Confronting the
Challenges of Open
Defecation practices in
Flat Lands of Nepal: A
Social Norms Perspective
Anu Paudyal Gautam, UNICEF
Nepal
Penn-UNICEF Advances in
Social Norms Course
June 2014
Where are we
Sanitation Coverage
Universal
access target
100
Additional
performance
required
90
70
National Coverage (%)
National Coverage (%)
80
MDG
target
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Source: MPPW
3
2020
Sanitation-Universal Coverage and MDG Target
100
Universal
access target
90
More
Efforts
Essential
80
70
CENSUS - 62%
60
MDG target
53%
50
40
30
20
10
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2017
2020
2022
Key Sector Challenges
Population served and
unserved with Toilet facility
Pop with Latrine
Pop practicing Open Defecation
2.0 mil
H/Hs
(38%)
3.8 mil
H/Hs
(62%)
H/Hs with Improved, Unimproved and OD
Improved
Unimproved/Ordinary
Without Toilet
2,069,812
, 38%
2,262,652
42%
1,055,862
20%
Functional and sustainable Status??
Source: Census 2011
6,000,000
H/Hs with Assets vs Latrine (CENSUS 2011)
[61.83%]
[50.82%]
1,000,000
[32.38%]
1,756,243
[36.85%]
1,976,603
2,000,000
5,423,297
3,000,000
3,504,929
[64.63%
]
2,756,325
4,000,000
The attitude towards toilet is poor as people feel
that having a television, radio and mobile is a
status symbol. Latrine is not perceived as a
prestige driver.
3,353,225
5,000,000
Total H/Hs
H/Hs with
Mobile
H/H with
Latrines
H/Hs with
Radio
H/Hs with
TV
H/H with
Cycle
SOCIAL NORMS PERSPECTIVE
Is Open
Defecation a
social norm
issue
The answer
is no
because
Conditional
Preferences
Individuals
perform this
act to meet
their needs
Which are
guided by
unconditional
preferences
Social Norms
Empirical
Expectations
Normative
Expectations
SOCIAL NORMS DIAGNOSIS (I)
Non-ODF communities
Factual Beliefs
 Open defecation is not harmful
 Children feces is not harmful
 Children get diarrhea when
they are tootling
 Latrine is expensive
 No knowledge about diarrhea
cause
ODF communities
Factual beliefs
 People were eating their own
shit and the shit of others
 Shit is the main cause of
diarrhea
 It is a matter of shame and
disgust
(Shame elicits expectation of
what others think I do)
EXCEPTIONS (MOSTLY IN TERAI)
 Women feel shy while using the toilet thinking what other
people might think. However, they don’t feel ashamed while
doing it near a lake or a pond
 A female hesitates to use the toilet being used by her father in
law (mahisoor) and brother in law (bhaisoor).
 'How can we defecate over somebody else’s excreta? (haglay
pay hagoo)', a common belief of people in community.
 In Tarai while digging 4/5 feet for making the toilet hole, water
seeps in and the hole gets filled very soon. So it’s a
hassle/expensive to clean the pit
 Peoples believe that defecation in the field is necessary for the
fertility of the soil.
SOCIAL NORMS DIAGNOSIS (I)
Non-ODF communities
ODF communities
Personal normative beliefs
 Latrine is more for women than
Personal normative beliefs
men
 Defecating in the open is good
Latrine construction is my
 I can save money for other things
personal social
 Latrine construction is a waste of
responsibility
money
It is a matter of prestige
 Latrine is government’s
and pride
responsibility
 Hurdle to wait in queue to use Everbody in the family will
toilet especially in larger family
use the toilet
 Feeling suffocated inside the
toilet.
SOCIAL NORMS DIAGNOSIS (II)
Non-ODF communities
EE
 People
expect that
some will
do OD and
some will
not do OD
(positive
deviance)
ODF communities
EE
NE
 Normally
there is no
normative
expectation
around open
defecation
practice
People see that
people around
them have build
toilets (What I
think other do)
 People do not
see anyone
doing open
defecation in the
open space
NE
 People
believe that
everyone else
think that I
use a toilet
should use
(What I think
others think I
should do)
NEW SCHEMA AND SCRIPT
Families
maintain
toilet
Schema
 An ideal family
is one which
owns and uses
a toilet
Scripts
Girls marry
boys having
toilet at home
Keeping
Surroundings
clean and free
from flies Use of toilet by
all family
members
Disposing
off child
feces in the
toilet
Latrine is used
and cleaned by
male members
of the family
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF PAST
WORKS
1. 1980s –WATSAN decade – Sanitation as a weak add on to
Water Supply projects
2. 1990s –Sanitation Policy 1994, Child to Child Approach
1997, Steering committee for National Sanitation action
formed in 1998
3. 2000s - Initiated School Sanitation and Hygiene Education
program, School Led Total Sanitation program 2006,
International Year of Sanitation and Global Hand Washing
Day in 2008
4. 2009 - Aligning for Action and Sanitation Social Movement
in Nepal
SUCCESSES AND FOUNDATIONS OF
NEW NORM
 Significant increase in the sanitation coverage (6% in 1999 to 62%
in 2011)
 Accelerated achievement of Open Defecation Free communities
(Reference Network)
 Enabling legislative provisions - National Sanitation and Hygiene
Master Plan, MAF for sanitation with UNICEF support
(Harmonization of legal and social norms)
 Sector harmonization and partnership (Everybody coming
together)
 Government leadership and community ownership
 Institutional set up and arrangements (Organized Diffusion
LESSONS
 Subsidies didn't work
(community emotions was
not triggered)
 Reversion to OD in some
areas due to lack of water
(extra social norm)
 Use of coercion by the
authorities to promote
household toilet
construction has been
challenged
WHAT WORKED ? (I)
 Information shared within the entire community about
the negative consequences of OD for all
 Collective change of factual beliefs and attitudes (elicit
disgust through Triggering already lead to normative
expectations and pride and prestige linking the behavior
with social status)
 Collective decision to enact change (coordinated
action)
 Realize social dilemma problem: “Norm creation“
 Spontaneous diffusion
WHAT WORKED (II)
 Flagging (Green flag is hoisted to
declare ODF – this already creates
normative expectations and future
conformity to the behavior
 Public Declarations from highest
political level (Enough people are
seeing that enough people are
changing which are the
foundational capacity for reference
network)
THE NEW PROJECT
CELEBRATING EVERYDAY HEROES
A Comprehensive Communication for Development Strategy
EVERYDAY HEROES COMMUNICATION STRATEGY: AT A GLANCE
KEY BEHAVIOURAL
RESULTS
IMPLEMENTATION MODALITIES
Pregnancy care
Planning & Coordination
New-born care
Postnatal Care
Infant and Young
Child Feeding
HIGH INVESTMENTMENT
COMPONENTS
Advocay & Partnership
Role models as Everyday
Heroes
Capacity Strenthening
Children for Change:
Community Mapping
Media Engagement
Engaging Men for
Equality
Community Mobilization
Hygiene
Social Mobilization
Protection and
Education
CROSS CUTTING DIMENSIONS
Inclusion v Participation v Social Norms v Empowerment
Participatory EntertainmentEducation
GOING BEYOND CAP –
RESULTS OF FORMATIVE RESEARCH FROM DHANUSHA
• Ideal behavior
All family
members
should use
toilet at all
times
Guardians should explain their
children and others about the
importance of using toilet.
Elder members should develop
the habit of using toilet at all
times so that the
What the
responder
does
What the
responder
believe other s
do
• Developing the habit of
using toilet
• Giving pressure to others
in the community for
using toilet and aware
them about the
What the importance of using toilet
responder
does she
should do
What the
responder
believes
others think
she should do
Normative Expectations
Setting a community-wide rule for
every households in the community to
build and use toilets
Establishing a committee and levy a
fine (‘jurmana’ and ‘kar’) or social
punishment against those who
defecate in the open.
STRATEGY COMPONENTS
C4D
Strategy
Measuring Social
Norms Behavioral
Monitoring Plan
Costed Implementation
plan
Creative
Strategy
A Story-world
IVR
PR
PSAs
Multiple media entry points
Radio
Local
FMs
segments
Comm.
Theater
A story-world: A
shared universe
where settings,
characters,
objects, events,
actions of one or
more narratives
exist.
Social
Media
A differentiated
path to stories
responsive to
audience/platform
Web
series
IPCC
materials
Comic
strips
Network Analysis for Organized Diffusion
Red - central node
(Local
Development
Universal
access target
Officer/Nominated
Additional
Chairperson)
performance
Green – Village
Head
required
Yellow – High Degree
nodes
Mustard – Villages
DWASH
Sanitation Coverage
CCs
100
DWASH
CCs
90
70
National Coverage (%)
National Coverage (%)
80
MDG
target
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1990
DWASH
CCs
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Source: MPPW
25
2020
SUSTAINABILITY
An Open Defecation Free Nepal
Humla
Darchula
Bajhang
Bajura
Mugu
Baitadi
Dadeldhura Doti
Kalikot
Achham
Dailekh
Kanchanpur
Jumla
Dolpa
Mustang
Jajarkot
Kailali
Rukum
Surkhet
Salyan
Bardiya
Banke
Rolpa
Manang
Myagdi
Baglung
Pyuthan
Dang
Kaski
Lamjung
Gorkha
Parbat
Gulmi
Arghakanchi
Syangja
Rasuwa
Tanahu
Dhading
Palpa
Kapilbastu
Rupandehi Nawalparasi
Nuwakot
Sindhupalchoke
Kathmandu
Bhaktapur
Kavre
Chitawan
MakwanpurLalitpur
Parsa
Dolakha
Solukhumbu
Taplejung
Sankhuwasabha
Ramechhap
Okhaldhunga
Sindhuli
Bhojpur Terhathum
Panchthar
Khotang
Bara
Rautahat
Udayapur
Dhankuta
Sarlahi
Mahotari
Ilam
Dhanusa
Siraha
Sunsari Morang
Jhapa
Saptari
Thank You!
Thank You