Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CONTEXTUAL RESEARCH: Hearing from People in slums about Public Toilets in India
Agarwal, ShikhaIndustrial Design Centre, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai, India.
[email protected], Abir
Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, [email protected]
Kumar, AshokNational Institute of Design, Ahmedabad, India
[email protected], Pushplata
National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad, [email protected]
SUMMARY
Public toilets in India play a major role in addressing the sanitation need of urban slum dwellers and travelers. But either they are under used or used when people had no other choice. Most slum dwellers do not have personal toilets and they still practice outdoor defecation in cities due to the poor toilet design and maintenance issues. An ethnographic study was conducted to understand the state of public toilets and why people defecate outdoor. The study also sought to understand who the intended users of these public toilets are and how well does the current design of public toilets meet their needs. The research has helped in unraveling important issues like small stall size, inaccessible latrine fixtures, no luggage security, no place for robbing/disrobing, poor ventilation – all responsible for open defecation and low use of public toilets. The user response has laid the ground work for the new design thinking for universal public toilets which will be inclusive and culturally rooted in Indian life and practice.
Key Words: Public toilets; universal design; enabling environments; contextual research
1. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Indian cities are urbanizing at a fast pace and the urban population is increasing at a higher rate than its total population. By 2030 Indian cities and towns will have 41% and 575 million people from the present level of 286 million and 28% of total population [WaterAid]. This increase in population in urban cities is chiefly due to the high influx of migrants from villages to big cities in search of employment resulting in the formation of ‘Urban Villages’ i.e. slums [Chaudhury, 2006]. A slum in India is defined as a cluster inside urban areas without access to running water and sanitation. The slum dwellers are the poorest communities of urban cities and around 40 million people reside in slums. India stands second place in the world for bad
sanitation, and open defecation is very common - Indian villages have toilet coverage of just 26% [Urban sanitation, 2010]. Open defecation by urban slum dwellers is rampant and it is evident by the huge number of people defecating daily on railway tracks, river side and open fields. The practice of open defecation in densely populated cities attributes to low number of and abandonment of public toilets which needs to be addressed, as it severely affects the health and hygiene of the people living in slums and in the surrounding areas.
According to 2001 census there are 2.13 % people with disabilities in India out of which 1.93% live in urban cities; and a large number of them live in the slums [Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India, 2009-2010]. Disability among Indian slum dwellers and villages is seen as an outcome of poverty and disabled people are socially excluded from the mainstream society [Thomas, 2005] due to the social stigma attached and cultural beliefs [Keefe, 2007]. Slum environments lack accessibility for disabled people and the everyday life; for many are crippled by the absence of accessible toilets. Personal toilets and public toilets are either non-existent or located afar, or if present are poorly designed and do not meet the personal and cultural requirements of slum users. These users are men, women, children, people with disabilities and the elderly.
People with mobility impairments People with disabilities are the worst affected by the state of public toilets in the slums. Public toilets are not enabling environments as they mostly support use by independent users, implying those who can operate on their own. These bathrooms fail to address the needs of dependent users (elderly, children and people with disabilities) as well as care providers of children (parents) and dependent adults. Most Indian public facilities including public toilets are poorly designed and they neither support safe use by disabled users nor allow receiving care. They fail to address Indian culture, habits and usability of Indian people.
Toilet use by a crawler
There is need to develop universal access to public toilets so all users can benefit from the design. Universal design, a modern paradigm in social inclusion, stands for personal empowerment through accessible design that benefits everyone including people with disabilities. This project investigates the inclusive nature of public toilets within the culture, history, gender, and economy that surrounds the lives of users to better understand diversity, disability, and inclusion within the Indian context.
2. PROJECT FOCUS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The focus of the study was to learn about open defecation and cultural lifestyle from real life users and develop contextual designs of public toilets, which are firmly rooted in Indian culture and practice. The insights from the field study serves as the platform for designing new ‘enabling’ toilets for Indian users.
This paper reports the results of an ethnographic research that involved slum dwellers who use public toilets. The objective of the study was to learn about their needs and aspirations for better design of public toilets and offer universal access to everyone. Use responses were captured through in-depth interviews with researchers who built a strong relationship with the users through prolonged engagement and interaction. The trust built by engaging with users allowed delving deeper into personal, family, gender, community, human, and environmental issues. Slums dwellers including men, women, children, and the elderly, people with disabilities as well as public toilet managers, cleaners participated in interviews and offer a broad range of views needed to design universal public toilets. The research employed many important questions to solicit their response: 1) Why people defecate outdoor? 2) What are some of biggest problems with public toilets that deter use? 3) How universal are the current designs of public toilets? 4) Why bathrooms in public toilets are not used by women and they use the outdoor for bathing? 5) Why public toilets are dirty and ill maintained? 6) Can indoor of public toilets echo the outdoor to promote use? 7) What is more important to women users security/ privacy in public toilets? 8) Can public bathrooms be designed for independent/ dependent/ interdependent use for universal access? 9) What problems do people encounter while using the latrine? 10) How well do the latrine fixtures work for Indians across age groups and physical conditions? 11) What socio- cultural factors influence sanitary practices among slum dwellers?
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data Collection
The ethnographic study is part of a larger project, called public toilets in Indian slums. While the larger project employed seven types of research methods to learn about the users, environment and living patterns, the ethnographic study conducted interviews using with slum dwellers in naturalistic surrounding and focused on universal design of public toilets. Talking points were employed to engage users in discussing the following: why people defecate outdoor; what they like and dislike about public toilets; how to offer universal access in public toilets; how design of
existing public toilets presents social, cultural and environmental challenges; what and women’s, men’s, children’s, elderly and disability issues that impacts the use of public toilets and triggers outdoor use; the role of water in cleaning and bathing; and the issues of privacy, security and communal behavior related to outdoor use. Interviews were conducted in several Indian cities like Varanasi, Hazaribagh, Kutch, Mumbai and Ahmedabad to identify important design issues that will help design better public toilets. Since majority of the interviews were conducted in Ahmedabad, this paper will only present insights of residents from the interviews conducted in the Ahmedabad slums.
To ensure that the all types of users were interviewed, two broad classifications by public toilet types and public toilet users, in three stages were developed.
Stage1: User typology based on the frequency of public toilet use:1. Same users (people who use the same toilet on a daily basis, like the slum
dwellers using the same toilet).2. Different users (different people who using a public toilet, like travelers using a
toilet by a railway or bus station, or workers using a toilet by a bazar).
Stage 2: User typology based proximity to public toilets in slums:Type 1: Users living close to public toilets and far from natural settings (for open defecation).Type 2: Users close to natural settings and far from public toilets.Type 3: Users living equally closer to public toilets than to natural settings.Type 4: Users living closer to public toilets than to natural settings.Type 5: Users living close natural settings than to public toilets.
Stage3: Public toilets typology by user traffic and volume:1.Different user toilets
1.1. High traffic toilets near railway stations, bus stop, markets1.2. Medium traffic toilets near parks, temples1.3. Low traffic toilets by highways
2.Same user toilets1. Community toilets in slums.
Over 150 people were interviewed in the project and people participated individually, in families and in groups. The duration of the interviews ranged between 30 minutes to 1 hour, and people talked broadly about open defecation and public toilet, and important design issues in support of and against them. Participants included wide range of users – men, women, children and adults; and they discussed issues like use, abuse, cleanliness, water, daylight, assistance, access, privacy and security. Since the research focused on social inclusion through universal design, people with disabilities, the elderly, and caregivers were part of the people interviewed. Other stake holders like caretakers/managers of pay-and-use toilets, and maintenance staff were also interviewed.
3.2 Research Tools
Research questions were used to develop talking points and they were pre-tested in field trials before finalizing them. The talking points were open-ended probes that allowed participants respond, narrate their personal experience and maintain a smooth connective flow. A total of 7 set of different talking points were developed, one questionnaire for each of the following user groups: men, women, children, the elderly, people with disabilities, caretakers and maintenance people of public bathrooms. Though some talking points were common among users, many uncommon questions unique to their situation were also asked. All the interviews were audio taped with help of unobtrusive voice recorders (though informed), and the life in the slum and use of public toilets were photographed. The interviewers were conducted at ease in a conversation manner, and the talking points helped to ensure that all issues were discussed, though the order of conversation often changed to follow the natural rhythm and pace of the conversation. Not all interviews asked same set of questions, and the talking points varied depending on the participant’s willingness, temperament and time. The talking points were revised four times as new issues emerged and, and they were used as probes to direct the interviews, and conduct open- ended discussions.
3.3 Data Analysis
Data analysis followed a four stage recording and sorting process. First, the interview information was noted down in the form of key words and phrases. Then, the data was sorted by individual users like children, men, and women. Third, the data was grouped by user groups, like all children, all men, and all women. Finally, data was assembled by important design issues, like cleanliness, privacy, water, and assistance.
3.3.1Notation
The interview documentation process followed a notation process that involved four researchers to listen to the audio tapes and noting down important issues discussed by participants during the interview process. The notes were hand written individually by all members of the research team, and though majority of the information researchers noted down was nearly same, everyone noting down individually ensured that nothing important that the participants discussed was missed. This also helped in building a uniform understanding of interviews, and all the important observations were documented and were considered during the note taking phase.
3.3.2 Data Classification by individual user
The responses from the individual participants were cataloged by user typology discussed earlier. Example Type-1 implies people living close to public toilets and far from natural settings for open defecation, and Type 2 people living close to natural settings for open defecation and far from public toilets; Type 3 stands for people living equally close to public toilets and natural settings for open defecation; type 4
represents people living more close to public toilets than to natural settings for open defecation; and Type 5 symbolizes living close to natural settings for open defecation than public toilets.
3.3.3 Data Collation across user groups
In the third phase, data was grouped by important design issues and by user groups like all men, women, and children. At this stage information from ‘same users’ (people who use the same toilet on a daily basis, like the slum dwellers), ‘different users’ (hawkers, street vendors, passersby, tourist and travelers) and by managers of public toilets were compiled by cohort to develop a collective information and learn, for example what all women had to say about privacy and what was their opinion about security. Similarly how men view about paying for use of public toilets and not finding the place clean. Also what children had to say about oversized fixtures, being driven away when the public toilets were busy and how repeated denial formed outdoor defecation habit.
3.3.4 Data Collation Across Important Design Issues
This stage of analysis identified key design issues that promoted and/or denied use of both open defecation and public toilet use. At this stage, the information was compiled across “all users” (not by individual or use cohort as done before). The results of this stage helped understand how all elderly felt about slippery bathrooms and toilets; how people with disabilities were handicapped by the poor design of the public toilets; how young girls abandoned use of bathroom for lack of changing space in public toilets. It also helped learn about important issues like water, privacy, safety, and access were valued by same users, different users and managers; to learn what role these issues played in their lives.
4. FINDINGS (Selected)
Here is a short list of important findings that impact the design of public toilets.
4.1Open defecation
There are many reasons for open defecation; among them are habit, cultural lifestyle and poor design of public toilets. Outdoor defecation is a result of everyday practice formed during childhood and it is very common among people living in rural areas. Available open space and poor understanding of health and hygiene are responsible for the formation of open defecation habit. Most slums dwellers are migrants from rural areas, and in spite of many years of living in urban areas, they maintain a strong rural lifestyle. They subscribe to rural traditions and see nothing wrong in children defecate on the sidewalk or next to their ramshackle homes. This is a first step toward forming open defecation habit.
Children are given minimal importance in public toilets as they are unpaid users, and during busy hours they are turned away to use the outdoor; this leads to the habit formation of open defecation at an early age. Adults living in slums are victim of
childhood habits and rural lifestyle, and the encouragement to use the outdoor. Also, the poor design of public toilets reinforces to the belief that outdoor places are cleaner for defecation and open air offers odorless defecation experience. Outdoor users get accustomed to defecating in daylight, maximum ventilation and natural surroundings, and they are deterred by the public toilets’ dark, dingy, poorly ventilate, odor filled, unhygienic and dirty environment.
Open defecation habit is hard to reverse unless public toilets meet the cultural requirements of users and offer experience that exceeds that of using the outdoor. However, restricting open defecation and providing education about public toilet use will help in reversing the practice of outdoor use.
4.2 Universal Design
Most public toilets are inaccessible to children, the elderly and people with disabilities, and they do not offer equal opportunity of use to everyone. The squat pans are oversized for children, often requiring them to overspread their legs or sit sideways in unsafe situation. The urinals, sinks and accessories are mounted at heights inaccessible to children and crawlers (disable users who crawl on the floor); they are also unable to activate the door latch and reach faucet in bathrooms. They either accept the environmental limitations, and those who do so dangerously injure themselves. Public toilets lack grab-bars around stairs and in toilets and bathrooms. Consequently, older people and those with disabilities have difficulty in climbing stairs and sitting down and getting up when using squat latrines. Lack of support, handicaps everyone, and those unable to manage on their own become dependent on caregivers. Inaccessible public toilets deter use, create dependency and promote outdoor defecation. It will help to build-in flexibility and offer choices to present equal opportunity and provide universal access to everyone.
Elder people, children and people which mobility impairments using public toilets
4.3 Stall Sizes
The current size of bathroom and toilet stalls is small for everyone. Some townships prescribe 3’x3’ stalls for bathing and toileting; and they are unusable for all users. Independent users are unable to perform bathing and toilet activities; and dependent users cannot park mobility aids like crutches and walkers, and caregivers are unable to enter and help dependent users. A 3’x4’stall with door opening outside is the minimum space independent users but not dependent users and caregivers. Dependent users and caregivers require a minimum stall size of 4’x4’. Most
bathrooms are too small to allow robing and disrobing of Indian clothes and women wearing saris are unable to change in tight bathrooms and those wearing/removing clothes is these bathrooms often return home in wet clothes. Consequently bathroom use in public toilets is often abandoned by women for lack of robing/disrobing facilities and instead they make a small bathing place in the home. Mostly women travelers are bathroom users in public toilets as they have no alternative but change clothes in wet bathrooms.
Dedicated places for robing/disrobing will help bring women back to using bathrooms in public toilets.
4.4 Cleanliness and Maintenance
Most public toilets are unclean places as people do not care for them. In spite of running water, public toilet users often refuse pour water after use. This phenomenon is difficult to comprehend considering most homes of slum dwellers are clean from inside and they display many possessions like brass utensils with great pride. In an Ahmedabad slum where a NGO had constructed private toilets and given cleaning tools to residents, the toilets were kept clean and people regularly used the tools to clean their living environment. There are two reasons for the disdain users have towards public toilet. First, the role of payment plays an important role in the peoples’ ideas about cleanliness. Many public toilet users believe that they are “paying” for use and cleanliness, and so there is no need for them to pour water after use. Instead someone else should clean their mess. Many users of public toilet believe that cleaning is the work of “lower caste” workers. Secondly, the contempt towards cleaning is grounded in lack of ownership and people’s disregard for things they do not own or share with others.
For public toilets to be cared and kept clean, it is important to offer the toilets in many scales and in many models of ownership, ranging from individual toilets for privately owned by separate families; a pair of toilets for neighboring families; a cluster of toilets for a group of families; and finally public toilet buildings for neighborhood or community use. Scalable ownership and designated maintenance plan are crucial to combating ownership problems. Technology is the solution to this and use of automatic flush technology will address this problem.
4.5 Cultural Aspects
Women living in slums go outdoors for defecation before sunrise or after sunset. While men go by themselves, and sit away from each other, women go with other women in small groups for security reasons; they sit close to each other and socialize through conversation and sharing experiences. Consequently women develop collective behavior as it relates to toileting and bathing and public toilets, because of their individual stall design, do not support this social behavior. Women rely heavily on each other, and they choose security over privacy as they fear being attacked and becoming prey to men if they go by themselves. Most women want choice of individual and communal use in public toilets to support social behavior, and depending on who they go with would like to choose one of the options. Public bathrooms also lack in potty-parity, implying that there are fewer number of stalls for
women compared to that of men. Since women are not required to pay for toilet use, there is less inertia on part of public toilet builders to construct more stalls for women. Consequently, there are longer delays and more wait time, and many women abandon use of public toilets.
Potty parity and attention to cultural aspects are necessary to bring back women users to public toilets.
4.6Other Environmental Shortcomings
Public toilets are very busy during morning rush hours and people stand in long lines for their turn. Standing is a problem for many people; it is difficult for the elderly, children and people with disabilities. Incorporation of seats will help all users including the elderly, children and people with disabilities can rest while waiting. Public toilets for different users in railway stations and bazaars (market places) do not have any provisions for safe storing of luggage and personal belongings. Consequently, travelers need to watch their own belongings while using the toilet since caretakers are unwilling to take responsibility of the luggage. The stalls are too small to take luggage inside and those who have no one to look after the luggage take them inside and experience great deal of inconvenience.
There is a need to provide seating and dedicated place for luggage storage in public toilets. The seating needs to be spread throughout the toilet and bathroom area and the luggage compartments must be of many sizes to accommodate a wide variety of luggage and personal belongings.
5. Conclusion
Public toilets play an important part in the lives of the Indian public including slum dwellers, road travelers and tourists. They are poorly designed, badly maintained and do not help most users. Because they do not address environmental and cultural aspects, they have been only marginally successful at combating open defecation. The study draws attention to important design issues and the need for inclusive sanitation solutions for the Indian public. For public toilets to offer universal access to everyone, the following design directives must be observed: 1) Install appropriate size stalls to facilitate independent use, dependent use and caregiving. 2) Promote use of public toilet in incorporating the experiences of natural settings like maximum daylight, good ventilation, odorless environments and collective/independent use by women. 3) Provide choice in fixture location and allow customization of stall interiors. 4) Address privacy and security issues of women. 5) Provide inclusive fixtures like latrines, washbasins, urinals that address the needs of wide range of users.
The current study on public toilets was conducted in the Western part of India and considering it represents a population group, the results are not conclusive. It will help to broaden the study to include people from other parts of India to better represent the cultural and social diversity. This will help to focus on the differences that represent diverse Indian population and offer flexible design solutions that can address cultural differences and human diversity.
The Public Toilet project questions the nature of universal design in India and it presents a discourse about social inclusion grounded in equal opportunity and personal empowerment. It challenges the public aspects of public toilets and highlights the importance of including all users through design. Clearly, public toilets must be for everyone; it must be culturally appropriate, socially relevant, for all users regardless of their physical condition, a clean and hygienic environment, and present a pleasant cleansing experience for everyone.
Acknowledgement
The National Institute of Design; Fulbright Program and Georgia Institute of Technology; the opinions contained in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsors.
References
Audirac, I. (2008). Accessing Transit as Universal Design. Journal of Planning Literature .
Chaudhury. (2006, June). Disability in India: Issues and Concerns.
Government of India. (n.d.). Report of the committee on slum statistics/census.
Keefe, P. O. (2007, November). People with Disabilities: Commitments to Outcomes.
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India. (2009-2010). Annual Report.
Report of the committee on slum statistics/census. (n.d.).
reytrty. (13w4545, 4234 353). wtrete. Retrieved 35 325, 253, from trete4rt: 32535
The state of slums in India. (n.d.). Retrieved 2012, from Water Aid India site: http://www.wateraid.org/india/what_we_do/7518.asp
Thomas, P. (2005). Mainstreaming disability in development: India Country Report.
Urban sanitation. (2010). Retrieved March 1, 2012, from Finish: http://www.finishsociety.com/page.php?page_id=36
Urban sanitation. (2010). Retrieved March 1, 2012, from Finish: http://www.finishsociety.com/page.php?page_id=36
WaterAid. (n.d.). Retrieved 2012, from Water Aid India site: http://www.wateraid.org/india/what_we_do/7518.asp
