Skip to main content
. 2022 Jan 25;2022:1203514. doi: 10.1155/2022/1203514

Table 7.

Key informants' response regarding latrine and water service coverage.

Variables Frequency (%) of participants Overall (%)
Male Female
Presence of public toilet
 Yes 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
 No 34 (100) 6 (100) 40 (100)

Effects of lack of public toilet
 Suffering to use open defection 15 (44.1) 2 (33.3) 17 (42.5)
 Health problems related to waterborne diseases 12 (35.3) 2 (33.3) 14 (35.0)
 Environmental pollution 7 (20.6) 2 (33.3) 9 (22.5)

Factors contributing to lack of latrine
 Low involvement of administration 11 (32.4) 2 (33.3) 13 (32.5)
 Knowledge and attitude-related problems 13 (38.2) 2 (33.3) 15 (37.5)
 Shortage of income 5 (14.7) 1 (16.7) 6 (15.0)
 Lack of enough land 3 (8.7) 0 (0) 3 (7.5)
 Lack of follow-up 2 (6.0) 1 (1.7) 3 (7.5)

Consequences of lack of latrine
 Moving out in the dark for defecation 18 (52.9) 3 (50.0) 21(52.5)
 Women and girls lack safety and privacy 11 (32.4) 1 (16.7) 12 (30.0)
 Suffering from bad odor when defecating around home 5 (14.7) 2 (33.3) 7 (17.5)

Factors hindering water service coverage
 Shortage of water from the source and lack of water tanks 9 (26.5) 0 (0) 9 (22.5)
 Nonfunctioning of public pipe 14 (41.2) 4 (66.7) 18 (45.0)
 Low involvement of administration 8 (23.5) 2 (33.3) 10 (25.0)
 Low income of the households 3 (8.8) 0 (0) 3 (7.5)

The administration planned to improve latrine and tap water coverage
 Yes 11 (32.4) 2 (33.3) 13 (32.5)
 No 23 (67.6) 4 (66.7) 27 (67.5)

The extent to which the administration planned to raise latrine and tap water coverage
 26–50 1 (3.0) 0 (0) 1(2.5)
 51–80 6 (17.6) 1 (16.7) 7 (17.5)
 81 & above 4 (11.8) 1 (16.7) 5 (12.5)
 No response 23 (67.6) 4 (66.7) 27 (67.5)