Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research note
  • Open Access

Determinants of access to improved sanitation facilities in rural districts of southern Ghana: evidence from Dodowa Health and Demographic Surveillance Site

  • 1Email author,
  • 1, 4,
  • 3,
  • 1 and
  • 1, 2
BMC Research Notes201811:473

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3572-6

  • Received: 22 December 2017
  • Accepted: 6 July 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Objective

Access to improved sanitation facilities is critical to the health and well-being of individuals and communities. However, globally, over 2.5 billion people live without access to safe sanitation facilities and more than 40% of the world population, do not use a toilet, but defecate in the open or in unsanitary places. In Ghana, only 14% of the population have access to improved sanitation facilities with great disparities between rural (8%) and urban (19%) dwellers. This paper sought to examine the determinants of access to improved sanitation facilities by households among rural dwellers in two districts in southern Ghana.

Results

This study, which involved 16,353 household heads from the Dodowa Health and Demographic Surveillance System, found that sanitation facilities used by households were significantly influenced by age, gender, level of education, occupation, marital and socioeconomic status of household heads. It further revealed that a large proportion (85.94%) of the study participants did not have access to improved sanitation facilities. The study therefore recommends that the national sanitation laws must strictly be enforced to ensure each household in Ghana has decent and hygienic toilet facility.

Keywords

  • Household head
  • Improved sanitation
  • Rural
  • Ghana

Introduction

Basic sanitation is considered the lowest-cost technology ensuring hygienic excreta disposal and a clean and healthful living environment both at home and in the neighborhood of users [1]. It involves the use of improved sanitation facilities such as public sewer connection; septic system connection; pour-flush latrine; simple pit latrine; ventilated improved pit latrine and private facilities (sanitation facilities used exclusively by a household) [1]. According to WHO, only private facilities are considered to be improved [2]. The goal of improved sanitation is to hygienically separate human excreta from human contact and therefore reduce exposure to fecal contamination [3, 4]. By WHO standards, even an improved facility that is shared by more than one household is considered unimproved [4, 5].

Globally, over 2.5 billion people are living without access to safe sanitation facilities which leads to about 200 million tonnes of untreated human excreta annually [6, 7]. About 2.6 billion people, more than 40% of the world population, do not use toilet facilities, but defecate in the open or in unsanitary places [2]. Access to improved sanitation facilities is a huge challenge in Africa. In Nigeria, over 130 million people, two-thirds of the population, do not have access to adequate sanitation facilities [8] whilst in South Africa about 18 million people also face the same challenge [9]. More than half the population of Ghana (59%), the highest in the world, depend on shared sanitation facilities including public toilets [10] and about 19% of Ghanaians practise open defecation while 8% depend on various forms of unimproved sanitation facilities options such as bucket latrines [8].

This paper sought to explore the determinants of access to improved sanitation facilities by households among rural dwellers in the Dodowa Health and Demographic Surveillance area.

Main text

Methods

Study site and population

Data for this study was extracted from Dodowa Health and Demographic Surveillance System (DHDSS) which is located in the south-eastern part of Ghana. The operation of the DHDSS can be found elsewhere [10].

The study population comprised household heads (HHs) that were resident in the DHDSS from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.

Outcome and exposure variables

The outcome variable for this study was type of sanitation facility which is binary and was recorded as 1 “improved” and 0 “unimproved”. The unimproved sanitation facilities included open defecation (use of bush or beach), shared pit latrine, own pit latrine and shared ventilated improve pit latrine while the improved sanitation facilities included the use of own ventilated improved pit latrine and flush toilet.

From the available data, seven [7] exposure variables were selected: age, sex, level of education, occupation, marital status, household size and socioeconomic status (wealth index) of the HHs. These exposure variables were selected because from available literature, they have the potential to influence the type of sanitation facilities used by households. The wealth index is a proxy measure of a household’s long term standard of living derived through principal component analysis [11].

Statistical analysis

The extracted data were cleaned to identify all missing values and to check for internal consistency of the responses. Any irregularities in the data were corrected by using the hard copies of the completed questionnaires. Variables were recoded where necessary. The relationship between each exposure variable and outcome variable were explored at the univariate and multivariate level using logistic regression. All analyses were conducted in STATA version 11. The results were presented in the form of tables and summary statistics in odds ratios (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and P-values.

Results

Background characteristics

Table 1 provides the descriptive information on the socio-demographic characteristics of 16,353 HHs who were included in the study. The median age of the HHs was 48 years (IQR = 23). The majority (73.71%) of the HHs were of the Ga-Dangme ethnic group and 60.46% were male. A little more than half of HHs (52.72%) had junior or senior high school and above level of education while about one-thirds (33.89%) had no formal education. Of the HHs that were studied, 37.34% were married whereas 7.94% were divorced/separated. About two-fifths (40.84%) of the HHs were farmers, while 6.37% were unemployed. The study found that about one-quarter (26.33%) had a household size of six and more. The majority of the HHs (85.94%) studied used unimproved sanitation facilities.
Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants

 

Frequency

Percentage (%)

Age group

 < 30

1068

6.53

 30–34

1644

10.05

 35–39

2046

12.51

 40–44

2058

12.58

 45–49

1861

11.38

 50–54

1806

11.04

 55–59

1446

8.84

 60–64

1259

7.70

 65–69

889

5.44

 70+

2276

13.92

Median = 48 (IQR = 23)

 Sex

  Female

6466

39.54

  Male

9887

60.46

Ethnicity

 Ga-Dangme

12,054

73.71

 Akan

1007

6.16

 Ewe

2511

15.35

 Northern

675

4.13

 Others

106

0.65

Marital status

 Single

1772

10.84

 Divorced/separated

1298

7.94

 Married

6107

37.34

 Cohabiting

5307

32.45

 Widowed

1869

11.43

Education

 No education

5542

33.89

 Primary

2189

13.39

 Junior high/middle school

5886

35.99

 Senior high school and above

2736

16.73

Occupation

 Unemployed

1041

6.37

 Farmer

6678

40.84

 Artisan

2917

17.84

 Trader

2987

18.27

 Civil servant

1007

6.16

 Fisherman

797

4.87

 Others

926

5.66

Household size

 Less than six

12,047

73.67

 Six and above

4306

26.33

Sanitation (toilet) type

  

 Unimproved

14,053

85.94

 Improved

2300

14.06

Bivariate analysis

From Table 2, 90.98 and 82.63% of the households headed by females and males used unimproved sanitation facilities, respectively. A total of 34.72% of HHs with senior high school and above level of education used improved sanitation facilities while those with junior/middle school education constituting 14.51% of the study population used improved sanitation facilities. Only 5.88% households who had no formal education used improved sanitation facilities whilst those with primary level of education constituted 7.77%.
Table 2

Bivariate analysis of determinants of improved and unimproved sanitation facilities used by households

Characteristics of household head

Unimproved n (%)

Improved n (%)

P value

Age group

 < 30

958 (89.70)

110 (10.30)

< 0.001

 30–34

1473 (89.60)

171 (10.40)

 35–39

1795 (87.73)

251 (12.27)

 40–44

1779 (86.44)

279 (13.56)

 45–49

1562 (83.93)

299 (16.07)

 50–54

1514 (83.83)

292 (16.17)

 55–59

1172 (81.05)

274 (18.95)

 60–64

1057 (83.96)

202 (16.04)

 65–69

725 (81.55)

164 (18.45)

 70+

2018 (88.66)

258 (11.34)

Sex

 Female

5883 (90.98)

583 (9.02)

< 0.001

 Male

8170 (82.63)

1717 (17.37)

Ethnicity

 Ga-Dangme

10,741 (89.11)

1313 (10.89)

< 0.001

 Akan

643 (63.85)

364 (36.15)

 Ewe

2029 (80.80)

482 (19.20)

 Northern

5,58 (82.80)

117 (17.33)

 Others

82 (77.36)

24 (22.64)

Marital status

 Single

1524 (86.00)

248 (14.00)

< 0.001

 Divorced/separated

1151 (88.67)

147 (11.33)

 Married

4963 (81.27)

1144 (18.73)

 Cohabiting

4726 (89.05)

581 (10.95)

 Widowed

1689 (90.37)

581 (9.63)

Level of education

 No education

5216 (94.12)

326 (5.88)

< 0.001

 Primary

2019 (92.23)

170 (7.77)

 Junior high/middle school

5032 (85.49)

854 (14.51)

 Senior high school and above

1786 (65.28)

950 (34.72)

Occupation

 Unemployment

925 (88.86)

116 (11.14)

< 0.001

 Farmer

6022 (90.18)

656 (9.82)

 Artisan

2449 (83.96)

468 (16.04)

 Trader

2697 (90.29)

290 (9.71)

 Civil servant

612 (60.77)

395 (39.23)

 Fisherman

662 (83.06)

135 (16.94)

 Others

686 (74.08)

240 (25.92)

Household size

 Less than six

10,377 (86.14)

1670 (13.86)

0.213

 More than five

3676 (85.37)

630 (14.63)

Socioeconomic status

 Poorest

705 (99.44)

4 (0.56)

< 0.001

 Poorer

2017 (97.25)

57 (2.75)

 Poor

3325 (94.11)

208 (5.89)

 Less poor

4334 (92.94)

329 (7.06)

 Least poor

3672 (68.33)

1702 (31.67)

Ninety-nine percent (99.44%) of the households in the poorest socioeconomic quintile had unimproved sanitation facilities compared to 68.33% of the HHs in the least poor socioeconomic quintile. Statistically, there was an association (P < 0.05) between the variables studied and type of sanitation facility being used except for household size.

Univariate and Multivariate Analysis

From Table 3, male HHs were more than twice likely to use improved sanitation facilities compared to the female HHs and this was statistically significant. After adjusting for age group, marital status, education, occupation and socioeconomic status, sex of HHs was still associated with type of sanitation facility such that male HHs were 1.23 times more likely to use improved sanitation facilities compared to the female headed households.
Table 3

Unadjusted and adjusted odd ratios of determinants of improved and unimproved sanitation facilities used by households

Characteristics

Unadjusted

Adjusted

OR

95% CI

P-value

OR

95% CI

P-value

Age group

 < 30

1.00

  

1.00

  

 30–34

1.01

0.79–1.30

0.932

0.99

0.75–1.30

0.938

 35–39

1.22

0.96–1.54

0.104

1.21

0.93–1.58

0.157

 40–44

1.37

1.08–1.73

0.009

1.60

1.22–2.09

0.001

 45–49

1.67

1.32–2.10

< 0.001

2.01

1.53–2.62

< 0.001

 50–54

1.68

1.33–2.12

< 0.001

2.23

1.70–2.93

< 0.001

 55–59

2.04

1.61–2.58

< 0.001

2.73

2.06–3.60

< 0.001

 60–64

1.66

1.30–2.13

< 0.001

2.71

2.02–3.62

< 0.001

 65–69

1.97

1.52–2.56

< 0.001

3.32

2.44–4.51

< 0.001

 70+

1.11

0.88–1.41

0.372

3.02

2.27–4.03

< 0.001

Sex

 Female

1.00

  

1.00

  

 Male

2.12

1.92–2.34

< 0.001

1.23

1.05–1.38

0.008

Education

 No education

1.00

  

1.00

  

 Primary

1.35

1.11–1.63

0.002

1.28

1.04–1.58

0.019

 Junior high/middle school

2.72

2.38–3.10

< 0.001

1.73

1.48–2.03

< 0.001

 Senior high school and above

8.51

7.42–9.76

< 0.001

3.28

2.74–3.91

< 0.001

Marital status

 Single

1.00

  

1.00

  

 Divorced/separated

0.78

0.63–0.98

0.029

0.97

0.75–1.25

0.826

 Married

1.42

1.22–1.64

< 0.001

1.06

1.88–1.27

0.557

 Cohabiting

0.76

0.64–0.89

0.001

0.85

0.71–1.02

0.080

 Widowed

0.65

0.53–0.80

< 0.001

0.81

0.63–1.03

0.090

Household size

 Less than six

1.00

     

 Six and above

1.06

0.96–1.18

0.213

   

Occupation

 Unemployed

1.00

  

1.00

  

 Farmer

0.87

0.70–1.07

0.187

0.93

0.73–1.17

0.526

 Artisan

1.52

1.23–1.89

< 0.001

1.05

0.82–1.35

0.691

 Trader

0.86

0.68–1.08

0.186

1.00

0.77–1.28

0.983

 Civil servant

5.15

4.09–6.48

< 0.001

1.57

1.21–2.05

0.001

 Fisherman

1.63

1.24–2.12

< 0.001

1.31

0.97–1.77

0.084

 Others

2.79

2.19–3.55

< 0.001

1.62

1.23–1.24

0.001

Socioeconomic status

 Poorest

1.00

  

1.00

  

 Poorer

4.98

1.80–13.77

0.002

4.91

1.77–13.61

0.002

 Poor

11.03

4.09–29.75

< 0.001

10.66

3.94–28.81

< 0.001

 Less poor

13.38

4.98–35.98

< 0.001

11.40

4.23–30.74

< 0.001

 Least poor

81.69

30.52–218.64

< 0.001

52.44

19.52–140.89

< 0.001

Household heads aged 40–44, 45–49, 50–54, 55–59, 60–64, 65–59 years were at least 36% more likely to use improved sanitation facilities compared to those aged less than 30 years. This was still significant after controlling for sex, marital status, education, occupation and socioeconomic status.

While HHs with primary level of education were 1.35 times more likely to use improved sanitation facilities compared to those with no formal education in the unadjusted model, those with junior high/middle and senior high school and above level of education were 2.72 and 8.51 times more likely to use improved sanitation facilities, respectively compared to those with no formal education. This was statistically significant.

Also, while HHs who were married were 1.42 times more likely to use improved sanitation facilities, those who were divorced/separated, cohabiting and widowed were 22, 24 and 35% less likely to use improved sanitation facilities, respectively compared to those who were single. This was also statistically significant in the unadjusted model. After adjusting, none of them was statistically significant.

Households with more than five members were 1.06 times more likely to use improved sanitation facilities compared to those with less than six members in the unadjusted model and this was statistically not significant.

Civil Servants were 5.15 times more likely to use improved sanitation facilities compared to HHs who were unemployed. This association was significant in both the unadjusted and adjusted models. Artisans and fishermen were 1.52 and 1.63 times more likely to use improved sanitation facilities, respectively compared to HHs who were unemployed. Farmers and petty traders were 13 and 14% less likely to use improved sanitation facilities, respectively compared to HHs who were unemployed.

Household heads with poorer, poor, less poor and least poor socioeconomic status were 4.98, 11.03, 13.38 and 81.69 times more likely to use improved sanitation facilities, respectively compared to HHs from the poorest households. This was still statistically significant after adjusting for other explanatory variables.

Discussion

Household demographics

The age distribution of most HHs (57.57%) was found to be between 30 and 54 years. This indicates that the HHs within the study area fell within the economically active group [12]. A large proportion (60.46%) of HHs were males which reinforces the belief that men generally are considered heads of the family units. Studies by Ridgeway and Smith-Lovin [13], Lewis [14] and Salomone [15] confirmed this assertion [16].

Socio-demographic determinants

The findings revealed that only 14.06% of the HHs studied used improved sanitation facilities. This figure agrees with the national figure of 14.00% [17]. Unimproved sanitation facilities have economic, social, cultural, sex, health, environmental and income effects and to a large extent impede the full realization of human development of the affected persons [16]. Diseases related to poor sanitation and lack of hygiene are some of the most common causes of illness and death among the poor of developing countries [18].

Results of our study showed that HHs aged between 40 and 69 years were at least 36% more likely to use improved sanitation facilities compared to those aged less than 30 years. This could mean that majority of the said category of the study population fall within the economically active group and could afford improved sanitation facilities. A study by Angko revealed similar finding [16].

For sex distribution, the study result showed that male HHs were more than twice likely to use improved sanitation facilities compared to the female HHs. In most societies, women have the primary responsibility for management of household water, sanitation and health. They spend much time on household chores which reinforces time-poverty, disempowers them and lowers their income [19]. In fact this affects the socioeconomic and health conditions of the women in many ways [20].

Further, the findings indicated that the higher the level of education of HHs, the more likely they were to use improved sanitation facilities. This is consistent with a study carried out by Koskei which revealed that educational level of HH has close relationship with access and use of sanitation facilities [21]. From the findings of this study, about one-thirds of the study population had no formal education. This could explain why majority of them used unimproved sanitation facilities. Nonetheless, these findings contradict the Ghana multiple indicator cluster survey which shows no significant association [22].

For marital status, a study by Koskei revealed similar findings as our study where, most of the married respondents studied, used improved sanitation facilities and only 14% of those who were separated used improved sanitation facilities. None of the study participants who were single and widowed used improved facilities [21].

Socio-economic determinants

Civil Servants were more likely to use improved sanitation facilities compared to HHs who were unemployed. Interestingly, our study found that artisans and fishermen were more likely to use improved sanitation facilities whilst farmers and petty traders were less likely to use improved sanitation facilities compared to HHs who were unemployed. It was also found that access to improved sanitation facilities was mostly determined by the wealth of the households such that the poorer the socioeconomic status of HHs, the less likely it was they would use improved sanitation facilities. According to Boadi and Kuitunen [23], household wealth played a vital role in the acquisition and utilization of improved toilet facilities because of the correlation between household wealth and access to improved well-being [24]. Wealthy households were in a better position to provide improved toilet facilities for their members whilst poor households who were fortunate to have toilet facilities usually shared with other households [24].

This study concludes that age, gender, level of education, occupation, marital and socioeconomic status of HHs are significant determinants of the type of sanitation facilities used and that a large proportion of residents within the study area resort to the use of unimproved sanitation facilities. To meet the Sustainable Development Goal of achieving universal access to improved sanitation facilities and to eliminate open defecation by 2030, our study recommends that city authorities must strictly enforce the national sanitation laws which state that all households in Ghana must have decent and hygienic toilet facilities in their homes/compounds.

Limitations

Although this study used a large sample size, its findings are unlikely to be generalized since the HDSS covers only two districts out of the 216 districts in Ghana. Also, other important variables such as culture, traditions, social norms, etc. which could equally have influence on the use of sanitation facility type were not available in the HDSS data.

Abbreviations

CLTS: 

Community-Led Total Sanitation

DWD: 

Dangme West District

DHDSS: 

Dodowa Health and Demographic Surveillance System

DHRC: 

Dodowa Health Research Centre

GDHS: 

Ghana Demographic Health Survey

GHS: 

Ghana Health Service

GSS: 

Ghana Statistical Service

INDEPTH: 

International Network for the Demographic Evaluation of Populations and Their Health

MDG: 

Millennium Development Goal

MLGRD: 

Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development

MICS: 

Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey

UNICEF: 

United Nations Children’s Fund

WHO: 

World Health Organization

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

DEA: Participated in the conceptualization of research idea, conducted literature review and wrote the introductory section. He was also involved in the writing of the results and discussion. AKM: Participated in data extraction, study design and review of manuscript. He also provided statistical analysis support. JKA: Provided statistical analysis, writing and interpretation of results and review of manuscript. VU: Assisted with literature review, review of manuscript and re-shaping of the research topic. MG: Critically reviewed and proof read the entire manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to INDEPTH Network for its continuous support to the Dodowa Health and Demographic Surveillance System (DHDSS). We appreciate the hard work and dedication of the field and data management staff of the DHDSS. We also express our profound gratitude to the opinion leaders and residents of the surveillance area for offering their time for interviews and for constantly sharing valuable personal information with the DHDSS team over the years.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The authors of this paper are unable to make the dataset publicly available due to ethical policies, confidentiality assured study participants and the data sharing policy of the Dodowa Health Research Centre.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The set-up of the DHDSS and its data collection procedures have been approved by the Ghana Health Service (GHS) and its Ethical Review Board (ERB). Permission was obtained from management of Dodowa Health Research Centre (DHRC) for the use of this data. Additionally, each respondent was briefed about the HDSS data collection at the beginning of every update round and their consent sought prior to the data collection. Those who refused were excluded. Names and other identifiers of the study participants were not included in the extracted data to ensure confidentiality.

Funding

The Dodowa Health and Demographic Surveillance System has no core funding. It is supported through ongoing projects at the Dodowa Health Research Centre such as Rectal Artesunate, Malaria Pneumonia Study through WHO/TDR and INDEPTH Effectiveness and Safety Studies (INESS) through the INDEPTH Network.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Ghana Health Service/Dodowa Health Research Centre, Dodowa, Ghana
(2)
University of Health and Allied Sciences, Ho, Ghana
(3)
Ubora Institute, Accra, Ghana
(4)
School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

References

  1. Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: 2017 update and SDG baselines. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.Google Scholar
  2. WHO/UNICEF. Meeting the MDG drinking water and sanitation target: the urban and rural challenge of the decade. Geneva: WHO Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  3. World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Progress on sanitation and drinking-water—2013 update. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  4. Nelson KB, Karver J, Kullman C, Graham JP. User perceptions of shared sanitation among rural households in Indonesia and Bangladesh. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(8):e103886. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103886.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. WHO/UNICEF. Progress programme on sanitation and drinking water. New York: WHO/UNICEF; 2010.Google Scholar
  6. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Sanitation and Hygiene -UNICEF promotes safe sanitation for World Water Day 2008. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); 2008.Google Scholar
  7. WHO/UNICEF. Progress on sanitation and drinking water programme. New York: WHO/UNICEF; 2014.Google Scholar
  8. Obeng PA, Keraita B, Oduro-Kwarteng S, Abaidoo RC, Awuah E, Flemming K. Usage and barriers to use of latrines in a ghanaian peri-urban community. Berlin: Springer International Publishing; 2015.Google Scholar
  9. Abdulmalik O, Busari T, Ojo M. Nigeria’s sanitation crisis 2016 World Toilet Day Nigeria supplement. Nigeria: WaterAid Nigeria; 2016.Google Scholar
  10. Gyapong M, Sarpong D, Awini E, Manyeh KA, Tei DOG, Agyepong IA, et al. Health and demographic surveillance system profile: The Dodowa HDSS. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:1686–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Vyas S, Kumaranayake L. Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use principal components analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2006;21(6):459–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ghana Statistical Service (GSS). Ghana living standards survey: report of the fifth round (GLSS 5): 2010 population and housing census report. Accra: Ghana Statistical Service (GSS); 2013.Google Scholar
  13. Ridgeway CL, Smith-Lovin L. The gender system in interaction. Annu Rev Sociol. 1999;25:191–216. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.191.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis J. Gender and the development of welfare regimes. J Eur Social Policy. 1992;3:159–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Salomone RC. Feminist voices in the debate over single-sex schooling: finding common ground. Michigan J Gender Law. 2004;11:63–95.Google Scholar
  16. Angko W. Household access to safe and improved drinking water and basic sanitation in Wa municipality. Eur J Bus Manag. 2013;5:23.Google Scholar
  17. WHO and UNICEF. Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP). Progress on sanitation and drinking-water: 2014 update. Geneva: WHO and UNICEF; 2014.Google Scholar
  18. Bartram J, Lewis K, Lenton R, Wright A. Focusing on improved water and sanitation for health. Lancet. 2005;365:810–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. UNDP. Human development report 2006: beyond scarcity: power, poverty and global water crisis. New York: UNDP; 2006.Google Scholar
  20. Ghebremedhin Y. Effects of insufficient water supply and sanitation. In: 25th WEDC conference. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 1999.Google Scholar
  21. Koskei EC, Koskei RC, Koske MC, Koech HK. Effect of socio-economic factors on access to improved water sources and basic sanitation in bomet municipality, Kenya. Res J Environ Earth Sci. 2013;5(12):714–9.Google Scholar
  22. Ghana Statistical Service. Ghana multiple indicator cluster survey with an enhanced malaria module and biomarker: final report. Accra: Ghana Statistical Service; 2011.Google Scholar
  23. Boadi KO, Kuitunen M. Environment, wealth, inequality and the burden of disease in the Accra metropolitan area, Ghana. Int J Environ Health Res. 2005;15(3):193–206.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ayesu E, Owusu ES, Asante C. Household characteristics and utilization of toilet facilities in Ghana: a multinomial logistic approach. Int J Innovative Res Dev 2015;4(9).Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2018

Advertisement