ERIC ED608355: Effects of Community Sanitation Program on the Awareness of Environmental Sustainability in Assam, India

2018·0.76 MB·English

by  ERIC

Program Evaluation
InternationalQuarterlyof
Effects of Community Sanitation Program CommunityHealthEducation
2018,Vol.39(1)51–61
!TheAuthor(s)2018
on the Awareness of Environmental
Articlereuseguidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Sustainability in Assam, India DOI:10.1177/0272684X18787150
journals.sagepub.com/home/qch
Ananta Kumar Jena1
Abstract
Community sanitationisnowanessentialissue ofenvironmentalsustainability.Inrecently,community-led totalsanitationprogram is
goinginBangladesh,India,Indonesia,Pakistan,Ethiopia,andKenyawiththehelpofgovernmentandnongovernmentalorganizations.In
this context, a community sanitation program was organized in Silchar, India, in which the students, local community members, and
university professors directly and indirectly participated and gave their valuable feedback. The study aimed to evaluate the effects of
community sanitation program on the awareness of environmental sustainability. In this empirical research design, 20 university
students, 6 university professors, and 14 local people participated in the community sanitation and hands-on activity program
organized on the roadside of Silchar Medical College & Hospital and Irongmara Market nearer to the Assam University, Silchar.
Theparticipants’responsestowardsthefeedbackcumquestionnairewasanalyzedbyKruskal-WallisHtestresultedsignificanteffects
of community sanitation program on the awareness of environmental sustainability.
Keywords
awareness, community, environment, program, sanitation, sustainability
issues, different programs are advancing in India and abroad
Introduction
since last few decades to achieve environmental and eco-
Sanitation in the sense of maintaining or living with a logical sustainability. Out of these, start-up activities,
healthy environment for the well-being of own family Information Education and Communication activities, and
includes taking healthy food, using fine clothing, living in hands-on activities are recently effective. Hence, the
the clean house, using sanitary latrine, and living with med- Government is allocating funds to maintain old latrines
ical care. Earlier, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and providing 100% grant to setup new latrines, dustbins,
Article 25(1) motivated the people to maintain standard of or waste recycle bins in India. Similarly, International
living in the adequate healthy environment, and later, Environmental Council is also allocating funds to train the
International Economic Social and Cultural Right in the Anganwadiworkers, teachers,andstudentswhocouldaware
Article 11(1) interpreted this objective. Community sanita- the common people. Hence, Gram panchayats are receiving
tion is the essential issue for environmental sustainability, as different central and state government funds for village sani-
climate and environment are dependent on people. People tation and cleanliness. Recently, on March 13, 2014, the
knowingly or unknowingly are neglecting to keep fit and Ministry of Rural Health Development, Government of
healthy, and they even do not know the effect of handwash- India, has implemented a new program (i.e., Nirmal
ing. Undoubtedly, proper handwashing is necessary after Bharat Abhiyan) to make people in rural and urban slums
defecation or before and after taking food, lack of which aware about sanitation and cleanliness. However, this was a
results in the spread of thousands of diseases in the commu- holistic approach to address the community to use house-
nity.1 Besides these, most of the rural people do not know hold toilet, community toilets, and toilets in the schools and
how to manage wastewater that creates a unhealthy and
muddy wetland around the community. Similarly, 50% to
80%peopledonotknowhowtomaintain thekitchenwaste; 1DepartmentofEducation,AssamUniversity,Silchar,Assam,India
they not only throw these wastes on the roadside without CorrespondingAuthor:
using dustbin or recycle bin, but they also spit in the public AnantaKumarJena,DepartmentofEducation,AssamUniversity,Silchar
places without applying their civic sense. To cope up these 788011,Assam,India.
Email:[email protected]
52 International Quarterly of Community Health Education 39(1)
Anganwadi. Similarly, Swachh Bharat Abhiyan is working
National and International Status
in the rural and urban slums for developing best practices
among the people. Similarly, Nirmal Bharat Rural Community sanitation is an international issue that comes
Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy (2010–2012) was imple- under the United Nations International Children’s
mented to clean the air, water, and soil for the economic Emergency Fund (UNICEF) declaration, advising people
and social well-being. In 2008, Government of India devel- across the globe to keep the community clean and green to
oped the National Urban Sanitation Policy and encouraged maintain environmental sustainability. Thus, CLTS program
the people to keep urban areas clean and green. was sponsored by UNO. Recently, in Nairobi, UNO declared
Furthermore, to encourage the people, the center planned the CLTS programbyeliminating open defecationand waste-
to provide Nirmal Gram Puraskar to facilitate school sani- water management.9 Therefore, more than 40 countries of the
tation and hygiene education in the rural areas. School sani- worldespeciallyinAsia,Africa,LatinAmerica,andMidEast
tation and hygiene education program was a comprehensive utilized these funds to achieve CLTS. World Bank also pro-
program to learn theory and to practice different skills vides funds for organizing programs in rural areas to create
related to handwashing, composting, cleaning, and waste awarenessamongthepeopleon howtousehealthy waterand
recycling, which could promote behavioral change toward well sanitation. Global Sanitation Fund Program and UNEP
hygiene education. Then, total community sanitation pro- water sanitation and hygieneprograms are recentlyadvancing
gram was enforced by United Nations (UNO) to assist dif- in different nations. Therefore, community sanitation is an
ferent African and Asian countries to keep their locality international issue for realizing the value of sustainability.
clean and green by establishing sanitary latrine, using The Joint Monitoring Program of UNICEF and World
waste recycling bin, and handwashing technique.2 Health Organization highlighted that 96% of people in urban
Community-led total sanitation (CLTS) program is advan- areas and 89% people in rural areas have been accessing safe
cing in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Ethiopia, water, but accessing well sanitation rate among these people
and Kenya with the help of government and nongovernmen- was much lower.10 Only 60% people in urban areas and 24%
tal organizations. Sanitation remains one of the biggest of rural dwellers accessed improved sanitation facilities. These
development challenges of our time and a long neglected numbers, however, do not provide an accurate and complete
issue associated with taboos and stigma. However, few picture of water and sanitation access in India. Across the
potential and challenges of CLTS is under research in country, there is a wide disparity among districts, and access
Bangladesh, India, and Indonesia, as well as experiences rate was significantly lower in the rural areas. ‘‘Water for
from Africa. Despite growing attention and efforts, many People-India’’ works, since 1996, with a small pilot project in
top-down approaches to sanitation have failed, reflecting West Bengal to help eliminate naturally occurring arsenic in
that simply providing people with a toilet does not necessar- water supplies. In 2012, Water For People expanded work to
ily guarantee its use.3 Sheohar,Bihar,andthisyearplanstostartworkinRajasthan.
Communityreferstotheunitoflivingwithvarioustypes CLTS program is recently working in East Asia, and the
of people starting from literate to illiterate, child to adult Pacific worked in Cambodia, China, Korea, Indonesia,
andold,butnowadays,mostofthemhavenoperfectknow- Kiribati, Mongolia, Myanmar, Philippines, Papua New
ledge or idea to maintain or manage the environmentalsus- Guinea, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Vanuatu, and Viet
tainability.4 Most of the literate and illiterate people are Nam. In addition, Water Aid Australia and the World
doing the same activities in their common day-to-day prac- Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program are now implemented
tices, keeping the community unhealthy.5 They use poly- bythegovernmentofthedevelopingcountries,butstillpeople
thene bags, plastic straw, plastic tea cups, and plastic are habituating with open defecation and living in unhygienic
bottles and throw here and there without thinking its side conditions.AndyRobinson,awaterandsanitationconsultant,
effects.6 Every year, UNO and other related international isworkingand observing the effectivenessamong14countries
green missions are working in the underdeveloped and withmultiplepartnerswhofoundthatcommunitysanitationis
developing countries to keep the locality clean and green. theultimateandnothingisbeyondittoraiseawarenessamong
Therefore, total community sanitation program under the the people toward sanitation. Chander Badloe, the Regional
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) scheme Adviser in WASH, UNICEF East Asia and Pacific, opined
was sponsored to create awareness and educate the people that community sanitation is an individual practice that
towardtotalsanitationforhealthyandwealthyliving.7Asa could change the health of the community.11
whole, we could conclude that controlling open defecation, Even now, managing and practicing environmental sus-
using dustbins without throwing domestic wastes on the tainabilitypolicyisonlyframedwiththefileorinornamental
road, using sanitary latrines, setting up of individual speech, but in practical situations, nothing happens.12 Who
latrines and community latrines, setting up of dustbins, will implement it and where it could be implemented are the
and recycle bins in community places are the efforts made recent questions?Howdo thestudentsandteachers,commu-
toward environmental sustainability.8 nity members, and industrialists realize the practical
Jena 53
importanceofecologyandenvironment?Moreover, whowill Hypothesis 2 (H2): There is a significant difference in the
shape the future of the green earth? So many ecological and awareness of participants who participated in the community
environmentalissues-relatedprojects,workshops,conference, sanitation programonenvironmental sustainability.
symposium, and protocols were adopted and developed to
solve these issues. In fact, researchers are trying to apply
these findings at the grass root level, but still environmental
education and sustainability is in air.13 However, few people Methodology
of the world are realizing its significance and trying to apply
Participants
these. The resource persons are using floristic language
to address the participants on how to be eco-friendly or A community sanitation program was organized on the
how to practice environmental sustainability in daily life, roadside of Silchar Medical College & Hospital and fol-
but they do not apply these in practice.14 Sustainability and lowed by the another program organized in Irongmara
educationareinterrelated;thus,worldofeducationneedsnew Market nearer to the Assam University, Silchar, India.
methodologytobeintroducedineducation.Itmeansinnova- No sampling techniques were used; rather, participants
tiveinstructionisnecessarytoachieveenvironmentalsustain- joined in this sanitation program that was notified and
ability. Similarly, organizing sanitation programs in local circulated earlier in the local print media and university
community is an effort to raise awareness among people website specified with the aims and objectives, date, time,
toward environmental sustainability. In fact, hands-on activ- and location of the sanitation program. University students
ity programs should be organized with the help of local (n¼20, age range¼21–24, mean¼23, and SD¼0.23), uni-
people to give a message to the world of community that versity professors (n¼6, age range¼35–55, mean¼45, and
hands-on activity is an effort made toward environmental SD¼0.29), and the local people (n¼14, age range¼25–55,
sustainability and it has a high relationship with the environ- mean¼44, and SD¼0.29) participated in this community
ment.15 UNO and other national and international organiza- sanitation program.
tions are emphasizing on community sanitation.
The literature found that environmental education is an
Design of the Study
effective effort that could aware students, teachers, and com-
munity members toward environmental sustainability,16,17 Inthisempiricalstudy,acommunitysanitationprogram was
but still it is in pen and papers but not in practice. organized to create awareness among the people to change
Environmental education needs to be practiced in schools, the practices and knowledge about the environmental and
colleges, and universities for long-term benefits.18,19 sustainability. The effectiveness of the program was evalu-
Questionsrosewhethertheexistingenvironmentaleducation ated, and the participants’ feedback toward the community
materialsaresufficientforthestudents,teachers,orcommunity sanitation program on the awareness of environmental
membersornot;ifso,thenwhy,thereisnosuchimprovement sustainability was assessed. After all, nonparametric
inpracticeandtheirunderstandingandrealizationaboutenvir- Kruskal–Wallis H test was used to analyze the feedbacks
onment andecology.Isthistheonlytheory, whichis sufficient and questionnaire responses of the participants to draw the
tounderstandenvironment;ifnot,thenhowmuchthecommu- inferences for generalization.
nity sanitation and hands-on activity programs be effective
among the community members and university students?
Tool
Objectives Community Sanitation and Environmental Sustainability
Feedback-cum Questionnaire20 was used to assess the
1. To study the feedbacks of the participants cooperated in effects of community sanitation program on the awareness
the community sanitation program on environmental of environmental sustainability. The whole Community
sustainability. Sanitation and Environmental Sustainability Questionnaire
2. To study the differences in the awareness of participants followed the 5-point Likert-type scale with categories
cooperatedinthecommunitysanitationprogramonenvir- strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly
onmental sustainability. disagree. Normative sample was the sample of this study;
the university students, common people, and university
professors around India randomized from the cross-
Hypotheses cultural group accurately reflect the diversity of that
group of test takers. The content validity ratio was 0.75,
Hypothesis1(H1):Therearepositivefeedbacksfromthepar- while the reliability of the scale was established using
ticipants toward community sanitation program on environ- Kuder–Richardson (KR) method (KR ¼0.87) and test–
20
mental sustainability. retest method¼0.89.
54 International Quarterly of Community Health Education 39(1)
Procedure of Organizing the Community
Sanitation Program
The community sanitation program was organized on the
roadside of Silchar Medical College & Hospital, Silchar,
Assam, on January 19, 2014 (Sunday), at 9 a.m. to
11:30 a.m. This program was organized with the concern of
the Deputy Collector of Cachar District, Assam; Principal
and Superintendent of Silchar Medical College, Silchar,
Assam; and Vice Chancellor, Assam University, Silchar.
The Chief Executive Engineer, PWD (Rural) Road Division,
Silchar, Assam, and Chairman, Silchar Development
Authority,Silchar,Assam,wereinvitedtoattendtheprogram.
Two eminent professors of Assam University participated in
this program and advised the local people on ‘‘how to
keep environment and Silchar clean and green.’’ More than Figure 3. Viewbefore landfilling the solidwaste.
100 studentsofdifferent departmentsand local peoplepartici-
patedinthesanitationprogram.Hence,100piecesofbrooms,
50 packets of bleaching powder, and 2 bottles of phenyl were
Figure 4. Viewafterland filling thesolid waste.
Figure 1. Sanitationcampaigningon theroadside.
Figure 2. Signaturecollection towardenvironmental sustainability. Figure 5. Sanitationcampaignshowing theuse ofbleach andphenyl
forcleaning.
Jena 55
used. A vehicle was used for land filling the solid waste. Hospital and people were requested to use this dustbin. In
The students from the Departments of Education, Ecology addition, a similar program was organized in the Irongmara
and Environment, English, Bengali, and Life Sciences actively Market near to Assam University, Silchar, at 12 noon on the
participated in this program (see Figures 1 to 6). same day (January 19, 2014, Sunday). Here, more than 500
A 10-m-long cloth was used to collect the signature, and students from different hostels of Assam University partici-
awareness was raised among the people toward environment patedintheprogram.Again,100piecesofbrooms,50packets
and sustainability. A big rally was marched with more than of bleaching powder, and 2 bottles of phenyl were used. The
100 students and teachers with effective environmental slo- students of Departments of Education, Ecology and
ganstosensitizethepeopletowardenvironmentalsustainabil- Environment, English, Bengali, Life Sciences, Biotechnology,
ity. Officials of different prints and TV channels participated and Social Works actively participated in this program. A big
and encouraged the program director and later it was pub- rallywasmarchedwithmorethan500studentswithslogansof
lished in the local newspapers for encouraging the people of environmental sustainability.Themedia personnelof different
Silchar to organize such programs in their localities. prints and TV channels participated and appreciated the
In addition, big plastic dustbins (USE ME) established per- organizer. During and after the community sanitation pro-
manently on the roadside of Silchar Medical College & gram, a Community Sanitation and Environmental
Sustainability Feedback-cum Questionnaire was administered
to assess the effectiveness of the program.
Analysis and Results
H1: There are positive feedbacks from the participants
toward community sanitation program on environmental
sustainability.
Table 1 presents the percentage of response toward the
feedback of the community sanitation and hands-on activity
program on environmental sustainability. At the end of the
community sanitation and environmental sustainability pro-
gram,adichotomous-type(i.e.,yesorno)feedbackformwas
provided to the participants to rate the effort of environmen-
tal sustainability. All the participants felt better after attend-
ing the sanitation camp and they wanted to keep their home
and community clean and suggested that sanitation activities
both inside and outside the house is necessary to maintain
the sustainable environment (see Items 1, 2, 3, and 7).
Figure 6. Solidwaste management. Nevertheless, 92.5% of participants planned to clean their
Table 1. PercentageofResponsesTowardtheFeedbackoftheCommunitySanitationProgramonEnvironmentalSustainability.
Response
S.no. Statements Yes No
1 Areyoufeelingbetterafter attending thesanitation camp? 40(100%) 0(0%)
2 Doyouwant to keepyour homeandcommunity clean? 40(100%) 0(0%)
3 Doesthesanitation activities facilitateenvironmental sustainability? 40(100%) 0(0%)
4 Doyouplanto cleanyourlocality atleastonceaweek? 37(92.5%) 3(7.5%)
5 Doyoufeel, yourlocality needsfreesanitation? 35(87.5%) 5(2.5%)
6 Isthiscommunity sanitationsufficient? 26(65%) 4(35%)
7 Doyouthink, sanitation needsbothinside andoutsidethe house? 40(100%) 0(0%)
8 Doyouthink, thissanitation workencouragedlocal people? 38(95%) 2(5%)
9 Doyouuse dustbin andrecycle binsavailableearlier? 22(55%) 18(45%)
10 After thisprogram,doyouthink peoplewill practiceeco-friendly habits toprotectthenature? 38(95%) 2(5%)
11 Doyouthink, thiscommunitysanitation program ishelpful forenvironmental sustainability? 39(97.5%) 1(2.5%)
56 International Quarterly of Community Health Education 39(1)
localityatleastonceaweekand87.5%opinedthatourlocal- .934 to .385. All the participants (n¼40) responded the
ity needsfree sanitation. However, 65% participants feltthat Community Sanitation and Environmental Sustainability
thismuch communitysanitation isnotsufficient(seeItems4, Questionnaire.
5, and 6). In addition, 95% of participants argued that this NonparametricKruskal–WallisHtestwasusedtoanalyze
sanitation work encouraged local people, and people will use the items of Community Sanitation and Environmental
to practice these eco-friendly habits everyday to protect the Sustainability Questionnaire responded by the university stu-
nature (seeItems 8and10).Nevertheless,97.5%participants dents, university professors, and local people.
concluded that community sanitation program is helpful for
environmental sustainability (see Item 11). As a whole, the Item 1. Sanitation, a Step Toward Environmental
results showed that 97% to 100% participants enjoyed the
Sustainability
program and they have a positive feedback toward the com-
munitysanitationandhands-onactivityprogramonenviron- TheKruskal–Wallistest(2.484;whenthelevelofsignificanceis
mental sustainability. setat.01andthesmallpvalue¼.289)indicatednosignificant
H2: There is a significant difference in the awareness of difference in participants rating for responding strongly agree
participants who participated in the community sanitation in individual assignment (see Table 4). The university profes-
program on environmental sustainability. sorsand university students had the highest mean rank (24.00
Table 2 presents the responses to Community Sanitation
and Environmental Sustainability Questionnaire in percent-
age;82.5%ofparticipantsstronglyagreedthatsanitationisa Table 3. MeanandSDof theResponsetothe ItemsofCommunity
steptowardenvironmentalsustainabilityandsanitationisthe SanitationandEnvironmental Sustainability Questionnaire.
actionofprotectingthenaturalworldandpreservingthecap-
N Mean SD
abilityoftheenvironmentinsupportofhumanlife(seeItems
1 and 2). Community sanitation is an effort toward environ- Item1 40 3.83 .385
mentalsustainability(seeItem3atoItemginTable2).Many Item 2 40 3.83 .385
of the participants strongly agreed that it encouraged per-
Item 3a 40 3.83 .675
sonal hygienic practices (75%), motivated to use hygienic
Item 3b 40 3.75 .439
latrines, handwashing after defecation (65%), no spitting in
Item 3c 40 3.50 .934
public places (55%), habiting in waste water disposal in a
Item 3d 40 3.57 .501
hygienic way (65%), cleaning courtyards and roadsides
Item 3e 40 3.67 .730
(70%), and conserving native ecosystems (75%).
Item 3f 40 3.60 .496
Table 3 analyzes the mean and SD of the responses to the
items of Community Sanitation and Environmental Item 3g 40 3.50 .934
Sustainability Questionnaire. Results show that the mean
Note. However, this summary does not give us mean and SD, still it needed to
response ranged from 3.83 to 1.85 and the SD ranged from analyzetherawdata.
Table 2. Responsesto CommunitySanitationandEnvironmentalSustainability Questionnaire inPercentage.
Response
strongly
Item no. Statements stronglyagree(4) agree(3) undecided (0) decided(2) disagree (1)
1. Sanitation, asteptowardenvironmentalsustainability. 33(82.5%) 7 (17.5%) – – –
2. Sanitationisthe actionofprotectingthe 33(82.5%) 7 (17.5%) – – –
natural world andpreservingthecapability
of theenvironment insupport ofhuman life.
3. Communitysanitation isanefforttoward
environmental sustainability.Itencourages.. .
(a) Hygienic practices 30(75%) 9 (22.5%) 1 (2.5%) – –
(b) Using hygieniclatrines 30(75%) 10(25%) – –
(c) Handwashing afterdefecation 26(65%) 12(30%) 2 (5%)
(d) Nospitting in publicplaces 25(55%) 17(25%)
(e) Habitingwastewaterdisposalin ahygienicway 30(65%) 9 (32.5%) 1 (2.5%) – –
(f) Cleaning courtyardsandroadsides 24(70%) 16(30%) – – –
(g) Conservingnative ecosystems 26(75%) 12(20%) 2(5%) – –
Jena 57
Table 4. Kruskal–Wallis HTestforItem 1. Table 6. Kruskal–Wallis HTestforItem 3a.
Group n Mean rank Group n Mean rank
Universitystudents 20 21.00 Universitystudents 20 20.55
Universityprofessors 6 24.00 Universityprofessors 6 22.50
Local people 14 18.29 Local people 14 19.57
Total 40 Total 40
Kruskal–Wallis test 2.484 Kruskal–Wallis test .976
df 2 df 2
p .289>.01(chi-squareapproximation p .614>.01(chi-squareapproximation
corrected for theexistence of ties corrected for the existenceof ties
in theranksof thedata) in theranksof thedata)
Table 7. Kruskal–Wallis HTestforItem 3b.
Table 5. Kruskal–Wallis HTestforItem 2.
Group n Mean rank
Group n Mean rank
Universitystudents 20 21.50
Universitystudents 20 21.00 Universityprofessors 6 25.50
Universityprofessors 6 24.00 Local people 14 16.93
Local people 14 18.29 Total 40
Total 40 Kruskal–Wallis test 4.531
Kruskal–Wallis test 2.484 df 2
df 2 p .104>.01(chi-squareapproximation
p .289>.01(chi-squareapproximation corrected for the existenceof ties
corrected for theexistence of in theranksof thedata)
ties intheranks of thedata)
Item 3a. Community Sanitation Is an Effort Toward
and 21.00, respectively), an indication of better significant Environmental Sustainability. It Encourages Hygienic
response level to community sanitation, and the local people
Practices
hadthelowestmeanrank(18.29).Thehypothesiswasrejected,
and there was no significant difference in the awareness of The Kruskal–Wallis test (.976; p>.01), where the chi-square
participantsparticipatedinthecommunitysanitationprogram approximation corrected for the existence of ties in the ranks
on environmental sustainability. Hence, sanitation was a step of the data, indicated no significant difference in participants
toward environmental sustainability. rating in individual assignment (see Table 6). The university
professorsanduniversitystudentshadthehighestmeanrank
Item 2. Sanitation Is the Action of Protecting the (22.50 and 20.55) over the local people who had the lowest
Natural World and Preserving the Capability of the meanrank(19.57).Theresultsofthetestwereintheexpected
direction and not significant. The hypothesis was rejected,
Environment in Support of Human Life
andtherewasnosignificantdifferenceintheawarenessofpar-
Theuniversityprofessorsanduniversitystudentsgrouphad ticipants participated in the community sanitation program
the highest mean rank (24.00 and 21.00) over the local on environmental sustainability. Hence, the community sani-
people who had the lowest mean rank (18.29) toward com- tation is an effort toward environmental sustainability. It
munity sanitation. The Kruskal–Wallis test (2.484; p>.01) encouraged hygienic practices.
indicated no significant difference in participants rating for
individual assignment (see Table 5). The hypothesis was Item 3b. Community Sanitation Is an Effort Toward
rejected, and there was no significant difference in the Environmental Sustainability. It Encourages Using
awareness of participants participated in the community
the Hygienic Latrines
sanitation program on environmental sustainability.
Hence, sanitation is the action of protecting the natural Theuniversityprofessorsanduniversitystudentshadthehigh-
world and preserving the capability of the environment in estmeanrank(22.50and21.50),anindicationofbettersignifi-
support of human life. cant response level of community sanitation over the local
58 International Quarterly of Community Health Education 39(1)
Table 8. Kruskal–Wallis HTestforItem 3c. Table 9. Kruskal–Wallis HTestforItem 3d.
Group n Meanrank Group n Mean rank
Universitystudents 20 20.85 Universitystudents 20 20.00
Universityprofessors 6 27.50 Universityprofessors 6 29.00
Local people 14 17.00 Local people 14 17.55
Total 40 Total 40
Kruskal–Wallis test 4.901 Kruskal–Wallis test 5.571
df 2 df 2
p .086>.001(chi-squareapproximation p .062>.001(chi-squareapproximation
corrected for theexistenceof tiesin corrected for the existenceof
theranks ofthedata) ties intheranks ofthedata)
people who had the lowest mean rank (18.29). The Kruskal– Table 10. Kruskal–Wallis HTestforItem 3e.
Wallistest(4.531;whenthelevelofsignificanceissetat.01and
Group n Mean rank
the small p value¼.104) indicated no significant difference in
participantsratingforindividualassignment(seeTable7).The Universitystudents 20 20.63
hypothesiswasrejected,andtherewasnosignificantdifference Universityprofessors 6 25.50
intheawarenessofparticipantsparticipatedinthecommunity
Local people 14 18.18
sanitation program on environmental sustainability. Hence,
Total 40
the community sanitation is an effort toward environmental
Kruskal–Wallis test 2.913
sustainability. It encouraged using hygienic latrine.
df 2
p .233>.001(chi-squareapproximation
Item 3c. Community Sanitation Is an Effort Toward
corrected for theexistenceof ties
Environmental Sustainability. It Encourages Effective intheranks ofthedata)
Handwashing After Defecation
TheKruskal–Wallistest(4.901;p>.01),wherethechi-square
approximation corrected for the existence of ties in the ranks was rejected, and there was no significant difference in the
of the data, indicated no significant difference in participants awareness of participants participated in the community
rating in individual assignment (see Table 8). The university sanitation program on environmental sustainability.
professors and university students had the highest mean Hence, community sanitation is an effort toward environ-
rank (27.50 and 20.85), an indication of better significant mental sustainability. It encouraged no spitting in public
response level of community sanitation over the local places.
people who had the lowest mean rank (17.00). The hypoth-
esis was rejected, and there was no significant difference in Item 3e. Community Sanitation Is an Effort Toward
the awareness of participants participated in the community Environmental Sustainability. It Encourages Waste
sanitation program on environmental sustainability. Hence,
Water Disposal in a Hygienic Way
the community sanitation is an effort toward environmental
sustainability. It encouraged effective handwashing after TheKruskal–Wallistest(2.913;p>.01),wherethechi-square
defecation. approximation corrected for the existence of ties in the ranks
of the data, indicated no significant difference in participants
Item 3d. Community Sanitation Is an Effort Toward rating in individual assignment(see Table 10). The university
Environmental Sustainability. It Encourages No professors and university students group had the highest
mean rank (25.50 and 20.63), an indication of better signifi-
Spitting in Public Places
cant response level of community sanitation over the local
The local people group had the lowest mean rank (18.29) peoplewhohadthelowestmeanrank(18.18).Thehypothesis
than the university professors and university students who was rejected, and there was no significant difference in
had the highest mean ranks (22.50 and 21.50, respectively), the awareness of participants participated in the community
an indication of better significant response level of commu- sanitation program on environmental sustainability.
nity sanitation. The Kruskal–Wallis test (5.571; p>.01) Hence,thecommunitysanitationisanefforttowardenviron-
indicated no significant difference in participants rating mental sustainability. It encouraged effective handwashing
for individual assignment (see Table 9). The hypothesis after defecation.
Jena 59
Table 11. Kruskal–Wallis HTestforItem 3f. Table12).Theuniversityprofessorsanduniversitystudentshad
the highest mean rank (27.50 and 21.10), which indicated the
Group n Mean rank
better significant level of community sanitation over the local
Universitystudents 20 20.50 people group who had the lowest mean rank (16.64). The
Universityprofessors 6 28.50 hypothesis was rejected, and there was no significant difference
in the awareness of participants participated in the community
Local people 14 17.07
sanitation program on environmental sustainability. Hence,
Total 40
community sanitation is an effort toward environmental sus-
Kruskal–Wallis test 5.571
tainability. It encouraged conserving native ecosystems.
df 2
p .062>.01(chi-squareapproximation
corrected for theexistence of ties Findings and Discussion
inthe ranksof thedata)
The study claimed that most of the participants strongly
agreedthatsanitationisasteptowardenvironmentalsustain-
ability,istheactionofprotectingthenaturalworld,andhelps
in preserving the capability of the environment in support of
Table 12. Kruskal–Wallis HTestforItem 3g. human life. In fact, India is the second largest populated
country in the world having 74% of literacy rate but still
Group n Mean rank
trying to literate the people about environment and on how
Universitystudents 20 21.10 to practice eco-friendly habits. Especially in Assam, one
fourth of people belong to schedule tribe, and still they are
Universityprofessors 6 27.50
using traditional customs, traditions, and practices. Hence,
Local people 14 16.64
the author organized the community sanitation and hands-
Total 40
on activity programs to popularize the idea about the envir-
Kruskal–Wallis test 5.336
onmentandonhowtopracticeeco-friendlyhabits.Recently,
df 2
the Government of India is implementing different programs
p .069>.01(chi-squareapproximation
andpoliciestoliteratethepeopleaboutsanitationandhealth.
corrected for the existenceof ties
Swachh Bharat Abhiyan is working for the rural people and
inthe ranksof thedata)
urban slums for developing best practices on rural sanitation
under.NirmalBharatRuralSanitationandHygieneStrategy
(2010–2012) has been implemented to clean the air, water,
Item 3f. Community Sanitation Is an Effort Toward and soil for the economic and social well-being. In 2008,
Environmental Sustainability. It Encourages Cleaning Government of India developed the National Urban
Sanitation Policy and encouraged the people to keep urban
Courtyards and Roadsides
areas clean and green. To encourage the people, the center
The university professors had the highest mean rank (28.50) planned to provide Nirmal Gram Puraskar for rural sani-
than the university students (20.50), but this was an indication tation program to facilitate school sanitation and hygiene
ofbettersignificantresponselevelofcommunitysanitationover education in the rural areas. This study was an empirical
the local people who had the lowest mean rank (17.07). The study and the researchers enjoyed to work with the univer-
Kruskal–Wallis test (5.571; p>.01), where the chi-square sity professors, university students, and local people to keep
approximation corrected for the existence of ties in the environment healthy. After this program, the participants
ranks of the data, indicated no significant difference in partici- submitted their feedback and most of them responded that
pants rating for individual assignment (see Table 11). community sanitation programs are the efforts toward
The hypothesis was rejected, and there was no significant dif- environmental sustainability. The findings showed that uni-
ferenceintheawarenessofparticipantsparticipatedinthecom- versity professors, university students, and local people
munity sanitation program on environmental sustainability. have no significant difference in their views and ideology
Hence,communitysanitationisanefforttowardenvironmental in support to the community sanitation and environmental
sustainability.Itencouragedcleaningcourtyardsandroadsides. sustainability. This result was corroborated with Checkley
et al.21 and Owusu.22 School and community sanitation and
Item 3g. Community Sanitation Is an Effort Toward hygiene education program was a comprehensive program
Environmental Sustainability. It Encourages to learn theory and to practice different skills related to
handwashing, composting, cleaning, and waste recycling,
Conserving Native Ecosystems
which could promote behavioral changes toward hygiene
TheKruskal–Wallistest(5.336;p>.01)indicatednosignificant education. They argued that rapid urbanization is the
difference in participants’ rating in individual assignment (see cause of deposition of waste and inadequate supply of
60 International Quarterly of Community Health Education 39(1)
water. After all, total community sanitation program was poverty line households restricted to SCs or STs, small and
enforced by UNO and assisted different African and Asian marginal farmers, landless laborers with homestead, differ-
countries to keep their locality clean and green by estab- ently abled, and women-headed households. The incentive
lishing sanitary latrine, using waste recycling bin, and hand- amount for construction of one unit of individual household
washing technique. Haggerty et al.23 and Patil et al.24 found latrines has been increased from Rs 3,200 to Rs 4,600
that the community-based hygiene education is needed for (Rs 5,100 for difficult and hilly areas). The schools that are
the developing countries, and Carter et al.25 found that safe not yet covered under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and
drinking water, sanitation, and healthy hygiene practice are Anganwadi centers in the rural areas will be provided
needed for developing countries. with proper sanitation facilities, and proactive promotion
of hygiene education and sanitary habits among students
will be undertaken. Swachh Bharat, by October 2, 2019,
Conclusion
motivated communities and panchayat raj institutions to
Community sanitation was an effort toward environmental adopt sustainable sanitation practices and facilities
sustainabilitythattheparticipantsperceived inthesanitation through creating awareness, and health education encour-
program. Their valuable feedbacks claimed that sanitation age cost-effective and appropriate technologies for eco-
program encourages hygienic practice and motivates to use logically safe and sustainable sanitation. Government
latrine against open defecation, effective handwashing, no should develop community-managed sanitation systems
spiting in public places, and cleaning courtyards and road- focusing on scientific solid and liquid waste management
sides, which result in conserving the native ecosystem. Not systemsforoverallcleanlinessintheruralareas.Thefocus
only the common people of the community but also the uni- of the strategy is to move toward a Swachh Bharat by
versity professors should adopt the community sanitation providing flexibility to state governments, as sanitation is
work. In addition, the students of school and colleges will a state subject, to decide on their implementation policy
learn how to keep the community clean healthy and sustain- and mechanisms.
able.India’sfirstnationwideprogramforruralsanitation,the
central rural sanitation program was launched in 1986. The Acknowledgments
basic objectiveof this program was to improve the quality of Thisarticleisdedicatedtothelocalcommunitymemberswhohave
life of rural people by providing privacy and dignity to the participated directly or indirectly in this community sanitation pro-
women.Theobjectivealsoemphasizedontheconstructionof gram and research. The author apologizes to all those participants
toilet in rural India. The program which was reconstructed whogaveexcellentparticipationthatcouldnotbementionedinthis
again in April1999 focused on demand-driven approach in a article.
phased manner with a view to cover the wider range of rural
population by the end of ninth 5-year plan. The Department Declaration of Conflicting Interests
of Water Supply and Sanitation is responsible for the sanita- Theauthor(s)declarednopotentialconflictsofinterestwithrespect
tioninruralareas.Totalsanitationcampaignin1999ensured to the research,authorship,and/or publicationof thisarticle.
the sanitation facilities in rural areas to eradicate open defe-
cation. Total sanitation scheme in 2010 worked to bring Funding
about improvement in general quality of life, to provide
Theauthor(s)disclosedreceiptofthefollowingfinancialsupportfor
access to toilets to all by 2012, and to motivate communities
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The
and panchayat raj institutions (local or government) for pro-
author thanks Indian Council of Social Science and Research,
motingsustainablesanitationfacilitiesthroughawarenesscre- New Delhi,India, for financingthe project.
ation and health education. The main objective was to cover
school and Anganwadis with sanitation facilities and to pro-
mote hygiene. Nirmal Gram Puraskar 2010 started for those ORCID iD
gram panchayat, blocks, and districts which have attained AnantaKumarJena http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7917-9792
100% sanitation coverage in their respective geographical
areas; 100% sanitation includes eradicating the menace of
References
open defecation, provision of sanitation facilities in house-
1. Ademiluyi IA and Odugbesan JA. Sustainability and impact of
hold, and educational institutions and general cleanliness in
communitywatersupplyandsanitationprogrammesinNigeria:
village. Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (Swachh Bharat Abhiyan)
anoverview. AfrJAgr Res2008; 3: 811–817.
was launched by the Government of India to accelerate sani-
2. Cairncross SM, Bartram J, Cumming O,et al. Hygiene,sanita-
tationinruralareastoachievethevisionofNirmalBharatby tion, and water: what needs to be done. PLoS Med 2010; 7:
2022, with all village panchayats in the country attaining e1000365.
nirmal status. Incentive as provided under the scheme for 3. ChambersR.Goingtoscalewithcommunity-ledtotalsanitation:
the construction of individual household latrines has been reflections on experience, issues and ways forward. Brighton:
extended to all below poverty line households and above Instituteof Development Studies, University ofSussex.