Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam - WSP

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