What motivates open defecation? A qualitative study from a rural setting in Nepal.
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Open defecation is ongoing in Nepal despite the rise in efforts for increasing latrine coverage and its use. Understanding the reasons for open defecation would complement the ongoing efforts to achieve the 'open defecation free' status in Nepal. This study aimed at exploring different motivations of people who practice open defecation in a village in Nepal. METHODS: This study was conducted among the people from the Hattimudha village in Morang district of eastern Nepal, who practiced open defecation. Maximum variation sampling method was used to recruit participants for 20 in-depth interviews and 2 focus group discussions. We adopted a content analysis approach to analyze the data. RESULTS: We categorized different reasons for open defecation as motivation by choice and motivation by compulsion. Open defecation by choice as is expressed as a medium for socializing, a habit and an enjoyable outdoor activity that complies with spiritual and religious norms. Open defecation by compulsion include reasons such as not having a latrine at home or having an alternative use for the latrine structures. Despite having a private latrine at home or access to a public latrine, people were compelled to practice open defecation due to constraints of norms restricting latrine use and hygiene issues in general. For women the issues with privacy and issues refraining women to use the same latrine as men compelled women to look for open defecation places. CONCLUSION: Open defecation is either a voluntary choice or a compulsion. This choice is closely linked with personal preferences, cultural and traditional norms with special concerns for privacy for women and girls in different communities. The ongoing campaigns to promote latrine construction and its use needs to carefully consider these factors in order to reduce the open defecation practices and increase the use of sanitary latrines.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Social capital has facilitated sanitation access; women and girls have formed and maintained social connections when accessing sanitation locations, and sought social support to ensure privacy and safety and to protect reputations when urinating or defecating.
“Social capital has facilitated sanitation access.Women and girls have formed and maintained social connections when accessing sanitation locations, [130, 182, 189] and sought social support to ensure privacy and safety and to protect reputations when urinating or defecating [173, 182, 184, 187-190, 223, 226].”
From Water, sanitation, and women’s empowerment: A systematic review and qualitative metasynthesis (2022) · cites this paper as [130]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 95
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [17]Central Bureau of Statistics. National Population and Housing Census 2011. Vol. 01. Kathmandu; 2012.
- [25]Coffey D, Gupta A, Hathi P, Khurana N, Spears D, Srivastav N, et al Revealed Preference for Open Defecation. Econ Polit Wkly [Internet]. 2014; 49(38): 43– 55. Available from: http://www.epw.in/special-articles/revealed-preference-open-defecation.html
- [34]Clair RP, editor. Expressions of ethnography. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 2003.
- [42]USAID Water Team. Open Defecation vs. Community Toilets: A Complicated Choice. Glob Waters. 2017; 8(2): 1.
- Authors
- Bhatt, N., Budhathoki, S. S., Lucero-Prisno, D. E. I., Shrestha, G., Bhattachan, M., Thapa, J., Sunny, A. K., Upadhyaya, P., Ghimire, A., & Pokharel, P. K.
- Affiliations
- B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences (NP)
- Corresponding author
- Budhathoki, Shyam Sundar
- ORCID
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2019-07-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e0219246
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6602253
- OpenAlex
- W2953455628
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7
- FWCI
- 6.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Colorado State University
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies and Social Issues
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Energy and Environment Impacts
- Keywords
- open defecation, latrine use, latrine construction, sanitation, rural Nepal, women's privacy, gender norms, socialization, latrine access
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Compulsive Behavior, Culture, Defecation, Family Characteristics, Female, Habits, Humans, Hygiene, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Nepal, Surveys and Questionnaires, Rural Population, Sanitation, Socioeconomic Factors, Toilet Facilities, Qualitative Research, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review