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

11


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

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)




Overview of MICS5 contents

20

Background – What’s included in MICS?

Sanitation

Use of improved sanitation

Safe disposal of child faeces (U5 questionnaire)

21


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


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

31


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)





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)





37


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 :


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


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

water and sanitation

Documents

timesbottled water

water treatmentresponses

drinking water mdg indicator

clothuse water filtersolar

appropriate treatment

yearwater treatment

source roundtripwho

table sanitation