Household Satisfaction and Drinking Water Quality in Rural Areas: A Comparison with Official Access Data

Abstract

Background: Access to safe and reliable water and sanitation remains a critical public health and development challenge, with rural and low-income communities being disproportionately affected by inadequate services and heightened exposure to waterborne diseases. Despite global efforts and infrastructure-based progress indicators, significant disparities persist, and these often overlook users’ perceptions of water quality, reliability, and safety. This study explores the determinants of household satisfaction with drinking water in rural areas, comparing subjective user feedback with official access data to reveal gaps in current monitoring approaches and support more equitable, user-centered water governance. Methods: This study was conducted in Kazakhstan’s Atyrau Region, where 1361 residents from 86 rural villages participated in a structured survey assessing household access to drinking water and perceptions of its quality. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression to identify key predictors of user satisfaction, with results compared against official records to evaluate discrepancies between reported experiences and administrative data. Results: The field survey results revealed substantial discrepancies between official statistics and residents’ reports, with only 58.1% of respondents having in-house tap water access despite claims of universal coverage. Multinomial logistic regression analysis identified key predictors of user satisfaction, showing that uninterrupted supply and the absence of complaints about turbidity, odor, or taste significantly increased the likelihood of higher satisfaction levels with drinking water quality. Conclusions: This study underscores the critical need to align official water access statistics with household-level experiences, revealing that user satisfaction—strongly influenced by supply reliability and sensory water quality—is essential for achieving equitable and effective rural water governance.

1. Introduction

Access to safe and reliable water and sanitation is a fundamental human right and of great importance for public health, societal development, and sustainability. UN Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6) explicitly aims to ensure universal and equitable access to clean water and sanitation [1,2]. Despite significant global commitments, wide disparities in service access persist, particularly between urban and rural populations. These disparities are strongly linked to a heightened risk of waterborne diseases such as cholera, dysentery, and schistosomiasis, which disproportionately affect rural and low-income communities [3,4]. Moreover, households with improved access to safe drinking water show better nutritional outcomes among preschool children, demonstrating the critical role of water quality in supporting dietary diversity and child health [5]. Safe water facilitates not only hydration but also hygienic food preparation, reducing risks of malnutrition and waterborne diseases. Conversely, poor water quality is linked to broader health effects, including cognitive decline, emphasizing the need to address both water quality and quantity to promote physical and cognitive health in rural populations [6]. Pullan et al. reported that rural households are up to eight times less likely to access improved water sources and up to eighteen times less likely to access sanitation facilities compared to their urban counterparts [7].

Global statistics underscore the severity of the challenge. According to the WHO and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (2021), 2.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water, while 4.2 billion are not supplied with access to basic sanitation [8]. These deficits are particularly acute in rural areas, where only 60% of the population has access to safely managed drinking water, compared to 86% in urban settings [1].

In China, approximately 70% of river water in rural regions is deemed unfit for human consumption, contributing to an estimated 66,000 premature deaths annually [9]. Additional stressors such as climate variability—manifested in floods and droughts—further jeopardize water quality and availability [10]. These factors necessitate adaptive, climate-resilient, and community-sensitive approaches to water management [11].

While infrastructure is fundamental to water access, emerging evidence highlights user satisfaction as a critical, yet often neglected, indicator of service quality. Guragain and Celestin found that in community-managed water systems, satisfaction was closely linked to performance indicators such as water quality and coverage [12]. Similarly, Timilsena reported that service frequency, water safety, and responsiveness of management significantly influenced user perceptions [13].

In response to this gap, several researchers have emphasized the value of integrating subjective feedback with performance metrics. Anh et al. showed that user feedback mechanisms in privatized rural water systems improved managerial accountability and service delivery [14]. Chu et al. further demonstrated that incorporating satisfaction metrics into water allocation models fosters more equitable and sustainable outcomes [15]. Likewise, Li et al. argue for combining objective access indicators with subjective user experiences, especially in rural and geographically isolated areas where conventional metrics may misrepresent actual conditions [16].

The Concept for the Development of the Water Resources Management System for 2024–2030 sets the objective of ensuring 100% provision of water resources for the population, alongside mitigating the impacts of hydrological hazards such as floods, droughts, and water scarcity [17]. Despite this, rural populations still face systemic challenges in water safety and reliability. Sailaukhanuly et al. documents persistent chemical and microbiological contamination in Central Asian water systems, while Toleubekov et al. report that COVID-19 exacerbated existing deficits in WASH infrastructure, particularly in public institutions [18,19].

Despite growing interest in user satisfaction, comparative studies linking household perceptions with official water access data remain rare in rural Central Asia. This study provides the first systematic comparison of official statistics and household satisfaction in Kazakhstan’s rural areas, offering a more nuanced, policy-relevant understanding of water service delivery. In view of the above, this study aimed to (1) identify the key factors influencing household satisfaction with drinking water quality in rural areas of Kazakhstan, and (2) assess the extent to which subjective user evaluations align with official statistics on water access, thereby revealing potential discrepancies between reported service coverage and user-experienced conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Atyrau Region in Kazakhstan is predominantly situated within the expansive Caspian Lowland. The region’s topography is characterized by a gently undulating plain that gradually ascends from the Caspian Sea coastline. A substantial portion of the Caspian Lowland is covered by ridge and aeolian dune sands, including formations such as Naryn, Taisoigan, and Karakum. In the northeastern part of the region, minor areas are occupied by the foothills of the Podurals Plateau.

The Caspian Lowland lies below global sea level and constitutes a gently sloping surface that descends toward the sea, reaching elevations as low as –28 m. The surface sediments of the Atyrau Region primarily consist of clayey, loamy, and sandy deposits, which are remnants of transgressive phases of the ancient Caspian Sea.

The principal river systems within the region include the Zhaiyk (Ural River), which serves as the main hydrological artery, along with the Zhem, Sagiz, and Oyyl Rivers. The Zhaiyk River discharges into the Caspian Sea south of the city of Atyrau. Rivers such as the Kigach and Sharonovka drain into the Volga River. Other rivers, including the Oyyl, Zhem, Sagiz, and Kainar, are characterized by seasonal flow, occurring predominantly during the spring flood period. In their lower reaches, these rivers give rise to a network of distributaries, floodplains, and oxbow lakes, many of which are ephemeral and saline. During the summer months, these water bodies often desiccate, forming saline flats. Riparian zones are commonly vegetated with poplar (Populus spp.), willow (Salix spp.), and elm (Ulmus spp.) groves. The largest lake in the region is Lake Inder, noted for its saline composition.

The region experiences a sharply continental climate, characterized by long, cold winters and hot, dry summers. Annual precipitation is minimal, averaging approximately 150 mm. During January, the coldest month, average temperature ranges from −7 to −11 °C, with extreme conditions occasionally bringing temperatures as low as −36 to −42 °C. Summers are prolonged and intense, with highest temperature in July averaging above 25 °C and sometimes reaching 41 to 46 °C. Such climatic conditions, characterized by high evaporation rates during the warm season, contribute to the concentration of pollutants in both surface and groundwater systems [20]. These effects are compounded by the region’s limited annual precipitation, which restricts the natural recharge of local water bodies and promotes increased salinity, as well as contamination from agricultural runoff and industrial effluents [21,22]. The Ural River—the principal drinking water source for the region—has experienced a significant reduction in discharge, with average flow declining by approximately 37% since the 1970s. Concurrently, the river’s water quality has deteriorated due to contamination by industrial pollutants, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals, and petroleum residues. Collectively, these climatic, hydrological, and anthropogenic stressors exacerbate water scarcity and quality degradation, posing serious challenges for ensuring safe drinking water access in rural settlements [23].

2.2. Survey Design

The survey was conducted among 1361 residents of the Atyrau Region, representing a total household population of 8088 individuals across 86 distinct villages, offering a comprehensive assessment of rural household practices and the challenges associated with safe water and sanitation access. A census sampling strategy was applied in this study, involving data collection from the entire population of rural households within the selected settlements. This complete enumeration approach ensured comprehensive representation of the target population and minimized the risk of sampling bias. As the survey targeted all eligible households, no formal sample size calculation was required. The full-coverage methodology was adopted to enhance the reliability and generalizability of the findings across the study region. Inclusion criteria required participants to be at least 18 years of age, reside in a selected rural household, and have adequate knowledge of the household’s primary drinking water source and usage practices.

The broad geographic coverage provided by the survey enabled an in-depth examination of regional disparities and localized issues related to water and sanitation in diverse settings throughout the Atyrau region. This extensive coverage is instrumental in identifying site-specific challenges and informing targeted policy and infrastructure interventions.

2.3. Data Collection Tool

This study employed a structured questionnaire to evaluate access to drinking water. The questionnaire was administered to selected households across the study region and covered key dimensions, including the availability and accessibility of drinking water, the functionality and reliability of water sources. To consider that both Kazakh and Russian are spoken in the region, the questionnaire was developed in both languages, drawing on the methodology and findings of Tussupova (2016) [24].

The survey was designed to comprehensively assess household access to drinking water, offering a broad regional overview rather than focusing on individual settlements. Unlike localized case studies, this research aimed to identify general patterns in water access across a representative sample of the population. Data were collected on a range of variables to evaluate both the availability of clean water and users’ perceptions of its quality.

Household-level information included the name of the village, address, contact details, household size, and involvement in home-based agricultural activities such as livestock rearing or gardening. To assess water access and quality, the survey recorded the primary sources used for drinking and domestic purposes, including centralized water supply systems, wells, bottled water, and open sources. Additionally, the survey documented the frequency of supply interruptions and gathered subjective assessments of water quality. These assessments included satisfaction with organoleptic characteristics—such as taste, smell, and visual clarity—as well as specific complaints regarding unpleasant odor, turbidity, salinity, or aftertaste.

Official statistical information on water supply was collected from the Administration of Atyrau Region. The data cover the following parameters: name of the rural district or settlement, name of the populated area, population size, source of water, availability of centralized water supply, decentralized water supply, and delivered (transported) water. The official data were divided by the eight districts of the Atyrau region. In Kazakhstan, drinking water supply systems in settlements are classified into centralized and decentralized systems, depending on the water source type and the components included in the system [25]. A centralized water supply is a larger system that is designed for the abstraction, treatment, storage, transportation, and delivery of drinking water to consumers through a distribution pipeline network. In contrast, a decentralized water supply system refers to water intake and treatment facilities designed for the abstraction and treatment of drinking water without transportation through pipes.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics, including frequency analysis, were conducted to summarize respondents’ access to water supply, experiences with service disruptions, perceptions of water quality, and complaints related to organoleptic characteristics (e.g., taste, odor, and clarity). In addition, official statistical data were examined and compared with the findings of the actual field survey to assess consistencies and discrepancies between administrative records and self-reported household experiences.

To examine the determinants of user satisfaction with drinking water quality, a multinomial logistic regression was performed. The dependent variable was the self-reported level of satisfaction with water quality, measured on a five-point ordinal scale: completely satisfied, mostly satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, completely dissatisfied, and unsure/no response. For the purpose of this analysis, the reference category was “somewhat dissatisfied.”

The independent variables included frequency of disruptions in the centralized water supply; complaints about the presence of bad odor; complaints about the presence of murkiness or turbidity; complaints about the presence of a salty taste; and complaints about the presence of an unpleasant aftertaste.

3. Results

3.1. Comparative Analysis of Official Versus Field-Reported Water Supply Data in Rural Settlements

Water resources in the Atyrau Region are primarily derived from surface and groundwater sources, with their distribution varying across the territory. The Ural River accounts for approximately 65.2% of the region’s total water resources, while the Kigach River contributes 22.3%. Groundwater sources provide 5.9% of the available water, and the remaining volume is supplied by smaller rivers and local surface water bodies.

Rural settlements in the region utilize a combination of groundwater and surface water, depending on the availability and infrastructure of each area. Groundwater extracted through wells and boreholes serves as the primary source of drinking water for about 60% of rural settlements. Open surface water sources are used by approximately 20% of settlements, while the remaining 20% of rural communities rely on delivered (transported) water to meet their needs. Centralized water supply systems, which utilize both surface water from rivers and groundwater sources, currently provide drinking water to around 65% of the rural population in the Atyrau Region.

The main sources of drinking water in the region include the Ural, Kigach, Sharon, and Surkhan rivers, as well as large-scale water transmission infrastructures such as the Astrakhan–Mangystau main water pipeline and the Koyandy water pipeline. Groundwater remains a critical resource, particularly in remote or infrastructure-limited areas.

In Atyrau Region, there are 153 rural settlements, with a total population of 300,324. The analysis of rural water access revealed a notable discrepancy between official statistics and data collected through field surveys. According to administrative records, centralized water supply systems reportedly cover 100% of the rural population in the study area. These records classify 83.7% of the population as having access to centralized systems (population size of 295,774), 10.5% as using decentralized water sources (1579 population), and 5.9% as relying on delivered water (population size of 782) (Figure 1). On paper, this suggests near-universal access to improved water infrastructure.

However, the actual conditions reported by residents differ substantially from the official narrative. Survey data collected from 86 respondents across rural settlements indicated that only 58.1% of individuals have access to a tap inside the house connected to a centralized water supply. A further 17.3% reported using water systems installed in their yard, which often lack full indoor plumbing. Additionally, 6.3% of respondents stated that they receive delivered water free of charge. Other sources reported by participants include private wells with house connection (4.9%), private wells without plumbing (4.3%), public or neighbors’ wells (2.7%), public street water columns (1.4%), natural springs (0.1%), open water bodies such as rivers or lakes (0.4%), and other sources (0.4%) (Figure 2).

3.2. Exploring Predictors of Satisfaction with Drinking Water Quality in Rural Areas

The analysis included responses regarding satisfaction with drinking water quality, categorized on a five-point scale. As shown in

Table 1. Respondent feedback on drinking water supply and quality issues.

Frequency of Interruptions in Centralized Water Supply		Self-Reported Satisfaction with the Organoleptic Quality of Drinking Water		User-Reported Complaints Concerning Drinking Water Quality
No disruptions	413 (30.3%)	Fully satisfied	416 (30.6%)	Bad odor	68 (10.5%)
Several times a year	375 (27.6%)	Mostly satisfied	240 (17.6%)	Murkiness	378 (58.5%)
Several times a month	215 (15.8%)	Somewhat dissatisfied	313 (23.0%)	Salty taste	45 (7.0%)
Every day	202 (14.8%)	Completely dissatisfied	116 (8.5%)	Unpleasant taste	155 (24.0%)
Not applicable	131 (9.6%)	Unsure	51 (3.7%)
The “not applicable” category refers to households without centralized water supply connections.

, 30.6% were fully satisfied, whereas 23.0% were somewhat dissatisfied, and 8.5% reported complete dissatisfaction. In total, 30.3% of respondents reported no interruptions in their centralized water supply, while 27.6% experienced rare disruptions, and 14.8% faced daily issues. The most common complaints included murkiness (58.5%), an unpleasant taste (24.0%), bad odor (10.5%), and a salty taste (7.0%).

Table 2. Predictors of satisfaction with drinking water quality.

Satisfaction Category	Predictor	p-Value	Odds Ratio (Exp(B))	95% Confidence Interval
Completely satisfied	No water supply interruptions	0.001	10.47	4.13–26.56
	No murkiness complaint	0.013	6.60	1.49–29.17
	No unpleasant taste complaint	0.012	6.37	1.51–26.95
Mostly satisfied	No water supply interruptions	0.008	3.71	1.42–9.70
	Rare interruptions (a few times a year)	0.010	3.32	1.33–8.29
	No bad odor complaint	0.015	13.33	1.65–107.83
Completely dissatisfied	No bad odor complaint	0.001	0.31	0.16–0.59
	No murkiness complaint	0.033	0.46	0.23–0.94
	No salty taste complaint	0.022	0.29	0.10–0.84

presents the results of a multinomial logistic regression identifying the predictors of satisfaction with drinking water quality, using “somewhat dissatisfied” as the reference category. Multicollinearity diagnostics indicated that VIF values for the independent variables ranged from three to five, suggesting moderate multicollinearity. The overall model demonstrated an acceptable fit, as indicated by a McFadden’s R² value of 0.231, suggesting moderate explanatory power for the multinomial logistic regression model. The model’s overall significance was confirmed (p < 0.001), indicating that the set of predictors collectively contributed significantly to explaining variations in household satisfaction with drinking water quality. Respondents who reported no water supply interruptions were significantly more likely to be fully satisfied with their water quality, compared to those experiencing daily disruptions. The odds ratio was 10.47, p-value < 0.001, indicating that the absence of interruptions increased the likelihood of full satisfaction more than tenfold (95% CI: 4.13–26.56). In addition, those who reported no complaints regarding water turbidity and no complaints about taste were also more likely to express full satisfaction, with OR of 6.60 (p-value = 0.013) and 6.37 (p-value = 0.012), respectively.

For those categorized as mostly satisfied, the absence of interruptions again emerged as a significant predictor. Respondents who never experienced interruptions were 3.7 times more likely to report being mostly satisfied (p = 0.008). Those with rare interruptions also had higher odds of satisfaction (OR = 3.32, p = 0.01). Respondents who did not report any odor-related complaints were over 13 times more likely to express some level of satisfaction (OR = 13.3, p-value = 0.015).

In contrast, complete dissatisfaction was significantly associated with reporting no complaints about odor (OR = 0.31, p < 0.001), turbidity (OR = 0.46, p = 0.033), or saltiness (OR = 0.29, p = 0.022), all indicating a decreased likelihood of being completely dissatisfied. These inverse relationships confirm that the presence of specific negative sensory experiences plays a substantial role in overall dissatisfaction.

4. Discussion

This study offers a comprehensive evaluation of rural water access in Kazakhstan’s Atyrau Region by contrasting household perceptions of drinking water quality with official infrastructure data. The results reveal significant discrepancies between administrative records and lived experiences, highlighting the limitations of infrastructure-based indicators in capturing the full scope of water service delivery, particularly in marginalized rural contexts.

4.1. Disparities Between Official and Field-Reported Access

The gap between reported infrastructure coverage and household experience aligns with a growing body of literature that critiques overreliance on top-down, supply-side metrics. While official statistics claim near-universal access to centralized systems (covering 100% of the rural population), only 58.1% of surveyed households reported in-home connections to piped water. These findings corroborate those of Oyerinde and Jacobs and Li et al., who emphasize that infrastructure presence does not equate to functionality or user benefit [16,26]. According to national statistics, centralized water supply coverage has steadily increased, reaching 96.0% by the latest reporting period (2023). However, as these data reflect the presence of infrastructure rather than functionality, and are updated based on self-reported operational statistics, they may not capture service interruptions or infrastructure degradation occurring between reporting cycles [27].

While official statistics may report progress in water infrastructure coverage as a result of national policies and programs, community-level assessments often reveal that these improvements do not translate uniformly across all population groups. Despite extensive governmental efforts, marginalized rural populations frequently continue to experience inadequate water access and service quality [28].

Such discrepancies may stem from outdated administrative data, definitional inconsistencies, or an overestimation of infrastructure functionality. They suggest that household-level surveys are indispensable for uncovering gaps in service delivery that administrative statistics may obscure. These findings reinforce the call for integrating subjective metrics into water governance frameworks, as advocated by Chu et al. and Guragain and Celestin [12,15].

4.2. Determinants of Satisfaction: Sensory Quality and Service Reliability

The regression analysis confirms that user satisfaction is closely tied to both sensory perceptions and supply reliability. Specifically, the absence of water supply interruptions and complaints related to turbidity, taste, and odor significantly predicted higher satisfaction levels. Respondents who did not experience disruptions were over ten times more likely to report complete satisfaction, indicating that continuity of service is a critical determinant of user perception. This result is consistent with Timilsena, who found that reliability was a leading predictor of satisfaction in decentralized water systems [13].

Consistent and uninterrupted water delivery is not only essential for meeting basic consumption needs but also plays a critical role in reinforcing user trust and confidence in the safety and reliability of public water supplies [29]. Conversely, unpredictable supply interruptions can induce psychological stress and anxiety among consumers, negatively influencing their overall perception of water quality [29]. These effects are further intensified when interruptions coincide with perceptible changes in water quality, such as increased turbidity or the emergence of undesirable tastes and odors, which can result in immediate declines in consumer satisfaction [30]. Moreover, frequent disruptions can exacerbate existing quality concerns and encourage households to rely on alternative water sources—often perceived as safer—despite their potentially inferior actual quality [31].

Similarly, organoleptic characteristics such as turbidity, salty taste, and unpleasant odor were strong negative predictors of satisfaction. The salience of these factors reflects the everyday realities of water consumption, where visual and sensory cues serve as proxies for perceived safety. Previous studies have demonstrated that organoleptic deficiencies, such as unpleasant taste, odor, and discoloration, strongly influence consumer perceptions of drinking water quality and satisfaction [32,33]. These sensory factors not only reduce satisfaction but also contribute to distrust toward water utility providers, as consumers associate sensory irregularities with potential contamination [33]. Similarly, consumers show a distinct preference for clear, colorless, and particle-free water, highlighting turbidity as a critical determinant of perceived [32]. Interruptions in water supply further compound dissatisfaction, prompting households to seek alternative sources, including bottled water, even in contexts where infrastructure coverage is officially reported as adequate.

Mirzaei et al. also identified turbidity and odor as key concerns in rural drinking water, linking them with microbial contamination and user distrust [34]. These sensory indicators, though not definitive evidence of contamination, often reflect real underlying quality issues and merit closer attention in routine monitoring protocols. Moreover, as noted by Mirzaei et al. (2016) [34], the presence of turbidity serves as a cognitive trigger, leading users to associate visual murkiness with microbial or chemical hazards. This perceptual link reinforces distrust in the safety of drinking water, even in the absence of laboratory-confirmed contamination, and explains why sensory dissatisfaction significantly influences overall user perceptions of water safety [34].

The inverse relationships found for complete dissatisfaction further affirm the weight of sensory experience in shaping negative evaluations. Notably, respondents who did not complain of murkiness, odor, or saltiness were significantly less likely to report complete dissatisfaction, suggesting that even minimal improvements in sensory quality can have a disproportionately positive impact on user perceptions.

4.3. Implications for Policy and Water Governance

This study underscores the limitations of relying solely on administrative indicators to assess rural water access. In contexts like Kazakhstan, where rural and remote populations often face systemic infrastructural neglect, performance assessments must move beyond nominal coverage to account for functionality, quality, and user satisfaction. The divergence between official data and field reports is not merely a statistical anomaly but an indicator of systemic weaknesses in service delivery and monitoring.

Our findings support a shift toward participatory, bottom-up water governance approaches. Integrating household feedback into water service evaluation can enhance responsiveness, identify service delivery failures in real-time, and improve trust in public institutions. This aligns with the arguments of Anh et al. [14], who found that feedback mechanisms can enhance accountability and service responsiveness in rural water systems [14].

Moreover, the significance of user-reported data highlights the need for reform in national monitoring frameworks. For instance, the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) could further develop hybrid indicators that blend objective infrastructure data with subjective satisfaction metrics, as recently suggested by Bartram and Cairncross. This would better capture the complexities of real-world access and encourage governments to prioritize service quality alongside coverage [1].

By going beyond traditional infrastructure-based assessments, the study advances current knowledge by empirically demonstrating that reported access does not necessarily equate to functional or acceptable service at the household level. The findings highlight critical mismatches between official narratives and community experiences—especially regarding water reliability—which are often overlooked in policy evaluations. This approach provides a replicable framework for incorporating user-centered metrics into monitoring systems, thus informing the development of more equitable, responsive, and accurate water service policies aligned with the goals of Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6).

4.4. Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, although the survey covered a substantial number of households across 86 villages, it may not fully capture intra-regional variability, especially in more remote or underrepresented settlements. Second, the reliance on self-reported data introduces potential biases, such as recall inaccuracies or subjective misclassification of satisfaction. However, the consistency of findings across multiple indicators and the alignment with prior research support the robustness of the results. Another important limitation of the study is the lack of microbiological and chemical analysis of the drinking water samples. The assessment of water quality in this research is based solely on self-reported user perceptions of sensory characteristics, such as turbidity, odor, and taste. While these indicators are meaningful for understanding household satisfaction, they do not provide objective evidence of actual contaminant levels. Consequently, the study cannot establish a direct correlation between reported complaints and the presence of chemical or microbial pollutants.

Future studies could enhance understanding by incorporating water quality testing to triangulate subjective complaints with microbiological and chemical data. Longitudinal designs would also allow for an analysis of seasonal variation in satisfaction and service reliability, particularly in climates with sharp temperature gradients such as Atyrau’s. Additionally, qualitative studies exploring user expectations and trust in service providers could illuminate the social and institutional dimensions of satisfaction.

5. Conclusions

This study provides empirical evidence that infrastructure-based assessments of drinking water access can substantially overstate the quality and reliability of services experienced by rural households. While official data suggest near-universal access to centralized water systems in the Atyrau Region, household-level surveys reveal that significant portions of the population continue to rely on less reliable or non-centralized sources.

User satisfaction with drinking water is closely tied to both the reliability of supply and the sensory attributes of water, including turbidity, taste, and odor. These subjective indicators serve as vital proxies for water quality and usability and should be systematically included in water service evaluations.

The findings have three key implications:

• Data systems must be recalibrated: National and regional monitoring systems should integrate household satisfaction and service reliability indicators to better reflect the real-world functioning of water infrastructure.
• Policy should prioritize service quality: Infrastructure investments must be complemented by improvements in water treatment, system maintenance, and supply continuity to ensure that physical access translates into functional, safe, and acceptable services.
• Rural equity must be centered: Rural communities remain disproportionately affected by service gaps, despite official statistics suggesting otherwise. Targeted policy measures and user feedback mechanisms are essential to address these inequities.

In conclusion, addressing the disconnect between official narratives and household experiences is essential to achieving SDG 6 in a meaningful and equitable manner. By recognizing and responding to user-reported issues, water governance frameworks can become more inclusive, responsive, and sustainable—particularly in under-served rural contexts.