Attitude of Rural Households of South Western Nigeria towards Utilization of Water

Sanitation Facilities.
BY
*Adewole W.A., Ayoade A.R. Oladapo E.O
Author (s) Institutional Affiliation: Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural
Development, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria
Contact Details: williamsaadewole@gmail.com Phone Number; +2348037419039

Adewole Williams Adekunle; Lead author;

Assistant Lecturer,
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Ladoke Akintola University of
Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria
williamsaadewole@gmail.com

Ayoade Adenike.Rebecca;
Professor of Rural Sociology
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Ladoke Akintola University of
Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria .
arayoade@lautech.edu.ng

Oladapo Ebenezer Oluwole:

Doctoral Students,
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Ladoke Akintola University of
Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria
wolealuta@gmail.com
 ABSTRACT
The study examined the Attitude of rural households of south west Nigeria towards
utilization of water sanitation facilities. The study specifically described the socio-economic
characteristics of the rural household heads; identified various sources of water supply and their
providers; determined the attitude of respondents to the utilization of water sanitation facilities
and identified the constraints to water sanitation facilities utilization. The population of the study
comprised of all the rural households in Ondo and Oyo States in Southwestern of Nigeria. The
sampling procedure employed was multistage sampling technique to select 355 household heads
comprising a total of 167 rural household considered out of 278 rural households from the
selected cells in Oyo state while a total of 188 rural household heads selected out of 314 rural
household heads from the selected cells in Ondo State for the study. The data for the study were
analyzed with descriptive statistics such as frequency count, percentage, mean and standard
deviation while inferential statistical tools such as logistic regression analysis model and Pearson
Product Moment Correlation analysis.
The result revealed a mean age of the respondents from Ondo State was 47 years while
that of respondents from Oyo State was 45 years. Rain water collection was the major source of
improved water supply from Ondo State (87.4%) and Oyo State (86.7%). Majority had
favourable attitude towards utilization of water sanitation facilities while the level of utilization
of water sanitation facilities is still on moderate level. The result of the Regression analysis
model indicated that years of schooling (t=-3.758***; p=0.000) and households size (t=-2.089**;
p=0.037) were significantly related to utilization of water sanitation facilities. It was therefore
concluded that the utilization of water sanitation facilities were influenced by income level,
household size and people’s attitude/disposition towards water sanitation facilities. Since income
level is a strong determinant of utilization of water sanitation facilities, there is need to make
credit available to the rural households in case of breakdown of the facilities to enable immediate
repairs thereby enhancing their health and utilization level.
Introduction
Water constitutes over 70% of the human body and is considered as the most vital
component of life after oxygen (Doe, 2007). Available trends show that water also covers about
70% of the earth’s surface and that only 1% of it is available to human for drinking. A recent
report revealed that about 783 million people worldwide lack access to safe water supply while
2.5 billion people have no access to adequate sanitation (UNESCO, 2013). Water is needed in all
aspects of life. It is not only human being that require a basic supply of reasonably good quality
water in order to survive; water is needed for the survival and productivity of every life
endeavour and all ecosystems, (World Health Organization and United Nation Children
Educational Fund (WHO and UNICEF, 2014). Humans depend on a wide range of ecosystem
services for multiple biological, economic, social and cultural needs. Water is not only essential
for basic drinking, cooking, hygiene and ecosystem functioning, but also for producing food,
energy, and indeed all the material products needed for daily life (Jerven, 2014). It also plays a
dominant role in the spiritual and aesthetic lives of billions of people globally.
The importance of water is not only related to drinking but also plays a crucial role in cooking,
washing, bathing, and other domestic activities. However, about 6 to 8 million people die
annually from consequences of disasters and water related illnesses, inadequate sanitation and
poor hygiene information (Moe, 2006). Water is also the main driver of illnesses such as diarrhea
and typhoid, cholera and dysentery (Bradley et al.,., 2007). Such water related illnesses are often
the major cause of premature death in children. This implies that any process that compromises
the supply and distribution of safe water threatens human health, survival, growth and
development which in turn affect involvement in agricultural production and other livelihood
activities of the people negatively.
The adequate supply of efficient infrastructural facilities is a major headache of governments
globally due to the enormous financial and capital outlay needed in their planning and
implementation. Population surge and unpredictable weather condition resulting in climate
change issues also affect effective supply of services that mostly rely on nature such as water
provision. For example, rainfall and drought, the availability of water bodies like rivers, lakes
and dams adversely affect provision of water services.
The Institute of Medicine (IOM, 2009) revealed that, though poverty has been a major
impediment to accessing safe drinking water and sanitation facilities in many parts of the sub-
Sahara Africa, access to, availability, and utilization of safe water sanitation facilities is a
prerequisite to sustainable growth and development of communities around the world. Hunter et
al.,., (2010) established a strong correlation between safe water supply and livelihoods, whether
for productive or domestic uses. Water supply and water facilities maintenance play a major role
in laying the foundation for economic growth, by increasing the assurance of supply as well as
by improving water quality and therefore human health (Phillips et al.,., 2006).
The general effects of safe WATSAN facilities supply cannot be overestimated.
Infectious diarrhea and other serious waterborne illnesses are leading causes of general ill health
and mortality, particularly, infant mortality and malnutrition. Their impacts extend beyond health
to economic in the form of lost work days and school absenteeism especially among the girl
children. Investment in this area is to killer diseases like diarrhoea just as what immunization is
to measles- a life-saver. The situation has further worsened as a result of the over reliance on
primary agriculture production, low technological advancement, hiking population growth,
climatic change, a blurred democratic governance environment and more recently corruption.
These factors, among others, have resulted in fruitless attempts to improve many sectors of the
economy including WATSAN in order to reduce poverty especially in the southern part of
Nigeria. Consequently, the issue is compounded because of low population growth in these
areas coupled with rural housing pattern where housing units are dispersed and scattered. This
makes provision of WATSAN facilities capital intensive looking at the facility cost and the
population to a facility.
Results and Discussion
1 Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents
The distribution of respondents by age revealed that 8.7% were less than or equal to 8.7%, 21.7%
were between 31 and 40 years, 38% were between 41 and 50%, 20.6% were between 51 and 60
years of age while 11% were above 60 years of age. Majority (69%) were male while 31% were
female. 10% were single, majority (82%) were married, 2.8% were divorced, 2.3% separated
while another 2.8% were widowed. 60.3% were Christians, 39.7% were Muslims. According to
level of education, 21.7% did not have formal education, 36.6% completed Primary School,
31.3% had Secondary education, 2.5% attended College of Education and Polytechnic while
5.4% attended University. 4.2% had 1 and 2 household size, 16.9% had 3 and 4, 54.4% had
between 5 and 6 while 24.5% had above 6 household size. A little below half (48.5%) were
Farmers, 31.8% were traders, 8.5% were Civil servants, 10.1% were into Artisanship while 1.1%
belong into category of unspecified others.
Table 1: Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents
Socio-economic Frequency Percentage
Age (years)
< 30 31 8.7
31-40 77 21.7
41-50 135 38.0
51-60 73 20.6
Above 60 39 11.0
Sex
Male 245 69.0
Female 110 31.0
Marital Status
Single 36 10.0
Married 291 82.0
Divorced 10 2.8
Separated 8 2.3
Widowed 10 2.8
Religion
Christianity 214 60.3
Islam 141 39.7
Traditional 0 0.00
School last attended
None 77 21.7
Primary School 130 36.6
Secondary School 111 31.3
College of Education 9 2.5
Polytechnic 9 2.5
University 19 5.4
Household size
1-2 15 4.2
3-4 60 16.9
5-6 193 54.4
Above 6 87 24.5
Primary Occupation
172 48.5
Farming
113 31.8
Trading
30 8.5
Civil service
36 10.1
Artisanship
4 1.1
Others

Source: Field Survey, 2020

 2. Sources of water facilities and their providers
Based on the result in the Table 2, the unimproved sources of water facilities identified from in
the rank order include surface water (river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal, irrigation channels)
(75.4%), unprotected dug well (36.2%), bottled water (13.8%), unprotected spring (10.1%),
vendor provided water (5.3%) and tanker-truck provider (1.6%). Moreover, Community
Development Association (CDA) was the major provider of majority of unimproved water
facilities in Oyo State which include surface water (river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal, and
irrigation channels) (57.4%), unprotected dug well (13.3%) and unprotected spring (10.1%).
Individual households (self) were the major providers of surface water (river, dam, lake, pond,
stream, canal, irrigation channels) (15.4%), bottled water (9.0%), unprotected dug well (4.8%)
and vendor provided water (2.7%). Furthermore, neighbour and friends (N/F) were major
providers of unprotected dug well (18.1%), vendor provided water (1.6%), bottled water (1.1%)
and surface water (river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal, and irrigation channels) (1.1%).
Moreover, Local Government Council (LGC) was one of the major providers of bottled water
(2.1%), tanker-truck provider (1.1%) and surface water (river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal,
and irrigation channels) (1.1%). Also, MWR was one of the providers of bottled water (1.1%).
Also, the finding indicates that surface water (river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal, irrigation
channels) was the major unimproved sources of water facilities among rural households in Oyo
State. The finding from this study also indicates that many rural households depend on
unimproved sources of water facilities through diverse avenues. This development often times
expose them to numerous water borne diseases with attending reduction in time devoted to their
farming and other livelihood activities and eventual reduction in production and income from
their livelihood activities. In line with this assumption, Onesmo and Holmes (2006) established
that lack of potable water and basic sanitation services remains one of the world’s most urgent
health issues. Similarly, Hunter (2010) claimed that access to a safe water supply for drinking,
cooking, and personal hygiene is an essential prerequisite for health.
Table 2 Distribution of respondents by sources of water facilities and their
providers
Water Provider of Water Sanitation Facilities
Facilities
Improved UNICEF WHO WATSAN MWR FBO LGC N/F CDA SELF None
sources
Household 2(1.1) 0(0.0) 3(1.6) 14(7.4) 3(1.6) 10(5.3) 8(4.3) 3(1.6) 5(2.7) 140 (74.5)
connection
Public stand 2(1.1) 0(0.0) 2(1.1) 6(3.2) 4(2.1) 3(11.7) 9(3.7) 9(4.8) 2(1.1) 120 (63.8)
pipes
Boreholes 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(0.5) 5(2.7) 74(39.4 32(17.0) 2(1.1) 10(5.3) 64 (34.0)
)
Protected dug 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 3(1.6) 3(1.6) 11(5.9) 80(42.6) 26(13.8) 28(14.9) 37 (19.7)
well
Protected 4(2.1) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 4(2.1) 2(1.1) 5(2.7) 10(5.3) 163 (86.7)
springs
Rain water 2(1.1) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 9(4.8) 8(4.3) 144(76. 25 (13.3)
collection 6)
Unimproved
Sources
Unprotected 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 34(18.1) 25(13.3) 9(4.8) 120 (63.8)
dug well
Unprotected 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 19(10.1) 0(0.0) 169 (89.9)
spring
Vendor – 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 3 (1.6) 2 (1.1) 5(2.7) 178 (94.7)
provided
water
Bottled water 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 2(1.1) 0(0.0) 4(2.1) 2(1.1) 1(0.5) 17(9.0) 162 (86.2)
Tanker-truck 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 2(1.1) 1(0.5) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 185 (98.4)
provider
Surface water 1(0.5) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 2(1.1) 2(1.1) 108(57.4) 29(15.4) 46 (24.5)
(river, dam,
lake, pond,
stream, canal,
irrigation
channels
KEYS: UNICEF: United Nation Children Education Fund, WHO: World Health Organization,
WATSAN: Water and Sanitation Agency, WMR: Ministry of Water Resources, FBO: Faith
Based Organizations, N/F: Neighbors and Friends, LGC: Local Government Council, CDA:
Community Development Association.
WMS = Weighted Mean Score
*Multiple Response
Source: Field Survey, 2020

3. Attitude of Respondents towards water facilities Utilization

The results (Table 3), respondents’ attitude to the utilization of water sanitation facilities in the
rank order include the fact Contaminated water poses health risks that can be reduced by
improved storage conditions and household treatment and The use of good water treatment
prevents microbial contamination (WMS=3.88), Water must be stored in neat and closed
containers to prevent germs (WMS=3.84), Getting water from improved sources will deliver me
and my household from waterborne diseases (WMS=3.83), Latrine must be sited far away from
water sources or facilities to prevent contamination (WMS=3.78), Treated community water
supplies generally re of high microbiological quality and therefore safe with respect to
waterborne microbial disease risks (WMS=3.75), Safe disposal of refuse and the use of clean and
covered containers are necessary to prevent germs and diseases (WMS=3.74), Regular utilization
of water from borehole will prevent infection like cholera and dysentery (WMS=3.68), Water
from the borehole is preferable because it can be used directly without waiting for it to settle or
looking for additional treatments (WMS=3.66) while Water of good quality has no taste
(WMS=3.05), Frequent breakdown of the facilities without immediate repairs has made us loss
interest (WMS=2.95), The facilities are difficult to operate and maintain (WMS=2.77), Lack of
training on the operation of water pumps does not make us to use it (WMS=2.59), The facility is
a bait by political class to get us to pledge our alliance or loyalty to them (WMS=2.27), Treated
water may contain some sediments or residues that may be dangerous or injurious to health
(WMS=2.26), The providers of the facilities are exploitative and have hidden
agenda(WMS=1.88), The distance to the facility from my house is too long, so it is a waste of
time and energy (WMS=1.85).
Table 4.11c: Distribution of respondents by their attitudinal Statements in pooled data
Attitudinal Statements Strongly Agreed Undecided Disagree Strong WMS Rank
Agreed Disagree
Getting water from 0(0.0) 295(83.1) 60(16.9) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 3.83 4th
improved sources will
deliver me and my
household from
waterborne diseases
Treated community water 0(0.0) 271(76.3) 81(22.8) 0(0.0) 3(0.8) 3.75 6th
supplies generally re of
high microbiological
quality and therefore safe
with respect to waterborne
microbial disease risks.
Contaminated water poses 0(0.0) 312(87.9) 43(12.1) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 3.88 1st
health risks that can be
reduced by improved
storage conditions and
household treatment
Water related diseases can 0(0.0) 250(70.4) 98(27.6) 7(2.0) 0(0.0) 3.68 8th
be avoided by regular use
of water facilities
The use of good water 0(0.0) 316(89.0) 36(10.1) 3(0.8) 0(0.0) 3.88 1st
treatment prevents
microbial contamination
Water from the borehole 0(0.0) 241(67.9) 109(30.7) 5(1.4) 0(0.0) 3.66 10th
is preferable because it
can be used directly
without waiting for it to
settle or looking for
additional treatments
Water must be stored in 0(0.0) 300(84.5) 52(14.6) 3(0.8) 0(0.0) 3.84 3rd
neat and closed containers
to prevent germs
Latrine must be sited far 0(0.0) 278(78.3) 75(21.1) 2(0.6) 0(0.0) 3.78 5th
away from water sources
or facilities to prevent
contamination
Regular utilization of 0(0.0) 763(74.1) 77(21.7) 9(2.5) 6(1.7) 3.68 8th
water from borehole will
prevent infection like
cholera and dysentery
Safe disposal of refuse 0(0.0) 288(81.1) 58(16.3) 0(0.0) 6(1.7) 3.74 7th
and the use of clean and
covered containers are
necessary to prevent
germs and diseases
Water of good quality has 0(0.0) 184(51.8) 83(23.9) 15(4.2) 61(17.2) 3.05 11th
no taste
Lack of training on the 0(0.0) 86(24.2) 124(34.9) 73(20.6) 58(16.3) 2.59 15th
operation of water pumps
does not make us to use it.
The distance to the facility 0(0.0) 48(11.8) 68(19.2) 55(15.5) 176(49.6) 1.85 19th
from my house is too
long, so it is a waste of
time and energy
Treated water may contain 0(0.0) 42(11.8) 127(35.8) 82(23.1) 88(24.8) 2.26 17th
some sediments or
residues that may be
dangerous or injurious to
health
The providers of the 0(0.0) 15(4.2) 110(31.0) 82(23.1) 113(31.8) 1.88 18th
facilities are exploitative
and have hidden agenda
The community members 0(0.0) 9(2.5) 19(5.4) 56(15.8) 251(70.7) 1.28 20th
were not carried along
before the construction of
the facilities, so I don’t
use it.
The facility is a bait by 0(0.0) 25(7.0) 160(45.1) 90(25.4) 45(12.7) 2.27 16th
political class to get us to
pledge our alliance or
loyalty to them
Good quality water can 0(0.0) 211(59.4) 57(16.1) 7(2.0) 55(15.5) 3.05 11th
also get contaminated in
the home due to
inadequate and unsanitary
storage conditions that
allow for the introduction
and/or proliferation of
disease-causing microbes.
The facilities are difficult 0(0.0) 164(46.2) 79(22.3) 17(4.8) 55(15.5) 2.77 14th
to operate and maintain
Frequent breakdown of 0(0.0) 207(58.3) 52(14.6) 0(0.0) 63(17.7) 2.95 13th
the facilities without
immediate repairs has
made us loss interest
WMS = Weighted Mean Score
Source: Field Survey, 2020

4. Constraints to Utilization of water Sanitation Facilities

Table 4. showed the distribution of respondents by pooled, the constraints to water and sanitation
facilities utilization in their rank order include Financial constraint in case of breakdown of the
facilities (WMS = 2.90), Poor maintenance culture (WMS = 2.90), Unwillingness of the users to
cooperate (WMS = 2.82), Ineffective promotion of public support (WMS = 2.66), Inadequate
training on the operation and maintenance (WMS = 2.45), Poor support from the donors in terms
of maintenance and operation (WMS = 2.43 Wrong site selection (2.25) Long distance to water
source (WMS = 1.61). Others include complexity of operation (WMS = 1.35) 4and Non-
compatibility with the culture and religion (WMS = 1.31).
Table 4.12c: Distribution of respondents by constraints to the utilization of water and
sanitation facilities in pooled data
Constraints to the utilization of Very Serious Fairly Not WMS Rank
water sanitation facilities serious serious serious
Long distance to water source 105(29.6) 72(20.3) 114(32.1) 64(18.0) 1.61 8th
Poor support from the donors in 209(58.9) 97(27.3) 40(11.3) 9(2.5) 2.43 6th
terms of maintenance and operation
Non-compatibility with the culture 54(15.2) 38(10.7) 226(63.7) 37(10.4) 1.31 10th
and religion
Complexity of operation 34(9.6) 77(21.7) 224(63.1) 20(5.6) 1.35 9th
Inadequate training on the operation 211(59.4) 99(27.9) 37(10.4) 8(2.3) 2.45 5th
and maintenance
Unwillingness of the users to 298(83.9) 50(14.1) 7(2.0) 0(0.0) 2.82 3rd
cooperate
Financial constraint in case of 325(91.5) 26(7.3) 4(1.1) 0(0.0) 2.90 1st
breakdown of the facilities
Ineffective promotion of public 263(74.1) 66(18.6) 26(7.3) 4(1.1) 2.66 4th
support
Poor maintenance culture 32(90.4) 32(9.0) 2(0.6) 0(0.0) 2.90 1st
Wrong site selection 137(38.6) 171(48.2) 47(13.2) 0(0.0) 2.25 7th
WMS = Weighted Mean Score
Source: Field Survey, 2020
5. Level of Utilization of Water Sanitation Facilities
The utilization of Clean and covered containers was ranked highest among utilized water
sanitation facilities with a weighted mean score (WMS) of 2.92. Others in their rank order
include use of Soapy water (WMS = 2.91), hand washing (WMS = 2.90), boiling (WMS = 2.86),
protected well (WMS = 2.78), improved sewage containers (WMS = 2.73), hand pump (WMS =
2.60), point of use water treatment with additives (WMS = 2.56), borehole (WMS = 2.45), public
stand pipes (WMS = 1.03), solar disinfectant (WMS = 0.90), filter technology (WMS = 0.85),
hand sanitizers (WMS = 0.75) and Ultraviolet filtration device (WMS = 0.62). The use of clean
and covered container was the major method used by the respondents in the southwestern
Nigeria.
Table 5: Distribution of respondents by utilization of Water Sanitation Facilities in
pooled data
Water Sanitation Facilities Always Sometimes Rarely Never WMS Rank
Household Water Treatment
Storage
Filter technology 49(13.8) 55(15.5) 45(12.7) 206(58.0 0.85 12th
)
Point of use water treatment with 246(69.3) 77(21.7) 20(5.6) 12(3.4) 2.57 8th
additives
Ultraviolet filtration device 29(8.2) 47(13.2) 38(10.7) 241(67.9 0.62 14th
)
Solar disinfectant 76(21.4) 33(9.3) 25(7.0) 221(62.3 0.90 11th
)
Boiling 320(90.1) 24(6.8) 8(2.3) 3(0.8) 2.86 4th
Clean and covered containers 327(92.1) 28(7.9) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 2.92 1st
Improved sewage containers 276(77.7) 61(17.2) 18(5.1) 0(0.0) 2.73 6th
Hand washing hardware
Hand washing 327(92.1) 24(6.8) 1(0.3) 3(0.8) 2.90 3rd
Soapy water 330(93.0) 21(5.9) 1(0.3) 3(0.8) 2.91 2nd
Hand sanitizers 18(5.1) 41(11.5) 131(36.9) 165(46.5 0.75 13th
)
Water supply technologies
Hand pump 277(78.0) 25(7.0) 43(12.1) 10(2.8) 2.60 7th
Borehole 243(68.5) 42(11.8) 56(16.8) 14(3.9) 2.45 9th
Protected well 290(81.7) 55(15.5) 7(2.0) 3(0.8) 2.78 5th
Public stand pipes 39(11.0) 42(11.8) 163(45.9) 111(31.3 1.03 10th
)
WMS = Weighted Mean Score
Source: Field Survey, 2020
 Hypotheses Testing
6. Correlation between knowledge of water sanitation facilities and level of
utilization of water sanitation facilities
H01: There is no significant relationship between knowledge of water source
contamination and level of utilization of water sanitation information
The result of the Pearson’s Products Moment Correlation (PPMC) analysis in Table 4.15
indicated that the joint effect of the combination of all the knowledge of water source contamination
(INDEXK) (r=0.064; p=0.227) was positive but not significantly related to level of utilization of water
sanitation facilities. However, individual variable (water source contamination) such as locating latrine
close to the water source (r=0.196***; p=0.000), water not flowing/stagnant water body/pond (r=0.093*;
p=0.081), disposing trash near the water source (r=-0.090*; p=0.092), not properly plugging in the holes
of the water pipe (r=0.210***; p=0.000), well not having walling (r=0.113**; p=0.034), no cover/lid to
protect the well (r=0.100*; p=0.060), collection of acidic rain (r=-0.163***; p=0.002) and poor storage
practices (r=-0.180***; p=0.001) was significantly related to level of utilization of water sanitation
facilities at different significant levels.
For instance, locating latrine close to the water source (1%), water not flowing/stagnant
water body/pond (1%), not properly plugging in the holes of the water pipe (1%) and well not
having walling (5%) were positively related to level of utilization of water sanitation facilities.
However, disposing trash near the water source (1%), collection of acidic rain (1%) and poor
storage practices (1%) were inversely related to level of utilization of water sanitation facilities.
Positive and significant relationship implying that the probability of utilization of water
sanitation facilities increases with increasing knowledge of water source contamination among
rural households. The inverse and significant relationship implying that the probability of
utilization of water sanitation facilities decreases with decreasing knowledge of water source
contamination among rural households. On the overall, the odd of the joint effect of the
combination of all the knowledge of water source contamination favours increase in the
utilization of water sanitation facilities as more rural households as their knowledge of water
source contamination increases.
Table 4.15: Summary of correlation between the knowledge of water source
contamination and level of utilization of water sanitation facilities
Variable r- value P-value Remarks
Bathing/washing clothes at water source 0.051 0.337 NS
Urinate/Defecate at the water source 0.058 0.280 NS
Latrine close to the water source 0.196*** 0.000 S
Water that does not flow/stagnant water 0.093* 0.081 S
body/pond
Dispose trash near the water source -0.090* 0.092 S
Trash fallen into the water source -0.011 0.841 NS
Washing raw meat and raw fish near the water 0.066 0.213 NS
 source
Indiscriminate use of fetcher 0.025 0.635 NS
Not properly plugging in the holes of the water 0.210*** 0.000 S
pipe
Do not have separate bucket or rope at the -0.070 0.191 NS
well/using dirty bucket
Then well has no walling 0.113** 0.034 S
The animals can go into the water source/No -0.056 0.292 NS
fence/broken fence around the pond
No cover/lid to protect the well 0.100* 0.060 S
Collection of acidic rain -0.163*** 0.002 S
Poor storage practices -0.180*** 0.001 S
INDEXK 0.064 0.227 NS
NS=Not Significant
S=Significant
**=Significant at 5% level
**=Significant at 5% level
Source: Data Analysis, 2020

Conclusion and Recommendation

The study concluded that the utilization of water sanitation facilities were influenced by income
level, household size and people’s attitude/disposition towards water sanitation facilities. Since
income level is a strong determinant of utilization of water sanitation facilities, there is need to
make credit available to the rural households in case of breakdown of the facilities to enable
immediate repairs thereby enhancing their health and utilization level.
References
Doe, N. (2007) .Problems of ground water contamination with focus on water borne diseases,
causes and prevention. Applied Science Report. 5 (1), 34-41.
Hunter PR, MacDonald AM, Carter RC (2010) Water Supply and Health. PLoS Med
7(11):e1000361. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000361International Assessment United
Nations. Development Programme. New York.
Jerven, M (2014). Benefits and Costs of the Data for Development Targets for the Post-2015
Development Agenda: Post-2015 Consensus. Copenhagen Consensus Center Working
Paper. http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com//publication/post-2015-consensus-data-
development-assessment-jerven
Moe, C. L., and Rheingans, R. D. (2006) Global challenges in water, sanitation and health.
Journal of water and health, 4(S1), pp.41-57. Monitoring Programme on Water Supply
and Sanitation. WHO/UNICEF

Phillips, D., Daoudy, M., McCaffrey, S., Ojendal, J. and Turton, A. (2006) Trans- boundary
Water Cooperation as a tool for water sanitation information prevention and for a broader
benefit-sharing. Windhoek, Namibia: Phillips Robinson and Associates.

UNESCO, (2013). State of the World population: Unleashing the potential of urban growth. 220
East 42nd Street, 23rd FL New York, NY 10017 ¬.S.A.www.unfpa.org

UNICEF (2014), ‘Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Schools: Global Baseline Report’,
New York, United Nations Children’s Fund and World Health Organization