Sanitation challenges

A new explanation for the mysterious child mortality puzzle among Muslims: open defecation

Another study demonstrates that toilets are necessary not just to protect privacy and dignity. They actually contribute to making people healthier.

Hindus are, on average, richer and more educated than Muslims. But oddly, the child mortality rate for Hindus is much higher. All observable factors say Hindus should fare better, but they don't. Economists refer to this as the Muslim mortality puzzle.

In a new study, researchers believe that they may have found a solution to the puzzle. And, surprisingly, the solution lies in a single factor – open defecation.

Asian enigma

Today more than 60 crore Indians – more than half the population – defecate in the open. Recent research has shown that open defecation leads to higher child mortality rates and stunted growth. Some regions in India do worse than sub-Saharan Africa on those parameters.

Dean Spears at the Delhi School of Economics had been studying the effects of open defecation in India, which led him to a solution to the "Asian engima" – why are Indian children shorter, on average, than African children, even though people are poorer, on average, in Africa. The height of children is one of the most important measures of their wellbeing, and Spears found that it is severely affected by open defecation.

Poor children play in the same fields where their friends and parents relieve themselves. Disease-causing bacteria and parasites then end up on these children's hands and feet, and eventually in their food and drink. While some of these germs make people visibly sick, the symptoms of others may not be visible until later in life. Many years of exposure to such bugs can cause enteropathy – a chronic intestinal problem that prevents proper absorption of calories and nutrients, leading to stunted growth.

Religious issues

When Spears, along with Arabinda Ghosh and Oliver Cumming published, their work on stunted growth, they relied on data derived from the HUNGaMA (hunger and malnutrition) survey, which looked at thousands of people in a few representative districts throughout India.

For the new study, however, a more reliable data source is the government-run National Family Health Survey, which collects information from women aged 13 to 49. Apart from personal information, the survey asks them to report birth and death histories, as well as information about household assets, infrastructure, and health habits, including information about toilet facilities and their usage. The dataset Spears and Geruso selected had about 310,000 Hindu and Muslim children from three survey rounds conducted in 1992/3, 1998/9, and 2005/6.

Using all those factors, statistical analysis revealed that open defecation may contribute to the difference in child mortality rates. "We show that the entire gap between Muslim and Hindu child mortality can be accounted for by a particular kind of sanitation externality," wrote Spears and Michael Geruso, professor of economics at the University of Texas at Austin, in their working paper. They found that Muslims, regardless of income, were 20% more likely to use toilets than Hindus.

More convincingly, the analysis showed that moving from a locality where everybody defecates in the open to a locality where no one does is associated with a larger difference in child mortality than moving from the bottom quintile of asset wealth to the top quintile.

Could differences in open defecation be just one factor among other differences in general hygiene practices? Probably not. Spears and Geruso found no systematic differences among the religious groups when it came to hand washing or water purification techniques.

It was important to be sure that there were no other systematic differences among religious practices of Hindus and Muslims that could have contributed. In "the rare places where Hindus are less likely to defecate in the open than Muslims", Spears and Geruso found that the advantage reverses – child mortality among Hindus turns out to be lower than that among Muslims.

The analysis also showed that Hindu households residing in villages with majority Muslim population experienced lower child mortality than Hindus living among other Hindus. The reverse also held true – Muslims living among Hindus had higher mortality rates than if they lived among Muslims.

"This is consistent with the findings that it is not your own hygiene practices but that of your neighbours which matter most," said Sandy Cairncross, professor of environmental health also at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who has worked in India to increase toilet use.

A positive sign is that Spears and Geruso found that breastfeeding could counteract the negative effects of poor sanitation. The reason is that breastfed children are less exposed to disease-causing germs directly through contaminated water and food, even if the mother was exposed to those germs directly.

This study only draws a correlational link between open defecation and child mortality rates among religious groups. "The causes could lie in the differences among Hindu and Muslim religious codes," said Jeroen Ensink, lecturer in public health engineering at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who has worked on sanitation practices in India.

Behavioural change

What is clear is reducing the number of those who defecate in the open will have a large impact on the health of individuals and the communities they live in. However, changing behaviour, even if the benefits are so obvious, is easier said than done. The Indian government has spent crores of rupees to build toilet facilities through programmes such as Total Sanitation Campaign, but they often remain unused or are repurposed.

"Just because they have a latrine, people don't stop defecating in the open," said Cairncross. His work in Asia and Africa has revealed that people don't install toilet facilities for health reasons. Instead the common reasons cited are security, social prestige and dignity.

While education can help change behaviour and hygiene practices, it is a slow process. The problem is so large and so urgent that Ensink thinks that policies need to be set in place to drive behavioural change.

This article has been edited to remove inaccuracies.
We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BULLETIN BY 

Meet four companies using crowd-sourcing to put you at the center of their businesses

Allowing users “behind the curtain” is paying off in big ways for these organizations.

The web has connected companies and consumers like never before. Whether through websites, social media or messaging apps, an exciting two-way dialogue has emerged. A few select companies have realized how to harness these linkages for more than just likes, shares and fancy Instagram snaps. Rather, they see true value in bringing their customers “behind the curtain” and crowd-sourcing their input on current and new products. For the companies listed below, this shift towards greater transparency and accountability is translating into much greater customer satisfaction.

Facebook’s “Bug Bounty” program. No web-based service gets it right the first time, not even Facebook. That’s why they established the “Bug Bounty” program in 2011. This clever program incentivizes users to find and report bugs in existing features, and often allows top developers access to exclusive new features before they go live. The reward can be as high as $15,000 per glitch, with the bounty varying depending on the level of risk a bug poses. Facebook has made more than $4 million in payouts to more than 800 researchers since the program began, which shows the inordinate value they place on user partnership.

Google Maps “Local Guides” program. Ever wonder how Google Maps tends to be so spot on? Meet their “Local Guides” program, which rewards active users who rectify and add new pins to keep the maps as up to date and accurate as possible. The rewards are distributed in a “level system” whereby people who make small contributions are entered into giveaways or given special access to new Google features. More significant contributions come with greater rewards, too: a level 4 user, for example, is granted 1TB of Google Drive space for 2 years.

Wikipedia. Knowledge is for everyone, and the democratization of knowledge is the fundamental principle that led Jimmy Wales to start Wikipedia. The internet encyclopedia project is free of charge and allows users to copy and change it as long as they follow certain guidelines. The project has been alive since 2001, and is available today in 275 active language editions with 41,000,000 total registered users. The user community actively edits and adds information, and the encyclopedia is always in a constant state of update and improvement.

Airtel. Another initiative that is pioneering new standards for transparency and accountability is Airtel’s Open Network initiative. Through this move, Airtel wants to create a seamless mobile experience for customers by partnering with them to improve its network. The Open Network website allows users to track coverage and signal strength across the country in real-time and provides a direct channel for communicating leaks in service. Customers can see where Airtel’s current network towers are and even the ones the company plans to build in the future. It even lets customers offer up space for placing new towers in areas they are planned or were forcibly shut down.

This will help Airtel learn which spots need better connectivity and enable it to improve the network in those areas. With this hyperlocal knowledge and insight of customers, Airtel intends to build a seamless network that will cater to populations that may not have received the full benefit of its network until now.

By working closely with their customers, Airtel is readying itself for dramatic improvements in service and massive leaps in customer satisfaction. To check out Airtel coverage in your area, see here.

Play

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Airtel and not by the Scroll editorial team.

×

PrevNext