258 Research Paper © 2019 The Authors Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.

2 | 2019

Research Paper

Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation

in Nigeria
Benson Ajisegiri, Luis A. Andres, Samir Bhatt, Basab Dasgupta,
Juan A. Echenique, Peter W. Gething, Jonathan Grabinsky Zabludovsky
and George Joseph

ABSTRACT

The paper presents the development and implementation of a geo-spatial model for mapping Benson Ajisegiri
Federal Ministry of Water Resources,
populations’ access to specified types of water and sanitation services in Nigeria. The analysis uses Nigeria

geo-referenced, population-representative data from the National Water and Sanitation Survey 2015, Luis A. Andres (corresponding author)
Jonathan Grabinsky Zabludovsky
along with relevant geo-spatial covariates. The model generates predictions for levels of access to George Joseph
seven indicators of water and sanitation services across Nigeria at a resolution of 1 × 1 km2. Overall, World Bank Water Global Practice,
Washington, DC, USA
the findings suggest a sharp urban–rural divide in terms of access to improved water, basic water, E-mail: landres@worldbank.org

and improved water on premises, a low availability of piped water on premises and of sewerage Samir Bhatt
Imperial College London,
systems throughout the country, a high concentration of improved sanitation in select states, and London, UK
low rates of nationwide open defecation, with a few pockets of high rates of open defecation in the
Basab Dasgupta
central and southern non-coastal regions. Predictions promise to hone the targeting of policies Social Impact, Impact Evaluation Division,
Arlington, Virginia, USA
meant to improve access to basic services in various regions of the country.
Juan A. Echenique
Key words | geo-spatial modeling, Nigeria, sanitation, Sustainable Development Goals, water
School of Public Policy,
University of Maryland,
College Park, Maryland, USA

Peter W. Gething
Big Data Institute, Nuffield Department of
Medicine,
University of Oxford,
Oxford, UK

This article has been made Open Access thanks to

the generous support of a global network of
libraries as part of the Knowledge Unlatched Select
initiative.
INTRODUCTION

Until now, efforts to measure access to water and sanitation
around the world have provided a certain level of aggrega-
tion at the subnational level, such as for particular
government districts, but rarely do we encounter high-
resolution maps for entire countries. Using survey data
to map particular indicators is difficult for a number of
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution IGO Licence (CC BY 3.0 IGO), which permits
copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is
properly cited (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/).
doi: 10.2166/washdev.2019.089
reasons. First, the actual location of the surveyed
establishment is usually unavailable. Second, due to cost
constraints, and to ensure representativeness, surveys
typically use cluster-based sampling techniques, which
make the distribution of observations uneven across a
given area. The absence of reliable, granular, evenly distrib-
uted, geo-referenced data makes it difficult to accurately
compare water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) access
across a country, or to identify those areas in greatest need
of investment.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf

by guest
 259 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria
The poor provision of safe, accessible water and sani-
tation services in Nigeria has commensurate public health
and economic impacts. Evidence from Nigeria has shown
that those sectors of the population with the worst water, sani-
tation, and hygiene conditions are also the ones most at risk
of attaining diseases due to inadequate health (Andres et al.
). A majority share of the Global Burden of Disease
(GBD) enteric burden – a common measure for estimating
the health burden and risk factors of diseases – estimated
for Nigeria is associated with inadequate WASH, and dispro-
portionately borne by poorer children and those in vulnerable
geographic areas (Andres et al. ). Approximately 73 per-
cent of the GBD enteric burden estimated for the country is
associated with inadequate WASH (Andres et al. ).
A recent, nationwide multi-sector assessment — the 2015
National Water and Sanitation Survey (NWSS) — undertaken
by the Federal Ministry of Water Resources (FMWR) of
Nigeria, with support from the World Bank, provides
uniquely detailed information on access to WASH in the
country. The NWSS consists of a nationally representative
household survey, of 201,842 households, covering access
to safe water and sanitation, a national spatial inventory of
89,721 water points and 5,100 water schemes, and a survey
on access to WASH services in over 50,000 public facilities,
including health and educational centers (see Andres et al.
() for more information on the NWSS).
The model presented here makes use of the NWSS
household survey, as well as the surveys on water points
and water schemes, all of which include geo-locational
data. (All surveyed households and water service points
were geo-referenced in the surveys to provide latitude and
longitude coordinates. Water schemes were also geo-refer-
enced using their centroid location, although it should be
noted that in many cases, these schemes occupy a significant
area and so, the use of a single central location is a poten-
tially crude approximation of their true spatial extent and
coverage.) These data present an unprecedented opportu-
nity to use geo-spatial models to analyze, at a detailed
level, the geographical characteristics of access to safe
water and sanitation across the country.
In sectors outside WASH, many household and facility
surveys now include geo-locational information (e.g., the lati-
tude and longitude of survey clusters, recorded via a Global
Positioning System device at the time of the survey, or linked
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019
to spatial administrative boundary data). Spatial, statistical
modeling approaches are being developed by exploiting this
locational information to generate mapped surfaces of indi-
cators of interest at increasingly fine spatial scales, and with
greater precision than was previously possible. Central to
many of these approaches is a body of theory known as
model-based geo-statistics (MBG) (Diggle et al. ; Diggle
& Ribeiro ). MBG has been successfully applied to
point-located survey data to create a wide range of maps,
including, for example, mapping malaria prevalence (Gething
et al. , ) and poverty (World Bank ).
The use of MBG approaches to generating interpolated
surfaces is perhaps most established in the field of infectious
diseases (Gemperli et al. ; Noor et al. , , ;
Gething et al. ; Gosoniu et al. , ; Reid et al. ;
Riedel et al. ; Elyazar et al. , ; Giardina et al.
; Raso et al. ; Bennett et al. ). In that context, geo-
located data on disease prevalence are a direct analogue of
the water and sanitation indicators addressed in the current
work – both simply describe the proportion of the population
meeting a given criterion at a survey location.
The availability of open-access, high quality, standardized
and geolocated data on a wide range of social and demo-
graphic population indicators via initiatives such as the
Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) Program funded by
the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) program has, in
recent years, led to the application of MBG approaches to a
much wider set of indicators (DHS Spatial Interpolation
Working Group ; Gething & Molini ; Burgert-Brucker
et al. ). These have included health outcomes (stunting in
children and anemia in women); access to health interventions
(insecticide-treated bed nets, contraception, childhood vacci-
nations, attended births, and antenatal care); literacy rates;
tobacco use, etc.
In recent years, these methods have also been developed
and applied in the context of mapping poverty rates. This
includes the use of World Bank Living Standards Measure-
ment Survey data, among other sources, to create high
resolution poverty maps in Sierra Leone (Gething & Rosas
a), Tanzania (Gething & Rosas b), Democratic
Republic of Congo (Gething & Adoho ), Afghanistan
(Gething & Pop ) and Nigeria (Gething & Molini ).
 260 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria
The availability of the NWSS 2015 data makes it possible
to extend the MBG approach to mapping local populations’
access to water and sanitation services, and their proximity
to the nearest functioning water source, in Nigeria. The high
level of granularity resolved in the mapped outputs can
improve our understanding of inequalities in access levels
between and within the different regions of the country.
DATA
National Water and Sanitation Survey 2015
Data on access to WASH variables come from the 2015
NWSS household survey. The household survey was con-
ducted by the FMWR, which
households across 36 states in Nigeria (Figure 1). (The
NWSS surveyed an average of 22 random households
across all 8,800 wards in Nigeria. See a more detailed
description in Andres et al. ().) The survey asked ques-
tions relating to respondents’ access to water and
sanitation services, and their use of water and sanitation
infrastructure. It also included questions on household
expenditure, health, and hygiene.
From the NWSS household survey, we were able to con-
struct seven access to WASH indicators, informed by the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (WHO/UNICEF
). These indicators are: (1) access to improved water,
(2) access to basic water, (3) access to improved water on
Figure 1 | Map showing geo-positioned data from the 2015 National Water and Sanitation Survey on surveyed households (left) and water service points and schemes (right).
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019
premises, (4) access to piped water on premises, (5) lack of
access to fixed-point sanitation (also known as open defeca-
tion), (6) access to improved sanitation, and (7) access to
sewerage connection, with definitions as follows:
(1) Improved water sources are those which, by the nature
of their construction and when properly used, are ade-
quately protected from outside contamination,
particularly fecal matter. Such sources include piped
water to yards/plots, public taps or standpipes, tube
wells or boreholes, protected springs, and rainwater.
(2) Basic water satisfies the requirements of ‘improved
water’ but also assumes a 30-minute round trip collec-
tion time.
(3) Improved water on premises fulfills the same requirements
interviewed 201,842 as basic water, but further implies that the water is avail-
able directly on household premises. (The global SDG
indicator for water is defined as the ‘percentage of popu-
lation using safely managed drinking water services,’ and
covers those improved drinking water sources that are (1)
located on premises, (2) available when needed, and (3)
compliant with fecal and priority chemical standards.
Unfortunately, at the time the FMWR commissioned
data collection for the NWSS, this SDG indicator had
not yet been defined, so we did not include access to
safely managed water in the MBG model.)
(4) Piped water on premises fulfills the same requirements
as improved water on premises, but is provided through
pipes.
 261 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria
(5) Fixed-point sanitation involves a pit or other contain-
ment structure, regardless of the quality of the
structure or whether it is hygienically maintained.
While it includes both improved and unimproved facili-
ties, it stands in contrast to open defecation, which is
defined as not having access to any type of toilet.
(6) An unshared improved sanitation facility, an indicator
of improved sanitation, is one that hygienically separates
human excreta from human contact and is not shared
with any other household. (The global SDG indicator
for sanitation, ‘percentage of population using safely
managed sanitation services,’ implies the use of an
improved sanitation facility that is not shared with
other households, and where excreta are safely disposed
of on site or transported and treated offsite. Unfortu-
nately, at the time the FMWR commissioned data
collection for the NWSS, this indicator had not yet
been defined, so data about excreta disposal or treat-
ment were not collected.)
(7) Sewerage implies that an improved sanitation facility is
connected to a sewer system.
Geo-spatial covariates and population data
In addition to the NWSS’s outcome data on the indicators
of interest, a second category of data used for analysis was
a suite of geo-spatial covariates that may be correlated
with the indicators of interest, and thus partially explain
observed spatial variation, allowing for more accurate pre-
dictions across each map. Geo-spatial covariates are
gridded spatial data: each grid cell (or pixel) contains
the value of a particular property. An initial set of spatial
covariates were identified as potentially useful predictors
of water and sanitation access levels, based on previous
attempts to predict poverty in Nigeria (Gething &
Molini ). This set of covariates is presented in Figure 2
and consists of (1) a vegetation index, (2) aridity, (3) land-
surface temperature, (4) brightness of nighttime lights,
and (5) estimated travel time to the nearest functioning
water source. The spatial covariates may be described as
follows:
(1) Vegetation index (Figure 2(a)): NASA’s Moderate
Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019
(http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/) generates high-resolution
satellite imagery on various measures of environ-
mental conditions. This includes the enhanced
vegetation index (EVI), which measures reflectance
in the green and red parts of the visible spectrum to
provide a relative measure of the density of photo-
synthesizing vegetation in each pixel. These data
were preprocessed to provide average values for the
year 2015 in each 1 × 1 km pixel.
(2) Aridity (Figure 2(b)): The Consultative Group for Inter-
national Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Consortium
maintains high-resolution global raster climate data
related to evapotranspiration processes and a rainfall
deficit for potential vegetative growth. These are based
on data from the WorldClim project (Hijmans et al.
) and ultimately from weather station data inter-
polated using covariates such as altitude (http://csi.
cgiar.org/Aridity/) (Trabucco & Zomer ).
(3) Land surface temperature (Figure 2(c)): NASA’s MODIS
also generates high-resolution satellite imagery on land
surface temperature.
(4) Brightness of nighttime lights (Figure 2(d)): This infor-
mation comes from the Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program Operational Linescan System’s
(DMSP OLS’s) annual composite satellite data for night-
time lighting in 2009 (https://ngdc.noaa.gov/eog/).
These data allow regions to be differentiated by the den-
sity of their population and also the degree of the
electrification of their dwellings, commercial and indus-
trial premises, and infrastructure.
(5) Estimated travel time to nearest functioning water source
(Figure 2(e)): This covariate was created for the current
study by first creating a ‘friction surface’ that estimates
the time required to traverse each 1 × 1 km pixel across
Nigeria. This varies according to the type of land
cover, topography, and the layout of the road and the
wider transport network across the country. The friction
surface was then used in a least-cost path algorithm to
estimate the likely travel time from the center of each
1 × 1 km pixel to the nearest functioning improved
water source (such as a well, bore hole, or pump). The
latitude and longitude, as well as the level of functional-
ity, of every such water point and water scheme in
(MODIS) Nigeria were recorded as part of the NWSS 2015.
 262 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019

Figure 2 | Geo-spatial covariates and ancillary data included in the analysis. (a) Mean EVI imagery derived from NASA’s MODIS. (b) Aridity, derived from weather station data and
maintained by the CGIAR Consortium. (c) Mean land surface temperature from NASA’s MODIS. (d) Imagery of nighttime lights in Nigeria in 2009 maintained by NOAA. (e)
Estimated travel time to nearest functioning water service point, as identified in the NWSS 2015. (f) Population density layer for Nigeria in 2011 maintained by the AfriPop
project.

(6) A final category of data used in the analysis was a
gridded map of estimated population density across
Nigeria (Figure 2(f)) constructed from satellite-derived
settlement maps and available census data as part of
the AfriPop project (www.afripop.org) (Linard et al. ).
An alternative population grid, from the Global Rural
Urban Mapping Project (http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/
data/set/grump-v1-population-density) (GRUMPv, ),
was also investigated. These gridded population surfaces
were not used as covariates but were used to calculate
population-weighted mean and count estimates for the
various modeled indicators.
Defining and implementing a standardized grid format
The geo-spatial data sources described above were
obtained in a variety of spatial resolutions and geographic
extents. The land-sea templates inevitably varied, so the
precise definition of coastlines, and the inclusion or
exclusion of small islands and peninsulas, was not con-
sistent. These factors precluded the direct use of these
data in a single spatial model. To overcome these incom-
patibilities and generate a fully standardized suite of input
grids on an identically defined geographic template, a
processing chain with the following stages was developed.
First, each input data source was re-projected, where
necessary, using a standardized equirectangular Plate
Carrée projection under the World Geodetic System
1984 coordinate system. Second, where input grids were
defined at differing spatial resolutions, they were re-
sampled to 1 × 1 km. Third, grids were either extended
or clipped to match a standardized extent. Fourth, a
bespoke algorithm was developed that compared each
rectified and re-sampled grid to a ‘master’ land-sea tem-
plate for Nigeria and used a simple interpolation and/or

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf

by guest
 263 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria
clipping procedure to align new grids to this master tem-
plate, thus ensuring that the entire coastline was perfectly
consistent on a pixel-by-pixel basis.
METHODOLOGY
Model-based geo-statistics
The predictive approach used in this study to generate fine-
scale maps of each water and sanitation indicator across
Nigeria was based on a body of statistical theory known as
MBG. In an MBG framework, the observed variation in
cluster-level indicator values is explained by one of the
following four components:
(1) A sampling error, which can often be large given the
small sample sizes of individual clusters, is represented
using a standard sampling model (e.g., a binomial
model where cluster-level data consist of a selection of
‘poor’ households from the total number sampled).
(2) Some non-sampling variation
explained using fixed effects – whereby a multivariate
regression relationship is defined by linking the
dependent poverty variable with a suite of geo-spatial
covariates.
(3) An additional non-sampling error not explained by the
fixed effects is usually spatially auto-correlated, and
this is represented using a random effect component.
A spatial multivariate normal distribution known as a
Gaussian Process is employed, parameterized by a
spatial covariance function.
(4) Finally, any remaining variation not captured by these
components is represented using a simple Gaussian
noise term, equivalent to that employed in a standard
spatial linear model.
The full model output is, for every pixel on the
mapped surface, a posterior distribution for the predicted
indicator, representing a complete model of the uncer-
tainty around the estimated value.
summarized using a point estimate (such as the posterior
mean) to generate a mapped surface of the indicator
value. This methodology is able to present smaller
points of estimation (in the spatial dimension) than are
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019
other methodologies such as small area estimation
(Blankespoor & van der Weide ).
Formal description of the model structure
MBG models are a class of generalized linear mixed
model, with an approximation of a multivariate normal
random field (i.e., a Gaussian Process) used as a spatially
auto-correlated random effect term. Each indicator (the
proportion of individuals with access to the specified
water/sanitation services) Y(xi ) at each location in
Nigeria xi for the year 2015 was modeled as a transform-
ation g (
) of a spatially structured field superimposed
with additional random variation g(:). The count of indi-
viduals with access Niþ from the total sample of Ni in
each survey cluster was modeled as a conditionally
independent binomial variate, given the unobserved
underlying Y(xi ) value. The spatial component was rep-
resented by a stationary Gaussian process f(xi , ti ), with
mean μ and covariance C. The unstructured component
can often be ϵ(xi ) was represented as Gaussian with a zero mean
and variance V. Both the inference and prediction
stages were coded using the Integrated Nested Laplace
Approximation (INLA) framework, primarily in the R
programming language.
The mean component, μ, was modeled as a linear
function of the n geo-spatial covariates, μ ¼ βx, where
X ¼ (1, X1 (x), . . . , Xn (x))0 was a vector consisting of a
constant and the covariates indexed by spatial location
x, and β ¼ (β 0 , β 1 , . . . , β n ) was a corresponding vector of
the regression coefficients. Each covariate was converted
to z-scores before analysis. Covariance between spatial
locations was modeled using a Matern covariance func-
tion:
   
1 pffiffiffiffiffiffi d(xi ; xj ) v pffiffiffiffiffiffi d(xi ; xj )
C(d(xi ; xj )) ¼ σ2
2v Kv 2v
Γ(v)2v1 ρ ρ
These can be where, d(xi ; xj ) is the geographical separation between two
points; σ, v, ρ are parameters of the covariance function
defining, respectively, its amplitude, degree of differentia-
bility, and scale; Kv is the modified Bessel function of
the second kind of order v; and Γ is the gamma function.
 264 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria
Incorporation of covariates
In a standard non-spatial generalized linear model regression
approach, it is necessary to undertake a formal covariate
selection procedure to maximize the ultimate predictive
accuracy of the model. Including too few informative covari-
ates means that exploratory power is lost, but the inclusion of
too many may result in the high-dimensional multivariate
model overfitting the data, explaining noise rather than
signal and, ultimately, reducing predictive accuracy. Because
full geo-statistical models are extremely time-consuming to
fit, a common practice has been to use simpler non-spatial
models to determine the optimum covariate selection for sub-
sequent inclusion in the full spatial modeling framework.
Techniques such as stepwise variable selection are often
used, whereby a covariate set is built up by progressively
adding new candidate covariates to a model (forward selec-
tion) or subtracting them from an initial inclusive set
(backward selection), and deciding to keep or discard each
new covariate based on its impact on the model fit. These
techniques are, however, known to be sensitive to the order
in which variables are added or removed, and therefore risk
generating arbitrary final selections.
In this study, a more novel approach has been
implemented: the use of ‘regularization’ embedded within
the geo-statistical model itself. In intuitive terms, this
allows a large suite of candidate covariates to be entered
into the main model while achieving two things. First, it
allows the model to sacrifice a small amount of bias for a
large reduction in variance (in a trade-off between bias
and variance), greatly improving out-of-sample predictive
capacity. Second, the regularizer shrinks the coefficients of
the covariates, which means that the effects of collinearity
are minimized, making the model more stable and robust.
In formal terms, a Gaussian process anterior was imposed
on the likelihood, allowing regularization of the posterior
mean:
p(yjfx )p( fx ) N(y; fx , σ 2 I)N( fx ; μ, C)
p( fx jy) ¼ ¼ corresponding to the administrative unit levels at which
p(y) N(y; μ, C þ σ 2 I)
 2logp( f jy) ¼ (y  fx )T σ 2 I(y  fx ) þ ( fx  μ)T C( fx  μ)
þ constant
2
 2logp( f jy) ¼ σ jjy  fx jj2I þ jj fx  μjj2C þ constant
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019
Here, N(
) is the Gaussian probability distribution func-
tion; fx is the Gaussian process function; y is the response;
μ, C are the mean and covariance functions, as defined ear-
lier; and σ 2 I is the noise or error. The regularization is not
just the l2 distance in the conventional ridge regression but
the Mahalanobis distance, which accounts for the elliptical
skew due to the covariance function, thereby including all
correlated effects into the regularizer. In addition to the
conceptual benefits afforded by the Gaussian process
prior, the possible inclusion of a priori non-linear trans-
formations on the fixed effects was explored. However,
these non-linear transformations did not lead to significant
improvements over the non-transformed parsimonious
model, and so the latter was retained. Model complexity
was measured using the Deviance Information Criteria.
Model implementation and output
Bayesian inference was implemented using the INLA
algorithm to generate approximations of the marginal pos-
terior distributions of the outcome variable Y(xi ) at each
location on a regular 1 × 1 km spatial grid across Nigeria
and of the unobserved parameters of the mean, covari-
ance function, and Gaussian random noise component.
At each location, the posterior distribution was summar-
ized using the posterior mean as a point estimate, and
maps were generated of each of these metrics in ArcGIS
10.4.
Aggregation at the level of individual states and local
government areas (access rate and count)
The MBG models generate predicted maps of each indi-
cator at a 1 × 1 km resolution. While these provide the
most fine-grained picture of variation in water and sani-
tation access across the country, it is also useful to
summarize these patterns at higher levels of aggregation
program planning, implementation, and decision-making
are carried out. For each indicator, therefore, various
aggregate versions were calculated at both the level of
the state (1st subnational unit) and local government
area (2nd subnational unit), as follows:
 265 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019

(1) Mean indicator rates: These are calculated as popu-
lation-weighted means of the indicator predictions
across all pixels within each administrative unit and pro-
vide the best estimate of the percentage of the
population within each unit that meets the criterion of
each indicator (e.g., the percentage of people with
access to basic water in state x).
(2) Indicator rate quintiles: Mapping the mean indicator
rates allows for a comparison of the absolute level
of access across administrative units. Also of interest
is the relative level of access, and this is best visual-
ized by identifying the quintile within which each
administrative unit lies relative to others across the
country.
(3) Indicator count: This is the sum of the population in
each administrative unit that meets the criterion for
the indicator. Since this metric is primarily used to
help target underserved populations, a count was cal-
culated for that fraction of the population without
access to water/sanitation services (e.g., the count of
people that do not have access to basic water in
state x).
RESULTS
Model coefficients
Table 1 shows fitted coefficients for each of the fixed effects
(covariates) used in the model for each water and sanitation
indicator. Since these are Bayesian models, each parameter
is estimated as a full posterior distribution and is summar-
ized here via the 50th (median), 2.5th, and 97.5th
percentiles. The magnitude, direction, and significance of
fitted coefficients varied considerably across the different
indicators. In some cases, the observed relationships
matched prior expectations: for example, that access to
basic and improved water was inversely correlated to an
increase in travel time to the nearest water point or

Table 1 | Parameter estimates for fixed effects (covariates)

Percentile EVI Aridity LST NTL Time to waterpoint

Basic water 2.5th 0.699 2.290 4.184 0.064  0.033

50th 0.041 0.765 2.066 0.020  0.028
97.5th 0.615 0.758 0.051 0.024  0.022
Improved water 2.5th  1.597 2.226 4.409 0.084  0.050
50th  0.869 0.506 2.061 0.036  0.044
97.5th  0.143 1.209 0.282 0.011  0.039
Improved water on premises 2.5th 0.353 2.181  4.438  0.104 0.005
50th 0.248 0.782  2.497  0.064 0.000
97.5th 0.849 0.611  0.559  0.024 0.005
Piped water on premises 2.5th 1.251 1.699 2.541 0.012 0.014
50th 1.723 0.618 1.055 0.042 0.017
97.5th 2.197 0.456 0.432 0.072 0.021
Open defecation 2.5th 4.083  3.472 1.945 0.151 0.014
50th 4.728  1.899 0.121 0.191 0.018
97.5th 5.373  0.324 2.187 0.231 0.023
Improved sanitation 2.5th 0.628 1.857 3.760  0.096 0.005
50th 0.012 0.343 1.692  0.054 0.000
97.5th 0.652 1.168 0.377  0.012 0.005
Sewerage connection 2.5th 1.908  3.598  5.114 0.013 0.012
50th 2.320  2.650  3.803 0.039 0.015
97.5th 2.731  1.697  2.489 0.064 0.018

Note: EVI, enhanced vegetation index; LST, land surface temperature; NTL, brightness of nighttime lights. In a Bayesian model, each coefficient is fitted as a probability distribution function,
and this is summarized here by the median and 95% credible interval range. Coefficients statistically different from zero (‘significant’ with 95% confidence) are in bold.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf

by guest
 266 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019

scheme, or that areas that were more lit up at night (thus predicted variable. The correlation between observed and
more urban) were associated with higher access to sewerage predicted values was generally very high, exceeding 0.8
connections and piped water on premises, and lower rates of (on a scale from zero to one) for most indicators. The two
open defecation. Others were less intuitive: for example, exceptions were piped water on premises and sewerage con-
that improved sanitation rates were higher in areas that nection, and here, the lower correlations can be attributed to
were less bright at night. It should be noted that although the almost universally low observed values of these indi-
many covariates contributed in a statistically significant cators – meaning that correlations were being assessed
way to the final model fits, their interpretation is not as within a very small range. Estimated levels of access to
straightforward as in a non-spatial model, because much of piped water on premises is 7% nationally in Nigeria, with
the variation in observed indicator values is accounted for a range of values for access across states from 2% to 17%,
via the random effect component. and access to sewerage is 8% nationally, with a range of
values for access across states from 3% to 13%. (Reference
Figures 8 and 9 and Table 3 for additional details.) Mean
Model validation
absolute errors, which measure the overall precision of the
model (and are expressed here on the same scale as the vari-
The predictive performance of the model for each indicator
ables themselves – i.e., a proportion between zero and one),
is assessed via out-of-sample cross-validation. A fourfold
again suggested good model performance: the average differ-
hold-out procedure was implemented whereby 25% of the ence between observed and predicted values at each
data points were randomly withdrawn from the data set, location was between 0.1 and 0.2. The most precise predic-
the model was run in full using the remaining 75% of tions were for piped water on premises and sewerage
data, and the predicted values at the locations of the hold- connection – again reflecting the lack of variability in the
out data were compared with their observed values. This observed data. Mean square errors, which capture overall
was repeated four times without replacement such that model performance (both bias and variance), were also
every data point was held out once across the four validation small, exceeding 0.05 for only one variable – improved
runs. Standard validation statistics were computed as water.
measures of model precision (mean absolute error), accu-
racy (mean square error), and linear association Model uncertainty
(correlation) between observed and predicted values.
Table 2 displays validation statistics from the fourfold While the out-of-sample validation procedure provides an
out-of-sample validation procedure implemented for each external check on the model’s predictive performance
and fit, the framework also provides an internal, model-
Table 2 | Validation statistics summarizing performance of geo-statistical models based estimate of the uncertainty associated with the pre-
predicting each water and sanitation variable
diction in every pixel. It reveals which parts of each map
Mean absolute Mean squared
are more or less certain, as driven by local heterogene-
Variable Correlation error error ities in the indicator data and the density of data
Basic water 0.816 0.172 0.047 points. Figure 3 presents uncertainty levels for the
Improved water 0.830 0.185 0.054 water indicators. The estimation results for the indicators
Improved water on 0.808 0.142 0.035 of access to improved water, basic water, and improved
premises water on premises show high levels of confidence in
Piped water on 0.516 0.085 0.014 densely populated areas. In areas where population
premises
numbers are low, the precision of the estimates is low.
Improved sanitation 0.815 0.150 0.039
This suggests that, from a policy perspective, the
Open defecation 0.865 0.152 0.043
WASH policies targeted at the most densely populated
Sewerage connection 0.241 0.076 0.009
areas will also benefit from the greatest certainty. In

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf

by guest
 267 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019

Table 3 | Indicator estimates by state and by urban/rural

Improved source <30 min Improved water on

trip Basic water Improved sanitation premises
Population
State n n % n % n % n %

Part 1
Abia 3,840,896 1,351,488 64.81 2,048,858 46.66 2,855,037 25.67 2,737,903 28.72
Abuja 1,639,987 767,845 53.18 587,736 64.16 1,169,365 28.70 1,074,901 34.46
Adamawa 3,658,159 2,827,271 22.71 2,433,765 33.47 2,814,972 23.05 2,647,044 27.64
AkwaIbom 4,833,660 2,606,639 46.07 3,082,322 36.23 4,162,963 13.88 4,025,965 16.71
Anambra 5,589,839 2,148,965 61.56 3,472,210 37.88 4,051,635 27.52 4,248,990 23.99
Bauchi 5,999,689 3,507,797 41.53 2,984,992 50.25 3,847,020 35.88 4,441,138 25.98
Bayelsa 2,108,063 1,828,337 13.27 1,757,046 16.65 1,955,495 7.24 1,835,565 12.93
Benue 5,482,011 3,498,834 36.18 4,047,631 26.17 3,946,299 28.01 4,414,458 19.47
Borno 5,293,266 3,878,433 26.73 3,922,942 25.89 3,945,115 25.47 4,268,556 19.36
Cross River 3,781,326 1,959,147 48.19 2,977,041 21.27 2,944,224 22.14 3,306,035 12.57
Delta 5,210,434 3,254,215 37.54 2,703,836 48.11 4,365,551 16.22 3,755,680 27.92
Ebonyi 2,648,901 1,303,248 50.80 1,629,913 38.47 2,298,823 13.22 2,042,658 22.89
Edo 4,378,990 1,844,181 57.89 2,373,184 45.81 2,957,512 32.46 3,276,099 25.19
Ekiti 3,006,775 1,010,414 66.40 2,136,236 28.95 2,306,856 23.28 2,403,850 20.05
Enugu 4,231,441 1,916,443 54.71 3,914,032 7.50 3,870,547 8.53 3,958,482 6.45
Gombe 3,137,075 1,976,600 36.99 1,978,444 36.93 2,088,755 33.42 2,646,840 15.63
Imo 4,921,887 2,980,604 39.44 2,160,599 56.10 2,795,948 43.19 2,735,405 44.42
Jigawa 5,795,239 2,087,141 63.99 1,660,060 71.35 3,663,095 36.79 2,552,402 55.96
Kaduna 7,967,703 4,277,828 46.31 5,097,663 36.02 3,443,272 56.78 5,494,387 31.04
Kano 12,580,898 3,924,758 68.80 7,935,198 36.93 7,683,898 38.92 9,112,765 27.57
Katsina 7,536,593 3,436,192 54.41 4,567,210 39.40 3,917,539 48.02 5,189,303 31.15
Kebbi 4,251,959 2,686,814 36.81 3,170,446 25.44 3,507,521 17.51 3,344,803 21.33
Kogi 4,343,938 2,637,986 39.27 3,385,183 22.07 3,770,918 13.19 3,583,883 17.50
Kwara 3,262,565 1,462,084 55.19 1,413,829 56.67 2,842,007 12.89 2,354,845 27.82
Lagos 13,934,343 766,926 94.50 3,437,142 75.33 11,565,994 17.00 5,571,554 60.02
Nassarawa 2,437,915 1,670,835 31.46 1,656,771 32.04 1,892,722 22.36 1,946,132 20.17
Niger 5,065,664 3,286,659 35.12 3,585,811 29.21 3,622,252 28.49 4,052,999 19.99
Ogun 4,679,294 1,638,458 64.98 2,029,481 56.63 3,984,053 14.86 2,830,465 39.51
Ondo 4,119,647 1,799,562 56.32 2,754,668 33.13 3,495,091 15.16 3,328,290 19.21
Osun 5,068,879 1,041,894 79.45 2,538,799 49.91 4,492,865 11.36 4,006,432 20.96
Oyo 7,669,908 2,472,980 67.76 3,106,245 59.50 6,372,009 16.92 5,237,276 31.72
Plateau 4,159,606 2,529,773 39.18 3,022,713 27.33 3,299,094 20.69 3,403,034 18.19
Rivers 6,017,768 3,430,158 43.00 3,727,603 38.06 4,779,166 20.58 4,152,837 30.99
Sokoto 4,729,577 2,510,713 46.91 3,528,244 25.40 4,082,103 13.69 3,716,723 21.42
Taraba 2,958,207 2,270,747 23.24 2,181,099 26.27 2,353,195 20.45 2,546,058 13.93
Yobe 3,044,649 1,857,390 38.99 1,770,576 41.85 2,321,527 23.75 2,351,669 22.76
RURAL 91,658,217 71,450,352 22.05 61,948,160 32.41 67,976,395 25.84 71,248,951 22.27
URBAN 91,932,232 15,653,077 82.97 45,688,487 50.30 68,960,984 24.99 60,399,736 34.30

(continued)

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf

by guest
 268 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019

Table 3 | continued

Improved water Open defecation Piped water on premises Sewerage connection

Population
State n n % n % n % n %

Part 2
Abia 3,840,896 924,175 75.94 196,399 5.11 3,706,913 3.49 3,537,670 7.89
Abuja 1,639,987 397,114 75.79 487,510 29.73 1,368,546 16.55 1,432,688 12.64
Adamawa 3,658,159 1,493,279 59.18 550,298 15.04 3,450,194 5.68 3,478,581 4.91
AkwaIbom 4,833,660 2,012,590 58.36 186,175 3.85 4,713,592 2.48 4,673,963 3.30
Anambra 5,589,839 1,711,445 69.38 523,788 9.37 5,475,650 2.04 5,380,931 3.74
Bauchi 5,999,689 2,151,822 64.13 642,561 10.71 5,495,242 8.41 5,587,634 6.87
Bayelsa 2,108,063 1,616,014 23.34 1,119,712 53.12 1,932,511 8.33 1,954,199 7.30
Benue 5,482,011 3,821,075 30.30 2,201,039 40.15 4,985,516 9.06 4,949,584 9.71
Borno 5,293,266 2,555,930 51.71 719,795 13.60 4,838,521 8.59 4,973,159 6.05
Cross River 3,781,326 2,153,682 43.04 940,015 24.86 3,524,623 6.79 3,563,054 5.77
Delta 5,210,434 2,187,529 58.02 1,673,257 32.11 4,639,413 10.96 4,807,651 7.73
Ebonyi 2,648,901 1,057,714 60.07 882,353 33.31 2,535,632 4.28 2,504,235 5.46
Edo 4,378,990 1,601,692 63.42 881,596 20.13 4,183,435 4.47 4,199,222 4.11
Ekiti 3,006,775 1,602,580 46.70 1,082,125 35.99 2,836,546 5.66 2,847,225 5.31
Enugu 4,231,441 3,130,921 26.01 1,545,134 36.52 4,100,783 3.09 4,079,381 3.59
Gombe 3,137,075 1,648,427 47.45 719,888 22.95 2,835,106 9.63 2,867,789 8.58
Imo 4,921,887 873,131 82.26 191,722 3.90 4,598,833 6.56 4,535,264 7.86
Jigawa 5,795,239 616,745 89.36 508,761 8.78 4,935,285 14.84 5,543,890 4.34
Kaduna 7,967,703 4,495,431 43.58 721,395 9.05 7,495,158 5.93 7,582,625 4.83
Kano 12,580,898 5,973,517 52.52 300,057 2.39 11,928,095 5.19 12,250,127 2.63
Katsina 7,536,593 2,839,625 62.32 398,590 5.29 7,025,578 6.78 7,239,944 3.94
Kebbi 4,251,959 2,855,584 32.84 448,620 10.55 3,892,675 8.45 4,025,989 5.31
Kogi 4,343,938 2,718,331 37.42 2,605,261 59.97 4,079,095 6.10 4,007,323 7.75
Kwara 3,262,565 982,367 69.89 2,053,973 62.96 3,034,276 7.00 3,055,417 6.35
Lagos 13,934,343 1,948,836 86.01 677,842 4.86 12,807,309 8.09 12,142,628 12.86
Nassarawa 2,437,915 1,551,334 36.37 1,075,636 44.12 2,148,639 11.87 2,149,999 11.81
Niger 5,065,664 2,872,740 43.29 1,430,140 28.23 4,643,945 8.33 4,700,769 7.20
Ogun 4,679,294 1,119,021 76.09 858,435 18.35 4,348,930 7.06 4,318,968 7.70
Ondo 4,119,647 2,307,629 43.98 1,928,455 46.81 3,881,808 5.77 3,908,442 5.13
Osun 5,068,879 2,008,634 60.37 1,921,318 37.90 4,881,081 3.70 4,877,802 3.77
Oyo 7,669,908 1,910,123 75.10 3,506,850 45.72 7,320,657 4.55 7,098,407 7.45
Plateau 4,159,606 2,828,185 32.01 2,221,863 53.42 3,737,818 10.14 3,752,225 9.79
Rivers 6,017,768 2,537,487 57.83 1,435,171 23.85 5,557,364 7.65 5,479,400 8.95
Sokoto 4,729,577 2,578,576 45.48 495,551 10.48 4,449,031 5.93 4,598,303 2.78
Taraba 2,958,207 1,841,355 37.75 1,271,366 42.98 2,649,075 10.45 2,645,036 10.59
Yobe 3,044,649 893,937 70.64 470,247 15.45 2,702,438 11.24 2,828,441 7.10
Zamfara 4,189,360 2,099,910 49.88 164,852 3.94 3,825,951 8.67 4,051,761 3.28
RURAL 91,658,217 49,455,262 46.04 28,895,132 31.52 84,084,608 8.26 84,981,299 7.28
URBAN 91,932,232 28,477,562 69.02 10,142,615 11.03 86,494,995 5.91 86,662,768 5.73

Counts relate to the number of people without access to the service, whereas percentages describe the fraction with access. The only exception is open defecation where both the count
and percentage relate to those practicing open defecation.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf

by guest
 269 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019

Figure 3 | Map showing uncertainty associated with modeled 1 × 1 km pixel level predictions of the percentage of population with access to four water service indicators. Uncertainty is
quantified using the width of the posterior predictive distribution for each pixel (measured on the same scale as the indicator itself: a percentage between 0 and 100%). This is
the range of values within which there is a 95% probability that the true indicator value lies, and thus, wide intervals are more uncertain and narrow intervals less uncertain. (a)
Improved water. (b) Basic water. (c) Improved water on premises. (d) Piped water on premises.

the case of piped water on premises, the estimation Geo-spatial modeling of basic indicators
results have a high level of certainty across a large pro-
portion of the territory. In Figure 4, the results for In Figures 5–11, the results of the geo-statistical modeling
sanitation indicators are similar to those for water. exercise are presented for the seven water and sanitation
In the case of indicators with relatively widespread indicators listed earlier. Each of these figures is divided
coverage, such as open defecation and improved sani- into three different maps: (1) a detailed pixel-level map
tation, the results again have low levels of uncertainty shows the predicted percentage of the population, in each
in areas with high densities of population. For the 1 × 1 km pixel, with access to the indicator in question; (2)
access to sewerage indicator, at only 5.6%, on average, equivalent percentage estimates are aggregated at the state
across the nation, a high level of confidence is seen level; and (3) a population count of those with access to
nationwide. (Table 3 provides a full tabulation of the indicator is defined for each state. Table 3 provides a
estimates at the state level, including estimated count full tabulation of estimates at the state level providing esti-
and the percentage of population according to each mated count and the percentage of population according
indicator.) to each indicator.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf

by guest
 270 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019

Figure 4 | Map showing uncertainty associated with modeled 1 × 1 km pixel level predictions of the percentage of population with different sanitation access indicators. Uncertainty is
quantified using the width of the posterior predictive distribution for each pixel (measured on the same scale as the indicator itself: a percentage between 0 and 100%). This is
the range of values within which there is a 95% probability that the true indicator value lies, and thus wide intervals are more uncertain and narrow intervals less uncertain. (a)
Sewerage connection. (b) Improved sanitation. (c) Open defecation.

Figure 5 maps the share of population using improved
water. The 1 × 1 km pixel maps reveal pronounced spatial het-
erogeneity and across relatively short distances. This is partly
due to urban–rural gradients: urban areas tend to have high
rates of access to improved water, and rates drop off rapidly
outside city limits. At the state level, rates span the range
from just 23% (in Bayelsa) to 89% (in Jigawa). The largest con-
centrations of population without access to improved water
are found in Kano (6.0 million), Kaduna (4.5 million), and
Benue (3.8 million). Figures 6 and 7 map the share of popu-
lation using basic water and improved water on premises,
respectively. Unsurprisingly, estimated rates are lower for
both indicators than for improved water, given their more
stringent requirements. Both maps have a similar urban–
rural pattern characterized by higher rates of access within
and around the major urban centers (especially Lagos and
Imo to the south and Kano to the north). The degree to
which these higher urban rates extend past city limits and
into surrounding rural areas is far smaller for basic water
and improved water on premises than for improved water,
leading to a more focal, concentrated urban effect.
At the state level, Enugu has the lowest rates of access to
both basic water and improved water on premises (7.5% and
6%, respectively), while Lagos has the highest (75% and
60%, respectively). (Additional information, outside the
scope of this paper, is required to further flesh out the

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf

by guest
 271 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019

Figure 5 | (main) Map showing modeled 1 × 1 km pixel level predictions of the percentage of population using improved water. Also shown are state-level estimates of (a) the percentage
of people with improved water and (b) the number of people without improved water.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf

by guest
 272 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019

Figure 6 | (main) Map showing modeled 1 × 1 km pixel level predictions of the percentage of population using basic water. Also shown are state-level estimates of (a) the percentage of
people with basic water and (b) the number of people without basic water.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf

by guest
 273 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019

Figure 7 | (main) Map showing modeled 1 × 1 km pixel level predictions of the percentage of population with improved water on the premises. Also shown are state-level estimates of (a)
the percentage of people with improved water on premises and (b) the number of people without improved water on premises.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf

by guest
 274 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019

Figure 8 | (main) Map showing modeled 1 × 1 km pixel level predictions of the percentage of the population with piped water on the premises. Also shown are state-level estimates of (a)
the percentage of people with piped water on premises and (b) the number of people without piped water on premises.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf

by guest
 275 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019

Figure 9 | (main) Map showing modeled 1 × 1 km pixel level predictions of the percentage of population with a sewerage connection. Also shown are state-level estimates of (a) the
percentage of people with a sewerage connection and (b) the number of people without a sewerage connection.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf

by guest
 276 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019

Figure 10 | (main) Map showing modeled 1 × 1 km pixel level predictions of the percentage of the population with improved sanitation. Also shown are state-level estimates of (a) the
percentage of people with improved sanitation and (b) the number of people without improved sanitation.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf

by guest
 277 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019

Figure 11 | (main) Map showing modeled 1 × 1 km pixel level predictions of the percentage of population not practicing open defecation. Also shown are state-level estimates of (a) the
percentage of people not practicing open defecation and (b) the number of people practicing open defecation.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf

by guest
 278 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria
patterns that may be explaining the concentration of low or
high access to WASH indicators across some of these states.
Some of these explanations may be driven by high geo-
graphic concentrations of poverty: high levels of poverty
may be driving the extremely low levels of access to
improved and basic water in Enugu state. See Chapter 4 of
Andres et al. () for the overlap between variations in
access to WASH services and poverty levels.) Interestingly,
despite having the highest rates of access, the large urban
states also have the largest number of people without
access. The two largest populations without basic water
are in Kano (8 million) and Kaduna (5 million); the largest
without improved water on premises are in Kano (9 million)
and Lagos (5.5 million). Figures 8 and 9 map the popu-
lations with piped water on premises and with a sewerage
connection, respectively. Very few Nigerians have access
to either: the maps show almost uniform, very low rates
nationwide other than in a handful of pockets with some
access. Even in the states with the highest access rates
(Abuja and Lagos), only 17% and 12% of the population
have piped water and sewerage connections, respectively.
Only seven states have rates of 10% or more for piped
water (Abuja, Plateau, Taraba, Delta, Yobe, Nasarawa, and
Jigawa) and just four states have rates of 10% or more for
sewerage connections (Lagos, Abuja, Nasarawa, and
Taraba).
Figure 10 maps the share of the population using an
improved sanitation facility. Here, the spatial pattern is
rather different from the others; while there are predomi-
nantly low rates throughout much of the country, the
pixel-level map shows areas of much higher access across
the states of Kaduna and Niger and parts of Kano and
Jigawa. Interestingly, these well-served areas are not well
identified in the state-level aggregate maps, highlighting
the importance of looking at variations at a local-level res-
olution. Rates vary at the state level, from 7% in Bayelsa to
57% in Kaduna: the largest absolute populations without
access are found in Lagos, with 12 million without
access, or around 87% of the state population; and Kano,
with 8 million without access, or around 61% of the state
population. (Reference Table 3 for additional details.)
When we compare these results with Figure 9, which
shows the predicted level of access to sewerage, we observe
that the main difference is in access to improved sanitation.
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019
In the case of sewerage, the level of access is very low
across all the regions of Nigeria.
Finally, Figure 11 maps the share of population practicing
open defecation. This is the indicator that displays perhaps
the most polarization across the country: around one-third
of states display very high rates of open defecation, especially
in the central and southern areas, excluding the coastal
regions. The remainder of the country to the north displays
very low rates. Accordingly, the state with the highest rates
is Kwara, where 63% of the population practices open defeca-
tion, while the practice is least prevalent in Kano, at just 2%.
CONCLUSION
To design targeted policies, access to geographically specific
information is crucial. However, this information is usually
derived from representative surveys, whose sampling tech-
niques are meant to save on costs while ensuring the
representativeness of the population, but only permit a limited
degree of desegregation, so the inferences are not extended to
outliers. Geo-spatial models can help address these limitations
by generating predictions for areas where information is lack-
ing. In this paper, we implement a model-based geostatistical
(MBG) prediction of access to specified water and sanitation
services in Nigeria. Using information from households and
water points and water schemes gathered as part of the
NWSS 2015, as well as an array of geo-spatial covariates, we
generate layers of information for seven key indicators of
access to WASH, at a spatial resolution of 1 × 1 km.
Overall, the findings suggest a sharp urban–rural divide
in terms of access to improved water, basic water, and
improved water on premises, a low availability of piped
water on premises and of sewerage systems throughout the
country, a high concentration of improved sanitation in
select states, and low rates of nationwide open defecation,
with a few pockets of high rates of open defecation in the
central and southern non-coastal regions.
The availability of these spatially detailed estimates pro-
vides a new trove of important information to support the
targeting of programs advancing water and sanitation
access in Nigeria, and offers more detailed, granular esti-
mates for tracking progress toward the SDGs.
 279 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION
Senior authorship is not assigned. The findings, interpret-
ations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely
those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the
view of the World Bank, its executive directors, or the
countries they represent. The findings, interpretations, and
any remaining errors in this paper are entirely those of the
authors.
REFERENCES
Andres, L., Duret, M., Mantovani, P., Molini, V. & Ort, R. 
A Wake Up Call: Nigeria Water Supply, Sanitation, and
Hygiene Poverty Diagnostic. World Bank, Washington, DC,
USA.
Bennett, A., Kazembe, L., Mathanga, D. P., Kinyoki, D., Ali, D. &
Snow, R. W.  Mapping malaria transmission intensity in
Malawi, 2000–2010. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 89, 840–9.
Blankespoor, B. & van der Weide, R.  Mapping Access to
Water and Sanitation Using Small Area Estimation Methods:
With Applications to Bangladesh and Nigeria. Unpublished
manuscript.
Burgert-Brucker, C. R., Dontamsetti, T., Mashall, A. & Gething,
P. W.  Guidance for Use of the DHS Program Modeled
Map Surfaces. DHS Spatial Analysis Reports No. 14. ICF
International, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Center for international Earth Science Information Network –
CIESIN – Columbia University, International Food Policy
Research Institute – IFPRI, The World Bank, and Centro
Internacional de Agricultura Tropical – CIAT  Global
Rural-Urban Mapping Project, Version 1 (GRUMPv1):
Population Density Grid. NASA Socioeconomic Data and
Applications Center, Palisades, NY.
DHS Spatial Interpolation Working Group  Spatial
Interpolation with Demographic and Health Survey Data:
Key Considerations. DHS Spatial Analysis Reports No. 9. ICF
International, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Diggle, P. J. & Ribeiro, P. J.  Model-based geostatistics. From:
Springer Series in Statistics (P. Bickel, P. Diggle, S. Fienberg, U.
Gather, I. Olkin & S. Zeger, eds). Springer, New York, USA.
Diggle, P. J., Tawn, J. A. & Moyeed, R. A.  Model-based
geostatistics. Appl. Stat. 47 (3), 299–326.
Elyazar, I. R. F., Gething, P. W., Patil, A. P., Rogayah, H.,
Kusriastuti, R. & Wismarini, D. M.  Plasmodium
falciparum malaria endemicity in Indonesia in 2010. PLoS
One 6, e21315.
Elyazar, I. R. F., Gething, P. W., Patil, A .P., Rogayah, H., Sariwati,
E. & Palupi, N. W.  Plasmodium vivax malaria
endemicity in Indonesia in 2010. PLoS One 7, e37325.
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019
Gemperli, A., Vounatsou, P., Kleinschmidt, I., Bagayoko, M.,
Lengeler, C. & Smith, T.  Spatial patterns of infant
mortality in Mali: the effect of malaria endemicity. Am. J.
Epidemiol. 159 (1), 64–72.
Gething, P.W. & Adoho, F.  Developing a Poverty Map for
Democratic Republic of Congo. Report prepared for the
World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Gething, P. W. & Molini, V.  Developing an Updated Poverty
Map for Nigeria. Report prepared for the World Bank,
Washington, DC, USA.
Gething, P. W. & Pop, L. B.  Developing a High Resolution
Poverty Map for Afghanistan in 2011/12. Report prepared for
the World Bank, Washington DC, USA.
Gething, P. W. & Rosas, N. a Developing a High Resolution
Poverty Map for Tanzania. Report prepared for the World
Bank. Washington, DC, USA.
Gething, P. W. & Rosas, N. b Developing a Poverty Map for
Targeting of Social Safety Net Programs in Sierra Leone.
Report prepared for the World Bank. Washington, DC, USA.
Gething, P. W., Patil, A., Smith, D. L., Guerra, C. A., Elyazar, I. R. F.
& Johnston, G.  A new world malaria map: Plasmodium
falciparum endemicity in 2010. Malar. J. 10, 378.
Gething, P. W., Elyazar, I. R. F., Moyes, C. M., Smith, D. L., Battle,
K. E. & Guerra, C. A.  A long neglected world malaria
map: Plasmodium vivax endemicity in 2010. PLoS Negl.
Trop. Dis. 6 (9), e1814.
Giardina, F., Gosoniu, L., Konate, M. B., Diouf, R., Perry, O. &
Gaye, O.  Estimating the burden of malaria in Senegal:
Bayesian zero-inflated binomial geostatistical modeling of the
MIS 2008 Data. PLoS ONE 7 (3), e32625.
Gosoniu, L., Msengwa, A., Lengeler, C. & Vounatsou, P. 
Spatially explicit burden estimates of malaria in Tanzania:
Bayesian geostatistical modeling of the malaria Indicator
survey data. PLoS ONE 7 (5), e23966.
Gosoniu, L., Veta, A. M. & Vounatsou, P.  Bayesian
geostatistical modeling of malaria indicator survey data in
Angola. PLoS ONE 5 (3), e9322.
Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A.
 Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for
global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25 (15), 1965–1978.
Linard, C., Gilbert, M., Snow, R. W., Noor, A. M. & Tatem, A. J.
 Population distribution, settlement patterns and
accessibility across Africa in 2010. PLoS ONE 7 (2), e31743.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031743.
NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC, USGS Earth Resources
Observation and Science (EROS) Center, Sioux Falls, South
Dakota. Available at: https://lpdaac.usgs.gov (Accessed April
15, 2017).
Noor, A. M., Gething, P. W., Alegana, V. A., Patil, A. P., Hay, S. I.
& Muchiri, E.  The risks of malaria infection in Kenya in
2009. BMC Infect. Dis. 9, 180.
Noor, A. M., El Mardi, K. A., Abdelgader, T. M., Patil, A. P.,
Amine, A. & Bakhiet, S.  Malaria risk mapping for
control in the republic of Sudan. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 87,
1012–21.
 280 B. Ajisegiri et al. | Geo-spatial modeling of access to water and sanitation in Nigeria
Noor, A. M., Uusiku, P., Kamwi, R. N., Katokele, S., Ntomwa, B. &
Alegana, V. A.  The receptive versus current risks
of Plasmodium falciparum transmission in Northern Namibia:
implications for elimination. BMC Infect. Dis. 13, 184.
Raso, G., Schur, N., Utzinger, J., Koudou, B. G., Tchicaya, E. S. &
Rohner, F.  Mapping malaria risk among children in Côte
d’Ivoire using Bayesian geo-statistical models. Malar. J. 11,
160.
Reid, H., Haque, U., Clements, A. C. A., Tatem, A. J., Vallely, A. &
Ahmed, S. M.  Mapping malaria risk in Bangladesh using
Bayesian geostatistical models. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 83,
861–7.
Riedel, N., Vounatsou, P., Miller, J. M., Gosoniu, L., Chizema-
Kawesha, E. & Mukonka, V.  Geographical patterns and
First received 14 June 2018; accepted in revised form 2 November 2018. Available online 21 March 2019
Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/washdev/article-pdf/9/2/258/643720/washdev0090258.pdf
by guest
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development | 09.2 | 2019
predictors of malaria risk in Zambia: Bayesian geostatistical
modelling of the 2006 Zambia national malaria indicator
survey (ZMIS). Malar. J. 9, 37.
Trabucco, A. & Zomer, R. J.  Global Aridity Index (Global-
Aridity) and Global Potential Evapo-Transpiration (Global-
PET) Geospatial Database. CGIAR Consortium for Spatial
Information. Published online, available from the CGIAR-
CSI GeoPortal at: http://www.csi.cgiar.org/.
WHO/UNICEF  Update and MDG Assessment. WHO Press,
World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 90.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
World Bank  Poverty Reduction in Nigeria in the Last
Decade. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/
10986/25825.