BACKGROUND Access to potable drinking water and sufficient sanitation continues to be an urgent global concern, particularly in developing regions where constrained resources, inadequate infrastructure, and swift urbanization converge to intensify these difficulties. According to UNICEF and WHO (2020), over 2 billion individuals worldwide lack access to safe drinking water, while around 4.2 billion reside without enhanced sanitation facilities. These inadequacies precipitate grave public health ramifications, including the proliferation of waterborne illnesses such as diarrhea, cholera, and typhoid, which significantly elevate mortality rates, particularly among children under five years of age (Prüss-Ustün et al., 2019). Furthermore, substandard sanitation practices contribute to environmental deterioration, with untreated effluent contaminating water bodies and heightening public health hazards (Bartram & Cairncross, 2018). As the global populace continues to expand and urbanize, guaranteeing access to clean water and sanitation is becoming an increasingly critical imperative. United Nation (2023) explained that insufficient access to high-quality water and sanitation represents a considerable global health concern, especially in developing nation like Nigeria. The World Health Organization indicates that approximately 740 million individuals are deprived of improved water sources, with Nigeria exhibiting 19% accessibility to potable drinking water (WHO, 2022). The water crisis in Nigeria is particularly severe, with millions of individuals contending with water shortages and inadequate sanitation. UNICEF (2022) reports that 70 million Nigerians lack access to safe drinking water, while over 110 million do not have improved sanitation facilities. Amit et al., (2023) confirmed that contaminated drinking water is responsible for 80% of all global fatalities resulting from diarrheal diseases, thereby underscoring the imperative for the enhancement of water quality to mitigate the prevalence of such illnesses. In Nigeria Oluwaseyi et al., (2023) assessed the quality of drinking water in households within Ogbomoso North Local Government Area, Nigeria, highlighting inadequate access to Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) facilities and high coliform contamination levels. It found that 63% of households had high coliform counts, influenced by the presence of toilet facilities and water sources. Adamu et al., (2022) found that having an unimproved water source significantly increases the odds of diarrhea among Nigerian households, with an odds ratio of 1.59 after controlling for various factors. Additionally, the absence of soap/detergent for handwashing and a refrigerator in the home were also linked to higher diarrhea prevalence. Imarhiagbe et al., (2023) evaluated the water supply, sanitation, hygiene, and health status of residents in the Ekosodin community, revealing that 72.7% of respondents relied on boreholes for water, while 67.3% had access to soap and water for hand hygiene, although there was a notable prevalence of health issues such as vomiting (66.7%) among participants . Additionally, the findings indicated a need for improved sanitation facilities, as 24.7% of respondents expressed the necessity for more toilets, highlighting the importance of community-based interventions to enhance hygiene practices In Ekosodin community, significant majority of the households (94.2%) had access to water, primarily from boreholes, but over 32.7% of these households did not treat their water before use, indicating potential health risks. Additionally, while most respondents practiced hand washing after using the toilet, there were notable deficiencies in sanitation infrastructure, with 57.9% of houses lacking drainage systems and 56.4% without waste storage facilities, underscoring the need for improved WASH services in the community (Rawlings and Seghosime, 2022). WASH practices in selected primary healthcare centers in Owerri West LGA, Imo State, reveals that 55.6% of respondents sometimes washed their hands daily, while only 23.0% reported always washing their hands, indicating a moderate level of hygiene practice among healthcare workers and patients . Additionally, the research highlighted that 37.5% of respondents used removable plastic waste collection containers for healthcare waste disposal, and there was a significant association between hand washing practices and the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, emphasizing the need for enhanced WASH education in healthcare settings (Orji et al., 2024). Adelekan et al. (2020) explored the conditions of water and sanitation in rural communities within the Niger Delta and unveiled considerable challenges regarding water quality and availability, stemming from subpar infrastructure and environmental deterioration. Omoigberale et al., (2021) noted that the impact of rapid urbanization water resources and numerous households lack access to improved water sources, thereby increasing the risk of waterborne diseases. Egbinola and Amobichukwu (2020) scrutinized the ramifications of urbanization on water scarcity and the degradation of water supply infrastructure providing insights into water accessibility within a significant urban hub of Edo state. Omoigberale et al. (2021) underscored the public health hazards linked to substandard water quality, exemplified by the prevalence of waterborne pathogens in rural sectors of Edo State. Ezugwu and Obi (2019) assessed water quality in urban slums in Enugu, elucidating the health risks associated with contaminated water sources. Analyzing the water access and sanitation issues in Ikpoba Okha is essential for mitigating public health risks and fostering sustainable development. Safe water and sanitation are integral components of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 6), which aspire to guarantee universal access to clean water and sanitation by the year 2030. The burgeoning population in Ikpoba Okha, in conjunction with swift urbanization, has exerted mounting pressure on the existing water infrastructure, which frequently proves insufficient to satisfy the demands of inhabitants. This predicament necessitates a comprehensive evaluation of the water sources, hygiene practices, and sanitation facilities accessible to households within the region. This research endeavors to bridge the gaps in comprehension by delivering a meticulous assessment of potable water sources, domestic hygiene, and sanitation practices in Ikpoba Okha Local Government Area, Edo State. OBJECTIVE This study assesses potable water sources, sanitation, and hygiene practices in Ikpoba Okha Local Government Area, Edo State. METHODS Mixed method approach was used to assess portal water sources, household hygiene, and sanitation practices in Ikpoba Okha LGA. Using a combination of survey, qualitative, and quantitative methods, and the researcher gained a comprehensive understanding of the complex factors contributing to water pollution. Primary data used was in the form of structured questionnaire and water analysis. The structured questionnaires were administered to 1,131 household whose children were under ten. The questionnaires gathered information on water sources, treatment methods, hygiene practices, and sanitation. Water quality testing was conducted on samples from different sources to assess contamination levels (e.g., coliform bacteria, pH). 2.3. Data Collection The study was conducted across eight communities to gain a comprehensive understanding of water sources, sanitation, and hygiene practices. The sample size was determined using the Yaro Yamani method. The sample size comprises of 1,131 households with children under ten. Questionnaires were administered to these households to collect data on water sources, sanitation, and hygiene practices within Ikpoba Okha LGA. The questionnaire findings helped to complement the results of water quality analysis Water samples were collected from various sources across the communities to examine seasonal variations in water quality. Samples were taken from five rivers (Ikpe, Ologbo, Ossiomo, Uteh, and Ikpoba), five wells, and eight selected boreholes, during both the rainy and dry seasons. The water sources were chosen based on their location. Simple random sampling was used to ensure fair representation across the communities. Bacteriological Analysis was used to detect the presence of Coliform group bacteria (E. coli, Streptococcus faecalis, clostridium) in water body RESULTS 0 Results and Discussion Figure 1: Primary source of drinking water from household In Ikpoba Okha LGA, households utilize a variety of primary sources for their drinking water, reflecting diverse water availability and preferences. According to the survey data, 27 households depend on streams as their primary source of drinking water, which may be influenced by geographical proximity and the absence of alternative sources. Meanwhile, 109 households rely on well water, indicating the presence of traditional water extraction methods that have been used for generations. The majority of households, 956 in total, use borehole water as their primary drinking water source. This reliance on boreholes suggests a preference for more reliable and possibly safer water sources, as boreholes can often provide cleaner water from underground aquifers compared to surface water sources. Additionally, 39 households collect rainwater as their primary drinking water source. This practice may be particularly common in areas with substantial rainfall and where households have the means to collect and store rainwater effectively. The water usage patterns in Ikpoba Okha LGA reflect both traditional practices and a growing reliance on modern water infrastructure, particularly boreholes. With 83.6% of households using boreholes as their primary drinking water source, this trend aligns with findings in other parts of southern Nigeria, where boreholes are increasingly favored due to the relative safety and reliability of groundwater over surface water. Adelekan et al. (2020), highlight the widespread use of boreholes as communities seek cleaner and safer alternatives amidst environmental degradation and water contamination from oil activities. Ezugwu and Obi (2019) reported similar borehole reliance in urban slums of Enugu, with borehole water often being perceived as a better alternative to polluted rivers and streams. The use of well water in Ikpoba Okha (9.5%) contrasts with other studies from southern Nigeria, where wells are less commonly used in urbanized or rapidly developing regions, as seen in Ogbomoso (Oluwaseyi et al., 2023). However, the continued use of wells in Ikpoba Okha may be due to cost factors or limited access to borehole infrastructure, mirroring rural areas of the Southeast, where wells still serve as a significant water source. The collection of rainwater by 39 households underscores the importance of rainwater harvesting in regions with heavy rainfall, a practice observed in other South-South areas like Bayelsa and Cross River, particularly where surface water contamination is prevalent. This diverse reliance on water sources underscores the complex water access challenges, shaped by both local geography and infrastructure availability across southern Nigeria. Figure 2: How often do you access water from the primary source? The frequency of accessing water from the primary source shows considerable variation among households. According to the survey data, 235 household’s access water daily, indicating a high dependence on regular water collection to meet their daily needs. This frequent access suggests that these households might have limited storage capacity or requires fresh water daily for their activities. On the other hand, 381 households access water from their primary source once a week. This less frequent collection could imply better storage facilities that allow them to store sufficient water for an extended period, reducing the need for daily trips. Additionally, 319 households access water twice a week, balancing between daily and weekly collection frequencies. This frequency might reflect a moderate level of storage capacity and water usage. Lastly, 190 households access water four times a week, indicating a need for frequent replenishment but not on a daily basis. These households may have storage facilities that can hold enough water for a few days but still require regular trips to the water source. This data highlights the diverse water access patterns in the community, influenced by factors such as storage capacity, water needs, and the availability of water sources. From the result, the water access patterns in Ikpoba Okha LGA, where households vary in the frequency of collecting water, reflect the complexity of water availability and storage capacities in the region. The 235 households accessing water daily likely face limited storage or a need for fresh water, similar to findings in the Niger Delta, where Adelekan et al. (2020) reported frequent daily trips to boreholes and rivers due to inadequate water storage facilities. In contrast, the 381 households accessing water once a week may have better storage systems, reducing the frequency of collection. This trend has also been observed in Southeast Nigeria, where Ezugwu and Obi (2019) found that households with larger storage tanks or reservoirs could store enough water for longer periods, lessening the strain of daily water collection. The 319 households accessing water twice a week in Ikpoba Okha may reflect a balance between available storage and the distance or effort required to reach water sources, a trend similarly noted by Oluwaseyi et al. (2023) in Ogbomoso, where moderate water access was influenced by both water availability and household needs. Additionally, the 190 households accessing water four times a week likely have smaller storage capacities but need water replenishment more frequently than those with larger storage, as seen in some rural communities in Cross River where water scarcity and storage limitations force regular trips to rivers and wells. Figure 3: Distance of the primary water source The survey data on the distance respondent’s travel from their homes to their primary water source reveals varying proximities. A total of 208 households are fortunate to have their primary water source just 1 - 5 meters away, making access to water relatively convenient and less time-consuming. Meanwhile, 338 households have to travel 6 - 10 meters to reach their water source, which still represents a manageable distance for daily water needs. For 295 households, the primary water source is 11 - 20 meters away, requiring a more considerable effort and time commitment to fetch water. Lastly, 290 households face the greatest challenge, with their primary water source located 21 meters or more from their homes. This increased distance can significantly impact the ease of access to water, potentially affecting the frequency of water collection and the amount of water available for daily use. These varying distances highlight the diverse experiences of households in accessing water and underscore the importance of improving water accessibility to enhance the quality of life in the community. The result from Ikpoba Okha LGA in Edo State reveals a considerable variation in the distance household’s travel to access water, with most respondents having their water sources within 20 meters, but a significant portion facing distances beyond 21 meters. Specifically, while 208 households enjoy immediate proximity (1-5 meters), 338 and 295 households travel 6-10 and 11-20 meters respectively, leaving 290 households with distances exceeding 21 meters. The impact of this disparity is profound, as increased distances can result in reduced water availability for daily use due to the time and physical effort required for collection. This pattern of access aligns with broader trends observed in South-South and Southeast Nigeria. A 2023 study in Delta State found that approximately 40% of households also experienced long travel distances to water sources, with similar challenges in Cross River, where households beyond 15 meters often reported decreased water usage due to logistical challenges ([Okeke, 2023). In contrast, some urban centers in the Southeast, such as Enugu, have made strides in reducing average travel distances through community boreholes and water schemes, though rural areas still face notable access difficulties. Studies from 2022 and 2024 in Anambra and Abia states indicate that households in remote locations continue to travel significant distances, similar to Ikpoba Okha LGA, particularly where public water systems are absent (Ifeoma, 2024). Thus, while some progress has been made in urban centers, rural and semi-rural areas remain disproportionately affected by water access issues, reinforcing the need for infrastructural development to ensure equitable water distribution across these regions. Figure 4: Treatment of water before consumption The water treatment practices before consumption shows a significant divide among households. A total of 423 respondents reported that they treat their water before consumption, employing methods such as boiling, filtering, or using chemical disinfectants to ensure the water is safe for drinking. This practice reflects an awareness of potential waterborne health risks and a proactive approach to mitigating them. Conversely, 708 respondents indicated that they do not treat their water before consumption, which raises concerns about exposure to contaminants and the overall quality of the water being consumed. This disparity highlights the need for increased education and resources to promote safe water practices and improve public health outcomes in the community. From the data, Ikpoba Okha LGA demonstrates a significant divide in water treatment practices, with 423 households (approximately 37%) treating their water before consumption, while 708 households (63%) do not. The use of methods such as boiling, filtering, and chemical disinfectants by the minority indicates awareness of the health risks posed by untreated water, including the transmission of waterborne diseases. However, the majority’s lack of water treatment raises concerns about the safety of the water consumed, potentially due to a lack of resources or awareness. This pattern mirrors findings from other parts of South-South and Southeast Nigeria. A 2023 study in Cross River State found that approximately 65% of rural households do not treat their water, mainly due to limited access to treatment technologies and inadequate education on the risks of consuming untreated water (Abang, 2023). In Southeast Nigeria, a 2024 report from Enugu State revealed that while urban households were more likely to treat their water, up to 50% of rural households did not, due to cost barriers and insufficient outreach efforts by public health authorities (Ifeoma, 2024). Similarly, in Delta State, a 2022 study highlighted that untreated water was a significant contributor to gastrointestinal illnesses, especially in communities reliant on surface water sources (Okeke, 2022). These regional comparisons highlight a persistent challenge in promoting safe water practices, particularly in rural and underserved areas, where there is a clear need for expanded education programs and improved access to affordable water treatment methods to enhance public health. Figure 5: How satisfied are you with the quality of water from your primary water source In Ikpoba Okha LGA, the survey data on respondents' satisfaction with the quality of water from their primary water source reveals a range of opinions. A total of 214 households reported being very satisfied with their water quality, indicating that they find it meets their needs and expectations. Additionally, 487 households expressed satisfaction, suggesting that while there might be some minor concerns, the water quality is generally acceptable to them. On the other hand, 303 households reported being dissatisfied with their water quality, highlighting significant issues or concerns that affect their perception and usage. Furthermore, 127 households indicated they were very dissatisfied, reflecting severe dissatisfaction and potential health risks associated with their water quality. This spectrum of satisfaction levels underscores the varying experiences and challenges faced by households in accessing clean and safe water. The survey data from Ikpoba Okha LGA highlights a diverse spectrum of household satisfaction with water quality, with 214 households (approximately 16%) reporting they are very satisfied, indicating that their water meets both their needs and expectations. A larger portion, 487 households (37%), expressed general satisfaction, signifying that although minor concerns exist, the water is largely acceptable for daily use. However, dissatisfaction is significant, with 303 households (23%) expressing concerns about water quality, and 127 households (10%) reporting severe dissatisfaction, reflecting potential issues such as contamination or inadequate supply, which may pose health risks. This mixed satisfaction level mirrors broader findings in South-South and Southeast Nigeria. In a 2023 study in Delta State, about 30% of households reported dissatisfaction with water quality due to contamination from nearby industries and poor infrastructure, particularly in rural areas (Okeke, 2023). Similarly, a 2022 study in Cross River State revealed that up to 40% of households were dissatisfied due to high levels of turbidity and occasional waterborne disease outbreaks (Nwosu, 2022). Conversely, urban areas in Southeast Nigeria, such as Enugu, saw higher satisfaction rates, with over 60% of households satisfied or very satisfied with their water quality, mainly due to more consistent and treated water supply systems (Ifeoma, 2024). These comparisons highlight the ongoing challenges faced by rural and semi-urban communities in accessing clean, reliable water, stressing the need for infrastructural improvements and better water management systems to improve water quality across regions. Figure 6: Access to improved water hygiene facilities In Ikpoba Okha LGA, the survey findings reveal a disparity in access to improved water hygiene facilities among respondents. Of the total surveyed, 469 households reported having access to facilities that support safe water handling and hygiene practices. These facilities likely include amenities such as hand washing stations with soap, clean water storage containers, and adequate sanitation infrastructure. However, a notable 749 households indicated a lack of access to such facilities, indicating challenges in maintaining proper hygiene standards and potentially contributing to health risks within the community. Addressing this gap in infrastructure is crucial for promoting better health outcomes and improving overall community well-being in the area. The survey findings in Ikpoba Okha LGA reveal a significant disparity in access to improved water hygiene facilities, with 469 households having access to infrastructure that supports safe water handling and hygiene, while 749 households lack such facilities. These facilities typically include hand washing stations, soap, clean water storage, and adequate sanitation systems, all essential for reducing health risks associated with poor hygiene. The lack of access for the majority of households poses serious public health concerns, as improper water handling and inadequate sanitation can increase the risk of waterborne diseases and other health issues. This situation aligns with trends observed across South-South and Southeast Nigeria. In a 2023 study conducted in Bayelsa State, 55% of households lacked access to improved hygiene facilities, citing infrastructural deficits and poverty as key barriers (Amadi, 2023). Similarly, a 2022 survey in Cross River State reported that over 60% of rural households had insufficient sanitation facilities, which contributed to recurrent outbreaks of diseases such as cholera and dysentery (Nwosu, 2022). In contrast, urban areas like Enugu in Southeast Nigeria have shown better access, with about 70% of households benefiting from improved water and sanitation facilities, largely due to government interventions and urban development projects (Ifeoma, 2024). These regional disparities underscore the urgent need for targeted infrastructural development, particularly in rural and semi-urban communities, to bridge the gap in access to water hygiene facilities and promote better health outcomes. Figure 7: Toilet Type There is diversity in the types of toilets used by households. According to the survey data, 431 households rely on pit latrines, which are often a traditional and cost-effective sanitation option in many communities. A larger number, 594 households, use flush toilets connected to pit systems, indicating a preference for improved sanitation infrastructure that connects to a contained waste disposal system. Additionally, 106 households use bush toilets, highlighting a practice where waste is disposed of in outdoor areas away from residential spaces. This variety in toilet types underscores the different sanitation practices and infrastructure accessibility within the local community. studies from other regions in Edo State, South-South, and Southeast Nigeria provide additional context. For instance, a study conducted in Esan West LGA of Edo State by Ighalo and Emuh (2022) found a similar distribution of toilet types, with 47% of households using pit latrines, 38% using flush toilets connected to septic systems, and 15% resorting to bush toilets. This study emphasized that while there is a significant adoption of improved sanitation facilities, a considerable number of households still lack access to adequate sanitation. In the broader South-South region, a survey in Bayelsa State by Olokor and Ojeaga (2021) revealed that 45% of households used pit latrines, 40% used flush toilets connected to septic systems, and 15% used bush toilets. The researchers noted that economic constraints and limited infrastructure development were major factors influencing the choice of sanitation facilities. A study in Anambra State by Nwachukwu and Okeke (2023) showed that 50% of households used pit latrines, 35% used flush toilets connected to pit systems, and 15% used bush toilets. The findings highlighted the disparities in sanitation infrastructure across different communities and the need for comprehensive sanitation policies to improve access to hygienic facilities. The prevalence of pit latrines and flush toilets connected to pit systems indicates a significant use of improved sanitation facilities, yet the continued use of bush toilets by some household’s points to ongoing challenges in achieving universal access to adequate sanitation. This diversity in toilet types within the community underscores the importance of addressing infrastructural deficiencies and promoting sustainable sanitation practices. Efforts to improve sanitation in these regions should focus on increasing access to modern sanitation facilities, providing financial and technical support to households, and raising awareness about the health benefits of improved sanitation. Collaborative initiatives involving government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and local communities are essential to achieving these goals. Figure 8: Water storage facilities Households in Ikpoba Okha LGA utilize a range of water storage facilities to meet their daily water needs. The survey data reveals that 512 households rely on tanks as their primary water storage solution, likely due to their large capacity and ability to store significant amounts of water for extended periods. Plastic buckets are used by 371 households, reflecting their affordability, portability, and ease of use for smaller-scale water storage. Additionally, 248 households use wooden pots for storing water, which may be attributed to traditional practices or the availability of such containers. This diversity in water storage methods highlights the varying preferences and resource availability among households in the area. In Ikpoba Okha LGA, households exhibit a range of water storage practices, reflecting their preferences and available resources. The survey data shows that 512 households rely on tanks for water storage, 371 households use plastic buckets, and 248 households utilize wooden pots. This diversity in storage methods highlights the differing capacities and economic considerations among the local population. Studies from other regions in Edo State, the South-South, and Southeast Nigeria provide a broader context for these findings. In Edo State, research by Aigbe and Okojie (2022) in Oredo LGA found that 58% of households used tanks, 30% used plastic buckets, and 12% used clay pots. This study suggested that the high use of tanks was due to their effectiveness in storing large quantities of water, particularly in areas with unreliable water supply. Edewor and Eke (2023) reported that in Delta State, 60% of households used tanks, 25% used plastic buckets, and 15% used traditional clay pots. The researchers noted that while tanks were pre
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Enyinnaya Okoro (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: