Horizontal and Vertical Inequalities Explaining Disparities in Access to Urban SanitationEvidence from National Sample Survey of India

Aditya Bhol

Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi

Key Discussion Points

• Latest urban sanitation statistics in India. Data from Census 2011 and NSS 2011-’12.

• Benefits of NSS data for multivariate analysis

• Key Research Questions

• Results of logistic analysis to measure state-wise disparities

• Policy Implications : Using the results of the analysis to interpret the impact of current sanitation programmes and schemes

Urban Sanitation in India

Statistics:

• Toilets: In-house toilets - 81% Improved Toilets – 79% Piped Sewer – 38% On-site Systems( Septic tanks and Improved Pits) – 47% No Toilets – 19% Public Toilets – 6% Open Defecation – 13% (Census, 2011)

• Drainage: Closed Drains – 45%, Open Drains – 37% and No Drains – 18% (Census, 2011)

• Sewerage Treatment Facilities – 152 STPs [9 STPs under construction, 30 STPs non-operational and performance of 28 STPs not satisfactory] (CPCB, 2013)

Definition of Environmental Sanitation - Safe confinement, treatment and disposal of human toilet waste and associated hygiene-related practices; solid waste management; generation of industrial and other specialized / hazardous wastes; drainage; and the management of drinking water supply (National Urban Sanitation Policy, 2008)

Variation across Consumption Quintiles (UP)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

First Second Middle Fourth Fifth

MP

CE

Uttar Pradesh Toilet Access across Consumption Quintiles

Access to In-House Toilets (0=No IHL / 1=IHL)

No IHL IHL

First 727 788

Second 1100 1140

Middle 1480 1583

Fourth 2214 2500

Fifth 4150 4500

Consumption

Quinitles

Median MPCE

Variation across Consumption Quintiles (UP)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

No Drain Open DrainClosed Drain No Drain Open DrainClosed Drain No Drain Open DrainClosed Drain No Drain Open DrainClosed Drain No Drain Open DrainClosed Drain

First Second Middle Fourth Fifth

MP

CE

Uttar Pradesh MPCE for Drainage Status across Consumption Quintiles

No Drain

Open

Drain

Closed

Drain

First 714 775 750

Second 1071 1100 1167

Middle 1500 1500 1600

Fourth 2500 2283 2500

Fifth 3900 4167 4500

Consumption

Quinitles

Median MPCE

Research Questions of the Study

• What kind of disparities exist in the urban water and sanitation sectors in India? Exploration of different inequalities (vertical and horizontal) that are presumed to perpetuate deprivation of sanitation services

• Vertical inequalities: Inequalities along consumption (proxy for income) expenditure of households

• Horizontal Inequalities:

Disparities in access to public services:

Drainage

Water supply

Social Stratification (Caste Group)

Spatial Stratification (Slum/Non-Slum)

• Are there state-wise disparities in access to sanitation?

• What are the implications of the study on ongoing water and sanitation policies and programmes in India?

National Sample Survey Data and Analysis

Insights from Data (NSS Data)

• Advantages:

Large sample size – 95,548 households (53,393 rural and 42,155 urban households surveyed)

Samples considered for the study – 32,321 sampled households from 15 selected states

Fairly representative of different regions of India

Pertinent questions on water, sanitation and hygiene were included in the survey questionnaire

Includes questions on various socio-economic indicators and housing conditions. Also includes consumption expenditure of households

• Disadvantages:

Ambiguities in certain questions (wastewater outlets, land holdings)

Census towns are included in urban sector

Logistic Model for Analysis

and

Where,

Independent variables (X) considered for the model are:

• Monthly per-capita Consumption Expenditure (MPCE)• Drainage Status• Drinking Water Source• Drinking Water Access• Caste Status (Social Stratification)• Slum/ Non-Slum Status• NSS Region• House Condition• Drinking Water Sufficiency

𝑃 =1

1 + 𝑒−𝑧

𝑧 = 𝛼 + 𝛽1𝑋1 + 𝛽2𝑋2 + ⋯+ 𝛽𝑘𝑋𝑘

𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑡 𝑃 = log 𝑃

1 − 𝑃 = 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑂𝑑𝑑𝑠 = 𝑧

Economic Predictor

Access to Public Services

Social Status

Spatial Predictors

Behavioural Predictors

Odds Ratios for Continuous and Categorical Variables:

Odds Ratio for Continuous Variable – Monthly Per Capita Expenditure in increments of hundreds (MPCE/100)

Odds Ratio for Categorical Variable – Drainage Status (Closed Drain)

𝑂𝑑𝑑𝑠 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑀𝑃𝐶𝐸/100

=𝑂𝑑𝑑𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑅𝑠 100 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑀𝑃𝐶𝐸

𝑂𝑑𝑑𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑡𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑅𝑠 100 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑀𝑃𝐶𝐸

=P IHL=1|MPCE=M+100 /P IHL=1|MPCE=M

P IHL=0|MPCE=M+100 /P IHL=0|MPCE=M = 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝛽𝑀𝑃𝐶𝐸

𝑂𝑑𝑑𝑠 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒

=𝑂𝑑𝑑𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝐶𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠

𝑂𝑑𝑑𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑡𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝐶𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠

=P IHL=1|Closed Drain /P IHL=1|No Drain

P IHL=0|Closed Drain /P IHL=0|No Drain = 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝛽𝐶𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝐷𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛

Results (Shown for some states and some predictors)

Household

CharacterisiticsPunjab Rajasthan Bihar

West

BengalJharkhand Gujarat Kerala

Tamil

Nadu

MPCE/100 1.065*** 1.030*** 1.107*** 1.047*** 1.075*** 1.068*** 1.047 1.084***

Open Drains 1.685 3.969*** 3.257*** 2.894*** 2.618*** 3.691*** 6.832*** 3.503***

Closed Drains 11.458*** 9.602*** 6.472*** 1.24 1.663 6.642*** 4.608 6.476***

OBC 1.587 1.683** 2.343*** 2.283*** 3.148*** 1.658* 3.947*** 3.830***

General 2.084* 7.698*** 5.545*** 1.726*** 7.357*** 2.911*** 1.416 16.045***

Improved Source 0.871 .469* 3.664 0.96 2.123* .561* 0.656 .396***

Within House or

Building

8.417*** 5.468*** 5.076*** 3.306*** 4.357*** 5.041*** 3.186** 5.695***

Non-Slum

Household

1.375 1.338 1.369 3.269*** 3.642** 8.189*** 0.443 1.766**

N 1056 1701 1246 3411 837 2012 1917 2856

pseudo R-sq 0.475 0.414 0.395 0.338 0.5 0.528 0.333 0.462

Water Access (Ref: Other Sources)

Slum Status (Ref: Slum Household)

Note: Robust Standard Error in square bracket[]; Reference group in parantheses (); * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, ***

p<0.001

Drainage Status (Ref: No Drains)

Caste Status (Ref: SC/ST)

Drinking Water Source (Ref: Unmproved Source)

1.1

1.9

12.6

1.8

2.0

1.0

3.1

7.9

1.7

7.2

1.1

3.7

10.8

2.2

4.2

1.1

3.1

4.5

2.4

5.5

1.1

28.2

0.3

0.1

mpcenew1

Open Drain

Closed Drain

OBC

General

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0

Punjab Rajasthan

UP Bihar

Assam

1.0

2.8

1.2

2.3

1.7

1.1

2.9

1.9

3.0

6.0

1.0

4.0

6.2

1.1

2.9

1.1

4.9

11.3

1.6

2.3

1.1

4.0

5.8

1.6

2.9

mpcenew1

Open Drain

Closed Drain

OBC

General

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0

WB Jharkhand

Odisha MP

Gujarat

1.0

1.6

4.2

1.5

2.1

1.1

6.6

23.6

1.4

4.0

1.1

3.5

22.1

3.6

8.3

1.0

6.1

5.0

4.7

1.6

1.1

3.0

5.5

4.2

22.4

mpcenew1

Open Drain

Closed Drain

OBC

General

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0

Maharastra AP

Karnataka Kerala

TN

Variation Across States for Key Predictors

Predictors shown here are MPCE(continuous variable with an increment of

Rs 100/1.5$ approximately), drainage status and caste status.

(MPCE) (MPCE) (MPCE)

Proxy for Income

Public Infrastructure

Social Groups

Predicted Probabilities for In-House Toilets for Key Predictors:

Independent and Interactive Effects

Public Infrastructure/Services:

Varying drainage infrastructure levels in different states result in varying predictedprobabilities of households owning a toilet.Access to closed drains gives the highest predicted probabilities for all the states while nodrains result in the lowest probabilities of households to own toilets.

Note: All other independent variables are held constant at respective means

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

0 20 40 60 80 100MPCE/100

No Drain Open Drain

Closed Drain

GUJARAT

Pre

dic

ted

Pro

bab

ilities f

or

IHL

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

0 20 40 60 80 100MPCE/100

No Drain Open Drain

Closed Drain

MAHARASHTRA

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

0 20 40 60 80 100MPCE/100

No Drain Open Drain

Closed Drain

ANDHRA PRADESH

• Wide caste based disparities in probability for IHL in some states

• Convergence of probabilities at lower MPCE in states with less disparities

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

0 20 40 60 80 100MPCE/100

SC/ST OBC

General

KARNATAKA

Pre

dic

ted

Pro

bab

ilities f

or

IHL

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

0 20 40 60 80 100MPCE/100

SC/ST OBC

General

KERALA

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

0 20 40 60 80 100MPCE/100

SC/ST OBC

General

TAMIL NADU

Caste Status (Social Stratification):

Slum and Non-Slum Areas:

• Higher inequalities in access to toilets in highly urbanised states like Gujarat,Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu.

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

0 20 40 60 80 100MPCE/100

Slum Non Slum

MAHARSHTRA

Pre

dic

ted

Pro

bab

ilities f

or

IHL

.2.4

.6.8

1

0 20 40 60 80 100MPCE/100

Slum Non Slum

ANDHRA PRADESH

.2.4

.6.8

1

0 20 40 60 80 100MPCE/100

Slum Non Slum

KARNATAKA

Spatial Inequalities:

Caste and Drainage (Interaction) I:

Provision of public infrastructures – open drains and closed drains are shown to increase theprobabilities of households, irrespective of their social group, to own a toilet.

Note: Similar treatment of the data shows significant improvement in the probabilities whenimproved drinking water is supplied to households.

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

0 20 40 60 80 100MPCE/100

SC/ST OBC

General

BIHAR (No Drains)

Pre

dic

ted

Pro

ba

bili

ties for

IHL

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

0 20 40 60 80 100MPCE/100

SC/ST OBC

General

BIHAR (Open Drains)

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

0 20 40 60 80 100MPCE/100

SC/ST OBC

General

BIHAR (Closed Drains)

Caste and Drainage (Interaction) II: For Different States

Interaction shown here for two states at their respective median MPCE

The slants of the lines show the disparities in probabilities for houeholds to own toiletsbased on access to different drainage infrastructure

The gaps between the lines show the caste based disparities

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

Pr(

Ihl)

No Drain Open Drain Closed Drain

Drainage Status

SC/ST OBC General

UTTAR PRADESH

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

Pr(

Ihl)

No Drain Open Drain Closed Drain

Drainage Status

SC/ST OBC General

TAMIL NADU

Conclusion:

• Access to public infrastructure such as drainage and improved drinkingwater supply have significant effect on access to toilets

• Intersectionality: Vertical and horizontal inequalities jointly exacerbatethe likelihood to own an in-house toilet

• Ownership of toilets is subject to financial, technical, infrastructural andbehavioural factors

• Existence of group inequalities in different degrees in the statesconsidered and they explain some disparities in access to sanitationservices

Policy Implications

• Shift from subsidy based policies to infrastructure building programmesfor provision of improved water supply and drainage

• Explore and innovate in low-cost alternative solutions to improve overallsanitation to prove for unserved and under-served urban population

• Mitigate structural inequalities by bringing about urban reforms

• Address group inequalities and provide services equally

Thank youFollow us on twitter:

@CPRIndia_SCIFI , @CPR_India