Download - Water and Sanitation
Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys Data Interpretation, Further Analysis and
Dissemination Workshop
Water and Sanitation
2
Overview of presentation
Water (4 table)
Sanitation (3 tables)
Drinking water and sanitation ladders (1 table)
Handwashing (2 tables)
3
Background – What’s included in MICS?
Drinking water Use of main drinking water source
• On premises?
• Off premises?
Application of household water treatment
Time-to-source (round-trip)
Who usually goes to the source to collect water?
4
Indicators and definitions
4.1: Drinking Water [MDG Indicator]
Piped into dwelling, plot or yard
Piped to neighbour Public tap/standpipe Tube well/borehole Protected dug well Protected spring Rainwater collection
Proportion of the population that uses an improved drinking water source
5
Table WS.1: Use of improved water sources
Percent distribution of household population according to main source of drinking water and percentage of household population using improved drinking water sources, Country, Year
Main source of drinking water
Total
% using improved sources of drinking water1
Number of
household
members
Improved sources Unimproved sources
Piped water
Tube-well/ bore-hole
Pro-tected
well
Pro-tected spring
Rain-water collection
Bot-tled wa-tera
Unprotect
ed well
Unprotect
ed sprin
gTanker truck
Cart with tank/ drum
Surface
water
Bot-tled wa-tera
Other
Into dwelling
Into yard/ plot
To neigh-bour
Public tap/
stand-pipe
1 MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 - Use of improved drinking water sources
Bottled water presented two timesBottled water is an improved source if also source of other purposes such as cooking and handwashing is also an improved source
6
Country Example
7
Poorest 2nd 3rd 4th Richest0
20
40
60
80
100
14
32
51
69
81
Cove
rage
(%)
Poorer segments of the population have lower access to improved sources of drinking water
8
1990 2008
9
1990 2008
10
11
Indicators and definitions
4.2: Water treatment
Boiling Add bleach/chlorine Use water filter Solar disinfection
Percentage of the population applying any of the following treatment methods
12
Table WS.2: Household water treatment
Percentage of household population by drinking water treatment method used in the household, and for household members living in households where an unimproved drinking water source is used, the percentage who are using an appropriate treatment method, Country, Year
Water treatment method used in the household
Num-ber of household members
Percentage of household members in households
using unimproved drinking water sources and using an
appropriate water treatment method1
Number of household
members in households
using unimproved
drinking water sources
None Boil
Add bleach/chlor-
ine
Strain through a cloth
Use water filter
Solar dis-
infection
Let it stand and
settleOth-
er
Miss-ing/DK
1 MICS indicator 4.2 - Water treatment
Responses may total to more than 100 percent since households may be using more than one treatment method
13
Country Example
14
Table WS.3: Time to source of drinking water
Percent distribution of household population according to time to go to source of drinking water, get water and return, for users of improved and unimproved drinking water sources, Country, Year
Time to source of drinking water
Users of improved drinking water sourcesUsers of unimproved drinking water
sources
Total
Number of household members
Water on premises
Less than 30 minutes
30 minutes or more
Missing/ DK
Water on premises
Less than 30 minutes
30 minutes or more
Missing/DK
15
Country Example
16
17
Table WS.4: Person collecting water
Percentage of households without drinking water on premises, and percent distribution of households without drinking water on premises according to the person usually collecting drinking water used in the household, Country, Year
Percentage of households without
drinking water on premises
Number of households
Person usually collecting drinking waterNumber of households
without drinking water
on premisesAdult
woman Adult man
Female child
under age 15
Male child
under age 15
Missing/DK Total
MICS5 Data Interpretation, Further Analysis and Dissemination Workshop
18
Country Example
19
Water (4 table)
Sanitation (3 tables)
Drinking water and sanitation ladders (1 table)
Handwashing (2 tables)
Overview of MICS5 contents
20
Background – What’s included in MICS?
Sanitation
Use of improved sanitation
Safe disposal of child faeces (U5 questionnaire)
21
Indicators and definitions
4.3: Use of improved sanitation [MDG Indicator]
Flush/pour flush to: piped sewer system septic tank pit latrine
Ventilated improved pit latrine Pit latrine with slab Composting toilet
Percentage of the population that uses an improved sanitation facility which is not shared
22
Indicators and definitions
4.3: Use of improved sanitation [MDG Indicator]
Is this facility shared with other households?
No -----------> Private facility Yes
Households you know? No ---------> Public facility Yes --------> Shared facility How many households?
Percentage of the population that uses an improved sanitation facility which is not shared
23
Table WS.5: Types of sanitation facilitiesPercent distribution of household population according to type of toilet facility used by the household, Country, Year
Type of toilet facility used by household
Open defeca
tion (no
facility, bush, field) Total
Number of
household
members
Improved sanitation facility Unimproved sanitation facility
Flush/Pour flush to:Ventilated
improved pit
latrine
Pit latrin
e with slab
Compos-ting toilet
Flush/Pour
flush to somew
here else
Pit latrine witho
ut slab/ open
pitBuck
et
Hanging
toilet/
latrine
Other
Piped sewer system
Septic tank Pit latrine
Unknown place/not sure/DK where
WS5 table doesn’t present the 4.3 indicator value.Use of improved sanitation facilities includes information on shared or public sanitation facilities which is not included in this table
24
Table WS.6: Use and sharing of sanitation facilities
Percent distribution of household population by use of private and public sanitation facilities and use of shared facilities, by users of improved and unimproved sanitation facilities, Country, Year
Users of improved sanitation facilitiesUsers of unimproved sanitation
facilities
Open defecation (no facility, bush, field) Total
Number of house-
hold mem-bers
Notshared1
Public facility
Shared by
Missing/DK
Not shared
Public facility
Shared by
Missing/DK
5 households or less
More than 5 house-
holds
5 house-holds or
less
More than 5 house-holds
1 MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9 - Use of improved sanitation
Those using a shared or public sanitation facility of an otherwise improved type of sanitation facility are excluded from the indicator
Be careful when comparing with results from previous MICS surveys: indicator needs to be recalculated by taking into account information on shared facilities
25
Country Example
26
Poorest 2nd 3rd 4th Richest0
20
40
60
80
100
1623
33
56
8642
41
35
20
8
4236 32
24
6
Cove
rage
(%)
improved type unimproved type open defecation
The poorest in Nigeria are 5 times less likely than the richest to use an improved sanitation facility
28
29
30
31
Indicators and definitions
4.4: Safe disposal of child faeces]
Child used toilet/latrine
Put/rinsed into toilet/latrine
Percentage of children age 0-2 years whose last stools were disposed off safely
32
Table WS.7: Disposal of child's faecesPercent distribution of children age 0-2 years according to place of disposal of child's faeces, and the percentage of children age 0-2 years whose stools were disposed of safely the last time the child passed stools, Country, Year
Place of disposal of child's faeces Percentage of children whose
stools were disposed of
safely1
Number of children age
0-2 years
Child used toilet/latrin
e
Put/rinsed into toilet or latrine
Put/rinsed into drain or ditch
Thrown into
garbage BuriedLeft in
the open OtherMissing
/DK TotalType of sanitation facility in dwelling
Improved 100.0 Unimproved 100.0 Open defacation 100.0
Region Region 1 100.0 Region 2 100.0 Region 3 100.0 Region 4 100.0 Region 5 100.0
Residence Urban 100.0 Rural 100.0 … 100.0
1 MICS indicator 4.4 - Safe disposal of child’s faeces
It may be argued that disposing of diapers with solid waste is adequate; this eventually depends on how solid waste is handled about which we do not have information.
33
Water (4 table)
Sanitation (3 tables)
Drinking water and sanitation ladders (1 table)
Handwashing (2 tables)
Overview of MICS5 contents
34
Table WS.8: Drinking water and sanitation laddersPercentage of household population by drinking water and sanitation ladders, Country, Year Percentage of household population using:
Number of
household
members
Improved drinking
water1
Unimproved
drinking water Total
Improved sanitation
2
Unimproved sanitation
Total
Improved drinking
water sources and
improved sanitation
Piped into dwelling,
plot or yardOther
improved
Shared improved facilities
Unimproved
facilities
Open defecatio
n
Region Region 1 100.0 100.0 Region 2 100.0 100.0 Region 3 100.0 100.0 Region 4 100.0 100.0 Region 5 100.0 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0 1 MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 - Use of improved drinking water sources
2 MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9 - Use of improved sanitation
Compare with tables WS1 and WS6
35
Country Example
36
Water (4 table)
Sanitation (3 tables)
Drinking water and sanitation ladders (1 table)
Handwashing (2 tables)
Overview of MICS5 contents
37
Indicators and definitions
4.5: Place for hand washing
4.6: Place for hand washing
Proportion of households with a specific place for hand washing where water and soap are present
Proportion of households with soap anywhere in the dwelling
Assessed
through
observation
38
Table WS.9: Water and soap at place for handwashing
Percentage of households where place for handwashing was observed, percentage with no specific place for handwashing, and percent distribution of households by availability of water and soap at specific place for handwashing, Country, Year
Percentage of households :
Number of households
Place for handwashing observed
No specific
place for handwas
hing in the
dwelling, yard, or
plot Total
Percentage of households with a specific place for
handwashing where water and
soap or other cleansing agent
are present1
Number of households
where place for handwashing
was observed or with no specific
place for handwashing in
the dwelling, yard, or plot
Where place for
handwashing was
observed
With no specific place
for handwashing
in the dwelling, yard,
or plot
Water is available and: Water is not available
and:
Soap present
No soap:
Soap present
No soap:
Ash, mud, or sand present
No other cleansing
agent present
Ash, mud, or sand present
No other
cleansing
agent present
1 MICS indicator 4.5 - Place for handwashing
39
Table WS.10: Availability of soap or other cleansing agent
Percent distribution of households by availability of soap or other cleansing agent in the dwelling, Country, Year
Place for handwashing observedPlace for handwashing not
observed
Total
Percentage of
households with soap or other cleansing
agent anywhere in
the dwelling1
Number of
households
Soap or other
cleansing agent
observed
Soap or other cleansing agent not observed at place for handwashing
Soap or other
cleansing agent shown
No soap or other
cleansing agent in
household
Not able/Does
not want to show soap or
other cleansing
agent
Soap or other cleansing agent
shown
No soap or other cleansing agent
in household
Not able/Does not want to show soap or other cleansing agent
1 MICS indicator 4.6 - Availability of soap or other cleansing agent
40
Country Example
41
Expected patterns
Drinking water coverage is higher than sanitation coverage
Urban coverage is higher than rural coverage Open defecation rates are higher in rural areas than
in urban areas Piped connections into the household, dwelling, plot
or yard are higher in urban than in rural areas The use of shared improved sanitation facilities is
higher in urban than in rural areas