Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Intra-Urban Inequalities in Water Access among

Households in Malawi’s Informal Settlements:
Toward Pro-Poor Urban Water Policies

Ellis Adjei Adams

www.elsevier.com/locate/envdev

PII: S2211-4645(17)30217-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2018.03.004
Reference: ENVDEV385
To appear in: Environmental Development
Received date: 8 August 2017
Revised date: 21 March 2018
Accepted date: 24 March 2018
Cite this article as: Ellis Adjei Adams, Intra-Urban Inequalities in Water Access
among Households in Malawi’s Informal Settlements: Toward Pro-Poor Urban
Water Policies, Environmental Development,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2018.03.004
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Intra-Urban Inequalities in Water Access among Households in Malawi’s Informal
Settlements: Toward Pro-Poor Urban Water Policies
Ellis Adjei Adams1
Global Studies Institute and Department of Geosciences, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
30303 (USA)
eadams23@gsu.edu

Abstract
Poor access to potable water remains one of the most troubling challenges in Sub-Saharan

Africa’s informal settlements (or slums) where majority of the poor and vulnerable urban

population lives. While prior research shows significant disparities in water access between

urban and rural areas, little is known about intra-urban inequalities and whether they are

influenced by household socio-economic status. This paper draws from household surveys in

three urban informal settlements in Lilongwe, Malawi, to explore intra-urban differences in

water access based on water source, volume of water per capita, total time/day spent fetching

water, and affordability of primary water source. It first compares the proportion of respondents

that have access to water based on Malawi’s (national) and the United Nations and World Health

Organization’s (international) minimum standards. It then uses linear and logistic regressions to

examine socio-economic inequalities in water access. The results show inconsistencies in the

proportion of households that satisfy Malawi versus the United Nations and World Health

Organization minimum water-access standards. Household socio-economic status (SES)

significantly influenced water access, underscoring the need for pro-poor water policies that

recognize that even among households in predominantly poor and under-resourced urban

settings, significant socio-economic differences underlie inequalities in water access.

Keywords: Intra-urban inequalities; water access; Lilongwe; Malawi; urban informal

settlements; pro-poor urban water policies

1 Tel.: (+1) 404 413 6644.

1
1.0 Introduction

Poor access to drinking water remains a serious concern globally. In the last decade or so, even

though significant progress has been made towards improving access to drinking water,

significant challenges remain. Currently, almost 700 million people still lack access to clean

drinking water globally (UNICEF and WHO 2015). The vast majority of the global population

without access live in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), a region that failed to achieve its Millennium

Development Goal to “reduce by half, the population without access to water by 2015”. Recent

work also observes that there are significant geographical disparities in access to water across

and within districts and other subnational scales in SSA (Pullan et al. 2014).

The effects of poor water access are particularly acute in poor urban informal settlements which

have not only been growing in number, but also expanding in SSA due to population growth and

rapid urbanization (Dos Santos et al 2017). Close to 70 percent of the region’s population lives in

these urban informal settlements where they grapple daily with inadequate improved water

sources (UN Habitat 2013). Exacerbated by overcrowding, poverty, and poor living conditions,

the attendant health consequences of poor water supply are troubling, especially its impact on

children. While diarrhea, a water-related illness, remains the second commonest cause of

childhood (under-5) mortality in developing countries (Fink et al.2011), Sub-Saharan Africa

carries a disproportionately higher burden (UNICEF and WHO 2010; Tambe et al 2015; Ogbo et

al 2017)

Malawi is symbolic of poor water access in urban informal settlements that is continually

exercabated by population growth and rapid urbanization. Despite more rapid improvements in

2
rural water coverage, urban coverage appears stagnant (Fig 1) because marginal improvements in

coverage cannot keep up with the rate of urban population growth. Malawi has one of the fastest

growing urban populations and most rapid urbanization rates in the world—a trend that is

contributing to the rise of urban informal settlements. According to UN Habitat (2013), about 70

percent of Malawi’s urban population reside in informal settlements. Households in the informal

settlements are forced to depend on a variety of water sources because no source is reliable, and

supply is intermittent (Zeleza-Manda 2009). The predominant water source in Malawi’s slums is

community-water kiosks that are owned by either private individuals, community water

associations, or water boards. But the kiosks are prone to vandalism, many are non-functional,

and regularly break down (Adams and Zulu 2015). Intermittent water supply in the informal

settlements in Malawi is pervasive, alternative improved sources of water are limited, and

dependence on unsafe water sources is common (Adams 2017). Even for sources considered

improved in the urban informal settlements, quality may be compromised by poor sanitary

conditions and weak water-treatment infrastructure (Boakye-Ansah et al. 2016; Holm et al 2016),

and poor wastewater treatment (Sajidu 2007).

Data on the scale of poor water access in Malawi’s informal settlements are rare. Data from

global monitoring reports such as the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) and the Joint

Monitoring Programs (JMPs) do not present separate information for formal and informal urban

areas. Further, water access data from census reports are presented at the scale of districts.

3
This study examined inequalities in water access within poor urban informal settlements in

Lilongwe, Malawi’s capital city. The paper is based on the premise that even within largely poor

informal settlements, there may significant differences in socio-economic status that could

influence water access. It draws from 645 household surveys in three urban informal settlements

and linear and logistic regressions to establish whether household socio-economic status and

wellbeing can significantly influence multidimensional water access. Access to water is explored

in two stages. First, we compare the proportion of the study respondents who have access to

basic water-access based on World Health Organization (WHO) and Malawi government’s

minimum acceptable standards. Second, we determine the socio-economic determinants of water

access measured under four outcome variables: water source, volume per capita, total time/day

spent fetching water, and affordability of primary water source.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, a conceptual discussion of access to water,

related metrics, and socio-economic determinants based on prior work is presented followed by

the country (Malawi) context, study objectives and the methods employed. Afterwards, results,

discussions, and policy implications are presented.

2.0 Concepts, Measures, and Socio-economic Determinants of Water Access

There is no universally accepted definition of ‘water access’. Many authors use the term to

describe the availably of drinking water from the perspective of one or more of metrics. On the

international scale, The United Nations (UN) through its Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) and

the World Health Organization through their Demographic and Health Surveys measure access

to water based on the proportion of the population in each country that have improved water

coverage (UNICEF & WHO 2015). The commonest metrics used by scholars to measure access

4
often derive from the UN/JMP classification of improved and unimproved sources (Mahama et

al. 2014; Osei et al 2015; Adams, Boateng, Amoyaw 2016). Other metrics of access used in

existing work are time, distance, quality of source, and affordabilty (Devi and Bostoen 2009,

Majuru, Jagals and Hunter 2012). More recently, Smiley (2016) also discussed access to water in

Dar es Salaam under the dimensions of availability and reliability. In Nicaragua, Flores, Jiménez

and Pérez-Foguet (2013) incorporated non-discrimination and participation as additional metrics

of water access.

In 2010, the UN, through a resolution recognized that “access” to water and sanitation are

essential to the realization of all human rights (UN General Assembly 2010), setting the stage for

widespread debate on the meanings, opportunities, and limitations of the ‘human right to water’

concept (Gleick 1998; Bakker 2007). The resolution underscore that to satisfy the human right to

water principle, every human should be able to have water that is sufficient (between 50-100

liters per day), safe (free of microorganisms), acceptable (culturally appropriate), physically

accessible (minimum collection time of 30 minutes within a distance of 100 meters), and

affordable (cost less than 3% of household income) (UN General Assembly 2010).

For policy, monitoring, and evaluation purposes, some national governments, including Malawi,

adapt or use the minimum standards set by the UN or the WHO. The Malawi government, in its

2012 Water Sector Performance Report (MWSPR), defined sustainable access to water as “a

minimum of 27 liters of water per person per day and a maximum round-trip time of less than 30

minutes” (GOM 2012 pg 75), whereas according to the Water, Sanitation and Irrigation Sector

Strategic Plan (MWSISSP), access is defined as “having an improved source within 500m (rural)

or 200m (peri-urban), return trip of less than 30 minutes , and a daily per capita consumption of

5
at least 36 liters” (G0M 2013 pg 24). These diverse, often unclear, and sometimes contradictory

metrics of access present several puzzles: what should scholars and policy makers define as

sustainable access to water? What are the most important determinants? And how should access

be measured?

In 2000, when the Millennium Development Goal (MDG 7c) aimed to halve the world’s

population without water access by 2015, considerable debate followed on what the appropriate

metrics should be (Attaran 2005). These debates on the limitations and utility of existing metrics

to capture the scale of water inaccessibility have carried into the new era of Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs). An important lesson from the MDG era is that physical availability

of a water source does not guarantee continuous access to water nor implies that the source is

safe for drinking (Bain 2012; Boateng et al 2013; Smiley 2017).

Advances in our understanding of water access include a significant body of work on the role of

individual and household socio-economic status. Among the socio-economic predictors

commonly tested, education, age, income, gender, marital status, and asset ownership are the

most common and influential (Larson, Minten and Razafindralambo 2006, Atipoka 2009, Adams

et al. 2016). Education and income, in combination, have a strong influence on water access

(Larson et al. 2006, Rahut, Behera and Ali 2015), while household size often shows an inverse

relationship (Dungumaro 2007).

As the foregoing discussion shows, only a few studies have attempted to measure and explain

water access from a multidimensional perspective (Mahama et al. 2014; Margai 2013). Margai

6
(2013) adapted Penchansky and Thomas’s (1981) framework to examine water access from 5

dimensions: availability, accessibility, accommodation, affordability, and acceptability.

Moreover, while the relationship between water access and socio-economic status has been

extensively studied, little is known about whether and how this relationship operates in urban

informal settlement contexts. In the specific case of Malawi, a country with high poverty rates,

no study to the best of our knowledge has examined socio-economic determinants of water

access. Understanding socio-economic determinants of water access in informal settlements is

important because emerging work show that even in relatively homogenous populations in

African societies, access could be influenced by subtle differences in socio-economic status

(Mahama et al. 2014).

3.0 Methods

3.1 Study Area and Context

The study was conducted in Malawi, a country in southern Africa with a current population of

about 17 million people. Between July and September 2014, we conducted household surveys in

three urban informal settlements in Lilongwe, the capital and largest city in the country The three

urban informal settlements were Kauma, Mtandire, and Area 36 with estimated number of

households between 6000 and 9000. No official statistics on the various populations were

available. Like other Malawian cities, Lilongwe has undergone rapid population growth and

urbanization in recent decades, increasing from 19425 people in 1966 to nearly 700,000 people

currently. Lilongwe remains the city in Malawi with the fastest population growth rate mainly

because it is the center of rural-urban migration driven by the search for economic opportunities.

However, the population growth in Lilongwe has been disproportionately absorbed by informal

7
settlements characterized not only by poverty, lack of tenure, and improper housing but also

intermittent, unreliable water supply. The Lilongwe city council and United Nations estimate

that approximately 76 percent of the city’s population lives in informal settlements (UN Habitat

2011).

3.2 Sampling, Surveys, and Data Collection

Ethical clearance for the study was given by Michigan State University’s Institutional Review

Board (IRB# X12-379). The three study settlements were selected by a two-stage randomized

cluster sampling technique to satisfy the goals of a larger study. Cluster sampling was important

because no official data or formal list of households were available on the study area. Cluster

sampling is known to be cost effective while reducing potential bias in survey data (Levy and

Lemeshow 2013). To ensure that all three neighborhoods have fair representation in the data, we

used probabilistic sampling based on the estimated number of households in each neighborhood.

Overall, we sampled 155, 258, and 232 households from Kauma, Mtandire, and Area 36,

respectively. Once the number of households to be sampled were determined, sampling was done

systematically by using east, west, north, and south transect walks within the communities.

Household survey questionnaires covered a wide variety of information related to basic socio-

economic status and wellbeing of households and household heads. We collected information on

religion, ethnicity, house-ownerships status, number of rooms in household, household size,

among others. Since income was self-reported, we used assets, rooms, and monthly rent as

proxies for socio-economic status. We elicited water access information under broad topics

ranging from primary and secondary water sources, water treatment, cost of water, storage

8
practices, sanitation and toilet facilities, and perceptions on water-access challenges and quality.

For each household visited, we aimed at the household head or a spouse. In the absence of either

a head or a spouse, any household member who was more than 18 years was eligible to be

interviewed. Questionnaires were first designed in English before being translated into Chichewa

for ease of data collection.

3.3 Data Analysis

The analytical procedures employed combined both descriptive and inferential statistics using

multiple ordinary least square (OLS) and logistic regressions. Before the multiple regressions, a

one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine if there were mean

differences in the outcome variables and socio-economic predictors across the three study sites.

The main outcome variables for the regression were water source, volume per capita, total time,

and affordability. Independent variables (socio-economic indices) were selected based on

existing literature and preliminary data from the study areas. Volume per capita was a measure of

the ratio between total volume of water consumed by a household and number of people. Total

time/day was computed as a product of total time used in one round trip and number of daily

trips to the main water source. Affordability was measured as the percentage of a household’s

monthly income spent on water.

To justify the use of OLS regression, we used bivariate regressions and post-estimation tolerance

values to test for and eliminate collinearity. Multiple logistic regression analysis was employed

to test for whether and how household socio-economic characteristics differentiated households

based on who has access to WHO and Malawi’s minimum water access standards. Linear

regression results were interpreted based on coefficients. Logistic regression results were

9
interpreted based on odds ratios, defined as the odds of a particular outcome given one or more

predictors. Both the multiple OLS and logistic regression analyses were performed using the

Stata 14/SE statistical software. There are some methodological limitations with this study.

While it advances our understanding of access to water in urban informal settlements, the results

and interpretations should be viewed cautiously in light of the limited reliability of the income

data, which we nonetheless use both as an indicator of socio-economic status and to calculate

affordability of water. To minimize the potential impact of income on the overall findings, we

used multiple sources of revenue common to informal settlement residents to estimate as

accurately as possible the total monthly income.

4.0 Results

4.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of Study Households

Altogether, the three areas did not show significant variance from the ANOVA test. There were

also no statistically significant differences in volume of water per capita and affordability. Only

mean total time emerged significantly different across the three study sites. Respondents were

mostly female (87.91 percent); only 12.1 percent were males. This is mainly because most of our

respondents were house-wives whose husbands were absent from home at the time of the survey.

Household size ranged from 1 to 13, with a mean household size of 5. Highest level of education

completed at all study sites was primary school (55.6 percent). Most respondents (81.2 percent)

were married while 44.96 percent were unemployed. Only 16 percent of the respondents were

natives born in the study areas; nearly 84 percent had migrated from different places. About 45

percent of the households owned their dwelling units, 49.46 percent were renting from private

individuals, while the rest of the households occupied a dwelling place owned by a relative.

10
About 37 percent of households occupied two-bedroom units while 33 percent used only one-

bedroom units.

4.2 Households Satisfying WHO and Malawi Minimum Water Access Standards

This section presents descriptive statistics comparing minimum water access standards as

stipulated by the UN in comparison with Malawi standards. It is worthy of note that Malawi’s

official water-access standards on affordability and time are similar to that of UN, thus, there

was no reason to compare. However, designation of sources as improved or unimproved differ

slightly, as well as minimum acceptable volume per capita.

Figures 2 compares the percentage of households which satisfies Malawi’s accepted standard for

minimum volume of water required per person per day with the current World Health

Organization standard. Figure 3 compares number of households satisfying Malawi standards

with that of the United Nations standard for human right to water, which specifies a minimum of

50 liters per person per day of water. Figure 4 compares access to improved and unimproved

water sources by source categorizations used by Malawi and the World Health Organization. By

the UN standards on human right to water, only 13 percent of the households will satisfy the

required, minimum standards on volume. Even with Malawi’s conservative volume requirements

of 27 liters, more than half of the households (53.97) failed to satisfy the standard. Fifty-seven

percent of the households did not meet the round-trip water-fetching time of 30 minutes or less

while 57 percent failed to meet the minimum water affordability threshold of not more than 3

percent of household income. Measured by the World Health Organization standard, 91.47

11
percent of the households have access to improved water sources while 82.95 have access to

improved source based on Malawi’s national water-source categories (Fig 4).

4.3 Socio-economic Determinants of Household Water Access

Employment status, household size, household income, amount of money paid as rent, number of

rooms in household, water storage capacity, and number of trips were significantly associated

with volume of water per capita. Specifically, households with employed heads had access to

significantly higher volumes of water per capita at 99 percent confidence level (P<0.001).

Household size (P<0.001) showed a negatively significant association with volume of water per

capita, an indication that larger households have access to significantly less water per capita.

Surprisingly, income (P<0.05) emerged significant but negatively correlated with volume of

water per capita although other proxies of socio-economic status showed the reverse relationship.

Monthly rent (P<0.05),number of rooms (P<0.05), and number of assets owned by a household

(P<0.001) showed a significantly positive association with volume of water per capita, as did

storage capacity (P<0.001) and number of trips (P<0.001). Among the significant socio-

economic predictors, standardized regression coefficients demonstrated that household size

(β=0.44), number of trips (β=0.24) and storage capacity (β=0.18), in descending order, had the

strongest influence on volume of water per capita.

Education of household head (P<0.05) showed a significantly negative association with total

time spent per day fetching water. In contrast, employment status (being employed) of household

head (P<0.05) showed a significantly positive association with total time per day. As expected,

increasing number of trips (P<0.001) to main water source meant a significant time burden per

12
day, while storage capacity (P<0.05) significantly correlated positively with total time per day.

The most influential significant predictors of total time spent per day were a household head’s

employment status (β=0.098), number of trips (β=0.05), and storage capacity (β=0.003).

Consistent with the hypothesized direction, households whose heads were employed (P<0.001)

were better able to afford the cost of water compared to households with unemployed heads. The

presence of a household toilet (P<0.001), a fairly accurate indication of better socio-economic

status in the informal settlements, correlates positively significantly with affordability in the

same manner as number of assets owned by a household. Number of assets owned by a

household (β=0.16) was the most influential significant predictor of affordability followed by

whether a household head is employed (β=0.12). Table 1 outlines the OLS multiple regression

results in detail.

4.4 Socio-Economic Determinants of Minimum Water Access Thresholds

Household size, monthly rent, storage capacity, and water treatment significantly predicted the

odds of a household’s primary water source being improved. Larger households surprisingly had

greater odds (Odds Ratio, OR=1.174) of using an improved primary water source; however, the

odds (0.92) of using an improved secondary suggest a negative relationship with increasing

household size. Rent amount (OR=1.00) was positively associated with higher odds of using an

improved primary water source. Surprisingly, even though insignificantly, being native increases

the odds of using an improved primary source. Household size, rent, and storage capacity were

the most influential predictors of household use of improved primary water sources.

13
Employment status, household size, number of rooms, water-storage capacity, water treatment,

and number of trips were all significantly associated with higher odds of meeting Malawi’s

minimum access standard by volume per capita (27 liters). A household whose head is employed

(OR=1.65) was significantly more likely to have access to the minimum acceptable volume per

capita. Conversely, household size correlated significantly negatively with the odds of meeting

the minimum volume standards, implying that larger households are less likely to meet the

minimum acceptable threshold. A unit increase in the number of rooms in a household

(OR=1.27), storage capacity (OR=1.02), and number of daily trips to water source (OR=1.23)

significantly increase the odds of a household satisfying minimum volume thresholds by 27%,

2%, and 23%, respectively. Employment status of household head, number of trips to primary

source, and storage capacity had the strongest influence on minimum volume thresholds relative

to other significant predictors.

Only the presence of a toilet facility in household, the number of assets, and the number of

water-fetching trips emerged as significant predictors of minimum time threshold of not more

than 30 minutes for a round trip to a household’s water source. Having a toilet (OR=0.22)

significantly increases the odds of meeting the time threshold. A unit increase in number of

assets significantly increases the log odds of meeting the acceptable time threshold by 9%.

Number of daily trips correlated negatively with the minimum acceptable threshold for time,

demonstrating that households that spend more than 30 minutes for each trip to and from their

main water source engage in more trips. Rent, storage capacity, income, and water treatment

showed a positive, albeit insignificant relationship with the odds of meeting minimum time

14
thresholds. Among the significant predictors of minimum time thresholds, number of assets

owned by a household and number of trips to water source were the most influential.

Age of household head, household size, being native, household income, and number of rooms in

household are significantly associated with the affordability threshold of not spending more than

3% of income on water. Older household heads as predicted had significantly lower odds of

satisfying the minimum affordability threshold (OR=0.98). Natives, (OR=0.44) consistent with

our hypothesis, had lower odds of meeting minimum affordability thresholds. As expected,

larger households had significantly lower odds of meeting the affordability standard while

number of rooms (OR=1.006) in a household significantly correlated with higher odds of

meeting the affordability threshold. Number of trips by a household (OR=1.158), congruent with

the hypothesized direction, significantly correlates positively with affordability. Comparatively

across the significant predictors of minimum affordability thresholds, income, number of trips,

and number of rooms in a household were the strongest. Detailed results of the logistic

regression are presented in Table 2.

5.0 Discussion and Conclusion

We used a multidimensional approach to explore intra-urban disparities in access to water by

first comparing water access under Malawi (national) standards with that of the United Nations

and World Health Organization’s (international) minimum standards. We then used linear and

logistic regressions to test for possible associations between household socio-economic status

and water access under four dimensions: source, volume, time, affordability. There were

inconsistencies in water access measured by the proportion of the study population that satisfies

UN and WHO acceptable minimum standards versus that of Malawi. Measures of better socio-

15
economic status except income correlated significantly with better water access while indicators

of poor socio-economic status were significantly associated with poor water access.

The inconsistencies in water access based on Malawi and UN/WHO standards of volume and

water source raise questions about the reliability of metrics used for monitoring and evaluation of

water access globally and nationally. The findings suggest that global monitoring averages may

be overstating access to water, a well-known argument both in the context of Malawi (Manda

2009; Adams 2017) and elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa (Smiley 2013). The most recent

Demographic and Health Survey report estimates that a whopping 98 percent of the urban

population has access to improved water sources, in contrast with the 91.4 percent and 82.95

percent measured by WHO and Malawi standards, respectively.

These disparities, often between international standards and local standards (Onda, LoBuglio and

Bartram 2012) call for more specific studies on water access and policies that are tailored to the

local context. This is all the more important considering that while national and international

metrics for tracking progress on access have been expanding, for example the inclusion of

measures on water quality and treatment (Bartram et al. 2014), they do not sufficiently capture

intra-local (rural, urban, district etc) inequalities in access (Bain et al. 2014). To track and

address disparities in water access within urban areas, especially among underserved

populations, it is important for national governments to come up with additional metrics relevant

to their particular local contexts.

The positively significant association between volume of water per capita and, rent paid, number

16
of rooms, toilet ownership and water storage capacity reinforces what many studies have

documented—that wealth is often a predictor of better water access (Garriga and Foguet 2013,

Adams, Boateng and Amoyaw 2016). Contrary to our expectations, and in contrast with findings

from prior work, household income was negatively correlated with volume of water per capita.

We attribute this anomaly to the limited reliability of the income data due to either recall bias or

households (especially women) providing false estimates of how much their husbands earn. In

most African societies, men are the ones who handle the household’s finances. In our sample, 87

percent were women, and had to estimate household income with little knowledge of husbands’

incomes.

The significantly negative association between education and total time suggests that relatively

poorer households have a higher time burden because they rely more on publicly shared rather

than household taps. A plausible explanation for the negative correlation between household size

and volume per capita is that larger households tend to be poorer, and generally may be unable to

purchase sufficient volumes of water (Dungumaro 2007). The logistic regression results

corroborated this inverse relationship, showing that larger households may find it more difficult

to satisfy the daily minimum volume requirements for water.

While it is widely known that household socio-economic characteristics influence levels of

access to water (Mahama, Anaman and Osei-Akoto 2014, Adams, Boateng and Amoyaw 2015),

and that access to water more generally tends to benefit wealthier than poorer households, this

study has advanced this knowledge further by showing that even among predominantly low-

income urban neighborhoods where one could easily assume that poverty levels are similar,

17
socio-economic status is still predictive of water access across different metrics.

These findings have implications for pro-poor approaches to water delivery that can benefit the

poorest, marginalized, vulnerable households in largely low income urban neighborhoods. Even

among low income settlements where most, if not all, are relatively poor, subtle differences in

socio-economic status were sufficient grounds for intra-urban differences in water access. In fact,

empirical work in other disciplines show that socio-economic differentials in urban areas may be

more pronounced in urban than in rural areas (Menon, Ruel and Morris 2000). The results

support calls for separate initiatives and policy interventions aimed at bolstering water access

specifically for the urban poor (Nyarko, Odai and Fosuhene 2006, Beall, Crankshaw and Parnell

2000). Our study’s findings lend credence to these calls, showing that general water policies

tailored for urban areas are insufficient for addressing the needs of the most vulnerable and

socio-economically disadvantaged households in informal settlements.

Taken together, the findings show that studying access to potable water by considering multiple

dimensions of the concept provides a more holistic picture and highlights areas most critical for

policy attention. They suggest the importance of socio-economic status data in revealing who are

the most-at-risk populations without sufficient safe water (Yang et al. 2013), even within the

same or largely homogenous populations. Despite being in the same space or community,

household experiences and everyday challenges with water access may differ across different

dimensions. For example, while a particular household’s biggest challenge may be about

distance to the nearest improved water source, another household in close proximity may instead

18
experience unreliable or intermittent supply. Such nuances are important to recognize in the

design of urban water policies.

Finally, this paper begs a few directions for future research. First, in light of the fact that income

was largely insignificant both in the multiple and logistic regression models, further work is

needed to establish if the same proxies of income are significant predictors of water access in

other informal-settlement contexts. Understanding the role of socio-economic status will be

critical for designing policies targeted at the most vulnerable households. Second, this paper did

not engage with disparities in water quality. Even though households in urban informal

settlements may largely depend on similar water sources, levels of contamination at the point of

use may differ, and yet our understanding of such differences in current literature is very limited.

More work is needed to understand if intra-urban disparities in water quality in informal

settlements, measured by the extent of contamination, can also be explained by socio-economic

differences.

Acknowledgements
Funding for this study was funded by The National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Research
Improvement Grant (DDRIG) under the Geography and Spatial Sciences Program (Grant Number:
1434203).

References
Adams, E. A. (2017). Thirsty slums in African cities: household water insecurity in urban informal
settlements of Lilongwe, Malawi. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 1-19.
Adams, E. A., G. O. Boateng & J. A. Amoyaw (2016) Socioeconomic and Demographic Predictors
of Potable Water and Sanitation Access in Ghana. Social Indicators Research, 126, 673-687.
Adams, E. A., & Zulu, L. C. (2015). Participants or customers in water governance? Community-
public partnerships for peri-urban water supply. Geoforum, 65, 112-124.
Bain, R.E., Gundry, S.W., Wright, J.A., Yang, H., Pedley, S. & Bartram, J. (2012). Accounting for
water quality in monitoring access to safe drinking-water as part of the Millennium Development
Goals: Lessons from five countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 90, 228-235A.
Bain, R., J. A. Wright, E. Christenson & J. Bartram (2014) Rural: urban inequalities in post 2015
targets and indicators for drinking-water. Science of the Total Environment, 490, 509-513.

19
Bakker, K. (2007). The “commons” versus the “commodity”: Alter‐globalization, anti‐privatization
and the human right to water in the global south. Antipode, 39(3), 430-455.
Bartram, J., C. Brocklehurst, M. B. Fisher, R. Luyendijk, R. Hossain, T. Wardlaw & B. Gordon
(2014) Global monitoring of water supply and sanitation: history, methods and future
challenges. International journal of environmental research and public health, 11, 8137-
8165.
Beall, J., O. Crankshaw & S. Parnell (2000) Victims, villains and fixers: the urban environment and
Johannesburg's poor. Journal of Southern African Studies, 26, 833-855.
Boakye-Ansah, A. S., G. Ferrero, M. Rusca & P. van der Zaag (2016) Inequalities in microbial
contamination of drinking water supplies in urban areas: the case of Lilongwe, Malawi.
Journal of Water and Health, 14, 851-863.
Boateng, D., Tia-Adjei, M., & Adams, E. A. (2013). Determinants of household water quality in the
Tamale Metropolis, Ghana. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 3, 70-77.
Devi, A. & K. Bostoen (2009) Extending the critical aspects of the water access indicator using East
Africa as an example. International journal of environmental health research, 19, 329-341.
Dos Santos, S., Adams, E. A., Neville, G., Wada, Y., de Sherbinin, A., Bernhardt, E. M., & Adamo,
S. B. (2017). Urban growth and water access in sub-Saharan Africa: Progress, challenges, and
emerging research directions. Science of the Total Environment, 607, 497-508.
Dungumaro, E. W. (2007) Socioeconomic differentials and availability of domestic water in South
Africa. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 32, 1141-1147.
Fink, G., I. Günther & K. Hill (2011) The effect of water and sanitation on child health: evidence
from the demographic and health surveys 1986–2007. International journal of epidemiology,
40, 1196-1204.
Flores, O., A. Jiménez & A. Pérez-Foguet (2013) Monitoring access to water in rural areas based on
the human right to water framework: a local level case study in Nicaragua. International
Journal of Water Resources Development, 29, 605-621.
Garriga, R. G. & A. P. Foguet (2013) Unravelling the linkages between water, sanitation, hygiene
and rural poverty: the WASH Poverty Index. Water resources management, 27, 1501-1515.
Gleick, P. H. (1998). The human right to water. Water policy, 1(5), 487-503.
Holm, R., Wandschneider, P., Felsot, A., & Msilimba, G. (2016). Achieving the sustainable
development goals: a case study of the complexity of water quality health risks in Malawi. Journal of
Health, Population and Nutrition, 35(1), 20.Larson, B., B. Minten & R. Razafindralambo (2006)
Unravelling the linkages between the millennium development goals for poverty, education, access
to water and household water use in developing countries: Evidence from Madagascar. Journal of
Development Studies, 42, 22-40.
Levy, P. S. & S. Lemeshow. 2013. Sampling of populations: methods and applications. John Wiley
& Sons.
Manda, M. A. 2009. Water and Sanitation in Urban Malawi: Can the Millennium Development
Goals be Met?: a Study of Informal Settlements in Three Cities. IIED.
Margai, F. (2013). Environmental health hazards and social justice: Geographical Perspectives on
race and class disparities. Routledge.
Majuru, B., P. Jagals & P. R. Hunter (2012) Assessing rural small community water supply in
Limpopo, South Africa: water service benchmarks and reliability. Science of the Total
Environment, 435, 479-486.
Menon, P., M. T. Ruel & S. S. Morris (2000) Socio-economic differentials in child stunting are
consistently larger in urban than in rural areas. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 21, 282-289.
Nyarko, K., S. Odai & K. Fosuhene. 2006. Optimising social inclusion in urban water supply in
Ghana. In First SWITCH Scientific Meeting, University of Birmingham, UK, 9-10.

20
Onda, K., J. LoBuglio & J. Bartram (2012) Global access to safe water: accounting for water quality
and the resulting impact on MDG progress. International journal of environmental research
and public health, 9, 880-894.
Ogbo, F. A., Agho, K., Ogeleka, P., Woolfenden, S., Page, A., & Eastwood, J. (2017). Infant feeding
practices and diarrhoea in sub-Saharan African countries with high diarrhoea mortality. PloS
one, 12(2), e0171792.
Penchansky, R. & J. W. Thomas (1981) The concept of access: definition and relationship to
consumer satisfaction. Medical care, 19, 127-140.
Pullan, R. L., M. C. Freeman, P. W. Gething & S. J. Brooker (2014) Geographical inequalities in use
of improved drinking water supply and sanitation across sub-Saharan Africa: mapping and
spatial analysis of cross-sectional survey data. PLoS Med, 11, e1001626.
Rahut, D. B., B. Behera & A. Ali (2015) Household access to water and choice of treatment methods:
Empirical evidence from Bhutan. Water Resources and Rural Development, 5, 1-16.
Sajidu, S. M. I., Masamba, W. R. L., Henry, E. M. T., & Kuyeli, S. M. (2007). Water quality
assessment in streams and wastewater treatment plants of Blantyre, Malawi. Physics and
Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 32(15), 1391-1398.
Smiley, S. L. (2017). Defining and measuring water access: lessons from Tanzania for moving
forward in the post-Millennium Development Goal era. African Geographical Review, 36(2), 168-
182.
Smiley, S. L. (2016). Water Availability and Reliability in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The Journal of
Development Studies, 52(9), 1320-1334.
Smiley, S. L. (2013) Complexities of water access in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Applied Geography,
41, 132-138.
Tambe, Ayuk Betrand, Leonie Dapi Nzefa, and Nchang Allo Nicoline. "Childhood Diarrhea
Determinants in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Cross Sectional Study of Tiko-
Cameroon." Challenges 6.2 (2015): 229-243.
Yang, H., R. Bain, J. Bartram, S. Gundry, S. Pedley & J. Wright (2013) Water safety and inequality
in access to drinking-water between rich and poor households. Environmental science &
technology, 47, 1222-1230.
UNICEF/WHO 2010. Diarrhoea: why children are still dying and what can be done. New York,
USA: UNICEF/WHO, 2010. Accessed December 12, 2017.
UNICEF & WHO (2015) Progress on drinking water and sanitation – 2015 update and MDG
assessment. UNICEF, New York, USA & WHO, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at:
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/jmp-2015-update/en/.Accessed
02/22/2015
UN Habitat 2013. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013. Prosperity of Cities. Available at
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/745habitat.pdf
UN Habitat 2011. Malawi: Lilongwe Urban Profile. Available
https://www.urbanafrica.net/resources/malawi-reports-urban-profiles-blantyre-lilongwe-
mzuzu-zomba/. Accessed Feb 1, 2017
UN 2010. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on July 2010. The human right to water and
sanitation. Available at http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml
WHO 2017. The cost of a polluted environment: 1.7 million child deaths a year, says WHO.
Available at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2017/pollution-child-death/en/.
Accessed March 7, 2017.

21
 Figure 1: Trends in urban and rural access to improved water sources in Malawi
Data Sources: (NSO, 2011; UNICEF & WHO 2015)

90
80.4
80

70
Percentage of Households

60 53.97

50 46.03
Meets Threshold
40
Does not meet
30 Threshold
19.6
20

10

0
Malawi Standard WHO Standard

Fig 2: Percentage of households who satisfy Malawi versus WHO Volume standards

22
 100

90 86.9

80
Percentage of Households

70

60 53.97
50 46.03 Meets Threshold
40 Does not meet Threshold

30

20
13.07
10

0
Malawi Standard UN Human Right
Standard

Fig 3. Percentage of households who satisfy Malawi versus United Nations’ volume standards
for human right to water

100
91.47
90
82.95
80
Percentage of Households

70

60

50

40

30

20 17.05
8.53
10

0
Malawi WHO

Improved source Unimproved source

Fig 4: Households satisfying WHO and Malawi standards for improved water sources

23
Table 1. Association between water access and household socio-economic characteristics

Predictor Volume Time Affordability

variables β (St. error) β (St. error) β (St. error)
Age -0.0384 -1.168 -0.231***
(0.0488) (0.789) (0.0335)
Education -0.614 -23.58* -0.624
(0.873) (14.12) (0.600)
Employed 3.113** 33.46* 2.118**
(1.076) (17.40) (0.739)
Native -0.187 27.35 -0.359
(1.424) (23.03) (0.980)
Household size -3.275*** -3.076 0.267
(0.290) (4.678) (0.199)
Income -0.0117* 0.0668 0.00501
(0.00479) (0.0775) (0.00328)
Rent 0.0003* -0.00122 0.000104
(0.0002) (0.00270) (0.000115)
Toilet in house -1.433 82.76 16.74***
(4.192) (67.83) (2.872)
Number of rooms 1.273* 9.935 0.229
(0.671) (10.85) (0.460)
Number of assets 0.600* 2.475 0.645**
(0.287) (4.642) (0.197)
Storage capacity 0.0146*** 0.0693* 0.00200
(0.00252) (0.0404) (0.00173)
Treats water -0.216 -23.33 0.541
(1.316) (21.25) (0.908)
Number of trips 1.502*** 52.82*** 0.191
(0.195) (3.145) (0.133)
_cons 35.59*** -55.69 18.59***
(5.237) (84.62) (3.587)
N 641 643 636
Standard errors in parentheses
*
p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Table 2. Logistic regression results showing the association between household socio-economic
characteristics and minimum water access thresholds
Predictor variables Primary source Volume/capita Time Affordability
OR (St. error) OR (St. error) OR (St. error) OR (St. error)
Age 1.012 0.987 1.011 0.968*
(0.0122) (0.00836) (0.00876) (0.0138)
Education 1.271 1.058 1.245 0.920
(0.298) (0.161) (0.187) (0.203)

24
Employed 1.072 1.652** 0.980 1.002
(0.305) (0.308) (0.178) (0.258)
Native 1.073 0.920 1.172 0.449*
(0.391) (0.224) (0.284) (0.183)
Household size 1.174** 0.631*** 0.983 0.136*
(0.0910) (0.0368) (0.0496) (0.0857)
Income 1.008 0.998 1.000 1.142***
(0.00477) (0.00137) (0.000899) (0.0134)
Rent 1.000*** 1.000 1.000 1.000
(0.00009) (0.00003) (0.0000319) (0.0000435)
Toilet in house 1.800 0.569 0.224* 2.059
(1.567) (0.431) (0.187) (2.950)
Number of rooms 0.806 1.270* 1.229 1.0064*
(0.133) (0.150) (0.143) (0.108)
Assets 1.029 1.072 1.091* 1.089
(0.0873) (0.0554) (0.0552) (0.0762)
Storage capacity 0.999* 1.002*** 1.000 1.001
(0.00054) (0.000482) (0.000441) (0.000597)
Treats water 0.182*** 0.652* 1.311 0.735
(0.0516) (0.148) (0.299) (0.254)
Number of trips 1.066 1.233*** 0.738*** 1.158**
(0.0549) (0.0451) (0.0278) (0.0577)
N 643 641 643 636
Standard errors in parentheses *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; OR=Odds ratios
Source (improved=1); Volume (27liters or more=1); Time (<30 minutes=1); Affordability (<3% income=1)a

25