Mapping Sanitation Risk at the Hamlet Level: A Comprehensive Assessment of Sub-District in Central Jakarta
Corresponding email: firdausali@indonesiawaterinstitute.org
Published at : 24 Dec 2024
Volume : IJtech
Vol 15, No 6 (2024)
DOI : https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v15i6.6159
Ali, F., Lestari, D.L., Putri, M.D., Azmi, K.N., 2024. Mapping Sanitation Risk at the Hamlet Level: A Comprehensive Assessment of Sub-District in Central Jakarta. International Journal of Technology. Volume 15(6), pp. 1936-1945
| Firdaus Ali | 1. Indonesia Water Institute, Rukan Tanjung Barat Indah No. F-02, South Jakarta, 12530, Indonesia. 2. Environmental Engineering Study Program, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, |
| Dwi Lintang Lestari | Indonesia Water Institute, Rukan Tanjung Barat Indah No. F-02, South Jakarta, 12530, Indonesia |
| Marsya Dyasthi Putri | Indonesia Water Institute, Rukan Tanjung Barat Indah No. F-02, South Jakarta, 12530, Indonesia |
| Khalidah Nurul Azmi | Indonesia Water Institute, Rukan Tanjung Barat Indah No. F-02, South Jakarta, 12530, Indonesia |
Sanitation in residential areas is significantly essential, requiring more attention, particularly in areas with dense population and developing countries such as Indonesia. High population density increases the challenges of treating solid and liquid waste produced by residents. Therefore, this study aimed to assess sanitation risk in sub-district of Central Jakarta, Indonesia, based on four indicators, namely hazard, exposure, vulnerability, and capacity. The analysis started with hazard indicators, followed by an assessment of potential exposure to hazard, and determination of vulnerability level. In the final stage, the capacity was evaluated to determine the ability of the current system to address sanitation issues. The results showed that most areas of sub-district were at low risk due to the sufficient capacity of the current system to meet the needs of residents. However, there were also areas with poor sanitation, particularly in facing natural disasters such as floods and droughts. Sanitation risk assessment used in this study provided valuable information to identify priority areas for sanitation development. The results would support the government in determining development budget priorities for sanitation infrastructure development.
Exposure; Hazard; Priority risk; Sanitation; Vulnerability
The need for proper
sanitation is stated in the policy direction and development strategy of the
2020-2024 Medium Term Development Plan (RPJMN) by BAPPENAS (2020). This policy emphasized that
liquid and domestic waste should be properly handled to obtain
low-carbon development. Based on the data obtained from DKI
Jakarta Statistics Agency/BPS (2020), 83.02% of households already use their sewerage facilities, showing access to proper sanitation. Among these areas, Central Jakarta Region and Thousand Islands have
the lowest percentage of access to proper sanitation, accounting for 0.6% and 7.4%, respectively.
Several households still
experience poor sanitation, leading to various health problems such as stunting
and diarrhea. Previous studies showed the importance of proper sanitation, including access to
clean water and maintaining safe distances from water sources (BRPAM DKI Jakarta, 2021). However, the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic has added
a new dimension to this issue, leading
to a high demand for clean water
Conceptual
Framework for Risk Assessment
This study aimed to develop recommendations
that support sanitation planning and development. Risk assessment was carried
out based on the assumption that the situation of domestic waste disposal
occurred in an open environment, thereby allowing exposure to residents.
Regarding Environmental Health Risk Assessment (EHRA), the mapping and
evaluation of sanitation conditions are carried out to identify and analyze
various factors related to social conditions, exposure, water supply, domestic
waste treatment, and drainage. By mapping and assessing these aspects, EHRA
helps to understand the potential risk and hazard associated with sanitation,
as well as their impacts on environmental and public health. The scope of
assessment in EHRA includes:
·
Social
Conditions: Assessment includes examining the social factors and conditions
influencing sanitation practices and behaviors. This includes socioeconomic
status, cultural norms, education levels, and community engagement (Jimung, 2011).
·
Exposure:
Assessment focuses on evaluating the potential exposure pathways to
contaminants or pathogens resulting from inadequate sanitation conditions (Snoad et al., 2017). This includes assessing the
routes of exposure and the associated risk to human health.
·
Water
Supply: Assessment evaluates the quality, accessibility, and reliability of
water sources used for domestic purposes. This includes assessing the presence
of contaminants, adequacy of water treatment, and the potential for waterborne
diseases (Pond et al., 2020).
·
Domestic
Waste Treatment: Assessment examines the management and treatment practices for
domestic waste, including wastewater and solid waste (Sunik, Kristianto,
and Khamelda, 2018). This includes assessing the
adequacy and effectiveness of waste treatment systems in minimizing
environmental contamination and health risk (Othoo, Olago, and Ayah, 2023).
By conducting a comprehensive assessment of sanitation conditions using
EHRA, policymakers, study team, and practitioners can gain
insights into the existing risk and vulnerabilities. This information provides
a guide on the development of targeted interventions, policies, and strategies
to improve sanitation practices, mitigate risk, and protect public health as
well as the environment (Medema and Ashbolt, 2006).
Sanitation services related to waste management play a significant role
in maintaining the environmental carrying capacity of an area (Eisenberg, Scott,
and Porco, 2007). These services directly
influence environmental carrying capacity through waste management, water
quality, disease prevention, and resource conservation. However, improper or
inadequate sanitation services can lead to environmental degradation, ecosystem
disruption, and a reduced carrying capacity. The accumulation of untreated
waste, release of pollutants, and contamination of water sources also have the
capacity to degrade ecosystems, reduce biodiversity, and pose risk to human
health. Therefore, integrating sustainable sanitation services is crucial for
maintaining and enhancing the environmental carrying capacity. In this study,
risk assessment was used based on EHRA and an understanding of WASH (water,
sanitation, and hygiene) developed by Global Water Partnership (GWP) for UNICEF
(United Nations Children's Fund) (UNICEF and GWP, 2017a;
2017b; 2017c; 2017d; 2017e; 2017f).
Although there are limited reports on sanitation risk assessment, a recent
study by Roos (2021) has
identified the challenge of insufficient data and reliable information
regarding sanitation conditions in African cities, which affects effective
planning and investment prioritization. To overcome this problem, the study developed and implemented a rapid and participatory risk assessment
tool, which facilitated data collection, urban sanitation planning, and
community engagement in decision-making processes. To validate the
effectiveness of the tool, the results were compared and triangulated with data
obtained from traditional household surveys, transect walks, and existing
secondary sources. The validation results showed that the tool was
user-friendly, cost-effective, and capable of providing a prompt method for
data collection, offering reliable insights into neighborhood-level sanitation
risk. Therefore, this study aimed to adapt the previous methods used by EHRA to
enhance the understanding of sanitation risk assessment.
Figure 1 The study method includes data from ‘Harapan Mulya, 2021’ and Harapan Mulya, 2020' for historical context
This study
used literature review related to data collection and stakeholder consultation.
Stakeholder workshop was conducted to provide final justification for the
results of the assessment. In each parameter, a confidence score was determined
as the strength of the study conducted. Moreover, Figure 1 represents the
method that was used for risk assessment for sanitation.
2.1. Identification of Parameters
The relevant issues considered for
parameter identification are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Identification of study parameters
|
Hazard |
Exposure |
Vulnerability |
|
Environmental and geophysical events |
Percentage of critical infrastructure affected |
Social |
|
Ongoing conflict, socio-political tensions, and possible
triggers |
Number of water sources affected |
Financial |
|
Current and potential political/social unrest and
instability |
Percentage of a certain land type affected |
Physical |
|
Biological hazard |
Percentage of population affected |
Environmental |
|
Chemical hazard |
Percentage of GDP |
Human |
|
Cross-border dynamics (as a destabilizing factor) |
Income from livelihoods according to sector, e.g., agriculture,
fishing, etc. |
Political and institutional |
Table 1 provides the identification of study parameters to facilitate
the assessment process. After identifying all relevant issues, several aspects
were considered in analyzing hazard parameters and vulnerability level.
2.2.
Assessment of Parameters
In assessing the parameters, it is
necessary to consider past events and potential future occurrences. Table 2
provides a list of questions used in determining the score.
Table 2 List of
questions for hazard parameter scoring
|
Hazard |
|
Is hazard currently being experienced or expected to occur
in the future? |
|
How often does hazard occur? Is it annually or more
regularly? Does it occur only once every few years or rarely experienced? |
|
Is hazard expected to increase in frequency in the future? |
Table 2 provides the idea of question list to identify hazard score, with values of 3, 2, and 1, representing high (H), medium (M), and low (L). Furthermore, it shows the extent of hazard affects the exposed subject. During the assessment, a subject is exposed to more than one type of hazard, showing the need for values of exposure to be separated to ensure a more explicit and measurable method. Table 3 provides suggestions for scoring the component of exposure, using the specified classification (UK Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2012):
Table 3 Exposure
parameter score criteria
|
Component |
High |
Medium |
Low |
|
Physical |
>20% of critical infrastructure affected |
5–20% of critical infrastructure affected |
0–5% of critical infrastructure affected |
|
Environmental |
>20% of water sources affected |
5–20% of water sources affected |
0–5% of water sources affected |
|
Human |
>5% of population affected |
0.5-5% of population affected |
<0.5% of population affected |
|
Financial |
Costs – major damage and disruption |
Costs – moderate damage and disruption |
Costs – minor damage and disruption |
2.3. Confidence Score
This study used two confidence score assessments, which focus on determining the current and future conditions. The two scores were combined to obtain the final value for the parameter.
General
Overview
3.1. Household Waste Management
Handling cleanliness in sub-district area is carried out by providing cart that accommodates waste from Hamlet 01 to 09. Moreover, waste from the cart is transported using a cross-operational car to a temporary disposal site.
3.2. Domestic Wastewater Disposal
Based on the data, sub-district already has latrines and
sewerage (Harapan Mulia, 2021). However, from the
results of questionnaires, 10% of respondents were found to use public toilet
facilities. Regarding the type of toilet used, 75% of respondents had used a
goose-neck latrine, while some applied a cubicle-shaped toilet with a lid. For
the type of sewerage, the majority already use individual septic tanks. In
hamlet 4 (densely populated and slum area) and hamlet 6, an integrated
wastewater treatment plant (Instalasi Pengolahan Air Limbah/IPAL) with a
capacity of 150 m3/day has been in operation since January 2022.
Although respondents are not charged any fees for the use of the IPAL, the
facilities are currently facing challenges due to the continuous disposal of
solid waste such as sanitary pads into the drainage system, leading to clogging
and wastewater overflow.
3.3.
Existing Drainage and Flooding Conditions
The results showed
that from January, February, to March 2019, there were puddles of water on
several roads and residential areas with low land (Harapan Mulia, 2020). This was due to numerous clogged drains
blocking the flow of water, affecting areas such as hamlets 05, 07, and 08.
Based on field monitoring results, water level reached 20 cm for hamlets 05 and
08, while hamlet 07 was at 40 cm. The flood-prone map of sub-district showed
that three hamlets were susceptible to flood risk. Based on the
interview results, the flooding that occurred in sub-district could still be
overcome in 6 hours.
3.4.
Clean Water Supply and Drinking Water
Residents in sub-district
mostly used deep and shallow groundwater, including piped water. Based on the
results from the questionnaire, the availability of clean water was still
sufficient for daily needs. Approximately 75% of respondents were using piped
water as a source of clean water, with groundwater serving as an alternative.
When the continuity of clean water sources is hampered, residents tend to use
bottled drinking water or purchase at the nearest water kiosk good quality.
However, there are only a few complaints in hamlets 03, 06, and 07, regarding
the quality of water, particularly groundwater sources, which had bad odor and
cloudy.
3.5.
Hygienic Behaviour
Hygienic behavior is
monitored through the Environmental Health Section of the Public Health Center
of District by checking the quality of refilled drinking water, and food
samples, as well as inspections of sanitation in public and food processing
places. Based on the results, there were still samples that did not meet the
quality standards, specifically for biological parameters, such as coliforms
and E. coli. To overcome this
problem, the Public Health Center has carried out further guidance and monitoring.
Sanitation inspection is also performed with assistance in disinfection
procedures and the application of health protocols to prevent the spread of
COVID-19. Additionally, monitoring and inspection of WWTP water samples and
clean water are carried out twice a year to ensure compliance with health
standards.
Inadequate sanitation facilities can cause death from diarrhea and significantly impact tropical diseases, such as intestinal worms, schistosomiasis, and trachoma (Iryanto, Joko and Raharjo, 2021). Hygiene-related diseases in sub-district are mainly dengue hemorrhagic fever during 2020, accounting for the lowest number of cases at 79%.
Risk Assessment of Sanitation System
4.1.
Assessing Level of Risk
4.1.1. Hazard
In this study, hazard
parameters related to WASH sector were selected, including environmental events
and degradation, biological, chemical, and economic downturns (Moe, 2014). Changes in land use were
not included but were categorized as external factors impacting other hazard
groups such as deforestation. For each indicator, the impact was observed based
on the frequency, intensity, and geographic area affected.
4.1.2. Exposure
In
determining the value of exposure, a specific analysis is needed on the object
being exposed. This can be carried out by observing the condition of the object
in the past when was exposed to danger. Exposure identification was carried out
based on predetermined hazard factors. Since one type of hazard can have a
significant impact, there is a need to record each hazard and the corresponding
exposure.
4.1.3. Vulnerability
The
aspects considered are physical, social, financial, environmental, human, and
political institutions. Among the six components, questions related to
sanitation were asked on a questionnaire or by interviewing the local
government.
4.1.4. Capacity
The resilience of humans, infrastructure, the environment, and others exposed to hazard is highly dependent on capacity level. Moreover, capacity can be influenced by the level of awareness, knowledge, data, monitoring, as well as the suitability of plans and policies implemented (Rizani et al., 2019). Based on the assessment of the capacity component, this study found that capacity level in sub-district was still in the appropriate range for sanitation needs in the environment, as shown by the score obtained 1.38 (low risk). Table 4 provides capacity assessment for different components.
Table 4 Capacity
assessment of sub-district
|
No. |
Component |
Elements |
Score |
|
1 |
Social |
Preparedness plans, community
participation, environmental community |
1.125 |
|
2 |
Financial |
Budget for emergency sanitation needs disaster
mitigation support |
2 |
|
3 |
Physical |
Technology and infrastructure of water resources |
1.33 |
|
4 |
Environmental |
Supervisory partner,
alternative protected water resource |
1.33 |
|
5 |
Human Resource |
Livelihood, support job switching |
1.5 |
|
6 |
Political (and institutional) |
emergency coordination mechanism, political response to
climate change (Oates et al., 2014) |
1.4 |
|
Average Score |
1.38 |
||
4.2.
Risk Prioritization
Hazardous event
consists of environmental conditions indicators such as flood, drought, and air
pollution, analyzed across all hamlets with equal score priority. However,
exposure analysis based on critical infrastructure, water sources, and
population affected, as well as cost, showed different score for each hamlet (Whitley et al., 2019). For the
vulnerability aspect, the analysis was also conducted in each hamlet with
elements or questions based on interviews and questionnaires. Risk scores were
derived from the multiplication of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability,
resulting in different average score for each hamlet, as shown in Table 5.
Sanitation facilities for each hamlet attached to the Appendix are also
considered in determining risk score.
The final risk score
can be used in determining priorities of policymakers. In this calculation,
capacity is not included but assessed separately to assist in prioritizing risk
for easy identification of resilience level. Hamlet 01 has the highest priority
for handling sanitation, followed by hamlets 02, 03, and 07, while hamlets 04,
05,06, 08, and 09 are considered low sanitation risk areas. Specifically,
hamlet 01 must consider land subsidence and water pollution, affecting the
degradation of quality of water sources. Sub-district area still has a high
level of vulnerability related to sanitation infrastructure, which requires
improvement and adequate housing conditions for a healthy sanitation
environment (Whulanza and Kusrini, 2023). Hamlets 04 and 07
also experience the issue of sea level rise, leading to a decrease in the
quality of water sources.
Capacity that
requires further development includes the availability of staff and training related
to the operation and maintenance of the current sanitation infrastructure. Residents
should also be engaged in operations and maintenance to foster a sense of responsibility in maintaining the quality of the
environment. Understanding related sanitation issues requires improvement considering that there are still residents who are directly engaged in handling sanitation issues. Regarding natural disasters such as floods
and water pollution, the local government should prepare a quick response plan that is more
practical based
on budget
allocation (Hartono et al., 2010). Therefore, disaster management can be carried out
immediately without being hampered by bureaucracy.
In Jakarta, various
initiatives and programs are being implemented to address sanitation challenges
and promote public health. These efforts can be further improved by integrating
sanitation risk assessment as a crucial component. One of the initiatives is
the Jakarta Sanitation and Clean Water Program, which focuses on enhancing
access to clean water and proper sanitation facilities. By incorporating
sanitation risk assessment into this program, policymakers can effectively
identify areas with high risk, prioritize interventions, and allocate resources
efficiently. The assessment also facilitates identifying potential sources of
contamination, assessing health risk, and areas requiring targeted sanitation
interventions.
In conclusion, this study successfully assessed sanitation risk for WASH compiled by UNICEF, which focused on hazard, exposure, vulnerability level, and capacity. The
analysis started with hazard indicators, followed by assessment of potential exposure to hazard, and
determination of
vulnerability level. In the final stage, the capacity aspect was
evaluated to determine
the ability of the current infrastructure to address sanitation issues. The indicator assessment was also followed by a confidence score analysis, which was carried out through discussion or deliberation with stakeholders and
residents. Risk prioritization was conducted by multiplying hazard indicators, exposure, and
vulnerability level to obtain a score that could be classified into high, medium, and low risk. The results showed that most areas in sub-district were still at a low-risk stage,
considering the sufficient capacity system to facilitate the needs of
residents. In the future, more detailed studies should be carried out related to local government policies in
overcoming environmental issues. This would enable local government to be more responsive and allocate a separate budget specifically for the implementation of sanitation infrastructure
development.
The authors are
grateful to Sub-District Office and residents for supporting this study by
distributing questionnaires, interviews, and field surveys. This study did not
receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| R1-CVE-6159-20230904104358.pdf | --- |
BAPPENAS, 2020. Technocratic Plan National
Mid-Term Development Plan 2020-2024. Indonesian
Ministry of National Development Planning, Indonesia. Available online
at: https://perpustakaan.bappenas.go.id/e-library/file_upload/koleksi/migrasi-data-publikasi/file/RP_RKP/Narasi-RPJMN-2020-2024-versi-Bahasa-Inggris.pdf, Accessed on November 10, 2021
Berawi, M.A., 2020. Empowering Healthcare,
Economic, and Social Resilience during Global Pandemic Covid-19. International
Journal of Technology, Volume 11(3), pp. 436–439. https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v11i3.4200
BPS, 2020. DKI Jakarta Province in Figures.
BPS-Statistics of DKI Jakarta Province, Jakarta,
Available Online at: https://jakarta.bps.go.id/id/publication/2020/04/27/20f5a58a
bcb80a0ad2a88725/provinsi-dki-jakarta-dalam-angka-2020.html, Accessed on
November 10, 2021
BRPAM DKI Jakarta,
2021. Semester 1 2021 Performance Report. Drinking
Water Service Regulatory Agency, Jakarta
Cairncross, S., Blumenthal, U., Kolsky, P.,
Moraes, L., Tayeh, A., 1996. The Public and Domestic Domains in The
Transmission of Disease. Tropical Medicine & International Health,
Volume 1(1), pp. 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3156.1996.d01-9.x
Cameron, L., Chase, C., Suarez, D.C., 2021.
The Relationship Between Water and Sanitation and Maternal Health: Evidence
from Indonesia. World Development, Volume 147, p. 105637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105637
Campos, L.C., Ross, P., Nasir, Z.A., Taylor,
H., Parkinson, J., 2015. Development and Application of a Methodology to Assess
Sanitary Risks in Maputo, Mozambique. International Institute of Environment
and Development (IIED), Volume 27(2), pp. 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/09562478155957
Eisenberg, J.N., Scott, J.C., Porco, T.,
2007. Integrating Disease Control Strategies: Balancing Water Sanitation and
Hygiene Interventions to Reduce Diarrheal Disease Burden. American Journal
of Public Health, Volume 97, pp. 846–852. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2006.086207
Harapan Mulia, 2020. Annual Report Harapan
Mulia Sub-District. Harapan Mulia Sub-District Office, Jakarta
Harapan Mulia, 2021. Harapan Mulia
Sub-District Family Welfare and Empowerment Mobilization Team in 2021 Report.
Harapan Mulia Sub-District Office, Jakarta
Hartono, D.M., Novita, E., Gusniani, I.,
Oriza, I.I.D.O., 2010. The Role of Drinking Water and Sanitation During Floods:
Case Study of Flood Disasters in Five Areas of Jakarta. International
Journal of Technology, Volume 1(1), pp. 29–37. https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v1i1.998
Indonesia Water Institute, 2021. Water
Consumption Pattern Assessment during Covid 19 Pandemic Report. Indonesia Water Institute, Jakarta
Iryanto, A., Joko, T., Raharjo, M., 2021. The
Relationship Between Environmental Sanitation Risk Factors and The Incidence of
Diarrhea in Children Under Five in Pauh District, Padang City. International
Journal of Health, Education & Social (IJHES), Volume 4(11), pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1234/ijhes.v4i11.199
Jimung, M.,
2011. Analysis of the Relationship Between Clean Water Sanitation Factors,
Mother's Knowledge and Behavior on the Causes of Diarrhea in Toddlers in the
Working Area of Fatima Hospital, Parepare City. MKMI Journal, Volume
7(1), pp. 28–36
Khoiron, Wibowo, S.C., 2014. Environmental
Health Risk Assessment to Determine Sanitation Risk Area in Jember District in
Supporting Millennium Development Goals. International Journal of Current
Research and Academic Review, Special Issue 1, pp. 51–57
Medema, G., Ashbolt, N., 2006. QMRA: its
Value for Risk Management. MICRORISK, Available Online at
https://camra.msu.edu/documents/QMRA_framework.pdf, Accessed on November 23,
2021
Moe, C., 2014. The SaniPath Study: The
Consequences of a Broken Sanitation Chain in Four Low-Income Urban Settings in
Accra, Ghana. In: WASH 2014 Conference, Brisbane, 24–28 March, Available
Online at: http://www.watercentre.org/services/events/wash-2014-conference/attachments/abstracts/moe-c,
Accessed on November 23, 2021
Oates, N., Ross, I., Calow, R., Carter, R.,
Doczi, J., 2014. Adaptation to Climate Change in Water, Sanitation and
Hygiene: Assessing Risks and Appraising Options in Africa. Overseas
Development Institute, London
Othoo, C., Olago, D., Ayah, R., 2023. Risk
assessment of Sanitation and water Infrastructure in informal settlements of
Kisumu: Implications for Hygiene and Public Health. East African Journal of
Science, Technology and Innovation, Volume 4(4), p. 668. https://doi.org/10.37425/eajsti.v4i4.668
Pond, K., King, R., Herschan, J., Malcolm,
R., McKeown, R.M., Schmoll, O., 2020. Improving Risk Assessments by Sanitary
Inspection for Small Drinking-Water Supplies—Qualitative Evidence. Resources,
Volume 9(6), p. 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9060071
Purnama, S.G.,
Susanna, D., 2020. Hygiene and Sanitation Challenge for COVID-19
Prevention in Indonesia. Kesmas: National Public Health Journal, Special
Issue 1, pp. 6–13. https://doi.org/10.21109/kesmas.v15i2.3932
Rizani, M.D.,
Antariksa, Surjono, Ari, I.R.D., 2019. Environmental
Sanitation Risk Study Based on Community Participation in Residential
Sanitation Management in Urban Areas of Mojokerto City. Journal of
Engineering and Applied Science, Volume 14 (24), pp. 9562–9572. https://doi.org/10.36478/jeasci.2019.9562.9572
Roos, P., 2021. Design of a Sanitation
Risk Assessment for Urban Communities in African Cities. University College
London
Snoad, C., Nagel, C., Bhattacharya, A.,
Thomas, E., 2017. The Effectiveness of Sanitary Inspections as a Risk
Assessment Tool for Thermotolerant Coliform Bacteria Contamination of Rural
Drinking Water: A Review of Data from West Bengal, India. The American
Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Volume 96(4), pp. 976–983. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.16-0322
Sunik, Kristianto, D.,
Khamelda, L., 2018. Environmental Health Risk Assessment-EHRA
(Facilities and Behavior of Residents of Karanglo Indah Housing) Against
Household Waste. Reka Buana: Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Sipil dan Teknik Kimia, Volume 3(2), pp. 87–97.
https://doi.org/10.33366/rekabuana.v3i2.1015
UK Department for Environment Food &
Rural Affairs, 2012. Climate Change Risk Assessment Methodology Report.
UK 2012 Climate Change Risk Assessment, Defra, London, Available Online at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government
/uploads/system/uploads/attac Retrieved
November 10, 2021
hment_data/file/69487/pb13698-climate-risk-assessment.pdf , Accessed November 10, 2021
UNICEF and GWP, 2017a. WASH Climate Resilient
Development Guidance Note: Risk Assessments for Wash. The United Nations
Children’s Fund and Global Water Partnership
UNICEF and GWP, 2017b. WASH Climate
Resilient Development Technical Brief: Appraising and Prioritising Options for
Climate Resilient WASH. The United Nations Children’s Fund and Global Water
Partnership
UNICEF and GWP, 2017c. WASH Climate
Resilient Development Technical Brief: Integrating Climate Resilience into
National WASH Strategies and Plans. The United Nations Children’s Fund and
Global Water Partnership
UNICEF and GWP, 2017d. WASH Climate
Resilient Development Technical Brief: Monitoring and Evaluation for Climate
Resilient WASH. The United Nations Children’s Fund and Global Water
Partnership
UNICEF and GWP, 2017e. WASH Climate
Resilient Development Technical Brief Linking Risk with Response: Options for
Climate Resilient WASH. The United Nations Children’s Fund and Global Water
Partnership
UNICEF and GWP, 2017f. WASH Climate
Resilient Development Technical Brief Local Participatory Water Supply and
Climate Change Risk Assessment: Modified Water Safety Plans. The United
Nations Children’s Fund and Global Water Partnership
Whitley, L., Hutchings, P., Cooper, S.,
Parker, A., Kebede, A., Joseph, S., Butterworth, J., van Koppen, B., Mulejaa,
A., 2019. A Framework for Targeting Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Interventions
in Pastoralist Populations In The Afar Region of Ethiopia. International
Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, Volume 222(8), pp. 1133–1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2019.08.001
Whulanza, Y.,
Kusrini, E., 2023. Defining Healthy City and Its Influence on
Urban Well-being. International Journal of Technology, Volume 14(5), pp.
948–953. https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v14i5.6578
Zakianis, Adzania, F.H., Fauzia, S., Aryati,
G.P., Mahkota, R., 2021. Sociodemographic and Environmental Health Risk Factors
for COVID-19 in Jakarta, Indonesia: An Ecological Study. One Health,
Volume 13, p. 100303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100303