*5.1. Demography*

There is evidence in the literature that demographic factors such as household income level, family size, and education level are major predictors of waterborne illnesses. Shah et al. [36] demonstrated that demographic and socioeconomic attributes such as age, education, income, past experiences, and social networks played an important role in perceiving vulnerability. Moreover, households' health vulnerabilities are affected by their access to information, health facilities, and the availability of safe water. Thus, respondents were first asked about demographics, referring to class circumstances in the health lifestyle research model.

To follow is some information concerning the demographic profile of the data respondents. The median age of household heads in the plant and control regions was 47.20 and 44.68 years old, respectively, whereas the overall mean age in both areas was 45.94 years old. The mean education of household heads in the plant area was 9.38, whereas the mean education in the control area was 10.8, and the overall mean education in both regions was 10.09. In both the plant and control zones, respondents' family sizes ranged from one person to eighteen per home. The average family size in the plant area is 6.49, whereas it is 6.52 in the control area. Furthermore, in the plant area, the mean household income from all sources was 29,387.33 rupees, while in the control region, it was 26,608.67 rupees. The average income in both locations was 27,998.00 rupees. The mean demographics in both the plant and control areas are shown in Table 1.


**Table 1.** Demographics.

People were polled on their drinking habits, whether from a plant or the tap, to learn more about the link between drinking water and healthy lifestyle choices, disease incidence, and life chances in both areas with and without local government filtration facilities. The local government set up filtration plants to ensure that the public can access safe drinking water. However, the water from these plants might not be completely safe to drink. Some homes in the plant area claimed that they do not drink plant water because it is contaminated and detrimental to their health or could not detect a difference between plant and tap water during this study. Other respondents stated that transporting plant water for large families is challenging; thus, they rely on tap water. Plant water was recorded in 67 (44.7%) of the area's houses with plants, and tap water was found in 67 (44.7%) households with plants. Meanwhile, 16 (10.7 percent) households in plant areas said they could obtain drinking water from a plant or a tap. A total of 19 (12.6 percent) households in areas without filtration plant facilities said they had to travel a long distance to drink plant water.

The use of drinking water is also determined by family size, which is a social class factor. Because more water is needed if the family grows larger, bringing plant water for a large family becomes a little more difficult. Small families are more likely to use plant water in both plants and control areas, followed by medium-sized families, whereas large families are less likely to use plant water. Small families have 1 to 4 members, medium families have 5 to 8 members, and large families have 9 to 18 members.

There are 9 (6.0 percent) small households in the plant area and 1 (0.7 percent) small family in the control area that uses plant water. As a result, a total of 10 (3.3 percent) tiny families were discovered as employing plant water to make life decisions. As a result, as the size of the family grows, the amount of water used by plants decreases. Table 2 shows the results in both the plant and control areas in this regard. Another element of class condition in the health lifestyle model, the household head's education, was discovered to be substantially linked with drinking water consumption. Educated household heads appeared to be more aware of water contamination and the harmful health effects of dirty water. Therefore, literate households opted to use plant water compared with illiterate families.

In the study region, 205 families were literate, whereas 95 were illiterate; 64 (42.7%) literate households used plant water in the plant area, while 20 (13.3%) literate households used plant water in the control area, for a total of 84 literate households (28.0 percent). Even though both locations had a total of 205 literate households, plant water was used by 41.0 percent of literate homes in both plant and control regions. Thus, a total of 19 families (6.3 percent) in both districts were using plant water. The number of houses consuming tap water in the plant and control areas was 31 (20.7%) and 45 (30.0%), respectively, for a total of 95 households. When the total number of illiterate homes was 95, 19 out of 95, or 20% of illiterate households, used plant water. According to the findings, plant water use is higher in literate families than illiterate families. In this regard, Table 2 presents the contrast between plant and control areas.


**Table 2.** Relationship between drinking water and target variables.
