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 HygieneFIGURE 23: REASONS TO GET A TOILET FOR THOSE CURRENTLY WITHOUT ONE (1 = NOT IMPORTANT; 5 = VERY IMPORTANT)RURAL AREAS - North, Central and South ComparisonToilet positionCleanliness and freedomPrivacyProximityStatusVisitorsWork/maintenancePollutionToilet positionRural NorthSOUTHERN VIETNAM - Rural and Urban ComparisonRural CentralRural SouthCleanliness and freedomPrivacyProximityStatusVisitorsWork/maintenancePollution0 1 2 3 4 5Rural SouthUrban South56There is almost no difference between the responses given byrural and urban in Southern Vietnam, except for the criterion“visitors”, which people in urban areas scored lower than peoplein rural areas. The FGD showed that urban households seetoilets as a ‘must’ rather than a source of pride. Another notablepoint at all sites is that people are aware of decreasing theimpact of pollution on the surrounding area and neighbors.The concerns of those practicing open defecation in ruralareas of Central Vietnam are quite diverse. Many respondentsin urban areas indicated being concerned with beingattacked (and/or bothered) by animals during open defecation,and worried especially for the safety of their children.They already know of people being attacked by animals (seeFigure 24).Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions
Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Local Benefits of Improved Sanitation and HygieneFIGURE 24: CONCERNS OF THOSE PRACTICING OPEN DEFECATION (% OF RESPONDENTS)RURAL CENTRALFeel in dangerSafety of childrenSomeone attacked by animalsURBAN SOUTHFeel in dangerSafety of childrenSomeone attacked by animalsRURAL SOUTHFeel in dangerSafety of childrenSomeone attacked by animals0 20 40 60 80 100PercentageOftenSometimesNever4.6 EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTThe ‘External’ environment refers to the area outside thetoilet itself and is not related to the use of toilets by respondents.It can include living areas, public areas and privateland, which can all be affected by open defecation practicesand unimproved toilets. The consequences of water pollutionhave already been covered in section 4.2. The sourcesof data are mainly the ESI surveys: the physical locationsurvey, household interviews, and FGD. These data sourceshave been assessed comprehensively to understand thecontribution of each poor sanitation practice to the pollutionof the external environment, and preferences regardingtheir improvement.The solid waste management practices reflected in the householdsurvey have been investigated to assess the differentways people treat organic waste. Figure 25 shows the maindisposal practices for organic waste among populations indifferent field locations. People in the Rural North often giveorganic waste to the animals they raise, while most people inthe Urban North give it away, which reflects the income generatingactivities in each area (people in the Rural North sitespractice husbandry, while people in the Urban North sitesearn their living through business and monthly salaries).However, other urban areas apart from those in the UrbanNorth also give organic waste to animals. The explanationfor this is that Dong Thap (U1) and Tam Ky (U2) are citiesin Urban Central and Southern areas, containing manyhouseholds making an income from husbandry.www.wsp.org57
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:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45: 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 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?