MAHARASHTRA RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION PROJECT : HEALTH EDUCATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY (November 1999 to February 2000)
Item
- Title
-
MAHARASHTRA RURAL WATER
SUPPLY AND
SANITATION PROJECT :
HEALTH EDUCATION IMPACT
ASSESSMENT STUDY
(November 1999 to February 2000) - extracted text
-
MAHARASHTRA RURAL WATER
SUPPLY AND
SANITATION PROJECT :
HEALTH EDUCATION IMPACT
ASSESSMENT STUDY
(November 1999 to February 2000)
Final Report
S. K. Choudhari
S. C. Indapurkar
Dr. N. E Mistry
M. D. Kalyaniwala
iron
foundation for Research in c pmmunity health
H
Pune/Mumbai
March 2000
0
1
Contents
Page No.
I
Study Team
(
A cknoxvledgemerit
ii-iii
Abbreviations
iv-v
List of Annexures
vi
Executive Summary
vii-ix
(
(
4
1.
Introduction
1-3
2.
Scope and Methods
4-13
3.
Results of Bacteriological Testing
14-20
4.
Project Prototypes
21-23
5.
Field Survey Results
24-33
6.
Concluding Observations and Implications
34-36
4
t
•-
(
Selected Readings
37-38
Photographs
39-40
Annexures
41-73
(
(
(
f
(
t
Study Team
Foundation for Research in Community Health (FRCH)
Principal Investigator
S. K. Choudhari
Co-Investigator
S. C. Indapurkar
Dr. N. H. Antia
Director and Trustee
Research Assistant
Ms. Apama Joshi
Preparation of report
Ms. Malini Kalyaniwala
Field Survey
Indian Socio -Economic Research Unit, Pune
(Under contract to FRCH)
A. Y. Jadhav
President
Team
Ganesh K.V., Maske T. S., Divate N R., Jadhav P. B., Rajepandhare S. D., Awale S. G., Jadhav B.
A., Gore A. M. Awale P. D„ Ms. Shaikh N. S., Ms. Bangera P. R., Ms. Jawale K. H.
Foundation for Medical Research, FMR, Mumbai
(For bacteriological analysis)
Dr. N. F. Mistry, (Ph.D)
Sr. Research Officer
Microbiologists
Ms. Prachi Tambe, M.Sc.
Ms. Swati Karande, M.Sc.
Laboratory Helpers
Mr. Suhas Bagwe
Mr. Anil Dicholkar
Mr. Govind Mahadik
i
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and support of the following
individuals and institutions.
Ms. Hazel Slavin, Advisor, London
Dr. Tanaz Birdi, FMR, Mumbai
Mr. James Samuel, DFID, Nasik
Dr. Bhagwan Sahai, Project Director, P.P.M.U., Mumbai
Dr. Ashok Potdar, Health Education Officer, Mumbai
Dr. Bhatlavande, Joint Director, IEC Bureau, Pune
Dr. Salunkhe, Assistant Director, IEC Bureau, Pune
Dr. Kamble, DHO, Dhule
Dr. Mohite, DHO, Jalgaon
Dr. Badade, DHO, Buldhana
Dr. Gholap, DHO, Thane
Extension Officers (Health)
Amalner, Dhule (C.D. Block), Bhusaval, Malkapur, Sangamner, Bhivandi,
Shrirampur, Akole, Malegaon and Nandgaon
B. D. O. (Panchayat Samiti)
Amalner, Bhusaval, Malkapur, Shrirampur, Bhivandi, Akole and Malegaon
Medical Officer from various Primary Health Centres
Staff from Panchayat Samiti, Zilla Parishad and PHC
Prof. M. P. Dandare, Medical College, Bharati Vidyapith, Pune
Dr Mohan Rao, faculty JNU, New Delhi
Dr. S. N. Morankar and Ms. Seema Deodhar for their valuable suggestions and
guidance (FRCH, Pune)
Mr. Abhay Kudale for giving valuable support in data analysis (FRCH, Pune)
Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) for providing library facility.
All people from selected villages of six districts for their kind cooperation.
Mr. Rajesh Ingle, Ms. Rajam John and Ms. Jyoti Kirloskar for administrative
as well as computer support and designing this report
Staff of FMR and FRCH for their support
11
The draft report was disseminated at a work shop on 31st March 2000 at the
Tata Management Research Centre, Pune. List of participants is as follows :
Dr. Antia N. H.
Dr. Awasthi Ramesh, FRCH
Mrs.Bakshi Anil, British Council Library, Pune
Dr. Birdi Tanaz, FMR, Mumbai
Mr. Choudhari S. K., FRCH, Pune
Ms. Deodhar S. R., FRCH, Pune
Mrs. Dhage S. S., NEERI, Mumbai
Mr. Gajendragadkar S. K., Retd. Professor, M.I.T., Pune
Mr. Gorakhshekar Mukund, Sir Dorabjee Tata Trust, Mumbai
Mr. Indapurkar S. C., FRCH, Pune
Ms. Joshi Nidhi, DFID, Delhi
Ms. Kalyaniwala Malini
Ms. Maydeo Anjali, Karve Institute, Pune
Dr. Mistry Nerges, FMR, Mumbai
Dr. Morankar S. N., FRCH, Pune
Prof. Mutatkar R. K., FRCH, Mumbai
Mr. Pangare Ganesh, Centre for Social Material Research, Delhi
Mr. Paranjape Vijay, Econet, Pune
Dr. Potdar Ashok, Mantralaya, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai
Prof. Sahu K. C., Mumbai
Mr. Samuel James, DFID, Nasik
Dr. Sathe P. V., Pune
Dr. Taiwar Shankar, IMRB, Mumbai
Discussions and suggestions of this group are gratefully acknowledged and have
been included in the final report wherever relevant.
The project and dissemination was supported by DFID, New Delhi
ill
Abbreviations
5
ANM
Auxilliary Nurse Midwife
AWW
Anganwadi Worker
BDO
Block Development Officer
CDB
Community Development Block
DFID
Department for International Development
DHO
District Health Officer
DPPMU
District Project Planning and Monitoring Unit
ESR
Elevated Supply Reservoir
FGD
Focus Group Discussion
FMR
Foundation for Medical Research
FRCH
Foundation for Research in Community Health
GOM
Government of Maharashtra
GP
Gram Panchayat
GS
Gramsevak
IDA
International Development Agency (of World Bank)
EEC
Information, Education, Communication
MJP
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran
MO
MPN
Medical Officer
Most Probable Number
MPW
Multi-Purpose Worker
MRWSESP
Maharashtra Rural Water Supply & Environmental Sanitation Project
MRWSSP
Maharashtra Rural Water Supply & Sanitation Project
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
OBC
Other Backward Classes
ODA
Overseas Development Administration
ORG
Operations Research Group
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
PHC
Primary Health Centre
PHD
Public Health Department
PRA
Participatory Rural Appraisal
PS
Panchayat Samiti
SC
Scheduled Caste
iv
SIECB
State Information, Education and Communication Bureau
ss
Sample Survey
ST
Scheduled Tribe
TARU
TARU Leading Edge, NGO
TISS
Tata Institute of Social Sciences
TOR
Terms of Reference
UK
United Kingdom
VWC
Village Water Committee
WB
World Bank
1
v
List of Annexures
Pg. No.
1.
Annexure Tabic A-l Distribution of Sample Households by Economic and Social Classes
41
2.
Annexure Table A-2 Distribution of Sample Households by Economic Class and Occupation
42
Economic Class and household
43
Annexure Table A-3 Distribution of Sample Households by
Head’s Education Level
4.
Annexure Table A-4 Make of Vessels used for Carrying Water from Source to Residence
44
5.
Annexure Table A-4-B Make of Water Storage Vessles
45
6.
Annexure Table A-5 Distribution of Sample Households by Water Carrying Practices
46
7.
Annexure Table A-6 Distribution of Sample Households by Drinking Water Storage
Method
47
8.
Annexure Table A-6-B Distribution of Sample Household by Water Storing Practices
48
9.
Annexure Table A-7 Distribution of Sample Households by Drinking Water Drawing
Practices
49
10.
Annexure Table A-8 Distribution of Sample Households by Water Storing Place
50
11.
Annexure Table A-9 Water Storage Vessel Cleaning Frequency
51
12.
Annexure Table A-10 Method of Disposal of Household Waste Water in Village
52
13.
Annexure Table A-11 Method of Disposal of Cattleshed Waste Water in Village
53
14.
Annexure Table A-12 Method of Disposal of Solid Waste in village
54
15.
Annexure Table A-13 Villages openion about condition of drainage lines in the village
55
16.
Annexure Table A-14 Uses of Latrin by Villagers
56
17.
Annexure Table A-15 Knowledge of People about Water Committee Existance in
Village
57
18.
Annexure 16-A Paper clipping in Daily Lokmat
58
19.
Annexure 16-B Paper clipping in Daily Sakai
59-60
20.
Annexure 17-A Map of Village, Tarapur, Dist. Thane
61
21.
Annexure 17-B Map of Kadit Khurd. Dist. Ahmednagar
62
22.
Annexure 18 Format of Water Sampling
63
23.
Annexure 19 Format of Household Questionnaire
vi
64-73
Executive Summary
i.
Water will he the most scarce natural resource in coming decades. With increasing population,
urbanisation and industrialisation, it requires an increasing effort to secure safe drinking
water. The main issues relating to potable water are its storage and contamination. It
is now imperative to treat and purify available water before piping it to distant places,
at great expense, for final consumption. This raises a number of economic questions
about water management policies.
2.
Rural India, despite five decades of planned development, continues to sufter multiple
problems of access. Its primary needs to potable water, health care, sanitation, elementary
education, etc. are unmet. Whatever is planned and achieved today impacts the future.
Conversely, what was planned but not achieved yesterday is impacting us today.
3.
The problems staring at us today call for rethinking and a radical change in the concept,
planning and methodology of rural development in general. Specifically, the upgradation
of rural potable water supply and its environmental sanitation need particular attention.
4.
Between 1991-1998, the Government of Maharashtra launched two rural potable water
supply and sanitation related projects viz. Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and
Environmental Sanitation Project (MRWSESP) and Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and
Sanitation Project (MRWSSP) with financial support from IDA (WB) and DFID (UK)
respectively. The inclusion of ‘Health Education Activities’ was a unique component
of both projects.
5.
The scope of this report is confined to assessing: (a) the levels of fulfilment as well
as the impact of the health education components included in the 3 districts each of
both MRWSSP (DFID) and MRWSESP (WB) projects, (b) the relative efficiency of
both projects (c) behavioural changes among the beneficiary populace with special
reference to the six specific health messages on which health education activities were
focussed, viz.:
•
•
•
•
•
•
6.
Drinking/cooking water must always be covered
Drinking/cooking water must be stored on an elevated area.
Long handled ladles should be used to access drinking/cooking water.
Hands should be washed with soap/ash before meals.
Hands should be washed with soap/ash after defecation.
Hands should be washed with soap/ash after washing a baby’s bottom.
To pursue the objectives of this study, the generation of~ an appropriate primary database
for; a mix of Sample Survey (SS) and Participatory Research Appraisal (PRA)
was called
(
approaches was adopted.' This; was supplemented by Direct Observation based on notes
taken during fieldwork, after extensive discussions with Government and other officials
involved in project implementation.
vii
collection. In most of the villages, water pipelines run along drains which will lead to
contamination as and when leakage occurs.
19. Community drainage is inadequate and poorly maintained. Liquid waste from households
reach choked drains; this filthy water usually spills over onto the roads.
20. Solid wastes from the households usually end up in
i designated compost pits.
21. Over 82% of rural households are non-users of latrines. People prefer to use open spaces
for defecation.
; consensus emerging
j j from interaction with government officials involved in
22. The
implementation of both 'projects, at various levels, highlighted the following points:
• The distinctive feature of this project lay in its integrated approach to developmental
activity as laid-down in the framework for implementation and continued activity.
• The new/specific focus of the six health related messages was not perceived. It was
felt that these were already a part of traditional practice
• The local population feels alienated from the project because of their minimal involvement.
• Purchasing drinking water i.e. tariffed water is an alien concept.
23. People’s attitude towards Water Supply:
There is unequal water distribution.
Frequent electricity failure affect water availability/pressure.
There is misuse and vandalism of the pipelines to divert water for irrigation.
Water pipelines run close to choked drain polluting the piped water.
Tariffed potable piped water supply should be freely available, 24 hours, as promised.
Under the present circumstances of interrupted and inadequate supply, beneficiaries are
unwilling to pay the water tax.
• Government or DFID schemes are alien.
• The appointed watermen should be taught estimation of the quantity of water in tanks
and how to adjust the quantity of TCL powder for appropriate chlorination.
• Workers should also be deployed for the maintenance of sanitary conditions in the area
to clean drains and toilet blocks.
•
•
•
•
•
24. Social, political, economic as well as environmental factors are not conducive to discernible
and successful development. A fundamental attitudinal change needs to take place at
political, administrative and societal levels to bring about sustained change.
ix
I
Introduction
1.1
In the beginning
MRWSESP and MRWSSP:
MAP OF INDIA SHOWING MAHARASHTRA
MAP OF MAHARASHTRA DETAILING MRWSSP/MRWSESP AREAS
iS88^
KEY :
DUD
1
DISTRICTS
H
WORLD
•
DISTRICTS
BANK
FOR
DISTRICT
STUDY
1.1.1
During 1991-1992, the Government of Maharashtra embarked on the Maharashtra Rural
Water Supply and Enviromnental Sanitation Project (MRWSESP) with the financial support
of the International Development Agency (IDA) of the World Bank. This project covered a
total of 10 districts. While the water supply engineering works were planned and executed
by the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran (MJP), the health education programmes were conceived
and implemented by the Information, Education and Communication Bureau (IEC) as part of
the Public Health Department (PHD) of the Government of Maharashtra. The project also aimed
at building up village institutions viz. Village Water Committees (VWC) to look after the operation
and maintenance (O&M) aspects of the piped water supply systems in the best mterests of
all village communities. Health education activities to influence change in the behaviour of people
in beneficiary villages, based on six messages related to water usage and personal hygiene were
subsequently added to its purview.
1.1.2
Later, in 1992 - 1993, the Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project
(MRWSSP) funded by the Department for International Development (DFID) was launched
in 3 neighbouring districts, covering a population of approximately 3.5 lakh people. Both projects
attempted to integrate community development and health education activities with the supply
of potable piped water and sanitation engineering activities through various activities and
programmes for the people in the project areas.
1.1.3
A total of 13 districts in Maharashtra (3 with DFID and 10 with W.B. support) were
covered under both projects. These aimed at providing community based water supply services
concurrently with demand based sanitation facilities. Promotion of community based potable
water supply; water quality monitoring and health education coalesced to bring about change
in behaviour. Usage and maintenance of latrines and other such sanitary facilities in a hygienic
manner was included in the overall objective of both these projects.
1.1.4
The modes used for communication of health education related messages included personal
contacts, Mahila Mandals, meetings with savings groups, school children, poster making, folk
dances, religious/market events, TV shows etc.
1.1.5
The personnel involved in health education activities were largely from the health
department in the DFID supported districts and from local NGOs in the W.B. covered districts.
The Study:
1.2
1.2.1
The Department for International Development (DFID) New Delhi, requested The
Foundation for Research in Community Health (FRCH), a Pune based multidisciplinary voluntary
organisation, to make an objective and independent assessment of the impact of the health
education activities on the change in behaviour of the people in MRWSSP and MRWSESP
areas. The findings of this study are expected to reflect on areas of behavioural change, motivational
factors, sustainability issues and the modifying effect of the quality of water.
The specific objectives of this study were as follows:
1.2.2
a)
b)
c)
Assess the impact of health education activities in project areas.
To assess relative influence of the six health messages on health behaviour of people
in the project areas.
To identify motivational factors triggering behavioural change.
2
d)
e)
To assess efficacy of the potable water supply services on a sustained basis i.e. medium/
long term basis.
.
a A
r
To attempt a comparison between the DFID and WB project districts in terms of
their approach to implementation and its impact on health related tehaviour with
respect to six health related messages delivered as a part of the MRVvSSP and
MRWSESP
projects viz.
Drinking/cooking water must be stored on an elevated area.
Drinking/cooking water must always be covered.
Long handled ladles should be used to access drinking/cooking water.
Hands should be washed with soap/ash before meals.
Hands should be washed with soap/ash after defecation.
Hands should be washed with soap/ash after washing a baby’s bottom.
Grass root data coUection was made using a mix of Sample Survey (SS) and Participatory
1.2,3
Research Appraisal (PRA) approaches, The available secondary information from published/
unpublished sources e.g. review documents; from ORG, TISS, DFID, PHD etc. was used to
set a benchmark for assessing the change in health related behaviour of the people in project
areas. The procedure adopted2 frr
for collection and laboratory testing of water samples for
devised
by an experienced team of microbiologists from The
bacteriological analysis were
Foundation for Medical Research (FMR) Mumbai, an organisation having over 2 decades of
experience in microbiological testing.
1.2.4
Results emerging from the field survey and PRA approaches and the bacteriological
tests with respect to potability of piped water to project area are presented separately.
A summary
summary of discussions between me
the principal ana
and co-investigator,
1.2.5
co-invebLigaiui, with
wiui the
uit officials/
non-officials involved in the implementation of the two projects at the state, district and block
levels and with the field staff at village levels are presented to reflect their distinct viewpoints.
Finally the conclusions and inferences emerging from the study are presented.
3
II
Scope and Methods
2.1
Introductory Remarks:
2.1.1
Maharashtra’s two rural potable water supply and sanitation projects viz. MRWSSP
and MRWSESP, implemented with financial support of the DFID and WB respectively are
conceptually unique and in some ways precursors to integration of potable water supply,
environmental sanitation, and health education components. The projects also endeavour to put
in place village level institutions for ensuring rural community participation to promote its
sustainability. The thrust areas of the implementation strategy have been (i) promoting personal
and family hygiene, (ii) promoting construction and use of latrines and other sanitation facilities
and (iii) achieving community participation in operation and maintenance of water supply sources/
systems. This study undertakes the objective assessment of health education activities on the
change in behaviour of the people in beneficiary villages; especially vis-a-vis the six health related
messages delivered as part of the project strategy. An attempt is also made to compare results
emerging from the DFID and WB supported project districts.
2.1.2
As indicated in the preceding chapter, the primary database generated in this study
arises from three independent sources of information/data via sample survey, participatory
research appraisals and direct observations based on notes of field investigators. Data/information
emerging from these independent modes pinpoint misleading/inaccurate responses (if any) and
permit re-canvassing of such responses to eliminate respondent and interviewer biases. More
importantly it also supplements and authenticates the database emerging from each source. The
generation of a reliable primary database is an important consideration in this study.
2.1.3
Socio-economic conditions (status) of rural households can be the single most important
variable that impacts the performance level and success (or failure?) of the three thrust areas
indicated above. Consequently it has a bearing on fulfilling the main objective of putting in
place adequate, equitable and sustainable potable water supply services. In view of this and
for the reader’s convenience, tabular analyses in annexures are presented in terms of socio
economic status of sample households as the principal control variable. The areas covered in
the tabular presentation are:
• basic-household features
• sources and uses of water
• potable water collection and its pattern of usage
• environmental and household level sanitation practices.
2.1.4
Results emerging from the first set of tabulations establish inter-links between economic,
social, occupational and household/individual level parameters in the study area. The second
and third sections link up these parameters with the potable water use and sanitation related
behavioural patterns thrown up by the survey data. Results emerging from PRA exercises and
direct (personal) observations based on qualitative information supplement the tabular analysis
for drawing meaningful inferences.
4
2.2
Scope of the Study:
A
The DFID supported MRWSSP covered 210 villages, spread across three districts
of Maharashtra, namely Jalgaon (127 villages) Dhule (27 villages) and Nasik (56 villages)
The WB funded MRWSESP is operative in ten districts of Maharashtra. However
for the purposes of this study, fieldwork is confined to three districts, broadly similar
to the three DFID districts in geo-physical and socio-cultural terms. Totally 176 villages
were covered. These include the districts of Thane (69 villages) Ahemadnagar
B
(78 villages) and Buldhana (29 villages).
Bacteriological testing of potability and quality of water at the reservoir, common
supply and private utilisation points forms a significant part of this study in the
C
context of sustainability of positive outcomes.
D
The reporting covers the impact/assessment of health education in terms of change
in behaviour of beneficiaries vis-a-vis six health messages on which health education
activities were focused. Certain other issues/factors having a bearing on the central
objective, emerging during fieldwork were also probed to unravel linkages between
such factors and the change in behaviour and/or sustainabifity of the positive outcomes.
2.3
Household Survey:
It may be clarified at this stage that data was aggregated over the entire MRWSSP
2.3.1
(DFID) districts whereas in the case of MRWSESP (WB) however only 3 out of 10 districts,
farming part of the project areas were selected for fieldwork. Care was taken to make the
selection of areas comparable in terms of populace, geo-physical conditions as well as electricity
and water supply. Findings flowing therefore reflect conditions obtained in MRWSESP areas
of the 3 districts covered in the study. This data set and findings emerging from it are neither
expected to reflect results of MRWSESP as a whole nor is such a claim made or implied.
Further, it may be in order to state that approximated data presented vis-a-vis water
2.3.2
supply to beneficiaries reflect an average of averages rather than an accurate statistical estimation
and should hence be taken as such.
2.3.3
While caste alone is no longer the only pivot for socio-economic interventions, strong
bonds exist and operate between economic status (classes) and social groups (castes), as well
as between occupations and educational levels attained (literacy levels) by different population
groups. These factors, in tandem, exert a good deal of influence on access of people to potable
water and its use pattern, significantly influencing behaviour patterns of people living in the
study area. The tabular analyses presented in this report examine this hypothesis by presenting
emerging aggregated data in terms of economic status (well being) of sample households as
a common control variable so as to examine and evaluate the inferences flowing from the presented
data sets.
2.3.4
The most important task was operationalisation of data/information collection in selected
sample units as well as the bacteriological testing of water from multiple specified sources,
for generation of a fresh qualitative database within the specified time frame.
5
Primary data emerging from the field survey are subjected to tabular analyses and results
2.3.5
are presented at aggregated levels for the MRWSSP (DFID) and MRWSESP (W.B.) districts.
District 'wise tabular data included in the main text do not use socio economic statistics as
a constant variable against which data is measured. Here, multiple variables have been included
to give a broad overview oj the project areas under study. The specific details are appended
in the annexures, if required for reference/detailed examination. This presentation format is opted
for to ensure clarity, objectivity and meaningful comparative assessment of the key issues on
which focus of the study is centred.
2.4
Sampling:
It was decided apriori on time and cost considerations, to select at least four villages
per district and a minimum of two clusters per village for the field survey. Sangrampur was
the only exception where only 1 village cluster was selected for study.
Project
Distt
Selections
*Cluster
Selections
Household
Selection
MRWSSP
Dhule
Dhule
SS = 2/11
SS = 40
SindKheda
SS = 2/16
SS = 39
Bhusaval
SS = 6/78
SS = 120
Amalner
SS = 4/41
SS = 80
Malegaon
SS = 2/17
SS = 40
Nandgaon
SS = 4/39
SS = 80
20/210
SS = 20/202
SS = 399
Thane
Palghar
SS = 2/3
SS
Bhiwandai
SS = 3/7
SS = 60
Srirampur
SS = 5/10
SS = 100
3 Districts
210 Villages
SS = 4/27 Villages
Jalgaon
10/127 Villages
Nasik
6/56 Villages
MRWSSP
Sub Totals
MRWSESP
5/69 Villages
Ahmednagar
3 Districts
7/78 Villages
Buldhana
176 Villages
6/29
SS = 79
SS = 200
SS
SS = 150
SS = 50
Malkapur
SS = 5/14
SS = 100
SS = 119
18/176 Villages
18/41
MRWSSP + MRWSESP 38/386 Villages
Totals 6 Districts
38/243
771
Sample size
SS
* = From total villages
6
SS = 399
SS = 103
SS = 19
SS = 372
MRWSESP Sub Totals
120
43
Akole
SS = 2/3
Sangrampur
SS = 1/4
Respondants
Interviewed
SS = 372
771
All MRWSESP and MRWSSP districts were stratified into homogenous village clusters
in terms of their geo-physiological characteristics, nature of potable water sources, population
compositions and general development levels as reflected in health care, educational infrastructure,
literacy levels, extent of electrification, roads/public transport facilities etc. The allocation of
the sample size was proportional to the share of each district in the total number of village
clusters covered under the projects. Similarly, within each district the allocation of sample household
clusters was proportional to villages in the respective districts. Random sampling was employed
to select sample household clusters in each of the villages /districts. The procedures were identical
in both project areas.
2.5
Basic Features:
It is an established fact that variations are marginal in surveys conducted within village
2.5.1
In view of this, it was decided to limit
clusters as <compared to the inter-village responses.
.
the sample size of beneficiary households to those receiving piped water supply (The list: was
obtained from Gram Panchayat (GP) records). Only 15 to 20 households per village, representative
of the beneficiary households, were covered. They were grouped into (i) private connection
holders and (ii) stand post users and further sub-grouped according to socio-economic/ethnic
factors. Investigators used pretested structured questionnaires for canvassing household level
data; mainly female respondents were met. Personal interview methods were adopted for this
purpose and the field-staff camped in the sample villages during the field-work.
<
1*
2.5.2
Along with canvassing structured questionnaires from beneficiary households, PRA
approaches were employed for eliciting significant opinions, perceptions and qualitative/quantitative
information from almost all village inhabitants. Semi-structured (open ended) focus group
discussions and key informant interviews were the main modes of data collection in the PRA
related fieldwork. FGDs were conducted separately for men/women which included socio
economically weak viz. SC/ST households. Additionally separate discussions were conducted
for mahila mandals, VWC members etc. Discussions at the village level were also earned out
with the personnel involved in the health education activities viz. multipurpose health workers/
guides, ANMs, anganwadi workers etc. The FGDs, key informant interviews and discussions
with village level functionaries are expected to provide a strong information base for the assessment
of the prevailing state of the issues under scrutiny.
2.5.3
Direct Observation comprises another important component of the primary data/
information collection. Transact Walks, a highly effective PRA method were conducted along
village boundaries/outskirts and through the village wadi/wasti itself. These offered opportunities
to observe and seek information from villagers accompanying the study team during such walks
and also from those who interacted at different spots during the walk. Notes made during
such walks reflect the prevailing ground situation at the time of visit with respect to the condition
of water reservoirs, water supply systems/services, sanitary services viz. soak-pits/drainage
conditions, usage of latrines, behavioural pattern of people etc. These walks throw up very
useful information on all aspects of rural life. Direct observations by field-investigators were
made during household canvassing sessions. These observations on specific issues under probe
and notes based on such observations represent household level realities. Both are very useful
information sources for cross checking data.
7
/
2.6
Testing of Water samples:
Collection of water samples was undertaken between 15th January and 2nd March 2000
The methodology for collection of water samples for bacteriological testing had two
2.6.1
principal components viz. (i) number of villages to be selected for water sample collection
and (ii) the number of water samples to be taken and their spread across end-user households
in villages selected for this purpose. The procedures adopted at both the levels were as follows.
2.6.2
Field work for this study was conducted in 40 villages selected from homogenous
clusters of all villages forming part of the MRWSSP and MRWSESP rural piped water supply
schemes. In each homogenous cluster, piped water supply services to all villages are more
or less linked to a common water source like river/canal. In view of this and since all sample
villages drawn from a homogenous cluster receive piped water supplies from the same source,
on technical grounds it is not necessary to draw water samples from all sample villages. Therefore
on technical, statistical as well as on time and cost considerations it was decided to collect
water samples from about one third (33%) of the sample villages covered in the field survey
earlier. A random selection of one third sample villages spread across all homogenous clusters/
districts is an optimum number for testing of water sample to yield representative bacteriological
test results reflecting trends in the potability of piped water supplies.
2.6.3
The following criteria formed the basis for selection of villages for collection of water
samples.
• Villages with alternate in-use water sources along side piped water supplies.
• Distance of user households/stand post from main water source.
• Total number of sampled villages in a cluster/district.
• Wadi/wastiwise piped water supply taps/stand posts.
Based on the above criteria and in consultation with field workers involved in sample
survey, sample villages were grouped together. A requisite number of villages were selected
randomly. Following is a schematic presentation of village section for bacteriological testing.
2.6.4
It was decided to collect water samples from the following locations in adequate number
per location to yield reliable bacteriological test results reflecting potable quality of piped water
supplied. The locations from where water samples were collected are as follows :
Main Water Source
i
ALTERNATE
SOURCE
TANK
---- T~
[Bore Well, Well, Hand
pump, River]
PRIVATE TAP
STAND POST
I
f
Stand Post
(A)
House hold
I
I
Private tap
(A)
Stand Post
(B)
I_____
------- 1..........
House hold
House hold House hold
8
I
Private tap
(B)
House hold
Elevated supply reservoirs (ESR) /tanks in the village
Water delivery points (a) Private tap connection (b) Common taps/Stand Posts (c)
On socio-economic considerations SC/ST households from (a) and (b) categories.
Water delivery points at various distances from ESR. These may be private
connections or stand posts (common taps) used by multiple households.
Water samples from alternative water sources in use like open wells, hand pumps,
river etc.
The following standard procedure (Cheeseborough, 1989) was adapted for collection
of water samples by trained staff of the Foundation for Medical Research.
2.7
General Procedure:
a) Autoclave sterilized 500 ml. water bottles used for collection of sample.
b) Wash hands with soap before taking sample
c) Fill only 3/4 bottle capacity with water leaving 1/4 empty.
d) Close the lid tightly and cover it with clean paper
e) Label the sample bottle properly giving all identifications of location, village name,
time and date of sample etc. and name of the person taking sample.
f) Close the bottles tightly and pack using the adhesive tapes.
g) Send the water sample to the testing lab within 24 hours of sample collection at
controlled temperatures of 15°C ± 5°C with the use of freezer packs.
2.7.1
Samples taken from water tanks: (Capacity 15,000 - 30,000 litres)
• Entry into the high rise water tanks was effected through the provided trap door
and subsequent descent into the tank through a ladder. The hands of the sample
collector were cleaned prior to descent in the tank.
• After unscrewing the lid, the bottle was dipped mouth facing downward, 6-8 inches
below the water surface level and jacked, mouth upwards when 3/4th full. Sealing
and labeling was as described above.
• Samples were collected after a minimum of 1 hour following application of TCL
to the water tanks.
2.7.2
For samples taken from Water taps: (Private taps and standposts)
• Wash and clean the tap externally with 70% alcohol.
• Run the tap for 2 to 3 minutes.
• Take sample in sterilized bottle taking care not to touch the mouth of the tap.
• Tightly close the lid/cover and label the bottle.
2.7.3
Household water samples:
• A family member from each sampled household collected water from the vessel
9
(matka) as normally practised, with the help of a smaller, designated collecting
vessel (not a ladle) and filled the water collection bottle upto 75% of its capacity
as explained in A above.
. All household water sampled, had been stored for a period between 3-27 hours^
• Vessels used for storage of piped water supply in households ranged from 5-10
litre capacity.
2.7.4
Samples from hand pumps / tube wells:
• Wash and clean the hand pump/tube well outlet externally
• Run the hand pump/tube well to exclude stagnant water coUected m the pipe line.
• Collect water sample in the sterilized bottle as explained in A above.
• Close the bottle tightly with lid and seal with adhesive tape.
2.7.5
Water well/reservoir water samples:
• First wash and clean the bucket/water vessel.
• Tie the bucket/vessel with rope/chain and lower it iin the tank/well.
• Draw water 2 or 3 times and discard it.
• Again draw water and fill the sterilized bottle as described in A above, closing
the lid tightly.
The water samples collected were examined for a) physical characteristics such as turbi ity
and pH (by paper strips) at the time of collection b) bacteriological potability. The
sample form (Annexure 18) demonstrates other relevant qualitative observations on
the water samples, their location and environment.
2.8
Bacteriological testing:
A team of three staff members of The Foundation for Medical Research
2.8.1
for collection of water samples.
were selected
Orientation of the team was conducted before field work. This included training in
the following procedures:
• General objectives of the project
• Water collection from different water sources like tanks, taps, wells, rivers etc.
• pH and temperature measurement of the water sample at the time of collection.
• Recording the water sampling details along with the description of the surrounding
area.
• Proper labelling of the sampling bottles.
2.8.2
After collection, the water samples were transported to the laboratory within 24 hours.
The temperature maintained with the use of freezer packs was 15 C + 5 C.
2.8.3
Bacteriological testing was carried out in the laboratory. This included a) the determination
of the Most Probable Number (MPN) of the coliform organisms present m the original water
sample. The procedure for the water samples taken from chlorinated water sources vaned slightly
from the untreated water samples in that the latter was inoculated into sterile MacConkey s
10
Single Strength broth.
MPN of coliform organisms was determined.
2.8.5
A negative control was maintained by inoculating sterile MacConkey’s broth with sterile
phosphate buffered saline.
2.8.6
A known human derived concentrated E.coii culture was inoculated into the MacConkey’s
broth and at the same time also streaked onto sterile MacConkey s agar plate and sterile Bra
Heart Infosion agar plate. This served as the positive control.
2.9
Interpretation of the results of MPN test:
The suggested bacteriological criteria for drinking water as per Monica Cheeseborough,
(1989, ELBS publications) is as follows.
2.9.1
Treated samples
Comments
Mean Coliform count per 100 ml.
water sample
Excellent
0
Acceptable
1 - 5
Grossly polluted
More than 5
Untreated water sample
Comments
Mean Coliform count per 100 ml.
water sample
Excellent
0
Acceptable
1 - 10
Grossly polluted
More than 10
For qualitative analysis, the water samples were streaked on sterile MacConkey’s agar
plates and sterile Brain Heart Infosion agar plates for detection of different species of coliform
organisms. Microorganisms present in the water samples were forther identified on the baas
of their colony characteristics. Gram staining and standard biochemical test results. (J. F. MacFaddm,
1980, Bergey’s Manual, Vol.I and II, 1984).
2.9.2
Additional Measures undertaken for Quality Control:
Besides those mentioned in the procedures previously, the following measures were
undertaken.
11
Each person from the team spiked one water sample selected randomly with a concentrated
human derived E.coli culture at the time of water collection. This was undertaken to determine
if transportation had any effect on isolation of bacterial species from water samples. Further
treatment of the spiked samples remained the same as for the other samples.
' > an external referral laboratory
Around 20% water samples randomly chosen were sent■ to
for potability testing. The results were comi[pared with the observations obtained at the Foundation
for Medical Research.
Project Areas for Water Sampling:
2.9.3
Districtwise distribution of villages selected for taking water samples are as follows :
Name of District
No. of
Villages
Name of District
No.of
Villages
1. Dhule
2. Jalgaon
3. Nasik
5
6
2
1. Thane
2. Ahmednagar
3. Buldhana
2
2
3
DFID Total
13
W. B. Total
7
A total of 20 villages were selected for taking water samples.
Three teams of two persons each visited the selected villages. Each team comprised
of a trained staff member from FMR and a field investigator for guidance to appropriate locations.
2.9.4
Limitations of the Study:
Perhaps it is necessary to explicitly state constrains/limitations under which the study
has been completed. The Focus of the study is on assessing the impact of health education
related inputs on behavioural changes among beneficiary households. Apart from an inadequate
time frame within which the study was planned and completed, two other principal limitations
related to (i) methodological considerations and (ii) longitudinal comparisons with baseline data
need to be borne in mind while pursuing the findings presented in subsequent chapters.
It is worthwhile to note that non-availability of basic data on the Universe of each
scheme did not permit adoption of ‘probability sample’ based approach for the field survey.
Since the study does not call for generation of quantitative estimates, it was possible to opt
for homogenous cluster based selection of villages adopting pure random sampling methods
for sample selection at village as well as household level. Therefore selected sample units could
not be assigned village/household weights. Even in beneficiary villages covered in the MRWSSP
and MRWSESP projects all households were not receiving piped water supplies and total universe
was unknown. Therefore tabular analysis was mainly adopted for presentation of simple ratioestimates on variables of interest.
2.9.5
General comments on sampling of water for potability testing.
Frequency of sampling : It is realized that contamination of water is often intermittent
and may not be revealed by examination of a single sample or samples tested at lengthy
12
intervals. There was also a concomitant need to widen the investigation to the greatest
possible proportion of the village. In view of the limited time span a minimal analysis
of water samples from at least 5 standposts and private connections was undertaken
in all sampled villages. In the case of standposts, samples from at least three households
drawing water from that standpost was obtained.
•
Fifteen percent of the standposts and private connections were sampled twice within
the span of one month for concordance in observations.
•
A 500 ml (0.5 litre) sampling from household sources was deemed sufficient smce
it represented 5-10% of the volume stored in a container and hence reflected substantially
variations if any within the storage container.
•
A palpable resistance to taking of larger water samples from households was evinced.
•
Deviations in water quality are most likely to occur in the large volume storage tanks
where multiple samples could not be coUected or repeated. Again in view of the time
factor stated previously this limitation maybe acceptable.
As regards bacteriological testing of water samples it may be noted that water sample
collection and testing was a one time affair and repeat samples could not be collected or analysed
due to constrains imposed by shortage of time. The water sample test results presented in
this study at best indicate a particular day’s result and need to be treated as such for drawing
inferences. With repeat samples, over a period of time or in different seasons would provide
definitive results/conclusions. One time water sample test results however, do point to potable/
non-potable nature of piped water supply possibilities and serve the purpose of altering the
concerned functionaries.
□□
13
in
Results of Bacteriological Testing
3.1
Introduction and Rationale:
3.1.1
Access to adequate and safe drinking water is the primary right of all people. This
belief finds much emphasis in the mission statements of both Projects under scrutiny in this
Report. The terms of reference for this study obviously link the impact of the health messages
with improvement in quality of water at the household level. An isolated examination of water
samples at the household level would be insufficient to explore this link without concurrent
assessment of water quality at the points of storage and supply at village level (tank) and
distribution points (either private or shared stand posts). The purpose of undertaking bacteriological
testing of piped water supplies to beneficiary villages/households of the selected sample villages
in MRWSSP (DFID) and MRWSESP (WB) areas is to provide a comparison of potability
of water at supply, storage, distribution and utilization hubs. This would critically supplement
the information base generated in the field survey particularly with regard to a) personal practices
of the community with regard to personal hygiene, water collection and storage practices, b)
environmental conditions engendered by community practices and for civil engineering approaches,
c) adequacy, accessibility and utilization patterns of water supplies, d) end point water purification
practices, e) perception of water quality by community, and f) experiences, recent and past
of water borne diseases in the community.
The pattern of water collection at 3 levels as described in chapter 2 is in line with
3.1.2
the requirements of the assessment as stated above.
3.1.3
The potability of water is dependent on the level of pollution by a) bacteriological/
virological/zoonotical b) chemical c) organic sources. This study is limited to assessment of
potability with respect to only bacteriological contamination coupled with physical properties
of water samples such as turbidity and pH. The methods followed for the bacteriological component
have been detailed in chapter 2.
3.2
Logistics of Water Sample Collection:
3.2.1
Section 2.4 of the second chapter outlines in detail the methodology adopted for selection
of villages and the type of water sources, user households etc. from where water samples need
to be taken. Field visits for collection of water samples were organized between January and
March, 2000. A team of three persons (comprising two trained workers from The Foundation
for Medical Research, Mumbai and one experienced field investigator who had participated
in field visits) facilitated collection of water samples from designated spots/households. Since
the collected water samples needed to be delivered to the laboratory in Mumbai for testing
within 24 hours of collection, one of the sample collectors returned to deliver the water samples
to Mumbai while the second joined the field investigator to visit the next sample village for
taking subsequent water samples. The necessary transport facilities were made available for
rapid movement of the field staff. All water samples were thus collected and passed on to
the testing laboratory at Mumbai. For every water sample taken, the identification particulars
14
and other necessary information were recorded in a prescribed format (sample form enclosed)
prepared for this purpose. This was delivered to the laboratory along with water samples.
3.2.2
The procedures and standards used for bacteriological testing in the laboratory are
outlined in section 2.5 of the second chapter. A team of two trained microbiologists at the
Foundation for Medical Research carried out bacteriological tests in the laboratory. The laboratory
testing included (a) determination of the MPN of the coliform organisms in the water sample
and (b) qualitative analysis. Quality control measures adopted during laboratory testing are outlined
in section 2.5.3 and others of chapter 2.
Distribution of Water Samples
3.3
Table 3.1 presents the distribution of water samples collected from the sample villages
of 3 districts each from the MRWSSP (DFID) and MRWSESP (WB) aided project areas. Table
4.1 is self-explanatory and presents the number of water samples taken from the various locations
district wise.
A total of 222 samples were collected from 20 selected villages from 6 districts under
both the DFID and the WB projects. Whilst the subsequent observations are distinct for the
DFID or the WB arms, a true comparison between the projects may not emerge due to a
smaller sampling size particularly in the World Bank districts.
Table 3.1
District wise Distribution of Collected Water Samples
Standpost
Source
Alternate
5
13
5
18
5
3
57
9
23
30
5
Districts No.
I
DFID Districts
1.
2.
Dhule
Jalgaon
Nasik
4
5
2
18
25
14
Total
11
3.
Tank
Water
PrivateTap
Water
Household
Water
Sr.
No.
1
10
2
n
WB Districts
1.
Thane
Ahmednagar
Buldhana
2
2
2
10
20
14
7
2
5
3
6
4
10
Total
6
44
14
13
15
2.
3.
Note : Total number of samples collected were 222 from 20 selected villages from 6 districts
15
Bacteriological Findings
3.4
Table 3.2
Percentage of unacceptable (polluted) water samples
Sr.
No.
Districts
I
DFID
1.
2.
3.
Dhule
Jalgaon
Nasik
n
World Bank
1.
Thane
Ahmednagar
Buldhana
2.
3.
Key :
Tank
Stand
post
Private
tap
Household
Indication of
problem
75
40
0
40
39
0
100
100
0
83
76
21
EG & ED
EG & ED
ED
0
100
0
50
50
14
100
80
50
70
71
EG & ED
EG & ED
EG & ED
100
EG - Engineering
ED - Health Education
Village water storage tank samples:
A total of 11 tank water samples from the DFID supphed villages were coUected.
3.4.1
The results of the test showed that 45.4% samples were polluted. As compared to other districts.
the tank water in Dhule seems to be highly polluted in 75% of the samples. In Nasik all water
samples were within acceptable range while in Jalgaon only 60% were within the acceptable
margin.
The purification of tank water by application of TCL is dependent upon tank size
and the volume of water it holds. A prescribed quantity of TCL powder should be regularly
added to the tank an hour before water is released into the villages. It is beheved that pipe
water is always free from organisms due to the application of TCL. TCL supply to villages
within its jurisdiction is the direct responsibility of the Panchayat Samiti. In both DFID and
WB arms of the project, a man from each beneficiary village has been given training for TCL
application to tank and other water sources being used in his respective village.
3.4.2
Six tank water samples were collected and tested from 3 districts under the WB project.
The findings were that 66.7% samples were within acceptable range (i.e. potable) and 33.3%
were polluted. In Ahmednagar district, all tank water samples (100%) were polluted despite
being claimed to be TCL treated. A failure to apply the prescribed TCL quantity and unsatisfactory
cleansing of the storage tank could be responsible for the poor quality water from the storage
tank which constitutes the main source for piped rural water supply.
These findings clearly point out the operational problems faced by all village water
supply systems in DFID as well as WB aided areas. In two out of three districts (WB) covered
in the study i.e. Ahmednagar and Buldhana, the proportion of polluted tank water is found
to be rather high which is a cause of concern. There is a need to strengthen 0 & M activities
all over but more so in these districts.
Alternate Sources of Water:
3.4.3
Alternative sources of water like open wells, hand pump, bore wells etc. are available
16
as alternate sources of water during emergencies such as failure of piped water supply. It was
observed that hand pumps and bore well water samples were relatively potable than open wel
samples It was noted that both bore well and open well samples were polluted to a great
extent (63% - 75%) in both arms of the project. A supporting observation was the undertaking
of various activities like washing clothes, cleaning of utensils and washing of animals, near
open wells which also receive dirt droppings from the surroundings through their open mouths.
Similarly, though hand pump water is clean, the surroundings were also invariably unhygienic.
The infrequent use of these alternative sources and their lack of upkeep in the presence
of piped water may be partially contributory to the load of water borne diseases in the
community.
Stand-post water samples:
A.
344
The second category of the water samples were drawn from stand posts which ye
common water delivery points for a group of households. A total number of 23 water samples
from stand post taps from MRWSSP (DFID) villages and 13 water samples from stand post
taps from MRWSESP (WB) villages were coUected. Whilst 31% of stand post source o
e
DFID area were unacceptable, the WB figures of non-potable stand posts was 39/o.
The reasons for polluted stand post samples include (a) water pollution at tank level
and (b) leakages in the distributing pipe system coupled with unhygienic surroundings.
B.
Private tap verses common taps:
In the World Bank area, 6 tank water samples were collected. Four out of six tanks
3.4.5
are included for the analysis below.
were of acceptable quality and only these
To these 4 acceptable tanks, in all, 14 taps were connected. Of these 5 were common
taps and 9 were private taps.
Of
from 22 were unacceptable and the remaining
Of the
the 55 common
common taps,
taps, water
water samples
samples from
(60%). This finding has been discussed previously.
3 were acceptable
i
In contrast, of the 9 private taps, only 2 water samples were unacceptable giving
a potability of 77%.
It was noted that the surrounding areas of all the acceptable as well as the unacceptable
private taps (bar one) were clean. This observation is in variance to the surroundings observed
for the stand-post connections.
All taps connected to a polluted main tank source had unacceptable potability levels
both in the World Bank and DFID areas.
C.
Household
water samples:
346
The third set of drinking water samples were collected from the storage vessels in
the households. The test results in the DFID districts show that nearly 42% household water
samples were polluted despite their tank sources being potable. In 3 districts of WB also 37 5/o
of the house hold samples were found polluted on testing though the main sources of water
17
(tank) were found to be within acceptable range. (See Table 3.2)
This may occur because for the following reasons, (1) Field survey data revealed
that carrying drinking water vessels uncovered after filling from the stand post to residence
is a normal practice in the study villages. (2) Similarly while drawing water from the storage
vessel a large number of households do not use long handled ladles (vagrala) thereby increasing
the chances of contamination of the stored water. (3) Liquid waste disposal drains are found
to be in close proximity to vmter supply pipe lines. With the possibilities of leakages, the chances
of pollution are increased. (4) Due to low pressure many households have placed their tap
outlet below ground level (in pits) again close to drains thus inviting pollution.
However 18.7% and 30% of household samples were found to be potable in MRWSSP
(DFID) districts and in MRWSESP (WB) districts respectively despite both tank and stand
post sources being polluted.
This is attributed possibly to the precautionary steps taken by individual house holds
while filling the water from tap and at household level. Field observations indicate that 80.2%
and 50% of households in the DFID and WB project areas respectively filtered their cofiected
water through cloth before storage and in some cases the use of alum was noted. The number
of households professing no endpoint purification of water was significantly higher in the WB
area (31.4%) as compared to 7% in the DFID area.
3.4.7
Water samples were collected specifically from SC/ST households to test the potability
of water. It was found that cofiectively 80% house hold water samples were polluted and only
20% were within acceptable limits compared to the cumulative potability water of 45% in the
general population. It was also observed that water sources in these areas were often found
to be polluted.
Four discrete patterns of potable/unacceptable water samples reveal themselves during
3.4.8
analysis.
Table 3.3
Multilevel Patterns of Water Samples
(% Representation of sample villages)
Overall
DFID
WB
Tank clean, stand posts and house hold clean
10.5
8
14
b) Tank polluted stand post and household polluted
42.0
50
29
Tank clean, stand post and household polluted
15.7
d) Tank clean, stand post clean, household unclean
31.5
a)
c)
43
42
14
The carry over of poHuted water from the storage tank to distribution points and household
is the majority pattern in the study (b) contributing to the greatest extent of pollution at the
household level. Pattern d) in Table 3.3 is a close second signifying unsatisfactory coUection
and storage practices at the household level. Around 15.7% (pattern c) ot villages appear to
indicate a flaw in the engineering component of the project. The contribution of the WB arm
to this category is significant.
18
3.4.9
The overwhelming presence of polluted water in storage tanks and its percolation to
the household level renders the impact assessment of the health messages doubly difficult. Hence
it is not sufficient merely to determine the contamination of water at different levels but also
to compare the relative load of contamination between them. It was thus noted that generally
households when taken singly demonstrated the highest load of contamination viz. >18 coliforms
/ 100 ml of water. However from the bacteriologically sampled area, 4 villages (Hingankaji,
Sangrampur, Savarai, Galnimb) from the World Bank arm of the Project showed up six exceptional
households where household water was potable despite being drawn from contaminated private
taps / standposts. The small sample size precludes generalization but is indicative of the expanding
contamination load from source to household and reflects to some extent the lack of practice
of the health messages imparted to the communities. On the other hand, the finding of exceptions
is a reflection of use of end point water purification practices by some households through
filtration or use of alum. A knowledge of the purification practices in these households and
other hygiene related practices would be beneficial for recording.
3.4.10
Identification of bacteria in Water samples
Table 3.4
List of organisms isolated in the water supplied by the main piped water supply : - (n = 179)
% Frequency
Type of organisms
♦
Gram negative coccobacilli/short rods
(couldnot be identified upto species level)
Acinetobacter calcoaceticus
Gram negative slender long rods
(couldnot be identified upto species level)
Micrococci
Enterobacter cloacae
Enterobacter sp.
Bacillus sp.
Pseudomonas sp.
Kingella kingae
Vibrio sp.
Acinetobacter sp.
Citrobacter sp.
Actinobacillus sp.
Eikenella corrodans
Achromobacter sp.
Serratia sp.
Citrobacter freundii
Alcaliganes faecalis
Proteus mirabilis
Proteus sp. (unidentified)
Enterobacter aerogenes
Gram positive rods
Enterobacter agglomerans
35.7%
28%
20.1%
10.6%
5.0%
3.3%
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.1%
1.1%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
A total of 23 different species (Table 3.4) of bacteria were identified from water samples.
In 2/23 types, it was not possible to identify the genus. A. calcoaceticus was the most frequently
found species in the water samples. The findings indicate the overall of atypical coliforms
probably derived from environmental contamination from mud, soil and animal sources.
A codominance of A. calcoaceticus along with gram negative coccobacilli was noted
in piped water supply as well as alternative sources. The spectrum of species detected in piped
19
water supply was higher in piped water suppy (23 spec.es) as compared to alten at.ve source
(16 speJes). Furthermore in a majority of the villages sampled, there appeared a consistant
difference in the flora detected in samples from tanks and water distribution points as opposed
to households. The number of species detected in households was invariably more.
The highest breadth of species from the alternative sources was from the wells (n=14).
Unlike the above, most of these were reflected in the household water supplies. Nevertheless,
fecal coliforms remained undetectable.
The presence of fecal coliforms in all the 222 water samples was pnma face ml.
The conditions of transportation of samples from field to laboratory had no bearing on this
finding since water samples spiked with E.coli at time of collection demonstrated these organisms
in ample numbers during culture. Whilst this reflects a lack of fecal contamination of water
samples and is thus an indicator of a positive impact of the health messages and consequently
good personal hygiene, this interpretation cannot be viewed as absolute
Recent advances in microbiology indicate that identification of environmentally derived
organisms maybe affected by the stresses experienced by them. For bactena m water suppy
distribution systems, this indicates stress from chlorine even at sub lethal conc^rtrations (Sartory
D P and Watkins J. 1999; Journal of Applied Microbiology, 85 : 2255-2355). The switc g
off of even a single enzyme in the bacterium due to chlorine inducted stress would render
the identifying test negative. Since chlorination of the source water tank is reportedly undertaken
in the projects, extrapolation of the above mentioned possibility to our observations is reasonable.
3.4.11
Physical quality of water:
Table 3.5
Turbidity in the water sample
Source
DFID
Tank
Stand Post
Private Tap
Household
Well
Hand Pump
1 (0)
3 (3)
1 (0)
2 (2)
2 (0)
World Bank
1 (1)
1 CD
8 (4)
2 (1)
3 (0)
_
Key : Total No. of turbid samples, ( ) - No. of unacceptable samples
; j shows the frequency of visibly turbid water samples in the DFID and
Turbidity : Table 3.5
World Bmk project areas. A chi-square statistical analysis however revealed no correlation between
turbidity and contamination of water supplies.
pH ' A majority of the samples (197/204) of the samples collected recorded an acceptable
pH of 6-8 excluding the possibility of contamination with chemical effluents. The details ot
the seven samples that showed an acidic pH range of 4-6 are presented in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6
Number of water samples with low pH 4-6 (n
Type of water samples
pFIP
Tank
Stand Post
Private Taps
Household
W
(0)
1 W
Note : Figures in brackets indicate the number of polluted samples.
20
7)____________
World Bank
2 (1)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (0)
□□
IV
Project Prototypes
Map showing the 50 village water scheme in Amalner, a prototype of the MRWSSP
scheme sponsored by DFID:
INDEX PLAN for R^R. VY. S. S. SI VILLAGES
ENE 'AMI
to AML&DHNLE
_REFER_ENCES_
HF.A3 WORKS
w. r r
. n/i MAii.-i
ROOS fF. RS
M. R . R .
f:. 5. U.
G. S. H .
WORKS EXECUTED
WORKS TO Of EXECUTED -------
NIMBXV
k
'HAROE'i
•PADSE
KHE0U9H)
MARWAD
/ GOVAilDHAtLW
’■••-L.
I
<^R()(H>AOM
\
' QiiOR ‘ • • Jj,
\
]
uT 01 ’z'\ h
[•HAUHARl V/»
LOI\
CH At A Ml
\
/
//
LOH<k\)
K\i
)HFKU(SFi M)X
U
AMR,. './ »1
ANORE
t
It HAIWAQ*
X- I T
KHAOKE
lAf)|
J/j ® NAVAI.HH.AR
21
Jalgaon
Amalner
District
Tehsil
Villages
Anore
Zadi
Padse
Marwad
Total
H/H Interviewed
(20)
(19)
(19)
(21)
(79)
Table 4.1
Community Composition of villages in Amalner Tehsil
(% household)
Villages
HH Interviewed
Anore Vill
(20)
Wadi
(19)
Padse
(19)
Marwad
(21)
Total
(79)
Caste Hindu
55.0
84.2
52.6
76.2
67.1
Scheduled Castes
20.0
5.3
31.6
19.0
19.0
Scheduled Tribes
20.0
10.5
0
0
7.6
OBC
5.0
0
15.8
4.8
6.3
Total
25.3
24.1
24.1
26.6
100
Table 4.2
Quality and adequacy of water
(% household)
Adequacy of water
Quality of water
Name of Village
A
G
P
No
Yes
Secondary source
Main source
P
G
A
35.0
65.0
100.0
26.3
73.7
68.4
31.6
31.6
68.4
95.2
4.8
Anore
100.0
Zadi
84.2
15.2
Padse
63.2
26.3
10.5
26.3
57.9
Marwad
81.0
14.2
4.8
19.0
81.0
15.8
G = Good, A = Acceptable, P = Poor
Table 4.3
Average water supply/collection
Project area
Name of village
Padse
Marwad
Zadi
Anore
Nhavri
(% household)
HH size
Lit/HH
Lit/person
8.3
6.0
7.5
7.5
6.8
226.0
138.7
176.1
170.0
106.6
27.4
23.0
23.5
22.7
15.7
22
In World Bank districts, various water sources were chosen to supply an increased volume
of water to villages by Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran. e.g.
Buldhana
(Malkapur & Sangrampur)
Dam water
Ahmadnagar
Shrirampur
(5 village scheme)
Canal water
Akole
Well-water
Thane
(Bhivandi & Palghar)
Dam water from
Nasik District
As each district had differing plans, presenting a prototype is difficult.
23
V
Field Survey Results
The Location:
5.1
5 11
The MRWSSP/MRWSESP both covered districts in northern Maharashtra in the regions
traditionally referred to as Khandesh, Vidharbha, Nashik and Western Maharashtra. Agriculture
and animal husbandry are the traditional means of livelihood in these areas. The hilly terrams
are mostly and which makes water supply, and especially the piped supply of potable water
a pivotal issue for all people in this region.
Community Profile:
District
Table 5.1
Pecentage <distribution of respondents by caste and by occupation
Others
O.B.C.
S.T.
S.C.
*Caste Hindu
D
J
N
T
A
B
63.9
5.9
10.9
12.6
20.0
3.3
2.0
30.0
7.5
13.5
47.0
8.7
8.7
4.7
6.0
77.3
11.5
7.0
28.0
17.0
28.0
2.0
12.7
64.0
2.5
5.0
23.5
7.0
65.0
11.0
5.0
70.0
7.0
6.0
12.5
14.0
60.5
22.5
1.5
9.5
3.0
63.5
6.0
8.5
11.0
21.5
53.0
29.0
2.5
11.5
1.0
56.0
28.0
6.5
14.0
17.5
34.0
Daily Wage
Skill Wkr
Service
Business
*Agri
8.4
10.9
D = Dhule, J = Jalgaon, N = Nasik - DFLD/JVLKW^r
DFID/MRWSSP
T = Thane, A = Ahmednagar, B = Buldhana - IV.B./MRWSESP
Caste Hindu = Brahmin, Maratha, Kunbi etc.
= Mang, Matang, Chamar, Bhangi, Ramoshi etc.
s.c.
= Bhilla, Mahadev Koli etc.
S.T.
= Dhangar, Gurav, Shimpi etc.
O.B.C.
= Muslim, Christian, Jain etc.
Other
= Both arc independant variables for each district denoting % of the sampled population Hom a district
A
The community composition is more or less similar. Both project areas and comprised
5.1.2
of 46-50% Caste Hindus, 12-20% Scheduled Castes (SC), 12-14%, Scheduled Tribes (ST),
11-13% Others which included Muslims, Christians, Jains, Parsees, Buddhists etc... People from
life. Agriculture is the dominant occupation among
this region primarily live a irustic
--------agrarian
o
the landed as well as the many (10.5%) daily wage-earning people. The other means of livelihood
are animal husbandry, skilled/semi-skilled jobs, business, blue-collar service etc...
24
Collective and comprehensive perusal of the data presented in Tables clearly reveals
the inter-linkages between caste, occupation, literacy levels and economic status of households
For the purposes of this study, all sample units reporting schooling up to primary
levels and beyond are clubbed together as literate. The ability to read and write acquired
without formal schooling is classified as semi-literate. Those who cannot read or write and
depend on the spoken word
■dfor communication of ideas/views form the category of illiterates
The educational attainment of an individual is an important factor in the awareness and acceptance
of a message. As regards MRWSESP districts covered in the study, overall trends with respect
to literacy levels are similar to MRWSSP trends, though the low and middle-income group’s
proportions interchange their positions
Table 5.2
Percentage distribution of sample households by income and literacy level
District
*High
Semi
*Literate
D
22.0
19.0
27.0
22.7
48.7
28.6
15.5
27.0
54.0
B
19.4
57.0
21.0
22.5
46.0
57.5
A
17.5
62.2
18.4
22.5
37.0
31.5
T
33.5
47.5
35.0
20.5
33.0
40.5
N
Diiterate
33.0
47.0
19.5
Income
Literate
54.5
12.5
46.5
J
Low
Mid. Income
Income
25.0
54.0
21.0
= earning income between Rs. 18,000 to Rs. 36,000 p.a.,
High income = earning above Rs. 36,000 p. a., Midd. Income
Low income = earning below Rs. 18,000 p.a.
= Both are independant variables for each district denoting % of the sampled population from a district
*
8,000/
In economic terms, 53% people belong to the middle-income
miaaie-income group (Rsl
^io,v
W(toRs36,000/-) 22.5% fall in the high-income category (earning more than Rs.36,000/- per anum)
and the remaining 24.5% comprise the low-income strata (earning below Rs. 18000/- per anum).
Ilnuwhnltfc in
in SC/ST
Kt’/ST cateporv
pursue daily
Households
category lareelv
largely pursue
daily wage
wage earning
earning as their occupation and
mainly belong to the low-income group.
5.2
Water related facts:
The common sources of water are from taps, open wells, bore wells, hand pumps,
5.2.1
Rivers are sometimes a secondary source of water as well.
The now easier accessibility of water was universally acknowledged. It appears that
the Caste Hindu households seem to have overwhelmingly higher share than the socially
disadvantaged SC/ST household user groups. Their presence among all piped water users ranges
between 62% in DFID areas to about 54% in W.B. areas. The combined share of SC/ST sample
25
households ranges between 30 to 32% in the MRWSSP and MRWSESP areas, whereas the
share of OBC beneficiary households rises from 7.3% in DFID areas to 13.7% in W.B. areas.
Table 5.3
Differential patterns of water source and usage by % of households
W. B. Districts
DFID Districts
Use / Purpose
Supp-sources
Main source
Supp-sources
Main source
H. P.Z Tank/
B. W. River/
Canal
Piped
water
H. P./
B. W.
Tank/
River/
Canal
Open
well
Piped
water
91
91
74
1
I
9
19
1
2
7
17
7
90
89
84
61
86
8
2
76
6
5
10
5
15
59
59
54
30
55
37
34
35
29
34
4
7
11
19
11
71
64
57
42
62
1
2
2
Open
well
Adequate Water
Supply
Drinking + cooking
Bathing + hand wash
Cloths + utensil wash
Cattle drinking
Others
36
o
6
6
6
2
1
2
2
6
8
6
6
Inadequate Water
Supply
Drinking + cooking
Bathing + hand wash
Cloths + utensil wash
Cattle drinking
Others
Notes :
2
3
2
28
34
4
7
2
36
25
34
Supp : Supplementary sources of water
H.P. = Hand Pump, B.W. = Bore Well
Others includes water used for sprinking in courtyard
Seventy four to 91 % of sample households routinely used piped potable water for
sprinkling in courtyards across DFID and WB supported areas
5.2.2
Availability of water: As many as 76.3% in WB aided schemes and 79% in DFID
supported districts reported availability of adequate piped water Approximately 17 to 19%
of the respondent households disagreed Another interesting fact observed was that while people
in a group situation always reported an inadequate availability of water, those spoken to
individually said that water supply was adequately received by them!
Taps, whether private or the common stand post variety, are at an approximate distance
of between 50m to 200m from the beneficiaries homes now as opposed to the earlier mean
distance of 400m traversed to procure water.
Studies conducted prior to commencing of both projects recorded water availability
at approximately 241it/person/day. This was expected to rise to 40 lit/person/day and be available
continuously on tap throughout the day. By taking an approximation of the average of the
averages reported by the beneficiaries interviewed, it appears that the current supply/consumption
26
of water remains at 241it/person/day. In villages at the tail end of the water supply schemes
this dropped to 151it/person/day. The fall in water pressure was seen as being responsible for
this. Water is received for approximately 10-15 minutes once daily. However the timings for
supply are not constant/fixed and this makes water collection a continued problem.
Table 5.4
Showing different water related information
(% of Households)
District
OWNERSHIP
QUALITY
ADEQUACY
Private
Public
Yes
No
Good
Bad
D
73.4
26.6
91.8
8.2
88.6
11.4
J
52.0
48.0
66.8
31.2
90.0
10.0
N
37.5
62.5
96.6
3.4
97.5
2.5
T
68.6
31.4
67.6
32.4
89.6
10.4
A
53.6
46.4
92.7
7.3
88.2
11.8
B
67.7
32.3
79.8
20.2
96.3
3.7
5.23
Quality of water: People are largely satisfied with the quality of water being supplied.
There were some comments of dissent from Malkapur Taluka and Dhule Block where they
said water was not of potable quality and was only used for purposes other than drinking.
Water received at various points of the scheme was not standardized. Households nearer the
supply plants complained of greater proportion of chlorine, which adversely affected the water’s
smell and taste. Certain areas of Dhule and Buldhana reported receiving green water. On grounds
of inadequacy of water supply or refusal to pay the revised tariff villages in Jalgaon (3), Thane
(2) and Buldhana (1) had discontinued use of water from these schemes since Dec. 1999 at
the time of this survey
5.2.4
Water tariff: Under the 'Bombay Village Panchayat Act’ 1958, the G.P. had been
empowered with the fixing and collection of water tariff. The G.P. could also plan, implement
and maintain individual water supply schemes. On regional water supply schemes, the Z.P. was
empowered to fix water tariffs and collect a share of water taxes from G.P. however, no system
of sharing was fixed. At this juncture, water tariff payable by private connection users was
between Rs.200/- to 250/- per anum and between Rs.50/- to 75/- annually by common stand
post users.
In January 1997, the Govt, of Maharashtra passed a resolution establishing the
‘Maharashtra Village Water Supply Fund’ at the G.P level. According to this, water tariff was
raised to Rs.75/- per anum for all standpost users and Rs. 360/- annually for households with
private tap connections. The system of sharing taxes was fixed at 80:20 ratio between the
Z.P. and G.P. respectively.
At the time of conducting this study, 96% of the people in MWRSSP areas and 76%
of people in MRWSESP areas expressed willingness to pay the water tariff provided an adequate
and regular supply was insured. However, people voiced a reluctance to continue paying the
larger revised tariff amount especially as this service was not being delivered to them as promised.
27
The continuous supply of potable water was not available. Moreover this was released at
indeterminate times of the day for only 10-15 minutes at a stretch. Additionally, the water
supply was affected by the weekly closures for electrical and water supply maintenance work,
on two different days of the week as these departments did not, at present, coincide their
maintenance activity.
When specifically asked about the earlier and currently prevalent incidence of water
5.2.5
borne illnesses. There was a definite perception among the beneficiaries from both project
areas that this had improved greatly since the inception of the project, especially over the past
six months i.e. June-Dec.’99 coverings Summer and the monsoon when water related illnesses
are at their worst.
5.3
Common water related practices pertaining to its storage and withdrawal:
Of the three health messages pertaining to storage and withdrawal of water for use,
5.3.1
all had reached the beneficiaries. However, there was an observed lack of impetus on their
part to put these into practice.
5.3.2
It is a common practice among a majority of beneficiaries in both project areas to
collect water for storage in metallic vessels, 90% of sample households in DFID as well as
WB districts use metallic vessels for collection and carrying potable water from source, 10%
preferred the use of plastic or earthen vessels for this purpose. Water was carried home uncovered
by almost all respondents. (See Annexure A.4)
5.3.3
Within the homes water was stored in earthen vessels by all households. Water for
drinking and cooking was usually stored collectively in a common vessel by 61.2% people
in MRWSSP areas and 52.9% people in MRWSESP areas. (See Annexure A.4.B)
5.3.4
95% of the families in the DFID areas kept their drinking water at a safe/ elevated
place and 80% families in the WB areas followed this practice. While there were a significant
number of people who did keep their water in a designated ‘safe’ place, this was merely kept
at a distance from the ‘mori’ where bathing, washing of utensils and of clothes was done and
not necessarily an elevated platform or stand. It was a common practice to wash vessels used
for water collection/ storage with soap/ash on a regular basis either daily or on alternate days
by a majority of the womenfolk. Further probe in this regard revealed that 36 to 40% sample
households use soap/detergent powders for this purpose in MRWSSP and MRWSESP districts.
Another 51%) and 38% of sample households use ash for this purpose in MRWSSP and
MRWSESP schemes respectively. Usage of mud/ wet soil as a cleaning agent is reported
by 4.3%) households in MRWSSP areas as against 18.8% reporting it in the MRWSESP
districts. (See Annexure A.8)
5.3.5
Vis-a-vis the practice of drawing water from the storage vessel for use. As far as drawing
drinking water from storage vessels is concerned, families from both project areas did not uniformly
follow using long handled ladles. Nearly 60% of sample households in MRWSSP as well as in
MRWSESP areas reported using a designated, non-handled vessel for drawing water from storage
vessels. The usage of long handled ladles to draw water from storage vessels was reported by
about 18% sample households in DFID supported areas while nearly 26% in W.B. supported
districts reported doing so. About 15% to 22% from both areas also reported drawing water directly
from the pot by dipping any available vessel when required. (See Annexure A.7)
28
Table 5.5
Water withdrawal, storage and drawing practices
(% of Households)
Drawing
Storage
Collecttion
District
Covered
open
Safe
Unsafe
With Ladle
Without Ladle
D
J
N
64.8
70.1
67.6
35.2
29.9
32.4
97.4
93.5
95.7
2.6
6.5
4.3
15.2
19.6
16.0
84.8
80.4
84.0
T
A
B
62.1
75.4
73.2
37.9
24.6
26.8
94.8
88.7
85.4
5.2
11.3
14.6
24.4
18.7
26.1
75.6
81.3
73.9
Personal hygiene and sanitary practices:
5.4
5.4.1
Vis-a-vis personal hygiene and sanitary practices among residents of both project
areas, traditional practices still prevail. Over 82% people prefer to defecate in open farmland
spaces. Of the total number of toilets constructed, less than 17% in DFID areas and 29%
in WB areas are in active use. A majority of respondents use this pucca area as a storage
space for grain and other articles needing shelter from the elements. The privileged 80% from
DFID areas and 90% in WB project areas lived in pucca homes while the remaining village
dwellings are largely thatched structures with Ckucha walls and floors as well.
Table 5.6
Types of dwellings, their electrification and the frequency of
female household heads
(% of Households)
District
Pacca
Roof
Kacha
Roof
All Kuccha
Roof
% electrifed
H.H.
Female
H.H.
D
59.5
32.9
7.6
84.8
15.2
J
84.5
11.5
4.0
71.7
3.5
N
90.0
6.7
3.3
83.5
6.7
T
99.0
1.0
68.9
6.8
A
81.3
16.0
2.7
92.0
12.7
B
95.8
3.4
0.8
78.2
0.8
The health messages pertaining to personal hygiene, more specifically those about hand
washing practices before handling food and after defecation or 1washing a baby’s bottom elicited
a range of responses.
29
Table 5.7
Personal hygiene practised by household members
Sr. No.
Aged
Children
Female
Male
Nature of Habits
(% of Households)
A
M
A
M
A
M
A
M
92
73
5
8
95
91
92
92
4
5
4
5
61
48
17
19
53
45
7
10
88
7
93
5
57
18
51
8
63
35
32
20
66
59
71
80
27
14
16
13
53
28
31
24
19
13
4
5
85
9
95
_
3
68
15
19
4
I. DFID / MRWSSP
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hand wash before meals
Vessel wash before drinking water
Hand wash before cooking
Plate washing before serving food
Washing hand/feet with soap after
defeacating
H. W. B. I MRWSESP
f
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hand wash before meals
Vessel wash before drinking water
Hand wash before cooking
Plate washing before serving food
Washing hand/feet with soap after
defeacating
Note : A = Always, M = More often but not always
90-95% from DFID and 60-65% from WB project areas reported washing hands
5.4.2
before handling food (eating/cooking as the case may be). Hands were always washed vigorously
with water before handling food. The use of soap/ash for hand washing is not a common practice,
not even for hand washing after defecation or after washing a baby s bottom. People from
both project areas reported the use of soap /ash for hand washing only in the early mornings
when they were close to home. Once they were away at work, the use of wet mud/soil as
a cleaning agent was most common. A few even reported rubbing their fingers against a dry
rock after defecation.
Again, while the health /hygiene messages were known to all, adopting these was not
yet a widespread phenomenon.
Disposal of waste in the village is done more or less similarly in the 394 villagers
covered under study. As regards availability of drainage facility nearly 66% of households
reported the existence of open drains across the MRWSSP areas against 24% stating non
existence of drainage in all parts of villages in MRWSSP. The MRWSESP areas covered in
the study reported nearly 57% open drains and 25% no drains. In 63% households across
MRWSSP (DFID) areas household level liquid waste is largely disposed off in village drains,
the remaining households allow it spill over on roads or over nearby areas. Liquid household
waste as well as that from cow sheds flows into shallow drains that are usually blocked and
consequently flow over onto the roads and common village areas rendering unsanitary living
conditions. The concept of soak-pit based kitchen gardens has not made much headway in
MRWSSP areas. However, across MRWSESP districts a somewhat different picture appears
to be emerging. About a quarter of the households reported usage of soak-pits for household s
liquid waste disposal. The remaining 20% of WB sample households yet dispose off their household
liquid waste into village drains while more than one half of the households allow household
5.5
30
open spaces.
spaces. As
As regards
regards liquid
waste disposal
disposal
liquid waste to spill over on to village roads or open
liquid wasie
from cattle sheds, the behavioural patterns in the two areas are more or less smular to the
household liquid disposal pattern. In MRWSSP (DFID) areas low and middle income households
appear to be primarily responsible for liquid waste spillage over in open areas near homes or on
roads while in the MRWSESP (WB) districts, the middle and high-income household do so.
As regards disposal of solid waste comprising mainly biodegradable household cooking
5.5.1
wastes, nearly 85% of sample households, in MRWSSP (DFID) districts reported waste> disposal
in either in self owned compost pits or in common village compost pits referred to as U
.
In MRWSESP (WB) districts, personal compost pits are used by approximately 37/o ot households
and as many as 40% use common disposal pits. The low-income households are primarily responsible
for spreading solid waste around homes in MRWSSP while in MRWSESP areas the middle
income households do so. As stated earlier, the study indicates that while the messages av
reached people, they are slow to change their earlier practices and implementation of the messages
is not yet widespread.
5.6
Beneficiary comments/perceptions:
People suggested that the watermen appointed to chlorinate water in the ESR be taught
to scientifically estimate the quantity of water in the tanks in order to calculate the requisite
proportion of trichlor powder needed for this purpose. At present, this is done on an ad-hoc
LX Peonle livine closer to the supply source complained of distasteful and smelly water.
basis. People living closer to the supply source
Another
Another request
request voiced
voiced by
by people
people was the appointing of additional personnel in the
beneficiary villages to clean the drains/toilets and maintain proper sanitary conditions in the
villages.
People also stated that the water supply pipes in/to the villages had not been buned
at a uniform stipulated depth as a result of which many pipes were damaged during ploughing
of fields. This was causing the water logging of fields.
At several places, unauthorized connections had been added which was adversely affecting
the downstream supply of water. Some people felt that substandard materials had been used
in laying pipelines these were already corroded causing leakage and water logging.
The mosquito menace has consequently risen dramatically they stated. Also, the stench
from stagnant puddles with rotting vegetation and other filth was disagreeable and posed a
health hazard.
At some places, water pipes were in close proximity to village drains; this could lead
to contamination of drinking water over time rendering it unsafe for consumption. Even at
present there were some families who were additionally filtering/boiling their drinking water
before ingesting it.
Men folk complained that women were no longer agreeable to walk great lengths to
fetch water from a secondary source and tended to wait for piped water to arnve. In a primarily
daily wage earning society this adversely affected the family’s income.
A solitary view aired suggested that the same money if invested in a watershed managemep^
approach would have resulted in greater long term good.
31
07724
I
iot
-< V'
5.7
Comments from the official cadre:
Hand washing before handling food is a commonly observed traditional practice.
The use of soap/ash whilst washing hands is not yet commonly prevalent. Economic
factors were considered responsible for this.
Health education activity among the populace is not a new activity either. It has been
done in the past to inform the public about guinea worm eradication in the Naru Nirmulan
Abhiyan scheme. Hand washing has also been specifically covered in the MCH camps that
were conducted in the villages earlier.
It was felt that MHW/ANM/DHEO and other government appointed personnel were
better equipped to cover this task of educating the people who identify them with health/hygiene
related work. This would be beneficial to the acceptance of messages by the community it
was felt. NGOs on the other hand would have their own acceptance by the community as
a primary issue to contend with.
It was also reported that NGOs and governmental personnel alike faced some resistance
from the beneficiaries whilst delivering the six health related messages. The performance of
a street play had to be abandoned when villagers turned belligerent stating that their primary
interest was in procurement of adequate water supply and not the add on health messages.
“Where is the water to wash hands or flush toilets with?” They taunted.
Officials felt that beneficiaries would not be agreeable to paying the water tariff. Water
like all other natural resources is expected to be freely available by the community.
There was a general feeling of alienation from the project among the people. The
initial enthusiasm demonstrated in the formation and running of Village Water Committees (VWC)
has died out Over 95% of VWCs in both project areas are now disbanded. People refer to
the piped water as ‘British Panf (water) demonstrating how far removed they felt from it.
In Dhule, delivery of the health messages had been done using city marathi and not
in the colloquially prevalent Airini dialect.
The emphasis on kitchen gardens and soakage pits in both project areas was irrelevant
to the ground reality situation of proximally located dwellings. Soakage pits that had been
experimentally constructed are now rendered dysfunctional, broken with the passage of bullock
carts over them.
Schemes implemented were not always relevant to the grassroots reality that prevailed
but were thrust upon the people albeit experimentally, were half -heartedly executed and now
lie abandoned.
5.8
According to newspaper reports (Lokmat/Sakal):
An inherent project defect was the use of ancient topographical charts of over 50 years
in planning the laying of pipelines to the various villages in the DFID scheme. Ground reality
was quite different and often the plans had to be abandoned in preference of another more
in keeping with ground reality. Costs were adversely affected; quality control measures were
less stringently adopted in these cases as whatever material could be procured was used.
5.9
Policy Implications:
The ultimate objective of this project was that people should take over the continued
32
maintenance and running of this scheme. However, as things stand, there is great reluctance
to do so, as the present water supplies are inadequate and not as promised earlier. Even the
governmental bodies viz. the ZP/GP expressed dissent on this issue. Of the water taxes collected,
ZP currently keeps 80% of the total collected, leaving the GP with the balance 20% amount
and the task of maintaining water/ sanitation services in the project areas. This they felt was
grossly insufficient to cover the task at hand.
The political scenario also influences water supply. Villages with strong political connections
had negligible water problems. Also, beneficiaries often mentioned that they had been instigated
against payment of water tariff by persons with vested interests. It is only in the event of
there being 20-22 hours continuous electric supply that water could be supplied continuously
as promised during project inception. A more coordinated and concerted effort at multiple levels
is required to synchronise this rural water supply scheme in order for it to truly deliver water
supply on tap as envisaged.
□□
33
VI
Concluding Observations and Implications
6.1
Concluding Observations:
6.1.1
The inclusion of Health Education activities as an integrated part of The Maharashtra
Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project (MRWSSP) with financial support from DFID and
The Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation Project (MRWSESP) funded
by the WB, in partnership with the Government of Maharashtra was a unique feature. This
study makes an attempt to assess the impact of the six health messages on which health education
activities were focused. Findings presented in this study are based on a wide quantitative and
qualitative database. Hopefully academicians, administrators and planners would benefit from
this report. This independent assessment has yielded some interesting findings at the planning/
implementation at the community levels.
6.1.2
The bacteriological testing of water samples to scientifically evaluate the quality of
water being supplied in the project areas has been a distinctive feature of this study. The team
hopes that such testing provides another dimension to this assessment.
6.2
Planning Implementation Level Implications:
The considerable degree of water pollution at source and at distribution points
indicates significant problems of (i) unsatisfactory engineering inputs into the projects,
use of outdated information and utilisation of sub standard material (ii) inadequate training
of local personnel in maintaining potability of local water sources through chlorination,
cleaning of tanks etc. (iii) failure of involving the beneficiaries i.e. people at every stage
from planning to execution and maintenance of project. We feel that attention to these
would have gone a long way in ensuring greater effectiveness and sustainability of the project.
As such, the VWCs which originally had the mandate of ensuring equitable water supply and
resolving functional problems are generally moribund. One prime reason for this is nepotism
which has encouraged the sprouting of illegal connections and monopoly of distribution points.
(Refer village map in Annexures 17-A and 17-B).
It is recommended that before concretizing such plans, a major effort at gauging the
needs and perceptions of the target communities is essential. All engineering details should
be planned using updated knowledge and technologies currently available to avoid unnecessary
operational glitches. The continuous participation of target groups and the area officers needs
to be advocated right from the pre-planning stage to ensure people's understanding, involvement
and sustained participation. While undertaking projects, the emphasis on promoting its ownership/
Indianness should not be lost sight of since it resulted in the people considering it as "British/
World Bank Pani". Such alienation results in failure of successful implementation of the project
and substantial loss of public resources in terms of time, energy and money.
6.3
Acceptance of the health messages by Community and Implications:
Prima facie there seems to be a general lack of practice/implementation of the
health messages. This impression becomes modified on closer questioning and it appears
that people do follow the health messages in sometimes limited but distinct ways. The
34
qualitative data by and large pinpoints this adherence to traditional practices already
inherent in the community with minimal influence of project related activities. The latter
appears to be further eroded by factors like unreliable availability of water, its unequal distribution
and perpetuation of unhygienic environmental conditions around supply and distribution points
aggravated by poor engineering. Though generally end point interventions in securing potability
of water are most effective, the very conceptualisation of the health messages, their unclear
connection to local practices and their isolation from environmental/community factors
needs consideration.
The fact that contamination of water at the household has been demonstrated to be
greater than at source and distribution points, is indicative of the lack of practice/implementation
of the health messages. A study of health messages relating to storage/ drawing practices of
potable water show that the two concerning water storage are fully adopted by most of the
rural households whereas the third one regarding the use of long handled ladles for drawing
of water from vessels is only partially accepted. A separate vessel kept close to the stored
water is used for drawing out water for drinking/use ensures lesser contamination as compared
to use of any available vessel for drawing out water for drinking. However fingers may be
dipped whilst drawing water and subsequent contamination may occur.
Of the three messages related to personal hygiene, most of the households reported
vigorous washing of hands with water before handling food whether for cooking or eating
as the case may be. Washing of hands after defecating/washing a baby’s bottom was done
using soil especially when respondents were at a distance from their homes. Sometimes a piece
of brick/stone was used. Washing with soap/ash is commonly practised but occurs only in the
early morning when respondents are at home. The pattern in this regard was similar in DFID
as well as World Bank areas.
The lack in detection of fecal coliform organisms must be accepted with caution
since technical detection of fecal coliforms can be influenced by environmental stress (chlorine)
that the organisms are subjected to Nevertheless the emergent finding was the presence
of a wide series of atypical coliforms suggestive of environmental contamination from
mud, soil and cattle commonly found in such households. The contamination was the
greatest at the individual household level even in instances when the elevated source and
taps at distribution points were contaminated.
No direct inferences can be drawn between pollution levels in water and patterns of
disease in the community which are modulated by immune mechanisms of the people as well
as governed by perceptions. The notions of a “good quality” water supply by the communities
as well as that of perceived decreasing morbidity from water-borne diseases implies that the
contamination levels prima facie do not constitute a significant health hazard to the community
who may be dealing currently with a relatively lighter load of organisms than previously seen.
A comparison with control villages and a more detailed measurement of current disease load
would have clarified the situation better.
The data presented shows that piped water supplies are used, apart from drinking and
cooking purposes, for multiple household uses as is evident in the case of their urban counterparts.
Wide use of non-metallic vessels for storing potable water, mostly in earthern containers is
noted across all income groups as a result of age old cultural practices.
As regards environmental sanitation and drainage conditions, the overall picture in
MRWSSP (DFID) and MRWSESP (WB) is not encouraging. Drains are generally open, filled
35
with filth, and choked with dirty water puddles forming on roadsides. This also increases the
risk to the community from diseases like malaria. The disposal of liquid waste is wholly
unsatisfactory in almost all sample villages of both project areas. With respect to solid waste
disposal however, a relatively better picture emerges as a majority of households reported putting
solid waste in compost pits near thier homes. As many as 82% sample households in MRWSSP
and 70% in MRWSESP areas are non-users of latrines.
Some recommendations arising from this study include :
•
Adoption of participatory approaches with people right from the onset.
•
Maintenance of trasparency and accuracy in dialogue between the government and the
people.
•
Local civic bodies should be equipped to withstand interference from political parties
and influential persons within their communities.
Constant orientation and motivation of community based staff needs to be ensured.
•
As opposed to piped water supply, it is felt that local water-shed management could
have been far more cost effective and provided much greater community participation
and self-reliance. It may have resulted in better utilisation of the DFID and World
Bank project funds which was reportedly Pound Sterling 16 million and Rs. 600 crores
respectively for the greater part of the last decade. We hope that the findings of this
study will help in future attempts at providing drinking water to the rural areas.
36
Selected Readings
Acharya, S., et. al (1992) The Maharashtra Water Suuply and Sanitation Project: Report
of the Pilot Study undertaken in four Villages. Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Bombay.
Dandare, M.P. (1993) Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project : Area
Visit Report, under Consultancy Assignment from F.M.O. MRWSSP, Bombay.
DAS (I) (1997) Hygiene Promotion Pilot Programme, Gomti River Pollution Control
Programme, Developmental Assistance Systems (India), Lucknow.
Esrey, S.A, et.al (1990) Health Benefitsfrom Improvements in Water Supply and Sanitation,
Survey and Analysis of Literature on Selected Diseases. Wash Technical Report, No. 66.
Feachem, R.H.(1984) Infections Related to Water and Excreta, The Health Dimension
of the Decade in Water and Sanitation: Economic and Sociological Perspectives ..., Peter,
G. B. Ed., Academic Press Inc.
Ghosh et.al (1995) Water Survey in Rural India : Policy and Programme, Ashish Publishing
House, New Delhi.
Govt, of Maharashtra (1996) District Census Handbook : Thane, Maharashtra Census
Directorate. Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
Govt, of Maharashtra (1996) Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and Environmental
Sanitation Project : Health Education Strategy, Public Health Department, Government of
Maharashtra, Mumbai.
Govt, of Maharashtra (1997) MRWSSP- Annual Project Review; January, 1997 and
November, 1997.
Govt, of Maharashtra, AAROGYA SAMVARDHAN (Marathi) Training Manual, State Health
Education and Communication Bureau, Government of Maharashtra, Pune.
Govt, of Maharashtra (1997-98) JEEVANDHARA (Marathi), State Health Education and
Communication Bureau, Government of Maharashtra, Pune.
Hazel, S. (1992-1997) Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project: Health
Education Consultancy for Sept. 1992, Oct. 1993, April 1995, Nov 1996, April- May 1997,
Nov. 1997. School of health and social care, South Bank University, London.
NCAER (1996) Comparative Studies on Sample Survey and Participation Rural Appraisal
Methodologies, National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi.
ORG (1993) Baseline Survey for Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project
: An Interim Report, Vol. I, Operation Research Group, Bombay.
37
ORG (1993) Baseline Survey for Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project
: Qualitative Research Findings, Vol. II, Operation Research Group, Bombay.
ORG (1993) Baseline Survey for Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project,
Questionnaires, Operation Research Group, Bombay.
ORG (1993) Baseline Survey for Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project
: Village Maps, Operation Research Group, Bombay.
Panda, P.K. (1992) The Effect of Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation on Diarrhoeal
Diseases among Children in Rural Orissa (Working Paper No. 278), Centre for Development
Studies, Thiruvanantapuram.
PHI & DFID (1997) Health Promotion, Theory and Practice, Training of Trainers :
Sessions on Gender, Public Health Institute, Nagpur and Water & Sanitation Office, Department
of International Development (U.K.).
Sinha B.D. & Menon S.K.(1996) Environmental Sanitation, Health and Panchayati Raj,
Concept, publishing Corporation, New Delhi.
Reddy K.L.N. (1999) Economics of Rural Drinking Water Supply, University Book House
Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.
TARU Leading Edge (1998) Impact Assessment of Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and
Sanitation Project (Jalgaon 80 Village Scheme), Vol. I - Main Report, TARU Leading Edge,
New Delhi.
TARU Leading Edge (1998) Impact Assessment of Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and
Sanitation Project (Jalgaon 80 Village Scheme), Vol. II - Annexes- Household Case Studies
and Profiles of Selected Villages, TARU Leading Edge, New Delhi.
TISS (1996) Wadi/ Wasti Survey Report, Community Development Programme
Consultancy under MRWSSP, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.
TISS (1997) Maharashtra Regional Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, 50 Village
Scheme, Amalner and Dhule Taluka, Progress Report, Jan-Oct. 1997, Tata Institute of Social
Sciences, Mumbai.
TISS (1998) PANI SAMITI : GAON VYAVASTHAPAN MARGADARSHIKA, (Marathi)Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.
38
Legends to Photographs
Broken down drainage system near a
standpost
A ground level private water tap
A local giving his inputs in the drawing
up of a village map
An anganwadi worker explaining the six
health messages
Participation of community in PRA
activities
Collection of water sample from stand
post for bacteriological analysis
39
■i
MV <
PW;^
40
Annexures
Annexure Tabic A-l
Distribution of Sample Households by Economic and Social Classes
_________________________________________
(% of Households)
District Economic Class
Social Classes
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. AU
General
16.3(27.6)
63.3(80.0)
20.4(100)
100(63.3)
O.B.C.
75.0(10.4)
25.0(2.5)
S.C.
53.8(24.1)
462(15.0)
S.T.
91.7(37.9)
8.3(2.5)
100(5.1)
100(16.4)
100(15.2)
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. AU
13.7 (24.2)
55.5 (67.7)
30.8 (94.7)
100 (58.5)
27.8 (7.6)
72.2 (13.5)
81.8 (27.3)
18.2 (4.2)
100 (9.0)
62.8 (40.9)
32.6 (14.6)
4.6 (5.3)
100(21.5)
100(11.0)
33.0(100)
48.0 (100)
19.0(100)
100(100)
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. AU
7.6 (31.6)
46.8 (64.9)
45.6 (85.7)
100 (67.0)
14.3 (5.3)
57.1 (7.0)
28.6 (4.8)
100 (5.9)
41.2 (26.8)
52.9(15.8)
5.9 (2.4)
100 (14.4)
33.3 (26.3)
46.7 (12.3)
20.0 (7.1)
100(12.7)
16.1(100)
48.3(100)
35.6 (100)
100 (100)
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. AU
12.2 (26.3)
54.5 (69.4)
33.3 (91.1)
100 (62.0)
31.0 (7.9)
62.1(9.3)
6.9 (2.2)
100 (7.3)
56.2 (36.0)
39.7(15.0)
4.1 (3.4)
100 (18.4)
69.4 (29.8)
24.5 (6.3)
6.1 (3.3)
100 (12.3)
28.7(100)
48.6(100)
22.7 (100)
100(100)
T
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
19.6 (44.0)
42.9 (44.8)
37.5 (58.3)
100 (48.7)
11.1(16.0)
55.6 (34.5)
33.3 (33.3)
100 (30.3)
37.5 (24.0)
50.0 (13.8)
12.5 (5.6)
100 (13.4)
44.5 (16.0)
44.4 (6.9)
11.1(2.8)
100 (7.6)
21.0(100)
48.7(100)
30.3 (100)
100 (100)
A
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
13.4 (29.9)
56.6 (48.8)
30.0 (85.4)
100 (50.7)
20 (6.7)
80.0 (9.3)
100 (6.7)
30.8 (26.7)
53.8 (16.3)
15.4 (4.2)
100 (17.3)
28.9 (36.7)
57.9 (25.6)
13.2 (10.4)
100 (25.3)
20.0 (100)
57.3 (100)
22.7 (100)
100 (100)
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. AU
4.5 (20.0)
71.6 (70.6)
23.9 (80.7)
100 (65.0)
100(7.4)
14.3 (6.7)
85.7 (8.8)
100 (4.9)
100 (6.8)
45.8 (73.3)
37.5(13.2)
16.7 (20.0)
100 (23.3)
14.6(100)
66.0(100)
19.4(100)
100(100)
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. AU
11.5 (32.9)
57.7 (54.7)
30.8 (68.9)
100 (54.0)
11.8(8.6)
64.7 (15.6)
23.5 (13.3)
100 (13.7)
30.6 (21.4)
57.1 (13.2)
12.3 (6.7)
100 (13.2)
36.6 (37.1)
49.3 (16.5)
14.1(11.1)
100(19.1)
18.8(100)
57.0(100)
24.2(100)
100(100)
D
J
N
D
F
I
D
B
W.
B.
Note : i.
All
36.7(100)
50.6(100)
12.7(100)
100(100)
An earlier SS and PRA approaches based comparative study (NCAER 1996) showed that low (poor),
middle and high income categories corrospond to annual HH incomes of up to Rs. 18,000, over
Rs. 18,000 but less than 36,000 and over Rs. 36,000 respectively.
n.
Figures in paranthesis arc row percentages
iii.
D = Dhule, J = Jalgaon, N = Nasik, DFID = Department for International Development,
T = Thane, A = Ahmednagar, B = Buldhana, W. B. = World Bank
41
Annexure Tabic A-2
Distribution of Sample Households by
Economic Class and Occupation
(% of Households)
District
D
J
N
D
F
I
D
T
A
B
W.
B.
Note : i.
ii.
Economic Class
Occupation
Agriculture
(Agri + Dairy)
Wage earner
(Agri 4- Non Agri)
Business/
Service etc.
All
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
18.6 (27.6)
60.5 (65.0)
20.9 (90.0)
100 (54.4)
84.4 (65.5)
13.6 (7.5)
14.3 (6.9)
78.6 (27.5)
7.1(10.0)
100 (17.7)
36.7(100)
50.6 (100)
12.7(100)
100 (100)
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
14.9 (28.8)
63.8 (84.4)
21.3 (71.0)
100 (63.5)
93.5 (65.1)
6.5 (3.1)
14.8(6.1)
44.5 (12.5)
40.7 (29.0)
100 (13.5)
33.0(100)
48.0 (100)
19.0(100)
100 (100)
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
4.9(21.1)
56.8 (80.7)
38.3 (73.8)
100 (68.6)
92.9 (68.4)
7.1 (1.8)
8.7 (10.5)
43.5 (17.5)
47.8 (26.2)
100 (19.5)
16.1(100)
48.3 (100)
35.6 (100)
100 (100)
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
12.4 (27.2)
60.9 (79.3)
26.7 (74.5)
100 (63.2)
91.5 (65.8)
8.5 (3.6)
12.5 (7.0)
51.6(17.1)
35.9 (25.5)
100(16.1)
28.7 (100)
48.6 (100)
22.7 (100)
100 (100)
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
7.2 (20.0)
55.1 (65.5)
37.7 (72.2)
100 (58.0)
68.0 (68.0)
32.0 (13.8)
100 (21.0)
12.0 (12.0)
48.0 (20.7)
40.0 (27.8)
100 (21.0)
21.0(100)
48.7(100)
30.3 (100)
100(100)
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
17.8 (53.3)
66.7 (69.8)
15.5 (41.2)
100 (60.0)
60 (20.0)
30 (3.5)
10 (2.9)
100 (6.7)
16.0 (26.7)
46.0 (26.7)
38.0 (55.9)
100 (33.3)
20.0(100)
57.3 (100)
22.7(100)
100(100)
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
3.6(13.3)
76.4 (61.8)
20.0 (55.0)
100 (53.4)
54.5 (80.0)
36.4(11.8)
9.1(10.0)
100(21.4)
3.8 (6.7)
69.2 (26.5)
26.9 (35.0)
100 (25.2)
14.6(100)
66.0(100)
19.4(100)
100(100)
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
10.8 (32.9)
65.4 (66.0)
23.8 (56.7)
100 (57.5)
61.4 (50.0)
33.3 (9.0)
5.3 (3.3)
100(15.3)
11.9(17.1)
52.5 (25.0)
18.8(100)
57.0 (100)
35.6 (40.0)
24.2 (100)
100 (27.2)
100(100)
100 (27.9)
100 (23.0)
100 (11.9)
100(20.7)
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
Figures in paranthesis are row percentages
42
Annexurc Table A-3
Distribution of Sample Households by
Economic Class and household Head’s Education Level
(% of Households)
District Economic Class
Illiterate
Household Education Level
Semi Literate
Literate
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
66.7 (41.4)
33.3 (15.0)
100 (3.4)
100 (22.8)
100(1.3)
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
68.2 (45.5)
25.0(11.4)
6.8 (7.9)
100 (21.5)
60.0 (4.5)
40.0 (2.1)
N
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. AU
D
F
I
D
All
26.7 (55.2)
56.6 (85.0)
16.7(100)
100 (75.9)
36.7(100)
50.6(100)
12.7(100)
100(100)
100 (2.5)
21.8 (50.0)
55.0 (86.5)
23.2 (92.1)
100 (77.0)
33.0 (100)
48.0 (100)
19.0(100)
100 (100)
40.7 (57.9)
48.2 (22.8)
11.1(7.1)
100 (22.9)
14.3 (5.3)
71.4 (8.8)
14.3 (2.4)
100 (5.9)
8.4 (36.8)
46.4 (68.4)
45.2 (90.5)
100 (71.2)
16.1(100)
48.3 (100)
35.6(100)
100(100)
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
59.6 (46.5)
33.7(15.6)
6.7 (6.7)
100 (22.4)
38.5 (4.4)
53.8(3.6)
7.7 (1.1)
100 (3.3)
19.0 (49.1)
52.9 (80.8)
28.1 (92.2)
100 (74.3)
28.7(100)
48.6(100)
22.7(100)
100 (100)
T
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
45.8 (44.0)
33.3 (13.8)
20.9 (13.9)
100 (20.2)
50.0(1.7)
50.0 (2.8)
100(1.7)
15.1 (56.0)
52.7 (84.5)
32.2 (83.3)
100(78.1)
21.0(100)
48.7(100)
30.3 (100)
100(100)
A
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
33.3 (30.0)
63.0 (19.8)
3.7 (2.9)
100 (18.0)
16.7(3.3)
66.6 (4.7)
16.7 (2.9)
100 (4.0)
17.1 (66.7)
55.5 (75.5)
27.4 (94.1)
100 (78.0)
20.0(100)
57.3 (100)
22.7(100)
100 (100)
35.3 (40.0)
52.94(13.24)
11.8(10.0)
100 (22.9)
100.0 (6.7)
B
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
100(1.0)
9.4(53.3)
69.4 (86.8)
45.2 (90.5)
100 (82.5)
14.6(100)
66.0(100)
35.6(100)
100(100)
1. Low Income
2. Middle Income
3. High Income
4. All
382 (37.1)
50.0 (16.0)
11.8(8.9)
100(18.3)
22.2 (2.9)
55.6 (2.4)
22.2 (2.2)
100 (2.4)
14.2 (60.0)
58.6 (81.6)
27.2 (88.9)
100 (79.3)
18.8(100)
57.0(100)
24.2(100)
100(100)
D
J
W.
B.
Note : i.
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
ii.
Figures in paranthesis are row percentages.
iii.
Illiterate - can’t read/write's Semiliterate - can read and write without formal schooling.
Literate - Formal Schooling - primary level and beyond.
43
Annexure Table A-4
Make of Vessels used for Carrying Water from Source to Residence
(% of households)
District Economic Classes
Metallic
Non-metallic
Total
All
39.1(93.1)
50.7(87.5)
10.1(70.0)
100(87.3)
20.0(6.9)
50.0(12.5)
30.0(30.0)
100(12.7)
36.7(100)
50.6(100)
12.7(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
33.7(94.0)
47.1(93.6)
19.2(94.7)
100(93.9)
33.3(6.0)
50.0(6.4)
16.7(5.3)
100(6.1)
33.7(100)
47.2(100)
19.1(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
14.2(78.9)
49.0(917)
100(89.1)
30.8(21.1)
38.4(8.8)
30.8(9.4)
100(10.9)
16.0(100)
47.9(100)
36.1(100)
100(100)
D
F
I
D
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
29.0(91.3)
48.3(91.6)
22.7(90.1)
100(91.2)
28.6(8.7)
45.7(8.4)
25.7(9.8)
100(9.8)
29.0(100)
48.1(100)
22.9(100)
100(100)
T
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
21.9(100)
49.1(96.6)
28.9(91.7)
100(95.8)
40.0(3.4)
60.0(8.3)
100(42)
21.0(100)
48.7(100)
30.3(100)
100(100)
A
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
20.6(96.7)
57.4(94.2)
22.0(91.2)
100(94.0)
11.1(3.3)
55.6(5.8)
33.3(8.8)
100(6.0)
20.0(100)
57.3(100)
22.7(100)
100(100)
B
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
15.0(100)
66.0(97.1)
19.0(95.0)
100(97.1)
W.
B.
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
D
J
N
3
Type of Water Carrying Vessel
Note : i
u.
iii.
iv.
36.8(90.6)
33.3(5.0)
100(2.9)
14.6(100)
66.0(100)
19.4(100)
100(100)
19.4(98.6)
572(95.8)
23.4(92.2)
5.9(1.4)
52.9(4.2)
41.2(7.8)
18.8(100)
57.0(100)
24.2(100)
100(95.4)
100(4.6)
100(100)
66.6(2.9)
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
Figures in paranthesis are row percentages.
Metallic - Brass + Steel + Copper
Non-metal - Plastic + Earthen
44
Annexure Thble A-4-B
Make of Water Storage Vessels
(% Households)
Make of Water Storage Vessels
District Economic Classes
Metallic
Non-metallic
Total
D
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
19.5(24.1)
69.4(62.5)
11.1(40.0)
100(45.6)
51.2(75.9)
34.9(37.5)
13.9(60.0)
100(54.4)
36.7(100)
50.6(100)
12.7(100)
100(100)
J
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
48.0(35.8)
44.0(23.4)
8.0(10.5)
100(25.6)
28.9(64.2)
48.3(76.5)
22.8(89.5)
100(74.9)
33.7(100)
47.2(100)
19.1(100)
100(100)
N
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
18.5(26.3)
55.6(26.3)
25.9(16.7)
100(22.9)
15.4(73.7)
462(73.7)
38.4(83.3)
100(77.1)
16.1(100)
48.3(100)
35.6(100)
100(100)
D
F
I
D
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
31.9(31.3)
54.9(32.5)
132(16.7)
100(28.5)
27.9(68.7)
45.6(67.5)
26.5(83.3)
100(71.5)
29.0(100)
48.2(100)
22.7(100)
100(100)
T
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
18.8(48.0)
46.9(51.7)
34.3(61.1)
100(53.8)
23.6(52.0)
50.9(48.3)
25.5(38.9)
100(46.2)
21.0(100)
48.7(100)
30.3(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
15.9(43.3)
58.5(55.8)
25.6(61.8)
100(54.7)
25.0(56.7)
55.9(44.2)
19.1(38.2)
100(45.3)
20.0(100)
57.3(100)
22.7(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
10.0(33.3)
66.0(48.5)
24.0(60.0)
100(48.5)
18.9(66.6)
66.0(51.5)
15.1(40.0)
100(51.5)
14.6(100)
66.0(100)
19.4(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
15.3(42.9)
56.6(52.4)
28.1(61.1)
100(52.7)
22.7(57.1)
57.4(47.6)
19.9(38.9)
100(47.3)
A
B
W
R
Note : i.
'W’’
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
ii.
Figures in paranthesis arc row percentages.
UL
Metallic - Brass + Steel + Copper
iv.
Non-metal - Plastic + Earthen
45
18.8(100)
56.9(100)
24.3(100)
100(100)
Annexure Table A-5
Distribution of Sample Households by
Water Carrying Practices
(% Households)
Stand Post
Private Tap
District Economic
Classes
Tap
Covered
Un
covered
Total
Un
covered
Total
27.3(85.7)
61.4(77.1)
11.3(62.5)
100(77.0)
24.6(100)
61.4(100)
14.0(100)
100(100)
12.9(100)
50.6(76.8)
36.5(91.2)
100(84.1)
10.1(100)
55.4(100)
50.0(1.9)
34.5(100)
50.0(25.0)
100(2.1)
N
Low Income
Middle Income] 44.4(21.1)
55.6(21.7)
High Income
100(20.9)
All
12.9(100)
44.2(78.9)
52.9(78.3)
100(79.1)
4.3(100)
42.2(100)
53.5(100)
100(100)
D
F
I
D
Low Income
6.1(8.0)
Middle Income 69.7(22.3)
High Income 24.2(18.2)
All
100(19.2)
15.6(92)
59.9(85.8)
24.5(81.8)
100(85.5)
14.5(100)
59.8(100)
25.6(100)
100(100)
T
Low Income
8.3(25.0)
Middle Income 66.7(22.9)
High Income
25.0(23.0)
All
100(23.0)
7.0(75.0)
62.0(77.1)
31.0(76.9)
100(77.0)
7.7(100)
67.3(100)
25.0(100)
100(100)
Low Income
—
Middle Income 45.5(7.1)
High Income
54.5(23.1)
All
100(10.4)
10.8(100)
67.7(90)
21.5(76.9)
100(87.7)
9.4(100)
66.0(100)
24.6(100)
100(100)
22.6(63.2)
43.4(56.0)
34.0(60.0)
100(58.9)
21.1(100)
45.6(100)
33.3(100)
100(100)
50(50) 20.7(100)
15.8(50)
68.4(68.4) 75(15.8) 50(15.8) 65.5(100)
25(25)|
—-| 13.8(100)
15.8(75)
13.5(100)1
20.7(100) 100(100)
65.5(100)
15.5(75)
57.5(77.1)
27.0(69.1)
(100)76.6
13.1(100)
59.0(100)
27.9(100)
(100)100
15.8(8.6)
68.4(19.7)
15.8(17.6)
(100)16.1
Tap
Low Income
16.7(14.3)
Middle Income) 58.3(20.0)
25.0(37.5)
High Income
100(21.1)
All
D
Low Income
Middle Income] 80.0(21.4)
20.0(8.8)
High Income
100(15.9)
All
J
A
Low Income
19.4(36.8)
Middle Income 47.2(41.5)
High Income
33.4(40.0)
All
100(40)
B
Low Income
13.6(25)
Middle Income 50.8(20.8)
High Income
35.6(30.9)
All
(100)24.1
W.
B.
Note : i.
u.
Covered
100(2.9)
100(1.8)
100(1.8)
100(1.0)
100(1.9)
100(1.2)
100(2.9)
100(1.9)
100(2.4)
100(1.1)
100(2.1)
(100)1.2
100(100)
66.7(100) 66.7 (100)
23.8(100)| 23.8(100)
9.5(100)
9.5(100)
100(100) 100(100)
55.9(98.1) 53.5(100)
40.9(100)| 38.3(100)
8.2(100)
3.2(75)
100(97.9) 100(100)
23.6(100)
51.4(100)
25.0(100)
100(100)
50.0(1.4)
50.0(3.6)
100(1.1)
100(3.0)
100(2.0)
40.6(98.6) 40.7(100)
44.4(100) 43.9(100)
15.0(96.4) 15.4(100)
100(98.9) 100(100)
22(100)
64(97.0)
14(100)
100(98)
21.6(100)
64.7(100)
13.7(100)
100(100)
43.1(100)
40.9(100)
16.0(10)
100(100)
43.1(100)
40.9(100)
16.0(100)
100(100)
-— 33.7(91.4)
46
29.7(100)
75(4.5)I 52.6(75.8) I 55.9(100)
25(5.9) 13.7(76.5)
(100)3.4 80.5(100)
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
Figures in paranthesis arc row percentages.
23.6(100)
51.4(100)
25.0(100)
100(100)
14.4(100)
100(100)
Annexure Table A-6
Distribution of Sample Households
by Drinking Water Storage Method
(% of Households)
Drinking Water Storage Medhod
Economic Class
District
Pedstal
Elevated Place
On Floor
Total
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
25.0(56.8)
37.5(7.5)
37.5(30)
100(10.1)
362(36.3)
53.6(92.5)
10.2(70)
100(87.3)
100(6.9)
100(2.5)
36.7(100)
50.6(100)
12.7(100)
100(100)
J
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
31.4(56.9)
51.7(64.9)
16.9(52.6)
100(59.3)
26.3(30.7)
512(30.9)
22.4(44.7)
100(34.2)
61.5(12.3)
30.8(4.2)
7.7(2.7)
100(5.5)
32.7(100)
48.2(100)
19.1(100)
100(100)
N
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
9.2(31.5)
41.5(47.4)
492(74.4)
100(54.6)
20.4(52.6)
592(50.9)
20.4(23.3)
100(41.1)
60(15.8)
20(1.7)
20(2.3)
100(4.2)
15.9(100)
47.9(100)
36.2(100)
100(100)
D
F
I
D
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
23.6(39.8)
47.6(47.6)
28.8(67.0)
100(49.5)
31.4(48.7)
54.3(49.7)
14.3(30.5)
100(45.3)
65(11.5)
25(2.6)
10(2.4)
100(5.2)
29.3(100)
49.5(100)
21.2(100)
100(100)
T
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
28.1(36.0)
37.5(20.7)
34.3(30.6)
100(15.2)
15.6(28.0)
53.3(41.4)
31.1(38.9)
100(152)
21.4(36.0)
52.4(37.9)
26.2(30.5)
100(69.6)
21.0(100)
48.7(100)
30.2(100)
100(100)
N
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
20.0(40.0)
51.7(36.0)
28.3(50.0)
100(40.0)
192(46.6)
60.3(51.2)
20.5(44)
100(48.7)
23.5(13.3)
64.7(12.8)
11.8(6.0)
100(11.3)
20.0(100)
57.3(100)
22.7(100)
100(100)
13.6(80.0)
69.3(89.7)
17.1(75.0)
100(85.4)
19.9(20.0)
B
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
46.7(10.3)
33.4(25.0)
100(14.6)
14.6(100)
66.0(100)
19.4(36.1)
100(100)
16.0(47.1)
62.6(60.8)
21.4(48.9)
100(55.3)
21.6(22.9)
54.1(19.0)
24.3(19.9)
100(19.9)
18.8(100)
57.0(100)
24.2(100)
100(100)
D
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
W.
B.
Note : i.
u.
22.8(30.0)
46.7(20.2)
30.5(31.1)
100(24.7)
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
Figures in paranthesis are row percentages.
47
Annexure Table A-6-B
Distribution of Sample Household by
Water Storing Practices
(% Households)
Stand Post
Private Tap
District Economic Classes
Total
DW+ CW
DW & CW
Separate
Total
DW + CW
DW & CW
Separate
D
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
33.3(85.7)
52.8(54.3)
13.9(62.5)
100(63.2)
9.8(14.3)
762(45.7)
14.0(37.5)
100(36.8)
24.6(100)
61.4(100)
14.0(100)
100(100)
64.3(64.3)
28.6(80.0)
7.1(50.0)
100(66.7)
71.4(35.7)
14.3(200)
14.3(50.0)
100(333)
66.7(100)
23.8(100)
9.5(100)
100(100)
J
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
11.7(63.6)
63.3(67.9)
25.0(44.1)
100(59.4)
9.8(36.4)
43.9(32.1)
463(55.9)
100(40.6)
10.9(100)
55.4(100)
33.7(100)
100(100)
57.9(62.3)
36.8(56.8)
5.3(33.3)
100(57.6)
47.6(37.7)
38.0(43.2)
143(66.6)
100(42.4)
53.5(100)
37.4(100)
9.1(100)
100(100)
N
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
3.7(100)
55.6(78.9)
40.7(47.8)
100(53.5)
25.0(21.1)
75.0(52.2)
100(46.5)
23(100)
442(100)
53.5(100)
100(100)
212(64.7)
57.7(81.1)
21.1(55.0)
100(70.3)
272(35.3)
31.8(18.9)
40.9(45.0)
100(29.7)
22.9(100)
50.0(100)
27.1(100)
100(100)
D
F
I
D
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
163(76.9)
585(65.5)
252(47.7)
100(61.2)
7.7(23.1)
48.7(34.5)
43.6(52.3)
100(38.8)
12.9(100)
54.7(100)
32.3(100)
100(100)
43.1(63.1)
44.7(69.6)
122(48.4)
100(63.4)
43.7(36.9)
33.8(30.4)
22.5(51.6)
100(36.6)
43.3(100)
40.7(100)
16.0(100)
100(100)
T
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
7.7(75)
61.5(68.6)
30.8(92.3)
100(75)
7.7(25)
84.6(31.4)
7.7(7.7)
100(25)
7.7(100)
67.3(100)
25.0(100)
100(100)
20.5(88.9)
66.7(78.8)
12.8(71.4)
100(79.6)
10.0(11.1)
70.0(21.2)
20.0(28.6)
100(20.4)
18.4(100)
67.3(100)
14.3(100)
100(100)
A
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
14.6(66.7)
63.4(38.2)
100(40.2)
4.9(33.3)
68.9(61.8)
262(64.0)
100(59.8)
8.8(100)
66.7(100)
24.5(100)
100(100)
53.3(88.9)
36.7(31.2)
10.0(50.0)
100(75)
20.0(11.1)
50.0(68.8)
30.0(50.0)
100(25)
45.0(100)
25.0(100)
30.0(100)
100(100)
B
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
20.4(52.6)
42.9(51.2)
36.7(60.0)
100(54.4)
22.0(47.4)
48.8(48.8)
292(40.0)
100(45.6)
21.1(100)
45.6(100)
333(100)
100(100)
16.7(33.3)
66.7(47.1)
16.6(50.0)
100(44.4)
26.6(66.6)
60.0(52.9)
13.4(50.0)
100(55.6)
22.2(100)
60.0(100)
17.8(100)
100(100)
W
B.
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
14.7(59.4)
55.0(49.3)
30.3(57.4)
100(52.9)
11.3(40.6)
63.5(50.7)
252(42.6)
100(47.1)
13.1(100)
59.0(100)
27.9(100)
100(100)
32.1(78.8)
55.6(68.2)
12.3(58.8)
100(69.8)
20.0(21.2)
60.0(31.8)
20.0(41.2)
100(30.2)
28.4(100)
56.9(100)
14.7(100)
100(100)
Note : i.
ii.
iii
iv
v
22.0(36.0)
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
Figures in paranthesis are row percentages.
DW - Drinking Water
CW - Water for Cooking
DW + CW - Drinking and Cooking water in same utensal
48
Annexure Table A-7
Distribution of Sample Households by
Drinking Water Drawing Practices
(% of Households)
Drinking Water Drawing Practices
Economic Class
District
Directly from
pot any vessel
By long handled
vessel/pot
Use of separate
pot without
handle
Total
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
58.3(6.9)
33.3(10.0)
8.3(10.0)
100(15.2)
25.0(86.2)
41.7(12.5)
33.3(40.0)
100(15.2)
34.5(6.9)
56.4(77.5)
9.1(50.0)
100(69.6)
36.7(100)
50.6(100)
12.7(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
35.1(19.4)
43.2(17.0)
21.6(21.0)
100(18.6)
20.5(11.9)
53.8(22.3)
25.7(26.3)
100(19.6)
37.4(68.7)
46.3(60.6)
16.3(52.6)
100.(61.8)
33.7(100)
472(100)
19.1(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
30.0(63.2)
60.0(42.1)
10.0(9.3)
100(33.6)
21.0(21.0)
21.0(7.0)
58.0(25.6)
100(16.0)
5.0(15.8)
48.3(50.9)
46.7(65.1)
100(50.4)
16.0(100)
47.9(100)
36.1(100)
100(100)
D
F
I
D
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
36.0(27.8)
49.4(23.0)
14.6(14.3)
100(22.4)
21.4(13.0)
42.9(15.7)
35.7(27.5)
100(17.6)
28.6(59.1)
492(61.3)
222(58.2)
100(59.9)
28.9(100)
48.2(100)
22.9(100)
100(100)
T
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
46.1(24.0)
46.1(10.3)
7.8(2.8)
100(10.9)
13.8(16.0)
27.6(13.8)
58.6(47.2)
100(24.4)
19.5(60.0)
57.1(75.9)
23.4(50.0)
100(64.7)
21.0(100)
48.7(100)
30.2(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
372(53.3)
55.8(27.9)
7.0(8.8)
100(28.7)
21.4(20.0)
53.6(17.4)
25.0(20.6)
100(18.7)
10.1(26.7)
59.5(54.7)
30.4(70.6)
100.(52.6)
20.0(100)
57.3(100)
22.7(100)
100(100)
12.5(33.3)
62.5(36.8)
25.0(50.0)
100(38.8)
15.8(66.7)
68.3(63.2)
15.9(50.0)
100(61.2)
14.6(100)
66.0(100)
19.4(100)
100(100)
15.5(21.4)
49.5(22.6)
35.0(37.8)
100(26.1)
15.1(47.1)
61.2(63.2)
23.7(57.8)
100(58.8)
18.8(100)
56.9(100)
24.3(100)
100(100)
D
J
N
A
B
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
W.
B.
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
Note : i.
ii.
39.3(31.4)
53.6(14.2)
7.1(4.4)
100(15.1)
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
Figures in paranthesis arc row percentages.
49
Annexure Table A-8
Distribution of Sample Households by
Water Storing Place
(% Households)
Stand Post
Private
District Economic Classes
Safe
Unsafe
Total
Safe
Unsafe
All
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
19.4(50.0)
61.2(62.9)
19.4(87.5)
100(63.2)
33.3(50.0)
61.9(37.1)
4.8(12.5)
100(36.8)
24.7(100)
61.3(100)
14.0(100)
100(100)
60(42.9)
20(40.0)
20(100)
100(47.6)
72.7(57.1)
27.3(60.0)
66.7(100)
23.8(100)
9.5(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
9.1(54.5)
45.5(53.6)
45.4(90.9)
100(66)
14.7(45.5)
76.4(46.4)
8.8(9.1)
100(34)
11(100)
56(100)
33(100)
100(100)
42.9(56.6)
45.7(84.2)
11.4(100)
100(70.7)
79.3(43.4)
20.7(15.8)
100(29.3)
53.5(100)
38.4(100)
8.1(100)
100(100)
N
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
33.3(52.6)
66.7(86.9)
100(69.8)
2.3(100)
44.2(47.4)
53.4(13.1)
100(30.2)
23(100)
44.2(100)
53.5(100)
100(100)
18.9(55.6)
52.8(73.7)
28.3(83.3)
100(71.6)
38.1(44.4)
47.6(26.3)
14.3(16.7)
100(28.4)
24.3(100)
51.4(100)
24.3(100)
100(100)
D
F
I
D
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
9.8(50.0)
46.9(56.4)
432(89.1)
100(66.0)
19.1(50.0)
70.6(43.6)
10.3(10.9)
100(34.0)
13.0(100)
55.0(100)
32.0(100)
100(100)
34.5(49.4)
46.6(76.5)
18.9(89.3)
100(68.6)
63.9(50.5)
31.1(23.5)
4.9(10.7)
100(31.4)
43.8(100)
41.8(100)
14.4(100)
100(100)
6.1(50.0)
60.6(57.1)
33.3(84.6)
100(63.5)
10.5(50.0)
78.9(42.9)
10.5(15.4)
100(36.5)
7.7(100)
67.3(100)
25.0(100)
100(100)
24.2(72.7)
T
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
15.2(71.4)
100(64.7)
16.7(27.2)
72.2(39.4)
11.1(28.6)
100(35.3)
21.6(100)
64.7(100)
13.7(100)
100(100)
A
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
6.7(55.6)
66.7(73.5)
26.6(80.0)
100(73.5)
14.8(44.4)
66.7(26.5)
18.5(20.0)
100(26.5)
8.8(100)
66.7(100)
24.5(100)
100(100)
38.5(55.6)
42.3(68.8)
192(83.3)
100(65)
57.1(44.4)
35.7(31.2)
7.2(16.7)
100(35)
45.0(100)
40.0(100)
15.0(100)
100(100)
17.5(52.6)
52.6(73.2)
29.8(56.7)
100(63.3)
27.3(47.4)
33.3(26.8)
39.4(43.3)
100(36.7)
21.1(100)
45.6(100)
33.3(100)
100(100)
14.2(33.3)
64.3(52.9)
21.4(75)
100(51.9)
30.8(66.6)
B
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
61.5(47.1)
7.7(25)
100(48.1)
22.2(100)
62.9(100)
14.9(100)
100(100)
W
B.
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
10.3(53.1)
18.9(46.9)
55.7(30.6)
25.3(29.4)
100(32.4)
13.1(100)
59.0(100)
27.9(100)
100(100)
27.4(57.1)
54.8(60.6)
17.8(76.4)
100(61.9)
33.3(42.9)
57.8(39.4)
8.9(23.5)
100(38.1)
29.7(100)
55.9(100)
14.4(100)
100(100)
D
J
Note : i.
it
iii.
iv.
60.6(69.4)
29.0(70.6)
100(67.6)
60.6(60.6)
100(52.4)
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
Figures in paranthesis are row percentages.
Safe place : Kitchen, Dinning place etc.
Unsafe place : Close to bathroom, sink or drain, outside in courtyard.
50
Anncxure Table A-9
Water Storage Vessel Cleaning Frequency
(% Households)
District Economic Classes
Private
Stand Post
Regular
Irregular
Total
Regular
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
24.0(92.9)
61.1(94.3)
14.9(100)
100(94.7)
33.3(7.1)
66.6(5.7)
100(53)
24.6(100)
61.4(100)
14.0(100)
100(100)
70(100)
20(100)
10(50)
100(95.2)
100(50)
100(4.8)
66.7(100)
23.8(100)
9.5(100)
100(100)
J
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
11.7(100)
532(89.3)
35.1(97.1)
100(93.1)
85.7(10.7)
14.3(2.9)
100(6.9)
10.9(100)
55.4(100)
33.7(100)
100(100)
53.2(94.3)
39.4(97.3)
7.4(87.5)
100(94.9)
60(5.6)
20(2.6)
20(12.5)
100(5.1)
53.5(100)
38.4(100)
8.1(100)
100(100)
N
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
23(100)
44.2(100)
53.5(100)
100(100)
2.3(100)
44.2(100)
53.5(100)
100(100)
23.9(100)
52.1(100)
24.0(94.4)
100(98.6)
100(5.6)
100(1.4)
23.6(100)
51.4(100)
25.0(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
13.1(96.2)
53.4(92.7)
33.5(98.5)
100(95.0)
12.9(100)
54.7(100)
32.3(100)
100(100)
43.8(96.4)
42.7(98.8)
13.5(89.3)
100(96.4)
42.9(3.6)
14.2(1.2)
42.9(10.7)
100(3.6)
43.8(100)
41.7(100)
14.5(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
9.5(100)
61.9(97.1)
28.6(100)
100(98.1)
7.7(100)
67.3(100)
25.0(100)
100(100)
21.6(100)
64.7(100)
13.7(100)
100(100)
21.6(100)
64.7(100)
13.7(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
8.9(100)
66.3(98.5)
24.8(100)
100(99.0)
100(1.0)
8.8(100)
66.7(100)
24.5(100)
100(100)
47.4(100)
42.1(100)
10.5(66.6)
100(95)
45(100)
40(100)
15(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
21.1(100)
45.6(97.6)
33.3(96.8)
100(97.8)
50(2.4)
50(3.2)
100(2.2)
20.7(100)
45.7(100)
33.6(100)
100(100)
37.5(100)
50.0(100)
12.5(100)
100(100)
37.5(100)
50.0(100)
12.5(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
13.2(100)
58.4(97.9)
28.4(100)
100(98.8)
13.0(100)
58.9(100)
28.1(100)
100(100)
33.6(100)
54.1(100)
12.3(88.2)
100(98.3)
33.1(100)
53.2(100)
13.7(100)
100(100)
D
D
F
I
D
T
A
B
W.
B.
Note : i.
u.
iii.
iv.
10(3.8)
80(7.3)
10(1.5)
100(49)
100(2.9)
100(1.9)
100(1.5)
100(2.1)
100(1.2)
Irregular
100(33.3)
100(5)
100(11.8)
100(1.6)
Total
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
Figures in paranthesis are row percentages.
Regular = Daily once or more i.e. as and when tap water is supplied.
Irregular = Alternate days or less frequently.
HO
51
07724
pCO .If,
•
I
a
ft
’
*
$
Anncxure Table A-10
Method of Disposal of Household Waste Water in Village
(% of Households)
District
Disposal of Waste Water
Economic Class
Near Home
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
Road
Kitchengarden
Sockage pit
Drain
All
30.9(72.5)
54.5(92.5)
14.6(100)
100(86.1)
36.7(100)
50.6(100)
12.7(100)
100(100)
83.3(17.2)
16.7(2.5)
60(103)
40(5.0)
100(7.6)
100(6.3)
J
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
67.6(34.3)
20.6(7.5)
11.8(4.5)
100(17.2)
38.7(17.9)
452(15.1)
16.1(16.3)
100(15.7)
33.3(9.0)
50.0(9.7)
16.7(9.3)
100(9.0)
22.6(38.8)
54.8(67.7)
22.6(69.8)
100(58.1)
33.8(100)
47.0(100)
19.2(100)
100(100)
N
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AD
26.7(21.1)
60.0(15.8)
13.3(4.7)
100(12.6)
16.7(26.3)
60.0(31.6)
23.3(16.3)
100(25.2)
25.0(10.5)
25.0(3.5)
50.0(9.2)
100(6.7)
12.1(42.1)
42.4(49.1)
45.5(69.8)
100(55.5)
16(100)
47.9(100)
36.1(100)
100(100)
D
F
I
D
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AD
582(27.8)
30.9(8.9)
10.9(6.6)
100(13.9)
30.3(17.4)
51.5(17.9)
18.2(13.2)
100(16.7)
30.8(7.0)
42.3(5.8)
26.9(7.7)
100(6.6)
22.1(47.8)
51.4(67.4)
26.5(72.5)
100(62.9)
29.0(100)
48.0(100)
23.0(100)
100(100)
T
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AD
42.9(24.0)
50.0(12.1)
7.1(2.8)
100(11.8)
20.5(64.0)
48.7(65.5)
30.8(66.7)
100(65.5)
20.0(4.0)
60.0(5.2)
20.0(2.8)
100(4.2)
9.0(8.0)
45.5(17.2)
45.5(27.7)
100(18.4)
21.0(100)
48.7(100)
30.3(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
29.5(43.3)
59.1(30.2)
11.4(14.7)
100(29.3)
47.4(30.0)
52.6(11.6)
100(12.7)
5.3(10.0)
64.3(41.9)
30.4(50.0)
100(37.3)
16.1(16.7)
452(16.3)
38.7(35.3)
100(20.7)
20.0(100)
57.3(100)
22.7(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AD
38.9(46.7)
44.4(11.8)
16.7(15.0)
100(17.5)
13.0(20.0)
69.6(23.5)
17.4(20.0)
100(22.3)
7.1(20.0)
66.7(41.2)
262(55.0)
100(40.8)
10.0(13.3)
80.0(23.5)
10.0(10.0)
100(19.4)
14.6(100)
66.0(100)
19.3(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AD
34.2(37.1)
53.9(19.3)
11.8(10.0)
100(20.4)
23.3(40.0)
53.3(30.2)
23.3(31.1)
100(32.3)
6.8(10.0)
65.0(31.6)
282(32.2)
100(27.7)
12.3(12.9)
54.8(18.9)
32.9(26.7)
100(19.6)
18.8(100)
57.0(100)
24.2(100)
100(100)
D
AU
A
B
W.
B.
Note : i.
ii.
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
Figures in paranthesis are row percentages.
52
Anncxure Table A-ll
Method of Disposal of Cattleshed Waste Water in Village
(% of Households)
District
Disposal of Cattleshed Waste Water
Economic Class
Home
Road/land
Compost Pit
50.0(13.8)
25.0(5.0)
25.0(20.0)
100(10.1)
31.1(65.5)
57.4(87.5)
11.5(70.0)
100(77.2)
36.7(100)
50.6(100)
12.7(100)
100(100)
Drainage
Total
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
100(6.9)
100(2.5)
50.0(13.8)
37.5(7.5)
125(10.0)
100(10.1)
J
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
50.0(7.5)
40.0(4.3)
10.0(3.0)
100(5.1)
40.0(17.9)
36.7(11.8)
23.3(21.2)
100(15.2)
16.7(4.5)
61.1(11.8)
222(12.1)
100(9.1)
33.6(70.1)
47.9(72.0)
18.5(63.7)
100(70.7)
33.8(100)
47.0(100)
19.2(100)
100(100)
N
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
13.3(10.4)
53.3(14.0)
33.4(11.16)
100(12.6)
25.0(5.3)
75.0(5.3)
100(3.4)
14.3(26.3)
45.7(28.0)
40.0(37.6)
100(29.4)
16.9(58.0)
462(52.7)
36.9(50.8)
100(54.6)
16.0(100)
47.9(100)
36.1(100)
100(100)
D
F
I
D
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
42.4(8.3)
46.7(8.9)
10.9(7.3)
100(6.6)
37.3(8.2)
35.3(7.1)
27.4(13.4)
100(9.5)
22.3(15.8)
43.6(14.7)
34.1(25.3)
100(14.3)
242(67.7)
49.4(69.3)
26.4(54.0)
100(69.6)
28.2(100)
47.8(100)
24.0(100)
100(100)
T
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
100(0.8)
162(44.0)
52.9(62.1)
30.9(58.3)
100(57.1)
33.3(4.0)
33.3(1.7)
33.3(2.8)
100(2.5)
212(52.0)
45.3(34.5)
33.5(38.9)
100(39.6)
21.0(100)
48.7(100)
30.3(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
32.1(30.0)
60.7(19.8)
7.2(5.9)
100(18.7)
31.3(16.7)
50.0(9.3)
18.7(8.8)
100(10.7)
7.1(10.0)
59.5(29.1)
33.4(41.2)
100(28.0)
20.3(43.3)
56.3(41.8)
23.4(44.1)
100(42.6)
20.0(100)
57.3(100)
22.7(100)
100(100)
B
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
12.5(20.0)
83.3(29.4)
4.2(7.5)
100(23.3)
12.5(26.7)
81.3(38.2)
6.2(7.5)
100(31.1)
50(10.3)
50(35.0)
100(13.6)
24.2(53.3)
45.5(22.1)
30.3(50.0)
100(32.0)
14.6(100)
66.0(100)
19.4(100)
100(100)
W.
B.
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
22.6(17.1)
71.7(17.9)
5.7(3.3)
100(14.2)
17.2(28.6)
60.3(33.0)
22.4(28.8)
100(31.2)
7.3(5.7)
52.7(15.6)
40.0(24.4)
100(15.9)
23.6(48.6)
49.3(33.5)
27.1(43.5)
100(38.7)
18.8(100)
57.0(100)
242(100)
100(100)
D
A
All
Note : i.
ii.
100(1.7)
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
Figures in paranthesis are row percentages.
53
Anncxure Table A-12
Method of Disposal of Solid Waste in village
(% of households)
District Economic Class
Disposal of Solid Waste
Near
Home
Low
Middle
High
AU
75.0(10.3)
25.0(2.5)
Compost
Common
place in village
Any Where
in village
50.0(20.7)
50.0(15.0)
100(5.1)
31.9(51.7)
48.9(57.5)
19.1(90.0)
100(59.5)
Low
Middle
High
AU
56.3(13.4)
31.3(5.4)
12.4(6.1)
100(8.1)
34.0(77.6)
47.7(78.5)
18.3(73.7)
100(77.3)
16.7(3.0)
50.0(6.5)
33.3(10.5)
100(6.1)
Low
Middle
High
AU
33.3(5.3)
66.7(3.5)
25.0(5.3)
100(2.5)
14.8(84.2)
49.1(93.0)
36.1(90.7)
100(90.8)
D
F
I
D
Low
Middle
High
AU
56.5(11.5)
34.8(4.2)
8.7(1.8)
100(5.8)
26.9(73.5)
48.4(77.6)
24.7(38.4)
100(78.0)
32.1(8.0)
42.9(6.2)
25.0(6.3)
100(7.1)
T
Low
Middle
High
All
30.0(48.0)
37.5(25.9)
32.5(36.1)
100(33.6)
13.7(28.0)
51.0(44.8)
35.3(50.0)
100(42.9)
23.1(12.0)
53.8(12.1)
23.0(8.3)
100(10.9)
Low
Middle
High
All
33.3(30.0)
55.6(17.4)
11.1(12.5)
100(18.0)
21.0(56.7)
54.3(51.2)
24.6(58.8)
100(54.7)
16.7(1.2)
83.3(14.7)
100(4.0)
Low
Middle
High
AU
16.7(80.0)
62.5(66.2)
20.8(74.3)
100(69.9)
50.0(2.9)
50.0(9.9)
100(3.9)
100(2.9)
20.0(6.7)
80.0(5.9)
100(1.9)
100(4.9)
Low
Middle
High
All
23.7(47.1)
54.0(39.3)
22.3(36.9)
100(40.3)
18.6(34.3)
55.8(37.6)
25.6(39.3)
100(37.4)
14.3(4.3)
47.6(5.2)
38.1(9.5)
100(6.1)
41.6(7.1)
58.3(3.6)
D
J
N
A
B
W.
B.
Note : i.
ii.
100(15.2)
100(1.5)
100(0.5)
75.0(7.0)
100(3.4)
33.3(0.9)
66.6(1.0)
100(0.75)
100(8.0)
100(1.7)
40.0(6.7)
60.0(3.5)
100(3.3)
100(3.5)
Other
Place
Total
31.3(17.2)
62.5(25.0)
6.2(10.0)
100(20.3)
36.7(100)
50.6(100)
12.7(100)
100(100)
18.8(4.5)
56.2(9.7)
25.0(9.6)
100(8.0)
33.8(100)
47.0(100)
19.2(100)
100(100)
33.3(5.3)
33.3(3.5)
33.3(2.3)
100(3.3)
16.0(100)
47.9(100)
36.1(100)
100(100)
21.2(6.2)
63.6(10.9)
15.2(3.5)
100(8.4)
28.6(100)
48.6(100)
22.8(100)
100(100)
12.5(4.0)
62.5(17.2)
25.0(5.6)
100(10.9)
25.0(100)
48.7(100)
26.3(100)
100(100)
3.3(6.6)
76.7(26.8)
20.4(14.0)
100(20.7)
20.0(100)
57.3(100)
22.7(100)
100(100)
7.3(13.4)
78.9(22.1)
15.8(15.8)
100(19.4)
14.6(100)
66.0(100)
19.4(100)
100(100)
11.4(7.1)
61.4(14.1)
27.2(14.3)
100(12.8)
20.3 (100)
55.4(100)
24.3(100)
100(100)
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
Figures in paranthesis are row percentages.
54
Annexure Table A-13
Villages openion about condition of drainage lines
in the village
(% of households)
Condition of Drainage in the village
District Economic Class
Closed
Drainage
Low
Middle
High
All
D
Open
Drainage
Cleaned
Drainage
32.3(79.3)
53.5(95.0)
142(100)
100(89.9)
Chocked
Drainage
No
Drainage
All
100(20.7)
100(2.5)
100(7.6)
36.7(100)
50.6(100)
12.7(100)
100(100)
33.8(100)
47.0(100)
19.2(100)
100(100)
100(5.0)
11.1(1.5)
77.8(7.5)
11.1(2.6)
100(4.5)
22.5(41.8)
50.0(66.6)
27.5(89.5)
100(62.6)
54.5(9.0)
45.5(5.4)
11.1(1.5)
88.9(8.6)
100(5.6)
100(4.5)
68.9(46.3)
24.4(11.8)
6.7(7.9)
100(22.7)
100(3.2)
100(0.9)
12.8(47.4)
48.6(59.6)
38.6(54.8)
100(59.8)
25.0(5.3)
N
Low
Middle
High
All
75.0(9.7)
100(4.4)
50.0(1.8)
50.0(3.2)
100(1.7)
22.5(47.3)
55.0(38.6)
22.5(29.0)
100(34.2)
16.2(100)
48.7(100)
34.1(100)
100(100)
D
F
I
D
Low
Middle
High
AU
10(0.9)
70(3.6)
20(22)
100(2.6)
23.5(55.0)
52.5(71.3)
23.9(79.8)
100(66.4)
46.6(6.4)
33.3(2.7)
20.0(3.4)
100(3.9)
9.1(0.9)
81.8(4.8)
9.1(1.1)
100(3.4)
47.1(36.7)
38.8(17.6)
14.1(13.5)
100(23.7)
28.2(100)
48.7(100)
23.1(100)
100(100)
T
Low
Middle
High
AU
100(1.9)
12.3(66.7)
65.4(77.9)
22.2(90)
100(78.6)
25(33.3)
65(19.1)
10(10)
100(19.4)
Low
Middle
High
All
25(6.7)
62.5(5.8)
12.5(3.2)
100(5.4)
17.8(33.3)
64.3(41.9)
17.9(32.3)
100(38.1)
Low
Middle
High
All
80(6.9)
20(4.3)
100(4.3)
Low
Middle
High
All
14.3(3.0)
71.4(4.2)
14.3(2.1)
100(4.1)
Low
Middle
High
AU
J
A
B
W.
B.
Note : i.
ii.
100(2.9)
14.6(100)
66.0(100)
19.4(100)
100(100)
100(12)
66.7(20)
33.3(3.5)
100(0.7)
100(6.1)
21.1(60)
46.5(56.9)
32.4(67.6)
100(60.7)
27.2(12)
45.5(8.6)
27.3(8.8)
100(9.4)
25(12)
75(15.5)
14.6(52.2)
63.6(63.6)
21.8(55.9)
100(56.7)
25.0(7.5)
59.4(7.9)
15.6(14.0)
100(8.7)
100(10.3)
42.9(13.4)
57.1(5.0)
100(5.7)
16.4(40)
56.2(47.7)
27.4(64.5)
100(49.7)
20.4(100)
58.5(100)
21.1(100)
100(100)
22.2(16)
38.9(12.1)
38.9(20.6)
100(15.4)
21.4(100)
49.6(100)
29.1(100)
100(100)
18.2(23.9)
52.3(19.2)
29.5(28.0)
100(24.8)
19.1(100)
57.8(100)
23.1(100)
100(100)
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
Figures in paranthesis are row percentages.
55
Annexure Table A-14
Uses of Latrine by Villagers
(% of Households)
District
Economic Class
Use of Latrine
User
Non user
Not Available
Total
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
22.3(6.8)
66.6(15.0)
11.1(10.0)
100(11.3)
36.8(86.4)
50.0(85.0)
132(90.0)
100(86.1)
100(6.8)
36.7(100)
50.6(100)
12.6(100)
100(100)
J
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
13.3(5.9)
40.0(12.9)
46.7(36.8)
100(15.2)
37.5(94.1)
482(87.1)
14.3(63.2)
100(84.8)
N
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
21.4(31.6)
35.7(17.5)
42.9(22.6)
100(21.7)
13.0(68.4)
46.0(80.7)
41.0(77.4)
100(77.5)
D
F
I
D
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
17.9(11.4)
41.8(14.7)
40.3(26.7)
100(16.9)
27.9(86.7)
49.4(84.7)
22.7(73.3)
100(82.3)
T
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
10.8(16.0)
40.5(25.9)
48.7(50.0)
100(31.0)
25.9(84.0)
51.9(72.4)
222(50.0)
100(68.1)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
5.7(6.7)
48.6(19.8)
47.1(45.7)
100(23.3)
24.3(90.0)
60.4(77.9)
15.3(50.0)
100(74.0)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
3.0(6.7)
84.8(41.2)
21.1(12.1)
100(32.0)
20.0(93.3)
57.1(58.8)
78.9(77.9)
100(68.0)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
6.7(10.0)
57.1(28.3)
36.2(41.7)
100(28.1)
23.6(88.6)
56.7(70.2)
19.7(57.1)
100(70.5)
D
A
B
W.
B.
Note : i.
ii.
100(2.5)
33.8(100)
47.0(100)
19.2(100)
100(100)
100(1.8)
100(0.8)
66.6(1.9)
33.4(0.6)
100(0.8)
56
26.5(100)
47.8(100)
25.7(100)
100(100)
100(0.8)
21.0(100)
48.7(100)
30.2(100)
100(100)
25.0(3.3)
50.0(2.3)
25.0(2.9)
100(2.7)
20.0(100)
57.3(100)
22.7(100)
100(100)
100(1.7)
14.6(100)
66.0(100)
19.4(100)
100(100)
20.0(1.4)
60.0(1.4)
20.0(1.1)
100(1.4)
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
Figures in paranthesis are row percentages.
14.7(100)
442(100)
41.1(100)
100(100)
18.8(100)
56.8(100)
24.4(100)
100(100)
Annexure Table A-15
Knowledge of People about Water Committee Existance
in Village
(% of households)
District
Knowledge about Water Committee existance
Economic Classes
Know
Don’t Know
All
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
32.4(74.2)
53.5(100)
14.1(100)
100(89.9)
100(25.8)
100(10.1)
39.2(100)
48.1(100)
12.7(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
17.9(14.9)
53.6(32.3)
285(42.1)
100(28.3)
40.1(85.1)
44.3(67.7)
15.6(57.9)
100(71.7)
33.8(100)
47.0(100)
192(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
22.6(12.3)
77.4(58.5)
100(26.5)
22.0(100)
58.1(87.7)
19.8(41.5)
100(73.5)
16.2(100)
48.7(100)
35.1(100)
100(100)
D
F
I
D
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
222(28.2)
50.7(47.5)
27.1(67.8)
100(44.3)
452(71.8)
44.6(52.5)
102(32.2)
100(55.6)
35.0(100)
47.3(100)
17.7(100)
100(100)
T
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
100(0.9)
14.7(100)
65.7(98.5)
19.6(100)
100(99.0)
14.6(100)
66.0(100)
19.4(100)
100(100)
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
All
5.9(3.3)
64.7(12.8)
29.4(16.1)
100(11.6)
22.3(96.7)
57.7(87.2)
20.0(83.9)
100(88.4)
20.4(100)
58.5(100)
22.1(100)
100(100)
B
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
66.6(6.9)
33.3(5.9)
100(5.1)
22.5(100)
48.6(93.1)
28.9(94.1)
100(94.9)
21.4(100)
49.6(100)
29.0(100)
100(100)
W
B.
Low Income
Middle Income
High Income
AU
42(1.4)
66.7(7.5)
29.1(8.0)
100(6.5)
20.0(98.6)
56.8(92.5)
232(92.0)
100(93.5)
18.9(100)
57.5(100)
23.6(100)
100(100)
D
J
N
A
Note : i.
ii.
100(1.5)
Please refer to Table 3.1 footnote for income classification of economic classes.
Figures in paranthesis are row percentages.
57
Annexure 16-A
Paper Clipping in Daily Lokmat (21.12.99)
■UlHMylHc
..^Rr'.; ^pfl^rar-yr ^rr'gnfr'^y
n
|
6■
1
•■
■'- .MIdcxflq
midorfiq<tM
m . ■M i
:-ant.^?,jH i1/4 iflii
aror.
Id z’ ^
^3n^.Y$i4
1R<*» iHh
vq $?!
’/tHTOT.
';:' wicT.-n™;-Ww
qpfh^Pmftr
piz^..
*n*w.;n™-- Hfa?r
^r^-’
q^ftacertf
■*V'■
i^_
;
mW; ^.Tf
'i>.#:-■'■• ^,
^
•;W• Hi^iV.?ritq|^d<j^.^rpr.^xi.nfUipqr.grd?qi•
JTTiffr^^dOd
iflyrRT .■
qrijfr^d
’fd tfpJTRT
WW. 3^ w ■ JHW ■
J^iRH
''
’
£i
'
m<2^
<2^^T
^r''an^:'
an^.
^41/a ;
tf’i'hMftfatIH);ftyp^d ^kr ^<rq'A
v,an^.l<. h am *'
! 3^r-' MP.n^di
; .sofan^^wicfitf
-.Tyffe^r
i d 2fcr
•1
^isfa. y^nn^TT.,
'
;r.. >h^
i i.-; fiwn:.{^Rry^yg i(f.
.',an?rr-.^kiT»<\qp?R q >.^i h1<£| ;• f?i aiu i
| h i<
,(^TT.^Hi^j.<yi.f^MRq^yqT ^O^^.‘y?FngR
fa$,qfoRrc*’ '.^arf' srg^r ‘
gfafofter. ^kr
i --£srRr • /icv^i-oqi.
ODA WATER IS STOPPED !
Bodwad (Reporter):
The village Gram Panchayat, Bodwad has stopped taking water from ODA water supply scheme
since December 1999. At present water is being supplied to the village from two wells in the area.
There are mixed reactions about this news from villagers.
On 7th December 1999, Gram Panchayat had warned Zilla Parishad that they would stop drawing
water from the ODA scheme w.e.f. 15th Dec. 1999. It was mentioned in the letter that the ODA
water supply was inadequate and irregular.
Previously also, Lokmat had given a news about faulty technical structure and improper pipe
lines, that resulted in inadequate and irregular water supply to the villagers. The news, further stated
that though water tax was collected by Gram Panchayat the lion’s share went to Zilla Parishad.
The local MLA’s asked question about the ODA scheme in the State Assembly to which the
Government answered saying that water supply was adequate and regular. But people were not satisfied
about the scheme and at last the Gram Panchayat had stopped taking water.
On one hand. Government has the opinion that, ODA scheme is very good and no problems
exist during its implementation. But local government i.e. Gram Panchayat is not ready to participate
in the scheme. People are saying that local people and leaders are misguided by Government so no
body is in favour of ODA scheme. People want a long and healthy discussion on this ODA water
supply scheme. They further added that local leaders are not serious about this question and Government
wants no discussion on this issue. But this is very much against people.
58
6$
ol i{)
(UOIS'^A ys !/8u3
VW} 41^ pia iMf kOHh £ -$1K uuia ibL^.' 4’; > Zte'yiie 1i^ih isiate
ih^iw^?;,, 0 ruim
'.•t
iWE itamHuto 'ikia^ ad^a
■hlhJ1h h|„H kL^. ,n?ln ,pL1U11
^,l22n ikh^i*
idh
^’ <.)
i2wEua<-^^tmiE^
H1151gfS5gig
_hhKv UlHliRjk
Ihs^PJlh
ifaapifa
'igSJa
\ ' lialh UteEskl^l42i? 'PbBm Plhlk iSl^ ^kllAhP
Ssz
.• U^jih fiatjlhfa d(ia4ici|
<uid4i ^ia
*^11^hlaiij.■ *r<" •,
;min4
HfelgJ pkti Ihliz
k l^hLh lk|fclhlH^H. hjlU PlPlfc P|2hlffJi Ihs'lkAK Udi' ■
< r^faEfa |lhlh
auafatfa lhail£fa)H. IhaPMEIhnlh'
\ ■ 1
tidhy tuifa.'hifai^uih'jhyita 'uh jhaiikR-".*’-’*,.^n2nlh.ltdlui
:
’ ‘ ■?-.t,l91k Uh bllnltb nibbltei^k'
■ (klhnQhP |x:|5)'|Nhj klh '^llk '^bj k^tb h»0hP (Inlh ■■'.■'
ksftbMQ (fbkl'hngm r>lb?^-l>&lk
'.‘(iJk
hjj IPlfo
Ldl&h h^ldf blhPInl^1 ^(pht^fob f *;‘ lh^lh ;
■.• ■.• . .,-•
ElfalE ItelhiRfe lila
l^2ih
I^Efaia |gR IklUHK
i.
IJdEimfijlfc
b|lK'..
u|iaii ifaiih y±px ucii. ,i^i uihihaUh h^iiiup®
la /utfiih i^t iii tfiiE ur»ih./[P|dw fai.-ia yAih 10I21B
•,t
4i£ ^Ukiihiyigk pfafa kzua
r/?!
ihapfaMh- •tfUE .HRih' ^'‘liifa >ifaidt (g
.■::
■ „*lh^
/.<• k^lte U|>JfaHhM
IhUdi •(g
k^aIqJIK? 42fflh j; p^ih hUfa, (ft '^libj|a b-pski I0>l^>k1>p lyi^^jlhVlik 'V
ik4^
rtsi |ifa|ilfa21kJg yuduak uyi lh£ IH|)
: ^‘iiwiiis. (gji
ydh''42^142 yaaufa()tti yiydiiE .'.'T' yuifa
ytui
oV)^
ig^kihadi
••'< ■
^ihi‘yRhh uuy^hdi
. 'y^klfa. ^1# 42^142 JgUl aa KRlJfalH |‘falttlll|»tt '? A 4ifa|iihyh Iki^ IqJU® I^QJIhllrk
w iwul^ktK y
^klthlidhhalli IfcJVltt
gja h^pdh
J. Ihftlhdh .^Lihfaiatt HUM UJg 42^l liriha ^Ihxdh \ 5f: Ihyfejfaifeh •yuk^ihima falhddjkH°hh (php ’0^1,10
M 'yij^iMg (pffifa
kfayc hMl h^faZ
.>.i4hfa yuih
-gsifa ikjitdi
£tt ‘u^ih- r.’^ ^Rn hjnkj >ip* yu^
it^iw
W
^^124yjuiiu hidd £itt Ijiijfaiahdi ■•• ‘' i
•.<\'lAi.,.rcifaiihkh>pfii> iw Saii niinaniaA
lEid^ yi;iuyi
Viiia y>R b^k
^uy^Uh Hitt ^ikaifaifa
• ■ - ■ v-*''’'''■' 'i''' ■ ’'^■.*b>yVhihy?k>uihhii^4&^Eiiidi>^ kfaihftHHPhhMtt..
4ihnUE ■•lEkiLydh^ Jehk iWilikIhlhnlh ‘PHttyiyfalkifah VIInlhK IfaPIk jl‘
M1 IfilH^g*
0'
? ;,j-7^^''^'I^rhi^/aihi^
4^wyp®KLmtMi
■/^Itt^,^ >AiW^llkjMt
mitte/S^y
!tehJlttfi^ klaltt
^41^“' ‘•Uliik.*,. ^iblteai(jl«tePh''O 't^" • ,
., '"'I ' l.,< 1
vtyifafaljl knHvSlblijillt'ltt I ^4'
(pK UlhiMlglh'^
'lUi'-bEPtt
; ltelhxilh{'.o^y.' k»iI I *\| l**\’ v^Xhlil' IHltr;'-: DjhH'-IhlhAl'h1.■■
JtU‘,lHlh'EAlh.Ih'llli. 'bUhkyih^V^lEklh hat>lbf<>
<>• ’fclk \^ltt'->ilnhirt ^ talY^'.-Ipyub)^ ,'’ .fyiil
I 11
I !■<
t>hlj
I>IH‘'|nly'H|nl^\^V»|>fa34t£±ife,,44U*fai.~'.iilfca.}.S^■'kblhialh ' lbslifi)ib^JlK hb^
i>-. hhM^k4g!M!l.^ihhlipia2'. |glx t.r^l*3</!,./;:i^ »?>. J
M-.tkj
tXlAV'bhalUK t'W
" VlA liafc
ihb ItohRl
hkHftXte^jlK
‘ .' ■;
"Ml^lilh taiaik $ 'yUE hull
UnHkklfla
Hxiaia 'uj^ph
^yAihfcliW
• .‘I4i)y IglhWlhlb*. Ue
'W’UliMii ||al>lh |}Udk {felhnlh
$JhUytlhair^
W^p> fciqihnih i^ik
i H.Ujh^ Hkhh'(glHlbj4hlk tik fc
^'^v,r'12ial Ittlhnlh. pjpjhuk
2y2|Kkk lllhilki
lllldki Ul^'lgEt \lh21hA 'IhMhVr'M*
'IhM hVr'^ ‘UyilE Ulo^
Uldj lU^yalkilii $ £21118.
22kfa ilsd ^£ih.
^£14 ilijk'UlrtH
h24'Ulrt4i
ipih^in^ I'taua'^^w ifaiki^ (giikfajg-v^
yi^ia'
iHihmig. yMkn
"%itt t
»T 112ildhlj^l^lhiilhlhiiun« •^1£« tahkte late '^1222
^lA'.'lHlhm^L
yilhkll kie
W%U«
fa iuyi
lU^.
5i
Ifalhalh lajlie ^£2ife.khitej
[■■..'• ’ :jfcJgiU'
.ttlfa lfa|fr-lhlMLH.
1 yaw ttlg Eh’ (ftl?.Lr
(41?It lifeh
Bfah HiW
kfrik* ,'I0|A
IQiti ‘&
-Afi ^
^".Slfa
Ifalb-lhiua ^falhnllfa
|lfaliujUfa jhlh
ihlh (Jfalfaifah
(ftIh4th kla^
kl^ kd. ^|Ph
{4?|Ph
‘ falfa 42^1®- UlhfiH. IHhe ‘^Ihe Uh
1^}® t'U^k12 ‘ihhl^i? 1-^ fc-HQ ihfi IQfljh iMUfr
|}rfa\}lhn.b.La IPj^liiu hbh> (frihkVk ^feifajteh yi^U:,^lte
,-'• -^4
Utid^lJUhlld^h hihlDlhAy® ■LtlhilH.lifa|^k«
kJU® ^hliik flr.ft 'Ikirlh
ip^iibk*^^21HlIpSMglI Iplft ^^ito«bh ffiih ‘j)iigbp'ib ^liii^ fcptt
7 .
hifclj lilAH
'lg±h Ulfa ItalHfalH iigli®'Ih^lK? UlhAEHi® Ikfrlft ’^jlEfa.feLh' .ZyiU^, £°faJ^ , '■■■
(4|iyUlE ittftfa-K UM? 'lURl® hlh. Ihftlhr>^<o^
‘ UlU^'Igikli IhJ'^iifalfafa'h^tekjii •l£LLd;l£‘4 '(jolxlh. ;• ^‘‘^114'^K' kh|J infcftlj'frH ta. ^u® jsteihQitfo H4d\p®;+? Ijblh. 4ah|42^ Uglte ElbPl®
j.b Ipi^h
P|pihri>
* ‘ OMklcQ? IhaH ^tfa^llmhE 42IhE14 ‘fclbfrlft' Ih.
_ ikk'lh ^h.''^J21ie Plbn^Ato’
fah^HfelhhPkP Ib^l^K K|U Ulhl^J lhglh|nPJ
l-J, ^uk hfchh Idle |un^ y^HdU a^le Ihs^kfa
k^>i ik'ir|g,p|piri?>h
j?‘,lld« ^£lh^HK’(J2Uk htfaH. ^IhktgJWij Ih^jR & uili'
■ ‘"M|fatJlilh falHlfa $ 'yUE hfali ^£lh"! <r
1
Z';!'/..
>*■<•';•■'
i* '
•'./
' •'• ■'■*'^
• ^•••'^
<'7!^ ;"■?•;,/' •••^V4frttUfa hlkl^ 'iglhU •(glE^gUfa
>IHvl rl t^l b n |
(OOOZTZZ) imps <fyDa u! s“!dd!O J3dBd
g-9{ djnxduuy
u££ie Ulh U|ht®
SEVERE WATER PROBLEM
Roads, water and electricity are the need of people. In coming days, people in Maharashtra
should be mentally prepared to pay for these needs. There is nothing wrong in it. We have a habit
of using these amenities at very low cost hence a hike in these amenities may create imbalance
among people. There is one group which always demands for a subsidy in bills. The numbers of
such persons is increasing very fast leading to a large sum of unpaid dues. The local leaders also
want exemption from water dues as a result of which the economic status of the state is weakening
fast. It will not be possible any longer for the state to provide free electricity and water to people.
We shall have to pay for these amenities in future.
This issue has been placed before the people due to severe problems in Maharashtra Jeevan
Pradhikaran (MJP). They are facing enormous problems of finance and administration. Through MJP,
Government had announced several water supply schemes costing 1.5 million crores of rupees. There
was no proper planning and thought while announcing such schemes. Due to lack of proper allocation
of money and poor administration, most of the schemes collapsed. Subsequently, Government tried
to raise money through different schemes but failed. In many areas, instead of people, contractors
benefitted more.
The Government gave a lot of publicity among villagers about the water supply schemes. People
therefore had lot of expectations from these schemes but no thing fructified. Local leaders made
only popular announcements in their constituencies ignoring the economic fact of schemes. As a result,
the psychology of people towards water supply has changed drastically.
According to the World Bank water is a saleable product. Every citizen has a right to get
water but they should understand that operation and maintenance of schemes also require money.
It should be a citizen’s contribution. The Central Government accepted such terms and conditions
which were however refused by the Sena-BJP Government. They removed the clause of public
contribution and announced free water to all people. However this has not turned out to be a reality.
In many cases, leaders clubbed different schemes within a radius of 10 km and made a
budget of more than rupees one million. Thus the sanctioning power was vested at Mantralaya in
Mumbai. Some schemes were prepared with the help of outdated toposheets drawn up in British
times. After sanctioning of the scheme, the first installment was immediately given to contractor.
According to experts, small scale water shed programmes at the village level would be useful
for our nation. These projects will help to swell ground water content which in turn will be useful
for irrigation also. The unnecessary usage of water for cash crops is harmful to the soil as well
as to the quality of ground water. Good management of ground water supplies is the need of the
next century.
60
Annexure 17-A (Map of Tarapur, Dist Thane)
I (
■
■'
■ > U-«S^
\\
ijni^
JU/.-.. - .
.
ftO>® ■■<
•MOB7.
1
„^»-
• ■“■
rtr
|
I ••-' ’m -®h
•dU?
iOw&
5 p
-.yl
.h fe
-7
VHMMl. \V& i
Ofiislis
&
If
o
if
|E|
I ' ''^
'
.wi'
x/
'f^3'
i
■
-
i
/
t.
® •
, fnim' i :
’^' “fe\f //
; hw
-ill
;
'Wf
,•
,■
.a
■f
/c^
B;
■<777y
te"-
BIS
\\/4'7x
' \h !
!
I
j
■^-y'
J>1^
-■.. ,„<!
''>-^
I
^uv. ',?^lif I
\\ !^b
!
/ /
/
? fe';.
/ k-< i
'■’
■1
ro
' X' /'• -.
—’/
\ \
/
I
HBfaj
f
'' •
ff^SVn
-ft
7;?
/
■»
■I
\
>JB
/
$
■
'xf.
?
(5
f
2V(z!i>
BRrawWSWw!wwWIW«WCTBIB>IWaW»MBIIsHK
61
Annexure 17-B (Village Map of Kadit Khurd, Dist. Ahmednagar)
+E
I
__________
'
| “g
®S
^y/ ;
KK I
mBE^m »s^vyyy-
<
G-G
grM^
/ °a'^
■-
I
HH!|lw/OBlMi
.
■
W»,
^n
/
•
/
/ R
•W
a'
I
I
/
^:r 'i ■
B^fc
'—
^£y
, tskb:
____ -R
syffjgg
"«W
»w
1
&
/
_ ____ ——'
■I
I
i
'v^
QaMe -/^/,
—1
_... ——. /
/
/
1
/
'^'SP
^{'S cK II
II
"
\\
I
■'■
''
“_ _______________
.•
■
■)*
K?'
£■:
1
■
y . ;'i::’
;
L4 .
1
iwiiwfc
>
I
I
I
'G'f^
\
WW-<,‘;J^'V $
^y
'
\yyy
z
-
-
r^ar^j f
•■fe
WFwiISIw^:
Xh aBBwS
5trh^
1151^
^OsSw^^.'"
x
'y
’. ■' ?? ■
BW
-sMw®®
—
—
Anncxure 18
Format for Water Sampling
WATER SAMPLING DETAILS
CODE NO. :
DATE OF COLLECTION :
TIME OF COLLECTION :
LOCATION (VILLAGE ADDRESS) :
WATER SOURCE : WELL /STREAM / RIVER / LAKE / TANK / TAP / HOUSEHOLD
OTHERS (Specify)
APPEARANCE OF THE SAMPLE : MUDDY / TURBID / CLEAR / OTHERS
(Specify)
PRIOR TREATMENT IF GIVEN : CHLORINATED / OTHER TREATMENT (Specify) /
NO TREATMENT
PRESENCE OF DRAIN PIPES / POLLUTANTS (Specify) / EPIDEMICS (Specify) / ANY
OTHER FACTOR (Specify) NEAR THE WATER SOURCE
pH :
TEMPERATURE :
NAME OF THE PERSON COLLECTING THE SAMPLE :
63
Annexure 19
Format of Household Questionnaire
IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF MRWSSP& MRWESP
HOUSEHOLD SCHEDULES
1. Identification Particulars
1.1
Village:
1.2
C D. Block/Tehsil:
1.3
District :
1.4
Household Head : Shri./Smt.
1.5
Household Location / Adress :
1.6
Respondent : Head (self)-1
Father - 5
Other- 9
Spouse - 2
Mother - 6
Son - 3
Brother - 7
Daughter -4
Sister - 8
2. Household Heads
2.1
Age (in complete years) :
2.2
Sex :
2.3
Education :
Male - 1
Female - 2
Upto Higher Secondary - 4
Graduate - 5
Literate - 1
Can read and write - 2
Primary school - 3
3. Household Particulars
Nuclear - 2
3.1
Type of Family : Joint - 1
3.2
Religion : Hindu - 1
Sikh - 5
Buddha - 2
Jain - 6
3.3
Tribe / Caste :
S.T. - 1
3.4
Family Size :
Adult Males No. -
Extended - 3
Muslim - 3
Others - 7
Christian - 4
OBC-3
S.C.-2\
Other
than
above - 5
General - 4
<
Adult Females No. Children 6 to 17 years Children below 6 years -
Total Number
64
□
□
□
V
3..5
Main Occupation :
Crop cultivation - 1
Darying - 2
Agri, wage earner - 4 Non agri, wage - 5
Self Emploed - 7
Sevice - 8
Other livestock - 3
Trade / Business - 6
Other - 9
(Art / Craft)
3.6
Socio - Economic Status : Poor - 1
Middle income group - 2
Better off ( Upper middle ) - 3
Affluent ( Rich ) - 4
3.7
Type of House .
3.8
House electrified : Yes - 1
3.9
Has any family member suffered from water related health problems, in last 6
months ?
Yes - 1
3.10
All pucca - 1
Roof and wall pacca & floor kutcha - 2
Roof Pucca but walls, floor kutcha - 3
Thatched roof, walls/ floor kutcha - 4
Thatched Hut - 5
Other - 6
No - 2
No-2
If yes, please provide following details.
Patients
Patient Disease
No.
code
Treatment
Allop. Ayur. Homeo Home
remedy
Dist.
from
home
1. Adult males
2. Adult females
3. Children
4. Old people
* Diarrhoea -1,
Malaria - 5,
3.11
Dysentry - 2,
Other ( specify ) - 6
Jaundice - 3,
Skin disease - 4,
Please tell us about your latest (last) visit to the Health worker ?
Visit to fortnight - 1
Last year - 4
A month ago - 2
Not visited - 5
65
6 months ago - 3
3.12
Since Grampanchayat / Village Water Committee began and suppling
drinking water, in your opinion has the frequency of suffering from
water related infections.
Increased - 2
Has went down - 1
Not changed - 3
If incrased , how much % -
If decreased, how much % -
4. Access and Usage of Water
4.1
Do you get adequate quantiuty of water to meet all your requirements ?
Yes - 1
No - 2
4.2
Water Utilization Pattern ( Please provide details )
Water Sources (Please write codes)
Main Next major supplimentary source
Purpose used for
1, Drinking
2, Cooking
3. Bathing
4. Washing hands
5. Washing cloths
6, Washing utensils
7. Cattle Drinking
8, Courtyard Sprinkle
9. Other household uses
Water sources codes : Piped / Tap - 1, Hand pump - 2, Tube / Bore well - 3,
River / Canal - 4, Stream - 5, Tank / Lake - 6, Pond - 7, Dug/ Open well - 8,
Tanker / other - 9
4.3
Please tick
) ownership status of two major water sources used by you.
Self owened -A
4.4
Private owened by other - B
Public - C
Distance of the two major water sources from your house .
Less than 50 mts - 1
251 to 500 mts - 4
501 to 1000 mts - 5
51 to 100 mts - 2
101 to 250 mts - 3
More than Ikms - 6
66
4.5
4.6
Quality of the water of two major sources :
Source : 1
Good quality : 1
O.K. (acceptable) : 2
Poor : 3
Very poor ( Not acceptable) : 4
Source:2
Good quality : 1
O.K. (acceptable) : 2
Poor . 3
Very poor (Not acceptable) : 4
Do you pay tarnf ( bill ) for taking water from main / supplimentary sources ?
No - 2
Main source : Yes - 1
Next major source: Yes - 1
No - 2
Third major source : Yes - 1
No - 2
If yes, Rs.per bucket / per day / per month.
4.7
Do you face problems regarding availability of water during.
No - 2
|
|
Mansoon : Yes - 1
Yes - 1
No-2
Drought : Yes - 1
No - 2
Floods :
4.8
][
If yes, if you collect drinking water from other sources please specify the source
and its distance from home.
mts
Distance
Source
5. Water Collection Practices
5.1
Type of vessel used for drinking water collection
a) Shape of water : Cylendrical - 1
Rectangular - 2
Round with narrow mouth (Ghagar) - 4
Math - 6
Other - 7
Bucket -3
Handa - 5
b) Make of vessel :
Copper - 1
Earthen - 5
5.2
Brass - 2
Stainless - 3
Plastic - 4
Any other (specify) - 6 (Specify two very often used vessels)
Type of vessel used for storing drinking water
a) Shape of water : Cylendrical - 1
Rectangular - 2 Bucket -3
Math - 6
Round with narrow mouth (Ghagar) - 4 Handa - 5
Other - 7
b) Make of vessel :
Copper - 1
Brass - 2
Stainless - 3
67
Plastic - 4
Earthen - 5
lit. / trip.
5.3
Quantity of water in liters per trip :
5.4
Number of trips per day :
5.5
Left over drinking water water per day :
5.6
Left over water usage (lit. / day )
lit. / day.
1. Used for feeding animals
2. Used for other non drinking purposes
3. Irrigation of kitchen garden
4. Thrown out
5.7
Who collects drinking water ?
Adult females - 1
Young Girls - 2
Male servant - 6
Female servant - 5
Young Boys - 3
Other ( specify ) - 7
Men - 4
5.8
How do feel water in the vessel ?
------Direct from Tap - 1
Through attached pipe in house itself - 2
Covered Carried from courtyard - 3 Without covering carried from courtyard - 4
Brought from far away, covered - 5 Brought from far away, uncovered - 6
5.9
How often water collecting / carrying vessels are cleaned ?
Alternate days - 3
Every time - 1
Once a day - 2
Once a week - 4
Less frequently - 5
5.10
Method of cleaning water carrying vessels :
Only rinsing - 1
Scrubing with detergent / soap powder - 2
Scrubing with ash - 3
Scrubing with mud or brick - 4
Other - 5
6. Water Storage Practices
6.1
Do you store drinking and cooking water seperately ?
----Store only drinking water - 1
Store drinking and cooking water together - 2
Store drinking and cooking water seperately - 3
Water not stored exclusively for either - 4
6.2
How is the drinking water stored ?
In covered vessel - 1 In covered vessel with long handled dispenser - 2
68
6.3
6.4
In open vessel - 3
In built cement tank - 4
Others ( specify ) - 6
For what other purposes the water is stored ?
Washing cloths - 1
Washing utensils - 2
Bathing - 4
Others - 5
Synthetic water tank - 5
Washing hands and feet - 3
Where is the water stored for drinking kept ? ( Observation )
In the kitchen - 1
Livingroom
Open varandah - 3
Livingroom -- 22
Near the sink - 4
Near
Near the
the drain
drain -- 55
Neat the toilet - 6
Any other - 7
7. Drinking Water Purification Practices
7.1
Before storing drinking water , if any purification methods are adopted by your
household please provide details.Please tick (^ ) mark in appropriate box.
Frequency of
purification
Water Purification Methods
Boiling Treat with
Other Tap (Potable)
Filtering
external
agent
Straning
Specify water
1) Every time water
is stored / collected
2) Daily once
3) Only when dirty
water is collected
4) Occasionly
5) Regularly during
mansoon
6) Never
* External agents like Alum, Lime, Chlorination, Pottassiam Permangnet, local
herbs ( specify name )
7.2
If water is strained, please code the strainer used .
Cloth strainer - 1
Metal strainer - 2
Others - 3
7.3
Frequency of cleaning strainer :
At every straining - 1
Daily once - 2
At alternate days - 3
Weekly once - 4
Only when become dirty - 5
69
□
□
For Field Workers
8. Observations ( During visit to Household )
8.1
Vessel storing drinking water kept on
Pedstal - 1
On elevated platform - 2
On floor but away from drain / washbasin - 3
Away from cooking place - 4
Others ( Specify ) - 5
8.2
Vessel storing drinking water
Covered but with tap for draining water - 1
Without tap but always properly covered - 2
Occassionally not covered - 3
Not covered at all - 4
Other ( Specify ) - 5
8.3
Drinking water drawn from storage water
By dipping any available pot / thumbler - 1
By long handled specially kept pot / thumbler - 2
By specially kept handleless pot / thumbler - 3
By tilting the storage vessel itself - 4
Hand or fingures dipped with pot in water - 5
Others ( specify ) - 6
8.4
Whether finger nails regularly clipped by household members ?
If yes.
By children - 3
Specially by women - 1
By men - 2
All household members - 4 None - 5
9. Cleanliness or Sanitation practices
9.1
Liquid waste or effluents disposal from household
a) From kitchen :
Closeby - 1
In to street - 2
Flows into kitchen garden or soakage pit - 3
Into village drain - 4
Other ( specify ) - 5
b) Forth bathing
place :
Closeby - 1
Into street opposite house - 2
Flows into kitchen garden or soakage pits - 3
Into village drain - 4
70
Other ( specify ) -5
c) Utensils / cloths
washing:
Closeby - 1
Into street opposite house - 2
Flows into kitchen garden or soakage pits - 3
Into village drain - 4
Other ( specify ) “5
d) Cattleshed :
Closeby - 1
On street or open space - 2
to village drain - 4 Other ( specify ) - 5
To manure pit - 3
9.2
Semi-solid or Solid waste disposal from household :
Dumped in front or back of home - 1
To own compost pit - 2
Dumped in common or public compost pit - 3
Not to any specific spot - 4
Other ( Specify ) - 5
9.3
Disposal of dung and effluents from cattleshed :
Daily in manure - 1
Taken to farm - 2
Heeped in shed / courtyard - 3
Dumped at common village spot - 4
Others ( Specify ) - 5
Non cattle household / not applicable - 6
9.4
Whether household members use latrine for defaecation ?
Yes - 1
No - 2
9.5
If yes. What type of latrine ?
Own sanitory - 1
Dry service - 2 Any other common - 3
Community latrine - 4
Other ( Specify ) - 5
9.6
Household members using latrine :
All - 1
6yrs + males - 2
< 6 children - 4
Old / disabled personns - 5
9.7
6yrs + females - 3
None - 6
If No, to Ques. 9.4, where do they go for defaecation ?
Own farm - 1
Close to village - 2
Common village land away from basti - 3
Others - 4
For Men : Code as above
For Women : Code as above
For children : Code as above
For old or disabled person : Code as above
71
9.8
If answer is No for Ques. 9.4, please state reasons.
9.9
Who cleans own latrine ?
Young / Adult female - 1
Community sweepers - 4
*
Young /Adult males - 2
Others ( specify ) - 5
Hired sweepers - 3
None ( no cleaning ) - 6
9.10
Would the household like to own a sanitary latrine ?
Yes - 1
Need to know more about it - 2
Depends upon cost - 3
Feard saffocation in closed latrine - 4
Do not need (require) - 5
Interviewer to Explain before asking Question 9,10
In sanitary latrines, excreta is flushed down underground with water ( or to septic tank )
it doesnot leave foul smell, no flies / insects etc. It can be build close to house in small
or low cost.
9.11
Question for those giving 1 to 4 response to ques.9.10,
The cost of such a unit will be between 3 to 4 thousand rupees.
Would you like to own one such unit ?
Yes - 1
No - 2
If No, how much cost you like to pay ? Rs..
10. General Sanitation Practices
10.1
State of drains in your house
Covered drain - 1
Open drain - 2
Cleaned every day - 3
Cleaned twice / thrice a week - 4
Weekly cleaned - 5
Cleaning done only when waste water overflows - 6
Never cleaned - 7
10.2
How do the members of the household routinely adopt the fo lowing practices ?
Men
Practices
Women Children
& Older
people
Wash hands before eating__________
Wash tumblers before drinking water
Wash hands before cooking food
Wash vessels before serving food in it
]_
2
3_
4
72
5
5
7
Wash hands and feet with soap after toilet
(defaecation)
__________
Wash hands and feet with soap\ ash after cleaning
infants bottoms
Sweep the place of dining place before serving
food
_______ _
Frequency codes : Always - 1, Mostly but not always - 2, Sometimes - 3, Never - 4 .
11. Water Committee Awareness
11.1
Are you aware of the existance of the Water Committee in your village,
if so when was it formed ?
Formed recently (less than month) -
Yes, I am aware - 1
2
Exists since 4 to 6 months -
Exists since 1 to 3 months - 3
4
Exists since more than one year - 6
Exists since 6 months to 1 yr. - 5
No, I
not aware of its existance - 7
11.2
Do you know how the Water committee was formed ?
----Elected by villagers - 1
Unanimously nominated by villagers - 2
Nominated by Sarpancha - 3 Nominated / selected by State Govt. - 4
Others (Specify) - 5
11.3
What is the size and composition of the Water Committee in your village ?
a) Total number of members :
b) Women members :
c) SC/ ST members :
d) Ethinic ( Geographical) representations
73
- Media
7724.pdf
Position: 1780 (5 views)