Table 2.
Perceptions and practices on Isla San Cristóbal concerning household water quality
| Before H2O treatment n=61 |
After H2O treatment n=60 |
|
|---|---|---|
| Municipal water potablea, % no (n) | 100 (60) | 6.7 (4) |
| % yes (n) | 0 | 50 (30) |
| % heard it was (n) | 0 | 26.7 (16) |
| % do not know (n) | 0 | 16.7 (10) |
| Notified by municipality b, % yes (n) | - | 48.1 (25) |
| % no (n) | - | 51.9 (27) |
| Chlorine treatment in cistern c, % yes (n) | 91.3 (21) | 69.5 (41) |
| % no (n) | 8.7 (2) | 30.5 (18) |
| Physical washing cistern c, % <month (n) | 57.1 (12) | 41.4 (24) |
| % month-year (n) | 42.9 (9) | 41.4 (24) |
| % >year or never (n) | 0 | 17.2 (10) |
| Drinking water source, % bottled (n) | 85.2 (52) | 83.3 (50) |
| % boiled tap (n) | 4.9 (3) | 6.7 (4) |
| % filtered tap (n) | 6.6 (4) | 6.7 (4) |
| % untreated tap (n) | 3.3 (2) | 3.3 (2) |
a
Mother’s perception of municipal water quality
b
From 2nd field season only
c
Question was not asked of entire sample from the 1st field season