1

INTRODUCTION
The earliest evidence of urban sanitation was seen in Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro and the
recently discovered Rakhigarhi of Indus Valley civilization. This urban plan included
the world's first urban sanitation systems. Within the city, individual homes or groups
of homes obtained water from wells. From a room that appears to have been set aside
for bathing, waste water was directed to covered drains, which lined the major streets.
Roman cities and Roman villas had elements of sanitation systems, delivering water
in the streets of towns such as Pompeii, and building stone and wooden drains to
collect and remove wastewater from populated areas see for instance the Cloacae
Maxima into the River Tiber in Rome. But there is little record of other sanitation in
most of Europe until the High Middle Ages. Unsanitary conditions and overcrowding
were widespread throughout Europe and Asia during the Middle Ages, resulting
periodically in cataclysmic pandemics such as the Plague of Justinian (541-42) and
the Black Death (13471351), which killed tens of millions of people and radically
altered societies (Mara, 2008)
Sanitation is the most important medical advance since 1840, according to a
leader survey in the British Medical Journal. Improved sanitation reduces cholera,
worms, diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition, among other maladies, that cause
diseases and death in millions of people. Today 2.6 billion people, including almost
one billion children, live without even basic sanitation. Every 20 seconds, a child dies
as a result of poor sanitation that is 1.5 million preventable deaths each year (Simon
et al. 2006). The global health burden associated with these conditions is staggering,
with an estimated 40006000 children dying each day from diseases associated with
inadequate sanitation (WSSCC, 2004).
The problem of sanitation is not the problem of a city or country; it is problem
to the world. That is why the efforts are being made by the United Nations to avoid or
solve the problems of poor sanitation. For this purpose, UNICEF and WHO are
putting their best to improve these threatening to the whole world, not only to men
and to women but also are threat to children. Every year, millions of children die due
2

to the poor conditions of sanitation and because of not having good hygienic
conditions in the home or outside the home, and environment around. Sanitation is
means of promoting health through prevention of human contact with the hazards of
wastes. Hazards can be physical, microbiological, biological, or chemical agents of
disease. Wastes that can cause health problems include human and animal feces, solid
wastes, domestic wastewater (sewage, sullage, greywater), industrial wastes and
agricultural wastes. Hygienic means of prevention can be by using engineering
solutions (e.g. sewerage and wastewater treatment), simple technologies, or even by
personal hygiene practices (e.g. simple hand washing with soap). "Sanitation
generally refers to the provision of facilities and services for people. Inadequate or
poor sanitation is a major cause of disease worldwide and improving sanitation is
known to have a significant beneficial impact on health both in households and across
communities. The word 'sanitation' also refers to the maintenance of hygienic
conditions, through services such as garbage collection and wastewater disposal
(WHO, 2008)
World health organization (WHO) defines sanitation as group of methods to
collect human excreta and urine as well as community waste waters in a hygienic
way, where human and community health is not altered. Sanitation methods aim to
decrease spreading of diseases by adequate waste water, excreta and other waste
treatment, proper handling of water and food and by restricting the occurrence of
causes of diseases. Sanitation is a system to increase and maintain healthy life and
environment. Its proper is also to assure people enough clean water for washing and
drinking purpose. Typically health and hygiene education is connected to sanitation in
order to make people recognize where health problem originate and how to better
sanitation by their own actions (Ratnam, 2009).
Defense organizations, particularly the Army, need to prepare for and train to
implement sanitation projects in developing countries. Many developing countries
face a critical shortage of adequate sanitation facilities, which places an unnecessary
burden on already over-stressed health care services and supporting government
3

entities. Establishing basic services and improving health worldwide are key
components of stability operations and important constituents of the national security
strategy. To be successful, however, projects must be sustainable. Progress in
stabilizing the developing world is slow and requires continued efforts. With careful
consideration of social, political, technological, and environmental factors,
government and non-governmental organizations can develop sustainable solutions
that are acceptable and suitable to target communities. The Army plays an important
role in sanitation development because its units commonly deploy to austere
environments with people in desperate need of basic services. These people often
live outside municipal areas receiving benefit from centralized services. New and
appropriate measures of effectiveness concerning water and sanitation projects are
necessary to drive successful practices. Additionally, home station training needs to
prepare junior leaders for community partnership and understanding the planning and
development of sanitation projects (Dennis et al., 2012).
Sanitation is biggest issues that need to be addressed on emergency basis.
Although it has been bonded with Millennium Development goals yet the sanitation
conditions are deplorable in many development countries. Plenty of research has been
carried out upon the need of sanitation and the occurrence of water born diseases.
However, this issue is so critical in nature that it is associated with many other
development problems as well. The work upon the relationship of sanitation with
diseases occurrence and ultimately with the poverty is particularly missing in some
remote areas where the effects of poor sanitation are more horrible. Sanitation and
human health are closely connected to each other. Inadequate treatment or disposal of
human excreta and other waste can lead to transmitting and spreading of disease from
excreta. Especially children are susceptible to diseases. Therefore it is very important
to safeguard adequate sanitation education to reduce the amounts of infections and
access of causes of diseases to water (Knol et al., 2004).
Sanitation is a complex topic, with links to health and to social and economic
development. It affects many but is championed by few. From our analysis of the
4

situation, we believe that three major strategies could achieve success in sanitation.
The most important of these strategies is political leadership, which is manifested by
establishing clear institutional responsibility and specific budget lines for sanitation,
and by ensuring that public sector agencies working in health, in water resources, and
in utility services work together better. The regional sanitation conference
declarations released during the International Year of Sanitation, in which many
government ministers were personally involved, were an important step forward. In
addition, the biennial global reports on sanitation and drinking water published by the
World Health Organization and UNICEF contribute towards political leadership and
aid effectiveness by publicizing the sanitation work of both developing country
governments and support agencies (Mara, 2010).
Poor sanitation has a bad impact on peoples health especially on the
development of children. This has not only reduced the income of rural people - as
they have to pay for the medical treatment - but also has increased the States
expenditures on health services, said Dr. Nguyen Huy Nga, Director of the MOHs
Department of Preventive Medicine and Environmental Health. The health benefits of
good hygiene practices are clear and widely acknowledged. Washing hands with
soap, for example, can reduce diarrhea cases by nearly half and decrease the
incidence of respiratory infections. Yet only 12 percent of rural Vietnamese wash
their hands with soap before meals and 16 percent after defecation. Investments in
sanitation is also generate economic benefits; every dollar spent on improving
sanitation saves over nine USD in health, education and other social and economic
development costs. Poor sanitation conditions and unsafe hygiene practices is
affecting Viet Nams progress toward the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
especially the MDG 7 which aims to halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without
sustainable access basic sanitation. Sanitation is also critical prerequisites for the
MDGs related to child and maternal mortality, child under nutrition, and universal
primary education. (Hanoi, 2008).
5

Diarrhea caused by bad sanitation kills nearly 6,000 children a dayan annual toll of
two million deaths. People suffering from waterborne diseases occupy half the
worlds hospital beds. Already half of Asias population lacks adequate sanitation and
in China, India and Indonesia twice as many people die from diarrheal diseases as
from HIV/Aids. In Africa in 1998, 308,000 died as a result of war, yet nearly two
million died of the effects of diarrheal disease. In developing countries 80 percent of
all disease results from a combination of poor sanitation, contaminated water and
poor sanitation. Parasitic infections are also exacerbated by poor sanitationthe
report estimates that 1.5 billion people have parasitic worm infections. Such worms,
whilst they may not cause death, lead to stunted growth and general debilitation.
Among the diseases resulting from poor sanitation, unclean water and poor waste
disposal are dysentery, cholera, typhus fever, typhoid, schistosomiasis and trachoma
(Barry Mason, 2002).
Sanitation control public health activities, including livelihood assistance and
health care for individuals are also necessary to prevent outbreaks of infectious
diseases. Physician usually need to learn methods of sanitation control and epidemic
preventions, including public health and evidence-based-epidemiology, to effectively
put into practice both care for individuals and initiating disaster programs to prevent
epidemics in cooperation with other professionals (Deguchi, 2000). Mortality is a
severe impact of contaminated sanitation, early childhood diarrhea has a myriad of
unbearable effects that contributes to the disability associated burden. Persistent as
well as recurrent diarrhea is associated with nutritional shortfalls in a cohort of
children in north-east Brazil (Schorling and Guerrant, 1990).
Sanitation in Pakistan is characterized by some achievements and many
challenges. Despite high population growth the country has increased the share of the
population with access to an improved water source from 86% in 1990 to 90% in
2006, and the share with access to improved sanitation from 33% to 58% during the
same period according to the Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and
Sanitation However, the sector still faces major challenges. The quality of the
6

services is poor, as evidenced by intermittent water supply in urban areas and limited
wastewater treatment. Poor drinking water quality and sanitation lead to major
outbreaks of waterborne diseases. In addition, many service providers do not even
cover the costs of operation and maintenance due to low tariffs and poor efficiency
(Bridges, 2007).
There has also been considerable innovation at the grass-root level, in
particular concerning sanitation. The Orangi Pilot Project in Karachi and community-
led total sanitation in rural areas are two examples of such innovation (Welle, 2008).
The combination of unsafe poor sanitation absence of acquired immunity and lack of
hygienic facilities increase the risk of infection, young children in developing regions
are especially vulnerable to this situation (Kosek et al., 2003). Some of the serious
issues in developing countries with high dense of population are in the areas of
sanitation. All over the world, the importance of improving sanitation has been
emphasized by the multinational agencies. Since 1990s, the issues of sanitation and
health care have been at the center stage of the international debate on economic and
social development. According to the documented evidence by the international
agencies, the costs of constructing disposal system for human waste are very high. It
is reported that around 1.4 billion people in developing countries lack sewerage
facility and almost an equal number do not have access to clean water (Baxi, 2009).
It has been evidently argued that Eighty percent of the people who suffered from
diarrhea are found to be careless in matters of personal hygiene, pure water.
Moreover lack of good sanitation water supply in the major problem in the present
context (Shreejana et al., 2008).
In 2004, only 59 percent of the world population had access to any type of
improved sanitation facility. In other words, 4 out of 10 people around the world have
no access to improved sanitation. They are obliged to defecate in the open or use
unsanitary facilities, with a serious risk of exposure to sanitation related diseases.
While sanitation coverage has increased from 49 percent in 1990, a huge effort needs
to be made quickly to expand coverage to the MDG target level of 75 percent.
7

Investing in sanitation infrastructure involves a long project cycle (Clasen and
Bastable, 2003)
Sociological Significance of the study
All the social sciences have been studied for the betterment of the humanity. The
betterment is then achieved when there is a solution to a problem. Sociology is one of
those social sciences, which study the human societies scientifically, and the human
being and then gives the solution to the problems. Poor conditions of sanitation are
one of the big problems, which had been in the past and are being faced by the whole
world even today. If an individual person becomes ill or weak because of poor
sanitation, he will not be able to work effectively in the institution and the result will
be there that the institution will not work smoothly. The healthy environment matter
a lot. Without a clean, safe home people are forced to live in an unhealthy and
unpleasant environment.
Each year 1.8 million children die and many more are sick with diseases such
as cholera, typhoid, and dysentery because of poor sanitation. Particularly if you are
suffering with diarrhea, is extremely embarrassing and unsafe for everyone's health.
Sickness takes children away from school and adults away from earning an income.
Medical expenses make massive demands on the limited incomes of the poor. The
researcher chose this topic because the conditions of sanitation in the country are not
good. The country Pakistan is one of the developing countries and the conditions of
sanitation are not good enough because there is too much population and this
population produces pollution. The people are poor here and the living standard is not
too high. The life expectancy is low. Most of the people here live in rural areas and
suburbs and the conditions of the areas is not good in terms of cleanliness. They have
less clean or pure drinking water for them. They face the problem of poor sanitation
water that is always on the road and streets. It not only affects their mobility of life
but also the people bear millions of economic loss every year. The conditions of
sanitation are poor in the country in big cities like Islamabad, Lahore, and Karachi
and in other cities. The researcher chose this topic because the conditions of
8

sanitation are not good in the city D. G. Khan. This city is also facing the problems.
There is the problem of poor sanitation that affects the life of people. There are no
proper arrangements of management. It not only affects the mobility of people but
also the cause of the economics loss and this situation forces a great number of people
to migrate. The conditions of sanitation have been poor in city D. G. Khan but
especially after the flood in 2010, the conditions became more crucial. The
floodwater remained on roads and in streets for days and it caused the spread of
diseases. It also affected the mobility of people. There have been many protests in
different cities against poor conditions of sanitation but the problem is still on the
way. The government and community and non-government organizations are
contributing to improve the conditions of sanitation. There is a need to spend funds to
tackle with this problem because the good conditions of sanitation and hygiene are
very important for the smooth functioning of society and its institutions. Therefore,
the researcher selected this topic.
Objectives of the study
The purpose of the research is to find out the effects of poor sanitation
1. To find out effects of poor sanitation on health of people
2. To find out effects of poor sanitation on social life of people











9

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A literature review is a body of text that aims to review the critical points of current
knowledge including substantive findings as well as theoretical and methodological
contributions to a particular topic. Literature reviews are secondary sources, and as
such, do not report any new or original experimental work. Most often associated
with academic-oriented literature, such as a thesis, a literature review usually
precedes a research proposal and results section. Its ultimate goal is to bring the
reader up to date with current literature on a topic and forms the basis for another
goal, such as future research that may be needed in the area. Literature review is
considered to be the most important stage of the research process as it allows to earn
from (and eventually add to) previous researches and also saves time, efforts and
money. Therefore, the researcher reviewed all the relevant literature available on
internet and in major libraries across Pakistan. A logical and systematic review of the
literature made the completion of the study possible.
Whol and Anthony (1983) have mentioned that in developing countries,
sanitation is based around much more basis facilities that are often little more than a
gap in the ground. Design is not important, as long as the facilities in question dispose
of waste. 2.5 billion People over one third of the worlds population, lack access to
sanitation facilities. Thats almost twice the number of people living in poor life.
Sanitation is also one of the worlds leading causes of diseases and child death.
Herbert (1985) talked about the provision of sanitary facilities to a community
guaranteed neither they would be used nor that they would provide health benefits if
they were used. This study, conducted in three urban communities in Madras, India,
followed pre-school children over the course of approximately one year to determine
the relative effects on growth of sanitation factors. These factors were defined as
being under the control of children, those controlled by parents, and factors not under
the direct discretionary control of any family member. Data were also collected on
other variables suspected to affect nutritional or health status. A statistical technique
10

was used that accounts for the effects of non sanitation-related variables. Children
from 18 to 36 months of age benefitted most from their own and their parents
sanitary behavior. Older children benefitted from availability of resources for
hygiene. Children under 18 months of age tended to be unaffected by any of the
sanitation-related variables considered.
Guerrant et al. (1990) stated that in contrast, the through treatment of
sanitation water in developed countries corresponds with a much lower prevalence of
diarrhea. However, a survey found 34 major waterborne outbreaks in the United
States from 1991 to 1992, reflecting the limitations of sanitation treatment.
Lima et al. (1992) concluded that the health impact of inadequate sanitation
leads to the number of financial and economic costs including direct medical costs
associated with treating sanitation related illness and lost income through reduced or
lost productivity and the government costs of providing health services. Additionally,
sanitation also leads to time and effort losses due to distant or inadequate sanitation
facilities, lower products quality resulting from poor sanitation quality, reduced
income (due to high risk of contamination and diseases) and clean up costs.
Cheung (1999) stated that in many developing countries, improvement in
water supplies had not been supplemented by improvement in sanitation facilities.
Moreover, health education was rarely included in environmental hygiene programs.
Community health workers needed to know if water supplies and sanitation had
independent or complementary effects on health. This study analyzed the weight data
of 1,045 Chinese children aged 60 months or below. Regression models with
interaction conditions were tested against a model with main effects only. There was
no evidence of interaction between water supplies and sanitation measures. The
results showed that water supplies and toilet facilities had independent associations
with growth. Presence of excreta in the home had a negative, but not statistically
significant, association with weight.
Cotton and Tayler (2000) said that the sanitation collaborative council looks
towards a clean and healthy world in which every person has safe and adequate
11

sanitation and is living in a hygienic environment. It sets indicative targets for
improving access to hygienic sanitation facilities. The international community has
committed itself to improving the environmental conditions of the urban poor by
adopting and endorsing these targets in relation to sanitation improvement. They
further argued that adequate sanitation services are necessary to support urban
stability, enabling social balance economic growth, development and the
improvement of public services for the urban centers.
Pruss (2000) stated that poor sanitation causes diseases like cholera, typhoid,
etc. When waste is not properly managed, it can come into contact with skin, water,
insects and other things that ultimately. Transfer the bacteria back into the human
body where it can make people sick. The most common illness associated with poor
sanitation is diarrhea. In developing countries, diarrhea little more than a nuisance,
but for millions of childrens in the developing world, its a death sentence.
Moore et al. (2001) concluded that good sanitation is fundamental to peoples
health, survival, growth and development. Yet, roughly one-sixth of the worlds
population lack access to safe water and around two-fifths lack adequate sanitation. In
term of human suffering and financial loss the costs are enormous. In developing
countries, for example the costs of diseases and productivity losses linked to
inadequate sanitation also raises serious issues of personal safety and dignity,
particularly in urban areas.
Carter et al. (2002) stated that in developing countries 80 percent of all
diseases results from a combination of poor sanitation. Parasitic infections are also
exacerbated by poor sanitation-the report estimates that 1.5 billion people have
parasitic worm infections. Such worms, whilst they may not cause death, lead to
stunted growth and general debilitation. Among the diseases resulting from poor
sanitation.
Mason (2002) concluded that in developing countries there are 80 percent of
all diseases due to mixture of poor sanitation. The dangerous parasitic infections are
also extending by poor sanitation. Such worms may not cause death, lead to
12

undersized growth. Among the diseases ensuring from poor sanitation, poor
throwaway discarding and impure water are trachoma, typhoid, fever and cholera. He
further reported that the updating of urbanization, the population is causing the poor
sanitation. He stated that in Asia, Africa and Latin America there are 600 million
people living in illegal resident settlements that lack any sanitation infrastructure.
These settlements are going up faster than any effort to provide such infrastructure.
Bartlett (2003) talked about a paper that reviewed the implications of
inadequate provision of sanitation for childrens health and general development,
especially in urban areas. Research into health differentials showed that child
mortality and morbidity rates in poor urban settlements could equal or exceed those in
rural areas. This review considered, in particular, the higher vulnerability of children
to sanitation-related illness, the links between unsanitary conditions and malnutrition,
the impacts for mental and social development, and the practical day-to-day realities
of poor provision for children and their caregivers in urban areas. It argued that health
education and health care, while essential complements to proper provision, could in
no way be considered alternative solutions. The true costs for children of a failure to
respond to this ongoing emergency lent another dimension to discussions of the cost-
effectiveness of various solutions.
Smith et al. (2004) reported about Poor sanitation and hygiene that facilitated
transmission of environmental diseases and posed a threat to the health of South
African residents. This study focused on identifying sanitation needs from the
perspective of informal community residents, addressing need related issues, and
empowering Zulu and Xhosa women. The study used a multistep approach to identify
and access communities of interest, reflexive critique during data collection from 300
heads of households, and a reiterative process to identify major themes. A process,
which influenced 1, 467 residents, was developed, it included culturally sensitive
presentation styles and educational materials that facilitated understanding of
sanitation concepts. Main sanitation themes were health knowledge and community
role models. Educational sessions incorporated women. Using women as educators
13

elevated their status and validated their community importance. Project participation
added to the educational background of the Zulu and Xhosa women. It empowered
them and provided an opportunity for them to articulate community needs.
Paterson and Curtis (2005) said that at least 2 billion people have inadequate
sanitation. The recent condition in sanitation for millions of inner-city inhabitants is
harshly anti-poor technology. However cut down sewerage is often the only sanitation
technology that is technically possible and cheaply appropriate for low income, high-
density urban areas. Simplified sewerage will only truly be a poor technology if
issues such as lack of investment in sanitation, insufficient cost recovery for
sanitation services, conservative technical standards favored over innovation.
Eisenberg et al. (2007) conducted a study to view the burden of diarrheal
disease resulting

from inadequate water quality, sanitation practices, and hygiene

remains high, there was little understanding of the integration

of these environmental
control strategies. They tested a modeling

framework designed to capture the
interdependent transmission

pathways of enteric pathogens. They developed a
household-level stochastic model accounting

for five different transmission pathways.
They estimated disease

preventable through water treatment by comparing two
scenarios,

all households fully exposed to contaminated drinking water

and all
households receiving the water quality intervention. They found that the benefits of a
water quality intervention

depended on sanitation and hygiene conditions. When
sanitation

conditions were poor, water quality improvements might have minimal

impact regardless of amount of water contamination. If each

transmission pathway
alone was sufficient to maintain diarrheal

disease, single-pathway interventions would
have minimal benefit,

and ultimately an intervention would be successful only if all

sufficient pathways were eliminated. The findings provided guidance in
understanding

how to best reduce and eliminate diarrheal disease through integrated

control strategies.
Rovindan (2007) reported in science daily that the number of cholera cases
during 2006 was 236,896, with 6,311 deaths in 52 countries, a rise of 795% on the
14

previous year. The important of sanitation in preventing cholera and other diarrheal
diseases was recognized in the Millennium Development Goals, which set a target of
having the number of people without access to basic sanitation by 2015. However,
this target is unlike to be achieved because the resources allocated to it are small.
Bisin (2008) said that in the remote town of Takhtbai in Khyber pakhtoon
khwah, people took to the stress recently in a march to lift awareness during
Pakistans biannual Child Health and Sanitation week. In the course of the week,
events to decrease child diseases and death by promoting improved health sanitation
practices were launched in six districts across the country. Activities included the
provision of free vaccination and deforming services for children, oral re-hydration
salts to treat diarrhea dehydration, and safe drinking water.
Ndugwa and Zulu (2008) conducted a research to study the hygienic
conditions in Nairobi. The aim of this study was to investigate factors that influence
morbidity patterns and health-seeking decisions in an urban slum community. Data
were collected between May and August 2003 as part of the ongoing Nairobi urban
demographic surveillance system and were analyzed to identify factors that influence
morbidity patterns and health-seeking decisions. The results showed that the factors
that influenced morbidity were the child's age, ethnicity and type of toilet facility.
Predictors for seeking health care were the child's age, type, and severity of illness,
survival of father and mother, mother's education, mother's work status and wealth
class. The conclusions drawn showed that economic resources fell short in preventing
child illnesses where children live in poor environmental conditions. However, by
enhancing access to health care services, socio-economic status is critical for
mitigating disease burden among children in slum settlements.
Bailie et al. (2009) stated that housing programs in indigenous Australian
communities have focused largely on achieving good standards of infrastructure
function. The impact of the approach was assessed on three potentially important
housing-related influences on child health at the community level: (1) crowding, (2)
the functional state of the house infrastructure and (3) the hygienic condition of the
15

houses. A before-and-after study, including house infrastructure surveys and
structured interviews with the main householder, was conducted in all homes of
young children in 10 remote Australian indigenous communities. Compared with
baseline, follow-up surveys showed; a small non-significant decrease in the mean
number of people per bedroom in the house on the night before the survey; a
marginally significant overall improvement in infrastructure function scores; and no
clear overall improvement in hygiene. Housing programs of this scale, that focus on
the provision of infrastructure alone appeared unlikely to lead to more hygienic
general living environments, at least in this study context. A broader ecological
approach to housing programs delivered in these communities was needed if potential
health benefits were to be maximized. This ecological approach would require a
balanced program of improving access to health hardware, hygiene promotion and
creating a broader enabling environment in communities.
Murray and Ray (2010) concluded that in their research that inadequate
wastewater and fecal sludge treatment, disposal, and end use systems were arguably
the greatest obstacles to achieving sustainable urban sanitation in un-served regions.
Strategies for planning and implementing urban sanitation were continually evolving.
Demand-driven sanitation with household and community participation was broadly
thought to be the way forward. They were skeptical that more time and resources
spent garnering household and community demand for sanitation would amount to
the much-needed improvements in the treatment and end use components of
sanitation systems. They proposed shifting the incentives for sanitation from front-
end users to back-end users, thereby leveraging demand for the products of
sanitation (e.g., treated wastewater, fertilizer, alternative fuel) to motivate robust
operation and maintenance of complete sanitation systems. Leveraging the resource
value of wastewater and fecal sludge demands a reuse-oriented planning approach to
sanitation, an example of which was the Design for Service approach presented in this
commentary.
16

Kauhanen et al. (2010) examined the effect of poor hygiene of the child, poor
social and poor housing conditions at home and diarrhea in childhood as proxies for
dehydration on high blood pressure in later life. Data were from a subset of
participants in the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study, a population-
based cohort study in eastern Finland. Information on childhood factors was collected
from school health records (n=952), from the 1930s to the 1950s. Adult data were
obtained from baseline examinations of the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk
Factor Study cohort (n=2682) in 19841989. Men Hg (95% CI 0.53 who had poor
hygiene in childhood had on average 4.07 mm to 7.61) higher systolic blood pressure
than men who had good or satisfactory hygiene in childhood in the age-adjusted
analysis. Reports of diarrhea were not associated with adult blood pressure. The
authors' findings suggested that poor hygiene and living in poor social conditions in
childhood were associated with higher systolic blood pressure in adulthood. Reported
childhood diarrhea did not explain the link between hygiene and high blood pressure
in adulthood.













17

METHODOLOGY

Methodology can be the analysis of the principles of methods, rules, and postulates
employed by a discipline or it can be the systematic study of methods that are, can be,
or have been applied within a discipline (Webster).
Method can be defined as a systematic and orderly procedure or process for
attaining some objective. Methodology does not describe specific methods;
nevertheless, it does specify several processes that need to be followed. These
processes constitute a generic framework. They may be broken down in sub-
processes, they may be combined, or their sequence may change. However, any task
exercise must carry out these processes in one form or another (Katsicas, 2009).
Universe/Population
Universe or population is defined as the targeted groups that are studied (Henslin,
1997). The entire population, from which a sample is taken, is called population or
universe. It may be defined as any set of individuals or objects having some
common observable characteristics under a study. The universe or population of the
present study consisted of the educated at least graduate people in the city D.G. Khan
Sample
Sample is a subset of population. It may be defined a smaller set of cases that
researcher selects from a larger population (Neuman, 2009).
For present study, sample size was two hundred (200). The Quota sampling technique
was applied. For this purpose, population was divided into two (2) categories Male
and Female. Then hundred (100) respondents were taken from each category.
Hypothesis
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. For a
hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires
that one can test it. For the present research, hypothesis is that Effects of poor
sanitation on peoples life.

18

This hypothesis has been tested by making its sub-hypothesis:
1. Poor the sanitation, poorer will be the health life.
2. Poorer the sanitation, poor will be the mobility of people.
Instrument for Data Collection
After selecting the sample, the next step is to select the appropriate research tool for
data collection. For the present study, the researcher has collected the data from
respondents through Questionnaire because majority of population was literate.
Statistical analysis
The data was tabulated and statistically analyzed by using following tests.
Percentage
In order to bring the data into comparable form, percentages of various categories of
data were used in the present study.
The percentage was calculated by following formula.
Percentage =

x 100
Where
F = Absolute Frequency
N = Total Number of item
Chi-Square
Chi-Square test was applied to examine relationship between independent and
dependent variables.
X
2 were computed by using the following formula.
X
2 =

f
o =
Observed frequency
f
e =
Expected frequency
= Total sum (Sigma)





19

Gamma Statistics
Gamma statistics was applied to ascertain the relation between certain independents
and dependent variables. The Gamma was used with the following formula.
NS-ND
Gamma = _____________
NS+ND

NS = same order pairs
ND = different order pairs

















20

CONCEPTUALIZATION AND OPERATIONALIZATION

Conceptualization demands operational definition of concepts and variables along
with their specific components that are used by the researcher. Therefore, some of the
important concepts that have been used in the study are operationalized as under.
Operationalization is the process of defining a fuzzy concept to make the concept
clearly distinguishable or measurable and to understand it in terms of empirical
observations. Fuzzy concepts are vague ideas, concepts that lack clarity or are only
partially true. In a wider sense, it refers to the process of specifying the extension of a
concept. In other words, describing what is and is not a part of that concept.
Operationalization in quantitative research is the act of specifying exactly how a
concept will be measured.
Sanitation
"Sanitation generally refers to the provision of facilities and services for the safe
disposal of human urine and feces. Inadequate or poor sanitation is a major cause of
disease worldwide and improving sanitation is known to have a significant beneficial
impact on health both in households and across communities. The word 'sanitation'
also refers to the maintenance of hygienic conditions, through services such as
garbage collection and wastewater disposal.
According to researcher the operational definition of this concept of sanitation has
been operationalized as Collect waste, garbage from roads and Cleanliness of roads,
footpaths, and streets.
Diseases
A disease is an abnormal condition that affects the body of an organism. It is often
construed as a medical condition associated with specific symptoms and signs. It may
be caused by factors originally from an external source, such as infectious disease, or
it may be caused by internal dysfunctions, such as autoimmune diseases. In humans,
"disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain,
dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar
21

problems for those in contact with the person. In this broader sense, it sometimes
includes injuries, disabilities, disorders, syndromes, infections, isolated symptoms,
deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other
contexts and for other purposes these may be considered distinguishable categories
According to researcher the operational definition of this concept of diseases
has been operationalized as an abnormal condition that affects the body.
















22

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter deals with the analysis interpretation of data. These are the most
important steps in scientific research. Without these steps, generalization and
predictions cannot be made, which is the ultimate objective of scientific research.
Table No. 01
Distribution of respondent by sex
Sex Frequency Percent
Male 100 50.0
Female 100 50.0
Total 200 100.0

The table describes that 50.0 percent of respondents were male and 50.0 percent
respondents were female because the researcher has used quota sampling and selected
equal number males and females.
Table No. 02
Distribution of respondent by age

The table shows that 55.5 percent majority of respondents were in the age group of
21-30, 17.0 percent were in the age group of 41-50, 16.0 percent were in the age
group of 31-40, 11.5 percent were in the age group of 51 and above. This shows that
most of the respondents were in adulthood.

Age Frequency Percent
21-30 111 55.5
31-40 32 16.0
41-50 34 17.0
51 and above 23 11.5
Total 200 100.0
23

Table No. 03
Distribution of respondent by education level
Education level Frequency Percent
Graduate 81 40.5
Post graduate 56 28.0
Above 63 31.5
Total 200 100.0

This table explains the educational levels of the respondents. 40.8 percent
respondents were graduate, 31.5 percent were above post-graduate, and 28.0 percents
were post graduate. This shows that respondents were qualified till graduation and
above.
Table No. 04
Distribution of respondent by their occupation
Occupation Frequency Percent
Government job 22 11.0
Private job 45 22.5
Student 58 29.0
Personal business 44 22.0
Agriculture 11 5.5
Housewife 20 10.0
Total 200 100.0

This table reveals that 29.0 percent of respondents were students, 22.0 percent were
private job, 22.0 percent were personal business, 11.0 percent were government job,
10.0 percent were housewife and 5.5 percent respondents were agriculture. This
shows that most of the respondents both male and female were employed.


24

Table No. 05
Distribution of respondent by monthly income of family
Monthly Income Frequency Percent
Below 10,000 4 2.0
10,000-20,000 28 14.0
20,000-30,000 36 18.0
30,000-40,000 27 13.5
Above 40,000 105 52.5
Total 200 100.0

This table shows the monthly income of the family of the respondents. It shows that
52.5 percent majority of the respondents income was above 40,000, 18.0 percent
income was between20, 000-30,000, 14.0 percent respondents having 10,000-20,000
and 13.5 percent respondents was having income between30, 000-40,000, 2.0 percent
of respondent had below 10,000. This shows that income level of most of the
respondents was 40,000 and above.
Table No. 06
Distribution of respondent by type of family
Type of family Frequency Percent
Joint 98 49.0
Nuclear 102 51.0
Total 200 100.0

This table shows the type of family of the respondent. It shows that 51.0 percent
majority of the respondents family was nuclear, 49.0 percent of the respondent family
was joint. This shows that most of the respondent lives in nuclear family.



25

Table No. 07
Distribution of respondent by sanitation problem in your area
Sanitation problem Frequency Percent
To great extent 65 32.5
To some extent 107 53.5
Not at all 28 14.0
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondents i.e. 53.5 percent said that they have
sanitation problem to some extent and 32.5 percent of the respondents said that
sanitation problem in their area is to great extent while 14.0 percent of the
respondents do not have any sanitation problem. These results show that majority of
respondent agreed that they have sanitation problem in their area either to great extent
or to some extent.
Table No. 08
Distribution of respondent by poor sanitation affects health
Health Frequency Percent
To great extent 79 39.5
To some extent 119 59.5
Not at all 2 1.0
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 59.5 percent said that poor sanitation
affects health to some extent and 39.5 percent of the respondents said that poor
sanitation affects health to great extent while 1.0 percent respondent percent said that
sanitation do not affect health. These results show that majority of respondent agreed
that poor sanitation affect health either to great extent or to some extent.


26

Table No. 09
Distribution of respondent by poor sanitation is cause of infectious diseases

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 46.5 percent said that poor sanitation
is cause of infectious diseases to some extent and 34.5 percent of the respondents said
that poor sanitation is cause of infectious diseases to great extent while 19.0 percent
respondent agreed that poor sanitation do not affect infectious diseases. These result
shows that majority of respondent agreed that poor sanitation is cause of infectious
diseases either to great extent or to some extent.
Table No. 10
Distribution of respondent by poor sanitation is cause of digestive diseases
Digestive diseases Frequency Percent
To great extent 92 46.0
To some extent 102 51.0
Not at all 6 3.0
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 51.0 percent said that poor sanitation
is cause of digestive diseases to some extent and 46.0 percent of the respondents said
that poor sanitation is cause of digestive diseases to great extent while 3.0 percent
respondent agreed that poor sanitation do not cause of digestive diseases. These result
shows that majority of respondent agreed that poor sanitation is cause of digestive
diseases either to great extent or to some extent.

Infectious diseases Frequency Percent
To great extent 69 34.5
To some extent 93 46.5
Not at all 38 19.0
Total 200 100.0
27

Table No. 11
Distribution of respondent by poor sanitation is caused typhoid
Typhoid Frequency Percent
To great extent 60 30.0
To some extent 127 63.5
Not at all 13 6.5
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 63.5 percent said that poor sanitation
is cause of typhoid to some extent and 30.0 percent of the respondents said that poor
sanitation is cause of typhoid to great extent while 6.5 percent respondent agreed that
poor sanitation do not cause of typhoid. These result shows that majority of
respondent agreed that poor sanitation is cause of typhoid either to great extent or to
some extent.
Table No. 12
Distribution of respondent by poor sanitation cause of malaria
Poor sanitation cause of
malaria
Frequency Percent
To great extent 80 40.0
To some extent 73 36.5
Not at all 47 23.5
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 40.0 percent said that poor sanitation
is cause of malaria to great extent and 36.5 percent of the respondents said that poor
sanitation is cause of malaria to some extent while 23.5 percent respondent agreed
that poor sanitation do not cause of malaria. These result shows that majority of
respondent agreed that poor sanitation is cause of malaria either to great extent or to
some extent.
28

Table No. 13
Distribution of respondent by poor sanitation is cause of skin problem
Cause of skin problem Frequency Percent
To great extent 74 37.0
To some extent 112 56.0
Not at all 14 7.0
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e.56.0 percent said that poor sanitation
is cause of skin problem to some extent and 37.0 percent of the respondents said that
poor sanitation is cause of skin problem to great extent while 7.0 percent respondent
agreed that poor sanitation do not cause of skin problem. These result shows that
majority of respondent agreed that poor sanitation is cause of skin problem either to
great extent or to some extent.
Table No. 14
Distribution of respondent by poor sanitation is cause of Respiratory diseases
Cause of respiratory
diseases
Frequency Percent
To great extent 61 30.5
To some extent 117 58.5
Not at all 22 11.0
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e.58.5 percent said that poor sanitation
is cause of respiratory diseases to some extent and 30.5 percent of the respondents
said that poor sanitation is cause of respiratory diseases to great extent while 11.0
percent respondent agreed that poor sanitation do not cause of respiratory diseases.
These result shows that majority of respondent agreed that poor sanitation is cause of
respiratory either to great extent or to some extent.
29

Table No. 15
Distribution of respondent by poor sanitation is cause of eye problem
Eye problem Frequency Percent
To great extent 56 28.0
To some extent 84 42.0
Not at all 60 30.0
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e.42.0 percent said that poor sanitation
is cause of eye problem to some extent and 30.0 percent of the respondents said that
poor sanitation is do not cause of eye problem, while 28.0 percent respondent agreed
that poor sanitation is cause of eye problem. These result shows that majority of
respondent agreed that poor sanitation is cause of eye problem either to great extent
or to some extent.
Table No. 16
Distribution of respondent by poor sanitation is cause of child health
Child health Frequency Percent
To great extent 110 55.0
To some extent 74 37.0
Not at all 16 8.0
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 55.0 percent said that poor sanitation
affect child health to great extent and 37.0 percent of the respondents said that poor
sanitation affect child health to some extent, while 8.0 percent respondent do not
agreed that poor sanitation affect child health. These result shows that majority of
respondent agreed that poor sanitation affect child health either to great extent or to
some extent.

30

Table No. 17
Distribution of respondent by mobility of people affected by poor sanitation
Mobility of people Frequency Percent
To great extent 48 24.0
To some extent 116 58.0
Not at all 36 18.0
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 58.0 percent said that poor sanitation
affect mobility of people to some extent and 24.0 percent of the respondents said that
poor sanitation affect mobility of people to great extent, while 18.0 percent
respondent do not agreed that poor sanitation affect mobility of people. These result
shows that majority of respondent agreed that poor sanitation affect mobility of
people either to great extent or to some extent.
Table No. 18
Distribution of respondent by poor sanitation is cause of out migration
Out migration Frequency Percent
To great extent 41 20.5
To some extent 94 47.0
Not at all 65 32.5
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 47.0 percent said that poor sanitation
affect out migration to some extent and 32.5 percent of the respondents said that poor
sanitation do not affect out migration, while 20.5 percent respondent said that poor
sanitation affect out migration to great extent. These result shows that majority of
respondent agreed that poor sanitation affect out migration either to great extent or to
some extent.

31

Table No. 19
Distribution of respondent by poor sanitation is cause of transport system
Transport system Frequency Percent
To great extent 104 52.0
To some extent 91 45.5
Not at all 5 2.5
Total 200 100.0

The table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 52.0 percent said that poor sanitation
affect transport system to great extent and 45.5 percent of the respondents said that
poor sanitation affect out migration to some extent, while 2.5 percent respondent said
that poor sanitation do not affect transport system. These result shows that majority of
respondent agreed that poor sanitation affect transport system either to great extent or
to some extent.
Table No. 20
Distribution of respondent by poor sanitation is cause of wastage of time
Wastage of time Frequency Percent
To great extent 95 47.5
To some extent 97 48.5
Not at all 8 4.0
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 48.5 percent said that poor sanitation
is cause of wastage of time to some extent and 47.5 percent of the respondents said
that poor sanitation is cause of wastage of time to great extent, while 4.0 percent
respondent said that poor sanitation do not cause wastage of time. These result shows
that majority of respondent agreed that poor sanitation is cause of wastage of time
either to great extent or to some extent.

32

Table No. 21
Distribution of respondent by child cannot play on street
Child cannot play on
street
Frequency Percent
To great extent 70 35.0
To some extent 92 46.0
Not at all 38 19.0
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 46.0 percent said that child cannot
play on street due to poor sanitation to some extent and 35.5 percent of the
respondents said that child cannot play on street due to poor sanitation to great extent,
while 19.0 percent respondent said that poor sanitation do not affect the child to play
on street. These result shows that majority of respondent agreed that poor sanitation
affect the children to play on street either to great extent or to some extent.
Table No. 22
Distribution of respondent by hinders people to offer prayer in mosque
Offer prayer in mosque Frequency Percent
To great extent 115 57.5
To some extent 79 39.5
Not at all 6 3.0
Total 200 100.0
This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 57.5 percent said that poor sanitation
affect hinders people to offer prayer in mosque to great extent and 39.5 percent of the
respondents said that poor sanitation affect hinders people to offer prayer in mosque
to some extent, while 3.0 percent respondent said that poor sanitation do not affect the
hinder people to offer prayer in mosque. These result shows that majority of
respondent agreed that poor sanitation affect the hinders people to offer prayer in
mosque either to great extent or to some extent.
33

Table No. 23
Distribution of respondent by poor sanitation cause stress among people
Stress among people Frequency Percent
To great extent 67 33.5
To some extent 131 65.5
Not at all 2 1.0
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 65.5 percent said that poor sanitation
is cause stress among people to some extent and 33.5 percent of the respondents said
that poor sanitation is cause stress among people to some extent, while 1.0 percent
respondent said that poor sanitation do not cause stress among people. These result
shows that majority of respondent agreed that poor sanitation is cause stress among
people either to great extent or to some extent.
Table No. 24
Distribution of respondent by poor sanitation cause lose of customer for shopkeepers
Lose of customers Frequency Percent
To great extent 79 39.5
To some extent 65 32.5
Not at all 56 28.0
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 39.5 percent said that poor sanitation
is cause lose of customer for shopkeepers to great extent and 32.5 percent of the
respondents said that poor sanitation is cause lose of customer for shopkeepers to
some extent, while 28.0 percent respondent said that poor sanitation do not cause lose
of customers for shopkeepers. These result shows that majority of respondent agreed
that poor sanitation cause lose of customer for shopkeepers either to great extent or to
some extent.
34

Table No. 25
Distribution of respondent by restricts the visits to neighbor and relatives
Visits the neighbor Frequency Percent
To great extent 88 44.0
To some extent 92 46.0
Not at all 20 10.0
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 46.0 percent said that poor sanitation
restricts the visits to neighbor and relatives to some extent and 44.0 percent of the
respondents said that poor sanitation restricts the visits to neighbor and relatives to
great extent, while 10.0 percent respondent said that poor sanitation do not affect
restricts the visits to neighbor and relatives. These result shows that majority of
respondent agreed that poor sanitation affect restricts the visits to neighbor and
relatives either to great extent or to some extent.
Table No. 26
Distribution of respondent by hawkers cannot comes into street due to poor sanitation
Hawkers cannot come Frequency Percent
To great extent 62 31.0
To some extent 101 50.5
Not at all 37 18.5
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 50.5 percent said that due to poor
sanitation hawkers cannot comes into street to some extent and 31.0 percent of the
respondents said that due to poor sanitation hawkers cannot comes into street to some
extent, while 18.5 percent respondent said that poor sanitation do not affect hawkers
to comes into street. These result shows that majority of respondent agreed that poor
sanitation affect hawkers to come into street either to great extent or to some extent.
35

Table No. 27
Distribution of respondent by poor sanitation water comes into house through leakage
Water comes into house Frequency Percent
To great extent 62 31.0
To some extent 98 49.0
Not at all 40 20.0
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 49.0 percent said that poor sanitation
water comes into house through leakage to some extent and 31.0 percent of the
respondents said that due to poor sanitation water comes into house through leakage
to great extent, while 20.0 percent respondent said that poor sanitation water do not
come into house through leakage. These result shows that majority of respondent
agreed that poor sanitation water comes into house through leakage either to great
extent or to some extent.
Table No. 28
Distribution of respondent by value of property goes down due to poor sanitation
Property goes down Frequency Percent
To great extent 131 65.5
To some extent 63 31.5
Not at all 6 3.0
Total 200 100.0
This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 65.5 percent said that due to poor
sanitation value of property goes down due to poor sanitation to great extent and 31.5
percent of the respondents said that due to poor sanitation value of property goes
down to some extent, while 3.0 percent respondent said that poor sanitation do not
affect the value of property. These result shows that majority of respondent agreed
that due to poor sanitation value of property goes down either to great extent or to
some extent.
36

Table No. 29
Distribution of respondent by structure of house is destroyed due to poor sanitation
House is destroyed Frequency Percentage
To great extent 93 46.5
To some extent 102 51.0
Not at all 5 2.5
Total 200 100.0

This table shows that majority of respondent i.e. 51.0 percent said that due to poor
sanitation structure of house is destroyed to some extent and 46.5 percent of the
respondents said that due to poor sanitation structure of the house is destroyed to
great extent, while 2.5 percent respondent said that due to poor sanitation structure of
the house is do not destroyed due to poor sanitation. These result shows that majority
of respondent agreed that poor sanitation destroyed the structure of the house either to
great extent or to some extent.














37

Hypothesis Testing
Alternative Hypothesis = Poor the sanitation, poor will be the health conditions.
Null Hypothesis = Poor the sanitation, better will be the health conditions.

Table No. 30
Association between poor sanitation is the problem and poor sanitation effect
health

To what extent, do you
think that poor sanitation
affects health

To what extent, poor sanitation is the problem
in your area
Total
To great extent To some extent Not at all
To great extent 25 46 8 79
To some extent 40 59 20 119
Not at all 0 2 0 2
Total 65 107 28 200

Chi-square value = 3.990 Degree of Freedom = 4

Level of Significance = 0.05 Significant

Gamma Value= 0.059
Conclusion
The above tables results show that there is relationship between sanitation and
health. The gamma value is positive which shows that relationship between variables
is direct means that poor the sanitation, poor will be health conditions of people. So,
alternate hypothesis is accepted and null hypothesis is rejected.


38

Alternative Hypothesis = Poorer the sanitation, poor will be the mobility of people.
Null Hypothesis = Poorer the sanitation, better will be the mobility of people.

Table No. 31
Associated between poor sanitation and mobility of the people is affected by the
poor sanitation


To what extent do you
think that mobility of the
people is affected by the
poor sanitation

To what extent poor sanitation is the problem
in your area
Total
To great extent To some extent Not at all
To great extent 17 28 3 48
To some extent 47 54 15 116
Not at all 1 25 10 36
Total 65 107 28 200

Chi-square value = 22.208 Degree of Freedom = 4

Level of Significance = 0.05 Significant

Gamma Value = 0.364

Conclusion
The above tables results show that there is relationship between sanitation and
mobility. The gamma value is positive which shows that relationship between
variables is direct means that poor the sanitation, poor will be the mobility of people.
So, alternate hypothesis is accepted and null hypothesis is rejected.
39

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

From over all study of the research, it is concluded that the sanitation has a great
importance in the society. The poor sanitation is responsible for many situations,
which can create problems for the smooth functioning or stability of society. It was
also concluded that poor sanitation and because of leakage of wastewater due to poor
sewerage system, it caused difficulties in mobility, affected peoples health, caused
them economic loss, and was responsible for migration from one place to another.
Sanitation means of promoting health through prevention of human contact
with the hazards of wastes. Hazards can be physical, microbiological, biological, or
chemical agents of disease. "Sanitation generally refers to the provision of facilities
and services for the safe disposal of human urine and feces. Inadequate or poor
sanitation is a major cause of disease worldwide and improving sanitation is known to
have a significant beneficial impact on health both in households and across
communities. The word 'sanitation' also refers to the maintenance of hygienic
conditions, through services such as garbage collection and wastewater disposal
Basic sanitation refers to the management of human feces at the household level. On-
site sanitation is the collection and treatment of waste is done where it is deposited.
In developing countries sanitation is a serious problem. By lack of the
sanitation cholera, diarrhea, malaria etc occur. By bad sanitation condition million of
young and children died every year in the world. In Pakistan by bad sanitation human
health suffer serious problems. Main cause of sanitation is bad management. The
Quota sampling technique was applied. For this purpose, population was divided into
two categories Male and Female. Then hundred respondents were taken from each
category. Majority of the respondent said that poor sanitation effect the people.
Health problem is due to poor sanitation. Poor sanitation effect the social life of
people.


40

Conclusion
A large number of people said that sanitation problem in their area. A great number of
respondents knew that poor sanitation effect health. There were fewer complaints
against poor sanitation. Most of the respondent said that mobility of people effect by
poor sanitation. A large number of people said poor sanitation effect the transport
system. The sanitation water did spread on the roads and in the streets that forced
people to migrate and caused many people economic loss. To great extent, poor
sanitation was responsible for diseases, affected childrens, and sick persons to some
extent. Both sanitation sanitary workers were important for the society.
Major Findings
1. In recent research effects of poor sanitation on peoples life researcher
founded that more than 59.5 percent of people said that poor sanitation effect health.
2. Researches founded that 46.5 percent of respondent said that poor sanitation is
cause of infectious diseases.
3. Researches founded that 51.0 percent of respondent said that poor sanitation is
cause of digestive diseases.
4. Researches founded that 63.5 percent of respondent said that poor sanitation is
cause of typhoid diseases.
5. Researches founded that 40.0 percent of respondent said that poor sanitation is
cause of malaria
6. Researches founded that 58.0 percent of respondent said that mobility of
people affected by poor sanitation
7. Researches founded that 47.0 percent of respondent said that poor sanitation is
cause of out migration
8. Researches founded that 48.5 percent of respondent said that poor sanitation is
cause of wastage of time
9. Researches founded that 46.0 percent of respondent said that child cannot play
on street due to poor sanitation
41

10. Researches founded that 39.5 percent of respondent said that poor sanitation
cause lose of customer for shopkeepers
Limitations
Following were the limitations of the study
1. Researcher faced many problems to conduct the study about topic.
2. Researcher has to introduce herself and about researcher purpose.
3. People were less interested for giving information.
4. The researcher used quantitative research methods due to shortage of time.
5. The researcher has used questionnaire design. It takes ample time to return
back all questionnaires at time. This caused mental anxiety and tired.
Suggestions
There are following ways through which we can control the problem of poor
sanitation
1. The situations like poor sanitation can be improved by working voluntarily or
by some kind of projects on water and sanitation hygiene and can be avoided from
economic loss, migration, and diseases.
2. The government and non-government organizations can work together for
betterment of sanitation.
3. The topic can be made more specified e.g., wastewater, waste recycling, or it
can be waste management, etc.








42

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashley Murray and Isha Ray. 2010. Commentary: Back-End Users: The
Unrecognized Stakeholders in Demand-Driven Sanitation. Journal of
Planning Education and Research Vol. 30, No.1, Pp. 94-102.
A.B. Knol. et al. 2004. Environ health. Health policy. Vol.67, No.11, Pp 215_24
A. Lima, et al. 1992. Persistent diarrhea in northeast brazil: etiologies and
interactions with malnutrition. Acta paediactr. Vol.81, No.381, Pp 39-44
A. Pruss, 2000. Malnutrition and gastroenteritis in Gambia. Trans. Ray. Soc. Trop.
Med. Hyg. Vol.71, No.3, Pp 199-203
A. Cotton, 2000. Services for the urban poor. Vol. 3, No.2, Pp. 17-20
Barry. Mason, 2002. A report entitled. The human waste issued by the british charity
water aid and tear fund, a british relief and development agency.
Bartlett, Sheridan. 2003. Water, sanitation and urban children, the need to go beyond
improved provision, Environment and Urbanization Vol.15, No.2,Pp 57-70.
C.V.Baxi, 2009.Evolving a strategic approach towards sanitation. Chairman
corporate governance center .Mdi.source: vikalpa.Vol.34,No.1,Pp23-25
C.S.V, Raqtnam. 2009. Sanitizing Indian Sustainability and Reliability of the Sulabh
international model, Vol.34, No.1, Pp 107-115.
Deguchi, Y. 2000. Sanitation management and infectious diseases control in
disasters. Vol.43, No.4, Pp 157-164
D. Simon, et al. 2006. Contemporary perspectives on the peri-urban zones of cities in
developing areas.Vol.7, No.2, Pp 3-17
D, Mara. 2010. Sanitation and Health. Vol.7, No.11
Guerrant. et al. 1990. Diarrhea and catch-up growth. Vol.3, No.35, Pp599-600
Joseph N.S. Eisenberg, at el. 2007. Research and practice,
Herbert, James R. 1985. Effects of Components of Sanitation on Nutritional Status
Findings from South Indian Settlements. Int. J. Epidemiol.Vol.14, No.11,
Pp.43-152.
43

Integrating Disease Control Strategies: Balancing Water Sanitation and Hygiene
Interventions to Reduce Diarrheal Disease Burden. American Journal of
Public Health Vol. 97, No. 5, Pp. 846-852.
K,Whol. and A. Anthony. 1983. Infaction on growth failure. J.Nutr. Vol.129, No.28,
Pp 534-538
Katsicas, Sokratis K. 2009 "35" Computer and Information Security Handbook
Morgan Kaufmann Pubblications Elsevier.
L. Kauhanen, et al. 2010. Association of diarrhea, poor hygiene, and poor social
conditions in childhood with blood pressure in adulthood. J. Epidemiol
Community Health; Vol. 64, Pp.394-399.
Mason, Barry. 2002. Impact of poor sanitation on worlds health. The International
Committee of the Fourth International.
Mara, 2008. History of water supply and sanitation Pp. 215-221
Maria A. Smith, et al. 2004. Health Promotion and Disease Prevention through
Sanitation Education in South African Zulu and Xhosa Women. J. Transcult.
Nurs. vol. 15, No. 1, Pp 62-68.
Ndugwa and Zulu (2008) Balancing Water Sanitation and Hygiene Interventions to
Reduce Diarrheal Disease Burden Vol.3, No.35, Pp 846-852.
Nam, Viet and Hanoi, 2008. Poor sanitation putting children at risk in rural areas,
retrieved from
R, Paterson. and Curtis, 2005. Pro-poor sanitation technologies, Geoforum, Vol.38,
No.5, Pp 901-907.
R. C. Carter,et al, 2002. The impact and Sustainability of community water supply
and sanitation programmes in developing countries. Journal of the chartered
institution of water and environmental management. Vol.13, No.4, Pp
292-296
R. Guerrant, et al. 1990. Diarrhea in developed and developing countries magnitude,
special settings, and etiologies. Vol.1, No.2, Pp 41-50
Ross S Bailie. et al. 2009. Evaluation of an Australian indigenous housing
44

programme: community level impact on crowding, infrastructure function,
and hygiene. J. Epidemiol Community Health.
Rovindan. 2007. Tackle poor sanitation in developing countries, researcher urge.
World Health Organization (WHO). Published in science daily.
S, Bisin. 2008. Child Health and Sanitation. Takhtabi, a meeting held in pakistans
biannual child health and sanitation. UNICEF.
Sugrue Dennis et al. 2012 Water and Sanitation: Decisive Effects in Modern
Operations
S. A. Moore, et al. 2001. Early childhood diarrhea and helminthiases associate with
long-term linear growth faltering. Int. J. Epidemiology. Vol. 30, No. 2, Pp.
1457-1464
S. Shreejana, 2008. Diarrhea tops summer disease list Kathmandu post/ NGO forum
T, Clasen and A.Bastable.2003.feacal contamination of drinking water during
collection and household storage. J.Wat.Healt.Vol.1, No.3, Pp109-115
UNICEF & WHO. 2004. Meeting the MDG Drinking Water and Sanitation Target, A
Mid-Term Assessment of Progress.
WHO/UNICEF. 2008. Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation,
Progress on Sanitation, Pp. 41-53.
WSSCC. 2004. The Campaign:WASH Facts and Figures. , retrieved from
http://www.wsscc.org/dataweb.cfm.
Welle, Katherina (March 2008). "Mapping as a basis for sanitation implementation in
Pakistan:the case of the Orangi Pilot Project". Beyond construction. Use by all. A
collection of case studies from sanitation and hygiene promotion
practitioners in South Asia (London, WaterAid, IRC International Water and
SanitationCentre) Pp. S95110.
Y.B. Cheung. 1999. The impact of water supplies and sanitation on growth in
Chinese children. Perspectives in Public Health Vol. 119 No. 2, Pp 89-91.


45

QUESTIONNAIRE

TITLE: Effects of Poor Sanitation on Peoples Life: A Study of D. G. Khan

1) Name of respondent. _________________
2) Sex of respondent.
a) Male b) Female
3) Age of respondent.
a) 21-30 b) 31-40 c) 41-50 d) 51 and above
4) Education level of the respondent.
a) Graduate b) Post Graduate c) Above
5) Occupation of the respondent.
a) Government Job b) Private Job c) Student
d) Personal Business e) Agriculture f) Others________
6) What is monthly income of your family.
a) Below 10,000 b) 10,000 20,000 c) 20,000 30,000
d) 30,00040,000 e) Above 40,000
7) Type of family of the respondent.
a) Joint b) Nuclear
8) To what extent, poor sanitation is a problem in your area.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
9) To what extent, do you think that poor sanitation affects health.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
10) To what extent, do you think that poor sanitation is cause of infectious diseases.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
11) To what extent, do you think that poor sanitation is cause of digestive problems.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
12) To what extent, do you think that poor sanitation is cause of typhoid.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
46

13) To what extent, do you think that poor sanitation is cause of malaria.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
14) To what extent, do you think that poor sanitation is cause of skin problems.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
15) To what extent, do you think that poor sanitation is cause of respiratory disease.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
16) To what extent, do you think that poor sanitation is cause of eye problems.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
17) To what extent, do you think that poor sanitation is affects child health.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
18) To what extent, do you think that the mobility of people is affected by poor
sanitation.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
19) To what extent, poor sanitation responsible for out migration.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
20) To what extent, do you think that poor sanitation affects the transport system.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
21) To what extent, poor sanitation cause wastage of time as people has to use long
routes to reach their destination.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
22) To what extent, do you think that child cannot play on street due to poor
sanitation.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
23) To what extent, do you think that poor sanitation hinders people to offer prayer at
mosque.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
24) To what extent, do you think that poor sanitation can cause stress among people.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
47

25) To what extent, do you think that poor sanitation in market can cause loss of
customers/clients for shopkeeper.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
26) To what extent, do you think that poor sanitation restricts the visits to neighbors
and relatives.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
27) To what extent, do you think that hawkers cannot come into street due to poor
sanitation.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
28) To what extent, do you think that due to poor sanitation water come into house
through leakage.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
29) To what extent, do you think that value of property goes down due to poor
sanitation.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all
30) To what extent, do you think that structure of the house is destroyed due to poor
sanitation.
a) To great extent b) To some extent c) Not at all