SIGNIFICANT CRITERIA FOR SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD SANITATION FACILITY IN SPECIFIC SETTLEMENT AREAS
(CASE STUDY: COMMUNITY OF RIVER/SWAMP AND COASTAL AREA, SOUTH SUMATERA PROVINCE)
1st WUI Symposium on Sustainable Urban Water Environment
PRAYATNI SOEWONDO, PRADWI SUKMA AYU PUTRI , DIAN P. APRIADI AND DYAH WULANDARI PUTRI [email protected] Study of Environmental Engineering,Institut Teknologi BandungJakarta, March 14th, 2016
Background- Get to know floating and flooded
communities - Problem statement
Methodology - Location of Study - CFA
Result and Discussion
Conclusions
Background
Specific area (Challenging areas) is a an area which either geographic condition and weather is hard to implemented. In this case, the challenging area can be proceed because of land provider, improper land
condition, the wet land, pit latrine and the difficulties when construct the pipe. The challenging areas following by; a. coastal area, b. river bank area, c. swampy area, d. floading area,
e. high moisture area like close to the lake.
Indonesian people who live in specific areas have problems in
the provision of sanitation facilities (Djonoputro et al.,
2010)
Most of the sanitation facilities provided by
the government or non unsustainable use and
maintanance (OP)
The first step is assessing
sustainability : to interpret the
needs of users (community) into
criteria
Community capacity Criteria in Specific Settlement area
Problem Statement
Communities Providing Wastewater System
Part of urban slum area, exist and grow mainly because of economical reason
Some technical and non-technical problems in Applying wastewater system for those communities
Mostly are illegal settlement, not priority area to be developed
Need evaluation for applied wastewater system in floating and flooded communities
Lack of Sanitation facilities,including wastewater system facilities
Location of Study
Specific settlement areas: 1. 3-4 Ulu district, Palembang City2. Sungsang Village, Banyuasin
Regency
Questionnairre Field
Observation
Instrument measuremnet and data
collection
Analysist Methodology
Level of community
capacity
Quantitative Analysist Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA)Qualitative Analysist
Descriftif Statistic
Category : - High - Medium - Low
Objectives : Measuring community capacity level in specific settlement areas
Research Methodology
Hyphothesis: Sustainability is supported/influenced by Internal and external factors of communities
Used Variable
Social - Cultural
Motivation
Capacity
Stakeholder’s roles
Management
Sampling Size
Analysis
Sampling technique
Random Sampling
Slovin Method : 200 responden
• Choosing the significant variable using CFA method
• Community capacity level : descriptive statistics and scoring method
Questionnaire Design
Result and Discussion
Condition Existing
Water Supply Resources
Community in swamp area
Community in Coastal Area
Result and Discussion
Condition Existing
1
2
3
Wood latrienDirectly charge to river
Wastewater treatment facilities as container
Fabricated toilet which pipe drectly charge to the river
Type of Private Toilet
Result and Discussion
Condition Existing Public Toilet
1 2
Untreated public toilet condition
Several public toilet in locked conditionFailure in treatment
system
3
Result and Discussion
Condition Existing
Local community still have unfeasible wastewater
treatment system
Local community still have lack of awareness for public toilet facilities
Qualitative Analysis : Descriptive Statistics
Social Culture Motivation Stakeholder Capacity management
Explanation
Motivation Knowledge, reason behind action, sanitation preferences
Capacity Participation, knowledge, access and material availability, willingness to pay
Management Commitment, opinion about public facilities
Qualitative Analysis : Descriptive Statistics
Social Culture Motivation Stakeholder Capacity management
Knowledge of toilet waste
Knowing waste from toiletthat discharged directly tothe river will pollute theriver? know, but do not knowwhat to do or can do anyother way to dispose thewaste
74%
Important to know where the waste removed? important
55%
Why choose the river? Easy and its free
Why not build your own toilet? Because it is too expensive
Reason bathing and defecating into rivers
87.5%
60%
MotivationAwareness
low
Motivation to participate in local development program
interest in rural development programs: Low
45%
Reason does not want to participate? No time
42.3%
Private toilet
Why choose wet toilet? Because it has become a culture / habit
Sanitation Preferention
100%
74,4%
PreferentionParticipation
Reason active in the village development programs? Useful for me and my family
57%
Wet toilet
Why choose private toilet?Because it does not need to beshared and there is no line to getinto the toilet
95%
56.5%Midle
Qualitative Analysis : Descriptive Statistics
Social Culture Motivation Stakeholder Capacity management
Explanation
Motivation Knowledge, motive / sanitation behavior preference
Capacity Participation, knowledge, access and material availability, willingness to pay
Management Commitment, opinion about public facilities
Forms of participation
As workers 58.7%
More likely being invited 85.9%
Only participated at planning/ implementation
level34.2%
Participating frequencies: 1-2 times / year
39.5%
improved latrine is: WC+waste container+pipelines+won’t clogged
Main consideration in building latrine : its function
An improved and healthy latrine building: WC+clean water+pipelines+septic tank
Perceptions in improved & healthy latrine
54.6%
46.5%
78%
low
high
knowledge
participation
Capacity
Access and materials availability
materials availability 84%
Accessibility 78.5%
Where to buy: material shop near home 72.5%
Willingness to pay 61%
Willingness to pay : Rp2000 -5000 / monthWillingness to pay for suctioning : Rp 100000 – 200000
WTP to build toilet: <500000 IDR
Willingness to Pay (WTP)
84.5%
98%
66.5%
LowWTP
Accessibility
High
Qualitative Analysis : Descriptive Statistics
Social Culture Motivation Stakeholder Capacity management
Explanation
Motivation Knowledge, motive / sanitation behavior preference
Capacity Participation, knowledge, access and material availability, willingness to pay
Management Commitment, opinion about public facilities
Qualitative Analysis : Descriptive Statistics
Social Culture Motivation Stakeholder Capacity Management
Commitment to pay
Always pay dues for the benefit of the village? Never
44%
Facility Management : public toilet
62.5%
Management preferencesCommitment to pays
Desired management for publicfacilities? Managed together by:community, village officials andgovernment
average
Community capacity level
HighHighAccessibility
Knowledge of latrine treatment system
MediumMedium
Participation Preferences
• Commitmentto pays
• Management preferences
Matrix for community capacity
Variabel High Average Low
Capacity 4 4 6
Motivation 3 3 5
Management
1 1 1
Low
Participation of participation
• Awareness • Motivation• WTP
Low Low
Perceptual Maps of Community Capacity Level in Study Area
Capacity
Motivation
Management
High
Average
Low
Motivation
Capacity Level
Management
High
Average
Low
Capacity
Motivation
Management
High
Average
Low
Capacity level
Map Quadrant 1: motivation andcapacity are located in lower quadranttends to be high, management located inmoderate to lower quadrant
Map Quadrant 2: motivation located inmoderate quadrant, capacity located inmoderate quadrant tends to be high,management located in moderate to lowerquadrant
Comparison
Scoring predictions for continuation management of household toilet facilities potential
Sustainability
score prediction
Continuation
category predictions
Sanimas facility 1 20 Low
Sanimas facility 2 13 Low
Sanimas facility 3 24 Middle
Sanimas facility 4 23 Middle
Scoring predictions for continuation management of household toilet facilities potential
Aspects of assessmentSanimasfacility 1(RT 55)
Sanimasfacility 2(RT 06)
Sanimasfacility 3(RT 19)
Sanimasfacility 4(RT 13)
Score Score Score ScoreYear built (facilities age) 2 1 2 3Administrator 2 1 2 2Number of families user 1 1 3 2Dues per month 1 1 2 2Access using the toilet 1 1 3 2Social conflict 2 1 2 2Physical condition of the building
3 1 2 2
Cleanliness 3 1 2 3Water availability 3 3 3 3Management 1 1 1 1Operations & maintenance (septic tanks suction ) 1 1 2 1
Total 20 13 24 23
• From 5 variables: social culture, motivation, capacity, Stakholder, andmanagement. With assumption variable, CFA shown that the three significantsvariables are capacity, motivation and management.
• From Scoring result, the prediction of potential sustainability for domesticfacilities shown that potential prediction from mangament tend tomedium category
• Results of the study showed that the level of community capacity in specificsettlements area particularly river/swamp and coastal settlements in SouthSumatera Province is categorized into medium to low level of capacity
• These results is expected to support the framework of specificsettlements sanitation program in the future.
Conclusions