Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Sanitation
A Situation Analysis of
MADHYA PRADESH
Kumar Premchand,
SPPME Officer
Sonam Dhir,
Consultant
Gaurav Sharma,
Team Leader, Graphics
Bharat Kumar,
Data Management.
Printed:
September 2013
Water
Sanitation
A Situation Analysis of
MADHYA PRADESH
Foreword
PreFace
The present Water and Sanitation Situation Analysis for Madhya Pradesh brings
UNICEF Field Office Madhya Pradesh is very pleased to share the situation
forward the critical elements for policy, planning and budgeting needed to
analysis of Madhya Pradesh presenting the findings of the Water and Sanitation
accelerate the progress in the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) sector. The
sector. This analysis presents both the laudable progress the state has achieved
present report was jointly prepared by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, the
between 2001 and 2011, especially in the water sector, and also identifies the
the latest Census data in an analytical way, identifying the main gaps and areas
for priority actions to be taken in the state. Such analysis is pinpointing the key
Goal targets are to halve the proportion of the population without access to safe
challenges the state faces in the water and sanitation sector and is essential for
Government of Madhya
drinking water and improved sanitation. While Madhya Pradesh has met its MDG
target for drinking water, over 72% of households are still using unimproved
Development Department
sanitation facilities, and around 50 million people still defecate in the open. Open
With less than three years remaining before the 2015 mark of the Millennium
Development Goals, the present report presents a clear indication that progress
UNICEFs 2012 analysis showed that around 600 children under the age of five die
WASH facilities and services still represent a huge challenge for our state. Collective
every single day in India due to diarrhoea. This number is even more shocking
efforts are thus needed by the State and Central Governments together with our
WASH sector partners to improve the wellbeing of all communities, with special
saving the lives of thousands of children across the country as well as in Madhya
However, if the current trends continue, Madhya Pradesh will take another 90
years after the 2015 MDG mark to meet its sanitation target. Efforts thus need to
the right framework to change the social norms and trigger collective behaviour
throughout the state to eliminate open defecation and mainstream key hygiene
practices such as handwashing with soap, especially after defecation, and before
eating or touching food. Furthermore, while the MDG drinking water target has
been met, the main challenge of water quality as well as sustainability of water
supplies throughout the day and the year, remains a challenge. The proportion
of households with access to tap water supply within their premise also remains
national flagship programmes in the state, with special focus on children, women
and the most deprived communities. I am grateful to UNICEF for its continuous
support and for the present publication jointly elaborated with PRD and the
Finally, applying an equity lens, this present analysis reveals that the disparities
between rich and poor, urban and rural, as well as the different social and ethnic
groups are high for both water and sanitation. The Gender perspective is equally
I trust that this report will be a significant contribution for the improvement of
important, and despite the lack of disaggregated data in this regard, it is evident
that women and adolescent girls, carry the highest burden in the WASH sector.
Dr Tania Goldner
Chief of Field Office, UNICEF
Madhya Pradesh
(Jan 2010 - Jun 2013)
Message
MARYADAbased on Community Approaches to Total Sanitation, such as CLTS, is embedded in intensive Social and
Behaviour change communication, in line with the National Sanitation and Hygiene Advocacy and Communication
Strategy 2012-2017 (SHACS) developed by MDWS, GoI.
Water and Sanitation is a critical issue for the state of Madhya Pradesh. It bears
both direct as well as indirect linkages with health and education of individuals.
With the present report, UNICEF reaffirms its commitment to support the Government of Madhya Pradesh in
accelerating the progress of the WASH sector, given its impacts on health, nutrition, education and other key socioeconomic indicators, as well as its critical importance for upholding the rights, development and dignity of children
and women. I take this opportunity to thank Dr. Aruna Sharma, Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya
Pradesh for her leadership in improving the WASH services in the state, and Mr. Sachin Sinha, Director, Directorate
Census of India provides data related to water and sanitation facilities upto tahsil
level. Availability of such data is pivotal in the process of planning and budgeting
at the micro level. To unravel WATSAN data to a greater extent, Census 2011 has
collected further segregated data which includes figures for treated/untreated
tap water and covered/ uncovered well; along with types of toilet facilities.
of Census Operations, Government of India, Madhya Pradesh, for his partnership in the preparation of the present
report.
This is first time in the history of census of the state that such thematic reports are
being designed. I am thankful to UNICEF and their partner Avalon Information
Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi for their collaborative effort in creating such a
vital and guiding document. I especially appreciate the interest and technical
guidance of Dr. Gregor von Medeazza and Mr. Kumar Premchand to bring out
this special publication.
I sincerely hope that the outcome of the report will be translated into action
points for a better future for the state, especially in regard to the health of children
and women in Madhya Pradesh. I am sure the publication will be of tremendous
value to Government of Madhya Pradesh, policy makers, field administrators,
NGOs & other data users.
List oF Figures
content
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Figure 1.1:
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2.1:
Figure 2.2:
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
International Commitments on Water and Sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 2.3:
2. Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Figure 2.4:
Drinking Water Trends and Diferentials in Madhya Pradesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Figure 2.5:
Figure 2.6:
Figure 2.7:
Proportion of households having access to drinking water away from their premises
in the districts of Madhya Pradesh, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 2.8:
Progress Towards the MDG Sanitation Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Figure 2.9:
Figure 2.10: Proportion of households with improved drinking water coverage by social groups
in the districts of Madhya Pradesh, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 2.11: Improved drinking water source by wealth quintile, Madhya Pradesh, 2006 . . . . . . . . 19
Correlation between Location of Drinking Water and Open Defecation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Figure 2.12: Time spent to get water by the household members, Madhya Pradesh, 2006 . . . . . . 19
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 2.13: Disparities in improved drinking water facilities by location and social
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
6. Annexures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Figure 3.1:
Annexure - 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 3.2:
Annexure - 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 3.3:
Annexure - 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 3.4:
Figure 3.5:
Annexure - 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
Annexure - 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 3.7:
Figure 3.8:
Figure 3.9:
BPL
CBO
CHERG
CRSP
CSD
DLHS
EAG
GSDP
HDI
IEC
IGME
JMP
MDG
MICS
MDWS
NBA
NDWM
NFHS
NRDWP
NRWQMSP
NSS
NWP
OD
Open Defecation
ODF
ORGI
PRI
RGDWM
SC
Scheduled Caste
ST
Scheduled Tribe
TSC
U5MR
UN
United Nations
UNICEF
UT
Union Territories
WASH
WATSAN
WHO
WSP
WSSD
Figure 4.1:
acronyMs
Figure A2.1: Districts with households using unimproved sources of drinking water . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure A2.2: Districts with households using unimproved sanitation facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
the context
The Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 7 aims to
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
confirms that the world has met the MDG water target,
drinking water
Drinking Water Progress in India and Madhya Pradesh
India has met the MDG drinking water target. In 2012,
is 93.4 per cent only 74.1 per cent rural households have
ii
See for instance Prss-stn et al. (2004), Prss-stn et al. (2006), WHO (2007), Bhuta et al (2008), 3IE (2009), CHERG (2010).
iii
are steep with the gap between the poorest and the
concLusion
sanitation
sanitation.
In conclusion, while progress has been tremendous in
One the one hand, the performance of India in the
India, meeting its MDG water target and with over 275
iv
the state.
1.1. Background
1
INTRODUCTION TO
WATER & SANITATION
(CHERG 2010).
Pradesh.
The
progress
of
sanitation
remains,
Descripion
1980s declared the Internaional Drinking Water and Sanitaion Decade
1980s
Development
Protecion of the Quality & Supply of Freshwater Resources: Applicaion of Integrated Approaches
to the Development, Management & Use of Water Resources
Reinforcement of earlier commitments. Namely, the Mar del Plata, Dublin Principles and Chapter
18 of the Rio Summit
Sanitaion (CLTS)
Started in Bangladesh through an applicaion of PRA (by the Village Educaion Resource Center
(VERC) with support from Water Aid
CRSP was renamed the Total Sanitaion Campaign (TSC) and restricted as part of reform iniiaives.
Eight major Internaional development goals that the United Naions member states agreed to
achieve by the year 2015. The MDG 7 aims to halve the populaion without access to improved
Goals (MDGs)
water and sanitaion.
(note that iniially sanitaion was only menioned only in context of improving the lives of slumAlso known as: Millennium Summit dwellers)
2000 Millennium Development
2002World Summit on Sustainable WSSD was organized to discuss ways of implemening sustainable development in the world.
Development (WWSD),
Delegates concluded that integrated water resources management and water eiciency planning
Johannesburg
should be an essenial element in all naional or regional development strategies by 2015 and
added this target to the list of Millennium Development Goals.
2002 Africa San Conference
2002 First Africa San Conference on Sanitaion and Hygiene, Johannesburg, South Africa
2002 World Summit on Sustainable Governments agreed to a speciic target to cut in half the proporion of people without basic
Development in Johannesburg
sanitaion by 2015
2003 SACOSAN, Bangladesh
2004-2005United Naions
Commission on Sustainable
Development (CSD) 13, (Water and
Sanitaion were themaic clusters)
The Commission adopted measures to address water, sanitaion and human setlements in an
integrated manner, taking into account economic, social and environmental aspects, related to
2005Millennium Development
Goals +5
Water: Improve drinking water supplies for almost a billion people lacking them, including about
300 million in sub-Saharan Africa.
Sanitaion: Increase spending on water and sanitaion from 0.5% to at least 1.0% of GDP to greatly
increase access as scheduled.
Sanitaion and Water for All is a global partnership between developing countries, donors,
muli-lateral agencies, civil society and other development partners working together to achieve
universal and sustainable access to sanitaion and drinking water, with an immediate focus on
achieving the Millennium Development Goals in the most of-track countries.
Indias Total Sanitaion Campaign (TSC) is revamped into the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India
Campaign) with the aim to render the Country Open Defecaion Free by 2022.
Member states in the General Assembly adopted a resoluion of Sanitaion for All oicially
designaing 19 November as World Toilet Day. This will go a long way in raising awareness about
the need for all human beings to have access to sanitaion.
sectoral policies and cross-cuing issues as ideniied at the eleventh session of the Commission,
as well as naional, sub- regional and regional speciiciies, circumstances and legal frameworks.
Review of eight major Internaional development goals that United Naions member states agreed
to achieve by the year. Review notes that improved sanitaion is essenial to fulill Goal 4 Reduce
child mortality and Goal 5 Improve maternal health. Improvements in public-health services are
key to achieving this, while provision of safe water and beter sanitaion are essenial underlying
premises of improved public health. Goal 7, Ensure environmental sustainability, is equally closely
ied with improvement in water and sanitaion. Access to safe drinking water has improved
worldwide, but billions of people sill lack safe drinking water and basic sanitaion. The target is to
halve, by 2015, the proporion of the people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and
basic sanitaion
2006 Sanitaion 21 Task Force set up by Internaional Water Associaion (IWA)
schemes.
Percent
450,000
7.00
6.54
395380
400,000
6.00
350,000
5.44
300,000
4.15
250,000
200,000
4.00
3.00
167110
2.62
111689
1.46
1.07
65224
1.23
50,000
-
4.6
3.62
2.75
150,000
100,000
3.85
5.00
60108
40470
2.00
1.00
490
720
1057
4370
10306
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
11th
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan*
0.00
present document.
India has met the MDG drinking water target well before
2 WATER
In order to provide quality informaion to align with the internaional requirements, Census 2011 has disaggregated
some of the drinking water sources as compared to Census 2001.
Census 2011
Improved
Unimproved
Census 2001
Tapwater
Covered well
Not available
Handpump
Handpump
Tubewell/ Borehole
Tubewell/ Borehole
Uncovered well
Well
River/Canal
River/Canal
Spring
Spring
Other sources
Other sources
Kerala
12%
Other states
10%
Tamil Nadu
4%
Maharashtra
11%
Uttar
Pradesh
4%
West Bengal
4%
Madhya Pradesh
represents 10% of all
households in India
without access to
improved drinking water
sources.
Madhya Pradesh
10%
Karnataka
5%
Assam
6%
Rajasthan
8%
Andhra Pradesh
6%
Source: Census (2011)
44
31
11
77
37
46
11
Unimproved source
57
11
39
13
33
25
87
89
69
6
94
100
89
Shamgarh (49%).
Figure 2.3: Trends in drinking water sources for the diferent divisions of Madhya Pradesh, 2001-2011
89
93
Figure 2.2: Trends in improved and unimproved sources of drinking water in eAG states, 1990-2015
Improved source
Jharkhand
7%
Orissa
7%
75
Tapwater
2 2
19 16
51 57
67
63
1
9
1
28
77
47
49
61
56
1
34
1
17
Handpump/Tubewell/Borewell
12
12
48
51
62
3
26
47
1
21
54
1
25
48
1
18
Well
4
53
28
Other sources
3
50
34
7
51
3
37
57
62
53
35
33
43
23
16 13
2001 2011 2001
1990
Bihar
2015
1990
2015 1990
Chhattisgarh
2015 1990
Jharkhand
2015 1990
Madhya Pradesh
Orissa
2015
1990
2015
Rajasthan
1990
2015
Uttar Pradesh
1990
2015
Bhopal
Uttarakhand
24
26
2011 2001
Gwalior
2011 2001
Indore
2011 2001
Jabalpur
2011 2001
Narmadapuram
12
2011 2001
Rewa
55
31
25
2
20
48
24
10
2011 2001
Chambal
46
32
24
20
46
3
29
29
36 34
23
2
21
43
54
28 25
1
21
11
2011 2001
Sagar
23
13 12
2011 2001
Sahadol
Ujjain
Madhya
Pradesh
Source: Census (1991, 2001, 2011); DLHS-2 (2006), DLHS-3 (2010); MICS 2000; NFHS-2 (2000), NFHS-3 (2007) ; NSS (1998, 2002)
10
11
Figure 2.4: Proportion of households using improved drinking water sources in the districts of Madhya
Pradesh, 2011
Figure 2.5: Proporion of households using improved drinking water sources in the sub-districts of Madhya
Pradesh, 2011
Morena
91
Bhind
89
Gwalior
94
Datia
85
79 Per cent
Sheopur
92
Shivpuri
71
Neemuch
73
Mandsaur
65
Ratlam
84
Jhabua
83
Dhar
82
Alirajpur
86
Barwani
83
Per cent
<70%
70-80%
80-90%
Above 90%
Rajgarh
65
Shajapur
76
Ujjain
89
Indore
96
West Nimar
86
Ashoknagar
81
Guna
80
Dewas
85
East Nimar
80
Burhanpur
89
Vidisha
87
Bhopal
93
Sehore
81
Harda
81
Raisen
89
Tikamgarh
60
Chhatarpur
62
Panna
67
Sagar
70
Narsinghpur
96
Hoshangabad
86
Betul
80
Damoh
65
Chhindwara
76
Satna
84
Katni
85
Jabalpur
94
Seoni
71
Mandla
65
Rewa
81
Sidhi
71
Shahdol
60
Umaria
61
Dindori
62
Singrauli
44
Anuppur
62
Per cent
Balaghat
66
<70%
70-80%
80-90%
Above 90%
12
13
Figure 2.7: Proporion of households having access to drinking water away from their premises in the districts
of Madhya Pradesh, 2011
distant sources.
Sheopur
34
Neemuch
29
Figure 2.6: Proporion of households by locaion of drinking water source in Madhya Pradesh
70
Ratlam
35
2011
Barwani
28
40
30
30.5
24.6
20
Indore
18
Dhar
38
Alirajpur
30
51.2
45.6
Per cent
Ujjain
29
Jhabua
43
50
Guna
32
Mandsaur
33
60
Datia
27
Shivpuri
38
2001
Gwalior
17
Bhind
26
Morena
21
West Nimar
25
Per cent
Upto 25%
26-30%
31-40%
> 40%
Rajgarh
46
Shajapur
40
Dewas
27
East Nimar
29
Ashoknagar
32
Vidisha
23
Bhopal
17
Sehore
22
Harda
24
Raisen
32
Tikamgarh
44 Chhatarpur
37
Panna
38
Sagar
31
Chhindwara
31
Katni
28
Jabalpur
22
Narsinghpur
24
Hoshangabad
17
Betul
30
Damoh
44
Satna
30
Seoni
35
Mandla
48
Umaria
29
Dindori
52
Rewa
36
Sidhi
38
Singrauli
37
Shahdol
26
Anuppur
32
Balaghat
30
Burhanpur
19
24.3
23.9
10
0
Within the premises
Away
Rajgarh (25%).
14
15
Rajgarh districts.
Figure 2.9: Proporion of households with improved drinking water coverage by social groups in the districts of
Madhya Pradesh, 2011
93 91
Figure 2.8: urban-rural dispariies of households with improved drinking water coverage in the districts of
Madhya Pradesh, 2011
74
93
90 96
90 99
68
92 90
82 72
83 92
90
94 94
89 99
87 97
89 88
86 87
71 83
71 65
83 78
80 86
65 62
66
94
56
76 92
59
84 97
72
86
93
94 96
62
87 94
83 91
90
69
62 81
77 93
82
54
95 98
62
97
76
95
95
82
86
95 88
91 85
71
91
68
92
64 77
89
61
89
54
87 90
74 70
93 81
35
82 98
81 97
84 99
Per cent
Rural
Urban
83 90
83 66
89 76
82 73
92
Per cent
SC
ST
83
89 83
69 51
69 57
91 78
50 33
96 86
66 54
91 84
86 74
60
65 56
97 90
85 84
91 79
85
88 76
72 64
91 91
92 74
90 97
78 94
80 93
84 97
84 77
57
77
16
84 96
86 97
81 97
84
88
82 99
85 96
57
87 83
65 66
80 92
65 80
61
79 97
79 93
88 82
68 66
61 66
85
86 83
64 58
79
82 67
57
71 57
78 67
78 64
72
17
Figure 2.11: Improved drinking water source by wealth quinile, Madhya Pradesh, 2006
Piped sources
100
66
51
8
13
55
71
63
13
58
11
36
25
28.7
80
42
57.3
62
59
58
48
40
43
59
61
51
48 4
15
54
20
60
25
16
15
Per cent
Rural
Urban
26
46
53
32
54
51
51
40
38.3
58
20
17.7
18
56
28
8
0
15
14
13
68.3
61.7
55
13
57
22
60
37
60
14
13
59
68
14
55 24
9
56
19
16
14
46
50
51
46
60
37
11
56
59
51
18
12
15
60
44
18
50
16
61
51
12
Percent
34
57
10
51.7
19
Unimproved sources
Poorest
50
18
53
2.3
Second
Middle
Fourth
Figure 2.12: Time spent to get water by the household members, Madhya Pradesh, 2006
e than 30 minutes
r
o
M
16
12
Other
0.4 0.5
an 30 minu
s th
te
s
e
Adult woman
Richest
Adult man
82
79
18
19
drinking water.
contaminations.
95
Urban
93.4
90
India
87.1
Urban SC
92.2
Urban ST
88.3
85
Per cent
Figure 2.13: Dispariies in improved drinking water faciliies by locaion and social groups in Madhya Pradesh, 2011
80
Madhya
Pradesh
79.1
75
Rural SC
78.2
Rural
74.1
20
2011.
70
Rural ST
70.3
65
Source: Census (2011)
21
3 SANITATION
TARGET MET: Proportion of population using unimproved sanitation facilities has been halved in 2012, in comparison to 1990.
ON TRACK: Proportion of population that are likely to meet the
MDG sanitation target by 2015.
NOT ON TRACK: Proportion of population that is not likely to meet
the MDG sanitation target by 2015.
using Census 2011, household level informaion on type of latrine facility was used to deine improved and unimproved
sanitaion, as detailed below.
Improved
Unimproved
23
35.1
20
2160
10
0
2105
1990
Source: Census (2001, 2011); DLHS-2 (2006), DLHS-3 (2010); MICS (2000); NFHS-2 (2000), NFHS-3 (2007); NSS (1996, 1998, 2009)
40
30
50
2077
2074
2067
2046
2046
2033
2032
2028
2028
2027
2024
2023
2016
2013
2013
2013
2011
2011
2010
2010
2008
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2006
2005
2004
100
2003
48.8
Chhattisgarh
2003
50
51.7
Jharkhand
2003
53.1
Assam
2003
70
Orissa
Year
150
Rajasthan
2040
80
60
Madhya Pradesh
Before 2015
200
90
75.4
65
Tamil Nadu
3 states
in 10 years
3 states
78
71.2
64.4
Bihar
17 states
5 states
in 25
years
78
76.9
250
Uttar Pradesh
2140
5 states
in 62 years
India
State expactaions of
achieving MDG targets ater
2015
2190
2090
2 states
after 90 years
Percentage of households
Figure 3.2: number of households and percentage pracicing open defecaion in India, 2011
Million Households
India.
Uttar
Pradesh
17%
Bihar
12%
Orissa
6%
West Bengal
6%
Madhya
Pradesh
8%
Maharashtra
7%
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
7%
7%
Andhra
Pradesh
8%
24
25
Figure 3.5: Progress in Improved Sanitaion in Madhya Pradesh (rural and urban), 1990-2015
% HH with access
100
90
Annexure-5.
MDG
100
Estimated Values
( Extrapolated / Interpolated)
Trendline
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
82
95
89
74
78
82
73
81
79
67
88
67
91
28
80
53
20
10
72
47
18
26
18
22
18
13
11
19
33
21
20
10
0
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
20
12
19
26 20
24
0
1990
33
27
19
23
21
MDG target
Sources : NSS49 (1993); NSS52 (1996); NFHS-2 (1999); MICS (2000); Census (2001); DLHS-2 (2003); NFHS-3 (2006); DLHS (2008); NSS65 (2009);
5
1990
2015 1990
Bihar
2015 1990
Chhattisgarh
2015 1990
Jharkhand
2015
Madhya
Pradesh
1990
2015
Orissa
1990
2015
Rajasthan
1990
2015
Uttar
Pradesh
1990
2015 1990
Uttarakhand
2015
India
Source: Census 2001, 2011; DLHS-2 (2006), DLHS-3 (2010); MICS 2000; NFHS-2 (2000), NFHS-3 (2007); NSS (1998, 1996, 2009)
Using
the
Joint
Monitoring
Programme
26
27
Figure 3.8: Proporion of households pracicing open defecaion in Madhya Pradesh, 2011
Figure 3.6: Progress in Improved Sanitaion in rural areas of Madhya Pradesh, 1990-2015
% HH with access
100
Trendline
MDG
Estimated Values
( Extrapolated / Interpolated)
90
100
100
86.4
90
90
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
70
70
Per cent
60
MDG target
80
80
80
50
40
30
22.5
20
10
15 10
10
0
1
1
1990
3
1995
11
Urban
2000
2005
2010
2015
Total
Rural
Sources : NSS49 (1993); NSS52 (1996); NFHS-2 (1999); MICS (2000); Census (2001); DLHS-2 (2003); NFHS-3 (2006); DLHS (2008); NSS65 (2009);
Unimproved sanitation
72.3%
80
70
70
Per cent
60
50
40
30
19.0
20
1.6
1.3
0.1
0.3
0.7
5.8
10
1.2
0
Open defecation
Public latrine
28
29
Morena
20
Gwalior
59
In 46 districts, the
improved sanitation
coverage is less than 50
per cent.
Bhind
22
Datia
22
Sheopur
12
Figure 3.10: Proporion of households pracicing Open Defecaion in the districts of Madhya Pradesh, 2011
Morena
79
Guna Ashoknagar
15
19
Mandsaur
24
Ratlam
32
Jhabua
11
Dhar
29
Alirajpur
10
Barwani
18
Per cent
<15%
15% - 25%
26% - 50%
>50%
Ujjain
42
Indore
76
West Nimar
22
Rajgarh
15
Shajapur
23
Dewas
36
East Nimar
25
Burhanpur
34
Vidisha
24
Bhopal
71
Sehore
31
Sheopur
87
Shivpuri
85
Harda
46
Tikamgarh
10 Chhatarpur
15
Panna
10
Sagar
24
Damoh
14
Betul
24
Satna
27
Katni
19
Jabalpur
53
Raisen
29
Hoshangabad
47
Gwalior
38
Datia
77
70 Per cent
Shivpuri
14
Neemuch
26
Bhind
76
Narsinghpur
34
Chhindwara
25
Seoni
19
Mandla
12
Balaghat
17
Neemuch
70
Mandsaur
74
Rewa
22
Sidhi
7
Singrauli
11
Ashoknagar
84
Vidisha
75
Rajgarh
84
Shahdol
Umaria 17
13
Dindori
5
Guna
80
Ratlam
65
Jhabua
88
Anuppur
17
Dhar
69
Alirajpur
89
Barwani
80
Per cent
<50%
50% - 75%
>75%
Ujjain
54
Indore
19
West Nimar
76
Shajapur
76
Dewas
62
East Nimar
72
Bhopal
25
Sehore
68
Harda
52
Tikamgarh
Chhatarpur
89
84
Panna
89
Sagar
73
Damoh
85
Betul
75
Katni
80
Jabalpur
42
Raisen
69
Hoshangabad
51
Satna
70
Narsinghpur
64
Chhindwara
73
Seoni
78
Umaria
86
Dindori
93
Rewa
75
Sidhi
92
Singrauli
88
Shahdol
82
Anuppur
82
Mandla
86
Balaghat
81
Burhanpur
59
30
31
Figure 3.12: Proporion of households using improved sanitaion faciliies in urban vs. rural in the districts of
Madhya Pradesh, 2011
73
65
73
16
50
12
62
11
Figure 3.11: Proporion of households pracicing open defecaion in the sub-districts of Madhya Pradesh, 2011
86
65
5
45
In 240 sub-districts,
more than 75 per cent
of population are open
defecators.
63
55
59
13
68
57
53
71
59
81
82
13
66 7
82
13
77
75
41
76
18
78
5
64
9
73
68
15
12
65
12
6
57
54
63
73
37
70
52
2
63
24
70
26
79
32
21
53
8
78
18
21
49
65
70
78
88
55
10
21
17
5
20
4
64
11
16
59
13
75
58
12
11
61
10
67
Per cent
Rural
Urban
17
Per cent
<50%
50% - 75%
>75%
Source: Census (2011)
population.
32
33
Figure 3.13: Proporion of households pracicing open defecaion (urban vs. rural) in the districts of Madhya
Pradesh, 2011
Figure 3.14: Proporion of households using improved sanitaion faciliies by social groups in the districts of
Madhya Pradesh, 2011
93
90
25
86
82
94
23
10
40
14 15
88
36
94
24
8
6
10 12
3
8
96
54
26
92
23
86
13
11
94
81
78
78
58
80
66
61
87
16
82
24
20
95
97
19
35
42
31
34
3
5
21
19 20
4
31
15 10
9
19
13
3
17
6
22
26
26
5
14
10
16
13
4
22
32
13
12
6
20
10
6
35
5
18
36
3
13 6
15
43
19
40
88
49 54
9 10
25
9
14 11
11 7
60
81
Per cent
Rural
Urban
12
44
93
34
24
30
28
44
96
85
88
87
92
94
5
8
10 15
46
95
15
26
17
24
33
72
20
22
28
38
73
27
21
89
77
91
42
30
78
29
94
89
27
82
18
38
50
88
38
86
95
95
45
86
20
81
41
43
39
12
94
93
92
46
19
32
86
31
12
32
7
22
21
14
Per cent
SC
ST
35
Figure 3.15: Improved sanitaion faciliies and open defecaion by wealth quinile in Madhya Pradesh, 2006
Improved sanitation
100
95.5
84.9
66.5
Open defecation
26.4
2.3
17.2
lower in rural areas where only 12.2 per cent use such
80
80.5
Per cent
31.3
Figure 3.16: Dispariies in improved sanitaion faciliies by locaion and social groups in Madhya Pradesh, 2011
60
80
Urban
40
70
42.3
72.8
17.7
60
20
9.0
15.8
Urban SC
52.6
6.1
Second
50
Middle
Fourth
Richest
36
Per cent
3.2
1.3
Poorest
India
44.0
Urban ST
46.6
40
30
Madhya
Pradesh
27.7
20
Rural
10
12.2
Rural SC
7.7
Rural ST
4.3
0
Source: Census (2011)
37
areas.
Figure 4.1: Linear relaionship between percentage of households pracicing open defecaion and percentage
of households with availability of drinking water away from premises, at district level in MP, 2011
y = 1.3945x + 29.692
100.0
R = 0.5006, R=0.71
90.0
Trend line
80.0
70.0
Open Defecation
4
CORRELATION
BETWEEN
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
Drinking water away from premises
50.0
60.0
39
Figure 4.2: relaionship between the proporion of households pracicing defecaion and accessing drinking
water away from the household premises in the districts of Madhya Pradesh, 2011
Drinking water away from premises of households (quartile distribution)
Q1 (Below median)
Q2 (Median)
Q2 (Median)
Q3 (Above median)
Q3 (Above median)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
40
in future analyses.
41
5 CONCLUSION
the MDG target for water has been achieved, this target
fact that the MDG water target has been achieved. The
people.
43
reFerences
Household
Amenities
and
Assets,
Household
Amenities
and
Assets,
Cochrane (2008), Ejemot RI, Ehiri JE, Meremikwu MM, Critchley JA. Hand
washing for preventing diarrhoea. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 2008, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD004265. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.
CD004265.pub2.
Liu Li, Johnson L Hope, Cousens Simon, Perin Jamie, Scott Susana,
Lawn E Joy, Rudan Igor, Campbell Harry, Cibulskis Richard, Li Mengying,
Mathers Colin, Black E Robert (for the Child Health Epidemiology
Reference Group of WHO and UNICEF) (2012), Global, regional, and
national causes of child mortality: an updated systematic analysis for
2010 with time trends since 2000, The Lancet; 379: 2151-61.
WHO (2004), Hutton, Guy and Laurance Haller, Evaluation of the costs
and Benefits of Water and Sanitation Improvements at the global
level, World Health Organization, Geneva.
44
45
Annexure-1
Distribuion of the extreme ive districts pracicing Open Defecaion
Scenario -1 (percentage of households)
Descriptive Statistics
Lowest
Maximum: 93.3% (Dindori)
Gwalior
38.2
Medium
Highest
ANNEXURES
Tikamgarh
89.4
Panna
89.3
Bhopal
25.2
Indore
18.9
Sidhi
91.8
Jabalpur
41.7
Dindori
93.3
Hoshangabad
50.7
Alirajpur
89
Morena
Bhind
Lowest
Gwalior
Medium
Datia
Sheopur
Highest
Range: 349807 households
Shivpuri
Tikamgarh
Neemuch
Guna
Chhatarpur
Ashoknagar
Panna
Mandsaur
Vidisha
Rajgarh
Ratlam
Shajapur
Bhopal
Ujjain
Sagar
372775
Damoh
Raisen
Dhar
West Nimar
Singrauli
Shahdol
Anuppur
Dindori
Mandla
Seoni
Harda
East Nimar
Sidhi
Jabalpur
Hoshangabad
Alirajpur
Barwani
Katni
Narsinghpur
Dewas
Indore
Satna
333711
Umaria
Sehore
Jhabua
Rewa
407687
Betul
Chhindwara
321309
Balaghat
319772
Burhanpur
46
47
Annexure-2
Annexure-3
Figure A2.1: Districts with households using unimproved sources of drinking water
Descriptive Statistics
Morena
8.9
Gwalior
6.2
Sheopur
8.3
Bhopal
7.2
Ujjain
11.1
Raisen
11.4
Indore
4.3
Bhind
10.6
Narsinghpur
4.2
Better than
national average
(districts-11)
Between national
and state average
(districts-19)
Jabalpur
5.8
Burhanpur
11.2
Source: Census (2011)
Gwalior
41.0
Bhopal
29.2
Indore
23.6
Harda
54.2
48
Hoshangabad
53.2
Better than
national average
(districts-6)
Jabalpur
46.7
Between national
and state average
(districts-8)
Percentage share of
households having
Improved source of
drinking water facility
INDIA
87.1
89.6
73.4
MADHYA PRADESH
79.1
81.7
71.7
Sheopur
91.7
92.3
90.3
Morena
91.1
92.6
90.7
Bhind
89.4
88.5
88.3
Gwalior
93.8
93.7
93.7
Daia
84.7
85.6
86.7
Shivpuri
71.2
71.0
82.8
Guna
79.7
83.2
78.0
Ashoknagar
81.4
80.2
85.6
Tikamgarh
60.2
64.5
62.5
Chhatarpur
61.9
64.2
57.5
Panna
66.7
68.1
66.4
Sagar
69.6
72.5
64.1
Damoh
64.7
69.4
51.5
Satna
84.5
88.2
82.1
Rewa
81.3
86.5
83.2
Sidhi
71.3
82.6
60.1
Singrauli
43.6
49.6
33.5
Umaria
61.4
68.8
57.1
Dindori
62.3
70.7
56.9
Shahdol
60.0
64.6
55.8
Anuppur
61.5
66.0
53.6
Neemuch
73.3
71.3
65.0
Mandsaur
64.9
60.8
66.1
Ratlam
83.8
84.0
76.6
Ujjain
88.9
87.0
89.5
Shajapur
76.1
74.4
70.0
Dewas
85.2
88.0
76.0
Dhar
82.4
92.1
74.2
Indore
95.7
94.8
88.3
86.3
88.7
76.3
Barwani
83.4
90.7
78.9
Jhabua
83.0
92.9
81.3
Alirajpur
85.8
90.7
85.0
79.7
82.4
72.9
Burhanpur
88.8
91.6
72.1
Rajgarh
65.1
64.9
65.8
Vidisha
86.8
87.3
82.6
Bhopal
92.8
91.2
91.1
Sehore
80.8
82.9
66.4
49
State/Division/ District
Percentage share of
households having
Improved source of
drinking water facility
Table contd.
Annexure-4
Raisen
88.6
90.6
78.1
Betul
80.1
85.8
73.9
Harda
81.4
85.2
84.2
Hoshangabad
86.0
90.8
83.9
Katni
84.9
89.1
83.4
Jabalpur
94.2
95.9
86.2
Narsimhapur
95.8
97.4
89.9
Mandla
64.7
79.3
57.0
Chhindwara
75.7
81.8
67.1
Seoni
71.0
78.5
66.8
Balaghat
66.0
77.6
63.8
INDIA
MADHYA PRADESH
Sheopur
Morena
Bhind
Gwalior
Daia
Shivpuri
Guna
Ashoknagar
Tikamgarh
Chhatarpur
Panna
Sagar
Damoh
Satna
Rewa
Sidhi
Singrauli
Umaria
Dindori
Shahdol
Anuppur
Neemuch
Mandsaur
Ratlam
Ujjain
Shajapur
Dewas
Dhar
Indore
Khargone (West Nimar)
Barwani
Jhabua
Alirajpur
Khandwa (East Nimar)
Burhanpur
Rajgarh
Vidisha
Bhopal
Sehore
Raisen
Betul
Harda
Hoshangabad
Katni
Jabalpur
Narsimhapur
Mandla
Chhindwara
Seoni
Balaghat
Percentage share of
Percentage share of Scheduled Percentage share of Scheduled
households having
Castes households having
Tribes households having
Improved sanitaion facility Improved sanitaion facility
Improved sanitaion facility
44.0
27.7
11.5
20.3
22.1
59.0
21.6
14.2
19.2
14.9
9.9
14.9
9.6
24.1
14.0
27.3
21.6
7.0
11.1
12.8
5.4
16.6
17.2
25.9
23.6
31.8
42.1
22.6
36.2
28.8
76.4
21.8
17.8
11.3
10.1
25.0
33.5
15.0
24.1
70.8
31.1
29.3
23.5
45.8
46.8
18.7
53.3
33.9
12.4
24.6
18.6
0.0
31.3
19.0
6.4
13.9
12.1
45.8
10.5
7.7
11.7
6.2
5.0
5.3
3.8
13.0
6.3
18.6
14.2
3.2
7.6
12.5
6.8
13.2
14.3
18.0
10.1
18.9
21.0
8.6
19.4
25.3
59.6
12.8
18.3
34.5
9.3
19.1
20.8
8.1
10.9
49.4
15.0
14.9
26.2
32.4
34.5
11.5
40.3
19.8
21.5
25.7
17.2
21.8
19.5
7.5
2.9
15.1
30.6
24.4
11.8
2.5
3.9
2
2.7
3.8
2.2
5.5
2.8
20.1
11.5
1.7
2.7
4.3
2.3
5.2
4.4
7.5
14.7
6.8
30.7
10.4
8.7
7.8
42.8
5.1
5.8
3.4
4.8
7.6
3.3
7.7
7.3
54.1
9.8
6.2
5.9
9.8
16.5
4.4
21.7
10.2
3.4
6.1
6.5
7.6
50
51
Data Limitation
(1991, 2001 & 2011), MICS, DLHS (1, 2 & 3), NFHS (1, 2 &
3), NSS (49th, 52nd and 54th rounds) etc. containing the
Y = B0+B1*X+ei (i=1,2,3,.............n)
52