The Rural/Urban Divide

As some of my previous posts indicated, one of the distinct Geographies of sanitation access in sub-Saharan Africa is the urban/rural divide. As the figure below denotes, trends in rural sanitation continuously appear lagging behind those of urban – a correlation maintained internationally.

Graphic denoting the contrasting differences in urban/rural sanitation coverage from 1990-2015. Composed from the 2015 WHO Report ‘Progress on Sanitation & Drinking Water’ (Pg. 79).

For the purposes of clarification, an improved facility is defined as one in which human excreta is hygienically separated from human contact i.e. through a piped water tank or pit latrine system – however, even these may not be considered ‘improved’ if they are shared by other households. An unimproved facility is one where this separation does not occur, for example, a bucket or hanging toilet (WHO, 2008:39).

The figure delineates a clear split between urban and rural coverage, particularly regarding the practice of open defecation. In addition to the difference between SSA and the rest of the world, the stark difference within Africa is also surprising. North Africa has urban sanitation coverage almost matching that of the ‘developed’ category and rural coverage has drastically improved over the 25-year period - a feat that countries in the South have failed to replicate. The relative success of education and awareness programmes may help to explain some of this difference. Yet, the rural/urban divide remains.

Perhaps surprisingly, although a similar water access divide does occur, the sanitation trend is starker and cannot be explained by clean water availability alone. In fact, a logical rationalisation is one of need. In a crowded urban area, the risk of disease and contamination is greater than for rural settlements (Neiderud, 2014:2). Corollary to this is a greater need for adequate sanitation measures in the face of rampant urban squalor and deprivation. It is also likely less expensive to implement sanitation infrastructures in a densely populated urban community than in dispersed rural farmsteads. Build one toilet block and hundreds can benefit from its proximity, whereas, several rural blocks may need built for similar impact.

Correspondingly, Black & Fawcett suggest that the rather bleak rural image of sanitation is actually misleading (2008:37). They pose the case that the logical argument of reduced rural need, stipulates an environment that cannot be considered in the same manner as the urban. Lower disease risk and the open landscape make existing sanitation methods more appropriate and thus harder to shake. For example, many rural villages have designated spaces set aside for sanitation purposes; these are away from buildings and often follow natural streams or rivers (2008:36). Hence, existing practices of open defecation and poor hygiene do not induce the same severity of negative health impacts as they do in cities. The result is rural societies with a diminished relative need for sanitation and thus a weaker incentive to adopt new techniques. Indeed, any marginal benefit of improvements may be outweighed by economic cost and the difficulties instigating behavioural change. Jewitt (2011) furthers this point by suggesting that rural attitudes towards sanitation are inextricably linked with the use of excrement as a crop fertilizer (pg. 610). This practice inhibits the perception of faeces as something ‘disgusting’ or ‘dangerous’ as its usefulness is embedded within rural culture. Put plainly, the rural/urban gap in sanitation provision may be partially explained by the fact that many rural settlements neither want nor need any change to existing practices.

Yet, the failure of measuring techniques to take this into account generalises these practices on par with their ‘unimproved’ counterparts in cities. Thus, life in the countryside is reputed as less conducive to wellbeing when in fact the reverse is most often true. In reality, the vast majority of the world’s poverty exists in towns and cities in circumstances of deprivation that far outweigh those of rural areas (Black & Fawcett, 2008:37).

In essence, the implication is that measures to deliver improved sanitation will tend to differ greatly from rural to urban. As I will examine further in my next post, differing methods and indeed actors of provision may be better suited to each environment. For example, the remoteness of rural settlements often leaves them disconnected from the influences of the state – in both identity and provision (Harvey & Reed, 2006:367). In light of this absence, community based schemes offer a perhaps more effective alternative. Where inefficiencies and political inertia harm urban provision, private sector participation may be more suitable.

The aim of this post was not to suggest that rural sanitation is not a problem in SSA. Rather the intention was to emphasise how misunderstanding often leads to a particularly weak impression of rural coverage versus urban. In reality, the threat of inadequacy is felt nowhere greater than in towns and cities. The global sanitation crisis is urbanising (McFarlane, 2014:989), requiring specific policy engagement, particularly within informal settlements.

In my next couple of posts I plan to take a more contextual view of the water and sanitation problem, focusing on contrasting examples of urban and rural.