Knowledge, attitudes and practices on faecal sludge ...

21 downloads 0 Views 905KB Size Report
Mar 5, 2016 - Up to 94% use pit latrine ... 98.6% ownership; mostly traditional pit latrines ... Recommendation: Sensitisation on additive effectiveness. 8 ...
Knowledge, attitudes and practices on faecal sludge management among slum dwellers in Salisbury Lines in Mzuzu City, Malawi. Khumbo Kalulu, Edward Chikhwenda & Grant Kululanga

03/05/16

1

Why should we care? Diarrhoea Helminth infections Malnutrition Disease burden straining service delivery Poverty cycle for the poor  60% of urban population in informal settlements  Up to 94% use pit latrine  Poor FSM risk to whole urban 2

FSM Chain

Collection

Emptying & transportation

Treatment

Safe disposal or use

Economic Social Technical Institutional 3

SRFA Project Study Sites

Salisbury Lines study Objective

Salisbury Lines

• Knowledge, attitudes and practices in FSM Study methods • Cross sectional study

• 226 households randomly selected • Structured questionnaire

Ntandire

Chikanda Ntopwa

4

Results – Latrine ownership • 98.6% ownership; mostly traditional pit latrines • Challenge: Emptying is limited • Recommendation: Need of low cost options of lining pits

5

Results – Latrine siting • 50% knew proper relative siting to water sources • Challenge: How to practise with limited land? • Opportunity: Communities might easily welcome interventions

6

Results – Filled up pits • Burying and abandoning (72.6%) • Challenge: Technology and economic limitations Increased interaction between water sources and latrines • Recommendation: Need of low cost options to allow emptying and pit recomissioning 7

Results – Additives • Odour control (85.8%) and volume reduction (21.7%) • Ash the main additive (82.3%) • Challenge: Hardening of sludge difficult to empty Need for treatment for some chemicals before use Some studies found additives don’t reduce volume significantly • Recommendation: Sensitisation on additive effectiveness 8

Results – Non faecal matter in latrines • Paper, cobwebs, vegetative waste, cloth, plastic, glass and metals • Challenges: Increased latrine filling up rates Emptying – (fishing out increasing cost) Treatment – (segregation increasing cost) • Recommendation: Sensitisation on proper use of latrines 9

Acknowledgements

10