Long-term Sustainability of Rural SanitationFindings from a Study in Bangladesh

Craig Kullmann

1

Overview of Session

oStudy Objectives

o Background

o Methodology

o Findings – Sanitation Status| Durability of Latrines

o Findings - Sustainability Factors - Positive | Negative

o Conclusions

o Program Considerations

2

Study Objectives

3

1. Understand current status of sanitation behaviors and durability of latrines

2. Why households have or have not sustained behaviors and their latrines.

3. Has sanitation programming been sustained and has it helped sustain behaviors and latrines?

4. Have private sector sanitation providers helped sustain behaviors and latrines?

4

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Access to hygienic sanitation*

Open defe-cation**%

Hou

seho

ld c

over

age

*Source: Bangladesh National Secretariat – 2008

**Source: JMP 2010 Update

Rural Sanitation Coverage Has Increased and Open Defecation is Declining Nationwide

Background

Methodology

5

• 480 Open Defecation Free Local Gov’t (LG) as of 2005

• Sampled 50 Local Gov’t (10% of pool)

• 3,000 household survey

• 18 Local Gov’t with in-depth Qualitative

6

• By Collective Outcomes• By Wealth Quintiles

Study Objective 1a: What is the Current Status of Sanitation Behaviors?

7

68%

28%

4%

Household Sanitation Access and Use Across Local Governments is Relatively High (n=50

LGs)

HIGH ACCESS (90-100% HH)

MODERATELY HIGH ACCESS (70-89% HH)

LOW ACCESS (<50% HH)

HIGH ACCESS (90-100% HH)

MODERATELY HIGH ACCESS (70-89% HH)

LOW ACCESS (<50% HH)

HH access based on 3,000 HH survey

Study Objective 1a –What is the Current Status of Sanitation Behaviors?

8

Confining Feces

OD

89%

11%

Majority of Households Own or Share an Improved Type of Latrine (n=3,000)

% HH practicing safe sanitation

% HH not practicing safe sanitation (OD/Unimproved Latrine)

Study Objective 1a –What is the Current Status of Sanitation Behaviors?

9

Over 80% of the poorest households own or share an improved latrine (n=3,000)

Poorest 2nd 3rd 4th Richest0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Improved/Shared

Unimproved/Open Defecation

Wealth Quintile

% S

anita

tion

Cove

rage

Study Objective 1a –What is the Current Status of Sanitation Behaviors?

10

Study Objective 1b: What is the Durability of Latrines?

11

Study Objective 1b– What is the Durability of Latrines?

69%

31%

Based on Duration of Ownership Latrines are Durable (n=2,487)

> 3yrs

< 3 yrs

12

94%

1%5%

Most Latrines Have a Durable Type of Slab Such as Concrete (n=2,686)

Concrete Slab

Wood Slab

Earthen Slab

Study Objective 1b– What is the Durability of Latrines?

13

Exploring Factors Supporting Sustained Outcomes

Study Objective 3: Has sanitation programming been sustained and has it helped sustain behaviors and facilities?

Study Objective 2: Why have households sustained behaviors and their latrines?

Study Objective 4: Have private sector sanitation providers helped sustain behaviors and latrines?

14

Social Norms Positively Reinforce Latrine Use

“The sanitation revolution and the 1971 independence revolution had the same character.” Local Gov’t Chairman

“All spots in the village are free of open defecation. Hanging latrines no longer pollute the waterways and people understand that open defecation is a type of social negligence.” Focus Group Discussant

Study Objectives 2: Why have households sustained behaviors and their latrines?

15

Sanitation Programming has been Sustained and Appears to Help Sustain Latrine Use (n=50)

1/3 Very Active

LG

1/3 Moderately Active LG

1/3 Inactive

LG

Reminding constituents

Use ADP funds for sanitation

Declaring rules against open defecation

Providing latrine parts to poor families

Study Objectives 3 - Has sanitation programming been sustained and has it helped sustain behaviors and facilities?

16

High Access to Parts Suppliers/Masons

95%

5% No Access

Access figures are self-reported based on household survey

n=2,487 Access

Access

Study Objectives 4- Have private sector sanitation providers helped sustain behaviors and latrines?

17

Access

Access figures are self-reported based on household survey

74%

26%

n=2,686Access

Access

No Access

High Access to Pit Emptying Services

Study Objectives 4- Have private sector sanitation providers helped sustain behaviors and latrines?

18

Exploring Factors Working Against Sustained Outcomes

Study Objective 3: Does lack of sanitation programming effect sustain behaviors and facilities?

Study Objective 2: Why have households not sustained behaviors and their latrines?

Study Objective 4: Have private sector sanitation providers helped sustain behaviors and latrines?

19

Natural Disasters

Study Objectives 2 - Why have households not sustained behaviors and their latrines?

20

Lack of Sanitation Programming May Affect Sustained Latrine Use

Improved

Un-improved

•8 out of 50 Local Governments had >20% of households with unimproved latrines/open defecation

•None had an active Local Government Chairman

•5 of the 8 had no follow up sanitation program

Study Objectives 3 - Does lack of sanitation programming effect sustain behaviors and facilities?

21

• 63% of households indicated lack of money

Lack of Access to Cash/Credit

No access to loan68%

Access to a loan16%

Don't Know16%

Knowledge of Where to Get a Loan for a Latrine

(n=2,686)

Study Objectives 4- Have private sector sanitation providers helped sustain behaviors and latrines?

22

Enabling Environment

Social Norms

Active Private Sector

Sanitation Programming

Sustained Behaviors

Conclusion About Sustaining Latrine Use

23

Program Considerations – Inside of Bangladesh

Application of Sanitation Marketing

• Households that still don’t have basic access

• Strengthen private sector to offer affordable range of products and services

24

Program Considerations – Outside of Bangladesh

Focus on the Enabling

Environment

For More Information on …

• Sharing• Cleanliness• Satisfaction Levels• Perceived Benefits• Additional Analysis

www.wsp.org/scalingupsanitation

Chronicles of CLTS in Bangladesh view at www.bitly.com

Study TeamDr. Laurie Krieger – The Manoff Group (Project Director)

Dr. Suzanne Hanchett – Planning Alternatives for Change Consulting (Team Leader)

Mohid Khan – Pathway Consulting Services (Deputy Team Leader)

Craig Kullmann – Task Manager – WSP Rokeya Ahmed – WSP-Bangladesh

Santanu Lahiri, Abdul Motaleb, Mark Ellery, Mansoor Kabeer - WSP Colleagues in Bangladesh

Eddy Perez, Jacqueline Devine, Nila Mukherjee, Soma Gosh, and Pete Kolsky, Amy Grossman- WSP and World Bank Colleagues in Washington DC

Government of Bangladesh

Development Partners in Bangladesh