Shame or subsidy revisited: social mobilization for sanitation in Orissa, India
Subhrendu K Pattanayak, Jui-Chen Yang, Katherine L Dickinson, Christine Poulos, Sumeet R Patil, Ranjan K Mallick, Jonathan L Blitstein & Purujit Praharaj
Volume 87, Number 8, August 2009, 580-587
Table 2. Public attitudesa in 20 treatment and 20 control villages regarding local health and hygiene before an IEC sanitation campaign in Bhadrak, Orissa, India, 2005–2006
| Attitude | Treatment (n = 534) | Control (n = 552) | P-valueb | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| %b | %b | ||||
| Village is dirty | 15 | 16 | 0.942 | ||
| Village is very dirty | 44 | 36 | 0.125 | ||
| Completely dissatisfied with current sanitation situation | 72 | 61 | 0.011 | ||
| Somewhat dissatisfied with current sanitation situation | 15 | 17 | 0.517 | ||
| Roads are most important community improvement (over next 10 years) | 63 | 55 | 0.282 | ||
| Water supply is most important community improvement (over next 10 years) | 7 | 12 | 0.149 | ||
| Sanitation is most important community improvement (over next 10 years) | 5 | 8 | 0.264 | ||
| Women lack privacy during defecation | 32 | 30 | 0.820 | ||
| Women are not safe defecating in the open during the day | 33 | 34 | 0.408 | ||
| Women are not safe defecating in the open during the night | 29 | 29 | 0.463 | ||
| Family should bear the cost of improving sanitation | 24 | 31 | 0.130 | ||
| Government should bear the cost of improving sanitation | 53 | 50 | 0.561 | ||
IEC, information, education and communication.
a Based on the results of a pre-intervention household survey.
b Represents the percentage of households with the attitude indicated.