January - March 2013 - National Institute of Rural Development

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Drinking Water and Sanitation in Uttar Pradesh: A Regional Analysis 71In model (1), there is a positiverelationship between female literacy rate andper capita income with sanitation facility. Iffemale literacy rate and per capita incomeincrease by 1 unit, on average, sanitationfacility increases by about 2.26 and 0.0018units, respectively. However, R 2 value suggeststhat about 52 per cent of variation in access tosanitation facility is explained by femaleliteracy rate and per capita income.Similarly, model (2) explains that anincrease of 1 per cent in female literacy rateleads to increase of 2.61 per cent of sanitationfacility and 1 per cent increase in per capitaincome leads to 0.9 per cent increase insanitation facility (model 2). Adjusted R 2 valueis estimated at 0.5983. It reveals that about 60per cent of the variation in sanitation facility isexplained by female literacy rate and percapita income.Summary and ConclusionsThis paper clearly reveals that the currentstate of water supply in Uttar Pradesh isinadequate covering all standards, either it isfor urban areas or rural areas. In Uttar Pradesh,90 per cent households do not have access totap water. Tubewells and handpumps aredominant sources in Uttar Pradesh while pipedwater is the most common source of drinkingwater at all India level.Present status of sanitation facility in UttarPradesh is even worse compared to all Indialevel. No district in the State at present hasbeen able to ensure sanitation facilities for allthe houses. About one-third houses in urbanareas in the State do not have toilet facility.The paper has highlighted the wideinter-regional disparities in access to drinkingwater and sanitation facilities in Uttar Pradesh.Western region, the most developed regionof the State, reports the highest coverage inaccess to drinking water and sanitationfacilities among all regions. Inequalities arepervasive in the availability of drinking waterand sanitation facilities both in the rural andurban areas of the State.Regression analysis confirms significantinstrumental role of female literacy rate forimproving access to sanitation facilities. Thisunderlines the need for giving highest priorityto female literacy and schooling in thedevelopment programmes of Uttar Pradesh.Few aspects related to worse conditionsof drinking water and sanitation facility areaddressed in the present paper. Drinking waterand sanitation facility of Uttar Pradesh can beimproved by enhancing the share of WSSexpenditure in social sector and totalexpenditure, by increasing political and socialpriority to sanitation and water supply, byformulating the water tariff rates, etc.Notes1 Drinking water is defined as the water consumed by a human being for maintaining thebiological functioning of the body.2 Sanitation refers to the measures, methods and activities that prevent the transmission ofdiseases and safeguard public health.3 Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) began in 1990 by WHO and Unicef to monitor progress inthe drinking water and sanitation sector.4 Open Defecation – When human faeces are disposed of in fields, forests, bushes, openbodies of water, beaches or other open spaces or disposed of with solid waste.Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 1, January - March : 2013JRD 2 (1)
72 Rashmi Tiwari and Sanatan NayakUnimproved Sanitation Facilities – Unimproved facilities include pit latrines without a slabor platform, hanging latrines and bucket latrines.Shared Sanitation Facilities – Sanitation facilities of an otherwise acceptable type sharedbetween two or more households. Only facilities that are not shared or not public areconsidered improved.Improved Sanitation Facilities – Ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from humancontact (India Health Report, 2010).5 The Western region has five divisions and 26 districts, the Central region covers two divisionsand 10 districts, Bundelkhand has two divisions and seven districts, and the Eastern regionhas eight divisions and 27 districts.References1. Arya, Y.B. (2009), “Water and Sanitation in U.P.”, Fresh Water Action Network for South Asia(FANSA).2. Bajpai, P. and L. Bhandari (2001), “Ensuring Access to Water in Urban Households”, Economicand Political Weekly, Vol. 36, No.39.3. Bajpai, P. and L. Bhandari (2004), “Results of an NSSO Survey of Urban Water Access: Implicationsfor Policy”, India Infrastructure Report, 2004 : Ensuring Value for Money, Oxford UniversityPress, New Delhi.4. Bhandari, L. and A. Gupta (2010), “Inputs for Health” in Mahal, A. et al (ed), “India Health Report,B.S.Books, New Delhi.5. Devi, J. Sarla, et al. (2009), “People’s Attitudes Towards Paying for Water”, Current Science, Vol.97,No.9.6. Diwakar, D. M. (2009), “Intra-Regional Disparities, Inequality and Poverty in Uttar Pradesh”,Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. No. 26 & 27.7. GoI (2009), Position Paper on the Water and Sanitation Sector in India, Department of EconomicAffairs, Government of India, New Delhi.8. Government of Uttar Pradesh (GoUP) (2010), Annual Plan 2010-11, Department of Planning,Vol.1, Part.2, Lucknow.9. GoUP (Various years), Uttar Pradesh Human Development Report 2003 & 2006, Lucknow.10. Haq, M et. al (2007), “Household’s Willingness to Pay for Safe Drinking Water: A Case Study ofAbbottabad District”, The Pakistan Development Review, Vol.46, No.4.11. International Institute for Population Science (IIPS) (various years), National Family HealthSurvey 1,2&3, India & UP, International Institute for Population Science, Mumbai.12. IIPS (various years), District Level Household and Facility Survey, Uttar Pradesh 2 (2002-04 & 3(2007-08), International Institute for Population Science, Mumbai.Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 1, January - March : 2013JRD 2 (1)
Page 2 and 3:
Journal ofRural DevelopmentVol. 32
Page 4 and 5:
Journal of Rural Development, Vol.
Page 6 and 7:
Small and Medium Enterprises In the
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20:
Page 23 and 24: 20 Biju Paul Abraham, Bhaskar Chakr
Page 36 and 37: Journal of Rural Development, Vol.
Page 38 and 39: Socio-Economic Impoverishment Risks
Page 52 and 53: Empowerment from the Above - Respon
Page 62: Empowerment from the Above - Respon
Page 65 and 66: 62 Rashmi Tiwari and Sanatan Nayaka
Page 67 and 68: 64 Rashmi Tiwari and Sanatan NayakT
Page 69 and 70: 66 Rashmi Tiwari and Sanatan NayakT
Page 71 and 72: 68 Rashmi Tiwari and Sanatan Nayakc
Page 73: 70 Rashmi Tiwari and Sanatan NayakT
Page 77 and 78: 74 Rashmi Tiwari and Sanatan Nayak2
Page 79 and 80: 76 Arijit Royincreasing temperature
Page 81 and 82: 78 Arijit RoyS is land size (in big
Page 83 and 84: 80 Arijit RoyThe number of cattle p
Page 85 and 86: 82 Arijit RoyThe role of Panchayats
Page 87 and 88: 84 Arijit Royper cent. β2 is signi
Page 92 and 93: Extent of People’s Participation
Page 100 and 101: Book Journal Reviews of Rural Devel
Page 102 and 103: Book Reviews 99poverty, between agr
Page 104 and 105: Book Reviews 101areas. The authors
Page 106 and 107: Book Reviews 103the changes in the
Page 108 and 109: Book Reviews 105In Chapter five the
Page 110 and 111: Journal of Rural Development(Quarte
Page 112: 3. An article published in an edite
show all

January - March 2013 - National Institute of Rural Development

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

Delete template?

Save as template?