Subjected to Sanitation: Caste Relations and Sanitation Adoption in Rural Tamil Nadu

O’Reilly, Kathleen; Dhanju, Richa; Louis, Elizabeth

doi:10.1080/00220388.2016.1241385

Cited by 28 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conditional on having a latrine, 64% of households had gotten help from the government or an NGO to build the latrine, and the average pit size was 180 ft 3 . It is important that the sample is balanced on these two characteristics because, compared with latrines constructed privately, those constructed with government help are less likely to be used because of concerns over purity and pit emptying 13–16. Finally, among households with latrines, ~80% of them appeared to the surveyor to be in use on observation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Indian government promotes and constructs latrines with pits that are ~60 ft 3 12. However, many rural Indians aspire to construct latrines with pits that are much larger, so that they can avoid emptying the pit, a task that is associated with ritual pollution 13–16. Compared with latrines constructed privately, those constructed with government help are less likely to be used due to concerns over purity and pit emptying.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring open defecation in India using survey questions: evidence from a randomised survey experiment

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo investigate differences in reported open defecation between a question about latrine use or open defecation for every household member and a household-level question.SettingRural India is home to most of the world’s open defecation. India’s Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) 2015–2016 estimates that 54% of households in rural India defecate in the open. This measure is based on a question asking about the behaviour of all household members in one question. Yet, studies in rural India find substantial open defecation among individuals living in households with latrines, suggesting that household-level questions underestimate true open defecation.ParticipantsIn 2018, we randomly assigned latrine-owning households in rural parts of four Indian states to receive one of two survey modules measuring sanitation behaviour. 1215 households were asked about latrine use or open defecation individually for every household member. 1216 households were asked the household-level question used in India’s DHS: what type of facility do members of the household usually use?ResultsWe compare reported open defecation between households asked the individual-level questions and those asked the household-level question. Using two methods for comparing open defecation by question type, the individual-level question found 20–21 (95% CI 16 to 25 for both estimates) percentage points more open defecation than the household-level question, among all households, and 28–29 (95% CI 22 to 35 for both estimates) percentage points more open defecation among households that received assistance to construct their latrines.ConclusionsWe provide the first evidence that individual-level questions find more open defecation than household-level questions. Because reducing open defecation in India is essential to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals, and exposure to open defecation has consequences for child mortality and development, it is essential to accurately monitor its progress.Trial registration numberRegistry for International Development Impact Evaluations (5b55458ca54d1).

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring open defecation in India using survey questions: evidence from a randomised survey experiment

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Through qualitative interviews, Coffey et al (2017a), O’Reilly et al (2017), and Routray et al (2015) find that rural households in India and the Nepali terai believe the accumulation of faeces in a latrine near the home threatens the purity of the home. Specifically, Coffey et al (2017a) find that the types of latrines that most rural households could afford, with pits that fill up every five years or so, are considered to be particularly problematic because they require periodic emptying.…”

Section: Background and Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because of limited labour supply and a slow shift in social attitudes, finding someone to manually empty a latrine pit in rural India and Nepal can be difficult, expensive, and socially uncomfortable. O’Reilly et al (2017) argue that households from castes considered to be lower ranking are similarly reluctant to use latrines since latrine pit cleaning reinforces caste hierarchies. To avoid the challenges brought about by having and using a latrine, most prefer not to use a latrine at all, while some very rich households build and use one that has a very large septic tank that is only emptied occasionally by a truck that mechanically vacuums out the contents.…”

Section: Background and Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Geruso and Spears (2018) study differences in infant mortality rates between Indian Hindus and Muslims, and present evidence that the higher mortality rates observed among Indian Hindus can be completely accounted for by the different sanitation environments in which Hindu and Muslim children grow up. The findings of qualitative studies point to the role that religious beliefs and caste relations, which originate in Hinduism, play in sanitation behaviour (Coffey et al, 2017a; Coffey & Spears, 2017; O’Reilly, Dhanju, & Louis, 2017; Routray, Schmidt, Boisson, Clasen, & Jenkins, 2015). These studies argue that beliefs in purity and pollution contribute to the acceptability of widespread open defecation and the rejection of inexpensive latrines in rural India.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sanitation and Religion in South Asia: What Accounts for Differences across Countries?

Vyas

Spears

2018

The Journal of Development Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exposure to open defecation has serious consequences for child mortality, health, and human capital development. South Asia has the highest rates of open defecation worldwide, and although the incidence declines as household income rises, differences across South Asian countries are not explained by differences in per capita income. The rate of open defecation in sub-national regions of Bangladesh, India and Nepal is highly correlated with the fraction of the population that identifies as Hindu, in part because certain rituals of purity and pollution discourage having latrines in close proximity to one’s home. Almost all open defecation occurs in rural areas, and this paper estimates how much the rate could be reduced if rural households in regions that have a higher fraction of Hindus, where open defecation is still common, altered their behaviour to reflect that of non-Hindu households in regions that are predominantly non-Hindu, where the rate of open defecation is much lower. Using nonparametric reweighting methods, this paper projects that rural open defecation in Bangladesh, India, and Nepal could be reduced to rates of between 6 and 8 per cent, compared to the prevailing level of 65 per cent.

show abstract

PROTOCOL: What is the impact of complex WASH interventions on gender and social equality outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries? A mixed‐method systematic review protocol

Duca

Soto

Carrard

et al. 2021

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND 1.1 | The problem: Limited evaluation of social and gender equality outcomes of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions Safely managed water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services are viewed as fundamental for human wellbeing, enabling a range of positive outcomes related to health, education, livelihoods, dignity, safety, and gender equality. Progress in providing WASH services and thus achieving these outcomes has not occurred equally, with a range of inequalities in who can access and benefit from WASH services across varying socio-cultural contexts, geographical areas and socioeconomic settings. For instance, among the 785 million people who lack a basic drinking-water service, and 2 billion who lack access to basic sanitation services, a greater proportion are poor and living in rural areas (WHO/UNICEF JMP, 2019). Further, unsafely managed water and sanitation disproportionately impacts a number of social groups, including women, girls, and sexual and gender minorities, people with disabilities, people marginalised due to ethnicity, caste, poverty or other factors, and those living in vulnerable situations such as displaced people or people who are experiencing homelessness. As the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affects particular groups of people, it has the potential to exacerbate many of these existing WASH inequalities (Howard et al., 2020).Gender inequalities related to WASH are particularly large, as women and girls have specific needs related to biological factors, and experience strongly gendered norms surrounding water and sanitation, such as expectations of carrying out water fetching, caregiving and hygiene roles within the household (Caruso et al., 2015). In many countries where women and girls are responsible for water fetching this contributes to a substantial burden of musculoskeletal disease (Geere & Cortobius, 2017). Additionally, women and girls are more negatively impacted by a lack of private and safe sanitation facilities,

show abstract

Subjected to Sanitation: Caste Relations and Sanitation Adoption in Rural Tamil Nadu

Cited by 28 publications

References 21 publications

Measuring open defecation in India using survey questions: evidence from a randomised survey experiment

Measuring open defecation in India using survey questions: evidence from a randomised survey experiment

Sanitation and Religion in South Asia: What Accounts for Differences across Countries?

PROTOCOL: What is the impact of complex WASH interventions on gender and social equality outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries? A mixed‐method systematic review protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About