emerging markets consulting gsf crship ii baseline and feasibility study october 6, 2015

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