Assessment of Sustainable Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (Wash) Systems and Operational Readiness in Secondary Schools within Warri Metropolis, Delta State

© The Author(s) 2025. Published by AMO Publisher. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Assessment of Sustainable Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (Wash) Systems and Operational Readiness in Secondary Schools within Warri Metropolis, Delta State Laurelta Esivweneta Tudararo-Aherobo Professor, Department of Environmental Management and Toxicology, Federal University of Petroleum Resources, Effurun, Nigeria Godstime Ejowos Ewhrudjakpor  Research Fellow, Department of Environmental Management and Toxicology, Federal University of Petroleum Resources, Effurun, Nigeria Abstract Sustainable Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) services, as well as the promotion of student health and functional learning environments, depend on infrastructural and managerial availability; however, the situation in most schools in Nigeria is dire. This research examined the operational preparedness and sustainability of Wash systems in secondary schools, both public and private, within Warri Metropolis, Delta State. The research objective was to assess water accessibility, sanitation adequacy, hygiene behavior, as well as institutional practices and water safety through a convergent parallel mixed-methods design that incorporated 384 survey questionnaire respondents, key informant interviews, structured observations, and laboratory analysis of physicochemical and microbiological water parameters. Excellent performance found that there existed apparent differences between the two systems of school, which is that the availability of water in terms of days was 48.6% in the public schools as compared to the 89% in the private schools; the availability of toilets was 52.7% in the public schools versus 95.1% in the private schools; availability of toilesap was just 18.6% in the former schools compared to 84.1% in the latter schools; and finally, the adequacy of the toilets was 28.4% Most importantly, E. coli counts (1222 CFU/100 mL) and heavy metal concentrations of leading (0.0420.051 mg/L) and iron (0.520.60 mg/L) were extremely high in the public schools this is all way out of the WHO/NIS limits. The research finds that it is not only the infrastructure that affects the WASH performance; the quality of governance, finances, and environmental safety also influences it. Other contributions to the body of knowledge include a triangulated WASH sustainability framework and the inaugural evidence, in the form of microbial-heavy metal co-contamination, from school-related sources of water. The research suggests specific budgeting, regular cheques, infrastructure enhancement, and reinforcement of hygiene education. Keywords: WASH sustainability, operational readiness, school water quality, sanitation disparities, hygiene behaviour, environmental contamination. Suggested citation: Tudararo-Aherobo, L.E., & Ewhrudjakpor, G.E. (2025). Assessment of Sustainable Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (Wash) Systems and Operational Readiness in Secondary Schools within Warri Metropolis, Delta State. European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability, 1(6), 58-69. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejiss.2025.1(6).06 www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 59 Introduction Water, hygiene and sanitation services have continued to experience; water, hygiene and sanitation services continue to be vital in influencing child health, wellbeing and educational productivity, particularly in school settings where youth spend a significant stage of their development. More than 584 million school-going children do not have access to basic drinking water services and more than 818 million of school-going children do not have adequate sanitation, which increases susceptibility to diarrhoeal diseases, helminth infections, and poor school attendance (UNICEF & WHO, 2015). It has thus been emphasised that sustainable WASH service provision which can be characterised in terms of functionality, reliability, equity, safety and long-term viability of operations is a critical institutional need in the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) (WHO/UNICEF, 2014). This aligns with Sustainable Development Goal 6 which proposes sustainable, and inclusive WASH systems that provide safe school environments (UN, 2016). In the past ten years, the international priorities in WASH have been oriented towards operational preparedness and sustainability as opposed to the traditional provision of facilities. The sustainability and functionality of school WASH systems are some of the persistently challenging issues in the lowand middle-income nations, including Nigeria. Research has recorded tendencies of poor infrastructural condition, lack of hygiene facilities in most government schools, unhygienic water supply and poor hygienic education (Omolabi and Adebayo, 2017; O’Reilly et al., 2014). The lack of budgetary resources to support maintenance and poor institutional management, the lack of standard operating procedures (SOPs) and the lack of stakeholder interaction are the sources of these challenges (Amoah et al., 2016). The empirical data in Delta state has also revealed disparities of access to WASH between urban and peri-urban schools, which have been exacerbated by poor infrastrucular conditions and inconsistency in the application of national WASH-in-Schools policies and guidelines. Even though these gaps have been reported, there is little systematically and multi-dimensional measurement of the sustainability of WASH and operational preparedness in secondary schools in Warri Metropolis. To conceive the sustainability of WASH we need the systems perspective. According to the Systems Theory, the sustainable service delivery of WASH is achieved by coordinating infrastructure, management, financing, governance, and behavioural (Meeks, 2017). Likewise, the Social-Ecological Model (SEM) states that hygiene behaviour is not only influenced by the individual knowledge but also influenced by institutional guidelines, environmental feedback and community-based interactions (Mosler, 2012). These frameworks underpin the fact that school WASH effects are more than merely the availability of facilities; they must be maintained structures and organised with designated staff, sufficient funding and sustained behavioural reinforcement (Dreibelbis et al., 2013). The operational preparedness, which can be described as the extent to which schools have policies, human resources, and systems that allow them to sustain WASH services, thus, becomes one of the key factors of the long-term sustainability. There is consistent evidence on recurrent challenges based on empirical data on sub-Saharan Africa— intermittent water supply, unreliable latrines, no gender-consciousness in sanitation design, and no good systems to manage menstrual hygiene (Alexander et al., 2014; Bain et al., 2014; Isangadighi et al., 2024; Ahanor et al., 2025). Similar concerns are reflected in the Nigerian research, which demonstrates that the majority of WASH facilities are rendered dysfunctional within a limited duration because a proper culture of maintenance and institutional negligence are observed, and locals are not being involved (Acha et al., 2025; Nwankwo and Chendo, 2016; Isangadighi et al., 2025). Nevertheless, majority of previous studies focus on facility availability and do not measure sustainability indicators or operational preparedness of the facility in four domains, i.e. technical, financial, institutional, and behavioural. This is an important gap in knowledge as it is a fast developing urban centre like the Warri Metropolis. It is against this background that a thorough scenario on the sustainability of WASH and elements of operational preparedness in secondary schools in Warri Metropolis is needed and opportune. This paper adds to the systematised, evidence-based evaluation of water systems, sanitation infrastructure, hygiene behaviour, www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 60 administrative structures, tables and indicators of preparedness that correlate with those seen on a global best practise. The results will offer vital information to policy makers, education authorities and school administrators interested in enhancing sustainable WASH delivery in Delta State and other such environments. Methodology The paper took a convergent-parallel design approach that combined both cross-sectional quantitative surveys, qualitative key-informant interviews (KIIs) and structured observation as well as a laboratorybased environmental analysis to extract a comprehensive evaluation of sustainable WASH systems and operational preparedness in secondary schools (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). The quantitative strand included a structured KAP questionnaire which was given to students, teachers and administrative staff to describe water, sanitation and hygiene knowledge, attitudes and practises to test the differences based on school ownership and LGA; and model predictors of the sanitation adequacy and hygiene behaviour. The qualitative strand comprised of nine KIIs (three per LGA) through school heads and health officers as well as structured observations of a systematic (washed up) character, on the basis of an adapted UNICEF/WHO school WASH checklists; qualitative data were audio-taped and transcribed and assessed based on developed themes in NVivo 14 to contextualise managerial and behavioural determinants of sustainability. These strands of analysis quantitative patterns, qualitative explanation, and objective laboratory evidence were explicitly employed to augment internal and external validity to address convergence/divergence in findings (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018). The fieldwork and sampling were undertaken in the three LGAs (Warri South, Uvwie, Udu) of the Warri Metropolitan. This sedimentary basin is characterized by heterogeneous socio-economic and infrastructural conditions, as well as low-lying and humid tropical regions. Six purposely chosen schools (three public and three private) were selected to provide the institutional context for comparison; a large human study population of 3,555 persons (students, teachers, and administrative staff) was drawn into a proportional stratified and multi-stage sample. The sample size was determined using the Cochran formula with a large population (n = 384). This value was then corrected for finite population error to the nearest value of 347, with an additional 10% added to account for non-response (Cochran, 1979). The proportionate stratified formula (nᵢ = Nᵢ/N × n)× n) was used to allocate across schools to reduce selection bias; and to select at random within strata, using computerised random selection. In the case of the environmental component, two representative water samples, including one out of twelve schools, were geo-referenced and gathered out of primary drinking points (borehole, tap, storage) according to APHA chain-of-custody and preservation procedures (APHA, 2009); it was collected on ice and processed in holding time windows to maintain microbiological and chemical integrity. Laboratory-based methods were in line with standard practices and recommendations of APHA and WHO/National standards in quality control: both in-situ and laboratory pH, EC/TDS, turbidity, membrane filtration of total coliforms and E. coli: in-situ and laboratory (WHO, 2017). Multi-point calibrations, blanks, replicates, spike recoveries (acceptance 80120) and CRM runs and reported chainof-custody all comprised QA/QC. Combined analytical synthesis, univariate descriptive statistics (means, SDs, frequencies), specified above tests of inferential hypothesis and sophisticated multivariate power PCA and hierarchical cluster analysis to determine covarying sources of pollution groups and signals, a weighted arithmetic Water Quality Index (WQI) to receive composite water-suitability scores (Tyagi et al., 2013). Excel was used to clean up data at the start, SPSS v29 to run descriptive/inferential statistics, R (v4.3) to run multivariate tests with NVivo 14 to code data qualitatively. The institutional and ethical clearances were obtained with education and environmental authority approvals, institutional clearance sought by way of a written consent of the participating schools, and the compliance with laboratory work with the standards of biosafety and Chemical handling. www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 61 Results Table 1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Variable Category Frequency (n) Percentage (%) Gender Male 158 41.1 Female 226 58.9 Age (years) <15 70 18.2 15–24 220 57.3 25–34 50 13.0 ≥35 44 11.5 Role Student 280 72.9 Teaching Staff 64 16.7 Non-teaching Staff 40 10.4 School Ownership Public 220 57.3 Private 164 42.7 Duration in School (years) <1 24 6.3 1–3 120 31.3 4–6 140 36.5 >6 100 26.0 Table 2. Sources and Accessibility of Water Supply in Selected Schools Water Source Public Schools (%) Private Schools (%) Overall (%) Borehole 41.8 78.0 57.3 Tap/Municipal Supply 12.7 18.9 15.4 Well 29.1 3.7 18.8 Rainwater 10.0 0.0 5.2 Stream/Other 6.4 0.0 3.3 Functional Water Source Present 52.3 94.5 69.8 Table 3. Accessibility and Reliability of Water Supply Parameter Public (%) Private (%) Mean Difference (%) Daily water availability 48.6 89.0 40.4 Students have access to drinking water 36.8 92.7 55.9 Water treatment frequency (≥ twice/year) 14.1 68.9 54.8 Continuous water supply during school hours 32.0 81.7 49.7 Table 4. Institutional WASH Practices in Selected Secondary Schools Variable Public Schools Private Schools Overall (%) Documented WASH policy available 1 (33.3%) 3 (100%) 66.7 Dedicated WASH budget 0 (0%) 3 (100%) 50.0 Routine water quality testing conducted 0 (0%) 2 (66.7%) 33.3 Water treatment performed 1 (33.3%) 3 (100%) 66.7 Separate toilets for male/female students 2 (66.7%) 3 (100%) 83.3 Restroom designed for disabled students 0 (0%) 1 (33.3%) 16.7 Solid waste disposal in female toilets 1 (33.3%) 3 (100%) 66.7 Hygiene taught in school curriculum 1 (33.3%) 3 (100%) 66.7 Handwashing stations with soap 1 (33.3%) 3 (100%) 66.7 www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 62 Table 5. Water Supply Characteristics of Surveyed Schools Parameter Public Schools (n=3) Private Schools (n=3) Overall (%) Main water source: Borehole 2 (66.7%) 3 (100%) 83.3 Main water source: Well 1 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 16.7 Water available daily 1 (33.3%) 3 (100%) 66.7 Average hours of availability/day 3.5 hrs 7.8 hrs — Water treated/purified on-site 1 (33.3%) 3 (100%) 66.7 Number of functional water outlets 6 19 — Drinking water accessible to disabled 0 (0%) 1 (33.3%) 16.7 Table 6. Student Awareness and Hygiene Practices Variable Category Frequency (n) Percentage (%) Regular handwashing at school Always 146 38.0 Occasionally 152 39.6 Hardly/Never 86 22.4 Use of school toilets Yes 262 68.2 No 122 31.8 Main reason for not using school toilets Poor hygiene 79 20.6 Lack of privacy 28 7.3 Broken facility 15 3.9 Soap availability at handwashing stations Yes 176 45.8 No 208 54.2 Perceived safety of drinking water Safe 198 51.6 Unsafe 114 29.7 Not sure 72 18.8 Toilet door security adequate Yes 164 42.7 No 220 57.3 Table 7. Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) Indicators Parameter Yes (%) No (%) Not Sure (%) Private space for menstrual management available 36.7 63.3 — Menstrual pads available on-site 28.8 71.2 — Teachers approachable for menstrual-related issues 44.2 38.9 16.9 Awareness of menstrual hygiene education 58.4 41.6 — Table 8. Sanitation and Hygiene Facilities in Public and Private Schools Parameter Public Schools (%) Private Schools (%) Overall (%) Toilets available 68.2 100.0 82.3 Functional toilets 52.7 95.1 73.4 Toilet-to-student ratio (>1:50 acceptable) 28.4 81.3 52.8 Handwashing facility available 34.1 92.7 59.4 Handwashing facility with soap 18.6 84.1 46.3 Refuse disposal bins available 51.8 90.2 67.2 Regular cleaning (≥2 times/day) 22.4 78.5 45.5 Gender-separated toilets 37.5 82.9 57.4 Table 9. Comparative Analysis of WASH Parameters by School Ownership WASH Parameter Public Mean (±SD) Private Mean (±SD) p-value Significance Water availability score 2.14 ± 0.62 4.21 ± 0.55 <0.001 Significant Water quality perception 2.09 ± 0.74 3.92 ± 0.61 <0.001 Significant Toilet availability score 2.35 ± 0.88 4.05 ± 0.60 <0.001 Significant Handwashing facility presence 1.86 ± 0.95 4.18 ± 0.51 <0.001 Significant www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 63 Cleaning frequency 2.12 ± 0.70 3.98 ± 0.66 <0.001 Significant Overall WASH composite index 2.24 ± 0.79 4.07 ± 0.58 <0.001 Significant Table 10. Field Observation Summary Observation Parameter Public Schools (n=3) Private Schools (n=3) Compliance (%) Functional water sources 4 12 66.7 Leaking/contaminated water sources 3 0 — Toilets available 9 18 — Toilets functional 5 17 73.3 Handwashing stations with water 4 14 60.0 Handwashing stations with soap 2 12 46.7 Proper waste disposal bins 3 6 50.0 Inclusive toilet (disabled access) 0 1 16.7 Sanitary campaigns observed 1 3 33.3 Table 11a. Summary of Themes and Subthemes from FGDs Major Theme Subthemes Illustrative Quotes Interpretation Water access and reliability Seasonal availability; Dependence on boreholes; Interrupted supply “Sometimes our tap doesn’t run for days, so we fetch from the nearby well.” (Public School Student, Udu) Water supply in public schools is inconsistent and often supplemented by unsafe sources. Water quality perception Colour and odour issues; Preference for sachet water “We don’t drink the school water because it smells; we buy pure water instead.” (Private School Student, Warri South) Students perceive schoolsupplied water as unsafe, corroborating microbiological results. Toilet condition and accessibility Broken facilities; Odour; Gender-based discomfort “Girls often wait until they get home because the toilets are dirty and have no doors.” (Public School Female Student, Uvwie) Sanitation inadequacy influences gendered hygiene behaviour and absenteeism. Handwashing and hygiene practices Limited access to soap and water; Peer influence “We wash hands only when water is available; sometimes we use sanitizer from home.” (Private School Student, Warri South) Hygiene practice depends on facility availability and personal initiative. Student participation and ownership Lack of maintenance culture; Occasional WASH clubs “Teachers tell us to clean toilets, but we don’t have materials.” (Public School Student, Udu) Sustainability is hindered by weak student engagement and lack of institutional support. Table 11b. Summary of Themes and Subthemes from KIIs Major Theme Subthemes Illustrative Quotes Interpretation Institutional management and funding Government subvention gaps; PTA contributions “We depend on PTA levies to maintain the borehole because government funds are irregular.” (Public School Principal, Warri South) Public schools face chronic underfunding, limiting their capacity to sustain WASH facilities. Policy implementation and oversight Weak inspection and monitoring “The education board visits occasionally, but there’s no structured WASH checklist.” (Education Board Officer) Lack of systematic WASH monitoring reduces compliance and maintenance culture. Health education and awareness Limited teacher training; absence of hygiene curriculum “We teach health topics, but not practical hygiene lessons.” (Teacher, Private School, Uvwie) Knowledge exists but is not translated into structured behavioral programs. Community and stakeholder involvement NGO interventions; parental support “Our borehole was donated by the Rotary Club, not the government.” (Principal, Private School, Udu) Sustainability depends on multi-stakeholder collaboration and community ownership. www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 64 Table 12. Physicochemical Parameters of Water Samples in Selected Schools Parameter Warri South (Pub) Warri South (Priv) Uvwie (Pub) Uvwie (Priv) Udu (Pub) Udu (Priv) WHO Limit NIS Limit pH 5.9 6.8 5.7 6.9 5.6 7.0 6.5–8.5 6.5–8.5 Conductivity (µS/cm) 280 360 305 410 250 340 1000 1000 TDS (mg/L) 178 240 192 268 165 230 500 500 Turbidity (NTU) 6.4 1.8 7.0 2.1 8.5 2.0 5.0 5.0 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 21.4 9.6 25.2 11.3 27.8 10.2 30 30 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 5.1 6.8 4.7 6.4 4.5 6.2 ≥5 ≥5 Hardness (mg/L CaCO₃) 94 112 98 115 90 108 150 150 Nitrate (mg/L) 12.6 9.4 14.2 8.8 13.8 10.2 50 50 Sulphate (mg/L) 22.4 25.2 26.8 27.5 24.6 25.0 100 100 Salinity (‰) 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.5 0.5 Table 13. Concentration of Heavy Metals in Water Samples Parameter Warri South (Pub) Warri South (Priv) Uvwie (Pub) Uvwie (Priv) Udu (Pub) Udu (Priv) WHO Limit (mg/L) NIS Limit (mg/L) Iron (Fe) 0.52 0.21 0.58 0.19 0.60 0.23 0.30 0.30 Lead (Pb) 0.042 0.012 0.045 0.010 0.051 0.011 0.01 0.01 Chromium (Cr) 0.032 0.014 0.030 0.012 0.037 0.015 0.05 0.05 Nickel (Ni) 0.025 0.009 0.022 0.007 0.028 0.010 0.02 0.02 Zinc (Zn) 2.1 1.5 2.4 1.3 2.5 1.4 3.0 3.0 Table 14. Microbiological Characteristics of Water Samples Location / School Type Total Coliform (CFU/100 mL) E. coli (CFU/100 mL) WHO Limit NIS Limit Warri South (Public) 64 12 0 0 Warri South (Private) 9 0 0 0 Uvwie (Public) 78 18 0 0 Uvwie (Private) 11 1 0 0 Udu (Public) 92 22 0 0 Udu (Private) 14 0 0 0 Discussion Water Access, Reliability, and Quality In the analysis, there were profound differences in water access, availability, and safety between public and private secondary schools in Warri Metropolis. The study's results extensively addressed the interplay of infrastructural, environmental, and institutional variables, as outlined in Systems Theory. Access to and reliability MU based on the quantitative indicators, public schools indicate much lesser access and reliability on a variety of issues: only 48.6% report daily water availability in private schools versus 89.0% in the latter, and only 36.8% report reliable access to drinking water in schools versus 92.7% in the former (Table 3). There is supporting evidence in observational data, where only 4 sources of functional water were recorded in the public schools and 12 in the private ones, and 3 sources of leakage/contamination in public schools (Table 10). Qualitative findings triangulate this pattern: students constantly said they had had the experience of supply incongruity in the form of consecutive days with no running tap (“Sometimes our tap does not run for days... Table 11a) and Table 11b), government irregular subversion to unreliable water access was attributed by KII respondents (Table 11a) and other characteristics of KII www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 65 response (Table 11b). This reflects an apparent multilevel systems failure, consistent with the rates in the sub-Saharan African region, where water insecurity is primarily influenced by the fragility of infrastructure and governance dislocations (Amoah et al., 2016; Bain et al., 2014). This issue is further exacerbated by laboratory analysis: physicochemical observations indicate that turbidity in the public schools consistently exceeds the WHO/NIS boundaries of 5 NTU to 6.4 NTU in Warri South, 7.0 NTU in Uvwie, and 8.5 NTU in Udu (Table 12). Even worse, microbiological contamination poses an even more acute health hazard: the number of E. coli in state schools was 1222 CFU/100 mL, and all state schools had zero counts (Table 14), which is several times more than the 0 CFU/100 mL limit allowed by the WHO. The problem of heavy metals adds to the risk, and the levels of Fe (0.520.60 mg/L), Pb (0.0420.051 mg/L), and Ni (0.0220 028 mg/L) are also above the WHO/NIS limits (Table 13) in the schools. This result can be compared to the environmental research associating groundwater pollution in the Niger Delta with industrial spillages, hydrocarbon pollution as well as low infrastructural barriers (Efe et al., 2019). Overall, mixed-methods research design suits the study perfectly and triangulated evidence (surveys, observation, FGDs, and KIIs and laboratory data) confirms that the water supply in the state of public schools is structurally unsound, operationally unsatisfactory and environmentally unsafe, and that failures in any of its sub-systems are inevitably transmitted through the rest, which proves the validity of the assumption of the Systems Theory about which the study is, in all respects, mixed. Sanitation, Hygienic Facilities and Gendered Implications Sanitation and hygiene factors also indicate an equally alarming trend of structural incompetency in the case of public schools which once again supports the interdependence of environmental and behavioural determinants presented by the Social-Ecological Model (SEM). Public schools have lower coverage of sanitation on all major dimensions, quantitatively, including functional toilets = 52.7% vs. 95.1% in private schools, toilet to student ratios above 1:50 =28.4% vs. 81.3% in public institutions, and access to gender-separated toilets =37.5% in public schools vs.82.9% in private institutions (Table 8). The numbers are confirmed by field observations, which record broken toilet doors, unpleasant smell, lack of privacy as well (Table 10) whereas FGDs give colourful corroboration on the same point (“Girls often wait until they get home... – Table 11a). This threefold convergence demonstrates that substandard sanitation is not only a manifestation of infrastructural vulnerability it has a direct influence that determines behavioural reactions that could propel absenteeism, more particularly, in adolescent girls. Increased by Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) rhythms: only 36.7% of students expressed the availability of private MHM facilities, 28.8% expressed the availability of menstrual pads, and 71.2% expressed no availability at all of MHM in the student (Table 7). This observation is similar to other data on the planet that low MHM services result in shame, discomfort, and lowering school attendance (Sommer et al., 2015). Theoretically, SEM assumes that individual levels of hygiene are influenced by school physical and social environments; in this case, poor toilet conditions, lack of privacy, and frequency of cleaning (Table 9; public mean = 2.12 ± 0.70) on the one hand and limited access to soap (18.6% in public schoolsTable 8) on the other hand delimit the structure of proper hygiene behaviour, as opposed to the volitional neglect. This interpretation is substantiated by qualitative data: according to students, they only wash their hands when water is on-demand (Table 11a), and according to KII participants, people fail to clean their hands because of insufficient budgets and lack of organised maintenance policies (Table 11b). A combination of these triangulated results establishes that the lack of sanitation and hygiene in the public schools point to systemic, rather than behavioural, deficits. This is in line with WASH studies around the world (Alexander et al., 2018) where quality infrastructure and institutional commitment were found to be the best predictors of safe sanitation and hygienic behaviour. The behavioural suppression generated by the design structure, the gender-based vulnerability, and the operational vulnerability characterise the sanitation ecosystem in the school environment. www.ejISS.com European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability (ISSN 3083-6395) 2025 | Volume 1 | Number 6 66 Indicators of institutional Management, Governance, and Sustainability Findings on the management of institutions also demonstrate the most profound structure rift between the public and the private schools, which gives a strong evidence to the Sustainability Theory that states that the environmental health systems can only be functional when there is uniformity in governing, financing, and institutional commitment. In the present research paper, the compliance of private schools was almost perfect in all the sustainability indicators that are availability of a WASH policy, provision of a specific and committed WASH budget, regular treatment, and regular water-quality testing: 100% presence of WASH policy, 100% devotion of a specific and committed WASH budget, 100% routine treatment, and 66.7% routine water-quality testing (Table 4). Conversely, public schools depicted a gross lack of governance measures such as -100 WASH budget, 0 no regular water-quality cheques, and 33.3percent water treatment facilities. This institutional vacuum was greatly sustained through the qualitative KIIs where the administration of the public-schools claimed to fully rely on the PTA levies considering that the government was not steadily offering them funding through the year-end basis of a standardised annual budgeting approach (We depend on PTA levies... – Table 11b) and oversight officials acknowledged that there were no formal WASH monitoring frameworks in place ( There is no structured WASH checklist... – Table 11b). These facts are intersected by the information on survey, observation, and qualitative sources showing that the failures in sustainability of the public schools have a deeper basis in the governance system and lack of finances and is not just about the infrastructural shortages. The triangulated alignment between institutional indicators and operational outcomes is exceptionally strong, according to the mixed-method perspective. Indicatively, the WASH composite index (Table 9) indicates that the private schools have a score of 4.07) +- 0.58, which is significantly higher than the overall public schools (2.24) +- 0.79, which proves the hypothesis that institutional capacity is a strong indicator of the overall WASH performance. Meeks et al. (2015) and Lockwood and Smits (2011) also conduct studies that allow concluding that predictable budgeting, regular monitoring, and institutional ownership are essential measures in regards to sustainability in school WASH systems. The findings further support the claims of Sustainability Theory which predicts that systems with no financial regularity, managerial systems and accountability systems cannot sustain long-term operational WASH. In addition, the lack of monitoring (KIIs), observational (broken facilities), and even laboratory performances (high contamination levels in public schools) clearly illustrate that there is a causal relationship: weak governance results in poor infrastructure leads to unsafe water, and the results of this relationship lead to adverse health outcomes. This complete triangulation brings in a high internal validity and a new empirical finding to the WASH literature within Nigeriathat WASH issues in urban Niger Delta settings at the public schools are not just infrastructural but are highly institutional and systemic. Therefore, without governance reform, sustainable enhancement of WASH would not happen without technical improvements. Behavioural Patterns, User Perceptions, and Mixed-Method Triangulation The behavioural and perceptual results of the research indicate the direct conversion of environmental and institutional limiting factors into user behaviour, which validates the SEM hypothesis whereby it is conclusively stated that behaviour is influenced by structural enablers and not individual willingness factors alone. According to survey data, only 38% of the respondents said they at all times wash their hands in school, and the percentage of those who hardly or never wash their hands is 22.4 (Table 6). This is quite in line with the findings on observations with only 34.1% of schools with populations on the public school level having operational handwashing stations and 18.6% having soap (Table 8). The statistics are triangulated by FGDs, and this is: We wash hands only when water is available... (Table 11a). In this way, behavioural data support the idea that behaviour could not be isolated of structural conditions refuting the assumption that the negligence of students is the source of poor hygiene practises among them. Equally, facility condition is a strong influence of toilet-use behaviour. It has been discovered that 31.8% of students do not go to the school toilets, 20.6% of them avoid them due to poor hygiene, and 7.3% do not go there as they lack privacy (Table 6). These results are reinforced by observation and