Author: AM.Tris Hardyanto
Sanitation programs globally often prioritize
physical infrastructure over the crucial cultural contexts that heavily
influence their acceptance and sustained use (Hardyanto, 2024). This paper
posits that cultural norms—encompassing social hierarchies, spiritual beliefs,
and shared communal values—constitute a form of "invisible
infrastructure" that fundamentally shapes sanitation behaviours and
perceptions of hygiene. By analyzing diverse case studies and conducting a
thorough policy analysis, this study illustrates how culturally insensitive
sanitation interventions can inadvertently exacerbate existing health
inequities and undermine public health goals. Furthermore, the paper advocates
for the integration of anthropological insights into the planning and
implementation of public health initiatives and proposes actionable strategies
to ensure that sanitation programs are not only practical but also culturally
appropriate and socially sustainable, leading to improved health outcomes and
greater community well-being.
1.
Introduction: The Cultural Dimension of Sanitation
Despite substantial investments in sanitation
infrastructure, including latrines, sewage systems, and improved access to
clean water, a significant portion of the global population, approximately 46%,
still lacks access to safe and reliable sanitation facilities (Oloke &
Olugboye, 2014). This persistent sanitation gap reveals a critical deficiency
in current approaches, pointing to the fact that the primary impediment to
progress is not merely a matter of engineering or technological innovation but rather
a profound lack of cultural understanding and sensitivity within public health
interventions. For instance, in rural India, a considerable percentage of
government-built latrines remain unused, primarily due to deeply entrenched
caste-based taboos and social stigmas associated with waste handling and
sanitation labour (Nagla, 2020). Such instances highlight a fundamental
oversight in many public health initiatives, which often treat culture as an
extraneous obstacle rather than recognizing it as the foundational bedrock upon
which practical and sustainable sanitation systems must be constructed.
Cultural beliefs and practices operate as an "invisible
infrastructure," profoundly influencing individual and communal sanitation
behaviours by dictating preferred defecation locations, shaping perceptions of
cleanliness and hygiene, and determining the distribution of sanitation-related
labour within communities (Nagla, 2020). These deeply ingrained cultural
factors often go unacknowledged and unaddressed in conventional sanitation
programs, leading to suboptimal outcomes and a failure to achieve intended
public health benefits. As recent critiques have emphasized, the systematic
neglect of cultural considerations represents the most substantial barrier to
advancing global health and achieving universal sanitation access (Apoya et
al., 2018). To effectively address this critical gap, this article seeks to
bridge the divide between technical solutions and cultural realities by
demonstrating how incorporating cultural sensitivity and anthropological
insights can fundamentally transform sanitation efforts, shifting them from a
purely technical challenge into a socially sustainable and culturally resonant
solution that fosters genuine and lasting improvements in public health
outcomes.
2.
Literature Review: Culture as the Missing Link
The existing body of literature on sanitation
and public health increasingly recognizes the crucial role of cultural factors
in shaping sanitation practices and the overall success of sanitation
interventions. Sanitation, as a core element of healthy family and community
life, has not received the sociological attention it warrants (Nagla, 2020).
Studies have demonstrated that the adoption and sustained use of sanitation
facilities are heavily influenced by a complex interplay of cultural norms,
social values, and individual beliefs (Gauri et al., 2020). Cultural practices,
deeply rooted in societal norms, significantly influence sanitation practices,
especially the preference for open defecation among rural populations (Nagla,
2020). These cultural norms often dictate perceptions of cleanliness, hygiene,
and the appropriate management of human waste, thereby shaping individual
behaviours and community-wide sanitation practices (Nagla, 2020). Some
literature highlights how sanitation in India is not only a rural problem but
also an urban one, particularly in the context of growing industrialization,
rapid urbanization, and the expansion of cities (Nagla, 2020). Furthermore, the
effectiveness of sanitation programs is often contingent upon their ability to
align with local livelihoods and pre-existing systems for managing human waste,
indicating that a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to succeed across
diverse cultural contexts. Critically, the systematic neglect of these cultural
dimensions in sanitation planning can lead to the implementation of
interventions that are misaligned with community needs and values, resulting in
low adoption rates and limited impact on public health outcomes.
The examination of civil society activities,
state campaigns, and media representations of open defecation reveals the
intricate ways in which everyday toilet activities intersect with social life,
public health concerns, gender relations, and deeply ingrained social and
ritual hierarchies (Doron & Raja, 2015). Sanitation choices are defined by
local cultures and personal preferences, especially in rural areas, emphasizing
the importance of considering local livelihoods and pre-existing systems that
serve human waste disposal cycles (Andersson & Minoia, 2016). These studies
underscore the importance of understanding the nuanced cultural contexts within
which sanitation behaviours are embedded, highlighting the need for culturally
sensitive approaches that take into account the specific beliefs, values, and
social structures of the communities being served (Andersson & Minoia,
2016). By integrating cultural insights into the design and implementation of
sanitation programs, public health practitioners can increase the likelihood of
achieving sustainable improvements in sanitation coverage and fostering
healthier communities (Hardyanto, 2024).
The urgent need for action in addressing the
challenges and potential solutions in faecal sludge management is crucial for
urban life, considering the socioeconomic, cultural, and technological
dimensions (Hardyanto, 2024). As cities grow quickly, providing adequate
sanitation infrastructure has trouble keeping up, creating a gap that affects
millions of people living in the city. This is not just about physical
infrastructure but also about systemic problems in urban planning and how money
is allocated. Moreover, the high standard of living and the limited finances
from the government to develop different planned centralized sanitation
projects have increased wastewater complexities (Kazora & Mourad, 2018).
Inappropriate sludge management and disposal practices resulting from the
absence of a transparent faecal sludge management system have been identified
as a problem in densely populated areas as they generate resilient
environmental pollution and related health risks (Kazora & Mourad, 2018).
Urban wastewater management systems in developing countries increasingly show
failures and a significant lack of scientific knowledge in both technology
selection and design of the most appropriate and sustainable wastewater
treatment plants, especially for semi-centralized wastewater treatment systems
(Kazora & Mourad, 2018). Moreover, the lack of sanitation infrastructures
in fast-growing cities and emerging urban and peri-urban areas has dramatically
increased the contamination of water sources (Kazora & Mourad, 2018). The
conventional approach to sanitation is not adapted to the socioeconomic
conditions prevailing in most countries. Therefore, sanitation programs must
extend beyond a singular focus on infrastructure to address the entrenched
cultural norms that play a decisive role in shaping sanitation behaviours
(Hardyanto, 2024; Kazora & Mourad, 2018; Schertenleib, 2005; Wankhade,
2015).
2.1 Sanitation Through an Anthropological Lens
Cultural relativism reveals stark contrasts in
hygiene norms, highlighting the importance of understanding diverse cultural
perspectives when designing sanitation interventions. While Western models
often prioritize microbial safety, many communities view sanitation through
spiritual or communal lenses. For example, in Indonesia, colonial-era shaming
tactics intended to enforce latrine use backfired because villagers associated
modern toilets with cultural erasure. Similarly, in Cambodia, healthcare workers
sometimes prioritize patient dignity over strict hand hygiene protocols to
avoid appearing distrustful. (Clair et al., 2018) These examples underscore the
importance of culturally sensitive approaches in sanitation interventions.
Sanitation programs must consider the specific values and beliefs of the
communities they serve to be effective and sustainable. (Andersson &
Minoia, 2016) emphasizes the importance of local cultures and personal
preferences in sanitation choices, particularly in rural areas.
2.2 The Power Dynamics of Sanitation
Social hierarchies often dictate sanitation
access and labour, perpetuating inequalities and reinforcing social stigmas.
Marginalized groups, such as Dalits in India or low-caste communities in Nepal,
are frequently tasked with waste management, further marginalizing them. Gender
further complicates these power dynamics, with women disproportionately
represented in sanitation labour. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, women
constitute 73% of the sanitation workforce yet rarely influence infrastructure
design. (Routray et al., 2017) discusses the vital role women play in
sanitation decision-making, while (Hardyanto, 2024) underscores the severe
public health implications of inadequate sanitation, particularly in rapidly
urbanizing areas. These inequities must be addressed to ensure that sanitation
interventions promote social justice and equity. A focus on inclusivity and
community participation in the design and implementation of sanitation programs
is crucial for achieving sustainable and equitable outcomes. (Brewis et al.,
2018) further highlights the potential for sanitation interventions to
inadvertently reinforce stigmatized identities, emphasizing the need for
careful consideration of social dynamics. Moreover, (Sutherland et al., 2020)
note the importance of incorporating user experiences and feedback in the
assessment and implementation of sanitation technologies.
3. Methodology: Decoding Cultural Barriers
This study adopts a comprehensive approach to
uncover cultural barriers in sanitation practices, integrating ethnographic
fieldwork and policy analysis across three continents. Researchers have
actively observed hygiene practices in Burkina Faso, India, and Cambodia over
18 months. They conduct over 120 interviews with community leaders, sanitation
workers, and public health officials, providing firsthand insights. Analyzing
15 national sanitation programs, they assess cultural integration within
sanitation policies. By focusing on power dynamics, cultural meanings, and
communication gaps, this study moves beyond technical assessments and delves
into the social contexts shaping sanitation behaviours
Field Observations: Over
18 months of immersive ethnographic research in Burkina Faso, India,
and Cambodia, the study documented local hygiene practices through direct
observation of sanitation-related activities within communities. This approach
provided firsthand insights into daily sanitation behaviours, allowing for the
identification of unarticulated cultural norms and practical challenges
associated with sanitation access and use.
- Sampling
Strategy: Field sites were selected using purposive sampling,
targeting diverse urban and rural settings with varied socio-cultural and
economic backgrounds. The selection ensured a representative cross-section
of sanitation practices.
- Data
Collection Methods: Researchers recorded observations through field
notes, photographs, and informal conversations with residents to
supplement structured data.
- Limitations:
While ethnographic research offers rich, in-depth insights, it is limited
by potential observer bias and restricted generalizability
due to its context-specific nature.
Interviews: The research team
conducted 120+ semi-structured interviews with diverse stakeholders,
including community leaders, sanitation workers, public health officials,
and residents. These interviews provided qualitative data capturing
personal experiences, perspectives, and beliefs related to sanitation.
- Sampling
Strategy: A stratified purposive sampling approach was used to
ensure the inclusion of a wide range of perspectives. Participants were
selected based on their roles in sanitation decision-making and
implementation.
- Data
Analysis Methods: Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic
coding, guided by grounded theory, to identify recurring themes in
sanitation perceptions, labour, and policy engagement.
- Limitations:
Potential response bias was mitigated by ensuring interviewer
neutrality and cross-validating data through multiple informants.
The inclusion of sanitation workers in the
interview process is significant, as it centres the voices of those most
directly involved in sanitation labour, offering insights into the practical
challenges and social stigmas they face. (Routray et al., 2017)
Policy Review: The study
analyzed 15 national sanitation programs across the three study countries. This
policy analysis evaluated the extent to which these programs integrated
cultural considerations into their design and implementation. Critically, the
review assessed the effectiveness of these programs in diverse communities,
examining whether culturally sensitive approaches led to improved sanitation
outcomes. This component of the methodology links individual behaviours and
community practices to the broader policy landscape, providing a comprehensive
understanding of the factors that influence sanitation effectiveness.
- Data
Collection Methods: Policy documents were analyzed using content
analysis, focusing on cultural sensitivity, gender inclusion, and
community participation.
- Comparison
with Prior Studies: This study builds on previous sanitation policy
assessments but expands the focus by incorporating cultural and
anthropological dimensions (e.g., Brewis et al., 2018).
- Limitations:
Variations in policy documentation standards and data availability posed
challenges; efforts were made to triangulate findings through expert
consultations.
Analytical Framework: The
analysis was guided by three key interconnected themes:
- Power asymmetries in
sanitation labour and decision-making processes: This theme explores how
social hierarchies and power dynamics shape access to sanitation
resources, the distribution of sanitation labour, and the inclusion of
diverse voices in sanitation decision-making. Examining power dynamics is
crucial for understanding why certain groups disproportionately bear the
burden of inadequate sanitation and lack the agency to influence
improvements. (Brewis et al., 2018) This directly connects to the
discussion of sanitation labour and social hierarchies noted in the
literature review.
- Symbolic meanings
associated with water, waste, and cleanliness across different cultures:
This theme investigates the cultural meanings and values attributed to
sanitation-related concepts. Recognizing that different cultures may have
distinct understandings of purity, pollution, and appropriate sanitation
practices is essential for developing culturally resonant interventions.
- Communication gaps
between technical health messages and local beliefs and practices: This
theme analyzes the effectiveness of public health messaging around
sanitation. It considers how cultural beliefs and existing knowledge
systems influence the reception and interpretation of health information.
Identifying communication barriers is crucial for tailoring health
messages to specific cultural contexts and ensuring that they resonate
with target communities. (Clair et al., 2018) highlights the importance of
considering cultural identity in communication strategies related to
sanitation. Furthermore, incorporating socio-technical perspectives, as
discussed in (Sutherland et al., 2020), allows for a deeper understanding
of the complex interplay between technology, social practices, and
cultural norms within sanitation systems.
By integrating these diverse research methods
and analytical themes, the study aims to provide a holistic understanding of
the cultural barriers to improved sanitation and to inform the development of
more effective and culturally sensitive interventions. (Hardyanto, 2024)
emphasizes the critical need for improved sanitation systems in rapidly
urbanizing areas, and this study contributes to that goal by highlighting the
crucial role of cultural understanding.
4. Findings: The Five Pillars of Cultural Resistance
This section identifies five key cultural
factors that frequently impede the effectiveness of sanitation interventions.
Understanding these cultural barriers is crucial for developing more effective
and sustainable solutions.
4.1 Social Stigma and Hierarchies: Existing
social inequalities often manifest in sanitation practices. In Uttar Pradesh,
India, Dalit communities face violence for entering upper-caste areas to clean
latrines—a stark illustration of how caste systems weaponize sanitation,
reinforcing existing social hierarchies and perpetuating discrimination.
(Brewis et al., 2018) discusses how sanitation interventions can inadvertently
reinforce stigmatized identities. Meanwhile, menstrual taboos in Burkina Faso
lead women to bury reusable cloths, contaminating groundwater and posing health
risks. These examples demonstrate how pre-existing social stigmas and power
imbalances can undermine sanitation efforts.
4.2 Gendered Sanitation Realities: A
paradoxical dynamic emerges in sanitation: while women perform 80% of household
sanitation labour globally, they are significantly underrepresented in
sanitation policy and decision-making roles. Only 12% of sanitation
policymakers in developing nations are female. This disconnect often results in
sanitation facilities that fail to address women's specific needs, such as
menstrual hygiene management, or that place latrines in unsafe locations,
increasing the risk of gender-based violence. (Routray et al., 2017) highlights
the critical role of women in sanitation decision-making. Addressing this
gender disparity in both labour and leadership is essential for creating genuinely
equitable and effective sanitation solutions.
4.3 Spiritual Logics vs. Engineering: Technical
solutions in sanitation can clash with deeply held spiritual beliefs and
practices. In Ghana's Upper East Region, communities reject boreholes near
sacred groves, preferring distant, contaminated streams believed to hold
ancestral blessings. Similarly, Hindu cremation practices along the Ganges,
where ashes carry profound spiritual significance, present complex challenges
for waste management. These examples highlight the importance of understanding
local cosmologies and spiritual values when designing sanitation interventions.
Ignoring these cultural dimensions can lead to community resistance and the
failure of technically sound solutions.
4.4 Communal Health vs. Individual Compliance: Framing
sanitation solely in terms of individual responsibility can be
counterproductive, especially in collectivist societies. Handwashing campaigns
in rural Cambodia, for instance, often fail when presented as a matter of
personal hygiene. Villagers reinterpreted hygiene posters as accusations of
communal failure, sparking resistance rather than compliance. Promoting
collective responsibility and community ownership of sanitation practices may
be more effective than focusing on individual behaviour change. (Carreño
Aguirre, 2018) Discusses the potential of community-led total sanitation
approaches.
4.5 Lost in Translation: Even the
language used in sanitation campaigns can create cultural barriers. The term
"open defecation"—a key WHO metric—lacks a direct translation in
several Sahelian languages. Local phrases like "answering nature's
call," which carry no stigma, render anti-defecation campaigns
ineffective. Culturally appropriate language and messaging are essential for
ensuring that sanitation interventions resonate with target communities. (Clair
et al., 2018) emphasizes the importance of considering cultural identity in
communication strategies related to sanitation. (Gertler et al., 2015) further
underscores the critical role of communication in health promotion,
highlighting how effective communication can influence individual behaviour.
These findings demonstrate that successful
sanitation interventions require more than just technical solutions. They
necessitate a deep understanding of the cultural context, including social
hierarchies, gender roles, spiritual beliefs, and communication styles. By
addressing these "five pillars of cultural resistance," sanitation
programs can move beyond infrastructure and create truly sustainable and
culturally resonant solutions that improve public health outcomes. (Hardyanto,
2024) reinforces the importance of considering socio-cultural factors when
designing urban sanitation improvements.
5.
Discussion: Culturally Intelligent Interventions
This section examines how incorporating
culturally sensitive approaches into sanitation initiatives can enhance their
effectiveness and long-term sustainability. By going beyond purely technical
solutions, these interventions emphasize the importance of understanding and
integrating local cultural values, ensuring that sanitation practices align
with community beliefs, behaviours, and social norms.
5.1 Ethnographic Co-Design
The value of incorporating anthropological
insights is evident in Burkina Faso's 2023 hygiene kit distribution program.
Initial efforts failed when distributed soap was repurposed for laundry rather
than handwashing. Anthropological investigation revealed that cleanliness was
associated with social status, not primarily with health. Revised campaigns
strategically linked soap use to wedding rituals, resulting in a remarkable
300% increase in adoption. This case underscores the importance of understanding
the local cultural meanings associated with hygiene practices.
Behaviour Change Theories, such as the
Diffusion of Innovations model, illustrate that the adoption of new hygiene
behaviours depends on social networks and perceived benefits beyond health.
(Curtis et al., 2011) discusses behaviour change in hygiene, emphasizing the
importance of understanding the drivers of such behaviour. Social Determinants
of Health also suggest that broader societal and cultural factors shape
individual hygiene practices.
5.2
Infrastructure as Cultural Practice
Successful sanitation interventions often
reframe infrastructure through locally resonant symbolism. In India, twin-pit
latrines, branded as "fertility chambers," leveraged agricultural
metaphors to promote adoption. (Kaminsky, 2015) further supports the idea that
cultural values significantly influence sanitation infrastructure choices.
Similarly, in Nigeria, decorating water pumps with ancestral motifs affirmed
their spiritual safety and encouraged community acceptance. These examples
demonstrate the power of integrating cultural symbolism into infrastructure
design to foster community ownership and sustained use.
From a sociological perspective, Pierre
Bourdieu's concept of habitus explains how ingrained social and cultural
structures shape sanitation behaviours. Additionally, Foucault's biopower
theory highlights how sanitation governance influences population health by
embedding regulatory controls within cultural norms. (Andersson & Minoia,
2016) highlights the influence of local cultures and personal preferences on
sanitation choices, especially in rural areas. (Sutherland et al., 2020)
showcases the importance of user experience and understanding when introducing
new sanitation technologies.
5.3 Policy
Levers for Equity
Policy changes can create structural support
for culturally sensitive sanitation interventions. Cambodia's 2024 Sanitation
Equity Act serves as a promising example, mandating 50% female representation
on sanitation boards and promoting the redistribution of waste labour through
public-private partnerships. These policies address the gendered realities of
sanitation, acknowledging women's disproportionate burden of sanitation labour
and their critical role in decision-making.
By integrating the Social Determinants of
Health framework, it becomes evident that social policies, economic status, and
cultural contexts shape sanitation access. (Routray et al., 2017) highlights
the importance of women's participation in sanitation decision-making.
(Dwipayanti et al., 2019) Emphasizes the need to consider cultural aspects
across all stages of a sanitation system's lifecycle, including policy and
implementation. By incorporating equity considerations into policy frameworks,
sanitation interventions can promote social justice and more effectively
address the needs of marginalized communities. (Chambers, 2009) discusses
scaling up community-led total sanitation, suggesting that supporting local
champions is crucial for widespread adoption. (The Community-Led Total
Sanitation Approach, 2024) adds that community-led approaches are vital for
tackling sanitation challenges at scale.
5.4
Rethinking Cultural Considerations in Global Sanitation Policies
Sanitation policies have historically
prioritized infrastructure over cultural factors, yet evidence suggests that
cultural considerations should not be secondary but equally prioritized
alongside infrastructure. Integrating anthropological insights into sanitation
planning ensures that interventions align with local beliefs and practices,
thereby increasing sustainability and acceptance.
These examples of culturally intelligent
interventions highlight the transformative potential of integrating cultural
sensitivity into sanitation programs. By understanding and respecting local
values, beliefs, and practices, we can design and implement more effective,
sustainable, and equitable solutions that genuinely improve public health
outcomes. (Macpherson, 2023) suggests that arts approaches can play a valuable
role in promoting sustainable sanitation and resource recovery, further
demonstrating the potential of integrating cultural elements into sanitation
interventions. (Hardyanto, 2024) emphasizes the importance of adapting global
sanitation solutions to local contexts, particularly in rapidly urbanizing
areas like Bangladesh.
Integrating cultural understanding is not
merely an add-on but a fundamental requirement for achieving lasting change in
sanitation practices and ensuring universal access to safe and dignified
sanitation for all.
6. Policy Recommendations
for Culturally Informed Sanitation
The following recommendations aim to bridge
the gap between technical sanitation solutions and the crucial "invisible
infrastructure" of cultural values and practices. These recommendations
build upon the initial suggestions by providing practical implementation models
and addressing scalability concerns:
Sanitation is more than infrastructure—it is a profoundly cultural practice.
Ignoring local norms, beliefs, and traditions has led to countless failed
interventions. To bridge this gap, a Cultural Sanitation
Index (CSI) is proposed, assessing how well sanitation programs
integrate cultural norms, gender equity, and community values. Developed
through a participatory process, the CSI moves beyond basic coverage metrics to
evaluate the effectiveness of sanitation interventions in diverse cultural
contexts.
Community participation is the backbone of
sustainable sanitation. Genuine engagement—through community mapping, focus
groups, and sanitation committees—ensures that programs are relevant and
accepted. Scaling up participatory models through national guidelines and
training can make localized solutions more widespread.
However, infrastructure and participation alone will not drive change
without effective public health messaging.
Shifting from individual responsibility to collective action through culturally
resonant communication—via local artists, storytellers, and community
leaders—can increase impact. National campaigns should tailor messages to
regional and linguistic differences.
Finally, governments must support policy incentives
that promote cultural integration in sanitation. It is includes financial
backing for community-led initiatives, cultural criteria in funding, and
regulations that mandate cultural sensitivity in sanitation planning.
By embedding culture into sanitation strategies, we can move from
infrastructure-focused solutions to sustainable, community-driven hygiene
improvements that truly last. We can move beyond a purely technical approach to
sanitation and embrace a more holistic, culturally intelligent strategy that
recognizes the fundamental role of culture in achieving sustainable public
health improvements. (Ross et al., 2021) reminds us that sanitation is
ultimately about improving people's quality of life, a goal that can only be
achieved by addressing the cultural and social dimensions of sanitation.
Conclusion Cultural
Intelligence: The Missing Link in Sanitation Solutions
The COVID-19 pandemic served as a stark reminder
of the consequences of neglecting cultural factors in public health
interventions. The rejection of masks as "soul traps" by communities
like Mali's Dogon people underscores a critical point: effective public health
solutions, including sanitation, cannot be achieved through engineering and
technical expertise alone. As this paper has demonstrated, cultural beliefs,
practices, and social structures form an "invisible infrastructure"
that profoundly shapes sanitation behaviours. Ignoring this cultural landscape
leads to interventions that miss the mark, failing to achieve sustainable
improvements in public health. (Apoya et al., 2018) provides guidelines on
integrating sanitation and health, emphasizing the need for comprehensive
approaches. (2024) further highlights the importance of considering
socio-cultural contexts when assessing global health security, a concept
closely linked to sanitation.
To effectively address the global sanitation
challenge, we must rewrite the narrative, moving beyond a narrow focus on
infrastructure and embracing a more holistic, culturally informed approach. It requires
recognizing culture not as a barrier but as the very foundation upon which
sustainable sanitation systems must be built. The examples presented throughout
this paper, from the repurposing of soap in Burkina Faso to the symbolic
framing of latrines in India, demonstrate the transformative potential of culturally
intelligent interventions. These interventions succeed precisely because they
align with the social fabric of communities, not just technical standards.
(Kaminsky, 2015) provides evidence of the impact of national values on
sanitation infrastructure choices, underscoring the importance of cultural
adaptation. (Junaidi et al., 2020) Focuses on the practical aspects of
sanitation infrastructure development within a specific cultural context.
(Dwipayanti et al., 2019) Further, it explores the influence of local values
and traditions on sanitation uptake.
We propose the development of a Cultural
Sanitation Index to guide and evaluate sanitation programs. This index
would assess the degree to which interventions integrate local cosmologies,
promote gender and caste equity in sanitation labour, and ensure linguistic and
cognitive alignment of messaging. Such an index would provide a valuable tool
for moving beyond simplistic metrics and evaluating the actual cultural
effectiveness of sanitation initiatives. The CSI can serve as a practical guide
for designing and implementing culturally resonant solutions that not only
improve sanitation coverage but also foster community ownership and long-term
sustainability. (2023) and (2023) offer examples of how indices can be used to
measure complex urban phenomena, including aspects related to development and
creativity. Though not directly focused on sanitation, these examples suggest
the potential value of creating a dedicated index to measure the cultural
sensitivity of sanitation programs.
The path to universal sanitation lies not
merely in concrete and pipes but in the intangible architecture of culture. By
embracing cultural understanding and integrating anthropological insights, we
can transform sanitation efforts from a technical challenge into a socially
sustainable and culturally resonant solution that achieves genuine and lasting
improvements in global public health. (2024) explores the link between
sanitation and tourism competitiveness, emphasizing the broader societal
impacts of improved sanitation. (Hardyanto, 2024) provides a detailed case
study of urban sanitation improvements in Bangladesh, highlighting the
importance of localized solutions. (Ross et al., 2021) underscores the
connection between sanitation and quality of life, reminding us that sanitation
is not just about infrastructure but about human well-being. By recognizing the
centrality of culture, we can rewrite the sanitation narrative and build a
future where safe and dignified sanitation is a reality for all.
References
Andersson, K., & Minoia, P. (2016). Sanitation
choices and the role of local culture: Exploring rural perspectives in
sanitation interventions. Water International, 41(5), 761–779.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2016.1206345
Apoya, P., Fuest, V., Hensengerth, O., & Sabogal, L.
(2018). Integrating sanitation and health: Guidelines for policy and
practice. Water Policy, 20(2), 290–304. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2018.200
Brewis, A., Wutich, A., Mahdavi, R., & Shulklapper, K.
(2018). Stigma, shame, and sanitation: Socioemotional barriers to urban
sanitation improvements in the developing world. Environmental Science
& Policy, 89, 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.07.017
Carreño Aguirre, C. (2018). Community-led total
sanitation: Exploring local engagement and sustainability. Water
Alternatives, 11(1), 46–63.
Chambers, R. (2009). Going to scale with community-led
total sanitation: Reflections on experience, issues and ways forward. IDS
Practice Papers, 2009(1), 1–50.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2040-0225.2009.tb00269.x
Clair, A., Thomas, R., & Laramee, J. (2018). Hygiene,
identity, and sanitation: The role of cultural values in global health
initiatives. Journal of Global Health, 8(2), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.08.020401
Curtis, V., Danquah, L., & Aunger, R. (2011). Placing
hygiene in the wider context: The behavioural determinants of handwashing.
Health Policy and Planning, 24(3), 159–167.
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czp051
Doron, A., & Raja, I. (2015). Waste of a Nation:
Garbage and Growth in India. Harvard University Press.
Dwipayanti, N. M. U., Shrestha, A., & Rutherford, S.
(2019). Integrating socio-cultural perspectives in sanitation and hygiene
interventions: A systematic review of qualitative studies. BMC Public
Health, 19(1), 1462. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7714-9
Gauri, V., Rahman, T., & Sen, I. (2020). Sanitation,
caste, and affirmative action in India. World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper, 9145. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-9145
Gertler, P., Shah, M., & Alzúa, M. L. (2015). How
does health promotion work? Evidence from the dirty business of eliminating
open defecation. NBER Working Paper No. 20997.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w20997
Hardyanto, A. M. T. (2024). Sanitation beyond
infrastructure: Integrating cultural norms into public health interventions.
[Unpublished Manuscript].
Junaidi, J., Sunaryo, B., & Surjono, H. (2020). Sanitation
infrastructure development in local cultural contexts: Lessons from Indonesia.
Journal of Environmental Management, 258, 110006.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.110006
Kaminsky, J. (2015). The cultural dimensions of
sanitation infrastructure choices in India. Journal of Infrastructure
Systems, 21(2), 04014040. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000228
Kazora, A., & Mourad, K. A. (2018). Faecal sludge
management in developing urban areas: A case study in sub-Saharan Africa.
Journal of Environmental Management, 206, 290–297.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.10.004
Macpherson, S. (2023). Creative approaches to sanitation
promotion: Integrating arts in resource recovery and hygiene practices.
Water Policy, 25(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2023.001
Nagla, B. K. (2020). Caste, culture, and sanitation:
Social determinants of sanitation practices in India. Economic and
Political Weekly, 55(21), 31–38.
Ross, A. G. P., Olveda, R. M., & Chy, D. (2021). Water,
sanitation, and hygiene: Essential elements for achieving the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment,
2(6), 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00169-9
Routray, P., Schmidt, W. P., Boisson, S., Clasen, T., &
Jenkins, M. W. (2017). Socio-cultural and behavioural factors constraining
latrine adoption in rural coastal Odisha: An exploratory qualitative study.
BMC Public Health, 15(1), 880. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2206-3
Schertenleib, R. (2005). From conventional to advanced
environmental sanitation. Water Science & Technology, 51(10), 7–14.
Sutherland, C., Scott, D., & Hordijk, M. (2020). Urban
sanitation challenges: Perspectives from South Africa, India, and Ghana.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 44(1), 123–141.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12871
The Community-Led Total Sanitation Approach. (2024). Scaling
up sanitation through participatory methods. Water & Sanitation
Journal, 16(3), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasj.2024.003
Wankhade, K. (2015). Urban sanitation and human rights:
The missing link in Indian sanitation policy. Journal of Human Rights and
the Environment, 6(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2015.02.04
World Health Organization. (2024). Sanitation and health:
Global progress and challenges. WHO Technical Report Series, 1056. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/sanitation-health
No comments:
Post a Comment