ASSESSING THE IMPACTS OF PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES ON

ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION IN KINONDONI MUNICIPALITY,

TANZANIA

BY

ALLEN A. KALONGOLA

REG. NO: BEMI10029/81/DF

A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the Award of ADegree of Bachelor of Science in Environmental Management of Kampala

International University-Uganda

September 2011

DECLARATION

I Allen Aldilyo Kalongola, declare that all that is included in this work is my own effort and has

not been presented by any other student for the award of a degree or its equivalent in this institu

tion or any other. Where other individuals, groups, authors, organizations, reports and others

have been used has clearly been indicated.

STUDENT: ALLEN ALDILYO KALONGOLA (BEMI10029I81IDF)

SIGNATU1~ ~DATE

APPROVAL

This research report entitled “Assessing the impacts of participatory approaches on environ

mental sanitation promotion in Kinondoni Municipality, Tanzania is submitted in partial

fulfilment for the Award of Bachelor Degree of science in environmental management of Kam

pala International University by Allen A. Kalongola, with my approval as the Supervisor.

Supervisor: M~S ANNE TUMUSHABE

Signature....~

Date f~.I~J.!J

11

DEIMCTION

I dedicate this work to my beloved wife Mrs. Mary Ndihenze Kalongola, Sons Victor Kalongola

and Aggrey Kalongola for their molar support and tolerance during my study and my absence in

the family.

111

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The accomplishment of this report could not have been achieved without God who created me

who I am now, no matter what the circumstances I have gone through.

I thank Him for the love, good health and everything He gives me every day in my life during

my studies.

I would like to extend my special thanks to my beloved father Aldilyo Kalongola and mother

Victoria John Kalongola for the special care,’ love and for financing my education since I was

young up to where I am now, without forgetting my boss Municipal Medical of Health Officer in

Kinondoni Municipality for his support during my study.

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Ms. Tumushabe Anne for her de

voted and tireless effort to supervise and offer advice to make this document a success.

Lastly, I gratefully thank my Lecturers Mr. Omuna Daniel, Mr. Musinguzi Danison and Mr. Eni

ru Emanuel who contributed some effort towards the completion of my study. Also I would like

to thank my colleagues for their advice during my study inside the University and outside the

University.

iv

ABBREVIATIONS

Au Acute Respiratory Infection

BRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee

CAP Community Action Planning

CHAST Child Hygiene and Sanitation Training

CHMT Council Health Management Team

CLTS Community-Led Total Sanitation

CRSP Central Rural Sanitation Programme (in India)

CORPs Community Own Resource Persons

CtC Child-to-Child approach

DISHARI Decentralized Integrated Sanitation, Hygiene and ReformInitiative

DRC Democratic Republic of Congo

KIVIC Kinondoni Municipal Council

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal

SACOSAN South Asian Conference on Sanitation

SARAR Self-esteem, Associative strengths, Resourcefulness,Action-planning and Responsibility

SLTS School Led Total Sanitation

JMP Joint Monitoring Programme

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MoH Ministry of Health

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

OD Open defecation

v

ODF Open defecation free

PADEAR Assistance Program for the Development of theWater Supply and Sanitation Sector in RuralAreas (Benin)

National Rural Sanitation and HygienePHA Promotion-Benin

PHAST Participatory Hygiene and SanitationTransformation

WDC Ward Development Committee

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTSDescriptionsDeclaration

Approval ii

Dedication iii

Acknowledgement iv

Abbreviations v

Table of Contents vii

List of tables x

List of figures xi

List of plate xii

Abstract xiii

CHAPTER ONEIntroduction 11.0 Background 11.2 Statement of the Problem 31.3 Main Objective 31.3.lSpecific Objectives 31.4 Research Questions 31.5 Scope of the Study 41.6 Significance of the Study 4

CHAPTER TWOLiterature review 5

2.0 Introduction 5

2.lParticipatory Approaches on Environmental Sanitation 5

2.1.1 The value of Participatory Approaches in Community training 7

2.2 Community knowledge on environmental sanitation approaches 8

2.2.lExperience to date in India 10

2.3 Deficiencies in Participatory approaches used on Environmental Sanitation

Promotion 12

vii

CHAPTER THREE

Methodology 13

3.0 Introduction 13

3.lStudy Design 13

3.2 Study Area 13

3.2.1 Location and Area 13

3.2.2 Climate 13

3.2.3 Population 14

3.3 Sample size and sampling procedure 14

3.4 Data collection tools 15

3.4.1 Questionnaires 15

3.4.2 Interviews 16

3.4.3 Observation and photography 16

3.5 Data processing and analysis 16

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 17

4.1 Introduction 17

4.2 Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents 17

4.3 Existing participatory approaches on Environmental Sanitation

Promotion 20

4.4 Community Knowledge on participatory approaches 22

4.5 Deficiencies in participatory approaches 23

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24

5.1 Conclusions 24

5.1.1 Existing participatory approaches on Environmental Sanitation

Promotion 24

5.1.2 Community Knowledge on participatory approaches 24

viii

5.1.3 Deficiencies in participatory approaches 24

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 25

Bibliography 26

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Request Letter 28

Appendix II: Community Chairpersons interview guide 29

Appendix III: Semi-structured closed and open ended questionnaires for

community level 32

Appendix IV: Introductory Letter 38

Appendix V: Permission Letter 39

ix

LISTS OF TABLES

Table 1:

Sample size of household of communities

Table 2:

Demographic characteristics 17

x

LISTS OF FIGURES

Figurel:

Pie chart shows Participatory approaches used in the

areas 21

Figure 2:

A pie chart shows the knowledge level of community

members 22

xi

LIST OF PLATE

Plate 1:

Photo shows environmental health workers and

volunteers 21

xii

ABSTRACT

Participatory approaches are methods that emphasize local knowledge and enable people to make

their own appraisal, analysis and plans. This also means each of us has a responsibility to plan

for the better living environment. It is in this view that a researcher conducted a study to assess

the impacts of participatory approaches on environmental sanitation promotion in Kinondoni

Municipality, Tanzania.

It aimed at ideniifying the existing participatory approaches on environmental sanitation

promotion, level of community knowledge on environmental sanitation approaches and the

deficiencies in participatory approaches used in environmental sanitation promotion areas.

The study was cross-sectional and employed both quantitative and qualitative methods of data

collection. The households and community leaders were the study unit, 108 households and 5

community leaders were sampled proportionate to the population size of 2900 households and

random sampling was carried out in ten wards.

~2 respondents out of 113 of the targeted sample size responded. The study found out from the

responde~c that, the participatory approach mostly used was PHAST; the approach is used in

environmental sanitation projects such as water supply, low cost latrines construction and storm

water drainage construction. There was a high level of community awareness on the approaches

which shows that the responsible people are successfully implementing the approach.

From this, I recommended that for effective implementation and promotion of sanitation, anintegration of all approaches needs to be used because PHAST can’t work independently.

xlii

cases and deaths went up this was 1998, 1999 and 2000 when KMC report showed that there was

an average of 3455 cases and 196 deaths per year and most of them were children between 5

years old and 15 years old and mainly women. It was only there when Japanese agency, known

as Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) showed the interest of helping Dar es Salaam

City Council to train the Environmental Health Officers on participatory approaches in order to

use them in health education for prevention of sanitation related diseases and environmental

sanitation promotion. Kinondoni Municipal Council (KMC) was among the three Municipalities

of Dar es Salaam City Council others are ‘Ilala Municipal Council and Temeke Municipal

Council. In 2005 KMC conducted a survey to detect the change of environmental sanitation

promotion in those project areas of Manzese, Tandale, Kigogo, Mburahati, Mwananyamala,

Magomeni, Mabibo, Ubungo, Ndugumbi and Hananasif and the survey showed a change in the

death cases from 2500 to 1300 cases and average deaths of 55 at the end of 2005. The survey

also indicated a drop by 10 per cent since 2005 of household with access to environmental

sanitation facilities such as water supply. It also was found out that about 65 per cent of children

and poor families who mostly live in slum and squatter areas died outside the health facilities and

a low coverage of the sanitation facilities such as toilets and washing facilities in those wards

(Survey report 2005).

Participatory approaches are methods that emphasize local knowledge and enable people to

make their own appraisal, analysis and plans. Mostly participatory approaches aim to empower

local people in planning and management of development projects and programmes, and

encourage them to support their own initiatives and actions.

Various participatory approaches are used in Kinondoni Municipal Council (KMC) intervention

areas for environmental sanitation promotion such as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA),

Participatory Hygiene And Sanitation Transformation (PHAST), Child to Child Approach (CtC),

WASH in Schools, Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) and Participatory Impact

Monitoring (P1M). However, the effectiveness of the approaches shows negative impact to the

improvement of environmental sanitation promotion to some intervention areas, so it leaves the

room for another study which will cover the period from 2005 to date.

2

1.2 Statement of the problem

Every individual deserves to be protected from diseases and other health hazards posed by the

poor environmental sanitation and poor hygiene practices. In Kinondoni Municipal Council

(KMC) the last household survey indicated a drop by 10 per cent since 2005 of the households

with access to environmental sanitation facilities such as water supply which had led to diseases

outbreak to ten wards of KMC, low coverage of sanitation facilities like toilets and handwashing

facilities. The survey also found out that abçut 65 percent of children and poor families who

mostly live in slum and squatter areas died outside the health facilities (Survey report 2005).

Little is known or documented about the status of sanitation and hygiene practice in Kinondoni

Municipality after the participatory approaches were introduced and since the last 2005

household survey. The concern of this study therefore will be to make assessment on the status

of participatory approaches practiced in the intervention areas involved in participatory

approaches for environmental sanitation promàtion areas in KMC.

1.3 Main objective

To assess the impact of participatory approaches on environmental sanitation at Kinondoni

Municipality in Tanzania.

1.3.1 Specific objectives

To identify the existing participatory approaches on environmental

sanitation promotion.

To find out the community knowledge on environmental sanitation

approaches.

• To identify deficiencies in participatory approaches used in environmental

sanitation promotion areas.

1.4 Research questions

The research questions of the study were as follows;

3

What are the existing participatory approaches on environmental sanitation

promotion?

0 What is environmental sanitation approaches used in promoting the community?

• Which are the deficiencies in participatory approaches used in environmental

sanitation promotion areas?

1.5 Scope of the study

Kinondoni Municipality is authorized to have responsibility to provide water, sanitation and

hygiene, solid waste management and new technology on feaces disposal in order to prevent

fecal oral diseases outbreak and promote environmental sanitation.

The study will focus on Kinondoni Municipal council wards which are most vulnerable to poor

environmental sanitation and mostly affected by communicable disease outbreaks which include

Manzese, Tandale, Kigogo, Mburahati, Mwananyamala, Magomeni, Mabibo, Ubungo,

Ndugumbi and Hananasif. It will investigate the existing participatory approaches on

environmental sanitation promotion, hygiene, behavioral change and economical status on the

community.

1.6 Significance of the Study

The major goal of the Participatory approaches is to strengthen and build capacity of the

community to fulfill their rights and obligation of providing quality and better lives in order to

contribute to environmental sanitation promotion.

Findings from this study will allow the Municipality to do comparison of the results with the

baseline survey which was done during implementation of some of participatory approaches in

2005. This will allow strengthening of partnership with other communities.

Problems which will be identified will allow policy makers and other partners to review the

guidelines of available approaches so that they can address those problems by tackling the root

causes as well as ensuring the participatory approaches activities are sustained by building

capacities among communities to solve their own problems. Finally research findings will

provide practical experience, evidence and guidance for improvement of participatory

approaches in Kinondoni Municipality and elsewhere in Tanzania.

4

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

This chapter contains the different studies which explored the various participatory approaches

on environmental sanitation and behaviour changes, Environmental sanitation facilities contain

the strategies put in the place from different countries on reduction of the sanitation related

diseases and the community knowledge on environmental related diseases.

2.1 Participatory Approaches on Environmental Sanitation

To date no satisfactory strategy for reducing communicable diseases outbreak and deaths from

poor environmental sanitation, but implementation of Participatory Hygiene And Sanitation

Transformation (PHAST) which empower the community on sanitation ladder and hygiene

practices. According to the study done in Tigray Ethiopia shows that mortality rate was reduced

by 40 per cent in the areas were PHAST approach implemented and taught the community how

to prevent themselves on communicable diseases (Kidane et al 2000).

However, whilst open defecation has been reduced to a great degree in Bangladesh sustainability

remains a major challenge. In a flood-prone and poverty-stricken country like Bangladesh,

permanently eradicating open defecating does not stop at constructing a sanitation latrine and

requires its proper use and maintenance. The two programmes of DISHARI and the BRAC

WASH in Bangladesh used the participatory software approaches of Participatory, Community

Based Total Hygiene, and WASH for School, Public-Private Partnerships and Household Water

Treatment and Safe Storage which prove successful even before the targeted year of GoB of

2010 to be ended. Also in Ethiopia, sanitation and hygiene are only recently receiving the

attention they deserve. As recently as 2005, the Government of Ethiopia reported that 60 per cent

of the diseases burden in Ethiopia was attributable to poor sanitation and hygiene with 15 per

cent of the total number of deaths from diarrhea, mainly among the large population of children

under five [MoN 2005]. Their statistics also showed that more than 250,000 children were dying

each year from sanitation and hygiene related diseases.

5

In the same report the government highlight that a very low number of households [between 6%

and 18%] had access to improved sanitation and that there was not strong tradition of

handwashing with soap [or a substitute] after defecation. Reasons given were a chronic water

shortage, a lack of surplus cash to purchase soap and a general lack of awareness about the

importance of handwashing.

Sanitation and hygiene have since been identified as essential components of primary health care

and have been given their own institutional home within the Ministry of Health [MoH].

Subsequently, the MoH has set the national target for sanitation in their Universal Access Plan

and aim to achieve 100% coverage by 2012- thereby exceeding the MDG target of halving, by

2015, the proportion of people without. sustainable access to basic sanitation. The

WHO/UNICEF-JMp [2008] reports that between 1990 and 2006 in the rural areas access to

sanitation rose only 6% to just 8%. A massive rise in the rate of increase of both access to and

usage of latrine was clearly needed to bring about improvements in the health of the rural

population.

Educating the Sornaliland population, in particular the rural population, in matters of hygiene

and sanitation proves to be a major challenge for improving their living conditions. Numerous

approaches have been and are being used, ranging from simple public campaigns conveying

general messages to long-term participatory training in individual villages or towns. In rural

areas, where access to information is poorest, the latter has shown to be the most promising and

sustainable approach. Less intensive methods make sense in predominantly urban public

awareness campaigns, but continue to be used as the only form of education in many rural

interventions. This happens for a variety of reasons like mandates, funding or security

restrictions.

However, some organizations have demonstrated that long-term participatory in ethodologies are

feasible and practical in Somaliland. The sector is therefore characterised by a wide variety of

methodologies and a common approach remains to be established. To facilitate this, Caritas

Switzerland and Caritas Luxembourg, in a consortium as ‘Swiss Group’ and funded by the

European Union, have adapted the existing PHAST methodology for the Sornaliland context.

Based on PHAST they have also developed the CHAST approach for educating children in

hygiene and sanitation, and have productively applied both in their projects. The Swiss Group

experience continues to be shared with other development partners through training courses and

workshops.

2.1.1 The value of Participatory Approaches in Coniniunity training

Participatory approaches to training are an established instrument of development assistance. The

advantages are evident. The feeling of process ownership that is created by participation boosts

sustainability of the training results. The underlying philosophy of the PHAST approach are

SARAR, and CHAST explores its main ideas of involvement in decision making, local

knowledge appreciation and enjoyable group learning to change hygiene and sanitation

behaviour. Participation requires time and commitment, as it builds on mutual respect between

the trainer and the trainee. The success of participation consequently depends on the wider

environment of the community training. Access to the community, capacity of the development

partner, and the duration of available funding are core factors. Numerous programmes that are

participatory by name fall short of these requirements and end up simply being teaching, creating

knowledge with a limited life span, but certainly no stable behavioural change (WSSCC Report

2010).

This fine balance between mere teaching and participatory training is evident in the approaches

to Hygiene and Sanitation promotion and the PHAST method. PHAST has created a wide range

of visual training materials that are, however, of limited impact if the underlying philosophy is

not fully supported and the effort of full participation is not made. The use of the visual aids by

themselves may be productive in public awareness campaigns that buUd on previous

participatory training; by itself it is clearly insufficient. This variety of deviation from an

essentially participatory method is evident in the Somaliland context and arguably is a main

obstacle to sustainable behaviour change (Volker Hüls February 2005).

Also, CLTS refers to Community-Led Total Sanitation. This is an integrated approach to

achieving and sustaining open defecation free (ODF) status. CLTS entails the facilitation of the

community’s own analysis of their sanitation profile, their practices of defecation and the

consequences, leading to collective action to become ODF.

7

2.2 Community knowledge on environmental sanitation approaches

Bangladesh is a small, flood-prone country with one of the highest population densities in the

world. This creates fierce competition for the limited land that is suitable for habitation and

cultivation. In its favour, Bangladesh has a thriving non-government sector, with non-

governments {NGOsj reaching about 75 per cent of rural settlements, and devising innovative

and widely-copied approaches to development. Bangladesh has been at the forefront of recent

sanitation development in South Asia. In 2003, the Government of Bangladesh [GoB] hosted the

first South Asian Conference on Sanitation [SACOSAN], with international recognition of the

new approaches to sanitation provision developed by NGOs in Bangladesh. The GoB is

committed to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) targets and has emphasized

improving sanitation as a national priority. Following SACOSAN, the Gob set its own national

target which is to achieve 100% sanitation by 2010 [Government of Bangladesh, 2005]. This

challenging target is 15 years ahead of the MDG target.

Statistics do indeed show that in the last few years Bangladesh has witnessed a most remarkable

change in sanitation coverage. In late 2003, the Government estimated sanitation coverage to be

29% and 60% in rural and urban areas respectively. By the end of 2008, these figures had shot up

to 88% for both urban and rural areas [GoB; 2008], it is estimated that more than 90 million

people have gained access to sanitation within the household in the last five years. Similarly, the

Republic of Benin is a small country in West Africa with a population of 8.5 million. Water

supply and sanitation in Benin has been subject to considerable progress since the l990s and

service coverage is higher than in many other African countries; the WHO/UN1CEF~JMp [2008]

states that improved sanitation coverage have risen from 12% in 1990 to 30% in 2006. In the

rural areas the coverage is still relatively low in 2006 11% of the population had an improved

latrine [up from just 2% in 1990] but encouragingly the Government of Ben in has adopted a

national strategy to address the problem.

Since 2005 the Government of Benin has been implementing its own ‘scaled-Lip’ version of the

PADEAR project in five departments. The National Rural Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Program [PHA]. Benin’s national rural sanitation marketing and hygiene promotion programme

[PHA from its full French title Promotion de 1 ‘hygiene et de 1 ‘assainissement [translated as

Hygiene and Basic Sanitation Promotion] is operated by the Directorate for Hygiene and Basic

8

Sanitation [DHABJ within the Ministry of Health. PHA is highly structured and tested approach

in which government outreach workers engage communities and train and supervise community

volunteers to conduct a sequence of promotional and educational activities within their

community. Social marketing messages, consumer technology education and technical support

are used to create demand for sanitation while streamlined PHAST-like participatory tools are

used to address hygiene education and behavior changes. No hardware subsides are used in the

programme.

A strategic common approach to hygiene and sanitation training and hygiene and sanitation in

general could be achieved at different levels of stringency. A ‘Best Practices’ paper could

certainly be a good basis, and national standards for all aspects of hygiene and sanitatjoi~,

including training, could build on such a basic document. A national hygiene and sanitation

policy would be the most stringent document. Such Policy appears to be the most suitable

instrument to tackle the structural problems in the sector, and it would be able to build on and

expand the successful establishment of policies in the water and the health sector. Beyond

hygiene and sanitation this will further strengthen a government that still lacks capacity and has

the potential to empower local government. Despite significant investments over the last 20 years

India faces a daunting hygiene and sanitation challenge. UNICEF 2010 estimate that over

400,000 children under the age of five die each year from diarrhoea, more than 1,000 every day.

Several million more suffer from multiple episodes of diarrhoea and still others fall ill on

account of Hepatitis A, enteric fever, intestinal worms and eye and skin infections caused by

poor hygiene and unsafe drinking water. Diarrhoea remains the major cause of death amongst

children after respiratory-tract infections, with unhygienic practices and unsafe drinking water

being its main causes. Sanitation coverage remains low and current statistics show that more than

122 million households in the country are without toilets (UNICEF India website 2009).

Encouragingly the WHO/UNICEFJMp (2008) reports that sanitation coverage has risen

significantly from 14% in 1990 to 28% in 2006 and more recent estimates by the Government of

India (2007a) put the figure as high as 49%. Whilst sanitation coverage and usage in general is

rising, in rural areas the JMP reports that coverage remains low (only 18% in 2006) and

furthermore, 74% of the rural population are still practicing open defecation. Clearly, there is

still a long way to go to meet the Millennium Development Goal of halving, by 2015, the

proportion of people without sustainable access to basic sanitation.

9

The Government of India’s flagship programme to improve rural sanitation is entitled the Total

Sanitation Campaign (TSC). The TSC has set an ambitious target, beyond the MDGs and aims to

achieve universal sanitation coverage in the country by the end of the country’s Eleventh Plan

which is in 2012 (GoT 2007a). The TSC moves away from the infrastructure~focused approach of

earlier government initiatives and advocates a participatory and demand driven approach which

concentrates on promoting behaviour change.

The second approach described was created by an Indian NGO, Sulabh International Services

Organization. Sulabh has nearly forty years experience in sanitation services in India particularly

with latrines in public places, it is estimated that 10 million Indians use a Sulabh managed latrine

every day. The Sulabh approach is different from many in this document as it includes a

substantial hardware component; nevertheless it does demonstrate the use of both the sanitation

marketing approach and a public-private partnership arrangement.

2.2.1 Experience to date in India

The Central Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP) was launched in 1986 primarily with the

objective of improving the quality of life of the rural people and providing privacy and dignity to

women. In 1999, as part of reform initiatives the CRSP was renamed as the Total Sanitation

Campaign (TSC) and restructured as a demand driven and people centred programme. The Gol

(2007b) reported that the TSC was being implemented throughout the country in 30 states with

support from the Central Government and the respective state governments. Indeed it has been

scaled up significantly and as of 2008 was operational in 590 of the 599 districts in India (GoT

2009). This has led to the construction of household latrines in more than 57 million rural

households (against a target of some 100 million); consequently individual household latrine

coverage in the rural areas has risen from 22% in 2001 to about 57% in 2008. The Nirmal Gram

Puraskar award was introduced in 2005 and has been successful as a fiscal incentive for

achievement of sanitation outcomes. From just 40 Gram Panchayats (local government

institutions) from six states that received the prize in 2005, the number rose to 4,959 Gram

Panchayats from 22 states in 2007 (GoT 2009).

A survey of over 7,000 households across six states by TARU (2008) reports that although 85%

of households had access to a toilet only 66% reported that they were using it as a toilet. TARU

10

conclude that “the NGP award has helped in scaling up the TSC to a great extent and helped in

improving sanitation practices, however very few GPs fulfill the 100 percent criteria of the NGP

award”. Indeed, (GoT 2009) highlights areas for improvement in the next five years of the TSC;

these include more focus on hygiene promotion, better follow-up and support for operation and

maintenance and improved monitoring of latrine usage. Although implementation of the TSC

varies between states, the (GoT 2009) also recognizes that overall the NGP has brought a great

change in the attitudes of the community and it is promoting healthy compe!ition among the

Panchayats who strive to achieve total sanitation. It concludes that “the NGP is considered to be

a resounding success and one of the main drivers of the TSC”. However, the Government of

India is aware that the programme emphasis has been too much on construction of household

toilets and whilst successful it needs to reorient itself to focus more on changing behaviour

patterns (GoT, 2007a). (Trémolet et al. 2009)’in an examination of the financing aspects of the

TSC in Maharashtra note that whilst the project has been successful (21 million people have

adopted improved sanitation and 22% of Gram Panchayats have achieved ODF status) the

sustainability of ODF achievements remains challenging and appropriate post-ODF monitoring

is required (Trémolet et al. 2009), also observe that exclusion errors linked to poverty

categorization has created concerns regarding the equity of the scheme. Due to problems with the

most recent population survey in 2003 most states still use data from a population survey dating

back to 1997 — clearly many households will have moved in and out of poverty since then.

A study of the TSC in five states by WaterAid (2008) adds that while the NGP has been highly

effective in accelerating the speed and scale of rural latrine coverage, the pace oPcoverage varies

significantly across the states. Inspired leadership, particularly within governments, has been

more effective than the high subsidy approach used in some states. Key challenges include a

need for both independent verification of ODF status and ongoing monitoring and mobilization

to sustain it; and how to avoid neglect of other accompanying hygiene behaviour change such as

handwashing with soap. TARU (2008) reach a similar conclusion and state that “The verification

system is the most important component of NGP process on which the credibility of the award

rests. The verification system needs further strengthening without which it may lead to dilution

of the spirit behind the NGP award.

11

2.3 Deficiencies in Participatory approaches used Ofl Environmental Sanitation Promotion

Environmental sanitation and hygiene practices researches aim to quantify health of the people

and reduction of the deaths of the people. Improve understanding of the causes and identify

appropriate interventions and translation of research findings into public health practice, and

subsequent improvement in survival of people. Half of the deaths of people especial children

under five years and women might be prevented by interventions aimed at promoting and

improving a combination of the public practices. Likely to have the greatest impact on saving

lives are actions directed at improving environmental sanitation facilities that form the bridge

between the community and access to water supply, solid waste management, proper toilets and

hygiene practices. As a result, there is great life saving potential for intervention that delivered

through participatory approaches (WHO/UNICEF2003)

It will be difficult to achieve the Millennium Development Goals without strategies to bring the

environmental sanitation facilities closer to people and the communities as a large through

participatory approaches interventions, so as to make sure everyone in the community is

participate accordingly. There is little progress in Africa towards the goal to halve the proportion

of environmental sanitation services such as a billion people lack clean water and half billion

lack safe sanitation which was 28 per cent in 1999 to 14 per cent in 2015, ten years after the goal

was set, 27 per cent of population in Africa are still have poor environmental sanitation

(UNICEF2O 10). During this time, diarrhea, dysentery, typhoid, intestinal worms and cholera

mostly among the children under 5 years and women have increased rather than decreased in

some Eastern and Southern African Regional countries including Zimbabwe, Burundi, Comoros,

Kenya, Uganda, Lesotho, Tanzania, Zambia and DRC (UNOP 2002)

But still we can achieve to reduce community deaths by two~thirds from 1999 to 2015, if a full

coverage of a package of participatory approaches interventions understood and implemented

effectively against the major environmental sanitation diseases, this could prevent two thirds of

the nearly 2 million deaths each year in East and Southern African Region (Jones. Et al 2010).

Among all of the major available participatory approaches based on environmental sanitation

promotion which include infrastructures building such as latrine projects, drainage construction

and behavioral changes, also water supply and solid waste management, which could have great

potential for reducing diseases outbreak and dçaths among the communities.

12

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

This chapter contains the various research methods which will help the researcher to obtain data

from the field and the secondary data from different sources. The research methods which will be

included are qualitative, quantitative, opinio1~ and analytical. The qualitative method includes

observation and interviews. The quantitative method includes secondary and research analytical

which used to solve environmental sanitation problems.

3.1 Study Design

The design for the study was cross sectional employing mixture of methods mainly semi-

structured interviews, document review and~ quantitative survey.The researcher made a site

observation, administer questionnaires and interviews with the respondents in order to obtain the

primary data. Other information was obtained from the KMC reports and other stakeholders such

as NGOs reports and strategies from responsible Ministry for environmental sanitation

promotion as means of secondary data.

3.2 Study Area

3.2.1 Location and Area

Kinondoni Municipal Council is one of the three Municipals in Dar es Salaam City, situated

between latitudes 3° 15 and 4° south of Equator and longitude 310 and 330 east of Greenwich. It

covers an area of 950 square km. KMC boarders with the following ; Ilala Municipal to the

South, Temeke Municipal to the East, Kibaha District to the North and Indian Ocean to the West.

Administratively, KMC is divided into three divisions which are Kinondoni, Ubungo and Kawe,

27 wards and 134 sub-wards (Mitaa).

3.2.2 Climate

KMC lies in the coastal belt of Tanzania and therefore experiences a modified type of equatorial

climate. It is generally hot and humid with mean annual temperature of 26°C. The hottest months

13

are usually from October to March after which temperature slows down. It is a bit cool between

May and August with mean temperatures around 25°C. The area has two rainy seasons, the short

rainy season, which starts from October, and ends in December, and long rainy season starting

March and goes through June. In both cases the area receives rain of an average of 1 000mm per

annum.

3.2.3 Population

The Kinondoni Municipal Council is one of the three Municipalities in Dar es Salaam region

with estimated population of 1,088,867 as projected from 2002 census of Tanzania, with an

annual increase rate of 4.3% per annum. When compared with Temeke and Ilala it has largest

population among the three Councils. It has heterogenic culture, since it is a capital business

Municipality in the country many people tend to migrate for various activities.

3.3 Sample size and sampling procedure

According to the administrative set up of KMC, every ward has an executive officer and 8

extension workers responsible for various development activities in the ward. Two officers

among them deal with health and sanitation. Hence, a total number of officers that will be

involved and participate in data collection in their respective areas (wards) will be 20.

Stratified random sampling technique was used to select the respondents from ten wards in

Kinondoni Municipality for the Community level. Purposive sampling was used to select

community leaders in respective area of study. In this technique the researcher divided the

population into sub-populations (10 wards) such that the element within each sub-population

(ward) was homogeneous. Furthermore, those ten wards were sampled by using simple randomly

technique of the Lottery method to obtain 5 wards of the sample size 108 households and 5

chairpersons of the Ward Development Committee (WDC) which made total target of 113

respondents. Purposive sampling was used simply because the researcher intended to get the

proper information on participatory approaches used in the intervention area. The table below

represents the households which were sampled to get the targeted sample size.

14

Table 1: Sample size of household of communities

3.4 Data collection tools

Tools such as questionnaires, interview guides and an observation checklist were used to collect

this information.

3.4.1 Questionnaires

These were open and closed ended questions which were administered to the community

members in environmental sanitation promotion intervention areas.

15

3.4.2 Interviews

This involved community chairpersons in the respective study area to supplement on information

from the questionnaires with the help of an interview guide.

3.4.3 Observation and photography

These methods were used to verify the availability of the sanitation facilities on the particular

household or community during the field work. Observation provided primary data used to

supplement data from other sources like questionnaires and interviews. Photographs were taken

in some instances by the researcher for further references and verification of available situation

of environmental sanitation within the area of the study. Photographs taken are used in this report

as evidence.

3.5 Data processing and analysis

Data were sorted and organized according to the community levels, ward level and Municipal

level, before the actual data processing and analysis. Data analysis were done using excel

programme and presented in pie charts, Bar charts and tables to summarize the information from

the field.

16

CHAPTER FOUR

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter provides the analysis and discussions of the information gathered from various

sources of variables which focused on Kinondoni Municipality community. TI~e research study

used 72 respondents of the targeted 113 respondents (67 percent). The female respondents were

48(67 percent) and males were 24 (33 percent).

4.2 Socio-dcmographic characteristics of respondents

The research study involved 72 respondents and the demographic characteristics of respondents

observed include gender, age class in years, level of education and period of living in a place as

shown in table 2 below.

Table 2: Demographic characteristics

17

Primary 37 51

Secondary 29 40

College/University 4 6

Period of living in a place Frequency Percentage (%)

<lyear 12 17

1-5 years 24 33

6-10 years 29 42

>10 years 6 8

Marital status Frequency Percentage (%)

Single 16 23

Married 14 19

Separated 15 21

Divorced 3 4

Widowed 24 33

Major occupation Frequency Percentage (%)

Peasant 48 67

Business person 18 25

Civil servant 4 6

Religious leader 2 3

Household member Frequency Percentage (%)

18

The researcher came in contact with more females (67%) than males (33%) because most males

could not be reached easily. The age group tFat reported most was 11 to 50 years old and most

attained Primary level education (51%), hence most being peasant (67%).

19

4.3 Existing participatory approaches on Environmental Sanitation

Promotion

The study found out that the participatory approach mostly used was PHAST (86%), the

approach is used in environmental sanitation projects for raising community awareness, problem

identification, problem analysis, community planning for solutions, gender selecting options,

planning for new facilities and behaviour change, planning for monitoring and evaluation and

participatory evaluation. This was followed by PRA (6%) which is used in Social resource and

mapping modeling, Matrix scoring, Wellbeing (‘wealth’) ranking, Seasonal historical, Causal

linkage diagramming, Sorting and ranking cards or symbols for initiating environmental project.

Also, CLTS(4%) was used at some sub-ward of Manzese ward for integrating different

participatory approaches, hence CLTS activities involved are Focus group discussions; Transect

walks; Mapping of open defecation sites; and ‘shit’ calculations (this calculates the total weight

of faeces produced and circulating in the community) in the case of Manzese area was the waste

water discharging sites. CtC approach (3%) was used in schools for improving environmental

sanitation and raising personal hygiene behaviour to the children since there are younger. CtC

approach is the methodology used to train a child in order to train another child for

environmental sanitation promotion. WASH in School approach (1%) was used to initiate water

supply project in their schools, this was at Manzese ward, particularly at Uzuri sub-ward.

Majority of respondents (81%) knew that there are volunteer health workers and environmental

health workers who are promoters of these approaches, as shows in the figure 1 below

20

Figure 1: Pie chart shows Participatory approaches used in the areas:

Source: Field research

Plate 1: Photo shows environn~ental health workers and volunteers

•1~

—

• •• _

~‘~•

•~ ~••--•••,•• -

—

Source: Field research

I,

• -.:~ ~

- -~a•~ -

4.4 Community knowledge on participatory approaches

There was a high level of community awareness on the approaches as reported by the

respondents 78 percent said they receive training on issues such as environmental sanitation

promotion, 16% said that health workers used mass communicalion to inform the Community,

and this is mainly done through meetings. There was a contradiction in duration of health

workers and how often they meet with the community since the majority of the respondents

(43%) said that, health workers usually meet monthly with the community to discuss

environmental sanitation issues by participatory approaches while (40%) said that quarterly,

which was quite different from what respondents reported. This shows that there is no fixed

timetable of meeting the community. (94%) of the respondents remember what the community

health worker/volunteer said during approaches implementation on environmental sanitation

promotion, while (6%) of the respondents do not remember what the community health workers

said. Through observation I noticed that the community members knew different ways of

promoting the environmental sanitation by treating drinking water, solid waste collection,

personal hygiene practices, proper use of the toilets and waste water disposal, while (24%) did

not know any methods of environmental sanitation promotion, as shown in figure 2 below:

Figure 2: a pie chart shows the knowledge level of community members

Source: Field research

22

4.5 Deficiencies in participatory approaches

(59%) of the respondents said that they accessed the approaches information from chairpersons,

(33%) through community health workers and (8%) from CORPs.

Most of the respondents (6 1%) reported that the training of participatory approaches were given

during the outbreak of the diseases, while (28%) said that the trainings are given after three

months and (11%) said that the trainings are conducted every month. Hence, majority of

respondents (81%) who contribute on approaches complained on the modality of the activities

such as contribution of 5000/=TSH instead of manpower and knew there are By~law which

directed them to contribute, while (19%) db not know about the By-laws. Majority of the

respondents (78%) suggested that participatory approaches activities should involved training the

community on environmental friendly activities which could help the community in raising their

standards of life, such as solid waste sorting for recycling, water user association and tree

planting groups.

23

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECO~’fl~’IENflATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

5.1.1 Existing participatory approaches on Environmental Sanitation Prom9tiofl

The research found out that PHAST approach was common used by environmental health

workers to train the community. This is attributed to the working conditions of voluntary health

workers and environmental health workers. Also training through workshops or seminars was

major tool of environmental education to the community.

5.1.2 Community Knowledge on participatory approaches

More than (94%) of the respondents know the importance of sanitation and hygiene and

remember what community health workers trained them during participatory approach activities.

And for those who didn’t remember the training of community health workers (6%) showed the

desire of knowing this participatory approach.

5.1.3 Deficiencies in participatory approaches

It was reported that chairpersons mostly gave the information concerning participatory

approaches activities (59%) respondents and (33%) respondents got the information from

community health workers. So the use of chairpersons and community health workers was found

not to be enough and effective with regard to advocacy of participatory approaches activities,

because the political issue can come between the information delivered. Most of the trainings for

participatory approaches occurred during the outbreak of diseases which did not show the

seriousness and sustainability of the information to be derived to the community; hence majority

considered participatory approaches activities to be considered for disease outbreaks only.

Monetary contribution were common to the community, every household contributed 5000/=

Tanzanian shilling per month which got opposition from many people (81%) due to the economic

status of different people and also the By-law of the Kinondoni Municipal Council(KMC) that

forces people to contribute for participatory approaches activities. The study found out that there

24

was no environmental sanitation policy which gave the direction to stakeholders and Councils in

Tanzania, the only direction of environmental sanitation obtained from environmental

management Act No. 20 of 2004.

5.2RECOMMENIJATIONS

Mult-displinary approaches during implementation of participatory approaches activities should

be put in place hence using only one approach has disadvantage because some approaches deal

with single issue such as PHAST which deal with sanitation only leaving out other

environmental issues.

The trainings of participatory approaches should not be conducted only during the outbreak of

the diseases for fear of misdirecting the community that participatory approaches activities are

for outbreak of diseases only.

The contribution towards implementation of the approaches activities should be flexible with

economical status of the community member and capability of an individual to contribute

whether for money or manpower.

Information dissemination to the community should be participatory and extension workers

should be used. This is because chairpersons tend to make it look political.

A massive sensitization program of participatory approaches should be introduced in primary

schools and secondary schools on environmental sanitation promotion, so as to improve on the

coverage of people in the community. This ideology should be internalized by the Ministry of

Education, Ministry of sciences and technology and Ministry of Health and Social Welfare.

Adequate funding should be availed to support the implementation of participatory approaches

from Kinondoni Municipality; since most activities aren’t implemented due to lack of funds.

The Ministry of Health and Social welfare has started a process to develop a National Hygiene

and Sanitation Policy; this should contribute toward clarifying institutional roles and

responsibilities as well as increasing the prioritization of sanitation, this will help guide the

people on the importance of sanitation and hygiene.

25

Bibliography

Alan Sherman & Sharon J. Sherman (1992), Environmental and Our Changing World 2nd

edition. Prentice Hall, USA.

Bartone C. R. (1997). Sustainable Environmental Management in Developing Countries. Hisashi

Ogawa Kuala Lumpur Malaysia.

Bartone C. (2000). Strategies for Improving Municzpal Environmental sanitation. Olar Zerbock

Michigan.

Botkin Keller (2000). Environmental Science. Earth as a living Planet. 3~ edition. S. E. Smith

Dubai.

Cunningham Saigo (2008). Environmental Science. A global concern. 5th edition. Michael D.

Lange USA.

Enger & Smith (2006). Environmental Science. A study of interrelationsi~jps.1oth edition.

Margaret J. Kemp USA.

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Draft Guidelinefor sanitation standards. PEPA,

JJCA and UNDP.

George Nicholas Nyang’echi (1992). Management of solid & liquid wastes. A manual for

Environment Health Workers.AM1~F, Nairobi Kenya.

Jennifer B, Edb, Cesar C, et al Mult Country Evaluation report; lessons for the evaluation of

public health intervention public Health 2004. 94(3); 406-4 15.

Kinondoni Municipal Council (2010). Municz~pal Health Office ‘s annual report.

Kinondoni health and sanitation survey 2005. ~w.kmc.com

Matthew J. Salganik. Variance Estimation, Design Effects~ and Sample size Calculations for

respondent- Driven Sampling, J urban Health. Nov 2006. 83 (suppl 7); 98-112.

Michael L. & Robert M. (1998). Environnemental Science. Systems and Solutions. Jones &

Bartlett USA.

26

Tanzania Demographic Health Survey 1999. www.afro.who.int/whd2005/sanital ion/tanzania.

UNDP/UNICEF report 2005. www.cepaI.org/publicaciones

UNEP (1996). International source book on Environmentally Sound Technologies for municipal

liquid waste discharge. UNEP Technical Publication on 6th November 2000.

V.K. Prabhakar (2000). Encyclopaedia of Environmental pollution and awareness in 21st

Century. 1st edition. Volume 45 Solid waste m’anagement J. L. Kumar India.

William P. Cunningham & Mary Ann Cunningham (2002). Principles ofEnvironmental Science.3rd edition. Inquiry and Application. Prentice Hall USA.

Water and Sanitation Program (2002), water Sanitation Hygiene Publisher, Swiss Geneva.

Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative C~uncil (2010), Sanitation and Hygiene: overview of

participatory software approaches, Geneva

WHO/UNICEF guideline (2002), Standards ofquality and good latrines, Swiss- Geneva.

Zelee Hill, Betty Kirkwood and Karen Edmond (2004). Family and community practice that

promote hygiene, sanitation and development: a review of evidence. Geneva, World Health

Organization.

27

APPENDICES

Appendix I

KAMPALA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Questionnaire/Interview guide

Dear Respondents,

I Allen Aldilyo Kalongola, who is a student of Kampala International University in Uganda,

seeking an assistance of getting vital information on a research proposal of assessing the impact

of participatory approaches on environmental sanitation promotion in Kinondoni Municipality as

partial fulfillment for the Award of Bachelor of Sciences Degree in Environmental Management.

Kindly respond to the questions attached as possible as accurately. The information that you give

is strictly confidential and the study is mainly for academic purpose.

Thank you in advance for the time you will spend and all the effort you will make to respond to

this questionnaire.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Allen Kalongola

+255 766 38 78 37

akalongola(~yahoo.com

28

Appendix 2; Community Chairpersons interview guide

INTERVIEW GUIDE ON PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES ON ENVIRONMENTAL

SANITATION PROMOTION

Part A: INTRODUCTION

Municipal; Kinondoni Municipal Council

Ward____________________________

Sub-ward_________________________

Date: I I

Name of the interviewer_______________________________________

Part B: EXISTING PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES ON ENVIRONMENTAL

SANITATION PROMPTION.

1. What kind of participatory approaches are used in implementation of environmental

sanitation promotion in your community?

2. What was the situation before the implementation of participatory approaches in your

community?

3. What is the impact of participatory approaches on environmental sanitation promotion

on the community?

4. What changes are observed at Cop-imunity level after introduction of participatory

approaches in your area?

• Access to water supply

29

o Solid waste management

o Sanitary accommodation coverage

° Drainage

° Hygiene practices

5. What are challenges faced by participatory approaches at the community level during

environmental sanitation promotion?

6. What is your opinion on participatory approaches activities on environmental

sanitation promotion in your community?

Part C; Community knowledge on environmental sanitation approaches

7. Do the community members contribute in participatory approaches activities?

o Water supply___________________________

o Solid waste management_______________

30

o Drainage construction

8. What participatory approaches do you think are participated in well by the community?

9. What participatory approaches do you think is/are not well participated in by the

community?

10. What are the reasons for poor participation of the community in participation

approaches?

11. What are the reasons for high participation of the community in participation

approaches?

Part D; Deficiencies in participatory approaches on environmental sanitation promotion

12. Is there National Sanitation Policy which directs you in your duties as a community

chairperson?

13. What does the community receive from the Municipal level for participatory

approaches implementation?

14. Which departments join hand in implementation of participatory approaches in your

community?

15. What is your recommendation for successful implementation of participatory

approaches in your community?

31

Appendix 3: Semi-structured closed and open ended questionnaires for community level

Date of interview / I

Interviewer: _________________________________

Ward: ______________

Sub wards (Mtaa): __________________

Municipal: _____________________________

Questionnaire No

Section one: Denwgraphic characteristics of the respondent

1. Sex of the respondent:

1=Male

2= Female

2. Age of the respondent in years

1=11 —30 years

2=31—50 years

351—70 years

4 71 and above

3. Level of education attained

1= None

2 Primary

3 Secondary

4= College! University

32

4. Major occupation of the respondent

1= Peasant

2= Business person

3 Civil servant

4= Religious leader

5. For how long have you lived in this place?

1= < 1 year

2=1—5years

3=6— ~Oyears

4> 10 years

6. What is your marital status?

1= Single

2= Married

3 Separated

4 Divorced

5 Widowed ~

7. How many people stay in this household?

1= < 5 members

2= 5 members

3> 5 members

8. What is the nature of your house tenure?

33

1= Owner

2= Tenant

Section two: Existing Participatory approaches on Environmental Sanitation Promotion

A. Participatory approaches

9. What participatory approach is used in your area for promotion of environmental

sanitation?

1.PHAST

2. PRA

3. CLTS

4. CtC

5. WASH in School

6. Other type (explain) ______________________________________________

10. Do you have volunteer health worker/Environmental Health Worker in your area?

1= Yes

2= No

11. What does that health officer do in your community?

I. Train the community

2. Raising awareness

3. Mass communication

4. Other (specify)__________________________________________________

12. What means do they use to denver the information or train the community?

34

1= Community meeting

2= Seminars/Workshops

3 Demonstration

4= Mass communication

5= other (specify) ____________________________________

13. How often do they meet with the community for environmental sanitation promotion

discussion?

1= One week

2= every two weeks

3= Monthly

4 Quarterly

5 Other (specify)_______________________________________________

14. What do they train you about in relation to environmental sanitation?

B. Community Knowledge on participatory approaches

15. Do you know or remember what community health worker/CORPs said during

participatory approaches on environmental sanitation promotion?

1. YES

2.NO

16. What do they say concern environmental sanitation promotion? Such as:

o Drinking water_______________________________________________

35

• Solid waste management_______________________________________________

o Hygiene practices ____________________________________________________________

• Toilets

• Storm water drainage_____________________________________________________

17. Are there methodologies and approaches community health worker and volunteer health

workers train the community about during participatory approaches?

1. YES

2.NO

18. If yes which are there?

C. Deficiencies in participatory approaches

19. Who gives the information concern participatory approaches on environmental sanitation

promotion in your area?

o Chairperson

• Community health worker

• CORPs

o Others (specify)___________________________________________________________

20. When do the trainings for participatory approaches on environmental sanitation happen?

1. during outbreak of the diseases

2. after three months

3. Every month

36

4. Others (specify)________________________________________________________________

21. Do you contribute to the participatory approaches on environmental sanitation promotion

projects?

1. YES

2.NO

22. If yes How?

23. Is there any By-law which forces you to contribute towards participatory approaches

projects?

1. YES

2.NO

3. I don’t know

24. What is your opinion would help in the improvement of the participatory approaches in

future?

Thank you for your cooperation.

37

APPENDIX IV

INTRODUCTORY LETTER

Ggaba Flora ao$r090

SCHOOL OP ENG~c~ AND APPLIED SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF ENVJRoNy~p~y

(I 1t~( C

?~ ~

I ~as ~e to sue,

~v etalija at a tent 01 kpala I tern tiOna! lint versit~ Silic is workinFl on a re~ctoeh

i~J~’~ eaLtj~o t DS~’!~OE.~~~

~ ~RR’~h ~ ~41~( tzvi/ /~(

~as a pat Pat tap ‘meat tot the ttwaxd of a Degree, I hereby request you in the name of

Inivemu to aecux P h~m/lmr all the necessary assistance s/he nia~ requhe h~r this

wet k

I has e the t~asure ol’ tli~ Dnp you in advance fbr your coopet atton!

~iLts stoc’cielv. /~Th ‘~2t

I coo A kato tPhDt,

“I. t~/,u itgt~ ihc i/eig/;ia”

38

APPENDIX V

PERMISSION LETTER

KINONDONI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL511001 1) Or Ulocc 0 10 10 MU<41C11<AL 0lR~ ~1 OR

MUN~C0AL MEDICAL OFFICLO OF

I KINONDONI MUNICIPAL COUNCILP0 50X51655,OAR 05 5ALAAM

rn~< y <~<~< C. ~<n 2 /1 ~/ ~0 10

<40 10

~0—~ \A9~ I I tO 03 ~

1410000001 MUNICIPAL,

R~ j~RCHPERM~

3L<~L0NCQ4A

‘10 0 u~’ <I ol IS 0 f<orn SCHOOL OF ENGINLERINC AND APPLIEDSCIENCES DCPARTMENT OF ENV1RONME~ , Has heon 4;oon a porrn1 10 pa<oom

I’ ~‘ <UI

‘I 211<’ o< 1< rc~jo< 1 ha~’b on “IMPACT OF PARTICIPATORy APPROACH ONENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION PROMOTION IN KINONDONI MUNICIPAIJjy TANzAN1A~

0 <“I<y 1005 <d~ volls S ~o r4ooo~c~<y as~stan~~ 0 ord’o 1~ onssL~s0 10 fu<f<1 n00< <1< <I <ly

3osl ss

/I M~’~ana

I n~ (I rr~<r~ir<<~ 001,1 OnaIc,,)~M40fli4QflL~flj≤j~ciICouncR

I o aoos< n I<~<r4I’on,j CIII i<<J~’<,<,

39