Urban Water Access and Use in the Kivus

Evaluating Behavioural Outcomes Following an Integrated Wash Intervention in Goma and Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo

Bibliographic Data

ID15511330
AuthorsHugo Legge (0000-0002-1974-286X, University of London, corresponding author), Shahana Fedele (Mercy Corps, Edinburgh EH6 6LX, UK), Florian Preusser (0000-0003-3741-3151, Mercy Corps, Edinburgh EH6 6LX, UK), Patrycja Stys (London School of Economics and Political Science), Papy Muzuri (London School of Economics and Political Science), Moritz Schuberth (0000-0003-0924-1911, Mercy Corps, Edinburgh EH6 6LX, UK), Robert Dreibelbis (0000-0002-9716-0419, University of London)
Year2022
Volume19
Issue3
Pages1065-1065
Publication date2022-01-18
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1661-7827 • E-ISSN: 1660-4601
PublisherMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (PUBLISHER • CH)
DOI10.3390/ijerph19031065
PMID35162089
OpenAlexW4206619881
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited27

Increasing the availability and reliability of community water sources is a primary pathway through which many water supply interventions aim to achieve health gains in communities with limited access to water. While previous studies in rural settings have shown that greater access to water is associated both with increased overall consumption of water and use of water for hygiene related activities, there is limited evidence from urban environments. Using data collected from 1253 households during the evaluation of a community water supply governance and hygiene promotion intervention in the cities of Goma and Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo, we conducted a secondary analysis to determine the impact of these interventions on household water collection and use habits. Using multiple and logistic regression models we compared differences in outcomes of interest between households in quartiers with and without the intervention. Outcomes of interest included litres per capita day (lpcd) of water brought to the household, lpcd used at the household, and lpcd used for hygiene-related activities. Results demonstrated that intervention households were more likely to use community tapstands than households located in comparison quartiers and collected on average 16.3 lpcd of water, compared with 13.5 lpcd among comparison households (adj. coef: 3.2, 95 CI: 0.84 to 5.53, p = 0.008). However, reported usage of water in the household for domestic purposes was lower among intervention households (8.2 lpcd) when compared with comparison households (9.4 lpcd) (adj. coef: -1.11, 95 CI: -2.29 to 0.07), p = 0.066) and there was no difference between study groups in the amount of water allocated to hygiene activities. These results show that in this setting, implementation of a water supply governance and hygiene promotion intervention was associated with a modest increase in the amount of water being bought to the household, but that this did not translate into an increase in either overall per capita consumption of water or the per capita amount of water being allocated to hygiene related activities

Business · Economics · Environmental health · Geography · Hygiene · Intervention (counseling · Logistic regression · Per capita · Population · Psychological intervention · Socioeconomics · Sociology · Water supply · Child Nutrition and Water Access · Demography · Environmental Science · Global Maternal and Child Health · Medicine · Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare · Environmental Engineering

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access