National Human Development Report: 2001 - Indira Gandhi Institute ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT <strong>2001</strong> ECONOMIC ATTAINMENTS AND WELL-BEING 39cases the house is classified as semi pucca. A wall is considered kutcha if thematerial used includes grass, leaves, reeds, bamboo, mud, un-burnt brick orwood. It is pucca when the material used in is burnt brick, G.I sheets or othermetal sheets, stone or cement concrete. Similarly, a roof is considered kutchaif the material used is grass, leaves, reeds, bamboo, thatch, mud, un-burntbrick or wood. It is pucca when the material used includes, tiles, slate,shingle, corrugated iron, zinc or other metal sheets, asbestos, cement sheets,bricks, lime and stone or RBC/RCC concrete.At the national level, while the share of households living in kutchaand semi pucca houses declined by around 9 percentage points between 1981and 1991, those living in pucca houses increased from around 33 per cent to42 per cent. Nearly 30 per cent of rural households and 73 per cent of urbanhouseholds lived in pucca houses in 1991 as compared to 23 and 65 per centrespectively, in 1981. At State level, the differences in the quality of houses,in terms of material used in their construction are quite significant. Amongthe major States, at one end, in Punjab nearly 77 per cent of the householdslived in pucca houses in 1991. This proportion was 72 per cent for ruralhouseholds and 88 per cent in case of urban households. At the other end,in case of Orissa, the corresponding figures were 19 per cent-13 per cent forrural households and 55 per cent for urban households. For Assam only about11 per cent of the rural households, and 43 per cent of urban households hadpucca houses. An interesting pattern was observed in Madhya Pradesh,Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and, to some extent, in Maharashtra wherethough the proportion of households living in pucca houses was much lowerthan in Punjab, even the proportion of those who lived in kutcha houses wasconsiderably lower. It indicates that the proportion of households living insemi pucca houses was quite large in these States. In interpreting thesecategorisation one needs to also keep in mind the local topographical andclimatic conditions, as well as preferences of the people. Thus, for instance,in case of Himachal Pradesh, households may prefer to use mud plastering onun-burnt bricks as the material to construct walls for the sake of betterinsulation to counter high altitude cold climate, instead of concrete or metalsheets even when the latter are affordable. Similar considerations operate incase of the North-Eastern States where local preferences may favour the useof bamboo/wood in the construction of houses.The data on quality of housing is also available in the NFHS-II. For1998-99 nearly 32 per cent of the households lived in pucca houses, at thenational level. It was one-fifth of the households in rural areas and two-thirdof the households in urban areas. At the all India level, these estimates areDistribution of Households According to Rooms Occupied — 1981-1991(Percentage)No. of Rooms Rural Areas Urban Areas All Areas1981 1991 1981 1991 1981 19911 Room 44.28 40.82 45.80 39.55 44.72 40.492 Rooms 28.87 30.65 27.84 30.37 28.62 30.583 Rooms 12.23 13.50 12.21 14.82 12.22 13.854 Rooms 6.30 6.92 6.33 7.77 6.31 7.145+ Rooms 5.80 7.05 5.70 6.97 5.78 7.02No exclusive room& unspecified 2.42 1.06 2.12 0.52 2.35 0.92
40ECONOMIC ATTAINMENTS AND WELL-BEINGNATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT <strong>2001</strong>considerably lower than those reported in Census 1991, the picture is,however, different at the State level. For instance, in case of Kerala theproportion of households living in pucca houses was 56 per cent as per Census1991 and it was nearly 80 per cent as per NFHS-II. For Punjab it was 77 percent as per Census 1991 and only 53 per cent as per NFHS-II. Thesevariations could be on account of sampling errors and differences indefinition of pucca houses in the latter.Sanitation — Access toToilet FacilitiesA majority of India’s population does not have access to toiletfacilities in their dwellings and lacks sanitation facilities for the disposal ofwaste water. Apart from the availability of safe drinking water, lack ofsanitation, particularly sewage and disposal of solid waste including ‘nightsoil’ has been observed as among the main reasons for prevailing ill healthand morbidity levels in the country. As per the 1991 Census, less than onefourthof the households in the country had toilet facility within the premisesof their residence, the proportion was less than 10 per cent for ruralhouseholds and around 64 per cent for urban households.There are significant inter-State variations in access to toilet facilities.Among the major States, at one end in Kerala 51 per cent of the householdshad access to toilet facilities and at the other end it was less than 10 per centin case of Orissa. The proportion was higher only in case of Delhi, Tripura,Mizoram, Chandigarh and Lakshadweep. For the most populated States inthe country including, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthanthe proportion was well below 20 per cent. Even in the relatively developedStates like Gujarat and Maharashtra, the proportion of households withaccess to toilet facility was around 30 per cent. In all States, the proportionwas significantly lower for households in rural areas in comparison to urbanareas. Among the various population segments, access to toilet facilities forScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes households was lower than that ofother households in almost all States.NFHS-II also provides data on access to toilet facilities. As per theSurvey, 64 per cent of the households in the country had no access to toiletfacilities in 1998-99 in comparison to 76 per cent in 1991 reported by theCensus. Less than one-fifth of rural households and over four-fifth of urbanhouseholds had access to such facilities. At the State level, the data indicatesthat the proportion of households having access to toilet facilities in larger,more populated and poorer States was much lower than the national average.These include Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan,Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. Among the smaller States only HimachalPradesh followed this pattern. In case of Kerala the proportion of householdswith access to household facilities at 85 per cent was much above thenational average of 36 per cent.The problem of sanitation for the majority, at household level, isessentially of awareness and education and not really of resources. Theresources, technology and management aspects of the problem are important,
Page 1 and 2: indiaLong years ago we made a tryst
Page 3 and 4: NATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2
Page 5 and 6: iiFOREWORDNATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMEN
Page 7 and 8: ivCONTENTSNATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMEN
Page 9 and 10: 2OVERVIEW NATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMEN
Page 11 and 12: 4OVERVIEWNATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Page 13 and 14: 6OVERVIEWNATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Page 15 and 16: 8STATE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT NATIONA
Page 17 and 18: 10STATE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENTNATIONA
Page 39 and 40: 32ECONOMIC ATTAINMENTS AND WELL-BEI
Page 45: 38ECONOMIC ATTAINMENTS AND WELL-BEI
Page 55 and 56: 48EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENTS AND WELL-
Page 71 and 72: 64HEALTH ATTAINMENTS & DEMOGRAPHIC
Page 97 and 98:
90SOME OTHER ASPECTS OF WELL-BEING
Page 99 and 100:
92SOME OTHER ASPECTS OF WELL-BEINGN
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
114GOVERNANCE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
132TECHNICAL APPENDIXNATIONAL HUMAN
Page 141 and 142:
134BIBLIOGRAPHYNATIONAL HUMAN DEVEL
Page 143 and 144:
136BIBLIOGRAPHYNATIONAL HUMAN DEVEL
Page 145 and 146:
138GLOSSARYNATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPME
Page 147 and 148:
140THE STATE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENTNA
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
146INDICATORS ON ECONOMIC ATTAINMEN
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169:
Page 172 and 173:
NATIONAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
show all

National Human Development Report: 2001 - Indira Gandhi Institute ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?