Water and Sanitation

Report
Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys
Data Interpretation, Further Analysis and
Dissemination Workshop
Water and Sanitation
Overview of presentation

Water (4 table)

Sanitation (3 tables)

Drinking water and sanitation ladders (1 table)

Handwashing (2 tables)
2
Background – What’s included in MICS?
Drinking water
 Use of main drinking water source
• On premises?
• Off premises?

Application of household water treatment

Time-to-source (round-trip)

Who usually goes to the source to collect water?
3
Indicators and definitions
4.1: Drinking Water [MDG Indicator]
Proportion of the
population that
uses an
improved
drinking water
source
Piped into dwelling, plot or yard
Piped to neighbour
Public tap/standpipe
Tube well/borehole
Protected dug well
Protected spring
Rainwater collection
4
Table WS.1: Use of improved water sources
Percent distribution of household population according to main source of drinking water and percentage of household
population using improved drinking water sources, Country, Year
Main source of drinking water
Improved sources
Piped water
Public TubeRain- BotTo
tap/ well/ ProPro- water tled
Into
Into yard/ neigh- stand- bore- tected tected collect wadwelling
plot
bour
pipe hole well spring ion tera
Unimproved sources
Unpr
Unpr otect
Cart
Bototect ed
with Surfac tled
ed sprin Tanker tank/
e wawell g
truck drum water tera
Numbe
% using
r of
improved househ
sources of old
Othe Tota drinking membe
r
l
water1
rs
Bottled water presented two times
Bottled water is an improved source if also source of other
purposes such as cooking and handwashing is also an
improved source
1
MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 - Use of improved drinking water sources
5
Country Example
6
Poorer segments of the population have lower access to
improved sources of drinking water
100
81
80
Coverage (%)
69
60
51
40
32
20
14
0
Poorest
2nd
3rd
4th
Richest
7
1990
2008
8
1990
2008
9
10
Indicators and definitions
4.2: Water treatment
Percentage of the
population
applying any of
the following
treatment
methods
Boiling
Add bleach/chlorine
Use water filter
Solar disinfection
11
Table WS.2: Household water treatment
Percentage of household population by drinking water treatment method used in the household, and for
household members living in households where an unimproved drinking water source is used, the percentage who
are using an appropriate treatment method, Country, Year
Number of
household
Num- Percentage of household
members in
ber of members in households
households
Add
Solar Let it
house using unimproved drinking
using
bleach Strain Use dis- stand
Miss- hold water sources and using an unimproved
No
/chlor- through water infect and Oth- ing/ mem appropriate water treatment drinking water
ne Boil
ine a cloth filter ion settle er DK bers
method1
sources
Water treatment method used in the household
Responses may total to more than 100
percent since households may be using
more than one treatment method
1 MICS indicator 4.2 - Water treatment
12
Country Example
13
Table WS.3: Time to source of drinking water
Percent distribution of household population according to time to go to source of drinking water, get water and
return, for users of improved and unimproved drinking water sources, Country, Year
Time to source of drinking water
Users of improved drinking water sources
Users of unimproved drinking water
sources
Number of
Water on Less than 30 30 minutes Missing/ Water on Less than 30 minutes Missing
household
premises
minutes
or more
DK
premises 30 minutes or more
/DK Total members
14
Country Example
15
16
Table WS.4: Person collecting water
Percentage of households without drinking water on premises, and percent distribution of households without
drinking water on premises according to the person usually collecting drinking water used in the household, Country,
Year
Person usually collecting drinking water
Percentage of
households without
drinking water on
Number
premises
of households
Adult
woman
Number of
Female
Male
households
child
child
without
under age under Missing/
drinking water
Adult man
15
age 15
DK
Total on premises
MICS5 Data Interpretation, Further Analysis
and Dissemination Workshop
17
Country Example
18
Overview of MICS5 contents

Water (4 table)

Sanitation (3 tables)

Drinking water and sanitation ladders (1 table)

Handwashing (2 tables)
19
Background – What’s included in MICS?
Sanitation

Use of improved sanitation

Safe disposal of child faeces (U5 questionnaire)
20
Indicators and definitions
4.3: Use of improved sanitation [MDG Indicator]
Percentage of the
population that
uses an improved
sanitation facility
which is not
shared
Flush/pour flush to:
piped sewer system
septic tank
pit latrine
Ventilated improved pit latrine
Pit latrine with slab
Composting toilet
21
Indicators and definitions
4.3: Use of improved sanitation [MDG Indicator]
Percentage of the
population that
uses an improved
sanitation facility
which is not
shared
Is this facility shared with other
households?
No -----------> Private facility
Yes
Households you know?
No ---------> Public facility
Yes --------> Shared facility
How many households?
22
Table WS.5: Types of sanitation facilities
Percent distribution of household population according to type of toilet facility used by the household, Country,
Year
Type of toilet facility used by household
Improved sanitation
facility
Unimproved sanitation facility
Pit
Flush/Pour flush to:
Ventil
Flush/P latrine
Hang
Open
ated Pit
our witho
ing
defecat
Unknown impro latrin
flush to ut
toilet
ion (no
Piped
place/not ved
e Compos somew slab/
/
facility,
sewer Septic
sure/DK pit with -ting
here open Buck latrin Othe bush,
system tank Pit latrine where latrine slab toilet
else
pit
et
e
r field) Total
Numb
er of
house
hold
memb
ers
WS5 table doesn’t present the 4.3 indicator value.
Use of improved sanitation facilities includes
information on shared or public sanitation facilities
which is not included in this table
23
Table WS.6: Use and sharing of sanitation facilities
Percent distribution of household population by use of private and public sanitation facilities and use of shared
facilities, by users of improved and unimproved sanitation facilities, Country, Year
Users of unimproved sanitation
Users of improved sanitation facilities
facilities
Shared by
Not
shared1
Public
facility
Open
defecati
Number
More
on (no
of house5
More than
5 house- than 5 Missi facility,
hold
househol 5 house- Missing Not Public holds or house- ng/D bush,
memds or less holds
/DK shared facility less
holds
K
field) Total
bers
Those using a shared or public
sanitation facility of an otherwise
improved type of sanitation facility
are excluded from the indicator
1
Shared by
Be careful when comparing with
results from previous MICS
surveys: indicator needs to be
recalculated by taking into account
information on shared facilities
MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9 - Use of improved sanitation
24
Country Example
25
The poorest in Nigeria are 5 times less likely than the richest to use
an improved sanitation facility
100
6
24
80
42
36
8
32
Coverage (%)
20
60
35
40
41
86
42
56
20
33
16
23
0
Poorest
2nd
improved type
3rd
unimproved type
4th
Richest
open defecation
26
28
29
30
Indicators and definitions
4.4: Safe disposal of child faeces
]
Percentage of
children age 0-2
years whose last
stools were
disposed off
safely
Child used toilet/latrine
 Put/rinsed into toilet/latrine
31
Table WS.7: Disposal of child's faeces
Percent distribution of children age 0-2 years according to place of disposal of child's faeces, and the percentage of children age 0-2 years
whose stools were disposed of safely the last time the child passed stools, Country, Year
Percentage of
Place of disposal of child's faeces
children whose
Child used Put/rinsed Put/rinsed Thrown
stools were
Number of
toilet/latrin into toilet into drain
into
Left in
Missing
disposed of children age
e
or latrine or ditch garbage Buried the open Other
/DK
Total
safely1
0-2 years
Type of sanitation facility in dwelling
Improved
100.0
Unimproved
100.0
Open defacation
100.0
Region
It may be argued that disposing of diapers
Region 1
100.0
with
solid
waste
is
adequate;
Region 2
100.0
Region 3
100.0
this eventually depends on how solid
Region 4
100.0
waste
is
handled
about
which
we
do
not
Region 5
100.0
have
information.
Residence
Urban
100.0
Rural
100.0
…
100.0
1 MICS indicator 4.4 - Safe disposal of child’s faeces
32
Overview of MICS5 contents

Water (4 table)

Sanitation (3 tables)

Drinking water and sanitation ladders (1 table)

Handwashing (2 tables)
33
Table WS.8: Drinking water and sanitation ladders
Percentage of household population by drinking water and sanitation ladders, Country, Year
Percentage of household population using:
Improved drinking
water1
Unimprov
Piped into
ed
dwelling,
Other
drinking
plot or yard improved water
Unimproved
sanitation
Total
Improved Shared Unimprov Open
sanitation improved
ed
defecatio
2
facilities facilities
n
Total
Region
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
100.0
100.0
Improved Number
drinking
of
water
househo
sources and
ld
improved member
sanitation
s
1 MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 - Use of improved drinking water sources
2 MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9 - Use of improved sanitation
34
Country Example
35
Overview of MICS5 contents

Water (4 table)

Sanitation (3 tables)

Drinking water and sanitation ladders (1 table)

Handwashing (2 tables)
36
Indicators and definitions
4.5: Place for hand washing
Proportion of households with
a specific place for hand
washing where water and soap
are present
4.6: Place for hand washing
Assessed
through
observation
Proportion of households with
soap anywhere in the dwelling
37
Table WS.9: Water and soap at place for handwashing
Percentage of households where place for handwashing was observed, percentage with no specific place for handwashing, and percent
distribution of households by availability of water and soap at specific place for handwashing, Country, Year
Percentage of households :
Place for handwashing observed
Water is not available
Water is available and:
and:
No soap:
No soap:
With no
specific place
No
for
other
Where place handwashing
No other
cleansi
for
in the
Ash, mud, cleansing
Ash, mud, ng
handwashing dwelling, yard, Number of Soap or sand
agent
Soap or sand agent
was observed
or plot
households present present present present present present
1
No
specific
place for
handwas
hing in
the
dwelling,
yard, or
plot Total
Number of
Percentage of
households
households with a where place for
specific place for handwashing was
handwashing observed or with
where water and no specific place
soap or other for handwashing
cleansing agent in the dwelling,
are present1
yard, or plot
MICS indicator 4.5 - Place for handwashing
38
Table WS.10: Availability of soap or other cleansing agent
Percent distribution of households by availability of soap or other cleansing agent in the dwelling, Country, Year
Place for handwashing observed
Soap or
other
cleansing
agent
observed
Place for handwashing not
observed
Percentage
of
Soap or other cleansing agent not observed at place for
households
handwashing
Not
with soap
able/Does
or other
Soap or No soap or not want to
cleansing
other
other
show soap or
agent
Number
Soap or other No soap or other Not able/Does not cleansing cleansing
other
anywhere in
of
cleansing agent cleansing agent want to show soap or agent
agent in
cleansing
the
househol
shown
in household other cleansing agent shown household
agent
Total dwelling1
ds
1
MICS indicator 4.6 - Availability of soap or other cleansing agent
39
Country Example
40
Expected patterns





Drinking water coverage is higher than sanitation
coverage
Urban coverage is higher than rural coverage
Open defecation rates are higher in rural areas than
in urban areas
Piped connections into the household, dwelling, plot
or yard are higher in urban than in rural areas
The use of shared improved sanitation facilities is
higher in urban than in rural areas
41

similar documents