Jones, A.Q., Dewey, C.E., Doré, K., Majowicz, S.E., McEwen, S.A., Waltner-Toews, D., Mathews, E., et al. (2005) Public Perception of Drinking Water from Private Water Supplies: Focus Group Analyses. BMC Public Health, 5, 129.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-5-129

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: The Implication of Unreliable Urban Water Supply Service: The Case of Vendor Water Cost in Langata Sub County, Nairobi City, Kenya

  AUTHORS: E. A. Ochungo, G. O. Ouma, J. P. O. Obiero, N. A. Odero

  KEYWORDS: Water, Vending, Cost and Burden

  JOURNAL NAME: Journal of Water Resource and Protection, Vol.11 No.7, July 31, 2019

  ABSTRACT: Studies on urban water supply service improvements continue to draw interest across the world. The pressure on freshwater resources is increasing in every region in the face of an increasing demand and climate change dynamics. Langata sub County in Nairobi city, Kenya faces drought induced water shortage and households rely on water vending and bottled water purchases to augment the inadequate municipal water supplies. Little to our knowledge has been done to assess the cost implication of such a practice here. So the study used household survey method to collect monthly households’ water bills comprising; utility company, water tanker delivery and bottled water purchase from a randomly sampled 382 households spread within the five wards; Karen, South C, Mugumoini, Nairobi West and Nyayo Highrise. The gated communities identified are 57. Simple stochastic analysis of the data was done after data cleaning using MS Excel. It was found that the municipal water serves up to 91.15% of the total average household monthly water demand with a cost share of 27.91%. Water tanker delivery meets 8.61% of the household water demand with a cost share of 50.74%. The bottled water purchases serve 0.24% of a typical household water demand with a total cost share of 21.35%. The water supply deficit which is a mere 8.85% met by tanker deliveries and bottled water purchases has a total average cost share of 72.09%. The computed cost burden is 258%. This means that the households pay more than two and a half times extra above the utility bill per month. The study recommends a new water policy that will incorporate the role of water vendors operated on a cooperative model by the gated communities using standard guidelines.