ASSESSMENT OF DRINKING WATER QUALITY AND DETERMINANTS...

ASSESSMENT OF DRINKING WATER QUALITY AND DETERMINANTS

OF HOUSEHOLD POTABLE WATER CONSUMPTION IN SIMADA

DISTRICT, ETHIOPIA

A Project Paper

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School

of Cornell University

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of

Master of Professional Studies (MPS)

By

Meseret Belachew Addisie

January 2012

ABSTRACT

The current aim of the Ethiopia‟s Millennium Development Goal declaration is to

alleviate poverty through improving the strategy of effective utilization of water

supply sources. In order to achieve the goal, a priority area is providing adequate and

quality water. The study was conducted in Simada District, Amhara Regional State,

Ethiopia, where after considerable expansion of the water supply systems, people still

rely on unimproved water sources that may be contaminated with waterborne diseases.

The objective of the research was to investigate the reasons behind the use of

unprotected sources in both urban and rural settings. Sixteen water points were

selected. Three water points (that were functional) were located in urban areas, and the

remaining 13 in rural areas ranged from nonoperational to completely functional.

Forty four households were interviewed in the urban area and 116 in the rural area,

covering water consumption behavior, perception of water source quality, and factors

determining use. Water quality was determined at 11 selected water points

representing both improved and unimproved sources.

In the urban areas people were generally satisfied with the water services provided by

the municipality because the water quality was good and walking distances were short.

The water cost was considered high especially for the poor who could not afford the

cost and therefore used alternative unprotected services. In response, the municipality

recently lowered the cost. . In other cases, because most of the systems were only a

few years old, some people were not adjusted to taste and went back to the original,

lower quality water sources. On some days, waiting times were too long, forcing some

people to use a more distant, unimproved source.

In contrast, more people in the rural areas did not use the constructed water points

because of the quality of water, adequacy, distance and longer waiting times. Systems

had broken down or failed for several reasons, the main one being that a functional

organization did not exist within the community to manage the water supply. Other

people who were dissatisfied did not like the taste of the water, could not pay for the

water services and therefore sought out alternative unimproved sources.

Sanitation coverage in urban areas was much less than that in rural areas where more

extension and promotion has been conducted. Construction of latrines without waste

decomposition or removal mechanisms service and the habit of open defecation were

common problems especially in urban peripheries.

iii

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Meseret Belachew Addisie was born in South Gondar zone Ethiopia on 30 November

1985. He received his Bachelor of Science Degree from Mekelle University under the

department of Land Resource Management and Environmental Protection (LaRMEP)

in 2006. Before he attended the MPS program offered by Cornell University at Bahir

Dar University Ethiopia in 2010, he worked as soil and water conservation expert for

one and a half years, and two years as food security program (productive safety net

program) coordinator in Simada district Office of agriculture and rural development.

He is interested to continue his understanding on environmental issues and water

resource development programs. On behalf of God.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My special and uppermost acknowledgment is extended to my Professor Tammo S.

Steenhuis who brought the MPS program in to Ethiopia and gave me the chance to

learn. In addition he shared his valuable guidance and precious advice during all the

months of my work and provided funding. I also wish to express my special gratitude

for Dr. Amy S. Collick for her valuable input on all issues of concern at any time and

place. Besides that, her contribution from the start of the program to advising the draft

of my research contributed to its final success. Their enthusiasm and that of all the

members of Cornell University‟s instructional team who taught and advised me in all

circumstances regarding their subject matter helped my proposal and motivated me to

follow this exciting research experience. I am also indebted to PhD students at Cornell

University Seifu Admassu, Essayas Kaba and Kim Falbo.

My sincere gratitude goes to the District rural water supply and sanitation experts:

Abay Mesele, Mekuanint Bitew, Fasil Asafie and their staff experts, as well as to the

FHE project water experts, especially Gebrie Telak and all drivers who supported me

during my stay. I would also like to thank my friends Negash Alebachew and Muluye

Alemnew who provided great cooperation and companionship during data collection. I

am also grateful to Yimam Berihun, Gizachew Desalegn and Genet Wubie for their

enormous contribution with available materials. Great thanks go to Birtukan

Misganew and Wubedil Ayalew who helped me during water sample collection. I am

gratifying Alebachew Nibret for his motivation and strengthening me for the success

of my goings-on beside my stay as an employee. Finally, my special thanks to all my

classmates especially Getaneh Kebede and Habtamu Addis for their warm friendship

and a lovely memorable time in Bahir Dar. “Thanks to my God”.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. vii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. viii

ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... ix

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Justification ................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Problem ...................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Goals and Objectives .................................................................................. 5

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 7

2.1 The Need for Water Supply and Sanitation ................................................. 7

2.2 Water quality parameters .......................................................................... 10

2.2.1 Perception of drinking water ................................................................. 10

2.2.2 Bacteriological parameters ................................................................... 11

2.2.3 Chemical parameters ............................................................................ 13

2.2.4 Physical and aesthetic parameters ........................................................ 14

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS ...................................................................... 17

3.1 Description of the study area ..................................................................... 17

3.1.1 Water supply ......................................................................................... 18

3.2 Data collection methods ............................................................................ 20

3.2.1 Water Sampling .................................................................................... 22

3.3 Data analysis ............................................................................................. 24

vi

4 RESULT AND DISCUSION ............................................................................ 28

4.1 Socioeconomic characteristics of respondents ........................................... 28

4.2 Household water consumption .................................................................. 31

4.2.1 Determinants of per capita and total household water consumption ...... 34

4.3 Water quality perceptions.......................................................................... 38

4.3.1 Aesthetic parameters ............................................................................. 38

4.3.2 Biological parameters ........................................................................... 42

4.3.3 Treatment measures used ...................................................................... 43

4.4 Sanitation and hygiene .............................................................................. 45

4.5 Characteristics of water sources, their functionality, level of protection and

surrounding neatness ............................................................................................ 47

4.6 The discrepancy between actual and reported access to improved water

sources ................................................................................................................. 52

4.6.1 Accepting to pay for improved water sources ........................................ 55

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................. 58

5.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 58

5.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................... 61

6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 63

7 APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 67

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of Simada Woreda in the Amhara Region ................................... 18

Figure 2: The sampling sites in Simada Woreda with protected and unprotected water

sources ..................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 3: Sample unimproved (unprotected) sources from two sites (UP18:

unimproved spring; UP32: unimproved springs) ....................................................... 38

Figure 4: Different modes of treatment and the extent of their use by respondents .... 45

Figure 5: Sample water sources with stagnant water (P35, Meramie; P22, Tach Ziwa

and P11, Lay Duba) .................................................................................................. 49

Figure 6: Comparison between perception of quality and willingness to pay ............. 57

Figure 7: Comparison between level of satisfaction and willingness to pay............... 57

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Improved and unimproved water supply sources coverage in Ethiopia .......... 8

Table 2: water quality counts per 100mL and the associated risk .............................. 13

Table 3: The total water supply points of the District constructed by respective

projects and their functionality (rural water supply) .................................................. 19

Table 4: Type of water sources and year of construction ........................................... 20

Table 5: Sample size determination from the total HH heads at each water point ...... 22

Table 6: Type and code of sample water points for quality analysis .......................... 23

Table 7: Socio economic characteristics of sample households ................................. 30

Table 8: Per capita household water consumption ..................................................... 35

Table 9: Chi-Square Tests of reluctance to collect water from improved sources and

associated variables relationship ............................................................................... 36

Table 10: Biological water quality summary result from both improved and

unimproved sources.................................................................................................. 42

Table 11: physical, chemical and biological water quality results from sampled water

points ....................................................................................................................... 44

Table 12: Latrine construction and extent of use from urban and rural areas ............. 47

Table 13: Water source characterization ................................................................... 50

Table 14: Presence of alternative water sources from the two areas .......................... 54

Table 15: Household water consumption .................................................................. 75

ix

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB……………Asian development Bank

ADF……………African Development Fund

AWCI…………..Amhara water construction institute

cfu………………coli form unit

EC……………....Electrical conductivity

FHE…………......Food for the Hungry Ethiopia

GDP…………….Gross Domestic Product

GPS………….....Geographic positioning System

GTZ…………....German Technical cooperation

HDW…………...Hand dug well

IFSP…………....Integrated food security program

MDGs………......Millennium development goals

NGOs…………..Non Governmental organizations

NTU…………....Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

ORDA………….Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara

OWS……………Office of water services

PH……………....Power of hydrogen

PSNP…………...Productive Safety Net Program

RWASH………..Rural Water Supply and Sanitation

SHD……………Shallow well

x

SPD…………….Spring Development

SPSS……………Statistical package for social sciences

TDS…………….Total dissolved solids

UNDP…………..United Nations Development Program

UNICEF………..United Nations‟ International Children‟s Emergency Fund

USAID…………United States Agricultural and International Development

WAE……………Water aid Ethiopia

WHO…………...World Health Organization

ZWME………….Zone water and mine energy

1

CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Ethiopia is one of the member countries that adopted the millennium development

declaration with its main objective of poverty reduction (UNDP, 2008). This resulted

in prioritizing accessibility to improved water supply. Prior research has revealed that

access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene are the significant elements for poverty

alleviation (Water Aid, 2009).

Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is a global concern. However, developing

countries, like Ethiopia, have suffered from a lack of access to safe drinking water

from improved sources and to adequate sanitation services (WHO, 2006). As a result,

people are still dependent on unprotected water sources such as rivers, streams,

springs and hand dug wells. Since these sources are open, they are highly susceptible

to flood and birds, animals and human contamination. In addition, most sources are

found near gullies where open field defecation is common and flood-washed wastes

affect the quality of water.

According to an ADF (2005) report, the Millennium Development Goals (MDG)

objective of Ethiopia is to increase the improved water sources coverage from 2004

levels of 25% water supply and 8% sanitation to 62% for water supply and 54%

sanitation by 2015. As a consequence, governmental and nongovernmental

organizations made efforts to construct improved sources to provide access to safe and

potable drinking water. Despite these efforts, improved water sources are often located

far from user households, and due to the undulating nature of the country‟s

2

topography, water sources often occur at inconvenient locations, forcing people to

travel long distances over continuous short and long steep slopes. This resulted in

more waiting times, inadequate supply, lack of income and lack of quality being the

characteristics of many improved schemes (Admasu et al., 2002).

These factors lead to less access to water needed by the household for consumption

and forced households to seek out alternate unimproved and unhealthy nearby water

sources due to reluctance in using improved sources. It is common that people who are

most vulnerable to water-borne diseases are those who use polluted drinking water

sources. The report from UNICEF (2010), in the world 884 million people use

unimproved drinking water sources in 2010, and in 2015 estimates about 672 million

people will still using unimproved drinking water sources. The WHO (2000) revealed

that seventy five percent of all diseases in developing countries arise from polluted

drinking water. The lack of access to water also limits sanitation and hygiene practices

in many households because of the priority given for drinking and cooking purposes.

Water quality concerns are often the most important component for measuring access

to improved water sources. Acceptable quality shows the safety of drinking water in

terms of its physical, chemical and bacteriological parameters (WHO, 2004). User

communities‟ perceptions of quality also carry great weight in their drinking water

safety (Doria, 2010). Depending on their perception on taste, odor and appearance

(Sheat, 1992; Doria, 2010), this can lead to having different opinions about the

aesthetic values of water quality. Consumer perceptions and aesthetic criteria need to

be considered when assessing drinking water supplies even though they may not

adversely affect human health (WHO, 2004).

3

Despite the best governmental and nongovernmental efforts, a large percentage of the

water supply schemes are malfunctioning, forcing consumers to use unprotected

sources that pose health hazards and which thus seriously affect their productivity. It is

imperative to ensure that the water supply and sanitation services are adequate,

affordable and reliable.

The study was conducted in Amhara region Simada district where many governmental

and nongovernmental efforts focused on water supply projects. Despite the

opportunity for urban inhabitants to use tap water stands installed in the past few

years, people are still collecting water from previously used distant water sources

because of dissatisfaction with the change in the taste of the water, low income and

longer waiting time as compared with the old protected springs. As a result of this

dissatisfaction, consumers generally expect their water to have little or no flavor.

People can detect variations in pH, mineral and organic content of drinking water

(Dietrich, 2006). The variation in pH is detected indirectly, with greater acidity

increasing corrosivity that in turn can contaminate the water, and which implies a

change in the taste of water. In contrast, even though many water points have been

built by different implementing projects in many areas, drinking water scarcity is still

a great problem. Distance from the source to the house, waiting time, adequacy,

quality and early failure of the scheme are common phenomena which force

households to seek alternative unimproved water sources.

Sanitation service in the urban1 area is limited as compared to the rural areas which are

supported by different projects. The habit of open defecation nearby the water source,

the installation of oil machines in close proximity to the water source and increase

1 Urban area is defined as an area with more than 10,000 inhabitants, where the distance between

houses normally do not exceed 100 meters

4

number of dwellers in the vicinity of the water source are visible problems in urban

sites, rendering water sources susceptible to water contamination.

1.2 Justification

Creating community awareness of their water supply and sanitation services is one of

the options for improving sustainable access (Mtinda, 2007). Improving the water

supply coverage and quality has a number of consequences in addition to the fact that

investigating the socioeconomic and other factors affecting household water

consumption patterns provides guidance for policy makers and those in various

agencies implementing projects. It also ensures the projects capture the major points to

be considered before installation begins and ensures the ongoing provision of a service

that is fundamental to improve health, reducing the burden of women and children

carrying water long distances, and enabling users to live a life of dignity. Water supply

and sanitation services should not be seen as isolated factors (Water Aid, 2009).

Furthermore to achieve the MDGs of access to improved water sources is better to

incorporate each element to understand and recommend the major factors which

hinder the vision of the long term programs for the provision of safe or quality water

and sanitation services is very crucial.

1.3 Problem

Lack of access to safe and clean water is locked in the heart of the poverty. Even

though the issue of water is observed as a general problem for both the urban and the

rural population, women bear the greatest burden because of their social gender roles

including collecting water for their households (Rose, 2009). Because of their task of

water provision at the households, women and children suffer from disease, have

5

limited participation in education, and both income generating activities and

engagement in cultural and political issues are often compromised.

Several studies have been carried out to analyze people's perception and attitude about

the drinking water source quality and accessibility. Creating good community

awareness about water quality issues and the associated problems like sanitation and

hygiene services is important to alleviate health effects but it remains below the

expected rate of coverage.

By the year 2015 the national water supply and sanitation program under its

millennium development goal planned to increase the coverage of water supply and

sanitation by 64% and 54% respectively. It has been said that the chances of achieving

the Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people without access

to safe water by 2015 will be seriously lowered unless levels of sustainability can be

greatly improved (Haysom, 2006; Harvey et.al, 2007).

1.4 Goals and Objectives

The main goal of the research is to improve access to water supply systems of both

rural and urban area by assessing current services that provide clean and safe water to

households. The general objective is assessing the reason behind the decision of

people to use unimproved water sources rather than available constructed water points

both in urban and rural areas.

6

The specific objectives are:

To assess the presence of alternative water sources used.

To assess the time required and distance individuals must travel to access

water sources for urban and rural households.

To assess the demand pattern both from unimproved and improved sources at

the household and per capita level.

To assess attitudes in urban and rural areas on the relationship between water

quality, the degree of water source protection and sanitation behaviors.

To determine how community perception on water quality is related to the

actual measured water quality.

To determine the key factors contributing to the continued use of unimproved

water sources and the reluctance to use existing improved water sources.

7

CHAPTER TWO

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 The Need for Water Supply and Sanitation

Access to water is a prerequisite for health and livelihood, which is why the MDG

target is formulated in terms of sustainable access to affordable drinking water supply.

The availability of improved and quality water supply and sanitation infrastructures

are widely recognized as an essential component of human rights, social and economic

development (ADF, 2005).

The poor and marginalized people living in rural and peri-urban settlements are most

in need for improved and safe drinking water, appropriate forms of sanitation and

access to water for other domestic purposes (Crow, 2001). The WHO (2000) reports

that polluted drinking water causes about1.8 million people die from diarrheal diseases

annually worldwide. Ethiopia is a country in which the water supply and sanitation

infrastructure endeavors are still low. Table 1 below shows the percent coverage of

improved and unimproved water supply sources in Ethiopia:

8

Table 1: Improved and unimproved water supply sources coverage in Ethiopia

Water sources Urban (%) Rural (%)

Household connection 61.6 3.0

Public stand post/pipe 33.2 20.9

Protected borehole or tube well 0.4 4.5

Protected spring or dud well 1.2 11

Collected rain water 0.0 0.3

Unprotected spring or dug well 1.5 31.7

Directly used from Pond water 2.0 28.6

Provided by tanker 0.0 0.0

Total 100 100

Source: WHO (2006), access to improved and unimproved sources

Even though improved2 water sources are available, they are often far away from the

beneficiary households and are located at inconvenient locations. The management

system of stakeholders coupled with water quality problems and inaccessible water

sources are some of the basic problems (Demeke, 2009; Bhandari and Grant, 2007).

The topography of Ethiopia is characterized by rugged landscapes on which women

and children travel long distances by carrying large containers up and down steep

slopes. Full water cans may weigh up to 65 kilograms (Demeke, 2009). In addition to

that, the lack of safe water supply has other series negative consequences such as the

workload in fetching unsafe water from mostly distant unimproved3 or traditional

water points make them vulnerable to health problems. As a result, most of the

children miss the opportunity of attending school, while women spend 10-50% of their

daytime fetching water from polluted water points, losing time on productive activities

(Ethiopian Water Resources Management Policy, 1999; Crow, 2001). According to

2 An improved drinking water source is defined as a type of drinking water facility or water delivery

point that by the nature of its design protects the drinking water source from external contamination,

particularly or faecal origin and which can be piped into dwelling, plot or yard, public tape/stand pipe, tube well/borehole, protected dug well, rain water collection and protected springs (Van Norden 2007

as cited by Sutton, 2008). 3 Unimproved sources include unprotected dug well, unprotected springs, tanker truck, surface water

(river, dam, lake, pond, stream, and irrigation canal), and bottled water (Van Norden 2007 by Sutton,

2008).

9

WHO, basic access can be defined as the availability of drinking water at least 20

liters per day per person, a distance of not more than 1 km from the source to the

house and a maximum time taken to collect round trip of 30 minutes. The UNDP

(2008) says the minimum absolute daily water need per person per day is 50 liters

(13.2 gallons) which include: 5 liters for drinking, 20 for sanitation and hygiene, 15

for bathing and 10 for preparing food. However because of scarcity of drinking water,

millions of people try to exist on 10 liters (2.6 gallons) a day (ADF, 2005). In densely

populated areas, a water hauling trip of 30 minutes or less, including queuing time

would be a more appropriate indicator of access.

As indicated by ADF (2005), over one third of women in some of the regions spent

more than two hours for each water collection trip. This fact is aggravated by the poor

supply efficiency, resulting from bad condition, which cannot satisfy the entire

populations from different villages sharing the same water source and increased

queuing time is common during the dry seasons (Admasu et al., 2002). This will

ultimately lead to household water insecurity (less water available than is needed for

drinking, cooking, and sanitation) in rural areas, especially for those households for

which the demand is higher due to large family size (Collick, 2008, as cited by

Demeke, 2009). Because of these conditions, it is difficult to think about personal

hygiene and sanitation especially for the rural communities. Despite the scarcity of

water, many give priority for drinking and cooking purposes. Rural communities use

unprotected springs and hand-dug wells commonly for cooking and drinking purposes.

Whereas rivers besides their use for washing clothes they also used for drinking

purposes.

This results in not only sickness and death, but also economic crises. Therefore, safe

drinking water is an essential component of primary health care and is vital for

10

poverty alleviation. Introducing improved water supply sources at the household level

enhance personal and community knowledge as well as awareness of the importance

of other factors, such as hygiene and sanitation (Sobsey, 2002).

2.2 Water quality parameters

Drinking water, or potable water, is defined as having acceptable quality in terms of

its physical, chemical, bacteriological parameters so that it can be safely used for

drinking and cooking (WHO, 2004). WHO defines drinking water to be safe if and

only if no any significant health risks during its lifespan of the scheme and when it is

consumed. This thesis focuses on water quality for drinking and domestic uses.

2.2.1 Perception of drinking water

In terms of drinking water quality, user perception is one of the most important things,

sometimes exceeding actual quality of water especially when it concerns the quality of

drinking water for the user communities (Sheat 1992, Doria 2010). There are different

factors that influence the perception of drinking water quality, including:

Human sensory perceptions of taste, odor and color of water are related with

mental factors and some extent taste, which is the more important because it may

detect water contamination related to chemicals.

People may perceive risks if they experience health problem caused by water.

Experience with the previous water source status based on its taste, color and

odor change. For example the change in the color of water from yellowish to

bluish may feel that the water is perceived not good water (Doria, 2010).

11

Information plays a great role in changing people‟s perception on the water

source behavior. It may be person to person or using media (like news papers,

brochures etc.) but in rural areas and poor urban residents interpersonal

information is important.

2.2.2 Bacteriological parameters

The diseases caused by water related microorganisms can be divided into four main

categories:

Water-borne diseases: caused by water that has been contaminated by human,

animal or chemical wastes. Examples include cholera, typhoid, meningitis,

dysentery, hepatitis and diarrhoea. Diarrhoea is caused by a host of bacterial, viral

and parasitic organisms most of which can be spread by contaminated water

(WHO, 2006). Poor nutrition resulting from frequent attacks of diarrhoea is the

primary cause for stunted growth for millions of children in the developing world

(Gadgil, 1998).

Water-related vector diseases: These are diseases transmitted by vectors, such as

mosquitoes that breed or live near water. Examples include malaria, yellow fever,

dengue fever and filariasis. Malaria causes over 1 million deaths a year alone

(WHO, 2006). Stagnant and poorly managed waters provide the breeding grounds

for malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

Water-based diseases: These are caused by parasitic aquatic organisms referred to

as helminths and can be transmitted via skin penetration or contact. Examples

include Guinea worm disease, filariasis, paragonimiasis, clonorchiasis and

schistosomiasis.

12

Water-scarce diseases: These diseases flourish in conditions where freshwater is

scarce and sanitation is poor. Examples include trachoma and tuberculosis.

Testing the bacterial contaminants in water can be simplified by utilizing the presence

of an indicator organism. An indicator organism may not necessarily pose a health risk

but it can be easily isolated and enumerated, is present in large numbers, is more

resistant to disinfection than pathogens, and does not multiply in water and

distribution systems (Gadgil, 1998).

Traditionally, total coliform bacteria have been used to indicate the presence of fecal

contamination; however, this parameter has been found to exist and grow in soil and

water environments and is therefore considered a poor parameter for measuring the

presence of pathogens (Stevens et al., 2003). Studies also show that due to their ability

to grow in drinking water distribution systems and their unpredictable presence in

water supplies during outbreaks of waterborne disease, the sanitary significance or

quality of water is difficult to interpret in the presence of total coliforms (Stevens et

al., 2003).

An exception is Escherichia coli (E.coli), a thermotolerant coliform, the most

numerous of the total coliform group found in animal or human feces, rarely grows in

the environment and is considered the most specific indicator of fecal contamination

in drinking-water (WHO, 2004). The presence of E. coli provides strong evidence of

recent fecal contamination (WHO, 2004, Stevens et al., 2003).

The risk of coliform presence can depend on the health or sensitivity of the consumer.

The risks of E. coli presence, slightly greater than WHO Guideline‟s zero count per

100ml may be of only low or intermediate risk. According to IRC, 2002 as cited by

13

Michael H., 2006 about risk classification for thermotolerant coliforms or E. coli of

rural water supplies shown below.

Table 2: water quality counts per 100mL and the associated risk

Count per 100ml Risk Category

0 In conformity with WHO guidelines

1 – 10 Low risk

11 – 100 Intermediate risk

101 – 1000 High risk

> 1000 Very high risk

2.2.3 Chemical parameters

Some of the main chemical parameters that are of a health concern include the

following WHO (2004):

Fluoride causes mottling of teeth and in severe cases can result in crippling

skeletal fluorosis.

The presence of arsenic implicates the risk of cancer and skin lesions.

Nitrate and nitrite can cause methaemoglobinaemia. This arises from excess

fertilizers or leaching of wastewater and other organic wastes into water surface.

Lead can have adverse neurological effects, mainly in areas with acidic waters and

the use of lead pipes, fittings and solder.

Secondary concern of the impact of chemical constituents is the effect on distribution

and treatment systems that may be implemented to improve the access to a safe water

supply. Corrosive properties of constituents can induce structural failure, which can

also result in deterioration of the quality of the water and cause additional concerns for

health and safety. Due to these concerns, corrosion control is an important aspect of

14

the management of a drinking water system. pH can control the solubility and reaction

rates of most metal species involved in corrosion reactions (WHO, 2004).

Iron, lead, copper, brass and nickel can also be used in construction of piping systems

(WHO, 2004). Concrete is a composite material consisting of sand, gravel and cement,

a binder consisting primarily of calcium silicates, aluminates and some lime (WHO,

2004). Structural deterioration or failure of cement may result from prolonged

exposure to aggressive or highly corrosive waters which can result in leaching of

metals from the cement into the water (WHO, 2004).

When ferrous iron oxidizes to ferric iron, it can give a reddish-brown color to the

water, which could be aesthetically displeasing (WHO, 2004). Manganese can cause

an undesirable taste as well as staining laundry when levels exceed 0.1 mg/liter. The

presence of manganese may also lead to the accumulation of deposits in the piping

system (WHO, 2004). There is no health-based guideline value set for iron but for

manganese it is four times higher than the acceptable threshold of 0.1 mg/liter (WHO,

2004).

2.2.4 Physical and aesthetic parameters

Consumer perception and acceptability of their drinking water quality depends on user

sense of taste, odor and appearance (Sheat 1992; Doria 2010). That is why consumers

have differing opinion about the aesthetic values of water quality. Relying on their

own senses may lead to avoidance of highly turbid or colored but otherwise safe

waters in favor of more aesthetically acceptable but potentially unsafe water sources

(WHO, 2004).

15

Taste and odor can originate from various natural chemical contaminants, biological

sources, microbial activity, from corrosion or as a result of water treatment (e.g.

chlorination) (WHO, 2004). Color, cloudiness, particulate matter and visible

organisms can also contribute to unacceptability of water sources. These factors can

vary for each community and are dependent on local conditions and characteristics.

The following lists a number of primary aesthetic indicators that can cause water to be

perceived as unacceptable:

True color (the color that remains after any suspended particles are removed);

Turbidity (the cloudiness caused by particulate matter present in source water, re

suspension of sediment in the distribution system, the presence of inorganic

particulate matter in some groundwater or sloughing of bio-film within the

distribution system (WHO, 2004).

unusual taste, odor and „feel‟ problems (usually due to total dissolved solids)

Turbidity is the most important problem for the aesthetic value of water quality.

Although it doesn‟t necessarily adversely affect human health, it can protect

microorganisms from disinfection effects, can stimulate bacterial growth, and indicate

problems with treatment processes (WHO, 2004). For effective disinfection, median

turbidity should be below 0.1 NTU although turbidity of less than 5 NTU is usually

acceptable to consumers (WHO, 2004). An important operational water quality

parameter is pH, although within typical ranges it has no direct impact on consumers.

Low pH levels can enhance corrosive characteristics resulting in contamination of

drinking-water and adverse effects on its taste and appearance (WHO, 2004). Higher

pH levels can lead to calcium carbonate deposition. Careful consideration of pH is

16

necessary to ensure satisfactory water disinfection with chlorine, which requires pH to

be less than 8 (WHO, 2004).

Total dissolved solids (TDS) and electrical conductivity (EC) are measures of the total

ions in solution and ionic activity of a solution respectively. As TDS and EC increase,

the corrosive nature of the water increases.

17

CHAPTER THREE

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Description of the study area

The study area Simada is part of South Gondar Zone found in one of the nine regional

states Amhara region, which is situated 774 km north of the capital city of Addis

Ababa and 209 km southeast of Bahir Dar (figure 1). The topographic elevation ranges

from 1196 meter above sea level (m.a.s.l) to 3525 m.a.s.l. It is bordered on the

southeast by the Beshilo River which separates it from the South Wollo Zone, on the

southwest by the Abay (Nile) which separates it from the East Gojjam, on the

northwest by Este, and on the east by Tach Gayint. Part of this district‟s boundary with

Este is defined by the Wanka, a tributary of the Nile. The major town of Simada is

called Wogeda.

The district has three climatic zones: 40% woynadega (intermediate elevation), 10%

dega (high land) and 50% kola (low land). The urban center where 5% of the

population lives in the district is located in the Woynadega zone.

The climate is monsoonal and varies with elevation. The primary wet season extends

from April through October; among these, July and August are the wettest months.

The mean annual rainfall is 900-1100mm and the mean annual temperature is 23oC.

According to the Central Statistical Agency, 2007, the district has an estimated total

population of 228,271, an increase of 22% from the 1994 Census. This is an average

of 4.2 persons per household. The population density of 102 persons per square

kilometer is less than the zonal average of 145 people per km2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tach_Gayint

18

Figure 1: Location of Simada Woreda in the Amhara Region

There are 39 peasant associations of which 15 are found in the woynadega, 4 in the

dega and 20 in kola.

The farming system of the district is mainly mixed cropping system which is

dependent on both crop and livestock production. The total area of the district is

228,172 ha; out of this, cultivated land and land gone for grazing are 68,111.22 and

21,445 ha, respectively.

3.1.1 Water supply

Over the past years, many water supply projects were built by different governmental

and nongovernmental organizations. All of the implementing organizations were

19

concerned with rural water supply projects and followed their own approaches based

on their project interests. Some involved the local communities and needed

contribution from the direct beneficiaries while others cover all the construction costs.

At present 68% of the urban population receives water from improved sources. Fifty

percent of rural population is covered by improved water supply system.

In the district, there are 328 water points: 189 hand dug wells (HDW), 124 developed

springs (SPD) and 15 shallow wells (SHW), of which 23 HDW and 10 SPD can be

repaired, while 12 HDW, 11 SPD and 3 SHW need expensive renovation (Table 3).

Table 3: The total water supply points of the District constructed by respective

projects and their functionality (rural water supply)

Responsible

Institute

type of water source Non functional sources

HDW SPD SHW Total HDW SPD SHW Total

FHE 59 62 121 4 3 7

RWASH/DFID 55 21 76 1 1

IFSP 35 23 58 5 3 8

UNICEF 4 1 15 20 3 3

ORDA 12 2 14 1 1

ZWME 10 12 22 1 3 4

GOV't 4 4 0

WHO 4 4 0

GTZ 3 1 4 1 1

PSNP 3 2 5 1 1

TOTAL 189 124 15 328 12 11 3 26

Source: District water office documentation

In the urban area there are 250 individual pipeline connections and 11 public stand

taps. The technicians report that one tap supplies 500 people. At the time of the

survey, the residents paid 1birr for 5 Jeri cans. After March 2011 the price decreased

to 8 Jeri cans per birr to make it more affordable to the poor. These water points and

year of construction is shown in Table 4 (rural water points).

20

Table 4: Type of water sources and year of construction

Type of

water source Year of Construction

Up to

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 total

HDW 61 18 36 7 17 50 189

SPD 52 19 24 10 10 9 124

SHW 3

15

Total 116 37 60 17 27 59 328

3.2 Data collection methods

Mixed method data collection was carried out during the survey period. The selection

of the area was grouped into two major classes or regions of rural and urban areas,

with the rural areas further divided in to market centers and non-market centers

(villages). Because of the variation in many circumstances such as their living

standards and accessibility of facilities, using these two groups to represent the rural

settings equally was important. Villages are rural settlements without market or any

public facilities whereas market centers have a minimum of public facilities like

markets, shops, high schools, health centers and others. A stratified random sampling

technique was adopted to select the sample needed for the study. Therefore each ward

used as a sampling frame was identified as urban areas, rural areas with market centers

and rural areas without market centers. As a first stage the water points were selected

from each ward, having seven from rural market centers, six from rural none market

centers and three from urban site. These water points were selected randomly and gave

us a total of 16 water points for both the rural and urban regions.

In the second stage household heads were selected for interview. The sampling

methodology was determined from Arkin and Colton (1963) as cited by (Bhandari,

21

2007): the sample size determined the expected rate of occurrence as not less than

90% at 95% confidence level with a precision level of 3%.

𝑛 =𝑁𝑍2 ∗ 𝑝 ∗ 1 − 𝑝

𝑁𝑑2 + 𝑍2 ∗ 𝑝 1 − 𝑝 Eq. 1

where n is the sample size, N is the total number of households, Z is the confidence

level at 95% of Z = 1.96, P is the estimated population proportion of 0.5 which

maximize the sample size and d is the error limit of 5% which is equal to 0.05.

As a result, 76 respondents out of 849 beneficiaries from rural market centers, 40

respondents out of 357 beneficiaries from non-market centers and 44 respondents out

of 443 urban areas were selected from the list of beneficiaries obtained from the

respective rural water supply offices. This comprises sa ample size of 160 respondents

randomly selected from the total of 1,649 beneficiary households.

In the third stage, for the primary data collection the household heads (especially

women who are responsible for water collection) were interviewed. The instruments

of the research were structured and semi structured questionnaires and open-ended

discussions with the communities and water use committees. Essentially cross-

sectional primary data was collected from households about their water use practices

and water quality perceptions. In addition to that data on socio-economic, water

utilization characteristics and household determinants of collecting water from

improved water sources were gathered. For the accuracy of the measured values such

as distance from the source to the house, time taken to collect water, average slope,

elevation and locations were taken from the GPS readings by averaging the center of

the inhabitants‟ location to the water source. Secondary data were collected about

water source protection from the concerned experts, rural water office and water use

22

committees. Besides that on site observation about the status of each water point were

completed.

Table 5: Sample size determination from the total HH heads at each water point

Kebele

DWS projects in rural market centers (MC)

Name of water point HHs head

Benefited HH

members

Sub sample

size

5 Dargina 50 230 10

7 Jor 107 575 12

11 Tach Duba 58 264 10

17 Mariam maderia 41 368 10

21 Tikur Afer 143 594 12

32 Beles 1 90 322 10

35 Meramie 360 1170 12

Sub Total 849 3523 76 (9%)

DWS projects in non market centers (NMC) / villages

4 Jor 87 390 8

12 Koso Minchi 60 304 7

15 Abo mado 48 206 6

18 Regreg Gudguad 38 171 5

22 Tach Ziwa 60 253 7

26 Kebero metecha 64 284 7

Sub Total 357 1608 40 (11%)

DWS projects Urban site

1 Wogeda 443 NR 44 (10%)

Sub Total 443

Total 1649 - 160 (10%)

Note: The urban includes three water sources (protected spring 1, protected

spring 2 and tap water) from which all of the residents used equally.

3.2.1 Water Sampling

Water samples were collected from different sources of water used by the

communities in rural and urban sources. A total of eleven water samples were

collected for laboratory analysis from which three samples were from urban and a total

of eight samples were from rural areas. In addition, samples were collected both from

improved water sources and unimproved nearby alternative water sources currently

23

used as main sources for household consumptions. However the distance covered

between these sources ranged from 40 meters to 700 meters. The samples collected

from unprotected springs, protected springs, hand dug wells and urban tap water were

sent for analysis to regional water quality laboratory by coding them as shown below

Table 6. Based on the water quality of the samples investigated, the status of the

existing water quality was compared with the standards of the world health

organization (WHO, 2004).

Table 6: Type and code of sample water points for quality analysis

code Water source type

P11 Protected spring kebele 11

UP11 Unprotected spring kebele 11

P12 Hand dug well kebele 12






WS1 Protected spring 1 wogeda

WS2 Protected spring 2 wogeda

Tap Tap water wogeda

The subsequent district Figure 2 shows the location of the selected water points from

GPS reading.

24

Figure 2: The sampling sites in Simada Woreda with protected and unprotected water

sources

3.3 Data analysis

Identifying the number of factors that forced user access to water sources, reluctance

to use improved water sources, and their perception on water sources quality are

investigated. Based on this, the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, linear

regressions and chi square test using SPSS software system.

The chi square test was used to analyze if there is an association with reluctance to

collect water from improved water sources vs. unimproved sources with other

25

variables. To test the hypothesis of independency of two attributes, the chi square test

is commonly used. These variables include distance from the source to the house,

waiting time, quality of the sources, adequacy of water, presence of alternative sources

in the vicinity, income, personal interest and other factors. These factors influence

households to participate (collecting) water from improved water supply sources.

Waiting time to fetch water from the source, distance from the source to house,

existence of alternative source around the vicinity of the existing water source and

income obligate the community to seek unimproved water sources in place of paying

for improved sources. In addition, the quality and adequacy of the water also had its

own contribution. The waiting time, distance from the source to house and adequacy

can be interpreted in reference to WHO (2004) standards of 15 min, 1.0 km and 20

l/d/p respectively.

The χ2 (chi square) statistic is given by the formula:

x2 = Oij − eij

eij

2

~x2 r − 1 c − 1

c

j=1

r

i=1

Eq. 2

Where: Oij is the number of units that belongs to the category of i of reluctance and j

of the other variables; eij is the expected frequency that belongs to category of i of

reluctance and j of the other variables

The eij is given by

eij =Ri ×Cj

n Eq. 3

where Ri is the ith

variables under row total, Cj is the jth reluctance under column total

and n is total number of observation

𝑛 = 𝐎𝐢𝐣 = 𝐞𝐢𝐣

c

j=1

r

i=1

c

j=1

r

i=1

Eq. 4

26

The null and alternative hypothesis may be tested as H0: no association between

reluctance to collect water from improved sources and other selected variables and H1:

there is association between reluctance and other variables.

The decision rule states to reject the H0 for independency at level of significance if the

calculated value of χ2 exceeds the tabulated value with degree of freedom equal to (r-

1) (c-1).

The water use patterns of the community within a given water source vary from one

house hold to another in both urban and rural areas. The major determinants for the

water use (both total household and per capita water) include household size, income,

distance from the source to the house, education level and queuing time.

These independent variables in the water use behaviors were identified based on

published literature and the actual conditions in the area useful to explain the

variations on the dependent variables. Linear regression model was selected to analyze

the relationship between these variables. The equation used the linear combination of

variables X1,X2,X3,……Xn which was presented as Z=B0+B1X1+B2X2+….+BnXn

where Z is the dependent variable per capita water consumption, B0 is a regression

constant, B1, B2, Bn is the regression slope or coefficients of variables and X1-Xn is

the independent variables.

In the present context X1 is total family members, X2 is education level, X3 is total

household income, X4 is average queuing time and X5 is average distance covered per

round trip.

27

Quality of the water source was based on the perception of the households during the

survey and the laboratory results obtained by the quality tested from selected water

sources.

Water quality analysis was used to present the household perception of water quality

both in rural and urban areas and following the results of the laboratory tests as

compared with the WHO standards. Questioners were used to obtain information

basically from women who took the greater responsibility of water collection and

asked about the consumed water quality perceptions on color; taste and odor during

data collection employed.

For the analysis of water quality the main water quality indicator parameters were

detected from the laboratory including physicochemical and bacteriological quality.

The physicochemical parameters included: electrical conductivity (EC), PH, TDS,

turbidity, nitrate, nitrite, iron, manganese and residual chlorine. Turbidity, an

important indicator of water quality as it can protect bacteria and viruses from

disinfection, is also a good vector for the introduction of Giardia and Cryptosporidium

cysts in drinking water system (Ando, 2005). In addition, bacteriological parameters

including total coliforms and fecal coliforms were analyzed using filter membrane

technique by incubating the membrane on a growth promoting medium for 24 hrs at

37oC and 44.5

oC, respectively, and counting the resultant colonies per 100ml of

samples collected from both improved and unimproved sources. Consequently it was

important to compare the quality of the water which is directly used for drinking

purposes from these two water sources.

28

CHAPTER FOUR

4 RESULT AND DISCUSION

4.1 Socioeconomic characteristics of respondents

The socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 7a-e below.

The table presents the respondents distribution by presence of spouse of household

(Table 7a), sex (Table 7b), educational background (Table 7c), age (Table 7d) and

finally a summary of total household income from crops, livestock and non-

agricultural products (Table 7e). The age range in urban area was 45.5 percent are

between 20 and 30, 38.5 percent between 31 and 45, 14 percent between 46 and 60

and 2 percent above 60 years old with 35 years of average, 20 years of minimum and

64 years of maximum. In rural areas the age range was 38.8 percent are between 18

and 30, 40.5 percent between 31 and 45, 16.4 percent between 46 and 60 and 2.6

percent above 60 years old with 37 years of average, 18 years of minimum and 85

years of maximum. The results show a wide range of age proportion of the sampled

respondents, which was good because it increased the likelihood of capturing and

understanding community perception about water consumption behaviors and

perceived quality of the source. Of the sampled respondents, 39 percent of the urban

and 57 percent of the rural had spouses. Female-headed sample households were 82

percent from the urban and 69 percent of the rural. These large percentages of female

respondents were because of two reasons:

1) The data had been collected during meker (crop harvesting season) when farmers

were busy on field works, so that females stayed to be interviewed.

2) It was women who suffer the burden of fetching water hence the study gave strong

impression to sense the majority of their number. Because of this, the full

29

participation of women in such development programs was crucial and could give

the real problems and proposed solutions concerned about water issues.

Furthermore the survey results revealed that about 57 percent of the urban and 66

percent of the rural respondents have no education or were illiterate while 23 percent

of urban and 15 percent of the rural could read and right or have informal education.

Even though the higher percentage of the respondents was illiterate they had their own

perception to understood the status of their water source service status and also its

quality. The average household size was about 3 for urban and 4 for rural while the

maximum household sizes were 7 for urban and 8 for the rural areas, respectively.

The mean, minimum and maximum amount of each household income from non

agricultural, crop production and livestock production are shown in table 7d. The total

income source of the house hold show that with an average of 2,252 birr and a

maximum of 10,200 birr in urban area while 3,505 birr of average and 20,950 birr of

maximum in rural areas. The income median value was taken because it is

recommended to use median value when the difference between minimum and

maximum values is too large.

30

Table 7: Socio economic characteristics of sample households

a. Presence of spouse of household

Frequency Valid Percent

Urban Rural Urban Rural

Valid Yes 17 66 38.6 56.9 No 27 50 61.4 43.1

Total 44 116 100 100 b. Sex of respondent



Valid male 8 36 18.2 31

female 36 80 81.8 69 Total 44 116 100 100

c. Education background of the household head


Urban Rural Urban Rural Illiterate 25 77 56.8 66.4

Read and write 10 18 22.7 15.5 grade 1-6 5 16 11.4 13.8 grade 7-8 1 3 2.3 2.6 grade 9-10 3 1 6.8 0.9

above high school and colleges - 1 - 0.9 d. Age and family members

Variables Sites Mean Std. dev. Min. Max.

Age of the respondent Urban 35 11.2 20 64 Rural 37 12.2 18 85

Total family members Urban 3 1.34 1 7 Rural 4 1.8 1 8

e. Total household income

Variables Sites Mean Std. dev. Min. Max.

Income from livestock Urban 124 395 0 1,800 Rural 2,232 3,074 0 10,500

Income from crop

production Urban 886 1,280 0 5,450 Rural 2,056 2,295 0 10,250

Income from non agricultural prod.

Urban 2,134 2,766 0 10,200

Rural 1,161 2,104 0 14,400

Total household income Urban 3,143 2,642 220 102,000 Rural 5,449 4,760 240 20,950

31

4.2 Household water consumption

The household water consumption behavior under this study determines those primary

and secondary or alternative water supply sources. Despite to deal with household

water consumption from improved sources, unimproved secondary sources were

included. Consequently from the total households interviewed about 77% of the urban

and 65 percent of the rural areas had one or more alternative water sources. Along

with 45% were unimproved sources. Women and children were the main responsible

household members to collect water. Hence 70.5% of women and 18.2% of both

women and children from urban and 45% of women and 40% of both women and

children fetch water in rural areas.

Water collection material was the most important component for women and children.

As a result of that clay pots and Jeri can4s were the two most common types of

materials. Thus in the urban area about 95.5% used Jeri can and the rest both Jeri can

and clay pot whereas in the rural areas 80% of Jeri can, 13% of clay pot and 7% of

both clay pot and Jeri can are used. It was issue that women carry heavy loads to

collect water from moving up and down steep slopes. Accordingly the study revealed

that respondents travelled about an average slope of 6% with a minimum of 3% and

maximum of 17% slopes. These slopes considered only those the initial and final

records from the source to the average location of the residents. Besides this

individuals travel frequently up and down many continuous slopes between this

ranges. But introducing Jeri-can has two advantages in such locations. First: it reduces

the burden of carrying heavy container as it is made from light material. Second: it

4 Jeri can is a plastic material used to collected water instead of using clay pots, which mainly can

contain 20 or 25 liters

32

minimizes possibilities of post contamination as water is used by tilting the Jeri can

instead of dipping cups. Studies had shown that the level of water contamination is

high at the point of consumption than the point of collection (Tiku et al., 2003) which

may be attributed to the mode or drawing water from the containers. This was the best

result of the health extension work throughout especially in the rural villages since it

was one of the 11 sanitary packages.

Frequency of water collection from improved sources and unimproved sources on

average was 1.2 times for the urban and 1.5 times for the rural (Appendix table 15). To

observe the difference between the urban and the rural areas access to water supply

using distance cover, time taken and queuing time were discussed below. Based on

that the average maximum distance covered from the two sources of 1340 meter, 4.36

total hours spent per week per person and 1hour mean queuing time taken to collect

water from improved sources were obtained from urban area. In contrast the rural

areas of 2430 meter average maximum distance covered from the two sources, 5.74

total hours spent per week per person and 1.5 hours mean queuing time taken to

collect water from improved sources were higher than in urban areas. From this it is

possible to say that the urban water supply systems were better off than rural water

supply systems. According to the study the result respond beyond the threshold level

of World Health Organization (WHO) (2004) standards. Concurrence to WHO (2004),

such sources categorized under unhealthy or unimproved sources recommendation by

WHO, 1km distance cover, 30 minutes time taken with queuing time and 20 liters of

per capita water consumption. The queuing time taken to collect water from

unimproved sources in urban areas was 1.52 which is greater than 1.3 for rural areas.

The main reason for that was the availability of unimproved sources in the vicinity of

rural areas was more accessible than urban areas.

33

The per capita water consumption in urban areas was 13 liters better than 11 liters

from rural areas. Even though less difference is there, in urban areas the use of water

is not only for cooking and drinking but also the rate of use of water for sanitation and

hygiene was lesser in rural areas.

Whereas the average total time spent per person per week was 4.36 hours for urban and

5.74 hours for rural areas on average of 5 hours with a maximum of 21.47 hours. For

comparison, according to Roy et.al (2005) and as sited by them under World's Women

(2000) reporting data from the UN statistical office, that water collection times in Kenya

was an average of more than four hours in dry seasons and two hours in wet seasons. In

addition, four to six hours were necessary to collect water in Burkina Faso, Botswana

and Cote D‟Ivoire (Roy et.al (2005). And water collection times of 17 hours per week

for Senegal and 15 hours for the dry season in Mozambique. This took only the time

taken to collect water from the source to the house but when it includes the queuing time

according to the definition of access to improved water sources, the time taken exceeded

5 hours which was about 13hours. Thus the report from the study area was similar to the

study in western Kenya.

In addition, the average total amount of water consumed by the household was 32

liters for urban and 36 liters per day for rural areas. But the per capita water

consumption in urban areas was 13 liters per day per person better than 11 liters per

day per person from rural areas. Even though less difference is there, in urban areas

the use of water is not only for cooking and drinking but also the rate of use of water

for sanitation and hygiene was lesser in rural areas.

This result was also below the threshold level of WHO standard (20 liters per day per

person). Whereas this result met with the reports found from ADF (2005).

34

4.2.1 Determinants of per capita and total household water consumption

The regression results of the comparison of the households‟ per capita water

consumption from urban and rural areas are available in Table 8. When there is an

increase in household size, the probability of collecting more water for larger

household size than individual household. As a result, there is a positive relationship

between household size and total water consumption. However, the per capita water

consumption decreased with an increase in household size because there is a problem

of access and adequacy when considering the supply necessary to meet the needs of a

large family. Family size had a negatively to per capita water consumption both in

urban and rural areas. This implies that there was a negative relationship between

household size and per capita water consumption. Therefore for every one unit

increase in the household size there is a decrease in the per capita water consumption

by 1.9 times in urban and 1.7 times in rural areas. In other words all household

members share the available water less than single individual access per day. In

addition to that average queuing time was also significant factor for urban areas which

was negatively correlated with per capita water consumption. Hence, for a unit

increase queuing time there was also a decrease in per capita water consumption by

4.2 times. Because the more the queuing times the less to access the required amount

of water for daily consumption.

35

Table 8: Per capita household water consumption

a. Rural areas per capita water consumption coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1

(Constant) 18.46 1.982 9.313 0

Total household income

per annum -4.25E-05 0 -0.039 -0.361 0.719

Family size -1.659 0.276 -0.595 -6.021 0

Education background of the household head

0.226 0.42 0.046 0.538 0.592

Average queuing time -0.85 0.71 -0.105 -1.197 0.234

Average distance cover -4.41E-05 0.001 -0.006 -0.077 0.939

b. Urban per capita water consumption

2

(Constant) 8,182.75 9,336.79 0.876 0.396

Education background

of the household head 0.825 1.332 0.113 0.619 0.546

Total household

income per annum 0.001 0.001 0.339 1.828 0.089

Average queuing time -4.248 1.521 -0.466 -2.793 0.014

Family size -1.941 0.543 -0.593 -3.577 0.003

Average distance cover -6.719 7.686 -0.147 -0.874 0.397

a. Dependent Variable: Per capita water consumption

There were people who are still dependent on unimproved water sources. such that a

cross tabulation chi square test were run to saw the association between people

reluctance to collect water from improved sources and factors that assumed to trigger

this reluctance. The following table 9b shows us income and waiting time were the

two variables significantly affected in urban areas. In contrast to the rural areas table

9a income was not a factor. Because people in rural areas were not willing to pay for

improved water services whereas, in urban areas especially the poor who were unable

to pay for the tap water owned by municipal water service enforced to search

alternative unimproved sources. Beside that queuing time was also a problem to access

water hence people obligate to found alternative unhealthy water sources. In rural

36

areas distance from the source to the house, quality of the water, adequacy from the

source and waiting time were significant at P values less than 0.05. This means there

was a relationship between reluctance and these variables. Because when the distance

from improved sources increased people prefer to collect water from nearby

unimproved sources. Even though distance was a reason, waiting time undermine to

travel long distances to access the water any where coupled with lack of adequate

amount of water availability. Sometimes household prefer to collect water from

unimproved sources because they believed the water sources can be cleaned manually.

The reason behind was less attention given to treat the improved sources by the water

office technicians once installed.

Table 9: Chi-Square Tests of reluctance to collect water from improved sources and

associated variables relationship

a. Chi-Square tests in rural area

Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)

Income 3.139a 1 0.076 0.133 0.101

Distance 4.793a 1 0.029 0.036 0.031

Quality 4.793a 1 0.029 0.036 0.031

Adequacy 18.308a 1 0 0 0

Waiting time 41.158a 1 0 0 0

Interest .764a 1 0.382 1 0.569

Other factors 3.139a 1 0.076 0.133 0.101

b. Chi square test in urban areas

Income 20.952a 1 0 0 0

Distance 2.683a 1 0.101 0.239 0.153

Quality .a - - - -

Adequacy .853a 1 0.356 1 0.545

Waiting time 4.701a 1 0.03 0.053 0.039

Interest .a - - - -

Other factors 2.683a 1 0.101 0.239 0.153

No statistics are computed because quality and interest as a factor for reluctance

are constant (p<0.05)

There were different systems the community used to manage and evenly distribute the

existing improved water sources for all households include:

37

Setting fixed time to collect water twice a day mostly from 7-9am and 4-6pm.

Classifying the total households in to groups per day. If other groups need to

collect during that day it was must to search alternative unimproved sources.

Putting a predetermined amount of water collected per day per household, such as

four Jeri cans per day per household.

Increasing the rate of payment per month for those who came outside the territory.

E.g. for the owner of the scheme 1birr per month while 7 birr per month for

outsiders (1 US dollar =16.69 birr in Ethiopian current exchange).

Categorizing the water sources services as drinking from improved sources and

cooking and personal hygiene from unimproved water sources.

Hiring guards and constructing fences was also the best option to avoid conflicts

and for equal distribution of water without discrimination.

Construction of alternative nearby improved water points create an opportunity to

avoid water related disease particularly for aged people who depend on proximate

unimproved sources.

Many people collect water at midnight to reduce the waiting time from both

improved and unimproved sources.

Both sources are located near improved sources at a distance of about 40m and 100m

respectively. At UP18 improved sources were visible that people did not using it

rather depend on unimproved source. Whereas UP32 shows people whose group turn

was out of the date searching the water from unimproved nearby improved sources.

38

Figure 3: Sample unimproved (unprotected) sources from two sites (UP18:

unimproved spring; UP32: unimproved springs)

4.3 Water quality perceptions

Consumers concerning their drinking water said aesthetic factors such as taste, odor,

and color were very important. Likewise the drinking water trustworthiness depends

on the perception of consumers and the resultant complaints due to tastes, odors, color

or any other particulate matter.

4.3.1 Aesthetic parameters

All water samples taken from improved and unimproved sources were tested for iron

and manganese. From the total water samples analyzed for iron, one improved sources

and 75% of unimproved sources in the rural areas did not met the value suggested by

WHO for the acceptability of drinking-water (0.3 mg/l). According to the UNICEF

(2008) hand book on water quality may be the level of contamination influenced by

the depth of the water sources whether or not it is capped. The remedial action if the

39

aquifer is affected also to tap another unaffected deeper aquifer or use another source.

Since the depth of improved sources is deeper than unimproved sources (mostly

natural springs) the concentration of iron is lower. In addition to that the manganese

test result of improved sources 57.2% and 75% of unimproved sources also did not

meet the WHO (0.2ml/l) standards. Manganese is the main source of displeasing test

and consumes much detergent when used for washing. From the following table 11 it

was certain that the water source sample P18 which was improved hand dug well

accounts the greatest number of manganese above the threshold level which is

5.3mg/l. As a result of this the existing households were not used from this source due

to displeasing test of the source. But they used for washing clothes mostly people did

not use soap rather they wash without soap or traditional means. Because of this

reason they were dependent on the alternative nearby unprotected spring which

measures 0.33 and 0.8mg/l iron and manganese respectively. The rural peoples mostly

used to wash their clothes at streams and rivers than water supply schemes. This P18

source was unique than other sources which had alternative unimproved sources serve

as the main sources additionally. It is observed that the color of water is changed into

reddish and people said the reason may be the presence of cattle trough spring

approximately 10 meters from the head of the well causes the problem. In contrast

three of the urban sources met the recommendation for iron and manganese. To

compare these results with the direct survey conducted from total households 6.8% of

the urban and 2.6% of the rural improved sources color is not good. The color

complain from urban improved sources was resulted from tap water which had a better

chance to treated with chlorine so that consumers believe it is not palatable directly

unless waits for some time to settled. Consequently the laboratory result shows the

presence of chlorine residue of 0.3mg/l only from tap water which was within the

WHO recommendation (2.5-0.5mg/l). But the residual chlorine is good and should

40

always be maintained so that even post contamination due to presence of bacteria in

the water collecting vessels could be avoided.

In addition to that due to corrosion of iron pipes and stand pipes in the distribution

system, the color and test of the water may be affected. According to the survey result

from the two areas 64.5% of the respondents believe that test was the main indicator

of water quality deterioration. It was proved that test of water is the main indicator of

aesthetic water quality status (Dietrich, 2006). These parameters adopted well and

some of the community member‟s especially Muslim religious followers said that

“quality water should full fill these three (i.e. test, color and odor) parameters or could

not be used for any purposes” learned from their religious lessons. If these parameters

fulfilled it is believed to be quality water. Using taste as the main indicator of water

quality perception and determining the perceived test of improved and unimproved

sources, 7% of the urban and 18% of rural households respond and believe that the test

of improved sources were not good while 32% of the urban and 13% of the rural

perceived the quality of unimproved sources were good and better than improved

sources.

However the urban households believed the test of alternative protected spring was

better than the tap. They explain that spring water was better because it flows day and

night directly from the spring eye and consequently there was no time for bad

materials to left in the water. In contrast the tap water flows through pipe which heated

with sun light and chlorination creates disturbing taste of water (Dietrich, 2006).

The surveyed respondents believe that the major source of change in the taste of water

was flood. As it was observed many of schemes were located nearby gully formations.

As a consequence 61% of the urban and 52% of the rural areas believe human waste

41

was the major causes of water quality deterioration. The main reason for improved

sources pollution by humans was: especially in rural areas children play on water

sources particularly on hand dug wells. In addition to that destruction of cement well

of the scheme and the residual water caused by over flow after the collection material

was filled enter back in to the source. Furthermore most of the improved water sources

located along the main roads so that it makes the scheme susceptible for pollution like

people wash their hands and heads over it and their waste enter into the source through

openings. Whereas in urban areas since the main source of water located downstream

side of the residents where open defecation was common in the upstream locations.

From the total water samples tested for turbidity, 71% of improved and 25% of

unimproved sources met the recommended value of WHO that is 5 NTU in the rural

areas. The higher percentage of the unprotected sources was mainly caused by the

runoff during rainy season and blowing of particulate matter over its unconfined

surface which pollutes and increases the turbidity of the water. Whereas for improved

sources mostly turbidity was caused by like a hand dug wells, when the stored water

pumped out the pump disturb the whole water body. In addition to that flood enter in

to the water tankers and children‟s play over the scheme and drops dirt particles into

the water. In contrast the urban sources were below the recommendation of WHO.

Electrical conductivity (EC), pH, nitrates, nitrites and TDS from the two areas were

within the recommended ranges by WHO. A TDS of less than 600 indicates good

palatability (WHO, 2004), and all the samples from this study were palatable.

Chlorine concentration in the urban tap water was in recommended WHO range of

0.25-0.5mg/l. Chlorine was added in the urban springs and tap water 4 times per year

42

and it can treat itself. As expected all rural water samples were less than 0.25 mg/l

(Table 11).

4.3.2 Biological parameters

The urban springs from which the tap water originated and are being used by people

for drinking water was contaminated with coli form since the tap water was free of

fecal coli form it shows that the chlorine application for the urban tap was effective

and the test results had 0cfu/100ml. In contrast all water from both protected and

unprotected had fecal coli from counts in excess of the WHO standard (table 11).

According to IRC (2002) as cited by Michael H., (2006), Risk classification except the

urban tap water other sources indicates the incidence of faecal coli form which could

be classified under low (42.9%), intermediate (14.3%) and high risk (28.6%)

classifications. The two urban springs included under low risk classification. Table 10

summarizes improved and unimproved water sources of total and faecal coli forms.

Table 10: Biological water quality summary result from both improved and

unimproved sources

count

category

in

cfu/100

ml

Total

% cfu/100ml fecal coli

form

% cfu/100ml total coli

form fecal coli

form (%)

total coli

form (%) protected

sources

unprotected

sources

protected

sources

unprotected

sources

<1 14.3

14.3

9.1 9.1

1-10 42.9

27.3

11-100 14.3 50.0 42.9

27.3 27.3

>100 28.6 50.0 42.9 100 36.4 63.3

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

cfu: colony forming unit

43

4.3.3 Treatment measures used

The treatment measures adopted from the different locations of the people vary

accordingly. According to the following Figure 4, the survey result showed 85% of the

urban and 86% of the rural respondents did not use any treatment measures. Since the

main source of water was improved sources for this study bench mark and many of the

people assumed the water sources once protected so no risk was expected. And the

urban residents believed that once the water treated by chlorine there was no problem.

But a significant number of people used Aqua tab, boiling and sedimentation as

treatment measures. From the total number of respondents 10% of the urban and 2%

of the rural used to treat using boiling techniques. Traditional techniques were also

adopted like smoking and washing the container with a special wood, plant leaves and

sand. Because they thought that it could increase the better test of the water and killed

the remaining pathogens within the container. But it needs especial attention and

extension works to enhance people‟s attitude to use different techniques.

44

Table 11: Physical, chemical and biological water quality results from sampled water points

measured

parameters

name of water sources

market centers non market centers Urban

P11 UP11 P17 UP17 P12 UP12 P18 UP18 WSP1 WSP2 tap WHO guideline

value physical

pH 7.16 7.31 7.15 7.1 7.35 6.65 6.7 7.3 7 7.14 7.25 6.5-8.5

EC (µs/cm) 132.6 150 237 204 129.6 61.7 496 138.2 184.9 384 192.2 400-1200

TDS (mg/l) 68 75 118.5 102 64.8 30.8 248 68.9 97 192 95.9 1000

turbidity (NTU) 4.17 2.71 1.52 138 14.2 44.3 46.3 17.1 4.12 0.55 0.7 5

chemical

nitrate (mg/l) 12.76 9.24 13.64 3.96 14.52 3.52 4.04 11.44 3.08 12.32 16.72 45

Nitrite (mg/l) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.17 0.03 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.02 0.01 0 3

Iron (mg/l) 0.05 0.05 0.12 0.99 0.25 0.78 2.16 0.33 0.04 0.1 0.06 0.3

Manganese

(mg/l) 0.3 0.2 0.3 3.8 0.25 1.2 5.3 0.8 0.12 0.18 0.2 0.2

chlorine (mg/l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.25-0.5

biological

total coli forms

(cfu/100ml) >100 >100 60 >100 >100 >100 >100 >100 100 59 0 0

faecal coli forms

(cfu/100ml) 24 >100 10 >100 >100 52 >100 84 10 8 0 0

44

45

Figure 4: Different modes of treatment and the extent of their use by respondents

4.4 Sanitation and hygiene

Environmental sanitation is essential to promote health and prevent diseases. It is

described in terms of personal hygiene, toilet facilities and surrounding environment.

Water supply conditions without sanitation and hygiene behavior looks nothing

(Water Aid, 2009). According to the report found from the expert in the study area, the

sanitation coverage shows 49.5% of urban and 16.8% of rural areas which is still

underestimated so that it needs more focus. Besides that out of the total sample

households only 27% of the urban and 39% had accessed to latrine facilities such as

simple pit latrines. Not had these latrines but also 46% of the urban and 71% of the

rural currently use the latrine and out of which 28.9% of children did not use the toilet

from the two areas. Plus the condition of toilets was also not so hygienic due to

scarcity of water and problem of awareness created among the existing households.

The local communities‟ awareness toward sanitation seem good and got access to

sanitation and hygienic education especially in rural areas but analyzed at ground in

terms of their practices became limited. The members of the households without

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

not at all boiling sedimentation others

Rural

Urban

46

toilets go to nearby open field for defecation. According to the survey results 84

percent of the urban and 77 percent of the rural respondents defecate from open fields.

The reasons for not having toilets included adopted habit of preferring to open field,

absence of space or land for toilet and lack of labor and money. This reasons

developed from two major categories. First lack of awareness made the people to

prefer open fields and lack of money and land related with poverty. Particularly in

rural market centers the home owners needed to construct its free land for extra rented

house than digging latrine. But there were some individuals who had awareness about

their environmental sanitation as a result of that one respondent said that “It is nothing

if I dig a pit for latrine unless my neighbor do the same because his children defecate

on the garden so that the flies bring the disease to affect my children easily‟‟. In close

proximity, open fields and riverbanks were the two major places used by households

for defecation. For the rural communities they used their toilets during the wet season

because their fields occupied by crops. While the urban poor and peripherals

inhabitants did not have latrines travel long distance to defecate under river banks. The

main thing here was the rural non market center people did not allow the market center

residents and also for the urban peripheral to use their lands to secure from crops

trample. Table 12 below shows that the percentage of having latrine coverage and

extent of use. The basic reason behind was the urban and rural market center residents

were mainly lived in rented houses so that the owner of the house did not willing to

construct the latrine. The rural areas had ample land and there were strong and better

extension done for the community than the urban extension workers lately takes into

service.

47

Table 12: Latrine construction and extent of use from urban and rural areas

Presence of latrines (%) Extent of use of latrines (%)

Sites Rural Urban Rural Urban

Yes 38.8 27.3 71.1 46.2

no 61.2 72.7 28.9 53.8

Total 100 100 100 100

Information was also gathered on hand washing practices after defecation. There were

three different hand-washing practices observed such as soap, ash and water. It was

encouraging that majority of the households (95.5%) have used to wash their hand

after defecation. It was common for all the households to wash their hand after

defecation especially for the women who are responsible for the home work. In

addition to that it was common culture to wash hands before and after eating in

Ethiopia. There was also a good habit and chance of cleaning hands with water at least

five times a day in Muslim religious followers. It may better to further assess the

difference in rate of contamination among these people and other non followers.

4.5 Characteristics of water sources, their functionality, level of

protection and surrounding neatness

It was observed from the field about the characteristics of each water point status

during the survey period. The type of water sources coverage from the sample water

points were 56.25%, 37.5% and 6.25% of developed springs, Hand dug wells and tap

water sources respectively. With regard to each water supply scheme the minimum

number of beneficiaries of 171, a maximum of 1170 and an average of 426 were

recorded. The big difference of beneficiaries per schemes forced the water office to

build additional water points in the vicinity of developed sources. About the total

water point 37.5% of which had alternative improved water sources within the

distance of 20-300 meter interval. The oldest water sources (developed spring) were

developed during 1989 constructed by FHE from the rural area. In addition, the level

48

of functionality of the schemes in urban area; well functioning tap and with some

breakages of the two developed springs. On the other hand, in rural areas include

43.75% well functioning, 50% functioning with some breakages and 6.25% of non

functional at all. However, there was also scheme which was included under well

functioning source but it was not used currently by the existing households because of

its displeasing test that is P18. While most of the some breakages, revealed that from

developed springs of failure of faucets and valves. The major reason for that was life

span of the valves and technical problems of using the faucets by the users which

couldn‟t operate properly according to the project expert from FHE.

The surrounding neatness of the water points were also observed in such a way that

from Table 13; 58%, 23% and 19% of the total water sources including both protected

and unprotected sources had not neat at all, somewhat neat and neat surroundings

respectively in rural areas. Beside that the neatness of the improved sources alone was

also tried to identify and 37.5% of each not neat at all and somewhat neat while the

other percentage lied under neat surrounding. But the urban sources were all

somewhat neat. Because discussing about the neatness of the surrounding could affect

the quality of the water source directly or indirectly. There was evidence that due to

problem of the neatness of the surrounding one scheme of hand dug well became

nonfunctional at all due to upstream side of the source neatness. In addition to that

neatness of the sources verified with the stagnant water due to poor drainage causing

water related disease (WHO, 2006), waste water enter back in to the source, bad smell

caused by lack of removing mud, growing algae and grasses and livestock waste

(Demeke, 2009). The following figure shows as some of the schemes characteristics.

49

Figure 5: Sample water sources with stagnant water (P35, Meramie; P22, Tach Ziwa

and P11, Lay Duba)

It was observed that all of the unprotected alternative water sources were not protected

at all but to protect the source from direct contact to animals and children it was

common that roofing the scheme with wood or stone. Whereas from the total sampled

improved water sources about half of them were not protected at all while the rest 23%

somewhat protected and 27% were well protected. Protection includes fencing, hiring

guards and locking for timely harvest. Beside that except one protected spring from

the urban, all of the other sources did not have additional facilities. According to the

district experts such facilities constructed based on the potential of the source and

budget availability.

50

Table 13: Water source characterization

GPS reading and observation form

Keb

ele

Name of the

water source

Water

source

code

Elev Location Water

source type

Year

constr.

Implem

project

Clean-

liness

Level of

protect.

Func-

tionality Latitude Longitude

Market Centers (MC)

5 Agam Wuha1 P5 2358 11013.332' 38014.472' Protected

spring 2007 FHI

Not clean

at all Not at all Not at all

Agam Wuha2 UP5 2374 11013.832' 38014.214'

Unprotected

spring

Not clean

at all Not at all

7 Yehachi P7 2424 11017.881' 38017.682' Hand dug

well 1998 ORDA

Somewhat

clean Not at all

Well

functioning

11 Duba P11 2636 11025.803' 38016.036' Protected

spring 2007 FHI

Not clean

at all Not at all

Functions w/

2/3 breakage

Metokit UP11 2612 11025.961' 38015.798'

Unprotected

spring

Not clean

at all Not at all

17 Mariam

Maderia P17 2420 11025.520' 38009.243' Shallow well 2009 UNICEF

Somewhat

clean

Locked &

fenced

Well

functioning

Mariam

Maderia UP17 2420 11025.440' 38009.187'

Unprotected

spring

Not clean

at all Not at all

21 Tikur Afer P21 2665 11032.466' 38019.211' Protected

spring 1996 FHI Clean

Guard &

fenced

Well

functioning

Ali Wuha UP21 2654 11032.992' 38019.500'

Unprotected

spring Not clean Not at all

32 Beles P32 2486 11024.357' 38025.615' Protected

spring 1989 FHI

Somewhat

clean

Guard &

fenced

Well

functioning

Tach Beles UP32 2467 11024.207' 38025.595'

Unprotected sp

Not clean at all

Not at all

35 Deha Mesk1 P35 2399 11014.848' 38024.094' Hand dug

well 2007 WASH

Not clean

at all Not at all

Function w/

breakage

50

51

Deha Mesk2 UP35 2386 11014.743' 38023.881'

Hand dug

well

Not clean

at all Not at all

Drawing

with rope

Non Market Centers (NMC)

4 Jor P4 2377 11015.436' 38014.217' Protected

spring 1994 FHI Clean Fenced

Functioning

w/ breakage

12 Koso Minchi P12 2628 11025.982' 38013.145' Hand dug

well 2006 FHI Clean Not at all

Well

functioning

Tora meda UP12 2632 11026.301' 38013.099'

Unprotected

spring

Clean

surround Not at all

15 Abo Mado P15 2793 11029.027' 38013.572' protected

spring 2004 FHI

Somewhat

clean Not at all

Functioning

w/ breakage

Sholekie UP15 2817 11029.346' 38013.534'

unprotected

spring

Not clean

at all Not at all

18 Regreg P18 2386 11026.655' 38008.518' Hand dug

well 2006 FHI

Not clean

at all Not at all

well

functioning

Regreg UP18 2386 11026.671' 38008.503'

Unprotected spring

Not clean at all

Not at all

22 Tach Ziwa P22 2659 11034.487' 38018.573' Protected

spring 2007 WASH

Not clean

at all

Fenced but

open for all

Functions w/

breakage

26 Alket Wuha P26 2498 11025.425' 38025.375' Hand dug

well 2007 WASH

Somewhat

clean

Fenced &

guard

Well

functioning

Kechinie UP26 2487 11025.045' 38025.604'

Unprotected

spring

Not clean

at all not at all

Urban

1 Wogeda

spring1

WSP

1 2488 11023.844' 38014.513'

Protected

spring 1989 AWCO

partially

clean guard only

Functions w/

breakage

1 Tap WTP 2566 11024.059' 38014.055' Public tap 1998,

2008

AWCO

& OWS clean

fenced &

locked w

Well

functioning

1 Wogeda

spring2

WSP

2 2494 11023.891' 38014.450'

Protected

spring 2008 ORDA

not clean at

all not at all W/ breakage

51

52

4.6 The discrepancy between actual and reported access to

improved water sources

Accessibility of water supply points principally supplying adequate and quality water

for the wellbeing of human health. Sustainable Access to improved and safe drinking

water is one of the MDGs goals. Whereas the level of determining whether the

existing community got access to improved and safe drinking water was difficult to

know the exact value. According to USAID, 2006 Ethiopian report; the government

report that the percent coverage of water supply was 40% while NGOs and WHO said

the coverage approaches to 22%. Such disparities came from the absence of real data

and method of access coverage determination. Based on this fact it was tried to know

the exact access coverage of improved sources in the district had been gave two

answers. The first calculates the standards followed by each type of water point

potential to cover a significant number of beneficiaries. For example developed spring

(350), hand dug well (250) and shallow well of (500) beneficiaries per scheme. The

standard level of service is based on consumption of 20 l/day and maximum walking

distance of 1 km from the water sources (though this changes to 3 km in the arid

regions where the current distances are as high as 10 km in some instances), and

reduction in collection time to about one hour (ADF, 2005). Despite this points were

considered; the percent coverage of this technique always brought greater number.

The second actual number of people having access to water can also be determined

from the data available in the district office. By summing the actual number of

beneficiaries of the water supply systems is 27%, almost half of that reported from

standard based.

53

Standard rates of beneficiaries access water point was optimistic but because of low

populations density and the time it takes for walking to the water supply is much

greater than obtaining the water from a unprotected source that is closer.

Even though the above reasons challenge the real access to improved sources; some of

the people complain about the potential of the water supply scheme. The main reason

was: the technicians did not found the right spring eye so that its potential decrease

from time to time and the people forced to use unimproved sources. But the water

office experts believe that before five-six years ago such problems were prevalent so

that they were not willing to allow for the installation of improved water sources but at

present there were better awareness of improved sources than unimproved sources.

It was worth to discuss access to water supply, especially in regards to the MDG goal

point of view. Besides coverage, the sufficiency and quality of the installed improved

sources must also be considered in the discussion on access. Assuming that access to

water source coverage reaches the actual beneficiary number (27%) and whether it

was good or not. However, it was difficult to confirm this value because of different

reasons according related to the field observation and surveys conducted:

1) About 68.1% (77% of urban and 64% of rural) people depend on alternative5 water

sources of both improved and unimproved sources out of which 46% were

dependent on unimproved sources (Table 14).

5 Alternative water sources are those water sources used as additional water supply

points.

54

Table 14: Presence of alternative water sources from the two areas

Presence of alternative water source in the vicinity



Valid Yes 34 75 77.3 64.7

No 10 41 22.7 35.3

Total 44 116 100 100

2) About 8% of improved sources were not gave the current supply of water due to its

lower quality than unimproved sources from the rural areas.

3) The functional level of schemes according to the district data shows about 10% of

improved sources were non functional.

4) Lack of maintenance for the existing water sources. As a result 29% of the

improved water sources affected by waste from over flow water enter into it. They

said that “We know the problem but we couldn‟t have option to leave the source”.

5) Low level of attending the healthiness of the sources. No water source treated with

any disinfectant after construction period completed.

Access coverage on the district expert point of view: disagree that determining the

coverage using the standard techniques. The main reason was if the value of the

standard number took as an accomplishment and struggle for 100%; after a while

almost 50% of the community will become out of any access reference to actual

numbering.

This paper disagree the determination of standard based type of access to improved

water sources coverage especially for those rural people residents. Because the people

inhabited pattern of scattered nature exacerbate the problem. So that a great attention

55

should be given for such issues before blocking part of the community without

improved supply of water and for the better success of the MDG Goal.

4.6.1 Accepting to pay for improved water sources

According to the survey results, households accepting to pay for the improved sources

account for 68% of the urban and 88% of the rural, while the others were not

accepting to pay. The main reason why people did not pay was mainly aged people

and poor people. Because they perceive and said that a women “from all my age I had

not been observed such payment, water is the gift of God, how could it be sold” and

the urban poor prefers to search other sources than paying for water. But it was

possible to observe the better attitude of the community regarding greater number of

the respondents were accepting to pay for the service and more than half of them were

aware of their responsibility for the schemes. If so why the rural people were not

paying for the service? It may be the institutional arrangement from the top to the

grass root level and the loose attitude of the selected water use committee did not

brought the people to coordinate and make responsible for the scheme. Because the

bylaws developed by the community should have recognition and legal within the

district level so that no body irritate to enforce their laws. There needs to create a

smooth relationship among the community and the water use committees.

It was important to saw the relationship between the adequacy and perceived safety or

quality of water sources with households‟ willingness to accept to pay for the

improved sources. Figure 6: shows there were a better percentage of acceptances to

pay for the quality water for those responded not safe at all, somewhat safe and

partially safe.

56

Bank report by Sara and Katz (1997), that when the communities perceive their water

shows a significant improvement they are more willing to pay for the service that is

for quality water. But at the safe and highly safe level perception the households‟

willingness to pay reduced. The reason may be since they perceive once their source is

safe, they did not want to pay for more costs. Because the willingness to accept to pay

measures if additional improvements added from the current level of safety or quality

of source.

From Figure 7, when the households became partially satisfied, their willingness to

pay reduced especially for the rural areas of which alternative water sources of both

improved and unimproved sources are available. It assumed that if they are not

satisfied they equally benefited from unimproved sources. Whereas those households

who are satisfied with the current improved source their willingness to pay is

enhanced. On the contrary with an increase in satisfaction or at very satisfied level the

households‟ economic factors seams dominant especially in urban areas so that their

willingness to pay decreased. In addition to that households may not be interested to

pay above what they expect to pay. According to this study not only consumers

satisfaction but also perceived quality of the source were factors determining

accepting to pay for improved services.

According to the following two figures 6 and 7 it was possible to draw priorities of the

people to full fill their desire among the two parameter i.e. quality and quantity based

on their willingness to pay. Therefore taking the normal situation and assume the

water supply source deliver safe or quality and enough quantity of water. At this point

it is observed that the households were more willing to accept to pay for quantity or

availability of water than quality of water.

57

Figure 6: Comparison between perception of quality and willingness to pay

Figure 7: Comparison between level of satisfaction and willingness to pay

0 10 20 30 40 50

Not safe at all

somewhat safe

partially safe

safe

highly safe

%

Qu

ali

ty p

erce

pti

on

Comparison between perception of quality and

willingness to pay

Yes

No

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Not satisfied at all

somewhat satisfied

partially satisfied

satisfied

very satisfied

%

Lev

el o

f sa

tisf

act

ion

Comparison between level of satisfaction and willingness

to pay

Yes

No

58

CHAPTER FIVE

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion

The study reveals issues related with water supply and sanitation behaviors in the

study area. Indeed it will give a brief understanding about household water

consumption, perception of water quality of improved and unimproved sources,

perception vice actual laboratory quality results, level of water sources status such as

its functionality, measure of protection, and surrounding cleanness during the survey

and access of improved water supply points coverage‟s from urban and rural areas. In

addition to that it was tried to identify the determinants of households reluctant to use

improved water sources than unimproved sources. Therefore the study took 160

households to conduct the survey in which the respondents were beneficiaries of those

randomly selected 16 water points. The result of the study understands the following

findings:

The major responsible bodies for water collection were women and children besides

the work load of women doing the home activities even field works with men. It was

good extension observed that the use of plastic pot that is Jeri cans which reduces the

heavy load and contamination. Because women‟s travel long up and down slope and

far distances with heavy clay pot materials but it was better to replace by Jeri cans.

And dropping the water from the Jeri can reduces the direct contact in between the

storage and consuming material. Besides that the presence of alternative unimproved

sources of about 46% increases the chance of the people depend on these sources.

59

The per capita water consumption has a negative relationship with household size both

from urban and rural areas. Besides that queuing time negatively correlate with per

capita consumption in urban areas. There is a positive relationship between waiting

time, distance, adequacy and quality of water source for the consumption of

households from unimproved sources in rural areas. In contrast queuing time and

income were the main factors resulting households reluctance to collect water from

improved sources in the urban areas. This leads to vulnerability of the households to

water borne diseases. As a result of this it is better to reduce the queuing time by

installing additional water supply points. Because the time devoted for water

collection losses the possibility of spending on other productive activities.

To understand the people‟s perception on the quality of their water sources of both

improved and unimproved, it is evident that people have the capacity to identify the

quality of their water through test, odor and color. Furthermore test was the main

indicator of water quality in the study area in which 64% of the respondents measure

the quality of the source. As a result of this one scheme become out of use due to its

displeasing test. It was interesting that the result obtained from people‟s perception

lies with the actual laboratory results. On the contrary tap water was the only source

which satisfies the standards of water quality from the selected water sources but some

people dislike consuming from this source as compared with the nearby protected

sources. The main reason were chlorination and test less of the water than the spring

not transported though pipe and feel comfort while drinking and cool.

It was impossible to isolate the sanitation and hygiene practices from the water quality

perspective (water aid, 2009). Out of the total respondents about 79% of which

defecate on open field and from those having the physical latrines only 65.5% of those

currently use the latrine and out of which 28.9% of children did not use the toilet.

60

Functionality of the water source was also seen from the field which shows except one

scheme 43.75% of well functioning and 50% functioning with some breakages.

Although one scheme was included under well functioning it doesn‟t give the service

to the households due to its quality problem. The surrounding neatness has its own

contribution for the quality of water. Therefore 37% of improved sources were not

neat at all while other are neat and somewhat neat surroundings. Despite protecting

and cleaning the surrounding it is difficult to see neat surrounding. So that about half

of them were not protected at all while the rest 23% and 27% of sources were

somewhat protected and well protected respectively.

One of the MDGs aim was sustainable accessing to improved and quality drinking

water for the people who are without this resources. Although many efforts have been

applied to achieve this goal for the people it is still a problem to reach the target

objective. Among the many reasons such as quality of the scheme, dependency of the

people on unimproved sources, nonfunctioning of sources and others the focus given

for the term access by itself has misleading. As a result of that there were two ideas

while about access coverage for the district. One is standards based which took the

capacity of the scheme while the second was actual access coverage implies the

district has 50% and 27% access coverage respectively. Consequently this discrepancy

leads to stop the development endeavors after a while when the 100% recorded from

the standard based report which is recommended by the regional office.

The households have a better awareness about their source potential and the problem

as well. As a result many of the people were willing to pay for the improved sources.

But very limited sources about 31% currently pay for the source especially most are

for the salary of the guard. But there was still a need to create awareness why the

61

water use committees selected and up to what range they had the potential to do

activities alone.

Furthermore due to vast coverage of the area the district experts did not reach to the

site immediately when the schemes stop working. This forces the household to depend

on unimproved sources. To resolve such technical problems even though training was

given for the selected water use committees but they complain that they couldn‟t do

that because of the minor training was given without technical equipments. To sum up

with the households preference for pay for quantity of water was more important than

quality of water.

5.2 Recommendations

A given water scheme should supply only for the targeted groups rather than

creating competition between households with other more water consuming

activities such as schools feeding programs, nursery site, etc.

Giving attention for unimproved water sources may reduce the rural people

immediate consumption from polluted water so that advice to protect the schemes

from direct contact with animals, treatment measures taken and others because

people in reality still dependent on unimproved sources.

Taking the actual coverage of access to improved water sources will motivate

funding agencies to participate for development endeavors than taking the

exaggerated reports that brings half of the people without access to water after a

time.

A lot of awareness creation activities should be done on sanitation and hygiene

through extension workers not only for preparing latrines but use of the latrines

and hand washing practices.

62

Continuous follow up on already installed schemes give a better chance to sustain

schemes.

Strengthening institutional arrangements will increase the continuous inspection of

schemes health and functionality.

63

6 REFERENCES

Admasu M., Kumie A. and Fentahun M. (2003). Sustainability of Drinking Water

Supply Projects in Rural of North Gondar, Ethiopia, Ethiopian. J. Health Dev.

(3):221-229.

African Development Fund (ADF) (2005). Ethiopian rural water supply and sanitation

appraisal report. Infrastructure department north, east and south Onin.

Ando Y.A. (2005). An integrated water resource management approaches to

mitigating water quality and quantity degradation, in xalapa, Mexico. Master

of Applied Science in the Faculty of Civil Engineering. University of British

Columbia.

Bhandari B. and Grant M. (2007). User satisfaction and sustainability of drinking

water schemes in rural communities of Nepal. University of Calgary, Canada.

Crow B. (2001). Water: gender and material inequalities in the global south.

University of California, Santa Cruz.

Demeke A. (2009). Determinants of household participation in water resource

management; Achefer woreda, Amhara region, Ethiopia. Master‟s thesis

Integrated Agriculture and Rural Development. Cornell University, Ithaca NY

USA.

Dietrich A.M (2006). Aesthetic issues for drinking water. Journal of water and health.

Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University. USA.

64

Doria M.D.F (2010). Factors influencing public perception of drinking water quality.

Water policy 12:1-19.

Ethiopian Water Resources Management Policy (1999) VII. Addis Ababa.

Gadgil A. (1998). Drinking water in developing countries. Lawrence Berkeley

National laboratory, environmental energy technologies division, 1 Cyclotron

Road, California, s.1.

Harvey P.A. and Reed R.A., UK (2007). Sustainable rural water supply in rural

Africa: Rhetoric and reality.

Haysom A. (2006). The study of the factors affecting sustainability of rural water

supply in Tanzania, Dare Selam. Master‟s thesis water management,

community water supply option. Cranfield University Silsoe institute of water

and the environment.

Michael H. (2006). Drinking water quality assessment and treatment in east Timor a

case study: Tangkae, the University of East Timor.

Mtinda E. (2007). Sustainability of rural water supply and sanitation services under

community management approaches: the case of six villages in Tanzania.

Rose, A.D. (2009). Domestic water supply an evaluation of the impacts challenges and

prospect on women in rural house hold, Uganda. LUMES, Lund University.

Roy J.L., Crow B. and Swallow B. (2005). Getting access to adequate water:

community organizing, women and social change in western Kenya.

65

Sara J. and Katz T. (1997). Making the rural water supply sustainable: Report on the

impact of project rules. UNDP World Bank water and sanitation program:

Washington D.C.

Sheat A. (1992). Public perception of drinking water quality. Should we care? Paper

presented at the New Zealand Water Supply and Disposal Association Annual

Conference. Cited in Syme & Williams (1993). Slovic, P. (2000). The

Perception of Risk. Earthscan, London.

Sobsey M. D. (2002). In Water, Sanitation and Health Department of Protection of the

Human Environment WHO, Geneva.

Sutton S. (2008). Access to sanitation and safe water: Global participation and local

actions. The risks of a technology-based MDG indicator for rural water supply.

33rd WEDC International Conference, Accra, Ghana.

Stevens M., Ashbolt N. and Cunliffe D. (2003). Recommendation to change the use of

coli form as microbial indicators of drinking water quality. Australia

Government National Health and Medical Research Council.

Tiku S., Legesse W., Endalew H. and faris K. (2003). Factors affecting drinking water

quality from source to home in Tehuledere woreda, north east Ethiopia.

Ethiopian journal health science, Vol 13 No 2.

United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2008). Millennium development goal

report.

66

United Nations Children‟s Fund (UNICEF) (2010). Progress on sanitation and

drinking water. New York: UNICEF.

UNICEF (2008). Hand book on water quality. 3UN plaza, New York, NY 10017.

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) (2006). Ethiopia Water and

Sanitation Profile. www.usaid.gov

Water Aid (2009). Water, sanitation and hygiene for development. Advocacy for

change.

World Health Organization (2006). In Water, Sanitation and Health World Health

Organization.

World Health Organization (2004). Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, World

Health Organization, Geneva.

World Health Organization (2000). Disinfectants and disinfectant by products.

(Environmental health criteria 216). Geneva: world health organization.

http://www.usaid.gov/

67

7 APPENDICES

Pre-Interview Statement

First of all I greet the respondent and introduce my name and occupation to them. Like

my name is Meseret and I‟m a university student. Now I‟m working on the way to my

master‟s degree thesis. I am interested to know the people‟s water usage practices and

perceptions about your water source quality in your village and I have prepared a

small survey. As I told you and aware of my objective, I am not associated with any

governmental or non governmental bodies rather my interest is purely academic, but

they are cooperating me by ideas how to work with you. Having this introduction this

short interview will take up about 25 minutes of your time. Would you like to go

ahead with the interview?”

If the answer was yes, then I go ahead with the interview and subsequently I thanks

and ask a few questions regarding your household e.g. you name, age, educational

status and number of family members? Etc. then, I proceed to ask the rest questions

based on my questioner outline. Finally I thank greatly for your help.

Appendix I. Household Demographic and Socio-Economic Information

Household educational, age and gender characteristics

Kebele ID

Name of the village

Name of the respondent sex age

No of house hold male female total

68

name

Member

type (I) Sex (ii) Age (iii) Educational back ground (iv)

1 2 3 0 1 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

*

*

*

*

Fill the table according to the given specifications:-

i. Household member type: 1=Spouse of household head 2=Child 3=other

(specify)

ii. Gender: 0=Male 1=Female

iii. Age range: 1=1-15 years 2=16-30 years 3=31-45 years

4=46 years and above

iv. Educational level:- 0=Illiterate, 1=Read and write 2=1-6 grade including prists

3=Elementary complete (7-8 grade), 4=Junior complete (9-10 grade), 5=High

school complete 6= above high school(college and university)

69

Appendix II) income source of the house hold

1. From non agricultural activities

No of

income Type of income source

Unit

price(ETB)/month

Total

price(ETB)/year

1

2

3

4

5

Total

2. Household annual crop production during last year’s harvest and its current

market value.

No Type of

crop

Amount

harvested

Unit cost

(quintal/ETB)

total cost

(quintal/ETB/year) remark

1

2

3

4

5

Total

3. Live stock production and current market value

No Livestock

name

No of

livestock

Unit cost

(head/ETB/month)

total cost

(head/ETB/year) remark

1

2

3

4

5

total

Live stock raring is common both in rural and urban areas.

Total income (ETB/year) = income from non agriculture (ETB/year)+ crop

production(ETB/year) + livestock production (ETB/year)

70

Appendix III) Water sources observation

Name of village

Name of water source

Location latitude long

1. Type of the water source?

1) Protected spring 2) hand dug well 3) hand pump 4) natural spring 5) other

2. Observed type of additional facilities?

1) Cattle trough 2) washing dish 3) showers 4) fences 5) not at all

3. Status of the surrounding cleanness?

1) Not clean at all 2) somewhat clean 3) partially clean 4) clean 5) very clean

4. What measures taken in order to protect the water source from pollution?

71

Appendix IV) Household water use practice?

1. Who is responsible for fetching water?

1) Husband 2) wife 3) child 4) Husband + wife 5) wife + child 6) others

2. Is there alternative water source in the vicinity? 1) Yes 2) No

3. How many times do you collect water per day from improved water sources?

1) One 2) two 3) three 4) four and above

4. How many times do you collect water per day from traditional water sources?

1) One 2) two 3) three 4) four and above

5. How long you spent average time to fetch water from the source to house from

traditional water source?

1) 15min 2) 30min 3) 1hrs 4) 2hrs and above

6. How long you spent average time to fetch water from traditional water source?

1) 15min or less 2) 30min 3) 1hrs 4) 2hrs and above

7. What is the average distance in meters from the source to the house?

7.1 traditional 7.2 Improved

8. Is the distance convenient in your perception?

1) Not at all 2) somewhat convenient 3) convenient 4) very convenient

9. What type of material used for water collection?

72

10. How many liters it holds?

11. How much water did you collect yesterday?

12. Were you satisfied? 1) Not at all 2) somewhat satisfied 3) partially satisfied 4)

Fully satisfied 5) Over satisfied

13. For what purposes you used for?

14. How much liter?

15. How many times per week did you collect water from unprotected springs?

1) Once 2) twice 3) three times 4) four and above

16. From hand dug wells? 1) Once 2) twice 3) three times 4) four and above

17. From rivers? 1) Once 2) twice 3) three times 4) four and above

18. Protected springs? 1) Once 2) twice 3) three times 4) four and above

19. Hand pumps? 1) Once 2) twice 3) three times 4) four and above

20. Public taps? 1) Once 2) twice 3) three times 4) four and above

21. If unimproved source, why not improved sources? 1) Income 2) distance 3)

presence of alternative source 4) quality 5) adequacy 6) waiting time 7) interest 8)

others

22. Do you pay water fee for improved sources? 1) Yes 2) No

23. If no, are you willing to pay for improved source? 1) Yes 2) No

73

Appendix V) water quality and sanitation perception questions

1. What does water quality mean to you?

2. Do you perceive that the water you consume is safe?

1) Not safe at all 2) somewhat safe 3) partially safe 4) safe 5) highly safe

3. What is the main indicator of the water quality?

1) Color 2) test 3) odor 4) disease attack 5) others specify

4. Is the taste, odor and color of water the same as the unimproved source?

1) Yes 2) no

5. If no, what is the difference detected?

6. What do you think the major cause of water quality problem?

1) Animal wastes 2) human wastes 3) flood 4) others

7. What treatment measures do you use for unsafe water?

1) Not at all 2) boiling 3) sedimentation 4) others specify (done by projects)

8. How many times your family sick due to water related disease last year?

1) None at all 2) twice 3) three times 4) more than three

9. Have you participated in any educational and awareness activities about sanitation

and hygiene parallel to water supply? 1) Yes 2) No

11. Do you have a latrine? 1) Yes 2) No

74

12. If yes, when you dig a latrine (in relation to the constructed water source)?

1)1 and less than 1 year 2) 2years ago 3) three and more

13. If yes, who teaches you to dig a latrine?

1) Own self 2) sanitary 3) water use &sanitation committee 4) not at all

14. If yes do you use it? 1) Yes 2) No

15. If yes, who use the latrine? 1) Man 2) wife 3) child 4) all families 5) except child

15.1 If not for what is the reason

15.2 If no, why don‟t have a latrine?

16. Where do you defecate? 1) Public toilet 2) neighbor 3) open field 4) own toilet

17. Do you wash your hand after defecation? 1) Yes 2) No

18. If no why not?

19. Do you wash with Soap or other material?

20. When do you wash your hands?

75

Table 15: Household water consumption

a. Urban house hold water consumption

N Mean

Std.

Dev Min Max

Valid Missing

Frequency of water collection from improved sources per day

44 0 1.5 0.76 1 4

Frequency of water collection from Unimproved sources per day

20 24 1.05 0.22 1 2

Average time taken to collect water

from Improved sources (minute) 40 0 20 0.00 20 20

Average time taken to collect water

from Unimproved sources (minute) 20 24 30 0.00 30 30

Average queuing time taken to

collect water from Improved sources (hours)

44 0 0.98 0.69 0 2


collect water from unimproved

sources(hours)

20 24 1.52 0.55 0 2

Average distance cover double trip

to collect water unimproved

sources(m)

20 24 1480 0.00 1480 1480

Average distance cover double trip to collect water from Improved

sources(m)

44 0 1215 0.076 1215 1215

Total amount of Household water

consumption per day (liter) 44 0 31.65 14.45 20 75

Per capita water consumption (liter) 44 0 12.97 7.78 4 45

Hours spent to collect water from

improved sources per day per

person

42 2 0.51 0.26 0.3 1.3

Hours spent to collect water from improved sources per week per

person

44 0 3.55 1.8 2.3 9.3

Hours spent from unimproved sources per day per person

20 24 0.55 0.16 0.5 1


unimproved sources per week per person

20 24 3.85 1.1 3.5 7

Total hours spent to collect water

per day per person 42 2 0.62 0.33 0.33 1.67


per week per person 44 0 4.36 2.29 2.33 11.67

Cont‟d table 15

76

b. Rural house hold water consumption

N Mean

Std. Dev

Min Max Valid Missing

Frequency of water collection from

improved sources per day 102 14 1.63 0.82 1 4

Frequency of water collection from

Unimproved sources per day 53 63 1.4 0.6 1 3

Average time taken to collect water from Improved sources (minute)

102 14 23.44 11.65 8 40

Average time taken to collect water from Unimproved sources (minute)

53 63 24.19 9.97 14 45


collect water from Improved

sources (hours)

102 14 1.5 0.64 .25 2

Average queuing time taken to collect water from unimproved

sources(hours)

53 63 1.3 0.81 .25 2

Average distance cover double trip to collect water unimproved

sources(m)

53 63 1332 535.6 360 2260

Average distance cover double trip

to collect water from Improved sources(m)

102 14 1388.4 749.26 540 2600

Total amount of Household water

consumption per day (liter) 116 0 36.38 16.47 10 80

Per capita water consumption (liter) 116 0 10.75 5.32 2.5 30


improved sources per day per person

102 14 0.64 0.51 1 2.7


improved sources per week per person

102 14 4.5 3.59 .9 18.7

Hours spent from unimproved

sources per day per person 53 63 0.55 .31 .2 1.6

Hours spent to collect water from unimproved sources per week per

person

53 63 3.83 2.2 1.63 11.2


per day per person 116 0 0.82 .56 0 3.07


per week per person 116 0 5.74 3.91 0 21.47

NOTE: Min means minimum while max is maximum and std. dev is standard deviation

ASSESSMENT OF DRINKING WATER QUALITY AND DETERMINANTS...

Documents

Transcript of ASSESSMENT OF DRINKING WATER QUALITY AND DETERMINANTS...