Thirty-nine in-depth interviews and 11 FGDs were held. Twenty-two of the participants were landlords and seventeen were tenants. The number and participants of the FGDs are summarised in table 1.
Table 1: Summary of FDGs conducted
Category of FGD participants
|
No of FGDs
|
Resident male landlords who have tenants on their compound
|
1
|
Resident female landlords who have tenants on their compounds
|
2
|
Male tenants from compounds with resident landlords
|
1
|
Female tenants from compounds with resident landlords
|
2
|
Male tenants from compounds with absentee landlords
|
1
|
Female tenants from compounds with absentee landlords
|
1
|
Caretakers
|
1
|
Mixed group of resident male landlords and male tenants
|
1
|
Mixed group of resident female landlords and female tenants
|
1
|
Total FGDs
|
11
|
1. Characteristics of sharing
a) Living arrangements and sharing
All the sanitation facilities were pit latrines shared among households living in compounds with the various living arrangements. Latrines had single cubicles or 2-3 cubicles over the same pit. Most of the latrines had concrete slabs, with the superstructure constructed using blocks, bricks or iron sheet. The cubicles were approximately 2m wide and 2m long, and none had waste receptacles inside. Often times, resident landlords constructed more than one cubicle and separated one of the cubicles for their household use and had the tenants sharing the other cubicles.
b) Number of households and users.
One cubicle was reportedly shared with a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 13 households. The actual number of users was dependent on the number of people in each household, which ranged from 3 to 8 members. It was also reported that other residents in the settlement, who were not from the compounds often used the toilets. These other users were from compounds without toilets or compounds whose toilets were full. Whereas some participants mentioned the actual number of users, e.g. “Approximately twenty” and “We are thirty-four people”, it was also commonly reported that the actual number of users was not known, and participants often said “we are many” to describe the high number of users. Some landlords also admitted that in their compounds, the users were ‘so many [they could not] approximate the number or have never taken count’ (Participant in an FGD with female landlords).
2. Problem Definition
Shared sanitation cleanliness
Unclean toilets, high number of users, and high fill up rates of pit latrines were cited as the main challenge of sharing of sanitation facilities. The shared toilets were described as being clean or dirty. Resident landlords or tenants who lived on compounds with resident landlords often reported that their toilets were clean, whereas tenants who lived on compounds with an absentee landlord often admitted that their toilets were unclean. Unclean toilets resulted from improper disposal of human faecal matter, often on the toilet slab, which discouraged others from using the toilets.
“When you visit the toilet you’ll find it really dirty, sometimes someone has messed it up… you cannot even use it” (Participant in a male tenant FGD).
Improper usage also extended to other behavioural practices, e.g.:
“There is a man who normally gets drunk and he vomits on the slab of the toilet.” (Participant in an FGD with female tenants from a compound without resident landlord).
Toilets were also dirty because other non-compound members soiled the toilets. These users gained access to the compound toilets forcefully, by sneaking in without permission, or by befriending the compound residents.
“There are those who come and access my toilet without my permission…so I find the toilet very dirty…they use it however they want” (Participant in an FGD with female resident landlords).
Participants noted that such users accessed the toilets when they [the toilets] were not locked. While participants suggested that locking the toilets was preferable to keep off these non-compound users, others admitted that sometimes the keys got lost hence leaving the toilets unlocked and easily accessible.
“Even when you lock it [the toilet] they [outsiders] break the padlock … it is [then left] open” (Participant in male landlords FGD).
Participants complained that there was a high number of users per cubicle, some of whom were not willing to take part in cleaning the toilets.
“The toilet becomes dirty each and every time and no one is willing to do some cleaning…. the problem lies in cleaning.” (Participant in an FGD with female tenants in Dago).
Some tenants were not willing to clean toilets because they felt it was not their responsibility.
“These tenants find it hard [to clean the toilet] and are not always happy to clean. They think it is not their work and if they do they are to be paid” (Participant in an FGD with male landlords in Dago).
“…Some go as far as telling you that once he cleans the toilet then he/she might become sick [if they clean the toilets].” (Participant in an FGD with female tenants residing in compound without resident landlord).
Resident landlords admitted that they sometimes cleaned the toilet as it was not easy to identify the individuals who had soiled the toilet. In tenant only compounds, tenants, often times women who had children, volunteered to clean the toilets. Quarrels and disagreements ensued among compound residents when users soiled the toilets but did not participate in cleaning.
“Other people feel that cleaning the toilet is a hard job and it brings disagreement.” (IDI with landlord).
Participants disliked the foul odour from the dirty toilets and expressed fears that dirty toilets posed risks of disease spread especially to women and children, citing diseases like cholera and syphilis
“…Another challenge is the stench from the latrines, they are not far from where the houses are…” (Participant in an FGD with male tenants).
“You can be infected by microorganisms, you can contract cholera, and flies come out of there and land on people’s food which results to diseases.” (Participant in an FGD with male tenant)
“…It's easy for women and children to get infection because when they squat they collect dirt unlike us men who stand when we urinate” (Participant in an FGD with male landlords).
The high number of users which led to queueing; and indiscriminate disposal of solid waste in the toilets, both of which led to fast fill up of the pit latrines were also disliked. Such waste included diapers, sanitary towels, pieces of clothing etc. Conversely, ‘clean’ and ‘useable’ toilets were described using attributes such as:
- A toilet that has no foul odour
- One that is clean on the inside and outside “… [A toilet] is clean if you find the surrounding slashed or if you don’t encounter any smell.” (IDI with a tenant)
- A toilet that does not have flies “If cleaned, the smell is not as pungent and the houseflies reduce.” (IDI with landlady).
- One that exhibits structural stability “What shows that a toilet is clean is when it is stable and you do not fear that you can fall inside.” (IDI with a landlord).
- A pit latrine that is not full “When the toilet is full then it looks dirty even if it is cleaned.” (Participant in an FGD with female tenants)
- A toilet that offers privacy during usage
“When you go to the latrine, you go to hide your body… you can be in a latrine and when inside and squatted, someone outside can see you… you will just be in a hurry... when iron sheets are used for constructing the latrines, they wear out and someone can see from the outside” (Participant in an FGD with male tenant).
“…The problem with our toilet is that it has no roof and its sides are made of iron sheet… you can see someone who is inside.” (Participant in an FGD with caretakers).
3. Selection and specification of the target behaviour
Strategies for improving the cleanliness of shared toilets were mainly behavioural and social in nature. Tenants and landlords were categorical that all users ought to use the toilet in a proper manner and participate in cleaning.
“People …should squat well when using the toilet…so that faeces go directly into the pit… what you have used [anal cleansing material] should go into the pit after finishing… then you lock the toilet’s door using a padlock, take clean water and soap and clean it.” (IDI with female tenant).
“Everyone should participate in cleaning the toilet…the task should not be left for one person.” (IDI with Landlord)
Landlords and tenants admitted that the cleanliness of the toilets was related to the number of households/users, with some admitting that they were comfortable sharing with fewer households. A landlord for instance, speaking about sharing with his tenants, admitted that “They are few…I take them as my family, but if it was a large number of tenants, I would not be free because some tenants are tough headed.” (Participant in an FGD with male landlords in Dago).
A tenant also admitted that in addition to the smaller number, the households cooperated in cleaning of the shared facilities.
Other individual level behavioural strategies that were suggested included cleaning the toilets with the right cleaning products (water, soap) and disinfectant, and avoiding the disposal of diapers and sanitary towels in the pit latrines.
Individual social strategies entailed improving communication between landlords and tenants and among tenants, and commending individuals who cleaned the toilets.
“Yes…just talk to people…tell them to try and maintain the cleanliness of the toilet” (IDI with landlady).
“For tenants like us it is difficult… you may quarrel with others [because of] cleaning of the toilet……so, we agreed that cleanliness should continue ….and when it is clean you commend the person…. [telling them] they know how to clean the toilet.” (Participant in an FGD with female tenants residing on compound without resident landlord).
Participants further pointed out that cleanliness of the toilets also depended on strategies implemented as a group or at the compound level, such as restricting access for other non-compound users, cooperation with compound residents in purchasing cleaning items, and through cleaning schedules that included all households. A female tenant in an FGD for instance reported that the reason why their toilet was clean was “We have got a gate and whenever [outsiders] want to access the toilet then they have to ask…. we contribute money for buying brooms since we scrub the toilet with broom…. we are aware of how we are cleaning…each and every person is aware of his/her week of cleaning….” (Participant in an FGD with female tenants residing on compound without resident landlord).
Proper management of the shared toilets was attributed to agreements and cooperation among users in the compound, with a landlady stating that “When there is no agreement [on cleanliness], the toilets will definitely not be clean.” (IDI with landlady).
At the compound and/or group level, regular discussions among tenants and landlords were proposed, with discussions focusing on the maintenance of the shared toilets.
“Landlords should partner with their tenants, for example, once in a month [they should] have a meeting to discuss the state of cleanliness, who cleans and who does not, and the number of users should be known” (participant in an FGD with female tenants and landlords).
It was noted that social strategies lead to open discussions among the households, solving of contentious issues, a united group of households, and an improved management plan. Participants in the landlords and tenants FGDs further suggested the use of community based groups or individuals who offer cleaning services to toilets within the settlement at a fee.
“There should be someone to clean… have a caretaker and pay him… he will ensure that toilets are kept clean” (IDI with landlord).
The need for education and creation of awareness was often highlighted, as it was deemed that residents needed to understand the importance of keeping their toilets clean and the need to use cleaning materials during cleaning (why shared toilets should be clean, and how they should be cleaned). Such strategies were proposed for all residents within the compounds (including children).
“…Educate the public on how to keep the toilet clean, those who will hear will benefit from the advice” (IDI with landlord).
Other proposed suggestions included penalties for individuals who did not participate in cleaning, continued monitoring, and provision of bins for the segregation of waste
“Tenants who do not want to clean the toilet should be given notice to vacate from the house.” (Participant in an FGD with female tenants residing on compound without resident landlord).
These results specified the aspects of any targeted behaviour intervention with regards to the individuals to be involved and the actions to be taken. The specification of these strategies would inform the designing and testing of interventions that can be taken up by the community members and supported by other individuals.
4. Understanding what needs to change
The study also sought to identify psychological and physical capabilities, social, and motivational opportunities and barriers.
a) Capabilities
Psychological and physical abilities
A general knowledge and understanding that shared toilets should be cleaned was noted, and because of this knowledge some participants reportedly cleaned the toilets before or after use.
“I know that the latrines have to be clean…. if I get the latrine dirty, I have to clean it up first before using it.” (Participant in an FGD with male tenants).
Some women understood the importance of and their responsibility in cleaning the toilets before and after their children used the toilet.
“…Since I know that when my child goes to the toilet he stands and urinates, it is my responsibility to clean the toilet when the child goes to the toilet …” (IDI with a tenant).
b) Opportunities
Physical opportunities and barriers
Cleaning materials such as water, a broom, and detergent facilitated cleaning. These materials were bought by landlords, or by tenants who contributed money for buying the materials.
Compounds that were fenced or had a gate restricted other users who soiled the toilets. Compounds without a gate/ fence were more likely to be dirty because of intruders who soiled the toilets.
“Majority of the plots do not have a fence and so you find that it is easy for other compound users to get access to use the toilet.” (IDI with tenant).
Tenants in such compounds were less motivated to clean their toilets.
Other forms of obstructions included the use of padlocks which ensured that other users did not gain access. However, landlords highlighted that tenants lost the keys, or that other users broke the padlocks in order to use the toilets.
Social opportunities and barriers
Resident landlords were strict about the cleanliness of the toilets, which ensured that the toilets were kept clean.
“Our landlord has a stern rule that he does not want to find anyone destroying or misusing the toilet. He keeps quarrelling on this matter, and this has helped in maintaining the cleanliness of the toilet.” (Participant in an FGD with female tenants residing on compounds without resident landlord).
Other compounds had strict rules, adhered to by all tenants, about cleaning the toilets. These rules were sometimes part of the ‘contract’ when a new tenant moved into the compound, and included the mandatory cleaning by all tenants, often in the form of a cleaning schedule. The schedule was not always written, but was an informal rota understood and accepted by compound residents. A household’s turn to clean the toilet for example was determined by the housing order within the compound, or by the day of the week. Thus, it was common to hear that a household would clean after another household, or on a certain day of the week.
“When you move into this plot there’s a rule that states that we have a toilet…and when one person cleans it today, then another will clean it tomorrow… it is cleaned every day without failure.” (ID with a caretaker)
Both landlords and tenants further proposed that the rules should be mandatory and tenants who do not adhere should be asked to vacate from the compound. The cleaning schedule was often a reminder to the individuals themselves and to other compound members. Individuals cleaned the toilets when it was their turn, and if they forgot, their neighbours and/or landlords reminded them
“…When I find that our toilet is dirty, I check from the list [to find out] who was to clean…. then I remind him/her that is their day of cleaning (Participant in an FGD with female tenants in Dago).
Some landlords however, noted that the cleaning schedule was at times not effective because tenants did not adhere to the schedule.
It was interesting to note that in the two FGDs where landlords and tenants were participants, landlords confessed that tenants did not always clean the toilets, and as such they took on the responsibility by cleaning the toilets themselves, tasked the caretakers to clean the toilets, or paid for the toilets to be cleaned by other individuals or community groups. For example, a landlord had confessed that since the tenants did not adhere to cleaning, he had assigned the responsibility to the caretaker, noting that “When I find out that the toilet is dirty, I ask my caretaker why the toilet is not clean…. that’s I why I have a caretaker …” (IDI with Landlord). Tenants on the other hand, did not oppose the confession, but rather agreed that landlords should be involved in cleaning the toilets.
Generally, FGD participants admitted that sometimes the cleaning schedule included the landlords and the tenants, and such arrangements were often agreed upon in meetings and by all compound members. A landlord for instance explained that he called for a meeting and told his tenants that he would be responsible for [buying] the detergents, but they would be responsible for cleaning ….He continued to explain that this arrangement worked well because ‘when tenants requested, he provided the detergent’. He noted that the advantage was that the tenants ‘took it as their responsibility.” (Participant in an FGD with male landlords).
Such compound meetings were also called for when solving issues affecting the tenants. In an FGD among male tenants and landlords, a participant commended another landlord saying “In certain occasions he [the landlord] calls for meetings, writes letters to tenants telling then that on a certain date we have a meeting…. during the meeting, he will communicate if there was a mistake… …corrects mistakes…if a child soils the latrine, he tells them that it's the role of the parent to clean it.”
Within tenant only compounds, tenants had agreements among themselves about cleaning their toilets. Within such compounds the social agreements and arrangements ensured that all tenants participated in cleaning. For example, a tenant noted that they had a cleaning schedule, but when one was not available to clean the toilet on their appointed day, the individual made arrangements to clean the toilet the next day. This tenant confessed that such agreements ensured that all members participated in cleaning.
Results further highlighted the roles played by men and women, and which were also agreed upon at the compound level. Often times, men bought the cleaning materials while women cleaned the toilet, “We use liquid soap, detergents like ‘Omo’ and a hard broom…. the men buy the brooms and women do the cleaning.” (Participant in an FGD with female tenant residing on compounds without landlords).
Compounds with children were more likely to have dirty toilets, especially if the toilets were not cleaned after the children soiled the toilets.
“There are children whose parents will tell them to use the toilet without following up…. the children deposit their waste outside the hole.” (Participant in an FGD with male tenants).
“When children are away in school it remains clean up to 2 or 3 pm, but it becomes dirty thereafter when they come back.” (Participant in an FGD with female landlords).
c) Motivations
Automatic motivations
Participants admitted that they cleaned the toilets because they desired to be comfortable when using the toilet.
“I maintain the cleanliness because the toilet is a room where you would wish to go and feel comfortable, so it is should be clean… you are like someone in jail when it is dirty because you cannot be comfortable there.” (IDI with landlady).
Some users cleaned the toilets when they found them dirty mainly because of the ‘urgent’ need to use the toilet.
“I take water and clean it up thereafter, I use it since when the toilet is dirty then even the urge of relieving yourself gets lost.” (Participant in an FGD with female tenants residing on compounds with resident landlord).
Dirty toilets discouraged use, and unlike some individuals who cleaned the toilets before use, other users were less motivated to clean dirty toilets, and used the toilets without cleaning.
“When I go to the toilet and find it dirty, there is no need to clean since [when] I go back [I will] again find it dirty… so I use it and leave it the same way I found it.” (Participant in an FGD with female tenants residing on compound with resident landlord).
The quality and structure of the toilet motivated or discouraged cleaning; e.g. toilets whose superstructure did not offer privacy, toilets whose slab was wooden, or toilets that were full. A tenant, when asked who cleaned the toilet, responded, “Nobody… it is not in a good state…people just go for the sake of going… the toilet is almost full and it can cave in any time.” (IDI with tenant).
Finally, some households cleaned the toilets in order to prevent the foul smell from infiltrating into their houses, especially when the houses were next to the toilets.
Reflective motivations
Reflective motivations were less revealed. The main finding reflective motivation was that women cleaned toilets because of the fear of contracting diseases or because of the fear of their children contracting diseases.
“I first wash it [the toilet] because I cannot use a dirty toilet, it can bring diseases.” (IDI with female tenant).
“We are mothers…. We clean the toilet because if a child uses the toilet he/she will get infected…I have a child so I clean… and my neighbour also cleans because she has a child…it can even be cleaned twice a day” (IDI with tenant).
These capabilities, opportunities and motivations have been summarised in table 2.
Table 2: Findings and possible intervention strategies for management of shared sanitation facilities
|
Findings
|
Possible intervention strategies
|
Psychological ability
(Individual’s psychological and physical capacities)
|
- An awareness that toilets need to be cleaned
- Awareness that toilets should be cleaned after being soiled by children.
|
- Need to increase awareness on use and cleanliness of shared toilets.
|
Physical opportunity
(Factors in the physical environment that enable or hinder behaviour)
|
- Availability of cleaning aids e.g. water, detergents, disinfectant, and broom/brush.
- Availability of individuals who clean, e.g. caretakers and youth groups.
- Non-compound members who use and soil the toilets
|
- Provision of cleaning aids
- A barrier e.g. fence/gate to the compound.
- Locking of toilets.
- Defined and agreed upon cleaning schedule between landlords and tenants, or among tenants
- Sharing responsibilities between men and women.
- Improving relationships among compound members
- Involving all users in cleaning
- Communication and problem solving mechanisms among tenants, and between tenants and landlords
- Improving on structural qualities of the shared toilets, e.g. emptying, and improving the superstructure
|
Social opportunity
(Factors in the social environment that enable or hinder behaviour)
|
- A stern/strict/firm resident landlord ensured cleaning is done
- A cleaning schedule in some compounds enhanced cleaning
- Cleaning rules that were adhered to by all users
- Landlords and tenants reminded other users to clean
- Responsibilities were shared among landlords and tenants.
- Lack of or poor communication between tenants and landlords.
- Poor structural quality of the toilets discouraged cleaning
- Children in the compound soiled toilets.
|
Automatic motivation
(Automatic brain processes that energize and direct behaviour)
|
- Users desire to be comfortable when using toilets
- Users clean toilets because it is the right thing to do
- Users are demotivated to clean dirty toilets
- Users clean shared toilets because of living next to the toilet (to avoid the smell).
- Users are demotivated to clean when cooperation was lacking
- Demotivation because of poor quality toilets
|
- Enhance the motivation to clean shared toilets
- Discourage poor use of toilets
- Enhance the benefits of clean toilets and the disadvantages of dirty toilets
|
Reflective automation
(Reflective brain processes that energize and direct behaviour)
|
- Women feared contracting diseases
- Women feared their children contracting diseases
|