INTRODUCTION:

The quantity of water delivered and used for households is an important aspect of domestic water supplies, which influences hygiene and therefore public health. Domestic water supplies are one of the fundamental requirements for human life. Without water, life cannot be sustained beyond a few days and the lack of access to adequate water supplies leads to the spread of disease. In its Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, WHO defines domestic water as being 'water used for all usual domestic purposes including consumption, bathing and food preparation' (WHO, 1993; 2002). This implies that the requirements with regard to the adequacy of water apply across all these uses and not solely in relation to consumption of water.

The Guidelines exclude some specific uses (for instance dialysis and contact lens cleaning) and elevated requirements for some particularly sensitive sub-populations (for instance the severely immuno-compromised). Although this broad definition provides an overall framework for domestic water usage in the context of quality requirements, it is less useful when considering quantities required for domestic supply. Residential water is used for household purposes, such as drinking, food preparation, bathing, washing clothes, flushing toilets, and watering lawns and gardens. In the guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, WHO defines residential water as being „water used for all usual domestic purposes including consumption, bathing and food preparation‟ (WHO, 1993).

The need for domestic water supplies for basic health protection exceeds the minimum required for consumption (drinking and cooking). Additional volumes are required for maintaining food and personal hygiene through hand and food washing, bathing and laundry. Poor hygiene may in part be caused by a lack of sufficient quantity of domestic water supply (Cairncross and Feachem, 1993). The importance of adequate water quantity for human health has been recognised for many years and there has been an extensive debate about the relative importance of water quantity, water quality, sanitation and hygiene in protecting and improving health (Esrey et al., 1985; Cairncross, 1990; Esrey et al., 1991).

The review by Esrey and Habicht (1986) of 65 epidemiological studies on the health effects of improved water supplies and sanitation facilities indicates that quantity of water is often more important than quality, particularly in heavily contaminated environments. The evidence from the literature suggests that water availability has an important influence on health and diarrhoea incidence in particular, although as noted by both Esrey et al. (1991) and Herbert (1985) this is not necessarily true for all age groups. Esrey (1996) suggests that it is only when the water supply is delivered on-plot that health gains are found. In the study reported by Gorter et al. (1991), although not explicitly stated, there is an implication that all water sources when within 500 m offered health benefits as no difference was noted in diarrhoeal disease incidence between water sources.

The impact of water availability may have particular benefits for child health. Prost and Négrel (1989) suggest that the quantity of water used for children hygiene is sensitive to availability and that reducing the time taken to collect water (including journey and waiting time) from 5 hours to 15 minutes, results in 30 times more water being used for child hygiene. Other commentaries suggest that reductions in diarrhoeal disease with increased service level may in fact be much more modest (Vander Slice and Briscoe, 1995). The earlier studies concluded that increase in water consumption (quantity) is as important as or more important than water quality for prevention of diarrhoea (Van der Hoek et al., 2002; Kirchhoff et al., 1985). There are a number of studies that indirectly discuss water quantity and diarrhoeal incidence, using type of service level and geographical and temporal access to water sources (Gorter et al., 1991; Prost and Negrel, 1989). Washing hands particularly after defecation and before eating and cooking are effective timings to prevent diarrhoea (Curtis et al., 2000; Birmingham et al., 1997; Stanton and Clemens, 1987). Yet, hygiene education is of limited value unless water supplies are improved and larger quantities of water are readily available (Gilman et al., 1993).

Norms for quantities of water to be supplied have been proposed for certain specific conditions. For instance, the SPHERE project sets out 15 litres per capita per day (lpcd) as being a key indicator in meeting minimum standards for disaster relief (SPHERE, 2002). WELL (1998) suggested that a minimum criterion for water supply should be 20 lpcd, whilst noting the importance of reducing distance and encouraging household connection. Carter et al. (1997) have suggested a similar figure. Gleick (1996) estimates 50 lpcd as a true minimum to sustain life in moderate climatic conditions and average activity levels. A World Bank (1980) study on basic needs and the urban poor reported that neither personal hygiene nor public health would require water for domestic consumption greater than 100 lpcd (cf. Kirke and Arthur, 1984). This estimate was corroborated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) study in 1969, which indicated that basic household activities such as cooking, drinking, and washing could be met by less than 94.5 lpcd. Falkenmark (1991) estimates a basic water requirement between 50 lpcd and 100 lpcd.

International organisations such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID, 1982), the World Bank (2002) and the World Health Organisation recommend between 20 lpcd and 40 lpcd for the average human being. This estimate excludes water for cooking, bathing, and basic cleaning. These figures are similar to standards recommended by the United Nation International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade and Agenda 21 of the Earth Summit (cf. Bajpai and Bhandari, 2001).

As per the Bureau of Indian Standards (IS: 1172) minimum water supply of 200 lpcd should be provided for domestic consumption in cities with full flushing systems. The amount of water supply may be reduced to 135 lpcd for the Low Income Group (LIG) and the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the society and in small towns (BIS, 1993). The Ninth Plan (1997-2002) had advocated the requirements of water in urban areas as 125 lpcd in cities with the planned sewerage systems, 70 lpcd in cities without planned sewerage system, and 40 lpcd for those collecting water from public taps. However, in the Tenth Plan (2002-07), the cities with planned sewerage system are classified into two groups based on population i.e., metropolitan or megacities and non-metropolitan cities. In the former, the recommended minimum water supply standard is 150 lpcd and in the latter 135 lpcd (GoI, 1997, 2002).

STUDY AREA:

Aizawl, the capital of Mizoram state, is situated in on the hillcrests, steep slopes and small valleys. It is located on a north-south elongated ridge, which acts as the main hill from which many small ridges and valleys are extending towards the east and west directions. The topography is highly undulating and rugged. The unique physical attributes of this rugged land are marked by extreme fragility and frequent landslides, limited land space, steep slopes and lack of accessibility. The city reveals a rapid and uncontrolled growth pattern with multi-storey settlements that has mushroomed unplanned on highly risk prone slopes. The altitude varies from 120 m to 1400 m above mean sea level. It falls between 23º 40’ N to 23º 50’ N latitudes and 92º 40’ E to 92º 49’ E longitudes. It covers an area of about 128.98 sq km, and as per Aizawl Municipal Corporation (AMC) Report 2020, the population is 3,59,829 persons.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

The objectives of the present study are as follows:

1. to estimate household water use behaviour in Aizawl City,

2. to investigate activity-wise residential water use pattern, and

3. to compare the activity-wise water use results of this research with minimum benchmarks.

DATA BASE AND METHODS:

The present study is based on the information obtained from primary and secondary sources. Households’ survey was carried out in 15 local councils out of 83 Local Councils of the study area during November – December 2018. This amounted to coverage of 18.07 per cent of the total Local Councils. The number of sample households selected from each of the sample Local Councils are 50 households, thus data was collected from 750 households. The sample households have a total population of 4,454 persons, children account for 32.88 per cent of the total. The mean value of households’ size is 5.91, with a standard deviation of 0.90. About 69 per cent of the sample households own their homes and 31 per cent live in rented houses.

A stratified random sampling procedure was used to select Local Councils for the survey, i.e. number of population, percentage of individual piped water connections, and geographical location were taken into considerations to give an overall view of each corner of the study area. Households to be surveyed were selected based on random sampling method and it is believed that they are reasonably representative households in the study area. Estimates of average daily households’ water consumption are based on informant’s recollection of the number of pots and buckets used. The volume of buckets/vessels in which households they normally used to store water is measured and the number of vessels of water used in different activities ascertained. These containers are generally, but not always, of two or three standard sizes. The quantity of water received through individual piped water connection is calculated from the size of the water tank, where they are directly connected to pipeline. Moreover, the information obtained is based not on actual observation but on recollection of the respondents. Average per capita water consumption is obtained by dividing total amount of water consumption by the number of household inhabitants, assuming that two children are equivalent to one adult unit.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

The quantity of water consumed in the study area is not determined by the demand but the supply. People attempt to adjust to the quantity of water supplied. The 54^th round National Sample Survey Organisation data shows that 80 per cent of the households in urban India, across different segments, consider that they have sufficient water supply, while the present study finds that about 62.93 per cent of the households consider water supply as adequate or satisfied (Table 1). Surprisingly, even households receiving poor supply also considered their present water supply enough to satisfy their needs. In fact, this shows nothing but adjustment of people to the supply so much that they do not feel that more water is required. This in turn creates hygiene and sanitation problems resulting in several health consequences.

Table 1: Satisfactory Level of Water Supply (% of households)

Satisfactory Level	Percentage
Satisfied	62.93
Not Satisfied	37.07

Per Capita Domestic Water Consumption:

Table 2 shows per household as well as per capita consumption of water in the study area. It can be seen that the consumption (indication of availability) of water per capita in the study area is much lower than what the Bureau of Indian Standards (1993) recommends, and the Tenth Five Year Plan recommendation. Moreover, it is even lower than Bureau of Indian Standard (1993) recommended level for Lower Income Group (LIG) colonies and weaker section households. The data is also an indication for the lower public hygiene and sanitation conditions in the study area. The per capita daily domestic water consumption ranges from 33 lpcd to 70 lpcd. Therefore, the average per capita domestic water consumption in the study area is estimated at 46 lpcd (S.D = 8.77).

The dispersion statistics (standard deviation) shows that wide variations in per capita consumption of water exist in the study area. The overall average per capita water consumption is lower than the WHO (2003) prescribed for basic hygiene, which is 50 lpcd. Overall, in terms of per capita consumption of water, the condition in the outer areas seems to be worst. In terms of international and national comparison, the study area has far less consumption of water.

Table 2: Water Consumption per Household and per Capita per Day (in litres)

Per Household		Per Capita
Mean	Std. deviation	Mean	Std. deviation
236.5	69.50	46	8.77

Table 3 presents category-wise distribution of per capita domestic water consumption. About 38.93 per cent of the households consume water below 40 lpcd, 19.89 per cent consume between 40 lpcd to 50 lpcd, and 41.20 per cent consume water above 50 lpcd. There also exist wide variations in proportion of households consuming water above 50 lpcd in different local councils. Generally, the per capita water consumption is high in the core areas, while it is least in the periphery of the study area. In fact, in the outer areas majority of the households consume water below 45 lpcd. Inadequate water supply in the study area seems to be a rule rather than an exception. Even if we take 50 litres per capita per day as the criterion for defining water deficient and sufficient households, 58.80 per cent of the households remain water deficient.

Table 3: Category-Wise Water Consumption (% of households)

Litres per capita per day (lpcd)
Below 40	40-50	Above 50
38.93	19.86	41.2

Activity-Wise Water Consumption:

The water required for each of the activities varies with climatic conditions, lifestyle, culture, tradition, diet, technology, and wealth as shown over 30 years ago in the groundbreaking work of White et al. (1972). In recent reviews of epidemiological studies related to water and sanitation, the provision of adequate sanitation services was the most direct determinant of child health after also providing a minimum amount of water for metabolic activity and hand washing (Cvjetanovic, 1986; Esrey and Habitch, 1986; Cairncross, 1990; Esrey et al., 1991). A review of water usage literature shows that while the absolute quantities vary there is an observable pattern of use across sources, income levels and locations. Depending on the type of technology used, consumption for a specific activity can differ greatly. This review provides benchmark figures with which to compare the water consumption by activity obtained in the present study.

Table 4: Activity-Wise Water Consumption (Percentage of total consumption per day)

Name of Local Council	Drinking	Cooking and Cleaning-utensils	Bathing	Laundry	Toilet
Durtlang	4.87	26.90	27.90	14.71	25.62
Zemabawk	5.16	27.23	27.76	14.15	25.70
Chaltlang	5.04	25.60	26.63	15.21	27.52
Ramhlun ‘S’	5.09	25.15	26.51	15.35	27.90
Chanmari ‘W’	5.04	25.41	26.55	15.30	27.70
Electric Veng	5.06	25.40	26.97	15.07	27.50
Chhinga Veng	4.92	26.50	27.41	14.55	26.62
Armed Veng ‘N’	5.11	27.02	27.90	14	25.97
Bungkawn	4.97	25.41	26.70	15.21	27.71
Tuikual ‘S’	4.99	26.49	27.46	14.54	26.52
Dawrpui Vengthar	5.17	24.70	26.28	15.81	28.04
Tanhril	4.98	27.60	27.92	14.60	24.90
College Veng	5.20	25.70	26.62	15.16	27.32
Mission Veng	4.84	25.95	26.81	15.10	27.30
Saikhamakawn	4.86	26.44	27.50	15.10	26.10
Overall	5.02	26.10	27.12	14.92	26.84

Table 4 gives the average activity wise per capita consumption of water.

Drinking:

The amount of water for drinking depends on surrounding environmental conditions and human physiological characteristics but the overall variability of needs across individuals is small. Vinograd (1966), Roth (1968) and WHO (1971) estimated an amount of 2.5 lpcd for drinking. According to Clarke (1993), an average person needs to drink about a litre of water a day to stay alive. White et al. (1972) reported a minimum of 1.8 lpcd, while US-EPA (1976) and NAS (1977) suggest 2 lpcd. Howard and Bartram (2003) suggest between 1.5 lpcd to 2 lpcd. The average consumption for drinking in the present study is about 5.02 per cent of the total consumption, which is around 2.31 lpcd. Comparing with the suggested benchmarks the water consumption for drinking in the study area may be satisfactory.

Cooking and Cleaning Utensils:

The final component of a domestic basic water requirement is the water required for the preparation of food. Brooks and Peters (1988) estimate that water use for food preparation in wealthy regions ranges from 10 to 50 lpcd, with a mean of 30 lpcd. Other studies in both developed and developing countries suggest that an average of 20 lpcd to 10 lpcd appears to satisfy most regional standards and that 10 lpcd will meet basic needs (WHO, 1972; Brooks and Peters, 1988; NRC, 1989). Gleick (1996) suggests that a minimum of 10 lpcd is required for food preparation. Therefore, it has been observed that generally households use 26.10 per cent of the total water consumption for cooking and cleaning utensils, which is about 12 lpcd. The per capita water consumption for cooking and cleaning utensils is miserably low in comparison to wealthy regions consumption; however, it is not less than the suggested basic needs for such activity.

Bathing:

On top of the direct sanitation requirements, additional domestic water is used for showering or bathing. Depending on the technology associated with households’ activities, usage can vary greatly. Some studies suggest that minimum water needed for adequate bathing is about 5 to 15 lpcd and that required for showering is 15 lpcd to 25 lpcd (Kalbermatten et al., 1982). A basic level of service of 15 lpcd for bathing is recommended (Gleick, 1996). Bathing for developing countries is estimated to be much lower at 5 lpcd to 15 lpcd (Inocencio et al., 1999). In the present study, bathing requires highest amount of water. On an average, household consumes about 27.12 per cent of the total water, equivalent to 12.47 lpcd. Though bathing takes the largest amount of water, the per capita consumption is lower than some suggested basic level for such activity. On the other hand, the consumption is higher than some suggested minimum requirement for bathing.

Laundry:

Water requirement for laundry varies depending on the technology used ranging from hand washing to a half or full cycle machine washing. In addition, for a given technology, use may differ by source. Users of piped connections may consume more per cloth than the users of springs. In US washing clothes uses about 29 lpcd to 71 lpcd (Gleick, 1996). Gleick (1996) and Inocencio et al. (1999) proposed basic requirement for washing to be about 5 lpcd. Interestingly, in the present study, water usage for washing is slightly higher than the suggested basic requirement, which is about 6.86 lpcd or 14.92 per cent of the total water use.

Toilet:

Toilet requirements of water differ by technology used and can even exceed 75 lpcd. Pit latrine requires the least amount of water of 1 lpcd to 2 lpcd, while pour and flush toilets consume more than that. It has been shown that the lack of clean water and sanitation services has led to millions of cases of water-related diseases and causes about 5 to 10 million deaths per year among children (c.f. Gleick, 1996). Additional health benefits are identifiable with up to 20 lpcd of clean water for sanitation purposes (Esrey and Habicht, 1986). Gleick (1996) proposed minimum amount for toilet flushing of 20 lpcd. In the present study, the consumption of toilets comprises of 26.84 per cent of the total water consumption or 12.34 lpcd. Therefore, the per capita water consumption is lower than the suggested minimum requirement for toilets.

CONCLUSION:

The rapid increase in population, depleting water resources and enhanced consumer needs are going to create a difficult situation. Simultaneously, the alarming rise in pollution levels in surface water bodies and even in ground water is going to add to the situation. Therefore, the provision of adequate potable domestic water to residents of Aizawl obviously needs careful planning taking into account the City’s peculiar environmental setting, the rapid rate of population growth and haphazard expansion of the built-up-area, as well as the need to install facilities that will not only meet the present needs but the future needs of the City dwellers as well. People adjusted their water use pattern with the availability of small quantity of water. Though a majority of households consume water below the specified norms, they largely show satisfaction with the available supply.

REFERENCES:

1. Bajpai, P. and Bhandari, L., 2001. Ensuring Access to Water in Urban Households. Economic and Political Weekly, 36 (9): pp. 3774-3778.

2. Birmingham, M.E., Lee, L.A. and Ntakibirora, M., 1997. A Household Survey of Dysentery in Burundi: Implications for the Current Pandemic in Sub-Saharan Africa. Bulletin of World Health Organisation, 75 (1): pp. 45-53.

3. BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards), 1993. IS. 1172-1993, Code of Basic Requirements for Water Supply, Drainage and Sanitation. Publication of Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

4. Brooks, D.B. and Peters, R., 1988. Water: The Potential for Demand Management in Canada. Science Council of Canada Discussion Paper, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

5. Cairncross, S., 1990. Water Supply and the Urban Poor. In The Poor Die Young, S. Cairncross, J.E. Hardoy and D. Satterthwaite (eds.). Earth scan Publications Ltd., London, U.K. pp. 109-126.

6. Cairncross, S. and Feachem, R., 1993. Environmental Health Engineering in the Tropics (2nd edition). John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.

7. Carter, R.C., Tyrrel, S.F. and Howsam, P., 1997. The Impact and Sustainability of Sater and Sanitation Programmes in Developing Countries. Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, 13: pp. 292-296.

8. Clarke, R., 1993. Water: The International Crisis. United Nations, USA.

9. Curtis, V., Cairncross, S. and Yonli, R., 2000. Domestic Hygiene and Diarrhoea: Pin Pointing the Problem. Tropical Medicine and International Health, 5(1): pp. 22-32.

10. Cvjetanovic, B., 1986. Health Effects and Impacts of Water Supply and Sanitation. World Health Statistics, 39: pp. 105-l17.

11. Esrey, S., 1996. Water, Waste and Well-Being: A Multi-Country Study. American International Journal of Epidemiology, 143(6): pp. 608-623.

12. Esrey, S.A. and Habicht, J.P., 1986. Epidemiological Evidence for Health Benefits from Improved Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries. Epidemiological Reviews, 8: pp. 117-128.

13. Esrey, S.A., Feachem, R.G. and Hughes, J.M., 1985. Interventions for the Control of Diarrhoeal Diseases Among Young Children: Improving Water Supplies and Excreta Disposal Facilities, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 63 (4): pp. 757-772.

14. Esrey, S.A., Potash, J.B., Roberts, L. and Shiff, C., 1991. Effects of Improved Water Supply and Sanitation on Ascariasis, Diarrhoea, Dracunculiasis, Hookworm Infection, Schistosomiasis, and Trachoma. Bulletin World Health Organisation 69(5): pp. 609-621.

15. Falkenmark, M., 1991. Approaching the Ultimate Constraint: Water Short Third World Countries at a Fatal Crossroad. Study Week on Resources and Population. Pontifical Academy, Vatican City.

16. Gilman, R.H., Marquis, G.S. and Ventura, G., 1993. Water Cost and Availability: Key Determinants of Family Hygiene in a Peruvian Shantytown. American Journal of Public Health, 839(1): pp. 1554-1558.

17. Gleick, P.H., 1996. Basic Water Requirements for Human Activities: Meeting Basic Needs. Water International, 21(2): pp. 83-92.

18. GoI (Government of India), 1997. Ninth Five -Year Plan 1997-2002 - Volume II. Planning Commission, New Delhi.

19. GoI (Government of India), 2002. Tenth Five -Year Plan 2002-2007 - Volume II. Planning Commission, New Delhi.

20. Gorter, A.C., Sandiford, P., Smith, G.D. and Pauw, J.P., 1991. Water Supply, Sanitation and Diarrhoeal Disease in Nicaragua: Results from a Case-Control Study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 20(2): pp. 527-533.

21. Herbert, J., 1985. Effects of Components of Sanitation on Nutritional Status: Findings from South Indian Settlements. International Journal of Epidemiology, 14(1): pp. 143-151.

22. Howard, G. and Bartram, J., 2003. Domestic Water Quantity, Service Level and Health. WHO Report, World Health Organization, Geneva. pp. 7-11.

23. Inocencio, A.B., Padilla, J.E. and Javier, E.P., 1999. Determination of Basic Household Water Requirements. Discussion Paper Series No. 99-02 (Revised). The Research Information Staff, Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Philippines. pp. 4-5.

24. Kalbermatten, J.M., Julius, D.S., Gunnerson, C.G. and Mara, D.D., 1982. Appropriate Sanitation Alternatives: A Technical and Economic Appraisal and A Planning and Design Manual. World Bank Studies in Water Supply and Sanitation 1 and II. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, U.S.A.

25. Kirchhoff, L.V., McLelland, K.E., Pinho, D.M.C., 1985. Feasibility and Efficacy of in Home Water Chlorination in Rural North-Eastern Brazil. Journal of Hygiene, 94(2): pp. 173-180.

26. Kirke, J. and Arthur, J., 1984. Water Supply Issues: Basic Needs and the Urban Poor. Biddles Ltd. Guildford, Surrey, England.

27. NAS (National Academy of Sciences), 1977. Drinking Water and Health, National. Academy Press, Washington, DC.

28. NRC (National Research Council), 1989. Recommended Dietary Allowances. 10^th Edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

29. NSSO (National Sample Survey Organisation), 1999. Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in India. National Sample Survey Organisation, 54^thRound, Report No. 449. Government of India, New Delhi.

30. Prost, A. and Negrel, A.D., 1989. Water, Trachoma, and Conjunctivitis. Bulletin World Health Organisation, 67(1): pp. 9-18.

31. Roth, E.M., 1968. Water: Compendium of Human Responses to the Aerospace Environment. In Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, E.M. Roth (ed.). Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A.

32. SPHERE Project, 2002. Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response. OXFAM Publishing, Oxford, United Kingdom.

33. Stanton, B.F. and Clemens, J.D., 1987. An Education Intervention for Altering Water Sanitation Behavior to Reduce Childhood Diarrhea in Urban Bangladesh II: A Randomised Trial to Assess the Impact of Intervention on Hygienic Behaviors and Rates of Diarrhea. American Journal of Epidemiology, 125(2): pp. 292 301.

34. US-EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1976. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA-570/ 12. g-76-003. Washington, DC.

35. USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development), 1982. Domestic Water and Sanitation. PPC Policy Paper, Washington. p. 24.

36. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), 1969. The Year Book of Agriculture, 1995: Water. Oxford and IBH Publishing Company, Calcutta.

37. Van der Hoek, W., Feenstar, S.G. and Konradsen, F., 2002. Availability of Irrigation Water for Domestic Use in Pakistan: Its Impact on Prevalence of Diarrhoea and Nutiritional Status of Children. Journal of Health Population and Nutrition, 20(1): pp. 77-84.

38. Vander Slice, J. and Briscoe, J., 1995. Environmental Interventions in Developing Countries: Interactions and Their Implications. American Journal of Epidemiology, 141(2): pp. 135-141.

39. Vinograd, S.P., 1966. Medical Aspects of a Orbiting Research Laboratory, Space Medicine. Advisory Group Study, NASA-SP-86. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Washington, DC.

40. WELL, 1998. Guidance Manual on Water Supply and Sanitation Programmes. WEDC, Loughborough, UK.

41. White, G.F., Bradley, D.J. and White, A.U., 1972. Drawers of Water: Domestic Water Use in East Africa. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

42. WHO (World Health Organization), 1971. International Standards for Drinking Water. 3^rd Edition. World Health Organization, Geneva.

43. WHO (World Health Organization), 1972. Health Hazards of the Human Environment. World Health Organization, Geneva.

44. WHO (World Health Organisation), 1993. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. Volume 1. Recommendation, 2^ndEdition. World Health Organisation. Geneva, Switzerland.

45. WHO (World Health Organisation), 2002. Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life, World Health Report 2002. World Health Organization, Geneva.

46. WHO (World Health Organisation), 2003. Chloride in Drinking-Water. Background Document for Preparation of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. World Health Organisation. Geneva, Switzerland.

47. World Bank, 2002. New Designs for Water and Sanitation Transactions: Making Private Sector Participation Work for the Poor. Water Sanitation Programme. Washington, DC.

Received on 26.12.2022 Modified on 04.02.2023

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2023;14(1)31-36.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5828.2023.00006