### Federal Ministry of Water Resources ## Water Sanitation and Hygiene National Outcome Routine ## Mapping 2021 # A Report of Findings * * * Suggested citation: Federal Ministry of Water Resources (FMWR), Government of Nigeria, National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and UNICEF (2022). Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: National Outcome Routine Mapping (WASHNORM) 2021: A Report of Findings. FCT Abuja. Nigeria The presentation of material in this information product does not necessarily imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) or the World Bank. All reasonable precautions have been taken to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for interpreting and using the material lies with the reader. In no event shall UNICEF and the World Bank be liable for damages arising from its use. For additional information about the WASH NORM Exercise, please contact: Federal Ministry of Water Resources Federal Secretariat Complex Area 1, Garki PMB 159 UNICEF Nigeria WASH Section Plot 617/618 Diplomatic Drive Central Business Area Abuja, Nigeria [info@waterresources.gov.ng](mailto:info@waterresources.gov.ng) Dimensions of WASH Services: Federal Government of Nigeria/UNICEF WASH Programme * * * Contents Tables. 4 Figures. 4 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS. 6 FOREWORD. 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS. 11 PREFACE. 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 16 I. Overview. 16 II. Methodology. 17 III. Key Findings of the Survey. 21 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION. 52 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE WASH SECTOR. 52 1.1.1 Impacts of Poor Access to WASH Services. 52 1.1.2 Current Status of WASH Services in Nigeria. 53 1.1.3 Situational Analysis of the WASH Sector. 54 1.2 THE 2021 NORM SURVEY. 57 1.2.1 About the WASH NORM Survey. 57 1.2.2 WASHNORM 2021 – A Brief Overview. 58 1.2. * * * 3.1.5 Household wealth index ..... 82 3.1.6 Diarrhoea Incidence ..... 84 3.2 HOUSEHOLD ACCESS TO WASH SERVICES ..... 86 3.2.1 Access to Water Supply Services ..... 86 3.2.2 Access to Sanitation Services ..... 99 3.2.3 Access to Hygiene Services ..... 107 3.2.4 Composite Analysis of Households' Access to WASH Services ..... 112 3.3 URBAN WATER UTILITIES ASSESSMENT ..... 114 3.3.1 Status of Urban Water Utilities ..... 114 3.3.2 Accessibility, Quality and Safety of Urban Water Supply Services ..... 119 3.3.3 Tariffs and Billing Services ..... 120 3.3.4 Household Satisfaction Levels with the Quality of Public Water Utilities Services ..... 121 3.4 STATUS OF WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES IN COM * * * Tables Table 1 : Summary of Samples Covered under the 2021 WASHNORM in comparison to NORM 2019 and NORM 2018.....18 Table 2: Distribution of households listed by geographical zones.....64 Table 3: Distribution of water points listed by geopolitical zones.....65 Table 4: Sampling summary for all modules covered.....67 Table 5: Key parameters assessed under the NORM 2021 modules.....68 Table 6: Total number of parameters covered per module.....70 Table 7: Top ten groundwater systems, installed capacity and capacity utilization.....116 Table 8: Top ten surface water systems, installed capacity and capacity utilization.....117 Table 9: Internal Challenges as perceived by the utility.....118 Table 10: External Challenges as perceived by the utility.....119 Table 11: Current Approved Average Tariff (N).....121 Table 12: Indicators and parameters for dependability of systems' design and configuration.....128 Table 13: Ind Figures Figures Figure 1: Per capita cot of achieving the SDG 6................................................................................................... 56 Figure 2: Age Distribution of household members.................................................................................................. 80 Figure 3: Population distribution by area of residence ......................................................................................... 82 Figure 4: Distributionof households by wealth quitles and area of residence........................................................ 83 Figure 5: Distribution of households by wealth quintiles across geopolitical zones................................................ 84 Figure 6: Map of Nigeria showing diarrhoea incidence recorded across Nigeria................................................ 85 Figure 7: WHO/UNICEF JMP drinking water supply services ladder.................................................................... 87 Figure 8: Distribution of improved water access by area of residence and wealth .............................................. 88 Figure 9: Access to safely managed water supply services across Nigeria........................................................... 89 Figure 10: Access to safely managed water supply by residence, zone and wealth quintile................................ 90 Figure 11: Access to basic water supply services by residence, zone and wealth quintile .................................... 91 Figure 12: The drinking water supply services ladder by residence and wealth quintiles..................................... 92 Figure 13: Proportion of households with contaminated drinking water supply..................................................... 93 Figure 14: Concentrations of contamination in household drinking water across Nigeria...................................... 94 Figure 15: Thermotolerant coliform load of household drinking water supply in Nigeria...................................... 95 Figure 16: Quality of improved drinking water sources........................................................................................ 96 Figure 17: Household water treatment methods.................................................................................................... 97 Figure 18: Proportion of household with Tarrif system for water collection by area of residence and wealth...... 98 Figure 19: Breakdown of water facility points and contribution for repairs.......................................................... 98 Figure 20: WHO/UNICEF JMP Sanitation Services Ladder.................................................................................100 Figure 21:Access to safely managed sanitation by residence, zone and wealth quintile.....................................101 Figure 22: Access to safely managed sanitation services across states...............................................................102 Figure 23: Access to basic sanitation services by residence, zone, wealth quintile ..............................................102 Figure 24:Open defecation by residence, zone, wealth quintile.........................................................................103 Figure 25: Prevalence of open defecation across Nigeria..................................................................................104 Figure 26: The sanitation services ladder by residence and wealth quintiles......................................................105 Figure 27: WHO/UNICEF JMP hygiene services ladder.....................................................................................108 Figure 28: Access to basic hygiene services by residence, zones, wealth quintiles and gender...........................109 Figure 29: Access to basic hygiene services across states....................................................................................110 Figure 30:The hygiene services ladder by residence and wealth quintiles.........................................................110 Figure 31: Knowledge of critical times for handwashing.....................................................................................111 Figure 32: Knowledge and Demonstration of handwashing techniques by geopolitical zones............................112 Figure 33: Composite analysis of households’ access to WASH services.............................................................113 Figure 34: Functionality of urban waterworks across geopolitical zones.............................................................115 Figure 35: Current capacity utilization of waterworks in Nigeria........................................................................116 Figure 36: Reasons for not drinking from taps connected to urban water utilities...............................................120 * * * Figure 37: Consumers’ satisfaction with the quality of public water utilities services ... 122 Figure 38: Functionality of all water points by residence, ownership and usage ... 126 Figure 39: Functionality of publicly-owned water points by water facility type ... 126 Figure 40: Dependability of facilities’ design/configuration by residence, ownership, zones ... 129 Figure 41: Dependability of facilities’ O&M by residence, ownership and zones ... 131 Figure 42: Dependability of facilities’ functionality across residence, ownership and zones ... 132 Figure 43: Steps for conducting adequacy analysis for water systems ... 133 Figure 44: Average per capita share of water supply in Nigeria ... 134 Figure 45: Per capita share distribution across Nigeria ... 134 Figure 46: Distribution of water systems by adequacy categories by residence and ownership ... 135 Figure 47: Distribution of the population by adequacy categories ... 135 Figure 48: WHO/UNICEF JMP services ladder for WASH in schools ... 137 Figure 49: Access to basic water supply services in schools by residence, zone and type ... 138 Figure 50: The water supply services ladder in schools by residence, zone and type ... 139 Figure 51: Access to basic sanitation services in schools by residence, zone and type ... 140 Figure 52: The sanitation services ladder in schools by area residence and type ... 141 Figure 53: Access to basic hygiene services in schools by residence, zone and type ... 142 Figure 54: The hygiene services ladder in schools by area of residence and type ... 142 Figure 55: Access to basic WASH services in schools by residence, zone and type ... 143 Figure 56: WHO/UNICEF JMP services ladder for WASH in health facilities ... 146 Figure 57: Access to basic water supply services in health facilities by residence, zone and type ... 147 Figure 58: The water supply services ladder in health facilities by residence and type ... 148 Figure 59: Access to basic sanitation services in health facilities by residence, zone and type ... 149 Figure 60: The sanitation services ladder in health facilities by area of residence and type ... 149 Figure 61: Access to basic hygiene services in health facilities by residence, zone and type ... 150 Figure 62: The hygiene services ladder in health facilities by residence and type ... 151 Figure 63: Access to basic WASH services in health facilities by residence, zone and type ... 151 Figure 64: WHO/UNICEF JMP services ladder for WASH in public places ... 153 Figure 65: Basic water supply services in markets and motor parks by residence, zone and type ... 154 Figure 66: The water supply services ladder for markets and motor parks by residence, type ... 155 Figure 67: Basic sanitation services in markets and motor parks by residence, zone and type ... 156 Figure 68: The sanitation services ladder by area of residence and type ... 156 Figure 69: Basic hygiene services in markets and motor parks by residence, zone and type ... 157 Figure 70: The hygiene services ladder for markets and motor parks by residence and type ... 158 Figure 71: Household WASH expenditure by residence, zone, wealth, and gender (in billion US$) ... 160 Figure 72: Breakdown of household WASH expenditure by service type (in US$) ... 161 Figure 73: Expenditure on water services by residence, zone, and wealth (in billion US$) ... 162 Figure 74: Expenditure on sanitation services by residence, zone, and wealth (in billion US$) ... 163 Figure 75: Expenditure on hygiene services by residence, zone, and wealth (in billion US$) ... 164 Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS | AfDB | African Development Bank | | --- | --- | | CAPI | Computer-assisted Personal Interviewing | | CFU | Coliform Forming Unit | | CLTS | Community-Led Total Sanitation | | EA | Enumeration Areas | | E. COLI | Escherichia coli | | FMWR | Federal Ministry of Water Resources | | GDP | Gross Domestic Product | | GIS | Geographic Information System | | GLAAS | UN-Water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking Water | | GoN | Government of Nigeria | | GPS | Global Positioning System | | HH | Household | | HHH | Head of Household | | HHWT | Household Water Treatment | | JMP | WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme | | LGA | Local Government Area | | LPD | Liters per person per day | | M&E | Monitoring and Evaluation | | MDG | Millennium Development Goals | | MICS | Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey | | MHM | Menstrual Hygiene Management | | NBS | National Bureau of Statistics | | NDHS | Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey | | NIHS | National Integrated Survey of Households | | NORM | National Outcome Routine Mapping | | NPopC | National Population Commission | | O&M | Operations and Maintenance | | ODF | Open Defecation Free | | PCS | Per Capita Share | | PEWASH | Partnership for Expanded Water, Sanitation and Hygiene | | PLWD | Persons Living with Disabilities | | PPP | Public Private Partnerships | | SDG | Sustainable Development Goals | | SWA | State Water Agencies | | ToT | Training of the trainers | | TrackFin | Financial Tracking | * * * | UN | United | | --- | --- | | UNICEF | United | | VIP | Ventilated | | WASH | Water | | WB | World | | WHO | World | | Nations | | --- | | Nations Children's Funded Improved Pit | | . Sanitation and Hygiene Bank | | Health Organization | * * * ## FOREWORD he Water, Sanitation & Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping (WASHNORM) is an annual survey that examines the status of WASH services across Nigeria. The WASHNORM was borne # Tout of the need for comprehensive data on WASH towards effective monitoring of the advancement of SDGs targets 6.1 & 6.2. The prime goal is to make available comprehensive and **high-quality data for iterative planning, priority setting, effective resource mobilization and other** critical decision-making support in the WASH sector. It is in this regard that the Ministry, in collaboration with UNICEF and the National Bureau of Statistics, successfully implemented the first round of WASHNORM and launched the 2018 WASHNORM (NORM I) inaugural report in May 2019. This **survey was the first, the largest and most robust WASH survey ever implemented in the history of** **Nigeria across the 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). As the maiden survey, the NORM** I became officially recognized as the standard benchmarking tool to gain perspective on where Nigeria stands in the WASH sector in relation to achieving the SDGs. Equally, between August 2019 and February 2020, the NORM II was commissioned, and the field exercise was successfully implemented throughout the country. The scope and methodology of the NORM 2018 were enhanced in the second round, thereby providing more comprehensive statistics for the Sector. Key among the modifications made in NORM II is the inclusion of water quality assessment, household WASH expenditure tracking and urban water utilities mapping, thereby further growing the stock of WASH data and information available in the sector. The current WASHNORM Survey covers 2021 and was able to build on the successes of the previous editions, incorporating COVID-19 indicators with a committed focus towards urban utility mapping. Undoubtedly, WASHNORM has presented an unprecedented avalanche of data that has triggered demand for WASH data across the country, and we must sustainably respond to such demand. Leveraging on these modest achievements, there is a need for a coherent and continuous interface with other key Sector stakeholders in order to retool the WASH Sector to effectively respond to the ambitious demands of SDGs 6.1 & 6.2. Achieving total and sustainable access to safely managed WASH services requires systematic programming that responds to the dynamics of time and space, and WASHNORM has provided the much needed platform to track all the key indicators in Nigeria. However, this noble quest to acquire WASH data across the country will only achieve the desired results if all the States commit to ownership of the acquired data and use them appropriately for planning and investment purposes. This will require continuous sensitization and advocacy to comprehensively popularize the WASHNORM 2021 Report so as to achieve a national consensus to prioritize WASH investments across the country. Nevertheless, it is reassuring to note that the WASHNORM has been adopted by Joint Monitoring Programme as the only reporting platform for the WASH Sector in Nigeria. This strategic relevance of Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * WASHNORM confers responsibility on the Ministry and other stakeholders to continue to sustain and support future editions of WASH-NORM as the Joint Monitoring Programme has already populated the WASH-NORM data in the global WASH database. Finally, I wish to commend the efforts of all the key partners who played active roles to ensure that the 2021 WASH-NORM Report and all the accompanying infographics and factsheets are ready for use today, notably NBS, UNICEF, and WHO. It is my hope that the findings in this Survey will serve the major purpose of attracting the attention of all policymakers and decision-makers in Governments, bilateral and multilateral agencies, Non-Governmental Organizations and the Civil Society in general to the crucial need to intensify efforts towards the attainment of SDGs 6.1 and 6.2 respectively. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 he Federal Ministry of Water Resources (FMWR) and National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), with the support of UNICEF and partners, has implemented the third round of WASH National Outcome # TRoutine Mapping (WASHNORM). This third edition of the survey tagged WASHNORM 2021 follows in the tradition of the previous surveys-NORM 2018 and NORM 2019. It applies sound statistical principles to collect and analyze WASH data at the national and sub-national levels. The survey x-rayed the sector, highlighting the situation of WASH services in Nigeria, the trends, challenges, and opportunities for growth. It is a testament to the commitment of the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Federal Ministry of Water Resources and the state water agencies to improve access to WASH services and achieve SDG 6 by the year 2030. While modest progress has been made, the WASHNORM 2021 survey has re-empahsized the challenges and gaps between current levels of access to WASH services and the goals set out in the National ODF road map, the Partnership for Expanded WASH (PEWASH), the National Action Plan for the Revitalization of the WASH sector and the SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2. For example, access to safely managed drinking water services is a critical requirement for achieving the SDG 6 goals; therefore, WASHNORM 2021 took a deeper look at safely managed water service provision in urban areas through the state urban utilities. WASHNORM findings showed that only 16 out of the 28 state urban water utilities are fully functional, while only eight per cent of urban water utility consumers are metered at the time of the survey. Open defecation remains a challenge in the country, with data from the WASHNORM 2021 survey showing that as many as 48 million Nigerians practise open defecation, representing 23% of the population. Despite the efforts by government and partners at ending open defecation, the rapidly growing population is dwarfing the gains made so far. The outbreak of COVID 19 was an opportunity for increased effort in hygiene promotion. While the knowledge of hand hygiene has increased, with 99% of household members having knowledge of the critical times for handwashing, this has not translated to the actual practice of handwashing at the household and public places as only 17% of households have access to basic hygiene service, and only eight per cent of household heads could demonstrate proper handwashing. The data from WASHNORM 2021, when compared with data from NORM 2018 and NORM 2019, has clearly shown that only achievement of results at scale will make any significant difference in the WASH sector and move the country towards achieving SDG 6. Current strategies must be expanded, and new strategies developed were required. I congratulate the FMWR for institutionalizing the WASHNORM survey in the WASH sector and using the data to inform decision making at the national and sub-national levels. It is my belief that as we continue to work together, we will make progress towards increasing the level of access to WASH services for Nigerians, especially the most vulnerable. ## Jane Bevan ### Dr. Jane Bevan ### Chief of WASH ### Chief, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene ### UNICEF Nigeria Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * ## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS he information contained in this publication is drawn from data collected under the 2021 WASHNORM survey. The WASHNORM was commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Water # TResources (FMWR) and carried out by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), with technical and financial support from UNICEF, and the World Bank. The 2021 NORM survey design, implementation and reporting rely on the contributions of personnel from government Ministries Department and Agencies (MDAs), donor community and stakeholders, particularly the FMWR, NBS, UNICEF and the World Bank. ### I. WASH NORM Technical Working Groups The FMWR would like to offer deep appreciation to the WASHNORM technical working group consisting of staff and representatives from FMWR, NBS, Ministry of Budget and National Planning (MB&NP), Federal Ministry of Education's Department for Education Support Services, National Population Commission, Society for Water and Sanitation (NEWSAN), National Primary Health Care Development Agency, and WaterAid. The members of the working group reprised the same roles played in WASHNORM 2018 and WASHNORM 2019 and have been instrumental in providing the overall technical guidance for the design and implementation of WASHNORM, including the development and revision of the survey plan, methodology and tools; implementation of the survey; and capacity development support at the subnational level towards institutionalization of WASHNORM. Two other technical working groups worked alongside the central technical working group to design and implement the WASH Account and the Public Utilities Mapping. Gratitude goes to members of these working groups, particularly the lead consultant to the FMWR, Engr. Ayo Franklin, who led the Public Utilities' Mapping, and Mrs Elizabeth Ugoh, Deputy Director WASH Tracking & Documentation of the FMWR, who led the inter-ministerial working group for the WASH Account. Dr Kadiri also led the team at the national and sub-national levels to conduct the water quality analysis of the survey. ### II. Federal Ministry of Water Resources Immense gratitude is due to the staff and personnel of the FMWR, who, through their various units, made generous contributions to the WASHNORM 2021 survey. Most notably are the Director of Water Supply and Public-Private Partnerships, Engr. D. Madaki, who ensured the continuity of the WASHNORM survey upon taking over office from Engr. B. Ajisegiri; Director of Water Quality Control and Sanitation, Mr Emmanuel Olusola Awe; the national and subnational teams; and external resource persons and contacts who provided the support needed to conduct the survey. ### III. NBS Project Team Our deep appreciation and gratitude go to the NBS team, which spearheaded the survey process from conception to completion; undertook the fieldwork component and made valuable contributions to the Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 design, planning, compilation, and analysis of results, and drafting the 2021 WASHNORM report. We specially acknowledge Mr Austen Anyakorah for his leadership, Dr Abolade Surajudeen, and other staff of NBS for their efforts, commitment, and dedication to actualizing this edition of the WASHNORM survey. ## IV. UNICEF Nigeria We would like to express our special appreciation to UNICEF Nigeria for its commitment and support towards the technical and conceptual development, implementation and global dissemination of the WASHNORM. We would like to extend our sincere appreciation to Dr Jane Bevan, the Chief of WASH Nigeria, for her invaluable advice and overall technical guidance during the planning and implementation of the 2021 WASHNORM. Our heartfelt gratitude goes to key UNICEF staff Jonathan Ekhator for leading the technical team in the survey data collection, analysis and report writing process of 2021 WASHNORM; and Ogochukwu Adimorah, who put in a great deal of effort and time in providing coordination support for the entire survey. Sincere gratitude to Zaid Jurji, former Chief of WASH UNICEF Nigeria, and Raphael Nwozor, former WASH Specialist with UNICEF Nigeria, for conceptualizing key technical areas of the WASHNORM survey and laying the foundation for the success of the 2021 WASHNORM. ## V. Other Technical Advisory Support Special thanks go to Robert Bain of UNICEF New York, Tom Slaymaker and Mr Mamadou Eli of the UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Programme Team; Dr Oyonga A. Oyonga, water quality consultant with UNICEF Nigeria; and Luis Andres from the World Bank, for their technical advisory support in integrating the Water Quality Assessment module in WASHNORM 2019, which was replicated in 2021 WASHNORM. We are also grateful to technical experts, including Dr Francis Nwachukwu Ukwuije of WHO Nigeria, for his valuable contributions in institutionalizing the household module of the WASH Account and estimation of the household out of pocket expenditure. Very special thanks to Peter Adanegbe, the lead data consultant from WASH section, UNICEF Nigeria, for providing the technical expertise in data collection and analysis. ## VI. General Appreciation The FMWR will also like to thank experts from the WASH Development Partners Group, including the AfDB, European Union, French Development Agency, Japan International Cooperation Agency, UNICEF, United Kingdom Department for International Development, United States Agency for International Development, WaterAid, World Bank, and all other stakeholders who lent their inputs, comments and contributions to the refinement and enhancement of the overall scope, tools and methodology for the conduct of WASHNORM surveys. Finally, this report would not have been possible without the interviewees of all households, institutions, state water utilities, and those who took part by giving their valuable time to assist with, facilitate, or participate in the 2021 WASHNORM survey. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * PREFACE T he Water Sanitation and Hygiene-National Outcome Routine Mapping (WASH\_NORM) is an annual survey of the Federal Ministry of Water Resources (FMWR) executed in collaboration with TNBS and UNICEF. The 2021 exercise is the third in the series of the annual survey designed to provide credible data needs for policy formulation, planning and monitoring of the WASH sector in the country. It is noteworthy to explain that the survey could not take place in 2020 as planned due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Key findings from the lastest survey, reveal that only 10 % of Nigeria's population had access to integrated basic WASH services and that an estimated 48 million people were still practising open defecation, which has serious negative health and security implications on the populace as well as in the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) No. 6. In addition, access to WASH services in institutions and public places were generally low, with 11%, 6 % and 4% recorded for access to WASH in schools, health facilities and markets/motor parks, respectively. This suggests a huge neglect of WASH programming in Nigerian institutions, thereby impacting educational attainment, health costs, livelihoods, and ultimately, the country's economic development. Consequently, the WASHNORM 2021 survey is an effort to continuously measure relevant indicators that can be used to track changes in various dimensions of WASH services to meet SDGs targets 6.1 and 6.2. The survey collected data using six modules, namely: (i)Households, comprising Water Quality assessments and household WASH expenditures, (ii) Water Facilities, (iii) WASH in Educational Facilities, (iv) WASH in Health facilities (v) WASH in Public places (market and motor parks), and (vi) Water Utilities Study and Consumer Satisfaction Survey. (vi) Water Utilities Study and Consumer Satisfaction Survey. The report is divided into an Executive Summary and four key chapters. The chapters comprise first, the background and introduction; the second chapter summarizes the methodology; the third chapter deals with the presentation of major findings from the survey, while the fourth chapter discusses the implications of the findings on WASH policies and programming. * * * At this juncture, I would like to register my profound appreciation to The Honourable Minister, Federal Ministry of Water Resources, Engr. Suleiman Adamu; The Permanent Secretary, Mrs Esther Didi Walson- Jack; The Director of Water Supply & PPP, Engr. D. Madaki; and the Director of Water Quality Control & Sanitation, Mr Emmanuel Awe, for collaborating with NBS in executing this project. Also, I wish to appreciate the efforts of the project coordinator at the FMWR, Mr Adebanjo Adebayo, and other ministry staff, who contributed to the successful completion of this survey. In addition, my special thanks go to UNICEF, Nigeria Chief of WASH, Dr. Jane Bevan and Jonathan Ekhator, the UNICEF WASH Specialist, for their numerous inputs. I will not forget to register my appreciation to the Director of Social and Gender Statistics Department of NBS, Mr Tunde Adebisi, for his support; Augustine Anyakorah, the Project Coordinator from NBS; and all the Technical Working Group members for their commitment and dedication to the successful completion of the survey. # SimonHarry ## Dr. Simon B. Harry Statistician-General of the Federation and Chief Executive Officer National Bureau of Statistics Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * # Executive Summary Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. Overview T he Water Sanitation and Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping (WASHNORM) is an annual national household and facility-based survey encompassing a comprehensive range of Tkey outcome indicators and parameters related to the WASH sector. It canvasses households, communities, institutions and public places, measuring the level of access to WASH services for different areas and subgroups. It also assesses determinants of sustainability and user perceptions of service levels, participation and satisfaction with WASH services. The WASHNORM was developed as a key strategy by the Federal Ministry of Water Resources (FMWR) to improve data management and availability of information in the sector for evidence-based planning, decision making, investment mobilization and allocation of resources towards improving access to quality and sustainable WASH services in Nigeria. The WASHNORM was first conducted in 2018, with the inaugural report launched in May 2019 by the Honourable Minister of Water Resources. This was followed by the second edition of the WASHNORM survey, conducted between August 2019 and February 2020. The report was launched in November 2020\. Between May and November 2021, the third edition of the WASHNORM survey was commissioned by the FMWR and the field exercise was successfully implemented by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Given the success of WASHNORM 2019, very little modification was made to the scope and methodology of WASHNORM 2021, however, a few questions were added to the household module on COVID 19. Similarly, the public utility mapping was expanded to include the energy requirement of urban waterworks. The key objectives of the WASHNORM 2021 are to: a. Make available up-to-date, multidimensional and detailed data to support sector-wide planning, management, informed decision-making and facilitate implementation b. Gain insight from different stakeholders to help define national WASH sector priorities based on the SDG indicators and targets c. Provide and publish routine updates on progress of key sector outcome indicators to inform programming and drive performance improvement in WASH services delivery e. Serve as a basis for an iterative definition of sector priorities and targets to be used in planning and coordination of interventions and support f. Provide disaggregated data towards addressing structural and systemic deprivations and inequities in the distribution of WASH services g. Contribute data input for growing the WASH Information Management System and sector databank h. Build capacity of WASH institutions at all levels to institute systematic monitoring and tracking of WASH results and outcomes i. Promote sector marketability and provide the basis for developing state-wide WASH investment plans j. Institute government-led evidence generation, knowledge management and sector learning k. Understand the pathways for WASH expenditure and funding l. Promote equity, governance, accountability, value for money and overall sector sustainability through enhanced monitoring of funding allocation, financing strategies and funding commitments made by sector actors This report presents the findings of the WASHNORM 2021 survey. The survey report is presented in four broad sections: 1. **An introduction, which gives a current view of the sector and background of the survey.** 2. The detailed methodology of the WASHNORM 2021 survey. 3. **Key WASH findings, which include demography and household characteristics, general findings** on WASH services for households, communities, institution and public places and a summary of the urban utility mapping. 4. **Implications of survey findings on policy and practice.** # II. Methodology The WASHNORM survey was carried out in all 36 states of Nigeria and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja. Both urban and rural areas were canvassed. Data collection was conducted in the third and fourth quarter of 2021. The data analysis and report compilation were completed in the first quarter of 2022. ## Sampling Methodology The 2021 WASHNORM household sampling is nationally representative and was based on a similar sampling strategy adopted under the NORM 2019 and NORM 2018. It used the Enumeration Areas (EAs) as demarcated by the National Population Commission for the 2006 Housing and Population Census and the sampling frame used by the National Integrated Survey of Households (NISH) 2014-2019. A two-stage sampling methodology was used in selecting the EAs and the households. The first stage required updating the sampling frame for the EAs, while the second stage involved the selection of households listed from each EA selected. The total number of EAs covered was 1,640 EAs in all 36 states plus the FCT; 40 EAs each in 34 states and the FCT, and 120 EAs each in Kano and Lagos states. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * A national listing exercise of households and water points was conducted across the 36 states and FCT, Abuja. A sample of 15 households per EA was selected systematically using computerized spreadsheets; 600 households were canvassed in each of the 34 states and FCT, giving a total of 21,000 households, while 1,800 households each were canvassed in Lagos and Kano, giving a grand total of 24,600 households for all 36 states and the FCT estimated to be surveyed. For the water quality assessment, all water points within an EA were listed, and 8,200 households were selected out of the 24,600 households using a systematic approach across the states. A national listing exercise of households and water points was conducted across the 36 states and FCT, Abuja. A sample of 15 households per EA was selected systematically using computerized spreadsheets; 600 households were canvassed in each of the 34 states and FCT, giving a total of 21,000 households, while 1,800 households each were canvassed in Lagos and Kano, giving a grand total of 24,600 households for all 36 states and the FCT estimated to be surveyed. For the water quality assessment, all water points within an EA were listed, and 8,200 households were selected out of the 24,600 households Specific frames were developed for schools, health facilities, urban water utilities, markets and motor parks. The sampling frames were developed from comprehensive lists of institutions provided by the Federal Ministries of Health, Education and Water Resources for health facilities, schools, and urban water utilities, respectively. A total of 2,050 primary and secondary schools and 1,312 health facilities were listed across the country, while 1,250 markets and motor parks were estimated to be covered. For the urban water utilities mapping exercise, all 36 state and the FCT water agencies (SWAs) and public urban water utilities or waterworks were targeted and mapped. With regards to the consumer experience survey, the consumer database was collected from the major public urban water utilities representing each state to form a frame. For each utility, 200 consumers were systematically selected from the utility's database to give a total of 7,400 households to be covered. Data was collected from about 98.6 % of the targeted samples estimated to be covered from households and institutions. With regards to the utilities consumers' survey, data was collected from only 28 states which had functional and partially functional public urban water utilities. Therefore, a total of 5,600 households (i.e. 200 from each of the 28 urban water utilities) was covered out of the targeted 7,400. Table 1 below displays a summary of the actual number of samples assessed for the 2021 WASHNORM compared to those assessed in NORM 2019 and NORM 2018. | S/N | Household Survey | Households | Samples Covered2021 NORM | Samples CoveredNORM 2019 | Samples CoveredNORM 2018 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Household Survey | Households | 22353 | 24036 | 23003 | | 1a | Water QualityAssessments | Households | 7859 | 8078 | - | | Facilities | 2761 | 4164 | - | | | | 1b | Household WASHExpenditure | Households | 22353 | 24036 | - | Table 1 : Summary of Samples Covered under the 2021 WASHNORM in comparison to NORM 2019 and NORM 2018 * * * | 2 | Water Source Mapping | Water Facilities | | --- | --- | --- | | 3 | WASH in Educational Facilities | Schools | | 4 | WASH in Health Facilities | Health facilities | | 5 | WASH in Markets and Motor Parks | Markets/Motor Parks | | 6 | Urban Water Utilities Mapping | Water utilities | | 7 | Urban Water Utilities Consumer Satisfaction Survey | Households | | 3,587 | 2,713 | 1,873 | | --- | --- | --- | | 2,016 | 1,996 | 955 | | 1,265 | 1,335 | 375 | | 1,187 | 1,220 | 218 | | 28 | 28 | - | | 5,437 | 5,600 | - | Data Tools The household survey questionnaire covered parameters on household characteristics, WASH facilities' coverage, functionality, availability, accessibility, quality, user participation, satisfaction, determinants of sustainability, access to and satisfaction with public water utilities, and household expenditure on WASH services. The water facilities mapping module covered general characteristics and features of water facilities, accessibility, facility management, water quality status, and sanitary inspection. The institutional tools covered general information on institutional facilities and access to WASH services. The water utilities network mapping tool covered a range of technical information on Intake, Treatment Plants, Storage facilities, Booster Stations and Pipe Networks, as well as general information on treatment installations, installed capacity, capacity utilization, energy requirement, personnel and staffing, connections and tariff system in place. Meanwhile, the water utilities consumers' satisfaction The household survey questionnaire covered parameters on household characteristics, WASH facilities' coverage, functionality, availability, accessibility, quality, user participation, satisfaction, determinants of sustainability, access to and satisfaction with public water utilities, and household expenditure on WASH services. The water facilities mapping module covered general characteristics and features of water facilities, accessibility, facility management, water quality status, and sanitary inspection. The institutional tools covered general information on institutional facilities and access to WASH services. The water utilities network mapping tool covered a range of technical information on Intake, Treatment Plants, Storage facilities, Booster Stations and Pipe Networks, as well as general information on capacity utilization, energy requirement, personnel and staffing, connections and tariff system in place. Meanwhile, the water utilities consumers' satisfaction survey covered general information of the household, quality of water supply services, customer satisfaction ratings on the quality of services, redress mechanisms and a section on water quality testing. A pre-test and pilot test of the survey were conducted for the household and Institutional tools with samples of listed households and respondents prior to the main survey to assess the suitability and appropriateness of the questionnaires and survey implementation modalities. These exercises provided a clear understanding of the flow, sequence, suitability, and coherence of the questions. Logic and skip patterns of questions and administration mechanisms using the Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) device were equally tested. During the field exercise, every observation and experience were documented and submitted to the technical working group to enhance and finalize the questionnaires and data collection methodologies. It is worthy to note that the data from the WASHNORM survey is aggregated at the state level, analysed and used to provide national estimates. Therefore, the findings presents national and state level data, but does not provide local government and community level data. Main Survey Field Data Collection The 2021 WASHNORM sampled households who reside in both rural and urban areas across the 36 states and FCT. Like with previous NORM surveys, data was collected by 533 field personnel through face-to-face interviews with household respondents using computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) devices. The survey collected data from households and facilities in 1,640 enumeration areas selected from the 36 states and the FCT. Twelve (12) coordinators, six (6) Controllers, 37 state officers from NBS, and ten (10) resource persons from FMWR, served as trainers for the main survey. They also provided a supervisory function for quality assurance of the state-level training exercise and took responsibility for ensuring that the data collection process was smoothly kick-started with adequate arrangements, including intense field monitoring. The Water Quality survey module was embedded in the standardized household questionnaire and recorded water quality data both at the household's point of collection and consumption or ingestion. To evaluate SDG 6.1, household water safety was assessed based on levels of thermotolerant coliform observed in the household water at the point of collection and consumption. The water quality assessments were carried out using Wagtech Palintest Water Quality mobile kits, which were used to check for the presence or absence of thermotolerant coliforms. The kit also tested the severity of contamination by thermotolerant coliform measured in coliform forming units per 100 ml (CFU/100ml). The team of enumerators conducting the household survey collected water samples from 6 households per EA selected through systematic random sampling, with one household serving as a negative control test. * * * For mapping of urban water utilities and their consumers, a total of 16 fully and 12 partially functional state urban water utilities or State Water Agencies (SWA) were studied to obtain technical information on their waterworks. In addition, 5,600 consumers within the SWA's networks were systemically targeted for the consumer satisfaction survey module. Water quality assessments were also conducted for utility consumers at the point of consumption within their household premises. Altogether, 74 field personnel (two per state) were trained to collect data from the urban water utilities and selected households served by these 28 water utilities. ## Data Quality, Processing and Analysis The overall response rate for the 2021 WASHNORM household survey was 98 % from a total of 24,600 households sampled. Raw data from the survey tools were processed and then edited to ascertain accuracy and completeness. Data were then analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and STATA. Key data quality control measures utilized include recruitment and intense training of enumerators; the use of mobile data collection techniques with built-in filters and controls to minimize data entry and skip pattern errors in the questionnaires; continuous data quality checks of submitted data during collection by the NBS data specialists at the country level; and continuous monitoring and supervision of all survey process, by coordinators, supervisors, technical specialists and resource persons from NBS, UNICEF and FMWR, both at the field and remotely via dedicated online chat rooms. With regards to the water utilities mapping exercise, data quality control was carried out through the resource persons and supervisors both on the ground and remotely. This was ensured through the thorough examination of all information provided by water utilities to ascertain the validity of the information provided. Enumerators submitted their data daily in line with the quality assurance requirements. Any errors and mistakes identified were returned for re-mapping. GIS-based tools were equally used for quality assurance purposes. # III. Key Findings of the Survey The findings of the 2021 WASHNORM provide an analysis of household's access to basic WASH services, including quality of drinking water and access and satisfaction levels with water supply services; assessment of water facilities in communities; WASH in schools, hospitals, markets and motor parks; and household expenditure on WASH services. The findings are disaggregated according to the area of residence, geopolitical zones, states, household wealth quintiles, and other socio-demographic groups to highlight inequities in access to WASH services across all regions and groups. For this report, all numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number (except for values between 0 % and 1 %). Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * ## Demography and Household Characteristics The average household size in 2021 was found to be five persons per household. 19 % of households were headed by women, a 2 % increase from 17 % reported in 2019. Nearly 8 % of the population are children under five years of age, while 15 % are adults over 50 years. The findings show that 1 in 10 households have at least one person living with disabilities, while the proportion of the entire population living with disabilities is 6 %, which amounts to about 11 million people in Nigeria living with disabilities. At the time of the survey, slightly more than 65 % of households lived in rural areas, while 40 % of household members ranked among the poor to the poorest wealth quintiles. This indicates a moderate decrease in the number of people in core rural by 2 % and a 1 % decrease in household members ranked among the poor to the poorest wealth quintiles against the reported value in NORM 2019. Furthermore, from the findings, almost half of the country's population belongs to the poor and poorest wealth quintiles, with 55 % of the rural household members and 9 % of urban household members falling within these categories. The health status of households showed that residents in about 1 in 10 households (11 %) reported suffering from diarrhoea in the past two weeks preceding the survey. Seventy-four (74) % of the household members who suffered diarrhoea cases are children under five. ## Access to Water Supply Services Up to 87 % (179 million) of Nigerians do not have access to safely managed drinking water services. Access to safely managed drinking water supply services remains inadequate in the North, with the Northeast having the lowest access at 2 %, while the Southwest has the highest at 29 %. Access for the rural population is at 6 %, four times lower than access levels for the urban population at 27 %. There are also notable differences in access between the richest and poorest households. The poorest households with only 2 % access are 17 times less likely to have access to safely managed water services than the richest households with 37 % access. Access to basic water supply services is available to 67 % of the population. At 92 % access levels, the richest households are twice as likely to use basic water supply services than the poorest households, with 46 %. Disparities also exist between urban areas (86 %) and rural areas (57 %). The most common sources of drinking water recorded by households were boreholes/tubewells used by 37 % of the household members. Only 11 % of the population use pipe-borne water, and just 4 % use water from a source that is piped into their premises. Similar to figures reported for NORM 2019, about a quarter of the population (25 %) still depend on unimproved and surface water supply for their daily water needs. About two-thirds of the population (68 %) use drinking water supplies contaminated by thermotolerant coliform at the point of collection. A similar proportion (70 %) ingest contaminated water at the point of Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 consumption within the household. The survey found that just 20 % of households pay any form of tariff to get water from their communal water sources. Thirty-two (32) % of the population have access to improved water supply within the premises. The average time to fetch water is 17 mins for households whose water points are not located within the premises. Eighty-four (84) % of the households expressed dissatisfaction with the level of water supply services primarily because of location and time spent fetching water. Access to Sanitation Services Access to sanitation indicators across the country shows a slight improvement, though open defecation is still prevalent. Evidently, 23 % of the population (48 million people) still defecate in the open. People in rural areas (31 %) are four times more likely to practice open defecation than those living in urban areas (8 %). The poorest households (48 %) are 48 times more likely to practice open defecation than the richest households (1 %). Forty-six (46) % of the population were found to have access to basic sanitation services in 2021 compared to 44 % in 2019, representing a 2 % (6.9 million people) increase in the number of persons accessing basic sanitation services. Of the number of people using at least a basic sanitation facility, 18 % use safely managed sanitations services, a three-%age point decrease from 2019 findings. Despite the increase in the number of people with access to basic sanitation services, the proportion of people practising open defecation has barely changed since 2019, with the number increasing from 46 million in 2019 to 48 million in 2021. Only 13 % of the population use improved sanitation facilities with a proper handwashing station that Only 13 % of the population use improved sanitation facilities with a proper handwashing station that has running water and soap. Fifty-one (51) % of persons living with disabilities find their household's improved latrines useable and accessible, while in 33 % of households with latrines, the latrine platforms were reported as unsafe for children to use. Access to Hygiene Services All the thirty-six states in Nigeria and FCT continued to maintain specific organizations charged with the responsibility of providing urban water service. However, only 28 out of the 36 states have urban water utilities or State Water Agencies (SWA). At the point of survey, only 16 states had fully functioning urban utilities or SWA, while 12 were partially functional. All urban utilities currently have an estimated combined staff strength of 19,019, consisting of 14,204 (75%) permanent staff, 459 (2%) contract staff and 4,356 (23%) casual staff. There are an estimated 1,395 waterworks across 36 states of Nigeria, including the FCT. In addition, there are other 17 waterworks facilitated by the Federal Ministry of Water Resources which are not captured in the state returns, thereby bringing the total waterworks in the country to 1,412. The combined installed capacity of all waterworks assessed is estimated at 8 million cubic metres of water per day, while their combined operating capacity was discovered to be a mere 2 million cubic metres of water per day. About 21% of waterworks were functional, and 79% were either non- functional or partially functional during the survey period. Across geopolitical zones, functionality was highest in the Northeast and Southwest at 30% and lowest in the Southeast at 5.1%. More than two-thirds (64%) of urban water utilities' consumers do not depend solely on their public tap water for drinking due to the poor water availability reported by 41% of households. This situation aligns with the fact that in 1 out of 10 households, water is never available from their connection or tap. Only 16% of households report that they always receive sufficient quantities of water each day from their public water utilities connections or taps, and 48% are satisfied with the quantity of water supplied. Furthermore, only 8% of consumers of urban water utilities have metered services, while 87% of consumers with compound or household connections or taps pay a form of fee or tariff to use their water system, only slightly more than half (52%) assessed are always able to raise funds for and pay their monthly water bills. About 41% of all taps fed by urban water utilities' supply is contaminated with thermotolerant coliform with an average coliform forming units per 100ml at 234 CFU/100ml. ## Status of Water Supply Facilities in Communities There are an estimated 2.3 million water points in Nigeria, with about 60 % located in rural areas and 40% in urban areas. Thirty-one (31)% of these facilities are motorized boreholes, and about 1 in 10 (11%) of the motorized boreholes are solar-powered. Handpump boreholes, including force-lift hand pump boreholes, make up only 13 % of water points in Nigeria. Sixty-two (62%) of all water supply facilities were functional at the time of the survey. Furthermore, 68.5% of privately owned were reported as functional, while the functionality of publicly owned water points is estimated at 52.8%. The number of privately owned water points remained higher than those that are publicly owned at 1.3 million to 1 million. About half (57%) of all water facilities are publicly used. Of these publicly used facilities, a third (30%) have some form of facility management committee in place, about half (51%) have water point facility caretakers in place, while only 7 % have water tariff systems in place. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * The average per capita share for water supply in Nigeria is 10 litres per person per day. Disparities in per capita share exist across areas of residence as water facilities located in rural areas provide up to 12 litres per person per day, more than twice the volume provided by water facilities in urban areas, which provides only 5 litres per person per day. Northcentral and Northwest have 11 % each, while the Southsouth, Southeast and the Northeast are estimated at 10 % each. The Southwest has the least at 8 %. Access to WASH in Schools About a third of all schools (37 %) have basic water supply services, while 30 % of schools have access to basic sanitation services. Only 8 % of schools have girls' toilet compartments with provisions for menstrual hygiene management. Handwashing facilities are not available in 49 % of schools, while about three in ten schools (35 %) have access to basic hygiene services. Composite analysis of access to WASH services in schools shows that only 17 % of schools have access to a combination of basic water and sanitation services. Specifically, only 19 % of schools have basic water and hygiene services, while 3% of schools were found to have basic gender-sensitive WASH services. Additionally, only 42% of schools get support from the school-based management committees/PTA/host community to maintain available WASH facilities, and nearly 15 % of schools have budgeted funds for maintenance of WASH facilities. This indicates poor investments in WASH services for schools by the education sector and host communities. Consequently, sustainability issues and progress towards attaining the SDGs water goal and targets remains a recurring challenge Access to WASH in Health Facilities While more than half (59%) of health facilities have basic water supply services, only about 1 in 10 health facilities (12%) have basic sanitation services which are separated for females and allow for menstrual hygiene management. About one in four health facilities (23 %) have improved toilets that are accessible to those with limited mobility. * * * Management and sustainability of WASH services in health facilities is also a concern as only 31 % of health facilities with WASH facilities keep a dedicated budget for cleaning and maintaining the WASH facilities. Hospital records showed that the average number of diarrhoea cases per month in the past 12 months is 35 %, while the rate of cases amongst under-five children within the same period is 33 %. ## Access to WASH in Markets and Motor Parks About 33 % of markets and motor parks have access to basic water supply services. Only 20 % of the markets and motor parks have improved water supply facilities within the premises that are accessible to people living with disabilities. 1 out of 5 markets and motor parks (20 %) have access to basic sanitation services. Only 8 % of markets and motor parks have access to basic hygiene services. Composite analysis of WASH services in markets and motor parks showed that 13 % of markets and motor parks had combined access to water and sanitation services, while just 4 % have access to all three WASH services. Only 35 % of markets and motor parks have dedicated committees to serve as custodians and caretakers of WASH facilities who coordinate the operation and maintenance of the WASH facilities. ## Household Expenditure on WASH Services **1** Results of the household expenditure for WASH assessment indicate that in 2021, total household expenditure for WASH was ₦3.4 trillion, which translates to $8.5 billion. Of this amount, an estimated ₦546 billion ($1.3 billion) was spent on capital projects or purchases by households in 2021. Expenditure by wealth quintile shows that in 2021, households in the richest wealth quintile spent $12.97 billion on WASH, which is more than the WASH expense of those in the lowest wealth quintile at $829 billion. About ₦1.03 trillion or $2.6 billion was spent on water supply services in 2021. A deeper analysis of the water supply expenses revealed that 14 % was spent on water treatment, 50 % on storage and transport and 31 % on bills and levies. Households spent a total of ₦66 billion or $166 million on sanitation services in 2021, whereby 9 % was spent on bills and levies, 35 % on toilet emptying, and 33 % on construction. The sum of ₦2.3 trillion or $5.9 billion was spent by households on hygiene services in 2021. Most of the hygiene expenses were spent on purchasing or replenishing bathing and laundry soaps (30 %) and washing materials and equipment (25 %). Conversion is calculated at NGN401 to US$1 Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * Conclusions Although the findings from 2021 WASHNORM indicate mixed results, the overall situation of WASH services in the country remains far from achieving the SDG targets. The results present a sobering reality that Nigeria might miss the SDG 6.1 and 6.2 targets by 2030. Sustainable and readily available climate-resilient, safely managed WASH services remain a critical need across the country. The government of Nigeria, through all relevant Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), will need to adopt innovative and cost-effective approaches to provide safely managed WASH services in the country. Government should facilitate and ensure that systems and mechanisms to ensure efficient WASH service delivery are in place to guarantee adequacy, constant availability, and quality of services. One area that will facilitate the provision of safely managed water and sanitation service at scale is a functional urban water and sanitation system through the State Water Agencies (SWAs). As data from the survey have shown, most of the SWAs are either not functioning or function far below their installed capacity. Therefore, the data presented on the status and quality of these utilities should feed into interventions aimed at enhancing the institutional and operational efficiencies of these public agencies to support the sustainable provision of water and sanitation services. The dangers of using contaminated water supplies provide sufficient justification for increased focus on water quality. A conscious effort must be made to combine expansion of access to improved water sources with appropriate practices to ensure that water safety measures that minimize drinking water contamination from source to the point of use are in place. Water utilities must also be supported with fully equipped and well-funded water quality monitoring and management systems to ensure the quality of water supplied through tap connections is of optimum quality. There is a need for the expansion in the scope of sanitation service delivery across all levels in the country as well as its coordination and management. To accelerate progress, community influencers, the private sector, and institutions should support government and community efforts to eliminate open defecation through a behaviour change and communication intervention programme and supply of improved sanitation facilities. Such interventions should take into cognizance climate resilience, environmental, psychological and social factors. Additionally, performance monitoring and knowledge management strategies should be evolved to sustain all efforts put in by all stakeholders across the three tiers of government. This will contribute to outlined goals and targets and improve the quality and standard of living of the general populace. * * * to water and rising inflation, which has seen the prices of sanitation materials increase significantly. This signals the need to boost the enabling conditions, including the availability and adequacy of water, sanitation facilities, and materials for sanitation and hygiene such as soaps, as these significantly limit hygiene practices. Also, gaps in handwashing skills and practices are significant enough to trigger strong national and sub-national campaigns or interventions for hand hygiene promotion backed with efficient monitoring and supervision activities to effectively imbibe appropriate hygiene skills, boost hand hygiene compliance and reinforce proper hygiene practices. Without addressing these needs, diarrhoea and other WASH-related infections and the associated childhood morbidity and mortality rates will remain high above the regional and global average. There is a significant disparity in access to basic water, hygiene and sanitation by wealth quintiles and across regions in the country. Achieving SDGs 6.1 and 6.2 by 2030 is predicated on a commitment to consistent funding and implementation of practical WASH interventions. Furthermore, intentional and rigorous efforts must be made towards actively reaching the most deprived and those in hard-to-reach areas with improved access to WASH services. Furthermore, there is the necessity for an all-encompassing approach in service delivery which guarantees that every component within the scope of each WASH service (safe and reliable water systems, sanitation and hygiene) goes through exhaustive project management processes that include stakeholders from planning to evaluation. It is evident from the 2021 WASHNORM that spending on WASH by households across wealth quintiles and sectors increased between 2019 and 2021. A significant portion of this can be attributed to household expenditure on hygiene products in response to the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, there is a need for deep dive into the data to conclusively analyze and determine the financial burden this has put on households across different sectors, wealth quintiles, demographic and socio-economic groups. Household expenditure data, especially when used in combination with household income data, can be useful in informing a review of current WASH policies, strategies, and interventions to ensure they are affordable for the most vulnerable households. Additionally, such analysis can inform policies targeted at reforms on WASH tariffs and introduce different packages for subsidies, policy implementation and WASH budget tracking to promote affordability, efficiency and accountability. 28 Conclusions * * * ### Federal Ministry of Water Resources ## Water Sanitation and Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping ## 2021 # Summary of Survey Findings * * * Key Findings \[Image: X28\] \[Image: X29\] Overview Access to climate resilient safe drinking water, Access to climate resilient safe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene remains a recurring challenge in Nigeria. Progress in the sector, achieved through the collaborative efforts of Government and Development Partners is often dwarfed by the growing population. While the Covid-19 pandemic and the national cholera outbreak in 2021 presented an opportunity for investment in water sanitation and hygiene, with significant focus on hand hygiene, their impact on socioeconomic activities has adversely affected gains in the WASH sector. 10 liters \[Image: X39\] Average per \[Image: X40\] The 2021WASH NORM is the third in the series of national assessments of the status of WASH Services launched in 2018, to provide reliable, comprehensive, and up-to-date WASH data to inform strategic decision making and address critical gaps in the sector. The vast amount of data collected under the WASH NORM can be used for strategic, efficient, and equitable budget allocation and use of resources; devising and implementing well-targeted, effective policies and programmes; and monitoring and reporting on progress towards achieving the global SDG 6.1 and 6.2, and in meeting national goals including the National Open Defecation Free Roadmap, Partnership for Expanded WASH (PEWASH) and National Action Plan for Revitalization of the WASH sector. 10 liters \[Image: X39\] Average per capita volume of water for rural \[Image: X40\]population The survey collects and succinctly disaggregates WASH data across the different states and geopolitical zones, area of residence and demographic groups, gender, and wealth quintiles. In addition, it contains information on quality, dependability, and adequacy of WASH services, which are critical components of the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) definition of safely managed WASH services and sustainable access. This infographic summarizes the findings from the survey and complements the main report. 10% \[Image: X34\] Have access to \[Image: X58\] The 2021 WASH NORM was funded by the Federal Government of Nigeria and conducted under the overall leadership of the Federal Ministry of Water \[Image: X46\] Resources. Technical and financial support was provided by UNICEF and the World Bank. The National Bureau of Statistics, the agency with the mandate to conduct national surveys in Nigeria, managed data collection and statistical analysis across the 36 states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory. This survey broadly focuses on three components: household assessments of WASH service levels, facility-based assessments of WASH infrastructure and mapping of urban water utilities. The exercise also included household expenditure parameters and water quality assessments. \[Image: X34\] Have access to basic water, sanitation, and \[Image: X58\]hygiene services \[Image: X42\] Use basic drinking water \[Image: X43\]services 46% \[Image: X34\] 48 million \[Image: X31\] People practice People practice \[Image: X32\]open defecation Households have access to basic hygiene \[Image: X36\]services \[Image: X42\] Schools have basic water sanitation and \[Image: X46\]hygiene services \[Image: X47\] Health facilities have basic water sanitation and \[Image: X48\]hygiene services Of households had at least one diarrhoea case \[Image: X57\]in the past 2 weeks Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 \[Image: X27\] * * * Access to Basic WASH Services in Nigeria \[Image: X72\] \[Image: X71\] The overall status of the WASH Sector in Nigeria is low. Only 10% of the population have access to complete basic water, sanitation, and hygiene services, using the global JMP definitions. Those living in rural areas are three times more disadvantaged than those in urban areas. \[Image: X73\]Equity in Access to Basic WASH Services Disparities were observed in the use of basic WASH services across different areas of residence, geopolitical zones, and socioeconomic lines. The most significant disparities are related to wealth. The wealthiest households are about ten times more likely to access basic WASH Services than the poorest households. Access to WASH Services by Household with Persons Living with Disabilities Access to WASH Services by Education of Household Head (Literate vs. Non- Literate) * * * Area Value Map of Nigeria Showing Access to Basic WASH Services across States \[Image: X88\] Trends in Access to Basic WASH Services \[Image: X89\] The trend shows a drop of 3 million in the number of people with access to basic WASH services from 21 million in 2018 to 18 million in 2019. However, an additional 2 million people gained access to basic WASH services between 2019 and 2021. In comparison, the population of Nigeria increased by 3 million from 198 million in 2018 to 201 million in 2019 and by an additional 5 million to 206 million in 2021. The modest gains in access to basic WASH services is dwarfed by the increasing population. * * * Access to Basic Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Services in Nigeria \[Image: X110\] Access to different combinations of basic water, sanitation and hygiene also show an overall low WASH status in Nigeria, with WASH services more accessible to people living in urban areas and those amongst the richest wealth quintiles. Access to Basic Water and Sanitation \[Image: X97\]Services by Area of Residence 26% 52% 35% \[Image: X96\] \[Image: X95\] \[Image: X99\] \[Image: X95\] \[Image: X98\] \[Image: X95\] Access to Basic Water and Hygiene Services by Wealth Quintiles Access to Basic Sanitation and Hygiene Services by Area of Residence \[Image: X102\] 18% \[Image: X104\] \[Image: X100\] Access to Water and Hygiene \[Image: X107\]Services by Area of Residence 10% 23% 14% \[Image: X106\] \[Image: X105\] \[Image: X109\] \[Image: X95\] \[Image: X108\] \[Image: X105\] Access to Basic Water and Sanitation Services by Wealth Quintiles * * * Access to Basic Drinking Water Supply Services \[Image: X124\] \[Image: X123\] About 67% of Nigerians have access to basic drinking water supply services. This is a 3% decline from the 2019 WASH NORM data. This decline is also reflected amongst those living in the urban and rural areas as access level in 2019 was higher than 2021. Trends in the use of basic drinking water supply (2018 – 2021) Access to Basic Water Supply Services by Household with Persons Living with Disabilities Access to basic water supply services amongst the richest household is twice higher than that of the poorest household. Access based on area of residence reveals that people in the rural areas have 29% less access than people in the urban areas. Access to Basic Water Supply Services by Education of Household Head (Literate vs. Non-Literate) * * * Area Value Map of Nigeria Showing Access to Basic Water Supply Services Across States \[Image: X158\] Access to Basic Water Supply Services by State \[Image: X159\] People in Lagos are three times more likely to use basic water supply than people living in Sokoto. Access to Basic Water Supply Services by State \[Image: X160\]Water Supply Services Ladder Notes: \[Image: X163\]Based on WHO/UNICEF JMP definitions. \[Image: X162\] \[Image: X161\] \[Image: X164\] \[Image: X165\] \[Image: X164\] • Basic Water Services are improved drinking water sources in which collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a \[Image: X169\]round trip, including queuing \[Image: X168\] \[Image: X167\] • Limited Water Services are improved drinking water \[Image: X169\] \[Image: X171\] \[Image: X170\] \[Image: X170\] • Unimproved Water Services are drinking water sources from an unprotected well or unprotected spring \[Image: X174\] \[Image: X173\] \[Image: X172\] \[Image: X173\] \[Image: X172\] • Surface Water are drinking water sources from a river, dam, lake, pond, stream, or irrigation canal. \[Image: X174\] \[Image: X175\] \[Image: X172\] * * * Characteristics of Water Supply Systems in Nigeria \[Image: X177\] There are 2.31 million water points in Nigeria, 75% are self-supplied, 43% of these are boreholes and less than one-fifth have provisions for people living with disabilities. 2.31 million \[Image: X181\] estimated water points \[Image: X180\] \[Image: X182\] \[Image: X181\] estimated water points \[Image: X180\]exist in Nigeria \[Image: X182\] Water Facility \[Image: X185\]Construction \[Image: X183\] of water points are constructed by non- \[Image: X186\]government actors of water points are self-supplied \[Image: X189\] 15% \[Image: X191\] of water points \[Image: X192\] 43% \[Image: X191\] of all water points are \[Image: X194\]boreholes \[Image: X219\]28 7% \[Image: X200\] of all publicly used \[Image: X201\] \[Image: X200\] of all publicly used water points have tariff \[Image: X201\]system in place \[Image: X179\]Status of Urban Water Utilities 30% \[Image: X191\] of the boreholes are \[Image: X196\]motorized \[Image: X221\] states have fully functional urban water utilities \[Image: X222\] Management of Publicly used Water Points \[Image: X178\] 11% \[Image: X191\] of motorized boreholes are solar \[Image: X197\]powered \[Image: X210\] \[Image: X209\] \[Image: X225\] 8% of urban water utilities’ consumers are metered \[Image: X226\] \[Image: X230\] \[Image: X179\]Status of Urban Water Utilities Public water utilities are currently producing water in only 28 out of 36 states, plus the federal capital territory. In 16 states, the public utilities are classified as functional, that is, consistently producing water, supplying to active consumers, and collecting user fees. of all taps fed by urban utilities’ supply are contaminated with E.coli \[Image: X232\] Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 \[Image: X176\] * * * Functionality of Water Systems in Nigeria \[Image: X245\] Up to 77% of publicly owned water points are functional, an eight-percentage point cumulative increase from 2018. There are only minor disparities across area of residences, ownership, usage, and water facility type. Functionality by Area of Residence Dependability of Public Water Systems in Nigeria \[Image: X246\] About 14% of water points are dependable with respect to their design and configuration, 59% are dependable with respect to their functionality and only 11% are dependable with respect to their operation and maintenance. * * * Adequacy of Water Systems in Nigeria \[Image: X275\] In rural areas, the average per capita share of drinking water is 9litres/person/day. Only 19% of the population are using water supply systems in rural areas that meet the adequacy threshold of providing “sufficient” quantities of water or a minimum of 16 liters of water per person per day for those living within 500 meters from the water system. Per Capita Share of Water by Population Served Per Capita Share of Water by Geopolitical Zones (liters/person/day) 11 11 Per Capita Share of Water by Population Served Notes: • “Snapped” water facilities refers to systems that are not contributing to per capita share due to non- • “Snapped” water facilities refers to systems that are not contributing to per capita share due to nonfunctionality • “Stressed” water facilities are systems that are serving more than three times the population they should • “Stressed” water facilities are systems that are serving more than three times the population they should serve and providing less than 5 liters per capita share • “Stretched” water facilities are systems that are serving about twice the population they should serve and • “Stretched” water facilities are systems that are serving about twice the population they should serve and providing between 5 and 12 liters in per capita share • “Suitable” systems meet the prescribed per capita share in line with National Standards and providing between • “Suitable” systems meet the prescribed per capita share in line with National Standards and providing between 12 and 16 liters in per capita share • “Sufficient” water facilities are systems meeting the per capita share of 16 liters and above Map Showing the Per Capita Share of Water across Nigeria \[Image: X277\] \[Image: X276\] Per capita share of water supply across the country. Dark blue areas represent high levels of per capita share while dark orange areas represent low levels of per capita share * * * Status of Water Quality in Households in Nigeria \[Image: X279\] About 70% of drinking water at source and point of consumption within households are contaminated with E.coli. Rural dwellers are exposed to more contaminated drinking water than urban dwellers. Quality of Drinking Water at the Source (All Sources) Proportion of uncontaminated drinking water at source by area of residence Quality of Improved Drinking Water Sources More than half of all improved drinking water sources are contaminated \[Image: X285\] \[Image: X284\] \[Image: X283\] Point of Consumption Moderate (1 - 10 per 100ml) Very High (>100 per 100ml) E. Coli Load at Water Source and Point of Consumption About a third of all drinking water both at the source and within the household contain very high E. Coli concentrations \[Image: X282\] \[Image: X281\] \[Image: X280\] Proportion of Uncontaminated Improved Drinking Water Sources by Household’s Facility type Organoleptic Test at Drinking Water Source Organoleptic Test at Point of Consumption * * * Access to Basic Sanitation Services \[Image: X301\] \[Image: X300\] About 46% of the population have access to basic sanitation services, while 23% of Nigerians continue to practice open defecation. In comparison to 2019 WASHNORM data, there has been little progress in the achievement of universal access to basic sanitation services. have access to basic sanitation services Trends in the use of Basic Sanitation Services (2018 – 2021) Access to Basic Sanitation Services by Area of Residence \[Image: X303\]Rural 39% Urban 59% \[Image: X305\] \[Image: X305\] \[Image: X297\] \[Image: X298\] Trends in Open Defecation (2018 – 2021) Executive Summary \[Image: X294\] * * * \[Image: X317\]Equity in Access to Sanitation Services Access to Basic Sanitation Services by Geopolitical Zones Access to Basic Sanitation Services by Wealth Quintiles Open Defecation by Geopolitical Zones \[Image: X319\] Access to Sanitation Services by Education of Household Head (Literate vs. Non-Literate) Access to Sanitation Services by Gender of Head of Household 52% Access to Sanitation Services by Households with Persons Living with Disabilities Open Defecation by Households with Persons Living with Disabilities * * * \[Image: X355\]Equity in Access to Sanitation Services Access to Basic Sanitation Service \[Image: X333\] Access to Basic Sanitation Service \[Image: X333\] \[Image: X332\] Prevalence of Open Defecation in Nigeria \[Image: X335\] \[Image: X334\] \[Image: X332\] \[Image: X334\] Access to Sanitation Services and Open Defecation by State \[Image: X336\] Access to Basic Sanitation Services by State Open Defecation by State Notes: \[Image: X340\]Based on WHO/UNICEF JMP definitions. \[Image: X339\] \[Image: X338\] \[Image: X342\] \[Image: X341\] • Basic Sanitation Services are improved facilities which are not shared with other households \[Image: X346\] \[Image: X345\] \[Image: X344\] \[Image: X344\] \[Image: X339\] \[Image: X338\] • Safely Managed Services are improved facilities which are not shared with other households and where excretes are safely emptied and treated \[Image: X343\] \[Image: X342\] \[Image: X341\] \[Image: X344\] \[Image: X347\] \[Image: X344\] • Unimproved Sanitation Services are pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines or buckets latrines \[Image: X351\] \[Image: X350\] \[Image: X349\] \[Image: X349\] • Open Defecation is disposal of human feces in fields, forests, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches, and other open space \[Image: X354\] \[Image: X353\] \[Image: X352\] * * * Hygiene Practices in Nigeria \[Image: X361\] \[Image: X360\] About 17% of household members have access to basic hygiene services, this is a marginal increase of one percentage point when compared with 2019 WASHNORM figures. 17% Trends in the use of Basic Hygiene Services by Area of Residence Households have access to basic hygiene services Access to Basic Hygiene Services by \[Image: X363\] Area of Residence Access to Basic Hygiene Services by Education of Household Head (Literate vs non-Literate) Access to Basic Hygiene Services by \[Image: X385\]Geopolitical Zones Access to Basic Hygiene Services by Households with Persons Living with Disabilities Heads of households have knowledge of at least 2 critical \[Image: X370\]times for handwashing Access to Basic Hygiene Services by Wealth Quintiles Access to Basic Hygiene Services by Gender of Head of Household \[Image: X368\]Knowledge and Practice of Handwashing Heads of households demonstrated proper handwashing with water \[Image: X389\]and soap under running water * * * Access to Basic Hygiene Services by State \[Image: X404\] Area Value Map for Access to Basic Hygiene Services in Nigeria \[Image: X395\] \[Image: X394\] \[Image: X394\] People in Rivers State (41%) are 20 times more likely to have access to basic hygiene services than people in Edo State at 2%. Distribution of basic hygiene services across the country. Dark purple areas represent a high level of service, while light purple areas represent low level of service Based on WHO/UNICEF JMP definitions. \[Image: X393\] \[Image: X392\] \[Image: X391\] \[Image: X391\] • Limited Hygiene Services where handwashing facility is available \[Image: X400\]on premises without soap and water \[Image: X399\] \[Image: X398\] \[Image: X401\] \[Image: X391\] • Basic Hygiene Services where handwashing facility is available on premises and with soap and water \[Image: X393\] \[Image: X397\] \[Image: X391\] \[Image: X398\] \[Image: X398\] • No Facility where there is no handwashing facility \[Image: X403\] \[Image: X402\] \[Image: X401\] No Facility where there is no handwashing facility on premises \[Image: X403\] \[Image: X402\] \[Image: X401\] * * * WASH in Schools \[Image: X409\] \[Image: X408\] Only 11% of schools have basic water supply, sanitation, and hygiene services. At 18%, schools in urban areas are about twice as likely to have access to basic water supply, sanitation, and hygiene services than schools in the rural areas at 7%. Schools have access to basic water supply, basic sanitation, and hygiene services \[Image: X417\] Trends in Access to Basic WASH Services in Schools ACCESS TO BASIC WATER SUPPLY AND BASIC \[Image: X427\]SANITATION SERVICES ACCESS TO BASIC SANITATION AND BASIC \[Image: X429\]HYGIENE SERVICES ACCESS TO BASIC WATER SUPPLY AND BASIC HYGIENE \[Image: X427\]SERVICES Primary schools are more disadvantaged in access to basic water and sanitation services than secondary schools. Schools in the South-south and North-west are more likely to have access to basic water and sanitation services compare to other regions of the country. 3.4% Access to Basic Water and Sanitation Services in Schools by Type Access to Basic Water and Sanitation Services in Schools by Geopolitical Zones \[Image: X412\] These are schools with useable improved toilet/latrines with separate blocks for males and females, available at all times during school days and has facilities for handwashing and menstrual hygiene management \[Image: X413\] * * * Access to Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Services in Schools \[Image: X442\] Less than half of all schools in Nigeria have access to basic water supply, sanitation, and hygiene services. Schools in urban areas are more like to have access to basic WASH services than schools in the rural areas, while secondary schools have more access than primary schools. \[Image: X454\] Schools have basic water supply services that are accessible to pupils/students living with disabilities 19% Disparities in Access to Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene \[Image: X443\] Services in Schools Access to Basic Water Supply Services in Schools by Type Access to Basic Sanitation Services in Schools by Type 89% \[Image: X455\] Schools dispose of their solid waste properly Access to Basic Hygiene Services in Schools by Type * * * WASH in Health Facilities \[Image: X465\] \[Image: X464\] Only 6% of health care facilities have basic water supply, sanitation, and hygiene services. At 10%, health care facilities in urban areas are twice as likely to have access to basic water supply, sanitation, and hygiene services than health care facilities in the rural areas. Health care facilities have access to basic water supply sanitation and hygiene services Trends in Access to Basic WASH Services in Health Care Facilities ACCESS TO BASIC WATER SUPPLY AND BASIC \[Image: X485\]SANITATION SERVICES ACCESS TO BASIC SANITATION AND BASIC \[Image: X487\]HYGIENE SERVICES Disparities in Access to Water and Sanitation Services in Health Care Facilities \[Image: X466\] Primary Health Facilities are more disadvantaged in access to basic water and sanitation services than secondary facilities. Access to basic water and sanitation services is generally low across all geopolitical zones. \[Image: X471\]Prevalence of Diarrhoeal Disease Households had at least one member who suffered diarrhoea in the past 2 weeks preceding \[Image: X479\] the survey \[Image: X473\] of Hospital records of all sick reports are diarrhoea cases \[Image: X472\] * * * Access to Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Services in Health Facilities \[Image: X501\] More than half of health facilities in Nigeria have basic water supply services, 1 in 10 (12%) health facilities have access to basic sanitation services and nearly one-third of health facilities have access to basic hygiene services. Health facilities in rural areas are more disadvantaged in access to WASH Services than their counterparts in urban areas. 59% \[Image: X504\] Health Facilities have basic water supply services \[Image: X505\] Health Facilities have basic sanitation services \[Image: X507\] 12% \[Image: X517\] \[Image: X509\]30% Health Facilities have basic \[Image: X510\]hygiene services 32% Health facilities have improved water supply facility within the premises that are accessible to persons living with disabilities 15% \[Image: X515\] 47% 30% \[Image: X502\]WASH in Health Care Facilities 24% Access to Basic Water Supply Services in Health Facilities by Type Access to Basic Sanitation Services in Health Facilities by Type Access to Basic Hygiene Services in Health Facilities by Type \[Image: X500\] \[Image: X500\] Health facilities have their garbage/waste separated into at least three labelled bins in the consultation areas and safely disposed * * * WASH in Markets and Motor Parks \[Image: X526\] \[Image: X525\] Only 4% of markets and motor parks have basic water supply, sanitation, and services. At 7%, markets and motor parks in urban areas are four times more likely to have access to basic water supply, sanitation, and hygiene services than those in rural areas. Markets/Motor parks have access to basic water supply sanitation and hygiene services Trends in Access to Basic WASH Services in Markets/Motor Parks ACCESS TO BASIC WATER SUPPLY AND BASIC \[Image: X540\]SANITATION SERVICES ACCESS TO BASIC SANITATION AND BASIC \[Image: X542\]HYGIENE SERVICES Access to Basic Water and Sanitation Services in Markets/Motor Parks by \[Image: X528\]Geopolitical Zones Access to Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene Services in Markets/Motor Parks \[Image: X529\] Markets/Motor Parks have basic water supply services \[Image: X530\] 33% \[Image: X532\] About one-third of the markets and motor parks in Nigeria have basic water supply services, 1 in 5 have access to basic sanitation services and only 8 per cent have access to basic hygiene services. Markets and Motor parks in rural areas are more disadvantaged in access to WASH services than their counterparts in urban areas. 20% \[Image: X533\] 20% 20% \[Image: X554\] Markets and Motor Parks have basic water supply services that are accessible to persons living with disabilities * * * Household Expenditure on WASH \[Image: X571\] \[Image: X570\] Households in Nigeria spent approximately ₦3.4 trillion or $8.5 billion annually, on water, sanitation, and hygiene services in 2019 and 2020 (the two years recall period covered by the WASH Account Survey). ₦3.4 Trillion $8.5 Billion is spent by households on is spent by households on water, sanitation, and hygiene services annually - At a working exchange rate of ₦400 to $1 Breakdown by Sector \[Image: X572\] Breakdown by Service Type (in Naira) \[Image: X573\] * * * # Background and Introduction * * * BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE WASH SECTOR 1.1.1 Impacts of Poor Access to WASH Services E quitable access to climate-resilient, safely managed, and quality water supply, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services is a basic human right. To ensure duty-bearers uphold this right, the ESDGs assigned WASH its specific goal and targets as WASH is a critical factor in achieving the other SDGs. Over the years, the indices for WASH in Nigeria have remained poor with notable regional and socio-economic disparity. Although government has attempted to address some of the systemic issues encumbering efficient service delivery, poor investment in the sector continues to impede desired outcomes. Other issues affecting progress in the sector include national and sub-national structure for WASH service delivery, WASH sector institutional structural and governance models, a weak social welfare system in the country, which has contributed to poverty predominantly in the rural areas. The acceptable standard of access to adequate WASH services stipulates that an individual should have sufficient and potable water supply, appropriate, safe and secure sanitation facilities, and available handwashing equipment with soap and water for use. In the absence of any of this range of services, undesirable health issues coupled with stunted or struggling developmental outcomes (social, economic and environmental) becomes a consequence. In the long run, quality of life is affected as well-being, and the human rights of people are impacted. \[Image: X586\]Over the decades, it has been clearly established that water supply, sanitation and health are closely knit. Therefore, the absence or limited access to WASH services results in serious health issues that can result in fatalities from preventable diseases amongst the poorest in any given community, with women and children being the most vulnerable and the most affected. Specifically, contaminated water when consumed may result in water-borne diseases including viral hepatitis, typhoid, cholera, dysentery and other diseases that cause diarrhoea \[Image: X586\]drinking water supplies that contain high amounts of certain chemicals (like arsenic and nitrates) can cause serious disease. \[Image: X586\]water-based diseases and water-related vector-borne diseases can result from water supply projects (including dams and irrigation structures) that inadvertently provide habitats for mosquitoes and snails that are intermediate hosts of parasites that cause malaria, schistosomiasis, lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis and Japanese encephalitis \[Image: X586\]drinking water supplies that contain high amounts of certain chemicals (like arsenic and nitrates) * * * Subsequently, the limited access to comprehensive WASH services serves as a petri-dish for recurrent diarrhoea and other WASH-related illnesses among under-fives, resulting in malnutrition and other developmental challenges. The availability of complete WASH services (safely managed and accessible water supply; clean and safe sanitation facilities; hand hygiene facilities at points of care and at toilets; and appropriate waste disposal systems) in healthcare facilities is a priority, yet this is not always the case in some health care facilities in the country. This gap places healthcare workers, and the community at large are at increased risk of acquiring infections. Most significantly, it can contribute to undesirable maternal, infant and child outcomes Schools are another environment where WASH services are in dire need. Some WASH interventions have used schools as entry points for improved water supply and sanitation facilities and for hygiene social mobilization communication. However, access to and the adequacy of WASH services remains a constraint in most schools. Reports have documented that these challenges have served as barriers to enrolment, retainment, performance and completion among school children (Esteves Mills & Cumming, 2016). Pertinent to mention is that limited access to WASH exposes vulnerable groups—mostly women, girls and school children—directly to violence, child abuse and psychological trauma. Other outcomes of poor WASH services include high spending on healthcare expenditure, reduced productive capacity, and even premature deaths caused by WASH-related diseases due to poor water, sanitation, and hygiene. ## 1.1.2 Status of WASH Services in Nigeria before the 2021 NORM Survey The overall outlook of the WASH sector indices is still below the desired progress towards the SDGs in Nigeria. Before the WASHNORM 2021 survey, the findings from the 2019 WASHNORM surveys showed that access to basic WASH services in the country stood at only 10%, while only 6% of health facilities and 16% of schools had basic water and sanitation services (FMWR & NBS, 2019). Furthermore, 68% or 62 million people did not have access to basic water supply services, while 27% or 51 million people depended on unsafe water sources such as rivers, unprotected wells, springs, and ponds. Open defecation constitutes a drawback to the country's attainment of an open defecation free society as 47 million Nigerians defecate in the open. With this data, Nigeria is the number one country in Africa and among the top two globally, with the largest number of people practising open defecation. Access to sufficient and potable water free from pathogen contaminations in households is a challenge. WASHNORM 2019 findings showed that 9 out of 10 families (91%) consume faecal-contaminated drinking water at home (NBS; UNICEF, 2019). Similarly, just 3% of the population in rural areas have access to a minimum of 12 liters of water per person per day (FMWR & NBS, 2019). Meanwhile, 81% of Nigerians do not have access to safely managed sanitation facilities with proper sewerage systems, where faecal sludge is safely disposed of and properly treated. 79% of the population do not have proper handwashing facilities to enable them to practice good hygiene, which minimizes contamination of drinking water in households. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Background and Introduction National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * Inefficiency in management and continued dependency on external financing of water services continues to plague the provision of climate-resilient, adequate and safely managed WASH services across the country. To this end, functionality is affected; hence most water points experience incessant breakdown resulting from poor operation and maintenance of facilities. Evidence from the 2019 WASHNORM showed that an estimated 31% of all publicly used water schemes in Nigeria were nonfunctional. The same report also showed that slightly more than one in five water facilities broke down in their first year of operations, while more than half of public facilities did not have community WASH management systems in place. Furthermore, 1 in 3 do not have arrangements for water point facility caretakers, and Only 6% of public water systems are dependable with respect to their operations and maintenance system. Disparity is also noticed between the functionality of public and privately-owned, used and managed water systems. Privately owned water systems are about two times more dependable with respect to their design, configuration and systems' functionality than public water systems. The importance of improved access to safely managed water, sanitation and hygiene services has been greatly magnified as the world contends with the COVID-19 pandemic. According to WHO, some 827,000 people in low- and middle-income countries die as a result of inadequate water, sanitation, and hygiene each year, representing 60% of total diarrhoea deaths. The report further states that poor sanitation is believed to be the main cause in some 432,000 of these deaths and that diarrhoea remains a major killer despite being largely preventable2. Most often than not, the undesirable consequences of these limitations are borne by the most economically disadvantaged in communities, especially women and children. The 2019 WASHNORM reports indicated disparities in access to WASH services between urban and rural dwellers, between wealth quintiles and across geographical zones and states in the country. The WASH services deprivation is about two times more in rural areas than in urban areas, and people in the poorest quintile are ten times less likely to have access to basic WASH services than people in the richest quintile. A general pattern observed in the report is that the farther the location is from the administrative and commercial nerve centre of the state, the more they are deprived of adequate WASH services. Furthermore, insecurity in the North, climate change associated emergencies across the country and other exigencies further limit access of people affected to WASH services. # 1.1.3 Situational Analysis of the WASH Sector ## 1.1.3.1 Sector Governance and Institutional Challenges Over the past couple of years, the WASH sector in Nigeria has witnessed changes in governance in respect of creating enabling environment, evidence generation, policy changes roll out of innovative strategies and behavioural change campaigns. This has happened in the face of institutional, financing, coordination, monitoring and implementation challenges, among others. Efforts are currently being made on decentralization to the sub-national levels, although systems and mechanisms remain constrained consequent upon the challenges mentioned above. Additional issues still being improved upon in the [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/sanitation](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/sanitation) Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Background and Introduction National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 sector include insufficient human resource capacity, poor stakeholder engagement, particularly at the sub-national level, inadequate budgetary allocation and release, and limited investment mobilization across the board in the country. State Water Agencies (SWAs) responsible for establishing, operating and maintaining urban and semi-urban water supplies are still saddled with legal and regulatory restraints coupled with limited capacity and financial autonomy to cater for the urban population. Despite developing the WASH sector Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) framework and establishing the WASHNORM with its extensive data repository, some gaps remain in the overall monitoring framework at the programme level. Additionally, the application and utilization of data for sector planning across national and sub-national levels require strengthening. ## 1.1.3.2 Nigeria's Visioning and Strategies to Achieve the SDGs 6 The vision of the Government of Nigeria (GoN) is strongly aligned with the SDGs and aims to eradicate open defecation by 2025 and achieve universal access to equitable and sustainable basic WASH services by 2030. Government responses to date have contributed to widespread interest and momentum in the sector at different levels and by different stakeholders. Commitments to improving WASH services in the country have increased since the ratification of the SDGs, through key interventions to boost the WASH enabling environment and improve sector policy gaps, governance, coordination and accountability challenges, including the launching of the Partnership for Expanded WASH (PEWASH) strategy, the National Open Defecation Free (ODF) Roadmap (2016); National WASH Sector Revitalization Action Plan (2018), the Presidential Declaration of the State of Emergency in 2018; and the National ODF campaign - 'Clean Nigeria: Use the Toilet' Campaign in 2019. These initiatives are currently being implemented. To boost institutional capacities and WASH service delivery, Nigeria has also institutionalized proven approaches and strategies at the national level. Key among them are the Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS), Village Level Operation Maintenance (VLOM), WASH Committees (WASHCOMs), Water Safety Planning (WSP), Rural Drinking Water Quality Monitoring and Surveillance (RDWQMS), and Revised Harmonized Procurement and Contracts Management Guidelines. The necessary political and administrative instruments and well-established coordination mechanisms are currently being created or strengthened to facilitate the transformation of existing initiatives into realities at state and local levels. There has been significant progress in scaling up data availability within the sector due to the institutionalization of the WASH information management system (WASHIMS) and the WASH National Outcome Routine Monitoring (WASHNORM). However, there is still a great need to consolidate these gains through continuous and consistent effort to institutionalize and scale up the use of evidence for Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Background and Introduction National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 systematic sector reviews and planning and to inform decision making and budgeting in the sector both at the national and the sub-national levels. The commitment to achieve sustainable WASH, exhibited at the highest level of government, presents fertile ground for promoting reform strategies and effecting real change in the sector. However, these commitments need to be adopted, replicated and sustained at sub-national levels and across critical ministries where WASH implementation takes place to ensure Nigeria achieves its WASH goals. 1.1.3.3 Sector Budgeting and Financing Needs Figure 1: Per capita cot of achieving the SDG 6 To achieve safely managed WASH services under the SDG 6.1 and 6.2, Nigeria must invest up to 2.7% of its current GDP or US$10 billion annually. About half of this investment is needed from the public sector and will mostly target WASH capital expenditure to expand services. Significant contributions from households, communities and private businesses are needed in the rural WASH sector, despite low family incomes and poor subsidies in rural areas3 (FMWR, 2016). The national budget allocations for WASH have remained inadequate over the years, failing to meet required financing needs and targets to provide services to the unserved and maintain existing services. Only about 0.42% of the GDP was invested in the sector between 2006 and 2010 (WHO, 2014). The estimated proportion of Government WASH budget for 2013, 2016 and 2018 was 0.15%, 0.16% and 0.14%, respectively. Thus, the government will need to invest at least 8 times its current WASH budget and expenditure annually to achieve the SDGs. * * * # 1.2 THE 2021 m,NORM SURVEY ## 1.2.1 About the WASH NORM Survey The National Outcome Routine Mapping of WASH services level in Nigeria (WASHNORM) is designed to provide a reliable and comprehensive view of the WASH sector to inform national WASH policy reform and support evidence-based decision making, investment mobilization and planning. WASHNORM was borne out of the need for better capacity to collect and use WASH data routinely to monitor and evaluate the ambitious and data-intensive SDG 6 indicators and track national and regional WASH commitments. It is part of the efforts of the GoN to improve data management, availability of information, monitoring and learning mechanism in the sector to strengthen the WASH sector's enabling environment for improved WASH service delivery. WASHNORM is a routine, standardized national household- and facility-based survey which collects a wide range of WASH data, including internationally accepted WASH indicators, to effectively track and monitor changes in access to and quality of WASH services. The survey provides statistically sound estimates on WASH services levels for households, communities, health and education institutions, as well as user's perception, satisfaction and knowledge of the quality and service levels of their WASH services. By so doing, the NORM threads together WASH access and consumer behaviours, making it the first of its kind, designed to address both the supply and demand side of the sector at the national level in Nigeria. Another major strength of the NORM is that it provides indicators to track proxies for the sustainability of WASH systems. Key among them are dependability, adequacy and functionality indicators. By providing these additional indicators, WASH NORM gives a more in-depth perspective of the status of WASH in the country to inform intricate and sustainable evidence-based decision-making and planning of WASH policies and interventions. It also captures relevant dimensions of inequalities that must be addressed to achieve the SDGs on WASH. These include tracking WASH access for different population sub-groups, including families from different economic status, literacy levels, residential areas, people living with disabilities and children, thus making room for equitable planning towards achieving universality and equity in WASH policies, programmes and service delivery. In May 2019, the report for the first WASHNORM conducted in 2018 was launched. The scale and scope of the survey earned it a place as the most comprehensive and wide-ranging WASH survey ever implemented in the country. Decisions were then made to ensure the WASHNORM serves as the standard tool for accessing data on WASH to inform policy formulation and decisions, interpretation, programming and the implementation of interventions for service delivery. Additionally, duty bearers opined that the survey results provided insights into Nigeria's progress towards achievement of the SDGs. Consequently, an Intervention Profiling tool was developed, enabling the use of WASHNORM data for sector-wide planning, perspective-based priority setting, and effective resource mobilization. The Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Background and Introduction National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 government has now included the conduct of the WASHNORM in the annual WASH budget and set aside resources to conduct the survey on a routine basis, further institutionalizing it into the WASH sector system. ## 1.2.2 WASHNORM 2021 – A Brief Overview Following the launch of NORM 2019, preparation for WASHNORM 2021 commenced in December of 2020. A technical working group meeting was convened comprising officers from the FMWR, NBS, UNICEF, and other key stakeholders. Key responsibilities of the team were to review the experience of conduct and launch of WASHNORM 2019, review the WASHNORM survey tools, prepare the budget and mobilize resources for the conduct of WASHNORM 2021 and finalize the modalities for field data collection, including data analysis and report writing. While the challenges and limitations in the conduct and implementation of WASHNORM 2019 were taken into consideration and addressed. No major modifications were made to the scope or survey tools for WASHNORM 2021, except for the inclusion of a few questions to the household module on COVID 19 and the separation of the listing process from the data collection phase in urban utilities mapping. These slight additions and refinements were made to improve the urban utilities survey and maintain the standard and comprehensiveness achieved in WASHNORM 2019. Overall, the WASHNORM 2021 is comparable to the NORM 2018 and 2019 as sampling and data collection approaches were largely consistent, and household and institutional survey instruments and the topics covered by each module remained unchanged. Now in its third edition, the WASHNORM has greater potential to monitor and inform intervention tracking, commitments and corrective actions, planning and resource allocation, and contribute to better accountability by policymakers and sector stakeholders. The incredible depth of data reported under the WASHNORM 2021 is set to provide the country with the insight required to accelerate progress towards achieving national and global WASH targets as set out in the National ODF roadmap, the PEWASH strategy, the National WASH sector revitalization plan and the SDGs. ## 1.2.3 Objectives of the WASHNORM 2021 Survey The broad objectives of the WASH NORM 2019are to: Make available up-to-date data to support management decision-making and facilitate sector- wide planning and implementation. Provide and publish routine updates on progress of key sector outcome indicators to inform programming and drive performance improvement in WASH services delivery. Serve as a reference dashboard for systematic monitoring of progress towards attaining key sector goals and targets. Serve as a basis for an iterative definition of sector priorities and targets to plan and coordinate interventions and support. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Background and Introduction National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * Provide disaggregated data towards addressing structural and systemic deprivations and inequities in the distribution of WASH services. Contribute data input for growing the WASH Information Management System and sector databank. Build capacity of WASH institutions at all levels to institute systematic monitoring and tracking of WASH results and outcomes. Promote sector marketability and provide the basis for developing state-wide WASH investment plans. Institute government-led evidence generation, knowledge management and sector learning. Understand the pathways for WASH expenditure and funding Promote equitability, governance, accountability, value for money and overall sector sustainability through enhanced monitoring of funding allocation, financing strategies and funding commitments made by sector actors ## 1.2.4 The WASHNORM 2021 Coordination Structure The WASHNORM 2021 was principally funded by the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Federal Ministry of Water Resources (FMWR), while the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) provided technical oversight for field data collection, analysis and report writing. UNICEF, African Development Bank and World Bank provided financial and technical support and critical members of the technical working group. A team of more than 500 personnel worked on WASHNORM 2021, including staff and resource persons from FMWR; and data collectors, analysts and processing specialists from the network of NBS offices across the country while specialists from UNICEF provided technical support and coordinated the process. A critical mass drawn from multi-stakeholder entities contributed specific expertise in the design and implementation of WASHNORM 2021. Below are specific roles played by stakeholders. **The FMWR is the overall lead for the development, resource mobilization and institutionalization** of this system. As the main users of the survey results, the leadership of the FMWR was also instrumental in the design and analysis of the WASHNORM 2021 and aided in supporting the monitoring of fieldwork to provide extra quality support in the data collection. **The FMWR inaugurated the WASHNORM 2021 technical working group to provide advice** and support for the survey. The group provided broad support on the survey's goals, objectives, and technical issues and ensured that the survey results were accepted and used widely by other national institutions, especially in the health and education sector. Membership includes representatives from governmental and non-governmental institutions, donor agencies and international organizations. Smaller technical committees were organized and composed of mid-level staff from NBS, FMWR, UNICEF and other donor organizations, all of whom have expertise in a specific subject matter of the survey to provide input on different aspects of survey design, implementation and fieldwork, such as those created for the household WASH expenditure tracking and water utilities mapping exercise. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Background and Introduction National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * ## The NBS is the recognized government entity responsible for generating socio-economic statistics on all dimensions of development in Nigeria. To this end, the NBS once again assumed the overall responsibility for implementing the WASHNORM 2021, which includes conducting the field survey and providing technical support for the survey design, sampling and quality assurance. Leveraging its offices across the 36 states and the FCT, fieldwork for WASHNORM was seamlessly conducted. **The state and LGA WASH institutions served as sub-national level lead to ultimately** institutionalize the WASHNORM mechanism at the sub-national level. They also provided the bulk of the human resources required for the process. **UNICEF, World Bank, Africa Development Bank and donor partners** provided technical assistance at critical stages of survey design, planning and implementation. This ensured that survey procedures were consistent with globally accepted technical standards and that survey activities progressed on schedule. ## 1.2.5 Structure of the WASHNORM 2021 Report This report presents the national summary of findings of the 2021 WASHNORM and the implications of the survey results. The report is segmented into four chapters. The first chapter presents the introduction, background and rationale of the WASHNORM survey; the second chapter outlines the methodology adopted, while the third chapter provides a detailed illustration of findings drawn from the following six modules utilized to assess the overall status of WASH in the country: Module 1: Household access to WASH Services, which includes the household water quality assessments and household expenditure tracking module Module 2: Urban water utilities mapping and consumers' satisfaction survey Module 3: Mapping of water sources in communities Module 4: WASH in schools Module 5: WASH in health facilities Module 6: WASH in markets and motor parks (transportation hub) The fourth and final chapter lays out conclusions and implications of the WASHNORM 2021 findings. Key findings from the survey are delineated into 7 segments, with each segment outlining contents from modules in the survey. The report also presents the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of households in the country. The sections on household access to WASH services presents the status of drinking water in the household, sanitation and hygiene services. The inequality in access to WASH between geopolitical zones, states, sub-sectors, genders, and juxtaposes findings with demographic and socio-economic status. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Background and Introduction National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * Other WASH parameters presented in this section include the overall status of the services households utilize to access quality drinking water in the household, household’s satisfaction levels with respect to the status and quality of their WASH services, and highlights issues of adequacy, accessibility, operations and maintenance, affordability, functionality of services, and dependability of WASH services at household and community level. The report also dedicates a section to present the status of water supply sources and quality of water services in Nigeria, water utilities mapping, and consumer satisfaction survey results. Other components of the section include a summary of the status of WASH in institutions and public places and, finally, the WASH Account module. Findings on WASH Account 2020 included in this report are limited to the household WASH expenditure results. A more detailed report of WASH Accounts for 2020 is presented in a separate report. Across the report, key findings will be compared to the NORM 2019 and 2018 results. This report concludes by presenting the implications of the survey results, while the annexe tables provide further details of the data covered in the main body of the report. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Background and Introduction National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * # Methodical Approach * * * METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH T he WASHNORM survey is an indicator-based survey that provides systematic data on access, use and quality of WASH services through two broad approaches: household-based assessment and Tfacility-based assessment. Facility-based, in this context, means water facilities in urban and rural areas, and WASH facilities in public and private education and health care institutions, and public places, specifically, markets and motor parks. The WASHNORM 2021 was conducted in all 36 states and the FCT using a multi-stage survey design covering rural and urban households. The survey sample was designed to assess WASH services across the following domains and groups: 1. National level 2. State level 3. Geopolitical Zones 4. Areas of Residence – Urban, rural, peri-urban, small towns and itinerant communities 5. Household wealth quintiles 6. Socio-demographic characteristics of Households – Gender and Education 7. Persons living with disabilities 2.1 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY This section provides an overview of the sampling methodology used by the WASHNORM 2021 survey to assess all modules. 2.1.1 Sampling and Selection of Households and Water Facilities For the WASHNORM frame, 200 EAs were randomly selected from 20 independent replicates within the sampling frame list of the NISH, with each replicate containing 10 EAs. Five EAs were drawn (with equal probability) from each LGA across the 36 states and the FCT. Four replicates containing 40 EAs each were studied in 34 states and the FCT. In Lagos and Kano, 40 EAs were studied in each senatorial 2.1.1.1 Selection of Enumeration Areas district, giving a total of 120 EAs for each of the two states. The total number of EAs covered was 1,640 EAs in all 36 states plus the FCT. 2.1.1.2 Listing Exercise In order to implement the WASHNORM 2021, a national listing exercise of households and water points was conducted. The listing exercise is a key step in implementing the WASHNORM 2021 and is generally aimed at obtaining an accurate and nationally representative list of households and water facilities from which the households survey sampling is based. The listing exercise was used to locate, identify and update EA boundaries, features and descriptions in the sketch maps. The exercise also aided in calculating the sampling weight at the state and national levels for the estimation of the WASHNORM 2021 indicators to reduce bias in sampling. A comprehensive listing was carried out across the 36 states, and FCT, Abuja and a total of 1,640 EAs were covered nationally. Figure 2 below shows the distribution of households listed across 1,640 EAs for WASHNORM 2021 survey. Table 2: Distribution of households listed by geographical zones | S/N | Geographical Zone | | --- | --- | | 1 | North Central | | 2 | North East | | 3 | North West | | 4 | South East | | 5 | South South | | 6 | South West | | | Household Listed | | --- | --- | | | 8,417 | | | 9,010 | | | 13,990 | | | 5,445 | | | 9,082 | | | 9,593 | All water points within an EA were listed to generate the following information: General characteristics/features of the water points, access to facility, facility management, water quality status, sanitation inspection and GPS coordinate. Figure 3 below shows the distribution of water points listed across the 1,640 EAs for the WASHNORM 2021. Methodical Approach * * * Table 3: Distribution of water points listed by geopolitical zones | S/N | Geographical Zone | | --- | --- | | 1 | North Central | | 2 | North East | | 3 | North West | | 4 | South East | | 5 | South South | | 6 | South West | | | Water Point Listed | | --- | --- | | | 638 | | | 401 | | | 844 | | | 692 | | | 776 | | | 1215 | Due to the criticality of the listing exercise to the overall survey estimates, a two-level training model was adopted to ensure that capacities of all resources persons and coordinators were well-built to conduct the exercise. This included the Training of Trainers (TOT) at the NBS headquarters and Training of Enumerators at the states. The National Bureau of Statistics engaged all state officers within the 36 states and FCT to support the training and field exercise, while 12 coordinators from NBS and one RUWASSA desk officer also provided some technical support in the area of monitoring and management of the process. The fieldwork for the listing exercise was carried out nationwide by a total of 410 field staff and lasted for 15 days. 2.1.1.3 Selection of Households for WASH Services and Water Quality Assessments 2.1.1.4 Selection of Household Respondents A sample of 15 households per EA was selected systematically using computerized spreadsheets; 600 households were canvassed in each of the 34 states and FCT, giving a total of 21,000 households, while 1,800 households each were canvassed in Lagos and Kano, giving a grand total of 24,600 households for all 36 states and the FCT to be surveyed. 8,200 households were selected out of the 24,600 households using a systematic approach across the states for water quality tests. Five households were selected for water quality tests in each of the selected EAs, giving a total of 200 households per state and FCT, except Lagos and Kano state with a total of 600 households for water quality test. A sixth household was also systematically selected to provide a negative control test as quality control check on the integrity of the microbial drinking water quality data collected by the analysts. 8,200 households were selected out of the 24,600 households using a systematic approach across the states for water quality tests. Five households were selected for water quality tests in each of the selected EAs, giving a total of 200 households per state and FCT, except Lagos and Kano state with a total of 600 households for water quality test. A sixth household was also systematically selected to provide a negative control test as quality control check on the integrity of the microbial drinking water quality data * * * \[Image: X600\]The head of the household \[Image: X600\]The main decision-maker \[Image: X600\]The most knowledgeable about the health and WASH of the household, including usage, maintenance, expenditures, utilization. 2.1.2 Sampling and Selection of Institutions and Public Places 2.1.2.1 Educational Facilities A comprehensive list of primary and secondary schools was collated from a current list developed and compiled by the Federal Ministry of Education to obtain the sampling frames for schools. This served as the sampling frame for educational facilities. A total of 2,050 primary and secondary schools were covered across the country, which was based on the outcome of a statistical formula with the following parameters: 1. Population size of 76,443 primary and secondary schools 2. Estimated variation based on 2018 NORM of 12.7% using the Basic Hygiene indicator 3. A 2% Margin of error 4. A 95% confidence interval 5. A 90% response rate. An average of 50 schools were listed and mapped in each state and FCT, Abuja. Systematic random sampling was used to select schools to be mapped to ensure adequate representativeness of the samples within the state. 2.1.2.2 Health Facilities A comprehensive list of healthcare facilities was collated from the list developed and compiled by the Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) to obtain the sampling frames for health facilities. A total of 1,312 health facilities were sampled across the country, and the sample size was determined using a statistical formula with the following parameters: 1. Population size of 21,808 PHCs (FMoH 2011) 2. Estimated variation based on 2018 NORM of 14.7% using the Basic Sanitation indicator 3. A 95% response rate 4. A 2% Margin of error 5. A 95% confidence interval * * * 2.1.2.3 Market Places and Motor parks The sampling frames for markets and motor parks were developed alongside the households listing exercise in each state and FCT, Abuja, whereby all markets and motor parks within the 1,640 enumeration areas were listed and mapped. A representative sample size was taken from the frame, and a systematic sampling approach was used to select for appropriate estimates. 2.1.3 Sampling of Urban Water Utilities’ Consumers A comprehensive list of urban water utilities was obtained from the Federal Ministry of Water Resources. For the utilities’ consumers’ satisfaction survey, 16 fully and 12 partially functional urban water utilities For the utilities’ consumers’ satisfaction survey, 16 fully and 12 partially functional urban water utilities from 28 states were studied nationwide, and the list of consumers served by each utility was obtained from the state water boards. The consumer list served as the sampling frame for the consumer satisfaction For the utilities’ consumers’ satisfaction survey, 16 fully and 12 partially functional urban water utilities from 28 states were studied nationwide, and the list of consumers served by each utility was obtained from the state water boards. The consumer list served as the sampling frame for the consumer satisfaction from the state water boards. The consumer list served as the sampling frame for the consumer satisfaction survey. A total of 200 households were selected from the list of consumers using a systematic random approach for adequate spread of sample points. 5,600 households served by the urban utilities were estimated to be covered across the 28 selected states. Table 4: Sampling summary for all modules covered | S/N | Survey Modules Covered | | --- | --- | | 1 | Household Survey | | 1a | Water Quality Assessments | | 1b | Household WASH Expenditure | | 2 | Water Source Mapping | | 3 | WASH in Educational Facilities | | 4 | WASH in Health Facilities | | 5 | WASH in Markets and Motor Parks | | 6 | Urban water Utilities | | | Sample Type | Estimated Samples to be Covered | Samples Assessed | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Households | 24,600 | 24,036 | | | Households | 8,200 | 8,078 | | | Facilities | 8,200 | 4,164 | | | Households | 24,600 | 24,036 | | | Water Facilities | 4,566 | 2,713 | | | Schools | 2,050 | 1,996 | | | Health facilities | 1,312 | 1,335 | | Markets/Motor Parks | Markets/Motor Parks | 1,640 | 1,220 | | Households | 5,600 | 5,641 | | * * * # 2.2 WASHNORM 2021 SURVEY TOOLS AND PARAMETERS The WASH WASHNORM 2021 cut across 6 modules to assess the overall status of WASH in the country: 1. Household access to WASH Services, which includes parameters for the water quality assessments and household WASH expenditure 2. Water utilities mapping and consumer satisfaction survey 3. Mapping of water sources in communities 4. WASH in schools 5. WASH in health facilities 6. WASH in markets and motor parks WASH WASHNORM 2021 used seven questionnaires for the data collection process: Households, Water Supply Infrastructure, Urban Water Utilities Mapping, Urban Water Utilities’ Consumer Survey, Schools, Health Facilities, and Public Places (Markets and Motor Parks). The survey included key measures adapted from the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) WHO/UNICEF Core Questions on Drinking Water and Sanitation for Household Surveys and WASH in Schools and Health Facilities and the MICS survey. Questions on household WASH expenditures were adapted from globally-accepted financial tracking methodologies developed by WHO GLAAS TrackFin and Nigeria’s Health Account. This ensured that all the key indicators and resulting data to be produced were comparable within Nigeria and across countries. The household questionnaire included parameters to assess household drinking water quality and household WASH expenditures. Also, a separate questionnaire was developed for the Urban Water Utilities’ Consumer Satisfaction Survey module to assess consumer access to and satisfaction levels with their urban water utilities services. This tool was put together in collaboration with technical consultants from the FMWR and the Urban Water Utilities Module sub-working group members. Table 4 provides the details of each of the questionnaires, while table 5 summarizes the number of parameters covered in WASHNORM 2021 and compares it with those covered in NORM 2018 and 2019. **Table 5: Key parameters assessed under the NORM 2021 modules** ## S/N Questionnaire Information Collected **1 Household** Household members and their personal details including age, **Questionnaire** sex, education, and relationship to the head of the household Details of head of household Dwelling unit and housing characteristics Satisfaction with public services Disease prevalence Safe disposal of feces Handwashing facilities Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Methodical Approach National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | S/N | Questionnaire | Information Collected | | --- | --- | --- | | | | ☐Water supply facilities | | 2 | Water Utilities | ☐General household information, | | Consumer | ☐Quality of water supply service | | | Satisfaction Survey | ☐Consumer satisfaction rating, | | | | ☐Redress mechanism | | | | ☐Water quality testing | | | 3 | Water point questionnaire | ☐General characteristics/features, including facility type, power source, ownership, availability, functionality, seasonality etc. | | | ☐Access to the facility | | | | ☐Facility management | | | | ☐Water quality status | | | | ☐Sanitary inspection | | | 4 | Health, Facilities, Questionnaire | ☐General facility information including type, ownership, functionality, number of workers employed, sick reports, in-patients. | | | ☐Sanitation facilities | | | | ☐Handwashing facilities | | | | ☐Waste Management Practices | | | | ☐Water Supply facilities | | | 5 | Educational Facilities Questionnaire | ☐General facility information including type, ownership, number of pupils, number of teachers employed, number of pupils living with disabilities, perimeter fencing, for school. | | | ☐Sanitation Facilities Used by Teachers and Pupils | | | | ☐Handwashing facilities | | | | ☐Waste Management Practices | | | | ☐Cleaning and maintenance budget | | | | ☐Water Supply | | | 6 | Public places questionnaire | ☐General facility information | | | ☐Market/motor park association | | | | ☐Management committee | | | | ☐Sanitation facilities | | | | ☐Water supply facilities | | | | ☐Handwashing facilities | | * * * Table 6: Total number of parameters covered per module | S/N | Survey Modules | MICS-V | | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Household Survey | 16 | | 1a | Water Quality Assessments | 10 | | 1b | Household WASH Expenditure | 0 | | 2 | Water Source Mapping | 0 | | 3 | WASH in Educational Facilities | 0 | | 4 | WASH in Health Facilities | 0 | | 5 | WASH in Markets and Motor Parks | 0 | | 6 | Urban Water Utilities Consumer Satisfaction Survey | 0 | | | TOTAL | 26 | \| NORM 2018 Parameters \| NORM 2019Parameters \| WASHNORM 2021 Parameters \| \| \-\-\- \| \-\-\- \| \-\-\- \| \| 108 \| 108 \| 113 \| \| 0 \| 9 \| 9 \| \| 0 \| 30 \| 30 \| \| 49 \| 57 \| 57 \| \| 47 \| 47 \| 47 \| \| 38 \| 38 \| 38 \| \| 29 \| 29 \| 29 \| \| 0 \| 55 \| 55 \| \| 271 \| 365 \| 378 \| 2.3 THE PRE-TEST AND PILOT TEST Pretesting of the survey instruments was conducted in Abuja. The pretest aimed to check for acceptability, length/administration time, understanding, order and structure of all the questionnaires and tools. Standardizing these qualities increases the validity and reliability of findings. Frames for EAs developed for the main survey and updated during the listing exercise were used as the sampling frames for selecting the EAs for the pre-test. Two EAs within Abuja were studied, covering both urban and rural settlements. The enumerators carried out a rapid household listing exercise households to be covered within each EA. Ten households were systematically selected in each EA, giving 20 households to be covered for the pre-test. Six public places and institutions were studied within Abuja; 2 schools (1 Primary and 1 Secondary), 2 health facilities (1 urban and 1 rural), and 2 public places (1 Motor park and 1 Market place). Ten enumerators were engaged to carry out the pre-test data collection, and a 1-day orientation was organized to train enumerators on the application of the survey Pretesting of the survey instruments was conducted in Abuja. The pretest aimed to check for acceptability, length/administration time, understanding, order and structure of all the questionnaires and tools. Standardizing these qualities increases the validity and reliability of findings. Frames for EAs developed for the main survey and updated during the listing exercise were used as the sampling frames for selecting the EAs for the pre-test. Two EAs within Abuja were studied, covering both urban and rural settlements. The enumerators carried out a rapid household listing exercise for easy selection of households to be covered within each EA. Ten households were systematically selected in each EA, giving 20 households to be covered for the pre-test. Six public places and institutions were studied within Abuja; 2 schools (1 Primary and 1 Secondary), 2 health facilities (1 urban and 1 rural), and 2 public places (1 Motor park and 1 Market place). Ten enumerators were engaged to carry out the pre-test data collection, and a 1-day orientation was organized to train enumerators on the application of the survey collection, and a 1-day orientation was organized to train enumerators on the application of the survey instruments. The following are the survey instrument that was pre-tested: Methodical Approach * * * 1. Household questionnaire 2. Educational questionnaire 3. Health facilities questionnaire 4. Public places (Motor park and Market) questionnaire 5. Water facility questionnaire 6. Designed data capturing templates of each questionnaire outlined above using the CAPI device As part of quality assurance process, debriefing was held with the resource persons and field personnel after the pre-test data collection. Shared experiences from the enumerators and supervisors were documented and submitted to the technical working group to review and finalise the survey instruments. As expected, the pretest resulted in some modifications to the wording of some questions and length of the questionnaire to avoid interviewee fatigue. Following the incorporation of lessons learnt during pretesting of the survey instruments, piloting testing of the data collection was conducted to ensure that all processes to be adopted during the conduct of the main survey were standardized. The adequacy of the survey instruments used for the pre-test, strategy for administering the questionnaires, data processing and logistical arrangements were all piloted. The pilot test was conducted in two states: 1 southern state in Ondo and 1 northern state in Nasarawa, covering both urban and rural settlements. The EA sampling frames used for the main survey were the same as those used in the NISH survey and developed by NBS, and the same was used for the pre-test and pilot test. One replicate was studied in each state, and a comprehensive listing of households was carried out in each of the selected EAs to have an updated frame of households for smooth administration of the fieldwork. Twenty-six (26) households were selected and assessed across the two selected states, and all the water points within each EA were fully mapped. Fifteen (15) households were systematically selected and covered in each EA, and 195 households were interviewed in each state, making 390 households covered in both states. Twenty-four (24) public places and institutions, including 6 schools, 4 health care facilities, 1 motor park and 1 market, in each state were covered across the two selected states. Water quality tests were also carried out in the selected EAs. A two-level training model was adopted to ensure a high-quality pilot test was carried out. The first- level training was the Training of Trainers (ToT), whereby resource persons and curated experts from NBS headquarters were trained on the survey instruments and methodologies for the sole purpose of serving as trainers for the enumerators and supervisors at the state level. The second level training took place at the state level. The first-level trainers jointly trained the enumerators and the supervisors on the use of the survey tools with practical demonstration. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Methodical Approach National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * In a state, a minimum of five teams were formed to carry out the fieldwork exercise, and each team was made up of two supervisors (field staff). An expert water quality analyst was engaged in each state for water quality analysis, and the expert was positioned in a centralized location for easy collection and receiving of samples from the field. Data capture templates were designed to mirror each survey questionnaire structure with the skip instruction's programming control. Data was synchronized to the server after data collection every day to enable access to the data collected for reviews and feedback at the server-side. Observations on the performance of CAPI devices and data capturing templates were documented for correction before the commencement of the main survey. Observations and lessons learned during the exercise were used to finalize the main survey instrument, improve the data processing methodology, and strengthen the main survey's quality control measures and logistics plans. # 2.4 MAIN SURVEY FIELDWORK Two sets of field exercises were conducted during WASHNORM 2021. The first exercise was the conduct of the main survey for households and institutions, which took place from May to August 2021. The second was the assessment of urban water utilities undertaken from August to October 2021 and completed the fieldwork stage of the survey. The main survey covered urban and rural settlements in all 36 states and FCT. A total of 492 (82 supervisors and 410 enumerators) field personnel were recruited and engaged to carry out the data collection across the country. The recruitment of the field staff was based on their level of education, previous experiences on data collection with NBS and any other recognized institutions within the last 2 to 5 years, and the ability to speak the local language. A total of 41 water quality experts were sourced from regional and state government laboratories across the country, and their selection was solely based on their competency levels in the area of water quality test. ## 2.4.1 Training Training of field staff for data collection and monitoring for quality control during the main survey adopted the same two-level training method used for the pilot test. This approach was adopted to ensure process mismanagement and errors were significantly minimized during the field exercise. The first level of training was the Training of Trainers (ToT), which took place in FCT, Abuja. A total of 49 trainers, 18 coordinators and CAPI managers from NBS, FMWR, NPopC and UNICEF were engaged in a 4-day training on using survey tools and CAPI devices and building all needed capacity for the conduct of the survey. Immediately following the ToT, all participants were deployed to the six geopolitical zones-two trainers per zone, to conduct the main survey training. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Methodical Approach National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * The second level training, which was the step-down training of enumerators, was conducted in eight locations, including the Southeast, Southsouth, Southwest, Northcentral, Northeast, Northwest, Lagos and Kano zones. 492 (82 supervisors and 410 enumerators), 10 resource persons including CAPI managers, NBS zonal controllers and state officers, 12 coordinators, 49 trainers and 41 water quality experts from NBS, FMWR, UNICEF and national water quality laboratories were trained for 4 days. The four-day step-down training for the field staff was to train the enumerators and supervisors on the survey objectives, design and protocol, the survey instruments and methodology for carrying out the WASHNORM 2021 survey. The training used a hands-on approach to review and explain the household, water facilities mapping, and institutional questionnaires to the participants. Demonstrations and roleplays were also used to facilitate participants' understanding of the interview procedures and the use of the CAPI device. Emphasis was made on survey implementation ethics and code of conduct. Additionally, approaches for enhancing consistency and minimizing errors in the interviewing procedures were also shared with participants. A field practise of survey procedures, interviews and water quality assessments was conducted. An Enumerators’ Instructions Manual was also developed by NBS and distributed to participants, alongside the CAPI questionnaires. This manual contained concepts and enumeration procedures and was used by trainers to facilitate training in all zones. Following the conclusion of the training, participants were assessed through a written test. Successful participants were subsequently selected as enumerators premised on the following criteria; results of the written tests, observations of their performance during the entire training period, role play of interviews in the office, and the quality of their field interviews. Supervisors were also identified among the list of enumerators and received further training on coordination and organization of the fieldwork, briefing on field assignments for teams, and morale boosting for enumerators. 2.4.2 Data Collection Process Prior to the fieldwork, letters of introduction and NBS State coordinators were sent to the Chairmen of sensitive local government areas village/ward heads, particularly in the northern part of Nigeria, for briefing and awareness. * * * Data collection was carried out by about 533 field personnel: 287 persons were engaged in the household interview through face-to-face interviews with the household respondent using the CAPI device; 164 persons were engaged in carrying out assessments in schools, health facilities, market/public places; 41 persons were engaged in the lodgment and retrieval of establishment questionnaires; while 41 water quality analysts carried out the water quality test. A visual evaluation was used to assess sanitation, handwashing and hygiene behaviours, while the six sets of questionnaires were used to collect data on all other aspects of the household and facility-based components. Also, samples of household drinking water sources from the point of collection and within the households were collected by enumerators, and a household WASH expenditure module was included to capture household investments on various WASH services and expenditure types. The respective GPS coordinates of surveyed facilities were recorded, and maps were produced using ArcGIS software. Nigerian population density maps were obtained from the UN population division and used to calculate the per capita share of water. Other household characteristics captured, such as functionality and accessibility of WASH facilities, from the questionnaire and observation checklists, were incorporated into the maps. ## 2.4.3 Method for Water Quality Testing The water quality assessments were conducted as part of the main survey exercise. The water quality component of WASHNORM 2021 has the overall objective of assessing the quality of water delivered to the rural and urban populace across Nigeria in line with the mandate of the SDGs. Thermotolerant or faecal coliforms were assessed as the main parameter for testing water quality as about 95% of thermotolerant coliform samples isolated from water are made up of Escherichia coli (E. coli). E. coli is the recommended indicator for faecal contamination to provide the water quality information needed to assess SDG 6.1 indicators. Water quality assessments were conducted using Wagtech Palintest Water Quality Mobile Kits to check for both the presence or absence of thermotolerant coliforms and the severity of contamination as coliform forming units per 100ml (CFU/100ml). The methodology option utilized for the 2021 NORM water quality assessments were developed considering the following: Efficiency: the ability of the method to be aligned to global strategies to assess safely managed water services in Nigeria effectively Cost-effectiveness: Have a reasonable and cost-effective budget for the Nigerian context User-friendly: Manageable and straightforward for the enumerators to grasp To aptly analyze the water samples collected at the household, it was imperative to source for and train water quality analysts from National Reference Laboratories and state water agencies on the use of the Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Methodical Approach National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 recommended water quality testing equipment and the associated Standard Operating Procedures developed by UNICEF. The capacity building component was achieved through two zonal trainings organized for analysts in the Northern and Southern states, with Kano and Enugu National Water Quality Reference Laboratories, respectively, as the training venues. A total of 49 analysts were selected based on their level of competency in water quality testing. These analysts were trained in the two zones with the support of the WHO/UNICEF JMP, UNICEF Nigeria and FMWR. The zonal training covered essential aspects, including testing methods, quality control, equipment and parameters, activities in the field, sharing of responsibilities and coordination mechanisms and key milestones in the field. Following a post-training evaluation, 41 water quality analysts were selected and deployed to different states to serve as analysts for the drinking water quality testing. These analysts were responsible for analysing and entering test results on CAPI during the main survey fieldwork. For the fieldwork water quality test, water samples were collected in five households in each of the 1,640 EAs, which were systematically selected within the sampled households in each EA. This makes a total of 8,200 households. For each household, two samples were collected by the team of enumerators for the household survey: one at the point of consumption and the other at the point of collection. Six to ten water samples were collected from the households in each EA, translating to a maximum of 16,400 possible samples across the 1,640 EAs to be canvassed. Also, a blank test was collected in one household per EA as a quality control check on the integrity of the microbial drinking water quality data collected by the analysts, giving a total of 1,640 blank tests carried out nationwide. Water samples were collected by enumerators using sterilized sample bottles and taken to respective water quality analysts at dedicated laboratory testing areas for analysis. All water testing by analysts commenced within 8 to 24 hours of sample collection. Results were transcribed on CAPI devices and synchronized. Out of a maximum of 16,400 samples to be collected across the 1,640 EAs canvassed, a total sample size of the WASHNORM 2021 water sample tested amounted to 12,242 (8,078 households drinking water consumption points and 4,164 household’s water collection sources), distributed across all the 36 states and FCT. ## 2.4.4 Monitoring and Data Quality Control The importance of data quality in the WASHNORM survey cannot be overemphasized. Therefore, the exercise involved stringent monitoring and supervision protocols during the data collection process; the protocols involved multiple layers of data quality controls and checks. Eighty-two (82) supervisors were Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Methodical Approach National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 training alongside the enumerators to directly supervise the fieldwork exercise. They received special training on coordination and organization of the fieldwork and briefing on field assignments for teams. Twelve (12) coordinators, 6 Controllers and 37 state officers from NBS and 10 high-level resource persons from FMWR not only served as trainers but were also responsible for ensuring the quality of the state-level training exercise and data collection process is smoothly kick-started with adequate arrangements, in addition to providing intense 3-5 days field monitoring. With support from UNICEF, these high-level officers joined the trainers to monitor the data collection from households and institutions for quality assurance. Monitoring of fieldwork commenced immediately after the state training, and each trainer in each state and FCT, Abuja, monitored the fieldwork for a reasonable number of days. For quality control during the data collection, back checks and spot checks were carried out by both field supervisors and monitoring officers to ensure the interviewers abided by the proper fieldwork guidelines during data collection and recorded the appropriate answers to their questions, the selected households were actually visited for the interview, and all members of the household listing were part of the household composition and had equal opportunity to be respondents. Program checks were developed and embedded into the data capturing templates as a quality control measure to ensure all skip instructions are strictly followed during data collection process. The programme analyst from NBS carried out day-to-day monitoring and reviews on each of the synchronized data sent from the field for quality assurance, ensuring captured data are free from errors such as invalid or wrong entries, inconsistencies and unrealistic information. Where there were discrepancies or errors in data shared, supervisors and monitors in the field liaised with data analysts and CAPI managers at NBS Data Processing Center in Abuja to follow-up and amended discrepancies. ## 2.5 DATA PROCESSING, ANALYSIS AND LIMITATIONS Survey data were entered directly into the CAPI devices and archived on the hard drive to standard databases at the national level. The CAPI survey data and water samples were tracked with unique numeric identification codes specific to households and water points, generated from the sample listing of households and water facilities. Only authorized survey personnel within NBS had access to survey forms and electronic data. The dataset was examined for consistency using measures of central tendency, ranges, and distributions of continuous variables. Frequency tables were created for categorical variables to identify outliers and data inconsistencies. The WASH WASHNORM 2021 survey attained an impressive response rate of 98 %. Raw data from the survey tools were processed and then edited to ascertain accuracy and completeness. Data were then analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and STATA. Weights were applied to the raw data to ensure that estimates presented represent the total population as much as possible. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Methodical Approach National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * Key variables indicators were identified for frequency of tables, %ages, pie charts and graph generation. The WASHNORM 2021 survey, like all household surveys, is subject to normal potential sampling errors; that is, the results may differ from those which would be obtained if the entire population of Nigeria were interviewed. The margin of sampling error for the entire survey is plus or minus 4 %age points at the 95 % level of confidence. The survey may also have been influenced by interviewer bias or error, though this error was reduced to a bare minimum with adequate training. The NORM sampling methodology and sample size were constructed to provide data at the state level. Any further analysis below the state level will not be statistically representative. Caution should also be placed when analyzing, interpreting and comparing data affected by seasonality, especially the quality of water services. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Methodical Approach National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * # Survey Findings * * * SURVEY FINDINGS 3.1 HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY, HEALTH AND CHARACTERISTICS | Key Findings | | | --- | --- | | □ | The average household size is five(5) persons | | □ | 19% of households are headed by women | | □ | 8% of household members are children under five years of age,and 15% are adults above 50 years | | □ | 6% of household members(11 million people)are living with at least one disability | | □ | 66% of all households in Nigeria are in rural areas | | □ | A quarter of households(29%)are headed by individuals with no education,with the Northcentral zone having the highest proportion at38% | | □ | 40% of households are in the poor to the poorest wealth quintiles.55% of these households are in rural areas | | □ | About1in10households(11%)reported suffering from diarrhoea in the past two weeks.Among these households,74% of the household members who suffered diarrhoea cases are children under five | he availability of accurate, reliable and relevant desegregated data presents the dearth and disparities in access to WASH services within households and communities across the regions and Tstates in Nigeria. Over the years, evidence has established the linkage between access to a comprehensive range of WASH services and health outcomes. The health status of under-fives and their families is significantly improved with adequate access to improved services across the WASH spectrum in any given household. For instance, improved access to safely managed water, sanitation, and hygiene services significantly decreases household members' chances of being affected by diarrhoea diseases, waterborne parasitosis, and others. Conversely, the dearth of access to safely managed WASH services predisposes people to health challenges and impacts household income due to unplanned expenditure on health care, thereby reducing the quality of life. 3.1.1 Household Size, Gender of Household Head and Age Distribution 3.1.1.1 Household Size WASHNORM 2021 estimated that the total number of household members (population) in Nigeria is 206 million, and the total number of households in the country is 43 million, while the average household size is 4.8. There is minimal variation in household size across areas of residence, with only a 0.4 size difference between urban (4.6) and rural (5) areas. * * * 3.1.1.2 Gender of Household Head Many of the households in the country are headed by men, with only 19% of households headed by women. This data shows a 2% increase from 17% recorded in NORM 2019 and a 1% increase from 18% in NORM 2018. Across the geopolitical zones, female-headed households are predominantly more in the south, with up to 30% female-headed households in the Southeast and 29% in the Southwest. Female-headed households are less common in the north, where the proportion is as low as 6% in the Northwest. Within the different areas of residence, urban areas at 24% have more female-headed households than rural areas at 16%. 3.1.1.3 Age Distribution of Household Members As in the previous year, analysis of the demographic data reveals that slightly less than half of the population (47%) are in the 18 to 50 years category, about 1 in 10 (8%) are children under 5 years, while 15% are above 50 years old. Those under 5 and above 50 years together make up a quarter of the population (23%) and are considered the most vulnerable age group in the age distribution profile. Figure 4 below shows the age distribution of household members. Figure 2: Age Distribution of household members The ratification of the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (Prohibition) Act 2018 by the federal government and subsequent enactment of the law by 9 states has raised the consciousness of Nigerians on challenges encountered by People living with disabilities, which were often ignored. Aside from prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability and imposing sanctions including fines and prison sentences on those who contravene it, the law stipulates that public and private entities have to cater for the People living with disabilities, specifically employment, education and housing. WASH services are \ mathbf i\\mathbf, all required in the aforementioned sectors. To this end, the FMWR has incorporated the tracking of access to basic WASH services for people living with disability in the monitoring framework, including the WASHNORM. Questions on disabilities were adopted from the Washington Group on Disability Statistics questions and the WHO framework for International Classifications of Functioning, Disability, and Health (The Washington Group on Disability Statistics, 2017). The household questionnaire assessed different classifications, including difficulties in seeing, hearing, walking, climbing, carrying out self-care activities, remembering or concentrating and communicating. The WASHNORM 2021 showed that 6% of the population or 11 million people are living with disabilities, with no significant disparities across urban and rural areas. Across states, Jigawa at 18% and Anambra at 15% have among the highest proportion of people living with disabilities compared to Bauchi and Niger with only 1% of the population living with disabilities. At the household level, 1 in 10 households has at least one household member living with disabilities which is slightly higher in rural areas (12%) than in urban areas (11%). ## 3.1.3 Area of Residence A key criterion for achieving the SDGs is the ability of a country to classify its population by urban or rural parameters. In 2020, there was a call to harmonize indicators for cities, urban and rural areas. This call was informed by the general lack of globally defined standards for classifying communities as rural or urban. This definition is imperative as it helps monitor progress towards achieving SDGs 6, which measures equitable access to WASH services. Over the years in Nigeria, access to WASH and other social development interventions has remained disproportionate between the rural and urban areas. Most evidence has shown that people living in rural areas are the most disadvantaged compared to their counterparts in urban areas. Therefore, it is important to establish and understand the level of access to WASH services by both urban and rural populations if Nigeria is to make appreciable progress towards achieving SDG 6. WASHNORM 2021 examined both urban and rural residential areas, further disaggregating these areas into peri-urban and urban centres, while the rural areas were sub-classified into rural areas, small towns and itinerant communities. Figure 5 below shows the distribution of household members in each area of residence. 56% of all household members are in the core rural areas compared to 26% in urban centres. Peri-urban areas have 7%, small towns are 9%, and itinerant communities is 2%. Compared with the data from 2019, there is a 2% reduction in the proportion of people living in core rural areas and a 2% increase in urban population. From this data, it can be inferred that an estimated 2% of people have moved from rural to urban areas. Data on residents of peri-urban, small towns and itinerant communities have remained the same within this period. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * Figure 3: Population distribution by area of residence 3.1.4 Literacy level The educational attainment of household heads is one of the variables assessed in the WASHNORM using the literacy level, specifically the ability to read and write in English. Inclusion of this indicator is predicated on the fact that the household is a vital ecosystem for WASH intervention, and most of the developmental outcomes in WASH is significantly hinged on the educational level of the head of the household. For example, it is assumed that the higher the literacy level, the higher the chances for the household to appreciate and internalize health promotion messages acquire and use improved WASH services. Overall, about one-third of households (31%) are headed by non-literate individuals. Across the country, the proportion of literate household heads is higher in the south than in the north, with the highest level of 77% in the Southsouth and 63% in the Northcentral. Literacy level of household heads is also higher in urban areas (82%) than in rural areas (62%). 3.1.5 Household wealth index Sometimes referred to as household affluence, household wealth is a term used to describe the net worth of a specific household or the average net worth of households within a defined geographic area3. It is a composite measure of a household’s cumulative living and standard derived from easy-to-collect data on household’s ownership of selected assets, such as televisions and bicycles; materials used for housing construction; and types of water and sanitation facilities. Very importantly, wealth index constitutes one of the major characteristics that influence decision-making, which invariably affects the household's health and well-being. 3 [https://www.smartcapitalmind.com/what-is-household-wealth.htm](https://www.smartcapitalmind.com/what-is-household-wealth.htm) assessed several parameters used to create a composite household wealth index. These include the occupation of respondents, household type and materials used to build households, assets owned, fuel used for cooking, ownership of land, means of transportation, and many more. A cumulative index of household wealth category was generated based on these households’ characteristics and the possession of a number of household items. WASHNORM 2021 places each household in five wealth quintiles as classified in NDHS and MICS using the same indicators. Figure 6 below shows the distribution of the population into these wealth quintiles and across areas of residence. The wealth index is a quintile, equally distributed across the sample population. Data from the survey showed that about 20% of Nigerians are in the richest wealth quintiles while 40% are in the poor to the poorest wealth quintile. However, disaggregation of the data by area of residence shows that 44% of households living in urban areas are from the richest wealth quintile, while as much as 29% of households in rural areas are in the poorest wealth quintile. Figure 4: Distributionof households by wealth quitles and area of residence Furthermore, Figure 5 below shows the distribution of households on the wealth quintile across different geopolitical zones. Data from the survey showed that the Northeast, Northwest and Northcentral at 33%, 35% and 28% have more households within the poorest wealth quintile than the southern zones with 7% each in Southeast and Southwest and 6% in the Southsouth. * * * Figure 5: Distribution of households by wealth quintiles across geopolitical zones 3.1.6 Diarrhoea Incidence According to a WHO report of 2019, diarrhoea is the second leading cause of death in children under five years old and was responsible for the deaths of 370,000 children in 2019. The report further indicated that a significant proportion of diarrhoea disease could be prevented by access to and usage of safe drinking water and improved sanitation and hygiene. Consequent upon the connection between poor wealth index, access to improved WASH services and occurrence of diarrhoea, WASHNORM 2021 interrogates the prevalence of diarrhoea cases to inform efficient planning of interventions to improve access and use of WASH services. To better understand the vulnerable populations for access to WASH services, the WASHNORM 2021 evaluated the association between socioeconomic status, area of residence and diarrhoea. About 16% of households in the poorest quintile were afflicted with diarrhoea, while only 4% of households in the richest quintile reported a case of diarrhoea in the 2 weeks preceding the survey. Diarrhoea was more prevalent in rural areas (13%) than in urban areas (8%) and among the male-headed households (12%) than female-headed households (8%). Across zones, households in the northern zones are more likely to have a case of diarrhoea, at 28% in Northeast, than the people in the southern zones at 3% in the Southwest. Figure 6 below shows a map of diarrhoea incidence across Nigeria. **Figure 6: Map of Nigeria showing diarrhoea incidence recorded across Nigeria** Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * ## 3.2 HOUSEHOLD ACCESS TO WASH SERVICES ### 3.2.1 Access to Water Supply Services ### Key Findings 86% of Nigerians (up to 179 million people) do not have access to safely managed drinking water supply services 67% of the population have access to basic water supply services 92% of the population use improved drinking water supply services, while only 55% have access to improved water supply within the premises 37% of the population use boreholes/tube wells as their main source of drinking water Only 11% of the population use pipe-borne water, and just 4% use pipe-borne water on- premises 68% of drinking water used by the household is contaminated by E. coli at the source, and 70% is contaminated at the point of consumption Only 11% of the households take any measure to make their water safe for drinking 84% of the households are not satisfied with the level of their water supply services mainly due to the location and time spent on collection of water The average time to fetch water is 17mins for households whose water points are not located within premises Only about 1 in 5 (20%) households pay any form of tariff to get water from their communal (main) water sources he United Nations General Assembly recognized access to water and sanitation as a human right through Resolution 64/292 of which Nigeria is a signatory, therefore, making access to safely # Tmanaged water supply services a basic right for all Nigerians. Assignation of dedicated targets for WASH within the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 6) indicates the pivotal role of WASH in efforts towards the attainment of the SDGs. To achieve the set targets, duty-bearers have the responsibility to facilitate unhindered access of all to safe water in a sustainable manner whenever needed, irrespective of location and socioeconomic status. Monitoring the progress towards achieving the SDGs is as strategic to the goals as planning and implementing interventions to attain them. Accordingly, achieving SDG 6.1 would require monitoring and addressing core contributory factors such as wealth index, gender equality, adequacy, and affordability which impact access to sustainable and safely managed water services. To this end, SDG 6.1 is monitored by indicator 6.1.1, which is the %age of the population using safely managed drinking water free from microbiological and priority chemical contamination and available when needed. The SDG 6.1 indicators are monitored using the WHO/UNICEF JMP Drinking Water Supply Services Ladder, as shown in figure 7 below. WASHNORM 2021 assess and presents findings on these indicators Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 with data disaggregated by household characteristics, wealth quintiles, area of residence and location in the country. Figure 7: WHO/UNICEF JMP drinking water supply services ladder | SERVICE LEVEL | JMP DEFINITION | | --- | --- | | SAFELY MANAGED | Drinking water rom an improved water source that is located on premises, available when needed and free from fecal and priority chemical contamination | | BASIC | Drinking water from an improved source, provided collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a trip, including queuing | | LIMITED | Drinking water from an improved source for which collection time exceed 30 minutes for a round trip, including queuing | | UNIMPROVED | Drinking water from an unprotected dug well or unprotected spring | | SURFACE WATER | Drinking water directly from a river, dam, lake, pong, stream, canal or irrigation canal. | | Definition of Key Terms | Note: Improved sources include: piped water, boreholes or tubewells, protected dug wells, protected springs, rainwater, and packaged or delivered water. | 3.2.1.1 Use of Improved Drinking Water Supply Services According to the JMP definition, an improved water source has the potential to provide the household with safe drinking water. Therefore, an improved water source includes any of the following types of water systems: piped water into a dwelling; piped water into a yard or compound; piped from neighbours dwelling; public taps, wells or boreholes; protected springs or dug wells; rainwater; bottled and sachet water. Therefore, improved water service is not a specific rung on the water services ladder; * * * rather, it is the baseline for determining limited, basic, and safely managed water services. A water source must first be improved before being assessed on limited, basic or safely managed criteria. The survey revealed that three-quarters (75%) of the population use improved drinking water supply services. Those using improved services accessible within premises are 32.2%, while those using improved drinking water supply services available every day in the past two weeks preceding the survey is 66%. 94% of people living in urban areas have access to improve drinking water services, while 66% of those in rural areas have access. The survey further revealed that 97% of the richest households compared to 53% of the poorest households have access to improved drinking water. The level of access increased by 1.5% between WASHNORM 2021 and NORM 2019. Figure 8: Distribution of improved water access by area of residence and wealth 3.2.1.2 Household’s Main Sources of Drinking Water Supply Services WASHNORM 2021 findings show that only about 1 in 10 people (11%) use pipe-borne water supply sources. These include those whose water is piped directly into the household dwelling (2.6%), piped into a household’s yard or plot (1.1%), piped to a neighbour’s yard or plot (1.0%) or obtained from a public tap or stand-pipe (5.9%). Access to piped water sources increases with wealth and across regions as you move from rural to urban areas. 9% of People living in rural areas and 6% of households from the poorest wealth quintile are about twice more deprived of having access to pipe-borne water than those in urban areas with 15% and households from the richest wealth quintile with 14%. Only 4% of the population use pipe-borne water on the premises, while 6% have to fetch water from public taps. Households in urban areas at 6% are about two times more likely to use piped water on premises than those in rural areas at 3%. Also, households in the richest quintile with10% are at least 14 times more likely to use piped water sources on-premises than those in the poorest quintile at about 1%. ## 3.2.1.4 Levels of Drinking Water Supply Services ## Access to Safely Managed Water Supply Services The WHO/UNICEF JMP services ladder defines safely managed drinking water services as drinking water supply from an improved water source that is located on premises, available when needed and free from faecal and priority contamination. The National Action Plan for Revitalization of the Nigeria’s WASH sector launched in 2018 has a goal to ensure that all Nigerians have access to sustainable and safely-managed WASH services by 2030, in compliance with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) for Water (Goal 6.1) and Sanitation (Goal 6.2). Evidence provided by WASHNORM 2021 serves the purpose of monitoring progress towards attaining this goal and providing data for planning and implementation purposes. Results from the WASHNORM 2021 revealed that 13% of the population have access to safely managed water sources. This represents a 1% decrease compared to the 14% recorded in NORM 2019. Figure 9 below shows the distribution of access to safely managed water supply services across Nigeria. **Figure 9: Access to safely managed water supply services across Nigeria** Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * The WASHNORM 2021 findings revealed the disparity in access to safely managed drinking water by zone. Southwest zone has the highest level of access, with about one in every three persons (29%) having access to safely managed water. This is significantly higher than the Northeast, where only 2% of the population have access to safely managed drinking water supply services. Similarly, wide disparities exist across urban and rural areas and different wealth quintiles. Across areas of residence, 27% of people living in urban areas have access to safely managed drinking water services, 4 times more than those in rural areas at 6%. Likewise, 37% of the richest households have access to safely managed water services compared to only 2% of the poorest households. Figure 10: Access to safely managed water supply by residence, zone and wealth quintile Access to Basic Water Supply Services A basic water supply service is used to describe an improved water source, where collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a round trip, including queuing. It is one of the most important measures of progress towards SDG 6.1 after a safely managed water supply service. According to the findings of WASHNORM 2021, overall, 67% of the population have access to at least a basic water supply service, a 3-%age point decrease from the NORM 2019 results of 70%. As shown in Figure 12 below, access to basic water supply services varies slightly across the geopolitical zones, with the highest recorded access being the Southwest at 84% and the lowest being the Northeast at 59%. The urban population at 92% have higher access to basic water supply services than the rural population at 61%. Disparities in access also exist across wealth quintiles, educational levels and gender of the household head. The starkest of the disparities is between the rich and poor households. The richest households with access at 95% have two times more access to basic water supply services than the poorest households at 48%. * * * Figure 11: Access to basic water supply services by residence, zone and wealth quintile A deeper analysis of access to basic water supply service reveals that while 67% of household members use basic water supply services, the proportion using basic water supply services that is free from faecal contamination is only 25%, while those using basic water supply services free from faecal contamination and available when needed is only 20%. About a quarter of the population (14%) use unimproved water sources, including unprotected dug wells (12%), unprotected springs (1%) and surface water (11%) which is most detrimental of them and refer those whose drinking water is sourced from rivers, streams, dams, lakes, ponds, canals and irrigation systems. This is the lowest and most harmful level of service, and households who obtain drinking water directly from surface water are categorized as having no service at all, according to the WHO/UNICEF JMP Services Ladder. Those living in urban areas at 1% are 11 times less likely to use surface water sources than those in rural areas at 16%. One in five (20%) households in the poorest quintile use surface water, 4 times more than in the richest quintile, where only 1% of the richest use surface water. The WHO/JMP Drinking Water Supply Services Ladder The drinking water supply services levels are based on the WHO/UNICEF JMP classification of sanitation service ladders described in Figure 9 above. Drinking water supply services have been grouped into five categories: safely managed, basic, limited, unimproved and open defecation. Safely managed services are the basis for tracking progress towards SDG targets 6.1. Figure 12 below shows the access levels as analyzed above and disparities in access to each rung across area of residence, and the richest and poorest households. Figure 12: The drinking water supply services ladder by residence and wealth quintiles 3.2.1.5 Water Collection In WASHNORM 2021, like NORM 2019, attention was given to assessing gender disparity in collecting water for household use. Among all households whose water source is located elsewhere outside the premises, the average time to collect water from the source was 17 minutes. Household members make an average of 5 round trips per day to the water source to have enough water. About a quarter (26%) of households indicated that this responsibility for collecting water is borne by adult women and girls (age 15+ years). About another quarter (26%) of all households indicated that fetching water is borne by everyone within the household, while 20% of households revealed that the responsibility is borne by adult men and boys (age15+ years). Nearly one in ten households (7.3%) of all households leave water fetching to girls and boys under 15 years. 3.2.1.6 Quality and Treatment of Household’s Drinking Water The WASHNORM 2021 collected data for assessing water quality using globally agreed indicators that measured thermotolerant coliform present in any isolated sample from water. According to recommendations by WHO, in order for household’s drinking water supply to be considered safe to consume, it should be free from E. coli, that is having zero thermotolerant coliform forming units per 100 ml of water. WASHNORM 2021, following the protocol developed in NORM 2019, tested for the presence or absence of thermotolerant coliforms as well as concentrations of CFU per 100 ml of water. A drinking water supply sample with less than 1 CFU per 100 ml is considered low risk. Samples between 1 to 10 CFU/100ml is considered moderate risk, those with 11 to 100 CFU/100ml is considered high, The WASHNORM 2021 collected data for assessing water quality using globally agreed indicators that thermotolerant coliform present in any isolated sample from water. According to recommendations by WHO, in order for household’s drinking water supply to be considered safe to consume, it should be free from E. coli, that is having zero thermotolerant coliform forming units per 100 ml of water. WASHNORM 2021, following the protocol developed in NORM 2019, tested for the presence or absence of thermotolerant coliforms as well as concentrations of CFU per 100 ml of water. A drinking water supply sample with less than 1 CFU per 100 ml is considered low risk. Samples between 1 to 10 CFU/100ml is considered moderate risk, those with 11 to 100 CFU/100ml is considered high, 1 to 10 CFU/100ml is considered moderate risk, those with 11 to 100 CFU/100ml is considered high, and more than 100 CFU/100ml is considered critically high risk. Thermotolerant presence/absence tests The WASHNORM 2021 revealed that at the national level, up to two-thirds of households (68%) use drinking water supplies contaminated by thermotolerant coliform at the point of collection and a similar proportion of households (70%) ingest contaminated water at the point of consumption within the household. This shows that the proportion of samples with detectable thermotolerant levels in drinking water increases between the point of collection and the point of consumption in the household. Thermotolerant contamination at the point of water collection and consumption is higher in rural areas compared to urban areas. For contamination at the point of consumption, findings indicate that it is higher in the northern part of the country than in the southern part. Figures 13 and 14 below show drinking water supply contamination levels across the country. Figure 13: Proportion of households with contaminated drinking water supply Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Quality of Drinking Water at the Point of Consumption \[Image: X659\] * * * Proportion of uncontaminated drinking water at source by Area of Residence \[Image: X668\] Proportion of uncontaminated drinking water at point of consumption by Area of Residence \[Image: X669\] Figure 14: Concentrations of contamination in household drinking water across Nigeria Thermotolerant Coliform Load As shown in Figure 15 below, while only a third (31%) of the population use drinking water supplies source that is not contaminated or has < 1 CFU/100ml, the other 69% of the population use water from sources that contain above 1 to above 1,000 CFU/100ml. A similar trend is also noticed for water contamination as the point of consumption within the household. Most significantly, about 13% of water has above 1,000 CFU/100ml at source while 14% CFU/100ml at point of consumption. As shown in Figure 15 below, while only a third (31%) of the population use drinking water supplies source that is not contaminated or has < 1 CFU/100ml, the other 69% of the population use water from sources that contain above 1 to above 1,000 CFU/100ml. A similar trend is also noticed for water contamination as the point of consumption within the household. Most significantly, about 13% of water has above 1,000 CFU/100ml at source while 14% contain contamination rates of above 1,000 * * * Figure 15: Thermotolerant coliform load of household drinking water supply in Nigeria Quality of Improved Drinking Water Sources Despite 75% of the population having access to improved drinking water sources, only 31% of these improved sources are free from thermotolerant coliform contamination. Across the zones, households in the South was found to have less contaminated water than in the North. Expectedly, areas with the lowest levels of access to basic drinking water had the highest levels of contamination in their water at source and point of consumption. For example, the Northwest with 56% access to basic water supply services has an average contamination rate of 79%, similar to the rate for the Northeast at 66% access to basic water and 83% contamination and Northcentral at 58% access to basic water and 75% contamination rate. Whereas in the South, the Southwest with 85% access to basic water has 52% average rate of contamination, similar to the rate for Southeast at 73% access to basic water and 62% contamination rate and Southsouth with 65% access to basic water and 65% contamination rate. The type of distribution point for the household drinking water supply also influences the quality and safety of drinking water. The predominant sources of drinking water in Nigeria are boreholes and tube wells. The survey shows that handpump boreholes are more likely to be contaminated with thermotolerant coliform as up to 53% of these facilities were found to be contaminated. The risk of contamination reduces by 4% with motorized boreholes, as 49% of motorized boreholes were contaminated. * * * Figure 16: Quality of improved drinking water sources Water Transportation and Storage Practices Even when water facilities are properly sited and well-managed, it is not guaranteed that safe water will be delivered to or used at households. Due to issues related to adequacy, continuity, and accessibility, most Nigerians still physically fetch water using drinking water containers, physically carry the water from source to households and then store it in the same or a receiving container until it is needed. Studies have shown that improper water transportation and storage practices can increase the likelihood of faecal contamination. There are health risks associated with transporting and storing drinking water in open containers and using the same containers for collecting water used for general household domestic needs and water for drinking. WASHNORM 2021 shows that in 79% of households, the same container is used for collecting water for domestic use and drinking. One in five households (19%) collect drinking water with containers without cover, and one in five (19%) do not have a dedicated container for storing drinking water. However, in 95% of households drinking water was stored in containers with cover. Household Treatment Methods Information on individual household water treatment was collected through the household questionnaire. Findings indicate that only about 11% of households adopt any practice to make their water safer for drinking. Figure 18 below presents household water treatment strategies adopted by households to achieve the desired level of quality. The distribution of preferred methods are as follows; boiling of water- 30%, straining through a filtration-cloth-14% and chlorination- 15%, while stands and settle method was reported by 25% of households. * * * Figure 17: Household water treatment methods 3.2.1.7 Ownership, Usage and Maintenance of Water Supply Services Ownership of households’ drinking water facilities plays a role in determining how well the facility will be used and managed. Also, consulting beneficiaries of a water facility before it is sited contributes to ownership, equity in access, and proper utilization of the facility. Findings from the WASHNORM 2021 showed that 63% of households’ main water source is owned and used by the general public. Results also showed that 86% of households were not consulted during the siting of the water facility. Among those who were consulted, 60% contributed in cash or kind towards the construction of the water facility. Tariffs for water collection or use are important for enhancing cost recovery for operations and maintenance of the sources. 1 in 5 (20%) households pay some form of tariff to get water from their communal (main) water sources. Tariff collection in rural areas is nearly three times less than in urban areas as only 13% of rural households pay for water collection compared with 34% of households in urban areas. In terms of functionality, 20% of household water point facilities broke down in the last 6 months and slightly above one-third broke down more than twice out of those households whose water points have broken down. Among all households assessed, only 56% contributed for water facility repairs, while 70% of all households are willing to contribute towards the construction and expansion of their water supply service. * * * Figure 18: Proportion of household with Tarrif system for water collection by area of residence and wealth Figure 19: Breakdown of water facility points and contribution for repairs 20% of household water point facilities broke down in the last 6 months 3.2.1.8 Household’s satisfaction with water supply services 42.3% of households are satisfied with the location of the water points used by the household, while 41.5% reported being satisfied with the time spent collecting water. Overall, the satisfaction levels with water facilities as reported by households increased from 49% in 2019 to 54% in 2021 after declining from 51% in 2018. * * * 3.2.2 Access to Sanitation Services | Key Findings | | | --- | --- | | □ | 23% of the population(48 million people)defecate in the openin Nigeria | | □ | Only 18% of Nigerians(37 million people)have access to safely managed sanitation services | | □ | 46% of the population use a basic sanitation service | | □ | Female-headed households at 47% are more likely to have access to basic sanitation service at 45% | | □ | 72% of the population use improved sanitation facilities,while 25% of the population use shared latrines | | □ | Only 51% of persons living with disabilities find their household's improved latrines useable and accessible | | □ | 21% of households do not dispose of children's faeces safely | | □ | In 33% of households with latrines,the latrine platforms are not safe for children to use | | □ | 11% of household members feel they are at risk while using their toilets/latrines | | □ | Only 13% of the population use improved sanitation facilities that have a proper handwashing facility with soap and running water | ccess to basic sanitation services remians a major challenge in the country. Over the past 4 years, the proportion of Nigerians defecating in the open has remained between 24% and A23%, with the absolute number of people maintained at 47 million and 46 million in 2018 and 2019, respectively. The proportion of people with access to basic sanitation services has also remained 42% and 44% in 2018 and 2019, respectively. By this data, it is evident that progress in access to basic sanitation services and elimination of open defecation is barely enough to catch up with the increasing population. The seemingly lack of progress in this regard is also impacted by economic hardships faced by mainly populations in the rural areas, as shown in the disparities between urban and rural areas and between the wealth quintiles across different states in the country. WASHNORM 2021 survey collected and analysed data on access to sanitation services, different types of sanitation services, disparities in access to sanitation services across sectors, geopolitical zones, socioeconomic and demographic factors. Parameters assessed are fundamental for informed policymaking, planning and implementation of sanitation interventions for service delivery towards achieving the sanitation target of SDG 6.2. The access levels to sanitation services are discussed in detail below using the JMP indicators as described in Figure 20. **Figure 20: WHO/UNICEF JMP Sanitation Services Ladder** | SERVICE LEVEL | JMP DEFINITION | | --- | --- | | SAFELY MANAGED | Use of Improved facilities that are not shared with other households and where excreta are safely disposed of in situ or transported and treated offsite | | BASIC | Use of improved facilities that are not shared with other households | | LIMITED | Use of Improved facilities shared between two or more households | | UNIMPROVED | Use of pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines or bucket latrines | | OPEN DEFECATION | Disposal of human faeces in fields, forests, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches or other open spaces, or with solid waste | Note: improved facilities include flush/pour flush to piped sewer systems, **Definition of Key Terms** septic tanks or pit latrines; ventilated improved pit latrines, composting toilets or pit latrines with slabs ## 3.2.2.1 Use of Improved Sanitation Services Access to improved sanitation facilities refers to the use of sanitation facilities that ensures proper hygienic separation of excreta and other hazardous waste from human contact to avoid exposure to contamination. Improved sanitation service is the baseline for measuring access to limited, basic and safely managed sanitation services. The sanitation technology options that are considered improved according to the WHO/UNICEF JMP definitions include those that have flush or pour-flush systems to piped sewer connections, septic systems or pit latrines, simple pit latrines with a slab, ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines, and composting toilets. WASHNORM 2021 survey revealed that 57% of the population use improved sanitation facilities, a 3- %age point decrease from NORM 2019 reported value of 60%. Minimizing the distance between sanitation facilities and handwashing stations can positively reinforce hand hygiene behaviour. However, findings from WASHNORM 2021 revealed that only 13% of those who use improved sanitation facilities Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 have a proper handwashing facility with soap which allows them to practice handwashing immediately after using the toilet. Data from WASHNORM 2021 also revealed the prevalence of structural defects with the improved sanitation facilities used by households. Only 22% of households use improved sanitation facilities that are not leaking, safely emptied and treated. Furthermore, 51% of the population living with disabilities find their household’s improved latrines useable and accessible, while 33% of all improved sanitation facilities are not safe for use by children. have a proper handwashing facility with soap which allows them to practice handwashing immediately after using the toilet. Data from WASHNORM 2021 also revealed the prevalence of structural defects with the improved sanitation facilities used by households. Only 22% of households use improved sanitation facilities that are not leaking, safely emptied and treated. Furthermore, 51% of the population living with disabilities find their household’s improved latrines useable and accessible, while 33% of all improved sanitation facilities are not safe for use by children. 3.2.2.2 Household’s Main Sanitation Type Up to 32% of the population in Nigeria use flush or pour-flush systems to sewers, septic tanks and pit latrines. Flush or pour-flush to septic tank is the most predominant type of improved sanitation facilities in the country, and it is used by 18% of the household members. Rural inhabitants at 20% are two times less likely to use flush or pour-flush systems than their urban counterparts at 58%. Wide disparities is also observed in the type of household latrine across household wealth quintiles as 90% of persons from the richest households use a flush or pour-flush system, 45 times more than persons from the poorest households at 2%. While most people with access to an improved sanitation facility use flush or pourflush systems, 24% of Nigerians with access to improved latrines use dry pit latrines with slabs. 3.2.2.3 Sanitation Services Levels Safely Managed Sanitation Services Safely managed sanitation service is the highest level in the JMP ladder of sanitation service. It is described as a sanitation facility that is not shared with other households and where excreta are safely disposed of in situ or removed and treated offsite. This is the services level that the government and people of Nigeria aim for to attain the SDG 6.2 targets. However, findings from WASHNORM 2021 reveal that only18% of household members have access to safely managed sanitation services, a 3 % decrease from the 2019 levels of 21%. As shown in Figure 21 below, there are significant disparities across wealth quintiles, as the poorest households at 8% have almost four times less access to safely managed sanitation services than the richest households at 23%. Across geopolitical zones, access to safely managed sanitation is highest in the Northeast zone at 29% and lowest in the Southwest zone at 13%. Figure 22 shows the disparities in access to safely managed sanitation services across states. Survey Findings * * * Figure 22: Access to safely managed sanitation services across states Basic Sanitation Services WASH WASHNORM 2021 results indicate that 46% of the population have access to basic sanitation which are improved latrines that are not shared with other households. Similar to safely managed services, the starkest disparities in access are among households from different wealth quintiles. Use of basic sanitation services increases according to the wealth of the households with the poorest household having 19% access and the richest with 78% access. Figure 23: Access to basic sanitation services by residence, zone, wealth quintile Limited Sanitation Services Limited sanitation services are improved facilities that are shared with other households. From the WASHNORM 2021 results, 11% of household members use limited sanitation services shared with other households in same compound, yard or houses in close proximity in the community. It was revealed that many households in the Southwest, urban areas and among the richest wealth quintile use limited sanitation services more than those in the North, rural areas and in the lowest wealth quintile. In the Southwest 1 in 4 (25%) persons who have access to improved latrine, use a limited sanitation services compared to only 5% in the Northwest. Urban dwellers at 21% are about three times more likely to use limited sanitation facilities than those in the rural areas at 7%, while the richest households at 17% are 9 times more likely to use limited sanitation facilities than the poorest households (2%). These disparities highlight one of the critical sanitation challenges in urban areas where most of the people in the middle and highest wealth quintile lives. ## Unimproved Sanitation Facilities Nationally, 20% of the population rely on unimproved sanitation facilities which includes pit latrines without a slab, pour flush systems to drains or to somewhere else, bucket and hanging toilets. With unimproved sanitation facilities, there is little to no hygienic separation of human faeces from human contact. ## Open Defecation 23% of the population (48 million people) practice open defecation. These are 48 million Nigerians who defecate in open fields, forests, bushes, and bodies of water. While the proportion of people practicing open defecation have remained the same at 23% in 2019 and 2021, the absolute number of people have increased from 46 million in 2019 to 48 million in 2021. Figure 24 shows the disparities in the prevalence of open defecation across different area of residence, regions and groups in the country. People living in the rural areas at 31% are four times more likely to practice open defecation than those in the urban areas at 8%. Similarly, the poorest households at 48% are 48 times more likely to practice open defecation than the richest households 1%. Figure 25 shows the prevalence of open defecation across Nigeria. The Northcentral zone have the highest prevalence of open defecation at 47%, while the lowest rate of open defecation was recorded in the Northwest at 11%. **Figure 24:Open defecation by residence, zone, wealth quintile** **48%** **NW NE** **11% 17%** **23%** **NC 32%** **National 47%** **25%** **Urban** **8%** **SW** **24%** **SE 11%** **31%** **22%** **Rural** **SS** **23%** **1%** **Poorest Poorest Moderate Rich Richest** Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * **Figure 25: Prevalence of open defecation across Nigeria** ## Summary of Access to Sanitation Services Using the Sanitation Services Ladder The sanitation services levels are based on the WHO/UNICEF JMP classification of sanitation service ladder as described in Table 22 above. According to the ladder, sanitation services grouped into five categories: safely managed, basic, limited, unimproved and open defecation. Safely managed services are the basis for tracking progress towards SDG targets 6.2. Figure 26 below sums up the levels of access, disparities in access for each level of services by area of residence, and wealth quintile as analyzed above. In summary, access to safely managed and basic sanitation in Nigeria have decreased by 3% between 2019 and 2021, and there is an increase in the number of people practicing open defecation in the same period although this value has remained the same as a proportion of the population. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * Figure 26: The sanitation services ladder by residence and wealth quintiles 3.2.2.4 Privacy, Safety and Risk levels Privacy, safety, and risk level are also indictors measured in WASHNORM. For the purpose of this report, privacy of latrines refers to latrines that are designed to prevent other people from seeing or hearing what a user does within the latrine space. This is usually achieved by ensuring good cover for the latrine, and where possible to have separate latrines for males and females. The indicator for safety checks if the latrine is safe for children and persons living with disability while risk level explores the perception of users if they feel the latrine is stable, in a healthy environment and prevents the possibility of harassment especially for women and girls. 3.2.2.5 Faecal sludge management Results from the WASHNORM 2021 wastewater leakage from the latrine or overflow of the septic tank. About 6 out of 10 (61%) of the households with pit or septic tank latrines reported that their toilet facilities had never been emptied of faecal sludge, and 41% of those who emptied their latrines did not know where the faecal sludge was disposed. Some 11% reported that their faecal sludge was emptied into water bodies or open pits and ground. Additionally, 25% reported that the sludge was buried in a covered pit while only 17% show that about 12% of households with latrines reported wastewater leakage from the latrine or overflow of the septic tank. About 6 out of 10 (61%) of the households with pit or septic tank latrines reported that their toilet facilities had never been emptied of faecal sludge, and 41% of those who emptied their latrines did not know where the faecal sludge was disposed. Some 11% reported that their faecal sludge was emptied into water bodies or open pits and ground. Additionally, 25% reported that the sludge was buried in a covered pit while only 17% indicated that it was taken to a treatment facility. * * * ## 3.2.2.6 Disposal of child’s faeces, animal and solid waste About 13% of households do not dispose children’s faeces safely instead discard it into the garbage, bury it, rinse it into the drain/ditch, or leave it in the open. During the survey, it was observed that one in three households (34%) had faeces clearly exposed in the compound, 26% of which were animal faeces. Nearly half or 43% of households rear livestock, and among these households, up to 17% of livestock live in the same house/room unit where household members dwell, while 36% roam freely within the yard or plot where the household dwells. Little over a quarter of households (26%) dispose their garbage by burning or burying it within the compound and another 26% dispose theirs at a government designated garbage disposal site. 31% dump their garbage elsewhere and 14% use informal or private sanitation service providers. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * 3.2.3 Access to Hygiene Services | Key Findings | | | --- | --- | | □ | 17% households have access basic hygiene services | | □ | About 69% of households do not have handwashing facilities available on premises. | | □ | Only 8% of households have handwashing stations within households | | □ | 4% of households consider handwashing after cleaning up child's faeces or changing a child's diaper a critical time | | □ | Households' knowledge of at least two critical times for handwashing was reported to be 99%, an 18-%age point increase from 2019 NORM reported figures of 81% | | □ | About a quarter (27%) of all households had soaps observed within their houses at the time of survey | | □ | Only 8% of household heads interviewed were able to demonstrate proper handwashing techniques with soap under running water | | □ | Only 4% of the population are likely to practice proper handwashing with water and soap at critical times | SDG 6 through indicator 6.2.1 assess the proportion of the population using safely managed sanitation services, including a handwashing facility with soap and water. Progress towards attainment of this indicator as reported in the 2021 State of the World’s Hand Hygiene indicates that three out of ten people, (2.3 billion people) globally, lack a handwashing facility with soap and running water available at the household level, and 670 million do not have handwashing facility at all. Numerous studies have proven that regular handwashing is foundational in the prevention and spread of contagions including diarrhoea and respiratory diseases, such as COVID-19. Furthermore, data from the World’s Hand Hygiene report shows that half a million people die each year from diarrhoea or acute respiratory infections noting that the deaths could have been prevented with good hand hygiene. Aside from health outcomes, hand hygiene has been established to impact educational and commercial productivity and invariably socio-economic status of households hence its strategic importance. Though water, sanitation and hygiene go side by side, hygiene services constitute a strategic component in attainment the over-arching goal for WASH. This is predicated on the fact that the absence of strategically targeted hygiene behaviour change interventions. * * * Figure 27 presents JMP indicators elucidating the levels of access to hygiene services. Findings from the WASHNORM 2021 are discussed below. **Figure 27: WHO/UNICEF JMP hygiene services ladder** | SERVICE LEVEL | JMP DEFINITION | | --- | --- | | BASIC | Availability of a handwashing facility on premise with water and soap | | LIMITED | Availability of a handwashing facility on premise without water and soap | | UNIMPROVED | No Facility where there is no handwashing facility on premises | Note: Handwashing facilities may be fixed or mobile and include a sink with tap water, buckets with taps, tippy-taps, and jugs or basins designated for **Definition of Key Terms** handwashing. Soap includes bar soap, liquid soap, powder detergent, and soapy water but does not include ash, soil, sand or other handwashing agents. ## 3.2.3.1 Quality and Access to Handwashing Facilities within households Effective handwashing is one that is done with soap and running water. As a result, soap is key to the effective practice of hygiene and maintenance of personal hygiene. Therefore, handwashing must be done in a hygienic setting, using a variety of hygiene facilities ranging from tippy taps to facilities to wash hand basins. Only 1 in 10 households (11%) has fixed handwashing stations on premises. Up to 21% of households use temporary items for handwashing including buckets, jugs, and kettles. Not all households surveyed had soap available in the household or at the handwashing station. WASHNORM 2021 data showed that while about a quarter (27%) of all households had soaps observed within their house at the time of the survey, only 18% had a fixed place for handwashing with water and soap present. However, more worrying is the finding that up to 69% of households did not have any form of handwashing facility. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * 3.2.3.2 Levels of Hygiene Services As mentioned earlier, WASHNORM assess three levels of hygiene services as indicated in Figure 27 above. The highest level measures the availability, access to, and use of basic hygiene services by the household members. These are the proportion of the population where handwashing facilities are available on premises with soap and water. The mid-level rung of the ladder situates households using limited hygiene services or handwashing facilities available on premises however, without soap and water. Lastly, the lowest hygiene services level of the JMP ladder places households with no handwashing facility available on premises. Results from the WASHNORM 2021 show that the proportion of the population with basic hygiene services is 17% with disparities between urban (25%) and rural (13%) areas. Access to basic hygiene services increased 1-%age points when compared to results of the NORM 2019 which revealed that 17% of the population had access to basic hygiene services in 2019 and 21% in 2018. Access to basic hygiene services for individuals within the richest wealth quintile (38%) was shown to be more than double the access for those in all other wealth quintiles. Across the states, 41% of households in Rivers state have access to basic hygiene services, the highest access in the country, while Ebonyi and state is 2.4%, the lowest access in the country. Figure 28: Access to basic hygiene services by residence, zones, wealth quintiles and gender * * * Figure 29: Access to basic hygiene services across states A quarter of the population (24%) have limited hygiene services. These are individuals who reside in households that have handwashing facilities without soap and/or water and about 68% of the population do not have a designated place for handwashing facilities within their households. The WHO/UNICEF JMP Sanitation Services Ladder Figure 30 shows the access distribution across hygiene services levels based on the WHO/UNICEF JMP classification of hygiene service ladder. National access results for basic hygiene services reveal a 1- %age increase compared to 2019 NORM results, while limited hygiene services dropped by up to 2- %age point and the proportion of the population with no handwashing facility decreased by 0.6-%age points. This indicates that almost a third of the population lost any form of access to hygiene services within the time period between 2018 and 2019. This drop in access figures can be witnessed across urban and rural areas, as well as among the richest and poorest households. Figure 30:The hygiene services ladder by residence and wealth quintiles * * * 3.2.3.3 Knowledge of Handwashing at Critical Times The WASHNORM 2021 study assessed handwashing at critical times including after defecation, after changing a child’s diaper, before eating and before preparing food. The study results reflect a high level of awareness of handwashing at critical times by all households surveyed. The study also revealed that most households practice handwashing at critical times. As displayed in figure 31 below, about 97% of households practice handwashing before eating, 97% wash hands after using the toilet, 75% wash hands before preparing food. Similar to NORM 2018 results, the survey revealed that only 12% of households consider handwashing after cleaning up child’s faeces or changing a child’s diaper a critical time, indicating little progress during the time period in addressing this issue. It means that the notion across many communities in Nigeria that child faeces are harmless is still prevalent. As such, mothers and caregivers rarely practice handwashing after cleaning up children’s faeces. Figure 31: Knowledge of critical times for handwashing 99% \[Image: X744\]Heads of Households have \[Image: X742\] \[Image: X743\] Heads of Households have knowledge of at least 2 \[Image: X742\]critical times for handwashing \[Image: X743\] Heads of households demonstrated proper handwashing with water \[Image: X746\]and soap under running water Following the statistical analysis of the above results on handwashing at critical times, it was revealed that 99% of households had knowledge of at least two critical times for handwashing, a 18-%age point increase from 2019 NORM reported figures of 81%. There were little to no disparities across all disaggregated parameters. 3.2.3.4 Demonstration of Handwashing at critical times Across the geopolitical zones, only 4% and 6% of households in the Northeast and Southeast, respectively, were able to demonstrate proper handwashing techniques compared with the Southwest where up to 11% of households demonstrated proper handwashing. Across areas of residence, the richest households (21%) were about ten times as likely to demonstrate proper handwashing techniques than the poorest households (2%). * * * Figure 32: Knowledge and Demonstration of handwashing techniques by geopolitical zones \[Image: X748\] 3.2.4 Composite Analysis of Households’ Access to WASH Services it was estimated that only 4% of the population are likely to practice proper handwashing with water and soap at critical times. This low figure can be attributed to many factors including: lack of education about proper handwashing, poor understanding of the linkages between health and hygiene practices, and lack of improved water facilities close to households, amongst others. * * * sanitation services; without basic toilets, the spread of infections cannot be curbed with only water supply and hygiene services. From a composite analysis of household access to water, sanitation and hygiene services, it was revealed that only 10% of the population now have access to basic WASH services, a 1-%age point increase from NORM 2019 results. In population figures, 2.7 million people have gained access to all of the WASH services between 2019 and 2021. As neither WASH component can be effective in protecting and promoting health and wellbeing without the other, special attention should be placed on households which have access to only one of each component of WASH services. These include the 27% of the population with access to basic water supply services only, 2% of the population with basic hygiene services only and 9% of the population with basic sanitation services only. **Figure 33: Composite analysis of households’ access to WASH services** **5%** # 27% 10% 9% # 25% 2% 1% Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * ## 3.3 URBAN WATER UTILITIES ASSESSMENT ### Key Findings There are an estimated 1,395 waterworks connected to urban water utilities across the 36 states of Nigeria including the FCT serving urban settlements. 951 (67 %) of water works are not functional, while 157 (12 %) are partially functional. 28 out of 36 states plus the FCT have urban water utilities out of which only 16 are functional Only 249 LGAs out of the 744 LGAs in the country have piped water service from urban utilities Only 444,171 (8 %) of the 1,195,262 urban water service connections across the country are active More than two-thirds (54 %) of urban water utilities’ consumers do not depend solely on their public tap water for drinking Combined installed capacity of all waterworks is 8,058,150m3 per day while the operating capacity of all waterworks is 1,975,073m3 per day representing a 25 % capacity utilization. In 1 out of 10 households, water is never available from their connection or taps fed by urban water utilities About 41 % of all taps fed by urban water utilities’ supply are contaminated with thermotolerant coliform Only 16 % of households report that they always receive sufficient quantities of water each day from their urban water utilities connections or taps and 48% of this group are satisfied with the quantity of water supplied he key objectives of the urban water utilities mapping study is to benchmark the level and quality of water supply services provided by urban water utilities in Nigeria and measure individual # Tperceptions and attitudes about their water supply services. This section provides information on the general status of urban water utilities focuses on the level of user satisfaction with characteristics of their tap water services supplied by urban water utilities, including the accessibility, the quality of the water provided and the amount of water that is available and used. ### 3.3.1 Status of Urban Water Utilities Findings from the WASHNORM 2021 showed that 28 out of 36 states plus the FCT have urban water utilities that produce water. Of the 28 states, only 16 have fully functional urban water utilities. ### 3.3.1.1 Inventory of Public Waterworks in Nigeria Currently, there is an estimated 1,395 waterworks across the 36 states of Nigeria including the FCT serving urban settlements. In addition, there are other 17 waterworks facilitated by Federal Ministry of Water Resources which are not captured in the state returns, thereby bringing the total waterworks in Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 the country to 1,412. This practically remained the same when compared with similar figure of 1,413 for 2019. 3.3.1.2 Functionality Combined installed capacity of all waterworks assessed is 8,058,150m3 per day, while their combined operating capacity is 1,975,073m3 per day. Capacity utilization in average statistical terms is about 25 %. This means that 75 % of the capacity of all waterworks in Nigeria are not being used. In terms of geopolitical variation, capacity utilization ranges from the Northeast with the highest capacity utilization at 43 % to the Southsouth with the lowest capacity utilization at 5 %. ^{1,975,073\ }!{\\sf m^{3}} It was revealed that about 21 % of waterworks were functional, 12 % are partially functional while 67 % were non-functional at the time of survey. Across geopolitical zones, functionality was highest in the Northeast and Southwest (30 % and 31 % respectively) and lowest in Southeast (5 %). When compared with similar data in the year 2019, a significant drop in functionality of waterworks and production capacity utilization, were noticed. Figure 34: Functionality of urban waterworks across geopolitical zones \[Image: X765\] 3.3.1.3 Capacity Utilization The prescribed service standard is 24hrs/day, but actual service availability is far less due to many factors including power supply to the water works. There is also some concerns about the integrity of the transmission lines and transformers supplying power from the national grid to the waterworks. In many locations, the receiving end voltage were reported to be lower than the statutory power requirement of the water works, therefore big pumps could not be operated. Lack of reliable power supply from the national grid to the waterworks, was reported to be one of the biggest factors for drop in capacity utilization in the year 2021. Others are staffing, ageing equipment low cost recovery, operational inefficiencies and low budgetary allocation and releases. Figure 35: Current capacity utilization of waterworks in Nigeria | S/N | Name of Waterworks | Location (States) | Installed Capacity(m3/d) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Rumola | Port Harcourt | 72900 | | 2 | Oji | Engu | 51840 | | 3 | Ariara | Abia | 36960 | | 4 | Azare Crash Programme Boreholes | Bauchi | 28350 | | 5 | Jalingo | Enugu | 28800 | | 6 | Jalingo | Taraba | 26774 | | 7 | Wudil | Kano | 22000 | | Operating Capacity(m3/d) | Capacity Utilization(%) | Primary Sources of Power | | --- | --- | --- | | 0.0 | 0.00% | National Grid/Generator | | 10584.0 | 20.42% | National Grid/Generator | | 0.0 | 0.00% | National Grid/Generator | | 0.0 | 0.00% | National Grid/Generator | | 2003.0 | 6.95% | National Grid/Generator | | 15468.0 | 57.77% | National Grid/Generator | | 0.0 | 0.00% | National Grid/Generator | * * * | S/N | Name of Waterworks | Location (States) | Installed Capacity(m3/d) | Operating Capacity(m3/d) | Capacity Utilization(%) | Primary Sources of Power | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 8 | Maru | Zamfara | 17,280 | 0.0 | 0.00% | National Grid/Generator | | 9 | Isheri Oshun | Lagos | 16,720 | 0.0 | 0.00% | National Grid/Generator | | 10 | GRA | Anambra | 16,000 | 0.0 | 0.00% | National Grid/Generator | Table 8: Top ten surface water systems, installed capacity and capacity utilization | S/N | Name of Waterworks | Location (States) | Installed Capacity(m3/d) | Operating Capacity(m3/d) | Capacity Utilization(%) | Primary Sources of Power | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Lower Usman Dam, Abuja | FCT | 600,000 | 268715.0 | 44.79% | National Grid/Generator | | 2 | Adiyan | Lagos | 293,480 | 12342.0 | 4.21% | National Grid/Generator | | 3 | Kaduna North | Kaduna | 240,000 | 107196.0 | 44.67% | National Grid/Generator | | 4 | Challawa | Kano | 210,000 | 56500.0 | 26.90% | National Grid/Generator | | 5 | Zaria | Kaduna | 210,000 | 15801.0 | 7.52% | National Grid/Generator | | 6 | Asejire | Oyo | 188,968 | 0.0 | 0.00% | National Grid/Generator | | 7 | Iju | Lagos | 187,440 | 90329.0 | 48.19% | National Grid/Generator | | 8 | Ede | Osun | 180,000 | 19080.0 | 10.60% | National Grid/Generator | | 9 | Tambuwa | Kano | 170,000 | 34576.0 | 20.34% | National Grid/Generator | | 10 | Ilorin/Asa | Kwara | 117,600 | 50500.0 | 42.94% | National Grid/Generator | \[Image: X767\]The plant serving the settlement must be functional at the time of survey 3.3.1.4 Waterworks Mapping in Selected Settlements and Study Limitation \[Image: X767\]The service are should be well defined and preferably consist of a mix of different socioeconomic groups \[Image: X767\]A good network distribution map and customer database must be available * * * Network geospatial maps were produced for selected service areas across Nigeria. Annex I shows maps of some selected service areas in Delta, Cross River, Kano, Jos, Kwara, Benue, Taraba, and Bauchi states. The study assessed the selected waterworks’ production plants and transmission systems to document water intake, technology, plant power, sources of supply, predominant technology of the pumping stations, the materials of the pipelines and the volume of the storage tanks, station power requirements and the sources of the supply. Despite limitations in data obtained, field reports from the study revealed significant challenges facing these water production plants in Nigeria including: Network geospatial maps were produced for selected service areas across Nigeria. Annex I shows maps of some selected service areas in Delta, Cross River, Kano, Jos, Kwara, Benue, Taraba, and Bauchi states. The study assessed the selected waterworks’ production plants and transmission systems to document water intake, technology, plant power, sources of supply, predominant technology of the pumping stations, the materials of the pipelines and the volume of the storage tanks, station power requirements and the sources of the supply. Despite limitations in data obtained, field reports from the study revealed significant challenges facing these water production plants in Nigeria including: 1. Aged infrastructure and pipelines 2. Water leakages along pipelines resulting in unaccounted for or non-revenue water 3. Obstructed and inaccessible transmission main corridors 4. Low technology injection 5. Declining quantity of water due to reservoir sedimentation 6. Declining quality of raw water due to poor watershed management 7. Unreliable public power supply 8. High production and pumping costs Table 9: Internal Challenges as perceived by the utility 9. Operators with obsolete skills | Milestones | NW | NE | TOTAL | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Inadequate&Aged Infrastructure | 75% | 100% | 85% | | Inadequate Operational Support System | 25% | 0% | 25% | | Low Staff Productivity | 0% | 50% | 100% | | Inadequate MIS | 75% | 0% | 25% | | Low Operational Efficiency | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Low Operational Resiliency | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Low Cost Recovery | 0% | 0% | 0% | | NC | SW | SS | SE | Average | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 16% | 100% | 83% | 100% | 91% | | 4% | 0% | 17% | 40% | 16% | | 00% | 33% | 67% | 20% | 45% | | 9% | 0% | 50% | 20% | 29% | | 0% | 0% | 67% | 20% | 14% | | 4% | 0% | 50% | 20% | 14% | | 0% | 17% | 17% | 40% | 12% | * * * Table 10: External Challenges as perceived by the utility | Milestones | NW | NE | NC | SW | SS | SE | Average | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Poor Power Supply | 75% | 33% | 43% | 100% | 50% | 40% | 57% | | Unreliable Raw Water Resources | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 25% | 4% | | Poor Funding | 25% | 67% | 29% | 83% | 17% | 60% | 47% | | Vandalization of Asset | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 20% | 3% | | Poor Understanding by Stakeholders | 0% | 0% | 71% | 0% | 17% | 80% | 28% | | Operational Autonomy | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | | Customers Unwillingness & Inability to Pay for Service | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3.3.2 Accessibility, Quality and Safety of Urban Water Supply Services The survey revealed that 98 % of consumers who are connected to urban water utilities services, have connections to urban water supply within their household. 61% of these are active users of the public water utilities service while as much as 54 % do not depend on solely on urban utilities supply for their drinking water. As can be observed in Figure 36 below, the predominant reasons cited for not drinking their tap water is that water was not always available, reported by 43 % of households. Households who do not always consume tap water for drinking rely mostly on tubewells/boreholes or sachet water (67 %) for their drinking water needs. The survey revealed that 98 % of consumers who are connected to urban water utilities services, have connections to urban water supply within their household. 61% of these are active users of the public water utilities service while as much as 54 % do not depend on solely on urban utilities supply for their drinking water. As can be observed in Figure 36 below, the predominant reasons cited for not drinking their tap water is that water was not always available, reported by 43 % of households. Households who do not always consume tap water for drinking rely mostly on tubewells/boreholes or sachet water (67 %) for their drinking water needs. * * * Figure 36: Reasons for not drinking from taps connected to urban water utilities In about 1 out of 10 households (9%), water is never available from their connection or tap, while 73 % report that they receive fluctuating availability. For those who have ever had availability issues, 32 % of consumers have had their water supply cut off for more than 2 weeks in the past 3 months. Only 16 % of households report that they always receive sufficient quantities of water each day. About 41% of all taps fed by urban water utilities’ supply are contaminated with thermotolerant coliform with an average coliform forming units per 100ml at 234 CFU/100ml and total coliform forming units at 1,461 CFU/100ml. Only 16% households take actions like boiling or use of a filtration system to make their water supply safer to drink. 3.3.3 Tariffs and Billing Services This section gives an overview of the ways in which households pay for their water services provided by urban water utilities, and their perception on the affordability of their urban water supply service. Across the urban utilities, only 8 % of consumers are metered, while other get estimated billing or do not pay at all for their urban water supply services. The regional trend of current tariff as tabulated below shows that water tariff varies significantly from state to state and from one region to the other. However, the average monthly tariff across the nation is NGN1,723 per connection. Most of the tariff in the table were reviewed more than 5years ago. Most of the tariff system are flat rate and were last reviewed about 5 years ago. * * * Table 11: Current Approved Average Tariff (N) | Milestones | NW | NE | NC | SW | SS | SE | National Average | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Average Monthly Flat Rate Per Connection | 2146 | 1540 | 2186 | 1693 | 1650 | 1125 | 1723 | | Average Volumetric (Metered Rate/m3) | 64 | 175 | 150 | 194 | 113 | 180 | 146 | 3.3.4 Household Satisfaction Levels with the Quality of Public Water Utilities Services Urban water utilities consumers were asked to rate their satisfaction levels of different components of water services. These “characteristics” included both quality and quantity attributes, as well as attributes associated with the quality of customer services of water utilities. Respondents ranked water quality in terms of taste, smell, color as the most highly rated service they will like to see. This was followed by mode of tariff payments, customer relations, duration of water flow and quantity of water supplied. More than half of households (52 %), indicated that they were either indifferent or dissatisfied with the duration of water flow to households and the quantity of water supplied. 61 % were not satisfied with the process of reconnection when they are disconnected from service. Figure 37 below shows the satisfaction levels of consumers on the different services being provided by their public water utilities. * * * Figure 37: Consumers’ satisfaction with the quality of public water utilities services Services/ Feedbacks \[Image: X774\] Tariff/Billing Systems \[Image: X772\] \[Image: X770\] Quantity and Quality of Water \[Image: X771\] Administrative Process \[Image: X769\] * * * 3.4 STATUS OF WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES IN COMMUNITIES | Key Findings | | | --- | --- | | □ | There are an estimated 2,313,566 water points in Nigeria, with about 60% located in rural areas and 40% in urban areas | | □ | 30% of all households use motorized boreholes. 11% of all motorized boreholes are solar-powered | | □ | Only12% of water points in Nigeria are handpump boreholes, while a majority (42%) are hand dug wells | | □ | Up to 84% of all water supply facilities were functional at the time of the survey. 48% of non-functional facilities stopped working for more than a year preceding the survey | | □ | Functionality of privately-owned (69%) water points is higher than functionality of publicly-owned systems at 53% | | □ | Only 15% of water systems have provisions for people living with disabilities | | □ | About two-thirds of the water points (75%) are provided by individuals(i.e. households, private businesses, communities or philanthropists). While on 4% of total water points are provided by donors | | □ | 57% of water facilities are publicly-used | | □ | 30% of all publicly-used water systems have some form of facility management committee in place, while 51% have water point facility caretakers in place. | | □ | Water tariff systems are in place in only 8% of the facilities,with 70% of the tariff system being“payment per container” | | □ | The average per capita share for water supply in Nigeria is 10 liters per person per day | | □ | Only 2% of water facilities are available for at least 6 hours daily for the past 2 weeks preceding the survey | The 2021WASHNORM analyzes various determinants of sustainable access to community water supply services. Key aspects that are tracked are functionality, dependability, adequacy and availability of he water facilities mapping in communities exercise was conducted to improve the evidence base on small and medium-scale water supply facilities and gain a comprehensive view of the status Tof water supply service in Nigeria. The survey findings for this module will enable policy makers and WASH practitioners carry out systematic assessments on the current situation of the water supply sub-sector for informed policy making and prioritization of resources. * * * water supply service. This section provides a summary of the findings of the survey which can be used to update and track the status of water supply facilities in communities. ## 3.4.1 Water Facility Status and Types The survey estimated that there is a total of 2,313,566 water points in Nigeria, with about 60 % located in rural areas and 40 % in urban areas. The majority of water facilities are improved hand dug wells and motorized borehole constituting about 42 % and 30 % of the total number of facilities respectively, while only 12 percent are hand pump boreholes. Improved hand dug wells are mainly prevalent in the Northcentral (61%) and Southwest (58 %). About 11% of all motorized boreholes are solar-powered. Handpump boreholes are predominant in the Northern region as they are more likely to be found in the Northcentral (9 %), Northeast (27 %) and Northwest (24 %) than in the Southeast (4 %), Southsouth (3 %) and Southwest (4 %). Also, facilities located in rural areas (16 %) are nearly three times more likely to be hand pump boreholes than water facilities found in urban areas (6 %). Improved hand dug wells are also prevalent, as they make up 42 % of facilities found in communities. Public stand post connected to regional scheme was widely available in the Southsouth (32, 132) and least used in the Southeast (1,353), while harvested rain water was predominant in the Southeast (117, 381), and not really used in the Northwest and Northeast. Developed spring accessed mainly by people in the Southsouth (2, 832). ## 3.4.2 Ownership, Operations and Maintenance About 81 % of all community water points are provided by individual, communities, private businesses, or philanthropists and are not funded by government. The federal, state and local governments together provide 18 % of the water points, while donors provide only 4 % of total water points. About half of all water points (57 %) are publicly-used. One in three (30 %) of these publicly-used water systems have some form of facility management committee in place, while 51 % have water point facility caretakers in place. Female representation within these water facility operations and management structures is low as only 20 % of facility management committees are females while as little as 6 % of water point facility caretakers are females. Most communities (30 %) travel for more than one hour in search of spares for repairs of water points. Water tariff systems are in place in only 7 % of publicly-used facilities, with the predominant tariff system being “per container” utilized by 70 % of facilities. One in ten households (11%) using functional water facilities reported that they are not able to consistently get water from their water sources, even though they will want to. The main reason given by 39 % of households, is that the water source is too far from them. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * ## 3.4.3 Accessibility, Availability and Quality of Water Facilities Only 15 % of water systems have provisions for persons living with disabilities. In assessing availability of water systems, only 2 % of water facilities are available for at least 6 hours daily for the past two weeks preceding the survey. 28 % of water facilities are seasonal which means their flow, quality and availability fluctuate from rainy to dry season. Clean water for the most part is expected to be colourless, tasteless and odourless therefore coloured, smelly water and water with taste is indicative of possible containmination from the source or the medium use for storage. As a result, water for consumption and other domestic or public use should be free from colour, taste and odour as occasioned by contaminants. The quality of drinking water is checked, with the aim of ensuring the physical, chemical and microbiological properties meet up with global standards. This is the premise on which the WASH NORM interrogate water quality as part of the survey. This is done by exploring the perception of water quality using organoleptic and rapid E.coli tests by the data collectors and monitors. The test measures the physical quality of water, which looks at the key elements mentioned above which are colour or clarity, taste, odour and temperature and the E.coli load in the water. Poor water quality can impact quantity and safety of water accessed by households as well as the available option of water source most especially in rural areas. It was observed from the 2021 WASHNORM results that about 27 % of the water supply sources surveyed had a noticeable taste, 7 % had a perceivable odour and 12 % had visible color. Across rural and urban sectors, urban facilities had overall better organoleptic features than those in rural areas. Facilities in rural and urban areas whose water had taste recorded 32 % and 20 %, odor recorded 9 % and 4 % and colour 15 % and 7 %, respectively. The 2021 WASHNORM water quality assessments indicate that a large number of sources used by people for drinking are not adequately protected from fecal contamination. This is in part is due to poor siting of water facilities. When water sources are situated in close proximity (30 meters or less) to or downhill from latrines or septic tanks, cross-contamination of water sources and wastewater occurs. Also, gross contamination can occur if facilities are located close to (30 meters or less) other sources of pollution such as household waste collection points or livestock watering points. Sanitary inspection of the water points and surroundings showed that 11 % of the water facilities had latrines/septic tanks located within a 30 meter radius of the water point, and 52 % of the facilities had latrines were uphill. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * 3.4.4 Functionality of water facilities Of the estimated estimated 2, 313, 566 water points documented during 2021 WASHNORM, 62 % were observed to be functional nationwide as at the time of the survey while 38% were broken down. The level of brokedown based on type of water facilities are as follows: boreholes- 60 %, public tap/water kiosk- 33 %, improved hand dug well- 68 % and rainwater/dev spring- 69 %. The Northeast had more breakdown as against other zones- Northeast 37 %, Northwest 31 %, Northcentral 18 %, Southwest 13 %, Southsouth 10 % and Southeast 8 %. Furthermore, rural areas also had more facility breakdown 21% than the urban areas 18 %. Functionality of privately-owned (69 %) water points stands higher than publicly-owned systems (53 %). Little variations were observed in functionality status of privately-owned water points across geopolitical zones and areas of residence. It was also shown that 22 % of public water points break down in their first year of operation. Figure 38: Functionality of all water points by residence Figure 39: Functionality of all water points by ownership and useage 3.4.5 Dependability of Water Facilities Dependability of a water supply systems is a measure of reliance on or likelihood of performance of the system over a period of time with regards to its ability to deliver water supply services in line with prescribed national minimum service standards. It is used to measure how dependable a system is to deliver quality services and/or adhere to a certain standard. * * * Dependability under WASH NORM is analyzed across three categories as follows: \[Image: X790\]Dependability of the system’s design and configuration \[Image: X790\]Dependability of the system’s operation and maintenance \[Image: X790\]Dependability of the system’s functionality To access these categories, a set of composite indicators were developed using complementary parameters for each of the category. A minimum benchmark score of 70 % was set for measuring the performance of each water facility against the composite indicators. Any facility that scored above 70 % was considered compliant for dependability and any facility that scored less was considered noncompliant or not dependable. The key parameters used for measurement and their ranking are explained below and listed in table 8, 9 and 10. 3.4.5.1 System’s Design and Configuration Dependability of the system’s design and configuration covered checks on the seasonal conditionality of water points seeking to determine if water dries up at specific times of the year thereby limiting access. It also assess if the water points has factors that enables the comfort of all users, e.g. accessibility for persons living with disability, distance to the water point and waiting time during dry and wet seasons. Other variables are the siting, structure and quality of water from the water points. In 2021WASHNORM, findings indicate that only 29 % of water facilities in the country are dependable when measured against the parameters of design and configuration. Table 8 shows the dependability parameters and weights for system’s design and configuration. * * * Table 12: Indicators and parameters for dependability of systems’ design and configuration Dependability of Design and Configuration of Water Systems's Parameter | Indicator Weight | Variable Weights | Options | Scores | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Seasonal Confidence 10% | 100% | Does water dry up? | yes | no | | | | | score% | 0 | 100 | | | | | | | 10% | Disability Provisions | yes | no | | | | | | score% | 100 | 0 | | | | | | | Comfort 25% | 30% | Distance to HHs | <100 | 101-500 | 501-1000 | 1001-2000 | >2000m | | score% | 100 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | | 45% | Wait time (dry) | <5min | 5-10 min | 11-30 min | 31-2hr | >2hr | | | score% | 100 | 90 | 80 | 50 | 0 | | | | 15% | Wait time (wet) | <5min | 5-11min | 11-31 min | 31-2hr | >2hr | | | score% | 100 | 90 | 80 | 50 | 0 | | | | Siting and structure 25% | 25% | Latrine in 30min | yes | no | | | | | score% | 0 | 100 | | | | | | | 25% | Latrine uphill | yes | no | | | | | | score% | 0 | 100 | | | | | | | 25% | Cracked platform | yes | no | In case system is not a handpump the weight is distributed to the first 2 parameter. | | | | | | score% | 0 | 100 | | | | | Across the zones in Nigeria, 49 % for water point in the Southwest zone are dependabile for design and configuration followed by the Southsouth and the Southeast at 37 % and 36 % respectively. Less than 20 % of water facilities in the Northeast, Northwest and Northcentral zones are dependable for design and configuration dependability. 38 % of urban water points were indicated to have good design and configuration while 22 % was reported for rural areas. Across the zones in Nigeria, 49 % for water point in the Southwest zone are dependabile for design and configuration followed by the Southsouth and the Southeast at 37 % and 36 % respectively. Less than 20 % of water facilities in the Northeast, Northwest and Northcentral zones are dependable for design and configuration dependability. 38 % of urban water points were indicated to have good design and configuration while 22 % was reported for rural areas. Figure 40 below shows dependability of water facilities with regards to their design and configuration across areas of residence, ownership and geopolitical zones. * * * Figure 40: Dependability of facilities’ design/configuration by residence, ownership, zones 3.4.5.2 System’s Operation and Maintenance Dependability of the system’s operation and maintenance assess the management of the water points by seeking to establish if a WASH Committee (WASHCOM) is available and operational in the community, gender ratio of membership of the WASHCOM, caretaker for each waterpoint, repairs which includes minor repairs technician and how easy is it to access required spare part. The set of parameters for assessing dependability by operation and maintenance also include workability of the waterpoint, the average length of time water is available from the water point in a day, a tariff system, type of tariff and households paying tariffs. Performance in the area of operations and maintenance showed that only 11 % of water points are considered to be dependable for operation and maintainance. Using these parameters,18 % of water ponts in the the Southeast are dependable, followed by the Northcentral with 15 %. The Northeast and the Southsouth ranked low with 8 % and 6 % respectively. The Northwest and Southwest zones have intermediate performance, scoring 11 % and 12 % respectively. Table 9 below shows the O&M dependability parameters and their weights. * * * Table 13: Indicators and parameters for dependability of systems’ operations and maintenance | Dependability of operations and Maintenance Parameters | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Theme and Indicator Weight | Variable weights | Options | Scores | | | | | | Facility Management 30% | 25% | Time needed to repair | 24 Hrs | 1-2 days | 2-7 days | 1-2 weeks | >2 weeks | | score% | 100 | 75 | 50 | 25 | 0 | | | | 20% | Is there a WASHCOM | Yes | No | DON'T KNOW | | | | | score% | 100 | 0 | 0 | | | | | | 15% | Gender Balance Ratio | M/F<=1.5 | 1.51 hour | <=1 hour | DON'T KNOW | | | | | score% | 0 | 100 | 0 | | | | | | Water Availability 30% | 50% | No.of days in last 2 week when facility not working | 0 | 2 | >2 | | | | score% | 100 | 50 | 0 | | | | | | 50% | Average daily hours over last 2 weeks when water is available | >=6 | <6 but >=3 | <3 | | | | | score% | 100 | 50 | 0 | | | | | | 41% | Is there tariff system/ | Yes | No | DON'T KNOW | | | | | score% | 100 | 0 | 0 | | | | | | Tariff System 40% | 18% | Tariff type | Flat | Metered | Per container | If answer to Tariff availability is No, DON'T KNOW. | | | score% | 50 | 100 | 100 | 0 | | | | | 41% | HH paying tariff | all | most | few | If answer to Tariff availability is No, DON'T KNOW. | | | | score% | 100 | 80 | 20 | 0 | | | | * * * Figure 41: Dependability of facilities’ O&M by residence, ownership and zones 3.4.5.3 System’s Functionality Dependability of the system’s functionality are assessed using parameters that seek to determine how functional the waterpoint is. This explores when last the waterpoint broke down and if the waterpoint has been operational in the last 2 weeks from the date of the survey. Others include the status of services, facility downtime and durability. 69 % of privately owned water facilities were assessed to be dependable for functionality as they are more functional than publicly water facilities which scored 53 %. At the regional level, private water facilities’ average functionality was ranked 70 % while the average for public water facilities is 51 %. Publicly owned water points in rural areas were more functional than water points in urban centres 54.5%. Similar pattern was observed for privately owned water points, rural privately owned water points had better functionality result 72.6 % compared to 62.5 % in the urban areas. Table 8 below presents results from the functionality dependability analysis and their weights for NORM 2022. * * * Table 14: Indicators and parameters for dependability of systems’ functionality | Variable Weights | Options | Scores | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 20% | Is facility functional | Yes | Not now but previously | Never | Abandoned/not completed | | | | score% | 100 | 50 | 0 | 0 | | | | | 10% | When did it break? | N/A(if above is Yes) | <1m | 1-3m | 3-6m | 6-12m | >1y | | score% | 100 | 60 | 50 | 25 | 10 | 0 | | | 10% | Water always available in past 2 weeks | Yes | No | Don't Know | | | | | score% | 100 | 0 | 0 | | | | | | 20% | Time needed to repair | 24 Hrs | 1-2 days | 2-7 days | 1-2 weeks | >2weeks | | | score% | 100 | 75 | 50 | 25 | 0 | | | | Has facility ever broken down? | Yes | No | | | | | | | score% | 0 | 100 | | | | | | | 20% | How long facility functioned before 1st breakdown? | N/A(if above is No) | <2y | 1-2y | 6-12m | 3-6m | <3m | | score% | 100 | 90 | 75 | 60 | 40 | 25 | | | 20% | Number of breakdowns in past 6 months | N/A or none | 2orbelow | 6-Mar | 7-10 | more than 10 | | | score% | 100 | 90 | 80 | 50 | 0 | | | Figure 42: Dependability of facilities’ functionality across residence, ownership and zones 3.4.6 Adequacy of Water Facilities Adequacy of water facilities is measured by coverage and daily per capita share of water. It is a measure of the ability of water supply systems to sustainably provide a minimum of 12-15 liters of water per person day (per capita share) to those living within 500 m of the water system. In the inaugural NORM survey, adequacy assessments were covered for rural areas only. As with the 2019 NORM survey, adequacy analysis in the 2021 WASHNORM, cover both urban and rural areas as the sampling scope for water facilities was concurrently expanded. To perform the adequacy analysis on water points, the standard number of persons served by each category of water point is estimated at 12 to 15 litres per person per day and was determined based on the estimated water production capacity of the various water point types. Ultimately, each water point was classified into five categories of adequacy ratings and the average per capita share was derived. The number of people within 500 m of each water point was generated using the UN population division’s population density map for Nigeria to extract the population within the polygons created from a 500 m buffer around these water points. Based on the standard beneficiary count for each facility type and their coefficient of functionality (derived by functionality dependability parameters) the number of beneficiary population for each water point was determined. The Per Capita Share (PCS) of water obtainable from each facility is calculated using: Total Beneficiary Population within each polygon divided by the actual population within the polygon multiplied by the Standard PCS (given as 15 L per day). These steps are shown in Figure 43 below. This analysis involved a population value extracted from 93,000 population density pixel points within 835 polygons created out of 4,538 water points. **Figure 43: Steps for conducting adequacy analysis for water systems** From the adequacy analysis, results show that the average per capita share of water in Nigeria is 10 liters per person per day. Disparities in per capita share exist across areas of residence as water facilities located in rural areas provide up to 12 lpd more than twice the volume provided by water facilities in urban areas, which provides only 5 lpd. At the zonal level, Northcentral and Northwest has Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * 11 lpd, while the Southsouth has10 lpd. The Southwest has the least at 8 lpd, while the Southeast and the Northeast is estimated at 10 lpd. Figure 44: Average per capita share of water supply in Nigeria Figure 45: Per capita share distribution across Nigeria From this analysis the various water systems were classified into 5-S categories, namely: 1. Snapped: These are systems that are not contributing to PCS due to non-functionality 2. Stressed: These are systems that are serving more than three times the population they should serve (providing less than 5 L PCS) 3. Stretched: These are systems that are serving about twice the population they should serve (providing between 5 L and 12 L PCS) * * * 4. Suitable: These are systems within the PCS prescribed by National Standards for Rural Areas (providing between 12 L and 15 L PCS) 5. Sufficient: These are systems meeting the PCS of 15 L and above Adequacy analysis showed that only 28 % of all functioning water facilities were found to meet the adequacy requirement which means they are of suitable and 20% were surplus capacity for the population they serve. Privately owned water points (22%) were found to be 10 % less adequate than public owned water point facilities 32%. Performance analysis of the other parameters showed that 24 % of functioning facilities were reported as being stressed just slightly above 22 % reported in 2018. 11 % was indicated as stretched and had no significant change from the 2018 findings of 10% while 38 % were found to have snapped in 2021 compared to 17 % in 2018. Adequacy analysis showed that only 28 % of all functioning water facilities were found to meet the adequacy requirement which means they are of suitable and 20% were surplus capacity for the population they serve. Privately owned water points (22%) were found to be 10 % less adequate than public owned water point facilities 32%. Performance analysis of the other parameters showed that 24 % of functioning facilities were reported as being stressed just slightly above 22 % reported in 2018. 11 % was indicated as stretched and had no significant change from the 2018 findings of 10% while 38 % were found to have snapped in 2021 compared to 17 % in 2018. Figure 46: Distribution of water systems by adequacy categories by residence and ownership Figure 47: Distribution of the population by adequacy categories * * * 3.5 ACCESS TO WASH IN INSTITUTIONS AND PUBLIC PLACES 3.5.1 Access to WASH Services in Schools | Key Findings | | | --- | --- | | □ | Only 11% of schools have access to gender sensitive basic WASH services | | □ | 37% of schools have basic water supply services, 35% have access to basic sanitation services and 30% to basic hygiene services | | □ | 31% of schools in rural areas have basic water supply services, while schools in urban areas is at 49% | | □ | Access to basic sanitation services in schools in urban areas is 44% and access for schools in rural areas is 23% | | □ | The predominant water sources used by schools, are tube wells/boreholes, constituting up to 33% of all water facilities found in schools | | □ | The predominant sanitation facility type used by schools that have toilets is the hanging latrine, making up 52% of all toilet types | | □ | Only 8% of schools have separate girls' toilet compartments with provisions for menstrual hygiene management | | □ | Only 4% of schools safely desludge their toilet when it is filled up | | □ | Handwashing facilities are not available in 49% of schools | | □ | Schools in rural areas (27%) are about twice less likely to have access to basic hygiene services than schools in urban areas (50%) | | □ | Group handwashing facilities are available within the school premises in 45% of the schools | | □ | Only 15% of schools have on-budget funds for maintenance of WASH facilities | hough the household is the primary data point for Water, sanitation and hygiene services, availability of WASH services in public spaces such as schools, health care facilities, markets, Tmotor-parks and other work places is also of great importance in the WASH sector. It is vital to note that the fulfillment of the rights to water, hygiene and sanitation for all cannot be achieved without unhindered access to safely managed WASH services public spaces. Therefore, access to WASH services is not only important at the household level but also in the school environment, influencing increase school enrolment, attendance, retention and completion as the child is free from illnesses such as diarrhoea and of recent the Corona Virus. The availability of WASH in schools promotes a healthy learning environment and contributes significantly to quality education as it reduces risk associated with the spread of infection as children actively interact in the school environment. Therefore, the school environment must have reliable and safely managed water supply, hygiene and safe sanitation facilities irrespective of location. Evidence abounds that rural areas already disadvantaged by limited development, have poor access to WASH services at the household and in public places including schools. As a consequence, facilities when available are often poorly designed, built, and located farther into the bush in most cases. Most children in schools have to travel quite a distance to access water facilities or utilize private latrines when these are not provided in schools, thereby exposing them to risks and violence particularly for the girl child. Additionally, post-menarchal girls experience indignity in the management of their menstrual hygiene which in most cases affect attendance and completion. It is also germane to highlight the fact that the availability of WASH services in the school augmented by sustained behaviour change promotion invariably influences improved hygiene and sanitation practices at the household level. This in turn reduces WASH related disease burden in the wider community. to WASH services at the household and in public places including schools. As a consequence, facilities when available are often poorly designed, built, and located farther into the bush in most cases. Most children in schools have to travel quite a distance to access water facilities or utilize private latrines when these are not provided in schools, thereby exposing them to risks and violence particularly for the girl child. Additionally, post-menarchal girls experience indignity in the management of their menstrual hygiene which in most cases affect attendance and completion. It is also germane to highlight the fact that the availability of WASH services in the school augmented by sustained behaviour change promotion invariably influences improved hygiene and sanitation practices at the household level. This in turn This section presents findings from the 2021 WASHNORM and provides updates on key indicators to enable the country monitor progress in achieving full coverage of WASH services in educational facilities. The WASH NORM survey also shows possible associations among and differences between key variables in the context of WASH in schools in line with the JMP indicators for measuring WASH services in schools as shown in Figure 48. Figure 48: WHO/UNICEF JMP services ladder for WASH in schools | DRINKING WATER | | SANITATION | HYGIENE | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Advanced service:Additional criteria may include quality,quantity,continuity and accessibility to all users | | Advanced Service:Additional criteria may include student per toilet ratios,menstrual hygiene facilities,cleanliness,accessibility to all users,and excreta management systems | Advanced Service:Additional criteria may include quality,quantity,continuity,and accessibility to all users. | | Basic Service:Drinking water from an improved source and water is available at the school at the time of survey | | Basic Service:Improved sanitation facilities at the school that are single-sex and useable(available,functional,and private)at the time of the survey | Basic Service:Handwashing facilities with water and soap available at the school at the time of the survey | | Limited service:Drinking water from an improved source but water is unavailable at the school at the time of survey | | Limited Service:Improved sanitation facilities at the school that are either not single-sex and not useable at the time of the survey | Limited Service:Handwashing facilities with water but no soap available at the school at the time of the survey | | No Service:drinking water from an unimproved source or no water source at the school | | No service:Unimproved sanitation facilities or no sanitation facilities at the school | No Service:No handwashing facilities available or no water available at the school. | | Note:Improved sources include piped water,boreholes or tube wells,protected dug wells,protected springs and packaged or delivered water.Unimproved sources include unprotected wells,unprotected springs and surface water. | | Note:Improved facilities include flush/pour toilets,ventilated improved pit latrines,composting toilets and pit latrines with a slab or platform. Unimproved facilities include pit latrines without slab or platform,hanging latrines and bucket latrines | Note:Handwashing facilities may be fixed or mobile,and include a sink with tap water,buckets with taps,tippy-taps and jugs or basins designated for handwashing.Soap includes bar soap,liquid soap,powder detergent and soapy water but does not include ash,soil,sand or other handwashing agents | * * * ## 3.5.1.1 General School Information About 1 % of the schools in Nigeria are special needs schools. Only about a third of schools (34 %) of schools are fenced, with the rural sector having a lower percentage (19 %) than the urban sector (66 %). Only 42% of schools get support from the school-based management committees, PTAs and host communities for the maintenance of their WASH facilities, while only as little as 15 % have budget funds for maintenance of WASH facilities. ## 3.5.1.2 Water Supply Services in Schools ## Types and status of water supply services Tube wells/boreholes are the predominant water sources used by schools constituting up to 36 % of all facilities found in schools. Slightly less than half of all schools (53 %) have improved water supply facilities, while 1 in 3 schools (30 %) have improved water supply facilities within the premises. Urban schools have a higher proportion at 43 % than rural schools are at 23 %. About 24 % of schools have improved water supply sources within the premises that is typically available throughout the school year. Among schools with any form of water facility, 76 % of them do not treat their drinking water or practice any water treatment methods to make their water safer to drink. With 0.5 % of the student population being People living with disabilities, only 18 % of schools have improved water supply facilities within the premises that is accessible to pupils/students living with disabilities. ## WHO/UNICEF JMP Drinking water supply levels in Schools Schools with basic water supply services stands at 37 %, a 5-%age point increase from 2019 NORM results. These are water supplied from improved sources where water is available at the school during the time of the survey. There are disparities across areas of residence as the proportion of schools with basic water supply services in rural areas stands at 31 %, while that of urban areas is at 49 %. Across geopolitical zones, the survey showed that access is highest in the Northwest zone at 43 %, while access is lowest in the Southeast zone at 22 %. **Figure 49: Access to basic water supply services in schools by residence, zone and type** **NW NE** **37%43%** **35%** **National** **NC** **37%44%** **Urban** **49% 35%** **SW** **43%** **SE** **31%** **22%** **SS** **Rural** **29%** **Primary Secondary** Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * About 11 % of the schools have limited access to water supply services, which is defined as water supply from an improved sources but water is unavailable at the school at the time of the survey. More than half (47 %) of all schools either have unimproved water sources or no water supply services. These schools are classified as having no water supply services according to the WHO/UNICEF JMP definitions. Figure 50 below shows the current access to water supply services in schools according to the categories of the WHO/UNICEF JMP ladder. Figure 50: The water supply services ladder in schools by residence, zone and type 3.5.1.3 Sanitation services in Schools As recommended by the JMP, countries can go further in assessing WASH services in institutions by incorporating additional criteria, including quality, quantity, continuity and accessibility to all users. Based on advanced indicators tracked under the WASHNORM 2021, the findings revealed that the proportion of schools with access to advanced basic water supply services is 22 %. These are schools with functional, improved water supply facilities within the school premises and available at all times during the school days. Schools within urban areas have twice as much access to these advanced basic services than those in rural areas. * * * and available at all times during the school day. With regards to fecal sludge management, only 4 % of schools safely empty their toilets of faecal sludge. The predominant sanitation facility used by schools that have toilets is the hanging latrine, making up 52 % of the toilet types. However, 41 % of the schools use flush and pour flush toilets, while up to 12% of schools that use unimproved systems use pit latrines without slabs. To support menstrual hygiene management (MHM) for pupils, toilets must be gender-segregated and have water and soap for handwashing with covered garbage bins. The NORM 2019 revealed that only have water and soap for handwashing with covered garbage bins. The NORM 2019 revealed that only slightly more than 3 in 10 schools (30 %) have separate blocks of improved toilets for males and females, while 8 % of schools have girls’ toilet compartments that have provisions for MHM. Only 42 % of the schools with latrines have at least one compartment that is usable and accessible to pupils/students living with disabilities. have water and soap for handwashing with covered garbage bins. The NORM 2019 revealed that only slightly more than 3 in 10 schools (30 %) have separate blocks of improved toilets for males and females, while 8 % of schools have girls’ toilet compartments that have provisions for MHM. Only 42 % of the schools with latrines have at least one compartment that is usable and accessible to pupils/students living Across all the sanitation services indicators, it is revealed that schools in rural areas are more deprived in access to sanitation services than schools in urban areas. WHO/UNICEF JMP Sanitation Services Levels in Schools Only 30 % of schools provide access to basic sanitation services, about 4-%age point increase in access from the 2019 results. These are improved sanitation facilities at the school which are single-sex and usable at the time of the survey. Disparities exist across areas of residence as access for schools in urban areas stand at 44% and access for schools in rural areas are at 23 %. There were little disparities in access between primary and secondary schools. Figure 51: Access to basic sanitation services in schools by residence, zone and type \[Image: X839\] One in five (23 %) of the schools have limited access to sanitation services. These are schools that have improved sanitation facilities that are either not single-sex or not usable at the time of the survey. Slightly more than half (47 %) of all schools either have unimproved sanitation facilities or no toilet. These schools are classified as having no sanitation services according to the WHO/UNICEF JMP ladder. * * * Figure 52 below shows the current access to sanitation services in schools according to the categories of the WHO/UNICEF JMP ladder. Figure 52: The sanitation services ladder in schools by area residence and type The 2021 WASHNORM assessed schools with basic sanitation, integrating elements of availability, handwashing and Menstrual Health and Hygiene. Results showed that only 3 % of schools have basic gender-sensitive sanitation and hygiene services which are schools with useable improved toilets with separate blocks for males and females, available at all times during the school day and have facilities for handwashing and menstrual health and hygiene. Access is two times lower in the rural areas than in urban areas. 3.5.1.4 Hygiene Services in Schools Thirty-five % of schools have access to basic hygiene services, about three times more than the 2019 status of hygiene services. These are schools that provide handwashing facilities with water and soap available at the time of visit. Disparities exist across areas of residence as schools in rural areas (27 %) Types and status of hygiene services are twice less likely to have access to basic hygiene services than schools in urban areas (50 %). Across geopolitical zones, schools in the southern region have more access to basic hygiene services than schools in the northern region. Access to basic hygiene services in primary schools is 30 %, and in secondary school access is 29 %. Figure 53: Access to basic hygiene services in schools by residence, zone and type The proportion of schools with limited hygiene services stands at 23 %. These are schools that have handwashing facilities without soap and/or water at the time of the survey. 26 % of schools have access to handwashing facilities with water and soap available and evidently in use at the time of visit. 49 % of schools have no hygiene services, no handwashing facilities available or water at the school at the time of visit. The proportion of schools with access to basic water supply and sanitation services, meaning schools with improved water sources and sanitation facilities at the school that are single-sex and usable at the time of the survey, is 17 %. Disparities exist between schools in urban and rural areas, with urban schools (28 * * * %) being thrice as likely to have basic access to water supply and sanitation services as rural schools at 11 %. Disparities also exist across the zones with the Southwest (25 %) having the highest access, while the Southeast have the lowest at 7 %. The proportion of schools with basic gender-sensitive WASH services, that is, schools with improved water sources and improved sanitation facilities that are single-sex with usable toilets and handwashing facilities with water and soap available, is 11 %, a 7-%age point increase from 2019 NORM results. Disparities exist between schools in urban and rural areas as well as type of schools, with urban (18 %) and secondary schools (11 %) being twice as likely to have basic access to water supply, sanitation and hygiene services as rural (7 %) and primary schools (11 %). Figure 55: Access to basic WASH services in schools by residence, zone and type * * * ## 3.5.2 Access to WASH Services in Health Facilities ## Key Findings Only 6 % of health care facilities have access to basic WASH services 59 % of health facilities have basic water supply services. Access to basic water supply services in urban health facilities is 82 %, while access for those in rural areas is 50 % 12 % of health facilities have basic sanitation services. Access in urban areas stands at 15 %, while in rural areas it stands at 11 % 30 % of health facilities have access to basic hand hygiene services. Access to basic hygiene services in health facilities in urban areas is 47%, almost twice the access level in rural health facilities at 24% Tube wells/boreholes are the predominant source of water in health facilities, constituting 52 % of the water facility types 17 % of hospitals do not have any water source at all and 18 % do not have toilets/latrines on premises Flush/pour flush toilets were the predominant sanitation facilities in health facilities, making up 58 % of all toilet types Only 19 % of health facilities have improved toilets, which are separated for females and allow for menstrual health and hygiene and 23 % have improved toilets which are accessible to those with limited mobility About half of health facilities (47 %) have hand hygiene stations with soap and water at points of care, while 36 % have hand hygiene stations with soap and water at toilets 31 % of health facilities have handwashing facilities with soap and water and accessible to both staff and patients and evidently in use at the time of visit, with 24 % in rural areas and 50 % in urban areas 37 % of health care facilities safely separate their garbage and waste into at least 3 labelled bins in consultation area and safely dispose of garbage/waste 31 % of health facilities with WASH facilities keep a dedicated budget for cleaning and maintaining the WASH facilities y nature of the services they render health care facilities are environments with the potential to habour pathogens which causes infectious and transmissible diseases. The availability of # Buninterrupted WASH services in a health care facility contributes to the delivery of quality healthcare services; support infection prevention and control measures, protect patients from infections and avoidable deaths and protects health care personnel who are the front-line disease control. The Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * JMP 2020 WASH in Health Care Facilities (HCF) report showed that a quarter of all health care facilities globally have no basic water services translating to an estimated 712 million people who use HCFs without access to water. Data on access to sanitation also revealed that 10 % of health care facilities globally had no sanitation services and that 1 in 3 HFCs lacked adequate facilities for hand hygiene at a point of care. The report further revealed that 1 in 3 health care facilities were found not to segregate waste safely. In relation to maternal and neo-natal health, the report showed that infections associated with unclean births accounted for 26 % of neonatal deaths and 11 % of maternal mortality which translate to more than 1 million deaths yearly. It further stated that in some African countries, up to 20 % of women get a wound infection after a caesarean section. This underscores the importance of WASH in HCFs if the SDG 6 and others are to be achieved as scheduled. From the above summation, it is evident that lack of or limited access to water, hygiene and sanitation facilities in any HCF predisposes staff, patients and visitors to hospital-acquired infections. Furthermore, several studies have established the linkage between absence of WASH services and catastrophic health spending and other wide-ranging undesirables health outcomes. To this end, WASHNORM tracks the status of WASH services in healthcare facilities in Nigeria using core indicators developed by the WHO/UNICEF JMP as shown in Figure 56. Specifically, the survey studies the following parameters; availability of clean and potable water supplies; well-maintained, private, disability-friendly improved toilet facilities; a safe and hygienic way to dispose of infectious waste; and the availability of hand hygiene facilities with water and soap across secondary and primary healthcare settings and different geopolitical zones and areas of residence, thereby enabling Nigeria to effectively embed WASH in HFs into the national and global SDGs monitoring frameworks. This section provides results of the 2021 WASHNORM survey with updates across all the indicators. * * * WATER Advanced service: To be defined at national level Basic Service: Basic Service: Water is available from an improved source located on premises. Limited service: An improved water is within Limited service: An improved water is within 500metres of the facility, but not all requirements for basic services are met. No Service: No Service: Water is taken from Water is taken from unprotected dug wells or springs, or surface water sources; or an improved sources that is more than 500m from the facility; or the facility has no water source. Advanced Service: To be Defined at National Level Basic Service: Basic Service: Improved sanitation facilities Basic Service: Improved sanitation facilities are useable with at least one toilet dedicated for staff, at least one sex-separated toilet with menstrual hygiene facilities, and at least one toilet accessible for people with limited mobility. Limited Service: Limited Service: At least one improved Limited Service: At least one improved sanitation facility, but not all requirements for basic are met HAND HYGIENE No service: Toilet facilities are unimproved No service: Toilet facilities are unimproved (pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines and buckets latrines), or there are no toilets or latrines at the facility. Advanced service: To be defined at National level Basic Service: Basic Service: Functional hand hygiene facilities (with water and soap and/or alcohol-based hand rub) are available at points of care, and within 5 metres of toilets. Limited Service: Functional hand hygiene facilities are available at either points of care or toilets, but not both. No Service: No functional hand hygiene No Service: No functional hand hygiene facilities are available at either points of care or toilets. 3.5.2.1 General Health Facility Information 3.5.2.2 Water supply services in health facilities The 2021 WASHNORM estimates, there are xxx number of heacl care facilities. About 88 % of health facilities accessed are primary health care centers. Only 31% of HFs with WASH facilities keep a dedicated budget for cleaning and maintaining the WASH facilities. Meanwhile, the average diarrhoea cases per month in the past 12 months is 35 %, while that amongst under five children within the same period is 33 %. Up to 74 % of health facilities have access to an improved water supply service. About 1 in 3 health facilities (32 %) have improved water supply facilities located within the premises and accessible to Types and Status of Water Supply Services * * * PLWD. About 1 in 5 health facilities (21%) have improved water supply sources within the premises, available each day for the last two weeks and is typically available throughout the year. WHO/UNICEF JMP Water Supply Services Levels in Health Facilities About 59 % of health facilities have basic water supply services. These are health facilities with functional improved water supply facilities within the hospital premises. This is almost a 4-%age point increase from NORM 2019 findings. There are disparities in access to basic water supply services across area of residence as access to basic water supply services in urban health facilities is 82 %, while access for those in rural areas is 50 %. Figure 57: Access to basic water supply services in health facilities by residence, zone and type 11 % health facilities have limited access to water supply services or improved water facilities within 500 meters of the premises whereby not all requirements for basic services were met. The proportion of health facilities either using unimproved water services or without access to water facilities was found to be 26%. Figure 58 below shows the current access to water supply services in health facilities according to the categories of the WHO/UNICEF JMP ladder. * * * Figure 58: The water supply services ladder in health facilities by residence and type 3.5.2.3 Sanitation Services in Health Facilities Types and Status of Sanitation Services Three-quarters of all health facilities (75 %) have improved toilets within the hospital premises. At least one useable improved toilet/latrine was found within the premises in 64 % of all health facilities designated for staff use only, while only 23 % have improved latrines within premises designated for patients. Flush/pour flush toilets were the predominant sanitation facilities in health facilities, making up 58 % of all toilet types. Almost 1 in 5 (19 %) of health facilities use pit latrines with slabs, while 18 % of health facilities do not have toilets/latrines on premises. Only about 1 in 10 (12 %) health facilities have basic sanitation services, which includes improved sanitation facilities that are usable with at least one toilet dedicated for staff, at least one sex-separated toilet with menstrual hygiene facilities and at least one toilet accessible for people with limited mobility. There are disparities across the geopolitical zones as the Southwest has the highest access to basic sanitation services in health facilities at 14 % and the Northeast has the lowest access at 9 %. Access in urban areas stands at 15 %, while in rural areas it stands at 11 %. WHO/UNICEF JMP Sanitation Services Levels in Health Facilities * * * Figure 59: Access to basic sanitation services in health facilities by residence, zone and type Health facilities with limited sanitation facilities stands at 66 %. These health facilities have at least one improved sanitation facility, but not all requirements for basic services are met. At the bottom of the services levels are hospitals without any toilets or which have unimproved toilets constituting about 23 % of all health facilities. Figure 60 below shows the current access to sanitation services in health facilities according to the categories of the WHO/UNICEF JMP ladder. Figure 60: The sanitation services ladder in health facilities by area of residence and type The 2021 WASHNORM assessed health facilities with basic sanitation, integrating elements of accessibility for patients, handwashing and menstrual health and hygiene. Results showed that only 7 % of health facilities have basic gender-sensitive sanitation and hygiene services which are health facilities with useable improved toilets with separate blocks for males and females, available for both staff and patients, and has facilities for handwashing and menstrual hygiene management. Access is two times lower in the rural areas than in urban areas. ## 3.5.2.4 Hygiene services in health facilities ## Types and Status of Hygiene Services Almost half of health facilities (45 %) have hand hygiene stations with soap and water at points of care, while more than a third (36 %) have hand hygiene stations with soap and water at toilets. One in three health facilities (31%) have handwashing facilities with soap and water that is accessible to both staff and patients and is evidently in use at the time of visit. Disparities exist across areas of residence as access for rural health facilities is at 24 % and access for urban health facilities at 50 %. The proportion of health facilities where garbage and waste are safely separated into at least 3 labelled bins in consultation areas and safely disposed is 37 %. ## WHO/UNICEF JMP Hygiene Services Levels in Health Facilities Basic hygiene services in health facilities require that functional handwashing facilities be available with soap and water at the points of care and within 5 meters of the toilets. Handwashing facilities, especially those situated around consultation areas and sanitation facilities, are very essential for the control of infections and spread of diseases in the health facilities. About 1 in 3 health facilities (30 %) have access to basic hand hygiene services. This is an 11 % increase in access to hygiene services in health facilities from access levels in 2019. There is a huge disparity across the zones with Southwest having the most access at 52 % and Northwest having the least at 17 %. Access to basic hygiene services in health facilities in urban areas is 47 %, twice the access level in rural health facilities at 24 %. **Figure 61: Access to basic hygiene services in health facilities by residence, zone and type** **53%** **NW** **17%** **NE** **30% 21%** **National 27%** **NC** **Urban** **47% 29%** **SW** **52%** **SS SE** **24%36% 20%** **Rural** **Primary Secondary** Limited access to hand hygiene service was noticed in 30 % of the health facilities. These health facilities have functional handwashing facilities at the points of care and within 5 meters of the toilet but are without soap and water. At the time of the survey, 74 % of health facilities did not have functional handwashing facilities at either the points of care or toilets. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * Figure 62: The hygiene services ladder in health facilities by residence and type 5.2.5 Composite Analysis of Access to WASH in health facilities The proportion of health facilities with access to basic WASH services stands at 6 %. These are health facilities with functional improved water supply facilities within the premises and with improved sanitation facilities that are usable with at least one toilet dedicated for staff, at least one sex-separated toilet with menstrual hygiene facilities, at least one toilet accessible by people with limited mobility, and with functional handwashing facility with water and soap available at the points of care and within 5 meters of the toilet. Nine % of health facilities were found to have access to basic water and sanitation services, while 7 % of health facilities have basic sanitation and hygiene services. These are health facilities with improved sanitation facilities that are usable with at least one toilet dedicated for staff, at least one sex-separated toilet with menstrual hygiene facility, at least one toilet accessible for people with limited mobility, and with functional handwashing facilities with water and soap available at the points of care and within 5 meters of the toilet. Figure 63: Access to basic WASH services in health facilities by residence, zone and type Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * ## 3.5.3 Access to WASH Services in Public Places ## Key Findings Only 4 % of markets and motor parks have access to basic gender-sensitive water, sanitation and hygiene services 13 % of markets and motor parks have basic gender-sensitive water supply and sanitation services About 33 % of markets and motor parks have access to basic water supply services Access for markets and motor parks in urban areas is 41%, while in rural areas is 25% Tube wells/boreholes were the predominant water supply sources, constituting about half of all improved water sources in markets and motor parks Only 20 % of the markets and motor parks have improved water supply facilities within their premises that are accessible to People living with disabilities Only 17 % of markets and motor parks have access to basic sanitation services. Access for markets and motor parks in urban areas are (28 %), while those in rural areas (11 %) The predominant latrine type in markets and motor parks are the flush and pour-flush systems constituting 57 % of all toilet facilities Only 8 % of markets and motor parks have access to basic hygiene services with only13 % having handwashing facilities by the toilet blocks One in five markets and motor parks (20 %) have improved and usable toilets that are cleaned at least once every day Only 36 % of markets and motor parks have dedicated committees to serve as custodians and caretakers of WASH facilities in public places aintaining proper water sanitation and hygiene services in public places is a key factor in the prevention and containment of diseases that threatens public health and by extension # Msocio-economic development. Therefore, no survey on WASH is complete without exhaustively examining availability and access to WASH services in public spaces considering the heavy traffic in markets and motor parks with multiple entry points. Efforts geared towards achieving SDG 6 in any environment must encompass provision of up to par social amenities including WASH facilities in motor parks, markets and other public places frequented by people. For this reason, the WASHNORM looks at indicators standardized by the JMP as shown in Figure 64. Broadly the indicators include, access to water supply and toilets with handwashing stations Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 in public places. The following section presents the 2021 WASHNORM findings on WASH in public places to provide updates and progress on achieving full access to WASH and to support systematic reviews. Figure 64: WHO/UNICEF JMP services ladder for WASH in public places DRINKING WATER Basic Service: Drinking water from an improved source and water is available at the public place at the time of survey SANITATION Limited service: Drinking water from an improved source but water is unavailable at the public place at the time of survey No Service: drinking water from an unimproved source or no water source at the public place Note: Improved sources Note: Improved sources include piped water, boreholes or tube wells, protected dug wells, protected springs and packaged or delivered water. Unimproved sources include unprotected wells, unprotected springs and surface water. Basic Service: Improved sanitation facilities at the public place that are singlesex and useable (available, functional, and private) at the time of the survey Limited Service: Improved HYGIENE Limited Service: Improved sanitation facilities at the public place that are either not single-sex and not useable at the time of the survey No service: Unimproved Note: Improved facilities include flush/pour toilets, ventilated improved pit latrines, composting toilets and pit latrines with a slab or platform. Unimproved facilities include pit latrines without slab or platform, hanging latrines and bucket latrines No service: Unimproved sanitation facilities or no sanitation facilities at the public place Note: Improved facilities Basic Service: Handwashing facilities with water and soap available at the public place at the time of the survey No Service: No handwashing facilities available or no water available at the public place. Note: Handwashing facilities may be fixed or mobile, and include a sink with tap water, buckets with taps, tippy-taps and jugs or basins designated for handwashing. Soap includes bar soap, liquid soap, powder detergent and soapy water but does not include ash, soil, sand or other handwashing agents. Limited Service: Handwashing facilities with water but no soap available at the public place at the time of the survey 3.5.3.2 Water supply services in public places Less than half of all markets and motor parks (40 %) have improved water supply facilities. Of the markets/parks with improved water facilities, about 94 % of them have the water sources located within the premises. Tube wells/boreholes were the predominant sources of water supply, constituting half of the improved water sources. Only 20 % of the markets and motor parks have improved water supply facilities within the premises that are accessible to people living with disabilities. Types and Status of Water Supply Services in Markets and Motor Parks * * * Reliable and regular availability of water supply in markets and motor parks are almost not existent, as findings revealed that only 1% of markets and motor parks have improved water supply facilities within the premises that is available each day for the two weeks preceding the survey and is typically available throughout the year. WHO/UNICEF JMP Water Supply Services Levels in Markets and Motor Parks About 33 % of markets and motor parks have access to basic water supply services. Disparities exist across the areas of residence with 41 % of markets and motor parks in urban areas having access compare to 25 % for markets and motor parks in rural areas. Figure 65: Basic water supply services in markets and motor parks by residence, zone and type Seven % of markets and motor parks have limited access to water supply services. These are markets and motor parks with improved water supply facilities that are either not within the premises or available at the time of the survey. This is an improvement in access from 2019 as these market and motor parks moved from having no service to at least having a limited water supply service. About 60 % of markets and motor parks either provide unimproved water supply services or do not have any water facility within the premises. Figure 66 below shows the current access to water supply services in markets and motor parks according to the categories of the WHO/UNICEF JMP ladder. * * * **Figure 66: The water supply services ladder for markets and motor parks by residence, type** **25** **33** **41** **18** **18** **8** **18** **6** **4** **49** **43** **36** National Urban Rural No water supply Services Unimproved Water Supply Services Limited Water Supply Services Basic Water Supply Services ## 3.5.3.3 Sanitation services in public places ## Types and Status of Sanitation Services in Public Places More than half (57 %) of markets and motor parks did not have toilets for public use. In public places that have toilets, the predominant latrine type are the flush and pour-flush systems constituting 57 % of all toilet facilities. Pit latrines with slab make up 36 % of toilet facilities. With no disparities across markets and motor parks, flush and pour-flush systems are more prevalent in urban areas (62 %) than rural areas (47 %), while pit latrines are more prevalent in rural areas (42 %) than urban areas (33 %). Only 29 % of markets and motor parks have improved and useable toilets within the premises. Those with improved and useable toilets within the premises and accessible to person’s living with disabilities are only 16 %. About 17 % of markets and motor parks provide improved and usable toilets within the premises, with separate blocks for males and females and accessible at all times, while only 4 % of markets and motor parks provide improved toilets that are not leaking and have been emptied with sludge disposed properly. Only 5 % of markets and motor parks have gender-sensitive sanitation and hygiene services, that is, they have access to useable improved toilet or latrines, within the premises with separate blocks for male and female, available at all times and have handwashing facilities that are evidently in use. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * WHO/UNICEF JMP Sanitation Services Levels in Public Places About 1 in 5 of markets and motor parks (20 %) have access to basic sanitation services. This is a markedly 4-percentage point decrease in access levels since 2019. Markets and motor parks in urban areas (28 %) are almost three times as likely to provide basic sanitation services than those in rural areas (10 %). Figure 67: Basic sanitation services in markets and motor parks by residence, zone and type 21 About 42 % of the markets and motor parks have limited access to sanitation services, these are places with improved sanitation facilities at the markets and motor parks that are either not useable, not within the premises or without separate blocks for males and females. The proportion of markets and motor parks with unimproved sanitation services or those that do not have any sanitation services at all is 34 %. Figure 68 below shows the current access to sanitation services in markets and motor parks according to the categories of the WHO/UNICEF JMP ladder. Figure 68: The sanitation services ladder by area of residence and type Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * 3.5.3.4 Hygiene services in public places Types and Status of Hygiene Services in Public Places Only about 13 % of markets and motor parks have handwashing facilities by toilet blocks. More than half of these handwashing facilities (66%) are accessible to People living with disabilities and a similar proportion (63 %) had water and soap available at the time of survey. One in five markets and motor parks (20 %) provide improved and useable toilets that are cleaned at least once every day. WHO/UNICEF JMP Hygiene Services Levels in Public Places Only 8 % of markets and motor parks have access to basic hygiene services. These are markets and motor parks where handwashing facilities with water and soap were available by the toilet at the public place at the time of the survey. There are large disparities in access to basic hygiene services across areas of residence as access to hygiene services in markets and motor parks in urban areas is at 13%, while those in rural areas is 3 %, 4 times less. Figure 69: Basic hygiene services in markets and motor parks by residence, zone and type Five % of markets and motor parks have limited hygiene services. These are public places with handwashing facilities by the latrine that have no water or soap available for handwashing at the time of the survey. Up to 92 % do not have any handwashing facilities by their toilets within the public place. Figure 70 below shows the current access to hygiene services in markets and motor parks according to the categories of the WHO/UNICEF JMP ladder. * * * Figure 70: The hygiene services ladder for markets and motor parks by residence and type 3.5.3.5 Composite Access to WASH in public places The proportion of markets and motor parks with access to basic water supply and sanitation services, that is market and motor parks with functional improved water sources and useable, sex-separated improved toilet/latrines located on premises and available at the time of the survey, is 13 %. Disparities exist across areas of residence with facilities in urban areas recording 20 %, while those in rural areas recording 6 %. When considering access to basic WASH services combined, the national figure plunges to 4 %. This represents a near absence of full WASH services in public places, especially the availability of hand hygiene services which is worst hit. * * * ## 3.6 HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE ON WASH SERVICES ### Key Findings Total WASH expenditure by households in 2020 is ₦3.4 trillion or $8.5 billion and the per capita expenditure is ₦16, 710 16 % was invested on capital cost while 84 % represent cost of non-capital or recurrent costs The expenditure pattern of rural households spending more than urban households continued in 2020; ₦1 trillion or $3.3 billion a notable increase from 2018 from $6.6 billion while urban households expended ₦909 billion or $2.4 million compared to $4.2 billion in 2018 Expenditure for water supply services in 2020 is estimated to be ₦1 trillion or $2.5 billion; prorated expenditure shows 35 % was spent on transportation to and from water points, 15 % on storage facilities and 14 % on water treatment ₦66 billion or $165 million was spent on sanitation services by households in 2020 out which 35 % was expended on toilet emptying and 33% on construction Hygiene spending was estimated at ₦2 trillion or $5.5 billion in 2020 by households across the country. 30 % were expenses on bathing and laundry soap, 27 % on washing materials and equipment while 8 % was spent on sanitary pads report by UNICEF and WHO posits that to achieve SGD 6, countries must monitor and address affordability of WASH services. Albeit, there is no universal definition of affordability being # Athat affordability extends beyond monetary capability. For proper policy making and implementation, there is need for reliable data on not just financial and other investment flow for WASH from global and national actors, there is also need for reliable data on household expenditure. Considering that inability to access WASH services as a direct result of economic hardship constitutes a barrier to achieving SGD 6, the parameter was introduced into WASH NORM 2018 and continued in 2019 and 2021 as well as the conduct of a holistic WASH Account. For the 2021 WASHNORM, variables in the questionnaire assessed household out of pocket financial expenditures and contributions to different service types including household investments in self-supply such as construction costs, tariffs and user fees, repairs and maintenance costs, and expenditure costs for fetching and water collection. This section provides a summary of findings from the 2021 WASHNORM survey. The exchange rate used for the out of pocket expenditure on WASH is $1 to ₦401.00 which is the official exchange rate of the Central Bank of Nigeria at the time of the survey. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * 3.6.1 National Household WASH Expenditure 42, 541, 141 households with a total of 206, 283, 338 population size were assessed and the recall period 2019 and 2020 for the WASH accounts. Results indicate that in 2020, ₦3.4 trillion as expenditure on WASH which translates to $8.5 billion. A minimal increase can be observed when compared to the total expenditure recorded in 2018 which stood at ₦3.3 trillion or $10.7 billion. Averagely, a household in Nigeria spent ₦81,027 or $202 per household or ₦16,710 or $41 per person on WASH in 2020. The expenditure pattern of rural households spending more than urban households continued in 2020; ₦1 trillion or $3.3 billion a notable increase from 2018 from h $6.6 billion while urban households expended ₦909 billion or $2.4 million compared to $4.2 billion in 2018. Expenditure by wealth quintile shows that in 2020, households in the richest wealth quintile ($12.97 billion) had a bit more than double the WASH expense of those in the lowest wealth quintile ($829 mbillion). Figure 71: Household WASH expenditure by residence, zone, wealth, and gender (in billion US$) * * * 3.6.2 Household WASH Expenditure by Lifecycle WASH Costs 3.6.2.1 Household capital expenditure The estimated amount spent on capital projects or purchases by households in 2020 is ₦547 billion or $1.4 billion against the 2018 expenditure of ₦45 billion or $123 milion. At the household level ₦13,000 or $32 was spent per household, while individual averagely spent ₦3,000 or $7. The cost component of the capital expenditure includes constructing or installing water, sanitation and hygiene facilities including, but not limited to, boreholes, toilets, fixed and mobile handwashing stations in premises. This amounts to 16 % of the total household WASH expenditure in 2020 as against 1 % in 2018 as shown in Figure 72 below. The estimated amount spent on capital projects or purchases by households in 2020 is ₦547 billion or $1.4 billion against the 2018 expenditure of ₦45 billion or $123 milion. At the household level ₦13,000 or $32 was spent per household, while individual averagely spent ₦3,000 or $7. The cost component of the capital expenditure includes constructing or installing water, sanitation and hygiene facilities including, but not limited to, boreholes, toilets, fixed and mobile handwashing stations in premises. This amounts to 16 % of the total household WASH expenditure in 2020 as against 1 % in 2018 as shown 3.6.2.2 Household non-capital expenditure Estimated average non-capital spending by households for 2020 totaled ₦3 trillion or $7 billion. The average spending per household amounted to ₦68,000 or $169, while average spent per individual was found to be ₦14,000 or ₦35. Spending in 2018 were estimated at a total of ₦3.2 trillion or $10.6 billion of which a household spent ₦81,000 or $264 per household and ₦16,000 or $53 per individual. The constituent of non-capaital expenditure for WASH measured in the 2021 WASHNORM are recurrent costs such as costs of levies/bills, user fees, maintenance and repairs of WASH facilities, water transportation, treatment and storage, latrine desludging, waste disposal and purchases on expendable hygiene items such as soaps, toothpastes, sanitary pads, toilet papers, washing materials and equipment. The percentage share of non capital expenditure is 84 %, a 15 % decrease from 2018 findings, as shown in Figure 72 below. Hygiene * * * ## 3.6.3 Household WASH Expenditure by Sub-sector and Service Type ## 3.6.3.1 Water Supply Services The total estaimate for all WASH related expenditure captured in 2021 WASHNORM was found to be ₦1 trillion or $2.5 billion spent on water supply services by households in 2020. Out of the stated amount, the highest expenditure at ₦362 billion was on transportation from water source followed by ₦315 billion spent on bills/levies, ₦149 billion for storage facilities, and ₦145 billion on water treatment. The least expenditure at ₦10 billion was on facility repairs. The state with the highest overall household expenditure is Lagos, the estimated total is ₦194 billion out of which ₦80 billion was expended on transportation to and from water source, the second highest expenditure was on bills/levies which took ₦77 billion; facility repairs was the least expenditure at ₦811 million. Bauchi state is estimated to have spent the least amount with an overall total household expenditure of ₦6 billion out of which ₦2 billion was spent on storage facilities. The least amount being ₦12 million which was was spent on construction. The survey revealed that rural households spend ₦449 billion, while urban households spent ₦583 billion to access water; the richest households in the wealth quintile with an estimated expenditure of ₦415 billion spent almost five times more than the poorest households with an estimated ₦93 billion. Through the gender lens, expenditure in male headed households stood at ₦855 billion compared to ₦178 billion spent by female headed households. ₦329 billion was reported as expenditure by households with people living with disability while ₦33 billion was spent in households without people living with disability. **Figure 73: Expenditure on water services by residence, zone, and wealth (in billion US$)** **1.03** **2.57** **NW** **0.49** **NE** **0.36** **0.55** **1.45NC 0.42** **1.12** **SW** **0.34** **0.37** **0.69** **0.23** **SS SE** **0.28 0.38** Poor Middle Rich Richest Poorest **National Urban Rural** Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Survey Findings National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * 3.6.3.2 Sanitation Services The total amount spent on sanitation services by households in 2020 is ₦67 billion or $165 million, compared to the the ₦61 billion or $199 million expended in 2018 prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Households spent an average of ₦1,600 or $4, while the per capita expenditure is estimated at ₦324 or $0.80. A breakdown of the expenditure shows that households expended 35 % of the total sum on toilet emptying and 9 %, being the least, on Bills/Levies for toilet use. The expenditure on other sanitation services were on construction which took 33 % of the budget the second highest and toilet The total amount spent on sanitation services by households in 2020 is ₦67 billion or $165 million, compared to the the ₦61 billion or $199 million expended in 2018 prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Households spent an average of ₦1,600 or $4, while the per capita expenditure is estimated at ₦324 or $0.80. A breakdown of the expenditure shows that households expended 35 % of the total sum on toilet emptying and 9 %, being the least, on Bills/Levies for toilet use. The expenditure on other sanitation services were on construction which took 33 % of the budget the second highest and toilet sanitation services were on construction which took 33 % of the budget the second highest and toilet maintenance which took 23.3% of household sanitation expenditure. maintenance which took 23.3% of household sanitation expenditure. Regional expenditure pattern shows the Southeast spent more than any other region in the country with an estimated ₦13 billion or $32 million, while the least estimated expenditure was recorded in the Southwest at ₦9 billion or $23 million. Urban and rural expenditure estimates shows that the urban households spent ₦37 billion (56 %) on sanitation services as against ₦30 billion (44 %) spent by rural households. The richest households spent almost nine times more than the poorest households on sanitation services. ₦29 billion or $71 million was spent by the richest households against ₦3 billion or $8 million spent by the poorest households. Significant diaprity was also recorded between spending by male headed households compared to female households; males headed households spent 10 times more on sanitation services (₦60 billion) or $148 million than females headed households who spent an estimated ₦7 billion or $17 million on sanitation services. The cumulative expenditure reported by households with or without people living with disabilities indicate that households with people without disabilities spent almost 7 times (₦58 billion or $144 million) the amount (₦9 billion or $21 million) spent by households with persons living with disabilities spent almost 8 times (₦263,434,578,294 or $652,065,787.86 less the amount spent by households without persons with disabilities (₦2,084,247,602,780 or $ 5,159,028,719.75 ) See Figure 74 below presentsthe disparities mentioned above. Figure 74: Expenditure on sanitation services by residence, zone, and wealth (in billion US$) * * * 3.6.3.3 Hygiene Services In 2020, the estimated expenditure for hygiene services by all 42, 541, 141 sampled households was ₦ 2 trillion or $ 6 billion. The per capita spending is ₦11,000 or $28 showing an increase from ₦10,000 or $33 reported in 2018. Households spent ₦55,000 or $137 a notable increase from ₦49,000 or $160 estimated in 2018. The breakdown of expenditure shows that 30 % of hygiene expenses was on bathing and lundary soup followed by toothpaste at 15 %, then washing machine which at 13 % of the total expenditure. Waste disposal took 1.03 % of the total spending, while least services of which funds were expended is construction at 0.19 %. It pertinent to highlight that sanitary pad expenses represent 7.8% of the total spending on hygiene services for 2020. ₦509 billion or $1.3 billion of the total spending on hygiene services was incurred by households in the Southwest followed by ₦500 million or $ 1.2 billion…. The least expenditure was recorded in the Southeast at ₦227 billion or $561 million. The three northern regions accounted for 50.3 expenditure on hygiene for 2020. Once again, evidence indicate that rural households bear more of the total spending on hygiene services was incurred by households in the Southwest followed by ₦500 million or $ 1.2 billion…. The least expenditure was recorded in the or $561 million. The three northern regions accounted for 50.3 % of expenditure on hygiene for 2020. Once again, evidence indicate that rural households bear more burden of hygiene expenditures. From the 2021 WASHNORM findings, they spent ₦1.4 trillion or $3.4 billion (58 %) against ₦990 million or $ 2.4 billion (42%) for urban households. Spending by wealth quintiles, gender of household heads and accessibility for persons living with disability showed that in 2020, the richest households at ₦704 million spent a little more than twice the amount spent by the poorest households at ₦ 335 million on hygiene services while all households spent ₦ 432 billion; male heaed households were recorded to have spent almost 2.5 times the amount spent by female headed households. Figure 75: Expenditure on hygiene services by residence, zone, and wealth (in billion US$) * * * # Conclusions * * * CONCLUSIONS 4.1 IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS ON POLICIES AND PROGRAMMING 4.1.1 Status and Trends in Access to WASH Services 4.1.1.1 Water Supply Services Trends in Access and Progress in Meeting the SDGs Trend in Access to WASH As at 2021, only 10 % of Nigeria had access to basic water, sanitation and hygiene service combine. A percentage increase from 9 % recorded in 2019. This represents 21 million people when compared with the 18 million in 2019. As the population grows, cities and rural settlements expands, impacting on the number of people gaining access to basic WASH services as a percentage of the population. Progress was also recorded in terms of access to safely managed water, sanitation and hygiene services. However, while there has been efforts by government to accelerate access to climate-resilient safely managed WASH services, progress have not gained the required momentum to catch up with the rapidly growing population. Progress Towards Achieving SDGs It is pertinent sector stakeholders recognize the uphill task at hand towards attaining SDG 6 come 2030. Recognizing that the availability of and access to safely managed WASH services is instrumental in achieving other SDGs, enabling environment to ramp up access to the full scope of WASH services irrespective of vicinity is critical. The water sector still experiences issues regarding availability, accessibility and sufficiency of water supply with a average per capita share of 10 litres. While 81 % always have water available from the main source of water supply services at least 42 % are not available for a full day in the two weeks preceding the survey. Location of water facilities and water collection times remain key issues affect availability, satisfaction and functionality of water facilities. The average time for collecting water for household whose water source is not located in the premises is 17 minutes, covering an average distance of 300 metres. Only 54 % of Nigerians are satisfied with their water services level with reasons attributed mainly to the location and time spent to fetch followed by quantity and quality of water. * * * Achieving the SDG 6.1 by 2030 will indeed require extraordinary efforts from the Nigerian government to reach more than 179 million people with safely managed water supply services. Expansion of improved water supply services and resources to populations within their homes is highly needed and must be provided with efficient mechanisms in place to guarantee adequacy, constant availability and quality of water supplied. Indeed, many tube wells/boreholes have been constructed in Nigeria since the commencement of the SDGs in 2015. However, the government has faced many challenges in translating outputs into outcomes. This is in part due to the country’s fast-growing population which grows at a rate of 3.3 and 2.6 % annually which has undermined the effects of economic gains and has reduced the impact of WASH development initiatives, in addition to sector challenges hampering sustainable and effective service delivery to cater for the growing population. The low score of the dependability of functionality indicator is a good evidence. ## Status of Public Urban Water Utilities and Level of Services The import of piped water to achieving the target of safely managed drinking water service cannot be overemphasized. Within the system in Nigeria, it is the responsibilithy of state water utilities to provide bulk water through piped system to the population especially in urban areas. Therefore, the key objectives of the urban water utilities mapping in the 2021 WASHNORM survey was to apraise the status, level and quality of water supply services provided by urban water utilities in Nigeria and measure individual perceptions about their water supply services. Expandig on WASHNORM 2019, the assessment of urban utilities in 2021 WASHNORM included accessing the power need and key challenges faced by urban utilities. The network mapping made an attempt to ascertain existing network details of waterworks, their current functionality, coverage, production capacities and general operational statistics of SWAs. In summary, it can be deduced that the status of water supplied by urban public utilities is far less than optimum. About 100 million people live in areas served by SWAs, though very little proportion of the population are provided with full services. Only a limited number of states (16 states) in Nigeria have fully functional urban water utilities producing water to households. Capacity utilization of functioning waterworks in Nigeria is critically low at 25 %, a 10 % drop from 35 % in 2019. The factors responsible for low capacity utilization both observed and reported from the study were poor asset management in terms of organization strategy, staffing structure, old and obsolete facilities, inadequate operational support system, unreliable public power supply, poor funding, weak supervision and accountability (including annual audited reports). These factors combine to deny up to 20 million Nigerians, 75 % of installed production capacity of waterworks in their various states or about 6 million cubic metre of treated water every day. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * The household survey component represents a comprehensive assessment to report clear quantitative information from households on their perceptions, attitudes and opinions about the quality of their urban water supply service. From the information reported by consumers, 54 % are not satisfied with the quantity of water they receive everyday. 51 % of household members who are connected to public water supply source do not depend on it for drinking water because water is not always available. Only 17 % of households report that they always receive sufficient quantities of water each day from their public water utilities connections or taps. In terms of household satisfactory levels, generally, up to three- quarters of consumers expressed satisfaction with the quality of the water they accessed. Water users were less satisfied with the quantity and duration of flow of their water services. With regards to the quality of administrative, operational and customer services of water utilities, the process of reconnection when disconnected was cited as the main service customers were very dissatisfied with. Data from the urban utilities component of the 2021 WASHNORM shows that SWAs will not be able to meet the needs of the increasing urban population if strategic and evidence-based actionable reforms are not immediately implemented. Data presented on the status and quality of these utilities should feed into interventions aimed at enhancing the institutional and operational efficiencies of these public agencies to support sustainable provision of good quality drinking water and sanitation services. The recommendations for SWA in order to improve water production, include the need to pursue improved asset management, renewable energy supplies for powering their waterworks, metering of water production, non-revenue water reduction programme, technical capacity building of human resources (especially on network mapping), sustained product quality, operational optimization, security and integrity of the transmission pipelines, financial viability, operational resiliency; and greater transparency and better reporting of their performance. There is also need for the capacity building of the utility agencies in the development of water networks digital maps for policy articulation, maintenance, assessments and monitoring of water systems. These factors need to urgently be addressed and distribution networks rehabilitated in order to regain lost capacity and reach unserved Nigerians in urban areas with adequate water supply services. There is need to establish proper regulatory and monitoring mechanisms so that utilities can collect and act on consumer information on a regular basis in order to feed into annual planning as well as performance targeting and tariff-setting. By better incorporating the demand side of water utilities data, policy and decision makers will be able to understand the driving forces for consumers’ satisfaction and SWAs will act in accordance with the principles of integrated water resource management enshrined under SDG 6.5 and ensure that Nigerians enjoy good quality water resources in a sustainable way. Furthermore, access to monitoring data could enable households to realistically demand for better services. The country need to critically look into developing and implementing the necessary institutional and regulatory reforms for building commercial and technical efficiencies, as well as tariff setting and Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 recovering costs for state SWAs. The water utilities’ study conducted is expected to provide information on the performance and efficiency of the urban utilities on an annual basis which would give the FMWR data that will inform the ongoing reform programme of state water agencies and public water utilities. Output provided by the 2021 WASHNORM can be used to develop evidence-based resource mobilization strategies for SWAs. ## Water Quality Status Safe drinking water, or water free from pathogens and toxic chemicals at elevated levels, is a fundamental necessity for sustaining human life, health, development, livelihood and general wellbeing. The most typical life-threatening contaminants of drinking water in Nigeria, especially in rural areas, are byproducts of fecal contamination arising from various sources and activities including, but not limited to, open defecation practices, improper siting of sanitation facilities, unregulated and unhygienic disposal and inadequate treatment of human and livestock wastes, agricultural practices and unsafe solid waste discharge. Use of contaminated drinking water and poor sanitary conditions poses serious life- threatening health risks which have manifested debilitating health and socio-economic costs to the country with further costs to the environment. There has been improvement in the trend of drinking water quality status between 2016 and 2021, owing to several intervention by government and partners, including the development of the Rural Drinking Water Monitoring and Surveilence strategy. In 2016, 77% of the population accessed contaminated water from their household’s drinking water source, while 9 out of 10 persons (91%) were found to consume drinking water contaminated by E. coli within their households. Results from the 2021 WASHNORM indicated that, 68 % of the water used by household members are contaminated at source, while 70 % are contaminated at point of consumption in the household, equating to a general reduction in the proportion of people using contaminated water. Despite these improvements, national water quality status is still critically poor. Even as 67% of the population are accessing basic water services, 68 % of these sources are contaminated. This is compounded with the fact that up to 86 % of the population do not do anything to make their water safer to drink. The quality of water supplied by public utilities is also of major concern as well. About 47 % of all taps fed by public water utilities’ supply are contaminated with E. coli with an average thermotolerant coliform forming unit of 234 CFU/100ml. The poor quality status of drinking water in Nigeria is still a national issue of concern and is expected to deteriorate due to the impacts of expansion of human settlements, and agricultural and industrial activities associated with Nigeria’s high population growth rate, and natural disasters resulting from climate change. The dangers of the use of contaminated water supplies provide sufficient justification for increased focus on water quality and conscious efforts must be made to combine expansion of access to improved water services that meet quality standards are in place. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * To ensure that the water quality is maintained following the Nigeria standard for drinking water quality and in line with global best practice and to meet the SDG criteria for safe water, the protection and treatment of drinking water from source to household through a risk-based approach is of utmost importance and should not be compromised. It is imperative that the government strengthen action and stakeholder focus on enhancing the quality of water through a National Water Safety Plan and National Drinking Water Quality Management system to nationally acceptable health standards in this regard. Water utilities must be supported with fully equipped and well-funded water quality monitoring and management systems to ensure quality of water supplied through tap connections is of utmost quality. ## 4.1.1.2 Sanitation Services Progress in access to basic sanitation services has been slow. A trend analysis shows that the proportion of the population with access to basic sanitation services moving 8 percentage point from 38 % in 2016 to 46 % in 2021. At this rate of less than 2 % every year, the country may only have provided about 65 % of the population basic sanitation services by 2030. Meanwhile, data analysis on trends in ending open defecation has shown negligible changes in the number of people practicing open defecation since 2015, with as much as 48 million (representing 23 %) of Nigerians still defecating in the open in 2021. Each year, national data from the MICS and WASHNORM has shown that a static proportion of nearly a quarter of the population still practice open defecation. At the time of completing this report, only 72 out of the 774 LGAs in Nigeria are validated open defecation free (ODF). This is only 9 % of all LGAs in Nigeria. The country will need to achieve 175 ODF LGAs per year to meet the 2025 targets or 78 LGAs/year to end open defecation by 2030. About 169 million Nigeria are off the SDG sanitation targets as only about 1 in 5 Nigerians (18 %) use safely managed sanitation services. This is a 3 % drop against the 21 % recorded in 2019. Similar to piped water supply, flush/pour flush to sewage services are severely lagging nationally with as little as 5 % of the population using this form of sanitation service. This proportion has remained the same since 2018. It is clear from the 2021 WASHNORM findings that the effects of high population growth and emerging environmental and climate change, risk reducing or reversing the impact of WASH development initiatives and exacerbate WASH needs of the vulnerable. Critical focus should be on providing sufficient coverage and quality of on-site sanitation in order to improve the health and living conditions of the populations, as well as reduce contamination of groundwater and water bodies. Continuous efforts are needed towards understanding and collapsing the barriers and drivers to adoption and usage of improved sanitation facilities and develop effective behavior change interventions to curb open defecation. Interventions to reach the poorest households and other vulnerable households with sanitation services, including sanitation marketing and financing, must be taken into account. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * ## 4.1.1.3 Hygiene Services Access to basic hygiene services was observed to have remained relatively the same between the 16 % in 2019 and 17 % 2021. What remains promising about the results of the 2021 WASHNORM is the continued increase in the level of knowledge of the household heads. 99 % were knowledgeable of at least two critical times for handwashing an 18 % increase from the 81 % recorded in 2019. The 2021 WASHNORM survey also revealed that only 10 % of household heads considered it a critical time, indicating that many caregivers may neglect handwashing after contact with a child’s feces. This may be due to the lack of awareness among caregivers of the level of contamination of child’s feces as well as the high possibility of transmission of diseases from children’s fecal matter. From the results of the 2021 WASHNORM it was further observed that high level of knowledge of handwashing practices does not translate into actual proper practice as only 8 % of household heads were able to demonstrate proper handwashing techniques with soap under running water. This indicated significant gaps among the population with regards to handwashing knowledge and practice. A lack of soap and running water was observed to be the main reason for this low level of practice as 46 % of household heads were able to demonstrate handwashing, however, there were no soap or running water available. While efforts is put into hygiene awareness programmes these should be integrated with efforts to provide handwashing facilities and demonstrations of proper handwashing with nudges to reinforcement hand hygiene messages across the country. Only 32 % of households had a place for hand washing within their dwelling (8 %), in the yard (3 %) or mobile objects for handwashing (21 %). Of the households that have hand washing facilities in their households, 43 % did not have soap within their households, while up to 23 % did not have water available at the place of handwashing at the time of the survey. These lack of the enabling factors for handwashing remain major constraints in ensuring compliance with handwashing practices. Proper hygiene practices are important to protecting and promoting health and well-being. Among all personal hygiene practices, hand hygiene is commonly known to be the top preventive measures for the spread of infections. The low access to basic hygiene services as well as the analysis on the likelihood of hygiene practice will negatively impact the achievement of the SDG 6.2 and compromises the populations ability to control infection and curb the spread of diarrhoeal diseases. Gaps in handwashing should immediately be seen as a public health issue. This signals the need for boosting the availability of enabling conditions including the availability and adequacy of water, sanitation facilities and materials for sanitation and hygiene, such as soaps, as these significantly limit uninterrupted hygiene practices. Also gaps in handwashing skills and practices are significant enough to trigger intense national and sub-national campaigns or interventions for hygiene promotion. In order to creating linkages between knowledge and actual proper practice of handwashing at critical times Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * (especially after coming in contact with child’s faeces), interventions at the grass-root level should be developed with efficient monitoring and supervision activities to effectively imbibe appropriate hygiene skills, boost hand hygiene compliance and reinforce proper hygiene practices. Without addressing these needs, rates of diarrhoea and other WASH-related infections, as well as the associated childhood morbidity and mortality rates will not be lowered. ## 4.1.2 Integrated WASH Programming in Households and Communities Integrated WASH services in both household and non-household settings is paramount to the achievement of the SDG 6 and key to substantially lessening these disease burdens in households and institutions. For instance, within the household setting, water quality and safety, the type of sanitation facility utilized, and sanitation and hygiene practices are all inter-related. Lower water quality has been associated with open defecation, or the use of unimproved sanitation facilities. Inadequate water supply facilities negatively impact the proper use of sanitation facilities and practice of hygiene. Lack of integrated WASH in schools, health care facilities, markets and motor parks impact health, wellbeing, learning opportunities and productivity of children, patients, staff and caregivers and the population in general. While no WASH component can be effective in protecting and promoting the health and wellbeing of children without the other, a composite perspective of the WASH sector should always be adopted to address sectoral gaps. Recent data from the 2021 WASHNORM show that only 10 % of the population have access to all three services. The rural and low-income households are the worst affected as the WASH deprivation is about twice more in rural areas (7 %) than in urban areas (17 %) and people in the poorest quintile (3 %) are about 10 times less likely to have access to basic WASH services than people in the richest quintile (29 %). There are also wide disparities in access to WASH services across states and geographical areas. Meanwhile, in institutions, the WASH deprivation is in a highly critical state with only 11 % of schools and 6 % of health care facilities having basic WASH services. The combination of poor hygiene practices, poor water quality, open defecation and low level of safely managed water facilities indicate considerable risks from WASH-related infectious diseases, especially diarrhoeal diseases. Indeed, diarrhoea burden remains high at 11 %, same with 2019 reports. In 2021 WASHNORM, one in ten households still report that at least one household member had suffered diarrhoea in the past six weeks prior to the survey and children under five make up three-quarters of these populations. The dismal status of integrated WASH services within households, institutions and in communities unmask the need for a comprehensive approach to WASH which must include expanding safe and reliable water systems, providing direct investments or promoting household investments in sanitation facilities and carrying out community-level health and hygiene awareness campaigns. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * ## 4.1.3 Progress in Closing the Equity Gap Different groups within different demographic and socio-economic domains do not have the same level of access to WASH services. The 2021 WASHNORM revealed wide disparities in access to integrated WASH services especially across areas of residence and across different household wealth quintiles. The gaps between those living in rural areas and those in urban areas, as well as the poorest and richest households are most prominent. Regional disparities also exist as shown in the wide variations in access between states and geopolitical zones. The Northern geopolitical zones suffer, in most WASH indices, more than the Southern geopolitical zones. With regards to integrated WASH services, gaps between the poorest and richest populations have largely remained the same between 2019 and 2021. Disability-disaggregated population data is important for informing and motivating evidence-based advocacy, policy and service planning for persons living with disabilities. People living with disabilities face many challenges including limited access to latrines even within their own homes. People who have physical disabilities, especially those with limited mobility, may find their boreholes difficult to operate or latrines inaccessible and unusable when latrines are not designed to accommodate person’s living with disabilities or when there is no nearby support when the need to use latrines arises. Access gaps for basic water, sanitation and hygiene services for both households with and without a person with a disability were minimal. However, up to 56 % of all household latrines assessed were constructed with platforms and drop holes that are not safe for people living with disabilities. A composite analysis of the results focusing on improved latrines being used by people living with disabilities show that only 35 % of household members living with disabilities found their improved latrines useable and accessible in Nigeria, while only 1 in 5 water systems (19 %) have provisions for people living with disabilities. The report finds that progress towards gender equality is faltering and hard-won advances are being reversed. Rampant inequality, the climate emergency, conflict and the alarming rise of exclusionary politics all threaten future progress towards gender equality. The report flags the lack of effective action to boost women’s representation at the tables of power and warns that the vision of the Beijing Platform for Action will never be realized if the most exclusion of women and girls are not acknowledged and inclusive actions prioritized. In disintegrating the components of WASH services, service delivery for water supply in rural areas and for households from the poorest quintile regarding basic access, piped water access, adequacy and reliability, and quality was found to be below that of urban areas. Basic sanitation and other sanitation services follow the same pattern. Open defecation is more prevalent in rural areas and among the poorest households than in urban areas and among the richest households. The same can also be said for access to hygiene services though the variations are less significant than other WASH services. Inequalities in access to WASH services across the states are reflected strongly by large differences in all components of WASH. Literacy level of household heads play a large part in determining access Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 levels to WASH services as observed in Figure 77. Gaps in WASH services varied very little by gender of household head, these gaps increased moving from 2019 to 2021. The SDGs 6.1 and 6.2 will not be achieved by 2030 if the access gaps between the rich and poor, and those living in urban and rural areas are not closed. Interventions and policies should always consider socioeconomic and geo graphic inequalities and support the groups being left behind, the most deprived and those in hard-to-reach areas in accessing WASH services, curb ODF and reduce inequalities needed to meet the SDGs and guarantee universal and sustainable access to WASH services. Water supply and sanitation interventions should promote more active participation of the rural populations and poor households, placing them at the helm of activities during planning, implementation, monitoring and supervision. Nigeria has indeed made immense efforts to reduce inequalities among these two domains through its robust engagement with development partners working in the rural sector, as well as through initiatives such as the PEWASH for water and sanitation microfinance/state revolving loans which target poor households. Efforts should be made in scaling up these interventions and devising more approaches to reduce disparities in access to water and sanitation services. Judging from the high variations in access to WASH services across states and geopolitical zones, WASH policy makers and practitioners must refrain from employing a one size fits all approach for all states in Nigeria and consider local context and solutions in different states. This brings to the forefront on the policy and decision-making arena in the WASH sector, the need for a national tool or decision-support strategy to guide and inform identification of intervention areas based on a multi-dimensional analysis for need. The Intervention Profiling tool serves this purpose and should be utilized by the sector in identifying the highest-burden regions and groups in Nigeria for the most cost-effective and efficient use of resources. Utilization of this tool will help to factor in the local situation and direct efforts to areas most in need in order to avoid improper targeting of intervention programmes to regions that are already advantaged, thus reinforcing inequalities. ## 4.1.4 Sustainability of WASH Services The functionality of water systems in Nigeria has continued to witness improvements from 69 % in 2018 to 77 % in 2021, this represents an overall improvement in the sustainability of WASH services. However, despite these improvements, high breakdown rates are still experienced with about 38 % of all water facilities have brokendown at least once within their first year of operation. Functionality of urban water utilities is low as well with only 16 states having functional urban water utilities that are supplying water to households working at an average capacity of 25 %. Similar to the previous NORM surveys, 2021 WASHNORM observed that the predominant reasons for the non-functionality of water supply systems were attributed to the absence of ownership, poor Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 deployment of technology options, lack of viable operations and maintenance (O&M) system, inadequate tariff systems for cost recovery and sparse community participation and accountability. Low dependability indicators with regards to design and configuration are indicative of inefficient investments that result in sub-standard services. The gap between private and public facilities also underlines the important skills, despite being underutilized, the private sector could offer to the WASH sector. Dependability of water systems with respect to their operations and maintenance system is critically low and in urgent need of attention as only dependable O&M systems could lead into the sustainability of water systems and into the conservation of capital investments used in building those systems. Nigeria should continue to seek to establish genuinely sustainable water, sanitation and hygiene services. WASH policy issues addressing sustainability of WASH services must always be given priority. The poor O&M regime in Nigeria threatens the sustainability of water supply services, hence the National Village Level Operation and Maintenance (VLOM) system ratified at the national level should be established in each Local Government Area (LGA). Tariff reforms, adjusted to consider the most marginalized groups, should be prioritized at the national, sub-national and local government to promote efficiency and cost recovery. Other initiatives to help drive standardization, user participation and ownership should equally be explored and promoted. ## 4.1.5 Household Expenditure in WASH Based on the success and relevance of the household WASH expenditure etimates included in NORM 2019, which provided the first comprehensive database for the aggregation of household WASH expenditures at the national level, the 2021 WASHNORM included WASH expenditure estimates covering 2019 and 2020. As opposed to only capturing household tariffs, as is common, the 2021 WASHNORM collects expenditure figures on a range of WASH service types including construction, operations and maintenance (O&M), tariffs, levies, water treatment, transport etc.; and analyzes the costs incurred by households from different wealth quintiles and those living in different areas of residence, thereby filling key data gaps in the sector. The sole purpose of conducting the household WASH expenditure survey is to inform the National WASH Account by providing household contributions to the total WASH expenditure in the sector, and analyze the pathway for WASH funding. In addition to this, the in-depth details into household expenditure on WASH provided is particularly relevant in analyzing the financial burden set on different households across sectors, wealth quintiles demographic and socioeconomic groups. Quantifying household expenditures on different components of WASH services, especially households from rural areas or among the poorest quintile, has several policy implications. Household expenditure data, especially when used in combination with household income data or other service level indicators, Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 can be used to inform WASH policies or interventions geared towards mitigating affordability issues and supporting low-income and vulnerable households access adequate and sustainable WASH services. It will inform the FMWR strategies to come up with key priority financing options to improve the budget and financing climate and close the current financing gaps in the sector. It can also be applied to policies seeking to reform WASH tariffs and introduce different packages for subsidies, as well as track the effects of WASH initiatives that require out-of-pocket expenditure from households, on household wellbeing, especially poor households, thereby promoting equity. It is commonly presumed that household contribution to WASH services, especially through tariffs and self-supply, provide the major source of financing for WASH in the sector. Household expenditure data from 2021 WASHNORM has helped to bring to the surface just how much household contribute. 2021 WASHNORM reveals that households spent N3.4 trillion ($8.5 billion) on water sanitation and hygiene services in 2020. Expenditure patterns for total WASH expenditure showed that the richest households and those headed by literate and male heads of households spend more than their counterparts. Interestingly, in 2020, rural households spent less on WASH expenses as they recorded N449 billion in expenditure compared to urban households recording N583 billion. The richest households (N414 billion) spent about 4 times more than the poorest households (N93 billion), with the per capita level allocated to WASH increasing as the income level of households increases. When WASH components are disaggregated, it is observed that the share of household WASH expenditure devoted to hygiene materials and resources was generally significant, constituting about ₦235 billion ($5.6 billion) in 2020. For water supply services, expenditure was up to ₦103 billion ($2.6 billion), while for sanitation services it was only ₦67 billion ($0.17 billion). By analyzing the WASH expenditures by area of residence and quintile groups, it provides useful information of the relative importance of each WASH service to the different subgroups. Households in rural areas bear more burden of the expenditure than those in urban areas for water and hygiene services only. While for sanitation services, expenditure is low in rural areas and among the poorest households. As per the ODF Roadmap, it is expected that latrine financing is mainly funded by the households in the absence of intervention programmes. The significantly low sanitation expenditure compared to hygiene and water supply, especially by the rural households, may suggest that household WASH expenditure priorities may not include the construction or enhancement of latrines. It resonates with the popular notion that many rural and poor households deprioritize sanitation uptake and even when community-led total sanitation is successfully employed in a rural community, only traditional latrines are built and making necessary improvements is usually not prioritized. It may also point to the fact that acquisition of latrines is particularly difficult for the poorest rural households due to the large financial burden, as many of them practice open defecation or utilize shared latrines. As the burden of out-of-pocket expenses on the poor is usually greater, since it typically accounts for a larger share of their total expenditures, targeted efforts to reduce out-of-pocket expenses of the poor Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 and those living in rural areas (many of whom are poor) should be developed. This may be effective in substantially improving access and reducing hardship for these vulnerable groups. By reviewing the average expenditures for latrine construction, it appears that households have financing capacity for sanitation, even if it is limited for the poorest households living in rural areas. Households spent at least ₦21 billion on constructing latrines. Thus, even if payment capacity is purportedly weak for rural and poor households, it nevertheless exists. Sanitation interventions, such as CLTS, should focus on communications campaigns that encourage the uptake of latrines, while integrating subsidies or systems of credit such as sanitation marketing and financing schemes that expand financing strategies, improve capacities and provide incentives for rural and poor households to pay for and acquire sanitation services. The 2021 WASHNORM reports very high spending for water supply and hygiene services, making up about 98 % of the total household WASH expenses. For the high spending in water supply and hygiene, the GoN should consider mechanisms to maximize the quality of spending by households in order to accrue efficiency gains in spending. Strategies could include tackling the prevalent challenges being faced by the WASH sector and the deficiencies in quality and accessibility of services brought to light by the NORM. These may include addressing the high breakdown rates of water points, strengthening the supply chain of equipment and parts, fast-tracking tariff reforms at all levels, ensuring better regulation of the private sector companies responsible for management and maintenance of public WASH facilities, focusing increased investments on sub-national institutional capacity building, improving financial and operational performance of water utilities, and ensuring the use of the WASH Account for longer-term planning. Finally, The benefits of having access to an improved drinking water source can only be fully realized when there is also access to improved sanitation and adherence to good hygiene practices. Beyond the immediate, obvious advantages of people being hydrated and healthier, access to water, sanitation and hygiene – known collectively as WASH – has profound wider socio-economic impacts, particularly for women and girls. Sustainable Development Goal 6 goes beyond drinking water, sanitation and hygiene to also address the quality and sustainability of water resources, critical to the survival of people and the planet. The 2030 Agenda recognizes the centrality of water resources to sustainable development, and the vital role that improved drinking water, sanitation and hygiene play in progress in other areas, including health, education and poverty reduction. * * * # 4.2 REFERENCES Berta Macheve, A. D. (2015). State Water Agencies in Nigeria: A Performance Assessment. The World Bank Group. Eteves Mills, J., & Cumming, O. (2016, June). The Impact of WASH on Key Health and Social Outcomes: Review of Evidence. SHARE; UNICEF. FMWR. (2016). Making Nigeria Open-Defecation-Free by 2025: A National Road Map. FCT, Nigeria. FMWR. (2018). WASHIMS-Intervention Profiling. Retrieved from WASHIMS-Intervention Profiling: https//washims.com.ng/intervention\_profile FMWR, & NBS. (2018). WASH NORM Report Findings. FMWR, & NBS. (2019). WASH NORM Report Findings. Global Burden of Disease. (2017). Estimates of Global, Regional, and National Morbidity, Mortality, and Aetiologies of Diarrhoeal Diseases: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. 17(9). Global Handwashing Partnership. (2018, February). Clean Hands for All: A toolkit for hygiene advocacy. Retrieved from Global Handwashing Partnership: [https://globalhandwashing.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/AdvocacyToolkit\_v8-int.pdf](https://globalhandwashing.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/AdvocacyToolkit_v8-int.pdf) HealthData. (2017). Health Data-Nigeria. Retrieved from The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME): [www.healthdata.org/nigeria](http://www.healthdata.org/nigeria) NBS; UNICEF. (2017). Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2016-17. Abuja, Nigeria: NBS and UNICEF. Prüss-Üstün A., B. R. (2008). Safer water, better health: costs, benefits and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote health. Geneva: World Health Organization. The Washington Group on Disability Statistics. (2017, August 3). The Washington Group Short Set on Functioning: Question Specifications. Retrieved from Washington Group on Disability Statistics: [http://www.washingtongroup-disability.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/WG-Short-Set-on-](http://www.washingtongroup-disability.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/WG-Short-Set-on-) Functioning-Question-Specifications.pdf The World Bank. (2017). A Wake Up Call: Nigeria Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene Poverty Diagnostics. Washington, DC: The World Bank Group. WHO. (2004). World Health Organization. Guidelines for drinking water quality: Volume 1. Recommendations. Geneva: World Health Organization. WHO. (2004, November). World Health Organizaton-Water, Sanitationa and Hygiene Links to Health. Retrieved from WHO: [https://www.who.int/water\_sanitation\_health/publications/facts2004/en/](https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/facts2004/en/) WHO. (2014). Investing in Water and Sanitation: Increasing Access, Reducing Inequalities. UN-water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking water (GLAAS) 2014 Report. WHO. (2017). UN-Water global analysis and assessment of sanitation and drinking-water (GLAAS) 2017 report: financing universal water, sanitation and hygiene under the sustainable development goals. Geneva: World Health Organization. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * WHO. (2018). Global Health Estimate 2016: Deaths by Cause, Age, Sex, Country and Region, 2000- 2017. Geneva: World Health Organization. WHO. (2019). National systems to support drinking-water, sanitation and hygiene: global status report 2019. Geneva: World Health Organization: UN-Water global analysis and assessment of sanitation and drinking-water (GLAAS) 2019 report. . WHO/UNICEF JMP. (2017). WHO/UNICEF JMP Estimates for Household WASH. (WHO/UNICEF JMP) Retrieved from [www.washdata.org](http://www.washdata.org/): [https://washdata.org/data/household#!/dashboard/new](https://washdata.org/data/household#!/dashboard/new) World Bank; WSP. (2012). Economic Impacts of Poor Sanitation. Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Conclusions National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * # Table of Analysis * * * List of Analyzed Tables Household Tables 182 Household Composite Tables 250 Water Supply Tables 259 Water Quality Tables 285 Dependability of Water Systems 292 Consumer Satisfaction with Water Service 304 Education Composites 322 Education Analyzed Tables 328 Health Care Facilities Composites 358 Analyzed Tables for WASH in Health Care Facilities 368 Composites for Public Places 394 Public Places Analyzed Tables 399 Summary Table of Household Out of Pocket Expenditure for WASH Services 418 * * * ## Household Tables # Household Tables Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Analyzed Tables National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * Table HH A-C1: Households Demography | | Percentage of HH members with Disability | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | At least 1 disability | No disability | Total | < 1 year | | | National | 5.5 | 94.5 | 100 | 0.6 | | Geopolitical Zones | | | | | | North-Central | 4.2 | 95.8 | 100 | 0.5 | | North-East | 4.2 | 95.8 | 100 | 0.7 | | North-West | 6.9 | 93.1 | 100 | 0.7 | | South-East | 9.5 | 90.5 | 100 | 0.3 | | South-South | 4.6 | 95.4 | 100 | 0.5 | | South-West | 4.0 | 96.0 | 100 | 0.4 | | Sector | | | | | | Urban | 5.6 | 94.4 | 100 | 0.4 | | Peri-Urban | 6.6 | 93.4 | 100 | 0.4 | | Urban | 5.3 | 94.7 | 100 | 0.4 | | Rural | 5.5 | 94.5 | 100 | 0.6 | | Itinerant | 5.1 | 94.9 | 100 | 0.4 | | Rural | 5.4 | 94.6 | 100 | 0.6 | | Small Town | 5.9 | 94.1 | 100 | 0.8 | | Sex of Household Member | | | | | | Male | 6.0 | 94.0 | 100 | 0.6 | | Female | 5.1 | 94.9 | 100 | 0.5 | | State | | | | | | Abia | 8.9 | 91.1 | 100 | 0.6 | | Adamawa | 3.7 | 96.3 | 100 | 0.1 | | Akwa Ibom | 8.3 | 91.7 | 100 | 0.5 | | Anambra | 15.2 | 84.8 | 100 | 0.2 | | Bauchi | 1.0 | 99.0 | 100 | 1.1 | | Bayelsa | 2.9 | 97.1 | 100 | 0.1 | | Benue | 4.3 | 95.7 | 100 | 0.3 | | Borno | 8.3 | 91.7 | 100 | 0.3 | | Cross River | 4.1 | 95.9 | 100 | 0.5 | | Delta | 5.7 | 94.3 | 100 | 1.0 | | Ebonyi | 3.5 | 96.5 | 100 | 0.0 | | Edo | 5.4 | 94.6 | 100 | 0.3 | | Ekiti | 6.4 | 93.6 | 100 | 0.6 | | Enugu | 5.9 | 94.1 | 100 | 0.2 | | Gombe | 4.1 | 95.9 | 100 | 1.3 | | Imo | 10.3 | 89.7 | 100 | 0.6 | | Jigawa | 17.9 | 82.1 | 100 | 1.5 | | Kaduna | 13.2 | 86.8 | 100 | 0.1 | | Age Distribution | | | | | | Number of Household members | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | between 1-<5 years | 5 to <18 years | 18 to <50 years | 50 years to <70 | 70 and above | Total | | | 7.2 | 30.5 | 46.6 | 12.0 | 3.1 | 100 | 206,283,336 | | 7.3 | 31.2 | 49.2 | 9.5 | 2.4 | 100 | 31,416,260 | | 8.7 | 36.7 | 44.1 | 8.3 | 1.5 | 100 | 28,013,058 | | 10.6 | 38.1 | 42.2 | 7.0 | 1.4 | 100 | 52,072,766 | | 4.0 | 20.9 | 46.0 | 22.2 | 6.6 | 100 | 23,292,636 | | 5.7 | 25.5 | 51.3 | 13.5 | 3.5 | 100 | 30,700,493 | | 4.7 | 25.4 | 49.0 | 15.9 | 4.6 | 100 | 40,788,122 | | 5.8 | 27.6 | 49.0 | 13.9 | 3.2 | 100 | 66,860,633 | | 5.3 | 27.1 | 49.4 | 14.9 | 3.0 | 100 | 14,033,147 | | 5.9 | 27.8 | 49.0 | 13.7 | 3.2 | 100 | 52,827,486 | | 7.9 | 31.9 | 45.5 | 11.1 | 3.0 | 100 | 139,422,703 | | 6.2 | 32.6 | 46.8 | 11.7 | 2.3 | 100 | 4,813,255 | | 7.9 | 31.9 | 45.4 | 11.1 | 3.1 | 100 | 115,418,235 | | 8.1 | 31.8 | 45.7 | 10.8 | 2.7 | 100 | 19,191,213 | | 7.2 | 31.0 | 44.4 | 13.4 | 3.4 | 100 | 105,663,936 | | 7.1 | 30.1 | 49.0 | 10.6 | 2.7 | 100 | 100,619,401 | | 5.9 | 26.5 | 39.5 | 20.1 | 7.4 | 100 | 3,939,790 | | 3.1 | 27.2 | 52.1 | 15.8 | 1.7 | 100 | 4,505,632 | | 5.0 | 26.5 | 52.4 | 12.9 | 2.7 | 100 | 5,861,745 | | 2.9 | 17.5 | 50.5 | 25.2 | 3.7 | 100 | 5,852,689 | | 11.2 | 39.7 | 40.7 | 5.8 | 1.5 | 100 | 6,989,936 | | 4.7 | 22.7 | 60.3 | 10.5 | 1.6 | 100 | 2,415,866 | | 7.2 | 33.2 | 47.2 | 9.8 | 2.2 | 100 | 6,099,511 | | 7.7 | 37.9 | 44.5 | 8.4 | 1.3 | 100 | 6,265,922 | | 6.8 | 29.3 | 50.4 | 10.3 | 2.6 | 100 | 4,100,328 | | 6.5 | 28.8 | 43.0 | 13.9 | 6.8 | 100 | 6,035,927 | | 4.5 | 27.3 | 46.8 | 15.6 | 5.6 | 100 | 3,049,669 | * * * Table HH A-C1: Households Demography Distribution of Household Population by Disability and Age | | Percentage of HH members with Disability | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | At least 1 disability | No disability | Total | v1 year | | Kano | 3.1 | 96.9 | 100 | 1.5 | | Katsina | 2.2 | 97.8 | 100 | 0.6 | | Kebbi | 10.0 | 90.0 | 100 | 0.0 | | Kogi | 5.9 | 94.1 | 100 | 0.2 | | Kwara | 8.7 | 91.3 | 100 | 0.1 | | Lagos | 3.7 | 96.3 | 100 | 0.1 | | Nasarawa | 6.7 | 93.3 | 100 | 0.4 | | Niger | 1.1 | 98.9 | 100 | 0.7 | | Ogun | 4.9 | 95.1 | 100 | 0.0 | | Ondo | 3.9 | 96.1 | 100 | 0.4 | | Osun | 6.8 | 93.2 | 100 | 0.8 | | Oyo | 1.5 | 98.5 | 100 | 0.7 | | Plateau | 4.0 | 96.0 | 100 | 0.8 | | Rivers | 1.2 | 98.8 | 100 | 0.3 | | Sokoto | 2.8 | 97.2 | 100 | 0.4 | | Taraba | 2.9 | 97.1 | 100 | 0.3 | | Yobe | 5.2 | 94.8 | 100 | 1.5 | | Zamfara | 2.2 | 97.8 | 100 | 0.1 | | FCT | 1.4 | 98.6 | 100 | 0.5 | | Age Distribution | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | between 1-5 years | 5 to <18 years | 18 to <50 years | 50 years to <70 | 70 and above | Total | | 11.4 | 40.1 | 38.8 | 6.8 | 1.4 | 100 | | 10.0 | 40.4 | 41.3 | 6.6 | 1.1 | 100 | | 12.3 | 36.8 | 42.6 | 6.9 | 1.4 | 100 | | 7.6 | 27.9 | 48.4 | 12.3 | 3.5 | 100 | | 5.9 | 28.8 | 47.4 | 12.6 | 5.2 | 100 | | 3.7 | 24.7 | 52.3 | 17.1 | 2.0 | 100 | | 6.9 | 29.1 | 50.2 | 11.3 | 2.1 | 100 | | 8.6 | 36.9 | 46.8 | 6.1 | 0.8 | 100 | | 3.1 | 25.6 | 53.5 | 13.3 | 4.4 | 100 | | 5.4 | 28.4 | 45.2 | 14.5 | 6.1 | 100 | | 7.0 | 29.3 | 39.5 | 15.8 | 7.7 | 100 | | 4.8 | 21.5 | 51.2 | 17.7 | 4.1 | 100 | | 5.8 | 28.3 | 54.0 | 8.7 | 2.4 | 100 | | 5.3 | 22.2 | 57.3 | 12.7 | 2.2 | 100 | | 9.1 | 37.6 | 42.9 | 8.5 | 1.6 | 100 | | 8.2 | 34.9 | 47.1 | 8.1 | 1.3 | 100 | | 10.7 | 39.4 | 41.0 | 5.8 | 1.7 | 100 | | 8.7 | 37.4 | 44.2 | 7.2 | 2.3 | 100 | | 8.3 | 30.1 | 52.0 | 7.8 | 1.3 | 100 | * * * Table HH. A-C2: Households Demography Percentage Distribution of Households by Sex and Literacy of HH Head, Disability and Duration of Stay | | Average No. of persons per HH | Sex of Household Heads | | | Literacy of Head of HH | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Male | Female | Total | Literate | Non-Literate | Total | | | | 81.4 | 18.6 | 100 | 69.0 | 31.0 | 100 | | | | National | 4.8 | 81.4 | 18.6 | 100 | 69.0 | 31.0 | 100 | | Zone | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 5.1 | 86.8 | 13.2 | 100 | 62.8 | 37.2 | 100 | | North-East | 5.3 | 92.0 | 8.0 | 100 | 66.3 | 33.7 | 100 | | North-West | 5.4 | 94.5 | 5.5 | 100 | 63.5 | 36.5 | 100 | | South-East | 4.6 | 69.8 | 30.2 | 100 | 65.8 | 34.2 | 100 | | South-South | 4.5 | 72.3 | 27.7 | 100 | 76.8 | 23.2 | 100 | | South-West | 4.3 | 71.3 | 28.7 | 100 | 76.2 | 23.8 | 100 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | Urban Peri-Urban | 4.6 | 76.5 | 23.5 | 100 | 82.1 | 17.9 | 100 | | Urban Urban | 4.5 | 76.1 | 23.9 | 100 | 81.4 | 18.6 | 100 | | Rural Itinerant | 4.7 | 76.6 | 23.4 | 100 | 82.3 | 17.7 | 100 | | Rural Rural Small Town | 5.0 | 84.0 | 16.0 | 100 | 62.0 | 38.0 | 100 | | State | | | | | | | | | Abia | 4.6 | 63.0 | 37.0 | 100 | 74.3 | 25.7 | 100 | | Adamawa | 5.3 | 86.2 | 13.8 | 100 | 50.7 | 49.3 | 100 | | Akwa Ibom | 4.5 | 73.7 | 26.3 | 100 | 80.4 | 19.6 | 100 | | Anambra | 4.7 | 75.9 | 24.1 | 100 | 83.1 | 16.9 | 100 | | Bauchi | 5.4 | 97.2 | 2.8 | 100 | 69.8 | 30.2 | 100 | | Bayelsa | 4.7 | 71.5 | 28.5 | 100 | 68.2 | 31.8 | 100 | | Benue | 5.2 | 85.5 | 14.5 | 100 | 64.3 | 35.7 | 100 | | Borno | 5.1 | 88.8 | 11.2 | 100 | 74.0 | 26.0 | 100 | | Cross River | 4.2 | 69.8 | 30.2 | 100 | 63.7 | 36.3 | 100 | | Delta | 4.5 | 68.7 | 31.3 | 100 | 69.6 | 30.4 | 100 | | Ebonyi | 4.8 | 69.1 | 30.9 | 100 | 38.1 | 61.9 | 100 | | Edo | 4.5 | 71.5 | 28.5 | 100 | 79.7 | 20.3 | 100 | | Ekiti | 4.7 | 65.2 | 34.8 | 100 | 67.1 | 32.9 | 100 | | Household with Disability | | | Duration of Stay in the Community/Locality | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | At least 1 disability | No disability | Total | less than 6 months | 6 to 9 months | less than 1 year | 1 to 2 years | 2 to 5 years | >5 years | Total | | | 11.3 | 88.7 | 100 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 3.1 | 11.9 | 82.3 | 100 | 42,541,141 | | 9.8 | 90.2 | 100 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 2.5 | 6.6 | 89.9 | 100 | 6,213,175 | | 11.4 | 88.6 | 100 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.4 | 8.6 | 89.6 | 100 | 5,314,632 | | 12.6 | 87.4 | 100 | 4.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 7.1 | 85.9 | 100 | 9,595,568 | | 18.8 | 81.2 | 100 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 2.1 | 9.6 | 86.7 | 100 | 5,045,363 | | 10.3 | 89.7 | 100 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 3.8 | 12.4 | 82.2 | 100 | 6,849,154 | | 7.9 | 92.1 | 100 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 1.7 | 6.0 | 22.8 | 67.4 | 100 | 9,523,248 | | 11.1 | 88.9 | 100 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 5.7 | 19.5 | 71.1 | 100 | 14,820,701 | | 12.7 | 87.3 | 100 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 5.7 | 20.4 | 70.9 | 100 | 3,180,382 | | 10.7 | 89.3 | 100 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 5.6 | 19.3 | 71.2 | 100 | 11,640,319 | | 11.5 | 88.5 | 100 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 1.7 | 7.8 | 88.3 | 100 | 27,720,441 | | 10.3 | 89.7 | 100 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 2.0 | 6.9 | 87.5 | 100 | 974,239 | | 11.6 | 88.4 | 100 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 1.7 | 7.6 | 88.5 | 100 | 22,915,017 | | 10.9 | 89.1 | 100 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 9.4 | 87.4 | 100 | 3,831,184 | | 19.5 | 80.5 | 100 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 6.1 | 91.0 | 100 | 852,364 | | 13.9 | 86.1 | 100 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 5.9 | 92.9 | 100 | 844,650 | | 20.1 | 79.9 | 100 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 2.3 | 6.2 | 87.6 | 100 | 1,302,205 | | 29.2 | 70.8 | 100 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 3.4 | 19.6 | 74.7 | 100 | 1,255,140 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * Table HH. A-C2: Households Demography Percentage Distribution of Households by Sex and Literacy of HH Head, Disability and Duration of Stay | | | Sex of Household Heads | | | Literacy of Head of HH | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Average No. of persons per HH | Male | Female | Total | Literate | Non-Literate | Total | | Katsina | 5.3 | 95.3 | 4.7 | 100 | 58.5 | 41.5 | 100 | | Kebbi | 5.6 | 97.3 | 2.7 | 100 | 83.1 | 16.9 | 100 | | Kogi | 5.1 | 76.6 | 23.4 | 100 | 57.2 | 42.8 | 100 | | Kwara | 4.9 | 77.1 | 22.9 | 100 | 63.6 | 36.4 | 100 | | Lagos | 4.0 | 73.3 | 26.7 | 100 | 86.2 | 13.8 | 100 | | Nasarawa | 5.2 | 93.4 | 6.6 | 100 | 71.8 | 28.2 | 100 | | Niger | 5.3 | 95.7 | 4.3 | 100 | 52.1 | 47.9 | 100 | | Ogun | 4.2 | 69.9 | 30.1 | 100 | 66.9 | 33.1 | 100 | | Ondo | 4.5 | 68.1 | 31.9 | 100 | 65.5 | 34.5 | 100 | | Osun | 4.6 | 66.3 | 33.7 | 100 | 77.3 | 22.7 | 100 | | Oyo | 4.4 | 75.6 | 24.4 | 100 | 74.1 | 25.9 | 100 | | Plateau | 5.2 | 87.2 | 12.8 | 100 | 64.8 | 35.2 | 100 | | Rivers | 4.5 | 76.3 | 23.7 | 100 | 87.9 | 12.1 | 100 | | Sokoto | 5.3 | 94.8 | 5.2 | 100 | 54.2 | 45.8 | 100 | | Taraba | 5.2 | 90.4 | 9.6 | 100 | 53.7 | 46.3 | 100 | | Yobe | 5.2 | 92.5 | 7.5 | 100 | 74.1 | 25.9 | 100 | | Zamfara | 5.4 | 97.0 | 3.0 | 100 | 60.9 | 39.1 | 100 | | FCT | 4.4 | 90.9 | 9.1 | 100 | 72.5 | 27.5 | 100 | | Household with Disability | | | Duration of Stay in the Community/Locality | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | At least 1 disability | No disability | Total | less than 6 months | 6 to 9 months | less than 1 year | 1 to 2 years | 2 to 5 years | >5 years | Number of Household | | | 9.2 | 90.8 | 100 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 7.9 | 88.3 | 100 | 1,558,506 | | 11.1 | 88.9 | 100 | 19.1 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 4.3 | 73.7 | 100 | 844,434 | | 15.0 | 85.0 | 100 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 3.5 | 94.1 | 100 | 934,868 | | 16.3 | 83.7 | 100 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 7.4 | 88.0 | 100 | 689,852 | | 7.4 | 92.6 | 100 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 2.2 | 7.3 | 26.3 | 61.6 | 100 | 3,330,768 | | 13.6 | 86.4 | 100 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 5.3 | 93.8 | 100 | 511,985 | | 4.1 | 95.9 | 100 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 2.9 | 6.6 | 89.5 | 100 | 1,130,135 | | 9.8 | 90.2 | 100 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 4.7 | 27.5 | 67.0 | 100 | 1,333,972 | | 8.6 | 91.4 | 100 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 4.2 | 21.9 | 71.6 | 100 | 1,110,701 | | 11.7 | 88.3 | 100 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 4.9 | 17.8 | 73.7 | 100 | 1,092,389 | | 1.9 | 98.1 | 100 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 2.0 | 5.4 | 19.4 | 69.9 | 100 | 1,922,364 | | 8.3 | 91.7 | 100 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 4.5 | 7.9 | 86.1 | 100 | 853,884 | | 2.7 | 97.3 | 100 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 3.9 | 17.9 | 77.6 | 100 | 1,731,487 | | 9.5 | 90.5 | 100 | 20.7 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 2.4 | 75.8 | 100 | 1,006,167 | | 8.8 | 91.2 | 100 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 13.2 | 84.6 | 100 | 631,443 | | 11.4 | 88.6 | 100 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 8.9 | 90.8 | 100 | 673,818 | | 7.1 | 92.9 | 100 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 97.0 | 100 | 887,743 | | 3.5 | 96.5 | 100 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 5.7 | 15.5 | 78.4 | 100 | 925,519 | * * * | Distribution of Households | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Wealth | | | | Poorest | Poor | Moderate | | | National | 20.1 | 19.9 | 20.0 | | Zone | | | | | North-Central | 25.8 | 21.3 | 21.8 | | North-East | 32.5 | 28.9 | 22.3 | | North-West | 34.6 | 30.6 | 16.8 | | South-East | 7.3 | 10.7 | 24.2 | | South-South | 5.9 | 15.6 | 26.7 | | South-West | 6.6 | 7.7 | 13.6 | | Sector | | | | | Urban | 2.6 | 6.4 | 16.5 | | Peri-Urban | 4.4 | 5.5 | 17.4 | | Urban | 2.1 | 6.7 | 16.3 | | Rural | 28.5 | 26.4 | 21.6 | | Itinerant | 45.5 | 10.6 | 13.8 | | Rural | 28.7 | 27.6 | 21.4 | | Small Town | 22.9 | 23.5 | 25.1 | | State | | | | | Abia | 1.5 | 6.5 | 21.9 | | Adamawa | 25.2 | 22.7 | 23.2 | | Akwa Ibom | 11.7 | 20.9 | 40.2 | | Anambra | 0.6 | 5.1 | 19.6 | | Bauchi | 41.5 | 33.7 | 16.1 | | Bayelsa | 3.0 | 12.9 | 34.0 | | Benue | 50.0 | 17.8 | 19.6 | | Borno | 15.7 | 24.2 | 34.1 | | Cross River | 15.0 | 31.6 | 24.8 | | Delta | 3.0 | 13.7 | 25.9 | | Ebonyi | 34.9 | 24.9 | 20.4 | | Edo | 4.1 | 15.7 | 19.8 | | Ekiti | 5.6 | 12.7 | 28.9 | | Enugu | 9.8 | 15.1 | 28.8 | | Gombe | 45.6 | 26.3 | 15.6 | | Imo | 1.5 | 8.3 | 28.8 | | Jigawa | 68.2 | 16.8 | 5.5 | | Kaduna | 15.7 | 35.0 | 24.1 | | Kano | 30.4 | 34.5 | 17.9 | | Katsina | 27.7 | 27.3 | 15.0 | | Kebbi | 46.8 | 23.0 | 20.1 | | Kogi | 20.9 | 23.0 | 24.4 | | Kwara | 6.6 | 14.4 | 22.6 | | Lagos | 0.1 | 0.7 | 3.5 | | Nasarawa | 29.1 | 25.2 | 20.4 | | Niger | 22.3 | 23.2 | 25.5 | | Ogun | 0.4 | 5.6 | 22.6 | | Ondo | 15.2 | 15.9 | 19.8 | | Osun | 5.9 | 10.7 | 9.9 | | Oyo | 16.9 | 11.3 | 15.7 | | Plateau | 21.8 | 29.9 | 20.8 | | Rivers | 1.0 | 5.6 | 20.1 | | Sokoto | 34.1 | 33.7 | 18.8 | | Taraba | 41.3 | 38.1 | 15.3 | | Yobe | 32.7 | 30.1 | 25.7 | | Zamfara | 38.6 | 38.5 | 12.4 | | Quintiles | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Rich | Richest | Total | Number of Households Members | | 20.1 | 19.9 | 100 | 206,283,336 | | 17.2 | 13.9 | 100 | 31,416,260 | | 11.6 | 4.7 | 100 | 28,013,058 | | 12.2 | 5.8 | 100 | 52,072,766 | | 29.6 | 28.1 | 100 | 23,292,636 | | 27.0 | 24.6 | 100 | 30,700,493 | | 27.3 | 44.8 | 100 | 40,788,122 | | 30.9 | 43.6 | 100 | 66,860,633 | | 27.4 | 45.3 | 100 | 14,033,147 | | 31.8 | 43.2 | 100 | 52,827,486 | | 14.9 | 8.6 | 100 | 139,422,703 | | 20.0 | 10.1 | 100 | 4,813,255 | | 14.0 | 8.3 | 100 | 115,418,235 | | 18.5 | 10.0 | 100 | 19,191,213 | | 42.0 | 28.2 | 100 | 3,939,790 | | 20.4 | 8.4 | 100 | 4,505,632 | | 16.9 | 10.3 | 100 | 5,861,745 | | 30.7 | 44.0 | 100 | 5,852,689 | | 3.8 | 4.8 | 100 | 6,989,936 | | 27.6 | 22.5 | 100 | 2,415,866 | | 10.6 | 2.0 | 100 | 6,099,511 | | 21.9 | 4.0 | 100 | 6,265,922 | | 19.1 | 9.4 | 100 | 4,100,328 | | 26.5 | 30.9 | 100 | 6,035,927 | | 13.7 | 6.1 | 100 | 3,049,669 | | 27.6 | 32.7 | 100 | 4,477,006 | | 33.5 | 19.2 | 100 | 3,480,278 | | 24.1 | 22.3 | 100 | 4,685,917 | | 7.9 | 4.6 | 100 | 3,471,222 | | 33.1 | 28.3 | 100 | 5,764,571 | | 6.6 | 2.9 | 100 | 6,180,993 | | 14.6 | 10.6 | 100 | 8,766,461 | | 9.9 | 7.3 | 100 | 13,959,784 | | 21.8 | 8.2 | 100 | 8,319,185 | | 9.4 | 0.6 | 100 | 4,724,415 | | 18.4 | 13.4 | 100 | 4,752,174 | | 31.3 | 25.0 | 100 | 3,391,799 | | 23.8 | 71.9 | 100 | 13,376,240 | | 14.1 | 11.3 | 100 | 2,680,594 | | 14.1 | 14.9 | 100 | 5,940,943 | | 31.5 | 39.9 | 100 | 5,569,993 | | 23.4 | 25.7 | 100 | 4,962,727 | | 31.4 | 42.0 | 100 | 5,015,146 | | 27.5 | 28.5 | 100 | 8,383,738 | | 18.3 | 9.1 | 100 | 4,439,850 | * * * Table HH. D1-D3: Satisfaction with Public Services Percentage Distribution of Households by Time Taken to get to Health and Education Facilities | | Travel Time to Health Facilities | | | | | Travel Time | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | More than 30 minutes | Not more than 30 minutes | | Total | More than 30 minutes | Not more than 30 minutes | Child not up to Primary School age | Child not attending School yet | child more than primary school age | Don't Know | Not applicable | Total | | | | 46.6 | 49.6 | 3.7 | 100 | 30.0 | 48.8 | 1.7 | 6.7 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 10.0 | 100 | | | | National Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 42.8 | 55.3 | 1.8 | 100 | 27.2 | 55.0 | 1.2 | 7.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 7.6 | 100 | | | North-East | 54.5 | 44.9 | 0.6 | 100 | 44.3 | 47.0 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 2.9 | 0.1 | 1.8 | 100 | | | North-West | 52.2 | 47.1 | 0.7 | 100 | 35.0 | 57.1 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 100 | | | South-East | 45.3 | 48.3 | 6.4 | 100 | 20.5 | 46.5 | 2.2 | 11.5 | 1.6 | 3.0 | 14.8 | 100 | | | South-South | 46.0 | 45.2 | 8.7 | 100 | 33.6 | 37.8 | 1.4 | 5.4 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 19.7 | 100 | | | South-West | 38.3 | 55.7 | 5.9 | 100 | 18.5 | 44.4 | 1.7 | 14.4 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 18.0 | 100 | | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 39.9 | 55.8 | 4.3 | 100 | 24.8 | 47.9 | 2.0 | 10.3 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 12.3 | 100 | | | Peri-Urbian | 37.6 | 56.4 | 6.0 | 100 | 17.7 | 48.4 | 1.6 | 14.7 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 15.1 | 100 | | | Urban | 40.5 | 55.7 | 3.8 | 100 | 26.7 | 47.8 | 2.1 | 9.1 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 11.5 | 100 | | | Rural | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Itinerant | 66.7 | 31.1 | 2.2 | 100 | 42.7 | 30.1 | 1.0 | 6.5 | 7.5 | 2.6 | 9.5 | 100 | | | Rural | 51.3 | 45.3 | 3.4 | 100 | 32.9 | 49.0 | 1.5 | 4.8 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 9.0 | 100 | | | Small Town | 37.3 | 58.6 | 4.1 | 100 | 27.2 | 55.6 | 1.6 | 5.3 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 7.9 | 100 | | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Poorest | 62.2 | 35.4 | 2.4 | 100 | 39.0 | 46.8 | 1.4 | 3.9 | 3.5 | 0.7 | 4.7 | 100 | | | Poor | 48.2 | 48.2 | 3.6 | 100 | 32.7 | 51.6 | 1.7 | 4.7 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 6.6 | 100 | | | More than 30 minutes | Children Travel Time to Secondary School | | | | | | Number of Household's Members | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Not more than 30 minutes | child not up to secondary school age | Child not up to Secondary School area | child already finished secondary school | Don't know | Not applicable | | | | | 36.5 | 38.6 | 5.6 | 2.4 | 4.2 | 1.2 | 11.4 | 100 | 206,283,336 | | 38.7 | 40.7 | 6.3 | 1.2 | 3.7 | 0.9 | 8.6 | 100 | 31,416,260 | | 47.9 | 37.8 | 5.5 | 3.9 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 3.7 | 100 | 28,013,058 | | 42.6 | 42.8 | 5.8 | 3.7 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 3.0 | 100 | 52,072,766 | | 23.8 | 41.0 | 6.3 | 2.0 | 7.5 | 3.3 | 16.1 | 100 | 23,292,636 | | 39.2 | 29.1 | 2.9 | 1.5 | 3.0 | 1.2 | 23.2 | 100 | 30,700,493 | | 24.3 | 38.2 | 6.8 | 1.4 | 9.0 | 2.0 | 18.2 | 100 | 40,788,122 | | 30.4 | 41.2 | 6.2 | 1.9 | 6.4 | 1.4 | 12.5 | 100 | 66,860,633 | | 25.5 | 42.8 | 5.6 | 1.7 | 9.0 | 1.3 | 14.1 | 100 | 14,033,147 | | 31.7 | 40.8 | 6.3 | 1.9 | 5.7 | 1.5 | 12.1 | 100 | 52,827,486 | | 39.4 | 37.4 | 5.4 | 2.6 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 10.9 | 100 | 139,422,703 | | 45.4 | 28.2 | 4.4 | 7.6 | 2.5 | 2.8 | 9.1 | 100 | 4,813,255 | | 40.2 | 36.8 | 5.3 | 2.4 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 11.2 | 100 | 115,418,235 | | 33.0 | 43.0 | 6.2 | 2.8 | 3.9 | 1.7 | 9.5 | 100 | 19,191,213 | | 45.8 | 33.4 | 5.3 | 4.0 | 2.9 | 0.6 | 7.9 | 100 | 41,443,305 | | 40.5 | 39.4 | 5.9 | 3.1 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 7.6 | 100 | 41,147,179 | | 38.3 | 39.5 | 5.6 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 10.3 | 100 | 41,224,838 | | 33.4 | 40.2 | 6.1 | 1.1 | 4.0 | 2.1 | 13.0 | 100 | 41,360,542 | | 24.4 | 40.6 | 5.2 | 1.5 | 8.6 | 1.5 | 18.2 | 100 | 41,107,472 | | 36.1 | 39.3 | 6.0 | 2.3 | 4.2 | 1.1 | 11.1 | 100 | 144,430,589 | | 37.5 | 37.1 | 4.8 | 2.6 | 4.2 | 1.5 | 12.3 | 100 | 61,852,748 | | 37.7 | 38.8 | 6.0 | 2.5 | 3.6 | 1.0 | 10.4 | 100 | 176,301,267 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * Table HH. D1-D3: Satisfaction with Public Services Percentage Distribution of Households by Time Taken to get to Health and Education Facilities | | Travel Time to Health Facilities | | | | Travel Time to Primary School | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | More than 30 minutes | Not more than 30 minutes | | Total | More than 30 minutes | Not more than 30 minutes | Child not up to Primary School age | Child not attending School yet | child more than primary school age | Don't Know | Not applicable | Total | | | Bauchi | 48.7 | 50.3 | 1.0 | 100 | 31.6 | 67.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 100 | | Bayelsa | 38.7 | 53.2 | 8.1 | 100 | 19.7 | 38.1 | 0.9 | 9.6 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 31.3 | 100 | | Benue | 59.9 | 39.5 | 0.6 | 100 | 38.5 | 50.7 | 0.7 | 3.0 | 0.9 | 1.9 | 4.3 | 100 | | Borno | 53.2 | 46.6 | 0.2 | 100 | 51.3 | 33.9 | 3.5 | 2.6 | 8.5 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 100 | | Cross River | 37.7 | 59.2 | 3.2 | 100 | 32.2 | 36.6 | 3.6 | 11.3 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 14.2 | 100 | | Delta | 32.7 | 64.4 | 2.9 | 100 | 12.6 | 53.4 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 33.6 | 100 | | Ebonyi | 71.7 | 22.2 | 6.1 | 100 | 47.5 | 26.6 | 1.3 | 10.7 | 2.1 | 4.3 | 7.6 | 100 | | Edo | 35.1 | 50.6 | 14.3 | 100 | 20.5 | 63.5 | 3.8 | 1.9 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 5.8 | 100 | | Ekiti | 35.7 | 53.5 | 10.8 | 100 | 21.4 | 49.7 | 2.0 | 13.0 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 9.3 | 100 | | Enugu | 57.7 | 40.8 | 1.5 | 100 | 28.4 | 40.6 | 2.1 | 9.0 | 1.3 | 2.3 | 16.7 | 100 | | Gombe | 55.6 | 44.3 | 0.1 | 100 | 41.6 | 49.7 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 100 | | Imo | 27.5 | 56.8 | 15.7 | 100 | 12.5 | 56.8 | 1.4 | 10.8 | 3.4 | 2.3 | 12.7 | 100 | | Jigawa | 53.8 | 45.3 | 0.9 | 100 | 34.1 | 56.8 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 3.4 | 0.4 | 3.6 | 100 | | Kaduna | 49.2 | 50.0 | 0.7 | 100 | 33.6 | 60.7 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 100 | | Kano | 45.7 | 53.9 | 0.4 | 100 | 24.0 | 69.3 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 2.2 | 100 | | Katsina | 69.4 | 29.7 | 0.9 | 100 | 49.1 | 45.5 | 1.7 | 2.7 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 100 | | More than 30 minutes | Not more than 30 minutes | child not up to secondary school age | Child not up to Secondary School area | child already finished secondary school | Don’t know | | Total | Number of Household’s Members | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 44.0 | 50.1 | 4.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 100 | 6,989,936 | | 27.4 | 31.3 | 5.8 | 0.3 | 3.1 | 0.1 | 31.9 | 100 | 2,415,866 | | 52.9 | 34.9 | 2.7 | 0.5 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 4.8 | 100 | 6,099,511 | | 48.7 | 31.2 | 7.4 | 10.8 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 100 | 6,265,922 | | 45.0 | 26.7 | 6.4 | 1.5 | 4.7 | 0.6 | 15.1 | 100 | 4,100,328 | | 16.6 | 39.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 43.6 | 100 | 6,035,927 | | 47.8 | 21.1 | 6.7 | 2.1 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 8.9 | 100 | 3,049,669 | | 26.2 | 52.1 | 7.0 | 4.3 | 3.7 | 0.4 | 6.3 | 100 | 4,477,006 | | 25.1 | 37.3 | 11.0 | 2.5 | 8.3 | 2.9 | 13.0 | 100 | 3,480,278 | | 29.3 | 37.4 | 6.8 | 0.8 | 5.4 | 2.5 | 17.9 | 100 | 4,685,917 | | 45.2 | 37.2 | 7.6 | 6.4 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 2.6 | 100 | 3,471,222 | | 16.3 | 50.1 | 5.0 | 3.6 | 5.6 | 3.2 | 16.0 | 100 | 5,764,571 | | 42.0 | 42.9 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 5.8 | 100 | 6,180,993 | | 47.6 | 37.1 | 8.2 | 2.2 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 100 | 8,766,461 | | 29.7 | 54.2 | 5.3 | 4.0 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 4.9 | 100 | 13,959,784 | | 63.7 | 27.7 | 6.3 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 100 | 8,319,185 | | 22.9 | 37.7 | 13.2 | 14.1 | 5.0 | 1.4 | 5.9 | 100 | 4,724,415 | | 33.0 | 45.6 | 7.8 | 1.7 | 2.7 | 0.8 | 8.4 | 100 | 4,752,174 | | 51.3 | 34.2 | 5.3 | 1.5 | 3.7 | 0.6 | 3.4 | 100 | 3,391,799 | | 25.5 | 33.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 11.8 | 0.5 | 23.2 | 100 | 13,376,240 | | 44.4 | 22.3 | 11.6 | 5.8 | 13.9 | 0.1 | 1.9 | 100 | 2,680,594 | | 24.5 | 49.0 | 5.8 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 19.7 | 100 | 5,940,943 | * * * Table HH. D4: Satisfaction with Public Services | Percentage Distribution of Households by Perceived Satisfaction with Services | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Degree of Satisfaction with Public Services | | | | | | Number of Household's Members | | very happy | happy | indifferent | sad | very sad | Total | | | | National | 5.9 | 51.7 | 17.5 | 21.6 | 3.4 | 100 | 206,283,336 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 3.9 | 53.6 | 13.0 | 26.8 | 2.7 | 100 | 31,416,260 | | North-East | 4.9 | 52.7 | 7.4 | 27.5 | 7.5 | 100 | 28,013,058 | | North-West | 5.2 | 60.9 | 15.9 | 16.8 | 1.2 | 100 | 52,072,766 | | South-East | 5.3 | 39.5 | 28.8 | 23.6 | 2.9 | 100 | 23,292,636 | | South-South | 10.8 | 43.1 | 18.3 | 23.3 | 4.5 | 100 | 30,700,493 | | South-West | 5.6 | 51.0 | 22.7 | 17.0 | 3.6 | 100 | 40,788,122 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | Urban | 6.7 | 53.3 | 20.8 | 17.1 | 2.1 | 100 | 66,860,633 | | Peri-Urbian | 7.3 | 51.6 | 19.0 | 18.4 | 3.6 | 100 | 14,033,147 | | Urban | 6.6 | 53.8 | 21.3 | 16.7 | 1.7 | 100 | 52,827,486 | | Rural | 5.5 | 50.9 | 15.9 | 23.7 | 4.1 | 100 | 139,422,703 | | Iliterant | 4.9 | 41.5 | 17.8 | 32.2 | 3.5 | 100 | 4,813,255 | | Rural | 5.5 | 50.2 | 15.5 | 24.6 | 4.2 | 100 | 115,418,235 | | Small Town | 5.4 | 57.3 | 17.7 | 15.9 | 3.7 | 100 | 19,191,213 | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | | Poorest | 2.2 | 42.5 | 16.0 | 33.3 | 5.9 | 100 | 41,443,305 | | Poor | 4.5 | 55.0 | 13.2 | 22.6 | 4.8 | 100 | 41,147,179 | | Moderate | 5.1 | 55.3 | 17.4 | 19.6 | 2.6 | 100 | 41,224,838 | | Rich | 8.1 | 50.6 | 19.8 | 19.3 | 2.2 | 100 | 41,360,542 | | Richest | 9.6 | 55.0 | 20.9 | 12.9 | 1.6 | 100 | 41,107,472 | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | | | Literate | 6.9 | 53.7 | 16.3 | 20.0 | 3.1 | 100 | 144,430,589 | | Non-Literate | 3.5 | 47.0 | 20.1 | 25.1 | 4.3 | 100 | 61,852,748 | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | | | Male | 5.9 | 52.3 | 16.6 | 21.8 | 3.4 | 100 | 176,301,267 | Analyzed Tables * * * Table HH. D4: Satisfaction with Public Services | | Degree of Satisfaction with very happy | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | very happy | happy | indifferent | | Adamawa | 7.1 | 41.6 | 5.8 | | Akwa Ibom | 6.6 | 42.4 | 20.0 | | Anambra | 2.5 | 30.4 | 35.8 | | Bauchi | 7.0 | 57.4 | 5.8 | | Bayelsa | 15.2 | 41.4 | 10.3 | | Benue | 1.4 | 54.0 | 6.9 | | Borno | 0.3 | 55.4 | 1.6 | | Cross River | 8.6 | 31.8 | 20.5 | | Delta | 4.9 | 61.2 | 16.5 | | Ebonyi | 2.8 | 35.8 | 17.8 | | Edo | 0.5 | 28.2 | 40.7 | | Ekiti | 1.1 | 52.1 | 32.7 | | Enugu | 6.1 | 64.0 | 13.6 | | Gombe | 2.3 | 48.2 | 18.7 | | Imo | 3.0 | 30.6 | 39.5 | | Jigawa | 4.9 | 60.7 | 9.5 | | Kaduna | 7.4 | 57.2 | 16.1 | | Kano | 4.4 | 71.4 | 11.4 | | Katsina | 3.7 | 46.7 | 34.3 | | Kebbi | 1.4 | 59.8 | 11.8 | | Kogi | 3.7 | 61.6 | 4.7 | | Kwara | 7.0 | 52.1 | 21.2 | | Lagos | 7.0 | 53.4 | 17.4 | | Nasarawa | 2.6 | 53.1 | 12.9 | | Niger | 7.5 | 52.0 | 7.7 | | Ogun | 11.7 | 42.0 | 34.6 | | Ondo | 7.9 | 38.4 | 34.1 | | Osun | 1.2 | 48.9 | 19.7 | | Oyo | 2.7 | 61.6 | 14.2 | | Plateau | 1.7 | 50.0 | 15.4 | | Rivers | 24.5 | 44.7 | 6.7 | | Sokoto | 13.5 | 57.1 | 16.5 | | Taraba | 2.2 | 40.2 | 13.2 | | Yobe | 11.0 | 69.0 | 6.0 | | Zamfara | 1.1 | 67.6 | 8.7 | | FCT | 3.2 | 51.3 | 30.5 | | With Public Services | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | sad | very sad | Total | | Number of Household's Members | | 30.9 | 14.6 | 100 | | 4,505,632 | | 26.3 | 4.6 | 100 | | 5,861,745 | | 30.4 | 0.9 | 100 | | 5,852,689 | | 19.3 | 10.5 | 100 | | 6,989,936 | | 30.9 | 2.2 | 100 | | 2,415,866 | | 36.1 | 1.6 | 100 | | 6,099,511 | | 37.6 | 5.1 | 100 | | 6,265,922 | | 18.7 | 20.5 | 100 | | 4,100,328 | | 16.7 | 0.6 | 100 | | 6,035,927 | | 36.5 | 7.1 | 100 | | 3,049,669 | | 27.2 | 3.5 | 100 | | 4,477,006 | | 13.1 | 1.0 | 100 | | 3,480,278 | | 15.4 | 1.0 | 100 | | 4,685,917 | | 29.7 | 1.0 | 100 | | 3,471,222 | | 21.9 | 5.1 | 100 | | 5,764,571 | | 24.8 | 0.1 | 100 | | 6,180,993 | | 19.2 | 0.0 | 100 | | 8,766,461 | | 12.7 | 0.2 | 100 | | 13,959,784 | | 13.6 | 1.7 | 100 | | 8,319,185 | | 23.6 | 3.4 | 100 | | 4,724,415 | | 28.3 | 1.8 | 100 | | 4,752,174 | | 18.1 | 1.7 | 100 | | 3,391,799 | | 17.9 | 4.4 | 100 | | 13,376,240 | | 31.2 | 0.3 | 100 | | 2,680,594 | | 29.6 | 3.2 | 100 | | 5,940,943 | | 11.4 | 0.4 | 100 | | 5,569,993 | | 17.8 | 1.9 | 100 | | 4,962,727 | | 28.1 | 2.1 | 100 | | 5,015,146 | | 13.9 | 7.5 | 100 | | 8,383,738 | | 24.0 | 9.0 | 100 | | 4,439,850 | | 23.9 | 0.2 | 100 | | 7,809,622 | | 12.8 | 0.1 | 100 | | 5,309,454 | | 34.4 | 10.0 | 100 | | 3,252,496 | | 13.3 | 0.7 | 100 | | 3,527,851 | | 17.1 | 5.6 | 100 | | 4,812,475 | | 14.8 | 0.2 | 100 | | 4,111,389 | * * * Table HH. E1-E3: Disease Prevalence among Households | | HHs whose at least one member suffered malaria in the past 5 weeks | | | | Household who suffered Diarrhoea in the past 2 weeks | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | yes | no | can't remember | Total | yes | no | can't remember | Total | | | National | 34.6 | 64.0 | 1.3 | 100 | 11.1 | 87.0 | 1.8 | 100 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 34.5 | 64.4 | 1.1 | 100 | 9.5 | 88.6 | 1.9 | 100 | | North-East | 50.1 | 49.7 | 0.2 | 100 | 27.7 | 71.9 | 0.3 | 100 | | North-West | 37.0 | 62.6 | 0.4 | 100 | 13.8 | 84.8 | 1.3 | 100 | | South-East | 36.7 | 57.9 | 5.4 | 100 | 8.2 | 85.0 | 6.8 | 100 | | South-South | 39.0 | 60.0 | 1.0 | 100 | 6.7 | 92.1 | 1.2 | 100 | | South-West | 16.7 | 82.0 | 1.3 | 100 | 2.5 | 96.5 | 1.0 | 100 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 28.0 | 70.8 | 1.2 | 100 | 7.9 | 90.7 | 1.4 | 100 | | Peri-Urbian | 25.4 | 72.6 | 2.0 | 100 | 6.1 | 90.6 | 3.2 | 100 | | Urban | 28.7 | 70.3 | 1.0 | 100 | 8.3 | 90.7 | 0.9 | 100 | | Rural | 37.8 | 60.8 | 1.4 | 100 | 12.7 | 85.3 | 2.0 | 100 | | Itinerant | 38.0 | 60.8 | 1.2 | 100 | 14.9 | 83.4 | 1.7 | 100 | | Rural | 38.9 | 59.8 | 1.3 | 100 | 12.9 | 85.1 | 2.0 | 100 | | Small Town | 31.1 | 66.8 | 2.1 | 100 | 10.4 | 87.1 | 2.5 | 100 | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | | | Poorest | 40.5 | 58.7 | 0.8 | 100 | 15.6 | 82.7 | 1.7 | 100 | | Poor | 39.1 | 59.3 | 1.6 | 100 | 16.2 | 81.5 | 2.3 | 100 | | Moderate | 37.7 | 61.1 | 1.2 | 100 | 11.9 | 86.2 | 1.9 | 100 | | Rich | 31.8 | 66.7 | 1.5 | 100 | 7.7 | 90.6 | 1.7 | 100 | | Richest | 24.1 | 74.4 | 1.6 | 100 | 4.2 | 94.3 | 1.6 | 100 | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | | | | Literate | 35.7 | 63.2 | 1.1 | 100 | 11.0 | 87.5 | 1.5 | 100 | | Non-Literate | 32.1 | 65.9 | 1.9 | 100 | 11.3 | 86.0 | 2.7 | 100 | | | Households with Diarrhoea cases in the past2weeks and amongst under5children | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Number of Household's Members | yes | no | can't remember | Total | Number of Households with Children under5whose member(s) suffered diarrhoea in the past6weeks | | | 206,283,336 | 73.6 | 25.4 | 1.1 | 100 | 8,241,828 | | | 31,416,260 | 68.6 | 31.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 905,155 | | | 28,013,058 | 79.3 | 19.4 | 1.4 | 100 | 2,772,905 | | | 52,072,766 | 74.2 | 25.4 | 0.4 | 100 | 3,159,127 | | | 23,292,636 | 57.4 | 37.4 | 5.2 | 100 | 550,107 | | | 30,700,493 | 76.5 | 23.5 | 0.0 | 100 | 586,794 | | | 40,788,122 | 50.4 | 46.0 | 3.6 | 100 | 267,741 | | | 66,860,633 | 68.8 | 30.7 | 0.5 | 100 | 1,821,352 | | | 14,033,147 | 71.2 | 28.8 | 0.0 | 100 | 345,539 | | | 52,827,486 | 68.2 | 31.1 | 0.7 | 100 | 1,475,813 | | | 139,422,703 | 74.9 | 23.9 | 1.2 | 100 | 6,420,476 | | | 4,813,255 | 84.8 | 15.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 251,962 | | | 115,418,235 | 72.8 | 25.8 | 1.5 | 100 | 5,414,321 | | | 19,191,213 | 86.9 | 13.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 754,193 | | | 41,443,305 | 74.6 | 25.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 2,505,252 | | | 41,147,179 | 76.0 | 22.0 | 2.0 | 100 | 2,516,354 | | | 41,224,838 | 76.8 | 21.7 | 1.5 | 100 | 1,899,650 | | | 41,360,542 | 64.7 | 35.3 | 0.0 | 100 | 1,002,011 | | | 41,107,472 | 54.1 | 42.8 | 3.1 | 100 | 318,560 | | | 144,430,589 | 74.1 | 24.5 | 1.4 | 100 | 6,178,182 | | | 61,852,748 | 72.0 | 28.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 2,063,646 | | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * Table HH. E1-E3: Disease Prevalence among Households | | HHs whose at least one member suffered malaria in the past s weeks | | | | Household who suffered Diarrhoea in the past 2 weeks | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | yes | no | can't remember | Total | yes | no | can't remember | Total | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | | | | Male | 35.4 | 63.3 | 1.3 | 100 | 11.7 | 86.5 | 1.8 | 100 | | Female | 30.0 | 68.3 | 1.6 | 100 | 7.6 | 90.2 | 2.2 | 100 | | HHs with at least one disability | | | | | | | | | | At least 1 disability | 40.9 | 57.4 | 1.7 | 100 | 16.4 | 81.2 | 2.4 | 100 | | No disability | 34.3 | 64.4 | 1.3 | 100 | 10.8 | 87.4 | 1.8 | 100 | | State | | | | | | | | | | Abia | 21.8 | 77.7 | 0.5 | 100 | 5.2 | 94.4 | 0.4 | 100 | | Adamawa | 51.3 | 47.7 | 1.1 | 100 | 22.4 | 76.6 | 1.0 | 100 | | Akwa Ibom | 46.2 | 51.1 | 2.8 | 100 | 5.1 | 91.0 | 3.9 | 100 | | Anambra | 37.8 | 57.9 | 4.3 | 100 | 9.5 | 83.4 | 7.2 | 100 | | Bauchi | 31.3 | 68.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 14.9 | 84.8 | 0.3 | 100 | | Bayelsa | 40.1 | 59.5 | 0.5 | 100 | 12.5 | 87.1 | 0.3 | 100 | | Benue | 28.2 | 68.5 | 3.3 | 100 | 4.1 | 91.2 | 4.7 | 100 | | Borno | 51.8 | 48.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 34.3 | 65.5 | 0.2 | 100 | | Cross River | 52.9 | 46.9 | 0.2 | 100 | 9.7 | 90.0 | 0.3 | 100 | | Delta | 32.0 | 67.8 | 0.1 | 100 | 8.0 | 91.5 | 0.5 | 100 | | Ebonyi | 46.3 | 52.0 | 1.7 | 100 | 11.4 | 87.0 | 1.7 | 100 | | Edo | 14.7 | 84.3 | 1.1 | 100 | 0.3 | 97.6 | 2.0 | 100 | | Ekiti | 17.2 | 81.5 | 1.3 | 100 | 4.0 | 94.8 | 1.2 | 100 | | Enugu | 30.6 | 68.9 | 0.5 | 100 | 3.5 | 95.8 | 0.7 | 100 | | Gombe | 47.7 | 52.2 | 0.1 | 100 | 25.7 | 73.9 | 0.4 | 100 | | Imo | 45.6 | 38.6 | 15.8 | 100 | 11.0 | 70.4 | 18.6 | 100 | | Jigawa | 41.4 | 58.4 | 0.2 | 100 | 16.4 | 81.6 | 2.0 | 100 | | Kaduna | 34.6 | 65.3 | 0.1 | 100 | 9.3 | 90.0 | 0.7 | 100 | | weeks | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Households with Diarrhoea cases in the past2 weeks and amongst under5 children | | | | | | Number of Household's Members | yes | no | can't remember | Total | Number of Households with Children under5 whose member(s) suffered diarrhoea in the past6 weeks | | 176,301,267 | 73.1 | 25.8 | 1.1 | 100 | 7,793,932 | | 29,982,069 | 81.9 | 18.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 447,896 | | 11,378,656 | 70.3 | 27.1 | 2.6 | 100 | 517,154 | | 194,904,680 | 73.8 | 25.3 | 1.0 | 100 | 7,724,674 | | 3,939,790 | 51.3 | 48.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 61,975 | | 4,505,632 | 28.1 | 71.9 | 0.0 | 100 | 21,664 | | 5,861,745 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 13,807 | | 5,852,689 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 160,528 | | 6,989,936 | 73.5 | 26.5 | 0.0 | 100 | 554,826 | | 2,415,866 | 66.6 | 33.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 47,052 | | 6,099,511 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 106,629 | | 6,265,922 | 88.2 | 11.8 | 0.0 | 100 | 752,070 | | 4,100,328 | 72.4 | 27.6 | 0.0 | 100 | 174,362 | | 6,035,927 | 93.5 | 6.5 | 0.0 | 100 | 166,671 | | 3,049,669 | 65.4 | 34.6 | 0.0 | 100 | 33,720 | | 4,477,006 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | - | | 3,480,278 | 63.8 | 36.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 79,334 | | 4,685,917 | 39.8 | 60.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 57,902 | | 3,471,222 | 76.4 | 23.6 | 0.0 | 100 | 418,058 | | 5,764,571 | 33.2 | 54.6 | 12.2 | 100 | 235,981 | | 6,180,993 | 83.4 | 16.6 | 0.0 | 100 | 518,752 | | 8,766,461 | 73.6 | 26.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 354,036 | | 13,959,784 | 59.3 | 40.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 715,681 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * Table HH. E1-E3: Disease Prevalence among Households Percent Distribution of Household whose members with children under 5 suffered malaria and diarrhoea in the past 6 weeks | | HHs whose at least one member suffered malaria in the past s weeks | | | | Household who suffered Diarrhoea in the past 2 weeks | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | yes | no | can't remember | Total | yes | no | can't remember | Total | | Katsina | 40.9 | 58.3 | 0.8 | 100 | 13.5 | 85.4 | 1.1 | 100 | | Kebbi | 44.1 | 54.9 | 1.1 | 100 | 22.6 | 75.5 | 1.8 | 100 | | Kogi | 38.7 | 60.1 | 1.2 | 100 | 9.3 | 90.3 | 0.4 | 100 | | Kwara | 26.4 | 73.4 | 0.2 | 100 | 9.9 | 89.6 | 0.5 | 100 | | Lagos | 15.3 | 82.9 | 1.8 | 100 | 1.7 | 96.7 | 1.6 | 100 | | Nasarawa | 47.6 | 52.1 | 0.3 | 100 | 16.2 | 82.4 | 1.4 | 100 | | Niger | 34.1 | 65.6 | 0.3 | 100 | 4.8 | 94.3 | 0.9 | 100 | | Ogun | 6.5 | 93.4 | 0.1 | 100 | 0.3 | 98.5 | 1.2 | 100 | | Ondo | 19.8 | 79.0 | 1.1 | 100 | 4.1 | 95.4 | 0.5 | 100 | | Osun | 17.3 | 80.8 | 1.9 | 100 | 6.9 | 93.1 | 0.0 | 100 | | Oyo | 23.3 | 75.4 | 1.3 | 100 | 1.1 | 98.1 | 0.8 | 100 | | Plateau | 38.6 | 59.9 | 1.5 | 100 | 23.7 | 72.8 | 3.5 | 100 | | Rivers | 45.4 | 53.8 | 0.8 | 100 | 7.2 | 92.6 | 0.2 | 100 | | Sokoto | 36.0 | 63.8 | 0.2 | 100 | 10.5 | 84.9 | 4.6 | 100 | | Taraba | 77.9 | 22.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Yobe | 59.4 | 40.4 | 0.1 | 100 | 29.7 | 70.1 | 0.2 | 100 | | Zamfara | 50.3 | 49.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 23.6 | 76.4 | 0.0 | 100 | | FCT | 33.3 | 66.7 | 0.1 | 100 | 4.5 | 94.4 | 1.1 | 100 | | | Households with Diarrhoea cases in the past2weeks and amongst under5children | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Number of Household's Members | yes | no | can't remember | Total | Number of Households with Children under5whose member(s) suffered diarrhoea in the past6weeks | | 8,319,185 | 86.1 | 13.9 | 0.0 | 100 | 532,611 | | 4,724,415 | 68.5 | 29.1 | 2.4 | 100 | 486,240 | | 4,752,174 | 39.0 | 61.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 144,629 | | 3,391,799 | 66.9 | 33.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 49,540 | | 13,376,240 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 12,909 | | 2,680,594 | 80.3 | 19.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 156,151 | | 5,940,943 | 51.9 | 48.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 94,987 | | 5,569,993 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | - | | 4,962,727 | 72.0 | 28.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 35,614 | | 5,015,146 | 44.7 | 47.9 | 7.4 | 100 | 131,303 | | 8,383,738 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 8,581 | | 4,439,850 | 68.1 | 31.9 | 0.0 | 100 | 324,804 | | 7,809,622 | 65.9 | 34.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 184,901 | | 5,309,454 | 96.3 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 143,392 | | 3,252,496 | 90.6 | 2.7 | 6.8 | 100 | 568,030 | | 3,527,851 | 62.6 | 37.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 458,256 | | 4,812,475 | 72.6 | 27.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 408,417 | | 4,111,389 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 28,415 | * * * | Percent of household members by Sanitation Facilities Used | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Improved Sanitation facility | | | | | | container based sanitation | | Flush/Pour flush to: | | | | | | | | | sewer system | septic tank | pit latrine | composting toilet | pit latrine with slab | twin pit with slab | | | | Abia | 13.6 | 21.1 | 2.8 | 3.6 | 47.8 | 1.5 | 0.0 | | Adamawa | 13.9 | 1.1 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 28.0 | 10.5 | 0.0 | | Akwa Ibom | 0.0 | 12.5 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 57.3 | 0.7 | 0.0 | | Anambra | 0.1 | 56.3 | 8.4 | 0.0 | 19.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Bauchi | 5.9 | 1.1 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 45.6 | 2.2 | 0.0 | | Bayelsa | 2.4 | 26.7 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Benue | 0.6 | 2.5 | 10.4 | 0.0 | 16.3 | 2.1 | 0.0 | | Borno | 9.2 | 0.0 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 43.0 | 5.2 | 0.0 | | Cross River | 2.2 | 19.3 | 10.1 | 0.0 | 16.4 | 0.6 | 0.0 | | Delta | 0.0 | 39.5 | 12.4 | 0.0 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Ebonyi | 0.7 | 8.2 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Edo | 5.4 | 31.4 | 28.1 | 0.0 | 14.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | | Ekiti | 0.0 | 13.9 | 15.3 | 0.0 | 24.1 | 0.6 | 0.0 | | Enugu | 15.6 | 14.9 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 6.9 | 0.4 | 0.0 | | Gombe | 0.0 | 1.9 | 2.8 | 4.4 | 46.1 | 1.0 | 0.0 | | Imo | 15.4 | 19.3 | 25.5 | 0.1 | 20.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Jigawa | 0.6 | 0.6 | 6.6 | 0.1 | 44.1 | 3.3 | 0.0 | | Kaduna | 5.0 | 4.9 | 13.7 | 0.2 | 12.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | | Kano | 0.2 | 2.8 | 13.5 | 0.0 | 36.1 | 1.5 | 0.0 | | Katsina | 0.2 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 26.8 | 7.9 | 0.0 | | Kebbi | 0.0 | 2.7 | 6.6 | 2.9 | 19.4 | 1.4 | 0.2 | | Kogi | 2.7 | 18.1 | 9.2 | 3.2 | 5.6 | 0.7 | 0.4 | | Kwara | 1.2 | 30.3 | 10.5 | 0.1 | 6.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Lagos | 7.4 | 66.6 | 13.6 | 0.0 | 4.8 | 1.1 | 0.0 | | Unimproved Sanitation Facility | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Flush/Pour flush to: | | | | | bucket latrine | hanging latrine/ hanging toilet | other | no facility/ bush/field | Total | Number of Household Members | | open drain | unknown place /not sure | twin pit without slab | pit latrine without slab/o pen pit | | | | | | | | | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 100 | 3,939,790 | | | 0.9 | 0.0 | 6.9 | 23.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.9 | 100 | 4,505,632 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 17.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10.7 | 100 | 5,861,745 | | | 3.3 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 6.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 2.9 | 100 | 5,852,689 | | | 0.8 | 0.0 | 8.8 | 7.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.3 | 100 | 6,989,936 | | | 2.2 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 15.4 | 0.0 | 45.4 | 100 | 2,415,866 | | | 0.6 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 20.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 45.4 | 100 | 6,099,511 | | | 0.7 | 0.5 | 3.8 | 32.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 100 | 6,265,922 | | | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 9.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 41.0 | 100 | 4,100,328 | | | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 42.3 | 100 | 6,035,927 | | | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 7.2 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 73.3 | 100 | 3,049,669 | | | 1.8 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 11.7 | 100 | 4,477,006 | | | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 41.4 | 100 | 3,480,278 | | | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.6 | 48.3 | 100 | 4,685,917 | | | 0.1 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 15.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 25.3 | 100 | 3,471,222 | | | 1.7 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 6.8 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 9.1 | 100 | 5,764,571 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 15.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.1 | 100 | 6,180,993 | | | 1.6 | 0.6 | 5.5 | 45.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.1 | 100 | 8,766,461 | | | 2.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 38.3 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 100 | 13,959,784 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 52.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.8 | 100 | 8,319,185 | | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * Table HH. F1: Types of Sanitation Facilities | | Improved Sanitation facility | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Flush/Pour flush to: | | | | | | | | | sewer system | septic tank | pit latrine | composting toilet | pit latrine with slab | twin pit with slab | container based sanitation | | Nasarawa | 0.1 | 9.1 | 21.2 | 0.0 | 15.8 | 1.0 | 0.0 | | Niger | 8.0 | 11.3 | 8.4 | 0.0 | 16.8 | 0.2 | 0.0 | | Ogun | 0.0 | 43.6 | 12.5 | 0.0 | 22.4 | 0.0 | 0.3 | | Ondo | 5.7 | 21.9 | 10.8 | 0.0 | 17.8 | 2.2 | 0.0 | | Osun | 6.3 | 38.6 | 19.6 | 0.1 | 16.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | | Oyo | 1.8 | 25.1 | 10.3 | 0.0 | 5.7 | 0.1 | 0.0 | | Plateau | 2.8 | 14.4 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 11.5 | 1.2 | 0.0 | | Rivers | 26.7 | 16.9 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 12.7 | 3.4 | 0.1 | | Sokoto | 3.2 | 0.4 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 38.8 | 3.0 | 0.0 | | Taraba | 0.2 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 33.0 | 3.4 | 0.0 | | Yobe | 0.2 | 1.1 | 15.8 | 0.3 | 28.6 | 2.1 | 0.0 | | Zamfara | 0.0 | 1.2 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 43.2 | 2.2 | 0.0 | | FCT | 15.6 | 19.5 | 16.5 | 0.0 | 12.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Unimproved Sanitation Facility | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Flush/Pour flush to: | | | | | | no facility/bush/field | | | | | open drain | unknown place /not sure | twin pit without slab | pit latrine without slab/o pen pit | bucket latrine | hanging latrine/hanging toilet | other | | Total | Number of Household Members | | 4.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 45.7 | 100 | 2,680,594 | | 3.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 5.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 46.4 | 100 | 5,940,943 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 14.3 | 100 | 5,569,993 | | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 38.3 | 100 | 4,962,727 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.1 | 100 | 5,015,146 | | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 53.7 | 100 | 8,383,738 | | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 55.9 | 100 | 4,439,850 | | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 17.8 | 0.0 | 8.5 | 100 | 7,809,622 | | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 44.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.6 | 100 | 5,309,454 | | 2.4 | 0.0 | 2.5 | 6.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 42.5 | 100 | 3,252,496 | | 0.1 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 23.4 | 13.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 12.3 | 100 | 3,527,851 | | 0.0 | 0.2 | 18.6 | 30.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 100 | 4,812,475 | | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 3.4 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.7 | 100 | 4,111,389 | * * * | | Leakage or Overflow of Wastewater in Toilets/Latrines | | | | Number of Households with latrines | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | no, never | yes, sometimes | yes, frequently | Total | | | | National | 88.4 | 10.7 | 0.9 | 100 | 32,655,627 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | North-Central | 93.2 | 6.4 | 0.4 | 100 | 3,309,783 | | North-East | 79.7 | 18.9 | 1.4 | 100 | 4,394,174 | | North-West | 85.7 | 13.2 | 1.1 | 100 | 8,521,833 | | South-East | 93.8 | 5.3 | 0.9 | 100 | 3,905,087 | | South-South | 91.8 | 7.5 | 0.7 | 100 | 5,248,094 | | South-West | 89.4 | 10.0 | 0.6 | 100 | 7,276,656 | | Sector | | | | | | | Urban | 87.0 | 12.1 | 0.9 | 100 | 13,317,825 | | Peri-Urbian | 85.1 | 13.4 | 1.5 | 100 | 2,929,707 | | Urban | 87.5 | 11.7 | 0.8 | 100 | 10,388,118 | | Rural | 89.3 | 9.8 | 0.9 | 100 | 19,337,802 | | Itinerant | 96.1 | 3.9 | 0.0 | 100 | 610,057 | | Rural | 89.3 | 9.7 | 1.0 | 100 | 15,637,927 | | Small Town | 88.1 | 11.4 | 0.5 | 100 | 3,089,818 | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | Poorest | 86.1 | 13.1 | 0.8 | 100 | 4,090,731 | | Poor | 85.7 | 13.1 | 1.2 | 100 | 5,387,640 | | Moderate | 86.4 | 11.7 | 1.9 | 100 | 6,299,798 | | Rich | 90.5 | 8.9 | 0.5 | 100 | 7,808,661 | | Richest | 90.5 | 9.2 | 0.3 | 100 | 9,068,798 | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | Literate | 88.6 | 10.8 | 0.7 | 100 | 24,887,347 | | Non-Literate | 87.8 | 10.6 | 1.6 | 100 | 7,768,280 | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | Male | 88.1 | 11.0 | 0.9 | 100 | 27,686,372 | | Female | 89.9 | 9.3 | 0.8 | 100 | 4,969,255 | | HHS with at least one disability | | | | | | | At least 1 disability | 81.9 | 16.5 | 1.5 | 100 | 1,873,278 | | No disability | 88.8 | 10.4 | 0.8 | 100 | 30,782,349 | | State | | | | | | | Abia | 95.3 | 4.6 | 0.1 | 100 | 839,448 | | Adamawa | 76.0 | 23.8 | 0.1 | 100 | 735,697 | | Emptying of Toilet facility | | | | | | Total | Number of Households with pit/septic tank latrines types | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | within the last 5 years | more than 5 years ago | don't know when | no, never emptied | don't know | | | | | 16.4 | 4.1 | 3.8 | 60.5 | 15.3 | 100 | 31,631,958 | | | 10.0 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 65.7 | 19.9 | 100 | 3,218,563 | | | 19.3 | 4.0 | 2.9 | 70.6 | 3.2 | 100 | 4,332,344 | | | 22.4 | 5.1 | 5.6 | 58.1 | 8.9 | 100 | 8,361,127 | | | 5.4 | 0.8 | 1.8 | 68.1 | 23.9 | 100 | 3,802,967 | | | 7.2 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 73.5 | 16.7 | 100 | 4,699,818 | | | 22.4 | 7.6 | 5.2 | 42.4 | 22.5 | 100 | 7,217,139 | | | 23.5 | 6.2 | 5.0 | 48.2 | 17.2 | 100 | 12,880,462 | | | 21.6 | 7.1 | 4.5 | 49.4 | 17.3 | 100 | 2,841,063 | | | 24.0 | 6.0 | 5.1 | 47.9 | 17.1 | 100 | 10,039,399 | | | 11.5 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 68.9 | 14.0 | 100 | 18,751,496 | | | 6.6 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 71.3 | 17.9 | 100 | 533,792 | | | 11.7 | 2.8 | 3.2 | 68.3 | 13.9 | 100 | 15,174,413 | | | 11.6 | 1.4 | 2.0 | 71.2 | 13.7 | 100 | 3,043,291 | | | 12.9 | 4.3 | 5.9 | 65.6 | 11.3 | 100 | 4,058,196 | | | 16.2 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 67.2 | 9.4 | 100 | 5,281,398 | | | 13.1 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 64.8 | 16.0 | 100 | 6,016,255 | | | 16.5 | 3.4 | 2.7 | 59.7 | 17.8 | 100 | 7,429,410 | | | 20.2 | 5.2 | 4.5 | 51.9 | 18.1 | 100 | 8,846,700 | | | 17.9 | 3.9 | 3.4 | 59.7 | 15.1 | 100 | 24,049,007 | | | 11.5 | 4.6 | 5.0 | 63.1 | 15.8 | 100 | 7,582,951 | | | 16.6 | 4.0 | 3.9 | 61.3 | 14.2 | 100 | 26,831,769 | | | 15.1 | 4.4 | 3.1 | 56.0 | 21.4 | 100 | 4,800,189 | | | 14.1 | 4.9 | 5.3 | 59.6 | 16.1 | 100 | 1,808,035 | | | 16.5 | 4.0 | 3.7 | 60.5 | 15.2 | 100 | 29,823,923 | | | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 82.3 | 15.3 | 100 | 835,771 | | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | Table HH.HF5-8: Sanitation(Safe Disposal of Faeces) | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of household based on Toilet/Latrine leakage or wastage of wastewater and sanitation facility sharing | | | | | | | Leakage or Overflow of Wastewater in Toilets/Latrines | | | | | Number of Households with latrines | | | no, never | yes, sometimes | yes, frequently | Total | | | Kebbi | 87.2 | 11.9 | 0.8 | 100 | 423,390 | | Kogi | 95.0 | 4.4 | 0.5 | 100 | 416,357 | | Kwara | 81.6 | 17.1 | 1.2 | 100 | 345,108 | | Lagos | 85.4 | 14.4 | 0.2 | 100 | 3,234,251 | | Nasarawa | 94.4 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 100 | 277,863 | | Niger | 94.7 | 4.9 | 0.3 | 100 | 605,994 | | Ogun | 93.2 | 6.4 | 0.4 | 100 | 1,142,792 | | Ondo | 87.6 | 11.2 | 1.2 | 100 | 685,458 | | Osun | 98.3 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 894,755 | | Oyo | 89.2 | 8.3 | 2.5 | 100 | 889,773 | | Plateau | 87.5 | 12.5 | 0.0 | 100 | 376,683 | | Rivers | 95.8 | 3.7 | 0.5 | 100 | 1,584,466 | | Sokoto | 85.6 | 13.4 | 1.0 | 100 | 959,803 | | Taraba | 85.8 | 12.8 | 1.4 | 100 | 363,177 | | Yobe | 71.7 | 27.0 | 1.3 | 100 | 590,637 | | Zamfara | 66.0 | 32.6 | 1.4 | 100 | 876,232 | | FCT | 94.7 | 4.7 | 0.6 | 100 | 650,910 | | Emptying of Toilet facility | | | | | Total | Number of Households with pit/ septic tank latrines types | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | within the last 5 years | more than 5 years ago | don't know when | no, never emptied | don't know | | | | 20.3 | 5.5 | 2.5 | 58.6 | 13.1 | 100 | 415,404 | | 6.7 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 80.2 | 11.5 | 100 | 415,946 | | 23.2 | 3.6 | 8.7 | 38.1 | 26.4 | 100 | 341,515 | | 41.3 | 11.5 | 9.1 | 19.8 | 18.3 | 100 | 3,202,642 | | 12.5 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 72.6 | 12.3 | 100 | 256,987 | | 11.5 | 3.1 | 3.6 | 74.5 | 7.3 | 100 | 569,881 | | 0.9 | 6.8 | 2.7 | 60.3 | 29.3 | 100 | 1,142,792 | | 3.5 | 2.9 | 2.0 | 65.4 | 26.3 | 100 | 681,511 | | 6.5 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 76.9 | 12.3 | 100 | 894,239 | | 18.9 | 5.8 | 1.1 | 35.3 | 38.9 | 100 | 870,219 | | 9.7 | 2.4 | 0.4 | 77.2 | 10.3 | 100 | 375,960 | | 14.1 | 0.2 | 1.6 | 75.8 | 8.3 | 100 | 1,207,129 | | 1.9 | 3.2 | 4.8 | 87.4 | 2.7 | 100 | 935,858 | | 16.4 | 2.4 | 3.5 | 77.2 | 0.5 | 100 | 346,156 | | 31.1 | 6.5 | 2.2 | 51.2 | 8.9 | 100 | 578,274 | | 7.6 | 3.2 | 19.6 | 49.9 | 19.6 | 100 | 874,090 | | 11.5 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 58.9 | 27.6 | 100 | 629,114 | | Percent of household based on Toilet/Latrine leakage or wastage of wastewater | | | | | | | | | Emptying and Disposal of Faeces | | | | | | | to a treatment plant | buried in a covered pit(service provider) | emptied in a body of water | don't know where | buried in a covered pit(by the household) | | | | National | 16.0 | 10.2 | 2.3 | 39.5 | 16.3 | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | North-Central | 23.2 | 18.2 | 0.9 | 20.9 | 17.9 | | | North-East | 7.8 | 20.0 | 3.4 | 7.0 | 39.2 | | | North-West | 11.9 | 10.4 | 2.7 | 30.0 | 20.4 | | | South-East | 10.5 | 6.4 | 1.0 | 51.6 | 12.5 | | | South-South | 8.0 | 12.2 | 7.6 | 54.9 | 11.6 | | | South-West | 24.9 | 4.2 | 0.8 | 63.5 | 2.7 | | | Sector | | | | | | | | Urban | 20.2 | 8.6 | 1.4 | 51.4 | 8.4 | | | Peri-Urbian | 17.8 | 5.9 | 1.1 | 67.3 | 4.3 | | | Urban | 20.8 | 9.4 | 1.5 | 47.1 | 9.5 | | | Rural | 10.1 | 12.3 | 3.5 | 23.0 | 27.3 | | | Itinerant | 8.5 | 4.1 | 2.8 | 16.0 | 42.9 | | | Rural | 10.9 | 12.4 | 3.9 | 24.4 | 26.3 | | | Small Town | 5.9 | 12.9 | 1.1 | 15.1 | 31.4 | | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | Poorest | 8.6 | 7.5 | 1.7 | 18.7 | 30.9 | | | Poor | 8.5 | 12.1 | 4.0 | 20.6 | 26.9 | | | Moderate | 9.0 | 17.0 | 1.6 | 23.5 | 27.2 | | | Rich | 17.4 | 12.9 | 2.8 | 41.0 | 16.1 | | | Richest | 24.2 | 5.5 | 1.7 | 61.6 | 1.6 | | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | | Literate | 16.0 | 9.8 | 2.4 | 42.2 | 15.9 | | | Non-Literate | 15.9 | 11.5 | 1.6 | 28.9 | 17.8 | | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | | Male | 15.0 | 10.6 | 2.5 | 36.9 | 17.8 | | | Female | 21.7 | 7.5 | 1.1 | 54.9 | 7.1 | | | HHS with at least one disability | | | | | | | | At least 1 disability | 11.1 | 8.9 | 3.5 | 37.5 | 19.6 | | | No disability | 16.3 | 10.3 | 2.2 | 39.6 | 16.1 | | | State | | | | | | | | Abia | 47.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.2 | 30.8 | | | Adamawa | 20.0 | 38.0 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 21.0 | | | Akwa Ibom | 66.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 14.6 | | | Anambra | 4.2 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 69.8 | 0.0 | | | Bauchi | 0.0 | 16.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 55.8 | | | Sludge | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | to uncovered pit, open ground, water body or elsewhere | others(Specify) | don't know | Total | Number of Households who emptied their Latrines/Toilets | | 9.1 | 2.6 | 4.2 | 100 | 7,670,520 | | 8.9 | 2.5 | 7.7 | 100 | 468,605 | | 18.6 | 0.9 | 3.0 | 100 | 1,135,681 | | 15.0 | 6.1 | 3.6 | 100 | 2,762,947 | | 1.6 | 0.0 | 16.4 | 100 | 306,012 | | 0.2 | 0.4 | 5.2 | 100 | 459,084 | | 0.9 | 0.1 | 3.0 | 100 | 2,538,191 | | 3.9 | 1.5 | 4.7 | 100 | 4,459,762 | | 2.6 | 0.1 | 1.1 | 100 | 944,928 | | 4.3 | 1.8 | 5.7 | 100 | 3,514,834 | | 16.3 | 4.0 | 3.4 | 100 | 3,210,757 | | 13.1 | 9.9 | 2.6 | 100 | 57,357 | | 15.2 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 100 | 2,695,837 | | 23.0 | 7.8 | 2.7 | 100 | 457,563 | | 19.8 | 7.9 | 5.0 | 100 | 941,570 | | 21.7 | 4.0 | 2.3 | 100 | 1,237,041 | | 13.1 | 4.0 | 4.6 | 100 | 1,159,465 | | 4.0 | 1.2 | 4.5 | 100 | 1,678,274 | | 0.9 | 0.2 | 4.4 | 100 | 2,654,170 | | 8.2 | 1.5 | 3.9 | 100 | 6,071,061 | | 12.4 | 6.6 | 5.3 | 100 | 1,599,458 | | 10.3 | 2.8 | 4.1 | 100 | 6,587,574 | | 1.9 | 0.9 | 4.9 | 100 | 1,082,946 | | 12.0 | 2.2 | 5.2 | 100 | 438,941 | | 8.9 | 2.6 | 4.1 | 100 | 7,231,578 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.2 | 100 | 20,101 | | 9.6 | 0.0 | 9.2 | 100 | 228,074 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.6 | 100 | 16,964 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.7 | 100 | 140,542 | | 27.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 85,368 | | 2.0 | 0.0 | 7.4 | 100 | 44,175 | | 17.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 38,512 | | 27.0 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 100 | 412,087 | | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 37,075 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.5 | 100 | 127,391 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 36.5 | 100 | 27,848 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 42,119 | | 7.1 | 5.0 | 23.0 | 100 | 59,978 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 100 | 65,688 | * * * Table HH.HF2-4: Sanitation (Safe Disposal of Faeces) Percentage Distribution of Households Latrines/Toilets by Location and Status of Emptying | | Location of the toilet facility | | | | | Sharing of H Toilet/Latrine | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | in own dwelling | in own yard or plot | elsewher e | Total | Number of Households with latrines | Shared | Not Shared | | | National | 31.9 | 36.4 | 31.7 | 100 | 42,541,141 | 20.2 | 79.8 | | | Geopolitical Zone North-Central | 18.7 | 26.5 | 54.7 | 100 | 6,213,175 | 19.5 | 80.5 | | | North-East | 32.6 | 42.8 | 24.6 | 100 | 5,314,632 | 12.2 | 87.8 | | | North-West | 31.4 | 49.6 | 19.1 | 100 | 9,595,568 | 10.1 | 89.9 | | | South-East | 36.1 | 30.3 | 33.6 | 100 | 5,045,363 | 16.0 | 84.0 | | | South-South | 28.3 | 32.5 | 39.2 | 100 | 6,849,154 | 26.5 | 73.5 | | | South-West | 41.2 | 32.0 | 26.9 | 100 | 9,523,248 | 34.8 | 65.2 | | | Sector Urban | 48.3 | 39.3 | 12.5 | 100 | 14,423,386 | 27.0 | 73.0 | | | Peri-Urban | 51.4 | 39.4 | 9.2 | 100 | 3,091,028 | 23.0 | 77.0 | | | Urban | 47.4 | 39.2 | 13.3 | 100 | 11,332,358 | 28.2 | 71.8 | | | Rural | 23.5 | 34.9 | 41.5 | 100 | 28,117,755 | 15.4 | 84.6 | | | Itinerant | 23.3 | 28.1 | 48.6 | 100 | 964,769 | 15.2 | 84.8 | | | Rural | 22.2 | 34.3 | 43.5 | 100 | 23,285,829 | 15.6 | 84.4 | | | Small Town | 31.5 | 40.3 | 28.3 | 100 | 3,867,157 | 14.6 | 85.4 | | | Wealth Index Quintile Poorest | 8.7 | 30.7 | 60.6 | 100 | 8,009,388 | 10.5 | 89.5 | | | Poor | 19.8 | 36.4 | 43.7 | 100 | 8,105,264 | 15.1 | 84.9 | | | Moderate | 17.2 | 44.7 | 38.1 | 100 | 8,466,238 | 22.5 | 77.5 | | | Rich | 30.6 | 49.9 | 19.5 | 100 | 8,807,616 | 28.7 | 71.3 | | | Richest | 77.9 | 20.6 | 1.6 | 100 | 9,152,636 | 18.5 | 81.5 | | | Literacy of the HH Head Literate | 37.3 | 37.8 | 24.9 | 100 | 30,026,688 | 21.1 | 78.9 | | | Non-Literate | 19.0 | 33.0 | 48.0 | 100 | 12,514,453 | 17.1 | 82.9 | | | | | Facility Shared with | | | | Facility Shared with other HHs | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Total | Number of Households with latrines | only with HHs that we know | General Public | Total | (less or equal to 10 HHs) | more than 10 HHs | don't know | Total | Number of Households that use shared Toilets/Latrines | | | 100 | 32,655,627 | 85.0 | 15.0 | 100 | 72.4 | 13.5 | 14.0 | 100 | 6,589,535 | | | 100 | 3,309,783 | 84.5 | 15.5 | 100 | 76.8 | 10.3 | 12.9 | 100 | 650,143 | | | 100 | 4,394,174 | 88.2 | 11.8 | 100 | 53.3 | 42.8 | 3.9 | 100 | 535,317 | | | 100 | 8,521,833 | 95.2 | 4.8 | 100 | 67.6 | 25.1 | 7.2 | 100 | 858,780 | | | 100 | 3,905,087 | 63.3 | 36.7 | 100 | 72.6 | 10.6 | 16.9 | 100 | 625,746 | | | 100 | 5,248,094 | 74.4 | 25.6 | 100 | 65.5 | 6.6 | 27.9 | 100 | 1,390,655 | | | 100 | 7,276,656 | 92.1 | 7.9 | 100 | 80.7 | 8.8 | 10.5 | 100 | 2,528,894 | | | 100 | 13,317,825 | 88.7 | 11.3 | 100 | 77.5 | 12.1 | 10.4 | 100 | 3,601,854 | | | 100 | 2,929,707 | 81.0 | 19.0 | 100 | 66.7 | 18.7 | 14.6 | 100 | 672,881 | | | 100 | 10,388,118 | 90.4 | 9.6 | 100 | 80.0 | 10.6 | 9.4 | 100 | 2,928,973 | | | 100 | 19,337,802 | 80.5 | 19.5 | 100 | 66.3 | 15.3 | 18.4 | 100 | 2,987,682 | | | 100 | 610,057 | 42.9 | 57.1 | 100 | 42.4 | 7.1 | 50.5 | 100 | 92,927 | | | 100 | 15,637,927 | 81.1 | 18.9 | 100 | 67.9 | 15.1 | 17.0 | 100 | 2,442,633 | | | 100 | 3,089,818 | 85.0 | 15.0 | 100 | 62.5 | 17.7 | 19.8 | 100 | 452,121 | | | 100 | 4,090,731 | 86.9 | 13.1 | 100 | 59.8 | 25.5 | 14.7 | 100 | 432,012 | | | 100 | 5,387,640 | 85.9 | 14.1 | 100 | 62.7 | 21.9 | 15.4 | 100 | 815,793 | | | 100 | 6,299,798 | 77.6 | 22.4 | 100 | 65.6 | 14.4 | 20.1 | 100 | 1,416,959 | | | 100 | 7,808,661 | 84.1 | 15.9 | 100 | 74.6 | 10.8 | 14.6 | 100 | 2,244,140 | | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * Table HH.HF2-4: Sanitation (Safe Disposal of Faeces) Percentage Distribution of Households Latrines/Toilets by Location and Status of Emptying | Location of the toilet facility | | | | | | | Sharing of H Toilet/Latrine | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | in own dwelling | in own yard or plot | elsewher e | Total | Number of Households with latrines | Shared | Not Shared | | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | | | | Male | 31.8 | 36.9 | 31.3 | 100 | 36,010,411 | 18.7 | 81.3 | | | Female | 32.5 | 33.7 | 33.8 | 100 | 6,530,730 | 28.3 | 71.7 | | | HHs with at least one disability | | | | | | | | | | At least 1 disability | 27.2 | 43.4 | 29.3 | 100 | 2,333,336 | 20.0 | 80.0 | | | No disability | 32.2 | 36.0 | 31.8 | 100 | 40,207,805 | 20.2 | 79.8 | | | State | | | | | | | | | | Abia | 27.9 | 56.9 | 15.1 | 100 | 852,364 | 17.6 | 82.4 | | | Adamawa | 36.0 | 46.5 | 17.5 | 100 | 844,650 | 2.0 | 98.0 | | | Akwa Ibom | 10.6 | 48.2 | 41.2 | 100 | 1,302,205 | 21.8 | 78.2 | | | Anambra | 55.5 | 38.2 | 6.4 | 100 | 1,255,140 | 12.3 | 87.7 | | | Bauchi | 25.3 | 38.5 | 36.3 | 100 | 1,299,500 | 2.1 | 97.9 | | | Bayelsa | 21.6 | 9.9 | 68.5 | 100 | 519,294 | 53.3 | 46.7 | | | Benue | 4.4 | 32.9 | 62.7 | 100 | 1,166,932 | 12.1 | 87.9 | | | Borno | 42.3 | 54.9 | 2.8 | 100 | 1,228,616 | 23.3 | 76.7 | | | Cross River | 13.0 | 36.2 | 50.7 | 100 | 973,284 | 38.7 | 61.3 | | | Delta | 34.4 | 26.1 | 39.5 | 100 | 1,334,054 | 31.1 | 68.9 | | | Ebonyi | 7.1 | 12.2 | 80.7 | 100 | 639,844 | 25.6 | 74.4 | | | Edo | 34.7 | 36.2 | 29.1 | 100 | 988,830 | 17.6 | 82.4 | | | Ekiti | 20.8 | 33.7 | 45.5 | 100 | 733,055 | 40.4 | 59.6 | | | Enugu | 33.6 | 10.9 | 55.5 | 100 | 1,053,336 | 38.0 | 62.0 | | | Gombe | 42.0 | 29.2 | 28.8 | 100 | 636,605 | 15.8 | 84.2 | | | Imo | 39.3 | 29.9 | 30.8 | 100 | 1,244,680 | 6.9 | 93.1 | | | | | Facility Shared with | | | Facility Shared with other HHs | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Total | Number of Households with latrines | only with HHs that we know | General Public | Total | (less or equal to 10 HHs) | more than 10 HHs | don't know | Total | Number of Households that use shared Toilets/Latrines | | 100 | 27,686,372 | 84.8 | 15.2 | 100 | 71.3 | 14.6 | 14.0 | 100 | 5,182,397 | | 100 | 4,969,255 | 85.4 | 14.6 | 100 | 76.4 | 9.5 | 14.0 | 100 | 1,407,139 | | | | | | | | | | | | | 100 | 1,873,278 | 81.5 | 18.5 | 100 | 72.5 | 13.3 | 14.2 | 100 | 373,728 | | 100 | 30,782,349 | 85.2 | 14.8 | 100 | 72.4 | 13.5 | 14.0 | 100 | 6,215,807 | | | | | | | | | | | | | 100 | 839,448 | 77.6 | 22.4 | 100 | 73.6 | 17.6 | 8.8 | 100 | 148,074 | | 100 | 735,697 | 59.9 | 40.1 | 100 | 78.4 | 0.0 | 21.6 | 100 | 14,887 | | 100 | 1,162,836 | 99.3 | 0.7 | 100 | 66.9 | 2.6 | 30.6 | 100 | 253,818 | | 100 | 1,219,190 | 70.4 | 29.6 | 100 | 82.8 | 10.2 | 7.0 | 100 | 149,374 | | 100 | 1,022,397 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 21,024 | | 100 | 283,557 | 35.5 | 64.5 | 100 | 32.0 | 13.9 | 54.1 | 100 | 151,231 | | 100 | 636,868 | 71.5 | 28.5 | 100 | 50.7 | 11.8 | 37.6 | 100 | 82,195 | | 100 | 1,206,779 | 82.2 | 17.8 | 100 | 43.6 | 53.9 | 2.5 | 100 | 280,734 | | 100 | 574,562 | 77.1 | 22.9 | 100 | 75.6 | 14.2 | 10.2 | 100 | 222,107 | | 100 | 769,116 | 89.9 | 10.1 | 100 | 94.5 | 2.4 | 3.1 | 100 | 239,091 | | 100 | 170,730 | 77.8 | 22.2 | 100 | 89.0 | 8.9 | 2.1 | 100 | 43,663 | | 100 | 873,556 | 93.5 | 6.5 | 100 | 82.6 | 7.0 | 10.4 | 100 | 153,644 | | 100 | 429,628 | 95.8 | 4.2 | 100 | 93.8 | 0.0 | 6.2 | 100 | 173,602 | | 100 | 544,655 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 100 | 54.4 | 10.1 | 35.5 | 100 | 207,089 | * * * Table HH.HF2-4: Sanitation (Safe Disposal of Faeces) Percentage Distribution of Households Latrines/Toilets by Location and Status of Emptying | Location of the toilet facility | | | | | | | Sharing of H Toilet/Latrin | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | in own dwelling | in own yard or plot | elsewher e | Total | Number of Households with latrines | Shared | Not Shared | | | Jigawa | 11.2 | 55.9 | 32.9 | 100 | 1,177,672 | 7.8 | 92.2 | | | Kaduna | 35.3 | 57.4 | 7.3 | 100 | 1,664,333 | 19.1 | 80.9 | | | Kano | 44.7 | 47.4 | 7.9 | 100 | 2,456,712 | 8.2 | 91.8 | | | Katsina | 44.0 | 46.0 | 10.0 | 100 | 1,558,506 | 6.5 | 93.5 | | | Kebbi | 12.1 | 39.6 | 48.3 | 100 | 844,434 | 25.1 | 74.9 | | | Kogi | 18.6 | 16.9 | 64.5 | 100 | 934,868 | 30.6 | 69.4 | | | Kwara | 23.2 | 23.4 | 53.4 | 100 | 689,852 | 36.1 | 63.9 | | | Lagos | 61.8 | 34.2 | 4.0 | 100 | 3,330,768 | 34.0 | 66.0 | | | Nasarawa | 15.2 | 32.6 | 52.2 | 100 | 511,985 | 21.8 | 78.2 | | | Niger | 22.5 | 24.9 | 52.6 | 100 | 1,130,135 | 9.5 | 90.5 | | | Ogun | 26.5 | 53.8 | 19.8 | 100 | 1,333,972 | 25.7 | 74.3 | | | Ondo | 34.6 | 23.7 | 41.7 | 100 | 1,110,701 | 38.1 | 61.9 | | | Osun | 41.8 | 34.1 | 24.1 | 100 | 1,092,389 | 43.7 | 56.3 | | | Oyo | 26.9 | 15.9 | 57.2 | 100 | 1,922,364 | 34.6 | 65.4 | | | Plateau | 13.6 | 22.3 | 64.1 | 100 | 853,884 | 19.2 | 80.8 | | | Rivers | 43.8 | 28.1 | 28.1 | 100 | 1,731,487 | 23.4 | 76.6 | | | Sokoto | 14.5 | 52.6 | 32.9 | 100 | 1,006,167 | 1.9 | 98.1 | | | Taraba | 11.4 | 29.2 | 59.3 | 100 | 631,443 | 24.0 | 76.0 | | | Yobe | 35.6 | 50.0 | 14.4 | 100 | 673,818 | 9.5 | 90.5 | | | Zamfara | 28.9 | 44.9 | 26.2 | 100 | 887,743 | 8.9 | 91.1 | | | FCT | 35.7 | 33.0 | 31.3 | 100 | 925,519 | 19.3 | 80.7 | | | | | Facility Shared with | | | | Facility Shared with other HHs | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Total | Number of Households with latrines | only with HHs that we know | Gener al Public | Total | (less or equal to 10 HHs) | more than 10 HHs | don't know | Total | Number of Households that use shared Toilets/Latrines | | 100 | 846,526 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 73.8 | 26.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 66,437 | | 100 | 1,562,183 | 94.7 | 5.3 | 100 | 55.2 | 44.8 | 0.0 | 100 | 298,823 | | 100 | 2,401,721 | 95.8 | 4.2 | 100 | 80.4 | 8.3 | 11.3 | 100 | 197,382 | | 100 | 1,451,976 | 95.8 | 4.2 | 100 | 68.2 | 12.4 | 19.4 | 100 | 94,071 | | 100 | 423,390 | 98.7 | 1.3 | 100 | 60.6 | 34.6 | 4.8 | 100 | 106,374 | | 100 | 416,357 | 76.7 | 23.3 | 100 | 67.9 | 16.3 | 15.8 | 100 | 127,281 | | 100 | 345,108 | 85.6 | 14.4 | 100 | 79.2 | 2.6 | 18.2 | 100 | 124,423 | | 100 | 3,234,251 | 92.5 | 7.5 | 100 | 75.3 | 15.2 | 9.5 | 100 | 1,101,245 | | 100 | 277,863 | 75.3 | 24.7 | 100 | 96.4 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 100 | 60,625 | | 100 | 605,994 | 96.9 | 3.1 | 100 | 86.9 | 12.5 | 0.7 | 100 | 57,522 | | 100 | 1,142,792 | 83.9 | 16.1 | 100 | 71.1 | 2.4 | 26.5 | 100 | 294,031 | | 100 | 685,458 | 94.1 | 5.9 | 100 | 86.9 | 9.6 | 3.5 | 100 | 261,319 | | 100 | 894,755 | 97.3 | 2.7 | 100 | 95.7 | 1.1 | 3.2 | 100 | 391,189 | | 100 | 889,773 | 88.3 | 11.7 | 100 | 77.6 | 6.4 | 16.0 | 100 | 307,509 | | 100 | 376,683 | 88.1 | 11.9 | 100 | 99.3 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 72,240 | | 100 | 1,584,466 | 53.7 | 46.3 | 100 | 46.6 | 4.2 | 49.2 | 100 | 370,765 | | 100 | 959,803 | 43.1 | 56.9 | 100 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 17,877 | | 100 | 363,177 | 94.3 | 5.7 | 100 | 71.3 | 28.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 87,164 | | 100 | 590,637 | 96.6 | 3.4 | 100 | 62.1 | 18.6 | 19.3 | 100 | 56,361 | * * * | | Emptying and Disposal of Faecal | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | to a treatment plant | buried in a covered pit(service provider) | emptied in a body of water | don't know where | buried in a covered pit(by the household) | | | NationalGeopoliticalZone | 16.7 | 9.8 | 2.3 | 40.7 | 15.2 | | North-Central | 22.6 | 19.8 | 0.9 | 20.2 | 17.5 | | North-East | 9.7 | 21.3 | 3.0 | 6.2 | 38.0 | | North-West | 13.6 | 8.9 | 3.2 | 30.3 | 19.8 | | South-East | 11.6 | 6.8 | 1.9 | 53.1 | 11.7 | | South-South | 7.7 | 14.1 | 4.6 | 54.6 | 11.7 | | South-West | 23.8 | 3.9 | 0.9 | 65.0 | 1.9 | | SectorUrban | 20.9 | 8.0 | 1.4 | 52.6 | 7.5 | | Peri-Urbian | 19.2 | 4.9 | 1.0 | 67.6 | 3.9 | | Urban | 21.3 | 8.7 | 1.5 | 49.1 | 8.3 | | Rural | 10.5 | 12.4 | 3.5 | 23.2 | 26.5 | | Itinerant | 9.5 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 22.7 | 41.4 | | Rural | 10.9 | 12.7 | 3.9 | 25.0 | 25.4 | | Small Town | 8.3 | 11.8 | 1.4 | 12.9 | 31.4 | | Wealth IndexQuintile | | | | | | | Poorest | 8.0 | 8.5 | 1.2 | 22.6 | 28.1 | | Poor | 10.2 | 10.7 | 4.7 | 20.4 | 26.0 | | Moderate | 9.8 | 16.6 | 2.0 | 22.5 | 27.6 | | Rich | 17.8 | 12.2 | 2.4 | 43.4 | 14.6 | | Richest | 24.5 | 5.7 | 1.5 | 61.4 | 1.5 | | Literacy of theHH Head | | | | | | | Literate | 17.1 | 9.5 | 2.3 | 43.3 | 14.6 | | Non-Literate | 15.2 | 10.8 | 2.2 | 31.6 | 17.4 | | Gender of HHHead | | | | | | | Male | 15.8 | 10.2 | 2.5 | 38.1 | 16.7 | | Female | 21.1 | 7.8 | 1.0 | 54.0 | 7.2 | | HHs with atleast one disability | | | | | | | At least 1disability | 14.9 | 8.9 | 2.8 | 34.3 | 16.7 | | No disability | 16.9 | 9.9 | 2.2 | 41.7 | 15.0 | | StateAbia | 30.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.3 | 23.5 | | Adamawa | 21.8 | 34.0 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 20.7 | | Akwa Ibom | 65.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 22.8 | | Anambra | 7.5 | 5.8 | 0.0 | 69.7 | 0.0 | | Bauchi | 0.0 | 18.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 65.6 | | Bayelsa | 6.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 66.5 | 10.4 | | Benue | 16.3 | 8.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 64.1 | | Sludge | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | to uncovered pit, open ground, water body or elsewhere | others (Specify) | don't know | Total | Number of Households who emptied their Latrines/Toilets | | 8.6 | 2.4 | 4.3 | 100 | 7,005,380 | | 8.2 | 2.4 | 8.3 | 100 | 434,434 | | 17.5 | 0.7 | 3.6 | 100 | 948,048 | | 14.8 | 5.9 | 3.4 | 100 | 2,517,080 | | 1.3 | 0.0 | 13.6 | 100 | 256,815 | | 0.2 | 0.4 | 6.8 | 100 | 452,258 | | 1.1 | 0.1 | 3.4 | 100 | 2,396,745 | | 3.6 | 1.3 | 4.8 | 100 | 4,158,787 | | 2.1 | 0.1 | 1.2 | 100 | 793,811 | | 3.9 | 1.6 | 5.7 | 100 | 3,364,977 | | 16.1 | 4.1 | 3.6 | 100 | 2,846,592 | | 11.1 | 7.1 | 2.4 | 100 | 52,236 | | 15.0 | 3.4 | 3.7 | 100 | 2,391,697 | | 22.8 | 8.2 | 3.1 | 100 | 402,660 | | 18.5 | 7.8 | 5.3 | 100 | 894,420 | | 21.3 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 100 | 1,091,152 | | 13.1 | 3.7 | 4.8 | 100 | 970,382 | | 3.6 | 0.7 | 5.3 | 100 | 1,545,434 | | 1.0 | 0.2 | 4.2 | 100 | 2,503,992 | | 8.1 | 1.2 | 4.0 | 100 | 5,444,208 | | 10.7 | 6.7 | 5.4 | 100 | 1,561,171 | | 10.0 | 2.7 | 4.0 | 100 | 5,873,104 | | 1.8 | 1.1 | 6.1 | 100 | 1,132,276 | | 13.0 | 4.0 | 5.5 | 100 | 929,280 | | 8.0 | 2.2 | 4.2 | 100 | 6,076,100 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 11.0 | 100 | 21,923 | | 10.4 | 0.0 | 10.9 | 100 | 204,688 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.1 | 100 | 12,813 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 17.0 | 100 | 100,502 | | 15.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 68,605 | | 2.5 | 0.0 | 14.2 | 100 | 29,869 | | 11.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 34,326 | | 27.6 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 100 | 340,071 | | 0.0 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 46,940 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 100 | 140,328 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 23.8 | 100 | 27,799 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 36,057 | | 12.0 | 4.9 | 22.4 | 100 | 43,597 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10.4 | 100 | 67,396 | Analyzed Tables * * * | | Leakage or Overflow of Wastewater in Toilets/Latrines | | | Total | Number of Households with latrines (exclude those that use hanging latrine/toilet and Flush to open drains) | Sharing of HH Toilet/Latrine | | Total | Housing Displacement | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | no. | never | yes, sometimes | Shared | Not Shared | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | National | 87.9 | 11.1 | 0.9 | 100 | 32034778 | 21.1 | 78.9 | 100 | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 93.2 | 6.3 | 0.5 | 100 | 3433808 | 22.5 | 77.5 | 100 | | | North-East | 80.4 | 18.1 | 1.5 | 100 | 4310575 | 11.7 | 88.3 | 100 | | | North-West | 84.2 | 14.7 | 1.1 | 100 | 8319798 | 10.3 | 89.7 | 100 | | | South-East | 93.2 | 5.6 | 1.2 | 100 | 3797545 | 16.0 | 84.0 | 100 | | | South-South | 90.4 | 8.7 | 0.9 | 100 | 4868782 | 26.6 | 73.4 | 100 | | | South-West | 89.7 | 9.8 | 0.5 | 100 | 7304270 | 37.2 | 62.8 | 100 | | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 86.9 | 12.2 | 0.9 | 100 | 13377047 | 28.5 | 71.5 | 100 | | | Peri-Urbian | 86.2 | 12.2 | 1.6 | 100 | 2918141 | 24.4 | 75.6 | 100 | | | Urban | 87.1 | 12.2 | 0.7 | 100 | 10458906 | 29.7 | 70.3 | 100 | | | Rural | 88.7 | 10.4 | 0.9 | 100 | 18657730 | 15.8 | 84.2 | 100 | | | Itinerant | 94.3 | 5.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 515726 | 14.9 | 85.1 | 100 | | | Rural | 88.6 | 10.4 | 1.0 | 100 | 15048833 | 16.1 | 83.9 | 100 | | | Small Town | 88.1 | 11.2 | 0.7 | 100 | 3093171 | 14.5 | 85.5 | 100 | | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | | | | Poorest | 86.0 | 13.3 | 0.7 | 100 | 4318814 | 10.2 | 89.8 | 100 | | | Poor | 85.8 | 12.8 | 1.4 | 100 | 5240705 | 15.3 | 84.7 | 100 | | | Moderate | 85.3 | 12.7 | 2.0 | 100 | 6037279 | 24.4 | 75.6 | 100 | | | Rich | 89.7 | 9.8 | 0.5 | 100 | 7710259 | 30.7 | 69.3 | 100 | | | Richest | 90.4 | 9.2 | 0.3 | 100 | 8727721 | 19.0 | 81.0 | 100 | | | Number of households with latrines | Facility Shared with: | | | Total | Facility Shared with other HHs | | | | Total | Number of Households that use shared Toilets/Latrines | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | only with HHs that we know | General Public | | (less or equal to 10 HHs) | more than 10 HHs | don't know | | | | | | | 32,834,703 | 84.9 | 15.1 | 100 | 73.9 | 11.1 | 15.0 | 100 | 6,933,139 | | | | 3,511,703 | 84.4 | 15.6 | 100 | 77.8 | 8.0 | 14.2 | 100 | 797,017 | | | | 4,359,142 | 89.6 | 10.4 | 100 | 60.9 | 35.2 | 3.9 | 100 | 510,984 | | | | 8,442,067 | 94.6 | 5.4 | 100 | 74.1 | 19.6 | 6.3 | 100 | 866,507 | | | | 3,868,798 | 63.2 | 36.8 | 100 | 70.7 | 11.5 | 17.8 | 100 | 619,195 | | | | 5,314,820 | 74.3 | 25.7 | 100 | 65.5 | 5.6 | 29.0 | 100 | 1,413,026 | | | | 7,338,174 | 91.5 | 8.5 | 100 | 80.2 | 7.5 | 12.3 | 100 | 2,726,411 | | | | 13,688,214 | 89.1 | 10.9 | 100 | 78.9 | 9.8 | 11.3 | 100 | 3,907,741 | | | | 2,994,814 | 80.9 | 19.1 | 100 | 67.9 | 13.5 | 18.6 | 100 | 730,728 | | | | 10,693,400 | 91.0 | 9.0 | 100 | 81.4 | 9.0 | 9.6 | 100 | 3,177,012 | | | | 19,146,489 | 79.5 | 20.5 | 100 | 67.4 | 12.7 | 19.9 | 100 | 3,025,399 | | | | 590,719 | 48.1 | 51.9 | 100 | 42.9 | 7.8 | 49.3 | 100 | 88,024 | | | | 15,441,394 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 100 | 69.1 | 12.6 | 18.2 | 100 | 2,484,493 | | | | 3,114,376 | 82.8 | 17.2 | 100 | 62.9 | 14.1 | 23.0 | 100 | 452,881 | | | | 4,347,626 | 82.3 | 17.7 | 100 | 62.5 | 19.0 | 18.5 | 100 | 446,699 | | | | 5,313,096 | 84.0 | 16.0 | 100 | 66.1 | 17.8 | 16.1 | 100 | 810,298 | | | | 6,244,138 | 78.8 | 21.2 | 100 | 67.8 | 12.1 | 20.1 | 100 | 1,522,619 | | | | 7,998,766 | 85.0 | 15.0 | 100 | 76.2 | 9.1 | 14.7 | 100 | 2,454,803 | | | | 8,931,077 | 91.4 | 8.6 | 100 | 82.6 | 7.7 | 9.6 | 100 | 1,698,720 | | | | 24,488,468 | 86.3 | 13.7 | 100 | 74.1 | 11.9 | 13.9 | 100 | 5,403,027 | | | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * | Table HH.HF5-8: Sanitation(Safe Disposal of Faeces) | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of household based on Toilet/Latrine leakage or wastage of wastewater and sanitation facility sharing | | | | | | | | | | | | Leakage or Overflow of Wastewater in Toilets/Latrines | | | Total | Number of Households with latrines(exclude those that use hanging latring/toilet and Flush to open drains) | Sharing of HHs Toilet/Latrine | | Total | H | | no, never | yes,sometimes | yes,frequently | Shared | Not Shared | | | | | | | Edo | 74.1 | 22.8 | 3.1 | 100 | 854027 | 17.5 | 82.5 | 100 | | | Ekiti | 95.4 | 4.0 | 0.6 | 100 | 416815 | 40.7 | 59.3 | 100 | | | Enugu | 89.9 | 9.2 | 0.9 | 100 | 563102 | 38.6 | 61.4 | 100 | | | Gombe | 82.1 | 10.6 | 7.3 | 100 | 465683 | 15.4 | 84.6 | 100 | | | Imo | 99.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 100 | 1053633 | 7.3 | 92.7 | 100 | | | Jigawa | 99.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 839777 | 7.9 | 92.1 | 100 | | | Kaduna | 73.9 | 24.3 | 1.8 | 100 | 1541290 | 20.1 | 79.9 | 100 | | | Kano | 85.8 | 12.6 | 1.6 | 100 | 2332247 | 8.7 | 91.3 | 100 | | | Katsina | 98.9 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 100 | 1443413 | 7.1 | 92.9 | 100 | | | Kebbi | 81.3 | 17.1 | 1.7 | 100 | 362056 | 23.9 | 76.1 | 100 | | | Kogi | 94.2 | 5.0 | 0.8 | 100 | 423383 | 36.1 | 63.9 | 100 | | | Kwara | 83.4 | 15.2 | 1.5 | 100 | 368853 | 35.8 | 64.2 | 100 | | | Lagos | 85.4 | 14.4 | 0.1 | 100 | 3204831 | 35.4 | 64.6 | 100 | | | Nasarawa | 94.9 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 265140 | 22.2 | 77.8 | 100 | | | Niger | 94.5 | 5.2 | 0.3 | 100 | 637416 | 11.8 | 88.2 | 100 | | | Ogun | 92.8 | 6.8 | 0.4 | 100 | 1173759 | 32.6 | 67.4 | 100 | | | Ondo | 88.6 | 10.3 | 1.1 | 100 | 739353 | 38.6 | 61.4 | 100 | | | Osun | 97.8 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 872317 | 46.8 | 53.2 | 100 | | | Oyo | 91.5 | 6.9 | 1.6 | 100 | 897195 | 37.3 | 62.7 | 100 | | | Plateau | 85.3 | 14.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 405872 | 27.9 | 72.1 | 100 | | | Rivers | 95.2 | 4.2 | 0.6 | 100 | 1252032 | 23.9 | 76.1 | 100 | | | Number of households with latrines | Facility Shared with: | | Total | Facility Shared with other HHs | | | | Total | Number of Households that use shared Toilets/Latrines | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | only with HHs that we know | General Public | (less or equal to 10 HHs) | more than 10 HHs | don't know | | | | | | | 869,560 | 94.0 | 6.0 | 100 | 85.2 | 5.1 | 9.6 | 100 | 152,327 | | | 418,445 | 94.9 | 5.1 | 100 | 92.8 | 0.0 | 7.2 | 100 | 170,101 | | | 563,102 | 37.0 | 63.0 | 100 | 52.9 | 11.1 | 36.0 | 100 | 217,149 | | | 467,152 | 98.8 | 1.2 | 100 | 54.4 | 45.6 | 0.0 | 100 | 71,998 | | | 1,070,117 | 93.0 | 7.0 | 100 | 91.2 | 0.0 | 8.8 | 100 | 77,652 | | | 839,777 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 68.3 | 31.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 66,130 | | | 1,569,605 | 93.5 | 6.5 | 100 | 66.0 | 34.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 314,914 | | | 2,396,682 | 94.4 | 5.6 | 100 | 85.2 | 5.1 | 9.8 | 100 | 209,370 | | | 1,443,413 | 95.8 | 4.2 | 100 | 77.1 | 10.7 | 12.2 | 100 | 101,992 | | | 369,820 | 98.5 | 1.5 | 100 | 71.0 | 23.0 | 6.0 | 100 | 88,418 | | | 424,894 | 73.3 | 26.7 | 100 | 71.1 | 11.0 | 17.9 | 100 | 153,322 | | | 371,937 | 90.0 | 10.0 | 100 | 80.6 | 4.0 | 15.3 | 100 | 133,099 | | | 3,215,048 | 92.1 | 7.9 | 100 | 76.2 | 12.5 | 11.3 | 100 | 1,137,548 | | | 286,071 | 77.6 | 22.4 | 100 | 96.9 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 63,638 | | | 671,017 | 89.8 | 10.2 | 100 | 86.9 | 10.4 | 2.8 | 100 | 78,963 | | | 1,173,759 | 85.3 | 14.7 | 100 | 64.6 | 3.1 | 32.3 | 100 | 382,399 | | | 739,353 | 93.8 | 6.2 | 100 | 90.5 | 7.2 | 2.3 | 100 | 285,194 | | | 873,975 | 96.3 | 3.7 | 100 | 95.6 | 2.5 | 1.9 | 100 | 408,848 | | | 917,593 | 87.5 | 12.5 | 100 | 77.6 | 5.6 | 16.8 | 100 | 342,321 | | | 406,663 | 91.2 | 8.8 | 100 | 98.2 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 100 | 113,268 | | | 1,581,199 | 51.9 | 48.1 | 100 | 41.1 | 3.0 | 55.9 | 100 | 377,676 | | * * * | | Percentage Distribution of Latrine Usage by members in Households with Toilets/latrines and reasons for not using latrines at all times | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Proportion of Household Members that use their HH toilet | | Proportion of HH members that use their HH toilet at all Times: | | Reasons for not using the toilets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Yes | No | Total | Yes at all times | No at all times | Total | Number of Household members that use toilet | Unable to use the toilet | Unable to access the toilet | Toilet not available | Toilet not been most times | Toilet not safe to use | Other specificity | Total | Number of Household members that do not use the Toilet | | | | National | 97.2 | 2.8 | 100.0 | 158,466,515 | 99.4 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 154,100,337 | 11.1 | 3.5 | 16.8 | 22.0 | 1.5 | 11.0 | 100.0 | 993,391 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 97.2 | 2.8 | 100.0 | 18,132,555 | 99.6 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 16,173,005 | 24.9 | 8.4 | 17.4 | 10.4 | 5.1 | 33.9 | 100.0 | 59,419 | | North-East | 96.9 | 3.1 | 100.0 | 23,134,135 | 99.3 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 22,426,691 | 5.8 | 10.1 | 57.6 | 20.9 | 1.3 | 4.3 | 100.0 | 161,341 | | North-West | 97.0 | 3.0 | 100.0 | 46,252,877 | 99.8 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 44,627,445 | 45.2 | 19.4 | 16.0 | 4.5 | 7.8 | 7.1 | 100.0 | 85,294 | | South-East | 96.7 | 3.3 | 100.0 | 18,040,246 | 98.4 | 1.6 | 100.0 | 17,455,829 | 13.3 | 36.2 | 0.0 | 49.4 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 100.0 | 287,466 | | South-South | 96.7 | 3.3 | 100.0 | 23,555,552 | 98.6 | 1.2 | 100.0 | 22,707,428 | 1.9 | 62.4 | 17.4 | 7.0 | 0.4 | 10.9 | 100.0 | 274,045 | | South-West | 98.6 | 1.4 | 100.0 | 30,851,020 | 99.6 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 30,406,939 | 3.5 | 47.5 | 1.4 | 11.2 | 1.9 | 34.5 | 100.0 | 129,828 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 97.8 | 2.2 | 100.0 | 61,773,762 | 99.3 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 60,429,432 | 8.6 | 28.2 | 24.7 | 21.2 | 0.5 | 16.8 | 100.0 | 482,790 | | Peri-Urbian | 97.5 | 2.5 | 100.0 | 13,269,708 | 99.1 | 0.9 | 100.0 | 12,939,856 | 25.6 | 36.7 | 0.0 | 28.3 | 0.0 | 9.4 | 100.0 | 111,408 | | Urban | 97.9 | 2.1 | 100.0 | 48,504,054 | 99.3 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 47,489,576 | 3.0 | 25.4 | 32.8 | 18.8 | 0.7 | 19.2 | 100.0 | 341,382 | | Rural | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | * * * Table HH.HF9-11: Usage of sanitation facilities Percentage Distribution of Latrine Usage by members in Households with Toilets/latrines and reasons for not using latrines at all times | | Proportion of Household Members that use their HH toilets | | | Number of Household members with toilet/latrines | Proportion of HH members that use their HH toilets at all Times: | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Yes | No | Total | Yes, at all times | No, not all times | Total | | | | Bauchi | 98.1 | 1.9 | 100.0 | 5,499,414 | 99.8 | 0.2 | 100.0 | | Bayelsa | 96.0 | 4.0 | 100.0 | 1,319,170 | 91.4 | 8.6 | 100.0 | | Benue | 98.5 | 1.5 | 100.0 | 3,328,885 | 99.9 | 0.1 | 100.0 | | Borno | 96.0 | 4.0 | 100.0 | 6,154,557 | 99.1 | 0.9 | 100.0 | | Cross River | 92.2 | 7.8 | 100.0 | 2,420,562 | 99.4 | 0.6 | 100.0 | | Delta | 95.0 | 5.0 | 100.0 | 3,479,865 | 97.8 | 2.2 | 100.0 | | Ebonyi | 96.5 | 3.5 | 100.0 | 813,744 | 99.9 | 0.1 | 100.0 | | Edo | 96.4 | 3.6 | 100.0 | 3,955,096 | 98.8 | 1.2 | 100.0 | | Ekiti | 97.2 | 2.8 | 100.0 | 2,039,715 | 99.7 | 0.3 | 100.0 | | Enugu | 99.6 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 2,422,978 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Gombe | 92.6 | 7.4 | 100.0 | 2,592,694 | 99.8 | 0.2 | 100.0 | | Imo | 95.9 | 4.1 | 100.0 | 5,238,376 | 99.6 | 0.4 | 100.0 | | Jigawa | 96.8 | 3.2 | 100.0 | 4,442,977 | 99.9 | 0.1 | 100.0 | | Kaduna | 95.2 | 4.8 | 100.0 | 8,228,409 | 99.6 | 0.4 | 100.0 | | Kano | 95.8 | 4.2 | 100.0 | 13,647,313 | 99.9 | 0.1 | 100.0 | | Katsina | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 7,750,536 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Kebbi | 98.2 | 1.8 | 100.0 | 2,368,771 | 98.8 | 1.2 | 100.0 | | Kogi | 94.8 | 5.2 | 100.0 | 2,116,447 | 99.6 | 0.4 | 100.0 | | Kwara | 95.3 | 4.7 | 100.0 | 1,696,795 | 99.0 | 1.0 | 100.0 | | Lagos | 99.3 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 12,988,632 | 99.8 | 0.2 | 100.0 | | Nasarawa | 99.1 | 0.9 | 100.0 | 1,454,807 | 99.0 | 1.0 | 100.0 | | Niger | 98.7 | 1.3 | 100.0 | 3,185,617 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Ogun | 98.1 | 1.9 | 100.0 | 4,771,723 | 99.9 | 0.1 | 100.0 | | Ondo | 99.1 | 0.9 | 100.0 | 3,062,699 | 98.4 | 1.6 | 100.0 | | Number of Household members that use toilet/latrines | Reasons for not using the toilets | | | | | | Total | Number of Household members that do not use the Toilets/Latrines at all times | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Unable to use the toilet | Unable to access the toilet | Toilet not always available | Toilet not clean most times | Toilet not safe to use | Other (specify) | | | | | 5,394,021 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 68.5 | 19.2 | 12.4 | 100.0 | 11,251 | | 1,265,986 | 3.8 | 89.4 | 0.0 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 100.0 | 109,001 | | 3,279,116 | 22.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 77.6 | 100.0 | 4,624 | | 5,910,410 | 16.1 | 31.2 | 19.3 | 33.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 52,112 | | 2,231,749 | 7.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 76.7 | 100.0 | 14,292 | | 3,307,511 | 0.0 | 90.6 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 4.3 | 100.0 | 74,240 | | 785,355 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 893 | | 3,811,725 | 0.0 | 6.8 | 66.5 | 13.4 | 0.0 | 13.3 | 100.0 | 46,579 | | 1,982,857 | 0.0 | 30.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 70.0 | 100.0 | 6,599 | | 2,413,380 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | | 2,401,609 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 5,537 | | 5,030,243 | 44.6 | 38.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 16.6 | 100.0 | 19,497 | | 4,302,483 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 57.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 42.9 | 100.0 | 2,493 | | 7,829,611 | 43.1 | 32.6 | 16.9 | 7.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 35,088 | | 13,069,716 | 0.0 | 18.7 | 18.4 | 0.0 | 31.7 | 31.1 | 100.0 | 9,191 | | 7,748,977 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | | 2,326,518 | 70.5 | 8.1 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 13.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 28,665 | | 2,007,380 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 43.7 | 35.2 | 21.1 | 100.0 | 8,569 | | 1,617,336 | 64.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.2 | 100.0 | 16,880 | | 12,896,679 | 6.5 | 30.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 63.1 | 100.0 | 21,207 | | 1,441,822 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 73.3 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 14,064 | * * * | Table HH.HF12-13: Sanitation(Safe Disposal of Faeces) | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of Household toilet/latrines based on privacy and risk during usage | | | | | | Privacy of HH Toilets(prevent other people from seeing of hearing) | | | | Has privacy | No privacy | Total | | | National | 82.9 | 17.1 | 100 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | North-Central | 85.0 | 15.0 | 100 | | North-East | 77.6 | 22.4 | 100 | | North-West | 80.1 | 19.9 | 100 | | South-East | 83.5 | 16.5 | 100 | | South-South | 80.3 | 19.7 | 100 | | South-West | 91.8 | 8.2 | 100 | | Sector | | | | | Urban | 85.5 | 14.5 | 100 | | Peri-Urbian | 87.1 | 12.9 | 100 | | Urban | 85.0 | 15.0 | 100 | | Rural | 81.3 | 18.7 | 100 | | Itinerant | 82.4 | 17.6 | 100 | | Rural | 81.6 | 18.4 | 100 | | Small Town | 79.4 | 20.6 | 100 | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | Poorest | 78.0 | 22.0 | 100 | | Poor | 77.5 | 22.5 | 100 | | Moderate | 79.7 | 20.3 | 100 | | Rich | 83.4 | 16.6 | 100 | | Richest | 91.3 | 8.7 | 100 | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | Literate | 83.9 | 16.1 | 100 | | Non-Literate | 79.9 | 20.1 | 100 | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | Male | 82.7 | 17.3 | 100 | | Female | 84.5 | 15.5 | 100 | | HHS with at least one disability | | | | | At least 1 disability | 78.2 | 21.8 | 100 | | No disability | 83.2 | 16.8 | 100 | | State | | | | | Abia | 78.5 | 21.5 | 100 | | Adamawa | 42.0 | 58.0 | 100 | | Akwa Iloom | 79.8 | 20.2 | 100 | | Anambra | 85.1 | 14.9 | 100 | | Bauchi | 92.0 | 8.0 | 100 | | Bayelsa | 67.0 | 33.0 | 100 | | Benue | 81.9 | 18.1 | 100 | | Borno | 91.1 | 8.9 | 100 | | Cross River | 77.0 | 23.0 | 100 | | Delta | 90.2 | 9.8 | 100 | | Ebonyi | 79.1 | 20.9 | 100 | | Edo | 50.2 | 49.8 | 100 | | Ekiti | 93.0 | 7.0 | 100 | | Enugu | 75.1 | 24.9 | 100 | | Gombe | 93.8 | 6.2 | 100 | | Imo | 89.9 | 10.1 | 100 | | Jigawa | 80.2 | 19.8 | 100 | | Kaduna | 75.5 | 24.5 | 100 | | Kano | 83.3 | 16.7 | 100 | | Katsina | 90.6 | 9.4 | 100 | | Kebbi | 77.3 | 22.7 | 100 | | Risks while using HH toilet | | | | Number of Household members with toilet/latrines | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | RiskExists | No Risk | Total | | | | 10.6 | 89.4 | 100 | 158,466,515 | | | 9.5 | 90.5 | 100 | 16,632,655 | | | 15.9 | 84.1 | 100 | 23,134,135 | | | 10.6 | 89.4 | 100 | 46,252,877 | | | 13.2 | 86.8 | 100 | 18,040,246 | | | 13.3 | 86.7 | 100 | 23,555,582 | | | 3.8 | 96.2 | 100 | 30,851,020 | | | 8.2 | 91.8 | 100 | 61,773,762 | | | 6.2 | 93.8 | 100 | 13,269,708 | | | 8.8 | 91.2 | 100 | 48,504,054 | | | 12.2 | 87.8 | 100 | 96,692,753 | | | 8.8 | 91.2 | 100 | 3,024,189 | | | 12.2 | 87.8 | 100 | 78,180,789 | | | 12.7 | 87.3 | 100 | 15,487,775 | | | 16.3 | 83.7 | 100 | 21,765,112 | | | 15.2 | 84.8 | 100 | 28,080,538 | | | 13.5 | 86.5 | 100 | 31,119,527 | | | 9.2 | 90.8 | 100 | 36,774,318 | | | 3.5 | 96.5 | 100 | 40,727,019 | | | 9.9 | 90.1 | 100 | 119,673,514 | | | 13.0 | 87.0 | 100 | 38,793,001 | | | 10.7 | 89.3 | 100 | 135,729,565 | | | 10.3 | 89.7 | 100 | 22,736,950 | | | 11.5 | 88.5 | 100 | 9,101,367 | | | 10.6 | 89.4 | 100 | 149,365,148 | | | 2.5 | 97.5 | 100 | 3,880,092 | | | 19.6 | 80.4 | 100 | 3,924,442 | | | 12.6 | 87.4 | 100 | 5,234,387 | | | 15.3 | 84.7 | 100 | 5,685,055 | | | 15.6 | 84.4 | 100 | 5,499,414 | | | 19.5 | 80.5 | 100 | 1,319,170 | | | 13.4 | 86.6 | 100 | 3,328,885 | | | 10.7 | 89.3 | 100 | 6,154,557 | | | 18.8 | 81.2 | 100 | 2,420,562 | | | 4.5 | 95.5 | 100 | 3,479,865 | | | 16.9 | 83.1 | 100 | 813,744 | | | 1.1 | 98.9 | 100 | 3,955,096 | | | 3.5 | 96.5 | 100 | 2,039,715 | | | 23.2 | 76.8 | 100 | 2,422,978 | | | 14.1 | 85.9 | 100 | 2,592,694 | | * * * | Table HH.HF14: Sanitation(Safe Disposal of Faeces) | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of household based on the safe disposal of children's faeces in the household | | | | | | | | Disposal of Children's faeces in the household | | | | | | National | 20.3 | 64.6 | 3.7 | 6.7 | 2.2 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | North-Central | 13.7 | 60.4 | 3.2 | 16.4 | 2.7 | | North-East | 23.2 | 63.9 | 6.4 | 2.5 | 2.8 | | North-West | 21.7 | 62.6 | 3.2 | 7.3 | 2.2 | | South-East | 16.8 | 65.8 | 5.6 | 4.8 | 3.0 | | South-South | 18.5 | 68.7 | 2.5 | 5.5 | 1.8 | | South-West | 19.1 | 73.1 | 1.4 | 4.7 | 0.7 | | Sector | | | | | | | Urban | 19.8 | 69.9 | 2.4 | 5.7 | 0.9 | | Peri-Urbian | 20.2 | 69.1 | 3.4 | 5.9 | 0.5 | | Urban | 19.7 | 70.1 | 2.1 | 5.7 | 1.0 | | Rural | 20.6 | 62.1 | 4.3 | 7.2 | 2.8 | | Itinerant | 25.0 | 55.8 | 5.1 | 13.0 | 0.0 | | Rural | 22.6 | 60.0 | 4.1 | 7.5 | 2.5 | | Small Town | 10.0 | 73.4 | 4.8 | 4.6 | 4.6 | | Wealth Index | | | | | | | Quintile | | | | | | | Poorest | 24.0 | 58.8 | 3.7 | 6.3 | 2.9 | | Poor | 20.2 | 62.7 | 5.1 | 6.5 | 2.9 | | Moderate | 20.2 | 60.4 | 4.4 | 8.9 | 2.7 | | Rich | 18.8 | 70.6 | 3.2 | 5.3 | 1.1 | | Richest | 18.2 | 72.2 | 1.4 | 6.5 | 0.9 | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | Literate | 18.5 | 67.2 | 3.6 | 6.3 | 2.1 | | Non-Literate | 26.5 | 55.7 | 3.9 | 8.1 | 2.5 | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | Male | 19.9 | 64.6 | 3.8 | 6.8 | 2.3 | | Female | 26.5 | 64.1 | 2.1 | 5.2 | 0.7 | | HVs with at least one disability | | | | | | | At least 1 disability | 20.9 | 56.0 | 6.2 | 9.5 | 4.5 | | None disability | 20.3 | 65.2 | 3.5 | 6.5 | 2.0 | | State | | | | | | | Abia | 36.3 | 46.3 | 9.6 | 2.8 | 1.4 | | Adamawa | 15.8 | 44.0 | 1.4 | 29.7 | 2.2 | | Akwa Ibom | 62.2 | 14.4 | 0.0 | 8.2 | 7.2 | | Anambra | 2.5 | 85.5 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 6.2 | | Bauchi | 37.7 | 43.3 | 14.6 | 0.8 | 2.9 | | Bayelsa | 16.3 | 66.5 | 7.9 | 5.1 | 0.0 | \| households with Children under 5 years | Beds with Children under 5 years | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | left in the open | used as manure | eaten by animal | other (specify) | Total | Number of Households with Children under 5 years | 7,856,889 | | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 100 | 7,856,889 | | | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 100 | 780,460 | | | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 100 | 1,502,693 | | | 0.9 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 100 | 3,511,657 | | | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 100 | 347,292 | | | 2.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 100 | 767,594 | | | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 100 | 947,193 | | | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 100 | 2,539,944 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 100 | 486,882 | | | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 100 | 2,053,062 | | | 1.2 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 100 | 5,316,945 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 118,317 | | | 1.5 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 100 | 4,337,030 | | | 0.1 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 100 | 861,598 | | | 1.6 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 100 | 1,571,437 | | | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 100 | 1,857,621 | | | 1.5 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 100 | 1,565,492 | | | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 100 | 1,538,712 | | | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 100 | 1,323,627 | | | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 100 | 6,076,554 | | | 1.7 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 100 | 1,780,335 | | | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 100 | 7,333,788 | | | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 100 | 523,102 | | | 2.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 100 | 468,243 | | | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 100 | 7,388,646 | | | 0.0 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 100 | 108,539 | | | 2.2 | 0.0 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 85,843 | | | 8.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 146,783 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 87,038 | | | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 444,346 | | | 4.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 29,108 | | * * * | | Safety of b | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | For Children | | | | | | Safe | Not Safe | Was not possible to observe | | | | National | 58.0 | 33.2 | 8.8 | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | North-Central | 64.8 | 26.4 | 8.9 | | | North-East | 63.1 | 35.2 | 1.7 | | | North-West | 53.0 | 42.7 | 4.3 | | | South-East | 45.2 | 37.4 | 17.4 | | | South-South | 50.4 | 37.8 | 11.8 | | | South-West | 69.7 | 18.9 | 11.4 | | | Sector | | | | | | Urban | 64.8 | 25.5 | 9.7 | | | Peri-Urbane | 65.5 | 22.7 | 11.8 | | | Urban | 64.6 | 26.3 | 9.1 | | | Rural | 53.2 | 38.7 | 8.1 | | | Itinerant | 48.8 | 44.2 | 7.0 | | | Rural | 53.1 | 38.8 | 8.1 | | | Small Town | 54.2 | 37.0 | 8.7 | | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | Poorest | 48.8 | 43.8 | 7.4 | | | Poor | 52.0 | 42.1 | 5.9 | | | Moderate | 48.4 | 43.1 | 8.5 | | | Rich | 59.4 | 31.8 | 8.8 | | | Richest | 71.5 | 17.2 | 11.4 | | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | Literate | 60.0 | 31.5 | 8.5 | | | Non-Literate | 52.1 | 38.3 | 9.6 | | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | Male | 57.9 | 34.0 | 8.1 | | | Female | 58.6 | 29.6 | 11.7 | | | HHs with at least one disability | | | | | | At least 1 disability | 54.0 | 34.8 | 11.1 | | | No disability | 58.5 | 33.0 | 8.5 | | | State | | | | | | Abia | 55.2 | 23.3 | 21.6 | | | Adamawa | 53.8 | 45.6 | 0.5 | | | Akwa Ibom | 35.1 | 30.8 | 34.0 | | | Anambra | 38.6 | 45.7 | 15.7 | | | Bauchi | 76.5 | 22.9 | 0.6 | | | Bayelsa | 41.4 | 31.1 | 27.5 | | | Benue | 50.3 | 26.9 | 22.8 | | | Borno | 69.5 | 29.1 | 1.4 | | | Cross River | 47.4 | 49.7 | 2.9 | | | Delta | 81.5 | 17.4 | 1.1 | | | Ebonyi | 54.1 | 45.1 | 0.8 | | | Edo | 32.2 | 54.1 | 13.7 | | | Ekiti | 62.1 | 17.8 | 20.1 | | | Enugu | 43.9 | 38.1 | 18.0 | | | Gombe | 70.5 | 22.8 | 6.7 | | | Imo | 44.4 | 37.2 | 18.4 | | | Total | For PLWD | | | Total | Number of Households with latrines | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Safe | Not safe | was not possible to observe | | | | | 100 | 34.9 | 55.5 | 9.6 | 100 | 32,834,703 | | 100 | 42.8 | 47.8 | 9.4 | 100 | 3,511,703 | | 100 | 42.4 | 55.9 | 1.6 | 100 | 4,359,142 | | 100 | 23.4 | 72.0 | 4.6 | 100 | 8,442,067 | | 100 | 28.4 | 52.1 | 19.5 | 100 | 3,868,798 | | 100 | 34.2 | 51.9 | 13.9 | 100 | 5,314,820 | | 100 | 44.0 | 44.3 | 11.7 | 100 | 7,338,174 | | 100 | 41.2 | 49.0 | 9.9 | 100 | 13,688,214 | | 100 | 39.8 | 47.7 | 12.5 | 100 | 2,994,814 | | 100 | 41.5 | 49.3 | 9.1 | 100 | 10,693,400 | | 100 | 30.5 | 60.2 | 9.3 | 100 | 19,146,489 | | 100 | 24.0 | 68.8 | 7.1 | 100 | 590,719 | | 100 | 30.8 | 59.9 | 9.2 | 100 | 15,441,394 | | 100 | 29.9 | 59.7 | 10.4 | 100 | 3,114,376 | | 100 | 25.4 | 67.0 | 7.7 | 100 | 4,347,626 | | 100 | 28.0 | 65.8 | 6.2 | 100 | 5,313,096 | | 100 | 29.5 | 60.9 | 9.6 | 100 | 6,244,138 | | 100 | 35.0 | 55.4 | 9.6 | 100 | 7,998,766 | | 100 | 47.4 | 40.1 | 12.5 | 100 | 8,931,077 | | 100 | 37.4 | 53.4 | 9.3 | 100 | 24,488,468 | | 100 | 27.8 | 61.8 | 10.5 | 100 | 8,346,235 | | 100 | 34.5 | 56.8 | 8.7 | 100 | 26,793,094 | | 100 | 36.9 | 49.8 | 13.3 | 100 | 6,041,609 | | 100 | 29.6 | 58.2 | 12.2 | 100 | 3,841,383 | | 100 | 35.6 | 55.1 | 9.2 | 100 | 28,993,320 | | 100 | 35.1 | 42.2 | 22.7 | 100 | 833,731 | | 100 | 30.2 | 69.1 | 0.7 | 100 | 720,670 | | 100 | 29.1 | 34.0 | 36.9 | 100 | 1,186,491 | | 100 | 27.6 | 57.6 | 14.8 | 100 | 1,237,901 | | 100 | 53.6 | 45.8 | 0.6 | 100 | 1,058,213 | | 100 | 24.2 | 43.0 | 32.8 | 100 | 264,930 | | 100 | 35.7 | 41.0 | 23.3 | 100 | 651,212 | * * * | Table HH.HF17-19: Sanitation(Safe Disposal of Faeces) | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of household based on availability and evidence of use of handwashing facilities | | | | | | | | | Handwashing close(within 10 metre) to Latrine | | | Total | Number of Households with latrine | AvailabilitySoap/Detergent/Ashhandwashing facililatrine | | Close | Not close | yes | | | | | | National | 25.2 | 74.8 | 100 | 32,834,703 | 76.2 | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | North-Central | 26.7 | 73.3 | 100 | 3,511,703 | 76.6 | | | North-East | 18.6 | 81.4 | 100 | 4,359,142 | 55.9 | | | North-West | 28.0 | 72.0 | 100 | 8,442,067 | 69.3 | | | South-East | 19.8 | 80.2 | 100 | 3,868,798 | 77.9 | | | South-South | 30.0 | 70.0 | 100 | 5,314,820 | 84.3 | | | South-West | 24.6 | 75.4 | 100 | 7,338,174 | 86.5 | | | Sector | | | | | | | | Urban | 31.6 | 68.4 | 100 | 13,688,214 | 82.6 | | | Peri-Urbian | 26.9 | 73.1 | 100 | 2,994,814 | 80.8 | | | Urban | 32.9 | 67.1 | 100 | 10,693,400 | 83.0 | | | Rural | 20.7 | 79.3 | 100 | 19,146,489 | 69.4 | | | Itinerant | 17.2 | 82.8 | 100 | 590,719 | 80.5 | | | Rural | 20.4 | 79.6 | 100 | 15,441,394 | 68.4 | | | Small Town | 22.8 | 77.2 | 100 | 3,114,376 | 71.9 | | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | Poorest | 16.1 | 83.9 | 100 | 4,347,626 | 62.1 | | | Poor | 16.5 | 83.5 | 100 | 5,313,096 | 53.3 | | | Moderate | 16.3 | 83.7 | 100 | 6,244,138 | 60.6 | | | Rich | 20.1 | 79.9 | 100 | 7,998,766 | 74.3 | | | Richest | 45.6 | 54.4 | 100 | 8,931,077 | 88.3 | | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | | Literate | 29.4 | 70.6 | 100 | 24,488,468 | 77.9 | | | Non-Literate | 12.9 | 87.1 | 100 | 8,346,235 | 65.0 | | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | | Male | 25.8 | 74.2 | 100 | 26,793,094 | 75.9 | | | Female | 22.5 | 77.5 | 100 | 6,041,609 | 78.0 | | | HHS with at least one disability | | | | | | | | At least 1 disability | 28.2 | 71.8 | 100 | 3,841,383 | 71.8 | | | No disability | 24.8 | 75.2 | 100 | 28,993,320 | 76.9 | | | no | Total | Evidence of Usage of Handwashing Facilities by household latrines | | | | Total | Number of Households with latrines and handwashing facilities within 10m² | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | yes, there is dampness suggesting use | yes, other evidence | no evidence | | | | | | | 23.8 | 100 | 56.5 | 18.7 | 24.8 | 100 | 8,278,679 | | | 23.4 | 100 | 41.7 | 25.2 | 33.1 | 100 | 937,124 | | | 44.1 | 100 | 55.9 | 18.7 | 25.4 | 100 | 810,901 | | | 30.7 | 100 | 53.9 | 17.9 | 28.2 | 100 | 2,359,896 | | | 22.1 | 100 | 24.0 | 41.0 | 35.0 | 100 | 767,729 | | | 15.7 | 100 | 65.2 | 11.1 | 23.8 | 100 | 1,595,863 | | | 13.5 | 100 | 74.1 | 13.5 | 12.4 | 100 | 1,807,165 | | | 17.4 | 100 | 59.6 | 19.3 | 21.1 | 100 | 4,321,057 | | | 19.2 | 100 | 53.2 | 29.9 | 17.0 | 100 | 804,634 | | | 17.0 | 100 | 61.0 | 16.9 | 22.0 | 100 | 3,516,423 | | | 30.6 | 100 | 53.2 | 17.9 | 28.9 | 100 | 3,957,622 | | | 19.5 | 100 | 66.5 | 11.4 | 22.2 | 100 | 101,455 | | | 31.6 | 100 | 51.4 | 18.0 | 30.5 | 100 | 3,147,114 | | | 28.1 | 100 | 59.2 | 18.4 | 22.4 | 100 | 709,053 | | | 37.9 | 100 | 57.1 | 17.5 | 25.4 | 100 | 699,717 | | | 46.7 | 100 | 42.3 | 21.0 | 36.7 | 100 | 879,111 | | | 39.4 | 100 | 49.5 | 18.9 | 31.6 | 100 | 1,018,687 | | | 25.7 | 100 | 53.5 | 18.1 | 28.5 | 100 | 1,611,679 | | | 11.7 | 100 | 62.5 | 18.5 | 19.0 | 100 | 4,069,485 | | | 22.1 | 100 | 57.9 | 19.1 | 23.1 | 100 | 7,200,665 | | | 35.0 | 100 | 47.7 | 15.9 | 36.4 | 100 | 1,078,014 | | | 24.1 | 100 | 56.7 | 18.8 | 24.4 | 100 | 6,916,315 | | | 22.0 | 100 | 55.5 | 17.9 | 26.7 | 100 | 1,362,364 | | | 28.2 | 100 | 58.0 | 24.8 | 17.2 | 100 | 1,084,306 | | | 23.1 | 100 | 56.3 | 17.7 | 26.0 | 100 | 7,194,373 | | | 16.5 | 100 | 41.8 | 10.8 | 47.4 | 100 | 89,168 | | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | Table HH.HF17-19: Sanitation(Safe Disposal of Faeces) | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of household based on availability and evidence of use of handwashing facilities | | | | | | | | Handwashing close(within 10 metre) toLatrine | | | | AvailabilitySoap/Detergent/Ashhandwashing facililatrine | | | Close | Not close | Total | Number ofHouseholdswith latrine | yes | | Kaduna | 52.6 | 47.4 | 100 | 1,569,605 | 55.6 | | Kano | 15.4 | 84.6 | 100 | 2,396,682 | 69.6 | | Katsina | 40.0 | 60.0 | 100 | 1,443,413 | 79.3 | | Kebbi | 22.8 | 77.2 | 100 | 369,820 | 77.0 | | Kogi | 16.1 | 83.9 | 100 | 424,894 | 66.8 | | Kwara | 35.9 | 64.1 | 100 | 371,937 | 86.2 | | Lagos | 35.8 | 64.2 | 100 | 3,215,048 | 91.0 | | Nasarawa | 34.3 | 65.7 | 100 | 286,071 | 99.2 | | Niger | 32.0 | 68.0 | 100 | 671,017 | 68.0 | | Ogun | 10.5 | 89.5 | 100 | 1,173,759 | 62.8 | | Ondo | 19.1 | 80.9 | 100 | 739,353 | 68.8 | | Osun | 21.8 | 78.2 | 100 | 873,975 | 84.2 | | Oyo | 16.4 | 83.6 | 100 | 917,593 | 92.6 | | Plateau | 13.9 | 86.1 | 100 | 406,663 | 66.6 | | Rivers | 42.4 | 57.6 | 100 | 1,581,199 | 90.6 | | Sokoto | 8.0 | 92.0 | 100 | 947,585 | 48.8 | | Taraba | 17.0 | 83.0 | 100 | 335,256 | 36.5 | | Yobe | 9.1 | 90.9 | 100 | 572,251 | 54.4 | | Zamfara | 1.5 | 98.5 | 100 | 875,184 | 0.0 | | FCT | 35.4 | 64.6 | 100 | 699,910 | 74.8 | | | | Evidence of Usage of Handwashing Facilities by household latrines | | | | | Number of Households with latrines and handwashing facilities within 10metres | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | no | Total | yes, there is dampness suggesting use | yes, other evidence | no evidence | Total | | | | 44.4 | 100 | 73.2 | 22.7 | 4.1 | 100 | 825,791 | | | 30.4 | 100 | 37.1 | 20.6 | 42.4 | 100 | 369,639 | | | 20.7 | 100 | 37.9 | 8.1 | 54.0 | 100 | 577,014 | | | 23.0 | 100 | 59.9 | 17.4 | 22.7 | 100 | 84,203 | | | 33.2 | 100 | 36.3 | 21.3 | 42.4 | 100 | 68,286 | | | 13.8 | 100 | 56.1 | 2.2 | 41.7 | 100 | 133,350 | | | 9.0 | 100 | 81.4 | 11.1 | 7.5 | 100 | 1,151,184 | | | 0.8 | 100 | 54.8 | 41.3 | 3.9 | 100 | 97,999 | | | 32.0 | 100 | 29.3 | 44.4 | 26.2 | 100 | 214,571 | | | 37.2 | 100 | 53.4 | 31.1 | 15.6 | 100 | 122,926 | | | 31.2 | 100 | 60.2 | 20.5 | 19.3 | 100 | 141,053 | | | 15.8 | 100 | 62.5 | 15.2 | 22.3 | 100 | 190,476 | | | 7.4 | 100 | 68.3 | 7.4 | 24.4 | 100 | 150,644 | | | 33.4 | 100 | 47.2 | 20.9 | 31.9 | 100 | 56,669 | | | 9.4 | 100 | 83.3 | 0.2 | 16.5 | 100 | 670,609 | | | 51.2 | 100 | 26.8 | 2.9 | 70.3 | 100 | 75,946 | | | 63.5 | 100 | 42.9 | 17.2 | 39.9 | 100 | 57,150 | | | 45.6 | 100 | 12.9 | 39.0 | 48.2 | 100 | 52,322 | | | 100.0 | 100 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 13,436 | | | 25.2 | 100 | 28.1 | 22.8 | 49.1 | 100 | 247,608 | | * * * | | Evidence of faeces in the compound | | | | Sweeping of Compounds | | | | Total | collected by formal service | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | yes, human faeces | yes, animal faeces | yes, faeces but unsure of source | no evidence is seenTotal | seem obviously swept | does not seem obvious | obviously not swept | | | | | | 4.3 | 26.3 | 3.2 | 66.2 | 100 | 55.6 | 28.1 | 16.3 | 100.0 | | | | National | 4.3 | 26.3 | 3.2 | 66.2 | 100 | 55.6 | 28.1 | 16.3 | 100.0 | 9.5 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 3.5 | 29.5 | 2.0 | 64.9 | 100 | 54.2 | 31.0 | 14.8 | 100.0 | 5.4 | | North-East | 9.2 | 48.9 | 1.7 | 40.2 | 100 | 47.8 | 33.5 | 18.7 | 100.0 | 1.9 | | North-West | 7.0 | 46.0 | 3.7 | 43.3 | 100 | 42.1 | 36.1 | 21.7 | 100.0 | 4.1 | | South-East | 0.5 | 7.8 | 7.6 | 84.0 | 100 | 58.7 | 28.7 | 12.7 | 100.0 | 2.6 | | South-South | 4.9 | 7.8 | 2.2 | 85.1 | 100 | 68.8 | 14.3 | 16.9 | 100.0 | 5.3 | | South-West | 0.8 | 14.9 | 2.6 | 81.7 | 100 | 63.3 | 24.6 | 12.1 | 100.0 | 28.3 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 3.5 | 15.6 | 2.6 | 78.3 | 100 | 66.6 | 22.5 | 10.9 | 100.0 | 23.7 | | Peri-Urban | 1.8 | 15.6 | 3.1 | 79.6 | 100 | 64.3 | 22.7 | 13.0 | 100.0 | 28.5 | | Urban | 4.0 | 15.6 | 2.5 | 77.9 | 100 | 67.2 | 22.4 | 10.4 | 100.0 | 22.4 | | Rural | 4.7 | 32.1 | 3.5 | 59.8 | 100 | 49.7 | 31.0 | 19.2 | 100.0 | 1.9 | | Itinerant | 1.3 | 43.6 | 4.4 | 50.7 | 100 | 45.4 | 32.4 | 22.2 | 100.0 | 1.1 | | Rural | 4.9 | 31.8 | 3.4 | 59.9 | 100 | 49.6 | 31.2 | 19.2 | 100.0 | 1.9 | | Small Town | 4.1 | 30.9 | 3.7 | 61.3 | 100 | 51.8 | 29.7 | 18.5 | 100.0 | 1.8 | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | | | | | Poorest | 4.7 | 48.7 | 3.1 | 43.5 | 100 | 36.4 | 37.4 | 26.1 | 100.0 | 0.8 | | Poor | 5.7 | 38.3 | 3.1 | 52.9 | 100 | 43.7 | 35.0 | 21.2 | 100.0 | 1.6 | | Commercial informal service provider | HH garbage disposal practice | | | | | Total | Number of Household | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | disposed in designated area | disposal within household yard/plot (burnt or disposed elsewhere) | disposed elsewhere | other (specify) | don't know | | | | | 4.8 | 25.5 | 26.2 | 31.0 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 100.0 | 42,541,141 | | 4.4 | 18.6 | 27.0 | 42.1 | 0.6 | 2.0 | 100.0 | 6,213,175 | | 1.1 | 40.4 | 25.7 | 29.0 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 100.0 | 5,314,632 | | 5.7 | 26.5 | 24.3 | 32.8 | 5.1 | 1.5 | 100.0 | 9,595,568 | | 2.1 | 30.9 | 26.7 | 34.8 | 0.8 | 2.0 | 100.0 | 5,045,363 | | 2.1 | 33.2 | 29.1 | 27.7 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 100.0 | 6,849,154 | | 9.6 | 12.3 | 25.5 | 23.6 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 9,523,248 | | 11.4 | 21.1 | 20.4 | 21.2 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 100.0 | 14,820,701 | | 10.9 | 21.3 | 20.6 | 18.0 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 100.0 | 3,180,382 | | 11.5 | 21.1 | 20.4 | 22.1 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 100.0 | 11,640,319 | | 1.3 | 27.9 | 29.3 | 36.3 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 100.0 | 27,720,441 | | 4.0 | 21.4 | 27.1 | 36.9 | 6.9 | 2.6 | 100.0 | 974,239 | | 1.0 | 27.4 | 29.6 | 36.7 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 100.0 | 22,915,017 | | 2.1 | 32.1 | 28.1 | 33.6 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 100.0 | 3,831,184 | | 1.3 | 25.1 | 26.9 | 39.8 | 4.2 | 1.8 | 100.0 | 8,329,055 | | 0.9 | 24.8 | 30.8 | 39.1 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 100.0 | 7,901,672 | | 2.1 | 26.4 | 30.2 | 36.6 | 1.1 | 1.7 | 100.0 | 8,377,645 | | 6.0 | 28.2 | 25.7 | 27.2 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 100.0 | 8,926,852 | | 12.9 | 23.0 | 18.2 | 14.6 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 9,005,918 | | 5.9 | 25.5 | 26.7 | 27.9 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 100.0 | 29,353,386 | | 2.3 | 25.5 | 25.0 | 37.9 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 100.0 | 13,187,755 | | 4.7 | 25.8 | 26.1 | 31.3 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 100.0 | 34,611,195 | | 5.2 | 24.1 | 26.5 | 30.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 100.0 | 7,929,946 | | 5.1 | 30.7 | 22.9 | 29.8 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 100.0 | 4,825,745 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * | Table HH.HF19-21: Sanitation(Safe Disposal of Faeces) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of household garbage disposal practice and observation of faecal matters in compounds. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Evidence of faeces in the compound | | | | Total | Sweeping of Compounds | | | Total | HH garbage disposal practice | | | | | | Total | Number of Household | | | yes, human faeces | yes, animal faeces | yes, faeces but unsure of source | no evidence is seen | seem obviously swept | does not seem obvious | obviously not swept | collected by formal service | collected by informal service provider | disposed in designated area | disposal within household yard(plot)(burn or elsewhere) | disposed elsewhere | other(specify) | | | | | | | | 15.9 | 36.6 | 7.8 | 39.7 | 100 | 41.6 | 48.6 | 9.8 | 100.0 | 12.3 | 12.5 | 22.5 | 25.5 | 26.8 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 1,664,333 | | | Kaduna | 12.6 | 37.8 | 2.5 | 47.1 | 100 | 38.0 | 44.1 | 17.9 | 100.0 | 4.1 | 8.0 | 27.2 | 27.0 | 31.2 | 0.6 | 1.9 | 100.0 | 2,456,711 | | Katsina | .0 | 45.7 | 0.0 | 54.3 | 100 | 45.3 | 26.5 | 28.2 | 100.0 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 25.0 | 11.5 | 27.6 | 29.8 | 3.7 | 100.0 | 1,558,506 | | Kebbi | 2.0 | 69.2 | 5.2 | 23.6 | 100 | 51.8 | 29.1 | 19.1 | 100.0 | 3.5 | 6.6 | 12.0 | 47.4 | 27.0 | 0.9 | 2.5 | 100.0 | 844,434 | | Kogi | 1.3 | 20.8 | 1.4 | 76.4 | 100 | 61.8 | 22.6 | 15.6 | 100.0 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 22.6 | 16.4 | 58.6 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 100.0 | 934,868 | | Kwara | 1.2 | 36.0 | 1.4 | 61.5 | 100 | 64.1 | 21.4 | 14.5 | 100.0 | 11.4 | 3.1 | 34.2 | 21.7 | 26.8 | 0.4 | 2.3 | 100.0 | 689,852 | | Lagos | 0.6 | 2.5 | 0.1 | 96.8 | 100 | 84.8 | 9.2 | 6.1 | 100.0 | 63.8 | 22.7 | 3.2 | 6.3 | 3.9 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 100.0 | 3,330,768 | | Nasarawa | 20.6 | 38.0 | 1.6 | 39.9 | 100 | 26.2 | 41.4 | 32.3 | 100.0 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 16.9 | 27.8 | 54.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 511,985 | | Niger | 5.5 | 28.8 | 0.9 | 64.8 | 100 | 58.2 | 30.1 | 11.6 | 100.0 | 3.4 | 4.2 | 30.5 | 20.7 | 40.6 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 1,130,135 | | Ogun | .2 | 17.9 | 12.2 | 69.6 | 100 | 37.1 | 45.3 | 17.6 | 100.0 | 8.7 | 5.2 | 18.9 | 29.6 | 37.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 1,333,972 | * * * | Table HH.HF21-22: Sanitation(Safe Disposal of Faeces) | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of household based on households rearing of livestock. | | | | | | | | | Households'rearing of livestock | | | | where | | | yes | no | Total | Number of Households | in the same house/room unit(s) where the household members | in the same yard area | | | | | | | | | | | State | | | | | | | | Abia | 27.8 | 72.2 | 100 | 852,364 | 13.6 | | | Adamawa | 38.2 | 61.8 | 100 | 844,650 | 70.1 | | | Akwa Ibom | 26.2 | 73.8 | 100 | 1,302,205 | 1.0 | | | Anambra | 15.9 | 84.1 | 100 | 1,255,140 | 0.6 | | | Bauchi | 81.4 | 18.6 | 100 | 1,299,500 | 10.8 | | | Bayelsa | 13.9 | 86.1 | 100 | 519,294 | 7.2 | | | Benue | 66.3 | 33.7 | 100 | 1,166,932 | 0.4 | | | Borno | 55.2 | 44.8 | 100 | 1,228,616 | 17.7 | | | Cross River | 15.7 | 84.3 | 100 | 973,284 | 1.9 | | | Delta | 15.5 | 84.5 | 100 | 1,334,054 | 0.0 | | | Ebonyi | 47.6 | 52.4 | 100 | 639,844 | 2.5 | | | Edo | 21.6 | 78.4 | 100 | 988,830 | 1.5 | | | Ekiti | 40.2 | 59.8 | 100 | 733,055 | 0.3 | | | Enugu | 31.4 | 68.6 | 100 | 1,053,336 | 7.9 | | | Gombe | 82.2 | 17.8 | 100 | 636,605 | 35.1 | | | Imo | 18.6 | 81.4 | 100 | 1,244,680 | 1.7 | | | Jigawa | 75.3 | 24.7 | 100 | 1,177,672 | 11.0 | | | Kaduna | 40.3 | 59.7 | 100 | 1,664,333 | 20.0 | | | Kano | 70.4 | 29.6 | 100 | 2,456,711 | 28.7 | | | Katsina | 76.7 | 23.3 | 100 | 1,558,506 | 5.2 | | | Kebbi | 72.6 | 27.4 | 100 | 844,434 | 29.6 | | | Kogi | 46.1 | 53.9 | 100 | 934,868 | 6.8 | | | Kwara | 57.7 | 42.3 | 100 | 689,852 | 2.6 | | | Lagos | 3.0 | 97.0 | 100 | 3,330,768 | 6.3 | | | Nasarawa | 60.9 | 39.1 | 100 | 511,985 | 3.5 | | | Niger | 51.9 | 48.1 | 100 | 1,130,135 | 0.6 | | | Ogun | 23.8 | 76.2 | 100 | 1,333,972 | 0.0 | | | Ondo | 39.5 | 60.5 | 100 | 1,110,701 | 6.6 | | | livestock(cows,goats,birds,etc.)stay or sleep for households with livestocks | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | pens/stables within the yard/plot where the HH dwell | roam freely within the yard/plot where the HH dwell | in pens/stables in a different yard/plot | roam freely in a different yard/plot | bush/forest/elsewhere | don't know | Total | Number of Households that have/rear livestocks | | 26.4 | 52.6 | 2.1 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 237,052 | | 3.3 | 17.9 | 4.0 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 100 | 322,743 | | 20.0 | 23.4 | 24.9 | 17.0 | 13.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 341,755 | | 78.7 | 4.8 | 5.4 | 6.0 | 4.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 199,543 | | 11.6 | 45.3 | 9.3 | 21.7 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 100 | 1,057,348 | | 13.4 | 36.8 | 17.3 | 13.0 | 8.4 | 3.9 | 100 | 72,075 | | 32.3 | 50.9 | 8.8 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 100 | 773,105 | | 13.8 | 57.5 | 2.2 | 5.4 | 3.5 | 0.0 | 100 | 678,588 | | 36.1 | 19.6 | 0.7 | 40.5 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 152,596 | | 3.4 | 94.7 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 206,595 | | 4.8 | 19.4 | 21.1 | 49.9 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 100 | 304,819 | | 13.4 | 15.3 | 3.0 | 60.0 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 214,036 | | 9.8 | 52.4 | 1.8 | 34.7 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 100 | 294,871 | | 40.0 | 19.7 | 6.4 | 18.5 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 100 | 330,768 | | 24.7 | 15.0 | 7.1 | 16.5 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 523,339 | | 28.7 | 40.9 | 8.5 | 19.0 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 100 | 231,126 | | 29.1 | 45.4 | 2.7 | 6.7 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 886,317 | | 37.7 | 17.7 | 5.9 | 17.1 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 100 | 671,336 | | 13.9 | 25.3 | 15.9 | 13.8 | 2.1 | 0.3 | 100 | 1,728,651 | | 43.0 | 31.6 | 7.5 | 10.3 | 2.1 | 0.4 | 100 | 1,195,197 | | 31.6 | 9.9 | 12.3 | 8.8 | 7.4 | 0.3 | 100 | 612,892 | | 22.8 | 55.3 | 1.0 | 4.9 | 8.9 | 0.4 | 100 | 431,279 | | 26.3 | 49.2 | 7.6 | 10.5 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 100 | 397,982 | | 46.8 | 29.9 | 5.4 | 9.2 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 100 | 99,736 | | 24.9 | 38.7 | 5.4 | 21.9 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 100 | 311,870 | * * * | | First most important time for handwashing | | | | | Second most important time for handwashing | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | after using the toilet | after changing a child's diaper | before eating | before preparing food | others (specify) | Total | after using the toilet | after changing a child's diaper | before eating | prepare food | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | National | 74.2 | 2.0 | 16.5 | 4.9 | 2.4 | 100.0 | 12.6 | 4.0 | 51.1 | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 73.9 | 1.1 | 18.3 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 100.0 | 13.2 | 3.2 | 56.6 | | | North-East | 76.4 | 2.9 | 16.0 | 4.3 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 11.0 | 9.5 | 46.5 | | | North-West | 70.6 | 2.9 | 16.0 | 3.1 | 7.4 | 100.0 | 12.6 | 6.0 | 50.7 | | | South-East | 72.1 | 3.6 | 18.4 | 5.2 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 15.9 | 2.7 | 49.6 | | | South-South | 69.9 | 1.6 | 19.6 | 8.6 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 13.9 | 2.3 | 48.6 | | | South-West | 81.0 | 0.5 | 13.0 | 4.4 | 1.1 | 100.0 | 10.3 | 1.4 | 53.2 | | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 74.2 | 1.6 | 17.9 | 4.3 | 2.1 | 100.0 | 14.0 | 3.4 | 53.3 | | | Peri-Urbian | 72.8 | 2.2 | 19.0 | 5.1 | 0.8 | 100.0 | 15.3 | 3.9 | 48.5 | | | Urban | 74.6 | 1.5 | 17.6 | 4.0 | 2.4 | 100.0 | 13.6 | 3.3 | 54.5 | | | Rural | 74.2 | 2.1 | 15.8 | 5.2 | 2.6 | 100.0 | 11.8 | 4.3 | 50.0 | | | Itinerant | 66.2 | 2.8 | 20.7 | 2.6 | 7.7 | 100.0 | 16.8 | 3.2 | 45.1 | | | Rural | 74.7 | 2.0 | 15.7 | 5.3 | 2.3 | 100.0 | 11.9 | 4.4 | 50.7 | | | Small Town | 73.6 | 2.6 | 15.3 | 5.4 | 3.2 | 100.0 | 9.9 | 4.0 | 47.0 | | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | | | | | Poorest | 73.1 | 2.5 | 15.3 | 4.3 | 4.8 | 100.0 | 11.6 | 5.6 | 49.6 | | | Poor | 73.9 | 2.1 | 16.2 | 4.7 | 3.0 | 100.0 | 10.8 | 5.4 | 49.1 | | | Moderate | 74.6 | 2.3 | 16.2 | 5.3 | 1.6 | 100.0 | 12.1 | 3.6 | 50.8 | | | Rich | 74.2 | 1.9 | 17.2 | 5.1 | 1.6 | 100.0 | 13.2 | 3.1 | 51.2 | | | Richest | 75.1 | 1.1 | 17.5 | 5.0 | 1.2 | 100.0 | 14.8 | 2.6 | 54.6 | | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | | | | | | for handwashing | | | Third most important time for handwashing | | | | | | Total | Number of Households | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | before preparing food | others (specify) | Total | after using the toilet | after changing a child's diaper | before eating | before preparing food | others (specify) | | | | | 31.0 | 1.3 | 100.0 | 11.2 | 4.1 | 29.0 | 45 | 11.2 | 100 | 42,541,141 | | | 24.8 | 2.2 | 100.0 | 11.7 | 4.0 | 22.1 | 39 | 23.5 | 100 | 6,213,175 | | | 32.0 | 0.9 | 100.0 | 8.2 | 7.2 | 31.4 | 44 | 9.5 | 100 | 5,314,632 | | | 29.6 | 1.0 | 100.0 | 14.2 | 5.8 | 29.8 | 42 | 8.6 | 100 | 9,595,568 | | | 31.3 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 9.5 | 3.7 | 29.3 | 51 | 6.4 | 100 | 5,045,363 | | | 34.8 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 14.5 | 3.6 | 28.5 | 46 | 7.1 | 100 | 6,849,154 | | | 33.0 | 2.2 | 100.0 | 8.0 | 1.4 | 31.7 | 47 | 12.2 | 100 | 9,523,248 | | | 27.9 | 1.5 | 100.0 | 10.3 | 4.2 | 25.7 | 49 | 11.2 | 100 | 14,820,701 | | | 30.2 | 2.0 | 100.0 | 9.6 | 4.0 | 27.4 | 46 | 13.3 | 100 | 3,180,382 | | | 27.3 | 1.3 | 100.0 | 10.5 | 4.3 | 25.2 | 50 | 10.6 | 100 | 11,640,319 | | | 32.7 | 1.2 | 100.0 | 11.7 | 4.1 | 30.8 | 42 | 11.2 | 100 | 27,720,441 | | | 34.2 | 0.6 | 100.0 | 15.2 | 6.3 | 30.0 | 39 | 9.8 | 100 | 974,239 | | | 31.7 | 1.3 | 100.0 | 11.1 | 3.8 | 30.4 | 43 | 11.9 | 100 | 22,915,017 | | | 38.1 | 1.0 | 100.0 | 14.1 | 5.4 | 33.6 | 40 | 7.2 | 100 | 3,831,184 | | | 31.9 | 1.3 | 100.0 | 12.2 | 5.3 | 30.8 | 39 | 12.6 | 100 | 8,329,055 | | | 33.3 | 1.3 | 100.0 | 12.4 | 4.5 | 31.1 | 41 | 10.8 | 100 | 7,901,672 | | | 32.5 | 1.1 | 100.0 | 11.4 | 3.8 | 29.7 | 45 | 9.8 | 100 | 8,377,645 | | | 31.3 | 1.2 | 100.0 | 11.4 | 4.0 | 28.7 | 47 | 9.4 | 100 | 8,926,852 | | | 26.4 | 1.5 | 100.0 | 8.8 | 3.3 | 25.2 | 50 | 13.2 | 100 | 9,005,918 | | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | | First most important time for handwashing | | | | | Total | Second most important time for handwashing | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | after using the toilet | after changing a child's diaper | before eating | before preparing food | others (specify) | after using the toilet | after changing a child's diaper | before eating | prepare | | | | Kano | 86.5 | 1.3 | 10.0 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 6.5 | 4.8 | 47.1 | | | Katsina | 35.5 | 0.2 | 18.8 | 3.2 | 42.3 | 100.0 | 25.7 | 0.3 | 58.6 | | | Kebbi | 77.2 | 11.9 | 6.9 | 3.8 | 0.3 | 100.0 | 10.8 | 11.8 | 42.2 | | | Kogi | 73.6 | 2.1 | 15.7 | 6.8 | 1.8 | 100.0 | 19.2 | 1.3 | 47.9 | | | Kwara | 73.8 | 1.0 | 19.7 | 5.1 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 12.4 | 6.1 | 56.1 | | | Lagos | 85.5 | 0.4 | 9.1 | 4.5 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 7.2 | 1.3 | 59.4 | | | Nasarawa | 75.8 | 0.8 | 20.1 | 1.1 | 2.2 | 100.0 | 8.7 | 4.3 | 55.7 | | | Niger | 74.5 | 0.9 | 14.8 | 2.7 | 7.0 | 100.0 | 14.6 | 0.7 | 69.4 | | | Ogun | 79.8 | 0.1 | 11.5 | 8.3 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 7.9 | 0.6 | 38.4 | | | Ondo | 67.3 | 0.3 | 26.5 | 3.6 | 2.3 | 100.0 | 23.2 | 0.8 | 40.4 | | | Osun | 67.7 | 1.3 | 26.4 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 100.0 | 18.2 | 4.5 | 48.7 | | | Oyo | 88.1 | 0.0 | 7.1 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 100.0 | 6.6 | 0.5 | 63.5 | | | Plateau | 52.2 | 0.7 | 41.7 | 4.1 | 1.3 | 100.0 | 23.1 | 0.8 | 42.4 | | | Rivers | 72.8 | 0.2 | 26.6 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 25.9 | 2.2 | 53.0 | | | Sokoto | 75.9 | 0.8 | 22.0 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 100.0 | 7.8 | 0.4 | 48.8 | | | Taraba | 80.9 | 6.5 | 9.4 | 3.0 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 2.1 | 19.6 | 44.4 | | | Yobe | 80.9 | 6.2 | 9.8 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 100.0 | 8.1 | 1.5 | 51.5 | | | Zamfara | 65.0 | 1.4 | 27.4 | 6.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 21.8 | 15.1 | 46.3 | | | FCT | 86.7 | 0.8 | 9.4 | 2.6 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 58.2 | | | for handwashing | | | | Third most important time for handwashing | | | | | | Number of Households | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | before preparing food | others (specify) | Total | after using the toilet | after changing a child's diaper | before eating | before preparing food | others (specify) | Total | | | | 39.2 | 2.4 | 100.0 | 5.0 | 3.6 | 39.8 | 35 | 16.3 | 100 | 2,456,711 | | | 15.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 38.3 | 0.4 | 16.5 | 37 | 8.3 | 100 | 1,558,506 | | | 34.7 | 0.6 | 100.0 | 7.2 | 9.3 | 45.5 | 37 | 1.1 | 100 | 844,434 | | | 30.4 | 1.2 | 100.0 | 7.1 | 5.5 | 28.9 | 33 | 25.2 | 100 | 934,868 | | | 25.2 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 12.8 | 4.7 | 21.1 | 57 | 4.9 | 100 | 689,852 | | | 29.5 | 2.7 | 100.0 | 6.7 | 1.8 | 27.9 | 51 | 13 | 100 | 3,330,768 | | | 27.3 | 4.1 | 100.0 | 15.0 | 14.6 | 22.0 | 38 | 10.6 | 100 | 511,985 | | | 7.1 | 8.1 | 100.0 | 9.7 | 1.3 | 13.1 | 19 | 57.1 | 100 | 1,130,135 | | | 50.5 | 2.7 | 100.0 | 12.1 | 0.0 | 49.2 | 24 | 15 | 100 | 1,333,972 | | | 33.6 | 2.0 | 100.0 | 8.6 | 2.0 | 31.8 | 48 | 9.6 | 100 | 1,110,701 | | | 27.2 | 1.5 | 100.0 | 12.4 | 2.7 | 24.7 | 49 | 11.5 | 100 | 1,092,389 | | | 27.6 | 1.9 | 100.0 | 4.9 | 0.8 | 27.6 | 56 | 11 | 100 | 1,922,364 | | | 33.2 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 22.7 | 3.5 | 14.9 | 36 | 22.7 | 100 | 853,884 | | | 19.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 1.1 | 2.0 | 19.2 | 63 | 14.9 | 100 | 1,731,487 | | | 41.4 | 1.5 | 100.0 | 15.9 | 3.4 | 28.1 | 49 | 4 | 100 | 1,006,167 | | | 32.0 | 1.9 | 100.0 | 2.9 | 7.7 | 43.4 | 41 | 5.6 | 100 | 631,443 | | | 36.8 | 2.1 | 100.0 | 6.9 | 2.8 | 32.4 | 33 | 24.7 | 100 | 673,818 | | | 16.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 12.3 | 18.5 | 24.6 | 45 | 0 | 100 | 887,743 | | | 27.6 | 0.6 | 100.0 | 6.0 | 2.4 | 29.5 | 48 | 14.1 | 100 | 925,519 | | * * * | Table HH.G2-G4: Handwashing | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of household based on the availability and location of handwashing facilities in the households | | | | | | | | | | Location for Handwashing in the Household | | | | | | Total | | in dwelling | in yard/plot mobile object for handwashing observed (bucket/jug/kg title) | no handwashing place in dwelling/yard plot | no permission to see | other reasons(specify) | Total | | | | National | 8.0 | 3.1 | 20.5 | 55.1 | 12.9 | 0.5 | 100.0 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 6.7 | 1.5 | 17.5 | 65.2 | 8.7 | 0.3 | 100.0 | | North-East | 2.5 | 1.4 | 27.4 | 62.4 | 6.2 | 0.1 | 100.0 | | North-West | 5.2 | 2.8 | 33.3 | 45.0 | 13.6 | 0.1 | 100.0 | | South-East | 3.4 | 7.9 | 10.6 | 52.1 | 25.7 | 0.3 | 100.0 | | South-South | 11.6 | 3.5 | 25.5 | 43.0 | 16.3 | 0.1 | 100.0 | | South-West | 14.4 | 2.6 | 7.5 | 64.8 | 9.3 | 1.5 | 100.0 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | Urban | 15.8 | 4.5 | 16.9 | 50.9 | 11.3 | 0.6 | 100.0 | | Peri-Urbian | 14.5 | 5.9 | 14.0 | 54.1 | 11.0 | 0.6 | 100.0 | | Urban | 16.1 | 4.2 | 17.7 | 50.0 | 11.4 | 0.6 | 100.0 | | Rural | 3.8 | 2.4 | 22.5 | 57.3 | 13.7 | 0.4 | 100.0 | | Itinerant | 6.2 | 1.5 | 25.8 | 55.0 | 11.1 | 0.4 | 100.0 | | Rural | 3.7 | 2.4 | 22.0 | 58.0 | 13.6 | 0.3 | 100.0 | | Small Town | 3.7 | 2.8 | 24.7 | 53.6 | 14.7 | 0.5 | 100.0 | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | | Poorest | 1.8 | 1.1 | 22.3 | 64.4 | 9.8 | 0.6 | 100.0 | | Poor | 1.7 | 1.3 | 23.8 | 61.0 | 11.8 | 0.4 | 100.0 | | Moderate | 2.0 | 2.3 | 22.3 | 58.9 | 14.0 | 0.6 | 100.0 | | Rich | 4.5 | 3.0 | 21.3 | 57.0 | 13.7 | 0.5 | 100.0 | | Richest | 28.1 | 7.6 | 13.6 | 35.8 | 14.7 | 0.3 | 100.0 | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | | | Literate | 10.3 | 3.8 | 22.2 | 49.9 | 13.4 | 0.5 | 100.0 | | Non-Literate | 2.8 | 1.7 | 16.8 | 66.6 | 11.7 | 0.5 | 100.0 | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | | | Male | 7.9 | 3.1 | 21.6 | 54.8 | 12.2 | 0.4 | 100.0 | | | Availability of Water at place of Handwashing | | | Availability of Soap, Detergent or Ash at place of Handwashing | | | | Number of households with fixed place for handwashing | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | number of households | water is available | water is not available | Total | soap, detergent or ash available | soap, detergent or ash not available | Total | | | | 42,541,141 | 76.7 | 23.3 | 100.0 | 57.1 | 42.9 | 100.0 | | 13,454,496 | | 6,213,175 | 71.2 | 28.8 | 100.0 | 46.4 | 53.6 | 100.0 | | 1,601,578 | | 5,314,632 | 74.3 | 25.7 | 100.0 | 40.3 | 59.7 | 100.0 | | 1,663,557 | | 9,595,568 | 77.6 | 22.4 | 100.0 | 53.1 | 46.9 | 100.0 | | 3,966,445 | | 11,640,319 | 75.8 | 24.2 | 100.0 | 60.7 | 39.3 | 100.0 | | 1,106,747 | | 6,849,154 | 71.3 | 28.7 | 100.0 | 61.0 | 39.0 | 100.0 | | 2,782,705 | | 9,523,248 | 87.3 | 12.7 | 100.0 | 77.0 | 23.0 | 100.0 | | 2,333,464 | | 14,820,701 | 82.8 | 17.2 | 100.0 | 69.7 | 30.3 | 100.0 | | 5,508,633 | | 3,180,382 | 78.6 | 21.4 | 100.0 | 67.1 | 32.9 | 100.0 | | 1,093,178 | | 11,640,319 | 83.8 | 16.2 | 100.0 | 70.4 | 29.6 | 100.0 | | 4,415,455 | | 27,720,441 | 72.4 | 27.6 | 100.0 | 48.4 | 51.6 | 100.0 | | 7,945,863 | | 974,239 | 71.2 | 28.8 | 100.0 | 57.5 | 42.5 | 100.0 | | 326,359 | | 22,915,017 | 71.6 | 28.4 | 100.0 | 46.9 | 53.1 | 100.0 | | 6,418,256 | | 3,831,184 | 77.3 | 22.7 | 100.0 | 53.7 | 46.3 | 100.0 | | 1,201,248 | | 8,329,055 | 67.0 | 33.0 | 100.0 | 39.8 | 60.2 | 100.0 | | 2,103,210 | | 7,901,672 | 66.3 | 33.7 | 100.0 | 36.6 | 63.4 | 100.0 | | 2,118,480 | | 8,377,645 | 73.4 | 26.6 | 100.0 | 45.3 | 54.7 | 100.0 | | 2,229,186 | | 8,926,852 | 73.9 | 26.1 | 100.0 | 57.8 | 42.2 | 100.0 | | 2,567,405 | | 9,005,918 | 89.4 | 10.6 | 100.0 | 80.7 | 19.3 | 100.0 | | 4,436,215 | | 29,353,386 | 80.3 | 19.7 | 100.0 | 62.1 | 37.9 | 100.0 | | 10,650,393 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * | | Location for Handwashing in the Household | | | | | | Total | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | in dwelling | in yard/plot | mobile object for handwashing observed(bucket/jug/keftle) | no handwashing place in dwelling/yard/plot | no permission to see | other reasons(specify) | | | Kaduna | 15.2 | 4.3 | 51.6 | 23.3 | 5.4 | 0.2 | 100.0 | | Kano | 2.0 | 1.9 | 29.4 | 54.6 | 11.9 | 0.2 | 100.0 | | Katsina | 0.7 | 1.2 | 40.4 | 38.8 | 19.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Kebbi | 14.3 | 2.3 | 15.7 | 45.6 | 22.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Kogi | 4.0 | 1.0 | 7.1 | 81.7 | 5.9 | 0.3 | 100.0 | | Kwara | 4.9 | 3.3 | 11.3 | 61.8 | 17.9 | 0.8 | 100.0 | | Lagos | 32.2 | 2.6 | 6.4 | 48.9 | 9.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Nasarawa | 3.1 | 1.1 | 29.4 | 64.8 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Niger | 4.5 | 3.1 | 31.8 | 56.9 | 3.6 | 0.2 | 100.0 | | Ogun | 5.4 | 3.0 | 12.3 | 75.6 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Ondo | 6.6 | 1.6 | 2.2 | 82.8 | 6.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Osun | 6.0 | 4.8 | 20.9 | 58.6 | 9.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Oyo | 3.0 | 2.4 | 3.9 | 71.3 | 15.0 | 4.4 | 100.0 | | Plateau | 1.0 | 0.4 | 31.9 | 55.4 | 11.1 | 0.2 | 100.0 | | Rivers | 17.7 | 5.1 | 37.4 | 17.2 | 22.3 | 0.4 | 100.0 | | Sokoto | 4.3 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 71.4 | 23.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Taraba | 1.0 | 5.3 | 16.3 | 73.7 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Yobe | 1.1 | 0.3 | 29.1 | 45.4 | 24.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Zamfara | 0.2 | 7.5 | 36.0 | 40.7 | 15.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | FCT | 28.3 | 1.2 | 11.7 | 49.7 | 8.6 | 0.6 | 100.0 | | | Availability of Water at place of Handwashing | | | Availability of Soap, Detergent or Ash at place of Handwashing | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | number of households | water is available | water is not available | Total | soap, detergent or ash available | soap, detergent or ash not available | Total | Number of households with fixed place for handwashing | | 1,664,333 | 79.1 | 20.9 | 100.0 | 47.9 | 52.1 | 100.0 | 1,187,500 | | 2,456,711 | 66.5 | 33.5 | 100.0 | 35.3 | 64.7 | 100.0 | 816,821 | | 1,558,506 | 84.7 | 15.3 | 100.0 | 72.2 | 27.8 | 100.0 | 658,150 | | 844,434 | 93.8 | 6.2 | 100.0 | 87.3 | 12.7 | 100.0 | 272,979 | | 934,868 | 77.9 | 22.1 | 100.0 | 34.9 | 65.1 | 100.0 | 112,899 | | 689,852 | 87.9 | 12.1 | 100.0 | 63.9 | 36.1 | 100.0 | 134,529 | | 3,330,768 | 90.8 | 9.2 | 100.0 | 84.9 | 15.1 | 100.0 | 1,374,661 | | 511,985 | 90.2 | 9.8 | 100.0 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 100.0 | 171,888 | | 1,130,135 | 71.2 | 28.8 | 100.0 | 31.8 | 68.2 | 100.0 | 444,853 | | 1,333,972 | 67.2 | 32.8 | 100.0 | 42.4 | 57.6 | 100.0 | 276,146 | | 1,110,701 | 83.9 | 16.1 | 100.0 | 63.4 | 36.6 | 100.0 | 115,324 | | 1,092,389 | 91.2 | 8.8 | 100.0 | 69.2 | 30.8 | 100.0 | 345,735 | | 1,922,364 | 85.4 | 14.6 | 100.0 | 92.2 | 7.8 | 100.0 | 179,397 | | 853,884 | 41.7 | 58.3 | 100.0 | 26.6 | 73.4 | 100.0 | 284,556 | | 1,731,487 | 69.1 | 30.9 | 100.0 | 62.7 | 37.3 | 100.0 | 1,041,058 | | 1,006,167 | 64.9 | 35.1 | 100.0 | 55.8 | 44.2 | 100.0 | 56,070 | | 631,443 | 20.0 | 80.0 | 100.0 | 20.5 | 79.5 | 100.0 | 142,925 | | 673,818 | 85.3 | 14.7 | 100.0 | 67.6 | 32.4 | 100.0 | 205,513 | | 887,743 | 43.9 | 56.1 | 100.0 | 16.0 | 84.0 | 100.0 | 387,796 | | 925,519 | 73.5 | 26.5 | 100.0 | 51.4 | 48.6 | 100.0 | 380,725 | * * * | | Type of Soap available at the place of handwashing | | | | Total | Number of households with soap at the fixed place for handwashing | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | bar soap | liquid soap | ash | others specify | | | | | National | 41.5 | 38.2 | 20.1 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 7,689,105 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | North-Central | 36.6 | 38.6 | 24.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 742,499 | | North-East | 80.1 | 6.6 | 12.7 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 670,391 | | North-West | 45.8 | 22.3 | 31.5 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 2,106,914 | | South-East | 53.9 | 38.4 | 7.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 672,637 | | South-South | 47.5 | 38.9 | 13.3 | 0.3 | 100.0 | 1,696,185 | | South-West | 13.6 | 67.6 | 18.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 1,800,478 | | Sector | | | | | | | | Urban | 27.7 | 52.1 | 20.1 | 0.1 | 100.0 | 3,843,212 | | Peri-Urbian | 26.0 | 60.8 | 13.0 | 0.1 | 100.0 | 733,035 | | Urban | 28.1 | 50.1 | 21.7 | 0.1 | 100.0 | 3,110,177 | | Rural | 55.3 | 24.2 | 20.2 | 0.3 | 100.0 | 3,845,894 | | Itinerant | 55.5 | 19.9 | 24.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 187,727 | | Rural | 54.9 | 25.4 | 19.3 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 3,013,100 | | Small Town | 56.9 | 20.2 | 22.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 645,067 | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | Poorest | 76.5 | 2.6 | 20.8 | 0.1 | 100.0 | 837,320 | | Poor | 44.5 | 25.0 | 29.4 | 1.1 | 100.0 | 775,344 | | Moderate | 56.3 | 19.3 | 24.1 | 0.3 | 100.0 | 1,009,300 | | Rich | 43.5 | 31.1 | 25.1 | 0.3 | 100.0 | 1,483,944 | | Richest | 27.7 | 57.6 | 14.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 3,583,198 | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | | Literate | 38.5 | 41.2 | 20.1 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 6,614,647 | | Non-Literate | 59.6 | 19.7 | 20.4 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 1,074,458 | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | | Male | 42.8 | 36.9 | 20.1 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 6,431,948 | | Female | 34.5 | 45.0 | 20.2 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 1,257,157 | | HHs with at least one disability | | | | | | | | At least 1 disability | 58.1 | 24.9 | 16.3 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 940,819 | | Availability of Soap in Household | | | | Available soap/detergent in households shown. | | | Number of Households where soap is available | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Available | Not available | Total | Number of Household | Seen | Not seen | Total | | | 42.4 | 57.6 | 100.0 | 42,541,141 | 62.6 | 37.4 | 100.0 | 18,047,619 | | 33.7 | 66.3 | 100.0 | 6,213,175 | 62.9 | 37.1 | 100.0 | 2,094,513 | | 26.1 | 73.9 | 100.0 | 5,314,632 | 63.0 | 37.0 | 100.0 | 1,385,447 | | 34.3 | 65.7 | 100.0 | 9,595,568 | 71.7 | 28.3 | 100.0 | 3,288,532 | | 44.4 | 55.6 | 100.0 | 5,045,363 | 46.9 | 53.1 | 100.0 | 2,239,553 | | 49.6 | 50.4 | 100.0 | 6,849,154 | 67.6 | 32.4 | 100.0 | 3,398,783 | | 59.2 | 40.8 | 100.0 | 9,523,248 | 60.2 | 39.8 | 100.0 | 5,640,791 | | 55.7 | 44.3 | 100.0 | 14,820,701 | 65.6 | 34.4 | 100.0 | 8,248,286 | | 50.5 | 49.5 | 100.0 | 3,180,382 | 62.7 | 37.3 | 100.0 | 1,605,246 | | 57.1 | 42.9 | 100.0 | 11,640,319 | 66.3 | 33.7 | 100.0 | 6,643,040 | | 35.4 | 64.6 | 100.0 | 27,720,441 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 100.0 | 9,799,333 | | 32.7 | 67.3 | 100.0 | 974,239 | 73.4 | 26.6 | 100.0 | 318,305 | | 34.9 | 65.1 | 100.0 | 22,915,017 | 59.6 | 40.4 | 100.0 | 7,990,399 | | 38.9 | 61.1 | 100.0 | 3,831,184 | 59.5 | 40.5 | 100.0 | 1,490,629 | | 23.9 | 76.1 | 100.0 | 8,329,055 | 57.6 | 42.4 | 100.0 | 1,987,755 | | 26.4 | 73.6 | 100.0 | 7,901,672 | 61.1 | 38.9 | 100.0 | 2,082,542 | | 36.0 | 64.0 | 100.0 | 8,377,645 | 56.6 | 43.4 | 100.0 | 3,015,228 | | 49.5 | 50.5 | 100.0 | 8,926,852 | 60.1 | 39.9 | 100.0 | 4,414,344 | | 72.7 | 27.3 | 100.0 | 9,005,918 | 69.0 | 31.0 | 100.0 | 6,547,750 | | 49.2 | 50.8 | 100.0 | 29,353,386 | 64.5 | 35.5 | 100.0 | 14,435,852 | | 27.4 | 72.6 | 100.0 | 13,187,755 | 55.0 | 45.0 | 100.0 | 3,611,767 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | | Type of Soap available at the place of handwashing | | | | Total | Number of households with soap at the fixed place for handwashing | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | bar soap | liquid soap | ash | others specify | | | | Jigawa | 79.9 | 3.2 | 16.6 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 442,539 | | Kaduna | 31.8 | 14.7 | 52.6 | 0.8 | 100.0 | 568,902 | | Kano | 39.8 | 23.4 | 35.9 | 0.9 | 100.0 | 288,573 | | Katsina | 36.7 | 59.3 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 475,360 | | Kebbi | 51.8 | 1.1 | 47.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 238,253 | | Kogi | 58.4 | 28.3 | 13.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 39,448 | | Kwara | 15.9 | 14.5 | 69.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 85,991 | | Lagos | 15.1 | 74.2 | 10.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 1,169,864 | | Nasarawa | 32.3 | 33.4 | 34.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 137,568 | | Niger | 27.1 | 47.0 | 25.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 141,650 | | Ogun | 24.4 | 49.1 | 26.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 117,086 | | Ondo | 23.5 | 53.1 | 23.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 73,136 | | Osun | 6.9 | 57.0 | 36.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 239,391 | | Oyo | 1.4 | 62.3 | 36.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 165,323 | | Plateau | 76.2 | 14.4 | 9.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 75,810 | | Rivers | 40.8 | 48.9 | 10.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 653,160 | | Sokoto | 49.3 | 44.0 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 31,308 | | Taraba | 81.3 | 0.0 | 18.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 29,356 | | Yobe | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 138,825 | | Zamfara | 4.5 | 8.9 | 86.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 61,979 | | FCT | 22.2 | 68.4 | 9.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 195,702 | | Availability of Soap in Household | | | | Available soap/detergent in households shown. | | | Number of Households where soap is available | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Available | Not available | Total | Number of Household | Seen | Not seen | Total | | | 56.7 | 43.3 | 100.0 | 1,177,672 | 78.1 | 21.9 | 100.0 | 667,576 | | 46.0 | 54.0 | 100.0 | 1,664,333 | 85.2 | 14.8 | 100.0 | 765,021 | | 31.1 | 68.9 | 100.0 | 2,456,711 | 44.6 | 55.4 | 100.0 | 764,556 | | 38.1 | 61.9 | 100.0 | 1,558,506 | 84.6 | 15.4 | 100.0 | 593,246 | | 21.4 | 78.6 | 100.0 | 844,434 | 87.1 | 12.9 | 100.0 | 180,615 | | 19.6 | 80.4 | 100.0 | 934,868 | 38.5 | 61.5 | 100.0 | 183,588 | | 43.9 | 56.1 | 100.0 | 689,852 | 78.4 | 21.6 | 100.0 | 302,904 | | 73.0 | 27.0 | 100.0 | 3,330,768 | 71.1 | 28.9 | 100.0 | 2,431,692 | | 61.5 | 38.5 | 100.0 | 511,985 | 83.0 | 17.0 | 100.0 | 314,752 | | 17.9 | 82.1 | 100.0 | 1,130,135 | 62.4 | 37.6 | 100.0 | 202,823 | | 36.7 | 63.3 | 100.0 | 1,333,972 | 52.6 | 47.4 | 100.0 | 489,837 | | 50.8 | 49.2 | 100.0 | 1,110,701 | 32.4 | 67.6 | 100.0 | 564,151 | | 70.5 | 29.5 | 100.0 | 1,092,389 | 52.7 | 47.3 | 100.0 | 769,711 | | 56.2 | 43.8 | 100.0 | 1,922,364 | 63.6 | 36.4 | 100.0 | 1,081,306 | | 29.0 | 71.0 | 100.0 | 853,884 | 54.8 | 45.2 | 100.0 | 247,881 | | 64.9 | 35.1 | 100.0 | 1,731,487 | 82.8 | 17.2 | 100.0 | 1,124,393 | | 18.7 | 81.3 | 100.0 | 1,006,167 | 42.4 | 57.6 | 100.0 | 188,399 | | 29.5 | 70.5 | 100.0 | 631,443 | 73.2 | 26.8 | 100.0 | 186,089 | | 13.5 | 86.5 | 100.0 | 673,818 | 79.6 | 20.4 | 100.0 | 91,064 | | 14.5 | 85.5 | 100.0 | 887,743 | 82.1 | 17.9 | 100.0 | 129,119 | | 30.1 | 69.9 | 100.0 | 925,519 | 47.3 | 52.7 | 100.0 | 278,280 | * * * | Table HH.G8: Handwashing | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of household based on the demonstration of handwashing practice | | | | | | | demonstrated handwashing with soap under running water | demonstrated handwashing with soap but not under running water | demonstrated handwashing under running water but without soap | | | National | 7.6 | 15.2 | 8.5 | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | North-Central | 7.3 | 14.3 | 6.6 | | | North-East | 3.6 | 20.6 | 13.5 | | | North-West | 5.8 | 15.2 | 13.3 | | | South-East | 5.6 | 19.5 | 4.5 | | | South-South | 9.6 | 15.1 | 9.5 | | | South-West | 11.3 | 10.4 | 3.6 | | | Sector | | | | | | Urban | 13.2 | 15.6 | 7.2 | | | Peri-Urbian | 9.4 | 12.3 | 8.2 | | | Urban | 14.2 | 16.5 | 6.9 | | | Rural | 4.6 | 14.9 | 9.2 | | | Itinerant | 3.6 | 30.2 | 7.2 | | | Rural | 4.6 | 14.2 | 9.7 | | | Small Town | 4.8 | 15.7 | 6.8 | | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | Poorest | 1.9 | 14.0 | 10.0 | | | Poor | 2.8 | 11.9 | 11.0 | | | Moderate | 4.3 | 15.4 | 8.6 | | | Rich | 6.9 | 18.2 | 7.5 | | | Richest | 20.7 | 15.8 | 5.9 | | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | Literate | 9.3 | 16.6 | 8.6 | | | Non-Literate | 3.8 | 12.0 | 8.3 | | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | Male | 7.5 | 15.3 | 9.2 | | | Female | 7.8 | 14.7 | 5.5 | | | HHS with at least one disability | | | | | | At least 1 disability | 6.3 | 15.9 | 8.8 | | | No disability | 7.7 | 15.1 | 8.5 | | | State | | | | | | Abia | 4.2 | 11.8 | 2.0 | | | Adamawa | 4.4 | 28.4 | 2.4 | | | Akwa Ibom | 3.9 | 18.8 | 5.8 | | | Anambra | 14.6 | 31.2 | 12.3 | | | Bauchi | 3.3 | 19.3 | 16.9 | | | Bayelsa | 6.0 | 5.8 | 10.9 | | | Benue | 1.3 | 26.1 | 4.7 | | | Borno | 1.6 | 6.2 | 11.8 | | | Cross River | 3.6 | 21.3 | 1.4 | | | Delta | 17.8 | 2.5 | 12.4 | | | Ebonyi | 0.0 | 14.0 | 0.4 | | | Edo | 2.7 | 5.8 | 5.0 | | | Ekiti | 2.4 | 7.5 | 2.4 | | | Enugu | 0.3 | 26.4 | 1.6 | | | Gombe | 2.8 | 21.9 | 15.4 | | | Imo | 5.0 | 9.9 | 3.1 | | | Jigawa | 2.2 | 48.5 | 5.2 | | | Action | | Total | Number of household | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | demonstrated handwashing without running water and without soap | not willing to demonstrate | | | | 46.0 | 22.8 | 100 | 42,541,141 | | 53.0 | 18.8 | 100 | 6,213,175 | | 48.3 | 14.0 | 100 | 5,314,632 | | 46.4 | 19.3 | 100 | 9,595,568 | | 24.8 | 45.5 | 100 | 5,045,363 | | 43.0 | 22.8 | 100 | 6,849,154 | | 52.9 | 21.7 | 100 | 9,523,248 | | 42.5 | 21.5 | 100 | 14,820,701 | | 46.4 | 23.7 | 100 | 3,180,382 | | 41.4 | 21.0 | 100 | 11,640,319 | | 47.8 | 23.5 | 100 | 27,720,441 | | 37.3 | 21.7 | 100 | 974,239 | | 48.5 | 23.0 | 100 | 22,915,017 | | 46.1 | 26.6 | 100 | 3,831,184 | | 51.7 | 22.4 | 100 | 8,329,055 | | 52.9 | 21.3 | 100 | 7,901,672 | | 45.8 | 25.9 | 100 | 8,377,645 | | 44.0 | 23.4 | 100 | 8,926,852 | | 36.6 | 21.0 | 100 | 9,005,918 | | 44.4 | 21.1 | 100 | 29,353,386 | | 49.5 | 26.5 | 100 | 13,187,755 | | 46.6 | 21.4 | 100 | 34,611,195 | | 43.3 | 28.8 | 100 | 7,929,946 | | 41.4 | 27.6 | 100 | 4,825,745 | | 46.5 | 22.2 | 100 | 37,715,397 | | 29.2 | 52.9 | 100 | 852,364 | | 43.5 | 21.2 | 100 | 844,650 | | 31.7 | 39.8 | 100 | 1,302,205 | | 16.2 | 25.8 | 100 | 1,255,140 | | 60.0 | 0.5 | 100 | 1,299,500 | | 60.6 | 16.6 | 100 | 519,294 | | 44.8 | 23.0 | 100 | 1,166,932 | | 48.8 | 31.8 | 100 | 1,228,616 | | 69.6 | 4.1 | 100 | 973,284 | | 48.8 | 18.4 | 100 | 1,334,054 | | 73.8 | 11.8 | 100 | 639,844 | | 41.9 | 44.6 | 100 | 988,830 | | 51.1 | 36.7 | 100 | 733,055 | | 18.9 | 52.8 | 100 | 1,053,336 | | 59.2 | 0.8 | 100 | 636,605 | | 10.4 | 71.5 | 100 | 1,244,680 | | 16.7 | 27.3 | 100 | 1,177,672 | | 44.4 | 18.1 | 100 | 1,664,333 | | 55.9 | 18.6 | 100 | 2,456,711 | | 40.1 | 22.4 | 100 | 1,558,506 | * * * | National | Main source of drinking water | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Improved Sources | | | | | | | | | | | | Unimproved Sources | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Piped Water | | | Tube well/borehole | | | Protected dug well | | | Protected spring | | | Rainwater collection | | | Bank-truck | | | Cart with email/ drum | | | Bottled water | | | Sachet water | | | Unprotected dug well | | | Unprotected spring | | | Surface water (river, stream, pond, pool, irrigation) | | | Others (specify) | | | Total | Number of Household members | | Into dwelling | into yard compound plot | to neighbour | public tap/pipe | public tap/pipe | tube well/borehole | protected dug well | protected spring | rainwater collection | bank-truck | cart with email/ drum | bottled water | sachet water | unprotected dug well | unprotected spring | surface water (river, stream, pond, pool, irrigation) | unprotected dug well | unprotected springsurface water (river, stream, pond, pool, irrigation)unprotected dug well | unprotected springsurface water (river, stream, pond, pool, irrigation)unprotected dug well | unprotected springsurface water (river, stream, pond, pool, irrigation)unprotected dug well | unprotected springsurface water (river, stream, pond, pool, irrigation)unprotected dug well | unprotected springsurface water (river, stream, pond, pool, irrigation)unprotected dug well | unprotected springsurface water (river, stream, pond, pool, irrigation)unprotected dug well | others | Total | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 2.8 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 5.1 | 32.2 | 13.1 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 4.3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | North-East | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 8.7 | 42.0 | 10.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 3.3 | 4.4 | 0.2 | 6.8 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | North-West | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 8.0 | 37.3 | 12.8 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 2.1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | South-East | 3.0 | 0.3 | 2.1 | 6.2 | 45.8 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 8.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 11.0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | South-West | 5.4 | 1.4 | 2.3 | 6.4 | 39.9 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 3.9 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 9.7 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * | Percentage of Households drinking water sources | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Main source | | | | | | | | | Piped Water | | | | Improved Sources | | | | | | Piped Water | | | | Improved Sources | | | | | | into dwelling | into yard/compound/plot | to neighbour | public tap/standpipe | tube well/borehole | protected dug well | protected spring | rainwater collection | | | Imo | 8.7 | 2.5 | 1.4 | 11.7 | 64.3 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 3.0 | | Jigawa | 4.5 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 6.9 | 71.2 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Kaduna | 1.7 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 5.0 | 23.0 | 11.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Kano | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 44.4 | 11.8 | 0.2 | 0.0 | | Katsina | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 17.1 | 39.3 | 11.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Kebbi | 1.1 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 3.8 | 7.8 | 37.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | | Kogi | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 41.3 | 8.8 | 0.0 | 1.7 | | Kwara | 2.4 | 2.2 | 0.4 | 3.0 | 47.3 | 12.3 | 1.8 | 2.0 | | Lagos | 3.4 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 17.1 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.1 | | Nasarawa | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 7.6 | 32.6 | 18.6 | 0.5 | 0.2 | | Niger | 9.1 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 2.8 | 31.6 | 8.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Ogun | 1.2 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 51.6 | 14.2 | 0.0 | 0.9 | | Ondo | 2.7 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 22.1 | 23.6 | 0.1 | 12.3 | | Osun | 2.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 43.5 | 22.3 | 0.0 | 2.3 | | Oyo | 1.0 | 0.5 | 3.3 | 8.5 | 25.5 | 33.8 | 0.0 | 1.5 | | Plateau | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 37.9 | 14.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Rivers | 17.2 | 12.4 | 8.3 | 12.5 | 23.1 | 9.4 | 0.0 | 0.6 | | Sokoto | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 27.2 | 3.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | | Taraba | 0.1 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 2.3 | 22.4 | 7.9 | 0.5 | 0.8 | | Yobe | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 2.6 | 45.7 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Zamfara | 1.7 | 0.2 | 3.5 | 7.2 | 35.5 | 14.2 | 0.0 | 0.1 | | FCT | 5.5 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 22.2 | 36.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | | 类型 of drinking water | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | Unimproved Sources | | | others (specify) | Total | Number of Household members | | tanker-truck | cart with small tanker/drum | bottled water | sachet water | unprotected dug well | unprotected spring | surface water(river, stream,dam, lake,pond, canal,irrigation) | | | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 4.3 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 5,764,571 | | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 100.0 | 6,180,993 | | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 2.8 | 45.5 | 2.1 | 5.5 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 8,766,461 | | 1.9 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 4.4 | 24.0 | 0.3 | 5.6 | 1.2 | 100.0 | 13,959,784 | | 0.7 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 15.9 | 2.4 | 4.9 | 3.4 | 100.0 | 8,319,185 | | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.9 | 2.6 | 10.3 | 0.1 | 100.0 | 4,724,415 | | 4.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 5.4 | 4.8 | 2.3 | 27.4 | 1.0 | 100.0 | 4,752,174 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 5.8 | 4.8 | 2.4 | 14.9 | 0.3 | 100.0 | 3,391,799 | | 0.1 | 0.4 | 3.1 | 70.2 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 100.0 | 13,376,240 | | 1.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 6.2 | 0.0 | 30.4 | 0.1 | 100.0 | 2,680,594 | | 0.3 | 2.4 | 0.1 | 4.9 | 24.5 | 0.5 | 13.8 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 5,940,943 | | 1.4 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 25.6 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 5,569,993 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 11.5 | 1.6 | 3.1 | 19.9 | 1.7 | 100.0 | 4,962,727 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 16.1 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 9.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 5,015,146 | | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 17.8 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 4.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 8,383,738 | | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.6 | 13.9 | 5.1 | 21.0 | 1.8 | 100.0 | 4,439,850 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 5.3 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 4.6 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 7,809,622 | | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 62.1 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 2.4 | 100.0 | 5,309,454 | | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 16.6 | 6.3 | 35.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 3,252,496 | | 0.6 | 24.9 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 19.0 | 2.7 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 3,527,851 | * * * | Table HH.H2: Main source of Cooking water for HHs that drink packaged water | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of household members according to main source of water for cooking and handwashing for HH | | | | | | | | | | Piped Water | | | | Improved Sources | | | | into dwelling | into yard/compound plot | to neighbour | public tap/standpipe | tube well/borehole | protected dug well | protected spring | | | 10.0 | 1.4 | 4.5 | 4.9 | 44.0 | 19.2 | 0.1 | | | National | 10.0 | 1.4 | 4.5 | 4.9 | 44.0 | 19.2 | 0.1 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 7.7 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 9.3 | 28.8 | 22.0 | 0.9 | | North-East | 0.0 | 12.6 | 2.2 | 4.1 | 42.0 | 2.9 | 0.0 | | North-West | 8.4 | 4.4 | 0.0 | 7.4 | 35.0 | 13.6 | 0.5 | | South-East | 5.5 | 3.0 | 29.0 | 5.2 | 31.2 | 6.1 | 0.0 | | South-South | 4.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 10.1 | 60.3 | 7.8 | 0.0 | | South-West | 12.6 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 3.2 | 45.2 | 24.6 | 0.1 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | Urban | 12.1 | 1.6 | 5.0 | 4.4 | 42.9 | 19.5 | 0.1 | | Peri-Urbian | 10.4 | 1.3 | 10.7 | 1.8 | 34.9 | 16.8 | 0.0 | | Urban | 12.7 | 1.8 | 2.9 | 5.4 | 45.9 | 20.5 | 0.2 | | Rural | 1.4 | 0.6 | 2.3 | 7.0 | 48.4 | 18.2 | 0.1 | | Itinerant | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.1 | 14.2 | 19.7 | 0.0 | | Rural | 1.4 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 7.9 | 48.4 | 16.8 | 0.2 | | Small Town | 1.6 | 0.0 | 8.5 | 0.8 | 52.1 | 24.2 | 0.0 | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | | Poorest | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 14.7 | 2.7 | 4.1 | | Poor | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 11.5 | 22.9 | 0.0 | | Moderate | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 38.1 | 23.4 | 0.0 | | Rich | 1.2 | 0.2 | 1.1 | 4.7 | 47.2 | 29.2 | 0.2 | | Richest | 14.8 | 2.0 | 6.3 | 5.2 | 44.0 | 14.8 | 0.1 | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | | | Literate | 11.3 | 1.3 | 4.1 | 4.9 | 44.0 | 19.3 | 0.2 | | Non-Literate | 2.0 | 2.1 | 7.0 | 4.9 | 44.0 | 18.7 | 0.0 | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | | | Male | 10.6 | 1.5 | 4.8 | 5.3 | 43.3 | 18.2 | 0.1 | | that drink packaged water. | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | Unimproved Sources | | | | | | | rainwater collection | tanker-truck | cart with small tanker/drum | unprotected dug well | unprotected spring | surface water river, stream dam, lake pond, canal, irrigation | others | Total | Number of Household members that drink packaged water | | | 1.6 | 3.9 | 4.8 | 2.8 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 100.0 | 23,140,124 | | | 0.3 | 5.3 | 12.0 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 4.1 | 1.7 | 100.0 | 1,399,416 | | | 0.0 | 12.5 | 7.2 | 3.7 | 1.9 | 10.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 278,505 | | | 0.0 | 11.2 | 11.6 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 3.5 | 100.0 | 1,128,907 | | | 4.4 | 9.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 2.4 | 3.5 | 100.0 | 2,733,257 | | | 7.7 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 3.6 | 1.7 | 100.0 | 3,043,658 | | | 0.1 | 2.6 | 5.3 | 3.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 100.0 | 14,556,380 | | | 1.1 | 4.4 | 5.5 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 18,690,543 | | | 0.3 | 5.5 | 11.8 | 5.9 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 5,041,729 | | | 1.4 | 4.1 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 13,648,814 | | | 3.9 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 5.2 | 0.8 | 5.0 | 3.4 | 100.0 | 4,449,581 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.4 | 27.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 77,942 | | | 4.8 | 1.9 | 2.1 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 5.9 | 3.1 | 100.0 | 3,592,543 | | | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 5.2 | 100.0 | 779,096 | | | 0.0 | 15.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.3 | 56.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 83,877 | | | 6.0 | 5.9 | 20.1 | 13.4 | 3.5 | 7.9 | 7.9 | 100.0 | 315,036 | | | 6.6 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 8.5 | 0.5 | 7.5 | 4.6 | 100.0 | 1,383,645 | | | 1.3 | 3.2 | 3.7 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 100.0 | 6,224,975 | | | 1.2 | 4.1 | 5.2 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 100.0 | 15,132,591 | | | 1.5 | 3.9 | 5.3 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 100.0 | 20,017,981 | | | 2.3 | 3.7 | 1.6 | 6.6 | 0.4 | 4.3 | 2.4 | 100.0 | 3,122,143 | | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | Percent of household members according to main source of water for cooking and handwashing for HH | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Piped Water | | | | Improved Sources | | | | into dwelling | into yard/compound/plot | to neighbour | public tap/standpipe | tube well/borehole | protected dug well | protected spring | | | Jigawa | 42.9 | 22.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 11.2 | 23.4 | 0.0 | | Kaduna | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.2 | 45.8 | 27.8 | 0.0 | | Kano | 12.7 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 31.5 | 10.6 | 0.8 | | Katsina | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.4 | 33.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Kebbi | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Kogi | 4.3 | 3.5 | 0.0 | 2.5 | 37.4 | 19.8 | 0.0 | | Kwara | 7.7 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 3.4 | 35.6 | 42.4 | 0.0 | | Lagos | 18.2 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.2 | 48.6 | 10.1 | 0.1 | | Nasarawa | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.4 | 51.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Niger | 4.1 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 7.7 | 15.6 | 12.4 | 0.0 | | Ogun | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 62.7 | 33.3 | 0.0 | | Ondo | 4.4 | 0.0 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 25.6 | 56.0 | 0.6 | | Osun | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 37.4 | 59.5 | 0.0 | | Oyo | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 2.6 | 22.2 | 69.4 | 0.0 | | Plateau | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 26.4 | 41.0 | 0.0 | | Rivers | 0.0 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 21.9 | 64.9 | 9.7 | 0.0 | | Sokoto | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Taraba | 0.0 | 21.4 | 0.0 | 15.0 | 0.0 | 15.0 | 0.0 | | Yobe | 0.0 | 12.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Zamfara | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | FCT | 16.6 | 6.5 | 0.0 | 22.1 | 35.5 | 3.7 | 0.0 | | that drink packaged water. | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | Unimproved Sources | | | | | Total | Number of Household members that drink packaged water | | rainwater collection | tanker-truck | cart with small tanker/drum | unprotected dug well | unprotected spring | surface water (river, stream, dam, lake, pond, canal, irrigation) | others | | | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 36,257 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 284,565 | | | 0.0 | 13.3 | 21.2 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 620,988 | | | 0.0 | 24.2 | 0.0 | 13.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.2 | 100.0 | 183,965 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | | | 1.4 | 10.8 | 0.0 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 17.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 260,651 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 206,677 | | | 0.0 | 3.6 | 7.9 | 4.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 9,808,948 | | | 0.0 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 16.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 100.0 | 24,519 | | | 0.0 | 6.7 | 40.8 | 9.7 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 295,924 | | | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 1,441,631 | | | 0.6 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 578,007 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 826,326 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 1.7 | 100.0 | 1,503,559 | | | 0.0 | 5.4 | 4.9 | 10.7 | 0.0 | 5.7 | 4.7 | 100.0 | 117,241 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 454,628 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 3,131 | | | 0.0 | 19.2 | 0.0 | 19.5 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 53,134 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 54.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 37,395 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | | | 0.0 | 0.9 | 10.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.3 | 100.0 | 399,576 | | * * * | Table HH.H3-4: Water SupplyPercent of household based on water source location and distance covered to source for drinking water | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | water source location | | | Total | Number of Households | less than 100m | | within the dwelling | within the compound/ yard | elsewhere | | | | | | National | 16.6 | 22.8 | 60.6 | 100 | 42,541,141 | 49.0 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | North-Central | 9.9 | 16.9 | 73.2 | 100 | 6,213,175 | 47.9 | | North-East | 2.4 | 21.4 | 76.2 | 100 | 5,314,632 | 43.3 | | North-West | 3.9 | 31.1 | 65.0 | 100 | 9,595,568 | 54.5 | | South-East | 18.1 | 29.2 | 52.7 | 100 | 5,045,363 | 46.5 | | South-South | 16.1 | 21.6 | 62.3 | 100 | 6,849,154 | 51.0 | | South-West | 41.3 | 16.5 | 42.2 | 100 | 9,523,248 | 47.2 | | Sector | | | | | | | | Urban | 36.0 | 21.5 | 42.5 | 100 | 14,820,701 | 53.6 | | Peri-Urbian | 40.7 | 21.8 | 37.5 | 100 | 3,180,382 | 50.8 | | Urban | 34.7 | 21.4 | 43.9 | 100 | 11,640,319 | 54.2 | | Rural | 6.2 | 23.5 | 70.2 | 100 | 27,720,441 | 47.6 | | Itinerant | 3.5 | 24.8 | 71.7 | 100 | 974,239 | 37.9 | | Rural | 5.9 | 23.2 | 70.9 | 100 | 22,915,017 | 47.4 | | Small Town | 9.1 | 24.9 | 66.0 | 100 | 3,831,184 | 51.5 | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | Poorest | 0.6 | 20.8 | 78.6 | 100 | 8,329,055 | 46.3 | | Poor | 1.9 | 23.6 | 74.6 | 100 | 7,901,672 | 46.6 | | Moderate | 6.3 | 22.8 | 70.8 | 100 | 8,377,645 | 49.4 | | Rich | 21.3 | 23.0 | 55.8 | 100 | 8,926,852 | 52.1 | | Richest | 49.2 | 23.8 | 27.0 | 100 | 9,005,918 | 55.2 | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | | Literate | 20.4 | 22.9 | 56.7 | 100 | 29,353,386 | 48.9 | | Non-Literate | 8.2 | 22.5 | 69.3 | 100 | 13,187,755 | 49.2 | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | | Male | 15.2 | 23.2 | 61.5 | 100 | 34,611,195 | 49.2 | | Female | 22.5 | 21.0 | 56.5 | 100 | 7,929,946 | 48.4 | | HHS with at least one disability | | | | | | | | At least 1 disability | 14.0 | 24.9 | 61.1 | 100 | 4,825,745 | 50.6 | | Distance covered to source for drinking water | | | | | | Total | Number of Households water source located elsewhere | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 33.8 | 7.3 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 2.4 | don't know | | | | 37.9 | 7.9 | 2.1 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 2.5 | 100 | 4,547,364 | | 45.7 | 7.9 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 100 | 4,047,932 | | 26.6 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 6.8 | 2.3 | 100 | 6,236,419 | | 30.0 | 9.3 | 2.6 | 1.2 | 2.6 | 7.8 | 100 | 2,656,852 | | 29.9 | 6.9 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 7.0 | 100 | 4,268,829 | | 34.9 | 7.3 | 3.0 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 5.1 | 100 | 4,020,116 | | 28.9 | 5.7 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 2.6 | 6.2 | 100 | 6,305,944 | | 31.4 | 7.9 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 7.0 | 100 | 1,193,799 | | 28.3 | 5.2 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 2.9 | 6.0 | 100 | 5,112,144 | | 35.3 | 7.7 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 2.4 | 3.2 | 100 | 19,471,570 | | 32.6 | 9.3 | 0.9 | 2.7 | 14.1 | 2.5 | 100 | 698,400 | | 35.4 | 7.7 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 3.3 | 100 | 16,244,935 | | 36.0 | 7.6 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 2.6 | 100 | 2,528,235 | | 34.8 | 9.2 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 1.8 | 100 | 6,545,494 | | 36.5 | 7.1 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 100 | 5,891,373 | | 32.4 | 7.6 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 5.5 | 100 | 5,933,785 | | 32.8 | 6.0 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 1.9 | 5.0 | 100 | 4,976,926 | | 29.9 | 4.2 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 6.1 | 100 | 2,429,935 | | 34.1 | 6.8 | 2.2 | 1.3 | 2.5 | 4.2 | 100 | 16,641,596 | | 33.1 | 8.1 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 2.3 | 3.5 | 100 | 9,135,918 | | 33.6 | 7.3 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 100 | 21,296,600 | | 34.4 | 6.8 | 2.1 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 5.4 | 100 | 4,480,913 | | 31.6 | 8.0 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 4.9 | 100 | 2,947,797 | | 34.0 | 7.2 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 3.8 | 100 | 22,829,717 | | 44.0 | 5.9 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.0 | 100 | 608,777 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | | water source location | | | Total | Number of Households | less than 100m | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | within the dwelling | within the compound/ yard | elsewhere | | | | | Kano | 6.8 | 34.8 | 58.4 | 100 | 2,456,711 | 34.5 | | Katsina | 2.6 | 17.9 | 79.5 | 100 | 1,558,506 | 41.2 | | Kebbi | 0.6 | 59.1 | 40.2 | 100 | 844,434 | 28.8 | | Kogi | 7.6 | 15.1 | 77.3 | 100 | 934,868 | 38.1 | | Kwara | 9.5 | 21.6 | 68.9 | 100 | 689,852 | 63.5 | | Lagos | 77.7 | 11.8 | 10.5 | 100 | 3,330,768 | 66.3 | | Nasarawa | 1.9 | 17.5 | 80.7 | 100 | 511,985 | 51.8 | | Niger | 17.4 | 13.8 | 68.9 | 100 | 1,130,135 | 48.0 | | Ogun | 33.5 | 11.8 | 54.7 | 100 | 1,333,972 | 53.9 | | Ondo | 16.2 | 26.0 | 57.8 | 100 | 1,110,701 | 54.3 | | Osun | 22.4 | 18.4 | 59.2 | 100 | 1,092,389 | 51.8 | | Oyo | 19.3 | 18.8 | 61.9 | 100 | 1,922,364 | 33.5 | | Plateau | 4.8 | 12.2 | 83.0 | 100 | 853,884 | 44.2 | | Rivers | 25.3 | 26.4 | 48.4 | 100 | 1,731,487 | 64.0 | | Sokoto | 0.7 | 20.2 | 79.1 | 100 | 1,006,167 | 81.5 | | Taraba | 1.6 | 14.1 | 84.3 | 100 | 631,443 | 27.0 | | Yobe | 3.0 | 59.8 | 37.3 | 100 | 673,818 | 49.7 | | Zamfara | 1.3 | 45.2 | 53.5 | 100 | 887,743 | 26.0 | | FCT | 21.6 | 17.6 | 60.8 | 100 | 925,519 | 70.2 | | Distance covered to source for drinking water | | | | | | Total | Number of Households water source located elsewhere | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | more than 100m but less than500m | more than 500m but less than1km | more than1km but less than2km | more than2km but less than4km | more than4km | don't know | | | | 37.0 | 10.9 | 3.1 | 5.3 | 3.8 | 5.4 | 100 | 1,434,864 | | 21.6 | 3.6 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 27.7 | 0.9 | 100 | 1,239,428 | | 44.8 | 6.4 | 6.7 | 5.0 | 3.1 | 5.2 | 100 | 339,783 | | 55.6 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 3.0 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 100 | 723,100 | | 28.2 | 6.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 100 | 475,171 | | 22.3 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 100 | 349,933 | | 32.9 | 8.3 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 100 | 412,937 | | 31.7 | 14.4 | 3.1 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 100 | 778,358 | | 42.1 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 100 | 730,058 | | 24.9 | 5.6 | 3.8 | 0.7 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 100 | 642,273 | | 29.3 | 6.5 | 4.0 | 3.9 | 1.5 | 2.8 | 100 | 646,844 | | 45.6 | 11.8 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 4.5 | 100 | 1,190,189 | | 50.6 | 3.4 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 100 | 709,145 | | 27.1 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.9 | 100 | 837,347 | | 15.0 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 100 | 795,490 | | 55.5 | 12.3 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 1.3 | 2.7 | 100 | 532,562 | | 32.0 | 12.6 | 2.6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 2.7 | 100 | 251,016 | | 68.1 | 4.7 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 100 | 475,163 | | 22.3 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 5.8 | 100 | 563,110 | * * * | Table HH.H5-7: Water SupplyPercent of household members who collects drinking water and time taken and daily average number of trips | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Average Time it takes to go there, get water, and come back(Minutes) | Person usually collecting | | | | | | adult women and girls(age 15+ years) | adult men and boys(age 15+ years) | girls(under 15 years) | boys(under 15 years) | | | | | National | 16.9 | 25.7 | 20.2 | 2.6 | 2.6 | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | North-Central | 20.5 | 36.8 | 10.3 | 2.3 | 1.1 | | | North-East | 16.8 | 26.0 | 26.7 | 1.7 | 4.2 | | | North-West | 18.7 | 18.0 | 29.4 | 3.2 | 2.9 | | | South-East | 16.8 | 16.1 | 18.6 | 2.8 | 3.5 | | | South-South | 19.6 | 20.1 | 13.1 | 2.7 | 2.5 | | | South-West | 10.1 | 34.4 | 18.0 | 2.6 | 1.9 | | | Sector | | | | | | | | Urban | 11.4 | 26.0 | 20.6 | 2.8 | 2.7 | | | Peri-Urbian | 8.9 | 26.4 | 30.0 | 3.3 | 4.1 | | | Urban | 12.1 | 26.0 | 18.4 | 2.7 | 2.4 | | | Rural | 19.4 | 25.6 | 20.1 | 2.5 | 2.6 | | | Itinerant | 59.6 | 23.1 | 24.7 | 2.6 | 1.6 | | | Rural | 18.3 | 26.5 | 19.2 | 2.2 | 2.5 | | | Small Town | 15.6 | 20.6 | 24.1 | 4.2 | 3.1 | | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | Poorest | 23.5 | 27.9 | 24.4 | 2.4 | 2.4 | | | Poor | 18.3 | 26.6 | 18.5 | 2.0 | 2.9 | | | Moderate | 17.0 | 23.1 | 17.9 | 3.4 | 3.1 | | | Rich | 13.7 | 25.0 | 20.6 | 2.8 | 2.2 | | | Richest | 9.0 | 24.6 | 17.0 | 2.3 | 2.2 | | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | | Literate | 15.5 | 24.9 | 20.0 | 2.6 | 2.7 | | | Non-Literate | 19.8 | 27.2 | 20.6 | 2.5 | 2.4 | | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | | Male | 17.2 | 24.7 | 22.1 | 2.4 | 2.6 | | | Female | 15.5 | 30.8 | 10.3 | 3.7 | 2.6 | | | HHs with at least one disability | | | | | | | | At least 1 disability | 18.4 | 25.8 | 16.0 | 2.8 | 2.9 | | | No disability | 16.7 | 25.7 | 20.7 | 2.5 | 2.6 | | | State | | | | | | | | Abia | 21.2 | 12.5 | 14.7 | 3.0 | 1.9 | | | Adamawa | 13.3 | 37.0 | 17.6 | 3.9 | 2.9 | | | drinking water | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | adult women and men (age 15+ years) | boys and girls (under 15 years) | | everyone | Don’t know | Total | Number of trips each day (on the average) to collect water for the household | Number of Household with Water source location elsewhere and go to fetch and collect water | | 15.1 | 7.3 | 25.8 | 0.7 | 100 | 5.0 | 21,981,484 | | | 23.6 | 5.2 | 20.3 | 0.3 | 100 | 5.7 | 4,253,038 | | | 8.8 | 12.4 | 20.0 | 0.2 | 100 | 6.3 | 3,861,951 | | | 6.2 | 8.5 | 31.3 | 0.6 | 100 | 4.7 | 5,508,183 | | | 19.6 | 5.9 | 32.7 | 0.7 | 100 | 5.1 | 1,720,056 | | | 22.0 | 6.1 | 32.2 | 1.4 | 100 | 4.1 | 3,271,265 | | | 17.2 | 4.0 | 20.8 | 1.0 | 100 | 4.2 | 3,366,991 | | | 16.0 | 7.2 | 23.7 | 0.9 | 100 | 4.8 | 5,422,889 | | | 15.1 | 5.1 | 15.5 | 0.5 | 100 | 5.0 | 1,019,104 | | | 16.2 | 7.7 | 25.6 | 1.0 | 100 | 4.7 | 4,403,785 | | | 14.8 | 7.3 | 26.6 | 0.6 | 100 | 5.1 | 16,558,595 | | | 16.7 | 4.0 | 27.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 4.6 | 607,561 | | | 14.4 | 7.5 | 27.1 | 0.6 | 100 | 5.1 | 13,823,252 | | | 17.1 | 7.3 | 22.8 | 0.7 | 100 | 5.0 | 2,127,782 | | | 11.7 | 8.4 | 22.5 | 0.4 | 100 | 5.1 | 5,882,502 | | | 12.9 | 6.7 | 30.2 | 0.3 | 100 | 5.2 | 5,066,481 | | | 16.4 | 6.5 | 28.5 | 1.1 | 100 | 5.1 | 4,806,357 | | | 17.0 | 7.7 | 23.7 | 1.0 | 100 | 4.5 | 4,183,001 | | | 23.5 | 6.8 | 22.8 | 0.7 | 100 | 5.3 | 2,043,143 | | | 15.9 | 8.0 | 25.1 | 0.7 | 100 | 5.1 | 14,194,536 | | | 13.6 | 6.1 | 27.2 | 0.5 | 100 | 4.9 | 7,786,948 | | | 14.4 | 7.4 | 25.8 | 0.6 | 100 | 5.1 | 18,420,424 | | | 18.5 | 6.7 | 26.3 | 1.0 | 100 | 4.5 | 3,561,060 | | | 14.5 | 9.2 | 27.7 | 1.0 | 100 | 5.1 | 2,509,833 | | | 15.2 | 7.1 | 25.6 | 0.6 | 100 | 5.0 | 19,471,651 | | | 12.6 | 7.2 | 47.7 | 0.4 | 100 | 4.9 | 253,986 | | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | Table HH.H5-7: Water SupplyPercent of household members who collects drinking water and time taken and daily average number of trips | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Average Time it takes to go there, get water,and come back(Minutes) | adult women and girls(age 15+ years) | adult men and boys(age 15+ years) | girls(under 15 years) | boys(under 15 years) | | Gombe | 16.3 | 1.1 | 32.2 | 0.5 | 2.3 | | Imo | 12.6 | 24.6 | 42.0 | 4.8 | 2.8 | | Jigawa | 11.7 | 34.4 | 26.9 | 4.7 | 1.7 | | Kaduna | 14.2 | 16.6 | 3.2 | 4.1 | 2.7 | | Kano | 13.9 | 7.7 | 19.8 | 1.9 | 4.3 | | Katsina | 42.2 | 3.6 | 65.4 | 2.5 | 2.3 | | Kebbi | 19.9 | 64.2 | 15.5 | 2.9 | 0.3 | | Kogi | 24.9 | 45.1 | 9.4 | 0.6 | 0.0 | | Kwara | 17.0 | 35.3 | 6.4 | 1.8 | 0.8 | | Lagos | 3.1 | 44.9 | 21.3 | 4.3 | 3.1 | | Nasarawa | 22.6 | 41.8 | 17.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | | Niger | 15.1 | 52.8 | 9.0 | 2.8 | 2.2 | | Ogun | 7.0 | 20.9 | 16.1 | 4.4 | 3.8 | | Ondo | 19.8 | 39.5 | 18.0 | 1.9 | 0.4 | | Osun | 12.5 | 40.1 | 12.3 | 2.7 | 3.2 | | Oyo | 11.2 | 37.9 | 19.9 | 1.0 | 0.4 | | Plateau | 23.1 | 38.7 | 7.8 | 3.0 | 0.3 | | Rivers | 19.2 | 14.8 | 5.2 | 2.6 | 0.9 | | Sokoto | 10.8 | 25.3 | 23.4 | 3.9 | 5.6 | | Taraba | 24.1 | 46.9 | 6.5 | 1.3 | 1.4 | | Yobe | 13.3 | 10.7 | 25.1 | 5.9 | 30.4 | | Zamfara | 14.2 | 3.2 | 55.2 | 2.1 | 0.3 | | FCT | 11.8 | 40.9 | 25.2 | 5.6 | 2.7 | | drinking water | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | adult women and men(age 15+ years) | boys and girls(under15 years) | everyone | Don't know | Total | Number of trips each day(on the average) to collect water for the household | Number of Household with Water source location elsewhere and go to fetch and collect water | | 10.7 | 22.5 | 30.4 | 0.3 | 100 | 5.4 | 541,077 | | 16.8 | 3.3 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 100 | 5.8 | 353,796 | | 6.8 | 6.2 | 19.1 | 0.3 | 100 | 5.3 | 944,027 | | 13.6 | 9.7 | 50.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 5.6 | 958,767 | | 5.3 | 8.3 | 51.4 | 1.3 | 100 | 5.0 | 1,159,403 | | 1.5 | 12.2 | 11.3 | 1.2 | 100 | 2.7 | 1,005,099 | | 0.4 | 3.4 | 12.8 | 0.5 | 100 | 6.4 | 271,214 | | 22.0 | 3.1 | 19.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 4.4 | 705,554 | | 10.2 | 5.1 | 39.1 | 1.3 | 100 | 4.5 | 464,229 | | 12.4 | 3.6 | 10.3 | 0.0 | 100 | 4.7 | 298,094 | | 21.2 | 1.1 | 18.1 | 0.5 | 100 | 5.5 | 402,077 | | 31.3 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 8.2 | 770,623 | | 12.8 | 1.0 | 37.6 | 3.3 | 100 | 4.1 | 633,343 | | 15.5 | 2.4 | 22.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 3.4 | 437,015 | | 22.3 | 10.2 | 7.8 | 1.3 | 100 | 3.5 | 617,407 | | 12.8 | 3.8 | 24.0 | 0.2 | 100 | 5.2 | 949,091 | | 42.0 | 1.9 | 6.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 6.0 | 700,119 | | 51.3 | 4.8 | 20.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 4.5 | 595,052 | | 7.3 | 10.4 | 24.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 4.0 | 764,229 | | 10.3 | 20.5 | 12.7 | 0.5 | 100 | 7.5 | 502,599 | | 13.0 | 3.3 | 11.6 | 0.0 | 100 | 4.7 | 218,303 | | 3.0 | 1.8 | 33.9 | 0.6 | 100 | 5.5 | 405,444 | | 4.6 | 2.4 | 18.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 7.5 | 427,237 | * * * | | Container used for fetching water from household (Observed and Measured Container Size in Litres) | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 0<10 | 10<20 | 20<30 | | | National | 11.9 | 32.4 | 45.2 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | North-Central | 6.2 | 33.8 | 47.4 | | North-East | 13.2 | 44.1 | 38.0 | | North-West | 20.8 | 28.2 | 43.0 | | South-East | 16.0 | 21.8 | 53.1 | | South-South | 8.4 | 37.0 | 42.8 | | South-West | 6.1 | 26.3 | 50.8 | | Sector | | | | | Urban | 12.0 | 29.2 | 44.5 | | Peri-Urban | 13.0 | 30.6 | 43.1 | | Urban | 11.7 | 28.9 | 44.8 | | Rural | 11.9 | 33.7 | 45.5 | | Itinerant | 10.5 | 30.5 | 49.4 | | Rural | 11.4 | 33.6 | 46.4 | | Small Town | 15.4 | 34.9 | 38.9 | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | Poorest | 12.6 | 37.1 | 43.5 | | Poor | 12.7 | 32.5 | 45.4 | | Moderate | 12.4 | 33.1 | 44.7 | | Rich | 11.0 | 29.6 | 46.7 | | Richest | 10.1 | 26.1 | 46.5 | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | Literate | 11.1 | 32.1 | 45.4 | | Non-Literate | 13.5 | 33.0 | 44.9 | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | Male | 12.3 | 32.1 | 45.3 | | Female | 10.0 | 33.6 | 44.8 | | HHs with at least one disability | | | | | At least 1 disability | 15.8 | 34.8 | 40.8 | | No disability | 11.4 | 32.1 | 45.8 | | State | | | | | Abia | 1.7 | 37.6 | 59.7 | | Adamawa | 16.7 | 42.6 | 38.8 | |  >Akwa Ibom | 4.7 | 18.4 | 66.5 | | Anambra | 26.2 | 19.9 | 37.7 | | Bauchi | 7.9 | 67.3 | 24.5 | | Bayelsa | 4.1 | 64.2 | 31.1 | | Benue | 1.2 | 29.6 | 50.1 | | Borno | 19.6 | 36.8 | 36.5 | | Cross River | 2.9 | 33.5 | 46.6 | | Delta | 5.1 | 45.1 | 45.8 | | Ebonyi | 3.6 | 17.4 | 66.8 | | Edo | 4.6 | 45.1 | 34.5 | | Ekiti | 1.0 | 21.0 | 45.2 | | 30 and above | Total | Average size of container used by HH to fetch water | Same Container used to fetch drinking water | | | Number of Household with Water source location elsewhere and go to fetch and collect water | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Same | Not same | Total | | | | | | 10.5 | 100 | 24 | 79.1 | 20.9 | 100 | 24,661,136 | | 12.6 | 100 | 25 | 79.2 | 20.8 | 100 | 4,478,163 | | 4.8 | 100 | 21 | 90.6 | 9.4 | 100 | 4,285,299 | | 8.0 | 100 | 22 | 86.5 | 13.5 | 100 | 5,698,131 | | 9.2 | 100 | 24 | 77.0 | 23.0 | 100 | 2,044,627 | | 11.7 | 100 | 26 | 80.5 | 19.5 | 100 | 3,610,755 | | 16.8 | 100 | 27 | 58.9 | 41.1 | 100 | 4,544,162 | | 14.3 | 100 | 25 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 100 | 7,120,083 | | 13.3 | 100 | 25 | 59.8 | 40.2 | 100 | 1,418,486 | | 14.6 | 100 | 25 | 68.4 | 31.6 | 100 | 5,701,597 | | 9.0 | 100 | 24 | 84.2 | 15.8 | 100 | 17,541,053 | | 9.6 | 100 | 25 | 85.2 | 14.8 | 100 | 629,378 | | 8.6 | 100 | 24 | 84.4 | 15.6 | 100 | 14,609,710 | | 10.8 | 100 | 23 | 82.4 | 17.6 | 100 | 2,301,965 | | 6.8 | 100 | 23 | 89.4 | 10.6 | 100 | 6,028,248 | | 9.4 | 100 | 24 | 83.3 | 16.7 | 100 | 5,272,146 | | 9.8 | 100 | 24 | 81.1 | 18.9 | 100 | 5,170,562 | | 12.7 | 100 | 25 | 74.0 | 26.0 | 100 | 5,066,229 | | 17.3 | 100 | 27 | 57.2 | 42.8 | 100 | 3,123,951 | | 11.5 | 100 | 25 | 77.9 | 22.1 | 100 | 16,228,446 | | 8.6 | 100 | 23 | 81.4 | 18.6 | 100 | 8,432,689 | | 10.3 | 100 | 24 | 79.9 | 20.1 | 100 | 20,472,238 | | 11.6 | 100 | 25 | 75.4 | 24.6 | 100 | 4,188,898 | | 8.5 | 100 | 23 | 77.7 | 22.3 | 100 | 2,792,175 | | 10.8 | 100 | 24 | 79.3 | 20.7 | 100 | 21,868,961 | | 1.0 | 100 | 23 | 94.7 | 5.3 | 100 | 287,119 | | 2.0 | 100 | 21 | 83.7 | 16.3 | 100 | 600,245 | | 10.5 | 100 | 26 | 80.2 | 19.8 | 100 | 595,331 | * * * | Table HH.H10-11: Water SupplyPercent of household based on the type of container used to fetch/collect drinking water for the household | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Type of container usually used to fetch/collect for HHs that use differentcontainer for fetching drinking water | | | | | | Total | | jerrycan | bucket | basin | pot | Others | dose not fetchdrinking water | | | | National | 33.0 | 36.6 | 9.8 | 3.2 | 0.7 | 16.7 | 100 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 23.3 | 41.4 | 22.7 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 8.8 | 100 | | North-East | 40.0 | 34.1 | 12.9 | 9.3 | 0.9 | 2.8 | 100 | | North-West | 29.7 | 47.4 | 12.7 | 7.5 | 0.1 | 2.7 | 100 | | South-East | 58.5 | 19.7 | 3.5 | 1.2 | 2.2 | 15.0 | 100 | | South-South | 43.3 | 34.1 | 7.0 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 14.6 | 100 | | South-West | 22.6 | 35.2 | 5.2 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 35.8 | 100 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | Urban | 28.8 | 30.4 | 6.1 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 32.1 | 100 | | Peri-Urbane | 34.7 | 21.3 | 9.5 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 32.3 | 100 | | Urban | 27.0 | 33.2 | 5.1 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 32.0 | 100 | | Rural | 36.0 | 41.2 | 12.6 | 4.3 | 0.5 | 5.4 | 100 | | Itinerant | 44.8 | 39.5 | 5.4 | 4.4 | 1.3 | 4.6 | 100 | | Rural | 35.9 | 41.1 | 13.1 | 4.1 | 0.4 | 5.5 | 100 | | Small Town | 34.8 | 42.1 | 11.2 | 5.4 | 1.1 | 5.5 | 100 | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | | Poorest | 30.9 | 46.4 | 17.7 | 4.3 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 100 | | Poor | 30.1 | 44.8 | 16.6 | 7.1 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 100 | | Moderate | 36.6 | 39.1 | 12.2 | 4.9 | 0.3 | 6.9 | 100 | | Rich | 34.8 | 36.6 | 6.1 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 20.2 | 100 | | Richest | 31.4 | 24.6 | 3.3 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 38.8 | 100 | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | | | Literate | 33.6 | 34.9 | 8.9 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 19.6 | 100 | | Non-Literate | 31.4 | 40.8 | 12.2 | 5.3 | 0.5 | 9.8 | 100 | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | | | Male | 33.5 | 36.7 | 10.2 | 3.5 | 0.6 | 15.4 | 100 | | Female | 30.5 | 36.5 | 8.2 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 22.2 | 100 | | HHs with at least one disability | | | | | | | | | Number of Household with Water source location elsewhere and use different container for fetching drinking water | Container used for fetching drinking water with cover | | | Total | Number of Household with Water source location elsewhere, within compound/yard and go to fetch and collect water | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | With Cover | Without cover | | | | | | 12,670,848 | 80.9 | 19.1 | 100 | 30,061,815 | | | 1,720,558 | 76.6 | 23.4 | 100 | 5,116,337 | | | 924,193 | 80.5 | 19.5 | 100 | 4,779,941 | | | 2,763,128 | 75.8 | 24.2 | 100 | 7,615,191 | | | 1,506,345 | 88.1 | 11.9 | 100 | 2,854,221 | | | 1,954,767 | 88.9 | 11.1 | 100 | 4,577,899 | | | 3,801,857 | 81.8 | 18.2 | 100 | 5,118,225 | | | 5,372,747 | 84.3 | 15.7 | 100 | 8,398,727 | | | 1,263,935 | 76.3 | 23.7 | 100 | 1,703,778 | | | 4,108,812 | 86.3 | 13.7 | 100 | 6,694,948 | | | 7,298,101 | 79.6 | 20.4 | 100 | 21,663,089 | | | 243,914 | 85.4 | 14.6 | 100 | 768,672 | | | 6,023,771 | 79.6 | 20.4 | 100 | 18,024,295 | | | 1,030,415 | 78.1 | 21.9 | 100 | 2,870,121 | | | 1,699,820 | 74.0 | 26.0 | 100 | 7,077,571 | | | 2,114,207 | 78.3 | 21.7 | 100 | 6,480,277 | | | 2,381,887 | 81.8 | 18.2 | 100 | 6,411,768 | | | 3,193,864 | 86.0 | 14.0 | 100 | 6,298,697 | | | 3,281,069 | 88.3 | 11.7 | 100 | 3,793,503 | | | 8,988,949 | 83.7 | 16.3 | 100 | 19,873,461 | | | 3,681,898 | 75.3 | 24.7 | 100 | 10,188,354 | | | 10,205,170 | 80.3 | 19.7 | 100 | 24,985,950 | | | 2,465,678 | 83.8 | 16.2 | 100 | 5,075,866 | | | 1,503,605 | 78.2 | 21.8 | 100 | 3,444,741 | | | 11,167,243 | 81.2 | 18.8 | 100 | 26,617,075 | | | 163,499 | 97.2 | 2.8 | 100 | 435,475 | | | 227,547 | 84.6 | 15.4 | 100 | 726,744 | | | 196,745 | 85.1 | 14.9 | 100 | 639,796 | | | 649,272 | 83.7 | 16.3 | 100 | 676,539 | | | 65,637 | 85.8 | 14.2 | 100 | 1,204,985 | | | 106,232 | 97.2 | 2.8 | 100 | 395,839 | | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | | Type of container usually used to fetch/collect for HHs that use different container for fetching drinking water | | | | | | Total | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | jerrycan | bucket | basin | pot | Others | dose not fetch drinking water | | | Ebonyi | 29.9 | 34.0 | 14.6 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 18.8 | 100 | | Edo | 38.9 | 46.9 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.0 | 100 | | Ekiti | 24.7 | 49.9 | 4.3 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 19.2 | 100 | | Enugu | 30.1 | 59.2 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 4.1 | 4.8 | 100 | | Gombe | 64.4 | 27.8 | 2.8 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 2.9 | 100 | | Imo | 73.7 | 17.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 5.2 | 2.3 | 100 | | Jigawa | 46.6 | 32.6 | 14.9 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 100 | | Kaduna | 27.2 | 48.4 | 14.5 | 5.7 | 0.0 | 4.2 | 100 | | Kano | 25.9 | 55.9 | 3.6 | 10.9 | 0.4 | 3.2 | 100 | | Katsina | 58.1 | 22.6 | 4.3 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 13.2 | 100 | | Kebbi | 28.2 | 24.3 | 30.3 | 17.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 100 | | Kogi | 25.8 | 29.0 | 21.0 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 22.3 | 100 | | Kwara | 31.0 | 49.0 | 12.7 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 5.4 | 100 | | Lagos | 15.0 | 19.3 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 63.8 | 100 | | Nasarawa | 21.8 | 54.6 | 20.2 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 100 | | Niger | 13.7 | 13.6 | 51.1 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 20.9 | 100 | | Ogun | 26.1 | 45.3 | 5.3 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 21.7 | 100 | | Ondo | 34.8 | 53.9 | 5.4 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 4.9 | 100 | | Osun | 22.9 | 41.0 | 4.6 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 30.3 | 100 | | Oyo | 26.9 | 35.2 | 16.1 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 18.4 | 100 | | Plateau | 12.0 | 60.5 | 19.8 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 5.7 | 100 | | Rivers | 50.8 | 37.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.0 | 100 | | Sokoto | 44.9 | 33.4 | 18.9 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Taraba | 17.6 | 29.8 | 43.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 5.9 | 100 | | Yobe | 41.0 | 21.4 | 0.7 | 34.5 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 100 | | Zamfara | 19.4 | 76.2 | 3.1 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | FCT | 32.7 | 27.2 | 20.9 | 11.7 | 0.5 | 7.0 | 100 | | Number of Household with Water source location elsewhere and use different container for fetching drinking water | Container used for fetching drinking water with cover | | | Total | Number of Household with Water source location elsewhere, within compound/yard and go to fetch and collect water | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | With Cover | Without cover | | | | | | 192,757 | 80.7 | 19.3 | 100 | 532,005 | | | 354,075 | 77.5 | 22.5 | 100 | 675,094 | | | 371,727 | 82.2 | 17.8 | 100 | 553,392 | | | 199,841 | 88.7 | 11.3 | 100 | 578,808 | | | 131,600 | 65.3 | 34.7 | 100 | 584,068 | | | 300,975 | 92.2 | 7.8 | 100 | 631,394 | | | 108,950 | 79.9 | 20.1 | 100 | 994,895 | | | 841,450 | 62.2 | 37.8 | 100 | 1,471,917 | | | 636,422 | 84.4 | 15.6 | 100 | 1,741,195 | | | 126,339 | 78.2 | 21.8 | 100 | 1,154,212 | | | 414,422 | 52.7 | 47.3 | 100 | 643,560 | | | 163,903 | 87.8 | 12.2 | 100 | 796,188 | | | 232,377 | 81.1 | 18.9 | 100 | 575,326 | | | 1,409,437 | 77.1 | 22.9 | 100 | 813,793 | | | 94,027 | 72.0 | 28.0 | 100 | 469,654 | | | 259,672 | 59.0 | 41.0 | 100 | 904,854 | | | 668,960 | 62.3 | 37.7 | 100 | 961,977 | | | 416,627 | 89.7 | 10.3 | 100 | 642,080 | | | 420,388 | 83.4 | 16.6 | 100 | 843,908 | | | 514,719 | 94.0 | 6.0 | 100 | 1,303,076 | | | 297,977 | 77.0 | 23.0 | 100 | 798,307 | | | 525,162 | 98.6 | 1.4 | 100 | 1,051,057 | | | 239,806 | 84.5 | 15.5 | 100 | 910,248 | | | 149,610 | 65.7 | 34.3 | 100 | 567,820 | | | 228,687 | 78.0 | 22.0 | 100 | 552,573 | | | 395,740 | 83.5 | 16.5 | 100 | 699,165 | | | 375,703 | 79.2 | 20.8 | 100 | 544,766 | | * * * | Table HH.H12-13: Water SupplyPercent of household based on storage of drinking water for the household usually kept/stored | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | a dedicated container is used for storing drinking water | no dedicated container for storing drinking water | | | National | 77.7 | 19.4 | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | North-Central | 84.8 | 12.8 | | | North-East | 91.2 | 8.3 | | | North-West | 81.0 | 16.3 | | | South-East | 73.4 | 20.5 | | | South-South | 80.8 | 16.1 | | | South-West | 61.2 | 35.5 | | | Sector | | | | | Urban | 67.4 | 29.2 | | | Peri-Urbane | 59.2 | 38.2 | | | Urban | 69.8 | 26.7 | | | Rural | 82.8 | 14.5 | | | Itinerant | 90.8 | 7.1 | | | Rural | 83.1 | 14.0 | | | Small Town | 78.8 | 19.1 | | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | Poorest | 84.2 | 13.6 | | | Poor | 82.9 | 13.5 | | | Moderate | 81.6 | 15.0 | | | Rich | 77.8 | 19.4 | | | Richest | 60.7 | 36.5 | | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | Literate | 78.1 | 19.4 | | | Non-Literate | 76.7 | 19.3 | | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | Male | 78.1 | 19.0 | | | Female | 75.6 | 21.2 | | | HHs with at least one disability | | | | | At least 1 disability | 72.6 | 23.1 | | | No disability | 78.3 | 18.9 | | | State | | | | | Abia | 95.9 | 1.1 | | | Adamawa | 95.6 | 3.6 | | | Akwa Ibom | 66.2 | 31.9 | | | Anambra | 49.9 | 45.0 | | | Bauchi | 91.6 | 7.9 | | | Bayelsa | 71.5 | 26.8 | | | Benue | 89.0 | 8.7 | | | Borno | 96.6 | 3.1 | | | Cross River | 95.9 | 3.3 | | | Delta | 82.9 | 15.5 | | | Ebonyi | 56.7 | 43.1 | | | Edo | 61.1 | 24.4 | | | Ekiti | 86.4 | 10.9 | | | Enugu | 83.0 | 13.2 | | | Gombe | 63.8 | 36.1 | | | Imo | 83.1 | 1.6 | | | Jigawa | 98.3 | 0.9 | | | Kaduna | 54.3 | 40.7 | | | Kano | 83.5 | 13.4 | | | Katsina | 89.5 | 8.4 | | | Kebbi | 87.8 | 8.3 | | | Kogi | 89.1 | 9.8 | | | Kwara | 84.2 | 7.5 | | | Lagos | 28.2 | 70.6 | | | Nasarawa | 93.8 | 6.0 | | | Niger | 86.7 | 11.6 | | | Ogun | 54.5 | 44.7 | | | Ondo | 81.4 | 10.8 | | | Household | household | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Number of Households using water sources not connected into dwelling | | Drinking water storage container covered | | Total | Number of households with dedicated container for storing drinking water | | | Did is and was not able to observe | Total | Covered | Not covered | Total | | | | 3.0 | 100 | 40,641,642 | 95.2 | 4.8 | 100 | 31,565,950 | | 2.4 | 100 | 5,970,280 | 95.5 | 4.5 | 100 | 5,060,634 | | 0.5 | 100 | 5,231,545 | 94.3 | 5.7 | 100 | 4,769,460 | | 2.7 | 100 | 9,431,160 | 92.6 | 7.4 | 100 | 7,643,774 | | 6.1 | 100 | 4,758,178 | 95.6 | 4.4 | 100 | 3,494,677 | | 3.1 | 100 | 6,430,396 | 96.6 | 3.4 | 100 | 5,195,628 | | 3.3 | 100 | 8,820,083 | 97.9 | 2.1 | 100 | 5,401,777 | | 3.4 | 100 | 13,521,858 | 96.9 | 3.1 | 100 | 9,116,387 | | 2.6 | 100 | 2,987,311 | 95.9 | 4.1 | 100 | 1,768,120 | | 3.6 | 100 | 10,534,547 | 97.2 | 2.8 | 100 | 7,348,268 | | 2.7 | 100 | 27,119,784 | 94.5 | 5.5 | 100 | 22,449,563 | | 2.2 | 100 | 958,100 | 91.5 | 8.5 | 100 | 869,720 | | 2.9 | 100 | 22,466,283 | 94.7 | 5.3 | 100 | 18,669,560 | | 2.1 | 100 | 3,695,401 | 94.2 | 5.8 | 100 | 2,910,282 | | 2.2 | 100 | 8,301,437 | 93.3 | 6.7 | 100 | 6,988,381 | | 3.6 | 100 | 7,840,295 | 93.3 | 6.7 | 100 | 6,499,533 | | 3.4 | 100 | 8,260,295 | 95.7 | 4.3 | 100 | 6,742,877 | | 2.8 | 100 | 8,642,678 | 97.6 | 2.4 | 100 | 6,721,258 | | 2.8 | 100 | 7,596,937 | 96.9 | 3.1 | 100 | 4,613,902 | | 2.5 | 100 | 27,725,849 | 95.7 | 4.3 | 100 | 21,655,213 | | 4.0 | 100 | 12,915,793 | 94.1 | 5.9 | 100 | 9,910,737 | | 2.9 | 100 | 33,106,771 | 95.0 | 5.0 | 100 | 25,869,163 | | 3.2 | 100 | 7,534,871 | 96.1 | 3.9 | 100 | 5,696,787 | | 4.3 | 100 | 4,648,227 | 95.5 | 4.5 | 100 | 3,372,486 | | 2.8 | 100 | 35,993,414 | 95.2 | 4.8 | 100 | 28,193,464 | * * * | Table HH.H15-16: Seasonality of Water Supply and Safe treatmentPercent of households that treat water and treatment method(s) used | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | done anything to make water safer to drink | | don’t know | Total | | boil | | | yes | no | | | | | | | | 10.9 | 86.2 | 2.9 | 100 | 42,541,141 | 29.7 | | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 16.6 | 81.7 | 1.7 | 100 | 6,213,175 | 17.0 | | | North-East | 5.8 | 93.6 | 0.6 | 100 | 5,314,632 | 13.2 | | | North-West | 15.5 | 82.2 | 2.3 | 100 | 9,595,568 | 27.7 | | | South-East | 4.4 | 86.0 | 9.6 | 100 | 5,045,363 | 43.8 | | | South-South | 11.3 | 86.1 | 2.6 | 100 | 6,849,154 | 65.9 | | | South-West | 8.4 | 89.3 | 2.3 | 100 | 9,523,248 | 17.1 | | | Sector | | | | | | | | | Urban | 10.6 | 87.0 | 2.5 | 100 | 14,820,701 | 31.5 | | | Peri-Urbane | 8.0 | 89.1 | 2.9 | 100 | 3,180,382 | 28.5 | | | Urban | 11.3 | 86.4 | 2.3 | 100 | 11,640,319 | 32.1 | | | Rural | 11.0 | 85.8 | 3.2 | 100 | 27,720,441 | 28.8 | | | Itinerant | 13.4 | 83.9 | 2.7 | 100 | 974,239 | 30.1 | | | Rural | 11.2 | 85.6 | 3.3 | 100 | 22,915,017 | 29.3 | | | Small Town | 9.4 | 87.8 | 2.9 | 100 | 3,831,184 | 24.1 | | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | | Poorest | 11.7 | 86.0 | 2.3 | 100 | 8,329,055 | 19.0 | | | Poor | 10.0 | 87.4 | 2.6 | 100 | 7,901,672 | 19.3 | | | Moderate | 11.4 | 85.2 | 3.4 | 100 | 8,377,645 | 30.4 | | | Rich | 9.8 | 86.6 | 3.6 | 100 | 8,926,852 | 30.7 | | | Richest | 11.4 | 85.9 | 2.7 | 100 | 9,005,918 | 46.4 | | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | | | Literate | 11.3 | 86.2 | 2.5 | 100 | 29,353,386 | 33.0 | | | Non-Literate | 9.9 | 86.2 | 3.8 | 100 | 13,187,755 | 21.5 | | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | | | Male | 11.1 | 86.1 | 2.8 | 100 | 34,611,195 | 28.9 | | | Female | 9.7 | 86.6 | 3.7 | 100 | 7,929,946 | 33.5 | | | HHs with at least one disabilityAt least 1 disabilityNo disability | | | | | | | | | Abia | 2.7 | 92.3 | 5.1 | 100 | 852,364 | 34.0 | | | Adamawa | 13.6 | 84.8 | 1.6 | 100 | 844,650 | 10.4 | | | Akwa Ibom | 4.1 | 84.9 | 10.9 | 100 | 1,302,205 | 74.9 | | | actions taken to make water safer (multiple response): | | | | | | | Number of households that take action(s) to make water safer | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | add bleach/chlorine/water guard | strain it through a cloth | use water filter{ceramic,sand,claycomposite,etc.} | solar disinfection | let it stand and settle | add alum | other-specify | | | 14.7 | 13.8 | 7.2 | 0.9 | 24.6 | 34.7 | 1.9 | 4,620,020 | | 9.6 | 25.1 | 7.4 | 0.6 | 36.2 | 44.3 | 0.4 | 1,028,824 | | 13.9 | 5.4 | 11.0 | 1.4 | 27.1 | 46.1 | 12.3 | 308,405 | | 9.5 | 18.6 | 7.8 | 1.2 | 32.0 | 30.2 | 0.4 | 1,491,070 | | 19.9 | 11.5 | 12.1 | 3.2 | 16.6 | 16.9 | 3.8 | 222,744 | | 7.7 | 5.3 | 5.9 | 0.5 | 9.7 | 17.4 | 0.7 | 772,956 | | 36.8 | 2.4 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 11.3 | 48.2 | 3.1 | 796,022 | | 25.2 | 10.1 | 6.4 | 0.5 | 17.3 | 28.7 | 2.7 | 1,568,419 | | 20.3 | 13.9 | 9.7 | 0.0 | 23.3 | 26.0 | 1.4 | 253,496 | | 26.2 | 9.3 | 5.8 | 0.6 | 16.1 | 29.2 | 2.9 | 1,314,924 | | 9.3 | 15.8 | 7.6 | 1.1 | 28.3 | 37.8 | 1.5 | 3,051,601 | | 12.9 | 43.4 | 3.0 | 4.3 | 15.0 | 18.1 | 4.1 | 130,315 | | 8.9 | 13.4 | 7.5 | 0.9 | 29.8 | 38.3 | 1.3 | 2,563,021 | | 11.1 | 22.6 | 10.4 | 1.0 | 22.5 | 41.2 | 1.5 | 358,265 | | 7.1 | 24.4 | 8.0 | 0.6 | 29.8 | 38.5 | 3.1 | 977,361 | | 5.3 | 12.7 | 8.5 | 0.9 | 41.1 | 39.8 | 1.5 | 788,102 | | 8.3 | 14.6 | 5.9 | 1.3 | 26.4 | 43.7 | 0.7 | 954,054 | | 18.2 | 14.2 | 10.0 | 0.8 | 18.7 | 34.8 | 1.5 | 872,772 | | 32.3 | 3.6 | 4.5 | 0.7 | 10.2 | 18.8 | 2.5 | 1,027,691 | | 18.7 | 12.2 | 7.2 | 1.0 | 22.0 | 31.9 | 1.3 | 3,308,083 | | 4.9 | 17.9 | 7.3 | 0.5 | 31.0 | 41.8 | 3.4 | 1,311,937 | | 14.6 | 14.8 | 7.4 | 0.8 | 26.1 | 34.1 | 1.8 | 3,849,235 | | 15.6 | 9.1 | 6.4 | 1.0 | 16.7 | 37.9 | 2.2 | 770,785 | | 18.6 | 16.5 | 6.8 | 0.6 | 20.5 | 31.3 | 4.3 | 460,001 | | 14.3 | 13.5 | 7.3 | 0.9 | 25.0 | 35.1 | 1.6 | 4,160,019 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * | | done anything to make water safer to drink | | | | actions taken to make water safer (multiple response): | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | yes | no | don't know | Total | Number of households | boil | add bleach(chorine)water guard | strain it through a cloth | use water filter(ceramic,sand clay)composite,etc. | solar disinfection | let it stand and settle | add alum | other-specify | Number of households that take action to make water safer | | | Benue | 23.0 | 75.2 | 1.8 | 100 | 1,166,932 | 15.0 | 10.2 | 70.4 | 6.4 | 1.4 | 5.9 | 21.5 | 0.0 | 268,222 | | Borno | 3.1 | 96.3 | 0.6 | 100 | 1,228,616 | 0.0 | 37.5 | 9.9 | 56.4 | 0.0 | 43.6 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 37,865 | | Cross River | 7.1 | 92.3 | 0.6 | 100 | 973,284 | 40.2 | 27.4 | 17.5 | 14.1 | 1.4 | 19.9 | 17.6 | 0.0 | 69,081 | | Delta | 7.1 | 92.9 | 0.0 | 100 | 1,334,054 | 10.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.8 | 67.4 | 0.0 | 94,222 | | Ebonyi | 6.5 | 92.7 | 0.8 | 100 | 639,844 | 49.7 | 9.2 | 3.7 | 26.3 | 0.0 | 22.1 | 31.3 | 0.0 | 41,723 | | Ekiti | 4.5 | 92.3 | 2.2 | 100 | 4880,300 | 45.6 | 9.2 | 3.7 | 12.7 | 0.0 | 32.8 | 51.0 | 0.0 | 436,168 | | Ekiti | 21.5 | 73.7 | 4.8 | 100 | 733,055 | 10.2 | 21.9 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 22.9 | 53.5 | 9.7 | 157,336 | | Enugu | 3.7 | 95.7 | 0.6 | 100 | 1,053,336 | 26.8 | 13.0 | 7.0 | 14.7 | 9.1 | 26.4 | 31.5 | 22.0 | 38,905 | | Gombe | 2.0 | 97.4 | 0.5 | 100 | 636,605 | 0.0 | 10.6 | 32.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 11.9 | 44.8 | 0.0 | 12,909 | | Imo | 4.6 | 67.6 | 27.8 | 100 | 1,244,680 | 58.4 | 5.4 | 6.3 | 9.8 | 2.1 | 29.2 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 57,299 | | Jigawa | 16.1 | 82.9 | 1.0 | 100 | 1,177,672 | 6.9 | 0.0 | 62.3 | 17.3 | 0.0 | 2.5 | 12.2 | 0.0 | 189,374 | | Kaduna | 18.7 | 80.4 | 0.9 | 100 | 1,664,333 | 37.8 | 22.1 | 9.0 | 15.2 | 4.4 | 21.7 | 31.7 | 0.0 | 310,798 | | Kenyo | 9.6 | 81.9 | 2.3 | 100 | 2,465,171 | 17.3 | 3.3 | 0.8 | 7.3 | 0.0 | 8.2 | 24.7 | 0.2 | 238,898 | * * * | Table HH.H16-18: Water SupplyPercent distribution of household based on disparity of water sources used due towater | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Different sources of drinking water during the dry and rainy seasons | | | Total | | Different sources | No other source | Don't know | | | | National | 14.6 | 82.9 | 2.5 | 100 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | North-Central | 22.9 | 75.1 | 2.0 | 100 | | North-East | 16.4 | 83.2 | 0.4 | 100 | | North-West | 15.1 | 82.2 | 2.7 | 100 | | South-East | 12.4 | 80.7 | 6.9 | 100 | | South-South | 11.6 | 85.7 | 2.7 | 100 | | South-West | 10.8 | 87.9 | 1.4 | 100 | | SectorUrban | 12.4 | 85.9 | 1.8 | 100 | | Peri-Urbane | 10.4 | 87.2 | 2.4 | 100 | | Urban | 12.9 | 85.5 | 1.6 | 100 | | Rural | 15.7 | 81.4 | 2.9 | 100 | | Itinerant | 13.1 | 84.0 | 2.9 | 100 | | Rural | 16.3 | 80.8 | 2.9 | 100 | | Small Town | 13.0 | 83.7 | 3.3 | 100 | | Wealth IndexQuintile | | | | | | Poorest | 17.5 | 80.3 | 2.1 | 100 | | Poor | 18.1 | 78.8 | 3.1 | 100 | | Moderate | 16.2 | 80.6 | 3.1 | 100 | | Rich | 13.1 | 84.5 | 2.4 | 100 | | Richest | 8.6 | 89.5 | 2.0 | 100 | | Literacy of the HHHead | | | | | | Literate | 14.5 | 83.5 | 2.0 | 100 | | Non-Literate | 14.8 | 81.5 | 3.7 | 100 | | Gender of HHHead | | | | | | Male | 14.6 | 82.9 | 2.4 | 100 | | Female | 14.3 | 82.9 | 2.9 | 100 | | HHs with at leastone disability | 14.9 | 82.2 | 2.8 | 100 | | At least 1 disability | 14.5 | 83.0 | 2.5 | 100 | | No disability | | | | | | StateAbia | 5.4 | 91.9 | 2.6 | 100 | | Adamawa | 26.6 | 72.0 | 1.5 | 100 | | Akwa Ibom | 9.4 | 77.9 | 12.7 | 100 | | Anambra | 3.0 | 90.6 | 6.4 | 100 | | Bauchi | 9.8 | 90.0 | 0.2 | 100 | | Bayelsa | 17.1 | 82.5 | 0.4 | 100 | | Benue | 39.7 | 57.5 | 2.8 | 100 | | Borno | 8.3 | 91.5 | 0.2 | 100 | | Cross River | 24.6 | 74.8 | 0.6 | 100 | | Delta | 7.8 | 92.2 | 0.0 | 100 | | Ebonyi | 42.5 | 57.3 | 0.1 | 100 | | Edo | 8.5 | 90.0 | 1.5 | 100 | | Ekiti | 25.7 | 72.5 | 1.8 | 100 | | Number of households | Average Number of Minutes for fetching | | Number of households that use different water sources in the dry and rainy seasons | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Dry season | Rainy Season | | | | 42,541,141 | 26 | 16 | 6,193,718 | | 6,213,175 | 27 | 17 | 1,424,873 | | 5,314,632 | 25 | 14 | 872,245 | | 9,595,568 | 17 | 16 | 1,451,909 | | 5,045,363 | 39 | 22 | 624,450 | | 6,849,154 | 26 | 17 | 794,438 | | 9,523,248 | 28 | 11 | 1,025,803 | | 14,820,701 | 22 | 14 | 1,836,579 | | 3,180,382 | 20 | 12 | 330,398 | | 11,640,319 | 22 | 15 | 1,506,180 | | 27,720,441 | 27 | 17 | 4,357,140 | | 974,239 | 24 | 16 | 127,345 | | 22,915,017 | 28 | 17 | 3,731,557 | | 3,831,184 | 24 | 12 | 498,237 | | 8,329,055 | 28 | 16 | 1,461,375 | | 7,901,672 | 30 | 18 | 1,433,567 | | 8,377,645 | 25 | 16 | 1,359,115 | | 8,926,852 | 21 | 14 | 1,169,022 | | 9,005,918 | 21 | 14 | 770,639 | | 29,353,386 | 24 | 16 | 4,245,905 | | 13,187,755 | 30 | 16 | 1,947,814 | | 34,611,195 | 25 | 16 | 5,062,416 | | 7,929,946 | 27 | 17 | 1,131,302 | | 4,825,745 | 25 | 16 | 721,315 | | 37,715,397 | 26 | 16 | 5,472,403 | | 852,364 | 19 | 17 | 46,207 | | 844,650 | 17 | 10 | 224,271 | | 1,302,205 | 18 | 14 | 122,551 | | 1,255,140 | 30 | 7 | 37,312 | | 1,299,500 | 46 | 14 | 127,135 | | 519,294 | 14 | 9 | 88,955 | | 1,166,932 | 35 | 18 | 462,920 | | 1,228,616 | 23 | 18 | 101,999 | | 973,284 | 47 | 21 | 239,695 | | 1,334,054 | 13 | 12 | 103,959 | | 639,844 | 37 | 19 | 272,211 | | 988,830 | 17 | 16 | 83,777 | | 733,055 | 22 | 12 | 188,227 | | 1,053,336 | 53 | 39 | 198,535 | | 636,605 | 18 | 10 | 228,638 | | 1,244,680 | 30 | 6 | 70,185 | | 1,177,672 | 13 | 11 | 126,126 | | 1,664,333 | 14 | 15 | 300,240 | | 2,456,711 | 20 | 13 | 186,598 | Analyzed Tables * * * Table HH.H19-20: Water Supply Percent of household based on meeting of drinking water quantity needs and reasons for not meeting the needs | | Household did not have sufficient quantities of drinking water when needed | | | | Number of Households | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | yes, at least once | no, always sufficient | don't know | Total | | | National Geopolitical Zone | 18.5 | 75.8 | 5.7 | 100.0 | 42,541,141 | | North-Central | 16.5 | 77.6 | 5.9 | 100.0 | 6,213,175 | | North-East | 42.3 | 54.8 | 3.0 | 100.0 | 5,314,632 | | North-West | 18.1 | 75.9 | 6.0 | 100.0 | 9,595,568 | | South-East | 17.4 | 74.2 | 8.5 | 100.0 | 5,045,363 | | South-South | 17.4 | 76.7 | 5.9 | 100.0 | 6,849,154 | | South-West | 8.4 | 86.5 | 5.1 | 100.0 | 9,523,248 | | Sector Urban | 16.6 | 77.6 | 5.8 | 100.0 | 14,820,701 | | Peri-Urbian | 15.0 | 80.6 | 4.4 | 100.0 | 3,180,382 | | Urban | 17.1 | 76.8 | 6.1 | 100.0 | 11,640,319 | | Rural | 19.5 | 74.8 | 5.6 | 100.0 | 27,720,441 | | Itinerant | 19.6 | 74.9 | 5.5 | 100.0 | 974,239 | | Rural | 19.3 | 74.9 | 5.9 | 100.0 | 22,915,017 | | Small Town Small Town | 20.8 | 74.8 | 4.4 | 100.0 | 3,831,184 | | Wealth Index Quintile Poorite | 21.0 | 74.1 | 4.9 | 100.0 | 8,329,055 | | Poor | 21.6 | 73.6 | 4.8 | 100.0 | 7,901,672 | | Moderate | 21.9 | 71.1 | 7.0 | 100.0 | 8,377,645 | | Rich | 17.0 | 76.1 | 6.9 | 100.0 | 8,926,852 | | Richest | 11.8 | 83.4 | 4.8 | 100.0 | 9,005,918 | | Literacy of the HH Head Literacy of the HH Head | 19.2 | 75.4 | 5.4 | 100.0 | 29,353,386 | | Non-Literate Gender of HH Head Male | 17.0 | 76.8 | 6.3 | 100.0 | 13,187,755 | | Female | 17.3 | 77.0 | 5.8 | 100.0 | 7,929,946 | | HHS with at least one disability At least 1 disability | 23.4 | 69.9 | 6.6 | 100.0 | 4,825,745 | | No disability No disability | 17.9 | 76.6 | 5.6 | 100.0 | 37,715,397 State Abia | | Abia | 14.5 | 82.0 | 3.5 | 100.0 | 852,364 | | Adamawa | 22.7 | 61.3 | 16.1 | 100.0 | 844,650 | | Akwa Ibom | 34.7 | 53.6 | 11.7 | 100.0 | 1,302,205 | | Anambra | 13.5 | 80.4 | 6.1 | 100.0 | 1,255,140 | | Bauchi | 18.3 | 81.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 1,299,500 | | Bayelsa | 4.2 | 94.7 | 1.1 | 100.0 | 519,294 | | Main reason household was unable to access sufficient quantities of water when needed | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 72.1 | 6.5 | 12.5 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 100.0 | 7,871,338 | | 78.4 | 1.5 | 9.5 | 7.4 | 3.3 | 100.0 | 1,025,320 | | 78.3 | 9.4 | 7.4 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 100.0 | 2,246,270 | | 79.2 | 4.6 | 8.9 | 2.6 | 4.6 | 100.0 | 1,732,149 | | 56.6 | 6.8 | 25.8 | 7.4 | 3.4 | 100.0 | 877,478 | | 66.1 | 5.8 | 15.5 | 5.1 | 7.5 | 100.0 | 1,192,708 | | 56.8 | 9.9 | 19.3 | 11.1 | 2.9 | 100.0 | 797,413 | | 69.4 | 9.6 | 12.3 | 5.9 | 2.8 | 100.0 | 2,463,981 | | 76.2 | 6.4 | 11.7 | 5.5 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 477,111 | | 67.8 | 10.3 | 12.4 | 6.0 | 3.4 | 100.0 | 1,986,871 | | 73.3 | 5.1 | 12.6 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 100.0 | 5,407,357 | | 80.3 | 4.0 | 10.6 | 2.9 | 2.3 | 100.0 | 190,659 | | 73.7 | 4.3 | 12.4 | 5.2 | 4.3 | 100.0 | 4,420,648 | | 69.1 | 10.0 | 14.0 | 0.9 | 6.0 | 100.0 | 796,050 | | 79.5 | 4.3 | 7.3 | 4.0 | 4.9 | 100.0 | 1,747,467 | | 73.3 | 7.6 | 12.3 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 100.0 | 1,707,465 | | 69.1 | 7.5 | 14.5 | 5.7 | 3.1 | 100.0 | 1,835,892 | | 70.8 | 5.9 | 13.9 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 100.0 | 1,515,397 | | 64.7 | 7.3 | 15.9 | 8.1 | 3.9 | 100.0 | 1,065,117 | | 72.4 | 6.5 | 12.9 | 4.5 | 3.7 | 100.0 | 5,633,438 | | 71.2 | 6.6 | 11.5 | 6.0 | 4.7 | 100.0 | 2,237,900 | | 72.5 | 6.2 | 12.7 | 4.5 | 4.1 | 100.0 | 6,501,229 | | 70.2 | 8.0 | 11.4 | 7.0 | 3.4 | 100.0 | 1,370,109 | | 69.7 | 7.6 | 12.9 | 5.5 | 4.3 | 100.0 | 1,131,242 | | 72.5 | 6.3 | 12.4 | 4.9 | 3.9 | 100.0 | 6,740,096 | | 84.6 | 0.0 | 13.5 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 123,760 | | 67.6 | 0.4 | 7.4 | 3.3 | 21.3 | 100.0 | 191,715 | | 54.0 | 10.6 | 12.6 | 4.2 | 18.6 | 100.0 | 451,776 | | 45.1 | 23.1 | 21.8 | 4.4 | 5.6 | 100.0 | 168,933 | * * * | | Water always available from the main water source | | | | | Total | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | yes, always | no, most of the time | no some of the time | not rarely available | Don't know | | | National | 81.2 | 10.6 | 6.9 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 100 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | North-Central | 77.7 | 12.4 | 8.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 100 | | North-East | 56.9 | 25.9 | 16.9 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 100 | | North-West | 85.7 | 9.8 | 3.7 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 100 | | South-East | 78.8 | 7.7 | 10.1 | 1.2 | 2.2 | 100 | | South-South | 83.3 | 8.7 | 6.0 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 100 | | South-West | 92.2 | 4.4 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 100 | | Sector | | | | | | | | Urban | 84.5 | 8.2 | 5.9 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 100 | | Peri-Urban | 84.8 | 6.2 | 7.3 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 100 | | Urban | 84.4 | 8.7 | 5.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 100 | | Rural | 79.4 | 11.8 | 7.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 100 | | Itinerant | 82.5 | 11.1 | 4.0 | 0.3 | 2.0 | 100 | | Rural | 79.5 | 12.0 | 7.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 100 | | Small Town | 78.2 | 11.0 | 9.0 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 100 | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | Poorest | 78.0 | 13.5 | 7.5 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 100 | | Poor | 77.0 | 12.1 | 9.9 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 100 | | Moderate | 77.5 | 11.9 | 8.7 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 100 | | Rich | 81.7 | 10.7 | 5.8 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 100 | | Richest | 90.8 | 5.1 | 3.2 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 100 | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | | Literate | 81.8 | 10.3 | 6.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 100 | | Non-Literate | 79.9 | 11.0 | 7.5 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 100 | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | | Male | 80.9 | 11.0 | 6.9 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 100 | | Female | 82.3 | 8.8 | 7.1 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 100 | | HHs with at least one disability | | | | | | | | At least 1 disability | 77.0 | 13.2 | 8.5 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 100 | | No disability | 81.7 | 10.2 | 6.7 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 100 | | State | | | | | | | | Abia | 92.7 | 3.7 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 100 | | Adamawa | 75.1 | 15.1 | 9.3 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 100 | | Number of Households | Average number of Hours the water from the main source water was NOT available each day In the past two weeks | Water from the main source NOT available for at least 1 full day In the past two weeks | | | | Number of Households where water from the main source is not always available | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Yes, was not available for a full day | No, Not for a full day | Don't know | Total | | | | | 42,541,141 | 25 | 52.2 | 42.0 | 5.8 | 100 | 8,004,787 | | 6,213,175 | 46 | 49.1 | 43.7 | 7.2 | 100 | 1,383,803 | | 5,314,632 | 22 | 59.3 | 40.3 | 0.4 | 100 | 2,291,337 | | 9,595,568 | 18 | 55.7 | 39.8 | 4.6 | 100 | 1,375,844 | | 5,045,363 | 14 | 38.1 | 49.9 | 12.0 | 100 | 1,070,434 | | 6,849,154 | 17 | 52.7 | 43.7 | 3.7 | 100 | 1,141,472 | | 9,523,248 | 38 | 49.7 | 33.7 | 16.6 | 100 | 741,897 | | 14,820,701 | 35 | 54.5 | 39.6 | 6.0 | 100 | 2,292,574 | | 3,180,382 | 39 | 44.4 | 48.6 | 7.0 | 100 | 482,070 | | 11,640,319 | 34 | 57.2 | 37.2 | 5.7 | 100 | 1,810,504 | | 27,720,441 | 21 | 51.3 | 42.9 | 5.7 | 100 | 5,712,213 | | 974,239 | 17 | 61.5 | 28.4 | 10.1 | 100 | 170,172 | | 22,915,017 | 20 | 51.4 | 43.3 | 5.3 | 100 | 4,705,967 | | 3,831,184 | 26 | 48.8 | 43.9 | 7.3 | 100 | 836,074 | | 8,329,055 | 22 | 54.5 | 42.1 | 3.4 | 100 | 1,834,203 | | 7,901,672 | 24 | 53.2 | 42.5 | 4.3 | 100 | 1,814,114 | | 8,377,645 | 24 | 52.2 | 39.6 | 8.2 | 100 | 1,888,257 | | 8,926,852 | 26 | 49.4 | 43.4 | 7.2 | 100 | 1,636,516 | | 9,005,918 | 38 | 50.8 | 43.1 | 6.2 | 100 | 831,697 | | 29,353,386 | 25 | 51.7 | 42.8 | 5.4 | 100 | 5,349,612 | | 13,187,755 | 25 | 53.3 | 40.2 | 6.5 | 100 | 2,655,175 | | 34,611,195 | 26 | 53.1 | 42.0 | 5.0 | 100 | 6,600,149 | | 7,929,946 | 22 | 48.4 | 41.9 | 9.7 | 100 | 1,404,638 | | 4,825,745 | 20 | 54.8 | 40.3 | 5.0 | 100 | 1,111,387 | | 37,715,397 | 26 | 51.8 | 42.2 | 5.9 | 100 | 6,893,400 | | 852,364 | 4 | 13.0 | 59.5 | 27.5 | 100 | 62,444 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * Table HH.H21-23: Water supply Percent of household based on availability of water from the main water source | | Water always available from the main water source | | | | | Total | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | yes,always | no,most of the time | no some of the time | not rarely available | Don't know | | | Imo | 89.7 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 0.2 | 3.1 | 100 | | Jigawa | 96.1 | 2.9 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 100 | | Kaduna | 75.9 | 13.2 | 10.1 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 100 | | Kano | 82.0 | 14.2 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 100 | | Katsina | 91.3 | 6.1 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 100 | | Kebbi | 96.5 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 100 | | Kogi | 84.0 | 9.2 | 6.1 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 100 | | Kwara | 66.4 | 20.5 | 11.6 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 100 | | Lagos | 98.0 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Nasarawa | 79.9 | 7.1 | 11.4 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 100 | | Niger | 76.6 | 14.6 | 7.8 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 100 | | Ogun | 90.9 | 6.7 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 100 | | Ondo | 80.8 | 9.2 | 7.2 | 0.4 | 2.4 | 100 | | Osun | 88.9 | 6.8 | 3.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 100 | | Oyo | 95.4 | 3.3 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 100 | | Plateau | 76.6 | 13.0 | 9.3 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 100 | | Rivers | 89.5 | 4.7 | 5.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 100 | | Sokoto | 75.3 | 17.1 | 6.8 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 100 | | Taraba | 47.4 | 26.6 | 25.8 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 100 | | Yobe | 54.9 | 24.4 | 20.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 100 | | Zamfara | 91.9 | 6.8 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 100 | | FCT | 91.2 | 6.5 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 100 | | Number of Households | Average number of Hours the water from the main source water was NOT available each day In the past two weeks | Water from the main source NOT available for at least 1 full day In the past two weeks | | | | Number of Households where water from the main source is not always available | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Yes, was not available for a full day | No, Not for a full day | Don't know | Total | | | | | 1,244,680 | 12 | 55.1 | 29.0 | 15.9 | 100 | 127,920 | | 1,177,672 | 32 | 73.2 | 26.8 | 0.0 | 100 | 45,485 | | 1,664,333 | 9 | 67.3 | 31.7 | 1.0 | 100 | 401,611 | | 2,456,711 | 26 | 60.4 | 37.6 | 2.0 | 100 | 441,994 | | 1,558,506 | 18 | 33.0 | 48.1 | 19.0 | 100 | 136,141 | | 844,434 | 4 | 47.8 | 26.0 | 26.1 | 100 | 29,698 | | 934,868 | 43 | 54.6 | 44.2 | 1.2 | 100 | 149,427 | | 689,852 | 34 | 50.5 | 33.0 | 16.4 | 100 | 232,021 | | 3,330,768 | 30 | 61.7 | 34.6 | 3.7 | 100 | 65,886 | | 511,985 | 20 | 64.7 | 35.3 | 0.0 | 100 | 103,053 | | 1,130,135 | 152 | 68.9 | 29.5 | 1.6 | 100 | 264,969 | | 1,333,972 | 38 | 13.0 | 56.6 | 30.3 | 100 | 121,583 | | 1,110,701 | 21 | 39.0 | 31.4 | 29.6 | 100 | 213,365 | | 1,092,389 | 44 | 43.7 | 49.9 | 6.4 | 100 | 121,220 | | 1,922,364 | 35 | 71.0 | 16.4 | 12.6 | 100 | 89,011 | | 853,884 | 8 | 60.5 | 35.1 | 4.4 | 100 | 200,167 | | 1,731,487 | 20 | 75.3 | 23.8 | 0.8 | 100 | 182,133 | | 1,006,167 | 15 | 37.5 | 59.3 | 3.3 | 100 | 248,737 | | 631,443 | 20 | 70.5 | 29.5 | 0.0 | 100 | 332,082 | | 673,818 | 16 | 55.6 | 43.8 | 0.6 | 100 | 303,643 | | 887,743 | 28 | 59.8 | 29.3 | 10.9 | 100 | 72,177 | | 925,519 | 26 | 33.7 | 48.7 | 17.6 | 100 | 81,634 | * * * | Table HH.H24-25: Water SupplyPercent of household based on publicly owned and used water source | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Household's main water sourcepublicly owned and publicly used(communal) water supply facility | | | | National | 62.9 | 33.5 | 3.6 | | Geopolitical ZoneNorth-Central | 64.6 | 30.0 | 5.5 | | North-East | 76.5 | 23.4 | 0.1 | | North-West | 70.3 | 27.9 | 1.8 | | South-East | 42.8 | 50.0 | 7.2 | | South-South | 52.7 | 44.1 | 3.2 | | South-West | 64.7 | 30.8 | 4.4 | | SectorUrban | 61.8 | 33.8 | 4.4 | | Peri-Urbane | 60.4 | 35.7 | 3.9 | | Urban | 62.2 | 33.3 | 4.6 | | RuralItinerant | 63.5 | 33.4 | 3.1 | | RuralRural | 68.9 | 27.6 | 3.5 | | Small Town | 63.8 | 33.3 | 2.9 | | Wealth Index QuintilePoorest | 74.3 | 23.2 | 2.5 | | Poor | 65.5 | 32.0 | 2.6 | | Moderate | 59.2 | 37.0 | 3.8 | | Rich | 60.6 | 35.5 | 3.9 | | Richest | 55.8 | 39.2 | 5.1 | | Literacy of the HH HeadLiterate | 62.6 | 34.0 | 3.4 | | Non-Literate | 63.5 | 32.4 | 4.1 | | Gender of HH HeadMale | 63.8 | 32.8 | 3.4 | | Female | 59.0 | 36.4 | 4.5 | | HHs with at least one disabilityAt least 1 disabilityNo disability | 60.4 | 36.8 | 2.7 | | StateAbia | 43.7 | 54.0 | 2.3 | | Adamawa | 66.4 | 33.1 | 0.5 | | Akwa Ibom | 24.1 | 69.8 | 6.1 | | Anambra | 31.1 | 63.2 | 5.7 | | Bauchi | 89.3 | 10.7 | 0.0 | | Bayelsa | 70.4 | 18.3 | 11.3 | | Benue | 62.2 | 35.1 | 2.7 | | Borno | 68.9 | 31.1 | 0.0 | | Cross River | 68.8 | 29.5 | 1.7 | | Delta | 36.6 | 61.5 | 2.0 | | Ebonyi | 65.0 | 31.5 | 3.5 | | Edo | 50.5 | 46.9 | 2.6 | | Ekiti | 50.5 | 44.2 | 5.3 | | Enugu | 58.2 | 41.2 | 0.6 | | Gombe | 81.8 | 18.2 | 0.0 | | Imo | 29.4 | 51.1 | 19.5 | | Jigawa | 88.9 | 10.6 | 0.5 | | Kaduna | 45.2 | 53.7 | 1.1 | | Kano | 62.6 | 35.6 | 1.8 | | Katsina | 77.0 | 18.2 | 4.8 | | Kebbi | 69.5 | 27.0 | 3.5 | | Kogi | 58.8 | 40.1 | 1.1 | | Kwara | 74.0 | 22.2 | 3.8 | | Lagos | 82.8 | 16.3 | 0.9 | | Nasarawa | 76.7 | 23.3 | 0.1 | | Niger | 67.4 | 28.9 | 3.7 | | Ogun | 43.0 | 55.8 | 1.2 | | Ondo | 53.8 | 41.8 | 4.4 | | Total | Number of Households | Consulted in the decision for the siting of the Water facility | | | Total | Number of Households using communal water sources | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Consulted | Not Consulted | | | | | | | 100 | 42,541,141 | 14.2 | 85.8 | 100 | 26,780,536 | | | 100 | 6,213,175 | 15.3 | 84.7 | 100 | 4,035,015 | | | 100 | 5,314,632 | 17.0 | 83.0 | 100 | 4,066,232 | | | 100 | 9,595,568 | 19.6 | 80.4 | 100 | 6,746,054 | | | 100 | 5,045,363 | 6.6 | 93.4 | 100 | 2,159,064 | | | 100 | 6,849,154 | 15.4 | 84.6 | 100 | 3,608,146 | | | 100 | 9,523,248 | 7.7 | 92.3 | 100 | 6,166,025 | | | 100 | 14,820,701 | 12.0 | 88.0 | 100 | 9,157,820 | | | 100 | 3,180,382 | 8.5 | 91.5 | 100 | 1,921,686 | | | 100 | 11,640,319 | 12.9 | 87.1 | 100 | 7,236,135 | | | 100 | 27,720,441 | 15.4 | 84.6 | 100 | 17,622,716 | | | 100 | 974,239 | 12.3 | 87.7 | 100 | 671,262 | | | 100 | 22,915,017 | 15.0 | 85.0 | 100 | 14,641,547 | | | 100 | 3,831,184 | 18.2 | 81.8 | 100 | 2,309,907 | | | 100 | 8,329,055 | 13.9 | 86.1 | 100 | 6,207,055 | | | 100 | 7,901,672 | 14.8 | 85.2 | 100 | 5,175,071 | | | 100 | 8,377,645 | 14.8 | 85.2 | 100 | 4,967,500 | | | 100 | 8,926,852 | 13.5 | 86.5 | 100 | 5,409,540 | | | 100 | 9,005,918 | 14.2 | 85.8 | 100 | 5,021,370 | | | 100 | 29,353,386 | 14.9 | 85.1 | 100 | 18,399,903 | | | 100 | 13,187,755 | 12.6 | 87.4 | 100 | 8,380,633 | | | 100 | 34,611,195 | 14.8 | 85.2 | 100 | 22,098,523 | | | 100 | 7,929,946 | 11.2 | 88.8 | 100 | 4,682,013 | | | 100 | 4,825,745 | 15.1 | 84.9 | 100 | 2,916,824 | | | 100 | 37,715,397 | 14.1 | 85.9 | 100 | 23,863,712 | | | 100 | 852,364 | 5.3 | 94.7 | 100 | 372,137 | | | 100 | 844,650 | 17.8 | 82.2 | 100 | 561,147 | | Analyzed Tables * * * | | Contributed to construction of water facility | | | | | | | | Payment for wi collection by w Household | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | yes, in cash | yes, in kind | yes, in cash and kind | no payment | Don’t know | Total | Number of Households using communal water sources who were consulted | Yes, pay | No Payment | | | | 28.1 | 20.6 | 10.8 | 38.6 | 1.9 | 100.0 | 3,806,881 | 20.3 | 77.0 | | | | National | 28.1 | 20.6 | 10.8 | 38.6 | 1.9 | 100.0 | 3,806,881 | 20.3 | 77.0 | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 32.0 | 19.4 | 8.7 | 36.9 | 2.9 | 100.0 | 618,794 | 17.4 | 79.3 | | | North-East | 34.6 | 22.7 | 5.4 | 36.8 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 692,272 | 13.9 | 84.6 | | | North-West | 21.3 | 32.1 | 15.7 | 28.6 | 2.3 | 100.0 | 1,322,394 | 10.7 | 87.3 | | | South-East | 31.6 | 12.8 | 17.2 | 32.8 | 5.6 | 100.0 | 142,262 | 34.2 | 61.5 | | | South-South | 27.6 | 7.2 | 2.1 | 62.4 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 554,072 | 17.4 | 77.6 | | | South-West | 31.9 | 5.3 | 15.8 | 45.3 | 1.7 | 100.0 | 477,087 | 33.9 | 64.2 | | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 38.6 | 13.0 | 11.0 | 35.7 | 1.6 | 100.0 | 1,100,061 | 34.0 | 63.8 | | | Peri-Urban | 28.2 | 11.5 | 16.4 | 43.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 162,436 | 45.7 | 52.5 | | | Urban | 40.4 | 13.3 | 10.1 | 34.3 | 1.9 | 100.0 | 937,625 | 30.9 | 68.8 | | | Rural | 28.8 | 23.7 | 10.6 | 39.8 | 2.0 | 100.0 | 2,706,820 | 13.2 | 83.8 | | | Iliterant | 10.7 | 33.6 | 24.5 | 31.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 82,857 | 17.3 | 81.3 | | | Rural | 24.8 | 22.6 | 10.7 | 39.5 | 2.3 | 100.0 | 2,202,454 | 12.3 | 84.4 | | | Small Town | 21.1 | 27.6 | 7.6 | 42.7 | 1.0 | 100.0 | 421,510 | 17.8 | 80.5 | | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | | | | | Poorest | 22.6 | 28.3 | 11.6 | 34.4 | 3.2 | 100.0 | 862,001 | 6.3 | 91.4 | | | Poor | 23.8 | 30.9 | 9.7 | 33.9 | 1.7 | 100.0 | 767,849 | 12.6 | 85.0 | | | Moderate | 25.9 | 21.7 | 7.8 | 43.8 | 0.8 | 100.0 | 733,204 | 19.1 | 76.9 | | | Don't know | Total | Number of Households using communal water sources | Payment for water collection apply to | | | | Total | Number of Households that pay to collect water from communal sources | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | all but the poor and persons with disability | most HHs | Few HHs | | | | | | | | 2.7 | 100.0 | 26,780,536 | 84.6 | 1.5 | 10.4 | 3.4 | 100.0 | 5,446,241 | | 3.3 | 100.0 | 4,035,015 | 90.0 | 1.9 | 5.0 | 3.1 | 100.0 | 701,275 | | 1.6 | 100.0 | 4,066,232 | 80.9 | 2.5 | 10.5 | 6.1 | 100.0 | 564,207 | | 2.0 | 100.0 | 6,746,054 | 75.9 | 2.3 | 17.4 | 4.4 | 100.0 | 723,918 | | 4.2 | 100.0 | 2,159,064 | 86.6 | 0.5 | 9.0 | 3.9 | 100.0 | 739,252 | | 5.1 | 100.0 | 3,608,146 | 81.8 | 1.4 | 10.7 | 6.1 | 100.0 | 626,313 | | 1.9 | 100.0 | 6,166,025 | 87.0 | 1.3 | 10.3 | 1.5 | 100.0 | 2,091,275 | | 2.2 | 100.0 | 9,157,820 | 87.1 | 1.2 | 8.7 | 3.0 | 100.0 | 3,113,962 | | 1.8 | 100.0 | 1,921,686 | 91.5 | 0.8 | 4.5 | 3.3 | 100.0 | 877,775 | | 2.3 | 100.0 | 7,236,135 | 85.4 | 1.4 | 10.3 | 2.8 | 100.0 | 2,236,187 | | 3.0 | 100.0 | 17,622,716 | 81.3 | 1.9 | 12.8 | 4.0 | 100.0 | 2,332,279 | | 1.5 | 100.0 | 671,262 | 78.6 | 0.0 | 21.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 115,817 | | 3.2 | 100.0 | 14,641,547 | 81.0 | 2.4 | 12.4 | 4.3 | 100.0 | 1,806,333 | | 1.7 | 100.0 | 2,309,907 | 83.4 | 0.4 | 12.3 | 3.9 | 100.0 | 410,130 | | 2.3 | 100.0 | 6,207,055 | 72.3 | 0.5 | 23.3 | 3.9 | 100.0 | 393,279 | | 2.4 | 100.0 | 5,175,071 | 82.5 | 1.4 | 14.2 | 1.9 | 100.0 | 653,904 | | 4.0 | 100.0 | 4,967,500 | 83.1 | 2.3 | 10.3 | 4.4 | 100.0 | 948,277 | | 2.7 | 100.0 | 5,409,540 | 82.9 | 2.4 | 10.1 | 4.6 | 100.0 | 1,481,381 | | 2.3 | 100.0 | 5,021,370 | 89.9 | 0.7 | 7.0 | 2.4 | 100.0 | 1,969,399 | | 2.6 | 100.0 | 18,399,903 | 86.5 | 1.6 | 8.4 | 3.5 | 100.0 | 4,251,007 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * | | Contributed to construction of water facility | | | | | | Total | Number of Households using communal water sources who were consulted | Payment for water collection by household | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | yes, in cash | yes, in kind | yes, in cash and kind | no payment | Don’t know | | Yes, pay | No Payment | | | | | Gombe | 16.1 | 62.3 | 5.3 | 16.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 68,462 | 10.1 | 89.5 | | | Imo | 57.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 24.0 | 19.0 | 100.0 | 25,757 | 40.0 | 47.5 | | | Jigawa | 32.2 | 41.5 | 3.8 | 22.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 104,030 | 4.4 | 95.3 | | | Kaduna | 22.3 | 53.9 | 9.5 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 208,307 | 8.2 | 90.8 | | | Kano | 19.8 | 33.0 | 19.8 | 24.7 | 2.6 | 100.0 | 330,541 | 13.8 | 84.2 | | | Katsina | 27.7 | 7.6 | 13.4 | 48.6 | 2.8 | 100.0 | 303,544 | 24.1 | 73.6 | | | Kebbi | 5.2 | 39.8 | 37.5 | 17.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 169,752 | 2.1 | 93.1 | | | Kogi | 35.2 | 4.8 | 7.5 | 52.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 69,429 | 20.5 | 78.6 | | | Kwara | 14.8 | 47.4 | 24.1 | 13.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 108,225 | 12.1 | 82.6 | | | Lagos | 31.3 | 0.9 | 24.1 | 36.8 | 6.9 | 100.0 | 120,344 | 57.6 | 40.8 | | | Nasarawa | 24.9 | 31.1 | 22.9 | 21.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 51,216 | 37.5 | 61.8 | | | Niger | 39.5 | 21.2 | 3.7 | 35.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 182,872 | 10.2 | 88.8 | | | Ogun | 30.4 | 36.7 | 14.8 | 18.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 23,256 | 42.5 | 57.5 | | | Ondo | 26.7 | 0.0 | 2.9 | 70.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 60,579 | 3.3 | 92.8 | | | Osun | 31.3 | 7.5 | 34.5 | 26.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 92,538 | 11.3 | 87.4 | | | Oyo | 41.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 56.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 127,656 | 11.9 | 85.5 | | | Plateau | 17.3 | 9.2 | 5.1 | 66.8 | 1.5 | 100.0 | 76,637 | 8.7 | 89.2 | | | Rivers | 30.4 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 68.2 | 1.0 | 100.0 | 272,074 | 10.7 | 85.6 | | | Sokoto | 43.1 | 24.7 | 15.9 | 16.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 55,932 | 10.5 | 87.2 | | | Taraba | 27.5 | 0.0 | 20.3 | 52.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 65,325 | 11.5 | 87.1 | | | Household water hour | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | Payment for water collection apply to | | | | Total | Number of Households that pay to collect water from communal sources | | Don't know | Total | Number of Households using communal water sources | all | all but the poor and persons with disability | most HHs | Few HHs | | | | 0.4 | 100.0 | 520,731 | 93.2 | 0.0 | 5.2 | 1.6 | 100.0 | 52,740 | | 12.4 | 100.0 | 367,476 | 68.3 | 2.7 | 19.9 | 9.1 | 100.0 | 147,094 | | 0.2 | 100.0 | 1,046,922 | 56.0 | 0.0 | 29.2 | 14.8 | 100.0 | 46,440 | | 1.0 | 100.0 | 752,736 | 81.0 | 8.9 | 0.0 | 10.1 | 100.0 | 62,065 | | 2.1 | 100.0 | 1,537,749 | 85.2 | 5.3 | 6.3 | 3.2 | 100.0 | 211,952 | | 2.3 | 100.0 | 1,200,050 | 74.5 | 0.0 | 23.1 | 2.4 | 100.0 | 289,744 | | 4.8 | 100.0 | 586,829 | 73.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 26.7 | 100.0 | 12,319 | | 0.9 | 100.0 | 549,684 | 89.1 | 0.0 | 3.5 | 7.4 | 100.0 | 112,411 | | 5.3 | 100.0 | 510,544 | 96.6 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 100.0 | 61,790 | | 1.7 | 100.0 | 2,758,616 | 91.0 | 0.9 | 7.3 | 0.8 | 100.0 | 1,587,834 | | 0.7 | 100.0 | 392,458 | 92.1 | 1.2 | 5.2 | 1.5 | 100.0 | 147,046 | | 1.0 | 100.0 | 762,058 | 81.0 | 5.6 | 10.6 | 2.8 | 100.0 | 77,707 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 573,105 | 63.2 | 3.6 | 33.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 243,406 | | 3.9 | 100.0 | 597,978 | 78.1 | 0.0 | 9.8 | 12.1 | 100.0 | 19,750 | | 1.3 | 100.0 | 578,706 | 96.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.8 | 100.0 | 65,149 | | 2.6 | 100.0 | 1,287,529 | 78.9 | 2.0 | 10.7 | 8.4 | 100.0 | 153,042 | | 2.2 | 100.0 | 694,848 | 83.3 | 6.7 | 8.1 | 2.0 | 100.0 | 60,198 | | 3.7 | 100.0 | 1,272,593 | 93.5 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 5.0 | 100.0 | 135,544 | | 2.3 | 100.0 | 868,991 | 68.4 | 0.0 | 30.1 | 1.5 | 100.0 | 91,331 | | 1.4 | 100.0 | 427,991 | 28.5 | 0.0 | 61.0 | 10.6 | 100.0 | 49,121 | | 1.5 | 100.0 | 549,927 | 87.9 | 5.2 | 6.0 | 0.9 | 100.0 | 125,866 | * * * Table HH.H29-30: Water Facility Management Percent of household based on breakdown of water source and the frequency of breakdowns in the last 6 months | Percent of household based on breakdown of water source and the frequency | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Breakdown of water point facility in last 6 months | | | | Number of Households using communal water sources | | Breakdown | No breakdown | Don't know | Total | | | | National | 19.8 | 65.8 | 14.4 | 100 | 26,780,536 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | North-Central | 16.9 | 71.7 | 11.4 | 100 | 4,035,015 | | North-East | 45.7 | 51.9 | 2.4 | 100 | 4,066,232 | | North-West | 27.0 | 62.3 | 10.8 | 100 | 6,746,054 | | South-East | 9.3 | 52.4 | 38.3 | 100 | 2,159,064 | | South-South | 9.1 | 78.4 | 12.5 | 100 | 3,608,146 | | South-West | 6.7 | 72.2 | 21.1 | 100 | 6,166,025 | | Sector | | | | | | | Urban | 13.4 | 66.1 | 20.5 | 100 | 9,157,820 | | Peri-Urbian | 9.6 | 64.6 | 25.8 | 100 | 1,921,686 | | Urban | 14.4 | 66.5 | 19.1 | 100 | 7,236,135 | | Rural | 23.1 | 65.6 | 11.3 | 100 | 17,622,716 | | Itinerant | 24.4 | 60.6 | 15.0 | 100 | 671,262 | | Rural | 21.6 | 67.3 | 11.0 | 100 | 14,641,547 | | Small Town | 32.0 | 56.2 | 11.7 | 100 | 2,309,907 | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | Poorest | 26.5 | 65.3 | 8.2 | 100 | 6,207,055 | | Poor | 25.6 | 66.2 | 8.1 | 100 | 5,175,071 | | Moderate | 20.7 | 65.1 | 14.2 | 100 | 4,967,500 | | Rich | 15.2 | 66.3 | 18.5 | 100 | 5,409,540 | | Richest | 9.5 | 66.0 | 24.4 | 100 | 5,021,370 | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | | | Literate | 19.2 | 65.4 | 15.4 | 100 | 18,399,903 | | Non-Literate | 21.2 | 66.6 | 12.2 | 100 | 8,380,633 | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | | | Male | 21.5 | 65.6 | 12.9 | 100 | 22,098,523 | | Female | 11.9 | 66.6 | 21.5 | 100 | 4,682,013 | | HHs with at least one disability | | | | | | | At least 1 disability | 23.1 | 60.0 | 16.9 | 100 | 2,916,824 | | No disability | 19.4 | 66.5 | 14.1 | 100 | 23,863,712 | | State | | | | | | | Abia | 4.0 | 66.1 | 30.0 | 100 | 372,137 | | Adamawa | 33.8 | 64.7 | 1.4 | 100 | 561,147 | | Akwa Ibom | 2.3 | 59.9 | 37.7 | 100 | 313,303 | | Number of breakdown of water facility in last 6 months | | | | | | Total | Number of Households using communal water sources that broke down in the past 6 months | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | once | twice | 3 times | 4 times | 5 times | over 5 times | | | | 29.3 | 33.5 | 20.9 | 6.2 | 4.2 | 5.8 | 100 | 5,300,586 | | 27.3 | 30.7 | 27.5 | 6.6 | 1.7 | 6.1 | 100 | 681,917 | | 29.4 | 37.7 | 19.2 | 6.4 | 2.3 | 5.1 | 100 | 1,856,849 | | 19.4 | 34.4 | 24.3 | 7.1 | 7.9 | 6.9 | 100 | 1,818,771 | | 42.3 | 23.0 | 18.4 | 8.5 | 0.0 | 7.8 | 100 | 200,568 | | 41.9 | 30.2 | 18.0 | 3.2 | 2.8 | 3.9 | 100 | 328,180 | | 59.8 | 23.2 | 6.8 | 2.2 | 3.1 | 5.0 | 100 | 414,301 | | 32.0 | 33.9 | 20.2 | 6.0 | 3.6 | 4.4 | 100 | 1,229,203 | | 34.8 | 30.7 | 11.4 | 8.2 | 9.2 | 5.8 | 100 | 185,324 | | 31.5 | 34.5 | 21.7 | 5.6 | 2.6 | 4.1 | 100 | 1,043,879 | | 28.5 | 33.4 | 21.2 | 6.3 | 4.3 | 6.3 | 100 | 4,071,383 | | 36.4 | 21.6 | 16.6 | 1.5 | 9.3 | 14.5 | 100 | 163,803 | | 28.4 | 33.2 | 22.4 | 6.2 | 4.3 | 5.5 | 100 | 3,167,520 | | 27.3 | 37.0 | 16.8 | 7.8 | 3.3 | 7.8 | 100 | 740,060 | | 24.1 | 28.2 | 25.9 | 7.0 | 6.2 | 8.4 | 100 | 1,643,177 | | 26.9 | 36.7 | 20.3 | 6.6 | 4.3 | 5.2 | 100 | 1,327,261 | | 30.6 | 38.3 | 19.1 | 7.0 | 1.1 | 4.0 | 100 | 1,029,130 | | 33.1 | 35.1 | 19.5 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 100 | 821,939 | | 44.5 | 29.8 | 12.3 | 4.7 | 3.1 | 5.6 | 100 | 479,079 | | 29.8 | 34.4 | 20.1 | 6.3 | 4.3 | 5.0 | 100 | 3,528,053 | | 28.3 | 31.7 | 22.7 | 6.0 | 3.9 | 7.5 | 100 | 1,772,534 | | 28.3 | 33.5 | 21.8 | 6.2 | 4.2 | 5.9 | 100 | 4,743,710 | | 37.6 | 33.8 | 13.6 | 6.3 | 3.5 | 5.3 | 100 | 556,876 | | 21.4 | 25.1 | 34.3 | 8.9 | 4.1 | 6.1 | 100 | 672,854 | | 30.5 | 34.7 | 19.0 | 5.8 | 4.2 | 5.8 | 100 | 4,627,732 | * * * | | Facility Repair done by | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | facility caretaker | volunteers | community artisan | local area mechanic | service contractor | LGA staff | state govt. staff | never repaired | don’t know | Total | Households’ Contribution for water facility repairs | | | | | | | Contribution | No contribution | Don’t know | Total | | | | | | | | | | | | | | National | 25.8 | 23.5 | 33.1 | 7.4 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 3.3 | 100 | 55.7 | 42.4 | 1.9 | 100 | 5,300,586 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 37.0 | 17.3 | 20.1 | 14.2 | 4.3 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 3.7 | 100 | 57.1 | 41.3 | 1.6 | 100 | 681,917 | | North-East | 20.0 | 30.5 | 30.2 | 9.2 | 5.1 | 3.0 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 100 | 50.0 | 48.1 | 2.0 | 100 | 1,856,849 | | North-West | 20.9 | 20.3 | 48.3 | 4.9 | 5.1 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 3.0 | 100 | 68.3 | 31.5 | 2.2 | 100 | 1,816,717 | | South-East | 11.0 | 12.2 | 30.2 | 4.6 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.6 | 26.4 | 100 | 27.5 | 79.9 | 1.6 | 100 | 500,558 | | South-South | 46.5 | 24.2 | 11.5 | 4.6 | 0.0 | 4.9 | 0.0 | 6.8 | 3.4 | 100 | 34.4 | 63.6 | 2.0 | 100 | 328,180 | | South-West | 45.6 | 16.1 | 19.5 | 4.5 | 9.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 3.0 | 100 | 62.8 | 35.9 | 1.3 | 100 | 414,301 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 35.0 | 27.7 | 23.3 | 4.5 | 3.4 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 4.0 | 100 | 49.0 | 47.6 | 3.5 | 100 | 1,229,203 | | Pew-Urbian | 40.1 | 19.5 | 24.6 | 9.2 | 4.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 100 | 38.1 | 61.9 | 0.0 | 100 | 188,324 | | Urban | 34.1 | 29.1 | 23.1 | 2.5 | 3.3 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 4.5 | 100 | 50.9 | 45.0 | 4.1 | 100 | 1,043,879 | | Rural | 23.0 | 22.2 | 36.1 | 8.6 | 3.2 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 3.1 | 100 | 57.7 | 40.8 | 1.5 | 100 | 4,071,383 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * | Table HH.H31-32: Water Facility ManagementPercent of household based on who does water facilities' repairs and contribution for repairs | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Facility Repair done by | | | | | | | facility caretaker | volunteers | community artisan | local area mechanic | service contractor | LGA staff | | | Benue | 29.1 | 18.6 | 0.0 | 32.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Borno | 16.2 | 38.4 | 13.0 | 17.8 | 8.0 | 5.5 | | Cross River | 48.2 | 24.6 | 0.0 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Delta | 3.0 | 12.2 | 75.9 | 8.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Ebonyi | 0.0 | 23.7 | 56.4 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 0.0 | | Edo | 44.0 | 29.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 26.8 | | Ekiti | 19.5 | 42.4 | 4.1 | 0.0 | 6.8 | 0.0 | | Enugu | 24.1 | 24.3 | 34.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Gombe | 10.4 | 31.3 | 40.0 | 6.9 | 8.3 | 1.1 | | Imo | 24.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Jigawa | 19.7 | 3.6 | 73.3 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 1.1 | | Kaduna | 39.2 | 35.2 | 16.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.4 | | Kano | 14.7 | 30.0 | 37.8 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 4.6 | | Katsina | 11.0 | 37.8 | 46.2 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.0 | | Kebbi | 18.9 | 10.5 | 32.3 | 11.9 | 8.7 | 3.9 | | Kogi | 14.7 | 3.3 | 48.9 | 18.0 | 10.1 | 0.0 | | Kwara | 53.5 | 6.1 | 15.9 | 10.6 | 5.0 | 1.6 | | Lagos | 65.7 | 6.8 | 16.7 | 0.9 | 9.8 | 0.0 | | Nasarawa | 57.3 | 11.6 | 29.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Niger | 29.1 | 27.4 | 7.2 | 25.8 | 6.8 | 0.0 | | Ogun | 27.3 | 0.0 | 30.9 | 41.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Ondo | 57.1 | 11.9 | 29.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Osun | 47.5 | 25.3 | 12.3 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Oyo | 34.8 | 17.3 | 20.6 | 0.0 | 27.2 | 0.0 | | Plateau | 9.5 | 52.3 | 22.3 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 2.7 | | Rivers | 70.6 | 27.8 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Sokoto | 33.0 | 3.5 | 60.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Taraba | 16.3 | 44.7 | 34.4 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Yobe | 31.8 | 16.2 | 37.1 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 2.2 | | Zamfara | 45.5 | 4.6 | 31.5 | 14.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | | | | | Households' Contribution for water facility repairs | | | | Number of Households whose facilities ever broke down in the last 6 months | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | state govt. staff | never repaired | don't know | Total | Contribution | No contribution | Don't know | Total | | | 0.0 | 12.5 | 7.0 | 100 | 68.1 | 31.9 | 0.0 | 100 | 14,366 | | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 100 | 25.0 | 72.4 | 2.6 | 100 | 636,444 | | 0.0 | 17.4 | 7.1 | 100 | 18.8 | 79.3 | 2.0 | 100 | 128,739 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 37.3 | 62.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 44,303 | | 0.0 | 14.8 | 3.4 | 100 | 50.7 | 49.3 | 0.0 | 100 | 58,743 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 38.0 | 55.2 | 6.8 | 100 | 59,515 | | 1.8 | 7.7 | 17.6 | 100 | 70.1 | 29.9 | 0.0 | 100 | 47,737 | | 0.0 | 3.8 | 13.6 | 100 | 30.8 | 66.2 | 3.0 | 100 | 66,679 | | 0.5 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 100 | 39.4 | 59.7 | 0.9 | 100 | 153,872 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 40.5 | 100 | 14.9 | 77.0 | 8.1 | 100 | 14,861 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 100 | 69.7 | 29.8 | 0.5 | 100 | 470,886 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.7 | 100 | 43.5 | 56.5 | 0.0 | 100 | 85,389 | | 0.0 | 0.4 | 3.4 | 100 | 66.2 | 28.8 | 5.0 | 100 | 552,364 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 100 | 71.4 | 27.3 | 1.3 | 100 | 371,368 | | 0.0 | 9.2 | 4.6 | 100 | 55.8 | 44.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 30,688 | | 1.4 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 100 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 92,566 | | 0.0 | 0.5 | 6.8 | 100 | 61.0 | 34.4 | 4.5 | 100 | 142,787 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 68.6 | 31.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 94,068 | | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 100 | 41.7 | 57.4 | 0.9 | 100 | 85,359 | | 2.5 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 100 | 62.2 | 37.8 | 0.0 | 100 | 173,628 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 13.1 | 86.9 | 0.0 | 100 | 35,821 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 100 | 91.9 | 8.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 86,202 | | 4.7 | 0.0 | 4.7 | 100 | 71.4 | 23.6 | 5.0 | 100 | 48,892 | * * * | | Percent of household based on satisfaction with status of water facility, aspect of dissatisfaction and willingness to contribute toward construction/expansion of service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Satisfaction with status of water facility | | | Total | Number of Households using communal water sources | Aspect of dissatisfaction with present status of water supply | | | | | Number of Households not satisfied with the service level | Will Contribute | Will Not contribute | Total | | | | | | | Satisfied | Not satisfied | Don't know | quantity of water the is able to get | quality (laste, colour, colour) of the water | the design type of water point | The location | time spent to fetch | reliability/availability of others (specify) | | | | | | | | | | | | State | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Abia | 54.8 | 33.4 | 11.8 | 100 | 372,137 | 21.7 | 29.9 | 23.7 | 36.1 | 52.4 | 23.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 124,252 | 52.7 | 47.3 | 100 | 852,364 | | Adamawa | 33.7 | 66.0 | 0.4 | 100 | 561,147 | 47.5 | 69.7 | 23.3 | 25.9 | 10.6 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 370,104 | 52.3 | 47.3 | 100 | 844,650 | | Akwa bom | 38.3 | 28.1 | 33.6 | 100 | 313,303 | 47.1 | 24.3 | 14.0 | 51.3 | 49.3 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 87,961 | 75.5 | 24.5 | 100 | 1,302,205 | | Anambra | 34.3 | 59.5 | 6.2 | 100 | 309,350 | 47.9 | 6.8 | 21.0 | 82.0 | 79.3 | 36.5 | 0.6 | 100.0 | 362,941 | 65.5 | 41.2 | 100 | 1,202,816 | | Bauchi | 81.7 | 18.2 | 0.1 | 100 | 1160,029 | 11.8 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 16.0 | 18.8 | 6.8 | 1.0 | 100.0 | 211,150 | 82.2 | 17.8 | 100 | 1,299,500 | | Bayelsa | 31.7 | 68.1 | 0.2 | 100 | 365,707 | 21.4 | 78.7 | 45.7 | 39.0 | 36.9 | 6.6 | 1.8 | 100.0 | 248,958 | 73.5 | 26.5 | 100 | 1,334,054 | | Benue | 24.1 | 68.4 | 7.5 | 100 | 746,353 | 30.9 | 78.7 | 45.7 | 39.0 | 36.9 | 6.6 | 1.8 | 100.0 | 510,757 | 94.4 | 2.6 | 100 | 1,168,932 | | Borno | 49.9 | 49.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 846,968 | 30.4 | 8.6 | 22.7 | 44.1 | 35.2 | 49.4 | 1.0 | 100.0 | 510,757 | 94.4 | 2.6 | 100 | 1,224,816 | | Gross River | 17.4 | 81.5 | 1.1 | 100 | 669,483 | 22.5 | 40.8 | 47.4 | 41.5 | 39.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 100.0 | 545,931 | 62.7 | 37.3 | 100 | 1,299,500 | * * * Table HH.J1-5: Knowledge and Perception of Households on preventive behaviour toward COVID 19 Percent of household on knowledge and perception of COVID 19 prevention and behaviour | | Since the outbreak of COVID 19, how often do you wash your hands when at work? | | | | | Since the outbreak of COVID 19, how often do you wash your hands when at home? | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | very often | often | sometime | rarely | never | Total | very often | often | sometime | rarely | never | Total | | | State | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Abia | 21.8 | 32.6 | 40.1 | 5.1 | 0.4 | 100 | 20.3 | 46.6 | 32.2 | 0.9 | 0 | 100 | | Adamawa | 12 | 34 | 21 | 18 | 14.9 | 100 | 14.9 | 35 | 22.6 | 12.6 | 14.8 | 100 | | Akwa Ibom | 36.3 | 31.2 | 28.2 | 4.1 | 0.2 | 100 | 32.5 | 35.1 | 28.1 | 4.3 | 0 | 100 | | Anambra | 6.9 | 26.8 | 46.5 | 19.6 | 0.2 | 100 | 4.5 | 29.5 | 51.5 | 14.2 | 0.2 | 100 | | Bauchi | 14.2 | 44.6 | 33.7 | 7.5 | 0.1 | 100 | 10.7 | 59.6 | 25 | 4.6 | 0.1 | 100 | | Bayelsa | 6.1 | 12.8 | 68.3 | 12.4 | 0.5 | 100 | 5.1 | 20.1 | 59.3 | 15.2 | 0.3 | 100 | | Benue | 10.7 | 24.8 | 45 | 19.2 | 0.3 | 100 | 10.2 | 22.7 | 47.9 | 19.1 | 0.2 | 100 | | Borno | 1.7 | 5.6 | 74.1 | 14 | 4.6 | 100 | 1.5 | 2.2 | 77.1 | 14.2 | 5 | 100 | | Cross River | 30.5 | 31.7 | 18.9 | 7.8 | 11.2 | 100 | 28.5 | 34.9 | 17.4 | 8 | 11.2 | 100 | | Delta | 11.5 | 37.3 | 38.5 | 12.2 | 0.5 | 100 | 9.8 | 28.6 | 56 | 5.4 | 0.2 | 100 | | Ebonyi | 6.9 | 18.6 | 53.7 | 16.5 | 4.3 | 100 | 5.7 | 16.6 | 61.6 | 14.6 | 1.4 | 100 | | Edo | 20.7 | 35.5 | 39.9 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 100 | 20.8 | 40.2 | 35.4 | 3.1 | 0.5 | 100 | | Ekiti | 9.8 | 32.1 | 50.1 | 7.3 | 0.6 | 100 | 9.2 | 27.7 | 58.4 | 4.3 | 0.4 | 100 | | Enugu | 23.3 | 39.8 | 29.6 | 4.4 | 2.9 | 100 | 20.3 | 37.8 | 36.7 | 4.5 | 0.8 | 100 | | Gombe | 5.1 | 35.4 | 44 | 8.4 | 7.2 | 100 | 6.5 | 27.3 | 39.1 | 17.6 | 9.6 | 100 | | Imo | 10 | 31.9 | 31.5 | 12 | 14.5 | 100 | 11.3 | 26.2 | 25.2 | 23.8 | 13.5 | 100 | | Do you ever encountered any difficulties to washing your hand in public places | | | | Total Number of households | Difficulties you have encountered? | | | | | Total number of households who encountered difficulties in washing hand in public | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Yes | No | | | no provision for washing hands | handwashing device difficult to use | handwashing device unclean | water not available | soap not present | | | | | 6.5 | 93.5 | 100 | | 852,364 | 55.4 | 2.2 | 8.9 | 38 | 17 | 55,666 | | | 25 | 75 | 100 | | 844,650 | 65.4 | 5 | 8.9 | 32.3 | 10.1 | 211,422 | | | 29.1 | 70.9 | 100 | | 1,302,205 | 73 | 13 | 15.1 | 12.7 | 3.5 | 379,410 | | | 15.6 | 84.4 | 100 | | 1,255,140 | 85.5 | 7.5 | 56.5 | 60.1 | 17.1 | 195,739 | | | 13.6 | 86.4 | 100 | | 1,299,500 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 177,082 | | | 22.3 | 77.7 | 100 | | 519,294 | 50.3 | 51.1 | 52.6 | 37.1 | 9.4 | 116,050 | | | 15.3 | 84.7 | 100 | | 1,166,932 | 25 | 4.6 | 5.3 | 77.5 | 8.1 | 179,080 | | | 9.9 | 90.1 | 100 | | 1,228,616 | 26.9 | 3.4 | 16.8 | 56.5 | 7.1 | 122,074 | | | 37.5 | 62.5 | 100 | | 973,284 | 98.9 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 36.6 | 20.8 | 364,671 | | | 31.4 | 68.6 | 100 | | 1,334,054 | 83.1 | 2.8 | 5.4 | 44.5 | 18.6 | 419,412 | | | 6.5 | 93.5 | 100 | | 639,844 | 90.8 | 3.3 | 19.3 | 74 | 22.1 | 41,513 | | | 4.5 | 95.5 | 100 | | 988,830 | 69.5 | 30.7 | 36.2 | 38.1 | 8.6 | 44,786 | | | 21.7 | 78.3 | 100 | | 733,055 | 98.5 | 4.5 | 3.4 | 8.8 | 5.9 | 159,108 | | | 27.1 | 72.9 | 100 | | 1,053,336 | 70.7 | 12.5 | 41.7 | 87.4 | 15.2 | 285,645 | | | 3.5 | 96.5 | 100 | | 636,605 | 33.6 | 27.4 | 3.7 | 59.9 | 4.1 | 22,423 | | | 44.7 | 55.3 | 100 | | 1,244,680 | 79 | 13.2 | 18.1 | 66 | 59.2 | 556,403 | | | 0.9 | 99.1 | 100 | | 1,177,672 | 42.8 | 12.6 | 12.6 | 23 | 31.9 | 10,067 | | | 18 | 82 | 100 | | 1,664,333 | 84.1 | 9.9 | 8.7 | 35.3 | 3.4 | 299,613 | | * * * Household Composite Tables * * * | | Percentage of HH members using improved sanitation facility | Percentage of HH members with limited access sanitation services | Percentage of HH members with basic sanitation services | Percentage of HH members using improved sanitation facilities with handwashing facility and SoapPercentage of HH members using improved sanitation facilities that are not leaking, safely emptied and treatedPercentage of HH members with access to safely managed sanitation servicesPercentage of HH members practicing open defecationNumber of household members | Percentage of HH members living with disabilities who find the HIs' improve latrine use and accessible | Number of household members in HIs with PLWD and have toilet latrines/atlases | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | National | 56.9 | 11.4 | 45.5 | 12.7 | 22.2 | 17.8 | 23.2 | 206,283,336 | 50.6 | 11,378,656 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 43.3 | 8.7 | 34.6 | 10.0 | 23.6 | 19.0 | 47.1 | 31,416,260 | 27.7 | 1,320,406 | | North-East | 59.3 | 8.7 | 50.6 | 7.5 | 31.9 | 29.2 | 17.1 | 28,012,058 | 48.8 | 1,178,607 | | North-West | 45.5 | 4.7 | 42.1 | 11.5 | 17.2 | 15.7 | 11.2 | 25,012,058 | 45.0 | 1,789,756 | | South-East | 66.8 | 4.9 | 57.3 | 11.4 | 18.6 | 16.1 | 22.5 | 23,292,636 | 67.0 | 2,218,469 | | South-South | 61.2 | 14.9 | 46.2 | 17.3 | 17.7 | 13.5 | 23.3 | 30,700,493 | 43.8 | 1,405,040 | | South-West | 72.0 | 24.8 | 47.2 | 16.9 | 20.7 | 13.4 | 24.4 | 40,781,122 | 65.9 | 1,646,578 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban: | 80.2 | 21.1 | 59.1 | 22.6 | 27.0 | 19.9 | 7.6 | 66,860,633 | 71.9 | 3,712,862 | | Peri-Urbian | 84.2 | 18.0 | 66.2 | 20.8 | 21.7 | 17.1 | 5.4 | 14,033,147 | 76.3 | 920,852 | | Urban: | 79.1 | 21.9 | 57.2 | 23.1 | 28.2 | 20.4 | 8.2 | 52,827,486 | 70.4 | 2,792,011 | | Rural: | 35.7 | 6.8 | 38.9 | 7.9 | 20.7 | 17.7 | 30.6 | 19,422,703 | 40.2 | 7,685,794 | | Interest | 37.3 | 1.9 | 32.5 | 7.5 | 20.1 | 17.4 | 37.2 | 4,812,255 | 36.0 | 7,423,231 | | Rural | 44.5 | 6.6 | 37.9 | 7.4 | 20.1 | 17.2 | 32.3 | 11,514,235 | 37.6 | 6,290,008 | | Small Town | 55.0 | 8.3 | 46.7 | 11.0 | 24.8 | 17.0 | 19.3 | 19,191,213 | 55.3 | 1,128,554 | | Wealth Index Quintile | | | | | | | | | | | | Poorest | 21.2 | 2.0 | 19.2 | 3.8 | 9.0 | 8.2 | 47.5 | 41,443,305 | 23.2 | 2,339,037 | * * * | | Percentage of HH members using improved sanitation facility | Percentage of HH members with limited access sanitation services | Percentage of HH members with basic sanitation services | Percentage of HH members using improved sanitation facilities with handwashing facility and Soap | Percentage of HH members using improved sanitation facilities that are not leaking, safely emptied and treated | Percentage of members with access to safely managed sanitation services | Percentage of HH members practicing open detention | Number of household members | Percentage of HH members living with disabilities who find the HHs' improve latrine useable and accessible | Number of household members in HHs with PLWD and have improve toilet/latrines | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Ebonyi | 13.4 | 4.5 | 13.9 | 1.4 | 15.5 | 4.3 | 73.3 | 2,608,669 | 3.5 | 106,893 | | Edo | 79.0 | 13.6 | 65.4 | 4.0 | 9.7 | 7.9 | 11.7 | 3,477,006 | 42.0 | 241,217 | | Ekiti | 54.0 | 22.1 | 31.9 | 6.5 | 22.4 | 13.4 | 41.4 | 3,480,278 | 48.6 | 223,253 | | Enugu | 39.5 | 11.6 | 27.9 | 6.3 | 18.5 | 14.3 | 48.3 | 4,685,917 | 46.1 | 274,395 | | Gombe | 56.2 | 9.3 | 46.8 | 4.5 | 27.9 | 23.7 | 25.3 | 3,471,222 | 44.4 | 143,744 | | Imo | 81.0 | 5.0 | 76.0 | 16.8 | 29.4 | 27.6 | 9.1 | 5,764,571 | 61.6 | 594,252 | | Jigawa | 55.2 | 2.8 | 52.4 | 25.1 | 29.3 | 27.8 | 28.1 | 6,180,993 | 51.6 | 1,106,863 | | Kaduna | 40.8 | 10.1 | 30.7 | 18.8 | 17.8 | 12.7 | 6.1 | 8,766,461 | 50.8 | 1,156,316 | | Kano | 54.1 | 4.0 | 50.0 | 8.1 | 18.2 | 16.9 | 2.2 | 13,959,784 | 52.7 | 433,591 | | Kakwa | 38.1 | 1.0 | 37.0 | 13.6 | 14.2 | 13.8 | 8.6 | 8,319,185 | 49.7 | 181,186 | | Keebu | 33.2 | 3.9 | 29.3 | 7.9 | 1.4 | 13.3 | 49.9 | 4,724,415 | 15.0 | 473,038 | | Kogi | 39.9 | 12.5 | 27.3 | 5.0 | 6.6 | 4.6 | 55.5 | 4,752,174 | 12.1 | 281,075 | | Kwara | 48.1 | 17.5 | 30.6 | 17.0 | 24.6 | 16.4 | 50.0 | 3,391,799 | 37.8 | 294,025 | | Lagos | 93.5 | 31.3 | 62.2 | 31.9 | 23.3 | 15.0 | 2.9 | 13,376,240 | 93.1 | 491,782 | | Nasarawa | 47.1 | 11.3 | 35.9 | 17.4 | 21.7 | 16.3 | 45.7 | 2,680,594 | 29.0 | 179,511 | | Niger | 44.6 | 4.1 | 40.5 | 11.1 | 24.4 | 22.3 | 46.4 | 5,940,943 | 43.2 | 64,025 | * * * | | Percentage of HH members using improved drinking water source | Percentage of HH members using improved drinking water source, accessible every day in the past two weeks | Percentage of HH members using improved drinking water source, accessible every day in the past two weeks | Percentage of HH members using improved drinking water source, accessible every day in the past two weeks | Percentage of HH members using improved drinking water source, accessible every day in the past two weeks | Percentage of HH members using limited water supply services (using improved source, provided collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a round trip, including queuing) | Percentage of HH members using limited water supply services (using improved source for with collection time exceeding 30 minutes for a round trip, including queuing) | Percentage of HH members using Safety Managed water supply services (using improved source within the premises, available when needed and free from fecal coliform) | Percentage of HH members using basic water supply services (using improved source free from faecal coliform, provided collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a round trip, including queuing) | Percentage of HH members using basic water supply services (using improved source, available when needed, free from faecal coliform, and provided collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a round trip, including queuing) | Number of household member | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | National | 74.9 | 32.2 | 66.0 | 29.2 | 66.7 | 7.6 | 14.0 | 12.9 | 25.4 | 20.3 | 206,283,339 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Geopolitical zone | | | | | | | | | | | | | | North central | 62.1 | 22.0 | 54.2 | 19.3 | 56.0 | 3.6 | 12.7 | 5.6 | 16.0 | 12.3 | 31,416,260 | | | North east | 72.0 | 19.0 | 52.3 | 12.3 | 65.5 | 5.9 | 18.2 | 2.4 | 15.1 | 8.6 | 28,013,059 | | | North west | 63.1 | 20.6 | 57.1 | 19.0 | 56.0 | 6.6 | 31.8 | 4.3 | 14.3 | 11.0 | 52,072,768 | | | South east | 89.7 | 43.0 | 79.8 | 38.7 | 73.2 | 15.2 | 2.8 | 16.6 | 34.3 | 23.7 | 23,292,636 | | | South south | 76.4 | 36.1 | 58.1 | 33.5 | 65.2 | 10.0 | 5.0 | 15.7 | 30.9 | 26.9 | 30,700,484 | | | South west | 92.3 | 54.9 | 86.6 | 52.6 | 85.2 | 6.8 | 2.4 | 29.3 | 44.6 | 39.5 | 40,788,123 | | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban: | 93.6 | 53.0 | 84.0 | 49.7 | 86.3 | 6.5 | 4.9 | 26.8 | 40.3 | 33.9 | 66,275,648 | | | Free Urban | 92.1 | 56.8 | 65.8 | 52.4 | 86.3 | 4.8 | 6.0 | 33.5 | 46.0 | 37.7 | 13,689,370 | | | Urban | 94.0 | 52.0 | 84.0 | 48.7 | 86.3 | 6.9 | 4.7 | 25.1 | 38.9 | 32.9 | 52,889,769 | | | Rural: | 65.9 | 22.2 | 57.4 | 19.3 | 57.3 | 8.1 | 18.3 | 6.3 | 18.3 | 13.9 | 140,007,691 | | | Ilinerant | 70.4 | 26.3 | 61.2 | 22.9 | 62.4 | 7.6 | 16.5 | 7.8 | 19.3 | 16.1 | 4,612,930 | | | Rail | 60.9 | 21.5 | 56.7 | 18.7 | 55.5 | 7.9 | 19.0 | 6.0 | 19.2 | 13.6 | 15,050,800 | | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 15.5 252 * * * | | Percentage of HH members using improved drinking water source | Percentage of HH members using improved drinking water source accessible within the premises | Percentage of HH members using improved drinking water source available every day in the past two weeks | Percentage of HH members using improved drinking water source, available within the premises and available every day in the past two weeks | Percentage of HH members using basic water supply services (using improved source, available every day in the past two weeks) | Percentage of HH members using limited water supply services (using improved source, available every day in the past two weeks) | Percentage of HH members using limited water supply services (using improved source for a round trip, including queuing) | Percentage of HH members unimproved water sources | Percentage of HH members using Safety Managed water supply services (using improved source within the premises, available when needed, for a round trip, including queuing) | Percentage of HH members using basic water supply services (using improved source from faecal coliform protected collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a round trip, including queuing) | Percentage of HH members using basic water supply services (using improved source, available when needed, free from faecal coliform protected collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a round trip, including queuing) | Percentage of HH members using basic water supply services (using improved source, available when needed, free from faecal coliform protected collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a round trip, including queuing) | Number of household member | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Anambra | 95.1 | 53.9 | 65.8 | 51.0 | 24.4 | 5.8 | 0.5 | 10.5 | 49.6 | 35.5 | 5,898 | | | | Bauchi | 75.5 | 3.3 | 66.8 | 51.0 | 24.4 | 5.8 | 0.5 | 10.5 | 49.6 | 35.5 | 6,899,935 | | | | Bayelsa | 59.8 | 28.9 | 68.7 | 3.3 | 67.1 | 8.4 | 24.0 | 2.2 | 18.5 | 15.9 | 2,415,866 | | | | Benue | 42.9 | 21.0 | 39.9 | 18.4 | 39.8 | 5.8 | 4.9 | 7.4 | 12.8 | 11.1 | 6,099,512 | | | | Borno | 74.4 | 23.7 | 34.4 | 8.4 | 68.0 | 3.0 | 11.9 | 1.0 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 6,524,922 | | | | Cross River | 24.3 | 24.3 | 33.0 | 16.1 | 48.7 | 3.7 | 16.3 | 4.2 | 25.9 | 8.6 | 6,244,922 | | | | Delta | 79.4 | 42.5 | 74.3 | 40.4 | 78.2 | 0.2 | 5.9 | 26.3 | 39.4 | 35.0 | 6,035,926 | | | | Ebonjiy | 78.6 | 25.2 | 68.5 | 20.5 | 60.1 | 18.2 | 9.6 | 6.9 | 15.8 | 14.5 | 3,049,669 | | | | Ebol | 82.9 | 14.1 | 74.2 | 40.0 | 74.6 | 7.9 | 7.5 | 25.6 | 43.9 | 37.5 | 4,477,005 | | | | Ekiti | 92.0 | 34.9 | 75.8 | 29.1 | 81.4 | 10.6 | 2.5 | 9.9 | 24.2 | 19.5 | 3,480,278 | | | | Enugu | 85.0 | 53.6 | 68.8 | 42.0 | 67.5 | 17.6 | 3.2 | 11.0 | 20.6 | 11.6 | 4,685,917 | | | | Gombe | 70.3 | 11.2 | 53.3 | 9.0 | 65.2 | 5.1 | 12.4 | 3.2 | 8.2 | 7.7 | 3,471,222 | | | | Ingoma | 19.9 | 44.9 | 90.4 | 12.0 | 80.5 | 14.7 | 0.9 | 18.8 | 55.5 | 33.5 | 5,747,573 | | | | Jujawa | 83.8 | 16.9 | 90.9 | 14.5 | 89.1 | 4.1 | 6.0 | 2.1 | 17.4 | 16.1 | 6,180,984 | | | * * * | Composite Indicator 3: Handwashing PracticePercentage indicator of households where facility for handwashing was observed, with water and soap at the place of handwashing and were able to demonstrate proper handwashing | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | National | 98.6 | 26.6 | 17.5 | 7.6 | 68.4 | 42,541,141 | 4.1 | 23.7 | 17.2 | 206,283,336 | | | Geopolitical zone | | | | | | | | | | | | | North central | 98.7 | 21.2 | 11.4 | 7.3 | 74.2 | 6,213,175 | 2.8 | 19.8 | 10.8 | 31,416,260 | | | North east | 98.3 | 16.4 | 12.1 | 3.6 | 68.7 | 5,314,632 | 1.5 | 29.6 | 11.6 | 28,013,058 | | | North west | 98.3 | 24.6 | 21.5 | 3.8 | 58.7 | 9,595,568 | 2.4 | 34.9 | 20.9 | 52,072,766 | | | South east | 99.2 | 20.8 | 12.6 | 5.6 | 78.1 | 5,045,363 | 2.6 | 15.3 | 12.4 | 23,292,636 | | | South south | 99.3 | 33.6 | 24.3 | 9.6 | 59.4 | 6,849,154 | 5.9 | 27.5 | 25.2 | 30,700,493 | | | South west | 98.3 | 35.7 | 18.0 | 11.3 | 75.5 | 9,523,348 | 8.6 | 10.2 | 18.3 | 40,788,122 | | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban: | 98.5 | 36.5 | 25.1 | 13.2 | 62.8 | 14,820,701 | 8.3 | 21.2 | 24.6 | 66,860,633 | | | Peri-Urban | 97.4 | 31.7 | 21.7 | 9.4 | 65.6 | 3,180,382 | 4.5 | 19.4 | 21.6 | 14,033,147 | | | Urban | 98.8 | 37.5 | 26.0 | 14.2 | 62.1 | 11,384,819 | 5.6 | 21.7 | 25.6 | 52,827,466 | | | Rural: | 98.8 | 20.8 | 12.7 | 4.6 | 72.0 | 2,291,507 | 2.0 | 24.6 | 13.1 | 115,418,255 | | | Itinerant | 98.1 | 24.0 | 19.2 | 3.6 | 66.5 | 974,239 | 2.3 | 27.8 | 18.2 | 4,813,255 | | | Rural | 98.7 | 21.2 | 13.4 | 6.4 | 71.4 | 27,720,441 | 2.1 | 24.9 | 13.7 | 139,422,703 | | | Small town | 98.2 | 23.2 | 16.3 | 4.8 | 68.8 | 3,831,184 | 2.5 | 25.7 | 16.5 | 19,191,213 | | | Wealth index quintile | | | | | | | | | | | | | Poorest | 97.8 | 13.7 | 9.7 | 1.9 | 74.7 | 8,329,055 | 0.3 | 22.9 | 9.2 | 41,443,305 | | * * * | | Percentage of HH heads that have knowledge of at least 2 critical times for handwashing | Percentage of HHs with soap observed in their house | Percentage of HHs with fixed place for handwashing with water and soap present | Percentage of HH heads that demonstrated proper handwashing with water and soap under running water | Percentage of HHs where handwashing facility not available on premises | Number of household | Percentage of HHs member that are likely to practice proper handwashing (with water and soap) at critical times (After using the toilet, after changing diaper before eating and before preparing food) | Percentage of HHs member with limited Hygiene Services (where handwashing facility is available on premises without soap and water) | Percentage of HHs member with Basic Hygiene Services (where handwashing facility is available on premises and with soap and water) | Number of household member | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Delta | 97.9 | 42.1 | 34.8 | 17.8 | 47.7 | 1,334,054 | 13.5 | 28.6 | 34.8 | 6,035,927 | | Ebonyi | 100.0 | 14.6 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 97.2 | 639,844 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 3,049,669 | | Edo | 99.4 | 7.8 | 2.0 | 2.7 | 93.8 | 988,830 | 1.2 | 4.9 | 2.4 | 4,477,006 | | Ehti | 96.7 | 18.1 | 4.2 | 2.4 | 94.2 | 733,055 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 4.3 | 3,440,078 | | Enugu | 98.0 | 15.8 | 8.8 | 0.3 | 80.5 | 1,053,336 | 0.4 | 16.3 | 7.6 | 4,685,917 | | Gombe | 99.1 | 20.6 | 9.9 | 2.8 | 56.6 | 636,605 | 0.6 | 43.1 | 9.2 | 3,471,222 | | Imo | 98.7 | 18.0 | 12.9 | 5.0 | 78.8 | 1,244,680 | 3.4 | 20.4 | 18.1 | 5,764,571 | | Jigawa | 100.0 | 44.3 | 37.3 | 2.2 | 50.1 | 1,177,672 | 0.8 | 42.9 | 34.6 | 6,180,993 | | Kaduna | 99.2 | 39.2 | 33.2 | 8.8 | 28.9 | 1,664,333 | 5.3 | 59.7 | 31.2 | 8,766,461 | | Kano | 98.0 | 13.9 | 11.0 | 3.4 | 66.8 | 2,456,711 | 1.7 | 29.1 | 11.1 | 13,959,784 | | Katsina | 94.0 | 32.2 | 30.5 | 8.9 | 57.8 | 1,558,506 | 5.2 | 41.8 | 31.7 | 8,319,185 | | Kebbi | 98.8 | 18.6 | 28.0 | 13.1 | 67.7 | 844,434 | 0.9 | 20.4 | 28.6 | 4,724,415 | | Kogi | 95.7 | 7.5 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 87.9 | 924,688 | 1.1 | 10.6 | 4.2 | 4,753,744 | | Kwara | 99.0 | 34.4 | 12.2 | 8.9 | 80.5 | 689,852 | 3.4 | 11.1 | 11.5 | 3,391,799 | | Lagos | 97.5 | 51.9 | 34.0 | 21.1 | 58.7 | 3,330,768 | 18.1 | 10.5 | 34.7 | 13,376,240 | | Nasarawa | 98.8 | 51.0 | 26.4 | 14.5 | 66.4 | 511,985 | 5.4 | 29.7 | 26.0 | 2,680,594 | * * * | Composite Indicator 4: WASH Services | | | | --- | --- | --- | | | Percentage of HH members using basic water supply and basic sanitation Services | Percentage of HH members using basic water supply and basic hygiene Services | | National | 34.8 | 14.2 | | | | | | Geopolitical zone | | | | North central | 27.4 | 8.6 | | North east | 35.7 | 9.7 | | North west | 27.3 | 15.4 | | South east | 45.4 | 11.0 | | South south | 34.2 | 20.5 | | South west | 44.0 | 17.3 | | Sector | | | | Urban: | 52.3 | 22.6 | | Peri-Urban | 58.4 | 18.3 | | Urban | 50.6 | 23.7 | | Rural: | 26.4 | 10.2 | | Itinerant | 27.5 | 14.0 | | Rural | 25.1 | 9.7 | | Small Town | 34.2 | 12.2 | | Wealth index quintile | | | | Poorest | 11.5 | 6.3 | | Second | 17.6 | 7.2 | | Middle | 28.3 | 8.9 | | Fourth | 44.9 | 13.8 | | Richest | 71.9 | 35.0 | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | Literate | 40.3 | 17.9 | | Non-Literate | 22.0 | 5.6 | | Gender of HH Head | | | | Male | 34.0 | 14.4 | | Female | 39.4 | 13.0 | | HHs with at least one PLWD | | | | HH with PLWD | 38.1 | 17.3 | | HH without PLWD | 34.6 | 14.0 | | State | | | | Abia | 39.4 | 5.5 | | Adamawa | 47.9 | 7.8 | | Akwa Ibom | 31.3 | 8.2 | | Anambra | 68.7 | 17.1 | | Bauchi | 41.7 | 17.5 | | Bayelsa | 16.9 | 8.1 | | Benue | 15.9 | 2.7 | | Borno | 35.0 | 5.9 | | Cross River | 18.5 | 19.6 | | Delta | 36.2 | 31.4 | | Ebonyi | 10.1 | 2.4 | | Edo | 48.4 | 2.4 | | Ekiti | 29.4 | 4.0 | | Enugu | 19.3 | 6.1 | | Gombe | 34.6 | 6.6 | | Imo | 65.6 | 17.2 | | Jigawa | 45.6 | 28.1 | | Kaduna | 21.0 | 20.5 | | Kano | 33.6 | 9.1 | | Katsina | 22.1 | 23.4 | | Kebbi | 13.8 | 18.1 | | Kogi | 21.6 | 3.6 | | Kwara | 28.9 | 10.6 | | Lagos | 61.1 | 34.4 | | Nasarawa | 29.5 | 14.7 | | Niger | 32.8 | 9.5 | | Ogun | 56.3 | 8.9 | | Ondo | 29.3 | 5.1 | | Osun | 40.3 | 19.8 | | Oyo | 25.3 | 6.7 | | Plateau | 21.8 | 7.8 | | Rivers | 40.2 | 35.8 | | Sokoto | 17.2 | 1.9 | | Taraba | 16.0 | 2.1 | | Yobe | 28.3 | 13.1 | | Zamfara | 29.9 | 6.1 | | Percentage of HH members using basic sanitation and hygiene Services | Percentage of HH members using basic water supply, basic sanitation and hygiene Services | Number of household member | | --- | --- | --- | | 11.2 | 9.6 | 206,283,336 | | | | | | 7.7 | 6.7 | 31,416,260 | | 9.1 | 7.6 | 28,013,058 | | 10.8 | 8.0 | 52,072,766 | | 10.2 | 9.2 | 23,292,636 | | 14.4 | 12.5 | 30,700,493 | | 13.9 | 13.1 | 40,788,122 | | | | | | 18.0 | 16.5 | 66,860,633 | | 18.0 | 15.4 | 14,033,147 | | 18.0 | 16.7 | 52,827,486 | | 7.9 | 6.3 | 139,422,703 | | 6.3 | 5.5 | 4,813,255 | | 7.4 | 5.9 | 115,418,235 | | 11.2 | 8.4 | 19,191,213 | | | | | | 4.4 | 3.2 | 41,443,305 | | 3.3 | 2.5 | 41,147,179 | | 6.6 | 4.9 | 41,224,838 | | 10.5 | 8.3 | 41,360,542 | | 31.1 | 29.1 | 41,107,472 | | | | | | 14.1 | 12.2 | 144,430,589 | | 4.3 | 3.5 | 61,852,748 | | | | | | 11.4 | 9.7 | 176,301,267 | | 9.9 | 8.9 | 29,982,069 | | | | | | 15.7 | 13.4 | 11,378,656 | | 10.9 | 9.3 | 194,904,680 | | | | | | 7.6 | 5.5 | 3,939,790 | | 7.6 | 7.5 | 4,505,632 | | 8.4 | 6.5 | 5,861,745 | | 18.2 | 16.7 | 5,852,689 | | 15.7 | 14.1 | 6,989,936 | | 5.1 | 4.3 | 2,415,866 | | 2.9 | 1.8 | 6,099,511 | | 5.4 | 4.4 | 6,265,922 | | 15.6 | 9.6 | 4,100,328 | | 24.0 | 22.9 | 6,035,927 | | .8 | .8 | 3,049,669 | | 2.4 | 2.4 | 4,477,006 | | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3,480,278 | | 2.3 | 1.7 | 4,685,917 | | 4.9 | 4.3 | 3,471,222 | | 15.3 | 14.5 | 5,764,571 | | 22.7 | 18.6 | 6,180,993 | | 16.6 | 13.6 | 8,766,461 | | 6.9 | 5.5 | 13,959,784 | | 12.0 | 7.0 | 8,319,185 | | 9.5 | 4.2 | 4,724,415 | | 3.5 | 3.4 | 4,752,174 | | 5.9 | 5.5 | 3,391,799 | | 25.6 | 25.5 | 13,376,240 | | 14.2 | 11.5 | 2,680,594 | | 10.2 | 9.1 | 5,940,943 | | 8.5 | 8.5 | 5,569,993 | | 5.8 | 4.6 | 4,962,727 | * * * | Composite Indicator 1: Access to WASH Services V-diagram | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Percentage of HH members with access to Basic Water supply services only | Percentage of HH members with access to Basic Sanitation Service only | Percentage of HH members with access to Basic Hygiene Service only | | National | 27.2 | 9.0 | 1.4 | | Geopolitical zone | | | | | North central | 28.7 | 6.3 | 1.2 | | North east | 27.8 | 13.5 | 0.5 | | North west | 21.4 | 12.1 | 2.7 | | South east | 26.0 | 10.8 | 0.3 | | South south | 23.0 | 10.1 | 2.8 | | South west | 37.1 | 2.4 | 0.2 | | Sector | | | | | Urban: | 28.0 | 5.2 | 0.5 | | Peri-Urban | 25.0 | 5.3 | 0.7 | | Urban | 28.7 | 5.2 | 0.4 | | Rural: | 26.9 | 10.9 | 1.9 | | Itinerant | 26.4 | 4.2 | 3.4 | | Rural | 26.6 | 11.3 | 1.9 | | Small Town | 28.8 | 9.7 | 1.4 | | Wealth index quintile | | | | | Poorest | 30.9 | 6.4 | 1.6 | | Second | 30.6 | 12.4 | 2.1 | | Middle | 31.1 | 12.9 | 2.0 | | Fourth | 29.6 | 9.0 | 0.9 | | Richest | 13.9 | 4.4 | 0.5 | | Literacy of the HH Head | | | | | Literate | 25.6 | 9.2 | 1.6 | | Non-Literate | 31.1 | 8.6 | 1.1 | | Gender of HH Head | | | | | Male | 26.7 | 9.5 | 1.5 | | Female | 30.3 | 6.6 | 0.8 | | HHs with at least one PLWD | | | | | HH with PLWD | 24.2 | 10.0 | 2.0 | | HH without PLWD | 27.4 | 9.0 | 1.4 | | State | | | | | Abia | 11.6 | 32.1 | 0.5 | | Adamawa | 28.8 | 6.4 | 0.6 | | Akwa Ibom | 14.3 | 23.1 | 1.2 | | Anambra | 23.3 | 3.7 | 0.0 | | Bauchi | 21.9 | 16.5 | 0.0 | | Bayelsa | 30.6 | 4.9 | 4.6 | | Benue | 23.1 | 10.6 | 1.4 | | Borno | 31.5 | 17.1 | 0.2 | | Cross River | 20.2 | 5.9 | 6.6 | | Delta | 33.5 | 1.9 | 2.3 | | Ebonyi | 48.4 | 3.8 | 0.0 | | Edo | 26.2 | 17.0 | 0.0 | | Ekiti | 51.5 | 2.4 | 0.2 | | Enugu | 43.8 | 8.1 | 0.9 | | Gombe | 28.2 | 11.5 | 1.9 | | Imo | 12.1 | 9.6 | 0.1 | | Jigawa | 34.0 | 2.7 | 2.3 | | Kaduna | 16.6 | 6.7 | 7.6 | | Kano | 23.6 | 14.9 | 0.5 | | Katsina | 15.7 | 9.9 | 3.3 | | Kebbi | 18.4 | 10.2 | 5.2 | | Percentage of HH members with access to Basic Water and Basic Sanitation Services only25.2 | Percentage of HH members with access to Basic Water and Basic Hygiene Services only4.6 | Percentage of HH members with access to Basic Sanitation and Basic Hygiene Services only1.6 | Percentage of HH members with access to WASH Services9.6 | Number of household206,283,336 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 20.6 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 6.7 | 31,416,260 | | 28.0 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 7.6 | 28,013,058 | | 19.3 | 7.4 | 2.8 | 8.0 | 52,072,766 | | 36.2 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 9.2 | 23,292,636 | | 21.7 | 8.0 | 1.9 | 12.5 | 30,700,493 | | 30.8 | 4.1 | 0.8 | 13.1 | 40,788,122 | | 35.8 | 6.1 | 1.6 | 16.5 | 66,860,633 | | 42.9 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 15.4 | 14,033,147 | | 33.9 | 6.9 | 1.3 | 16.7 | 52,827,486 | | 20.2 | 3.9 | 1.6 | 6.3 | 139,422,703 | | 21.9 | 8.5 | 0.8 | 5.5 | 4,813,255 | | 19.2 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 5.9 | 115,418,235 | | 25.7 | 3.8 | 2.8 | 8.4 | 19,191,213 | | 8.3 | 3.1 | 1.3 | 3.2 | 41,443,305 | | 15.1 | 4.7 | 0.9 | 2.5 | 41,147,179 | | 23.4 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 4.9 | 41,224,838 | | 36.6 | 5.5 | 2.3 | 8.3 | 41,360,542 | | 42.8 | 5.9 | 2.1 | 29.1 | 41,107,472 | | 28.1 | 5.7 | 2.0 | 12.2 | 144,430,589 | | 18.5 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 3.5 | 61,852,748 | | 24.3 | 4.7 | 1.7 | 9.7 | 176,301,267 | | 30.5 | 4.0 | 0.9 | 8.9 | 29,982,069 | | 24.8 | 3.9 | 2.4 | 13.4 | 11,378,656 | | 25.3 | 4.7 | 1.6 | 9.3 | 194,904,680 | | 33.9 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 5.5 | 3,939,790 | | 40.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 7.5 | 4,505,632 | | 24.8 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 6.5 | 5,861,745 | | 52.0 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 16.7 | 5,852,689 | | 27.6 | 3.4 | 1.6 | 14.1 | 6,989,936 | | 12.5 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 4.3 | 2,415,866 | | 14.1 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 6,099,511 | | 30.6 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 4.4 | 6,265,922 | | 8.9 | 10.0 | 6.0 | 9.6 | 4,100,328 | | 13.3 | 8.5 | 1.1 | 22.9 | 6,035,927 | | 9.3 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 3,049,669 | | 45.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 4,477,006 | * * * | Composite Indicator 1: Access to WASH Services V-diagram | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Percentage of HH members with access to Basic Water supply services only | Percentage of HH members with access to Basic Sanitation Service only | Percentage of HH members with access to Basic Hygiene Service only | Percentage of HH members with access to Basic Water and Basic Sanitation Services only | | Kogi | 40.0 | 5.5 | 0.4 | 18.3 | | Kwara | 40.2 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 23.3 | | Lagos | 26.1 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 35.7 | | Nasarawa | 27.2 | 3.7 | 8.5 | 18.0 | | Niger | 26.2 | 6.6 | 0.1 | 23.7 | | Ogun | 37.3 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 47.8 | | Ondo | 31.5 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 24.8 | | Osun | 36.8 | 2.8 | 0.9 | 26.4 | | Oyo | 51.8 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 20.2 | | Plateau | 26.7 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 17.5 | | Rivers | 18.6 | 6.5 | 3.4 | 21.6 | | Sokoto | 15.3 | 29.2 | 0.0 | 15.7 | | Taraba | 18.6 | 17.9 | 0.6 | 14.1 | | Yobe | 39.6 | 8.5 | 0.5 | 18.9 | | Zamfara | 27.0 | 12.2 | 0.0 | 25.5 | | FCT Abuja | 21.4 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 31.7 | | Percentage of HH members with access to Basic Water and Basic Hygiene Services only | Percentage of HH members with access to Basic Sanitation and Basic Hygiene Services only | Percentage of HH members with access to WASH Services | Number of household | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 0.2 | 0.2 | 3.4 | 4,752,174 | | 5.0 | 0.3 | 5.5 | 3,391,799 | | 9.0 | 0.2 | 25.5 | 13,376,240 | | 3.3 | 2.7 | 11.5 | 2,680,594 | | 0.5 | 1.1 | 9.1 | 5,940,943 | | 0.4 | 0.0 | 8.5 | 5,569,993 | | 0.5 | 1.2 | 4.6 | 4,962,727 | | 6.0 | 2.4 | 13.9 | 5,015,146 | | 1.5 | 1.3 | 5.2 | 8,383,738 | | 3.5 | 1.3 | 4.3 | 4,439,850 | | 17.2 | 2.0 | 18.6 | 7,809,622 | | 0.4 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 5,309,454 | | 0.3 | 0.4 | 1.9 | 3,252,496 | | 3.8 | 5.2 | 9.3 | 3,527,851 | | 1.7 | 0.7 | 4.4 | 4,812,475 | | 2.0 | 0.8 | 15.1 | 4,111,389 | * * * ## Water Supply Tables # Water Supply Tables Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Analyzed Tables National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | WF.B1: Facility Type Details | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of Water Facility according to types | | | | | | | | hand pump borehole | force-lift hand pump borehole | motorized borehole | reticulated motorized borehole | Type of Water improved hand dug well | | National | 12.0 | 0.7 | 30.3 | 0.5 | 42.2 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | North-Central | 9.0 | 1.1 | 20.2 | 0.7 | 61.4 | | North-East | 27.2 | 0.5 | 19.4 | 0.0 | 36.8 | | North-West | 24.3 | 0.8 | 21.5 | 0.3 | 47.7 | | South-East | 4.2 | 0.1 | 36.9 | 0.7 | 9.9 | | South-South | 2.5 | 0.7 | 58.5 | 0.5 | 23.9 | | South-West | 4.2 | 0.7 | 33.8 | 0.5 | 58.2 | | Sector | | | | | | | Urban | 6.3 | 0.3 | 37.2 | 0.9 | 48.7 | | Peri-Urban | 6.5 | 0.5 | 34.4 | 1.2 | 51.6 | | Urban | 5.8 | 0.3 | 38.7 | 0.8 | 47.4 | | Rural | 15.9 | 0.9 | 25.8 | 0.2 | 37.9 | | Itinerant | 8.3 | 2.2 | 23.3 | 0.0 | 35.1 | | Rural | 17.3 | 1.0 | 27.2 | 0.2 | 32.9 | | Small Town | 12.7 | 0.6 | 21.8 | 0.2 | 52.9 | | State | | | | | | | Abia | 1.3 | 0.0 | 84.2 | 1.3 | 13.2 | | Adamawa | 23.1 | 0.0 | 10.6 | 0.0 | 66.3 | | Akwa Ibom | 0.0 | 0.0 | 95.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Anambra | 0.0 | 0.0 | 64.3 | 2.4 | 4.8 | | Bauchi | 51.0 | 4.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 42.9 | | Bayelsa | 0.0 | 0.0 | 71.4 | 2.4 | 2.4 | | Benue | 7.0 | 2.3 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 83.7 | | Borno | 14.9 | 0.0 | 42.6 | 0.0 | 14.9 | | Cross River | 1.9 | 0.0 | 37.0 | 0.0 | 16.7 | | Delta | 5.0 | 3.8 | 73.8 | 0.0 | 15.0 | | Ebonyi | 66.7 | 0.0 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 6.7 | | Edo | 0.4 | 0.0 | 32.7 | 0.4 | 57.4 | | Ekiti | 5.6 | 1.1 | 12.2 | 0.0 | 78.9 | | Enugu | 0.0 | 0.4 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 21.4 | | Gombe | 23.8 | 0.0 | 11.9 | 0.0 | 14.3 | | Imo | 1.8 | 0.0 | 40.1 | 0.0 | 0.6 | | Jigawa | 59.5 | 0.0 | 17.7 | 0.0 | 12.7 | | Kaduna | 11.3 | 0.0 | 26.2 | 0.0 | 59.6 | | Kano | 44.8 | 0.6 | 16.2 | 0.0 | 38.3 | | Katsina | 43.1 | 0.0 | 18.5 | 1.5 | 30.8 | | Point rainwater harvesting system | public stand post connected to regional scheme | water kiosk connected to regional scheme | developed spring | Total | Estimated Number of Water Facility | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 9.1 | 5.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 100.0 | 2,313,566 | | 5.3 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 426,445 | | 0.8 | 14.9 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 264,406 | | 0.0 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 100.0 | 523,772 | | 47.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 368,286 | | 3.9 | 9.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 100.0 | 275,568 | | 0.2 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 455,090 | | 1.6 | 4.9 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 917,937 | | 2.9 | 2.6 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 271,131 | | 1.0 | 5.9 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 636,760 | | 14.1 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 1,395,629 | | 31.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 37,573 | | 17.0 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 100.0 | 1,011,209 | | 3.9 | 7.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 356,894 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 46,328 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 55,107 | | 0.0 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 38,607 | | 28.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 68,155 | | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 34,799 | | 16.7 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 21,056 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 65,521 | | 2.1 | 23.4 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 47,121 | | 0.0 | 44.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 48,960 | | 1.3 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 50,292 | | 0.0 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 18,938 | | 7.6 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 100 | 81,510 | | 0.0 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 35,879 | | 75.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 117,575 | | 2.4 | 47.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 48,362 | | 56.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 100 | 117,290 | | 0.0 | 8.9 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 100 | 52,166 | | 0.0 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 243,742 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 81,439 | | 0.0 | 6.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 45,069 | * * * | | Power Source | | | --- | --- | --- | | | Solar | Windmill | | National | 10.6 | 0.4 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | North-Central | 4.7 | 0.0 | | North-East | 33.5 | 1.7 | | North-West | 28.7 | 0.0 | | South-East | 1.7 | 0.6 | | South-South | 6.5 | 0.3 | | South-West | 5.3 | 0.6 | | Sector | | | | Urban | 6.6 | 0.0 | | Peri-Urban | 6.7 | 0.0 | | Urban | 6.6 | 0.0 | | Rural | 14.4 | 0.9 | | Itinerant | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Rural | 15.4 | 0.8 | | Small Town | 12.3 | 1.0 | | State | | | | Abia | 1.5 | 0.0 | | Adamawa | 36.4 | 0.0 | | Akwa Ibom | 7.3 | 0.0 | | Anambra | 0.0 | 1.8 | | Bauchi | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Bayelsa | 3.2 | 0.0 | | Benue | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Borno | 25.0 | 0.0 | | Cross River | 15.0 | 0.0 | | Delta | 10.2 | 0.0 | | Ebonyi | 33.3 | 0.0 | | Edo | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Ekiti | 18.2 | 0.0 | | Enugu | 16.7 | 0.0 | | Gombe | 60.0 | 0.0 | | Imo | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Jigawa | 64.3 | 0.0 | | Kaduna | 13.5 | 0.0 | | Kano | 40.0 | 0.0 | | Katsina | 53.8 | 0.0 | | Kebbi | 69.2 | 0.0 | | Kogi | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Kwara | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Lagos | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Nasarawa | 7.7 | 0.0 | | Niger | 15.4 | 0.0 | | Ogun | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Ondo | 16.7 | 5.6 | | Osun | 4.4 | 0.0 | | Oyo | 23.5 | 0.0 | | Plateau | 12.5 | 0.0 | | Rivers | 3.3 | 1.6 | | Sokoto | 12.0 | 0.0 | | Taraba | 0.0 | 33.3 | | Yobe | 38.9 | 0.0 | | Zamfara | 43.5 | 0.0 | | Fct Abuja | 8.6 | 0.0 | | boreholes | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | of Water Point | | | Total | Estimated Number of Motorised boreholes | | Generator | Public Power Supply | | | | | 29.9 | 59.1 | 100 | 711,978 | | | 22.9 | 72.4 | 100 | 89,136 | | | 36.7 | 28.1 | 100 | 51,296 | | | 16.8 | 54.5 | 100 | 114,151 | | | 35.9 | 61.9 | 100 | 138,703 | | | 52.4 | 40.8 | 100 | 162,465 | | | 12.6 | 81.4 | 100 | 156,227 | | | 23.1 | 70.3 | 100 | 349,709 | | | 31.9 | 61.4 | 100 | 96,586 | | | 19.4 | 73.9 | 100 | 251,153 | | | 36.5 | 48.2 | 100 | 362,269 | | | 53.2 | 46.8 | 100 | 8,761 | | | 41.9 | 41.9 | 100 | 276,984 | | | 16.1 | 70.5 | 100 | 78,494 | | | 30.8 | 67.7 | 100 | 39,623 | | | 36.4 | 27.3 | 100 | 5,829 | | | 43.9 | 48.8 | 100 | 36,812 | | | 25.0 | 73.2 | 100 | 45,437 | | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | - | | | 74.2 | 22.6 | 100 | 15,541 | | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 4,571 | | | 60.0 | 15.0 | 100 | 20,052 | | | 75.0 | 10.0 | 100 | 18,133 | | | 67.8 | 22.0 | 100 | 37,091 | | | 0.0 | 66.7 | 100 | 3,788 | | | 35.1 | 64.9 | 100 | 27,048 | | | 36.4 | 45.5 | 100 | 4,385 | | | 83.3 | 0.0 | 100 | 2,799 | | | 0.0 | 40.0 | 100 | 5,757 | | | 50.7 | 49.3 | 100 | 47,056 | | | 14.3 | 21.4 | 100 | 9,245 | | | 8.1 | 78.4 | 100 | 63,961 | | | 40.0 | 20.0 | 100 | 13,221 | | | 38.5 | 7.7 | 100 | 9,014 | | | 15.4 | 15.4 | 100 | 8,165 | | | 28.6 | 71.4 | 100 | 7,593 | | | 6.3 | 93.8 | 100 | 36,179 | | | 4.3 | 95.7 | 100 | 28,416 | | | 53.8 | 38.5 | 100 | 14,330 | | | 0.0 | 84.6 | 100 | 7,895 | | | 19.6 | 80.4 | 100 | 37,101 | | | 33.3 | 44.4 | 100 | 17,938 | | | 2.9 | 92.6 | 100 | 60,495 | | | 23.5 | 52.9 | 100 | 7,893 | | * * * | WF.B3-4: Facility Type DetailsPercent of facility types based on construction Support and ownership with respect to usage | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Facility Construction by Support | | | | | | | | | Fed.Govt. | State Govt. | Local Govt. | Donor | Civil Society | Cooperate Organization | Community | Public Election | | | NationalGeopolitical Zone | 3.9 | 9.0 | 5.4 | 3.8 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 5.7 | | | North-Central | 4.1 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 5.5 | | | North-East | 9.6 | 23.2 | 7.2 | 10.4 | 0.7 | 2.8 | 11.0 | | | North-West | 4.4 | 12.6 | 12.5 | 4.4 | 0.4 | 2.7 | 9.8 | | | South-East | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.4 | | | South-South | 1.2 | 11.8 | 3.8 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 4.6 | | | South-West | 3.5 | 6.8 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 2.4 | | | SectorUrban | 2.8 | 6.4 | 2.5 | 3.2 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 2.4 | | | Peri-Urbian | 3.5 | 4.0 | 1.9 | 4.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1.7 | | | Urban | 2.4 | 7.5 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 0.3 | 1.0 | 2.8 | | | Rural | 4.6 | 10.7 | 7.3 | 4.2 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 7.9 | | | Itinerant | 2.2 | 1.8 | 14.5 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.9 | | | Rural | 5.3 | 10.5 | 7.3 | 4.1 | 0.2 | 2.1 | 7.6 | | | Small Town | 2.9 | 12.1 | 6.9 | 4.8 | 0.3 | 2.1 | 9.1 | | | StateAbia | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.6 | | | Adamawa | 3.8 | 34.6 | 8.7 | 7.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.6 | | | Akwa Ibom | 0.0 | 7.0 | 9.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.7 | | | Anambra | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | | Bauchi | 12.2 | 20.4 | 4.1 | 16.3 | 0.0 | 16.3 | 16.3 | | | Bayelsa | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 7.1 | 7.1 | | | Benue | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 0.0 | | | Borno | 6.4 | 12.8 | 8.5 | 25.5 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 8.5 | | | Cross River | 1.9 | 48.1 | 0.0 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | | Delta | 1.3 | 8.8 | 8.8 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.8 | | | Ebonyi | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 13.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | | Edo | 0.4 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.8 | | | Ownership with respect to usage | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Private business | Private owner | Philanthropist | Others (Specify) | Total | Public | Private | Total | Estimated Number of Water Facility | | | 3.0 | 65.3 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 100 | 57.2 | 42.8 | 100 | 2,313,566 | | | 3.5 | 70.8 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 100 | 53.7 | 46.3 | 100 | 426,445 | | | 4.5 | 28.4 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 100 | 74.9 | 25.1 | 100 | 264,406 | | | 0.9 | 50.9 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 100 | 71.9 | 28.1 | 100 | 523,772 | | | 4.5 | 89.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 100 | 27.8 | 72.2 | 100 | 368,286 | | | 7.0 | 66.7 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 100 | 48.4 | 51.6 | 100 | 275,568 | | | 0.6 | 78.0 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 100 | 62.2 | 37.8 | 100 | 455,090 | | | 2.5 | 77.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 100 | 54.9 | 45.1 | 100 | 917,937 | | | 2.8 | 78.9 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 100 | 43.3 | 56.7 | 100 | 271,131 | | | 2.4 | 77.0 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 100 | 59.3 | 40.7 | 100 | 636,760 | | | 3.4 | 57.3 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 100 | 58.7 | 41.3 | 100 | 1,395,629 | | | 5.6 | 72.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 39.6 | 60.4 | 100 | 37,573 | | | 3.5 | 56.9 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 100 | 57.5 | 42.5 | 100 | 1,011,209 | | | 2.9 | 57.1 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 65.0 | 35.0 | 100 | 356,894 | | | 6.6 | 85.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 40.8 | 59.2 | 100 | 46,328 | | | 0.0 | 34.6 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 100 | 67.3 | 32.7 | 100 | 55,107 | | | 16.3 | 60.5 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 100 | 53.5 | 46.5 | 100 | 38,607 | | | 1.2 | 98.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 100 | 68,155 | | | 0.0 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 34,799 | | | 9.5 | 73.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 47.6 | 52.4 | 100 | 21,056 | | | 14.0 | 74.4 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 100 | 48.8 | 51.2 | 100 | 65,521 | | | 19.1 | 14.9 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 100 | 70.2 | 29.8 | 100 | 47,121 | | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | WF.B5: Facility Type Details | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of Water facilities according to their year of completion from date of completion | | | | | | Period of completion from | | | | Less than a year | 1-2 years | 3-4 years | | | National | 1.20 | 9.00 | 10.50 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | North-Central | 1.6 | 6.6 | 9.8 | | North-East | 1.6 | 16.0 | 12.2 | | North-West | 2.0 | 9.2 | 9.0 | | South-East | 0.7 | 10.3 | 12.6 | | South-South | 1.0 | 9.5 | 14.2 | | South-West | 0.1 | 5.7 | 7.9 | | Sector | | | | | Urban | 1.0 | 9.1 | 10.1 | | Peri-Urbane | 0.9 | 9.8 | 10.1 | | Urban | 1.0 | 8.6 | 10.0 | | Rural | 1.3 | 9.0 | 10.8 | | Itinerant | 0.0 | 5.4 | 0.0 | | Rural | 1.5 | 9.6 | 11.9 | | Small Town | 0.9 | 8.0 | 8.8 | | State | | | | | Abia | 1.3 | 11.8 | 6.6 | | Adamawa | 0.0 | 15.4 | 7.7 | | Akwa Ibom | 0.0 | 7.0 | 20.9 | | Anambra | 0.0 | 11.9 | 11.9 | | Bauchi | 2.0 | 14.3 | 20.4 | | Bayelsa | 2.4 | 11.9 | 7.1 | | Benue | 4.7 | 2.3 | 14.0 | | Borno | 0.0 | 29.8 | 23.4 | | Cross River | 1.9 | 7.4 | 16.7 | | Delta | 1.3 | 12.5 | 8.8 | | Ebonyi | 0.0 | 13.3 | 6.7 | | Edo | 0.4 | 10.3 | 12.6 | | Ekiti | 0.0 | 10.0 | 6.7 | | Enugu | 1.6 | 11.9 | 19.8 | | Gombe | 0.0 | 11.9 | 7.1 | | Imo | 0.0 | 6.6 | 9.0 | | Jigawa | 1.3 | 2.5 | 3.8 | | Kaduna | 2.8 | 12.1 | 8.5 | | Kano | 1.9 | 7.8 | 11.0 | | Katsina | 1.5 | 20.0 | 7.7 | | Kebbi | 0.0 | 1.3 | 14.7 | | Kogi | 2.7 | 8.1 | 8.1 | | Kwara | 1.9 | 4.9 | 4.9 | | Lagos | 0.4 | 3.0 | 6.1 | | Nasarawa | 0.0 | 18.8 | 15.6 | | Niger | 2.4 | 4.9 | 4.9 | | Ogun | 0.0 | 5.8 | 12.8 | | Ondo | 0.0 | 6.4 | 6.4 | | Osun | 0.0 | 5.8 | 8.7 | | Oyo | 0.6 | 3.7 | 6.2 | | Plateau | 0.0 | 7.9 | 11.9 | | Rivers | 1.3 | 7.8 | 19.5 | | Sokoto | 0.6 | 3.1 | 7.5 | | Taraba | 8.3 | 8.3 | 6.3 | | Yobe | 0.0 | 15.4 | 10.3 | | Zamfara | 1.6 | 3.2 | 19.0 | | Fct Abuja | 0.0 | 3.0 | 12.0 | | 5-6 years | 7 years and above | Don't know | Total | Estimated Number of Water Facility | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 11.90 | 58.40 | 9.00 | 100 | 2,313,566 | | 14.7 | 63.2 | 4.1 | 100 | 426,445 | | 12.7 | 55.9 | 1.6 | 100 | 264,406 | | 10.7 | 62.7 | 6.4 | 100 | 523,772 | | 11.2 | 50.1 | 15.2 | 100 | 368,286 | | 13.5 | 54.9 | 6.8 | 100 | 275,568 | | 9.8 | 59.1 | 17.3 | 100 | 455,090 | | 11.3 | 57.7 | 10.9 | 100 | 917,937 | | 12.8 | 54.3 | 12.2 | 100 | 271,131 | | 10.9 | 59.2 | 10.4 | 100 | 636,760 | | 12.3 | 58.9 | 7.8 | 100 | 1,395,629 | | 11.1 | 81.4 | 2.2 | 100 | 37,573 | | 13.4 | 54.0 | 9.6 | 100 | 1,011,209 | | 9.1 | 70.0 | 3.2 | 100 | 356,894 | | 17.1 | 47.4 | 15.8 | 100 | 46,328 | | 9.6 | 67.3 | 0.0 | 100 | 55,107 | | 14.0 | 53.5 | 4.7 | 100 | 38,607 | | 4.8 | 67.9 | 3.6 | 100 | 68,155 | | 6.1 | 51.0 | 6.1 | 100 | 34,799 | | 14.3 | 35.7 | 28.6 | 100 | 21,056 | | 20.9 | 53.5 | 4.7 | 100 | 65,521 | | 17.0 | 29.8 | 0.0 | 100 | 47,121 | | 27.8 | 46.3 | 0.0 | 100 | 48,960 | | 8.8 | 48.8 | 20.0 | 100 | 50,292 | | 13.3 | 66.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 18,938 | | 5.4 | 70.9 | 0.4 | 100 | 81,510 | | 4.4 | 74.4 | 4.4 | 100 | 35,879 | | 16.3 | 50.0 | 0.4 | 100 | 117,575 | | 16.7 | 61.9 | 2.4 | 100 | 48,362 | | 7.2 | 38.3 | 38.9 | 100 | 117,290 | | 16.5 | 51.9 | 24.1 | 100 | 52,166 | | 6.4 | 61.7 | 8.5 | 100 | 243,742 | | 13.0 | 66.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 81,439 | | 7.7 | 63.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 45,069 | | 25.3 | 58.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 47,106 | | 18.9 | 59.5 | 2.7 | 100 | 40,135 | | 10.5 | 76.5 | 1.2 | 100 | 122,104 | | 15.9 | 58.0 | 16.7 | 100 | 39,903 | | 15.6 | 46.9 | 3.1 | 100 | 35,275 | | 17.1 | 61.0 | 9.8 | 100 | 24,901 | * * * | | Seasonal | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Seasonal | | | | | | | | Total | | | | Hand Pump Borehole | Force-lift Hand Pump Borehole | Motorized Borehole | Reticulated Motorized Borehole | Improved Hand Dug Well | Rainwater Harvesting System | Public Stand Post connected to regional scheme | Water Kiosk connected to regional scheme | | | | | | | | | | | | Developed Spring | | | | | National | 9.1 | 0.8 | 8.1 | 0.2 | 54.1 | 23.6 | 4.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 100 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 8.5 | 0.4 | 6.5 | 0.0 | 76.8 | 6.5 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | North-East | 30.0 | 0.0 | 10.7 | 0.0 | 54.6 | 0.0 | 4.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | North-West | 17.4 | 3.4 | 12.6 | 0.0 | 59.4 | 0.0 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | South-East | 4.5 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 9.4 | 84.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | South-South | 0.7 | 0.0 | 17.5 | 0.0 | 55.8 | 12.0 | 12.7 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 100 | | South-West | 5.2 | 1.1 | 9.6 | 1.2 | 76.4 | 0.0 | 6.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 7.4 | 0.8 | 8.9 | 0.5 | 74.8 | 3.9 | 3.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 100 | | Peri-Urban | 8.8 | 0.9 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 68.4 | 9.1 | 4.3 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Urban | 5.7 | 0.8 | 10.0 | 0.8 | 79.1 | 0.7 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Rural | 9.9 | 0.8 | 7.7 | 0.0 | 43.3 | 33.8 | 4.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Itinerant | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 78.9 | 21.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Rural | 10.3 | 0.7 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 37.7 | 39.6 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Small Town | 10.9 | 1.1 | 6.9 | 0.0 | 64.9 | 7.8 | 8.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | State | | | | | | | | | | | | Abia | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Adamawa | 27.8 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 55.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Akwa Ibom | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Anambra | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | 季节性 of water supply source | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Estimated Number of Seasonal Water Supply Source | Non Seasonal | | | | | | | | Total | Estimated Number of Non-seasonal Water Supply Source | | | Hand Pump Borehole | | Force-lift Hand Pump Borehole | | Motorized Borehole | | Peticulated Motorized Borehole | | | | | | | Improved Hand Dug Well | | Rainwater Harvesting System | | Public Stand Post connected to regional scheme | | Water Kiosk connected to regional scheme | | | | | | | 580,291 | 13.0 | 0.6 | 37.8 | 0.5 | 38.2 | 4.3 | 5.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 100 | 1,733,275 | | 168,579 | 9.3 | 1.5 | 29.2 | 1.1 | 51.4 | 4.5 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 257,866 | | 41,853 | 26.7 | 0.6 | 21.0 | 0.0 | 33.4 | 1.0 | 16.8 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 100 | 222,554 | | 84,242 | 25.6 | 0.3 | 23.2 | 0.3 | 45.5 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 100 | 439,530 | | 139,467 | 3.9 | 0.2 | 58.6 | 1.2 | 10.2 | 24.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 100 | 228,818 | | 64,057 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 70.9 | 0.6 | 14.2 | 1.5 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 100 | 211,511 | | 82,094 | 4.0 | 0.6 | 39.2 | 0.3 | 54.2 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 372,996 | | 198,564 | 6.0 | 0.2 | 45.0 | 1.0 | 41.5 | 0.9 | 5.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 719,373 | | 71,656 | 5.7 | 0.3 | 44.1 | 1.6 | 45.6 | 0.7 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 199,474 | | 122,810 | 5.9 | 0.1 | 45.5 | 1.7 | 39.9 | 1.0 | 6.6 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 519,950 | | 381,727 | 18.1 | 1.0 | 32.6 | 0.2 | 35.9 | 6.7 | 5.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 100 | 1,013,902 | | 9,052 | 11.0 | 2.9 | 30.7 | 0.2 | 21.3 | 34.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 28,521 | | 308,722 | 20.4 | 1.1 | 35.7 | 0.2 | 30.7 | 7.0 | 4.4 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 100 | 702,486 | | 68,051 | 13.2 | 0.5 | 25.3 | 0.3 | 50.0 | 3.0 | 7.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 288,843 | | 1,219 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 85.1 | 1.4 | 12.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 45,109 | | 9,538 | 22.1 | 0.0 | 9.3 | 0.0 | 68.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 45,569 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | | Seasonal | | | | | | | | Total | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Hand Pump Borehole | Force-lift Hand Pump Borehole | Motorized Borehole | Reticulated Motorized Borehole | Improved Hand Dug Well | Rainwater Harvesting System | Public Stand Post connected to regional scheme | Water Kiosk connected to regional scheme | | | | | Ogun | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 75.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Ondo | 8.0 | 0.0 | 12.0 | 4.0 | 76.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Osun | 4.2 | 4.2 | 12.5 | 0.0 | 66.7 | 0.0 | 12.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Oyo | 6.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 82.0 | 0.0 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Plateau | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 98.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Rivers | 14.3 | 0.0 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 57.1 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Sokoto | 10.0 | 3.3 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Taraba | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 75.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Yobe | 25.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Zamfara | 36.0 | 4.0 | 44.0 | 0.0 | 16.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Fct Abuja | 34.6 | 0.0 | 11.5 | 0.0 | 53.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | seasonality of water supply source | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Non Seasonal | | | | | | | | Total | Estimated Number of Non-seasonal Water Supply Source | | | Estimated Number of Seasonal Water Supply Source | Hand Pump Borehole | Force-lift Hand Pump Borehole | Motorized Borehole | Reticulated Motorized Borehole | Improved Hand Dug Well | Rainwater Harvesting System | Public Stand Post connected to regional scheme | Water Kiosk connected to regional scheme | | | | | 2,650 | 3.7 | 1.2 | 67.1 | 0.0 | 28.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 54,326 | | 24,913 | 4.3 | 0.0 | 20.3 | 0.0 | 73.9 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 68,761 | | 21,351 | 4.0 | 0.7 | 43.0 | 0.7 | 48.3 | 0.7 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 132,555 | | 23,215 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 14.4 | 0.0 | 80.2 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 51,537 | | 48,885 | 13.4 | 3.0 | 11.9 | 0.0 | 71.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 55,514 | | 3,195 | 8.6 | 0.0 | 84.3 | 1.4 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.9 | 100 | 31,947 | | 8,406 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 15.5 | 0.0 | 69.0 | 0.0 | 8.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 36,144 | | 14,043 | 18.8 | 0.0 | 9.4 | 0.0 | 62.5 | 0.0 | 9.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 28,087 | | 3,783 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 45.7 | 0.0 | 11.4 | 0.0 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 33,104 | | 3,849 | 47.4 | 0.0 | 31.6 | 0.0 | 21.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 5,851 | | 8,869 | 13.5 | 2.7 | 41.9 | 1.4 | 40.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 25,242 | * * * | | | Non-Functional | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Functional | Not now but previously | Never Functioned | Abandoned/Not completed | Total | | | National | 84.1 | 9.0 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 100 | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | North-Central | 83.7 | 10.3 | 0.8 | 5.2 | 100 | | | North-East | 93.0 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | | North-West | 80.6 | 13.2 | 3.4 | 2.9 | 100 | | | South-East | 87.6 | 5.7 | 2.6 | 4.1 | 100 | | | South-South | 75.0 | 10.5 | 8.4 | 6.0 | 100 | | | South-West | 86.1 | 6.3 | 4.8 | 2.8 | 100 | | | Sector | | | | | | | | Urban | 86.9 | 7.3 | 2.2 | 3.7 | 100 | | | Peri-Urbian | 87.9 | 6.8 | 1.4 | 3.8 | 100 | | | Urban | 86.9 | 6.9 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 100 | | | Rural | 82.3 | 10.1 | 4.1 | 3.4 | 100 | | | Itinerant | 86.7 | 11.6 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 100 | | | Rural | 82.0 | 10.8 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 100 | | | Small Town | 81.9 | 8.9 | 5.8 | 3.4 | 100 | | | State | | | | | | | | Abia | 78.9 | 7.9 | 2.6 | 10.5 | 100 | | | Adamawa | 86.5 | 10.6 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 100 | | | Akwa Ibom | 74.4 | 18.6 | 2.3 | 4.7 | 100 | | | Anambra | 81.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 7.1 | 100 | | | Bauchi | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | | Bayelsa | 64.3 | 19.0 | 7.1 | 9.5 | 100 | | | Benue | 86.0 | 14.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | | Borno | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | | Cross River | 40.7 | 9.3 | 33.3 | 16.7 | 100 | | | Delta | 67.5 | 18.8 | 8.8 | 5.0 | 100 | | | Ebonyi | 66.7 | 20.0 | 13.3 | 0.0 | 100 | | | Edo | 93.7 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 2.7 | 100 | | | Ekiti | 84.4 | 12.2 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 100 | | | Enugu | 91.3 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 4.0 | 100 | | | Gombe | 90.5 | 9.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | | Imo | 94.6 | 4.2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 100 | | | Jigawa | 84.8 | 13.9 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 100 | | | Kaduna | 89.4 | 7.8 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 100 | | | | How long since it stopped working | | | | | Total | Estimated Number of Non-functional facilities that previously functioned | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Estimated Number of Water Facilities | less than 1 month | between 1 to 3 months | between 3 to 6 months | between 6 to 12 months | more than 1 year | | | | 2,313,566 | 8.3 | 15.3 | 14.8 | 13.1 | 48.4 | 100 | 207,827 | | 426,445 | 7.7 | 11.9 | 22.7 | 13.7 | 44.0 | 100 | 44,049 | | 264,406 | 3.3 | 23.3 | 14.4 | 13.2 | 45.8 | 100 | 15,905 | | 523,772 | 10.1 | 21.7 | 9.4 | 13.5 | 45.3 | 100 | 68,953 | | 368,286 | 3.8 | 7.3 | 25.5 | 7.8 | 55.6 | 100 | 21,084 | | 275,568 | 3.1 | 5.6 | 8.3 | 13.0 | 70.0 | 100 | 28,993 | | 455,090 | 16.2 | 16.3 | 14.8 | 15.3 | 37.3 | 100 | 28,842 | | 917,937 | 8.4 | 18.1 | 17.7 | 11.6 | 44.2 | 100 | 66,747 | | 271,131 | 5.4 | 28.4 | 13.2 | 13.3 | 39.7 | 100 | 18,500 | | 636,760 | 10.4 | 15.5 | 14.6 | 12.0 | 47.4 | 100 | 43,988 | | 1,395,629 | 8.3 | 14.0 | 13.5 | 13.8 | 50.4 | 100 | 141,079 | | 37,573 | 0.0 | 19.1 | 62.2 | 0.0 | 18.7 | 100 | 4,341 | | 1,011,209 | 7.9 | 13.3 | 9.8 | 14.8 | 54.2 | 100 | 109,181 | | 356,894 | 9.6 | 13.7 | 27.0 | 10.4 | 39.3 | 100 | 31,817 | | 46,328 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 66.7 | 100 | 3,657 | | 55,107 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 72.7 | 100 | 5,829 | | 38,607 | 12.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 87.5 | 100 | 7,183 | | 68,155 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 80.0 | 100 | 4,057 | | 34,799 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | | 21,056 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 75.0 | 100 | 4,011 | | 65,521 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 16.7 | 33.3 | 100 | 9,142 | | 47,121 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | | 48,960 | 0.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 100 | 4,533 | | 50,292 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 13.3 | 80.0 | 100 | 9,430 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * WF.B7-8: Functionality of Water Supply Facility Percent of Water facility based on functionality and duration of breakdown for non-functional facilities | | | Non-Functional | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Functional | Not now but previously | Never Functioned | Abandoned/Not completed | Total | | Rivers | 97.4 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Sokoto | 83.0 | 11.9 | 1.3 | 3.8 | 100 | | Taraba | 93.8 | 6.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Yobe | 89.7 | 7.7 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 100 | | Zamfara | 52.4 | 31.7 | 6.3 | 9.5 | 100 | | Fct Abuja | 78.0 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 12.0 | 100 | | | How long since it stopped working | | | | | Total | Estimated Number of Non-functional facilities that previously functioned | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Estimated Number of Water Facilities | less than 1 month | between 1 to 3 months | between 3 to 6 months | between 6 to 12 months | more than 1 year | | | | 35,142 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 913 | | 44,549 | 10.5 | 26.3 | 0.0 | 5.3 | 57.9 | 100 | 5,323 | | 42,130 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 2,633 | | 36,887 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 100 | 2,837 | | 9,700 | 5.0 | 10.0 | 25.0 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 100 | 3,079 | | 34,111 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 16.7 | 50.0 | 100 | 2,047 | * * * WF.B7-8: Functionality of Water Supply Facility Percent of Water facility based on functionality and duration of breakdown for non-functional facilities | | Non-Functional | | | | Total | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Functional | Not now but previously | Never Functioned | Abandoned/Not completed | | | National | 71.5 | 15.5 | 7.8 | 5.2 | 100 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | North-Central | 69.2 | 21.8 | 0.3 | 8.7 | 100 | | North-East | 92.1 | 6.7 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 100 | | North-West | 71.2 | 19.0 | 5.5 | 4.4 | 100 | | South-East | 72.4 | 15.1 | 10.6 | 2.0 | 100 | | South-South | 39.7 | 18.8 | 30.3 | 11.2 | 100 | | South-West | 61.1 | 13.0 | 16.8 | 9.1 | 100 | | Sector | | | | | | | Urban | 75.7 | 13.4 | 4.8 | 6.1 | 100 | | Peri-Urban | 73.4 | 18.5 | 2.1 | 5.9 | 100 | | Urban | 77.0 | 10.8 | 6.0 | 6.3 | 100 | | Rural | 70.1 | 16.2 | 8.8 | 4.9 | 100 | | Itinerant | 88.1 | 4.1 | 0.0 | 7.9 | 100 | | Rural | 69.0 | 18.3 | 8.1 | 4.6 | 100 | | Small Town | 71.9 | 11.6 | 10.9 | 5.5 | 100 | | State | | | | | | | Abia | 83.3 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Adamawa | 83.8 | 13.2 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 100 | | Akwa Ibom | 30.0 | 50.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100 | | Anambra | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | | Bauchi | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Bayelsa | 42.9 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 100 | | Benue | 60.0 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Borno | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Cross River | 12.5 | 9.4 | 56.3 | 21.9 | 100 | | Delta | 38.1 | 33.3 | 28.6 | 0.0 | 100 | | Ebonyi | 63.6 | 18.2 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 100 | | Edo | 83.3 | 12.5 | 0.0 | 4.2 | 100 | | Ekiti | 69.6 | 17.4 | 8.7 | 4.3 | 100 | | Enugu | 33.3 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 100 | | Gombe | 90.9 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Imo | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Jigawa | 83.3 | 15.3 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 100 | | Kaduna | 75.0 | 15.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 100 | | Kano | 65.0 | 29.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 100 | | Katsina | 82.4 | 8.8 | 2.9 | 5.9 | 100 | | Estimated Number of Publicly owned Water Facilities | How long since it stopped working | | | | | Total | Estimated Number of Non-functional publicly owned facilities that previously functioned | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | less than 1 month | between 1 to 3 months | between 3 to 6 months | between 6 to 12 months | more than 1 year | | | | | 733,114 | 8.4 | 8.9 | 9.3 | 13.4 | 59.9 | 100 | 113,628 | | 109,686 | 5.1 | 11.5 | 4.9 | 10.8 | 67.8 | 100 | 23,951 | | 177,424 | 4.4 | 21.4 | 4.4 | 17.6 | 52.1 | 100 | 11,938 | | 252,242 | 12.3 | 6.7 | 10.7 | 16.7 | 53.6 | 100 | 47,814 | | 23,862 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.1 | 0.0 | 64.9 | 100 | 3,601 | | 72,603 | 0.0 | 6.6 | 2.7 | 10.0 | 80.7 | 100 | 13,664 | | 97,298 | 15.2 | 5.5 | 16.6 | 10.2 | 52.4 | 100 | 12,660 | | 184,039 | 6.0 | 5.6 | 11.9 | 10.8 | 65.8 | 100 | 24,704 | | 49,572 | 6.6 | 5.8 | 0.0 | 21.8 | 65.8 | 100 | 9,170 | | 131,395 | 6.1 | 6.0 | 16.1 | 4.7 | 67.2 | 100 | 14,180 | | 549,074 | 9.1 | 9.9 | 8.5 | 14.2 | 58.3 | 100 | 88,924 | | 401,184 | 9.4 | 9.6 | 7.3 | 12.7 | 60.9 | 100 | 73,329 | | 142,581 | 7.2 | 10.4 | 15.3 | 19.9 | 47.3 | 100 | 16,607 | | 3,657 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 610 | | 36,032 | 11.1 | 11.1 | 11.1 | 0.0 | 66.7 | 100 | 4,769 | | 8,978 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 4,489 | | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | | 29,828 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | | 3,509 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 501 | | 7,619 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 3,047 | | 31,080 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | | 29,013 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 66.7 | 100 | 2,720 | | 13,202 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 14.3 | 85.7 | 100 | 4,401 | | 13,888 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 100 | 2,525 | | 8,772 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 1,097 | * * * | WF.B10.13.16: Duration of functionality before its first breakdown | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of Functional facilities based on duration of facility before its fi | | | | | | | Facility downtime before | | | | | Within 24 hours | At least 24 but less than 48 hours | At least 2 but less than 7 days | At least a week but less than 2 weeks | | | National | 12.3 | 14.3 | 23.2 | 12.2 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | North-Central | 5.7 | 12.0 | 18.7 | 13.5 | | North-East | 13.6 | 13.5 | 22.9 | 13.8 | | North-West | 7.9 | 12.3 | 25.8 | 13.3 | | South-East | 24.9 | 16.0 | 25.5 | 7.2 | | South-South | 17.0 | 13.6 | 17.7 | 8.3 | | South-West | 12.1 | 20.5 | 24.9 | 12.8 | | Sector | | | | | | Urban | 14.9 | 19.7 | 18.2 | 15.8 | | Peri-Urban | 11.5 | 23.8 | 15.7 | 21.3 | | Urban | 16.7 | 18.2 | 19.2 | 13.4 | | Rural | 11.0 | 11.5 | 25.6 | 10.3 | | Itinerant | 10.5 | 5.4 | 35.5 | 15.9 | | Rural | 11.8 | 12.1 | 25.7 | 9.8 | | Small Town | 8.3 | 10.0 | 23.9 | 10.7 | | State | | | | | | Abia | 63.0 | 18.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Adamawa | 7.4 | 14.8 | 18.5 | 14.8 | | Akwa Ibom | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.7 | 14.3 | | Anambra | 16.7 | 25.0 | 20.8 | 8.3 | | Bauchi | 3.7 | 0.0 | 48.1 | 7.4 | | Bayelsa | 0.0 | 15.4 | 7.7 | 7.7 | | Benue | 0.0 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 9.1 | | Borno | 6.5 | 29.0 | 29.0 | 12.9 | | Cross River | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.6 | 0.0 | | Delta | 14.8 | 11.1 | 14.8 | 14.8 | | Ebonyi | 14.3 | 0.0 | 14.3 | 0.0 | | Edo | 71.4 | 21.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Ekiti | 20.0 | 20.0 | 13.3 | 6.7 | | Enugu | 18.9 | 17.0 | 34.0 | 9.4 | | Gombe | 33.3 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 23.3 | | Imo | 9.5 | 9.5 | 52.4 | 14.3 | | Jigawa | 6.3 | 6.3 | 35.4 | 14.6 | | Kaduna | 0.0 | 10.7 | 21.4 | 21.4 | | Kano | 9.4 | 12.9 | 22.4 | 15.3 | | Katsina | 16.7 | 23.3 | 33.3 | 0.0 | | Kebbi | 0.0 | 0.0 | 19.0 | 9.5 | | Kogi | 33.3 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 33.3 | | Kwara | 7.7 | 11.5 | 19.2 | 7.7 | | Lagos | 13.8 | 29.8 | 22.3 | 8.5 | | Nasarawa | 5.9 | 11.8 | 11.8 | 29.4 | | At least 2 but less than 4 weeks | At least a month but less than 3 months | At least 3 months | At least 6 months | Never repaired | Total | Estimated Number of facilities that ever broke down | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 7.3 | 11.9 | 0.1 | 12.4 | 6.5 | 100 | 653,308 | | 5.2 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 23.1 | 7.5 | 100 | 107,197 | | 8.8 | 21.2 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 100 | 133,284 | | 10.8 | 9.5 | 0.0 | 12.3 | 8.1 | 100 | 176,812 | | 3.6 | 3.9 | 0.0 | 14.5 | 4.5 | 100 | 84,246 | | 3.8 | 14.2 | 0.0 | 13.7 | 11.6 | 100 | 57,662 | | 6.2 | 6.5 | 0.5 | 10.5 | 6.0 | 100 | 94,106 | | 5.2 | 8.9 | 0.0 | 10.0 | 7.3 | 100 | 218,275 | | 6.4 | 6.8 | 0.0 | 8.0 | 6.6 | 100 | 73,293 | | 4.8 | 10.3 | 0.0 | 9.8 | 7.4 | 100 | 140,194 | | 8.3 | 13.5 | 0.1 | 13.6 | 6.1 | 100 | 435,033 | | 5.2 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 15.1 | 5.4 | 100 | 15,426 | | 7.2 | 13.9 | 0.1 | 13.5 | 5.9 | 100 | 332,597 | | 12.3 | 12.3 | 0.0 | 15.3 | 7.1 | 100 | 91,799 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.5 | 0.0 | 100 | 16,459 | | 7.4 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 18.5 | 14.8 | 100 | 14,307 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.7 | 14.3 | 100 | 12,570 | | 4.2 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 12.5 | 4.2 | 100 | 19,473 | | 7.4 | 29.6 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 19,175 | | 7.7 | 23.1 | 0.0 | 23.1 | 15.4 | 100 | 6,517 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 81.8 | 0.0 | 100 | 16,761 | | 3.2 | 19.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 31,080 | | 0.0 | 42.9 | 0.0 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 100 | 6,347 | | 7.4 | 18.5 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 14.8 | 100 | 16,974 | | 14.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 28.6 | 28.6 | 100 | 8,838 | | 0.0 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 100 | 10,234 | | 0.0 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 26.7 | 6.7 | 100 | 5,980 | | 3.8 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 11.3 | 1.9 | 100 | 24,728 | | 10.0 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 34,544 | | 0.0 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 9.5 | 0.0 | 100 | 14,749 | * * * | WF.B11: Main reason for facility breakdown | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of Water supply facility that have ever broke down by reason | | | | | | | | Main reason for | | | | | | facility was not well completed | poor quality of materials was used during the construction | no training was done on operation and maintenance | no management committee | no tariff system | | | National | 5.7 | 15.1 | 3.2 | 3.9 | 0.8 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | North-Central | 7.9 | 9.5 | 0.8 | 2.7 | 0.0 | | North-East | 4.4 | 20.2 | 4.7 | 5.9 | 1.1 | | North-West | 5.2 | 16.4 | 3.7 | 4.8 | 1.9 | | South-East | 5.6 | 10.4 | 3.1 | 2.6 | 0.0 | | South-South | 4.6 | 21.6 | 8.1 | 4.6 | 0.6 | | South-West | 7.1 | 12.2 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 0.0 | | Sector | | | | | | | Urban | 5.5 | 12.5 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 0.5 | | Peri-Urban | 4.0 | 12.8 | 5.5 | 1.8 | 0.5 | | Urban | 6.5 | 12.4 | 1.5 | 2.7 | 0.5 | | Rural | 5.9 | 16.4 | 3.4 | 4.7 | 1.0 | | Itinerant | 9.7 | 27.2 | 0.0 | 5.3 | 0.0 | | Rural | 5.3 | 16.5 | 3.5 | 5.3 | 0.8 | | Small Town | 6.8 | 14.0 | 3.5 | 2.2 | 1.7 | | State | | | | | | | Abia | 0.0 | 7.4 | 11.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Adamawa | 3.7 | 18.5 | 7.4 | 7.4 | 3.7 | | Akwa Ibom | 7.1 | 21.4 | 14.3 | 7.1 | 0.0 | | Anambra | 8.3 | 20.8 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 0.0 | | Bauchi | 3.7 | 22.2 | 7.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Bayelsa | 7.7 | 15.4 | 7.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Benue | 9.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Borno | 3.2 | 35.5 | 3.2 | 12.9 | 3.2 | | Cross River | 14.3 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 14.3 | 0.0 | | Delta | 0.0 | 25.9 | 7.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Ebonyi | 14.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Edo | 3.6 | 25.0 | 10.7 | 3.6 | 3.6 | | Ekiti | 0.0 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Enugu | 7.5 | 5.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Gombe | 0.0 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Imo | 0.0 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 9.5 | 0.0 | | Jigawa | 4.2 | 16.7 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 4.2 | | Kaduna | 0.0 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 0.0 | | Kano | 7.1 | 21.2 | 3.5 | 10.6 | 4.7 | | Katsina | 0.0 | 16.7 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | lack of spare parts | vandalization of the facility | community conflict/crisis | lack of participation/ownership | typical wear and tear/breakdown | other (specify) | don't know | Total | Estimated Number of facilities that ever broke down | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 6.4 | 5.6 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 35.8 | 10.7 | 10.7 | 100 | 653,308 | | 7.3 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 32.3 | 23.4 | 11.3 | 100 | 107,197 | | 5.9 | 5.0 | 0.9 | 3.0 | 38.4 | 8.1 | 2.4 | 100 | 133,284 | | 9.1 | 10.4 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 19.6 | 8.1 | 19.7 | 100 | 176,812 | | 5.7 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 57.6 | 5.3 | 6.1 | 100 | 84,246 | | 4.4 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 33.6 | 7.4 | 6.5 | 100 | 57,662 | | 3.0 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 2.9 | 48.0 | 12.1 | 11.4 | 100 | 94,106 | | 6.1 | 5.0 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 35.9 | 12.8 | 15.4 | 100 | 218,275 | | 2.9 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 33.4 | 11.8 | 20.1 | 100 | 73,293 | | 7.6 | 4.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 38.0 | 12.1 | 13.5 | 100 | 140,194 | | 6.6 | 5.9 | 0.4 | 2.1 | 35.7 | 9.7 | 8.3 | 100 | 435,033 | | 8.0 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.7 | 18.3 | 5.4 | 100 | 15,426 | | 6.7 | 6.8 | 0.6 | 1.9 | 36.3 | 9.5 | 6.7 | 100 | 332,597 | | 6.0 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 2.8 | 35.2 | 11.1 | 14.1 | 100 | 91,799 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 70.4 | 7.4 | 3.7 | 100 | 16,459 | | 3.7 | 11.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 14.8 | 7.4 | 22.2 | 100 | 14,307 | | 0.0 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 7.1 | 28.6 | 0.0 | 7.1 | 100 | 12,570 | | 0.0 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 45.8 | 8.3 | 4.2 | 100 | 19,473 | | 3.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 63.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 19,175 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.7 | 38.5 | 0.0 | 23.1 | 100 | 6,517 | | 9.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 27.3 | 36.4 | 100 | 16,761 | | 3.2 | 9.7 | 0.0 | 9.7 | 16.1 | 3.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 31,080 | | 14.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 42.9 | 0.0 | 100 | 6,347 | * * * Facility breakdown Percent of Water supply facility that have ever broke down by number of breakdown in the past 6 months | | Number of brew | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | None | 1 to 2 times | 3 times | | | National | 27.6 | 39.9 | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | North-Central | 17.2 | 53.4 | | | North-East | 40.6 | 27.4 | | | North-West | 29.7 | 27.8 | | | South-East | 17.0 | 69.3 | | | South-South | 19.6 | 47.3 | | | South-West | 25.0 | 47.0 | | | Sector | | | | | Urban | 26.0 | 44.0 | | | Peri-Urban | 24.8 | 46.0 | | | Urban | 27.7 | 42.0 | | | Rural | 28.3 | 38.2 | | | Itinerant | 30.1 | 28.5 | | | Rural | 29.3 | 40.4 | | | Small Town | 22.7 | 32.6 | | | State | | | | | Abia | 21.4 | 57.1 | | | Adamawa | 36.0 | 40.0 | | | Akwa Ibom | 23.1 | 0.0 | | | Anambra | 0.0 | 81.8 | | | Bauchi | 26.1 | 60.9 | | | Bayelsa | 28.6 | 57.1 | | | Benue | 16.7 | 66.7 | | | Borno | 41.4 | 20.7 | | | Cross River | 66.7 | 0.0 | | | Delta | 12.5 | 68.8 | | | Ebonyi | 16.7 | 50.0 | | | Edo | 11.1 | 83.3 | | | Ekiti | 38.5 | 38.5 | | | Enugu | 20.5 | 75.0 | | | Gombe | 52.0 | 16.0 | | | Imo | 21.4 | 71.4 | | | Jigawa | 22.5 | 27.5 | | | Kaduna | 41.7 | 33.3 | | | Kano | 21.9 | 24.7 | | | Katsina | 43.5 | 13.0 | | | Kebbi | 11.8 | 35.3 | | | Kogi | 0.0 | 66.7 | | | Kwara | 18.8 | 56.3 | | | Lagos | 10.3 | 61.5 | | | Nasarawa | 23.5 | 35.3 | | | Niger | 6.3 | 62.5 | | | Ogun | 27.3 | 54.5 | | | Ondo | 33.3 | 66.7 | | | Osun | 26.7 | 40.0 | | | Oyo | 14.3 | 28.6 | | | Plateau | 12.5 | 62.5 | | | Rivers | 0.0 | 100.0 | | | Sokoto | 20.0 | 36.7 | | | Taraba | 42.9 | 14.3 | | | Yobe | 36.8 | 21.1 | | | Zamfara | 40.0 | 23.3 | | | Fct Abuja | 38.5 | 38.5 | | | breakdowns in the past 6 months | | | | Estimated Number of facilities that ever broke down | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | to 4 times | 5-6 times | Above 6 times | Total | | | 20.5 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 100 | 466,092 | | 20.4 | 4.7 | 4.3 | 100 | 70,605 | | 24.5 | 3.6 | 4.0 | 100 | 111,557 | | 23.1 | 11.6 | 7.9 | 100 | 146,155 | | 11.0 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 55,396 | | 20.4 | 8.7 | 4.0 | 100 | 38,190 | | 13.7 | 8.0 | 6.2 | 100 | 44,189 | | 22.7 | 4.5 | 2.7 | 100 | 137,683 | | 23.2 | 3.7 | 2.3 | 100 | 48,934 | | 22.0 | 5.2 | 3.1 | 100 | 85,283 | | 19.5 | 8.0 | 6.0 | 100 | 328,409 | | 17.0 | 15.8 | 8.6 | 100 | 9,670 | | 20.2 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 100 | 255,027 | | 17.8 | 17.8 | 9.2 | 100 | 67,179 | | 21.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 8,534 | | 16.0 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 13,247 | | 46.2 | 23.1 | 7.7 | 100 | 11,672 | | 9.1 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 8,925 | | 13.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 16,334 | | 14.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 3,509 | | 0.0 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 9,142 | | 27.6 | 6.9 | 3.4 | 100 | 29,075 | | 33.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 2,720 | | 6.3 | 6.3 | 6.3 | 100 | 10,058 | | 33.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 7,575 | | 5.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 6,579 | | 15.4 | 7.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 5,183 | | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 20,529 | | 20.0 | 0.0 | 12.0 | 100 | 28,787 | | 0.0 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 9,833 | | 40.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 100 | 26,413 | | 16.7 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 100 | 41,488 | | 24.7 | 21.9 | 6.8 | 100 | 38,604 | | 26.1 | 8.7 | 8.7 | 100 | 15,948 | | 0.0 | 23.5 | 29.4 | 100 | 10,677 | | 33.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 3,254 | | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 12,060 | | 20.5 | 7.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 5,895 | | 29.4 | 0.0 | 11.8 | 100 | 18,740 | | 25.0 | 6.3 | 0.0 | 100 | 9,717 | | 0.0 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 7,288 | * * * | | Water availability in past two weeks | | | | Not applicable Total | Number of water facilities that have ever functioned | Number of days water available each day for past 2 weeks | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Yes | No | Don't know | | 14 days | 10 to 13 days | 5 to 9 days | | | | National | 81.8 | 13.8 | 1.6 | 2.8 | 100.0 | 1,959,480 | 52.4 | 15.6 | 13.4 | | | | | | | | | | | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 84.7 | 12.7 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 100.0 | 259,018 | 70.5 | 21.2 | 5.9 | | North-East | 74.1 | 18.8 | 3.3 | 3.7 | 100.0 | 222,567 | 3.9 | 35.4 | 38.4 | | North-West | 79.8 | 15.9 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 100.0 | 391,672 | 49.8 | 16.4 | 17.2 | | South-East | 84.9 | 13.9 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 378,375 | 73.6 | 2.9 | 4.0 | | South-South | 86.1 | 11.4 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 272,316 | 37.4 | 20.6 | 23.4 | | South-West | 80.2 | 11.6 | 1.1 | 7.1 | 100.0 | 435,531 | 47.8 | 14.0 | 10.4 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 85.3 | 10.5 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 100.0 | 679,720 | 30.9 | 17.6 | 23.5 | | Peri-Urbian | 79.9 | 17.4 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 100.0 | 133,918 | 32.3 | 11.6 | 27.5 | | Urban | 86.5 | 8.9 | 1.9 | 2.7 | 100.0 | 536,941 | 30.2 | 20.1 | 21.9 | | Rural | 79.9 | 15.6 | 1.4 | 3.1 | 100.0 | 1,279,760 | 60.6 | 14.9 | 9.6 | | Itinerant | 73.9 | 23.2 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 41,380 | 46.8 | 0.0 | 32.2 | | Rural | 80.0 | 15.5 | 1.4 | 3.0 | 100.0 | 1,032,746 | 63.1 | 15.1 | 7.7 | | Small Town | 81.2 | 13.8 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 100.0 | 214,495 | 50.8 | 15.7 | 15.9 | | State | | | | | | | | | | | Abia | 89.9 | 5.1 | 1.3 | 3.8 | 100.0 | 31,492 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Adamawa | 74.6 | 6.0 | 13.4 | 6.0 | 100.0 | 30,018 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Akwa Ibom | 73.3 | 24.4 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 30,576 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | | Anambra | 87.7 | 12.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 80,862 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Bauchi | 83.3 | 13.0 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 100.0 | 70,540 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 75.0 | | Less than 5 days | Average Number of Hours each day for the past 2weeks water from source was available | | | | | | Water from source not available for 1 full day in the past 2weeks | | | | Estimated Number of water supply facilities not available in the past 2 weeks | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Total | 12 hours and above | 6 to 11 hours | 3 to 5 hours | Less than 3 hours | Total | Yes | No | Don't know | Total | | | | 18.5 | 100.0 | 14.1 | 23.5 | 12.1 | 50.3 | 100.0 | 62.0 | 34.1 | 3.9 | 100.0 | 270,736 | | 2.4 | 100.0 | 20.0 | 4.7 | 6.0 | 69.3 | 100.0 | 73.8 | 26.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 32,885 | | 22.3 | 100.0 | 12.2 | 33.6 | 14.0 | 40.3 | 100.0 | 32.1 | 62.7 | 5.1 | 100.0 | 41,817 | | 16.6 | 100.0 | 15.1 | 19.4 | 20.6 | 44.9 | 100.0 | 64.3 | 25.4 | 10.3 | 100.0 | 62,283 | | 19.6 | 100.0 | 8.7 | 23.9 | 11.7 | 55.7 | 100.0 | 65.7 | 31.7 | 2.6 | 100.0 | 52,446 | | 18.6 | 100.0 | 36.8 | 30.6 | 9.1 | 23.4 | 100.0 | 48.3 | 49.5 | 2.2 | 100.0 | 30,910 | | 27.8 | 100.0 | 2.4 | 27.5 | 6.3 | 63.7 | 100.0 | 80.9 | 19.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 50,397 | | 28.0 | 100.0 | 9.9 | 28.3 | 9.2 | 52.5 | 100.0 | 65.3 | 34.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 71,152 | | 28.6 | 100.0 | 8.6 | 35.8 | 6.6 | 49.0 | 100.0 | 60.2 | 39.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 23,255 | | 27.8 | 100.0 | 10.6 | 24.7 | 10.5 | 54.2 | 100.0 | 67.7 | 32.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 47,897 | | 14.9 | 100.0 | 15.6 | 21.7 | 13.2 | 49.5 | 100.0 | 60.8 | 33.8 | 5.3 | 100.0 | 199,584 | | 21.0 | 100.0 | 36.3 | 44.1 | 8.0 | 11.6 | 100.0 | 24.8 | 75.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 9,617 | | 14.1 | 100.0 | 13.8 | 21.7 | 12.2 | 52.3 | 100.0 | 61.2 | 33.6 | 5.2 | 100.0 | 160,303 | | 17.6 | 100.0 | 18.4 | 14.4 | 20.2 | 47.0 | 100.0 | 70.7 | 21.5 | 7.8 | 100.0 | 29,664 | | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 75.0 | 25.0 | 100.0 | 25.0 | 75.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 1,595 | | 100.0 | 100.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 100.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 100.0 | 1,792 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * WF.B14-17: Availability of Water Supply Facilities Percent of Water supply facility available in the past 2 weeks and level of availability Number of days water was not | | Water availability in past two weeks | | | | | | Number of days water was not available each day for the past 2 weeks | | | | Average Number of Hours each day for the past 2weeks water from source was available | | | | Water from source not available for 1 full day in the past 2weeks | | | | | Estimated Number of water supply facilities not available in the past 2weeks | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Yes | No | Don't know | Not applicable | Total | Number of water facilities that have ever functioned | 14 days | 10 to 13 days | 5 to 9 days | Less than 5 days | Total | 12 hours and above | 6 to 11 hours | 3 to 5 hours | Less than 3 hours | Total | Yes | No | Don't know | Total | | | Rivers | 84.8 | 13.9 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 107,909 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 100.0 | 63.6 | 27.3 | 0.0 | 9.1 | 100.0 | 36.4 | 63.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 15,025 | | Sokoto | 84.6 | 14.5 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 44,402 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 100.0 | 11.8 | 11.8 | 29.4 | 47.1 | 100.0 | 35.3 | 64.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 6,452 | | Taraba | 52.9 | 32.4 | 8.8 | 5.9 | 100.0 | 17,873 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 63.6 | 9.1 | 27.3 | 100.0 | 27.3 | 54.5 | 18.2 | 100.0 | 5,782 | | Yobe | 84.8 | 15.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 29,585 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 85.7 | 100.0 | 85.7 | 0.0 | 14.3 | 100.0 | 4,502 | | Zamfara | 82.1 | 16.1 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 9,555 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 11.1 | 11.1 | 0.0 | 77.8 | 100.0 | 77.8 | 11.1 | 11.1 | 100.0 | 1,536 | | Fct Abuja | 89.7 | 7.7 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 33,838 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 2,603 | * * * WF.C1, C4: Access to Water Supply Facilities Percent of Water Supply Facility by HHs that depend on it and provision for people living with disabilities | | Number of HHs that depend on the point | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Less than 10 HHs | 10 to 30 HHs | 31 to 50 HHs | | National | 46.5 | 26.3 | 12.1 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | North-Central | 51.1 | 21.7 | 10.0 | | North-East | 18.7 | 32.2 | 21.4 | | North-West | 35.3 | 23.0 | 19.2 | | South-East | 71.1 | 17.1 | 4.9 | | South-South | 49.3 | 31.8 | 8.7 | | South-West | 50.0 | 34.8 | 8.4 | | Sector | | | | | Urban | 45.5 | 29.1 | 10.4 | | Peri-Urban | 47.0 | 29.6 | 11.5 | | Urban | 45.0 | 28.8 | 9.7 | | Rural | 47.1 | 24.3 | 13.3 | | Itinerant | 63.3 | 14.1 | 0.0 | | Rural | 44.9 | 25.7 | 14.7 | | Small Town | 51.4 | 21.6 | 11.2 | | State | | | | | Abia | 33.3 | 36.7 | 15.0 | | Adamawa | 36.7 | 7.8 | 15.6 | | Akwa Ibom | 56.3 | 28.1 | 6.3 | | Anambra | 52.9 | 39.7 | 5.9 | | Bauchi | 4.1 | 42.9 | 49.0 | | Bayelsa | 40.7 | 25.9 | 14.8 | | Benue | 70.3 | 18.9 | 2.7 | | Borno | 10.6 | 6.4 | 31.9 | | Cross River | 45.5 | 18.2 | 4.5 | | Delta | 35.2 | 44.4 | 11.1 | | Ebonyi | 0.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | | Edo | 60.8 | 29.7 | 4.8 | | Ekiti | 46.1 | 38.2 | 7.9 | | Enugu | 90.0 | 7.0 | 2.2 | | Gombe | 13.2 | 50.0 | 13.2 | | Imo | 82.3 | 8.9 | 1.9 | | Jigawa | 10.4 | 29.9 | 40.3 | | Kaduna | 51.6 | 14.3 | 10.3 | | Kano | 24.1 | 32.4 | 20.4 | | Katsina | 6.3 | 22.9 | 33.3 | | Kebbi | 15.9 | 38.6 | 22.7 | | Kogi | 65.7 | 22.9 | 0.0 | | Kwara | 39.1 | 21.9 | 17.2 | | Lagos | 64.4 | 26.3 | 4.9 | | Nasarawa | 17.2 | 10.3 | 10.3 | | Niger | 14.8 | 18.5 | 37.0 | | Ogun | 22.8 | 53.2 | 20.3 | | Ondo | 50.6 | 39.8 | 6.0 | | Osun | 57.2 | 26.8 | 7.2 | | Oyo | 51.0 | 32.2 | 6.3 | | Plateau | 64.5 | 23.6 | 5.5 | | Rivers | 37.3 | 37.3 | 17.3 | | Sokoto | 30.3 | 38.6 | 28.0 | | Taraba | 24.4 | 66.7 | 4.4 | | Yobe | 20.0 | 28.6 | 17.1 | | for people living with disabilities | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Water | | Water Facilities with Provisions for PLWDs | | | Estimated Number of water facilities that are functional | | More than 50 HHs | Total | Provided | Not Provided | Total | | | 15.2 | 100 | 14.8 | 85.2 | 100 | 1,946,332 | | 17.2 | 100 | 12.4 | 87.6 | 100 | 356,935 | | 27.7 | 100 | 21.5 | 78.5 | 100 | 245,966 | | 22.5 | 100 | 4.9 | 95.1 | 100 | 422,150 | | 7.0 | 100 | 14.4 | 85.6 | 100 | 322,652 | | 10.2 | 100 | 18.3 | 81.7 | 100 | 206,783 | | 6.8 | 100 | 21.9 | 78.1 | 100 | 391,846 | | 15.0 | 100 | 18.2 | 81.8 | 100 | 797,230 | | 11.9 | 100 | 12.7 | 87.3 | 100 | 238,361 | | 16.4 | 100 | 20.4 | 79.6 | 100 | 553,549 | | 15.2 | 100 | 12.5 | 87.5 | 100 | 1,149,102 | | 22.6 | 100 | 13.4 | 86.6 | 100 | 32,573 | | 14.7 | 100 | 14.2 | 85.8 | 100 | 829,523 | | 15.7 | 100 | 7.8 | 92.2 | 100 | 292,326 | | 15.0 | 100 | 13.3 | 86.7 | 100 | 36,575 | | 40.0 | 100 | 1.1 | 98.9 | 100 | 47,689 | | 9.4 | 100 | 53.1 | 46.9 | 100 | 28,731 | | 1.5 | 100 | 7.4 | 92.6 | 100 | 55,173 | | 4.1 | 100 | 22.4 | 77.6 | 100 | 34,799 | | 18.5 | 100 | 22.2 | 77.8 | 100 | 13,536 | | 8.1 | 100 | 2.7 | 97.3 | 100 | 56,378 | | 51.1 | 100 | 10.6 | 89.4 | 100 | 47,121 | | 31.8 | 100 | 4.5 | 95.5 | 100 | 19,947 | | 9.3 | 100 | 1.9 | 98.1 | 100 | 33,947 | | 60.0 | 100 | 30.0 | 70.0 | 100 | 12,625 | | 4.8 | 100 | 8.1 | 91.9 | 100 | 76,392 | | 7.9 | 100 | 13.2 | 86.8 | 100 | 30,298 | | 0.9 | 100 | 14.3 | 85.7 | 100 | 107,310 | | 23.7 | 100 | 55.3 | 44.7 | 100 | 43,756 | | 7.0 | 100 | 16.5 | 83.5 | 100 | 110,969 | | 19.4 | 100 | 23.9 | 76.1 | 100 | 44,242 | | 23.8 | 100 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 217,812 | | 23.1 | 100 | 6.5 | 93.5 | 100 | 57,113 | * * * | WF.C2-C3: Access to Water Supply Facilities | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of Water Supply facility by ability to access and reasons for | | | | | | | | Existence of HHs that would want to but not able to fetch from water source | | | Total | Estimated Number of water facilities that are functional | | Such HHs Exist | Such don't Exist | Don't know | | | | | 10.7 | 78.0 | 11.3 | 100.0 | 1,946,332 | | | National | 10.7 | 78.0 | 11.3 | 100.0 | 1,946,332 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | North-Central | 8.8 | 80.6 | 10.6 | 100.0 | 356,935 | | North-East | 18.0 | 75.0 | 7.1 | 100.0 | 245,966 | | North-West | 9.3 | 82.5 | 8.2 | 100.0 | 422,150 | | South-East | 10.2 | 68.1 | 21.7 | 100.0 | 322,652 | | South-South | 10.1 | 77.5 | 12.4 | 100.0 | 206,783 | | South-West | 10.2 | 81.3 | 8.5 | 100.0 | 391,846 | | Sector | | | | | | | Urban | 11.5 | 78.9 | 9.6 | 100.0 | 797,230 | | Peri-Urbian | 10.4 | 79.5 | 10.1 | 100.0 | 238,361 | | Urban | 12.0 | 78.6 | 9.4 | 100.0 | 553,549 | | Rural | 10.1 | 77.5 | 12.4 | 100.0 | 1,149,102 | | Itinerant | 7.2 | 83.0 | 9.7 | 100.0 | 32,573 | | Rural | 10.3 | 76.2 | 13.5 | 100.0 | 829,523 | | Small Town | 9.9 | 80.5 | 9.6 | 100.0 | 292,326 | | State | | | | | | | Abia | 0.0 | 91.7 | 8.3 | 100.0 | 36,575 | | Adamawa | 17.8 | 64.4 | 17.8 | 100.0 | 47,689 | | Akwa Ibom | 18.8 | 59.4 | 21.9 | 100.0 | 28,731 | | Anambra | 5.9 | 73.5 | 20.6 | 100.0 | 55,173 | | Bauchi | 10.2 | 89.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 34,799 | | Bayelsa | 18.5 | 51.9 | 29.6 | 100.0 | 13,536 | | Benue | 8.1 | 67.6 | 24.3 | 100.0 | 56,378 | | Borno | 19.1 | 66.0 | 14.9 | 100.0 | 47,121 | | Cross River | 9.1 | 63.6 | 27.3 | 100.0 | 19,947 | | Delta | 11.1 | 88.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 33,947 | | Ebonyi | 30.0 | 60.0 | 10.0 | 100.0 | 12,625 | | Edo | 1.9 | 90.4 | 7.7 | 100.0 | 76,392 | | Ekiti | 9.2 | 57.9 | 32.9 | 100.0 | 30,298 | | Enugu | 4.3 | 83.5 | 12.2 | 100.0 | 107,310 | | Gombe | 5.3 | 94.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 43,756 | | Imo | 19.0 | 43.7 | 37.3 | 100.0 | 110,969 | | Did not pay water tariff/levy | Source too far from the HHs | Main Reason for HHs that would want to but not able to fetch from water source | | | | | Total | Estimate d Number of water facilities that some HHs are not able to access | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Did not contribute to the construction of water system | Community/ Personal Dispute | Social barriers/stigma | Others Specify | Don't know | | | | | | 6.3 | 38.9 | 10.4 | 2.6 | 8.3 | 26.7 | 6.8 | 100.0 | 208,304 | | 0.0 | 51.0 | 9.9 | 2.7 | 9.5 | 22.9 | 4.1 | 100.0 | 31,255 | | 6.4 | 59.1 | 6.5 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 22.7 | 2.1 | 100.0 | 44,224 | | 11.5 | 48.3 | 3.3 | 3.7 | 16.5 | 6.2 | 10.5 | 100.0 | 39,237 | | 4.6 | 32.6 | 35.7 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 15.6 | 7.1 | 100.0 | 32,769 | | 11.5 | 32.1 | 11.3 | 8.1 | 2.2 | 30.0 | 4.8 | 100.0 | 20,874 | | 4.5 | 6.5 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 14.5 | 61.5 | 11.4 | 100.0 | 39,945 | | 8.0 | 20.9 | 5.4 | 3.1 | 11.6 | 38.9 | 12.3 | 100.0 | 91,687 | | 16.6 | 28.3 | 0.0 | 5.6 | 16.3 | 21.4 | 11.8 | 100.0 | 24,782 | | 4.8 | 17.5 | 7.4 | 2.1 | 9.9 | 45.7 | 12.6 | 100.0 | 66,376 | | 4.9 | 53.1 | 14.4 | 2.2 | 5.7 | 17.1 | 2.6 | 100.0 | 116,617 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 2,352 | | 4.6 | 53.3 | 18.1 | 1.4 | 7.1 | 12.6 | 2.7 | 100.0 | 85,827 | | 6.1 | 49.4 | 4.4 | 4.7 | 1.8 | 31.3 | 2.3 | 100.0 | 28,967 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | | 0.0 | 93.8 | 0.0 | 6.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 8,478 | | 0.0 | 33.3 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 5,387 | | 25.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 3,245 | | 0.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 3,551 | | | | | 20. | | | | | | | 60.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 2,507 | | 0.0 | 66.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 4,571 | | 11.1 | 33.3 | 22.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 9,023 | * * * | | Distance from farthest HH | | | | | Total | rainy season | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Less than 100 meters | 101 to 500 meters | 501 to 1000 meters | 1001 meters to 2000 | More than 2000 meters | Less than 5 minutes | 5 to 10 minutes | 11 to 30 minutes | | | | 61.9 | 24.1 | 9.0 | 3.0 | 1.9 | 100.0 | 39.2 | 37.2 | 19.1 | | | National | 61.9 | 24.1 | 9.0 | 3.0 | 1.9 | 100.0 | 39.2 | 37.2 | 19.1 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 55.4 | 20.4 | 13.8 | 6.3 | 4.1 | 100.0 | 27.7 | 41.4 | 25.3 | | North-East | 29.9 | 45.0 | 15.1 | 6.3 | 3.7 | 100.0 | 24.2 | 31.2 | 31.6 | | North-West | 63.1 | 21.8 | 11.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 100.0 | 43.2 | 33.1 | 19.2 | | South-East | 81.8 | 12.6 | 3.7 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 100.0 | 56.7 | 32.9 | 8.8 | | South-South | 73.6 | 21.1 | 2.9 | 2.2 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 40.0 | 37.8 | 20.6 | | South-West | 64.2 | 28.0 | 5.8 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 100.0 | 39.8 | 44.9 | 13.4 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 64.5 | 23.3 | 7.1 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 100.0 | 39.9 | 38.4 | 19.8 | | Peri-Urban | 66.1 | 19.3 | 9.5 | 2.1 | 3.0 | 100.0 | 41.7 | 40.0 | 16.5 | | Urban | 63.9 | 24.9 | 6.0 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 100.0 | 39.1 | 37.8 | 21.0 | | Rural | 60.2 | 24.7 | 10.4 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 100.0 | 38.7 | 36.4 | 18.7 | | Itinerant | 67.5 | 11.8 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 7.2 | 100.0 | 51.3 | 28.9 | 13.8 | | Rural | 59.4 | 24.5 | 11.1 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 100.0 | 35.8 | 38.1 | 19.3 | | Small Town | 61.3 | 27.0 | 8.3 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 100.0 | 45.5 | 32.1 | 17.9 | | State | | | | | | | | | | | Abia | 83.3 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 38.3 | 51.7 | 10.0 | | Adamawa | 50.0 | 47.8 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 62.2 | 32.2 | 5.6 | | Akwa Ibom | 78.1 | 18.8 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 37.5 | 40.6 | 21.9 | | Anambra | 69.1 | 22.1 | 8.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 50.0 | 36.8 | 13.2 | | Average Waiting Time in: | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 31 minutes to 2 more than 2 hours | Total | dry season | | | | | | Total | Estimated Number of water facilities that are functional | | Less than 5 minutes | 5 to 10 minutes | 11 to 30 minutes | 31 minutes to 2 more than 2 hours | | | | | | | | 4.2 | 0.3 | 100.0 | 33.1 | 35.3 | 25.3 | 5.6 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 1,946,332 | | 5.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 22.1 | 34.3 | 33.1 | 9.4 | 1.2 | 100.0 | 356,935 | | 12.8 | 0.3 | 100.0 | 14.6 | 29.9 | 39.3 | 15.6 | 0.7 | 100.0 | 245,966 | | 4.0 | 0.6 | 100.0 | 41.7 | 34.5 | 20.3 | 3.2 | 0.3 | 100.0 | 422,150 | | 1.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 46.0 | 33.8 | 15.7 | 2.8 | 1.7 | 100.0 | 322,652 | | 1.4 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 39.4 | 36.2 | 22.0 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 206,783 | | 1.4 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 31.6 | 41.1 | 24.4 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 391,846 | | 1.8 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 33.1 | 38.2 | 25.3 | 3.3 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 797,230 | | 1.3 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 31.4 | 41.7 | 24.0 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 238,361 | | 2.0 | 0.1 | 100.0 | 33.9 | 36.7 | 25.6 | 3.6 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 553,549 | | 5.9 | 0.3 | 100.0 | 33.1 | 33.3 | 25.3 | 7.3 | 1.0 | 100.0 | 1,149,102 | | 6.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 47.3 | 21.3 | 19.3 | 9.5 | 2.5 | 100.0 | 32,573 | | 6.4 | 0.4 | 100.0 | 30.4 | 33.6 | 26.5 | 8.1 | 1.3 | 100.0 | 829,523 | | 4.3 | 0.2 | 100.0 | 38.9 | 33.5 | 22.9 | 4.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 292,326 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 43.3 | 46.7 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 36,575 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 25.6 | 67.8 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 47,689 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 40.6 | 43.8 | 15.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 28,731 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 50.0 | 35.3 | 14.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 55,173 | | 24.5 | 2.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 8.2 | 61.2 | 28.6 | 2.0 | 100.0 | 34,799 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * | WF.D1-D4: Water Supply Facility Management | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of water supply facility based on availability of management committee | | | | | | | Water Point Management Committee | | | Total | | In Place | Not in Place | Don't know | | | | National | 29.7 | 66.5 | 3.8 | 100 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | North-Central | 21.0 | 76.1 | 2.8 | 100 | | North-East | 64.7 | 35.3 | 0.0 | 100 | | North-West | 37.4 | 60.2 | 2.4 | 100 | | South-East | 7.4 | 75.8 | 16.8 | 100 | | South-South | 27.5 | 65.7 | 6.8 | 100 | | South-West | 8.1 | 88.5 | 3.4 | 100 | | Sector | | | | | | Urban | 21.2 | 76.2 | 2.7 | 100 | | Peri-Urban | 17.4 | 78.1 | 4.5 | 100 | | Urban | 22.6 | 75.5 | 2.0 | 100 | | Rural | 35.2 | 60.3 | 4.5 | 100 | | Itinerant | 35.6 | 53.7 | 10.6 | 100 | | Rural | 34.1 | 61.6 | 4.3 | 100 | | Small Town | 37.0 | 58.3 | 4.7 | 100 | | State | | | | | | Abia | 10.0 | 90.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Adamawa | 70.6 | 29.4 | 0.0 | 100 | | Akwa Ibom | 4.8 | 76.2 | 19.0 | 100 | | Anambra | 3.1 | 90.6 | 6.3 | 100 | | Bauchi | 71.4 | 28.6 | 0.0 | 100 | | Bayelsa | 11.8 | 82.4 | 5.9 | 100 | | Benue | 9.5 | 85.7 | 4.8 | 100 | | Borno | 60.6 | 39.4 | 0.0 | 100 | | Cross River | 73.3 | 26.7 | 0.0 | 100 | | Delta | 12.5 | 84.4 | 3.1 | 100 | | Ebonyi | 18.2 | 63.6 | 18.2 | 100 | | Edo | 11.4 | 77.3 | 11.4 | 100 | | Ekiti | 14.5 | 83.6 | 1.8 | 100 | | Enugu | 28.6 | 71.4 | 0.0 | 100 | | Gombe | 62.5 | 37.5 | 0.0 | 100 | | Imo | 2.3 | 60.5 | 37.2 | 100 | | Jigawa | 58.1 | 37.8 | 4.1 | 100 | | Kaduna | 21.7 | 78.3 | 0.0 | 100 | | Kano | 48.0 | 45.1 | 6.9 | 100 | | Katsina | 52.5 | 47.5 | 0.0 | 100 | | Kebbi | 55.6 | 37.8 | 6.7 | 100 | | Kogi | 8.3 | 91.7 | 0.0 | 100 | | Kwara | 15.3 | 83.5 | 1.2 | 100 | | Lagos | 16.9 | 71.4 | 11.7 | 100 | | Nasarawa | 55.6 | 44.4 | 0.0 | 100 | | Niger | 37.1 | 57.1 | 5.7 | 100 | | Estimated Number of water facilities that are publicly used | Membership of Management Committee | | | Total | Estimated Number of management committee members | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Male | Female | | | | | | 1,209,051 | 80.3 | 19.7 | 100 | 1,944,141 | | | 213,420 | 73.3 | 26.7 | 100 | 252,225 | | | 196,108 | 84.1 | 15.9 | 100 | 655,825 | | | 353,530 | 82.4 | 17.6 | 100 | 851,182 | | | 91,606 | 66.0 | 34.0 | 100 | 29,516 | | | 102,279 | 67.5 | 32.5 | 100 | 67,086 | | | 252,109 | 65.8 | 34.2 | 100 | 88,306 | | | 473,184 | 86 | 14 | 100 | 453,373 | | | 111,815 | 78.3 | 21.7 | 100 | 102,683 | | | 352,948 | 88.8 | 11.2 | 100 | 346,984 | | | 735,867 | 78 | 22 | 100 | 1,490,767 | | | 14,214 | 95.8 | 4.2 | 100 | 19,523 | | | 528,551 | 79.0 | 21.0 | 100 | 1,096,523 | | | 201,524 | 75.7 | 24.3 | 100 | 378,428 | | | 18,287 | 64 | 36 | 100 | 6,705 | | | 36,032 | 95 | 5 | 100 | 110,214 | | | 18,855 | 25 | 75 | 100 | 3,591 | | | 25,964 | 60 | 40 | 100 | 4,057 | | | 34,799 | 80 | 20 | 100 | 125,702 | | | 8,523 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 2,005 | | | 31,998 | 52 | 48 | 100 | 38,093 | | | 33,085 | 85 | 15 | 100 | 62,160 | | | 13,600 | 65 | 35 | 100 | 15,413 | | | 20,117 | 73 | 27 | 100 | 6,915 | | | 13,888 | 50 | 50 | 100 | 10,100 | | | 16,083 | 83 | 17 | 100 | 2,193 | | | 21,926 | 65 | 35 | 100 | 6,777 | | | 3,266 | 60 | 40 | 100 | 2,333 | | | 46,059 | 81 | 19 | 100 | 278,656 | | | 30,200 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 6,321 | | | 48,865 | 82 | 18 | 100 | 266,775 | | | 159,037 | 82 | 18 | 100 | 200,525 | | | 53,940 | 92 | 8 | 100 | 157,590 | | | 27,735 | 71 | 29 | 100 | 99,153 | | | 28,264 | 73 | 27 | 100 | 77,882 | | | 13,017 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 1,085 | | * * * | WF.D1-D4:Water Supply Facility ManagementPercent of Water Supply facility by availability of facility caretaker | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Water Point Facility Caretaker | | | Total | | In Place | Not in Place | Don't know | | | | National | 51.0 | 44.7 | 4.3 | 100 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | North-Central | 58.5 | 38.6 | 2.9 | 100 | | North-East | 75.1 | 23.6 | 1.3 | 100 | | North-West | 51.9 | 45.4 | 2.7 | 100 | | South-East | 34.8 | 45.8 | 19.5 | 100 | | South-South | 45.1 | 50.3 | 4.7 | 100 | | South-West | 32.7 | 62.8 | 4.5 | 100 | | Sector | | | | | | Urban | 53.4 | 43.6 | 3.0 | 100 | | Peri-Urban | 59.8 | 37.4 | 2.8 | 100 | | Urban | 51.5 | 45.5 | 2.9 | 100 | | Rural | 49.4 | 45.5 | 5.2 | 100 | | Itinerant | 60.0 | 29.4 | 10.6 | 100 | | Rural | 49.0 | 47.1 | 3.9 | 100 | | Small Town | 49.5 | 42.3 | 8.1 | 100 | | State | | | | | | Abia | 60.0 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Adamawa | 86.8 | 13.2 | 0.0 | 100 | | Akwa Ibom | 9.5 | 76.2 | 14.3 | 100 | | Anambra | 12.5 | 59.4 | 28.1 | 100 | | Bauchi | 67.3 | 28.6 | 4.1 | 100 | | Bayelsa | 64.7 | 35.3 | 0.0 | 100 | | Benue | 23.8 | 61.9 | 14.3 | 100 | | Borno | 60.6 | 39.4 | 0.0 | 100 | | Cross River | 86.7 | 13.3 | 0.0 | 100 | | Delta | 37.5 | 56.3 | 6.3 | 100 | | Ebonyi | 54.5 | 45.5 | 0.0 | 100 | | Edo | 27.3 | 70.5 | 2.3 | 100 | | Ekiti | 47.3 | 49.1 | 3.6 | 100 | | Enugu | 28.6 | 71.4 | 0.0 | 100 | | Gombe | 85.0 | 12.5 | 2.5 | 100 | | Imo | 30.2 | 34.9 | 34.9 | 100 | | Jigawa | 63.5 | 33.8 | 2.7 | 100 | | Kaduna | 42.4 | 57.6 | 0.0 | 100 | | Kano | 56.9 | 32.4 | 10.8 | 100 | | Katsina | 75.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Kebbi | 71.1 | 24.4 | 4.4 | 100 | | Kogi | 66.7 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 100 | | Kwara | 77.6 | 22.4 | 0.0 | 100 | | Lagos | 44.2 | 41.6 | 14.3 | 100 | | Nasarawa | 77.8 | 22.2 | 0.0 | 100 | | Niger | 40.0 | 54.3 | 5.7 | 100 | | Estimated Number of water facilities that are publicly used | Sex of Facility Caretaker | | | Estimated Number of water facilities with caretaker | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Male | Female | Total | | | | 1,209,051 | 94.3 | 5.7 | 100 | 616,125 | | 213,420 | 93.5 | 6.5 | 100 | 124,938 | | 196,108 | 97.5 | 2.5 | 100 | 147,269 | | 353,530 | 99.0 | 1.0 | 100 | 183,595 | | 91,606 | 85.9 | 14.1 | 100 | 31,857 | | 102,279 | 89.7 | 10.3 | 100 | 46,088 | | 252,109 | 85.4 | 14.6 | 100 | 82,379 | | 473,184 | 90.7 | 9.3 | 100 | 252,859 | | 111,815 | 92.1 | 7.9 | 100 | 66,829 | | 352,948 | 90.4 | 9.6 | 100 | 181,939 | | 735,867 | 96.8 | 3.2 | 100 | 363,267 | | 14,214 | 91.8 | 8.2 | 100 | 8,528 | | 528,551 | 97.0 | 3.0 | 100 | 258,995 | | 201,524 | 96.3 | 3.7 | 100 | 99,834 | | 18,287 | 83.3 | 16.7 | 100 | 10,972 | | 36,032 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 31,263 | | 18,855 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 1,796 | | 25,964 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 3,245 | | 34,799 | 87.9 | 12.1 | 100 | 23,436 | | 8,523 | 72.7 | 27.3 | 100 | 5,515 | | 31,998 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 7,619 | | 33,085 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 20,052 | | 13,600 | 84.6 | 15.4 | 100 | 11,787 | | 20,117 | 91.7 | 8.3 | 100 | 7,544 | | 13,888 | 83.3 | 16.7 | 100 | 7,575 | | 16,083 | 91.7 | 8.3 | 100 | 4,386 | | 21,926 | 61.5 | 38.5 | 100 | 10,365 | | 3,266 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 933 | | 46,059 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 39,150 | | 30,200 | 84.6 | 15.4 | 100 | 9,130 | | 48,865 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 31,036 | | 159,037 | 97.4 | 2.6 | 100 | 67,418 | | 53,940 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 30,672 | | 27,735 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 20,801 | | 28,264 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 20,099 | | 13,017 | 87.5 | 12.5 | 100 | 8,678 | | 64,067 | 89.4 | 10.6 | 100 | 49,746 | * * * | National Geopolitical Zone | Responsibility for Minor repairs | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Facility Caretaker | Volunteers | Community artisan | Local Area Mechanic | Service Contractor | LGA Staff | State Gov. Staff | Never repaired | Don’t know | Total | | | 34.0 | 14.2 | 16.2 | 5.8 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 20.6 | 5.7100 | | | | North-Central | 40.1 | 11.6 | 15.1 | 3.9 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 15.2 | 10.3 | 100 | | North-East | 39.1 | 31.1 | 20.1 | 2.7 | 1.6 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 100 | | North-West | 23.2 | 11.7 | 27.4 | 4.7 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 25.9 | 3.0 | 100 | | South-East | 21.5 | 8.7 | 5.5 | 26.2 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 29.7 | 7.1 | 100 | | South-South | 42.4 | 17.7 | 5.5 | 12.9 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 11.6 | 6.5 | 100 | | South-West | 41.0 | 7.2 | 6.7 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 32.7 | 8.7 | 100 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 45.1 | 12.3 | 9.3 | 3.9 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 18.5 | 6.6 | 100 | | Peri-Urban | 52.7 | 9.9 | 10.3 | 3.8 | 5.9 | 0.0 | 2.5 | 10.0 | 4.9 | 100 | | Urban | 42.9 | 13.3 | 9.0 | 3.6 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 21.0 | 7.1 | 100 | | Rural | 26.8 | 15.4 | 20.7 | 7.0 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 21.9 | 5.1 | 100 | | Hinterant | 9.6 | 19.8 | 21.7 | 13.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.6 | 25.6 | 4.9 | 100 | | Rural | 27.5 | 18.0 | 20.0 | 5.7 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 18.9 | 6.3 | 100 | | Small Town | 26.6 | 7.7 | 21.7 | 10.5 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 29.6 | 2.1 | 100 | | State | | | | | | | | | | | | Abia | 56.7 | 6.7 | 10.0 | 3.3 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 10.0 | 100 | | Adamawa | 51.5 | 5.9 | 26.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.4 | 1.5 | 5.9 | 1.5 | 100 | | Akwa Ibom | 19.0 | 19.0 | 4.8 | 28.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 100 | | Anambra | 12.5 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 65.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 15.6 | 0.0 | 100 | | Bauchi | 55.1 | 18.4 | 26.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Responsibility for Major repairs | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Facility Caretaker | Volunteers | Community Artisan | Local Area Mechanic | Service Contractor | LGA Staff | State Govt. Staff | Never Repaired | Don't Know | Total | Estimated Number of water Facilities that are publicly | | 30.6 | 12.3 | 15.9 | 5.5 | 3.9 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 22.1 | 6.1 | 100 | 1,209,051 | | 36.6 | 9.6 | 16.6 | 4.6 | 3.4 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 16.3 | 11.3 | 100 | 213,420 | | 31.5 | 27.0 | 20.4 | 6.1 | 4.3 | 5.5 | 1.1 | 3.0 | 1.1 | 100 | 196,108 | | 20.6 | 9.6 | 24.3 | 4.5 | 3.7 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 27.8 | 3.2 | 100 | 353,530 | | 17.1 | 9.4 | 8.5 | 20.7 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 31.6 | 9.6 | 100 | 91,606 | | 41.2 | 15.3 | 4.7 | 6.7 | 11.2 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 13.0 | 5.8 | 100 | 102,279 | | 39.6 | 6.8 | 7.2 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 34.0 | 8.4 | 100 | 252,109 | | 45.6 | 9.2 | 9.7 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 20.1 | 6.3 | 100 | 473,184 | | 50.4 | 6.2 | 11.7 | 4.9 | 6.8 | 0.8 | 3.1 | 11.7 | 4.3 | 100 | 111,815 | | 44.5 | 10.4 | 9.1 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 22.5 | 6.9 | 100 | 352,948 | | 21.0 | 14.3 | 19.9 | 6.9 | 4.2 | 3.3 | 1.0 | 23.3 | 5.9 | 100 | 735,867 | | 2.4 | 9.5 | 24.1 | 13.8 | 0.0 | 9.3 | 4.6 | 25.6 | 10.6 | 100 | 14,214 | | 21.9 | 16.7 | 18.7 | 5.5 | 4.8 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 20.9 | 7.1 | 100 | 528,551 | | 20.4 | 7.8 | 22.1 | 10.2 | 2.8 | 3.5 | 0.6 | 29.8 | 2.8 | 100 | 201,524 | | 53.3 | 6.7 | 16.7 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 13.3 | 100 | 18,287 | | 50.0 | 7.4 | 20.6 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 10.3 | 2.9 | 5.9 | 1.5 | 100 | 36,032 | | 23.8 | 19.0 | 0.0 | 28.6 | 4.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.5 | 14.3 | 100 | 18,855 | | 6.3 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 62.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 21.9 | 6.3 | 100 | 25,964 | | 34.7 | 16.3 | 28.6 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 4.1 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 100 | 34,799 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * | WF D5-D6 Water Supply Facility Management | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Percent of water supply facility based on travel time to get spares and tariff system | | | | | | | | | | Travel time to location of spares more than 1 hour drive | | | | Total | Water Tariff System in | | | More than 1 hour | Not more than 1 hour | Don't know | Total | Tariff in Place | Tariff Not in lace | | | | National | 29.8 | 52.8 | 17.4 | 100 | 7.2 | 87.1 | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 19.9 | 58.9 | 21.2 | 100 | 6.7 | 90.2 | | | North-East | 57.8 | 38.3 | 3.8 | 100 | 5.7 | 91.7 | | | North-West | 33.7 | 56.9 | 9.4 | 100 | 6.9 | 89.4 | | | South-East | 25.9 | 35.7 | 38.4 | 100 | 10.8 | 55.9 | | | South-South | 30.6 | 52.5 | 17.0 | 100 | 11.4 | 79.7 | | | South-West | 11.8 | 59.5 | 28.7 | 100 | 6.3 | 92.1 | | | Sector | | | | | | | | | Urban | 17.9 | 62.4 | 19.8 | 100 | 7.5 | 90.3 | | | Peri-Urban | 22.8 | 55.1 | 22.1 | 100 | 10.5 | 88.1 | | | Urban | 16.0 | 65.1 | 18.9 | 100 | 6.7 | 90.8 | | | Rural | 37.4 | 46.6 | 15.9 | 100 | 7.1 | 85.0 | | | Itinerant | 27.7 | 42.8 | 29.5 | 100 | 0.0 | 84.4 | | | Rural | 41.8 | 42.5 | 15.6 | 100 | 7.7 | 85.4 | | | Small Town | 26.2 | 57.7 | 16.1 | 100 | 5.7 | 84.6 | | | State | | | | | | | | | Abia | 26.7 | 56.7 | 16.7 | 100 | 40.0 | 50.0 | | | Adamawa | 39.7 | 55.9 | 4.4 | 100 | 0.0 | 98.5 | | | Akwa Ibom | 28.6 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 100 | 9.5 | 66.7 | | | Anambra | 28.1 | 34.4 | 37.5 | 100 | 3.1 | 65.6 | | | Bauchi | 51.0 | 49.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 0.0 | 98.0 | | | Bayelsa | 17.6 | 64.7 | 17.6 | 100 | 35.3 | 52.9 | | | Benue | 4.8 | 28.6 | 66.7 | 100 | 0.0 | 90.5 | | | Borno | 57.6 | 27.3 | 15.2 | 100 | 15.2 | 75.8 | | | Cross River | 40.0 | 33.3 | 26.7 | 100 | 33.3 | 60.0 | | | Delta | 43.8 | 50.0 | 6.3 | 100 | 3.1 | 93.8 | | | Ebonyi | 54.5 | 27.3 | 18.2 | 100 | 9.1 | 63.6 | | | Place | | Total | Estimated Number of water facilities that are publicly used | Method of tariff collection | | | Total | Estimated Number of water facilities with tariff system | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | HH flat rates | Per container | Metered rates | | | | | | | | 5.7 | 100 | 1,209,051 | 26.1 | 69.5 | 4.4 | 100 | 87,289 | | | 3.1 | 100 | 213,420 | 40.3 | 59.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 14,312 | | | 2.6 | 100 | 196,108 | 27.9 | 54.0 | 18.1 | 100 | 11,099 | | | 3.7 | 100 | 359,530 | 28.6 | 66.7 | 4.7 | 100 | 24,552 | | | 33.4 | 100 | 91,606 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 9,855 | | | 8.9 | 100 | 102,279 | 21.9 | 73.8 | 4.3 | 100 | 11,609 | | | 1.6 | 100 | 252,109 | 27.6 | 71.5 | 1.0 | 100 | 15,860 | | | 2.2 | 100 | 473,184 | 22.8 | 71.1 | 6.1 | 100 | 35,264 | | | 1.4 | 100 | 111,815 | 20.1 | 79.9 | 0.0 | 100 | 11,727 | | | 2.5 | 100 | 352,948 | 24.1 | 66.8 | 9.2 | 100 | 23,537 | | | 7.9 | 100 | 735,867 | 28.4 | 68.4 | 3.2 | 100 | 52,024 | | | 15.6 | 100 | 14,214 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | - | | | 6.9 | 100 | 528,551 | 25.4 | 71.8 | 2.8 | 100 | 40,627 | | | 9.7 | 100 | 201,524 | 38.9 | 56.5 | 4.6 | 100 | 11,397 | | | 10.0 | 100 | 18,287 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 7,315 | | | 1.5 | 100 | 36,032 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | - | | | 23.8 | 100 | 18,855 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 1,796 | | | 31.3 | 100 | 25,964 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 811 | | | 2.0 | 100 | 34,799 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | - | | | 11.8 | 100 | 8,523 | 33.3 | 50.0 | 16.7 | 100 | 3,008 | | | 9.5 | 100 | 31,998 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | - | | | 9.1 | 100 | 33,085 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 100 | 5,013 | | | 6.7 | 100 | 13,600 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 4,533 | | | 3.1 | 100 | 20,117 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 629 | | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 33.3 280 Analyzed Tables * * * | WF.D5-D6:Water Supply Facility ManagementPercent of water supply facility by tariff system | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Average tariff rate(Naira) | | | | HHs payments on | | | For HH flatRates:Amount collected perHH per Month | For perContainer rate:Amount collected per 20 | For Meteredrate:Amount collected perM3 | All Households | MostHouseholds | | | | National | 262 | 22 | 430 | 62.8 | 32.6 | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | North-Central | 165 | 12 | . | 83.7 | 11.1 | | | North-East | 310 | 16 | 400 | 73.4 | 26.6 | | | North-West | 208 | 39 | 588 | 61.2 | 37.7 | | | South-East | . | 14 | . | 27.2 | 72.8 | | | South-South | 380 | 14 | 10 | 84.8 | 7.5 | | | South-West | 382 | 20 | 1,000 | 45.1 | 42.0 | | | Sector | | | | | | | | Urban | 250 | 33 | 442 | 71.5 | 19.8 | | | Peri-Urban | 164 | 15 | . | 69.5 | 24.0 | | | Urban | 293 | 43 | 442 | 72.5 | 17.6 | | | Rural | 269 | 14 | 413 | 56.9 | 41.4 | | | Itinerant | . | . | . | 0.0 | 0.0 | | | Rural | 218 | 14 | 560 | 56.9 | 40.9 | | | Small Town | 386 | 15 | 100 | 56.9 | 43.1 | | | State | | | | | | | | Abia | . | 12 | . | 8.3 | 91.7 | | | Adamawa | . | . | . | 0.0 | 0.0 | | | Akwa Ibom | . | 15 | . | 50.0 | 0.0 | | | Anambra | . | 10 | . | 100.0 | 0.0 | | | Bauchi | . | . | . | 0.0 | 0.0 | | | Bayelsa | 10 | 13 | 10 | 83.3 | 16.7 | | | Benue | . | . | . | 0.0 | 0.0 | | | Borno | 100 | 8 | 400 | 60.0 | 40.0 | | | Cross River | . | 14 | . | 100.0 | 0.0 | | | Delta | 500 | . | . | 100.0 | 0.0 | | | Ebonyi | . | 30 | . | 100.0 | 0.0 | | | Edo | . | 10 | . | 50.0 | 50.0 | | | Ekiti | 250 | 50 | . | 83.3 | 16.7 | | | Enugu | . | 10 | . | 0.0 | 100.0 | | | Gombe | 500 | 50 | . | 100.0 | 0.0 | | | Imo | . | . | . | 0.0 | 0.0 | | | Jigawa | 50 | 190 | . | 50.0 | 50.0 | | | Kaduna | 500 | 10 | . | 66.7 | 33.3 | | | Kano | . | 16 | 100 | 50.0 | 50.0 | | | Katsina | 104 | 5 | . | 69.2 | 30.8 | | | tariff | Availability of Social Subsidy in tariff Setting | | | | Total | Estimated Number of water facilities with tariff system | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Few Households | Total | Available | Not Available | Don't know | | | | 4.5 | 100.0 | 39.2 | 54.0 | 6.8 | 100.0 | 87,289 | | 5.3 | 100.0 | 23.6 | 71.2 | 5.3 | 100.0 | 14,312 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 38.3 | 53.2 | 8.5 | 100.0 | 11,099 | | 1.1 | 100.0 | 35.0 | 62.3 | 2.7 | 100.0 | 24,552 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 81.0 | 19.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 9,855 | | 7.7 | 100.0 | 40.3 | 59.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 11,609 | | 12.8 | 100.0 | 33.7 | 43.9 | 22.4 | 100.0 | 15,860 | | 8.7 | 100.0 | 21.6 | 74.9 | 3.5 | 100.0 | 35,264 | | 6.4 | 100.0 | 24.6 | 75.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 11,727 | | 9.8 | 100.0 | 20.1 | 74.6 | 5.3 | 100.0 | 23,537 | | 1.7 | 100.0 | 51.2 | 39.9 | 9.0 | 100.0 | 52,024 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | - | | 2.2 | 100.0 | 52.8 | 38.7 | 8.5 | 100.0 | 40,627 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 45.2 | 44.1 | 10.7 | 100.0 | 11,397 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 91.7 | 8.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 7,315 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | - | | 50.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 1,796 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 811 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | - | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 3,008 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | - | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 20.0 | 80.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 5,013 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 4,533 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 629 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 1,263 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 731 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 50.0 | 16.7 | 33.3 | 100.0 | 2,392 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 467 | * * * | National | With Taste | | With odour | | | | With Colour | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | With Taste | Without Taste | Total | With odour | Without Odour | Total | With Colour | Without Colour | Total | | | | 27.2 | 72.8 | 100 | 6.9 | 93.1 | 100 | 11.9 | 88.1 | 100.0 | | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | | North-Central | 25.9 | 74.1 | 100 | 8.8 | 91.2 | 100 | 17.6 | 82.4 | 100.0 | | | North-East | 48.0 | 52.0 | 100 | 13.6 | 86.4 | 100 | 15.6 | 84.4 | 100.0 | | | North-West | 48.6 | 51.4 | 100 | 3.6 | 96.4 | 100 | 9.9 | 90.1 | 100.0 | | | South-East | 12.1 | 87.9 | 100 | 8.8 | 91.2 | 100 | 13.2 | 88.8 | 100.0 | | | South-South | 12.4 | 87.6 | 100 | 7.1 | 92.9 | 100 | 8.5 | 91.5 | 100.0 | | | South-West | 11.2 | 88.8 | 100 | 3.2 | 96.8 | 100 | 7.3 | 92.7 | 100.0 | | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 20.4 | 79.6 | 100 | 4.1 | 95.9 | 100 | 7.2 | 92.8 | 100.0 | | | Peri-Urban | 22.6 | 77.4 | 100 | 4.1 | 95.9 | 100 | 7.4 | 92.6 | 100.0 | | | Urban | 19.1 | 80.9 | 100 | 4.2 | 95.8 | 100 | 7.0 | 93.0 | 100.0 | | | Rural | 31.8 | 68.2 | 100 | 8.8 | 91.2 | 100 | 15.0 | 85.0 | 100.0 | | | Itinerant | 20.2 | 79.8 | 100 | 4.5 | 95.5 | 100 | 6.7 | 93.3 | 100.0 | | | Rural | 28.7 | 71.3 | 100 | 9.7 | 90.3 | 100 | 17.5 | 82.5 | 100.0 | | | Small Town | 42.3 | 57.7 | 100 | 6.4 | 93.6 | 100 | 9.0 | 91.0 | 100.0 | | | State | | | | | | | | | | | | Abia | 4.5 | 95.5 | 100 | 1.5 | 98.5 | 100 | 1.5 | 98.5 | 100.0 | | | Adamawa | 71.3 | 28.7 | 100 | 29.7 | 70.3 | 100 | 13.9 | 86.1 | 100.0 | | | Akwa Ibom | 12.5 | 87.5 | 100 | 10.0 | 90.0 | 100 | 5.0 | 95.0 | 100.0 | | | Anambra | 6.8 | 93.2 | 100 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 5.5 | 94.5 | 100.0 | | | Bauchi | 49.0 | 51.0 | 100 | 22.4 | 77.6 | 100 | 22.4 | 77.6 | 100.0 | | | Bayelsa | 11.4 | 88.6 | 100 | 8.6 | 91.4 | 100 | 14.3 | 85.7 | 100.0 | | | Tested 2.5 | Water source tested for E.Coli in the last 6months | | | Total | Estimated Number of water facilities that have ever functioned 2,154,159 | Result of E.Coli Test | | | | Total | Estimated Number of water facilities E.Coli | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Not Tested 70.1 | Don't know 27.4 | 100 | Positive 31.6 | Negative 28.9 | Don't know 39.5 | Total 100 | | | | | | | | 1.3 | 80.2 | 18.5 | 100 | 400,984 | 40.5 | 28.2 | 31.3 | 100 | 6,814 | | | | | 4.2 | 73.2 | 22.6 | 100 | 261,871 | 64.4 | 22.8 | 12.8 | 100 | 11,114 | | | | | 3.9 | 71.3 | 24.8 | 100 | 491,103 | 12.9 | 22.3 | 64.8 | 100 | 19,154 | | | | | 1.7 | 56.2 | 42.1 | 100 | 343,736 | 7.9 | 63.4 | 28.7 | 100 | 5,882 | | | | | 4.0 | 60.4 | 35.6 | 100 | 235,776 | 44.6 | 20.8 | 34.6 | 100 | 9,537 | | | | | 0.7 | 74.0 | 25.4 | 100 | 420,688 | 13.8 | 53.9 | 32.2 | 100 | 2,879 | | | | | 2.8 | 74.2 | 23.0 | 100 | 863,978 | 18.3 | 29.8 | 51.9 | 100 | 23,926 | | | | | 4.0 | 70.6 | 25.4 | 100 | 256,861 | 8.6 | 28.0 | 65.4 | 100 | 10,390 | | | | | 2.0 | 76.1 | 21.9 | 100 | 597,537 | 21.5 | 32.2 | 46.4 | 100 | 12,128 | | | | | 2.3 | 67.3 | 30.3 | 100 | 1,290,181 | 41.7 | 28.2 | 30.1 | 100 | 31,453 | | | | | 0.0 | 65.6 | 34.4 | 100 | 36,913 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | | | | | 3.0 | 65.8 | 31.2 | 100 | 938,705 | 47.1 | 22.8 | 30.2 | 100 | 29,728 | | | | | 1.0 | 71.7 | 27.4 | 100 | 324,143 | 0.0 | 84.0 | 16.0 | 100 | 3,133 | | | | | 3.0 | 81.8 | 15.2 | 100 | 40,232 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 1,219 | | | | | 3.0 | 52.5 | 44.6 | 100 | 53,517 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 1,590 | | | | | 10.0 | 42.5 | 47.5 | 100 | 35,914 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 100 | 3,591 | | | | | 2.7 | 61.6 | 35.6 | 100 | 59,230 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 1,623 | | | | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * | | Latrine/Septic Tank Located within 30m radius of water source | | | Number of water facilities that have ever functioned | Latrine Location of Water | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Located | Not Located | Total | Located | | | | National | 11.3 | 88.7 | 100 | 2,154,159 | 51.9 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | North-Central | 9.1 | 90.9 | 100 | 400,984 | 49.6 | | North-East | 18.7 | 81.3 | 100 | 261,871 | 51.8 | | North-West | 10.3 | 89.7 | 100 | 491,103 | 53.7 | | South-East | 10.7 | 89.3 | 100 | 343,736 | 29.8 | | South-South | 12.6 | 87.4 | 100 | 235,776 | 72.8 | | South-West | 9.8 | 90.2 | 100 | 420,688 | 56.5 | | Sector | | | | | | | Urban | 14.1 | 85.9 | 100 | 863,978 | 52.0 | | Peri-Urbian | 14.9 | 85.1 | 100 | 256,861 | 48.6 | | Urban | 13.8 | 86.2 | 100 | 597,537 | 53.7 | | Rural | 9.4 | 90.6 | 100 | 1,290,181 | 51.8 | | Itinerant | 26.1 | 73.9 | 100 | 36,913 | 39.1 | | Rural | 9.2 | 90.8 | 100 | 938,705 | 58.5 | | Small Town | 8.4 | 91.6 | 100 | 324,143 | 34.8 | | State | | | | | | | Abia | 12.1 | 87.9 | 100 | 40,232 | 37.5 | | Adamawa | 16.8 | 83.2 | 100 | 53,517 | 76.5 | | Akwa Ibom | 7.5 | 92.5 | 100 | 35,914 | 66.7 | | Anambra | 34.2 | 65.8 | 100 | 59,230 | 24.0 | | Bauchi | 20.4 | 79.6 | 100 | 34,799 | 20.0 | | Bayelsa | 8.6 | 91.4 | 100 | 17,547 | 66.7 | | Benue | 9.3 | 90.7 | 100 | 65,521 | 50.0 | | Borno | 12.8 | 87.2 | 100 | 47,121 | 33.3 | | Cross River | 11.1 | 88.9 | 100 | 24,480 | 100.0 | | Delta | 30.4 | 69.6 | 100 | 43,377 | 81.0 | | Ebonyi | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 16,413 | 0.0 | | Edo | 1.8 | 98.2 | 100 | 79,317 | 0.0 | | 16.1 | 83.9 | 100 | 34,683 | 42.9 | | | 4.6 | 95.4 | 100 | 111,976 | 54.5 | | | 11.9 | 88.1 | 100 | 48,362 | 20.0 | | | 5.5 | 94.5 | 100 | 115,885 | 22.2 | | | 6.4 | 93.6 | 100 | 51,506 | 40.0 | | | 7.3 | 92.7 | 100 | 236,827 | 60.0 | | | Lated Uphill source | | Total | Estimated Number of water facilities with Latrine/ septic tank with 30m | Other sources of Pollution located within 30m radius of water source | | Estimated Number of water facilities that have ever functioned | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Not Located | Total | Located | Not Located | Total | | | | | 48.1 | 100 | | 243,571 | 13.2 | 86.8 | 100 | 2,154,159 | | 50.4 | 100 | | 36,623 | 10.8 | 89.2 | 100 | 400,984 | | 48.2 | 100 | | 48,887 | 29.1 | 70.9 | 100 | 261,871 | | 46.3 | 100 | | 50,441 | 15.5 | 84.5 | 100 | 491,103 | | 70.2 | 100 | | 36,614 | 6.3 | 93.7 | 100 | 343,736 | | 27.2 | 100 | | 29,796 | 9.7 | 90.3 | 100 | 235,776 | | 43.5 | 100 | | 41,210 | 10.2 | 89.8 | 100 | 420,688 | | 48.0 | 100 | | 122,243 | 13.1 | 86.9 | 100 | 863,978 | | 51.4 | 100 | | 38,394 | 17.9 | 82.1 | 100 | 256,861 | | 46.3 | 100 | | 82,409 | 11.1 | 88.9 | 100 | 597,537 | | 48.2 | 100 | | 121,328 | 13.2 | 86.8 | 100 | 1,290,181 | | 60.9 | 100 | | 9,644 | 11.7 | 88.3 | 100 | 36,913 | | 41.5 | 100 | | 85,896 | 13.3 | 86.7 | 100 | 938,705 | | 65.2 | 100 | | 27,228 | 12.9 | 87.1 | 100 | 324,143 | | 62.5 | 100 | | 4,877 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 40,232 | | 23.5 | 100 | | 9,008 | 10.9 | 89.1 | 100 | 53,517 | | 33.3 | 100 | | 2,694 | 10.0 | 90.0 | 100 | 35,914 | | 76.0 | 100 | | 20,284 | 16.4 | 83.6 | 100 | 59,230 | | 80.0 | 100 | | 7,102 | 24.5 | 75.5 | 100 | 34,799 | | 33.3 | 100 | | 1,504 | 8.6 | 91.4 | 100 | 17,547 | | 50.0 | 100 | | 6,095 | 2.3 | 97.7 | 100 | 65,521 | | 66.7 | 100 | | 6,015 | 27.7 | 72.3 | 100 | 47,121 | | 0.0 | 100 | | 2,720 | 3.7 | 96.3 | 100 | 24,480 | | 19.0 | 100 | | 13,202 | 31.9 | 68.1 | 100 | 43,377 | | 0.0 | 0 | | - | 7.7 | 92.3 | 100 | 16,413 | | 100.0 | 100 | | 1,462 | 2.8 | 97.2 | 100 | 79,317 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | | Latrine/Septic Tank Located within 30m radius of water source | | | | Latrine Located of Water | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Located | Not Located | Total | Number of water facilities that have ever functioned | Located | | Rivers | 23.4 | 76.6 | 100 | 35,142 | 66.7 | | Sokoto | 5.3 | 94.7 | 100 | 42,308 | 75.0 | | Taraba | 22.9 | 77.1 | 100 | 42,130 | 45.5 | | Yobe | 31.6 | 68.4 | 100 | 35,942 | 83.3 | | Zamfara | 13.2 | 86.8 | 100 | 8,160 | 57.1 | | Fct Abuja | 26.2 | 73.8 | 100 | 28,653 | 50.0 | | Estimated Uphill source | | Estimated Number of water facilities with Latrine/septic tank with 30m | Other sources of Pollution located within 30m radius of water source | | | Estimated Number of water facilities that have ever functioned | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Not Located | Total | Located | Not Located | Total | | | | 33.3 | 100 | 8,215 | 2.6 | 97.4 | 100 | 35,142 | | 25.0 | 100 | 2,241 | 11.3 | 88.7 | 100 | 42,308 | | 54.5 | 100 | 9,655 | 14.6 | 85.4 | 100 | 42,130 | | 16.7 | 100 | 11,350 | 57.9 | 42.1 | 100 | 35,942 | | 42.9 | 100 | 1,078 | 15.1 | 84.9 | 100 | 8,160 | | 50.0 | 100 | 7,504 | 13.1 | 86.9 | 100 | 28,653 | * * * Water Quality Tables * * * | | Sample | | | --- | --- | --- | | | Point of Consumption | | | National | 74.1 | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | North Central | 72.7 | | | North East | 76.2 | | | North West | 69.4 | | | South East | 75.8 | | | South South | 74.9 | | | South West | 78.0 | | | Sector | | | | Urban | 75.3 | | | Rural | 73.6 | | | State | | | | Abia | 75.4 | | | Adamawa | 71.1 | | | Akwa Ibom | 86.6 | | | Anambra | 74.9 | | | Bauchi | 78.5 | | | Bayelsa | 81.6 | | | Benue | 71.3 | | | Borno | 75.7 | | | Cross River | 69.3 | | | Delta | 73.0 | | | Ebonyi | 73.8 | | | Edo | 78.0 | | | Ekiti | 67.6 | | | Enugu | 85.1 | | | Gombe | 78.6 | | | Imo | 71.3 | | | Jigawa | 74.9 | | | Kaduna | 68.5 | | | Kano | 73.1 | | | Katsina | 82.6 | | | Kebbi | 65.6 | | | Kogi | 76.3 | | | Kwara | 71.4 | | | Lagos | 88.5 | | | Nasarawa | 71.1 | | | Niger | 79.1 | | | Ogun | 74.5 | | | Ondo | 76.2 | | | Osun | 72.0 | | | Oyo | 76.1 | | | Plateau | 72.4 | | | Rivers | 66.9 | | | Sokoto | 75.0 | | | Taraba | 75.6 | | | Yobe | 77.3 | | | Zamfara | 49.2 | | | Fct Abuja | 68.5 | | | Base Collection Location | | Total Samples | | --- | --- | --- | | Source | Total | | | 25.9 | 100 | 10,455 | | | | | | 27.3 | 100 | 1,834 | | 23.8 | 100 | 1,433 | | 30.6 | 100 | 2,470 | | 24.2 | 100 | 1,221 | | 25.1 | 100 | 1,564 | | 22.0 | 100 | 1,933 | | | | | | 24.7 | 100 | 3,131 | | 26.4 | 100 | 7,324 | | | | | | 24.6 | 100 | 256 | | 28.9 | 100 | 228 | | 13.4 | 100 | 179 | | 25.1 | 100 | 223 | | 21.5 | 100 | 270 | | 18.4 | 100 | 261 | | 28.7 | 100 | 254 | | 24.3 | 100 | 259 | | 30.7 | 100 | 287 | | 27.0 | 100 | 267 | | 26.2 | 100 | 260 | | 22.0 | 100 | 259 | | 32.4 | 100 | 272 | | 14.9 | 100 | 221 | | 21.4 | 100 | 252 | | 28.7 | 100 | 261 | | 25.1 | 100 | 259 | | 31.5 | 100 | 270 | | 26.9 | 100 | 810 | | 17.4 | 100 | 230 | | 34.4 | 100 | 291 | | 23.7 | 100 | 249 | | 28.6 | 100 | 280 | | 11.5 | 100 | 607 | | 28.9 | 100 | 273 | | 20.9 | 100 | 230 | | 25.5 | 100 | 263 | | 23.8 | 100 | 256 | | 28.0 | 100 | 271 | | 23.9 | 100 | 264 | | 27.6 | 100 | 272 | | 33.1 | 100 | 311 | | 25.0 | 100 | 244 | | 24.4 | 100 | 217 | | 22.7 | 100 | 207 | | 50.8 | 100 | 366 | | 31.5 | 100 | 276 | * * * | | Point of Consumption Test Result | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Free from contamination | Contaminated | Total | | | 30.5 | 69.5 | 100 | | | National | | | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | North Central | 24.8 | 75.2 | 100 | | North East | 16.7 | 83.3 | 100 | | North West | 20.9 | 79.1 | 100 | | South East | 38.3 | 61.7 | 100 | | South South | 35.0 | 65.0 | 100 | | South West | 48.3 | 51.7 | 100 | | Sector | | | | | Urban | 44.3 | 55.7 | 100 | | Rural | 24.5 | 75.5 | 100 | | State | | | | | Abia | 27.5 | 72.5 | 100 | | Adamawa | 23.5 | 76.5 | 100 | | Akwa Ibom | 23.2 | 76.8 | 100 | | Anambra | 49.1 | 50.9 | 100 | | Bauchi | 25.9 | 74.1 | 100 | | Bayelsa | 22.5 | 77.5 | 100 | | Benue | 8.3 | 91.7 | 100 | | Borno | 24.0 | 76.0 | 100 | | Cross River | 17.6 | 82.4 | 100 | | Delta | 45.1 | 54.9 | 100 | | Ebonyi | 24.5 | 75.5 | 100 | | Edo | 46.0 | 54.0 | 100 | | Ekiti | 27.2 | 72.8 | 100 | | Enugu | 26.1 | 73.9 | 100 | | Gombe | 8.1 | 91.9 | 100 | | Imo | 66.7 | 33.3 | 100 | | Jigawa | 17.0 | 83.0 | 100 | | Kaduna | 16.2 | 83.8 | 100 | | Kano | 23.6 | 76.4 | 100 | | Katsina | 20.0 | 80.0 | 100 | | Kebbi | 11.5 | 88.5 | 100 | | Kogi | 27.4 | 72.6 | 100 | | Kwara | 13.5 | 86.5 | 100 | | Lagos | 65.9 | 34.1 | 100 | | Nasarawa | 20.6 | 79.4 | 100 | | Niger | 9.9 | 90.1 | 100 | | Ogun | 61.7 | 38.3 | 100 | | Ondo | 25.1 | 74.9 | 100 | | Osun | 32.3 | 67.7 | 100 | | Oyo | 45.3 | 54.7 | 100 | | Plateau | 37.1 | 62.9 | 100 | | Rivers | 52.9 | 47.1 | 100 | | Sokoto | 27.9 | 72.1 | 100 | | Taraba | 7.3 | 92.7 | 100 | | Yobe | 8.8 | 91.3 | 100 | | Zamfara | 24.4 | 75.6 | 100 | | Fct Abuja | 56.1 | 43.9 | 100 | | Water Sources | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | The Collection Location | | | | | | Total Samples 7746 | Water Source Test Result | | | Total Samples 2709 | | Free from contamination | Contaminated | Total | | | | | 32.3 | 67.7 | 100 | | | 1333 | 26.3 | 73.7 | 100 | 501 | | 1092 | 37.8 | 62.2 | 100 | 341 | | 1715 | 30.2 | 69.8 | 100 | 755 | | 926 | 42.4 | 57.6 | 100 | 295 | | 1172 | 34.9 | 65.1 | 100 | 392 | | 1508 | 29.2 | 70.8 | 100 | 425 | | | | | | | | 2359 | 38.7 | 61.3 | 100 | 772 | | 5387 | 29.7 | 70.3 | 100 | 1937 | | | | | | | | 193 | 39.7 | 60.3 | 100 | 63 | | 162 | 27.3 | 72.7 | 100 | 66 | | 155 | 25.0 | 75.0 | 100 | 24 | | 167 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 100 | 56 | | 212 | 55.2 | 44.8 | 100 | 58 | | 213 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 48 | | 181 | 12.3 | 87.7 | 100 | 73 | | 196 | 57.1 | 42.9 | 100 | 63 | | 199 | 26.1 | 73.9 | 100 | 88 | | 195 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 100 | 72 | | 192 | 7.4 | 92.6 | 100 | 68 | | 202 | 47.4 | 52.6 | 100 | 57 | | 184 | 25.0 | 75.0 | 100 | 88 | | 188 | 27.3 | 72.7 | 100 | 33 | | 198 | 24.1 | 75.9 | 100 | 54 | | 186 | 77.3 | 22.7 | 100 | 75 | | 194 | 76.9 | 23.1 | 100 | 65 | | 185 | 15.3 | 84.7 | 100 | 85 | | 592 | 29.4 | 70.6 | 100 | 218 | | 190 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 100 | 40 | | 191 | 18.0 | 82.0 | 100 | 100 | | 190 | 13.6 | 86.4 | 100 | 59 | | 200 | 15.0 | 85.0 | 100 | 80 | | 537 | 44.3 | 55.7 | 100 | 70 | | 194 | 36.7 | 63.3 | 100 | 79 | | 182 | 2.1 | 97.9 | 100 | 48 | | 196 | 38.8 | 61.2 | 100 | 67 | | 195 | 23.0 | 77.0 | 100 | 61 | | 195 | 18.4 | 81.6 | 100 | 76 | | 201 | 27.0 | 73.0 | 100 | 63 | | 197 | 29.3 | 70.7 | 100 | 75 | | 208 | 55.3 | 44.7 | 100 | 103 | * * * Table 3: Status of E.Coli Test Results by Point of Consumption and Water Sources Sample Collection Location | National | Point of Consumption | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | E.Coli Load (cfu) | | | | | | Total number of samples | | | | <1 | 1-10 | 11-100 | 101-200 | 201-1000 | 1000 Above | | | | | 30.5 | 11.3 | 24.6 | 7.4 | 12.8 | 13.4 | 100.0 | | | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | North Central | 24.8 | 10.2 | 27.9 | 10.3 | 18.4 | 8.4 | 100.0 | 1333 | | North East | 16.7 | 9.2 | 26.6 | 9.4 | 21.2 | 16.9 | 100.0 | 1092 | | North West | 20.9 | 11.0 | 33.2 | 8.0 | 13.7 | 13.2 | 100.0 | 1715 | | South East | 38.3 | 11.1 | 21.1 | 5.9 | 9.8 | 13.7 | 100.0 | 926 | | South South | 35.0 | 13.0 | 22.2 | 6.3 | 7.8 | 15.7 | 100.0 | 1172 | | South West | 48.3 | 12.7 | 14.3 | 4.6 | 6.5 | 13.6 | 100.0 | 1508 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 44.3 | 14.2 | 20.3 | 4.9 | 6.8 | 9.5 | 100.0 | 2359 | | Rural | 24.5 | 10.0 | 26.4 | 8.5 | 15.4 | 15.1 | 100.0 | 5387 | | State | | | | | | | | | | Abia | 27.5 | 7.3 | 23.3 | 10.9 | 16.6 | 14.5 | 100.0 | 193 | | Adamawa | 23.5 | 5.6 | 21.0 | 8.6 | 18.5 | 22.8 | 100.0 | 162 | | Akwa Ibom | 23.2 | 14.8 | 26.5 | 8.4 | 7.1 | 20.0 | 100.0 | 155 | | Anambra | 49.1 | 13.2 | 13.2 | 3.0 | 7.8 | 13.8 | 100.0 | 167 | | Bauchi | 25.9 | 7.5 | 23.1 | 12.3 | 31.1 | .0 | 100.0 | 212 | | Bayelsa | 22.5 | 14.1 | 14.6 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 36.6 | 100.0 | 213 | | Benue | 8.3 | 2.2 | 26.5 | 9.9 | 38.1 | 14.9 | 100.0 | 181 | | Borno | 24.0 | 6.1 | 34.2 | 10.2 | 19.4 | 6.1 | 100.0 | 196 | | Cross River | 17.6 | 13.6 | 38.2 | 9.0 | 13.6 | 8.0 | 100.0 | 199 | | Delta | 45.1 | 11.3 | 20.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 22.1 | 100.0 | 195 | | Ebonyi | 24.5 | 17.7 | 31.3 | 6.3 | 20.3 | .0 | 100.0 | 192 | | Edo | 46.0 | 11.9 | 18.3 | 6.9 | 10.9 | 5.9 | 100.0 | 202 | | Ekiti | 27.2 | 12.0 | 17.9 | 8.2 | 4.3 | 30.4 | 100.0 | 184 | | Enugu | 26.1 | 5.3 | 16.0 | 8.5 | 3.7 | 40.4 | 100.0 | 188 | | Water Sources | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | E. Coli Load(cfu) | | | | | | | | | <1 | 1-10 | 11-100 | 101-200 | 201-1000 | 1000 Above | Total | Total number of Samples | | 32.3 | 12.7 | 21.7 | 7.3 | 12.0 | 13.9 | 100.0 | 2709 | | 26.3 | 12.2 | 22.2 | 10.6 | 15.6 | 13.2 | 100.0 | 501 | | 37.8 | 10.9 | 19.9 | 7.0 | 13.8 | 10.6 | 100.0 | 341 | | 30.2 | 11.8 | 28.2 | 6.1 | 11.3 | 12.5 | 100.0 | 755 | | 42.4 | 11.5 | 18.3 | 7.5 | 11.5 | 8.8 | 100.0 | 295 | | 34.9 | 17.6 | 18.4 | 3.1 | 7.1 | 18.9 | 100.0 | 392 | | 29.2 | 12.9 | 16.7 | 9.6 | 12.5 | 19.1 | 100.0 | 425 | | 38.7 | 15.0 | 19.4 | 7.0 | 7.5 | 12.3 | 100.0 | 772 | | 29.7 | 11.8 | 22.7 | 7.4 | 13.8 | 14.6 | 100.0 | 1937 | | 39.7 | 7.9 | 20.6 | 19.0 | 4.8 | 7.9 | 100.0 | 63 | | 27.3 | 13.6 | 19.7 | 7.6 | 13.6 | 18.2 | 100.0 | 66 | | 25.0 | 12.5 | 29.2 | 12.5 | 4.2 | 16.7 | 100.0 | 24 | | 50.0 | 10.7 | 19.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 12.5 | 100.0 | 56 | | 55.2 | 12.1 | 15.5 | 5.2 | 12.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 58 | | 0.0 | 10.4 | 22.9 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 62.5 | 100.0 | 48 | | 12.3 | 5.5 | 19.2 | 6.8 | 28.8 | 27.4 | 100.0 | 73 | | 57.1 | 6.3 | 15.9 | 7.9 | 12.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 63 | | 26.1 | 23.9 | 23.9 | 6.8 | 9.1 | 10.2 | 100.0 | 88 | | 33.3 | 20.8 | 13.9 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 30.6 | 100.0 | 72 | | 7.4 | 14.7 | 29.4 | 7.4 | 41.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 68 | | 47.4 | 8.8 | 10.5 | 1.8 | 21.1 | 10.5 | 100.0 | 57 | | 25.0 | 9.1 | 18.2 | 6.8 | 5.7 | 35.2 | 100.0 | 88 | | 27.3 | 6.1 | 15.2 | 6.1 | 3.0 | 42.4 | 100.0 | 33 | | 24.1 | 11.1 | 14.8 | 5.6 | 9.3 | 35.2 | 100.0 | 54 | | 77.3 | 14.7 | 6.7 | 1.3 | 0.0 | .0 | 100.0 | 75 | | 76.9 | 18.5 | 4.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .0 | 100.0 | 65 | * * * Table 4: Outcome of Water Quality Test Results for Improved and Unimproved Sources Improved Sources | | Improved Sources | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Free from contamination | Contaminated | Total | Total Samples | | National | 40.2 | 59.8 | 100 | 1961 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | North Central | 36.6 | 63.4 | 100 | 331 | | North East | 50.9 | 49.1 | 100 | 230 | | North West | 41.7 | 58.3 | 100 | 496 | | South East | 42.9 | 57.1 | 100 | 233 | | South South | 40.4 | 59.6 | 100 | 314 | | South West | 32.8 | 67.2 | 100 | 357 | | Sector | | | | | | Urban | 42.4 | 57.6 | 100 | 681 | | Rural | 39.1 | 60.9 | 100 | 1280 | | State | | | | | | Abia | 44.4 | 55.6 | 100 | 54 | | Adamawa | 36.4 | 63.6 | 100 | 44 | | Akwa Ibom | 27.3 | 72.7 | 100 | 22 | | Anambra | 50.9 | 49.1 | 100 | 53 | | Bauchi | 59.3 | 40.7 | 100 | 54 | | Bayelsa | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 26 | | Benue | 18.4 | 81.6 | 100 | 38 | | Borno | 58.7 | 41.3 | 100 | 46 | | Cross River | 32.3 | 67.7 | 100 | 62 | | Delta | 32.1 | 67.9 | 100 | 56 | | Ebonyi | 8.2 | 91.8 | 100 | 49 | | Edo | 50.0 | 50.0 | 100 | 54 | | Ekiti | 28.6 | 71.4 | 100 | 77 | | Enugu | 32.1 | 67.9 | 100 | 28 | | Gombe | 43.3 | 56.7 | 100 | 30 | | Imo | 73.5 | 26.5 | 100 | 49 | | Jigawa | 76.7 | 23.3 | 100 | 60 | | Kaduna | 27.6 | 72.4 | 100 | 29 | | Kano | 50.4 | 49.6 | 100 | 115 | | Katsina | 62.5 | 37.5 | 100 | 32 | | Kebbi | 39.5 | 60.5 | 100 | 38 | | Kogi | 17.5 | 82.5 | 100 | 40 | | Kwara | 18.6 | 81.4 | 100 | 59 | | Lagos | 44.8 | 55.2 | 100 | 67 | | Nasarawa | 68.3 | 31.7 | 100 | 41 | | Niger | 3.6 | 96.4 | 100 | 28 | | Ogun | 39.7 | 60.3 | 100 | 63 | | Ondo | 27.5 | 72.5 | 100 | 40 | | Osun | 22.6 | 77.4 | 100 | 62 | | Oyo | 31.3 | 68.8 | 100 | 48 | | Plateau | 34.0 | 66.0 | 100 | 47 | | Rivers | 59.6 | 40.4 | 100 | 94 | | Sokoto | 33.3 | 66.7 | 100 | 36 | | Unimproved Sources | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Free from contamination | Contaminated | Total | Total Samples | | 11.5 | 88.5 | 100 | 748 | | 6.5 | 93.5 | 100 | 170 | | 10.8 | 89.2 | 100 | 111 | | 8.1 | 91.9 | 100 | 259 | | 40.3 | 59.7 | 100 | 62 | | 12.8 | 87.2 | 100 | 78 | | 10.3 | 89.7 | 100 | 68 | | 11.0 | 89.0 | 100 | 91 | | 11.6 | 88.4 | 100 | 657 | | 11.1 | 88.9 | 100 | 9 | | 9.1 | 90.9 | 100 | 22 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 2 | | 33.3 | 66.7 | 100 | 3 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 4 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 22 | | 5.7 | 94.3 | 100 | 35 | | 52.9 | 47.1 | 100 | 17 | | 11.5 | 88.5 | 100 | 26 | | 37.5 | 62.5 | 100 | 16 | | 5.3 | 94.7 | 100 | 19 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 3 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 11 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 5 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 24 | | 84.6 | 15.4 | 100 | 26 | | 80.0 | 20.0 | 100 | 5 | | 8.9 | 91.1 | 100 | 56 | | 5.8 | 94.2 | 100 | 103 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 8 | | 4.8 | 95.2 | 100 | 62 | | 5.3 | 94.7 | 100 | 19 | | 4.8 | 95.2 | 100 | 21 | | 33.3 | 66.7 | 100 | 3 | | 2.6 | 97.4 | 100 | 38 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 20 | | 25.0 | 75.0 | 100 | 4 | | 14.3 | 85.7 | 100 | 21 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 14 | | 13.3 | 86.7 | 100 | 15 | | 21.4 | 78.6 | 100 | 28 | | 11.1 | 88.9 | 100 | 9 | | 12.0 | 88.0 | 100 | 25 | | 2.8 | 97.2 | 100 | 36 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 8 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 9 | * * * | | Public Tab & Borehole | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Free from contamination | Contaminated | Total | | National | 46.9 | 53.1 | 100.0 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | North Central | 48.9 | 51.1 | 100.0 | | North East | 53.6 | 46.4 | 100.0 | | North West | 44.0 | 56.0 | 100.0 | | South East | 48.9 | 51.1 | 100.0 | | South South | 48.9 | 51.1 | 100.0 | | South West | 40.9 | 59.1 | 100.0 | | Sector | | | | | Urban | 50.0 | 50.0 | 100.0 | | Rural | 45.2 | 54.8 | 100.0 | | State | | | | | Abia | 45.8 | 54.2 | 100.0 | | Adamawa | 39.0 | 61.0 | 100.0 | | Akwa Ibom | 27.3 | 72.7 | 100.0 | | Anambra | 59.4 | 40.6 | 100.0 | | Bauchi | 65.3 | 34.7 | 100.0 | | Bayelsa | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Benue | 38.5 | 61.5 | 100.0 | | Borno | 60.5 | 39.5 | 100.0 | | Cross River | 48.0 | 52.0 | 100.0 | | Delta | 39.5 | 60.5 | 100.0 | | Ebonyi | 8.8 | 91.2 | 100.0 | | Edo | 66.7 | 33.3 | 100.0 | | Ekiti | 58.8 | 41.2 | 100.0 | | Enugu | 44.4 | 55.6 | 100.0 | | Gombe | 44.0 | 56.0 | 100.0 | | Imo | 75.0 | 25.0 | 100.0 | | Jigawa | 75.9 | 24.1 | 100.0 | | Kaduna | 32.0 | 68.0 | 100.0 | | Kano | 56.3 | 43.7 | 100.0 | | Katsina | 66.7 | 33.3 | 100.0 | | Kebbi | 40.5 | 59.5 | 100.0 | | Kogi | 20.8 | 79.2 | 100.0 | | Kwara | 25.6 | 74.4 | 100.0 | | Lagos | 41.4 | 58.6 | 100.0 | | Nasarawa | 77.1 | 22.9 | 100.0 | | Niger | 5.0 | 95.0 | 100.0 | | Ogun | 40.0 | 60.0 | 100.0 | | Ondo | 46.2 | 53.8 | 100.0 | | Osun | 24.4 | 75.6 | 100.0 | | Oyo | 43.3 | 56.7 | 100.0 | | Plateau | 60.0 | 40.0 | 100.0 | | Rivers | 65.4 | 34.6 | 100.0 | | Sokoto | 47.6 | 52.4 | 100.0 | | Taraba | 37.5 | 62.5 | 100.0 | | Yobe | 59.5 | 40.5 | 100.0 | | Zamfara | 26.7 | 73.3 | 100.0 | | Fct Abuja | 67.1 | 32.9 | 100.0 | | Please and Other water sources | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Total Samples | Other Sources | | | | | Free from contamination | Contaminated | Total | Total Samples | | | 1503 | 14.1 | 85.9 | 100.0 | 1206 | | 227 | 7.7 | 92.3 | 100.0 | 274 | | 211 | 12.3 | 87.7 | 100.0 | 130 | | 434 | 11.5 | 88.5 | 100.0 | 321 | | 180 | 32.2 | 67.8 | 100.0 | 115 | | 221 | 17.0 | 83.0 | 100.0 | 171 | | 230 | 15.4 | 84.6 | 100.0 | 195 | | 528 | 14.3 | 85.7 | 100.0 | 244 | | 975 | 14.0 | 86.0 | 100.0 | 962 | | 48 | 20.0 | 80.0 | 100.0 | 15 | | 41 | 8.0 | 92.0 | 100.0 | 25 | | 22 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 2 | | 32 | 37.5 | 62.5 | 100.0 | 24 | | 49 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 9 | | 22 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 26 | | 13 | 6.7 | 93.3 | 100.0 | 60 | | 43 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 100.0 | 20 | | 25 | 17.5 | 82.5 | 100.0 | 63 | | 38 | 26.5 | 73.5 | 100.0 | 34 | | 34 | 5.9 | 94.1 | 100.0 | 34 | | 33 | 20.8 | 79.2 | 100.0 | 24 | | 34 | 3.7 | 96.3 | 100.0 | 54 | | 18 | 6.7 | 93.3 | 100.0 | 15 | | 25 | 6.9 | 93.1 | 100.0 | 29 | | 48 | 81.5 | 18.5 | 100.0 | 27 | | 54 | 81.8 | 18.2 | 100.0 | 11 | | 25 | 8.3 | 91.7 | 100.0 | 60 | | 87 | 11.5 | 88.5 | 100.0 | 131 | | 30 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 10 | | 37 | 4.8 | 95.2 | 100.0 | 63 | | 24 | 8.6 | 91.4 | 100.0 | 35 | | 39 | 4.9 | 95.1 | 100.0 | 41 | | 58 | 58.3 | 41.7 | 100.0 | 12 | | 35 | 4.5 | 95.5 | 100.0 | 44 | | 20 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 28 | | 50 | 35.3 | 64.7 | 100.0 | 17 | | 13 | 16.7 | 83.3 | 100.0 | 48 | | 45 | 9.7 | 90.3 | 100.0 | 31 | | 30 | 12.1 | 87.9 | 100.0 | 33 | | 20 | 18.2 | 81.8 | 100.0 | 55 | | 81 | 18.2 | 81.8 | 100.0 | 22 | | 21 | 12.5 | 87.5 | 100.0 | 40 | * * * | National Geopolitical Zone | Point of consumption | | | | | | | | Total Samples collected at the point of consumption | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Odour | | Colour | | Turbidity | | Total | | | | | | yes (positive) | no (negative) | yes (positive) | no (negative) | Total | yes (positive) | no (negative) | | | | | | yes (positive) | no (negative) | yes (positive) | no (negative) | Total | yes (positive) | no (negative) | | | | | | National | 4.7 | 95.3 | 100.0 | 8.6 | 91.4 | 100.0 | 10.5 | 89.5 | 100.0 | 9029 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | | North Central | 6.4 | 93.6 | 100.0 | 12.4 | 87.6 | 100.0 | 14.1 | 85.9 | 100.0 | 1586 | | North East | 6.5 | 93.5 | 100.0 | 16.3 | 83.7 | 100.0 | 19.9 | 80.1 | 100.0 | 1274 | | North West | 3.7 | 96.3 | 100.0 | 4.5 | 95.5 | 100.0 | 12.5 | 87.5 | 100.0 | 1995 | | South East | 2.9 | 97.1 | 100.0 | 6.4 | 93.6 | 100.0 | 5.1 | 94.9 | 100.0 | 1053 | | South South | 9.3 | 90.7 | 100.0 | 11.8 | 88.2 | 100.0 | 7.4 | 92.6 | 100.0 | 1332 | | South West | .5 | 99.5 | 100.0 | 3.4 | 96.6 | 100.0 | 3.7 | 96.3 | 100.0 | 1789 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 0.9 | 99.1 | 100.0 | 1.9 | 98.1 | 100.0 | 3.4 | 96.6 | 100.0 | 2763 | | Rural | 6.3 | 93.7 | 100.0 | 11.6 | 88.4 | 100.0 | 13.6 | 86.4 | 100.0 | 6266 | | State | | | | | | | | | | | | Abia | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 206 | | Adamawa | 2.6 | 97.4 | 100.0 | 5.3 | 94.7 | 100.0 | 17.5 | 82.5 | 100.0 | 189 | | Akwa Ibom | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 3.4 | 96.6 | 100.0 | 1.7 | 98.3 | 100.0 | 176 | | Anambra | .5 | 99.5 | 100.0 | 3.1 | 96.9 | 100.0 | 5.7 | 94.3 | 100.0 | 193 | | Bauchi | 0.0 | 99.2 | 100.0 | 11.3 | 88.7 | 100.0 | 28.4 | 73.6 | 100.0 | 239 | | Bayelsa | 5.9 | 94.1 | 100.0 | 28.8 | 71.1 | 100.0 | 28.9 | 71.1 | 100.0 | 239 | | Benue | 2.3 | 97.7 | 100.0 | 22.3 | 77.7 | 100.0 | 22.3 | 77.7 | 100.0 | 215 | | Water source | | | | | | | | | Total Samples collected at water source | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Odour | | Colour | | | | Turbidity | | | | | yes(positive) | no(negative) | Total | yes(positive) | no(negative) | Total | yes(positive) | no(negative) | Total | | | 6.9 | 93.1 | 100.0 | 12.0 | 88.0 | 100.0 | 15.4 | 84.6 | 100.0 | 2709 | | 9.0 | 91.0 | 100.0 | 18.0 | 82.0 | 100.0 | 20.8 | 79.2 | 100.0 | 501 | | 7.9 | 92.1 | 100.0 | 20.2 | 79.8 | 100.0 | 21.4 | 78.6 | 100.0 | 341 | | 4.2 | 95.8 | 100.0 | 6.1 | 93.9 | 100.0 | 19.2 | 80.8 | 100.0 | 755 | | 7.8 | 92.2 | 100.0 | 7.8 | 92.2 | 100.0 | 7.5 | 92.5 | 100.0 | 295 | | 14.0 | 86.0 | 100.0 | 15.6 | 84.4 | 100.0 | 8.7 | 91.3 | 100.0 | 392 | | 0.9 | 99.1 | 100.0 | 8.2 | 91.8 | 100.0 | 9.2 | 90.8 | 100.0 | 425 | | 1.7 | 98.3 | 100.0 | 3.5 | 96.5 | 100.0 | 6.1 | 93.9 | 100.0 | 772 | | 8.9 | 91.1 | 100.0 | 15.3 | 84.7 | 100.0 | 19.1 | 80.9 | 100.0 | 1937 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 63 | | 6.1 | 93.9 | 100.0 | 12.1 | 87.9 | 100.0 | 16.7 | 83.3 | 100.0 | 66 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 24 | | 5.4 | 94.6 | 100.0 | 3.6 | 96.4 | 100.0 | 12.5 | 87.5 | 100.0 | 56 | | 1.7 | 98.3 | 100.0 | 13.8 | 86.2 | 100.0 | 25.9 | 74.1 | 100.0 | 58 | | 10.4 | 89.6 | 100.0 | 43.8 | 56.3 | 100.0 | 43.8 | 56.3 | 100.0 | 48 | | 2.7 | 97.3 | 100.0 | 24.7 | 75.3 | 100.0 | 23.3 | 76.7 | 100.0 | 73 | | 14.3 | 85.7 | 100.0 | 14.3 | 85.7 | 100.0 | 12.7 | 87.3 | 100.0 | 63 | | 52.3 | 47.7 | 100.0 | 18.2 | 81.8 | 100.0 | 9.1 | 90.9 | 100.0 | 88 | | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 22.2 | 77.8 | 100.0 | 1.4 | 98.6 | 100.0 | 72 | | 25.0 | 75.0 | 100.0 | 23.5 | 76.5 | 100.0 | 17.6 | 82.4 | 100.0 | 68 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 Analyzed Tables * * * ## Dependability of Water Systems # Dependability of Water Systems Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Analyzed Tables National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | Composite and Dependability of Water | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Proportion of facilities that broke down in their first one year | Proportion of facilities that have broken down more than twice in the last 6 months | Availability (facilities that are available for at least 6 hour daily for the past 2 weeks) | Proportion of the facilities are provided by non-government actors | Estimate total water points | Proportion of publicly owned water point facilities that broke down in their first one year | Estimated Publicly owned water points | | National | 10.6 | 6.5 | 2.3 | 81.0 | 2,313,566 | 19.0 | 681,236 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | North Central | 8.5 | 4.9 | 2.6 | 88.6 | 426,445 | 16.5 | 102,930 | | North East | 26.2 | 13.5 | 5.4 | 58.9 | 264,406 | 27.9 | 167,235 | | North West | 15.8 | 11.9 | 2.7 | 69.7 | 523,772 | 19.0 | 234,141 | | South East | 4.1 | 2.1 | 0.9 | 96.1 | 368,286 | 21.4 | 23,862 | | South South | 4.7 | 4.6 | 0.9 | 82.7 | 275,568 | 6.2 | 68,914 | | South West | 6.7 | 2.7 | 1.8 | 86.4 | 455,090 | 13.7 | 84,154 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | Urban: | 9.0 | 4.5 | 2.0 | 87.5 | 917,937 | 18.5 | 169,638 | | Peri-Urban | 13.0 | 5.3 | 1.4 | 89.6 | 271,131 | 18.4 | 46,205 | | Urban | 7.0 | 4.1 | 2.3 | 86.9 | 636,760 | 18.0 | 120,360 | | Rural: | 11.7 | 7.9 | 2.5 | 76.7 | 1,395,629 | 19.1 | 511,598 | | Itenantar | 15.7 | 10.6 | 0.0 | 81.5 | 37,573 | 31.0 | 8,382 | | Rural | 12.6 | 7.6 | 2.5 | 76.0 | 1,011,209 | 21.4 | 371,027 | | Small Town | 9.2 | 8.4 | 2.8 | 78.1 | 356,894 | 12.7 | 135,261 | | State | | | | | | | | | Alaa | 3.9 | 3.9 | 2.6 | 98.7 | 46,328 | 16.7 | 3,657 | | Adamawa | 4.8 | 5.8 | 2.9 | 91.9 | 55,107 | 6.0 | 35,502 | | Akwa Ibom | 4.7 | 23.3 | 0.0 | 83.7 | 38,607 | 0.0 | 8,978 | | Anambra | 7.1 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 100.0 | 68,155 | 0.0 | - | | Bauchi | 28.6 | 6.1 | 2.0 | 63.3 | 34,799 | 26.5 | 24,146 | | Bayelsa | 0.0 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 21,056 | 0.0 | 2,005 | | Benue | 7.0 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 97.7 | 65,521 | 0.0 | 4,571 | | Borno | 53.2 | 23.4 | 10.6 | 70.2 | 47,121 | 56.7 | 30,077 | | Cross River | 3.7 | 1.9 | 3.7 | 48.1 | 48,960 | 3.2 | 28,107 | * * * | Water Point Dependability | | | | --- | --- | --- | | | Water Point Design and Configuration | Water Points Functionality | | National | 28.5 | 76.5 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | North Central | 19.7 | 77.6 | | North East | 15.5 | 76.6 | | North West | 15.2 | 73.1 | | South East | 35.5 | 80.8 | | South South | 37.3 | 72.5 | | South West | 48.6 | 78.2 | | Sectors | | | | Urban | 38.0 | 80.6 | | Peri-Urban | 31.4 | 80.8 | | Urban | 41.2 | 81.0 | | Rural | 22.2 | 73.8 | | Itinerant | 26.5 | 73.7 | | Rural | 21.6 | 73.2 | | Small Town | 23.5 | 74.8 | | State | | | | Abia | 64.5 | 76.3 | | Adamawa | 13.5 | 84.6 | | Akwa Ibom | 55.8 | 74.4 | | Anambra | 38.1 | 69.0 | | Bauchi | 0.0 | 71.4 | | Bayelsa | 26.2 | 61.9 | | Benue | 14.0 | 76.7 | | Borno | 19.1 | 78.7 | | Cross River | 22.2 | 37.0 | | Delta | 30.0 | 61.3 | | Ebonyi | 13.3 | 53.3 | | Edo | 42.6 | 92.4 | | Ekiti | 26.7 | 85.6 | | Enugu | 21.0 | 83.7 | | Gombe | 35.7 | 66.7 | | Imo | 40.7 | 91.0 | | Jigawa | 20.3 | 67.1 | | Kaduna | 12.8 | 84.4 | | Kano | 16.2 | 58.4 | | Katsina | 1.5 | 66.2 | | Kebbi | 6.7 | 54.7 | | Kogi | 32.4 | 91.9 | | Kwara | 25.9 | 74.7 | | Lagos | 63.6 | 79.5 | | Nasarawa | 6.3 | 84.4 | | Niger | 12.2 | 51.2 | | Ogun | 59.3 | 67.4 | | Ondo | 40.4 | 76.6 | | Osun | 54.9 | 76.9 | | Oyo | 40.4 | 87.0 | | Plateau | 16.7 | 81.7 | | Rivers | 42.9 | 96.1 | | Sokoto | 45.3 | 78.6 | | Taraba | 10.4 | 83.3 | | Yobe | 7.7 | 71.8 | | Zamfara | 7.9 | 41.3 | | Fct Abuja | 22.0 | 73.0 | | Estimated Water facility | Operation and Maintenance for publicly owned facilities | Estimated publicly owned and public used water point facilities | | --- | --- | --- | | 2,313,566 | 10.8 | 650,387 | | 426,445 | 15.3 | 98,633 | | 264,406 | 8.0 | 158,345 | | 523,772 | 11.0 | 227,821 | | 368,286 | 17.7 | 21,194 | | 275,568 | 6.3 | 64,100 | | 455,090 | 12.2 | 80,294 | | 917,937 | 12.7 | 156,138 | | 271,131 | 12.9 | 44,894 | | 636,760 | 12.5 | 108,171 | | 1,395,629 | 10.2 | 494,249 | | 37,573 | 0.0 | 8,382 | | 1,011,209 | 10.2 | 359,192 | | 356,894 | 11.2 | 129,748 | | 46,328 | 33.3 | 3,657 | | 55,107 | 6.0 | 35,502 | | 38,607 | 0.0 | 8,978 | | 68,155 | 0.0 | - | | 34,799 | 5.9 | 24,146 | | 21,056 | 0.0 | 2,005 | | 65,521 | 0.0 | 4,571 | | 47,121 | 11.1 | 27,070 | | 48,960 | 3.7 | 24,480 | | 50,292 | 0.0 | 13,202 | | 18,938 | 20.0 | 12,625 | | 81,510 | 4.8 | 7,676 | | 35,879 | 43.8 | 6,378 | | 117,575 | 0.0 | 1,400 | | 48,362 | 6.7 | 34,544 | | 117,290 | 0.0 | 3,512 | | 52,166 | 8.7 | 45,563 | | 243,742 | 6.1 | 57,046 | | 81,439 | 5.6 | 47,065 | | 45,069 | 46.7 | 20,801 | | 47,106 | 12.2 | 30,776 | | 40,135 | 20.0 | 5,424 | | 122,104 | 8.6 | 26,380 | | 39,903 | 5.6 | 2,721 | | 35,275 | 31.3 | 17,637 | | 24,901 | 8.0 | 15,183 | | 56,976 | 28.6 | 9,275 | | 93,675 | 7.1 | 13,952 | | 153,906 | 6.3 | 28,468 | | 74,751 | 7.1 | 19,500 | | 104,399 | 16.7 | 19,886 | | 35,142 | 35.3 | 7,759 | | 44,549 | 5.8 | 19,333 | | 42,130 | 0.0 | 9,655 | | 36,887 | 13.8 | 27,429 | | 9,700 | 6.4 | 7,236 | | 34,111 | 17.9 | 9,551 | * * * | Dependability of Water System | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Public Water Facilities | | | | | Design and Configuration | Functionality | Operation and Maintenance | Estimated | | | National | 13.6 | 59.2 | 10.8 | | | Geographical Zone | | | | | | North Central | 6.5 | 59.4 | 15.3 | | | North East | 17.0 | 73.0 | 8.0 | | | North West | 11.8 | 60.8 | 11.0 | | | South East | 13.0 | 59.2 | 17.7 | | | South South | 11.0 | 34.5 | 6.3 | | | South West | 22.9 | 47.2 | 12.2 | | | Sector | | | | | | Urban | 25.6 | 65.1 | 12.7 | | | Peri-Urban | 15.6 | 65.8 | 12.9 | | | Urban | 29.6 | 65.1 | 12.5 | | | Rural | 9.6 | 57.2 | 10.2 | | | Itinerant | 7.9 | 74.9 | 0.0 | | | Rural | 8.2 | 55.2 | 10.2 | | | Small Town | 13.7 | 61.6 | 11.2 | | | State | | | | | | Abia | 50.0 | 66.7 | 33.3 | | | Adamawa | 11.9 | 82.1 | 6.0 | | | Akwa Ibom | 20.0 | 30.0 | 0.0 | | | Anambra | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | | Bauchi | 0.0 | 70.6 | 5.9 | | | Bayelsa | 25.0 | 25.0 | 0.0 | | | Benue | 0.0 | 33.3 | 0.0 | | | Borno | 26.7 | 76.7 | 11.1 | | | Cross River | 3.2 | 6.5 | 3.7 | | | Delta | 0.0 | 33.3 | 0.0 | | | Ebonyi | 9.1 | 45.5 | 20.0 | | | Edo | 30.4 | 78.3 | 4.8 | | | Ekiti | 12.5 | 62.5 | 43.8 | | | Enugu | 0.0 | 33.3 | 0.0 | | | Gombe | 31.3 | 65.6 | 6.7 | | | Imo | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | | | Jigawa | 18.8 | 65.2 | 8.7 | | | Kaduna | 8.8 | 67.6 | 6.1 | | | Kano | 7.4 | 52.1 | 5.6 | | | Katsina | 0.0 | 75.0 | 46.7 | | | Kebbi | 4.1 | 40.8 | 12.2 | | | Kogi | 16.7 | 83.3 | 20.0 | | | Kwara | 11.4 | 54.3 | 8.6 | | | Lagos | 39.1 | 60.9 | 5.6 | | | Nasarawa | 0.0 | 81.3 | 31.3 | | | Niger | 7.4 | 44.4 | 8.0 | | | Ogun | 56.3 | 50.0 | 28.6 | | | Ondo | 21.4 | 14.3 | 7.1 | | | Osun | 17.6 | 47.1 | 6.3 | | | Oyo | 14.3 | 61.9 | 7.1 | | | Plateau | 0.0 | 57.7 | 16.7 | | | | | Private Water Facilities | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | Design and Configuration | Functionality | Estimated number of Privately owned | | 681,236 | 34.7 | 83.7 | 1,632,331 | | | 102,930 | 23.9 | 83.5 | 323,515 | | | 167,235 | 12.9 | 82.8 | 97,171 | | | 234,141 | 18.0 | 83.0 | 289,631 | | | 23,862 | 37.1 | 82.3 | 344,424 | | | 68,914 | 46.1 | 85.2 | 206,653 | | | 84,154 | 54.5 | 85.3 | 370,936 | | | 169,638 | 40.8 | 84.2 | 748,299 | | | 46,205 | 34.7 | 83.8 | 224,925 | | | 120,360 | 43.9 | 84.7 | 516,400 | | | 511,598 | 29.6 | 83.4 | 884,031 | | | 8,382 | 31.8 | 73.4 | 29,191 | | | 371,027 | 29.3 | 83.6 | 640,181 | | | 135,261 | 29.5 | 82.9 | 221,633 | | | 3,657 | 65.7 | 77.1 | 42,671 | | | 35,502 | 16.2 | 89.2 | 19,605 | | | 8,978 | 66.7 | 87.9 | 29,629 | | | - | 38.1 | 69.0 | 68,155 | | | 24,146 | 0.0 | 73.3 | 10,653 | | | 2,005 | 26.3 | 65.8 | 19,051 | | | 4,571 | 15.0 | 80.0 | 60,949 | | | 30,077 | 5.9 | 82.4 | 17,044 | | | 28,107 | 47.8 | 78.3 | 20,853 | | | 13,202 | 40.7 | 71.2 | 37,091 | | | 13,888 | 25.0 | 75.0 | 5,050 | | | 8,407 | 44.0 | 94.0 | 73,103 | | | 6,378 | 29.7 | 90.5 | 29,500 | | | 1,400 | 21.3 | 84.3 | 116,175 | | | 36,847 | 50.0 | 70.0 | 11,515 | | | 4,916 | 42.5 | 90.6 | 112,373 | | | 45,563 | 30.0 | 80.0 | 6,603 | | | 58,775 | 14.0 | 89.7 | 184,967 | | | 49,710 | 30.0 | 68.3 | 31,730 | | | 22,188 | 3.0 | 57.6 | 22,881 | | | 30,776 | 11.5 | 80.8 | 16,330 | | | 6,508 | 35.5 | 93.5 | 33,627 | | | 26,380 | 29.9 | 80.3 | 95,723 | | | 3,476 | 66.0 | 81.3 | 36,427 | | | 17,637 | 12.5 | 87.5 | 17,637 | | | 16,398 | 21.4 | 64.3 | 8,503 | | | 10,600 | 60.0 | 71.4 | 46,376 | | * * * | Adequacy of Private and Public Water Points | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Average Per Capita Share | % Publicly Owned Water Point | | | | Snaped | Stressed | | | | | National | 10.6 | 31.5 | 25.3 | | | Geographical Zone | | | | | | North Central | 9.2 | 37.2 | 27.9 | | | North East | 9.2 | 18.2 | 51.9 | | | North West | 14.4 | 31.5 | 18.7 | | | South East | 10.4 | 36.6 | 14.8 | | | South South | 12.7 | 28.3 | 13.4 | | | South West | 8.2 | 25.9 | 41.7 | | | Sector | | | | | | Urban | 5.5 | 37.5 | 40.2 | | | Peri-Urban | 6.9 | 37.1 | 36.3 | | | Urban | 5.0 | 36.3 | 43.2 | | | Rural | 14.2 | 27.4 | 14.9 | | | Itinerant | 6.6 | 47.3 | 6.4 | | | Rural | 14.6 | 27.1 | 15.3 | | | Small Town | 13.0 | 29.0 | 13.9 | | | State | | | | | | Abia | 11.2 | 50.0 | 0.0 | | | Adamawa | 21.9 | 57.1 | 14.3 | | | Akwa Ibom | 15.8 | 19.0 | 4.8 | | | Anambra | 9.1 | 38.1 | 19.0 | | | Bauchi | 8.4 | 0.0 | 44.4 | | | Bayelsa | 11.9 | 50.0 | 8.3 | | | Benue | 10.8 | 26.7 | 26.7 | | | Borno | 8.6 | 0.0 | 77.8 | | | Cross River | 12.1 | 33.3 | 0.0 | | | Delta | 12.3 | 40.6 | 3.1 | | | Ebonyi | 9.3 | 25.0 | 50.0 | | | Edo | 9.8 | 27.0 | 21.6 | | | Ekiti | 3.6 | 28.6 | 46.4 | | | Enugu | 8.8 | 45.5 | 15.9 | | | Gombe | 0.5 | 33.3 | 66.7 | | | Imo | 12.4 | 22.5 | 15.0 | | | Jigawa | 9.6 | 0.0 | 40.0 | | | Kaduna | 18.7 | 24.0 | 16.0 | | | Kano | 3.7 | 39.4 | 39.4 | | | Katsina | 1.9 | 68.8 | 12.5 | | | Kebbi | 12.7 | 33.3 | 33.3 | | | Kogi | 7.2 | 8.3 | 58.3 | | | Kwara | 7.2 | 55.3 | 15.8 | | | Lagos | 6.2 | 24.4 | 57.8 | | | Nasarawa | 5.5 | 25.0 | 50.0 | | | Niger | 29.5 | 28.6 | 42.9 | | | Ogun | 11.9 | 13.0 | 30.4 | | | Ondo | 9.0 | 10.5 | 42.1 | | | Osun | 7.8 | 42.5 | 30.0 | | | Oyo | 8.7 | 17.4 | 69.6 | | | Points Capita Share | | | | Estimated Publicly Owned Water Points | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Stretched | Suitable | Surplus | Total | | | 11.7 | 8.5 | 23.0 | 100 | 1,382,080 | | 8.3 | 4.5 | 22.1 | 100 | 256,362 | | 4.5 | 14.2 | 11.2 | 100 | 73,845 | | 14.6 | 5.7 | 29.4 | 100 | 241,441 | | 14.0 | 10.6 | 24.1 | 100 | 343,890 | | 13.8 | 12.8 | 31.7 | 100 | 181,013 | | 10.0 | 7.8 | 14.6 | 100 | 285,529 | | 6.5 | 5.2 | 10.5 | 100 | 565,548 | | 5.6 | 9.7 | 11.3 | 100 | 174,729 | | 6.7 | 3.3 | 10.5 | 100 | 379,889 | | 15.3 | 10.8 | 31.6 | 100 | 816,533 | | 23.6 | 6.4 | 16.3 | 100 | 25,250 | | 12.9 | 11.9 | 32.8 | 100 | 621,226 | | 22.3 | 6.8 | 28.0 | 100 | 180,987 | | 6.7 | 16.7 | 26.7 | 100 | 43,432 | | 0.0 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 100 | 11,346 | | 4.8 | 14.3 | 57.1 | 100 | 28,955 | | 14.3 | 9.5 | 19.0 | 100 | 68,155 | | 11.1 | 33.3 | 11.1 | 100 | 9,787 | | 0.0 | 12.5 | 29.2 | 100 | 18,048 | | 6.7 | 6.7 | 33.3 | 100 | 54,600 | | 0.0 | 11.1 | 11.1 | 100 | 13,680 | | 33.3 | 13.3 | 20.0 | 100 | 16,320 | | 12.5 | 15.6 | 28.1 | 100 | 32,187 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 100 | 5,411 | | 18.9 | 13.5 | 18.9 | 100 | 62,830 | | 17.9 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 23,919 | | 13.6 | 2.3 | 22.7 | 100 | 112,463 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 7,636 | | 17.5 | 17.5 | 27.5 | 100 | 114,429 | | 0.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 100 | 5,796 | | 16.0 | 4.0 | 40.0 | 100 | 160,357 | | 9.1 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 100 | 25,595 | | 12.5 | 6.3 | 0.0 | 100 | 20,031 | | 16.7 | 8.3 | 8.3 | 100 | 11,305 | | 8.3 | 8.3 | 16.7 | 100 | 30,101 | | 10.5 | 2.6 | 15.8 | 100 | 79,999 | | 6.7 | 2.2 | 8.9 | 100 | 32,648 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 100 | 14,110 | | 14.3 | 0.0 | 14.3 | 100 | 5,810 | * * * | Water Points Adequacy | Level of Per Capita Share (%) | | | | | Total | Estimated Functional Water Points | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Average Per Capita Share | Level of Per Capita Share (%) | | | | | | | | | Snaped | Stressed | Stretched | Suitable | Surplus | | | | | | National | 9.8 | 37.8 | 23.6 | 10.9 | 7.9 | 19.8 | 100 | 2,313,566 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | North Central | 10.8 | 40.6 | 21.0 | 9.8 | 5.7 | 22.9 | 100 | 426,445 | | North East | 9.7 | 17.7 | 44.4 | 10.9 | 8.7 | 18.3 | 100 | 264,406 | | North West | 10.6 | 42.2 | 18.7 | 11.4 | 7.6 | 20.1 | 100 | 520,772 | | South East | 9.9 | 37.4 | 16.1 | 14.1 | 9.9 | 22.5 | 100 | 368,286 | | South South | 10.1 | 41.2 | 12.5 | 11.3 | 10.1 | 25.0 | 100 | 275,568 | | South West | 7.5 | 40.1 | 32.3 | 8.8 | 7.0 | 11.9 | 100 | 455,090 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 5.0 | 41.6 | 38.6 | 6.0 | 4.8 | 9.0 | 100 | 758,146 | | Peri-Urban | 6.0 | 39.8 | 36.5 | 5.8 | 8.3 | 9.7 | 100 | 226,199 | | Urban | 4.7 | 41.3 | 40.7 | 6.0 | 3.1 | 9.0 | 100 | 516,985 | | Rural | 12.1 | 36.0 | 16.2 | 13.4 | 9.4 | 25.0 | 100 | 1,555,421 | | Itinerant | 10.1 | 40.2 | 19.2 | 17.2 | 4.7 | 18.6 | 100 | 34,571 | | Rural | 12.4 | 36.3 | 15.6 | 12.4 | 9.7 | 26.1 | 100 | 1,187,383 | | Small Town | 10.9 | 36.4 | 17.5 | 16.2 | 9.1 | 20.7 | 100 | 348,429 | | State | | | | | | | | | | Abia | 10.7 | 50.0 | 3.1 | 6.3 | 15.6 | 25.0 | 100 | 46,328 | | Adamawa | 8.5 | 41.2 | 32.4 | 5.9 | 8.8 | 11.8 | 100 | 55,107 | | Akwa Ibom | 11.8 | 39.3 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 10.7 | 42.9 | 100 | 38,607 | | Anambra | 9.1 | 38.1 | 19.0 | 14.3 | 9.5 | 19.0 | 100 | 68,155 | | Bauchi | 5.7 | 0.0 | 68.8 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 12.5 | 100 | 34,799 | | Bayelsa | 11.0 | 53.6 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 10.7 | 28.6 | 100 | 21,056 | | Benue | 9.9 | 33.3 | 22.2 | 5.6 | 11.1 | 27.8 | 100 | 65,521 | * * * | Functionality of water points with respect to ownership and usage | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Overall | Ownership | | | Usage | | | | | | | Functionality of water points | Estimated number of water points | Functionality of Publicly Owned water points | Estimated number of Water points owned by Publicly Owned water points | Functionality of Privately Owned water points | Estimated number of Privately owned water points | Functionality of Publicly Used water points | Estimated number of Publicly Used water points | Functionality of Privately Used water points | | | | National Geopolitical Zone | 62.2 | 2,913,566 | 52.8 | 931,486 | 68.5 | 1,882,080 | 60.2 | 1,467,453 | 65.7 | 846,113 | | North Central | 59.4 | 426,445 | 54.3 | 170,083 | 62.8 | 256,362 | 57.5 | 262,887 | 62.6 | 163,558 | | North East | 82.3 | 264,406 | 82.5 | 190,562 | 61.8 | 73,845 | 81.6 | 225,751 | 85.9 | 38,656 | | North West | 57.8 | 523,772 | 48.5 | 262,331 | 68.5 | 241,441 | 58.8 | 383,310 | 54.8 | 140,461 | | South East | 62.6 | 386,888 | 50.9 | 49,395 | 63.4 | 345,890 | 64.6 | 112,466 | 61.6 | 256,560 | | South South | 58.8 | 275,568 | 34.1 | 94,554 | 71.7 | 181,013 | 47.6 | 151,591 | 72.6 | 123,977 | | South West | 59.9 | 455,090 | 36.0 | 169,561 | 74.1 | 285,529 | 53.5 | 331,457 | 77.0 | 123,633 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 58.4 | 758,146 | 46.4 | 192,598 | 62.5 | 565,548 | 57.6 | 448,338 | 59.7 | 309,808 | | Peri-Urbian | 60.2 | 226,199 | 51.0 | 51,470 | 62.9 | 174,729 | 66.8 | 124,125 | 52.2 | 102,075 | | Urban | 58.7 | 516,985 | 44.9 | 137,096 | 63.7 | 379,889 | 55.1 | 311,807 | 64.1 | 205,178 | | Rural | 64.0 | 1,555,421 | 54.5 | 738,888 | 72.6 | 616,533 | 61.3 | 1,019,113 | 69.1 | 336,335 | | Irish | 58.8 | 160,211 | 78.8 | 18,291 | 75.4 | 29,280 | 72.3 | 371,441 | 47.0 | 12,110 | | Rural | 63.7 | 1,187,383 | 53.7 | 566,158 | 72.9 | 621,226 | 62.3 | 779,357 | 66.6 | 408,026 | | Small Town | 63.6 | 348,429 | 55.5 | 167,441 | 71.0 | 180,987 | 55.6 | 234,723 | 80.0 | 113,705 | | State | | | | | | | | | | | | Aba | 50.0 | 46,328 | 50.0 | 2,895 | 50.0 | 43,432 | 72.7 | 15,925 | 38.1 | 30,403 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | Functionality of water points with respect to ownership and usage | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Overall | | Ownership | | | | Usage | | | | | Functionality of water points | Estimated number of water points | Functionality of Publicly Owned Water points | Estimated number of Publicly owned water points | Functionality of Privately Owned Water points | Estimated number of Privately owned water points | Functionality of Publicly Used Water points | Estimated number of Publicly Used water points | Functionality of Privately Used Water points | | Oyo | 64.7 | 74,751 | 50.0 | 41,040 | 82.6 | 33,711 | 62.2 | 65,957 | 83.3 | | Plateau | 61.9 | 104,399 | 60.0 | 49,714 | 63.6 | 54,685 | 61.5 | 64,628 | 62.5 | | Rivers | 93.5 | 35,142 | 90.9 | 12,470 | 95.0 | 22,672 | 91.7 | 27,207 | 100.0 | | Sokoto | 57.8 | 44,549 | 65.0 | 27,843 | 45.8 | 16,706 | 67.4 | 32,020 | 33.3 | | Taraba | 84.2 | 42,130 | 88.9 | 19,956 | 80.0 | 22,174 | 83.3 | 26,608 | 85.7 | | Yobe | 80.0 | 36,888 | 73.3 | 27,666 | 100.0 | 9,222 | 78.9 | 35,043 | 100.0 | | Zamfara | 36.2 | 9,700 | 33.3 | 8,049 | 50.0 | 1,651 | 34.9 | 8,874 | 50.0 | | Fct Abuja | 47.6 | 34,111 | 47.6 | 17,055 | 47.6 | 17,055 | 48.0 | 20,304 | 47.1 | * * * | | Functionality of water point and level of breakdown in their first one year | | | | Usage | | | Breakdown | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Overall | Ownership | | | | | | | | | | | | | National | 60.8 | 1,179,428 | 50.1 | 638,865 | 73.3 | 540,563 | 57.3 | 887,131 | 71.2 | 292,297 | 20.1 | 1,179,428 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | | | | North Central | 54.0 | 177,769 | 48.2 | 126,313 | 68.4 | 51,476 | 53.5 | 149,175 | 56.6 | 28,514 | 18.2 | 177,769 | | North East | 78.3 | 161,720 | 76.0 | 132,662 | 88.8 | 29,057 | 76.5 | 142,381 | 91.6 | 19,398 | 37.1 | 161,720 | | North West | 57.7 | 280,629 | 49.1 | 193,505 | 76.8 | 87,124 | 56.5 | 252,844 | 68.5 | 27,785 | 30.8 | 280,629 | | South East | 66.3 | 179,346 | 48.1 | 23,043 | 69.0 | 156,304 | 63.3 | 93,116 | 69.6 | 68,231 | 8.3 | 179,346 | | South South | 61.1 | 174,533 | 39.5 | 48,833 | 69.5 | 125,700 | 52.6 | 94,428 | 71.1 | 80,105 | 9.6 | 174,533 | | South West | 51.9 | 205,411 | 29.1 | 114,509 | 60.6 | 90,902 | 44.1 | 155,187 | 76.1 | 50,224 | 13.2 | 205,411 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 61.5 | 359,648 | 38.3 | 131,879 | 74.9 | 227,769 | 55.3 | 221,165 | 71.4 | 138,483 | 17.9 | 359,648 | | Peri-Urban | 72.9 | 110,257 | 52.9 | 43,931 | 86.1 | 66,326 | 70.3 | 77,412 | 79.0 | 32,845 | 24.7 | 110,257 | | Urban | 56.7 | 242,731 | 30.6 | 83,916 | 70.4 | 158,815 | 47.2 | 137,092 | 69.0 | 105,838 | 14.8 | 242,731 | | Rural | 60.6 | 819,780 | 53.2 | 56,987 | 72.2 | 212,784 | 86.0 | 66,567 | 71.0 | 105,838 | 14.8 | 819,780 | | Itinerant | 76.2 | 15,419 | 85.7 | 5,676 | 70.6 | 9,743 | 69.8 | 12,173 | 100.0 | 3,245 | 21.8 | 15,419 | | Rural | 58.1 | 663,991 | 49.7 | 419,511 | 72.6 | 244,480 | 56.2 | 536,295 | 66.4 | 127,696 | 22.5 | 663,991 | Water, Sanitation, Hygiene National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | Functionality of water point and level of breakdown in their first one year | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Overall | | Ownership | | | | Usage | | | Breakdown | | | | | Functionality of Water Point Boreholes | Estimated Number of Water Point Boreholes | Functionality of publicly owned water point boreholes | Total number of estimated Publicly owned water points boreholes | Functionality of Privately owned water point boreholes | Total number of estimated number of Privately owned water points boreholes | Functionality of publicly used water point borehole | Total number of estimated number of publicly used water points | Functionality of privately used water point borehole | Total number of estimated number of Privately used water points | Proportion of Borehole that breaks down in their first one year | Estimated Total Number of Boreholes | | Oyo | 58.8 | 24,917 | 46.2 | 19,054 | 100.0 | 5,863 | 56.3 | 23,451 | 100.0 | 1,466 | 11.8 | 24,917 | | Plateau | 40.0 | 37,285 | 38.5 | 32,314 | 50.0 | 4,971 | 46.2 | 32,314 | 0.0 | 4,971 | 40.0 | 37,285 | | Rivers | 92.6 | 30,608 | 87.5 | 9,069 | 94.7 | 21,539 | 90.0 | 22,672 | 100.0 | 7,935 | 0.0 | 30,608 | | Sokoto | 42.1 | 13,226 | 50.0 | 11,137 | 0.0 | 2,088 | 50.0 | 11,137 | 0.0 | 2,088 | 52.6 | 13,226 | | Taraba | 90.0 | 22,174 | 87.5 | 17,739 | 100.0 | 4,435 | 85.7 | 15,522 | 100.0 | 6,652 | 40.0 | 22,174 | | Yobe | 73.3 | 27,666 | 63.6 | 20,288 | 100.0 | 7,378 | 71.4 | 25,821 | 100.0 | 1,844 | 20.0 | 27,666 | | Zamfara | 33.3 | 8,049 | 30.3 | 6,810 | 50.0 | 1,238 | 33.3 | 7,430 | 33.3 | 619 | 28.2 | 8,049 | | Fct Abuja | 51.5 | 26,801 | 50.0 | 16,243 | 53.8 | 10,558 | 50.0 | 19,492 | 55.6 | 7,309 | 6.1 | 26,801 | * * * | Functionality by Water Point Types | Functionality by Water Point Types | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Borehole | | Public Tape/water klosk | | Improve Hand Dug well | | Rainwater/Dev Spring | | | | % | Estimated Number | % | Estimated Number | % | Estimated Number | % | Estimated Number | | | National | 60.4 | 1,186,272 | 33.1 | 119,810 | 67.4 | 851,409 | 69.4 | 156,075 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | North Central | 54.0 | 177,789 | 22.8 | 11,400 | 64.0 | 216,232 | 78.1 | 21,025 | | North East | 78.3 | 161,720 | 88.8 | 22,728 | 87.7 | 75,893 | 100.0 | 4,065 | | North West | 57.7 | 280,629 | 20.4 | 28,018 | 62.7 | 215,124 | 0.0 | - | | South East | 65.2 | 182,417 | 100.0 | 1,353 | 47.6 | 67,135 | 66.6 | 117,381 | | South South | 60.8 | 175,285 | 5.7 | 32,132 | 77.1 | 57,029 | 86.5 | 11,122 | | South West | 51.1 | 208,432 | 33.0 | 24,179 | 71.8 | 219,996 | 0.0 | 2,482 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 60.8 | 363,422 | 54.4 | 34,317 | 56.7 | 340,091 | 50.0 | 20,316 | | Peri-Urban | 72.4 | 111,009 | 39.5 | 6,225 | 50.2 | 101,298 | 33.3 | 7,668 | | Urban | 56.0 | 245,752 | 57.7 | 28,092 | 60.9 | 233,048 | 75.4 | 10,092 | | Rural | 60.2 | 822,851 | 24.6 | 85,493 | 74.5 | 511,318 | 72.2 | 135,759 | | Itinerant | 76.2 | 15,419 | 0.0 | - | 41.6 | 17,529 | 100.0 | 1,623 | | Rural | 58.0 | 665,438 | 28.7 | 48,352 | 78.1 | 349,385 | 67.6 | 124,208 | | Small Town | 68.0 | 148,655 | 19.1 | 37,141 | 67.1 | 150,149 | 100.0 | 12,484 | | State | | | | | | | | | | Abia | 48.1 | 39,089 | 0.0 | - | 60.0 | 7,239 | 0.0 | - | | Adamawa | 54.2 | 38,899 | 0.0 | - | 70.0 | 16,208 | 0.0 | - | | Akwa Ibom | 65.4 | 35,850 | 0.0 | 2,758 | 0.0 | - | 0.0 | - | | Anambra | 60.0 | 56,796 | 0.0 | - | 66.7 | 4,868 | 75.0 | 6,491 | | Bauchi | 100.0 | 20,662 | 100.0 | 1,087 | 100.0 | 13,050 | 0.0 | - | * * * | | Functionality by Water Point Types | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | hand pump borehole | | force-lift hand pump borehole | | motorized borehole | | improved hand dug well | | rainwater harvesting system | | public stand post connected to regional scheme | | Developed spring | | | | % | Estimated Total Number | % | Estimated Total Number | % | Estimated Total Number | % | Estimated Total Number | % | Estimated Total Number | % | Estimated Total Number | % | Estimated Total Number | | | National | 58.1 | 418246 | 20.0 | 27369 | 63.8 | 733813 | 67.4 | 851409 | 68.8 | 153243 | 33.1 | 119810 | 100.0 | 2832 | | Geopolitical Zone | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | North Central | 42.3 | 76217 | 36.5 | 9043 | 65.4 | 92529 | 64.0 | 216232 | 78.1 | 21025 | 22.8 | 11400 | 0.0 | 0 | | North East | 75.7 | 109091 | 100.0 | 2175 | 83.1 | 50451 | 87.7 | 75893 | 100.0 | 4065 | 88.8 | 22728 | 0.0 | 0 | | North West | 56.8 | 159978 | 0.0 | 5613 | 61.8 | 115039 | 62.7 | 215124 | 0.0 | 0 | 20.4 | 28018 | 0.0 | 0 | | South East | 73.0 | 15035 | 0.0 | 2516 | 66.8 | 161755 | 47.6 | 67135 | 66.6 | 117381 | 100.0 | 1353 | 0.0 | 0 | | South South | 70.8 | 10779 | 0.0 | 3018 | 61.6 | 160736 | 77.1 | 57029 | 81.9 | 8290 | 5.7 | 32132 | 100.0 | 2832 | | South West | 39.5 | 47146 | 0.0 | 4965 | 57.4 | 153300 | 71.8 | 219996 | 0.0 | 2482 | 33.0 | 24179 | 0.0 | 0 | | Sector | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Urban | 33.5 | 68866 | 0.0 | 1845 | 68.5 | 288937 | 56.7 | 340091 | 50.0 | 20316 | 54.4 | 34317 | 0.0 | 0 | | Per-Urbian | 29.5 | 20876 | 0.0 | 942 | 83.9 | 88439 | 50.2 | 101298 | 33.3 | 7668 | 39.5 | 6225 | 0.0 | 0 | | Urban | 37.2 | 45579 | 0.0 | 902 | 61.4 | 196249 | 60.9 | 230348 | 75.4 | 10092 | 57.7 | 28092 | 0.0 | 0 | | Rural | 62.9 | 349380 | 21.4 | 25252 | 60.8 | 444876 | 74.5 | 511318 | 71.7 | 132927 | 24.6 | 85493 | 100.0 | 2832 | * * * ## Consumer Satisfaction with Water Services # Consumer Satisfaction with Water Services Water, Sanitation, Hygiene Analyzed Tables National Outcome Routine Mapping 2021 * * * | | Average household size | <3 months | 3months to 1 year | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | National | 6 | 1.7 | 2.6 | | Adamawa | 5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Akwa Ibom | 6 | 0.0 | 4.5 | | Bauchi | 6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Benue | 6 | 1.5 | 3.4 | | Borno | 7 | 2.5 | 0.0 | | Delta | 5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | | Ekiti | 4 | 0.5 | 1.5 | | Enugu | 4 | 0.6 | 0.0 | | Gombe | 8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Jigawa | 7 | 3.0 | 7.5 | | Kaduna | 7 | 2.0 | 5.9 | | Kano | 7 | 2.0 | 6.0 | | Katsina | 8 | 0.0 | 0.5 | | Kebbi | 6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Kogi | 5 | 0.5 | 1.4 | | Lagos | 7 | 0.0 | 2.6 | | Nasarawa | 8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Niger | 6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Ogun | 4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Ondo | 5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Osun | 5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Oyo | 4 | 0.0 | 0.5 | | Plateau | 8 | 0.0 | 0.5 | | Sokoto | 7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Taraba | 8 | 0.0 | 1.5 | | Zamfara | 9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | FCT | 4 | 25.0 | 12.7 | \| the building | ing continuously in this building? | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 to 2 years | 2 to 5 years | >5 years | Total | Estimated Number of Customers | | | | | | | | 5.7 | 18.6 | 71.3 | 100 | 243,528 | | 0.5 | 20.0 | 79.5 | 100 | 1,167 | | 41.7 | 51.8 | 2.0 | 100 | 7,104 | | 1.5 | 24.5 | 74.0 | 100 | 31,512 | | 5.4 | 17.6 | 72.2 | 100 | 1,468 | | 24.0 | 35.5 | 38.0 | 100 | 1,643 | | 21.5 | 32.5 | 45.0 | 100 | 200 | | 6.5 | 20.0 | 71.5 | 100 | 1,049 | | 0.6 | 16.2 | 82.7 | 100 | 9,618 | | 0.0 | 4.0 | 96.0 | 100 | 1,584 | | 7.0 | 25.0 | 57.5 | 100 | 6,125 | | 8.8 | 25.0 | 58.3 | 100 | 9,199 | | 5.5 | 18.4 | 68.2 | 100 | 49,245 | | 4.0 | 7.5 | 88.0 | 100 | 20,666 | | 1.5 | 5.0 | 93.5 | 100 | 5,081 | | 6.4 | 22.9 | 68.8 | 100 | 10,448 | | 7.7 | 32.3 | 57.4 | 100 | 7,877 | | 0.5 | 19.5 | 80.0 | 100 | 498 | | 2.3 | 57.7 | 40.0 | 100 | 5,033 | | 0.5 | 16.9 | 82.6 | 100 | 9,072 | | 2.5 | 10.5 | 87.0 | 100 | 7,440 | | 3.0 | 7.5 | 89.6 | 100 | 3,517 | | 1.5 | 18.1 | 79.9 | 100 | 6,853 | | 6.5 | 14.0 | 79.0 | 100 | 23,450 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100 | 9,176 | | 4.5 | 8.5 | 85.5 | 100 | 567 | | 0.5 | 9.5 | 90.0 | 100 | 3,040 | | 14.2 | 8.3 | 39.7 | 100 | 10,897 | * * * Table 2: Consumer's level of connection, active and location of public water supply Are you an active user of the | | Are you connected to the public water supply? | | | Total number of Consumers who have leaved in the building more than 3 months | Are you an active user of the public water supply service at the moment? | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Yes | No | Total | Yes | No | Total | | | | National | 95.9 | 4.1 | 100 | 243,528 | 86.4 | 13.6 | 100 | | Adamawa | 98.5 | 1.5 | 100 | 1,167 | 56.9 | 43.1 | 100 | | Akwa Ibom | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 7,104 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Bauchi | 89.5 | 10.5 | 100 | 31,512 | 98.3 | 1.7 | 100 | | Benue | 98.5 | 1.5 | 100 | 1,468 | 96.5 | 3.5 | 100 | | Borno | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 1,643 | 99.5 | 0.5 | 100 | | Delta | 71.0 | 29.0 | 100 | 200 | 100.0 | .0 | 100 | | Ekiti | 65.0 | 35.0 | 100 | 1,049 | 31.5 | 68.5 | 100 | | Enugu | 95.5 | 4.5 | 100 | 9,618 | 24.0 | 76.0 | 100 | | Gombe | 77.5 | 22.5 | 100 | 1,584 | 96.8 | 3.2 | 100 | | Jigawa | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 6,125 | 94.5 | 5.5 | 100 | | Kaduna | 96.6 | 3.4 | 100 | 9,199 | 82.2 | 17.8 | 100 | | Kano | 95.5 | 4.5 | 100 | 49,245 | 70.8 | 29.2 | 100 | | Katsina | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 20,666 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Kebbi | 99.0 | 1.0 | 100 | 5,081 | 90.4 | 9.6 | 100 | | Kogi | 90.4 | 9.6 | 100 | 10,448 | 70.1 | 29.9 | 100 | | Lagos | 84.6 | 15.4 | 100 | 7,877 | 95.8 | 4.2 | 100 | | Nasarawa | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 498 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Niger | 96.3 | 3.7 | 100 | 5,033 | 86.5 | 13.5 | 100 | | Ogun | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 9,072 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Ondo | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 7,440 | 99.5 | 0.5 | 100 | | Osun | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 3,517 | 62.7 | 37.3 | 100 | | Oyo | 99.0 | 1.0 | 100 | 6,853 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Plateau | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 23,450 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100 | | Sokoto | 98.0 | 2.0 | 100 | 9,176 | 88.3 | 11.7 | 100 | | Taraba | 99.0 | 1.0 | 100 | 567 | 94.9 | 5.1 | 100 | | Total number of consumers who are connected to public water supply | Where is the public water supply connection located? | | | | Total number of consumer who are active | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Within the dwelling | Within the Compound/Yard | Elsewhere | Total | | | | 233,467 | 41.6 | 55.5 | 2.9 | 100 | 201,721 | | 1,150 | 23.2 | 76.8 | 0.0 | 100 | 654 | | 7,104 | 24.6 | 75.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 7,104 | | 28,203 | 48.9 | 39.2 | 11.9 | 100 | 27,731 | | 1,446 | 53.8 | 39.5 | 6.7 | 100 | 1,396 | | 1,643 | 15.1 | 84.4 | 0.5 | 100 | 1,635 | | 142 | 44.4 | 55.6 | 0.0 | 100 | 142 | | 682 | 39.0 | 58.5 | 2.4 | 100 | 215 | | 9,188 | 14.6 | 85.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 2,203 | | 1,228 | 30.0 | 70.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 1,188 | | 6,125 | 83.1 | 16.9 | 0.0 | 100 | 5,788 | | 8,883 | 6.8 | 90.1 | 3.1 | 100 | 7,305 | | 47,040 | 65.4 | 34.6 | 0.0 | 100 | 33,320 | | 20,666 | 5.0 | 94.5 | 0.5 | 100 | 20,666 | | 5,030 | 97.8 | 1.7 | .6 | 100 | 4,545 | | 9,442 | 11.6 | 88.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 6,614 | | 6,665 | 58.9 | 41.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 6,382 | | 498 | 15.0 | 85.0 | .0 | 100 | 498 | | 4,846 | 23.5 | 53.6 | 22.9 | 100 | 4,190 | | 9,072 | 9.5 | 90.0 | 0.5 | 100 | 9,072 | | 7,440 | 22.6 | 77.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 7,403 | | 3,517 | 32.5 | 65.9 | 1.6 | 100 | 2,205 | | 6,784 | 13.2 | 85.8 | 1.0 | 100 | 6,784 | | 23,450 | 35.0 | 65.0 | .0 | 100 | 23,450 | | 8,992 | 77.5 | 22.0 | 0.6 | 100 | 7,937 | | 562 | 97.9 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 100 | 533 | | 2,934 | 2.6 | 67.4 | 30.1 | 100 | 2,934 | | 10,737 | 96.2 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 100 | 9,829 | * * * | | How long did it take for your house applyi | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | Less than 1 week | 1-2 weeks | 3-4 weeks | | National | 24.4 | 33.8 | 16.5 | | Adamawa | 29.5 | 61.9 | 7.6 | | Akwa Ibom | 0.0 | 5.9 | 54.1 | | Bauchi | 1.4 | 43.1 | 15.3 | | Benue | 38.9 | 49.6 | 11.5 | | Borno | 47.7 | 8.2 | 37.9 | | Delta | 30.4 | 33.9 | 22.3 | | Ekiti | 9.1 | 39.4 | 30.3 | | Enugu | 0.0 | 14.3 | 14.3 | | Gombe | 21.2 | 21.2 | 15.3 | | Jigawa | 60.8 | 35.2 | 3.2 | | Kaduna | 3.7 | 32.1 | 58.0 | | Kano | 50.4 | 40.9 | 8.7 | | Katsina | 62.4 | 36.6 | 1.1 | | Kebbi | 0.9 | 9.9 | 4.5 | | Kogi | 9.8 | 49.0 | 25.5 | | Lagos | 3.5 | 3.5 | 15.8 | | Nasarawa | 0.0 | 48.9 | 45.6 | | Niger | 0.0 | 0.9 | 37.7 | | Ogun | 0.0 | 5.4 | 32.4 | | Ondo | 0.0 | 3.1 | 13.2 | | Osun | 1.9 | 11.1 | 25.9 | | Oyo | 0.0 | 21.5 | 24.3 | | Plateau | 40.0 | 32.1 | 14.3 | | Sokoto | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | | Taraba | 42.5 | 46.8 | 5.4 | | Zamfara | 18.3 | 65.4 | 12.5 | | FCT | 60.7 | 15.5 | 10.7 | | Education for public water connection by consumers | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | household to get connected after using? | | | Total number of consumer's that applied for public water supply connection | | 5-6 weeks | >7 weeks | Total | | | 11.7 | 13.5 | 100 | 141,975 | | 0.0 | 1.0 | 100 | 613 | | 37.3 | 2.7 | 100 | 6,605 | | 13.9 | 26.4 | 100 | 22,689 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 809 | | 5.6 | 0.5 | 100 | 1,602 | | 8.9 | 4.5 | 100 | 112 | | 18.2 | 3.0 | 100 | 173 | | 42.9 | 28.6 | 100 | 376 | | 4.4 | 38.0 | 100 | 1,085 | | 0.0 | 0.8 | 100 | 3,828 | | 2.5 | 3.7 | 100 | 3,652 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 28,175 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 9,610 | | 17.1 | 67.6 | 100 | 2,834 | | 9.8 | 5.9 | 100 | 2,444 | | 45.6 | 31.6 | 100 | 2,303 | | 4.4 | 1.1 | 100 | 224 | | 34.2 | 27.2 | 100 | 2,669 | | 33.0 | 29.2 | 100 | 8,350 | | 41.9 | 41.9 | 100 | 4,799 | | 22.2 | 38.9 | 100 | 1,890 | | 9.9 | 44.2 | 100 | 6,233 | | 8.6 | 5.0 | 100 | 16,415 | | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 7,891 | | 3.2 | 2.2 | 100 | 528 | | 2.9 | 1.0 | 100 | 1,581 | | 11.9 | 1.2 | 100 | 4,487 | * * * In the past two weeks, how many days have you NOT had water? | | <5 days | 5-9 days | 10-14 days | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | National | 36.4 | 23.0 | 40.6 | | Adamawa | 97.8 | 2.2 | 0.0 | | Akwa Ibom | 95.2 | 4.8 | 0.0 | | Bauchi | 86.9 | 12.4 | 0.7 | | Benue | 1.1 | 5.2 | 93.7 | | Borno | 97.6 | 2.4 | 0.0 | | Delta | 1.8 | 12.5 | 85.7 | | Ekiti | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Enugu | 22.2 | 36.1 | 41.7 | | Gombe | 19.1 | 52.9 | 27.9 | | Jigawa | 84.5 | 15.5 | 0.0 | | Kaduna | 9.6 | 20.0 | 70.4 | | Kano | 75.0 | 16.1 | 8.9 | | Katsina | 9.3 | 60.8 | 29.9 | | Kebbi | 89.2 | 10.8 | 0.0 | | Kogi | 0.9 | 0.9 | 98.2 | | Lagos | 15.3 | 32.2 | 52.5 | | Nasarawa | 93.6 | 1.3 | 5.1 | | Niger | 75.9 | 17.7 | 6.3 | | Ogun | 0.5 | 2.0 | 97.5 | | Ondo | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Osun | 0.0 | 0.8 | 99.2 | | Oyo | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Plateau | 4.7 | 44.2 | 51.2 | | Sokoto | 45.7 | 16.4 | 37.9 | | Taraba | 11.7 | 18.7 | 69.6 | | Zamfara | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | | FCT | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Total | Average number of days NOT had water? | Total number of consumer without water supply at least for one full day | | --- | --- | --- | | 100 | 8 | 140,684 | | 100 | 4 | 531 | | 100 | 3 | 6,712 | | 100 | 4 | 22,846 | | 100 | 13 | 1,246 | | 100 | 4 | 1,388 | | 100 | 10 | 56 | | 100 | 13 | 115 | | 100 | 9 | 1,934 | | 100 | 7 | 1,077 | | 100 | 3 | 2,573 | | 100 | 11 | 6,087 | | 100 | 4 | 13,720 | | 100 | 9 | 20,046 | | 100 | 3 | 1,660 | | 100 | 14 | 5,416 | | 100 | 10 | 4,767 | | 100 | 4 | 194 | | 100 | 4 | 1,849 | | 100 | 13 | 8,891 | | 100 | 14 | 7,328 | | 100 | 13 | 2,117 | | 100 | 14 | 6,439 | | 100 | 10 | 15,125 | | 100 | 8 | 6,423 | | 100 | 10 | 485 | | 100 | 7 | 1,657 | | 0 | 0 | 0 | * * * Table 5: Quality of Water Supply Services - Connectivity of water supply Was this cut peculiar to your locality? | | Yes, only my locality | No,the entire system was shut down | | --- | --- | --- | | National | 65.5 | 27.0 | | Adamawa | 66.7 | 0.0 | | Akwa Ibom | 99.0 | 1.0 | | Bauchi | 92.3 | 5.6 | | Benue | 50.6 | 15.7 | | Borno | 100.0 | 0.0 | | Delta | 30.6 | 47.2 | | Ekiti | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Enugu | 40.0 | 60.0 | | Gombe | 66.7 | 33.3 | | Jigawa | 15.4 | 23.1 | | Kaduna | 95.7 | 3.2 | | Kano | 66.7 | 29.6 | | Katsina | 98.9 | 0.0 | | Kebbi | 40.9 | 4.5 | | Kogi | 6.9 | 89.7 | | Lagos | 16.0 | 18.3 | | Nasarawa | 50.0 | 0.0 | | Niger | 76.9 | 0.0 | | Ogun | 10.0 | 90.0 | | Ondo | 0.0 | 100.0 | | Osun | 13.3 | 26.7 | | Oyo | 0.5 | 98.4 | | Plateau | 94.0 | 6.0 | | Sokoto | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Taraba | 46.9 | 28.6 | | Zamfara | 100.0 | 0.0 | | Don't Know | Total | Total number of consumers in the past 6 months did not experience water supply cut off for more than 2 weeks | | --- | --- | --- | | 7.5 | 100 | 76,771 | | 33.3 | 100 | 35 | | 0.0 | 100 | 3,499 | | 2.1 | 100 | 22,374 | | 33.7 | 100 | 1,274 | | 0.0 | 100 | 115 | | 22.2 | 100 | 36 | | 0.0 | 0 | - | | 0.0 | 100 | 269 | | 0.0 | 100 | 24 | | 61.5 | 100 | 398 | | 1.1 | 100 | 4,194 | | 3.7 | 100 | 6,615 | | 1.1 | 100 | 9,713 | | 54.5 | 100 | 562 | | 3.4 | 100 | 1,390 | | 65.6 | 100 | 5,292 | | 50.0 | 100 | 10 | | 23.1 | 100 | 304 | | 0.0 | 100 | 451 | | 0.0 | 100 | 7,254 | | 60.0 | 100 | 262 | | 1.0 | 100 | 6,577 | | 0.0 | 100 | 5,862 | | 100.0 | 100 | 46 | | 24.5 | 100 | 139 | | 0.0 | 100 | 76 | * * * Monthly tariff billed to household in 2019 | | Total |