Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized

November, 2016
Fecal Sludge Management Tools
Data Collection Instruments
Preface / Acknowledgements
This document is supporting material to World Bank Economic and Sector Work on Fecal Sludge
Management: Diagnostics for Service Delivery in Urban Areas (P146128). The task team leaders
were Isabel Blackett and Peter Hawkins the task team members were Zael Sanz Uriarte, Ravikumar
Joseph, Chris Heymans and Guy Hutton.

This document is based on work conducted between January 2014 and February 2016 by Oxford
Policy Management (OPM) in partnership with the Water, Engineering and Development Centre
(WEDC) at Loughborough University. It was authored by Ian Ross (OPM), Rebecca Scott (WEDC),
Ana Mujica (OPM) and Mike Smith (WEDC). The broader research team who contributed to the
original work included Zach White, Rashid Zaman and Simon Brook from OPM, as well as Mike
Smith, Andy Cotton and Sam Kayaga from WEDC. Andy Peal and Pippa Scott (independent
consultants) also contributed to certain aspects of the methodology.

The inputs of many other World Bank staff, consultants and data collection firms are acknowledged
with thanks from the task team. They have contributed to the research, findings, analysis and reviews
but are too numerous to mention.

ii
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Table of Contents

Preface / Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... ii

List of tables and figures ............................................................................................................. v
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................... vi
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 About this document .................................................................................................. 1
2 Data collection instruments.............................................................................................. 2
2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Ethical considerations ................................................................................................ 4
2.3 Data management considerations ............................................................................. 4
3 Data collection protocol: components for each instrument ............................................... 6
3.1 Household survey ...................................................................................................... 6
3.1.1 Introduction and objective .................................................................................... 6
3.1.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 6
3.1.3 Sampling.............................................................................................................. 7
3.1.4 Fieldwork ............................................................................................................. 9
3.2 Observation of service provider practices .................................................................. 9
3.2.1 Introduction and objective .................................................................................... 9
3.2.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 10
3.2.3 Sampling............................................................................................................ 12
3.2.4 Fieldwork ........................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Transect walk .......................................................................................................... 13
3.3.1 Introduction and objective .................................................................................. 13
3.3.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 13
3.3.3 Sampling............................................................................................................ 14
3.3.4 Fieldwork ........................................................................................................... 14
3.4 Testing fecal sludge (FS) characteristics ................................................................. 14
3.4.1 Introduction and objective .................................................................................. 14
3.4.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 15
3.4.3 Sampling............................................................................................................ 19
3.4.4 Fieldwork ........................................................................................................... 20
3.5 Key Informant Interviews ......................................................................................... 21
3.5.1 Introduction and objective .................................................................................. 21
3.5.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 22
3.5.3 Sampling............................................................................................................ 23
3.5.4 Fieldwork ........................................................................................................... 24
3.6 Focus Group Discussions ........................................................................................ 28
3.6.1 Introduction and objective .................................................................................. 28
3.6.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 28
3.6.3 Sampling............................................................................................................ 28
3.6.4 Fieldwork model................................................................................................. 29
Annex A Household Survey questionnaire ..........................................................................32
A.1 Identification ............................................................................................................ 33
A.2 Consent ................................................................................................................... 33

iii
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

A.3 Survey Information................................................................................................... 34

A.4 End of Interview ....................................................................................................... 48
Annex B Observation of service providers ..........................................................................50
B.1 Containment ............................................................................................................ 50
B.2 Emptying ................................................................................................................. 52
B.3 Transportation ......................................................................................................... 53
B.4 Treatment ................................................................................................................ 54
B.5 Disposal................................................................................................................... 56
B.6 End use ................................................................................................................... 58
Annex C Transect walk record sheet...................................................................................60
Annex D Fecal sludge (FS) characteristics record sheet .....................................................70
Annex E Key informant interviews ......................................................................................71
E.1 KII indicators and questions ..................................................................................... 71
E.2 Institutional responsibility mapping and stakeholder analysis ................................... 72
Annex F Focus Group Discussion guide .............................................................................75

iv
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

List of tables and figures

Figure 1 Example sample size calculation ................................................................................... 8

Table 1 The distinction between tools, instruments and terms of reference ................................ 1
Table 2 Research methods and associated instruments............................................................. 2
Table 3 Research methods and associated instruments............................................................. 3
Table 4 List of observations ...................................................................................................... 10
Table 8 Observed faecal sludge characteristics........................................................................ 16
Table 9 Solid waste content of faecal sludge ............................................................................ 16
Table 10 Characteristics of fecal sludge to be assessed ............................................................ 17
Table 11 Fecal sludge parameters of importance ....................................................................... 18
Table 12 Preferred tests and test methods to measure characteristics ....................................... 19
Table 13 Sampling for different types of stakeholder .................................................................. 24
Table 14 Phasing of interviews ................................................................................................... 25
Table 15 External agencies: issues to address during interviews ............................................... 26
Table 16 Sampling for focus groups ........................................................................................... 28
Table 17 Topics for Focus Group Discussions with community members................................... 75
Table 18 Topic areas for discussion Theme 1: Current FSM Services ........................................ 76

v
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

List of abbreviations
FS Fecal Sludge

FSM Fecal Sludge Management

PEA Political Economy Analysis

PSU Primary Sampling Unit

SDA Service Delivery Assessment (conducted at a city level)

SFD Shit Flow Diagram (fecal waste flow diagram)

vi
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

1 Introduction

1.1 About this document

This document contains data collection instruments to support data collection, for which the
resulting data will inform diagnostic and decision-making tools for Fecal Sludge Management
(FSM) services. The diagnostic and decision-making tools shown are those developed in a
World Bank global FSM study (2016) that are further described in (i) a Summary Report of the
FSM study (ii) Tools and Guidelines for improving fecal sludge management (FSM) services.

This document accompanies the above documents the World Bank global FSM study. It can
essentially be used as a stand-alone guide for the purpose of data collection in other studies,
but adaptations will be required to account for local circumstances.

To distinguish between the diagnostic tools and the data collection instruments:

 the tools are a quantitative and qualitative means of displaying data to support problem
diagnosis and decision-making;
 the data collection instruments consist of the data collection formats (such as the
household survey questionnaire) and their associated protocols (which are an instruction
manual and methodology), which provide an input to the tools.
This document sets out the instruments mainly as they were used in the five cities of this study.
Both can and should be adapted to the objectives of whoever is using them, and the specificities
of the city concerned.

Table 1 The distinction between tools, instruments and terms of reference

Element Contains Where to find

Experiences of using the tools
Summary of tools, lessons learnt about
Summary Summary Report
their use, and policy recommendations.
How to use the tools
Tool objectives, detailed methods and Tools and Guidelines
Overview
examples (main body)
Instructions and formats for applying the Tools and Guidelines
How to
tool (Annexes)
Data collection Instruments
Manual on how to use the instrument Data Collection
Protocol
format Instruments (this report)
Data collection instruments for Data Collection
Format
adaptation to a city context Instruments (Annexes)
Terms of Reference
Instructions for staff or consultants (firm
TORs or individual) who will implement one or Terms of Reference
more data collection instruments

1
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

2 Data collection instruments

2.1 Overview
A variety of data collection instruments can be used to inform the diagnostic tools developed
under the World Bank global FSM study. The various data collection instruments used for the
purposes of the global study and the research methods associated with them are summarized
in the table below. In addition, the table shows the cities where these instruments were used
under the global study, and the diagnostic tool or analysis which each instrument eventually
informs.

Table 2 Research methods and associated instruments

Data collection
Research instrument (with City where Diagnostic tool or analysis
method protocol for applied this informs
each)
Fecal Waste Flow diagram
Dhaka, (SFD) tool
1. Household Household Hawassa, City-level Service Delivery
survey questionnaire Lima, Assessment (city SDA) tool
Santa Cruz Supply and demand analysis
Economic analysis
2. Observation of
Quantitative

Structured Dhaka
service Supply and demand analysis
observation form
providers
Dhaka,
Transect walk
3. Transect walk Hawassa, Public health risk analysis
form
Lima
Tests of FS (i)
physical
4. Testing fecal
characteristics,
sludge (FS) Dhaka Fecal sludge reuse analysis
and (ii)
characteristics
chemical/biological
characteristics
Dhaka,
5. Focus group
Focus group Hawassa, Prognosis for Change tool
discussions
discussion guide Lima, Supply and demand analysis
Qualitative

(FGDs)
Santa Cruz
Dhaka, SFD tool
6. Key informant
Hawassa, City SDA tool
interviews Interview guide
Lima, Prognosis for Change tool
(KIIs)
Santa Cruz Supply and demand analysis

There are six main instruments, four quantitative and two qualitative. However, the reality of
using them is more complicated, as many are interrelated. For example, it makes sense to
strongly link data collection on observations and fecal sludge characteristics (2 and 4 in the
table), since they will both require working alongside FSM service providers.

However, they will also involve entering households, and therefore touch on the domain of the
household survey. The household sampling should be random, whereas sampling for

2
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

observations/characteristics will necessarily be purposive and driven by the service providers’

availability schedules. This is discussed in more detail below, but serves to demonstrate the
level of planning that needs to go into finalising any fieldwork model. The likely outcome is that
households where service providers are observed may not end up being part of the main
household survey sample.

A related point to that made above is that service providers are identified as key informants to
be interviewed, but the cooperation of service providers is also required to carry out
observations of the sanitation chain and testing of characteristics. In practice, service
providers employ many individuals. For example, in the case of a company operating
desludging trucks, there would be a key informant interview with the manager, but discussions
with his/her colleagues (i.e. the truck operatives) for the observation.

In terms of sampling, the research design should be adapted to each city context, but the
broad overview is shown in Table 3 below as a guide. Sampling was designed so as to allow
conclusions to be drawn about the city-wide situation, as well as the specific context of slums /
informal settlements / low-income areas.

Table 3 Research methods and associated instruments

Instrument Data source n per city

1. Household Survey of households (i) across the city, (ii) in slums

720
survey / informal settlements / low-income areas
2. Observation of
Observation of containment, collection,
Quantitative

service provider 5
transport/disposal and treatment/disposal
practices
Observation of environmental and public health
3. Transect walk 40
risks through transect walk
4. Testing fecal
Samples from (i) pits/tanks during emptying, (ii)
sludge 5
truck/vessel outflow, (iii) final drying bed or outflow
characteristics
(a) Government (e.g. council / utility, ministries)
Qualitative

5. Key informant
(b) Service providers along the sanitation chain As required
interviews (c) Other key FSM agencies
6. Focus group FGDs with residents of slum communities, low-
10
discussions income areas and informal settlements

The person doing the work would need background information on each instrument, such as:

1. Introduction (e.g. background and objectives of project)

2. Methodology (e.g. components)
3. Sampling (e.g. frame, size calculation)
4. Preparation (e.g. approvals, pre-testing, training & piloting)
5. Fieldwork model (e.g. number/ structure of teams, timeline)
6. Quality control and risk management
7. Ethical considerations
8. Data Management (e.g. entry, cleaning)
9. Data Analysis
10. Reporting and dissemination

3
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Together, this information comprises a data collection protocol. Such protocols are provided
per instrument in the next Section. Some cross-cutting considerations on ethics and data
management are briefly discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.

2.2 Ethical considerations

The main ethical considerations related to all data collection protocols are:

Informed voluntary participation: Informed written or oral consent must be obtained from
participants before data collection is conducted. Team members and participants are to be
informed about the purpose, methods, risks, benefits and intended possible uses of the results
of the study.

Right to refuse or withdraw: The participants must be informed that they are free to withdraw
from the study at any point, or may refuse to answer any questions. They will also have the right
to ask questions at any point before, during or after the study is completed.

Confidentiality and privacy: No personal identifiers should be used in any form of reporting or
dissemination. Personal identifications will be linked with a unique identifier (e.g. id code) and
kept securely. No information should be published that could identify the respondents. Paper
copies of collected data will be stored for three years in a secure location; only the study team
should be able to access them. While confidentiality cannot always be guaranteed (especially
where data is collected in a group, or public setting), participants are requested not to disclose
details of what was discussed.

Risks and benefits: The risk of participation is considered minimal as there will be no collecting
of sensitive information or biological samples. The respondents will not be directly benefited by
participating, however the information that they will provide inform policy makers to improve the
overall water, sanitation and hygiene condition of their country and they may eventually have
an indirect benefit from that.

Payment: There should be no compensation payment to the participants and nor will they have
to pay to participate in the study. Interview and focus groups should be held close to the homes
of the participants to avoid any transport costs.

2.3 Data management considerations

Tight data collection and quality control must be followed up by sound data management. The
process in any given city will depend on the firms or consultants contracted and their usual
practice, but there are certain practices which should be followed when paper data collection
formats are used. If digital data collection is used, separate guidance will be necessary.

Starting with qualitative data, the consultants will have clear Terms of Reference specifying how
they should record their findings and write them up into transcripts and reports as appropriate.
This will vary by city – the essential thing is that all stakeholders are clear on what is to be
provided in what format before work begins, and that it is in the TOR.

Next considering quantitative data, any data collection firm must have an identified Data
Manager, to supervise Data Entry Operators and Data Editors (assuming paper data collection
is used). Their roles and responsibilities are as follows:

4
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Data Manager

 Development of the Data Entry Programme (e.g. in CSPro or similar)

 Recruitment and training of the data entry operators and editors
 Overseeing data entry
 Data cleaning

Data Entry Operators

 Double data entry

Editors

 Pre-entry check of the completed questionnaires

 Post-entry check; i.e. checking the inconsistencies between two entries

Any quantitative data will be double-entered into a data entry programme specifically designed
for the project. Each data entry operator will be able to enter about 30-40 household
questionnaires per day. Once the data is double-entered, both versions of the datasets will be
checked for consistencies. The data editors will manually check the hardcopy questionnaires
for any inconsistencies between them. In addition, whoever is doing the data analysis should
check internal inconsistencies, outliers, missing data and other data quality issues.

5
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

3 Data collection protocol: components for each

instrument
For the six instruments, this section sets out four key protocol elements: (i) introduction and
objective, (ii) methodology, (iii) sampling, (iv) fieldwork. The associated formats themselves
are in the Annexes.

 Annex A contains the Household Survey questionnaire

 Annex B contains the inspection form for the Observation of Service Providers
 Annex C contains the Transect Walk record sheet
 Annex D contains the Fecal Sludge (FS) characteristics record sheet
 Annex E contains the structure for Key Informant Interviews
 Annex F contains the Focus Group Discussion guide

3.1 Household survey

3.1.1 Introduction and objective

A quantitative household survey enables researchers to ask questions of many households

consistently and with the same answering format. Questions can invite answers which are
categories, binary yes/no, and continuous numerical variables, amongst other things. The
household survey proposed here aims to provide information about household perspectives
on the FSM market, emptying practices, etc.

The objective of the household survey is to collect information from people using on-site
sanitation (particularly those living in slums, informal settlements or low-income areas)
regarding their use of FSM services and preferences for future FSM services. The household
survey informs multiple tools and analyses as set out in Section 1. In order to keep the
number of questions manageable, prioritisation is necessary. The questionnaire should be
adapted to fit the objectives of the survey and fit the local context.

A cluster survey is proposed and the necessary sample size may differ across each city.
Sample size calculations are based on the population size, estimated prevalence or the main
indicator of interest, the required confidence level, acceptable margin of error and the design
effect (related to inter-cluster correlation). Informally, it would also be influenced by the budget
available. The proposed indicator of interest is ownership of a latrine not connected to a
sewer, since the tools are primarily focused on FSM services for those with non-networked
sanitation.

3.1.2 Methodology

The World Bank global FSM study was interested in two separate but overlapping groups, (i)
people living in slums, informal or low-income settlements (a geographical area), (ii) people
using on-site sanitation (ownership of a specific asset), some of whom live in slums, informal
or low-income settlements but others elsewhere in middle class or wealthier areas. The aim
was to draw conclusions about these groups by interviewing a sample of them.

Interviewing households at random from across a whole city is not a very reliable way of
drawing such conclusions, and it is also difficult to administer. One of the best ways of

6
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

combining statistical rigour with a workable fieldwork model is a cluster survey. This involves
sampling a defined number of groups of households in areas of a consistent size.

Most cluster surveys are based on primary sampling units (PSUs) made up of 100-250
households depending on the country, from which a cluster of 5-20 households is sampled. In
towns and cities, PSUs are often referred to as ‘urban blocks’ – the list is usually available
from the national statistics office in the country based on the most recent census. They
typically contain between 100 – 500 households depending on the country.

The World Bank global FSM study used a cluster survey approach, and in most cities 720
households across two sub-samples in each city were interviewed. The sampling approach is
detailed in the next Section. The Household Survey questionnaire is in Annex A of this
document.

3.1.3 Sampling

First, the sampling frame needs to be defined, i.e. the geographical or other scope, of all the
households that could be sampled. A dual sub-sample approach can be taken:

 A sub-sample of households using on-site sanitation living across the whole city (some
of whom may live in slums / informal settlements)

 A sub-sample of households living in slums / informal settlements with boundaries

defined by the study team.

The decision of which approach to use is about representativeness. The key decision is to
define the population which the sample will represent (and the associated level of confidence).
If it is only slums, informal or low-income settlements, then it is appropriate to sample only
these geographically-defined areas. If the scope is beyond such areas, then it will probably be
necessary to sample the whole city.

The sample sizes are influenced by the population size, the prevalence rate for indicators of
interest, the required confidence level, and the design effect (related to inter-cluster
correlation). The generally-accepted minimum number for cluster surveys is 30 clusters.

The approach, as used in the World Bank global FSM study, is generally as follows:

 Sub-sample A: 30 primary sampling units (PSUs) from across the city, based on
administrative divisions. For example, if there are 90 wards in a city, the approach
would be to first randomly select 30 wards, and then randomly select 1 PSU per ward.
This sub-sample is designed to be representative of the city as a whole. However,
households within each PSU would be selected using a random walk method.

 Sub-sample B: 30 PSUs from geographically-defined slums / informal settlements. For

example, if 15 such areas were defined, 2 PSUs would be randomly selected from the
total number of PSUs in each of those areas. Households would be selected using a
random walk method.

The next decision is the size of the clusters, which needs a power calculation. The best and
easiest to use is the statistical software EpiInfo, developed by US Centres for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC).

7
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

For the city-wide sample, the indicator of interest is the proportion of households using non-
networked sanitation. For most developing country cities, this is between 60-100% (see
summary report for explanation), so 80% was used.

As shown in the graphic below, the statistical assumptions are population size: infinite,
expected frequency: 80%, margin of error = 5%, design effect = 2, cluster size = 12 and
number of clusters = 30.

Figure 1 Example sample size calculation

This provides a power (confidence level) of 90%. Surveys placing a premium on

representativeness would aim for 95% confidence, but 90% may be sufficient for many
studies.

Selecting 12 households per PSU gives an overall sample size of 720, with 360 households in
each of sub-sample A and B. At this sample size, sub-sample A would not be representative
of the city with very high confidence, but would give an idea of a broader geographical area
than just slums. Sub-sample B would give relatively high confidence about the defined
geographical area (though the areas selected would be purposive and not give statistical
representativeness’).

This approach balances the need for a focus on slums / informal settlements (however
defined) but also the need for users of non-networked sanitation in lower-middle and middle
class areas to be part of a city wide FSM service. If areas known to be wealthy and connected
to sewers are randomly selected in sub-sample A, these can be replaced by another draw,
with little risk to the integrity of the methodology. However, a sampling expert should be
consulted. Within each PSU, the sampling of households (secondary sampling units) could be
done in the field, i.e. by random walk or a similar method to be determined. This is the lowest
cost method when representativeness is not the highest priority.

8
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

3.1.4 Fieldwork

The fieldwork model (e.g. size of enumerator team, which drives cost) is determined by the
number of households sampled per PSU. Assuming the questionnaire is 45 minutes long,
then a maximum of 6 households can be completed by one enumerator per day, though this
could be ambitious. If it is practical, then 12 households per day (i.e. one cluster) could be
achieved with 2 enumerators in the team plus a supervisor.

With 60 clusters and only 1 team, that would mean 60 working days of fieldwork, which would
be too long. A better model could be 4 teams, which would then take 15 days to complete.
Alternatively, there could be 3 teams, which would mean 20 days to complete.

3.2 Observation of service provider practices

3.2.1 Introduction and objective

Observation is a useful tool for triangulation to confirm the reliability and consistency of
information collected from other studies, including from questionnaires and interviews. It is
applicable to both quantitative and qualitative data collection.

For this instrument, observation requires making visual inspections about fecal sludge
management from containment in a pit or tank, to final disposal. It requires identification of
hazards, hazardous events, and an assessment of possible risks at each stage (containment,
emptying, transport, treatment and end-use or disposal) of the fecal sludge management
chain.

Three types of observation can be carried out:

1. Structured observation of service providers, to identify risks to the environment

associated with procedures, state of equipment and actions taken (by households
and workers) in relation to containment, emptying, transport/conveyance, treatment,
disposal or end-use of fecal sludge
2. Characteristics of fecal sludge removed from sanitary facilities, using tests to identify
the solid/liquid state of the sludge and other aspects – see separate section on fecal
sludge (FS) Characteristics
3. Environmental conditions in the neighbourhood, using Transect Walks
The fill list of issues to observe is shown in Table 4.

9
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Table 4 List of observations

Stage of FSM
Issues to observe
service chain
- Risks from storage or containment of fecal sludge at the household level.
Containment
- Risks within a local district from containment facilities (to be identified
during transect walks).
- Practices, and equipment, used to remove fecal sludge from pits, septic
tanks, etc. in different parts of the city. (Whether collection services serve
particular districts, and whether different income groups use different
emptying services.)
- Risks associated with removal of fecal sludge (to households and/or local
Emptying district).
- Access for emptying services to pits, septic tanks, etc. requiring emptying.
- Procedures used for on-site disposal of fecal sludge.
- Use of documentation to record details for removal of fecal sludge.
- Does the sludge contain significant quantities of solid waste (plastics, glass,
etc.)?
- Types and capacities of vehicles used to transport fecal sludge from pits,
septic tanks, etc.
- Destinations of vehicles used to transport fecal sludge.
Transport - Cleanliness and condition of vehicles used to transport fecal sludge.
- Use of documentation to record details for transport of fecal sludge.
- Risks associated with transport practices (to households and/or local
district).
- Location of facilities used to treat fecal sludge (these could be dedicated
fecal sludge treatment plants or may be combined with wastewater
treatment facilities).
- Quantities of fecal sludge received for treatment at each location.
- Risks associated with the treatment process (to operators or environment)
Treatment - Use of documentation to record details of fecal sludge received for
treatment.
- Capacity (design and operating), type and condition of facilities used to
treat fecal sludge.
- Destination of fecal sludge following treatment.
- Use of documentation to record details of fecal sludge removed following
treatment.
- Locations and scale of official and unofficial disposal sites.
- Risks associated with disposal sites (to operators, public or the
Disposal environment)
- Destinations of vehicles used to transport fecal sludge after treatment.
- Destinations of vehicles used to transport fecal sludge that is not treated.
- Use of documentation to record details for disposal of fecal sludge.
End-use - Evidence of the nature of resource recovery practices.
(resource - Scale of resource recovery practices.
recovery) - Risks associated with end-use processes/practices (to operators, public or
environment)

3.2.2 Methodology

Using a set of developed check-lists (see Annex B) helps to identify and capture the key risks
associated with practices carried out during stages of the FSM service chain.

Completing the structured observation

While observations are ideally made unannounced, to observe full containment facilities, as
well as emptying and transport practices, visits need to be planned, agreed and carried out as
and when containment systems are being emptied. Specific skill sets will be needed for

10
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

observation, with at least one observer being a sanitation expert, trained to be aware of
relevant details.

A prepared checklist helps the observers identify the main risks associated with all stages of
the FSM service chain (from containment to disposal/ end-use). Training in use of the
checklist will be needed, as well as an opportunity for enumerators to pilot them, to ensure
good understanding in how to use them effectively and any adjustments required before
conducting final observations.

Having gained approval to conduct the structured observations (e.g. from householders,
emptiers, operators/managers of treatment facilities, etc.), the enumerators should observe
the household sanitation facility (containment), the practices of the service provider handling
the fecal sludge (emptying, transportation and disposal), and the facilities handling the fecal
sludge (treatment and/or end-use).

As each observation is conducted, the enumerator must complete the appropriate checklists
to the fullest extent possible. To do this, the enumerator places a clear and consistent mark
(such as X or ) against the appropriate response to each question. If no answer can be
identified, the mark can be made against the answer “DK” (representing don’t know). If the
enumerator needs to provide a different response to any of those suggested, it must be clearly
stated. There is also space on the checklists for additional comments to be made.

The questions are not to be asked out loud, but rather the enumerators ask each question to
themselves (or perhaps quietly to each other, as a prompt) as they complete the check list.

General household information must also be completed, as indicated on page 1 of the form.

Recording results of the structured observation

Observation will generate both quantitative and qualitative data. All information collected
should be recorded in note form and eventually transferred into an excel file. Each location at
which observations are made should have a unique identification code. It is important that the
report form provides detailed information for identification (city, PSU, GPS coordinates and
date of observation, as a minimum).

One set of survey sheets are to be completed for any one observation: i.e. a containment and
emptying observation, plus – to the extent possible – observing transportation, disposal and
treatment/ end-use facilities for the emptied fecal sludge. If only containment and emptying
practices can be observed in one event, then separate observations of transportation,
disposal, treatment and/or end-use may need to be arranged.

The results taken on paper, for each set of observations, must be accurately transferred into
an excel spreadsheet format. One page of the spreadsheet is used to record results for
observations at each stage of the FSM service chain.

In the excel file, the results noted in the field (paper copy) must be accurately transferred into
the corresponding cell for each question addressed. Each excel file must have a uniquely
coded file name, to identify the specific location and time in which the structured observations
were conducted.

11
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

3.2.3 Sampling

Fully recorded observations are to be made at a minimum of 5 different locations, through all
stages (if possible) of the sanitation chain. The chosen observations should reflect existing
fecal sludge management practices as much as possible, considering both manual and
mechanical emptying methods.

To achieve a purposive sample (covering a range of types of sanitary facilities, income groups
and procedures), the following need to be taken into account:

 To obtain as representative a range of observations as possible, discuss emptying

schedules with emptiers (both mechanical and manual operators) and identify a
range of customers, income groups and types of facilities emptied. This may require
discussions with a number of service providers, to achieve a suitable range.

 Observations need to coincide with a household having their facility (pit latrine, septic
tank, etc.) emptied. Information will need to be sought from emptiers, or households,
to know when emptying will take place and time visits accordingly. Note that
observations of manual emptying procedures may need to be done at night.

 Timing and locations of visits will need to be finally agreed in advance, in consultation
with the emptiers. Permission to observe must be sought from the emptiers before
the visit and from households prior to, or at the time of, visits.

 Where possible, the structured observations should observe the full procedure of a
“shift” by the emptiers – following them through the stages of emptying, transporting
and disposing of the fecal sludge – to the extent that is possible.

 The visits will require careful thought and preparation, to avoid significant down-time
of observers. It may benefit to identify, in consultation with emptiers, the times of day/
days of the week that they are busiest, and then match this against the stage of work
to be observed.

It is estimated that a minimum of 30 minutes will be required per recording, depending on the
extent of the service providers’ “shift” that can be observed and the length of any shift to
follow-through the procedures. Where long, or congested, transportation routes are involved,
that stage of the observation may require significantly more time.

3.2.4 Fieldwork

Each observation should be carried out by two members of the survey team to make
observations and record details, with at least one person being a sanitation expert. Both will
have been trained in use of the checklists.

The structured observations can be completed at the same time, and by the same team, as
carries out observations of fecal sludge (FS) Characteristics (see below). If and when
possible, they could be conducted while household visits are happening in the same area, but
given the need to follow the activities of the emptying service providers, this may not always
be possible.

12
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Quality control and risk management

The Quality Control officer is unlikely to carry out quality checks either during or following the
structured observations – and they are not able to re-observe practices. They should therefore
interview the enumerators to discuss a sub-set of recorded information, ask what happened at
the time of the recording and check that the recorded observations are appropriate.

Those conducting the observations should use protective clothing (gloves, safety glasses,
face masks, etc.) if there are identified risks. This is particularly the case as and when they
take samples of fecal sludge to identify its characteristics at the time of emptying (see
separate Protocol).

3.3 Transect walk

3.3.1 Introduction and objective

A transect walk enables participants to make a subjective and qualitative assessment of

conditions within a community. During the walk, participants make systematic observations,
discuss their observations, and record their findings. The information collected complements
information collected from household questionnaires, observations, and sample collection and
analysis.

For the purposes of this instrument, a transect walk provides information about the broad
environmental risks to public health, in particular with respect to the presence of fecal material
and solid waste, and the proximity of these wastes to drainage channels and water sources.

3.3.2 Methodology

A transect walk is not an intrusive activity, but ideally local authorities should be informed
about survey work within a community, and permission obtained in advance. If possible, two
male and two female adult volunteers living in the community should be asked to participate in
a transect walk, so that the information collected can benefit from both local knowledge and
outside knowledge. Local participants should be briefed at the start, so that they know what a
transect walk is, and what information it provides.

The route for a transect walk should not be imposed upon the participants, but an agreed
route should be identified and agreed. The route followed should include areas that are
generally representative of the PSU.

The route taken for each transect walk should be planned and recorded using a map and/or
GPS data. The route should cross the PSU, following a winding route to include a variety of
areas. Those planning the route should try to include residential areas from across the
income range, and examples of areas that may pose risks to public health, such as river or
streams, drainage channels, back streets, open wasteland, food markets and local waste
dump-sites.

Qualitative information from observations made during the transect walk should be
summarised, using a report form such as included in Annex C. When using the report form,
different examples of risk may be observed during a single transect walk. Classification
should be based on what is observed in the majority of places, and representing the general
local conditions.

13
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Photographs may be taken of any relevant and significant details, but the locations of areas
photographed should be identified, together with brief comments about what each photograph
shows.

The final set of questions should be answered at the end of the walk, and asked of the four
community members who have participated in the walk (see below). They are slightly different
from the rest of the instrument in that they will provide quantitative data on certain aspects.
This consists of some questions asking about the general conditions within the community
relating to open defecation, fecal sludge contamination and awareness of associated risk,
from the community perspective. The questions are asked to the group as a whole, who can
discuss their opinions before offering a single response.

3.3.3 Sampling

Up to 40 transect walks will provide a good data set of conditions within a range of areas and
information about the environmental public health risks to the communities. This can comprise
a transect walk in all of the 30 PSUs from Sub-Sample A, and 10 randomly selected from Sub-
Sample B. This allows the study to draw conclusions about health risks in the city as a whole,
by carrying out a transect walk in all 30 sub-sample A PSUs.

3.3.4 Fieldwork

Each transect walk team should include two members of the survey team, including a
sanitation specialist, to make observations and record details. In addition it should include two
male and two female community members to create a mixed team to provide information and
insights from different perspectives that contribute to creating a complete picture of the
environmental health risks in the area.

Each transect walk should be arranged during the household survey period, complementing
information collected from household surveys. A standard report form should be used, so that
information collected for the same categories on the form can be compared directly for
different PSUs.

A draft report form should be completed during each transect walk, with a final version
updated as soon as possible afterwards, before information becomes vague or is forgotten.
The two members of the survey team, and one member of the community who has
participated in the walk, should sign the form after completion to confirm that they agree with
the information reported. A copy of the report, with a brief explanation of what has been
observed should be given to the member of the community who signs the completed form. It
is important that the report form provides detailed information for identification (city, PSU and
GPS coordinates).

3.4 Testing fecal sludge (FS) characteristics

3.4.1 Introduction and objective

The characteristics of fecal sludge will vary, depending on factors such as the length of time
for which it has been stored, the season, and the storage conditions (e.g. whether the sludge
was in a lined or unlined pit). Assessment of the characteristics is required at three stages,
and for the following reasons:

14
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

1. During removal, as this will influence the removal methods that could be used; and
2. After removal, as this will influence how the faecal sludge can be transported and
treated, and possible resource recovery options.
3. After treatment, as this will determine the resource value of the end product
derived from the faecal sludge.

Data collection to assess and measure the characteristics of fecal sludge will use the
components of both (a) observation and (b) sampling and analysis. This will require
observation of the sludge during removal from a pit or tank, and collection of sludge samples
from three points along the sludge flow pathway.

The three points from which sludge samples should be collected are:

(i) at pits or tanks during emptying,

(ii) from trucks, vehicles or vessels during discharge to treatment, and
(iii) at the outlet or following the final stage of any treatment

3.4.2 Methodology

Observation

The physical appearance and characteristics of fecal sludge will vary, depending on the length
of time for which it has been stored, the storage conditions (e.g. whether the sludge was in a
lined or unlined pit), and whether solid wastes have been added to the faecal matter.
Observation of the fecal sludge during removal from pits or tanks is necessary to determine
whether the fecal sludge will behave as a fluid or a solid, and which removal methods may be
appropriate. The top layer of the sludge may be unrepresentative, so a more representative
sample should be collected in a bucket part-way through the emptying operation. Observation
will also reveal what solid wastes may be present in addition to faecal matter.

Tables Table 5 and Table 6 should be used to describe the sample collected during emptying.
Table 5 shows five categories, from dry solid to liquid, for fecal sludge based on observations;
and Table 6 shows five categories for fecal sludge based on the solid waste content. Where
possible, a photograph should be taken of the fecal sludge sample collected during removal
from a pit or tank, and a record kept to identify the location and date for the photograph.

Collection and testing of samples

Physical and chemical characteristics of fecal sludge will vary, depending on factors such as
the length of time for which it has been stored, the season, the storage conditions (e.g.
whether the sludge was in a lined or unlined pit) and removal practices (e.g. whether water is
added to the sludge to make it behave as a fluid).

15
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Table 5 Observed faecal sludge characteristics

Description Behaviour
Dry Solid Crumbles easily. A deep vertical cut, widened to create a triangular
wedge-shaped cut in the FS, holds its shape, with
the cut edges appearing dry.
Wet Solid Cohesive, with no A deep vertical cut, widened to create a triangular
evidence of free liquids. wedge-shaped cut in the FS, holds its shape, with
the cut edges appearing damp but with no free
liquid visible.
Solid and liquid mix A mixture of solids and A deep vertical cut, widened to create a triangular
liquids. wedge-shaped cut in the FS, holds its shape, with
liquids draining into the cut.
Viscous liquid Liquid, but flowing slowly A deep vertical cut, widened to create a triangular
wedge-shaped cut in the FS, closes up after a few
seconds.
Liquid Liquid, flowing easily. The FS is so liquid that it is not possible to widen
a deep vertical cut and create a triangular wedge-
shaped cut.

Table 6 Solid waste content of faecal sludge

Classification Description
Very high solid waste content Contains more solid wastes than faecal material.
High solid waste content Contains significant amounts of miscellaneous solid wastes.
Medium solid waste content Contains small amounts of miscellaneous solid wastes.
Low solid waste content Contains some paper materials used for anal cleansing.
No solid waste content Contains no solid wastes.

Sample collection for analysis to assess fecal sludge characteristics is required at four stages,
as shown in Table 7, which also includes the requirement for observation:

1. Before removal from individual pits or tanks, to ascertain whether the fecal sludge will
behave as a fluid and the extent of solid (non-fecal) waste content. These both have
implications for the removal techniques and equipment required.

2. During removal from individual pits or tanks, to obtain a variety of fecal sludge
characteristics and indicate the nutrient content and calorific values, and whether the
FS is of high or low strength.

3. During discharge from the truck, vehicle or vessel (at the tipping point or treatment
plant), as this will provide a composite sample from more than one pit or tank. These
characteristics will also indicate the nutrient content and calorific values, and whether
the FS is of high or low strength. The characteristics may influence how the fecal
sludge can be transported and treated, and help to identify possible resource recovery
options;

4. After treatment, as this will determine the safety and resource value of the end product
derived from the fecal sludge. Important characteristics at this stage include the
nutrient content and calorific values.

16
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Table 7 Characteristics of fecal sludge to be assessed

Stage Assessment Characteristics to be assessed
method
A subjective assessment of the sludge before removal will
indicate whether the sludge will behave as a fluid or as a solid.
Before
If the sludge is characterised as being solid, removal can be by
removal (just
Observation excavation. Alternatively, it may be possible to mix the sludge
prior to
with water in-situ until it becomes sufficiently liquid for pumping to
emptying)
be possible.
Approximate solid (non-fecal) waste content
Sampling and More detailed analysis of FS is needed once it has been
During analysis removed. FS can be classified as being either high strength or
removal (individual pits low strength, with the term “strength” referring to the oxygen
or tanks) demand (BOD/COD), rather than to any physical characteristics.
High strength FS is highly concentrated, mostly fresh FS that has
After Sampling and been stored for a relatively short time (days or weeks). Low
removal (at analysis strength FS is older, less concentrated and more stabilized. It
point of (composite has usually been stored for several years.
discharge/ sample from
several pits or Tests for calorific and nutrient values could help identify potential
disposal)
tanks) for end-use following treatment that is not currently available (to
be taken if considered appropriate in the context of the City).
Further analysis of the FS is needed following treatment (primary
and/or secondary), to assess the suitability of the end product
After Sampling and (liquid and or solid products) as a resource for potential end-use
treatment analysis options. Tests will identify calorific value, nutrient value and
helminth egg contamination.

Parameters of importance

The quality parameters of importance for characterisation of fecal sludge are listed below in
Table 8, together with a brief explanation of the reasons for their relevance.

17
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Table 8 Fecal sludge parameters of importance

Parameter Units Significance
COD This provides an indication of how much oxygen is
(Chemical Oxygen mg/L needed to convert materials in the FS into stable end-
demand) products.

BOD This provides an indication of how much oxygen is

(Biological Oxygen mg/L needed by bacteria to convert materials in the FS into
Demand) stable end-products.

NH4 –nitrogen Free and saline ammonia provides a measurement of

Percentage
(free and saline the organic nitrogen content of the FS, and its value as a
by weight
ammonia) soil conditioner or fertilizer.

Total nitrogen, together with measurements of free and

Percentage
Total nitrogen saline ammonia, provides an indication of what
by weight
proportion of the nitrogen in FS is organic nitrogen.
The total phosphorus provides a measurement of value
Percentage
Total phosphorus of the FS, especially if dried, as a soil conditioner or
by weight
fertilizer.

TS This provides an indication of the ratio of water to solids.

mg/L Even for sludges that appear dry, there is likely to be a
(Total solids) high water content.

SS These are the solids that can be removed physically.

mg/L The remaining solids will be dissolved within the water
(Suspended solids) contained in the sludge.
Helminth eggs are the eggs of parasitic worms. They
can survive for long periods, and have greater health
Helminth eggs (viable) Number/L
significance than bacteria if sludge is to be used in
agriculture.
E.coli are indicator organisms, the presence and
Number/100 concentration of which indicate the likelihood of fecal
E.coli
mL pathogens being present.
The calorific value is a measure of the energy that can
Calorific value MJ/kg TS
be obtained from using FS as a fuel.

As explained below, samples for analysis should be taken from pits or septic tanks at the time
when emptying is due to take place, during discharge from tanks/ containers on arrival at
treatment facilities or disposal sites and after treatment (primary and/or secondary stages).
Additional samples may also be appropriate from any transfer stations used in the city.

Test methods

The preferred tests and test methods to be followed are summarised in the Table:

18
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Table 9 Preferred tests and test methods to measure characteristics

Parameter Recommended Test During During After
Units *
method removal discharge treatment
COD
Using any one of the
(Chemical
mg/L APHA/AWWA Standard Required Required Required
Oxygen
Methods (5-6 to 5-9).
demand)
BOD
Using any one of the
(Biological
mg/L APHA/AWWA Standard Required Required Required
Oxygen
Methods (5-1 to 5-3).
Demand)
Using a Hach
NH4 –nitrogen spectrophotometer
Percenta
(such as a DR 2000 or
(free and saline ge by Required Required
DR 3900). The Kjeldahl
ammonia) weight
method is an acceptable
alternative.
Percenta Using any one of the
Total nitrogen ge by APHA/AWWA Standard Required Required
weight Methods (5-1 to 5-3).
Percenta Using any one of the
Total
ge by APHA/AWWA Standard Required Required
phosphorus
weight Methods (5-1 to 5-3).
TS
Using the APHA/AWWA
mg/L Required Required Required
(Total solids) Standard Method (2-54).
SS
Using the APHA/AWWA
(Suspended mg/L Required Required Required
Standard Method (2-56).
solids)
Direct microscopic
Number examination, following
Helminth eggs concentration of eggs by
viable Required Required
(viable) flotation or
eggs/L
sedimentation and 3
weeks of incubation.
Membrane filtration
using a suitable nutrient
Number/ medium such as M-FC
E.coli Required Required
100 mL broth. (Membrane
Lauryl Sulphate broth is
another option.)
Using a bomb
calorimeter to measure
MJ/kg calorific value, using
Calorific value Required
TS benzoic acid as a
standard for calibrating
the heat capacity.

* For fecal sludge, weights may be used instead of volumes, depending on whether the fecal
sludge behaves as a solid or liquid.

3.4.3 Sampling

Within each city the following numbers of fecal sludge samples and sampling positions are
recommended;

19
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

 Observation of the fecal sludge from each of five separate pits or tanks shortly during
removal from pits or tanks to determine the physical appearance and characteristics of
the fecal sludge, and whether it will behave as a fluid or a solid. The pits or tanks
should be selected following discussions with a range of pit emptiers, with the aim of
collecting samples from a variety of pits or tanks from different income groups. They
would only be from slums and informal settlement areas in sub-sample B, but would
not necessarily overlap with our PSUs, with the priority being cooperation of the
service providers.

 One 1 litre sample from each of the same five separate pits or tanks being emptied.
(Each sample to be divided to provide duplicate results.)

 A good mixed composite sample, consisting of three 1 litre samples, preferably from
five different trucks, vehicles or vessels, at the inlet structure of the fecal sludge
treatment facility, during discharge of fecal sludge. The first 1 litre sample should be
taken at the start of discharge, the second approximately mid-way through discharge,
and the third towards the end of discharge. (Each sample to be divided to provide
duplicate results.)

 Five 1 litre samples, collected at different times during one day, from the outlet or
following the final stage of each treatment facility. (Each sample to be divided to
provide duplicate results.)

It is recommended that, when collecting samples during discharge of fecal sludge from
vehicles, some fecal sludge is collected in a bucket, and a 1 litre sample taken from the
bucket.

3.4.4 Fieldwork

Each sample collection team should consist of two people from the survey team, and including
a sanitation specialist, to make observations, take samples, and record details. Samples
should be collected during the household survey period, when information can be collected to
identify households for which the pit or tank is about to be emptied. The exact timing for
sample collection will be determined by the survey teams in discussion with pit emptiers.

Prior to collecting samples, the city teams need to identify suitable certified laboratories
capable of conducting the various tests required. Arrangements need to be made with the
laboratory or laboratories about:

 identification of samples;
 costs for sample analysis;
 delivery of samples;
 storage of the fecal sludge in appropriate conditions prior to analysis;
 confirmation of the sample size required;
 the choice of sample bottles to be used; and
 how and when results will be provided.

In addition, each city team needs to purchase suitable sterilized bottles for transport and
storage of fecal sludge samples, labels for identification of sample bottles, and protective
clothing (gloves, eye-protectors, masks, overalls and boots) for each member of the sample
collection teams. Sample collection teams need to receive some basic training, and gain
practical experience, in how to collect representative samples safely at each stage.

20
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Quality control and risk management

To minimise risks to the members of the sample collection team, each team member should
wear the protective clothing provided (gloves, eye protection, mask, overalls and boots).
Samples should be placed in sterile and secure sample bottles, correctly labelled for
identification. After collection, samples should be stored at below 4°C and analysed within 4-6
hours. If the time between collection and analysis exceeds 6 hours, the report of the analysis
should include information on the condition and duration of sample transport.

Each sample should be divided to provide duplicate results. Analyses of duplicate samples
are used to validate the precision, variation and repeatability of the analytical methods within a
laboratory. Results from the duplicate samples can be compared, and explanations sought for
any significant inconsistencies in the results obtained. Preparation of duplicate samples also
provides reassurance that a back-up sample is available in the event that one of the
duplicates is accidentally spilled, contaminated, or mistakes are made during analysis.

Data Management and analysis

Results from analysis of samples should be compiled using Excel spreadsheets. A separate
spreadsheet page should be used for data at each stage within a city. All observation results
would be on one spreadsheet page; all results for FS samples taken during emptying of a pit
would be on another spreadsheet page, etc.

All sampling points should be readily identifiable, with unique identification labels and
recorded GPS coordinates. If the laboratory has not been used before, it may be worth
sending initial samples for analysis to check that the laboratory staff and facilities are familiar
and able to handle all of the required procedures.

3.5 Key Informant Interviews

3.5.1 Introduction and objective

Key informant interviews (KIIs) are the way in which primary information will be sought to
address key questions about how both the ‘enabling environment’ and the operating
environment affects FSM services (past, current and future). KIIs with stakeholders having
responsibility or interest in FSM services at city-level and beyond will allow the enabling and
operating environments to be better understood in relation to the influence within the city, or to
wider spheres of influence – such as State or National legislation.

KIIs are also means to engage stakeholders in other aspects of the research process,
including to:

 clarify the purpose, objectives and interests of each stakeholder, in relation to current
FSM services and the likely outcomes of changes to those services;

 facilitate further data collection, including: providing specific documents/ ‘grey

literature’, granting access to localities, approving the sampling arrangements,
making contacts with other organizations/ individuals.

21
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

3.5.2 Methodology

KIIs will be held with a range of stakeholders who have a role or interest in FSM services
within the city. In summary, they are likely to include:

 City council/ Municipality/ Utility

 Government Ministries/ Departments with responsibility for: urban sanitation/ sewerage
(liquid waste), urban solid waste collection, urban water supply, urban planning,
environmental health/ protection, finance, economic development and agriculture.
 Service providers (private and/or public) covering: manual and mechanised emptying and
transportation services, public sector operation of FS treatment and disposal sites, private
sector operation of FS end-use sites (including re-use for agriculture and industry)
 NGOs and other ‘external’ agencies providing support to FS services. In this context,
‘external’ refers to individuals and agencies that are not service providers but have
interests related to FSM management and service delivery. In addition, key informants
could include those who are not key stakeholders (i.e. those with a direct interest or ‘stake’
in FSM services) but perhaps more ‘neutral’ or ‘objective’ observers of the sector,
including academics or researchers with expertise and relevant knowledge in FSM or, in
some cases, even the media.

Key Government staff: It is likely that key staff within a range of units/ offices with the
Municipality and different Directorates within government Ministries/ Departments will need to
be consulted, to ensure those met are in a position to respond to questions relating to the
different components of the research (and possibly to specific issues within them). Careful
identification and selection of individuals will need to be undertaken, to ensure reliable
information can be sought wherever possible, as well as diverse perspectives if relevant.

Service providers: Service providers will be interviewed as a means to identify both

qualitative and quantitative data relating to the provision of FSM services through the FS
service chain: from containment to end-use/ disposal.

While it would be ideal to interview all service providers operating within the city, up to a
maximum of 10 emptiers and a maximum of 5 providers of services for each of the other
stages (i.e. operators driving/ managing transport services, treatment/ disposal sites and
end-use facilities) may be more realistic. It is likely that manual emptiers – particularly
those that operate under informal conditions – will be identified through information gained
during household surveys and possibly from secondary reports already conducted in those,
or similar, neighbourhoods. Interviews with a range of both formal and information emptiers
will be sought.

A combination of open-ended and closed questions can be asked during the interview, to gain
better understanding of:

 qualitative aspects of the enabling environment, including: quality of services, engagement

with other stakeholders (regulation, reporting procedures), availability of technical options,
cost-recovering mechanisms and supporting facilities.
 quantitative aspects of service provision, including: demand, pricing, disposal locations,
obstacles, transport to disposal, volumes, equipment, staffing, investment plans, etc.

Further guidance on stakeholder mapping as a way to inform which questions to ask to which
stakeholders is included in Annex EE.

22
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Box 1 Discussions or interviews with emptiers and transporters of fecal sludge

Emptiers and drivers of vehicles are not necessarily the same people as the "owners" of those
vehicles (who are more likely to be engaged in the interviews). They have different interests,
opinions and knowledge, which is often missed during standard research processes.
Interviews (formal or less formal) are to be arranged and held with those directly involved in
the emptying and transportation of fecal sludge serving the informal settlements/ slum
communities sampled during the data collection. Manual emptiers, as well as those who
operate mechanised emptying equipment should be interviewed. Such discussions can help
to ensure that all stakeholders are consulted on questions of direct relevance and purpose to
the services they provide.
The topics that could specifically be discussed during these interviews are shown in the tables
in the Annex.

NGOs and other ‘external’ agencies: A range of ‘external’ agencies may be engaged in
FSM services within the city, such as academic institutions, donors, private investors or
consultants. In this context, ‘external’ refers to agencies that are not service providers, but
have interests related to FSM management and service delivery. They may be well placed to
contribute views on a range of issues affecting FSM services.

More ‘neutral’ key informants – i.e. those without a direct ‘stake’ or interest in FSM – are also
likely to be in a good position to help with an initial stakeholder mapping exercise. This can
both help identify key stakeholders to talk to in subsequent interviews as well as form the
basis to identify which specific components, sub-components and questions can be asked to
which public or private sector stakeholder, on issues where they have particular interest
and/or influence in relation to current and future FSM services.

3.5.3 Sampling

Key informants and stakeholders with different positions and perspectives bring their own sets
of interpretive biases and analysis. For some of the research questions, and particularly in
relation to the political economy analysis, there may be no single absolute truth and difference
of opinion (rather than standardisation) can be useful to understand. Trustworthiness in
interpretation can nonetheless be strengthened by cross-checking – or triangulating – the
views and analysis of different key informants (and focus groups). It is important to remember
that these may include people who might not normally be talked to, in order to ensure multiple
and different perspectives are gathered. It is critical that women are also interviewed and that
gender is recorded on all interview reports.

The total number of interviews required, as well as the range and extent of questioning, will
also be influenced by the availability of current and reliable data from other sources, as well as
constraints on time and resources.

The likely maximum number of interviews required, to gain all information sought, is
considered to be 40 interviews. The actual range of stakeholders and interviewees should be
determined following an initial stakeholder mapping activity and information gained during the
household survey.

The final list of stakeholders and proposed interviews should ensure appropriate
representation from a range of government ministries and service providers, as well as
external agencies. Representation of service providers through the FSM service chain should
reflect the percentage of roles and responsibilities that each plays in FSM for the study city

23
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

(e.g. in a city where manual emptiers are the dominant providers of emptying services, they
must account for the majority of those observed and interviewed during emptying and
transportation procedures; likewise, where private companies carry out mechanised emptying
and transportation services for most areas of the city, they should account for the majority of
providers observed and interviewed during emptying and transportation procedures).

The list of stakeholders may include the types of stakeholder outlined in Table 10, with an
indication of the sampling process.

Table 10 Sampling for different types of stakeholder

Stakeholder Sampling

City council / Municipal authority / Utility Purposive, at beginning

(Interview staff from offices of service delivery/
operations and planning/ strategy)
Ministry in charge of urban sanitation and Purposive, at beginning
sewerage (Interview staff from offices of service delivery/
operations and planning/ strategy)
Ministry in charge of urban solid waste Purposive, at beginning
(Interview staff from offices of service delivery/
operations and planning/ strategy)
Ministries in charge of urban planning, Purposive, at beginning
environmental protection/ health, finance (Interview staff from offices of service delivery/
and economic development, agriculture operations and planning/ strategy)
Containment SPs - Latrine / septic tank Purposive, based on advice of government key
installers informants and households (i.e. after HH survey)
Emptying/transport SPs - Manual emptiers Purposive, based on advice of key informants
/ tanker truck drivers (government, NGOs, individual experts) and
households (possibly only after HH survey)
Treatment SPs - treatment plant Purposive, based on advice of government key
manager/operator informants and households (i.e. after HH survey)
End-use/disposal SPs – current re-use Purposive, based on advice of government key
market participants, solid waste dump informants and households (i.e. after HH survey)
manager
Potential re-use market participants
External agencies associated with FSM Purposive.
services: e.g. academic institutions, In this context, ‘external’ refers to individuals and
donors, private investors, consultants agencies that are not service providers but have
interests related to FSM management and service
delivery.

3.5.4 Fieldwork

It is anticipated that one individual consultant, with experience in conducting interviews with a
broad range of stakeholders, will carry out the work. However, it is possible that on occasion it
may be deemed appropriate to have two people involved – one to facilitate the questions and
the other (or both) to take notes.

The length of interviews will vary, but on average may take approximately 1 hour.

24
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

It may help to phase the timing of interviews, to build-up the level of understanding about the
context and extent of FSM services in the City. This will depend to some extent on the existing
experience of the consultant and the existing relationships developed with the stakeholders
involved.

A proposed phasing of interviews, assuming no or little pre-existing knowledge and

relationship with the range of stakeholders, is outlined in the table.

Table 11 Phasing of interviews

1st set External agencies associated with FSM (to also feed into sampling of other sets of key
informants and stakeholders)
2nd set City council/ Municipality/ Utility
Ministry responsible for FSM (or urban sanitation and sewerage if no specific ownership
of FSM services)
Ministry responsible for solid waste management
3rd set Ministries responsible for:
 urban planning,
 environmental protection,
 health,
 finance and economic development,
 agriculture
4th set Emptying / transportation service providers (following household interviews)
Treatment plant / end-use / disposal site service providers

At the end of the interviews, if time and resources allow, it would be useful to cross check and
validate initial findings and analysis based on all the interviews to the 1st set of interviewees.

As outlined above, the identification, prioritisation and sampling of respondents (from

government, FSM service providers, etc.), will be based on an initial analysis of institutional
responsibilities and stakeholders using information from more ‘neutral’ FSM sector observers
– e.g. potentially academics, the media, researchers, etc. This will help identify key city (and
other) level stakeholders and the potential perspectives they may have, together with issues in
the FSM service chain that might be relevant to particular stakeholders. Use this analysis to
focus questions for particular respondents appropriately.

25
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Table 12 External agencies: issues to address during interviews

Component Issue Topics for discussion

- What are considered to be ‘appropriate’ FSM services within
the City and how this influences demand
- National/ City level factors affecting FSM services
- Institutional factors affecting public and private investment in
Political
FSM services
Economy
- Institutional responsibilities for, and relationships affecting,
Analysis
FSM services
(PEA)
- Stakeholders' interests, incentives and influence support/
constrain investment in FSM
- Decision-making processes that support/ constrain
appropriate FSM
- Actions taken by government in relation to demand creation
Mapping What affects
(promotional/ educational campaigns, subsidies, etc.),
customer existing
stimulating the private sector, enforcement of policy and
demand demand
standards
- Requirements to address improved services – given current
Potential
and future scenarios and FS characteristics – through the
solutions
Intervention service chain
options - What has previously worked well, or not worked well (in the
Effective
community)?
options
- Satisfaction with current end-use options

Quality control

KIIs should follow commonly adopted good practice, including:

 pre-arrange interviews, to ensure the most appropriate interviewee is available;

 select questions to ask, and ask them in such a way, that the interviewee is in a
position to answer ;
 interviews may be voice-recorded, but only with prior knowledge and permission of
the interviewee;
 follow-up the interview, to obtain further detail/ clarity if appropriate;
 provide a write-up of the interview, if requested.

If the interviewee invites other participants to join the interview, be aware of their
appropriateness to the subject matter and any possible disruption this may cause to the
exchange of information. If they have valid contributions to make to the interview, incorporate
these into the notes and clearly identify in the write-up who else participated in a broader
discussion, or observed the interview.

Comprehensive notes should be captured electronically – either during the interview itself
(typed directly into word document or similar), or within 24 hours of interview.

Key points relating to the main topic areas of the interview should be identified and
summarised, as soon as possible following the interview.

26
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Ethical considerations

The following points should be addressed, to ensure the collection of data meets with ethical
standards:
 State the purpose of the interview and use of findings, before starting.
 Offer anonymity – and ensure it is followed if requested.
 Only use a voice-recorder with prior knowledge and permission of the interviewee.
 Gain verbal permission to start the interview and note this on the interview write-up.
 Allow the interviewee to “pass” on specific questions.
 Provide a write-up of the interview, if requested.
 Indicate next steps, or possible follow up, if appropriate.

Data Management

A separate word document should be developed for each interview write-up. The document
file name and any original interview forms (hand-written) should have a unique code that
identifies the document. It could use for example, a coding for the City, type of Stakeholder
(e.g. Government/ Private Sector/ NGO/ Donor), if appropriate the Organization interviewed
(name of the institution, not the individual), date of the interview and, if necessary required a
unique number to distinguish the document from others.

Data Analysis

This will vary greatly depending on the objectives of the study. If developing a prognosis for
change, research questions will need to be developed before commencement of data
collection. Analysis would then aim to use the collected data to answer those questions. For
example, there may need to be an initial institutional mapping of responsibilities or a
stakeholder mapping of interests and influence in relation to FSM, undertaken early in the
process..

After the completion of all the interviews, the mappings can be revisited to ensure any
presentation or summary they present is an accurate reflection of the information from all
respondents (i.e. not just the initial information from external actors / agencies, or from a
particular set of other stakeholders).

A further institutional responsibility mapping should be completed to show the responsibilities

as they are actually undertaken – i.e. not the theoretical formal responsibilities but the
stakeholders who actually takes responsibility for FSM at the local level. This should also
include any stakeholders who do not have formal responsibilities but in practice undertake
particular activities of tasks.

Further stakeholder analysis should also be completed in more detail based on the
information from the whole range of key informants. It might be necessary to note and include
different perspectives in this in order to ensure readers are aware of any multiple perspectives
and the rational for each.

Process mapping can also be used to outline both how processes are meant to be undertaken
or implemented in theory, and how they actually occur in practice, together with reasons why
this is the case.

27
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

3.6 Focus Group Discussions

3.6.1 Introduction and objective

The objective of Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with residents of informal settlements/ slum
communities is to gather qualitative data that will compliment, validate, or perhaps challenge
responses made during the household survey. Questions will focus on obtaining information
relating to household practices (particularly identifying the practices of “others” as individuals
are reluctant to talk honesty about their own, or their family, practices), service levels, past
interventions, risks and other issues associated with FSM services that affect their community.
Topics to be covered during the FGDs and a proposed set of questions to be asked are
included in Annex FF.

Gender-disaggregated groups and information is required – which must be accounted for

during planning, running and collecting results from the FGDs.

3.6.2 Methodology

A draft FGD guide (including proposed questions to be asked) is included inAnnex F. The
questions should be adapted and reworded into appropriate vocabulary, as well as being
translated into the appropriate language to suit the local context and aid understanding.

Once translated, the questions should be pre-tested. This allows for the suitability and
acceptability of questions to be checked – as well as ensuring those running the FGDs clearly
understand the nature of each question. Appropriate modifications to the FGD questions can
then be made.

Team members must have appropriate experience and skills to both facilitate and write-up the
discussion during the FGDs (anticipated to be done separately by a team of 2 – see next
section). In most countries, women interviewers are required to interview women-only
FGDs, to enable women to talk more freely, about for example the issue of disposal of
menstrual hygiene products, who makes decisions on sanitation within the household, etc.

Appropriate approvals to conduct the FGDs should be sought, prior to running them. This will
be with individuals invited to participate as a minimum, but may also require approval from
officials representing affected communities and households (if deemed necessary).

3.6.3 Sampling

It is proposed that up to 10 FGDs are held with households from 10 randomly selected PSUs.
These may all be from ‘sub-sample B’ PSUs (from the total of 30 PSUs) which have been
purposively sampled from informal settlements / slum areas in the city, or from PSUs in both
sub-samples A and B.

Table 13 Sampling for focus groups

Activity Nº Sampling
FGDs with residents of slum/ 10 Purposive, accounting for gender-segregation of
low-income/ informal participants as a minimum (A small number of these FGDs
communities only, or from PSUs may be conducted with users of non-networked sanitation
in sub-samples A and B in higher and middle-income areas)

28
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

A range of perceptions, priorities, practices and challenges will face different residents,
depending on various factors. FGDs are a means by which participants can be selected for a
specific reason, as a way to help draw-out from the group issues particularly affecting different
‘types’ of residents in informal settlements.

As a minimum, at least half of the FGDs should be gender-segregated, to allow responses to

be disaggregated by gender. Other groups may be focused around different socio-economic
factors, to suit the characteristics of the population within the PSUs. For example:

- Vulnerability: all participants are elderly, disabled, or less able-bodied

- Household characteristics: all participants are tenants, or all are owner-occupiers,
or all are landlords
- Presence of a household latrine: all participants own a private household latrine, or
all manage a latrine that is shared by a number of families
- Use of shared, community, community or public toilets on a daily basis.
- Use of service providers for emptying: all participants have their latrines emptied by
manual operators, or all rely on mechanised services
- Type of latrine: all participants have simple pits, or all have septic tanks

3.6.4 Fieldwork model

FGDs can be run by teams of two people. One person will facilitate the discussion, while the
other person takes notes and observes non-verbal communication. Both team members
should have previous experience and suitable skills in running and/or documenting FGDs, as
well as technical knowledge in urban sanitation.

FGDs should only take place once household surveys and observational instruments have
been conducted, so that relevant individuals or groups can be identified and invited to
participate. Any ‘group selection’ would need careful discussion and agreement in advance, to
ensure it is appropriate and will be effective to the needs of the study.

FGDs should take place in a convenient, quiet and comfortable location for participants. The
availability and accessibility of women and other vulnerable groups must be considered when
planning all locations and times at which to hold the FGDs. FGDs typically last an hour or
more but the duration of each discussion may vary depending on the dynamic of the group
and number of participants. Participants should be notified of the expected duration and the
facilitator should ensure not to run over this time.

Focus groups are typically 5-10 participants however researchers need to anticipate likely ‘no-
shows’ and recruit accordingly, aiming for no more than 10 participants.

Quality control and risk management

The management of FGDs should follow commonly adopted good practice, including:

- pre-plan: select and invite the right participants;

- set an appropriate venue, time and duration;

- (re-) explain the purpose of the FGD at the start and gain approval from participants to
continue;

29
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

- seek agreement of ground rules with participants (one person speaks at a time,
everyone’s views are important, there are no right or wrong answers, etc.);

- only voice-record the FGD with prior knowledge and granted permission of ALL
participants;

- allow participants to opt-out or leave at any time;

- allow everyone the opportunity to participate and no-one to dominate;

- summarise key messages received with participants before ending;

- re-state what will happen to the data they have supplied.

As well as direct questioning, a range of participatory tools activities could be considered, to

facilitate good discussion during FGDs. These include: pocket-chart voting, mapping, buzz-
groups, using pictures/ diagrams, story-telling, matrix-ranking, process mapping, etc. Be
aware however that these activities take more time, need to be planned in advance and
careful facilitation to make them effective. A wide range of guidelines and notes are available
to help select appropriate activities.

Comprehensive notes should be captured electronically – either during the FGD itself (typed
directly into word document or similar), or within 24 hours of FGD. Where different languages
are used for the group discussion, note-taking and final write-up, the team needs to have
adequate language skills to ensure the quality and meaning of information being said,
captured and reported is maintained through the process.

Ethical considerations

The important ethics issues related to this study are described below.

Informed voluntary participation: Informed oral consent must be obtained from participants
before FGDs are run. Team members and FGD participants are to be informed about the
purpose, methods, risks, benefits and intended possible uses of the FGD results.

Right to refuse or withdraw: The participants will be informed that they are free to leave the
FGD at any point, or may refuse to answer any questions. They will also have the right to ask
questions at any point before, during or after the FGD is completed.

Confidentiality and privacy: No personal identifiers will be used in any form of reporting or
dissemination. Personal identifications will be linked with a unique identifier (e.g. id code) and
kept securely. No information will be published that could identify the respondents. Paper
copies of FGDs will be stored for three years in a secure location; only the study team should
be able to access them. Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed as it is a group setting but
participants are requested not to disclose details of what was discussed.

Risks and benefits: The risk of participation in the FGD is considered minimal as there will be
no collecting of any sensitive information or biological samples. The respondents will not be
directly benefited by participating, however the information that they will provide us may give
some important information to the policy makers to improve the overall water, sanitation and
hygiene condition of their country and they may eventually have an indirect benefit from that.

Payment: There will no compensation payment to the participants and nor will they have to
pay us to participate in the study. FGDs should be held in the target PSU to avoid any
participant transport costs.

30
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Data management and analysis

All details relating to the FGD, together with the discussion during each FGD, will be
adequately recorded by the note-taker. This may be done in hard copy or soft copy format.

A word document is to be prepared using a reporting template, to consistently capture the

significant issues raised during the FGDs against the main topic areas. This write-up should
include, where relevant, quotations, indication of strength of feeling around certain topics
(identify by, for example, a show-of-hands, or secret ballot), any ranking of significance of
issues conducted during the FGD.

All word documents are to be allocated a unique identification name/label that will clearly
identify the location of the FGD and nature of the group. Copies of original FGD write-ups (in
soft and/or hard copy) must be kept securely throughout the duration of the study.

31
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Annex A Household Survey questionnaire

[This Annex contains the generic household survey questionnaire used in the five-city study. It was
adapted to each city. Certain key questions which will definitely need adaptation are flagged in this
annex, with discussion of key things to think about.]

Diagnostics for Fecal Sludge

Management Services in Urban Areas

HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

Survey
PSU number HH Number
Component

Head of Household Name _______________________________________________________________

Address (Complete) ____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

32
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

A.1 Identification

N
GPS Coordinates
E

Respondent Name Name: _______________________________________

Landline: -
Contact Number
Cell:

A.2 Consent
Hello. My name is ________________________________ and I am from [[[[[survey firm]]]]]. I am here today
to conduct a survey on sanitation. Your household has been randomly selected for this survey. If you are
interested to participate in this survey we would ask you some questions on your households, its members
and characteristics and on sanitation aspects of your household. The interview would take approximately 60
minutes. The information you will be providing us will be confidential and only the researchers who are
involved in this will have access to it. Your participation is absolutely voluntary and you can withdraw from
the survey any time you want. You may also choose not to answer any questions. You will not have to pay
to participate in this survey; nor will we pay you. You will not directly benefit from this survey, however the
information that you will provide us may give some important information to the policy makers to improve the
overall water, sanitation and hygiene condition of this country and you may have an indirect benefit from
that.

B.1 Do you want to participate in our survey?

Yes.............. ........................................... 1
No .......................................................... 2

33
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

A.3 Survey Information

Name ___________________________________ Code

C.1 Interviewer
Signature ________________________________

C.2 Date of
Interview
Day Month Year 2014

C.3 Interview Start

In 24 Hours Format _____:_____
Time

Name ___________________________________ Code

C.4 Supervisor
Signature ________________________________

C.5 Data Editor Name ___________________________________ Code

C.6 Data Editing 2014

Day Month Year
Date

C.7 Data Entry Name ___________________________________ CODE

C.8 Data Entry Date Day Month Year 2014

34
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

D – Household members

1. Please list the people who usually live and eat in your household and their ages, starting
from the youngest child.
age Number of
persons
<1
1-5
5-15
15-50
>50

2. What is the gender of the household head?

a. Male – the respondent is head
b. Male – not the respondent
c. Female – the respondent is head
d. Female – not the respondent

3. What is the highest level of education of the household head?

a. No formal education 00
b. Class 1 01
c. Class 2 02
d. Class 3 03
e. Class 4 04
f. Class 5 05
g. Class 6 06
h. Class 7 07
i. Class 8 08
j. Class 9 09
k. Class 10 10
l. Class 12 12
m. Graduate 13
n. Masters 16
o. Don’t know 98

4. (Enumerator explains what diarrhoea is, using local terms) Have children under five in the
household had diarrhoea in the past 2 weeks?
# Circle answer
Child A Yes No n/a
Child B Yes No n/a
Child C Yes No n/a
Child D Yes No n/a

35
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

5. For any of these occurrences of diarrhoea in children in the last 2 weeks, did you seek advice
or treatment from any source?
• Yes, hospital or health centre
• Yes, shop or pharmacy
• Yes, traditional healer
• No

6. (Enumerator explains what an episode is) Have you yourself had any episodes of diarrhoea
in the past 2 weeks?
• None
• One
• Two
• Three
• More than three

7. How much did you spend in total on treatment for diarrhoea for all household members during
the last 2 weeks, in each of these categories?

Fees Medicines Transport to facility

Expenditure in
local currency

8. Do you consider that any household members have disabilities?

a. Yes
b. No --> skip

9. How would you describe the main disability of the most disabled household member?
c. 01 = Hearing impairment
d. 02 = Deafness
e. 03 = Visual impairment
f. 04 = Blindness
g. 05 = Mobility Impairment
h. 06 = Housebound
i. 07 = Upper Limb Impairment
j. 08 = Speech Impairment
k. 09 = Learning Difficulties
l. 10 = Mental Impairment

36
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

E - Household Characteristics
[Many of these variables in this section are used in the construction of a wealth index (i.e. wealth
quintiles) if such an analysis is required. The variables used in the most recent Demographic and
Health Survey should be taken as a guide, and the same methodology ideally followed as the gold
standard.]
E 01 How many rooms in this household are used for
sleeping?
Enter the Number of Rooms that are used
for Sleeping

E 02 What kind of building does the household occupy? private residence (single-storey) ..... 1
private residence (multi-storey) ........ 2
shared residence (in single-storey
building) ........................................... 3
shared residence ( in multi-storey
building) ........................................... 4
Other (specify) ................................. 5

E 03 Is this house/residence owned, rented, rent-free, Owned ............................................. 1

or mortgaged by a member of the household? Rented ............................................. 2
Rent Free ......................................... 3
Mortgaged ........................................ 4
Others (Specify) .............................. 7

E 04 If rented, how much is the rent, calculated per

calendar month?
WORK IT OUT IF NECESSARY
Don’t know......................................9998

E 05 How long have you/ members of your household

been living on this location/plot?
Record in Completed Years
If under one year write 00

E 06 What is the main material of / on the floor in the Earth/ sand/ mud ............................ 01
main room? Stone chips in concrete (terrazzo) .. 02
Ceramic tiles .................................. 03
RECORD OBSERVATION
Marble ............................................ 04
Cement .......................................... 05
Carpet ............................................ 06
Bricks ............................................. 07
Mats ............................................... 08
Others (Specify) ............................. 77

E 07 What is the main material of the roof? Thatch/ bamboo/ wood/ mud .......... 01
Cardboard/ plastic .......................... 02
RECORD OBSERVATION
Iron sheets/ asbestos ..................... 03
T-iron/ wood/ brick.......................... 04
Reinforced brick/ cement................ 05
Others (Specify) ............................. 77

37
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

E 08 What is the main material of the walls? Mud/ stones ................................... 01

Bamboo/ stick/ mud........................ 02
RECORD OBSERVATION
Unbacked bricks/ mud ................... 03
Plywood sheets .............................. 04
Carton/ plastic ................................ 05
Stone blocks .................................. 06
Baked bricks .................................. 07
Cement blocks/ cement .................. 08
Tent................................................ 09
Others (Specify) ............................. 77

E 09 Does your household have the following? Item Yes……No

a. Electricity 1 ..........2

b. Radio 1 ..........2

c. Television 1 ..........2

d. Refrigerator 1 ..........2

e. Telephone (Landline) 1 ..........2

f. Room Cooler 1 ..........2

g. Air Conditioner 1 ..........2

h. Washing Machine 1 ..........2

i. Water Pump 1 ..........2

j. Bed 1 ..........2

k. Chairs 1 ..........2

l. Cabinet 1 ..........2

m. Clock 1 ..........2

n. Sofa 1 ..........2

o. Sewing Machine 1 ..........2

p. Camera 1 ..........2

q. Personal Computer 1 ..........2

r. Watch 1 ..........2

s. Bicycle 1 ..........2

t. Motorcycle / Scooter 1 ..........2

u. Animal Drawn Cart 1 ..........2

v. Car 1 ..........2

38
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

w. Truck 1 ..........2

x. Boat with Motor 1 ..........2

E 10 What type of fuel does your household mainly use Electricity .............................................. 01
for cooking? Cylinder gas .......................................... 02
Natural gas ........................................... 03
Solar power ........................................... 04
Biogas ................................................... 05
Kerosene .............................................. 06
Charcoal ............................................... 07
Wood .................................................... 08
Straw/ Shrubs/ Grass............................ 09
Agricultural crop .................................... 10
Animal dung .......................................... 11
No food cooked in household ............... 12
Others (Specify) .................................... 77

E 11 Does any member of this household have a bank

account? Yes................................................... 1
No .................................................... 2

39
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

F - Use of water and sanitation infrastructure

1. What is the main source of drinking-water for members of your household?

o Piped into dwelling
o Piped to yard/plot
o Public tap/ standpipe
o Tube well/ borehole
o Protected dug well
o Unprotected dug well
o Protected spring
o Unprotected spring
o Rainwater collection
o Bottled water /gallon container and dispenser
o Refilled bottled water
o Cart with small tank/ drum
o Tanker-truck
o Surface Water (river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal, irrigation channels)
o Others (specify)

[F1 should ideally follow the latest guidance of the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme, adapted to the country if necessary but still allowing combination or separation of
categories so as to be reconciled to the JMP categories. This is crucial for ease of comparison
to other data (e.g. DHS, MICS, census)]

2. On average, how long does it take to travel to this water point?

[Record time to travel (one way) to WP in minutes]
[skipped if on premises]

3. On average, how long do you / the household member have to wait in the queue to get
water?
[Record waiting time in minutes]
[skipped if on premises]

4. What kind of toilet facility do members of your household usually use?

o Automatic cistern Flush
o Pour/manual flush
o Ventilated improved pit latrine
o Pit latrine with slab
o Pit latrine without slab/open pit
o Composting toilet
o Bucket
o Hanging toilet/hanging latrine
o Others (specify)
o No facilities or bush or field, --> skip to xx

[See note on question F1. In addition, skipping patterns are to be devised by the survey
designer in each city]

5. Where do the contents of this toilet discharge to?

o Piped sewer system
o Fully-lined septic tank with soakaway
o Fully-lined septic tank with overflow to drain / open ground / other
o Partially-lined septic tank (bottom and/or sides unlined)
o Fully-lined pit
o Pit with unlined bottom or sides

40
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

o Directly to open drain / ditch

o Directly to sea, lake or river
o Directly to open ground
o Others (specify)
o DK

[F5 is the most crucial question in the survey. It aims to establish two things: (i) whether
the technology is “emptiable” (e.g. toilets which discharge directly to drains do not contain
excreta and are not emptiable), and (ii) whether the technology safely contains excreta or
allows it to leach into the environment via unlined bottom/sides or an overflow. It is highly
context-specific as to which categories are seen as acceptable/unacceptable in a given city,
depending on many variables (e.g. population density, groundwater levels, whether anyone is
drinking groundwater etc.)The categories used will be highly context-specific, depending on
the prevalent septic tank or pit technologies in the city. It will be important not to have too
many categories, however, to avoid confusing the enumerators, who are unlikely to be
sanitation experts. Extensive debate within the study team should take place about how
different categories are to be interpreted, with use of pictures, before the enumerators are
trained.]

6. At home, where do you dispose of waste water from kitchen, bathing and/or laundry?
a. Piped sewer system
b. Fully-lined septic tank with soakaway
c. Fully-lined septic tank with overflow to drain / open ground / other
d. Partially-lined septic tank (bottom and/or sides unlined)
e. Fully-lined pit
f. Pit with unlined bottom or sides
g. Directly to open drain / ditch
h. Directly to sea, lake or river
i. Directly to open ground
j. Others (specify)
k. DK

[this should be the same categories as the previous question]

7. How are the stools of children < 3 years usually disposed of?
o Child used toilet/latrine
o Put/rinsed into toilet or latrine
o Put/rinsed into drain or ditch
o Thrown into garbage
o Buried
o Left in the open
o Others (Specify)
o No Child under-3 / Don’t Know

G – Use of the toilet

1. Consider the toilet you mentioned in the last section, do you share this toilet with other
households?
o Yes
o No
o Open Defecation --> skip

2. How many other households share this toilet?

o [enter number]
o DK

41
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

3. How many people use this toilet regularly?

o 1-5
o 6-10
o 11-15
o 16-20
o 21-30
o >30
o DK

4. Can any member of the public use this toilet?

o Yes
o No

5. Where is this toilet located?

o Inside the household or compound
o Outside the household or compound

6. Do you have to pay to use this toilet?

o No --> skip
o Yes, pay per use (public)
o Yes, weekly payment (communal not public)
o Yes, monthly payment (communal not public)
o Others (specify)

7. How much do you pay in this frequency?

[Insert number]

8. How long does it take on average, to use the toilet (walk there, queue, use, walk
back)?
o [insert time in minutes]

9. How many times do you do this per day?

o [insert number]

10. Who manages this toilet?

o This Household
o Neighbour
o Landlord
o NGO / CBO
o Private provider
o Government
o Nobody in charge
o Other
o DK

11. Enumerator - place the toilet in one of these categories based on the answers
o On plot – Household private --> carry on
o On plot – Shared --> carry on
o Off plot – Communal --> skip to X
o Off plot – Public --> skip to X

42
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

H – Usability and observation

1. Is it currently operational / useable?

o Yes
o No

2. If no, why is it not operational / useable?

o Full / waiting to be emptied
o Collapsed (fully or partially)
o Blocked
o Other
o DK

3. May I see the toilet?

o Yes
o No --> skip
o Public/neighbour’s toilet --> skip

4. OBSERVATION (ask Q if not possible) – Is the toilet operational / useable?

o Yes
o No --> skip to xx

5. OBSERVATION (ask Q if not possible) – Does it have a water seal?

o Yes/no

6. OBSERVATION (ask Q if not possible) – Does it have a cleanable slab?

o Yes/no

7. OBSERVATION (ask Q if not possible) – What is the material of the superstructure?

o Brick – or other permanent material
o Wood / bamboo / cloth – or other semi-permanent materials
o No superstructure

8. OBSERVATION (ask Q if not possible) – Does it have a roof?

o Yes/no

9. OBSERVATION (ask Q if not possible) – Does it have a curtain, door or other

materials that provides privacy?
o Yes/no

10. OBSERVATION (ask Q if not possible) – Is the floor or slab contaminated with faeces
or urine?
o Feces only, or feces and urine, visible
o Urine only visible (no feces)
o No feces or urine visible

11. OBSERVATION (ask Q if not possible) – Can emptying equipment get access?
o Poor access, only accessible to hand-carried emptying equipment
o Reasonable access for small (manual or mechanised) emptying equipment
o Good access for medium/large size (mechanised) emptying equipment

12. OBSERVATION (ask Q if not possible) – Is there an access point/hatch for emptying?
o Yes, purpose built hatch for easy access
o Yes, but squatting plate must be removed
o No, slab must be broken for access

43
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

[for toilets no longer in use]

13. OBSERVATION (ask Q if not possible) – has the pit been sealed and covered?
o Yes
o No
o DK

I - Satisfaction and planning

1. Please rate your satisfaction level for the following aspects of the sanitation facilities of
your household?

Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very

dissatisfied
Quality of construction
Ease of access
Privacy
Cleanliness

2. Are you planning to improve your sanitation arrangements in the next 1 year?
o No, we have no plans
o Yes, plan to build a new toilet
o Yes, plan to upgrade a toilet
o Yes, others (Specify)
o DK

3. What is the biggest challenge to improving your sanitation arrangements in this way?
o Lack of finance
o Lack of knowledge on how to do this
o Lack of interest of other household members
o Lack of skilled people to construct
o Landlord does not want to invest
o Others (Specify)
o Don’t Know

4. How many years ago was this toilet built?

o [Enter Number of Years]
o DK

5. If your household spent money to build the toilet, how much did you spend at the time
when it was built? (include materials and labour)
o [Enter amount in local currency]
o No expenses
o DK

J – Payment for other services

1. Do you pay for your water supply?

o Yes
o No --> skip
o DK

2. Whom do you pay for water?

o Local government

44
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

o Utility company
o Standpipe manager
o Tanker truck manager
o Water vendor
o Neighbour
o Others (Specify)

3. How often do you pay for water?

o Daily / On delivery
o Weekly
o Monthly
o Quarterly
o Biannually
o Yearly
o Others (Specify)

4. How much do you usually pay for water in this frequency?

o [Enter Amount in Local Currency]
o [if on delivery, e.g. by the jerry can, then put the total paid per day, on average]

5. How would you rate the cost of the water for your household?
o Very cheap
o Inexpensive
o Expensive
o Very expensive
o DK/ No comment

6. In the last year, did your household have expenses to pay in relation to the toilet
discussed in the previous section?
o Yes
o No
o DK

7. What were the expenses for?

o Repairs to toilet bowl / mechanism / plumbing / slab
o Repairs to toilet room / superstructure
o Fixing drainage problems
o Emptying of septic tank/pit
o Others (specify)
o DK

8. How much were total expenses during the last 12 months?

o [amount in local currency]

9. What is the primary means of solid waste disposal for your household?
o Stored at household and collected by a company, the community or others
o Stored at a public place and collected by a company, the community or others
o Kept within the compound – put in a hole
o Kept within the compound – put on the ground
o Kept within the compound – put into pit latrine
o Burned within or outside the compound
o Taken outside the compound to a disposal site by household members
o Taken outside the compound to river/stream/canal/pond
o Taken outside the compound to gutter/ditch/along the road
o Taken outside premise elsewhere

45
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

10. If any, how much do you pay per month for solid waste collection?
o [enter local currency] – put zero if nothing
o DK

11. Coming back to your toilet, we have questions about where the faeces and urine go,
and pit/tank emptying – can you answer these or can someone else?
o Me --> continue to next section
o Someone else who is nearby --> go and find the person accompanied by
respondent
o Someone else who is not nearby --> END

K – Filling up and emptying

1. Who is now responding?

a. Same respondent
b. Neighbour
c. Landlord
d. Caretaker of building
e. Other (specify)

2. If this toilet empties to a pit or septic tank, has it ever filled up?
o Yes
o No --> skip
o DK --> skip
o N/A --> skip

3. In the last 5 years, how many times has it filled up?

o [enter number]
o DK

4. Has the toilet ever overflowed?

o Yes
o No
o DK

5. If yes, what was the reason for this? (circle all that apply)
o Blocked
o Flooded with rising water table (from below ground)
o Flooded by surface water / storm water (from above ground)
o No money to empty
o Emptiers not available when needed
o Others
o DK

6. What did you do when the pit or septic tank filled-up last time?
o Emptied and reused pit/tank
o Abandoned and pit/tank unsealed --> skip to xx
o Abandoned with sealed cover on pit/tank
o Covered and used alternative pit --> skip to xx
o Others (Specify) --> skip to xx
o DK--> skip to xx

46
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

7. Has the pit or septic tank been emptied in the last 5 years?
o Yes
o No --> skip to xx
o DK --> skip to xx

8. On average, how many years does it take for the emptied toilet to be full again?
o [Enter number, 0 for less than 1 year, 99 for DK]

9. Next time the toilet fills up, what do you intend to do?
o Empty by member of household
o Empty by private individual or company
o Cover and seal pit
o Abandon toilet without covering / seal

L - Last time emptying

1. Last time it was emptied, who did the emptying?

o Member of household
o Neighbour
o Informal provider (individual)
o Formal provider (company / NGO)
o Formal provider (utility)
o Others (specify)

2. How was it emptied?

o By hand, using buckets or similar
o By hand, using manual pump
o Mechanically, using small machine
o Mechanically, using tanker truck

3. What was it emptied into?

o Directly into drain / water body / field
o Into a pit on the compound that is then covered
o Into a pit on the compound that is left open
o Directly into drum / open container
o Directly into machine / tanker

4. Please rate your satisfaction level with that service provider in terms of:

Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very

dissatisfied

Price
Overall service quality
Safety
Ease of obtaining service

5. Did you pay for the pit to be emptied?

o Yes
o No
o DK

6. How much did you pay in total?

o [Insert number]

47
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

7. How was the payment calculated?

o Flat rate
o Cost per volume removed

8. Did you pay in instalments?

o No, paid full amount
o Yes, two
o Yes, three
o Yes, more than three

9. Was this was a fair price?

o Too high
o About fair
o Quite cheap

10. Did the emptier face difficulties in getting their equipment to your toilet, such as lack of
space, poor road conditions etc.?
o Yes
o No --> skip
o DK

11. What kind of difficulties did they face? [circle all that apply]

Reason
Street o Lack of space
o Poor road condition
o Night-time working
o Others
Compound o Entrance / gate too narrow
o Lack of space for equipment once inside
o Poor surface conditions
o Night-time working
o Others
Toilet o Distance too far for equipment to reach the toilet
o Access point too small to get equipment into the pit
o Had to break/damage the slab to gain access
o Had to remove/damaged latrine pan, or seat
o Collapsed pit
o Others

A.4 End of Interview

O.1
In 24 Hours Format _____:_____
Interview End Time

48
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Completed .......................................................... 1
Incomplete .......................................................... 2
O.2
Refused .............................................................. 3
Interview Result No household member at home ......................... 4
Household not found .......................................... 5
Others (Specify) ................................................. 7

O.3
Interviewer’s Comments

49
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Annex B Observation of service providers

General household information

General household information

City: Location: Date:

GPS coordinates:

Type of service
Economic status: High-income  Mechanised 
provided:
Middle-income  Manual 
Low-income 

Condition of access Accessible to hand-carried Type of latrine / Dry latrine Latrine with
  
to the property: emptying equipment only containment: with pit septic tank
Reasonable access for small
Pour-flush WC connected
(manual or mechanised) emptying   
latrine with pit to sewer
equipment
Good access for medium/large
size (mechanised) emptying  Twin-pit:  Other (specify):
equipment

B.1 Containment
Risks associated with storage or containment of fecal sludge at the household level

Identifying Code:
City: Location:
GPS coordinates: Date:

Nº Question Response Comment

Are there flying or crawling insects (e.g.
1
flies, maggots) in the super structure?
 Many insects visible
 Only a few insects visible
 No insects visible
 Other (specify):
 DK
Are there flying or crawling insects (e.g.
2 flies, maggots) visible outside of the
latrine - in the compound?
 Many insects visible
 Only a few insects visible
 No insects visible
 Other (specify):
 DK
Is feces or urine visible on the ground
3
around the latrine?

50
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Feces only, or feces and urine, visible


around the latrine
Urine only visible (no feces), around the

latrine
 No feces or urine visible around the latrine
 Other (specify):
 DK
Is the pit/ tank/ soakaway covered and
4
the cover slab sealed well?
 Not covered
 Covered but not sealed well
 Covered and sealed well
 Other (specify):
 DK
Is the pit/ tank/ soakaway full,
5 overflowing or allowing waste to leak
onto the ground?
 Overflowing or leaking
 Full, but not overflowing or leaking
 Not full or leaking
 Other (specify):
 DK
Is the discharge from the latrine pan
contained (e.g. in a pit/ tank/
soakaway), or is there visible discharge
6
in the immediate environment (e.g. on
open land in the property, or in an open
channel)?
Discharge not contained - visible

discharge on the property
Discharge not contained - visible

discharge to an open channel
 Discharge contained - no visible discharge
 Other (specify):
 DK
Is the connecting pipework blocked or
damaged, with signs of effluent leaking
7 into the immediate environment (e.g. on
open land in the property, or in an open
channel)?
Pipework damaged or blocked and signs

of leaking
Pipework damaged or blocked but no sign

of leaking
Pipework not damaged or blocked and no

sign of leakage
 Other (specify):
 DK
Is there evidence that the septic tank
8
needs desludging?
Septic tank full/ overflowing and in need of

desludging immediately
Septic tank not full/overflowing but likely to

need desludging soon

51
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Septic tank not full/overflowing and


unlikely to need desludging soon
 Other (specify):
 DK
Is there evidence that the latrine has
9
overflowed before?
Strong evidence of overflow, with excreta

still visible
Some evidence of overflow, but excreta

not that visible
 No evidence of overflow
 Other (specify):
 DK

B.2 Emptying
Risks associated with removing fecal sludge

Identifying Code:
City: Location:
GPS coordinates: Date:

Nº Question Response Comments

Does the emptying procedure leave
1 fresh fecal sludge exposed in the
compound?
Getting access results in significant amounts
 of fecal contamination of the surrounding
area
Getting access results in small amounts of

fecal contamination of the surrounding area
Getting access does not result in fecal

contamination of the surrounding area

 Other (specify):

 DK

How close are the emptying activities

2
to a groundwater source?
Close enough (less than 5 metres) to

present a direct risk from any spillages
Close enough (between 5 and 10 metres) to

present an indirect risk from any spillages
Far enough (more than 10 metres) to
 present negligible or no risk, or no source
present
 Other (specify):

 DK

52
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

If fecal sludge is not transported

away (e.g. it is buried on-site or
3
discharged into a drain), how safely
is this done?
Fecal sludge is disposed on-site, with direct

exposure (e.g. to an open pit, blocked drain)
Fecal sludge is disposed on-site, with
 possible re-exposure (e.g. to a partially
covered pit, damaged drain, watercourse)
Fecal sludge is disposed on-site, with no
 direct risk of re-exposure (e.g. to a fully
covered/ sealed pit, covered drain)
 Other (specify):

 DK

B.3 Transportation
Risks associated with transport practices

Identifying Code:
City: Location:
GPS coordinates: Date:

Comm
Nº Question Response
ents
During the transport of fecal sludge, does
1 sludge spill into the surrounding
environment?
Sludge spillage occurs along the route at

various times
Slight sludge spillage occurs at specific times

(e.g. going down slopes or over rough ground)
No spillage occurs: equipment contains all of

the sludge during transport

Other (specify):

DK

If spillage occurs, does it contaminate a

2
water source?
Spillage occurs directly into, or immediately

next to, a water source

Spillage occurs within 10m of a water source

Spillage occurs more than 10m from a water


source

Other (specify):

DK

53
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

If spillage contaminates a water source:

3
what type of water source is it?

River

Drain

Well (used as a water source)

Pond

Other (specify):

DK

B.4 Treatment
Risks associated with the treatment process

Identifying Code:
City: Location:
GPS coordinates: Date:

Nº Question Response Comments

During discharge or unloading at the
treatment works, does the fecal sludge
1
splash or spill onto the surrounding
environment?
Splashing or spillage of sludge occurs

frequently during discharge or unloading
Splashing or spillage of sludge occurs

occasionally during discharge or unloading
Splashing or spillage of sludge does not

occur during discharge or unloading

 Other (specify):

 DK

How close are the emptying activities to

2
a groundwater source?

Close enough (less than 5 metres) to


present a direct risk from any spillages
Close enough (between 5 and 10 metres)
 to present an indirect risk from any
spillages
Far enough (more than 10 metres) to
 present negligible or no risk, or no source
present
 Other (specify):

54
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

 DK

How close are the emptying activities to

3
a stormwater drainage channel?
Close enough (less than 5 metres) to

present a direct risk from any spillages
Close enough (between 5 and 10 metres)
 to present an indirect risk from any
spillages
Far enough (more than 10 metres) to
 present negligible or no risk, or no source
present
 Other (specify):

 DK
Are precautions in place to contain
liquid or solid wastes (e.g. leachate or
4 dust) from FS treatment, and to prevent
their release into the surrounding
environment?
No precautions in place to contain liquid
 and/or solid wastes, or to prevent their
release into the environment.
Some precautions in place to contain liquid
 and/or solid wastes. Release into the
environment may occur.
Precautions in place to contain liquid and/or
 solid wastes, and to prevent their release
into the environment.
 Other (specify):

 DK
Could treatment result in liquid or solid
wastes (e.g. leachate or dust) being
5
released into the surrounding
environment?
Liquid and/or solid wastes may regularly be

discharged into the environment.
Liquid and/or solid wastes may occasionally

be discharged into the environment.
Liquid and/or solid wastes cannot be

discharged into the environment.
 Other (specify):

 DK

55
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

B.5 Disposal
Risks associated with disposal sites

Identifying Code:
City: Location:
GPS coordinates: Date:

Nº Question Response Comments

If fecal sludge is disposed of without
treatment, (e.g. it is buried or
1
discharged into a drain), how is this
done?
Fecal sludge is disposed with direct risk of re-

exposure (e.g. to an open pit, blocked drain)
Fecal sludge is disposed with possible re-
 exposure (e.g. to a partially covered pit,
damaged drain, watercourse)
Fecal sludge is disposed with no direct risk of
 re-exposure (e.g. to a fully covered/ sealed pit,
covered drain)
 Other (specify):

 DK
Do people, animals or insects come
2 into direct contact with fecal sludge
following disposal?
People, animals and insects come into direct

contact with fecal sludge
People, animals and insects may come into

contact with fecal sludge - but limited
No people, animals or insects are likely to

come into contact with faecal sludge

 Other (specify):

 DK

How close is the disposal area to a

3
groundwater source or waterpoint?
Close enough (less than 5 metres) to present

a direct risk from the disposal point
Close enough (between 5 and 10 metres) to

present an indirect risk from the disposal point
Far enough (more than 10 metres) to present
 negligible or no risk, or no groundwater
source/waterpoint present
 Other (specify):

 DK

How close is the disposal area to a

4
river or stream?

56
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Close enough (less than 5 metres) to present


a direct risk from the disposal point
Close enough (between 5 and 10 metres) to

present an indirect risk from the disposal point
Far enough (more than 10 metres) to present
 negligible or no risk, or no surface water
source present
 Other (specify):

 DK

Do people come into direct contact

5 with surface water contaminated by
the disposal of fecal sludge?
People come into direct contact with the
 contaminated surface water (e.g. swimming,
washing clothes, bathing)
People have indirect exposure to
 contaminated surface water (e.g. washing
vehicles away from the water course)
No people are likely to come into contact with

contaminated surface water
 Other (specify):

 DK
Is there evidence that liquid or solid
wastes from FS disposal are
6
released into the surrounding
environment?
There is evidence that liquid and/or solid
 wastes are regularly discharged into the
environment.
There is evidence that liquid and/or solid
 wastes are occasionally discharged into the
environment.
There is evidence that liquid and/or solid
 wastes are not discharged into the
environment.
 Other (specify):

 DK

57
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

B.6 End use

Risks associated with end-use processes/practices

Identifying Code:
City: Location:
GPS coordinates: Date:

Nº Question Response
If fecal sludge is applied to
1
agricultural land, is it treated first?
Fecal sludge is fully treated before being applied

to land
Fecal sludge is partially treated before being

applied to land
Fecal sludge is not treated before being applied to

land
Other (specify):

DK

If fecal sludge is applied to

2
agricultural land, how is it applied?
The treated sludge is spread over the ground

surface
The treated sludge is spread over the ground

surface, and then ploughed into the soil
The treated sludge is applied below the ground

surface, or covered over with a layer of soil
Other (specify):

DK
If fecal sludge is applied to
3 agricultural land, what type of
crops are grown?
Salad crops that are eaten uncooked

Vegetable crops that are cooked before eating

Fruit trees, cereal crops, and crops not for human
 consumption (e.g. flowers, grass, crops for animal
feed)
Other (specify):

DK
If fecal sludge is applied to
agricultural land, at what stage
4
during the growing season is it
applied?

58
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Shortly before crops are harvested

During the crop growing period

Shortly before or just after the crop is planted

Other (specify):

DK

59
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Annex C Transect walk record sheet

In Table 1, the final “score” for each of the categories will be the average of the general conditions found in the community.
As you walk around, place ticks against the descriptions that best describe examples of what you see. At the end of the transect walk, decide what the
average of all the ticks should be for each of the categories and mark this clearly with a score of 1 to 5.

When a particularly high risk situation (conditions 4 or 5) is seen, make a note of this in Table 1 (column on the right) for relevant categories (1, 4, 5a, 5b
and 8). In each case, ask local people how frequently this situation occurs.
Make a note of the frequency in Table 1 (far right column) and complete details in Table 2 for the most significant locations and risks.

When you have finished the transect walk, ask some community members the questions in Table 3.

City: ______________________ Location: __________________

GPS coordinates at start: ______________________ Date: __________________

Economic status (Tick the appropriate response) High-income 1

of the area Middle-income 2
Low-income 3

Is the area at risk of flooding? __________________________________ Weather conditions on the day: ________________

Brief description of the

community 1

1 In less than 100 words, summarise:

- relatively recent changes (in the last 10 years) in the development of the area,
- the extent of residential, commercial/private and public infrastructure (i.e. residential housing, shops, businesses, schools, mosques, markets, etc.),
- the main types of housing found in the area,
- the main types of economic activity that take place in the area and the main employment of people living in the area.

60
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Table 1: General conditions

How often does this
Location(s) risk occur?
where high risk (Ask the community
is seen for information)
Category Description of observed risks Score
Annually = 1
Complete details Monthly = 2
in Table 2 Weekly = 3
Daily = 4
Limited drainage infrastructure. Standing storm water and/or greywater is visible on the
5
ground, close to homes or water points
1. Drainage (storm
water and Limited drainage infrastructure, with signs of storm water and/or greywater having
overflowed recently close to homes or water points
4
greywater¹).
Limited drainage infrastructure,, but with no signs of having overflowed close to homes or
3
Describe the water points
condition of the Drainage channels in a poor condition directing storm water and/or greywater away from
drainage structure 2
homes and water points

Drainage channels, well maintained and adequate to take flows. 1

¹ Note: Greywater is domestic wastewater that does not include toilet wastes, and does not contain visible fecal materials.

Limited sewer infrastructure with visible standing blackwater close to homes or water
5
2. Sewerage points.
(blackwater²) Broken sewer pipes close to homes or water points, with signs of having overflowed
4
recently.
Describe where
you see, or Broken sewer pipes close to homes or water points, but with no signs of having overflowed 3
identify, that
blackwater is Piped sewers with signs of some leakage or blockages. 2
entering into the
environment
Adequate and well maintained piped sewers, with no signs of leakage or blockages. 1

² Note: Blackwater is domestic wastewater that includes toilet wastes, and contains visible fecal materials.

61
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

No piped water supply to households or public water points are identified 5

No piped water supply to households, but water is available from public standposts,
4
vendors, private wells or boreholes.
3. Access to water Some piped water supply to households, or boreholes. Other water is available from public
points
3
standposts or vendors.
Intermittent piped water supply to all or most households. Water from vendors may also be
2
available.
Continuous piped water supplies to public standposts, on-plot or in-house. Water from
1
vendors may also be available.

Piles of solid waste are accumulating in many sites, close to where people live and work,
5
and at times are obstructing drainage or irrigation channels.
Piles of solid waste are accumulating in three or more sites, close to where people live and
4
work, but are not obstructing drainage or irrigation channels.
4. Evidence of Piles of solid waste are accumulating in one or two sites, but away from where people live
solid wastes
3
and work.
Waste bins or enclosures are provided for solid waste collection, but the number of bins is
2
inadequate and overflow is evident.

An adequate number of waste bins or enclosures are provided, with no overflow evident. 1

If people will be
Frequent visible, widespread evidence of human feces is seen. 5 offended by this
question, do not ask it
If people will be
5a. Evidence of Visible evidence of human feces is seen, but limited to a few locations. 4 offended by this
human fecal question, do not ask it
materials –
through open Human feces are seen one or two times, but in places away from the population. 3
defecation4
Possible evidence of human feces is seen, mixed with solid waste. 2

No visible evidence of human feces through open defecation is seen. 1

4 Note: Open defecation is when people defecate directly in the environment, rather than defecating in a latrine with a pit or septic tank.

62
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Frequent visible and widespread evidence of dumped fecal sludge is seen. 5

5b. Evidence of Visible evidence of dumped fecal sludge is seen, but limited to a few locations. 4
human fecal
materials – Dumped fecal sludge is seen one or two times, but in places away from the population. 3
through dumped
fecal sludge5 Possible evidence of fecal sludge is seen, mixed with solid waste. 2

No visible evidence of dumped fecal sludge is seen. 1

5 Note: Fecal sludge may be dumped into the environment when the contents of septic tank/ pit waste is emptied manually.

Frequent visible and widespread evidence of animal feces is seen. 5

Visible evidence of animal feces is seen, limited to a few locations. 4

6. Evidence of
animal fecal Animal feces are seen one or two times, but in places away from the population. 3
materials
Possible evidence of animal feces is seen, mixed with solid waste. 2

No visible evidence of animal feces is seen. 1

7. Coverage of Less than 25% of households have access to a household toilet.

The majority (more than 75%) appear to be poorly maintained.
5
household toilets
(individual, or Between 25% to 75% of households have access to a household toilet.
Most (more than 50%) appear to be poorly maintained.
4
shared with
known families) Between 25% to 75% of households have access to a household toilet.
(You will need to Most (more than 50%) appear to be well maintained.
3
ask people for
information to be More than 75% of households have access to a household toilet.
They are in various conditions of maintenance and cleanliness.
2
able to complete
the correct
More than 75% of households have access to a household toilet.
response)
Most (more than 75%) appear to be clean and well-maintained.
1

63
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Where public facilities are present, they are all poorly maintained with evidence of fecal
5
contamination in the local environment.
8. Presence of
public sanitation
facilities Where public facilities are present, most (more than 50%) are poorly maintained with
4
some evidence of fecal contamination in the local environment.
Note: This category
includes “pay-per- Where public facilities are present, they are in various conditions of maintenance and
use” facilities
3
cleanliness.
(including at
markets, bus
Where public facilities are present, most (more than 50%) are generally clean and well-
stations, etc.) but 2
maintained.
does not include
institutional
facilities at schools, Where public facilities are present, they are in frequent use, clean and well-maintained.
offices, etc. OR 1
There are no public facilities present.

Note: You may need to ask people for information to be able to complete the correct response.

Wastewater and/or fecal sludge treatment facilities (e.g. composting of wastes) are present,
5
poorly-maintained and insecure.
9. Presence of Wastewater and/or fecal sludge treatment facilities are present, poorly-maintained, secure
4
wastewater and/or but with possible direct risks –such as from overflow
fecal sludge Wastewater and/or fecal sludge treatment facilities are present, and are well-maintained,
3
treatment but with some possible indirect risks – such as from scavenging animals or waste pickers
facilities³ inside Wastewater and/or fecal sludge treatment facilities are present, and are well-maintained
the area 2
with no evident risks

No wastewater and/or fecal sludge treatment facilities present. 1

³ Note: In many cities, it is very unlikely that you will see any treatment facilities.

Less well or poorly organized development, with highly restricted access for public service
5
vehicles and no clearly defined public spaces.
Less well organized development, with mostly temporary housing, limited access for
4
10. Housing and public service vehicles and very few clearly defined public spaces.
public space Well organized development, with semi-permanent and/or temporary properties, limited
arrangement 3
access for public service vehicles and only a few clearly defined public spaces.
Well organized development, with permanent and/or semi-permanent properties, but
restricted access for public service vehicles and public spaces, including some open 2
spaces
64
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Well organized development, with permanent and/or semi-permanent properties, good

1
access for public service vehicles and public spaces, including open spaces.

Very narrow paths that can be used by pedestrians only (too narrow for motorbikes) 5
11. Paths
Poorly maintained dirt paths wide enough for motorbikes 4
Routes wide
enough for Well-maintained dirt paths wide enough for motorbikes 3
pedestrians and
possibly Gravel or paved paths, in poor condition, wide enough for motorbikes 2
motorbikes
Gravel or paved paths, in good condition, wide enough for motorbikes 1

Unsurfaced roads, wide enough for small carts or 3-wheeler, but not for car access. 5
12. Roads
Unsurfaced roads wide enough for cars to pass 4
Routes wide
enough for Gravel or paved roads, wide enough for small carts or 3-wheeler, but not for car access 3
vehicles (cars, 3-
wheelers, donkey Gravel or paved roads, wide enough to allow two cars to pass 2
carts, etc.)
Well maintained gravel or paved road, wide enough for two cars to pass 1

65
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Table 2: High-risks observed - for categories 1, 4, 5a, 5b and 8 in Table 1

Where areas of high-risk of contamination are identified (scoring 4 or 5), complete further details as appropriate and to the extent possible

Category Source of risk Human interaction Route of Who is exposed? GPS Photo-
contamination coordinates graphs
Type of Briefly state the problem State how humans are Comment on who is
contamination that you have seen interacting (coming into State the main routes of exposed to the Details
seen contact) with the contamination contamination of any
Complete for each category contamination (e.g. all people, adults
(1, 4, 5a, 5b and 8) scoring (e.g. hands, feet, flies, photos
(e.g. washing, playing, food, fields/crops, soil) only, children only, or taken
4 or 5 in Table 1 walking, scavenging) identified vulnerable
groups)

1. Drainage
(stormwater and/or
greywater)

4. Solid waste pile

5a. Open
defecation

5b. Dumped fecal

sludge

66
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Category Source of risk Human interaction Route of Who is exposed? GPS Photo-
contamination coordinates graphs
Type of Briefly state the problem State how humans are Comment on who is
contamination that you have seen interacting (coming into State the main routes of exposed to the Details
seen contact) with the contamination contamination of any
Complete for each category contamination (e.g. all people, adults
(1, 4, 5a, 5b and 8) scoring (e.g. hands, feet, flies, photos
(e.g. washing, playing, food, fields/crops, soil) only, children only, or taken
4 or 5 in Table 1 walking, scavenging) identified vulnerable
groups)

8. Public latrines

67
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Table 3: Practices in the community

The following questions are asked to a group of community members. Try to limit this to a maximum of 8 people in the group. All people in the group should live in the
community and be aware of the conditions throughout the year. Consent must be sought by all participants before asking this short set of questions.

Topic area Question Response

Awareness of Read out or show the following list of activities that might happen in this community.
risk-free FSM o Open defecation
practices: o People throwing faeces out with solid waste
levels and
causes of risk o Over-flowing latrines
o Latrines emptying into drains
o Uncontrolled latrine emptying by households
o Spills of fecal sludge during emptying or transport
o Uncontrolled dumping of fecal sludge

4. Of these activities, which 3 occur most frequently in your Rank the top 3:
community if any? o Open defecation
o People throwing faeces out with solid waste
o Over-flowing latrines
o Latrines emptying into drains
o Uncontrolled latrine emptying by households
o Spills of fecal sludge during emptying or transport
o Uncontrolled dumping of fecal sludge
o Others (specify):______________________
5. Where is the contamination occurring? Tick all that apply:

Specific locations (specify)

o Household latrines
o Public latrines
o Drains
o Public water points (handpumps, standpipes, etc.)
o Rivers/streams
o Ponds
o Solid waste dump sites

Generally scattered throughout the area

68
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Topic area Question Response

Other (specify):______________________________

DK (Don’t Know)

5. How often does the most significant of these happen? Tick one:
o Every day (i.e. All the time)
o Most weeks (i.e. Most of the time)
o During certain months (i.e. Some of the time)Seasonally
o During the rainy season(s)
o During the dry season
o Other seasons (specify):_________________
o Other (specify):____________________________
o DK
7. Has there been a diarrhoeal outbreak affecting large Yes
numbers of people in the past 1 year? No -> End
DK -> End
8. In which month did this start? Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
(circle the month)

Names and signatures of participants:

Name Signature Date

69
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Annex D Fecal sludge (FS) characteristics record sheet

Date:

Time:

Sample bottle identification number:

Location (description):

Stage of handling fecal sludge (tick one):

During During After

removal discharge treatment

Location (GPS co-ordinates):

Name of sample collector:

Name of latrine emptying service provider:

See excel spreadsheet: FS observed characteristics

Table 1. Observed faecal sludge characteristics

Description Behaviour Tick
box
Dry Solid Crumbles easily. A deep vertical cut, widened to create a triangular wedge-
shaped cut in the FS, holds its shape, with the cut edges
appearing dry.
Wet Solid Cohesive, with A deep vertical cut, widened to create a triangular wedge-
no evidence of shaped cut in the FS, holds its shape, with the cut edges
free liquids. appearing damp but with no free liquid visible.
Solid and liquid A mixture of A deep vertical cut, widened to create a triangular wedge-
mix solids and shaped cut in the FS, holds its shape, with liquids draining
liquids. into the cut.
Viscous liquid Liquid, but A deep vertical cut, widened to create a triangular wedge-
flowing slowly shaped cut in the FS, closes up after a few seconds.
Liquid Liquid, flowing The FS is so liquid that it is not possible to widen a deep
easily. vertical cut and create a triangular wedge-shaped cut.

Table 2. Solid waste content of faecal sludge

Classification Description Tick
box
Very high solid waste content Contains more solid wastes than faecal material.
High solid waste content Contains significant amounts of miscellaneous solid wastes.
Medium solid waste content Contains small amounts of miscellaneous solid wastes.
Low solid waste content Contains some paper materials used for anal cleansing.
No solid waste content Contains no solid wastes.

Signature: Date:

70
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Annex E Key informant interviews

E.1 KII indicators and questions

Before developing the set of interview questions, a preliminary “mapping exercise” may need
to be carried out. This mapping can help identify which stakeholders/institutions and specific
interviewees can address which topic-areas (and/or specific questions) from the full set of
possible questions.

This mapping can also identify the extent to which relevant, adequate and reliable
information is already available from other sources. For example, recent past studies or
official reports addressing FSM services may be available, meaning certain questions do not
need to be asked during interviews. However, it is important to consider whether gaining
additional information on a given point will help to verify the existing information, or ensure
different perspectives on a given issue are gathered.

Once this initial mapping has been done, tables can be drawn-up to indicate which
questions, or topic-areas, should be asked to each of the selected key interviewees. This will
help to build-up the full matrix of questions against stakeholders/interviewees and be the
basis of developing interview question guides.

It is important to remember that for some questions, there may not be a ‘correct’ answer or
information but it will be important to gather potentially different perspectives on the same
question from different stakeholders and key informants. For these, and many other of the
proposed example questions set out below, it will be important to ask “why” respondents
have a particular perspective and probe into these issues.

71
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

E.2 Institutional responsibility mapping and stakeholder analysis

Initial institutional responsibility mapping

As a first step in the process, data for this will come primarily from more neutral observers and key
informants, the researchers own knowledge, and secondary sources.

 Identify which actors / agencies have formal institutional responsibilities for particular aspects
of FSM (e.g. containment, emptying, transport, etc.) as well as local FSM policy and strategy.
 Categorise these within broader groupings – e.g. national government ministries; local
government agencies; private sector; etc.
 For each actor or agency, indicate whether they have formal responsibilities for particular
aspects of FSM in the following table. This should be the formal responsibilities they have, not
what actually happens in practice.
 Where there are any stakeholders who do not have formal responsibilities but in practice
undertake particular activities of tasks, not these down for inclusion in subsequent mappings
but also decide whether they should also be interviewed.

Institutional mapping of formal responsibilities for local FSM

FSM infrastructure development and service delivery
Containment

Treatment
Transport

End-use /
Emptying

disposal
Local policy
and strategy
National government departments

Local government departments

Local government enterprises

Non-government stakeholders
Private enterprises
NGOs/CBOs/community groups
Individuals / households

This will feed into the initial stakeholder analysis below, and help identify key informants and
stakeholders for subsequent interviews.

Initial stakeholder analysis

Using the list of actors / agencies with formal responsibilities identified above, establish whether
there are particular individuals or groups within each broader category who have particular
responsibilities or levels of influence over FSM. Ensure that these stakeholder groups are broken
down sufficiently in order to understand potentially different and competing interests and influence
72
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

within broader stakeholder groups. It is important that the analysis unpacks broad terms such as
‘government’, ‘civil society’, ‘community’ or ‘private sector’ and identifies relevant actors (individuals
as well as groups or organisations) within these.

Use the template below to present an initial stakeholder analysis. For each relevant stakeholder,
outline the key points under each heading and the reasons respondents have stated particular
points.

For this initial analysis, data will come from interviews with external key informants.

Refer to the Table on the following page.

Using these initial analyses or responsibilities, interests, characteristics and influence, etc.,
prioritise which individuals and/or agencies it will be most important to interview. The rationale for
selecting an individual might include, for instance, high levels of responsibilities or high level of
influence over a particular element of FSM, etc.

The particular responsibilities or interests will also help select questions that are relevant and also
identify further questions to probe into the issues in more depth.

Based on these two stages and an analysis of data collected during interviews, the further stages
of building-up a Stakeholder Matrix and the Process mapping can follow, to complete the PEA.

73
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Stakeholder mapping template

Stakeholder Relevant Characteristics Influence Interest Importance
categories stakeholders (social, (power to facilitate (what they gain or (degree of
geographical, or impede FSM lose, how this priority
organisational) poor-inclusive affects their needs and
policy and service commitment to interests)
provision) status quo /
openness to
change)
National Ministry of Public
government Works

Ministry of Finance

Ministry of Public
Housing

National Legislators

Local level Mayors

government

Local legislators

Local government
department A

Local government
department B

Civil society Consumer groups

and advocacy NGOs

Media

Poor households

Better-off
households

Private sector Septic tank

contractors and
emptiers

Large sewerage /
treatment plant
engineers (foreign
and domestic)

International WSP
organisations
or projects
WB

Source: Adapted from Holland (2007).

74
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Annex F Focus Group Discussion guide

FGDs provide an opportunity to gather qualitative data that will compliment, validate, or perhaps
challenge responses made during the household survey. Questions are likely to focus on obtaining
information relating to:

 the household sanitation practices of “others” – especially as individuals may not talk openly or
honesty about their own, or their family, practices;
 peoples’ understanding of the risks associated with poor FSM services;
 issues affecting the community as a whole (service standards and costs, choice of technical
and service options available, pollution, impacts of legal issues (insecurity of tenure), etc.);
 levels of support received/ perceived as being focused on the needs of poor areas of the city;
 what interventions have been conducted before – and the extent to which they have worked/
not worked, responded/ not responded to the needs of the community;
 what actions the community could take to improve FSM services;
 willingness-to-pay for improved services (see the note below the following table).

The full list of topics that can be discussed in FGDs members are shown in Table 14.

Table 14 Topics for Focus Group Discussions with community members

Component Issue Topics for discussion

- Range of technical options: available, etc. (formally offered
Service Delivery Equity
vs. informal self-build solutions)
Assessment
Quality - Extent to which risk-free and functioning services are
(SDA)
provided: containment, emptying, transport
Contextual factors - What people consider to be appropriate services
affecting FSM (focussing on containment and emptying) and how this
services influences demand
- Socio-cultural drivers for/ constraints to appropriate FSM
Political Economy services
Analysis (PEA) - Electoral returns to FSM investments
Stakeholder - What motivates communities or households to demand
interests and use more appropriate FSM
- Existence of subsidies/ effectiveness of targeting for the
Equity poor
Current FS Flows Pathways of FS - Population practicing open defecation
Public Health Risk-free FSM - Awareness of risk-free FSM practices: levels and causes
Risk practices of risk
- What has previously worked well, or not worked well (in
Potential solutions
the community)?
Intervention
- What could households/ communities do to improve FSM?
options
- What could the city council/Municipality/Utility do to
Effective options
improve FSM?
- What could other stakeholders do in response?

As the number of topic areas is too many to cover in any one FGD, they will be divided into 2 sets
of broad ‘themes’ to gather qualitative information during FGDs with specific focus areas. Each
FGD will focus on one of the themes, which will address:
 FGD theme 1: Current FSM Services (and associated risks)
 FGD theme 2: Past, current and possible future improvements to services

75
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

These themes are to be allocated to the group types (indicated in section 3.6.3) to ensure
representativeness while addressing practicalities, opportunities and limitations in the city context.

A number of questions that will result in quantitative data have been identified for use during the
Transect Walk (see Annex C, Table 3 for more details).

Table 15 Topic areas for discussion Theme 1: Current FSM Services

Suggested primary questions and ‘probing’ questions: to stimulate
discussion
Topic areas for
Primary questions Secondary questions Tertiary questions
discussion
What types of latrines
How much are formal
do people have that are Who provides these
latrines used by
formally provided in latrines?
people in this area?
this area?
Range of technical What types of latrines
options available, etc. do people have that are Who, if anyone, helps How much are self-
(formally offered vs. built by households families to build their build toilets used by
informal self-build themselves in this own latrines? people in this area?
solutions) area?
Are the different types
used differently by Can you explain what
women and men, or these differences are
other groups of people, and why they occur?
in this area?
If more help was
What do you consider to provided, do you think
Who do you think
be 'appropriate' ways to people would want to
should be responsible
help households have invest more in their
What people consider for providing this help?
good latrines at home? own latrine? Please
to be appropriate
explain.
services (focussing on
What do you consider
containment and If emptying services
are 'appropriate'
emptying) and how improved, do you
services that do, or Who do you think
this influences demand think people would be
could, help households should be responsible
prepared to pay more
manage the removal of for providing this help?
for them? Please
fecal sludge from their
explain.
homes?
Can families in this area
of the city find suitable
Do these emptying If so, what are those
latrine emptying
services introduce any risks, when and
Extent to which risk- services, when they
risks? where do they occur?
free and functioning want to have their
services are provided: latrine emptied?
containment, What are the
emptying, transport functioning FS If so, what are those
Do they introduce any
transport services risks, when and
risks?
available in this area of where do they occur?
the city?
What motivates
communities or What motivates people For what proportion of
households to to demand and use households do these
demand and use more appropriate latrine factors apply?
appropriate emptying emptying services?
services
Trade-offs for
Where people pay more Are some financial
households from
for emptying services, needs more affected If so, which?
increased investment
how does this affect than others?
in FSM services
76
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

other financial needs in

their household?

What subsidies
(financial support) are
Existence of
available if a household Who decides who
subsidies/ Who are subsidies
needs help to improve can, or cannot,
effectiveness of available for?
their sanitation facilities receive subsidies?
targeting for the poor
(e.g. to build, repair or
empty a latrine)?

Topic areas for FGD theme 2: Past, current and possible future improvements to services
Suggested primary questions and ‘probing’ questions: to stimulate
discussion
Topic areas for
Primary questions Secondary questions Tertiary questions
discussion
Extent to which city's
What are the benefits,
FSM systems serve
Do families in this area if any, of getting this
low-income How is that support
get support to build, or support?
communities provided and to
improve, household What are the
(containment, whom?
latrines? disadvantages, if any,
emptying, transport
of this support?
only)
Do families in this area How is that support What are the benefits,
get support to empty provided and to if any, of getting this
latrines? whom? support?
What are the
disadvantages, if any,
of this support?
Availability of funds, Are you aware of any If so, what has
plans and measure to recent improvements happened? What If not, are any
ensure FSM serves all made to pit/septic tank difference has this improvements
users, specifically the emptying services in made to the services planned?
urban poor this area of the city? you see provided?
What previous actions
to improve fecal sludge Who was responsible How were local
handling have worked for these actions? residents involved?
What has previously
well in your area?
worked well, or not
What previous actions
worked well (in the
to improve fecal sludge
area)? Who was responsible How were local
handling have not
for these actions? residents involved?
worked well in your
area?
What do you think
What could
households could do to
households/
improve the
communities do to
management of fecal
improve FSM?
sludge in your area?
What do you think the
What could the city
City authorities could do
council/ Municipality/
to improve the
Utility do to improve
management of fecal
FSM?
sludge in your area?
Could others be
What could other involved in improving Who do you suggest
stakeholders do in the management of and what could they
response? fecal sludge in your do?
area?
77
FSM global study - Data collection instruments

Do politicians mention Does it affect people's

issues of voting decisions if they
Electoral returns to Why do you think they
sanitation/sludge do (or if the currently
FSM investments do or don’t?
handling during their don’t, would it if they
campaigns? did in the future)?
Ask suitable questions
Ask suitable questions
Evidence of to identify how this
to identify how much
willingness/ ability to varies depending on
people are willing or
pay for FSM services the type of service
able to pay for latrine
(formal or informal) provided (formal or
emptying services
informal)

78