table 3.

1 bb

Garbage or refine disposal type shows the number of household which practice a specific
type of garbage/ refine disposal. a majority of the households practice burning of their
garbage/refine, with 36 households. Followed by composting, burying, open dumping, landfill and
garbage collection with 28, 17, 11, 6, and 0 households respectively. From this data, it can be
inferred that a majority of these households aren't aware of the negative impacts of burning
garbage and not only to the environment but to humans as well. as supported by Erisaikawa in
the year 2016 whose studied air pollutions impact on the people's health, burning has an
accumulated negative impact on people's health. While garbage collection, which is most
common method of garbage disposal in developed countries is last. Most likely due to the lack of
adequate government support and environmental , specifically the terrain, which influence the
development of such methods (Hilburn, 2015).

It may also be that these households simply dispose of their garbage in the most
convenient way possible. either case, the table 3 bb supports the need to further emphasize the
need to create changes of behavior and not simply education.

Table 3.12 shows the number of households owning a toilet facility. The most commonly
used toilet facility is a family owned with a number of 45 households followed by a toilet facility
shared with other families with 6 number of households. Public toilet facilities were not used
accounting to zero households.

From this data, it implies that most people preferred to have a family owned toilet facility
because people had to walk along distances just to use a toilet facility (Pokharel &Thapa, 2015).
Other studies discussed that most people question the sanitary condition of a shared toilet
facility. Hence, people can't maintain and assure the cleanliness of the said facility due to the
fact that multiple people with unknown origin or health history frequently use it. ( Hussain &
Mangla, 2014)

Mangla, B. Hussain, R. (2014). Toilet as an asset: Necessity versus luxury. Developing Country
Studies. Retrieved from:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/38562178/Toilet_as_an_Asses_Necessity_ver
sus_Luxury.p df?
AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1481774891&Signature=EFHKOsAxIhlEgaD
rlIG78KurQI A%3D&response-contentdisposition=inline%3B%20filename
%3DDeveloping_Country_Studies_Toilet_as_an.pdf.

Shange, S., Munapo, E., Chikandiwa, C. (2015). Sanitation practices and preferences in
Umgungundlovu, a district of South Africa. Environmental Economics, Volume 6, Issue 4.
Retrieved from:
http://businessperspectives.org/journals_free/ee/2015/ee_2015_04_Shange.pdf

Spencer, M. (2012). Sanitation practices and preferences in Peri-Urban Accra, Ghana. Emory.
Retrieved from: https://etd.library.emory.edu/view/record/pid/emory:brcmg
Practical Action. (2008). Types of toilet and their suitability. Retrieved from:
file:///C:/Users/Bryan/Desktop/types-of- toilet-for-emergencies---reconstruction.pdf

Table 3. 1 shows the majority of the households are using the level 2 type of toilet facility.
Six households uses the level 1 and 10 households uses the level 3 type of toilet facility.

This is an indication that community folks prefer the level 2 type of toilet facility which is
an on-site toilet facilities of the water carriage type with water seal or flushed type with septic
tank disposal facilities. According to Spencer (2012) "80% indicated their preference was a flush
toilet, with 45% desiring personal flush toilets." The system effectively reduces levels of flies,
mosquitoes and odour. The system can incorporate an offset pit and so can be installed inside a
household. The installations are also easy to keep clean