Desarrollo de la tienda

In contrast to the control community and the interviewed Eco-San operators, the level of knowledge regarding Eco-San systems in the two Kalisizo school communities was very low, especially among students, prior to the introduction of the demonstration facilities. Many focus group participants had never seen or heard of UDDTs, while some students who thought they had encountered them revealed, through their descriptions, that they had actually mistaken other types of toilets for these facilities: “I used it. There is water where you defecate, and, after the process [defecation], you pull a metal lever, the water flows over, and the waste is carried away” (focus group, male student). From this account, it is clear that the student was referring to a water-based, flushing toilet. A few households, hotels, and other institutions in Kalisizo have these types of facilities available, and some students are likely to have observed them and acknowledged them to be different from the nearly ubiquitous pit latrine. A related misconception among students and parents involved the cost of emptying an Eco-San facility. Many participants expressed the belief that these systems are expensive to empty, because

61

“you have to hire a truck to empty it” (focus group, male student). It is probable that this participant was again misidentifying a water-based system, in which a septic tank needs to be emptied by a truck with pumping equipment, as an Eco-San system.

Perceptions of Eco-San systems within Kalisizo schools were generally more negative than those from the Kasensero control community. On balance, negative attitudes outweighed positive ones. Positive views echoed some of the benefits described by the control community, including permanence and fertilizer value, although opinions regarding fertilizers were mixed. Regarding permanence: “Once you have built an Eco-San toilet, you get relieved from digging toilets all the time, because for the local toilets (pit latrines) after three years it gets full and you dig another one, but with Eco-San you get relieved from this problem” (focus group, female parent). This idea of permanence was seen as especially valuable in a small town setting, because it could save valuable space: “For some of us who live in the town council, we stay on small plots that have limited space and thus this toilet helps us not to dig pit latrines anywhere…You dig once and for all” (focus group, female parent). Some participants were excited by the idea that a toilet could produce something of value: “I have liked this kind of toilet because it does not serve only one purpose…We use our very wastes on our crops and get nutritious food. I think we even need to clap for this” (focus group, female parent). However, others expressed an aversion to the use of human excreta, even though it is common in the area to use bovine waste as a soil amendment. According to one participant, “By handling a person’s feces…naturally you feel disgusted…and thus you don’t feel good using feces or urine as fertilizers on vegetables” (focus group, female parent).

It is likely that some negative attitudes were caused by misconceptions, but, even after Eco-San systems were explained, negative views remained predominant. Although participants reported no socio-cultural barriers, which had been found previously in some areas of the country (Kaggwa et al., 2003) but not others (Niwagaba and Asiimwe, 2005), a number of practical concerns were expressed.

62

Beyond being perceived as expensive to empty, Eco-San systems were also thought to be expensive to construct, especially relative to pit latrines. As one participant explained, “For the local latrines, you just dig a deep hole and that is all, but, with the Eco-San toilet, you require a lot of things to build this toilet” (focus group, female student). This individual went on to provide examples of the additional expenses involved, such as the cement needed for the concrete floors of the collection vaults and the metal panels that act as access doors to the vaults.

Certain structural characteristics of UDDTs also stimulated a negative reaction. Due to the presence of fecal collection vaults, the toilet room is raised a few feet above the ground, and stairs are usually constructed leading to the entry. Focus group participants noted that this component could create difficulties for disabled or elderly users: “We have old people who have problems with their legs and cannot climb these stairs. We also have disabled people at home who cannot manage to climb this toilet” (focus group, female parent). Some UDDTs in Uganda incorporate a ramp, making these facilities more accessible, but a perception that the facilities require stairs could hinder initial acceptance.

Participants also recognized the possibility that people might use the facility incorrectly: “They may defecate where you are supposed to urinate and vice versa, or he/she may mix both urine and feces” (focus group, male student). The student further explained that misuse could result in odors and an objectionable atmosphere within the facility. Additionally, the size of school systems was seen as a potential issue: “What I see is that in a school, these toilets may not work well, since the pupils are many at school, the bucket of urine will be filled so fast, and the urine will be pouring down” (focus group, female parent). These concerns led participants to express skepticism regarding the idea of locating Eco-San facilities in public places, since it would be difficult to monitor users and maintain acceptable standards of hygiene. One parent commented, “In public places…these toilets cannot work…but will instead spread diseases. These toilets can only work well if they are installed in people’s homes” (focus group, female parent).

63