Health Education

He
alt

Femininity Sanitation Behaviours: The Nigerian Public

Universities Students Perspectives
hE

Journal: Health Education

Manuscript ID HE-05-2021-0083
du

Manuscript Type: Original Article

Attitudes, Behavioral Science, environmental health, Gender, healthy

Keywords:
schools, Higher education
ca
tio
n

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/he
Page 1 of 13 Health Education

1
2
3
4 Femininity Sanitation Behaviours: The Nigerian
5
6 Public Universities Students Perspectives
7
8
9
10
ABSTRACT
11 Environmental Sanitation Behaviour of female students is more of speculations than
12 scientific research in our higher learning institutions. This study examined the environmental
13 sanitation behavior of female students in FUTA, OAU, and UI to address this imbalance. Data for
14 the study were from direct observation, oral interview, and questionnaire administration. A
15 systematic sampling technique was employed to select respondents from every 10th room in the
16 hostel across the selected institutions. Invariably, a total of 25, 89, and 119 questionnaires were
17
18
administered in FUTA, OAU, and UI, respectively. The study showed that majority, approximately
19 61.0%, engaged in an unhygienic means of hand washing. As evident from the study, 64.8% of
He

20 students were of good behavior as regard toilet flushing. Students used to sweeping exercises
21 across the hostels were below average with 41.2%. Plastic bins represented 44.3% of storage
22 receptacles used in hostels of the study area. The study showed that 64.8% of students engaged in
alt

23 the environment-friendly practice of disposing of wastewater. The use of potty gained prominence
24
among the alternative means apart from the toilets provided in the hostels. The study concluded
25
that a considerable number of female students engage in environment-unfriendly practices.
hE

26
27
28 Keywords: Environmental Sanitation, Sanitation Behaviour, Female students, Federal
29 Universities
du

30
31
INTRODUCTION
32
33 Environmental sanitation covers two main dimensions: the activities to control
ca

34 environmental factors that impact the infestations agents and transmission of diseases; while the
35 second dimension involves developing good hygiene behavior among residents within the city
36 (Afon, Okanlawon, Adigun & Odunola, 2008). Environmental sanitation also refers to efforts or
tio

37 activities aimed at maintaining a clean, safe and pleasant physical environment through control of
38 community water supplies, excreta, and wastewater disposal, solid waste disposal, and ensuring
39
the safety of the environment in all human settlements towards the promotion of social, economic
n

40
41 and physical well-being of all sections of the population (Franceys, Pickford and Reed 1992; WHO
42 and UNDP 1997; WHO and UNICEF 2000; IRC 2006; Dwivedi and Sharma 2007; Acheampong,
43 2010). Environmental sanitation needs the active participation of the community to make it
44 successful (Daramola 2012). That is why the issue of behavior is critical.
45
46
Environmental sanitation is the bedrock of overall development as it includes the
47
48 contribution of human and the environment in enhancing human and environmental health;
49 economic growth and poverty reduction; social development; children’s development and future;
50 convenience, privacy, and safety and promotes justice and equity (Scott, Curtis & Rabie 2007;
51 Afon et al. 2008). It further supports urban stability and enables social balance, development, and
52 public sanitary services (Schertenleib 2005). Thus, it is the right of every citizen to have access to
53 good sanitation infrastructure.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/he
 Health Education Page 2 of 13

1
2
3 This study focuses on the second dimension of environmental sanitation identified by Afon
4
5
et al (2008), which involved promoting and developing good hygiene behavior. Behaviour is the
6 way a person behaves in a particular situation (Hornby, 2005). Environmental sanitation behavior
7 can therefore mean the way people respond to sanitation. Studies have shown that people behave
8 differently as far as environmental sanitation is concerned. For instance, the study of Olawoye and
9 Awoyemi (2002) revealed that rather than making use of a toilet for defecation, residents in a
10 political ward in Ilorin prefer the use of other means such as bush at the backyard, dumping site
11
among others. Chukwu and Uwadiegwu (2012) assessed the management of surface water
12
13
drainage along the roads in residential areas of Enugu and found that none of the residential areas
14 in the city has excellent drainage facilities. Indicating that residents used drainages against their
15 purpose.
16
17 In Nigeria, studies on waste storage, collection, and disposal are concentrated on cities'
18 residential environment (Agunwamba 1998; Agunwamba et al. 1998; Afon 2003; Afon 2008;
19
He
Ogwuleka 2009). The works of Agunwamba (1998), Afon (2008), and Oguwuleka (2009) on
20
21 storage, collection, and disposal of solid waste in urban centers of Nigeria concluded that these
22 practices were not environment-friendly. Available work on environmental sanitation behaviour
alt

23 like Afon et al. (2008) examined the potential influence of homes and schools on evolving
24 sustainable sanitation behaviour among secondary school students in Ogbomoso, Nigeria. The
25 study lacks focus on higher learning institutions and gender basis.
hE

26
27
28
The nature of environmental sanitation in universities can affect the whole urban
29 environment, based on its' important roles such as centre of culture, learning and innovation with
enormous human resources; multilevel employment opportunities and influenses the economy of
du

30
31 the city where it is located (Kromer and Kerman, 2008). In addition, it serves as residence for both
32 students and staff. Despite the overwhelming recognition and important roles of universities within
33 the country, most especially different activities in students' hostels, scanty literature abounds on
ca

34
the environmental sanitation behaviour on-going there. As a result, students' environmental
35
36 sanitation behaviour is mere speculation rather than results of scientific researches. Based on this
tio

37 ground this study is an attempt to unravel the female students’ environmental sanitation behaviour
38 in federal universities in southwestern Nigeria.
39
n

40 THE STUDY AREA

41 The study area is the southwestern region of Nigeria, consisting of Lagos, Ogun, Oyo,
42
43
Ondo, Osun, and Ekiti states. There were six federal universities in southwestern Nigeria: the
44 University of Ibadan, Obafemi Awolowo University, and the University of Lagos. Others consist
45 of Federal University of Technology, Akure; Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta; and
46 Federal University, Oye Ekiti (see table 1 for the universities in the study area).
47 Table 1: Federal University in the study area
48 State Federal University
49
50
Lagos University of Lagos
51 Ogun University of Agriculture, Abeokuta
52 Oyo University of Ibadan
53 Ondo Federal University of Technology, Akure
54 Osun Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile – ife
55
Ekiti Federal University, Oye Ekiti
56
57
58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/he
Page 3 of 13 Health Education

1
2
3 Source: field survey, 2017
4
5 Profile of the Federal Universities studied
6
7 The Federal University of Technology, Akure (FUTA) was established in 1981, located at
8
Akure, the capital city of Ondo State. The purpose of the universities established during this period
9
10 was for practical and theoretical knowledge of the students. Presently, the University has about
11 15,000 students. The University had two campuses: Obanla and Obakekere.
12
13 Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) is located in Ile – Ife, the spiritual headquarters of the
14 Yorubas is on latitude 70 0’ 30” North of the equator and 40 0’ 40” East of the meridian. It housed
15 the University of Ife that has its name changed to Obafemi Awolwo University (OAU). This
16 University was founded in 1961 and enrolled students in 1962. On September 22, 1962, the
17 University of Ife started at its temporary site at the old Nigerian college of Arts, Science, and
18
19
Technology with 244 students (Olatunji 2010) and now had 35,000 students. The University is
He

20 situated on a vast expanse of land totaling 13,852acres (5605.71hectares) in Ile-Ife, Osun State,
21 Southwest of Nigeria (OAU master plan 1981).
22
alt

23 The University of Ibadan is located in the largest indigenous city in Africa, Ibadan.
24 Geographically its located approximately on latitude 7º 22' and 7º 40' North of the Equator and 3º
25 53' and 4º 10' East of the Greenwich Meridian. The University was founded in 1948 but as the
hE

26 University College, Ibadan (UCI). Its old site was at Eleyele in Ibadan. The university land is thus
27 bounded in the south and west by the main campus of the Ibadan Polytechnic, while the
28
29
International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) marks its northern boundary. The
establishment of the University could be traced directly to the reports in 1945 of the Asquith and
du

30
31 Elliot Commission set up by the British Government in 1943 (Ogunu undated; Toye undated). The
32 students' population in 2015 was about 34,000.
33
ca

34
35
36
tio

37
38
39
n

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/he
 Health Education Page 4 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
He

20
21
22
alt

23
24
25
hE

26
27
28 Figure 1: Map of Oyo, Osun, and Ondo States indicating UI, OAU, and FUTA
29 Source: Cooperative Information Network, OAU, Ile – Ife (2018).
du

30
31 METHODOLOGY
32 Multi-stage sampling technique was employed for the survey. The first stage was the
33 identification of hostels on the categories of gender. Information from the survey revealed that
ca

34 there were two undergraduate one and postgraduate female hostels at FUTA. There were four
35
undergraduate and one postgraduate female hostels in OAU. UI has three undergraduate and two
36
tio

37 postgraduate female hostels. There were 282, 1162, and 1462 rooms in the female hostels in
38 FUTA, OAU, and UI. Systematic sampling was employed to select every tenth (10th) room in
39 each hostel across the universities where students were sampled for questionnaire administration.
n

40 One student was surveyed in each room. Based on the above, copies of the questionnaire
41 administered were 28, 116, and 149 in FUTA, OAU, and UI. Thus a total of 284 questionnaire
42 were administered. Details were as shown in Table 2
43
44
Table 2: Information on Students’ Hostels and Sample Selection in FUTA
45 School Category Number of Rooms selected Selected
46 rooms for the survey Students
47 (10%)
48
49 FUTA Undergraduate 222 22 22
50 Postgraduate 60 6 6
51
Total 282 28 28
52
53 OAU Undergraduate 618 62 62
54 Postgraduate 544 54 54
55
56 Total 1162 116 116
57
58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/he
Page 5 of 13 Health Education

1
2
3
4
UI Undergraduate 996 99 99
5 Postgraduate 466 47 47
6
Total 1462 146 146
7
8 Total 284
9
10
11 DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
12 This section discusses female students’ environmental sanitation behaviours in the three
13
universities selected for the study. All the tables in this work were sourced from the author’s field
14
15 survey of 2017. Behaviours examined are: students’ hand washing, toilet usage hygiene, Room
16 cleaning, solid waste storage, wastewater disposal, and choice of excreting.
17 Students Hand-Washing Behaviour
18 Hand-washing, also known as hand hygiene, is the act of cleaning one's hands to remove
19
He
soil, dirt, and micro-organism to prevent the spread of infections (The Hygiene Improvement
20 Project, 2015). Therefore, it is expected of every student to wash their hands after the use of the
21
22
toilet. The result presented in Table 2 showed that the proportion of students that occasionally
washed hands was 31.1% in UI, 27.0% in OAU, and 20.0% in FUTA. Students that often washed
alt

23
24 hands accounted for 36.0% in FUTA, 36.0% in OAU, and 33.6% in UI . There was a decrease in
25 the proportion of students that washed hands very often from 40.0% in FUTA to 23.6% in OAU.
hE

26 Likewise, the proportions of students in UI were 24.4%. Students that were not washing hands
27 after toilet usage represented 6.7% in OAU and 4.2% in UI. The proportion of students that had
28 good handwashing habits represented 60.6%. The students who occasionally washed hands were
29
28.3%, while those not used to washing hands accounted for 11.1%. The study showed that the
du

30
31 majority of the students had good handwashing behaviour. Meanwhile, some still found it in the
32 habit of not washing their hands. Moreover, anybody involved in this act may easily get infected
33 by any form of viruses.
ca

34
35 Table 2: Information on hand-washing behaviour
36
tio

37
Regularity FUTA OAU UI Total
38 Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
39 Very often 10 (40.0) 21 (23.6) 29 (24.4) 60 (25.8)
n

40 Often 9 (36.0) 32 (36.0) 40 (33.6) 81 (34.8)

41 Occasionally 5 (20.0) 24 (27.0) 37(31.1) 66 (28.3)
42
Seldom 1 (4.0) 6 (6.7) 8 (6.7) 15 (6.4)
43
44 Not at all – 6 (6.7) 5 (4.2) 11 (4.7)
45 Total 25 (100.0) 89 (100.0) 119(100.0) 233 (100.0)
46
47
48 Materials Students Used for Hands Washing
49
Good handwashing techniques include using soap, rubbing the hands together to create
50
51 friction, and rinsing under running water (Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety
52 (CCOASC), 2017). Also, WHO (2014) recommended the use of ash/mud when soap is not
53 available. Different materials used by students for handwashing were identified. These materials
54 in order of importance as used by students in the study area were: water only, water and soap, and
55 water and ash. These represented 61.4%, 37.8% and 0.9% respectively. From the analysis, it was
56
57
58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/he
 Health Education Page 6 of 13

1
2
3 only in UI that students used water and ash. The proportion of students that used water and soap
4
5
in FUTA was 64.0%, 36.0% of students used water only while no student used ash and water. In
6 OAU, 68.5% of students used water only and 31.5% were in the habit of using soap and water. In
7 UI students that engaged in using water only, water and soap; and water and ash were 61.3%,
8 37.0% and 1.7% respectively. Based on the definition of handwashing above, almost 39.0% of
9 students in the study area properly washed their hands. Analyses showed that approximately 61.0%
10 of the students across the universities in the study area engaged in using water only as a mean of
11
hand washing. That majority of students used water only suggested that many were rinsing hands
12
13
but not proper handwashing. This means that majority of the students in these universities engage
14 in poor handwashing behaviour. The summary of the materials used by the students in
15 handwashing were as presented in Table 3.
16
17 Table 3: Materials used in hands washing
18 Materials FUTA OAU UI Total
19
He

20
Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
21 Water only 9 (36) 61 (68.5) 73 (61.3) 143 (61.4)
22 Water & Soap 16 (64) 28 (31.5) 44 (37.0) 88 (37.8)
alt

23 Water & Ash – – 2 ( 1.7) 2 (0.9)

24 Total 25 (100) 89 (100) 119(100) 233
25
hE

26
27 Toilets Usage Hygiene
28 Presented in Table 4 is the regularity of flushing toilets after usage by the students in the
29 study area. Students that used to flush toilets very often and occasionally across the selected
du

30 universities were 50.2% and 24.5%, respectively. The proportions of students that often and
31 seldom flushed toilets decreased significantly to 14.6% and 5.6%, respectively. Students not used
32 to flushing accounted for 5.6%. In FUTA, students that flushed toilet occasionally represented
33
ca

34
32.0%. The proportions of students in this category decreased to 20.2% in OAU and 26.0% in UI.
35 The relative proportions of students in the study area that did not flush toilets were: 1.1% and
36 10.1%, respectively, in OAU and UI. As evident from the finding, 64.8% of students across the
tio

37 study area were good behavior regarding toilet flushing. On the other hand, 35.2% of students
38 were not regular in the habit of flushing toilets.
39
n

40 Table 4: Regularity of flushing toilets after usage

41 Regularity FUTA OAU UI Total
42
Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
43
44 Very often 10 (40.0) 45 (50.6) 62 (52.1) 117 (50.2)
45 Often 6 (24.0) 18 (20.2) 10 (8.4) 34 (14.6)
46 Occasionally 8 (32.0) 18 (20.2) 31 (26.0) 57 (24.5
47 Seldom 1 (4.0) 7 (7.9) 4 (3.4) 12 (5.6)
48 Not at all - 1 (1.1) 12 (10.4) 13 (5.6)
49
50 Total 25 (100.0) 89 (100.0) 119 (100.0) 233 (100.0)
51
52
53
54 Room Cleaning
55
56
57
58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/he
Page 7 of 13 Health Education

1
2
3 Rooms occupied by students are to be swept by them daily. The dirt (waste) generated during
4
5
the exercise was to be stored in a waste collection container provided by the school management.
6 Investigation on how often this behaviour is practiced showed that 40.0% of students in FUTA
7 swept their rooms ‘daily’. Others in this category were 22.5% of students in OAU and 19.3% of
8 students in UI. In FUTA, 24.0% of students swept ‘once in two days. The proportions of students
9 who swept their rooms once in two days in OAU and UI were 15.7% and 19.3%, respectively. The
10 students that swept their rooms once a week were 28.0% in FUTA, 55.1% in OAU, while UI
11
accounted for 38.7%. There was a decrease in the number of students that swept ‘once in two
12
13
weeks.
14 Findings from the analysis showed that 41.2% of students were used to sweeping exercises
15 in the hostels. These were proportions of ‘daily’ and ‘once in two days put together. Students that
16 mostly swept hostel rooms daily were noticeable in FUTA with 40.0%. As shown in Table 4,
17 students that do not sweep their rooms were 58.8%. This will harm the condition of their rooms
18 because these rooms may serve as hiding places for rodents and insects.
19
He

20
21 Table 5: Regularity of sweeping students hostel room
22 Regularity FUTA OAU UI Total
alt

23 Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)

24 Daily 10 (40.0) 20 (22.5) 23 (19.3) 53 (22.7)
25 Once in two days 6 (24.0) 14 (15.7) 23 (19.3) 43 (18.5)
hE

26
27
Once a week 7 (28.0) 49 (55.1) 46 (38.7) 102 (43.8)
28 Once in two 2 (8.0) 6 (6.7) 27 (22.7) 35 (15.0)
29 weeks
du

30 Not at all - - - -
31 Total 25 (100.0) 89 (100.0) 119 (100.0) 233 (100.0)
32
33
ca

34 4.1.5 Solid Waste Storage

35 Tchobanoglous, Theisen, and Vigil (1993) defined storage as where and how waste is stored
36 before it is collected. Afon (2008) emphasized that it is of utmost importance to properly store
tio

37 waste as it awaits collection to not cause unsightliness and attraction of vermin. For effective waste
38 management, materials to be used for storing waste should be light, durable, resistant to corrosion,
39 easy to clean, and with fly-proof cover (Oluwande 1983). Eight solid waste storage practices
n

40
41
adopted by students in their hostels were identified (see Table 6). Out of these storage receptacles,
42 metal containers with cover, plastic drums with cover, and storage placed on the street were not in
43 most cases provided close to hostel corridors; they were strategically located within the
44 environment in the hostels. The students themselves got waste receptacles like plastic bins, bucket-
45 out-of-use, nylon/polyethylene bag, and paper carton as waste storage materials before collection
46 by appropriate sanitation workers. These sanitation workers could be management-owned, or those
47 contracted the works.
48
49
The most widely used storage receptacles in the hostels of these universities were plastic
50 bins. It accounted for 44.3% of the storage receptacles. Bucket-out-of-use, nylon/polyethylene bag,
51 and paper cartons represented 19.4%, 23.0%, and 5.7% of solid waste storage receptacles. Other
52 storage receptacles were metal containers with cover, a plastic drum with cover, and a sack. These
53 represented 1.7%, 2.1% and 2.9% respectively. Plastic drum with cover was only found useful in
54 UI, and there was no place a metal container was sighted for storing waste there. The least storage
55
receptacle was storage placed on the street, which accounted for 1.0%. This was noticed in the
56
57
58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/he
 Health Education Page 8 of 13

1
2
3 hostels of UI. It was also found that 1.0% of the students precisely in UI were not in any way
4
5
storing waste. Going by the characteristics of good storage above, it is evident from the
6 findings that about 49.0% of the storage receptacles used by the students in these universities were
7 in line with effective waste storage management. These were the percentages of plastic bins, metal
8 containers with cover, plastic drum with cover, and storage placed on the street put together.
9 However, few students did not use any of the storage receptacles, while most students engaged in
10 the environment-unfriendly practice of storing waste.
11
12
13
Table 6: Solid Waste storage behaviour of students in the universities hostels in the study
14 area
15 Means FUTA OAU UI Total
16 Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
17 Plastic bin 25 (41.0) 89 (45.0) 119 (43.8) 233 (44.3)
18
Nylon / Polythene bag 13 (21.3) 49(24.8) 59(21.7) 121 (22.0)
19
He

20 Bucket-out-of-use 15 (24.6) 38 (19.2) 49 (18.0) 102 (19.4)

21 Paper carton 4 (6.6) 10 (5.1) 16 (5.9) 30 (5.7)
22 Sack 2 (3.3) 5 (2.5) 8 (2.9) 15 (2.9)
alt

23 Plastic drum with cover - - 11 (4.0) 11 (2.1)

24 Metal container with a 2 (3.3) 7 (3.5) - 9 (1.7)
25
cover
hE

26
27 Storage placed on the - - 5 (1.8) 5 (1.0)
28 street
29 Do not store waste - - 5 (1.8) 5 (1.0)
du

30 Total 61 193 272 526 (100.0)

31 Note *these exceeded questionnaire administered because students were allowed to identify more than one means.
32
33 Alternative Means of Excreting Outside their Toilets in Hostels
ca

34 Taken alternative means might be due to the inadequacy of vital environmental sanitation
35
36
facilities that included water and toilet. Also, Gunther et al, (2011) opined that there is the
tio

37 possibility of resorting to open defecation if the toilets are inadequate or not kept clean. Eight
38 different means were identified (nearby bush, open space in the night, open space in the morning,
39 excreting in a can/nylon, excreting on toilets floor, back of hostels building, uncompleted building,
n

40 and dilapidated building

41 ). Students were instructed to indicate from the list applicable means to them in order of
42
importance.
43
44 The most prominent alternative means of excretion is the nearby bush with 17.6%; in the
45 following proportions: 12.5%, 31.4%, and 9.4% in FUTA, OAU, and UI, respectively. Next is the
46 use of can/nylon' with 16.3%, in the following proportions: 22.9%, 17.3%, and 14.6% in FUTA,
47 OAU, and UI. Excretion on ‘open space in the early hours of the morning' took 16.1%, with
48 varying percentages across the universities under study; FUTA has 14.6%, OAU has 13.6%, and
49 UI with 18.1%. The analysis showed that the use of ‘toilet floor' was also common with 15.0% in
50
51
the hostels across the universities. The least important is the use of ‘dilapidated building’ with
52 1.6% and 1.4% in OAU and UI.
53
54 Table 7: Students Behaviour in excreting outside the use of Toilet in University Hostels
55 Means FUTA OAU UI Total
56
57
58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/he
Page 9 of 13 Health Education

1
2
3 Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
4
5 Nearby bush 6 (12.5) 60 (31.4) 27 (9.4) 93 (17.6)
6 In a can/nylon 11 (22.9) 33 (17.3) 42 (12.0) 86 (16.3)
7 Open space in the morning 7 (14.6) 26 (13.6) 52 (18.1) 85 (16.1)
8 Open space in the night 9 (18.8) 23 (12.0) 50 (17.4) 82 (15.6)
9 Toilet floor 3 (6.3) 16 (8.4) 60 (20.8) 79 (15.0)
10
11
Back of hostel building 3 (6.3) 18 (9.4) 28 (9.7) 49 (9.3)
12 Uncompleted building 9 (18.8) 12 (6.3) 25 (8.7) 46 (8.7)
13 Dilapidated building - 3 (1.6) 4 (1.4) 7 (1.3)
14 Total 48 191 288 527* (100.0)
15 Note *These exceeded questionnaire administered because students were allowed to identify more than one means
16
17 Factors Influencing Students Environmental Sanitation Behaviours
18 The study employed factor analysis to identify factors influencing the female students’
19
He
environmental sanitation behaviour in the study area. The factors explain most of the variability
20
21
among a large number of observed variables. The first factor explains most of the variance in the
22 data, and each successive factor explains less of the variance. Factors with loadings of 0.32 and
alt

23 above were used as cut-off point (Tabachnick and Fidell 1996). In other studies where Factor
24 Analysis has been applied, such as Dada (2014), Daramola (2015), and Agbabiaka (2016), 0.45,
25 0.50, and 0.55 were used as cut-off points of loading variables for interpretation. Therefore, this
hE

26 study used 0.50, which is considered good as it has a 30% overlapping variance (Tabachnick and
27
Fidell 1996). The Extraction Method was Principal Component Analysis. The Rotation Method
28
29 was Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
du

30
31 Fifteen variables that are closely related to factors influencing the female students’
32 environmental sanitation behaviour were loaded for analysis. As revealed in Table 8, fifteen factors
33 had significant influence on female students’ environmental sanitation behaviour in the studied
ca

34 universities. The average communalities of the 15 variables is 0.712 (71.2%) greater than 0.5. This
35 indicates that each item shared some common variance with others (Neill, 1994) (See Table 8).
36
tio

The entire fifteen variables were reduced to five factors which accounted for 72.25% of the entire
37
38
fifteen variables initially loaded (See Table 9).
39
Table 8: Factor Analysis: Variables Communalities
n

40
41 Initial Extraction
42 Toilet floors are covered by urine and other waste materials 1.000 .524
43 The toilet is soiled with excreta 1.000 .767
44 The toilet is usually in lock 1.000 .631
45
Poor ventilation 1.000 .733
46
47 Fear that the toilet building can collapse 1.000 .797
48 The toilet is filled up 1.000 .779
49 Lack of running water to flush the toilet 1.000 .752
50 Lack of privacy 1.000 .794
51 Cannot withstand toilet odour 1.000 .806
52
53 Fear of contracting a disease 1.000 .734
54 Negative attitude of the cleaners 1.000 .706
55 Politeness of the cleaners 1.000 .537
56 Need to queue for toilet usage 1.000 .693
57
58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/he
 Health Education Page 10 of 13

1
2
3 Fear that the toilet can cave in 1.000 .874
4
5 Inadequate toilet space 1.000 .711
6 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
7
8 Table 9: Factor Analysis: Total Variance Explained
9 Component Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
10 Total % of Cumulative % Total % of Cumulative %
11 variance variance
12 1 3.657 24.380 24.380 3.657 24.380 24.380
13
14
2 2.795 18.633 43.013 2.795 18.633 43.013
15 3 1.836 12.238 55.251 1.836 12.238 55.251
16 4 1.296 8.642 63.893 1.296 8.642 63.893
17 5 1.254 8.360 72.253 1.254 8.360 72.253
18 6 .906 6.038 78.290
19
He
7 .712 4.747 83.038
20
21 8 .667 4.445 87.483
22 9 .538 3.589 91.072
alt

23 10 .395 2.631 93.703

24 11 .321 2.141 95.844
25
12 .207 1.380 97.223
hE

26
27 13 .169 1.125 98.348
28 14 .139 .926 99.274
29 15 .109 .726 100.000
du

30 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

31
32 Presented in Table 10 are the variables that are highly loaded on each factor. Three
33
ca

variables are highly, strongly, and positively loaded on factor 1. These variables explained the
34
35 influencing factors of female students’ environmental sanitation behaviour. They are the toilet
36 soiled with excreta (0.865), fear that the toilet building can collapse (0.849), negative attitude of
tio

37 the cleaners (0.841). The total variance explained by these variables accounted for 18.86%. This
38 factor is associated with Poor Usage Factor.
39
n

40 Factor 2 had four variables loaded on it. It is named Psychological factor. The variables
41 are arranged in order of influence, and they are as follows: lack of privacy (0.851) cannot withstand
42 toilet odour (0.844), fear of contracting a disease (0.732), and the toilet is usually in lock (0.681).
43
All these accounted for 18.61% of the total variance explained.
44
45
Factor 3 has three variables that are highly loaded on it. These are Full toilets (-0.845),
46
47 politeness of the cleaners (0.650), and poor ventilation (0.594). This loading pattern could be
48 associated with Comfortability with the total variance explained of 12.90%.
49
50 Factor 4 also had four variables highly loaded on it; these variables were: inadequate toilet
51 space (0.710), lack of running water to flush the toilet (0.679), toilet floors are covered by urine
52 and other waste materials (-0.529), and the need to queue for toilet usage (-0.481). This accounted
53 for 12.64% of the total variance explained and as such named - Nature of Toilet Environment
54 factor.
55
56
57
58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/he
Page 11 of 13 Health Education

1
2
3 Factor 5 has two variables highly loaded on it. These are fear that the toilet can cave in
4
5
(0.902) and need to queue for toilet usage (0.572). This factor could be termed as Accessibility
6 factor. The total variance explained by these variables accounted for 9.24%.
7
8 Table 10: Rotated Component Matrix of the Factor Analysis
9 Factors Variable loaded Value
10 Poor Usage The toilet is soiled with excreta .865
11 (% Var.: 18.86) Fear that the toilet building can collapse .849
12 Negative attitude of the cleaners .841
(E-value: 2.829)
13
14 Psychological Lack of privacy .851
15 (% Var.: 18.61) Cannot withstand toilet odour .844
16 (E-value: 2.792) Fear of contacting disease .732
17 The toilet is usually in lock .618
18 Comfort The toilet is filled up -.845
19 (% Var.: 12.90)
He
Politeness of the cleaners .650
20 (E-value: 1.936) Poor ventilation .594
21
Nature of Toilet Inadequate toilet space
22 .710
Environment Lack of running water to flush the toilet
alt

23 .679
24 (% Var.: 12.64) Toilet floors are covered by urine and other waste
-.529
25 (E-value: 1.895) materials
hE

26 Accessibility
27 Fear that the toilet can cave in .902
(% Var.: 9.24) Need to queue for toilet usage .572
28 (E-value: 1.387)
29
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
du

30
`Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
31
Rotation converged in 24 iterations.z
32
33
ca

34
35 5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
36 The work assessed the environmental sanitation behaviour of female students in the three
tio

37 selected universities in southwestern Nigeria. The findings showed that approximately 61.0% of
38 the students across the universities in the study area engaged in unhygienic means of hand washing.
39 The study showed that female students responded well to toilet flushing as about 64.8% engaged
n

40
in this practice. According to the study, female students that swept rooms regularly were below
41
42 average. This may likely to have a negative influence on the tidiness of their rooms. It was evident
43 that female students’ solid waste storage behaviour was good in hostels. Considerable percentage
44 of students in the study area was identified to be practicing the use of open space for defecation.
45 However, these practices is considered un-hygienic and environmentally unfriendly. Translating
46 to poor environmental sanitation behaviour among the students in the selected universities; which
47 may be as a result of low awareness of environmental sanitation practices and inadequate sanitation
48
materials. Based on the above, the following recommendations are made to improving the
49
50 students’ environmental sanitation behaviours.
51
52 The school authority, through their maintenance units, makes adequate provision and
53 maintenance of sanitation materials. Like any other voluntary group in higher institutions, there
54 should be the Environmental Sanitation Awareness Group (ESAG) formation to serve as a crusader
55 of environmental sanitation education. This group will embark on students' enlightenment and
56 environmental sanitation education in different universities. Students will be sensitized about the
57
58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/he
 Health Education Page 12 of 13

1
2
3 dangers attached to poor sanitation behaviour. This should also serve as an avenue through which
4
5
students would be educated on their roles in achieving a better, clean, and healthy learning and
6 living environment. Furthermore, The Division of student affairs should organizing seminars,
7 lectures, and symposia for students on environmental sanitation issues and set aside one lecture
8 free day annually, preferably during the International Federation of Environmental Health as
9 sanitation day in each of the universities.
10
11 References
12 Acheampong, P. T. (2010): Environmental Sanitation in the Kumasi Metropolitan Area. A
13 Master of Science Thesis Submitted to the Department of Planning, Kwame Nkrumah
14
15
University of Science and Technology, Kumasi.
16
17
Afon, A.O (2003): Issues in Urban Residential Area Solid Waste Management Sustainability;
18 Environmental Sustainability in a Democratic Environment. Editors Adekunle V, Okoko E
19 and Adeduntan S. Published by the Environment and Behaviour Association of Nigeria
He

20 (EBAN) 2003. Proceeding of the 11th Annual Conference of EBAN held at the Federal
21 University of Technology, Akure 26th and 27th November, 2003.
22
alt

23
Afon, A.O. (2008): Intra-urban Variation in Solid Waste Storage Practice in Nigerian Traditional
24
25 City: The Case of Ogbomoso. Journal of the Nigerian Institute of Town Planners. Vol.
XXI, No. 1, pp.104 - 129.
hE

26
27
28 Afon, A.O; Okanlawon, S.A; Adigun, F.A and Odunola O.O (2008): Evolving Sustainable
29 Environmental Sanitation Behaviour in Secondary School Students: Home and School as
du

30 Correlated in Ogbomoso, Nigeria. The Sustainable City V. 615. WIT Transactions on

31 Ecology and the Environment, Vol.117, WIT Press. www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541
32 (on-line).
33
ca

34 Agunwamba, J.C (1998): Solid Waste Management in Southwestern Nigeria, International

35
Journal of Environmental management, Vol. 22 pp. 849 - 856
36
tio

37
Agunwamba, J.C., Ukpai, O.K. and Onyebueyi, I.C (1998): Solid Waste Management in
38
39 Onitsha, Nigeria. Journal of Waste Management Research.16 (1). 23-31.
n

40
41
Chukwu, K.E and Uwadiegwu, B.O (2012): Assessment and Management of Stormwater Drainage
42 Facilities in Residential Area of Enugu City. In Laryea, S., Agyepong, S.A.,Leiringer, R. and
43 Hughes, W. (Eds). Procs 4th West Africa Built Environment Research (WABER)
44 Conference, 24-26 July, Abuja, Nigeria, 367-375
45
46 Daramola, O. (2012) Clapping With One Hand: The Case of Urban Environmental Sanitation
47
Practices in Nigeria. Journal of Applied Technology in Environmental Sanitation, 2 (4):
48
49 223-228.
50
51 Dwivedi, P. and Sharma, A. N. (2007): A study on Environmental Sanitation, Sanitary Habits and
52 Personal Hygiene among the Baigas of Samnapur Block of Dindori District, Madhya
53 Pradesh. Journal of Human Ecology, 22(1):7-10.
54
55 en.wikipedial. org/wiki/oau: accessed on 4th January, 2015)
56
57
58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/he
Page 13 of 13 Health Education

1
2
3 Franceys, R.; Pickford, J. and Reed, R. (1992): A guide to the Development of Onsite Sanitation.
4
5
Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO).
6
7
Günther, I., Horst, A., Lüthi, C., Mosler, H.J., Niwagaba, B.C. and Tumwebaze, K.I. (2011).
8 Where do Kampala's poor "go"? Urban sanitation conditions in Kampala's low-income
9 areas. Research for Policy 1. ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
10
11 Hornby, A.S. (2005): Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: International Student’s Edition.
12 Seventh Edition. Oxford University Press.
13
14 IRC (2006): Basic Urban Services (BUS) Handbook. International Water and Sanitation Centre.
15
16
Delft: The Netherland.
17
18 Kromer and Kerman (2008): West Philadelphia Initiatives: A Case study in Urban Revitalization.
19 Prepared by Netter Centre for Community Partnerships at the University of Pennsyivania,
He

20 March, 2008
21
22
Ogunu, M.A. (n.d): The Development of University Education in Nigeria; A Statistical Analysis..
alt

23
24
Ogwuleka, T.C (2009): Municipal Solid Waste Characteristics and Management in Nigeria, Iran
25
Journal of Environmental Health Science Engineering, Vol.6 pp. 173 – 180.
hE

26
27 Olatunji, S.A (2010): A Study of Students’ Housing Quality in Selected Universities in Nigeria.
28 An M.sc. Research Proposal Presented at Faculty of Environmental Design and
29 Management, OAU, Ile – Ife.
du

30
31 Olawoye, R.A and Awoyemi, A.O (2002): Assessment of Availability of Toilet Facilities in
32 Alanamu Ward of Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria. Sahel Medical Journal Vol.5(4) 2002:199-
33 203.
ca

34
35 Schertenbleib, R. (2005): Household Centred Environmental Sanitation: Implementing the
36
tio

Bellagio Principles in Urban Environmental Sanitation. Provisional Guideline for Decision-

37
38 Makers. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Water Supply and
39 Sanitation Collaborative Council.
n

40
41 Scott B, Curtis C, Rabie T, N G-A. (2007): Health in our hands but not in our heads: understanding
42 hygiene motivation in Ghana. Health Policy and Planning. 2007;22:225–233. [PubMed]
43
44 Toye, S.A. (n.d): Poliferation of Universities; The Nigerian Experience.
45
46 WHO and UNDP (1997): Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation: A New
47 Approach to Working with Communities. Accessed on 17th October, 2012 at
48 http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/envsan/EOS96-11a.pdf
49 WHO and UNICEF, (2000): Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment Report. [web
50
document]. Available on the worldwide web: http://www.who.int/docstore/
51
52 water_sanitation_health/Globassessment/GlobalTOC.htm cited 2.5.2005]
53
54 Wikipedia free ecyclopedia: accessed on 27th July, 2016.
55
56
57
58
59
60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/he