viability doc v12 - hci.stanford.edu
TRANSCRIPT
Take Taka: A Viability Assessment
Kibera, Nairobi, Kenya
Davis Albohm, Jess Auerbach, Stephen van Helden, Zach Weiner 30 May 2011
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3 Brief Context 4 Introduction to Our Idea 4
Fig 1: Paper Prototype 6 Fig 2: Oxfam model toilet 6 Fig 3: Joshu Letu 7 Fig 4: Tosha 8
Outline of Solution 8 Cost of Solutions 9 Skills Required 10 Customer Acquisition 11 Organization 12 Government Regulation 13 Other Sanitation Options 13 Other Stakeholders 15 Potential Challenges 15 Next Steps -‐ Moving Forward 16 Conclusion 16 Acknowledgements 16 Appendices 18 A: Paper prototype B: Prototype Testing C: Pilot Test timeline D: Pilot Test Guide E: Children’s Education Story: Kenneth and the Men in Yellow Shirts F: Financials
3
Executive Summary In Kibera – a large and poorly resourced suburb of Nairobi, Kenya -‐ there is only one functioning toilet for every 2,000 people. There are no public sewage systems and public latrines serve a tiny percentage of the population. As a result, the majority of the population resorts to the use of ‘flying toilets’ – feces in plastic bags -‐ which creates unhygienic and unsafe conditions for Kibera’s residents. This points to an increasing and urgent need for cost-‐effective and sustainable solutions of hygienic human waste disposal. A number of sanitation initiatives and organizations exist in Kibera, but most of them only partially address the needs of the users. Needfinding as per Stanford’s d-‐school methodology revealed that the most significant family and community needs relating to sanitation are: convenience for all family members, safety, accessibility during day and night hours, hygiene, privacy and sustainability. As a solution, we propose “Take Taka” (taka is Kiswahili for “waste”), a linked system including a bucket toilet in the homes of residents of Kibera and a daily pickup service. Each family/housing unit is allocated two-‐bucket toilets. One bucket is collected each day by a team of two individuals using rickshaw carts and their own labor. These individuals take the buckets to nearby bio-‐digesters to be emptied, cleaned, and return them the next day (alternating out with the second bucket). Bio-‐digesters are sewage treatment plants that convert human waste into biogas, which can be used for cooking and electricity. The monthly service rate of KES 200 per household was determined by testing varying price models with 30 residents in Kibera. “Take taka” will be a non-‐profit organization, which will serve a consulting and advising function for community group-‐operated waste removal systems. It will operate primarily through a partnership with the Umande Trust – an NGO focused on water and sanitation in Kibera with whom we have established a strong relationship. It will facilitate the creation of partnerships with existing community organizations already running the bio-‐centers, and will entail the development of new partnerships as we expand. We will realize revenues that match our costs, and believe that this sustainable operation will allow us to raise the upfront capital required (for infrastructure), from philanthropic sources. Our plan for scaling will first focus on a small 30-‐day proof of concept test utilizing the existing capacity of an underutilized bio-‐center in Kibera planned for fall 2011. Once we have garnered support, we will identify zones of need (based on defined criteria around existing alternatives, community buy-‐in and safety concerns). We will then seek grant funding of approximately $30,000. With this, we can build one bio-‐digester to gauge viability at a small scale. We plan to raise an additional capital to build 15 bio-‐digesters once necessary adjustments and adaptations are implemented based on the initial rollout.
4
The “Take taka” system is intended to bring several benefits to families and community: provide convenient and safe in-‐house toilet solution, create new jobs and decrease the use of flying toilets and improve citizen safety and hygiene in the local environment. If our model is proved in Kibera it could potentially be replicated in underserved settlements around the world. “Our children may learn about the heroes of the past. Our task is to make ourselves the
architects of the future” – Jomo Kenyatta, first President of Kenya, 1 Brief context The East African state of Kenya achieved independence from British colonial rule in 1963 under the leadership of Jomo Kenyatta. It is now an important player both regionally and internationally, yet still faces tremendous challenges in meeting the basic needs of many of its citizens. Sanitation is a critical issue, and in Kibera – a large suburb of Kenya’s capital city Nairobi -‐ there is only one functioning toilet for every 2,000 people. There are no public sewage systems, and public latrines serve a tiny percentage of the population in the form of pit latrines that require regular and expensive upkeep and are often poorly maintained. As a result, the majority of the population resorts to the use of ‘flying toilets’ – packets of human waste tossed onto the street. The streets are full of the remnants of these packages, and the stench permeates most areas of the densely packed urban enclave. There is an increasing need for cost-‐effective solutions, especially if areas such as Kibera are to continue to develop productive labor forces and micro-‐economies. In the course of this design school project we partnered with Kibera-‐based organization Umande Trust. In accordance with their goals, the Millennium Development Goals and Kenya’s Vision 2030 our objective through this assignment is to demonstrate that it could be possible to shift the suburb’s sanitation standards with a simple, low-‐tech intervention. We intend to increase access and availability of hygienic and convenient methods of human waste disposal through the implementation of Take Taka. 2 Introduction to our idea Currently a number of sanitation initiatives and organizations exist in Kibera. Our local partner Umande Trust is an organization that operates several programs to improve sanitation in Kibera. Umande facilitates the construction of community-‐led bio-‐centers, which serve the public as pay toilets and also convert human waste to
5
biogas.1 Umande has proven that bio-‐center public toilets are accepted and utilized by communities if centrally placed, and are viable in Kibera2. Umande also partners with the local branch of Oxfam International, a multifaceted and experienced aid organization that has developed a sturdy, odor-‐free bucket-‐toilet. Residents are testing the bucket in homes now. We have been in touch with them and will be having a series of discussions as soon as their initial pilot test is completed at the end of this month. Whilst many ideas relating to sanitation have been tested in Kibera, there has been no attention given to the necessary systems around waste disposal. Our needfinding suggests that an ecosystem needs to be developed for the bucket solution to effectively contribute to the development of Kibera’s sanitation system. We propose creating a bucket toilet system in the homes of residents of Kibera, which includes a daily pickup service (“Take Taka” – Kiswahili for “take waste”) to transport these buckets by rickshaw cart3 to multiple central bio-‐digesters, where they are emptied, cleaned and returned to each family. We believe that this system meets a number of family and community needs that we will discuss below, and believe that we can do this without exceeding the price-‐point of existing competing services. Simultaneously, our product will be differentiated through its offering of far greater flexibility of use for the customer. [please see appendix A for example of waste removal process prototype]. Our ‘product’ is a linked system whereby each family/housing unit is allocated two-bucket toilets. One-bucket toilet is collected each day by a team of two individuals using rickshaw carts and their own labor. These workers take the buckets to nearby bio-digesters to be emptied, cleaned, and return each family’s own bucket the next day (alternating out with the second bucket). 1 For a description of relevant technology, see Christian Reick and Patrick Onyongo, “Case Study of Sustainable Sanitation Projects: Public Toilet with Biogas Plant and water kiosk Naivasha, Kenya,” Sustainable Sanitation Alliance, 2010. www.susana.org 2 http://www.umande.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=92:promoting-‐bio-‐sanitation&catid=36:what-‐we-‐do&Itemid=233 3 http://hmuraj.org/home/?page_id=90
6
We hope that Oxfam will inform our efforts with testing data currently being compiled and also provide the scale for local manufacturing. Oxfam is already working with Umande Trust, and although our team has not discussed partnership opportunities yet, we believe the organization will be open to working with us. It is important to note that our business model will be adapted from village to village4 depending on the conditions of roads, access to homes and residential density. In some neighborhoods, roads are more difficult to navigate and homes are 4 ‘Village’ is the term used to differentiate different sections of Kibera
Fig 1: Paper prototype designed for field-‐testing. Depicts human waste removal process. (Prototype tested in Kibera May 13-‐14, 2011). For full view, please see Appendix A.
Fig 2: Current model of Oxfam and Umande-‐designed in-‐house bucket toilet
7
further from main thoroughfares. We recognize the need for carts with wide tires and the willingness of employees to carry buckets for some distance. At this early stage, we anticipate full bucket weight of 13 pounds. This calculates the average daily feces and urine production for a family of five and an average weight of five pounds per bucket. Depending on the environment and strength of the worker, two to four buckets can be carried at a time.5 However, the exact hauling ability must be studied in a summer field test. Our pilot location has yet to be confirmed, but we are considering neighborhoods located along a ten-‐minute walking distance circumference of underutilized bio-‐centers such as Tosha 2 or Joshu Letu.
Fig 3: Joshu Letu Bio-‐center
5 Based on calculations from this study: http://www.ams.ac.ir/aim/0034/asl0034.html
8
Fig 4: Tosha2 Bio-‐center 3 Outline of Solution We will create a non-‐profit organization, which will serve a consulting and advising function for community group-‐operated waste removal teams. It will facilitate the creation of partnerships with existing community organizations already running the bio-‐centers, and will entail the development of new partnerships as we expand. The capital is available to develop this infrastructure and we believe the system would be sustainable. In addition, the model could potentially be replicated in slums around the world. We will realize revenues that match our costs, and believe that this sustainable operation will allow us to raise the upfront capital required (for infrastructure), from philanthropic sources. Understanding the scalability and financing of these projects is key. We expect a small bio-‐digester project (used by 500 people per day) to be immediately cash flow positive but we would plan for this small profit to be used by the community organization running the bio-‐center to better the service. Whether this project is then NPV positive or not depends on the discount rate applied to these funds, as well as our organizations contribution to the upfront infrastructure. Broadly speaking, assuming donation of upfront capital for infrastructure, we expect over the life of the project the NPV to be zero, but included in our cost base are a number of job creating salaries. Given this sustainable operation, and the associated benefits for the community in terms of a clean environment and safe ablution facilities, we are optimistic about the scalability and sustainability of this system. Our plan for scaling will focus on a small 30-‐day proof of concept test utilizing the existing capacity of a bio-‐center in Kibera,
9
which we hope to conduct in October and November 2011 (Appendix C). Once we have garnered support, we will identify zones of need (based on defined criteria around existing alternatives, community buy-‐in, safety concerns). We will then seek grant funding of approximately $30,000. With this, we can build one bio-‐digester to gauge viability at a small scale. We plan to raise an additional $200,000 to build 15 bio-‐digesters once necessary adjustments and adaptations are implemented based on the initial rollout. We also plan to acquire a critical mass of customers who will spread the word in the community, and most importantly we expect to decrease the use of flying toilets and improve citizen safety in Kibera. 4 Cost of solution Our major cost is the bio-‐digester infrastructure. This cost totals around $10,000 for a unit that can sustainably process 500 users per day when built from scratch. After modeling the economics of the business case under a number of assumptions (presented in the attached excel spreadsheet), we believe that the solution to this sanitation problem should be addressed by community groups comprising local residents with leadership ability. The economic models we have formulated are not yet compelling enough to attract entrepreneurs, and given the intimate nature of the project it is clear that it will require community support.
The land in Kibera is owned by the Kenyan government and cannot be purchased. Therefore, we will require community support to create a joint venture to acquire land (the same model Umande utilizes to acquire land for bio-‐centers). This runs at a cost of around $10,000 for a 500-‐person facility. Despite the fact that upfront costs are higher for this infrastructure, we estimate that the scale this type of solution provides is lower than the cost of hygienically cleaning out pit latrines and disposing waste in Nairobi’s sewer systems6. It is difficult to obtain information for this comparison, but costs could run at KES 250 per household per month, and are often 6 Currently where pit latrines exist they are frequently full and having them emptied is prohibitively expensive.
Draft financial returns analysis for Take Taka (please see attached spreadsheet)
10
not hygienically cleaned or transported. For a detailed analysis of existing sewage infrastructure and the costs around it see Mariani et al 20117. The wages required for waste collectors, bucket cleaners and bookkeepers/management are substantial costs. This amounts to $2,160 per annum for a facility of this size. The final cost of importance is the fluid pumping required every year to empty the bio-‐digester capacity of non-‐pathogenic fluids ($500 per annum). These calculations are in line with our customer waste pick-‐up service rate of KES 200 per month per household. We determined an accurate price point by testing our prototype and varying price models with 30 residents in Kibera. This summer, we hope to verify this finding by expanding our testing sample and discerning whether people’s actions accurately reflect what they have said. We have also allocated marketing and customer service costs every year, but believe that our proof-‐of-‐concept will speak for itself, and that many of our new users will join based on word-‐of-‐mouth references. Umande Trust relies on word-‐of mouth promotion while opening new bio-‐centers in villages within Kibera. One other notable cost that is not borne by our organization, but is important in customer acquisition, is that of purchasing the buckets. This is facilitated by our organization (and we make some margin on this), but is an extra once-‐off cost borne by households. Currently buckets are being donated in Oxfam’s pilot test project, but based on the results of our field-‐testing, we believe that individually-‐owned buckets are valued, and that households are willing to front this cost. 5 Skills Required There are a number of critical skills required for our project to be successful. We are conducting ongoing meetings with Umande’s Aidah Binale to establish our specific role in managing the following processes and employees, and if we go to Kenya over the summer we will arrange other meetings with potential partners. Construction – we need skilled contractors to install the bio-‐digesters. Component manufacturing – we need a reliable and quality supplier to supply the buckets we use in our program. Transport employees – the employees who will be responsible for doing the work of collection and delivery. These employees need to be reliable and diligent in their work, given the daily nature of our service and the physical requirements of the task at hand. Residents who subscribe to the service must trust employees, since they
7 Mariani, J., Tuten, D., Lipetsky, A., Kosky, B., Baker, B., and F. Dungan Sanitation in Developing Countries: Kibera Slum, Kenya 2011 – available http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rcborden/CE481/Sanitation_Project/Lit%20Review%20Reports/CE480_Final_WolfPack%20Cleaners%20Group%20C.pdf
11
will visit homes every day. We conducted an initial field test to inquire about interest and salary requirements for this position in Kibera. All respondents to our “job posting” claimed that our projected salary of 1,000 KES per week was adequate and there are several individuals interested in the position. Cleaning employees – we are investigating the level of desirability for cleaning waste buckets in Kibera. This test will hopefully occur during the summer of 2011. The crew must have physical capability and willingness to work near human waste. Maintenance – existing maintenance and metalworking skills will be required to maintain the rickshaw carts and repair other equipment, but such artisans already live and work in the surrounds. We purchase the carts from existing manufacturers in the Nairobi area. Given they are transferred to employees as part of our pay package, they are a capital cost, but are not part of the $10,000 for the bio-‐digester (see Appendix F). Management and accounting – we are assuming that the local community organization we partner with will bring some of the necessary business skills by training ambitious youth in business management and accounting given the simple nature of this business model. We will also rely on some of Umande’s experience to allow existing bio-‐center staff to mentor new staff but are conscious that we may need to offer training workshops as part of our pilots and/or launching phase. Our research, primarily conducted through conversations, interviews and literature reviews, suggests that these skills are all readily available in Kibera, and that our partner organization – Umande Trust – will be able to establish competent management practices through entrepreneurship training in the early phases of the project. Beyond this, we may need to bring an experienced organization on board to help with ongoing management (for example Carolina for Kibera) – a large infrastructure of NGOs and government projects already exists in Kibera and we would like to work with these organizations to strengthen our intervention. However, of primary importance will be our work within existing bio-‐center management structures, to utilize existing networks and key learnings regarding construction, management and accounting. 6 Customer Acquisition We have allocated budget to spend on marketing programs as well as customer service initiatives every year. We plan on acquiring customers based primarily on word-‐of-‐mouth, and from concept tests in Kibera. We believe that under-‐used capacity in bio-‐centers can be used to delay new infrastructure construction, and that we can capture substantial share through word-‐of-‐mouth customer satisfaction. We intend to partner with health and education-‐based initiatives (through Umande Trust, the Olympic primary school and others) in order to ensure that the need for improved sanitation is understood at all levels. For example, a story such as those published regularly by East African Educational Publishers could be commissioned and distributed to primary-‐school children in the relevant communities to both
12
ensure that children use the new facilities correctly and to raise general awareness of the project. We have attached one such story (Appendix E), which was very successful when tested with children of an appropriate age in Palo Alto. It would, of course, require translation into Kiswahili. We will also investigate the possibility of utilizing Kibera TV for service promotion.8 7 Organization We have three organizations we believe will interact to make this project a success. The first is the Umande Trust (our local NGO partner). Umande agrees that this is a feasible and highly viable solution and is supportive of our work. We believe that they will be instrumental in this solution’s success. The second organization is Oxfam, who are working with the Umande Trust on optimizing the actual in-‐house toilet. We believe they will be critical manufacturing partners for helping to establish large initial orders and finding and establishing local manufacturing capacity. We intend to work collaboratively with Oxfam to further develop the in-‐house bucket toilet prototype to meet the needs of our service. The third organization is ours – Take Taka. This will be established as a 501c3 non-‐profit organization, which will serve an advising and consulting role in the establishment and management of community-‐group operated pick-‐up systems. This organization will also serve to fundraise for future infrastructure development and unforeseen operating costs. The model below describes partner responsibility in greater detail. 8 http://kiberatv.blogspot.com/
13
8 Government regulation Kenyan NGO law has recently undergone significant revision, and our project would need to operate within the parameters of these regulations. The revision, however, marks an improvement on the status quo and could allow us to operate more flexibly9. As it stands, new infrastructure construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Nairobi City Council. Following standard practice regarding the development of new Umande Trust-‐sponsored bio-‐centers, Umande Trust will assist with the facilitation process for acquiring necessary permits from the city of Nairobi. Employee national tax statutes will not apply to this model, as employees will not be paid more than 10,000 KES in a single paycheck – the threshold for state tax collection. In addition to working directly with government, we also need to focus our diplomatic efforts on the village elders, mayors and other individuals important to the hierarchy and decision-‐making process in Kibera. Without their support it is clear that the project will face extreme challenges; with their support it is much more likely to succeed. 9 Other sanitation options Existing sanitation options are likely the greatest threat to our viability, as residents already make use of many other facilities in the fulfillment of their daily needs. However, we believe that because of the safety advantages of our system, and the fact that it can be used in the privacy of one’s own home, 24 hours a day, users will be encouraged to adopt our system. Our field-‐testing also reveals that mothers prefer this solution compared to the use of pit latrines and bio-‐centers, specifically due to safety and hygiene concerns regarding their children. Many pit latrines are structurally unsound and the walking distances to bio-‐centers and public latrines are often prohibitive for children.
9 See International Centre for Not-‐for-‐Profit Law Country report Kenya 2011 (http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-‐dpadm/unpan044959.pdf) and Rahma Jillo ‘NGO Law Reform in Kenya: Incorporating Best Practices’ International Journal for Not-for-profit Law 11 (4) 2009 pp. 40-‐54
14
Other sanitation options10, which currently exist include:
-‐ Flying toilets: A free but distasteful solution that is commonly used – defecating in packets and throwing them into the street
-‐ Pit-latrines: A relatively expensive solution that is popular with men, but operating pit latrines are rare given the misaligned incentives between landowners and tenants. Often pit latrines exist, but are unusable because they are filled to capacity or structurally unsafe. Emptying the pit latrines is usually the responsibility of tenants and often this becomes prohibitively expensive.
-‐ Bio-centers: Currently serve a few percent of Kibera residents, and although utilized when open, cannot remain open 24 hours a day – creating an accessibility issue, which leaves a number of under-‐served consumers. Needfinding also suggested that these centers experience jams at peak hours when many individuals are trying to use them at the same time.
-‐ PeePoo bags: Developed by a Swedish NGO, these bags11 are more expensive than our system currently, but do have certain convenience benefits. We believe that our system may be simpler at a family level. It is difficult for children to use PeePoo bag due to the accuracy of bodily control they require. From conversations with PeePoo staff, we know that their model is not sustainable at the moment because the cost of producing the bags is significantly higher than the rate they charge per bag in Kibera.
-‐ Saner.gy: These operators are looking at a similar business model of collection, but are focused on their own toilet technology12, which is a lot more complex. They hope to create a much larger bio-‐digester requiring 100,000 people per day to sign a PPA (power purchase agreement) with the government for power production.
While it is true that our system would introduce a new cost for a substantial portion of the population, the need finding and testing demonstrated that people are willing to pay approximately 200 KES for a new service, which will improve their surrounding environment, will reduce negative health effects resulting from an unsanitary neighborhood and allow them to use safely and conveniently relieve themselves inside their house at any time. This includes residents of Kibera who are not currently paying for sanitation options like bio-‐centers or PeePoo bags. While Oxfam is currently developing the bucket toilets in homes, there is no organized waste removal process. As stated, we are establishing a working relationship with Oxfam and have meetings scheduled for the end of the month. We foresee a partnership with Oxfam and Umande as a likely outcome, rather than considering Oxfam as competition.
10 Design Like You Give a Damn, Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises, Metropolis Books, 2006. 11 http://www.peepoople.com/ 12 http://saner.gy/project/
15
Our waste removal system has been observed in similar situations elsewhere, and we believe that it will work in Kibera. Other locations with similar services include Alaska and South Africa. In addition, a similar waste-‐transport system has been used in numerous developing-‐context areas, including the Hutongs of Beijing in the 1980’s, before the area was connected to the central Beijing sewer system. We are still investigating how disposal methods were different, but the bucket and rickshaw system is similar, with residents paying for pickup and disposal. We have closely reviewed the Pee Poo financial infrastructure, and their system relies more heavily on ongoing philanthropic aid than our model. That said, we are conscious of the significant knowledge and learning that this organization has attained and would be open to further work with them in the future. 10 Other stakeholders As discussed earlier, we will need to be in close communication with village elders and other individuals in the socio-‐political hierarchies of Kibera. In addition, we will need neighbors and communities to work together to create “waste-‐free” zones. We could potentially encourage neighborhood blocks to sign-‐up for the service as a group, with the incentive of creating a cleaner and healthier environment for the entire area. This is critical to adoption and retention of customers, as one of our biggest threats comes from customers turning away from our service and reverting to flying toilets because they see little or no value in paying for the service, especially if their neighbors are using flying toilets. 11 Potential challenges As discussed above, one threat is that the only perceived value is in safety-‐of-‐use and ease-‐of-‐use. We must establish the hygienic benefits aspect of our service in our promotion. We also feel that quality of service is critical. We must ensure that buckets are promptly picked up and delivered, and that they are relatively clean and odorless. Lastly, we are considering the threat of water shortages in Kibera. During the bucket-‐cleaning process, water may not always be available. We are analyzing methods of utilizing greywater produced by bio-‐centers for cleaning buckets. First we are investigating the purity of the greywater, and whether or not it can be safely and hygienically used for cleaning purposes. In addition, we are prototyping a scraper tool, which could effectively clean buckets when water is not available.
16
12 Next Steps – Moving Forward Moving forward, our team is willing and interested to carry this project forward. Davis Albohm, Zach Weiner and Jess Auerbach are hoping to travel to Kenya during the remaining months of 2011 to conduct further testing and viability assessments. We established a six-‐month timeline for next steps, which is outlined in Appendix C. 13 Conclusion This viability analysis outlines our group’s strategy for development and implementation of Take Taka. This document will be altered as our testing and research continues and new challenges arise in the coming weeks. In addition, this analysis will be shared and discussed with Umande Trust – and collective feedback will be reflected in future versions. Our group takes seriously the words of Kenya’s first president, Jomo Kenyatta, with which we began: “Our children may learn about the heroes of the past. Our task is to make ourselves the architects of the future.” We believe that people’s growth is informed by their environment, and that in order to build personal, economic and social capacity it is important that all people are able to live in a clean and safe environment. We have no grandiose illusions as to the limitations and challenges of operating in an environment so far removed from our own homes and personal contexts, but we do believe that linking existing infrastructure may well assist in addressing one of Kibera’s most intractable problems: the safe disposal of human waste. 14 Acknowledgements This has been an intensive but enjoyable learning experience and we wish to acknowledge the contributions made by others towards our final result. To Aidah Binale of the Umande Trust, we owe significant gratitude for her willingness to engage us every step of the way. Our coach, Anja Svetina Nabergoj, has been present far beyond the call of duty and has effectively been a fifth member of the team. Dianna Kane helped us at extremely short notice and conducted excellent on-‐the-‐ground tests for us despite facing significant logistical hurdles. Our professors and teaching assistant contributed significantly throughout the project and their insights have been much valued– Josh Cohen, Terry Winograd, Zia Yusuf and Eric Mibuari. Finally, we thank our classmates for their sustained insights and critique throughout the course’s progression.
17
Appendices A: Paper Prototype Tested in Kibera
18
B: Prototype testing in Kibera The data below was collected during a field test visit to Kibera May 13-‐14, 2011. A selection of key learnings from field prototype testing include:
• Adaptation of 250 KES price point based on testing various price points for pick-‐up service in the field
• Majority of women tested in the field favor paying for pick-‐up service compared to carrying buckets themselves
• Service will be designed for morning pick-‐up • There is a desire for bucket ownership. • Alleys in front of houses are inaccessible, service will require 2-‐person pick-‐
up team Raw data: 13 May 2011
1) Opt. A (100/200) • M, 30-‐40 yrs, 5 people in household (1 child) • Likes the bucket toilet idea very much • Sees how it would be very easy for children • Chooses option A but thinks price is too high when he’s doing all the work; he would actually be doing a service to the community for disposing of his waste in this way, so doesn’t see why he is paying • Also likes that he would be the only one responsible for his bucket – no one to blame if any damages occurred to his bucket; also doesn’t want to pay the price of pick-‐up service • Maybe only clean bucket once a week – it depends – but no one would be using it during the day so might be ok • Lives 3 min. from bio-‐center and is a frequent member
2) Opt. A (100/200) • M, 30-‐40 yrs, 7 people in household (5 children) • Lives close to the bio-‐center (50m) so feels that he can carry the bucket on his own • Likes the bucket toilet idea because of all his children at home • Would carry it to the bio-‐center everyday • Frequent member
3) Opt. C* (100/200) • M, 20s, 5 people in household (3 children)
19
• Opt. C is to purchase the bucket and dispose of waste somewhere other than bio-‐center • Doesn’t want to pay monthly fee because they would only use the bucket at night or in emergencies, so don’t plan on needing to empty it very often • Has a pit latrine in their compound so wants to empty bucket there (also, they live 50m from bio-‐center – unclear as to why he was a customer today when he has a pit latrine as well) 4) Opt. A (150/300) • F, 30-‐40 yrs, 5 people in household (3 kids) • Lives 300m from bio-‐center • Chose A because it’s cheaper • Only problem is where to keep it (one-‐room house)
5) Opt. B (150/300) • F, 50+, 4 people in household (3 kids) • She had a good laugh at option B, but chose it anyway because it’s too hard to carry buckets to bio-‐center and too much work to clean (it’s just her and 3 children in house) • 300 would be hard to pay – 200 would be better • would want this collected everyday (kids!) • would need to be home to hand over to collection agent (people would steal if left outside) • mornings preferable • would want HER bucket back
6) Opt. A (150/300) • F, 30-‐40 yrs, 4 people in household (2 kids) • Choose A because doesn’t mind washing it herself • Lives only 5 min from bio-‐center • Would clean buckets daily • Happy to own the bucket permanently so could take it with her if she left Kibera
7) Opt. B (100/200) • F, 20’s, 5 people in household (2 kids) • Too hard to carry bucket to bio-‐center, too far • Would want them to pick up everyday in morning, wait for them to arrive • Any bucket is fine (no names necessary)
8) Opt. B (100/200) • F, 30-‐40 yrs, 6 people in household (2 kids) • Prefer evening pick-‐up, must be at home to give to collector • B is better because no time to go to bio-‐center to wash, too much work • Lives 5 min from bio-‐center
20
• Would have to ask husband but sounds like a good price (for buckets and for service) • Their family could afford this, but most would opt to purchase bucket and empty themselves anywhere (no monthly payment) 9) Opt. C (100/200) • F, 30-‐40 yrs, 10 people in house (6 kids) > woman in picture with eggs/spinach • Loves the bucket toilet but would prefer to dispose of herself wherever she can • Doesn’t always have money, so can’t always pay monthly fee 10) N/A (100/200) • M, 20s, 4 in household (2 kids) • Doesn’t need this at all, has a latrine in his compound • Thinks it’s a very good idea for others
11) Opt. B (150/300) • F, 20s, 4 people in household (2 kids) • Prefers B but can only afford 200 • Pick up daily, in evening • Need to be there to hand over • Would like name on bucket • Stays 5 min from bio-‐center
*C: purchase toilet bucket only (no monthly fee paid to bio-‐center) General Reactions – Day 1: • EVERY person interviewed thinks the toilet bucket is a great idea. They want it now. • NO Men chose option B – this is seen as a luxury. Why pay someone when you can take to the bio-‐center yourself? (though we all know from your background document who really does this work!) • Some people (i.e. men) questioned the monthly fee for opt. A when you are doing the work yourself (either wanted lower cost or more incentives, like including a bio-‐center membership in this cost) • Many women prefer B because they see carrying and cleaning buckets as too much work – and was a clear choice for the one older woman interviewed (though several mentioned needing to talk to their husbands first about this – would be interesting to see if the husbands approve this considering the reactions of the men interviewed) • However, the women who chose Opt. A saw this as reasonable (didn’t question cost like the men did) and as just another part of their daily work • No one would leave bucket outside the house unattended – must be home to hand over to collector • Everyone thinks bucket is a good price (300ksh for 2)
21
• Everyone wanted to know: “How big is it?” 14 May 2011
12) Opt. A (150/300) • F, 30s, women representative of area • Likes cheaper option, doesn’t want to wait for bucket collector • Would wash 2x/week • 100m from bio-‐center • would pay 200ksh per bucket
13) Opt. A (150/300) • F, 20s, 5 in household (2 kids) • Chose option A because of price – would prefer opt. B if it cost only 200ksh • Would take to wash every 2 days.
14) Opt. A (150/300) • M, 40s, 8 people in household (6 kids) • Chose A because of price – would take option B for 200ksh/month • Would pay 200ksh per bucket • Stays 20m from bio-‐center • Would bring to wash everyday • If able to afford delivery service, would want her same bucket back each time • Would use these buckets solely instead of going to bio-‐center 15) Opt. A (150/300) • F, 20s, 5 in household (3 kids) • A is more affordable • Would wash on a daily basis • Would pay 300ksh per bucket • Lives v. close to bio-‐center • Thinks this is a great idea
16) Opt. A (100/200) • F, 50s, 3 in household (1 kid), works at bio-‐center • Chose A because she prefers to empty the bucket herself, as well as the lower cost • She lives “a bit far” from the bio-‐center, but can carry it (she comes to work here everyday) • Would clean every 2 days • Would pay 200 ksh per bucket
17) Opt. B (100/200) • F, 20s, 5 in household (3 kids)
22
• Likes this option because she thinks emptying the bucket herself would be quite hard • Prefers morning pick-‐up, everyday • Would pay 300ksh for 2 buckets • Would use this instead of the bio-‐center • No suggestions/improvements – thinks it’s a very good idea • Lives very close to a bio-‐center
18) Opt. A (100/200) • M, 20s, alone in household • Thought both options are good, but since it’s only himself, he would choose option A • Felt very strongly that this is a great solution to the sanitation problems in Kibera and would help improve the environment • Thought families would be better choosing option B • Sees this as a great complement to the bio-‐center (night solution) since it closes at 9pm and would reduce the number of flying toilets • Took the phone number of my Umande translator so he could be in touch about when these will become available
19) Opt. A (100/200) • F, 20s, 2 in household (0 children) • A is cheaper
20) Opt. A (100/200) • F, 20s, 3 in household (2 kids) • Chose A because she likes to do it herself • Would clean daily • Lives very close to bio-‐center • Would pay 700ksh for 2 buckets
21) Opt. A (150/300) • F, 30s, 3 in household (1 child), works at bio-‐center • Prefers to clean bucket herself, feels it would not be right for someone else to do this for her (“it’s her family”) • Would wash buckets everyday • Would pay 500ksh for 1 • Stays 50m from bio-‐center • Can only provide additional comments after seeing a sample
22) Opt. B (150/300) • F, 30-‐40s, 6 in house (4 kids) • Prefers B because then if a visitor used it, she wouldn’t be the one cleaning it • Requests pick-‐up everyday, in the morning • Would pay 500ksh for 2 • Wants only her bucket returned to her
23
23) Opt. B (150/300) • F, 20s, 4 in house (2 kids) • Doesn’t like the thought of cleaning the bucket herself • Requests daily morning pick-‐up
24) Opt. B (150/300) • F, 20s, 3 in house (0 kids) • Wouldn’t want to clean the bucket herself • 200ksh/month would be a more manageable price • prefers daily morning pick-‐ups • must be home to hand over bucket (won’t leave outside unattended) • would pay 600ksh for 2 • provided you clean your own seat, any bucket is fine
25) Opt. B (150/300) • F, 20s, 5 in house (2 kids) • Self-‐washing would be too hard • Would pay 500ksh for 2 buckets • Evening pick-‐up better • Wants own bucket returned 26) Opt. B (150/300) • M, 50s, 3 in house (0 kids) • Chose this option because he works and is too busy to worry about cleaning the bucket • Requests morning pick-‐up, every 2 days • Would pay 800 for 2 • Wants his own bucket returned
27) Opt. B (100/200) • F, 50s • Washing her own bucket is too hard • Requests evening pick-‐up • Would pay 50ksh for 1 bucket • Wants her own bucket returned 28) Opt. B (100/200) • F, 30s, 10 in house (7 kids) – has extended family staying with her • Requests daily morning pickup • Fine to leave bucket outside for pickup • Would pay 500ksh for 2 • Wants her bucket only • Great option for kids, but for herself, she would still use bio-‐center during the day (“how am I going to use this bucket? I have 10 people in my house (1 room). For kids it’s fine, or for me at night when they are sleeping”)
24
29) Opt. A (100/200) • M, 20s, 3 in house (1 kid) • Feels strongly about Opt. A – people should be responsible for cleaning up after themselves • Says he would clean bucket 2x/day • 7 min walk to bio-‐center • would only use at night or in emergencies – people should use “regular toilets” at bio-‐center during the day • bio-‐center monthly membership should be included with both option A and B; buckets are a nice complement to bio-‐center • would pay 1000ksh for 1 bucket because he can see it’s quality and an important investment in his family’s health
30) Opt. B 150/300 • M, 40s, 5 in house (3 kids) • Would keep bucket outside all the time (doesn’t want it in house) • Prefers morning pick-‐up, everyday would be very good • Would pay 1000ksh if installment payments were possible, or 800ksh upfront for 2 • Lives 100m from bio-‐center • Kids are at school and he is at work, so only his wife would be home during the day to use it – thinks it’s a very good idea
Interview with Umande Staff member piloting the bucket: M, 50-‐60s, father of 8, but only himself staying in the house right now (rest of the family lives near Kisumu) He currently uses the bucket in his house and thinks it is very good. He empties it every 2 days or so by paying 3ksh to dump it in the pit latrine near his home. He would pay 1000ksh for 1 bucket, but would need to do so in installments. Noted that people will need to be provided with special cleaning materials at the bio-‐centers (gloves, brushes, etc). Thinks the monthly fees are fine – people are already pay 100-‐150/month for toliets anyway so this would just replace that. Since he is the only one at home, it’s cheaper for him to pay each time he empties it. Commented that the carts will be a problem because of the inaccessibility of most homes, so suggested 2 staff to do this job. Thinks the water carts would work well – carry 20 20L water jugs at a time, so could probably hold close to 40 buckets. Mornings 7:30-‐10am would be the best time for most people – could do 40 households in each run, then return to bio-‐center to drop dirty buckets and head out again – clean all buckets in the afternoon. Would want his same bucket back, especially since he paid for this upfront. Said you cannot leave buckets outside your house – people will “admire them” and steal them. Everyone wants one like his and his wife and children threaten to take it with them back to the rural area. General Reactions – Day 2: • I didn’t meet anyone who didn’t think this was a great idea
25
• Even though a few people were OK to receive any clean bucket, the majority feel strongly that they should receive only their bucket back. People were not only worried about diseases, but feel that since they paid for the buckets and own them permanently, they should only use theirs (“how do we know how other people are taking care of them?”). I would say that a labeled bucket system is essential for the delivery model. • Just from getting a better sense of the area, it seems that a majority of households will not be accessible by cart. Therefore, 2 delivery people will be needed for the service – one to remain with the cart on the road and the other to go to the houses to collect the buckets • Men seemed willing to pay more for the buckets than women (perhaps this is because they are more likely to be working and in charge of family finances?) • People are generally split between feeling like only they should be doing this work for their family (Opt.A) and feeling like washing the buckets would be just too much work for them to do (Opt. B). • Many people responded (without being prompted) that 300ksh/month for Opt. B is quite high -‐ they would be much more likely to sign up for Opt. B (and stick with it) if it were 200/month. • Since the buckets and service constitute an investment and an ongoing cost, it seems that most people would stop using the bio-‐centers (they wouldn’t be able to afford this new service and the bio-‐centers). However, some expressed a preference for continuing to use the bio-‐centers during the day and buckets only at night – they see the buckets as a nice complement but not a replacement for “real” toilets (noting difficulty of finding privacy at home during the day). Offering a bundled package (perhaps for a slightly higher price) to include a bio-‐center membership might be an attractive option to some, and may also encourage people to keep dumping the buckets at the bio-‐center rather than possibly defaulting on their payments or dumping in the trenches due to ease. This would especially make Opt. A feel like a higher value service for the cost. > Has Umande expressed any concern that these buckets would drive customers away from the bio-‐centers? I thought this might be another incentive to provide some kind of bundled cost for membership and bucket emptying privileges. • Though I didn’t do the math, my general sense is that people would be willing to pay 500-‐600ksh for 2 buckets. The mention of 1000ksh made most women gasp, though as I mentioned above, men were willing to pay a higher price. Several suggested the option of a payment plan if the buckets were to be 1000ksh, but that this wouldn’t be necessary if they cost 800 or less.
26
C - Pilot testing timeline
D – Pilot test guide Our system will be tested on 50 families comprising a cross-‐section of Kiberan residents. They will be selected by the management committee of one of the existing but underperforming bio-‐center, which Umande will help us to identify appropriate families. For the initial test we hope to target families living in a specific neighborhood, to see if we can gain traction for our “waste free neighborhood zone” idea. These families will be located within an approximately 10 minute walk from the bio-‐center. Our primary partnership will be with the management committee of the bio-‐centers in each specific locale and with Umande more broadly. We hope to establish a partnership with Oxfam, but as yet we are unable to confirm whether this will be possible. We have made numerous contacts with individuals working within the sanitation sector and depending on on-‐the-‐ground needs may link up with them. Our intention for continuing the project would comprise the following steps:
27
1) whilst Aidah, we will discuss our large viability questions with her. We will find out what she thinks would actually work and why, and what major risks she herself identifies.
2) Three group members go to Kibera over the summer. Whilst there they identify the specific bio-‐center site and engage local committees
3) They also meet with Oxfam, identify local bucket manufacturers, a cart and individuals willing to work as cart-‐pullers in the initial stages of the project
4) Buckets are manufactured from September – November 5) October/November two group members visit the site and begin to test the
system. This test two weeks and includes the training of Umande and other staff. Test comprises providing families with buckets and working on collection and cleanout service.
6) It is anticipated that at least one more trial will need to take place, ideally in Jan/Feb
7) Depending on results, buckets could roll out as early as spring 2012.
E: Child’s education story: Sanitation story for kids Kenneth and the Men in Yellow Shirts (Jess Auerbach) Once upon a time there was a small boy named Kenneth. Kenneth was five and lived in a house in Kibera with his grandmother, his sister and three cousins. They were not a very rich family and sometimes his grandmother struggled to give them all enough to eat, but Kenneth was still a very happy boy. He played with his friends around Kibera and he dreamed of the days when he would begin to attend primary school. There was one thing that made Kenneth’s life a little bit uncomfortable, though, and that thing was what he and his friends spoke about in horrified whispers as ‘poo bombs’. In Kibera, there was a big problem, and that problem came from there not being enough toilets! What do you do when there are not enough toilets?! You make poo-bombs. In Kibera, the poo-bombs were called ‘flying toilets’ by the older people. Flying toilets were made when people pooed into packets, tied them tied and threw them into the air. They could land anywhere though, and that is why Kenneth thought ‘bomb’ was a much better way of describing it. He and is friends would be running through the street with a ball, or sitting talking near a neighbor and suddenly, out of the air a poo bomb would come whizzing and land, splat, either on or near them. Of course, the smell was not very good, and Kenneth knew that poo bombs could make him sick. Sometimes when they landed on the ground he would not see them in time, and step on them. Kenneth did not own a pair of shoes yet (only children who went to school were old enough for shoes!) and so he knew the texture of poo in his toes, and he did not like it.
28
Kenneth’s grandmother sighed and sighed about the flying toilet bombs. “Kenneth” she would say “what are we to do in this place? It is so dirty and the smell is not very good”. Kenneth would watch her carefully, but he did not know what to say. How could you change the habits of a whole community, he thought? But he was only five so he quickly lost interest and ran off to play again with his friends, while his grandmother sighed again and grumbled under her breath. One day Kenneth came back from playing with his friends to find his grandmother standing in their house looking at two strangely shaped buckets that he had never seen before. “What is this, grandmother?” he asked her. “Kenneth” she replied, “I think this will help us to lessen the number of those flying bombs you hate so much”. Kenneth’s grandmother showed him the strange buckets. “Look!” she said “it is a toilet that we can keep inside”. These buckets were indeed no ordinary buckets – instead of a normal lid there was a seat with a hole in it, that a person could sit on and make all the bombs that he or she wanted to without even leaving the house! Then, his grandmother explained, the each day one bucket would be picked up by the “delivery men” who he would know because they would wear yellow shirts. She told him that they would come every day to fetch the bucket and bring the clean one to replace it. She told Kenneth that maybe, if everybody used the bucket carefully and treated the delivery men with kindness, the number of ‘bombs’ between his toes would go down. Kenneth was very excited and ran quickly to his friend’s house to tell him. His friend had also got the strange new buckets in his house, and they were all enthusiastic to try one. Kenneth’s friend had two teenage sisters, and they were especially pleased because they had sometimes had to leave the house at night to go to the toilet in the past, and they had been very frightened. Every day the delivery men came in their yellow shirts. They took away the full buckets and cleaned them, and brought them back the next day, so the family always had one bucket to use and one bucket that was being washed. The delivery men were very kind, and knew everybody in the community. Sometimes Kenneth would walk with them on their routes, because the buckets did not smell bad and the men were full of funny stories and everybody liked them. By the time Kenneth grew old enough to be ready for shoes for school, there were very few poo bombs in Kibera. He and his friends would think back to the time as if it were in another century, where the streets were full of human waste, and tell each other stories of stepping in poo that grew wilder with every telling. Sometimes his grandmother would look at him and sigh, and grumble to herself about the wild imaginations of the youth. They all looked after the buckets very carefully though, because Kenneth’s grandmother was wise and remembered how things used to be in Kibera. She still hoped the government would give the village running water, but until then, at least the buckets kept the neighborhood a little more tidy. F: Financials – please see attached spreadsheet