sign in sign up
<<
Home , Kampung (village)

Putri et al./ Community Participation in Sanitation

Community Participation in Sanitation Program, Surakarta

Anak Agung Alit Kirti Estuti Narendra Putri1), Hermanu Joebagio2), Dono Indarto3)

1)Masters Program in Public Health, Sebelas Maret University 2)Faculty of Teaching and Educational Sciences, Sebelas Maret University 3)Faculty of Medicine, Sebelas Maret University

ABSTRACT

Background: ranks third in the world in the number of people with limited access to sanitation. Surakarta government in collaboration with local drinking water supplier (PDAM) operate Indonesian Urban Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (IUWASH) to overcome sani- tation problems in the form of Sanitation Kampung Program in Semanggi , Surakarta. This study aimed to review community participation in Sanitation Kampung Program, Semanggi Village. Subjects and Method: This was a qualitative study conducted at RW 23, Semanggi Village, Pasar Kliwon subdistrict, Surakarta, Central Java. Informants were selected purposively for this study comprising 12 community members as key informants, 2 community leaders, head of Sanitation Kampung Program, and 1 environmental health expert as supporting informants. The data were collected by in-depth interview, focus group discussion, and document review. Data credibility was checked by triangulation. The data were analyzed by content analysis. Results: At the beginning of Sanitation Kampung Program planning there were some pros and cons from the community. Some of the community accepted the program but some others refused it due to negative perception that Sanitation Kampung Program would cause bad smell and pollute well water. In order to overcome community refusal toward Sanitation Kampung Program, IUWASH, Surakarta municipality government, and community leaders, carried out socialization, community approach, and study tour to other places. In the end, the community accepted Sanitation Kampung Program. Community members participated the program by providing support for water and sanitation facility development. Community members made use of the water and sanitation facility for daily activities. They also maintained the water and sanitation facility. Conclusion: By developing good and trustable collaboration, community participate in Sanitation Kampung Program from planning, developing, using, and maintenance of the water and sanitation facility.

Keywords: water, sanitation, community, participation, program

Correspondence: Anak Agung Alit Kirti Estuti Narendra Putri. Masters Program in Public Health, Sebelas Maret University, Jl. Ir. Sutami 36 A, Surakarta 57126, Central Java. Email: [email protected]. Mobile: +6285643231616.

BACKGROUND Europe, Middle east and Africa (Jeuland et Environmental health problem is a global al., 2013). World Health Organization issue. Most of the poor and middle income (WHO) estimates about 2.6 billion of the have inadequate access to decent world populations live with inadequate sa- water and sanitation (Gon et al., 2016). The nitation and the risk of poor environmental problem occurs in almost all continents health (Engel and Susilo, 2014). Environ- namely South East Asia, East Asia and Asia mental health turned to be priority issue Pacific, Latin America and Caribia, East which was included in global agenda e-ISSN: 2549-1172 (online) 257 Journal of Health Promotion and Behavior (2017), 2(3): 257-271 https://doi.org/thejhpb.2016.02.03.06 through Millenium Development Goals condition of sanitation and water (Cairn- (MDGs) that has ended in 2015 and then it cross et al., 2010; Echazu et al., 2015; Me- proceeds in Sustainable Development ngel, 2014; Taylor et al., 2015). Further- Goals (SDGs). Within SDGs agenda, sani- more, the condition of water, sanitation, tation and clean water availability is the and environmental hygiene are also at risk sixth goal of international health agenda to hinder children growth and development with the main target is water feasibility, sa- as the result of infectious diseases, stunting nitation, and cleanliness (WHO, 2015). and anemia (Ngure et al., 2014). Since the Indonesia ranks third in number of impacts of environmental sanitation condi- population with limited access to sanitation tion and water availability are very exten- (UNICEF, 2012). The data showed that in sive, therefore environmental health is an Indonesia about 116 million population still important factor to concern about (Kandou lack adequate sanitation, 41 million people and Lasut, 2010). Environmental health still defecate in the open air, and 17% of includes the availability of clean water, the urban slums inhabitants defecate without use of toilet, waste water treatment, waste using latrine (Kemenkes RI, 2011). disposal, soil pollution (Kasnodiharjo and in Indonesia with the Elsi, 2013). lowest proportion of households without Many efforts have be performed to access to drinking water are overcome sanitation problems in Indonesia (24.0%), East Kalimantan (35.2%), Bangka (Trisnawati and Marsono, 2012; Kemenkes Belitung (44.3)%, Riau (45.5%), and Papua RI, 2016a). Sanitation facilities develop- (45.7%). Five provinces with the highest ment program needs public participation. proportion of households with access to Public active involvement from the begin- drinking water are North Maluku (75.3%), ning after post construction stage, espe- Central Java (77.8%), East Java (77.9%), cially in using and maintaining the sanita- Special of Yogyakarta (81.7%), and tion facilities, truly determines the program (82.0%) (Kemenkes RI, 2013). accomplishment. Even Central Java is one of five pro- All this time the sanitation facilities vinces with the highest proportion of development by the government is consi- household with access to drinking water, dered merely as grant project, since it does only 77% of population who have access to not fully involve public participation. The feasible drinking water (Dinkes Jateng, planning process up to the development of 2014). The issue on access to clean water in sanitation facilities is often less accom- is generated by the condition of modating public needs and wish (Sofyan et ground water which is no longer drinkable al., 2016). and public incapability to access water from In the area of Surakarta municipality drinking water company or purchase drink- there are community groups which are able bottled water (Enralin dan Lubis, categorized as low income with limited 2015). access to sanitation and clean water. In Poor environmental sanitation may sub- of Pasar Kliwon, Banjarsari, generate diseases to human (Cornburn and and Laweyan, Surakarta, a lot of people do Hildebrand, 2015). Some studies proved not have access to clean tap water. One of that infectious diseases of the digestion the strategies to effectively overcome sani- system such as diarrhea, cholera, and tation problems in several areas is by helminthiasis are caused by the inadequate means of pilot project. Since 2014, Sura-

258 e-ISSN: 2549-1172 (online) Putri et al./ Community Participation in Sanitation karta municipality government and Sura- head of KSM, and 1 environmental health karta Regional Drinking Water Company specialist (PDAM) has been collaborating with Indo- 3. Data Collection Technique nesia Urban Water, Sanitation dan Hygiene The data were collected by using in-depth (IUWASH) to overcome sanitation pro- interview, focused-group discussion, and blems in Surakarta through Sanitation documentation. In-depth interview and Kampung Program in Semanggi village focused-group discussion were conducted (IUWASH, 2014). to gain data on community perception to- Sanitation Kampung Program is deve- ward Sanitation Kampung Program, com- loped to give model for clean water supply munity participation in Sanitation Kam- and community based sanitation deve- pung Program also the achievement as well lopment in Indonesia. It is located in RW as barriers of Kampung Sanitation Program 23, Semanggi Village, Pasar Kliwon Sub- in Semanggi Village. . Semanggi Village is one of slumps The data of in-depth interview were in Pasar Kliwon Sub-district, Surakarta. Sa- obtained from 12 informants who were nitation Kampung Program has been pro- community members of RW23, Semanggi ceeding for 3 years since it was launched for Village, whereas the data of FGD were the first time. The most appropriate way to gained from 2 community leaders, 1 head of overcome environmental problems is by in- KSM, and 1 environmental health specialist volving the entire society elements (French, In-depth interview was conducted in 2007). 15-30 minutes for each informant, whereas The study aimed to review community FGD was conducted in 90-12 minutes. The participation in Sanitation Kampung Pro- data were recorded by using voice recorder. gram in Semanggi Village. The study used observation technique to strengthen data. The observations in- SUBJECTS AND METHOD cluded observation toward condition, ma- 1. Design of the Study nagement, utilization and maintenance of The method used in the study was qua- water and sanitation facilities in Sanitation litative method by using participatory ap- Kampung Program. The documents used in proach. The study was conducted in April- the study were the community data of June 2017 in RW23 Semanggi Village, Semanggi Village and pictures of water and Pasar Kliwon Sub-dictrict, Surakarta. The sanitation facilities. The study had been area of RW 23 Semanggi Village is the approved for its feasibility through letter of location of Sanitation Kampung Program, ethical feasibility No. 423/V/HREC/2017. that has been implemented since 2014. 4. Data Credibility Test 2. Instruments of the Study Validity of the study was conducted by Population of the study was community of using credibility criteria and dependability. RW23, Semanggi Village, Pasar Kliwon Credibility of the study was conducted by Sub-district, Surakarta. The study was using member check and triangulation. conducted by using purposive sampling. Member check was conducted by giving There were 12 key informants who were data, analysis category, discussion and con- community members of RW23, Semanggi clusion on members of informant to give Village. There were 4 supporting infor- reaction from their perspective and situ- mants, including 2 community leaders, 1 ation toward the data the researcher had organized. e-ISSN: 2549-1172 (online) 259 Journal of Health Promotion and Behavior (2017), 2(3): 257-271 https://doi.org/thejhpb.2016.02.03.06

The study used source triangulation and male that was 17,536 female (49.7%) and theory triangulation. Source triangula- and 17,750 male (50.3%). Based on religion, tion in the study was using data obtained the characteristics of the community in from in-depth interview, FGD, observation Semanggi Village were Islam 31,019 people data, and document. Theory triangulation (87.9%), Protestant 2,550 people (7.2%), in the study was conducted by reviewing Catholic 1,688 people (4.8%), Hindu 24 the data resulted by using the appropriate people (0.8%), Confucianism 5 people theory. (0.02%) and zero population for Buddhist The study used in the study was de- (0%). pendability audit. The researcher conduct- Based on age groups, the charac- ed auditing with the adviser of the study. As teristics of community in Semanggi Village an auditor, the adviser would review the were as follow: 0-19 years 13,194 people utilization of all data in the analysis, the (37.4%), 20-39 years 11,603 people researcher‘s subjectivity influence, the dis- (32.9%), 40-59 years 8,162 people (23.1%) covery of positive and negative cases, and 60 years and over 2,327 people (6.6%). barriers of the study. Most of the population in Semanggi 5. Data Processing and Analysis Village were High School graduates The study conducted data analysis by using (26.5%), Junior High School graduates content analysis. All data obtained from in- (22.4%), Elementary School students 5,368 depth interview and FGD were manually people (17.7%), University graduates 3,211 transcribed. And then coding was employed jiwa (10.6%), Finish Elementary School on each transcript. Subsequently, coding 1,936 people (6.4%), not finish Elementary was grouped into categories. Each category, School (10.1%), and never attended school which was alike or unlike, was reviewed to (6.3%). determine the main category. All data, cate- Most of the population did odd jobs gories as the analysis result, discussion, and for living with occupation proportion of conclusion, afterward were reviewed for miscellaneous category was 51.3%. In addi- their validity by using triangulation and tion, the rest of the population in Semanggi member check. The last stage was writing Village worked as merchant (15.5%), indus- the final report. trial labor (12.8%), construction labor (10.3%), people transportation (5.7%), en- RESULTS trepreneur (2.5%), Civil Servant/ Armed 1. Characteristics of the Informants Force/ Police officers (0.9%), retirement of the Study (0.9%), and farmer (0.1%). Characteristics of community in Semanggi Informants of the study consisted of Village including sex categories, age, religi- 16 people, including 10 female and 6 male. on, education and occupation were present- All informants came from the same ethnic ed in Table 1. The result of characteristics of group which was Java. The age ranged community in Semanggi Village showed the from 30-70 years. The informants‘ occupa- number of population in Semanggi Village tion consisted of 7 homemakers, 2 retire- in 2017 was 9,213 heads of family ments, 2 merchants, 4 labors, and 1 civil with almost similar ratio between female servant.

260 e-ISSN: 2549-1172 (online) Putri et al./ Community Participation in Sanitation

Table 1. Characteristics of Community in Semanggi Village Characteristics Criteria n % Sex Categories Male 17,750 50.3 Female 17,536 49.7 Religion Islam 31,019 87.9 Protestant 2,550 7.2 Catholic 1,688 4.8 Hindu 24 0.8 Confucianism 5 0.02 Age 0-19 years 13,194 37.4 20-39 years 11,603 32.9

40-59 years 8,162 23.1

≥ 60 years 2,327 6.6

Education Finish High School 8,053 26.5% Finish Junior High School 6,820 22.4% Finish University 3,211 10.6% Still in Elementary School 5,368 17.7 Not Finish Elementary School 3,082 10.1 Never attend school 1,922 6.3 Occupation Unemployed 6 4.6 Student/University Students 23 17.6

Civil Servant 12 9.2

Private Employee 26 20

Self Employed 9 6.9

Farmer 4 3

Labor 3 2.3

Homemaker 29 22.3

Civil Servant/ Armed Force 18 13.8 Retirement

2. Condition of Access to Water and after it steady down. The area used to be Sanitation in Semanggi Village before iron market, there was a field for buses. Sanitation Kampung Program When it rained the water went down the a) Limited Access to Clean Water soil and carried iron substance that made People of Semanggi Village especially in the water yellow.“ ( I 2, I 3) RW 23 had lacked access to feasible water —Before IUWASH we asked around and sanitation. Some inhabitants‘ houses for water, well it was more like buying were equipped with well, however water from our neighbors for daily cooking and was no longer feasible to consume. There- drink. Our neighbors were okay with it, no fore, for daily water consumption they problem, but they paid for the water bill, bought water from inhabitants who had that made me uneasy, even though some of connected to PDAM pipelines. us gave a little money for it. It was —We cannot use the water from the Rp.200-Rp.250 for each pail. We used well, since it is salty and yellowish. It water from the water pump for bathing seems clear at first, but will turn yellowish and washing.“ (I 1)

e-ISSN: 2549-1172 (online) 261 Journal of Health Promotion and Behavior (2017), 2(3): 257-271 https://doi.org/thejhpb.2016.02.03.06

In 1980s the community leaders and —The self-support public toilet could the community members had an initiative not accommodate us, therefore we went to to overcome water and sanitation problems dike, river.“ (I 14) by self-support building public bathing/ b) Water and Sanitation was Priority toilet, and it was accomplished in 1990s. Issues in Semanggi Village —In 1980 we had plan to make the The condition of limited access to clean people here more civilized, excuse me, I water and sanitation which was not feasible mean to make them stop defecating at ran- for long, was believed to be priority issue to dom places. We finally found a solution, overcome. The community leaders of RW23 we and our community leaders collected Kelurahan Semanggi, then communicate contribution Rp.500 from each family as the issue with the government to prioritize the initial fund for building public toilets Semanggi Village for any aid related to on the east side.“ (I 13) sanitation and water. —We have had public toilet since 1991, —It is a priority, Ms. Instead of defe- it is under renovation at the moment. We cating in the gutter hehehe. Back then, a lot used to go to public toilet to buy water for of kids pooped on the gutter. Priority, drinking, since we did not use water from sanitation is priority.“ (I 5) the well for it.“ (I 3, I 7) —As community leaders we gathered a) The Lack of Access to Sanitation the people, community leaders and we had In addition to problem on clean water, peo- people in the legislative we could talk to ple in Semanggi Village also lacked access and request, if anyone wanted to help for to latrine. Most people did not have latrine, the community health of Semanggi espe- only one or two houses equipped with la- cially in RW23, we would welcome with trine. Therefore, most of the people in open arms.“ (I 14) Semanggi Village defecated in public toilets 3. Community‘s Perception toward that were limited in number or in random Sanitation Kampung in Semanggi places in Bengawan Solo river. Village. —It was difficult for us to defecate, we a) The Planning Process of Water and should go to the river, things like that. I Sanitation mean back then, it was only 1-2 people that Facilities in Semanggi Village Surakarta had it at home.“ (I 4) Municipality Government and IUWASH —Well, back then we didn‘t know what planned the development of water and Kampung Sanitasi was. Since the first time sanitation facilities in Semanggi Village in living in RW 23 in 1980, it was such a 2013 through Sanitation Kampung Pro- primitive. In term of everybody, men, wo- gram. At the beginning of Sanitation Kam- men, young and old, all of them defecated pung Program planning there were some in Bengawan Solo river.“ (I 13) pros and cons from the community. Some —Since our community was still fami- of the community accepted the program but liar with defecating in river, therefore even some others refused it due to negative though we already had self-support public perception that Sanitation Kampung toilet, it was still not easy to change the Program would cause bad smell and pollute habit. It took time and consistent social- well water. lization.“(I 8) —Most of us directly accepted, Ms. the people here just follow Pak RT and Pak RW.“ (I 4)

262 e-ISSN: 2549-1172 (online) Putri et al./ Community Participation in Sanitation

—There were a lot of people who b) Development of Water and Sani- refused it. They posted banners for it and tation there were 45 people who signed the Facilities, Sanitation Kampung Program refusal statement. They refused it with a Despite the socialization and community reason that it would pollute the wells, approach that had been conducted, there especially around the location of public were still some of community members toilet.“ ( I 8, I 14) who still rejected water facilities and latrine —Once, there was a big waste water at their homes. The construction of water treatment here. The management made a and sanitation facilities was conducted by dike that spilt to the river, therefore it some technician from LPTP. Several com- produced unpleasant smell. People had a munity members helped them, even only a perception that the program would also few. In the middle of the construction pro- produce unpleasant smell.“ (I 13) cess there were still cons and pros among Surakarta Municipality Government, members of community, therefore it took 1 IUWASH and the community leaders colla- year to complete the construction of water borated to overcome the refusal toward and sanitation facilities. Sanitation Kampung Program by conduct- —People were different. There were ing socialization, society approach, as well more than 3 people who rejected the faci- as comparative study to other so lities of Sanitation Kampung Program. Af- that finally they accepted Sanitation Kam- ter we had completed the installing pro- pung Program in Semanggi Village. cess, those people regretted it.“ (I 14) —So, they kept on making an —Those who obtained water facilities approach toward the people here. They did not necessarily get latrine facilities, took us to other regions, Jogja, Magelang, whereas those who obtained latrine faci- to see Sanitation Kampung there, for.“ (I lities, must get water facilities. Since the 14). latrine was related to the soil condition, tilt —We, community leaders along with level. If the ground was lower than public IUWASH convinced the community that it toilet, latrine could not be put there, be- won‘t happen, since the program would be cause all latrine would flow out to the pu- handled by the experts, so it won‘t leak blic toilet.“ (I 8) through the well. Yet, there were still pros —Back then, IUWASH hand over the and cons. Finally, Mr. Mayor invited Pak construction process to LPTP therefore RT and the people to the hall. Mr. community and KSM only watched over Mayor gave us instructions. And with the the process, whereas the construction was instruction we came to an agreement.“ conducted all by outside workers. Howe- (I14) ver, there were some members of commu- —And IUWASH also needed working nity who helped a bit (I 3, I 5, I 11). partner that was LPTP. And LPTP also —The construction was almost stop- formed another partner called KSM that ped. The digging out process was kept on came from the surrounding community, interrupted. There was demonstration, so under the command of Pak RT. And it was halted for almost 4 months. And it finally, the public toilet program could be began again for more than 1 year. So it accomplished.“ (I 8) took more than 1 year to complete from the beginning to end. Finally it was com- pleted.“ ( I 5). e-ISSN: 2549-1172 (online) 263 Journal of Health Promotion and Behavior (2017), 2(3): 257-271 https://doi.org/thejhpb.2016.02.03.06

4. Community Participation in Sani- collective flushing once every 3 weeks, tation Kampung Program in Se- that‘s okay. It is for killing the germs and manggi Village for the children‘s health. (I 6) a) The utilization of water and —Maintenance by flushing should be sanitation facilities of Sanitation conducted together, collectively. So, KSM Kampung Program will tell the people that there will be Members of community utilized water and voluntary work and for example at 9 we sanitation facilities from Sanitation Kam- will flush simultaneously.“ ( I 10) pung Program for daily activities whereas Public toilet hygiene is the res- members of community who did not get ponsibility of 2 toilet keepers, who was on water and sanitation facilities, utilized duty alternately. Toilet users paid the public toilet to fulfill their need for water appropriate fare to the toilet keepers. Some and daily activities. of the money collected was given to KSM —Yes, if we don‘t have water…I myself and the rest was the right of the toilet don‘t have well, if we don‘t have tap water keepers. KSM managed the fund for com- either it will be troublesome. I could use it munity‘s social activities contribution and for bathing, washing the dishes, cooking, for reserve fund to anticipate damage on washing the clothes. For those who have water and sanitation facilities water pump, the tap water is only for —There are two caretakers of toilet, drinking.“ (I7, I9, I 11) who work alternately. If we think it is not —The facilities help us in defecating. It clean enough, we ask the caretaker to used to be difficult. There was only one clean it.“ (I 3, I 11) there, we had to queue, it would be annoy- —We give contribution to RW and ing if we had to go and could not hold any each RT for their program, even it is only 1 longer. It helps us.“ (I 1, I 10) million per year. The remains is used to b) The maintenance of water and anticipate the damages, and for anything sanitation facilities of Sanitation else we always have deposit fund.“ (I 14) Kampung Program in each house —Yes, Ms. Later at 4, I will scrub the Members of communities conducted main- toilet. Or else it will be very dirty. If tenance of water and latrine facilities in somebody pay more, I always give the individual as well as collective setting. La- change. I always give Rp.15,000. And buy trine facilities maintenance at home was bathroom cleaner liquid Rp.60,000 per conducted by flushing with hot water, month. I always clean it regularly, it‘s which was coordinated by KSM once every true, Ms.“ (I 12) 2-3 months. Several members of commu- c) Damages on Water and Sanitation nity also conducted individual latrine Facilities in Sanitation Kampung flushing at home once every 2 weeks or 1 Program month or anytime it seemed smelly. Since the first time it was used, water and —It is once every 2 weeks or 1 month. sanitation facilities still functioned well. It is by flushing with hot water so that the Some people found their water meter da- feces that sticks can get all flushed away. maged. It was because water meter was not That‘s the instruction. “ (I 2, I 4) covered and exposed to rain and direct sun- —If it gets smelly, I will boil a pot of light and then it got weathered. In addi- water and flush it away. If it doesn‘t, then I tion, initially the public toilet used well, and will not. I will flush again if there is once it got dry. The well was made during

264 e-ISSN: 2549-1172 (online) Putri et al./ Community Participation in Sanitation rainy season, therefore it got dry in dry since there were people defecate in the season. open air. What it is meant by open defe- —Praise the Lord, it is not broken, and cation is not like defecating on the river. hopefully it won‘t be broken ever.“ (I 1, I 4, They do not do it anymore. Instead, they I 6) have already had the public toilet, however —The water meter is easily broken. they don‘t have the septic tank yet since IUWASH can help, but it is put in front the there is no land for it. STBM program is house, it gets exposed to sunlight and rain implemented with a trigger, by which it is and gets weathered. They offered us the expected the people willing to build feasible lid, but we refused it since we had to pay toilet by themselves.“ (I 16) for it.“ 6. Accomplishment and Barriers of If there was any damages on water Sanitation Kampung Program in and sanitation facilities, people would tell Semanggi Village KSM officers, who would repair it. If the da- People thought that Sanitation Kampung mages were beyond KSM capacity to repair, Program has successfully proceeding. KSM would report it to PDAM for the Members of community felt satisfied to- replacement. ward the occurrence of Sanitation Kam- —Yes, I asked for the replacement, la- pung Program in Semanggi Village. Water ter I just need to pay for it. I replace it and sanitation facilities of Sanitation Kam- myself, Mr.Drajat helped me.“ (I 9) pung program had improved the condition —So, one of us joined a training on it. of what so called slum. However, com- We were taught the maintenance and munity leaders were not yet satisfied since cleanliness, from PU through IUWASH. there were a lot of members of community We completed the training. Therefore we who had not received water and sanitation can work by ourselves now after IUWASH facilities in Semanggi Village. and LPTP let loose us, it was because of the —Yes, it is accomplished. The water training.“ (I 14) runs well, the toilet is used by people 5. Government‘s Role toward Sani- nearby, it seems truly beneficial. We used tation Problem in Semanggi Village to be labeled as red kampong, slum. But Since 2016 Surakarta Health Office laun- now, it turns good with the program.“ (I2, ched STBM Program for all in Sura- I 7, I 11) karta through Puskesmas in Surakarta area. —Well, from my perspective it is not In the area of Semanggi Village, STBM yet, Ms.Since not all members of commu- Program would be organized in RW17 since nity can feel it, only a part of it. The facility there were still people who defecating in the is not yet able to be improved. It should be open air. Open defecation was conducted expanded, if it is possible.“ ( I 13) because there was no land for septic tank. After water and sanitation facilities By STBM Program it was expected that was available, the health condition of peo- people initiated to self- procure a location ple of Semanggi village was improved. Be- for feasible public toilet. fore Sanitation Kampung Program, people —This year a sanitation-related pro- often suffered from diarrhea, itchy, and gram from Puskesmas is started to pro- dengue fever. mote in all villages. In Semanggi Village, —Defecating on the river is very sus- STBM program will be organized in ceptible for diseases. Our community used around August 2017, in RW 17 noyt RW 23, to suffer from diarrhea and itchy. Praise e-ISSN: 2549-1172 (online) 265 Journal of Health Promotion and Behavior (2017), 2(3): 257-271 https://doi.org/thejhpb.2016.02.03.06 the Lord, after the program from IUWASH water and sanitation facilities (Akter and the health condition is getting improved. Ali, 2013). Undrinkable well water is The diseases are reduced. Moreover, de- generated by contaminated shallow ground ngue fever used to strike every month. water. A study by Mahanani et al., (2015) There were 23 people all over RW, now it showed that most inhabitants‘ wellsin Pasar is reducing.— (I 6, I 8, I 14) Kliwon Sub-district region are categorized 7. Community Expectation toward as shallow well that is easy to get the Condition of Water and Sanita- contaminated. tion Facilities in Semanggi Village Even though community in Semanggi Community expected Sanitation Kampung Village needed aid for water and sanitation Program would still proceed well and be facilities however with characteristics of more organized also neat. Furthermore, low economy and educational background, members of community also expected there they found it uneasy to accept Sanitation would be more people who received water Kampung Program. There were pros and and sanitation facilities at their house. cons during planning and building water Another expectation was economy and and sanitation facilities of Sanitation Kam- education development. pung Program. The occurrence of pros and —If it is possible, make it better. cons among the community represented the There‘s nothing here. The bathroom needs occurrence of community‘s negative per- latrine. And make it cleaner, build walls. ception and positive perception toward That‘s what I want. Make it better, that‘s Sanitation Kampung Program. Social per- it.“ (I 9) ception in the program is an important —In the future we truly expect for not matter that may influence sanitation only sanitation, but also drainage, reno- behavior change (Novotny et al., 2017). vation of damaged road and economy also Positive perception toward Sanitation education development.“ (I 5, I 8) Kampung Program was encouraged by the intention to obtain water and sanitation DISCUSSION facilities which were feasible, safe and The character of community in Semanggi comfortable, as well as the confidence Village with high population density and toward the leaders who wanted to accept low level of education and economy en- the program, therefore the members of couraged the limited access to water and sa- community willing to follow the leader who nitation in Semanggi Village. High popu- has accepted the program. Meanwhile, lation density lead to unavailability of land community‘s negative perception toward to build feasible water and sanitation faci- Sanitation Kampung Program was gene- lities. rated by negative experience related to According to a study by Mazaya waste disposal that produced unpleasant (2016) the habit of open defecation is in- odor, the feeling of worry for the impactof fluenced by social condition such as edu- Sanitation Kampung Program that might cational background, occupation, and po- contaminate the people‘s wells, the lack of verty factor. Low level of education ge- awareness on the needs for feasible water nerates community‘s lack of awareness to and sanitation, distrust toward the leaders conduct clean and healthy behavior. and their nature to follow role model Likewise, low level of economy instigates community leaders who rejected Sanitation people unable to build themselves feasible Kampung Program.

266 e-ISSN: 2549-1172 (online) Putri et al./ Community Participation in Sanitation

To overcome community‘s negative responsibility toward Sanitation Kamping perception toward a certain program it Program so that it can support the commu- takes continuous program socialization. nity‘s continuous participation toward Program socialization may improve com- Sanitation kampong Program. munity‘s knowledge therefore it is able to Community‘s participation was seen eliminate negative impact perception that from the utilization and maintenance of wa- Sanitation Kampung Program produces ter and sanitation facilities. Water facilities, odor and contamination and improve peo- latrine and public toilet were beneficial for ple‘s awareness on the needs for feasible people‘s daily needs. Sanitation program water and sanitation facilities. Perception may improve public health and improve of unpleasant odor may turn to strategy in health behavior (WSP,2013). Water and sanitation program promotion and plan- sanitation facilities improve the people‘s ning (Rheinlander et al., 2013). Sociali- limited access to water and sanitation and zation in the form of one way coaching is improve public health in Semanggi Village. often ineffective for information receivers Participation in water and sanitation faci- with low education level. Comparative stu- lities maintenance is an important matter dy of members of community and commu- to ensure the sustainable water and sani- nity leaders give influence in improving tation facility. Community participation people‘s support. By observing the actual may support the program implementation evidence of water and sanitation facilities in and sustainability in (Sulaeman other region that did not generate odor and et al., 2015). contamination, might improve people‘s Latrine maintenance by members of confidence toward Sanitation Kampung community was in accordance with Program. IUWASH instructions. People who perform In addition to socialization and com- communal latrine maintenance indepen- parative study, the approach and commu- dently, collectively, and regularly repre- nication of bureaucrats, community leaders sented that community had participated in and members of community in Semanngi sanitation maintenance. Latrine mainte- Village also played an important role to nance activities with in collaboration KSM improve community‘s confidence toward management represented that sanitation community leaders, help in understanding maintenance still needed KSM and commu- community condition and seek for solution nity leaders support to coordinate the for the problems occur in the community. activities collectively. Management organi- Through socialization process, comparative zation, and collaboration with community study and community leaders‘ approach, members is an important matter for the the community finally accepted and sup- program sustainability and asset preserv- ported the implementation of Sanitation ation (Sapei et al., 2011). Kampung Program in Semanggi Village. Water maintenance was performed by Members of community were partici- members of community by paying water bill pating by helping and monitoring the to PDAM. It was important to keep the construction of water and sanitation faci- water access in Semanggi Village maint- lities. Participation of members of commu- ained. Financial management can support nity in the process of Sanitation Kampung the sustainability of water and sanitation Program construction was able to increase facilities (Olayujigbe, 2016). In addition, the community‘s sense of belonging and water maintenance was also performed by e-ISSN: 2549-1172 (online) 267 Journal of Health Promotion and Behavior (2017), 2(3): 257-271 https://doi.org/thejhpb.2016.02.03.06 civil society groups trained by IUWASH in from the result of the study that members operating and maintaining water and of community considered that Sanitation sanitation facilities. Therefore, in maint- Kampung Program accomplished in helping aining water and sanitation facilities it people to obtain water and sanitation more needed collaboration among members of easily. In addition, participation of commu- community, community leaders, and KSM. nity members supported the accomplish- Committee for health and sanitation in ment of Sanitation Kampung Program. The village level has important function in the study result of several KSMs from other planning and action of public health regions that conducted comparative study (Srivastava et al., 2013). in Semanngi Village also showed that Public toilet maintenance was per- Sanitation Kampung Program had success- formed by the toilet keepers and it was fully turned to be a model of feasible water people‘s responsibility as the users of public and sanitation provison. toilet facilities to pay as the fare. It Despite the accomplishment, commu- represented that in term of maintenance of nity members and leaders in Semanggi toilet hygiene people still did not have Village still have an expectation that all awareness to do it independently. It is in houses in Semanggi Village can benefits accordance with a study by Simiyu et al., from sanitation and water facilities as well (2017) that showed the hygiene condition of as infrastructures improvement in Semang- public sanitation facilities is influenced by gi Village. the number of people who use the facilities as well as the people‘s awareness. REFERENCE The visits from municipality govern- Akter T, Ali AM (2013). Factors influencing ment, and regional representative council, knowledge and practice of hygiene in government aids as well as Sanitation Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Kampung Program in Semanggi Village re- (WASH) programme areas of Bang- presented that government prioritized the ladesh Rural Advancement Commit- era in Semanggi Village in improving water tee. Rural and Remote Heath 14: 1-10. and sanitation access. The involvement of Cairncross S, Hunt C, Boisson S, Bostoen K, Surakarta Mayor in overcoming the reject- Curtis V, Fung ICH, dan Schmidt WP ions of community members toward Sanita- (2010). Water, sanitation and hygiene ti0n Kampung Program represented the for the prevention of diarrhoea. Inter- government support in the implementation national Journal of Epidemiology 39: of Sanitation Kampung Program. Govern- 193-205. ment has important role in ensuring the Dinas Kesehatan Jawa Tengah (2014). implementation of sanitation program, fi- Profil Kesehatan Provinsi Jawa nancial assistance, and cross sectoral colla- Tengah Tahun 2014. Semarang: boration to overcome santitaion problems Dinkes Jateng. (Mara et al., 2010). Echazú A, Bonanno D, Juarez M, Cajal SP, Referring to the purpose of Sani- Heredia, V, Caropresi S, Cimino RO, tation Kampung Program to give model for Caro N, Vargas PA, Paredes G, dan clean water supply and community based Krolewiecki AJ (2015). Effect of Poor sanitation development in Indonesia, there- Access to Water and Sanitation As fore Sanitation Kampung Program could be Risk Factors for Soil-Transmitted considered as accomplished. It is explained Helminth Infection: Selectiveness by

268 e-ISSN: 2549-1172 (online) Putri et al./ Community Participation in Sanitation

the Infective Route. Plos One 9(9): 1- yang Mempengaruhi Munculnya 14. Bakteri Coli Pada Kecamaatan Pasar Engel S, Susilo A (2014). Shaming and Kliwon Kota Surakarta. e-Journal Sanitation in Indonesia: A Return to Matriks Teknik Sipil, 81-88. Colonial Public Health Practices. Mara D, sLane J, Scott B, Trouba D (2010). Development and Change 45(1): 157œ Sanitation and Health. PLoS Med 7 178. (11):1-7. Enralin J, Lubis RH (2015). Akses Air Mengel MA (2014). Cholera in Africa: New Bersih dan Sanitasi Layak pada Ma- Momentum in Fighting an Old Pro- syarakat Permukiman Kumuh Per- blem, Royal Society of Tropical Medi- kotaan. lib.ui.ac.id. cine and Hygiene, 108: 391-392. Gon G, Méndez MCR, Campbell OMR, Novotny J, Kolomazníková J, Humnalová H Barros AJD, Wood S, Benova I, dan (2017). The Role of Perceived Social Graham WJ (2016). Who Delivers Norms in Rural Sanitation: An Explo- Without Water? A Multi Ana- rative Study from Infrastructure- lysis of Water and Sanitation in the Restricted Settings of South Ethiopia. Childbirth Environment, Plos One, International Journal of Environment 11(8): 1-19. Research and Public Health 14(794): Indonesia Urban Water Sanitation and 1-17. Hygiene (IUWASH) (2014). USAID Olajuyigbe AE (2016). Community Partici- Indonesia Urban Water Sanitation pation and Sustainability Issue: An and Hygiene Performance Monitoring Evaluation of a Donor-Driven Water Plan (PMP) Third Revision, www.iu- Sector in Ikaram Millennium Village wash.or.id, Diakses 7 Novemer 2016. Project, Nigeria. Open Journal of Jeuland MA, Fuente DE, Ozdemir S., Social Sciences 4:90-103. Allaire MC, dan Whittingtonm D Rheinlander T, Keraita B, Konradsen F, (2013). The Long-Term Dynamics of Samuelsen H, Dalsgaard A (2013). Mortality Benefits from Improved Smell: an overlooked factor in sanita- Water and Sanitation in Less Deve- tion promotion. Waterlines 32(2): loped Countries, Plos One 8(10): 1-17. 106-112. Kasnodihardjo, Elsi E (2013). Deskripsi Sapei A, Purwanto MYJ, Sutoyo, Kurnia- Sanitasi Lingkungan, Perilaku Ibu, wan A (2011). Perencanaan Instalasi dan Kesehatan Anak, Jurnal Kesehat- Pengolahan Air Limbah Sistem an Masyarakat Nasional, 7(9): 415- Komunal Berbasis Masyarakat (Studi 420. Kasus Kelurahan Putat, Kecamatan Kementerian Kesehatan RI (Kemenkes RI) Tanggulangin Sidoarjo). Jurnal Ilmu (2011). Laporan Nasional: Riset Kese- Pertanian Indonesia 16(2): 91-99. hatan Dasar (Riskesdas) 2010, Simiyu S, Swilling M, Cairncross S, Rheing- Jakarta: Badan Penelitian dan Peng- ans R (2017). Determinants of quality embangan Kesehatan Kementerian of shared sanitation facilities in Kesehatan. informal settlements: case study of _____ (2013). Riset Kesehatan Dasar Kisumu, Kenya. BMC Public Health 17 2013. (68): 1-13. Mahanani YD, Koosdaryani, Sulastoro Sofyan I, Soewondo P, Kunaefi TD, dan (2015). Analisis Konstruksi Sumur Handajani M (2016). Community- e-ISSN: 2549-1172 (online) 269 Journal of Health Promotion and Behavior (2017), 2(3): 257-271 https://doi.org/thejhpb.2016.02.03.06

Managed Decentralized Sanitation In Taylor DL, Kahawita TM, Cairncross S, dan The Greater Bandung Slum Areas. Ensink JHJ (2015). The Impact of Asian Journal of Water Environment Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Inter- 3(1): 14-31. ventions to Control Cholera: A Syste- Srivastava A, Gope R, Nair N, Rath S, Rath matic Review, Plos One, 10(8): 1-19. S, Sinha R, Sahoo P, Biswal PM, Singh Trisnawati A, Marsono BD (2012). Evaluasi V, Nath V, Sachdev HPS, Worrall JS, Program Sanitasi Berbasis Masya- Bidgoli HH, Costello A, Prost A, rakat (SANIMAS) di Kota Kediri, ITS Bhattacharyya S (2016). Are village Surabaya: Scientific Conference of health sanitation and nutrition com- Environmental Technology IX. mittees fulfilling their roles for decen- UNICEF (2012). Air Bersih, Sanitasi & tralised health planning and action? A Kebersihan. UNICEF Indonesia. mixed methods study from rural Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) eastern India. BMC Public Health (2013). Scaling Up Rural Sanitation 16(59): 1-12. Impact Evaluation of a Large-Scale Sulaeman ES, Murti B, Waryana (2015). Rural Sanitation Project in Indonesia. Peran Kepemimpinan, Modal Sosial, World Health Organization (WHO) (2015). Akses Informasi serta Petugas dan From MDGs to SDGs: General Fasilitator Kesehatan dalam Pember- Introduction. dayaan Masyarakat Bidang Kesehat- an. Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat Nasional 9(4): 353-361.

270 e-ISSN: 2549-1172 (online)