ClinicResearch Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2835-9232/083
Awareness And Attitude to Environmental Pollutants Among Osogbo Residents
- Yahya-Imam A.O 1*
- Abdulsalam, A 2
- Giwa-Imam L.N 3
- MUSTAPHA Umar 4
- Yunusa Mako Mohammed 5
- SABO HADIZA 6
1. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Science, National Open University of Nigeria.
2. Department of Physical and Health Education, University of Maiduguri, Borno State
3. Department of Physical and Health Education, Faculty of Education, University of Maiduguri
4. Department of Education Faculty of Arts and Education Borno State University, Borno State
5. Department of Human Physiology Bayero University, Kano, Kano state
6. Shehu sule college of nursing and midwifery Damaturu, yobe state
*Corresponding Author: Abdulsalam, A., Department of Physical and Health Education, University of Maiduguri, Borno State
Citation: Yahya-Imam A.O., Abdulsalam, A, Giwa-Imam L.N, USTAPHA Umar, Yunusa Mako Mohammed, SABO HADIZA (2024), Awareness and Attitude to Environmental Pollutants Among Osogbo Residents, International Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 3(6); Doi: 10.31579/2835-9232/083
Copyright: © 2024 Abdulsalam, A this is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Received: 11 September 2024 | Accepted: 23 September 2024 | Published: 17 October 2024
Keywords: pollutant; environment; attitude; awareness
Abstract
This study was conducted to determine the awareness and attitude of the residents of Osogbo towards pollution. The study used a descriptive quantitative research design to assess the level of awareness of environmental pollution, their attitude towards pollution, their knowledge of common pollutants. Ethical approval was obtained from the Osun state health research ethical committee. Multi stage sampling was implored to choose a sample of four hundred and thirty (430) respondents to which questionnaire was served. Test for the hypothesis was presented as inferential statistics using Chi square, Pearson product moment correlation and Multiple linear regression run on SPSS version 20. The study shows significant high level of awareness, and positive attitude towards environmental pollutants among residents of Osogbo. Female respondents accounted for 61% (250). Many (65% (267)) of the respondents have tertiary education. Awareness of pollution is significant among the respondents (X2 = 31.698, df= 1 n= 410 p= 0.000), Attitude is also significant (X2 =36.828, df=1, n=410 p= 0.000). Demographic characteristics if this population is implicated in significant level of awareness (F-Statistic is 22.726 at p< 0.05 levels) and attitude (F-Statistic is 32.5228 p<0.05) towards environmental pollution in Osogbo. There is high level of awareness and positive attitude towards pollutants in Osogbo residents. This can be due to sociodemographic variable like education and economic status. There should be progressive sensitization of people against the dangers of environmental pollution.
Introduction
The status of the environment per time has an important influence on the biotic and abiotic elements of the environment, this is vital for health and man’s living. If the environment is dangerous, then everything in the environment poses a risk. People, societal, national, and global events relating to the environment have a complex and a dynamic association operating concurrently. Environmental health responds in two ways, this includes environmental factors affecting human health and human activities affecting environmental quality (Orisakwe, 2017).
Pollutants can be grouped into biodegradable or non-persistent contaminants: - these pollutants can be broken down rapidly by the natural course e.g., Domestic waste, trash and manure; slowly degradable or persistent contaminants: - these relics in environment for a very extensive time, in unaffected condition up till few decades e.g., Pesticides, aerosol; and non-biodegradable contaminants: - these are contaminants that never gets degraded by any natural course. e.g., Toxic elements like lead, mercury, nuclear waste.
Contaminants includes Gases like Nitrogen oxide, Sulphur oxide, Carbon monoxide, Engineering waste Soot, smoke, tar, dust Metal waste Mercury, lead, zinc, nickel, cadmium. Chromium Acids, H2SO4, MNO3, Agri pesticides, Herbicides, fungicides, bactericides, weedicides, domestic waste refuse, rubbish Radioactive waste nuclear ash from nuclear reactors and E-waste from IT sector (https://www.slideshare.net/Sudarshana26/evs-environmental-pollution).
These are categorized as air, water, soil, noise /sound, nuclear and e-waste pollution.
Electronics were developed to ease information and communication. The production, commercialization, use, recycle, and disposal of electrical and electronic equipment (EEEs) have amplified exponentially in the last 10 years (Orisakwe et.al., 2019). This hasty increase of new technologies makes EEEs archaic, oftentimes within days of purchase. Huge amounts of e-waste end up disposed in low-income countries, where second-hand materials come mixed with broken parts. Most of the electric devices used in Africa have second hand value and reach their half-life soon after they are brought in and go obsolete, contributing to the rapid increase of e-waste in Africa (Orisakwe et al., 2019).
There is inadequacy of empirical data on the awareness and attitude of environmental pollution in this part of the developing nations and this need to be documented as this inform the policy makers to develop appropriate measures that curb the trend. Hence, this study, intend to assess the awareness and attitude of environmental pollution on the health of individuals living in Osogbo, Osun State.
Aims And Objectives
This study seeks
- To assess the level of awareness environmental pollution among residents of Osogbo
- To determine the attitude towards environmental pollution among residents of Osogbo
Research Questions
- What is the level of awareness of environmental pollution among residents of Osogbo?
- What are the attitudes towards environmental pollution among residents of Osogbo?
Methodology
Study Design
This study employed cross sectional design a quantitative descriptive research design to assess the awareness and attitude of pollution and the health outcomes that results from pollution among people living in Osogbo. This design was used because it helps to gather quantifiable information that can be used for statistical inferential analysis about the population. Located in the South Western part of Nigeria, Osun is bounded to the North by kwara States, to the East by Ondo and Ekiti State while to the West by Oyo state and to the South is Ogun state. There are 30 local government areas in the state with Osogbo being the state Capital.
According to the 2006 national population census, Osun state has an estimated population of 3.4 million. A 2016 estimate states that the population has rose to about 4.7 million.
The sample size for this study is 430 respondents. A multi stage random sampling was used to stratify Osogbo into fifteen (15) political wards as mentioned above. Twelve are highly dense, two are medium dense and one is low dense in terms of populations. Five (5) wards were selected at random; they include Ataoja A and B; Baba kekere, Ekerin and Ataoja E. Then Systematic random sampling was employed to choose subjects to populate the 430 targets.
The 2022 population of the study was projected using the formula below
Pt=A (1+R) n
Pt= Estimated Population at t years later
A= Initial Population
n= Number of years
R= Yearly growth rate = 3.2% from Macrotrends (2022)
S/N | WARD | 2006 CENSUS | PROJECTED 2022 |
1 | Ataoja B and A*** | 22,342 | 39,982 |
2 | Ataoja E.*** | 21,825 | 37,103 |
3 | Baba kekere* | 2,959 | 5,031 |
4 | Ekerin ** | 13,150 | 22,355 |
Total |
| 60,276 | 102,471 |
NPC (2006), Computation, 2022 key-*** - High density; **- Medium Density; *- Low Density
Table 1 Population of Target
A total of four hundred and thirty (430) questionnaires were distributed in all the five words randomly. The number of respondents per ward was estimated using the
Projected population/ Total projected population X 430
S/N | WARD | 2022 Projected Population | No of questionnaire |
1 | Ataoja B and A | 39,982 | 165 |
2 | Ataoja E. | 37,103 | 155 |
3 | Baba kekere | 5,031 | 20 |
4 | Ekerin | 22,355 | 90 |
Total |
| 102,471 | 430 |
Table 2 Questionnaire distribution
The instrument that was used for the study is structured self-developed questionnaire. All the retrieved questionnaires were assessed for completeness, errors and lost data. Coding of the questionnaires was be done before data entry on version 20 of the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). Descriptive (mean, frequency and percentages) and inferential statistical techniques were used for data analysis. The demography of the respondents was reported as a descriptive statistic while inferential statistics of Chi square, Pearson correlation and multiple linear regression were used to explain the differences and relationship between the variable.
Results
Socio-demographic Characteristics
Table 3: Frequency Distribution for Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
n=410
Item | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
Gender |
|
|
Male | 160 | 39% |
Female | 250 | 61% |
Age of respondents |
|
|
15—25 | 60 | 14.6% |
26 —35 | 150 | 36.6% |
36 —45 | 100 | 24.4% |
46 —55 | 59 | 14.4% |
56 —65 | 31 | 7.6% |
66 and above | 10 | 2.4% |
Marital Status |
|
|
Married | 132 | 32.2% |
Single | 278 | 67.8% |
Educational Level |
|
|
No formal education | 35 | 8.5% |
Primary School | 51 | 12.4% |
Secondary School | 57 | 14% |
Diploma/ N.C. E | 87 | 21.2% |
Degree | 89 | 21.7% |
Masters | 68 | 16.6% |
Ph. D | 23 | 5.6% |
Religious Belief |
|
|
Islam | 211 | 51.5% |
Christianity | 161 | 39.3% |
Traditional | 35 | 8.5% |
Others, | 3 | 0.7% |
Employment Status |
|
|
Permanent & pensionable | 165 | 40.2% |
Contract | 45 | 10.9% |
Casual | 70 | 17.0% |
Retired | 63 | 15.3% |
Unemployed | 67 | 16.3% |
Economic Status |
|
|
High income (50 million per year) | 10 | 2.4% |
Medium income (5- 15 million per year) | 80 | 19.5% |
Low income (500,000- 2 million per year) | 219 | 53.4% |
Poor (< 300> | 101 | 24.6% |
Residential Status |
|
|
Old resident (5- 1 years and above) | 241 | 58.7% |
New resident (2 years – 4 years) | 113 | 27.5% |
Visitor (< 6> | 56 | 13.6% |
Ethnicity |
|
|
Yoruba | 331 | 80.7% |
Hausa | 41 | 10% |
Igbo | 32 | 7.8% |
Others, specify | 6 | 1.5% |
Family Size |
|
|
Nuclear | 345 | 84.1% |
Extended | 65 | 15.8% |
The results from this study showed that female respondents accounted for 61% (250) of the total sample size and people between the ages of 26 and 45 years formed more than 50% of the respondents with a percentage of 36.6% and 24.6% respectively. A total of 278 (67%) of the respondents were single, 65% (267) had above secondary school educations; while 211(51.5%) were Muslims and 165(40.2%) were in permanent jobs in both public and private sectors. Of the 410 respondents, 219(53.4%) were low-income earners while only 2.4% (10) were high income earners. More half of the respondents were old residents 241(58.8%), 331(80.7%) were Yoruba and 345(84.1%) were living in a nuclear Family setting.
Table 4: Assessment of the Level of Awareness of Environmental Pollution Among Respondents
Research Question 1: What is the level of awareness of environmental pollution among residents of Osogbo?
S/N | Items | Yes | No |
1. | Environmental pollution involves beautification of the environment with flowers and other ornamental items. | 76(18.5%) | 334(81.5%) |
2. | It is the introduction into the environment of foreign objects that are dangerous to our health. | 271(66.0%) | 139(33.9%) |
3. | Environmental pollution includes amongst other, air, water, soil, nuclear pollution. | 349(85.1%) | 61(14.8%) |
4. | Environmental pollution causes disturbance in the society. | 320(78.0%) | 90(21.9%) |
5. | Overcrowding can worsen pollution. | 298 (72.6%) | 112(27.3%) |
6. | Environmental pollution cannot cause death of living organism. | 137(33.4%) | 273(66.6%) |
7. | Environmental pollution can result due climate change. | 275(67.1%) | 135(32.9%) |
8. | Indiscriminate waste disposal can result in pollution. | 265(64.6%) | 145(35.4%) |
9. | Some of our activities results into pollution. | 262(63.9%) | 148(36.1%) |
10. | Locating your houses close to construction and beside the road predisposes you to pollution. | 229(55.9%) | 181(44.1%) |
11. | Sitting beside cigarette smoker is a source of pollution. | 340 (82.9%) | 70(17.1%) |
12. | Urbanization can contribute to water pollution. | 50(12.2%) | 360(87.8%) |
13. | Smog, are you conversant with the term? | 300(73.2%) | 110(26.8%) |
14. | Acid rain results from air pollution. | 230(56.1%) | 180(43.9%) |
From table 4: 334(81.5%) of the respondents disagreed that environmental pollution involves beautification of the environment with flowers and other ornamental items and 76 (18.5%) agreed that pollution involves beautification of the environment. Also, 137(33.4%) and 273(66.6%) respectively agreed and disagree that environmental pollution cannot cause death. It is also evident from the table that more than half of the respondents -229(55.9%) are aware that locating a home near construction sites or beside that road predisposes one to pollution. 230(56.1%) are aware that Acid rain is linked to Air pollution while 180(43.9) are not aware.
Table 5: Attitude towards Environmental Pollution among Residents of Osogbo
Research Question 2: What is the attitude of Osogbo residents towards environmental pollution?
S/N | Items | SA | A | D | SD |
1. | Water can be polluted. | 200(48.7%) | 90(21.9%) | 45(10.9%) | 75(18.3%) |
2. | Rivers and other water bodies in my community are not polluted. | 14(3.4%) | 20(4.9%) | 191(45.5%) | 185(45.1%) |
3. | Waste water should be disposed into rivers. | 17(4.1%) | 30(7.3%) | 183(44.6%) | 180(43.9%) |
4. | There are no solutions to toxic dumping in our oceans. | 80(19.5%) | 63(15.3%) | 156(38.0%) | 111(27.0%) |
5. | Government has a lot to do regarding water pollution. | 191(46.5%) | 185(45.1%) | 10(2.4%) | 24(5.8%) |
6. | The Community has a lot to do regarding water pollution. | 192(46.8%) | 185(45.1%) | 10(2.4%) | 23(5.6%) |
7. | Blocking water drainage cannot cause water pollution. | 45(10.9%) | 28(6.8%) | 207(50.4%) | 130(31.7%) |
8. | Industrialization contributes to water pollution | 123(30.0%) | 109(26.5%) | 99(24.1%) | 79(19.2%) |
9. | Deforestation contributes to water pollution. | 59 (14.3%) | 69(16.8%) | 143(34.8%) | 132(32.1%) |
10. | Septic tanks should not be sited close to wells or other water source | 190(46.3%) | 180(43.9%) | 15(3.6%) | 25(6.0%) |
11. | Disinfecting your water source is important. | 205(50.0%) | 97(23.6%) | 28(6.8%) | 80(19.5%) |
12. | I often use firewood/charcoal to cook. | 123(30.0%) | 100(24.3%) | 95(23.1%) | 95(23.1%) |
13. | I often use burning as my means of waste disposal | 118(28.7%) | 102(24.8%) | 106(25.8%) | 84(20.4%) |
14. | I consume smoked fish | 150(36.5%) | 160(39.0%) | 55(13.4%) | 45(10.9%) |
15. | Industries contribute to air pollution in my area | 200(48.7%) | 90(21.9%) | 45(10.9%) | 75(18.2%) |
16. | Particulate matters don’t cause any discomfort in me | 80(19.5%) | 65(15.8%) | 125(30.4%) | 140(34.2%) |
17. | Government is not doing enough towards managing road-not-worthy cars for plying our roads. | 175(42.6%) | 190(46.3%) | 26(6.3%) | 19(4.6%) |
18. | I often use face mask when am passing through air polluted area. | 17(4.1%) | 30(7.3%) | 183(44.6%) | 180(43.9%) |
19. | I spend long hours in traffic daily | 119(29.0%) | 101(24.6%) | 105(25.6%) | 85(20.7%) |
20. | I often smoke or stay with smokers | 40(9.7%) | 24(5.8%) | 161(39.2%) | 185(45.1%) |
21. | I work at construction sites | 20(4.8%) | 14(3.4%) | 185(45.1%) | 191(46.5%) |
22. | I use insecticide in my home regularly. | 38(9.2%) | 185(45.1%) | 17 (4.1%) | 170(41.6%) |
23. | I use a generating set to provide power supply | 86(20.9%) | 70(17.0%) | 149(36.3%) | 105(25.6%) |
24. | I will prefer an electrical car to a gasoline car | 10(2.4%) | 185(45.1%) | 191(46.5%) | 24(5.8%) |
25. | Night life within my area does not disturb me | 14(3.4%) | 20(4.8%) | 191(46.5%) | 185(45.1%) |
26 | Closeness of my house to the main road isn’t a source of discomfort to me | 65(15.8%) | 80(19.5%) | 133(32.4%) | 125(30.4%) |
27. | I am not affected by vehicular traffic | 86(20.9%) | 70(17.0%) | 149(36.3%) | 105(25.6%) |
28. | Industrial activities disturb me | 191(46.5%) | 185(45.1%) | 10(2.4%) | 24(5.8%) |
29. | Activities of establishments around me worsens noise pollution. | 10(2.4%) | 23(5.6%) | 192(46.8%) | 185(45.1%) |
30. | The planning of the state allows for easy noise pollution | 207(50.4%) | 95(23.1%) | 80(19.5%) | 28(6.8%) |
31. | I use noise proof materials within my living and working area | 59(14.3%) | 69(16.8%) | 143(34.8%) | 132(32.1%) |
32. | I can study where there is social activity going on. | 123(30.0%) | 109(26.5%) | 99(24.1%) | 79(19.2%) |
33. | There are actions that should be taken by governments to deal with noise pollution. | 190(46.3%) | 180(43.9%) | 15(3.6%) | 25(6.0%) |
34. | Noise is most prominent during the day time | 205(50.0%) | 97(23.6%) | 28(6.8%) | 80(19.5%) |
35. | I use personal protective devices when am exposed to high level sound | 80(19.5%) | 125(30.4%) | 65(15.8%) | 133(32.4%) |
36. | My land is not polluted | 153(37.3%) | 135(32.9%) | 55(13.4%) | 60(14.6%) |
37. | I use pesticides | 118(28.7%) | 102(24.8%) | 106(25.8%) | 84(20.4%) |
38. | I re-use household plastics | 150(36.5%) | 160(39.0%) | 55(13.4%) | 45(10.9%) |
39. | I prefer foil to plastics in parking my food | 200(48.7%) | 90(21.9%) | 45(10.9%) | 75(18.2%) |
40. | Organic fertilizers are safer than Mineral fertilizers | 133(32.4%) | 125(30.8%) | 65(15.8%) | 80(19.5%) |
41. | Soil pollution can result in/or worsen natural disaster. | 175(42.6%) | 190(46.3) | 26(6.3%) | 19(4.6%) |
42. | Soil pollution can be prevented/controlled? | 180(43.9%) | 183(44.6%) | 30(7.3%) | 17(4.1%) |
43. | My activities pollute the soil | 119(46.5%) | 101(24.6%) | 105(25.6%) | 85(20.7%) |
44 | I dispose refuse and waste by burning at dumpsite | 161(39.2%) | 185(45.1%) | 40(9.7%) | 24(5.8%) |
45. | I make compost manure from food waste | 20(4.8%) | 14(3.4%) | 185(45.1%) | 191(46.5%) |
46. | I plant trees to protect the soil | 38(9.2%) | 17(4.1%) | 185(45.1%) | 170(41.4%) |
47. | I am aware of the term “E-Waste or Electronic waste “ | 65(15.8) | 80(19.5%) | 133(32.4%) | 125(30.8%) |
48. | Africa is a dump site for used electronics. | 118(28.7%) | 102(24.8%) | 106(25.8%) | 84(20.4) |
49. | I buy used (No testing) electronics. | 190(46.3%) | 180(43.9%) | 15(3.6%) | 25(6.0%) |
50. | I dispose phone plastic into water and into refuse bin | 205(50%) | 97(23.6%) | 28(6.8%) | 80(19.5%) |
51. | I don’t take spoilt electronic devices for repairs | 133(32.4%) | 125(30.4%) | 65(15.8%) | 80(19.5%) |
52. | The government is proactive towards reducing this type of pollution | 20(4.8%) | 14(3.4%) | 185(45.1%) | 191(46.5%) |
53. | Nothing is being done to mitigate the incidence and prevalence of e waste. | 180(43.9%) | 190(46.3%) | 23(5.6%) | 17(4.1%) |
54. | There is a link between E waste and other pollution types? | 119(46.5%) | 101(24.6%) | 105(25.6%) | 85(20.7%) |
55. | I resell used TV, radio set and other gadgets to scavengers | 191(46.5%) | 185(45.1%) | 10(2.4%) | 24(5.8%) |
56. | I frequently visit mining sites | 14(3.4%) | 20(4.8%) | 191(46.5%) | 185(45.1%) |
57. | I have had an X-ray diagnosis before. | 65(15.8%) | 80(19.5%) | 133(32.4%) | 125(30.5%) |
58. | I am aware of nuclear reactor used by countries to produce electricity and also as a weapon of mass destruction. | 119(29.0%) | 101(24.6%) | 105(25.6%) | 85(20.7%) |
59. | Nigeria should also use nuclear energy. | 191(46.5%) | 185(45.1%) | 10(2.4%) | 24(5.8%) |
60. | There are agents in my environment that emit radiation? | 10(2.4%) | 23(5.5%) | 192(46.8%) | 185(45.1%) |
61. | I protect children and other vulnerable from radiation | 207(50.8%) | 95(23.1%) | 80(19.5%) | 28(6.8%) |
Note: SA=Strongly Agree, A= Agree, D=Disagree and SD= Strongly Disagree
Table 4. assessed the level of awareness of pollution among residents. The numbers represent the various responses for different questions asked and their percentages as it compares to the total sample. From the table, 47(11.4%) agree and 363(88.5%) disagree that waste water should be disposed into rivers. Again, 337(82.1%) and 73(17.7%) respectively disagree and agree that blocking water drainage cannot cause water pollution. More than half 370(90.2%) of the respondents agree that septic tanks shouldn’t be sited near wells and other water sources. Also from the table, 40(9.7%) strongly agree, 24(5.8%) agree, 161(39.2%) disagree and 185(45.1%) strongly disagree that they often smoke or stay with smokers. 223(54.3%) of the respondents use insecticide while 187(45.6%) don’t use. 130(31.7%) used and 280(68.3%) did not use noise proof materials within their living and working area. Very few of the respondents-34(8.2%) are ok with the night life in their area, they agree that the sounds are a music to them. Of the 410(100%) respondents for this study, 310(75.6%) of the respondent re-use house hold plastics. 363(88.5%) respondents said soil pollution can be prevented/controlled. 145(35.4%) of the respondents are aware of the term E-waste; 220 (53.7%) say there is a link between E waste and other types of pollution, and 377(91.9%) say they are no agents in their environment that emit radiation. 73.9% (302) of the respondents protect children and other vulnerable from radiation.
Hypotheses Testing
H01: There is no significant awareness of environmental pollution among residents of Osogbo.
Table 6: Chi-Square goodness of fit Summary on awareness of environment pollution among residents of Osogbo
Variables | Observed N | Expected N | Residual | Df | Chi-Square | Prob |
Agreed | 262 | 205.0 | 57.0 | 1 | 31.698a | 0.0001 |
Disagreed | 148 | 205.0 | -57.0 |
|
|
|
Total | 410 |
|
|
|
|
|
(n=410; df=1; Chi-Square=31.698; table value=3.841)
Table 6 shows that there is significant awareness of environmental pollution amongst the respondents. Responses from the questionnaire on the tested Chi-square (X2) calculated is 31.698 at 0.0001 level of significance, which is greater than the table value of 3.841 at 0.05 level of significance (p>0.05); therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.
H02: There is no significance in the attitude towards environment pollution among residents of Osogbo.
Table 7: Chi-Square goodness of fit Summary on attitude towards environment pollutants among residents of Osogbo
Variables | Observed N | Expected N | Residual | Df | Chi-Square | Prob |
Agreed | 290 | 205.0 | 85.0 | 1 | 36.8267a | 0.00001 |
Disagreed | 120 | 205.0 | -85.0 |
|
|
|
Total | 410 |
|
|
|
|
|
(n=410; df=1; Chi-Square=36.8267a; table value=3.841)
Table 7 shows that there is significant good attitude towards environmental pollution amongst the respondents. Responses from the questionnaire on the tested Chi-square (X2) calculated is 36.826 at 0.00001 level of significance, which is greater than the table value of 3.841 at 0.05 level of significance (p>0.05); therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.
Discussion
The result shows a significant level of awareness among these respondents could be as a result of their educational background, and the period they have spent in their communities. The result of this study corroborates the study of Adejuwon, Adekitan and Oladunmoye (2018), where the authors found that 81% of the participants were aware of the water bodies. The result shows that 81.5% of the respondents are aware of what pollution is. It also shows that that the participants are aware of the effects of pollution, their types and the risk factors. In this study, about 26% of the respondents are not aware of the term smog, this is in contrast with number of respondents (3%) in a study by Wang et. al., (2016), this disparity may be due to the geographical location. The study of Wang et al., (2016), was in a smog polluted city in China; Zibo city, a place that is known to be more affected by poor visibility due to smog and awareness of smog are from news, weather forecast and online query.
Twenty-five (6.0%) and 15(3.6%) of the respondents strongly disagreed and disagree respectively to the fact that septic tanks should not be sited close to wells and other water sources while 370(90.2%) generally agreed that septic tanks should not be sited near water source, while 400(91.2%) agreed that blocking water drainage cannot cause water pollution. This agrees with findings of Adeyemi et. al., (2019) that consumption of fecal polluted water from well located near septic tank resulted in multidrug resistant E. Coli infections. This could increase the cost of treatment, because more expensive and scarce antibiotics will be needed for the treatment of the resistant strains. Wang et.al., (2016) found that most of their respondents agreed that man’s activities were the main causes of heavy smog in Zibo city of China.
Recommendations
1. People should be encouraged to promote environmental conservation through promoting afforestation and reduction of toxic emissions into the atmosphere
2. Policies and laws should be strengthened in order to ensure companies that violate the environmental conservation laws are penalised
3. There should be progressive health education and sensitization regarding pollution and their health impacts, especially regarding e waste and radiation pollution.
4. This study should be used as a basis for policy making regarding environmental protection
References
- Abalansa, S., El Mahrad, B., Icely, J., & Newton, A. (2021). Electronic waste, an environmental problem exported to developing countries: the GOOD, the BAD and the UGLY. Sustainability, 13(9), 5302.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar - Adejoke, O. C., Mji, A., & Mukhola, M. S. (2014). Students’ and teachers’ awareness of and attitude towards environmental pollution: A multivariate analysis using biographical variables. Journal of human ecology, 45(2), 167-175.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar - Adejuwon, J. O., Adekitan, A. A., & Oladunmoye, S. L. (2018). Community awareness and evaluation of surface water bodies in Osogbo, Osun State, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 22(10), 1567-1571.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar - Adeyemi, F. M., Akinde, S. B., Oyedara, O. O., Wahab, A. A., & Jimoh, S. O. (2019). Investigation of Escherichia coli distribution in drinking water wells close to septic tanks in densely populated areas of Osogbo, Osun State, Nigeria. Niger J Microbiol, 33(1), 4403-4414.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar - Akinyose, F. C., Tchokossa, P., Orosun, M. M., Oluyde, S. O., Umakha, M., Ochommadu, K. K., ... & Ajibade, O. A. (2018). Radiological impacts of natural radioactivity in locally produced tobacco products in Ibadan, Oyo state, Nigeria. Momona Ethiopian Journal of Science, 10(1), 59-75.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar - Awasthi, A. K., & Li, J. (2017). Management of electrical and electronic waste: A comparative evaluation of China and India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76, 434-447.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar - Casey, J. A., Morello-Frosch, R., Mennitt, D. J., Fristrup, K., Ogburn, E. L., & James, P. (2017). Race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, residential segregation, and spatial variation in noise exposure in the contiguous United States. Environmental health perspectives, 125(7), 077017.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar - Giwa, S. O., Adama, O. O., & Akinyemi, O. O. (2014). Baseline black carbon emissions for gas flaring in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 20, 373-379.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar - McEwen, J. D., & Johnson, M. R. (2012). Black carbon particulate matter emission factors for buoyancy-driven associated gas flares. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 62(3), 307-321.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar - Miner, K. J., Rampedi, I. T., Ifegbesan, A. P., & Machete, F. (2020). Survey on household awareness and willingness to participate in e-waste management in Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria. Sustainability, 12(3), 1047.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar - Nduka, J. K., Umeh, T. C., Kelle, H. I., Ozoagu, P. C., & Okafor, P. C. (2022). Health risk assessment of radiation dose of background radionuclides in quarry soil and uptake by plants in Ezillo-Ishiagu in Ebonyi South-Eastern Nigeria. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, 6, 100269.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar - Okwudili, M. N., Okorie, E. A., Oparaocha, R., Mercy, O. S., Chinedu, E., Ugochinyere, A. A., ... & Nkechi, A. C. (2021). Assessment of noise pollution and its perceived health risks on residents of Owerri Metropolis, Imo State, Nigeria. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 10(2), 146-156.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar - Orisakwe, O. E., Frazzoli, C., Ilo, C. E., & Oritsemuelebi, B. (2019). Public health burden of e-waste in Africa. Journal of Health and Pollution, 9(22), 190610.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar - Wambebe, N. M., & Duan, X. (2020). Air quality levels and health risk assessment of particulate matters in Abuja municipal area, Nigeria. Atmosphere, 11(8), 817.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar - Wang, Y., Sun, M., Yang, X., & Yuan, X. (2016). Public awareness and willingness to pay for tackling smog pollution in China: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 1627-1634.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar - Whyte, M., Numbere, T. W., & Sam, K. S. (2020). Residents’ perception of the effects of soot pollution in Rivers State, Nigeria. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 14(12), 422-430.
View at Publisher | View at Google Scholar
