SIGNIFICANT CRITERIA FOR SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD SANITATION FACILITY IN SPECIFIC SETTLEMENT AREAS

(CASE STUDY: COMMUNITY OF RIVER/SWAMP AND COASTAL AREA, SOUTH SUMATERA PROVINCE)

1st WUI Symposium on Sustainable Urban Water Environment

PRAYATNI SOEWONDO, PRADWI SUKMA AYU PUTRI , DIAN P. APRIADI AND DYAH WULANDARI PUTRI prayatnisoe@yahoo.comProgramme Study of Environmental Engineering,Institut Teknologi BandungJakarta, March 14th, 2016

Background- Get to know floating and flooded

communities - Problem statement

Methodology - Location of Study - CFA

Result and Discussion

Conclusions

Background

Specific area (Challenging areas) is a an area which either geographic condition and weather is hard to implemented. In this case, the challenging area can be proceed because of land provider, improper land

condition, the wet land, pit latrine and the difficulties when construct the pipe. The challenging areas following by; a. coastal area, b. river bank area, c. swampy area, d. floading area,

e. high moisture area like close to the lake.

Indonesian people who live in specific areas have problems in

the provision of sanitation facilities (Djonoputro et al.,

2010)

Most of the sanitation facilities provided by

the government or non unsustainable use and

maintanance (OP)

The first step is assessing

sustainability : to interpret the

needs of users (community) into

criteria

Community capacity Criteria in Specific Settlement area

Stilt House

Floating latrine

Latrine Type

RIVER

COASTAL

SWAMP

Problem Statement

Communities Providing Wastewater System

Part of urban slum area, exist and grow mainly because of economical reason

Some technical and non-technical problems in Applying wastewater system for those communities

Mostly are illegal settlement, not priority area to be developed

Need evaluation for applied wastewater system in floating and flooded communities

Lack of Sanitation facilities,including wastewater system facilities

Location of Study

Specific settlement areas: 1. 3-4 Ulu district, Palembang City2. Sungsang Village, Banyuasin

Regency

Questionnairre Field

Observation

Instrument measuremnet and data

collection

Analysist Methodology

Level of community

capacity

Quantitative Analysist Confirmatory Factor

Analysis (CFA)Qualitative Analysist

Descriftif Statistic

Category : - High - Medium - Low

Objectives : Measuring community capacity level in specific settlement areas

Research Methodology

Hyphothesis: Sustainability is supported/influenced by Internal and external factors of communities

Used Variable

Social - Cultural

Motivation

Capacity

Stakeholder’s roles

Management

Sampling Size

Analysis

Sampling technique

Random Sampling

Slovin Method : 200 responden

• Choosing the significant variable using CFA method

• Community capacity level : descriptive statistics and scoring method

Questionnaire Design

Result and Discussion

Condition Existing

Water Supply Resources

Community in swamp area

Community in Coastal Area

Result and Discussion

Condition Existing

1

2

3

Wood latrienDirectly charge to river

Wastewater treatment facilities as container

Fabricated toilet which pipe drectly charge to the river

Type of Private Toilet

Result and Discussion

Condition Existing Public Toilet

1 2

Untreated public toilet condition

Several public toilet in locked conditionFailure in treatment

system

3

Result and Discussion

Condition Existing

Local community still have unfeasible wastewater

treatment system

Local community still have lack of awareness for public toilet facilities

Qualitative Analysis : Descriptive Statistics

Social Culture Motivation Stakeholder Capacity management

Explanation

Motivation Knowledge, reason behind action, sanitation preferences

Capacity Participation, knowledge, access and material availability, willingness to pay

Management Commitment, opinion about public facilities

Qualitative Analysis : Descriptive Statistics

Social Culture Motivation Stakeholder Capacity management

Knowledge of toilet waste

Knowing waste from toiletthat discharged directly tothe river will pollute theriver? know, but do not knowwhat to do or can do anyother way to dispose thewaste

74%

Important to know where the waste removed? important

55%

Why choose the river? Easy and its free

Why not build your own toilet? Because it is too expensive

Reason bathing and defecating into rivers

87.5%

60%

MotivationAwareness

low

Motivation to participate in local development program

interest in rural development programs: Low

45%

Reason does not want to participate? No time

42.3%

Private toilet

Why choose wet toilet? Because it has become a culture / habit

Sanitation Preferention

100%

74,4%

PreferentionParticipation

Reason active in the village development programs? Useful for me and my family

57%

Wet toilet

Why choose private toilet?Because it does not need to beshared and there is no line to getinto the toilet

95%

56.5%Midle

Qualitative Analysis : Descriptive Statistics

Social Culture Motivation Stakeholder Capacity management

Explanation

Motivation Knowledge, motive / sanitation behavior preference

Capacity Participation, knowledge, access and material availability, willingness to pay

Management Commitment, opinion about public facilities

Forms of participation

As workers 58.7%

More likely being invited 85.9%

Only participated at planning/ implementation

level34.2%

Participating frequencies: 1-2 times / year

39.5%

improved latrine is: WC+waste container+pipelines+won’t clogged

Main consideration in building latrine : its function

An improved and healthy latrine building: WC+clean water+pipelines+septic tank

Perceptions in improved & healthy latrine

54.6%

46.5%

78%

low

high

knowledge

participation

Capacity

Access and materials availability

materials availability 84%

Accessibility 78.5%

Where to buy: material shop near home 72.5%

Willingness to pay 61%

Willingness to pay : Rp2000 -5000 / monthWillingness to pay for suctioning : Rp 100000 – 200000

WTP to build toilet: <500000 IDR

Willingness to Pay (WTP)

84.5%

98%

66.5%

LowWTP

Accessibility

High

Qualitative Analysis : Descriptive Statistics

Social Culture Motivation Stakeholder Capacity management

Explanation

Motivation Knowledge, motive / sanitation behavior preference

Capacity Participation, knowledge, access and material availability, willingness to pay

Management Commitment, opinion about public facilities

Qualitative Analysis : Descriptive Statistics

Social Culture Motivation Stakeholder Capacity Management

Commitment to pay

Always pay dues for the benefit of the village? Never

44%

Facility Management : public toilet

62.5%

Management preferencesCommitment to pays

Desired management for publicfacilities? Managed together by:community, village officials andgovernment

average

Community capacity level

HighHighAccessibility

Knowledge of latrine treatment system

MediumMedium

Participation Preferences

• Commitmentto pays

• Management preferences

Matrix for community capacity

Variabel High Average Low

Capacity 4 4 6

Motivation 3 3 5

Management

1 1 1

Low

Participation of participation

• Awareness • Motivation• WTP

Low Low

Perceptual Maps of Community Capacity Level in Study Area

Capacity

Motivation

Management

High

Average

Low

Motivation

Capacity Level

Management

High

Average

Low

Capacity

Motivation

Management

High

Average

Low

Capacity level

Map Quadrant 1: motivation andcapacity are located in lower quadranttends to be high, management located inmoderate to lower quadrant

Map Quadrant 2: motivation located inmoderate quadrant, capacity located inmoderate quadrant tends to be high,management located in moderate to lowerquadrant

Comparison

Scoring predictions for continuation management of household toilet facilities potential

Sustainability

score prediction

Continuation

category predictions

Sanimas facility 1 20 Low

Sanimas facility 2 13 Low

Sanimas facility 3 24 Middle

Sanimas facility 4 23 Middle

Scoring predictions for continuation management of household toilet facilities potential

Aspects of assessmentSanimasfacility 1(RT 55)

Sanimasfacility 2(RT 06)

Sanimasfacility 3(RT 19)

Sanimasfacility 4(RT 13)

Score Score Score ScoreYear built (facilities age) 2 1 2 3Administrator 2 1 2 2Number of families user 1 1 3 2Dues per month 1 1 2 2Access using the toilet 1 1 3 2Social conflict 2 1 2 2Physical condition of the building

3 1 2 2

Cleanliness 3 1 2 3Water availability 3 3 3 3Management 1 1 1 1Operations & maintenance (septic tanks suction ) 1 1 2 1

Total 20 13 24 23

• From 5 variables: social culture, motivation, capacity, Stakholder, andmanagement. With assumption variable, CFA shown that the three significantsvariables are capacity, motivation and management.

• From Scoring result, the prediction of potential sustainability for domesticfacilities shown that potential prediction from mangament tend tomedium category

• Results of the study showed that the level of community capacity in specificsettlements area particularly river/swamp and coastal settlements in SouthSumatera Province is categorized into medium to low level of capacity

• These results is expected to support the framework of specificsettlements sanitation program in the future.

Conclusions

THANK YOU

“Stimulating Local innovation on Sanitation for Urban Poor in South East Asia and Africa” , by : Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Programmed Study of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering Institut Teknologi Bandung