Closing Access Loop: Situating Post-infrastructural Assurance …
77
is not enough, but a certain population in a country should be able to use and reuse
the service when it is safely managed, i.e. the toilet is not shared and the human fecal
waste is disposed in situ or transported safely elsewhere.
To understand service provision as ‘procedural fairness’ (Sen 2009) implies not
only the setting up of institutions and rules but the kind of lives people actually lead
and how they are able to do so with a given amount of resources over a period of time.
For example, SDGs outline the goal number six as proportion of population having
access to safely managed water services and sanitation. But how it is impacting the
lives of the beneficiaries is not captured (Gimelli et al. 2018). The interventions
are often ignorant of other overlapping factors, being equally important, which contribute to entire water and sanitation life cycle—(i) inequitable water provision and
distribution (ii) acceptance, construction, utilization and, maintenance of toilets, as
well as safe disposal of human waste (Gimelli et al. 2018; Goff and Crow 2014;
Mehta 2014).
As a consequence, WASH centric interventions often suffer from a condition
called ‘slippage’—a concept referring to the reversal of performance of water and
sanitation services or return to previous unhygienic behaviors (Reddy et al. 2011). It
gives insights into the recoiling nature of water and sanitation interventions in India,
which fail to cast a lasting impact on well-being. Ironically, inequality concerns
may not figure early in the availability of infrastructural arrangements as the sector
is currently prioritized, however, there are inequities which emerge post water and
sanitation infrastructural assurance posing challenges for people in rural areas. There
are certain factors which are responsible and are likely to explain the underlying
reasons behind the occurrence and why they could not possibly be omitted, while
evaluating the success of a policy.
3.1 Cultural Biases
Ratna Reddy et al. (2011) argue that on an average, the slippage is 30% all over India
and it varies from 5% to 60% among different states. The evaluation period starts from
1.5 years after a certain region is verified and certified as open defecation free. Evidences suggest the most important reasons behind the occurrence as source failure,
operation, and management of infrastructure, absence of institutional arrangements,
but at the deeper levels it is mismanagement of resources. Snehalatha et al. (2014),
Using a service ladder approach for the assessment of households spread across in
21 Nirmal Gram Puruskar villages in Andhra Pradesh, reported 60% of the villages
openly practiced open defecation after being certified ODF status. Major reasons
being drop in the sensitization and mobilization programs post open defecation free
status; dead investments, lack of water to flush, bad smell and suffocation, fear of pit
fill, coercion, and fear also leads to the reversion.
Another study by Rashid and Pandit (2018), in Bihar validates that there are ideal
service levels or attributes in sanitation services which are responsible in promoting
lasting usage and prevents slippage. The reasons explored were desired height of
77
is not enough, but a certain population in a country should be able to use and reuse
the service when it is safely managed, i.e. the toilet is not shared and the human fecal
waste is disposed in situ or transported safely elsewhere.
To understand service provision as ‘procedural fairness’ (Sen 2009) implies not
only the setting up of institutions and rules but the kind of lives people actually lead
and how they are able to do so with a given amount of resources over a period of time.
For example, SDGs outline the goal number six as proportion of population having
access to safely managed water services and sanitation. But how it is impacting the
lives of the beneficiaries is not captured (Gimelli et al. 2018). The interventions
are often ignorant of other overlapping factors, being equally important, which contribute to entire water and sanitation life cycle—(i) inequitable water provision and
distribution (ii) acceptance, construction, utilization and, maintenance of toilets, as
well as safe disposal of human waste (Gimelli et al. 2018; Goff and Crow 2014;
Mehta 2014).
As a consequence, WASH centric interventions often suffer from a condition
called ‘slippage’—a concept referring to the reversal of performance of water and
sanitation services or return to previous unhygienic behaviors (Reddy et al. 2011). It
gives insights into the recoiling nature of water and sanitation interventions in India,
which fail to cast a lasting impact on well-being. Ironically, inequality concerns
may not figure early in the availability of infrastructural arrangements as the sector
is currently prioritized, however, there are inequities which emerge post water and
sanitation infrastructural assurance posing challenges for people in rural areas. There
are certain factors which are responsible and are likely to explain the underlying
reasons behind the occurrence and why they could not possibly be omitted, while
evaluating the success of a policy.
3.1 Cultural Biases
Ratna Reddy et al. (2011) argue that on an average, the slippage is 30% all over India
and it varies from 5% to 60% among different states. The evaluation period starts from
1.5 years after a certain region is verified and certified as open defecation free. Evidences suggest the most important reasons behind the occurrence as source failure,
operation, and management of infrastructure, absence of institutional arrangements,
but at the deeper levels it is mismanagement of resources. Snehalatha et al. (2014),
Using a service ladder approach for the assessment of households spread across in
21 Nirmal Gram Puruskar villages in Andhra Pradesh, reported 60% of the villages
openly practiced open defecation after being certified ODF status. Major reasons
being drop in the sensitization and mobilization programs post open defecation free
status; dead investments, lack of water to flush, bad smell and suffocation, fear of pit
fill, coercion, and fear also leads to the reversion.
Another study by Rashid and Pandit (2018), in Bihar validates that there are ideal
service levels or attributes in sanitation services which are responsible in promoting
lasting usage and prevents slippage. The reasons explored were desired height of