“Access over Ownership – Considering Alternative Means for Improving Sanitation Outcomes”
While browsing for WASH financial interventions in India the other day, I happened to stumble across Chen Guangzhe’s recent blog post on the benefits of constructing clean, well-maintained, shared toilets in communities with low levels of latrine ownership. This post struck a chord, as it aligned almost perfectly with a finding from a recent Causal Design Cambodia evaluation of a WASH intervention in rural communities: the importance of latrine access over latrine ownership.
Let’s briefly give some background on the organization and program we evaluated. Causal Design was hired by WaterAid (whose UK Chief Executive, Tim Wainwright, co-authored the above blog post) to analyze the relationship between levels of social capital and community sanitation coverage and latrine uptake. WaterAid, in partnership with several organizations, is currently conducting the Cambodia Rural Sanitation and Hygiene Improvement Program (CRSHIP). This program aims to educate rural communities about quality sanitation and hygiene practices, expand access to improved sanitation, and develop sustained changes in household sanitation and hygiene through behavioral change interventions, such as Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS). WaterAid and its partners suspected that social capital might have some effect on the village-level sanitation practices, and the ability of community members to pressure, encourage, or otherwise convince each other to purchase latrines.
Based on Causal Design’s qualitative and quantitative findings (through a household survey, one-on-one interviews, and focus group discussions), the relationship between social capital and sanitation practices is uneven and, occasionally, contradictory. However, when analyzing our work through a broader lens, what we found particularly interesting was a village-level emphasis on latrine access, as opposed to ownership. Open Defecation Free (ODF) status is a commonly used measurement of latrine coverage in communities by WASH organizations, and therefore latrine ownership is a point of emphasis in sanitation messaging; yet village leaders in the communities we studied were often more concerned with ensuring that as many people as possible had access to a latrine. While villages are becoming wealthier as younger generations leave to work in factories, construction, or other forms of wage labor in urban areas and send money back to their home villages, poverty remains one of the most frequent barriers to latrine ownership. Households without latrines frequently stated that they were unable to afford the latrine they wanted, and were unwilling to take on loans (re: debt) to purchase one. Recognizing this, village chiefs pushing for greater latrine coverage were not opposed to emphasizing access over ownership, recognizing the seriousness of the financial barriers faced by members of their community. In doing so, village leaders also acknowledged an inability to time when poorer households might be able to afford a latrine; in the interim, rather than sit idly by, leaders could work to ensure that access to latrines was widespread, if it wasn’t already.
A somewhat exceptional case in our study, and perhaps a model to aspire to, is Tang Krang village, in Cambodia’s southeastern Kampong Cham province. In a focus group of seven women, none of whom owned latrines, all women used a shared village latrine that supported the fish stock of a local businessman. These women were too poor to purchase the latrines of their choosing, so until they could afford to do so, the women were content to use the shared latrine in the village. Clearly, they had absorbed the messaging of good sanitation practices, and appreciated the privacy that these latrines provided them. Sure, Tang Krang had not achieved ODF status (the village had a 73% ownership rate), and at least based on the comments made by women in the village, this status might not be achieved for quite some time. Yet in an admittedly very small sample of households (20), 90% could access a latrine either inside or outside their home, and all the women in the focus group felt comfortable accessing one within the village. If the primary concern is encouraging healthy sanitation and hygiene practices, shouldn’t we celebrate this level of sharing among community members?
Indeed, Chen’s blog post has reinforced our idea that WASH organizations should start targeting their efforts toward universal latrine access within communities, rather than emphasizing ownership. Overcoming poverty constraints to ownership will take time, with specific financial packages needed to address the needs of poor households. In the interim, WASH organizations could assist villages in the construction and maintenance of shared village latrines that benefit everyone. Such latrines can help remove any stigma associated with not owning a latrine, provide those women who live in households without latrines necessary privacy, and provide communities with cleaner, healthier spaces. Best to keep momentum on sanitation practices moving forward, and deepening the impact of improved sanitation within a community, than to do nothing at all.
Sources:
Chen, G., et al. (2017, July 19). Shared toilets as a path to health and dignity [Blog post].
Retrieved from: http://blogs.worldbank.org/water/toilets-path-health-and-dignity
WaterAid: Who we are. Retrieved from: http://www.wateraid.org/who-we-are
