Analysis of objective I/hypothesis I
Objective I
To
assess awareness of residents on the level of noise that emanate from sawmill
industries in the study area.
assess awareness of residents on the level of noise that emanate from sawmill
industries in the study area.
Hypothesis I
Ho:
Residents do not have awareness of the level of noise emanating from the
sawmill.
Residents do not have awareness of the level of noise emanating from the
sawmill.
Questions
1, 2, and 3 are related question that represent that data for treatment on the
above stated hypothesis as shown in table 4.1 below.
1, 2, and 3 are related question that represent that data for treatment on the
above stated hypothesis as shown in table 4.1 below.
Table 4.1: Respondents idea on noise
emanated
emanated
|
S/N
|
QUESTION
|
YES
|
NO
|
TOTAL
|
|
1
|
Does
sawmill operation generate very high leveled noise? |
60
|
40
|
100
|
|
2
|
Does
the high leveled noise emanate during sawmilling operation above acceptable limits? |
84
|
16
|
100
|
|
3
|
Does
the noise emanating from the sawmill cause health problem to human? |
70
|
30
|
100
|
|
Total
|
214
|
86
|
300
|
|
The
percentage of total respondents that agreed (yes) = 71.3%. While the percentage of total percentage that
say “No” = 28.7%. Calculated chi-square
(X2) = 24.57 value of table = 0.05 = 5.991 at 2df. It was observed that calculated chi-square is
equal to 24.57, which is > than the tabulated values 0.05 = 5.991 that is
the null hypothesis is therefore rejected and accepted the alternative hypothesis
which says residents have awareness of
the level of noise emanating from sawmill. See (appendix II for detail of calculation).
percentage of total respondents that agreed (yes) = 71.3%. While the percentage of total percentage that
say “No” = 28.7%. Calculated chi-square
(X2) = 24.57 value of table = 0.05 = 5.991 at 2df. It was observed that calculated chi-square is
equal to 24.57, which is > than the tabulated values 0.05 = 5.991 that is
the null hypothesis is therefore rejected and accepted the alternative hypothesis
which says residents have awareness of
the level of noise emanating from sawmill. See (appendix II for detail of calculation).
Analysis
of objective II/hypothesis II
of objective II/hypothesis II
Objective II
To
assess residents and sawmill workers on impact of noise emanating from sawmill.
assess residents and sawmill workers on impact of noise emanating from sawmill.
Hypothesis II
Ho:
Noise emanating from the sawmill do not have impact on resident/sawmill
workers.
Noise emanating from the sawmill do not have impact on resident/sawmill
workers.
Questions
4, 5, and 6 are related question that represented the data for treatment on the
above stated hypothesis as shown in table 4.2 below.
4, 5, and 6 are related question that represented the data for treatment on the
above stated hypothesis as shown in table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2: Respondents idea on noise
impact
impact
|
S/N
|
QUESTION
|
YES
|
NO
|
TOTAL
|
|
4
|
Does
the noise emanating from the sawmill operation affect your reading and assimilation? |
83
|
17
|
100
|
|
5
|
Does
the noise cause disturbance and hatred in you? |
85
|
15
|
100
|
|
6
|
Do
you think that the noise from the sawmill affect your hearing ability? |
66
|
34
|
100
|
|
Total
|
234
|
66
|
300
|
|
Total
percentage of respondent that say “yes” is 78% while 22% disagreed
percentage of respondent that say “yes” is 78% while 22% disagreed
the
calculated chi-square (X2) = 12.72, while table value at 0.05 = 5.991. it was observed that the value
calculated X2 > 12.72 is > than the table value 5.991 at 0.05
2df see (appendix II) therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected while the
alternative hypothesis which says noise pollution has impact on the health of
resident/sawmill workers was accepted.
calculated chi-square (X2) = 12.72, while table value at 0.05 = 5.991. it was observed that the value
calculated X2 > 12.72 is > than the table value 5.991 at 0.05
2df see (appendix II) therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected while the
alternative hypothesis which says noise pollution has impact on the health of
resident/sawmill workers was accepted.
Analysis
of objective III/hypothesis III
of objective III/hypothesis III
Objective III
To
ascertain the behavior of the people towards the location of sawmill within
human habitation.
ascertain the behavior of the people towards the location of sawmill within
human habitation.
Hypothesis III
Ho:
Residents do not behave positively toward the location of sawmills within human
habitation.
Residents do not behave positively toward the location of sawmills within human
habitation.
Questions
7, 8 and 9 are related question that represent the data for treatment on the
above stated hypothesis as shown in table 4.3 below.
7, 8 and 9 are related question that represent the data for treatment on the
above stated hypothesis as shown in table 4.3 below.
Table 4.3: Respondent idea to attitude
of people towards noise pollution and location of sawmills within human
habitation.
of people towards noise pollution and location of sawmills within human
habitation.
|
S/N
|
QUESTION
|
YES
|
NO
|
TOTAL
|
|
7
|
Are
you comfortable with the location of the sawmill industries in the residential area? |
19
|
81
|
100
|
|
8
|
Would
you want the sawmill industries to be relocated to another area? |
23
|
77
|
100
|
|
9
|
Would
the relocation of sawmill help to reduce noise in the area? |
18
|
82
|
100
|
|
Total
|
60
|
240
|
300
|
|
From
the table 4.3 above it shows that out of hundred (100) respondent sample 20%
agreed while 80% disagreed details in appendix IV show that X2
calculated value equal to 0.87 is < table value of 5.991. Since the x2
value is lesser than the table value of 5.991, we therefore concluded that
resident do not behave positively towards the location of sawmills within human
habitation.
the table 4.3 above it shows that out of hundred (100) respondent sample 20%
agreed while 80% disagreed details in appendix IV show that X2
calculated value equal to 0.87 is < table value of 5.991. Since the x2
value is lesser than the table value of 5.991, we therefore concluded that
resident do not behave positively towards the location of sawmills within human
habitation.
Analysis
of objective IV/hypothesis IV
of objective IV/hypothesis IV
Objective IV
To
ascertain the behavior of the management of sawmills towards monitoring and control
of the noise from sawmill
ascertain the behavior of the management of sawmills towards monitoring and control
of the noise from sawmill
Hypothesis IV
Ho:
Management of sawmill do not shows concern about the emission of noise from
sawmills.
Management of sawmill do not shows concern about the emission of noise from
sawmills.
Questions
10, 11, and 12 are related question that represent data for treatment on the
above stated hypothesis as stated in table 4.4 below.
10, 11, and 12 are related question that represent data for treatment on the
above stated hypothesis as stated in table 4.4 below.
Table 4.4: Respondent idea to the
management altitude toward monitoring and control of noise from sawmill.
management altitude toward monitoring and control of noise from sawmill.
|
S/N
|
QUESTION
|
YES
|
NO
|
TOTAL
|
|
10
|
Is
there any improvement in terms of noise reduction? |
20
|
80
|
100
|
|
11
|
Do
workers always be with protective wears at work? |
25
|
75
|
100
|
|
12
|
Do
workers and management always follow laid down principle of controlling noise pollution in sawmill industries? |
20
|
80
|
100
|
|
Total
|
65
|
235
|
300
|
|
Total respondent that says the
management does not play vital role in monitoring and control of noise from sawmill is 235 while those that
say management play vital role in monitoring and control of noise from sawmill
is 65. The calculated (X2) = 0.99 < 5.991 it was observed that
the value of 5,991 at 0.05 at 2df (see appendix V) . Since the x2
value is lesser than the table value of 5.991, therefore the alternative
hypothesis was reject while the researcher accepted the null hypothesis which
says that government does not play vital role in monitoring and control of
noise from the sawmill.
management does not play vital role in monitoring and control of noise from sawmill is 235 while those that
say management play vital role in monitoring and control of noise from sawmill
is 65. The calculated (X2) = 0.99 < 5.991 it was observed that
the value of 5,991 at 0.05 at 2df (see appendix V) . Since the x2
value is lesser than the table value of 5.991, therefore the alternative
hypothesis was reject while the researcher accepted the null hypothesis which
says that government does not play vital role in monitoring and control of
noise from the sawmill.
