Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 64, Issue 4, pp 456–469 | Cite as

Purity, Pollution, and Space: Barriers to Latrine Adoption in Post-disaster India

  • Luke JuranEmail author
  • Ellis A. Adams
  • Shaifali Prajapati
Article
  • 88 Downloads

Abstract

This study examines the adoption of latrines provided as part of reconstruction efforts after the 2004 tsunami in India. Primary data from 274 households encompassing 1154 individuals were collected from 14 villages. GLM and GLMM tests indicate that sex (more females adopted than males) is a statistically significant factor in latrine adoption (p = 0.046 and p = 0.005, respectively), while income, education, and male age cohorts were significant only in the GLM model. Regression analyses show that six social and demographic variables are somewhat predictive of latrine usage (R2 = 0.123). Thus, while quantitative methods provided a contextual summation, qualitative methods ultimately explained why individuals chose to adopt or abandon the latrines. Interviews (n = 76) and focus group discussions (n = 14) revealed that latrine adoption is influenced by cultural conceptualizations of purity, pollution, and space. For example, conceptualizations of purity and pollution led some households to deem latrines as profane and thus a barrier to the entry of gods, while spatial constraints forced others to convert latrine space to other beneficial uses (e.g., puja room and storage area). Finally, the cost of pumping septic tanks and shared infrastructure arose as barriers to latrine adoption. These barriers underscore the importance of economics as well as community demand, capacity, and cohesion in latrine adoption.

Keywords

Sanitation Infrastructure provision Built environment Technological adoption Behavior change Semiotics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks for support from Sanam Aksha and the Laboratory for Interdisciplinary Statistical Analysis (LISA) at Virginia Tech.

Funding

Sustainable Water Undergraduate Research Fellowship from the Virginia Water Resources Research Center (VWRRC), and a New Investigator Award from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Virginia Space Grant Consortium (VSGC).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Banda K, Sarkar R, Gopal S, Govindarajan J, Harijan BB, Jeyakumar MB, Mitta P, Sadanala ME, Selwyn T, Suresh CR, Thomas VA, Devadason P, Kumar R, Selvapandian D, Kang G, Balraj V (2007) Water handling, sanitation and defecation practices in rural southern India: a knowledge, attitudes and practices study. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 101(11):1124–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnard A, Spencer J (eds) (2002) Pollution and purity. In Encyclopedia of social and cultural anthropology. Routledge, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnard S, Routray P, Majorin F, Peletz R, Boisson S, Sinha A, Clasen T (2013) Impact of Indian Total Sanitation Campaign on latrine coverage and use: a cross-sectional study in Orissa three years following programme implementation. PLoS ONE 8(8):e71428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartram J, Cairncross S (2010) Hygiene, sanitation and water: forgotten foundations of health. PLoS Med 7(11):e1000367.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baxter J, Eyles J (1997) Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: establishing ‘rigour’ in interview analysis. Trans Inst Br Geogr 22(4):505–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouabid A, Louis GE (2015) Capacity factor analysis for evaluating water and sanitation infrastructure choices for developing communities. J Environ Manag 161:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caruso, BA, TF Clasen, C Hadley, KM Yount, R Haardorfer, M Rout, M Dasmohapatra, HLF Cooper (2017) Understanding and defining sanitation insecurity: women’s gendered experiences of urination, defecation and menstruation in rural Odisha, India. BMJ Global Health 2.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000414
  8. Coffey D, Gupta A, Hathi P, Khurana N, Spears D, Srivastav N, Vyas S (2014) Revealed preference for open defecation: evidence from a new survey in rural North India. Econ Political Wkly 49(38):43–55Google Scholar
  9. Coffey D, Spears D (2017) Where India goes: abandoned toilets, stunted development and the costs of caste. Harper Collins, NoidaGoogle Scholar
  10. Crampton JW, Elden S (2006) Space, politics, calculation: an introduction. Soc Cult Geogr 7(5):681–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deilami K, Hayes JF, McGree J, Goonetilleke A (2017) Application of landscape epidemiology to assess potential public health risk due to poor sanitation. J Environ Manag 192:124–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dickinson KL, Patil SR, Pattanayak SK, Poulos C, Yang J (2015) Natures call: impact of sanitation choices in Orissa, India. Econ Dev Cult Change 64(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doron A, Raja I (2015) The cultural politics of shit: class, gender and public space in India. Post Stud 18(2):189–207Google Scholar
  14. Dyson T, Moore M (1983) On kinship structure, female autonomy, and demographic behavior in India. Popul Dev Rev 9(1):35–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Epstein TS (1962) Economic development and social change in South India. Oxford University Press, BombayGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman MC, Garn JV, Sclar GD, Boisson S, Medlicott K, Alexander KT, Penakalapati G, Anderson D, Mahtani AG, Grimes JET, Rehfuess EA, Clasen TF (2017) The impact of sanitation on infectious disease and nutritional status: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Hyg Environ Health 220(6):928–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuller JA, Clasen T, Heijnen M, Eisenberg JNS (2014) Shared sanitation and the prevalence of diarrhea in young children: evidence from 51 countries, 2001–2011. Am J Trop Med Hyg 91(1):173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Government of India (2018) Sanitation behaviour change. Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  19. Government of Pondicherry (GoP) (2005) G.O.Ms.No. 29 Revenue department – relief and rehabilitation – policy on reconstruction of permanent houses and infrastructure facilities for the tsunami affected people – participation of NGOs/voluntary agencies, etc. 15 March 2005. Revenue Department, Government of PondicherryGoogle Scholar
  20. Government of Tamil Nadu (GoTN) (2005) Guidelines for evaluation of NGO’s/other agencies to be followed by District Collectors as per G.O.Ms.No. 25 NC(iii) Dept. 13 Jan. 2005. Government of Tamil NaduGoogle Scholar
  21. Gupta A, Coffey D, Spears D (2016) Purity, pollution, and untouchability: challenges affecting the adoption, use, and sustainability of sanitation programmes in rural India. In: Bongartz P, Vernon N, Fox J (eds) In Sustainable sanitation for all: experiences, challenges, and innovations. Practical Action Publishing, Rugby, p 283–298Google Scholar
  22. Heijnen M, Routray P, Torondel B, Clasen T (2015) Shared sanitation versus individual household latrines in urban slums: a cross-sectional study in Orissa, India. Am J Trop Med Hyg 93(2):263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hirve S, Lele P, Sundaram N, Chavan U, Weiss M, Steinmann P, Juvekar S (2015) Psychosocial stress associated with sanitation practices: experiences of women in a rural community in India. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev 5(1):115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hulland K, Martin N, Dreibelbis R, Valliant JD, Winch P (2015) What factors affect sustained adoption of safe water, hygiene and sanitation technologies? A systematic review of literature. EPPI-Centre, University College of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Jewitt S (2011) Geographies of shit: spatial and temporal variations in attitudes towards human waste. Prog Hum Geogr 35(5):608–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jewitt S, Mahanta A, Gaur K (2018) Sanitation sustainability, seasonality and stacking: improved facilities for how long, where and whom? Geogr J 184(3):255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jha PK (2003) Health and social benefits from improving community hygiene and sanitation: an Indian experience. Int J Environ Health Res 13(S1):S133–S140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Juran L, Lahiri-Dutt K (2017) Waterscapes in transition: changing uses and perceptions of water in middle class homes in Kolkata, India. Water Hist 9(4):433–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Katz E (1961) The social itinerary of technical change: two studies on the diffusion of innovation. Hum Organ 20(2):70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khanna T, Das M (2015) Why gender matters in the solution towards safe sanitation? Reflections from rural India. Glob Public Health 11(10):1185–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. KPMG (2018) The making of “Swachh” India: lessons from the Swachh Bharat Mission – driving behavior change at scale. KPMG in IndiaGoogle Scholar
  32. Ludwig HF, Browder G (1992) Appropriate water supply and sanitation technology for developing countries in tropical monsoon climates. Environmentalist 12(2):131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Macpherson H (2016) Walking methods in landscape research: moving bodies, spaces of disclosure and rapport. Landsc Res 41(4):425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McMichael C (2018) Toilet talk: eliminating open defecation and improved sanitation in Nepal. Med Anthropol 37(4):294–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McMichael C, Robinson P (2016) Drivers of sustained hygiene behavior change: a case study from mid-western Nepal. Soc Sci Med 163:28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Montgomery MA, Bartram J, Elimelech M (2009) Increasing functional sustainability of water and sanitation supplies in rural Sub-Saharan Africa. Environ Eng Sci 26(5):1017–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nelder, JA and RJ Baker (2006) Generalized linear models. In Encyclopedia of statistical sciences, S Kotz, CB Read, N Balakrishnan, B Vidakovic, and NL Johnson (eds.).  https://doi.org/10.1002/0471667196.ess0866.pub2
  38. O’Reilly K (2006) “Traditional” women, “modern” water: linking gender and commodification in Rajasthan, India. Geoforum 37(6):958–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Reilly K (2012) Geography matters: the importance of land, water and space in sanitation studies. wH2O. J Gend Water 1(1):8–9Google Scholar
  40. O’Reilly K, Dhanju R, Louis E (2017) Subjected to sanitation: caste relations and sanitation adoption in rural Tamil Nadu. J Dev Stud 53(11):1915–1928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Reilly K, Louis E (2014) The toilet tripod: understanding successful sanitation in rural India. Health Place 29:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Reilly K, Louis E, Thomas EA, Sinha A (2016) Combining sensors and ethnography to evaluate latrine use in India. In: Thomas EA (ed.) Broken pumps and promises: incentivizing impact in environmental health. Springer, Heidelberg, p 195–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paterson C, Mara D, Curtis T (2007) Pro-poor sanitation technologies. Geoforum 38:901–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pattanayak SK, Yang J, Dickinson KL, Patil SR, Paharaj P, Poulos C (2007) Promoting latrine use: ‘midline’ findings from a randomized evaluation of a community mobilization campaign in Bhadrak, Orissa. Working Paper 07-02. Research Triangle Institute, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  45. Pattanayak SK, Yang J, Dickinson KL, Poulos C, Patil SR, Mallick R, Blitstein J, Praharaj P (2009) Shame or subsidy revisited: randomized evaluation of social mobilization for sanitation in Orissa, India. Bull WHO 87(8):580–587Google Scholar
  46. Patil SR, Arnold BF, Salvatore AL, Briceno B, Ganguly S, Colford Jr. JM, Gertler PJ (2013) The effect of India’s Total Sanitation Campaign on defecation behaviors and child health in rural Madhya Pradesh: a cluster randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med 11(8):e1001709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rashid M, Pandit D (2018) Determination of appropriate service delivery level for quantitative attributes of household toilets in rural settlements of India from users’ perspective. Environ Manag 61(4):637–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reckwitz A (2002) Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing. J Soc Theory 5(2):243–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, fifth edition. Free Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  50. Routray P, Schmidt W-P, Boisson S, Clasen T, Jenkins MW (2015) Socio-cultural and behavioural factors constraining latrine adoption in rural coastal Odisha: an exploratory qualitative study. BMC Public Health 15:880.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2206-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sarkar B (2008) A practical approach to Vaastu Shastra. Peacock Books, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  52. Spears D, Ghosh A, Cumming O (2013) Open defecation and childhood stunting in India: an ecological analysis of new data from 112 districts. PLoS ONE 8(9):e73784.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073784 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Srinivas T (2002) Flush with success: bathing, defecation, worship, and social change in South India. Space Cult 5(4):368–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tagat A, Kapoor H (2018) ‘Sacred nudging’ and sanitation decisions in India. India Rev 17(3):301–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. The Hindu (2016) Open defecation still a scourge in Nagapattinam. 26 Dec 2016Google Scholar
  56. The Hindu (2017) Tsunami houses: free, but at what cost? 21 Dec 2017Google Scholar
  57. Torras M, Boyce JK (1998) Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environment Kuznets Curve. Ecol Econ 25(2):147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tumwine J, Thompson J, Katui-Katua M, Mujwahuzi M, Johnstone N, Porras I (2003) Sanitation and hygiene in urban and rural households in East Africa. Int J Environ Health Res 13(2):107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2010) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 28 July 2010: A/RES/64/292 - the human right to water and sanitation. Agenda item 48, 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly (3 Aug 2010). UNGA, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  60. World Bank. 2017. “Improved sanitation facilities (% of population with access).” World Bank Open Data. Available at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.ACSN
  61. World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund (WHO/UNICEF) (2017) Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: 2017 update and SDG baselines. WHO and UNICEF, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  62. Yogananth N, Bhatnagar T (2018) Prevalence of open defecation among households with toilets and associated factors in rural south India: an analytical cross-sectional study. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 112(7):349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and the Virginia Water Resources Research CenterVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Global Studies Institute and Department of GeosciencesGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Virginia Water Resources Research CenterVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations