Data presentation and analysis

Analysis of
objective I

To find out the causes of environmental degradation in
Afiesere community.

Research
hypothesis I

Ho: There are no cause of environmental degradation in
Afiesere community.

Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the questionnaire are set
of related questions that represent the data for treatment of research
hypothesis I as shown in the table 4.1

below.

Table 4.1: Response to cause of environmental
degradation in Afiesere

S/N	Question	Yes	No	Total
1.	Does poor drainage system lead to environmental degradation in Afiesere?	215	35	250
2.	Does habit fragmentation cause environmental degradation in Afiesere?	185	55	250
3.	Does environmental degradation occur as a result of domestic and industrial activities?	240	10	250
4.	Does agricultural run-off cause environmental degradation?	210	40	250
Total		860	140	1000

Table 4.1 above
shows that the total respondent that responded “Yes” to the set of related
questions are 860 while those that responded “No” is equal to 140. The
calculated chi-square (X2) value is 34.883 while table value of X2
at 3df is 7.915. therefore, applying decision rule, since X2
calculated 34.883 is > than X2 tabulated 0.05 = 7.815. The
researcher rejected the null hypothesis and concluded that there are causes of
environmental degradation in Afiesere community (Details in Appendix II).

Analysis of
objective II

Objective II

To assess the level of awareness of the people of
Afiesere on the cause of environmental degradation

Research
hypothesis II

Ho: Afiesere community is not aware of the cause of
the environmental degradation.

Questions 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the questionnaire set of
related questions that represent the data for treatment of research hypothesis
II as shows in table 4.2 below

Table 4.2: Response of the level of awareness of the
people of Afiesere on the cause of environmental degradation

S/N	Question	Yes	No	Total
5.	Are the people of Afiesere community aware of the causes of environmental degradation?	200	50	250
6.	Does environmental degradation have adverse effect on the environment?	230	20	250
7.	Does environmental degradation have any health hazard on the workers and other?	215	35	250
8.	Is there rise in the atmospheric temperature of Afiesere town?	205	45	250
Total		850	150	1000

Table 4.2 above shows that the total respondent that
responded “Yes” to the set of related questions are 850 while those that
responded “No” is equal to 150. The calculated chi-square (X2) value
is 16.471 while table value of X2 at 3df is 7.915. Therefore,
applying decision rule, since X2 calculated 16.471 is > than X2
tabulated 0.05 = 7.815. The researcher rejected the null hypothesis, and concluded
that Afiesere community is aware of the causes of the environmental degradation
(Details in Appendix III).

Analysis of
objective III

Objective III

To assess the people on the health impact of
environmental degradation on the workers, community members and the ecosystem
at large

Research
Hypothesis III

Ho: Environmental degradation does not have health on
the workers, community member and the ecosystem at large

Questions 9, 10, 11 and 12 in the questionnaire are
set of related questions that represent the data for treatment of research
hypothesis III as shown in table 4.2.3 below

Table 4.3: Response to health impact of environmental
degradation on the workers, community members and the ecosystem at large

S/N	Question	Yes	No	Total
9.	Does environmental degradation cause rise in atmospheric temperature in Afiesere community?	190	60	250
10.	Does the rise in the atmospheric temperature cause discomfort to the workers and others?	205	45	250
11.	Does deforestation lead to soil erosion and desert formation?	210	40	250
12.	Does indiscriminate disposal of hazard waste lead to transmission of disease?	215	35	250
Total		820	180	1000

Table 4.3 above
shows that the total respondent that responded “Yes” to the set of related
questions are 820 while those that responded “No” is equal to 180. The
calculated chi-square (X2) value is 9.486 while table value of X2
at 3df is 7.915. Therefore, applying decision rule, since X2
calculated 9.486 is > than X2 tabulated 0.05 = 7.815. The
researcher rejected the null hypothesis, and concluded that environmental
degradation has health impact on the workers, community members and the
ecosystem at large (Details in Appendix IV).

Analysis of
objective IV

Objective IV

To assess the people on common measures of mitigating
the impact of the environmental degradation

Research
hypothesis IV

Ho: Afiesere community is not assessed on common
measures of mitigation the impact of the environmental degradation

Questions 13, 14, 15 and 16 in the questionnaire set
of related questions that represent the data for research hypothesis Iv as
shown in table 4.4 below.

Table 4.4: Response to common measures of mitigating
the impact of the environmental degradation

S/N	Question	Yes	No	Total
13.	Is there provision of community education and integration to increase the awareness of dangers associated with environmental degradation?	210	40	250
14.	Is there provision of environmental friendly policies to repair the degradable habit and community?	195	55	250
15.	Is afforestation encouraged in other to reduce flooding?	205	45	250
16.	Are trained scientists available in Afiesere community for the control and management of environmental degradation?	200	50	250
Total		810	190	1000

Table 4.4 above shows that the total respondent that
responded “Yes” to the set of related questions are 810 while those that
responded “No” is equal to 190. The calculated chi-square (X2) value
is 3.25 while table value of X2 at 3df is 7.915. Therefore, applying
decision rule, since X2 calculated 3.25 is > than X2
tabulated 0.05 = 7.815. The researcher accepted the null hypothesis and concluded
that Afiesere community is not assessed on common measures of mitigating the
impact of the environmental degradation (Details in Appendix V).