CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Sanitation is concerned with the removal of human waste and keeping places free from dirt. It
is also connected with public health especially general hygiene and removal of human waste
through the sewage system (Encarta dictionary 2007). According to the National Sanitation
Foundation of USA, the word sanitation is defined as a way of life that is expressed in the clean
home, farm, business, neighborhoods and community, (Park, 2011). Also, (UNICEF AND WHO,
2012) defines sanitation as the provision of facilities and services for the safe disposal of human
urine and feces. Hence, inadequate sanitation is a major cause of disease world-wide and improving
sanitation is known to have a significant beneficial impact on health both in households and across
communities. The word 'sanitation' also refers to the maintenance of hygienic conditions through
services such as garbage collection and waste-water disposal. In addition, environmental sanitation
according to WHO (2012) is the control of all those factors in man’s physical environment which
exercise or may exercise a deleterious effect on his physical development, health and survival. It
could also be seen as the principle and practice of effecting healthful and hygienic conditions in the
environment to promote public health and welfare, improve quality of life and ensure a sustainable
environment (Alabi, 2010). The essential components of environmental sanitation include: solid
waste management; medical waste management; excreta and sewage management; food sanitation;
sanitary inspection of premises; market and abattoir sanitation; adequate potable water supply;
school sanitation; pest and vector control; management of urban drainage; control of reared and
stray animals; disposal of the dead animals; weed and vegetation control; hygiene education and
promotion. Solid waste management can be defined as a regulation associated with control of
generation, storage, collection, transfer, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste in a way
governed by the best principles of public health, economics, engineering, aesthetics and other
environmental considerations (Daskalopoulos, 2009) .In developing countries, solid waste
management is considered to be one of the most serious environmental problems confronting most
urban areas (Sinha and Enayetullah, 2000). The problem is compounded as these countries continue
to urbanize rapidly. The population increase inserts the pressure on local authorities on the
management of solid wastes. It is estimated that most municipal authorities can collect and dispose

1
of 20 – 30% of the generated solid waste (Chinamo, 2003). Like in many other countries, waste
management is a problem of major concern in most municipalities in Nigeria. For example, about
200 metric tons of solid waste is generated daily in municipality town of Nigeria, but the municipal
authorities can only collect and dispose less than 35% of the generated waste. Of the uncollected
waste, 35% is disposed in refuse pits while 30% is dumped in streets, streams and rivers (SUMO,
2003). If not properly managed, solid waste creates favorable breeding ground for vermin and
insects and causes a serious risk of communicable diseases. In addition, solid waste in waterways
causes pollution of the water as well as blocking the flow of water causing flooding during heavy
rains.
Historically, the amount of wastes generated by human population was insignificant mainly due to
the low population densities, coupled with the fact that there was very little exploitation of natural
resources. Common wastes produced during the early ages were mainly ashes and human &
biodegradable wastes (Biodegradable waste is a type of waste, typically originating from plant or
animal sources, which may be broken down by other living-organisms. Waste that cannot be
broken down by other living organisms may be called non-biodegradable) and these were released
back into the ground locally, with minimal environmental impact.

Solid waste management can be defined as a regulation associated with control of generation,
storage, collection, transfer, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste in a way governed
by the best principles of public health, economics, engineering, aesthetics and other
environmental considerations (Daskalopoulos, 1999). In developing countries, solid waste
management is considered to be one of the most serious environmental problems confronting
most urban areas (Sinha and Enayetullah, 2000). In most African countries, management of solid
waste is the responsibility of local authorities, which have low capacity in terms of financial,
operational, institutional structures, management, and inappropriate technologies, which affect
the availability, or sustainability of solid waste management services. Recent events in major
urban centres in Africa have shown that the problem of waste management has become serious
that has aborted most efforts by city authorities to collect and dispose the generated solid wastes
(Onibokun, 1999).
Indeed indiscriminate refuse dumping had become major part of Nigerian cities and towns.
Hadejia is a growing Nigerian town with the characteristics of poor level of environmental health,

2
indiscriminate dumping of garbage and poor drinking water in some part of the town. Thus,
foregoing forms the basis of poor level of sanitation in Hadejia town.

1.2 Statement of the research problem

The Management of waste has become an area of major concern in Hadejia today. It
appears to be a losing battle against the harmful consequences of unguided waste and the attainment
of a clean healthy environment for all indigenes of the Local Government. It is common sight in
Hadejia today to see heaps / accumulation of festering waste dumps in parts of the Local
Government. All sides of residential areas, the drains, corners of major or and minor streets,
undeveloped plots of land have all become waste dumps for many households. As one writer puts it,
waste increases in a geometrical progression while collection and disposal increases at an
arithmetical progression (Akinwale, 2005).

The beauty of any environment lies on its good sanitary condition. This is so because when
environment is clean the live of its citizenry is not threatened by disease and illness. Proper refuse
disposal management involves the dumping of waste (solid, liquid and gas) from our homes public
outfit for example school, hospital and so on. Population increase in urban town of Hadejia has
largely resulted from the increase of rural- to-urban movement. Increased population is positively
associated with increased generation of different types of wastes. Additionally, a large quantity of
solid wastes generated in Hadejia town originates from agricultural products. Solid waste
management in Hadejia is largely carried out by municipal authorities. This is the mandatory
activity which is provided under the Local Government Act, No. 8 of 1982 (Urban Authorities Act).
On the other hand, municipal authorities have very low capacity in solid waste management. It is
expected that most municipal authorities can collect and dispose of 20 – 30% of the generated solid
waste (Chinamo, 2003). As it is the case in most municipalities and cities in Nigeria, in Hadejia
town the cost of managing solid wastes is quite high and significant proportion of the generated
waste is left unattended. There is, consequently, a need to involve of communities (public) in solid
waste management. In any case, large quantity of solid waste is generated by communities. If well
organized and planned, communities can successfully and profitably manage solid waste. The most
profitable and sustainable way is composting which can be used for urban agriculture and source of
income. Earlier studies demonstrated that about 70 - 80 % of the generated urban waste produced in

3
 developing countries is agricultural origin which is biodegradable (Akinmoladun and Adejumo,
2011).

1.3 Research questions

The study will be designed to answer the following question
i. Does the inhabitant of Hadejia are aware of the indiscriminate waste disposal in their
environment?
ii. In which ways does public participate in environmental sanitation?
iii. What are the peculiar health problem resulting from poor environmental sanitation in Hadejia?
1.4 Aim and objectives
The aim of this study is to assess the sanitary condition of Hadejia through the following objectives.
i. To find out whether the people of Hadejia are aware of the indiscriminate waste disposal in their
environment.
ii. To identify in which ways does public participate in environmental sanitation
iii. To identify the peculiar health problem resulting from poor environmental sanitation.
1.5 Scope of the study
It is fact that growth process or urban transformation is an inter-play of both socio-
economic, cultural geographical and technological factor. This research however focuses on both
liquid and solid waste and their effect on the living condition of Hadejia dwellers. The study will be
limited to Hadejia and its environs. The study intends to investigate the people inability to maintain
sanitarily clean environment and to emphasize the link between good health and clean environment.
The geographical scope of the study is Hadejia town of Jigawa state (North West of Nigeria).
1.6 Justification of the study
This research focused on assessment of public participation in environmental sanitation with
reference of Hadejia Local Government. The study has created awareness and attitude to public
participation in environmental sanitation in Hadejia Local Government, Municipal.
The study increases the knowledge on Municipal Solid Waste Management implementation
problems, to know the effects of Municipal Solid Waste Management, to increase the practical
knowledge so as to help the public sectors to keep clean environment and managing domestic solid
waste sources. The findings are used as reference to other researchers and to the organization can be
used as a source of improvement Municipal Solid Waste Management preparation and

4
implementation. Furthermore, the study acts as a good source of information to the decision makers
in Local Government Authorities (LGA) and other Government Sectors.
CHAPTER TWO

2.1.0 Conceptual Issues, Theoretical Frame Work and Literature Review

Sanitary condition in communities involves careful planning design and construction of

facilities, which involve waste water disposal system, solid waste management and water supply
system e.t.c these facilities must be appropriate to meet the need and demands of women, men
and children in the communities, otherwise they will not use them, care for them or pay for their
operation and maintenance (Mitchell 1999, Sharma and Deepak, 2001). Facilities must also be
designed to work properly, easy to operate and maintain.

Sanitary situation in rural and semi-urban areas has been of great interest to researchers
and organizations such as UNICEF, WHO, e.t.c this is important as many people are living in
rural and semi-urban areas. Most sanitary facilities found in urban areas may not be suggested
for the urban areas as consideration such as finance availability of materials and sometimes the
necessary technology is usually not found in the setting.

2.1.1 Environmental condition

. Man in this day to day activities generates waste has by product of his handwork or
metabolism, lack of proper disposal of waste has led to the plague and diseases of epidemic
proportion in ancient times and in recent time, unchecked disposal of waste and even the
extinction of certain animals and plant species, to mention but few.

Inadequate community sanitation and waste disposal facilities have the potential to
negatively impact the surrounding environment in several ways. Wastes left in the open
environment can contaminate surface water resources, which can endanger downstream users as
well as the aquatic ecosystem, while groundwater resources can be contaminated from latrines
that are improperly lined or sited (UN-Water2004).
it is seen only 63 percent of the combined urban population of developing countries had
proper adequate facilities for excreta disposal. Only a few of these were served by pipe sewerage
system. In rural areas only 13 percent had proper excreta disposal facilities... The proper means

5
of disposal of waste water is to discharge it into tidal water. On inland course, clean water in a
water course however is normally well oxygenated and contains a large numbers of lives such as
bacteria and aquatic plant and animals which are interdependent and keep the stream in healthy
condition. However this limit is exceeded due to over trading which eventually led the stream to
become septic. In Nigerian many canal and river have become grossly with sewage and
industrial waste. WHO (2012)

2.2 Theoretical Literature Review

Many studies have been conducted on community participation in solid waste

management. Moghadam(2009). Point out that Community participation were all people,
especially the poor and disadvantaged, have both the right and duty to be involved in decisions
that affect their daily lives and the services provided are underutilized and misused, because the
people for whom they are designed are not involved in their development. (Hoornweg and
Thomas 1999) reported that solid waste is an overall term used to include litter and refuse or
garbage. Municipal solid waste includes the waste generated from residential areas, commercial,
industrial, agricultural, institutional, construction, destruction process and municipal services. In
developing countries municipal solid waste include refuse from households, institutions like
hospitals and hotels, market places, street sweepings and wastes from industrial and commercial
establishments (Tam and Tam, 2008).
Afroz, (2010). Found out that Solid waste management involves control of generation,
storage, collection, transportation, processing and disposal in a manner that is in accordance with
the best principles of public health, economic, engineering and other environmental concerns
Inappropriate waste handling, storage, collection and disposal practices cause environmental and
public health risks in urban and semi-urban areas.

Wastes are unwanted or discarded materials that arise from human activities. As applied
to this study, domestic solid waste will be unwanted solid material that arises from human
activities originating from domestic consumption and production activities. This includes food
preparations, sweepings, cleaning, animal manure and disposal of old cloth. Over the years,
Tanzania urban and semi-urban areas have suffered a low standard of service regarding
collection and disposal of solid waste generated.

6
 Akinmoladun and Adejumo (2011) reported that large quantity of solid wastes generated
in most urban areas of Tanzania originated from residential areas and agricultural products. Solid
waste arises from human activities such as consumption and production activities. Agricultural
wastes accumulate in market places, households, livestock markets and butcher houses. Agro-
waste generated at market places includes remains of fruits, vegetables, fish, livestock products,
packaging materials and others resulting from value adding processes. At the household level,
agro-waste includes food remains and animal manure in addition to the above.
Iver&Aniana (2001) recognized that community participation in solid waste management
covers a variety of types encompasses several forms of local involvement, including: Awareness
and teaching proper sanitary behavior; contributing cash, goods or labor; and or participating in
consultation administration, and/or management functions.
With greater public participation, the community can cooperate with public or private
entities to set payment rates for service charges. Community management, the highest level of
community participation, gives the community authority and control over operation,
management and/or maintenance services benefiting its members. Community management may
come about through partnership with governmental agencies and NGOs. Community- based
waste management CBM projects require institutional support and recognition in order to be
successful. (Hazra and Goel, (2009). Have been reported that collection, transfer, and transport
practices are affected by improper bin Collection Systems, poor route planning, lack of
information about collection schedule. Lack of knowledge of treatment systems by Authorities is
reported as one factor affecting the treatment of Waste (Chung and Lo, 2008).
2.2.1 The Public participation theory
According to Tanzania Environmental Management Act, 2004 defines as theory, which
requires the involvement of the people in the development of policies, plans, and processes for
the management of the Environment. In Environmental Impact Assessment, stated that, the
Council should adopt guidelines on Public Participation, especially those likely to be affected by
the Project being the subject of EI A review or study.

7
2.3 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW

2.3.1 Enhancement of sanitation in environment

The term sanitation condition has no generally accepted definition. It has been defined in
different ways. Although the Encarta dictionary (2007) defines sanitation condition as removal
of human waste and keeping places free from dirt. And also sanitations is the hygienic means of
promoting health through prevention of human contact with hazard of waste and maintenance of
public health and hygiene, especially the water supply and sewage systems. Encarta dictionary
(2009).The institute of environmental biotechnology in Malaysia (2003) defined environmental
sanitation as the central of environmental factors that form this category are solid waste
management, water and waste treatment, industrial waste treatment and noise pollution control.

Hedberg et.al (2006) argue that equipment can become contaminated in various ways
including poor personal hygiene, bad toilet facilities, improper sanitation and irregular supply of
safe drinking water. George (2002) view basic sanitation as the management of human feaces at
the household level, this technology is the indication used to describe the target of the
Millennium Development Goal on sanitation. The United Nation Millennium Goals (MDGs)
include a target to reduce by half the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation by
2015. In December 2006, the United Nations General Assembly declared 2008 as the
international year for sanitation in recognition of need to facilitate the slow progress being made
by the MDGs sanitation target. Particular concern is removing the stigma for sanitation so that
importance can be more easily publicly discussed. Secondly to highlight the poverty reduction,
health and other benefit that flow from better hygiene, household sanitation arrangement and
waste water treatment.

Solid waste in environment is an overall term used to include rubbish and refuse or
garbage, and Municipal solid waste includes the waste generated from residential areas,
commercial, industrial, agricultural, institutional, construction, demolition process and municipal
services. Also in line of Tam and Tam, (2008) stated that in developing countries municipal solid
waste include refuse from households, institutions like hospitals and hotels, market places, street
sweepings and wastes from industrial and commercial establishments.

8
 A large quantity of solid wastes generated in most urban areas of Nigeria originate from
residential areas and agricultural products. Solid waste arises from human activities such as
consumption and production activities. Agricultural wastes accrue in market places, households,
livestock markets and butchery houses.

Agro-waste generated at market places includes remains of fruits, vegetables, fish,

livestock products, packaging materials and others resulting from value adding processes. At the
household level, agro-waste includes food remains and animal manure in addition to the above.
Livestock markets and butchery houses generate manure and other gastrointestinal wastes.
Although there is no detailed information, previous studies demonstrated that agricultural wastes
accounts for about 70-80% of the urban waste generated in developing countries (Akinmoladun
& Adejumo, 2011).

Solid waste management in environmental sanitation involves control of generation,

storage, collection, transportation, processing and disposal in a manner that is in accordance with
the best principles of public health, economic, engineering and other environmental concerns
(Afroz at el., 2010) wrong waste handling, storage, collection and disposal practices cause
environmental and public health risks in urban and semi-urban areas. Wastes are unwanted or
discarded materials that arise from human activities. As applied to this study, domestic solid
waste will be unwanted solid material that arises from human activities originating from
domestic consumption and production activities.
Boadi and Kuitunen (2005), observed that in Barbados, there are no containers designated
by municipalities or collection companies to “set out” waste for collection. It is up to individual
residences to designate some sort of collection containers. Largely, these are plastic barrels or
discarded oil drums. Most of municipalities in developing countries typically lack financial and
skills needed to manage solid waste management crisis. Several countries have realized that the
way they manage their solid waste does not satisfy the objectives of sustainable development
(Qdais, 2006). Maya and Thomas (2007) pointed out that different people according to their
cultural context define public participation in communal activities differently. This is
emphasized more by Njau and Mruma (2004) who states that public participation means
involving people; men and women in the development process as active participants and not as
passive recipients at all levels.

9
2.3.4 Effect of unsanitary condition on man and his environment

It is pertinent to ponder and reflect on how many diseases could be eradicated or

prevented if there are improvements in the sanitary condition in Africa and particularly Nigeria.
The burden of ill health with its attendant socio-economic impact experienced by epidemic
communities as a result of inadequate excreta disposal facilities or inadequate personnel or
domestic cleanliness’s enormous. Improvement in sanitary condition ,better housing and changes
in hygienic practices have significantly prevented infection and reduce ill health resulting from
excreta disposal practice positively improve the health and socio-economic livelihood in
endemic and infection resulting from unsanitary condition will further be discussed below:

2.3.4.1 Environmental pollution

The term pollution is derived from Greek word which means “defilement” encyclopedia
Britannica (1998) view pollution as a change in the condition of an environment which harmfully
affected the quality of life including effect on the animals and plant. Environmental pollution
causes a lot of health problems such as whooping cough, Typhoid, Dysentery, water borne
disease. Environmental pollution puts one in discomfort situation and negatively affects the total
being of the individual.

2.3.4.2 Disease and infection

It is estimated that more than billion of the world population is chronically infected with
socio-economic helminthes and 200 million are infected with shistosomiasis (Ekpo, 2008). The
high prevalence of this infection is closely correlated with poverty, poor environmental hygiene,
and impoverished health services. Besides human excreta are the principal vehicle for the
transmission and spread of a wide range of communicable diseases. Some of these disease rank
among the chief cause of sickness and health in developing countries, where people endure
poverty and poor nutrition and where better provision is needed for sanitation, clean drinking
water, health care and health education.

These diseases start their journey from infected person to a new victim when the
causative organism is passed in the excreta. The disease causing organism (pathogens) travel
from the anus to the mouth by a variety of routes, sometimes directly on contaminated fingers

10
and sometimes on food, utensils, ascariasis cause chronic debilitating conditions that impair
quality of life and infected individual are more-related to die from super imposed acute infection.
Staggering large number of people worldwide is believed to be infected with excreta related
disease; about billion have roundworm, 900 million with hookworm and 800 million with
whipworm (WHO, 2000).

2.4 Necessity for proper sanitation in environment

Improving environmental health in order to create more beautiful environment is a

necessity. It is to appreciate the potential and limitations of air, water, land and relating them to
satisfying living condition. Beside a sanitized and conducive environment is prerequisite to
improve wellbeing, increase socio-economic productivity and environmental sustainability.

2.4.1 Improve wellbeing

The quality of our natural environment is deteriorating due to the rapid growth of science
and technology which has produced tremendous benefit to human life. Along with this merit,
advance environmental modification occurred and forms an important health and welfare can be
improved by removing of human waste and keeping place free from dirt (Encarta dictionary
2008).

2.4.2 Increase socio-economic productivity

The term social is derived from a Latin word Socius which as a noun means “an
associate, ally, companion, business partner or comrade” the objective from socialist refers to a
“a bond between people” ( Pavlina 2005).

The term productivity is etymologically derived from Latin word producer which means
“lead or birth forth, draw out”. It connotes in a general sense the state of being productive, fertile
or efficient. It is often confused with “efficiency”. In reality the modern understanding of
productivity is doing things right at the least possible time with the highest possible quality and
the maximum level of satisfaction of stakeholders, such as customers, employee.

Social productivity connotes efficient conduct of social interactions management of

social relations and cooperative social activities. In one “socio-economic” sense (and implying

11
‘societal productivity’). It is the rate at which goods and service of social and economic value or
worth to its recipients and beneficiaries are produced in society. In other words it is based on the
inclusion of paid work or labor, voluntarily or honorary (unpaid) works, care of the family
members, community service and informed help to friends into the equation. Generally work is
considered the most important element in the measure of social productivity, Prokopenko( April
2005).

2.4.3 Environmental sustainability

Reducing poverty and achieving sustained development must be done in conjunction with
a healthy planet. The millennium goals recognize that environmental sustainability is part of
global economic and social wellbeing. Unfortunately exploitation of natural resources such as
forest, land, water and fisheries often by the powerful few-have caused alarming changes in our
natural world in recent decades, often harming the most vulnerable people in the world who
depend on natural resources for their livelihood. The U N Millennium Campaign Goal (2010).

12
 CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
3.0 Introduction
This section will dwells on the method applied in the course of this work. It covers sources of data,
sampling techniques and method of data analysis.
3.1 Type of data used
This information was received directly from the respondent by the researcher. This includes the
personal information and the level of participation on environmental sanitation among
respondent, Information Concerning Issue on Environmental Sanitation “Waste Management”.
(Generation, Collection, Storage and Disposal), and the challenges associated with poor waste
management in the environment.

3.2 Source
For this research, primary and secondary sources data was used based on the objectives.
3.2.1 Primary sources of data
Primary sources of data include field observation, questionnaire. The questionnaire was design in
four sections in order to achieve the stated aim and objectives. Sections one include personal
information from respondent and sections two include the level of participation on environmental
sanitation among respondent, while section three is Information Concerning Issue on
Environmental Sanitation “Waste Management”. (Generation, Collection, Storage and Disposal),
while section four is the challenges associated with poor waste management in the environment.

3.2.2 Secondary sources of data

The secondary data was being obtained from already published material; these include past thesis,
journal, and text books that were relevant to the study. Past project and conference paper was also
being part of secondary sources aided material in this research.
3.3 Sampling technique and sample size
The sampling technique employed in this study is randomly sampling type, in order to achieve the
stated aim and objectives. A total of four wards were being selected to represent the population of
Hadejia local government. Thus the researcher intends to distribute 100 questionnaires to the
selected sample such that each of one of the wards will receive 25 questionnaires making 100 of the

13
four wards. The four wards include Matsaro ward, Yayari ward, Sabon garu ward, and Dubantu
ward of Hadejia Local Government in Jigawa State.
3.4 Method of data analysis
This involves the application of analytical method on the information obtained from the field.
The descriptive and quantitative method of data analysis was being employed. The descriptive
method is a very important method in analyzing data obtained from the field; this method
involves the tabulation of results which was being represented in percentages and tables. The
inferential statistical method used is by the used of chi-square. The Chi-square method is one of
the commonest nonparametric statistical methods which are used to test the level of significance
of data where we have data that are expressed as frequencies or in terms of percentages. It
indicates whether or not a set of expected frequencies differ significantly from the corresponding
set of observed frequencies.
By definition, the Chi-square is given by the formula;

(O−e)2
Chi-square ( X 2) = ∑
e

Where O = Observed frequency

e = expected frequency
∑ ¿Summation sign

14
3.5 GEOGRAPHY OF THE STUDY AREA
3.5.1 Location
Hadejia town is a capital of Hadejia Local Government of Jigawa state, it lies between
latitude 120 27" and 12.4500N and between longitude 100 20"E and 10.330. Hadejia Local
Government is bounded to the east by Kirikasamma Local Government and to the north by
Mallam Madori Local Government and to the south by Auyo Local Government and to the west
by Kaugama Local Government.

Map showing area of study.

3.5.2 Geology
Hadejia environ characterized by major geological structure known as the Chad formation. The
Chad formation is largely of unconsolidated sediment which is mainly of tertiary origin (Mustapha
2009). In some area the vertical profile is an alternating band of sand and clay layer. On the
surfaces, the unconsolidated sediment consists of vast tertiary accumulation in channel complexes

15
and tertiary recent accumulation of silt and clay depression. The soft nature of the environment
(Chad formation) favored the inland sand mining activities that are operating within the study area.
3.5.3 Climate
The climate of the area is semi-arid. It is characterized by a long dry season and a short wet season
from June to September. The climate vary considerable during the year however the micro climate
is modified by the effect of Hadejia river system, making the temperature about 25 0c but the
monthly values range between 210c in the coolest month and 310c in the hottest month, however the
mean daily temperature could be as 170c during the month of December to February, when the cold
dry harmattan or north-east trade wind blows from the Sahara desert. The total annual rainfall is
700mm. (Mustapha 2009).

3.5.4 Vegetation
The vegetation of the areas falls within Sudan savannah type extensive open grassland with few
scattered tress characterized. The vegetation around Hadejia rise to form parkland vegetation. The
neem tress area naturalized in the area to the extent of replacing original native trees, especially in
town and village other common species are adansonia digitata (baobab tree lcally called kuka)
timarindus indica (tsamiya).
3.5.5 Hydrology
The hydrology of an area is principally determined by climate and geology. The amount of water
available in Hadejia is determined by the amount of rainfall receive by the area. Hadejia town lies
along the lower reach of river Hadejia River, with gradient lower than the plateau streams and have
many more pond and fadama areas.
3.5.6 Soil
The predominant soil in the area consists of unconsolidated sediment, predominantly sand and
sandy loam. They are form from the deposit of material over sedimentary formation. The nutrient
holding capacity of the soil moderate and support high agricultural activities.
3.5.7 Economic activities
The major activities of Hadejia people is cropping and fishing (farming). This is because about 75%
of Hadejia local government area is arable land. Agriculture provides employment to over 70% of
its population (Mustapha 2009). Fishing as an industry flourished among the people living along the

16
river bank, settlement south and east of the town were known to have large concentration of fish
and indeed fishing formed they major economic activities.
3.5.8 Population
Hadejia consist of district tribal group of Hausa and Fulani which live in the town. Other tribal
group form from different part of the countries. The dominant religion in the area is Islam.
According to 2006 population census it has inhabitant of 105,628 populations.
3.5.9 Settlement
The town of Hadejia is characterized with various pattern of settlement; morphologically Hadejia
town is divided into two major sections.
a) The old town of Hadejia: - these are the areas that are located within the town wall of
Hadejia. The area is occupied by the true indigenous of Hadejia. The old town is
characterized by the nucleated pattern of settlement with a narrow street (road) and many
foot path that link one area to another.
b) Government residential area (GRA):- it is characterized with planned settlement with linear
pattern type of settlement and adequate street and wide roads and various social amenities.

17
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.0 INTRODUCTION

The main objective of this chapter is to examine and analyze the information gathered from
respondent.

The researcher used five likert scales to design the questionnaire. A total of 100 questionnaires
were issued to the respondent.

4.1 DATA PRESENTATION

The data presentation and analysis of this research was divided into two, which are (i) analysis
and presentation of the personnel data (ii) analysis and presentation of substantive data.

4.1.1 presentation and analysis of personnel data of respondent and presentation and
analysis of the substantive data

Table 1.

Table 4.1 Presentation and analysis based on sex distribution

Sex Frequency Percentage

Male 70 70%
Female 30 30%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.1 above indicate that 70 respondent with 70% are male while 30 respondent wit 30% are
female. This shows that majority of the respondent are male.

Table 2.

18
Table 4.2 Presentation and analysis based on marital status

Marital status Frequency Percentage

Single 58 58%
Married 32 32%
Divorce 4 4%
Separated 6 6%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.2 above shows that 58 respondent with 58% are single while 32 respondent with 32% are
married and 4 respondent with 4% are divorce while 6 respondent with 6% are separated. This
indicates that majority of the respondent are single.

Table 3

Table 4.3 Presentation and analysis based on age distribution.

Age Frequency Percentage

Below – 20 36 36%
21-40 37 37%
41-60 23 23%
61 and above 4 4%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.3 above shows that 36 respondent with 36% are on age below 20 while 37 respondent
with 37% are between the age of 21-40 and 23 respondent with 23% are of age between 41-60
and 4 respondent with 4% are above 61 ages.

Table 4.

Table 4.4 Presentation and analysis based on educational qualification.

Educational level Frequency Percentage

Primary 5 5%
Secondary 33 33%

19
 Tertiary 50 50%
Qur’anic 12 12%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.4 above shows that 5 respondent with 5% have primary school certificate while 33
respondent 33% have secondary school certificate and 50 respondent with 50% have tertiary
school certificate while 12 respondent with 12% have Qur’anic level of education.

Table 5

Table 4.5 Presentation and analysis based on religion.

Religion Frequency Percentage

Islam 100 100%
Christianity 0 0%
Others 0 0%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.5 above shows that 100 respondent with 100% are practicing Islam as religion while 0
respondent with 0% are practicing Christianity and 0 respondent with 0% are other type of
religion. This indicate that majority of the respondent are practicing Islam as religion.

Table 6.

Table 4.6 Presentation and analysis based on occupation

Occupation Frequency Percentage

Farmers 12 12%
Civil servant 28 28%
Student 44 44%
Business 16 16%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

20
Table 4.6 above shows that 12 respondent with 12% are farmers while 28 respondent with 28%
are civil servant and 44 respondent 44% are student while 16 respondent with 16% are business
men and women. This indicate that majority of the respondent are student.

Table 7

Table 4.7 Presentation and analysis on participation in environmental sanitation

Have you ever participated in Frequency Percentage

any means of environmental
sanitation (waste management
Strongly participated 40 40%
Participated 30 30%
Somehow participated 10 10%
Not participated 11 11%
Strongly not participated 9 9%
Total 100 100%
Source filed work 2017

Table 4.7 above shows that 40 respondent with 40% have strongly participated in environmental
sanitation while 30 respondent with 30% have participated in environmental sanitation while 10
respondent with 10% have somehow participated in environmental sanitation and 11 respondent
with 11% have not participated while 9 respondent with 9% have strongly not participated in
environmental sanitation. This shows that majority of the respondent have strongly participated I
environmental sanitation.

Table 8.

Table 4.8 Presentation and analysis in what where in participation.

What where in Participation Frequency Percentage

Participation in collection and 20 20%
storage of waste
Participation in transportation 34 34%
and disposal
Participation in separation and 13 13%

21
 recycling of waste
Participation in landfill 22 22%
dumping of waste
Participation in incineration of 11 11%
waste
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.8 above shows that 20 respondent with 20% have participated in collection and storage
of waste while 34 respondent with 34% have participated in transportation and disposal of waste
while 13 respondent with 13% have participated in separation and recycling of waste and 22
respondent with 22% have participated in landfill dumping while 11 respondent with 11% have
participated in incineration of waste. This shows that majority of the respondent have
participated in transportation and disposal of waste.

Table 9.

Table 4.9 Presentation and analysis on type of participation by the public in waste management

Are you satisfied with type of Frequency Percentage

participation by the public in
waste management
Strongly satisfied 49 49%
Satisfied 29 29%
Somehow satisfied 14 14%
Not satisfied 4 4%
Strongly not satisfied 4 4%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.9 above shows that 49 respondent with 49% have strongly satisfied while 29 respondent
with 29% have satisfied and 14 respondent with 14% have somehow satisfied while 4 respondent
with 4% have not satisfied and also 4 respondent with 4% have strongly not satisfied. These

22
indicate that majority of the respondent have strongly satisfied with type of participation by the
public in waste management.

Table 10.

Table 4.10 Presentations and analysis on how often did you sanitize inside of your environment

How often did you sanitize Frequency Percentage

inside of your environment

Daily 38 38%
Weekly 31 31%
Monthly 18 18%
Quarterly 3 3%
Yearly 10 10%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.10 above shows that 38 respondent with 38% do sanitize their inside of environment
daily while 31 respondent with 31% do it weekly and 18 respondent 18% do it monthly while 3
respondent with 3% do it quarterly and 10 respondent with 10% do it yearly. This indicates that
majority of the respondent do sanitize inside of their environment daily.

Table 11.

Table 4.11 Presentation and analysis based on how often you sanitized outside of your
environment

How often did you sanitize Frequency Percentage

outside of your environment
Daily 40 40%
Weekly 18 18%
Monthly 28 28%
Quarterly 4 4%
Yearly 18 18%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

23
Table 4.11 above shows that 40 respondent with 40% do sanitize outside of their environment
daily while 18 respondent with 18% do it weekly and 28 respondent with 28% do it monthly
while 4 respondent with 4% do it quarterly and 18 respondent with 18% do it yearly. This
indicate that majority of the respondent do sanitize outside of their environment daily.

Table 12.

Table 4.12 Presentation and analysis based on how often you have participated in environmental
sanitation

How often have you Frequency Percentage

participated in environmental
sanitation

1 9 9%
2 10 10%
3 10 10%
4 10 10%
>5 61 61%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.12 above shows that 9 respondent with 9% have often participated in environmental
sanitation x1 while 10 respondent with 10% have do it x2 and 10 respondent with 10% have do it
x3 while again 10 respondent with 10% have do it x4 and 61 respondent with 61% have do it
more-than x5. This indicate that majority of the respondent have often participated in
environmental sanitations more-than x5.

Table 13.

24
Table 4.13 Presentation and analysis based on did you know that community is among the
stakeholders in environmental sanitation

Did you know that community Frequency Percentage

is among the stakeholders in
environmental sanitation
Yes, I know 59 59%
No, I don’t know 25 25%
May be 11 11%
It may be 5 5%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.13 above shows that 59 respondent with 59% know that community is among the
stakeholders in environmental sanitations while 25 respondent with 25% they don’t know about
it while 11 respondent with 11% reply it as may be while 5 respondent with 5% reply it as it may
be. This indicate that majority of the respondent have know that community is among the
stakeholders in environmental sanitation.

Table 14.

Table 4.14 Presentation and analysis based on how you rank the participation of you ward in
environmental sanitation

How do you rank the Frequency Percentage

participation of you ward in
environmental sanitation
Strongly participated 27 27%
Participated 47 47%
Somehow participated 15 15%
Not participated 7 7%
Strongly not participated 4 4%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.14 above shows that 27 respondent with 27% have strongly rank the participation of
their ward in environmental sanitations while 47 respondent with 47% have rank them in
participated while 15 respondent with 15% have rank them in somehow participated while 7

25
respondent with 7% have rank them in not participated while 4 respondent with 4% have rank
them in strongly not participated. This indicate that majority of the respondent have rank the
participation of their ward in only participated.

Table 15.

Table 4.15 Presentations and analysis based on problem encountered in environmental sanitation

Problem encountered in Frequency Percentage

environmental sanitation
Poor cooperation 42 42%
Lack of finance 30 30%
Under equipped 4 4%
Re-disposal 8 8%
Non-challant attitude 16 16%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.15 above shows that 42 respondent with 42% have reply that the problem encountered in
environmental sanitation is poor cooperation while 30 respondent with 30% said it is lack of
finance and 4 respondent with 4% said it is under equipped while 8 respondent with 8% said it is
re-disposal and 16 respondent with 16% said it is non-challant attitude. This indicate that
majority of the respondent have reply to poor cooperation as the main problem encountered in
environmental sanitation.

Table 16.

Table 4.16 Presentation and analysis based on type of disinfected used after participation in
environmental sanitation

Type of disinfected used after Frequency Percentage

participation in environmental
sanitation
Kerosene 11 11%
Soap 39 39%
Detergent 30 30%
Water only 20 20%

26
 Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.16 above shows that 11 respondent with 11% used kerosene after participation in
environmental sanitations while 39 respondent with 39% used soap and 30 respondent with 30%
used detergent while 20 respondent with 20% used water only. This indicate that majority of the
respondent used soap as a disinfected after participation in environmental sanitations.

Table 17.

Table 4.17 Presentation and analysis based on what is the main type of waste generated in your
household

What is the main type of waste Frequency Percentage

generated in your household
Food remain 57 57%
Leaves/grasses 26 26%
Plastics 13 13%
Bottles 4 4%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.17 above shows that 57 respondent with 57% reply as food remain as the main type of
waste generated in their household while 26 respondent with 26% reply as leaves/grasses and 13
respondent with 13% reply as plastics while 4 respondent with 4% said it is bottles. This indicate
that majority of the respondent reply as food remain as the main type of waste generated in their
household.

Table 18.

Table 4.18 Presentation and analysis based on the household has storage facility for collection
waste

The household has storage Frequency Percentage

facility for collection waste

Strongly agree 42 42%

Agree 34 34%

27
 Somehow agree 18 18%
Not agree 3 3%
Strongly not agree 3 3%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.18 above indicate that 42 respondent with 42% have strongly agrees while 34 respondent
with 34% have agree while 18 respondent 18% have somehow agree and 3 respondent with 3%
have not agree while 3 respondent with 3% have strongly not agree. This indicate that majority
of the respondent have strongly agree that their household have a storage facility for collection
waste.

Table 19.

Table 4.19 Presentation and analysis based on what type of storage facility does your household
have for storing waste

What type of storage facility Frequency Percentage

does your household have for
storing waste
Metal container 40 40%
Immovable container 13 13%
No container 15 15%
Plastics container 32 32%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.19 above shows that 40 respondent with 40% used metal container while 13 respondent
with 13% used immovable container and 15 respondent with 15% used no container while 32
respondent with 32% used plastics container. These indicate that majority of the respondent used
metal container for storing household generated.

Table 20.

Table 4.20 Presentation and analysis based on how you dispose waste after collection/storage

How do you dispose waste Frequency Percentage

after collection/storage
Open dumping 43 43%

28
 Recycling 9 9%
Burning 38 38%
Incineration 10 10%
Total 100 100%
Source filed work 2017

Table 4.20 above shows that 43 respondent with 43% dispose their waste through open dumping
while 9 respondent with 9% used recycling method and 38 respondent with 38% used burning
method and 10 respondent with 10% used incineration method. This indicates that majority of
the respondent used open dumping as a means of disposing their waste.

Table 21.

Table 4.21 Presentation and analysis based on the household has storage facilities for storing
waste

The household has storage Frequency Percentage

facilities for storing waste
Strongly agree 25 25%
Agree 17 17%
Somehow agree 43 43%
Not agree 2 2%
Strongly not agree 13 13%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.21 above shows that 25 respondent with 25% have strongly agree while 17 respondent
with 17% have agree and 43 respondent with 43% have somehow agree while 2 respondent with
2% have not agree and 13 respondent with 13% have strongly not agree. This indicate that
majority of the respondent have somehow agree on the household has storage facilities for
storing waste.

Table 22.

Table 4.22 Presentation and analysis based on what did you understand by solid waste
management

What did you understand by Frequency Percentage

solid waste management

29
 Collection of solid waste by 20 20%
authority
Incineration/burning of waste 21 21%
Dumping of waste 38 38%
Land filling of waste 21 21%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.22 above shows that 38 respondent with 38% understand solid waste management as the
collection of waste by authority while 21 respondent with 21% understand solid waste by
incineration/burning of it and 20 respondent with 20% answered it as dumping of waste while 21
respondent with 21% understand it as land filing of waste. This indicate that majority of the
respondent understand solid waste management as dumping of waste.

Table 23.

Table 4.23 Presentation and analysis based on who has provided the collective collection center

Who has provided the Frequency Percentage

collective collection center
Municipal 21 21%
Neighborhood 40 40%
Authority 25 25%
Don’t know 14 14%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.23 above shows that 21 respondent with 21% have respond that the collective collection
center is provided by municipal while 40 respondent with 40% said it was provided by
neighborhood while 25 respondent with 25% said it was by authority and 14 respondent with
14% said they don’t know the provider. The above table shows that majority of the respondent
said that the collective collection center was provided by neighborhood.

Table 24.

Table 4.24 Presentation and analysis based on to what extent these waste materials are harmful to
the public health after improper management

To what extent these waste Frequency Percentage

30
 materials are harmful to the
public health after improper
management
Malaria 60 60%
Fever 11 11%
Typhoid 8 8%
Diarrhea 14 14%
Cholera 7 7%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.24 above shows that 60 respondent with 60% have that the extent to waste materials are
harmful to public is by causing malaria while 11 respondent with 11% said it was by fever and 8
respondent with 8% reply as by causing typhoid while 14 respondent with 14% reply as by
causing diarrhea and 7 respondent with 7% reply as by causing cholera. This indicate that
majority of the respondent have said that improper waste disposal are harmful to public by
causing malaria.

Table 25.

Table 4.25 presentation and analysis based on what are the common insect being influenced by
improper dumped of waste

What are the common insect Frequency Percentage

being influenced by improper
dumped of waste
Flies 26 26%
Scavenging animal 15 15%
Mosquitoes 59 59%
Total 100 100%
Source field work 2017

Table 4.25 above shows that 26 respondent with 26% said that the common insect being
influenced by improper dumped of waste is flies while 15 respondent with 15% said are
scavenging animal and 59 respondent with 59% said it was mosquitoes. This indicate that
majority of the respondent have said that the common insect being influenced by improper
dumped of waste is mosquitoes.

31
4.2 TEST OF HYPOTHESIS

One hypotheses was postulated in the course of this study and they will now be statistically
tested using the Chi-square ( X 2 ) method.
The Chi-square method is one of the commonest nonparametric statistical methods which is used
to test the level of significance of data where we have data that are expressed as frequencies or in
terms of percentages. It indicates whether or not a set of expected frequencies differ significantly
from the corresponding set of observed frequencies.

By definition, the Chi-square is given by the formula;

(O−e)2
Chi-square ( X 2) = ∑
e

Where
O = Observed frequency
e = expected frequency
∑ ¿ Summation sign
The degree of freedom (df) is given by the formula: (df) = (R - 1) (C - 1).

When the values of the observed frequency “O” and expected frequency “e” is known, a five-
column Chi-square computation table will be drawn which will be used to compute the Chi-
square.

Then, with the calculated Chi-square value known, the researcher will now make use of the Chi-
square table for critical value at (R – 1) (C – 1) degree of freedom at a given level of significance
of (0.05) to calculate the tabulated value.
With the calculated value and the table value known, the researcher will now state the decision
rule and take the decision.

From the above Chi-square formula, the researcher will now prepare a table for the computation
of the contingency table that will be used for the computation of Chi-square.

 Test and analysis of Hypothesis

32
Inadequate public participation in environmental sanitation effect environmental sanitation of
Hadejia
The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:
Ho: Inadequate public participation in environmental sanitation affects environmental sanitation
of Hadejia
H1: Inadequate public participation in environmental sanitation does not affect environmental
sanitation of Hadejia
In order to test the above hypothesis, question 7 was posited in the questionnaire which states
thus: Have you ever participated in any means of environmental sanitation (waste management)
Using the Likert Scale, the table below is a contingency table which shows the responses of the
respondents;

Table 4.26 Contingency table for the analysis of question 7 so as to test hypothesis

Response Farmer Civil servant Student Business Grand Total

Strongly 2 14 19 4 39
Participated
Participated 2 9 14 5 30
Somehow 3 1 5 2 11
Participated
Not 2 2 4 3 11
Participated
Strongly Not 3 2 2 2 9
Participated
Total 12 28 44 16 100
Source field work 2017

Note: * the above hypothesis will be tested at 0.05 level of significance

* The data in table 4.26 will be used to calculate the expected frequency

“E” using the formula: E = RT x CT

GT

Where
RT = Row Total
CT = Column Total
GT = Grand Total

33
Table 4.27: Table for the computation of Expected (e)

Observation (O) Calculation (C) Expectation (E)

2 12 X 39 4.68
100
14 28 X 39 10.92
100
19 44 X 39 17.16
100
4 16 X 39 6.24
100
2 12 X 30 3.6
100
9 28 X 30 8.4
100
14 44 X 30 13.2
100
5 16 X 30 4.8
100
3 12 X 11 1.32
100
1 28 X 11 3.08
100
5 44 X 11 4.84
100
2 16 X 11 1.76
100
2 12 X 11 1.32
100
2 28 X 11 3.08
100
4 44 X 11 4.84
100
3 16 X 11 1.76
100
3 12 X 9 1.08
100
2 28 X 9 2.52
100
2 44 X 9 3.96
100
2 16 X 9 1.44
100
Source field work 2017

34
Having successfully computed the table for “e” we shall now prepare a table for the computation
of Chi-square

Table 4.28 Table for computation of Chi-square

O E O-E (O−e)2 ∑ (O−e)2

E
2 4.68 -2.68 7.18 1.53
14 10.92 3.08 9.49 0.87
19 17.16 1.84 3.39 0.19
4 6.24 -2.24 5.02 0.80
2 3.6 -1.6 2.56 0.71
9 8.4 0.6 0.36 0.06
14 13.2 0.8 0.64 0.05
5 4.8 0.2 0.04 0.01
3 1.32 1.68 2.82 2.14
1 3.08 -2.08 4.33 1.41
5 4.84 0.16 0.03 0.01
2 1.76 0.24 0.06 0.03
2 1.32 0.68 0.46 0.35
2 3.08 -1.8 3.24 1.05
4 4.84 -0.84 0.71 0.15
3 1.76 1.24 1.54 0.88
3 1.08 1.92 3.69 3.42
2 2.52 -0.52 0.27 0.12
2 3.96 -1.96 3.84 0.97
2 1.44 0.56 0.31 0.22
Source field work 2017

(O−e)2
( X 2) = ∑ = 14.97
e

Chi-square(X2) calculated = 14.97

Degree of freedom (d f) = (C – 1) (R – 1)

= (4-1) (5-1)

35
 =3x4

= 12

As earlier stated, level of significance (∝) = 0.05 and with the degree of freedom of 12, the
researcher will now refer to the table of sampling distribution Chi-square for 12 df at 0.05 level
of significance.21.03

The critical Chi-square value for 12 df and 0.05 level of significance is 21.03. With the Chi-
square calculated and Chi-square tabulated known, we now take the decision rule.

Decision Rule:

 If the calculated Chi-square is equal or greater than the Critical Chi-square, the Null
hypothesis is Rejected

 If the calculated Chi-square is less than the Critical Chi-square, the Null hypothesis is
Accepted
Conclusion:

Chi-square (X2) calculated = 14.97

Chi-square (X2) tabulated = 21.03

Therefore, Ho is accepted because (X2) calculated is < (less than) (X2) tabulated which are 21.03

Implication:
The implication of this result is that the null hypothesis (H 0) was support, which states that
inadequate public participation in environmental sanitation affects environmental sanitation of
Hadejia.

36
 CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 SUMMARY
This study is an attempt to investigate the public participation in environmental sanitation, using
Hadejia Local Government as a case study. This was with a view to ascertaining the extent to
which public participated in environmental sanitation.

The study was also aimed at verifying the impact of people’s attitudes towards maintaining a
clean environment and to find out the impact of monitoring and control on the management of
waste in their environments.

The researcher commenced this study by carrying out a critical exposition on the background of
the study which constitutes the origin of waste generation and disposal, the increase in
population and the massive migration of people to towns and cities from rural areas as the major
causes of waste management problems.

The second chapter of this work reviewed the works of other contemporary scholars that have
contributed in the bank of knowledge as it relates to the concept of waste.

Chapter three of this work comprehensively dealt with the background. The study discussed the
location of Hadejia and its Geography and also discussed comprehensively on how the
methodology of the study was taken in to account

Data presentation and analysis was the main focus of chapter four. The researcher presented and
analyzed the data collected from the questionnaire which constitutes the personal data and the
substantive data gotten from the respondents. This section also embodied the presentation and
analysis of the hypotheses using the chi-square statistical method.

The last chapter of the study which is chapter five was the concluding chapter of the study and
dealt with the summary, conclusion and recommendation.

37
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to assist other Nigerian waste management agencies in general and public in particular,
achieve their main objective of maintaining a clean environment, and also in view of the analysis
and findings of this study, here by recommend the following:
 State government should increase and improve on the supplementary funds allocated to
environmental sanitation to carry out the waste management responsibilities. It would go
a long way at assisting them to procure better equipment for waste collection and
disposal.

 Sanitation/Environment protection courts should be established to try all environmental

pollution cases as obtainable in other jurisdictions. This would require serious policing in
the neighborhood but would go a long way reduce or eliminate indiscriminate dumping
of refuse by public.

 Should, from time to time, to organize a comprehensive public sensitization programmed

to enlighten and re-orientate the dwellers of Hadejia Local Government attitude towards
their environment
 Emphasis should be targeted to promote sustainable alternative approaches of managing
solid waste such as composting and recycling through use of site formal groups. This will
also contribute to enhanced urban agriculture as well as income generation.
 A strong link/cooperation between the community and local government authorities
should be encouraged for purposes of enhancing public participation in environmental
sanitation

38
5.3 CONCLUSION
This study is an attempt to investigate the public participation in environmental sanitation, using
Hadejia Local Government as a case study. This was with a view to ascertaining the extent to
which public participated in environmental sanitation. Results indicated that food remains covers
about 57% of the generated waste. However the result implied that most of the people used open
dumping method as a means of disposing waste which has resulted in increasing the number of
health related problem like malaria which is mainly cause by mosquitoes due to improper waste
disposal and in improper treatment of the waste been collected in the area.

The study discovered that Poor cooperation which account for about 42% has resulted in the
poor performance of public in environmental sanitation.

39
REFERENCES
Adegoke,S.O (1990).Waste management within the context of sustainable development FEPA,
Abuja.
Adekoyo O.C and vogael I.R (1994). Industrial of environment of Nigeria city. A case study of
Ibadan. The caxtes press West African limited.
Afroz, R., Hanaki, K. and Tuddin, R. (2010). The role of socio – Economic Factors on Household
Waste Management. Research Journal of Applied Sciences 5 (3):183– 190.
Afroz, R., Hanaki, K. and Tuddin, R. (2010). The role of socio – Economic Factors on
Household Waste Management. Research Journal of Applied Sciences 5 (3):183– 190.
Akinmoladun, O. I and Adejumo, O. T. (2011). Urban agriculture in Metropolitan Lagos. Journal
of Geography and Regional planning 4(1): 9-19.
Akinwale A (2005), Waste Management in Nigeria Local Governments, International Conference
on Energy, Environment and Disasters- INCEED, Charlotte, N.C, USA- July 24-30.
Akpan E.A (1998) environmental health education. In N.S Olanarian, E Akpan, E.E Ikpeme,G.A
Udofis,(eds) environment and health: macmillan nigeria publishers.
Alabi JO (2010). Nigeria & and Environmental Sanitation
http//:Nigerianmasterweb.com/…/indexphp/2010/10/05/title_10.
Allaby, M (1998) Macmillan dictionary of environment(3rd ed)London Macmillan press.
Alten, V.K. and Blair, I. (1998). Waste disposal decision. The john hopking press Cambridge.
Anunonwu et al (2009). Evaluation of Environmental Sanitation in Owerri Municipal Council of
Imo State. 2009. Research Journal of Medical Sciences. 3(4):137-140.
Boadi, K. O. and Kuitunen, M. (2005). Environmental and Health Impacts of households. Solid
Waste Handling and Disposal Practices in Third World Cities: The Case of the Accra
Metropolitan Area, Ghana. Journal of Environmental Health; (3):134 – 143.
Chinamo, C. (2003). Municipal solid waste management in the Southern Province of Sri Lanka:
Problems, issues and challenges. 2005 ELSEVIER Ltd Waste management, Country report.
78pp.
Chung, S., Lo, C., (2008). Local waste management constraints and waste administrators in
China. Journal of Waste Management 28, 272–281

Danjuma, A (1998). Public health performance of plain oxidation pond with detention period
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria Nigeria.

40
Daskapoulos, F. (2009). Waste management Models and Their Application to Sustainable Waste
Management. Dublin City University, Glasnevin, Galway Ireland. pp.297 -308.
Hazra, T., Goel, S., (2009). Solid Waste Management in Kolkata, India: practices and Agency,
Wastes – Hazardous waste.challenges. Journal of Waste Management 29, 470–478.

Hoornweg, D. and Thomas, L. (1999). Composting and its Applicability in Developing Countries,
Urban Waste Management, Working Paper Series No. 8, World Bank, Urban Development
Division. Washington DC USA. 46pp.
Isah EC, Okojie OH (2007). Environmental Sanitation in an urban community in Benin city, Edo
State, Nigeria Postgrad Med J, Mar; 14(1): 12-5.
Iyer and Anjana (2001). Community Participation in Waste Management: Experiences.

Maya, T. and Thomas, J. (2007). Enhancing Community Participation in Programmes in

Developing Countries. National Printing Press, 580, K. R. Garden, Koramangala
Mitchell, R. (1999). The research base of community based rehabilitation. Disability and
Rehabilitation 21, pp 459-468.
Moghadam, M. R. A., Mokhtarani, N. and Mokhtarani, B., (2009). Municipal solid waste
management in Rasht City. Iran Journal of Waste Management 29, 485–489.
Mustapha, M.U (2009); Change detection analysis of land uses in Hadejia township of Jigawa state
of Nigeria. Department of surveying and Geoinformatics Modibbo Adama university of
technology Yola, Nigeria:
Njau, A. and Mruma, T. (2004). Gender and Development in Tanzania: Past, Present and Future.
In: Proceedings of Research and Documentation Project (WRDP). Gender Seminar Series
No.1. 278pp.
Onibokun, A. G. (1999). Governance and Waste Management in Africa. Adepoju G. Onibokun
(Ed) “Managing the monster”: Urban waste management and governance in Africa.
InternationalDevelopmentResearchCentre,Canada116pp.org/pdf/towardsgenuineparticipati
onforthepoor.pdf] site visited on 16/10/2011.
Park JE (2011). Textbook of Preventive and Social Medicine, 21st Edition, Bhanot Publishers,
India.
Qdais, A. (2006). Health Services and Outcome Research. Department of Medicine, University
of Colorado Health Sciences Center (C.B.), Parkview Medical Center, Colorado. 114pp.

41
Sharma, M. and Deepak, S. (2001). Rehabilitation in Practice: A participatory evaluation of the
community based rehabilitation programme in North Central Vietnam. Disability and
Rehabilitation Journal. 23, pp. 352-358.
Sinha, A and Enayetullah, H. (2000a). „Community Based Solid Waste Management: The Asian
Experience‟, Waste Concern, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 281pp.
SUMO (2003a). Morogoro Environmental Problems. Draft Workshop Report, April 2-4, 2003.
Sustainable Morogoro Programme, 54pp.
Tam, V. W. Y and Tam, C. M. (2008). Waste reduction through incentives. Journal of Waste
Management and Research 36: 37 – 43.
Tam, V. W. Y and Tam, C. M. (2008). Waste reduction through incentives. Journal of Waste
Management and Research 36: 37 – 43.
UNICEF and World Health Organization (2012). Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation:
update,WHO Geneva.
Vanguard (2013). The Impact of Environmental Sanitation Policy in Nigeria (Case Study of
Federal Capital Territory). www.vanguardngr.com.
WHO (2013). Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Development, WHO, Geneva.
WHO (January, 2012). Global Task Force on Cholera: Cholera Country Profile,
www.who.int/features/factfiles/environmental_health/en/.
WHO (NOV. 2010). Ten facts on Preventing Disease through Healthy Environment., WHO
Geneva.
WHO 2000, World Health Report, World Health Organization, Geneva.
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia (2010). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/waste management/file.
Retrieved 04/09/2010

42
 APPENDICES

KANO UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WUDIL

FACULTY OF EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY

Dear Respondent.

I am an undergraduate student of the above mention institution carrying out research on

AN ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC PARTICAPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL SANIATATION IN
HADEJIA LOCAL GOVERNMENT. I would appreciate your cooperation in answering this
questionnaire to enable me obtain relevant and accurate information.

I would be grateful if you could complete the question as soon as possible to enable the
researcher collect it back on the spot.

Section A. personal information

Please tick (√) appropriate in the column that gives true information about you.

1. Sex : A. Male ( ) B. Female ( )

2. Marital status: A. Single ( ) B. Married ( ) C .Divorce ( ) D. Separated ( )
3. Occupation : A. Farmer ( ) B. Civil servant ( ) C. Student ( ) D. Business ( )
4. Age : A. Below 20 ( ) B. 21-40 ( ) C. 41-60 ( ) D.61&Above( )
5. Educational level: A. Primary ( ) B. Secondary ( ) C. Tertiary ( ) D. Qur'anic ( )
6. Religion: A. Islam. ( ) B. Christianity ( ) C. Others ( )
Section B. Level of participation
7. Have you ever participated in any means of environmental sanitation (waste
management)?
A. strongly participated ( ) B. participated ( ) C. Somehow participated ( ) D. Not
participated ( ) E. Strongly not participated ( ).
8. In (7) what where in participation?
A. Participation in collection and storage of waste ( ) B. Participation in transportation
and disposal ( ) C. Participation in separation and recycling ( ) D. participation in
landfill dumping ( ) E. Participation in incineration of waste ( ).

43
9. Are you satisfied with type of participation by the public in waste management? A.
Strongly satisfied ( ) B. Satisfied ( ) C. Somehow satisfied ( ) D. Not satisfied ( ) E.
Strongly not satisfied
10. How often did you sanitize inside of your environment?
A. Daily ( ) B. weekly ( ) C. monthly ( ) D. Quarterly E. Yearly ( )
11. How often did you sanitize outside of your environment?
A. Daily ( ) B. weekly ( ) C. monthly ( ) D. Quarterly E. Yearly ( )
12. How often have you participated in environmental sanitation?
A. 1( ) B.2 ( ) C.3 ( ) D. 4 ( ) E. > 5( )
13. Did you know that community is among the stakeholders in environmental sanitation? A.
Yes, I know ( ) B. No, I don’t know ( ) C. Maybe ( ) D. it May be ( ).
14. How do you rank the participation of you ward in environmental sanitation? A. strongly
participated ( ) B. participated ( ) C. Somehow participated ( ) D. Not
participated ( ) E. Strongly not participated ( ).
15. Problem encountered in environmental sanitation?
A. Poor cooperation ( ) B. Lack of finance ( ) C. Under equipped D. Re-disposal ( ) E.
Non-challenge attitude ( )
16. Type of disinfected used after participation in environmental sanitation?
A. Kerosene ( ) B. Soap ( ) C. Detergent ( ) D. Water only ( )
Section C .Information Concerning Issue on Environmental Sanitation “Waste
Management”. (Generation, Collection, Storage and Disposal).
17. What is the main type of waste generated in your household?
A. Food remain ( ) B .Leaves/grass ( ) C. Plastics ( ) D. Bottles ( )
18. The household has storage facility for collection waste
A .Strongly agree ( ) B. Agree ( ) C. Somehow agree ( ) D. Not agree ( ) E. strongly not
agree ( ).

19. What type of storage facility does your household have for storing waste?

A. Metal container ( ) B. Immovable container ( ) C. No container ( ) D. plastics container

( )

20. How do you dispose waste after collection/storage?

A. Open dumping ( ) B. Recycling ( ) C. Burning ( ) D. Incineration ( )
21. The household has storage facilities for storing waste
A. Strongly agree ( ) B. Agree ( ) C. Somehow agree ( ) D. Not agree E. Strongly not
agree ( )
22. What did you understand by solid waste management?
A. Collection of solid waste by authority ( ) B. Incineration/burning of waste ( ) C.
Dumping of waste ( ) D. land filling of waste ( )
23. Who has provided the collective collection center?

44
 A. Municipal ( ) B. Neighborhood ( ) C. Authority ( ) D. Don’t know ( )
Section D. challenges associated with poor waste management in your environment.
24. To what extent these waste materials are harmful to the public health after improper
management?
A. Malaria ( ) B. Fever ( ) C. Typhoid ( ) D. Diarrhea ( ) E. Cholera
25. What are the common insect being influenced by improper dumped of waste?
A. Flies ( ) B. Scavenging Animal ( ) C. Mosquitoes ( )

45
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Presentation and analysis based on sex distribution____________________18

Table 4.2 Presentation and analysis based on marital status______________________19

Table 4.3 Presentation and analysis based on age distribution_____________________19

Table 4.4 Presentation and analysis based on educational qualification._____________20

Table 4.5 Presentation and analysis based on religion___________________________20

Table 4.6 Presentation and analysis based on occupation________________________21

Table 4.7 Presentation and analysis on participation in environmental sanitation______21

Table 4.8 Presentation and analysis in what where in participation__________________22

Table 4.9 Presentation and analysis on type of participation by the public in waste management

_______________________________________________________________________23

Table 4.10 Presentations and analysis on how often did you sanitize inside of your environment

_______________________________________________________________________23-24

Table 4.11 Presentation and analysis based on how often you sanitized outside of your
environment____________________________________________________________24

Table 4.12 Presentation and analysis based on how often you have participated in environmental
sanitation______________________________________________________________25

Table 4.13 Presentation and analysis based on did you know that community is among the
stakeholders in environmental sanitation______________________________________25-26

Table 4.14 Presentation and analysis based on how you rank the participation of you ward in
environmental sanitation__________________________________________________26

Table 4.15 Presentations and analysis based on problem encountered in environmental sanitation

_______________________________________________________________________27

46
Table 4.16 Presentation and analysis based on type of disinfected used after participation in
environmental sanitation___________________________________________________27

Table 4.17 Presentation and analysis based on what is the main type of waste generated in your
household_______________________________________________________________28

Table 4.18 Presentation and analysis based on the household has storage facility for collection
waste__________________________________________________________________28-29

Table 4.19 Presentation and analysis based on what type of storage facility does your household
have for storing waste_____________________________________________________29

Table 4.20 Presentation and analysis based on how you dispose waste after
collection/storage________________________________________________________30

Table 4.21 Presentation and analysis based on the household has storage facilities for storing
waste_________________________________________________________________30

Table 4.22 Presentation and analysis based on what did you understand by solid waste
management___________________________________________________________31

Table 4.23 Presentation and analysis based on who has provided the collective collection
center________________________________________________________________31-32

Table 4.24 Presentation and analysis based on to what extent these waste materials are harmful to
the public health after improper management_________________________________32

Table 4.25 presentation and analysis based on what are the common insect being influenced by
improper dumped of waste_______________________________________________33

Table 4.26 Contingency table for the analysis of question 7 so as to test

hypothesis____________________________________________________________35

Table 4.27: Table for the computation of Expected (e) ________________________35-36

Table 4.28 Table for computation of Chi-square_____________________________37

47