Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Heliyon logoLink to Heliyon
. 2022 Nov 19;8(11):e11756. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11756

Behavior model of community-based sanitation management in coastal areas: confirmatory factor analysis

Susilawati a,b, R Hamdani Harahap c, Miswar Budi Mulya d,∗, Lita Sri Andayani e
PMCID: PMC9713344  PMID: 36468088

Abstract

Background

The research aims to analyze the factors consisting of resident status, gender role, stakeholder roles, infrastructure, socio-cultural, and socio-economic that influence the community behavior in managing the sanitation of coastal areas.

Methods

A cross-sectional design obtained 504,955 households of family heads in the Percut Sei Tuan Sub-district. The sample size was calculated using a category survey formula of 414 households. A simple random sampling technique was used, and the questionnaire instrument was tested for validity and reliability. The data were analyzed using CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) to assess the factors that influence community behavior in managing sanitation.

Results

There was a socio-cultural relationship with the behavior of managing sanitation in coastal communities with a T-statistic value of 3.268. Furthermore, gender, infrastructure, and stakeholders’ roles influence the behavior of managing sanitation with a T-statistic value of 3.310, 3.573, and 2.263, respectively.

Conclusions

Socio-cultural practices require motivation and support from various parties in creating good sanitation areas. Therefore, support from stakeholders is needed to influence the achievement of certain goals. They have the authority and budget that can be allocated to support efforts and improve sanitation.

Keywords: The confirmatory behavior factor, Socio-culture, Gender roles, Infrastructure, Stakeholders

The confirmatory behavior factor; Socio-culture; Gender roles; Infrastructure; Stakeholders.

1. Introduction

Contrary to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), coastal residential areas have a low level of environmental sanitation management [1] and do not receive better attention [2]. This problem will have an impact when the community behavior in sanitation management is very low [3]. The scope of sanitation management is personal hygiene, environmental sanitation consisting of residential sanitation, garbage, and clean water. According to research [4], unsafe water, sanitation, and poor hygiene are extremely dangerous and account for more than 10,000 deaths each year. The limited supply of clean water, latrines, wastewater disposal systems, landfills, and unhealthy housing are common portraits of coastal areas [5], including Indonesia.

The sanitation facility construction is relatively low and not commensurate with the population in coastal settlements [4]. Therefore, people defecate in the open or in rivers and drainage [6]. Community groups living in slums, poverty, and low education can exacerbate this condition [7]. Additionally, the lack of ownership of household latrines and sewerage (SPAL) without health requirements impacts health and aesthetics [1].

The quality improvement of drinking water, settlements, and national sanitation of Indonesia in accordance to SDGs standards showed that only 7.42% fulfills the qualifications for safe and equitable access. Moreover, there are still 25.42% who do not have access to proper sanitation, and 9.36% of them still defecate openly [8]. The most significant percentage of sanitation coverage is in coastal areas [9]. This shows that the people do not care about the cleanliness of their environment [10], therefore, it is vital to identify and develop formulations related to sanitation behavior [11]. Referring to previous research such as study on community participation models that were applied, namely Community based environmental health promotion program (CBEHPP) training in changing behavior to stop defecation, and training to local communities [12, 13]. Other research focuses on education and infrastructure development [14, 15, 16]. The previous research still has not connected the relationship between resident status, gender role, stakeholder roles, infrastructure, socio-cultural, and socio-economic on behavior in community participation.

Previous studies have focused on socioeconomic aspects that can influence the coastal community's behavior in managing sanitation [17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22]. However, several factors influencing environmental problems that cannot be carried out optimally are caused by the lack of community knowledge and awareness [23]. The Percut Sei Tuan coastal area is a community with a homogeneous religion, lifestyle, behavior, and characteristics. The people live around the sea area and utilize marine resources as the foundation of their life. Furthermore, the people's daily needs revolve around the river due to the ease of access. In waste management, the community still collects the waste in front of the house and manages garbage by throwing it into the river. This habit has been passed down from generation to generation since their ancestors. Hanging latrines that are only covered with plastic and emergency washing stations are views along the river.

To solve public health problems, it is necessary to consider all aspects that influence the problem, not just health [24]. In this study, the aspects identified to be studied were demographic, socioeconomic, cultural, gender roles, facilities, infrastructure, and stakeholder roles related to behavior of Community-Based Sanitation management in coastal areas. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to obtain a comprehensive factor specializing in coastal areas. This is because improving sanitation behavior is a critical step to improving health status and the quality of human resources [25].

2. Design and methods

2.1. Design

A quantitative research method and cross-sectional design were used to analyze demographic, socioeconomic, cultural, gender roles, facilities, infrastructure, and stakeholder roles related to sanitation management behavior. The selection of this research design is to obtain basic data that has never been studied and develop it for the modelling stage.

2.2. Location and time

The research was conducted in the coastal settlement of Sei Tuan Sub-district, Deli Serdang Regency, North Sumatra Province geographical location is at 3.7 latitude and 98.7 east longitude, 3 m above sea level, with an area of 1,060 ha (Figure 2), from January 2021 to March 2022.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

The coastal area of Percut Sei Tuan.

2.3. Research sample

The sample consists of the people living in the coastal settlement of Percut Sei Tuan Sub-district, Deli Serdang Regency, North Sumatra Province. It was calculated based on the mapping of the population in the sub-district office, and the area consists of 5 points. Respondents were taken based on the head of the family (father) or household members from the sample household (wife of the head of the family). The categorical survey formula determines the number of households (n). Similarly, the Z value for the confidence level was 95%, and 414 households were obtained.

2.4. Sampling technique

The sampling technique was accomplished by simple random sampling. Data collection used a questionnaire that has been tested for validity and reliability. All items from the research questionnaire to be carried out are valid (r table (0.3610 < r count each question), and reliable (Cronbach alpha value (0.9000) > 0.6). Furthermore, the respondent signed the informed consent while maintaining confidentiality.

2.5. Dependent variable

The dependent variable is the community behavior in managing environmental sanitation. This consists of knowledge indicators which are the results of scores on the community understanding level related to environmental sanitation management in coastal areas, consisting of 13 questions. (see Tables 1 and 2)

Table 1.

Dependent variable questions.

Variable Questions
1.Knowledge 1.1. Are there any consequences that will occur when using river water as drinking water without being boiled?
1.2. When should we clean the clean water reservoir
1.3. What is the best type of latrine?
1.4. How is a good sewerage?
1.5. What is the best location for landfills?
1.6. If you throw garbage into the river, what will be the impact?
1.7. Before eating, the habits that must be done are?
1.8. After defecating, what is the best course of action?
1.9. Is bathing with river water good for health?
1.10. Reusing waste such as bottles, using empty paper scraps, and others in the 3R is?
1.11. Recycling waste, such as making fertilizer from wet food scraps, is a term in the 3Rs, namely?
1.12. Reducing unnecessary items so they don't become trash that pollutes the environment is a term in the 3Rs, namely?
1.13. Open defecation can cause a disease?
2. Attitude 2.1. I should have boiled the water before drinking
2.2. I should have cleaned the clean water reservoir when I remember
2.3. I think that people should use goose neck latrines for every household
2.4. I think that using a septic tank to avoid soil contamination
2.5. I should have disposed of waste water carelessly into the ditch/ditch
2.6. I support closed SPAL to avoid environmental pollution
2.7. I support throwing trash anywhere
2.8. I don't need a trash can in the house
2.9. I think that it should be allowed to defecate into the river
2.10. I suggest that people who throw garbage into the river be punished
2.11. I think open defecation has become a tradition in the environment around where I live.
2.12. I suggest the need for village regulations so that the community does not defecate indiscriminately.
2.13. I think that defecating in any place is detrimental to health.
2.14. I support the waste management program in the tourist environment
3. Action 3.1. Use clean water for bathing, washing, and toilet needs
3.2. Defecate into the river
3.3. Clean the toilet after defecation
3.4. Throw trash in the trash can
3.5. Wash hands with soap after defecation
3.6. Wash hands with soap when eating
3.7. Drain household waste directly into the river
3.8. Throw trash into the river
3.9. Does defecating in the open provide the same comfort as defecating in the toilet?
3.10. Getting socialization or education related to good waste management?
3.11. Will you remind others not to throw trash indiscriminately?
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Independent variable questions.

Variable Questions
1. Population 1.1. Resident status?
1.2. Length of stay in this area?
2. Socio-Economic 2.1. What do you do for a living?
2.2. What is your average income in a month?
3. Culture 3.1. Do you apply religious advice such as cleanliness as part of your faith?
3.2. Do you gather and discuss activities after praying at the mosque?
4. Gender Role 4.1. Is your wife (mother) given the opportunity and willing to make decisions in providing sanitation tools or equipment in the family?
4.2. Is your wife (mother) involved in program planning in the community related to the environment?
4.3. Is your wife (mother) involved in implementing programs in the community related to the environment?
5. Facilities and Infrastructure 5.1. Toilet availability?
5.2. What is your clean water infrastructure?
6. Stakeholder Role 6.1. The Role of Stakeholders
a. The role of the village head is to invite the community to participate in environmental sanitation management
b. The activity of the village head to be involved in environmental sanitation management
c. The activity of the village head in every meeting on environmental sanitation management
d. Government policies related to environmental sanitation management in the place where you live
e. Government cooperation (village head) in environmental sanitation management with the community
f. Cooperation of community leaders in environmental sanitation management with the community
g. Village head socialization regarding environmental sanitation management
h. Contribution of the village head in supporting environmental sanitation management with the community
6.2. The Role of Community Leaders
a. The role of community leaders to invite the community to participate in environmental sanitation management
b. The activity of community leaders in every meeting on environmental sanitation management
c. The activity of community leaders to be involved in environmental sanitation management
d. Contribution of community leaders in supporting environmental sanitation management with the community
6.3. The Role of Religious Figures
a. The role of religious leaders to invite the community to participate in environmental sanitation management
b. The activity of religious leaders in every meeting on environmental sanitation management
c. Are religious leaders involved in environmental sanitation management?
d. Cooperation of religious leaders in environmental sanitation management with the community?
e. Contribution of religious leaders in supporting environmental sanitation management with the community
Open in a new tab

Attitude is a public perception related to environmental sanitation management. The questionnaires consist of 14 questions with answer options of SD (Strongly Disagree), D (Disagree), N (Neutral), A (Agree), and SA (Strongly Agree). Finally, action results from behavior applied daily by the community related to environmental sanitation management. The questionnaires consist of 11 questions with answer options of N (Never), R (Rarely), N (Neutral), O (Often), and VO (Very Often).

2.6. Independent variable

The independent variables are demographic, socioeconomic, cultural, gender roles, facilities and infrastructure, and stakeholder roles.

For example, population variables consist of indicators such as length of stay (ratio) and status of residence (ordinal), socioeconomic variables consist of indicators of monthly income in rupiah (ratio) and employment status (nominal), socio-cultural variables consist of indicators of belief values (ordinal), and cultural norms (ordinal), gender roles consist of indicators of decision making (ordinal), involvement in planning (ordinal), implementation (ordinal), facilities and infrastructure variables consist of indicators such as the availability of latrines (nominal), and the availability of clean water (nominal). Finally, stakeholder role variables consist of indicators such as the role of government (ordinal), community leaders (ordinal), and religious leaders (ordinal).

2.7. Statistical analysis

Data analysis explains each variable's demographics and frequency distribution using CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) in SmartPLS version 3. PLS-SEM is used where the supporting theory is still not developed so that PLS-SEM is an alternative approach. PLS-SEM, uses proxies to represent the constructs of interest, which are weighted composites of indicator variables for a particular construct [26]. This analysis was used to test the dimensional construct of the dependent variable or behavior. The accuracy of the CFA test is used for the validity and reliability of the indicators forming the construct of behavioral variables based on the previous theory. Therefore, the right indicators are obtained for compiling behavioral variables.

2.8. Ethics approval

This research has passed ethics no. 254/EC/KEPK.UISU/IV/2022 at the Faculty of Medicine, Islamic University of North Sumatra.

3. Results

3.1. Portrait of the coastal community of Percut village

The local community is almost entirely of indigenous people with a reasonably long length of stay as indicated in Table 3. The indigenous people of the Percut Sei Tuan coast are residents registered with the population and civil registration office. In contrast, the immigrant population is residents who have just moved from another area and have not been registered. The cultural norms are the concept of gathering and discussing activities after prayer at the mosque.

Table 3.

Identification of factors associated with sanitary behavior.

Variable Indicator Frequency Percentage (%) 95% CI
Population Resident Status
Native inhabitants 369 89.1 85.8–92.0
Immigrant 45 10.9 8.0–14.2
Length of Stay
1–8 years 39 9.4 6.5–12.6
9–16 years 26 6.3 3.9–8.7
17–24 years 75 18.1 14.8–22.2
25–32 years 89 21.5 17.9–25.5
33–40 years 75 18.1 14.7–22.1
41–48 years 53 12.8 9.5–16.2
49–56 years 26 6.3 4.1–8.9
57–64 years 22 5.3 3.1–7.2
65–72 years 7 1.7 0.7–3.0
73–78 years 2 0.5 0.0–1.2
Socio-Economic Occupation
Fisherman 191 46.1 40.8–51.2
Farmer 4 1.0 0.2–1.9
Laborer 3 0.7 0.0–1.7
Housewife 101 24.4 20.3–28.9
General employees 20 4.8 2.9–7.0
Teacher 4 1.0 0.2–1.9
Trader 91 22.0 18.4–26.0
Income
Very low 187 45.2 40.7–49.5
Low 172 41.5 37.0–46.1
Moderate 41 9.9 7.2–12.8
High 6 1.4 0.5–2.7
Very high 8 1.9 0.7–3.4
Culture Trust Value
Never 8 1.9 0.7–3.4
Seldom 27 6.5 4.3–8.7
Sometimes 70 16.9 13.3–20.7
Often 101 24.4 20.5–28.7
Always 208 50.2 45.4–54.7
Cultural Norms
Never 49 11.8 8.9–15.0
Seldom 98 23.7 19.6–27.8
Sometimes 67 16.2 12.8–20.3
Often 69 16.7 13.1–19.8
Always 131 31.6 27.1–36.5
Gender Role Decision-making
Never 42 10.1 7.2–13.0
Seldom 12 2.9 1.4–4.3
Sometimes 20 4.8 2.9–7.2
Often 110 26.6 22.8–31.2
Always 230 55.6 51.0–60.6
Involvement in Planning
Never 77 18.6 15.1–22.5
Seldom 27 6.5 4.3–9.1
Sometimes 30 7.2 4.7–10.0
Often 88 21.3 17.1–25.6
Always 192 46.4 41.8–51.0
Involvement in Implementation
Never 85 20.5 16.7–24.3
Seldom 22 5.3 3.5–7.5
Sometimes 40 9.7 6.8–13.0
Often 77 18.6 15.1–22.7
Always 190 45.9 41.2–50.7
Facilities and Infrastructure Toilet Availability
Yes 282 68.1 63.8–73.2
No 132 31.9 26.8–36.2
Clean Water Infrastructure
Dug wells 21 5.1 2.9–7.0
Drilled wells 158 38.2 33.6–43.0
Public hydrant 8 1.9 0.7–3.6
Regional Drinking Water Company 219 52.9 47.8–57.9
Rainwater Storage 7 1.7 0.5–3.0
River 1 0.2 0.0–0.7
Stakeholder Role The Role of Stakeholders
Very low 82 19.8 16.2–23.4
Low 49 11.8 9.0–15.7
Moderate 103 24.9 20.6–29.2
High 147 35.5 31.2–40.2
Very high 33 8.0 5.6–10.6
The Role of Community Leaders
Very low 79 19.1 15.3–22.7
Low 80 19.3 15.5–22.9
Moderate 94 22.7 18.6–27.5
High 138 33.3 29.5–37.9
Very high 23 5.6 3.1–8.0
The Role of Religious Figures
Very low 109 26.3 22.2–30.9
Low 48 11.6 8.7–15.1
Moderate 110 26.6 22.0–31.2
High 114 27.5 23.2–31.9
Very high 33 8.0 5.4–10.9
Open in a new tab

Working as a fisherman is typical in coastal areas with very low incomes. However, culture related to values and norms is always firmly held by the surrounding community. Women play an excellent role in sanitation involvement, but the facilities and infrastructure are lacking. The role of the government, community and religious leaders is only marginally effective in mobilizing the community to maintain environmental sanitation (Table 3).

3.2. Coastal community sanitation behavior

On behavioral variables, people living in coastal areas still have very low knowledge, have poor attitudes regarding environmental sanitation, and act in a low range as described in Table 4 below.

Table 4.

Coastal community sanitation behavior.

Variable Frequency Percentage (%) 95% CI
Knowledge
Very low 130 31.4 26.6–36.0
Low 57 13.8 10.6–17.6
Moderate 79 19.1 15.2–22.9
High 120 29.0 24.6–33.5
Very high 28 6.8 4.3–8.9
Attitude
Very low 68 16.4 12.8–20.2
Low 165 39.9 34.8–44.8
Moderate 102 24.6 20.6–28.5
High 61 14.7 11.4–18.8
Very high 18 4.3 2.4–6.4
Action
Very low 6 1.4 0.5–2.7
Low 15 3.6 1.9–5.8
Moderate 181 43.7 38.9–49.0
High 147 35.5 30.8–40.1
Very high 65 15.7 12.3–19.1
Open in a new tab

Based on the CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) analysis, the variables that simultaneously affect the sanitation behavior of coastal communities are gender roles, stakeholder roles, facilities, infrastructure, and socio-culture.

There are only two variables that have no significant effect on the sanitation behavior of coastal communities, namely population and socioeconomic (Table 5) (see Figure 1).

Table 5.

Confirmatory factor analysis.

Relationship β SD T Statistics P values
Resident Status → Behavior 0.061 0.042 1.447 0.149
Gender Role → Behavior 0.182 0.055 3.310 0.001∗
Stakeholder roles → Behavior 0.111 0.049 2.263 0.024∗
Infrastructure → Behavior 0.158 0.044 3.573 0.000∗
Socio-cultural → Behavior 0.166 0.051 3.268 0.001∗
Socio-economic → Behavior 0.006 0.044 0.146 0.884
Open in a new tab

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Coastal community sanitation behavior model.

4. Discussion

Most research respondents are indigenous people in each coastal hamlet accounting for 89.1%, and only a few are immigrants from the area. The majority of respondents were in the group of 25–32 years as shown in Table 3. The coastal area of Percut Sei Tuan is located in the coordinate range of 3,288.555354 m, latitude 3.7086403°, and longitude 98.777597° with the name Bandar Sidoras river (Figure 2).

The behavior of the coastal community of Percut Sei Tuan behaves in throwing garbage into the river if it continues to be left unattended will cause a decrease in aesthetics and environmental carrying capacity can result in a low quality of settlements [27], and water pollution [28], causing disease and flood [29] (Figure 3). Based on several research, some poor residents have not been able to fulfill basic needs and sanitation [30, 31, 32, 33]. For example, catching fish for a long time prevents them from contributing to environmental sanitation. They only spend a short time at home and more time on the river or the sea [34]. This condition illustrates inadequate housing and sanitation, where the Bandar Sidoras river, which empties into the sea, is an integral part of their lives.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

The portrait of coastal area of Percut Sei Tuan.

After further investigation, local culture (p-value = 0.001), gender (p-value = 0.001), availability of facilities and infrastructure (p-value<0.001), as well as stakeholder roles (p-value = 0.024) are factors which influence participation in sanitation management. The value of trust focuses more on the religious aspect of the cultural variable. Cultural norms such as gathering and discussing activities after prayer are sometimes, rarely, and never compared to those who answer often and always as indicated in Table 5.

Culture influences sanitation behavior [35], and provides a style of experience for individuals in society [36]. It is a set of guidelines whose operational uses are humans adapting to and dealing with specific environments [37]. The sanitation development problem is a socio-cultural challenge [38, 39, 40, 41]. The cause is the community behavior accustomed to defecating in any place and throwing garbage into the river [42]. This happens because people in the unitary tribes with their respective cultural identities develop their systems [43]. As a result of the study, cultures that have poor values beliefs and norms cause knowledge, attitudes, and actions on bad things related to environmental sanitation. Such bad behavior often leads to river pollution [44], defecation in rivers [45], and lack of participation in environmental management [46].

Coastal areas are also identical to the division of gender roles. Moreover, women's role in environmental sanitation control decisions belonged to the excellent category. Additionally, gender has a significant relationship with sanitation behavior [47] because women need better quality basic facilities [48]. Furthermore, women are fostering sanitation-related families as wives, household managers, mothers (successors and educators of children), additional breadwinners, and community members [49]. Women interact directly with water activities and are also the dominant users in the household [50]. This is different from the coastal men, whose job is to find fish and fulfill economic needs [51].

In terms of facilities and infrastructure, most of the population in the coastal area have private latrines and toilets represented in 68.1% (Table 3). Communities who do not have facilities and infrastructure are in people who live on the banks of the river, in stark contrast to the people who live further from the river. However, people who live near the riverbank defecate into the river, while the rest borrow and use public toilet facilities. The dominant clean water infrastructure uses Regional Drinking Water Companies, drilled wells, and dug wells as described in Table 5. Several research also investigated the same thing that non-existent facilities and infrastructure led to poor behavior in maintaining environmental sanitation [52]. Therefore, facilities and infrastructure should be provided to prevent the community from defecating into the river [53], Moreover, people who borrow and use public toilet facilities as well as other such infrastructure lack adequate public awareness of proper sanitation management. This leads to a lack of responsibility for the correct use of these facilities and infrastructure (Table 4).

Based on the primary data of Environmental Sanitation Percut Sei Tuan Sub-District, provided by Deli Serdang Health Service in 2020, clean water sources from drinking water companies are 1%, using drilled wells at 20%, dug wells at 25%, and using rivers at 54%. For latrine ownership facilities, 57% of communities do not have latrines, while 58% of wastewater sewers (SPAL) that do not meet health requirements are channeled directly into rivers, and 52% of waste is disposed in rivers [9]. Based on data from the Province of North Sumatra, there are approximately 92% of villages in the North Sumatra region with improper access to sanitation [54]. Therefore, improving the facilities and infrastructure of environmental sanitation will ease the community to have access to support the formation of behavior change.

Apart from these three variables, the role of stakeholders can influence sanitation behavior [55]. The three stakeholders explored in the coastal area are the government, community, and religious leaders. The role of government, according to respondents, is still in the low category with a percentage of 35.5. Furthermore, the role of community leaders according to respondents is in the low-medium category. The role of community and religious leaders is high and low at 33.3% and 27.5% as revealed in Table 5. Environmental sanitation behavior is low and also influenced by unsupportive stakeholders.

Communities need motivation and support from various parties to create good sanitation areas [56]. Stakeholders as groups or individuals can influence or be influenced by the achievement of certain goals, and they have the authority and budget to improve sanitation [57]. Therefore, improving community environmental sanitation can run well with the participation.

4.1. Limitation

This study focuses on factors that influence sanitation behavior in coastal areas with general aspects, where this research is limited to surveys, not intervention aspects. Therefore, this study does not discuss hygiene practices in more detail.

5. Conclusion

This research is designed to make a basic policy strategy for environmental sanitation problems based on behavior in coastal areas. Culture, gender roles, availability of facilities and infrastructure, as well as stakeholder roles are factors that influence sanitation behavior. Meanwhile, the most appropriate model of community sanitation behavior on the coast is the mutual empowerment of men and women's role with a cultural approach. This triggers sustainable behavior change and the participation of stakeholders to promote the community and monitor infrastructure in the “community-based total sanitation” program.

Declarations

Author contribution statement

Susilawati Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

R. Hamdani Harahap: Conceived and designed the experiments.

Miswar Budi Mulya: Analyzed and interpreted the data.

Lita Sri Andayani: Performed the experiments.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.

Declaration of interest's statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

References

  • 1.Misdayanti Suwanti. Description of environmental sanitation in the coastal community of bajo indah village. Affil. J. Public Heal. 2021;6(1):19–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Haasnoot M., Lawrence J., Magnan A.K. Pathways to coastal retreat. Science. 2021;372(6548):1287–1290. doi: 10.1126/science.abi6594. 80- [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Surya B., Saleh H., Suriani S., Sakti H.H., Hadijah H., Idris M. Environmental pollution control and sustainability management of slum settlements in Makassar City, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Land. 2020;9(9):279. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Putri EE, Galib M, Mubarak M. Analysis of inundation area as an impact of sea level rise in kota pariaman district, west sumatera Province. J. Coast Ocean Sci.. 2(3):193–200.
  • 5.Heynnor D. Ghana Institute of Journalism; 2021. Social and Behavioural Change Communication Strategies in Tackling Sanitation Challenges in Accra: Evaluation of Accra Metropolitan Assembly’s Strategies. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Christiawan P.I., Budiarta I.G. Entitas permukiman kumuh di Wilayah pesisir. J. Ilmu Sos dan Hum. 2017;6(2):179. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kristiyanti M. Pemberdayaan masyarakat pesisir pantai melalui pebdekatan ICZM (integrated coastal zone management). Semin nas multi disiplin ilmu [internet] http://www.unisbank.ac.id/ojs/index.php/sendi_u/article/view/4264/1270 60 Available from:
  • 8.NAWASIS. Towards R.P.J.M.N. Sanitation & precondition drinking water is mandatory for decent settlements [internet]. National housing water and sanitation information services. https://www.nawasis.org/portal/berita/read/menuju-rpjmn-2020-sanitasi-air-minum-prakondisi-wajib-bagi-permukiman-layak/51696 2020 [cited 2020 Sep 12]. Available from:
  • 9.Cipta Karya P.U. Bantuan Teknis RPI2JM Kabupaten Deli Serdang [Internet] Deli Serdang: Cipta Karya PU; 2016. Bantuan teknis RPI2JM kabupaten Deli Serdang 2015 - 2019 dalam implementasi kebijakan keterpaduan program bidang cipta karya.https://sippa.ciptakarya.pu.go.id/sippa_online/ws_file/dokumen/rpi2jm/DOCRPIJM_1500943476Bab_5_Keterpaduan_Strategi_Kab__DSR.pdf Available from: [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nursiah A., Wasir Thalib L., Dirawan G.D. Environment sanitation and patterns of disease in coastal community at langnga mattirosompe village pinrang regency 2015. Int. J. Appl. Environ. Sci. 2017;11(4):927–940. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Vodounon H.S.T., Azalou-Tingbé E.M., Houedakor K.Z., Amoussou E., Nantob M., Adoho G.A., et al. Alternative sanitation and strategic directives for the well water security in cotonou (Benin) and lomé (Togo) J. Water Resour. Protect. 2021;13(9):675–698. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kaliba A.R.M. Kansas State University; 2002. Participatory Evaluation of Community-Based Water and Sanitation Programs: the Case of Central Tanzania. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Nkurunziza T., Ugabinema M.N., Muhimpundu A.U., Dlamini R., Rwanda . Delivering Water, Sanitation and hygiene Services in an Uncertain Environment: Proceedings of the 36th WEDC International Conference. WEDC, Loughborough University; Nakuru, Kenya: 2013. Increasing access to sanitation and hygiene through the community hygiene clubs approach in Rwanda; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hetherington E., Eggers M., Wamoyi J., Hatfield J., Manyama M., Kutz S., et al. Participatory science and innovation for improved sanitation and hygiene: process and outcome evaluation of project SHINE, a school-based intervention in Rural Tanzania. BMC Publ. Health. 2017;17:172. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4100-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Madon S., Malecela M.N., Mashoto K., Donohue R., Mubyazi G., Michael E. The role of community participation for sustainable integrated neglected tropical diseases and water, sanitation and hygiene intervention programs: a pilot project in Tanzania. Soc. Sci. Med. 2018;202:28–37. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.02.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Newton-Sánchez O.A., de la Cruz Ruiz M., Torres-Rojo Y., Ochoa-Diaz-López H., Delgado-Enciso I., Hernandez-Suarez C.M., et al. Effect of an ecosystem-centered community participation programme on the incidence of dengue. A field randomized, controlled trial. Int J Public Health [Internet] 2020;65(3):249–255. doi: 10.1007/s00038-020-01345-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Martuti N.K.T. The Environment, socio-economic, and stakeholder partnership analysis as integrated coastal management in Semarang City. J. Integr. Coast Zo Manag. 2022;22(1):11–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Islam T., Azman A., Singh P., Ali I., Akhtar T., Rafatullah M., et al. Socio-economic vulnerability of riverbank erosion of displacees: case study of coastal villages in Bangladesh. Indian J. Ecol. 2019;46(1):34–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sowman M., Raemaekers S. Socio-ecological vulnerability assessment in coastal communities in the BCLME region. J. Mar. Syst. 2018;188:160–171. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Gondo R., Kolawole O.D., Mbaiwa J.E., Motsholapheko M.R. Demographic and socio-economic factors influencing water governance in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Sci. Afr. 2020;10 [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Rossouw L., Ross H. Understanding Period poverty: socio-economic inequalities in menstrual hygiene management in eight low-and middle-income countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health. 2021;18(5):2571. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18052571. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sekarningrum B., Yunita D. Socio-economic conditions of coastal communities and its implications to health behaviors. Rev. Integr. Bus. Econ. Res. 2019;8:195–201. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wibawanti L.R. Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta; 2020. Partisipasi Masyarakat Dalam Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Melalui Program Kampung Wisata Bahasa Di Dusun Pakel Karanganyar. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ottay R.I., Sumampouw O.J., Nelwan J.E., Cahyo H.C. Coastal area public health problem (a case study in the city of Manado North Sulawesi Indonesia) Food Publ. Health. 2015;5(2):29–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lisafitri Y., Setiawati E., Fajar M., Syafrizal M. Identification of sanitation and public health’s condition in densely populated settlement at coastal area (case study: kangkung, bandar lampung) IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. [Internet] 2021 Sep 1;830(1) https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/830/1/012089 Available from: [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hair J.F., Jr., Hult G.T.M., Ringle C.M., Sarstedt M. Sage publications; 2021. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Putri R.S., Hadisoebroto R., Hendrawan D.I. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing; 2019. Analysis of pollutant load due to greywater from riverbanks settlement on Ciliwung River segment 2. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mensah J., Enu-Kwesi F. Implications of environmental sanitation management for sustainable livelihoods in the catchment area of Benya Lagoon in Ghana. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2019;16(1):23–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Mulki G.Z., Septianti A. Arahan sistem pengelolaan sampah di kawasan permukiman kampung beting kecamatan pontianak timur. JeLAST J PWK, Laut, Sipil, Tambang. 2021;5(3) [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sinharoy S.S., Pittluck R., Clasen T. Review of drivers and barriers of water and sanitation policies for urban informal settlements in low-income and middle-income countries. Util. Pol. 2019;60 doi: 10.1016/j.jup.2019.100957. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Corburn J., Vlahov D., Mberu B., Riley L., Caiaffa W.T., Rashid S.F., et al. Slum health: arresting COVID-19 and improving well-being in urban informal settlements. J. Urban Health. 2020;97(3):348–357. doi: 10.1007/s11524-020-00438-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Alam M.S., Mondal M. Assessment of sanitation service quality in urban slums of Khulna city based on SERVQUAL and AHP model: a case study of railway slum, Khulna, Bangladesh. J. Urban Manag. 2019;8(1):20–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Riski W.I. Social, economic, and cultural analysis in the management of community sanitation in kendari city coastal settlement. Khazanah Multidisiplin. 2021;2(1):12–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Equanti D., Bayuardi G. Kondisi sosial ekonomi dan kualitas hunia rumah tangga nelayan di Desa kuala kecamatan selakau kabupaten sambas. Sos Horiz. J. Pendidik Sos. 2018;5(1):20–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Marwanto A.,.N.,.M. Hubungan tingkat pengetahuan dan sikap dengan pelaksanaan sanitasi total berbasis masyarakat (stbm) pilar pertama di wilayah kerja uptd puskesmas perawatan ratu agung kelurahan pematang gubernur kota bengkulu. J. Nurs. Public Health [Internet] 2019 May 17;7(1):1–6. https://jurnal.unived.ac.id/index.php/jnph/article/view/754 Available from: [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Zulfa S.W., Amsani H., Zuska F. Sanitasi pemukiman bantaran sungai Deli dalam konstruksi sosial budaya kelurahan bahari medan belawan kota medan. JUPIIS J Pendidik ILMU-ILMU Sos. 2020;13(1):59–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Amraeni Y., Nirwan M. Penerbit NEM; Jakarta: 2021. Sosial Budaya Kesehatan Dan Lingkungan Masyarakat Pesisir Dan Tambang. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Taouraout A., Chahlaoui A., Belghyti D., Najy M., Kharroubi A. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Smart City Applications. 2018. The socio-cultural acceptance of EcoSan latrines in rural areas of Morocco; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Roxburgh H., Hampshire K., Kaliwo T., Tilley E.A., Oliver D.M., Quilliam R.S. Power, danger, and secrecy—a socio-cultural examination of menstrual waste management in urban Malawi. PLoS One. 2020;15(6) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kakwani J., Meena J.K., Verma A., Dahiya N. Emerging issues and barriers in access to menstrual hygiene management in a tribal district of India. Int. J. Commun. Med. Public Health. 2021;8(4):1985–1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Adwibaraski A. Poltekkes Kemenkes Yogyakarta; 2018. Evaluasi Pemicuan Sanitasi Total Berbasis Masyarakat Pilar Pertama Stop Buang Air Besar Sembarangan Di Somodaran, Banyuraden, Gamping, Sleman Tahun 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ellis A., McClintic E.E., Awino E.O., Caruso B.A., Arriola K.R.J., Ventura S.G., et al. Practices and perspectives on Latrine use, child feces disposal, and clean play environments in Western Kenya. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2020;102(5):1094. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.19-0389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Nurrachmawati A., Anggraeni I. Universitas Mulawarman; 2010. Tradisi Kepercayaan Masyarakat Pesisir Mengenal Kesehatan Ibu Di Desa Tanjung Limau Muara Badak Kalimantan Timur Tahun 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Wang Y., Liang J., Yang J., Ma X., Li X., Wu J., et al. Analysis of the environmental behavior of farmers for non-point source pollution control and management: an integration of the theory of planned behavior and the protection motivation theory. J. Environ. Manag. 2019;237:15–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Okumah M., Yeboah A.S., Nkiaka E., Azerigyik R.A. What determines behaviours towards water resources management in a rural context? Results of a quantitative study. Resources. 2019;8(2):109. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Knickmeyer D. Social factors influencing household waste separation: a literature review on good practices to improve the recycling performance of urban areas. J. Clean. Prod. 2020;245 [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Rohendi A., Nur C.M. Peran perempuan dalam konservasi air rumah tangga. Gend Equal Int J Child Gend Stud. 2019;4(1):73–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Silva B.B., Sales B., Lanza A.C., Heller L., Rezende S. Water and sanitation are not gender-neutral: human rights in rural Brazilian communities. Water Pol. 2020;22(1):102–120. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Puspitawati H., Ma’mun Sarma Y.S. PT Penerbit IPB Press; 2019. Pembelajaran Pendidikan Keluarga Responsif Gender. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Als D., Meteke S., Stefopulos M., Gaffey M.F., Kamali M., Munyuzangabo M., et al. Delivering water, sanitation and hygiene interventions to women and children in conflict settings: a systematic review. BMJ Glob Heal. 2020;5(Suppl 1) doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Torere W., Goni S.Y.V.I., Waani F.J. Peran Ganda Istri Nelayan Pada Masyarakat Pesisir di Desa Kima Bajo Kecamatan Wori Kabupaten Minahasa Utara. HOLISTIK. J. Soc. Cult. 2019 [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Farha M.F.M., Devis Y., Alhidayati A. Evaluation of the community-based total sanitation program stop open defecation at the advanced health center, singkep pesisir district, lingga regency in 2020. Media kesmas (public heal media) [internet] https://jom.htp.ac.id/index.php/kesmas/article/view/10 2021 Nov 30;1(2):85–97. Available from:
  • 53.Lopez V.K., Berrocal V.J., Corozo Angulo B., Ram P.K., Trostle J., Eisenberg J.N.S. Determinants of latrine use behavior: the psychosocial proxies of individual-level defecation practices in rural coastal Ecuador. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. [Internet] 2019 Mar 6;100(3):733–741. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.18-0144. https://ajtmh.org/doi/10.4269/ajtmh.18-0144 Available from: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Indonesian Ministry of Health Monitoring data STBM [internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 sep 12] http://monev.stbm.kemkes.go.id/monev/ Available from:
  • 55.Sari S.K., Afrizal A., Indraddin I. Keberhasilan pkbi sumatera barat dalam mewujudkan perilaku sehat kolektif pada program sanitasi total berbasis masyarakat (Stbm)(Suatu studi pemberdayaan komunitas) JISPO J. Ilmu Sos dan Ilmu Polit. 2019;9(1):49–68. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Yuningsih R. Strategi promosi kesehatan dalam meningkatkan kualitas sanitasi lingkungan. J. Masal. Sos. 2019;10(2):107–118. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Kobusingye B., Mungatu J.K., Mulyungi P. Influence of stakeholders involvement on project outcomes. A case of water, sanitation, and hygiene (wash) project in Rwanda. Eur. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2017;6(6):195–206. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Articles from Heliyon are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES