Patterns and determinants of communal latrine usage in urban poverty pockets in Bhopal, India

Abstract

Summaryobjectives To explore and explain patterns of use of communal latrine facilities in urban poverty pockets.methods Six poverty pockets with communal latrine facilities representing two management models (Sulabh and municipal) were selected. Sampling was random and stratified by poverty pocket population size. A seventh, community-managed facility was also included. Data were collected by exit interviews with facility users and by interviews with residents from a randomly selected representative sample of poverty pocket households, on social, economic and demographic characteristics of households, latrine ownership, defecation practices, costs of using the facility and distance from the house to the facility. A tally of facility users was kept for 1 day at each facility. Data were analysed using logistic regression modelling to identify determinants of communal latrine usage.results Communal latrines differed in their facilities, conditions, management and operating characteristics, and rates of usage. Reported usage rates among non-latrine-owning households ranged from 15% to 100%. There was significant variation in wealth, occupation and household structure across the poverty pockets as well as in household latrine ownership. Households in pockets with municipal communal latrine facilities appeared poorer. Households in pockets with Sulabh-managed communal facilities were significantly more likely to own a household latrine. Determinants of communal facility usage among households without a latrine were access and convenience (distance and opening hours), facility age, cleanliness ⁄ upkeep and cost. The ratio of male to female users was 2:1 across all facilities for both adults and children.conclusions Provision of communal facilities reduces but does not end the problem of open defecation in poverty pockets. Women appear to be relatively poorly served by communal facilities and, cost is a barrier to use by poorer households. Results suggest improving facility convenience and access and modifying fee structures could lead to increased rates of usage. Attention to possible barriers to usage at household level associated particularly with having school-age children and with pre-school childcare needs may also be warranted.

Usage and Barriers to Use of Latrines in a Ghanaian Peri-Urban Community

“…This confirms the observation that the availability of communal latrines does not necessarily lead to regular latrine usage (Biran et al 2011). The implication of this finding is that the JMP's definition of improved sanitation is appropriate for excluding communal latrines.…”

Barriers to latrine use for defecation among mothers of children less than 59 months

“…12 There exist social barriers that hinder the use of latrine by mothers or there may be an inherent gender imbalance or it may be that the demands on women's time constrain and their access to a facility. 13 There is an urgent need to understand and address the barriers faced by women in using sanitation facilities. Mothers who use latrine felt that a toilet close to their residence or owning a private latrine makes it easy for them to use latrine every time for defecation moreover they even felt that availability of a toilet and having water as necessary elements to practice the behaviour.…”

Strengthening the Human Right to Sanitation as an Instrument for Inclusive Development

“…Further, the literature suggests that there are underlying issues of poverty and low levels of education among households that rely on shared facilities (Heijnen, Routray, Torondel & Clasen, 2015a), while households that share with neighbours (presumably a relatively smaller group of users with social ties) have higher demographic status than households relying on communal facilities (open to the public use) which are also less likely to be hygienically maintained than the neighbour-shared facilities (Heijnen, Routray, Torondel & Clasen, 2015b). Communal sanitation facilities may also be poorly suited for safe use by women due to privacy and safety concerns, for instance, which raises issues of gender parity (Biran, Jenkins, Dabrase & Bhagwat, 2011). Nonetheless, shared facilities may enhance access to sanitation if hygienically maintained, culturally acceptable, and located in a safe environment (Obani & Gupta, 2016b).…”

“…Second, household poverty limits users' ability to pay for connection and maintenance fees or flat rate subscription tariffs, and may ultimately cause service disconnections in the absence of well-targeted pro-poor instruments, like cross-subsidies (Biran et al, 2011;COHRE et al, 2008 Obani & Gupta, 2014a). Fifth, risk aversion affects investment in resilient systems (Saqib, Ahmad, Panezai & Rana, 2016) and some economic actors may be averse to investing in sanitation services for the poor without assurances of significant returns on their investments (Grey & Sadoff, 2007).…”

“…Fifth, risk aversion affects investment in resilient systems (Saqib, Ahmad, Panezai & Rana, 2016) and some economic actors may be averse to investing in sanitation services for the poor without assurances of significant returns on their investments (Grey & Sadoff, 2007). Sixth, unaffordable tariffs and high connection and maintenance fees, coupled with low incomes, limit households' ability to access sanitation services ( Biran et al, 2011;COHRE et al, 2008), and the threshold for affordability is a key issue especially in the context of informal settlements (Fonseca, 2014).…”