Household trends in access to improved water sources and sanitation facilities in Vietnam and associated factors: findings from the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, 2000–2011

Abstract

BackgroundDespite progress made by the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) number 7.C, Vietnam still faces challenges with regard to the provision of access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.ObjectiveThis paper describes household trends in access to improved water sources and sanitation facilities separately, and analyses factors associated with access to improved water sources and sanitation facilities in combination.DesignSecondary data from the Vietnam Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey in 2000, 2006, and 2011 were analyzed. Descriptive statistics and tests of significance describe trends over time in access to water and sanitation by location, demographic and socio-economic factors. Binary logistic regressions (2000, 2006, and 2011) describe associations between access to water and sanitation, and geographic, demographic, and socio-economic factors.ResultsThere have been some outstanding developments in access to improved water sources and sanitation facilities from 2000 to 2011. In 2011, the proportion of households with access to improved water sources and sanitation facilities reached 90% and 77%, respectively, meeting the 2015 MDG targets for safe drinking water and basic sanitation set at 88% and 75%, respectively. However, despite these achievements, in 2011, only 74% of households overall had access to combined improved drinking water and sanitation facilities. There were also stark differences between regions. In 2011, only 47% of households had access to both improved water and sanitation facilities in the Mekong River Delta compared with 94% in the Red River Delta. In 2011, households in urban compared to rural areas were more than twice as likely (odds ratio [OR]: 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9–2.5) to have access to improved water and sanitation facilities in combination, and households in the highest compared with the lowest wealth quintile were over 40 times more likely (OR: 42.3; 95% CI: 29.8–60.0).ConclusionsMore efforts are required to increase household access to both improved water and sanitation facilities in the Mekong River Delta, South East and Central Highlands regions of Vietnam. There is also a need to address socio-economic factors associated with inadequate access to improved sanitation facilities.

Determinants of Households’ Access to Improved Drinking Water Sources: A Secondary Analysis of Eswatini 2010 and 2014 Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys

“…In this study, the higher the socioeconomic status of a household, the higher the odds of Advances in Public Health access to improved drinking water sources, implying that rich households have better access to resources and therefore have the better financial capacity to afford access to improved water sources [14,16,42]. e findings in this study also showed that there were higher odds of access to improved drinking water sources among households in urban areas (a 43 points increase between the two years), in line with studies conducted in Ghana and Vietnam, whereby households in urban areas were also found to have higher odds of access to improved drinking water sources [27,43]. e scarcity of improved drinking water in rural areas is well documented and is evidenced by the high prevalence of waterborne illness in rural areas such as diarrhea, schistosomiasis, trachoma, and intestinal helminths which can be attributed explicitly to unsafe water, poor sanitation, and the lack of hygiene [39].…”

“…e discrepancies could be due to differences in the definitions of improved drinking water sources in this study vs. the original definitions in the EMICSs. In this study, the definition of the outcome variable was limited to water sources used for drinking only, similar to other studies [26,27], while, in the MICS reports, improved drinking water sources include water used for drinking and other domestic purposes. However, the prevalence of access to improved drinking water sources reported in this study is comparable (at 74%) to those reported in a majority of countries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) [26,34,35].…”

“…e finding of Shiselweni and Lubombo households having lower odds of access to improved drinking water sources was not surprising, considering that these two regions are less developed and have more rural settings compared to the Hhohho and Manzini regions, which further highlights that unaffordability might be the main issue in many households. Other studies have also reported disparities among regions in different countries concerning household access to improved drinking water supply [27,42].…”

“…Potential determinants of access to improved drinking water sources were identified during the literature review [16,26,27], and these included age of the household head (15-34, 35-54, 55, and above), sex of the household head (male, female), education level of the household head (no education, primary, secondary, high school, and tertiary), household size (1-3, 4-6, 7, and more), household wealth index (poorest, poor, middle, rich, and richest), place of residence (rural/urban), and region (Hhohho, Manzini, Shiselweni, and Lubombo). Other available potential explanatory variables in EMICS (such as the distance of water source from the household and how long it took in minutes to reach the water source) were excluded in the analysis because they had extensive missing data.…”

Towards sustainable communities: Socioeconomic determinants of domestic water consumption in Surakarta City, Indonesia

“…From this study, it is proved that socioeconomic characteristics of urban households determining their level of water consumption. Therefore, related to the disadvantaged group of the urban population, the overall access and strategy to water and sanitation should be defined by geographic, demographic, and socioeconomic factors [19]. Understanding these factors will make possible to target the most effective intervention [20,21].…”