Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in East Sumba, Indonesia

Student report (2019)

Authors

D. Dennis Djohan Civil Engineering & Geosciences
I. MACHAIRAS Civil Engineering & Geosciences
K. van Lienden Civil Engineering & Geosciences
W.P. Widya Prihesti Iswarani Civil Engineering & Geosciences

Contributors

L. Scholten Sanitary Engineering - CEG (supervisor 1)
E. Mostert Water Resources - CEG (supervisor 2)
D. Daniel Sanitary Engineering - CEG (supervisor 2)
Faculty
Civil Engineering & Geosciences
Copyright: © 2019 Dennis Djohan, Ilias Machairas, Kirsten van Lienden, Widya Prihesti Iswarani
Stakeholders Water Quality Sanitation WASH Hygiene
More Info
expand_more

Published Date

16-12-2019

Language

English

Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Faculty

Civil Engineering & Geosciences

Abstract

This research aims to identify the key stakeholders, explain factors that influence water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) behaviours, determine the chance of bacterial contamination in water, and hygiene and sanitary practises in East Sumba. The interview results show that DinKes (health agency), PAMSIMAS (rural water company), and the village board are the key players that connect the upper administrative units to the local communities. The data obtained also show that the root causes that influence the WASH condition are low education level, upbringing norms, weak economy, and geography. The water quality testing results show that in terms of E. coli 14% and 12% of the respondents had a high chance of contamination in their water source and household respectively. These numbers are 25% and 29% in terms of total coliforms. Approximately 59% respondents still use poor sanitation facilities, which includes open defecation (33%) and unimproved latrines (26%). The other 14% respondents are listed under limited sanitation service, and 27% of the respondents had their own toilet, however, it is difficult to conclude if these people fall under the basic or safely managed category of sanitation services.