emerging markets consulting gsf crship ii baseline and feasibility study october 6, 2015
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Emerging Markets Consulting
GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study
October 6, 2015
![Page 2: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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:
![Page 3: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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.
![Page 4: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
![Page 5: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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):
![Page 6: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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
![Page 7: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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
![Page 8: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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:
![Page 10: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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)
![Page 11: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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
![Page 14: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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%).
![Page 15: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
EMC
18
Sources of drinking water by season:
Baseline Indicators: Drinking Water
![Page 19: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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
![Page 22: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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%
![Page 23: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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.
![Page 24: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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
![Page 25: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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
![Page 26: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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.
![Page 27: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
EMC
• Respondents from HHs without latrines tended to report more problems than the ones that actually owned latrines
27
Bivariate Analysis Conclusions
![Page 28: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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
![Page 29: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
EMC
ADDITIONAL SLIDES
29
![Page 30: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
EMC
30Data source: NCDD 2013; maps made by EMC.
Latrine Ownership by Province
![Page 31: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
EMC
31Data source: NCDD 2013; maps made by EMC.
Improved Latrine Ownership by Province
![Page 32: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
EMC
All latrines Improved latrines
32
Latrine Ownership by District in Prey Veng
Data source: NCDD 2013; maps made by EMC.
![Page 33: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
EMC
All latrines Improved latrines
33
Latrine Ownership by District in Kampong Chhnang
Data source: NCDD 2013; maps made by EMC.
![Page 34: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
EMC
All latrines Improved latrines
34
Latrine Ownership by District in Kampong Thom
Data source: NCDD 2013; maps made by EMC.
![Page 35: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
EMC
All latrines Improved latrines
35
Latrine Ownership by District in Kampot
Data source: NCDD 2013; maps made by EMC.
![Page 36: Emerging Markets Consulting GSF CRSHIP II Baseline and Feasibility Study October 6, 2015](https://reader033.vdocuments.site/reader033/viewer/2022052510/5697bff41a28abf838cbcc49/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
EMC
All latrines Improved latrines
36
Latrine Ownership by District in Kratie