INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMICS & …...INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS OF ACADEMICS & RESEARCH - IJARKE ISSN: 2617-703X IJARKE Humanities & Social Sciences Journal DOI: 10.32898/ihssj.02/2

INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS OF ACADEMICS & RESEARCH - IJARKE ISSN: 2617-703X IJARKE Humanities & Social Sciences Journal DOI: 10.32898/ihssj.02/2.3article03

www.ijarke.com

21 IJARKE PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL Vol. 2, Issue 3 Feb. – Apr. 2020

Socio-Demographic Factors Determining Point of Use Household Water

Treatment in East Kajulu Location

Appida Scholarsticah Achieng, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology, Kenya

Dr. Rose Olayo, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology, Kenya

Dr. George Ayodo, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology, Kenya

1. Introduction

Access of safe water for drinking and domestic use is the basic human right, which is supported by international law and the

declarations (Geremew et al., 2018). UN report (2010) also documented that access to clean water for domestic use (drinking,

cooking and personal hygiene) as well as access to basic, yet adequate sanitation is essential in mainstreaming the health of a

population. The available data reflects that only 2.5 percent is the available fresh water out of the total volume present on the

earth. However, most of it is locked up in glaciers or in the depths of groundwater aquifers. The experts opine that, by 2025, 52

nations comprising of half of the world‟s population will have to suffer with severe shortage of potable water, whereas, around 3

billion people will face water shortage (Pani Pakistan, 2007).

According to an estimate by Pakistan Council of Research and Water Resources (PCRWR), almost 50 percent of urban water

supply is inadequate for drinking and personal use. This research concludes that an average of 25.61 percent of Pakistan‟s 159

million inhabitants have access to safe and adequate drinking water. There is nothing to doubt that the greater part of the

Pakistan‟s population is exposed to the risks of drinking unsafe and polluted water (Makita, et al., 2011).

In Papua New Guinea, only 40 percent of the total population and 33 percent of the rural population have access to safe water,

(Centre for Disease Control Prevention (CDC), (2012). This leaves 60 percent of the total population in that country to contend

with unimproved sources as their source of drinking water. In Haiti 38 percent of the total population and 53percent of the rural

population have no access to an improved source of drinking water while in Yemen, 45 percent of the total population and 53

percent of the rural population has no access to an improved source of drinking water. According to Crampton, (2005)

approximately 36 million people living in rural areas in Latin America and the Caribbean lack even basic access to drinking water

and the uneven spatial distribution of the drinking water supply poses a continuous public health risk, results in low economic

productivity, low prosperity and thus contributes to the enforcement of regional disparities.

Sub-Saharan Africa is also not on track to meet the SDG drinking water target though almost a quarter of the current

population (24%) gained access to an improved drinking water source, (World Health Organization and UNICEF (2012). Angola

for instance has 46 percent of her total population and 66 percent of her rural population without access to improved drinking

water sources while in Mozambique 65 percent and 51 percent of the rural and total population respectively has no access to

INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS OF ACADEMICS & RESEARCH (IJARKE Humanities & Social Sciences Journal)

Abstract

Access to safe water for drinking and domestic use is the basic human right, which is supported by international law and the

declarations. However, despite many recommended effective treatment methods available to the households, many of them

still do not access clean water for drinking and domestic use. Therefore, the study sought to investigate socio-demographic

factors determining point of use household water treatment in East Kajulu Location. The study employed cross-sectional study

design with both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Purposive and random sampling methods were used to recruit the

study participants. Quantitative and qualitative data collection was done using a structured questionnaire and interview guides

respectively. Chi-square test was used for analysis of associations between the variables. Data analysis was done using

STATA version 12. The finding of the study shows a significant association between household water treatment and level of

education among the university or tertiary participants interviewed (p=0.053). It also shows no association between household

water treatment and gender. The study recommended that Kisumu County government through relevant ministries should roll

out programs that encourage economic empowerment to increase affordability of the modern water treatment methods. The

ministry of health in collaboration with ministry of water and natural resources should design policies that encouraged

subsidized effective and efficient water treatment methods at the household level to increase their affordability and

accessibility. The ministry of health and other stakeholders should also organize campaign and awareness of appropriate and

effective household water treatment methods.

Key Words: Socio-Demographic Factors, Point of Use Household Water Treatment

Keywords: Molecular characterization, antibiotic profile, resistance, diarrhogenic E. coli, genes


www.ijarke.com


improved sources of drinking water. The Democratic Republic of Congo is not any better as 71 percent and 54 percent of the rural

and total population respectively use unimproved drinking water. In Nigeria, 36 percent of the population and 51 percent of the

rural population has no access to improved water and in Niger; the statistics show that 58 percent of the population living in rural

areas and 48 percent of the total population do not have access to improved drinking water sources. The situation in Rwanda,

Tanzania Madagascar and Kenya, all in the East Africa Region, is not any different from the other countries whose statistics are

given above. In Rwanda, 42 percent of the rural population and 29 percent of the total population use unimproved sources of

drinking water while 65 percent of the rural population and 50 percent of the total population in Madagascar drink water from

unimproved sources. In the United Republic of Tanzania, 56 percent of the rural population and 47 percent of the total population

do not have access to improved sources of drinking water.

Kenya has only 62 percent of its total population and 55 percent of the rural population accessing improved water. Yet, water

resources underpin the main economic sectors which are agriculture, livestock, tourism, manufacturing and energy (KIPPRA

2013). Important to note is that Kenya was categorized as a water scarce country with per capita renewable water resources of 647

m3 (Ministry of Water and Sanitation 2015) comprising 20,637 m3 total renewable resource surface water and 619 m

3 ground

water. About 50 per cent of the country‟s water resources are trans-boundary. These include Lake Victoria, Lake Turkana, Lake

Jipe, Mara River, Ewaso Ng‟iro South River, and Merti and Kilimanjaro aquifers (KIPPRA 2013).

Increased access to improved drinking water is one of the Sustainable Development Goals that Kenya along with other nations

worldwide has adopted (United Nations General Assembly 2001). According to the 2019 census report, Kenya has a total of 9 767

954 households. Among these, 6 361 334 of them are rural households while 4 406 620 are urban households. The Report

indicates that the main source of water for most households is still borehole/well/spring. There is a further indication that the

proportion of households using piped water has been declining since 1989. The proportion of rural households with access to

improved water in 2009 was 48 per cent, while in urban areas it was 75 per cent (KIPPRA 2013). These statistics are very

worrisome since they reflect slow progress towards the MDG goal of halving, based on the 1990 base year, the proportion of the

population without access to safe drinking water by 2015.

According to the Kenya Demographic Health Survey (2010) three out of five households in Kenya (63percent) get drinking

water from an improved source. However disparities exist by residence, with a higher proportion of urban households (91percent)

having an improved source of drinking water compared with rural households (54percent). The survey results reveal that more

than one third (24 percent) of Kenyan households get their drinking water from a non-improved source, mainly surface water from

lakes, streams and rivers. Thinking about this percentage, one realizes how big the number of Kenyan citizens without clean

drinking water is.

Household water treatment methods should be effective, simple and inexpensive. For example, if household bleach solution is

available, a dilute chlorine solution can be made up and used as a disinfectant of water. Water can also be safely treated by

exposing it to sunlight. All that is required is a discarded clear plastic bottle. Another option to treat water at home is the use of

simple ceramic pot filters molded by local artisans. If the household can afford, commercially produced tables containing chlorine,

or sachets with combined flocculation and disinfection properties are available and can also effectively remove pathogens from

water. UNICEF, (2008) also documented that the most effective methods in eliminating microbes that cause diarrhea are boiling,

filter, chemicals and solar disinfection. However, the choice of these different water treatment methods at the household level can

be greatly influenced by various determinants such as socio-demographic factors, socio-demographic factors and socio-cultural

factors. A study by Rainey & Harding, (2005) in Nepal on the adoption of solar disinfection (SODIS) of drinking water echoes the

added value of qualitative information in analyzing choice of water treatment methods at the household level. Rainey & Harding,

(2005) through semi-structured household surveys during and after SODIS implementation with open-ended question revealed

that hidden factors such as cultural, social, and economic opinions would influence greatly the adoption of the solar disinfection

(SODIS) of drinking water among the community.

Based on socio-demographic factors, indicators such as age, gender and level of education would influence the choice of water

treatment methods at the households. For instance, (Whittington & Briscoe, (1990) reported that there was a significance

relationship between gender of the head of household and choice of water source, storage and treatment methods. In this study,

women understand better safer and more efficient water treatment, storage methods because they are the ones most frequently

collecting water, than other household members (likely husbands) who are fetching water much less frequently. More educated

households would opt for more sophisticated and expensive water storage and treatment methods than less educated households

(Waggoner & Ausubel, (2002). The present study therefore sought to assess the socio-demographic factors determining point of

use household water treatment in East Kajulu Location

2. Statement of the Problem

Evidence on the positive effect of point-of-use treatment on water quality, and significant reductions in diarrheal diseases

among its users, exists (Wasonga, Olang‟o, and Kioli, 2014). The usage of chlorine products has been described as one effective

and easy-to-use means of water disinfection. Likewise, the protective effect of solar-disinfected water against cholera infections in

small children has been shown and could serve as an alternative point-of-use treatment method (Makita et al., 2001). These


www.ijarke.com


products are relatively inexpensive and usually locally producible. However, despite these many recommended effective treatment

methods, available even to the households living in East Kajulu location, many households still do not access clean water for

drinking and domestic use and some of them even still resort to old traditional ways of treating water which may not be very

effective and may also compromise water quality, hence exposing them to health risk (Onjala, Ndiritu, and Stage, 2013). For

instance early 2018, cholera claimed one life and several others admitted at the Gita sub County Hospital in East Kajulu of

Kisumu County (MOH, 2015). This attests to lapse and poor treatment choices that are preferred by the households living in this

area. Yet, there is limited empirical study that has brought out socio-demographic factors influencing the choice of water

treatment methods at the household level in this area. The present study therefore sought to assess the socio-demographic factors

determining point of use household water treatment in East Kajulu Location.

3. Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to assess the socio-demographic factors determining point of use household water treatment in

East Kajulu Location

4. Research Hypothesis

The study sought to test the following null hypothesis that there is no statistical significant relationship between socio-

demographic factors and point of use household water treatment in East Kajulu Location.

5. Literature Review

5.1 Socio-Demographic Factors

5.1.1 Gender

Gender according to Freeman (2012) refers to the differences in socially constructed roles and opportunities associated with

being a man or a woman and the interactions and social relations between men and women. Freeman (2012) also identified three

ways in which gender relations might influence the social relations of household water treatment methods: gender-based divisions

of work, assets or resource ownership and access, and policy discourse and local norms, which may situate economic uses of

water and domestic uses in a specific gender domain. According to DFID (2003) the impact of collecting water from traditional

sources (particularly during the dry season) takes its toll on the livelihood opportunities of women and girls in particular whereas

investment decisions to improve water quality at the household level usually rest with men in their role as household head.

In Africa, poor access to water and the attendant water scarcity affect women and girls disproportionately with the situation

being worse in rural areas due to institutional and cultural barriers, including those of disparities in rights, decision-making power,

tasks and responsibilities over water for productive and domestic activities (Alaci et al. (2013). GOK (2006) report on water

development describes the role of women in domestic water use by noting that they are responsible for ensuring that their families

have clean and safe water for daily living and as a result, when the resource is scarce or not clean, they suffer because of their role

as domestic water providers, caregivers and household managers.

Gender of the head of the household plays a role among the determinants of household choice of water source (Totoum, 2013).

Female-headed households are more likely to adopt private tap or collective tap as main water source, compared with male-

headed households. Whittington and Briscoe (1990) looked at the gender aspect and explained that women, because they are the

ones most frequently collecting water, better understand water quality than other household members who are fetching water

much less frequently. A survey carried out in Uganda on the socioeconomic factors‟ and water source features‟ and their effect on

household water supply choices in Uganda and the associated environmental impact revealed the same results on the question of

who is the main water collector in the household (Prouty 2013).

Using data collected by in-depth personal interviews from 69 households in Ukunda –Kenya found out that the number of

women in a household greatly influenced its decision on water treatment methods that is cost effective and sufficient to cater for

all the family members (Mu et al. (1990). Similarly, Jain and Singh (2010) indicate that with regards to the women, the more time

spent in search and collection of water, the lesser the time available for water treatment procedure and process, however simple

the process may be, because these people are also attached to other domestic chores that require their time. Oyekale and

Ogunsanya (2012) reveal that rural households‟ access to safe water is negatively affected by the sex of the household head. The

implication is that male headed households have significantly lower access to safe water. The argument they advance is that

women are domestically more inclined towards water fetching and ensuring that the water is fit for drinking. Abebaw et al. (2010)

similarly found that in Ethiopia, female headed household have higher probability of having access to improved water and one of

the reasons adduced was the fact that women and children are directly responsible for availability of safe water and as heads and

decision makers, they may be more inclined to invest in availing clean water.


www.ijarke.com


In a study of household water use behaviour in Irepodun Local Government Area of Kwara State, Nigeria on who sources,

allocates and uses most indoor water in the households, and for what purpose, Onundi and Ashaolu (2014), found out that the

people involved in getting water for the various households are female. The study went on to reveal that fetching water for the

household had an effect on their time and productivity in that the more time they spent in getting or making clean and safe water

available in their homes the more time they lost in fulfilling other responsibility. Ifabiyi et al. (2010) asserts that women lost

considerable productivity time in their quest to make clean water available for their households. Women possess the power to

allocate and determine how and who uses what water in households. In the Kwara state study this is because they are the providers

in the first place and if the commodity is misused the burden of providing it lies on them.

5.1.2 Education

The importance of education has been preached the world over and its numerous benefits cannot be ignored in all sectors of

life. It is no wonder education of households and especially that of household heads is a key determinant in the analysis of a

household‟s water treatment behavior. This has been proved by several studies on the determinants of households‟ choice of water

treatment in Developing Countries, (Fotue 2013). Lack of or low level of educational attainment serves as a great barrier to

empowerment. Rohit et al (2015) states that the lesser the educational attainment of an individual, the more he or she has limited

opportunities to demand better facilities from the authorities as he or she is powerless.

Level of education is believed to play an important role in understanding how safe and effective water treatment can be and

what measure can be taken to have access to water of good quality. Therefore, the households with more educated occupants

strive to treat for their households water using more efficient and efficacy methods, unlike those with primary or no formal

education that do not really care about how safe the treatment of their water is (Onundi and Ashaolu 2014).

What this then means is that a household whose education levels are very low, will have problems accessing safe water for

drinking. This in turn will lead to other complications especially health ones due to poor sanitation. Problems of safe water access

also contribute to poor education of women and children and especially the girl child. Bartlett (2003) attributes this to the fact that

the burden of availability of safe water for drinking is borne by them.

Literate households seem highly concerned with health risks posed by using contaminated water. In a study that sought to

examine the impact of Cameroonian households‟ awareness about health effects of using contaminated water on their choice of

adopting improved water sources the findings suggest that household awareness about health effect of unimproved water,

positively affect the decision to rely on improved drinking water source (Totoum et al, 2013). In the study, those, households who

received messages of sensitization (at school or through mass media) in the past took some steps to collect drinking water from

improved sources so as to reduce the likelihood of water-borne disease in future. As compare to illiterate headed-household, the

higher the households‟ education, the higher will be the probability of choosing improved drinking water source.

Level of education according to Onundi and Ashaolu (2014) is believed to play an important role in understanding how safe a

water source can be and what measure can be taken to have access to water of good quality. Therefore, the households with more

educated occupants strive to source for their households‟ water from the safe sources and practice appropriate water treatment

methods, unlike those with primary or no formal education who does not really care about how safe the water is. Koskei et al.

(2013) in their study on the effects of social economic factors on access to improved water sources and basic sanitation in Bomet

municipality in Kenya found out that the level of education of household head significantly influenced the type of water source

used by households.

5.1.3 Household Size

The number of people in a household determines can also determine the type of water treatment method to be adopted

(Totoum 2013). Dabbert and Arouna (2009) both household size and composition affect water use. The amount of water used per

household is mainly determined by the number of people in it. Large families use more water at the end of the day than smaller

families. What this means is that the large households will need to treat more water, even if it is from different sources so as to

meet their daily water demand. More so household size has been found to be the most important factor affecting water

consumption. Totoum (2012) posits that household‟s size has a significant positive effect on household‟s choice of private tap and

negative impact on household‟s choice of coping sources.

5.2 Theoretical Review

The study will be based on protection motivation theory. Protection motivation theory is a theory that was originally created to

help clarify fear appeals. The protection motivation theory was originally founded by Dr. R W Rodgers in 1975 in order to better

understand fear appeals and how people cope with them (Rogers, 1975). However, Dr. Rogers would later expand on the theory in

1983 where he extended the theory to a more general theory of persuasive communication. The theory will assist the community

members in stress ,appraisal and coping with the stress of the common diseases associated with consumption of unsafe water .The

theory will help the community members to be sensitive and vulnerability to certain types of events in this case disease outbreak


www.ijarke.com


(Sobsey, 2012) further strengthens how people should protect themselves based on the four factors, : the perceived severity of a

threatening event, the perceived probability of the occurrence, or vulnerability, the efficacy of the recommended preventive

practices, and the perceived self-efficacy (Rogers, 1975).

The protection motivation theory proposed that people should protect themselves based on four factors: the perceived severity

of a threatening event, the perceived probability of the occurrence, or vulnerability, the efficacy of the recommended preventive

behavior, and the perceived self-efficacy (Rogers, 1975). Protection motivation theory stems from both the threat appraisal and the

coping appraisal. The threat appraisal assesses the severity of the situation and examines how serious the situation is in this study,

the threat appraisal can be the health hazard as a consequent of consuming unsafe or unclean drinking water.

The coping appraisal is how one responds to the situation in this case the coping appraisal, what the community is doing to

ensure that they access safe drinking water stressful situations. In this book “Stress, Appraisal, and Coping,” Richard Lazarus

discusses the idea of the cognitive appraisal processes and how they relate to coping with stress. He states that people, “differ in

their sensitive and vulnerability to certain types of events, as well as in their interpretations and relations” (Sobsey 2012). While

protection motivation theory, Dr. Roger was the first to apply the terminology when discussing fear appeals.

5.3 Conceptual Framework

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework

5.4 Measurement of Variables

In this study, independent variable was socio-demographic factors: The indicators of socio-demographic factors in this study

were gender, education and household size. The dependent variables (Point of Use Household water treatment) were boiling and

chemical treatment. According to the frame work Fig. 1, the independent variables influence directly the dependent variable.

6. Research Methodology

6.1 Research Design

This study was conducted through cross-sectional survey research design. In this research design the researcher presented

oriented methodology used to investigate population by selecting samples to analyze and discover occurrences (Oslo and Omen

2005). Survey is ideally suitable for studies to provide numeric descriptions of some part of the population. This method was

chosen in view of the economy, rapid data collection and ability to understand a population from a part of it. It gives the

opportunity to reach information in its natural setting (Franked and Walled, 2000). Survey methods are the best suited to studies

on prevalence of a phenomenon situation or attitude (Ker linger 1969). This facilitated the investigation of determinants point of

use water treatment methods in East Kajulu Location, of Kisumu East District in Kisumu County Kenya.

6.2 Study Area

The study area was East Kajulu Location. East Kajulu Location is located in the low lands of Kisumu East Sub County

Kisumu County in Kenya. The population is 9200 people as per the last census 2009 and their economic activities are mainly

farming though in small scale. The major health issues are HIV infections, diarrheal diseases, water related skin infections,

cholera, dysentery, Malaria among others. These come as a result of behavior, practices, attitude in relation to water use (census

report 2009).

6.3 Target Population

The study population comprised of the heads of the household, who were the primary respondents, community health workers

and administration officers (Village elders).

6.4 Sample Size and Sampling Technique

Socio-demographic factors

Gender

Education

Household size

Dependent Variables

Point of Use Household water treatment

Boiling

Chemical treatment


www.ijarke.com


6.4.1 Sampling Technique

To select the household heads, systematic random sampling technique was used. This implies that the study involved every

10th

household head in the study through systematic random sampling technique from a study population of 1000h households.

This technique was preferred because it eliminates biasness and gave every respondent equal chance of being selected. As for the

community health workers and the village elders, the researcher used purposive sampling method.

6.4.2 Sample Size

There being no estimate available of the proportion in the target population assumed to have the characteristics of interest, a

formula by Fisher, Laing and Atoeckel (1983) was used for the calculation of sample size. He opts that 50% figure should be used

in determining sample size. The formula below explains how the figure is arrived at (Fisher et el, 1983).

n = Z2 pq

d2

Where;

n = the desired sample size (if the target population is less than 10000.

z = the standard normal deviation at the required confidence level.

p = the proportion in the target population estimated to have characteristics being measured.

For this study the proportion of the study had the characteristics of socio-economic, socio-demographic and socio-cultural

factors of residents in East Kajulu Location determining point of use of water treatment methods.

Q is those people without characteristics being measured (1-p)

D is the level of statistical significant set (the difference of optimum proportion (0.05)

P = 100%

Z = 1.96

Q = (1-p) = 1-0.05 = 0.05

n = (1.96) x 1.96 x 100% x 0.05

0.05x0.05

= 76.8 which was approximated to 100 respondents (household heads)

As for the community health workers, the study involved 10 of them in the location and 5 village elders.

6.5 Data Collection Tools

The research instruments in this study were questionnaires, interview schedules and document analysis. The instruments were

developed by examining the research objectives, research questions and reviewed literature; also the researcher has to consider the

population sample as some types of instruments are unsuitable to some groups of people due to factors such as the literacy level of

education, (Orodho & Kombo, 2004).

6.6 Household Questionnaires

According to Gay (1996) descriptive data are accurately collected using questionnaires which make it appropriate for use in

this study. Questionnaires were developed and used to collect primary data from household heads. These questionnaires were

researchers own made and consisted of both open and closed ended questions which allowed the respondents to choose one or

more alternatives and freely express their views to the questions asked. The questionnaires were administered to the 100

household heads in East Kajulu Location. The study used this method because it allows the respondents to remain anonymous

which also helped to increase the response rate in addition to providing first-hand information. Questionnaires were also useful

in obtaining objective data because the participants are not manipulated in any way by the researcher in filling a

questionnaire (Kothari, 2004).

6.7 Community Health workers and Village Elders Interview Schedule

The purpose of Key informants interviews (KII) was to collect in-depth information from Community Health workers and

Village Elders because they knew many of the socio-cultural factors that determined the household water treatment methods. This

has been used widely in qualitative data collection since it allows the researcher to examine the deeply seated insights into how

people perceive factors affecting their lives (Fontana and Frey, 2009). Interview data has also contributed widely to further

research (Guba and Lincoln, 2008).


www.ijarke.com


6.8 Validity and Reliability of Research Instruments

In order to establish validity of the questionnaire, they were given to expert supervisors from the department of public health

of Jaramogi University of Science and Technology (JOOUST) and classmates to determine content validity. Content validity is a

judgmental act where experts check whether the items represent the construct which is being studied as well as the wording,

formatting and scoring of the instrument (Havercamp, 2004).

This was ensured by making sure that; the items in the questionnaire were highly structured to avoid ambiguity, whether the

items needed to be rephrased for correctness, appropriateness for time schedules for completing it, the formatting and the scoring

of the instrument. The questionnaire was also pilot tested with 10 household heads which was selected proportionately and was

not included in the real study, to identify changes that were made on confusing items.

In this study, split half reliability test was established by pre-testing the instruments prior to conducting the study and defective

items on the instruments corrected. Split-Half Reliability is a common statistical method used to determine the reliability of a

typical test. It is used for multiple choice tests most often, but it can be used on any test that can be divided in half and scored

consistently.

In this study, reliability of data was judged by estimating how well the items that reflect the same construct yielded similar

results. According to (Connelly, 2008), extant literature suggests that a pilot study sample should be 10%-20% of the sample

projected for the larger parent study. Therefore, the pilot sample was 10 household heads from the neighboring location, which

will not take part in the real study.

After one week, the same questionnaires were again administered to the same group of respondents and the responses scored

manually. The study looked at how consistent the results are for different items for the same construct within the measure. Using

the SPSS version. 22, reliability of the questionnaires was computed and Cronchbar reliability coefficient 0.732 was obtained.

Connelly (2008) explains that a reliability coefficient of 0.60 or higher is considered as "acceptable" in most Social Science

applications.

7. Research Findings

7.1 Demographic Characteristics

From the study findings, out of the targeted 100 respondents, the study achieved 94 response return rates. Total numbers of the

participants interviewed were 94 of which 51% (48) were male and 49% (46) female. Table 1 describes the demographic

characteristics of the participants. A considerable number of the study participants, 44% (41) attained the minimum level of

education, which was the primary level. 36% (34) attained secondary level of education and 20% (19) university/tertiary.

On occupation, 45% (42) of the participants were farmers, 16% (15) casual workers, 15% (14) work in the private sector, 13%

(12) NGOs and the rest 11% (11) were self-employed and government respectively. Majority (52%) of the participants earn less

than 10000 shillings, 34% (32) earn between 10000 to 50000 shillings while 14% (13) earn more than 50000 shillings per month.

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics

Variable Group Freq (#) Percent (%)

Gender Male 46 48.9

Female 48 51.1

Level of Education Primary 41 43.6

Secondary 34 36.2

University/ Tertiary 19 20.2

Occupation Government 7 7.5

NGOs 12 12.8

Self-Employed 4 4.3

Private Sector 14 14.9

Farmer 42 44.6

Casual Worker 15 15.9

Income > 10000/= 49 52.1

10000-50000/= 32 34.1

<50000/= 13 13.8


www.ijarke.com


7.2: Use Household Water Treatment

On source of water, majority of the participants 67 (71%) draw their water for household use in the spring as shown in Figure 2

below:

Figure 2 Source of household use water

7.2.1 Methods of Water Treatment

On method of water treatment, most of the respondents at 40% (38) boiled and filtered their water for household use, while

significant number of the respondents at 23% (22) added chemicals such as chorine in their water for household use. Figure 3

below shows the frequency percentage distribution of methods of water treatment among the residents of East Kajulu location,

Kisumu County.

Figure 3 Methods of treating drinking water

7.3 Association between Socio-Demographic Factor and Use Household Water treatment

In assessing the socio-demographic factors in terms of gender and level of education and its association with household water

treatment, the study found that there was a significant association between household water treatment and level of education

among the university or tertiary participants interviewed (p=0.053) (Table 2). However, there were no association between

household water treatment and gender.

Level of education plays an important role in understanding how safe and effective water treatment can be and what measure

can be taken to have access to water of good quality. This implies that households with more educated occupants strive to treat for

their households‟ water using more efficient and efficacy methods, unlike those with primary or no formal education who do not

really care about how safe the treatment of their water is (Onundi and Ashaolu 2014). These findings are in agreement with that of

Totoum, (2013) in their study the impact of Cameroonian households‟ awareness about health effects of using contaminated water

on their choice of adopting improved water sources.


www.ijarke.com


Totoum, (2013) also found that high literacy level in the household and awareness about health effect of unimproved water;

positively affect their decision to rely on improved drinking water source. Onundi and Ashaolu (2014) also seconded this when

they found that level of education plays an important role in understanding how safe a water source can be and what measure can

be taken to have access to water of good quality.

Although the study did not find any association between household water treatment and gender, Totoum, (2013) in his study

found that gender of the head of the household plays a role among the determinants of household choice of water source. Abebaw

et al. (2010) similarly found that in Ethiopia, female headed household have higher probability of having access to improved

water and one of the reasons adduced was the fact that women and children are directly responsible for availability of safe water

and as heads and decision makers, they may be more inclined to invest in availing clean water.

Table 2 Association between Socio-Demographic Factor and Use Household Water treatment

Socio-Demographic Factors

Household Water

Treatment x

2 P-Value

Yes

# (%)

No

# (%)

Gender

o Male 34(36) 12(13) Ref Ref

o Female 37(39) 11(12) 0.13 0.722

Education Level

o Primary 33(35) 8(9) Ref Ref

o Secondary 27(29) 7(7) 0.01 0.908

o University/ Tertiary 11(12) 8(9) 3.33 0.053

Legend: Ref= Reference Category, statistical significance by chi-square (x2)

The findings on gender seems to contradicts the qualitative data obtained during the interview session with the community

health workers, it was found gender factors would greatly influence the choice of household water treatment method. For instance,

one of the community health workers had this to offer,

“Men believe that availability for use in the household is a preserve job for the female gender because men don‟t enter

the kitchen in this culture or area. They believed that it is a taboo and when they do so, they are regarded as not being

man enough. After all they got married so that their wives would take care of me (Respondent 9, Sept 15th 2017).

The study found that level of education played an important role in understanding how safe and effective water treatment can

be and what measure can be taken to have access to water of good quality. In an interview with the community health workers,

one of them also reiterated that Level of education plays an important role in influencing the choice of household water treatment.

Those with basic education are less informed and thus can resort to inefficient methods than those with good education

background (Respondent 4, September 22tth 2017). Onundi and Ashaolu (2014) also found that the households with more

educated occupants strive to treat for their households water using more efficient and efficacy methods, unlike those with primary

or no formal education that do not really care about how safe the treatment of their water is. Koskei et al. (2013) in their study on

the effects of social economic factors on access to improved water sources and basic sanitation in Bomet municipality in Kenya

found out that the level of education of household head significantly influenced the type of water source used by households.

8. Conclusion

There was association between household water treatment and level of education among the university or tertiary (p=0.053).

Therefore, the study rejects the null hypothesis and concludes that there was association between socio-demographic factors and

point of use household water treatment among participants with university/tertiary level of education in East Kajulu Location

9. Recommendations

The Ministry of Health and other stakeholders should organize campaign and awareness of appropriate and effective

household water treatment methods. Could a community based approach should be more relevantly integrated within the existing

framework. The ministry of health in collaboration with ministry of water and natural resources should design policies that

encouraged subsidized effective and efficient water treatment methods at the household level to increase their affordability and

accessibility.


www.ijarke.com


References

1. Abebaw D, Tadesse F, Mogues T. (2011). Access to improved water source and satisfaction with services. Evidence

from Rural Ethiopia: the International Food Policy Research Institute.

2. Bartlett, M., (2013). Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries: Including Health in the Equation. Environmental

science & technology. 41. 17-24. 10.1021/es072435t.

3. Crampton, J., (2005), Maintaining Clean Water: Contamination during Water Collection and storage in Addis

Ababa, Briefing Note, Water Aid Ethiopia.

4. Dabbert, S. & Arouna, A (2009). Determinants of Domestic Water Use by Rural Households without Access to

Private Improved Water Sources in Benin: A Seemingly Unrelated Tobit Approach. Water Resources Management.

24. 1381-1398. 10.1007/s11269-009-9504-4.

5. Fotuè L. (2013). Awareness and the demand for improved drinking water source in Cameroon. Int J Econ Prac

Theor. 3(1):50–9.

6. Freeman MC, Trinies V, Boisson S, Mak G, Clasen T. (2012) Promoting household water treatment through

women‟s self-help groups in rural India: assessing impact on drinking water quality and equity. PLoS One.;

7(9):e44068.

7. Geremew A, Mengistie B, Mellor J, Lantagne DS, Alemayehu E, Sahilu GJEH, (2018). Appropriate household

water treatment methods in Ethiopia: household use and associated factors based on 2005, 2011, and 2016 EDHS

data. Environ Health Prev Med.; 23(1):46.

8. Kosek, M., Bern, C. & Guerrant, R.L., (2013), „The global b Sifat-E-Rabbi and N. C. Dey, Impact of BRAC WASH-

I Programme on Hygiene Knowledge and Practice in Rural Areas, Research Monograph Series no. 60, Research and

Evaluation Division (RED), BRAC, Dhaka, Bangladesh,

9. Makita P., Naked, K., Ogutu, P., Barasa, P., Ombeki, S., Mwaki, A., and Quick, R. (2011). Challenges in

implementing a point –of-use water quality intervention in Rural Kenya. American Journal of Public Health. 91. (10)

1571 -1571.

10. Onjala, J., Ndiritu, S.W. and Stage, J. (2013). Risk Perception, Choice of Drinking Water and Water Treatment:

Evidence from Rural areas in Kenyan, Environment for Development Discussion paper 13-10.

11. Rohit, F. M., Guru N, Rajiv S, Venkata R. M., Gagandeep K, and Vinohar B. (2015) Perception of drinking water

safety and factors influencing acceptance and sustainability of a water quality intervention in rural southern India;

journal of BMC Public Health.; 15: 731 12. Sobsey MD. (2012). Managing water in the home: accelerated health gains from improved water supply. Geneva:

World Health Organization; 2002.

13. Totouom A, Fouéka Tagne SR, Ngouhouo Poufoun J. (2013). Determinants of the avoidance behaviour of

households to cope with unsafe drinking water: case study of Douala and Yaoundé in Cameroon. Rev Agric Food

Environ Stud.; 99(2):1–28.

14. UNICEF (2012). Progress on drinking water and sanitation; 2012 update. United states WHO/UNICEF joint

monitoring program for water supply and sanitation

15. Wasonga, J. Olang‟o, C. O. and Kioli, F. (2014) “Improving Households Knowledge and Attitude on Water,

Sanitation, and Hygiene Practices through School Health Programme in Nyakach, Kisumu County in Western

Kenya,” Journal of Anthropology, vol., 6.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Nagarajan%20G%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=26223687

Documents

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ACADEMICS & …...INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS OF ACADEMICS & RESEARCH - IJARKE ISSN: 2617-703X IJARKE Humanities & Social Sciences Journal DOI: 10.32898/ihssj.02/2