Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Local Benefits of Improved Sanitation and Hygiene52TABLE 33: VALUE ASSOCIATED WITH REUSE PERHOUSEHOLD IN R4Variable% householdsOwnuseSellingAverage value(VND ‘000, 2009)OwnuseSellingComposting (fertilizer) 77 23 1,320 540Biogas generation(with animal excreta)100 0 960 0Table 33 shows the value of reuse per household at site R4.Most households with a composting toilet reuse the compostproduct for fertilizer. Composting toilets are found ina small number of non-farming households, which representonly 1% of the total population. These households giveor sell their composting fertilizer to other households. Sinceit is not easy to sell biogas, households and farms with biogasdigesters can only use it in their own plot. At site R4,about 5% of biogas digesters have problems of leaking andimproper operation, leading to insufficient gas generation.The reason for these problems is the poor construction andinstallation quality of the first series of digesters, which wereinstalled by inexperienced workers. Other reasons were anunstable number of pigs kept at the household, and improperoperation and maintenance.A very similar picture is found at other rural places wheresludge, excreta and biogas are utilized. Calculations of thebenefit of reusing resources from sanitation interventionscompared to costs at other surveyed sites are described inChapter 6 and Chapter 8.4.5 INTANGIBLE SANITATION PREFERENCESDue to a lack of other studies examining the intangible aspectsof sanitation, the data presented here come entirelyfrom ESI fieldwork. The data come from two main sources:a close-ended household questionnaire that was applied tothe most senior available household member; and focusgroup discussions (FGD), which were held with both menand women of different ages. These two surveys collectedperceptions, opinions and preferences from a representativesection of the communities (see section 2.3 for methods andsampling approach). The results presented here describe: (a)the communities’ understanding of what ‘sanitation’ is; (b)why households have a particular sanitation option; (c) thedegree of satisfaction with current sanitation options; andfor those without a toilet (d) the reasons to get one, thecharacteristics they look for in a toilet, and the willingnessto pay for one. These data were collected from 11 sites withimproved toilet and human excreta management (excludingcase studies at two sites – Thanh Hoa and Dong Nai– and SWM at four sites – Nghe An, Hanoi, Bac Giang Uand R) in rural and urban areas in Northern, Central andSouthern Vietnam (see Table 34).TABLE 34: GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF SURVEYED SITESRegion Urban sites Rural sitesNorthHai Phong (U3);Quang Ninh (U4)Dan Phuong (R4);Lai Xa (R7)Central Quang Nam (U2) Quang Nam (R5);Hue (R7);Quang Ngai (R3)SouthDong Thap (U1);Dak Lak (U7)Vinh Long (R2)Respondents’ understanding of sanitation is taken primarilyfrom FGD and the household questionnaire. These showedthat respondents have a comprehensive knowledge aboutsanitation. However, their answers also reflect the fact thatin Vietnam, people tend to think of sanitation as publicsanitation rather than personal hygiene (such as hand washingand stopping OD). One reason could be because ODis no longer common at some study sites, and most householdshave access to tap water, which is considered clean andgood for hand washing, even without soap. Another reasonis that there are several campaigns related to the “green environment”and “village cleaning events” held at provincial,district and village levels through the year. All respondentsreferred “no garbage” as a key element of sanitation.At the Northern Vietnam field sites, men and women witha toilet rank “freedom” and “cleanliness” as the most importantreasons they have one. Those without toilets refer to“lack of money” as the main reason. At Lai Xa (R7) thereare only a few households without toilets, and most livenext to their brothers and sisters’ houses, which do have toilets.Therefore, going to the toilet can sometimes be inconvenientbut is rarely a big issue. Despite the fact that DanPhuong (R4), Hai Phong (U3) and Quang Ninh (U4) arein the North, these sites are quite economically developed,and all selected households have toilets. As shown in Table36, they refer to the “tendency of society” as the reason forhaving a toilet not only for the house, but also on each floorwithin the house.Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions
Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Local Benefits of Improved Sanitation and HygieneTABLE 35: RESPONDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF SANITATION, IN RANKED ORDER OF IMPORTANCE (1 = MOST IMPORTANT)Rural NorthRegionWith toilet1. Clean environment2. No garbage3. No bad smell4. Sewerage and drainage5. No flies or ratsFocus Group DiscussionsWithout toilet1. No garbage2. No bad smell from drainage system3. Septic tank toilet4. Tap water5. No pollutionUrban NorthRural CentralUrban CentralRural SouthUrban South1. High coverage of trees2. Dispose of garbage in the right places3. No bad smell4. Safe food5. Waste water doesn’t run directly into the sea1. Clean environment2. No garbage3. No flies4. No human or animal excreta1. Clean environment2. Sewerage system, especially after the rain3. No garbage4. Waste water does not exist in the streets1. Clean environment2. No flies3. No garbage4. No pollution1. No animal waste2. Treated waste water3. Clean environment4. Garbage collection service(no households without toilet)1. No garbage2. Water sources protection3. No flies(no households without toilet)1. No garbage2. Green environment3. Low density of people1. Clean environment2. Pour flush toilet3. No fliesAt the Central Vietnam field sites, women with toilets consider“comfort” and “cleanliness” as the most important factor,while men simply think of a toilet as a must for urbanhouseholds. The situation in the South is quite similar tothat in the North and Central regions. Safety was emphasizedby women as a reason to own a toilet, especially foreasy and safe access at night.In terms of the level of satisfaction with current toilet option,the analysis compares the satisfaction between thosewith improved toilets and those with unimproved toilets(Figure 22). The result is that in the Rural North there isvery little difference between the satisfaction of householdswith improved and unimproved toilets. The data are basedon a small sample size (only in Lai Xa [R7] there werehouseholds with unimproved toilets). Second, respondentshad some difficulty in scoring differently multiple criteria,all of which they considered important; hence, the score forall criteria is at least 4.In the Urban North, 100% of selected households haveimproved toilets, which makes comparison with the RuralNorth not possible. While most criteria are given scores ofover 4, the criterion related to their pride in front of visitorsgets the lowest score, because respondents consider atoilet a must in the household and “there are many otherthings we are proud of rather than toilets.” In addition,many households with improved toilets want to improvetheir toilets with more facilities, add toilets for each floor,or combine toilets and bathrooms in one block. This indicatesthat they are demanding “comfort and privacy” foreach member of the family rather than for the family asa whole.Figure 22 shows that rural households with and withoutimproved toilets in Central Vietnam gave the highest scoresto the criteria “privacy”, “pollution”, “cleanliness” and “freedom”.This shows that even people without improved sanitationunderstand the problem.www.wsp.org53
Page 3:
Economic Assessment ofSanitation In
Page 9:
Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 17:
ForewordTarget 10 of the Millennium
Page 22 and 23:
Glossary of TermsBenefit-cost ratio
Page 24 and 25:
AcknowledgmentsThe Economics of San
Page 27 and 28:
V. National Benefits of Improved Sa
Page 29 and 30:
Table 32. Sanitation coverage, and
Page 31:
Figure 34. What factors were of mos
Page 34 and 35:
Annex Table E1. Level of satisfacti
Page 36 and 37:
Annex Table J1. Site U1 (Dong Thap,
Page 38 and 39:
PopulationSelected Development Indi
Page 40 and 41: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 46 and 47: III.Study MethodsThe study methodol
Page 60: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
Page 70 and 71: IV.Local Benefits of Improved Sanit
Page 117 and 118: VI.Costs of Improved Sanitationand
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
ReferencesAcharya A, Paunio MK and
Page 152 and 153:
ANNEX 1: PROGRAM APPROACH ANALYSIST
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
ANNEX TABLESANNEX A. STUDY METHODST
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
show all

Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?