SOUTH AFRICA Report Malodor and sanitation behaviors in low-income settlements - Archipel&Co
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Report SOUTH AFRICA Malodor and sanitation behaviors in low-income settlements
This report is part of a research project aiming to understand sanitation behaviors and the role of malodor
in sanitation-related decisions in low-income urban settlements. This project was funded by the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation and conducted by Firmenich and Archipel&Co.
Unless otherwise stated, all data derives from the Archipel&Co study conducted in South Africa between
December 2018 and February 2019. All data, analyses and subsequent conclusions are attributable to the
information collected from the sample. For all South African Rand (ZAR) to United States Dollar (USD)
conversion rates, the average rate from November 2018 to February 2019 is used (USD 1: ZAR 14).
Acknowledgments
Archipel&Co and Firmenich would like to acknowledge the invaluable support and contributions of
Reciprocity and their local teams, without which studies in South Africa would not have been possible.
Additionally, we would like to thank all the organizations we met on the field:
Non-Governmental Organizations: Abahlati Base Mjondolo / Afrika Tkkun / Slum Dwellers International
(SDI) / Social Justice Coalition (SJC) / Violence Prevention through Urban Upgrading (VPUU)
Academia & sanitation experts : Isidima / Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa / Sustainability
Institute (Stellenbosch University) / Water Research Commission
Private companies: DropaLoad / East Rand Toilet Hire / Mshengu / SaniTree / SaniTech
Public authorities: Johannesburg Water / National Department of Water & Sanitation / City of Cape Town
Water & Sanitation Department / GreenCape
Firmenich
Firmenich is the world’s largest privately-owned company in the fragrance and flavor
business. Founded in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1895, it has created many of the world’s
best-known perfumes and flavors that billions of consumers enjoy each day. Its passion for
smell and taste is at the heart of its success. It is renowned for its world- class research and
creativity, as well as its thought leadership in sustainability and exceptional understanding
of consumer trends. Each year, it invests 10% of its turnover in R&D, reflecting its continuous
desire to understand, share and sublimate the best that nature has to offer. Firmenich had an
annual turnover of 3.34 billion Swiss Francs at end June 2017.
Archipel&Co
Founded in 2011, Archipel&Co supports organizations (companies, public entities and
social enterprises) in their transition towards a more inclusive economy, through three main
activities:
• Insights: understand the needs and aspirations of low-income communities
• Consulting & Ideation: design strategies that combine social and business impact
• Implementation: implement pilot projects with strong social impact and scale up
Archipel&Co operates both in developed and emerging countries, through its four offices
(Paris, London, Hyderabad and Abidjan) and network of partners and experts worldwide.
Archipel&Co also manages a specialized research unit dedicated to Inclusive Business
strategies: Archipel, the media of the inclusive economy.
CONTENTS Executive summary.......................................... 2 1. Research objective & scope....................... 5 2. Methodology in South Africa..................... 7 3. Setting the scene: low-income settlements in South Africa....................... 9 4. Sanitation context & practices................. 11 Shared toilets........................................................ 16 Community toilets................................................ 18 Unimproved sanitation....................................... 23 Open defecation................................................... 24 5. Impact of malodor counteractant technology on behavior change............... 27 6. Synthesis and way forward........................ 33
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential impact of malodor counteractant
unimproved sanitation, community toilets, shared toilets technology on behavior change Recommendations
and in-house toilets. In-house toilets have been excluded
Before/after tests were conducted to assess the potential
from the study as they are available to a few wealthier Results indicate that the use of malodor counteractant
of odor and cleanliness as levers for behavior change.
households and there are limited barriers to usage. For products could encourage people to adopt safer
Toilets were cleaned and treated with Firmenich’s
the four assessed practices, uncleanliness, malodor and sanitation behaviors and move up the sanitation ladder.
malodor counteractant product (air freshener pad with
safety are critical issues affecting people’s decisions and However, malodor cannot be targeted in isolation
technology that captures malodorous molecules and
subsequent position on the ladder: and other barriers that prevent the adoption of safer
in-turn diffuses a pleasant fragrance) and people were
behaviors, particularly accessibility and safety, should be
• Shared toilets: the number of houses with access asked to describe their experience and willingness to
addressed:
to shared toilets is growing. Shared toilets are well adopt safer behaviors.
maintained and kept clean and their adoption is quite
Recommendations for commercial players:
high (only 6% do not use them).
Two different go-to-market strategies have been
• Community toilets: are a common option particularly in
Context & objective Cape Town where shared toilets are less common than
identified for companies wanting to sell innovative
malodor counteractant products in South Africa’s low-
40% of the world’s population - 2.5 billion people - practice in Johannesburg. Toilets are constructed, maintained
income urban settlements:
unsafe sanitation. While substantial effort has been placed and cleaned through a public-private partnership
on building infrastructure, the challenges associated model. Despite this private engagement, most toilets • BtoB strategy targeting private companies outsourced
with behavior change should be assessed too. A variety of are only in an intermediate condition and users have a by government and who are responsible for community
sociological, economic and cultural factors influence daily bad experience. Bad user experience is primarily due to toilet management.
sanitation decisions and should be further addressed to malodor and lack of cleanliness, also most avoid using
ensure existing infrastructure is used effectively. the toilets at night due to a lack of safety. A multitude • BtoC strategy targeting households equipped with in-
of reasons, including incivilities and misuse, but also house or shared toilets with a focus on females as they
The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation (Gates foundation) are responsible for cleaning toilets.
lack of motivation and commitment from caretakers
has partnered with Firmenich to specifically address
(unclear contracts, short tenures, etc.), account for
the issue of malodor. Building upon the principle that Recommendations for policymakers, authorities and
the bad condition of community toilets. Caretakers
malodor makes toilets undesirable and reduces toilet the sector as a whole:
are critical to engage in improving the condition of
usage, they have developed a malodor counteractant
the toilets and recently organizations have recruited • Increase availability of safe sanitation options:
technology in the hopes of improving user experience
caretakers from the community with success. Increase the number of toilets available. The provision
and subsequently increasing the adoption of safer
Declarative results demonstrate that the treatment of safe and well-lit toilets is critical to improving
sanitation behaviors.
of malodor, combined with cleanliness, could have a sanitation behaviors in the settlements targeted.
To gain further insight into this topic, the Gates positive impact on behavior change:
foundation asked Firmenich and Archipel&Co to conduct • Develop access to shared toilets:
• Up to 57% of open defecators declared they could start A semi-private option which is more adapted to low-
research in 10 locations across 4 countries (India, China,
using community toilets if they were clean and did income settlements than in-house toilets. User have a
Kenya and South Africa) to better understand the extent
not smell bad. However, in the targeted settlements, greater sense of ownership and accountability to fellow
to which malodor counteractant technology could
accessibility and safety must also be addressed to fully community members and subsequently, these facilities
encourage people from low-income urban settlements to
shift behaviors. often are well-kept and clean.
move up the sanitation ladder – from open defecation to
shared toilets, and eventually to private toilets. • Up to 29% of community toilets users said they would • Empower and support communities:
be willing to pay more to access toilets that are clean Shift levels of community inclusion in current
This report presents the aggregated results of the
and do not smell bad. Although much less than other management models as self-managed toilets increase
studies run in two South African cities (Cape Town and
countries (up to 71% in India and 78% in Kenya), given community ownership and willingness to take
Johannesburg) between December 2018 and February 2019.
that users do not pay anything today, this willingness responsibility for toilet conditions.
to pay is quite substantial.
• Unimproved sanitation: the use of buckets and
Current sanitation practices in South Africa’s portable flush toilets is common in South Africa. It is • Share of respondents not using their shared toilets
low-income settlements a complementary practice and mostly undertaken at is quite low (6%), however the potential impact on
Despite progressive policies to address the legacy of night for safety reasons or by elders and children for behavior change is high. 66% households who do
apartheid and provide affordable housing and associated convenience (bad weather, traveling distances, etc.). not always use their shared toilet regularly would be
services to all, there is still a large proportion of people ready to start using it if malodor was managed. 84%
• Open defecation: some respondents still practice of shared toilet owners indicated they would be ready
in South Africa without access to safe sanitation. open defecation rather than using community toilets. to buy a malodor counteractant product (and would be
In low-income settlements studied, the sanitation In most cases, open defecation is triggered by the willing to pay up to USD 1.83 per unit).
ladder comprises of five main practices: open defecation, inaccessibility to clean and safe community toilets.
2 3
1. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE & SCOPE
The need for better sanitation in the The Gates foundation asked Firmenich and Archipel&Co
developing world is clear. to conduct research in 10 locations across 4 countries to
gain further insight into this topic.
40% of the world’s population - 2.5 billion people -
practice unsafe sanitation or lack adequate sanitation Research objective
facilities1. Substantial effort has been placed on sanitation
The objective of the research is to understand the role
infrastructure (the hardware) but software challenges -
of odor in sanitation-related decisions in low-income
where infrastructure meets the end-user - should also
urban settlements. To what extent can the use of malodor
be addressed. A variety of sociological, economic and
counteractant technology encourage people to adopt safer
behavioral factors influence daily sanitation decisions so
sanitation practices and move up the sanitation ladder?
much so that even when multiple sanitation options are
available users might not choose the safest.
Building upon the principle that malodor makes toilets
undesirable and reduces toilets usage, the Gates
foundation has partnered with Firmenich to develop
a malodor counteractant technology. This technology
aims to improve user experience and thus, contribute
to Sustainable Development Goal 6.2 by encouraging
people to adopt safer behaviors and move up the
sanitation ladder, from open defecation to community
toilets and eventually to individual toilets.
However, there is a gap in the understanding of the
sanitation behaviors of low-income communities and
the role malodor plays in sanitation-related decisions.
4 countries
10 locations
CHINA
Anhui
Sichuan province
5 600 respondents
Delhi province
INDIA
250 local interviewers
Mumbai
Pune 15 months
Chennai
KENYA
Nairobi, Mathare
Nairobi, Kibera
Methodology: the selection of locations
Studies have been conducted in selected low-
Johannesburg income settlements in the cities mentioned
SOUTH AFRICA
Cape Town on the map. The selected settlements are
not necessarily representative of the cities/
countries as a whole.
Sources: 1UN Sustainable Development Goals: 6 - Clean Water and Sanitation.
4 5
2. METHODOLOGY IN SOUTH AFRICA
©
2 case studies Community Voices
©
Objective: (1) understand the sanitation ecosystem This research was conducted using Community Voices ,
(policies, stakeholders, challenges), (2) assess the an innovative and inclusive market research approach
sanitation behaviors, needs and aspirations of urban co-developed by Firmenich, Naandi Foundation and
low-income households and (3) analyze their usages and Archipel&Co. The approach consists of:
preferences related to odor and sanitation. • Identifying and training young unemployed adults
who are from targeted communities to design and
Methodology of case study: administer questionnaires as to limit declarative bias
• 6-10 meetings with institutional stakeholders* (public and strengthen the authenticity of insights;
authorities, NGOs, sanipreneurs) • Sharing the results with communities after the study
• Qualitative interviews +30 households & +5 caretakers in order to empower them, to enable them to voice
• Quantitative survey+400 respondents & 40 caretakers their concerns, and to make them part of the solution.
Case studies have been conducted in selected settlements of each city.
Criteria to select the settlements:
• Low-income settlements: have a high-level of informality, inhabitants face many socio-economic issues and lack
access to essential services.
• Sanitation practices: various sanitation practices undertaken in the settlement, especially unimproved practices and
open defecation.
As a result, figures are not representative of the cities but only capture the reality of the selected locations studied.
Hence, in this report charts and figures refer to city names but only represent the realities of selected settlements.
CAPE TOWN
JOHANNESBURG
Date: December 2018
Sample: 600 households and
39 community toilet caretakers
Settlements: Khayelitsha,
Langa
CAPE TOWN JOHANNESBURG
Date: February 2019
Sample: 490 households
respondents and 45 community
and shared toilet caretakers
Settlement: Alexandra
*refer to page 3 for the list of stakeholders interviewed.
6 7
3. SETTING THE SCENE: LOW-INCOME
SETTLEMENTS IN SOUTH AFRICA
Rural-urban migration is rapidly increasing in newcomers: Settlements originally provided formal
South Africa and it is estimated that 71% of the housing and infrastructure for economic migrants, albeit
for small populations, resulting in long-term settlement
population will live in urban areas by 2030.2 residents often being more established than newcomers.
The growing demand for urban space partnered with the Long-term residents access formal housing and often
lack of affordable housing has resulted in large informal have stable economic activities whilst newcomers live
settlements developing in South Africa’s cities. in non-permanent homes and work irregularly for little
income. However, newcomers are more optimistic believing
Settlements face severe basic service shortages as
the settlement offers an opportunity to escape poverty.
existing infrastructure cripples under increased usage
Long-term residents are frustrated by the increasing
and government fails to respond to demand timeously.
informality of their areas, particularly the overcrowding
Moreover, severe unemployment (more than the national
and deteriorating infrastructure.
average of 27%3) and high crime rates have resulted in
complex social dynamics amongst community members Political context and anger with authorities:
and with authorities. Limited provision of services promised by the
government and authorities’ resistance to provide formal
Share of urban population living in informal settlements4,5 infrastructure has resulted in angry and unsatisfied
residents. Furthermore, growing populations place
Cape Town Johannesburg pressure on existing resources and strain relationships
21 %
15 %
with fellow community members.
Crime and safety: Growing populations in conjunction
with high poverty, unemployment, and an ill-
performing police and judiciary system has resulted
in crime becoming a daily concern for many. It has
Social dynamics in the settlements studied also contributed to deteriorating social bonds as trust
Established long-term residents and precarious amongst community members diminishes.
Characteristics of respondents in targeted locations in Cape Town and Johannesburg6
People interviewed are mostly poor (about 45% live with less than USD1/day/capita) but rather educated individuals
(only between 13 and 19% leave school before the 9th grade) who face limited employment opportunities (up to 62%
are currently unemployed).
Share of respondents living in precarious conditions per location
ZOOM: Unemployment
HOUSING EARNINGS EDUCATION UNEMPLOYMENT disproportionately
Semi/non Earn less than USD1 Less than 9 th grade No professional activity affects women
permanent house per day
Two-thirds (66%) of
CAPE TOWN 88% 44% 19% 62% those unemployed
in the targeted low-
JOHANNESBURG 48% 45% 13% 45% income settlements
studied are women.
Sources: 2The United Nations, Revision of World Urbanization Prospects, 2018; 3Gauteng City-Region Observatory, Mapping unemployment, 2018;
4
Stats SA (Census 2011), 5Housing Development Agency: Gauteng Report, 2018; 6Archipel&Co study, 2018-2019.
8 9
4. SANITATION CONTEXT & PRACTICES
Sanitation is a highly politicized and • Unimproved sanitation: historically, supported by the Cape
emotionally-charged topic in South Africa. Town government to provide a safe option for women and
children at night, buckets or portable containers (porta
Despite progressive policies to address the
potties) are used as a complementary sanitation practice.
legacy of apartheid and provide affordable
• Community toilets: many people rely on community
housing and associated services, there is still
toilets, shared across households, which exacerbate
a large proportion of people living without social tensions due to toilet availability, accessibility,
access to safe sanitation, electricity and water. water and hygiene challenges.9
Sanitation service provision is unequal in South Africa. Formal • Shared toilets: shared amongst a few households who
areas access full-flush in-house toilets,5,8 whilst in informal know each other personally, toilets are often locked to
settlements, more than two-thirds of households share toilet restrict usage to these households.
facilities and open defecation is five times more likely.9
• In-house toilets: excluded from this study as they are
Five main sanitation practices have been observed in found in wealthier homes with limited usage barriers.
the low-income settlements targeted in Cape Town and
Many people have multiple sanitation practices and
Johannesburg
undertake daily decision arbitrage based on the availability
• Open defecation: despite the presence of sanitation and conditions of facilities, as well as other sociological
facilities, some people still prefer to go in the open to factors. Position on the sanitation ladder is not definitive:
defecate. However, this is lless frequent than in the low- people can move from one step to another very easily
income settlements studied in India (see India report).10 and practice can vary from a family member.
Sanitation ladder in the low-income settlements studied in South Africa
The safety level associated with each step increases. Ascending the ladder is not necessarily linear:
e.g. people can move directly from open defecation to in-house toilets.
IN - HOUSE TOILETS
SEMI - PRIVATE
SHARED TOILETS
COMMUNITY
TOILETS
UNIMPROVED
SANITATION
OPEN DEFECATION An individual toilet that
is used by household
A toilet shared between a members only.
few households who know According to official
Community toilets each other. figures, 76%10 of urban
(chemical or full-flush This practice is particularly households have access to
technologies) are shared visible in Johannesburg. basic toilet sanitation. In
Use of unimproved options
by all households within low-income settlements,
such as bucket toilets.
the community. they are found primarily
Defecation in open spaces
(fields, bushes, etc.). Nationally, 4%10 of in most wealthier
Nationally, 20%10 of
urban households use households.
households use such
Nationally, less than 1%10
unimproved options.
toilets.
of the population still
practice open defecation.
Sources: 5Stats SA (Census 2011) 7Archipel&Co study, 2018-2019. 8City of Cape Town Annual and Sanitation Reports, 2016-2018; 9SERI Sanitation in
South Africa; 10WHO/UNICEF JMP WASH data, 2015.
10 11
“Water is life, Sanitation is dignity” and affordable water and sanitation services.
While the right to basic sanitation is not openly provided • Sanitation is provided by effective and efficient
for in the Constitution, it intersects with a number of institutions that are accountable and responsive. 9, 11
clauses in the Bill of Rights, including the right to housing.
However, in reality, many in South Africa still lack
Policy documents adopted over the years, including the access to adequate sanitation and the provision of such
more recent National Sanitation Policy 2016 and the Free remains a critical concern for those in low-income urban
Basic Sanitation Framework (FBSan), recognize sanitation settlements.9
as a basic right and prioritize the provision of free basic
Furthermore, to address sanitation shortages in informal
sanitation to poor households. 9, 11, 12
settlements, municipalities are relying more and more
The overarching view of South Africa’s Water and on temporary sanitation solutions from outsourced
Sanitation Department is that “Water is life, Sanitation is companies (chemical toilets) to the anger and frustration
dignity.” Given this, the department aims to ensure that: of residents and civil society organizations, which
consider these to be undignified.9
• All people have access to adequate, safe, appropriate
A clear gap between sanitation options and real practices: In each location, a significant
Specific local policies in the 2 cities studied 7, 13, 14 number of people occasionally or frequently do not use the safest sanitation option available
to them, but are in fact moving down the sanitation ladder and undertaking unsafe practices.
CAPE TOWN JOHANNESBURG
Sanitation is extremely political in Cape Town due to Share of respondents who do not use the safest sanitation option available to them but undertake unsafe practices
Johannesburg Water, under directorate of the City
leadership by an opposing party. City of Cape Town’s of Johannesburg, provides and maintains water
Informal Settlement Basic Services Branch provides 78%
and sanitation services in both formal and informal
COMMUNITY TOILETS
and maintains water and sanitation services in informal settlements.
settlements. SHARED TOILETS
The city’s clear priorities include:
City standards aim to provide dignified community 36%
• Delivering sustainable, affordable and cost-effective How to read the chart: in the settlement analyzed in Johannesburg,
sanitation facilities to all households. 36% of people whose only option is the community toilets do not
sanitation services to all.
actually use them all the time and are moving down the sanitation
The city’s clear priorities include: 10%
• Continuing end-user education around sustainable and ladder, i.e. are using buckets occasionally or frequently. 10% of
• Providing shared toilets at a 1 toilet to 5 households safe sanitation practices. shared toilets owners do not use them and can also use buckets.
ratio. CAPE TOWN JOHANNESBURG
• Providing upgraded services in marginalized areas,
• Providing water-wise sanitation solutions that are efforts aim to replace chemical toilets with improved
compatible with Cape Town’s topography and water sanitation options for every household.
scarcity. CAPE TOWN
• In 2018, ZAR21 million (USD 1.5 million) was pledged
• Investigating management models to improve safety for the provision of 2290 ventilated pit latrines.15 • Community toilets are the most common option, used by a large majority
around community toilets. of people living in the low-income settlements targeted.
• Unimproved sanitation options are still very common at night due to
Assessment: The sanitation situation has significantly Assessment: the sanitation situation remains a major safety concern. To a lesser extent, some may also opt for open defecation
improved in Cape Town, particularly the ratio of sharing challenge in Johannesburg’s low-income settlements. at night (especially men).
households. The city is unable to timeously and sufficiently deliver
sanitation to growing low-income settlements.
However, many are still without adequate sanitation and
the increasing reliance on chemical toilets and lack of Furthermore, the department is associated with
safety around toilets remain major concerns. Additionally, corruption by all stakeholders. Community toilet JOHANNESBURG
many complain there is limited to no community tender regulations are ineffective and allow for the
• Community toilets are also common in the low-income settlements
engagement regarding sanitation infrastructure and/or misappropriation of funds and little accountability of
studied in Johannesburg.
services. contract awardees.
• Shared toilets are much more developed in the low-income settlements
Sources: 7Archipel&Co study, 2018-2019., 9SERI, Sanitation in South Africa, 2018; 11Department of Water and Sanitation Annual report 2017/18; visited in Johannesburg compared to those in Cape Town.
12
Republic of South Africa, National Sanition Policy 2016; 13City of Cape town, Informal Settlements, Water & Waste Services - Private communication;
14
Johannesburg Water Annual Report 2017/2018; 15https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/1958653/hundreds-of-vip-toilets-to-be-installed-in-joburg- • Unimproved sanitation and open defecation are still practiced at night
informal-settlements but much less than in Cape town settlements.
12 13
In the settlements studied, sanitation is spontaneously raised as a key issue by respondents.
Sanitation is often an issue identified by residents in their settlement. Additionally, safety is also identified as a key issue,
which have a direct impact on sanitation at night.
What are the main issues in your settlement?
I use the community toilets but would like
access to a shared toilet. The community toilet
Cape Town Johannesburg How to read the chart: is not clean and dangerous at night.
Sanitation / Sanitation / In Cape Town, 68% of
68% 56% people living in low-
toilet issues toilet issues
income settlements
studied believe that issues
Lack of safety 45% Lack of space 56% with toilets is the biggest
issue in their settlement, Thandiswa, 42 years old,
followed by lack of Khayelitsha, Cape Town,
safety (45%) and lack of Community toilet user
Lack of employment 38% Lack of safety 45%
employment (38%).
TOILETS: The issues associated with sanitation include
the inadequate type and number of toilets available as
well as the bad condition of these facilities. Safety at
night is also raised as a key challenge. I prefer to go in the open on the weekend, the
SAFETY: Low employment levels and limited policing toilets get too dirty and smelly. People get
resources contribute to criminal activity. Additionally, very drunk and make a mess in the toilets…
boredom amongst the unemployed youth is increasing I don’t like to go in the open too often… but
alcohol and drug use amplifying crime. Robberies, rapes
and murder continue to increase in these settlements.
it smells much better and is closer than the
community toilets.
UNEMPLOYMENT: Slow economic growth generates
limited employment opportunities, particularly for new
entrants to the labor market. The limited income for
Sipho, 33 years old,
many families has increased the reliance on subsidies
Alexandra, Johannesburg,
and the state for basic services.
Open defecator
SPACE: Given the proximity of the assessed townships to
economic hubs, these areas are highly desired. Growing
populations and need for additional housing is limiting Residents are angry and frustrated with the lack of service delivery
and increased reliance on temporary solutions.
space availability.
3 questions to a settlement resident rubbish everywhere and it is not being collected. The porta-pottie is terrible. It is undignified to
It is very unpleasant to use these toilets. have to use it. It is not hygienic and we get a
Thembi, female, 28 years old, lives in a non-permanent
house with her husband and 3 children, Alexandra How satisfied are you living in the settlement? different one each time it is cleaned – how do
Johannesburg I am very unsatisfied. I have been here for more than I know the person who used it before me was
15 years and nothing has changed. not sick? Still, it is useful for our family. My
What is the major issue in the settlement?
daughter and I use at night and my grandchild
Do you believe the next generation will have
There are just not enough toilets for everybody. The uses it quite often. He is too young to go to the
a better life than yours?
chemical toilets are unhygienic and smell terrible, community toilet on his own.
Phumeza, 52 years old,
especially in summer. The community does not look I remain hopeful that my children will have a better
Langa, Cape Town,
after the toilets, they are in bad condition. There is life than me but we must leave the settlement to do so.
User of a portable toilet
(unimproved practice)
14 154. SANITATION PRACTICES Most of the time shared toilets are well Main reasons for shared toilet cleanliness
ZOOM - SHARED TOILETS maintained and kept very clean. Limited and restricted access: usage by fewer households
Cleaning model: toilets are cleaned on a rotational reduces misuse and incivilities.
basis by households. Adult female family members are Self-management and ownership of the facility: cleaning
Shared toilets are defined as those used by Share of respondents with access to shared toilets in the
responsible for cleaning. strategies decided between a few households. Inclusion
targeted settlements
a few households (less than 10) and where Frequency of cleaning: almost all toilets are cleaned in the decision process increases accountability and
the majority of cleaning and maintenance Cape Town 5%
Excluded from the study due to at least once a week with additional cleaning done by responsibility to keep toilets clean and in working order.
very low levels
responsibilities are undertaken by the sharing individuals as and when required. Full-flush system connected to the sewage system are
Johannesburg 68%
households themselves. Products used: three quarter of households clean with considered as the best option available: removal of
branded detergents (Handy Andy, Sunlight liquid, etc.). waste via municipal sewage pipes limits malodor and
Shared toilets are a common option in Remark: shared toilets include full-flush toilets One fifth have installed air-fresheners to specifically the facility often offer a good user experience. They are
Johannesburg but much less common in Cape connected to the sewage network and chemical toilets combat malodor (up to USD 2.10 per air-freshener unit). considered as a sense of pride and every household
Town. that are locked and thus only used by a few households. wants to have one.
Shared toilets are much more used than in
Common features of shared toilets in the low-income settlements studied in Johannesburg other settlements studied.
Sharing of toilets is often restricted to households that are well known to each other (family, friends and neighbors) and
6 %
the majority of toilets are locked to limit misuse by non-sharing households. Only of respondents with access to
shared toilets do not use them
Full-flush shared toilets Chemical shared toilets:
• Two separate full-flush toilets in concrete structures • Toilets are provided by private organizations as a *NB: In Kenya up to 44% and in China up to 29% of
with metal doors. Toilets are connected to the community toilet but households lock these and claim respondents do not use their shared toilets
municipal sewage system. them as their own. Shared ownership of the facility ensure regular cleaning and
satisfying user experience.
• Located in the center of a communal yard area allowing • Not connected to the local sewage network nor do they
access to all households that live within the yard. have water or electricity access. Main reasons for shared toilet non-usage
• Constructed by government, a large proportion of these • Located far from homes, near the periphery of the Fear of malodor is the primary reason for non-usage among the few respondents not using the shared toilets.
shared toilets has been built within the last three years. settlement, and subsequently often not used at night
• Water access is available via a single tap but there is due to safety fears when traveling to toilets.. 60%
49% A few respondents are disturbed by the
no electricity access, limiting light availability at night.
40% smell of the shared toilets. Malodor is
29% mostly due to blocked pipes and overuse
11% How to read the chart: shared toilet non-users
do not use their shared toilet due to malodor
(60%), lack of cleanliness, (49%) lack of privacy
(40%), lack of safety at night (29%) and fear of
Fear of malodor Lack of Lack of Lack of safety Blocked
blocked toilet (11%).
cleanliness privacy at night toilet
SO WHAT?
The malodor counteractant technology could improve the user experience in shared toilets but
would have a limited effect on behavior change.
Shared toilets users seem to be committed to the cleaning of their facility and willing to buy cleaning and
malodor counteractant products. Potential business on this segment seems interesting. However, potential
impact on behavior change would be low given the high adoption of shared toilets in the settlement studied.
Full-flush shared toilets are connected to the local sewage network, Chemical shared toilets are not connected to the local sewage
water is readily available through a communal tap. Households lock network. Toilets ownership and usage is managed by households
their toilets to limit usage and maintain cleanliness. through the use of a lock and distribution of keys.
16 174. SANITATION PRACTICES
Community toilets conditions in low-income settlements are highly variable.
ZOOM - COMMUNITY TOILETS Conditions of community toilets vary substantially. Respondents using community toilets in Johannesburg perceive their
community toilers to be better maintained than those in Cape Town.
Community toilets are the most common 2 kinds of community toilet technologies
sanitation practice in the settlements studied.
These toilets are used by all residents Full-flush toilets:
irrespective of gender, age and income. All of Relatively rare and mostly
legacy from the apartheid-era.
them are free of charge.
Mostly found in hostels and
Community toilet technologies vary barracks constructed during
apartheid for migrant workers.
substantially in South Africa’s urban informal
settlements and include full-flush toilets
and chemical toilets. Most users have a
bad experience due to malodor, lack of
Well maintained Intermediate Very degraded
cleanliness and lack of safety. Chemical toilets: The toilet pits & stalls are clean with The toilet pits & stalls are a little Toilet pits & stalls are very dirty
Increasingly common in the no urine, feces, garbage or tobacco dirty with some feces in the pit & with feces, urine, spit marks and
settlements as authorities spit marks Doors are functional & some marks on the walls & floors. garbage. Most doors are broken and
Remark: In this study, community toilets are defined rely on their quick and easy the facility has access to water. There The majority of doors are functional water access is limited. There is a
as those that rely on outsourced companies for their deployment in rapidly growing is no bad smell. but water shortages are frequent. very strong and pungent smell.
cleaning and maintenance and/or are accessible to a informal settlements. There is a bad but tolerable smell.
large number of households.
Main reasons for toilet uncleanliness
• Inadequate toilet numbers: Too few toilets results in
Common features of community toilets overuse and accelerated wear and tear. Damaged toilets
are not repaired timeously due to limited resources and
Legacy from apartheid-era, flush toilets are unclear reporting processes.
connected to sewage networks and have access to a
regular water supply but electricity is intermittent. • Lack of community respect: Toilet facilities are placed
into settlements without community engagement,
Flush
Flush toilets are separated by gender, approximately limiting a sense of ownership. Sanitation is deemed to
4 stalls for each. be government’s duty and users do not pay.
Community toilets are open for 24 hours but many • Incivilities and vandalism: Utilizing chemical toilets
do not use them at night due to safety concerns. as a permanent solution has angered residents, some
destroy the toilets during protests. Moreover, as there
is no-one to manage facilities at night, high rates of
Portable chemical toilets encased in plastic vandalism and incivilities occur in and around toilets.
structures that are often located on the periphery
of settlements for ease of access for waste removal • Unmotivated and uncommitted caretakers: Dissociation
trucks and cleaning brigades. from the community and a lack of support from
managing organizations has resulted in unmotivated
Chemical
There is always at least 4-6 toilets available (can caretakers who do not clean sufficiently.
reach up to 40), these toilets are not separated
by gender nor do they have access to water or • Location: Areas surrounding toilets in Johannesburg
electricity. are dirtier than in Cape Town due to their location.
They are placed at the periphery of settlements where The slow response rate to repair and unblock toilets exacerbates the
Chemical toilets remain open at night but many do In each location there is at least 4 toilets available (can reach up to dumping is common and waste removal. irregular. The uncleanliness of community toilets. Furthermore, many inhabitants
not use them due to safety concerns. 40). These toilets access do not have access to electricity and water. accumulation of waste contributes to malodor. tend to neglect and disrespect public space and common goods.
18 19Community toilet management models rely on public-private partnerships, effectiveness can be
improved through reduced corruption and increased community engagement.
Most respondents using community toilets in
the targeted settlements have a bad user- Chemical toilets are constructed, maintained and cleaned by outsourced private companies that successfully tender for
government contracts. These tenders face severe criticism as they are believed to be corrupt and not creating employment
experience. opportunities for local communities.
In both Cape Town and Johannesburg respondents
complain of bad user experience in community toilets. Different models were observed, depending on the technology and the location.
Share of community toilet users that say they have a bad CAPE TOWN JOHANNESBURG
or very bad experience when using the facility
Organizational model: community toilets are Organizational model: Maintained and cleaned by
Cape Town 80% maintained and cleaned by cleaners from City of households using the full-flush toilets
Cape Town and volunteer households using the
Johannesburg 84% Flush Caretaker model: No official caretaker. Cleaning
full-flush toilets
Many respondents complain of bad user experience. This is the toilets is undertaken on a rotational basis (weekly) by
highest rate across assessed settlements. Caretaker model: there is no dedicated caretaker adult women from each household. Use supplies
who stays at the facility. Volunteers are not paid purchased for general household cleaning
whilst government cleaners receive a wage from
government but only come for a few hours
Main issues are similar across the settlements: malodor, lack of safety and lack of cleanliness.
Organizational model: Public-private partnership. City of Cape Town (through the Informal Settlements
Cape Town Johannesburg Basic Services branch) and City of Johannesburg (through Johannesburg Water) outsource private companies
Chemical to provide, clean and maintain community toilets
Description of the top issues: toilets
Malodor 68% Malodor 79%
Caretaker model: Caretakers are only present when cleaning. They are rarely from the community and
Malodor is associated with
unclean and overfilled toilet does not engage with users. Caretaker contracts and remuneration are managed by private companies but
Flies, worms and pits, blocked pipes and funded by government
45% Lack of safety 56%
other animals unemptied waste drums.
Lack of safety is associated
Lack of safety 43%
Lack of
44%
with the fear of criminal Caretakes current malodor & cleanliness strategies
cleanliness activities (including theft,
rape. etc.) especially at night. Frequency of cleaning: clean toilet seats irregularly
Lack of Malodor is also associated (once a week/ every 2 weeks).
43% Lack of privacy 30%
Flush
cleanliness with the close environment
as community toilets are
Products used: local detergents (Madubula and
often nearby the dumping Handy Andy) or bleach products (Domestos, Jik)
Lack of privacy 26% Risk of diseases 16% grounds and dirty areas. used with water. Provided by sharing households
but in low quantities.
How to read the chart: In Cape Town, 68% of respondents using community toilets in the targeted settlements believe that malodor is the key
issue with community toilets, whilst in Johannesburg, 79% indicate malodor is the key issue. Frequency of cleaning: clean toilet walls, floors and
Chemical
seats regularly (two to three times a week).
Products used: water, scubbing equipment, local
detergents and bleach. Products are supplied by the
3 questions to a community toilet user How is the smell when using the toilets? managing organization, caretakers are satisfied with
the products but they are not delivered timeously
Sibongile, female, 26 years old, lives in a semi- The toilets smell very bad. There is no ventilation and
nor in sufficient quantities.
permanent house with her parents and 2 sisters, the waste drum fills very quickly. The chemicals they use
Alexandra, Johannesburg are also very strong, they do not smell good and give us Cleaning and malodor coping strategies include:
headaches. 1. Cleaning the toilet more vigorously – additional
How would you rate your experience when using the
Do you face any additional difficulties? scrubbing and for a longer period of time.
community toilets?
I hate using the chemical toilets. They are not private. The community toilet is very dangerous for women at 2. Increased quantities of cleaning products in this case,
Everybody can see when I come and go. Too many night. Walking to the toilets in the dark is just not safe. products are self-purchased and approximately ZAR 43
people use the same toilets. If I use the torch on my mobile phone it will attract the (USD 3) is spent per month.
thieves. I am very fearful I will get raped. For chemical toilets, caretakers are responsible for cleaning the
3. Households supplement cleaning – once or twice toilets seats, floors and walls whilst a designated service team is
a week with detergents (Madubula, Handy Andy). responsible for managing and clearing waste tanks.
20 21Caretakers: a key player to involve to improve the situation in community toilets.
Whether chemical or flush toilets, caretakers (volunteers and government-paid cleaners) share the same characteristics.
4. SANITATION PRACTICES
CARETAKER PROFILE
ZOOM - UNIMPROVED SANITATION
Females under the age of 40 years old Unimproved sanitation, particularly the use
Gender
of buckets and portable flush toilets (known
Limited education but often equipped with
some cleaning experience as ‘porta-potties’), is common in the low-
Experience
income settlements in South Africa.
Not despised by the community nor do they
suffer from social stigma Porta-potties were distributed and cleaned
Issues Challenges include malodor and unhygienic by Cape Town municipality to low-income
conditions households to provide safe sanitation at
Government cleaners are remunerated by private
night. They are no longer given as many
outsourced companies and are motivated by the residents and civil rights groups deem them
income, although low. Most receive between undignified.
Income ZAR 1500 and ZAR 2500 (USD 102 to USD173) Most caretakers are employed by private companies who have City of Cape Town uses a private company for porta-pottie cleaning
per month (min. wage is ZAR 3500) successfully tendered for government sanitation contracts. Caretakers and this still continues for porta-potties in circulation. However, the
are women looking for additional income to support their families. technology and subsequent cleaning service is being phased out.
Main reasons why unimproved sanitation can be preferred to community toilets
Key factors contributing to unmotivated and Best practice observed in Johannesburg
The primary reason for unimproved practices in the low-income settlements visited is safety concerns. Hence, the practice
uncommitted caretakers. engaging caretakets from the community. is predominantly undertaken at night. Malodor and lack of cleanliness in community toilets are not first drivers for
Perceived value: The job is valued due to the income Recently, some private organizations have recruited unimproved sanitation. Unimproved sanitation is considered as more convenient in Cape Town.
it provides but it is not viewed as a more valuable/ local caretakers with the help of community leaders.
aspirational than any other job. This approach has increased community ownership and
accountability allowing for: Cape Town Johannesburg Most buckets are self- purchased
Type of work: Caretakers would prefer to undertake
different activities and do not like cleaning the toilets • Improved toilet conditions due to increased caretaker and are stored outside the home
Safer 77% Safer 44%
due to difficult working conditions. accountability to users who are family, friends and when not in use, hence malodor
neighbors. concerns are limited.
Staff tenure: Short term contracts (6 months max.) and/or
ambiguous contracts result in job insecurity. • Better working conditions for caretakers as there is less More convenient* 70% Less dirty 28% Although most discard their fecal
disrespect from users and reduced safety concerns. waste in the community toilets,
Employee turnover: High employee turnover results and a few households discard their
in limited skills development and the lack of fostering • Amicable company-community relations as company Less distance 38% Less waiting time 23% waste in open areas and thus,
community relationships. contributes to local employment. contribute to open defecation.
SO WHAT? * “more convenient” refers to the time saving, ability to use in bad weather, etc.
How to read the chart: In the low-income settlements targeted, 77% of those using unimproved sanitation prefer the practice to community
Malodor solutions, associated with improved cleanliness, could be a lever for behavior change. toilets because it is safer. In Johannesburg, 44% àf those using unimproved sanitation prefer the practice to community toilets because it is safer.
Community toilets are a common practice but many have a bad experience. Malodor and lack of cleanliness,
are primarily responsible for such bad experiences and are identified as key barriers. Hence, using malodor
counteractant technology to reduce these issues in community toilets could contribute to improving the user
experience. SO WHAT?
A key success condition: employing local caretakers from the community. Solving the malodor issue in community toilets will have a limited impact in shifting unimproved
Caretakers are key players to engage to improve community toilet conditions. Public-private models should pay sanitation behaviors. Unimproved sanitation would continue to occur despite clean community toilet conditions
attention to employing caretakers from the community to ensure community support and reduced toilet mis- as they are primarily used for safety reasons at night. Malodor and lack of cleanliness in community toilets,
usage. Additional levers that can motivate caretakers include social incentives such as, health insurance and although a complaint of some, is not the most important factor for undertaking unimproved sanitation practices.
support for their children’s education.
22 234. SANITATION PRACTICES
ZOOM - OPEN DEFECATION
Despite being perceived as shameful and
dirty, open defecation is still practice in some
areas where safe sanitation accessibility is
insufficient.
Share of respondents practicing open defecation on a
regular basis (can be complementary to other practices)
Cape Town 19%
Johannesburg 13%
Common features of open defecation
• Occurs in large open areas on the periphery of
settlements, such as, open fields, river banks, etc.
• Open defecation occurs mostly at night, when walking
to the community toilet may not be safe or or early
morning, when waiting time at the community toilet is
too high.
• Open defecation is not gender specific but is primarily
done by poorer uneducated individuals between the Newcomers to the settlement indicate they lack access to
ages of 26 and 40. community toilets and/or are excluded from shared toilets, as they
are unknown to households. Subsequently, newcomers are driven to
• Open defecators often go to open areas alone as not practice open defecation. 3 questions to an open defecator What do you think about open defecation?
to be seen by others.
Simon, male, 23 years old, lives alone, Langa, Cape Town I do not like going in the open. I am embarrassed.
Open defecation is for the poor and uneducated people
Why do you open defecate? – not young men working in the city.
Main reasons why open defecation can be preferred to community toilets I prefer to go open defecate as I do not have access to What measures could make you stop open
a shared toilet and I cannot get to the community defecating?
Open defecation can be triggered by inadequate access to clean and safe community toilets. toilets easily. They are quite far away from my home.
I need to be able to access a clean and safe toilet.
It is much more convenient to go in the open area close
The government needs to provide more toilets to the
to my home. This way I do not have to approach other
community. Not all of us can access these and if we do
households who have a shared toilet as this can cause
Cape Town Johannesburg so many people use the same toilet that the smell is
tensions.
terrible.
Less dirty 39% Less waiting time 36%
More convenient* 36% Less dirty 29%
SO WHAT?
Improved community toilet condition would have a direct impact on open defecation if
Smells better 32% Smells better 20%
accessibility is solved.
Unclean and foul-smelling community toilets are a direct trigger for open defecation. Strategies to combat unsafe
practices must include mechanisms to improve the condition and subsequent user-experience in community toilets.
* convenient refers to the accessibility (no locks), time saving, proximity to homes, no need to clean, etc.
However, accessibility is the key issue that must also be addressed. Restricted usage, far distance, long waiting
How to read the chart: In the low-income settlements targeted, 39% of open defecators prefer open defecation to community toilets because times and subsequent queuing forces people to find alternate sanitation options.
the practice is perceived as less dirty, followed by open defecation areas being more convenient (36%) and smelling better (32%) than
community toilets.
24 255. IMPACT OF MALODOR COUNTERACTANT
TECHNOLOGY ON BEHAVIOR CHANGE
To what extent can the use of malodor counteractant products encourage people
to adopt safer sanitation behaviors and move up the sanitation ladder?
Methodology
Before/ after tests were run in each city to assess the potential of odor and cleanliness as levers for behavior change:
when toilets are clean and do not smell bad, can it encourage people to use them more often?
TEST TARGET DAY 1 INTERVENTION DAY 2
Test 1 People without In-house interview Cleaning & installation of pads Visit of the treated toilet and interview
access to a Sanitation practices in community toilets: Perception of toilets & potential impact
private facility & perception of the on behavior change
Professional cleaning team
closest community & installation of 12-15 pads in For open defecators: Willingness to use
(Cape Town and
toilets each facility for at least 12 hours community toilets in such conditions
Johannesburg)
prior to follow-up interview For existing users: Willingness to start
paying to use toilets in such conditions
In-toilet interview
Test 2 People with Installation of pads in shared
In-house interview toilets: Perception of toilet odor & potential
access to a
Sanitation practices & impact on behavior change
private facility
perception of shared Single pad installed for 24 hours, Users: Willingness to buy such product
(Johannesburg toilets households asked to use their for their toilet
only) shared toilet over this period
Non-users: Willingness to start using
their toilet more often
For these tests, air freshener pads developed by Firmenich, with support from the Gates foundation, were used. These pads contain a
unique technology that blocks malodor and releases a pleasant fragrance instead. For the tests, the fragrance used was jasmine, and
dosages were fine-tuned in close collaboration with Firmenich R&D teams.
Expected behavior change at each step of the sanitation ladder
SHARED TOILETS
COMMUNITY TOILETS
OPEN DEFECATION
1. Encourage non-users to start using their
shared toilets.
Improve user experience in community toilets
2. Improve user experience for those already
to encourage better behavior and assess
Encourage open defecators to start using using their toilets and assess willingness to
willingness to pay for improved conditions.
community toilets. pay for malodor products.
NB: No specific test for unimproved practices was conducted as the lever here is more about safety at night. Lack of cleanliness and malodor
are not key drivers for such practices.
26 275. IMPACT ON BEHAVIOR CHANGE 5. IMPACT ON BEHAVIOR CHANGE
KEY RESULTS - OPEN DEFECATION KEY RESULTS - COMMUNITY TOILETS
To what extent can the use of malodor counteractant products encourage To what extent can the use of malodor counteractant products improve community
open defecators to start using community toilets? toilet users experience and increase their willingness to pay?
Share of respondents practicing open defecators who could start using the community toilets if they were in good condition Share of respondents without access to private facility who find the pad effective in improving the smell of the community toilets
(cleanliness and smell)
Has to be provided with other improvements: Cape Town 99%
Cape Town 57% • Safety at night
Johannesburg 97%
Johannesburg 17% • Reduced waiting time and availability,
especially in Johannesburg
Share of respondents using community toilets who could start paying to access toilets in good conditions (cleanliness
and smell)
The increased willingness to shift behaviors in Cape Town compared to Johannesburg is due to different primary open
defecation triggers. In Johannesburg, accessibility concerns, particularly amongst newcomers, is key and thus, improved 27% Has to be provided with other improvements:
Cape Town
conditions will unlikely shift practices. In contrast, factors associated with community toilet conditions drives open • Reduced waiting time
defecation in Cape Town and subsequently if toilet conditions are improved, there is more potential for behavior change. Johannesburg 29%
• Safety, especially at night
SO WHAT? Although the willingness to pay for improved conditions is lower than in other locations studied (up to 78% in India and
71% in Kenya), given that users do not pay anything today, this willingness to pay is quite substantial.
If safety and accessibility challenges are solved, addressing malodor can be a last mile improvement.
Improving community toilet conditions (cleanliness and smell) could encourage open defecators to change their Caretakers’ perceptions and preferences Malodor conteractant product preferences
behavior and adopt safer behaviors, particularly in Cape Town. Across both cities, the majority of caretakers are SCENT:
However, it cannot be sufficient given that accessibility difficulties (e.g. inadequate number of toilets, license to use interested in having specific products that target malodor • Caretakers prefer fruity/floral fragrances (up to 68%);
toilets amongst newcomers and far distances) are the major trigger for open defecation and must also be addressed. (90% of caretakers interviewed in Cape Town and 95% of current malodor strategies rely on bleach/disinfectant
caretakers in Johannesburg). and thus these ‘chemical’ smells are also appreciated.
However, most are not willing to purchase these FORMULATIONS
products themselves as it is thought that their managing
organizations should provide such products. • Caretakers are interested in 2-in-1 product (85% of in
Cape Town) that addresses both cleaning and malodor.
Those willing to purchase malodor counteractant Some caretakers also like air-freshener pad (74% in
products themselves are ready to spend up to ZAR 20 Johannesburg).
(up to USD 1.40) per month.
FORMAT
• Liquid or powder that requires minimal use of water,
and delivered in large quantities to limit reliance
on managing organizations. Colored and/or foaming
products are preferred.
SO WHAT?
Malodor products could have an impact on improving user experience in community toilets and
pad’s effect was appreciated by respondents.
Serving community toilets requires a B2B strategy with managing organizations. Caretakers are interested in
malodor products but their willingness to purchase is low. Managing organizations should be the preferred
partner in providing product for community toilets. Malodor product formulation preferences differ across cities
but the compatibility with chemical toilet chemistry is imperative for many community toilets in this settlements.
Open defecation is partly triggered by unclean and bad-smelling community toilets. If conditions and accessibility improve, open defecation
could be reduced.
28 29You can also read
