AVAILABILITY OF BASIC AMENITIES IN BHUBANESWAR CITY

AVAILABILITY OF BASIC AMENITIES INBHUBANESWAR CITY

*Padarabinda Rath**Pritirekha Daspattanayak

AbstractThe present paper attempts to study the availability of basic amenities such as safedrinking water, toilet facility, drainage connectivity and availability of electricity inselected wards of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. The study is based on primarydata collected during February 2013. In total 810 households were canvassed fromfour selected wards through a semi-structured questionnaire. The ward level figuresare tabulated on individual amenities. The standard deviation among the wards withrespect to the concerned amenity is also worked out to study the level of variationsamong the wards even within the city limit. Finally, a composite index on selectbasic amenities has been attempted to ascertain the overall condition of theavailability of basic services in these wards. Among the major findings, it wasobserved that the availability of basic amenities is better in the areas that weredeveloped as a part of initial master plan. Afterwards, the city somehow failed tocope with the haphazard urban sprawl resulting in a dismal condition of basic amenitiesin the periphery and areas having a greater percentage of slum households.

Key words: Basic Amenities, Urban sprawl, Periphery, Slum

Introduction

In a welfare society, the development programmes are formulated to improve thequality of life of the fellow citizens. Among others, the most important are the availability ofbasic infrastructure like hospitals, educational institutions etc. and the amenities likeprovision of safe drinking water,toilet facility, drainage connectivity, availability ofelectricity etc. Bhubaneswar, being the capital city of Odisha, is the major urban centre inthe State. Owing to the pull factors associated with the ever growing urban influence clubbedwith the sever push factor operating in the rural areas, Bhubaneswar receives huge numberof migrants from within as well as outside the State. The rapid population growth of the city

*Deputy Director, Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, 2A-Man Singh Road, NewDelhi. E-mail: [email protected]** Reader, Department of Applied Geography, School of Regional Studies and Earth Sciences, RavenshawUniversity, Cuttack. E-mail: [email protected]

82 Odisha Journal of Social Science, Vol. 2, Issue-1, January 2015

has put tremendous pressure on the urban local body to ensure basic services to the citydwellers.

While the urbanization phenomenon is widely accepted as being an inevitable by-product of development, there are many undesirable outcomes too that have resulted.With increasing population and increasing demand for urban infrastructure and services,the capacities of local governments in many developing and newly industrialized countriesare overburdened (Sridhar et al, 2010).

In developing countries, approximately six children die every minute from diseasescaused by unsafe water and inadequate sanitation. World over, there are an average of250 million cases every year of gastroenteritis due to bathing in contaminated water. Theglobal burden of human disease caused by sewage pollution of coastal waters has beenestimated at 4 million lost man years every year (UN environment programme, 2004).

Rapid growth in population unaccompanied by adequate investments in urbandevelopment during the post-independence period has led to a serious deficiency in theavailability of infrastructure and basic amenities in towns and cities in the country (Kunduet al, 1999:1894).

Objective

The present paper intends to:

1. Study the availability of basic amenities among the sample household in the selectedwards of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC).

2. Analyze the extent of disparities in basic amenities among these wards

Data Source

1. Primary data collected during February 2013 from 810 sample households of 4selected wards of Bhubaneswar BMC.

2. Secondary data from House listing& Housing Census 2011 for the overall scenarioof BMC.

Survey Area and Sampling Frame

The primary data relating to basic amenities was collected from four wards ofBMCin the month ofFebruary, 2013. The ward maps as prevailing in Census 2011 wereobtained from the website of BMC. Excluding the outgrowths, there were 60 wards inBMC out of which the following wards were selected for the study.

The wards were selected on the basis of location and size of population. WardNo.1 (Patia Industrial Estate, SikharchandiBasti, MundaSahi, Chandaka Industrial Area,

MarutiVihar, Chandrasekharpur P.S., SailashreeVihar etc.) was selected on the basis ofhighest population. Ward No. 16( AdibasiGaon, Nirankari Nagar, Redi Sahi, Janata Nagar,Maitri Nagar, Salia Sahi Pt., Loyolla School)was taken due to the highest percentage ofslum households. Ward No. 52(Gosagoreswar area, NageswarTangi, Jaydev Nagar, BMCHanuman Temple area) was selected due to the low population size alongwith its plannednature of settlements and proximity to the office of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation.Lastly, Ward No. 59(Dumduma Housing Board colony Ph-III, Jadupur, Begunia andRaghunath Nagar)was taken for the survey for being located at the periphery of the corecity.

Four percent sample was drawn from the total households of ward No.1 and 16keeping the large size of the wards in view. A five percent sample was drawn from the totalhouseholds of Ward No. 52 and 59 due to their smaller size in terms of number ofhouseholds. The first household to be canvassed was selected on a random basis. Thereafter,a suitable jumping factor depending on the sample percentage was allowed to canvass thesubsequent households.In case of non-response or absence of respondent even after thesecond visit, the sample household was substituted with the neighbouring household. Thedetails of the sample are given below:

Table 1Sample Wards and Number of Households

Selected from Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation

Ward No.

Area Households 2011

Households canvassed

1 Patia Industrial Estate, SikharchandiBasti, MundaSahi, Chandaka Industrial Area, MarutiVihar, Chandrasekharpur P.S., SailashreeVihar (Part )

7,338 300 (4%)

16 AdibasiGaon, Nirankari Nagar, Redi Sahi, Janata Nagar, Maitri Nagar, Salia Sahi Pt., Loyolla School

5,828 230 (4%)

52 Gosagoreswar area, NageswarTangi, Jaydevnagar, BMC, Hanuman Temple area

2,157 110 (5%)

59 Dumduma HB colony Ph-III, Jadupur, Begunia and Raghunath Nagar

3,405 170 (5%)

Rath & Daspattanyak / Availability of basic amenities in bhubaneswar city 83

It is noteworthy to mention here that, due to the rural administrative setup of theoutgrowths, they have not been taken into account in this survey. The outgrowths namelyPatrapada, Sijuan, Ranasinghapur, Sarakantara, Bahadalpur, Ebranga, RaghunathpurJalli,Kalarahanga, Injana, Rokat, Kesura and Koradakanta, though add to the population ofBhubaneswar UA as individual wards, they do not fall under the jurisdiction of BhubaneswarMunicipal Corporation. That is why, wards 1 to 60 that comprise the core city have beenconsidered for sample selection.

Ward No. 1 and 16, owing to the larger sample size, were assigned to twoenumerators each whereas ward 52 and 59 were covered by one enumerator each. On anaverage, the questionnaire was canvassed for 15 to 20 households per day depending onthe availability, willingness and promptness of the respondents.

The layout maps of the selected wards showing major landmarks were also collectedfrom http://bmc.gov.in, the official website of BMC. These maps were quite helpful duringthe field operation, though a detailed map showing the individual structures would havebeen more helpful. The Enumeration Block (EB) wise maps available from Census couldnot be used due to the high jumping factors (number of households to be skipped) betweentwo consecutive sample households. Many a time the enumerator had to cross the EBboundary frequently to canvass the subsequent household. The layout maps of the selectedwards are produced below:

Map 7.2Ward No.1, BMC





Survey Questionnaire

Excluding the location particulars on the top of the questionnaire, in total, there are11 items in every row. On each side, provision was made to canvass 10households.Questions are printed on both the sides for economical use of paper.

Location Particulars: As the survey is limited to BMC, the name of the city was pre-printedon the questionnaire. Two other items which needed to be filled in by the enumerator onthe top of the questionnaire are, Ward Number and Form Number.

Questions Canvassed: Apart from the household number which was filled up by theenumerator, 10 questions were asked to the respondent with respect to the concernedhousehold. The questions are:

1. Total number of persons (Normally residing in this household): Persons, Males,Females

2. Name of the head of the household3. Sex of the head of household: Male (1) / Female (2)4. Number of dwelling rooms: Exclusively in possession of the household5. Main source of drinking water: Tap-1/ Well-2 / Handpump or Tubewell-3/Any

other-46. Availability of drinking water source: Within premises-1/ Near premises-2/ Away-3


7. Main source of lighting: Electricity-1/ Kerosene-2/ Any other-3/ No lighting-48. Latrine within the premises: Yes-1/ No-29. Type of latrine (if available): Water closet-1/ Pit latrine-2/Other latrine-3/ No latrine-

410. Waste water outlet connected to: Closed drainage-1/ Open drainage-2/ No

drainage-3

After the field survey was over, the data were entered into the digital format in MSExcel through a double data entry system to minimize typographical errors. Thereafter, thetables were generated through a pre-written computer program developed by the researcherin MS Visual Basic Programming Interface.

Results and discussion

The ward level figures are tabulated on individual amenities like drinking water,location of drinking water source, availability of electricity, latrine facility and drainageconnectivity. The standard deviation among the wards with respect to the concerned amenityis also worked out to study the level of variations among the wards even within the citylimit. Finally, a composite index on select basic amenities has been attempted to ascertainthe overall condition of the availability of basic services in these wards.

Before discussing the amenities available to the sample households in the surveyedarea, it is felt pertinent to give a brief idea about the location and nature of settlements in theselected wards.

Ward No.1 is located at the extreme north of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporationlimits. Including Chandaka Industrial Area, MarutiVihar, Chandrasekharpur, SailashreeViharetc. this is the area witnessing maximum expansion during the recent past. Most of thesoftware giants like Infosys, TCS etc. havepreferred this stretch to establish their business.As a result of this, the entire area is emerging as another business hub parallel to the centralbusiness district. Even before these companies came, Bhubaneswar Development Authorityhad, by its multi-phase housing projects, developed many residential colonies in this areawhich subsequently paved the way for related infrastructure and facilities.

Ward No.16 is located towards north of NH-5, adjoining JayadevVihar. The areaincludes AdibasiGaon, Nirankari Nagar, Redi Sahi, Janata Nagar, Maitri Nagar, Salia Sahi (Part) etc. Saliasahi, being the largest slum in Bhubaneswar, the highest proportion ofslum households in the city are found in this ward.

Ward No.52 is located towards the south-east of the city that includesGosagoreswar area, NageswarTangi, Jaydevnagar, Bbubaneswar Municipal Corporation(BMC) office, and Hanuman Temple area. NH-203 separates this area from the Odisha


State Museum and BJB College. This is one of the posh areas of the old city havingmostly residential houses and planned infrastructure. The proximity to BMC office hasalso been an added advantage for this area.

Including the areas like Dumduma Housing Board colony Ph-III, Jadupur,Begunia&Raghunath Nagar etc., Ward No. 59 is situated towards the south-most endof the city. Dumuduma is known to be one of the most ambitious low-cost housingcolonythat aimed to provide core houses to the low and middle income groups at acheaper rate than other localities. Jadupur and Begunia are the erstwhile rural areasthose have been added to the BMC area in the recent past. This area was especiallyselected to ascertain the differentials in amenities vis-à-vis other localities because of itsperipheral location and comparatively low income level of the inhabitants.

In addition to the arrived figures for the sample wards, the overall figures pertainingto Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation on the basis of Houselisting & Housing Census,2011 are also given in each table for the purpose of comparison. Besides, the standarddeviation and mean of the observations in respect of the wards are also calculated foranalysis.

Sources of Drinking Water

Unlike House listing & Housing Census 2011, thequestion canvassed containedfour responses viz. (1) tap, (2) handpump/ tubewell/ borehole, (3) well and (4) othersources. Handpump and tubewell/borehole were deliberately clubbed together to avoidconfusion and possible overlapping in the mind of the enumerator as well as the respondentwith regard to the thin distinction among the concepts. More often, in Odisha, the twoterms handpump and tubewell are used interchangeably by the people. Hence, the figuresfor Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation as given in Houselisting & Housing Census2011 are also suitably clubbed for comparison purposes. Similarly, “Tap” indicates bothfrom treated as well as untreated source and “Well” indicates both covered as well asuncovered well. Besides, all the other sources of water put together comprising hardlyabout 1 percent of the households in Bhubaneswar were clubbed together as “OtherSource”.

It is observed that the availability of tap water to the sample households is about43 percent in the selected wards with a high standard deviation of 30.7 which clearlyindicates the huge differentials in availability (Table 2). Ward No. 52, the tap water is thehighest at 81 percent, it is just 6 percent in Ward No. 59 which is very difficult tobelieve. The rest of the wards are at around 40 percent.


Table 2Main Source of Drinking Waterin Select Wards of

Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation

Ward No

Total HH

Main Source of Drinking Water (% HH) Safe

Source Tap Handpump/

Tubewell/ Borehole

Well Other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total 2,01,873 80.8 59.5 21.3 18.3 0.9

1 300 79.0 44.3 34.7 19.0 2.0 16 230 89.5 39.1 50.4 9.6 0.9 52 110 92.7 80.9 11.8 7.3 0.0 59 170 81.8 5.9 75.9 18.2 0.0 Mean 85.8 42.6 43.2 13.5 0.7 Std. 6.4 30.7 27.0 5.9 1.0

Source: 1. The figures in “Total” row are based on Houselisting 2011 for BMC that refers to the

scenario at aggregate level of all the municipal wards of Bhubaneswar2. The ward level figures are based on the sample survey conducted by the author in these

wards during February, 2013Note: 1. Total may not add to 100 due to rounding off

2. “Safe Source” corresponds to Tap + Handpump/Tubewell/Borehole

However, when Handpump/Tubewell is added to tap, so as to arrive at thepercentage of households having access to safe source of drinking water, the differentialsget nullified with a standard deviation of just 6.4. This indicates, though the wards are atdifferent levels with respect to tap water, access to any safe source has got priority in thesewards, irrespective of their location and size.Even then, Ward No. 52 has emerged as themost well off among the selected areas in terms of safe source of drinking water. Asregards other sources, a negligible proportion has reported as such in all the wards except2 percent in Ward No.1. Some of the respondents had told about the use of bottled waterwhich is clubbed with “Other”.

Location of Drinking Water Source

As discussed in the previous chapter, location of drinking water gives an ideaabout the ease of accessibility to the source of drinking water. While a household using tapwater may be considered as desirable, at the same time it would be a matter of concern if


such tap, being a community tap, is located beyond 100 meters in urban areas or evenbeyond 500 meters in rural areas. As done in census, a separate question was canvassedin the sample area to ascertain the overall distance a household covers to fetch drinkingwater. As per Houselisting 2011, about 72 percent of the households in BMC area haveaccess to drinking water within the premises. While Ward No. 52 has close to 100 percentwithin premises, it is 75 percent in Ward No. 1. However, in wards 16 and 59, the proportionof households having drinking water within the premises is abysmally low i.e. 37 and about31 percent respectively (Table 3).

The standard deviation in “within premises” is quite high that suggests the wardsare at significantly different levels. As was seen in Table 2, about 76 percent of the householdsin Ward No. 59 had reported handpump/tubewell as the main source of drinking water.Here also, the proportion of households having drinking water near premises and away,put together comes to about 70 percent in the same ward. Hence, a sizeable number ofhouseholds in this ward depend on the community handpump or tubewell located at adistance of hundred meters or more from their premises.

Table 3 Location of Drinking Water Source

in Select Wards of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation Ward No Total HH Location of Drinking Water

Source(% HH) Within

Premises Near

Premises Away

1 2 3 4 5 Total 2,01,873 71.9 15.7 12.4

1 300 74.7 13.7 11.7 16 230 37.0 42.6 20.4 52 110 98.2 1.8 0.0 59 170 30.6 36.5 32.9

Mean 60.1 23.7 16.3 Std. Dev. 32.0 19.2 13.9 Source: 1. The figures in "Total" row are based on Houselisting 2011 for BMC that refers to the scenario at aggregate level of all the municipal wards of Bhubaneswar 2. The ward level figures are based on the sample survey conducted by the authorin these wards during February, 2013 Note: Total may not add to 100 due to rounding off


As already mentioned, this area is known to be the house of comparatively lowincome inhabitants.It is now clear that, though providing safe drinking water has got thepriority irrespective of the location of the wards, the income level of the inhabitants has abearing on access to such amenity within the premises.

Electricity as Main Source of Lighting

About 87 percent of the households in BMC have reported electricity as the mainsource of lighting as per Houselisting& Housing Census 2011. The average proportion ofhouseholds in the sample area using electricity is about 77 percent with a standard deviationof 24.1. While Ward No. 52 has reported 100 percent electrification, Ward No.1 hasreported about 91 percent. However, in Ward No. 16, just 45 percent of the householdshave access to electricity as the main source of lighting and about 51 percent use kerosenefor the purpose. A significant proportion of households i.e. about 4 percent in this wardhave reportedly have no access to electricity at all (Table 4). Most of the kerosene usersand households having no lighting are reported from Ward No. 16 that houses the Saliasahislum area, the biggest slum in BMC jurisdiction. Ward No. 59 i.e. Dumuduma housingBoard colony area has reported a comparatively better proportion of households i.e. about73 percent using electricity as the main source of lighting. Here also a sizeable proportionof households (2.4 percent) are reported with no lighting facility.


A high value of standard deviation in case of access to electricity among the samplewards suggests high differentials with respect to the availability of the amenities even withinthe city limits. This is considered as an undesirable development where the very basic needsare not equitably available even in the capital city of the state. This also talks aloud about theprobable dismal condition of availability of electricity at micro-level in the smaller cities.

Availability of Toilet Facility

As discussed in the previous chapter, the availability of latrine facility in Odisha isquite discouraging in comparison to the national average. Even in the capital city, about 20percent of the households do not have any latrine facilities. On the face of negligibleavailability/use of public latrines, most of these households are going for open defecation.

Table 5 gives the proportion of households having latrine facility(col.3) which issub-divided into three major types of latrine facilities i.e. “water closet”, “pit” and “other”.As already mentioned in the previous chapter, this clubbing was done to facilitate propercomparison with the figures of houselisting 2001. Column 4, 5 and 6 added togetherwould represent total availability of latrine whereas, adding “No latrine” to this wouldrepresent all the households. The detailed clubbing of all the components into these threemajor types of latrines has already been discussed in chapter-VI.


Table 5 Availability and Type of Toilet Facility

in Select Wards of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation Ward No

Total HH

Toilet Available

Type of Latrine (% HH) Water Closet

Pit Other No Latrine

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total 2,01,873 81.1 68.7 5.8 6.6 18.9

1 300 76.3 72.3 3.3 0.7 23.7 16 230 80.9 16.1 49.6 15.2 19.1 52 110 99.1 99.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 59 170 78.8 64.7 8.2 5.9 21.2

Mean 83.8 63.1 15.3 5.5 16.2

Std. Dev. 10.4 34.6 23.1 7.0 10.4

Source: 1. The figures in "Total" row are based on Houselisting 2011 for BMC that refers to the scenario at aggregate level of all the municipal wards of Bhubaneswar 2. The ward level figures are based on the sample survey conducted by the authorin these wards during 02-10 February, 2013 Note: Total may not add to 100 due to rounding off

As evident from table 5, in Ward No. 52, almost 100 percent of the households haveaccess to toilet facility and every single such household is using a water-closet toilet. Onthe contrary, in rest of the three wards, the availability of latrine facility is close to 80percent. Surprisingly, Ward 59 that ranked lowest in terms of tap water is slightly betterthan Ward 1 in terms of availability of latrines. About 3 percent of households in Ward 1are using pit latrine, while in Ward 59, this proportion is about 8 percent. But, shockingly,in Ward 16, most of the toilets are either pit or other toilets.

About 50 percent of the households in Ward 16 are using pit latrines andanother 15 percent are using other type of latrines. From the responses to the questionsin the survey, it could not be ascertained as to which the types of other latrines arebeing used in this area. Because of the location of a major slum in this area, availabilityof more pit toilets seems quite logical. One aspect that gives a good impression aboutthis ward is a comparatively lower proportion of households without any toilet facilityvis-à-vis Ward 1 and 59. In spite of being a slum dominated ward, at least a lessproportion of households are going for open defecation in comparison to ward 1 and59.

The standard deviation here, though significant, is comparatively much less thanthat of drinking water and electricity. This of course does not necessarily translate to well-being as because, a low standard deviation is also possible in case all the observations areat par, at a lower level. This is what has happened in the case of latrine availability. Asalready mentioned, barring Ward 52, in all other wards, the latrine facility is worrisome.

Drainage Connectivity

As per the definition adopted in Houselisting& Housing Census 2011, the wastewater outlet of a household may be connected to a “Closed” drain or an “Open” drain. Incase, no such drainage facility is available, the waste water from the household is left toflow outside the house, may be in the public area which is a matter of serious healthimplications. Sometimes, it is also seen that the waste water comes out of the premisesthrough a pipe that delivers the water onto the road. Many a time, this is also perceived asclosed drainage by the household. Special effort has been made to avoid such confusionand to capture the appropriate type of drainage, if available.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the overall drainage connectivity in the Stateis very low as compare to the national average. Even in the city like Bhubaneswar, thirtypercent of the total households are devoid of any type of drainage connectivity. The closedand open drainage have been clubbed together to ascertain the availability of any type ofdrainage facility.


As depicted in Table6, the percentage of households having any type of drainageconnectivity in BMC is 70 percent out of which 46.6 percent households have access toclosed drainage and another 23.4 are using open type of drainage facility.

Going down to the ward level, here again it is found that, the wards are at differentlevels with a high standard deviation. While at around 97 percent, the Ward 52 has emergedas the best among the sample wards in terms of any type of drainage connectivity whereas,it is just 27 percent in Ward 16. Moreover, in terms of closed drainage also, ward 52 topsthe list with about 90 percent followed by ward No. 1 with about 54 percent. In rest of thewards i.e. 16 and 59, proportion of households having access to closed drainage can beconsidered negligible at 10 and 9 percent respectively.

Table 6 Availability of Drainage Connectivity


Total HH

Drainage Connectivity (% HH) Available No

Drainage Closed + Open

Closed Open

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total 2,01,873 70.0 46.6 23.4 30.1

1 300 67.7 53.7 14.0 32.3 16 230 27.4 10.4 17.0 72.6 52 110 97.3 89.1 8.2 2.7 59 170 41.8 9.4 32.4 58.2 Mean 58.6 40.7 17.9 41.5 Std. 30.7 38.3 10.3 30.7


Though open drains also have health implications, it is desirable to provide at leastany type of drainage facility to the inhabitants. From this perspective, ward 16 is undoubtedlythe worst among the four sample wards as because every three out of four households in thisward do not have access to any type of drainage facility. Over and above, a high standard


deviation of 30.7 indicates the significant differentials among the wards with regard to drainageconnectivity. While drinking water, latrine and electricity, being more fundamental requirements,drainage connectivity has not got proper priority except the planned areas like ward 52.Composite Index on Basic Amenities

Having discussed the individual basic amenities, an attempt has also been made toanalyze the key indicators in a holistic manner. Individual standard scores (otherwise knownas Z-Score) on various indicators are calculated on the basis of which a Composite StandardScore (CSS) is devised to ascertain the overall rank of the wards in terms of all the basicamenities studied. While in the previous chapter, emphasis was given to the safe source ofdrinking water, being the state capital, the norm has deliberately been made stricter in caseof BMC; only tap water is taken into consideration with respect to drinking water. Ideally,in a city like Bhubaneswar, the location of drinking water source should be within thepremises. So the next parameter taken for the composite index is proportion of householdshaving drinking water source located within their premises. Availability of electricity andany type of latrine facility are the third and fourth indicators respectively. Finally, closeddrainage connectivity has been taken as the fifth indicator for devising the composite indexto bring out the contrast among the wards.

Before discussing the individual standard scores, it is felt pertinent to give an accountof the proportions of households as per the selected indicators in the sample wards (Table 7).

Table 7 Availability of Basic Amenities


Main Source of Drinking Water

Availability of Electricity Latrine Closed

Drainage Tap Within Premises

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total 59.5 71.9 86.9 81.1 46.6

1 44.3 74.7 90.7 76.3 53.7 16 39.1 37.0 45.2 80.9 10.4 52 80.9 98.2 100.0 99.1 89.1 59 5.9 30.6 72.9 78.8 9.4

Mean 42.6 60.1 77.2 83.8 40.7 Std. Dev. 30.7 32.0 24.1 10.4 38.3



Though the proportions of households as per the various amenities as shown inTable 7 have already been discussed, it is once again reiterated that Ward 52 happens tobe the best of all four selected wards in each of the selected amenities. But one lessconvincing fact is that the proportion of households having access to closed drainage isabout 90 percent in this ward whereas that of tap water is about 81 percent. Ward No. 59is at the bottom with regard to tap water whereas Ward No. 16 has the least proportion ofhouseholds having electricity. Both these wards are at very low (about 10 percent) level ofclosed drainage connectivity. Barring tap water, Ward No.1 is more or less at par with theBMC average with respect to all the amenities.

With these observations, the “Standard Scores” (Z-score) and “CompositeStandard Score” (CSS) are calculated for the sample wards, using the following formula.

1. Standard Score

Where Xi : Value of observation

μ : Mean of all observations

ó : Standard deviation of the distribution

2. Composite Standard Score

Where Zij : Individual Z scores of each variable

N : Number of variables

As obvious from the formula used for the standard score, the observations havinglower values than the mean of the distribution would be having a negative score. Thismeans, a negative CSS would translate to low level of well-being with respect to the selectindicators.

The standard scores for the sample wards in respect of the individual amenities areshown in Table 8 along with the composite standard score in the last column. As observed,Ward 16 and 59 are having negative standard scores in each of the amenities. Ward No.


1 has a negative score in case of latrine facilities and very low positive value in case of tapwater and closed drainage. Obviously, Ward No. 52 shows the highest standard scores ineach of the amenities.

As revealed from the composite standard score, Ward No. 52 is undoubtedly thebest among the sample wards in terms of availability of basic amenities. Ward No.1 ranksnext with a positive CSS of 0.138 while Ward No. 16 and 59, as just mentioned, are thelowest performers with CSS of -0.647 and -0.719 respectively.

Table 8 Composite Index on Basic Amenities

in Select Wards of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation Ward

No Z-Score Composite

Standard Score

Main Source of Drinking Water

Availability of

Tap Within Premises

Electricity Latrine Closed Drainage

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 0.055 0.456 0.560 -0.721 0.339 0.138 16 -0.114 -0.722 -1.328 -0.279 -0.791 -0.647 52 1.248 1.191 0.946 1.471 1.264 1.224 59 -1.195 -0.922 -0.178 -0.481 -0.817 -0.719

Source:

1. Based on the sample survey conducted by the researcher in these wards during February, 2013

Concluding Remarks

As per the conventional perception, the cost of the land in an urban center has anegative correlation with its distance from the city center. But, in case of availability ofbasic amenities, it is clear from the above observations that, neither the distance from citycenter nor the size of the ward can be considered as the deciding factor. The areas developedas a part of the master plan adopted in the initial stage are well planned with a well laidbasic infrastructure and amenities. However, the city has somehow failed to cope with therapid and haphazard growth thereafter, resulting in inadequate basic services. The presenceof slum households within an area has also a bearing on the provision of basic amenities.Though it is the responsibility of the civic authority to provide basic services in an equitable


manner, the facts reveal a different story altogether. In spite of its central location, WardNo.16 with the highest percentage of slum households in the area is grilling under the lackof basic services. Similarly, inWard No. 59 comprising of Dumuduma housing board phaseIII, Begunia, Jadupuretc, the condition of basic services are most discouraging. Ward No.52, which is of course among the areas developed during the initial stage of planning, hasconsistently shown high availability of all the basic services. Ward No.1 has shown amixed picture of basic services availability. Though it is much better than Ward No. 16 and59, a lot of issues are yet to be addressed here as compared to the more developed areaeven within the city limit.

ReferencesArabi, U. (2008), “Solid Waste Management Issues in a Growing City: A Case Study of Mangalore City

Corporation” Nagarlok, vol. XL, no 1, pp 56 – 71Bajpai, P. and Bandari, L. (2001), “Ensuring Access to Water in Urban Households” Economic and

Political Weekly, Sep. 29, pp 3774 – 3778Bhagat, R.B. (2004), “Dynamics of Urban Growth by Size Class of Towns and Cities in India”

Demography India, vol. 33, no 1, pp 47 – 60Bhagat, R.B. (2011), Urbanization and access to basic amenities, Urban India, vol.31, No.1, pp. 1-14Bhagat, R.B. (2012), A Turnaround in India’s Urbanization, Asia Pacific Population Journal(ESCAP),

vol.27, No.2, pp.23-39Bhardwaj, R.K. (1974), Urban Development in India, National Publishing House, New DelhiCensus of India (2011), Tables on Houses, Household Amenities and Assets(Soft Copy), Registrar

General and Census Commissioner, India, New DelhiDaspattanayak, P. (2000), Urbanization and Economic Development in India,Rajat Publication, New

DelhiDass, B. (1996), “Availability of Basic Amenities in City Slums- The Case of Surat” Urban India, vol.

26, no. 2, pp 87 – 110Dass, S.K. (2003), “Water Resources Development in India: Future Challenges and Strategies” Indian

Journal of Public Administration, vol. XLIX, no 3, pp 261 – 265Devi, R and Ahsan, N. (2003), Water and Wastewater Perspective of Developing Countries,Anamaya

PublicationDuggal, V.K. (2005), “Drinking Water and Sanitation” Yojana, vol-49, pp 15-18Fisher, J. (2004), The Gender Millennium Development Goal: What Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Can

Do, at http://www.iboro.ac.ukGoel, R.S. (2003), “Water Resources and Development” Indian Journal of Public Administration, vol.

XLIX, no 3, pp 312 – 317Gupta, J.K. (2002), “Urban Infrastructure Development Need for Innovative Approaches” Nagarlok,

vol. XXXIV, no. 3, pp 41 – 49Gupta, N.L. (1994), Urban Water Supply,Rawat Publication, JaipurGurye, G.S. (1962), Cities and Civilization, Popular Prakashan, BombayHassan, M.I and Daspattanayak, P. (1998), “Slowing Down of India’s Urbanization in Eighties: A Study

of Punjab” Geographical Review of India, vol. 16, no. 1, pp 33 – 43Hassan, M.I. (2005), Population Geography, Rawat Publications, JaipurHassan, M.I. and Dasspattanayak, P. (2008), “Quality of Life in Orissa: A Study of Basic Amenities”

Nagarlok, vol. XL, no 1, pp 25 – 39Human Development Report (2006) at hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR06-complete.pdfJana, M.M. (2000), “Basic Factor for Deteriorating- The Quality of Life in India” Geographical Review


of India, vol. 65, no. 4, pp 328 – 343Kaswan, N.R. (1999), “Spatio Temporal Study of Power Supply of Punjab and Haryana” Geographical

Review of India, vol. 61, no. 3, pp 268 – 279Kaushik, S. (2005), “Trend of Urbanization in India: Some Insight from the Census 2001” Geographical

Review of India, vol. 65 no. 2, pp 181 – 188Keefer, P. and Khemani, S. (2004), “Why Do the Poor Receive Poor Services?” Economic and Political

Weekly, Feb. 28, pp 935 – 943Khan, I.A. (2005), “National Electricity Policy” Yojana, vol-49, pp 39 – 43Kundu, A. (2009): Urbanization and Migration: An Analysis of Trends, Pattern and Policies in Asia

United Nations Development Programme Human Development Reports Research Paper 2009/16

Kundu, A. Bagchi, S. and Kundu. D. (1999), “Regional Distribution of Infrastructure and Basic Amenitiesin Urban India: Issues Concerning Empowerment of Local Bodies” Economic and PoliticalWeekly, Jul. 10, pp 1893 – 1906

Kurup, K.B. (1994), “Water, Sanitation and Health” Kurukshetra, vol. XLII, no. 6, pp 25– 29Mahadevia, D. (2001), “Urban Poor’s Access to land and Basic Services: Rhetoric, Reality and Dilemmas”

Nagarlok, vol. XXXIII, no 1, pp 66 – 85Meenaskshi et.al (2004) “Groundwater Quality in Some Village of Haryana, India: Focus on Fluoride

and Fluorosis” Journal Hazard Mater, vol.106 B, pp 85 – 97Mohanty, B. (1993) Urbanization in Developing Countries: Basic Services and Community

Participation, Concept Publishing Company, New DelhiMohanty, B. (2003), “Drinking Water and Sanitation Sector of Orissa: Further Tasks” Indian Journal

of Public Administration, vol. LI, no 3, pp 403 – 412Pant, B.R. (2000), “Housing and Sanitation in Himalayan Villages” Geographical Review of India, no.

4, pp 403 – 407Planning Commission Report, (2013), Twelfth Five Year Plan: 2012-2017, Vol.-I, II and III, Government

of India, at www.planningcommission.nic.inRejikumar, R. (2005), “National Electricity Policy and Plan: A Critical Examination” Economic and

Political Weekly, May. 14, pp 2028 – 2031Shaw, A. (2007), “Basic Amenities in Urban India: Analysis at State and Town level” Working Paper

Series, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, no. 616, pp 1 – 32Sridhar, K.S. and Reddy, A.V(2010), State of Urban Services in Indian Cities, Oxford University PressUNESCO, 2002 at www.devdata.worldbank.org/wdi2006/contents/Section3_1.htmUNICEF/WHO Report, (2006), at www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/jmpfinal.pdfUNICEF/WHO Report, (2008), Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: Special Focus on Sanitation

at http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_healthUnited Nation Report (2009), World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision at http://www.un.orgUnited Nation Water Report, (2008), Gender, Water and Sanitation: A Policy Brief, at http://

www.unwater.org/tfgender.htmlhttp://dictionary.dic.net/urbanizationhttp://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?action=select_variable&theme=6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/odishahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/urbanizationhttp://hdr.undp.orghttp://mospi.gov.in/welcome.asphttp://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_intengy.pdfhttp://www.india.gov.inhttp://www.mospi.nic.in/dwh/pdf/rnd_52_healthcare.pdfhttp://www.odisha.gov.in


Date post:	05-Dec-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	independent
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

AVAILABILITY OF BASIC AMENITIES IN BHUBANESWAR CITY

Documents