Main source of water for drinking and for other domestic use

Water is an essential part of life. It is thus in this regard that the UN Millennium Development Goal Seven aims at reducing half the people without sustainable access to safe drinking water by 2015 based on the 1990 levels. Data on this section of the report will help government and other policy makers to track their progress in achieving this goal. From Table 8.10, sources of water has been categorised into drinking water for household and water for other domestic use of the household.

 Main sources of drinking water for household

Out of 6,567 households in the district as indicated in Table 8.10, 46.0 percent of them get their drinking water from bore-hole/pump/tube well making it the most common source of drinking water in the district. This is followed by rivers/streams, which supplies about 24.7 percent of households with drinking water. Other sources such as public tap/standpipe served as a source for 18.0 percent of the households. Protected wells also supplied 1.7 percent of the households in the district with drinking water. Pipe-borne inside dwelling, one of the improved water sources reached less than two (1.3%) percent and pipe-borne outside dwelling reached 4.2 percent.

Table 8.10 also shows that 67.6 percent of the households in the urban communities in the district drink from public tap/Standpipe. Others are pipe-borne outside dwelling 13.2 percent, borehole/pump/tube well 7.0 percent and pipe-borne inside dwelling 4.7 percent.

In the rural communities, the major source of drinking water for households is borehole/ pump/tube well 60.0 percent, river/stream 33.5 percent and only 1.0 percent for pipe-borne outside dwelling.

Main source of water for other domestic use of household

Still on Table 8.10, out of the 6,567 households in the district, 44.0 percent got their water for other domestic use from bore-hole/pump/tube well, and this is followed by river/stream with 28.1 percent. Others include public tap/standpipe (17.1%), pipe-borne outside dwelling (8.7%).

Public tap/standpipe is reported as the highest source of water for other domestic use in the urban locality with 67.6 percent whilst the least source is protected spring and tanker supply/vendor with 0.5 percent each. Rural areas reported bore-hole/pump/tube well as the highest source of water for domestic use with a percentage of 55.7 percent. This is followed by river/stream, which had 37.8 percent with public tap/standpipe being the least.

Bathing and Toilet Facilities
Toilet facilities

An efficient and hygienic method of human waste disposal available in a dwelling unit is a critical indicator of the sanitary condition of the unit and is a measure of the socio-economic status of a household. Table 8.11 shows both toilet and bathing facilities that are used by households at national, regional and at district levels.

The most prevalent facilities are public toilets (17.6%), the Kumasi Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine (KVIP) (5.5%), pit latrine (2.1%) and water closet (WC) 0.8 percent. However, the table shows a disturbing phenomenon as 72.4 percent of the households in the district used the bush/open field for defecation purpose.

Table 8.11 also shows that an insignificant percentage (0.1%) of households used the Bucket/Pan as a toilet facility. This translates to 5 dwelling units still using the bucket/pan toilet facilities, even though its use has been declared illegal by law (Supreme Court Ruling in 2008). The ban led to the construction of public toilets by municipal and district authorities as revenue generating outlets.

At the locality level, 91.0 percent of the dwelling units in rural areas had no toilet facilities and therefore resorted to the use of bush or open fields. The trend thus paints a deteriorating picture as far as human waste disposal in rural localities in the district is concerned. In urban localities the proportion is much lower (20.1).

In 2010, public toilet was the most prevalent facility in urban localities while in rural areas the most prevalent sanitation practice is the use of bushes and fields with a total of 91.0 percent. Public toilets are used by 63.9 percent of urban dwelling units and 1.1 percent in rural localities.

Pit latrines are used by 13.1 percent of urban dwelling units and 2.8 percent in rural localities. This can be attributed to the implementation of community-led total sanitation project in the rural communities of the district.

Bathing facilities

Table 8.11 also contains information on bathing facilities in the Zabzugu district. The proportion of dwelling units with bathrooms exclusively used by household members is 25.2 percent, with 40.7 percent of the dwellings units having separate bathrooms shared with other non-household members.

In 2010 PHC, 17.2 percent of the households shared an open cubicle as a bathroom with others in the compound, 16.1 percent of the dwelling units had no bathing facilities. In such cases household members used open spaces around the house (8.5 percent), private open cubicle (4.4 %), public bath house (3.0%) or rivers, lakes, dams and ponds (0.2%).

As shown in Table 8.11 the proportion of dwelling units that had a bathroom for exclusive use is higher in urban (29.1%) than rural (23.7%) localities. On the other hand, 45.7 percent of rural dwelling units shared a separate bathroom in the same house compared with 26.6 percent in urban dwelling units.

Furthermore, 9.1 percent of households in rural localities used open space around their houses as bathrooms compared to 6.8 percent in urban localities.

 Method of Waste Disposal

Solid waste disposal

From Table 8.12 the main mode of solid waste disposal is public dump site accounting for 52.2 percent of the households, while 23.1 percent dumped their waste indiscriminately, and 14.8 percent dumped in public containers which are periodically disposed of. Less than six percent (5.5%) of the dwelling units disposed of their solid waste by burning.

Table 8.12 also shows that in the rural communities more than half (59.1%) disposed of their solid waste at dump sites (open space) while 32.8 percent of the dwelling units in the urban areas had their solid waste disposed in the open spaces. Furthermore, in urban communities 52.2 percent of the dwelling units had their solid waste dumped in public containers.

 Liquid waste disposal

More than half (56.8%) of dwelling units in the district threw their liquid waste on to the street/outside. The Table also indicated that the proportion of dwelling units that disposed of their liquid waste by throwing onto the street/outside is slightly higher in rural areas (59.8%) than urban communities (48.4%).

Almost an equally greater proportion (24.0%) of the households in both urban and rural areas disposed of their liquid waste by throwing onto the compound while less than one percent (0.9%) reportedly disposed their liquid waste through the sewerage system and drainage system into gutters. The situation is slightly lower for rural locality (0.6%) than for urban communities (1.6%).

The 2010 PHC therefore revealed that there is a poor drainage system coupled with solid waste being disposed of in the few drains that have been constructed. This explains partly the reason why the district is bedeviled with perennial floods during the raining season.

These indicators point to the inadequate housing stock, low quality of houses and inadequate facilities such as water and sanitation. For instance, one in 8 households had no toilet facilities. Household members reportedly used the bush and open fields. Although laws have been passed requesting landlords to provide toilet facilities in houses, such laws are not being enforced.

The rural-urban variability plays out more in waste disposal type and availability of facilities. Although, the availability of some of these facilities had increased over the years, the inadequate supply and quality continue to present challenges, especially in the rural areas. The disposal of plastic materials also had its own environmental challenges.