This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 25 November 2014, At: 09:58Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Urban Water JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nurw20

Microbiological quality of water from hand-dug wellsused for domestic purposes in urban communities inKumasi, GhanaMaxwell Akple a , Bernard Keraita b c , Flemming Konradsen c & Edem Agbenowu aa Environmental Health Platform, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology ,Kumasi, Ghanab International Water Management Institute (IWMI) , Africa Office, PMB CT 112, Accra,Ghanac Department of International Health , University of Copenhagen , Øster Farimagsgade 5,DK-1014, Copenhagen, DenmarkPublished online: 09 Feb 2011.

To cite this article: Maxwell Akple , Bernard Keraita , Flemming Konradsen & Edem Agbenowu (2011) Microbiological qualityof water from hand-dug wells used for domestic purposes in urban communities in Kumasi, Ghana, Urban Water Journal, 8:1,57-64, DOI: 10.1080/1573062X.2010.528436

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2010.528436

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Microbiological quality of water from hand-dug wells used for domestic purposes in urban

communities in Kumasi, Ghana

Maxwell Akplea, Bernard Keraitab,c*, Flemming Konradsenc and Edem Agbenowua

aEnvironmental Health Platform, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana; bInternational WaterManagement Institute (IWMI), Africa Office, PMB CT 112 Accra, Ghana; cDepartment of International Health, University of

Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, DK-1014 Copenhagen, Denmark

(Received 23 October 2009; final version received 28 September 2010)

Assessment was done on the microbiological quality of water in hand-dug wells in urban communities in Kumasi,Ghana. A total of 256 water samples were taken from eight wells and examined for faecal coliforms, enterococci andhelminths. High contamination levels were recorded in the wells, more so in the wet season, with faecal coliformslevels between 6.44 and 10.19 log units and faecal enterococci between 4.23 and 4.85 CFU per 100 ml. Influence onprotection and lining of wells on water quality was not pronounced but mechanization reduced contaminationsignificantly by about 3 log units. This study shows a stronger influence of poor sanitation and improper placementof wells on water quality compared to improvements made from lining and protection of wells. In the race toincrease access to drinking water in poor urban settlements, quality of groundwater could be a major barrier, ifprovision of drinking water is not matched with improvements in sanitation and urban planning.

Keywords: hand-dug wells; water quality; faecal contamination; poor urban settlements

1. Introduction

Groundwater is an important source of domestic watersupply globally (Foster 1995). Though more exten-sively used in rural areas, it is increasingly being usedin urban areas to supplement unreliable pipe-bornewater. For example, about 40% of the populationin Addis Ababa, 27% in Dar es Salaam and 16% inNairobi rely on groundwater supplies (Foster 2008).Likewise, groundwater is an important source ofdomestic water supply in Ghana. According to theGhana Poverty Reduction Strategy Report (2003),about 41% of the Ghanaian population depend onpipe-borne water, with 34% depending on ground-water sources and the rest (25%) on other naturalsources. Due to extensive pipe-borne water suppliesin urban areas (about 80%), the urban populationrelying on groundwater in urban areas in Ghana ismuch less (about 11%) compared to that in the ruralareas (about 47%) (GRPS 2003). Most of the urbanpopulation relying on groundwater sources in Ghanaare those in low to middle income communities whichhave no pipe water supply. Due to unreliable pipewater supplies and extensive pollution of surface water,even the population in middle to high income urbanareas is increasingly turning to the use of groundwater.

In Ghana, low to medium income communities arecharacterized by poor sanitation. Though groundwatersources are largely perceived as safe, the pollutedenvironments raise concerns about the water qualityand the related health risks. Indeed, studies done inother countries show that most people using ground-water sources in urban areas tend to be poor and live inpolluted environments with associated high healthrisks (Andreasen 1996). Drinking of contaminatedgroundwater can contribute to high morbidity andmortality rates from diarrhoeal diseases and sometimeslead to epidemics (Pedley and Howard 1997, Abu Amrand Yassin 2008). In most cases groundwater is useddirectly without treatment and the water sources maybe faecally contaminated.

Of the two main groundwater sources, hand-dugwells are by far cheaper to construct than boreholesand are thus found in poor or remote communities.In Ghanaian urban areas like Kumasi, hand-dug wellsare extensively used (McGregor et al. 2000). Thechallenge is however that most of these hand-dug wellsare unlined and their surfaces are unprotected. Dueto space limitations, some of them are also locatedclose to waste refuse dumps or even pit latrines, whichcould all be potential sources of contamination to

*Corresponding author. Email: b.keraita@cgiar.org

Urban Water Journal

Vol. 8, No. 1, February 2011, 57–64

ISSN 1573-062X print/ISSN 1744-9006 online

� 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/1573062X.2010.528436

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

58 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

groundwater. However, there is a knowledge gap inurban environments in Ghana on groundwater safety.Therefore, this study was undertaken to assess themicrobiological quality of water from hand-dug wellsand factors contributing to the pollution levels in thewells.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area and communities

This study was conducted in four urban communitieswithin the Kumasi Metropolis in Ghana. Kumasi is thesecond largest city in Ghana and has a population ofabout 1.5 million people. The city lies in the tropicalforest zone with an annual average rainfall of 1420 mmwith about 120 days on which it rains in the year. Therainfall pattern of the city is bimodal with the majorseason falling between March and July and a minorseason around September and October. About 12% ofthe Kumasi residents rely on water from hand-dugwells for domestic water supply (Ghana StatisticalServices 2005). Though the population is connected topipe water supply system, it is reported that, about

83% of this source is unreliable so groundwater isextensively used to supplement domestic water sup-plies. A large proportion of Kumasi residents (about37%) use public toilets (Ghana Statistical Services2005). The rest use household pit and improvedlatrines (27%), with about 28% using water closetsconnected mainly to septic tanks, with few (less than10%) connected to sewer system. Other facilities beingused are unsanitary bucket latrines (5%) and opendefecation (3%).

The study was conducted in four communities inthe eastern part of Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly(KMA) which were Ayigya, Aboabo, Kentikrono andGyinyase (see Figure 1). Two of these communities(Ayigya and Aboabo) are generally low-income com-munities with an estimated average monthly householdincome of USD 83, while Kentinkrono and Gyinyaseare medium-income communities with an averagemonthly household income of USD 178 (Vodounhessi2006). The four communities rely extensively ongroundwater for domestic use. The low-income com-munities are characterized by poor drainage systems,unplanned settlements and lack of adequate sanitation

Figure 1. Location of study sites.

58 M. Akple et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

58 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

facilities, with slight improvements in the medium-income communities. Population estimates made in2004 showed that low-income communities had anaverage household population of six people withAyigya having a total population of 37,369, andAboabo 42,210 people. Middle income communitieshad an average of five people per household and thetotal population was 48,443 and 44,794 for Kentikronoand Gyinyase, respectively (Vodounhessi 2006). Theaverage population growth rate for Kumasi Metropo-lis was 3.4% in 2000 and projected as 5.4% in 2006(Ghana Statistical Services 2005).

2.2. Methods used

2.2.1. Observation study

Observational studies of the wells were carried outfor one week in the selected urban communities.Structured observation guides and charts were used.Observations made included the nature of wells,protection of mouth of well, water usage and closenessof wells to any major pollution sources such aspublic latrines, refuse dump etc. This was used incharacterizing the wells and also in the assessment ofthe well water quality. This was done for both dryand wet seasons. In addition, sanitary conditionsand microbial contamination risk factors that mightinfluence contamination levels were also observed andrecorded.

2.2.2. Water quality assessments

Water quality assessments were carried out on watersamples from each hand-dug well to determine theextent of microbial contamination using indicatororganisms. Faecal coliforms, faecal enterococci andhelminth eggs were used as indicator organismsbecause they indicate faecal contamination in water.

2.2.2.1. Sampling of well waters. There were manywells in the study communities used as sources ofdomestic water, but only perennial hand-dug wells thatwere open for communal use were considered in thisstudy. There were about 12 such wells in Aboabo, nineat Ayigya, and eight at Kentinkrono. In this study,water samples were taken from three of these wellsserving different sub-communities at Aboabo and twoeach at Kentinkrono and Ayigya. These wells wereselected because they were the most extensively usedin the communities. At Gyinyase, one fully mechanizedwell was selected to serve as a control. Sampling wasdone in both dry and wet seasons, i.e. November–January and June–August, respectively, to cater for theseasonal variations. Samples were consistently takentwice in a week (every Monday and Wednesday to fit

laboratory schedules) from each well in duplicates foreight consecutive weeks in both dry and wet seasons.So a total of 256 water samples were taken for analysis.Samples were consistently taken between 06:00 and07:00 h, when the wells were mostly used bythe community. They were collected in 2-l sterilisedbottles and transported in ice-cold containers to thelaboratory for analysis within 2 h of collection.

2.2.2.2. Laboratory analysis. Faecal coliforms wereanalysed using the Most Probable Number (MPN)method. Serial dilutions of 10–1 to 10–8 were preparedby serially diluting 1 ml of the water sample. Onemillilitre aliquots from each of the dilutions wereinoculated into 5 ml of MacConkay Broth withinverted Durham tubes and incubated at 448C for18–24 h. Tubes showing colour change from purpleto yellow and gas collected in the Durham tubes after24 h were identified as positive for faecal coliforms.Counts per 100 ml were calculated from MPN Tables.

Faecal enterococci were isolated and enumeratedby pour plate method and growth on enterococci agar(Slanetz and Barltey Agar). Serial dilutions of thesample were placed on already prepared Slanetzand Barltey agar, and samples on Petri dishes werepreincubated at temperature of 378C for 4 h toaid bacterial resuscitation. The plates were thenincubated at 448C for a further 44 h. After incuba-tion all red, maroon and pink colonies that weresmooth and convex were counted and recorded asfaecal enterococci. Helminth eggs were enumeratedusing the USEPA modified concentration method(Schwartzbrod 1998) and identified using the WHObench Aid (WHO 1994).

2.2.3. Survey

A structured questionnaire was administered to regularusers of selected wells in Aboabo community to gathertheir views on the quality of the water. Ten regularusers of each well were randomly interviewed, but carewas taken that the respondents were from differenthouseholds. The survey was conducted in the dryseason because that is when community members usedthe wells most due to scarce and unreliable suppliesfrom alternative sources (rainwater and pipe water)during the period. Only community members who hadused specific wells for more than one year wereinterviewed. A total of 30 interviews were conducted.

2.3. Data analysis

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 13was used for analysis of variance (ANOVA). Treat-ments with variance probability values less than 5%

Urban Water Journal 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

58 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

(P5 0.05) were considered as significantly different.Faecal coliforms, enterococci and helminth counts werenormalised by log transformation before analysis.Tables were done with Microsoft Excel (MicrosoftCorporation).

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of hand-dug wells

The key characteristics of the eight wells where watersamples were taken from are shown in Table 1. Linedwells had their wells lined with concrete and protectedwells had their surface openings covered with aconcrete slap. Only the well at Gyinyase was mechan-ized, while three wells were neither lined nor protected.The wells were more than often sited down slope(lowest end) of settlements. Due to low livingstandards in these communities especially Aboaboand Ayigya, most wells were located in close proximityto public toilets, septic tanks, wastewater gutters anddumping sites for solid waste.

3.2. Microbiological quality of water from wells

In both dry and wet seasons, all sampled wells, exceptthe Well G1 and only during the dry season, hadhigher feacal contamination levels. These levelsexceeded the recommended WHO guidelines fordrinking water of zero levels in all measured indicatororganisms (WHO 2006). At Kentikrono and Aboabo,levels of all indicator organisms during particularseasons (dry or wet) were not statistically different.

This shows that during either the wet or dry seasons,there were no significant differences in water qualitybetween wells A1, A2 and A3 as well as between wellsK1 and K2. The trend was almost similar at Ayigyaonly levels of helminth eggs and faecal coliforms werestatistically different during the wet season betweenwells Y1 and Y2, while in the dry season only feacalcoliforms were different. So, no well within anycommunity could be termed as ‘‘safer’’ than otherwells. Nevertheless, well G1 showed the lowestmicrobiological contamination, especially during thedry season when zero levels were recorded for allmeasured indicators.

Seasonal changes had some effect on the quality ofwater in the wells. Significant differences were found infaecal coliforms and enterococci in all wells sampledwhen levels obtained during the dry season werecompared to those found during the wet season.However, levels of helminth eggs did not varyseasonally. This could be due to the low levelsobtained.

3.3. Microbiological quality of wells betweencommunities assessed

The quality of water in wells from the low-incomecommunities of Aboabo and Ayigya had highercontamination levels than the two other communities.For example, the average faecal coliform levels in wellsat Ayigya were 8.83 and Aboabo was 8.28 log units per100 ml compared to the wells at Kentinkrono whichwas 6.67 log units per 100 ml. Water from well G1 had

Table 1. Characteristics of wells in different communities.

Community Well ID

Well features

Surrounding conditionsWall liningProtection(cover)

Mecha-nization

Aboabo A1 No No No . 25 m down slope of cattle shed, 5 m from openwastewater gutter, unsanitary surroundings withspirogyra on walls

A2 Yes Yes No . 9 m from septic tank, about 2 m from openwastewater gutter, used by school children

A3 Yes Yes No . 15 m down slope from public toilet, about 15 mdown slope of solid waste disposal site

Kentikrono K1 Yes Yes No . 30 m down slope of solid waste dumping site,used for drinking water

K2 No No No . Shallower than all other wells, unsanitarysurroundings, water used for washing andbathing

Ayigya Y1 No No No . Unsanitary surroundings, observableanimal droppings, water used for washingand bathing

Y2 Yes Yes No . 8 m from septic tankGyinyase G1 Yes Yes Yes . Water pumped into a tank and distributed

through piped networks in the house

60 M. Akple et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

58 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

lowest contamination levels, and no helminth eggswere found in the well. Comparing contaminationlevels in wells across the communities, only faecalcoliform levels were found to be significantly different.This could be attributed to the comparatively lowernumbers of helminth eggs and levels of faecalenterococci obtained in the wells in all communities.Seasonal variations in faecal coliforms and enterococciacross the communities were significantly different,showing again the strong influence of seasons espe-cially on bacterial contamination in the wells.

3.4. Effect of well features on the water quality

The influence of well features such as protection andlining on microbiological water quality was not verypronounced. Aggregate values show some significantdifferences between protected and lined wells (A2, A3,K1, Y2), unprotected and unlined wells (A1, K2 Y1)and the mechanized well (G1). However, comparinglined and protected wells with unlined and unprotectedwells in particular communities (A1 with A2; K1 andK2) showed no significant differences. Nevertheless,the mechanized well had significantly much less levels ofcontamination, and recorded zero levels for helminthsin both dry and wet seasons as well as faecal enterococciand coliforms over the dry season (Figure 2).

3.5. Perceptions on water quality

The 30 correspondents included 19 women and 11men. In the community, piped water and hand-dugwells were the main sources of water for domestic uses.About 77% of residents relied on water from both thepiped system and wells, about 20% on only pipedsystems and 3% on only well water for drinking.However, whenever pipe water was not available, wellwater was used. Due to the unreliable supply of pipe-borne water, about 83% of residents normally stored

drinking water in various vessels such as gallons(64%), bottles (8%), buckets (24%) and barrels(4%). According to respondents, water from the wellswas not safe for drinking but they were forced to drinkit when pipe water was not available. In such cases,they could draw water from wells only perceived to besafe and pre-treat it (usually boiling) before drinking.Respondents mentioned diarrhoea (75%) and stomachpains (18%) as illnesses resulting from drinkingcontaminated water. About 17% did not know ofany health risks of drinking contaminated water.About 57% of residents mentioned that they had notexperienced any negative effects from drinking the wellwater while 43% had experienced such cases. Toreduce cases of illness of drinking contaminated water,respondents mentioned some intervention measuressuch as boiling (67%), filtering (6%), proper storage(10%), and avoiding drinking such water (17%).

4. Discussion

Results from this study show a stronger influence of thelocation of wells (position where located in communitiesand the community’s sanitation status) on contamina-tion levels compared to well features. For example, inthe wet season, wells in the low-income communities(Ayigya and Aboabo) had an average of about 2 logunits of faecal coliforms higher than wells in the middleincome community (Kentinkrono). Furthermore, linedand protected wells in low-income communities (A2,A3, and Y2) had higher levels of feacal contaminationcompared to the unlined and unprotected well (K2) atthe middle income community. This shows a strongerinfluence of community income status on groundwaterquality than well features. Low-income communitieshad high population densities, were poorly planned andheavily built with limited sanitation infrastructure. Dueto lack of suitable space, communal wells were in closeproximity to other communal facilities such as public

Table 2. Microbial quality of wells sampled (n ¼ 16 samples per well per season).

Communities Well no.

Faecal coliforms(MPN/100 ml)

Faecal enterococci(CFU/100 ml) Helminth eggs (counts/l)

Wet season Dry season Wet season Dry season Wet season Dry season

Aboabo A1 8.54 (+0.24)a 1.92 (+0.53) 4.83 (+0.20) 1.43 (+0.50) 0.2 (+0.1 0.0 (+0.0)A2 8.80 (+0.39) 2.29 (+0.56) 4.85 (+0.23) 2.53 (+0.30) 0.0 (+0.0) 0.2 (+0.1)A3 7.36 (+0.35) 2.06 (+0.58) 4.64 (+0.39) 2.15 (+0.40) 0.0 (+0.0) 0.2 (+0.1)

Kentikrono K1 6.44 (+0.35) 2.98 (+0.36) 4.65 (+0.16) 1.94 (+0.43) 0.2 (+0.1) 0.0 (+0.0)K2 6.65 (+0.41) 2.94 (+0.37) 4.31 (+0.08) 1.81 (+0.41) 0.1 (+0.1) 0.1 (+0.1)

Ayigya Y1 10.19 (+0.57) 3.75 (+0.20) 4.23 (+0.14) 2.70 (+0.41) 0.4 (+0.1) 0.1 (+0.1)Y2 6.85 (+0.53) 2.45 (+0.15) 4.51 (+0.15) 1.77 (+0.57) 0.0 (+0.0) 0.0 (+0.0)

Gyinyase G1 3.80 (+0.46) 0.00 (+0.00) 1.62 (+0.55) 0.00 (+0.00) 0.0 (+0.0) 0.0 (+0.0)

aFigures in bracket are standard errors.

Urban Water Journal 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

58 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

toilets and waste disposal sites. Hence, surface runoffand drainage of liquid waste could easily flow into thewells more so during the wet seasons. This was alsofound in studies conducted by Dzwairo et al. (2006)where pit latrines were found to have an impact ongroundwater quality for distances of up to 25 m frompit latrines.

On aggregate, protected and lined wells had slightlylower faecal contamination (about 1 log unit per100 ml) than unprotected and unlined wells. Welllining and protection reduces both surface and sub-surface inflow of contaminants to the wells. A similarstudy carried out in Malawi showed much higherfaecal coliform counts in unprotected wells (6.2 6 103

faecal coliform counts per 100 ml) than protected wells(8.0 6 101 faecal coliform counts/100 ml) (Pritchardet al. 2008). However, in this study, investments madein lining and protection of wells could be betterjustified if reduction in contamination levels attributeddirectly to lining and protection could have beenhigher. In fact, other than Ayigya (Y1 compared toY2), where the difference is significant, other locationsshow minimal differences and in some cases lined andprotected wells having slightly higher contaminationthan unprotected and unlined wells as shown in A1and A2. This clearly re-emphasizes that location, i.e.community living standards and more specificallysanitation had more influence on groundwater qualitythan lining and protection.

The low levels of microbiological contamination ofwater from the fully mechanized well (G1) shows astrong influence of mechanization on improving waterquality. This is clearly shown by the differences inWells G1 and Y2, of which the only difference wasmechanization of G1 since they were all in middle-income communities, lined and protected. The resultsshowed an average of about 3 log unit difference inboth faecal coliforms and faecal enterococci, whichcould be attributed to mechanization. Other thanreducing contamination from surface and sub-surfaceinflow, mechanization lessens exposure of drinkingwater to other faecal contamination sources such asdirty water collection containers, soils and people. Abetter study to illustrate the difference could be tocompare mechanized and non-mechanized wells in low-income communities, however this could not be done inthis study because there were no communal mechanizedwells in the study low income communities.

Seasonal changes had a significant influence oncontamination of well water, more so in the unprotectedones. The higher contamination levels recorded in thewet season could be attributed to higher inflow ofcontaminated surface runoff and sub-surface water intothe wells. In this study, faecal contamination levels were4.6 and 2.3 log units higher in wet season than duringthe dry season for faecal coliforms and faecal entero-cocci respectively. Indeed, Howard et al. (2003) showeda strong correlation between microbial contaminationand rainfall over a relatively short period due to rapidrecharge through surface interflow or direct ingressthrough poorly maintained infrastructure around thewell. Other studies in Malawi also show similar results

Figure 2. Effect of well features on (A) faecal coliforms, (B)faecal enterococci and (C) on helminths eggs contaminationin well waters.

62 M. Akple et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

58 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

that well water in the wet season has higher faecalcontamination levels (Mkandawire 2008, Pritchardet al. 2008). The study done by Pritchard et al. (2008)showed that faecal coliform levels were 202 cfu/100 mlcompared to 51 cfu/100 ml in the dry period.

The general perception in the community was thatwater from wells was not the primary but rather thesecondary source of drinking water. This perceptioncould have indirectly influenced the quality of thewater in the wells. If well water was to be the onlysource of water, then better protection could be givento the wells. Since water from the wells was mostlyused for domestic purposes other than drinking, theydo not take measures to protect the wells and thesurroundings are often very unsanitary. But wheneverthe well was purposely for drinking like K1 and G1,then the surroundings were kept neat, protected andentrances to the wells were even locked. Most people inthe communities are aware of the health risks thatcontaminated drinking water poses as some residentsclearly linked their diarrhoeal episodes to drinkingwater from the contaminated wells. Some even wentfurther to mention the measures taken like boilingwhenever it forced them to use such water for drinking.However, knowledge on household water storage andtreatment technologies is low and could be enhanced toincrease the quality of water.

Though this study was done in Kumasi, Ghana, thefindings of this study are relevant to many other cities indeveloping countries especially in Asia and sub-SaharanAfrica. Many of these cities are growing at very highrates, outpacing development of water and sanitationinfrastructure (UN Population Division 2004). Asmany authorities work towards increasing access towater for local communities in the race to meet MDGs,water quality could be a major barrier, especially inpoor urban settlements. Indeed, improvements insanitation infrastructure are necessary to reduce inflowsof faecal matter to water sources. Sanitation should begiven as much or even more attention than drinkingwater, because in many developing countries, access toimproved sanitation lags much behind access to safewater. In addition, general urban and communityplanning needs to be improved. The current state wherecommunal sanitation facilities such as waste disposalsites, septic tanks and public latrines are constructed atany available open space regardless of the location ofportable water sources should be stopped. Goodplanning will facilitate proper placement and installa-tion water and sanitation facilities including wells.While proper placement and installation of wells isimportant, even more important is continuous main-tenance and monitoring of wells to ensure that thequality of water is maintained as poor urban settlementsare very dynamic.

5. Conclusion

This study shows the extent to which hand-dug wellscan be contaminated especially in poor urbancommunities in developing countries where popula-tions are increasing drastically. Well water, which foryears was perceived as safe for drinking and isincreasingly being used for such due to intermittentsupplies of piped water, is turning out to be ahealth threat. In these poor communities where themanagement of solid waste and human excreta ispoor, focus should be more on improving sanitation,proper well placement and installation, and wherepossible mechanizing wells to reduce inflows ofcontaminants from the environment and people intothe wells. Even more important will be to raiseawareness and knowledge levels of local communitieson protecting hand-dug wells and encouragingthem to use other low cost household water storageand treatment techniques to reduce negative healthimpacts from poor water quality.

References

Abu-Amr, S.S. and Yassin, M.M., 2008. Microbial contam-ination of the drinking water distribution system and itsimpact on human health in Khan Yunis Governorate,Gaza Strip: Seven years of monitoring (2000–2006).Public Health, 122, 1275–1283.

Andreasen, J., 1996. Urban tenants and community involve-ment. Habitat International, 20, 359–365.

Dzwairo, B., Hoko, Z., Love, D., and Guz, E., 2006.Assessment of the impacts of pit latrines on groundwaterquality in rural areas: A case study from Maronderadistrict, Zimbabwe. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth,31, 779–788.

Foster, S., 1995. Groundwater for development—an over-view of quality constraints. In: H. Nash and G.J.H.McCall, eds. Groundwater quality. 17th Special Report.London: Chapman and Hall.

Foster, S., 2008. Presentation on urban water – supplysecurity in the developing world: groundwater use trendsand the sanitation nexus. Retrieved from www.genesys-hannover.de on 25 September, 2009.

Ghana Statistical Services, 2005. Population and HousingCensus 2000: Ashanti Region: Analysis of District Dataand Implications for Planning. Ghana Statistical Services,Accra, Ghana, 108 p.

Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS), 2003. GhanaPoverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS), Working Docu-ment. Government of Ghana, Accra.

Howard, G., Pedley, S., Barrett, M., Nalubega, M., andJohal, K., 2003. Risk factors contributing to microbio-logical contamination of shallow groundwater in Kam-pala, Uganda. Water Research, 37, 3421–3429.

McGregor, D.F.M., Thompson, D.A., and Simon, D., 2000.Water quality and management in peri-urban Kumasi,Ghana. Centre for Developing Areas Research, RoyalHolloway University of London, UK.

Mkandawire, T., 2008. Quality of groundwater from shallowwells of selected villages in Blantyre District, Malawi.Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 33, 807–811.

Urban Water Journal 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

58 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pedley, S. and Howard, G., 1997. The public healthimplications of microbiological contamination ofgroundwater. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geologyand Hydrogeology, 30, 179–188.

Pritchard, M., Mkandawire, T., and O’Neill, J.G., 2008.Assessment of groundwater quality in shallow wellswithin the southern districts of Malawi. Physics andChemistry of the Earth, 33, 812–823.

Schwartzbrod, J., 1998. Methods of Analysis of HelminthEggs and Cysts in Wastewater, Sludge, Soils and Crops.University Henry Poincare, Nancy.

UN Population Division, 2004. World Urbanization Pro-spects: The 2003 revision. Department of Economicsand Social Affairs. New York: United Nations: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2003/WUP2003Report.pdf

Vodounhessi, A., 2006. Financial and institutional challengesto make faecal sludge management integrated part ofecosan approach in West Africa. Case study of Kumasi,Ghana. Msc Thesis UNESCO-IHE, Institute for WaterEducation, The Netherlands.

WHO, 1994. Bench Aids for the Diagnosis of IntestinalParasites. Geneva: WHO.

WHO, 2006. Guidelines for drinking water quality: firstaddendum to 3rd ed. Volume 1, Recommendations:http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/ (accessed15 May 2009).

64 M. Akple et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

58 2

5 N

ovem

ber

2014