71993 Please check the I BANK or WB Publications for availability Program for the Improvement of the Urban Envi onment and Sanitation in Conakry PADEULAC The urban environment in !Conakry.· behaviour, attitudes and practices of households Jocelyne DURANY Alain MOREL A L'HUISSIER UNDP - WORLD BANK WATER AND SANITATION PROGRAM REGIONAL WATER AND SANITATION GROUP - WEST A RICA The Program for the Improvement ofthe 'urban Environment and Sanitation in Conakry (PADEULAC) wa.t prepared with the support of the RWSG·WA. the West African Regio I Group ofthe UNDP·World Bank Water and Sanitation Program. Assisting underprivileged peop. to secure access to safe water and sanitation is a l1ecessary precondition to sustainable human develop~nt. The efficient management of water and sa~itation services faciHfates improvements in the· onditions of life of the deprived people. reduces sig icantly the development of diseases and elps to conserve the fragile natural ecosystem of th planet. Su~Saharan Africa is experien ing remarkable demographic growth. and de ite the increases in the numbers of people served. theinumber of people without access to potable wat" Increased by about 30% in absolute terms in the Ias~ 10 ye improved sanitation. In coltabotation with the Govetilments, development institution$. organisations.thethe prlvi.af,.e sector Program i'. ..has . Non-gD.vemmental veloped some innovative approaches adap..' d to the needs and local conditions. The Program is em active in more than 40 countries on three contil1en· (Africa, Asia and Latin America). I Based in Abidjan. , . Regiono tJferand san1totion Group (RWSGJ Is ttt. exec' troctureof the Program in West Afrfca. Itis counlry offices In Burkina Faso. Ghana Ond G • In the pr~ ~•. the ocHvIieJ of fhe:•• ~ .1pe·tJIso Offscted Benin. Cote d'lvo.te. G ...... ·u. Mol N~ Senegal and10Q0.;'f$operatio·· ~~·by#ie WOIId Bonk and fheUNDP.O$ as~r:on,tnbutfom from Norway. ~l. •. .~.crd Ftonce•.' •.. ~~~~~~~==m'=~; I'tl(>.$f of Whom ~ • ~ the"~' Table of contents Introduction: Methodology of the study 6 1. Population and habitat 9 1.1 Demographic estimates and projections 1.2 Classification of population by housing type 1.3 Type of occupation of lots 1.4 Socio--economic characteristics of households 2. Water supply 15 2.1 Drinking water supply situation 2.2 Types of water supply for household use: the situation 2.3 Practices and attitudes according to types of supply 2.3.1 Private water connections 2.3.2 Neighbours' private connections 2.3.3 Purchase from water vendors 2.3.4 Public taps 2.3.5 Wells 2.3.6 Rainwater collection 2.3.7 Supply from outside the compound 2.3.8 Attitudes towards water quality 2.4 Payment for water 2.5 Water consumption 3. Disposal of wastewater 23 3.1 Sewage 3.1.1 Sanitary facilities 3.1.2 Emptying 3.1.3 Attitudes towards existing facilities 3.2 Household wastewater 3.2.1 Wastewater from showers 3.2.2 Dishwater 3.2.3 Wastewater from laundry 3.2.4 Collecting pits for wastewater 3.3 Inconvenience caused by household wastewater 3.3.1 Within the compound 3.3.2 In the neighbourhood ________________________________________________m~- ..- - - - - - - - - - - ­ 4. Household waste 35 4.1 Methods of waste disposal 4.2 Attitudes towards waste and collection services 4.3 Willingness to pay for collection service 5. Stormwater 43 5.1 Situation of stonnwater drainage 5.2 Inconvenience due to stonnwater 5.3 Rationale and methodology of the additional study of flood zone 5.4 Individual strategies for protection 5.5 Collective strategies for protection 5.6 Cost of damage to households Conclusion 51 Annex: PADEULAC household survey 53 INTRODUCTION,," Methodology ofthe study his report is a synthesis of the srudies The PADEULAC household srudy used the T carried out in households in Conakry during the project development phase of the data base from the ENCOMEC srudy. 3 This was based on the division of Conakry into 620 Urban Environmental Management Program population zones carried out during the ofConakry (PADEULAC). national census of 1983. Fifty zones were The studies consisted ofthe following: selected randomly, then, after extensive study oftheir population, a random sample of 8 to 12 • a study ofhouseholds carried out in March households was taken in each ofthese 50 zones 1992. which was done on a representative (probability of selection proportional to size); sample of 647 persons (455 men and 192 the selection was based on 1/150th. Besides the women) throughout the city ofConakry. The time saved in this way, using this data base questionnaire used in this study can be also had the advantage of allowing an found in the annex to this report. The abridgement of the PADEULAC questionnaire, results of this study were already analysed since for almost all the households interviewed in a report dated June 1992 1, They cover in our srudy. we had access to precise, recent the attitudes, behaviours and practices of and viable data collected by ENCOMEC. the population concerning water supply and covering in particular household revenue, consumption, disposal of wastewater, expenses and health. For practical reasons excreta and household waste. as well as independent of our project, the fosion of data stormwater drainage. The goal of this study from these two studies and the exchange of was to assess the population's needs, the data originally hoped for have not yet efforts already undertaken as well as materialised. additional efforts which the population would be willing to undertake to participate Originally. the PADEULAC study was in or pay for improving sanitation services; supposed to measure the households' willingness to pay for improved equipment and • background studies, carried out as part Of services for disposal of both wastewater and the "community organisation" component, excreta. trash collection and drainage in the whose goal was to complete the statistical neighbourhood. However, for both practical data using a less conventional approach as and theoretical reasons. the study of well as to assess the ability of the willingness to pay was only carried out for population and institutions to participate in household trash collection. It seems usefol to activities to improve the situation, activities specifY these reasons. which would be planned and implemented with their assistance. These studies were In a study intending to assess the financial carried out by two members of the effort which households are willing to put forth permanent project team and a national in order to have access to improved eqUipment consultant. and included interviews with or services, two crucial preliminary questions men and women who live in areas which regarding the study's feasibility must be raised: are representative of the main types of 1. Is enough known about the nature of the housing, interviews with representatives of eqUipment or services presently available, neighbourhood committees, sector heads, their price and cost, as well as the users' Presidents ofyouth and women's groups, as attitude towards them? well as with members of existing 2. Does the population whose willingness to neighbourhood associations, data on lots pay is to be assessed know enough about which highlight sanitation problems within the improved eqUipment or services to be in courtyards, between neighbouring a position to appreciate the benefits of the courtyards and outside ofcourtyards. improved services? The following remarks concern the Previous studies carried out in Conakry with methodology used in the household study in which we were familiar did not pay sufficient general and for the assessment of willingness attention to sanitation, or used definitions to pay in particular. which were not precise enough for our purposes. For this reason, we could not answer in the affirmative to the first question. Thus we were unable to say which improvements were I Republic of Guinea • PAD ULAC Analysis of Household desirable or technically feasible or hoped for, Study: Morel a I'Huissier, A. C nakry; June 1992; 2 volumes: nor at what price. • Volume l: Characteristic of Households, Water Supply, Another complication lay in the fact that Water Usage, Disposal of astewater and Excreta; 70 pages. various potential improvements seemed to be • Volume 2: Household aste, Stormwater Drainage; 54 pages. unfamiliar or completely unknown to the local population, so that it seemed useless to assess 2 I Republic of Guinea ·PADEULAC Organisation of the willingness to pay for these improvements Communities; Preliminary Repprt. Durany, 1., Konate S., Balde, M., Drarne A.; Conakry; Augu . 1992; 36 pages + annexes without first demonstrating them. In addition, a scientific article by Kahneman 3 Study on Household Consu ption in Conakry (ENCOMEC); and Knetsch 4 published shortly before this Nutrition and Food Security Project; Republic of Guinea • Ministry of Public Hea - National Direction of time, pointed out an inherent bias in the Hea!thJUSAIDIUNICEF; Com II University. technique of using bidding in a questionnaire: 4 Kalmeman, D. and Knetsch, ~. L. "Valuing Public Goods: the when asked questions on their willingness to Purchase of Moral SatisfactiOll" In Joumal of Environmental pay for a series of improvements in their Economics and Management, ~o. 22, pp. 57-70, 1992. environment, interviewees responded significantly higher for the first good or service 5The wealth ofdata from the bjdding technique on willingness to pay is in effect greater as the initial figure (here 750 FG • see proposed, no matter in what order the questionnaire in annex) appro ches the median (700 FG in our questions were asked (embedding effect). case). It is therefore impossible, for example, to ask an individual succeSSively about his willingness to pay for an improved latrine, a collecting pit, a drainage ditch and for collection ofhousehold waste, hoping to gather reliable data. It thus became necessary, in order to obtain the same confidence level on the other information to be gathered, to increase the size of the sample, which was not ftasible within the constraints ofthe project. In the household study, we therefore chose to ask only questions pertaining to the willingness to pay for household trash collection. This is a high-priority improvement which seems both desirable and desired (which was confirmed later by the results of the study), and which concerns a service for which the beneficiary is clearly identified and exclusion by non­ willingness to pay is possible. It is also a service for which anyone can assess the effects in the city districts where it exists already. Since this service is generously subsidised, its extension is strongly conditioned by the level of financial participation of potential users. A recent experiment of pre-collection with payment in a district of Conakry gave us an estimate of the cost of service which could serve as viable data for the bidding technique. 5 1. Population and habitat 1.1 Demographic estimates and projectio s 1.2 Classification of population by housind type I 1.3 Type of occupation of lots 1.4 Socio-economic characteristics of ho seholds The urban environment in Conakry: b(llulvlour, IIttitudllfl and pnlCtiO(lfl ofhoullllholdfl 1.1 Demographic estimates and projections Based on the results of the General Census of Population and Habitat of 1983 (700,271 inhabitants) and those of the ENCOMEC Study of the Nutrition and Food Security Project (955,562 inhabitants in 1989), we can estimate the population of Conakry as about 1,132,000 inhabitants in 1992 (applying the average annual growth rate of 5.32% per year for the period 1983-1989), The same data give us the following estimates of population by district (Table I), Table 1: Population Estimates by District COMMUNE POPULATION Annual growth rate 83...2 KALOUM 170 279 3,31 DIXINN 221 471 3,32 MATAM 329481 5,14 RATOMA 112271 7,00 MATOTO 298302 8,46 TOTAL 1131 804 5,32 The average annual growth rate of 5.32% approaches that of the studies carried out in the context of the Urban Development Plan (UDP): hypothesis of sustained growth of 6% per year from 1985 to 1990 due to the economic spurt centered in the capital, then a progressive dropping off resulting from the policy of land management whose goal is to reduce the discrepancy between rural and urban revenues (Table 2). Table 2: Population Projections, UDP 1987 YEAR POPULATION Average annual ! growth rate 1985 830 000 - 1990 1 110 000 6,0 1995 1 450 000 5,5 2000 1 845 000 5,0 2005 2300 000 4,5 2010 2800 000 4,0 1. Popullltion tmd IuIbltllt 1.2 Classification of population by housin Except for a minority of households residing in a residential or Iu type of housing, and those living in housing developments built by public or semi-public comp .es, the vast majority of the population (about 90% in 1987) lives in a working-class type ofhousin ,either in public housing dating from the colonial period (Kaloum district) or in more recent housing developments built since 1958, or again in informal lots which mayor may not have been restru (spontaneous shanty­ towns or former villages swallowed by urban sprawl). Table 3: Classification ofhouseholds according to housing type (PDU, 1987) HOUSING TYPE Households ( ~)·I Old-type evolving 1 16 Recent evolving 7 Restructured 47 Spontaneous 18 I Village 3 Residential 2 Low-income collective 7 100 With the recent and progressive construction of housing on lots in the I districts of Matoto and Ratoma (several thousand lots), this classification of households will change lin the near future. Ilbe term "evolving" refers to 1he density ofhousing on1he lot; landlords will build additional housing . , often to rent out, as 1hey can afford to. 1.3 Type of occupation of lots 1 The main characteristics of working-class housing which can have an impact on the program to improve the urban environment are the following: • occupation of the same lot by several households, especially in the oldest districts (three households on the average, but 6.3 in the old-type evolving areas). The successive building of additional units is rarely accompanied by additional sanitation facilities; use and maintenance of common installations leads to problems; • a large number of households who rent or are housed free: 78% of households surveyed in 1987 did not own their housing. This situation does not encourage efforts to improve the environment either in the lot or the neighboumood, since there is a high degree of mobility among the tenants; • a relatively high number of absentee landlords, which affects one-fourth ofthe lots. Table 4: Average number ofhouseholds and persons per lot according to housing type (UDP' 1987). HOUSing Type No. households No. people 1 lot 1 lot : Old-type evolving 6,3 48,5 Recent evolving 2,1 17,9 : Restructured 3,7 29,3 : Spontaneous 2,8 20,2 : Village 2,1 18,5 : Low-income collective 1,2 11,8 Luxury apartments 1,0 4,0 : Residential 1,3 16,0 TOTAL 3,0 24,0 Except for old-type evolving housing and village-type habitats, where more than 40% of the buildings are made of adobe, the majority of buildings are made of concrete blocks, and 90% have corrugated aluminium roofs. :Source: Ministry of Habitat and Urbanisation. Urban Development Plan, 1987. 1. Population and hllbbt 1.4 Socio-economic characteristics of households 3 The average household contains 7.35 persons, a figure less that that und by the UDP study (8.0). This average size masks a great variety of situations. Seven per cent 0 households are headed by a female. Table 5: Distribution ofhouseholds according to sir,e (ENCOMEC, 1991) r-;;O~;;;"dSIze Average Pen:enta~ ,1 1,00 767 i I 2-4 3,20 2~,74 I l ___ 5-_7_ _ _ _ _6_,0_0_ _ _ 28,11-+-~ t I ! 8-12 9,60 26,11 i ! ~_, >13 17,10 13,36 I I Total 100,00 According to the preliminary results of the ENCOMEC studies, average monthly expenditures of households were about 217,000 FG in 1991. Households cap be classified into five categories according to standard of living. The UDP studies showed upa great discrepancy in standard of living among households who own their own housing and thoseiiWhO rent or are housed free. This last group has only one-third ofthe resources available to home-o ers. Table 6: Distribution ofhouseholds according to standard ofliving (ENCOMEC, 1991) i !--S;;i~no;;i~-'----"""-"-Avera~-;'---'-- ~.g~-;'l I category expenditure house Ids ......-..- ~- ......--- ..·..__·_·__·_ _...._ ..·__......-+--_·_····-1 IVery poor 110900 10 1 i-- ----l ~~--~~~~~~:'-l I Middle class 205 a 281 000 401 -j r·-""""'··,""_·_........-..·_-_..........·..··....·---..··_.._..···.._............- ..---------.............-'---..... j ~althY 428000 ... ""T10i i Total 217 000 1 1 ____L_.-_-___ .-.._ ....._ ..- -....- ..............------.....--.- _ _.__---l 3Source: Ministry of Public Health and Population - WeD-being ofbousebolds in Conakry: Preliminary Analysis. ENCOMEC, February 1991. . The urban environment In Conakry: bflhllwCIUI', IIttitutillS lind PrilOtiOIlS ofhQusehoids According to the study carried out for the UDP, there are an average of two active people per household; 73% of these were employed at the time in the infonnal sector, and the majority of the 27% employed in the modem sector were salaried employees of either public or semi-public institutions. Infonnal sector activities are also carried out by people who have a fonnal job, and these second jobs are often a necessary condition for the economic survival of the household. This factor should be taken into account in proposals for sanitation activities which call for participation by the population, since these infonnal activities require a large input oftime. On the average, 53% of the household budget goes to purchase food (including alcoholic beverages), but among the poorest 30% of the population, expenditures for food account for 60 to 65% of total expenditures (ENCOMEC). After food, transportation and housing constitute the greatest expenditures. Depending on the categories used for housing expenditures, the results vary considerably from one study to another (6.6% for ENCOMEC, 14.8% for the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, 1990). According to studies carried out for the UDP (1987), the purchase of a lot and the construction or renovation of housing were the highest priority expenditures expected or hoped for; this was true for all socio-economic categories. Forty-three per cent of household heads had undertaken maintenance, renovation or extension of housing on their lots during the year which preceded the study, and 6% had begun or were about to begin construction on another lot. These investments also include sanitary facilities, but to a lesser degree. For lower-middle and middle income households who were able to save or to obtain financial assistance from family members for a construction project, priority is given to building a residence (in Conakry or in the hometown). Investment to add a latrine or shower generally comes after the construction of the main building. The relative importance of household expenditures for transportation as well as for construction of housing is specific to Conakry, which differentiates Conakry from most other African capitals. High transportation costs are due to the lengthy commuting necessary to get around in Conakry, which is quite spread out, while high investments in housing are explained by the housing boom which had been suppressed for a generation during the previous regime. - _ _.,--­ ......... i I I 2. Water supply 2.1 Drinking water supply situation 2.2 Types of water supply for household U$e: the situation I 2.3 Practices and attitudes according to types of supply P rivate water connections 2.3.1 2.3.2 Neighbours' private connections 2.3.3 Purchase from water vendors 2.3.4 Public taps 2.3.5 Wells 2.3.6 Rainwater collection 2.3.1 Supply from outside the compound 2.3.8 Attitudes towards water quality 2.4 Payment for water 2.5 Water consumption The urban environment In Conakry: behaviour, attiiudesllndPf'llCtitHIS o'households 2.1 Drinking water supply situation Conakry seems to enjoy a relatively privileged situation compared to most other West African capitals since more than half of the households live in courtyards which have piped-in water. Compared to the average coverage rate (54%), the five districts can be divided into three groups: Kaloum (with a coverage rate of more than 10%) and Ratoma (23%) represent the two extremes, while the three districts of Dixinn, Matam and Matoto are closer to the average. 0% 10'% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60'% 70% 80%. 90"" 100% [=:J Not connected figure 1 coverage rates by districts i \!!~ ..... ,-~-~~ ..........- ........"""""'''''.. ~'-''-.....'''....,.... ~~~-~~..., ....~ .... ~.."..,.,. ....-.....,~~-~~~~ ...................................- ..... ~~~ On the other hand, public taps are few and far between. Only the district of Kaloum, where the rate of household water connections is higher, is well-equipped with public water points: with only 15% of the total population of the city, it possesses more than half of the existing standpipes, as shown in Table 1. Table 7: Distribution ofStandpipes per District (Source: SONEG, January 1993) DISTRICT Total Functioning Non-functional Standpipes Standpipes Standpipes Kaloum 48 35 13 Dixinn 23 14 9 Matam 13 7 6 Ratoma 4 1 3 Matoto 0 Total 88 57 A project to rehabilitate the standpipes, financed by the World Bank, began in 1993: 85 water points were to be repaired and twelve new ones installed, which would still not be enough to re­ establish a balance among the districts and satisfy the demand in the poorest areas. 2. Water supply 2.2 Types of water supply for household U$e: the situation I Nearly 70% of households have access to suitable drinking water, the rest still depend on well water to satisfy their needs (including for drinking). household connection standpipe 5 % 45% other 3 % I neighbour's well 6% from a connected neighbour: paid 5% free 13% figure 2 water supply service levels Only 45% of households have private water connections as of M h 1992 (Figure 2). This discrepancy from the coverage rate is undoubtedly explained by the n ber of non*functional connections or those which have been cut off due to non-payment of water ills. However, the results of studies differ greatly from the SEEG statistics: 14,651 household co ections in 1992, which should represent a coverage rate of only about one-third of the population. e discrepancy could be due to the number of undeclared connections, since the survey was. carried out before the normalisation of the system which took place during the restructuring of the ~ater supply system. Purchased from a water supply type for the not connected Since the number of public taps is insufficient, access to drinking water for those who do not have their own private water connections, is generally through neighbor· f private connections. Purchase ofwater from water vendors is not a general practice in Conakty. The urban environment in Conakry: bllhsrllour, IIttitudllSllndprsCticlIS ofhoustlholds As sho'wn in Figure 4, supply types vary considerably from one district to another, especially as regards the two most common methods: private connections or wells. Thus, more than half of the households in Ratoma are supplied by wells (in their courtyard or a neighbour's courtyard), as compared to 5% in Kaloum. DIXINN RATOMA MATOTO AVERAGE Well in the plot • Standpipe 011 Neighbour's well • PrIVate connection Neighbour (free) D Other figure 4 supply types by districts 2. Water supply 2.3 Practices and attitudes accordi 2.3.1 Private water connections Having running water in one's courtyard does not guarantee an supply free from health problems. Having running water on the premises is still the privilege the wealthy minority. Generally, a single water tap installed in the courtyard is used by all residents: according to survey results, a single tap serves an average of 27 people. Most hOllseltloIc:1s do not use the running water directly, but store it in various containers, and the supply chain (from to consumption) is often exposed to the same transfers as for water supplied from outside the In addition, the low water pressure, intennittent supply and tTPlll11Plr1t breakdowns in the network force households to stock water, to restrict their consumption and find alternate sources of water when their supply is cut off for a long time. When the supply of water is cut off, nearly half of households use water from either their well or a neighbour's well. rest get their supply from a neighbour's tap. The availability of these alternatives varies from district to another. In Kaloum, public taps, when they are functional, are used more frequently. For 70% of households with private connections, these problems in the distribution of water are experienced as the most critical ones regarding their water supply. 2.3.2 Neighbours' private connections In spite of the constraints which it represents, nearly 18% of nOl~sellOUlS depend on their neighboUrs for their water supply. Traditionally, and according to practice, this service is rendered free of charge. However, due to water shortages and changes in the urban environment, certain households have begun charging their neighbours for service. The status of neighbour no longer guarantees that one can obtain water without paying for it. ·.~nlnAl'i~,~ the neighbours At the present time, only 5% of households pay for use their water, so water which they obtain from neighbours, but it is likely that go elsewhelfJ. If the tendency to charge for this service will increase with the neliDnl.,au,rs ask molfJ and changeover from a fixed charge type of payment to payment more ta i our water, but they for water actually consumed as per a water meter, which is dan't help pay the bill. This is a the system presently being installed by the SEEG. social constraint. " 2.3.3 Purchase from water vendors Purchasing water at one's home is a marginal method of water supply (less than 1% of households). However, this service tends to increase when there are prolonged breakdowns in the supply network, in particular in the districts of Matam and Ratoma. Prices fluctuate during crisis periods, when a 23 litre drum can be sold for as much as 200 FG (Ratoma). 2.3.4 Public taps Those who use public taps (a total of 5% of households, but 12% when household connections are cut oft) are mostly concentrated in Kaloum. This supply is free at the moment, and the main reasons for complaints are irregularities in the supply and long waiting periods during rush hours. 2.3.5 Wells There is some awareness of health risks related to the use of wen water: nearly 30% of households which use this water complain of its poor quality. However, the main problems cited by the majority of households relate to shortages during the dry season when wells dry up, some already in February, which forces women to wait for the water to well up intermittently in order to meet their families' daily needs. 2.3.6 Rainwater collection Rainwater is used as a supplementary source of water by many households (72%). This practice varies from one district to another according to the situation of the supply network: it is less frequent in Kaloum (58% of households) and more frequent in Ratoma (83%). Various types of containers are used to collect rainwater (basins, bUckets, pans); only about 20% of households have a 200 litre barrel placed under a rain gutter. Not connected househotds IlIIves ONo I figure 6 rainwater collection The main reasons cited by those who do not use this method are that they are satisfied with their water source (43%) and that water collected in this way is impure since the roofs are dirty (52%). Those who do collect rainwater only use it for other purposes than drinking. 2. Water supply 2.3.7 Supply from outside the compound tI l Nearly one-third of households do not have any supply of w r within their compound (neither well nor piped-in water): 37% of these feel that the place where ey do obtain water is very far from their home, a feeling which seems justified, since the same propdrtion said that they must go a distance corresponding to ten compounds. I 2.3.8 Attitudes towards water quality Several indicators show that the population of Conakry is aware 0 water quality. In tact. 28% of households do not use the same source for d' . water and water for other household needs. For the question on preferred water source for drinking d cooking, piped-in water was cited as the first choice by 91% of households and well water as th second choice by 67%. In spite ofthe reluctance to use rainwater for these purposes, rainwater was preferred over river water. i 2.4 Payment for water At the time when the survey was carried out, the fixed charge was still applicable for the majority of subscribers, which explains the relative infrequency' of references to the cost of water expressed by households. Attitudes would be very different today: payment for water actually consumed, accompanied by an increase in rates (while the expected improvement in services is not yet evident), is strongly criticised by households served by the network. For the households covered by the survey, 8% did not pay for the water they consumed, because they did not receive a bill, or did not participate in the payment of the bill (5%). In multiple family compounds, payment was generally made on the basis of dividing the total equally (56% of cases); however, the desire to avoid conflicts and to make the payment more equitable regarding the quantity of water actually consumed often led to dividing the bill based on the number of persons in each family (20%) or the number of rooms occupied (17%). For the public taps, the SEEG's policy is to encourage the beneficiaries to be responsible for maintenance and to have the users pay for the water they consume. This policy is already being applied in cities in the interior where projects to rehabilitate or install drinking water networks have started up. However, for the standpipe project in Conakry, water consumption at the water points which have already been rehabilitated in Kaloum was to be paid for by the district administration. Nevertheless, the population is aware that the installation of new public taps is contingent upon the users' taking responsibility for their maintenance (or at least their guarding). The mayors ask neighbourhood leaders to include proposals covering these points in the requests submitted by their residents. 2.5 . Water consumption Based on the studies undertaken for the UDP, average consumption of water from the network varies according to the type of service: • 48 IIday/inhabitant for a private water connection • 20 IIday/inhabitant for supply from a neighbour's connection • 17 llday/inhabitant for a public tap For private connections, this information hides differences in behaviour according to living conditions. In multiple family compounds, and in particular those which have problems regarding disposal of wastewater on the premises, water consumption at the common tap is probably lower. Several common practices in fact limit water consumption: the tap is sometimes sealed with a padlock and is open only at certain hours; young children do their washing at the public tap or on the edge ofthe sidewalk, and so forth. · I -.-.. - -"----+-.. i I "~"."""---."""" 3. Disposal of wastewater Aside from the separate wastewater disposal network which overs part of the district of Kaloum and several mini-networks in housing developments built by eal estate companies such as those in Dixinn and Matam. most wastewater is disposed ofby means on-site systems. In this case, it is necessary to distinguish between household sullage and wastew ter from latrines and toilets since in the majority ofcases, these are disposed ofby different method. 3.1 Waste water from latrines and toilets 3.1.1 Sanitary facilities 3.1.2 Pit emptying 3.1.3 Attitudes towards existing facilities 3.2 Household sullage 3.2.1 Waste water from showers 3.2.2 Dishwater 3.2.3 Waste water from laundry 3.2.4 Soakaway pits for waste water 3.3 Inconvenience caused by household aste water 3.3.1 Within the compound 3.3.2 In the neighbourhood rlHl urban environment In Conakry: behaviour, attitudes andpraotioes ofhouseholds 3.1 Waste water from latrines and toilets 3.1.1 Sanitary facilities On-site facilities According to survey results, 95% of households have some form of sanitary facilities. These are generally within the compound (80%) and are used in common by all households: on average one or two cabins are shared by three families, Le. about 25 persons. Only 15% of households have a toilet in their apartment. In the wealthiest families, these indoor toilets are only to be used by the landlord, his wife, or other "respected persons," and another outside toilet is to be used by the children and tenants. Children under the age of five do not use these sanitary facilities for safety reasons. Four per cent of households surveyed do not have any toilet facilities on the premises; most of these (68%) use their neighbours' latrines. It must be noted that many households who live in multiple family compounds in heavily populated areas do not live in a comfortable situation: it is not rare to find that up to 50 or 60 people must share a single cabin, which is often non-functional or temporarily unusable while it is being emptied. Characteristics ofsanitary facilities Half of the installations consist of only a simple pit, while 36% have a squatting bowl and 14% have a WC seat. KALOUM DIXINN MATAM RATOMA MATOTO AVERAGE CONAKRY ( c:::::=J Simpia pit ~ SquattJng bowl c=J we seat ) figure 7 sanitary facilities by district The slabs are usually made of cement (81 %), reinforced by iron bars or railroad ties. However, a local industry to produce cement and tiled slabs is developing, and is popular with the population: 16% of households surveyed have a slab of this type. Its cost varies between 3,000 and 15,000 FG, and is easily affordable by the middle classes. The type of facility depends on the standard of living and also on the existence of sewer systems. It is therefore in the district of Kaloum that we find the most squatting bowl and WC seats. More than 60% of the latrines do not have flushing mechanisms, whether they are only simple pit or squatting bowls set over a pit. Among the latter, only 36% are equipped with siphons. Where waste disposal requires flushing, this is usually done by hand (with a bucket of water), even when there is a we cistern, since this is usually non-functional due to technical problems or lack of water. 8. Disposal of wastewater OIXINN MATAM RATOMA MATOTO [0 No flushing m\:l Manual flushing 0 we cistern figure 8 flushing mechanisms In contrast with semi-urban areas where the traditional tendency is to leave the latrine roofless, most sanitary facilities in Conakry have a roof (nearly 78%) and 26% are equipped with ventilation pipes; 14% of these are equipped with fly screens. Waste collection mechanisms I As Figure 9 shows, there are three main types of pits: simple tradit~onal unlined pits (21 %), those lined with cement (39%) and septic tanks, as they are called by the poriulation although they do not usually meet the standards for this type of equipment (29%) since they igenerally consist of two separate pits which are rarely connected to a cesspit. . The need to line the pits depends on the nature of the soiL Where the soil is soft and crumbly, the sides of the pit must be lined, and a slab must be placed at the equipped with a drain which allows water to seep through. In rocky soil, the sides are only rarely Across districts, the greatest differences are between KaIoum, 35% of sanitary facilities are connected to the sewer system, and Ratoma, where the ........V'". of septic tanks is lowest compared to the districts which do not have a collective sewer system. Latrine builders Construction of latrines is done by well-diggers who dig the pits masons who construct the slabs, line the walls or make separate compartments as needed, and erect superstructure . There are traditional well-diggers in Conakry, but the job has opened up to other professions (in particular workers in gold or diamond mines) as well as to unemployed; the most IIIiI!I _ 01Otom 0 UnUned pit fi1!11I Uned pit I11III Vault IIIIlI $epa. tank o OGler re 9 waste collection mechanisms important qualification is physical strength, and training is done on-the-job. The well-diggers generally work in teams with only rudimentary tools (hammers, chisels, hoes, shovels, buckets, ropes). The site and the dimensions ofthe pit are detennined by the homeowner along with the advice of the well-diggers. The cost varies according to the nature of the soil (soft or rocky); thus for a pit measuring 24 m3 (4 x 3 x 2 meters), the contract between the homeowner and the team of well­ diggers can vary between 225,000 and 500,000 FG. The masons generally work with material and equipment furnished by the homeowner. 3.1.2 Emptying According to the results of surveys, 64% of latrine pits are emptied by the UPSU or the fire company. (See Figure 10). These results seem somewhat optimistic when one realises how under-equipped these services are. The UPSU only owns one water truck theoretically intended for repair work on the sewer system, but used more and more often for jobs needed by administrative services and individuals (emptying an average of 5 pits a day). The fire company only possesses two old trucks equipped with water pumps (emptying an average of 9 latrine pits per day per truck). In addition, several zones are inaccessible by truck, and numerous compounds are located within non-structured blocks. Most of this market is therefore in the hands of manual workers who use very rudimentary methods and who work in very unsanitary conditions. Chemical products (lime, diesel fuel, caustic soda) are poured into the pit well before it is emptied, in order to reduce odours and vapours and to soften the sludge fonned by the excreta. Besides the part-time emptying services, there are about thirty teams of more professional drainers who have received on-the-job training by the UPSU or the fire company, who do this work outside of their regular work hours (which undoubtedly explains the confusion among households questioned about the operators). These teams sometimes "rent" garbage dumpsters (at 15,000 FG a day) in order to transport waste to the dumping site. Only two private contractors offer a motorised service, one of whom has two small trucks (4m3) and the other a tractor attached to a tank measuring 4m3. No matter who does the emptying, the final disposal of the sludge is a high-risk polluting factor (See Figure 11). For the UPSU and the fire company, the sea coast is the main outlet right in the middle of the city. For individuals and private contractors, the waste is theoretically deposited in a pit dug for this purpose when the latrine is emptied, but in practice and when the lot or soil makes digging difficult, the waste is deposited next to the pit or in the drains. Some households take advantage of the rainy season to dispose ofthe waste in the street. The cost of emptying varies according to the difficulties encountered in the field, the volume of waSte to be disposed of and the operator. A single trip by a tank truck costs between 30,000 FG (for the fire company and private contractors) and 40,000 FG (UPSU). To this cost must be added ... .. ... _:;: _ fr,;~·:-~~·:,,·,:------,:----------"--':-~-'---'---'--':~-'::"-'::'--':'-':~-::"-:;"-'-':::;:::::-":"-':--'::"-'::"-":.:;;:,.',:;.'.:::::::..,-::,:.-.:~-.::.-.::.. :...~;:;.:_-.:_-.:_-.:;.-.::..-.:;.-.:;;;.-.:+:".:.:_":t_-::_~':_~_'."'.:;.-;:':,':.::,-_-_-,:_-_-_-_- -_-_-_-.t_-_-_-_-.:..-_-.::::_-::::-_-:_-~-_ ~-.:m:;:'_7.:;.-.:;:;.::..-.:::'_"'''::'_-_-_-_-~O;.'';".:;:_.:;;:,.-_-_-= II " fI H r figure 10 latrine pits emptying operators ; 3. Disposal of wast_water UPSU FIRE MANUAL HOUSEHOLDS COMPANY OPERATORS Drains o Bur1ed ~ Sea that of the damage to the sanitary facilities in order to allow for prnnh"nO' interviewed stated that repairs had to be made after emptying. In multiple family compounds, all the households (tenants as well as :'I<..IUIV. ."'} the cost of emptying the latrine. The landlord, or the head of the cornJ)<)und, contributions before contacting the emptying service. According to surveys, it is this time needed to collect the money which delays the operation (in 62% of cases) rather than the waiting period after the emptying service is contacted. This waiting period is generally not than a week (84%), but it can be as long as one to three weeks (10%) or even longer (6%). 3.1.3 Attitudes towards existing facilities Two-thirds of households surveyed say they are satisfied with sanitary facilities. 80% SATISFIED DISSATISFIED 70% 60% 50010 40010 300/0 20010 10010 0% NO SIMPLE WITHOUT ~ UNED WITH WITH SEPTIC ROOF PIT VENTILATION ~ PIT ROOF TANK PIPE PIPE figure 12 attitude towards latrines According to the type and characteristics of the latrine used (See Figure 12), the rate of satisfaction varies from about 50% (for roofless single pit latrines) to 80% (for facilities with septic tanks or ventilation pipes). However, many households complain about the inconveniences caused by swanning flies and cockroaches (about 75%) and unpleasant odours (50%). Other reasons for complaint relate to lack of water, which makes maintenance difficult and to problems related to emptying (See Figure 13). fl:::~~~~~~~~-~-~*;:;:~"*::::::;:;:;::;::;:;=:;:;::::::~-=~~~~~=~~~~~-'-'-<:X"""·"""~'.:.:.!t.:::r ..- .............. -=:c:C'~J 100% ~ J 1 I 9 0 % 1 i 1 i !i 80% ...... :1' !i : ii 70% :1 ~6 0 % ! 1150% I' 1140% 30 r1 % I i! 20% I' II DIffiCULT EMPTYING HIGH DiffiCULT lACK OF UNPLEASANT COCKROACHES. EMPTYING FREQUENCY COSTS MAINTENANCE WATER ODOURS FUES. etc figure 13 complaints related to latrines Interviews carried out during the environmental study describe the situation experienced by many households, and highlight the problems related to emptying and the insufficient number of latrines for the number of potential users: 7here is only one latrine for the fifteen households which live in the compound: when it is full and we can't afford to call the emptying services, the latrine is closed until the sludge settles; during this time, everyone gets along as best he can. U (Dixinn Mosque) The approaching need for emptying is experienced with even more apprehension by families living in enclaves inaccessible by trucks: . "Our compound is surrounded by the neighbours. We don't know what to do when the latrine is full. We are afraid. " (Carriere) Certain households complain about the inefficiency and cost ofthe official services: 'When we call the UPSU or the fire company, it seems as though the trucks are already half-full when they arrive, because they only remove half of the contents of the pit. A month or two later, the pits are already overflowing again. That;s why people prefer to empty their latrines themselves or call subcontractors. The sludge is poured into the ditches, especially during the rainy season. " (Sonti MalChe) Problems relating to the usage of sanitary facilities are almost as severe in compounds which are connected to the sewer system, when the sewer pipes are blocked: "When the sewer pipe is blocked, we have to dispose of waste in the sea. If (Manquepas) 3. D/8pDulof wasteWllter 3.2 Household sullage Among the methods used by households to dispose of household waste water, it is important to distinguish those who dispose of it outside the compound (poured out in the street, or in the drainage ditches, or in other ditches dug near the courtyard) and those who dispose of it within the compound (poured into the toilet pit, into a soakaway pit, or poured out in the courtyard). These methods vary according to the type of waste water: shower water or w water from laundry or dishwashing. 3.2.1 Waste water from showers Water from showers is more often poured down a pit. Forty-five Prr cent of households use the toilet pit (this information is important when proposing VIP latrines witij. double pits) and 20% in a soakaway pit usually dug within the compound. These practices limit the problems caused in various West African cities by soakaway pits for showers situated outside walls of the compound. In addition, the soakaways are generally covered (76%) and 46% are with stones or other .­ filtering materials. Stagnant water near the soakaway has only been noted in 15% of cases. AVERAGE CONAKRY ......._"""""""":"~_,......._--;--_~ ~ Poured In c:ourtyard figure 14 disposal of shower water This situation varies from one district to another. The use of sOakaway pits is less common in Kaloum since part of this area is equipped with sewers, and in Ratoma, where households often let shower water flow outside of the compound, or pour it in the courtyard. In . as which have drainage ditches, shower water is often carried directly to the ditches by pipes. 3.2.2 Dishwaler Dishwater is less often poured into a pit or soakaway (24%); the ten ney is usually to get rid of it outside the compound (42%). Even in areas served by the sewer system., many women hesitate to pour dishwater into the pit because ofthe problems it could cause (see figure! 15). However, 25% of households have stated that they pour the dish~ater onto the ground in their own courtyard. This practice seems to vary according to the poPulationf· density of the district: it is more common in Ratoma (54%) and to a lesser extent in Matoto (34%) an in the more heavily populated districts of Kaloum, Dixinn and Matam. I AVERAGE CONAKRY .......--r---r--,.........._"r--.,...........,...---,­ RATOMA __--r--'--'r-­ \0 Outside I11III Courtyard o other figure 15 disposal of dishwater 3.2.3 Waste water from laundry According to the results of surveys, women usually do their laundry in the courtyard (85%) and less often at the water hole (6%) or in the street (4%). In the districts of Ratoma and Matoto, laundry is more :frequently done at the water hole (18% and 10% respectively). Among the women who go outside the compound to do their laundry (15%), about 26% feel that the distance they must walk is somewhat long, and 12% feel that it is very long. The absence of washtubs is strongly felt especially in densely populated areas where the disposal of household waste water causes huge problems. AVERAGE ~AA~"""'--r---r--'--~~~-.~--r- [0 outside I11III Courtyard ~ Pits o other figure 16 disposal of laundry water Only 17% of the people interviewed stated that they pour the waste water into a pit or a soakaway. As for dishwater, waste water from laundry is most often disposed of outside the compound (47%), except for Ratoma where it is usually poured out within the courtyard (49%). 3. Olsposal of wsstewster 3.2.4 Soakaway pits for waste water Soak pits for waste water are most often installed within the cornD()un,d (80%) and covered (76%). Forty-six per cent are filled with stones or other filtering materials. 90% compound stones 3.3 Inconvenience caused by household waste water 3.3.1 Within the compound According to the results of studies, stagnation or pouring out of waste water within the compound only causes marginal inconvenience to the residents: only about 12% of households complained of this, whether water from bathing, dishwater or water from laundry (See Figure 18). fr.::.::.::.::.:.;·.:.··.:.··.:··.:··-";·.:....:··.:····;;;··~~~-:-·:··.:..·.:.:.:.·:.·.: ...:.;~-;:;:.:;,.:.:.::·.::M".:,;,7.:;;:;;';;;::.:;:;;'r.:;;.:~-;."..~.:_-.:._-:.·.:"·:::.:;:~·;·;;:.:;::.:;.:.:;:.:;::;,:.:t.:~·:.::::,~~·.:;·.::.:.~;-";::::::.::::::~~~.::;:;.:.-:;;:;:::.:.:;:::.:.:.:.;::::~~-~-";::..-:.::.::·:~'::.'.:·:.:·;::·:.::~~·i ii waste water overflowing from . latrines In the neighbourhood EI 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% figure 18 inconvenience caused by waste water It is especially in multiple family compounds in the old, densely populated neighbourhoods that disposal of waste water causes problems. The problem is often so severe that residents must limit the quantity of water used or carry out certain activities outside the courtyard (probably more often than appears in the survey results): washing dishes, laundry, washing children and sometimes adults' showers. In effect, saturation of the area makes it difficult to pour water inside the courtyard, and the soakaways or latrine pits quickly overflow if women pour waste water from laundry or dishwashing into them. When the soakaway from the shower overflows, the person in charge of the courtyard often forbids the use of the shower until the pit is drained. In Kaloum, neighbourhood leaders have forbidden the pouring of waste water onto paved roads; more recently women are also not allowed to do laundry near the public taps. These measures force women who have no other alternative to dispose of waste water outside of their courtyards .. 3.3.2 In the neighbourhood On the other hand, nearly half of households surveyed experience as an extreme nuisance, for the environment and their comfort, the stagnation or flowing of household waste water and overflow from latrines in the neighbourhood (See Figure 18). In certain areas these problems lead to conflicts between neighbours: "We are annoyed in our courtyard because we want to pour waste water in the street or in the gutter; there are always problems with the neighbours or with the authorities. " "Our neighbours don't listen to us when we tell them not to pOfJr dishwater in the street, The accumulation of dishwater causes arguments among neighbours. U AVERAGE MATOTO RATOMA MATAM KALOUM • Very annoyed D Annoyed D Not annoyed figure 19 inconvenience due to waste water in the neighbourhood The degree of annoyance varies according to population density in area. In outlying areas, vacant lots, less densely populated compounds and dirt roads allow for isposal of waste water, which although not a long-tenn solution, does not constitute a major inco venience. On the other hand, in Kaloum and also in Dixinn and Matam, disposal of waste water is a major problem for women, who do not know how to get rid of it, and for residents who deplQre the pollution of their environment. AVERAGE MATOTO RATOMA MATAM OIXINN KALOUM figure 20 inconvenience due to w~lste water overflowing from latrines in the neighbourhood The inconvenience caused by overflow from latrines is strongly felt in the district of Kaloum (more than 70% of households) when the pipes are blocked and the waste flows out onto the sidewalk, but also in the heavily populated areas ofDixinn and Matam: "If the latrines overflow, we suffer; the excreta smells terrible and the liquid flows all over the place. II (Boulbinet) 'We can't walk around outside at night in our neighbourhood: we might drown in waste water and the overflow from latrines. " (Carriere Centle) i n''''''''1'lIU'''~IftI _~~_ _""'II'' ..... ~~~ ___ _ _- • - _111_.~._~t--~"''''-'''''''--'''....",.,,,,,,"w=- 4. Household refuse 4.1 Methods of refuse disposal I 4.2 Attitudes towards refuse and COliectiO~ services 4.3 Willingness to pay for collection servic+ The urblln environment In ConlJltry : bflhlllviour, IIIttitudfHI I!IIrd prIIICtiCfHI ofhouseholds 4.1 Methods of refuse disposal Only 29% of households have access to a garbage collection service by one of the compacting garbage trucks of the public service (Unite de Pilotage des Services Urbains, or UPSU). These trucks cannot reach a certain number of areas with impassable roads, particularly in outlying areas. Thus the rate of individual garbage collection is 87% in the district of Kaloum, but only 10% and 17% respectively in the outlying districts of Matoto and Ratoma (See Figure 22). In the districts of Dixinn and Matarn, where the street network is relatively limited and the roads are in good condition, this rate is respectively 29% and 26%. These households dispose of their garbage in cartons (24%) or other containers (60%) rather than in "official" garbage containers made of PVC (4%). These are sold at a modest price in city markets, but are more often used for storing water. Certain households also use plastic bags (12%). II Dumped in a vacant Ii 15°" 11 Carried to containers 25 'Yo t . . . . . . . . .21 l.figure .......................... disposal of household refuse I ...................................................._ ................._ ................................... _.. 1 In contrast with other West African capitals, the public collection service has hardly any competition from private refuse collectors, since only 2% of households in Conakry state that they use private services, which are mostly limited to a particular area (Hafia-Mosquee). f"''''-'''''='''''''''''''''''''''''''='''''''''''''''';'''='''''''''''''''''''''''''"''''."'f".===';""""""<"'''f''===----='~==..,..''='"=~l if 60% 50% 40% 30% KALOUM DIXINN MATAM RATOMA MATOTO AVERAGE CONAKRY o UPSU collection ~ Containers o Burned l11li Vacant lot o other figure 22 disposal of household refuse by districts ~ ..__~_._..._J ........................_..................... __................~........~................._ 4. Houtlflhold WlI8tfJ MaIginai in Kaioum, the carrying of garbage to containers coIlsti~les the second method of disposal of household refuse in the city (25%), and the main method (42%) and Matoto (28%) (See Figure 22). As shown in Figure 23 it is .,v••~".,....."., necessary to walk long distances (more than 300 meters: 36%) to reach the 160 or so of the UPSu. It is usually the children of the household who carry out this task. An identical and non-negligible proportion of households (15%) their garbage or dump it in a vacant lot outside of their compound. These practices are more in the districts of Ratoma (67%) and Matoto (47%), where relationships are more relaxed there are more vacant lots. Where there is no collection service, trash is not dumped except perhaps along the beach and during the rainy season. If the garbage is not burned in of the compound, it accumulates at specific sites familiar to the population. This represents an effort on the part of households who must walk a certain distance (See Figure 23: 28% between 00 and 300 meters, 18% more than 300 meters) to dispose of garbage where it is not This effort is in fact encouraged by neighbourhood leaders. It can be noted these distances are not really shorter than those w~..."u by the residents of "We are trying to raise the neighbourhoods which do containers, which women's awareness so that the shows if need be how useful would be in outlying compounds are clean and so districts. trash will be dumped at specific Certain households some form of places along the road or the recycling, although they few and far between railroad. We have no other choice according to the survey (5.5%). They since there are no containers or separate cans and bottles garbage to be burned or collection services available. For com posted; they also out scrap iron as now, the railroad track is our main recommended by the . Plastic objects are dumping place. • (Oixinn-Mosquee, sometimes taken to the T'>I'1·'U·" or the market to be sold, President of Women's Group) along with cartons or else that may be turned into cash. Sometimes matter such as rice is separated and buried to avoid unpleasant odours. 100% 30% 20% 10% Garbage carried Burned garbage to containers ID < 100m ~ 1OO-300m • >300m figure 23 walking distance according to method of household refuse disposal The urban environment In Conakry: btlhllllfWl', IIttitudtlsllf1d Pf'IICtiCfHI ofhousilholds 4.2 Attitudes towards refuse and collection services For those who have access to it, the door-to-door collection service of the UPSU is generally appreciated, in spite of some irregularities in it'S frequency. Although trash is supposed to be collected daily, it is not rare that various problems in management or maintenance immobilise all the compacting garbage trucks at the garage for several days in a row. The same is true for the trash pick­ up from containers~ this lack of regular service is the number one complaint among the households surveyed (52%). The distance to the containers and their unpleasant odour are also reasons for complaint (31 % and 25% respectively). IRREGULAR TOO DISTANT UNPLEASANT CONTAINER CONTAINER RODENTS COLLECTION CONTAINER ODOUR FREQUENTLY NOT USEFUL OR VERMIN FILLED UP figure 24 dissatisfaction towards collection service I On the other hand, the sixteen persons in our sample who pay young people in the neighbourhood to dispose of their trash are unanimous in expressing their satisfaction with the service thus rendered. Most of these people live in the area called Hafia-Mosquee, where a door-to-door collection service was set up in 1991 upon the initiative of the neighbourhood leader in a project financed by UNICEF (PADU). "Informal dumps" are widely scattered around the entire city (See Figure 25). Fifty-seven per cent of households admit their existence in their neighbourhood, although half of these households live in zones served by the UPSU. When asked about the origin of the informal dump sites, those surveyed blamed lack of discipline on the part of city residents, the distance from containers and the irregularity of collection. A high percentage of households (60%) said they are "very annoyed" by the household figure 25 "informal dumps" by district garbage in their neighbourhoods, especially if there are infonnal dump sites ~75%). In reality, the lack ofgarbage collection leads all the residents to experience the degradation oflthe environment in which they are participating themselves, as shown in Figure 26, which represents the degree of annoyance felt by those interviewed according to the method trash disposal. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 9O'Ib 100% Very annoyed D Annoyed D Notannoyed 4.3 Willi.,....·...aClle for collection tlArv.~1D A majority of households (59%) state that they are willing to pay for a regular collection service (at least two times a week) in front of their compound, but rejeq completely the idea of paying each time trash is removed. Predictably, agreement is related to lbe degree of annoyance expressed (See Figure 27) as well as to the present method of trash dispo~ used by the household (See Figure 28). i As a result, the willingness to pay exists to a variable degree in di rent districts. As shown in Figure 29, households in Dixinn, Matam and Matoto are most inclined to ay for such a service. In Kaloum and Ratoma, the willingness to pay is less than the mean for the ci for different reasons: in the first case, there is already a widespread service; in the second, nead half of the households dispose of their trash by burning it near the compound, with no apparent annbyance. Certain households were very willing to pay. However, this attitudei was often contingent on regularity of service, indeed on its actual existence. • 'We can't live forever with this garbage..., we are teady to do Inything. even to pay so that our street will be clean . .. "We won! refuse to pay as long as the serviCe is efffJctive. D "Yes, but on condition that the trucks come tegulady. • "Yes, if it's true that they'll come and pick up the trash. • I The urban environment in Conakry: behllvlour, attitudes and pr'IIOtiDes of houtJtIhoIds "If they don't come to our front door every day, we won't pay the 25FG. We'd rather carry our own trash to a vacant lot. " In addition, the affinnative responses are not a1ways sure: "We'll pay at the beginning for trash collection, but we can't keep it up because we can't afford it. II "I, AVERAGE Not annoyed Annoyed Very annoyed 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% figure 27 c- Agree D Disagree willingness to pay for a collection service ) according to inconvenience due to household garbage AVERAGE Dumped ina vacant lot Carried to dumpster Collected by UPSU 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ( ~ Agree c::=J Disagree ) i Those who refuse to pay for trash collection have alternatives which are satisfactory and free of charge... or only bother women and children (in the case ofmale respondfnts): We bum o.ur trash and it's no problem. So instead of payingt·r it, we'd rather bum our garbage in the moming or evening. ,. (Dar..es~Salam) We can pay for water or electricity, but not for trash collectio even if we can afford it. We ate near the sea coast. " (Matoto Market) ! "Our wives can throw the tlash into the sea. For stonn water. ihoUS8hOld trash and aI/ the test, we just throw it all in the sea. " J "We have children, and our wives are here. If the UPSU can do the job for free, we can do it ourselves. ,. (Landteah) . Sometimes the refusal to pay is not due to the existence of 1able alternatives, but to scepticism about the effectiveness of a potential service, or even to a reje ion of the idea of paying for a service which should be public and free of charge. . i "We won't pay anything because we know the job won't be taken seriously. " We don't agree with paying a cent for household trash. " I "The problem of household tlash - that's the govemment's Pfblem. II The willingness to pay for a door-to-door collection service ~rding to the methods described above was measured in the survey by using the technique of bid ing. In studies using the contingent valuation method, when a few precautions mentioned in the troduction are applied, bidding gives better results than simply asking the respondent to name th~ highest amount that he would be willing to pay for such and such a service. We will not describeithis technique in greater KALOUM DIXINN MATAM RATOMA MATOTO' AVERAGE C" Agree [=::J Disagree ) CONAKRY figure 29 willingness to pay by district The urban environment in Conakry: behaviour, attiturJeslJnd practices ofhouseholds detail, since it has already been well documented in the literature.' In this case it consisted of asking the respondent if he would be willing to pay 750 FG per month for a twice weekly trash collection service in front of his compound. Upon an affirmative response, he was asked if he would pay as much as 1000 FG, and in the case of a negative response, if he would be willing to pay 500 FG. Those who agreed to pay 1000 FG were asked to state the highest amount which they would be willing to pay, while those who refused to pay 500 FG were asked to name the smallest amount they would pay. This bidding technique was only used with respondents who accepted the principle of paying for the service; thus the willingness to pay assigned to each household took one of the following values: * 0 FG if the respondent did not accept the principle of paying; * the highest amount stated if the bidding fell in the interval [0,500]; * 625 FG if it fell between [500, 750]: * 875 FG if it fell between [750, 1000]; * the highest amount stated if the respondent agreed to pay more than 1000 FG. i 100% or I 'I I I ... T t ! I T I '1 I I I' , '1 r , I I i i; 90% .1. j I. .I .I ,I, .I. . .1. . .t .. 1. I I t I , , , , I , I , , I , I 110% I I "r' I I ,...,.. '1' I . '1"1' ., "1' T' .. ,.. '1 I I .. I 1" .. ,.. I r' , I I I , I , , , I 1 I I I , . . . ,I, i .1 .. .. I .I . 1. , I. I .' .. 1 I .. l ,I, 10"10 , I I I I I I I , I 1 I , I I I , 60% !" I r' , I 50% i .I ! . . 1. I i I I I I I , I 40% r'"1 I I 1 I' I I I 1 , ! I r I r' I I ,. , " , I , , , , I , I I I 30% I. I.. i , . .I. , , ..1 I .1 . I I I I I I. I I I... , , I , I , " I I I 20% " '1" '1' . '1"1 . r 'I"' . T' I '\ I r' I I I i I I I I I I I i I I I I I 10% .. 1 .. 1. I I. , I .1... I ,I . .1. J. . ,I, I I , I I " I " , ! I I I I , , , " I " I I I , I 0% 0 200 400 1;00 1100 1000 1200 1400 I MONTHLY FEE (FG 92) figure 30 willingness to pay for a collection service L ...................................................................................................................................................................................... .1 The results are shown in Figure 30, which shows the percentage of agreement to pay for trash collection depending on the amount of the monthly fee. As shown in the figure, the median value would be approximately 700 FG. On the average, this payment amounted to about 525 FG. We can note significant differences in the mean and median payments across districts, which reflect the differences noted above in the respective proportions of households willing to pay across districts. In Kaloum and Ratoma, only 45% of households accepted the principle of payment (See Figure 29), and they accepted a mean monthly payment of 380 and 470 FG respectively. In Dixinn and Matoto, on the other hand, more than 60% of households are willing to pay and the average amount they would agree to pay was 570 and 610 FG respectively. In Matam, the mean monthly fee is close to the average for the city, i.e. 527 FG. lSee in particular Cummings, R.O., Brookshire, D.S., Schulze, W.O.: Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method: Totowa, New Jersey; Roman and A1lanheld: 1986 and Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method: Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future; 1986. 5 5. Stormwater 5.1 Situation of stonnwater drainage 5.2 Inconvenience due to stonnwater 5.3 Rationale and methodology of the additional study of flood zones . 5.4 Individual strategies for protection 5.5 Collective strategies for protection 5.6 Cost of damage to households The urban environment in Conakry: behaviour, attitudes andpractictllI ofhousehoidll 5.1 Situation of stormwater drainage More than two-thirds of the households in Conakry do not have access to any public system of stonnwater drainage near their compounds. The drainage network is especially concentrated in the districts of Kaloum, Dixinn and Matam (80%). In Kaloum, most of the drainage ditches are covered. We find, although to a lesser extent, covered drainage ditches along the main roads going through Matam. In Matam as well as in Dixinn, a certain number of primary and secondary roads are equipped with open drainage ditches. In the outlying districts of Matoto and Ratoma, only a few main highways are similarly equipped. KALOUM DIXINN MATAM RATOMA MATOTO AVERAGE CONAKRY Covered drains Open drains figure 31 stormwater drainage systems With the exception of a recently built drainage ditch in Hafia-Mosquee (Dixinn), which is made of laterite blocks, these ditches are either cemented or unlined earthen ditches. More than 40% of households complain of the presence of garbage in the section of the drainage ditch along their compound and 29% complain of stagnant water in the ditch. In the eyes of residents, the UPSU does not fulfil its responsibility for the maintenance of these ditches: barely 13% of households surveyed stated that the public service takes care of cleaning the ditch near their homes, while 61% claim that they clean it themselves. For one out of five residents, no one cleans it. figure 32 who is in charge of mainlaining the stormwaler drainage system near the compound? 5.2 Inconvenience due to stormwater During the rainy season, 30% of the compounds have more or les temporary problems of flooding, and 60% of the households in the city say they are more or less 1>othered by the effect of rainwater in their compounds. A significantly higher proportion (80%) say ~ey are bothered by the impact of rainwater in their neighbourhood. I In the compounds, they are especially bothered by stagnant puddle$ of water (50% of those who expressed annoyance), and to a lesser degree by the muddy ground (about 30%). Less than one­ fourth of the households who expressed annoyance mention the presence of mosquitoes, overflowing of latrines, or other reasons. The annoyance due to an absence of proper drainage is tied. to the perturbation during the rainy season of the numerous activities which ordinarily take place outside. If the gender of the respondent is not a discriminating factor, hislher status as a resident in the compound does have a significant impact. The tenants declare that they are more bothered than the ~andlords due to the fact that the latter have invested more in installations for protection. (See belOW~i The loss of utility is more noticeable for all the activities that take lace outside. If 59% of the households say they are bothered by rainwater in their neighbourhood ( d an additional 22% say they are "somewhat bothered"), it is especially by the difficulties caused in ~g around, especially on foot, by puddles (59%) and mud (29%). Walking time to one's destination is often increased, sometimes considerably, since many streets become temporarily impassable. In addition, some households are temporarily delayed. at home for several hours because they cannot get out, as shown by the stonnwater survey carried out in the taIget areas. When asked about the cleanliness of their compounds, households attribute the main reason for annoyance to factors related to stonnwater. During the household survey, they were asked. to cite the three main causes of annoyance (See Figure 34). Overall, household waste was the most often cited. (52% • households). However, "puddles during the rainy season" was the factor more frequently cited i as the main source of annoyance (25% of responses) and "mud during the rainy season" in· position (35% of responses). Eighty-six per cent of households surveyed cited at least of these sources of annoyance among the three possibilities. This means that for the city as a whole, more people complain the absence of trash collection, but on the other hand, for those who suffer because of it, the of proper drainage is more strongly felt. figure 33 inconvenience due to stormwater in the compounds and in the neighbourhood The urban environment In Conakry: bshllvlour, IIttitudSIt III'IdPf'IIClics$ of~ehddlt It is therefore especially important to identify "target neighbourhoods" in which the impact of stormwater can cause great damage and to intervene first of all in those areas. Household garbage 1\ I: Mud in the rainy season II iI ii,'11 • Paddles in the rainy season 11 Excreta II !I H Children washing water :1 II Shower Kitchen 10% 20% 30% 50% 70% 80'% figure 34 reasons of annoyance 5.3 Rationale and methodology of the additional study of flood zones The cost of investments undertaken by individuals in order to pro,ct themselves from the impact of run-off as well as the cost of damage which they sustain needs to be estimated if one wants to evaluate their willingness to pay for improved drainage. . The financial impact of flooding and erosion caused by storm water needs to be assessed more precisely. Indeed, the economic analysis which underlies almost all drai~e plans or projects is weak: we find few clear hypotheses and even fewer economic justification i. Funding agencies now rightly insist on the need for just such a rationale. The sector thus must evelop the basis for an economic analysis of investments. The assessment ofthe cost of damage can give an idea ofthe level 0 public investment to be allocated. We must note that technically appropriate public installations, r an equivalent overall investment, lead to a more significant improvement than the sum total of pri ate investments. As the amount of public investment in drainage installations depends in large easure on the level of protection sought, the cost of damage must also be tied to decision-making eters intervening in the choice of the scale of the installations, in particular: the height and ency of flooding to be protected against. It was not possible during the household survey to quantify these p . eters and the cost of damage and private investments without making the survey too long. It was therefore decided to carry out an additional survey which would be briefer and more specific, aimed at the sectors which experience severe problems with flooding. This study, co-ordinated by a national consultant, employed three enumerators for a two-week period. An interview schedult was developed by the international consultant and the local consultant, then presented and discus~d with the enumerators (a sociologist, an economist and an engineer). The survey was carried out in the target zones chosen following interviews with the central and local technical services, the Colonel of the fire company of Conakry as well as with the local authorities (mayors of the five districts t city council members, neighbourhood presidents and sector heads. One hundred thirty-two househriIds were thus surveyed in the following target zones (See Table 8). . Table 8: Target Zones for Additional Survey on Sio rmwater DISTRICT ! KALOUM DIXINN MATAM MA rOTO RATOMA t : , ! NEIGHBOURHOOD! Tombo Cameroun Mafanco Gbessic! Port Taouyah Carnayenne Madina Centre Yimbay Ecole Ratoma Hafia-Mosquee Madina Ecole Yimbay Tannerie Hamdallaye I Hafia-Miniere Lanseboundji Simbay 2 Hamdallaye II Bonfi Kipe The water level recorded during this study varied between 8 em. ~d 1.75 meters with an average level of 52 cm. The length of time the areas were submersed varied from several minutes (for high water levels) to several days (for shallow levels). Half of the 1 J2 households surveyed experienced flood levels greater than 45 centimetres for more than three hours. The cost of domestic installations for flood control and damage, as found during this study, l are presented and analysed in the following paragraphs. : I ISee below: 5.4 INDIVIDUAL STRATEGlES FOR PROTECTION and 5.6 COST OF DAMAGE TO HfUSEHOLDS The urban environment In Conakry: btlhllllioul', attitudes andpf'IIctioes ofhoutIehoIds 5.4 Individual strategies for protection Environmental studies have confinned previous notions of the types and limits of individual strategies for flood controL - the strategy of those living in well-drained areas was usually limited to facilitating the drainage of their compound by constructing ditches leading out into the street, and if necessary, in diverting water coming from upstream by building low walls; - in low-lying areas or those with insufficient slope, the same types of installations can be used, but they offer a solution which is derisory or unacceptable to those living nearby. Some people therefore try more expensive solutions, which are also more effective: filling-in or gmvelling of courtyards, or raising of constructions. Except for the case of gmvelIing the courtyard, these individual strategies often only transfer the "We can't dig any ditches or problems downstream, thus aggmvating the problems of anything. If we do, we have erosion or flooding in other areas. problems with our neighbours. In addition, solutions which consist of draining They live very close. " stonnwater from one's own living area or preventing it from entering one's courtyard often lead to conflicts with "The neighbours won't let me dig neighbours . a ditch which will dtain the water The large number of households who have in their direction. If (Matoto Centre) invested in the construction of flood control devices shows above all that the individual response to the "The neighbours have all blocked problem has developed to a great extent throughout the off the overflow. So we are city. More than 30% of the households surveyed stated flooded during the rainy season. " that they had indeed dug a drainage ditch within their (Gbessia Port /I) compound. . The specific study on stonnwater drainage carried out in the target zones resulted in precise infonnation on the type and cost of installations which have been constructed. The total cost of protection is on the avemge about 300,000 FG per household (median: 200,000 FG) and varies according to the type of preventive measure, as shown below: • Filling-in of courtyard and construction of walls or dikes: mean expenditure 170,000 FG (median: 55,000 FG); • Foundation of buildings (including latrines, frequently mentioned because of the cost of . repeated emptying caused by rainwater flowing into the pit, seepage or raising of the water table): mean expenditure 50,000 FG (median: 0); • Gravelling ofcourtyard: mean expenditure 20,000 FG (median: 0); • Drainage devices (channels, ditches): mean expenditure 70,000 FG (median: 0), It must be noted that 48% of households have undertaken the construction of such devices in the target zones, as compared to 30% for the city as a whole. A multilinear regression analysis was carried out to analyse the cost of flood control measures, using as variables IIflood levelII and "number of years offlooding." It appears that the frequency of flooding in the area (number of years of flooding) and 2 especially the level of flooding have a significant impact on the level of investment, but these variables only explain a small proportion of the variation in costs measured (low multiple correlation coefficient: R=O.269). 2For a confidence level of 50/0, P=O.12 and T ~ 1.57 for the variable "number of years of flooding" and P=O.02 and T =2.31 for the variable "level of submersion." 5.5 Collective strategies for protection Certain areas have undertaken collective projects such as at BOnfi~arche, where stonn drains were built in 1990 with the residents' own equipment (shovels, wheelb ws, etc.). But these efforts sometimes tum out to be failures, as in Dixinn-Mosquee, where the resid nts had constructed an earthen ditch along an alley leading to the primary school: "The results were not positive, and now a "rich guy" has built a ho ~se there which blocks the flow of the water. We notified the Ministry ofPublic Wo,*s, but got no response. The area is still flooded. .. (Neighbourhood leader, DixinltJ i For the residents who suffer from this situation, the construction of stonn drains seems to be the only viable solution, with government assistance, of course, as reqUested~.those who believe that these drainage ditches could also solve the problem of waste water. However, the population groups who are most threatened by potential fl s say that they are willing to participate in these construction projects: i "Our houses are flooded and the foundations eroded by stormwatl.~r. My compound is located in a low-lying area where all the water from Pharmagui/1ff1a flows. We need deep drainage ditches and we are willing to participate in helping build them... (Dixinn-Mosquee) • 5.6 Cost of damage to households The cost of flood damage is considerable. Ifless than half of the households in flooded areas cite physical damag (especially scabies, sometimes handicapping, and a few cases of accidental drowning), the ENCO C study established d I a clear correlation between the frequency of certain illnesses and seasonal variation. The proportion of illnesses rises significantly during (and especially at $e end of) the rainy season: from 6.9% in the period March-May, to 10.3% for the period from Septetiberto November). Especially for young children (under age 6), who are the most frequent \lsers of the medical system, an increase in intestinal infections can be observed during the rainy seas~1 (7% to about 14% from December-May and June-August) as well as for malaria and other fevers during and immediately after the rainy season (from 2.2% in December-May to 6.2% in June November). Diarrhoea in particular, which represents the major health risk for yo g children, affects 17% ofunder-two-year-olds during the rainy season. i In the target zones, half ofthe dwellings experienced flood levels of more. than 45 centimetres for a period of several hours (when flood levels can be as high as one meter) to several weeks. Physical damage to dwellings was assessed at an average of 650,000 FGl and for half of the households surveyed, cost more than 400,000 FG. . For the 132 households surveyed, the total cost of physical damage to d"lellings over the last five years was assessed at more than 65 million Guinean francs. ! A multilinear regression analysis was carried out to analyse the CO~f damage using as variables the level and duration offlooding. These two variables have a signifi impact on the cost 3 of physical damage experienced by the households surveyed , but they only partially explain it (multiple correlation coefficient R=0.419; more than 80% of the variance is still explained). 3 For a coofidll11ce level of 50/0, T=2.226 and P=O.03 for the variable "duration of flooding" and T=3.400 anid P=O.OOI for the variable "depth of flooding. " ! I Field studies carried out within the project development phas~ of the Program to Improve Sanitation and the Urban Environment of Conakry (p ADEm+AC) furnished basic information for the subsequent implementation of the program. I A combination of various approaches (household surveys, envi nmental studies, lot surveys...) allowed us to determine the level of equipment at the disposa of households in the areas of liquid and solid waste disposal, and the types of improvemen which are desirable or hoped-for. The residents' priorities regarding the cleanliness of the r environment could thus be determined, which made possible more precise targeting of acti ns to be undertaken: restructuring and privatisation of door-to-door trash collection servic ,establishment of a program including both on-site and collective sanitation systems coveri g the needs of two­ thirds of the population, and the development of innovative low cost techniques for stormwater drainage. . : Concerning the urban environment in general and its div rse components in particular, certain of the techniques applied during these studies are Is which have not been used much previously; their application in Conakry thus allowed s to test them, and if not to validate them, at least to improve their application for replicatio in later studies (i.e. studies of willingness to pay, studies on flood damage). I However, these studies and surveys only give us a "snapshot" of the practices and aspirations of the residents. During its implementation phase, the proj t will bring about a modification of these practices, to the extent that most of the potenti I improvements are presently unfamiliar to the local population. In general terms, the pop lation in question is not accustomed to having a clean and healthy environment, thus they annot yet anticipate the benefits which they can drive from it. It is thus particularly reve ling to note that the willingness to pay for a trash collection service is, on average for the ity as a whole, very significantly lower than that of the residents of the neighbourhood here such a service already exists. Thus the demonstration effect of the first installatio will undoubtedly stimulate to a certain degree the demand for improved services or equip ent, indeed perhaps even leading to a modification in their technical nature. I The PADEULAC Project should therefore take up the chal~enge and adapt its proposals and implementation procedures to meet the evolving demand. I Annex The urban environment in Oonakry : blllhlllllour, attitudes and prtlCtiOIlS ofhouseholds PADEULAC HOUSEHOLD SURVEY REGISTRATION NUMBER: ENCOMEC IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 1. HOUSE NUMBER: 2. HOUSEHOLD NUMBER: 3. DISTRICT: 4. NEIGHBORHOOD: 5. SECTOR: 6. SUPERVISOR: 7. ENUMERATOR: 8. DATE OF INTERVIEW: 9. TIME START: 10. TIME FINISH: 11. DATE DATA ACQUISITION: INTRODUCTION TO BE READ BY THE ENUMERATOR: "My name is and I work for the Sanitation and Urban Environment Project of the City of Conakry. For this project, we are conducting interviews in compounds around the city. In _ _ _ _ you were visited by enumerators for a project called "Nutrition and Food Security. " We would like to ask you a few more questions about your practices and opinions regarding the disposal of waste water, excreta, household garbage and stormwater. We have received permission from the Conakry authorities to conduct this study. We realize that you have been asked many questions in other surveys, but your answers will help us to better understand your needs for improved water and sanitation services. The responses will be kept strictly confidential. If, at any time during the interview, you would prefer not to answer any more questions, you have the right to stop the interview. If more than one household lives in this compound, we would like you to answer only for yourself and your household, and not for other households in the compound. " WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO BE INTERVIEWED? YES=1 NO=O I I V V CONTINUE STOP INTERVIEW GO TO NEXT HOUSEHOLD ------1" Anmrx: PADEULAC household survey DOES NOT KNOW: COOE=-1 REFUSES TO ANSWER:COOE=-2 PART A. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS I E (enumerator): -First of a", I would like to ask you a few questions about Jur household. ­ 1. Sex of respondent: Male= 1 Female= 2 2. Are you the head of the household? Yes= 1 No=O 3. What is your birthdate (month/year)? ,_ __ 4. Are you or have you ever been married? Yes= 1 No=O 5. Number of households in this compound: _ __ 6. Is your household: Landlord= 1 .............................................................. Go to A.8 Housed free of charge= 2 ........................................... Go to A. 8 Tenant= 3 7. Monthly rent= _ _ _ _ _ _FG 8. Including yourself, how many people are there in your household? a. Children-15 yrs.= b.Attending school=_ _ c. Women+15 yrs.= d.Men+15 yrs.= _ __ 9. What is the total number of people IMng in the compound? _ __ 10. Highest level of education of household members: Primary=1 Secondary=2 University=3 Technical=4 11. What is the occupation of the principal wage-eamer? Self-employed= 1 CMI servant=2 Private sector=3 Retired=4 ~her=5.Spec~: ___________________________ The urban environment in Oonakry : behaviour, attitudes andprtIctices ofhoulleholds PART B: WATER SUPPLY AND WATER USAGE E: "Now I would like to ask you a few questions about your household's water supply. " 1. Do you have a private water connection: No, no private connection=1 ....................................... Go to B.9 In the compound=2 In the house=3 2. Who is responsible for paying the bill: Yourself or another member of your household=1 .......... Go to B.6 Another person living on the compound=2 The landlord=3 No bill received=4 ...................................................... Go to B.9 3. Does your household contribute to paying the bill? No=O ....................................................................... Go to B.9 Yes=1 4. Is there: Sharing in paying the bill=1 .......................................... Go to B.6 Purchase of water from the person responsible for the bill=2 5. On what basis is water purchased? By the container=1 Other=2, Specify ........................................................ Go to B.9 6. How is the bill shared? Not shared=O ............................................................ Go to B.8 Shared equally=1 According to number of persons=2 Number of rooms=3 Number of taps=4 Other=S, Specify: 7. How much does your household usually pay? _ _ _ _ _FG per month 8. How much was the latest bill and corresponding amount of water consumed? (Ask to see the bill if possible) a. Total amount= FG b. Quantity of water consumed= m3 c. Fixed rate: ..... Yes=1 ............. No=O 9. Do you use the same source for drinking water as for other household needs (laundry, bathing, dishwashing...)? Yes=1 ..........................................Goto B.14 No=O Annex: PADEULAC household lIurwy 10. Where do you obtain your drinking water? Well within the compound=1 Public tap=2 Neighbor's well=3 Purchase from a neighbor with a private connection=4 Purchase from a vendor=5 Private connection=6 Free of charge from a neighbor=7 Other=a. Specify: 11. If you purchase this water. do you pay: By the container=1 ..................................................... Go to B.13 Fixed rate=2 12. Specify: a. Frequency of purchase=_ _ _ _ _ _ __ b. Price= FG Go to B.14 I 13. How much do you pay for the type of container in which you usually buy ~ater? a. Type of container= I b. Approx. capacity= liters c. Number purchased per day=_ _ __ d. Unit price (per container)= FG e. Other containers. specify:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 14.a. Where do you get water for your daily needs (including drinking water 09=1) J Well within the compound=1 "1 ~~~~p=2 i Neighbor's well=3 I Purchase from a neighbor with a private connection=4 , Purchase from a vendor=5 Private connection=6 ....................... Go to 14.b Free of charge from a neighbor=7 Other=a. specify: 14.b (Only if Q14=6) When your water is cut off. where do you obtain1water: Well within the compound=1 Public tap=2 Neighbor's well=3 Purchase from a neighbor with a private connection=4 Purchase from a vendor=5 Free of charge from a neighbor=6 Other=7, specify: Go to B.20 15. If you purchase this water, do you pay: By the container=1 .........................Go to B.17 Fixed rate=2 16. Specify: a. Frequency of purchase=_ _ _ _ _ _ __ b. Price= FG Go to B.18 The urban environment In Conakry: behaviour, attitudlls andpractices ofhouseholds 17. How do you pay for the type of container used most frequently: a. Type of container=_ _ _ _ _ __ b. Approx. capacity= liters c. Number purchased per day=_ _ _ _ _ __ d. Unit price (per container)= FG e. Other containers, specify:_______________ 18. If you have to go elsewhere to obtain your drinking water, would you say that the place where you get it is: Very far=1 Somewhat far=2 Nearby=3 19. How many compounds away from your home is your source of drinking water? Less than 10=1 From 10 to 20=2 More than 20=3 20. Do you collect rainwater during the rainy season? Yes=1 ...................................................................... Go to B.22 No=O 21. If not, why don't you? Not necessary=1 The roofs are dirty=2 Rain water is not clean=3 No appropriate containers=4 Other=5, specify:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Go to B.24 22. If yes, what sort of containers do you use? Cistem=1 ....Capacity= or Dimensions=_ _x_ _ Containers with less than 30 liter capacity=2 ... Specify_ __ Containers holding 30 to 100 liters=3 .......... Specify:_ __ Greater than 100 liter capacity=4 ......... Specify:_ _ _ __ 23. How do you use the rainwater? For laundry=1 Dishwashing=2 Bathing=3 Laundry ,bathing and dishwashing=4 Other uses=5, Specify: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 24. What are the three (3) main problems with your water supply? . Low pressure=1 Waiting time=6 Shortages=2 Distant water source=7 Frequent breakdowns=3 Poor water quality=8 High cost=4 No problem=9 Rate increases=5 Other=10 ... Specify: 25. Which water do you prefer for drinking and cooking (Classify in order of preference): Wellwater=1 Piped-in water=2 Rainwater=3 Surface water (river, etc.)=4 AnntIX: PADEULAC houIIehoId IHIIVfIY PARTC: SANITATION (WASTEWATER AND EXCRETA) E: "Now I would like to ask you a few questions about the sanitation syste,1 which your household uses." 1. Do you have any kind of toilet or latrine on the premises? Inside your house=1 .................................................. Go to C.5 In the compound=2 .................................................... Go to C.5 None in the compound=3 I 2. What do you use then? Neighbor's latrine=1 Public Iatrine=2 Share a latrine=3 Other=5 ..............Specify: . ? i 3. Do you pay to use thIS. i No=O ............................................................. .......... If C.1=3, gQ to C.45 Yes=1 i 4. How much? a. FG peruse b. FG per month c. FG other..... Specify: Go to C.45 5. What kind of latrine is it? Simple pit=1 ............................................................... Go to C.B Squatting bowl=2 WCseat=3 Other=4 ......... Specify: 6. Do you use: Manual flushing system=1 we cistem=2 Manual system because the tank has no water=3 No flushing system=4 ................................................ Go to C. B 7. Is there a siphon? Yes=1 No=O 8. Does the latrine (or tOilet) have a roof? Yes=1 No=O 9. Is the stall made of: Concrete blocks=1 Mud bricks=2 Other material=3........... Specify: No stal1=4 ................................................................. Go to C.12 10. Does the latrine have a ventilation pipe? Yes=1 ..................................... No=O 11 . A fly screen? Yes=1 ..................................... No=O Thil urban environment In Conakry: 1llllul1I/our. IIttitutifH INId pl"lfctiOtllS ofhoulltlholds 12. A squat plate: Concrete and cement=1 Concrete and tiled=2 Wood=3 Other=4 .............. Specify: 13. To what is the latrine (or tOilet) connected? Sewer system=1 ........................................................ Go to C.3T A simple (unlined) pit=2 ............................................. Go to C.16 A lined latrine pit=3 A watertight pit=4 A septic tank=5 Other=6, Specify: 14. What is the construction material (ofthe pit)? Stone=1 Breezeblock=2 Mud bricks=3 Other=4, Specify: 15. How many compartments does it have? _ _ _ _ _ __ 16. Where does the sewage go? Into a collecting pit=1 Into the street=5 Into a cesspool=2 No sewage=6 Into seepage drains=3 Other=7. Specify: Into the drainage ditch=4 17. Is the slab directly over the pit? Yes=1 .................................................No=O 18. What are the dimensions of the pit? a.Depth= m. B. Diameter= m. or _ _ _,m. x _ _ _ _m. 19. Who determined these dimensions? Yourself or another member of your household=1 The builder=2 A heaHh worker=3 Other=4 ......... Specify: 20. Has the latrine pit ever been emptied? Yes=1 ...................................................................... Go to C.22 No=O 21. What do you plan to do when it is full? You will have it emptied by a tank truck=1, Specify: You will have it emptied by a subcontractor=2 You will dig another pit or have one dug=3 You will use the other pit=4 Other=5 .................. Specify: Go to C.33 22. How long does it take to fill up? Years= and months=_ _ _ _ __ 23. Who emptied it the last time? The UPSU=1 The fire company:2 Another public service=3 . Specify: A subcontractor=4 Yourself or other members of your household=5 Other=6.......................Specify: [If the respondent does not know, go to C.33} 24. How much time did you have to wait between the time that the pit was full and the time it was actually emptied? i Less than a week=1 ................................................... Go to C.26 I Between 1 and 3 weeks=2 . More than 3 weeks=3 25. Why? (Several answers possible) They needed: Time to save the money: 1 Time to collect the contributions=2 Time to find someone to do the job=3 Waiting period between the request and the actual emptying=4 Other=5............Specify: 26. What facilities do you use while you are waiting? Neighbour's latrine=1 Other latrine in the compound=2 Public latrine=3 Other=4...........Specify: 27. What did or what will emptying the pit cost? a._ _ _~FG Or, your household's share of the cost? b. FG 28. Did repairs have to be made because of emptying the pit? No=O ....................................................................... Go to C.3t Yes=1 29. Cost of repair work? ______,FG 30. Type of repair wOrk?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 31. How many trips are necessary to empty the pit completely?_ __ 32. If you or someone in your household or compound took part in emptying the pit, do you know where the sludge was dispoSed of? In the gutter=1 On a vacant 101=5 Buried somewhere=2 Other=6.... Specify: In the sea=3 In a sewage dump=4 33. How long ago was this latrine built? More than 15 years=1 1 to 5 years ago=4 10 to 15 years ago=2 Less than a year ago=5 5 to 10 years ago=3 34. Who built it? [If the respondent does not know, go to C.37] Completely by you or another member of your household= 1 ..................................... Go to C.37 Completely by you with the assistance of one or more other occupants of the compound=2 .................... Go to C.37 Completely by a subcontractor or company=3 ............... Go to C.36 Partly by you (or your household) and partly by a subcontractor=4 35. In what way did you participate? Digging the pit=1 Lining the pit=2 Fumishing building materials=3 Building the stall=4 36. Could you put us in touch with the subcontractor or company? Yes=1 No=O 37. What would it cost to build this latrine now? _ _ _ _FG 38. Who cleans the latrine? No one=1 The children and women=5 The men=2 The whole household=6 Thewomen=3 Other=7, Specify: The children=4 39. is the latrine used by all the members of the household in all circumstances? Yes=1 ...................................................................... Go to C.43 No=O 40. Do any members of your household use the latrine for bathing? Yes=1, Specify ......................................................... Go to C.42 No=O 41. Where do you bathe? 42. Please tell which household members are not allowed to use the latrine, in what circumstances, and what other solution do they have? 43. Are you satisfied with your latrine facility? Yes=1 No=O 44. What are the three main problems you have with your system? (Do not read the answers) Odors=1 Difficult to empty=6 Flies=2 Frequent emptying=7 Cockroaches=3 High cost=8 Lack of water=4 No problem=9 Difficult to maintain=5 Other=10, Specify: AnlHlX: PADEULAC hou6ehoId IlUl'lltly 45. Where is water from bathing disposed of? In the latrine pit=1 Flows into the gutter=2 Flows out of the compound=3 Into a collecting pit=4 Poured out into the courtyard=5 Thrown into the street=6 Into the sewer= 7 Other=8, Specify: 46. Where is dishwater disposed of? In the latrine pit= 1 Flows into the gutter=2 Flows out of the compound=3 Into a collecting pit=4 Poured out into the courtyard=5 Thrown into the street=6 Into the sewer=7 Other=8, Specify: 47. Where is the household's laundry done? In the courtyard=1 ...................................................... Go to c.50 At the public tap=2 At the beach=5 At the waterhole=3 At a public washhouse=6 In the street=4 Other=7, Specify: 48. Would you say that the place where you do the laundry is: Very far=1 Somewhat far=2 Nearby=3 49. How many compounds away from your home is the place where you do your laundry? less than 10=1 10 to 20=2 More than 20=3 I 50. Where does wastewater from laundry go? Into the latrine pit=1 Poured out into the courtyard=5 I Flows into the gutter=2 Thrown into the street=6 Flows out of the compound=3 Into the sewer=7 Into a collecting pit=4 Other=8. Specify: If C.45=4 or C.46=4 or C.5O=4, go to C.51 Otherwise, go to C.61 I 51. Is the collecting pit where this household wastewater is poured different +m the one into which sewage from the latrine pit flows? ! No=O ....................................................................... Go to C.61 Yes=1 52. Is this collecting pit: Inside the courtyard=1 Outside the courtyard=2 53. Is it: Only to be used by your household=1 Shared with other residents of the compound=2 Shared with neighbors=3 54. Is it covered? Yes=1 No=O 55. Is it filled with stones or other filtering materials? No=O ....................................................................... Go to C.57 Yes=1 56. How often are these stones (or other materials) changed? a.Every years or b.Every months 57. What are the dimensions of the collecting pit? a. Depth= meters b. Diameter= meters or width=_ _m. x length= m. 58. Who built it? Yourself or a member of your household=1 A subcontractor=2 Other=3 .... Specify: 59. How much would it cost today? FG 60. Is there standing water at the collecting pit? No=O Yes=1 61. Within your compound, would you say that the overflow or stagnation of wastewater from laundry bothers you: A lot=1 A little bit=2 Not at all=3 62. Within your compound, would you say that the overflow or stagnation of wastewater from dishwashing bothers you: A lot=1 A little bit=2 Not at all=3 63. Within your compound. would you say that the overflow or stagnation of water from young children's baths bothers you: A lot=1 A little bit=2 Not at all=3 64. In your neighborhood, would you say that household wastewater (from laundry. dishwashing and bathing) bothers you: A lot=1 A little bit=2 Not at all=3 65. In your neighborhood, would you say that overflow from latrines bothers you: A lot=1 A little bit=2 Not at all=3 Respondent's comments: AnlHlX: PAOEULAC household IUItV8Y PART D. DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTES E: nNow I would like to ask you a few questions about disposal of householq refuse. .. i 1. How do you get rid of your household trash? Individual trash bin emptied by the UPSU=1 A private trash collector comes to get it=2 You or a member of your household carries it to a container=3 You bum it=4 ............................................................ Go to D.4 You bury it=5 ............................................................ Go to D.4 You deposit it in a spot within the compound=6 You deposit it in a vacant lot outside of the compound=7 ................................................... Go to DA You throw it in the gutter=8 ......................................... Go to D.S other=9, Specify ........................................................ Go to D.4 2. The trash is collected: Regularly every day at the same time=1 Every day but at varying times=2 At least once every two days=3 Less often=4 3. Do you put your trash in: A standard type of trash bin=1 A carlon=2 A plastic bag=3 Some other kind of container=4, Specify: GotoD.8 4. How far do you go to get rid of your trash? Less than 100m.=1 100 to 300 m.=2 More thaJ 300m.=3 5. How often do you get rid of your trash? More than once a day=1 Once every two days=3 Once a day=2 Less often=4 6. Who collects the trash in your neighborhood? No one=1 UPSU=3 Private collection service=2 other=4, Specify: 7. Are you satisfied with the service? Yes=1 ...................................................................... Go to D.9 No=O 8. Why? (Do not read the answers - 2 answers possible) Trash pick-up is irregular=1 Unpleasant odors=5 Container is too far away=2 Rodents or vermin=6 Container is quickly filled up =3 other=7, Specify: Container is not practical=4 9. In your neighborhood, would you say that trash bothers you: A 101=1 A little bit=2 Not at all=3 The um.n env/ronm."t In Conllkry : IHIhllvtour••tI:iI:udfI. MId pI'lH1t10H ofhtN.lHholdfJ 10. Are there infonnal dumping sites in your neighborhood? No=O ....................................................................... Go to 0.12 Yes=1 11. The existence of infonnal dumping sites is due to (only one answer): Lack of discipline on the part of users=1 Container is too far away=2 Irregular collection=3 12. Do you pay for trash collection? [If the respondent does not know, go to O. 14J Nothing=1 ................................................................. Go to 0.14 Fees are included in taxes=2 Private collection service=3 13. How much do you pay? ____,FG Per pick-up=1 Per month=3 Per week=2 Per year=4 14. Do you sort your trash? No=O..........................Go to 0.16 Yes=1 15. What do you sort out and why? (To re-use? To sell? ..) 16. Would you accept the idea of sorting out organic waste [explain if needed] from other kinds of waste (metal cans, plastic, etc.)? Yes=1 No=O 17. Would you accept the idea of paying for your trash to be picked up regulany in front of your home, at least two times a week? Yes=1 ...................................................................... Go to 0.19 No=O 18. Would you prefer to pay each time trash is picked up? Yes=1 ...................................................................... Go to 0.22 No=O ....................................................................... Go to Part E (next part) 19. If payment were made monthly, would you accept to pay 750 FG a month for this service? Yes=1 ...................................................................... Go to 0.21 No=O 20. What about SOO FG? Yes=1 ...................................................................... Go to Part E (next part) No=O 21. What about 1000 FG? No=O ............................................." ......................... Go to Part E (next part) Yes=1 22. What is the most you would accept to pay? _ _ _ _FG Respondent's comments: PART E. STORMWATER DRAINAGE E: Wow I would liI