7% strongly agree that poor sanitation affects water bodies
farmlands, or air quality in your area while 26.3% agree with the above. None of the respondents
disagree with the statement.

How does improper waste disposal affect daily life in your community?
Items Frequency Percentage

It causes discomfort 72 47.3

It attracts pests 50 32.9

It pollutes the 30 19.7

environment
It has no effect 0 0

Total 152 100

The table above shows that 47.3% of the respondents indicate that improper disposal affect daily
life in the community, 32.9% responded that it attract pest while 19.7% says it pollutes the
environment.
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT, LOCAL AUTHORITIES, AND COMMUNITY
LEADERS

29
Are there visible sanitation efforts by local government authorities in your community?
Items Frequency Percentage

Yes 79 52.0

No 41 27.0

Not sure 32 21.1

Total 152 100

The response from the above table shows that 52.3% respondents says there are visible sanitation
efforts by the local government authority, 27% of the response shows that there is o visible
sanitation efforts while 21.1% indicates that they are not sure if their is any visible sanitation
effort by the governmental authority in the community.

How often do community leaders or local authorities engage

residents in sanitation matters?
Items Frequency Percentage

Regularly 10 6.6

Occasionally 8 5.3

Rarely 111 73.0

Never 23 15.1

Total 152 100

Source: Field research work

The response above shows that community leaders rarely engage residents as it accounts for
73% of the response, however other still have their own opinion such as regularly, occasionally
and never.

Are there any penalties or enforcement measures for improper waste

Disposal in your community?
Items Frequency Percentage

Yes 0 0

No 147 96.7

30
Not sure 5 3.3

Total 100 100

The table above shows that there is no penalty for any improper waste disposal in the community
under study.

Do you believe current government policies are effective in promoting

proper sanitation?
Items Frequency Percentage

Yes 79 52.0

No 41 27.0

To some extent 32 21.1

I don’t know 0 0

Total 152 100

The table above shows that 52% of the respondents are of the opinion that current government
polices are effective in promoting sanitation, 21.1% indicates that the policies are effective to
some extent while 27.0% said the polices are not effective in promoting proper sanitation.

STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

What kind of sanitation improvements would you like to see in your community?
Items Frequency Percentage

More waste bin 26 17.1

Regular collection 34 22.4

Public awareness 55 36.2

Enforcement of laws 37 24.3

Total 152 100

The table above shows ways in which sanitation can be improved in the community under study.
The response shows that 17.1% respondents indicates having more waste bin can help improve
sanitation, 22.4% indicates regular collection of waste, public awareness took the lead as it
account for 36.2% while 24.3% of the respondents are of the view that enforcing sanitation laws
will help to improve sanitation in the community under study,

Would you participate in a community-led sanitation program?

31
Items Frequency Percentage

Yes 134 88.2

No 0 0

Maybe 18 11.8

Total 152 100

The response above show that 88.2% of the respondents are willing to participate in a
community led sanitation program while 11.8% are not sure if they will partake in program.

What is the best way to educate residents about good sanitation practices?
Items Frequency Percentage

Media campaigns 21 13.8

Community meetings 101 66.4

School programs 30 19.7

Total 152 100

The response above shows that the best way to educate residents in the community about good
sanitation practices is through community meetings as it accounts for 66.4% of the total
percentage.
Findings
1. Sanitation Practices:
Waste collection is infrequent in the studied communities, with only 15.1% reporting daily
collection and 57.9% indicating that waste is rarely collected. Open dumping (50.7%) is the most
common disposal method, and there is no designated community cleaning day. Despite this, half
of the respondents still rate the environment as moderately clean.
2. Factors Influencing Sanitation Behavior:
Accessibility (40.1%) and cost (35.5%) are the primary drivers behind individuals’ sanitation
choices, followed by community norms (23%). Awareness of sanitation rules is high among
respondents. Responsibility for sanitation is perceived to be shared, with nearly half (49.3%)
stating that it involves the government, community leaders, and residents.
3. Environmental Impact:
A majority (65.1%) reported increased disease linked to poor sanitation, and 52% observed
issues such as blocked drainage and stagnant water. Most respondents (73.7%) strongly believe
that poor sanitation affects environmental resources such as water bodies and farmlands.

32
4. Role of Government and Community Leaders:
Slightly more than half (52.3%) see visible sanitation efforts from local authorities. However,
73% noted that community leaders rarely engage residents. Opinion on the effectiveness of
government policies is divided—52% consider them effective, while 27% believe they are not.
5. Strategies for Improvement:
Public awareness campaigns (36.2%) are viewed as the most effective strategy for improvement,
followed by enforcement of sanitation laws (24.3%). The vast majority (88.2%) are willing to
engage in community-led sanitation programs, and 66.4% believe that community meetings are
the best method of education on sanitation.
Discussion of Findings
The findings indicate that while there is a general awareness of sanitation practices and
responsibilities among residents, the infrastructure and systemic support required for effective
sanitation are lacking. The infrequent collection of waste and widespread use of open dumping
reflect both institutional failure and community-level constraints such as cost and access.
The shared perception of responsibility among government, community leaders, and individuals
suggests an understanding of collective action, yet the minimal engagement by community
leaders and inconsistencies in government efforts point to a disconnect between expectations and
practice. Moreover, the data highlight a significant concern about the environmental
consequences of poor sanitation, especially in relation to water and soil pollution.
Encouragingly, the willingness of the majority to participate in community-led initiatives shows
that residents are open to contributing to improvements if adequately mobilized. The preference
for community meetings as a platform for education underscores the importance of local,
culturally sensitive communication channels.

CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
The study reveals that environmental sanitation in the selected Nigerian communities is hindered
by irregular waste management practices, lack of infrastructure, and limited engagement from
authorities. Despite this, there is strong community awareness and willingness to improve
sanitation standards, which presents an opportunity for intervention through participatory and
policy-driven strategies.

33
5.2 Recommendations

1. Improve Waste Management Infrastructure: Local governments should invest in

regular waste collection services and provide accessible waste bins throughout communities.
2. Promote Community Participation: Community leaders should be more involved in
organizing sanitation activities and engaging residents through regular meetings and feedback
sessions.
3. Enforce Sanitation Policies: Government should strengthen enforcement of
environmental sanitation laws and introduce penalties for non-compliance, while supporting
education on proper waste disposal.
4. Raise Public Awareness: Implement targeted campaigns using community meetings,
religious gatherings, and local media to promote best practices in sanitation and environmental
protection.
5. Support Low-Cost Alternatives: Encourage composting and decentralized waste
treatment options in areas with limited infrastructure to improve environmental outcomes
sustainably.

References

 African Development Bank (AfDB). (2019). Africa's Sanitation Crisis: A Review

of the Challenges and Opportunities. AfDB.
 Akinyemi, O. O., & Fajobi, A. (2019). Rural sanitation practices and their
implications for public health in Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Health, 81(4),
45-58.

34
 Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv). (2020). National Environmental
Sanitation Policy. FMEnv, Nigeria.
 National Population Commission (NPC). (2018). Nigeria Demographic and
Health Survey (NDHS). NPC.
 United Nations (UN). (2020). Sustainable Development Goal 6: Ensure
availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. UN.
 United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2020). Open Defecation in Nigeria:
An Overview. UNICEF.
 World Bank. (2018). The Cost of Poor Sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa. World
Bank.
 World Health Organization (WHO). (2018). Global Health Observatory:
Sanitation in Africa. WHO.
 World Health Organization (WHO). (2019). Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene
(WASH) in Public Health. WHO.
 World Health Organization (WHO). (2021). Sanitation and Hygiene: Global
Health Data. WHO
 Cairncross, S., et al. (2010). Water, sanitation and hygiene for the prevention of diarrhea.
International Journal of Epidemiology.

 Jenkins, M. W., & Sugden, S. (2006). Rethinking sanitation: Lessons and innovation for
sustainability and success. World Bank.
 Kar, K., & Chambers, R. (2008). Handbook on Community-Led Total Sanitation. Plan UK.
Prüss-Ustün, A., et al. (2014). Burden of Disease from Inadequate Water, Sanitation and
Hygiene. WHO.
 UNESCO. (2020). The United Nations world water development report 2020: Water and climate
change. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000372985
 UN-Habitat (2012). Sanitation and Hygiene in Urban Slums.
 UN-Habitat. (2020). The strategic role of local governments in sanitation and hygiene.
https://unhabitat.org/the-strategic-role-of-local-governments-in-sanitation-and-hygiene
 UNICEF. (2021). Sanitation innovation and emerging trends: Rethinking sanitation systems for
the 21st century. https://www.unicef.org/reports/sanitation-innovation-and-emerging-trends
 UNICEF/WHO (2021). Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2000–
2020.
UNICEF & World Health Organization. (2019). Progress on household drinking water, sanitation
and hygiene 2000–2017: Special focus on inequalities. https://www.unicef.org/reports/progress-
on-drinking-water-sanitation-and-hygiene-2019

35
 WaterAid. (2017). Achieving total sanitation and hygiene coverage within a generation – lessons
from East Asia. https://www.wateraid.org/uk/publications/achieving-total-sanitation-and-
hygiene-coverage-within-a-generation-lessons-from-east-asia
 WHO (2010). Health through Safe Sanitation and Water. Geneva.
 World Bank. (2019). Participatory approaches in sanitation: Empowering communities for
sustainable change. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/sanitation/publication/participatory-
approaches-in-sanitation

 Osumah, O., & Odiase, O. (2020). Assessment of rural environmental sanitation

practices in Edo State, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 14(2), 45–
56.
 Ajewole, O., & Fagbohun, T. (2021). Comparative study of sanitation practices in urban
and rural settings in Nigeria. African Journal of Public Health, 18(3), 112–120.
 Iwuafor, C., Ekanem, N., & Anene, G. (2019). Government policy implementation and
sanitation development in Nigeria: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Sustainable
Development in Africa, 21(6), 88–101.
 Eze, U., & Okechukwu, A. (2022). Impact of poor sanitation on environmental quality in
peri-urban Nigeria. Environmental Management Journal, 27(1), 29–40.
 UNICEF. (2021). Sanitation innovation and emerging trends: Rethinking sanitation
systems for the 21st century. https://www.unicef.org/reports/sanitation-innovation-and-
emerging-trends

36