Towards Sustainable Solutions: Assessing Rural Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation in Atyrau, Kazakhstan

1. Introduction

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) build on the foundation laid by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and provide a framework for achieving sustainable social and economic progress globally. The SDGs emphasize eradicating extreme poverty and integrating the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainable development. A key distinction between the MDGs and SDGs is the shift from a top-down to a bottom-up approach, ensuring a more inclusive and participatory process [1].

Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) are critical for public health and must be addressed holistically. The interconnection between poor sanitation and negative health outcomes makes it imperative to consider water supply alongside sanitation and hygiene [2,3]. SDG 6 targets universal access to safely managed drinking water (SDG 6.1) and sanitation (SDG 6.2) by 2030. Safely managed drinking water is defined by three criteria: it must be accessible on-premises, available when needed, and free from contamination [4,5]. Safely managed sanitation includes improved facilities that are not shared, with excreta safely disposed of in situ or transported and treated off-site [6].

Meeting these goals presents significant challenges, not only for low- and middle-income countries but globally [7]. The commitment to "leave no one behind" underscores the focus on rural areas, which are often marginalized [8,9,10,11]. Worldwide, approximately 844 million people still lack access to basic water services, with 79% residing in rural areas [12]. Moreover, 2.1 billion people do not have access to safely managed drinking water services, leaving 14.9% of the urban population and 45.2% of the rural population underserved [13].

Recent reports from UNICEF on household drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (2000-2020) reveal that nearly half the global population—3.6 billion people—lack access to safely managed sanitation services. While drinking water data is available, many Central Asian countries, including Kazakhstan, lack reliable data on access to safely managed sanitation or even basic sanitation. In Kazakhstan, basic access to drinking water is monitored, but sanitation remains critically under-monitored, with less than 10% of rural areas having access to sewage systems [14].

Despite governmental efforts, little progress has been made in expanding access to piped water in rural or urban Kazakhstan from 2001 to 2010. Rural access to piped water remained stagnant at around 29%, despite improvements in household economic conditions. Roberts et al. observed that households reporting poor economic conditions dropped from 24% to 7%, and those reporting favorable conditions increased from 16% to 32% during this period [15]. Yet, this improved economic status did not translate into enhanced access to piped water, particularly in rural areas where significant disparities persist between urban and rural households [16]. Furthermore, some studies suggest that accessibility in rural Kazakhstan may be worsening, as development programs continue to fall short of improving conditions, and the official Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) database fails to fully capture the situation [17].

Given the lack of comprehensive data collection on water supply and sanitation (WSS) in rural Kazakhstan, a more robust monitoring system is necessary. Information on access to WSS is typically sourced from official Kazakhstani statistics, JMP data, and independent case studies. For example, in 2001, only 17.3% of rural Kazakhstani households had access to cold piped water, and just 2.8% had access to hot water [18]. A survey revealed that 92.2% of rural households used outdoor toilets, with only 7.5% having indoor facilities, and 0.3% having no toilets at all. According to UNDP, 43% of the rural population has access to centralized water supplies, 57.3% rely on groundwater, 2.6% on surface water, and 4% use delivered water [16]. Only 2.8% of rural homes are connected to a sewage system, and only 5% have in-house toilets, including a mere 1.7% connected to local sewage systems, typically wet pits. Recent studies indicate that 80% of rural sanitation facilities are located outside households [17].

The lack of detailed information on hygiene and sanitation services in rural regions hampers the assessment and implementation of safely managed practices. There is an urgent need for more systematic monitoring, as large-scale projects have failed to adequately address the needs of rural settlements. Since the Soviet era, water supply and sanitation systems have deteriorated, placing the burden of securing safe drinking water and sanitation on individual households. Integrating local knowledge and experiences into WSS development plans could significantly enhance the implementation of safe water and sanitation systems in rural Kazakhstan [19].

Access to drinking water and sanitation is only one aspect; maintaining these systems is equally important. Proper construction, maintenance, operation, and disposal of wastewater and excreta are crucial for safeguarding both public health and the environment. Kazakhstan has 6,499 rural settlements with a population of 7.5 million, of which 6.5 million live in 3,892 settlements with centralized water supply. However, access to untreated sewage systems is limited. A previous study conducted in the Pavlodar region by K. Tussupova found that 52% of households used groundwater from private boreholes and considered it of good quality. Meanwhile, 17% relied on public standpipes, and only 5% had in-house tap water. Most rural households (80%) have outdoor toilets, and just 3% use sewer systems [20].

This discrepancy between official statistics and the actual conditions highlights the need for accurate baseline data to better reflect the realities of water and sanitation access. Establishing a comprehensive and reliable monitoring system is essential for achieving universal coverage of safely managed drinking water and sanitation services. Against this backdrop, this study aims to assess access to safely managed drinking water and sanitation services among the rural population of the Atyrau region, Kazakhstan, providing critical insights into existing gaps and opportunities for improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Area

The Atyrau region is located in the western part of Kazakhstan, near the northern shores of the Caspian Sea. A significant portion of the region consists of desert and semi-desert landscapes. The climate is sharply continental, characterised by long, cold winters and hot, dry summers. The region experiences very low annual precipitation, averaging around 150 mm per year. In January, the coldest month, temperatures in the Atyrau region average between -7°C and -11°C, though extreme winters can see lows of -36°C to -42°C. Summers are long and hot, with July temperatures averaging above 25°C, and occasionally reaching between 41°C and 46°C in particularly warm years. The primary water resources in the Atyrau region include the Ural River and various underground aquifers.

2.2. Data Collection Tool

This study utilized a structured questionnaire to assess access to drinking water, sanitation services, and willingness to pay for the service of water and sanitation. The questionnaire was administered to households and covered key aspects of water accessibility, functionality of water sources, and the availability of sanitation services. It also examined respondents' willingness to take responsibility for the rational use of water and proper disposal of waste (faeces), providing insights into household practices and attitudes toward water and sanitation management. The questionnaire was developed in Kazakh and Russian, drawing on the findings of a study by Tussupova et al. [17,20], to accommodate the linguistic diversity of the region, where both Kazakh and Russian are commonly spoken.

Additionally, the questionnaire included questions to assess households' willingness to pay for improved water and sanitation services. This allowed for the evaluation of community support and potential financial contributions toward enhancing water quality and sanitation infrastructure. The data collected through this survey provides a comprehensive understanding of current access to drinking water and sanitation services, a description of the water sources used, and baseline information on waste and sanitation management practices.

2.3. Participants and Representation

The survey included responses from 1361 participants across 88 distinct villages, providing a comprehensive overview of rural household practices and challenges related to water access and sanitation. This broad geographic coverage allows for an in-depth understanding of the regional disparities and localized water and sanitation issues in various settings across the Atyrau region.

The participant pool reveals household composition trends, with the most common household size being six members (261 households, 19.2%), followed by five-member (228 households, 16.8%) and seven-member households (234 households, 17.2%). Together, these three categories account for more than half of the households surveyed. Notably, 78.6% of households have between four and seven members, highlighting a trend toward moderately large household sizes in the region.

Regarding agriculture and livestock ownership, 59.6% (847 respondents) do not own livestock or maintain a garden, while 31.7% (451 respondents) report owning livestock. Only 8.7% (124 households) maintain a garden for domestic use. The ownership of both livestock and a garden by 61 households highlights multiple ownership patterns, offering a nuanced perspective on rural household dynamics and resource utilization in the Atyrau region, which impacts water use and sanitation practices.

3. Results

3.1. Access to Water and Sanitation in the Households

Based on the data collected from respondents regarding household water sources used for both domestic and drinking purposes, the most common water source, utilized by 44.2% of households, is an indoor tap connected to the centralized water supply system. In addition, 18.1% of respondents, representing 333 households, reported using an external tap located in their yard (Table 1).

For domestic purposes, such as showering, cleaning, and cooking, 49.5% of respondents (674 households) indicated that they primarily use a household tap connected to the centralized water supply. Another 15.1% of households (206 respondents) use a yard tap for domestic purposes, reflecting limited direct indoor water access in a portion of the population.

The majority of respondents (60.5%, or 823 households) reported that their primary source of drinking water is an indoor tap connected to a centralized water supply system, highlighting the dominance of centralized infrastructure in the region. An additional 19.0% (258 households) rely on an outdoor tap located within their private yards, also linked to the centralized system, indicating that a portion of the population has access to water, but not directly inside their homes. A smaller proportion, 1.6% (22 households), use public water collection columns, while 2.4% (33 households) reported utilizing purified water from complex block-module systems. Importantly, 16.5% of respondents (225 households) indicated reliance on alternative sources for drinking water, suggesting that a considerable segment of the population does not solely depend on the centralized system for their drinking water needs.

When asked about the frequency of water supply interruptions, 15.8% (215 households) reported experiencing interruptions several times per month, while 14.8% (202 households) indicated that disruptions occur on a daily basis, reflecting a significant reliability issue within the centralized system (Table 2). In terms of satisfaction with water quality—evaluated through parameters such as smell, taste, and turbidity—a notable 23.0% of respondents (313 households) expressed dissatisfaction, with 8.5% (116 households) reporting complete dissatisfaction. Among the complaints raised, the most prevalent issue was water murkiness, identified by 58.5% of respondents (378 households), followed by concerns about an unpleasant taste, reported by 24.0% (155 households).

The data on alternative water sources for drinking shows that the most common alternative is a private well with plumbing into the house, used by 28.2% (384 respondents). Bottled water from a store or company is the second most common alternative, used by 20.0% (272 respondents). Private wells without plumbing are also widely used, accounting for 9.7% (132 respondents).

In households with centralized systems, 81.9% believe the owner should manage it, while 73.3% of private well users share this view. Smaller proportions assign responsibility to the government, private organizations, or village councils.

Interruptions in water supply are frequent among those relying on centralized systems. Among 1,336 respondents, 30.9% reported no interruptions, while 28.1% experienced interruptions a few times a year. For those using outdoor taps, 19.9% reported daily interruptions. Water collection column users also faced issues, with 30.0% reporting daily disruptions.

Regarding satisfaction with water quality, 38.5% of respondents using household taps connected to centralized systems were fully satisfied, while 25.2% expressed dissatisfaction. Among outdoor tap users, 34.9% were dissatisfied, with smaller groups using public water collection columns and block-modules reporting mixed satisfaction levels.

The most frequent complaint about drinking water quality was murkiness, reported by 68.6% of respondents, particularly among household and outdoor tap users. Off-taste was the second most common issue, reported by 28.1%. Less common complaints included bad smell (12.3%) and salty water (8.2%).

The vast majority, 79.6% (1,083 respondents), use a private outdoor toilet located in the yard. A smaller portion, 11.9% (162 respondents), use an indoor toilet connected to a centralized sewage system, while 7.8% (106 respondents) use an indoor toilet that lacks access to a centralized sewage system (Table 3). The most common method to clean the toilet, used by 43.4% (591 respondents), is covering the pit with soil. Another 23.0% (313 respondents) rely on mechanical cleaning using fecal pumps or sewage trucks. The majority, 38.7% (527 respondents) report having an outdoor private toilet in the yard as an alternative. Additionally, 7.9% (108 respondents) have an indoor toilet without access to centralized sewage. The majority of respondents, 64.4% (877 households), direct wastewater to a private storage tank located in their yard. Another 11.5% (156 households) use a centralized sewage system. A significant portion, 16.9% (230 households), reported having no specific place for wastewater collection, indicating potential unmanaged wastewater disposal.

For toilet cleaning, filling the pit was the most common method (43.7%), especially among households with private outdoor toilets (51.9%). Mechanical cleaning with pumps was the second most common (23.1%), particularly in homes without centralized sewage systems. Biological and chemical cleaning methods were used by 9.6% of respondents, while 13.5% reported not cleaning their toilets at all. Manual cleaning was less common, used by 8.6% of households.

3.2. Responsibility for the Safe Management of Water and Sanitation

The Table 4 highlights key perceptions of responsibility for water and sanitation management. For the centralized water supply system, most respondents (63.5%) believed private organizations were responsible, while 19.0% attributed it to the government (Mayor). Only 15.7% thought household owners could manage it. In contrast, for decentralized water systems (wells, boreholes), the majority (61.6%) believed household owners were responsible, with fewer pointing to private organizations (24.4%) and the government (10.4%). For toilet maintenance, a striking 91.6% of respondents believed this was the household owner’s responsibility, with minimal support for private organizations (3.2%) or government involvement (2.6%). Lastly, wastewater disposal and septic tank cleaning was seen primarily as the household owner’s duty (80.5%), with 10.5% assigning the responsibility to private organizations and 6.9% to the government.

3.3. Willingness to pay

A significant majority of respondents (82.5%) would use free individual water supply installations, while 9.0% would not, and 8.4% were unsure. However, when asked about paying for these systems, 72.5% were unwilling to pay approximately $426 for installation, though 11.6% were willing to cover the cost, and 15.9% remained uncertain.

Regarding monthly payments for centralized water supply, 23.1% of respondents were willing to pay up to $1.06, with 17.3% willing to pay between $1.06 and $2.13. Smaller groups were prepared to pay higher amounts, while 12.3% indicated they would not use the service, and 14.8% were unsure.

For cleaning outdoor toilets every six months, 39.2% would not use the service, but 32.7% were willing to pay $10.64, and smaller portions were prepared to pay more. A notable 16.5% were uncertain about how much they would pay.

In terms of paying for water from a block-module in 50-liter containers, 31.1% indicated they would not use this service. Among those willing to pay, 17.9% were prepared to pay $0.11 per container, while smaller groups opted for different price points, and 20.4% were unsure.

4. Discussion

This study provides key insights into the current state of access to safely managed drinking water and sanitation services in the rural areas of Atyrau region, essential for achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6. Despite several government interventions, our findings highlight persistent gaps in both water and sanitation services, particularly in rural communities. A similar study in Ethiopia found that rural households had 68% lower odds of accessing appropriate sanitation services compared to urban households, primarily due to financial constraints and infrastructure deficiencies [21]. These challenges are further compounded by factors such as poverty, lack of political commitment, and limited capacity of government agencies responsible for water and sanitation management [22].

Although well-intentioned, government initiatives frequently fall short in addressing the unique needs of rural populations. For example, significant investments in Malaysia boosted access to piped water in rural areas from 42% to 96% [23]. However, similar progress remains elusive in other regions due to governance inefficiencies and misallocation of resources [22]. The need for substantial reforms in the Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) sector is clear, as current policies often fail to meet rural demands [24]. Additionally, inadequate community engagement can lead to the rejection of new sanitation technologies, further hindering progress.

Our data reveals that while most households have access to centralized tap water, a notable portion still depends on outdoor taps, highlighting infrastructure challenges. The presence of outdoor taps connected to centralized systems suggests that existing infrastructure is insufficient to meet the population's needs. This aligns with other studies showing that infrastructure and maintenance deficiencies often impede access to improved water sources in rural areas [25]. Moreover, the use of alternative water sources like wells and bottled water reflects not only economic and infrastructural challenges but also concerns over water quality, leading to increased reliance on bottled water despite its negative environmental impact [26]. This situation calls for a comprehensive water management strategy that enhances infrastructure while addressing socio-economic factors influencing water access.

Water supply reliability remains a significant concern, with some households facing frequent disruptions, highlighting vulnerabilities in the current infrastructure. Combined with widespread issues of murky water and unpleasant taste, these challenges emphasize the urgent need for improvements in water treatment and distribution systems. The implications of unreliable water supply are far-reaching, posing significant public health risks. Studies have shown that improving water reliability can drastically reduce waterborne diseases such as diarrhea, which is prevalent in areas with inconsistent access to safe water [27]. Daily interruptions in water supply exacerbate these risks as households are more likely to use unsafe water sources during disruption periods [28].

Sanitation services show significant disparities, with most households relying on outdoor toilets and limited access to centralized sewage systems, highlighting the need for urgent infrastructure development. Poor sanitation practices have been linked to the spread of infectious diseases, especially in areas where sanitation infrastructure is inadequate [29].

Rural populations are disproportionately affected by inadequate sanitation services, as seen in similar contexts where socio-economic factors influence access to improved facilities [30]. The reliance on outdoor toilets, coupled with rudimentary maintenance practices, underscores the need for targeted interventions in rural areas to improve sanitation access and ensure safer management of waste.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study reveals ongoing challenges in providing safe drinking water and adequate sanitation in rural areas of Atyrau. Despite government efforts, many households rely on alternative water sources due to infrastructure gaps and limited trust in centralized systems. Frequent water supply disruptions and poor water quality pose significant public health risks. Sanitation issues are more pronounced, with most households relying on outdoor toilets and basic maintenance practices that increase environmental and health hazards. Financial barriers further limit access to improved services.

These findings underscore the critical need for targeted interventions, including investments in resilient and inclusive water and sanitation infrastructure, improved water quality monitoring and management systems, and enhanced government oversight. Additionally, community involvement and capacity-building initiatives are essential to foster trust and engagement in sustainable solutions. Addressing these issues will require a holistic and multidisciplinary approach to align with the Sustainable Development Goals and achieve equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation for all.