SANITATION PROVISION IN USE IN KARENGATA AND · PDF file... The Minimum Standards in Water,...

International Journal Of Advancement In Engineering Technology, Management and Applied

Science (IJAETMAS)

ISSN: 2349-3224 || www.ijaetmas.com || Volume 05 - Issue 01 || May-2017 || PP. 154-181

www.ijaetmas.com 54

SANITATION PROVISION IN USE IN KARENGATA

AND ONGATA RONGAI AREAS AND THEIR

COMPLIANCE TO STANDARDS

Philip Mbugua Kiama1, Sammy Letema

2, Aggrey Thuo

3

1,2Department of Environmental Studies, Kenyatta University, Kenya

3 Department of Tourism and Natural Resources Management, Maasai Mara University.

Abstract:The Minimum Standards in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion are a

practical expression of the principles and rights embodied in the Humanitarian Charter. The

national government provides standards that regulate the siting, design, capacity,

construction, operation and maintenance of sanitation provisions in order to ensure the

reception, conveyance, treatment and disposal complies with the laid down procedures. This

paper therefore examines sanitation provision in use in Karengata and OngataRongai areas

and their compliance to standards. Sanitation provisions in use in Karengata and

OngataRongai were assessed where the most prevalent facility in the area was septic tanks at

62% and pit latrines accounted for 37%. From the study results, Karengata had a higher

compliance rate with 56.2% compared to 8.2% in OngataRongai. Water consumption

standards indicate that a nominal figure of 100 l/cap/day is required to meet one’s sanitation

needs. Based on the study findings, there is need to develop specific national sanitation

standards that are relevant to various areas in Kenya.

Keywords – Compliance, Sanitation facilities, Sanitation standards.

1.0 Introduction

Standards are indicators that provide benchmarks that reflect an understanding of appropriate

levels of service required to create and maintain healthy environments (Adams, 2009).

Locally, sanitation standards are found from various sources including Public Health Act

(1984), EMCA (1999), Practice Manual for Sewerage and Sanitation Services (2008), the

Sanitation Field Manual for Kenya (1987), NEMA Water quality regulations (2006) and


Science (IJAETMAS)


www.ijaetmas.com Page 155

Planning and Building regulations (2009). International standards from organizations such as

WHO (1992; 1998), WASH (2009), USEPA (2002) Water Aid (2002), and Uganda’s

National Water and Sewerage Corporation (2008) were examined to determine local

standards match up to international standards.

The Planning and Building Regulations (GoK, 2009) specify that septic tanks, pit latrines and

soakaways should be not less than 30m from any well. However, WHO (1992) and GoK

(2008) state that 15m and 10m separation distances are required. The diverging separation

distances to wells need to be harmonised so as to protect ground water from contamination. A

distance of 3m is required from any building or boundary site to septic tank and pit latrine by

GoK (2009), while GoK (2008) requires a distance of 1.5m. In GoK (1987) the distance from

dwelling to pit latrine is 10m while in GoK (1968) the setback is 9m. Soakaways and pit

latrines should be dug 1.5m above the water table according to GoK (2008) while WHO

(1992) specifies a distance of 2m. GoK (2009) stipulates that 30m is required between septic

tanks and soakaways to the rivers or streams. In addition, soakaways should not be

constructed on a ground that has a percolation rate exceeding 30 min/in (GoK, 2009).

Sewer siting standards state that plots should be 60m within municipal sewer line and area

should be planned with a site plan showing the location of the plot in relation to adjacent

plots (Letema, 2012). Local sitting standards generally do not significantly deviate from

international practice and most site requirements are covered by local standards. The purpose

of siting standards is to protect groundwater used as drinking water from contamination by


Science (IJAETMAS)



sewage (Graham and Polizzotto, 2013). This is achieved by setting setbacks for septic tanks,

soakaways, pit latrines, lagoons and sewers from wells, rivers, lakes and impoundments.

Setbacks are also provided for roads, water pipes, plot boundaries, and from buildings to

prevent structural failures (USDEH, 2013). This paper sought to examine sanitation provision

in use in Karengata and OngataRongai areas and their compliance to standards in place.

2. Literature review

The national government provides standards that regulate the siting, design, capacity,

construction, operation and maintenance of sanitation provisions in order to ensure the

reception, conveyance, treatment and disposal complies with the laid down procedures (UN-

Habitat, 2007). These rules also set out the enforcement instruments and consequences for

non-compliance with the provisions and standards.

2.1 Siting

Sanitation standards provide regulations on siting of sanitation provisions for Septic tanks,

Soakaways, pit latrines. The planning and building regulations (EPA, 2009) specify that

septic tanks, pit latrines and soakaways should be not less than 30m from any well; however

WHO (1992) and GoK (2008) state 15m and 10m separation distances are required. The

diverging separation distances to wells need to be harmonized so as to protect ground water

from contamination.

A distance of 3m is required from any building or boundary site to septic tank and pit latrine

by GoK 2009, while GoK 2008 require a distance of 1.5m. In GoK 1987 the distance from

dwelling to pit latrine is 10m while in GoK 1968 the setback is 9m. Soakaways, pit latrines


Science (IJAETMAS)



and lagoons should be dug 1.5 m above the water table according to (GoK, 2008) while

WHO (1992) specifies a distance of 2m.

2.2 Plot size and coverage

The siting standards ensure the onsite sewage disposal method adopted is most compatible

with site, population, environmental, sociocultural and institutional framework conditions

found on the proposed location (Denny, 1997). The plot coverage is also of significance in

terms of sanitation planning (Cowan, 2002).

2.3 Water consumption

Water supply is an important factor which must be considered to determine the suitability of

sanitation provision. Septic tanks require piped water supply to flush all the wastes through

the drain pipes into the tanks (WHO, 1992). Piped water required for septic tanks and

sewerage consumption is 100 l/cap/day (WHO, 2001). The practice manual (GoK, 2008)

states that water consumption requirements vary according to the area and type of housing.

That is urban areas with low density housing to receive 250 l/cap/day, medium density 150

l/cap/day and high density housing to receive 70 l/cap/day.

2.4 Sanitation provisions

Sanitation generally refers to the provision of facilities and services for the safe disposal of

human urine and faeces (WHO, 2015). The facilities mainly include, septic tanks with or

without soakaways, pit latrines and sewer.


Science (IJAETMAS)



2.4.1 Septic tank

A septic tank is defined as a single or multiple-chambered tank in which wastewater is

retained sufficiently long to permit separation of solid particles and partial digestion of

accumulated solids (SLSI, 2003). Septic tanks must have sufficient volume to provide an

adequate liquid retention time for sedimentation. Liquid retention times of 6 to 24 hours have

been recommended (Feachemet al., 1983). However, actual liquid retention time can vary

significantly from tank to tank because of difference in geometry, depth, and inlet and outlet

configurations (Harvey, 2007). Sludge and scum also affect the retention time, reducing it as

the solids accumulate. Septic tanks should have a capacity of approximately <120-300 ppl/ha

(GoK, 1987) or <160 ppl/ha (NWSC, 2008).

According to the Sanitation Field Manual for Kenya the emptying should be done when the

sludge level reaches 200mm from the bottom of the outlet tee, or after the design desludging

interval of three years. A good soil system for receiving septic tank system effluents should

absorb all effluent generated, provide a high level of treatment before the effluent reaches the

groundwater, and have a long, useful life (Chidavaenziet al., 1997). Ideally, a soil should be

able to convert a pollutant into an unpolluted state at a rate equal to or greater than the rate at

which it is added to the soil (Buuren, 1996).

2.4.2 Pit latrine

A simple pit latrine should consist of a slab over a pit which may be 2m or more in depth

(Brown, 2007). The slab should be supported on all sides and raised above the ground so that

water cannot enter the pit. The sides of the pit should also be lined to stabilize the soil.


Science (IJAETMAS)



Traditional pit latrines consists of a pit, either lined or unlined depending on the soil

conditions which is dug to a depth of around 2 meters, if too deep it will have implications on

ground water. At its simplest, the pit is covered with large logs which act as a means of

support for smaller logs/branches in order to form a squatting platform (WHO, 2000). The

VIP is an improvement on the traditional pit latrines. The VIP latrine is a pit toilet with an

external ventilation pipe. A pit (either lined or unlined depending on soil conditions) is dug to

a depth of around 2.5 meters and covered with a concrete slab (flat or domed). Pit latrines a

share of approximately 1latrine/12 people (WHO, 2012).

2.4.3 Water sanitation standards

The water supply installation whether taken from the County’s water reticulation system or

otherwise shall comply with specific and, except where otherwise specified in the by-law, the

pipes, brassware, fittings, valves, cisterns, tanks and any other material used in any

installation water of a water supply system shall be deemed to be part thereof and shall be of

no less quantity than that specified in the standard specification. All water supply

installations, except approved fittings contained in a low pressure system, shall be capable of

sustaining a working pressure of 300lb. per square inch. For each dwelling there is a stored

supply of water of not less than 100 gallons, and in any other premises the stored supply is

sufficient to meet a twenty-four hours demand from the occupier of the building. For a

storage system for quantities of less than 200 gallons, a Grade “A” (B.S. 417) type cistern is

used, and for quantities of 200 gallons or more a Grade “B” (BS. 417) type is used. All


Science (IJAETMAS)



cisterns are adequately supported, mosquito-proofed to the satisfaction and the water stored

therein protected against contamination.

3. Research methodology

3.1 Research design

The study adopted a descriptive research design (Strauss et al., 1998) in the study of the

implication of sanitation standards on sanitation provisions in Karengata and OngataRongai.

Descriptive research involves observing and describing the behaviour of a subject without

influencing it in any way (Strauss et al., 1998). The method aims at finding out what is, using

observational and survey methods to collect descriptive data.

3.2 The Area of Study

The study covers Karengata and OngataRongai areas. OngataRongai is an area situated 17

km south of Nairobi, and lies at 1731 m above sea level. The township spans 16.5 square

kilometers at latitude (0o

-53’ 60 S), and longitude (36o25’60 E). It is 50km from Kajiado

district headquarters. It has two administrative wards OngataRongai and Nkaimurunya. It

spatially consists of four areas namely Maasai Lodge, Gataka, Laiser and Kware.

Geologically the area consist of volcanic layers of tuffs, basalts, phonolites and trachytes

which overly thick layers of clay soil. Mainly OngataRongai is considered to have poor soil

structure due to the rocky and black cotton soils, which hinders drainage of water (Kazunguet

al., 2011).


Science (IJAETMAS)



Figure 1: Area of study consisting of Karengata and Ongata (GoK, 2010)

Karengata is an area found south west of Nairobi city between the City and the peri-urban

areas of Ngong, Kiserian and OngataRongai. The boundary of the area is the Motoine River

to the north, the Mbagathi River to the south, the Magadi and Forest Edge roads to the east

and with Kiambu County to the west. It occupies approximately 56 square kilometers at

latitude -1.32°, longitude 36.72° (GoK, 2006). Residential use is predominantly low density

in Karengata area. Karen plains and Hardy and Bogani areas consist of low density housing


Science (IJAETMAS)



occupying a minimum land area of 0.2 ha. The types of housing include mansions,

bungalows and maisonettes averaging 10 units per hectare. There are 30 high density

settlements in the area the largest being Kuwinda (GoK, 2006).

3.3 Study and sample Population

The sample population consists of 200 residents of Karengata and 200 of OngataRongai

areas. Key informants such as officials in the Nairobi City County and the Kajiado County in

particular Department of Environmental Health and Sanitation, Development Control

Department, Water and Sewage department, Public health inspectorate, Environment

Department and NEMA Office were interviewed. The study also targeted other key

government officers in the Ministries of Lands, Health, Environment Water and Natural

Resources, KNBS and WASREB; Water and Sanitation Service providers such as Olelaiser

Water Company, private exhausters, and NGOs such as Netwas International were also

interviewed.

3.4 Sampling Technique and sample size determination

3.4.1 Sampling technique

The research used stratified probability sampling of households in the area of study because it

gives` the most representative data (Kothari, 2004). Stratified probability sampling is a

technique whereby the researcher divides the entire population into different subgroups or

strata, then randomly selects the final subjects proportionally from the different strata(Punch,

2005).


Science (IJAETMAS)



3.4.1 Sample Size

A total of 400 respondents were sampled at a 95 % confidence level and an accuracy level of

±5. The sample size was determined using Slovin’s formula (Equation 3.1). Where n is the

number of samples, N represents the total population and e is the error tolerance.

2

1 eNNn

(3.1)

The study sampled approximately 40 % of zones in Karengata and 60 % in OngataRongai.

This technique ensured that the number of respondents in the sample groups was proportional

to the number of residents in each class of the population of Karengata and OngataRongai.

Table 1: Population of Karengata

Area Male Female Population

Mokoyeti

Kuwinda Karen

Karen

7450 6338 13788

Bogani/Hardy Hardy 4848 4266 9114

Source : Population and housing census (2010)

Table 2: Population of OngataRongai

Area Male Female Population

MaasaiOlekasasi

Lodge

2402 2098 4500


Science (IJAETMAS)



Rongai

Township

KwareOngataRongai

Laiser

Kataka

19271

20907

40178

Source: Population and Housing Census (2010)

3.5 Methods of Data Collection

The study used both primary and secondary sources in data collection. Primary data was

collected through the questionnaires, GPS survey, interview schedules, Focus Group

Discussion guides and observation check list. While secondary data was collected through

document and content analysis guide to ascertain an in-depth analysis on the sanitation

provisions in use in Karengata and OngataRongai areas.

3.6 Reliability and Validity of Data Instruments

3.6.1 Reliability

The researcher used test and retest techniques, where the same data instrument was

administered twice to the same respondents after a period of 2 weeks. To achieve this, a pilot

study was conducted in OngataRongai area to determine the suitability of the instruments to

be used and the procedures for data collection to ascertain their reliability and validity. After

the research instrument had yielded the same results the researcher went ahead and

administered them to the selected samples in OngataRongai and Karengata areas. Thereafter,

from the responses using SPSS, a reliability of Pearson correlation co-efficient of 0.5 was

taken to imply that the instruments were reliable.


Science (IJAETMAS)



3.6.2 Validity

The researcher used content validity so as to ascertain whether the tools measured were stated

in the objectives. This was done through cross checking with the supervisors. This meant that

the researcher content validity measures contained all possible items that were used in

measuring the concept. In this study, a valid measure of 0.5 was acceptable as in Spearman

correlation coefficient.

3.7 Data Analysis

Data collected was analyzed by assigning numerical values to each response and entered into

a code book or coding table. There after the numerical numbers representing responses from

the questionnaires were transferred to a code sheet so as to obtain quantitative results from

the closed-ended questionnaires. After this, simple statistics was used by the researcher to

analyze the data from the questionnaires and interview schedules using percentages,

frequency tables, and narrative description of the tables. Later these results was summarized,

interpreted, and reported.

4. RESULTS

The sanitation provisions identified by the study were evaluated alongside sanitation

standards and the results analysed to determine whether sanitation provisions were compliant

or non-compliant. The summary of the sanitation standards used in Karengata and

OngataRongai is as shown in Table 3.

International Journal Of Advancement In Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Science (IJAETMAS)



Table 3: Sanitation standards governing sanitation provision in Karengata and OngataRongai Areas

Sanitation

Provision

Sitting Water consumption

(l/cap/day)

Population Density

(People/ha)i

Reference

Septic tank 15 m from surface water

15 m from wells

1.5 from building foundation

1.5 m set back from a plot

boundary

1m setback from plot boundary

5m setback from road or driveway

1.5m setback from any

building

10m from wells

7.5m setback from streams

15m from high water mark of

water body

Piped water supply of

100 l/cap/day

70 l/cap/day for

ablution with yard tap

(splash area)

<120-300

ppl/ha

<250ppl/ha

<160 ppl/ha

At least

0.25acre plot size

WHO, 1992

USEPA, 2002

GOK, 2007

GOK, 2008

NWSC, 2008

Mihelcic, 2009

Brandberg, 1997




Septic tanks

soakaways

30m from wells

1.5m to property line or any

building;

30m from streams, cut or

embankments

3m setback to building

6m setback to building setback

Depth to ground water table is

1.5m

Depth to ground water table is

1.2m

100 l/cap/day

Low density housing,

200 l/cap/day

Medium density

housing, 150 l/cap/day

High density housing,

70 l/cap/day

Plot size 0.2 Ha

120ppl/ha

WHO, 1992

USEPA, 2002

GOK, 2005

GOK, 2007

GOK, 2008

GOK, 2009

NWSC, 2008

EHS, 2010

USDEH, 2013

Mihelcic,2009

Davis and Lambert,

2002

Brandberg, 1997

Lagoons 110m buffer zone from lagoons

to residence

10-7

Permeability coefficient for

soil lining

200m setback from lagoon to the

nearest community and should

be fenced

15m setback from stream,

watercourse impoundment

3m distance between pond

bottom and creviced bedrock

110-260l.c.d Lagoon for

settlements with

3000 pple

GoK, 2006

GoK, 2007,

GoK, 2008

WHO, 1998

USEPA, 2002




1.5m distance between pond

bottom and water table

Pit Latrine

30m to a well or groundwater

source

15m to a well or groundwater

source

50m from groundwater

source

2m above water table

1.5m above water table

10m to a dwelling house

9m to a dwelling house

3m to building or boundary

4m from any dwelling

Communal 40-60

l/cap/day

20-30 l/cap/day

40-80 l/cap/day

1 latrine/12

persons

<200ppl/ha

GOK, 1968

GOK, 1987

WHO, 1992

UN, 2005

GOK, 2008

MCK, 2008

GOK, 2009

Fry et al., 2008

Thompson et al.,

2000.

Davis and Lambert,

2002

WATER, AID 2011

USDEH, 2013



www.ijaetmas.com 9

Sewers

75m setback from any

development

60m from municipal sewer

line

100 l/cap/day

Low density 150-250

l/cap/day

Medium density 110-

160 l/cap/day

High density55-

70/cap/day

>200 ppl/ha

>120 ppl/ha

Settlements

>3000 people

Urban layout of

>10,000 people

Escritt, 1984

Brandberg, 1997

Letema, 2012

COPSSW, 2004

GOK, 2007

GOK, 2008

NWSC, 2008

Biodigesters At least 7m from property

At least 10m from discharge

point

177-530 ppl/ha

Informal

settlements

BSI, 2002


Science (IJAETMAS)



4.1 Separation of the building from the property boundary

A distance of 3m is required from any building or boundary site to septic tank and pit latrine

by GoK 2009, while GoK 2008 require a distance of 1.5m. In GoK 1987 the distance from

dwelling to pit latrine is 10m while in GoK 1968 the setback is 9m. Soakaways, pit latrines

and lagoons should be dug 1.5 m above the water table according to (GoK 2008) while WHO

1992 specifies a distance of 2m. The separation distance from the property boundary for any

building should be 3m. Karengata had a higher compliance rate with 56.2% compared to

8.2% in OngataRongai.About 32.7% of residences in OngataRongai and 2.2% from

Karengata do not comply with distance to property line standards (Table 4). OngataRongai

has more non-compliance of the standards than Karengata (Table 4).

Table 4: Compliance on building separation from property boundary in Karengata and

OngataRongai

Study area Non-compliant Compliant

Frequency % Frequency %

Karengata 1 0.4 20 8.8

4 1.7 40 17.7

0 0 36 16.0

0 0 31 13.7

OngataRongai 7 3.1 9 4.0

33 14.6 2 0.8

5 2.2 5 2.2

29 12.8 3 1.3


Science (IJAETMAS)



4.2 Distance of the sanitation facility from property boundary

The separation distance for septic tank from property boundary should be approximately

1.5M setback. Karengata shows high compliance with septic tank separation distance of 65%

while in OngataRongai incidences of compliance were lower at 28%, particularly evident in

Kware and Maasai lodge (Table 4). Karengata area show compliance with sitting of pit

latrines, while OngataRongai has challenges with compliance, especially in Kataka, Kware

and Maasai lodge (Table 5).

Table 4: Compliance to septic tank separation distance from plot boundary in

Karengata and OngataRongai areas

Study area Zone Non-Compliant Compliant


Karen Bogani 0 0 19 12.5

Karen Plains 1 0.6 27 17.8

Mbagathi 0 0 28 18.5

Miotoni 0 0 25 16.5

OngataRongai Kataka 0 0 7 4.6

Kware 4 2.6 13 8.6

Laiser 0 0 5 3.3

Maasai Lodge 4 2.6 18 11.9

The separation distance from plot boundary for pit latrine varies from international to local

standards with a variation of about 10 or 9m to 3 or 4m set back from dwelling. This was

further indicated should be <30m away from children, elderly and persons with disability,

and that no pit latrine shall be constructed without permission from the authority.

Table 5: Pit latrine separation distance from plot boundary in Karengata and

OngataRongai areas


Science (IJAETMAS)





Karengata Bogani 0 0 2 2.6


Mbagathi 0 0 8 10.3

Miotoni 0 0 6 7.7

OngataRongai Kataka 5 6.4 4 5.1

Kware 10 12.9 8 10.3

Laiser 0 0 5 6.4


4.3 Separation of sanitation facility from building

The provisions set by both international and local standards indicate that the separation

distance for septic tank from dwelling should be approximately 3M from any building. Non-

compliance was evident in both OngataRongai and Karengata. This is shown by the 21% and

9.9% in Karengata and OngataRongai residences respectively. In addition, in the study areas

there was 44.8% compliance in Karengata and 23.8% rate of compliance in OngataRongai

(Table 6).

Table 6: Septic Tank Separation Distance from Dwelling in Karengata and

OngataRongai



Karengata Bogani 4 2.6 15 9.9


Mbagathi 9 5.9 20 13.2

Miotoni 11 7.2 14 9.2


Kware 5 3.3 12 7.9

Laiser 0 0 5 3.3


Science (IJAETMAS)




The set standards provision for pit latrines should be 10m setback from any dwelling.

OngataRongai area exhibited a high non-compliance rate to the setbacks between the

dwelling and the pit latrines at 39.1% (Table 7).

Table 7: Pit Latrine Separation Distance from Dwelling in Karengata and

OngataRongai




Karen Plains 0 0 17 22.9

Mbagathi 0 0 7 9.4

Miotoni 0 0 6 8.1


Kware 14 18.9 4 5.4

Laiser 3 4.0 2 2.7

Maasai Lodge 10 13.5 0 0

4.4 Separation distance of the Sanitation Facility from the main plot features

One of the sanitation standards provision is the separation distance from property boundary to

dwelling building; sanitation facility to either property boundary or the dwelling among other

features. These become key features in construction, as they indicate compliance to local and

international sitting standards. Majority of the OngataRongai areas do not have enough space

because of the owners not allocating any gap between the building lines. Rongai area has a

minimum distance of zero metres in four zones. The highest distance from building line is

10m, found in Kware and Laiser. In Karengata, the minimum distance for the building line is


Science (IJAETMAS)



2.5m in Bogani and the highest 52m in Miotoni (Table 8). This is because of plot utilisation

within the two areas.

Table 8: Area (m2) in Karengata and OngataRongai

Study area Zones Average land area (m2)

Karengata Bogani 29409.01

Karen Plains 13135.90

Mbagathi 33850.18

Miotoni 25494.66

OngataRongai Kataka 17202.57

Kware 5195.14

Laiser 24404.48

Maasai Lodge 2066.13

In KarengataInKware, Laiser and Maasai lodge, the building line is a minimum of zero,

indicating the households within the areas occupy the entire plot and no distance is left for

setbacks. A recommended standard of 0.25 acres (GoK, 2008) for a household shows that

Karengata residences are compliant whilst OngataRongai residents are not compliant (Table

9).

Table 9: Building line in (m2) in Karengata and OngataRongai

Study area Zones Building line (m)

Minimum Maximum

Karengata Bogani 2.5 30.5

Karen Plains 1.5 50

Mbagathi 3 46

Miotoni 3.2 52.2


Science (IJAETMAS)



OngataRongai Kataka 0 9

Kware 0 10

Laiser 0 10

Maasai Lodge 0 5

Table 10 indicates the plot size at household level against the recommended of standard of

0.25acre (Approx. 1,012M2) against plot utilization an observation by the interviewers during

the data collection phase.

Table 10: Compliance on Plot size (0.25acre) in Karengata and OngataRongai




Karen Plains 0 0 40 16.3

Mbagathi 0 0 36 14.7

Miotoni 0 0 37 15.1


Kware 27 11 8 3.2

Laiser 0 0.0 10 4.1


4.5 Compliance of water consumption

Water consumption has been assumed to have a nominal standard of 100 litres per person per

day (WHO, 2002); however, this is not the case. In a study carried out in Kenya (Kennedy,

2006) it is shown that the average rural household consumes about 16 litres per person per


Science (IJAETMAS)



day and people were able to meet their sanitation standards. This question then arises of how

much water people need to sustain themselves and how does that amount of water change as

access becomes easier and less time consuming.

In Karengata the projected total water demand is 9430m3/d (GoK, 2006). The NWSC, which

is the water undertaker for Nairobi, supplies 1880 to 2350 m3/d or 20% to 25% of the current

demand (GoK, 2006). This translates to 58 to 73 l/cap/day. The installed capacity of public

water supply infrastructure in Karengata has been designed to supply 31850 m3/d; however

this has yet to be realized. Due to the shortfall in water supply for consumption, residents

have supplemented their water supply through boreholes. According to GoK (2010),

boreholes are the highest source of water supply for residents of Karen (41%) and Hardy

(42%). Other sources include piped water into dwelling (21% and 23%) piped (19% and

24%) and water vendors (12% and 7%) respectively (Table 11)

Table 11: Household access to water in Karengata and OngataRongai

Water sources (%) Sampled study zones in Karengata and OngataRongai

Hardy Karen OngataRongai Olekasasi

Pond/dam 0 0 0 1

Spring/well/borehole 42 41 34 59

Stream 2 5 0 0

Piped into house 23 21 17 13

Piped yard 24 19 22 14

Rain water 1 1 0 1

Water vendor 7 12 25 11

Other 0 1 0 0


Science (IJAETMAS)



(Source: GoK, 2010)

The majority of respondents indicate that they receive their water from piped water into the

home (42%) boreholes (21%) and piped water into the plot (19%). It is evident that rainwater

harvesting (9%) as a source of water is not used adequately. In Kware, some respondents rely

on water bought from cart vendors (16%). In densely populated areas such as Gataka, the

reliance on piped water into the plot is 37% and boreholes 14%.

In a report done by World Health Organisation (Howard and Bartram, 2003) they conclude

that though increased water levels bring about an increase in health benefits, there is no linear

relationship with water quantity used. Instead four service levels are defined (Table 12) and it

is these service levels that determine the benefit and not the actual quantity of water used as

previously thought.

Table 12: Service levels by distance and time to water source, water quantity collected

and health concern level (Howard and Bartram, 2003)

Service level Distance to source

Collection time

Approximate

quantities collected

Level of health

concern

No access >1000 m

>30 minutes

Very low

<5 l/p/d

Very high

Hygiene not ensured

Basic access 100-1000 m

5-30 minutes

Low

Unlikely to exceed

20 l/p/d

Medium

Not all water needs

may be met

Quality difficult to

ensure

Intermediate access On plot, e.g., single

stand pipe on

compound or in

house

Medium

Around 50 l/p/d

Low

Most basic hygiene

and consumption

needs met

Quality more assured

Optimal access Multiple taps in

house

Varies

Likely to be 100

Very low

All uses met


Science (IJAETMAS)



l/p/d, possibly up to

30 l/p/d

Quality assured

Average water consumption in Karengata and OngataRongai ranges from 250 l/cap/day in

Mbagathi to 75 l/cap/day in Karen plains. Average consumption rate is dependent on the

sources of water supply to the study area.

5.0 Conclusion

Compliance to separation distance of property line standards is low in OngataRongai as

compared to Karengata. This is also seen in the high compliance to separation distance of pit

latrines and septic tanks to property boundary in Karengata as compared to OngataRongai.

Non-compliance to the separation distance in OngataRongai is observed mostly in Maasai

Lodge, Kataka and Kware. Compliance to minimum plot size (0.25acre) was higher in

Karengata as compared to OngataRongai because Karengata is zoned as a low-density

residential area thus having larger plot sizes. This results in lower plot utilisation in

Karengata thus there is more available space for setbacks. OngataRongai on the other hand

has higher plot utilization because of plot sizes less than 0.125acre are more and areas such as

Kware and Gataka had 100% plot coverage i.e. beacon-to-beacon coverage thus leaving no

room for setbacks. Water consumption levels in both Karengata and OngataRongai are not

being complied with given the limited supply of water from service providers with a high

demand from the growing population in the study area.

6. REFERENCES

Allison, M., (2008) A review of the use of urban waste in peri-urban interface production

systems, DFID Natural Resource Systems Programme, Coventry, United Kingdom


Science (IJAETMAS)



Bradford, C.E., “Trace Element Study of Soil-Plant-Water Systems”, Contract No. 0011628,

1978, US. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Brown, K., (2007), “Movement of Faecal Coliforms and ColiphagesBelow Septic Lines;

Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 8, No. 1, Jan.-Mar, 1979, pp. 73-76.

Buuren J. (1996) Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment in Developing Countries- sustainable core

technology: Proceedings of the Sustainable Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems

Workshop, Leusden, Netherlands.

Chidavaenzi M, Jere M, Bradley M. (1997). Pit latrine effluent infiltration into groundwater:

In: Proceedings of the 23rd

WEDC Conference, Durban, South Africa.

Cowan, R. (2002).Urban Design Guidance: urban design frameworks, development briefs

and master plans. Thomas Telford.

Denny, P., (1997), “Implementation of constructed wetlands in developing countries”, Water

Science and Technology Vol 35, No 5, pages 27–34.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1980), Design Manual: On-Site Wastewater

Treatment and Disposal Systems, Report EPA-600/2-78-173. Cincinnati, USA.

Environmental Protection Agency, “Design Manual – Onsite Wastewater Treatment and

Disposal Systems”, EPA 625/J-80-012, Oct. 2009, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Feachem, R G, Bradley, J B, Garelick, H and Mara, D D (1983). Sanitation and disease:

health aspects of excreta and wastewater management. John Wiley & Sons,

Washington DC.

Harvey, P (2007). Excreta Disposal in Emergency, An inter-agency manual. WEDC,

Loughborough University, UK.

Institute of Economic Affairs; (2007). The Rapid Assessment of Kenya’s Water, Sanitation

and Sewerage Frameworks, Institute of Economic Affairs, Nairobi. Kenya.

Kenya, Republic of; (2007a). Kenya Vision 2030. Government Printer. Nairobi.

Kenya, Republic of; (2007b). National Environmental Sanitation and Hygiene Policy.

Ministry of Health, Nairobi.

Kenya, Republic of; (2007c). The Physical Planning Handbook. Physical Planning

Department. Nairobi.

Kenya, Republic of; (2009). Kajiado District Development Plan 2008 – 2012. Ministry of

State for Planning and National Development, Nairobi.

Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology; Methods & Techniques, New Age

International Publishers, New Delhi, India.

Mara, D. (2004). Natural Sewage Treatment on the in the UK: Selection Guidelines. Journal

of the Chartered Consitution of Water and Environmental 18(4) 230-234.

Nairobi, City Council of; (2006). Karengata Local Physical Development Plan 2005-2015.

Pujari PR, Padmakar C, Labhasetwar PK, Mahore P, Ganguly AK. 2012. Assessment of the

impact of on-site sanitation systems on groundwater pollution in two diverse

geological settings-a case study from India. Environ Monit Assess 184 (1): 251-263.

Rahe, T.M., et al., “Transport of Antibiotic-Resistant Escherichia Coli through Western

Oregon Hillslope Soils Under Conditions of Saturated Flow”, Journal of

Environmental Quality, Vol. 7, No. 4, Oct-Dec., 1978, pp. 487-494.

Scalf, M.R., Dunlap, W.J. and Kreissel, J.F., “Environmental Effects of Septic Tank


Science (IJAETMAS)



Systems”, Report No. EPA/600/3-77/096, Aug, 1977, Robert S. Kerr Environmental

Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma.

Tilley, E., Luethi, C., Morel, A.; Zurbruegg, C.; Schertenleib, R. (2008). Compendium of

Sanitation Systems and Technologies. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and

Technology (EAWAG), Geneva.

WHO (2000) The Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report.

WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. (2008)

Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: Special Focus on Sanitation. UNICEF,

New York and WHO, Geneva.

WHO/UNICEF Joint Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. (2012) Progress on

Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2012 Update. UNICEF, New York and WHO

Geneva.

SANITATION PROVISION IN USE IN KARENGATA AND · PDF file... The Minimum Standards in Water,...

Documents

Transcript of SANITATION PROVISION IN USE IN KARENGATA AND · PDF file... The Minimum Standards in Water,...