The Gov of India promotes a twin-pit system with a slab and water seal. These latrines would be considered "improved" by the WHO. Twin-pit latrines reduce the health hazards of manual emptying because the feces in the full pit can be left to decompose while the household channels feces into the second pit. Even though manually emptying a pit that has decomposed is not considered manual scavenging under the Indian government's 2013 Prohibition of Employment of as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, most rural Indians still consider emptying these to be an incredibly degrading activity, and the social implications to be the same as if it were manual scavenging.

Use of government latrines in India, however, is very low. The SQUAT Survey found that most of the sample who had a government latrine at home didn't use it and defecated in the open instead. Often, these latrines are used only by women, the infirm, or "for emergencies." Many cite that they don't want the pit to fill up as a reason for not using them all the time.

These latrines are going unused in India, even though available evidence suggests that using these latrines is better for child health than open defecation, and emptying these latrines poses minimal risk to the emptier because the feces is given time to decompose first. If latrines like these were given away in other developing countries, they would likely be used. But not in India.

This rejection of latrines with internationally recommended pit sizes is unique to India because of caste and untouchability. India's problem is unique, and so the solutions are also likely to be unique, and we need to be experimenting as much as possible with solutions that address people's real concerns.

This is the point I was trying to make: rejecting unimproved latrines might not be such an irrational thing to do.

Ah, I see. I am not sure but perhaps Sangita wasn't saying that Indians should embrace unimproved latrines but he/she (sorry, I am not sure if Sangita is a female name? I assume it is) was merely pointing out the difference to other countries. It seems to be an anomaly that rural Indians either have no toilet at all (open defecation) or have quite a good toilet (pour flush twin pit, flush toilet with septic tank) but nothing "in between", compared to other countries which have a lot of those "in between" solutions (pit latrines without a slab).

Mind you, maybe it is indeed a wise decision of those rural villagers to not bother with unimproved sanitation solutions (pits without slabs) and rather go for the "no toilet" open if they cannot afford the "proper toilet" option. I am just speculating here. We also have a related discussion here on "open defecation: curse or blessing": forum.susana.org/forum/categories/71-beh...ne-blessing-or-curse

Elisabeth, I was responding to Sangita comments above about unimproved latrines:

Also, if you compare JMP data across countries, the use of "unimproved latrines" is much much lower in India than in most other developing countries. Only 10% of rural households have unimproved latrines in India, while many many more households defecate in the open. In other, even poorer developing countries, a much higher fraction of households use unimproved latrines, and a lower fraction defecate in the open.

This to me suggested that villagers should accept unimproved latrines (which I agree implies latrines without a slab). I apologise if I misunderstood the point being made.

Dear Sangita,

Thanks a lot for your post. It's an interesting aspect, this partly irrational "fear of pit emptying"... It is partly rational (empting a pit is not a pleasant nor usually safe activity) but also partly irrational (with the right protective personal protective equipment or pumps and so forth, the risks and unpleasantness can be much reduced; also e.g. changing babies' or old people's diapers is not pleasent nor risk-free but someone has to do that, too; and in other countries people are also able to empty pit latrines). So I think the "irrational", specifically Indian aspect (related to those caste issues) is the more important aspect here.

So I also wonder, like Joe, if anyone has done research in India to offer a completely different type of toilet to rural Indians and then to see if they would "jump" at that. It would have to be a toilet without a pit; a toilet where the faecal matter is processed onsite into something that doesn't resemble faeces anymore. I think a UDDT (urine-diverting dry toilet) or a composting toilet goes quite far in that direction and we have heard accounts of people (like David Crosweller, see here: forum.susana.org/forum/categories/180-ur...it=12&start=36#13455) that this has worked well in some Indian villages.

Or perhaps UDDTs and composting toilets (or the "Biofil" toilet with tiger worms, see e.g. here ) are still not taking it all far enough and another type of toilet is needed (e.g. an incineration toilet or one of those Gates "Reinvent the Toilet" toilets), although I cannot really picture how they could ever become sufficiently low cost to be attractive for Indian villagers.

Sangita, in your research have you looked at different types of toilets and whether that has a noticeable impact on willigness to move from open defecation to toilet use?

By the way, I agree with what Kris wrote here (forum.susana.org/forum/categories/71-beh...ssing-or-curse#13556):

As a start, it would probably help to stop calling it a "latrine" as this invokes a not very nice place in most peoples minds, and also effects the vision of the designer/engineer who is asked to build such a place. "Toilet" is more neutral, but still not that much better.
I think there are good reason why there are often more "mild" terms used, like "bathroom" or "restroom"... here in the Philippines the common term is "Comfort room", which invokes a nice image of a place to both relief oneself but also a comfortable place to be at.

Regards,
Elisabeth

P.S. Joe with regards to pit latrines, you wrote:

By most accounts, unimproved sanitation systems are considered an inadequate solution anyway and are not counted in the numbers of people who have access to adequate sanitation.

This is not fully true if you are relating this statement to pit latrines: Remember there are different kinds of pit latrines. Those that do not have a slab do not count to the MDG target. But as soon as they have a slab, they do count (regardless of whether they have a water seal or not). And those that are pour flush also count.
See also here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_sanitation
and here: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pit_l...nimproved_sanitation
(the latter section is new, I just added it now)

As we all know here, there are a variety of infrastructural and technical options for sanitation, and if the argument that you are using is that pit latrines are safe and produce safe faeces, then there is a lot of scientific evidence which shows the opposite.

Given that, it is no surprise that villagers do not want to get involved in emptying a pit latrine - my question is whether they would feel the same if offered other forms of sanitation technology. The problem might be the offered technology not the feelings of villagers.

By most accounts, unimproved sanitation systems are considered an inadequate solution anyway and are not counted in the numbers of people who have access to adequate sanitation. If villagers reject these, they're probably right to.

Hi Joe,

My colleagues and I have spent 2 years conducting field research on this topic throughout north India. You can find a much more detailed description of the findings of this research in a policy brief that can be downloaded here:
riceinstitute.org/policy_outreach/policy...-technology-culture/

Many researchers who have studied sanitation preferences in India have found fear over pit emptying and pit size as a concern among rural Indians. At the recent Wateraid conference that was held in India in January, the India WASH Summit, pit size came up in presentations by Arghyam and others, in addition to ours.

While caste and untouchability are slowly becoming less important in Indian society, they are still important concerns for most people in rural India. In rural India, people from the lowest caste have traditionally been expected to do tasks that higher caste people consider to be impure or degrading, such as disposing of dead animals, and manual scavenging (the manual removal of human feces from dry toilets). Many people believe those from the lowest castes to be polluted and polluting to others, and unfortunately people from the lowest castes have been and still are extremely marginalized in Indian society.

Because people associate pit emptying with manual scavenging, middle and upper caste Hindus consider emptying a pit manually to be inconceivable. If they handled feces by hand, they would themselves become polluted and this could have severe social implications. And because caste status is slowly being renegotiated in rural India, people from the lowest castes also seek to avoid doing such work because of its association with their past and continuing oppression.

Because of the fear of pit emptying, when rural Indians build latrines using their own resources, they build latrines that have pits that are 4 times the pit size recommended by the WHO for a simple pit latrine (50 cubic feet), and when you ask people what they would ideally build, they say they would like a latrine with a pit that is 20 times the WHO standards, or 1000 cubic feet. People say they want pits this big so they don't have to worry about emptying it in their lifetimes.

Also, if you compare JMP data across countries, the use of "unimproved latrines" is much much lower in India than in most other developing countries. Only 10% of rural households have unimproved latrines in India, while many many more households defecate in the open. In other, even poorer developing countries, a much higher fraction of households use unimproved latrines, and a lower fraction defecate in the open.

India is unique when it comes to sanitation because of its unique history of caste and untouchability. But, India is not a unique example of culture affecting health outcomes. For instance, during the Ebola outbreak, many people who work on public health were saying that unique burial practices in West Africa was contributing to the spread of the disease.

I hope this explanation helps.

Yes those are two that came to my mind but I also wonder whether it is even true that anxieties about emptying latrines are really a significant barrier.

To me, the article is a massive oversimplification and makes me wonder about the abilities of r.i.c.e to write accurately about the sanitation situation in India.

Dear Joe,
As we can't read your mind, please explain what you think is wrong in the paragraph?

I assume you mean:

• Pit latrines is not necessarily a safe sanitation solution
• and that emptying a pit in which faeces have decomposed cannot be regarded as safe.

Are my guesses right? (and I would tend to agree with you)

I have moved your post out of the thread about sexual violence against women though because I think you are touching on other issues. Correct me if I am wrong

Greetings,
Elisabeth

Note by moderator:
The post was in this thread before: forum.susana.org/forum/categories/142-go...it=12&start=36#13626

It is referring to this newspaper article:
thewire.in/2015/06/07/why-using-patriarc...ilets-is-a-bad-idea/

++++++++++++++++++++


I think this para in that Wire article is just wrong in many different ways.

The chief reason why open defecation is so rampant in India is that rural Indians do not want pit latrines, which are a safe sanitation solution and which are used around the world. This is because of anxieties related to emptying pits once they fill up. These anxieties are driven by notions of purity and pollution, rooted in India’s centuries-old caste system. Emptying a pit in which faeces have decomposed is safe, but most rural Indians would not touch such a pit, because they consider it impure.