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 28 shows the percentage of families with a toilet butwho still practice OD and open urination, and who disposeof young children’s excreta into the environment (put ina drain/ditch, thrown in the garbage, buried or left in theopen). More than 10% of households with children “sometimes”or “never” use their toilets. As shown in the householdsurvey, that number includes the children who maypractice OD and open urination at school, and boys whomay practice open urination elsewhere.In the Northern sites, and in urban sites of the Central region,open defecation exists despite the high rate of 100%households using toilets (including private and shared toilets),shown in Figure 29. This can be explained by the negativeattitude and behavior shown by people toward keepingcommon places clean. The data show that open defecationis more popular in the Urban North than the Rural North.However, when challenging people in the Urban North andSouth about this result, they laugh and explain “human excretais easier to be seen in streets than in bushes and rivers”(FGD).The study examined the frequency with which septic tanksand pit latrines are emptied. About 90% of septic tank toiletsin the survey were older than 2 years. However, only4.4% had been emptied once, and 0.55% had been emptiedtwice. Among the households emptying toilets, 21%used the service designated “tanker truck to unknown location”,5.3% emptied their toilets in a river, stream, pond,canal or other water body, and the rest did not know exactlywhere their toilets were emptied (the case in Lai Xa– R7).FGDs show that in most urban and rural areas, blackwastewater from septic tanks, together with untreated graywastewater, goes directly into the combined drainage, spoilingthe environment with a bad odor. The situation is thesame both for households benefiting and households notbenefiting from a community wastewater treatment station.People do acknowledge the benefit of a station thataccumulates and treats village wastewater in one place.However, households living close to a station have to sufferfrom bad odors, and villages are still polluted by overflowwastewater from the station. At sites with centralized treatmentsystems, such as Hai Phong (U3), Quang Ninh (U4)and Dak Lak (U7), people complain about the bad smellcoming from the stations. They do not know for certain,but still accuse the stations as the cause of environmentalpollution to both the water and air.Regarding the state of environmental sanitation, peoplethroughout the sites give relatively high and analogousscores to all criteria (see Figure 30). Of the six regions areas,the Rural North, Urban Central and Urban South givea lower score, equivalent to 3.2-3.5, while the others givescores of about 4.2-4.5.FIGURE 29: OPEN DEFECATION PRACTICE BY LOCATION OF FIELD SITE (% OF RESPONDENTS)Urban NorthRural NorthUrban CentralRural CentralUrban SouthRural South600 20 40 60 80 100PercentageNone/never Sometimes/little Moderately PervasiveEconomic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions
Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Vietnam | Local Benefits of Improved Sanitation and HygieneFIGURE 30: PERCEPTIONS OF THE STATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION, BY OPTION TYPE (1 = VERY BAD; 5 = VERY GOOD)Uncollected/undisposedHH wasteOpen, visible wastewaterAccumulation of stormwaterSmell from sewage,defecation and wasteDust and dirt in streetsor alleysDust and dirt in marketsor restaurantsRodents in markets, shopsor restaurantsInsects0 1 2 3 4 5Urban North Rural North Urban Central Rural Central Urban South Rural Southwww.wsp.org61
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:
Page 46 and 47:
III.Study MethodsThe study methodol
Page 48 and 49: Economic Assessment of Sanitation I
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 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?