wash data pilot survey report kampong chhnang province …...wash data pilot survey results overall,...

washmatters.wateraid.org

WaterAid is a registered charity: Australia: ABN 99 700 687 141. Canada: 119288934 RR0001. India: U85100DL2010NPL200169. Japan: 特定非営利活動法人ウォーターエイドジャパン(認定 NPO法人) WaterAid Japan is a specified non-profit corporation (certified NPO corporation). Sweden: Org.nr: 802426-1268, PG: 90 01 62-9, BG: 900-1629. UK: 288701 (England and Wales) and SC039479

(Scotland). USA: WaterAid America is a 501(c) (3) non-profit organization. 1

2018 WASH Data Pilot Survey Report Kampong Chhnang Province

Final Report 19th October 2018

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or views of WaterAid.




Preface The Royal Government of Cambodia’s vision, outlined in the National Strategic Plan (NSP) for Rural Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (RWSSH), is that “every person in rural communities has sustained access to safe water supply and sanitation services and lives in a hygienic environment by 2025.” The Ministry of Rural Development’s (MRD) National Action Plan 1 (NAP) for RWSSH 2014-2018 was established as the first phase of the roadmap to reach this goal and set a target for rural water supply and sanitation coverage of 60% by 2018.

During 2018, MRD led a sector review in order to measure progress of the NAP1 and the associated Provincial Action Plans (PAP) for RWSSH in each province. During this review, each province gathered and submitted information related to the PAP output indicators. As part of the PAP review in Kampong Chhnang Province, MRD and the Provincial Department of Rural Development (PDRD) have collaborated with the National Institute of Statistics (NIS), Provincial Department of Planning (PDP), District Administrations and WaterAid to undertake a province-wide survey of the household RWSSH access.

The survey utilizes the same methodology employed in the Cambodian Socio-Economic Survey (CSES) which is the reference document for the NAP baseline. These results provide a snapshot of the RWSSH coverage across the province which can be compared with the PAP baseline in order to measure progress during the PAP 1 period.

The survey outlined in this report also included sanitation indicators aligned with the Cambodian Sustainable Development Goals (CSDGs) which generated useful province-wide sanitation data which MRD and sector actors can utilize to inform planning as we work together towards the Cambodian Sustainable Development Goal of universal safely-managed sanitation services.

We would like to express our profound thanks to the NIS, PDRD, MRD, District administrations, the Provincial Department of Planning, and relevant partners in this field who have helped to collaborate, collect data and compile a report for this survey.

Phnom Penh, 30 June 2019

H.E Hang Lina Dr. Lon Sayteng Delegation of the Royal Government of Director of Department of Rural Cambodia in-charge of Director General Health Care of the Ministry of Rural of the National Institute of Statistics Development




Table of Contents Preface ................................................................................................................................. 3 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. 4 List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... 5 Acronyms ............................................................................................................................. 7 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 8

Background .................................................................................................................... 8 WASH Data Pilot Survey Results ................................................................................... 8 WASH Pilot Survey Process ........................................................................................... 8

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 9 WASH Survey Objectives ................................................................................................... 12 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 12

A Multistakeholder Approach ........................................................................................ 12 Scope and Coverage.................................................................................................... 12 Sampling Design .......................................................................................................... 12 Sampling Strategy ........................................................................................................ 13 Questionnaire ............................................................................................................... 13

Pilot WASH Survey Findings : Analysis and Discussion ..................................................... 14 I. Current state of access to WASH services in Kampong Chnnang ............................. 14 II. Supporting subnational authorities to perform WASH data collection and monitoring .................................................................................................................... 29

Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 33 References ......................................................................................................................... 36 Annexes ............................................................................................................................. 37

Annex A – Methodology ............................................................................................... 37 Annex B- Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 42 Annex C - WASH Survey Pilot Data (Tables 1 – 24)..................................................... 51 Annex D- Additional Data Charts Disaggregated by District ......................................... 64




List of Figures Box 1 JMP Ladders in the 2030 Agenda 6 Table 1- Definitions of Improved and Unimproved Water and Sanitation 8 Table 2- Sample sizes according to district 10 Chart 1- Improved and Unimproved Drinking Sources, Province 12 Chart 2- Improved Water Sourced by District 12 Chart 3- Types of Drinking Water Sources, Province 12 Chart 4- Water Treatment by Household, Province 13 Chart 5- Water Treatment by Household, Urban 13 Chart 6- Water Treatment by Household, Rural 13 Chart 7- Water Treatment by ID Poor, Province 14 Box 2- JMP Ladder for Water 16 Chart 8- JMP Drinking Water Service Levels, Province 16 Chart 9- Types of Toilet Facilities, Urban 17 Chart 10- Types of Toilet Facilities, Rural 17 Chart 11- Toilet Facilities by ID Poor, Province 18 Box 3- JMP Ladder for Sanitation 20 Chart 12- JMP Sanitation Service Levels, Province 20 Chart 13- Menstrual Hygiene Management, Province 21 Chart 14- Menstrual Hygiene Management, Urban 21 Chart 15- Menstrual Hygiene Management, Rural 22 Chart 16- Self Reported Hand Washing Habits, Province 22 Chart 17- Self Reported Hand Washing Habits, District 23 Box 4- JMP Ladder for Hygiene 24 Chart 18- JMP Hygiene Service Levels, Province 24 Photo 1- Data Collection Teams 28 Photo 2- Reaching floating villages by boat 29 Photo 3- Enumerator and respondent during data collection 30 Chart 19- JMP Water Service Levels by District (Dry Season) 61 Chart 20- JMP Water Service Levels by District (Wet Season) 61 Chart 21- JMP Sanitation Service Levels by District (Dry Season) 62 Chart 22- JMP Sanitation Service Levels by District (Wet Season) 62 Chart 23- JMP Hygiene Service Levels by District 63 Chart 24- Improved / Unimproved Water Sources by District (Dry Season) 63 Chart 25- Improved / Unimproved Water Sources by District (Wet Season) 64 Chart 26- Improved/Unimproved Sanitation by District 64




Acronyms CLTS: Community Led Total Sanitation

CSDGs: Cambodian Sustainable Development Goals

DORDs: District Offices for Rural Development

DOPs: District office of Planning

JMP: Joint Monitoring Program

MOP: Ministry of Planning

MRD: Ministry of Rural Development

NAP: National Action Plan

NIS: National Institute of Statistics

PAP: Provincial Action Plan

PDP: Provincial Department of Planning

PDRD: Provincial Department of Rural Development

SDGs: Sustainable Development Goals

UN: United Nations




Overview Background The Royal Government of Cambodia has been developing the Cambodian Sustainable Development Goals (CSDGs) and the indicators used to monitor their progress, based on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG 6 is related to WASH and aims to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. Moreover, the Ministry of Rural Development has been reviewing the 2014-2018 National Action Plan (NAP) Rural Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene and associated PAPs and developing Phase 2 NAP and PAPs. WaterAid, as part of its Promoting Sustainable WASH Service at Scale (SusWASH) program, is supporting the Kampong Chhnang Provincial Department of Rural Development (PDRD) to review their current PAP and develop the next phase PAP. To do so, WaterAid worked with the National Institute of Statistic (NIS), the Ministry of Rural Development (MRD), the Provincial Department of Rural Development (PDRD), and the Provincial Department of Planning (PDP) and the survey teams to conduct a 2018 WASH Data Pilot Survey in Kampong Chhnang province. Field data collection was completed through individual household interviews with 2,460 sampled households in 164 villages across all districts and municipality in Kampong Chhnang province. The survey aims both to create a first province-wide baseline of WASH service levels, which will feed into future PAPs and inform WASH program priorities, and to build the capacity of authorities at provincial and district level to collect and monitor WASH data.

WASH Data Pilot Survey Results Overall, the Pilot WASH Survey findings show an urban-rural and income-level divide in access to improved water supply and sanitation across the seven districts (all defined as rural) and one city (Krong Kampong Chhnang) in Kampong Chhnang Province. Households located in rural / remote areas and floating villages and low-income households (ID Poor 1) show lower levels of access to improved drinking water, lower levels of water treatment and higher levels of difficulty accessing water. They also show higher levels of open defecation, lower access to improved sanitation, namely sanitation that is accessible during the wet season, and lower levels of safe disposal of latrine pits, children’s faeces, and menstrual hygiene products. Self-reported hand washing habits are similar across districts: they are high after using the toilet and before eating food, and low after changing a baby’s diaper and after touching animals.

WASH Pilot Survey Process The main success of the survey process is the cooperation of a wide array of stakeholders: NIS and MRD at national level; PDRD and PDP at provincial level; DORD and DOPs at district level, as well as students and WaterAid staff at central and provincial offices. Lessons learnt throughout the process include the need for clearer definitions of technical processes such as random household selection and technical terms such as ‘hand washing facility’ to avoid data bias; performing data collection period during the dry season to avoid




accessibility issues in remote areas due to flooding; and a need for stronger cooperation with village chiefs for smoother processes and increase trust from respondents. Going forward, it will be important to train commune level authorities to monitor the data regularly, and disseminate the information on this process to drive WASH stakeholders to produce similar baseline surveys across other provinces in Cambodia. In this regard, knowledge sharing workshops between the data collection teams in Kampong Chhnang and the teams in other provinces can be organized.

Introduction As part of its National Strategy for Rural Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene 2011- 20251, The Royal Government of Cambodia envisions to provide access to improved water supply and sanitation (cf. Table 1 hereunder) and ensure the practice of basic hygienic behavior to 100% of rural communities by 2025. This vision falls in line with the United Nation’s (UN) updated Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) related to WASH: ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all (SGD 6). SDG 6 defines two WASH-related targets: By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all (target 6.1) and achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all, and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls, and those in vulnerable situations (target 6.2) 2 . The SDGs place emphasis on the level of sanitation, water

supply and hygiene services, including a new category for ‘safely managed’ water and sanitation services, and breaking down ‘unimproved’ and ‘improved’ categories more precisely (cf Table 1 hereunder). In this context, the Royal Government’s Ministry of Planning (MOP) has been working alongside other government departments and development partners to develop the Cambodian Sustainable Development Goals (CSDGs) and the indicators used to monitor their progress. In order to do this, certain information needs to be collected at household level to measure baseline indicators such as availability of water supply and where households dispose of excreta.

1Ministry of Rural Development, Brief National Strategy for Rural Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene 2011-2025, December 2012, accessible at: https://www.unicef.org/cambodia/Summary_V7_Low.pdf2Sustainable Development Goals website: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg6

Box1-JMPLaddersinthe2030Agenda




Water RGC Definition Definition under new SDGs Improved Improved water sources, by

the nature of their design and construction, have the potential to deliver safe water. These include: water piped in dwelling or on public taps/ standpipes, tube wells, boreholes protected wells or springs, improved rainwater collection (greater than 3000L capacity and protected)

The same definition is used, but expanded to include: water piped in dwelling or on public taps/ standpipes, tube wells, boreholes protected wells or springs, rainwater collection, tanker-trucks, carts with small tank/drum or bottled water. Improved water sources are broken down into 3 categories. 1. Safely Managed - water is:

a. accessible on premises b. available when needed c. water supplied should be free from

faecal/ chemical contamination. 2. Basic

a. Collection time takes 30 minutes or less (round trip including queuing)

3. Limited b. a. Collection time exceeds 30 minutes

or less (round trip including queuing)

Unimproved Unprotected well and Springs, unimproved rainwater collection (less than 3000L capacity or uncovered), tanker-trucks, carts with small tank/drum or bottled water.

Unprotected well and Springs

Surface Water

Drinking water directly from a river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal or irrigation canal

Drinking water directly from a river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal or irrigation canal

Sanitation RGC Definition Definition under new SDGs Improved Improved water sources are

those that are likely to be protected from outside contamination. These include: flush/pour flush to piped sewer system, septic tanks or pit latrines; ventilated improved pit latrines, composting toilets or pit latrines with slabs

The same definition is used, but Improved water sources are broken down into 3 categories. 1. Safely Managed – a. improved facilities are not shared with other households b. excreta are safely disposed in situ or transported and treated off-site

2. Basic a. improved facilities are not shared with other households 3. Limited




Moreover, throughout the course of 2018, the Ministry of Rural Development (MRD) is reviewing the 2014-2018 National Action Plan for Rural Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (NAP) and its associated Provincial Action Plans (PAP). A subsequent Phase 2 NAP will then be developed. Included in the NAP are outcome level indicators such as percentage of rural population with access to improved water supply. The baseline data for the NAP and PAPs comes from the Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey (CSES), which is conducted at a national level annually, but does not provide provincial or district specific data. As part of its SusWASH program, which seeks to strengthen the enabling environment for WASH at commune, district and provincial level in Kampong Chhnang province, WaterAid is supporting the Kampong Chhnang Provincial Department of Rural Development (PDRD) to review their current PAP and develop the next phase PAP. To do so, WaterAid worked with the Ministry of Planning through the National Institute of Statistic (NIS), the Ministry of Rural Development (MRD), the Provincial Department of Rural Development (PDRD), and the Provincial Department of Planning (PDP) and the survey teams to conduct a 2018 WASH Data Pilot Survey in Kampong Chhnang province. The findings enable provincial level authorities to measure WASH indicators at sub-national level and feed into the next phase PAP. Field data collection was completed through individual household interviews with 2,460 sampled households in 164 villages across all districts in Kampong Chhnang province. In total, 50 enumerators and supervisors from PDP, PDRP, DOPs (District Planning Offices) and DORDs (District Rural Development Offices) were recruited by WaterAid and trained on data collection by NIS with support from WaterAid and MRD. NIS, MRD and WaterAid also ensured quality control of the data collection process. Upon completion of the survey field work, the questionnaires were processed and validated by NIS. This report will analyze both (i) the WASH Pilot Survey findings on access to safely managed water sources, sanitation, and current hygiene behaviors, and (ii) the multi-stakeholder data collection process which aims to increase the capacity of authorities at subnational level to collect and monitor WASH data.

a. improved facilities are shared between two or more households

Unimproved Pour flush (or flush) connected to elsewhere (not pit/tank), pit latrine without slab or open pit, latrine overhanging field or water (field, pond, river, lake, sea)

Pour flush (or flush) connected to elsewhere (not pit/tank), pit latrine without slab or open pit, latrine overhanging field or water (field, pond, river, lake, sea)

Open Defecation

Disposal of human faeces in fields, forests, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches and other open spaces or with solid waste

Disposal of human faeces in fields, forests, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches and other open spaces or with solid waste

Table 2- Definitions of Improved and Unimproved Water and Sanitation




WASH Survey Objectives The WASH Pilot Survey objectives are divided in two sections:

i. To provide the first province-wide baseline of WASH service levels, which will feed into the annual review of the PAP and NAP, support the development of the next phase PAP, and inform WASH program priorities;

ii. Beyond data collection, the pilot survey aims to build the capacity of authorities at the provincial and district level to collect and monitor data on safely managed water and sanitation, as well as build collective action and engagement of WASH sector stakeholders around WASH data monitoring.

Methodology A Multi-stakeholder Approach The WASH Pilot Survey is the result of a novel multi-stakeholder approach including NIS and MRD at national level; PDRD and PDP at provincial level; DRDO and DPOs at district level, as well as students and WaterAid staff at central and provincial offices. NIS took the lead in designing the survey questions, supported by WaterAid who provided JMP / SDG related questions, and facilitated two consultative workshops with technical officers from NIS, MRD, PDRD, and PDP. WaterAid was responsible for the recruitment of 50 enumerators and supervisors for the data collection, drawn from PDP, PDRP, DOPs, DORDs and students. NIS took the lead on training the enumerators and supervisors with technical support from MRD and WaterAid. The supervisors (PDP and PDRD) coordinated the data collection teams and supported them in the household interviews. NIS, MRD and WaterAid worked together to ensure field supervision and data quality control during data collection through regular monitoring visits and spot checks. Upon field work completion, NIS processed the data. This level of cooperation at national and subnational level is one of the key successes of the Pilot WASH Survey.

Scope and Coverage The pilot WASH survey was conducted to provide reliable estimates of variables relating to WASH indicators at provincial and district level, both urban and rural. The survey covers all of the villages and normal households in Kampong Chhnang Province. The survey involved a sample of 2,460 households from 164 sampled villages. The 164 villages are located across all districts in the province, and a sub-sample of 15 households in each selected village was distributed across all 164 villages.

Sampling Design The list of villages was taken from the 2008 Population Census with updated information from the Commune Data Base (CDB) provided by PDP. The frame was partitioned into eight separate frames so as to provide data by district. The sample sizes of villages were then determined according to the consideration of minimum required precision, budget constraint, as well as the number of villages per district. The district size and its allocated sample size of villages are summarized in the table below.




Dist. Code District Name

Dist. Size (No.

of Villages)

(Nd)

No. of Househo

lds (Xd)

No. of Sampled Villages

(nd)

No. of Sampled

Households per

Village (m)

Total No. of Sampled

Households

(mnd)

01 Baribour 64 14,555 20 15 300 02 Chol Kiri 29 8,024 16 15 240

03 Krong Kampong

Chhnang 26 8,974 16 15 240 04 Kampong Leaeng 44 12,418 16 15 240 05 Kampong Tralach 103 23,970 30 15 450 06 Rolea B'ier 135 27,122 30 15 450

07 Sameakki Mean

Chey 90 19,579 20 15 300 08 Tuek Phos 78 16,192 16 15 240

Total 569

130,834 164 2,460

Table 2- Sample sizes according to district

Sampling Strategy The survey was conducted via a stratified two-stage sampling design: selection of villages, followed by selection of households. Villages were selected using the Systematic Probability Proportional to Size sampling technique with the number of households in each village as the size of measure. 15 households were selected in each previously selected village, using the Circular Systematic Random Sampling scheme, using a principal landmark as the starting point in the selection process. The detailed methodology can be found in Annex A.

Questionnaire The National Institute of Statistics (NIS) developed the questionnaire through two consultative workshops with technical officers from NIS, MRD, PDRD, PDP and WaterAid. WaterAid supported NIS in questionnaire development and workshop organization and facilitation. The questionnaire is based on the Cambodian Socio Economic Survey, The Cambodia Demographic Health Survey 2014, The Population Census 2008, the WATSAN section for the upcoming 2019 Population Census as well as SGD 6 targets related to WASH and updated JMP indicators. The full questionnaire can be found in Annex B.




Pilot WASH Survey Findings : Analysis and Discussion I. Current state of access to WASH services in Kampong Chhnang I.1 Objectives The objective of the WASH Data Pilot Survey is to provide the first province-wide baseline of WASH service levels, which will feed into the annual review of the PAP and NAP, support the development of the next phase PAP, and inform WASH program priorities.

I.2 Pilot Survey Findings Overall, the Pilot WASH Survey findings show an urban-rural and income-level divide in access to improved water supply and sanitation across Kampong Chhnang Province. According to NIS’ definition of ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ in the Cambodian Socio Economic Survey, all districts are considered rural and ‘krongs’ are considered urban. As such, there are seven rural districts and one urban city, Krong Kampong Chhnang, across the province Households located in rural / remote areas and floating villages (Baribour, Chol Kiri, Sameakki Mean Chey, Kampong Leaeng) and low-income households (ID Poor 1) show lower levels of access to improved drinking water, lower levels of water treatment and higher levels of difficulty accessing water. They also show higher levels of open defecation, lower access to improved sanitation, namely sanitation that is accessible during the wet season, and lower levels of safe disposal of latrine pits, children’s faeces, and menstrual hygiene products. Overall, self-reported hand washing habits are similar across districts: they are high after using the toilet and before eating food, and low after changing a baby’s diaper and after touching animals. The highest percentages of self-reported hand washing are in Baribour and Kampong Leaeng and the lowest are in Kampong Tralach. The survey findings are hereunder divided into three categories: access to improved water sources, access to improved sanitation and hygiene behaviors. Each category includes an introduction to what the data collected would look like under the new SDG indicators for SDG 6, based on the JMP Ladders.

a. Access to Improved Water Sources This section covers the different types of drinking water sources, treatment and storage of drinking water, persons responsible and time spent fetching water, water expenditure, as well as difficulty accessing water.




Main sources of drinking water

The survey shows 53.1% of households have access to improved drinking water province-wide during the wet season (cf. Table 2, Annex C). These overall findings are similar in the dry season, with a slightly higher increase to 54.4% of households having access to improved drinking water province-wide. However, the overall percentage shows a wide range throughout the districts, from 4% in Baribour district to 98.9% in Krong Kampong Chhnang (wet season) (cf. Chart 2). Baribour is a strong outlier with only 4% and 4.8% of households who have access to improved sources in wet season and dry season, respectively. Overall, only half of the districts surveyed show improved drinking water coverage over 50% (cf. district level charts, Annex D).

With regards to improved access to drinking water, while 76.4% of households in Krong Kampong Chhnang have piped water into dwelling, a majority of persons throughout the province use a tube well or a borehole. Of the persons who do not have an improved drinking water source, water is mostly supplied through unprotected wells or pond, rivers or streams.

Treatment of drinking water The survey shows 61.1% of households province-wide always treat drinking water and 23.6% never treat drinking water (cf. Table 3, Annex C). The overall percentages show urban-rural disparities of water treatment. Firstly, 82.8% of urban households and 59.5% of rural households always treat water. Secondly, across the province, 23.6% of households never treat drinking water, however this figure is 25.2% in rural areas and only 1% in urban areas. Sameakki Mean Chey is an outlier with only 34% of households who always treat drinking water and 38.4% who never treat drinking water.

Chart3-TypesofDrinkingWaterSources,Province

Chart1-ImprovedandUnimprovedDrinkingSources,Province

Chart2-ImprovedWaterSourcedbyDistrict




Chart4-WaterTreatmentbyHousehold,Province

Chart5-WaterTreatmentbyHousehold,Urban

Chart6-WaterTreatmentbyHousehold,Rural




Water Treatment by income level

The survey also shows an income-divide in water treatment: 61.9% of non-ID Poor and 61.2% of ID Poor 2 (poor) households always treat drinking water, compared to only 56.6% ID Poor 1 (very poor) (cf. Table 10, Annex C). Similarly, 30.7% of ID poor 1 households never treat drinking water, compared to 22.7% of non-ID Poor and 23.4% of ID Poor 2 households.

The survey shows 74.9% of persons boil their water as a treatment method (cf. Table 12, Annex C). Numbers are relatively similar across non-ID poor, ID Poor 1 and ID Poor 2 households: 75.1%, 79.1%, and 69% respectively. A higher number of Non ID Poor (28.4%) and ID Poor 2 (24.7%) households use biosand filters compared to ID Poor 1 households (21.5%). Water treatment by water source Of those who have an improved water source, 65.2% always treat drinking water across the province. The range varies from 51.7% (persons using a public tap or standpipe) to 68.5% (persons who have a protected well) (cf. Table 11, Annex C). Overall, 21% of persons with an improved water source never treat drinking water. The range varies between 17% (persons who have piped in dwelling or water on premises) and 27.5% (persons using a public tap or a standpipe). Of those who have an unimproved water source, 56.5% of persons always treat drinking water. The range varies between 18.9% (persons who use an unprotected spring) and 60.1% (persons with an unprotected well). Overall, 26.5% of persons with an unimproved water source never treat drinking water. Similarly, the range varies between 24.1% (persons with access to a pond, river or stream) and 74.5% (persons using bottled water). Storage of treated drinking water Across the province, the most common method for storing treated water is transferring it to a covered container (56.9.% province-wide)(cf. Table 13, Annex C). 27.8% of persons transfer water to a kettle and 25.1% of persons store it in a bottle, although the latter is more common in in Baribour (58.2%) and Krong Kampong Chhnang (39.3%). Only 13.7% of persons store water in filters, with higher percentages in Krong Kampong Chhnang (25.7%) and in Kampong Leaeng (25.7%)

Chart7-WaterTreatmentbyIDPoor,Province




Division of household responsibilities to fetch drinking water Across the province, 41.8% of female heads of households are responsible for fetching water during the dry season, compared to 40.7% of male heads of households (cf. Table 8, Annex C). During the wet season, the share of the females responsible for fetching water increases to 43.4%, whilst the share of men decreases to 40.2%. While more than twice as many females than males take on the responsibility in Krong Kampong Chhnang (50.5% and 57.6% of women compared to 22.4% and 24.2% of men during dry and wet season, respectively), the responsibility is shared more equally in rural areas (41.1% for males and 41.6% for females during dry season, and 40.5% for males and 43.1% for females in the wet season). As for children, 12.5% of them take on this responsibility during dry season, and 12% during wet season. Time spent fetching drinking water Across the province, 65.4% of households have water on premises during wet season and 59.4% during dry season (cf. Table 9, Annex C). A higher number of rural households have water on premises (65.8% during wet season and 59.8% during dry season) than urban households (47.3% during wet season and 42% during dry season). Chol Kiri is an outlier with 15.5% households who have access to water on premises during wet season, decreasing to only 4.9% in the dry season. Of the households who do not have water on premises, a large majority spend 30 minutes or less fetching drinking water: 27% in wet season and 28.1% in dry season. During the wet season, the percentage of households spending 30 minutes or more fetching water increases from 6.4% to 10.5% compared to wet season, province-wide. Difficulty Accessing Water The survey shows 12.2% of persons have difficulty accessing water province-wide; however, the rates are higher in Chol Kiri (14.9%) in Sameakki Mean Chey (17.4%) (cf. Table 15, Annex C). In general, the heads of households are the ones who have the most difficulty accessing water. In Chol Kiri, however, children (sons and daughters) bear this difficulty more than their parents. Water expenditure by water source (dry season) Tube wells and boreholes are one of the most cost-effective improved water sources, costing on average 10,686 Riel per month province-wide (cf. Table 14, Annex C). Water piped into dwelling costs on average 28,200 Riel per month, province-wide. Bottled water is one of the most expensive water sources, averaging at 51,760 Riel per month across the province. Overall, the findings show that people using hand pumps and wells spend relatively little and those who buy the water into the premises spend more. The reported expenses may also include spending for non-drinking purposes, such as transportation. As such, persons who use tanker truck spend on average 82,572 Riel per month and those who use a cart with a small tank/drum 39,410 Riel per month: these numbers are higher than other methods, but it is probable that the transportation costs are divided between multiple households.




Going Further: Safely Managed (Perceived) Water Services (JMP Ladders)

Under the new SDG framework, data will be monitored under the following

categories: safely managed, basic, limited, unimproved, and surface water (see Table 1 for definitions). The results for Kampong Chhnang Province are detailed hereunder

(cf. Table 5, Annex C).

• 23.9% persons have access to safely managed water in dry season and

24.8% in wet season. • The overall percentages show a wide range between remote/rural districts

and urban and more densely populated and developed districts (cf District Level Charts, Annex D).

• The highest levels of safely managed water services are in Krong Kampong Chhnang (urban), as well as in Kampong Tralach and Rolea B’ier, which have areas of higher density and development, including factories located alongside National Road 5.

• 21.2% and 22.1% of persons use a basic water service in the dry season and wet season, respectively. A majority of them use a tube well or borehole.

• 23.8% and 24.3% of people have unimproved access to water services during the dry and wet season, respectively. Almost all of them use unprotected wells.

• In Chol Kiri, only 0.8% of persons use safely managed water services during the wet season and 0.4% during the dry season. 72.7% use surface water during the dry season (71.4% during the wet season).

Chart8-JMPDrinkingWaterServiceLevels,ProvinceBox2-JMPLadderforWater

Note: Four criteria must be measured to differentiate ‘basic’ and ‘safely managed’ water sources: (i) improved/unimproved source, (ii) water availability, (iii) access (time), and (iv) quality. WaterAid and the data collection teams did not have the time, capacity or resources to test the water quality during this survey; instead, respondents were asked to describe the quality of their water. As such, the safely managed category here is ‘perceived’. Moreover, the high percentage of insufficient data is linked to the design of the survey: when respondents answered ‘never treating water’ in Q19, they then skipped the question about quality of water in Q22., and thus for these responses the results were unable to be categorized between basic or safely managed.




b. Access to Improved Sanitation This section covers access to toilet facilities including sanitation seasonality, latrine pit emptying and children’s faeces management, as well as difficulty accessing sanitation. Access to Toilet Facilities

The survey shows 62.9% of persons have access to an improved facility province-wide (cf. Table 4, Annex C). The overall percentage shows an urban-rural disparity in access to improved facilities with 89.3% access in urban areas and 60.9% in rural areas (cf. district level charts, Annex D). Of the persons who have access to an improved facility, a majority of them (58.6%) use a pour flush to a septic tank or pit, and only 10.3% - all urban - have a flush connected to sewerage. Of the 37.1% of persons who have an unimproved toilet facility, a large majority of them - 34.8%- practice open defecation. The highest rates are in Chol Kiri where 62.4% of persons practice open defecation.

Chart9-TypesofToiletFacilities,Urban

Chart10-TypesofToiletFacilities,Rural




ID poor 1 households have lower access to an improved facility (33.3%), of which 28.9% use a pour flush or flush to a septic tank or pit (cf. Table 17, Annex C). Open defecation rates are highest for ID Poor 1 households (62.5%), compared to ID Poor 2 (46.5%) and 29.4% for non ID Poor households. Chol Kiri is an outlier with 66.8% of ID Poor 1, 74.2% of ID Poor 2 and 62.4% of non ID Poor practicing open defecation.

Latrine Pit Emptying Practices 82.2% of households have never emptied their latrine pit across the province (cf. Table 18, Annex C). The overall percentage shows an urban-rural divide: 84.3% in rural areas and 61% in urban areas have never emptied their latrine pit. Of the persons who have emptied their latrine pit, 45.9% of them removed waste by tanker truck (cf. Table 19, Annex C). This practice is also more common in urban areas (64.9%) than in rural areas (40.6%). Other methods include manual pit emptying and disposal (16.4% in urban areas and 27% in rural areas). In rural areas, 25.7% of households dispose of their latrine pit in an open pit, land, water, or other place. This practice is much less common in urban areas (3.7% of persons). Difficulty Accessing Sanitation The survey shows 9.9% of persons have difficulty accessing sanitation province-wide, which increases to 13.5% in Krong Kampong Chhnang and 13.7% in Sameakki Mean Chey (cf. Table 15, Annex C). Of those who have difficulty accessing sanitation, male heads of households reported having more difficulty, followed by female heads of households and/or children. In Sameakki Mean Chey, children bear this difficulty the most (4.7%), followed by 4.1% of male and 2.2% of female heads of households. Sanitation Seasonality Across the province, 91% of respondents reported toilets which can be used all year around, and 9% of them can be used during the dry season only (cf. Table 16, Annex C). Households in floating village areas such as Kampong Leang face more difficulties as their latrines flood during the wet season; 23.7% of households can use their latrine during the dry season only. Furthermore, 18.9% of households in Sameakki Mean Chey and 17% of households in Chol Kiri cannot access their latrines at certain times of the rainy season (district officials specifically identified during the month of July), as their household is located on land that is lower than the water level, thus affected by seasonal flooding. However, by only taking into account the households having reported having a toilet (table 4), we find that 21.4% of households who have a toilet cannot use it during the wet season.

Chart11-ToiletFacilitiesbyIDPoor,Province




Further, by combining the percentages of households who have a toilet but cannot access it during the wet season and the households who do not have a toilet, we find that a total 40.6% of households province-wide do not have access to sanitation during the wet season, with higher rates in Chol Kiri (68.8%) and Kampong Leaeng (59.9%)- these rates are also reflected in the JMP Sanitation Service results (table 6). (cf. Table 16, Annex C). Children’s Faeces Management The survey shows 38.2% of persons dispose of children’s faeces in the toilet province-wide (cf. Table 20, Annex C). However, the overall percentage shows a wide range throughout districts, from 22.3% in Chol Kiri to 81.2% in Kampong Chhnang. The average rate of disposal in the toilet in rural areas is of 34.8%. A majority of people in rural areas (50.8%) dispose of children’s faeces in a pit, compared to only 8.5% in urban areas. 8.7% of persons in rural areas dispose of children’s faeces in the jungle, although this number is higher in Chol Kiri (22.2%) and in Kampong Leaeng (15%).




Going Further: Safely Managed Sanitation (JMP Ladder)

Under the new SDG framework, data will be monitored under the following categories: safely managed, basic, limited, unimproved, and open defecation.

The results for Kampong Chhnang Province are detailed hereunder (cf. Table 6, Annex C).

Box3-JMPLadderforSanitation Chart12-JMPSanitationServiceLevels,Province

• 45.6% of persons use safely managed sanitation services during the dry season, with a slight decrease to 43.1% during the wet season. The overall range shows a disparity between high service levels in urban (Krong Kampong Chhnang) and more densely populated areas in close proximity to national roads and factories (Kampong Tralach and Rolea B’ier) and lower service levels in rural and more remote districts (cf. district level charts, Annex D).

• Chol Kiri and Teuk Phos have the lowest levels of safely managed sanitation services: 28.7% in dry season / 26.3% in wet season for Chol Kiri, and 29.2% in dry season / 26.5% in wet season for Teuk Phos.

• There is a 34.8% open defecation rate province-wide in the dry season. • Open defecation rates are the highest in Chol Kiri: 62.4% in dry season,

and 11.6% in wet season. However, the decreases during wet season are directly linked to the increase in insufficient data available. The high percentage of insufficient data during wet season concerns respondents who cannot use their latrine during the wet season, but who did not identify what type of sanitation they use instead. It is expected most of the households categorized under ‘insufficient data’ are seasonally open defecating in the wet season. The likely open defecation rate during the wet season therefore increases to 39.7% province-wide, with a maximum of 66.2% in Chol Kiri.

• In Kampong Leaeng – where many floating villages are located- the open defecation rate is 47.4% in the dry season; and increases to 58.3% (likely) in the wet season, due to latrine flooding.




c. Hygiene Practices This sections covers menstrual hygiene practices, self-reported hand washing practices, as well as households’ participation in hygiene promotion activities. Menstrual Hygiene Practices A majority of persons - 63.2% - bury their menstrual products in a pit (cf. Table 21, Annex C). However, this overall percentage shows an urban-rural divide, with 21.1% in urban areas and 66.3% in rural areas. This practice is particularly high in Baribour (72%), Sameakki Mean Chey (69.3%) and Kampong Leaeng (66.9%). In urban areas, the most common method for menstrual product disposal is throwing them away in the garbage or in a plastic bag (43.9%). This practice is uncommon in rural areas and concerns only 4.3% of persons.

Chart1-MenstrualHygieneManagement,Province

Chart2-MenstrualHygieneManagement,Urban




Self-reported hand-washing practices Across the province, self –reported hand-washing practices are high after using the toilet (87.2%) and before eating food (90.2%) (cf. Table 22, Annex C). Self-reported hand-washing practices are low after changing a baby’s diaper / washing a baby’s bottom (25.3%) and after touching animals (23.2%). Baribour and Kampong Leaeng have the highest percentages of self-reported hand-washing habits and Kampong Tralach has the lowest. Overall, only 2.7% of people report never washing their hands: 2.9% in rural areas and 0.2% in urban areas.

Chart3-MenstrualHygieneManagement,Rural

Chart16-SelfReportedHandWashingHabits,Province




Household engagement in hygiene promotion activities Across the province, 59.8% of households say they are engaged in hygiene promotion activities in an irregular way (cf. Table 23, Annex C). This number is higher in urban areas (68.1%) than in rural areas (59.2%). Across the province, 26.4% of households have never been engaged in a hygiene promotion activity. This number is much higher in rural areas (28%) compared to urban areas (4.4%). It is highest in Kampong Leaeng, where 34.2% of households have never been engaged in a hygiene promotion activity. Households in Kampong Chhnang are the ones who participate in hygiene promotion activities the most often, with 6.9% of households participating in an activity once a week.

Chart17-SelfReportedHandWashingHabits,District




I.3 Discussion of findings Overall, the survey shows important disparities between the eight districts in accessing improved water sources and sanitation, as well as hygiene behaviors. Patterns illustrate lower access to improved water and sanitation in remote/rural districts and districts with high proportions of floating and flooding villages. However, hygiene behaviors are more varied across districts. Water sources Overall, access to improved drinking water sources remains low, with only half of the districts surveyed showing improved drinking water coverage over 50%. Access to improved water sources is particularly low in remote areas and districts with many floating and flooding villages. In Chol Kiri - a remote district located across the river from city of Kampong

Going Further: Hygiene Service Levels (JMP Ladder) Under the new SDG framework, data will be monitored under the following

categories: basic (facilities with soap and water), limited, and no facility. The results for Kampong Chhnang Province are detailed hereunder

(cf. Table 7, Annex C).

• Throughout the province 62.3% of persons have basic hygiene services. • The overall percentage shows important urban-rural disparities: 93.0% of

people have a basic hand washing facility in Krong Kampong Chhnang compared to 30.0% in Kampong Leang, where over half of households do not have a hand washing facility ( cf district level charts, Annex D).

• Though located in a rural area, 72.5% of households in Baribour have basic hand washing facilities.

Chart18-JMPHygieneServiceLevels,ProvinceBox4-JMPLadderforHygiene




Chhnang – a mere 0.8% of households have safely managed (perceived) water services, and 13.4% of households still use surface water. Drinking water treatment habits illustrate both an urban-rural divide as well as an income-divide. Overall, lower-income and remote households show lower percentages of water treatment. Further, ID Poor 1 households (very poor) are less likely to treat their drinking water than ID Poor 2 (poor) and non-ID Poor households. Inaccessible districts such as Chol Kiri - regardless of income levels- show high percentages of households who treat their drinking water. Finally, households with unimproved water sources show lower rates of water treatment, highlighting higher risk of contamination and impact to health. Sanitation

Overall, access to improved sanitation illustrates an urban-rural divide, with 89.3% access in urban areas and 60.9% access in rural areas. Open defecation remains a central issue, with a 34.8% rate of open defecation throughout the province. Open defecation rates are correlated both to income and geographical remoteness. Across the province, twice as many ID Poor 1 households practice open defecation than non-ID Poor households. Inaccessible districts such as Chol Kiri have the highest open defecation rates regardless of income level. Latrine pit and children’s faeces disposal also remains a concern, notably in rural areas. Disposal of children’s faeces in the jungle is most common in remote areas and floating villages, where open defecation rates are also highest. Households in rural areas also have much higher rates of latrine pit disposal into open pits, land, water or other places, compared to households in urban areas. Remote districts such as Chol Kiri, Sameakki Mean Chey and villages in Kampong Leaeng all show higher rates of difficulty in accessing sanitation, which is caused by flooding of latrines during the wet season. Indeed, during wet season, 9% of households across the province cannot access their latrines. Physical ability is another factor of households’ difficulty accessing sanitation. It is estimated that this issue affects predominantly households in the city of Kampong Chhnang , where rates of difficulty accessing sanitation are also high. This can be explained by the fact that homes in the city have multiple stories, thus increasing difficulty in accessing toilets located upstairs. Further, parents moving in with their children in the city tend to be of older age, which can increase their level of difficulty in accessing sanitation. Hygiene Habits Menstrual Hygiene Management remains an issue namely in rural areas, where a majority of persons (66.3%) bury their menstrual hygiene products in a pit and only 4.3% of persons dispose of them in the garbage or a plastic bag. While self –reported hand washing practices are high after using the toilet and before eating food, they are lower after changing a baby’s diaper / washing a baby’s bottom and after touching animals. Hygiene habits do not illustrate an urban-rural divide; rather, rural districts such as Baribour and Kampong Leaeng have the highest percentages of self-reported hand-washing habits.




However, self-reported hand washing habits are high in comparison to the assessment of hand-washing facilities under the new SDGs (JMP Ladder) and to households’ engagement in hygiene promotion activities. Kampong Leaeng shows one of the lowest percentages of hand washing facilities and the highest percentage of people who have never been engaged in a hygiene promotion activity, yet it also shows the highest percentages of self-reported hand washing. This is in part due to the fact that data collection teams were not using the exact same definition of the term ‘hand washing facility’, which created data bias. This resulted from differing advice from MRD and NIS field supervisors, as each ministry has a different definition of what constitutes a ‘hand washing facility’. There are therefore more hand washing facilities in reality than identified in the survey. However, this also sheds light on the inaccuracy of self-reported hand washing habits as an indicator for hygiene habits.

II. Supporting subnational authorities to perform WASH data collection and monitoring II.1 Objectives Beyond data collection, the WASH Data Pilot Survey aims to build authorities’ capacity at provincial and district level to collect and monitor data on WASH as well as build collective action and engagement of sector stakeholders around WASH data monitoring.

II.2 Process overview and discussion The process adopted for the WASH Pilot Survey is the first of its kind in the Kingdom: NIS led the process alongside MRD at the national level, PDRD and PDP at the provincial level, and DORD and DOPs at the district level, with support from WaterAid in terms of technical input, coordination and quality control. All actors collaborated during each step of the process, hence setting up a learning, management and support system with defined roles and responsibilities. Feedback on the different steps of the process (questionnaire development, training of enumerators and facilitators, data collection, data processing) as well as input on future monitoring of the data was obtained through interviews with NIS and WaterAid as well as a feedback workshop with enumerators and facilitators conducted in Kampong Chhnang in October 2018.

a. Questionnaire Development Overview NIS took the lead in designing the survey questions, supported by WaterAid who provided JMP / SDG related questions, and organized/ facilitated two consultative workshops with technical officers from NIS, MRD, PDRD, and PDP. The questionnaire is based on the Cambodian Socio Economic Survey, The Cambodia Demographic Health Survey 2014, The Population Census 2008, the WATSAN section for the upcoming 2019 Population Census as well as SGD 6 targets related to WASH and updated JMP indicators, Successes Considering that national-level WASH indicators continue to be based on MDG indicators, the latter were used throughout the questionnaire. Updated SDG indicators for WASH / JMP




ladders were also integrated into the questionnaire to provide a first overview of the JMP Ladder Service Levels for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene across the province. As such, the questionnaire not only provides an example of the data required under the new SDGs, but it provides WASH actors with examples of questions to integrate into data collection to start measuring SDG indicators3. Lessons learnt According to NIS, challenges in questionnaire development included adapting existing tools and survey questions to the context of Kampong Chhnang, including in terms of floating communities and flood-related issues. Moreover, issues arose with certain questions on the JMP ladders, leading to high levels of ‘insufficient data’; this needs to be rectified in future questionnaires.

• Only households who treat their water were asked if they perceive their water as good quality or not. In the future, this question must be asked to all households.

• For households who cannot use their latrine during the wet season, a follow-up question on where they defecate during that time must be asked.

b. Enumerator / Supervisor Training Overview

A three-day day training session was conducted from 9th-11th May by NIS with support from WaterAid and MRD, to train district level enumerators (from DORD and DOPs, as well as some local university students) and experienced provincial level supervisors (from PDRD and PDP) on data collection. In total, 50 enumerators and supervisors were recruited (by WaterAid) and trained over a period of three days. The first day provided background on the objectives of the survey and training on household selection for interviews. The second day provided training on the core sections of

the household questionnaire and participants practiced interviewing one another. The third day was dedicated to practical interviews in the field, including village mapping and household selection. Upon the three-day training, minor modifications were made to finalize the questionnaire. Successes The overall successes of the training include quality leadership from NIS, active cooperation from all stakeholders (NIS, MRD, WaterAid and participants), and a thorough increase in participants’ knowledge and capacity to conduct data collection.

3It must be noted that, for the purpose of this survey, water quality sampling which would be required to fully assess the safely managed aspect in line with JMP was not undertaken, and instead the water quality is defined by the perception of respondents. The Water Service Levels are therefore also defined as ‘perceived’.

Photo4-DataCollectionTeams




Lessons Learnt Participants reported facing difficulties in understanding and autonomously conducting random household selection, namely when the respondents they had initially selected were absent on the day of data collection. This resulted in confusion about which household respondents they were able to select without creating data bias. Participants also faced difficulties in understanding technical terms, namely when translated from Khmer into English. On this point, technical terms such as ‘latrine’, ‘handwashing facility’, or ‘water treatment’ were not clearly defined in the same manner by all actors, leading to confusion and erroring during data collection. For instance, certain data collectors considered households to have a handwashing facility only if they were in possession of a formal handwashing basin (‘Labobo’) while others took into consideration other types of handwashing facilities such as scoops and buckets. This results in a lower number of handwashing facilities in the survey than exist in reality, according to the SDG and MRD definitions. Further, training participants were not made to sign an agreement committing to perform data collection activities after attending the training, resulting in unexpected dropouts between training and data collection. This was namely an issue in Boribour district where six data collectors were originally trained, but only four performed data collection, resulting in a lack of human resources and causing delays in data collection, as well as strain on the team members. Finally, the third day of training in the field was conducted in districts in proximity to the city; participants did not fully anticipate the challenges they would face collecting data in more remote areas. Overall, participants reported that the quality of the training was good, but did not give them enough time to understand and master the data collection process; they would have preferred a longer training period (4 days).

c. Data Collection Process Overview The data collection took place from 15th-31st May 2011 across all districts. The enumerators and supervisors conducted the data collection. NIS technical officers undertook visits to the villages where the survey teams carried out interviews, providing quality checks and feedback. WaterAid at provincial and central offices also provided survey operations inspections and supported logistics. Successes Cooperation between field supervisors and enumerators proved to be highly successful. Upon the first week of data collection, teams greatly increased their capacity both in terms of interview quality and time and resource management. The teams recruited are inhabitants of the districts where data collection was conducted and therefore familiar with the household respondents, generating both commitment from data collectors and trust from respondents.




Although there were only four days between the end of training and the beginning of the data collection process, strong cooperation with PDP made organizing interviews possible thanks to their contacts within the villages. Lessons Learnt As the villages in which data was collected are geographically spread out, transportation from one village to another was lengthy and at times, difficult. As data collection was conducted during the beginning of the rainy season, the teams faced difficulties accessing villages, namely in remote areas and floating villages that took a certain amount of time to reach and where transport by motorbike was impossible. This resulted in lost time and energy for the teams in areas such as Kampong Leaeng (floating villages) and Chol Kiri (located across the river from Krong Kampong Chhnang). Teams were given one day per village to conduct household interviews, which proved to be too short for larger-sized villages in which they would have needed to stay overnight. Certain teams reported facing difficulties with the local authorities that did not have time to coordinate with them

regarding data collection, or expected compensation to do so. Further, though respondents generally showed trust in the data collectors whom they were familiar with, some households did not grant access to their property or were not home during the scheduled interview time, resulting in a loss of time and resources. Certain villagers were reluctant to answer the questionnaire as they did not understand the objectives of the survey clearly or were suspicious of being swindled, claiming it is common practice from fraudulent door-to-door business providers.

d. Data Processing Data processing and editing was carried out by NIS from 11th - 22nd June 2018. Certain questions (namely Q23: Do you think your household has been sick because of drinking unsafe water? And Q4: What type of diseases? ) required qualitative answers that were then coded into categories. However, the nature of the question was too broad and caused issues during coding. As such, it would be best to pre-code categories of diseases. Moreover, calculating the SDG indicators and formulating the JMP tables from the data collected has proven itself a complex task, as it is the first time it is being performed. As such, there was a certain amount of trial and error formulating these tables correctly. Lessons learnt can be integrated in future questionnaires for measurement of SDG indicators.

e. Going forward: data monitoring at subnational and national level Performing data monitoring

Photo5-Reachingfloatingvillagesbyboat




During the feedback workshop, enumerators and supervisors responsible for data collection reported it necessary to keep monitoring the data collected on a regular basis. To do so, they suggest adding the questions from the WASH Data Pilot Survey into the commune database as extra questions to monitor, in coordination with the Department of Planning. As such, it is essential for the provincial and district data collectors to train commune officers to perform data collection and monitoring at commune level. This would require active

cooperation with village leaders and a clear definition of roles regarding the persons responsible for producing progress reports on access to WASH. Another suggestion includes integrating the survey questions into PDRD’s surveys at provincial level. Building subnational staff’s capacity to collect and monitor data across other provinces The main suggestion around training sub national counterparts in WASH data collection and monitoring is to organize knowledge sharing workshops across the province during which the data collectors will share their experience and lessons learnt in terms of technical data collection, methodology, and time and resource management. Overall, the data collection process illustrated fruitful cooperation from all actors and high quality household interviews. As such, the process can be replicated across other provinces with an aim to collect data at provincial level throughout the whole country.

Recommendations Based on the WASH Pilot Survey findings, the following recommendations focus on supporting the next phase NAP and PAP as well as programmatic approaches for WASH services across Kampong Chhnang Province.

• Water Sources- Due to their geographical remoteness and lower access to improved water sources and sanitation, rural / remote areas such as Sameakki Mean Chey, inaccessible areas such as Chol Kiri – located across the river from the city of Kampong Chhnang- and floating villages such as those in Kampong Leaeng need to prioritized in WASH policies and programs. WASH sector actors should actively promote the use of improved water sources in areas of high vulnerability and the promotion of and adoption of safely managed water services where such services exist.

• Sanitation- The WASH sector must focus on the dissemination of appropriate sanitation facilities in challenging environments including remote areas and

Photo6-Enumeratorandrespondentduringdatacollection




floating villages, where open defecation is prevalent due to a lack of sanitation facilities. This includes all year round toilets for persons who have no access to sanitation, as well as toilets that can be used both during the dry and wet season, in cases of latrine flooding during wet season.

• Increase sanitation marketing to incentivize households to purchase an improved latrine, thus reducing open defecation rates, namely in rural areas where open defecation rates are highest, whilst supporting lowest-income households (ID Poor 1) in their efforts to purchase an improved latrine through subsidies.

• Pursue behavior change campaigns on the health risks directly associated with open defecation and unsanitary disposal of latrine pits, children’s faeces and menstrual hygiene products, namely in remote communities who do not usually benefit from such actions. Where possible, adopt a Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach.

• Increase the accuracy of monitoring handwashing habits by implementing the new SDG indicator on hygiene service levels, counting handwashing facilities on premises (including soap and water) as a further step to asking households to self-report their habits.

• Pursue promotion of safe hygiene habits throughout communities, especially

after changing babies’ diapers and after changing animals.

• Encourage WASH sector actors to focus on inclusive WASH, taking into account households living in challenging environments such as floating village or persons who face marginalization in their access to WASH, so as to ensure equal opportunities in accessing improved water and sanitation.

Based on feedback obtained from process stakeholders, the following recommendations focus on ways in which to improve the data collection process for roll-out in other provinces, as well as ways in which to engage relevant stakeholders to monitor WASH data at national and subnational level. 1. Improving the Data Collection Process

• Ensure coherent definition and understanding of processes and technical terms. Technical processes such as random household selection and technical terms such as ‘handwashing station’ must be defined and understood in the same way by trainers and data collectors so as to avoid confusion and data bias.

• Reduce dropout rates between training and data collection by ensuring that training participants agree to commit to participate in data collection post-training.

• Ensure active cooperation with village chiefs for the organization of data collection, resulting in smoother processes.

• Perform data collection during the dry season, after the harvest, around February. This will reduce the challenges faced by the data collection teams in accessing remote/flooded villages because of heavy rains, thus affecting the quality of data collection (households made inaccessible or families absent because they have moved somewhere safer for the season) and team morale. Post-harvest, the




numbers of persons present in the household during interviews will also increase, enabling more respondents to answer the interview questions.

• Increase household survey quality by interviewing respondents in their homes and not at their workplace (marketplace/ fields), hence enabling respondents to answer all of the questions fully and adequately.

• Produce a communications package to ensure data collection teams can convince reluctant respondents of the importance and trustworthiness of the household interviews. This package could be comprised of a reader-friendly document or short video summarizing the benefits and importance of the data collection / monitoring process.

2. Going forward: collecting and monitoring WASH data at the subnational level

• Sustainable monitoring of WASH data- Provincial and district-level authorities

should train commune-level authorities to monitor the WASH indicators at commune-level on a regular basis.

• Disseminate the results of the WASH Pilot Survey Process, driving WASH-sector stakeholders to perform similar data collection across the other provinces in the country, with an aim to create nationwide WASH data disaggregated by province, district and commune. As such, knowledge sharing workshops between the data collection teams from Kampong Chhnang and the data collection teams across other provinces should be organized to transfer skills and lessons learnt.

• Pursue advocacy for standardized national indicators for water supply and hygiene. In the past, no standardized indicators were being used by NIS and MRD. Going forward, thanks to combined advocacy from UNICEF and WaterAid, standardized sanitation indicators will be integrated in the 2019 Population Census. Reaching standardized indicators for water supply and hygiene will enable to collect and monitor consistent data at national and subnational level, including in commune data bases where local-level monitoring is performed.

• Encourage MRD and others to develop a clear definition of the terms ‘improved’ and ‘unimproved’ and highlight any differences between RGC and JMP definitions.

• Trial integrating water quality testing into a government-led household WASH survey to gather results on water quality aligning with the SDGs




References Policies Ministry of Rural Development, Brief National Strategy for Rural Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene 2011-2025, December 2012, accessible online at: https://www.unicef.org/cambodia/Summary_V7_Low.pdf Websites Sustainable Development Goals website: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg6




Annexes Annex A – Methodology

Chapter 2 Survey Methodology

This chapter describes about the methodology used in this first provincial WASH survey. It explains the scope and coverage of the survey, concepts and definitions, sampling design, field operations, and data processing.

2.1 Scope and Coverage The pilot WASH survey was conducted to provide the reliable estimates of variables relating to WASH indicators at provincial, urban and rural, and district levels. This survey covers all villages (village survey) and all normal households (household survey) in Kampong Chhnang Province. The survey involved a sample of 2560 households from the 164 sampled villages. This sample of 164 villages were allocated across all districts in the province, and a sub-sample of 15 households in each selected village were distributed across all 164 villages.

2.2 Concepts and Definition (See in instruction manual) 2.3 Questionnaire (See in instruction manual and final report)

2.4 Sampling Design 2.4.1 Sampling Frame, Sample Size, and Sample Allocation

The list of all villages in Kampong Chhnang Province from the 2008 Population Census with the information updated in the Commune Data Base (CDB) provided by the provincial department of planning was used as the sampling frame for the selection of sampled villages. Since the reliable estimates are required at district levels, the whole frame was then partitioned into eight separate frames. Each frame constitutes each district frame. The sample sizes of villages were determined and allocated according to the consideration of both the minimum required precision and the budget constraint as well as the size of each district in term of its number of villages. The district size and its allocated sample sizes are summarized as in the following table:




Dist. Code District Name

Dist. Size

(No. of Villages)

(Nd)

No. of Households

(Xd)

No. of Sampled Villages

(nd)

No. of Sampled

Households per Village

(m)

Total No. of Sampled

Households (mnd)

01 Baribour 64 14,555 20 15 300

02 Chol Kiri 29 8,024 16 15 240

03 Krong Kampong

Chhnang 26 8,974 16 15 240 04 Kampong Leaeng 44 12,418 16 15 240 05 Kampong Tralach 103 23,970 30 15 450 06 Rolea B'ier 135 27,122 30 15 450 07 Sameakki Mean Chey 90 19,579 20 15 300 08 Tuek Phos 78 16,192 16 15 240

Total 569 130,834 164 2,460 Table 1- Sample sizes according to district

2.4.2 Sampling Strategy

The WASH survey was conducted under a stratified two-stage sampling design: 1). Selection of villages, and 2). Selection of households. Initially, after the whole provincial frame had been prepared, the whole frame was then stratified into eight separate frames of which would serve as the individual district sampling frame for the selection of its own independent sample of villages.

Stage 1: Selection of Villages: After the above stratification, an implicit stratification was also done in each district frame by sorting all villages in the district by their orders of location. The sample of villages basing on the allocated sample sizes (ndi) in Table 1 was then selected independently in its stratum by using the Systematic Probability Proportional to Size (Sys. PPS) sampling technique with the usage of the number of households in each village (xdij) as the size measure.

Stage 2: Selection of Households: In this stage, 15 households were selected in each selected village from stage 1. The selections of these households were carried out in the field by the field supervisors. The selection was done under the Circular Systematic Random Sampling (CSRS) scheme using the housing unit of village chief or a principle landmark in the village as the starting point in the household selection process. The process of household selection is summarized as follows:




a). Let M* be the number of housing units4in the selected village, and the

number of households to be selected in each village is 15 then the sampling interval

(I) is calculated as M*/15 and rounds it off to the nearest two decimal point.

b). Take a random start between 1 and M from the random number table

together with the instruction provided in data collection manuals. Suppose that a

random start was taken, say R then the set of selected households are:

R, R + I, R+2*I, R+3*I, ……………., R+i*I, ……….., R + 14*I

Note: 1. If any (R+ i*I) > M, then take [(R+ i*I) – M]

2. If (R+ i*I) has a decimal point, rounds it up the nearest integer.

3. The sampling interval (I) constitutes an equal jump from one sampled

housing unit to another throughout the village.

4. The only household or the principle household in the selected housing unit

would be considered as the selected household.

2.4.3 Sampling Weight

2.4.3.1 Designed Weight

Stage 1: Selection of villages

The probability of villagej in district i to be selected (Pdij) was represented by:

Pdij = ,where:

- ndidenotes the number of village in district i to be selected as the sample. - Xdi denotes the total number of households in district iaccording to the

frame. That is, Xdi= .

- xdij denotes the number of households in village j of district i according to

the frame.

The sampling weight for the stage 1 is represented by:

4The number of households “M” in each selected village was also recorded for the adjustment in the household weight calculation, and the housing unit was used in this case as proxy of the household because the household listing was not done so as to reduce the cost and to maintain the coverage of sample throughout the village.




Wdij = =

Stage 2: Selection of 15 households in each village selected in the first stage.

The probability of the household kto be selected in village j of district i(Pdijk)

was represented by: Pdijk= , where:

- Mdij denotes the total number of household in village j of district i that was

actually reported by the village chief in the data collection day. If there is

no change in the number of households between the time of recording in

2017 CDB data and this WASH survey, Mdijwould be equal to xdij.

The weight for the second stage was represented by:

Wdijk = =

The sampling designed weight ( ) of the survey would be calculated as:

= Wdij* Wdijk = *

2.4.3.2 Sampling Weight Adjustment

The adjusted sampling weight for non-response ( )was computed as:

= * , wheremdij denotes the number of sampled

householdsto be actually interviewed in village j of district i. If there is no non-

response, then mdij would be equal to 15.

The above adjusted weight would then be calibrated to account for the

differences between the total number of households reported in frame and the

recently updated data on the total number of households which was available in the

first quarter of the official statistics of Kampong Chhnang Province at district level to

be the final household weight. The calibration factor for each sampled household

was calculated as:

Cdijk =




The final household weight ( ) would be then computed as:

= * Cdijk

2.4.4 Estimation Method

To estimate the survey findings at district level, assume that xdijk and ydijk were

the two variables collected from household k in village j of district i. The ratio of

these two variables were estimated by:

= , where

= , and

= The variance of this ratio estimate was estimated by:

= { – + }

And the estimates of the survey findings at provincial level were represented

by:

= , where

= , and

=

The variance of provincial ratio estimate was estimated by:

= { – + }




Annex B- Questionnaire

Date checked by supervisor

Inte rvie w's da te

A. To be c omple te d by inte rvie we r

Inte rviewer’s name:

Dis trict/City/Khan

Inte rviewer’s Id:

Sample Village

B. To be c omple te d by inte rvie we r

Inte rviewer’s phone no:

Team Number

Inte rviewer’s s igna ture :

Addres s (hous e No., s treet….) of other identification)

S upervisor’ s phone no:

S upervisor’s Id:

Number of household members Male :

S upervisor’s name:

Female :

S upervisor’ s s igna ture :

Tota l members :

C. To be c omple te d by s upe rvis or a fte r c he c king c omple te d que s tionna ire

Pilot Surve y on Drinking Wa te r a nd Sa nita tion for

Ka mpongchha ng Province 2018

CONFIDENTIAL

All information collected in this

s urvey is s trictly confidential and

will be us ed for s tatis tical purpos es

only

QUES TIONNAIRE

P hone :

Province /Capital

S a mple re fe re nce numbe r of hous e hold

Commune /S anka t

Ge ne ra l Informa tion

S ector (Urban=1, Rura l=2)

Na me of house hold he a d




1 . Re s ponde nt's Information:

Q1 Wha t is your na me ?

Q2 Wha t is your s e x ?

1= Ma le Code :

2= Fe ma le

Q3 How ma ny numbe rs in your hous e holds ?

Male Female Tota l

Q4 How ma ny numbe rs of childre n unde r 5 ye a rs old in your hous e holds ?

Male Female Tota l

Q5 Do your hous e hold ha s ID poor ca rd ?

1= Ye s Code :

2= No (=>>Q7)

3= Don't know (=>>Q7)

Q6 Wha t type of ID P oor ca rd tha t your hous e hold ha s ?

1= P oor1 Code :

2= P oor2

3= Don't know

The que s t ions s hould be as ke d of the he ad of hous e hold , s pous e of the he ad of hous e hold or o the r adult hous e hold me mbe r if

bo th he ad and s pous e are abs e nt .

2 . Drinking wate r s ourc e s

Q7 Wha t is the ma in s ource of drinking wa te r of your hous e hold in we t s e a s on?

DRINKING WATER S OURCE CODES IN WET S EAS ON

01=P ipe d into dwe lling (=>>Q11) 02=P ipe d into compound, ya rd or plot(=>>Q11)

03=P ublic ta p / s ta ndpipe

04=Tube We ll, Bore hole Code :

05=P rote cte d we ll

06=Unprote cte d we ll

07=P rote cte d s pring

08=Unprote cte d s pring

09=Ra inwa te r colle ction(=>>Q11)

10=Ta nke r-truck

11=Ca rt with s ma ll ta nk / drum(=>>Q11)

12=S urfa ce wa te r (rive r, s tre a m, da m, la ke , pond, ca na l, irriga tion cha nne l)

13=Bottle d wa te r

14=Othe r (s pe cify)




Q8 Wha t is the dis ta nce from home to the ma in drinking wa te r s ource in we t s e a s on ?

METERS :

Q9 Which me mbe rs of your hous e hold a re fe tching drinking wa te r in the we t s e a s on?

Re la tions hip to the he a d Code :

01=He a d 09=Ne phe w/Nie ce

02= S pous e 10= S on/Da ughte r-in-la w

03= S on/Da ughte r 11=Brothe r/S is te r-in-la w

04=S te pchild 12=P a re nt-in-la w

05= Adopte d child/Fos te r child 13= Othe r re la tive s

06=P a re nt 14= S e rva nt

07= S ibling 15=Othe r non-re la tive including boa rde r

08=Gra nd child

1=wa te r on pre mis e

2=Le s s tha n 30 minute s Code :

3=More tha n 30 minute s

4= Don't know

Q11 Wha t is the ma in s ource of drinking wa te r of your hous e hold in dry s e a s on?

DRINKING WATER S OURCE CODES IN DRY S EAS ON

01=P ipe d into dwe lling (=>>Q11) 02=P ipe d into compound, ya rd or plot(=>>Q11)

03=P ublic ta p / s ta ndpipe

04=Tube We ll, Bore hole Code :

05=P rote cte d we ll

06=Unprote cte d we ll

07=P rote cte d s pring

08=Unprote cte d s pring

09=Ra inwa te r colle ction(=>>Q11)

10=Ta nke r-truck

11=Ca rt with s ma ll ta nk / drum(=>>Q11)

12=S urfa ce wa te r (rive r, s tre a m, da m, la ke , pond, ca na l, irriga tion cha nne l)

13=Bottle d wa te r


Q10 How ma ny minute s pe r da y do the y s pe nd in tota l on fe tching drinking wa te r in we t s e a s on?




Q12 Wha t is the dis ta nce from home to the ma in drinking wa te r s ource in dry s e a s on ?METERS :

Q13 Which me mbe rs of your hous e hold a re fe tching drinking wa te r in the dry s e a s on?









08=Gra nd child

1=wa te r on pre mis e



4= Don't know

Q15 The ma in s ource of drinking wa te r loca te d into the de we lling/on pre mis e ?

1=Ye s Code :

2=No

Q16 Do the ma in s ource of drinking wa te r for us ing in your hous e hold e nough throughout the ye a r?

1=Ye s

2=Ava ila ble only for we t s e a s on Code :

3=Ava ila ble only for dry s e a s on

Q17 How ma ny lite rs of the ma in s ource of drinking wa te r do your hous e hold drink pe r da y?

Tota l lite rs pe r da y

Q18 Is a ny me mbe r of your hous e hold ha ve difficulty fe tching the ma in s ource of drinking wa te r ?









08=Gra nd child 99= None

Q14 How ma ny minute s pe r da y do the y s pe nd in tota l on fe tching drinking wa te r in dry s e a s on?




Q19 Did your hous e hold tre a t wa te r in a nywa y to ma ke it s a fe r to drink ?

1=Ye s Alwa ys

2=Ye s S ome time s Code :

3=No Ne ve r (=>>Q23)

Q20 How did your hous e hold us ua lly tre a t drinking wa te r ? 1=Ye s 2=No

a . Boil wa te r?

b. Filte r wa te r?

c. Filte r wa te r? (Biosand) Code :

d. S tir white a lum?

e . S tir chlorine ?

f. Us e filte r cloth ?

Q21 How did your hous e hold is us ua lly s tore d wa te r tre a tme nt for drinking?

1=Ye s 2=Noa . S tore in filte rs

b. Tra ns fe r into a cove r conta ine r Code :

c. Tra ns fe r into a uncove r conta ine r

d. Tra ns fe r into ke ttle

e . P orts in a bottle

f. Othe r (s pe cify)

Q22 Wha t is the ta s te of the drinking wa te r?

1=De licious Code :

2=Not de licious


Q23 Do you think tha t your hous e hold ha s be e n s ick be ca us e of drinking uns a fe wa te r?

1=Ye s Code :

2=Ne ve r (=>>Q25)

Q24 If ye s , wha t type of dis e a s e s ?

Q25 How much wa te r cha rge s did your hous e hold pa y la s t month?

(P ut "0" for not buying wa te r s ource )RIELS :

Q26 Did your hous e hold ha ve e nough wa te r for drinking?Code :

2=No

Q27 How did your hous e hold ke e p/s tore the wa te r for drinking?

1=Not a va ila ble Code :

2=Clos e d de vice s (improve d)

3=Clos e d de vice s (unimprove d)

4= Othe r (s pe cify)

1=Ye s




3 . S anita tion

1=None

2=P our flus h (or flus h) conne cte d to s e we ra ge Code :

3=P our flus h (or flus h) to s e ptic ta nk or pit

4=P our flus h (or flus h) to e ls e whe re (i.e . not a s e we r or pit/ta nk)

5=P it la trine with s la b

6=P it la trine without s la b or ope n pit

7=La trine ove rha nging fie ld or wa te r (drop in the fie ld, pond, la ke , rive r, s e a )

8= Othe r (s pe cify)

Q29 Doe s your hous e hold us e d this toile t fa cility with the othe r hous e hold?

1=Ye s , we s ha re d Code :

2=No

Q30 Is a ny numbe r of your hous e hold ha ve difficulty us ing toile t fa cility?









08=Gra nd child 99= None

Q31 How ma ny minute s doe s your hous e hold s pe nd from de we lling to the toile t fa cility ? (two wa ys )

1=Toile t on pre mis e



4= Don't know

Q32 Wha t is the dis ta nce from toile ts to the ma in s ource of drinking wa te r ?METERS :

Q33 Doe s your hous e hold's toile t fa cility could ue s d in the we t s e a s on?

1=Ye s Code :

2=No

Q34 Doe s your fa mily us e d to pump/e mpty ta nk or pit la trine s ?

1=Ye s , us e d to pump/e mpty Code :

2=No, ne ve r pump/e mpty (=>>Q36)

3= Don't know (=>>Q36)

Q28 Wha t toile t fa cility doe s your hous e hold ha ve within the pre mis e s (in the a re a clos e to the

dwe lling)? (ple a s e obs e rve the toile t fa cilitie s )




1=Re move the fe ce s by us ing a ta nke r truck for cle a ning s e wa ge Code :

2=Re move the fe ce s by us ing a re cycling Equipme nt a nd force

3=Burie d in a clos e d pit

4=Dumpe d in a n ope n pit / la nd / wa te r / othe r pla ce s


6= Don't know

Q36 Whe re doe s your hous e hold ke e p childre n's s tools unde r 5 ye a rs old? (If not childre n, ple a s e s kip this que s tion)

1=In the toile t

2=Burie d in a pit Code :

3=Thrown in the jungle

4=Thrown in the ga rba ge / pla s tic ba g


Q37 Whe re doe s the fe ma le me mbe rs in your hous e hold dis pos e d the s a nita ry pa ds ?

1=In the toile t

2=Burie d in a pit Code :

3=Thrown in the jungle

4=Thrown in the ga rba ge / pla s tic ba g


Q38 How ofte n doe s your hous e hold re ce ive d the dis s e mina tion on s a nita tion?

1=Eve ry we e k

2=Eve ry month Code :

3=Eve ry ye a r

4=S ome time s , but not re gula rly

5=Ne ve r (=>>Q40 )

Q39 Doe s your hous e hold re ce ive d the dis s e mina tion on s a nita tion from whom?1=Ye s 2=No

1=Villa ge or Commune \S a ngka t a uthoritie s

2=Orga niza tion\NGOs Code

3=P riva te Compa ny/S e lle r

d. Informa tion ne tworks a nd s ocia l me dia (TV, Fa ce book,...)

e . Othe r (s pe cify)

Q40 Doe s your fa mily know the s e lle r or the dis tribute r of toile t fa cility?

1=Ye s Code :

2=No

Q35 The la s t time of ta nk or pit la trine we re pump/e mpty, whe re the wa s te we re dis pos e d of?




4 . Hygie ne prac tic e s

Q41 Did you e ve r known/unde rs ta nding how to wa s h your ha nds with s oa p?

1=Ye s Code :

2=No

Q42 Do you wa s h your ha nds with s oa p re gula rly?

1=Ye s , re gula rly Code :

2=Ye s , s ome time s

3=No (=>>Q4 5 )

Q43 Whe n do you wa s h your ha nds with s oa p? (a ns we r more tha n one ) 1=Ye s 2=No

a =Afte r us ing toile ts

b=Afte r cha nging ba by's dia pe rs or wa s hing ba by's buttocks Code :

c=Be fore e a ting food

d=Afte r touching a nima ls

Q44 P le a s e obs e rve the ha nd wa s hing fa cility in the ba throom or into compound?

1=The re is a va ila bility of ha ndwa s hing fa cilitie s with wa te r a nd s oa p

2=The re is a va ila bility of ha ndwa s hing fa cilitie s with wa te r but no s oa p Code :

3=The re is a va ila bility of ha ndwa s hing fa cilitie s with no wa te r a nd s oa p

4= Not a va ila be of ha ndwa s hing fa cilitie s

Q45 How ofte n doe s your hous e hold cle a ning the hous e or compound?

1=Eve ry da y Code :

2=Eve ry we e k

3=Eve ry month

4=Eve ry ye a r

5=Ne ve r

Q46 How ofte n doe s your hous e hold re ce ive d the dis s e mina tion on ha nd wa s hing?

1=Eve ry we e k

2=Eve ry month Code :

3=Eve ry ye a r

4=S ome time s , but not re gula rly

5=Ne ve r (=>>Q4 8 )

Q47 Doe s your hous e hold re ce ive d the dis s e mina tion on ha nd wa s hing from whom?

1=Villa ge or Commune \S a ngka t a uthoritie s

2=Orga niza tion\NGOs Code

3=P riva te Compa ny/S e lle r

d. Informa tion ne tworks a nd s ocia l me dia (TV, Fa ce book,...)

e . Othe r (s pe cify)

Q48 Is the re a va ila bility of Wa te r a nd S a nita tion Us ing Group (WS UG) in your community/villa ge ?

1=Ye s Code

2=No

3=Don't know




Annex C - WASH Survey Pilot Data (Tables 1 – 24)

Table1:ResultsFrameworkforProvincialActionPlanforRuralWaterSupply,SanitationandHygiene2014-2018

Baribour Chol Kiri

Krong Kampong Chhnang

Kampong Leaeng

Kampong Tralach Rolea B'ier

Sameakki Mean Chey Tuek Phos Province

Acesstoimprovedwatersupply 4.0 26.8 98.9 12.9 70.1 75.5 33.6 61.7 51.3Pipedintodwelling 0.0 4.2 76.4 0 11.6 3.4 6.1 1.2 9.3Pipedintocompound,yardorplot 0.0 21 0 0 6.9 0 4.9 0 3.3Publictap/standpipe 0.0 0.4 0 0.4 1.6 0.4 3.2 0 0.9TubeWell,Borehole 2.1 1.2 22.5 11.3 38.2 67.7 18.1 58.7 34.1Protectedwell 1.9 0 0 1.2 11.8 4 1.3 1.8 3.7Protectedspring 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Acesstoimprovedlatrine 71.7 36.1 89.3 46.4 64.7 68.9 66.6 48.8 62.8Pourflush(orflush)connectedtosewerage 0.4 3.8 10.3 2.5 10.1 0.3 1.4 0 3.3Pourflush(orflush)toseptictankorpit 70.9 30.1 79 41.4 52.8 68.4 65.2 47.6 58.6Pitlatrinewithslab 0.4 2.2 0 2.5 1.8 0.2 0 1.2 0.9

Handwashingwithsoap(a,b&c) 35.5 35.1 22.6 43.1 10.9 10.9 12.6 27.6 21.2

Usingappropriatewatertreatmentmethods 76.2 63.4 82.8 52.7 60.1 73.4 34 55.5 61.1

Improvedlatrineaccessforpoorhouseholds 50.6 26.6 79.3 20 45.1 49.9 52.5 38.2 45.8Pourflush(orflush)connectedtosewerage 0 2.8 7.3 0 6.8 0 1.2 0 2.1Pourflush(orflush)toseptictankorpit 50.6 20.8 72 17.1 35.3 48.9 51.3 36.4 42.3Pitlatrinewithslab 0 3 0 2.9 3 1 0 1.8 1.4

Table 2: Main sources of drinking water by wet season and geographical domain, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



Improved 4.0 28.2 98.9 15.1 71.3 76.2 39.9 62.1 53.1Pipedintodwelling - 4.2 76.4 - 11.6 3.4 6.1 1.2 9.3Pipedintocompound,yardorplot - 21.0 - - 6.9 - 4.9 - 3.3Publictap/standpipe - 0.4 - 0.4 1.6 0.4 3.2 - 0.9TubeWell,Borehole 2.1 1.2 22.5 11.3 38.2 67.7 18.1 58.7 34.1Protectedwell 1.9 - - 1.2 11.8 4.0 1.3 1.8 3.7Protectedspring - - - - - - - - -Improvedrainwatercollection - 1.3 - 2.1 1.3 0.7 6.3 0.4 1.7

Unimproved 96.0 71.8 1.1 84.9 28.7 23.8 60.1 37.9 46.9Unprotectedwell 79.8 - 0.9 26.7 16.2 17.2 18.8 27.3 24.1Unprotectedspring - - - - - 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2Pondriverorstream 13.1 71.4 0.2 40.0 9.9 4.4 8.4 3.6 13.9Unimprovedrainwatercollection 2.4 0.4 - 13.1 2.4 0.4 26.6 5.4 6.8Tanker-truck - - - - - - 2.3 - 0.4Cartwithsmalltank/drum 0.7 - - 5.2 0.2 0.3 2.7 1.2 1.2Bottledwater - - - - - 1.1 1.0 - 0.4Other(specify) - - - - - - - - -

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0




Table 2: Main sources of drinking water by dry season and geographical domain, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



Improved 4.8 27.3 98.9 12.6 72.5 77.3 45.6 63.5 54.4Pipedintodwelling - 4.2 76.0 - 12.5 3.4 7.4 1.2 9.7Pipedintocompound,yardorplot - 21.5 0.4 - 8.7 - 6.9 - 4.0Publictap/standpipe - - - - 1.3 0.4 4.5 - 1.0TubeWell,Borehole 2.3 1.2 22.5 10.9 42.5 69.9 21.4 61.0 36.1Protectedwell 2.1 - - 1.6 7.4 3.5 1.6 0.8 2.8Protectedspring 0.4 - - - - - - - 0.0Improvedrainwatercollection - 0.4 - - 0.2 - 3.7 0.4 0.7

Unimproved 95.2 72.7 1.1 87.4 27.5 22.7 54.4 36.5 45.6Unprotectedwell 80.2 - 0.9 28.6 14.5 16.4 18.8 23.9 23.4Unprotectedspring 0.4 - - - - 0.4 1.3 - 0.3Pondriverorstream 12.5 72.7 0.2 34.7 11.0 4.4 15.5 9.9 15.6Unimprovedrainwatercollection 0.4 - - - 0.7 0.2 2.3 - 0.6Tanker-truck - - - - 0.4 0.2 6.2 0.4 1.1Cartwithsmalltank/drum 1.1 - - 23.7 0.4 - 8.8 1.9 4.0Bottledwater 0.6 - - 0.4 0.4 1.1 1.3 0.4 0.7Other(specify) - - - - - - - - -

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Table 3: Households treating drinking water by geographical domain, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng


Sameakki Mean Chey Tuek Phos Province Urban Rural

Always treat drinking water 76.2 63.4 82.8 52.7 60.1 73.4 34.0 55.5 61.1 82.8 59.5

Sometimes treat drinking water 16.0 14.7 16.1 10.9 16.5 7.8 27.6 13.3 15.3 16.1 15.2

Never treat drinking water 7.8 21.9 1.0 36.4 23.4 18.9 38.4 31.2 23.6 1.0 25.2

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 4: Toilet facilities by geographical domain, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



Improved 71.6 36.1 89.3 46.3 64.7 68.9 66.6 48.8 62.9 89.3 60.9

Pourflush(orflush)connectedtosewerage 0.4 3.8 10.3 2.5 10.1 0.3 1.4 0 3.3 10.3 2.8Pourflush(orflush)toseptictankorpit 70.9 30.1 79 41.4 52.8 68.4 65.2 47.6 58.6 79 57.1Pitlatrinewithslab 0.4 2.2 0 2.5 1.8 0.2 0 1.2 0.9 0 1.0Unimproved 28.4 63.9 10.7 53.7 35.3 31.1 33.4 51.2 37.1 10.7 39.0

Pourflush(orflush)toelsewhere(i.e.notasewerorpit/tank)0.0 0 0.8 0.4 1 0.7 0.4 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.6Pitlatrinewithoutslaboropenpit 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Latrineoverhangingfieldorwater(dropinthefield,pond,lake,river,sea)7.5 1.5 3.5 5.9 0 0 0.3 0 1.7 3.5 1.6None 21.0 62.4 6.4 47.4 34.3 30.4 32.7 49.9 34.8 6.4 36.8Other(specify) 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100




Table 5: Joint Monitoring Program Drinking Water Service Levels (SDG service levels),by geographical domain,by wet season, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



SafelyManaged 3.9 17.1 49.0 11.5 27.2 30.4 22.2 34.2 24.8Pipedindwellingoronpremises - 15 44 - 7 2 6 1 7Publictap/standpipe - 0 - - 0 0 1 - 0TubeWell,Borehole 1 0 5 4 16 27 3 29 13Protectedwell 2 - - 0 3 1 - 1 1Protectedspring - - - - - - - - -Rainwatercollection 1 1 - 7 1 - 10 2 3Tanker-truck - - - - - - - - -Cartwithsmalltank/drum 1 - - - 0 - 1 0 0Bottledwater - - - - - - 0 - 0

Basic 2.9 1.7 47.6 12.3 30.4 32.5 23.7 11.2 22.1Pipedindwellingoronpremises - 1 31 - 6 0 2 - 4Publictap/standpipe - - - - 1 0 1 - 0TubeWell,Borehole 1 - 17 3 15 28 7 10 12Protectedwell 0 - - 1 6 3 1 - 2Protectedspring - - - - - - - - -Rainwatercollection 2 0 - 6 2 1 11 1 3Tanker-truck - - - - - - 0 - 0Cartwithsmalltank/drum - - - 3 - 0 1 - 0Bottledwater - - - - - 0 - - 0

Limited - - 1.3 0.4 0.2 1.8 2.0 2.9 1.2Pipedindwellingoronpremises - - - - - - - - -Publictap/standpipe - - - - - - - - -TubeWell,Borehole - - 1.3 0.4 0.2 1.1 0.7 2.5 0.8Protectedwell - - - - - 0.2 - 0.4 0.1Protectedspring - - - - - - - - -Rainwatercollection - - - - - - - - -Tanker-truck - - - - - - 1.3 - 0.2Cartwithsmalltank/drum - - - - - - - - -Bottledwater - - - - - 0.4 - - 0.1

Unimproved 79.8 - 0.9 26.7 16.2 17.6 19.2 27.7 24.3Unprotectedwell 79.8 - 0.9 26.7 16.2 17.2 18.8 27.3 24.1Unprotectedspring - - - - - 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2

Surfacewater(Pond,river,orstream…) 13.1 71.4 0.2 40.0 9.9 4.4 8.4 3.6 13.9InsufficientData 0.3 9.7 1.0 9.2 16.1 13.4 24.6 20.3 13.6Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00




Joint Monitoring Program Drinking Water Service Levels (SDG service levels),by geographical domain,by dry season, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



SafelyManaged 3.9 16.7 48.6 9.6 27.6 30.6 18.0 32.4 23.9Pipedindwellingoronpremises - 15.9 44.4 - 8.4 2.0 6.6 1.2 7.1Publictap/standpipe - - - - 0.2 0.2 1.4 - 0.3TubeWell,Borehole 0.9 0.4 4.2 4.1 16.3 27.4 3.4 29.5 13.7Protectedwell 1.9 - - 0.4 2.2 0.9 - 0.8 1.0Protectedspring - - - - - - - - -Rainwatercollection 0.4 0.4 - - 0.2 - 3.3 0.4 0.7Tanker-truck - - - - - - - - -Cartwithsmalltank/drum 0.7 - - 5.1 - - 2.9 0.4 1.0Bottledwater - - - - 0.2 - 0.3 - 0.1

Basic 2.0 1.3 48.4 14.4 29.4 32.0 18.4 11.2 21.2Pipedindwellingoronpremises - 1.3 31.0 - 7.3 0.2 4.0 - 4.2Publictap/standpipe - - - - 1.1 0.2 1.1 - 0.4TubeWell,Borehole 0.7 - 17.4 3.0 16.8 29.0 8.1 11.2 13.3Protectedwell 0.2 - - 0.8 3.6 2.2 1.0 - 1.4Protectedspring 0.4 - - - - - - - 0.0Rainwatercollection - - - - 0.2 0.2 1.0 - 0.2Tanker-truck - - - - 0.4 - 0.3 - 0.1Cartwithsmalltank/drum 0.4 - - 10.2 - - 2.9 - 1.4Bottledwater 0.4 - - 0.4 - 0.2 - - 0.1

Limited 0.3 - 0.8 0.4 0.5 3.3 4.9 3.7 2.1Pipedindwellingoronpremises - - - - - - - - -Publictap/standpipe - - - - - - 0.3 - 0.0TubeWell,Borehole 0.3 - 0.8 0.4 0.2 2.2 1.8 3.3 1.3Protectedwell - - - - 0.2 0.4 0.3 - 0.2Protectedspring - - - - - - - - -Rainwatercollection - - - - - - - - -Tanker-truck - - - - - 0.2 2.6 0.4 0.5Cartwithsmalltank/drum - - - - - - - - -Bottledwater - - - - - 0.4 - - 0.1

Unimproved 80.6 - 0.9 28.6 14.5 16.7 20.2 23.9 23.8Unprotectedwell 80.2 - 0.9 28.6 14.5 16.4 18.8 23.9 23.4Unprotectedspring 0.3 - - - - 0.4 1.3 - 0.3

Surfacewater(Pond,river,orstream…) 12.5 72.7 0.2 34.7 11.0 4.4 15.5 9.9 15.6InsufficientData 0.6 9.3 1.0 12.2 17.0 12.9 23.0 18.9 13.5Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 6: Joint Monitoring Program Sanitation Service Levels (SDG service levels), by geographical domain, by dry season

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



SafelyManaged 52.6 28.7 68.7 41.2 51.5 48.8 41.7 29.2 45.62Pourflush(orflush)connectedtosewerage 0.3 2.9 5.4 2.5 8.8 0.3 1.0 - 2.63Pourflush(orflush)toseptictankorpit 51.9 23.6 63.4 36.3 41.9 48.4 40.7 28.4 42.35Pitlatrinewithslab 0.3 2.2 - 2.5 0.9 0.2 - 0.8 0.7

Basic 2.0 2.0 8.5 0.9 1.4 2.7 3.4 6.5 3.12Pourflush(orflush)connectedtosewerage - 0.4 0.2 - 0.4 - 0.3 - 0.23Pourflush(orflush)toseptictankorpit 2.0 1.6 8.3 0.9 0.9 2.7 3.0 6.5 3.05Pitlatrinewithslab - - - - - - - - -

Limited 16.9 5.3 12.1 4.2 11.8 17.4 21.5 13.1 14.12Pourflush(orflush)connectedtosewerage - 0.4 4.8 - 0.9 - - - 0.53Pourflush(orflush)toseptictankorpit 16.9 4.9 7.3 4.2 10.0 17.4 21.5 12.7 13.45Pitlatrinewithslab - - - - 0.9 - - 0.4 0.2

Unimproved 7.5 1.5 4.3 6.3 1.0 0.7 0.7 1.3 2.44Pourflush(orflush)toelsewhere(i.e.notasewerorpit/tank) - - 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.7 0.4 1.3 0.66Pitlatrinewithoutslaboropenpit - - - - - - - - -7Latrineoverhangingfieldorwater(dropinthefield,pond,lake,river,sea)7.5 1.5 3.5 5.9 - - 0.3 - 1.7

OpenDefecation 21.0 62.4 6.4 47.4 34.3 30.4 32.7 49.9 34.8InsufficientData 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 0.0Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0




Table 6: Joint Monitoring Program Sanitation Service Levels (SDG service levels), by geographical domain, by wet season

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



SafelyManaged 51.6 26.3 67.1 34.0 50.2 48.1 36.6 26.5 43.12Pourflush(orflush)connectedtosewerage 0.3 2.9 5.4 2.0 8.6 0.3 0.3 - 2.43Pourflush(orflush)toseptictankorpit 50.9 21.5 61.7 30.4 40.7 47.7 36.3 25.7 40.05Pitlatrinewithslab 0.3 1.8 - 1.6 0.9 0.2 - 0.8 0.6

Basic 1.7 1.6 8.0 0.4 1.4 2.5 2.0 6.5 2.72Pourflush(orflush)connectedtosewerage - - 0.2 - 0.4 - - - 0.13Pourflush(orflush)toseptictankorpit 1.7 1.6 7.8 0.4 0.9 2.5 2.0 6.5 2.75Pitlatrinewithslab - - - - - - - - -

Limited 15.1 4.5 11.7 3.4 11.2 17.2 16.7 11.2 12.62Pourflush(orflush)connectedtosewerage - - 4.8 - 0.7 - - - 0.43Pourflush(orflush)toseptictankorpit 15.1 4.5 6.9 3.4 9.6 17.2 16.7 10.8 11.95Pitlatrinewithslab - - - - 0.9 - - 0.4 0.2

Unimproved 7.1 1.5 2.6 3.8 1.0 0.7 0.4 1.3 1.94Pourflush(orflush)toelsewhere(i.e.notasewerorpit/tank) - - 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.7 0.4 1.3 0.66Pitlatrinewithoutslaboropenpit - - - - - - - - -7Latrineoverhangingfieldorwater(dropinthefield,pond,lake,river,sea)7.1 1.5 1.8 3.4 - - - - 1.3

OpenDefecation 7.7 4.5 4.4 1.6 10.3 6.4 4.3 5.2 6.1InsufficientData 16.9 61.7 6.1 56.7 26.0 25.2 40.0 49.4 33.6Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 7: Joint Monitoring Program Hygiene Service Levels (SDG service levels), in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



Basic 72.5 47.5 93.0 30.0 59.9 74.0 58.4 56.5 62.3Limited 11.9 39.2 6.0 9.3 6.2 10.0 13.0 12.4 11.7No Facility 15.5 11.3 .8 58.1 33.2 14.4 23.0 22.7 23.2Insufficient Data 0.0 2.1 .2 2.5 .7 1.6 5.6 8.4 2.7Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100




Table 8: Household members responsible for fetching water, by dry season, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



Head 45.2 28.7 22.4 63.5 53.1 27.4 51.7 28.0 40.7 22.4 41.1Spouse 37.1 53.6 50.5 14.9 29.7 56.9 29.1 56.4 41.8 50.5 41.6Son/Daughter 14.1 12.1 12.8 17.8 9.5 11.6 11.8 14.0 12.5 12.8 12.5Stepchild 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 .2 0.0 0.8 0.3 3.6 .2Adopted child/Foster child 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Parent 1.0 0.0 1.8 .6 3.4 .9 1.4 0.0 1.2 1.8 1.2Sibling .4 0.0 1.8 .6 1.4 .2 .9 .0 .6 1.8 .5Grand child 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 .9Nephew/Niece .7 1.7 1.8 0.0 .3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.8 .2Son/Daughter-in-law .4 1.6 0.0 1.1 .3 .5 1.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 .6Brother/Sister-in-law 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1Parent-in-law 0.0 1.1 5.3 .5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 5.3 .2Other relatives 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .6 .2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 .2Servant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .4 .0 .1 0.0 .1Other non-relative including boarder

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .3 .9 3.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 .7

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 8: Household members responsible for fetching water, by wet season, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



Head 44.6 28.5 24.2 63.2 54.9 27.1 49.7 26.1 40.2 24.2 40.5Spouse 38.4 55.3 57.6 18 28.9 57.3 33 58.9 43.4 57.6 43.1Son/Daughter 14.1 12.3 12.5 15.1 9.4 11.7 8.6 14.2 12 12.5 12Stepchild 0 0 2.1 0 0.3 0.2 0 0 0.2 2.1 0.1Adopted child/Foster child 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Parent 0.7 0 1.8 0.5 3.4 0.9 2.6 0 1.3 1.8 1.3Sibling 0.4 0 0 1 1.4 0.2 1.8 0 0.7 0 0.7Grand child 1.1 1.1 0 0.5 0.6 1.2 0 0.5 0.7 0 0.7Nephew/Niece 0.4 1.2 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2Son/Daughter-in-law 0.4 1.6 0 1 0 0.5 1.3 0 0.5 0 0.5Brother/Sister-in-law 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.1Parent-in-law 0 0 1.8 0.5 0 0 0 0.4 0.1 1.8 0.1Other relatives 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.2 0 0 0.1 0 0.1Servant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Other non-relative including boarder 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.7 3.1 0 0.6 0 0.6Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100Table 9: Time spent by households to fetch drinking water, by wet season, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



water on premise 81.8 15.5 47.3 39.6 78.4 76.0 38.1 73.4 65.4 47.3 65.8Less than 30 minutes 17.8 83.9 46.5 40.9 15.9 19.0 41.7 19.1 27.0 46.5 26.6More than 30 minutes .4 .5 6.2 19.5 1.7 5.0 15.6 7.5 6.4 6.2 6.4Don't know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.2Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 9: Time spent by households to fetch drinking water, by dry season, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



water on premise 81.5 4.9 42.0 24.6 68.5 74.1 38.5 66.0 59.4 42.0 59.8Less than 30 minutes 17.6 94.6 53.6 50.2 23.5 18.2 27.2 19.1 28.1 53.6 27.5More than 30 minutes .9 .5 4.4 25.2 3.4 7.7 25.2 14.9 10.5 4.4 10.6Don't know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 9.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.1Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 10: Water treatment by ID Poor, in percentPoor1 Poor2 NoIDPoor Total(Allresponses)

Alwaystreatdrinkingwater 56.6 61.2 61.9 61.1Sometimestreatdrinkingwater 12.7 15.3 15.4 15.3Nevertreatdrinkingwater 30.7 23.4 22.7 23.6Total 100 100 100 100




Table 11: Water treatment by water source (wet season), in percentAlwaystreatwater Sometimestreatwater Nevertreatwater Total

65.2 13.8 21.0 100.0Pipedindwellingoronpremises 68.1 14.9 17.0 100.0

Publictap/standpipe 51.7 20.8 27.5 100.0

TubeWell,Borehole 64.4 12.4 23.1 100.0

Protectedwell 68.5 15.9 15.7 100.0

Protectedspring 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ImprovedRainwatercollection 58.8 24.6 16.6 100.0

56.5 17.0 26.5 100.0Unprotectedwell 60.1 15.4 24.6 100.0

Unprotectedspring 18.9 24.5 56.6 100.0

Pond,river,orstream 58.9 17.0 24.1 100.0

UnimprovedRainWaterCollection 45.4 21.5 33.1 100.0

Tanker-truck 41.2 24.5 34.3 100.0

Bottledwater 25.5 0.0 74.5 100.0

Other(specify) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Improved

Unimproved

Table 12: Water treatment method by ID Poor, in percentIDPoor1 IDPoor2 NonIDPoor Total(Allresponses)

Boiling 79.1 69 75.1 74.9Ceramicfilter 12.2 12.7 12.8 12.8Biosandfilter 21.5 24.7 28.4 26.9Addwhitealum 4.8 2.8 2.3 2.6addchlorine 2.1 2.2 1.4 1.5Filtercloth 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3Nevertreatwater 30.7 23.4 22.7 23.6

Table 13: Storage of treated drinking water, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



Storeinfilters 11.7 17.6 25.7 25.7 16.8 3.5 12.2 13.2 13.7Transfertocoverdcontainer 84.4 77.6 41 42.6 46.2 70.7 34.6 50 56.9Transfertouncoverdcontainer 8.9 5.2 2.6 5.8 2 2 6 15.3 5.4Transfertokettle 36.4 25.9 20.7 30 27.8 17.8 41.8 26.8 27.8Storeinabottle 58.2 16.5 39.3 34.9 25.6 12.1 13.6 10.4 25.1Other 1.9 4.2 0.6 1.2 8 3.4 9.9 0.5 4.2Nevertreatwater 7.8 21.9 1 36.4 23.4 18.9 38.4 31.2 23.6




Table 14: Average water expenditure by water source (dry season)

NoofHHs Riels

Piped into dwelling 12,846 28,200 Piped into compound, yard or plot

5,292 29,735

Public tap / standpipe 1,367 27,681 Tube Well, Borehole 47,899 10,686 Protected well 3,739 15,515 Unprotected well 31,075 10,628 Protected spring 53 10,000 Unprotected spring 432 21,819 Rainwater collection 1,641 8,885 Tanker-truck 1,497 82,572 Cart with small tank / drum 5,246 39,410 Surface water (river, stream, dam, lake, pond, canal, irrigation channel)

20,623 27,950

Bottled water 900 51,760 Other (specify) - Total 132,610 18,366

Province




Table 15: Households with people having difficulty to access water, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng


Sameakki Mean Chey Tuek Phos

Head 2.8 2.9 2.1 3.8 7.3 2.2 5.4 3.2Spouse 0.7 2.5 2.7 1.6 0.7 1.1 3.0 4.0Son/Daughter 1.3 5.3 2.3 0.9 3.1 1.6 4.5 2.9Parent 0.6 3.3 2.8 4.2 1.3 3.6 3.9 2.0Sibling 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0Grand child 0.0 1.6 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4Nephew/Niece 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0Son/Daughter-in-law 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0Brother/Sister-in-law 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0Parent-in-law 0.0 0.4 2.5 1.6 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.0Other relatives 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0None 94.2 85.1 86.2 88.4 86.9 90.8 82.6 86.4

Table 15: Households with people having difficulty to access sanitation, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng


Sameakki Mean Chey Tuek Phos

Head 1.8 2.4 1.9 2.5 2.5 2.2 4.1 3.3Spouse 1.0 1.7 2.5 1.2 0.7 1.5 2.2 1.5Son/Daughter 1.4 2.5 0.9 0.4 2.6 1.4 4.7 1.7Parent 0.6 2.9 4.7 2.9 1.8 2.9 2.6 2.8Sibling 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0Grand child 0.0 1.2 2.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4Nephew/Niece 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0Brother/Sister-in-law 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0Parent-in-law 0.0 0.4 1.3 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0Other relatives 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0None 94.9 89.7 86.5 90.9 91.1 90.8 86.3 89.3Table 16: Sanitation seasonality, in percent (percent of all households so may include households who do not have a toilet at all)

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



Household’s toilet facility can be used year-round 94.0 83.0 95.2 76.3 95.7 97.6 81.1 88.9 91.0Household’s toilet facility can be used in dry season only

6.0 17.0 4.8 23.7 4.3 2.4 18.9 11.1 9.0

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Totalhouseholdswithtoilets 79.0 37.6 93.6 52.6 65.7 69.6 67.3 50.1 65.2Notoilets(OD)-allyear 21.0 62.4 6.4 47.4 34.3 30.4 32.7 49.9 34.8Wetseason,additionalcannotaccess 4.8 6.4 4.5 12.5 2.8 1.6 12.7 5.6 5.8

Wetseason,expectedODorinsufficientdata 25.7 68.8 10.9 59.9 37.1 32.0 45.4 55.5 40.6CalculatedODorinsufficientdata 24.6 66.1 10.6 58.4 36.3 31.6 44.3 54.6 39.7




Table 16: Sanitation seasonality, in percent (percentages based on households who reported having a toilet only)

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



Household’s toilet facility can be used year-round 81.9 51.7 90.1 39.5 88.4 90.5 64.1 76.3 78.6

Household’s toilet facility can be used in dry season only 18.2 48.4 9.9 60.5 11.6 9.5 35.9 23.7 21.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Totalhouseholdswithtoilets 79.0 37.6 93.6 52.6 65.7 69.6 67.3 50.1 65.2Notoilets(OD)-allyear 21.0 62.4 6.4 47.4 34.3 30.4 32.7 49.9 34.8Wetseason,additionalcannotaccess 14.4 18.2 9.3 31.8 7.6 6.6 24.1 11.9 13.9

Wetseason,expectedODorinsufficientdata 35.4 80.6 15.7 79.2 41.9 37.0 56.8 61.8 48.7CalculatedODorinsufficientdata 24.6 66.1 10.6 58.4 36.3 31.6 44.3 54.6 39.7

Table 17: Toilet facilities by ID Poor, in percentToilet facilitiess by type of ID Poor

Poor1 Poor2 Non ID Poor AllImproved 33.3 50.9 68.7 62.9Pour flush (or flush) connected to sewerage

2.8 1.7 3.7 3.3

Pour flush (or flush) to septic tank or pit

28.9 47.7 64.4 58.6

Pit latrine with slab 1.6 1.5 0.6 0.9Unimproved 66.7 49.1 31.3 37.1Pour flush (or flush) to elsewhere (i.e. not a sewer or pit/tank)

1.1 0.0 0.5 0.6

Pit latrine without slab or open pit

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Latrine overhanging field or water (drop in the field, pond, lake, river, sea)

3.1 2.5 1.4 1.7

None 62.5 46.5 29.4 34.8Other (specify) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total 100 100 100 100




Table 17: Toilet facilities by ID Poor, in percentToilet facilitiess by type of ID Poor

District/Province TypesofIDPoor Improved

Pour flush (or flush)

connected to sewerage

Pour flush (or flush) to septic

tank or pit

Pit latrine with slab Unimproved

Pour flush (or flush) to

elsewhere (i.e. not a sewer or

pit/tank)

Pit latrine without slab or

open pit

Latrine overhanging field or water (drop in the field, pond,

lake, river, sea)

None Other (specify) Total

Poor1 37.3 0.0 37.3 0.0 62.7 0.0 0.0 8.8 53.9 0.0 100.0Poor2 59.8 0.0 59.8 0.0 40.2 0.0 0.0 11.1 29.1 0.0 100.0

Non ID Poor 78.6 0.5 77.7 0.5 21.4 0.0 0.0 6.8 14.6 0.0 100.0ALL 71.6 0.4 70.9 0.4 28.4 0.0 0.0 7.5 21.0 0.0 100.0

Poor1 29.3 4.5 20.7 4.1 70.7 0.0 0.0 3.9 66.8 0.0 100.0Poor2 25.8 2.1 21.3 2.4 74.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.2 0.0 100.0

Non ID Poor 40.1 4.2 34.0 1.9 59.9 0.0 0.0 1.7 58.3 0.0 100.0ALL 36.0 3.8 30.1 2.2 64.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 62.4 0.0 100.0

Poor1 83.3 20.5 62.8 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 5.7 11.0 0.0 100.0Poor2 86.4 4.8 81.5 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 6.6 7.1 0.0 100.0

Non ID Poor 93.5 11.6 81.9 0.0 6.5 1.2 0.0 1.3 4.0 0.0 100.0ALL 89.3 10.3 79.0 0.0 10.7 0.8 0.0 3.5 6.4 0.0 100.0

Poor1 12.0 0.0 9.6 2.4 88.0 2.5 0.0 4.8 80.8 0.0 100.0Poor2 32.1 0.0 28.6 3.6 67.9 0.0 0.0 10.9 57.0 0.0 100.0

Non ID Poor 57.3 3.5 51.5 2.4 42.7 0.0 0.0 5.3 37.4 0.0 100.0ALL 46.3 2.5 41.4 2.5 53.7 0.4 0.0 5.9 47.4 0.0 100.0

Poor1 29.3 7.2 19.6 2.4 70.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.7 0.0 100.0Poor2 55.9 8.5 42.9 4.5 44.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.1 0.0 100.0

Non ID Poor 70.3 11.1 57.8 1.4 29.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 28.5 0.0 100.0ALL 64.7 10.1 52.8 1.8 35.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 34.3 0.0 100.0

Poor1 39.7 0.0 36.4 3.3 60.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.3 0.0 100.0Poor2 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 100.0

Non ID Poor 74.7 0.3 74.3 0.0 25.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 100.0ALL 68.9 0.3 68.4 0.2 31.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 30.4 0.0 100.0

Poor1 32.3 0.0 32.3 0.0 67.7 5.1 0.0 4.6 57.9 0.0 100.0Poor2 57.0 0.0 57.0 0.0 43.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.0 0.0 100.0

Non ID Poor 72.0 1.4 70.6 0.0 28.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 100.0ALL 66.6 1.4 65.2 0.0 33.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 32.7 0.0 100.0

Poor1 38.7 0.0 38.7 0.0 61.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.3 0.0 100.0Poor2 40.1 0.0 36.8 3.3 59.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.9 0.0 100.0

Non ID Poor 51.8 0.0 50.7 1.0 48.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 46.6 0.0 100.0ALL 48.8 0.0 47.6 1.2 51.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 49.9 0.0 100.0

Poor1 33.3 2.7 28.9 1.6 66.7 1.1 0.0 3.1 62.5 0.0 100.0Poor2 50.9 1.7 47.7 1.5 49.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 46.5 0.0 100.0

Non ID Poor 68.6 3.7 64.1 0.8 31.4 0.7 0.0 1.4 29.3 0.0 100.0ALL 62.9 3.3 58.6 0.9 37.1 0.6 0.0 1.7 34.8 0.0 100.0

Province

Baribour

Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng

Kampong Tralach

Rolea B'ier

Sameakki Mean Chey

Tuek Phos

Table 18: Latrine pit emptying occurrence, in percentUrban Rural Province

Yes, has ever 26.2 9.6 11.1No, has never 61.0 84.3 82.2Don’t know 12.9 6.1 6.7Total 100 100 100




Table 19: Latrine pit emptying disposal practice, in percent

Urban Rural ProvinceRemove by tanker truck for cleaning sewage 64.9 40.6 45.9Remove using recycling Equipment and force

16.4 27.0 24.7

Buried in a closed pit 5.3 4.6 4.8Dumped in an open pit / land / water / other places

3.7 25.7 21.0

Dispose in the river/Put in the rice field 0.0 0.0 0.0Don't know 9.7 2.1 3.7Total 100 100 100

Table 20: Children’s faeces management, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



Dispose in the toilet 40.0 22.3 81.2 31.1 39.6 36.9 32.4 33.7 38.2 81.2 34.8Dispose in a pit 40.5 47.5 8.5 48.6 50.0 50.6 56.7 57.4 47.7 8.5 50.8Dispose in the jungle 4.7 22.2 3.2 15.0 4.1 6.2 9.4 8.9 8.3 3.2 8.7Dispose in the garbage/plastic bag

0.0 2.9 6.2 0.0 4.6 1.4 1.6 0.0 2.0 6.2 1.7

Dispose in the river/Put in the rice field

13.9 5.1 1.0 5.3 1.2 .7 0.0 0.0 2.8 1.0 3.0

Burning/Burn away 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .6 4.1 0.0 0.0 .8 0.0 .9Don't know .9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 0.0 .1Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 21: Menstrual Hygiene Practice, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



In the toilet 2.5 1.2 6.2 7.8 .7 2.0 1.4 0.0 2.2 6.2 1.9Buried in a pit 72.0 57.7 21.1 66.9 73.3 56.2 69.3 67.5 63.2 21.1 66.3Thrown in the jungle .6 11.5 6.1 16.2 2.7 2.9 9.7 16.2 7.3 6.1 7.4Thrown in the garbage / plastic bag

3.4 9.2 43.9 .4 8.9 2.7 4.7 1.2 7.0 43.9 4.3

Thrown in the river 6.9 4.0 .5 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 .5 1.3Burning/Burn away 2.5 .8 2.6 2.0 3.3 9.5 2.9 6.9 4.6 2.6 4.7No body used/Never used 12.0 15.5 19.7 4.2 7.5 23.2 9.3 7.3 12.5 19.7 12.0Don't know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 3.6 2.7 .8 1.9 0.0 2.1Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 22: Self-reported handwashing practice, in percent

Baribour Chol Kiri


Kampong Leaeng



After using toilet 98.0 89.0 91.5 97.1 68.6 90.0 80.4 99.1 87.2 91.5 86.9After changing baby’s diaper or washing baby’s bottom

36.6 42.9 30.3 45.5 18.7 12.2 17.2 30.6 25.3 30.3 24.9

Before eating food 98.6 81.8 80.6 98.4 77.8 95.3 88.4 99.1 90.2 80.6 91.0After touching animals 45.6 28.6 17.2 40.9 16.1 2.0 21.5 39.4 23.2 17.2 23.6Don’t wash their hands 0.0 2.1 .2 2.5 .7 1.6 5.6 8.4 2.7 .2 2.9




Table 23: Households engaged in hygiene promotion activity, in percent

Baribour Chol KiriKrong

Kampong Chhnang

Kampong Leaeng

Kampong Tralach Rolea B'ier Sameakki

Mean Chey Tuek Phos Province Urban Rural

Once a week .7 2.1 6.9 0.0 2.2 1.7 2.1 1.0 1.9 6.9 1.5Once a month 14.3 7.0 6.2 .8 6.0 8.3 4.6 .9 6.1 6.2 6.1Once a year 7.7 17.5 14.4 4.2 6.6 4.2 3.0 .4 5.9 14.4 5.2Sometime but not regular 73.6 61.0 68.1 60.8 58.9 59.2 46.3 60.4 59.8 68.1 59.2Never 3.7 12.4 4.4 34.2 26.3 26.5 44.0 37.3 26.4 4.4 28.0Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 24: Total Number of Households

Baribour Chol KiriKrong

Kampong Chhnang

Kampong Leaeng

Kampong Tralach Rolea B'ier Sameakki

Mean Chey Tuek Phos Province Urban Rural

Number of Weighted Households 14,576 8,065 8,989 12,134 24,325 27,497 20,327 16,697 132,610 8,989 123,621




Annex D- Additional Data Charts Disaggregated by District 1. JMP Water Service Levels by District

Chart19-JMPWaterServiceLevelsbyDistrict(DrySeason)

Chart20-JMPWaterServiceLevelsbyDistrict(WetSeason)




2. JMP Sanitation Service Levels by District

Chart21-JMPSanitationServiceLevelsbyDistrict(DrySeason)

Chart22-JMPSanitationServiceLevelsbyDistrict(WetSeason)




3. JMP Hygiene Service Levels by District 4. Improved and Unimproved Water and Sanitation by District

Chart23-JMPHygieneServiceLevelsbyDistrict

Chart24-Improved/UnimprovedWaterSourcesbyDistrict(dryseason)




Chart26-Improved/UnimprovedSanitationbyDistrict

Chart25-Improved/UnimprovedWaterSourcesbyDistrict(wetseason)

wash data pilot survey report kampong chhnang province …...wash data pilot survey results overall,...

Documents