Main Article Content
Assessment of water storage, treatment and use in the Semi Arid Kimana Area, Oloitokitok District, Kenya
Abstract
Objectives: This study sought to identify the methods and associations of water storage, treatment and use among residents in the Kimana Fenced Area, Oloitokitok, Kenya for comparison with current best practices in order to develop recommendations to improve water sanitation issues in this area.
Methods: In a cross-sectional study design, 330 households were randomly selected and interviewed on water storage, treatment, and use practices.
Results: Eighty two percent of observed containers met CDC guidelines for improved water storage containers. Fifty seven percent of survey respondents reported not treating their drinking water, of which 49% indicated that they believed the water was already clean. Logistic regression showed that people who believed their water was unsafe were twice more likely to treat their water than those who perceived their water to be somewhat safe (p=0.058). Those living outside the furrows were 56% less likely to treat their water in the home compared to those living along the furrow (p=0.023). Respondents with a pastoral lifestyle were 69% less likely to treat their water than those with a non-pastoral lifestyle (p=.009). In terms of tribe, the largest treatment disparity was noted amongst the Maasai, with only 37.7% reporting any form of treatment.
Conclusion: Tribe, pastoral lifestyle, proximity to the furrow and socio-economic status were found to contribute to water storage method and treatment within the Kimana fence. It is critical that these factors be addressed in future water storage and treatment interventions in this area.
Methods: In a cross-sectional study design, 330 households were randomly selected and interviewed on water storage, treatment, and use practices.
Results: Eighty two percent of observed containers met CDC guidelines for improved water storage containers. Fifty seven percent of survey respondents reported not treating their drinking water, of which 49% indicated that they believed the water was already clean. Logistic regression showed that people who believed their water was unsafe were twice more likely to treat their water than those who perceived their water to be somewhat safe (p=0.058). Those living outside the furrows were 56% less likely to treat their water in the home compared to those living along the furrow (p=0.023). Respondents with a pastoral lifestyle were 69% less likely to treat their water than those with a non-pastoral lifestyle (p=.009). In terms of tribe, the largest treatment disparity was noted amongst the Maasai, with only 37.7% reporting any form of treatment.
Conclusion: Tribe, pastoral lifestyle, proximity to the furrow and socio-economic status were found to contribute to water storage method and treatment within the Kimana fence. It is critical that these factors be addressed in future water storage and treatment interventions in this area.
