Chapter 3. Sanitation projects in the eThekwini Municipality
3.3. Research conducted in the eThekwini Municipality
3.3.3. Socio-cultural aspects of the eThekwini FBS programme
existence of a Sanitation Committee to provide community representation and 90% did not know of an Environmental Health officer in the area.
Roma et al. (2013) conducted a study to determine user perceptions of UDDTs and to assess the condition of these facilities in the eThekwini area. 74 606 UDDTs were recorded as having been constructed in the eThekwini Municipality between the implementation of the UDDT programme in 2003 and the survey, conducted between January and May, 2011. 17 448 households were surveyed, with a random selection process to avoid bias in the choice of surveyed households.
1 468 households had converted their UDDT into flush systems and were not included in the survey results, leaving a balance of 15 983 households. Of these approximately 1 884 had a VIP which was in use as well as the UDDT. Most households reported that they always used the UDDT, with 80%
of users falling into this category. The proportion of unused UDDTs was under 7% overall, while in some areas it was as high as 14%. Urinals were used by 51% of male respondents.
Most households of the 65% who reported emptying the UDDT vault did so themselves rather than employing a contractor. Maharaj (2012) indicated that Inanda residents taking part in focus group discussions were very reluctant to empty the vaults themselves and that they felt that the municipality needed to empty the vaults every two to three months. In the area surveyed, 10 or more people using the toilet may have resulted in this rapid filling rate. The high sand content (Buckley et al., 2008b) may also contribute to rapid filling. Mnguni et al. (2008), in a study to evaluate the health risks of UDDT vault emptying, found users reluctant to help in this task. They found that resident’s fears of health risks were well founded but that these risks could be mitigated with the use of protective equipment and deworming of children. Starkl et al. (2010) found that the health risks were medium to high for both VIPs and UDDTS, based on the exposure of users to coliform bacteria. While the sludge from the UDDTs was less hazardous, emptying by householders increased the health risk.
The major challenge associated with UDDTs was the smell, with doors not closing (and hence a lack of privacy) the second major concern. Poor workmanship in construction and problems with urine pipes were the two other important issues raised by respondents. While the toilets were mostly found to be in working order, the enumerators confirmed the householders’ perception of unpleasant smell.
In spite of the extensive use of the UDDTs, the survey discovered that the majority of the users (70%) were not satisfied with this sanitation system. Only 7% declared themselves very satisfied.
The authors suggested that the sources of this dissatisfaction were poor construction and smell, distance from dwelling and the perception that UDDTs are inferior to flush lavatories. They hypothesised that if users could perceive the benefits of the reuse of waste they would be more accepting of this technology.
Maharaj (2012) confirmed many of the findings of the study by Roma et al. (2013). Residents of Inanda were unhappy with the construction of the facilities and had problems with vandalisation and theft of doors. Flies and smells were a concern for many residents. Many toilets were constructed up to 30m from the dwelling, and this was perceived as problematic for the disabled.
Residents viewed UDDTs as a “punishment” for poorer people. The toilets were seen as unhygienic and hazardous to residents’ health. Eales (2008) advocates decentralised wastewater treatment (DEWATS) as a more viable option to extend sanitation provision in urban areas.
In another study, Starkl et al. (2010) found that satisfaction with UDDTs varied from area to area in eThekwini.
A study by by Kariuki (2008) of the Ohlange Township found that in spite of the provision of waterborne sewerage and piped water, residents were unhappy with the level of service. They felt that the water supplied was insufficient, reconnection fees too high and water outages too frequent.
They complained of frequent blockages in the sewerage system and a slow response from the municipality to repair these. Their perception was that, as poor people, their concerns were unimportant to the municipality. This was in spite of the existence of Community Forums, which many did not attend because they felt that their grievances were not addressed. The author recommended a demand driven approach to sanitation provision. He commented on the absence of personal responsibility among residents for issues such as littered streets with a shifting of blame to the authorities. Working with EWS, Wilson et al. (2008) conducted a participatory study to inform the municipality of residents’ concerns and found that the research process itself is valuable in contributing to dialogue between residents and the municipality.
Sutherland et al. (2014) also argue that the spatially differentiated sanitation provision model adopted by the eThekwini Municipality, which provides waterborne sanitation to urban residents
and on-site sanitation to those on the urban fringe creates dissatisfaction with nearly 50% of the residents surveyed not using their UDDT toilets.
Roma et al. (2013) concluded that addressing issues of user satisfaction is fundamental to the success of the implementation of environmental sanitation. They suggested that education in resource reuse and monitoring of projects would increase sustainability.
From a socio-cultural perspective, Flores et al. (2008) contend that user acceptability is similar for UDDTs and VIPs, while VIPs are more robust and simpler to construct and UDDTs have a higher level of institutional support in the eThekwini area, a longer lifespan and reduced risk of pathogen exposure. They concluded that UDDTs were superior to VIPs on the basis of their performance on sustainability criteria.