Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Open defecation

Open defecation is the practice of defecating in open areas, such as street gutters, bushes, or bodies of water, without the use of toilets or latrines, which exposes human feces to the environment and promotes the fecal-oral transmission of pathogens. As of 2024, approximately 354 million people globally continue this practice, with rates four times higher than the world average in low-income countries and concentrated primarily in rural regions of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The health consequences are severe, as open defecation drives the spread of diarrheal diseases like cholera and dysentery, as well as typhoid, intestinal worms, and stunting in children, contributing to an estimated 564,000 deaths annually, the majority among young children. Environmentally, it contaminates water sources and soil, exacerbating antimicrobial resistance and broader ecological degradation through unchecked nutrient pollution. Global efforts to eradicate it, guided by Sustainable Development Goal 6.2, have reduced the number of practitioners from 1.3 billion in 2000 to 419 million in 2022, but acceleration—potentially doubling current sanitation progress rates—is required to achieve elimination by 2030, particularly in lagging regions where over 25% of populations in 13 countries still rely on open practices.

Definition and Terminology

Core Definition

Open defecation is the practice of defecating in the open environment without the use of any toilet, , or other facility designed to contain human excreta. This includes disposal in fields, forests, bushes, ditches, beaches, open bodies, or other exposed areas, often with minimal or no manipulation such as partial covering with , , or leaves. The method inherently exposes feces to environmental vectors like flies, animals, and rainfall, which disperse pathogens into sources, , and food chains, elevating risks of fecal-oral transmission diseases such as , typhoid, and diarrheal illnesses that cause over 800,000 child deaths annually. In global monitoring frameworks, open defecation is categorized separately from other sanitation levels by the (WHO) and Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP), representing the lowest rung where no excreta containment occurs, distinct from "unimproved" facilities like hanging latrines or bucket toilets that at least partially isolate waste but fail to prevent environmental leakage. This distinction underscores its role as a primary driver of sanitation-related morbidity in low-resource settings, where empirical data link it causally to heightened and stunting in children via repeated enteric infections. Prevalence metrics, such as the 419 million people estimated to practice it worldwide as of , rely on household surveys defining it strictly as the absence of any disposal mechanism beyond open deposition. Open defecation is distinct from other forms of inadequate , such as unimproved facilities, which include latrines without slabs or platforms, hanging latrines, bucket or pan latrines, or flush/pour-flush toilets connected to open drains or ditches. While these unimproved options provide minimal containment of human excreta, they fail to ensure hygienic separation from human contact, yet they are not classified as open defecation because are not disposed directly in open areas or with solid waste. In contrast, open defecation involves the complete absence of any containment or disposal mechanism, leading to direct environmental contamination and heightened risks of . The concept fits within the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme's ladder, a hierarchical framework categorizing practices from least to most protective. At the ladder's base, open represents the lowest rung, involving in fields, forests, bushes, open water bodies, beaches, or other exposed spaces. Ascending rungs include unimproved facilities, followed by limited (improved but shared or with unsafe disposal), basic (improved, on-premises, not shared, but untreated waste), and safely managed (improved, not shared, with safe treatment and disposal of excreta). This progression emphasizes progressive improvements in fecal containment, treatment, and reduced exposure, with open posing the greatest threat due to unmitigated fecal-oral pathways. Related terms include "open defecation free" (ODF) status, denoting communities or households that have universally transitioned from open practices to any form of use, often as a milestone in campaigns targeting Sustainable Development Goal 6.2. However, ODF does not guarantee safely managed , as it may involve unimproved or shared facilities prone to relapse without sustained infrastructure and behavior change. Another distinction arises with animal defecation in open areas, which contributes to environmental fecal loads but is not encompassed in human open defecation metrics, though combined effects exacerbate contamination in shared rural or peri-urban spaces. These concepts underscore causal links between sanitation deficits and disease burdens, with empirical data linking open defecation to elevated incidences of diarrheal diseases, soil-transmitted helminths, and stunting in affected populations.

Historical Background

Prehistoric and Ancient Practices

In prehistoric eras, human societies consisted largely of small, mobile groups whose low population densities and frequent relocations minimized conflicts between living areas and waste accumulation. occurred openly in natural surroundings, typically at a distance from camps to avoid immediate fouling of water sources or food-gathering sites, a observed in comparative studies and inferred from the absence of fixed waste disposal artifacts in sites. This practice aligned with adaptive instincts, as evidenced by ethnographic accounts of modern s who instinctively separate waste from communal spaces to reduce parasite exposure. Archaeological coprolite analyses from sites dating to the and early reveal intestinal parasites such as hookworms and pinworms in prehistoric human remains, indicating that open defecation facilitated fecal-oral pathogen transmission, particularly in semi-sedentary groups exploiting caves or seasonal camps. For instance, from a Mexican cave site, dated approximately 700–900 CE but reflecting pre-Columbian foraging patterns, contained eggs of multiple helminths alongside bacteria like and , underscoring chronic exposure risks despite spatial separation efforts. The transition to around 10,000 BCE in regions like the intensified these issues, as fixed settlements increased fecal density near habitations, prompting initial rudimentary pits but sustaining predominant open practices. During ancient periods, open defecation persisted alongside emerging containment efforts in early urban centers. In by circa 4000 BCE, clay pipe sewers drained elite areas in cities like , yet peripheral and rural zones defaulted to open fields or ditches, as inferred from uneven infrastructure distribution and textual records of waste-related nuisances. The Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300–1300 BCE) featured sophisticated brick-lined drains and soak pits in , potentially serving as latrines for about 5–10% of the population in core urban blocks, but archaeological surveys indicate open defecation dominated in expansive suburbs and villages lacking connections. In ancient Egypt (c. 3000 BCE onward), Nile floodplain settlements relied on seasonal inundation to disperse waste, with open defecation common among laborers, while pharaonic elites used portable chamber pots emptied into rivers; parasite evidence from mummified intestines confirms widespread fecal contamination. Greek and Roman innovations, including public latrines in Athens by 500 BCE and Rome's Cloaca Maxima sewer from the 7th century BCE, accommodated urban multitudes but harbored shared cleaning sponges that spread infections, as shown by high whipworm and tapeworm prevalence in latrine sediments—suggesting these systems often amplified rather than eliminated open-equivalent risks in overcrowded contexts. In ancient India, Vedic texts (c. 1500–500 BCE) prescribed open defecation in designated remote spots with water cleansing, reflecting cultural norms over infrastructural solutions in non-urban settings. Across these civilizations, open practices endured due to incomplete coverage, maintenance failures, and resource constraints, contributing to endemic diseases like dysentery.

Transition to Contained Sanitation

The earliest transitions to contained sanitation emerged in ancient urban centers, where population density necessitated waste management to mitigate health risks and odors. In Mesopotamia around 4000 BCE, communities developed the first known clay pipes for sewage conveyance, marking an initial shift from indiscriminate open defecation to channeled disposal systems. Similarly, the Indus Valley Civilization (circa 3300–1300 BCE) constructed advanced infrastructure, including private latrines in homes connected to brick-lined drains that directed waste to municipal sewers and soak pits, demonstrating early recognition of containment's role in urban livability. Ancient Rome advanced these practices significantly during the Republican and Imperial periods, constructing the sewer around 600 BCE under King Tarquinius Priscus, which collected stormwater and human waste from public latrines into the Tiber River. By the 1st century CE, featured over 140 public latrines (foricae) with stone benches over running channels, serving thousands daily and reducing open defecation in the city's core, though rural areas and provinces lagged. These systems relied on gravity-fed aqueducts for flushing, underscoring how engineering innovations in containment correlated with reduced urban disease incidence compared to contemporaneous open practices elsewhere. Following the fall of , sanitation regressed in during the medieval period, with widespread use of cesspits and chamber pots often emptied into streets or rivers, perpetuating open defecation equivalents until the . The catalyzed renewed progress: outbreaks, such as London's 1831–1832 epidemic killing over 6,000, prompted legislative reforms like the UK's Public Health Act of 1848, which mandated networks and private latrines. By the late 1800s, flush toilets invented by Sir John Harington in 1596 but popularized post-1850s—combined with piped water—became standard in European cities, slashing open defecation rates through contained, water-borne systems. Globally, transitions varied by region and were often incomplete; for instance, while East Asian societies like employed bucket latrines and collection from the (206 BCE–220 CE) onward, many non-Western areas retained open practices until 20th-century interventions. Modern milestones include the first flushing public lavatory in in 1852 and widespread adoption of septic tanks in rural settings by the early 1900s, driven by bacteriological insights from figures like in 1854 linking contaminated water to . These developments highlight containment's causal link to lower pathogen transmission, though socioeconomic barriers delayed universal implementation.

Underlying Causes

constitutes a primary economic driver of open defecation, as low household incomes render sanitation facilities unaffordable for the majority in affected populations. In , where GDP often falls below $2,000 annually, open defecation averaged 22.55% across households in recent surveys, with rates highest among those in the lowest wealth quintiles. Within countries, disparities are stark: in , the poorest 20% of households are 10 times more likely to practice open defecation than the richest 20%. Similarly, in , the poorest quintile faces a 12-fold higher likelihood compared to the wealthiest. These patterns reflect a strong inverse correlation between national income levels and access, with indicators showing open defecation rates declining as GDP rises above $5,000. The direct cost of toilet construction exacerbates this issue, often consuming a disproportionate share of limited resources. In rural and , building a basic demands 33% to 77% of a household's annual , far exceeding what subsistence-level families can allocate without forgoing essentials like or . Annual per capita expenses for simple pit latrines in developing countries range from $11 to $54, while more durable ventilated improved pit latrines cost $10 to $172, pricing out households earning less than $2 per day. Limited access to , construction materials, and skilled labor in remote, impoverished areas further entrenches reliance on open defecation, as households prioritize immediate survival over long-term investments. This economic constraint perpetuates a causal cycle wherein open defecation fosters disease and reduced , reinforcing poverty. Countries with the highest open defecation rates—predominantly low-income nations in and —record elevated diarrhea-related , impairing workforce participation and economic output. Empirical analyses confirm that deficits cost economies billions annually in and productivity losses; for instance, incurs $1 billion yearly from open defecation alone, equivalent to foregone GDP growth. Interventions like subsidies have shown partial success in breaking this loop, but unaided market forces in poverty-stricken contexts sustain the practice due to persistent affordability gaps.

Cultural and Behavioral Factors

In many rural communities in and , cultural norms favor open-air defecation in fields or bushes for perceived benefits such as enhanced privacy from household members, exposure to fresh air, and avoidance of odors or contamination near living spaces, which are seen as ritually unclean. These preferences persist even when latrines are available, as enclosed facilities may conflict with traditional views associating feces storage with impurity or proximity to burial sites. Taboos and superstitions further reinforce these practices; for instance, in parts of and , defecating indoors or in enclosed spaces is believed to invite misfortune or violate ancestral customs, leading pupils and adults alike to opt for open areas despite school or household facilities. Similarly, in rural , seasonal norms discourage open defecation in certain crop fields due to contamination fears, but habitual field use dominates elsewhere, underscoring how ingrained beliefs override infrastructural alternatives. Behaviorally, open defecation endures as a default due to weak social disapproval and low intrinsic toward the practice in affected communities, where collective norms have not shifted to stigmatize it as unhygienic. Studies indicate that even in open defecation-free declared villages, reversion occurs without sustained behavioral nudges, such as integrating anti-open defecation messaging into rituals, because initial relies on external rather than internalized change. In households with latrines, for example, 24.5% still practiced open defecation in 2024, attributed to entrenched family routines and inadequate enforcement of usage norms. Gender-specific behaviors exacerbate persistence, with reporting open defecation as a means to evade intra-household , though this exposes them to risks; men, conversely, often cite and . Community-level acceptance, including tolerance of child open defecation as non-harmful, perpetuates cycles, as evidenced by assessments in where such practices align with pre-modern hygiene views. Effective interventions thus require dismantling these norms through targeted disgust elicitation and norm-shifting campaigns, as standalone provision fails to alter behaviors rooted in cultural inertia.

Infrastructural and Environmental Constraints

Lack of adequate , such as toilets and systems, is a primary driver of open defecation worldwide. In , approximately 419 million people practiced open defecation due to insufficient access to basic facilities, including improved toilets or latrines connected to safe disposal systems. Rural areas, where is often limited by poor networks and high costs, exhibit higher rates of open defecation compared to centers. For instance, in many low-income countries, fewer than 50% of rural households have access to , forcing reliance on open fields or bushes. Urban informal settlements face additional infrastructural challenges, including overcrowded conditions and absent networks. In , , for example, sewer infrastructure designed for 800,000 people serves over 4 million, leaving 80% of households without connection and contributing to widespread open defecation or use of inadequate facilities. Limited space for on-site like pit latrines or septic tanks exacerbates the issue, often resulting in contamination of and shared water sources. Environmental factors further constrain the feasibility and durability of sanitation infrastructure. Flood-prone regions, such as parts of , experience frequent destruction of latrines, compelling residents to revert to open defecation in rivers or open areas during rainy seasons. High water tables, rocky soils, and arid conditions hinder pit latrine construction by preventing stable digging or increasing collapse risks, while droughts limit water availability for flushing or handwashing, undermining even existing facilities. intensifies these barriers through increased flooding, droughts, and sea-level rise, which damage or render infrastructure unusable in vulnerable coastal and low-lying areas. In pastoralist regions of , seasonal mobility and sparse population density make permanent installations impractical, perpetuating open practices.

Prevalence and Geographical Distribution

In 2022, 419 million people worldwide practiced open defecation, representing 5% of the global population. This marked a substantial decline from 1.3 billion people, or 21% of the population, in 2000. By 2024, the proportion had further decreased to 4%, reflecting a reduction of over 430 million individuals since 2015 when it stood at 10%. The trend shows accelerated progress in basic access, with open defecation rates dropping by more than two-thirds between 2000 and 2022, driven primarily by national campaigns and infrastructure investments in high-burden regions. In 2022, 36 countries reported open defecation rates between 5% and 25% of their populations, while 13 countries exceeded 25%. Global efforts aligned with Goal 6.2 aim to end open defecation by 2030, with current trajectories suggesting potential achievement by 2025 if historical progress rates are sustained, though acceleration is required for broader safely managed targets. Despite these gains, disparities persist, with rural areas lagging urban ones; for instance, open defecation remains more prevalent in low-income countries at rates four times the global average. The Monitoring Programme data indicate that while 58% of the global population had access to safely managed services by 2024, the 3.5 billion lacking such services include the 419 million still relying on open practices. Continued highlights the need for verified surveys to counter potential overreporting in self-declared "open defecation-free" statuses.

High-Prevalence Regions

Sub-Saharan Africa exhibits the highest regional prevalence of open defecation, with rates significantly exceeding global averages. According to the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) estimates for 2022, 13 countries worldwide reported open defecation rates above 25%, the majority located in this region. Pooled analyses from demographic health surveys indicate an average prevalence of approximately 22.6% across sub-Saharan African households, driven by persistent infrastructural deficits and rural poverty. Among these, recorded the highest national rate at 67%, followed closely by at 65% and at 63%, reflecting limited access to facilities amid arid environments and conflict-related disruptions. , with its large population, accounts for tens of millions practicing open defecation, contributing substantially to the region's burden despite national efforts. Rural areas within these countries show even higher incidences, often exceeding 80% in remote communities lacking basic latrines. While previously dominated in absolute numbers, recent data indicate declining percentages, with at around 11% following sanitation campaigns, shifting the focus of high relative prevalence to . Isolated high-prevalence pockets persist in parts of , such as at 47%, but these pale in scale compared to African hotspots. Progress remains uneven, with urban migration exacerbating open defecation in peri-urban slums of countries like and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Urban-Rural Disparities

Open defecation persists at significantly higher rates in rural areas than in urban ones globally, reflecting disparities in infrastructure investment, , and . According to data from the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP), separate estimates for urban and rural populations reveal that rural open defecation rates substantially exceed urban rates, with the practice concentrated in low-income rural communities where basic coverage lags. In regions like and , rural rates can be 5 to 10 times higher than urban equivalents, driven by the logistical challenges of providing facilities in dispersed settlements. Urban areas generally exhibit lower prevalence due to proximity to centralized sanitation systems, public facilities, and regulatory enforcement, though challenges arise in densely populated informal settlements and slums where shared latrines are overburdened or absent. For instance, rapid in low-income countries has led to pockets of open defecation in urban peripheries, but overall urban progress has outpaced rural gains, with JMP data showing faster declines in urban open defecation since 2000. In , a 2024 analysis reported rural open defecation at approximately 67% of households versus 12% in urban ones, underscoring how and isolation exacerbate the gap. These disparities are reinforced by economic factors, as rural households often prioritize immediate survival needs over sanitation investments, compounded by weaker and extension services in remote areas. Progress in eliminating open defecation has been uneven, with 12 countries experiencing rising rates despite global trends toward reduction, highlighting the need for targeted rural infrastructure scaling to close the divide.

Health Impacts

Disease Transmission and Mortality Data

Open defecation exposes human feces containing pathogens directly to the environment, enabling fecal-oral transmission through multiple pathways, including contamination of surface and groundwater sources, soil, food crops, and direct contact via hands, footwear, or mechanical vectors like flies and animals. This uncontained disposal heightens the risk of ingesting or inhaling aerosolized pathogens, particularly in densely populated or flood-prone areas where runoff disperses contaminants widely. Primary diseases transmitted include bacterial infections such as Vibrio cholerae (cholera), Shigella spp. (dysentery), and Salmonella typhi (typhoid fever); viral pathogens like hepatitis A and E; and parasitic helminths including Ascaris lumbricoides (ascariasis) and hookworms, which penetrate skin or are ingested via contaminated produce. Epidemiological evidence links open defecation to elevated diarrheal disease rates, with studies showing 38% prevalence among children in households practicing it compared to 26% in those using contained . In low-income settings, this practice correlates with higher environmental fecal indicator levels, amplifying during rainy seasons when feces mobilize into supplies. Helminth infections, often soil-transmitted due to open defecation near living areas, affect over 1.5 billion people globally, contributing to and via chronic nutrient . Diarrheal diseases, predominantly driven by poor sanitation including open defecation, account for approximately 443,800 deaths annually among children under 5 years and 50,900 among those aged 5-9, representing about 9% of global under-5 mortality as of 2021 data. The attributes around 432,000 diarrheal deaths per year to inadequate practices, with open defecation—practiced by 419 million people as of 2022—exacerbating this burden in rural and peri-urban areas of and . These figures reflect a decline from earlier estimates due to sanitation improvements, yet persist due to incomplete coverage, underscoring the causal role of uncontained in sustaining endemic transmission.

Long-Term Physiological Effects

Repeated exposure to fecal pathogens through open defecation contributes to environmental enteric dysfunction (EED), a subclinical condition characterized by small intestinal , villus , and increased gut permeability, which impairs absorption and leads to undernutrition. EED develops primarily in infancy in areas with poor , where constant of contaminants via contaminated , , and fosters low-grade infections that alter gut morphology without overt symptoms. In children, EED and associated recurrent enteric infections from open defecation are causally linked to linear growth stunting, with studies showing that a 10% increase in open defecation correlates with a 0.7 rise in stunting rates, an effect persisting into adulthood and reducing height-for-age by up to 10-15 cm in severe cases. This stunting arises from chronic inflammation diverting energy from growth to immune responses and disrupting micronutrient uptake, such as and iron, resulting in irreversible skeletal and organ underdevelopment if occurring before age two. Open defecation also facilitates soil-transmitted helminth infections, including and , which attach to the intestinal mucosa, causing chronic blood loss, , and protein-energy through impaired iron and nutrient absorption. These helminths exacerbate EED by promoting gut and , leading to long-term physiological deficits like reduced muscle mass, weakened immune function, and heightened susceptibility to other infections, with prevalence reductions via improvements showing sustained decreases in rates over years.

Environmental and Economic Consequences

Pollution and Resource Degradation


Open defecation discharges untreated human feces into the environment, contaminating surface water, groundwater, and soil with pathogens including Escherichia coli, viruses, and helminths, as well as excess nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. In high-prevalence areas like rural villages in developing regions, this practice serves as a primary vector for bacteriological pollution of drinking water sources, with studies detecting E. coli in 25% of source water samples and up to 77% of stored water in Bangladesh communities reliant on unimproved sanitation.
Nutrient loading from fecal matter promotes in rivers and coastal ecosystems, where and from open defecation fuel algal overgrowth, hypoxic zones, and . In Bangladesh's coastal waters, human waste via open defecation accounts for 21% of total inputs and 11% of , an often-underestimated contribution compared to agricultural runoff. Similar patterns occur in and the , where direct fecal discharge into waterways without systems intensifies oxygen depletion and die-offs. Soil contamination persists as undigested fecal residues and pathogens infiltrate , impairing fertility and posing risks to crops through uptake or irrigation reuse. Peer-reviewed assessments in open defecation-free transition zones demonstrate reduced fecal indicator in soils post-intervention, underscoring the baseline degradation from unchecked practices. aquifers suffer long-term infiltration of contaminants, with fecal coliforms detected at high levels in urban and peri-urban wells in regions like , rendering aquifers unsuitable for potable use without filtration. This degradation diminishes overall resource quality, constraining availability for agriculture, fisheries, and human consumption while perpetuating cycles of environmental and economic strain.

Productivity and Cost Burdens

Open defecation imposes significant burdens through time lost in seeking defecation sites and caring for sanitation-related illnesses, alongside direct economic costs from healthcare expenditures and premature mortality. Globally, poor , including open defecation, results in annual economic losses of approximately $260 billion in low-income countries, equivalent to about 1.5% of their GDP, with productivity reductions stemming from illness and diverted labor time. In , inadequate costs 18 countries around $5.5 billion yearly, where open defecation alone accounts for substantial portions, such as $79 million in and $71 million in , primarily through foregone productivity from diarrheal diseases and time inefficiencies. Time-related productivity losses arise as individuals, particularly women and children, spend hours daily traveling to remote open defecation areas or queuing for facilities, reducing time available for , work, or income-generating activities. A comprehensive estimates that such time losses from open defecation and inadequate facilities total US$ annually in wasted economic opportunity worldwide. These inefficiencies compound in rural areas, where lack of toilets forces daily searches for , diverting an estimated 1-2 hours per person in high-prevalence regions, leading to lower agricultural yields and attendance. Illness-induced productivity burdens are driven by diarrheal diseases transmitted via fecal contamination, causing absenteeism from work and school as well as premature deaths that remove workers from the labor force. Poor sanitation contributes to 1.4 million annual deaths globally, with associated productivity losses from non-fatal cases including caregiver time for affected children and reduced adult output during recovery periods. In developing countries, these health impacts represent the largest share of sanitation-related costs, exceeding US$38 billion yearly in premature mortality and morbidity alone, far outpacing direct treatment expenses. Regional GDP reductions from such losses reach 0.9% in Africa and up to 1.1% in parts of Asia, underscoring how open defecation perpetuates cycles of low productivity by sustaining endemic disease burdens. Economic costs extend to household and governmental healthcare spending, where treating sanitation-linked diarrhea strains limited resources and exacerbates . In low- and middle-income countries, out-of-pocket expenses for childhood often push families into catastrophic expenditures, with like lost wages amplifying the burden by 2-3 times over direct medical fees. Nationally, these aggregate into forgone growth; for instance, eliminating open defecation in would require building just 1.2 million toilets but could recover US$11 million in annual gains currently lost to related inefficiencies. Such data highlight that investments in yield high returns, often 5-20 times the cost through averted drags, though realization depends on sustained usage to break chains.

Social Dimensions

Gender and Safety Risks

Open defecation exposes women and girls to elevated risks of and , as they must venture to secluded areas—often fields or bushes—for , particularly during early morning or evening hours when such locations are more isolated. Empirical evidence from rural indicates that women in households lacking private toilets experience higher rates of non-familial , including assaults linked to open defecation practices, with studies employing instrumental variable approaches to establish a causal reduction in reported crimes following toilet construction under programs like . In regions like , where open defecation persists, reports document women and girls facing insecurity and sexual harassment during these activities, exacerbating gender-based vulnerabilities. The psychosocial toll includes diminished dignity and fear of attack, prompting many women to delay defecation or , which increases susceptibility to urinary tract , , and reproductive complications. A of studies across multiple countries found that open defecation correlates with these suppressed behaviors among women, leading to long-term burdens and reduced mobility. In informal settlements, such as those in , women report sanitation-related violence, including beatings or molestation at shared or open sites, with qualitative data highlighting how inadequate lighting and remoteness amplify threats. Globally, approximately half of the 2 billion people without basic are women and girls, who bear disproportionate safety risks, including nighttime assaults that deter and economic participation. Peer-reviewed analyses confirm that toilet access mitigates these dangers, as evidenced by declines in gender-based violence metrics in areas with .

Community and Dignity Considerations

Open defecation exposes individuals to a lack of during , resulting in and a direct of , as fecal is left undisposed in communal spaces without barriers. This practice particularly burdens women and adolescent girls, who report restricting food and water intake or limiting to nighttime hours to evade , , or social scrutiny, thereby compromising their and mental . In empirical assessments across low-income settings, such constraints correlate with heightened , including anxiety over exposure and to violence during open-air acts. Communities practicing open defecation often internalize descriptive social norms, where the widespread observation of others defecating openly reinforces the behavior as acceptable, perpetuating a cycle of collective non-compliance with standards. A 2018 study in rural , surveying over 2,000 households, quantified these norms through metrics of perceived prevalence and expectations, finding that individuals who believed a of peers engaged in open defecation were 1.5 to 2 times more likely to continue the practice themselves, independent of toilet access. This normative entrenchment impedes community-wide shifts, as isolated adopters of latrines face or ridicule for deviating from group habits. Efforts to dismantle these norms, such as programs initiated in the early 2000s, harness induced by prompting collective —framing open defecation as equivalent to "eating each other's " via fecal-oral pathways—which has driven rapid, voluntary abandonment in targeted villages, with open defecation rates dropping to near zero in certified communities within months. However, sustained requires not only norm shifts but infrastructural , as incomplete coverage leaves residual practitioners marginalized and exposes communities to ongoing health externalities from unmanaged waste.

Interventions and Technologies

Low-Cost Sanitation Options

Simple pit latrines, consisting of an excavated pit covered by a concrete or wooden slab and a basic superstructure for privacy, serve as a foundational low-cost technology for containing human excreta in rural and peri-urban settings where open defecation prevails. Construction costs for these systems typically range from $10 to $50 per unit when using local materials like mud bricks or thatch, making them accessible for household-level implementation without extensive subsidies. Empirical evidence from sanitation programs demonstrates that simple pit latrines reduce open defecation practices by providing a physical barrier against fecal-oral pathogen transmission, outperforming indiscriminate field disposal in preventing soil and water contamination, though efficacy depends on proper siting to avoid groundwater pollution in high-permeability soils. Ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines build on the simple design by incorporating a vertical vent pipe, typically made of locally sourced materials, to facilitate airflow that minimizes odors, fly vectors, and accumulation within the pit. These enhancements add approximately $25 to $100 to base costs, resulting in total expenditures of $75 to $150, while improving user acceptance and sustained usage rates in tropical climates. Field studies in and show VIP latrines achieve higher adoption and lower reversion to open defecation compared to unventilated pits, with randomized interventions reporting up to 30-50% reductions in fecal contamination of household environments when combined with hygiene education. However, structural failures, such as vent pipe blockages from poor maintenance, can undermine long-term functionality, emphasizing the need for community training in operation. Alternative low-cost variants, such as arborloo toilets—shallow pits (0.5-1 meter deep) backfilled with soil and rotated seasonally—or urine-diverting dry toilets, further adapt to challenging environments like flood-prone or rocky terrains unsuitable for deep pits. Arborloos cost under $20 and enable safe nutrient recycling as after , reducing reliance on external inputs. Dry composting systems, priced at $50-200, separate to prevent odor and survival, with cycles of 6-12 months yielding usable in water-scarce rural areas. Effectiveness evaluations indicate these ecological options sustain open defecation-free status in 70-90% of user households over 2-5 years, particularly where water availability limits pour-flush mechanisms, though initial cultural resistance to handling waste products necessitates targeted behavioral support. Overall, these technologies prioritize containment and minimal environmental intrusion, with cost-benefit analyses affirming returns through averted healthcare costs exceeding 5:1 in high-burden regions.

Behavioral Change Initiatives

Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS), developed in in 1999 by Kamal Kar, represents a cornerstone participatory approach to behavioral change, emphasizing community mobilization to eliminate open defecation through rather than subsidies or infrastructure provision. Facilitators conduct "triggering" sessions that evoke via mapping defecation sites, calculating fecal loads, and dramatizing health risks, aiming to foster collective shame and pride in achieving open defecation-free (ODF) status. By 2015, CLTS had been implemented in over 50,000 villages across more than 25 countries, contributing to an estimated 15 million people gaining access to basic in alone. Empirical evaluations indicate CLTS modestly boosts construction and reduces open defecation rates, with a randomized trial in showing a 16-19 increase in ownership and decreased community tolerance for open defecation, alongside reductions in soil-transmitted helminth infections. However, sustained usage remains challenging; a multi-country found that while initial reductions in open defecation occurred through heightened use (up to 20-30% in some areas), relapse rates reached 20-50% within 2-3 years without follow-up support, underscoring the need for ongoing reinforcement like cadre and local leader involvement. Supplementary strategies, such as norms-based interventions and social nudges, enhance CLTS by targeting empirical expectations of peers' behaviors; for instance, multilevel programs in rural settings increased toilet usage by 10-15% via commitments and to shift social expectations. In Tanzania's Sanitation , incorporating edutainment videos and prompts yielded marginal gains in latrine use (around 5-10%), but combining them with engagement proved more effective than standalone messaging. Evidence from India's highlights that integrating behavioral triggers with monitoring reduced open defecation from 93% to 26% in targeted areas between 2014 and 2019, though attribution to behavior change alone is complicated by concurrent infrastructure investments. These approaches succeed when addressing psychological barriers like thresholds and social sanctions, particularly for women who face heightened , but falter amid cultural resistance or inadequate post-trigger support.

Policy Efforts and Campaigns

Major National Programs

India's Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM), launched on October 2, 2014, by , represented a nationwide campaign to achieve open defecation-free (ODF) status across rural and urban areas by October 2, 2019, marking Mahatma Gandhi's 150th birth anniversary. The program built upon the earlier Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC), shifting emphasis from mere infrastructure provision to sustained behavioral change through community mobilization, incentives for toilet construction, and public awareness drives. By 2019, it had constructed over 103 million household toilets in rural areas, increasing sanitation coverage from 39% in 2014 to nearly 100%, with independent surveys confirming a decline in open defecation practices among rural households. Components included financial subsidies up to ₹12,000 per household for toilet construction, integration of community-led total sanitation (CLTS) triggers to foster toward open defecation, and verification processes declaring over 600,000 villages ODF. Tanzania's National Sanitation Campaign (NSC), initiated in 2012 under the Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children, aimed to raise basic sanitation coverage to 80% by 2015 and eliminate open defecation in targeted rural districts through a CLTS-based approach. The campaign deployed over 2,000 trained facilitators to conduct "triggering" sessions in communities, promoting self-motivated construction without subsidies, alongside and follow-up monitoring. By 2019, it had certified thousands of villages as ODF, though coverage varied regionally, with evaluations noting accelerated building in intervention areas but challenges in sustaining usage without durable infrastructure. Adaptive messaging, such as the "Nyumba ni choo" (The house is a toilet) , was incorporated from 2016 to reinforce household-level ownership. Other notable programs include Senegal's phase-wise sanitation drive, supported by since the early 2010s, which combined latrine subsidies with behavioral interventions to declare regions like ODF by focusing on habit formation beyond infrastructure alone. In , the Universal Access to Basic program, rolled out nationally from 2011, integrated CLTS with government-led hygiene promotion, achieving ODF status in select woredas through community pacts against open defecation. These initiatives often drew from global frameworks like the WHO/ Joint Monitoring Programme, prioritizing measurable reductions in open defecation rates via household surveys and ODF certifications.

International Aid and Coordination

The United Nations Goal (SDG) 6.2, adopted in 2015, mandates achieving access to adequate and ending open defecation globally by 2030, with international coordination centered on , funding, and technical support from agencies like the (WHO) and . The WHO-UNICEF Joint Programme (JMP) provides annual data on progress, defining open defecation as disposal in fields, forests, bushes, or open water without facilities, and tracks reductions from 1.25 billion people in 2000 to approximately 419 million in 2022, though rural areas remain predominant with 93% of cases. This framework builds on Millennium Development Goal 7, which halved unimproved but fell short on open defecation elimination, prompting enhanced global partnerships. UNICEF leads behavioral and infrastructure initiatives, including its 2018 "Game Plan to End Open Defecation," which assists 40 priority countries in creating national roadmaps for (CLTS) and sanitation marketing to foster demand for latrines. In West and Central Africa, has supported over 10,000 communities in declaring open defecation-free status through hygiene education and subsidized construction, often in partnership with national governments. The complements these efforts with financing, committing over $2 billion annually to water, sanitation, and hygiene () projects as of 2023, including district-wide CLTS scaling in and India's , where Bank loans facilitated construction of 100 million household toilets between 2014 and 2019. Bilateral donors, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation via the Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Partnership, provide grants for innovation in low-cost toilets, emphasizing evidence-based interventions over top-down mandates. Empirical analyses of (ODA) show it correlates with access, with one study estimating that a 1% increase in inflows raises improved facility coverage by 0.2-0.5 percentage points in recipient countries from 1990-2010, though effects vary by governance quality and local absorption capacity. WHO economic modeling attributes $4 in and returns per $1 invested in , based on averted diarrheal deaths and reduced stunting, but cautions that uncoordinated can lead to duplicated efforts without sustained behavior change. The 2023 JMP report highlights that while urban open defecation has nearly ended (99% reduction), rural progress lags, requiring accelerated ODA to low-income countries where 673 million practiced it as recently as 2020, underscoring the need for better donor harmonization under mechanisms like the Global Water Partnership. Despite these gains, 2025 assessments indicate the SDG target remains off-track, with only 50% of countries on pace, prompting calls for reallocating toward high-burden regions like .

Criticisms and Challenges

Sustainability and Relapse Issues

Efforts to achieve and maintain open defecation free (ODF) status frequently encounter sustainability challenges stemming from inadequate infrastructure durability and incomplete sanitation service chains. In many interventions, latrines constructed during campaigns are rudimentary or temporary, leading to rapid deterioration without ongoing maintenance, emptying services, or integration with systems. Chronic underfunding, fragile supply markets for repairs, and external shocks such as events or conflict exacerbate relapse risks, as communities revert to open defecation when facilities become unusable. Independent evaluations emphasize that ODF declarations often prioritize over long-term functionality, resulting in slippage where initial gains in coverage erode post-intervention. In , the (SBM), launched in 2014, constructed over 110 million toilets and prompted nationwide ODF declarations by 2019 through self-certification processes that focused on infrastructure rather than verified usage. However, post-declaration surveys reveal significant relapse, with 17% of the rural population still practicing open defecation as of 2022, compared to 41% in 2015, indicating incomplete behavioral shifts and non-use of facilities due to design flaws, , and habitual preferences for open areas. In , declared ODF in March 2018, rural open defecation declined from 63.3% in October 2016 to 45.8% by July 2018, yet 21.7% of rural households owning toilets reported regular open defecation, highlighting sustained non-compliance among lower-income groups despite ownership gains. Multi-country assessments of sanitation programs, such as the Sanitation, Hygiene, and Water in Schools and Safe Toilets for All (SSH4A) initiative across 10 nations from 2014–2018, demonstrate variable , with slippage in coverage occurring in half of evaluated areas 1–2 years post-intervention, including a 63 drop in one Ethiopian site and increased open defecation tied to economic vulnerability and baseline weaknesses. Key relapse drivers include overflowing pits without emptying options, waning community enforcement after campaign incentives end, and failure to address inclusivity for disabled or users, which undermines universal adoption. These patterns underscore that without embedded service delivery models—encompassing repairs, , and reinforcement of norms— gains prove transient, particularly in low-resource settings where open defecation offers perceived convenience over malfunctioning alternatives.

Data Integrity and Overreporting

Self-reported data from surveys, which form the basis for global and national estimates of coverage by organizations like the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP), often overestimate usage and thus understate the prevalence of open . In a study conducted in rural , respondent-reported defecation events in latrines averaged 28 per over four days, while motion-sensor data recorded only 17 events, indicating self-reports inflated usage by approximately 65%. Similar discrepancies appear in other sensor-based validations, where self-reported latrine use exceeded objective measurements, particularly in intervention areas where encourages exaggerated claims of compliance. National campaigns exacerbate overreporting through premature certifications of open defecation-free (ODF) status without rigorous, independent verification. In India's (SBM), launched in 2014, the government declared the country ODF in 2019, but subsequent independent surveys revealed persistent open defecation; for instance, in , which claimed ODF status in 2018, 21% of households reported practicing open defecation in 2018–2019 cross-sectional surveys. Political incentives for local officials, tied to funding and promotions, drive rushed declarations, often based on visible absence of feces rather than sustained behavioral change, leading to "slippage" where communities revert to open defecation post-certification. Slippage rates are high globally, with studies in showing most ODF villages relapsing within 1–2 years due to inadequate toilet maintenance and habitual preferences for open areas. In , over 50% of households with s continued open defecation, highlighting how access metrics fail to capture usage, further inflating coverage estimates. These issues stem from methodological reliance on unverified self-reports and lack of longitudinal monitoring, compromising the integrity of progress tracking toward Goal 6.2. Improved methods, such as randomized audits or technology-assisted verification, are recommended to mitigate biases.

Cultural Insensitivity in Approaches

Interventions aimed at curbing open defecation have frequently faltered by imposing standardized sanitation infrastructures without accounting for deeply ingrained cultural norms, resulting in widespread non-adoption and relapse. In rural India, for example, many households reject latrines due to ritual beliefs associating enclosed facilities with gandagi (impurity), which are seen as contaminating living spaces and disrupting purity practices central to Hindu traditions; surveys indicate women hold stronger views on this, scoring 0.32 on average compared to men's 0.77 in belief strength metrics. Despite the construction of over 92 million latrines under programs like the Swachh Bharat Mission by 2019, open defecation continued because campaigns overlooked these normative barriers, including habits cited by 27% of respondents and traditions by 23%, fostering pluralistic ignorance where individuals underestimate peers' latrine use. This cultural mismatch underscores how top-down hardware provision, without rebranding latrines to align with local purity schemas or addressing privacy preferences for open fields (perceived as offering better ventilation and exercise), yields low utilization. In , similar insensitivities arise from interventions that neglect traditional practices and societal attitudes, where open defecation is normalized as a cultural default tied to nomadic lifestyles or communal openness, leading to resistance against enclosed latrines viewed as unhygienic or restrictive. Over 673 million globally, including substantial populations, persist in open practices partly because programs fail to engage ethnic and gender-specific perspectives, such as Muslim communities' needs for or rural aversion to "" designs incompatible with local water-scarce cleansing methods. Even when latrines are built, consistent non-use occurs, as evidenced in Ethiopian rural studies where households own facilities but revert to fields due to perceived incompatibility with cultural comfort norms, amplifying risks without behavioral shifts. Community-led approaches like (CLTS) attempt mitigation by triggering local disgust toward feces, but overly aggressive shaming tactics have provoked backlash in sensitive contexts, such as curtailing activities in areas with strong purity taboos or causing social distress without tailored adaptations. In , religious rejection of pit s as ritually unclean further illustrates this, with randomized trials in showing subsidies alone insufficient against cultural aversion, necessitating norm-shifting narratives that respect but challenge entrenched views. Effective strategies thus demand empirical assessment of local barriers—such as through pilot campaigns increasing latrine use by 11% via culturally attuned messaging—rather than uniform imposition, to avoid entrenching resistance and ensure causal pathways to sustained change.

References

  1. [1]
    Sanitation - World Health Organization (WHO)
    Mar 22, 2024 · The world is on track to eliminate open defecation by 2030, if not by 2025, but historical rates of progress would need to double for the world ...
  2. [2]
    Sanitation Statistics - UNICEF DATA
    The global population practising open defecation dropped by more than half between 2015 and 2024, from 10% to 4%, equivalent to a reduction of 430 million ...Missing: prevalence | Show results with:prevalence
  3. [3]
    Open defecation | JMP - Joint Monitoring Programme
    Between 2000 and 2022, the number of people practising open defecation declined from 1.3 billion to 419 million, reducing by more than two thirds. In 2022, ...Missing: progress | Show results with:progress
  4. [4]
    WASH exposure, defecation: population practising open defecation ...
    The practice of “open defecation” leaves faeces exposed in ways that can easily lead to other people coming into contact with faecal pathogens. Definition: The ...Missing: 2024 | Show results with:2024
  5. [5]
    Metadata Glossary - World Bank DataBank
    People practicing open defecation refers to the percentage of the population defecating in the open, such as in fields, forest, bushes, open bodies of water, on ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] UNICEF's game plan to end open defecation
    9 Open defecation is defined as when human faeces are disposed of in fields, forests, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches or other open spaces or disposed ...
  7. [7]
    Share of people practicing open defecation - Our World in Data
    Open defecation refers to defecation in fields, forests, bushes, bodies of water, or other open spaces.
  8. [8]
    [PDF] 6.2.1 - SDG indicator metadata - the United Nations
    'Unimproved sanitation facilities' include flush or pour flush toilets connected to open drains; pit latrines without slabs; open pits; buckets, pans, 'trays' ...
  9. [9]
    Sanitation | JMP - Joint Monitoring Programme
    Sanitation ladder ... Open defecation. Disposal of human faeces in fields, forests, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches and other open spaces or with solid ...
  10. [10]
    Improved versus unimproved sanitation - GRID-Arendal
    ... categories on a “best to worst” ladder of sanitation service – with 'safely managed' at the top and 'open defecation' on the lowest rung as figure shows.
  11. [11]
    Sanitation ladder in rural and urban India: can subsidy from the ...
    Oct 21, 2024 · The hierarchical sanitation ladder identifies fivecategories of toilets, namely, safely managed, basic, limited, unimproved, and open defecation ...
  12. [12]
    From Open Defecation Free to sustainable sanitation - Unicef
    Aug 25, 2025 · The ultimate goal must go beyond ending open defecation. Achieving safely managed sanitation means ensuring toilets are durable, inclusive, ...
  13. [13]
    Prevalence of Open Defecation Practice and Associated Factors ...
    May 15, 2024 · Open Defecation (OD) is the disposal of human feces with solid waste in open areas, such as fields, forests, beaches, shrubs, open bodies of ...
  14. [14]
    The Early History of Human Excreta - JSTOR Daily
    Nov 10, 2021 · Nomadic humans had no waste issues, but early settlers had to deal with it. Minoans used water to flush waste, and Romans built large sewer ...
  15. [15]
    A natural history of hygiene - PMC - NIH
    The author argues that hygiene has an ancient evolutionary history, and that most animals exhibit such behaviours because they are adaptive.
  16. [16]
  17. [17]
    The what, how and why of archaeological coprolite analysis
    Ancient human faeces can provide direct evidence of health and diet, and also insights into sanitation practices, changing perceptions of cleanliness, and ...
  18. [18]
    Learning from history: Sanitation for prosperity
    Nov 19, 2020 · From Mesopotamia's first clay sewage pipes in 4000 BCE, to indoor plumbing in ancient Rome, to flush toilets in the Industrial Revolution, ...
  19. [19]
    Timeline of sanitation
    Early sanitation systems are built in the prehistoric Middle East, in the south-east of actual Iran near Zabol. Ancient times, The oldest Chinese civilization ...
  20. [20]
    What the Earliest Toilets Say About How Human Civilization Has ...
    Jan 31, 2020 · Like most ancient technology, toilets seem to have been independently invented in several cultures ... And defecation in the streets was a problem ...
  21. [21]
    Roman toilets may actually have been bad for public health - Science
    A new study of ancient feces casts doubt on just how effective the Roman sanitation system was at improving public health.Missing: open defecation
  22. [22]
    8 times fossilized human poop dropped big knowledge on us ...
    Nov 8, 2023 · Human poop found in old latrines reveals that gut parasites were rampant in the ancient world. For example, biblical-era toilets in Jerusalem ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Archaeological Evidences of Toilet System in Ancient India
    Open Toilets: As by using lota or any pot for carrying water. It can be divided into two groups; (a) defecate in the pit temporarily created for the purpose, (b) ...
  24. [24]
    Flushed away: Sewers through history - Science Museum
    Feb 2, 2021 · Purpose-built toilets have been revealed in numerous archaeological excavations. The Mesopotamians, Minoans and Ancient Greeks all developed them for single ...
  25. [25]
    Public Sewers and Sponges on Sticks: How Toilets Worked in ...
    The Greek author Strabo, who lived between roughly 60 BC and 24 AD, described the ingenuity of the Roman sewer system: “The sewers, covered with a vault of ...
  26. [26]
  27. [27]
    Open defecation practice and its determinants among households in ...
    Mar 29, 2022 · United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Transformational benefits' of ending outdoor defecation: Why toilets matter available ...
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Economics Impacts of Poor Sanitation in Africa
    The poorest quintile is 10 times more likely to practice open defection than the richest. Open defecation costs Nigeria US$1 billion per year – yet eliminating ...Missing: correlation | Show results with:correlation
  29. [29]
    [PDF] economic impacts of poor sanitation in africa - World Bank Document
    The poorest 20% is 12 times more likely to practice open defection than the richest. 40%. Open defecation costs Zambia USD$71 million – yet eliminating the ...Missing: correlation | Show results with:correlation
  30. [30]
    People practicing open defecation (% of population) | Data
    Jul 6, 2023 · People practicing open defecation (% of population) from The World Bank: Data.
  31. [31]
    Share of population with improved sanitation vs. GDP per capita
    Improved sanitation facilities are designed to ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact. GDP per capita is adjusted for inflation and ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] The costs and benefits of investing in a toilet - IFS
    They would have to invest between 33 per cent (Tamil Nadu) and 77 per cent (Enugu) of their annual household income to construct a toilet of the kind typical ...
  33. [33]
    Economic Aspects of Sanitation in Developing Countries - PMC - NIH
    A study by Fonseca et al (2007) found that the annual per capita costs were US$11–54 for a simple pit latrine, US$10–172 for a VIP latrine, and up to US$799 for ...
  34. [34]
    Improving sanitation access with subsidies, loans, and community ...
    May 5, 2025 · Households may find the cost of building an improved sanitation facility prohibitively high or lack access to the relevant materials or know ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  35. [35]
    Health and social impacts of open defecation on women
    Feb 6, 2019 · The findings of the review identified that open defecation promotes poor health in women with long-term negative effects on their psychosocial well-being.
  36. [36]
    [PDF] Shifting Social Norms to Reduce Open Defecation in Rural India
    Dec 21, 2018 · and cultural practices entailed in their use, as well as the absence of a social norm proscribing open defecation (Bicchieri, 2017; Coffey ...
  37. [37]
    The influence of culture on open defaecation in some basic schools ...
    Oct 6, 2020 · This study explored cultural factors including superstition, taboo, norms and values influencing open ... open defecation [1]. Open defaecation ...<|separator|>
  38. [38]
    [PDF] Social and Cultural Factors Influencing Promotion of Latrine ...
    Sep 9, 2024 · Cultural beliefs relating to defecation in enclosed places such as toilets seemed to encourage open defecation despite latrine presence. Taboos ...
  39. [39]
    [PDF] Nudging and Habit Change for Open Defecation: New Tactics from ...
    Open defecation (OD) remains a critical global health ... Example: Integrate OD messaging into already ritualized cultural practices (e.g., “no loo, no bride”.
  40. [40]
    Open defecation practice among households with latrines in rural ...
    Apr 30, 2024 · Open defecation practice and child feces disposal practice among family members in Ararso District, Jarar Zone, Somali Region, Eastern Ethiopia, ...Abstract · Introduction · Results · Discussion
  41. [41]
    Contextual and psychological factors influencing open defecation ...
    Mar 1, 2022 · Hueso and Bell [44] indicated that permanent toilets have the ability to sustain open defecation-free status for a long time, while a short- ...
  42. [42]
    World Toilet Day: 420 million people are defecating outdoors
    Nov 17, 2023 · November 19 is the World Toilet Day highlighting the importance of toilets for health, hygiene, and safety. Open defecation poses a serious ...<|separator|>
  43. [43]
    The state of the world's sanitation | UNICEF
    Nov 18, 2020 · Talking about toilets may be awkward, but we need to act now and double our efforts if we are to eliminate open defecation. While the ...
  44. [44]
    Climate Change Impacts on Urban Sanitation: A Systematic Review ...
    The effects of climate change (CC) can damage or destroy sanitation infrastructure, disrupt services, and inhibit the system's efficacy; CC will make achieving ...
  45. [45]
    [PDF] Overcoming Unique Challenges to Eliminate Open Defecation in ...
    The Activity has clearly demonstrated that CLTSH is a useful and practical approach for reducing open defecation in pastoralist areas, but only when ...
  46. [46]
    UN Report: Open Defecation in Low-Income Nations 4x Global ...
    Aug 27, 2025 · Between 2015 and 2024, 1.2 billion people gained access to safely managed sanitation, raising global coverage from 48 per cent to 58 per cent.
  47. [47]
    Open defecation and attainment of Sustainable Development Goal Six
    The results showed that the OD free target is not achievable in 2030 or even if the current trend continues. In 2016, 44.2 per cent of the 31,571 households ...
  48. [48]
    pooled prevalence and multilevel analysis of 33 sub-Saharan Africa ...
    Mar 29, 2022 · Results: The pooled prevalence of open defecation practice among households in sub-Saharan African countries was 22.55% (95%CI: 17.49%, 27.61%) ...
  49. [49]
    People practising open defecation (% of population) as of 2022
    17 of the top 20 countries having the highest open defecation rates. Eritrea (67%), Niger (65%), and Chad (63%) lead, putting millions at risk of disease.
  50. [50]
    (PDF) Open Defecation in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia: A Review
    Aug 6, 2025 · Nigeria is placed third in the world in open defecation prevalence after India and China, while India accounts for 60% of the world's open ...
  51. [51]
    People practicing open defecation, rural (% of rural population) | Data
    Jul 6, 2023 · People practicing open defecation, rural (% of rural population). WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme ( JMP ) for Water Supply, Sanitation ...
  52. [52]
    Truth Behind Viral Post Claiming India Number 1 In Open Defecation
    Apr 4, 2025 · The latest WHO data shows that Eritrea, an East African country, has the highest open defecation rate at 67%, not India, which is at around 11%.
  53. [53]
    Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000 ...
    Jul 5, 2023 · In 2022, 57 per cent of the global population (4.5 billion people) used safely managed sanitation services. National estimates were available ...
  54. [54]
    WASH exposure, defecation: population practising open defecation ...
    WASH exposure, defecation: population practising open defecation (%). Appears ... The most recent household survey or census available for most countries was ...
  55. [55]
    People practicing open defecation, urban (% of urban population)
    Jul 6, 2023 · People practicing open defecation, urban (% of urban population). WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme ( JMP ) for Water Supply, Sanitation ...Missing: percentage | Show results with:percentage
  56. [56]
    [PDF] snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and ... - Unicef
    Less than half of these countries are on track to achieve 'near elimination' by 2030, and in 12 countries open defecation rates are increasing in urban areas.
  57. [57]
    Disparities in access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH ...
    Sep 30, 2024 · Moreover, about 67 % of rural households still practised open defecation, compared to about 12 % of urban households, indicating the need ...
  58. [58]
    Socio-economic and demographic factors influencing open ...
    Nov 23, 2022 · Community-based toilets could help reduce open defecation. Conversely, poor households in rural areas live in dispersed habitats with no ...
  59. [59]
    Open defecation and squat toilets, an overlooked risk of fecal ...
    Nov 29, 2020 · Here, poor hand hygiene, contaminated shoes and objects, mechanical vectors, and outdoor human activities can all contribute to fecal ...
  60. [60]
    [PDF] Toilets Can Work: Short and Medium Run Health Impacts of ...
    These specific diseases are classified together because of their similar symptoms and their shared mode of transmission: a pathogen in feces, usually human ...
  61. [61]
    Diarrhea and associated factors among under-five children in open ...
    Dec 9, 2024 · The prevalence of diarrhea among children in open defecation free and open defecation households was 26 and 38%, respectively. Factors such as ...
  62. [62]
    Assessing the impact of sanitation on indicators of fecal exposure ...
    Fecal-oral transmission of enteric and other pathogens due to poor sanitation is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in low- or ...
  63. [63]
    Diarrhoeal disease - World Health Organization (WHO)
    Mar 7, 2024 · Each year diarrhoea kills around 443 832 children under 5 and an additional 50 851 children aged 5 to 9 years. A significant proportion of ...Missing: open defecation
  64. [64]
    Diarrhoea - UNICEF DATA
    Nov 1, 2024 · Diarrhoea is a leading killer of children, accounting for approximately 9 per cent of all deaths among children under age 5 worldwide in 2021.Missing: defecation | Show results with:defecation
  65. [65]
    Open defecation nearly halved since 2000 but is still practiced by ...
    Nov 19, 2019 · Open defecation is the ... The World Health Organization estimates that inadequate sanitation causes 432,000 diarrheal deaths annually.Missing: attributable | Show results with:attributable
  66. [66]
    Environmental enteric dysfunction: An overview - PMC
    EED is established during infancy and is associated with poor sanitation, certain gut infections, and micronutrient deficiencies. Helicobacter pylori infection, ...
  67. [67]
    Environmental enteric dysfunction: a review of potential mechanisms ...
    Nov 25, 2019 · The geographic distribution of EED suggests that the syndrome is most prevalent in areas of poor access to improved water and sanitation. In ...
  68. [68]
    Preventing environmental enteric dysfunction through improved ...
    Humphrey (2009) integrated this longstanding literature into a hypothesis that exposure to poor sanitation and hygiene causes this enteropathy, now termed ...
  69. [69]
    Environmental enteric dysfunction and child stunting
    Feb 7, 2019 · One proposed cause for this is poor sanitary conditions, where chronic pathogen exposure leads to this subclinical shift in gut structure and ...Introduction · Pathogen Exposure In Infants · Discussion<|separator|>
  70. [70]
    Open Defecation and Childhood Stunting in India: An Ecological ...
    A 10 percent increase in open defecation was associated with a 0.7 percentage point increase in both stunting and severe stunting.Missing: chronic | Show results with:chronic
  71. [71]
    Beyond Malnutrition: The Role of Sanitation in Stunted Growth
    Nov 1, 2014 · ... stunting that results from chronic malnourishment during early development has permanent consequences. ... open defecation in the country by 2019.
  72. [72]
    Stunting among children aged 24–59 months and associations with ...
    Nov 11, 2022 · Despite, poor sanitation, diarrhea, parasitic infections, and environmental enteric dysfunction (EED) are associated with stunting, their link ...Methods · Hygiene And Sanitation... · Discussion
  73. [73]
    Soil-transmitted helminth infections
    Jan 18, 2023 · Hookworms in addition cause chronic intestinal blood loss that can result in anaemia especially in adolescent girls and women of reproductive ...
  74. [74]
    Effect of Sanitation on Soil-Transmitted Helminth Infection
    Jan 24, 2012 · Open defecation was defined as no sanitation. Studies that ... long-term effect on soil-transmitted helminth infections could be assessed.
  75. [75]
    Water, Sanitation, Hygiene, and Soil-Transmitted Helminth Infection
    The purpose of this study was to quantitatively summarize the relationship between WASH access or practices and soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infection.
  76. [76]
    Effectiveness of a rural sanitation programme on diarrhoea, soil ...
    Oct 9, 2014 · Poor sanitation is associated with various infectious diseases, including diarrhoea, soil-transmitted helminth infection, trachoma, and ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  77. [77]
    Evidence from E. coli Measured in Water, Hands, Food, Flies, and ...
    Jul 7, 2017 · Fecal Contamination​​ We tested 3254 samples and detected E. coli in every sample type, including 25% of source water, 77% of stored water, 43% ...
  78. [78]
    Open Defaecation and Its Effects on the Bacteriological Quality of ...
    Oct 9, 2017 · Open defecation: a prominent source of pollution in drinking water in villages. ... The effect of India's total sanitation campaign on defecation ...
  79. [79]
    Human waste: An underestimated source of nutrient pollution in ...
    May 15, 2017 · Many people practice open defecation in south Asia. As a result, lot of human waste containing nutrients such as nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) ...
  80. [80]
    Open Defecation and Eutrophication in the Niger Delta Region of ...
    Aug 8, 2022 · Abstract: This article discusses how poor sanitary practice (open defecation) influences the eutrophication of water bodies in the Niger ...<|separator|>
  81. [81]
    Urbanization: an increasing source of multiple pollutants to rivers in ...
    Apr 27, 2021 · However, as a trade-off, more nutrients and Cryptosporidium are projected to enter rivers from open defecation, mainly in developing countries ( ...
  82. [82]
    Assessment of the Effectiveness of Open Defecation Free System on ...
    The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of open defecation free (ODF) system on the incidence of faecal contamination on environment (water, soil ...<|separator|>
  83. [83]
    High levels of faecal contamination in drinking groundwater and ...
    Jan 10, 2018 · ... faecal sludge (and solid waste) management and treatment. The lack of hygiene and the practice of open defecation is leading to the degradation ...Missing: natural | Show results with:natural
  84. [84]
    a case study of Rajasthan, India - RSC Publishing
    Sep 16, 2024 · ... toilets) to eradicate open defecation. In India, 90 ... pollution through groundwater degradation and spreading faecal pathogenic diseases.
  85. [85]
  86. [86]
    Inadequate Sanitation Costs 18 African Countries Around US$5.5 ...
    Apr 16, 2012 · Eliminating the practice of open defecation in these countries would require about 23 million toilets to be built and used. Open defecation ...
  87. [87]
    [PDF] Ghana loses GHC420 million annually due to poor sanitation
    Open defecation costs Ghana US$79 million per year – yet eliminating the practice would ... place a heavy burden on households and government spending.
  88. [88]
    [PDF] Zambia loses ZMK946 billion annually due to poor sanitation
    Open defecation costs Zambia USD$71 million – yet eliminating the practice would require less than 420,000 latrines to be built and used. Zambia loses ZMK946 ...<|separator|>
  89. [89]
    The True Cost of Poor Sanitation - PUBLIC FINANCE for WASH
    Loss of productivity ... The time lost by those having to travel to public toilets or an open defecation site amounts to US$ 27 billion of wasted economic time.
  90. [90]
    [PDF] THE TRUE COST OF POOR SANITATION - LIXIL
    Both queuing and looking for a site for open defecation take time that could otherwise be used for economic pursuits, and therefore have a negative economic ...
  91. [91]
    Cost of illness for childhood diarrhea in low- and middle-income ...
    May 5, 2020 · Numerous studies have reported the economic burden of childhood diarrhea in low ... poverty due to economic burden [14, 15]. Although studies have ...
  92. [92]
    [PDF] economic impacts of poor sanitation in africa - World Bank Document
    Open defecation costs Liberia US$11 million – yet eliminating the practice would require less ... place a heavy burden on households and government spending.
  93. [93]
    [PDF] Lack of Toilets and Violence against Indian Women
    Lack of Toilets and Violence against Indian Women: Empirical Evidence and Policy ... Because of the shame associated with public defecation, women who use the ...
  94. [94]
    Access to Toilets and Violence Against Women by Sheetal Sekhri
    Apr 29, 2022 · ... against women ... evidence to support the exclusion restriction in our IV strategy. Keywords: Toilets, Violence Against Women, Open-Defecation.<|separator|>
  95. [95]
    Making Sudan open defecation free to ensure healthier communities
    Jul 30, 2020 · ... open defecation. Open defecation affects women and girls the most exposing them to health risks, insecurity and to the risk of sexual harassment ...
  96. [96]
    Sanitation-related violence against women in informal settlements in ...
    Sep 28, 2023 · While public WASH-related spaces or open defecation are often ... Nowhere To Go: How a Lack of Safe Toilets Threatens to Increase Violence Against ...
  97. [97]
    If You Care about Ending Violence against Women and Girls, Care ...
    Dec 18, 2023 · Two billion people worldwide lack access to basic sanitation, and half of them are women and girls, exposing them to the risk of violence.
  98. [98]
    Household sanitation access and risk for non-marital sexual ... - NIH
    In rural India, many women lack household sanitation and openly defecate. •. Open defecation can leave women and girls vulnerable to harassment and violence.
  99. [99]
    [PDF] World Bank Document
    Loss of human dignity: Open defecation results in loss of privacy and dignity, especially for women and girls. Safe and sustainable school latrines have.
  100. [100]
    Shifting social norms to reduce open defecation in rural India
    Sep 10, 2020 · There are at least two pathways through which social norms inhibit the use of toilets in rural India: (1) beliefs/expectations that others do not use toilets ...
  101. [101]
    stigma as a behaviour change tool in global health - PMC
    Oct 23, 2019 · The trigger moment is members 'collectively realizing that open defecation amounts to eating each other's feces'. Some recommended triggering ...Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
  102. [102]
    [PDF] Pit Latrines or Container Based Toilets?:
    These interventions are examined in this analysis for their potential to eliminate open defecation and provide universal access to an improved sanitation system ...
  103. [103]
    [PDF] WASHCost Fast Facts - IRC Wash
    ... open defecation. iv) In Andhra Pradesh, investment in latrines is less in ... For a family of seven people, the cost of constructing a basic pit latrine that ...
  104. [104]
    The pitfalls of pit latrines - a challenge for sustainable sanitation
    Jul 9, 2024 · They are essential in reducing open defecation, but when not properly planned, built or managed, they can cause groundwater contamination. Pit ...
  105. [105]
    [PDF] The Design of Ventilated Improved Pit Latrines
    This document develops a general approach to the design of ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines, including single-pit, double, and multicompartment designs.
  106. [106]
    [PDF] i-ral Sanitation In ri m - World Bank Documents & Reports
    (the program utilizes the ventilated improved pit latrine, which has a total cost of US$75-150 per ... to the development of the ventilated improved pit (VIP) ...
  107. [107]
    Dry Latrine Overview - Volunteer Village - Ewb-Usa
    Improved latrine types include ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines and composting or eco-latrines. ... Composting Toilets: Low-Cost Ecological Approach to ...
  108. [108]
    [PDF] Evidence Summary for Latrine Construction and Use
    ... latrine use rewarding/beneficial and attaching a social cost to open defecation. ... ventilated improved pit latrines, composting toilets, or pit latrines ...
  109. [109]
    Community-Led Total Sanitation Moves the Needle on Ending ... - NIH
    Community-led total sanitation (CLTS) has emerged as the most widely implemented policy intervention for improving rural sanitation in low-income countries.
  110. [110]
    The Impact of a Large-Scale Community-Led Total Sanitation ...
    Overall, CLTS modestly increased the rate of toilet construction, reduced community tolerance of open defecation, and reduced worm infestations. CLTS did not, ...
  111. [111]
    Sustainability of community-led total sanitation outcomes: Evidence ...
    This study provides new evidence that CLTS outcomes can be sustained in the presence of training provided to local actors, and strengthens previous ...
  112. [112]
    How does Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) affect latrine ...
    Mar 21, 2018 · This is in line with research that shows CLTS is effective for latrine ownership [6]. However, a more conscious approach to dealing with the ...
  113. [113]
    Norms and Social Network–Centric Behavior Change Intervention ...
    May 3, 2021 · The multilevel intervention aims to improve toilet usage by shifting empirical expectations or beliefs about other relevant people's sanitation practices.
  114. [114]
    Experimenting to increase the effectiveness of a national campaign ...
    Jul 19, 2024 · Through Tanzania's National Sanitation Campaign, we study the effectiveness of two common elements of behavior change campaigns ...
  115. [115]
    The process, outcomes and context of the sanitation change ...
    Apr 12, 2024 · The SBM increased toilet coverage in the study area from 15% to 85% and lowered the OD rate from 93% to 26%. It substantially reduced structural ...
  116. [116]
  117. [117]
    Publication: A Decade of the Total Sanitation Campaign
    This report analyzes the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) in India, its processes, outputs, and outcomes, and identifies successes and challenges.
  118. [118]
    The process, outcomes and context of the sanitation change ...
    Apr 12, 2024 · The official SBM records state that toilet coverage in rural India increased from 39% in 2014 to almost 100% in October 2019 by constructing 103 ...
  119. [119]
    Explaining the outcomes of the 'Clean India' campaign
    The Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) claims to have improved the coverage of toilets in rural India from 39% to over 95% of households between 2014 and mid-2019.
  120. [120]
    Effectiveness of the Swachh Bharat Mission and barriers to ending ...
    (2020) found that coverage of improved sanitation among households without toilets increased by 6.8–10.4 percentage points from 2014 to 2019, and open ...
  121. [121]
    Lessons learned from the national sanitation campaign in Njombe ...
    Oct 31, 2019 · Tanzania has been implementing the National Sanitation Campaign through a Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach since 2012.
  122. [122]
    adaptive messaging in the Tanzanian National Sanitation Campaign
    Jun 21, 2023 · In this paper, we describe how we used Behaviour Centred Design to develop Nyumba ni choo, the Tanzanian National Sanitation Campaign.
  123. [123]
    [PDF] Process Evaluation of Tanzania's National Sanitation Campaign
    The evaluation assessed if the NSC would achieve its goals, found most still use unhygienic latrines, and that lack of behavior change may hinder effectiveness.
  124. [124]
    Ending open defecation in Senegal - Unicef
    As seen in the Casamance, one of the biggest challenges to ending open defecation is not just providing clean and safe toilets, but changing the behavior of ...
  125. [125]
    Goal 6: Water and Sanitation - United Nations Sustainable ...
    6.2 By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women ...
  126. [126]
    SDG Target 6.2 | Sanitation and hygiene: By 2030, achieve access ...
    By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and ...Missing: reduction | Show results with:reduction
  127. [127]
    Ending Open Defecation | UNICEF West and Central Africa
    Ending Open Defecation. Eliminating open defecation by changing social behaviour and building basic and well-managed sanitation systems in poor communities.
  128. [128]
    Targets on Drinking Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene
    Impressive results were achieved in just ten months, with 262 villages becoming Open Defecation Free (ODF). In response, MoH adopted the district-wide approach ...
  129. [129]
    Making India Open Defecation Free - World Bank
    Mar 30, 2016 · Making India Open Defecation Free ... Your browser can't play this video. ... Improving sanitation in India's villages, where three out of five ...<|separator|>
  130. [130]
    From Open Defecation to Sanitation Revolution - PSI
    Oct 23, 2023 · Open defecation continues to plague the lives of countless Liberians yearning for urgent change. Explore how we're combating this issue.<|separator|>
  131. [131]
    Has Foreign Aid Been Effective in the Water Supply and Sanitation ...
    Our empirical results suggest that aid disbursements produce a strong, positive, and significant effect on improved access to WSS.
  132. [132]
    'Transformational benefits' of ending outdoor defecation - UN News
    Nov 18, 2019 · 'Transformational benefits' of ending outdoor defecation: Why toilets matter · Related Stories · News Tracker: Past Stories on This Issue.<|separator|>
  133. [133]
    Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000 ...
    Aug 25, 2025 · In rural areas, coverage rose from 36% to 49%, and in urban areas, from 59% to 66%. The number of people practising open defecation has dropped ...
  134. [134]
    Goal 6 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs
    Targets 6.1 and 6.2: Despite progress, 2.2 billion people still lacked ... Of those, 673 million persons still practised open defecation. In 2016, one ...
  135. [135]
    SDG drinking water and sanitation progress is too slow
    Sep 11, 2025 · The population practising open defecation has decreased by 429 million, and in urban areas, it has been eliminated (99 per cent) to at least ...
  136. [136]
  137. [137]
    Is open defecation back in India? - Down To Earth
    rather just qualified as a proxy — to ascertain ODF ...
  138. [138]
    repeated cross-sectional surveys in Rajasthan, India - PMC
    Mar 25, 2020 · Rajasthan state, within the rural areas, was declared open defecation free (ODF) in March 2018. What are the new findings? Evidence to assess ...
  139. [139]
    Comparison of respondent-reported and sensor-recorded latrine ...
    Four-day household-level respondent-reported defecation averaged 28 events (inter-quartile range [IQR] 20–40), while sensor-recorded defecation averaged 17 ...
  140. [140]
    Sensor-measured versus reported latrine use to characterize ...
    Self-reported latrine use overestimated sensor-measured use in the sanitation group, while aligning in the control group. Sensor-measured use was higher in the ...
  141. [141]
    Review of the slippage factors from open defecation-free (ODF ...
    This practice often causes diarrheal diseases and 760,000 deaths per year ... open defecation and open defecation-free rural settings of Dangla district, ...
  142. [142]
    Open defecation-free slippage and its associated factors in Ethiopia
    Nov 3, 2020 · Most of Ethiopia's ODF villages slipped back between 1 and 2 years of ODF certification [19]. Studies conducted regarding open defecation-free ...
  143. [143]
    Can open-defecation free (ODF) communities be sustained? A cross ...
    A community receives “open defecation free” (ODF) status when it no longer shows visible signs of open defecation and the proportion of households owning a ...
  144. [144]
    Water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) practices in Africa
    Oct 9, 2024 · Open defecation is still widely practiced, with over 673 million ... Cultural norms are often the root cause of resistance to new ...
  145. [145]
    Barriers to transition to resource-oriented sanitation in rural Ethiopia
    Jan 14, 2025 · ... latrine-owning households admitted that they do not use their latrines consistently. ... rejection of a taboo technology: narratives of ...
  146. [146]
    Sanitation and Religion in South Asia: What Accounts for ...
    May 18, 2018 · ... rejection of inexpensive latrines in ... A randomised controlled trial in Bangladesh documented an effect of latrine subsidies on latrine ...