This document examines the influence of environmental factors on child survival in India. It analyzes data from the National Family Health Survey for the states of Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The study finds that households with poorer environmental conditions, such as lack of access to electricity, clean drinking water, sanitation facilities and solid housing structures, have higher rates of child loss compared to households with better conditions. Specifically, the percentage of women experiencing child loss is higher in Madhya Pradesh than Tamil Nadu. Within each state, those living in rural areas, with less education and lower socioeconomic status also experience higher child loss. The risk of child loss is significantly associated with poor household environment, sanitation and housing indices across both states

1. Influence of Environmental factors on Child Survival status
Prof. C. P. Prakasam
Former Professor, International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India
prakasamcp60@gmail.com
Abstract
Environment which is largely defined as the circumstances or conditions surrounded by the human
beings encompasses two border categories viz: Physical and Human/Anthropogenic environment.
When it considered Human Environmental conditions, it is explained as the conditions in which
human being are living in the society. Considering Housing conditions as human environmental
condition, its influence on child survival has been examined in this research paper. Better cooking
facilities, availability of water at house, better sanitation facilities may lead to better living
condition and intern may lead to better health.
Keeping above points in view an attempt is made: 1 .To examine the household socioeconomic
and environmental, sanitary and child survival variables in selected two states in India and 2. To
know the influence of environmental, sanitary variables influencing the child survival in selected
states (Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu).
Data for the present study has been drawn from National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3) for the
two states Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu with an intention of comparing two different set of
environmental conditions- one with desert condition and another with socio economically
developed state. The list of variables selected for analysis has been divided in to two categories.
First category referred as indirect indicators viz: Age of women, Current marital status, and
education of women, type of place of residence, husband’s education, and work status of women.
The second category referred as direct indicators viz: Availability of electricity in the house, source
of drinking water, time to get drinking water, method of drinking water purification, type of toilet
facility, main type of fuel used for cooking, type of house, SLI (standard living index). The
dependent variable child survival has been measured by considering the ratio of children ever born
to children surviving.
Statistical analysis revealed that there is a significant association between Respondents’ Place of
Residence, Education and Occupation as well as Partner’s Education and Standard of Living Index
with Household environmental Indices such as HEI, SANI and HCI. Further, survival status of
child is also associated with background variables both in rural and urban area.
Keywords:
Household, Environment, Child Survival, Risk Ratio, Sanitation indices

2. Influence of Environmental factors on Child Survival status
Dr. C. P. Prakasam
Retired Professor, C2-5/2:3, Sector-4, Vashi-400703
prakasamcp60@gmail.com
A house is defined as “the physical structure where a family lives and provides shelter
from the weather”. But today a house is simply not a place providing shelter to people or protecting
them from heat, light and rain. It is a part of the man’s total environment and greatly responsible
for the health of the dwellers. The World Health Organization (WHO, 2005) considers that the
“residential environment” as “the physical structure that man uses and the environs of that structure
including all necessary services, facilities, equipment and devices needed or desired for the
physical and mental health and the social well-being of the family and individual”. Better cooking
facilities, availability of water at house, better sanitation facilities may lead to better living
condition and in turn may lead to better health. It has been observed that household environmental
factors greatly influencing the mother and child’s health. Research study done in Mewat region of
Haryana state by Jatrana (2001) revealed that type of house with a separate kitchen, significantly
affect infant survival. Further, the author found that presence of latrine, ownership of land and
education of father and mother could not show a significant effect on infant survival. Another
research study done in Nepal (Gubhaju et.al.1991) by examining Nepal Fertility Survey data shows
that probability of death among infants was 44 percent higher for those drinking lake or river water
than those using piped or tube well water. In this study it has been observed that those households
not having toilet facilities had 64 percent higher probability of infant death than those with their
own toilet facilities. Study carried out in Bangladesh (Majumder; Islam 1993, Hoque et al., 1999)
by using MATLAB data show that household environmental facilities and mother’s education
affects infant survival. A study carried out by using DHS data for sub Saharan Countries (Fayehun,
2010) revealed that there is a significant relationship between the household environments, child
survival. This variation in childhood mortality and morbidity can be explained by levels of
household environment health hazards and by maternal socio-economic status. Mishra and
Retherford (1997) by analyzing NFHS-1 data showed that persons living in households that
primarily use biomass for cooking fuel have shown considerably higher prevalence of active
tuberculosis than persons living in households that use clean fuels. This effect is reduced
depending upon the factors like availability of a separate kitchen, house type, indoor crowding,
age, and other variables. Using a hazard model, Van der Klaauw and Wang (2004) found that
having a separate kitchen and using clean cooking fuel significantly improves child survival
probability during the first month of birth, but not later.
Most deaths of children under the age of five in India and other developing countries have
been linked to the household environment. The distinctive physiological nature of children

3. predisposes them to a variety of health hazards within and around the household, including unsafe
sources of water and poor sanitary conditions. Thus providing safe drinking water and access to
improved sanitation within the household environment can reduce the risk of mortality and
morbidity among children (World Bank 2001, 2008). Hence the present study hypothesized that
variations in household environments among selected India states could affect child’s survival
chances.
To measure the influence of household environmental factors on child survival is a
complex phenomenon because the variables viz: housing condition, water, sanitation etc differs
from different societies, geographical areas and also by caste, religion of the head of household.
Possessing of household items also varies by income, education and palce of living of household.
Variables identified as environmental factors by considering household goods and material act as
a latent variable and may have slow and long term influence than immediate on survival status of
child. However, a broader category of variables, which are derived from a large survey viz: NFHS-
3 forms the base for analysis of this study. Keeping in view of the above research studies and the
data set, this study aims at the following:
1. To examine the household socio-economic and environmental, sanitation and child
survival variables in two selected states, viz., Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh.
2. To know the environmental, sanitary, housing condition variables influencing the child
survival in two selected states, viz., Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh.
Data and Methodology:
For this present study, to understand the influence of house hold environmental
factors and child survival, data were collected from NFHS-3 (IIPS, MACRO 2005-6), for the two
selected states viz: Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The lists of variables considered for analysis
are given in Table 1. To understand the influence of household environmental variables on child
survival, data were collected from two distinct states, viz., Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. In
Madhya Pradesh only 26 percent households live in a Pucca house. Seventy one percent of
households have electricity; 9.2 percent of households have access to piped water for drinking,
seventy three percent of households have no toilet facilities. Where as in Tamil Nadu almost all
households (96.2 percent) have electricity connection, 94.7 percent household have improved
source of water, 85.8 percent of the households have access to tap water for drinking and 38 percent
of households have provision for flush toilet. Comparing these two states data will reveal the
household environment differentials and its influence on child survival status.
All the variables taken into consideration for the study have been divided in to two
categories. First category referred as background indicators, viz., Level of Education of women,
Place of residence, Partner’s education, Respondent’s type of earnings and Standard of Living

4. index. The second category referred as household environment indicators, viz., Availability of
electricity in the house, source of drinking water, time to get drinking water, method of drinking
water purification, type of toilet facility, main type of fuel used for cooking, type of house, Food
cooked on stove, Chula or open fire and Household structure material used for floor, walls and
roof have been considered. The dependent variable - child survival has been measured by
considering the ratio of children ever born to children surviving. The calculated child survival
index if equal to “one” indicates that the number of deliveries and surviving children are same,
indicates that there is no child loss, otherwise women had experienced child loss in her
reproductive period. A composite index has been calculated by giving the scores for
Environmental, Sanitation and Housing condition variables and three indices evolved: 1.
Household Environment Index (HEI), 2. Sanitation Index (SANI) and 3. Housing Condition Index
(HCI). Higher score is given to better household facilities (Table 1), which will improve the
health status of child than poor housing facilities. Thus for Source of drinking water and Piped
water a highest score of ‘3’ is given and for well water a score of ‘2’ and for others Rain, Pond
water), such score is ‘1’. Similarly, Food cooked in open fire is given score as ‘3’ with an
understanding that smoke will not accumulate inside the house and Chullah as ‘2’ with more health
hazard. In case of cooking under chimney is given score 2 and without that as ‘1’. The list of
Background variables, Environment, Sanitation, Housing condition variables along with the
dependent variables and the scores given for each category is given in Table 1. By aggregating
these scores for Household Environmental factors, Sanitation factors and Housing conditions,
three indices has been derived. Environmental Index (HEI), which is a sum of Environmental
factor score, has been dichotomized ‘Poor Household Environment’ with a score of less than 8 and
‘Better Household Environment’ with a score of 8 and more. Sanitation Index (SANI) has been
calculated. Further, considering Housing Structure and Family Size a Housing Condition Index
(HCI) has been calculated.
Analysis has been carried out in three stages. In the first stage percentage of women
experiencing child loss by background variables and Household Environment Indices in Tamil
Nadu and Madhya Pradesh has been analyzed (Table 2). To know the association between
influencing variables (background variables) on Household environmental index (HEI),
Sanitation index (SANI) and Housing Condition Index (HCI), Chi-square test has been applied.
The results of Chi-square test for Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh is given in Table 3. Further, to
understand the association between Child Survival status and background variables by
Rural/Uraban (Place of residence of the respondent women), Chi-square test has been applied
(Table 4). As there exists wide disparity in housing conditions, environment and sanitation
conditions, Risk ratios (Odds Ratios) have been calculated between the indices and background
variables across rural and urban areas. At the final stage to establish the relation between the

5. Table 1: List of variables considered for analysis in measuring influence of Environmental
Factors on Child Survival in Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh, NFHS – 2005-06
Variables Description Code
Indirect Factors: Background Variables of Respondents and Partner
V1.
V2.
V3.
V4.
V5.
V6.
Age of Women
Respondent’s Education
Place of Residence
Husband’s Education
Work Status of Women
Standard of Living Index
Grouped Data
Illiterate - 0, Primary - 1, Secondary - 2, Higher - 3
Urban - 1, Rural - 2
Illiterate - 0, Primary - 1, Secondary - 2, Higher - 3
Not-working - 0, Working - 1
Poor - 1, Middle - 2, Rich - 3
Direct Factors (Household Level): Environmental Factors
E1
E2.
E3.
E4.
E5.
E6.
Electricity
Source of Drinking water
Time to get drinking
water
Main type of fuel use for
cooking
Food Cooked on stove,
Chullah or Open fire
Cooking Under Chimney
No-0, Yes-1
Piped-3,Well-2, Other-1
Within the Premises-3, <15 minutes-2, > 15 minutes-
1
Wood-1, Crop Residues/Dung Cake/ Coal/ Coke/
Lignite/ /charcoa-2, Kerosene-3,
Electricity/LPD/Bio-gas-4
Stove-1, Chullah-2,Open fire-3,
Yes-2,No-1
Direct Factors (Household Level): Sanitation Factors
S1.
S2.
Type of Toilet facility
Toilet facilities shared
Flush Toilet-2, Pit Toilet/Latrine-1, No facility-0
Yes-1, No-2
Direct Factors (Household Level): Housing Condition
H1.
H2.
Type of Housing
Household family structure
Better Pucca)-2, Poor Semi and Katcha) House-1
Nuclear-2, Joint & Extended family-1
Dependent Variable
Y Child Survival Index Ratio of Children surviving to children ever born
(CS/CEB) < 1, loss=0, (CS/CEB) = 1, No loss=1
Ratio Less than one-Child loss-0
Ratio Equal to one-No child loss-1
Household Environmental Index
(E1 to E6) (HEI)
Summation of above factor score
Score <=8 Poor House hold environment
Score > 8 Better House hold environment
Household Sanitation Index (SANI)
(S1 and S2)
Summation of above factor score
Score Less than 2: Poor sanitation
Score more than 2: Better Sanitation
Housing condition Index (HCI):
From Housing condition variable
Poor:2 and Less than 2
Better: >2 and <=4
Standard Living Index (SLI): From NFHS-3 IIPS-Measures, (2005-6)

6. derived indices CSI, HEI, HCI and SLI), Spearmen rank Correlation co-efficients for Urban and
Rural areas of Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh has been calculated and the results are given in
Table 6 and 7.
Results:
Descriptive statistics analysis of the dependent variables which has been considered as the
ratio of CEB to CS (Child Loss / Survived) with be back ground variables and household
environmental Indices reveals that (Table 2) the percentage of women experiencing child loss
found to be more in Madhya Pradesh than Tamil Nadu. Among the background variables, women
living in rural areas, illiterate women, women having illiterate partner and having poor status of
living have experienced high percentage of child loss.
Poor household environment, poor sanitation and poor housing conditions contribute to
high percentage of child loss than better conditions both in Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh
(Table 2). Between these two states, reproductive women of Madhya Pradesh experience more
child loss due to household environment indices than Tamil Nadu.
Association between Background Variables and Household Environment Variables:
To understand the association between the background variables and Environment indices,
Chi-square test has been used. The results show that (Table 3) there was a significant association
between ENVI, SANI and HCI with selected background variables in both states except ENVI
with Respondent’s occupation in Tamil Nadu State. As the housing condition differs between rural
areas to that of urban, analysis has been done by considering Urban/rural with the background
variables and with the Household Environment indices. The results are given in Table 4. The
survival status of child is associated with background variables both in rural and urban areas of
these two states. The results given in table 3 and 4 clearly explain that there is an association
between background variables and Household Environment indices and background variables and
child loss by rural/urban areas in these two states.
Risk of Child loss due to Household Environment Indices:
Relative risk (Odds Ratio) has been calculated to understand the incidence of child loss
among the households with ‘Poor’ indices values compared with ‘Better’ indices values. The
Relative risk has been computed as: Incidence of child loss among household with Poor indices to
that of incidence of child loss among households with ‘Better’ indices valued. The results are given
in table 5 across rural and urban areas.
In Tamil Nadu, the risk of child loss in urban areas due to Poor Household ENVI was found
to be relatively high by 25.7 percent ((1-.743) x100) than better household ENVI and in rural areas
it was 15.3 percent (Table 5). Hence not having better household ENV index ( Electricity, Source
of Drinking water, type of fuel used and cooking facilities) will affect child survival status more

7. in urban area is than rural areas of Tamil Nadu. Similarly poor sanitation facilities will affect child
survival more in urban areas than rural areas of Tamil Nadu (29.1 percent, 13.2 percent
respectively). In case of Housing Conditions Index, poor housing conditions affects child survival
status more in urban areas than in rural Tamil Nadu. In Madhya Pradesh the risk of child loss in
urban area relatively high due to poor household ENV, poor sanitation, poor housing condition
compare to their counterpart and in rural area risk due to poor housing ENV, poor sanitation and
poor housing condition found to be relatively high than better indices values (Table 5). It was
observed that risk of child loss due to Household Environment indices found to he high due to
poor condition in both states and relatively more in urban areas than rural areas.
Relation between Child Survival and Household Environment Indices:
To understand the relation between the child survival and Household Environment Indices,
Spearmen rank correlation co-efficient have been calculated separately for rural and urban areas
of Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh and the results are given in Table 6 and 7. In Tamil Nadu,
child survival is negatively and significantly correlated with Sanitation Index and Standard of
Living Index in urban areas whereas in rural areas, it was with Standard of Living Index only
(Table 6). In Madhya Pradesh, child survival status was negatively and significantly correlated
with Sanitation index, Housing Condition index and with Standard of Living Index in urban areas
and in rural areas it was negatively and significantly correlated with Standard of Living index only
(Table 7).
Summary and Conclusions
Environment which is largely defined as the circumstances or conditions surrounded by
the human beings encompasses two broader categories, viz., Physical and Human / Anthropogenic
environment. When it is considered as Human Environmental conditions, it is explained as the
conditions in which human being are living in the society. Considering Housing conditions,
household goods and amenities as human environmental condition, its influence on child survival
has been examined in this research paper. Better cooking facilities, availability of water at house,
better sanitation facilities may lead to better living condition and intern may lead to better health.
Research study revealed that type of house and the presence of separate kitchen in the house
significantly affect infant and child survival. Further presence of latrine, ownership of land and
education of father and mother play significant role.
The present study is based on data collected from a large-scale survey (NFHS-3),
considering household data of Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh states reveals that Tamil Nadu
exhibits better household environmental conditions than Madhya Pradesh state.
Statistical analysis revealed that there is a significant association between Respondents’
Place of Residence, Education and Occupation as well as Partner’s Education and Standard of
Living Index with Household environmental Indices such as HEI, SANI and HCI. Further, survival
status of child is also associated with background variables both in rural and urban area.

8. The relative risk of child loss was found to be more in urban areas due to poor household
environment indices both in Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh. In urban areas, though water is
supplied through tap within the house, lack of supply of filtered water contribute to diarrhea,
leading to childhood morbidity. Further, lack of electricity supply, congested houses, lack of
ventilation, polluted air and other environmental factors influences child survival in urban areas
than rural areas. Among the two selected states, Tamil Nadu had better environment indices and
better child survival status than Madhya Pradesh.
From this secondary data analysis an important issues emerges, viz., household variables
considered for calculation of Environment indices should be carefully selected. Availability of
household goods differs from rural area to urban area. Generally, in urban areas, household
facilities such as electricity, water; housing condition, etc. are provided by local authorities and in
rural areas, mostly acquired by individual family. Further, to larger extent, better child health care
services are available in urban areas than in rural areas. Housing condition, amenities and the
quality of housing differs from place to place and state to state, special efforts to be made to
identify the household environment variables separately and analyses for different clusters. Hence,
micro level study and spatial analysis should be undertaken to understand the influence of
household environment on child survival status.
In order to improve the health condition of mother and child, necessary policies and
programs should strengthen in providing better sanitation, water and housing facilities in rural and
urban areas. Plans have to be evolved to provide perennial water and electricity supply and low
cost housing schemes to rural population. Women should also have more access to education and
information on child health care practices in household environment, irrespective of their place of
residence.
References
Fayehun, Olufunke A. (2010): Household Environmental Health Hazards and Child Survival in
Sub-Saharan Africa, DHS Working Papers No. 74. Calverton, Maryland, USA: ICF
Macro.
Gubhaju B; Stratified K; Majumder AK; 1991): Socio economic, demographic and environmental
determinants of infant mortality in Nepal, Journal of Biosocial Science Oct; 23(4): 425-35.
Hoque BA; Chakraborty J; Chowdhury JT; Chowdhury UK; Ali M; El Arifeen S; Sack RB
(1999): Effects of environmental factors on child survival in Bangladesh: a case control
study Public Health, Mar; 113 ( 2): 57-64.

9. International Institute for Population Sciences, MEASURE DHS, ORC MACRO: (2005-6) :
National Family Health Survey-3, India/Tamil Nadu/Madhya Pradesh December,2006.
Jatrana S: (2001): Household environmental factors and their effects on infant mortality in
Mewat region of Haryana state, Demography India Jan-Jun, 30 (1): 31-47.
Majumder AK; Islam SM: (1993): Socio economic and environmental determinants of child
survival in Bangladesh, Journal of Biosocial Science, July, 25 (3):311-8.
Van der Klaauw, B., and L. Wang :( 2005): “Child mortality in rural India.” World Bank Research
Working Paper, Washington, DC: World Bank.
Vinod Mishra, Robert D. Retherford, Kirk .Smith (1997): “Effects of Cooking Smoke on
Prevalence of Tuberculosis in India”, East-West Centre Working Paper, Population Series
No.92, October 1997.
World Bank (2001): “Health and Environment”, Background paper for the World Bank
Environment Strategy, Washington DC.
World Bank (2008): “Environmental health and child survival: epidemiology, economics,
experiences”, World Bank. Washington DC.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2005): “World Health report: Make Every Mother and Child
Count”, Geneva, The World Health Organization
Continued……. In next page

10. Table 2: Percent women experiencing Child Loss by Background
Variables and Household Environment Indices in Tamil Nadu and
Madhya Pradesh: NFHS - 2005-06 Data
Background Variables of the
Respondents / Households
Percent women experiencing
Child loss (CS/CEB)<1
Tamil Nadu
( 4137)
Madhya Pradesh
( 4625)
Place of residence
Urban
Rural
13.0
17.0
18.7
36.4
Respondents Education
Illiterate
Primary
Secondary
Higher
23.8
19.1
9.3
2.4
40.1
25.0
14.4
3.5
Partner’s Education
Illiterate
Primary
Secondary
Higher
21.8
20.0
12.5
4.3
43.3
36.4
21.1
9.0
Respondent’s Occupation
Not working
Working
11.0
19.0
20.0
34.1
Standard Living Index
Poor
Middle
Rich
18.6
17.9
10.2
37.6
34.4
32.7
Household ENVI
Poor
Better
19.2
16.1
36.1
33.8
Household SANI
Poor
Better
13.6
10.1
20.5
15.8
Housing Condition Index
Poor
Better
15.3
14.6
34.8
23.3

11. Table: 3: Association between Household Environment Indices and Background
Variables in Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh, NFHS – 2005-06 Data
Background
Variables
Chi-square Values and Level of Significance
Tamil Nadu Madhya Pradesh
HEI SANI HCI HEI SANI HCI
Place of Residence 74.09** 20.23** 121.28** 116.42** 133.222** 146**
Respondent’s Level
of Education
29.24** 270.19** 83.01** 42.54** 215.79** 62.39**
Partner’s Level of
Education
59.64** 245.70** 65.13** 28.42** 41.53** 45.01**
Respondent’s
Occupation
NS 58.91** 28.94** 17.60** 22.09** 181.80**
Note: **, * and NS = Chi-square Test Results are: p<.001, p<.01 and Not Significant, respectively.
Table 4: Association between Background Variables and Child Loss by
Rural-Urban Areas in Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh: NFHS-2005-6 data
Background Variables
Chi-square Values and Level of Significance
Tamil Nadu Madhya Pradesh
Urban Rural Urban Rural
Respondent’s Level of
Education
96.422** 60.770** 181.167** 98.436**
Partner’s Education 66.337** 27.256** 109.727** 117.777**
Respondent’s Occupation 23.251** 21.024** 18.185** 22.270**
Standard of Living Index 31.753** 17.485** 39.162** 33.829**
Note: **, * and NS = Chi-square Test Results are: p<.001, p<.01 and Not Significant, respectively
Table 5: Relative risk*
of Child loss (Odds Ratio) with Confidence Intervals
Between Household Environment Indices by Rural-Urban areas
In Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh, NFHS – 2005-06 Data
Household Environment
Indices
Tamil Nadu Madhya Pradesh
Urban Rural Urban Rural
Household EI
Poor / Better
.743
(.526-1.048)
.847
(.635-1.130)
.816
(.693-1.489)
.965
( .810-1.148)
Household SANI
Poor / Better
.709
(.538-934)
.868
( .471-1.808)
.660
(.518-.842)
.878
(.854-2.323)
Housing Condition Index
HCI) Poor / Better)
.879
(.683-1.130)
.940
(.864-1.386)
.682
( .513-.905)
.924
(.913-1.035)
*Relative Risk: Incidence of Child Loss among Poor indices for a given Place of living_
Incidence of Child loss among Not Poor better) for given Place of living

12. Table 6: Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients between the Indices and Child Survival
by Rural-Urban Areas of Tamil Nadu, NFHS – 2005-06 Data
Urban
Rural
Child Survival
Index
HEI SANI HCI SLI
Child Survival Index 1.000 -.056 -.056* -.022 -.139**
Household ENVI (HEI) -.028 1.000 .160** .138** .296 **
Sanitation index (SANI) -.019 .298** 1.000 .091 ** .459 **
housing index (HCI) .017 .127 ** .275 ** 1.000 .209 **
Standard Living index
(SLI)
-.070 ** .280 ** .445 ** .442 ** 1.000
Note: Correlation co-efficient values for Urban and Rural Areas are given above and below the diagonal.
*, and ** = Correlation Co-efficient are significant at p< 0.05 and p< 0.01 level (2-tailed), respectively.
Table 7: Spearman Rank Correlation Co-efficient between the Indices and Child Survival
By Rural-Urban Areas of Madhya Pradesh, NFHS – 2005-06 Data
Urban
Rural
Child Survival
Index
HEI SANI HCI SLI
Child Survival Index 1.000 .003 -.074 ** -.055 ** -.184 **
Household ENVI (HEI) -.009 1.000 .421 ** .474 ** -.162 **
Sanitation index (SANI) .068 .502 ** 1.000 .320 ** .424 **
housing index (HCI) -.019 .104 ** .406 ** 1.000 .333 **
Standard Living Index
(SLI)
-.149 ** .342 ** .504 ** .183 ** 1.000
Note: Correlation co-efficients values for Urban and Rural Areas are given above and below the diagonal.
*, and ** = Correlation Co-efficients are significant at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 level (2-tailed), respectively

13. Table:: Spearman Rank Correlation Co-efficient between the Environment Indices and Child Survival
By Rural-Urban Areas of Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, NFHS – 2005-06 Data
# {(CS/CEB) =1 no loss, <1 child loss}
******End of Document************
Child Survival#
Environment Indices Tamil Nadu Madhya Pradesh
Rural Urban Rural Urban
Household ENVI(HEI) -.028 -.056 -.009 .003
Sanitation index ( SANI) -.019 -0.56* .068 -.074
housing index (HCI) .017 -.022 -.019 -.055**
Standard Living Index (SLI) -.070 ** -.139** -.149 ** -.184**