Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Did the COVID-19 Crisis Reframe Public Awareness of Environmental Topics as Humanity’s Existential Risks? A Case from the UK
Previous Article in Journal
Contributions of Municipal Initiatives to Digital Health Equity
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
World
Volume 5
Issue 4
10.3390/world5040060
world-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Households’ Willingness to Use Water from a Solar Water Disinfection Treatment System for Household Purposes

by
Abdul-Rahaman Afitiri
1,* and
Ernest Kofi Amankwa Afrifa
2
1
Chair of Biotechnology of Water Treatment, Institute of Environmental Technology, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, 03046 Cottbus, Germany
2
Department of Environmental Science, School of Biological Sciences, College of Agriculture and Natural Sciences, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast CC 3321, Ghana
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
World 2024, 5(4), 1181-1193; https://doi.org/10.3390/world5040060
Submission received: 3 October 2024 / Revised: 2 November 2024 / Accepted: 18 November 2024 / Published: 26 November 2024
Browse Figure
Figure 1
<p>Map of the study area.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The consumption of contaminated water contributes to the global burden of diarrhea and other water-borne diseases, especially among young children. While decentralized solar water disinfection treatment systems (hereafter SODIS) remain a viable option to have safe drinking water, our understanding of the effects of household water treatment before use on willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS is limited. In this study, a complementary log-log regression analysis of the compositional and contextual factors that systematically vary with willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS in the Sawla-Tuna-Kalba (STK) district of Ghana was carried out. Based on our findings, a greater proportion of households (97%) are willing to accept and adopt a SODIS. Compositional and contextual factors such as age, marital status, education, religion, and geographical location significantly contribute to households’ willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS in the STK district of Ghana. Households that treat their water before use (66%, p < 0.05) are more likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to those that do not treat their water before use. The findings, therefore, suggest that scaling up SODIS in the STK district is sacrosanct and highlight the necessity to analyse compositional and contextual factors influencing willingness to accept and adopt SODIS. Our findings will inform policies and programs aimed at implementing SODIS in the study area to improve the health of communities that rely on poor-quality drinking water sources.

1. Introduction

Globally, one in four people lack access to continuous safe drinking water, hence posing a major health risk [1]. A significant proportion of rural populations still consume water from unimproved sources that are largely contaminated by feacal matter [2]. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that about 115 million people live directly on untreated surface water such as lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams [3]. In sub-Saharan Africa, nearly 58% of people lack clean water that is suitable for consumption or free from pathogenic microorganisms [4]. The consumption of water from unimproved sources contributes substantially to the global burden of diarrhea and other waterborne diseases, especially among children below the age of five [5].
Improving household water quality to meet recommended standards for household use is currently being researched, developed, and implemented among various communities across the world to determine whether alternative water supply systems are technologically viable, economically feasible, as well as socially acceptable within rural contexts [6,7,8]. In developed countries, particularly Germany and Japan, local governments are addressing improved water access by building greater water infrastructure around centralized water treatment systems, as well as encouraging household-level installations to harvest water [9,10,11]. Developing and transition countries, on the other hand, largely rely on decentralized water treatment and on-site water storage and reuse systems as the most functional options [12,13].
Several rural areas in Sub-Saharan Africa still face limited access to improved water sources. As an intermediate solution to providing safer drinking water and reducing the incidence of diseases, solar water disinfection treatment systems, as well as household water treatment and safe storage (HWTS), are being proposed [14,15,16,17]. Decentralized solar water disinfection systems (hereafter, SODIS) scalability as an intervention for rural communities lacking clean water access remains an active policy debate, and low rates of consistent patronage have been observed [18,19,20,21].
Decentralized solar water disinfection treatment systems are recognized worldwide approaches to improving water quality before use [4,22]. These approaches have the advantage of preventing diarrhea and other waterborne diseases. Therefore, it is becoming apparent that decentralized solar water disinfection treatment systems can be of critical importance in addressing improved water access in rural communities because of their ability to provide water to individual homes, small groups of houses, and large-scale housing developments in a simple and economically feasible way [16,22,23]. However, the use of these systems is also directly influenced by community attitudes due to the immediacy of responsibility in managing decentralized water supplies [7]. Furthermore, the need to understand factors influencing households to accept and adopt alternative water systems is crucial to the successful implementation of these strategies. That is, although decentralized solar water disinfection systems may improve clean water access, there is no guarantee that the general public will willingly accept or adopt them. Unfortunately, very little is known about factors at household levels facilitating and hindering social acceptance and adoption of solar water disinfection treatment systems.
In this study, we investigate the predictors of willingness to accept and adopt a solar water disinfection treatment system as well as how household water treatment before use influences household willingness to accept and adopt SODIS while controlling relevant compositional and contextual factors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study District

This study was carried out in the Sawla-Tuna-Kalba (STK) District of the Savannah Region of Ghana. Figure 1 represents the study district and the selected communities.
The district shares boundaries with Wa West District to the North, Bole District to the South, West Gonja District to the East, and Cote D’Ivoire to the West at the Black Volta [24]. The district is estimated to have a total land area of 4226.9 km2 with a population of 112,664 as of 2021 [25].
The study largely focused on rural communities. The rural population in the STK district is estimated to be around 90,133 [25], with an estimated household population of 90,068 [25]. Communities included in this study were selected based on the following selection criteria. The community must (i) be rural with a household population of less than 500, (ii) be part/located in the STK district, and (iii) use an unimproved water source either as a primary or secondary water source. Unimproved water source in this context refers to water sources that are not protected from outside contamination, especially faecal matter. Such water sources include unprotected wells, unprotected springs, rivers, dams, and lakes. Improved water sources, on the other hand, refer to water sources that are protected from outside contamination, especially faecal matter. These water sources include household connections, standpipes, boreholes, protected dug wells, and protected springs.
Twenty-seven (27) communities met the inclusion criteria defined and were therefore included in the study. The selected communities are shown in Table 1. A total of 1155 households were interviewed. A household in this study refers to a person or group of persons that have the same water arrangement or drink from the same water storage system and recognize one as a head.

2.2. Data Collection and Sampling Procedure

A survey instrument with 65 items was deployed on a Kobo Toolbox and administered to households in the selected 27 communities of the STK district. Data were collected electronically using tablets. All household heads present during the survey period were recruited into the study as participants. Data cleaning and analysis resulted in a total sample size of 1155 household heads collected between the period of 4 May 2024 and 9 July 2024.
Before the administration of the survey, a pilot study was done in the Bole district, which has similar attributes to the study communities. This helped identify the understandability of terminologies, identify questions that may reflect any form of bias, consistency of terms, check the logical order of relevant open-ended questions, and enrich the content of the survey instrument.

2.3. Measures

A questionnaire was designed for the cross-sectional study consisting of five (5) measuring dimensions: background information including socio-demographic variables, water quality, water practice, water treatment system, and barriers to the implementation of water treatment systems. The questionnaire consisted of sixty-five (65) questions in total. Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the internal consistency and reliability of the data collected. A value of α = 0.903 was obtained.

2.4. Response Variable

The response variable used in this study was the willingness to accept and adopt a solar water disinfection treatment system for improving water quality for household use (coded as Willingness). Household purposes in the context of this study refer to processes such as drinking, bathing, washing clothes, and other domestic chores. Similarly, a solar water disinfection treatment system refers to a water system that relies on solar energy (UVA range, 315–400 nm) to disinfect water to meet the Ghana Water Company drinking water requirements and uses sunlight as its source of energy. The response variable (Willingness) was a dichotomous variable requiring a no or yes response from the respondents (household heads). These responses to this variable were coded 0 (no) and 1 (yes).

2.5. Key Predictor/Explanatory Variables

The key predictor variable (treatment of household water from the main source before use) and all other variables were selected based on literature, parsimony, model fit, practical significance, and theoretical relevance. Treatment of household water from the main source before use (hereafter treatment of water) was represented as a dichotomous variable, requiring respondents to answer “no = 0” or “yes = 1”.

2.6. Compositional and Contextual Factors

The compositional factors considered in this study were age in years (below 25, 25–30, 31–37, 38–44, 45–54, above 54), gender (male, female), household income (low, high), marital status (single, married, divorced, widow/widower), highest educational attainment (no formal education, primary, secondary, higher), household size (low, medium, high), and religion (Christian, Muslim, traditionalist). Compositional factors consist of biosocial and sociocultural attributes of a population, whereas biosocial traits have an underlying biological or physical component. Sociocultural attributes are attributes acquired by one’s position in the social system. Except for individual ethnicity, all biosocial factors are rooted in biology. Biosocial factors include gender, age, race, and ethnicity. Sociocultural factors include customs, beliefs, lifestyles, income, education, occupation, and values [26,27,28].
Contextual factors simply refer to geographical location and or environmental conditions. For this study, contextual factors considered are communities’ zones (Sawla, Gindabuo, Kalba, Tuna/Sanyeri). For parsimony and to establish sufficient cases in each sub-group, some of the variables observed, such as Marital status (divorced and widow/widower combined), and education (secondary and higher combined), were combined and recoded. Household income was measured as a continuous variable, however, for purposes of analyses it was grouped into two distinct categories using World Bank criteria, thus low income (earning <1.9 USD a day), and high income (earning >1.9 USD a day) [29]. A conversion rate of 1 USD = 15 Ghana Cedis was used to extrapolate the equivalent monthly income of households from the collated data into the two distinct sub-groups (Low and high income). Household size was measured as a continuous variable but for the purposes of analysis, it was grouped into low household size (0–5 members), medium household size (6–10 members), and high household size (above 10 members). Communities’ zones were derived by grouping the 27 communities into four distinct zones based on their locations (Table 2).

2.7. Data and Statistical Analyses

The data were subjected to both univariate/descriptive (Pearson’s chi-square and Cramer’s V statistics) and multivariate analyses (Complementary log-log regression) to evaluate the associations and proportions between predictor variables and households’ willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS for improving household water quality before use. Additionally, the analyses assess how households’ choice of treating water from the main source before use predicts their willingness to accept and adopt a solar water disinfection treatment system while controlling for theoretically relevant biosocial, sociocultural, and contextual factors. All data coding, cleaning, and analyses were performed using Stata 15 (StataCorp., College Station, TX, USA) SE software.

2.8. Multivariate Regression

Generalized linear models (GLMs)—complementary log-log regression models— were run at the multivariate level to assess the relationship between households’ willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS and the key predictor variable (treatment of water before use). The complementary log-log regression model is appropriate for a dependent binary response variable (no = 0, yes = 1) if the responses are asymmetric in the (0, 1) interval for which the affirmative is more than 55% [27,30]. Ninety-seven percent (97%) of the respondents responded “yes” to accept and adopt a SODIS for improving household water quality before use. The complementary log-log regression model which requires the affirmative should be more likely, gives a better representation, and was used for the analysis. The model estimations were reported as exponential coefficients- odds ratios (ORs). An OR > 1 means the predictor is associated with higher odds of households’ willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS; an OR = 1 means that the predictor does not affect the odds of households’ willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS; an OR < 1 means that the predictor is associated with lower odds of households’ willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS. The study employed a statistical significance level (p value) set at 0.05 with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Three models were run. Model 1 included treatment of water before use and biosocial factors, treatment of water before use, biosocial factors, and sociocultural factors (model 2), and treatment of water before use, biosocial factors, sociocultural factors, and contextual factors (model 3).

2.9. Ethical Statement

The purpose of the research work was disclosed to the communities’ authorities and participants. Oral consent was obtained from each participant before the research commenced, and all respondents willingly took part in the study without coercion. Local authorities and participants were made to understand how important their information could help improve continuous access to clean water.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

The distribution of households’ willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS and independent variables are presented in the contingency table (Table 3). Generally, households’ willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS was 97%. The results show that 99% of households that treat their water at home before use are willing to accept and adopt a SODIS, while households that do not treat their water before use reported 96% willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS. Households with high income and low income reported 98% and 96% willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS, respectively. Females and males’ proportions of willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS were, respectively, 96% and 98%.

Measures of Association

The observed differences in households’ willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS, treatment of water before use, as well as compositional and contextual factors, were evaluated using Pearson chi-square (χ2) and Cramer’s V statistic.
The Pearson chi-square statistic results (Table 3) reveal that treatment of household water before use (χ2 = 8.8863, p = 0.003), age of household head (χ2 = 19.6873, p = 0.001), marital status (χ2 = 6.0191, p = 0.049), religion (χ2 = 12.9472, p = 0.002) were all significant, signifying there is a relationship between these variables and willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS. These associations, however, are all weak associations as revealed by the Cramer’s V statistics (Table 3). Gender, household income, household size, highest educational attainment, and community zones were not statistically significant.

3.2. Multivariate Statistical Analyses

Three (3) models were run at the multivariate level (Table 4). Treatment of household water before use and biosocial factors (model 1), socio-cultural factors (model 2), and contextual factors (model 3) were performed to assess their relationship with households’ willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS for improving household water quality before use. The complementary log-log regression model output (Table 4) shows the OR, robust standard error (SE), probability values, and CIs in the models.
Model 1 results indicated that households that treat their water before use are 68% more likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to their counterparts that do not treat their water before use (OR = 1.682, p < 0.05). Additionally, the model revealed that household heads in the age groups 38–44 (OR = 0.584, p < 0.05) and older (>54 years) (OR = 0.460, p < 0.05) are respectively 42% and 54% less likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to the reference group (less than 25 years).
Socio-cultural factors were considered in model 2. The relationship between the treatment of household water before use and households’ willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS remained robust. Households that treat their water before use (66%, p < 0.05) are more likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to the reference group (no treatment of water before use). The results output shows that household heads in the age categories 31–37 (59%, p < 0.05), 38–44 (66%, p < 0.05), 45–54 (58%, p < 0.05), and Above 54 years (66%, p < 0.05) were all less likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to the reference group (<25 years). The model results equally show that married household heads (97%, p < 0.05) are more likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to their counterparts who are single. Highest educational attainment was equally controlled for in model 2. The results show that household heads who attained higher education (1.654, p < 0.05) are 65% more likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to their counterparts who had no formal education. The results also revealed that Muslim households (0.754, p < 0.05) are less likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to the reference group (Christians). Gender of household head and household size were not significant predictors of households’ willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS in model 2 (Table 4).
When the contextual factor was accounted for in model 3, the odds observed in model 2 for the relationship between the treatment of water before use and willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS became more robust. Households that treat their water before use (66%, p < 0.05) are more likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to the reference group (no treatment of water). Household heads aged 31–37 (63%, p < 0.05), 38–44 (69%, p < 0.05), 45–54 (62%, p < 0.05), and above 54 years (69%, p < 0.05) were all less likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to those in the below 25 years category. The model output equally shows that household heads who are married (2.048, p < 0.05) are more likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to the reference group (single). Household heads with the highest educational attainment (63%, p < 0.05) are more likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to the reference category (no formal education). The results also revealed that Muslim households (26%, p < 0.05) are less likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to the reference group (Christians). The gender of the household head and household size were not significant predictors of households’ willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS, just as observed in model 2. Households in the Kalba zone (72%, p < 0.05) are more likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to those in the Sawla zone.

4. Discussion

This study assessed the effect of household water treatment before use on willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS in selected communities in the STK district of Ghana while controlling for relevant compositional and contextual factors. There is evidence from various settings that socio-cultural factors influence the choice of drinking water and more particularly water from a solar disinfection treatment system [31,32,33,34]. Generally, households’ willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS was high (97%). Different studies highlight the importance of achieving a critical 50% proportion of willingness to accept a SODIS to achieve sustained adoption [35]. Our results underscore that pre-assessments of the compositional and contextual factors predict willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS in setting-specific dimensions where no central water purification options can be provided.
As described in the studies of Luzi et al. [36] SODIS has the potential to gain the acceptance of many water users worldwide who decide to apply the method for its advantages in terms of effectiveness, low cost, as well as availability and affordability of required materials. The acceptance and adoption of a particular technology for water treatment in a population is largely influenced by the receptiveness of potential adopters, characteristics of the new technology, and government policy, among others [37]. However, our findings contradict with the works of Nuño Martínez et al. [33] who reported that solar water disinfection treatment systems are not desirable in rural Andean Bolivia despite its local public image as a simple, safe, low-cost means of preparing safe drinking water. The authors added that participants of the study still consume “raw” water even after asserting the fact that “raw” water may contain pathogenic microorganisms that could cause diseases.
In Bolivia, other studies reported taste as a predictor of current and intended use of a solar water disinfection system [38,39]. Also, studies by Halperin et al. [40] in Peru believed that water from a solar water disinfection treatment system caused stomach-aches compared to piped water. A study carried out in Indonesia revealed that although SODIS was considered to provide larger economic and time-saving benefits, negative perceptions of its taste and odour hinder its adoption [41]. These differences could be a result of some cultural norms and values that the population could be attached to.
Different acceptance and adoption proportions of SODIS are reported in the literature that fall below the 97% found in this study. These differences could be attributed to several factors including the geographical location and the terminologies used in the various studies during the study periods and more importantly the availability of other improved water infrastructure. Lack of potable water in rural communities where centralized systems cannot be provided, coupled with disease incidence, are good reasons for them to accept a technology that will improve their household water quality. It is also obvious that many households in rural areas are aware of the poor quality of their water source hence, resort to treating their household water before use [21,42].
We found that household-level characteristics such as treatment of household water before use, age of household head, marital status, educational attainment, and religion are significant predictors of willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS in the STK district of Ghana. Our findings confirm the works of Moser and Mosler [35] that found that existing knowledge about the need to treat drinking water predicted early solar water disinfection system adoption.
Older household (greater than 25 years) heads were all less likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to those below the 25-year category. Older people are more tied to their beliefs and custom values. They tend to argue about the feasibility of emerging technologies and the health impacts and, therefore, do not readily accept new technologies compared to younger individuals.
Married household heads are more likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to their single counterparts. Married individuals in Ghana, and more particularly the study district, have larger household sizes compared with single-household heads [43]. The higher household size means a greater demand for water to meet the needs of the household members. This implies that the treatment of household water before use at the household level will require greater efforts and resources compared to single households. Christen et al. [44], in their study, found that households that were more likely to use a SODIS were those that included women.
Household heads with the highest educational attainment have higher odds of accepting and adopting a SODIS compared to their counterparts with no formal education. This may be attributed to the fact that educated people appreciate the benefits and costs of using improved household water. Nonetheless, highly educated people are more hesitant to accept that SODIS could provide drinking water free of microbial contaminants and hence, need to be convinced with examples from field demonstrations in different settings [16]. These findings align with the work by Meierhofer and Landolt [45]. The authors reported that more highly educated people, such as teachers, health workers, or village leaders, were more difficult to convince that SODIS can efficiently treat drinking water. Solar water disinfection demonstrations in Bolivia and Nepal, as well as a project evaluation in Kenya, reported that once doubts on disinfection efficiency are dispelled, people with higher education and economic statuses are more likely to adopt a SODIS [45,46]. A field study by Altherr et al. [47] in Nicaragua, revealed that the intention to use a solar disinfection system and the actual use of a SODIS are mainly dependent on the overall positive attitude and ability to inspire confidence in the new technology.
Our results suggest that there are substantial geographical inequalities in willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS across the STK district. This probably could be influenced by the differences in economic growth, infrastructure development, government and nongovernmental organizations interventions, etc., in the district [34,48]. As communities in the Sawla zone see more improved water infrastructure like pipes and boreholes in the district capital (Sawla), they would preferably wish for similar water infrastructure in their communities. Additionally, several communities lacking improved water sources are being promised boreholes or other improved water sources by political parties (respondents assert). Promises of political parties for power to rule the district are unfulfilled and therefore make some communities prefer one water treatment technology to another. This is not different in the STK district. It is therefore clear that communities in the Sawla zone have other alternative improved water sources compared to those in the Kalba zone. Studies have shown that governments and relevant stakeholders need to deliberately adopt strategies that target deprived areas and population groups in order to achieve universally improved water coverage [48,49]. It is therefore important that the government and other organisations that are into the provision of potable water consider decentralized solar water disinfection treatment systems.

5. Limitations of the Study

In this study, we identified some compositional and contextual predictors of the adoption and acceptance of SODIS in the STK district, applying quantitative methods. The design of this study did not allow for making any inferences to governmental support, and legal frameworks, as well as characteristics of the new technology. Different authors highlighted other factors that are associated with the implementation and adoption of a SODIS [37]. Adopting a multi-level perspective when studying the acceptance and adoption of a SODIS, such as the analysis of enabling environments and other system factors, economic opportunities, and drivers of behaviour change, is critical [33]. To holistically assess the willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS to possibly lead to the implementation of such systems in communities lacking potable water, the barriers and enabling factors need to be assessed. Future research designs in the same study district focusing on the barriers and enabling factors to implement a SODIS would provide better evidence for in-depth conclusions to be drawn on the implementation and adoption of SODIS in the STK district.

6. Conclusions

This current study examined the effects of household water treatment before use on willingness to accept and adopt a SODIS in selected communities in the STK district of Ghana. Based on our findings, a greater proportion of households (97%) are willing to accept and adopt a SODIS. Compositional and contextual factors such as age, marital status, education, religion, and geographical location significantly contribute to households’ willingness to accept and adopt SODIS in the STK district of Ghana. Households that treat their water before use are more likely to accept and adopt SODIS compared to their counterparts that do not treat their household water before use. Older household heads were all less likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to those below the 25-year category. Married household heads are more likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to their counterparts who are single. Household heads with the highest educational attainment are more likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to the reference category (no formal education). Households in the Kalba zone are more likely to accept and adopt a SODIS compared to those in the Sawla zone. The findings in this study reveal that scaling up SODIS in the STK district is sacrosanct and highlight the necessity to analyse compositional and contextual factors influencing willingness to accept and adopt SODIS. Our findings will inform policies and programs aimed at implementing SODIS in the study area to improve the health of communities that rely on poor-quality drinking water sources. We recommend that future research designs in the same study district should focus on the barriers and enabling factors to implement SODIS to provide better evidence for in-depth conclusions to be drawn on the implementation and adoption of SODIS in the STK district.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.-R.A.; methodology, A.-R.A. and E.K.A.A.; software, A.-R.A.; validation, A.-R.A. and E.K.A.A.; formal analysis, A.-R.A.; investigation, A.-R.A.; resources, A.-R.A. and E.K.A.A.; data curation, A.-R.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.-R.A. and E.K.A.A.; writing—review and editing, A.-R.A. and E.K.A.A.; visualization, A.-R.A.; supervision, E.K.A.A.; project administration, A.-R.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

All data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Field Assistants—Dery Kelvin, Iddrisu Abubakari Afitiri, Seidu Issah, and Seidu Haruna for supporting the data collection process. Abdul-Rahaman Afitiri expresses his gratitude to the Graduate Research School (GRS) of the Brandenburg University of Technology and Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) for the financial support for his PhD and fieldwork.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ritchie, H.; Spooner, F.; Roser, M. Clean Water; Our World Data: Oxford, UK, 2024; Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/clean-water (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  2. Crispim, D.L.; Progênio, M.F.; Fernandes, L.L. Proposal for a tool for assessing access to water in rural communities: A case study in the brazilian semi-arid. Environ. Manag. 2022, 69, 529–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. WHO. Drinking-Water. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/drinking-water (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  4. Bitew, B.D.; Gete, Y.K.; Biks, G.A.; Adafrie, T.T. Barriers and Enabling Factors Associated with the Implementation of Household Solar Water Disinfection: A Qualitative Study in Northwest Ethiopia. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2020, 102, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. McGuinness, S.L.; O’Toole, J.; Barker, S.F.; Forbes, A.B.; Boving, T.B.; Giriyan, A.; Patil, K.; D’Souza, F.; Vhaval, R.; Cheng, A.C.; et al. Household water storage management, hygiene practices, and associated drinking water quality in rural India. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 4963–4973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Jones, A.Q.; Dewey, C.E.; Doré, K.; Majowicz, S.E.; McEwen, S.A.; David, W.-T.; Eric, M.; Carr, D.J.; Henson, S.J. Public perceptions of drinking water: A postal survey of residents with private water supplies. BMC Public Health 2006, 6, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mankad, A.; Tapsuwan, S. Review of socio-economic drivers of community acceptance and adoption of decentralised water systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 380–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Massoud, M.A.; Tarhini, A.; Nasr, J.A. Decentralized approaches to wastewater treatment and management: Applicability in developing countries. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 652–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ghisi, E.; Mengotti de Oliveira, S. Potential for potable water savings by combining the use of rainwater and greywater in houses in southern Brazil. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 1731–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mwenge Kahinda, J.; Taigbenu, A.E.; Boroto, J.R. Domestic rainwater harvesting to improve water supply in rural South Africa. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2007, 32, 1050–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nolde, E. Possibilities of rainwater utilisation in densely populated areas including precipitation runoffs from traffic surfaces. Desalination 2007, 215, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chen, R.; Wang, X.C. Cost–benefit evaluation of a decentralized water system for wastewater reuse and environmental protection. Water Sci. Technol. 2009, 59, 1515–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, D.; Gersberg, R.M.; Wilhelm, C.; Voigt, M. Decentralized water management: Rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse in an urban area of Beijing, China. Urban Water J. 2009, 6, 375–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Afitiri, A.-R.; Appah Aram, S.; Martienssen, M. Systematic review of the effects of advanced oxidation processes integration with solar water disinfection for improved drinking water production. Waste Manag. Bull. 2024, 1, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Burt, Z.; Njee, R.M.; Mbatia, Y.; Msimbe, V.; Brown, J.; Clasen, T.F.; Malebo, H.M.; Ray, I. User preferences and willingness to pay for safe drinking water: Experimental evidence from rural Tanzania. Soc. Sci. Med. 2017, 173, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hendrickson, C.; Oremo, J.; Akello, O.O.; Bunde, S.; Rayola, I.; Akello, D.; Akwiri, D.; Park, S.-J.; Dorevitch, S. Decentralized solar-powered drinking water ozonation in Western Kenya: An evaluation of disinfection efficacy. Gates Open Res. 2020, 4, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wolf, J.; Prüss-Ustün, A.; Cumming, O.; Bartram, J.; Bonjour, S.; Cairncross, S.; Clasen, T.; Colford Jr, J.M.; Curtis, V.; De France, J.; et al. Systematic review: Assessing the impact of drinking water and sanitation on diarrhoeal disease in low- and middle-income settings: Systematic review and meta-regression. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2014, 19, 928–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Brown, J.; Proum, S.; Sobsey, M.D. Sustained use of a household-scale water filtration device in rural Cambodia. J. Water Health 2009, 7, 404–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Luby, S.P.; Mendoza, C.; Keswick, B.H.; Chiller, T.M.; Hoekstra, R.M. Difficulties in bringing point-of-use water treatment to scale in rural Guatemala. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2008, 78, 382–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schmidt, W.-P. The elusive effect of water and sanitation on the global burden of disease. Trop. Med. Int. Health 2014, 19, 522–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schmidt, W.-P.; Cairncross, S. Household water treatment in poor populations: Is there enough evidence for scaling up now? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 986–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chaúque, B.J.M.; Rott, M.B. Solar disinfection (SODIS) technologies as alternative for large-scale public drinking water supply: Advances and challenges. Chemosphere 2021, 281, 130754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cook, S.; Tjandraatmadja, G.; Ho, A.; Sharma, A. Definition of Decentralised Systems in the South East Queensland Context; Urban Water Security Research Alliance: Brisbane, Australia, 2008; Available online: https://sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/COOK%20et%20al%202009%20Definition%20of%20Decentralised%20Systems%20in%20the%20South%20East%20Queensland%20Context.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2024).
  24. Ghana Statistical Service. 2010 Population & Housing Census: Demographic, Social, Economic & Housing Characteristics; Ghana Statistical Service: Accra, Ghana, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ghana Statistical Service. Ghana 2021 Population and Housing Census General Report Volume 3A; Ghana Statistical Service: Accra, Ghana, 2021. Available online: https://statsghana.gov.gh/gssmain/fileUpload/pressrelease/2021%20PHC%20General%20Report%20Vol%203A_Population%20of%20Regions%20and%20Districts_181121.pdf (accessed on 10 August 2024).
  26. Ahadzi, D.F.; Afitiri, A.-R.; Ahadzi, E. Organizational safety culture perceptions of healthcare workers in Ghana: A cross-sectional interview study. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. Adv. 2021, 3, 100020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Armah, F.A.; Ekumah, B.; Yawson, D.O.; Odoi, J.O.; Afitiri, A.-R.; Nyieku, F.E. Access to improved water and sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa in a quarter century. Heliyon 2018, 4, e00931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Pol, L.G.; Thomas, R.K. The Demography of Health and Health Care; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  29. World Bank. Monitoring Global Poverty: Report of the Commission on Global Poverty; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-4648-0961-3. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bryant, I.M.; Afitiri, A.-R. Household willingness to adopt a single-stage solar-supported hyper-thermophilic anaerobic biogas digester in Ghana. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2021, 11, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. de França Doria, M. Factors influencing public perception of drinking water quality. Water Policy 2009, 12, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kaplan, M. Lonely drinking fountains and comforting coolers: Paradoxes of water value and ironies of water use. Cult. Anthropol. 2011, 26, 514–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nuño Martínez, N.; Muela Ribera, J.; Hausmann-Muela, S.; Cevallos, M.; Hartinger, S.M.; Christen, A.; Mäusezahl, D. The meanings of water: Socio-cultural perceptions of solar disinfected (SODIS) drinking water in Bolivia and implications for its uptake. Water 2020, 12, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yasar, A.; Khan, N.Y.; Batool, A.; Tabinda, A.B.; Mehmood, R.; Iqbal, A. Women perception of water quality and its impacts on health in Gangapur, Pakistan. Pak. J. Nutr. 2011, 10, 702–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Moser, S.; Mosler, H.-J. Differences in influence patterns between groups predicting the adoption of a solar disinfection technology for drinking water in Bolivia. Soc. Sci. Med. 2008, 67, 497–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Luzi, S.; Gurung, P.; Meierhofer, R.; Wegelin, M. User Acceptance: The Key to Evaluating SODIS and Other Methods for Household Water Treatment and Safe Storage. 2009. Available online: https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/User_acceptance_the_key_to_evaluating_SODIS_and_other_methods_for_household_water_treatment_and_safe_storage/9585584/files/17224250.pdf (accessed on 29 July 2024).
  37. O’Callaghan, P.; Daigger, G.; Adapa, L.; Buisman, C. Development and application of a model to study water technology adoption. Water Environ. Res. 2018, 90, 563–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Heri, S.; Mosler, H.-J. Factors affecting the diffusion of solar water disinfection: A field study in Bolivia. Health Educ. Behav. 2008, 35, 541–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tamas, A.; Mosler, H.-J. Why do people stop treating contaminated drinking water with Solar Water Disinfection (SODIS)? Health Educ. Behav. 2011, 38, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Halperin, M.; Paz-Soldán, V.A.; Quispe, V.; Paxton, A.; Gilman, R.H. Sustainability of solar disinfection to provide safe drinking water in rural Peru. Public Health Rep. 2011, 126, 762–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Roma, E.; Bond, T.; Jeffrey, P. Factors involved in sustained use of point-of-use water disinfection methods: A field study from Flores Island, Indonesia. J. Water Health 2014, 12, 573–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Azamzam, A.A.; Rafatullah, M.; Yahya, E.B.; Ahmad, M.I.; Lalung, J.; Alharthi, S.; Alosaimi, A.M.; Hussein, M.A. Insights into solar disinfection enhancements for drinking water treatment applications. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kpessa-Whyte, M. Aging and demographic transition in Ghana: State of the elderly and emerging issues. Gerontologist 2018, 58, 403–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Christen, A.; Duran Pacheco, G.; Hattendorf, J.; Arnold, B.F.; Cevallos, M.; Indergand, S.; Colford, J.M.; Mäusezahl, D. Factors associated with compliance among users of solar water disinfection in rural Bolivia. BMC Public Health 2011, 11, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Meierhofer, R.; Landolt, G. Factors supporting the sustained use of solar water disinfection—Experiences from a global promotion and dissemination programme. Desalination 2009, 248, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rainey, R.C.; Harding, A.K. Drinking water quality and solar disinfection: Effectiveness in peri-urban households in Nepal. J. Water Health 2005, 3, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Altherr, A.-M.; Mosler, H.-J.; Tobias, R.; Butera, F. Attitudinal and relational factors predicting the use of solar water disinfection: A field study in Nicaragua. Health Educ. Behav. 2008, 35, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pullan, R.L.; Freeman, M.C.; Gething, P.W.; Brooker, S.J. Geographical Inequalities in Use of Improved Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation across Sub-Saharan Africa: Mapping and Spatial Analysis of Cross-sectional Survey Data. PLoS Med. 2014, 11, e1001626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tuyet-Hanh, T.T.; Lee, J.-K.; Oh, J.; Van Minh, H.; Ou Lee, C.; Hoan, L.T.; Nam, Y.-S.; Long, T.K. Household trends in access to improved water sources and sanitation facilities in Vietnam and associated factors: Findings from the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, 2000–2011. Glob. Health Action 2016, 9, 29434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
World 05 00060 g001
Figure 1. Map of the study area.
Figure 1. Map of the study area.
World 05 00060 g001
Table 1. Selected communities in the STK district.
Table 1. Selected communities in the STK district.
IDCommunityIDCommunityIDCommunity
CP 1LiimeteyCP 11VomgbeCP 21Nasoyiri
CP 2JambarCP 12JingoCP 22Jobriyiri
CP 3TuonboCP 13ParadoriCP 23Nyangekura
CP 4KonkrompeCP 14NegberCP 24Nyange
CP 5NakwabiCP 15KanchengCP 25Neon
CP 6NaafaCP 16KulmasaCP 26Vondiel
CP 7NahariCP 17YipalaCP 27Kalba
CP 8KunfunsiCP 18Soma
CP 9JokolpoCP 19Blema
CP 10JieyiriCP 20Digzie
Table 2. Communities’ zones.
Table 2. Communities’ zones.
ZoneCommunity
Sawla Blema, Digzie, Jambar, Jobriyiri, Konkrompe, Liimetey, Nyange, Nyage kura
GindabuoJokokura, Vomgbe, Paradore, Negber, Kancheng, Ne-on, Vondiel
KalbaNasoyiri, Tuonbo, Kunfunsi, Jeiyiri, Jingo, Kalba
Tuna/Sanyeri Nafaa, Nakwabi, Nahare, Yipala, Soma, Jokolpo
Table 3. Percentage distribution of households’ willingness to accept and adopt a solar water disinfection system by predictor values (n = 1155).
Table 3. Percentage distribution of households’ willingness to accept and adopt a solar water disinfection system by predictor values (n = 1155).
VariableHouseholds’ Willingness to Accept and Adopt a Solar Water Disinfection System
No (%)Yes (%)Inferential Statistics
Treatment of water from the main source
No496Pearson chi2 = 8.8863 (Pr = 0.003; Cramér’s V = 0.0877)
Yes199
Household income
Low496Pearson chi2 = 3.8081 (Pr = 0.051; Cramér’s V = 0.0574)
High298
Gender
Male298Pearson chi2 = 3.5575 (Pr = 0.059; Cramér’s V = −0.0555)
Female496
Age group (years)
24 and below199Pearson chi2 = 19.6873 (Pr = 0.001; Cramér’s V = 0.1306)
25–30199
31–37298
38–44595
45–54397
55 and above1090
Highest educational attainment
No education496Pearson chi2 = 97.4883 (Pr = 0.000; Cramér’s V = 0.0785)
Primary496
Secondary0100
Higher199
Marital status
Single199Pearson chi2 = 6.0191 (Pr = 0.049; Cramér’s V = 0.0722)
Maried397
Divorced/Widow/Widower892
Household size
Small (0–5)298Pearson chi2 = 1.9855 (Pr = 0.371; Cramér’s V = 0.0417)
Medium (6–10)496
Large (>11)496
Religion
Christian298Pearson chi2 = 12.9472 (Pr = 0.002; Cramér’s V = 0.1059)
Muslim595
Traditional1288
Community zones
Sawla397Pearson chi2 = 3.5461 (Pr = 0.315; Cramér’s V = 0.0554)
Gindabuo397
Kalba 199
Tuna/Sanyeri496
n1155
Table 4. Complementary log-log regression model showing the relationship between households’ willingness to accept and adopt a solar water disinfection system and household characteristics.
Table 4. Complementary log-log regression model showing the relationship between households’ willingness to accept and adopt a solar water disinfection system and household characteristics.
VariableTreatment of Water Before Use + Biosocial Factors+ Socio-Cultural Factors+ Contextual Factors
ORSEp Value Conf. IntervalORSEp Value Conf. IntervalORSEp ValueConf. Interval
Model 1Model 2Model 3
Treat household water before usage (ref: No)
Yes1.682 0.326 0.007 1.151 2.45841.663 0.305 0.0061.1612.3831.6620.2890.0031.1822.337
Gender (ref: Male)
Female0.826 0.089 0.076 0.669 1.02010.8460.1010.1630.6691.0700.8020.0970.0680.6331.017
Age group (ref: <25 years)
25–301.04960.30420.8670.5951.8520.8370.3210.6420.3941.7760.7990.3130.5670.3701.722
31–370.72860.17760.1940.4521.1750.4100.1550.0190.1950.8610.3740.1490.0140.1710.817
38–440.58360.13690.0220.3690.9240.3430.1330.0060.1600.7330.3080.1240.0040.1400.680
45–540.69890.17160.1450.4321.1310.4240.1710.0340.1920.9360.3800.1600.0220.1660.869
>54 0.46010.13860.0100.2550.8300.3420.1530.0160.1420.8220.3060.1430.0110.1230.764
Household income (ref: Low)
High 1.1130.1400.3940.8701.4241.1710.1550.2310.9041.517
Marital status (ref: Single)
Married 1.9960.5210.0081.1973.3302.0480.5580.0091.2003.493
Divorced/Widow/Widower1.7020.5620.1070.8913.2521.7910.6250.0950.9043.548
Highest Educational (ref: No formal education)
Primary 0.8740.1400.4010.6381.1970.8030.1330.1850.5811.111
Higher1.6540.3070.0071.1502.3791.6330.3270.0141.1022.418
Household size (ref: Low (0–5))
Medium (6–10) 0.9480.1180.6670.7431.2090.9190.1180.5090.7151.181
High (>11)0.9620.1710.8270.6791.3630.9600.1720.8180.6751.363
Religion (ref: Christian)
Muslim 0.7540.1060.0440.5730.9920.7360.1090.0390.5500.985
Traditional0.6540.1700.1020.3931.0890.6750.1720.1240.4091.113
Communities zones (ref: Sawla)
Gindabuo 1.0430.1590.7840.7731.406
Kalba 1.7150.3110.0031.2032.446
Tuna/Sanyeri 0.9960.1320.9760.7691.291
n115511551155
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Afitiri, A.-R.; Afrifa, E.K.A. Households’ Willingness to Use Water from a Solar Water Disinfection Treatment System for Household Purposes. World 2024, 5, 1181-1193. https://doi.org/10.3390/world5040060

AMA Style

Afitiri A-R, Afrifa EKA. Households’ Willingness to Use Water from a Solar Water Disinfection Treatment System for Household Purposes. World. 2024; 5(4):1181-1193. https://doi.org/10.3390/world5040060

Chicago/Turabian Style

Afitiri, Abdul-Rahaman, and Ernest Kofi Amankwa Afrifa. 2024. "Households’ Willingness to Use Water from a Solar Water Disinfection Treatment System for Household Purposes" World 5, no. 4: 1181-1193. https://doi.org/10.3390/world5040060

APA Style

Afitiri, A. -R., & Afrifa, E. K. A. (2024). Households’ Willingness to Use Water from a Solar Water Disinfection Treatment System for Household Purposes. World, 5(4), 1181-1193. https://doi.org/10.3390/world5040060

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop