BEHAVIORAL FACTORS IN SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGIES
Item
- Title
-
BEHAVIORAL FACTORS
IN SELECTION
OF TECHNOLOGIES - extracted text
-
SDA-RF-AT-3.12
AMERICAN
Preprint 3453
$1.00
SOCIETY OF
CIVIL
ENGINEERS.
FOUNDED Jr
I8S2X|
BEHAVIORAL FACTORS
IN SELECTION
OF TECHNOLOGIES
Anne U. White and Gilbert F. White
October 16-20,1978
This preprint has been provided for the purpose of convenient
distribution of information at the convention. To defray, in part, the cost
of printing, a convention price of SI.00 to all registrants has been
established. The post-convention price, when ordered from ASCE head
quarters will be SI.00 while the supply lasts. For bulk orders (of not less
than 200 copies of one preprint) please write for prices.
il
t
No acce
Engineers i
made or op
Reprints
and date of(
’
h,
BEHAVIORAL FACTORS IN SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGIES
By Gilbert F. White^ and Anne U. White^
’TV HFAI TH CPI L
INTRODUCTION
Where a well-known technology is provided to a population that has long
been acquainted with its use, the problems of predicting patterns of social
behavior are relatively simple.
The difficulties arise when a new tech
nology is introduced to a population which is not accustomed to it.
It is
in these circumstances that there are few if any local lessons from the past
to apply, so that it becomes important to rely either on comparable experi
ence elsewhere or analysis based on established relationships of human
behavior, preference and motivation.
In this paper we point out some of the
all too abundant evidence that behavioral factors may be critical to the
success of new water and sanitation installations and to their effects on
public health, note those situations in which behavioral factors in fact are
critical, suggest some of the circumstances which affect the development of
new patterns of behavior, and indicate those situations in which a system of
community participation may avoid unnecessary expense or failure.
WHEN BEHAVIOR IS IGNORED
Although there have been only a few systematic studies of the circum
stances in which new projects have failed because of lack of receptivity by
Professional Staff, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colo
rado at Boulder.
Research Associate, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colo
rado at Boulder.
26
the user community, the literature is replete with anectdotal evidence of
those events:
the standpipe in Ethiopia that is destroyed by people living
immediately adjacent to it and objecting to noise (1); the new water tap in
the Ryukyu Islands which is accompanied by a towel on which all of the
children in the community wipe their hands, thus spreading trachoma (2); the
communal latrine in Nigeria that goes unused.
There are also the aquaprivies
that are first used and then abandoned, and the faucets which are ripped off
of the pipes and the metal used to fashion ornaments.
All of these are
examples of misuse of facilities which had been installed with the intention
of promoting health and well-being of the users.
In each case something went
wrong in the design or construction or operation and maintenance.
CRITICAL SITUATIONS
As noted at the outset, there are numerous situations in which attention
to behavioral factors may be relatively perfunctory or routine.
These are
the situations where a population of known ethnic and economic composition is
being presented with a new facility of exactly the same type as that which
has been used enthusiastically by the same type of population elsewhere.
In
these circumstances the design engineer can replicate with confidence the
design and administrative arrangements in the comparable place and assume
that the community acceptance will be equivalent.
This degree of confidence
is warranted especially where the facilities which are being provided are
the sole option open to the user as, for example, where a tap system is pro
vided for a city population which has no other sources of water available
from roof or ground.
There the users have no choice of the source, although
they may exercise some options as to how they misuse the equipment or waste
the water.
27
other situations the major components of the design situation
.) the range of possible physical design, 2) the prevailing behavior
ss of the potential users, 3) the facilities provided for community
flpation and 4) the nature of educational and informational activities
lire carried out by the comnunity authorities.
The design includes
iy the physical facilities of supply, treatment, transportation and
uution, but the administrative design for means of construction and
aance, and the arrangement for pricing or other means of payment
cost of the improvement.
aatever the technique followed for design of the system, once it is
ed people have four choices open to them:
1) they may use the
fries without any significant change in their current behavior
sb
as, for example, when a family begins using a private courtyard
in preference to a community facility on which it earlier had
dd; 2) They may change their behavioral habits in order to make
tthe new facility, as when a family collects its excreta daily for
iiion by a cart rather than depositing it in a nearby field (the
hnere is to take advantage of a daily collection system); 3) they
iiise the facility, as when they throw garbage into the latrines or
water from a community faucet run until the temporary supply is
eed; 4) they may utterly reject the facility, as when they refuse
oonize a community latrine or go for water to a nearby stream in
nnce to a new well facility.
oople who accept a new facility generally are required to make some
adjustment in their behavior pattern.
This may involve their
s; of charges for use of the facility or for amortization of the
eint.
Their contribution may have been preceded by contributions
r- before the project begins.
t:ain the facility.
They must either maintain or learn
They must learn to use it with care, and in
28
may be obliged to take action to assure that others do not
facility.
MOTIVATION AN
Any or all of these adaptations involve a change
previous pattern but a change which contributes to the desired
From n
All such actions may be
prepared fc
^he facility and to its continued upkeep.
for Water
supportive responses.
^n contrast, there is an even larger range of destructive responses
inference
^lich some or all of the members of a community may engage.
The most
identify
^Tous is the complete rejection of the facility and the continued use
in the s
whatever arrangements it was intended to replace.
These usually have
mistake
•ignificant implications for health, for expenditures of time and energy
withou
for drawing water or disposing of excreta and waste, and for settlement
should
patterns.
cul ti
Even more common is the user who takes advantage of the facility for
Swis
some period of time but who refuses to pay for its construction and who
bee
either refuses entirely or slowly retreats from payment towards the cost
ne:
of operation and maintenance.
In this situation the system may fall
into disrepair without any other overt acts by the users.
rr
Oftentimes, however, the refusal to contribute to operation and
maintenance is accompanied by other actions abusing the system.
These
include failure to maintain a pump, delinquency in providing fuel or
chlorine, letting leaking faucets continue to run, breaking off faucets
for other uses, and so forth.
There may occasionally be overt destructive
acts as when some individual or group within a community sabotages the
system, or encourages others to do so.
These acts of adaptation for constructive or of delinquency and
destructive use are easy to catalog and classify.
It is more difficult
to sort out the factors which account for these actions of support,
misuse or rejection.
29
^^'tive studies of individual communi
^^^orld Bank Research Projects on Appropriate TechnolUlJJ
and Waste Disposal, from our own field studies, and by
^^w-jhat is known about social behavior it is possible to
^^aast half a dozen factors which affect the actions of users
^^iions noted above.
We shall note later on that it is a
•*-—tnink that these can be assumed or defined for any community
**^iee careful investigation of that particular community, and it
^recognized that a factor that may be highly important in one
**^Uay have little or no significance in another.
An example is the
^bad construction firm which had to delay work in an Arab country
toilet facilities for male and female employees had been built
tco each other (3).
Individual desire for privacy clearly is a widespread and powerful
-fivation.
People generally prefer to be alone while defecating but
ris is not always the case, as witness the women in Indian villages who
trefer to go to the fields together for defecation so as to have some
'protection and privacy that might otherwise be interrupted.
There is a
long and widespread belief that women like to go to common water sources
in villages because of the opportunities which the journey and waiting in
line provide for them to talk with friends and neighbors.
In our investiga
tions we have found that this is largely a myth.
Women, given a choice,
would prefer to have their own individual source.
This does not mean
that they necessarily resent meeting others or that they do not gain much
in the way of information and companionship from others at the watering
place.
It does mean that when given an opportunity they will prefer
their own source, but then will be obliged to obtain companionship and
30
**^mation through other meeting places and channels in the community.
•***iave found this not only in the individual interviews with water users
a variety of cultural and physical environments in East Africa but
the responses from people questioned in a wide range of other cultures.
^wis is important to recognize because it represents a powerful motive
or enlistment of community support for any project which provides some
increment in the degree of individual or family privacy in water supply
and sanitation facilities.
It does not mean, however, that users will
automatically adopt such facilities when preferred:
they may object to
the facilities because of other factors, some of which are ennumerated
below.
Individual effacacy in handling facilities is another factor at
If the individual cannot easily make the facility work, as in the
work.
case of the pump which requires priming to reach a lower water table,
there is a tendency for people to prefer equipment over which they have
an easy and complete control, for example, a bucket and rope.
If they
lack the skill and knowledge to repair the equipment or to make it run
properly, they may let it fall into disrepair, not because they are
opposed to its use but because they feel inadequate to its use.
Status in the community, and especially the extent of sharing of a
prevailing practice with one's neighbors, may be a powerful motivational
force.
The individuals may be reluctant to experiment with a new device
unless there is some support from others, particularly if there is
indication of its acceptance by those who are known innovators in the
community.
A sense of community well-being on doing what is expected of the
individuals to maintain the wholeness of a community may be a strong
motivation quite independent of the desire for maintenance of individual
31
^^^^aorivacy.
ine uuq*..____
it has been accepted as the community goal by
** —.ee (4).
/
Another example is the Spanish American community in
—-—.co where a number of the members contribute to a water supply
**
escause they do not wish to offend neighbors who are deeply committed
improvements (5).
The obverse is the unwillingness of people to
^^i'te in a project because there are objectionable persons or groups
'os identified with them.
Such considerations often explain why a
mity for no reason having to do with the project design or their own
^^.•rences rejects an improvement.
A sense of individual health has been shown to be a primary motivation
many users, but this urge always is mediated by the knowledge of the
cttividuals responding to it.
They may object to an improved water
^o»urce or means of excreta disposal because they feel it is unhealthy
3'1 though the sanitary experts may know that to be the contrary (6).
It
fis important to find out what they consider to be the criteria of health,
as for example, finding out that members of a Filipino community regard
intestinal worms as contributing to proper digestion of food.
Related to considerations of individual well-being is a sense of
control over one's own activities, that is, the ability of individuals to
exercise discrimination with respect to the quality of service which they
will enjoy.
From our experience, people when given the opportunity will
exercise considerable discrimination in choosing water sources and means
of excreta disposal.
In Indonesia among the 1.3 million families who use
community piped water supplies, at least 52 percent make the distinction
between potable water for drinking and cooking purposes and unpotable
water which they carry from rivers to use for washing and bathing purposes
(7).
This opportunity for discrimination may be affected by their prior
experience with development activity in the community.
32
In some communities
information through other meeting places and channels in the community.
We have found this not only in the individual interviews with water users
with a variety of cultural and physical environments in East Africa but
in the responses from people questioned in a wide range of other cultures.
This is important to recognize because it represents a powerful motive
for enlistment of community support for any project which provides some
increment in the degree of individual or family privacy in water supply
and sanitation facilities.
It does not mean, however, that users will
automatically adopt such facilities when preferred:
they may object to
the facilities because of other factors, some of which are ennumerated
below.
Individual effacacy in handling facilities is another factor at
If the individual cannot easily make the facility work, as in the
work.
case of the pump which requires priming to reach a lower water table,
there is a tendency for people to prefer equipment over which they have
an easy and complete control, for example, a bucket and rope.
If they
lack the skill and knowledge to repair the equipment or to make it run
properly, they may let it fall into disrepair, not because they are
opposed to its use but because they feel inadequate to its use.
Status in the community, and especially the extent of sharing of a
prevailing practice with one's neighbors, may be a powerful motivational
force.
The individuals may be reluctant to experiment with a new device
unless there is some support from others, particularly if there is
indication of its acceptance by those who are known innovators in the
community.
A sense of community well-being on doing what is expected of the
individuals to maintain the wholeness of a community may be a strong
motivation quite independent of the desire for maintenance of individual
31
health and privacy.
The Guatemala community which acts to make an improve
ment because it has been accepted as the community goal by the leaders is
one example (4).
Another example is the Spanish American community in
New Mexico where a number of the members contribute to a water supply
system because they do not wish to offend neighbors who are deeply committed
to such improvements (5).
The obverse is the unwillingness of people to
cooperate in a project because there are objectionable persons or groups
who are identified with them.
Such considerations often explain why a
community for no reason having to do with the project design or their own
preferences rejects an improvement.
A sense of individual health has been shown to be a primary motivation
for many users, but this urge always is mediated by the knowledge of the
individuals responding to it.
They may object to an improved water
source or means of excreta disposal because they feel it is unhealthy
although the sanitary experts may know that to be the contrary (6).
It
is important to find out what they consider to be the criteria of health,
as for example, finding out that members of a Filipino community regard
intestinal worms as contributing to proper digestion of food.
Related to considerations of individual well-being is a sense of
control over one's own activities, that is, the ability of individuals to
exercise discrimination with respect to the quality of service which they
will enjoy.
From our experience, people when given the opportunity will
exercise considerable discrimination in choosing water sources and means
of excreta disposal.
In Indonesia among the 1.3 million families who use
community piped water supplies, at least 52 percent make the distinction
between potable water for drinking and cooking purposes and unpotable
water which they carry from rivers to use for washing and bathing purposes
(7).
This opportunity for discrimination may be affected by their prior
experience with development activity in the community.
In some communities,
for example, efforts at sanitation improvement are closely identified
with earlier colonial authorities, and participation in the new improvement
along the same lines is regarded as some kind of a sacrifice of individual
control in the face of forces of colonialism.
Finally, it is important to recognize that every individual family
or community has its own sense of priorities as to what needs to be done
and as to the acceptable ways of doing it.
They may reject a contribution
towards a sanitation improvement not because they are against the improve
ment but because they think they can use their resources to better advantage
in building a road or providing an agricultural produce marketing facility.
They may use the brass faucet for creating jewelry rather than for water
supply because the sense of social status is overriding in those circum
stances.
Other motivations and preferences might be noted, but this is suffi
cient to indicate their range and their power in influencing the degree
of supportive and destructive response to a proposed innovation.
IGNORING COMMUNITY PREFERENCE
Our basic argument is that in most cases where new design facilities
fail to gain community acceptance one or more of the factors ennumerated
above is at work.
It is possible to go into a community and assess why
some facilities are abused and others rejected, but one would prefer not
to be obliged to make this kind of retrospective appraisal.
The effective
tactic is to take preferences and motivations into account at the outset
as an essential part of the design process.
community participation.
This involves some kind of
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The appeal for community participation is widespread and frequently
voiced, but there needs to be careful definition of what the term means
and of specific modes of involving people in the design process.
At
base, it means providing an opportunity for users of a facility to have a
voice in selecting the different elements in the facility.
Giving them a
voice implies providing for 1) a determination of their current preferences
2) an estimate of their current ability to meet their perceived needs,
3) an estimate of their capacity to adapt to new facilities, and 4) their
maintaining the system in the face of changing preferences over time.
It
should not be expected that preferences and motivations would remain
uniformly the same:
they may be expected to change.
It is possible to
anticipate some of this change by analogy with other communities that
have gone through social change as well as by reference to underlying
preferences that are strong but are not satisfied by existing community
arrangements.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING
The artistically difficult and trying judgment to make is to determine
at what time to involve citizens in community decision-making about the
new facility.
Ideally, the initiation of any preliminary exploration of
improvements would come in response to community initiative, with the
community leaders asking for technical assistance in achieving a need
which they already have recognized and which they are determined to
satisfy.
This rarely is the case because communities may have difficulty
34
initially perceiving their needs, may place sanitation in very low priority
at the outset, and may be unaware of steps which they could take to
enlist technical assistance.
Figure 1 suggests the way in which various components of the decision
situation may interrelate over time.
In its condition of imposed design
one sees community behavior patterns as remaining untapped by the engineers
who proceed to make a preliminary and final design, then to construct the
project and impose it on the community.
Depending on the character of
the prior studies or sheer luck the response may range from complete
acceptance, to acceptance with a significant adaptation of behavior, to
rejection.
Many existing water supply systems fit into this pattern.
Where there is participation, the community may, as shown in the
second case in Figure I, have a role in first deciding whether or not a
project will be applied for, and then at three separate times in making
its views known.
Prospective users would have opportunity for a reaction
to preliminary designs, for another reaction to final designs, and for
participation in necessary preparation actions before the final design
gets translated through construction into reality.
A third possibility is where the design is modified through community
participation as above, but where the community comes to understand that
it cannot achieve its ends within the limits of available funds and
customary behavior.
In this case the community decides that modifying
its behavior patterns could allow it to achieve its ends, and that it is
willing to make the necessary modifications.
An extreme example of behavior modification comes in the fourth case
where a constructing authority, having designed a project, sounds out
community preferences and in the light of this undertakes a program of
community education to attempt to assure that the community will be
prepared to modify its behavior so as to use the facility once constructed.
35
Inter-action points
Before applying for project
Design of project - Preliminary
Components in dealing with behavioral factors:
Design: Dp -preliminary; Dp -final
Behavioral pattern: B]
-original; B2 - modified
Response to preliminary design
Involvement: I] - community needs & promotion;
I2 - community preferences; I3 community consul
Design - Final
Response to final design
tation; 14 community education
Response to construction
Application decision: A
Construction decision: C
Type
Before Applied- PreliminAppliedtion
dry Design
tion
Response to
Preliminory
Design
Final
Design
Response to Construe- Response to
Construction
Finol Design tion
Health centers, or special programs like vaccination, have often taken
this approach.
In brief, there are five major points at which local people can have
a significant role in decision-making with respect to a new project.
First, they may join in deciding whether or not to apply for a project
and thereby to make at least a preliminary canvass of their own sense of
priorities about the needs of the project and their own judgment as to
their capacity to marshall the money, labor and local management facilities
to carry it out.
"
Second, they may participate in the selection of technologies in
relation to their preferences subject always to the constraints of available
money and labor to carry out the undertaking.
Third, they may influence the pricing policies, including the pro
visions that are made for funding operation and maintenance.
There has
been a good deal of evidence that demand is relatively price-inelastic
for such facilities, but also that any drastic change in prices is likely
to arouse substantial resistance over the short term.
Local people can
indicate what kinds of pricing schedules appeal to them, what modes of
billing and payment are best adapted to their income flows and means of
handling money or other contributions of labor are most acceptable to
them.
Fourth, the local management policies may be most effective if
adjusted at the outset to the modes of action within the community,
including their formal governmental structure as well as the community
networks through which information is transmitted and people join in
arriving at judgments about priorities.
Finally, local people can be of assistance in monitoring the construc
tion and operation and maintenance of a project and thereby influence the
degree to which it ultimately meets its stated aims.
57
DEVICES FOR ASSURING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
In another paper (8), we have discussed some of the tools that can
be employed in carrying out a project so as to assure effective community
participation at the points noted above.
Here we recapitulate in capsule
form what seem to be the chief devices that are readily available to
engineers who are interested in avoiding failure or inefficiency in use.
These involve chiefly two types of community survey, community consultation,
and provision for continued monitoring.
The most informal sort of community survey is one in which an individual
or team enters a community and carries on a series of informal discussions,
with selected members of the community and its official leaders and with
people who are well acquainted with the community.
This can yield pre
liminary judgments as to how the community views its own health needs and
how it places these in priorities among other community needs, as to its
facility for mobilizing some kind of community action, and as to the
assortment of existing networks of communication and power.
The informal
survey may lead to the judgment that the time is not right for further
action, it may suggest that a substantial amount of community education
and promotional work may be necessary before further action can be taken,
or it may suggest that the time is right for a more intensive kind of
community survey looking to assistance in the design of a project.
Always related to the preliminary inquiry is the assembly of whatever
information of a statistical or anectdotal type is available about the
community from people who have worked in it.
Oftentimes a story or
chance conversation may give insight as to forces which are at work in
the community, but they never should be accepted as fully descriptive of
the community situation.
That can only be determined with any great
confidence by a more careful sample of the total population.
38
It is not necessary to carry out an elaborate census of members of
the community.
A carefully selected sample stratified according to
differences in income and in social groups may reveal a good deal about
the range of motivations and preferences within the community and about
the significant social networks.
From the results of the survey of as few as 30 families in a large
village it is possible to compose a relatively accurate profile of the
community preferences as the type shown in Figures 2 and 3.
This indicates
that the two communities illustrated, one in Haiti and one in the Sudan,
have major differences in their views of their health conditions, the
need for improvements, and their willingness to participate.
The survey may also reveal significant relationships between social
factors and likely participation in the project.
Thus, one finds that in
community A there is strong preference for using an individual source of
water supply whereas community B is less concerned about this factor.
One might also learn that it is the people without latrines and of the
middle and upper income groups who are most likely to support an improvement
for excreta disposal in community C.
The results of such community survey can be invaluable to the designer
in understanding the current practices and information level of the
community, its preferences regarding services, and how these might be met
by design or how they would require modification through education and
consultation if an effective design is to be accepted.
Community consultation may be expected to follow whenever there is a
preliminary design for review with community leaders.
Here it is important
to recognize that the designated or elected leaders of a community are
not always those who are most sensitive to or acquainted with the wishes
or capacities of its people.
Indeed, it may happen that a particular
person or cadre of people in a community are so unpopular that associating
39
Per cent
Fig. 2
Example of profile based upon community survey: Haiti, village with
unpiped water. N = 30.
Per cent
Fig. 3
Example of profile based upon community survey: Sudan, village with
piped and unpiped water. N = 37.
a project with them is assurance of failure at the outset.
It is important
to determine who are the significant people in the community in terms of
passing on information and deriving community judgments.
From this
information which will have been learned in the community survey it is
possible to see to it that representatives of those groups are drawn into
consultation about the preliminary design and subsequently, consultation
about the final design.
It usually is desirable to present two or more but not more than
five alternative choices to the community.
It will be practicable to
know what kinds of information will be significant for the people in
terms of their previously expressed preferences and their indications of
how much they would be willing to pay or contribute and with what groups
they would be willing to work.
The people need to be drawn into the
system of consultation if they are to regard those representatives selected
as having responsibility.
It is essential to learn what kinds of concrete
evidence they would like about the alternatives available:
what it is
that they need to see or touch or have more details about before they can
make any judgment about it.
It also is important for them to be entirely
cognizant of what the costs will be in terms of time, money, or labor.
One of the cautions, beyond those noted above, which needs to be in
the minds of those who participate in community consultation is that
where there seems to be an important discrepancy between preferences and
design it is wise to be cautious about the extent to which the gap can be
bridged by information or educational activities.
Oftentimes an easy
solution is to suggest that materials will be distributed or a motion
picture show will be shown or that community leaders will be informed
about reasons for a design feature which is out of harmony with the
community preferences.
Such educational programs sometimes work, but
often they do not, and it is desirable to be skeptical about the extent
42
to which they will be effective in a particular community.
Suggestions
of the care and continuity needed to make such programs effective can be
found in some manuals such as those for rural health education in Kenya
(9), or for the promotion of rural water projects in Columbia (10).
There is no sure panacea or set of dos and don'ts for taking into
account these factors affecting behavioral patterns.
Unwillingness to
make the effort no doubt is the most common cause of failure of community
water supply and sanitation improvements.
Rarely would one encounter a
situation in which all of the factors noted above would be significant or
in which all of the steps noted above would be required in order to
achieve a thoroughly effective community plan of improvement.
The essential
feature of the approach is to assume at the outset that factors affecting
behavioral patterns need to be taken into account, that community partici
pation can assist in determining them, and that such effort will generate
greater assurance that the completed project will serve its intended
aims.
43
ABSTRACT:
Behavioral factors such as motivation and preference may be criti
cal to the success of new water supply and sanitation projects and their
effect on public health.
Once the facilities are installed, the users have
the options of adopting the new facilities without significant change in
behavior patterns, changing behavior patterns to use the facilities, mis
using the facilities, or rejecting their use entirely.
If it is assumed
at the onset of a project that behavioral factors should be taken into
account, community participation can assist in determining these.
Local
people can have a significant role in decision-making at five points in the
development of a new project:
the decision to apply for assistance in terms
of their own priorities, the selection of technologies within the constraints
of available money and labor, the selection of pricing policies adapted to
their needs, the incorporation of local modes of action into management poli
cies and information transfer activities, and in monitoring methods.
Tools
for community participation include two types of surveys, community consulta
tion, and provisions for continuing monitoring.
KEY WORDS:
Water supply, public health, sanitation, community participation,
decision-making, technology, choice.
44
REFERENCES
1.
Beyene, Atnafe, "Planning Considerations for Rural Water Supply in
Developing Countries", unpublished paper prepared for the Ethiopian
Water Resources Authority, 1978.
2.
Marshall, Carter L., "Some Exercises in Social Ecology:
Health,
Disease and Modernization in the Ryukyu Islands", in The Careless
Technology, ed. M. T. Farvar and J. P. Mil ton.
New York:
Natural
History Press, 1972, pp. 5-18.
3.
van Wijk, Christine, -Sybesma, Bibliography on Extension and Com
munity Participation in Community Water Supply and Sanitation, Pre
liminary Draft, WHO International Reference Centre for Cormunity Water
Supply, 197803, The Hague, n.d., p. 41.
4.
Miller, Frank A. and Cynthia A. Cone, "Latrines in Yaluc:
A Twenty-Year
Perspective," paper prepared for the Appropriate Technology for Water
Supply and Waste Disposal Research Project, World Bank, 1978.
5.
Olinger, Colleen E., "Domestic Water Use in the Espanola Valley, New
Mexico:
A Study of Resource Decision-Making," thesis presented to the
University of Chicago at Chicago, Illinois in 1970, in partial fulfill
ment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.
6.
White, Gilbert F., David J. Bradley, and Anne U. White, Drawers of
Water:
Domestic Water Use in East Africa, Chicago:
University of
Chicago Press, 1972.
7.
Indonesia, Biro Pusat Statistik, Household Condition in Indonesia,
September-December, 1976, 1976 National Labor Force Survey, NEI 78,
1978.
8.
White, Anne U. and Gilbert F. "Community Assessment of Water Supply and
Sanitation Options for Developing Countries," paper prepared for the
Appropriate Technology for Water and Waste Disposal in Developing
Countries Research Project, World Bank, 1978.
45
O
COMMUNITY HEALTH CELL
326, V Main, I Block
Korameng.'Ja
Bangalore-560034
India
9.
Scotney, Norman, Health Education, African Medical and Research Founda
tion, Rural Health Series 3, Nairobi, Kenya, 1976.
This manual for
rural health workers indicates an approach of listening and learning
versus directive teaching in the rural health field.
10.
Manual de Procedimientos en Promocion Communitaria para el Programa
Nacional de Saneamiento Basico Rural, Institute Nacional Para Programas
Especiales de Salud, S.B.R. no. 0072, Bogata, Columbia, 1975.
46
- Media
SDA-RF-AT-3.12.pdf
Position: 3806 (2 views)