Table 4.8 WaSH exchanges observed in Bobonaro Municipality (sanitation facilities) Exchange archetype Descriptions of WaSH Non Culturally Data exchange determined SANITATION FACILITIES Toilets shared between Y Most of households (84.5%, n=295) households reported that they used their own toilet to defecate while 3.7% (n=13) and 0.9% (n=3) reported that they used neighbour’s toilet and shared toilet. toilet uses ceramic squat pan. “The When the CVTL came, they did not give the toilet pan (just other materials). So he borrowed the toilet pan from another neighbour. They have been using it until now” (Badain002, Cailaco). Donations or subsidies Y Y 6.1% (n=18) reported NGO as the one of toilet infrastructure who paid for the construction including the installation of toilet Some of them also reported that the materials were delivered by NGO (2.4%, n=7). who supported us with 2 sheets “CVTL of zinc, 2 sacks of cement, and 4 iron bars for building this toilet. We bought the other materials in Maliana, Bangun Jaya” (Umakain002, Cailaco). the materials for this toilet, the “For palm leaves were arranged by me meanwhile cement, wood and the zinc were given by CVTL” (Umakain007, Cailaco). When asked about those who constructed the toilet, 72.9% (n=215) reported that it was the household, and 14.9% (n=44) reported that it was the family and 9.5% (n=28) reported that it was mason who were responsible to build their toilet, whilst 1.7% (n=5) reported that it was NGO who constructed the toilet. Purchasing materials Y All of suppliers (100%, n=13) reported for toilet construction the main customers buying products and materials was households. When asked where their customers came from, 84.6% (n=11) reported that their customers came from the same post administrative post as their store located, whilst 15.4% mentioned that their customers were also from other post administrative post. bought the other materials in “…..We Maliana, Bangun Jaya” (Umakain002, Cailaco).
Table 4.8 WaSH exchanges observed in Bobonaro Municipality (sanitation facilities) Descriptions of WaSH exchange Exchange archetype Data Non Culturally determined SANITATION FACILITIES Toilets shared between households Y Most of households (84.5%, n=295) reported that they used their own toilet to defecate while 3.7% (n=13) and 0.9% (n=3) reported that they used neighbour’s toilet and shared toilet. “The toilet uses ceramic squat pan. When the CVTL came, they did not give the toilet pan (just other materials). So he borrowed the toilet pan from another neighbour. They have been using it until now” (Badain002, Cailaco). Donations or subsidies of toilet infrastructure including the installation of toilet Y Y 6.1% (n=18) reported NGO as the one who paid for the construction Some of them also reported that the materials were delivered by NGO (2.4%, n=7). “CVTL who supported us with 2 sheets of zinc, 2 sacks of cement, and 4 iron bars for building this toilet. We bought the other materials in Maliana, Bangun Jaya” (Umakain002, Cailaco). “For the materials for this toilet, the palm leaves were arranged by me meanwhile cement, wood and the zinc were given by CVTL” (Umakain007, Cailaco). When asked about those who constructed the toilet, 72.9% (n=215) reported that it was the household, and 14.9% (n=44) reported that it was the family and 9.5% (n=28) reported that it was mason who were responsible to build their toilet, whilst 1.7% (n=5) reported that it was NGO who constructed the toilet. Purchasing materials for toilet construction Y All of suppliers (100%, n=13) reported the main customers buying products and materials was households. When asked where their customers came from, 84.6% (n=11) reported that their customers came from the same post administrative post as their store located, whilst 15.4% mentioned that their customers were also from other post administrative post. “…..We bought the other materials in Maliana, Bangun Jaya” (Umakain002, Cailaco).