INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026  
Assessment of Households’ Access to Domestic Water Supply in Keffi  
UrbanArea, Nasarawa State  
*Abdullahi Adamu & Adamu Musa Eya  
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Environmental Science, Nasarawa State  
University, Keffi, PMB 1022.  
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150600029  
Received: 17 June 2026; Accepted: 22 June 2026; Published: 03 July 2026  
ABSTRACT  
This study assessed household water accessibility in Keffi, Nigeria, with emphasis on sources, service  
conditions, consumption, and socioeconomic determinants. A cross-sectional survey of 382 households was  
conducted using structured questionnaires, and data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics.  
Results showed that boreholes were the dominant water source (42.9%), followed by private piped connections  
(18.3%) and vendor/sachet water (16.2%), while government supply accounted for only 14.1%. Although 57.1%  
of households accessed water within 500 m and 59.6% spent ≤10 minutes reaching sources, only 20.9% had  
daily supply, indicating poor service reliability. Average water consumption was approximately 85 L/person/day,  
below the recommended 120 L standard, with 56.6% of households consuming less than 100 L/day. Water  
affordability was a major concern, as households spent about 10% of income on water, exceeding the 5%  
benchmark. Access to improved water sources increased significantly with income, from 47.0% among low-  
income households to 86.5% among high-income groups. Statistical analysis confirmed a significant relationship  
between income and water accessibility (χ² = 102.38, p < 0.001), with income emerging as the strongest predictor  
(β = 0.383, p < 0.001; R² = 0.233). Perception analysis revealed general dissatisfaction with water reliability,  
affordability, and government performance (overall mean = 2.95), alongside strong demand for improved  
planning (mean = 4.74). The study concludes that water accessibility in Keffi is constrained primarily by service  
inefficiencies and socioeconomic inequality rather than physical distance, highlighting the need for improved  
infrastructure and equitable water policies.  
Keywords: Water accessibility; Domestic water supply; Improved water sources; Water affordability; Service  
reliability; Nigeria.  
INTRODUCTION  
Access to safe and reliable domestic water remains one of the most critical determinants of public health,  
environmental sustainability, and socioeconomic development. Adequate water supply supports hygiene,  
sanitation, food security, and economic productivity, while inadequate access increases vulnerability to  
waterborne diseases and constrains human well-being (Gleick, 2019; Hrudey & Hrudey, 2020; Prüss-Ustün et  
al., 2019). Despite global commitments under Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6) to ensure universal  
access to safe water and sanitation, progress remains uneven, particularly across developing countries where  
rapid urbanization, population growth, climate variability, and inadequate infrastructure continue to undermine  
water security (United Nations, 2015; Sustainable Development Goals, 2023).  
Nigeria exemplifies these challenges. Although the country possesses substantial surface and groundwater  
resources, access to safe and reliable domestic water remains inadequate for a large proportion of the population.  
Recent evidence indicates that only about 42% of Nigerians have access to both improved water sources and  
sanitation facilities (Edefo, 2025). Increasing urban expansion has been associated with declining groundwater  
quality and heightened contamination risks (Ojo et al., 2024), while governance constraints, inadequate funding,  
and fragmented institutional arrangements continue to hinder effective water resource management (Adamu,  
2024). Consequently, many households rely on multiple water sources, including boreholes, wells, rainwater  
Page 389  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026  
harvesting systems, and water vendors, to cope with unreliable public water supply (Agbonaye & Eboi, 2024;  
Soladoye & Adepoju, 2025).  
The challenge is particularly evident in Nasarawa State, where disparities in water quality and accessibility  
persist across communities. Studies have reported contamination of surface and well water sources, inadequate  
piped water supply, and household water consumption levels below recommended standards (Chunwate et al.,  
2021; Sodangi et al., 2023). Although recent government interventions, including the provision of solar-powered  
boreholes, aim to improve water access, concerns remain regarding the adequacy, affordability, reliability, and  
safety of domestic water supply, especially in rapidly growing urban centres such as Keffi.  
Existing studies in Nigeria and Nasarawa State have largely concentrated on water quality assessment,  
groundwater potential, and general community-level water supply conditions (Aikowe & Mazancová, 2021;  
Balogun et al., 2019; Sodangi et al., 2023). However, there remains limited empirical evidence on household-  
level access to domestic water supply in Keffi, particularly regarding the combined influence of water source  
dependence, accessibility, affordability, reliability, and household coping strategies. This knowledge gap restricts  
a comprehensive understanding of how residents obtain and manage domestic water and constrains the  
development of evidence-based interventions tailored to local needs.  
Against this backdrop, the present study investigates household access to domestic water supply in Keffi,  
Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Specifically, it examines the sources, accessibility, affordability, reliability, and  
challenges associated with household water supply in order to provide empirical evidence that can support  
sustainable water resource management, improved service delivery, and enhanced water security in the study  
area.  
Materials and Methods  
Study Area and Population  
Figure 1: Map of Nasarawa State Showing Keffi Lga  
The study was conducted in Keffi Urban Area, Nasarawa State, Nigeria. The base population of 92,664 recorded  
in the 2006 national census was projected to 2025 using an annual growth rate of 2.8%, yielding an estimated  
population of 156,593. Adopting an average household size of five persons, the total number of households was  
estimated at 31,319.  
The base population of the study area as at the 2006 population census conducted by the Federal Government of  
Nigeria was 92,664. This population is therefore projected to the research period which is 2025 (19 years  
projection at 2.8% growth rate) using the Exponential Model  
Page 390  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026  
PT= Po (l +r) n  
Where:  
PT = Projected population  
Po = Base population = 92,664  
r = Growth Rate = 2.8%  
n = Number of years for which projection is made = 19 years  
Thus:  
PT = Po (1 + r/100) n  
PT = Po (1+2.8/100) n  
PT = 92,664 (1+0.028)19  
PT = 92,664 (1.028)19  
PT = 92,664 x 1.6899  
PT = 156,593  
Therefore, the total sample frame for this study is 156,593 people.  
However, the average household size in Nigeria according to the 2013 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey  
(NDHS) was 4.6 persons per household. Therefore, for this study we are adopting 5 persons per household. Thus,  
the total number of households in Keffi urban area is:  
156,593  
= 31, 319  
5
Sample Size and Sampling Procedure  
The sample size was determined using the Taro Yamane (1967) formula at a 5% margin of error, resulting in 399  
respondents. The sample was proportionally distributed across eight neighborhoods (Yara, Tudun Kofa,  
Gangaren Tudu, Kofar Goriya, Angwan Rimi, Kofar Hausa, Liman Abaji, and Sabon Layi) based on their  
population sizes.  
This refers to the population size that was used to represent the overall population in the study area. Yaro Yamane  
(1967) model for calculating sample size was adopted for the purpose of this study  
Formula:  
Ν
퓃 =  
2
( )  
1+Ν ℯ  
Where:  
n = sample size  
N = total population  
e = exponential/margin of error = 0.05  
1 = constant value  
Page 391  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026  
156,593  
퓃 =  
2
(
)
1 + 156,593 0.05  
156,593  
퓃 =  
1 + 156,593 (0.0025)  
156,593  
퓃 =  
1 + 391.4825  
156,593  
퓃 =  
392.4825  
n = 399.98  
n ≈ 399 respondents.  
A multi-stage sampling technique was employed. First, the study area was stratified into neighbourhoods  
(clusters). Second, households within each cluster were selected using systematic random sampling at a fixed  
interval. Additionally, purposive sampling was used to select key informants, including water vendors,  
community leaders, and relevant officials.  
Table 1: Sample Size for Cluster Areas or Neighbourhoods  
S/N  
1
Sample Cluster Area  
Yara  
Population  
28,187  
23,489  
18,791  
15,659  
17,225  
14,093  
18,791  
20,357  
156,593  
Percentage  
Allocated Sample Size  
18  
15  
12  
10  
11  
9
72  
60  
48  
40  
44  
36  
48  
51  
399  
2
Tudun Kofa  
Gangaren Tudu  
Kofar Goriya  
Angwan Rimi  
Kofar Hausa  
Liman Abaji  
Sabon Layi  
TOTAL  
3
4
5
6
7
12  
13  
100  
8
Data Collection  
A mixed-methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative techniques was adopted. Primary data were  
collected through structured questionnaires administered to household heads. Supplementary information was  
obtained through field observation and key informant interviews to capture insights on water supply systems and  
challenges.  
Data Analysis  
Data were analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistical methods. Descriptive statistics (frequencies,  
percentages, and means) were used to summarize household characteristics and water access indicators.  
Inferential statistics, including chi-square tests, Spearman correlation, and multiple regression analysis, were  
used to examine relationships between socioeconomic factors and water accessibility. Results were presented  
using tables and charts for clarity.  
RESULTS  
Page 392  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026  
Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents  
The socioeconomic characteristics of respondents are presented in Table 2. Males constituted 51.8% of  
respondents, while females represented 48.2%. The largest age group was 31–40 years (37.2%). Most  
respondents possessed secondary education (38.7%), while civil servants accounted for the largest occupational  
category (31.4%).  
Table 2. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents  
Variable  
Gender  
Category  
Male  
Frequency  
198  
184  
28  
Percentage (%)  
51.8  
48.2  
7.3  
Female  
Age  
Below 20  
21–30  
88  
23.0  
37.2  
20.4  
12.1  
8.9  
31–40  
142  
78  
41–50  
Above 50  
No formal education  
Primary  
46  
Education  
34  
66  
17.3  
38.7  
35.1  
31.4  
25.6  
18.8  
12.6  
11.5  
22.5  
37.7  
27.2  
12.6  
15.2  
46.1  
29.3  
9.4  
Secondary  
Tertiary  
148  
134  
120  
98  
Occupation  
Civil servant  
Trader  
Artisan  
72  
Student  
48  
Unemployed/Others  
<20,000  
20,000–49,999  
50,000–99,999  
≥100,000  
1–3  
44  
Income (₦)  
86  
144  
104  
48  
Household size  
58  
4–6  
176  
112  
36  
7–9  
≥10  
Sources of Domestic Water Supply  
Table 3 presents the major sources of domestic water supply among households in Keffi. Boreholes constituted  
the dominant source, accounting for 42.9% of household water supply. Private piped connections accounted for  
Page 393  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026  
18.3%, while vendor, sachet, and bottled water sources contributed 16.2%. Wells supplied 11.0% of households,  
public standpipes accounted for 10.5%, and stream/rainwater sources represented only 1.1%.  
Table 3. Sources of Domestic Water Supply  
Source  
Frequency  
Percentage (%)  
Borehole  
164  
70  
40  
62  
42  
4
42.9  
18.3  
10.5  
16.2  
11.0  
1.1  
Private tap (piped)  
Public standpipe  
Vendor/Sachet/Bottled  
Well  
Stream/Rainwater  
Total  
382  
100  
Distance and Time to Water Source  
The distribution of respondents according to distance and travel time to water sources is presented in Table 4.  
Approximately 31.4% of respondents accessed water sources located between 100 and 500 m from their  
residence, while 26.8% travelled less than 100 m. Regarding travel time, 31.9% spent between 5 and 10 minutes  
reaching their water source.  
Table 4. Distance and Time to Water Source  
Distance  
Frequency Percentage (%) Time to Source Frequency Percentage (%)  
Within compound 98  
25.7  
26.8  
31.4  
11.0  
5.1  
< 5 min  
106  
122  
82  
27.7  
31.9  
21.4  
12.0  
7.0  
< 100 m  
100–500 m  
500–1000 m  
> 1 km  
102  
5–10 min  
11–20 min  
21–30 min  
> 30 min  
Total  
120  
42  
46  
20  
26  
Total  
382  
100  
382  
100  
Regularity and Cost of Water Supply  
Table 5 shows the frequency of water supply and daily expenditure on water. Only 20.9% of households reported  
receiving water daily, while 30.1% obtained water three to five times weekly. In terms of expenditure, 28.8%  
spent between ₦200 and ₦500 daily on water, whereas 21.2% incurred no direct costs because they relied on  
self-supplied sources.  
Table 5. Regularity and Cost of Water Supply  
Frequency of Supply  
Daily  
Percentage (%)  
20.9  
Daily Cost (₦)  
None (own source)  
< 200  
Percentage (%)  
21.2  
3–5 times/week  
30.1  
20.1  
Page 394  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026  
1–2 times/week  
Occasionally  
Rarely  
22.0  
17.0  
10.0  
100  
200–500  
501–1000  
> 1000  
Total  
28.8  
18.1  
11.8  
100  
Total  
Daily Water Consumption  
Table 6 shows household daily water consumption. The majority of respondents (39.8%) consumed between 50  
and 100 litres per person per day, while 16.8% consumed less than 50 litres per person per day. Only 3.1%  
consumed more than 200 litres daily.  
Table 6: Daily Water Consumption  
Daily Use (L/person/day)  
Frequency  
64  
Percentage (%)  
Evaluation  
Low access  
Low access  
Adequate  
Good  
< 50  
16.8  
39.8  
27.2  
13.1  
3.1  
50–100  
101–150  
151–200  
> 200  
152  
104  
50  
12  
High  
Total  
382  
100  
Collection Time and Number of Water Collection Trips  
Table 7 presents collection time and number of trips made daily to obtain water. About 33.0% of respondents  
spent 10–20 minutes collecting water, while 31.4% reported making three trips per day.  
Table 7: Collection Time and Number of Trips  
Collection Time  
<10 min  
Frequency  
Percentage (%)  
Trips/Day  
Frequency  
50  
Percentage (%)  
86  
22.5  
33.0  
22.0  
14.7  
7.8  
1
13.1  
26.2  
31.4  
19.3  
9.9  
10–20 min  
21–30 min  
31–60 min  
>1 hr  
126  
84  
2
100  
3
120  
56  
4
74  
30  
≥5  
Total  
38  
Total  
382  
100  
382  
100  
Water Service Providers  
Page 395  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026  
Table 8 shows the major water service providers. Private vendors constituted the largest provider category  
(43.5%), followed by self-supply systems (26.2%). Government agencies accounted for only 14.1% of household  
water supply.  
Table 8: Water Service Providers  
Provider  
Frequency  
54  
Percentage (%)  
Government  
Private/Vendor  
Community  
NGO  
14.1  
43.5  
11.5  
4.7  
166  
44  
18  
Self-supply  
Total  
100  
26.2  
100  
382  
Household Income and Access to Improved Water Sources  
Table 9 presents the relationship between income level and access to improved water sources. Access to  
improved sources increased progressively with income level, ranging from 47.0% among households earning  
less than ₦20,000 monthly to 86.5% among households earning at least ₦100,000 monthly.  
Table 9: Household Income and Access to Improved Water Sources  
Income (₦/month)  
<20,000  
Improved Sources (%)  
Unimproved Sources (%)  
47.0  
63.9  
74.0  
86.5  
53.0  
36.1  
26.0  
13.5  
20,000–49,999  
50,000–99,999  
≥100,000  
Perception of Water Accessibility  
Respondents' perceptions of water accessibility are summarized in Table 9. The highest mean score was recorded  
for the need for better planning and management (Mean = 4.74), while government performance received the  
lowest rating (Mean = 2.20).  
Table 10. Perception of Water Accessibility  
Statement  
Mean  
2.36  
3.68  
2.80  
2.54  
2.40  
Interpretation  
Disagree  
Agree  
Water supply is regular and reliable  
Distance to source is convenient  
Time spent fetching water is reasonable  
Daily quantity is adequate  
Cost is affordable  
Neutral  
Disagree  
Disagree  
Page 396  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026  
Water quality is good  
3.09  
2.28  
2.42  
2.20  
4.74  
Neutral  
Meets planning/health standards  
Satisfaction with provider  
Disagree  
Disagree  
Government performing well  
Need for better planning and management  
Disagree  
Strongly Agree  
Overall Mean = 2.95  
Comparison of Water Accessibility Indicators with Standards  
Table 11 compares observed water accessibility indicators with WHO and Nigerian standards.  
Table 11. Comparison with Standards  
Indicator  
Standard  
≤1 km  
Keffi Average  
0.5 km  
Evaluation  
Meets  
Distance to source  
Quantity/person/day  
Supply frequency  
Safe source coverage  
Cost affordability  
120 L  
85 L  
Below  
Daily  
3–4 times/week  
70%  
Below  
≥80%  
Below  
≤5% income  
~10% income  
Below  
Relationship Between Household Characteristics and Water Accessibility  
Table 12: Cross-tabulation of Income and Water Accessibility  
Income Category (₦/month)  
<20,000  
High Access  
Medium Access  
Low Access  
Total  
86  
10  
40  
60  
36  
146  
30  
70  
34  
8
46  
34  
10  
4
20,000–49,999  
50,000–99,999  
≥100,000  
144  
104  
48  
Total  
142  
94  
382  
Chi-square test results indicated a significant association between household income and water accessibility (χ²  
= 102.38, df = 6, p < 0.001).  
Table 12. Spearman Rank Correlation Between Income and Accessibility  
Page 397  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026  
Variable  
Spearman's ρ  
p-value  
Income and Accessibility 0.481  
<0.001  
Table 13. OLS Regression Results for Predictors of Water Accessibility  
Predictor  
Constant  
Income  
Β
SE  
t
P
0.951  
0.383  
0.026  
0.040  
0.049  
0.004  
0.184  
0.037  
0.042  
0.031  
0.027  
0.028  
5.158  
10.313  
0.625  
1.296  
1.794  
0.126  
<0.001  
<0.001  
0.532  
0.196  
0.074  
0.900  
Household Size  
Distance  
Cost  
Regularity  
Model Summary: R² = 0.233; N = 382.  
DISCUSSION  
The findings reveal that water accessibility in Keffi is shaped by both socioeconomic and service-related factors.  
The near-equal gender distribution and dominance of the economically active age group (31–40 years) suggest  
that water collection and management are shared responsibilities among households, consistent with patterns  
reported in urbanizing African communities (WHO/UNICEF, 2021). The predominance of respondents with  
secondary and tertiary education implies a relatively informed population; however, this did not translate into  
optimal water access, indicating structural supply constraints rather than knowledge gaps.  
Boreholes emerged as the primary water source, reflecting the widespread reliance on self-supply systems in  
areas with inadequate public infrastructure. Similar trends have been documented in Nigeria and other  
developing regions, where households compensate for unreliable municipal systems through private sources  
(Adelana et al., 2011). The limited contribution of government supply (14.1%) further underscores institutional  
inefficiencies and the growing role of informal providers.  
Although most households accessed water within 500 m and spent less than 10 minutes reaching sources, the  
frequency and reliability of supply were inadequate. Only 20.9% reported daily access, falling below WHO  
standards for continuous supply (WHO, 2017). This inconsistency contributes to coping strategies such as  
multiple daily trips and dependence on vendors, which increase both time burden and financial cost.  
Water consumption levels were generally low, with over half of respondents using less than 100 L/person/day,  
below the recommended 120 L threshold. This shortfall has implications for hygiene and public health,  
supporting previous findings that insufficient water quantity increases vulnerability to disease (Howard &  
Bartram, 2003). Additionally, the average cost of water (~10% of household income) exceeds the affordability  
benchmark of 5%, placing disproportionate pressure on low-income households.  
Income was the strongest predictor of water accessibility, as demonstrated by significant chi-square and  
regression results (p < 0.001). Higher-income households had greater access to improved sources and higher  
accessibility levels, confirming socioeconomic disparities in water provision (UNDP, 2020). The moderate  
Page 398  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026  
positive correlation (ρ = 0.481) further indicates that improvements in household income are likely to enhance  
water access outcomes.  
Perception data reinforce these objective findings, with respondents expressing dissatisfaction with reliability,  
affordability, and government performance, while strongly advocating for improved planning. The overall mean  
score (2.95) reflects moderate dissatisfaction, suggesting that current services fall short of user expectations.  
Despite meeting distance standards, Keffi falls below national and international benchmarks in supply frequency,  
water quantity, and affordability. These gaps highlight the need for targeted interventions, including  
strengthening public water infrastructure, regulating private vendors, and implementing pro-poor pricing  
policies.  
In summary, this study demonstrates that water accessibility in Keffi is constrained more by service delivery  
inefficiencies and economic inequalities than by physical proximity. Addressing these challenges requires  
integrated policy approaches that prioritize reliability, affordability, and equitable distribution.  
LIMITATION OF THE STUDY  
The study is limited by its cross-sectional design, restricted geographic scope and omission of factors such as  
seasonal variation and water quality, which may affect the generalizability and explanatory power of the findings.  
CONCLUSION  
This study assessed household water accessibility in Keffi and revealed significant gaps in adequacy, reliability,  
and affordability of water supply. Although a substantial proportion of households accessed water within  
acceptable distance limits, service delivery remains inconsistent, with most households receiving water less than  
daily. Boreholes and private vendors dominate as primary sources, highlighting the limited role of public water  
infrastructure.  
Water consumption levels were generally below recommended standards, suggesting constrained access and  
potential implications for hygiene and health. Additionally, the cost of water exceeded affordability benchmarks  
for many households, particularly among low-income groups, indicating economic barriers to safe water access.  
The analysis further established that household income is a critical determinant of water accessibility. Higher-  
income households were significantly more likely to access improved sources and achieve better water access  
levels, confirming the presence of socioeconomic inequalities. In contrast, variables such as household size,  
distance, and supply regularity showed weaker influence in predicting accessibility.  
Perception results reinforced these findings, with respondents expressing dissatisfaction with water reliability,  
affordability, and government performance, while strongly advocating for improved planning and management.  
Overall, the study concludes that water accessibility in Keffi is constrained more by systemic service delivery  
inefficiencies and economic disparities than by physical proximity to sources. Addressing these challenges  
requires strengthening public water infrastructure, improving supply reliability, regulating informal providers,  
and implementing equitable pricing policies to ensure sustainable and inclusive access to safe water.  
Future studies should include objective water quality testing, climate variability indicators, and infrastructure  
assessments to provide a more comprehensive understanding of water access challenges. Expanding the study  
to multiple urban and rural locations would enhance external validity and facilitate comparative analysis. The  
authors may also explore advanced statistical models to examine interactions among socioeconomic,  
environmental, and institutional factors. Additional policy discussion on financing mechanisms, public-private  
partnerships, and sustainable water governance would further increase the practical contribution of the research.  
Page 399  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026  
REFERENCES  
1. Abanyie, S. K., Owusu, E., Agyeman, F. O., & Mensah, P. K. (2024). Household water access, sanitation  
practices, and public health implications in developing communities. Journal of Water, Sanitation and  
Hygiene for Development, 14(2), 145-158.  
2. Adamu, A. M. (2024). Institutional challenges and governance issues in water resource management in  
Nigeria. Water Policy, 26(1), 78-92.  
3. Adelana, S. S. A. S., Abiye, T. A., Nkhuwa, D. C. W., Tindimugaya, C., & Oga, M. S. (2008). Urban  
groundwater management and protection in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Applied groundwater studies in  
Africa (pp. 241-270). CRC Press.  
4. Agbonaye, O., & Eboi, F. (2024). Household coping strategies and alternative water sources in urban  
Nigeria. Environmental Development, 49, 100948.  
5. Aikowe, J. O., & Mazancová, J. (2021). Factors influencing access to potable water in rural communities  
of Nigeria. Water Supply, 21(8), 4315-4328.  
6. Akinyemi, F. O., Afolabi, O. T., & Aluko, O. E. (2022). Urban expansion and water resource pressure in  
emerging Nigerian cities. Urban Water Journal, 19(7), 623-634.  
7. Balogun, I. I., Sojobi, A. O., & Sridhar, M. K. C. (2017). Assessment of water supply challenges in Lagos  
State, Nigeria. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 7(4), 664-671.  
8. Balogun, I. I., Sojobi, A. O., & Sridhar, M. K. C. (2019). Water supply challenges and sustainable  
management options in Nigeria. Sustainable Water Resources Management, 5(4), 1549-1563.  
9. Bello, M. M., Shehu, H., Abubakar, A., Bello, A., & Imam, T. S. (2021). Water vending and domestic water  
supply in Kano State, Nigeria. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 15(6), 237-247.  
10. Chidozie, C. F., Nwosu, A. C., & Ekeokwueze, N. A. (2024). Household rainwater harvesting practices  
and perceptions in Enugu State, Nigeria. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 15(3), 1124-1138.  
11. Edefo, M. A. (2025). Access to improved water supply and sanitation services in Nigeria: Progress and  
challenges. Water Resources Management, 39(2), 587-603.  
12. George-Williams, H., Hunt, D. V. L., & Rogers, C. D. F. (2024). Sustainable infrastructure approaches for  
improving water security in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability, 16(5), 2014.  
13. Gleick, P. H. (2019). The world's water: The biennial report on freshwater resources. Washington, DC:  
Island Press.  
14. Howard, G., & Bartram, J. (2003). Domestic water quantity, service level and health. World Health  
Organization.  
15. Hrudey, S. E., & Hrudey, E. J. (2020). Ensuring safe drinking water: Learning from frontline experience  
with contamination. Denver, CO: American Water Works Association.  
16. Kabiru, M. D., Madaki, R. B., & Chunwate, B. T. (2021). Access to Pipe-Born Water Evaluation in  
Akwanga Local Government Area of Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Journal of Geography, Environment and  
Earth Science International, 25(8), 1-9.  
17. Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2016). Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Science  
Advances, 2(2), e1500323.  
18. Nnaji, C. C., Nwosu, E. O., & Ekeokwueze, K. C. (2024). Assessment of rooftop rainwater harvesting  
among households in Nsukka, Enugu State Nigeria. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research  
and Development, 8(3), 907–910. https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd64999.pdf  
19. Nouban, F. M., Ojo, O. J., & Adelana, S. M. A. (2020). Groundwater development and utilization  
challenges in Nigeria. Hydrogeology Journal, 28(4), 1203-1218.  
20. Ojo, O. A., Adeyemi, A. A., & Adebayo, A. O. (2024). Urbanisation and groundwater quality deterioration  
in Nigerian cities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 196(4), 245.  
21. Prüss-Ustün, A., Wolf, J., Bartram, J., Clasen, T., Cumming, O., Curtis, V., Bonjour, S., Dangour, A. D., &  
Fewtrell, L. (2019). Burden of disease from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene for selected adverse  
health outcomes. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 222(5), 765-777.  
22. Sodangi, I. A., Abdullahi, M. M., & Eze, C. N. (2023). Groundwater quality assessment of domestic water  
sources in Keffi, Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Journal of Water and Health, 21(9), 1345-1358.  
23. Soladoye, O. O., & Adepoju, A. O. (2025). Seasonal variation in household drinking water sources in low-  
income communities of Nigeria. Water Policy, 27(1), 89-104.  
Page 400  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026  
24. Sustainable Development Goals. (2023). The sustainable development goals report 2023. New York, NY:  
United Nations.  
25. UNDP. (2020). Human development report 2020: The next frontier. United Nations Development  
Programme.  
26. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New  
York, NY: United Nations.  
27. WHO. (2017). Guidelines for drinking-water quality (4th ed.). World Health Organization.  
28. WHO/UNICEF. (2021). Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000–2020. Joint  
Monitoring Programme.  
Page 401  
www.rsisinternational.org