shKmn_snSMkusl

Support by

JUNE 2016

Community Empowerment

and Development Team

ANALYSIS OF WASH MAPPING

CHONG KAOSHOUKANG LECH COMMUNITY

SANGKAT SLAKRAM SIEM REAP CITY, SIEM REAP PROVINCE

Contents

Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. 2

Terminology .................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3

2. Purpose of the assessment ...................................................................................................... 3

3. Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Basic data .................................................................................................................... 4

3.1.1 Background characteristics of respondents…………………………………………..4

3.1.2 Respondents’ social role and physical health ........................................................... 4

3.1.3 Size and demographics of households ..................................................................... 5

3.2. Household income ............................................................................................................ 5

3.2.1 Source of household income .................................................................................... 5

3.2.2 Monthly household income ...................................................................................... 6

3.3 Water, sanitation and hygiene ............................................................................................ 6

3.3.1 Sources of drinking water in the dry and wet seasons .............................................. 6

3.3.2 Household expenditure on water in the wet and dry seasons ................................... 6

3.3.3 Time spent collecting water ...................................................................................... 7

3.3.4 Treatment of drinking water ...................................................................................... 7

3.3.5 Access to sanitation ................................................................................................. 7

3.3.6 Sharing sanitation facilities ....................................................................................... 8

3.3.7 Expenditure on building sanitation facilities .............................................................. 8

3.3.8 Emptying pits ........................................................................................................... 8

3.3.9 Wastewater management ........................................................................................ 8

3.3.10 Solid waste management ....................................................................................... 9

3.3.11 Hand washing practices ....................................................................................... 10

3.3.12 Common health issues in households .................................................................. 10

3.4 Household observations ................................................................................................... 11

3.4.1 Household toilet facilities ........................................................................................ 11

3.4.2 Hand washing facilities ........................................................................................... 11

3.4.3 Household hygiene ................................................................................................ 12

4. Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 12

2

Abbreviations

CEDT Community Empowerment and Development Team Organization

WASH Water, sanitation and hygiene

KAP Knowledge, attitudes and practices

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

GNI Gross National Income

Terminology

Informal Settlement

‘Informal Settlement’ is used to describe a community of people living on public or state private land along road corridors, drainage canals, railway track, government hospital, factory, lakeside etc. These communities do not have any ownership over their land. The authorities consider them to be encroachers and have termed many of them as “illegal anarchic settlers” and apply Circular03 on the “Resolution of temporary settlements on illegal occupied land in the capital, municipal and urban areas”.

Community

‘Community’ are the group of people living in one particular area or people who are considered as a unit because of their common interests, social group, or nationality.

3

1. Introduction

Rommet Chongkaoshou Kang Lech Community is located in Group 16, Chong Kaoshou Village, Sangkat Slakram, Siem Reap City, Siem Reap Province. At the time of data collection, the community had 24 houses, 28 households/families, with a total population of 137 people. This included 67 females, and one persons that identified as having a disability.

The Rommet Chongkaoshou Kang Lech Community was organized by the local authorities (village and commune) with support from the Community Empowerment and Development Team

Organisation (CEDT) on May 23, 2014. This community was recognized by the Municipality of Siem

Reap and officially stamp by commune chief. The community is living on public state land along a road corridor (the road is 15 meters wide), which excludes it from receiving formal services from the state such as road infrastructure, drainage systems, clean water and electricity, and waste collection. Community members draw water from a well for cooking and bathing, and buy bottled water for drinking. Some wells are heavily contaminated with iron and other minerals, causing the water to turn red. After observing the challenges faced by the community in accessing safe water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), CEDT, with financial support from Water Aid Cambodia, undertook to map the WASH situation within the community.

2. Purpose of the assessment

The purpose of this assessment is to map and investigate the WASH status of the Rommet Chongkaoshou Kang Lech Community.

This assessment is part of a larger, one-year pilot project being implemented in five communities in Siem Reap city by CEDT and Water Aid Cambodia.

4

3. Findings

3.1 Basic data

3.1.1 Background characteristics of respondents Respondents to the survey in Chongkaoshou Kang Lech Community were predominantly women, aged between 30 and 39 (Table1). There were 24 survey respondents in total, and all respondents identified as Khmer.

Table 1. Selected background characteristics of survey respondents (n=24)

Age Women Men

15-29 5 1

30-39 9 2

40-49 1 1

>50 4 1

Total 19 5

3.1.2 Respondents’ social role and physical health

Figure 1 shows the social roles of the respondents, with the majority (10 household) identifying as being housewives.

Figure 1. Respondents’ roles in society, by number

Table 2 describes the physical health of the survey respondents. Only 25% reported themselves as healthy, with the majority (63%) classifying themselves as either sick or weak.

23

10

12 2 2

1 1

5

Table 2. Health of respondents

Health status N %

Healthy 6 25.0

Weak 12 50.0

Sick 3 12.5

N/A 3 12.5

Total 24 100

3.1.3 Size and demographics of households

On average, each household had six members, with the largest household made up of 14 people. Each household had at least one woman, with an average of three women per household.

There was an average of two children per household, and an average of three elderly people per household. There was only one person within the sampled households that was identified as having a disability.

3.2. Household income

3.2.1 Source of household income

Table 3 describes the various sources of household income. Within each household, there may be more than one source of income identified, depending on the number of people working. The most prevalent source of income was from waste picking (50%), followed by labouring (38%) and driving a motor taxi (21%).

Table 3. Sources of household income

Source of Income N=24 %

Waste picker 12 50.0

Labour waging 9 37.5

Motor taxi 5 20.8

Market business 2 8.3

Salary 2 8.3

Mobile seller 1 4.2

Small-scale vendor 1 4.2

Vehicle repairer 1 4.2

6

3.2.2 Monthly household income

The average monthly household income reported by the respondents was $96. Monthly household income ranged from a minimum of $50 to a maximum income of $250. The Gross National Income (GNI) per capita for Cambodians is $89 per month1 (2015) so in the case of Chongkaoshou Kang Lech Community, each household is only earning slightly more than the average individual Cambodian per month.

3.3 Water, sanitation and hygiene

3.3.1 Sources of drinking water in the dry and wet seasons

Table 4 describes the sources of drinking water in the dry and wet seasons. All respondents reported using a form of bottled water for drinking in the dry season. Seventy percent of households (17 households) also use water from a hand pump for drinking in the dry season. In the wet season too, most households used a form of bottled water. Only one household reported exclusively using rainwater during the wet season. Seventy percent of households (17 households) also use water from hand pumps or rainwater for drinking in the wet season.

Table 4. Drinking water sources, by season

Main source of water drinking N %

Dry season Bottled water 24 100

Wet season Bottled water 23 95.8

Rainwater 1 4.2

Total 24 100

3.3.2 Household expenditure on water in the wet and dry seasons

Table 5 shows that there is little difference on the average household expenditure on water across the two seasons. On average, households in Chong Kaoshoukang Lech Community spend under $3 per month on water.

Table 4. Household expenditure on water, by season

Household expenditure ($) Minimum Maximum Mean

Dry season 0.5 11.25 2.97

Wet season 0.5 11.25 2.89

1 World Bank, databank http://data.worldbank.org/country/cambodia

7

3.3.3 Time spent collecting water

Households walk to collect water for domestic uses. Half of the respondents reported spending between 6-15 minutes to collect water, while one third spent under five minutes collecting water (Table 6).

Table 6. Time spent collecting water

Time spent collecting water N %

Less than 5 minutes 9 37.5

6-15 minutes 12 50.0

15-30 minutes 3 12.5

Total 24 100

3.3.4 Treatment of drinking water

Figure 2 shows that the majority (63%) of respondents treated their water by boiling it before drinking. The remaining 37% did not treat their water in any way. Many of the households that are drinking bottled water are treating this water. This is because households do not believe the bottled water is safe to drink without treatment.

Figure 2. Drinking water treatment

3.3.5 Access to sanitation

Around 50% of respondents in Chongkaoshou Kang Lech Community practice open defection and around 40% use pour-flush toilets. Other households share a neighbour’s toilet.

63

37

Boil water

No treatment

8

Table 7. Access to sanitation, by type

Sanitation type N %

Pour-flush toilet (seat type) 2 8.3

Pour-flush toilet (squat type) 8 33.3

Field 10 41.7

Neighbour toilet 3 12.5

Bury 1 4.2

Total 24 100

3.3.6 Sharing sanitation facilities

For households with a sanitation facility, Table 8 shows how many allow others to use them. Five out of 10 households that own a sanitation facility allow others to use it.

Table 8. Sharing sanitation facilities

Willing to share N=10 %

Yes 5 50

No 5 50

3.3.7 Expenditure on building sanitation facilities

Of the 10 respondents from households who had built their own toilet facilities, all of them had used their own money to construct their toilet. Households spent between $100 and $200 on building a toilet, with an average spend of $165.

3.3.8 Emptying pits

Of the 10 households with sanitation facilities, none of them had yet emptied the toilet pits.

3.3.9 Wastewater management

The majority of households do not have a system for managing wastewater. Only a small number of households have a wastewater management system that is connected to a pit or septic tank (8%) or to the drainage public system (8%).

9

Table 9. Wastewater management

Wastewater management N %

Discharged directly to field 19 79.2

Connected to public system 2 8.3

Connected to own pit/septic tank 2 8.3

N/A 1 4.2

Total 24 100

3.3.10 Solid waste management

All respondents identified a form of solid waste management in their households (Figure 3). The most common method of solid waste disposal was to pay a waste collector (46%), followed by 21% who placed waste to their own dumpsite near their house. Only 8% segregated and recycled their solid waste.

Figure 3. Solid waste management practices, by household (n=24)

On average, households pay for waste collection through their electricity bill, around is $0.50 per month. The range of payment is between $0.25 and $1.25.

Waste management expenditure ($) Minimum Maximum Mean

0.25 1.25 0.50

Burning4.2%

Discharge on publlic land

4.2%

Dispose on vacant land8.3%Littering

8.3%

Own dumpsite20.8%

Pay to waste collector

45.8%

Segregated and recycle8.3%

10

3.3.11 Hand washing practices

The mapping tool collected information on reported handwashing practices. It is important to note that reported practices are normally higher than actual practices. The majority of respondents reported practicing hand washing a critical time after using the toilet (88%), before cooking (88%) and before eating (83%) (Table 10). All respondents reported using a form of soap as part of their hand washing practice, with the majority (79%) using powdered soap.

Table 10. Hand washing practices of respondents (n=24)

Hand washing practices N=24 %

After toilet 21 87.5

When dirty 22 91.7

Before cooking 21 87.5

Before eating 20 83.3

Type of soap used N %

Soap 5 20.8%

Detergent 19 79.2%

Total 24 100%

3.3.12 Common health issues in households

Respondents were asked to identify diseases that a household member had suffered from in the past two weeks. Difficulty breathing (71%), fever (54%) and stomach aches (46%) were the most common health issues, with one third of respondents reporting that they had suffered from diarrhoea in the preceding two weeks.

Table 11. Health issues suffered in households in the past two weeks

Health issue N=24 %

Difficulty breathing 17 70.8

Fever 13 54.2

Stomach ache 11 45.8

Other 11 45.8

Diarrhoea 8 33.3

Cholera 4 16.7

11

Skin disease 1 4.2

Malaria 1 4.2

3.4 Household observations

3.4.1 Household toilet facilities

Of the 10 households that had toilet facilities, all of them had water available for flushing at the time of observation. Table 12 describes the observed condition of household toilets.

Table 12. Observed condition of toilet facilities

Toilet condition N=10 %

Dirty 3 30

Damaged 1 10

Smells 2 20

Adequate privacy 6 60

Has water for flush 10 100

Clean floor 5 50

Clean walls 7 70

Clean roof 6 60

Well-maintained 5 50

3.4.2 Hand washing facilities

Of the 24 households surveyed, 23 had a place to wash their hands, however only 75% had water available at the time of observation (Table 13). The majority of a place for handwashing (83%) had soap available for use, although only 29% showed signs of recent use.

Table 13. Observed condition of hand washing facility

Observation N=3 %

Water available 18 75.0

Soap available for hand washing 20 83.3

Cloth available for drying hands 9 37.5

Sign of recent use 7 29.2

12

3.4.3 Household hygiene

Key areas of the house were observed for cleanliness (Table 14). Overall, there were a large proportion of houses with hygienic cooking areas (88%).

Table 14. Observed household cleanliness, by area

Cleanliness observed N=24 %

Cooking area 21 87.5

Cooking dishes/pots 19 79.2

Sleeping area 19 79.2

Clothing 18 75.0

Food storage 17 70.8

General household 17 70.8

13

4. Discussion

The data collected in the Rommet Chongkaoshou Kang Lech Community highlights a number of challenges and consequences faced by households from a lack of access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene facilities. Poor WASH provision is strongly linked to the spread of infectious diseases, such as diarrhoea and acute respiratory disease. These can be a significant issues in informal settlements. where there are no formal services and close living conditions. This was highlighted by the alarming finding that only one in four of the respondents reported that they were healthy, and that the majority were either weak or sick. Respondents also reported that the members of their households had recently suffered from health issues linked to poor WASH, with reports of difficulty breathing, fever and with stomach ache the most frequent. One in three respondents had experienced diarrhoea in the two weeks before the survey.

The Rommet Chongkaoshou Kang Lech Community relies mainly on a form of bottled drinking water in both the wet and dry season, and also make use of groundwater and rainwater. Almost 37% of the respondents stated that they did not treat their drinking water in any way. Water treatment practices can be further improved given that the bottled water is of low quality, and groundwater in the area is expected to be contaminated.

Around half of households practice open defecation. Such a high rate of open defecation, in combination with a high proportion of households that have no wastewater management system, means that the environment surrounding the Rommet Chongkaoshou Kang Lech Community is likely to be highly contaminated and a risk to the health of the community.

Even though a high proportion of the respondents reported that they washed their hands at critical times, i.e. after defecation, before cooking and eating, and kept key areas of the household visibly clean, these practices may be undermined by the lack of surrounding environmental sanitation.

To address the issues faced by the Rommet Chong Kaoshoukang Lech Community due to a lack of access to safe WASH, the community asks that the local authorities:

1. Connect a clean, safe drinking water supply to the houses in the community; 2. Build a drainage system that drains wastewater out of the community; 3. Construct roads and support infrastructure in the community; and 4. Advocate to city-level authorities to address issues faced in the community.

Community Empowerment and Development Team (CEDT) Organization Address: No 5, St 260 Sangkat Veal Vong Kann 7 Makara, Phnom Penh. Email: yara@cedtcambodia.org Contact: (+855) 16 544 331/12 466 629 Website: www.cedtcambodia.org Facebook: Community Empowerment and Development Team