Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2021) 10(02): 3359-3368 International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 10 Number 02 (2021) Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2021.1002.369 Status of Health and Sanitation Security of Rural Households: from Livelihood Point of View Anusha Punia* and Sushma Kaushik Department of Extension Education and Communication Management, I.C College of Home Science, CCS HAU, HISAR, India *Corresponding author ABSTRACT Clean, accessible water and adequate sanitation for everybody is vital for better livelihood. K e yw or ds Despite of sufficient water, many people lose their life from disease related to inadequate water system and poor status of sanitation and hygiene. The study was conducted in two Water, Shelter, districts of Rohtak division namely Sonipat and Karnal by random selection and by Sanitation, Health, selecting one block from each selected district and two villages from each of the selected Security block at random. It involved 300 small and marginal farm families living at Sonipat and Karnal district, Haryana, as the sample of the research. Data collection was done by doing Article Info interview with a structured questionnaire instrument to assess status of shelter/water and sanitation and health security of farm families. Regarding shelter/water and sanitation Accepted: security, most of farm families (47.0%) were having piped water at home for drinking and 26 January 2021 Available Online: cooking. Only one-third (36.3% and 34.3%) of them had separate kitchen with or without 10 February 2021 water. They used inverter (42.3%) and solar lantern (40.6%) as source of lighting. About health security, most of households (58.0%) faced frequent illness and 56.3 per cent farm households could afford professional treatment with some difficulty. Introduction Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) may be a group of interrelated public health issues Rights to water, sanitation and hygiene (hence that are of particular interest to international mentioned as WASH) like other human development programs. Epidemics like rights, are universal and therefore birthright of outbreak of cholera are often related to every person. They‟re also indivisible, bacteriological pollution of water. The interdependent and interrelated rights. Recent number of affected people is often reduced academic and policy debates have recognized using purification method and good sanitation WASH as a part of a bigger bundle of habit. fundamental rights and commentators who have advocated for a rights-based approach to This resolution was adopted because scrub have often made explicit the inadequate access to toilets can cause open connections with other human rights treaties defecation, leading to the spread of fecal and conventions (Scanlon et al., 2014). contamination throughout the environment. It 3359 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2021) 10(02): 3359-3368 may therefore be posited that sanitation is elements to enable safe and secure livelihood about far more than health. Sanitation has (CARE, 2002). Later new indices like been perceived as basically a health purchasing power parity, physical quality of intervention (Cairncross et al., 2013). Some life index, human development index, gender research has suggested that social and cultural development index are getting used to blend factors, like safety and security, comfort, measurement of economic and social convenience, privacy and prestige, far progress. These indices are used more for outweigh health considerations in motivating macro level discussion and do little to households to adopt and use toilets (Jenkins, determine community or household base line Curtis and Scott, 2017). Importance of data to enhance people's lives. Attempts have sanitation to safeguard human health is been made to measure progress at family and documented and undisputed, yet there are 2.6 community level called the Household billion people that haven‟t any access to Livelihood Security (HLS) approach. It‟s “improved sanitation” all over the world, of community assessment technique that which 814 million people live in India (WHO identifies the constraints of people's well- and UNICEF, 2012). As results of this, people being as well as their assets and opportunities resort to open defecation and this causes so as to design effective programs to serious damage to the peoples‟ health and also overcome the barriers to raised health, pollutes the encompassing environment. nutrition, housing, education and livelihood security (Drinkwater, 1998). Keeping in sight The lack of sanitation not only causes the problems of shelter/water and sanitation millions of deaths through diarrhoeal disease, and health security in India, this search was but is additionally related to environmental conducted with the target to assess status of degradation and poverty thus weakening the shelter/water and sanitation and health three pillars of sustainability: social, security of farm families. environmental and economic aspect (Kvarnstrom et al., 2017). The ill effects of Materials and Methods sanitation are multi-pronged. Poor sanitation facilities not only affect the health of the The study was conducted in two randomly people but also decelerate the event of the selected districts of Rohtak division i.e. state as an entire. Sonipat and Karnal. Data were collected in September, 2016- April, 2017. Multi stage A person is considered to live in absolute sampling technique was employed to select poverty when he/she is unable to satisfy districts, blocks, villages and households. One his/her basic needs food, health, water, block (Ganaur block from Sonipat district and shelter, education, community participation Karnal block from Karnal district) from each adequately (Frankenberger and McCaston, selected district were selected randomly. Two 2000). Health security is as important as food. villages from each block were selected A reduced state of health may be due to randomly. Seventy five small and marginal tenuous access to health care, poor housing, farm families were selected randomly from habitat and is worsened by malnutrition which each village making a complete sample of predisposes individuals to diseases. Habitat 300. From 300 (150 i.e. 87- small, 63- security ensures access of households to marginal from Sonipat district and 150 i.e. adequate shelter and related resources to 116- small, 34- marginal from Karnal district) provide healthy and sanitary environment, were selected randomly. Data were collected free from violence/aggression and detrimental by household survey on pretested schedule 3360 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2021) 10(02): 3359-3368 including extensive detailed information on District wise analysis regarding availability of shelter/water and sanitation and health. kitchen indicate that42.0 per cent of farm Components of livelihood security were families of Karnal district had separate grouped into two security viz., shelter/water kitchen without water and ventilation and sanitation security and health security. followed by separate kitchen with water Each of those elements was measured for (33.3%). Only 10.7 per cent households had availability, accessibility, quality and status of separate kitchen with water and ventilation, various indicators on a five point continuum. while 8.7 per cent had open kitchen and 5.3 Further, collected data were quantified and per cent were having kitchen within the living interpreted by using suitable statistical tools room. like frequency, percentage, weighted mean score and coefficient of correlation. In Sonipat district, 39.3 per cent of the farm families had separate kitchen with water, 26.7 Results and Discussion per cent had separate kitchen without water and ventilation, 14.6 per cent had open Data regarding shelter/water and sanitation kitchen, 11.3 per cent farm families had security of selected farm families has been kitchen within the area of living room and presented in Table 1 showed shelter/water and really few (8.0%) had separate kitchen with sanitation security of selected farm families. water and ventilation. Results indicate that less than half (47.0%) of the farm families used piped water reception In case of availability of shelter for livestock, for drinking and cooking followed by majority (64.0%) of farm families in both the community handpump (33.3%) and districts had shelter for livestock outside community tap (17.6%). Only a few home, followed by 21.7 per cent who had households used handpump and canal/well shelter for livestock near the house where (1.3% and 0.7%). Shyamalie (2008) also they lived, 10.7 per cent of farm families had reported that 68 per cent of the sample livestock within their homes. Only a few had households in Kangra district were having far away from home and separate shelter in facility of drinking water through common field (2.3% and 1.3% respectively). tap which is usually shared by about 5 – 6 households. Whereas, rest of the households Almost all the farm families had electricity in were having their own water faucet within the their house but during the power cut they used house itself for their domestic purposes. other source for lighting. Little less than half WHO and UNICEF (2013) reported that (48.7%) of the farm families in Sonipat piped water facility within the rural regions district used inverter followed by solar lantern almost doubled in past two decades; there are (34.6%) and torch (10.7%) whereas in Karnal still 171 million people in rural regions who district 46.7 per cent of the farm families used use surface water because the primary source solar lanterns followed by inverter (36.0%) of water. and kerosene lantern (11.3%) respectively. Kuberan et al., (2018) conducted a study With regards to source of cooking fuel, within the Thandalam village, Chennai, India majority of families in both the districts i.e. in and reported that majority of the participants Sonipat (79.3%) and in Karnal (88.6%) used (42.0%) used public tap/stand pipe for water dung as a cooking fuel.