CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

This chapter examines and analyses the data gathered from questionnaire in the course
of this research work.

This section contained two parts, part A represented the demographic data of the
respondents while part B represented the non-demographic data.

4.1 Section A (Demographic Data of the Respondent)

4.1.1 Table 1: Ranger of Respondents by Gender

Gender Frequency Percentages

Female 108 54%
Male 92 46%
Total 200 100%
Source: Field Survey, 2025
From the above table, majority of the respondents are female with 54%(108) while 46%(92)
are male.

4.1.2 Table 2: Range of Respondents by Age

Age(years) Frequency Percentages

18-25 100 50%
26-35 60 30%
36-45 40 20%
Total 200 100%
Source: Field Survey, 2025

4.1.3 Table 3: Analysis of Respondents by Religion

 Religion Frequency Percentages
Christianity 116 58%
Islam 84 42%
Total 200 100%
Source: Field Survey, 2025

The above table represents the range of respondents by Religion. The result reveals that
58% (116) are Christianity, 42% (84) were Islamic. Therefore, majority of the
respondents are Christian.

4.1.4 Table 4: Analysis of Respondents by Ethnicity

Ethnicity Frequency Percentages

Yoruba 132 66%
Hausa 16 8%
Igbo 52 26%
Total 200 100%
Source: Field Survey, 2025

The above table represents the range of respondents by Ethnicity. The result reveals that
66%(132) are Yoruba, 8%(16) are Hausa, 26%(52) are Igbo. Therefore, majority of the
respondents are Yoruba.

4.1.5 Table 5: Analysis of Respondents by Occupation

Occupation Frequency Percentages

Student 96 48%
Trader 76 38%
Farmer 28 14%
Total 200 100%
Source: Field Survey, 2025

The above table represents the range of respondents by Occupation. The result reveals
 that 48%(96) are Student, 38%(76) are Trader, 14%(28) are Farmer. Therefore,
majority of the respondents are Student.

4.1.6 Table 6: Analysis of Respondents by Educational Level

Educational Level Frequency Percentages

NFE 8 4%
PE 20 10%
TE 172 86%
Total 200 100%
Source: Field Survey, 2025

The above table represents the range of respondents by Educational Level. The result
reveals that 4%(8) are NFE, 10%(20) are PE, 86%(172) are TE. Therefore, majority of
the respondents are TE.

4.1.7 Table 7: Analysis of Respondents by Years Lived in Idowa

Years Lived In Idowa Frequency Percentages

Less than one year 12 6%
1-5yrs 136 68%
More than five years 52 26%
Total 200 100%
Source: Field Survey, 2025

The above table represents the range of respondents by Years Lived in Idowa. The
result reveals that 6%(12) have lived less than a years, 68%(136) have lived 1-5years ,
26%(52) have lived more than five years. Therefore, majority of the respondents have
lived 1-5years.

4.2 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

This section presents the responses to the structured questionnaire on open defecation among
residents. The data collected from 200 respondents are presented in tables and charts to show
the frequency and percentage distribution for each question.

Table 4.2.1: Responses to “Open defecation is commonly practiced in rural

communities”
Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 100 50%
Agree 96 48%
Disagree 4 2%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100

Figure 1: Responses to Question 1

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (50%) selected “Strongly Agree”,

indicating that respondents largely agree that open defecation is commonly practiced in
rural communities.
Table 4.2.2: Responses to “Open defecation occurs because people lack access to toilets”
Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 100 50%
Agree 100 50%
Disagree 0 0%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100%

Figure 2: Responses to Question 2

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (50%) selected “Strongly Agree”,

indicating that respondents largely agree that open defecation occurs because people lack
access to toilets.
Table 4.2.3: Responses to “Most households in rural communities do not have
proper toilet facilities”

Response Frequency Percentage

Strongly Agree 72 36%
Agree 120 60%
Disagree 8 4%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100%

Figure 3: Responses to Question 3

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (60%) selected “Agree”, indicating

that respondents largely agree that most households in rural communities do not
have proper toilet facilities.
Table 4.2.4: Responses to “People in my community prefer open defecation to using
toilets”

Response Frequency Percentage

Strongly Agree 10 5%
Agree 10 5%
Disagree 60 30%
Strongly Disagree 110 55%
Total 200 100%

Figure 4: Responses to Question 4

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (55%) selected “Strongly Disagree”,

indicating that respondents largely disagree that people in my community prefer
using toilets to open defecation.

Table 4.2.5: Responses to “Open defecation is more common in rural areas than in
urban areas”

Response Frequency Percentage

Strongly Agree 76 38%
Agree 124 62%
Disagree 0 0%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%

Total 200 100%

Figure 5: Responses to Question 5

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (62%) selected “Agree”, indicating that

respondents largely agree that open defecation is more common in rural areas than in
urban areas.

Table 4.2.6: Responses to “Lack of awareness about sanitation leads to open

defecation”
 Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 88 44%
Agree 68 34%
Disagree 32 16%
Strongly Disagree 12 6%
Total 200 100%

Figure 6: Responses to Question 6

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (44%) selected “Strongly Agree”,

indicating that respondents largely agree that lack of awareness about sanitation
leads to open defecation.
Table 4.2.7: Responses to “Lack of access to basic sanitation services can contribute to
open defecation”

Response Frequency Percentage

Strongly Agree 72 36%
Agree 128 64%
Disagree 0 0%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100%

Figure 7: Responses to Question 7

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (64%) selected “Agree”, indicating that

respondents largely agree that lack of access to basic sanitation services can contribute to
open defecation.
Table 4.2.8: Responses to “Lack of knowledge about the health risks can contribute to
open defecation”
Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 80 40%
Agree 120 60%
Disagree 0 0%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100%

Figure 8: Responses to Question 8

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (60%) selected “Agree”, indicating that

respondents largely agree that lack of knowledge about the health risks can contribute to
open defecation.
Table 4.2.9: Responses to “Lack of education and illiteracy can contribute to open
defecation”

Response Frequency Percentage

Strongly Agree 56 28%
Agree 96 48%
Disagree 8 4%
Strongly Disagree 40 20%
Total 200 100%

Figure 9: Responses to Question 9

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (48%) selected “Agree”, indicating that

respondents largely agree that lack of education and illiteracy can contribute to open
defecation.
Table 4.2.10: Responses to “Family status is one of the factors that contribute to open
defecation”
Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 60 30%
Agree 120 60%
Disagree 20 10%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100%

Figure 10: Responses to Question 10

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (60%) selected “Agree”, indicating that

respondents largely agree that family status is one of the factors that contribute to open
defecation
Table 4.2.11: Responses to “Open defecation contributes to the spread of
diseases like cholera and diarrhea”

Response Frequency Percentage

Strongly Agree 84 42%
Agree 116 58%
Disagree 0 0%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100%

Figure 11: Responses to Question 11

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (58%) selected “Agree”, indicating that

respondents largely agree that open defecation contributes to the spread of diseases like
cholera and diarrhea.
 Table 4.2.12: Responses to “Open defecation leads to environmental pollution”
Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 112 56%
Agree 84 42%
Disagree 4 2%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100%

Figure 12: Responses to Question 12

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (56%) selected “Strongly Agree”, indicating that
respondents largely agree that open defecation leads to environmental pollution.
Table 4.2.13: Responses to “Open defecation reduces the aesthetic value of the
environment”

Response Frequency Percentage

Strongly Agree 88 44%
Agree 112 56%
Disagree 0 0%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100%

Figure 13: Responses to Question 13

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (56%) selected “Agree”, indicating that

respondents largely agree that open defecation reduces the aesthetic value of the
environment.
Table 4.2.14: Responses to “Open defecation causes foul odour and makes the
environment unpleasant”
Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 104 52%
Agree 96 48%
Disagree 0 0%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100%

Figure 14: Responses to Question 14

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (52%) selected “Strongly Agree”,

indicating that respondents largely agree that open defecation causes foul odour and
makes the environment unpleasant.
Table 4.2.15: Responses to “Open defecation increases the risk of waterborne diseases”

Response Frequency Percentage

Strongly Agree 104 52%
Agree 96 48%
Disagree 0 0%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100%

Figure 15: Responses to Question 15

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (52%) selected “Strongly Agree”,

indicating that respondents largely agree that open defecation increases the risk of
waterborne diseases.
Table 4.2.16: Responses to “Open defecation can lead to embarrassment and loss of
dignity”

Response Frequency Percentage

Strongly Agree 84 42%
Agree 104 52%
Disagree 12 6%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100%

Figure 16: Responses to Question 16

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (52%) selected “Agree”, indicating that

respondents largely agree that open defecation can lead to embarrassment and loss of dignity.
 Table 4.2.17: Responses to “Open defecation affects economic activities in the
community”
Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 96 48%
Agree 88 44%
Disagree 16 8%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100%

Figure 17: Responses to Question 17

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (48%) selected “Strongly Agree”,

indicating that respondents largely agree that open defecation affects economic activities
in the community.
Table 4.2.18: Responses to “Government intervention is needed to stop open
defecation”

Response Frequency Percentage

Strongly Agree 88 44%
Agree 104 52%
Disagree 8 4%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100%

Figure 18: Responses to Question 18

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (52%) selected “Agree”, indicating

that respondents largely agree that government intervention is needed to stop open
defecation.
Table 4.2.19: Responses to “Proper toilet facilities should be made available to stop
open defecation”
Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 88 44%
Agree 112 56%
Disagree 0 0%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100%

Figure 19: Responses to Question 19

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (56%) selected “Agree”, indicating

that respondents largely agree that proper toilet facilities should be made available
to stop open defecation
 Table 4.2.20: Responses to “Enforcing sanitation laws can reduce open defecation”
Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 72 36%
Agree 100 50%
Disagree 28 14%
Strongly Disagree 0 0%
Total 200 100%

Figure 20: Responses to Question 20

Interpretation: The majority of respondents (50%) selected “Agree”, indicating that

respondents largely agree that enforcing sanitation laws can reduce open defecation.

4.3 Discussion of Findings

The survey findings from Idowa Ijebu highlight open defecation as a deeply rooted and
widespread issue, particularly in rural settings. A staggering 98% of respondents agreed that
the practice is common, with 100% citing lack of toilet access as the primary cause. This
aligns with global research emphasizing the sanitation deficit in low-income, rural
communities. Furthermore, responses revealed that most rural households lack proper toilet
facilities, indicating a direct link between poverty, poor infrastructure, and sanitation
challenges. Interestingly, over half of the respondents disagreed that people in their
community prefer using toilets, suggesting that cultural norms, habits, and perceived
convenience also sustain the practice. This underscores the need for not just physical
infrastructure, but also behavioral change initiatives to alter longstanding attitudes toward
sanitation.

Beyond the causes, the survey revealed a strong awareness of the risks and consequences
associated with open defecation. Respondents overwhelmingly recognized the serious public
health threats it poses, such as the spread of cholera, diarrhea, and other waterborne diseases.
Nearly all agreed it leads to environmental pollution, foul odors, and loss of dignity, showing
that even though the practice is widespread, people understand its dangers. In addition, the
impact on community development was strongly acknowledged — with most respondents
indicating that open defecation reduces the environmental appeal and hampers local
economic activities. Educational factors like illiteracy and lack of awareness were also
identified, suggesting that any effective solution must include strong information and
outreach components, especially for vulnerable groups.

Crucially, there was a unified call for government action. An overwhelming majority of
respondents supported government involvement in enforcing sanitation laws, building public
toilets, and conducting education campaigns. Many agreed that proper toilet facilities and
legal enforcement would help eradicate the problem. These findings echo global frameworks
from the WHO and UNICEF, which stress the need for a multi-dimensional approach that
combines infrastructure, education, and policy enforcement. While the study’s localized
focus provides in-depth insights, it may not be fully generalizable to all rural communities.
Still, it presents a compelling case for immediate, collaborative intervention. Addressing open
defecation in Nigeria will require not only increased funding and infrastructure but also
sustained political will and community ownership — all critical for meeting the targets of
Sustainable Development Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation for all.

CHAPTER FIVE
 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

This study thoroughly examined the issue of open defecation in the rural community of
Idowa Ijebu, aiming to understand its causes, effects, and potential solutions. Motivated by
the high rates of open defecation in rural Nigeria despite ongoing efforts to eliminate it, the
research sought to identify contributing factors, assess the health, environmental, and social
impacts, and explore community perceptions and behaviors related to the practice.

Using a structured questionnaire, data was collected from 200 respondents. The study focused
on key areas including behavioral and infrastructural causes, health and environmental
consequences, and possible policy and community-based interventions. While most
respondents agreed that open defecation is common in rural areas due to inadequate toilet
facilities, low education levels, and insufficient government support, it is important to note
that in Idowa Ijebu specifically, open defecation is reportedly not widespread.

This distinction highlights the need to consider local variations when designing interventions.
Although open defecation remains practiced in some rural contexts, the community of Idowa
Ijebu shows higher awareness and lower incidence, emphasizing the importance of tailored,
community-specific sanitation strategies.

5.2 Conclusion

The findings of this study reveal that while open defecation is commonly associated with
rural communities, its actual practice in Idowa Ijebu may not be widespread. However, the
respondents’ agreement with statements about its causes and effects suggests that the risk
remains if proper sanitation measures are not maintained. The major contributing factors
identified include lack of access to proper toilet facilities, low awareness about hygiene, and
poor sanitation infrastructure. Open defecation was also linked to serious health issues like
cholera and diarrhea, as well as environmental pollution and loss of human dignity. Overall,
the responses emphasize the need for continuous government support, improved
infrastructure, and public health education to prevent open defecation and maintain
community well being.
5.3 Recommendations

The following recommendations are proposed, fully grounded in the study's findings:

i. Government and NGOs should prioritize building and maintaining affordable,

accessible, and culturally appropriate toilets.
ii. Since a large percentage of respondents identified lack of awareness as a problem,
comprehensive public education campaign should be conducted using local
languages, radio programs, school curricula, and religious institutions.
iii. Establish Community Sanitation Committees (CSCs) that can monitor open
defecation practices, report violations, and drive behavioral change at the grassroots
level.
iv. Local governments must enact and enforce bylaws against open defecation, including
fines or penalties for offenders, while also providing alternatives to support
compliance.
v. Poor families should be assisted with toilet construction subsidies, technical
assistance, or shared community toilets to remove cost barriers.
vi. A local tracking mechanism should be put in place to monitor the impact of anti- open
defecation initiatives, ensuring progress is measurable and sustainable.

All recommendations above stem directly from the data and reflect the collective will
and awareness of the respondents.

5.4 Contribution to Knowledge

This study adds significant value to the existing literature and knowledge in the field of
public health, rural development, and environmental sanitation in the following ways:

It provides primary empirical data on open defecation in a rural Nigerian context, where data
is often scarce.

The study reveals the complex interplay between infrastructure, behavior, education, and
government policy, offering a multi-dimensional understanding of the problem. It highlights
the gap between awareness and practice, an area often underexplored, suggesting the need for
more targeted behavior change strategies. The findings can inform policy formulation,
community- level sanitation programs, and public health advocacy. It reinforces the
importance of community-driven sanitation solutions, adding weight to global campaigns
such as the Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) model. The findings can inform future
sanitation policies, advocacy programs, and community-level interventions in similar
settings.

5.5 Suggestions for Further Research

While this study has addressed key aspects of open defecation in Idowa Ijebu, several
research gaps and areas for further investigation have been identified:

i. Qualitative research exploring the deep-seated cultural and psychological reasons why
individuals continue to engage in open defecation, even when facilities are available.
ii. Comparative studies between multiple rural and urban communities to understand
regional variations and the effectiveness of different interventions.
iii. Longitudinal studies to assess the long-term effects of sanitation interventions and to
measure behavior change over time.
iv. Research focusing on gender-specific impacts, especially how open defecation affects
women and girls in terms of safety, dignity, and health.
v. An economic analysis of how open defecation affects local development, including its
impact on agriculture, tourism, and local businesses.
vi. Such further research will deepen the understanding of the problem and enhance the
design of more targeted and effective sanitation strategies.
REFERENCES (APA 7TH EDITION)

Adewole, O., Agboola, F., & Ojo, J. (2019). Environmental sanitation challenges in
southwestern Nigeria: A case study of Ogun State. International Journal of
Environmental Research, 16(3), 220–235.

Adebayo, M., Yusuf, T., & Oladimeji, P. (2021). Infrastructure and health outcomes
in underserved communities. Nigerian Journal of Development Studies, 18(3), 67–82.
Ashraf, S., Bicchieri, C., Das, U., & Shpenev, A. (2023). Valuing open defecation
free surroundings: Experimental evidence from a norm-based intervention in India.
arXiv preprint

arXiv:2312.16205.
[https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.16205](https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.16205)

Barnard, S., Routray, P., & Clasen, T. (2020). Understanding cultural resistance to
toilet use in rural India. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development,
10(1), 124–135

Bartram, J., & Cairncross, S. (2010). Hygiene, sanitation, and water: Forgotten
foundations of health. PLoS Medicine, 7(11),
e1000367.
[https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000367](https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pmed.1 000367)

Cairncross, S., Hunt, C., Boisson, S., Bostoen, K., Curtis, V., Fung, I. C., & Schmidt,
W.
P. (2010). Water, sanitation and hygiene for the prevention of diarrhoea. International
Journal of Epidemiology, 39(suppl\_1), i193–
i205. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq035](https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq035)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021). Global water, sanitation,
and hygiene
(WASH).
[https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/global/index.html](https://www.cdc.gov/
healthywat er/global/index.html)

Chambers, R., & von Medeazza, G. (2014). Sanitation and stunting in India:
Undernutrition’s blind spot. Economic & Political Weekly, 49(34), 15–18.

Federal Government of Nigeria and UNICEF. (2016). Making Nigeria open

defecation free by 2025: A national
roadmap. [https://www.unicef.org/nigeria/reports/making-nigeria-
open-defecation-free-2025-natio
nal-road-map](https://www.unicef.org/nigeria/reports/making-nigeria-open-
defecation-f ree-2025-national-road-map)

Federal Ministry of Water Resources. (2019). Nigeria’s roadmap to open defecation-

free status by 2025. Abuja, Nigeria.

Inah, S. A., Andenum, S. K., Asor, L. J., Okon, A. J., Egbonyi, D. E., & Osuchukwu,
N.
C. (2023). Knowledge, perceptions and attitude towards open defecation and its
health implications among residents in Ussa Local Government Area, Taraba State,
Nigeria. Global Sustainability Research, 2(1), 10–21.

Inah, S. A., Amadi, A. N., Iwuala, C. C., Okereke, C. C., Eteng, A. E., Ebri, E. O., ...
& Hyacinth, C. (2025). Knowledge and perceptions on the public health implications
of open defecation practices among residents in Yakurr Local Government Area of
Cross River State, Nigeria. African Journal of Biomedical Research, 28(2S).

Jenkins, M. W., & Scott, B. (2007). Behavioral indicators of household decision-

making and demand for sanitation and potential gains from social marketing in
Ghana. Social Science & Medicine, 64(12),
2427–2442. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.045]
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2 007.03.045)
Jonah, A., Gamde, S. M., Abriba, S. P., Biya, A., Bashir, S. A., Abi, A. D., ... &
Obeagu, E. I. (2024). Assessment of open defecation practice among Gugugu
residents in Abuja, Nigeria. Sokoto Journal of Medical Laboratory Science, 9(3).

Kar, K., & Chambers, R. (2018). Handbook on community-led total sanitation

(CLTS). Plan International.

Ministry of Jal Shakti. (2022). Swachh Bharat Mission report. Government of India.

National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2020). National water, sanitation, and hygiene
survey report. Abuja, Nigeria.

National Bureau of Statistics. (2022). Population estimates of Nigerian local

government areas.

National Population Commission. (2006). 2006 population and housing census of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria: National and state population tables.

Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS). (2018). Water, sanitation, and
hygiene in Nigeria. [https://dhsprogram.com](https://dhsprogram.com)

Ogunleye, K., & Salami, R. (2019). Challenges in data collection for public health
research. African Journal of Social Sciences, 12(1), 22–35.

Olawale, S., & Johnson, B. (2022). The impact of climate on field research in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Climate & Society, 7(2), 33–49.

O’Reilly, K., & Louis, E. (2014). The toilet tripod: Understanding successful
sanitation in rural India. Health & Place, 29, 43–51.

Punch. (2022). Open defecation practiced in 703 of Nigeria’s 774 local government
areas – UNICEF. [https://www.punchng.com](https://www.punchng.com)

Sanitation and Hygiene Fund (SHF). (2021). The impact of poor sanitation on women
and girls. [https://www.shfund.org](https://www.shfund.org)

Sommer, M., Ferron, S., Cavill, S., & House, S. (2017). Menstrual hygiene
management in emergencies: Global experiences. WaterAid.

Spears, D., Ghosh, A., & Cumming, O. (2018). Open defecation and child height:
Analyzing global data. The Lancet Global Health, 6(5), e529–e539.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30060-4](https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-
109X
%2818%2930060-4)

UNICEF. (2019). Water, sanitation, and hygiene: Progress report on SDG 6.

[https://www.unicef.org/wash](https://www.unicef.org/wash)

UNICEF. (2021). Community-led total sanitation: A strategy for sustainable

sanitation and hygiene. [https://www.unicef.org](https://www.unicef.org)
UNICEF. (2022). Open defecation in Nigeria: The urgent need for action.
[https://www.unicef.org](https://www.unicef.org)

UNICEF Nigeria. (2022). Ending open defecation in Nigeria: A roadmap.

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable
development.

United Nations. (2019). The sustainable development goals report 2019. New York,
NY.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2017). Progress on drinking water,

sanitation, and hygiene 2017: Update and SDG baselines. New York, NY.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2018). Sanitation and

environmental health: The need for sustainable solutions. Geneva, Switzerland.

WaterAid Nigeria. (2020). Achieving sustainable sanitation in rural Nigeria:

Challenges and opportunities.
[https://www.wateraid.org/ng](https://www.wateraid.org/ng)

WaterAid. (2021). The state of sanitation in Africa: Challenges and solutions.

WHO. (2020). Sanitation and health: Guidelines on sanitation and health.

[https://www.who.int](https://www.who.int)

World Bank. (2019). Sanitation and waste management in developing countries.

[https://www.worldbank.org](https://www.worldbank.org)

World Bank. (2019). Open defecation nearly halved since 2000 but still practiced by
670 million people. [https://www.worldbank.org](https://www.worldbank.org)

World Bank. (2020). The economics of sanitation: How poor sanitation impacts
health and productivity in Nigeria. Washington, DC.

World Bank. (2021). The economic costs of poor sanitation in developing countries.

World Health Organization (WHO). (2015). Sanitation and health: Global status
report. [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/sanitation](https://
www.who.int/new s-room/fact-sheets/detail/sanitation)

World Health Organization (WHO) & UNICEF. (2021). State of the world’s
sanitation: An urgent call to transform sanitation for better health, environments,
economies, and societies.
 DEPOTTER COLLEGE OF
HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ORU/IJEBU IGBO ROAD,ORU
IJEBU, OGUN STATE

Dear Respondent
I am a final year student of the above institution, carrying out a study titled
“PREVALENCE AND PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF OPEN DEFECATION AMONG
THE DWELLERS OF
IDOWA IJEBU OF OGUN STATE ”. This study is for academic purpose only ,and all
information provided will be treated confidentiality. Your name is not required in this
study ,and your response will be kept anonymous.
Your participation is highly valued, and I appreciate your
cooperation Thank you

Yours faithfully
Adekoya Deborah Oluwakemi
Researchers.

Section A
Demographics Data collection
1.Age (years): (a) 18-25yrs( ) (b)26-35yrs( ) (c)36-45yrs()
2.Religion: (a)Christianity( ) (b)Islam( )
3. Ethnicity :(a)Yoruba( ) (b)Hausa( ) (c)Igbo( )

4. Gender: (a)Male( ) (b)Female

5. Occupation:(a)Student( )

(b)Trader( ) (c)Farmer( )
6. Educational level :(a)No formal education ( ) (b)primary education ( ) (c)Tertiary
education ()

7. How long Have you lived in Idowa Ijebu? (a)less than 1yrs ( ) (b)1-5yrs( ) (c)more
than 5yrs( )
SECTION B

Respondent are to fill the section using the following

SA- strongly
Agreed A-
Agreed
D-Disagreed

SD-Strongly Disagreed

S/ RESEARCH ITEMS SA A D SD
N
PREVALENCE OF OPEN DEFECATION
1 Open defecation is commonly
practiced in rural communities.
2 Open defecation occurs because

people lack access to toilets.

3 Most households in rural
communities do not have proper
toilet facilities.
4 People in my community prefer
open defecation to using toilets.
5 Open defecation is more
common in rural areas than in
urban areas.
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO OPEN DEFECATION
6 Lack of awareness about
sanitation lead to open
defecation
7 Lack of access to basic
sanitation services can
contribute to open defecation.

8 Lack of knowledge about the

health risk can contribute to
open defecation.

9 Lack of education and illiteracy

can contribute to open
defecation
10 Family status is one of the
factors that contribute to open
defecation
PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF OPEN DEFECATION
11 Open defecation contribute to
the spread of disease like
cholera and diarrhea.

12 Open defecation lead to

environmental pollution .

13 Open defecation affect the

quality of drinking water
14 Open defecation reduces the
aesthetic value of the
environment.
15 Open defecation cause foul odur
and makes the environment
unpleasant.

16 Open defecation increases the

risk of water born disease
17 Open defecation can lead to
embarrassment and loss of
dignity.

18 Open defecation affects

economic activities in the
community.

19 Government intervention is
needed to stop open defecation
20 Proper toilet facilities should be
made available to stop open
defecation.