Introduction
Materials and Methods
Area of Study
Emptying of Fecal Sludge in Mandalay City
Interview Survey
Revenue Calculation
Statistical Analysis
Results and Discussion
Toilet and Excreta Management
Recognition of Emptying Service Providers
Recognized type of emptying service provider | Number of households |
---|---|
FP only | 364 (91.0%) |
IPs-Me only | 1 (0.3%) |
FP and IPs-Me | 3 (0.7%) |
FP and IPs-Ma | 2 (0.5%) |
No recognition | 30 (7.5%) |
Actual Choice and Primary Contact for Requesting Emptying Services
Knowledge of the regulation | Total | ||
---|---|---|---|
With knowledge no. | Without knowledge no. | ||
Legal contact (office visit) | 38 | 6 | 44 (35.5%) |
Illegal contact | 34 | 46 | 80 (64.5%) |
Phone to the office | 13 | 13 | 26 (21.0%) |
Phone to a driver | 15 | 23 | 38 (30.6%) |
Asking a friend | 6 | 10 | 16 (12.9%) |
Total | 72 (58%) | 55 (42%) | 124 (100%) |
Factors Influencing the Choice of Emptying Services
Coefficients | Estimate | Std. Error | z value | p | OR (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 4.63 | 1.99 | 2.32 | 0.020* | – |
Income level (1–5) | −0.01 | 0.19 | −0.04 | 0.968 | 1.10 (0.82, 1.48) |
Toilet type (0, 1) | 0.43 | 0.80 | 0.53 | 0.595 | 1.58 (0.50, 5.02) |
Education level (1–5) | 0.04 | 2.64 | 0.16 | 0.870 | 0.99 (0.69, 1.42) |
Waiting time (day) | 0.15 | 0.08 | 1.97 | 0.048* | 1.27 (1.11, 1.46) |
Paid service fee (USD) | −0.20 | 0.05 | −3.62 | <0.001*** | 0.82 (0.73, 0.89) |