3.1 Demographic Characteristics of the participants
3..1.1 Demographic Characteristics of household respondents
Out of 406, 380 (93.6%) households properly filled and retuned the questionnaires. Most of them were young (18-30 years), muslims (86%) and married (68%.) (Table 2). Regarding the educational status (Table 2), 118 (31.05%) respondents had never attended formal education whereas 186 (51.6%) and 44 (11.57%) respondents had attended primary (grade 1-8) and Secondary level (grade 9-12).. Only 22 (5.78%) of the respondents completed secondary school (grade 12). The majority of the household respondents (277; 59.7%) had up to 4 family members whereas 108 (28.4%) and 45 (11.8%) of them had 5-10 and over 10 family size, respectively. The respondents have engaged in different types of jobs,.They were predominantly farmers and merchants.
Table 2.Demographic characteristics of household respondents (n=380)
Administration zones
|
Frequency
|
percent
|
Female
|
Male
|
Total
|
Central
|
68
|
98
|
166
|
43.7
|
Eastern
|
45
|
81
|
126
|
33.2
|
Western
|
25
|
63
|
88
|
23.2
|
Variable
|
|
|
|
|
Age (years)
|
|
|
|
|
18-30
|
68
|
57
|
188
|
49.5
|
31-40
|
45
|
63
|
141
|
37.1
|
41 -80
|
25
|
22
|
51
|
13.4
|
Religion
|
|
|
|
|
Christian
|
28
|
40
|
53
|
13.9
|
Muslim
|
110
|
202
|
327
|
86.1
|
Educational status
|
|
|
|
|
No formal education
|
41
|
77
|
118
|
31.05
|
primary (1-8)
|
66
|
130
|
196
|
51.56
|
Secondary (9-12)
|
19
|
25
|
44
|
11.57
|
>Grade 12
|
12
|
10
|
22
|
5.78
|
Marital status
|
|
|
|
|
Single
|
27
|
73
|
100
|
26.3
|
Married
|
111
|
149
|
260
|
68.4
|
Widow
|
-
|
20
|
20
|
5.26
|
Divorced
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Family size
|
|
|
|
|
1-4
|
90
|
137
|
227
|
59.7
|
5-10
|
26
|
82
|
108
|
28.42
|
>10
|
22
|
23
|
45
|
11.84
|
Occupation
|
|
|
|
|
Farmer
|
59
|
117
|
176
|
46.3
|
Merchant
|
29
|
91
|
120
|
31.57
|
Government employee
|
28
|
13
|
41
|
10.78
|
Daily laborer
|
14
|
-
|
14
|
3.7
|
Other
|
8
|
21
|
29
|
7.63
|
3.1.2. Demographic characterstics of the key informants
Forty key informants with socio-demographic features indicated in Table 3 were properly interviewed. Most of the key informants were males, Muslims, married and diploma holders and found within age range of 18-40.
Table 3 Demographic features of the key informants
Variable
|
Occupation
|
Head of town Administration
|
“Kebele” official
|
Water sector workers
|
Health workers
|
Sex
|
|
|
|
|
Male
|
8
|
5
|
3
|
18
|
Female
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
5
|
Age (years)
|
|
|
|
|
18-40
|
7
|
3
|
3
|
21
|
41-60
|
2
|
2
|
-
|
2
|
61-80
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Religion
|
|
|
|
|
Muslim
|
7
|
5
|
3
|
14
|
Christian
|
2
|
-
|
-
|
9
|
Other
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Marital status
|
|
|
|
|
Single
|
3
|
1
|
-
|
8
|
Married
|
6
|
4
|
3
|
15
|
Widow
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Divorce
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Educational status
|
|
|
|
|
Grade 9-10
|
3
|
4
|
-
|
-
|
Grade 11-12
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Certificate
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Diploma
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
15
|
Degree
|
3
|
-
|
-
|
8
|
Other
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
3.2. Latrine coverage, associated facilities and usage
Only 45.3% of the household respondents indicated that they had latrine (Table 4). This was also confirmed by authors’ observation check list data. Latrine coverage was lesser for Eastern zone of the town compared to centeral and western zones. Moreover, over 60% of respondents who had latrine indicated that a latrine was used by more than 5 people.
The majority of the available toilets were built without skill and technology lacking associated facilities (Figure 1). Fifty seven (33.13%), 54 (31.4%), 18 (10.47%) and 43 (25%) of latrine owning households said that their latrines are 3-5m, 2-3m, 6m and greater than 6m away from kitchens, respectively. Data collected using observation check list revealed that higher percentage of households’ latrine (43.6%) was located at a distance less than 6m from the kitchen (Table 8) compared to the value (35.5%) obtained via questionnaire.
Figure.1 – Appearances of some latrines of the respondents of Negele town in 2018 (Photo by Girma Deboch, 2018).
More than half (52.3%) of the households replied that their latrine lacked roofs. Roughly, 50 % of households from the Central or Western zones indicated the presence of latrine roofs whereas only 38 % Eastern zone households indicated the presence of latrine roofs. Fifty three percent and 100% of the households indicated the absence of latrine doors and hole cover, respectively.(Table 4). Data pertaining to latrine roof, wall and hole cover obtained via observation (Table 8) matched with that of questionnaire. The roofs were made from sheet of metals or wood covered with grass, plastic or sheet of fertilizer sacs. Similarly, the walls were made from fenced wood or plastics or other material supported by woods (Figure 1) to prevent exposure of the users or access of animals. Residents have usually been advised by health extension workers to put a sheet of metals or wood on the small hole of the latrine (called “hole cover” in this article) to protect flies, but none of them had done it.
The entire latrine owned households pointed out the lack of water to clean their latrine (also confirmed via observation) and sewerage service to clean their latrines when they became full. The lack of sewerage service to clean full toilets had also forced the respondents to dig new toilets (70%) or drain to the environment (30%) (Table 4). Moreover, only 6 (3.48%) larine owening households perceived their latrines as clean and good for health incontrast to 166 (96.51%) that considered their latrines as unclean, usually dirty and unsuitable for health. Authors’ observation supported the latter as indicated in Figure 1.
Table.4.Responses of households of Negele town regarding latrine coverage and associated facilities.
Variable
|
Zones of Respondents (n=380)
|
Total
|
%
|
Center
|
East
|
West
|
Presence of own latrine
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
82
|
40
|
50
|
172
|
45.3
|
No
|
84
|
86
|
38
|
208
|
54.7
|
Number of latrine users
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-5
|
33
|
12
|
20
|
65
|
37.8
|
6-10
|
30
|
8
|
20
|
58
|
33.7
|
Greater than 10
|
19
|
20
|
10
|
49
|
28.5
|
Distance of latrine from kitchen (m)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2-3
|
27
|
11
|
16
|
54
|
31.4
|
3-5
|
28
|
17
|
12
|
57
|
33.1
|
6
|
9
|
5
|
4
|
18
|
10.5
|
greater than 6
|
18
|
7
|
18
|
43
|
25
|
Presence of latrine roof
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
41
|
15
|
26
|
82
|
47.7
|
No
|
41
|
25
|
24
|
90
|
52.9
|
Presence of latrine door
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
39
|
24
|
18
|
81
|
47.1
|
No
|
43
|
16
|
32
|
91
|
52.9
|
Presence of latrine hole cover
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
No
|
82
|
40
|
50
|
172
|
100
|
Presence of water for cleaning latrine
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
No
|
82
|
40
|
50
|
172
|
100
|
Presence of sewerage to clean latrine
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
No
|
82
|
40
|
50
|
172
|
100
|
Whether latrine became full and overflown earlier or not
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
36
|
9
|
12
|
57
|
33.1
|
No
|
46
|
31
|
38
|
115
|
66.9
|
Measures taken when latrine was full
|
|
|
|
|
|
Digging new toilet
|
65
|
20
|
36
|
121
|
70.3
|
Drainage to Environment
|
17
|
20
|
14
|
51
|
29.7
|
Perception of one’s own latrine
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clean and good for health
|
5
|
-
|
1
|
6
|
3.48
|
Dirty and unsuitable for health
|
77
|
40
|
49
|
166
|
96.5
|
3.3. Absence of latrine and associated factors
Shortage of income and land was the reason raised by the majority of households for not having latrine (Table 5). However, most of interviewed key informants pointed out low involvement of the administration of the town, low residents’ awareness/attitude related issues as the main factor that had hindered the residents from building their own toilets (Table 7). Latrine lackiing households were used to defecate in open fields (56; 26.92%), in bush (54; 26%), in house compounds (80; 38.5%) or in any places as needed (18; 8.65%) (Table 5; Figure 2) as there were no public toilets as an alternate. Similarly, 100% and 43% of the key informants confirmed the absence of public toilet and the existence of open defecation practice in the town, respectively (Table 7). The authors observed no public toilets in the town during the study. Practices of open defecation in different parts of the town was also noticed by the investigators during field survey as a result of shortage of private latrine together with lack of public latrine (Figure.2). However, it was not possible to enumerate the people that practiced open defecation.. The chief administrator of the town stressed that most of the houses that lacked latrine were built by people living in the surrounding rural areas whom they found difficult to give awareness to avoid open defecation. About 50% of the households replied that they had been advised to construct toilets either by health extension workers or local leader (Table 5).
Figure.2- Some open defecation sites in Negele town (Photo by Girma Deboch, 2018)
Table 5. Defecation areas, future plans, reasons for not having latrine and problems faced by respondents of Negele town (n=208) who had no latrine prior to and during the study period
Variable
|
Zones of respondents (n=208)
|
Total
|
%
|
Center
|
East
|
West
|
Defecation areas
|
|
|
|
|
|
open space
|
20
|
26
|
10
|
56
|
26.9
|
public toilet
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
in bush
|
16
|
29
|
9
|
54
|
26
|
in house compound
|
42
|
22
|
16
|
80
|
38.5
|
any place as needed
|
6
|
9
|
3
|
18
|
8.65
|
Reasons for lack of latrine
|
|
|
|
|
|
no knowing the importance of latrine
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
lack of enough land
|
41
|
35
|
18
|
94
|
45.2
|
lack of enough money
|
36
|
37
|
12
|
85
|
40.8
|
other
|
7
|
14
|
8
|
29
|
13.9
|
Problems faced due to lack of latrine
|
|
|
|
|
|
lack of safety
|
21
|
25
|
14
|
60
|
28.8
|
Infectious disease
|
12
|
31
|
9
|
52
|
25
|
pollution of living area
|
32
|
13
|
6
|
51
|
24.5
|
moving out in darkness
|
19
|
17
|
9
|
45
|
21.63
|
Person advised to construct latrine
|
|
|
|
|
|
health extension
|
17
|
27
|
18
|
62
|
29.8
|
local leader
|
23
|
13
|
5
|
41
|
19.7
|
no body
|
44
|
46
|
15
|
105
|
50.5
|
Having plan to contact latrine
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
34
|
25
|
9
|
68
|
32.7
|
No
|
50
|
61
|
29
|
140
|
67.3
|
Latrine lacking households expressed that they had been suffering from lack of safety, from illness, pollution of living area and moving out in dark for defecation. Similarly, 35% and 23% of the key informants expressed the prevalence of waterborne health problems and environmental pollution in the town, respectively due to lower latrine coverage (Table 7). However, 67% of toilet lacking households expressed that they had no plan to construct latrines in the near future due to income, land or information constraints as expressed earlier. The authors also noticed that most of the houses in the town were built on small plots of land without following the plan of the town and extra area to construct latrine. The chief administrator of the town, a key informant, pointed out that the administration of the town had planned to build four public toilets by 2018/2019. However, two third of the key informants had no information regarding the plan of the administration of the town at all (Table 7).
3.4. Water service coverage and associated conditions
Only 29 households, all from the Central zone of the town, replied that they had private tap water (Table 6). Few households said that they used to buy others tap water expending much of their time lining up and their energy in carrying longer distance whereas the majority of them replied that they were using unprotected water sources including ponds/rain and river; particularly Nano River travelling 3 to 5 km to the north direction of the town These were also observed by the investigators (Figure 3) but it was not possible to count the number of people using each water source so that the numbers relied on the response of the households (Table 6)
The area of the Nano River is mountainous making it difficult to fetch water from it. Moreover, using river directly for drinking could have been created health problems as 72.6% of the respondents replied that they directly use non-tap water without boiling or chemical treatment (Table 6). Forty five percent of the households said that they had no Knowledge about the effect of impure water on health, but 51% of them said they or their families had contracted waterborne diseases.
Figure 3- ‘’Fetching water from Nano River and transporting longer distance on the back of people (A and B) and fetching water from private tap with long waiting line (C) and transporting using horse (D) (Photo by Girma Deboch, 2018).
Table 6. Water service coverage and related conditions in Negele town in 2018
Variable
|
Zone of respondents(n=380)
|
Total
|
%
|
Centeral
|
Eastern
|
Western
|
Having private tap water
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
29
|
-
|
-
|
29
|
7.6
|
No
|
137
|
126
|
88
|
351
|
92.4
|
Source of water if no one’s own tap water
|
|
|
|
|
|
Others’private tap water
|
39
|
13
|
4
|
56
|
16
|
Nano River
|
72
|
83
|
58
|
213
|
60.7
|
Pond and rain
|
26
|
30
|
26
|
82
|
23.4
|
Using protected non-tap water
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
No
|
137
|
126
|
88
|
351
|
100
|
Treating non-tap water before deinking
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, using chemicals like"Bishangaria or
Wuhagarb ”
|
15
|
3
|
3
|
21
|
6
|
Yes, boiling
|
28
|
26
|
21
|
75
|
21.4
|
No
|
94
|
97
|
64
|
255
|
72.6
|
Knowledge of effect of impure water on health
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
82
|
56
|
55
|
193
|
55
|
No
|
55
|
70
|
33
|
158
|
45
|
Self or family member exposed to waterborne disease
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
60
|
67
|
53
|
180
|
51.3
|
No
|
77
|
59
|
35
|
171
|
48.7
|
a - chlorine-based water treatment solution; b - mixture of aluminum sulphate and calcium hypochlorite solution, both are available on local markets and people are adised and encouraged to use to treat water at homes
Forty five percent of the key informants expressed non-functioning of public water pipes (Figure 4) as a factor for reduced water supply to the town. Public pipes were constructed in the town in 2010 at different places, but became non-functional since 2013 to the time of investigation.
Table 7. Key informants’ response regarding latrine and water service coverage
Variable
|
No of Respondents=40
|
|
|
|
Male
|
Female
|
Total
|
%
|
Presence of public toilet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
No
|
34
|
6
|
40
|
100
|
|
Effects of lack of public toilet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suffering to use open defection
|
15
|
2
|
17
|
42.5
|
|
Health problem related to waterborne diseases
|
13
|
1
|
14
|
35
|
|
Environmental pollution
|
7
|
2
|
9
|
22.5
|
|
Factors contributing to lack of latrine
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low involvement of administration
|
11
|
2
|
13
|
30
|
|
Knowledge and attitude related problems
|
13
|
2
|
15
|
37.5
|
|
Shortage of income
|
5
|
1
|
6
|
15
|
|
Lack of enough Land
|
3
|
-
|
3
|
7.5
|
|
Lack of follow up
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
7.5
|
|
Cosequences of lack of latrine
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moving out in the dark for defection
|
18
|
3
|
21
|
52.5
|
|
women and girls lack safety and privacy
|
11
|
1
|
12
|
30
|
|
Suffering from bad smell when defecating around home
|
5
|
2
|
7
|
17.5
|
|
Factors hindering water service coverage
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shortage of water from the source and lack of tanker
|
9
|
-
|
9
|
22.5
|
|
Non-function of public pipe
|
14
|
4
|
18
|
45
|
|
Low involvement of Administration
|
8
|
2
|
10
|
25
|
|
Low income of the house holds
|
3
|
-
|
3
|
7.5
|
|
Administration planned to improve latrine and tap water coverage
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes
|
11
|
2
|
13
|
32.5
|
|
No
|
23
|
4
|
27
|
67.5
|
|
Extent to which administration planned to raise latrine and tapwater coverage
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-50
|
1
|
-
|
1
|
2.5
|
|
51-80
|
6
|
1
|
7
|
17.5
|
|
81 &above
|
4
|
1
|
5
|
12.5
|
|
No response
|
23
|
4
|
27
|
67.5
|
|
Observational survey (Table 8) also revealed the presence of only few private taps with infrequent and insufficient water. More over all public pipes were out of function during the investigation (Figure 4). Several key informants also mentioned low involvement of the administration, inadequate amount water from the source and lack of storage tankers as contributing factors to low water service coverage of the town. However, the chief administrator of the town, also a key informant, stressed inadequacy of water as a major limiting factor for the provision of sufficient water to the town. The chief administrator also expressed that the town had planned to build water tankers and public water pipes across the town to raise its water supply coverage to about 70% by 2018/2019. Only one third of the key informants knew the existence of plan though they were not sure about planned percentage of water service coverage improvement as they put various ranges. (Table 7).
Table 8 Observational checklist used to collect data from households (n= 380)
No
|
What were observed
(present/absent if applicable)
|
Yes (%)
|
No (%)
|
Remark*
|
|
|
1
|
Household latrine
|
172 (45..3)
|
208 (54.7)
|
|
|
A
|
Latrine door
|
81(47.1)
|
91 (52.)
|
A to E were applied to households that owned latrine
|
|
B
|
Latrine roof
|
82 (47.7)
|
90 (42.3)
|
|
C
|
Latrine hole cover
|
-
|
172{100)
|
|
D
|
Latrine Water supply to clean
|
-
|
172(100)
|
|
E
|
distance of Latrine from kitchen
|
|
|
|
< 6m
|
129 (75)
|
|
|
≥ 6m
|
43( 25)
|
|
|
2
|
Using public latrine
|
-
|
172 (100)
|
for households without latrine
|
|
3
|
Practicing open defecation*
|
|
|
Various parts of the town were observed
|
|
4
|
Drinking Water source (n=380)
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
Own private tap water
|
29 (7.6)
|
351(92.4)
|
|
|
B
|
Others private tap water*
|
|
|
B to F were applied to households with no private tap water
|
|
C
|
Public tap water
|
|
351(100)**
|
|
D
|
River*
|
|
|
|
E
|
Spring*
|
|
|
|
F
|
Pond/rain*
|
|
|
|
- Absence or presence was checked (Figure 1. 2 and 3) but it was not possible to enumerate and calculate the percentages, ** was implicated as no functional public tap water was available in the town during the study
Figure 4-Non- functioning public pipes in study area (Photo by Girma Deboch, 2018)