IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i8p4530-d790108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Knowledge and Perception of Drinking Water Quality and Its Health Implications: An Example from the Makueni County, South-Eastern Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Kirita Gevera

    (Department of Geology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa)

  • Kim Dowling

    (Department of Geology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa
    School of Science, STEM College, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia)

  • Peter Gikuma-Njuru

    (Department of Environmental Science and Land Resources Management, South Eastern Kenya University, Kitui P.O. Box 170-90200, Kenya)

  • Hassina Mouri

    (Department of Geology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa)

Abstract

Due to the semi-arid nature of Makueni County in South-Eastern Kenya, there is a high dependence on groundwater resources for domestic use. Reliance on this source of potable water may have health implications for the population, given the presence of several naturally occurring and potentially harmful elements reported from aquifer source rocks, soil, and water in the area. A survey involving questionnaires and focus group discussions (FGDs) was conducted with 115 individuals to determine the local population’s knowledge, attitude, and perceptions of their drinking water quality and its health impacts. The results show that most respondents (67%) preferred piped water because it was pre-treated and not saline. Only 29% of the respondents were very satisfied with the taste of their drinking water, while the rest complained about varying salinity levels, ranging from slightly salty to very salty. This low satisfaction might have influenced the low daily drinking water consumption (1–2 L) by most respondents. Health issues reported by many (43%) respondents in the area include diarrhoea and gastrointestinal upsets, which may be associated with the saline nature of the drinking water. Elevated fluoride (F − ) in the local groundwater was reported, and the health effects remain a concern. Although 91% knew someone with dental fluorosis, 53% did not know the deleterious effects of high F − in drinking water. Most respondents (59%) associated the salty nature of the water with dental fluorosis, and as a result, 48% avoided drinking the salty water to prevent the condition. Despite the high prevalence and known psycho-social effects, most people did not perceive dental fluorosis as a severe health threat. The increased health risks associated with high salinity and high F − in drinking water in Makueni County are poorly understood by most residents, regardless of their education, gender, or age. This warrants an immediate public health education programme and detailed epidemiological studies to determine all the health effects associated with naturally occurring, potentially harmful elements in groundwater in the area.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Kirita Gevera & Kim Dowling & Peter Gikuma-Njuru & Hassina Mouri, 2022. "Public Knowledge and Perception of Drinking Water Quality and Its Health Implications: An Example from the Makueni County, South-Eastern Kenya," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-20, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4530-:d:790108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4530/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4530/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shu Wang & Jipeng Pei & Kuo Zhang & Dawei Gong & Karlis Rokpelnis & Weicheng Yang & Xiao Yu, 2022. "Does Individuals’ Perception of Wastewater Pollution Decrease Their Self-Rated Health? Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-18, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jansson, Åsa, 2013. "Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 285-291.
    2. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    3. Hooper, Tara & Cooper, Philip & Hunt, Alistair & Austen, Melanie, 2014. "A methodology for the assessment of local-scale changes in marine environmental benefits and its application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 65-74.
    4. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    5. Gerner, Nadine V. & Nafo, Issa & Winking, Caroline & Wencki, Kristina & Strehl, Clemens & Wortberg, Timo & Niemann, André & Anzaldua, Gerardo & Lago, Manuel & Birk, Sebastian, 2018. "Large-scale river restoration pays off: A case study of ecosystem service valuation for the Emscher restoration generation project," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 327-338.
    6. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    7. Wang, Shifeng & Wang, Sicong & Smith, Pete, 2015. "Quantifying impacts of onshore wind farms on ecosystem services at local and global scales," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1424-1428.
    8. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    9. Diane P. Dupont, 2019. "Editorial: Special Issue in Honour of Dr. Steven Renzetti," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(02), pages 1-10, April.
    10. Chun-Chu Yeh & Cheng-Shen Lin & Chin-Huang Huang, 2018. "The Total Economic Value of Sport Tourism in Belt and Road Development—An Environmental Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    11. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    12. Pistorius, Till & Schaich, Harald & Winkel, Georg & Plieninger, Tobias & Bieling, Claudia & Konold, Werner & Volz, Karl-Reinhard, 2012. "Lessons for REDDplus: A comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 4-12.
    13. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    14. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    15. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    16. Mateo Cordier & José Pérez Agúndez & Walter Hecq & Bertrand Hamaide, 2013. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological-economic modeling," Working Papers CEB 13-018, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    17. Hahn, Thomas & McDermott, Constance & Ituarte-Lima, Claudia & Schultz, Maria & Green, Tom & Tuvendal, Magnus, 2015. "Purposes and degrees of commodification: Economic instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services need not rely on markets or monetary valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 74-82.
    18. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    19. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2009. "Governing of agro-ecosystem services - modes, efficiency, perspectives," MPRA Paper 99870, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Whitten, Stuart M., 2017. "Designing and implementing conservation tender metrics: Twelve core considerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 561-571.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4530-:d:790108. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.