See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359905537

Water Supply Accessibility and Associated Factors Among Households of

Jigjiga Town, Eastern Ethiopia

Article in Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning · January 2020

CITATION READS

1 801

3 authors, including:

Tesfaye Gobena Bezatu Mengistie Alemu

88 PUBLICATIONS 1,282 CITATIONS

College of Health and Medical Sciences
133 PUBLICATIONS 3,533 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bezatu Mengistie Alemu on 12 April 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning
2020; 5(1): 1-11
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/larp
doi: 10.11648/j.larp.20200501.11
ISSN: 2637-4358 (Print); ISSN: 2637-4374 (Online)

Water Supply Accessibility and Associated Factors Among

Households of Jigjiga Town, Eastern Ethiopia
Dereje Abate Chekol*, Tesfaye Gobena, Bezatu Mengiste
College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia

Email address:
*
Corresponding author

To cite this article:

Dereje Abate Chekol, Tesfaye Gobena, Bezatu Mengiste. Water Supply Accessibility and Associated Factors Among Households of Jigjiga
Town, Eastern Ethiopia. Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning. Vol. 5, No. 1, 2020, pp. 1-11. doi: 10.11648/j.larp.20200501.11

Received: October 8, 2019; Accepted: December 25, 2019; Published: February 11, 2020

Abstract: Access to improved water source for drinking and other domestic uses is a major developmental challenge in many
developing countries like Ethiopia due to its different geological formations and climatic conditions water distribution is uneven
spatial and temporal across Ethiopia country. Even though accessible water supply is a critical issue to ensure the quality of life
there no study conduct on Water accessibility in Jigjiga town before, therefore this study was aimed to assess the accessibility of
water supply and associated factors among residents of town on May 2016. Community based cross sectional study design was
used and 408 households and 14 key informant was randomly and purposive selected for quantitative and qualitative approaches
respectively. All independent variables with p- value of < 0.3 at bivariate analysis were included in multivariate model to
determine the predictors of the outcome variable, and to control the confounding factors. Overall 56.7% of households reported
using an improved water source as the main source of drinking water supply within recommended distance and only 35.2% of
households consume 20 liters per person per day and less than half households (44.8%) affordable to water supply access (pay
less than five percent of their income). Combining these three indicators results only a fifth of households (19%) of households
accessible to water supply that meet standard. Head of household with higher level of education [(AOR=4.2, 95% CI (1.0, 18.06)]
and those having private pipe water supply [(AOR=19.1, 95% CI: (5.1, 71.39)] were identified as positively significant
associated factors with water accessibility compared to those who cannot read and write and those that share water from neighbor
pipe respectively. Access to water supply in the study area was very low. Therefore, those local authorities must pay special
emphasis to improve accessibility and reliability of water supply and closely supervise and monitor private water vendors.
Further in-depth studies should also be encouraged to look for improved interventions.

Keywords: Accessibility, Affordability, Household, Water Source

The MDG drinking water target, to halve the proportion of

1. Introduction the population without sustainable access to safe drinking
Access to improved water for drinking and other domestic water (an increase in coverage from 76% to 88%) between
uses, such as bathing, cooking and washing of clothes, is a 1990 and 2015, was met in
major developmental challenge in many developing countries. 2010. Between 1990 and 2012, 2.3 billion people gained
Almost 1.1 billion people worldwide do not have access to access to an improved drinking water source; raising global
clean water and over twice this number, more than 2.5 billion, coverage to 89% in 2012. There has been an impressive
lack access to basic sanitation facilities. More than 80% of growth in the use of piped connections to a dwelling, plot or
these 2.5 billion people are in Asia and Sub- Saharan Africa as yard. Approximately 70% of the 2.3 billion people who gained
documented by the World Health Organization (WHO) and access to an improved drinking water source between 1990
the United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF) in 2009 [1]. In a and 2012 gained access to piped water on the premises.
WHO 2010 study, it was reported that only 35% of the urban Seventh percent of the 1.6 billion people who gained access to
population in Sub Saharan Africa have access to a piped water piped water on premises live in urban areas [3].
connection in their households [2]. Africa has the lowest water supply and sanitation coverage
2 Dereje Abate Chekol et al.: Water Supply Accessibility and Associated Factors Among
Households of Jigjiga Town, Eastern Ethiopia

of any region in the world. More than 30% of Africans also for their various domestic needs to sustain good health.
residing in urban areas currently lack access to adequate Domestic water supplies are one of the fundamental
water services and facilities. In the year 2000, WHO requirements for human life. Without water, life cannot be
estimated that Africa contains 28% of the world’s population sustained beyond a few days and the lack of access to adequate
without water access to improved water supplies, and 13% of water supplies leads to the spread of disease. Countries with
the world’s population, are without access to improved different stages of development tend to have different water
sanitation. Only 62% of the people in African countries have supply and demand status. The lack of safe drinking water,
access to improved water supplies, and only 60% have particularly in developing countries, is becoming an increasingly
access to improved sanitation [4]. serious global topic. Developed countries are more likely access
Access rate to improved water supply sources hardly to water than developing countries. For instance in sub-Saharan
increased in urban Sub-Saharan Africa since the late 90’s. The Africa only 60% of the total population in the sub-continent is
percent of the urban population that had access to improved using improved sources of drinking water [7].
water supply only increased from 67 in the late 90’s to 69 Pertinent information on household’s water accessibility is
percent in the late 2000’s. This represented an increase of 63 necessary to properly assess the factors that affect water
million urban dwellers gaining access to improved water accessibility. Several factors affect water accessibility of the
supply from 135 to about 199 million since late 90’s. households. According to the studies that have been conducted in
According to EDHS (2011) report, more than half of the different areas including in Ethiopia, water accessibility could be
households in Ethiopia (54 percent) have access to an affected by different factors. Some of these factors are
improved source of drinking water, with a much higher socio-demographic factors as gender, age, education, income,
proportion among urban households (95%) than among rural household size, housing condition; nature of employment and
households (42%). The most common source of improved topographical variation; water source and its type [8].
drinking water in urban households is piped water, used by 87 Provision of physically accessible and affordable water for
percent of urban households. In contrast, only 19 percent of personal and domestic uses is not only a socioeconomic and
rural households have access to piped water. Eleven percent of developmental issue, but also an issue of self-respect, human
rural households have access to drinking water from a dignity and public health [6]. Therefore, this study was
protected spring, and 8 percent have access to drinking water designed to assess accessibility of water supply in Jigjiga town
from a protected well. Nationally, the proportion of Ethiopian to give insight about magnitude of the problem.
households with access to piped water has increased from 18
percent in 2000 to 24 percent in 2005 and 34 percent in 2011. 2. Methods and Materials
In the last six years there has been a rapid increase in the
percentage of households in Ethiopia that use some type of 2.1. Study Area and Study Period
improved source of drinking water, from 35 percent in the
2005 EDHS to 54 percent in the 2011 EDHS [5]. The study was conducted in Jigjiga city administration from
The U. N. Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural May 15- 30, 2016. This is located in the Faffan zone of, Somali
Rights defines the water in the following way: “The human region that is 631 km from Addis Ababa. Jigjiga city
right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, administration has an estimated total population of 159,300 of
physically accessible and affordable water for personal and whom 81,789 are men and 77,511 are women Based on the
domestic uses.” The Committee has identified five-core Central Statistical Agency Ethiopian city and towns population
components quality, accessibility, acceptability, affordability estimation projection of 2015. The four largest ethnic groups
and availability as comprising the human right to water, which reported in this town were the Somali (61.58%), the Amara
together are “indispensable for leading a life in human dignity.” (23.25%), the Oromo (7.32%), and the Gurage (4.37%); all other
Quality and affordability, the aspects of the right of primary ethnic groups made up 3.48% of the population. This city is
importance to the communities described in this hearing added some rural settlement from Jigjiga woreda.
request, have been defined and provide important standards As Jigjiga town water supply project data shows the only
for affected communities and governments alike. Quality is promising, water resource for Jigjiga town water supply
defined as water that is safe and does not pose a threat to project is ground water. In the existing system there are more
human health. Affordability refers to economic accessibility, than 21 boreholes drilled to serve the town.
includes all direct and indirect costs for securing water for 2.2. Study Design
domestic use, and should not compromise the realization of
other human rights. In 2010, the General Assembly adopted a A community based cross sectional study using quantitative
resolution recognizing the right to water and sanitation, and techniques and complemented by qualitative methods was used.
acknowledged the “importance of equitable access to safe and
clean drinking water and sanitation as an integral component 2.3. Population
of the realization of all human rights” [6]. 2.3.1. Source Population
Water is the core constituent of the human body and most of All households in Jigjiga town
the living species in this planet. A minimum quantity of water
must be available for individuals not only for their survival but 2.3.2. Study Population
 Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning 2020; 5(1): 1-11 3

( . ) . ( . )
All households in the four randomly selected Kebeles n= = 366
(kebele 05, 08, 12 and 15) ( . )

2.3.3. Study Units 1. Total number of sample size required for the study = 366
Selected households from Study population 2. Non-response rate of 10% (366) = 37.
3. Total sample size required for the study is 37+366=403.
2.4. Inclusion Exclusion Criteria For the specific objective two
Epi- info version 7.1.4 is used to calculate the sample size
2.4.1. Inclusion Criteria for the second specific objective: using double population
a) A household (home) which is normally used only for proportion formula with the following assumption: power of
residence and respondent should be resident in the the study to be 80%, 95% confidence level to be 1.96, and
household for more than six months and illegible the ratio of unexposed: exposed is almost equivalent to 1. A
respondent above 18 year study done in 16 town of Ethiopia shows that sex differential
b) For Key informants interview (KII) the respondent of household head were statistically significant on using
should have stayed more than three month in the office improved drinking water source, i.e. female-headed
2.4.2. Exclusion Criteria households depend on unimproved water sources (23%) than
Household if illegible respondent is absent (due to illness or male-headed households (12%) (P-value <0.001) ([10])
age). The required sample size is calculated using an equation:

2.5. Sample Size Calculation ! & (!'& )

[ "
#$( $) % $! ( $! ) "
]
=
For the specific objective one ($! $ )
To determine the required data, representative sample size
will be determined using formula for a single population n1 = sample size of households that used improved
proportion based on the following assumptions, Margin of drinking water sources were headed by females
error 5%, Confidence level 95%, Contingency for n2 = sample size of households that used improved
non-response rate 10%. Water supply accessibility of Awaday drinking water sources were headed by males
town is 39% in 2012 [9]. Let as Jigjiga town accessibility is r = n1/n2 = 2 that is taking one to 2 ratio.
the same. P=39% Zα/2=1.96 for the standard scale of 95% level of
confidence, Zβ = 0.84 considering 80% of power to detect a
( /2) (1 − )
=
difference of (P1-P2) 8%
p1 = proportion of households headed by females, 23%
p2 = proportion of households headed by males, 12%
Where, n=the total sample size required ) *)
Let P (pooled population proportion)=
d=marginal error *
Zα/2=critical value =1.96
P= (p1+rp2)/1+r=23+2*12/1+2=16
P=urban water supply accessibility of the region. = 39%
Thus, the sample size will be as follows.
Table 1. Sample size calculation for single population proportion.

Calculated Non-response Total sample

Specific objective Proportion/Factor (p)
sample size rate (10%) size
1 39% Proportion of water supply accessibility. 366 37 403
Male (12)
2 Head of Household respondent 408
Female (23)

Therefore, the maximum sample size 408 will be taken as was randomly selected from households list of each kebeles
a study participant. administration office then the first study unit was selected
randomly from the first 19 listed households then systematic
2.6. Sampling Procedures sampling method was followed for the next continuing study
2.6.1. Sampling Procedures for Quantitative Method unit using kebeles population proportion for assigned sample
Stratified sampling technique was used to select the study size=Kth=n/N (7771/403=19), which mean every the 19th
population. First, 18 kebeles will be identified and further household was selected.
stratified in to two strata based on the previous administration 2.6.2. Sampling Procedures for Qualitative Method
10 kebeles (01-10) and the new settlement 8 kebeles (11-18) In order to complement the data obtained by the use of
added from Jigjiga woreda, then from each stratum, two structured questionnaires a total of 14 KII participants were
kebeles will be randomly selected for the study. Secondly 403 selected from Water Supply office, Health office, Municipality
households will be randomly selected from the study kebele office who is professional related and have experience in
based on population proportion of kebele, thirdly study unit water supply and sanitation field of study and also kebele
4 Dereje Abate Chekol et al.: Water Supply Accessibility and Associated Factors Among
Households of Jigjiga Town, Eastern Ethiopia

administrative members who working with water and selected a participant for KII. Semi-structured questionnaires,
sanitation committee. Three (2) KII participants were selected which are open ended, was used to guide the interview.
from each office and kebeles. Principal investigator (PI)

Figure 1. Schematic presentation of quantitative sampling technique for assessment of Water supply accessibility & associated factors in Jigjiga town, Ethiopia
2016.

pretested in the kebele 09 that is similar to the study

2.7. Method of Data Collection population before beginning the actual data collection process
2.7.1. Quantitative Method and the necessary modification will be made.
The data will be collected using structured questionnaires, 2.7.2. Qualitative Methods
personal observation and checklist specially developed for The principal investigator (PI) moderated KII with the
this purpose by interviewing the respondents. assistance of trained note taker and tape recorder.
The questionnaires will be initially prepared in English and Semi-structured questionnaires, which are open ended, was
then translate into Amharic and Somali language. The used to guide the interviews.
Amharic and Somali version will again be translated back into
English to check for any inconsistencies or distortion in the 2.8. Operational Definitions
meaning of words and concepts.
Ten Health Extension Workers who can speak the local Accessible water supply: the availability of water at least 20
language will be recruited as data collectors and the data will Littre per capital per day from improved source within 200
be collected through house to house survey from illegible meter of the user’s dwelling or no more than 30 minutes one
respondent of household member who resident in the way to collect water and queuing time should be less than 15
household for more than six months. Two supervisors will be minutes and it should not take more than 3 minutes to fill a 20
selected from Jigjiga city health and education office that have Littre container [11] and water is deemed economic accessible
B. Sc. /BA holders. The responsibilities of the supervisors will (affordable) if a family’s or household’s monthly income spent
be checking whether the questionnaires are correctly on it does not exceed 5% [12].
completed or not. The enumerators and supervisors will be Household: in Ethiopian context, a person or group of
given training for three days on procedures, techniques and persons, whether or not they are related, who normally live
ways of collecting the data. The questionnaires will be together in the same housing unit or group of housing units
and who have common cooking arrangements.
 Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning 2020; 5(1): 1-11 5

2.9. Study Variables Independent variables with p-value of < 0.3 were included in
multi-variable analysis to control the confounding factors.
Dependent Variable: Then outliers and influential cases were checked by
Access to water supply standardized residuals and cook’s distance respectively. Cases
Independent Variables: with standardized residuals out of the interval (-3, 3) and
Socio-demographic factor cook’s distance above one were excluded from the
Sex of heads of households, marital status, Household size, multivariable analysis. Odds ratios with 95% CI were
Income, Education and Tenancy estimated to identify the factors associated with water
Water related factor accessibilities using multivariable logistic regression analysis.
Type of source, Distance from source, Amount &Water Level of statistical significance was declared at p-value <
Price 0.05.
Institutional factor
Maintenance service 2.10.3. Ethical Considerations
Technical factor Ethical clearance was secured from Haramaya University,
Functionality College of Health and Medical Science, Institutional Health
Research Ethics Review Committee (IHRERC). Support
2.10. Data management and Dissemination letter was also written from Somali regional health bureau to
2.10.1. Data Quality Assurance Jigjiga Town water supply and sewerage authority. Informed
The questionnaire was translated into the local languages written consent was obtained from each participant after
i.e. Somali and Amharic for data collection and then explaining the purpose and benefits of the study.
retranslated back into English. Two days training was Confidentiality of the study participants’ information was
provided to the data collectors and supervisors on the data also ensured.
collection tool and the data collection procedure. Then the 2.10.4. Information Dissemination
questionnaire was pretested on 5% of the sample size out of The report of the study will first be submitted and
the study area to ensure its validity. The supervisors and the presented to Haramaya University, and then the copies of the
principal investigator supervised data collectors closely. The report will be submitted to Somali regional health bureau,
principal investigator and the supervisors on daily basis Jigjiga Town water supply and sewerage authority, Town
checked completeness of each questionnaire. Two data clerks Municipality, and Health Offices. Attempt will be made to
entered data and consistency was crosschecked by comparing present on national and international conferences and
the two separately entered data on EpiData. Finally, workshops. Besides, publication on peer-reviewed journal
multivariate analysis was run in the binary logistic regression will be considered.
model to control the confounding factors.
2.10.2. Data Processing and Analysis 3. Result
The data were first coded, entered and cleaned using
EpiData version 3.1 and exported to SPSS statistical software 3.1. Socio-economic and Demographic Characteristics
version 16.0 for analysis. Descriptive statistical analysis such A total of 386 households were included in the study with
as simple frequencies, measures of central tendency and a response rate of 96%. Majority of household head 283
measures of variability were used to describe socio (73.3%) were male. The average age of the respondent was
demographic characteristics of participants such as sex of 37 (+11.29) years. The average family size of the respondents
household head, ethnicity, religion, educational level, marital was found to be 6.4 (+2.64 SD). The education level of the
status, occupation, tenancy and income. Then the information respondents ranges from minimum of not able to read and
was presented using frequencies, summary measures, tables write to the maximum of college graduate. From the total
and figures. respondents 54 (14%) can neither read nor write, 53 (13.7%)
Water accessibility was analyzed by computing WHO and able to read and write, 74 (19.2%) have completed primary
Water Aid criteria, WHO Component score was computed education, 125 (32.4%) have completed secondary school
based on source, distance, time and quantity (consumption and the remaining 80 (20.7%) have joined higher education.
rate) and finally Water Aid criteria cost affordability was The data about the occupation of the respondent shows that
computed to analysis overall water accessibility and 137 (35.5%) was merchant, 119 (30.8%) government
associated factors among households. employee, 56 (14.5%) daily laborer, 68 (17.6%)
On bivariate analysis, crude odds ratio with 95% CI was unemployed/pensioned and the rest 6 (1.6%) was other
used to see the association between each independent variable (Table 2).
and the outcome variable by using binary logistic regression.
Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondent at Jigjiga Town Somali Regional State, of Eastern Ethiopia, May 2016.

s/no Variables Frequency (%)

Male 283 (73.3)
1 Sex of HHH (n=386)
Female 103 (26.7)
6 Dereje Abate Chekol et al.: Water Supply Accessibility and Associated Factors Among
Households of Jigjiga Town, Eastern Ethiopia

s/no Variables Frequency (%)

Somali 240 (62.2)
Amhara 77 (19.9)
2 Ethnic group of HHH (n=386) Oromo 32 (8.3)
Gurage 22 (5.7)
Other 15 (3.9)
Muslim 271 (70.2)
3 HHH religion (n=386) Orthodox 102 (26.4)
Protestant 13 (3.4)
unable to read and write 54 (14)
read and write 53 (13.7)
4 Educational level of HHH (n=386) Primary complete (6-8) 74 (19.2)
junior complete (9-12) 80 (20.7)
college and above 125 (32.4)
Single 9 (2.3)
Married/partner 343 (88.9)
5 Respondent marital status (n=386)
Divorced/separated 28 (7.3)
Widowed 6 (1.6)
Merchant 122 (31.6)
government employee 13 (34.7)
6 Occupation of HHH (n=386) Daily labourer 52 (13.5)
unemployed/pensioned 73 (18.9)
Other 5 (1.3)
Private 293 (75.9)
7 Tenancy situation of respondent (n=386) Kebele 24 (6.2)
Rent from private 69 (17.9)

As results in table 2 indicate, majority 240 (62.2%) of respectively.

respondent were Somali and 271 (70.2%) were Muslim in Besides, additional information was collected from
religion. Concerning house related situation majority 343 respondents who had not pipeline connection. According to
(88.9%) and 293 (75.9%) of the respondent were married and the information from 248 (59.6%) households who are using
live in Private house respectively. The average monthly water from public tap and vender or private seller, why they do
income of the household is Birr 2610.52 ranging from the not have private pipe water supply, about 91 (36.7%), 58
maximum of Birr 8600 to the minimum of Birr 500 per (23.4%), 52 (21%), 43 (17.3%) and 4 (1.6%) of them were
month. due to service unavailability (complicated procedures set by
concerning body to get private connection), cost
3.2. Accessibility of Water Supply unaffordability, distance from main line, legality issue related
Of the total 386 households, 219 (56.7%) of them use with house and due to lack of space respectively
pipeline water supply that mean 138 (35.8%), 33 (8.5%) and Table 4. Average water consumption levels of study participants, Jigjiga,
48 (12.4%) use private pipe, standpipe and pipe water from 2016.
neighborhood, respectively, and the remaining 167 (43.3%)
No Average consumption l/p/d Frequency percentage
households got water from vendors which was not improved
1 5-9 4 1.0
source (Table 3). 2 10-14 114 29.5
3 15-19 132 34.2
Table 3. Source of water supply for study participants, Jigjiga, eastern 4 20-24 114 29.5
Ethiopia, 2016. 5 >25 22 5.7
No Water supply service status Frequency Percentage
1 private pipe 138 35.8 Out of 386 households about 219 (56.7%), 351 (90.9%),
2 stand pipe 33 8.5 356 (92.2%) and 136 (35.2%) of them had access to water
3 Vendor 167 43.3 supply in terms of source, time, distance and quantity
4 Neighbour 48 12.4 respectively. However only 85 (22%) of them had access to
Total 386 100
water supply as WHO 2003 guide lines.
Concerning water accessibility in terms of time and In addition to source, distance, time and adequacy, the
distance, out of 386 households the majority 305 (79.1%) of affordability of water has a significant influence on the use of
them use on site or delivered to home and the remaining 81 water and selection of water sources. Households with the lowest
(20.9%) of them use offsite water supply. From those off site levels of access to safe water supply frequently pay more for their
water supply users 46 (56.7%) and 51 (63%) of them get water than households connected to a piped water system. The
water less than 30 minutes of one way go and within 200 high cost of water may force households to use small quantities
meters respectively as WHO 2003 guideline. Overall out of of water and alternative sources of poor quality that represent a
386 households about 351 (90.9%) and 356 (92.2%) of them greater risk too (Public Health Protection, 2000). The study found
access to water supply in terms of time and distance that, only 170 (44.8%) of households were access to water supply
 Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning 2020; 5(1): 1-11 7

economically i.e. pay less than 5% of their monthly in come as water aid 2011 criteria.
Table 5. The effects of water point on it accessibility, jigjiga, 2016.

Water accessibility criteria Verses private pipe stand pipe vendor neighbor Total accessibility
type of water source No % No % No % No % No %
access 133 96% 11 33% 7 4% 18 38% 169 44%
1 cost water accessibility
in access 5 4% 22 67% 160 96% 30 63% 217 56%
access 72 52% 11 33% 44 26% 9 19% 136 35%
2 quantity water accessibility
in access 66 48% 22 67% 123 74% 39 81% 250 65%
access 138 100% 33 100% 0 0 48 100% 219 57%
3 source water accessibility
in access 0 0 0 167 100% 0 V 167 43%
access 138 100% 18 55% 166 99% 29 60% 351 91%
4 time water accessibility
in access 0 0 15 45% 1 1% 19 40% 35 9%
access 138 100% 21 64% 165 99% 30 63% 354 92%
5 distance accessibility
in access 0 12 36% 2 1% 18 38% 32 8%
Average accessibility of Water point 89.6% 57% 46% 56%

In table 5 the average accessibility of water supply was high 3.3. Water Supply Reliability
affected by it source, i.e. accessibility of water supply was
high for private pipe user and low for those buy from vendor. According to field observation result, inefficient
distribution of the provision of water supply service makes a
systems or conditions more complicated in the town. The
problem of line expansion was further exacerbated by steady
and rapid spatial expansion of the town crossing the existing
municipal boundary and influenced the pipeline extension
which in turn influenced pipeline connection. As far as faces
that were encountered by the community due to complete lack
of water supply around this new expand, part of the town and
peripheral area was high burden of people per public water
points. This involving that many people were queuing at water
points for long time that eventually result in tiredness for
water collectors and time, energy and rarely disturbance
occurred among people when wait in line disordered.
Besides to water reliability, out of 180 households only 17
(9%) of the respondents have daily taped water access for their
domestic consumption, from those 17 households only 2 (12%)
get daily 24 hours the left 15 (88%) get daily at certain hour.
Figure 2. Type of water source and its accessibility in terms of quantity. Regarding how often they get taped water within a week, 42
(26%) of the respondents have accessed to tape water less than
Cost accessibility of water supply was high for private once in a week, 39 (24%) of the respondents have accessed
pipe and very low for vendor (Figure 3). taped water 1-2 days in a week, 80 (50%) of the respondents
have accessed taped water for their need 3-4 days in a week.
Concerning water interruption about 162 (92%) of them
were experience with water interruption. Regarding how the
water interruption problem was difficult, the respondents 73
(45%) mentioned that water interruption lasted for 2 to 3 days,
49 (30%) said that the water interruption lasted for 4 to 5 days,
11 (7%) stated that the interruption of water lasted for 6 to 7
days and 30 (18%) claimed that the interruption of water
lasted more than a week. Therefore, the majority of the
respondents’ water interruption lasted 2 to 3 days, 4 to 5 days,
greater than week and 6 to 7 days, respectively. Regarding
cause of water interruption, 83 (53%) of the respondents stated
that they didn’t know the cause of water interruption, 37 (23%)
stated that water interruption occurred due to
source/production problem, 38 (24%) claimed that water
interruption occurred as a result of technical problem.
Head of Jigjiga town water supply said that due to lack of
Figure 3. Type of water source and its accessibility in terms of cost.
alternative water source, water scarcity was main problem we
couldn’t met the recommended demand and supply because
8 Dereje Abate Chekol et al.: Water Supply Accessibility and Associated Factors Among
Households of Jigjiga Town, Eastern Ethiopia

Jigjiga is one of the areas in the country with acute water information was collected as the result shows, about 304 (79%)
shortage for animal watering. In the dry seasons, Pastorals households were willing to pay for service improvement, out
from the surrounding 30km radius are using water for their of them 94 (31%), 146 (47%) & 69 (22%) were willing to pay
Animal Watering from the town´s water supply system and for house connected, yard and stand pipe service improvement
there is no data regarding the number of animals served by the respectively.
town´s water supply system.
Regarding to service reliability Jigjiga town water supply 3.4. Factors Associated with Water Accessibility
technical person said that due to water scarcity we could not fit On bi-variable logistic regression analysis household with
regular water supply (flow) in addition to this water monthly income above 4500 birr were [(COR=5.82, 95% CI:
interruption was another problem, which is occurred due to (1.86, 18.22)] more likely had access to water supply compare
sedimentation of salt because of water hardness that lead to those their monthly income range between 500-1499 birr.
clogging & bursting of pipe. Household those had private pipe were more likely
Regarding respondent satisfaction about 344 (89%) of the [(COR=15.44, 95% CI: (4.58, 52.06)] and those buy water
respondents were not happy at current water supply of the from water vendor were less likely [(COR=0.09, 95% CI:
town, about 167 (49%), 29 (9%) 60 (18%) 76 (22%) and nine (0.01, 0.89)] accessible to water supply compare to those use
(3%) constraints due to its scarcity, quality, interruption, cost from neighbor private pipe.
and other reason respectively. Therefore, this result revealed Regarding educational status head of household those attend
that how much current provision of water services was full of high school [(COR=3.1, 95% CI: (1.13, 8.47)] and above college
constraints. As a result, dwellers had not get water [(COR=3.27, 95% CI: (1.14, 9.34)] were more likely access to
continuously, this situation leads dwellers unsatisfied on water supply compare to those unable to read and write.
current provision of water supply in the study area. Among Household those had private pipe were more likely
this constraint with its scarcity, cost, interruption, and quality [(COR=15.44, 95% CI: (4.58, 52.06)] and those buy water
were the main problem, because of this about 131 (34%) from water vendor were less likely [(COR=0.09, 95% CI:
household rise complaint to concerned body out of them about (0.01, 0.89)] accessible to water supply compare to those use
85 (65%) said that there was no action for their complaint the from neighbor private pipe.
left 19 (15%) & 27 (21%) said that prompt and delay action Besides, to tenancy those live in their own house more
taken for their complaint respectively. likely [(COR=2.43, 95% CI: (1.06, 5.56)] accessible to water
A Chairman of three study kebeles said that, the scheme supply compare to those rent from private.
capacity was very low and unevenly distributed and also there In multivariable logistic regression analysis, household
was no person assigned for public stand pipe service, i.e. the those college & above educational status [(AOR=4.2, 95% CI
key was on the hand of irresponsible person who was (1.0, 18.06)] were more likely accessible water supply
voluntary care taker due to nearest to stand pipe and no compare to those cannot read & write.
payment for her service so that she open (gave services) only Besides, to water source those use private pipe water were
when the time is comfortable for her, sometime the stand pipe [(AOR=19.1, 95% CI: (5.1, 71.39)] more likely accessible to
opened during morning time which didn’t stay more than an water supply compare to those use from neighbor pipe.
hour.
Besides, willing to pay for water service improvement
Table 6. Factors associated with water accessibility among households in Jigjiga Town of Eastern Ethiopia, May 2016.

Access to Water Supply

Independent variables Frequency COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Yes (%) No (%)
Education level of HHH
unable to read and write 54 (14%) 5 (9%) 49 (91%) 1 1
read and write 53 (14%) 10 (19%) 43 (81%) 2.28 (0.72, 7.19) 1.2 (0.3, 4.82)
Primary complete (6-8) 74 (19%) 10 (14% 64 (86%) 1.53 (0.49, 4.77) 0.7 (0.2, 2.91)
junior complete (9-12) 125 (32%) 30 (24%) 95 (76%) 3.10 (1.13, 8.48) * 2.2 (0.6, 7.99)
college and above 80 (21%) 20 (25%) 60 (75%) 3.27 (1.14, 9.34) * 4.2 (1.0, 18.06) *
income
500-1499 60 (16%) 7 (12%) 53 (88%) 1 1
1500-2499 120 (31%) 20 (17%) 100 (83%) 1.51 (0.60, 3.81) 1.8 (0.5, 6.37)
2500-3499 123 (32%) 26 (21%) 97 (79%) 2.03 (0.83, 4.99) 1.8 (0.6, 5.72)
3500-4499 57 (15%) 10 (18%) 47 (82%) 1.61 (0.57, 4.57) 1.1 (0.3, 4.61)
>4500 23 (6%) 10 (43%) 13 (57%) 5.82 (1.86, 18.22) ** 3.0 (0.6, 15.11)
tenancy
private 293 (76%) 63 (22%) 230 (78%) 2.43 (1.06, 5.56) * 1.5 (0.5, 4.30)
kebele 24 (6%) 5 (21%) 19 (79%) 2.33 (.66, 8.19) 1.8 (0.3, 13.11)
rent from private 69 (18%) 7 (10%) 62 (90%) 1 1
Ethnicity group
Somali 240 (62%) 45 (19%) 195 (81%) .46 (0.150, 1.42) 0.7 (0.2, 3.35)
Amara 77 (20%) 13 (17%) 64 (83% .406 (0.12, 1.39) 1.2 (0.2, 6.90)
Oromo 32 (8%) 11 (34%) 21 (66%) 1.048 (0.29, 3.84) 2.3 (0.4, 14.62)
 Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning 2020; 5(1): 1-11 9

Access to Water Supply

Independent variables Frequency COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI)
Yes (%) No (%)
Gurage 22 (6%) 1 (5%) 21 (95%) .095 (0.10, 0.93) 0.4 (0.0, 8.30)
Others 15 (4%) 5 (33%V 10 (67%) 1 1
Type of water source
private 138 (36%) 70 (51%) 68 (49%) 15.44 (4.58, 52.06) 19.1 (5.1, 71.39)**
Public stand pipe 33 (9%) 1 (3%) 32 (97%) 0.47 (0.05, 4.71) 0.5 (0.0, 6.06)
Vendor 167 (43%) 1 (1%) 166 (99%) 0.09 (0.01, 0.89)* 0.0 (0.0,)
From neighbour 48 (12%) 3 (6%) 45 (94%) 1 1
Sex of household head
Male 228 (73%) 55 (19%) 228 (81%) 1.0 (0.57, 1.77) 0.81 (0.24, 2.7)
Female 83 (27%) 20 (19%) 83 (81%) 1 1
Family size
1-3 40 (13%) 12 (23%) 40 (77%) 2.925 (0.87, 9.85) 4.4 (1.2, 16.1)
4-6 121 (39%) 28 (19%) 121 (81%) 2.256 (0.75, 6.83) 2.8 (0.9, 8.8)
7-9 111 (37%) 31 (22%) 111 (78%) 2.723 (0.903, 8.208) 2.4 (0.8, 7.7)
>10 39 (11%) 4 (9%) 39 (91%) 1 1
Age of house head
15-24 41 (12%) 7 (15%) 41 (85%) 0.43 (0.14, 1.26) 0.2 (0.02, 1.7)
25-34 84 (27%) 21 (20%) 84 (80%) 0.63 (0.26, 1.5 0.49 (0.09, 2.7)
35-44 97 (32%) 27 (22%) 97 (78%) 0.7 (0.3, 1.6 0.5 (0.10, 2.6)
45-54 57 (17%) 10 (15%) 57 (85%) 0.4 (0.16, 1.18 0.33 (0.05, 2.0)
>55 25 (9%) 10 (29%) 15 (71%) 1 1
Religion
Muslim 217 (70%) 54 (20%) 217 (80%) .829 (0.221, 3.118) 0.02 (0.00, 38.4)
Orthodox 84 (26%) 18 (18%) 84 (82%) .714 (.178, 2.859) 0.01 (0.00, 9.4)
Protestant 10 (3%) 3 (23%) 10 (77%) 1 1
Marital status
Single 8 (2%) 1 (11%) 273 (89%) .625 (.031, 12.410 23.34 (0.09, 63.72)
Married 273 (89%) 70 (20%) 25 (80%) 1.282 (.147, 11.151 3.22 (0.07, 14.5)
divorce 25 (7%) 3 (11%) 5 (89%) .600 (.051, 7.012 2.36 (0.03, 18.3)
wisdom 5 (2%) 1 (17%) 273 (83%) 1 1

*=p-value<0.05, **=p-value<0.01, CI = Confidence Interval, COR = Crude Odds Ratio, AOR = Adjusted Odds Ratio

The main possible reason for the difference in the coverage

4. Discussion of accessibility in terms of source in these different towns
This study investigated access pattern of water supply in might be the poor infrastructural arrangement in the town and
terms of source, distance, time, quantity and affordability institutional capacity, without which expansion of the pipe
among households in Jigjiga town in Ethiopia. The study water supply coverage is impossible.
found that about 56.7%, 90.9%, 92.2%, 35.3% and 44.8% of The study revealed that 351 (90.9%) and 356 (92.2%)
households had access to water in terms of source, distance, households have access to water supply in terms of time and
time, and quantity and cost respectively. Over all when the distance respectively. This was more or less consistent with a
above criteria are computed based on WHO 2003 guideline 22% study conducted in Dukem town, that shows (83.9%) and
of the households had access to water supply but when water 82.4%) of households were accessible in terms of distance and
aid criteria included (cost affordability) the result indicates time respectively [14].
only 75 (19%) households were accessible to water supply. According to this study finding, only 170 (44.8%) of
The same study done in Ilorin East, Kwara State, Nigeria households were accessible to water supply economically i.e. pay
showed accessibility of water supply was 26% [13]. This less than 5% of their monthly incomes based on the water aid
indicated that the finding in Jigjiga town was lower than the 2011 criteria. Expenditure of household income on water showed
study conducted in Nigeria. This gap might be due to the that low, middle and high-income households spend an average
differences in water accessibility evaluation criteria. of 24.12%, 11% and 2.67% of their income on water respectively.
The accessibility of water in terms of source for this study This finding was far from the study conducted in Nazareth town,
in Jigjiga town indicated that it was, 219 (56.7%) of the where households from the low income areas spend, on average,
households used pipeline water supply and the remaining 167 3.58% of their monthly income, whereas from that of middle and
(43.3%) households got water from vendors which was not high income areas spend 1.49% and 1.02% of their monthly
improved source. This was lower than the study done on income on water per month [15].
accessibility of water supply in terms of source in four The main reason for the difference in the expenditure for
regional states and 16 town of Ethiopia, which found that 79% water might be due to the high operational cost needed for
of households were found using an improved water supply instalment of privet pipe Water supply, which prohibits the
[10]. The accessibility of water in terms of source in Jigjiga poor and consequently exposes them to more expensive water
town was found to be better than the study done in Awaday sources. This also might be due to comparatively small
town that which was 39.4% [9]. number of public standpipes, which could provide ample
10 Dereje Abate Chekol et al.: Water Supply Accessibility and Associated Factors Among
Households of Jigjiga Town, Eastern Ethiopia

water supply for a small price, might leave the public to services
choose high price water. b) They should work to increase public stand pipe with
The result of the study in Jigjiga town indicated that recommended households
household heads with an education level of college & above c) They should improve reliability of water supply
were [(AOR=4.2, 95% CI (1.0, 18.06)] were more likely to d) They should control cost of water soled by vendors
be accessible to water supply compared to those household
heads who cannot read & write. This result was more or less
similar to a study done in Cameroon where, household heads References
with increasing educational level were more likely to adopt
an improved water source (AOR =0.113, P<0.0371) [16]. [1] WHO, 2014b. INVESTING IN WATER AND SANITATION:
INCREASING ACCESS, REDUCING INEQUALITIES
This result of the study in Jigjiga town was also somewhat UN-Water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and
consistent with the same study conducted in Bomet Drinking-Water GLAAS 2014.
municipality, Kenya which also showed that the type of
water source used by the household was significantly [2] Zuin, V., Ortolano, L., Alvarinho, M., Rüssel, K., Thebo, A.,
Muximpua, O. & Davis, J. 2011. Water supply services for
influenced by the higher level of education (tertiary level) Africa’surban poor: the role of resale. J. Water Health 9, 773–784.
[17].
The study showed that there was varying average water [3] WHO and UNICEF 2014. Progress on Sanitation and
consumption in liters per person per day with a varying type of Drinking-Water - 2014 Update. Switzerland.
water source. The average water consumption rate was 19.4 [4] WHO, 2000. Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment
16.2 15.6 and 16 liters per capita per day for those who used 2000 Report World Health Organization and United Nations
Privet pipe, public standpipe, Vendor and from neighbors Children’s Fund 2000, New York, USA.
respectively. This result was comparatively similar with a [5] Central Statistical Agency [Ethiopia] and ICF International
study conducted on water accessibility among households in 2012. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey Addis Ababa,
Ambo Town, where the average litters per person per day Ethiopia and Calverton, Maryland, USA, Central Statistical
consumption of households from private yard connection, Agency and ICF International.
public tap and vendor sellers were 10.55, 8.93 and 6.51 [6] U. N. General Assembly Res. 64/292, U. N. Doc.
respectively [18]. A/RES/64/292 (July 2010); Human Rights Council Res. 15/9,
This survey in Jigjiga town indicated that 136 (35.2%) of U. N. Doc. HRC/RES/15/60 (Oct. 2010).
them had access to water supply in terms of quantity. This
[7] Bradley DJ and JK., B. 2013. Domestic Water and Sanitation
fining was more or less similar with the study done in four as Water Security: Monitoring, Concepts and Strategy. Phil
regional states and 16 town of Ethiopia, which indicated that Trans R Soc A 371 (20120420). Downloaded from
60% of households using an improved water source reported http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on November 25, 2015.
using less than 20 lpcd. The volume of water used is known to
[8] AlexanderKT., TesfayeY., Dreibelbis R., Abaire B.
be a critical factor in health outcomes [10]. andFreeman MC. 2013 Sustainability and functionality of
water systems in Millennium Water Alliance program areas.
The study was limited in subject/theme/ that means it
limited to assess factors affecting accessibility of domestic [9] Mekonnen Abdisa and R. Uttama Reddy, 2014. Assessment of
potable water supply in Awaday town in Ethiopia, International
water supply only (it doesn’t include industries and Journal of Social Science ISSN 2305- 4557, 30th January 2014.
consumptions by other sectors and its quality). Vol. 19 No. 1 www.Tiloss.com
[10] Adank. M, et al. 2016, Water and sanitation services in small
5. Conclusion and Recommendation towns in Ethiopia Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
for Development in press 2016.
5.1. Conclusion
[11] WHO 2003. Domestic Water Quantity, Service Level and
This study investigated status of water accessibility and Health. Guy Howard and J. Bartram. Geneva, Switzerland
associated factors among households at Jigjiga town. Water World Health Organization.
accessibility in study area is very low that mean only 19% of [12] Water Aid (2011) Policy guidelines: Water resource
respondents were accessible water supply. Logistic management. Water Aid in Nepal. Available at:
regression analysis results showed that water accessibility www.wateraid.org/documents/plugin_documents/policy_guide
was statistically associated with type of water source lines__water_resource_management_5_september_2011.pdf.
(AOR=19.1, 95% CI: (5.1, 71.39) and education level [13] Tunde, A. M. 2013. Assessment of Households’ Water
(AOR=4.21, 95% CI (1.0, 18.06) Availability and Accessibility in Ilorin East L. G. A Kwara
State, Nigeria
5.2. Recommendation
[14] Mohammed, A. I.. Zungu L. I and. HoqueM. E. (2011). Access
1. Jigjiga Town water supply and sewerage authority and to Safe Drinking Water and Availability of Environmental
other stake holder Sanitation Facilities among Dukem Town Households in
a) They should promote private pipe water connection Ethiopia. J Hum Ecol, 0000: 000-000 (0000).
 Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning 2020; 5(1): 1-11 11

[15] Alebel Bayrou. 2002. Analyses of affordability and [17] Koskei. E. C, Koskei. R. C, Koske. M. C and Koech. H. K,
determinants of willingness to pay for improved water service 2013. Effect of Socio-economic Factors on Access to Improved
in urban areas, strategy for cost recovery. A case study of Water Sources and Basic Sanitation in Bomet Municipality,
Nazareth town, Ethiopia. Kenya, Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences
5 (12): 714-719, 2013 ISSN: 2041-0484; e-ISSN: 2041-0492
[16] Luc Armand Totouom Fotuè. 2013. Awareness and the
Demand for Improved Drinking Water Source in Cameroon, [18] Challa Deyessa. 2011. An assessment of urban water supply
International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories, Vol. and sanitation, the case of ambo town. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
3, No. 1, 2013 (January), e-ISSN 2247–7225 www.ijept.org

View publication stats