For discussion, not for circulation USAID/Uganda Sanitation for Health (S4H) Task 1.1.1 Develop a National Sanitation Market Strategy In-depth research findings: Household customer segmentation 1 For discussion, not for circulation Acronyms and terms EA Enumeration area FSM Fecal sludge management HH Household IBT Improved (at least basic) toilet JMP UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Programme MBS Market-based sanitation NSMS National Sanitation Market Strategy RHIS Rural Household and Institutional Survey S4H Sanitation for Health Permanent materials1 Construction materials that can maintain their stability for more than 15 years; e.g., concrete, cement screed, tiles, iron sheets Temporary materials1 Construction materials that can maintain their stability for no more than 3 years; e.g., grass, mud, wattle 1. National Population and Housing Census 2014: Analytical Report, Uganda Bureau of Statistics, Government of Uganda, 2017 2 For discussion, not for circulation Definition of toilet types As per the WHO/ UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP), improved toilets are those designed to hygienically separate excreta from human contact. Based on this definition, JMP classifies sanitation facilities into the following types: Toilet type Definition1 Safely managed Improved toilets that are not shared with other households and where excreta are safely disposed of in situ or transported and treated offsite Basic (IBT) Improved toilets that are not shared with other households, but where the excreta from the toilet are not safely managed Limited Improved toilets that are shared between two or more households Unimproved Toilets that are not designed to hygienically separate excreta from human contact.This includes pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines or bucket latrines These definitions are used to measure progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 6.2.1, i.e.,“proportion of population using safely managed sanitation services.” Also, according to the Government of Uganda’s Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2017, the sector has revised its key indicators for sanitation in line with the SDGs.2 Based on these definitions, we have considered improved toilets to be toilets where the pit is fully covered by a slab, and the area around the drop hole is made from durable and cleanable materials such as cement, or where a toilet pan has been installed.These toilets may have onset or offset pits, and may have superstructures made of temporary materials (e.g., mud, wattle) or permanent materials (burnt bricks, cement). 1. Definitions are from the report: Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: 2017 update and SDG baselines. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2017. 2. Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2017, Ministry of Water and Environment – Government of Uganda. 3 For discussion, not for circulation Contents  Overview of customer research  Customer segmentation  Customer segment profiles 4 For discussion, not for circulation Overview | Background  The USAID Uganda Sanitation for Health Activity (S4H) is supporting the Ministry of Health to develop a National Sanitation Market Strategy (NSMS) aimed at increasing access to and use of improved sanitation through market interventions  As part of this process, over the last year, S4H has carried out both secondary and primary research to better understand the current situation of the sanitation market in Uganda, focused on identifying drivers for, and barriers to, the provision of improved sanitation  This involved speaking with experts from the Government, NGOs, and the private sector, and conducting in-depth interviews with households, institutions (schools and health facilities), and actors in the sanitation value chain (e.g., masons, pit diggers, hardware stores, financiers) This document presents the key findings of the in-depth household customer research.We interviewed households covering a diverse range of sanitation contexts from 10 districts of Uganda with the view of understanding their:  Setting, including demographic characteristics (e.g., family size, monthly expenditure) and geographic characteristics (e.g., whether they live in rural or urban areas)  Beliefs and attitudes, including their goals and aspirations, attitudes and perceptions regarding sanitation, awareness of improved sanitation  Sanitation preferences, including current sanitation practices, current products used, desired product features, and willingness to pay for sanitation products  Sanitation buying behavior, including their choice of information sources, materials, and service providers, and the reasons for these choices 5 For discussion, not for circulation Overview | Key concepts Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <4km >4km <4km >4km <1km >1km <1km >1km >1 Km < 1Km Water source Mobile Money usage Piped A (4.1%) B (12.4%) D (6.8%) Tube well/ borehole Yes C (12.3%) E (15.4%) G (2.4%) K (6.7%) No H (10.1%) J (9.6%) Other protected Yes No I (6.8%) Other unprotected Yes F (13.4%) No Customer segmentation is a method of classifying customers into distinct and identifiable groups based on statistically significant differences in their attitudes, beliefs, preferences, and behavior. It helps in identifying customer groups, or segments, that are more likely to exhibit a desired behavior (in this case, constructing IBTs).This allows for more targeted and actionable market strategies and efficient resource allocation. Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation The buying process is a tool that breaks down a customer’s journey towards achieving a desired behavior (typically purchasing and using a specific product or service) into distinct stages, each ending with a key customer decision.At each stage, we study customer behavior to identify key leverage points that increase the chances of purchase and usage, and key drop-off points that act as hindrances; at a later point in the analysis, we will understand the leverage and drop-off points in more depth to arrive at final drivers and barriers. 6 For discussion, not for circulation Overview | High-level approach - - Apr 2018 – Jul 2018 Jul 2018 – Oct 2018 Oct 2018 – Nov 2018 Nov 2018 – Jan 2019 Understand sanitation landscape  Secondary research to understand sanitation indicators, practices, products, and challenges  Immersion field trip to gain customer context Prepare for in depth customer research  List of 100 enumeration areas from 10 districts that cover a range of sanitation contexts  Digitized questionnaire translated in 9 local languages Conduct in depth customer research Key activities Outputs Carry out customer segmentation analysis  11,871 households listed from 99 enumeration areas1  1,185 cleaned up in￾depth household interviews conducted  Hypotheses on barriers and drivers towards purchase of improved sanitation based on 98 qualitative household interviews  Key areas of inquiry for in-depth study  Define research areas in consultation with UBOS  Develop and test quantitative questionnaire  Select and train data collection agency  List all households in research area  Select a sample of listed households for in-depth main interviews  Conduct main interviews with selected sample  Define segmentation parameters  Analyze quantitative data and classify customers into distinct segments  Create detailed profiles of each segment  Customer segmentation map to aid market￾based targeting of potential customers  Customer profiles detailing the attitudes, beliefs, preferences, buying process, and barriers to purchase for each segment 1 . Data could not be collected from 1 of the 100 identified enumeration areas as it was unsafe for the data collectors to work in that area 7 For discussion, not for circulation Overview | Research areas 1 2 3 We conducted in-depth customer research in 99 enumeration areas (EAs), across the 10 districts.The districts were selected to cover a diverse set of sanitation contexts List of research districts Non-S4H districts S4H program districts Legend for district type 1. Measures relative ability of households in a district to pay for construction of sanitation facilities using a composite of UBOS’s poverty indicator, household asset ownership, percentage of households in the district that consume less than two meals a day, and materials used for house construction; 2. Measures relative difficulty faced in accessing materials for construction of sanitation facilities in a district using a composite of average distance from the nearest road, whether the district is difficulty to reach, and whether the district is affected by armed conflict; 3. Measures relative availability of private product and service providers in a district using a composite of average distance from the nearest market selling general merchandise, percentage of households which have at least one member engaged in non-agricultural household based enterprise, and percentage of households with water connections in own yard/ plot/ building 8 - For discussion, not for circulation Overview | Sample size We listed 11,871 households and conducted in-depth quantitative interviews with 1,185 across 99 EAs in 10 districts, through an external research agency1 District Number of EAs Number of households listed Number of in depth interviews Arua 10 1,043 119 Bukomansimbi 10 1,270 119 Buyende 10 1,223 119 Gulu 10 1,223 118 Jinja 10 1,556 119 Kabarole 10 1,101 120 Kibaale 9 1,146 120 Kotido 10 932 114 Mityana 10 1,145 117 Ngora 10 1,232 120 Total 99 11,871 1,185 1. These numbers refer to the useable number of interviews – i.e., after data cleaning to remove for errors made by enumerators and the survey software. 9 Overview | Profile of respondents Our sample closely matches the national population on indicators such as house and asset ownership, access to bank accounts, and sanitation context; however, the percentage of female headed households is slightly higher in our sample Gender distribution House ownership Type of toilet used (% of HHs) 63.3% 69.0% 36.7% 31.0% 72.8% 76.1% 21.4% 5.7% 20.2% 3.7% 15.3% 18.7% 17.9% 20.1% 56.1% 54.6% 10.8% 6.6% Sample Population Sample Population Sample Population Male Female Owned Rented Other IBT Unimproved Limited No toilet Access to bank accounts (% of HHs) TV ownership (% of HHs) Bicycle ownership (% of HHs) 15.8% 18.2% 15.8% 14.7% 33.9% 31.9% Sample Population Sample Population Sample Populaton For discussion, not for circulation 1 . Sample statistics are drawn from the weighted sample (including IBTs), weighted on toilet type and urban/ rural proportions, as well as regional population to ensure national and regional representativeness; the weighted sample is representative of the 97% of the population that we were able to sample 10 For discussion, not for circulation Overview | Respondent type 11 Type of toilet We classified respondents based on the type and age of toilet used and tailored our questionnaire for each respondent type to account for likely variations in their buying process Own an individual household toilet (IHT) Use a shared toilet, or a public toilet, or do not use a toilet HH constructed HH constructed HH considered a toilet less than a toilet more than constructing an IHT 3 years ago 3 years ago in the past Actual buying process Considered buying process Hypothetical buying process Toilet upgrade and usage More recent investment, hence more reliable information about buying process and costs; HHs were asked detailed questions about toilet buying process Older investment, hence less reliable and relevant information on buying process and costs; were asked only about upgrades and post￾installation usage Evaluated options but did not construct an IHT; were asked questions about toilet options considered, the reasons for drop-off, and willingness to pay HH may consider constructing an IHT in the future May consider future IHT construction; hence were asked about toilet options desired, factors that may influence investment, and willingness to pay For discussion, not for circulation Contents  Overview of customer research  Customer segment profiles 12  Customer segmentation For discussion, not for circulation Customer segmentation | Objectives Customer segmentation provides superior insights into customer behavior in order to help deliver greater impact Robust and actionable Accelerated Superior customer insights strategy impact  By dividing the target market into  These insights help in:  Ultimately, the segmentation allows statistically distinct segments that f – for the creation o an NSMS that can Prioritizing which customer differ in their attitudes, beliefs, generate accelerated impact, focused segments to target (and which not preferences, and buying behavior, on prioritized customer segments to target) segmentation provides an ‘information and targeted market interventions, – Designing interventions tailored advantage’ some of which may be led by S4H to the prioritized customer segments – Aligning activities around key leverage points in the customer buying process 13 For discussion, not for circulation Customer segmentation | Underlying principles  Segmentation should allow for prioritization of segments with the highest potential for impact  Segmentation should provide an understanding of the leverage points and the potential activation activities for each prioritized segment  Segmentation should allow for designing interventions based on the specific attitudes, preferences, and behavior of prioritized customer segments Limitations of customer segmentation  The insights contained are grounded in stated, and not demonstrated, customer behavior  The data presented in the segmentation should be used directionally, and should be enriched with qualitative insights  Any planning based on these findings should incorporate insights from initiative partners with on-ground execution presence 14 For discussion, not for circulation Customer segmentation | Approach We followed a three-step approach to segment the target market; i.e., households who do not own an IBT Define segmentation Apply parameters to arrive Create customer profiles for parameters at final segments each segment 1  Identify potential segmentation 5  Select the most appropriate and  Use qualitative and quantitative variables that may influence sanitation executable variables research to develop segment preferences and could potentially 6  Using the selected segmentation profiles that detail the attitudes, predict the largest differences in variables, classify customers into beliefs, preferences, buying process, behaviors between customer groups groups, and combine statistically and barriers to purchase faced by (e.g., family size, distance from similar groups in order to arrive at a customers in each segment markets) final set of segments that are 2  Identify key drivers (attitudes, internally homogenous and preferences, behaviors) that predict externally heterogeneous customer likelihood to engage in the  The goal is to achieve simplicity, desired behavior; i.e., IBT construction without losing meaningfulness 3  Test which segmentation variables are appropriate, in that they demonstrate differences between key drivers of desired behavior 4  Assess which segmentation variables are executable, in that they can be used to actionably identify different segments 15 1 For discussion, not for circulation Customer segmentation | Identify potential segmentation variables We hypothesized variables that may influence the sanitation preferences of households and could potentially predict the largest differences in behaviors between customer groups Household composition Income/ asset ownership Sanitation context Local setting Other variables  Family size  Number of key assets owned  Present toilet type  Urban/ rural setting1  HH has ever taken a loan  Gender of HH head  Typical household expenditure  Prevalence of IBTs in area  Region (as defined by 2014 Census)  Source of HH loan  Average age of HH head  Typical household income  Source of information related to sanitation  Geographical suitability for toilet (flood risk, soil type)  Purpose of HH loan  Education of HH head  Ownership of house  Source of non￾drinking water  Depth of water table  Partial/ seasonal use of toilet  House built in last 5 years  Distance from source of non-drinking water  Level of public facilities (schools, health centers) in EA  Frequency of cleaning  Major alterations/ modifications to house  Distance from nearest main roads  HH head has a bank account  House: permanent vs. temporary materials  Proximity to general markets/ taxi stands  Use mobile money services  Seasonality of income 1. UBOS has divided the country into a number of enumeration areas (EA), each of which is categorized as being either urban or rural; households are considered to be urban or rural on the basis of the EA they live in 16 Customer segmentation | Identify key drivers of desired behavior Appropriateness Tests Executability Tests Hypothesized segmentation variables Key appropriate and executable factors that predict desired behavior, for use in segmentation Aware￾ness Involve￾ment Ability Willing￾ness For discussion, not for circulation 2 We identified four key drivers of propensity to purchase an IBT (awareness, involvement in buying process, ability to pay, and willingness to pay), and designed appropriateness tests to test the hypothesized variables Appropriateness tests help Executability tests help filter identify variables that strongly variables that divide the predict propensity towards the population into easily desired behavior (i.e., identifiable segments, allowing construction of IBTs) for targeted interventions 17 For discussion, not for circulation Customer segmentation | Test appropriateness of segment variables (1/3) 3 We ran the appropriateness tests across all our hypothesized segment variables to identify the variables that are most appropriate in that they demonstrate differences between the key drivers Construction of individual improved household toilets (IBTs) Awareness of benefits linked with improved toilets Involvement in category Ability to pay Willingness to pay General sanitation awareness Perception of increased health and hygiene benefits from toilet  High: Strong agreement with these benefits  Low: Lack of awareness of these benefits Perception of increased non-health benefits from improved toilet features (prestige, convenience, safety)  High: Strong agreement with these benefits  Low: Lack of awareness of these benefits Respondent’s involvement in toilet buying process  High: Considered toilet purchase; definite product preference  Medium: Considered toilet purchase; but indefinite/ partial product preference  Low: Did not consider toilet purchase Respondent’s ability to pay, tested through existing asset ownership  High/ Medium/ Low based on whether respondent has assets equivalent in price to the cost of an IBT Respondent’s willingness to pay for/ propensity to purchase a toilet  Based on stated willingness to pay and education spend 18 Customer segmentation | Test appropriateness of segment variables (2/3) For example, analyzing the ‘urban/ rural’variable shows that urban and rural households have significantly different answers to the questions underlying 4 out of 5 appropriateness tests – urban households tend to have a higher ability to pay than rural households, but are less involved and willing to pay for individual toilets General sanitation awareness 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Average Urban 97% 95% 98% Rural S S S % that agree with increased health/ hygiene benefits Awareness of improved toilet benefits 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 34% 35% 34% % that were strongly aware of the increased benefits of improved features Average Urban Rural High involvement in category 100% % that considered purchase of a toilet with improved features 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Average Urban Rural 60% 64% 49% S S S High ability to purchase 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Urban 26% 38% Average 22% Rural % that own assets worth more than UGX 900,000 S S S For discussion, not for circulation 3 High willingness to pay 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Rural 56% 40% Average Urban 62% % willing to pay UGX 900,000 S = Statistically significant S S S Note: Pairwise t-tests at the 99% confidence level were conducted in order to determine statistically significant differences between groups 19 Customer segmentation | Test appropriateness of segment variables (3/3) General sanitation awareness 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 97% 98% 97% Average Made Did not make modifications modifications % that agree with increased health/ hygiene benefits Awareness of improved toilet benefits 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Made Did not make 59% Average 66% 55% % that were strongly aware of the increased benefits of improved features S S S modifications modifications High involvement in category 100% % that considered purchase of 80% a toilet with improved features 60% 40% 20% 0% Made 61% Average 72% 57% Did not make S S S modifications modifications High ability to purchase 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 26% 24% 31% % that own assets worth more than UGX 900,000 Average Made Did not make modifications modifications High willingness to pay 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 57% 55% 58% % willing to pay UGX 900,000 S = Statistically significant Average Made Did not make modifications modifications For discussion, not for circulation 3 On the other hand, for 3 out of 5 appropriateness tests, there is no significant difference between the answers of customers who made major modifications to their house and those who didn’t make such modifications; therefore, the ‘major modifications’ variable is not an appropriate segmentation variable Note: Pairwise t-tests at the 99% confidence level were conducted in order to determine statistically significant differences between groups 20 Customer segmentation | Test executability of segment variables Identifying appropriate and executable variables Higher than average Appropr iateness Lower than average  Geographic suitability  Toilet type  IBT prevalence  Distance from source of non-drinking water  Assets  Distance from commerce  Water table depth  Bank account  Household head education  House ownership  House permanence  Region  Urban/ rural  Use of mobile money  Source of non-drinking water  Distance from nearest main road  Income  Expenditure  Income seasonality  Major modifications  House built recently  Family size  Household head gender  Loan source  Loan taken  Loan purpose  Source of information  Cleaning frequency  Partial use of toilet  Public facilities  Religion Low Medium High Executability High priority Medium priority For discussion, not for circulation 4 We also assessed the hypothesized segment variables for executability in order to identify the variables that can be used to divide the population into easily identifiable segments. 21 5 For discussion, not for circulation Customer segmentation | Select final segmentation variables (1/2) We then prioritized the variables that had the highest combined appropriateness and executability for use in the segmentation frame Variable Appropriateness Executability Region Regional differences in accessibility, water availability, soil type etc. may lead to differences in sanitation awareness, category involvement, ability and willingness to pay Urban/ rural Households in urban/ rural areas tend to have different affluence levels, access to information, and markets, affecting sanitation awareness, category involvement, willingness and ability to pay Mobile money Those who use mobile money potentially have greater access to financial services, are more aware of new products and services, and have higher ability pay for products Source of non￾drinking water Type of water source (for non-drinking purposes) is a measure of connection to infrastructure and affluence, may predict ability to pay for sanitation, and impacts category involvement and willingness to pay Distance from road Influences access to supply chain actors and construction materials thereby affecting toilet prices and awareness of products.This could impact category involvement, ability to pay, and willingness to pay Water table depth Water table depth can affect potential pit depth and therefore lifespan/ features of the toilet, impacting category involvement and willingness to pay Bank account Level of financial inclusion denotes relative ability and willingness to purchase; also indicates higher awareness Household head education Household head education can denote sanitation awareness levels and household wealth, and can be predictive of category involvement and willingness to pay House ownership Different types of house ownership correspond to relative affluence and ability to pay, as well as involvement and willingness to pay for sanitation House permanence Indicates relative affluence, and therefore ability to pay for sanitation; it is also predictive of category involvement and willingness to pay High priority Medium priority 22 For discussion, not for circulation Customer segmentation | Select final segmentation variables (2/2) 5 From the prioritized variables, a final set of geographic, usage, and financial variables were chosen for use in the segmentation frame  Which region the respondent belongs to — Four regions: Central, Eastern, Northern,Western (as in the 2014 Census)  Whether the respondent is situated in an urban or rural area, as categorized by UBOS  How far away the respondent is from the nearest main road — Six levels, defined as follows - 0 km; 1-3 km; >3-5 km; >5-10 km; >10 km  The respondent’s source of water for non-drinking purposes — 4 statistically meaningful options, defined as follows – piped; tube well/ borehole; other protected sources; other unprotected sources  Whether the respondent uses mobile money Geographic Usage Financial 23 Water source Mobile money Distance from road Urban/ rural Region For discussion, not for circulation Customer segmentation | Segmentation frame | Overview 6 Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km <1km >1km Water source Mobile money usage Piped Tube well/ borehole Yes No Other protected Yes No Other unprotected 24 For discussion, not for circulation Customer segmentation | Segmentation frame | X-axis 6 Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km <1km >1km Water source Mobile money usage Piped Tube well/ borehole Yes No Other protected Yes No Other unprotected Increased urbanization is associated with higher levels of education and wealth, and general awareness. It impacts ability to pay as well as involvement in category, and willingness to pay Regions are economically and demographically different, and these differences in region impact awareness of general sanitation and improved toilet benefits, involvement in category, and ability and willingness to pay Distance from the main road is an indicator of access to information, construction materials, value chain actors, and other facilities; it impacts awareness of improved toilet benefits, involvement in category and ability and willingness to pay 25 For discussion, not for circulation Customer segmentation | Segmentation frame | Y-axis 6 Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km <1km >1km Water source Mobile money usage Piped Tube well/ borehole Yes No Other protected Yes No Other unprotected The type of water source used for non-drinking purposes reflects the level of affluence of a household, ultimately impacting general sanitation awareness, involvement, ability, and willingness to pay Access to mobile money is an indicator of greater financial inclusion and a possible indicator of affluence, influencing ability to pay 26 For discussion, not for circulation Customer segmentation | Segmentation frame | Population distribution 6 Regions Central Eastern Northern Western Total HH (%) Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km <1km >1km Water source Mobile money usage Piped 17.3% Tube well/ Borehole Yes 20.1% No 18.0% Other protected Yes 7.2% No 4.2% Other unprotected 33.2% Total HH (%) 4.1% 12.7% 5.6% 24.6% 6.2% 4.0% 5.4% 16.1% 3.0% 12.7% 5.5% 100% 27 For discussion, not for circulation Customer segmentation | Segmentation frame | Segmentation map 6 Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km >1km <1km Water source Mobile money usage Piped A (4.1%) B (12.4%) D (6.8%) Tube well/ borehole Yes C (12.3%) E (15.4%) G (2.4%) K (6.7%) No H (10.1%) J (9.6%) Other protected Yes No I (6.8%) Other unprotected F (13.4%) 28 Customer segmentation | Segmentation statistics (1/2) % understand health risks of not having a toilet % understanding benefits of improved toilets % with high involvement in category % with high ability to pay for a toilet % with high willingness to pay for a toilet A 100.0% 54.3% 60.5% 36.0% 57.1% B 91.1% 28.8% 39.6% 55.4% 47.3% C 100.0% 50.0% 75.8% 35.9% 55.6% D 97.1% 11.0% 61.9% 17.0% 21.7% E 97.8% 39.1% 70.8% 15.0% 33.0% F 98.1% 40.5% 77.6% 11.5% 20.0% G 100.0% 6.8% 17.0% 31.8% 18.4% H 98.5% 25.0% 39.4% 8.4% 5.9% I 100.0% 34.6% 39.1% 10.8% 11.0% J 96.8% 23.2% 63.5% 30.0% 20.9% K 96.8% 44.8% 76.3% 45.9% 49.2% Top 3 segments indicating higher propensity to purchase, Bottom 3 segments indicating lower propensity to purchase, based on the variable based on the variable 6 For discussion, not for circulation Though most segments consider open defecation to be irresponsible, there is significant variation between segments on other variables that predict propensity to purchase an improved toilet signifying that they are externally heterogeneous Note: Responses to multiple questions were combined in order to develop a definition of each of these categories; these figures do not correspond to any single question Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 29 6 For discussion, not for circulation Customer segmentation | Segmentation statistics (2/2) The 11 customer segments also show significant differences in household characteristics and behavior, asset ownership, as well as in their attitudes and preferences signifying that they are externally heterogeneous % household head % of houses made % of households % of households % of households education over of all permanent who own their that have taken a that considered secondary materials house loan in the past improved features A 42.6% 74.3% 27.4% 28.3% 95.4% B 48.9% 57.2% 39.8% 22.9% 80.3% C 36.4% 43.1% 62.9% 16.9% 52.5% D 14.7% 12.1% 82.4% 32.8% 23.6% E 21.0% 16.0% 79.7% 28.2% 60.1% F 16.4% 7.5% 96.6% 23.5% 48.5% G 19.8% 16.7% 64.1% 23.4% 13.7% H 8.7% 1.5% 97.3% 32.4% 55.3% I 11.6% 3.4% 98.1% 21.5% 30.2% J 13.5% 7.0% 74.5% 31.7% 2.7% K 45.9% 21.9% 67.5% 28.4% 34.3% Top 3 segments indicating higher percentage of households Bottom 3 segments indicating lower percentage of households that exhibit the characteristic that exhibit the characteristic Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 30 For discussion, not for circulation Contents  Overview of customer research  Customer segmentation 31  Customer segment profiles For discussion, not for circulation Customer segment profiles | Overview 33 Draft – For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment A | Customer story Brian lives and works in Jinja with his wife and two young children. He has finished his A-levels a number of years ago, and now works as a shop assistant in the city in order to support his family. They live in a rented room in a tenement near the market center, but Brian is proud that they are able to afford a room made of brick and cement that does not let in the rain. He is happy with his job, but sometimes the shop owner is unable to pay him on time, and he recently worried about how he would afford medication for his wife when she had malaria. Brian knows he is luckier than most in his home village, but feels poorer than many others around him, and would like to own his own brick house. Brian and his family share a toilet with other families in the tenement. He is relatively happy with the toilet as it is made of brick and cement, is easy to clean, and looks good. Until he can construct his own house, he has no intention of changing his toilet. When this time comes, he plans to build his own toilet, as he believes having a toilet is a matter of pride for a family, and it is very important to him that others in his community respect him. He has never constructed a toilet earlier, but would like to build one that is long-lasting and is safe for his family to use. He is willing to pay enough to ensure he can construct a toilet similar to his current one, and will ask the mason or pit digger for guidance on features. However, he feels he will have to save a great deal until he is able to afford such a toilet, as most of what he earns is spent on food, healthcare, and school fees, leaving his family with little-to-no savings.He has never considered taking a loan as he doesn’t feel he will be able to repay it. Customer story Puts the quantitative and qualitative data into a narrative form to give an illustration of how the insights gained are translated into real-life situations 35 Draft – For discussion, not for circulation  Live entirely in urban areas of Central Uganda  Have relatively small families (~4 people)  Tend to live in rented houses made predominantly of permanent materials  Typically have irregular or seasonal incomes and a monthly household expenditure of less than UGX 360,000, which is far below the average of UGX 517,400 for urban Central Uganda  Major expenditure areas are food and education, although health is also among the top three priorities for at least half the segment  The large majority are likely to use mobile money, more so than bank accounts, though the use of both is below the average for urban Uganda  Most own mobile phones and radios, but this is also lower than the average for urban Uganda Segment profiles | Segment A | Customer profile Setting Mental Model  Durability is the top desired feature in a toilet, followed by safety, security, and privacy  Tend to have improved toilets, but share them with others  Their desire for safety and privacy, and a belief that toilet ownership leads to better health/ increased prestige, drives toilet construction  For almost two-thirds, house construction/ alteration is also a key trigger for toilet construction  The vast majority considered improved features when buying their current toilet, and nearly all used or would use a mason  They are largely satisfied with their current toilet, and are less likely to consider upgrading than most segments  The large majority paid or are willing to pay over UGX 600,000 for a toilet, i.e. half the price of a typical IBT Notes: ……  Very strongly desire respect from people in their community  Value products that make their life more convenient, or that are prestigious  Conformity is not particularly important to this group, as more than half disagree or strongly disagree that one shouldn’t do things ‘differently’ from their neighbors  Averse to taking loans due to fear of not being able to repay or losing collateral (nearly three-quarters have never taken a loan)  Place their family’s needs above their own, and strongly associate not having a toilet with irresponsibility – almost no one in the community practices OD  The majority strongly believe having a toilet makes the family proud, more so than other segments do  The main influencers on information about toilets are health workers/ local leaders, or value chain actors – masons or pit diggers The Ask Customer profile Insights into purchase and usage environment, desired experience, beliefs and associations, and purchase behavior 34 Draft – For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment A | Key statistics Demographics Income and education Affluence indicators Segment size % of Population 4.1% # of households 236,917 Attitudes and beliefs2 Behavioral indicators Propensity to purchase Family size (Avg.) 3.85 Gender of HH Head  Male 60.5%  Female 39.5% Tenure status  Owned 27.4%  Rented 68.3%  Free 4.3% Nature of income  Regular 39.9%  Irregular 34.5%  Seasonal 25.6% HH Head education1  No education 6.0%  Up to primary 51.5%  Secondary+ 42.6% Mobile phone 66.9% Bicycle 14.7% Solar light system 14.8% Bed 100.0% Radio 58.9% Bank account1 34.5% Home improvement1 26.7% Strongly believe that OD is irresponsible 60.1% Strongly associate toilets with prestige 63.4% Strong willingness to pay for convenience 60.1% Strong willingness to pay for prestige 48.6% % used a toilet 100.0% % constructed their own toilet1 32.6% % taken a loan in the past 28.3% Top expenditure areas  Health 78.1%  Food 59.9%  Education 58.3% 1. Refers to the proportion of the segment who responded to this question 2. Respondents were asked if they ‘strongly disagreed’, ‘disagreed’, ‘agreed’, or ‘strongly agreed’ to statements related to their attitudes and beliefs. Here only the percentage of those who ‘strongly agreed’ with a statement is reported, but overall ‘agreement’ with the statement may be higher Willing to pay1 UGX 900K 57.1% Willing to pay for upgrade1 UGX 900K 54.4% 1 2 Key statistics Summary overview of key quantitative information regarding the segment, including segment size, demographics, incomes, attitudes and behavioral indicators 36 Draft – For discussion, not for circulation Own labour 0% Contractor Pit digger Mason/ builder Other Engineer 73% 98% 0% 0% 0% Segment profiles | Segment A | Buying process (1/5) 45% Health/ hygiene 49% Rental benefits House construction/ alteration Motivated by health workers/ local leaders Previous toilet filled up Enforcement Observation Prestige/ social standing 18% Convenience Safety/ privacy Other Didn’t respond 16% 57% 0% 14% 6% 0% 59% 67% 0% Origination of need for toilet Mason Family/ friends Advertisements Observation School Pit digger 0% Health workers/ local leaders Material supplier 12% Other Don’t know 12% 33% 0% 64% 91% 76% 0% 0% Sources of information about toilets Channel selection for toilet construction Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Note: Total sample for the listing was 11,871 respondents; total sample for the in-depth main questionnaire was 1,185 respondents 3 4 Buying process Detailed step-by-step analysis of customers’ buying process in the segment. Focus is to identify key reasons for toilet desire, main information sources, favored product options and barriers to purchase 32 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment A Improved limited toilet: 80.2% Unimproved toilet: 18.5% No toilet: 1.3% Segment A households are among the most affluent… Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km >1 Km < 1Km Water source Mobile money usage Piped A (4.1%) B (12.4%) D (6.8%) Tube well/ borehole Yes C (12.3%) E (15.4%) G (2.4%) K (6.7%) No H (10.1%) J (9.6%) Other protected Yes No I (6.8%) Other unprotected F (13.4%) …but share their toilets with others. Let’s understand why 33 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment A | Customer story Brian lives and works in Jinja with his wife and two young children. He has finished his A-levels a number of years ago, and now works as a shop assistant in the city in order to support his family.They live in a rented room in a tenement near the market center, but Brian is proud that they are able to afford a room made of brick and cement that does not let in the rain. He is happy with his job, but sometimes the shop owner is unable to pay him on time, and he recently worried about how he would afford medication for his wife when she had malaria. Brian knows he is luckier than most in his home village, but feels poorer than many others around him, and would like to own his own brick house. Brian and his family share a toilet with other families in the tenement. He is relatively happy with the toilet as it is made of brick and cement, private, and looks good. However, he does not like that he has to share the toilet with so many people, which can make it difficult to keep clean. If he were able to have a toilet only used by his family, he would be very happy with this, but his landlord does not provide this. He does not plan on building his own toilet until he can construct his own house, as he would not wish to invest money in a rented house. He is not sure when this time will come, as few of his neighbors own their houses. He has never constructed a toilet earlier, but would like to build one that is long-lasting and is safe for his family to use. He believes having a toilet is a matter of pride for a family, and it is very important to him that others in his community respect him. If this day were to come, he would be willing to pay enough to ensure he can construct a toilet similar to his current one, and would ask the mason or pit digger for guidance on features. He has not considered taking a loan as he doesn’t feel he will be able to repay it. Note: Pictures are only meant to be indicative of this segment and are not related to the customer story provided 34 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment A | Key statistics Demographics Family size (Avg.) 3.85 Nature of income Mobile phone 66.9% Gender of HH Head  Regular 38.6% Bicycle 14.7%  Male 60.5%  Irregular 33.4% Solar light system 14.8%  Female 39.5%  Seasonal 24.7% Bed 100.0% Tenure status HH Head education1 Radio 58.9%  Owned 27.4%  No education 6.0% Bank account 34.5%  Rented 68.3%  Up to primary 51.5% Home improvement 24.7%  Other 4.3%  Secondary+ 42.6% % of potential Strongly believe that % used a toilet 100.0% Willing to pay3 4.1% 60.1% market OD is irresponsible % constructed their UGX 900K 57.1% past Strong willingness to Willing to pay for upgrade4 Top expenditure areas 60.1% pay for convenience  Health UGX 900K 54.4% 1. Refers to the proportion of the segment who responded to this question, scaled up to 100%; 2 . Respondents were asked if they ‘strongly disagreed’, ‘disagreed’, ‘agreed’, or ‘strongly agreed’ to statements related to their attitudes and beliefs. Here only the percentage of those who ‘strongly agreed’ with a statement is reported, but overall ‘agreement’ with the statement may be higher; 3. Of the 71.5% of the segment who answered this question; 4. Of the 25.4% of the segment who answered this question Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 35 Income and education Affluence indicators Segment size Attitudes and beliefs2 Behavioral indicators Willingness to pay For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment A | Customer profile Setting  Live entirely in urban areas of the Central region in Uganda  Very strongly desire respect from people in their community  Have relatively small families (~4 people)  Value products that make their life more convenient, or that are  prestigious Tend to live in rented houses made predominantly of permanent materials  Conformity is not particularly important to this group, as more than  half disagree or strongly disagree that one shouldn’t do things Typically have irregular or seasonal incomes; slightly less than half ‘differently’ from their neighbors spend under UGX 1.2m/ year, which is above the average for segments  Averse to taking loans due to fear of not being able to repay or  Major expenditure areas are food and education, although losing collateral (nearly three-quarters have never taken a loan) health is also among the top three priorities for the large majority of  Place their family’s needs above their own, and strongly associate not the segment having a toilet with irresponsibility – almost no one in the  The large majority are likely to use mobile money, more so than community practices OD bank accounts, though the use of both is below the average for  The majority strongly believe having a toilet makes the family urban Uganda proud, more so than other segments do  Most own mobile phones and radios, but this is also  The main influencers on information about toilets are lower than the average for urban Uganda health workers/ local leaders, or value chain actors – masons or pit diggers  Durability is the top desired feature in a toilet, followed by safety,  The vast majority considered improved features when considering security, and privacy purchasing a toilet, and nearly all used or would use a mason  Tend to have improved toilets, but share them with others  They are largely satisfied with their current toilet, and are less likely  to consider upgrading than most segments; however, their top point Their desire for safety and privacy, and a belief that toilet ownership of dissatisfaction with the toilet is that they have to share it leads to better health/ increased prestige, drives toilet construction   The large majority paid or are willing to pay over UGX 600,000 for a For almost two-thirds, house construction/ alteration is also a key toilet trigger for toilet construction The Ask Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 36 Mental Model Segment profiles | Segment A | Buying process (1/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Origination of need Sources of information Channel selection for for toilet about toilets toilet construction House construction/ 57% Family/ friends 33% Own labour 0% alteration Previous toilet 0% filled up 0% Pit digger 73% Motivated by health School 14% workers/ local leaders Health workers/ Mason/ 64% 98% builder local leaders Observation 6% Mason 91% Contractor 0% Prestige/ 49% social standing Pit digger 76% Engineer 0% Rental benefits 18% Enforcement 0% Material Other 0% 12% supplier Health/ hygiene 59% Advertisements 0% Safety/ privacy 67% Observation 12% Convenience 45% Other 0% Other 16% Didn’t respond 0% Don’t know 0% For discussion, not for circulation 37 Segment profiles | Segment A | Buying process (2/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Types of substructure Types of pit Pit depth considered considered considered Unlined rectangular pit 100% Less than Onset pit 100% 0% Unlined circular pit 0% 10 feet Lined rectangular pit 0% Offset pit 0% 10-19 feet 2% Lined circular pit 0% Septic tank 0% Septic tank 0% 20-39 feet 30% Sewered connection 0% Don’t know/ Other 0% 0% 40-59 feet 53% don’t remember Don’t know 0% 60 feet 15% or deeper Number of pits Number of stances considered considered Don’t know/ 0% don’t remember One 92% One 5% Two 8% Two 55% Other 0% Other 41% Don’t know/ Don’t know/ 0% 0% don’t remember don’t remember For discussion, not for circulation 38 Segment profiles | Segment A | Buying process (3/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material considered for Material considered for Material considered for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay Wood poles Wood planks Concrete/ Cement Tiles/ terrazzo Plastic pan Ceramic pan Metallic pan 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% Permanent 87% Permanent 97% Temporary 13% Temporary 3% No walls 0% No door 0% 95% Material considered for Whether a loan was toilet roof taken/ considered Permanent 97% Yes 8% Temporary 3% No 92% Other Didn’t respond/ No roof 0% 0% refused to respond For discussion, not for circulation 39 Segment profiles | Segment A | Buying process (4/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material used for Material used for Material used for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay Wood poles Wood planks Concrete/ Cement Tiles/ terrazzo Plastic pan Ceramic pan Metallic pan 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Permanent 62% Permanent 83% Temporary 38% Temporary 3% No walls 0% No door 14% 97% Material used for Observed number of toilet roof stances Permanent 100% One 28% Temporary 0% Two 36% No roof 0% Other 36% Other For discussion, not for circulation 40 Segment profiles | Segment A | Buying process (5/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Note: Convenience includes having a single supplier, the ease and duration of installation, and ease of use Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Factors influencing final choice of toilet product Affordability 100% Availability of finance/ credit 0% Quality/ durability 0% Ease of access to materials/ service providers 0% Convenience 100% Appropriateness of product 0% Health/ hygiene 0% Safety/ privacy 0% Recommended by influencer 0% Other 0% Didn’t respond 0% For discussion, not for circulation 41 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment A | Drop-offs from buying process (1/2) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Reasons for not building an Factors that might increase individual household toilet consideration of a toilet in the future Affordable products Unaffordable 44% 20% are available Competing priorities/ 64% Competing priorities low priority 52% are met Lack of space 37% Products suitable to setting 19% are available Lack of finance 38% House construction/ 79% alteration No access to 8% value chain Increase in 28% family size Lack of 0% suitable product Cannot access shared/ 0% Weather/ public toilet 0% seasonality delays Live in rented Nothing 7% 13% accomodation Other 0% Other 21% Didn’t respond 0% Didn’t respond 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 42 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment A | Drop-offs from buying process (2/2) The majority of the households in this segment considered buying an individual toilet with improved features, but ended up with a shared improved toilet Overall sanitation profile 80.2% 18.5% 1.3% Considered improved features Did not consider improved features Limited Unimproved Open Defecation Drop-off from IBT purchase 100.0% 32.2% 5.3% 2.8% 59.6% Total Did not consider Dropped off after Did not consider Considered individual gathering information improved features improved features but did not build IBT Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 43 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment B Improved limited toilet: 66.7% Unimproved toilet: 30.9% No toilet: 2.3% Segment B households mostly have shared toilets… Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km >1 Km < 1Km Water source Mobile money usage Piped A (4.1%) B (12.4%) D (6.8%) Tube well/ borehole Yes C (12.3%) E (15.4%) G (2.4%) K (6.7%) No H (10.1%) J (9.6%) Other protected Yes No I (6.8%) Other unprotected F (13.4%) …but are largely satisfied with this. Let’s understand why 44 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment B | Customer story Caroline lives and works in Mukono with her two children. Her husband is in the military and does not live with them, but they keep in touch through her mobile phone. She has finished her O-levels, and runs the family hardware shop in the town center.They live in a rented house made of bricks, cement, and concrete. Her business is profitable and provides a reliable source of income throughout the year. Though they have chosen expensive private schools for their children, she is able to provide for them, particularly with the assistance of money her husband sends home. The family has to share a toilet with her sister-in-law’s family who live nearby.The toilet is an improved facility with a concrete floor and brick walls, and a flush. Caroline is happy with the toilet they have as they are able to clean it with water, and it is safe for her children to use. Her family finds the toilet convenient to use, which is also important to her. However, having the toilet is not a particular point of pride for them. She and her husband have no immediate plans to construct an individual toilet, since they do not own the house they live in and do not see a need to invest in it. Her husband does not like sharing with people, but they do not have an alternative at the moment. Most people around them share toilets, and they have more important priorities. Currently they are focusing on putting their children through school, growing the family hardware business, and purchasing a self￾contained house. If she were to have her own house, she would be willing to pay what it takes to get a toilet similar to the one she is currently using. She may even consider building a toilet with a lined pit as her sister in-law says they are less likely to collapse. However, she does not know yet when this will happen. Note: Pictures are only meant to be indicative of this segment and are not related to the customer story provided 45 Segment profiles | Segment B | Key statistics Demographics Family size (Avg.) 4.83 Nature of income Mobile phone 83.2% Gender of HH Head  Regular 60.9% Bicycle 19.9%  Male 57.4%  Irregular 27.6% Solar light system 8.1%  Female 42.6%  Seasonal 6.2% Bed 81.3% Tenure status HH Head education1 Radio 68.7%  Owned 39.8%  No education 10.8% Bank account 33.0%  Rented 57.8%  Up to primary 40.3% Home improvement 21.7%  Other 2.4%  Secondary+ 48.9% Segment size % of potential Strongly believe that % used a toilet 100.0% Willing to pay3 12.4% 43.5% market OD is irresponsible % constructed their UGX 900K 47.3% past Strong willingness to Willing to pay for upgrade4 Top expenditure areas 31.5% pay for convenience  UGX 900K 33.9% 1. Refers to the proportion of the segment who responded to this question, scaled up to 100%; 2 . Respondents were asked if they ‘strongly disagreed’, ‘disagreed’, ‘agreed’, or ‘strongly agreed’ to statements related to their attitudes and beliefs. Here only the percentage of those who ‘strongly agreed’ with a statement is reported, but overall ‘agreement’ with the statement may be higher; 3. Of the 74.1% of the segment who answered this question; 4. Of the 24.9% of the segment who answered this question Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 46 For discussion, not for circulation Income and education Affluence indicators Attitudes and beliefs2 Behavioral indicators Willingness to pay Segment profiles | Segment B | Customer profile Setting  Two-thirds of households live in urban areas; all have access to piped  Less likely than other segments to want a product just because many water people in their community have it  Over half live in houses that are made of permanent materials; and  Whilst a large majority are willing to pay for products that are over half rent the house they live in prestigious, they don’t feel as strongly about this as most of the  other segments Most have regular sources of income, the highest of any segment   The vast majority agree or strongly agree that open defecation is Nearly all earn above UGX 1.2m/ year, compared to an average of irregular practice and embarrassing; very few households therefore two-thirds across segments practice OD  The vast majority of households spend above UGX 1.2m/ year,  Compared to other segments, tend not to associate toilets with nearly double the segment average modernity or view them as a source of pride  Key expenditure areas are food and education; households have  Most likely to have not built an individual toilet because they among the highest spend on education across all segments consider it a low priority, and as they live in rented houses  Most households own radios; the vast majority own mobile  View the functional benefits of having an individual toilet phones (at higher levels than national averages) (e.g., reduction of flies, disease prevention) as less attractive  Approximately a third of household heads have a bank than the average for other segments account (more than double the national average)  Rely on either family and friends, or value chain actors (masons or pit diggers) for information on toilets  See the ability to clean with water, and privacy as the two most  Willingness to pay is higher than most segments – less than a third important product features when deciding which toilet to construct would pay less than UGX 600,000 for a new toilet, nearly half would  pay over UGX 900,000 The majority have improved toilets, that they share with others   Largely use a mason and/ or pit digger when constructing a toilet Prestige, and the desire for safety and privacy were the main drivers of toilet construction for most, but a large majority also evaluated the  A large majority of households are satisfied with their toilets; most are affordability and convenience of the available options not looking to upgrade their toilets in the future The Ask Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 47 For discussion, not for circulation Mental Model For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment B | Buying process (1/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Origination of need Sources of information Channel selection for for toilet about toilets toilet construction House construction/ 37% Family/ friends 77% Own labour 24% alteration Previous toilet 21% filled up School 0% Pit digger 62% Motivated by health 9% workers/ local leaders Health workers/ Mason/ 35% 47% local leaders builder Observation 20% Mas 69% Contractor 14% Prestige/ on 56% social standing Engineer 7% Rental benefits 8% Pit digger 63% Material Enforcement 6% Other 0% 4% supplier Health/ hygiene 45% Advertisements 0% Safety/ privacy 50% Observation 0% Convenience 24% Other 3% Other 4% Didn’t respond Don’t know 0% 2% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 48 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment B | Buying process (2/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Types of substructure Types of pit Pit depth considered considered considered Unlined rectangular pit 42% Less than Onset pit 67% 3% Unlined circular pit 4% 10 feet Lined rectangular pit 37% Offset pit 13% 10-19 feet 17% Lined circular pit 1% Septic tank 14% Septic tank 17% 20-39 feet 32% Sewered connection 1% Don’t know/ Other 0% 2% 40-59 feet 39% don’t remember Don’t know 0% 60 feet 4% or deeper Number of pits Number of stances considered considered Don’t know/ 5% don’t remember One 52% One 21% Two 38% Two 59% Other 10% Other 20% Don’t know/ Don’t know/ 0% 0% don’t remember don’t remember Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 49 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment B | Buying process (3/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Material considered for Material considered for Material considered for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 8% Permanent 70% Permanent 89% Wood poles 12% Temporary 27% Temporary 4% Wood planks 0% Concrete/ 58% No walls 2% No door 6% Cement Tiles/ 10% terrazzo Material considered for Whether a loan was Plastic pan 2% toilet roof taken/ considered Ceramic pan 9% Permanent 84% Yes 33% Metallic pan 0% Temporary 14% No 67% Other 0% Didn’t respond/ Don’t know/ No roof 2% 0% 0% refused to respond don’t remember Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 50 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment B | Buying process (4/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 51 Material used for Material used for Material used for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 20% Permanent 43% Permanent 54% Wood poles 14% Temporary 47% Temporary 26% Wood planks 4% No walls 10% No door 20% Concrete/ 56% Cement Tiles/ 3% Material used for Observed number of terrazzo toilet roof stances Plastic pan 0% Permanent 76% One 36% Ceramic pan 4% Temporary 15% Two 45% Metallic pan 0% No roof 9% Other 19% Other 0% For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment B | Buying process (5/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Factors influencing final choice of toilet product Affordability 79% Availability of finance/ credit 34% Quality/ durability 19% Ease of access to materials/ service providers 13% Convenience 49% Appropriateness of product 0% Health/ hygiene 0% Safety/ privacy 0% Recommended by influencer 17% Other 0% Didn’t respond 13% Note: Convenience includes having a single supplier, the ease and duration of installation, and ease of use Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 52 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment B | Drop-offs from buying process (1/2) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Reasons for not building an Factors that might increase individual household toilet consideration of a toilet in the future Affordable products Unaffordable 37% 26% are available Competing priorities/ 40% Competing priorities low priority 39% are met Lack of space 21% Products suitable to setting 16% are available Lack of finance 4% House construction/ 49% alteration No access to 6% value chain Increase in 24% family size Lack of 0% suitable product Cannot access shared/ 13% Weather/ public toilet 2% seasonality delays Live in rented Nothing 8% 37% accomodation Other 7% Other 11% Didn’t respond 2% Didn’t respond 1% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 53 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment B | Drop-offs from buying process (2/2) The majority of the households in this segment did not consider buying an individual toilet, although most of those who did considered building one with improved features Overall sanitation profile 66.7% 30.9% 2.3% Considered improved features Did not consider improved features Limited Unimproved Open Defecation Drop-off from IBT purchase 100.0% 57.4% 2.0% 8.0% 32.7% Total Did not consider Dropped off after Did not consider Considered individual gathering information improved features improved features but did not build IBT Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 54 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment C Improved limited toilet: 31.7% Unimproved toilet: 63.6% No toilet: 4.6% Segment C households want to improve their lifestyle… Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km >1 Km < 1Km Water source Mobile money usage Piped A (4.1%) B (12.4%) D (6.8%) Tube well/ borehole Yes C (12.3%) E (15.4%) G (2.4%) K (6.7%) No H (10.1%) J (9.6%) Other protected Yes No I (6.8%) Other unprotected F (13.4%) …But the majority have unimproved toilets. Let’s understand why 55 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment C | Customer story Frank lives and works in rural Bukomansimbi with his wife and two young children. He has completed his primary education, and works as a porter for different contractors and masons, on a project by project basis. While his income is relatively low and irregular, he thinks he earns enough to get by and provide for his family. He is especially proud of this self-contained house that he constructed a few years ago – fully built with bricks, cement, and concrete. He inherited the land his house is built on from his family, which helped him achieve this. One day, he aspires to become a mason and manage his own projects, but currently does not have the requisite skills to make the transition. Frank is not satisfied with the current state of his toilet, particularly given that it is a basic facility built with mud, thatch, and poles.While he is glad to have his own toilet, which he views as an important part of lifestyle, he is aware that some of his wealthier neighbors have toilets built with brick and cement. He feels that having a brick and cement toilet signifies prestige and a more urban lifestyle, which is important to him. Frank wants to upgrade his toilet, and is willing to pay for this upgrade, however, it is currently a lower priority compared to paying for his children’s school fees. Frank is willing to save the required amount to be able to build a toilet that will earn him the respect of his neighbors once he has addressed his more immediate priorities, even if this is a significant proportion of his annual income. He might have to wait until he is able to save this amount, but he doesn’t want to take a loan as he is afraid of losing his house.When he improves his house, he thinks he might use some extra materials to build a new toilet. Note: Pictures are only meant to be indicative of this segment and are not related to the customer story provided 56 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment C | Key statistics Demographics Family size (Avg.) 3.66 Nature of income Mobile phone 73.7% Gender of HH Head  Regular 29.6% Bicycle 28.0%  Male 61.3%  Irregular 46.3% Solar light system 31.6%  Female 38.7%  Seasonal 19.7% Bed 93.1% Tenure status HH Head education1 Radio 75.8%  Owned 62.9%  No education 12.0% Bank account 10.7%  Rented 25.8%  Up to primary 51.6% Home improvement 9.8%  Other 11.3%  Secondary+ 36.4% % of potential Strongly believe that % used a toilet 99.2% Willing to pay3 12.3% 51.5% market OD is irresponsible % constructed their UGX 900K 55.6% past Strong willingness to Willing to pay for upgrade4 Top expenditure areas 34.8% pay for convenience  Health UGX 900K 40.4% 1. Refers to the proportion of the segment who responded to this question, scaled up to 100%; 2 . Respondents were asked if they ‘strongly disagreed’, ‘disagreed’, ‘agreed’, or ‘strongly agreed’ to statements related to their attitudes and beliefs. Here only the percentage of those who ‘strongly agreed’ with a statement is reported, but overall ‘agreement’ with the statement may be higher; 3. Of the 46.2% of the segment who answered this question; 4. Of the 49.1% of the segment who answered this question Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 57 Income and education Affluence indicators Segment size Attitudes and beliefs2 Behavioral indicators Willingness to pay Segment profiles | Segment C | Customer profile Setting  Live in rural areas in the Central region  Value products that can make their lives more convenient and desire  products that households in urban centers use; they would be willing Relatively small household size (~4 people), below the average for to pay for such products rural areas   Strongly desire respect from their community and are willing to pay The majority live in houses that are partly or fully made of for products that would increase their standing in the community permanent materials and own the houses they live in  Over two-thirds have seasonal or irregular Reluctant to take loans as they are afraid of not being able to repay sources of income  it, or of losing their collateral; the vast majority have never taken a (nearly two times the average level for all segments) loan – the lowest amongst all segments  This segment both earns and spends less than the average for other  Nearly all consider owning a toilet to be an important part of segments – nearly four in ten earn less than UGX 1.2m/ year; half improving one’s lifestyle, but don’t believe a toilet is as important as spend less than UGX 1.2m/ year other durable assets  Key expenditure areas are essentials such as food and health-  Regard education to be important and approximately half the related expenditure households in this segment believe that school fees are more  Approximately three-quarters own radios and mobile important than toilets phones, higher than the average across segments  Rely on either family and friends, or value chain actors  The vast majority of households do not have access to (masons or pit diggers) for information on toilets a bank account, lower than the national average  The ability to clean with water and safety/ security are seen as the  Affordability and convenience are the most significant drivers when most desirable features in a toilet and, along with health, are the key choosing between toilet products drivers for toilet construction  This segment were the most dissatisfied with their toilets, with nearly  Though more than half the households in the segment considered half being dissatisfied improved features when selecting their toilet (above average among  Most households would consider upgrading their toilet in the future segments;), two-thirds of them have unimproved toilets  The majority are willing to pay above UGX 900,000 for a toilet, but may wait until other competing expenses are met The Ask Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 58 For discussion, not for circulation Mental Model For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment C | Buying process (1/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Origination of need Sources of information Channel selection for for toilet about toilets toilet construction House construction/ 20% Family/ friends 62% Own labour 29% alteration Previous toilet 9% filled up School 0% Pit digger 70% Motivated by health 7% workers/ local leaders Health workers/ Mason/ 42% 43% local leaders builder Observation 1% Contractor 5% Prestige/ Mason 48% 43% social standing Engineer 3% Rental benefits 1% Pit digger 45% Material Enforcement 5% Other 0% 5% supplier Health/ hygiene 54% Advertisements 0% Safety/ privacy 55% Observation 6% Convenience 20% Other 0% Other 5% Didn’t respond Don’t know 0% 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 59 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment C | Buying process (2/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Types of substructure Types of pit Pit depth considered considered considered Unlined rectangular pit 76% Less than Onset pit 87% 4% Unlined circular pit 2% 10 feet Lined rectangular pit 11% Offset pit 6% 10-19 feet 26% Lined circular pit 1% Septic tank 10% Septic tank 7% 20-39 feet 44% Sewered connection 0% Don’t know/ Other 0% 0% 40-59 feet 16% don’t remember Don’t know 0% 60 feet 10% or deeper Number of pits Number of stances considered considered Don’t know/ 0% don’t remember One 77% One 35% Two 22% Two 57% Other 2% Other 9% Don’t know/ Don’t know/ 0% 0% don’t remember don’t remember Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 60 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment C | Buying process (3/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material considered for Material considered for Material considered for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 26% Permanent 51% Permanent 58% Wood poles 11% Temporary 47% Temporary 12% Wood planks 3% No walls 2% No door 31% Concrete/ 47% Cement Tiles/ 4% Material considered for Whether a loan was terrazzo toilet roof taken/ considered Plastic pan 2% Permanent 76% Yes 14% Ceramic pan 0% Temporary 20% No 80% Metallic pan 0% Didn’t respond/ No roof 4% 7% Other 8% refused to respond 61 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment C | Buying process (4/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material used for Material used for Material used for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 49% Permanent 31% Permanent 20% Wood poles 26% Temporary 67% Temporary 22% Wood planks 9% No walls 2% No door 57% Concrete/ 16% Cement Tiles/ 0% Material used for Observed number of terrazzo toilet roof stances Plastic pan 0% Permanent 52% One 42% Ceramic pan 0% Temporary 35% Two 55% Metallic pan 0% No roof 13% Other 3% Other 0% 62 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment C | Buying process (5/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Factors influencing final choice of toilet product Affordability 82% Availability of finance/ credit 15% Quality/ durability 9% Ease of access to materials/ service providers 18% Convenience 66% Appropriateness of product 4% Health/ hygiene 32% Safety/ privacy 20% Recommended by influencer 4% Other 0% Didn’t respond 3% Note: Convenience includes having a single supplier, the ease and duration of installation, and ease of use Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 63 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment C | Drop-offs from buying process (1/2) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Reasons for not building an Factors that might increase individual household toilet consideration of a toilet in the future Affordable products Unaffordable 50% 31% are available Competing priorities/ 39% Competing priorities low priority 34% are met Lack of space 24% Products suitable to setting 12% are available Lack of finance 11% House construction/ 58% alteration No access to 15% value chain Increase in 10% family size Lack of 0% suitable product Cannot access shared/ 8% Weather/ public toilet 2% seasonality delays Nothing 2% Live in rented 11% accomodation Other 8% Other 17% Didn’t respond 3% Didn’t respond 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 64 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment C | Drop-offs from buying process (2/2) The largest proportion of households in this segment considered improved features for their individual toilet, but slightly over a third did not Overall sanitation profile 31.7% 63.6% 4.6% Considered improved features Did not consider improved features Limited Unimproved Open Defecation Drop-off from IBT purchase 100.0% 28.2% 0.4% 34.0% 37.4% Total Did not consider Dropped off after Did not consider Considered individual gathering information improved features improved features but did not build IBT Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 65 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment D Improved limited toilet: 4.4% Unimproved toilet: 72.7% No toilet: 22.9% Segment D households are aspirational in their goals… Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km >1 Km < 1Km Water source Mobile money usage Piped A (4.1%) B (12.4%) D (6.8%) Tube well/ borehole Yes C (12.3%) E (15.4%) G (2.4%) K (6.7%) No H (10.1%) J (9.6%) Other protected Yes No I (6.8%) Other unprotected F (13.4%) …yet do not wish to pay for toilets. Let’s understand why 66 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment D | Customer story Dennis lives and works in rural Arua with his wife and three children. He has no formal education, and works as a subsistence farmer and agricultural laborer. Dennis lives in and owns his own house, made with mud and thatch. Although he was able to fund the construction of his house, he is not happy with the variability of farming as an income source. He feels that the livelihood of his family is too reliant on factors that he cannot control. He strongly wants to improve his status in the community, and believes that people would respect him more if he had a skilled profession.This would allow him to achieve various goals, the most immediate of which is upgrading his house to one built with bricks and cement. Currently he doesn’t have the means to do so and is considering taking a loan, as he knows a number of people in his community who have done so. However, he also knows that it will take him some time to repay this loan, especially as there are more pressing demands, like his children’s school fees, on his income. Given his family lives quite far from the main road, Dennis also hopes to purchase a bicycle to improve his access to jobs. He thinks this would help him access the nearest town more easily, in order to pick up more jobs to supplement his farming income. While there are a number of people in his village who do not have toilets, Dennis finds this embarrassing and irresponsible and felt he should build a toilet for his family.As he was unwilling (and unable) to spend very much on a toilet, he built a single pit latrine made with mud, thatch, and poles. He mainly built it himself, only engaging a pit digger to excavate the pit. He is satisfied with the toilet, but would consider upgrading in the future in order to improve the floor so as to make it washable. However, this is not a priority for him. Note: Pictures are only meant to be indicative of this segment and are not related to the customer story provided 67 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment D | Key statistics Demographics Family size (Avg.) 5.71 Nature of income Mobile phone 75.8% Gender of HH Head  Regular 40.0% Bicycle 32.2%  Male 72.8%  Irregular 36.0% Solar light system 36.1%  Female 27.2%  Seasonal 24.1% Bed 54.1% Tenure status HH Head education1 Radio 57.9%  Owned 82.4%  No education 39.3% Bank account 3.8%  Rented 17.6%  Up to primary 46.0% Home improvement 36.3%  Other 0.0%  Secondary+ 14.7% % of potential Strongly believe that % used a toilet 94.1% Willing to pay3 6.8% 39.5% market OD is irresponsible % constructed their UGX 900K 21.7% past Strong willingness to Willing to pay for upgrade4 Top expenditure areas 23.1% pay for convenience  Health UGX 900K 22.1% 1. Refers to the proportion of the segment who responded to this question, scaled up to 100%; 2 . Respondents were asked if they ‘strongly disagreed’, ‘disagreed’, ‘agreed’, or ‘strongly agreed’ to statements related to their attitudes and beliefs. Here only the percentage of those who ‘strongly agreed’ with a statement is reported, but overall ‘agreement’ with the statement may be higher; 3. Of the 46.4% of the segment who answered this question; 4. Of the 53.8% of the segment who answered this question Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 68 Income and education Affluence indicators Segment size Attitudes and beliefs2 Behavioral indicators Willingness to pay Segment profiles | Segment D | Customer profile Setting  Live in relatively remote rural areas further from main roads; split  Believe that one shouldn’t do things differently from one’s neighbors/ across the Northern and Western regions community (second highest amongst segments)  A large majority live in houses that are made with temporary materials;  Most likely amongst all the segments to have taken a loan with a the vast majority own their houses third having done so; of these, over half borrowed from a VSLA or  Over a third have not attained any education (over 1.5 times more than SACCO the average level)  Believe that it is embarrassing to be seen defecating in the open, and  The average size of a plot of house is less than half of the average irresponsible to not have a toilet across segments (the second lowest amongst segments)  A vast majority agree or strongly agree that they are willing to pay  Over half have irregular or seasonal sources of income; less than half for products that are prestigious, however, this segment is less likely earn under UGX 1.2m/ year and most earn less than UGX 2.4m/ year, than average to strongly agree that toilets provide prestige with less income than most other segments  Nearly half of households feel that school fees are more  Key expenditure areas are mainly essentials such as food and important than building or improving a toilet, higher than the health-related expenditure average for all segments  Asset ownership is slightly higher than the average across  Rely on their family and friends, health workers, or local segments: over half of households have radios; over leaders for information about toilets three-quarters have mobile phones  Nearly none have access to bank accounts  Privacy and the ability to clean with water are seen as the most  Safety, privacy, and health are the key drivers in toilet construction desirable features when purchasing a toilet  Most households are satisfied with their toilets, however, a vast  A large majority of households have unimproved toilets; though a majority are willing to consider upgrading their toilets, particularly to significant minority have no toilet (nearly twice as high as the average improve the floor for other segments)  However, most households in the segment are not willing to spend  Households viewed affordability and convenience as the most more than UGX 600,000 on a new toilet, or UGX 300,000 on significant drivers when choosing between toilet options upgrading their existing toilet The Ask Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 69 For discussion, not for circulation Mental Model For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment D | Buying process (1/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Origination of need Sources of information Channel selection for for toilet about toilets toilet construction House construction/ 9% Family/ friends 53% Own labour 50% alteration Previous toilet 15% filled up School 5% Pit digger 45% Motivated by health 40% workers/ local leaders Health workers/ Mason/ 68% 14% local leaders builder Observation 15% Mason 12% Contractor 8% Prestige/ 19% social standing Pit digger 16% Engineer 2% Rental benefits 1% Material Enforcement 7% Other 2% 0% supplier Health/ hygiene 59% Advertisements 14% Safety/ privacy 43% Observation 0% Convenience 29% Other 6% Other 7% Didn’t respond 0% Don’t know 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 70 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment D | Buying process (2/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Types of substructure Types of pit Pit depth considered considered considered Unlined rectangular pit 71% Less than Onset pit 80% 12% Unlined circular pit 9% 10 feet Lined rectangular pit 20% Offset pit 20% 10-19 feet 34% Lined circular pit 0% Septic tank 0% Septic tank 0% 20-39 feet 46% Sewered connection 0% Don’t know/ Other 0% 0% 40-59 feet 7% don’t remember Don’t know 0% 60 feet 2% or deeper Number of pits Number of stances considered considered Don’t know/ 0% don’t remember One 80% One 53% Two 20% Two 47% Other 0% Other 0% Don’t know/ Don’t know/ 0% 0% don’t remember don’t remember Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 71 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment D | Buying process (3/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material considered for Material considered for Material considered for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 30% Permanent 29% Permanent 48% Wood poles 24% Temporary 69% Temporary 26% Wood planks 7% No walls 2% No door 26% Concrete/ 19% Cement Tiles/ 2% Material considered for Whether a loan was terrazzo toilet roof taken/ considered Plastic pan 3% Permanent 54% Yes 19% Ceramic pan 0% Temporary 44% No 81% Metallic pan 0% Didn’t respond/ No roof 2% 0% Other 16% refused to respond 72 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment D | Buying process (4/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material used for Material used for Material used for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 38% Permanent 13% Permanent 18% Wood poles 31% Temporary 83% Temporary 20% Wood planks 30% No walls 4% No door 61% Concrete/ 1% Cement Tiles/ 0% Material used for Observed number of terrazzo toilet roof stances Plastic pan 0% Permanent 38% One 65% Ceramic pan 0% Temporary 40% Two 35% Metallic pan 0% No roof 21% Other 0% Other 0% 73 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment D | Buying process (5/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Factors influencing final choice of toilet product Affordability 78% Availability of finance/ credit 22% Quality/ durability 13% Ease of access to materials/ service providers 32% Convenience 48% Appropriateness of product 0% Health/ hygiene 0% Safety/ privacy 9% Recommended by influencer 4% Other 5% Didn’t respond 0% Note: Convenience includes having a single supplier, the ease and duration of installation, and ease of use Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 74 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment D | Drop-offs from buying process (1/2) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Reasons for not building an Factors that might increase individual household toilet consideration of a toilet in the future Affordable products Unaffordable 34% 20% are available Competing priorities/ 50% Competing priorities low priority 57% are met Lack of space 11% Products suitable to setting 25% are available Lack of finance 38% House construction/ 22% alteration No access to 28% value chain Increase in 14% family size Lack of 16% suitable product Cannot access shared/ 2% Weather/ public toilet 0% seasonality delays Live in rented Nothing 3% 6% accomodation Other 0% Other 17% Didn’t respond 3% Didn’t respond 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 75 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment D | Drop-offs from buying process (2/2) A large majority of households in this segment did not even consider improved features for their toilet, reflected in the large number of unimproved toilets in this segment Overall sanitation profile 4.4% 72.7% 22.9% Considered improved features Did not consider improved features Limited Unimproved Open Defecation Drop-off from IBT purchase 100.0% 13.4% 3.3% 63.6% 19.6% Total Did not consider Dropped off after Did not consider Considered individual gathering information improved features improved features but did not build IBT Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 76 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment E Improved limited toilet: 13.5% Unimproved toilet: 77.3% No toilet: 9.2% Segment E households understand the health benefits of toilets… Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km >1 Km < 1Km Water source Mobile money usage Piped A (4.1%) B (12.4%) D (6.8%) Tube well/ borehole Yes C (12.3%) E (15.4%) G (2.4%) K (6.7%) No H (10.1%) J (9.6%) Other protected Yes No I (6.8%) Other unprotected F (13.4%) …but largely have unimproved toilets. Let’s understand why 77 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment E | Customer story Joan lives in a village in the Buyende district. Ever since her husband left them a few years ago, she has worked to support her four children. Her mother lives with her and helps take care of the children, and Joan works as an agricultural laborer to earn additional income. While Joan has only completed her primary education, she focuses on building a better life for her children. She works hard to provide for her family, and will often put off buying something for herself in order to make a purchase for her children. Like many in her village, Joan has a house made mainly of mud with a thatched roof. She is a member of the local VSLA, and last year took a loan to help fix some leaks in the roof, which she found particularly useful in a time of need. While her income might be relatively low, Joan knows that it is very important for her family to have a toilet, to help prevent them from falling ill, and because she does not want to lose the respect of their community. Her husband built their current toilet when they moved into their house a number of years ago.At the time they hoped to use more permanent materials for the toilet, but had to settle on a basic toilet made of mud and poles as they were unable to afford anything else. She would like to invest more in a new toilet with a ventilation pipe, and hopes to continue building her savings in the next few years in order to be able to do so. She plans to build a new toilet once she is able to address more immediate priorities, but will definitely build one when her current toilet fills up. She hears from friends that it may be currently out of her reach. However, she is continuing to build her savings when possible and is optimistic that she might be able to have a better toilet once some of her more immediate needs are taken care of. Note: Pictures are only meant to be indicative of this segment and are not related to the customer story provided 78 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment E | Key statistics Demographics Family size (Avg.) 5.92 Nature of income Mobile phone 61.9% Gender of HH Head  Regular 44.4% Bicycle 48.2%  Male 62.9%  Irregular 16.2% Solar light system 20.7%  Female 37.1%  Seasonal 38.2% Bed 78.6% Tenure status HH Head education1 Radio 43.2%  Owned 79.7%  No education 27.6% Bank account 12.5%  Rented 16.3%  Up to primary 51.4% Home improvement 36.1%  Other 4.0%  Secondary+ 21.0% % of potential Strongly believe that % used a toilet 100.0% Willing to pay3 15.4% 45.8% market OD is irresponsible % constructed their UGX 900K 33.0% past Strong willingness to Willing to pay for upgrade4 Top expenditure areas 26.0% pay for convenience  Health UGX 900K 26.7% 1. Refers to the proportion of the segment who responded to this question, scaled up to 100%; 2 . Respondents were asked if they ‘strongly disagreed’, ‘disagreed’, ‘agreed’, or ‘strongly agreed’ to statements related to their attitudes and beliefs. Here only the percentage of those who ‘strongly agreed’ with a statement is reported, but overall ‘agreement’ with the statement may be higher; 3. Of the 45.2% of the segment who answered this question; 4. Of the 51.9% of the segment who answered this question Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 79 Income and education Affluence indicators Segment size Attitudes and beliefs2 Behavioral indicators Willingness to pay Segment profiles | Segment E | Customer profile Setting  Largely rural setting with about a fifth in urban areas; mostly in the  Strongly influenced by neighbors, as they are more likely than other Eastern district, with less than a fifth in the Northern district segments to believe a product is useful if it is owned by many people  Slightly above the national average household size, with ~6 people in in the community; the respect of those in their community tends to be every household more important to them than it is to other segments  The large majority have fairly low levels of education (no or only  Over half strongly agree that their family’s needs are more important primary education) than their own, the highest among all segments  The large majority also own their house, which is made mostly out  Over a quarter of households have taken a loan in the past, above of temporary materials average for segments  Slightly over half do not have regular income, and nearly half earn and  Clearly recognize the health benefits of toilets, as the majority strongly spend less than UGX 1.2m annually agree that having a toilet reduces the possibility of disease, more so  than any other segment Their main expenditure areas are food and health-related, although agriculture or animal husbandry is also among the top expenditure  Believe that building a toilet is as important as other durable assets, priorities for nearly half the population slightly above the average for other segments  The number of household heads with a bank account is below  Nearly half strongly agree that owning a toilet makes the family the national average proud, above the average for other segments  Family/ friends are the main source of information on toilets for a third of this segment  Want a durable, clean, and hygienic toilet  The majority considered or would consider improved features for  Currently have mainly unimproved toilets, with less than one in ten their toilet; nearly a third would use a mason for this construction practicing OD, above the national average for Uganda  A large majority of those who have a toilet older than 3 years plan to  Around half constructed their toilet as they felt it provided greater build a new toilet when their current one fills up safety and privacy, as well as health benefits  Most of the segment is satisfied or very satisfied with their current toilet,  Affordability is the main factor determining but would largely consider upgrading to a new toilet in the future toilet choice   Convenience Nearly half would spend more than UGX 600,000 for a new toilet also plays a major role for over half of this segment The Ask Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 80 For discussion, not for circulation Mental Model For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment E | Buying process (1/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Origination of need Sources of information Channel selection for for toilet about toilets toilet construction House construction/ 13% Family/ friends 74% Own labour 36% alteration Previous toilet 23% filled up School 0% Pit digger 60% Motivated by health 19% workers/ local leaders Health workers/ Mason/ 45% 29% local leaders builder Observation 8% Mason 23% Contractor 6% Prestige/ 47% social standing Pit digger 47% Engineer 2% Rental benefits 1% Material Enforcement 15% Other 0% 4% supplier Health/ hygiene 48% Advertisements 2% Safety/ privacy 54% Observation 0% Convenience 34% Other 0% Other 2% Didn’t respond 1% Don’t know 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 81 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment E | Buying process (2/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Types of substructure Types of pit Pit depth considered considered considered Unlined rectangular pit 59% Less than Onset pit 85% 2% Unlined circular pit 6% 10 feet Lined rectangular pit 34% Offset pit 13% 10-19 feet 26% Lined circular pit 0% Septic tank 1% Septic tank 3% 20-39 feet 51% Sewered connection 0% Don’t know/ Other 0% 0% 40-59 feet 14% don’t remember Don’t know 0% 60 feet 7% or deeper Number of pits Number of stances considered considered Don’t know/ 0% don’t remember One 72% One 39% Two 27% Two 54% Other 1% Other 7% Don’t know/ Don’t know/ 0% 0% don’t remember don’t remember Note: Total sample for the listing was 11,871 respondents; total sample for the in-depth main questionnaire was 1,185 respondents 82 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment E | Buying process (3/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material considered for Material considered for Material considered for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 28% Permanent 65% Permanent 73% Wood poles 9% Temporary 32% Temporary 9% Wood planks 0% No walls 3% No door 17% Concrete/ 57% Cement Tiles/ 1% Material considered for Whether a loan was terrazzo toilet roof taken/ considered Plastic pan 2% Permanent 62% Yes 17% Ceramic pan 0% Temporary 33% No 83% Metallic pan 0% Didn’t respond/ No roof 5% 0% Other 3% refused to respond 83 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment E | Buying process (4/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material used for Material used for Material used for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 74% Permanent 45% Permanent 22% Wood poles 14% Temporary 49% Temporary 27% Wood planks 3% No walls 6% No door 52% Concrete/ 8% Cement Tiles/ 0% Material used for Observed number of terrazzo toilet roof stances Plastic pan 0% Permanent 21% One 74% Ceramic pan 1% Temporary 65% Two 22% Metallic pan 0% No roof 14% Other 4% Other 1% 84 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment E | Buying process (5/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Factors influencing final choice of toilet product Affordability 81% Availability of finance/ credit 17% Quality/ durability 18% Ease of access to materials/ service providers 12% Convenience 48% Appropriateness of product 5% Health/ hygiene 26% Safety/ privacy 19% Recommended by influencer 8% Other 4% Didn’t respond 0% Note: Convenience includes having a single supplier, the ease and duration of installation, and ease of use Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 85 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment E | Drop-offs from buying process (1/2) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Reasons for not building an Factors that might increase individual household toilet consideration of a toilet in the future Affordable products Unaffordable 59% 32% are available Competing priorities/ 60% Competing priorities low priority 49% are met Lack of space 19% Products suitable to setting 19% are available Lack of finance 5% House construction/ 29% alteration No access to 25% value chain Increase in 12% family size Lack of 3% suitable product Cannot access shared/ 5% Weather/ public toilet 2% seasonality delays Live in rented Nothing 8% 15% accomodation Other 3% Other 4% Didn’t respond 1% Didn’t respond 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 86 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment E | Drop-offs from buying process (2/2) Nearly half of households in this segment considered improved features for their individual toilet despite not building an IBT Overall sanitation profile 13.5% 77.3% 9.2% Considered improved features Did not consider improved features Limited Unimproved Open Defecation Drop-off from IBT purchase 100.0% 17.5% 1.4% 32.4% 48.8% Total Did not consider Dropped off after Did not consider Considered individual gathering information improved features improved features but did not build IBT Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 87 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment F Improved limited toilet: 4.6% Unimproved toilet: 75.9% No toilet: 19.5% Segment F households want their toilets to be durable… Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km >1 Km < 1Km Water source Mobile money usage Piped A (4.1%) B (12.4%) D (6.8%) Tube well/ borehole Yes C (12.3%) E (15.4%) G (2.4%) K (6.7%) No H (10.1%) J (9.6%) Other protected Yes No I (6.8%) Other unprotected F (13.4%) …yet largely build unimproved toilets. Let’s find out more 88 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment F | Customer story Robert lives with his wife, three children, and his parents in a village in Ngora district.They live on his family land in a house built from materials from the area, mainly mud and thatch. Robert has never been to school, and engages in subsistence farming in order to provide food for his family, although he is sometimes able to sell whatever remains. He also has a number of chickens and goats on the land, through which he is able to gain some additional income. His already-low income tends to depend on the season and on demand, which is variable. Most of his income goes into paying his children’s school fees and on medication for his parents, and he finds it difficult to provide for them all. Robert was embarrassed that his family had to defecate in the fields where others could see them so he built a toilet to provide them with greater privacy. He knows that a toilet helps keep his family safe from disease, and is less dangerous than using the bush. He is proud of his toilet and is especially happy that his elderly parents can also use it. He built the toilet himself, with the help of a pit digger suggested by his friend. He used mud and poles to make the walls of the toilet and gathered grass from around the village to thatch the roof.The toilet does not have a door, but they cover the entrance with a cloth sheet to ensure privacy. He would have liked to install a proper door, but he was unable to afford it. He is generally happy with the toilet, although his wife sometimes complains that it is difficult to clean, particularly after being used by the children. In the future, he may consider cementing the floor of the toilet to make it easier to clean. However, he knows cement is expensive, and he is reluctant to spend that much on a toilet. Note: Pictures are only meant to be indicative of this segment and are not related to the customer story provided 89 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment F | Key statistics Demographics Family size (Avg.) 6.99 Nature of income Mobile phone 54.0% Gender of HH Head  Regular 35.3% Bicycle 54.9%  Male 74.3%  Irregular 31.3% Solar light system 25.0%  Female 25.7%  Seasonal 32.6% Bed 65.3% Tenure status HH Head education1 Radio 46.3%  Owned 96.6%  No education 25.1% Bank account 5.7%  Rented 2.5%  Up to primary 58.5% Home improvement 38.7%  Other 0.9%  Secondary+ 16.4% % of potential Strongly believe that % used a toilet 99.4% Willing to pay3 13.4% 28.3% market OD is irresponsible % constructed their UGX 900K 20.0% past Strong willingness to Willing to pay for upgrade4 Top expenditure areas 22.5% pay for convenience  Health UGX 900K 8.6% 1. Refers to the proportion of the segment who responded to this question, scaled up to 100%; 2 . Respondents were asked if they ‘strongly disagreed’, ‘disagreed’, ‘agreed’, or ‘strongly agreed’ to statements related to their attitudes and beliefs. Here only the percentage of those who ‘strongly agreed’ with a statement is reported, but overall ‘agreement’ with the statement may be higher; 3. Of the 43.5% of the segment who answered this question; 4. Of the 51.9% of the segment who answered this question Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 90 Income and education Affluence indicators Segment size Attitudes and beliefs2 Behavioral indicators Willingness to pay For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment F | Customer profile Setting Mental Model  Have the highest percentage of male-headed households (around 3  Perceive products owned by others in their community to be useful in 4) and the largest household size (~7 people) of all segments for them, more so than other segments  Largely live in rural areas and most are from the Eastern region;  Averse to taking loans as they are afraid of not being able to repay though about a third can be found in the Northern region as well them  Most have not studied beyond the primary grades and a quarter have  Slightly more likely than other segments to believe that building a no formal education toilet is as important as investing in other durable assets  Tend to live in self-owned houses that are predominantly made of  Strongly believe that toilets are a source of pride for the family and temporary materials greatly value the privacy toilets offer compared to open defecation  Only a third of the segment has a regular income source and nearly  Value the health and safety benefits of a toilet (increased cleanliness, none have a bank account; this is well below the national average reduced likelihood of disease), but believe it takes a great deal of  Nearly half have annual expenditure of less than UGX 1.2m, meaning effort to keep a toilet clean they spend less than the average for segments   Rely on their family and friends, health workers, or local leaders The top expenditure areas are food, education and health care for information about toilets  Agriculture and animal husbandry are one of the top five Though OD is more prevalent in this segment than in expenditure areas for more than half the segment; this is  most others, people are embarrassed to be seen defecating above the average for all segments in the open  Less likely than other segments to own assets such as mobile phones and beds  The most important features desired in a toilet are durability and  For those that own toilets, affordability and convenience were the privacy, although it is also important to them that children and elderly primary considerations in their selection of product features family members are able to use the toilet  Most are satisfied with their toilets, they would consider upgrading to a  Tend to build unimproved toilets made of mud and poles; and a new toilet or improving the floor of their current toilet significant number construct toilets using their own labor  However, the majority are not willing to may more than UGX 600,000  Safety and privacy are the main drivers of toilet construction for this for this upgrade segment, with prestige also playing a role The Ask Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 91 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment F | Buying process (1/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Origination of need Sources of information Channel selection for for toilet about toilets toilet construction House construction/ 11% Family/ friends 69% Own labour 40% alteration Previous toilet 27% filled up School 5% Pit digger 44% Motivated by health 27% workers/ local leaders Health workers/ Mason/ 53% 33% local leaders builder Observation 12% Mason 9% Contractor 6% Prestige/ 49% social standing Pit digger 35% Engineer 0% Rental benefits 1% Material Enforcement 9% Other 4% 0% supplier Health/ hygiene 42% Advertisements 8% Safety/ privacy 54% Observation 14% Convenience 33% Other 0% Other 10% Didn’t respond 0% Don’t know 3% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 92 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment F | Buying process (2/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Types of substructure Types of pit Pit depth considered considered considered Unlined rectangular pit 64% Less than Onset pit 86% 1% Unlined circular pit 12% 10 feet Lined rectangular pit 22% Offset pit 6% 10-19 feet 41% Lined circular pit 2% Septic tank 0% Septic tank 8% 20-39 feet 48% Sewered connection 0% Don’t know/ Other 0% 0% 40-59 feet 8% don’t remember Don’t know 0% 60 feet 3% or deeper Number of pits Number of stances considered considered Don’t know/ 0% don’t remember One 75% One 57% Two 25% Two 39% Other 0% Other 4% Don’t know/ Don’t know/ 0% 0% don’t remember don’t remember Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 93 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment F | Buying process (3/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material considered for Material considered for Material considered for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 33% Permanent 56% Permanent 65% Wood poles 7% Temporary 44% Temporary 15% Wood planks 0% No walls 0% No door 20% Concrete/ 46% Cement Tiles/ 0% Material considered for Whether a loan was terrazzo toilet roof taken/ considered Plastic pan 0% Permanent 49% Yes 20% Ceramic pan 1% Temporary 44% No 80% Metallic pan 1% Didn’t respond/ No roof 7% 0% Other 11% refused to respond 94 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment F | Buying process (4/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material used for Material used for Material used for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 79% Permanent 30% Permanent 13% Wood poles 16% Temporary 62% Temporary 21% Wood planks 3% No walls 8% No door 66% Concrete/ 1% Cement Tiles/ 2% Material used for Observed number of terrazzo toilet roof stances Plastic pan 0% Permanent 11% One 91% Ceramic pan 0% Temporary 64% Two 8% Metallic pan 0% No roof 25% Other 0% Other 0% 95 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment F | Buying process (5/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Factors influencing final choice of toilet product Affordability 87% Availability of finance/ credit 13% Quality/ durability 20% Ease of access to materials/ service providers 9% Convenience 61% Appropriateness of product 5% Health/ hygiene 25% Safety/ privacy 21% Recommended by influencer 7% Other 0% Didn’t respond 0% Note: Convenience includes having a single supplier, the ease and duration of installation, and ease of use Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 96 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment F | Drop-offs from buying process (1/2) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Reasons for not building an Factors that might increase individual household toilet consideration of a toilet in the future Affordable products Unaffordable 39% 42% are available Competing priorities/ 45% Competing priorities low priority 48% are met Lack of space 10% Products suitable to setting 13% are available Lack of finance 15% House construction/ 32% alteration No access to 28% value chain Increase in 22% family size Lack of 21% suitable product Cannot access shared/ 4% Weather/ public toilet 7% seasonality delays Live in rented Nothing 1% 2% accomodation Other 0% Other 12% Didn’t respond 6% Didn’t respond 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 97 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment F | Drop-offs from buying process (2/2) Nearly all households in this segment considered purchasing an individual toilet and many considered improved features as well; however, the majority ended up building unimproved toilets Overall sanitation profile 4.6% 75.9% 19.5% Considered improved features Did not consider improved features Limited Unimproved Open Defecation Drop-off from IBT purchase 100.0% 6.3% 0.5% 48.0% 45.2% Total Did not consider Dropped off after Did not consider Considered individual gathering information improved features improved features but did not build IBT Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 98 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment G Improved limited toilet: 28.8% Unimproved toilet: 54.5% No toilet: 16.7% Segment G households are relatively well-to-do… Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km >1 Km < 1Km Water source Mobile money usage Piped A (4.1%) B (12.4%) D (6.8%) Tube well/ borehole Yes C (12.3%) E (15.4%) G (2.4%) K (6.7%) No H (10.1%) J (9.6%) Other protected Yes No I (6.8%) Other unprotected F (13.4%) …but open defecation is quite common. Let’s understand why 99 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment G | Customer story Nasozi lives near Arua municipality with her three children. She has completed primary and some years of secondary education. Her husband does not currently live with them as he works as a mason near Kampala.To supplement their income, Nasozi raises livestock. Nasozi is content with her husband’s masonry work – it provides a steady source of income for him to send home, given that he gets a consistent amount of construction projects every year. She lives in a self-contained house built with bricks and concrete owned by their family,. Nasozi and her family own a toilet built with wood and unburnt bricks. Her husband constructed this toilet for the family himself two years ago, a few years after the construction of their house. The family constructed a toilet as they had saved up some money and thought it was necessary for a family of their income to have a toilet, but did not wish to spend a great deal. Nasozi is satisfied with the current toilet and does not feel the need to upgrade anytime soon.While a number of people in their community have more permanent toilets, she does not feel the need to have one just because other people might. Not having any toilet is relatively common in their community, and she feels hers is sufficient. She claims that she and her husband manage to clean the toilet using water and ash multiple times a week, which ensures that it is hygienic.The toilet is located in the house and has walls and a door, to ensure privacy. She is happy that the toilet provides greater safety and privacy for her family, but sometimes wishes it smelled better. At this point in time, Nasozi is less focused on upgrading to a modern lifestyle, and more focused on ensuring that she and her husband continue to save money for health and education expenses for the family. Note: Pictures are only meant to be indicative of this segment and are not related to the customer story provided 100 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment G | Key statistics Demographics Family size (Avg.) 5.36 Nature of income Mobile phone 86.2% Gender of HH Head  Regular 51.2% Bicycle 13.2%  Male 55.1%  Irregular 46.0% Solar light system 32.4%  Female 44.9%  Seasonal 2.8% Bed 67.5% Tenure status HH Head education1 Radio 32.7%  Owned 64.1%  No education 13.6% Bank account 26.6%  Rented 35.9%  Up to primary 66.6% Home improvement 27.5%  Other 0.0%  Secondary+ 19.8% % of potential Strongly believe that % used a toilet 96.9% Willing to pay3 2.4% 17.2% market OD is irresponsible % constructed their UGX 900K 18.4% past Strong willingness to Willing to pay for upgrade4 Top expenditure areas 17.6% pay for convenience  Health UGX 900K 31.3% 1. Refers to the proportion of the segment who responded to this question, scaled up to 100%; 2 . Respondents were asked if they ‘strongly disagreed’, ‘disagreed’, ‘agreed’, or ‘strongly agreed’ to statements related to their attitudes and beliefs. Here only the percentage of those who ‘strongly agreed’ with a statement is reported, but overall ‘agreement’ with the statement may be higher; 3. Of the 78.2% of the segment who answered this question; 4. Of the 20.2% of the segment who answered this question Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 101 Income and education Affluence indicators Segment size Attitudes and beliefs2 Behavioral indicators Willingness to pay Segment profiles | Segment G | Customer profile Setting  The vast majority live in urban areas; entirely based in the Northern  Prestige is less important to this segment, as a third disagree with paying region for products just because they are prestigious (highest amongst  Nearly half of households are female-headed, far higher than the segments); they are also more likely than any other segment to believe national average that a toilet is not a sign of status or prestige  Over half live in houses that are partly or fully made with permanent  Conformity is also not particularly important to them; nearly half materials; the majority own the house they live in believe that a product does not become useful to them just because it  Two-thirds of households heads have only completed primary is owned by many people in their community education  They are afraid of not being able to repay a loan or losing collateral,  The majority of this segment receive their income regularly, and a as a result two-thirds of households have not taken a loan relatively high proportion of household heads have a bank account  Nearly half consider OD a common practice in the community, far (over a quarter) higher acceptance than in other segments  About half spend more than UGX 1.2m/ year, above the average  Most consider it embarrassing to be seen defecating in the open, but across segments they are less likely than other segments to believe this  While the top expenditure priorities are similar to other  A significant minority do not consider it irresponsible to not segments, clothing and footwear are more often among have a toilet ( the second highest amongst segments) the top five priorities for this segment than others   A vast majority own mobile phones (highest amongst all Main information on toilets comes from the value chain – segments); all households use mobile money pit diggers and masons  Households desire a toilet that does not smell, is secure and safe, and  Most households constructed their own toilets unlikely to collapse  Most households did not consider an individual toilet; few considered  Over half have an unimproved toilet; close to a fifth engage in OD, improved features among the highest across segments  A large majority are satisfied with their toilet, and most households  Safety, privacy, prestige, and social standing are the key drivers in would not consider upgrading household toilet construction; affordability and convenience determine  Two-thirds would pay less than UGX 600,000 for a toilet the features of the toilet The Ask Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 102 For discussion, not for circulation Mental Model For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment G | Buying process (1/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Origination of need Sources of information Channel selection for for toilet about toilets toilet construction House construction/ 1% Family/ friends 13% Own labour 60% alteration Previous toilet 0% filled up School 0% Pit digger 46% Motivated by health 30% workers/ local leaders Health workers/ Mason/ 67% 54% local leaders builder Observation 15% Mason 18% Contractor 0% Prestige/ 47% social standing Pit digger 59% Engineer 0% Rental benefits 0% Material Enforcement 11% Other 0% 0% supplier Health/ hygiene 38% Advertisements 0% Safety/ privacy 40% Observation 0% Convenience 13% Other 0% Other 26% Didn’t respond 0% Don’t know 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 103 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment G | Buying process (2/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Types of substructure Types of pit Pit depth considered considered considered Unlined rectangular pit 61% Less than Onset pit 91% 0% Unlined circular pit 18% 10 feet Lined rectangular pit 21% Offset pit 9% 10-19 feet 30% Lined circular pit 0% Septic tank 0% Septic tank 0% 20-39 feet 58% Sewered connection 0% Don’t know/ Other 0% 0% 40-59 feet 12% don’t remember Don’t know 0% 60 feet 0% or deeper Number of pits Number of stances considered considered Don’t know/ 0% don’t remember One 72% One 51% Two 28% Two 49% Other 0% Other 0% Don’t know/ Don’t know/ 0% 0% don’t remember don’t remember Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 104 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment G | Buying process (3/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material considered for Material considered for Material considered for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 41% Permanent 17% Permanent 70% Wood poles 27% Temporary 83% Temporary 30% Wood planks 18% No walls 0% No door 0% Concrete/ 14% Cement Tiles/ 0% Material considered for Whether a loan was terrazzo toilet roof taken/ considered Plastic pan 0% Permanent 32% Yes 18% Ceramic pan 0% Temporary 68% No 63% Metallic pan 0% Didn’t respond/ No roof 0% 18% Other 0% refused to respond 105 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment G | Buying process (4/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material used for Material used for Material used for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 90% Permanent 43% Permanent 57% Wood poles 0% Temporary 57% Temporary 43% Wood planks 0% No walls 0% No door 0% Concrete/ 10% Cement Tiles/ 0% Material used for Observed number of terrazzo toilet roof stances Plastic pan 0% Permanent 10% One 71% Ceramic pan 0% Temporary 90% Two 29% Metallic pan 0% No roof 0% Other 0% Other 0% 106 Segment profiles | Segment G | Buying process (5/5) For discussion, not for circulation Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Note: Convenience includes having a single supplier, the ease and duration of installation, and ease of use Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 107 Factors influencing final choice of toilet product Affordability 100% Availability of finance/ credit 0% Quality/ durability 0% Ease of access to materials/ service providers 0% Convenience 100% Appropriateness of product 0% Health/ hygiene 48% Safety/ privacy 0% Recommended by influencer 0% Other 0% Didn’t respond 0% For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment G | Drop-offs from buying process (1/2) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Reasons for not building an Factors that might increase individual household toilet consideration of a toilet in the future Affordable products Unaffordable 28% 43% are available Competing priorities/ 18% Competing priorities low priority 39% are met Lack of space 9% Products suitable to setting 21% are available Lack of finance 5% House construction/ 32% alteration No access to 11% value chain Increase in 8% family size Lack of 4% suitable product Cannot access shared/ 25% Weather/ public toilet 7% seasonality delays Live in rented Nothing 0% 42% accomodation Other 7% Other 25% Didn’t respond 0% Didn’t respond 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 108 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment G | Drop-offs from buying process (2/2) All those who currently have improved toilets considered the same features for their own individual toilet, but most of this segment did not consider building an individual toilet Overall sanitation profile 28.8% 54.5% 16.7% Considered improved features Did not consider improved features Limited Unimproved Open Defecation Drop-off from IBT purchase 100.0% 59.7% 5.3% 30.2% 4.8% Total Did not consider Dropped off after Did not consider Considered individual gathering information improved features improved features but did not build IBT Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 109 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment H Improved limited toilet: 4.7% Unimproved toilet: 44.1% No toilet: 51.2% Segment H households do not see toilets as a source of pride… Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km >1 Km < 1Km Water source Mobile money usage Piped A (4.1%) B (12.4%) D (6.8%) Tube well/ borehole Yes C (12.3%) E (15.4%) G (2.4%) K (6.7%) No H (10.1%) J (9.6%) Other protected Yes No I (6.8%) Other unprotected F (13.4%) …and most do not own them. Let’s find out more 110 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment H | Customer story Florence lives and works in Kitgum, with her husband and four children. She has no formal education, and works with her husband on their farm. Florence lives in a house that she owns, built with mud, wood and thatch. Her husband constructed the house five years ago, on cheap land that her parents purchased close to their house. Florence’s eventual aim is to construct another house on their land, built with bricks and cement. However, her farming income is not currently sufficient to fulfill this ambition.As a result, she is trying to acquire additional income by renting out a room in her house to tenants. Florence used to have an unimproved toilet, built with mud, poles, and thatch.This toilet collapsed about 3 months ago, and her husband hasn’t had the time to build another one as he has been busy on the farm.They do not have the money to pay anyone else to build the toilet, as they already struggle to cover their children’s school fees. In the meantime, they have been digging shallow pits around the house, which they can use a few times and then cover. She is not particularly happy with the current situation, but does not see the benefits in spending money on a toilet at the moment, particularly when they are saving for a more modern house. Her husband doesn’t feel not having a toilet is an issue, and thinks that their situation is quite common in the community. When she constructs a new toilet, she would not be particular about whether this toilet is built with permanent materials. She feels anything that ensures privacy is sufficient, and is less concerned about other features. She ultimately does not want to spend much money on constructing a new toilet. Note: Pictures are only meant to be indicative of this segment and are not related to the customer story provided 111 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment H | Key statistics Demographics Family size (Avg.) 6.65 Nature of income Mobile phone 34.3% Gender of HH Head  Regular 23.0% Bicycle 29.7%  Male 45.4%  Irregular 66.1% Solar light system 13.9%  Female 54.6%  Seasonal 10.2% Bed 29.1% Tenure status HH Head education1 Radio 29.3%  Owned 97.3%  No education 62.9% Bank account 4.7%  Rented 1.3%  Up to primary 28.4% Home improvement 18.1%  Other 1.4%  Secondary+ 8.7% % of potential Strongly believe that % used a toilet 82.2% Willing to pay3 10.1% 15.9% market OD is irresponsible % constructed their UGX 900K 5.9% past Strong willingness to Willing to pay for upgrade4 Top expenditure areas 23.4% pay for convenience  Health UGX 900K 4.3% 1. Refers to the proportion of the segment who responded to this question, scaled up to 100%; 2 . Respondents were asked if they ‘strongly disagreed’, ‘disagreed’, ‘agreed’, or ‘strongly agreed’ to statements related to their attitudes and beliefs. Here only the percentage of those who ‘strongly agreed’ with a statement is reported, but overall ‘agreement’ with the statement may be higher; 3. Of the 83.8% of the segment who answered this question; 4. Of the 11.9% of the segment who answered this question Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 112 Income and education Affluence indicators Segment size Attitudes and beliefs2 Behavioral indicators Willingness to pay For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment H | Customer profile Setting  The vast majority of households live in rural areas; entirely located in  Less willing than other segments to be strongly willing to pay for the northern region products that are prestigious  Nearly all households live in houses that are not made with  A majority of households have not taken a loan in the past, primarily permanent materials due to fear of repayment difficulties  Largely have irregular or seasonal sources of income  Do not view toilets as a source of pride to the same extent as  Most households have not attained any education, making them less households in other segments educated than any other segment  Do not feel that having an individual toilet is key to modernity to the  Less than half earn less than UGX 1.2m/ year, and a large majority of same degree as households in other segments households earn less than UGX 2.4m annually  Although households view not having a toilet as irresponsible, this is  Half spend less than UGX 1.2m annually, less than most other the lowest amongst all segments segments  Nearly half of total households see open defecation as a normal  Key expenditure areas are food and health practice in the community (second highest amongst segments)  Nearly all households do not have bank accounts; the vast  Over half of the total households believe that school fees are majority do not have access to mobile money (lowest more important than building/ improving a toilet (the highest amongst segments) amongst all segments)  Most households do not have a mobile phone; a large  Main sources of information on toilets are family and majority do not have radios friends, or health workers and local leaders  Privacy (e.g., existence of a door) is seen as the most desirable feature  Motivation from health workers was the most important factor that when purchasing a toilet influenced households to construct toilets, followed by a desire for  Over health, safety, and privacy half of households practice open defecation, which is the highest amongst all segments  The large majority of households constructed their own toilets and are  Households viewed affordability as the most significant driver when satisfied with them choosing between toilet options  A vast majority of households are only willing to spend less than UGX 600,000 on a new toilet The Ask Source: Uganda S4H Household Survey (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 113 Mental Model For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment H | Buying process (1/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Origination of need Sources of information Channel selection for for toilet about toilets toilet construction House construction/ 7% Family/ friends 69% Own labour 35% alteration Previous toilet 9% filled up School 16% Pit digger 51% Motivated by health 54% workers/ local leaders Health workers/ Mason/ 64% 39% local leaders builder Observation 19% Mason 16% Contractor 3% Prestige/ 34% social standing Pit digger 6% Engineer 1% Rental benefits 0% Material Enforcement 6% Other 2% 0% supplier Health/ hygiene 49% Advertisements 20% Safety/ privacy 49% Observation 4% Convenience 23% Other 0% Other 5% Didn’t respond 0% Don’t know 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 114 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment H | Buying process (2/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Types of substructure Types of pit Pit depth considered considered considered Unlined rectangular pit 58% Less than Onset pit 83% 9% Unlined circular pit 5% 10 feet Lined rectangular pit 34% Offset pit 10% 10-19 feet 46% Lined circular pit 0% Septic tank 0% Septic tank 7% 20-39 feet 35% Sewered connection 0% Don’t know/ Other 3% 0% 40-59 feet 7% don’t remember Don’t know 0% 60 feet 2% or deeper Number of pits Number of stances considered considered Don’t know/ 2% don’t remember One 75% One 53% Two 23% Two 41% Other 2% Other 6% Don’t know/ Don’t know/ 0% 0% don’t remember don’t remember Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 115 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment H | Buying process (3/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 116 Material considered for Material considered for Material considered for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 36% Permanent 56% Permanent 73% Wood poles 7% Temporary 44% Temporary 21% Wood planks 1% No walls 0% No door 5% Concrete/ 49% Cement Tiles/ 0% Material considered for Whether a loan was terrazzo toilet roof taken/ considered Plastic pan 3% Permanent 43% Yes 25% Ceramic pan 2% Temporary 57% No 75% Metallic pan 1% Didn’t respond/ No roof 0% 0% Other 1% refused to respond For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment H | Buying process (4/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 117 Material used for Material used for Material used for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 79% Permanent 34% Permanent 28% Wood poles 9% Temporary 66% Temporary 47% Wood planks 8% No walls 0% No door 25% Concrete/ 5% Cement Tiles/ 0% Material used for Observed number of terrazzo toilet roof stances Plastic pan 0% Permanent 9% One 73% Ceramic pan 0% Temporary 81% Two 27% Metallic pan 0% No roof 9% Other 0% Other 0% For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment H | Buying process (5/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Factors influencing final choice of toilet product Affordability 81% Availability of finance/ credit 24% Quality/ durability 0% Ease of access to materials/ service providers 0% Convenience 24% Appropriateness of product 0% Health/ hygiene 19% Safety/ privacy 19% Recommended by influencer 0% Other 0% Didn’t respond 0% Note: Convenience includes having a single supplier, the ease and duration of installation, and ease of use Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 118 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment H | Drop-offs from buying process (1/2) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Reasons for not building an Factors that might increase individual household toilet consideration of a toilet in the future Affordable products Unaffordable 45% 33% are available Competing priorities/ 56% Competing priorities low priority 41% are met Lack of space 5% Products suitable to setting 17% are available Lack of finance 17% House construction/ 17% alteration No access to 24% value chain Increase in 20% family size Lack of 9% suitable product Cannot access shared/ 6% Weather/ public toilet 7% seasonality delays Live in rented Nothing 3% 0% accomodation Other 8% Other 15% Didn’t respond 0% Didn’t respond 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 119 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment H | Drop-offs from buying process (2/2) Most of this segment engages in open defecation, but they are still relatively likely to consider improved features when building their toilet, although few end up building one Overall sanitation profile 4.7% 44.1% 51.2% Considered improved features Did not consider improved features Limited Unimproved Open Defecation Drop-off from IBT purchase 100.1% 31.0% 5.6% 28.4% 35.1% Total Did not consider Dropped off after Did not consider Considered individual gathering information improved features improved features but did not build IBT Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 120 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment I Improved limited toilet: 5.9% Unimproved toilet: 84.5% No toilet: 9.6% Segment I households lack many basic assets… Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km >1 Km < 1Km Water source Mobile money usage Piped A (4.1%) B (12.4%) D (6.8%) Tube well/ borehole Yes C (12.3%) E (15.4%) G (2.4%) K (6.7%) No H (10.1%) J (9.6%) Other protected Yes No I (6.8%) Other unprotected F (13.4%) …and are not interested in spending money on toilets. Let’s find out more 121 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment I | Customer story James lives in a village in Lira, with his wife and three kids. He has completed his primary education, and is engaged in subsistence farming. He lives in a house built with mud, wood, and poles, which he inherited from his family. He has not upgraded his house, because it is all he can afford at the moment. He is relatively far from the nearest road, and finds it hard to make it to the nearest town to buy materials, and particularly to transport them. James often feels he struggles to provide for his family – his income tends to depend on external factors and can be very variable. He is unhappy that his family does not even have beds to sleep on, and a mobile phone is a distant goal. The main difficulty James faces is in trying to provide for his family. He does not feel he is able to upgrade his lifestyle as he lives too far from most towns, and cannot afford a mobile phone or bicycle. He particularly values products that would make his life more convenient, and might help him seek more work. The VHT helped him realize that it was important to have a toilet, and he recently constructed a toilet with the help of a pit digger.The toilet is built with mud and poles, and does not have a roof or door. James believes toilets are important and built the toilet for his family’s safety and convenience. It is relatively similar to toilets in his community, which is what he wanted. He is quite happy with his toilet, and thinks it makes his family safer and prevents disease. It is easy for his family to use as it is in their compound, and it was relatively quick to build. However, his ideal toilet would be more private. Nonetheless, he is not willing to spend any more money on this toilet. Note: Pictures are only meant to be indicative of this segment and are not related to the customer story provided 122 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment I | Key statistics Demographics Family size (Avg.) 5.45 Nature of income Mobile phone 38.0% Gender of HH Head  Regular 49.1% Bicycle 38.5%  Male 59.8%  Irregular 47.1% Solar light system 35.4%  Female 40.2%  Seasonal 3.8% Bed 56.0% Tenure status HH Head education1 Radio 43.3%  Owned 98.1%  No education 31.5% Bank account 0.5%  Rented 0.0%  Up to primary 56.8% Home improvement 30.1%  Other 1.9%  Secondary+ 11.6% % of potential Strongly believe that % used a toilet 100% Willing to pay3 6.8% 44.7% market OD is irresponsible % constructed their UGX 900K 11.0% past Strong willingness to Willing to pay for upgrade4 Top expenditure areas 10.6% pay for convenience  Health UGX 900K 0.0% 1. Refers to the proportion of the segment who responded to this question, scaled up to 100%; 2 . Respondents were asked if they ‘strongly disagreed’, ‘disagreed’, ‘agreed’, or ‘strongly agreed’ to statements related to their attitudes and beliefs. Here only the percentage of those who ‘strongly agreed’ with a statement is reported, but overall ‘agreement’ with the statement may be higher; 3. Of the 67.1% of the segment who answered this question; 4. Of the 32.9% of the segment who answered this question Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 123 Income and education Affluence indicators Segment size Attitudes and beliefs2 Behavioral indicators Willingness to pay Segment profiles | Segment I | Customer profile Setting  Live entirely in remote rural areas; completely in the Northern  Nearly all households are willing to pay for products that would region make their lives more convenient (third highest amongst segments)  Nearly all live in houses that are made predominantly of temporary  Few strongly agree that they would be willing to pay for goods that materials are prestigious  Over half of household heads have only completed primary  A majority of households believe that one should not do things education; close to a third have attained no education (third highest differently from one’s neighbors/ community (higher than most amongst segments) segments)  Over half of the total number of households have irregular or  Households are not likely to take a loan – most households have not seasonal sources of income taken one in the past because they believe they had no need for one  Over a third earn less than UGX 1.2m/ year, and the majority of  All households believe that individual toilets reduce the incidence of households earn below UGX 2.4m annually disease and help avoid the dangers of defecating in a bush at night  Over half of households spend less than UGX 1.2m/ year, More likely than most segments to agree that building a toilet is spending less than most segments  as important as durable assets  Key expenditure areas are food and health  Sources of information on toilets are family and friends or  Nearly all households do not have access to a bank account; health workers and local leaders most households do not have access to mobile money  The majority of households do not own a mobile phone; less than half own a radio  Privacy (e.g., existence of door) is seen overwhelmingly as the most  Selected product features mainly based on affordability and desirable feature a toilet should have convenience; over half of households did not consider improved  features A vast majority of households have unimproved toilets, which is the Largely satisfied with their current toilets; nearly all households were third highest amongst segments  only willing to pay less than UGX 300,000 to upgrade their toilets  A desire for safety and privacy were the most important reasons  A vast majority of households are only willing to pay less than UGX households were driven to construct toilets, followed by influence 600,000 for a new toilet, the vast majority were only willing to pay up from health workers and increased convenience to UGX 300,000, less than any other segment The Ask Source: Uganda S4H Household Survey (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 124 For discussion, not for circulation Mental Model For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment I | Buying process (1/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Origination of need Sources of information Channel selection for for toilet about toilets toilet construction House construction/ 18% Family/ friends 57% Own labour 46% alteration Previous toilet 16% filled up School 0% Pit digger 46% Motivated by health 31% workers/ local leaders Health workers/ Mason/ 75% 38% local leaders builder Observation 18% Mason 30% Contractor 0% Prestige/ 29% social standing Pit digger 9% Engineer 2% Rental benefits 5% Material Enforcement 4% Other 0% 0% supplier Health/ hygiene 29% Advertisements 23% Safety/ privacy 43% Observation 0% Convenience 31% Other 0% Other 9% Didn’t respond 0% Don’t know 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 125 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment I | Buying process (2/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Types of substructure Types of pit Pit depth considered considered considered Unlined rectangular pit 78% Less than Onset pit 93% 6% Unlined circular pit 13% 10 feet Lined rectangular pit 10% Offset pit 7% 10-19 feet 50% Lined circular pit 0% Septic tank 0% Septic tank 0% 20-39 feet 30% Sewered connection 0% Don’t know/ Other 0% 0% 40-59 feet 7% don’t remember Don’t know 0% 60 feet 0% or deeper Number of pits Number of stances considered considered Don’t know/ 8% don’t remember One 64% One 46% Two 36% Two 52% Other 0% Other 2% Don’t know/ Don’t know/ 0% 0% don’t remember don’t remember Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 126 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment I | Buying process (3/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material considered for Material considered for Material considered for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 30% Permanent 52% Permanent 72% Wood poles 18% Temporary 47% Temporary 19% Wood planks 12% No walls 1% No door 9% Concrete/ 28% Cement Tiles/ 0% Material considered for Whether a loan was terrazzo toilet roof taken/ considered Plastic pan 2% Permanent 35% Yes 26% Ceramic pan 0% Temporary 59% No 72% Metallic pan 0% Didn’t respond/ No roof 6% 2% Other 10% refused to respond 127 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment I | Buying process (4/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Material used for Material used for Material used for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 48% Permanent 29% Permanent 15% Wood poles 25% Temporary 56% Temporary 27% Wood planks 12% No walls 15% No door 58% Concrete/ 3% Cement Tiles/ 0% Material used for Observed number of terrazzo toilet roof stances Plastic pan 0% Permanent 32% One 78% Ceramic pan 0% Temporary 22% Two 21% Metallic pan 0% No roof 45% Other 1% Other 13% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 128 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment I | Buying process (5/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Factors influencing final choice of toilet product Affordability 72% Availability of finance/ credit 23% Quality/ durability 11% Ease of access to materials/ service providers 10% Convenience 57% Appropriateness of product 14% Health/ hygiene 0% Safety/ privacy 32% Recommended by influencer 8% Other 0% Didn’t respond 0% Note: Convenience includes having a single supplier, the ease and duration of installation, and ease of use Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 129 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment I | Drop-offs from buying process (1/2) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Reasons for not building an Factors that might increase individual household toilet consideration of a toilet in the future Affordable products Unaffordable 33% 45% are available Competing priorities/ 57% Competing priorities low priority 33% are met Lack of space 10% Products suitable to setting 13% are available Lack of finance 13% House construction/ 29% alteration No access to 22% value chain Increase in 17% family size Lack of 5% suitable product Cannot access shared/ 11% Weather/ public toilet 5% seasonality delays Nothing 0% Live in rented 0% accomodation Other 4% Other 11% Didn’t respond 2% Didn’t respond 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 130 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment I | Drop-offs from buying process (2/2) The majority of the segment did not consider improved features when building their toilet; most have unimproved toilets made from temporary materials Overall sanitation profile 5.9% 84.5% 9.6% Considered improved features Did not consider improved features Limited Unimproved Open Defecation Drop-off from IBT purchase 100.1% 20.1% 2.0% 54.4% 23.6% Total Did not consider Dropped off after Did not consider Considered individual gathering information improved features improved features but did not build IBT Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 131 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment J Improved limited toilet: 3.1% Unimproved toilet: 96.9% No toilet: 0.0% Segment J households value respect and prestige… Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km >1 Km < 1Km Water source Mobile money usage Piped A (4.1%) B (12.4%) D (6.8%) Tube well/ borehole Yes C (12.3%) E (15.4%) G (2.4%) K (6.7%) No H (10.1%) J (9.6%) Other protected Yes No I (6.8%) Other unprotected F (13.4%) …yet do not consider building improved toilets. Let’s understand why 132 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment J | Customer story Ivan lives in a village in Kibaale district with his wife and two children. He has his own farm land and is able to earn relatively well by selling the maize and beans he grows.Though his income is seasonal, he is able to earn enough to maintain his status in the community. Though he only studied up to the P4 level, he wants his children to get a good education and has enrolled them in private schools. Paying school fees, which are a major expense for the family, can be challenging at times due to the seasonality of his income. Their house is made entirely of mud and wood, and was built by his father. He is a member of a SACCO, and took a loan from them a few years ago in order to purchase his solar light system to help his children study at night. Ivan owns a toilet made largely of mud and wooden poles which he built after the pit of his previous toilet collapsed. He built the new toilet himself with materials gathered from the area, and looked at the type of toilets his neighbors have in order to get an idea of what he might want. While his toilet is very similar to those in his community, he is not particularly happy with it as he thinks it takes a lot of effort to keep it clean. Nonetheless, he feels his current toilet allows him to maintain his standing in the community, as everyone has a toilet. Having people in the village respect him is very important, and he is happy that his toilet helps provide him with a good image. He would be willing to build a new toilet in the future, and would use similar materials to do so. However, he might use a pit digger next time as he wants a deeper pit in order to increase the lifespan of the toilet. Note: Pictures are only meant to be indicative of this segment and are not related to the customer story provided 133 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment J | Key statistics Demographics Family size (Avg.) 5.25 Nature of income Mobile phone 62.7% Gender of HH Head  Regular 43.7% Bicycle 24.7%  Male 73.9%  Irregular 13.9% Solar light system 40.8%  Female 26.1%  Seasonal 42.5% Bed 83.8% Tenure status HH Head education1 Radio 56.9%  Owned 74.5%  No education 17.2% Bank account 5.7%  Rented 22.6%  Up to primary 69.3% Home improvement 30.3%  Other 2.9%  Secondary+ 13.5% % of potential Strongly believe that % used a toilet 100% Willing to pay3 9.6% 39.9% market OD is irresponsible % constructed their UGX 900K 20.9% past Strong willingness to Willing to pay for upgrade4 Top expenditure areas 37.3% pay for convenience  Health UGX 900K 19.5% 1. Refers to the proportion of the segment who responded to this question, scaled up to 100%; 2 . Respondents were asked if they ‘strongly disagreed’, ‘disagreed’, ‘agreed’, or ‘strongly agreed’ to statements related to their attitudes and beliefs. Here only the percentage of those who ‘strongly agreed’ with a statement is reported, but overall ‘agreement’ with the statement may be higher; 3. Of the 29.3% of the segment who answered this question; 4. Of the 56.7% of the segment who answered this question Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 134 Income and education Affluence indicators Segment size Attitudes and beliefs2 Behavioral indicators Willingness to pay For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment J | Customer profile Setting  Located in relatively remote rural areas in the Western district  Tend to believe that a product owned by others in their community  Most would be useful for them as well have not studied beyond the primary grades   The respect of those in their community is also particularly important Tend to own the house that they live in; almost all these houses are made entirely of temporarily materials to this segment, and they believe that owning a toilet is one way to earn respect  Household income is relatively well-distributed across income  More willing than most segments to pay for products they consider brackets, with the majority earning more than UGX 1.2m/ year – prestigious, and believe that owning a toilet increases their status slightly higher than the average for all segments   However, more than half have seasonal or irregular Not particularly averse to taking loans, but do not feel the need to take incomes one  Education is particularly important to this segment, with expenditure Nearly all either strongly agree or agree that it is irresponsible not on school fees being a top priority area for this segment alongside  to own a toilet, which is reflected in the absence of OD in this food and health segment  Use of bank accounts and mobile money, is very low – below the  Consider investing in toilets to be as important as buying other average for all segments durable assets  Less likely to own a mobile phone than customers in other  Believe that building a toilet is at least as important as paying segments school fees – more so than any of the other segments  Largely rely on their family and friends for information related to toilets  Safety and privacy are the features they desire most in a toilet  Affordability and convenience (ease of installation and use) are the  main drivers of the choice of toilet Toilets are important to this segment; ownership of individual toilets is close to universal and households tend to build new toilets if their  Only slightly more than half are satisfied with their toilet existing toilet becomes unusable  Most would consider building a new toilet, but only a third are willing  Tend to have unimproved toilets, with most not even considering to pay more than UGX 600,000 for it improved toilet features  Largely use their own labor to construct toilets; rarely use masons The Ask Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 135 Mental Model For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment J | Buying process (1/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Origination of need Sources of information Channel selection for for toilet about toilets toilet construction House construction/ 18% Family/ friends 83% Own labour 68% alteration Previous toilet 28% filled up School 0% Pit digger 30% Motivated by health 10% workers/ local leaders Health workers/ Mason/ 26% 7% local leaders builder Observation 7% Mason 17% Contractor 6% Prestige/ 30% social standing Pit digger 17% Engineer 0% Rental benefits 0% Material Enforcement 9% Other 0% 9% supplier Health/ hygiene 57% Advertisements 0% Safety/ privacy 40% Observation 0% Convenience 26% Other 8% Other 6% Didn’t respond 0% Don’t know 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 136 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment J | Buying process (2/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Types of substructure Types of pit Pit depth considered considered considered Unlined rectangular pit 93% Less than Onset pit 91% 10% Unlined circular pit 0% 10 feet Lined rectangular pit 5% Offset pit 9% 10-19 feet 42% Lined circular pit 0% Septic tank 0% Septic tank 0% 20-39 feet 40% Sewered connection 0% Don’t know/ Other 2% 0% 40-59 feet 4% don’t remember Don’t know 0% 60 feet 4% or deeper Number of pits Number of stances considered considered Don’t know/ 0% don’t remember One 84% One 57% Two 14% Two 40% Other 2% Other 4% Don’t know/ Don’t know/ 0% 0% don’t remember don’t remember Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 137 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment J | Buying process (3/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material considered for Material considered for Material considered for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 28% Permanent 3% Permanent 13% Wood poles 51% Temporary 92% Temporary 23% Wood planks 16% No walls 5% No door 63% Concrete/ 3% Cement Tiles/ 0% Material considered for Whether a loan was terrazzo toilet roof taken/ considered Plastic pan 0% Permanent 46% Yes 13% Ceramic pan 0% Temporary 44% No 87% Metallic pan 0% Didn’t respond/ No roof 10% 0% Other 2% refused to respond 138 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment J | Buying process (4/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material used for Material used for Material used for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 32% Permanent 0% Permanent 6% Wood poles 41% Temporary 96% Temporary 33% Wood planks 27% No walls 4% No door 61% Concrete/ 0% Cement Tiles/ 0% Material used for Observed number of terrazzo toilet roof stances Plastic pan 0% Permanent 40% One 62% Ceramic pan 0% Temporary 48% Two 36% Metallic pan 0% No roof 12% Other 2% Other 0% 139 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment J | Buying process (5/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Factors influencing final choice of toilet product Affordability 65% Availability of finance/ credit 5% Quality/ durability 4% Ease of access to materials/ service providers 19% Convenience 53% Appropriateness of product 2% Health/ hygiene 16% Safety/ privacy 12% Recommended by influencer 2% Other 10% Didn’t respond 0% Note: Convenience includes having a single supplier, the ease and duration of installation, and ease of use Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 140 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment J | Drop-offs from buying process (1/2) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Reasons for not building an Factors that might increase individual household toilet consideration of a toilet in the future Affordable products Unaffordable 29% 22% are available Competing priorities/ 23% Competing priorities low priority 14% are met Lack of space 12% Products suitable to setting 7% are available Lack of finance 0% House construction/ 64% alteration No access to 10% value chain Increase in 9% family size Lack of 0% suitable product Cannot access shared/ 18% Weather/ public toilet 0% seasonality delays Nothing 9% Live in rented 67% accomodation Other 2% Other 3% Didn’t respond 3% Didn’t respond 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 141 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment J | Drop-offs from buying process (2/2) While the vast majority of households in this segment considered and built individual toilets, close to none considered toilets with improved features Overall sanitation profile 3.1% 96.9% Considered improved features Did not consider improved features Limited Unimproved Drop-off from IBT purchase 100.0% 22.8% 1.4% 73.7% 2.1% Total Did not consider Dropped off after Did not consider Considered individual gathering information improved features improved features but did not build IBT Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 142 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment K Improved limited toilet: 11.9% Unimproved toilet: 88.1% No toilet: 0.0% Segment K households are relatively wealthy… Region Central Eastern Northern Western Urban/ rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban Distance from main road <1km >1km <1km >1km >1 Km < 1Km Water source Mobile money usage Piped A (4.1%) B (12.4%) D (6.8%) Tube well/ borehole Yes C (12.3%) E (15.4%) G (2.4%) K (6.7%) No H (10.1%) J (9.6%) Other protected Yes No I (6.8%) Other unprotected F (13.4%) …but mainly have unimproved toilets. Let’s understand why 143 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment K | Customer story Joseph lives near a trading centre in Kabarole, where he helps manage a hardware store, a job he considers suitable given that he has completed his O-levels. His wife and two children live with him in a house made largely of mud and wattle. He is happy with his job, which allowed him to save enough to buy the land for his house, which he built a few years ago.The shop owner pays him regularly, and he is therefore able to take care of his family, as well as make visits to his home village. Joseph is proud of his status among his neighbors – while everyone earns relatively well, a good number depend on seasonal income and have rented houses.While most own mobile phones and radios, he also has a solar light system. Joseph always planned to build a toilet when he built his house as he expects a house to have a toilet; everyone in his neighborhood has one. He believes it helps take care of his family’s health, and brings respect from his community.When he wanted to build a toilet, Joseph consulted his neighbors to see what they thought might be best, and to ask where he could find a pit digger. As a result, he built a toilet made of wood poles and mud, with an iron sheet roof. He wishes his toilet looked better and would ideally like to have a toilet that they can clean with water. He had considered using cement for the floor of the toilet, but decided he might not be able to afford it. At some point in the future when he upgrades his house, Joseph would probably upgrade his toilet or build a new one. This time he would like to use cement for the floor and bricks for the walls. He feels he would be happy to pay over UGX 900,000 for this, and would probably consult his neighbors again about where he could find a mason to build it. Note: Pictures are only meant to be indicative of this segment and are not related to the customer story provided 144 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment K | Key statistics Demographics Family size (Avg.) 4.45 Nature of income Mobile phone 77.6% Gender of HH Head  Regular 61.3% Bicycle 20.3%  Male 70.6%  Irregular 5.0% Solar light system 42.2%  Female 29.4%  Seasonal 32.1% Bed 94.1% Tenure status HH Head education1 Radio 88.2%  Owned 67.5%  No education 14.2% Bank account 15.7%  Rented 26.1%  Up to primary 39.9% Home improvement 32.7%  Other 6.4%  Secondary+ 45.9% % of potential Strongly believe that % used a toilet 100% Willing to pay3 6.7% 44.2% market OD is irresponsible % constructed their UGX 900K 49.2% past Strong willingness to Willing to pay for upgrade4 Top expenditure areas 40.6% pay for convenience  Health UGX 900K 28.8% 1. Refers to the proportion of the segment who responded to this question, scaled up to 100%; 2 . Respondents were asked if they ‘strongly disagreed’, ‘disagreed’, ‘agreed’, or ‘strongly agreed’ to statements related to their attitudes and beliefs. Here only the percentage of those who ‘strongly agreed’ with a statement is reported, but overall ‘agreement’ with the statement may be higher; 3. Of the 38.9% of the segment who answered this question; 4. Of the 57.2% of the segment who answered this question Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 145 Income and education Affluence indicators Segment size Attitudes and beliefs2 Behavioral indicators Willingness to pay For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment K | Customer profile Setting Mental Model  Live in theWestern region, with slightly more than half living in urban  More likely than other segments to strongly agree that they would pay areas for products that make their lives more convenient  Most household heads are educated, with more having studied at the  All value the opinions of neighbors, and agree or strongly agree that secondary school level or higher than in any other segment having the respect of their community is important  Tend to own their houses, which are mainly made of temporary  Believe more strongly than most that they should not do things materials differently from others in their community, and that commonly owned  More likely than most segments to have a regular source of income; the products would be useful for their family as well majority of this segment have one  Consequently, family and friends are the most important influencers  The large majority earn and spend more than UGX 1.2m/ year, both when seeking information related to toilet purchase well above the average for other segments  Don’t feel the need to take loans, which is consistent with their  Food, health, transport, and education are among the main expenditure relative affluence as compared to other segments areas   Nearly all consider a toilet as important as other durable assets, Asset ownership is generally high relative to other segments – and believe owning a toilet makes one a proud and respected radio ownership is higher in this segment than in any other member of the community segment, and mobile phone ownership is also well above average  Almost all are aware of the health and hygiene benefits of  The proportion who have bank accounts toilets and see OD as embarrassing, OD is therefore non- is roughly consistent with the national average existent  Their ideal toilet would be a two-stance toilet one that they are able  Nearly all selected their toilet features based on affordability; and the to clean with water, is private, and is unlikely to collapse majority did not consider individual toilets with improved features  They also believe a toilet should be aesthetically pleasing, possibly  Most are at least slightly satisfied with their toilet but would consider linked to their stronger desire for the respect of their community upgrading, particularly to improve the floor of their toilet  The vast majority of this segment have unimproved toilets  Close to half the households in the segment are willing to pay over  Many built their current toilet out of a desire for greater health, UGX 600,000 for this upgrade, and of these households, the majority are willing to pay more than UGX 900,000 hygiene, and prestige The Ask Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 146 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment K | Buying process (1/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Origination of need Sources of information Channel selection for for toilet about toilets toilet construction House construction/ 36% Family/ friends 84% Own labour 37% alteration Previous toilet 25% filled up School 0% Pit digger 57% Motivated by health 33% workers/ local leaders Health workers/ Mason/ 37% 30% local leaders builder Observation 4% Mason 19% Contractor 0% Prestige/ 40% social standing Pit digger 19% Engineer 15% Rental benefits 0% Material Enforcement 0% Other 3% 0% supplier Health/ hygiene 42% Advertisements 0% Safety/ privacy 25% Observation 0% Convenience 14% Other 14% Other 0% Didn’t respond 0% Don’t know 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 147 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment K | Buying process (2/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Types of substructure Types of pit Pit depth considered considered considered Unlined rectangular pit 75% Less than Onset pit 91% 0% Unlined circular pit 4% 10 feet Lined rectangular pit 20% Offset pit 9% 10-19 feet 13% Lined circular pit 1% Septic tank 0% Septic tank 0% 20-39 feet 51% Sewered connection 0% Don’t know/ Other 0% 0% 40-59 feet 34% don’t remember Don’t know 1% 60 feet 1% or deeper Number of pits Number of stances considered considered Don’t know/ 1% don’t remember One 74% One 24% Two 24% Two 63% Other 1% Other 12% Don’t know/ Don’t know/ 1% 1% don’t remember don’t remember Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 148 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment K | Buying process (3/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Material considered for Material considered for Material considered for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 0% Permanent 32% Permanent 48% Wood poles 56% Temporary 63% Temporary 20% Wood planks 9% No walls 4% Concrete/ 34% No door 32% Cement Don’t know 1% Tiles/ 0% terrazzo Material considered for Whether a loan was Plastic pan 0% toilet roof taken/ considered Permanent 65% Ceramic pan 0% Yes 7% Metallic pan 0% Temporary 27% No 93% Other 0% No roof 7% Didn’t respond/ Don’t know/ 0% 1% Don’t know 1% refused to respond don’t remember Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 149 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment K | Buying process (4/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis Material used for Material used for Material used for toilet interface toilet wall toilet door Mud/ Clay 16% Permanent 3% Permanent 20% Wood poles 66% Temporary 97% Temporary 29% Wood planks 15% No walls 0% No door 52% Concrete/ 3% Cement Tiles/ 0% Material used for Observed number of terrazzo toilet roof stances Plastic pan 0% Permanent 57% One 41% Ceramic pan 0% Temporary 34% Two 59% Metallic pan 0% No roof 9% Other 0% Other 0% 150 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment K | Buying process (5/5) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Factors influencing final choice of toilet product Affordability 94% Availability of finance/ credit 27% Quality/ durability 13% Ease of access to materials/ service providers 25% Convenience 34% Appropriateness of product 0% Health/ hygiene 5% Safety/ privacy 5% Recommended by influencer 5% Other 0% Didn’t respond 0% Note: Convenience includes having a single supplier, the ease and duration of installation, and ease of use Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 151 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment K | Drop-offs from buying process (1/2) Origination Information gathering Channel selection Product selection Product installation Reasons for not building an Factors that might increase individual household toilet consideration of a toilet in the future Affordable products Unaffordable 43% 15% are available Competing priorities/ 62% Competing priorities low priority 42% are met Lack of space 20% Products suitable to setting 6% are available Lack of finance 0% House construction/ 69% alteration No access to 22% value chain Increase in 32% family size Lack of 0% suitable product Cannot access shared/ 16% Weather/ public toilet 0% seasonality delays Live in rented Nothing 2% 20% accomodation Other 6% Other 10% Didn’t respond 0% Didn’t respond 0% Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 152 For discussion, not for circulation Segment profiles | Segment K | Drop-offs from buying process (2/2) Households in this segment with limited toilets largely considered improved features when considering building their own toilet, but most have unimproved toilets and largely did not consider improved features when building their toilet Overall sanitation profile 11.9% 88.1% Considered improved features Did not consider improved features Limited Unimproved Drop-off from IBT purchase 100.1% 27.0% 0.0% 48.0% 25.1% Total Did not consider Dropped off after Did not consider Considered individual gathering information improved features improved features but did not build IBT Source: Uganda S4H RHIS (listing n = 11,871; main n = 1,185), FSG analysis 153