IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Research article
erd

Safety of Drinking Water Source and People’s Choice
Behavior in Rural India
SATO MORIO*
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, the University of Tokyo, Chiba, Japan
Email: moriozisan@gmail.com

YAMAJI EIJI
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, the University of Tokyo, Chiba, Japan
Received 15 December 2011

Accepted 7 February 2012(*: Corresponding Author)

Abstract The objective of this study was to reveal the causes of damages by diarrhea inIndia. In particular, this study focused on the safety of drinking water sources and people’s
preference for it in rural India because spread of toilets is difficult there at the moment.
Two villages in Andhra Pradesh, India were selected as survey sites of this study.
Concentrations were measured for coliforms, general bacteria and iron in all water sources
and surface waters. Interviews and questionnaire surveys were conducted at a publicschool in the village. People in one village used wells and hand pumps while people inanother village used a pond for drinking purpose. It was revealed that pump was the safestwater source according to the results of measuring concentration of coliforms. Pond water,which is a surface water source, and well water, which is drawn from unconfined aquifers,
were all contaminated by excreta. On the other hand, pump water, which is pumped up
from confined aquifers and can be defined as safe water, was not contaminatedconsiderably. However, people did not have proper risk perceptions and tended to hesitate
to drink pump water because of its metallic taste and smell. Actually, concentration of ironof pump water was higher than those of the others. The pond and wells represented a highrisk of diarrhea and it was difficult to improve them because hygiene education was notenough at schools; thus wide spread of toilets seemed difficult. In order to encourage
people to use pumps, they should be made of materials which do not erode and affect thetaste and smell of water. It is also important that people have proper risk perceptions about
each water source.
Keywords drinking water, toilet, sanitation, hygiene, diarrhea, IndiaINTRODUCTION
About 1.5 million children of age five and below die from diarrhea every year. This is the second
cause of death for children (WHO, 2008). The most seriously affected country is India, in which
about 0.39 million children die from diarrhea (UNICEF and WHO, 2009).
Pathogens which cause diarrhea are spread from excreta to new patients through hands,animals, water, etc. (Carr et al., 2001). Building toilets, developing water sources, improving water
quality, and improving hygiene habits can reduce the risk of diarrhea relatively (Fewtrell, 2005). In
order to prevent children’s death by diarrhea, the United Nations set a goal to “halve, by 2015, theproportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation”  in Millennium Development Goals (MDG), and many kinds of activities were conducted all over
the world. But in India, especially in rural areas, about 79% of people still do not have basicsanitation and 69% do open defecation (WHO and UNICEF, 2010). Previous researches indicatethat this is because people are not in the habit of using a toilet (Banda et al., 2007), and thatbuilding a toilet is too expensive for them (Jha, 2003).
The objective of this study was to reveal the causes of damages by diarrhea in India. In
particular, this study mainly focused on the safety of drinking water sources and people’sⒸ ISERD

43

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

preference for it in rural India. It is very important to keep safe drinking water sources and use
them properly in rural India, where usage of toilets is difficult to spread.
METHODOLOGY
Two villages (P-village and T-village) near Sompeta city of Srikakuram district of Andhra Pradesh
state of India were selected as survey sites of this study (Fig. 1). Andhra Pradesh state is in thesoutheastern part of India, and its average income is Rs 23,700 which is almost equal to that of theentire India, Rs 23,200. 21.9% of the population in the urban areas as well as 81.9% in the ruralareas, do not have a toilet at home. The percentage in rural areas is higher than the average of all ofIndia; 78.1%. Sompeta city has a population of 17,400; it is the smallest of all 6 cities inSrikakuram district. P-village is about 1.5km away from Sompeta city and T-village is about 13km
away from it. On-site survey was conducted from 28th October to 11th November in 2011. Thesurvey consisted of a water quality survey, interview survey, and a questionnaire survey.
Srikakuram district

T-Village

Sompeta city
P-Village
Andhra Pradesh state4km

Fig. 1 Survey site
In water quality surveys, concentrations of coliforms, general bacteria and iron of each water
source were measured on 21 points of P-village and 15 points of T-village (Fig. 2). Two handpumps in T-village, ‘Y’  and ‘Z’, could not be measured because they were broken. The types ofpoints measured were hand pumps, public wells, private wells, a container, ponds, and streams.
Hand pumps, public wells and containers were supplied by Rural Water Supply, which is a state
department. Public wells were the oldest water facilities and hand pumps were the newest ones.
Container was a huge water tank with some taps at the bottom. Private wells were a kind of wells
which were ordered individually and built at people’s houses. Some private wells were built inside
the houses while others were outside. The number of people who had private wells was increasingover the duration of the survey.

171356[P-Village]

118

315

1220

811o24

Public Well
Hand Pump
Pond[T-Village]

1914n16
10ah

21

100m

100m

em

79

Private Well
ContainerStreamcfkdj
Y gZlbiFig. 2 Points of water quality survey in P-village (left) and T-village (right)
For measuring concentrations of coliforms and general bacteria, 1 mL of sampled water wasdropped on a detection paper and put into a cultivator which was kept at 37℃ for about 24 hoursⒸ ISERD

44

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

for cultivating coliforms and general bacteria. The detection paper was SUNCOLI produced by Sun
Chemical Co. Ltd., and the cultivator was CB-101 produced by Sibata Science Technology Ltd.
For measuring concentrations of iron, a test kit of WAK-Fe produced by Kyoritsu Chemical-CheckLab. Corp. was used. Furthermore, whether residents who lived near each water sources use it for
drinking or not were checked through interviews.
Questionnaire and interview surveys were conducted at a public school in P-village. In thisarea, children from 1st grade (6 years old) to 5th grade (10 years old) go to a primary school, andchildren from 6th grade (11 years old) to 10th grade (15 years old) go to a high school. Compulsory
education is conducted at primary and high school for ten years. Most children go to a publicschool in the village free of charge while others go to a private school in a nearby city. P-village
has both a primary and a high school, but T-village has only a primary school. Children in Tvillage go to a high school in a neighboring village.
Questionnaire survey was applied to 13 years old 8th grade children, at a public school in Pvillage (n=31). Questions focused mainly on the use of drinking water sources and toilets, diarrhea
frequency, etc. On the other hand, 10 years old 5th grade children were asked only one question:
whether they have a toilet in their house or not (n=14). School teachers were interviewed abouthygiene education at school.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Use of water sources
Table 1 shows the number of water sources and whether they are used for drinking or not. In Pvillage, hand pumps, private wells and a public well at a temple are used for drinking purpose.
Among these, the temple well was used frequently. However, other public wells, the container, andponds are not currently used. On the other hand, most of people in T-village use the pond as
drinking water source, and few people use pump or private wells. Public wells, except the temple
well, are not used for drinking.
Table 1 Number of water sources and their use as drinking water
Water Source
Public Well
Private Well
Hand Pump
Container
Pond

P-Village
Drink
Not Drink
1120
1010
10
3T-Village
Drink
Not Drink
1530
40
00
10

Safety of drinking water sourcesFig. 3 shows the results of measuring concentrations of coliforms at P-village and T-village.
Marks above numbers and alphabets show whether the water source was used for drinking or not.
A circle means it was used for drinking and a cross means it was not. A triangle means few people
drink it and a double circle means it was the most popular drinking water source. Only hand pumpfulfilled WHO’s guideline of drinking water quality that specifies coliforms should not be found in
1mL of sampled water. Nevertheless coliforms were detected in 4 pumps of 11 in P-village and in 3
pumps of 4 in T-village. Coliforms were also detected in all other water sources including well andpond which people used as drinking water sources.
Water from public and private wells are drawn from unconfined aquifers, thus it is easily
affected by surface water. According to the results, surface water and well water of this area wascontaminated by excreta. It was revealed that many people use ponds and well water for drinking,even though they are not safe.
On the other hand, water from hand pumps comes from confined aquifers that are difficult tobe affected by surface water and can be defined as safe water which is not contaminated. However,Ⓒ ISERD45

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1coliforms were detected in some pumps. This may be because some pipe parts of the pump werecorroded and perforated and hence contaminated water mixed with pump water. Pump water was
safer than other sources, but it was not completely safe and a risk of diarrhea exists.
[n/mL]
60

P-Village

T-Village

40
200

◎

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111213 141516 1718 192021◎◎

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n oFig. 3 Concentrations of coliforms on water sources
Possibilities of improving surface water from the point of view of hygiene education
Fig. 4 shows percentage of children whose houses were equipped with a toilet. More than 70% ofchildren do not have a toilet at home, but most of them want one. As a reason, 76% selected“convenience”. More than two out of three defecates in open spaces, and 42% in the class excrete
near a pond. For the images of open defecation, 80% selected negative keywords like “dirty”,“ugly”, “inconvenient”, and “shameful”, but 13% selected positive keywords like “good feeling”  and “cleanliness”. Many children recognized open defecation as negative, and wanted a toilet forconvenience.
There were two toilets at the public school in P-village, but children could not use thembecause they were broken and locked. According to the interview with the school teacher, children
had used toilets properly in the beginning, but they gradually stopped using them properly, andtoilets had become broken. This is because toilet users had to carry water from a hand pump, which
was 50m away from toilets. When children feel the need to defecate at the school time, they have toendure or go outside.

nn4524313014Fig. 4 Percentage of children whose
houses are equipped with toilets

Fig. 5 Frequency of instruction
to use toilet by friends or teachers

Teachers said that they taught children how to use a toilet when they taught hygiene. However,they also said that it was difficult to teach about toilet in daily life because they were broken. Fig. 5
showed frequency of instructions to use a toilet by friends or teachers. Most of the children did not
realize that they were instructed about the usage of toilet at school. From the above reasons, it canbe inferred that education about toilets was not conducted enough at school, and this is one of thefactors that prevented the spread of toilets. Therefore, it is difficult and likely to take a long time toimprove water quality of surface water.
Ⓒ ISERD46

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Factors that influence people’s choice of drinking water sources
According to the questionnaire survey at the public school of P-village, 52% of children used wells
for drinking purpose and 32% of children used hand pumps. Fig. 6 shows the percentage ofchildren who hesitate to drink water from wells and hand pumps. More than 40% of children
hesitate to drink water from pumps. The most common reason was because of its “taste”   and“smell”. No one selected “location”  as a reason. Less than 20% of children hesitate to drink waterfrom wells. The most common reason was “family and friends do not use”. “Safety/ dirtiness”  and“location”  were not selected.
Taste/Smell

Safety/Dirtiness

Family and Friends don't useLocation

No Problem(n=31)
2 0 3Well

026

10HandPump
0%

120%

2 01840%

60%

80%

100%

Fig. 6 Percentage of children who hesitate to drink water from wells and hand pumps
In T-village, most people used pond water for drinking purposes. They mentioned a better taste
as the reason. They tended to dislike especially drinking water from pump because of its metallic
taste. However, few people think pond was safe for drinking, and so they built and use private wellor used pump for preserving their health.
Fig. 7 shows the results of measuring concentrations of iron at P-village and T-village. Marks
above numbers and alphabets show whether the water source was used for drinking or not. For‘Ponds’   and ‘Wells’, the average value was considered. In WHO’s guideline of drinking water
quality, there is a reference value about iron from a viewpoint of taste and coloring, though notfrom a viewpoint of safety. It specifies that concentrations of iron should be under 0.3mg/L. Higher
levels of iron than the reference value were detected in some pumps. Two pumps of 11 in P-villageand 3 pumps of 4 in T-village had higher levels. Particularly, values measured in pumps of T-village
were very high; the highest being above three times the reference level. However, all other kinds ofsources had a lower level than the reference value. Pump named ‘5’   has been used for handwashing instead of drinking because it is located near a pond where many people practice open
defecation.
[mg/L]
1.2
1.0

T-Village

P-Village

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
12

34

5678910◎Well
11 Pond Wellabc◎Welld Pond Well

Fig. 7 Concentrations of iron in hand pumps, average of ponds and average of wells
People who did not have proper risk perception about each water source tended to choose by
its taste and smell. Pump was the safest water source in this area, but many people hesitate to drink
it. It was clear that this was caused by high concentrations of iron.
Ⓒ ISERD47

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1CONCLUSION
Water from ponds and wells used by many people for drinking contained many coliforms, and therisk of diarrhea by drinking water from ponds and wells is higher than that of hand pumps. It seems
that it will take a lot of time to improve water quality of ponds and wells by spreading toilets
because hygiene education was not conducted enough at school although most of children regarded
open defecation negatively and wanted toilet in their homes.
Hand pumps are theoretically safer because the water comes from confined aquifers, which aredifficult to be contaminated by surface water. However, coliforms were detected from some pumpson the actual site. In order to keep and use pumps as a safe drinking water source, regularinspection of water quality is needed.
However, people did not have proper risk perception about each drinking water source, andthey chose and used source by other factors like taste. People especially hesitated to drink waterfrom pumps, which was safer than others, because its concentration of iron tended to be high andits taste and smell got worse. Pump should be made of material which does not erode and affect thetaste and smell of water. It is also important for people to have proper risk perception about eachdrinking water source in order to stop using unsafe water and then reduce the risk of diarrhea.
Future studies should investigate ways to disseminate a proper risk perception among people tochange their behavior.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Indian NGO Green Basics for assisting on-site survey in these areas.
REFERENCES
Andhra Pradesh state, AP Online, http://www.aponline.gove.in/, 13 th Dec 2011 access.
Banda, K., Sarkar, R., Gospal, S., Govindarajan, J., Harijan, B.B., Jeyakumar, M.B., Mitta, P., Sadanala,M.E., Selwyn, T., Suresh, C.R., Thomas, V.A., Devadason, P., Kumar, R., Selvapandian, D., Kang, G.,
Balraj, V. 2007. Water handling, sanitation and defecation practice in rural southern India: a knowledge,attitudes and practices study. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 101,1124-1130.
Carr, R. and Strauss, M. 2001. Water quality: guidelines, standards and health; Assessment of risk and risk
management for water-related infectious disease. International Water Association on behalf of WHO,89-113.
Fewtrell, L., Kaufman, R.B., Kay, D., Enanoria, W., Haller, L., and Colford, J.M., Jr. 2005. Water, sanitation,and hygiene interventions to reduce diarrhoea in less developed countries: a systematic review andmeta-analysis. The Lancet Infectious Disease, 5, 42-52.
Jha, P.K. 2003. Health and social benefits from improving community hygiene and sanitation: an Indianexperience. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 13, S133-S140.
Registrar General and Census Commissioner 2001. Census of India.
UNICEF, WHO. 2009. Diarrhoea: Why children are still dying and what can be done.
WHO. 2008. The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 update.
WHO, UNICEF. 2010. Progress on sanitation and drinking-water: 2010 update, joint monitoring programme
for water supply and sanitation.

Ⓒ ISERD48