• 1.

    EM-DAT , 2019. EM-DAT: The International Disaster Database. Available at: https://www.emdat.be/. Accessed June 29, 2020.

  • 2.

    WASH Cluster , 2020. Delivering Humanitarian WASH at scale, Anywhere and Any Time: Road Map for 2020–2025. Available at: https://washcluster.net/sites/default/files/WASH%20Sector%20Roadmap%202020-2025.pdf. Accessed December 22, 2021.

  • 3.

    Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs , 2019. Global Humanitarian Overview 2019. Available at: https://www.unocha.org/research-and-reports. Accessed December 22, 2021.

  • 4.

    Sphere Association , 2018. The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response, 4th edition. Available at: www.spherestandards.org/handbook. Accessed July 7, 2020.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    World Health Organization , 2021. Progress on Household Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene 2000–2020: Five Years into the SDGs. Available at: https://washdata.org/sites/default/files/2021-07/jmp-2021-wash-households.pdf. Accessed December 22, 2021.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees , 2020. UNHCR WASH Manual: Practical Guidance for Refugee Settings. Available at: https://wash.unhcr.org/unhcr-wash-manual-for-refugee-settings/. Accessed December 22, 2021.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Cronin AA, Shrestha D, Cornier N, Abdalla F, Ezard N, Aramburu C , 2008. A review of water and sanitation provision in refugee camps in association with selected health and nutrition indicators: the need for integrated service provision. J Water Health 6 : 113.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Fuller JA, Clasen T, Heijnen M, Eisenberg JN , 2014. Shared sanitation and the prevalence of diarrhea in young children: evidence from 51 countries, 2001–2011. Am J Trop Med Hyg 91 : 173180.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Heijnen M, Cumming O, Peletz R, Chan GKS, Brown J, Baker K, Clasen T , 2014. Shared sanitation versus individual household latrines: a systematic review of health outcomes. PLoS One 9: e93300. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093300.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Shultz A, Omollo JO, Burke H, Qassim M, Ochieng JB, Weinberg M, Feikin DR, Breiman RF , 2009. Cholera outbreak in Kenyan refugee camp: risk factors for illness and importance of sanitation. Am J Trop Med Hyg 80 : 640645.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Heijnen M, Routray P, Torondel B, Clasen T , 2015. Neighbor-shared versus communal latrines in urban slums: a cross-sectional study in Orissa, India exploring household demographics, accessibility, privacy, use and cleanliness. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 109 : 690699.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Schouten MAC, Mathenge RW , 2010. Communal sanitation alternatives for slums: a case study of Kibera, Kenya. Phys Chem Earth Parts ABC 35 : 815822.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Simiyu S, Swilling M, Cairncross S, Rheingans R , 2017. Determinants of quality of shared sanitation facilities in informal settlements: case study of Kisumu, Kenya. BMC Public Health 17 : 68.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Shiras T, Cumming O, Brown J, Muneme B, Nala R, Dreibelbis R , 2018. Shared sanitation management and the role of social capital: findings from an urban sanitation intervention in Maputo, Mozambique. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15 : 2222.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Food and Agriculture Organization , 2010. The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Countries in Protracted Crisis: What Are They and Why Do They Deserve Special Attention? Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/i1683e/i1683e03.pdf. Accessed July 22, 2020.

  • 16.

    Patrick M et al.2021. Acceptability of urine diversion dry toilets in Dollo Ado refugee camp, Ethiopia. Int J Hyg Environ Health 234 : 113745.

  • 17.

    Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs , 2020. Myanmar: IDP Sites in Kachin State, as of May 2020, Map. Available at: https://reliefweb.int/map/myanmar/myanmar-idp-sites-kachin-state-31-may-2020. Accessed July 7, 2020.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs , 2019. Myanmar: IDP Sites in Rakhine State, as of 31 December 2019, Map. Available at: https://reliefweb.int/map/myanmar/myanmar-idp-sites-rakhine-state-31-december-2019. Accessed April 18, 2021.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Myanmar WASH Cluster , 2018. Myanmar WASH Cluster Strategic Operational Framework 2017–2019, Report, Yangon, Myanmar.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Kwiringira J, Atekyereza P, Niwagaba C, Günther I , 2014. Gender variations in access, choice to use and cleaning of shared latrines: experiences from Kampala slums, Uganda. BMC Public Health 14 : 1180.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Sommer M , 2012. Menstrual hygiene management in humanitarian emergencies: gaps and recommendations. Waterlines 31 : 83104. https://doi.org/10.3362/1756-3488.2012.008.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Schmitt ML, Clatworthy D, Ratnayake R, Klaesener-Metzner N, Roesch E, Wheeler E, Sommer M , 2017. Understanding the menstrual hygiene management challenges facing displaced girls and women: findings from qualitative assessments in Myanmar and Lebanon. Confl Health 11 : 19.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Schmitt ML, Clatworthy D, Ogello T, Sommer M , 2018. Making the case for a female-friendly toilet. Water 10 : 1193.

  • 24.

    Reed B, Hastie R, Vidal J, Bastable A, Akers K, Fisher J, Lafrenière J , 2018. Shedding Light on Humanitarian Sanitation. Presented at the 41st WEDC International Conference, Nakuru, Kenya, July 9–13, 2018.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Biran A, Schmidt WP, Zeleke L, Emukule H, Khay H, Parker J, Peprah D , 2012. Hygiene and sanitation practices amongst residents of three long‐term refugee camps in Thailand, Ethiopia and Kenya. Trop Med Int Health 17 : 11331141.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Yimam YT, Gelaye KA, Chercos DH , 2014. Latrine utilization and associated factors among people living in rural areas of Denbia District, Northwest Ethiopia, 2013: a cross-sectional study. Pan Afr Med J 18 : 334.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Sonego IL, Mosler HJ , 2014. Why are some latrines cleaner than others? Determining the factors of habitual cleaning behaviour and latrine cleanliness in rural Burundi. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev 4 : 257267.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Domini M, Guidotti S, Lantagne D , 2020. Temporal analysis of water, sanitation, and hygiene data from knowledge, attitudes, and practices surveys in the protracted humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev 10 : 806817.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Past two years Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 3501 3501 21
Full Text Views 24 24 2
PDF Downloads 28 28 2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Latrine Management Approaches in Internally Displaced Persons Camps in Myanmar

View More View Less
  • 1 School of Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts;
  • | 2 United Nations Children’s Fund, Yangon, Myanmar;
  • | 3 United Nations Children’s Fund, Kachin, Myanmar;
  • | 4 United Nations Children’s Fund, Rakhine, Myanmar
Restricted access

ABSTRACT.

Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) interventions provide dignity and prevent disease transmission. Sanitary facility provision (e.g., latrines) is a key WASH priority in all phases of humanitarian response. Currently, there are evidence gaps on field effectiveness of sanitation approaches, particularly in protracted crises. Thus, we conducted a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of sanitation approaches in internally displaced persons (IDP) camps in Myanmar. We conducted 36 focus group discussions, 65 household surveys, and 32 key informant interviews in Rakhine and Kachin states; results were analyzed qualitatively. We found family-shared, gender-segregated latrines were the preferred approach. Acceptance was a result of gender segregation, followed by lighting, state of repair, cleanliness, design, and distance from household. Contextual factors influencing sanitation approach development and acceptance were cultural and religious beliefs, community cohesion, camp size, livelihood access, land ownership and availability, and responding agency type. Overall, sanitation approaches generally met IDP needs; however, access was limited for children, the elderly, and people with special needs (including persons with disabilities). We recommend implementers of latrine programs in protracted contexts conduct community consultations, consider gender segregation, be flexible in considering context-specific solutions, prioritize access and dignity, and be inclusive of vulnerable groups.

    • Supplemental Materials (PDF 232 KB)

Author Notes

Address correspondence to Marta Domini, School of Engineering, Tufts University, 200 College Avenue, Medford, MA 02155. E-mail: marta.domini@unibs.it

Financial support: This work was supported by UNICEF–Myanmar (grant no. PR0190, 2018). The funder approved the manuscript for publication.

Authors’ addresses: Marta Domini and Daniele Lantagne, School of Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, MA, E-mails: marta.domini@unibs.it and daniele.lantagne@tufts.edu. Sunny Guidotti Pereira, United Nations Children’s Fund, Yangon, Myanmar, E-mail: sguidotti@unicef.org. Aye Win, United Nations Children’s Fund, Kachin, Myanmar, E-mail: awin@unicef.org. Lae Yee Win, United Nations Children’s Fund, Rakhine, Myanmar, E-mail: laewin@unicef.org.

Save