Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

The Role of Water and Hygiene Project Of Integrated Regional Support Programme
(IRSP) In District Swabi, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Muhammad Ismail Khan1*, Muhammad Mehran Anjum2, Nawab Ali2 and Saif Ullah2
1
Department of Rural development, the University of Agriculture Peshwar-Pakistan
2
Department of Agronomy, the University of Agriculture Peshwar-Pakistan

Abstract

This internship report conducted in 2016, with the objectives to learn the work environment in
the development organization and to study the role of water and hygiene project of Integrated
Regional Support Programme (IRSP) in district Swabi, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. For this, data was
collected by the internee and the field staff of the host organization. Total households residing in
the camp were selected as the respondents for this study which is 130. Descriptive statistics were
used for analysis of the data. Result of the study revealed that 38.09% were female and 37.86%
are male and lies in the age group of above 20 years while data responding literacy level reveals
that 30.15% of the respondents were literate, mostly having primary level of education. The data
revealed that 49.05% buffaloes were kept by the household. Further data shows that 35.87% of
the people are using their own private sources of water, while 64.13% of the people are using
public sources of water. At household level 33% water are store in water cooler for drinking
purpose, while 43% water are store in jerry cans for other purposes. Further data revealed that
76.15% people cleaning their drinking water storage source daily. The data reveals that 15.39%
treat their water, while 84.61% not treat their water due to 53.64% source are clean. 66.92% have
accessibility to safe drinking water, while 33.08% have no accessibility to safe drinking water.
Further data shows that 35.13% households suffered from diarrhea lied in the age group of above
16 year, while 1.53% are died due to diarrhea. It is found that 34.62% food quality is the reason
of diarrhea, while expenditure on diarrhea cure is 34% which is 2000-5000.
Further data shows that 18.40% wash hand with soap after working with animals, while 11.33%
wash hand without soap after working with animals. It is found that 15.39% households have
hand washing place, while 84.61% have no hand washing place. The data reveals that 23.08%
have availabe soap at hand washing place, while 76.92% have no available soap at hand washing
place.

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Keywords:Water,hygiene, KPK,
*Corresponding author address: Muhammad Ismail Khan
Department of Rural development, the University of Agriculture Peshwar-Pakistan
E-mail: ismailaup707@[Link]

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

1. Introduction
Safe drinking water and hygienic sanitation are prerequisites for health. Unfortunately, there are
about 884 million people in the world who do not get their drinking water from improved
sources, and about 2.6 billion people are living without adequate sanitation [1]. Globally, the
levels of availability and accessibility of safe drinking water are measured by standard indicators
that depend on the presence of proper sanitary sources. These improved drinking water sources
include household connection, public standpipe, borehole condition, protected dug well,
protected spring, and rain water collection. Sources that may represent potentially contaminated
drinking water include unprotected wells, unprotected springs, rivers or ponds, vender-provided
water and tanker truck water [2]. Researchers and health experts usually explain that insufficient
supply of clean and safe drinking water is the main cause of diseases in developing countries.
In Pakistan, only 66 percent of the population is considered to have access to safe drinking water
with huge disparities between urban and rural areas and among provinces/regions. Safe drinking
water in rural areas is a precious commodity. Inadequate quantity and quality of the supply of
drinking water results in a high incidence of water related diseases, which in turn, increase
morbidity and mortality rates and pose a major threat to the survival and development of children
[3]. International monitoring organizations define “access” to safe drinking water as the
availability of at least 20 liters per person per day from an “improved” source within 1 kilometer
of the user’s dwelling [4], but such sources are rarely available in some areas. According to the
Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment report (2000) by WHO and UNICEF, in
Pakistan, around 30 percent of illnesses and 40 percent of deaths are attributed to inadequate
water quality. Water quality in areas of poor sanitation and poor hygiene is related to the density
of population – where, population is dense under such circumstances there is likely to be more
contamination of water sources [1]. It has been estimated that on yearly basis, more than 3
million people in Pakistan suffer from cholera and other diarrheal diseases caused by poor water
quality and about 20 - 40 percent of hospital beds in Pakistan are occupied by patients suffering
from water-borne diseases.
In Pakistan, the mortality rate for children under age five is 101 deaths per 1,000 children.4
Diarrhea is responsible for 11 percent of deaths for children under five years.5 The main causes
of diarrhea in children are unsafe drinking water, inadequate sanitation, and poor hygiene.
Diarrhea is also a significant cause of undernutrition and can affect a child’s overall health.

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Unsafe drinking water also has a disproportionate effect on the poor. The combination of
consumption of unsafe water and poor hygiene practices causes hardships, as it leads to high-cost
treatments for waterborne illnesses and decreases both economic productivity and educational
achievement (due to reduced school attendance by children). The presence of improved
sanitation facilities is very low in rural areas—about 35 percent. According to the Demographic
Health Survey (DHS 2006–2007), 22 percent of Pakistani children under age five had an episode
of diarrhea during the two-week period before the survey, and about 30 percent of Pakistanis
practice open defecation (above the world average, which is 18 percent) [4].
According to the Federal Bureau of Statistics (2010-11), in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, lack
of access to safe water and poor sanitation are key contributors to under-nutrition. Both lead to a
chronic cycle of illness and under-nutrition, and infants and young children are particularly
susceptible. The province has marginally lower levels of safe water usage by household (70%) as
compared to the national level (87%). Use of hygienic sanitation facilities is also slightly lower
(62%) than the national level (66%). In January 2010, a survey by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Provincial Reforms Program show that the water source situation in southern Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa is inadequate because the land water aquifers are either quite deep (more than 500
ft) or the existing water is salty and hence unhealthy for drinking. As a consequence there is an
elevated dependence on high-risk sources including ponds, insecure springs and/or local streams
which are open to contamination [5].
Both the planning and undertaking of comprehensive research on water and hygiene promotion
issues among refugee populations has remained a challenge. Reasons include security
restrictions, complex operational conditions, scarce resources, understaffing or high staff turn-
over, the difficulty of undertaking thorough measurements during emergency situations and the
fact that refugee camps are often forcibly located on marginal lands. Hence, these very real
constraints hinder efforts by water and health professionals to systematically document and build
on lessons learnt in order to improve services in these areas in subsequent refugee operations. It
has also meant that all the available time and resources are needed simply keeping water supply
and sanitation control mechanisms functioning and so the need for research is overlooked.
This internship report aims to outline the current water and hygiene situation in refugee camp of
district Sawabi. A base line surveyof IRSP at the refugee household level was used to investigate
the aforementioned problem.

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Objectives of the internship report

The overall objective of this internship report is to assess the water and hygiene situation in
Barakai camp of district Swabi, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The specific objectives are as follow;

I. To assess the existing situation of water and hygiene facilities in the study area.
II. To investigate water-borne diseases in the study area
III. To find out the problems of refugee households with respect to water and hygiene facilities.
IV. To suggest recommendations on the basis of findings.
2. INTERNSHIP REPORT METHODOLOGY

This paper explain the methodology used to answer the internship research objectives and the
actual work perform by the Integrated Regional Support Program (IRSP) at the field level. This
paper comprises of universe of the study, sample selection, sample size, sample respondents,
data collection and its analysis.
2.1. Universe of the study
The study was carried out in Barakai camp of district Swabi, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Barakai
camp is comprised of 130 Afghan refugees, families. The study involved the afghan refugees,
families living in the target camp. Afghan refugees of this camp were served as population of the
study.
[Link] selection
Sample respondents
Total households residing in the camp were selected as the respondents for this study which 130.

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

[Link] collection
For collection of data, face to face interview schedule was used which is developed in english
language for academic purpose, but exercised in pushto language for understanding of the
respondents, to solicit the required information correctly. The internee and the field staff of the
host organization conducted interview and each respondent was interviewed on individual basis.
In total, 130 household heads were respondents to the survey.

[Link] analysis
After the collection of data, it was analyzed by using descriptive statistics by using Micro Soft
Excel 2007.
3. Results and Discussion
This paper deals with results and discussion with respect to the “Assessment of water and
hygiene situation in Barakai camp of district Swabi, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa” executed by
integrated regional support programme(IRSP).

Age wise distribution of the sampled respondents

Age is an important factor in the demographic analysis of an individual’s life because the
responsibilities of a person vary with the age. Table 4.1 shows that 27.60%, 34.42 % and 37.98%
household members lied in the age groups of less than 5 year, 5-20 year, and of above 20 year,
respectively. The data reveal thatmajorityof the household members lie in the age group of above
20 year which shows that most of the population in the camp was of young age.

Table-4.1: Age wise distribution of the sampled respondents

Age group (Years) Frequency Percentage

27.60

34.42

37.98

Total 130 100

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Distribution of sampled respondents by educational level

Education plays an important role in individual personality grooming and development and also
plays a vital role in nation’ future building. The data in table 4.2 shows that 28.57% of the
household were illiterate, while 30.15% were literate. Of the total literate respondents, 25.40%,
8.73%, 5.55% and 1.60% had primary, secondary, higher secondary and above secondary level
education, respectively. This shows that literacy rate of the area was 30 percent which is low. The
data also further reveals that most of the people havingprimary level of education which further
show the low level of educational status of the respondents. Moreover, the least number of
respondents had above higher secondary level education.
Table-4.2: Distribution of the sampled respondents by educational level

Educational Level Frequency Percentage

Illiterate 36 28.57

Literate 38 30.15

Primary 32 25.40

Secondary 11 8.73

Higher secondary 7 5.55

Above secondary level 2 1.60

Total 126 100

Sex-wise age distribution of the sampled households

Table 4.3 indicates that there were total of 674 household members, of which 338(50.14%) were
male and 336(49.86%) were female members. Out of the total male, 28.40%, 33.74% and
37.86% were in the age of less than 5 year, 5-20 year, and of above 20 year, respectively.

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Similarly, out of the total female family members, 26.78%, 35.11% and38.09%were in the age
group of less than 5 year, 5-20 year,and of above 20 year, respectively. It shows that majority of
the households are female and lies in the age group of 5-20 years.

Table-4.3: Sex-wise age distribution of the sampled households

Male Household Members Female Household Members

Age Total
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
group(years)

Less than 5 96 28.40 90 26.78 186

5-20 114 33.74 118 35.12 232

Above 20 128 37.86 128 38.10 256

Total 338 100 336 100 674

Livestock Possession

Livestock rearing is an important source of rural livelihoods and serves as an important asset at
household level. Livestock provide milk, milk products (yogurt, butter, butter oil etc.) and other
by-products. Table 4.4 shows that, 106 different types of livestock were kept by the sampled
respondents at household level. Out of the total livestock types, 49.05%, 2.83 %, 36.8 % and
11.23 % were buffaloes, cows, goats /sheeps and other, [Link] results revealed that
buffalos were the major type of livestock followed by goats/sheep in the study area.

Table-4.4: Different Types of Livestock Kept by the Sampled Respondents

Livestock Types Frequency Percentage

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Buffaloes 52 49.05

Cows 3 2.83

Goats /Sheep 39 36.8

Others 12 11.32

Total 106 100

Drinking water sources in the study area

Four types of drinking water sources were found in the study area which includes piped,
protected dug well, unprotected dug well, and hand pump. Table 4.5 shows thedata regarding
drinking water sources in the study area. It was found that that about 46% of the households were
using piped water as the main source of available drinking water. About 28% of the households
reported that they obtain drinking water from the hand pumps. Among the households, 17% were
getting drinking water from the protected dug wells. However, 9% of the households explained
that they obtain water from unprotected dug well. The data revealed that majority of the
households obtained piped water followed by hand pumped water.
Table-4.5: Sources of drinking water in the study area

Water sources Frequency Percentage

Piped 60 46
Protected dug well 22 17
Unprotected dug well 12 9
Hand pump 36 28
Total 130 100

Monthly tariff of water

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Table 4.6 indicates that 15 % households used free water with no tariff while 11 %, 22 % and 52
% households paid a monthly water tariff of Rs. 50-150, Rs. 151-250 and above Rs. 250,
respectively. The results revealed that drinking water is not free of cost for majority of the
households in the camp and it was also found that majority of households were paying a monthly
water tariff of above Rs. 250.

Table-4.6: Monthly tariff of water in the study area

Amount (Rs.) Frequency Percentage

None/Free 19 15
50-150 14 11
151-250 29 22
Above 250 68 52
Total 130 100

Drinking water fetching responsibility among the sampled households

Table 4.7 shows the data regarding drinking water fetching responsibility among the sampled
households. It was found that 4%, 90% and 6% of men, women and children were involved in
water fetching in the study area. It shows that majority of women have drinking water fetching
responsibility in the study area. It is common observation that in developing countries and
especially refugee women fetches water for drinking and other domestic purpose.

Table-4.7: Drinking water fetching responsibility among the sampled households

Household member Frequency Percentage

Men 5 4
Women 117 90
Children 8 6
Total 130 100

Drinking water fetching frequency per day

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Table 4.8 denotes that 6%, 56%, and 37% households fetched water once, twice and more than
twice per day in the study area. The results indicated that majority of the households fetch
drinking water twice per day followed by more than twice a day. It further reveals that the
households used fresh water for drinking that’s why they fetched drinking water more than once
in day.

Table-4.8: Drinking water fetching frequency per day

Response category Frequency Percentage

Once 8 6
Twice 74 57
More than twice 48 37
Total 130 100

Water storage methods at household Level

Method of water storage at household level is divided in to seven categories; container with lid,
container without lid, water tank on roof, drum, jeri cans, water cooler, and pitcher. Table 4.9
shows that at household level drinking water was stored in the above mentioned storage
containers. The result shows that 6.31%, 1.94%,0.49%, 13.6%, 32.52%, 33%, 12.14%, of the
households used container with lid, container without lid, water tank on roof, drum, jeri cans,
water cooler and pitcher, respectively for drinking water storage at household level. Water for
otherdomestic purposes was stored in container with lid (4.14%), container without lid (5%),
water tank on roof (3.59%), drum (29.53%), jeri cans (43%), water cooler (5.42%) and pitcher
(9.32%). The results indicate that drinking water was mostly stored in jeri cans followed by
drum. For domestic purpose, water was also mostly stored in jery cans and drums.

Table-4.9: Water storage methods at household level

Methods of water Drinking water Water for other Total

storage domestic use

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Container with lid 13 6.31 8 4.14 21

Container without lid 4 1.94 9 5 13

Water tank on roof 1 0.49 7 3.59 8

Drum 28 13.6 57 29.53 85

Jeri cans 67 32.52 83 43 150

Water cooler 68 33 11 5.42 79

Pitcher 25 12.14 18 9.32 43

Total 206 100 193 100 399

Note: Multiple responses are recorded that’s why the total frequency exceeded the
sample size.

Drawing method of drinking water from the storage source

The drawing method of drinking water from the storage source were divided into four categories
dipping a glass/jug or mug, long handle scoop, taps and other.Table4.10 shows that 62%, 4%,
28% and 6% households draw drinking water from the storage source by using dipping a
glass/jug or mug, long handle scoop, taps, and other, respectively. The results indicate that at
household level drinking water was drawn from the storage source by using a glass/mug or jug.
The second major drinking water drawing method was the use of taps in the study area.

Table-4.10: Drawing method of drinking water from the storage source

Response category Frequency Percentage

Dipping a glass/jug or mug 80 62
Long handle scoop 5 4

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Taps 37 28
Other 8 6
Total 130 100

Hand touches while drawing drinking water

Table 4.11 represents the data regarding carefulness of drinking water drawl from the water
storage source in the study area. It was found that in 34% household’s hands touched while
drawing water from the storage source. However in 66 % households hand did not touch the
water while drawing it from the storage source. It shows that although majority of the households
were careful while drawing drinking water from the storage source still 34 % were not careful.
Their hands touched the water thus the chances of water contamination increased which further
increase the incidence of water borne diseases in the study area.

Table-4.11:Hand touches while drawing drinking water

Response category Frequency Percentage

Yes 44 34
No 86 66
Total 130 100

Cleaning interval of drinking water storage source

The interval of cleaning of drinking water storage source at household level is divided into four
categories; daily, once a week, once a month, and never. Table 4.11 shows that 76 %, 15 %, 7%
and 2% households clean the drinking water storage source daily, once a week, once a month ,
and never, respectively. The data reveals that majority of the households clean the drinking water
storage source daily which is good to decrease the incidence of water borne diseases. Moreover,
majority of the households used jeri cans for drinking water storage so it is quite easy for them to
clean it daily.

Table-4.11: Cleaning interval of drinking water storage source in the study area

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Response category Frequency Percentage

Daily 99 76
Once a week 19 15
Once a month 9 7
Never 3 2
Total 130 100

Reasons of long interval of water storage source cleaning

Table 4.12 indicates that 52%, 30% and 18% households took long intervals for water storage
source cleaning due to the reasons of water is already clean, time shortage and no means of
cleaning, respectively. the results revealed that the major reason or perception that water is clean
prevail in the study area due to which the households took long intervals or did not even clean
the water storage sources in the study area.

Table-4.12:Reasons of long interval of water storage source cleaning

Response category Frequency Percentage

Water is clean 14 52
Time shortage 8 30
No means 5 18
Total 27 100

Treatment of drinking water

Treatment of water is very necessary in daily life to avoid water borne diseases and for good
health. Table 4.13 represents the data regarding drinking water treatment at household level. it
was found that 15% of the household treat drinking water while, 85% did not treated there water.
The results indicate that a vast majority of the household did not treat drinking water which
further increasing the chances of water borne diseases. The boiling method was mostly used for
drinking water treatment.

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Table-4.13: Treatment of drinking water in the study area

Response category Frequency Percentage

Yes 20 15
No 110 85
Total 130 100

Reasons of not drinking water treatment

Table 4.14 represents the data regarding reasons of not treating drinking water in the study area.
a total of five reasons (i.e. doesn’t smell, no colour, no taste, source already cleaned and other)
were identified due to which households did not treat drinking water. It was found that 6%, 2%,
22%, 54% and 16% households were of the view that water have no smell, no colour, no taste,
water source are clean and others, respectively. It shows that majority of the households did not
treat drinking water due to their perception that water storage source was cleaned so the water
will be also clean. The second major reason was that water taste was not disturbed so the water
needs no treatment. It overall indicates that households were not aware about the importance of
drinking water treatment.

Table-4.14:Reasons of not drinking water treatment

Response category Frequency Percentage

Doesn’t smell 7 6.
No colour 2 2
No taste 24 22
Source cleaning 59 54
Others 18 16
Total 110 100

Age of household suffered from diarrhea

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Diarrhea disease is common in everywhere which is mainly epidemic and water borne. Table
4.15 shows that a total of 111 household members were suffered from diarrhea in the study area.
Out of the total suffered household members, 34%, 31% and 35% household members lied in the
age group of less than 5 year, 5-16 yearand above 16 year, respectively. it shows that majority of
the household members suffered from diarrhea lied in the age group of above 16 year.

Table-4.15: Age of household suffered from diarrhea

Age group (year) Frequency Percentage

Less than 5 38 34

5-16 34 31

Above 16 39 35

Total 111 100

Death cases due to diarrhea

Table 4.16 shows that 1.53% household reported death cases due to diarrhea and 98.47% of
household reported no death occurrence. Majority of household have not reported death
occurrence.

Table-4.16:Death cases due to diarrhea

Response category Frequency Percentage

Yes 2 1.53
No 128 98.47
Total 130 100

Treatment methods in case of diarrhea

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Treatment of diarrhea is very important because death occur due to this disease. Table 4.17
shows treatment methods in case of diarrhea among the sample households. The data reveal that
4%, 9%, 14%, 8%, 9%. 8%, 46% and about 2% households treated diarrhea by nothing, ORS
intake, home-made fluid/drink, pill or syrup, injection, home remedies/herbal medication,
consulting a doctor and other, respectively. It was found that majority of the households
consulting a doctor in case of diarrhea.

Table-4.17: Treatment methods in case of diarrhea

Response category Frequency Percentage

Nothing 5 4
ORS intake 12 9
Home-made fluid/drink 18 14
Pill or syrup 11 8
Injection 12 9
Home remedies/herbal medication 10 8
Consulting a doctor 60 46
Other 2 2
Total 130 100

Expenditures on diarrhea

Expenditure on diarrhea cure is divided in to five categories, less than Rs. 500, Rs. 500-2000, Rs.
2001-5000, Rs. 5001-10000, and above Rs. 10000. Table 4.18 shows that 10%, 28%, 34%, 13%,
and 15% households spendless than Rs. 500, Rs. 500-2000, Rs. 2001-5000, Rs. 5001-10000, and
above Rs. 10000, respectively. Majority of the household expend above 10000 on diarrhea cure
which is quite high.

Table-4.18: Expenditureson diarrhea

Response category Frequency Percentage

> 500 10 10

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

500-2000 28 28
2001-5000 34 34
5001-10000 13 13
Above 10000 15 15
Total 100 100

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Possible reasons of diarrhea

Table 4.19 indicates that 35%, 24%, 4%, 11%, and 27%, households identified the possible
reasons of diarrhea food quality, dirty water, food flies, dirty hands and other, respectively. The
data reveals that majority of the households have diarrhea due to improper food quality followed
by dirty water.

Table-4.19: Possible reasons of diarrhea

Response category Frequency Percentage

Food quality 45 35
Dirty water 31 24
Food flies 5 4
Dirty hands 14 11
Other 35 27
Total 130 100

Time of hand washing with soap or without soap

The time of hand washing with soap or without soap are divide in to seven categories, before
eating, before cooking, after using toilet, after cleaning house, after working with animals, after
cleaning the child and other. Table 4.3.6 indicate that there were total 163(35.20%) household
wash hand with soap and 300(64.80%) household wash hand without soap. Out of the total
12.89% wash hand with soap before eating, and 34% wash hand without soap before eating,
9.81% wash hand with soap before cooking, and 17.67% wash hand without soap before
cooking, 36.20% wash hand with soap after using toilet, and 16.33% wash hand without soap
after using toilet, 10.43% wash hand with soap after cleaning house, and 10.67% wash hand
without soap after cleaning house, 18.40% wash hand with soap after working with animals, and
11.33% wash hand without soap after working with animals, 11.66% wash hand with soap after
cleaning the child, and 8.33% wash hand without soap after cleaning the child, and 0.61% wash
hand with soap after other working and 1.67% wash hand without soap after other working.

Table-4.20: Time of hand washing with soap or without soap

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Time of hand washing With soap Without soap Total

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Before eating 21 13 102 34 123
Before cooking 16 10 53 18 69
After using toilet 59 36 49 16 108
After cleaning house 17 10 32 11 49
After working with animals 30 18 34 11 64
After cleaning the child 19 12 25 8 44
Others 1 1 5 2 6
Total 163 100 300 100 463
Note: Multiple responses are recorded that why the total frequency exceeded the sample size.

Hand washing place

Table 4.3.7 shows the hand washing place of the household, near the toilet 6.92%, near the
kitchen 8.47% and none 84.61%. Majority of the hosehold have no handwashing place which is
84.61%.

Table-4.21: Hand washing place

Response category Frequency Percentage

Near the toilet 9 6.92
Near the kitchen 11 8.47
None 110 84.61
Total 130 100

Availability of soap at hand washing place

Availability of soap at hand washing place is very necessary. Table 4.3.8 shows that 23.08%
soap is available at hand washing place and 76.92% soap is not available at hand washing place.
Majority of the household have no soap at hand washing place which is 76.92% due to poverty.

Table-4.22: Availability of soap at hand washing place

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

Response category Frequency Percentage

Yes 30 23.08
No 100 76.92
Total 130 100

Overall cleanliness of the house

Overall cleanliness ofthe of the house is very important. Table 4.3.9 sows that there were total of
780 hosehold members, of which 216(27.69%) were clean the house good, 386(49.49%) were
clean the house average and 178(22.82%) were clean the house poor. Out of the total good,
20.83%, 18.52%, 6.94%, 17.13%, 15.28% and 21.30%, clean the house, kitchen, latrine, family
members, children and water containers, respectively. Similarly, out of the total average,
15.54%, 17.36%, 18.66%, 16.59%, 14.24% and 17.61%, clean the house, kitchen, latrine, family
members, children and water containers, respectively. Similarly, out of the total poor, 14.04%,
12.92%, 24.15%, 16.30%, 23.60% and 8.99%, clean the house, kitchen, latrine, family members,
children and water containers, respectively. It shows that majority of the households clean the
house average which is 52.26%.

Table-4.23: Overall cleanliness of the house

House portions Good Percentage Average Percentage Poor Percentage Total

House 45 20.83 60 15.54 25 14.04 130
Kitchen 40 18.52 67 17.36 23 12.92 130
Latrine 15 6.94 72 18.66 43 24.15 130
Family members 37 17.13 64 16.59 29 16.30 130
Children 33 15.28 55 14.24 42 23.60 130
Water containers 46 21.30 68 17.61 16 8.99 130
Total 216 100 386 100 178 100 780

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

4. Conclusion
From the findings of the study it is concluded that most of the households used piped water for
drinking. Drinking water was stored in jerry cans which were cleaned on daily basis. Drinking
water was drawn from the storage source by dipping mug/jug or glass which increased the
chances of water contamination. While drawing water from the water source mostly households
were not careful. Water storage sources were mostly cleaned on daily basis with water
application. Majority of the households did not treat water to avoid contamination and water
borne diseases due to their perception that water is already clean. Most of the household
members suffered from diarrhea with including adults and children. Diarrhea was cured by
consulting a doctor with high treatment expenditures in the study area.

Recommendations

On the basis of the study findings the following recommendations are forwarded for future
policy formulation about the water and hygiene project in specific to the rural areas of Swabi,
and other rural areas of the province in Pakistan.

1) The people of the study area must be aware about water treatment and its methods to
avoid water contamination and water borne diseases.
2) The diarrhea suffered adults and children of the community so the hygiene kits
including filters must be provided to the people so that pure water could be available at
household. Additionally it will prevent people from water borne diseases.
3) A comprehensive project of water and hygiene must be implemented by IRSP in the
study area.

References
1. WHO and UNICEF, (2010), Progress on Sanitation and Drinking-Water. WHO/UNICEF
Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation.
2. WHO and UNICEF, (2004), Meeting the MDG Drinking Water and Sanitation Target: A
Mid-Term Assessment of Progress. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for
Water Supply and Sanitation.
3. PES –Pakistan Economic Survey, (2010-11), Health and Nutrition. Ministry of Finance,
Government of Pakistan.

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83

Research article University of Swabi Journal (USJ); Open access

4. Josephine F., (2009), Access to Safe Drinking Water and Its Impact on GlobalEconomic
Growth. Halo Source, Inc USA.
5. USAID. 2010. Pakistan Safe Drinking Water and Hygiene Promotion Project Final
Report. Bethesda, Maryland. Abt Associates Inc.
6. Federal Bureau of Statistics, (2010-11), Pakistan Social and Living Measurement Survey.
Pakistan: Government of Pakistan.

Uni. J. Swabi., Vol.1, Issue, 1. November 2017, pp. 61-83