article · SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología
Introduction Access to safe drinking water, hygiene, and sanitation (WASH) is a fundamental human right and a critical public health determinant, particularly in humanitarian emergency settings. Purpose This study aimed to assess access to WASH services in the Lushagala displaced persons camp in Goma, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and to compare the findings with the SPHERE minimum standards in order to identify gaps and inform improvement interventions. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted from 1 to 31 July 2024 among 446 households selected using a systematic two-stage probability sampling method. Data were collected using KoboCollect and analysed with Stata version 15.0. The study received ethical approval (Approval No. ESP/CE/200/2024) and was conducted after obtaining verbal informed consent from participants. Results Average water consumption was 5.9 litres per person per day. Sixty-two per cent of households spent more than 30 minutes collecting water (95% CI: 57.5%–66.5%). The sanitation coverage ratio was 63 people per latrine. Only 6.3% of sanitation facilities (95% CI: 4.0%–8.6%) had a functional handwashing station, and 82% of latrines were poorly maintained (95% CI: 78.4%–85.6%). In addition, 87.7% of households (95% CI: 84.6%–90.8%) reported the presence of solid waste in their household surroundings. Conclusion The study reveals critical gaps in access to WASH services in the Lushagala displaced persons camp when compared with SPHERE minimum standards. These findings highlight the urgent need to increase water supply to at least 15 litres per person per day and to address sanitation deficits through the construction of approximately 2,900 additional latrines, thereby reducing the current ratio of 63 people per latrine to the recommended standard of 20 people per latrine. These results provide essential evidence to guide the actions of authorities and humanitarian actors.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.4314/orapj.v7i2.2
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.