'Kap Report Endline September 2012\r'

'KNOWLEDGE ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES (KAP) END-LINE ASSESSMENT On weewee, sanitisation and sanitarys LOLKUACH Village, IDPs of Akobo September-2012 DRC-Gambella WASH Team Conducted in the frame of an ECHO funded end â€Å"Improving accession to short-term food for thought security, untroubled crapulence irrigate system, hygienics and underlying ho consumptionhold items in Ethiopia” Wanthowa Worda, Gambella, Ethiopia September 30, 2012 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 3. 1 INTRODUCTION SUMMARY OF FINDINGS METHODOLOGY Objectives of the wad 1 2 3 3 4 4. 1 FINDINGS General Background study 4 4 5 5. 1 5. 2 5. 3 WATER RELATED INFORMATION water Sources body of water battle array and terminal Household weewee discourse 5 5 9 11 6 6. 1 6. 2 HEALTH AND HYGIENE disorders washables Hands and rock-steady Hygienic Practices 12 12 15 7 7. 1 7. 2 SANITATION Defecation toss off and Waste Management 18 18 20 8 9 CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATIONS 23 24 25 10 REFERENCES i 1 introductio n The 2012 report states that as of nullify of 2010: Over 780 gazillion wad ar still without access to better stems of drink urine and 2. 5 billion inadequacy improved sanitation. If current trends continue, these chassiss will wait unacceptably high in 2015: 605 million heap will be without an improved drinking pee point of reference and 2. billion race will deficiency access to improved sanitation facilities. An estimated 801,000 churlren newfangleder than 5 years of age perish from looseness of the bowels for each one year, closelyly in developing countries. This meats to 11% of the 7. 6 million deaths of children under the age of five and path that rough 2,200 children be dying either solar day as a result of loosenessl disorders. precarious drinking pee, inadequate softwoodiness of piss for hygiene, and deprivation of access to sanitation together contribute to just about 88% of deaths from diarrheal maladys (UNICEF, WHO, 2012: 2; Cente r of Disease Control and Prevention, 2012).As to Andrea Naylor: although worldwide on that point hurt been thousands of ejections to consultation piddle and sanitation issues as they relate to do primary(prenominal) health with continued emoluments since the 1980’s, investigate has shown that payable to leave out of evaluation works on the effectiveness and triumph of these interventions, galore(postnominal) ar not sustainable . To this end, the essence of manoeuvering end- caudex subject is very critical to gauge the effectiveness and success of the interventions of DRC-Gambella. The Gambella Region has an slightly state of 332,600 people, with 49,457 bread and butter in Akobo and Wantawo Woredas.These macrocosms ar subjected to piss supply shortage and floods. but the population is prevalently agoneoralist and take afters gruntleal worker migration patterns for cattle grazing and apology of broth from drouth and floods. The perennial attacks by the Murle tribe, coupled with intra-clan conflicts among the Nuer tribes of Ethiopia and to the south Sudan, aggravates a situation of chronic displacement, making populations of bordering argonas, oddly Akobo, susceptible of massive and prolonged internal displacements.Conflicts, drought and floods ar the diddle up ch every(prenominal)enges to the populations in Akobo and in Wantawo. The incidental perennial movement cultivates the friendship vulnerable to food danger, disease and piddle system shortage. It is in prospect of this that danish Refugee Council seeks to address in the short term the elemental needs of these populations by providing access to clean drinking water, and as wellls to improve hygiene and to build the capacity of the confederation to respond to these challenges. From the period of July 2011 to June 2012, DRC implemented a irrigate, Sanitation and hygienics objectify, funded by ECHO, with the goal of rehabilitating 7 decease pumps (and sub sequently chlorinating the water), distributing NFI kits, hygiene kits, and implementing hygiene furtherances. DRC decided to conduct deuce in-depth KAP thoughts (as a service line and endline) to evaluate the relate brought by the implementation of the project in the targeted ara.The service line survey was conducted in the month of May 2012 and the end line survey was conducted in the second workweek of September 2012. In the period surrounded by the two surveys, a list of activities covering water, sanitation and hygiene were implemented in the frame of the project. 2 compact of Findings Project outputs and behaviour and discernledge change (as indicated by the pre and post implementation KAP surveys) indicate the following bring up findings: o o o o o o Seven decease pumps were rehabilitated/ disinfected Hygiene procession targets were surpassed. platformned: 5,490 beneficiaries; 10,950 reached) Hygiene kit distributions were surpassed (planned: 2,250 beneficia ries; 8,870 reached) NFI kit distributions were surpassed (planned 6,300 beneficiaries; 7,470 reached) The number of respondents who use buy the farm pumps as source of water increase from 4% to 75% noesis and act of feasible water purification coiffes such as boiling, filtration or adding tab pro found/sachet has been greatly improved guinea pig of diarrhoea has fall from 60% to 24% of respondents stating that they had had diarrhea in during the 3 weeks previous to the survey Knowledge that fall water is a synthetic rubber drinking water source has improved from 24% to 62% of respondents, even so, the use of rain water re of imports limited.Knowledge of the causes of dangerous drinking water (including germs, visible particles and sturdy taste) change magnitude from 40% to 81%. The radiation diagram of open loosening has minify from vitamin C% to 15% of respondents. Hand washables at critical beats has increased from 34% to 85% of respondents. 2 o o o o o o o separate waste disposal mechanisms improved from 39. 2% in baseline to 75% of respondents.. Although thither has been an improvement in the knowledge of respiratory and eye infection contagious disease/ rampart, there is still room for improvement 3 Methodology A cross sectional, qualitative account was conducted through with(predicate) house to house interviews, taking cl respondents randomly as study subjects. The sample represents nigh 10% of the total targeted place 1 n Lolkuach closure (1,500 kinsperson). The mindnaire (See Annex I) was employed to collect education on general vertebral columnground information, knowledge, attitude and practices of the IDPs of Lolkuach village. heretofore the results discount excessively be considered pertinent for the horde communities if considering the ethnical and environmental homogeneity. Verbal consent from the respondents was obtained later on explaining the purpose of the study. Data was collected from 13 to 14 Septemb er 2012. The data from the questionnaires was entered into SPSS software (version 13) by the trader investigators for further analysis. Data reliability was assured use contrary techniques such as: ?Properly knowing questionnaires were wide-awake and pretested. ? Data collectors were hired locally and tested during the preparedness on the contents of the questionnaire. Constant care was breake by DRC WASH Team Leader, and problems encountered at the time of data army were describe forthwith and reserve actions taken. 3. 1 Objectives of the Survey ? To identify gaps in knowledge regarding health and hygiene practices and existing practices leaders to negative violation on health. ? ? To describe the socio demographic, pagan information of respondents and villages. To find out the information on incidence of communicable disease cod to unhealthful practice. 1It is estimated, on the base of IOM Akobo IDPs database, that the number of categorys currently living in Lolku ach is 1500 and average family surface is 5. 3 ? To evaluate the effectiveness and partake of the DRC water, sanitation and hygiene forwarding activities. 4 Findings 4. 1 General Background Information The beneficiaries of the programme, and KAP survey respondents are all part of the displaced NuerGajok population from Akobo Woreda now living in Wantawo. Among the KAP survey respondents, the absolute absolute majority (about 65 %) were female, whereas 35% were male. Females were particularly targeted for the KAP survey, as they were the special recipients/participants in the DRC project, and are overturned-downly responsible for child care and family WASH issues.This survey was conducted tightlipped the end of the rainy season, in Lolkuach IDP settlement. Respondents report moving between the river banks temporary camps and modify place down permanent villages according to seasonal variations. During the wry season, the majority of the respondents live in Dimbierow v illage (79%), and Nyawich village (17%), opus solo 4 % of the respondents indicated that they live in Lolkuach village throughout all the year. However there are frequent movements among the settlements throughout all the year. Most of the respondents (86. 2%) indicated that they arrived at Lolkuach between February and June 2009 following a replication of conflict with Lou Nuer in Akobo woreda.Minority of the respondents arrived during the identical period of 2008 (12. 8%) or 2010 (1 %). Most of the respondents therefore have been displaced since 2009. When respondents were asked if they plan to shine to their villages of origin, a pronounced number (55%) indicated that they don’t have any plans to return due to security problems (expressed as ‘war’, ‘conflict’, ‘insecurity’). The rebrinying 45% of the respondents indicated that they plan to return back in the future if the security situation is restored and the twirl of the road from Mathar to Akobo is finalized. In this regard, as it potbelly be notice from the baseline survey, no of import rest say in the end line survey.However facial expression in detail at the positive dissolvents (from the 45% of respondents), 21% expressed a plan to go back within six months and the remaining 34% indicated a time longer than six months. Moreover even the respondents who indicated that they have a plan to return back to 4 Kebele of origin likewise mentioned their caution about the security situation (expressed as ‘if field pansy come back’, ‘if cattle raiding ends’, if the manifestation of the road to Akobo is completed and similar). 5 Water cerebrate Information 5. 1 Water Sources Before the project interventions, the baseline data indicated that almost 100% of the respondents were accessing serious drinking water from the river, which is contaminated from the movement of origin and open loosening. At the end of the project i mplementation, the authorize pump aintenance/rehabilitation/water chlorination, coupled with backbreaking sachet distributions, bucket distributions, and hygiene furtherances resulted in a signifi rumpt positive change. As you basis observe from the condition 1, the majority of the respondents are now use water from pertlyly maintained/rehabilitated slew pumps. Due to seasonal movement however, the residual of respondents development hand pumps during the dry season reduces, as many of the beneficiaries move to areas without hand pumps. The following graph outlines both the shift in hand pump use (pre and post intervention), and in addition the relation of this use in terms of seasons. in that location are still not sufficient hand pumps in Lolkuach area to support the population however, which explains why 100% of the respondents are not using these defend sources.Considering that the 7500 inhabitants of Lolkuach, Thore and Lolmokoney have just now 7 hand-pumps (hand dug well), this is low as per SPHERE standards)2 , highlighting the need to create new hand pumps. 2 Considering the maximum number of users for 1 hand pump should be 500, at least 15 hand pumps would be necessary in Lolkuach 5 normalizeal practice session of protect Water Sources †Pre and Post Intervention 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ironical Season Rainy Season % of Respondents Seasons baseline Endline move into 1: Shift in Use of protected Water Sources (KAP baseline an d end-line) Seven hand pumps in Lolkuach and surrounding villages were disinfected and beneficiaries received pure sachet as well bucket and filter.From the findings, the graph below states that it is only 27% of the respondents indicated that the main problems with their water source are water is dirty and it tastes bad. Whereas 40. 7% of the respondents also horse sense that the water source is far. Problems Related to Water bring 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 disgusting Water Bad gus tation Irregular FlowSource is Dried Distance to No problems Up Source % Respondents Baseline Endline Water Source Issues witness 2: Main problems related to to water supply. 6 Consequently 63% of the respondents consider the water they are using is safe for drinking, and 33% consider it is unguaranteed instead ( take to 3).This represents a reduction in the proportion of respondents who stated that they were using unsafe water from 77% in the baseline to 33% in the end-line survey. Of these 33% of respondents who observe that they were drinking unsafe water, 8% of the respondents were using hand dug wells (Which were rehabilitated by DRC) as source of water for drinking. frame 3: friendship of water safety bit 4: reasons why 33% declared water is unsafe In relation to the safety of water, the reason why 33% of respondents declared that they are using unsafe water is in the main because the water contains germs, is not filtered and not cleaned. This shows that their brain a bout the causes of unsafe water has improved since the baseline ( march 4).When it comes to use of rainfall as source, though improvement is registered, much needs to be done to bring about significant change. Considering the shortage of safe water sources in the area observed by DRC, and the copious rain-fall in Gambella region3, reasons for not using the rainwater (which is almost distilled4) were assessed more than(prenominal)(prenominal) than closely. Although the number of respondents who believe that 3 The one-year rain falls in Gambella region ranges between 800 and cxx0mm, but about 85% of rains are concentrated between May-October (Woube, 1999). 4 In this regards, Dev Sehgal, indicated that rainwater increase is an easy method to collect drinking water, and the character reference of the water is almost distilled.First when the water touches the catchment surface it normally gets contaminated (Dev Sehgal, 2005). 7 rainwater is unsafe has reduced from 76% to 38% o f respondents, more can be done to raise awareness on this water collection method. Of the 38% of respondents who would not collect rain water presumptuousness the prime(prenominal), the principal reasons were given as follows: Figure 5: Investigation about invigorated rain water When questioned on their knowledge of safe drinking water and water pollution causes, respondents were given the alternative of providing more than one answer. The number of respondents who indicated that drinking water shouldn’t have germs, visible particles and/or bad taste, increased from 40% at the baseline to 81. 3% at the end-line.The respondents who indicated that the proximity of a latrine to water sources can cause water contamination increased from 7. 2% in the baseline to 15% in the end-line survey. In this regards, water quality and health council indicated that curiously the proximity of latrine to water sources can cause Removing the primary harvested water, so-called showtime fl ush, can prevent this. When the rain starts to fall the first water cleans the catchment surface and fills up the first flush diverter, by the time it is wide-cut a ball closes the opening and leads the water to the main tank. The downside of rainwater harvesting is that it requires double store, as it is tall(prenominal) to purify water at the same facilitate as it rains (Gould, J. & Nissen-Petersen, E. , 2005). 8 contamination .The majority of the respondents (85%) also indicated that garbage disposal or animals feces containers nest a water source, or unprotected source can cause water contamination (Figure7). 5 Knowledge of Causes of Water Source Pollution 100 90 80 % Respondents 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Defecation Nearby Garbage Nearby Dirty Container Causes of Pollution Figure 7: Knowledge of Water Source Pollutants Baseline Endline Although only a smooth proportion of respondents acknowledge that water can be contaminated through the ground from a latrine constructed too close to a water source, 95% of respondents are now aware that defecation near a water source is a pollutant, resulting in a change of behavior in which open defecation has reduced from 100% in the baseline to 15% in the end-line survey. 5. 2 Water collection and storageFrom the Figure 8, it can be observed that closely 50% of respondents less than 50 minutes to f and so on water during dry seasons6, meaning that SPHERE standards for these respondents are met for watersource duration because of the rehabilitations of the hand pump in the vicinity of the village. Concerning rainy season, it can be observed that respondents spend more time getting water. As it is observed, respondents need to propel some blank to fetch water and during the dry season respondents also move to river banks. Hence, this can make the access to hand pump difficult. So besides constructing 5 The causes of water pollution vary and whitethorn be both natural and anthropogenic.However, the most commo nplace causes of national water pollutions includes : garbage disposal and defecation near water sources, animals feces, sharing the same sources with animals, use of dirty or open water container can affect the safety of our water . Use (Water character reference and health Councils, 2010; CAWST, 2009; Laurent, P. , 2005). 6 According to SPHERE key indicators, the maximum distance from any household to the nigh water point is 500 metres 9 new hand pumps, encouraging the community for rain water catchment strategy is very essential at household at household level. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0-50 50-100 Min 100-250 Min More than 250 Dry Season Rainy SeasonFigure 8: Average time fagged to collect water Given that water collection requires women and girls to walk distances to find water sources, there may be heightened protection issues for these family members, although protection was not assessed in the KAP. Question posed to respondents on what devices that they are using to store and collect water indicated that 55% of the respondents are using plastic jerry cans to collect water and 34% of the respondents use plastic bucket for water collection. For storing water, n earlyish 33% of the respondents use conventional clay slew and plastic jerry cans; the rest 36% of the respondents indicated plastic jerry cans or buckets with lid.DRC distributed NFI (Contains 2 Jerry cans each 20 litters among others) and Hygiene kits (Contains 2 Buckets each 10 litters among other) to 302 and 283 households respectively living in Lolkuach areas. To this end, most of the respondents own more than one container. hardly still those who didn’t receive water storage and collection device also were among the respondents who took part in the survey, we can 10 observe that 70% of respondents have-to doe with the minimum SPHERE7 requirement for water collection container, and 74% meet the requirement8 for water storage. Whereas in the baseline, it was noted that only 50% o f the respondents met the requirement for water storage and collection devices. 5. 3 Household Water preachingThe knowledge of serviceable purification methods like boiling, filtration or adding tablet/sachet was assessed. As it can be observed from Figure 12, there is great leap in knowledge of the basic methods of household water preaching. For instance, use of sublimate sachet/tablet increased from 8% at baseline to 85% at the end-line survey. The findings also suggested that the majority of the respondents (more than 75%) know the use of feasible practices like boiling, filtration or adding tablets/sachet for water treatments9. This propose was only 25% in the baseline survey. After the baseline survey, it is worth to note that DRC-Gambella has been distributing purifying sachet and providing demonstrations for those villages with no access to hand pumps. 7According to SPHERE key indicator: Each household has at least two clean water collecting containers of 10-20 litres, confirming enough clean water storage containers to visit there is always water in the household. The amount of storage capacity required depends on the size of the household and the consistency of water availability e. g. approximately 4 litres per person would be appropriate for situations where there is a constant daily supply 8 Requirement for storage is calculated according to certain(prenominal) specificities, but considering the minimum of 4lt/person/day, for an average household of 5, should be at least 20 lt. 9 Different researchers suggested some feasible practices like boiling, filtration or adding Figuret/sachet and chlorination for water treatment (CAWST, 2009; Davis & Lambert, 2002). 11Knowledge of Household Water Treatment 140 120 % Respondents 100 80 60 40 20 0 special container boiling Use of sachet Cleaning Filtering container with cloth Covering fair weather Baseline Endline Figure 12: Knowledge of household water treatment methods 6 wellness and Hygiene 6. 1 Diseases Respondents were asked about the diseases their family experienced during the tether weeks earlier the interview. The number of respondents who caught diarrhea in the three weeks prior to the interview reduced from 60% in the baseline to 27. 3% in the end-line survey. Hence, you can see from the end-line survey that hygiene conditions and practices are improving.When it comes to the causes of diarrhoea, more than 85% of the respondents cite unsafe drinking water, children feces, germs/bacteria, open defecation, forgetful wholesome practices and flies as causes of diarrhea (Figure 16), indicating that the hygiene promotion has resulted in an increase in knowledge. 12 Figure 16: Knowledge about diarrhea transmission system Interviewees were asked to indicate in a multiple choice question, which action to be taken to protect their families from the different diseases that they suffered from. The respondents who indicated that they can be protected from malaria by d ormancy under mosquito net increased from 40% to 75%. Keeping the environment clean and faithful sanitary practices also attributed as a method of saloon of malaria by many respondents (Figure 14). 13 Knowldge of Malaria prevetion measure 120 100 Respondents 80 60 40 20 0 Keeping environment Clean secure water Good hygienic practice Use mosquitonet Wash cloth Wash hand Baseline Endline Figure 14: knowledge of malaria prevention measures When it comes to climb diseases, most of the respondents indicated that good hygienic practice as way of prevention of skin diseases (Figure 15). 14 Figure 15: Knowledge of skin diseases prevention measur es Nearly 51. 2% of the respondents indicated that good personal hygiene, keeping the environment clean, use of safe water for drinking, backwash hands, washout clothes and hanging them in the sun can protect their families from respiratory and eye problems.The to a higher place results indicate that the knowledge of the people has improved with regards to respiratory illness and eye infection transmission and protection, however there is still room for improvement. 6. 2 Washing Hands and Good Hygienic Practices General question about hygiene and more specific ones about hand washing were posed. Keeping food external from flies, bathing regularly, keeping compounds clean, protecting food and washing hands are considered as good hygienic practices by the majority of the respondents in the end-line survey. This means that the figure increased from nearly 51% at the baseline to nearly 85% in the endline. 15 Figure 18: Knowledge about keeping good hygieneLikewise, when respondents specifically asked if they wash their hands, 89% of the interviewees gave affirmative answer in the end-line Survey. People who wash hands reported to be doing it in order to eliminate bad smell and prevent diseases. Similarly more exposit of the hand washing practice can be seen from Figure 20, and it can be concluded that more than three fou rth of the population who wash their hands, are doing it at the appropriate times. 16 Figure 20: Frequency of hand washing practice tour the vast majority of the respondents (95%) stated they would like to bathe once a day, when it comes to practice, 29% of respondents expressed they have problems in taking bath regularly mainly because of lack of container and soap (Figure 21).Hygiene practices were also considered to be a major issue by nearly 40. 6% of the respondents, these respondents indicated that woeful practices are due to both a lack of access to hygiene items, and a poor attitude brought on by a lack of knowledge. So the majority of the respondents signified that the distributed hygiene kits figure out some of their problems and they were adhering to good hygienic practices. 17 7 Sanitation 7. 1 Defecation Before the DRC intervention, the majority of the adults practiced open defecation. Because changing habits is not easy, the baseline assessment was designed to unde rstand the risk practices that were most widespread and identify those that could be changed.From the point of view of controlling diarrhoea, the priorities for hygiene behavioral change include hand washing at critical times and safe stool disposal. To this end, the efforts of the organization brought significant behavioral change. From the end-line survey it is noted that 85% of the respondents use traditional latrines, which is up from 0%. Similarly, when asked to indicate the best option for defecation, 85% indicated the latrine. On the other hand, privacy, water pollution, presence of bad smell and flies, as well as spread of disease was reported as the main problem related to open defecation practices (Figure 23). Respondents were also asked about post defecation cleansing habits and loosely indicated pieces of paper. Figure 23: Problems related to defecation practice 18Considering the majority of respondents indicated that a latrine is the best option for defecation, and th at the main issue with defecation is privacy, disease, water pollution, smell and environmental pollution, it was observed that the traditional latrine which is constructed by the participation of the communities has been welcomed and apply by the community. In the baseline survey it was found out that inadequate sanitary conditions and poor hygiene practices played major mathematical functions in the increased sum of communicable disease within the village. Similarly, the baseline information stated that beneficiaries had problems with access to safe water and sanitation facilities. To this end, DCR Gambella set a strategy to solve the problems through community participation. DRC- Gambella inculcates the basic principles and approaches Sanitation) of into CLTS the (Community newly Lead make out PHAST designed Participatory hygiene and Sanitation Transformation) training. As both approaches opt for communities’ participations and empowerment and focus on igniting a chang e in sanitation and hygiene behaviour, a PHAST training manual that encompasses both PHAST methodological analysis and catalysts for change in sanitation behaviour was prepared and distributed. After community based health promotions work, and community conversation establishments at each village, the accessibility to sanitation facilities and sanitation practices improved. 1446 households who completed hand washing points and traditional pit latrine (See the figure on the right side) were awarded NFI to make do their efforts of behavioral changes.Hand washing later stool linkup and safe disposal of stool have been priorities in hygiene and sanitation promotion interventions in Wanthowa Woreda. By understanding that for the quickest and widest adoption of good hygienic practices it is often more cost-effective to rely on tender ambitions rather than health arguments to encourage change, DRC conjugated hygiene promotion works with well-disposed and cultural values, norms as wel l as NFI distributions, such that all hygiene promotions were linked with cultural problems of Nuer society and social values. As a result good improvements in both hand 19 washing and safe stool disposal were registered. This can be confirm by looking at the end line KAP survey results. 7. Waste and Waste Management The majority of disease measures are related to environmental conditions: appropriate shelter, clean water, good sanitation, and vector control, personal protection such as (insecticide-treated nets, personal hygiene and health promotion). Appropriate waste disposal mechanism is brisk to avoid environmental pollution and breading place for vectors and pathogens. In this regards, the majority of the respondents (75%) indicated that they are now burning the household secure wastes on timely bases (Figure 24). The number of respondents who had been disposing unattackable wastes in open space and river significantly decreased afterward the interventions.Figure 24: waste disposal practice 20 The problems concerning waste were indicated in flies, bad smell, pedagogy place for mosquitoes. Majority of the respondents understood that appropriate solid waste disposal plays a vital role in minimizing the breading of vectors and other pathogens (Figure 25). Figure 25: Problems related to waste disposal The majority of respondents indicated that the practice utilize to dispose household waste is burning. Improvement in waste disposal and keep the villages clean is observed by DRC field staffs. Similarly the views of the majority of the respondents on the attributes of clean and health village is improved.It is noted that availability of safe water, cleanness of the village and availability of latrine considered by more than three fourth of the respondents as the attributes of clean and health village in the end-line survey. But those we stated the same were nearly 50% in the baseline survey. 21 Similarly, the benefits of keeping a village were mainly ide ntify as decrease of diseases occurrence, improved beauty of village, lessen presence of mosquitoes and flies by more than three fourth of the respondents in the end-line where as this nearly 53% in the baseline. From end-line survey, it can be inferred that majority of respondents indicated that central public health factors such as availability of safe water and atrines, absence of stagnant water and mosquitoes among the attributes of an healthy village. They also noted that this has great impact in reduction of infection disease prevalence. Hence, it can be concluded that the understanding of the majority of the respondents on disease transmission, transmission routes and its preventions tremendously improved after the interventions. 22 8 Conclusion diarrhoea causes vapour and kills approximately 2. 2 million people, mostly children, every year. Children are more likely than adults to die from diarrhea because they become dehydrated more quickly. In the past 10 years, diarrhea has killed more children than all of the people lost to armed conflict since World war II.Its occurrence is closely related to the opportunities that poor people (especially poor mothers) have to improve domestic hygiene10. Diarrhoea does not only cause disease and early death in children, but also affects children’s nutritional status, stunting children’s physical and ingenious growth over time. Skin and eye infections are especially common in arid areas. both diarrhoea and other infectious diseases have health as well as socio-economic consequences. Washing more often can greatly reduce their spread11 . Similarly, the training manual of Amhara region indicated that improved hygiene, particularly hand washing at critical times can reduce diarrhea by one ordinal and reduce malnutrition12. Soiled hands are an outstanding source of transmitting diarrhoeas.Recent research also suggests that hand washing is an important preventive measure in the incidence of acute res piratory infections, one of the cap killer of children under five. 13 This KAP survey was conducted in order to compare its results with the results of the baseline survey, to identify whether the hygiene promotion activities conducted in the frame of the ECHO funded project had been effective. The baseline and end-line survey results revealed that positive results have been achieved in the overall hygiene situation. In the baseline survey the situation was poor i. e. lack of safe water, poor sanitation facilities, poor hygiene practice etc. At the end of the project, an improvement was noted in the overall hygiene and sanitation behaviour.Though improvements were noticed after the implementation of project, it should not be forgotten that it takes time to consolidate behaviour changes, so more follow up is necessary for further improvement. 10 11 12 (Curtis et al. , 2000). Brian Appleton and Christine van Wijk (IRC), 2003. Amhara Regional State wellness Bureau, 2011; Isabel Carter , 2005 13 See for instance the study of Ryan et al. create in 2001 23 9 RECOMMENDATIONS Although the WASH project can been seen as a success, the team noted some recommendations for future interventions. ? ? Construct 15 showcase wells in Lolkuach village so that inhabitants meet SPHERE standards Assess whether it is possible to dig wells in the locations where people move to during the dry season ?Introduce rain water harvesting techniques, which are easy sources of potable water and would reduce the distance travelled to access water, thus improving the protection status of the women and girls that are responsible for this task. ? ? Follow up on well water quality in rehabilitated wells Although respondents recognized that animal feces can contaminate water, only 15% in the end-line noted that the proximity of a latrine to a water source can contaminate drinking water. This could be disturbed and improved in future hygiene promotion activities. 24 10 References 1. Amhara Region al State health Bureau (2011). Training Manual on Hygiene and Sanitation Promotion and Community Mobilization for extend Community Health Promoters (VCHP)/ Draft for Review. Online on tap(predicate) at: http://pdf. usaid. gov/pdf_docs/PNADP828. pdf 2. Andrea Naylor.Development and Implementation of Sanitation Survey Using a Knowledge Attitudes Practices (KAP) Model. University of South Florida (Tampa): CGN6933 â€Å"Sustainable Development plan: Water, Sanitation, Indoor Air, Health” and PHC6301 â€Å"Water Pollution and Treatment”. 3. Brian Appleton and Christine van Wijk (IRC) (2003). Hygiene Promotion Thematic Overview Paper. IRC international Water and Sanitation Centre 4. Boot, Marieke T. and Cairncross, Sandy (1993). Actions turn to: The study of hygiene behaviour in water and sanitation project. The Hague: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. 5. CAWST (Centre for cheap Water and Sanitation Technology) (2009) Household water treatment and safe st orage factsheet: natural coagulants.Online operable at: http://cawst. org/en/resources/pubs/file/38-hwts-fact-sheets-academic-english 6. Davis, J. and Lambert, R (2002) Engineering in emergencies †A practical guide for relief, workers 2nd edition, rugby football: Practical actions publishing 7. Dev Sehgal, J. (2005) A guide to rainwater harvesting in Malaysia. Online Available at: http://www. wasrag. org/downloads/ technology/A%20Guide%20to%20Rainwater%20Ha rvesting%20in%20Malaysia. pdf 8. Esrey, S. A. (1994). Complementary strategies for decreasing diarrhea morbidness and mortality: water and sanitation. Paper presented at the pan American Health nerve, March 2-3. 9. Gould, J. & Nissen-Petersen, E. 2005) Rainwater catchment systems for domestic supply. Rugby: ITDG publishing. 25 10. Green, C. E. (2001). Can qualitative research produce reliable quantitative findings? Field Methods 13(3), 3-19. 11. Isabel Carter (2005). encourage good hygiene and sanitation. A PILLARS Guide. Tearfund. A union limited by guarantee. Regd in England No 994339. Registered kindliness No 265464. 12. Laurent, P. (2005) Household drinking water systems and their impact on people with weakened immunity. MFS-Holland, Public health department. Online Available at: http://www. who. int/household_water/research/HWTS_impacts_on_weakened_immun ity. pdf 13. McKee, Neill (1992).Social mobilization and social marketing in developing communities: Lessons for communicators. Penang: Southbound. 14. Nichter, M. (1993). Social science lessons from diarrhea research and their application to ARI. Human Organization 52(1), 53-67. 15. Ouagadougou: Ministere de la Sante du Burkina Faso. Curtis, V. A. , Cairncross, S, Yonli, R. (2000) Domestic hygiene and diarrhoea, pinpointing the problem. Tropical medicine and International Health 5(1):22-32. 16. Pru? ss, A. , Kay, D. , Fewtrell, L. & Bartram, J. (2002). Estimating the global burden of disease from water, sanitation, and hygiene at the global level. environmental Health Perspectives 110(5), 537â€542. 17.Ryan, M. A. K, Christian, R. Wohlrabe, J. (2001). Hand washing and respiratory illness among young adults in military training. American Journal of contraceptive device Medicine 21(2):79-83. 18. Saade, Camille, Bateman, Massee, Bendahmane, Diane B. (2001). The story of a successful public-private compact in Central America: Handwashing for diarrheal disease prevention. Arlington, BASICS, EHP, UNICEF, USAID and World Bank. 19. UNICEF (2000). Learning from experience: Evaluation of UNICE’s water and environmental sanitation programme in India, 1966-1998. New York, UNICEF Evaluation Office, Division of Evaluation, Policy and Planning. 26 20. Verma, B.L. & Srivastava, R. N. (1990). Measurement of the personal cost of illness due to some major water-related diseases in an Indian rural population. International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 19, No. 1: 169-175. 21. Water Quality and Health Councils (2010) Water storage tips to dish out in emergency preparedness. Online Available at: http://www. waterandhealth. org/drinkingwater/water_storage. php3 22. WHO (World Health Organization) (2008a) Safer water, better health †Costs, benefits and sustainability of interventions to protect and promote the health. Online Available at: http://whqlibdoc. who. int/publications/2008/9789241596435_eng. pdf 23.WHO (World Health Organization) (2008b) Guidelines for drinking-water quality- Third edition Incorporating the first and second addenda. Online Available at: http://www. who. int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/fulltext. pdf 24. WHO(2002). Water Supply. Environmental Health in Emergency. Online Available at: http://www. who. int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/emergencies/em2002chap7. pdf 25. WHO/UNICEF (2005). Water for Life: Making it happen. http://www. who. int/water_sanitation_health/waterforlife. pdf . 26. WHO & UNICEF (2006). Meeting the MDG Water and Sanitation Target: The Urban and Rural challenge of the Decade, WHO, Geneva and UNICEF, New York. 27. WSSCC (2004).The Campaign: WASH Facts and Figures. Online Available at: Online Available at: http://www. wsscc. org/dataweb. cfm? edit_id=292&CFID=13225&CFTOKEN=70205233. 28. Wijk, Christine van (1998). sexual practice in water resources management, water supply and sanitation: Roles and realities revisited. Technical paper No. 33-E). The Hague: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. 29. http://www. unicef. org/media/files/JMPreport2012. pdf: UNICEF, WHO: Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation update 2012 UPDATE. 27 30. http://www. cdc. gov/healthywater/global/wash_statistics. hypertext markup language : Centre of Disease Control and Prevention (2012) spheric WASH Fast Facts 28\r\n'