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

Abstract

Background: It has been estimated that 100million Nigerians still lack basic sanitation facilities and 63 million also do not have access to portable drinking water and as many as 80% of all diseases worldwide are related to unsafe water as well as poor environmental hygiene. Most infectious, diseases are caused by living organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, or parasitic worms, and a disease is transmitted by the passing of these organisms from one person’s body to another or through intermediate hosts. The World Bank reports that 30% of the total disease burden in developing countries results from contamination at the household level and that 75% of life years lost within this 30% are due to lack of good water supply and sanitation and the prevalence of risky hygiene behaviour. This study aimed to assess the sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State.
Materials and method: The study designs adopted for this research work were quantitative analysis and descriptive research method. The study population covered all housing units in the randomly selected communities in the central senatorial district of Bayelsa state. The 400 sample size for housing units was determined using the Taro Yamane formula, and systematic sampling method was used with a sampling interval of three. A 26-item administered closed-ended structured questionnaire was used. Data was collected from 296 out of 400 questionnaires and analysed using descriptive statistics with frequency counts and simple percentages using SPSS.
Results: The result identified multiple sources of water supply which includes rain, river/stream, pipe borne, borehole and hand-dug well with borehole being the major source (91%). The major toilet facility used was the flush toilet (45%) and majority of residents clean their toilet once weekly (60%), however, about half of the residents (51%) practice unsafe excreta disposal. Hygiene practices such as bathing occurred among all resident at least once daily and hand washing was frequent after toilet visit (73%) but not before eating (35%).
Conclusion: Water supply was seen to be relatively adequate, but its quality was poor, necessitating treatment. Unsafe excreta disposal is still widely practiced. Critical hand washing practice was still poor amongst residents. The State and Local Government including Oil companies in oil producing communities in Central Senatorial District should provide adequate portable water and sanitation facilities in public places with hygiene enlightenment campaign.
Keywords: environmental sanitation, water supply, excreta, health, houses, hygiene, critical

Full text

Submit Manuscript | http://medcraveonline.com
Introduction
Although the world has progressed in the area of water and
sanitation, more than 2.6billion people still live without access to
sanitation facilities and some are unable to practice basic hygiene
WHO1 & Raimi et al.,2 It is known that water covers 71% of the
Earth’s surface and is vital for all known forms of life and about
96.5% of the planet’s water is found in oceans, 1.7% in ground water,
1.7% in glaciers and the ice caps of Antarctica and Greenland, a small
fraction in other large water bodies and 0.001% in the air as vapour,
clouds and precipitation. The role of water in carrying out standard
sanitary and hygiene practices cannot be over emphasized; hence a
good knowledge of its source(s) will be of great benet improving
sanitation and hygiene practices. Hence, many people in developing
countries, including Nigeria, are without safe water supply, adequate
sanitation and lack good hygiene practices; which according to Tebutt3
& Raimi et al.,4 can result in water related diseases in these areas
with far reaching consequences. This is further aggravated by trace
concentrations of impurities found in drinking water and may lead
to long term health hazards which has raised concern, with particular
attention to potentially carcinogenic compounds.4‒6 According to
United Nations Children’s Fund,7 as at 2004, 54% of the Nigerian
population lack access to adequate drinking water sources, of which,
69% are from the rural population and 33% are from the urban areas.
MOJ Public Health. 2018;7(6):337‒345. 337
© 2018 Olalekan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.
The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and
hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria
Volume 7 Issue 6 - 2018
Raimi Morufu Olalekan,Odubo Tonye
Vivien,Omidiji Adedoyin O, Oluwaseun E
Odipe, Ochayi Ekoja Owobi
Department of Community Medicine, Niger Delta University,
Nigeria
Correspondence: Raimi Morufu Olalekan, Department of
Community Medicine, Environmental Health Unit, Faculty
of Clinical Sciences, Niger Delta University, College of
Health Sciences, Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa State, Nigeria, Tel
+2347038053786,
Email
Received: October 22, 2018 | Published: November 28, 2018
Abstract
Background: It has been estimated that 100million Nigerians still lack basic sanitation
facilities and 63 million also do not have access to portable drinking water and as
many as 80% of all diseases worldwide are related to unsafe water as well as poor
environmental hygiene. Most infectious, diseases are caused by living organisms, such
as bacteria, viruses, or parasitic worms, and a disease is transmitted by the passing
of these organisms from one person’s body to another or through intermediate hosts.
The World Bank reports that 30% of the total disease burden in developing countries
results from contamination at the household level and that 75% of life years lost within
this 30% are due to lack of good water supply and sanitation and the prevalence of
risky hygiene behaviour. This study aimed to assess the sources of water supply,
sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in Central
Senatorial District of Bayelsa State.
Materials and method: The study designs adopted for this research work were
quantitative analysis and descriptive research method. The study population covered
all housing units in the randomly selected communities in the central senatorial district
of Bayelsa state. The 400 sample size for housing units was determined using the Taro
Yamane formula, and systematic sampling method was used with a sampling interval
of three. A 26-item administered closed-ended structured questionnaire was used.
Data was collected from 296 out of 400 questionnaires and analysed using descriptive
statistics with frequency counts and simple percentages using SPSS.
Results: The result identified multiple sources of water supply which includes rain,
river/stream, pipe borne, borehole and hand-dug well with borehole being the major
source (91%). The major toilet facility used was the flush toilet (45%) and majority
of residents clean their toilet once weekly (60%), however, about half of the residents
(51%) practice unsafe excreta disposal. Hygiene practices such as bathing occurred
among all resident at least once daily and hand washing was frequent after toilet visit
(73%) but not before eating (35%).
Conclusion: Water supply was seen to be relatively adequate, but its quality was poor,
necessitating treatment. Unsafe excreta disposal is still widely practiced. Critical hand
washing practice was still poor amongst residents. The State and Local Government
including Oil companies in oil producing communities in Central Senatorial District
should provide adequate portable water and sanitation facilities in public places with
hygiene enlightenment campaign.
Keywords: environmental sanitation, water supply, excreta, health, houses, hygiene,
critical
MOJ Public Health
Research Article Open Access

The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria 338
Copyright:
©2018 Olalekan et al.
Citation: Olalekan RM, Vivien OT, Adedoyin OO, et al. The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria. MOJ Public Health. 2018;7(6):304‒312. DOI: 10.15406/mojph.2018.07.00265
This will translate to about 73million people not having access to
portable drinking water source out of the approximately 189million
people living in Nigeria. Also, only 44% of the population had access
to improved sanitation facilities, which on the other hand, is 36% in
the rural areas. However, access to water supply increased to 67%
while that of sanitation facilities remained at about 41% as at 2013.
About 63 million Nigerians do not have access to portable drinking-
water while about 100 million lack basic sanitation facilities which
has resulted in open defecation being practiced by about a third of
rural dwellers and about 12% of the urban settlers.8
Current outbreaks of cholera and other water related diseases in
some parts of Nigeria has again brought to the forefront the need for
appropriate methods to tackle and prevent the spread of such diseases.
Even though efforts are being made by government agencies, local
organizations and NGOs, the safe water supply and basic sanitation
in many schools in Ibadan and other major cities in Nigeria remains
poor.9 Large numbers of both urban and rural schools and health
centres and houses lack access to adequate sanitary facilities like
latrines and hand washing facilities. It is believed that if the local
communities are aware of the dangers and threat posed by waterborne
and sanitation related diseases, they will be more equipped both
technically and morally to mitigate the spread of such diseases. This
will also enhance a common front to ght against the outbreaks of
such disease as cholera, dysentery and diarrhoea as knowledge gained
from this project can be shared by households, communities and local
levels Raimi et al.4 Being an oil producing area, there is the possibility
of oil pollution of the water ways which in itself is a major contributor
to health-related issues because of hydrocarbons entering the drinking
water sources.10
Some of the recent water quality studies include: health risk
assessment on heavy metal ingestion through groundwater drinking
pathway for residents in an Oil and Gas producing area of Rivers
State, Nigeria by Raimi et al.,5 a survey of hand washing behavior
and awareness among health care workers in health care facilities
in Kubwa District of Bwari Area Council, F.C.T Abuja, Nigeria by
Raimi et al.5 Corporate civil liability and compensation regime for
environmental pollution in the Niger Delta by Premoboere & Raimi.,6
an assessment of trace elements in surface and ground water quality
in the Ebocha-Obrikom oil and gas producing area of Rivers State,
Nigeria by Raimi & Sabinus,2 Morufu & Clinton,10 water-related
problems and health conditions in the oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa State by Raimi et al.4 In most
parts of the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, the major challenge of
survival is the provision of good quality (potable) water because of
environmental pollution and degradation.11 In most cities, towns and
villages in this region, valuable man-hours are spent on seeking and
fetching water of doubtful quality to meet specialized needs.12,13 So
therefore, the objective of this study is to identify the different sources
of water supply in oil producing communities in Central Senatorial
District; determine the types of sanitation facilities in oil producing
communities in Central Senatorial District and assess the effectiveness
of personal hygiene practices in oil producing communities in Central
Senatorial District of Bayelsa State, Nigeria.
Materials and methods
Description of the study area
The study was conducted in the oil producing communities in
Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State. It is one of the three
senatorial districts, after East and West Senatorial Districts. Of the
eight local government areas that make up Bayelsa State, Central
Senatorial District has three (Yenegoa, Southern Ijaw and Kolokuma-
Opokuma). East Senatorial District has two L.G.As (Sagbama and
Ekeremor), while the West Senatorial District has three L.G.As
(Ogbia, Nembe and Brass). The Central Senatorial district, which
is the area of the present study lies between latitudes 4o 321’ and
5o 331’ North of equator and longitudes 7o251’ and 8o251’ East of
the Greenwich Meridian. The Central Senatorial district has a total
landmass of 27,241 square kilometers. It is bounded by Rivers State
on the North; East Senatorial district on the East, West Senatorial
district on the West, and the Atlantic Ocean on the south. It has a
population of 750,049 people based on the 2006 National Population
Census Report.14,15 Oil drilling operations are extensively carried out
in Southern Ijaw Local Government area by Shell, Sephron and Agip
Companies. The communities affected by oil operations in Southern
Ijaw include Oporoma, Agiama, Agiama-gbene, Onyoma, Peremabiri,
Olugbobiri, Olugbo-uboro, Ogboinbiri, Oki-ama, Koliama 1 and 11,
Kemebiama, Azuzuama, Ondowari, Koro-korosei, Ikebiri, Tebidaba
and Igbematoru. In Yenegoa Local Government Area, the communities
where oil operations are carried out are Bisani, Okordia, Zarama,
Ogboloma, Okolobiri, Agudama –Ekpetiama, Tombia, Akaibiri
and Polo-aku. In Kolokuma-Opokuma local Government area, the
communities affected by oil operations are Opokuma, Sabagreia,
Sampou and Kaiama. Within the Central Senatorial District, there
are hospitals (Federal Medical Centre, Yenegoa; General hospital,
Oporoma in Southern Ijaw L.G.A.); Primary Health Care Centre in
Oporoma Local Government Area; and Health Centre in Opokuma.
These offer health care services to patients of water related health
problems (Figure 1).
Figure 1 Map of Bayelsa state showing the study area.
Research design
The study designs adopted for this research work were quantitative
analysis and descriptive research method. Aggregate data were
analyzed for the purpose of this research. The data were used to
determine the sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene
practice in oil producing communities in Central Senatorial District of
Bayelsa State. Structured questionnaires were used for collection of
primary data.
Target population
The population of the study 750,049 residents of Central Senatorial
District comprising of 398,396 males and 351,653 females16 and the
population was projected to 2018 using annual exponential growth

The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria 339
Copyright:
©2018 Olalekan et al.
Citation: Olalekan RM, Vivien OT, Adedoyin OO, et al. The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria. MOJ Public Health. 2018;7(6):337‒345. DOI: 10.15406/mojph.2018.07.00265
rate of 2.9% as population growth rate as at the 2006 National Census
(Federal Republic of Nigeria Gazzete, 2007). This gave a projected
population of 105, 6998 people. The breakdown is shown in Table 1
below. The study population covered all the randomly selected housing
units as represented by an adult member in that unit, regardless of the
level of education, and has live for at least two years in oil producing
communities in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State and are
using the facilities within the Central Senatorial District.
Table 1 Components of the study population
Source Author’s compilation (2018)
Local government at central
senatorial district of bayelsa
state
2018 projected population
Southern Ijaw 450129
Yenagoa 497,946
Kolokuma/Opokuma 108,923
Total 105,6998
Sample size determination
A sample size of 400 was estimated using Taro Yamane formula
as presented below:
( )
2
1
N
n
Ne
=
+
Where,
N
= population size = 1056998, e = level of signicance =
0.05.
( )
2
1056998
1 1056998 0.05
n=
+
( )
1056998
1 1056998 0.0025
n=
+
1056998
1 2642.495
n=
+
1056998 399.8486852
2643.495
n= =
Hence, the sample size was approximated to 400.
Sampling methods
To enhance the reliability of the research work and achieve the
desired goal, simple random sampling techniques were used in
selecting the communities. The systematic sampling method was
used in selecting the housing units while respondents were randomly
selected. The sample size was distributed evenly among the proposed
oil producing rural communities. Eight (8) major areas were visited in
oil producing communities in Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa
State (Table 2).
Study procedure/data collection process
The data for this study was gathered from the questionnaire. Out
of the 400 questionnaires distributed, 104 were not useful due to
improper lling, difculty in retrieving some of the questionnaires
due to the recent ooding being experience in Bayelsa State and
damage from rain water. Thus, 296 questionnaires were nally used
for the analysis in this study.
Data analysis
Data obtained from the research instrument (questionnaire) was
analysed using descriptive analysis and inferential statistics. Data was
analysed descriptively using frequency and percentage with statistical
package for social science (SPSS) version 21. This was used to
analyse the demographic variables and the research questions while
result was presented in tables.
Table 2 Sample distribution of oil producing rural communities
Source Researcher’s computation (2018)
Oil producing rural
community Sample size
Southern Ijaw
Angiama 50
Peremabiri 50
Azuzuama 50
Igbematoru 50
Yenagoa
Okolobiri 50
Polaku 50
Kolokuma-Opokuma
Sampou 50
Kaiama 50
Total 400
Results and discussion
Response Rate/ Completeness of Data
The response rate was 100%, however, out of the 400 questionnaires
administered and retrieved, 104 were not useful due to incomplete
lling, difculty in retrieving some of the questionnaires due to the
recent ooding being experience in Bayelsa State and damage from
rain water, therefore only 296 were used, leading to incomplete data
(74% complete). The 296 questionnaires were nally used to analyse
the demographic variable (information) and research questions.
Socio-demographic characteristics
The Table 3 above expresses the demographic information of
respondents in frequencies and simple percentages. Among the age
brackets, 31-40 had the largest proportion (49%), followed by 41 &
above (27%) and 18-30(21%) while 10 respondents did not ll their
age which constitute 3%. The sample of respondents with the highest
percentage (49%) are within the age brackets of 31-40 and the age
bracket of 18-30 is 21%, however it can be seen that majority (70%)
of the respondents are young people. The marital status was grouped
into single, married, separated, divorced, widow/widower and
cohabiting. 38% of the respondents are single, 34% are married, 12%
are separated, 9% are cohabiting, 4% are divorced and 3% widow/
widower as at the time of the study. However, the study discovered
that over two-thirds of the participants are either single or married.
In the gender distributions, 60% of the respondents in the sample
are females while 40% are males, showing female predominance in
the population. This can be explained by the fact that most chores
relating to water, sanitation and hygiene are carried out by females. In
the respondents’ level of education, the highest in the sample survey
is the secondary school leavers (secondary level) with 56% followed

The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria 340
Copyright:
©2018 Olalekan et al.
Citation: Olalekan RM, Vivien OT, Adedoyin OO, et al. The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria. MOJ Public Health. 2018;7(6):304‒312. DOI: 10.15406/mojph.2018.07.00265
by those who possess higher degree of any form, either B.Sc., B.Ed.,
M.Sc. etc (tertiary level). In Table 4 regarding the respondents’
occupation, trading (which covers any kind of legal business ranging
from photocopying to selling of other items) and civil servants were
the highest at 33% and 25% respectively. The high percentage of
the two occupations is as a result of the presence of government
hospitals and oil companies in the study area. Fishing (23%), is the
third highest and was the predominant occupation of the people before
the establishment of government hospitals and oil companies in the
central senatorial districts.
Table 3 Socio-demographic information of respondents showing age, gender,
marital status and level of education attained
Demographic
information Frequency=296 Percentage (%)
Age
18-30years 61 21
31-40years 145 49
41years & above 80 27
No response 10 3
Total 296 100
Gender
Male 119 40
Female 177 60
Total 296 100
Marital status
Single 112 38
Married 101 34
Separated 34 12
Divorced 13 4
Widow/Widower 10 3
Cohabiting 26 9
Total 296 100
Level of education attained
Primary 16 5
Secondary 166 56
Tertiary 106 36
None 8 3
Total 296 100
Table 4 Socio-demographic information of respondents showing occupation,
family size and ownership of house
Demographic
information Frequency=296 Percentage (%)
Occupation
Fishing 69 23
Farming 33 11
Trading 96 33
Civil Servant 75 25
Others 23 8
Total 296 100
Family size
2-Jan 58 20
4-Mar 101 34
6-May 109 37
7 & Above 28 9
Total 296 100
Ownership of house
Own 228 77
Rented 68 23
Total 296 100
In terms of family size, the category of family size 3-4 (34%)
and 5-6 (37%) represents the highest group; and together with the
group of 7 & above (9%), are mostly native of the community. The
relatively high percentage of the family size of 1-2 (20%) is as a
result of the student population in the community and those having
businesses around. As regards ownership of the house, 77% of the
houses are owned by respondents while 23% of respondents are living
in rented apartments and they could either be oil workers or non-
natives residing in the community because of their business. Table 5
above shows multiple responses on sources of water. Majority of the
respondents use water from borehole (91%) mainly because it is of
good quality, followed by rain water (61%) which is not bought but
only available during the rainy season. Pipe borne water is at 33%,
although it is of good quality, it is not readily available since it is
poorly managed by the state government. River/stream is only 13%
even though it is readily available. This could be because of its poor
quality. In Table 6 above, some respondents had multiple answers.
Drinking borehole water constitute the highest frequency of 156(53%)
followed by rain water at 56(19%). It is clear to say that most of the
respondents depend on borehole water for drinking, but almost equal
number of respondents utilise borehole (38%) and rain water (35%)
for cooking. This can be attributed to the fact that cooking is already
a form of treatment for the rain water leading to almost equal use as
borehole water for cooking. For bathing, borehole water is by far the
most utilised, due to the fact that the other sources, apart from pipe
borne water, will need treatment to prevent skin diseases. Except rain
water (33%) and borehole water (25%), the other sources of water
are almost equally utilised for washing as respondents do not bother
much on treatment before use. Table 7 shows multiple responses and
almost half (45%) of respondents do not treat their water before use.
This can be attributed to the fact that most of these respondents source
their water from boreholes that are already treated. However, it can
be noted that some others treat their water by ltering (24%), boiling
(20%), use of chemical (21%) or a combination of either.
Table 5 Sources of water in oil producing communities in Central Senatorial
District of Bayelsa State
Sources of water frequency Percentage (%)
Rain 182 61
River/stream 37 13
Pipe borne 98 33
Borehole 268 91
Hand dug well 10 3

The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria 341
Copyright:
©2018 Olalekan et al.
Citation: Olalekan RM, Vivien OT, Adedoyin OO, et al. The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria. MOJ Public Health. 2018;7(6):337‒345. DOI: 10.15406/mojph.2018.07.00265
Table 6 Uses of water by respondents in Central Senatorial District of
Bayelsa State
Use Rain River/
Stream
Pipe-
borne Borehole Hand dug
well
Drinking 56(19%) 1(0%) 23(8%) 156(53%) 2(1%)
Cooking 103(35%) 7(2%) 59(20%) 111(38%) 7(2%)
Bathing 47(16%) 23(8%)
38(13%) 107(36%) 2(1%)
Washing 97(33%) 31(10%)
44(15%) 73(25%) 5(2%)
Table 7 Water treatment methods used by respondents in Central
Senatorial District of Bayelsa State
Water treatment
methods Frequency Percentages (%)
None 134 45
Filtering 72 24
Boiling 59 20
Use of Chemical 62 21
In Table 8 there are complains of colour (20%), taste (13%),
particles (14%) and odour (4%) amongst respondents, however
majority of the respondents (59%) have no complains about their
water which is from borehole or pipe borne water.
Table 8 Perception of water quality by respondents in central senatorial
district of Bayelsa state
Perception of
water quality Yes(%) No(%)
Coloured 58(20) 238(80)
Taste 38(13) 258(87)
Particles 42(14) 254(86)
Odour 11( 4) 285(96)
None 174(59) 122(41)
In Table 9 above, the highest category of water usage is 61-80L at
28% which is not signicantly different from the 27% of 41-60L and
81-100L categories. The other categories are between 1% and 8%. The
high usage of water can be attributed to the ush type toilet facility
that utilizes more water. In Table 10 compares the average amount of
water used per capita per day in this study (64) i.e. between 61-80 to
recommended amount by some organisations. Table 11 indicates that
most of the respondents use close storage container (81%) as opposed
to open container (19%). Table 12 above shows that all respondents
wash their storage container.
Table 9 Amount of water used by respondents per capita per day (Litres) in
Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State
Amount of
water used Frequency Percentages (%) per capita
per day(Liters)
≤ 20 21 7
21-40 23 8
41-60 81 27
61-80 84 28
81-100 80 27
101-120 5 2
> 120 2 1
Total 296 100
Table 10 Amount of recommended water usage against index study
Amount of water
used Organisation per capita per
day(Liters)
64 Index study
20 WHO/UNICEF
20-40 WHO/World Bank
30 National Rural Water Supply and Sanitation
Strategic Framework
120 NWSSP
Table 11 Storage container used by respondents in Central Senatorial
District of Bayelsa State
Storage container used Frequency Percentages (%)
Open 57 19
Close 239 81
Total 296 100
Table 12 Washing of storage container in central senatorial district of
Bayelsa state
Do you wash your
storage container? Frequency Percentages (%)
Yes 296 100
No 0 0
Total 296 100
It is shown in the table above Table 13 that 52% of the respondents
wash their storage container weekly, while 36% do same every two
weekly and 12% do it monthly. No respondent was found to be
involved in daily washing of their storage container. From Table 14
above, 45% of the respondents in the study area uses ush toilets,
while 32% use pier/jetty, 19% defecate in the open and 4% use VIP
latrine. In Table 15 above, 60% of the respondents in the study area
wash their toilet once weekly, while 36% does so twice in a week. The
two extremes of cleaning daily and occasionally had the least at 2%
each. In Table 16, 56% of the respondents in the study area dispose
their refuse in the river, while 20% burn their refuse. Disposing by bush
and pit dump constitutes 19% and 5% respectively. Table 17 above
shows participants multiple responses to hand washing. Majority of
respondents wash their hands after toilet visit (73%) but only less
than half do so after cleaning baby’s buttocks (48%) and before eating
(35%). However, only a few do so before feeding children and before
cooking as reected by 28% and 21% respectively. The signicant
difference between hand washing after toilet visit (73%) and after
cleaning baby’s buttocks (48%) is due to the belief that most people
do not see a baby’s faces as a contaminant. The Table 18 highlights
the use of bathroom by a large portion of the respondents (74%),
while open type bathing and bathing in the river are 8% and 18%
respectively. The low rate in the last two types can be attributed to
inux of oil companies’ workers changing the possibly preferred river
bathing popular amongst riverine communities to the bathroom type.
In Table 19 majority of respondents take their bath either once daily
(46%) or twice daily (48%), on the other hand 6% take their bath thrice
daily, while for bathing once every two days, there was no respondent.

The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria 342
Copyright:
©2018 Olalekan et al.
Citation: Olalekan RM, Vivien OT, Adedoyin OO, et al. The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria. MOJ Public Health. 2018;7(6):304‒312. DOI: 10.15406/mojph.2018.07.00265
Closed place of cooking (57%), as seen in Table 20, is only slightly
higher than the open type (43%). This goes to show that there are still
many housing units of the older model that do not have inbuilt kitchen
leading to the marginal difference. The food preservation methods in
Table 21 above depict multiple preservation methods, although almost
evenly distributed amongst the three; steaming (65%), refrigeration
(62%) and smoking/drying (58%).
Table 13 Frequency of washing storage container in Central Senatorial
District of Bayelsa State
Frequency of
washing Frequency Percentages(%) storage
container
Daily - 0
Weekly 154 52
Two weekly 106 36
Monthly 36 12
Total 296 100
Table 14 Type of toilet used by respondents in central senatorial district of
Bayelsa state
Type of toilet Frequency Percentages (%)
Bush/eld(Open defecation) 55 19
Pier/jetty 95 32
VIP latrine 13 4
Flush toilet 133 45
Total 296 100
Table 15 Frequency of cleaning toilet in central senatorial district of Bayelsa
state
Frequency of cleaning
toilet Frequency Percentages (%)
Daily 7 2
Twice weekly 106 36
Once weekly 177 60
Occasionally 6 2
Total 296 100
Table 16 Place of refuse disposal in central senatorial district of Bayelsa
state
Place of refuse disposal Frequency Percentages (%)
River 167 56
Burning 59 20
Bush 55 19
Pit dump 15 5
Total 296 100
Table 17 Hand washing practice by respondents in central senatorial district
of Bayelsa state
Hand washing Frequency Percentages (%)
After toilet visit 271 73
After cleaning baby’s
buttocks 142 48
Before eating 105 35
Before cooking 63 21
Before feeding children 83 28
Table 18 Place of bathing in central senatorial district of Bayelsa state
Place of bathing Frequency Percentages (%)
Bathroom 219 74
Open type 23 8
River 54 18
Total 296 100
Table 19 Frequency of bathing by respondents in central senatorial district
of Bayelsa state
Frequency of bathing Frequency Percentages (%)
Once every 2 days - 0
Once daily 136 46
Twice daily 142 48
Thrice daily 18 6
Total 296 100
Table 20 Place of cooking in central senatorial district of Bayelsa state
Place of cooking Frequency Percentages (%)
Open(outside) 127 43
Closed(kitchen) 169 57
Total 296 100
Table 21 Food preservation methods in central senatorial district of Bayelsa
state
Food preservation Frequency Percentages (%)
Refrigeration 184 62
Steaming 192 65
Smoking/drying 172 58
Discussion
The study showed various sources of water supply in the study
area. However, the most frequently used are borehole, rain water and
pipe borne water, and are amongst those listed by Raimi et al.,4 that
communities depend on; indicating that access to water is not the
problem as majority of residents (58%) in the Central Senatorial District
use at least 61 litres of water per capita per day. This is lower than the
120 litres recommended by the national water supply and sanitation
policy but higher than the 20 litres dened by WHO and UNICEF as
reasonable access.17 This result (58%) is less than the UN18 survey
in Nigeria showing that access to water supply was 67% as at 2013.
There is however problem with the quality of some of the sources of
water which is indicated by the presence of colour, particles, odour and
taste as perceived by respondents, since water of satisfactory quality
should in addition to its chemical and microbiological qualities be
colourless, odourless and tasteless.5,10,20 The poor quality of a few of
this water sources may be due to the presence of high sodium (due to
saline intrusion from the sea), iron and manganese in boreholes drilled
in some communities in the Niger delta as proposed by Ordinioha.20
The presence of poor water quality as perceived by a few residents in
the Central Senatorial District would have also necessitated the fewer

The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria 343
Copyright:
©2018 Olalekan et al.
Citation: Olalekan RM, Vivien OT, Adedoyin OO, et al. The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria. MOJ Public Health. 2018;7(6):337‒345. DOI: 10.15406/mojph.2018.07.00265
percentage of water treatment amongst them, as compared to the 45%
that do not use any form of treatment who, on the other hand, have
good water quality (59%). This is similar to the work done by Miner et
al.,21 in a community in Plateau state which showed that 54% (55% in
this study) of respondents practiced at least one method of purication
in their household, the commonest of which was the addition of
alum (43.3%), while the commonest treatment option in this study is
ltering (24%) and is probably due to fewer percentage of water with
particles (14%). However, the treatment options of boiling, ltering
and use of chemical are similar to those described by Ordinioha.20 The
study showed that all residents wash their water storage container at
least weekly (52%) or two-weekly (36%).
From the result of the study, about half of the residents in the
Central Senatorial District use ush toilet (45%) and VIP latrine (4%)
as a means of safe excreta disposal, while the other half still make use
of the unsafe methods like the pier/jetty (32%) and bush/eld (19%),
and this is higher than both WHO22 survey that says, about 15% of
the Nigerian population did not have access to safe excreta disposal
facilities; and UN18 which indicated 36% in rural areas. However, this
is not expected for a Central Senatorial District hosting a oil companies
but can be attributed to many house owners having buildings without
toilet facilities. However, the bush/eld (19%) excreta disposal type
is less than UNICEF7 report which indicates that open defecation
is still practiced by about a third of the rural population but almost
similar to WHO/UNICEF23 report that 22% of Nigerians are estimated
to defecate in the open. The study also showed that most residents
who use safe excreta disposal facilities wash their toilets at least twice
weekly (36%) or weekly (60%). Refuse disposal method is also very
poor in this Central Senatorial District as 56% of residents dispose
off their refuse in the river, which happens to be one of the sources
of water for 13% of residents and which one out of 296 respondents
drink. The others either burn (20%) or dump their refuse in the bush
(19%) or pit dump (5%). This poor sanitation habit can counteract
the effect of potable water supply as preventable diseases such as
cholera, typhoid, diarrhoea, guinea worm and schistosomiasis can
result from contaminated water and poor sanitary conditions.24 It can
affect recreational activities like swimming, shing etc.
As regards personal hygiene, bathroom facilities are mostly used
by residents (74%), other residents however either bath in the river
(18%) or bath in the open (8%). Similarly, most residents of the
community wash their hands after toilet visit (73%) and this is similar
to the study done on hand washing amongst mothers of under ve
children in Nigeria by Aigbiremolen AO et al.,25 and India by Datta et
al.,26 with gures of 79.6% and 73.18% respectively. However, lesser
number of persons does so after cleaning baby’s buttocks (48%) and
this is less than the 63.91% in India.26 Furthermore, far less people
wash their hands before cooking (21%), before eating (35%) and
before feeding children (28%), similar to the 20.92%, 21.44% and
29.98% respectively in the Indian study26 and this indicates poor
compliance of hand washing at critical times as stated by Raimi et
al.,5 Ordinioha.20 The similarity between the three studies could be
attributed to the fact that all study areas were rural. All residents in
the community bath at least once daily with just under half of them
bathing either once (46%) or twice (48%) daily.27‒50 This study also
identied a close margin between those cooking in the kitchen (57%)
and those cooking outside (43%). This may be as a result of the type
of old buildings present in the Central Senatorial District that lacked
inbuilt kitchens in the apartments. Food preservation was mainly by
steaming (65%) and refrigeration (62%), although more than half of
the residents also smoke or dry(58%) to preserve food.51‒82
Conclusion
The most frequently used water sources are borehole, rain water
and pipe borne water. It was observed that water supply was adequate,
since it is higher than the 20 litres dened by WHO and UNICEF
as reasonable access, but its quality was poor in some instances as
perceived by respondents, necessitating treatment. Unsafe excreta
disposal is still widely practiced despite the presence of oil companies
in the Central Senatorial District. Critical hand washing practice was
still poor amongst residents; however, bathing at least once a day is
common to all.
Acknowledgments
None.
Conicts of interest
Author declares that there is no conicts of interest.
References
1. World Health Organization. Water sanitation and hygiene standards
for schools in low cost settings. 2009.
2. Raimi Morufu Olalekan, Sabinus CE. An Assessment of Trace
Elements in Surface and Ground Water Quality in the Ebocha-Obrikom
Oil and Gas Producing Area of Rivers State, Nigeria. International
Journal for Scientic and Engineering Research (IJSER). 2017;7(8).
3. Tebutt THY. Principle of water quality control. 3rd edn. Pergamon
Press; 1983.
4. Raimi MO, Pigha, Tarilayun K, et al. Water-Related Problems
and Health Conditions in the Oil Producing Communities in
Central Senatorial District of Bayelsa State. Imperial Journal of
Interdisciplinary Research. 2017;3(6):780‒809.
5. Raimi Morufu Olalekan, Omidiji Adedoyin O, Abdulraheem Aishat
Funmilayo, et al. A Survey of Hand Washing Behavior and Awareness
among Health Care Workers in Health Care Facilities in Kubwa
District of Bwari Area Council, F.C.T. Abuja, Nigeria. Annals of
Ecology and Environmental Science. 2018;2(2):1‒18.
6. Premoboere Edna Ateboh, Raimi Morufu Olalekan. Corporate Civil
Liability and Compensation Regime for Environmental Pollution
in the Niger Delta. International Journal of Recent Advances in
Multidisciplinary Research. 2018;5(6):3870‒3893.
7. UNICEF. Information sheet: Water, sanitation and hygiene in Nigeria.
2007.
8. United Nations. Water global analysis and assessment of sanitation
and drinking water in Nigeria. 2014.
9. Water Initiative Nigeria. Water sanitation, health and hygiene
education in local communities in Ibadan South- west Nigeria. 2011.
10. Morufu Raimi, Clinton Ezekwe. Assessment of Trace Elements in
Surface and Ground Water Quality. Lambert Academic Publishing;
2017;144.
11. Efe SI. Spatial Variation in Acid and Some Heavy Metal Composition
of Rainwater Harvesting in the Oil Producing Region of Nigeria.
Natural Hazard. 2010;55:307‒319.
12. Ayoade JO. Tropical Hydrology and Water Resources. Ibadan: Agbo
Areo Publishers; 2003:206‒209.
13. Ovrawah L, Hymore FK. Quality of Water from Hand-Dug Wells
in the Warri Environs of Niger Delta Region. African Journal of
Environmental Studies. 2001;2:16‒17.

The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria 344
Copyright:
©2018 Olalekan et al.
Citation: Olalekan RM, Vivien OT, Adedoyin OO, et al. The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria. MOJ Public Health. 2018;7(6):304‒312. DOI: 10.15406/mojph.2018.07.00265
14. National Population Commission. Bayelsa State, Yenagoa LGA; 2006.
15. National Population Commission. 2006 Housing population Census:
Population on distribution by age and sex: State and Local Government
Area. Abuja, Nigeria: Priotity able: 2010;4:54‒58.
16. National Population Census-NCP. Bayelsa State Population Census,
National Population Census. Federal Republic of Nigeria; 2006.
17. Oloruntoba EO, Agbede OA, Sridhar MKC. Seasonal variation in
physico-chemical quality of household drinking water in Ibadan,
Nigeria. African Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences.
2006;34:154‒165.
18. World Health Organization. UN-Global analysis and assessment of
sanitation and drinking water: Nigeria. Geneva; 2015.
19. Jeje JO, Oladepo KT. A study of sources of microbial contamination
of packaged water. Transnational Journal of Science and Technology.
2012;2(9).
20. Ordinioha B. Principles and practice of environmental health in
Nigeria. Rural Health Forum; 2010.
21. Miner CA, Dakhin AP, Zoakah AI, et al. Household drinking
water; knowledge and practice of purication in a community of
Lamingo, Plateau State, Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Research.
2015;6(3):230‒236.
22. World Health Organization. Guidelines for drinking-water quality,
Volume 3: surveillance and control of community water supplies. 2nd
edn. Geneva;1997.
23. WHO/UNICEF. Joint monitoring programme for water supply and
sanitation, 2010 estimates for water and sanitation. 2011.
24. Federal Republic of Nigeria- Federal Ministry of Water Resources.
Draft nal national water sanitation policy. Department of Water
Supply and Quality Control; 2004.
25. Aigbiremolen AO, Abejegah C, Ike CG, et al. Knowledge and practice
of hand washing among caregivers of under-ve children in a rural
Nigerian community. Public Health Research. 2015;5(5):159‒165.
26. Datta SS, Singh Z, Boratne AV, et al. Knowledge and practice of hand
washing among mothers of fewer than ve children in rural coastal
South India. Int J of Med Public Health. 2011;1(1):33‒38.
27. Ademiluyi IA, Odugbesan JA. Sustainability and impact of community
water supply and sanitation programmes in Nigeria: An overview.
African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2008;3(12):811‒817.
28. Ajao IO, Obafemi OS, Ewumi TO. Household sanitation and mortality
rate in Nigeria: An expository analysis. Journal of Applied Sciences in
Environmental Sanitation. 2011;6(3):333‒342.
29. Anthony MT, Anthony N. Cross-sectional of improved sanitary
facilities’ availability in an urban setting of Ghana. Open Access
Library Journal. 2015:1‒10.
30. Bryan GW, Langston WJ. Bioavailability accumulation and effects
of heavy metals in sediments with special reference to the United
Kingdom estuaries: A review. Environ Pollut. 1992;76(2):89‒131.
31. Bariweni PA, Tawari CC, Abaowei JFN. Some environmental effects
of ooding in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. International Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2012;1(1):35‒46.
32. Cairncross S, Feachem R. Environmental Health Engineering in the
Tropics. 2nd edn. Chichester: Wiley and Sons Ltd; 1999.
33. Clackson O. Local government as an instrument for rural development:
A case study of Southern Ijaw Local Government Area of Bayelsa
State. University of Nigeria Research Publications; 2001.
34. Creswell J, Clark P. Designing and conducting method research.
California: Thousand Oaks, CA Sage; 2007.
35. David OO, Dominic EA, Tayo OG, et al. The relevance of policy and
practice of sanitation effort in developing nations: The experience
of semi-urban city in South-West Nigeria. Proceedings of ICER
Conference. 2014.
36. Dubreuil C. The right to water: From concept to implementation. In:
Buena Onda, editor. World Water Council; 2006.
37. Egbinola CN, Amanambu AC. Water supply, sanitation and hygiene
education in secondary schools in Ibadan, Nigeria. In: Szymańska D,
Środa-Murawska S, editors. Bulletin of Geography Socio-economic
Series. Toruń: Nicolaus Copernicus University; 2015;29:31–46.
38. Emmanuel MA. Water meanings, sanitation practices and hygiene
behaviours in the cultural mirror: A perspective from Nigeria. Journal
of Water Sanitation and Hygiene for Development. 2012;2(3):168‒181.
39. Emuedo OA, Anoliefo GO, Emuedo CO. Oil pollution and water
quality in the Niger Delta; implications for the sustainability of the
mangrove ecosystem. Global Journal of Human-Social Science:
B Geography, Geosciences, Environmental Disaster Management.
2014;14(6B).
40. Evans B. Securing sanitation: The compelling case to address the
crises. Report produced by the Stockholm International Water institute
(SIWI) in collaboration with the WHO. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2005.
41. Ezeji JI. Water and sanitation in Nigeria: An input to the United
Nation’s Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD 12).
2002:1‒12.
42. Federal Republic of Nigeria. Water supply and sanitation interim
strategy note. 2000.
43. Fasina FF. Household sanitation and child morbidity: It’s impact on
child survival. Covenant International Journal of Psychology (CIJP).
2015;1(1):35‒49.
44. Fatoki OS, Lujizan O, Ogunfowokan AO. Trace metal pollution in
Umatariver water SA. 2002;28(2):183–189.
45. Ibrahim SI, Alaci DSA, Ajibade LT. Assessing domestic water demand
and supply adequacy in medium-sized towns of Niger State Nigeria:
Challenge for sustainable development. Journal of Water Resource
and Hydraulic Engineering. 2014;3(4):81‒89.
46. Ige SO, Adetunji AA. On some socio-economic factors affecting
household sanitation in Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria. Journal of
Environment and Earth Science. 2014;4(9):35‒41.
47. Isikwue MO, Lorver D, Onoja SB. Effect of depth on microbial
pollution of shallow wells in Makurdi metropolis, Benue State,
Nigeria. British Journal of Environment and Climate Change.
2011;1(3):66‒73.
48. Joseph M. Health implications of water scarcity in Nigeria. European
Scientic Journal. 2012;8(18):111‒117.
49. Karavoltsosa S, Sakellaria A, Mihopoulosb N, et al. Evaluation of
the quality of drinking water in regions of Greece. Desalination.
2008;224:317–329.
50. National Population Commission, Federal Republic of Nigeria. Final
report on Nigeria demographic and health survey. Calverton, MD,
USA: ORC Macro; 2013.
51. Nwadinigwe CA, Nwaorgu ON. Metal contaminants in some Nigerian
well–Head crudes: Comparative Analysis. J Chem Soc Nigeria.
1992;24:118–12.
52. Nwankwoala HO. Sustainable groundwater development and
management in Nigeria; mission achievable or mission impossible?

The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria 345
Copyright:
©2018 Olalekan et al.
Citation: Olalekan RM, Vivien OT, Adedoyin OO, et al. The sources of water supply, sanitation facilities and hygiene practices in oil producing communities in
central senatorial district of Bayelsa state, Nigeria. MOJ Public Health. 2018;7(6):337‒345. DOI: 10.15406/mojph.2018.07.00265
Water Resource J. 2009;19:63–68.
53. Olalekan RM, Omidiji AO, Nimisngha D, et al. Health Risk Assessment
on Heavy Metals Ingestion through Groundwater Drinking Pathway
for Residents in an Oil and Gas Producing Area of Rivers State,
Nigeria. Open Journal of Yangtze Gas and Oil. 2018;3(3):191‒206.
54. Oloruntoba EO, Agbede OA, Sridhar MKC. Seasonal variation in
physicochemical quality of household drinking water in Ibadan,
Nigeria. ASSET- An International Journal, Series B. 2006;5(1):70‒81.
55. Oloruntoba EO, Sridhar MKC. Bacteriological quality of drinking
water from source to household in Ibadan, Nigeria. Afr J Med Med
Sci. 2007;36(2):169–175.
56. Onyekakeyah, Luke. Water: New realities and challenges. The
Guardian Nigeria. 2006:1.
57. Osita KE, Kingsley EA, Michael JD, et al. The Impact of water
and sanitation on childhood mortality in Nigeria: Evidence from
demographic and health surveys, 2003–2013. Int J Environ Res Public
Health. 2014;11(9):9256‒9272.
58. Robert VK, Daryle WM. Determining sample size for research
activities. Educational and psychological measurement. 1970;30:607–
610.
59. Shalom NC, Obinna CN, Adetayo YO, et al. Assessment of water
quality in Canaan Land, Ota, Southwest Nigeria. Agricultural and
Biological Journal of North America. 2011;2(4):577‒583.
60. Shittu OB, Olaitan JO, Amusa TS. Physicochemical and bacteriological
analysis of water used for drinking and swimming purpose in Abeokuta,
Nigeria. African Journal of Biomedical Research. 2008;11:285‒290.
61. Taro Y. Statistics, an introductory analysis. 2nd edn. New York: Harper
and Row; 1967.
62. United Nations. Water task force on indicators, monitoring and
reporting. Final report monitoring and progress in the water sector: A
selected set of indicators. 2010.
63. United Nations Development Programme. GOAL WASH Programme:
Country sector assessments volume 2. Governance, advocacy and
leadership for water, sanitation and hygiene. New York: United
Nations Development Programme; 2010.
64. UNICEF/WHO. Joint monitoring programme for water supply and
sanitation report. 2010.
65. UNICEF/WHO. Joint monitoring programme for water supply and
sanitation. 2015.
66. UNICEF. Life skills-based hygiene education. 2004.
67. UNICEF & IRC. Water, sanitation and hygiene education for schools.
Roundtable proceedings and framework for action. 2005.
68. United States Geographical Survey. 1984.
69. Valerie C, Bernadette K. Hygienic, happy and healthy: A set of 4
hygiene promotion manuals. London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine; 1998.
70. WHO. Excreta disposal for rural areas and small communities. 1958.
71. washwatch.org/en/blog/why-has-number-children-dying-diarrhoeal-
disease-due-poor-wash-s/
72. Water Aid. Meeting the MDG of water supply and sanitation target in
Nigeria. 2007.
73. Water Aid. 2016.
74. Water Initiatives Nigeria. Water sanitation, health and hygiene
programme in local communities in Ibadan, South West Nigeria. 2011.
75. Water org. Water: Facts. 2016.
76. World health report. Make every mother and child count. 2005.
77. WHO/UNICEF/WSSCC. Global water supply and sanitation
assessment 2000 report, Geneva: World Health Organization/United
Nations Children’s Fund Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative
Council. 2004.
78. www.data.worldbank.org/country/nigeria
79. www.maps-streetview.com/nigeria/amassoma
80. www.un.org/melliniumgoals/
81. www.who.int/topics/sanitation
82. www.tiptopglobe.com/city