Journal of Environmental and Public Health

Journal of Environmental and Public Health / 2020 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 2123652 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2123652

Kiros Fenta Ajemu, Abraham Aregay Desta, Asfawosen Aregay Berhe, Ataklti Gebretsadik Woldegebriel, Nega Mamo Bezabih, "Latrine Ownership and Its Determinants in Rural Villages of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study", Journal of Environmental and Public Health, vol. 2020, Article ID 2123652, 8 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2123652

Latrine Ownership and Its Determinants in Rural Villages of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study

Academic Editor: Jonathan Haughton
Received07 May 2020
Revised25 Jul 2020
Accepted31 Jul 2020
Published17 Aug 2020

Abstract

Background. Open defecation was largely a rural phenomenon most widely attributed to poor latrine ownership at community level. We aimed at examining latrine ownership and its determinants in rural villages of the Tigray region, Northern Ethiopia. Methods. Community-based cross-sectional study was conducted from June to July 2018. A total of 756 randomly selected households were involved in the study. The multistage cluster sampling technique was used to select study households. Data were checked, coded, and entered into Epi-Info version 7. Besides, it was exported to SPSS version 20 for data analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was involved to estimate the net effect size of factors associated with latrine ownership. Results. The proportion of households owning latrine was 35.7%. The majority (84.4%) of constructed latrines were utilized by household families. Households advocated latrine IEC by Health Extension Workers (HEWs) (AOR = 1.902, 95% CI: 1.269–2.852), living in their private house (AOR = 3.13, 95% CI: 1.528–6.401), and the occupation status of government employees (AOR = 3.54, 95% CI: 0.586–21.397) are more likely to lead to the construction of latrines. The availability of latrine made on slab floor (AOR = 1.790, 95% CI: 0.297–3.102), having a latrine constructed inside the household compound (AOR = 4.463, 95% CI: 1.021–19.516), and delivery of latrine IEC by Women Development Armies (WDAs) (AOR = 2.425, 95% CI: 0.728–8.083) may lead to better latrine utilization at the household level. Conclusion. Households owning latrine at the community level were low. The desired level of latrine ownership will be realized if all sanitation and hygiene components are kept on eye side by side in line with identified predictor factors.

1. Introduction

Globally, more than 2.5 billion people lacked improved sanitation and hygienic facilities [1]. A disease associated with poor water, sanitation, and hygiene accounts for more than 4% of the total disease burden and deaths [13].

Open defecation was largely a rural phenomenon most widely practiced in the southern part of Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. This was due to poor sanitation and hygienic practice. In Sub-Saharan Africa, an estimated one-third of the population still do not have access to improved hygiene and sanitation facilities [46].

In Ethiopia, only six percent of household members were reported using improved hygiene and sanitation facilities. Some evidence suggested that financial constraints of raw materials needed to construct latrine and poor interest of the household members to construct latrine rented house with occupancy of the landlord were factors for enhancing sanitation and hygiene facilities at the community level [3]. Latrine ownership in the rural community was low, resulting in high burden of diarrheal and other communicable diseases. It is evident from Ethiopian Demographic and Health Surveys (EDHS, 2016) that an estimated 56% of the rural households practiced using unimproved latrine [7]. Meanwhile, urban areas were four times more likely to own latrine at the household level [3, 7]. Pooled latrine prevalence (50.02%) was reviewed from 17 community-based studies in Ethiopia. The highest prevalence (67.4%) was documented in Southern Nations Nationality and People Regional State (SNNPS) followed by Amhara Region (50.1%), almost consistent with the national estimate. Respondents who completed high school and above education levels were more likely (1.79; 95% CI: 1.05–3.05) to own latrine at the community level as compared to their counterparts [8].

In the Tigray region of northern Ethiopia, different fragmented small pocket studies have been conducted to assess the level of latrine ownership at the community level in different areas within the region. However, the reported findings were with highly varying figures. Regarding latrine utilization, more than half (59.8%) was reported from the La'ilay Maichew district of central Tigray and Enderta district of Mekelle Zone (68.4%) that showed a significant variability [9, 10]. Meanwhile, latrine prevalence was only reported from South Eastern part of Tigray (53%) [11]. Community members familiar with community lead total sanitation (CLTS) (1.78; 95% CI: 1.57–2.03), accessibility of health facilities near the rural village (2.37; 95% CI: 2.14–2.64), and increased educational attainment of the head of the household were positively influenced the households to own latrine at community level [9].

Increasing latrine prevalence and utilization are essential and a cost-effective strategy to overcome the disease burden associated with improper excreta management by strengthening latrine ownership [1215]. Latrine ownership is affected by a range of behavioral, cultural, social, geographic, and economic factors across different community members [11, 1621]. However, reviewed determinant factors of latrine ownership at the regional level in the previous studies were limited to behavioral factors. Besides, none was documented concerning latrine ownership that showed the regional estimate. Therefore, we aimed to use the latrine ownership ladder model [22] (Figure 1) to assess the latrine ownership and its determinant factors in rural villages of the Tigray region, Northern Ethiopia.

2. Methods and Materials

2.1. Study Design and Settings

The study involved community-based cross-sectional survey. It was conducted in rural villages of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia from June to July 2018. Tigray region is among the nine regional states administratively demarcated and it is located in the northern part of Ethiopia at a distance of 805 kms from the capital city, Addis Ababa. The region is further administratively subdivided into seven zones, namely, East, South, South East, Western, Northwestern, Central, and Mekelle which contained the smallest administrative units of 52 districts (34 rural and 18 urban) [23] as shown in Figure 2.

2.2. Sampling and Sample Size Determination

Multistage cluster sampling techniques were used to select study households. Administrative zones and districts were used as a cluster. Of the seven clusters, one zone (Mekelle) was excluded since it was urban. From the six rural zones, one district was randomly selected making a total of six districts. Meanwhile, twelve kebelles were randomly selected by the lottery method considering two kebelles from each district. Finally, proportional to size allocation was used to select a total household that participated in the study (Figure 3).

The sample size was determined by using single population proportion formula with an assumption of 34% latrine prevalence () from a previous study [24], Z-score  = 1.96 at a confidence level of 95%, and a margin of error  = 0.05 (5%). The sample size was 690. Since the sampling procedure was multistage, we considered the design effect of 2 and 10% nonresponse rate making a total sample size of 759.

2.3. Data Collection Procedure

We used a standardized pretested structured questionnaire for data collection adopted from previously conducted similar studies [11, 12]. During the data collection procedure, face to face interviews were conducted by the head of the household. Besides, direct observation was involved with household compounds to confirm the availability of latrine, type of latrine, its location, and how it was utilized. The data collection tool was originally prepared in English and translated to Tigrigna (local language), and responses were then translated back to English. Data collection was conducted by recruiting six trained environmental health professionals. Data collection was conducted under the close supervision of the principal investigators.

2.4. Data Quality Assurance

To enhance data quality, training was provided for data collectors and supervisors with the objective of the study, the nature of the data collection tools, ways of approaching during interviews, observation, and inspecting latrines. During the data collection period, there was a strict supervision scheme. Completed questionnaires were checked on a daily basis by a supervisor and principal investigator.

2.5. Operational Definitions

(i)Latrine ownership: the proportion of households owning and utilizing latrine [7].(ii)Hand washing facility: any setup of a container with water and soap in the household compound for hand washing purposes observed at the time of data collection.(iii)Women Development Armies: women enrolled under 25–30 teams for implementing health extension package at the community level.

2.6. Data Processing and Analysis

Data were entered into Epi-info version 7 and exported to SPSS version 20 statistical package for analysis. Frequency distribution and percentages were performed using frequency tables. Bivariate logistic regression analysis was done for each outcome variable for latrine ownership (latrine prevalence and utilization). All variables at -value of ≤0.25 in the bivariate analysis were included in the multivariable logistic regression model. Finally, all variables with -value of ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant as predictor factors.

3. Result

3.1. Sociodemographic Characteristics

A total of 756 (99.6%) households completed the study. The majority (98%) of the respondents were Orthodox Christian. More than half (58.2%) were unable to read and write (Table 1).


CharacteristicsFrequency (%)

Respondent role
Mother527 (69.7)
Father137 (18.1)
Adult daughter91 (12.1)
Gender
Male182 (24.1)
Female574 (75.8)
Religious background
Orthodox741 (98)
Muslim11 (1.5)
Protestant3 (0.4)
Age category
<30 years257 (44)
30–45 years289 (38.2)
>45 years191 (25.3)
Educational status
Able to read and write440 (58.2)
Unable to read and write316 (41.7)
Occupational status
Daily laborer5 (0.7)
Farmer676 (89.4)
Government employee18 (2.4)
Merchant21 (2.8)
Unemployed36 (4.7)
Marital status
Married550 (72.8)
Single93 (12.3)
Divorced62 (8.2)
Widowed48 (6.3)

3.2. Latrine Ownership and Its Characteristics

The study revealed that 270 (35.7%) surveyed households owned latrine at the community level. More than half (64%) constructed latrines were made of wood and mud floor and were found inside the household compound. Regarding their location, 90.7% were nearly 50 meters away from the kitchen as per standard. Besides, 84.4% of constructed latrines were utilized by household members. Accordingly, the majority (87%) of adults and children utilized latrine regularly. The majority (85.2%) of constructed latrines lacked hand washing facilities. The very low proportion of family members (5.6%) washed their hands with soap and water after latrine use (Table 2).


CharacteristicsFrequency (%)

Household owned latrine
Yes270 (35.7)
No486 (64.3)
Latrine type
Pit latrine with wood and mud floor174 (64)
Pit latrine with slab floor94 (34.8)
Ventilated improved pit latrine2 (0.7)
Latrine location
Inside the compound177 (65.6)
Outside the compound93 (34.4)
Latrine distance from the house compound
<50 meters245 (90.7)
≥50 meters25 (9.3)
Latrine utilization
Yes228 (84.4)
No42 (15.6)
Household members utilized latrine
Only adults33 (12.2)
Only children2 (0.7)
Both adults and children235 (87.1)
Hand washing practice after latrine use
Yes15 (5.6)
No255 (94.4)
Latrine with hand washing facility
Yes40 (14.8)
No230 (85.2)
Households knew latrine importance
Yes670 (88.6)
No86 (11.4)
Reasons for not constructing latrine
Lack of money51 (6.7)
Lack of space36 (4.8)
Demolished latrines520 (68.8)
Lack of awareness53 (7)
Others96 (12.7)
Households having information on latrine
Yes549 (72.6)
No207 (27.4)
Source of information
Health extension workers277 (50.5)
Radio130 (23.7)
Women development armies116 (21.1)
Others26 (4.7)
Possess radio
Yes470 (62.2)
No286 (37.8)

3.3. Determinant Factors for Latrine Ownership

The study revealed that households advocated latrine IEC by Health Extension Workers (HEWs) (AOR = 1.902, 95% CI: 1.269–2.852), living in a private house (AOR = 3.13, 95% CI: 1.528–6.401), and the occupation status of government employees (AOR = 3.54, 95% CI: 0.586–21.397) were more likely to lead to the construction of latrines. The availability of latrine made on slab floor (AOR = 1.790, 95% CI: 0.297–3.102), having a latrine constructed inside the household compound (AOR = 4.463, 95% CI: 1.021–19.516), and delivery of latrine IEC by Women Development Armies (WDAs) (AOR = 2.425, 95% CI: 0.728–8.083) may lead to better utilized latrine at the household level (Table 3).


VariablesLatrine ownership
Latrine prevalenceLatrine utilization
COR (95% CI)AOR (95% CI)COR (95% CI)AOR (95% CI)

Occupation
Farmer4.67 (1.072–20.423)4.27 (0.92–19.4)
Government employee8.50 ,(1.50448.049)3.542 (0.586–21.397)0.27 (0.062–1.187)0.25 (0.05–1.13)
Unemployed1111
Marital status
Married0.39 (0.154–0.995)0.36 (0.13–0.95)
Single5 (0.872–28.663)4.57 (0.75–27.22)
Divorced2 (0.117–34.096)1.83 (0.099–32.39
Widowed11
Possess radio
Yes0.82 (0.606–1.117)0.75 (0.52–1.06)
No11
Latrine type
Slab floor pit2.51 (0.103–4.512)1.790 (0.296–3.102)
Ventilated pit11
House ownership
Relative3.05 (1.107–8.396)2.79 (0.95–7.976)
Private3.09 (1.588–5.999)3.13 (1.528–6.401)
Rental11
Latrine location
Inside the household compound3.991 (0.876–18.183)4.463 (1.021–19.516)
Outside the household compound11
Information source
Health extension workers (HEWs)0.586 (0.389–0.884)1.902 (1.269–2.852)
Women development armies (WDAs)1.633 (0.422–2.952)1.49 (0.36–2.80)1.706 (1.1.29–2.579)2.425 (0.728–8.083)
Others1111

Note. Abbreviations: AOR: adjusted odds ratio, COR: crude odds ratio, -value: precision value; statistical decisions:  = -value ≤0.05;  = -value <0.01,  = -value ≤0.001.

4. Discussion

This was the first regional estimate to latrine ownership and its determinants among rural residents in the Tigray region, Northern Ethiopia.

The study revealed that households that owned latrine were 35.7%. Five out of six constructed latrines were utilized by household members. Accordingly, latrine prevalence was almost consistent with the national estimate (44%) as documented in EDHS, 2016 [7]. Similar evidence was reported from South East Zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia (37.6%), Central Zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia (37.4%), and Dabat district, North West Ethiopia (47%) [11, 25, 26].

As to the factors responsible for latrine ownership, households living in their own house were 3.3 times more likely to construct latrines as compared to their counterparts. This was consistent with the finding in Dabat district, North West Ethiopia, in which households in rented houses had a difficulty in constructing latrines [25]. This finding showed the need for extraordinary attention and awareness creation to address this special community groups.

Study finding showed latrine ownership is low when compared to elsewhere in Bahirdar Zuria of Northern Ethiopia (58.4%) [24], Debere Tabor in Amhara region, Northern Ethiopia (93.5%) [12], and Oromya region, South West Ethiopia (88.2%) [27]. Besides, a report from the current study was lower when compared with evidence from Nepal [17]. The discrepancy might be due to the recruitment of graduated model households due to the implementation of Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) in Bahirdar and enrollment of urban households in the remaining two studies. In contrast, the present study recruited all household members from the rural community.

Regarding latrine utilization, it was higher than evidence from systematic reviews at the national level (37.7%), Central zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia (58.9%), Awabel district of Amhara region (52%), and Gulomekeda of Tigray region (57.3%) [8, 9, 19, 28]. Latrine location inside the house compound was four times more likely utilized by household members (AOR = 4.463, 95% CI: 1.021–19.516). However, similar evidence was also reported in [8, 9]. Therefore, the variation might be the use of denominator for calculating latrine utilization rate in which the later studies use the total household including those that did not construct latrine, but it is appropriate to use households owned latrine as a denominator [7, 23]. In addition, a pooled result due to systematic reviews of different pocket studies was a reason for the low utilization rate. However, slightly lower evidence was reported from Hullet Ejj Enese of the Amhara region of Northern Ethiopia (92%) and Nepal (94.3%) [17, 29]. The discrepancy among the study findings might be related to climatic zones which are believed to affect the construction and durability of latrines for sustainable use [3032]. Progressive sanitation facilities and good community awareness might be the reason in Nepal [29]. Similar reports were documented from Jimma of South West Ethiopia (87.8%), Hawassa town of Southern Ethiopia (85.4%), Wondogent of Southern Ethiopia (83%) [33, 34].

As evidenced in Kenya [35] and Ethiopia [36], more than 80% of latrine constructed in rural communities was not used more than one year due to their demolishing characteristics. A similar challenge was reported that forcing households to construct latrine during mass advocacy and campaign results in poor quality latrine construction at the community level. Therefore, it is essential to consider enabling factors for households to own and utilize latrine sustainably. This study reported that constructing latrine using slab floor was two times more likely owned by households than wood and mud floor pit latrines and similarly, three times for privately owned houses and occupation with government employees (Table 2). This finding was consistent with evidence from Hawusen, Dabat, Bahirdar, and Nepal [17, 24, 25, 33].

The scientific evidence shows that household members were four times as likely to use a latrine if it was located inside, rather than outside, the family compound [21, 22]. In this study, more than half of the latrines constructed were located inside the household compound. This was the reason for the high latrine utilization rate evidenced at the community level. Having these realities, program implementers should acknowledge health promoters and households to own latrine inside the household compound. Women Development Armies (WDAs) at the community level reported two times more influence to utilize latrine than health extension workers (HEWs). The reason might be health extension workers were overloaded at the health facility level for health care service provision resulting in poor support for the community than women development armies (WDAs) at the community level. Similar evidence was reported from other studies [33, 36, 37].

5. Conclusion

The study showed that households owned latrine at the community level were low. However, the majority of constructed latrines were utilized by household members. Adults and children were more adhered to utilize latrine. The desired level of latrine ownership and utilization would be realized if and only if all sanitation and hygiene components in the country’s health extension package were kept on eye side by side in line with identified predictor factors.

Abbreviations

EDHS:Ethiopian demographic health survey
AOR:Adjusted odds ratio
COR:Crude odds ratio
IEC:Information, education, and communication.

Data Availability

The data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Ethical Approval

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Tigray Health Research Institute (institusionsl.review.board.thri@gmail.com) with a reference and approval no. THRI-IRB 0040/2018. Permission was also received from the Tigray Regional Health Bureau.

Data collection was conducted only after oral informed consent was given.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

KF, AbA, AsA, AG, and NM conceived and designed the study; KF, AbA, AsA, AG, NM, and AG oversaw data collection: KF analyzed and interpreted data; KF drafted the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

A government research grant was provided to Tigray Health Research Institute with a grant number THRI-341/02/6223. This grant was allocated for WASH program evaluation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Our great appreciation goes to Tigray Health Research Institute for financial and technical support. The authors also thank the Tigray Regional Health Bureau, health facilities managers, household members, supervisors, and data collectors for their supportive approach during the entire period of the study.

References

  1. World Health Organization, Sanitation, 2015, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs392/en/.
  2. A. Prüss, D. Kay, L. Fewtrell, and J. Bartram, “Estimating the burden of disease from water, sanitation, and hygiene at a global level,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 110, no. 5, pp. 537–542, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. UNICEF, “Water, sanitation and hygiene, annual results report 2016,” 2016, https://www.unicef.org/publicpartnerships/files/2016arr_wash.pdf. View at: Google Scholar
  4. WHO and UNICEF, Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2017 Update and SDG Baselines, UNICEF, Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  5. D. I. Galan, S.-S. Kim, and J. P. Graham, “Exploring changes in open defecation prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa based on national level indices,” BMC Public Health, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 527, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. D. Mara, J. Lane, B. Scott, and D. Trouba, “Sanitation and health,” PLoS Medicine, vol. 7, no. 11, Article ID e1000363, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. Central Statistical Agency and ICF, in 2016 Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey, CSA and ICF, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2017.
  8. C. T. Leshargie, A. Alebel, A. Negesse et al., “Household latrine utilization and its association with educational status of household heads in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” BMC Public Health, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 901, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. G. Gebremedhin, D. Tetemke, M. Gebremedhin et al., “Factors associated with latrine utilization among model and non-model families in Laelai Maichew Woreda, Aksum, Tigray, Ethiopia: comparative community based study,” BMC Research Notes, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 586, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. A. B. Belachew, M. B. Abrha, Z. A. Gebrezgi, and D. Y. Tekle, “Availability and utilization of sanitation facilities in Enderta district, Tigray, Ethiopia,” Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. E219–E225, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. H. Gebremedhin, T. Abay, T. Gebregzabher, D. Yemane, G. Gebreegziabiher, and B. Shewaye, “Latrine utilization and associated factors in south east zone of Tigray region, north Ethiopia,” European Journal of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 3, no. 6, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  12. Y. Tafere, M. Woldie, and H. Assefa, “Investigations of latrine coverage and associated factors among Debretabor town, Amhara region north west Ethiopia,” International Journal of Public Health Science (IJPHS), vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 137–141, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. WHO and UNICEF, “Progress on sanitation and drinking water—2015 update and MDG assessment,” WHO and UNICEF, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  14. T. F. Clasen, K. Bostoen, W. P. Schmidt et al., “Interventions to improve disposal of human excreta for preventing diarrhoea,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 2010, no. 6, Article ID CD007180, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. WHO, “Global costs and benefits of drinking-water supply and sanitation interventions to reach the MDG target and universal coverage,” WHO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  16. G. Asfaw, E. Molla, and P. K. Vata, “Assessing privy (Latrine’s) utilization and associated factors among households in Dilla town, Ethiopia,” International Journal of Health Sciences and Research, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 537–544, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  17. S. S. Budhathoki, G. Shrestha, M. Bhattachan, S. B. Singh, N. Jha, and P. K. Pokharel, “Latrine coverage and its utilisation in a rural village of eastern Nepal: a community-based cross-sectional study,” BMC Research Notes, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 209, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. N. Debesay, L. Ingale, A. Gebresilassie, H. Assefa, and D. Yemane, “Latrine utilization and associated factors in the rural communities of Gulomekada district, Tigray region, north Ethiopia, 2013: a community based cross-sectional study,” Journal of Community Medicine & Health Education, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 338, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. M. Gedefaw, Y. Amsalu, M. Tarekegn, and W. Awoke, “Opportunities, and challenges of latrine utilization among rural communities of Awabel district, northwest Ethiopia, 2014,” Open Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 98–106, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. H. C. Koyra, M. M. Sorato, Y. S. Unasho, and Z. Z. Kanche, “Latrine utilization and associated factors in rural community of Chencha district, southern Ethiopia: a community based cross-sectional study,” American Journal of Public Health Research, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 98–104, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. Y. T. Yimam, K. A. Gelaye, and D. H. Chercos, “Latrine utilization and associated factors among people living in rural areas of Denbia district, northwest Ethiopia, 2013, a cross-sectional study,” Pan African Medical Journal, vol. 18, p. 334, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. P. A. Obeng, B. Keraita, S. Oduro-Kwarteng, H. Bregnhøj, R. C. Abaidoo, and F. Konradsen, “The latrine ownership ladder,” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 752–763, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. The Government of Tigray National Regional State and Bureau of Health Tigray Regional Health Bureau, 2008 EFY Annual Profile, Tigray National Regional State, Ethiopia, 2008.
  24. W. Awoke and S. Muche, “A cross sectional study: latrine coverage and associated factors among rural communities in the district of Bahir Dar Zuria, Ethiopia,” BMC Public Health, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 99, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. Y. Ashebir, H. Rai Sharma, K. Alemu, and G. Kebede, “Latrine use among rural households in northern Ethiopia: a case study in Hawzien district, Tigray,” International Journal of Environmental Studies, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 629–636, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. D. A. Zeleke, K. A. Gelaye, and F. A. Mekonnen, “Community-led total sanitation and the rate of latrine ownership,” BMC Research Notes, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 14, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. D. Oljira and T. S. Berkessa, “Latrine use and determinant factors in southwest Ethiopia,” Journal of Epidemiology and Public Health Reviews, vol. 1, no. 6, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. N. Debesay, L. Ingale, A. Gebresilassie, H. Assefa, and D. Latrine Yemane, “Utilization and associated factors in the rural communities of Gulomekada district, Tigray region, North Ethiopia: a community based crosssectional study,” Community Medicine & Health Education, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 8, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. Nepal WASH Alliance, “Open defecation free (ODF) status updates in Nepal. Water, sanitation and hygiene resource centre network Nepal,” 2016, http://www.wash-rcnn.net.np/nwa/odf-updates.html. View at: Google Scholar
  30. A. Sinha, C. L. Nagel, W. P. Schmidt et al., “Assessing patterns and determinants of latrine use in rural settings: a longitudinal study in Odisha, India,” International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, vol. 220, no. 5, pp. 906–915, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. F. Alemu, A. Kumie, G. Medhin, T. Gebre, and P. Godfrey, “A socio-ecological analysis of barriers to the adoption, sustainability and consistent use of sanitation facilities in rural Ethiopia,” BMC Public Health, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 706, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. W. E. Oswald, T. Teferi, P. M. Emerson et al., “Prediction of low community sanitation coverage using environmental and sociodemographic factors in Amhara region, Ethiopia,” The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 709–719, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. L. Tulu, K. Abera, S. B. Hawas, H. F. Demissie, and M. T. Segni, “Latrine utilization and associated factors among Kebeles implementing and non-implementing urban community led total sanitation and hygiene in Hawassa town, Ethiopia,” African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 11, no. 3, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. A. F. Dadi, T. Ashenafi, and Z. Gizaw, “Latrine utilization and associated factors among Kebeles declared open defecation free in Wondo Genet district, South Ethiopia 2015,” ISABB Journal of Health and Environmental Sciences, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 43–51, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. F. O. Gudda, W. N. Moturi, O. S. Oduor, E. W. Muchiri, and J. Ensink, “Pit latrine fill-up rates: variation determinants and public health implications in informal settlements, Nakuru-Kenya,” BMC Public Health, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 68, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. D. T. Beyen, A. E. Tucho, and T. T. Moga, “Effect of latrine utilization on diarrhea diseases in Abukako Kebele, Jimma, South west, Ethiopia,” Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Toxicology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 9–15, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. A. Anteneh and A. Kumie, “Assessment of the impact of latrine utilization on diarrhoeal diseases in the rural community of Hulet Ejju Enessie Woreda, east Gojjam zone, Amhara region,” Ethiopian Journal of Health Development, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 111–113, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Kiros Fenta Ajemu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views546
Downloads407
Citations

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.