Keywords

Evaluation; Water; Sanitation; Hygiene; Program

Introduction

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) sector since 1990, the MDG baseline year. However, 748 million people still depend on stacked sources of potable water – almost a quarter of which rely on untreated surface water, and 2.5 billion people lack access to improved sanitation including one billion who practice open defecation. Furthermore, there continue to be resolved disparities across the sector, with some part of the country lagging far behind progress on drinking water and sanitation: 2014 update. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Across the globe averages, notably the Sub-Saharan Africa region, and some countries trailing far behind their neighbors. Sub-national disparities are often even more evident: between poor and richer households, between rural and urban populations, and between geographic regions. UNICEF continued to expand its global WASH programmed in 2013; providing support for emergency preparedness, coordination and response, and for the development of sustainable and equitable WASH services in accordance with its mandate for children. The UNICEF WASH programmed is active in over 100 countries with a total expenditure of $470 million – an increase of $90 million from 2012. In keeping with its focus on equity, the programmed is concentrated in poor countries with 71% of expenditure in least developed and other low-income countries, and on poor and marginalized populations within countries. Increasingly the programme focuses on supporting transformational change, particularly in the enabling environment, in order to accelerate progress towards universal access. Nevertheless, service delivery remains a significant component of the WASH programme especially in the most off-track countries and in response to humanitarian crises [44].

The supply or promotion of low-cost water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) technologies at the individual, household, or community-level combined with hygiene promotion is a key strategy for reducing diarrheal diseases in resource poor settings.

Improved sanitation and washing of hand were among the most counted factors in reducing morbidity and mortality from diarrheal virus. However, elevating sanitation and hygiene is quite challenging. Households must make appropriate practice in an arena which is intensely private. Catalyzing such choices requires that all institutional stakeholders collaborate effectively [43].

According to water Lane [22]; WHO [42] that about 2.6 billion people live without improved sanitation facilities and about a billion lack access to safe drinking . More troubling in the reports is the knowledge that a majority of the people without access to improved water supply and sanitation live in developing countries.

Saravanan et al [39] stated that for many years, efforts have been made to link disease epidemics to water supply and sanitation practices. Although water carries the transmission of microorganisms or parasites onto humans, unsafe sanitation practices and lack of environmental hygiene catalyze the spread of infections. This has led to standard categorization of water related infectious diseases transmission pathways. What seems to be missing in such thinking is the role of cultural factors of beliefs, local knowledge, norms, values and spirituality in influencing the broader contexts of behaviours for which contaminations and diseases spread occur.

Jewitt [20] seized both the spatial and temporal scope of cultural and environmental factors that constrain intervention efforts at addressing water and sanitation challenges in developing countries. Among the factors are the taboos and ambivalence surrounding human excrements, enhanced status of individuals, among other socio‐economic and physical factors. Of particular interest in the review are a) reports from Madagascar’s cultural taboo against storing sewerage underground for fear of contaminating the dead and putting one person’s faces on top of another’s both of which exclude the use of drop and store systems [9] resistance against the utilization of cesspits in Uganda for fear of allowing excreta to be used by sorcerers to cause harm; c) many other cases of cultural tolerance for the handling of faeces (faecophillia) as common with ‘night soil workers’ in countries such as China, India, [37] [18].

Such unique and shared experiences as Gibbs (2009) had observed (in the case of water) have the potential to reveal diverse cultures of nature, the institutions humans devise to mediate relationships with nature and the complex interactions that comprise a more‐than‐human world. However, human relationship with nature varies in place and time reflecting the cultural, socio‐economic and physical contexts as well as temporal factors yet, the potential contribution of these contextual factors in evaluation and intervention practices has received very little attention both in research and policy arena.

McFarlane [25][; Black and Fawcett [9]; Odumosu [32] have debated for more place sensitive and locally evolved approaches that take account of the various socio‐ economic, cultural, political and physical/ecological environments rather than pure physical infrastructures and assumptions of ignorance often credited to the intended beneficiaries.

Odumosu [32] in his study particularly enhanced UNICEF to look into the problems of under what circumstances people in different geographical areas and cultural contexts become willing and able to change their sanitation behaviours and practices.

Jewitt [20] on the other hand concluded that greater sensitivity to the wider political ecologies of sanitation provision in specific local contexts as well as the environmental; socio‐economic and cultural appropriateness of different sanitation options will have significant impact in addressing the challenges in developing countries. Although the international development agencies have attempted to transform thinking to the practice of addressing safe drinking water and sanitation, it has not gone far enough.

Bonn [11] stated the prevalence of the problem is even worse in sub‐Saharan Africa, where only 60% of the population has access to improved water source Inadequate access to safe drinking water and sanitation services together with poor hygiene is a primary reason for the high levels of diseases, poor nutrition and the mortality of children. It is partly responsible for about five million child deaths a year. Knowledge gaps for targeted actions exist especially at the domestic household and community levels. There is need for a better understanding of local social, cultural and ecological geographies to be able to evolve flexible engagements with local actors and target population on environmental health issues.

According to Young et al [45]; Muhlhausler and Peace [30] the human ecology literature is the concept that environment is a major contribution in human behaviour had observed that human nature has two sides and the physical or material side is the one in which each human being lives ‘with a biological body, physically equipped with impulses, instincts and limitations on each species. The other side is broader. Here each person creates, uses, dominates and is dominated by a universe of symbols. This vision allows for an association between ecology and cultures. Ecology is usually associated with the physical or material world and this world is interrelated with human being, and therefore, culture. Moreover, the form of relationship humans are seen as part of an ecosystem and such unity of nature and culture contribute in producing meanings and values over time.

Dietz et al. [15] stressed the reciprocal relationship of humans and the environment, giving rise to studies focusing on the effects of human activities on the environment and vice versa. Such studies which are largely located in the human ecology literature tend to demonstrate that human impact on the environment is not merely driven by ignorance or carelessness but by the advantages derived from exploiting the environment (Dietz et al, 2009).

Morales et al. [29] and Dearing [14] cited that the people use information they have about the environment to act gives indication of the relationship between human cognition and specific ecological, cultural and social settings and such relationship is specialized and often contributes to meeting the specific human economic, social and cultural demands.

Horelli [18] posited that the environment should be broadly considered more from a transactive than interactive perspective.

Ingold’s [19] observation of the social and ecological systems as operating in a reciprocal interplay.

Martins’ et al [29] philosophical comparison of the differences between local ecological knowledge and western science or professional knowledge is very useful in understanding the various versions of human‐nature interaction. In the categorization, three interrelated issues stand out as follows: 1.) the relationship between humans and their environment; 2.) the nature of knowledge‐making in space and time, and; 3.) the role of belief

Roy et al [38] indicated that ecosystem scientists have provided numerous examples of cases in which knowledge independent of time is insufficient due to common occurrence of ecological perturbation and surprise. This is in contradistinction to local ecological knowledge which has been shown to be context driven, evolutionary and adaptive, situated knowledge and is flexible over time, evolving with an often unpredictable, uncontrollable environment.

Menzies and Butler [26] emphasized the fact that, unlike western science, local ecological knowledge depends on beliefs, values, norms and spirituality which has been criticized for its ‘anti‐rational’ philosophy.

Berkes [8] observed that the most fundamental lesson from the local ecological knowledge perhaps relate to the fact that worldviews and beliefs do not matter in the context of human‐nature interaction. On the other hand, others have argued that the belief component of local ecological knowledge enhances its ability to bridge the divide between nature and culture in many cases, further enabling technologies and management systems that are embedded in the local environment and sustainable over time [8] and [24].

According to Boonzaaijer [12] included religious and philosophical systems and, to a large extent, dictate the way natural resources are viewed and managed in such worldview influences the way people organise themselves and how they experiment and innovate, and are often dynamic and often influenced among others by religion as well as by science and formal education, the interaction of the spiritual, social, and material worlds implies the following possible constellations of knowledge’s: Local knowledge resulting from spiritual interactions only; Combinations of knowledge between the spiritual and social worlds; Knowledge resulting from social interactions only, Combinations of knowledge of the social and material worlds, Knowledge resulting from material interactions only, Combinations of knowledge of the material and spiritual worlds, and Combinations of knowledge of the spiritual, social and material worlds.

Miller [28] and posited that in contemporary development initiatives, water and sanitation policies in developing countries rarely consider the importance of indigenous water cosmovisions and beliefs, yet these play significant parts in supporting or constraining intervention. For instance, in cultures, real life or wellbeing occurs where the three worlds of social, material and the spiritual meet.

According to Mielke [27] human beings usually act based on insufficient information or even in part upon the basis of myths, dogmas, ideologies and half‐baked theories’. Furthermore, the interplay of cognitive and ecological factors produces some patterns of locally sanctioned and meaningful norms, behaviours and practices which may not necessarily be acceptable to wider socio‐ecological and cultural order and consequently, such peripheral behavioural tendencies are often discriminated against and labeled as ‘deviant’.

Jewitt [20] argued that the greatest limiting factors in the solution to inadequate sanitation stems from inappropriate, top‐down sanitation interventions that prioritize ‘hardware’ and neglect wider political ecologies and ‘software’ (which in our opinion include socio‐economic, cultural) dimensions and has helped to prevent a thorough analysis of why different sanitation systems succeed or fail in different cultural contexts. One particular aspect of contexts that are very important as an element of cultural feature is the spiritual dimension.

Cox [13] and Holloway et al [17] attempted to demonstrate how dirt, contamination and disgust are conceptualized (and find expression) within different geographical contexts.

Cox [13] emphasized that the traditions of records on urban sanitation, squalor and decay have no counterpart in rural studies’, which gives rise to intriguing tensions between imaginations of rural spaces as clean, pure and healthy and the actual importance of dirt, sweat and manure in traditional rural livelihoods [17]. In this context, dirt is not ‘matter out of place’ but ‘an integral part of how the countryside is constructed, in the imaginations of both rural communities and urban dwellers’ [13]. However, situations people find it difficult to do what is considered ‘appropriate’ or ‘right’ because of cultural reasons (being obliged to use water judged to be of poor quality or indulging in sanitation practices that are believed to capture, reinforce or define the depth and values of mother child bond). Such cultural practices are often very powerful enough as to reduce sensitivity to the ‘inappropriateness’ of indulging in certain unhygienic practices. In this case intervention will best succeed by working with available local value base and institutions (local traditional and religious value structures) than through secular approach [31].

A research was conducted by Akpabio [2] on water meanings and sanitation practices, which started with an initial collection and transcription of local proverbs in 2004 and 2005, and then subsequently seeking deeper understanding of their meanings with specific reference to drinking water. Such information specifically, on notions and values of water, were subsequently extended to understand their impacts on sanitation practices. This equally triggered additional follow‐up investigation (with in‐depth interviews) on various sanitation practices and hygiene behaviours of individuals and groups within the contexts of space and time. In the case of water and sanitation related epidemics, many scholars have emphasized that the success of any government

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to evaluate the Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) program in the District of Lambunao, East, Division of Iloilo, Philipines for the school year 2014- 2015. It further aimed to evaluate the water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) program and their differences in the program being implemented by the elementary teachers.

Materials and Methods

The respondents of this present study were the 200 randomly selected elementary pupils in the District of Lambunao East, Division of Iloilo, Philippines. The simple random sampling method was employed in the selection of the sample respondents of the study. The researcher made instruments was used to gather the needed data for the investigation. The statistical tools were the mean; standard deviation; and ANOVA. The .05 alpha level of significance intervention programme cannot solely depend on the scientific understanding of disease aetiology, references must also be made to accommodate values and beliefs that affect peoples’ attitudes toward disease itself as well as behaviours towards modern intervention system [20].

The researcher posited to evaluate the sanitation of water and hygiene (wash) program in the District of Lambunao, East, Division of Iloilo, Philippines.

was used as the criterion for the acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis.

Results and Discussion

The result showed that the level Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) program among the pupils in the District of Lambunao East, Division of Iloilo, Philippines revealed that a mean of 4.50 for Sanitation Services and Practice and 4.40 for Hygiene Practices all were Very Highly Practiced in their water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) program and Very Highly Practice in general with a general mean of 4.45.

The level of practice of WASH program among grade VI pupils in the District of Lambunao East, Division of Iloilo, Philippines in terms of Sanitation Services and Practices and as to their Hygiene Practices are ‚Very Highly Practiced‛.

Table 1

The Level of Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Program among the Respondents being implemented

WASH Program N Mean Description Std. Deviation
Sanitation Services and Practices 200 4.5 Very Highly Practiced 0.748
Hygiene Practices 200 4.4 Very Highly Practiced 0.906
General Mean 4.45 Very Highly Practiced

Mean Description
4.21 – 5.00 Very Highly Practiced
3.41 – 4.20 Highly Practiced
2.61 – 3.40 Practiced
1.81 – 2.60 Moderately Practiced
1.00 – 1.80 Not Practiced

Result showed that no significant difference in the level of Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Program among the grade VI pupils as to sanitation services and practice and hygiene practices as shown in their p-value of .293and .326 respectively.

The hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the level of Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) program among the grade VI pupils is accepted.

Table 2

ANOVA Results on the Significant Difference in the Level of Water Sanitation ad Hygiene (WASH) Program being Implemented

WASH Program F Sig. Description Decision
Sanitation Services and Practices 1.23 0.293 Not Sig. Accept Ho
Hygiene Practices 1.123 0.326 Not Sig. Accept Ho

Conclusion and Recommendation

The Grade VI pupils in the District of Lambunao East, Division of Iloilo, Philippines follow their Sanitation Services and Practices and their Hygiene Practices are very highly implemented and the Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) practice does not being implemented by the respondents. It is recommended that the school administrators would be able to frame interventions on WASH program based on the school strengths and weaknesses. Finally, The school administrators and teachers make adjustments and interventions on WASH program with reference to the results.