Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Wealth status and sex differential of household head: implication for source of drinking water in Nigeria

  • Oyewale Mayowa Morakinyo1Email author,
  • Stephen Ayo Adebowale2 and
  • Elizabeth Omoladun Oloruntoba1
Archives of Public HealthThe official journal of the Belgian Public Health Association201573:58

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-015-0105-9

Received: 17 June 2015

Accepted: 27 October 2015

Published: 25 November 2015

Abstract

Background

Source of potable water has implication on the population health. Availability of Improved Drinking Water Sources (IDWS) is a problem in developing countries, but variation exists across segments of the population. This study therefore examined the relationship between wealth status, sex of household head and source of potable water.

Methods

The 2013 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey data was used. A representative sample of 40,680 households was selected for the survey, with a minimum target of 943 completed interviews per state covering the entire population residing in non-institutional dwelling units in the country. Households where information on drinking water sources was not reported were excluded, thus reducing the sample to 38021. The dependent and key independent variables were IDWS and Wealth Index respectively. Data were analysed using Chi-square and binary logistic regression (α = .05).

Results

Households that used IDWS were headed by females (66.7 %) than males (58.7 %). Highest proportion of households who used IDWS was found in the rich wealth index group (76.7 %). The likelihood of using IDWS was higher in household headed by females (OR = 1.41; C.I = 1.33–1.49, p <0.001). Households that belong to rich wealth index and middle class were 5.06(C.I = 4.81–5.32, p <0.001) and 2.62(C.I = 2.46–2.78, p <0.001) respectively times more likely to IDWS than the poor. This pattern was sustained when other confounding variables were introduced into the regression equation as control.

Conclusions

Households headed by women used improved drinking water sources than those headed by men. However, wealth index has strong influence on the strength of relationship between sex of household head and improved drinking water sources.

Keywords

Potable water Household head Wealth index Nigeria

Background

Water is one of nature’s most important gifts to mankind. Access to safe drinking water is a basic need for human growth and development. Safe drinking water reduces the chances of contacting waterborne diseases and infections [1]. Water influences health through direct consumption for drinking and for sanitation, and for its use in food and nutrition in the households [1]. While the developed nations have made adequate provisions for safe drinking water for their citizens, the developing nations are just striving to achieve this goal.

Despite failure of Government in developing countries to provide potable water to households, individuals tried to ensure that the source of water they drink in their homes is safe. This at times is done by sinking boreholes and tube wells in their houses. The cost of making such provision is huge and thus making it unbearable to people in a country like Nigeria where majority of its citizens live below the poverty line. In Nigeria, there exists a wide gap between the rich and poor in terms of meeting their daily needs including provision of essential amenities like water. Water, health and poverty are closely linked to each other. Health and poverty have two-way relationship: good health brings prosperity, and prosperity brings improvements in health; or conversely poor health may create and perpetuate poverty and poverty may lead to poor health. Poverty is now recognised as lack of access to different livelihood capitals, such as water [2].

However, the sex of the household head can make a difference in the provision of safe drinking water. In Nigeria context, the culture demands that men should be the head of household except few situations where women may take up such responsibility. Sex of the head of the household plays a role among the determinants of household choice of water source. Evidence has shown that male-headed households are less likely to choose an improved source than do female-headed households [3].

The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses [4]. Though essential for human life, more than 1 billion people in the world do not have access to safe drinking water. In developing countries, contaminated drinking water is a major health hazard [4] and water-related diseases are a significant contributor to the global burden of illnesses. The common diseases here are waterborne: 1.8 million people die every year from waterborne diseases like cholera [5]. Furthermore, 21 % of infant mortality in developing countries is caused by diarrhoeal diseases [2]. Moreover, 88 % of the cases of diarrhoeal disease are attributed to unsafe water supply, inadequate sanitation and hygiene [2]. In recent years, access to safe and reliable water supplies has received increased attention around the world. At the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000 and subsequently at the Johannesburg Earth Summit in 2002, world leaders agreed to a set of time-bound and measurable development targets widely known as the Millennium Development Goals for 2015 which include a commitment to halve the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water [6].

According to the United Nations Development Program [7], nearly one-sixth of the world’s population obtains drinking water from unimproved sources, and in many developing areas, progress in expanding clean water coverage is modest. From a total access of 77 % in 1990, today, the World population’s access to improved water has increased to 87 % [8]. However, in Nigeria, only 58 % access to improved water is currently recorded [8]. This represents a slight growth in access from 1990 when the proportion was 47 % [8].

The household-headship approach in the studies of gender inequalities and poverty resulted from the fact that the household has been the unit of analysis for studying poverty and female headship was the only gender-transparent factor in this approach. Even though female-headed households are a relatively small proportion of households, evidence shows that in the last 20 years, their share in the total is increasing in most regions of the world [9]. The fact that male-headed households are predominantly more financially secured does not mean that they have more access to improved drinking water than female-headed households. This depends on how preferences and priorities between these two households may differ.

Household wealth plays significant role in demand for drinking water quality and access to potable water [10]. Bosch et al. [11] stated that fewer poor households are connected to water networks and many poor households have access to lower-quality services than non-poor households. Micro studies in urban areas globally show that the urban poor are disproportionately underserved in the distribution of public utility, and hence consume poor quality and little water [12]. Being deprived of clean water might be derived from being “income poor” due to lack of clean water. In regions where water supply is adequate and reliable, people’s income may be an important determinant of the source of drinking water [13].

Globally, the aphorism that “water is life” incontestably rings true. But for the large percentage of Nigerians who lack access to potable water, the resource could be said to be a harbinger of diseases, ill-health and, ultimately, death. It should not be so in a country that has vast freshwater resources and huge public revenues to provide quality water for its citizens. On a daily basis, many Nigerians engage in an unending struggle to get water for hydration, sanitation and hygiene. It is really a vicious cycle. Many of them trek several kilometres to get any form of water at all. Although its purity cannot be guaranteed, sachet water – or “Pure Water” in local parlance – has become a way of life for many Nigerians.

The conceptualisation of the study was based on backdrop of limited research evidence on the relationship between gender of household heads, wealth and sources of drinking water in Nigeria. This study was therefore designed to examine the role of poverty in the gender of household heads and the choice of sources of potable water supply in Nigeria.

Methods

Study area

The 2006 Population and Housing Census reported Nigeria’s population to be 140,431,790, with a national growth rate estimated at 3.2% per annum. With this population, Nigeria is the most populous nation in Africa, as noted, and the seventh most populous in the world. The three major ethnic groups in Nigeria are; Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo. Presently, Nigeria is made up of 36 states and a Federal Capital Territory, grouped into six geopolitical zones: North Central, North East, North West, South East, South South and South West. There are 774 constitutionally recognised Local Government Areas (LGAs) in the country. Potable water is a problem in Nigeria with 42 % of the population still gets their drinking water from unimproved sources [14].

Data collection procedures

The study utilised secondary data (Nigeria Demographic Health and Survey, 2013) obtained from the MEASURE DHS: Demographic and Health Surveys website after the approval for its use was granted by the data originators. Cross-sectional design was used for data collection and the survey covered the entire population residing in non-institutional dwelling units in the country.

The survey used as a sampling frame the list of enumeration areas (EAs) prepared for the 2006 Population Census of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, provided by the National Population Commission. The sample was designed to provide population and health indicator estimates at the national, zonal, and state levels. The primary sampling unit (PSU), referred to as a cluster in the 2013 NDHS, is defined on the basis of EAs from the 2006 EA census frame. The sample was selected using a stratified three-stage cluster design consisting of 904 clusters, 372 in urban areas and 532 in rural areas. A representative sample of 40,680 households was selected for the survey, with a minimum target of 943 completed interviews per state. For detailed information on sample size and design, the interested readers should access the information online at (www.measuredhs.com). In this study, households where information on drinking water sources was not reported were excluded, thus reducing the sample to 38021.

Variable description

The dependent variable was source of potable water. In the original data, different sources of drinking water were mentioned by the respondents. We therefore Theses sources were categorised into improved and unimproved. Sources that are likely to provide water suitable for drinking are identified as improved sources. These include a piped source within the dwelling, yard, or plot; a public tap/stand pipe or a borehole; a protected well or spring; and rainwater [15].

The independent variables of interest were sex of head of household classified as male or female and wealth quintile which was originally grouped as poorest, poor, middle, richer and richest. However, due to small number of respondents in some of the wealth quintile categories, the variable was re-categorised in this study as poor, middle and rich. Other independent variables used are age of the household head, highest level of education, religion, place of residence, region, time to get to drinking water source and number of household members.

Methods of analysis

Data were analysed at bivariate and multivariate levels using Chi-square and binary logistic regression. At multivariate level of the analysis, three logistic regression models were generated to examine the factors influencing the use of potable water sources. The first model examined the independent relationship between the sex of the household head, wealth index and drinking water sources while the second model involves the interaction between the two key independent variables (wealth index and drinking water) and the dependent variable (drinking water sources). In the third model, all other dependent variables (socio-economic and health related variables) were included in the regression equation as control.

Ethical approval

The data originators obtained ethical approval from Nigeria National Ethics Committee (NNEC) functioning under the Ministry of Health. An informed consent was obtained from all the study participants after explaining to them all the issues related to the study in details at the point of data collection. Eligible respondents who did not want to partake in the study were excluded from the survey. Participants that consented to be involved in the study were made to sign appropriate agreement form before the interview. Also an approval to use the data for this study was granted by the data originator before data access and subsequent retrieval.

Results

About 27.6 % of the study subjects were in the 35–44 age groups. Thirty-eight percent had no formal education while 9.0 % had higher education. Slightly above half, 52.3 % and 57.9 % were Muslims and live in rural areas respectively. About one-third of respondents was from the North western part of Nigeria and had more than seven persons in their household. Majority (83.2 %) of respondents had their homes headed by a male. About 38.0 % and 43.2 % of the women interviewed were in the poorest and richest wealth quintile (Table 1).
Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristics of Respondents, Demographic and Health Survey, 2013, Nigeria

Background characteristics

Number

Percent

Total

38021

100.0

Sex of household head

 Male

31631

83.2

 Female

6390

16.8

Age of the household head

 15 – 24

1464

3.9

 25 – 34

7479

19.7

 35 – 44

10505

27.6

 45 – 54

9248

24.3

 55 – 64

5749

15.1

 65+

3576

9.4

Highest educational level

 No formal education

14466

38.1

 Primary

6594

17.3

 Secondary

13550

35.6

 Higher

3411

9.0

Religion

 Christian

17766

46.7

 Islam

19893

52.3

 Traditional

362

1.0

Place of residence

 Urban

16020

42.1

 Rural

22001

57.9

Region

 North Central

5429

14.3

 North East

5664

14.9

 North West

11704

30.8

 South East

4347

11.4

 South South

4668

12.3

 South West

6209

16.3

Number of household members

 1 – 3

7713

20.3

 4 – 5

10080

26.5

 6 – 7

8776

23.1

 8+

11452

30.1

Wealth index

 Poor

14298

37.6

 Middle

7304

19.2

 Rich

16419

43.2

Time to drinking water sources

 On premises

8325

21.9

 <30 min

19642

51.7

 ≥30 min

9789

25.7

 Don’t know

266

0.7

In Table 2 the data show that more households that used improved drinking water sources were headed by females (66.7 %) than males (58.7 %) (p <0.001). Highest proportion of the respondents with higher education (72.7 %) use water from improved sources. The use of improved drinking water sources were significantly associated with; age of respondents, religion, region and number of persons in a household (p <0.001). As expected, households in the urban areas (75.7 %) and those in the richest wealth category (76.7 %) use improved sources of drinking water in their households. Differential in the use of improved sources also existed in the time to get to water source. More women (68.3 %) who had water source located within their premises used water from improved sources than others (p <0.001).
Table 2

Sources of Household drinking water according to background characteristics, Demographic and Health Survey, 2013, Nigeria

Background characteristics

Improved drinking water sources (%)

Total women

X2-value

p-value

Total

60.1

38021

  

Sex of household heada

  

141.6

<0.001

 Male

58.7

31631

  

 Female

66.7

6391

  

Agea

  

2001.0

<0.001

 15 – 24

50.2

1464

  

 25 – 34

55.3

7479

  

 35 – 44

60.0

10505

  

 45 – 54

61.4

9248

  

 55 – 64

64.2

5749

  

 65+

64.0

3576

  

Mean ± σ

45.6 ± 13.7

44.8 ± 13.7

 

<0.001

Highest educational levela

  

182.9

<0.001

 No education

47.4

14466

  

 Primary

59.6

6594

  

 Secondary

70.7

13549

  

 Higher

72.7

3412

  

Religiona

  

277.6

<0.001

 Christian

64.0

17766

  

 Islam

57.0

19894

  

 Others

35.9

362

  

Place of residencea

  

2824.0

<0.001

 Urban

75.7

16020

  

 Rural

48.7

22001

  

Regiona

  

742.1

<0.001

 North Central

55.1

5429

  

 North East

49.0

5665

  

 North West

58.0

11703

  

 South East

68.4

4347

  

 South South

69.3

4668

  

 South West

65.8

6210

  

Number of household membersa

 

48.55

<0.001

 1 – 3

60.9

7712

  

 4 – 5

61.6

10079

  

 6 – 7

61.1

8777

  

 8+

57.4

11452

  

Mean ± σ

6.4 ± 3.5

6.5 ± 3.7

 

0.130

Wealth indexa

  

445.9

<0.001

 Poor

39.4

14298

  

 Middle

63.0

7304

  

 Rich

76.7

16419

  

Time to drinking water sourcea

 

938.1

<0.001

 On premises

68.3

8325

  

 <30 min

62.9

19641

  

 ≥30 min

48.0

9789

  

 Don’t know

40.8

265

  

aSignificant at 5.0 %

Multivariate results

In the first model, the data show that household headed by females used improved water sources (OR = 1.41; C.I = 1.33–1.49, p <0.001) than those headed by males. The likelihood of using portable water sources increases consistently with increasing level of wealth index. Households that belong to rich wealth index and middle class were 5.06 (C.I = 4.81–5.32, p <0.001) and 2.62 (C.I = 2.46–2.78, p <0.001) respectively more likely to use potable water sources than the poor. When wealth index was used solely as the control for the relationship between sex of the household head and potable water sources, the data revealed that the strength of the relationship which was initially significant disappeared (model 2). However, it is striking that significant association existed between sex of household head and potable water sources when other confounding variables were introduced into the regression equation as control. In this case, the likelihood of getting drinking water from improved sources in households headed by females was 1.17 (C.I = 1.09–1.25, p <0.001) times higher than that of males (Table 3).
Table 3

Multivariate logistic regression of relationship between Household sources of drinking water according to background characteristics, Demographic and Health Survey, 2013, Nigeria

Background characteristics

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

UOR

C.I (UOR)

AOR

C.I (AOR)

AOR

C.I (AOR)

Sex of household head

 Male

1

 

1

 

1

 

 Female

1.41a

1.33-1.49

1.02

0.96 – 1.08

1.17a

1.09-1.25

Wealth index

 Poor

1

 

1

 

1

 

 Middle

2.62a

2.46-2.78

2.61a

2.46-2.77

2.69a

2.51 – 2.87

 Rich

5.06a

4.81-5.32

5.05a

4.80-5.30

4.49a

4.15 – 4.86

Age of household head

 15 – 24

    

1

 

 25 – 34

    

1.15b

1.02 – 1.31

 35 – 44

    

1.41a

1.24 – 1.60

 45 – 54

    

1.52a

1.34 – 1.73

 55 – 64

    

1.73a

1.51 – 1.98

 65+

    

1.74a

1.51 – 2.00

Highest educational level

 No education

    

1

 

 Primary

    

1.29a

1.19 – 1.38

 Secondary

    

1.38a

1.28 – 1.49

 Higher

    

1.09

0.98 – 1.22

Religion

 Christian

    

1

 

 Islam

    

1.46a

1.36 – 1.56

 Others

    

0.76b

0.60 – 0.96

Place of residence

 Urban

    

1

 

 Rural

    

0.56a

0.53 – 0.59

Region

 North Central

    

1

 

 North East

    

1.23a

1.13 – 1.35

 North West

    

1.65a

1.52 – 1.79

 South East

    

1.24a

1.12 – 1.37

 South South

    

1.25a

1.14 – 1.37

 South West

    

0.63a

0.58 – 0.69

Number of household members

 1 – 3

    

1

 

 4 – 5

    

1.03

0.96 – 1.11

 6 – 7

    

1.05

0.97 – 1.13

 8+

    

0.93

0.86 – 1.00

Time to get to drinking water source

 On premises

    

1

 

 <30 min

    

0.95

0.89 – 1.01

 ≥30 min

    

0.53a

0.49 – 0.57

 Don’t know

    

0.19a

0.14 – 0.25

−2 Log likelihood

51011.6

 

46624.4

 

44661.2

 

Cox & Snell R2

0.04

 

0.112

 

0.157

 

C.I confidence interval; UOR unadjusted odd ratio; AOR adjusted odd ratio

aSignificant at 0.1 %; bSignificant at 5 %

The identified predictors of using improved water sources are; sex of the household head, wealth quintile, age of the household head, highest level of education, religion, place of residence, region and time to get to drinking water source.

Discussion

Access to improved water, though essential for human life still remains a day to day struggle for hundreds and thousands of citizens who live mainly in developing countries [2, 16, 17]. Household water supply has become an important public policy issue because safe water is an essential component of primary health care. Access to and use of safe drinking water can make an immense contribution to health, productivity, and social development of individuals at micro level and the nation at large [15, 18, 19].

However, many people in developing countries continue to rely on unimproved water sources mainly because of lack of access to potable water [4]. As evidenced in the current study, about two-fifth of households still use water from unimproved sources as drinking water. Lawrence et al. [14] noted that socio-economic status is a significant determinant of household access to water. Other variables closely connected with the availability of water include, among others, gender of the household head and household size [20].

According to Abebaw et al. [3] gender of the head of the household plays a role among the determinants of household choice of water source. Male-headed households are less likely to use water from an improved source than do female-headed households [3]. Our finding corroborates the significance of household heads in the choice of source of drinking water. In this study, we found that the likelihood of getting drinking water from improved sources in households headed by females was higher than that of males. However, this finding is at variance with a study conducted on awareness and the demand for improved drinking water source in Cameroon which showed that male-headed households are less likely to choose an improved source than do female-headed households [21].

Poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon [22]. Our finding also gives credence to the differentials in wealth index in the choice of water from improved sources. The likelihood of using potable water sources increases consistently with increasing level of wealth index. Household wealth index has a statistically significant role in demand for drinking water quality: better-off households are more likely to consume safe and reliable water. This result is consistent with Totouom and Fondo [10] who use the per capita expenditure used as proxy for household welfare and concluded that as households become better-off, they are much more likely to choose improved quality water. It may be argued that the income of individuals from the middle and poorest wealth index may be insufficient in affording the cost of using clean water, which would compel them to use inadequate and unreliable sources of water supply.

This study further revealed that the likelihood of using water from improved sources increased with increasing level of education. That is, the probability for a given household to adopt an improved water source increases with the educational level. The significant effect of education on households’ choice of drinking water source is in conformity with previous studies [3, 23]. Studies on the determinants of households choice of water source in developing countries have proved that household education have a strong influence on households choice [2426]. This is not surprising, since more educated households are probably more aware about adverse health effects from ingestion of poor water quality.

The number of household members is one of the basic demographic characteristics of a household. The number of people in a household determines whether this household obtains its water from an improved source [21]. Findings from this study reported the likelihood of sourcing water from improved sources increases with increasing number of persons in a household. Although, not statistically significant, the finding might be due to the fact that large households might have sufficient members that share household daily responsibilities including access to improved water at distances far away from home. This is in agreement with findings by de Sherbiniin et al. [27] where it was reported that increase in household size is not associated with obtaining water from an unsafe source. However, this is in contrast to a study conducted in Cameroon where it was reported that the increasing of the size of a household decreases the likelihood of using improved sources [21]. The author argued that households with more members are more likely to be faced with poverty than households with fewer members and so may not be able to access or pay for water from improved sources [28].

Place of residence is a strong determinant of households’ choice to use an improved source. According to the World Bank, large numbers of those who lack access to improved water supply infrastructure live in urban areas but the proportion relative to those in rural areas is low [29]. Living in urban area increases the probability of adopting an improved source. Our study also confirmed that women who live in rural areas are less likely to use water from improved sources than their counterparts in urban areas. In Nigeria, Government focuses more on developmental programmes and social amenities in urban areas than rural [30].

It is evidenced in this study that the use of water from improved sources was more prominent among women who resides in the South South (69.3 %) geopolitical zones of Nigeria than those from the North East (49.0 %). Our findings differ from the survey conducted by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) in [31] which reported that improved water coverage ranged from 73.5 to 30.7 %, with the South West Zone having the highest coverage of improved water source and the North East Zone has the lowest coverage. The management of water resources is reported to be ineffective in Nigeria. This is because there is inadequate and inequitable distribution of adequate surface and groundwater supplies; hence there are significant zonal and state variations in the proportion of people using improved water sources [32].

As expected, our study revealed that the odds of using water from improved sources reduce with increase in the distance covered in accessing improved water source. This means that women that trekked for 30 min or more are less likely to use water from improved sources than those with water source sited in their premise. Thus, the longer the distance to a particular source of drinking water, the lower will be the demand for same [33]. It is estimated that women in many developing countries walk for an average of about 6 km each day to collect water [34]. The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses. Water near the home produces significant improvements in nutrition and health. The carrying of water over long distances is a health hazard, especially during development and pregnancy periods.

Conclusions

The gender and wealth of a household head play a significant role in the choice of water source. Other identified factors that predict the choice of water source includes age of the household head, highest level of education, religion, place of residence, region and time to get to drinking water source. Given the growing emphasis being placed on population access to improved water sources in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), there is the need for policy makers and relevant stakeholders to more accurately target initiatives for population access to potable water. Some common tropical diseases are water-related and can be eliminated if adequate supply of water at the right quantity and quality is provided to the public. People should be equipped with improved water sources as close as possible; otherwise, they will rely on nearest unimproved sources. Reducing inequalities as regarding wealth and investing in education and the water sectors would play a key role in having a country in which her citizens have access to safe, affordable and reliable improved water sources.

Abbreviations

AOR: 

Adjusted Odd Ratio

C.I: 

Confidence Interval

EAs: 

Enumeration areas

IDWS: 

Improved Drinking Water Sources

LGAs: 

Local Government Areas

MDGs: 

Millennium Development Goals

NBS: 

National Bureau of Statistics

NDHS: 

Nigeria Demographic Health and Survey

NNEC: 

Nigeria National Ethics Committee

PSU: 

Primary Sampling Unit

UOR: 

Unadjusted Odd Ratio

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the National Population Commission and ICF Macro Calverton, Maryland, USA for releasing the data for this study.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Faculty of Public Health, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan
(2)
Department of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Faculty of Public Health, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan

References

  1. Hussain I, Namara R, Deeptha W. “Water, Health and Poverty Linkages: Conceptual Framework and Empirical Evidence” Paper presented at the National Workshop on Water, Health and Poverty Linkages in Sri Lanka, August 21, 2002 Colombo.Google Scholar
  2. UN-WATER/WWAP. Water a shared responsibility The United Nations World Water Development Report 2. 2006. p. 52. www.unesco.org/water/wwap. (Accessed 30/10/15).Google Scholar
  3. Abebaw D, Tadesse F, Mogues T. Access to Improved Water Source and Satisfaction with Services Evidence from Rural Ethiopia, International Food Policy Research Institute Discussion Paper. 2010. p. 01044.Google Scholar
  4. Jalan J, Somanathan E, Chaudhuri S. Awareness and the demand for environmental quality: survey evidence on drinking water in urban India. Environ Dev Econs. 2009;14(6):665–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. WHO. Celebrating water for life: The International Decade for Action 2005-2015. www.un.org/waterforlifedecade. (Accessed 30/10/15).
  6. UNDP. “The Millennium Development Goals: Progress, Reversals and Challenges. A global update on where the world stands in meeting the MDGs”. 2003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. UNDP. Human development report. New York: UNDP; 2006.Google Scholar
  8. WHO, UNICEF. Progress on sanitation and drinking water. Geneva: WHO Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  9. Buvinić M, Geeta RG. Female-headed households and female-maintained families: are they worth targeting to reduce poverty in developing countries? Econ Dev Cultural Change. 1997;45(2):259–80.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Totouom FLA, Fondo S. Determinants of the households’ choice of drinking water source in Cameroon. J Sust Dev Africa. 2012;14(3):86–97.Google Scholar
  11. Bosch C, Hommann K, Rubio G, Sadoff C, Travers L. Water and sanitation.in a sourcebook for poverty reduction strategies. Washington: World Bank; 2000. p. 371–404.Google Scholar
  12. World Bank. World Development Report. Making Services Work for the Poor. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  13. Lawrence P, Meigh J, Sullivan C. “The Water Poverty Index: An International Comparison”, Keele Economics Research Papers, 2002 (http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ec/wpapers; accessed on 27th August, 2006).
  14. National Population Commission (Nigeria), ICF International. Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2013. Abuja: NPC & ICF International; 2014.Google Scholar
  15. Tang KK, Chin JTC, Rao DSP. Avoidable mortality risks and measurement of wellbeing and inequality. J Health Econs. 2008;27:624–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Chapitaux JP, Houssier S, Gross P, Bouvier C, Brissaud F. Etude de la pollution de l’eau souterraine de la ville de Niamey, Niger. Bull Soc Pathol Exot. 2002;95(2):119–23.Google Scholar
  17. Herischen D, Ruwaida MS, Blackburn R. Répondre au défi urbain, Population Reports, Série M, Numéro 16. Maryland: Info Project; 2002. p. 23.Google Scholar
  18. Mangyo E. The effect of water accessibility on child health in China. J Health Econs. 2008;27:1343–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.04.004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Mishra P, Newhouse D. Does health aid matter? J Health Econs. 2009;28:855–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.05.004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Arbués F, Garcia-Valinas M, Martinez-Espineira R. Estimation of residential water demand: a state-of-the-art review. J Socio Econs. 2003;32(3):81–102.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Luc ATF. Awareness and the demand for improved drinking water source in Cameroon. IJEPT. 2013;3(1):1–10.Google Scholar
  22. World Bank. Attacking Poverty: World Development Report 2000/2001 Published for the World Bank, Washington, by Oxford University Press, New York, 2000.Google Scholar
  23. Madanat S, Humplick F. A model of household choice of water supply systems in developing countries. Water Resour Res. 2009;29:1353–58.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Larson B, Minten B, Razafindralambo R. Unravelling the linkages between the Millennium Development Goals for poverty, education, access to water and household water use in developing countries: evidence from Madagascar. J Dev Studies. 2006;42(1):22–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Engel S, Iskandarani M, Useche M. Improved water supply in the Ghanianvolta basin: who uses it and who participates in community decision-making? International Food Policy Research Institute Discussion Paper. 2005. p. 129.Google Scholar
  26. Nauges C, Van Den Berg C. Demand for piped and non-piped water supply services: evidence from Southwest Sri Lanka. Environ Res Econs. 2009;42(4):535–49.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. De Sherbiniin A, Rahman A, Barbieri A, Fotso JC, Zhu Y. Availability of Domestic Water and Sanitation in Households: A Gender Perspective using Survey Data in South Africa. In: Urban Population-Environment Dynamics in the Developing World: Case Studies and Lessons Learned. Paris: Committee for International Cooperation in National Research in Demography (CICRED); 2009.Google Scholar
  28. Kimenyi MS, Mbaku JM. Female headship, feminization of poverty and welfare. Southern Econ J. 1995;62(1):44–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. World Bank. Water and Sanitation Program (WSP): Guidance Notes on services for the Urban Poor: A Practical Guide for Improving Water Supply and Sanitation Services. 2009.Google Scholar
  30. Luc ATF. Household choice of purifying drinking water in Cameroon. Environ Mgt Sust Dev. 2012;1(2):101–15.Google Scholar
  31. NBS. Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire (CWIQ) survey. CWIQ North-West Report, 2006. http://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/nbsapps (Accessed 12/12/15).
  32. Water Aid. National water sector assessment: Nigeria, 2006. http://www.wateraid.org/documents/nigeria_snapshot.pdf.
  33. Hidman PT. Household choice of drinking-water source in Philippines. Asian Econ J. 2007;16(4):303–16.Google Scholar
  34. UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund). Water: a critical resource. New York: UNFPA; 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Morakinyo et al. 2015

Advertisement