Motivation of people to participate in rural sanitation through Young Professionals (YPs): An Experimental Study

 

Dr. Narayana Billava¹, Dr. Prakash Bhat²

¹Research Associate, Abdul Nazir Sab Panchayat Raj Chair,

Centre for Multi-Disciplinary Development Research (CMDR), Dharwad-580004.

²Former Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Society for Community Participation and Empowerment (SCOPE), Dharwad

 

ABSTRACT:

Sanitation is one of the basic determinants of the quality of life and human well-being and also the most essential basic facility for every household (HH). The government as well as private institutions, NGOs, SHGs, and Youth Groups have been involved to create awareness on sanitation and made efforts to construct individual latrine under SBM schemes in the entire country. Due to these efforts, India could able cover nearly 100% of latrine facilities and the Government of India has declared open defecation free (ODF) on 2nd October 2019. But few studies highlighted that few household members are not using latrine facilities though they are having a latrine. The present experimental study tries to explain the motivational factors to access and the reasons for under-utilization of toilet facilities and highlights the value of motivators (Young Professionals- YPs) to create awareness among people and to involve communities in improving sanitation facilities in rural areas. This study is part of the SCOPE-Arghyam WatSan Fellowship Programme-II Cycle, implemented by SCOPE. The study was conducted in Dharwad, Gadag and Haveri districts of Karnataka. The YPs after their initial training stayed in their respective villages and worked closely with the community in both understanding the problems and trying to solve the problems. It comes out clearly from the study those serious and sincere efforts to work with the community, making them think about the problems of open defecation (OD) result in very good outputs. The study found that what the villagers lack is more in the social input than the money and the mere provision of money cannot solve the sanitation problem and sustain of ODF in rural areas. Due to the stay and intensive social interventions of the YPs, it was observed that not only people-built toilets but 82% of all the members in the families started using toilets. It must be high on the agenda of all those working on rural sanitation who may be the Governments, PRIs, CSR Initiatives, NGOs and Funding Agencies to plan an inspired social input with the concerned staying in the village to facilitate SBM. The concerned Zilla Panchayats need to look into it and build a motivated team to facilitate SBM considering the construction, usage of toilets and sustain of ODF. The GP members, ZP members, the SHGs, etc. who stay in the village could be trained and motivated to play the role played by the YPs. It is suggested that concerned Zilla Panchayats or Gram Panchayats should hire a person like YP or use ANMs effectively to create awareness and make the community own the programme and participate and make sustain of ODF.

 

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION:

Sanitation is one of the most essential basic facilities for every household (HHs) and the provision of this facility is a major challenge in developing countries like India. Further, it is one of the basic determinants of the quality of life and human well-being. Good sanitary practices prevent the contamination of water and soil and thereby prevent diseases. Inadequate sanitation kills, causes diseases, environmental pollution, and diminishes welfare (citied in WSP report; 2011). According to a World Bank study the total economic impact of inadequate sanitation in India amounts to Rs. 2.44 trillion (US$53.8 billion) for the year 2006, 6.4 % of India’s GDP in that year. Per person's annual impact was Rs. 2,180 (US$48). Considering the importance of sanitation, the United Nations convened a special summit (2000) and considered sanitation as one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Out of 17 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Goal 6 is to achieving access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and ending open defecation by 2030. Government of India (GOI) assigned rural sanitation as one of the prime duties of Panchayats under the 73^rd amendment to the constitution and is supporting the efforts of state governments in achieving the goal under the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (SBA) programme. But the Government alone cannot take up the responsibility of the costs of sanitation in the rural areas. Despite many efforts by the Government, there has been a huge change in the access to sanitation but household members are still practicing the open defecate in most of rural India, including Karnataka. It requires people’s/households’ involvement to enhance not only the economic feasibility of construction of toilets but also in better upkeep and increased life span of the systems created. People’s participation is not a new concept and in fact, was very much in force prior to independence. Indian villages are known for community participation. Participation is a process that helps Gram Panchayats to implement the rules and arrive at decisions in a democratic manner to achieve good development outcomes.

 

People’s participation though strongly recommended it has not been a major component of sanitation schemes in India. Studies have found that a very low level of people’s participation in creating awareness and in the process of village cleaning (Veershekharappa: 2001). Lack of people’s participation and lack of awareness are the main reasons for households were not having latrines (Veershekharappa: 2004). Social problems like poverty, unemployment, under-education, residential mobility, inadequate housing, and poor health are the reasons for lack of community participation in rural sanitation programmes (Mbere: 1981). A Few Gram Panchayats have constituted water supply and sanitation committees for community approaches to water and sanitation services under World Bank and Danida projects and this committee tried to create awareness about the adoption of sanitation programme in rural India (Shiva Ram; 2004). However, these committees are ineffective due to several reasons. (Shiva Ram; 2004, Veershekarappa; 2006). Further, a few studies have explained that there are some NGOs and local organizations that tried to create awareness to construct toilets and village cleaning (Veershekharappa: 2001). Apart from the above issues low social and political priority combined with poor planning and implementation and lack of knowledge are responsible for slow progress in sanitation in India (Mavalankar and Shankar: 2004).

 

These studies have been concentrated on peoples’ participation in the construction of toilets, create awareness and village sanitation service but there are very few studies to understand the proper utilization of latrines by households after construction. The use of latrines indicates their awareness and attitude towards personal hygiene and public health. Those families who do not use sanitation it is indicated that they lack health consciousness (Mandal 2011). A study shows that as low as 23% of households-built latrines in rural Dharwad out of which only 66 percent of households are using the facility (Billava and Nayak, 2012). A survey done by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) in 2015 revealed that just 46% of the 95 lakh toilets built in rural India were being used. It also found that households using toilets for storing grains or as general storage space and still going to the fields early in the morning to relieve themselves in the rural areas (NSSO, 2015).

 

Many studies have suggested that for better performance local organizations, NGOs, other institutions and people should be involved in rural sanitation. However, these studies do not explain the extent of awareness, improvement in health and hygiene that can be achieved due to community/people participation. A systematic experimental study is necessary to understand the basic problems faced by the people living in rural areas, with regards to accessing sanitation facilities. This experimental study tries to understand to what extent households covered basic sanitation (toilet) in the selected villages and to explain the motivational factors to access and the reasons for under-utilization of toilet facilities in rural areas. The present study also provides a few suggestions for the value of motivators (YPs) to create awareness among people and make service from people’s involvement in improving sanitation facilities and sustain the ODF in rural areas.

 

2. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY:

The state of Karnataka has been selected for this action study, in order to understand the challenges in achieving the coverage of sanitation facilities in rural areas. This study is part of the SCOPE-Arghyam WatSan Fellowship Programme-II Cycle, implemented by SCOPE from July 2015 to March 2017. Twelve Young Professionals (YPs), 7 women and 5 men, graduated from the Fellowship. These YPs who were postgraduates in social sciences were initially trained for 6 months on the ‘science and technology’ of Water and Sanitation (WatSan) and subsequently stayed in selected villages for 8 months. Out of 30 districts, 3 districts were selected for the study. The selected districts were; Dharwad, Gadag, and Haveri. The programme selected 5 villages from Dharwad, 2 villages from Gadag and 3 villages from Haveri, for the study. Though we have selected another village namely Kanavi from Gadag due to health issues of YP could not work properly as other villages so we did not consider that village for this study. The YPs were stayed in their respective villages and worked closely with the community in both understanding the problems and trying to solve the problems. All YPs tried to understand the problem of open defecation (OD), the reason for each of the family to have not built toilets, be it space, financial, psychological, socio-cultural, etc through interaction with the community as well as households in the village. YPs were conducted several activities to create awareness and understand the responsibility of villagers with the community, school, and GP. The range of activities included building toilets, achieving equity in water supply, rejuvenation, and cleaning of traditional water sources like ponds/lakes and public wells, solid waste management, and draining cleaning, etc. Twelve YPs could able for the guide to building more than 60% latrines in the village through creating awareness and supports from villagers and officers. Out of which about 50% households were visited to collect the data. Primary data was collected through a structured schedule including interviews with households, FGD, and case studies. The study mainly used descriptive techniques for data analysis.

 

3. COVERAGE OF RURAL SANITATION IN KARNATAKA:

In Karnataka, the coverage of toilets got increased from 37.5 % to 51.3% from 2001 to 2011. As per the 2011 census, 28.40 % of rural households were covered by toilets facility as against 17.40 % in 2001, while 84.9 % urban households had access to toilet facility in the year 2011 as against 75.2 % in 2001. The coverage of toilets in rural areas also varies across administrative divisions in the state. Mysore and Bangalore divisions have a higher proportion of coverage i.e. 50.2% and 40.5% respectively while Gulbarga and Belgaum have a lesser proportion of coverage i.e. 8.6% and 20.3% respectively. Rural sanitation coverage has increased from 17.4 % to 28.4 % during the period 2001 to 2011. Most of the districts in North Karnataka (except Uttar Kannada) were less covered by toilets as compared to the state average. Dakshina Kannada had the highest rural sanitation coverage at 88.1 % and Yadgir had the lowest rural sanitation coverage at 4.3 %, among all districts in Karnataka in the year 2011. According to recent data (SBM 2019), it has reached to 100 % and all districts have declared as ODF. But practically few households need to be cover latrine facility and people still having a practice of open defecate in the village level though they are having latrine facility at their house.

 

4. KEY FINDINGS FROM THE FIELD STUDY:

4.1 Construction of Toilets:

Based on the information collected from the sample households, the study found that we visited and able to construct the highest number of toilets (about 90%) in the male-headed family rather than female-headed (10%). The percentages of households with latrine were increased on an average range from 31.2 % to upto 74.8 % in the selected villages after the start of YPs interventions from July 2015 to March 2017. Table 1 shows the percentage of construction of toilets in selected villages after the intervention of YPs. The constructions of toilets by the intervention of YPs are varied across the villages. YPs have put extra efforts and achieved to cover the maximum number of toilets in four villages namely Harobelwadi, Harti, Hirehandigola and Yalavigi.

 

Table 1:  Construction of Toilets before and after intervention of YPs in the Selected Villages (July 2015- March 2017)

Source: primary data

 

4.2 Motivation Factors for Construction of Toilet:

The selected households were asked to mention the reasons for constructing their toilet and allowed to give multiple answers (Table 2). Regarding motivation to build toilets, YPs/SCOPE was quoted by the highest (40.3%) followed by the unavailability of space for defecation (19.6%) is the main motivating factor for constructing a toilet. The other popular reasons given include women's safety (14.3%), the subsidy from SBM (10.7%) and health/hygienic Issues (8.3%). None of the villages (except 10.4% of HHs in Yalavigi) households were reported that latrine constructed due to awareness from GP. Only less than 2.5 % of households were constructed their own interest through latrine is an important infrastructure for households. As the question lists SCOPE and other physical reasons together it is difficult to say exactly how many of them were motivated by YPs. However, looking at the acceleration in the building of toilets during the village stay of YPs it is safe to assume that many of them were motivated by YPs.

Table 2: Motivating Factors for Construction of Toilet (% of HHs)

Source: primary data

 

4.3 Types of Latrine:

Table 3 depicts the types of latrine in the selected households in the villages. Only about 5 % of HHs are with the septic tank and remaining about 95 % of households are having single pit toilets. The majority (70%) of households are having septic tank toilets in Kamplikoppa village. 

 

Table 3: Types of Toilet Construction (%)

Source: primary data

 

4.4 Location of the Toilets:

The majority of households-built toilets outside the house but within their premises. Only 4 % of households were constructed inside the house. The shortage of water, traditional practice, and bad smell are the main reason for constructing latrine outside the house.

 

Table 4: Location of the Toilet (%)

Source: primary data

 

4.5 Availability of Water for Latrine:

Access and utilization of latrine facilities are closely linked to the availability of water. Often scarcity of water results in the practice of open defecation. A greater per capita usage of water demands more sanitation and sewerage facilities (Ratna Reddy and Mahendra Dev: 2006). Insufficient supply of water prevents rural households from using latrines frequently. Table 5 depicts responses on the availability of water for latrines, with about 4 % of rural households reporting tap connection in the latrine. The majority (95%) of households are using stored water for the latrine. Devarahubballi has the highest occurrence of running water (18.8%). YPs observed that house-holds members are very much comfortable to use latrine with running water (water tap connection inside the latrine room) then the stored water. Four villages namely Kamplikoppa, Paramwadi, Marutipura, and Yelavagi do not have any running water connection to the toilets.

 

Table 5: Water for Toilets/ Availability of Water (%)

Source: primary data

 

4.6 Usage of Toilets:

Regular use of the toilet is very important for having good health. Table 6 shows percentage of toilets users in the family regularly., Toilets are being used by all the members in 81.2 % of families and only by women in 17% families, with lowest level of men not using toilets being in Paramawadi (10%) and highest being in Harti (27%). In the families where men are not using toilets, when asked for the reasons, the most frequent answer given was that of discomfort (51%). In Mangundi, the major reason was that the men preferred going out to field during the dry season and to use it only during the rainy season. To the question as to how regularly the toilets are being used, all the families in all the villages said that they are used all the time.

Table 6: Toilet Users in the Family

Source: primary data

 

4.7 Costs for Construction of Toilets:

Table 7 shows the amount spent by households for construction of a toilet in the selected villages SBA is providing a subsidy of Rs 12000 for BPL/APL ration card holding families and 15000 for SCs/STs under SBA. We found from the study that the majority (60%) of households spent above Rs 15000. It means that the subsidy amount is not enough to construct good toilets. The highest number of families (39.2%) spent an amount ranging from Rs 15001 to 17000 and another major population was the ones expending 12001-15000 (31.3%). Very few families (8.6%) spent from Rs 10000 to 12000 and built a low-cost toilet with a small pit. Moreover, it was found that two-thirds of the families borrowed money for building toilets and of them more than half (55%) borrowed from moneylenders.

 

Table 7: Costs for Construction of Toilets

 

5. ROLE OF YPS IN SANITATION SERVICES:

Gram Panchayats with the help of Anganwadi Teachers, ANM, SHGs, NGOs, and other local organizations is undertaking the IEC activities under the SBA grant to create awareness about sanitation in the rural area. We observed that the activities at the village level mainly include wall painting and baseline surveys etc. As per villagers, there are many awareness programs conducted only as formalities by different organizations with gram panchayats under Swatch Bharath Abhiyan. The Swachchata Dooths, though they exist on paper are not functional. They are either not working, or are not paid their incentives or the incentive paid is not enough to attract the right kind of candidates. But the YPs were stayed in the villages, motivated and inspired people to involve in building and using toilets.

 

YPs could understand through their intervention with the community and Gram Panchayat that there were several hurdles in building individual latrines, delay in the release of grants after building of toilets, inability of family to arrange for 10 to 15 thousand   rupees to build the toilet, lack of space for toilets, behavioral blocks, and so on. YPs set about to overcome them one by one and help families to build toilets YPs could convince the villagers about the positive impacts of using toilets and make sure that all members of households are using toilets. YPs made efforts to repair and clean community latrines, Anganwadi and school latrines. Apart from these activities, YPs started interacting with the youths and leaders of the villagers making them take responsibility for keeping their village clean. Villagers and youths were impressed by YP's effort and joined hands in the cleaning of streets, squares, drainage, public well, lake and ponds in the selected villages. Further, YPs could arrange the use of waste/dust bins in shops, hotels, and schools and also convinced some GPs to ban plastics.

 

6. INSIGHTS FROM FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION:

·       People are happy to participate in the drain cleaning and maintaining sanitation facilities in the village provided there is the right impetus.

·       Women and young girls are more active in the construction of toilets than men.

·       People slowly try to raise the question in the gram sabhas and ward sabhas regarding subsidy of SBM schemes, construction of toilets and about the village cleaning process.

·       People are happy to involve in the rejuvenation of community toilets, public well, and desilting of lakes or ponds.

·       YPs helped the community members to fill forms, submitted them to the GP office and also approached bank managers for the assistance of loan to construct toilets

 

7. CONCLUDING OBSERVATION AND SUGGESTIONS:

It comes out clearly from the study those serious and sincere efforts to work with the community, making them think about the problems of open defecation (OD) result in very good outputs. What the villagers lack is more social input than the money. The mere provision of money cannot solve the problem, in fact, it may complicate things. The complication is we see is in the negativity that breeds, in the community, the GPs, the government officials and the media that the money spent on SBM is almost useless. A study found that about 95 % of households are having single pit toilets and the majority (95%) of households are using stored water for the latrine. The study observed that before the intervention of YPs many households were not using toilets and were thinking that open defecation was better. Due to the intervention of YPs 81.2% of all members of the family are using the toilet in the selected villages. The highest number of families (39.2%) spent an amount ranging from Rs 15001 to 17000. More over study found that it means that people need to contribute an additional amount for the construction of toilets apart from subsidy under SBA.  We found that two-thirds of the families borrowed money for building toilets and of them more than half (55%) borrowed from moneylenders.

 

It must be high on the agenda of all those working on Rural Sanitation who may be the Governments, PRIs, CSR Initiatives, NGOs and Funding Agencies to plan an inspired social input with the concerned staying in the village to facilitate SBM. It especially requires a powerful effort to make the concerned stay in the village and work with the right attitude. There are people concerned with SBM staying in the village. The concerned Zilla Panchayats need to look into it and build a motivated team to facilitate SBM considering both building and usage of toilets. The GP members, ZP members, SHGs, etc. who stay in the village could be trained and motivated to play the role played by the YPs.

 

Banks and SHGs can be provided soft loans under CSR for lending to the poor and this should be part of the banking policy to lend for building toilets and recover on receipt of grants. There are some people especially men and old aged who are not using toilets though even when available. It is suggested that suggest the concerned Zilla Panchayats or Gram Panchayats should hire a person like YPs or use ANMs effectively to create awareness and make the community own the programme and participate. The sustenance of ODF in the rural areas is promoted by creating of awareness and self-motivation. This type of involvements by YPs or ANMs will also help to sustain the ODF effectively at the village level.

 

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

This paper is part of the SCOPE-Arghyam Water and Sanitation (WatSan) Fellowship Programme-II Cycle, implemented by SCOPE from July 2014 to March 2017. Twelve Young Professionals (YPs), 7 women and 5 men, graduated from the Fellowship. Authors express sincere thanks to SCOPE, Dharwad and Arghyam Bangalore utilise the data and also thankful for the hard work of the Young Professionals team who worked hard in the selected village and achieved the task. We thank the households in selected samples for participation. The interpretations, results, and conclusions articulated herein are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed to SCOPE or Arghyam institution. The authors are wholly responsible for errors and omissions.

 

9. REFERENCE:

1.      Dileep Mavalankar and Manjunath Shankar (2004), “Sanitation and Water supply: The Forgotten Infrastructure”, Sanitation and Panchayats in infrastructure, Indian Infrastructure Report-2004, pp 315-335.

2.      Mandal Niranjan (2011), “Role of Panchayats in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation: A Case Study of West Bengal”, International Journal of Research in Computer Application and Management (IJRCM), Volume No 1, Issue No 7, September. PP 108-115.

3.      Narayana Billava and Nayanatara Nayak (2012), “The Status of Water Supply and Sanitation in Rural Karnataka: A Case Study of Dharwad District”, Southern Economist, Volume 51, No 1, May 1, 2012, ISSN 0038-4046. p 95-99.

4.      Nomtuse Mbere (1981): “Applied Community Participation in Sanitation Prevision”, edited copy of “Sanitation in Developing Countries” published by International Development Research Centre, Ottawa Canada pp 118-122.

5.      NSSO (2015), “The Rapid Survey on Swachh Bharat Mission-Swachhta Status Report”, 72^th Round, May-June, 2015, National Sample Survey Organization, Department of Statistics, Government of Karnataka

6.      Shiva Ram. P, (2004): “Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Programmes in Arunachal Pradesh”, Journal of Community Guidance and Research, Vol. 21 No.1, PP 82-86, March 2004.

7.      Veerashekharappa (2001): “Community Participation in Rural Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation: A Case Study of Karnataka”, Working Paper No. 91, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, Karnataka.

8.      Veerashekharappa (2004): “Promotion of Individual Household Latrines in Rural Karnataka: Lessons Learnt”, Working Paper No. 160, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, Karnataka.

9.      Veerashekharappa (2006), “Community Contribution for Environmental Sanitation: Myth or Reality?” Working Paper No 171, Institute for Social and Economic Change, 2006, pp 1-30.

10.   WSP (201): “The Economic Impacts of Inadequate Sanitation in India”, Published by Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), New Delhi, Available in https://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/wsp-esi-india.pdf accessed on 30-7-2017

 

Received on 04.12.2019         Modified on 14.02.2020

Accepted on 08.04.2020      ©AandV Publications All right reserved