12.07.2015 Views

NMICS 2010 Report - Central Bureau of Statistics

NMICS 2010 Report - Central Bureau of Statistics

NMICS 2010 Report - Central Bureau of Statistics

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>NMICS</strong> <strong>2010</strong>, Mid- and Far Western RegionsTable WS.4: Person collecting waterPercentage <strong>of</strong> households without drinking water on the premises, and percentage <strong>of</strong> households without drinking water on premisesaccording to the person usually collecting drinking water used in the household, MFWR, Nepal, <strong>2010</strong>RegionPercenthouseholdswithoutdrinkingwater onpremisesNo. <strong>of</strong>householdsPerson usually collecting drinking water inhouseholds without a source on the premisesAdultwoman(aged 15+years)Adult man(aged 15+years)Femalechild (agedunder 15)Male child(agedunder 15)TotalNo. <strong>of</strong>householdswithoutdrinkingwater onpremisesMid-Western 62.7 3,325 90.3 4.1 4.6 1.0 100.0 2,084Far Western 53.2 2,574 93.0 3.8 2.4 0.8 100.0 1,369SubregionAreaMid-Western Mountains 94.1 344 89.1 4.4 4.4 2.1 100.0 324Mid-Western Hills 77.4 1,703 91.4 3.3 4.3 1.0 100.0 1,317Mid-Western Terai 34.6 1,278 88.0 6.3 5.5 0.1 100.0 442Far Western Mountains 83.7 438 94.0 3.8 1.8 0.5 100.0 367Far Western Hills 89.8 836 92.9 4.0 2.4 0.7 100.0 751Far Western Terai 19.3 1,300 91.7 3.2 3.4 1.6 100.0 251Urban 27.7 645 85.8 5.3 6.6 2.3 100.0 179Rural 62.3 5,254 91.7 3.9 3.6 0.9 100.0 3,274Education <strong>of</strong> household headNone 63.7 2,892 90.3 4.3 4.2 1.2 100.0 1,841Primary 59.2 1,299 92.7 2.5 3.6 1.2 100.0 769Secondary + 49.4 1,696 92.3 4.7 2.8 0.2 100.0 837Wealth index quintilePoorest 94.7 1,241 90.8 4.2 3.9 1.1 100.0 1,176Second 83.5 1,239 90.7 4.7 3.4 1.2 100.0 1,035Middle 56.5 1,178 93.2 2.4 3.9 0.4 100.0 665Fourth 37.8 1,127 92.4 3.5 3.4 0.8 100.0 426Richest 13.5 1,114 89.4 5.1 5.1 0.4 100.0 151Total 58.5 5,899 91.4 4.0 3.7 0.9 100.0 3,453Five cases with missing ‘education <strong>of</strong> household head’ not shownUse <strong>of</strong> improved sanitation facilitiesInadequate disposal <strong>of</strong> human excreta and lack <strong>of</strong> personal hygiene are associated with a range <strong>of</strong>diseases including diarrhoeal diseases and polio. An improved sanitation facility is defined as onethat hygienically separates human excreta from human contact. Improved sanitation can reducediarrheal diseases by more than one third, and can significantly lessen the adverse health impacts <strong>of</strong>other disorders responsible for death and disease among millions <strong>of</strong> children in developingcountries. Improved sanitation facilities for excreta disposal include flush/pour to a piped sewersystem, septic tank or pit latrine; ventilated improved pit latrine; pit latrine with slab; or compostingtoilet.Table WS.5 shows the proportion <strong>of</strong> household members in the MFWR using each type <strong>of</strong> sanitationfacility. The majority (56 percent) had no toilet facility. This was followed by an improved toiletfacility with flush to septic tank (19 percent), improved toilet facility with flush to pit latrine (12percent), improved pit latrine with slab (seven percent), and unimproved pit latrine without slab(two percent).The highest proportion <strong>of</strong> households with no toilet facility was in the Far Western Mountains (76percent) and the lowest proportion was in the Mid-Western Terai (49 percent). Urban households(31 percent) were less likely than rural households (59 percent) to have no toilet facility. Households86

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!