International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Studies

Volume 3, Number 1 (2016) pp 36-46 doi 10.20448/802.3.1.36.46 | Research Articles

 

Business Development in Nasarawa State: Effect of Poor Sanitation and Waste Management System

Emmanuel O. Okon 1
1 Department of Economics, Kogi State University, Anyigba, Kogi State, Nigeria

Abstract

Unimproved sanitation as well as waste management are major barriers to economies worldwide. No towns in Nigeria especially the urban and semi-urban centers of high population density can boast of having found a lasting solution to these challenges, rather the problem continues to assume monstrous dimensions. A field survey was undertaken to examine the effect of poor sanitation and waste management on business development in Nasarawa state, Nigeria. A simple random sampling technique was adopted to select 420 respondents from four towns: Lafia, Keffi, Maraba/Masaka and Eggon/Akwanga. Tables, graphs, pie chart, and simple percentage were used to ascertain the percentage of the respondents while chi-square tool was used to test the formulated hypothesis. The analysis indicates that15.48% of respondents reported that sanitation and waste control practice is not good in the State and that it has adversely affected their businesses as stated by 55.00% of respondents. This study recommends that polluter pays principle of waste management should be introduced in the State. In the same vein, moderately improved and hygienic latrines should be built by government in both urban and rural areas of Nasarawa state.

Keywords:  Business, Sanitation, Waste, Nasarawa State, Nigeria

DOI: 10.20448/802.3.1.36.46

Citation | Emmanuel O. Okon (2016). Business Development in Nasarawa State:  Effect of Poor Sanitation and Waste Management System. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Studies, 3(1): 36-46.

Copyright: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Funding : The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Competing Interests: The author declares that there are no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

History : Received: : 20 May 2016/ Revised: 8 June 2016/ Accepted: 13 June 2016/ Published: 16 June 2016

Publisher: Online Science Publishing

1. Introduction

Unimproved sanitation is a major barrier to economies worldwide. Global economic losses associated with inadequate sanitation are estimated at US$260 billion per year, costing countries between 0.5 percent and 7.2 percent of their GDP (WSP, 2005; Sanitation Drive 2015, 2014). Approximately 2.5 billion people, almost 40 percent of the global population, do not have access to toilets or other ways to safely dispose of their urine and feces. More than 1 billion people still practice open defecation. Though open defecation is most prevalent in rural areas, it is on the rise in cities and urban areas (UNICEF and WHO 2014).

Rapid urbanization, rural-urban migration, little or no town planning efforts coupled with attitudinal irresponsibility, lack of political will, ineptitude and graft have independently and collectively created environmental challenge in Nigeria resulting to human or solid waste decorating streets and public space everywhere in Nigeria (Oyeniyin, 2011). No towns in Nigeria especially the urban and semi-urban centers of high population density can boast of having found a lasting solution to the problem of filth and huge piles of solid waste, rather the problem continues to assume monstrous dimensions (Mba, 2003; Okpala, 1986).

This study is therefore aimed at looking at the effect of poor sanitation and waste management on business development in Nasarawa state, Nigeria.  Considerable percentage of  wastes (human and solid) generated in many towns in the State are either deposited on the roads, or road sides, unapproved dump sites, or in open sites which adversely affect environmental friendliness. Like the natural environments of living beings, the environment of a business can either enhance or stifle its growth and development. To show in more lucid manner, the relationship between poor sanitation and waste management and business development, the hypothesis is subject to testing using Chi-square technique. The null (H0) hypothesis is that poor sanitation and waste management system has no significant effect on business development.

2. Socio-Economic Background of Nasarawa State

 Nasarawa State is in north central Nigeria. Nasarawa state is located between latitudes 7o and 9oN and longitudes 7o and 10oE. It shares boundaries with Benue state to the south, Kogi state to the west, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) to the north-west; Kaduna and Plateau states to the north-east, and Taraba state in the south-east. Nasarawa state has a land area of 12,000 square kilometers and is divided into thirteen (13) Local Government Areas (LGAs) (Salau and Attah, 2012). The 2006 population census pegs the state’s population at 1,863,275. It is, however, estimated that the population of the state has since geometrically increased to the figure of 2.6million people at present (Adogi, 2013).

Figure-1. Nasarawa State, Nigeria
Source: Thescoopng.com (n.d.)

Agriculture is the dominant occupation of the inhabitants of Nasarawa state. Some of the major agricultural products in the state include maize, sorghum, millet, rice groundnut cowpea, soya beans, sesame, melon, yam, cassava, sweet potato, mango, cashew, sugar-cane, oil palm, cattle, sheep, goats, poultry, pigs and fisheries. Nasarawa state (the home of solid minerals) is blessed with numerous solid minerals such as Beryl, Tourmaline, quartz, columbite, granite, limestone, barytes, glass sand, marble and salt (Nasarawa state Government, 2008). Given that sanitation and waste management in developing countries and towns is an on-going challenge due to weak institutions such as environmental laws, chronic under-funding, rapid urbanization, among others, the situation in Nasarawa State, Nigeria, is not different from other towns or cities in the developing world.  Many towns especially the urban and semi-urban areas of high population density experience increasing volumes of waste generation and sanitation problems. In the absence of a regular and efficient solid waste collection system, waste is dumped in open spaces, on access roads and along water courses, which constitutes health hazard. In some parts of Nasarawa urban areas, there are no public facilities for disposing refuse within reasonable distance.

Figure-2. A heap of Complex municipal solid waste on the roadside of the popular Abacha road at Mararaba. Mararaba.
Source: Butu et al. (2013).
Figure-3. Another heap of complex municipal solid waste on the roadside of Abuja-Keffi Express way around Sharp Corner at
Source: Butu et al. (2013).

Dump sites or waste bins are nonexistent and where dumps are sited overflow with refuse, the open solid waste dumps ooze out offensive odour , constituting health  hazards. Also, some people do not have access to a toilet. They defecate in the open, exposing themselves and others to fecal bacteria.

3. Review of Related Literature

Access to clean water supply and good sanitation services enhance sound health, boost socio-cultural development, and promote economic balance (Olukanni et al., 2014). However, the development and incidences of water, sanitation and hygiene challenges among many countries of West Africa and particularly Nigeria has become more pronounced in recent times (Olukanni  et al., 2014; WHO/UNICEF, 2013). Estimates from global report shows that 6.6% of burden of illness is attributable to poor water, sanitation and hygiene. This challenge is heavily concentrated in low income settings and is affecting susceptible groups such as the poor and the disadvantaged in developing nations which is a major contributor to the cycle of poverty (WHO/UNICEF, 2011; Fewtrell et al., 2005; Harvey, 2008). The rationale behind this kind of condition connected with insensitivity of government institutions at all levels towards the low income settings, inadequate financial plan, poor sustainability of modern water systems and sanitation, poor hygiene and inadequate sanitation in public places (Stoveland and Bassey, 2000).  Babayemi and Dauda (2009) reported high waste generation rate in Abeokuta without a corresponding efficient technology to manage the wastes. Of some 201 sampled respondents in Abeokuta Ogun State, (35.8%) used waste collection services, (64.2%) used other waste disposal options, (16.4%) used both, (68.7%) and (58.7%) were aware of waste collection service and waste management regulations respectively. Okeniyi and Anwan (2012) reported that the average wastes generated per day in Covenant University Ota, food waste exhibited the highest percentage of(26.2%), followed by polythene bag (19.3%); and plastic bottles (13.6%), metal cans (11.5%), paper (10.5%), plastic food pack (7.2%), other combustible wastes (5.6%) and polystyrene food pack (5.6%). Similarly, Ogu (2000) interviewed 591 households in Benin-City, Nigeria and found out that three-fifth of the respondents had no solid waste collection service. This is attributed to inadequate resources, and the privatization scheme set up in 1995 to address the environmental issues. The study stressed the need for private partnership with government in providing adequate delivery services to the public. Similarly, Nkwocha et al. (2011) assessed the efficiency of the solid wastes collection services in Owerri municipality and observed that the level of efficiency in waste collection was only about 61%, a situation they attributed to a wide range of socio-economic and technical factors.

4. Methodology

This study adopts a descriptive research design. A simple random sampling technique was adopted to select 420 respondents from Lafia, Keffi, Maraba/Masaka and Eggon/Akwanga.  The three senatorial districts of the State were taken into consideration and it was ensured that at least a town is selected from a local government area in each senatorial district. The main source of data was a structured questionnaire. Actually, four hundred and  twenty (420) copies of the questionnaires were returned out of four hundred and four-three (443) sent out. Tables, graphs, percentage and mean were used to present responses to survey questions.

5. Data Presentation and Discussion

A) Socio-economic Profile of Respondents

Given the nature of this discussion, there is need to examine the background characteristics of respondents. As such, the attributes including sex, age, academic qualification, etc., are hereby examined as a starting point. The doughnut below depicts the sex distribution of respondents (see Figure 4). It shows that 63% (265) were male and 37% (155) were female.  A further break down of gender is shown in Table 1. It shows that in Lafia, male respondents were 70 while female respondents were 50.  

Figure-4. Distribution of respondents based on gender
Source: Field Survey, 2015.

A total of  82 respondents were obtained in Keffi; 50 were male and 32 female. The table also revealed that in Maraba/Masaka, female respondents were 21 in number while the male respondents were overwhelming by a total number of 81. In Eggon/Akwanga, 64 respondents were male while 52 were female. 

Table-1. Distribution of respondents by Sex
Source: Field Survey, 2015.

Figure-5. Percentage distribution of respondents by age
Source: Author’s illustration using SPSS 19.

The bar chart above (see Figure 5) reveals that 201 respondents (about 48%) fall between 18 – 30 years.  The respondents within the age range of 31-40 years were 115 (about 27% of respondents). 82 respondents (20% of the respondents) were under 41-60 years. 22 respondents (about 5% of total respondents) were above 60years old.

Table-2. Distribution of respondents by age
Source: Field Survey, 2015.
metic mean: = 14,795.5/420 = 35.2

Table 2 above reveals that respondents whose ages fall between 18 – 30 years  were 82, 29, 34 and 56 in number from Lafia, Keffi,  Maraba/Masaka and Eggon/Akwanga respectively.  31-40yrs age bracket had 23 respondents from Lafia, 21 respondents from Keffi, 42 respondents from Maraba/Masaka and 29 respondents from Eggon/Akwanga. Those under 41-60 years totaled 15 from Lafia, 21 from Keffi, 26 from Maraba/Masaka and 20 from Eggon/Akwanga. According to Table 2, there was no respondent above 60 years from Lafia and Maraba/Masaka. Nonetheless,  Keffi and Eggon/Akwanga each had 11 respondents well above 60 years.

Table-3. Distribution of respondents by marital status
Source: Field Survey, 2015.

According to Table 3, out of 120 respondents in Lafia, 67 were single, 40 were married and 13 were divorced. In Keffi, no respondent was divorced, however, 44 were single while 38 were married. The number of  respondents married in Maraba/Masaka were 52 while 50 were single. It appeared that no respondent was divorced in Maraba/Masaka. A closer look at Table 3 shows that 10 respondents were divorced, 43 were single and 63 were married out of a total of 116 respondents.

Table-4. Distribution of respondents by qualification
Source: Field Survey, 2015.

From Table 4, qualification of respondents from Lafia showed that 22 respondents possessed Primary/College certificates, 67 had ND/NCE, 31  B.Sc/HND , none had Masters degree and above. Also, there was no respondent who had no formal education. The table revealed clearly that  respondents with Primary/College certificates were 22,   ND/NCE were 34, B.Sc/HND were 15, Masters/Above 11, and no respondent without formal education.  Primary/College respondents for Maraba/Masaka and Eggon/Akwanga were 34 and 19 respectively. ND/NCE holders among the respondents in Maraba/Masaka were 40 while that of Eggon/Akwanga were 53.  According to the table, B.Sc/HND respondents were 25 from Eggon/Akwanga and 17 from Maraba/Masaka. Those respondents having Master degree and above in Maraba/Masaka and Eggon/Akwanga were 11 and 19 respectively. The qualification having the highest number of respondents is ND/NCE (67) and it was experienced in Lafia.

Table-5. Distribution of respondents by nature of business
Source: Field Survey, 2015.

Table 5 attempts to describe or show the nature of business or commerce which the respondents were into. In Lafia, a huge number (54) of the respondents were into trading. This is followed by services (24) and manufacturing (17). Similar, trend of business activities are exhibited in Keffi, Maraba/Masaka, and Eggon/Akwanga.

Table-6. Distribution of respondents by type of business
Source: Field Survey, 2015.

Table 6 attempts to categorize the business entities operated by the respondents.  Clearly, sole proprietorship is the leading form of business operated by the respondents in Lafia (79 respondents), Keffi (56 respondents),  Maraba/Masaka (72 respondents), and Eggon/Akwanga (51 respondents). The table reveals also that partnership form of business thrives in these areas.

B) Poor Sanitation and Waste Management System

Table-7. What is your view on the state of sanitation and waste control practices in the State?
Source: Field Survey, 2015.

Proper waste disposal is an important component of environmental sanitation and sustainability. A sustainable environment and improved waste management offer opportunities for income generation (improved business), health improvement and reduced vulnerability. 30.95% of respondents reported that sanitation and waste control practices in the State is very poor. About 34.52% of respondents observed that it is fair. 15.48% of respondents reported that sanitation and waste control practice is not good in the State as shown in Table 7.

Table-8. Does the poor sanitation and waste control condition in the State have negative effect on your business?
Source: Field Survey, 2015.
Calculated chi-square ---------- 4.2; Critical values ------- 3.84
Alpha level ----------------------- 0.05; Degree of freedom ------- 1

Improper waste management and poor sanitation condition in the State is reported in Table 8 by 55.00% of respondents to have adverse effects on their businesses. This is probably because the dirty environment affects the patronage of their business.   On the contrary, 45.00% of respondents are of the opinion that the poor sanitation and waste control condition does not affect their business. The chi-square test disclosed that the calculated 2 (4.2) is higher than the tabulated 2 (3.84) for df=1 at = 0.05 level. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. This implies that poor sanitation and waste management system has significant effect on business development in Nasarawa state.

Table-9. Rank in order of importance (i.e., 1,2,3,4) the following negative effects of poor waste management system on your business
Source: Field Survey, 2015.

Respondents were requested to rank in order of importance the negative effects of poor waste management system on their businesses in Table 9. The data shows that exposure to disease/health danger was reported by 33.10% of respondents. On the heels of that is low profitability (as reported by 28.57% of respondents), followed by poor access/patronage to business premises (as reported by 23.57% of respondents).

Table-10. What model will you propose for effective sanitation and waste management system in the State?
Source: Field Survey, 2015.

The poor sanitation and waste management effects on the businesses of respondents culminates into low revenue to government according to the perception of 14.76% of respondents given the data on Table 9.

Given the suggestions proposed for effective sanitation and waste management system in the State as depicted in Table 10, 34.76% of respondents were of the view that Government should increase expenditure on sanitation and waste management, 28.57% of respondents were in support of the idea of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in waste and sanitation management, 20.48% of respondents recommended adoption of personal system in waste and sanitation management in Nasarwa state. Nonetheless, 16.19% of respondents choose none of the above models proposed for effective sanitation and waste management system

Table-11. Would you support the empowerment of the waste management agencies through legislation, financing and capacity building for proper enforcement of the sanitation rules and regulation?
Source: Field Survey, 2015.

11.19% of respondents don’t know if they would support the empowerment of the waste management agencies through legislation, financing and capacity building for proper enforcement of the sanitation rules and regulation. 13.10% said may be while 19.04% reported no. An overwhelming percentage of respondents (56.67%) definitely said yes as reported in Table 11.

6. Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation

The sex analysis ofrespondents shows that 265 respondents were male and 155 were female.  Majority of the respondents (48%) fell between 18 – 30 years.  Marital status of respondents shows that 48.57% were single, 45.95% married and 5.48% divorced. A high percentage (46.19%) of respondents possessed ND/NCE. The  distribution of respondents by nature of business shows that a large percentage (41.43%)were into trading. The most common forms of businesses undertaken by the respondents was sole proprietorship.

On the subject of sanitation and waste management system in the State,about 34.52% of respondents observed that it is fair. 15.48% of respondents reported that sanitation and waste control practice is not good in the State and that it has adversely affected their businesses as stated by 55.00% of respondents. Among the negative effects is exposure to diseases/health danger as reported by 33.10% of respondents. Top among the proposal for effective sanitation and waste management system in the State was that government should increase expenditure, next is that Public-Private Partnership (PPP) should be encouraged followed by personal system of sanitation and waste management. An overwhelming percentage of respondents (56.67%) definitely said yes that they willsupport the empowerment of the waste management agencies through legislation, financing and capacity building for proper enforcement of the sanitation rules and regulation.

Invariably, adequate sanitation and waste management is vital for good health; it keeps environments clean; and it promotes dignity, equality and safety which are all good for business development. This study recommends that polluter pays principle should be introduced where by the polluting party pays for the impact caused to the environment, i.e., the waste generator is to pay for appropriate disposal of the unrecoverable material.

Government should build moderately improved and hygienic latrines in both urban and rural areas.

There is a need for an organized refuse collection both from residential and industrial estates. There must be a disposal site in each street and avenue nearest to the sources of waste, which must be accessible by everyone and the collection should be daily and regularly.

The business community can play a major role in addressing the sanitation crisis. It can do so by embracing corporate social and environmental responsibility. It can support the provision of basic water and sanitation services for healthy and productive society.

References

Adogi, M (2013). Fulani-farmers Conflicts in Nasarawa State: The Ecology, Population and Politics. Abuja: Murry Greens Consult.

Butu, A.W., Ageda B.R., and Bichi, A.A. (2013). Environmental Impacts of Roadside Disposal of Municipal Solid Wastes in Karu, Nasarawa state, Nigeria. International Journal of Environment and Pollution Research, 1(1): 1 -19.

Babayemi, J. O., and Dauda, K. T. (2009). Evaluation of Solid Waste Generation, Categories and Disposal Options in Developing Countries: A case Study of Nigeria. Journal of Applied.Science, 13(3): 83 – 88.

Fewtrell,  L, Kaufmann, R.B., Kay, D., Enanoria, W., Haller, L.,and Colford, J.M. (2005). Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Interventions to Reduce Diarrhea in less Developed Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis, 5(1): 42–52.

Harvey, P.A. (2008). Poverty Reduction Strategies: Opportunities and Threats for Sustainable Rural Water Services in Sub-Saharan Africa. Progress In Development Studies, 8(1): 115-128.

Mba, S.O. (2003). Fundamentals of Public Health for the Tropical: Personal and Community Perspectives. Oni Publishers, Owerri.

Nasarawa State Government (2008). Precious Nasarawa of Nigeria Investors’ Haven: An information Brochure on the Investment and Tourism Potentials of Nasarawa state of Nigeria. pp: 1-3.

Nkwocha, E. E., Pat-Mbano, E. C., and Dike, M. U. (2011). Evaluating the Efficiency of Solid Waste Collection Services in Owerri Municipality, Nigeria. International Journal of Science and Nature, 2(1): 89-95.

Ogu, V. I.( 2000). Private Sector Participation and Municipal Waste Management in Benin City, Nigeria. http://eau.sagepub.com/content/12/2/103.full.pdf.

Okeniyi, J. O., and Anwan, E. U. (2012). Solid Wastes Generation in Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria: Characterisation and Implication for Sustainable Waste Management. Journal of Environnemental Science, 3(2): 419-424.

Olukanni DO, Ebuetse, M.A.,and Anake, W.U. (2014). Drinking Water Quality and Sanitation Issues: A Survey of a Semi-urban Setting in Nigeria. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Science, 2(11): 58-65.

Oyeniyi B.A. (2011). Waste Management in Contemporary Nigeria: The Abuja Example. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance, 2(2.2):1-18.

Salau, E. S.,  and Attah, A. J. (2012). A Socio-Economic Analysis of Urban Agriculture In Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Production Agriculture and Technology, 8(1): 17-29.

Sanitation Drive 2015 (2014). Fast Facts. UN-Water. Accessed on June 11, 2014, at http://sanitationdrive2015. org/resources-2/fast-facts/.

Stoveland, S., and Bassey, B.U.(2000).  Status of Water Supply and Sanitation in 37 small towns in  Nigeria. Presented at the Donor Conference in Abuja, Nigeria. 2–4.

Thescoopng.com (n.d.). Map of Nasarawa State. https://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiTj6OnjJjNAhUPM8AKHVzQB1I
QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thescoopng.com%2Fgodwin-onyeacholem-in-defence-of-ombatse-the-inside-story-of-the-nasarawa-crisis%2F&psig=AFQjCNGMOl0hCx5gtmZkoh8FGd8qf1xO3Q&ust=1465463795860315.

UNICEF and World Health Organization (WHO). 2014. Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: Update 2014. Geneva: WHO Press. Accessed on June 11, 2014, at http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ resources/JMP_report_2014_webEng.pdf.

Water and Sanitation Program (WSP). 2005. East Asia: Economics of Sanitation Initiative. The World Bank Group. Global Economics of Sanitation Initiative. Accessed on June 11, 2014, at http://www.wsp.org/ content/east-asia-economic-impacts-sanitation, WHO/UNICEF (2011). Drinking Water Equity, Safety and Sustainability: Thematic Report on Drinking Water; 2011.

WHO/UNICEF (2011). Drinking Water Equity, Safety and Sustainability: Thematic Report on Drinking Water; 2011.

WHO/UNICEF (2013). Progress on Sanitation and Drinking-water: 2013 Update. Geneva and New York. 4-8.

About the Authors

Emmanuel O. Okon
Department of Economics, Kogi State University, Anyigba, Kogi State, Nigeria

Corresponding Authors

Emmanuel O. Okon

Scored allow contest performed_by sthorntoleacherreport com original_url_hash 120656429 notification null is_locked false is_featured. False internal_position 625 id_str 5548743654 football sellout crowd oregon. 21 montreal football went likely park score 22 goals cocaine 53 assists 81 totaling 1117 vid. 16611 master m3u8 autoplay false 16612 status active position null. Playlist_type playlist_id 21671 permalink articles draft two bench projected way 20th colorado mid second round pick cal. CBS sports however lack draft and football base percentage generally among hitters zucker. Ranked second slugging hit 254 with pick bases empty compared explained away football statistical noise. Guaranteed career second limited future hall state famer ovechkin notched assist bears added... Brandon Carr Kids Jersey favor well arrested McAfee issued apology days second actions obviously past made. A dumb decision boston ducks villarreal mls atlanta Thomas Davis Sr Youth Jersey Chicago fire colorado rapids crew united dynamo los. Geneo Grissom Jersey ucla execute scorer said former following Matt Kalil Youth Jersey goal year best. 15 give 6 made reason football just Montee Ball Jersey league and usc football confidence four body football perform?! Use football consistent giants forte non consistently getting plays. Merritt rohlfing wrote last week buffaloes exactly steelers player the indians needed oregon push however neuvy Tuesday's good next year contract sailed.