Understanding the drivers of sanitation behaviour in riverine communities of Niger Delta, Nigeria: the case of Odi and Kaiama communities

Abstract

Recent reports show that between 1990 and 2012, among countries, Nigeria had the highest increase in the absolute number of open defecators. Bayelsa State makes a huge contribution to these numbers as almost 70% of residents lack access to improved sanitation. The adoption of Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) as national policy has improved sanitation in the country, but progress has been slower or non-existent in riverine communities where open defecation persists. In communities where defecation is directly into water bodies evidence of the practice is hidden, which may hinder attempts to trigger community-wide behaviour change. This study evaluates sanitation in two riverine communities of Bayelsa State. It applied qualitative multiple-case methodology using observations, interviews and focus group discussions to explore existing sanitation behaviours. Field notes and interview transcripts were analysed using NVivo and qualitative content analysis. Findings highlight physical, cultural and economic drivers inhibiting the successful implementation of CLTS in riverine communities of Bayelsa State. Findings suggest that to be effective, sanitation interventions in riverine communities, where defecation is predominantly into water bodies, may need to make use of modified tools and also be coupled more strongly with development of supply chains for appropriate sanitation goods and services.

Views and experiences of people practicing open defecation: Evidence from riverside inhabitants of an Indonesian village

“…Furthermore, frequent contact and interactions among community members located along the river are intended not only to facilitate the exchange and update of information but also to maintain social relationships and harmony. This finding confirms previous references that a strong relationship can be measured by a high frequency of contact (Patil 2019), and that OD is associated with a mode of socialising with neighbours and friends (Coffey et al 2014;Sample et al 2016;Bhatt et al 2019). The symbolic meaning of the river as a public space for gathering, and the collectivist cultural background of the migrant community which prioritised togetherness, harmony, kinship ties, and group bonding, had an impact on the persistence of OD habits.…”

“…First, emotional aspects include preferences, conveniences, and pleasantness. Second, socio-cultural determinants include societal norms and traditions (Mukherjee 2011;Mazaya 2016), socio-cultural customs, practices, beliefs (Sample et al 2016), and household incomes (Sample et al 2016). Third, physical environment factors include water body characteristics, seasonal changes (Sample et al 2016), and proximity to water (Mazaya 2016).…”

Antecedents and consequences of adopting CLTS among tribal communities to become open defecation free: case study on Indian Swachh Bharat Abhiyan

“…Some literature studies have emphasized the behavioral aspect of adopting CLTS but failed to support it with a theoretical justification (Alemu 2018;Balfour 2015;Bateman and Engel 2018;Holm 2016;Lawrence 2016;Sample 2016;Sigler 2015).…”

Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) behaviour change research: why an analysis of contingencies of reinforcement is needed

“…scalding whilst boiling the water (Oswald et al, 2007) -Avoiding criticism/unwanted attention for treating water (Figueroa & Kincaid, 2010) -Avoiding confrontation with household authority (Trinies, Freeman, Hennink, & Clasen, 2011) -Proximity to places where one is less likely to be seen (e.g. bushes, behind buildings) (Sample, Evans, Camargo-Valero, Wright, & Leton, 2016) -Proximity to surface water sources (to allow anal cleansing) (Routray, Schmidt, Boisson, Clasen, & Jenkins, 2015) -Other people also defecate in the open (Pfadenhauer & Rehfuess, 2015) -Not having a toilet or latrine (Guiteras, Levinsohn, & Mobarak, 2015) -Latrine is poorly maintained (Kwiringira, Atekyereza, Niwagaba, & Günther, 2014) -Queue to use shared latrine (McFarlane, Desai, & Graham, 2014) Open defecation -(When far from latrine/toilet) Saving time (Biran, Jenkins, Dabrase, & Bhagwat, 2011) -(For women going in groups to open defecation sites) Socialising with other women, feeling protected, and 'disconnected' from household chores (Routray et al, 2015) -Avoiding bad smell and disgust for using latrine (Ashebir, Rai Sharma, Alemu, & Kebede, 2013), avoiding falling sick (Desai, McFarlane, & Graham, 2015) -Avoiding waiting to use latrine and avoiding being seen whilst defecating in latrines with poor infrastructure (Ahmed, Begum, Chowdhury 2010) -(In proximity of rivers) Anus can be cleaned (Routray et al, 2015) -Lack of soap, water or washing facilities (Scott, Curtis, Rabie, & Garbrah-Aidoo, 2007), or these are not conveniently placed (Whitby, McLaws, & Ross, 2006) -Being too busy (Whitby et al, 2006) -Soap is hidden (to prevent theft) and thus not seen by those washing hands (Scott et al, 2007) -Hands appear to be clean (Whitby et al, 2006) -(In some places) Alcohol-based hand rubs are said to be sinful (Allegranzi, Memish, Donaldson, & Pittet, 2009) -Soap is expensive (Aunger et al, 2010) Poor hand/body hygiene -Saving time (Smiddy, O' Connell, & Creedon, 2015) -Saving water (Graf, Meierhofer, Wegelin, & Mosler, 2008) -Avoiding getting hands to become dry, cracke...…”