emerging markets consulting gsf crship ii baseline and feasibility study october 6, 2015
TRANSCRIPT
Emerging Markets Consulting
GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study
October 6, 2015
EMC
1. Clearly identify target beneficiaries, potential partners, and sub-grantees to reduce duplication of efforts
2. Obtain WASH baseline context in target areas, including: – Determine the externalities affecting the WASH sector in target areas (e.g. physical conditions
affecting latrine uptake in villages, presence of subsidy projects, etc.) – Determine presence and types of vulnerable Households – Catalogue types of latrine technologies in use – Determine the level of vulnerability, the ability of households to pay for improved access to
sanitation facilities and improved sanitation – HH and community environment (garbage issues, water management, pets, fowls, and
livestock management) – Determine the knowledge, attitude, practice, satisfaction with sanitation and household
hygiene matters
2
Project ObjectivesThe study’s objectives were twofold:
EMC
• 20 target districts we selected in 5 provinces– Districts selected were those with highest proportion of ID Poor and lower
sanitation coverage – Stratified random sampling for HH survey
• DORD officials were interviewed in each of the 20 districts• Field data collection was carried out May 18-29, 2015
3
MethodologyThe data collection process consisted of a quantitative HH survey and a range of stakeholder interviews.
EMC
4
On average, educational attainment was low and illiteracy rate was high, possibly due oversampling ID Poor HHs.
Household Profile
54%35%
8%
3%
Head of HH Education Level
none
completed primary schoolcompleted middle school
completed high school
• The absolute majority of heads of HH had no education of only primary education
• 83.9% of sampled HHs reported at least one vulnerable member
• 57.8% of sampled HHs had at least one illiterate member
EMC
5
Household Profile
ID Poor Status Average Income (2014)
None KHR 9,507,282 (USD 2,377)
ID Poor 1 KHR 6,098,912 (USD 1,535)
ID Poor 2 KHR 5,669,913 (USD 1,417)
• Average annual household income was 7,7 million KHR ($1,928)• The distribution concentrated below the median value of 4,3 million KHR ($1,077.5)
• Several types of vulnerabilities were reported in the sample with the following frequency (more than one answer possible):
EMC
Province District Flooded area Rocky area Forested area Difficulty level
Prey Veng Peam Chor 80% 0% 0% 2
Sithor Kandal 64% 0% 0% 2
Kanhchrieh 0% 50% 0% 1
Ba Phnum 33% 11% 0% 2
Me Sang 0% 13% 0% 1
Kamchay Meas
0% 0% 0% 1
Kampong Trabaek
0% 0% 0% 1
Svay Antor 0% 0% 0% 1
Kampot Kampong Trach
25% 25% 0% 2
Chhuk 0% 29% 43% 2
6
Nearly all 20 target districts had geographically problematic conditions (DoRD/PDRD data).
District Profiles
EMC
Province District Flooded area Rocky area Forested area Difficulty level
Kampong Chhnang
Chol Kiri 100% 20% 80% 3
Baribour 82% 9% 18% 3
Tuek Phos 0% 13% 13% 2
Kampong Tralach
50% 10% 20% 3
Kratie Sambour 80% 70% 70% 3
Snuol 0% 40% 0% 1
Kampong Thom
Sandan 67% 44% 44% 3
Kampong Svay 44% 0% 0% 1
Prasat Balang 0% 0% 43% 1
Santuk 30% 30% 20% 2
7
Nearly all 20 target districts had geographically problematic conditions.
District Profiles
EMC
• Average latrine cost was consistent across the 5 provinces (PDRD information)
• Most respondents had access to sanitation businesses in the area – Only 41 respondents reported lacking access
8
Sanitation costs are consistent across target provinces.
District Profiles
Latrine type Average Cost
Dry pit / unimproved latrine Up to USD 25
Improved latrine (substructure) USD 50 – 60
Whole structure with walls USD 350
EMC
Improved sanitation facilities
• Flush/pour flush toilet connected to sewage
• Flush/pour flush toilet connected to septic tank or pit
• Covered pit latrine with a slab
Unimproved sanitation facilities
• Flush/pour flush to elsewhere • Open pit latrine without slab • Latrine over water • Ash latrine
9
Baseline Indicators: SanitationThis baseline collected information on the following types of latrines in the sample:
EMC
61.9%
38.1% 36.8%
1.3%
No latrine Own LatrineImproved Latrine Unimproved latrine
10
The majority of respondents did not own a latrine; of those who did, most had an improved latrine.
Baseline Indicators: Sanitation
• 97.9% of latrines in the sample were functioning
• 92.9% of latrine owners use it regularly
• 84.3% of HHs shared their latrine facilities• 24.2% share with other village
residents (not relatives)
EMC
Reasons to own a latrine: Problems with owning a latrine:
11
Baseline Indicators: Sanitation
Conve
nien
ce
Hygie
ne a
nd h
ealth
Safet
y
Good
for v
isito
rs/g
uests
Privac
y
Presti
ge/p
ride
0
200
400
600
800
100093.7%
75%
46.4%
20.7%
10.3%
2%
To
tal n
um
be
r o
f re
sp
on
se
s
No po
blem
Need
for m
aint
enan
ce
Bad sm
ell
High
costs
Dirt/p
ests
May
hav
e to
shar
e
Wat
er sh
orta
ges
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
To
tal n
um
be
r o
f re
sp
on
se
s
EMC
12
The majority of reported latrines in the sample was improved latrines.
Baseline Indicators: Sanitation
Svay
Antor
Sithor K
andal
Kampong S
vay
Kamch
ay M
eas
Kanhchrie
h
Me S
ang
Ba Phnum
Kampong T
rab...
Kampong T
rach
Baribour
Peam C
hor
Prasa
t Balla
ng
Kampong T
ral...
Chhuk
Santuk
Sandan
Tuek Phos
Sambour
Chol Kiri
Snuol 0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
All latrines
Improved
District-level improved sanitation facilities as a percentage of latrine-owning HHs
EMC
Baseline Indicators: Sanitation
13
Overall, households in Prey Veng were morel likely to have improved sanitation facilities:
Prey Veng Kampot Kampong Thom
Kampong Chhnang
Kratie0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
% o
f H
Hs
wit
h im
pro
ve
d s
an
ita
tio
n
EMC
14
Improved latrine prevalence in districts with regular floods:
Baseline Indicators: Sanitation
• Chol Kiri district, located around Tonle Sap River, had the highest incidence of collapsed latrines due to flooding (50%).
EMC
15
There was a direct negative relationship observed between improved latrine ownership and difficulty level of physical conditions:
Baseline Indicators: Sanitation
Svay
Antor
Prasa
t Bala
ng
Me S
ang
Kampong T
rabaek
Kanhchrie
h
Kampong S
vay
Kamch
ay M
eas
Snuol
Ba Phnum
Tuek Phos
Sithor K
andal
Kampong T
rach
Santuk
Chhuk
Peam C
hor
Baribour
Kampong T
rala
ch
Sambour
Chol Kiri
Sandan 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Imp
rov
ed
latr
ine
pre
va
len
ce
1 2 3
EMC
16
Respondents named several times when open defecation was considered acceptable:
66.3%
39.2%
17.2%
6.3%4.2% 3.9%
Traveling/working outside of home
Any time
Never
For children under 5
Latrine broken/needs main-tenance
No latrine and embarrassed to use others' facilities
Baseline Indicators: Sanitation
EMC
• 64% of respondents were “somewhat capable” to build a latrine
• 22.2% “not at all capable” to build a latrine
• “Not enough money” was the main reason for not owning a latrine at 78%– “Not enough information” was the second most common answer at 7%
17
The main barrier for latrine adoption is financial.
Baseline Indicators: Sanitation
EMC
18
Sources of drinking water by season:
Baseline Indicators: Drinking Water
EMC
• 72.2% of HHs treat their water at least occasionally– 55.1% always treat their
water
• Boiling was the most common treatment method (44.2%)– Water filters were second
(36.2%)
• No large differences between ID Poor and non-ID Poor HHs
19
Baseline Indicators: Drinking Water
25.0%
37.5%34.
0%
1.6%
20.0%
Reasons for not treating water
Inputs not always available
Can't afford inputs/water filter
Don't know the dif-ference/don't think is necessary
Forget
Lazy/not enough time to boil
EMC
Baseline Indicators: Hand Washing
• 73.6% used laundry powder for hand washing
• 56% used bar or liquid soap
• 7.6% used only water
20
About half of respondents had used the right cleaning products for hand washing.
50%32
%
12%
5% 1%
Reasons for not using soap
Don't know the dif-ference/Don't think is necessary
Can't afford soap
Forget to use soap
Don't have direct access to soap
Don't like the product
EMC
21
Sources of water for washing hands:
59%
12%
19%
7%
1%2%
well water
bowl
surface water
rainwater
HWS inside latrine
water piped into the house
• “Bowls” refer to special bowls with water nearby for hand washing and other purposes, although respondents did not consider them to be proper HWS.
Baseline Indicators: Hand Washing
EMC
22
Every HH reported washing hands in some way at least once a day:
Baseline Indicators: Hand Washing
Before
eatin
g
After d
efeca
ting
Before
cookin
g
After w
orkin
g in th
e field
After d
isposa
l of a
nimal fe
ces
Out o
f habit
After c
leanin
g infa
ct w
ho has
defeca
ted
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100% 92.3%
69.1%
51.4% 46.0%
11.1% 10.1% 9.0%
EMC
Washing hands after defecating is important
94.9%
69.1%
Agree Actual Behavior
Washing hands before preparing food is important
89.5%
51.4%
Agree Actual Behavior23
Baseline Indicators: Hand Washing There was a knowledge-behavior gap observed in hand washing.
EMC
Baseline Indicators: Solid Waste Management
24
Reported methods of solid waste disposal:
Burn
Put in open pile next to house
Throw in field/forest
Sell glass/plastic/metal
Use food waste as animal feed
Compost food waste
Bury
Throw in water
Put in bin/container next to house
EMC
25
Female respondents were asked about most common ways of used feminine products disposal:
Baseline Indicators: Solid Waste Management
59%
16%
9%
6%
5%3%
1%
Bury
Burn
Clean and reuse
Leave in open
Throw into garbage
Put in drain/ditch/water
Put in latrine
EMC
Correlation between ID Poor status and latrine ownership (% of sampled HHs)
ID Poor No latrine
Improved Unimproved
None 25.4% 24.% 0.7%
ID Poor 1
19.2% 6.3% 0.3%
ID Poor 2
17.2% 6.2% 0.2%
Correlation between head of HH education and improved latrine ownership
Head of HH education % of HHs with improved latrines
No education 27.6%
Primary 44.4%
Middle school 56.3%
High school 58.1%
26
Bivariate Analysis Conclusions Latrine ownership was positively correlated with income, ID Poor status, and education.
EMC
• Respondents from HHs without latrines tended to report more problems than the ones that actually owned latrines
27
Bivariate Analysis Conclusions
EMC
• Education level of the HH head had the most direct relationship with treating drinking water
• No significant relationship between HH head gender and HH income
• Overall, 38.1% of all households in our sample owned a latrine, of which 92.9% were used regularly by all HH members and 97.9% of those latrines were functioning– The data show that in practice, if households can afford a latrine, they will maintain it and use
• 105 respondents reported not understanding the importance of drinking water; among them:– 76.0% did not own a latrine– 88.6% considered open defecation acceptable in some circumstances
• Men, respondents with less education, and respondents from poorer HHs were more likely to not use any kind of soap for hand washing
28
Bivariate Analysis Conclusions
EMC
ADDITIONAL SLIDES
29
EMC
30Data source: NCDD 2013; maps made by EMC.
Latrine Ownership by Province
EMC
31Data source: NCDD 2013; maps made by EMC.
Improved Latrine Ownership by Province
EMC
All latrines Improved latrines
32
Latrine Ownership by District in Prey Veng
Data source: NCDD 2013; maps made by EMC.
EMC
All latrines Improved latrines
33
Latrine Ownership by District in Kampong Chhnang
Data source: NCDD 2013; maps made by EMC.
EMC
All latrines Improved latrines
34
Latrine Ownership by District in Kampong Thom
Data source: NCDD 2013; maps made by EMC.
EMC
All latrines Improved latrines
35
Latrine Ownership by District in Kampot
Data source: NCDD 2013; maps made by EMC.
EMC
All latrines Improved latrines
36
Latrine Ownership by District in Kratie