Analysis of the Sociocultural

Implications of the use of the

Ecosan System at Boom Festival

2012

by

Bárbara Campos

2013

Abstract

An “Analysis of the Sociocultural Implications of the use of the Ecosan System at

Boom Festival 2012” is a volunteer project that took place from July 28th to August 4th

during Boom Festival 2012 at Idanha-a-Nova, Portugal.

The project focuses on understanding the implications of using an ecosan system

at a multicultural festival as Boom, aiming to verify if there were any sociocultural

limitations for its users, as well as understanding the general sanitation habits of the

festival’s visitors.

In a further stage, the analysis can be used as a way of improving the system itself

and adapting it to better fit the user’s needs and thus, get closer to a cultural and

gender friendly system.

Contents

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… 1

Methodology ……………………………………………………………………….. 3

First Stage: Personal Information ……………………………………………….. 4

Second Stage: General Opinion ………………………………………………….. 5

Third Stage: Personal Sanitation Habits ………………………………………… 7

Forth Stage: Cultural and Religious Implications ………………………………. 9

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………….. 11

Charts ……………………………………………………………………………….. 12

Tables …………………………………………………………………………….... 30

Photos ………………………………………………………………………………. 37

References …………………………………………………………………………. 42

Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………… 43

Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………... 44

1

Introduction

“(…) the Irony of defecation is that it is a solitary business yet its repercussions are

plural and public.” [George 2008:179]

To contemplate an inevitable trip to the toilet when devoid of certainties that will be

in accordance with one’s own concept of "toilet" and "private" could become a situation

of profound discomfort and anxiety. The whole process falters on psychological

pressures (be them conscious or unconscious) that could turn into shame, disgust,

fear, or failure.

The idea of sharing an intimate space can generate issues rarely supported by

positivism, being the general view of "public health" defined in a confusion of unclean

and impersonal feelings. Such view and feelings change not only within the same

society but even more so, from culture to culture.

The current project aims to develop an ethnographic analysis that will allow an

understanding of the sociocultural implications of a public ecosan system in the context

of a multicultural event, based on the assumption that the use of sanitation and hygiene

practices differ widely between cultures.

The analysis of the more or less ritualistic behaviors concerning the use of a public

toilet assumes a larger proportion at an event such as Boom Festival. The festival’s

multiculturalism requires a proper identification and respect for the differences of the

various visitors, taking into account the most relevant factors that dictate how each of

them uses a toilet. What for few seems to be adequate in terms of good hygiene

practices and use of public sanitation, for others it may come as impracticable and

unacceptable.

It seems then of relevant academic interest that we analyze these habits and

behaviors that can be related to practices based in differences of:

- Gender (identifying the differing needs between men and women regarding the

use of toilets, focusing not only on physical but also psychological factors);

- Culture/Religion (understanding that different cultures/religions have

considerable influence regarding hygiene practices and sanitation, some of

which obeying to explicit rules regarding the handling of excrement and water

use. As such, the use of a dry sanitation system could emerge as an obstacle

or challenge for some festival visitors);

- Psychological perception (understanding the ritual of using a toilet based on

the psychological perception of the user. This includes an analysis of how

users perceive the odor; the composting process; hygiene inside the toilet; the

idea of eating food fertilized by composted excrement; etc).

2

The analysis of these basic points allows specific measures to be applied in the

future, in order to develop a more “culture friendly” system.

This project thus becomes of relevant value in understanding sanitation practices

in the context of such events, which will allow us to analyze the different needs of the

target audience as well as diminishing the sociocultural barriers that may arise among

it.

Ultimately, it is intended for the analysis to serve as a case study for a general

situation outside the context of multi-cultural events, serving as a model for an analysis

of behavior in domains where it is of irrevocable interest that a ecosan system is

applied, as is the case of communities where diseases spread precisely because of

poor sanitation.

3

Methodology

The main investigation methods relied on surveys and informal interviews that took

place near the sanitation areas, mostly during the day (between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m). A

total of 303 users from 30 countries (Fig. 1; Table. 1) participated, representing roughly

1% of the festival’s population.

The survey was designed to focus on 4 stages based on:

- Personal information (country of origin; age group; sex);

- General opinion on the festival’s ecosan system;

- Personal sanitation habits;

- Cultural/ religious implications on the use of this kind of system at the festival’s

context.

Questions nº 2, 3, 13, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, 30 and 35 where annulled from the

analysis because of their lack of consistency and/or relevance.

4

First Stage: Personal Information

As seen in figure 1 and table 1, the inquired users represent a total of 30 countries,

with an evident majority originating from Portugal, UK, France and Germany. On the

other side of the spectrum we have sample demographic minorities (with only 1

inquired user per country) originating from Angola, Australia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic,

Estonia, Hungary, Mexico and Russia.

Gender division shows a very fair distribution (Fig. 2; Table 2), with 150 male and

153 female users participating in the survey.

An equal division of gender offers a more accurate result on the analysis, not

bending the general opinion of the inquired group with gender based views.

The average user’s age (Fig. 3; Table 3) is set between 18 and 30 years old,

representing a total of 215 users. A minority is set under 18 years old, representing a

total of 4 users.

5

Second Stage: General Opinion

The second stage of the survey aimed to understand the users’ general opinion

about the festival’s ecosan system, offering a clearer idea on how the users feel about

the system concerning its technical characteristics. These components range from the

hygiene level inside the toilets, to its location, number, intensity of smell and general

functionality

In this stage are included questions 6; 7; 7.1; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 12.1; 14; 15; 16;

16.1; 17; 19; 19.1; 21; 22 and 22.1.

It is very clear through figures 4 to 26 (see also tables 4 to 26) that the overall

satisfaction level of the inquired users builds up to a very positive feedback of the

system’s functionality.

However, when asked “Would you consider the number of bathrooms to be

sufficient?” (Fig. 7; Table 7) a total number of 136 users answered “No” and many of

those who answered “Yes” (total of 161 users) left a note in the survey mentioning that

nevertheless, they considered important to add more toilets to the camping areas.

From those who answered “No”, 73 were Female and 63 were Male users (Fig 8; Table

8).

On the same note, when asked “Do you feel you have to wait in line for a long

period of time to use the toilet?” 156 users answered “Yes” opposed to 128 users who

answered “No” (Fig.15; Table 15).

Through observation it was clear that there were large queues at the toilets near

the camping areas, although these were only occurring in the morning, between 8 a.m.

and 11 a.m. (with longer waiting periods mostly between 8 a.m. and about 9.30 a.m.),

and at the end of the day, between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. These were the hours in which

the visitors gathered more near the camping areas, being mostly related to the

festival’s program schedules.

It needs to be stressed that the referred queues were mainly formed in a single line

during rush hours (Figs. 42; 43; 44), so for every block of toilets in the camping site,

there was only one line, and when reached the first place of the queue, the user would

enter the first toilet to get vacant. This queue system was evidently the most fair,

because it obliged all users to wait the same amount of time, as opposed to a system

with several lines, where it would be a matter of choosing “wisely” which queue to join

(Figs. 41; 45). Nevertheless, from an outside perspective, looking at this “one queue

only” system, it appeared to have a very long waiting period, when in fact it would

almost always be moving. These queues seemed to take much longer than they

actually did.

A solution to this problem (as a way to diminish these queues) was to make

available some chemical toilets on the third day of the festival. Interestingly, the queues

for the ecosan toilets kept on forming themselves.

6

When people were inquired about why were they still waiting in line when there

were vacant chemicals toilets right next to the ecosan toilets, most replied they would

much rather wait in line and use the ecosan toilets than they would prefer entering a

chemical toilet. Still, there were some chemical toilets being used, so these users were

inquired about why had they chosen to use it, many of them replying that they only

choose the chemicals when in an emergency that does not permit them to wait any

period of time in queue to use the ecosan toilets.

These choices can give us a curious perspective (although based on empirical

evidence only) of how some people are willing to wait longer, in order to guarantee

better conditions when in the need to use a public toilet. It is not only a matter of

“getting thing done” as it is also a matter of being comfortable while doing it. This is

how important a public toilet is/can be and a very interesting expression of how people

perceive their space when it comes to personal and private necessities (very often

disregarded by public sanitation agents).

In this stage of the survey there were also introduced four questions for female

users only. Questions 24 and 24.1 were, however, annulled.

The remaining female question was “Would you consider the Boom toilets to be

functional when menstruated?” to which 107 female users answered “Yes” and 43

users answered “No” (Fig. 25; Table 25). From those who answered “No” 11 justified

with “Not enough space to change hygienic pads”; 25 answered with “No place to

discard hygienic pads”; 15 with “No place to hang my belongings”; and 11 with “No

toilet paper” (Fig. 26; Table 26).

Almost every toilet was equipped with a garbage disposal, which consisted of a

hole on the back wall that would direct the garbage through a short tube and in to a

disposable bag hanging outside the wall. It was observed that not every user had

noticed the existence of such garbage since there was no clear indication. Some toilets

did provide a basket, although not all.

It is important to keep in mind that women in general have more needs then men

when it comes to toilet use. Not only women need certain details that are oblivious to

men, as they also need more time and space inside a toilet. Boom toilets were quite

spacious, and did (in most cases) provide the needed equipment for a female user

when menstruated, as seen through the majority of positive answers to question nº 22.

Harvey Molotch stresses this point very well in Toilet: Public Restrooms and the

Politics of Sharing by saying,

Men and women do have different biological characteristics, and those

imply different types and degrees of spatial need. Besides different

body “plumbing” that affects, in particular, the discharge of urine,

women menstruate. This creates more visits, longer stays, and higher

stakes for creating and managing a mess. Women need special trash

receptacles for their “sanitary napkins” and tampons. And there are

cultural differences between men and women, including how they think

about the toilet and what they take to be how they should behave in

regard to it. [2010:5]

7

Third Stage: Personal Sanitation Habits

The third stage aimed to understand to what extend the Boom ecosan system was

in accordance with the user’s normal sanitation habits and in which points could these

habits diverge from what was provided through the ecosan system. The focused points

were based on the kind of toilet the enquired visitors generally use outside the festival

(Fig.27; Table 27); what they generally use as a means of toilet hygiene (Fig. 28; Table

28); and to what extend is the absence of immediate access to water a problem for

them (Fig. 29; Table 29).

In this stage are included questions 27, 28 and 29.

It is clear through the given answers that the majority of the enquired users share

habits that are in accordance with the ecosan system. When asked “Which of the

following kinds of toilet do you mostly use in your daily life” 281 users answered “Sitting

Toilet”, 6 answered with “Latrine”, and 3 answered with “Open Field” (Fig. 27; Table

27). Those who answered “Latrine” originated from France, Germany, Israel, Romania,

UK and Brazil. Those who answered “Open Field” originated from Germany (2 users)

and France (1 user).

The use of latrines can be mostly found in rural areas, but it is not a predominant

system anymore in the countries mentioned above nor is the open defecation method

(important to keep in mind that these are the countries of origin of the users and not

specifically the ones they live at the moment).

In the same note, if we look at question nº 11 - “Would you rather if the toilets

provided a latrine instead of a toilet seat?” - 51 users answered “Yes”, opposed to 226

users who answered “No”. It was understood through informal interviews that some

users considered latrines to be healthier for the body and more attuned to the natural

way of human defecation. So, it is fair to say that some people (possibly those who

answered “Yes” when asked if they would prefer a latrine instead of a toilet seat) would

rather shift the predominant system that obligates one to use a sitting toilet and thus,

be presented with that possibility when using an ecosan toilet.

When asked “Which of the following options do you personally use for toilet

hygiene in your daily life?” 278 users answered with “Toilet Paper”, 13 answered with

“Water”, and 1 answered with “Wipes” (Fig. 28; Table 28). Those who answered with

“Water” originated from Brazil (1 user), Portugal (2 users), France (4 users), Romania

(1 user), Germany (2 users), Italy (1 user), Netherlands (1 user) and Finland (1 user).

The one user who answered with “Wipes” originated from Greece.

Again, it is clear that the majority of users are in accordance with the Boom ecosan

system when it comes to toilet hygiene. As for the ones who use water, it is fair to take

in mind that not only can it be a personal choice, but we need to also consider that

some users can have health implications that limit the use of toilet paper when using

the toilet.

8

When asked “Is the absence of water a problem for you?” 74 users answered with

“Yes” opposed to 218 users who answered with “No” (Fig. 29; Table 29). From those

who answered “Yes” 36 were Male and 38 were female, showing there is no apparent

gender based influence amongst the inquired users.

Very important to note that through informal interviews, one of the only complaints

had to do with water. Users in general considered there was a lack of direct access to

water, and even thought they did not need it inside the toilet, they would much

appreciate if there was a water point right outside the toilets for hand washing.

There were always water points near the toilets, only not right outside the door as,

it seems, users wanted.

9

Forth Stage: Cultural and Religious Implications

The forth and last stage of the survey aims to understand if the use of an ecosan

system does in fact present any cultural or religious implication to visitors.

In this stage are included questions nº 29.1, 31, 32, 34 and 34.1.

Still regarding the use of water previously mentioned in the third stage, when

asked “Is the absence of water a problem for you?” 3 of the users who answered “Yes”

justified with “Cultural Reasons” and originated from Brazil, Belgium and France.

However, there is no obvious connection between the cultural use of water in

these particular countries besides the fact that the predominant sanitation system does

use water to flush. The use of water in sanitation or even as a means of hygiene

cannot be regarded as a cultural influence. As Laura Trauth (2005) references, earlier

methods of toilet hygiene in Europe did not include the use of water, instead it used

other available means such as leaves and moss or, as the Romans used, a sponge on

a stick.

(…) roll toilet paper wasn't invented until the 19th century, so before that

people used all sorts of less comfortable things: leaves, moss, corn cobs

(…), or scraps of cloth. The Romans used a sponge on a stick. [2005].

Water was not the general means of toilet hygiene nor is it today. As much, water

is part of a mechanical system and not a human habit in this context. The Brazilian,

Belgian or French cultures do not have a habit that constrains one to use water before

or after defecation. Furthermore, in Brazil’s specific case, water and sanitation supply is

still deficient in the 21th century, as evidenced in a recent article by Léo Heller (2006)

In Access to Water Supply and Sanitation in Brazil: Historical and Current Reflections;

Future Perspectives,

(…) data reveals the existence of 12,000,000 Brazilians in cities and

22,000,000 in rural areas still unserved [with a water supply system], in

addition to the demand imposed by surging population growth. [2006]

There is not, therefore, an identifiable reason for these users to point out

the absence of water as being a cultural problem for them.

When asked directly “Does this toilet system go against your cultural values?” 7

users answered “Yes” opposed to the grand majority of 280 users who answered “No”

(Fig. 32; Table 32). Those who answered “Yes” originated from UK (2 users), Romania,

Portugal, Brazil, Germany and one user with no specified country of origin.

Again, none of above countries has, as far as sanitation goes, an obvious cultural

ground that would justify these answers. There are also no social conditions that could

be in the basis of these answers. Both men and women are very much free to share

toilets (there is no cultural rule that separates gender in public toilets). Even if these

10

answers were based on the absence of water, as mentioned above, the use of water in

these countries is only as a means of flushing and therefore it is a technical

component.

When asked “Does this toilet system go against your religious values?” only 1 user

answered “Yes” and a majority of 285 users answered “No” (Fig. 33; Table 33). The

user who answered “Yes” was a female but did not, however, specify her country of

origin nor did she specify her religion (question 3 which was annulled).

The last question, although not specifically based on culture or religion, asked

“Would you eat vegetables fertilized by composted excrement?”. A total of 191 users

answered “Yes” opposed to 82 users (37 male and 45 female) who answered “No”

(Fig. 34; Table 34). From those who answered “No” (Fig. 35; Table 5) 43 justified with “I

find it sickening”; 24 with “I’m scared of getting a disease”; 2 with “It’s against my

culture” (1 user from the UK and 1 from the Netherlands); 2 users with “It’s against my

religion” (1 user from Japan and 1 from Romania); and 6 users with “Other” who wrote

the following justifications: “Actually don’t know”; “Just seems a bit gross”; “A lot of

drugs in wine and shit otherwise, yes”; “No information about fertilizing veg”; “Have not

really thought about it”; and “If the compost is mixed with other soil, yes”.

11

Conclusion

Aiming to contemplate gender; culture; religion; and psychological factors that

could be in the basis of any kind of conflict with a waterless public sanitation system,

the survey based investigation offered a very clear perspective on how little these

sociocultural implications influenced the enquired users. In fact, it seems as if the

visitors had an amusing - if you may - experience with this – for most users – new

system of public sanitation. Of course, someone who enters a festival where they will

camp for an eight day period are already prepared to face the challenges of whatever

basic needs they need to fulfill, so to encounter visitors who are in complete

discordance with a more or less standardized system (as far as its method of usage

goes) is not that difficult of a task.

Nonetheless, being a multicultural festival as Boom is, one would expect to

encounter a wider variety of opinions and challenges in terms of habits and detailed

necessities, and since this was not the patent case in this study, it is very much fair to

consider Boom’s visitors to be as unified as the festival’s rooted philosophy believes

them to be. I would not personally believe that the results of this analysis would be as

homogenous in any other context in the realms of public sanitation systems. There

seems to be a sphere of consistency between the target public at Boom, which very

much sums up what the festival is all about.

12

Charts

Fig. 1 - Chart illustrating the distribution of inquired people, by country of origin

Fig. 2 - Chart illustrating the distribution of inquired people, by gender.

13

Fig. 3 - Chart illustrating the distribution of inquired people, by age group.

Fig. 4 – Chart illustrating the distribution of user’s ratings when asked, “How would you rate the difficulty level of using the

boom toilets?”.

14

Fig. 5 – Chart illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, “Would you consider the provided

instructions/information helpful?”

Fig. 6 – Chart illustrating the distribution of justified answers of those users who answered “No” to question nº7 - “Would

you consider the provided instructions/information helpful?”

15

Fig. 7 – Chart illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, “Would you consider the number of bathrooms to be

sufficient?”.

Fig. 8 – Chart illustrating gender division of those who answered “No” to question nº 8 – “Would you consider the number

of bathroom to be sufficient?”.

16

Fig. 9 – Chart illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, “Would you consider the toilets to be well located?”.

Fig. 10 - Chart illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, ”Would you consider the toilets to be well equipped?”

17

Fig. 11 - Chart illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, “Would you rather if the toilets provided a latrine

instead of a toilet seat?”

Fig. 12 - Chart illustrating the distribution of user’s ratings when asked, “How would you rate the intensity of smell inside

the toilets?”

18

Fig. 13 - Chart illustrating the distribution of user’s ratings when asked, “How would you rate the intensity of smell outside

the toilets?”

Fig. 14 - Chart illustrating the distribution of user’s ratings when asked, “How would you rate the level of hygiene inside

the Boom toilets?”

19

Fig. 15 – Chart illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, “Do you feel you have to wait in line for a long period

of time to use the toilet?”

Fig. 16 - Chart illustrating the percentage of user’s answers when asked, “Do you sit when using a Boom toilet?”

20

Fig. 17 – Chart illustrating the distribution of justified answers of those users who answered “No” to question nº 16 – “Do

you sit when using a Boom toilet?”

Fig. 18 – Chart illustrating gender division of those who answered “No” when asked if they sit when using a Boom toilet.

21

Fig. 19 - Chart illustrating the distribution of user’s ratings when asked, “How would you rate your overall satisfaction with

this sanitation system?”

Fig. 20 – Chart illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, “Would you rather if the toilets were separated by

sex?”.

22

Fig. 21 - Chart illustrating the distribution of justified answers of those users who answered “Yes” to question nº 19 –

“Would you rather if the toilets were separated by sex?”

Fig. 22 – Chart illustrating gender division of those who answered “Yes” when asked if toilets should be separated by sex.

23

Fig. 23 - Chart illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, ”Would you consider important to have a mirror inside

the toilet?”

Fig. 24 – Chart illustrating gender division of those who answered “Yes” when asked if they considered important to have

a mirror inside the toilet.

24

Fig. 25 – Chart illustration of female user’s opinions when asked, “Would you consider the Boom toilets to be functional

when menstruated?”

Fig. 26 – Chart illustrating the distribution of justified answers of the female users who answered “No” to question nº 22 –

“Would you consider the Boom toilets to be functional when menstruated?”.

25

Fig. 27 – Chart illustrating the distribution of inquired users, by type of toilet used in daily life.

Fig. 28 – Chart illustrating the distribution of inquired users, by type of toilet hygiene used in daily life.

26

Fig. 29 – Char illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, “is the absence of water a problem for you?”

Fig. 30 – Chart illustrating the distribution of justified answers of those users who answered “Yes” to question nº 29 – “Is

the absence f water a problem for you?”

27

Fig. 31 – Chart illustrating gender division of those who answered “Yes” when asked if the absense of water is a problem

while using the toilet.

Fig. 32 - Chart illustrating the percentage of user’s answers when asked, “Does this toilet system go against your cultural

values?”

28

Fig. 33 - Chart illustrating the percentage of user’s answers when asked, “Does this toilet system go against your

religious values?”

Fig. 34 - Chart illustrating the percentage of user’s answers when asked, “Would you eat vegetables fertilized by

composted excrement?”

29

Fig. 35 - Chart illustrating the distribution of justified answers of those users who answered “No” to question nº 34 –

“Would you eat vegetables fertilized by composted excrement?”

30

Tables

Table 1 – Table illustrating the distribution of inquired people, by country of origin.

Table 2 – Table illustrating the distribution of inquired people, by sex.

Portugal 55

UK 45

France 38

Germany 27

Belgium 18

Sweden 18

Holland 15

Brazil 12

Italy 9

Israel 7

Switzerland 7

Denmark 5

Greece 5

Romania 5

USA 5

Austria 4

Finland 4

Norway 4

Blank 3

Scotland 3

Ireland 2

Japan 2

Poland 2

Angola 1

Australia 1

Bulgaria 1

Czech Republic 1

Estonia 1

Hungary 1

Mexico 1

Russia 1

Male Female

Sex 150 153

31

Table 3 – Table illustrating the distribution of inquired people, by age group.

Table 4 - Table illustrating the distribution of user’s ratings when asked, “How would you rate the difficulty level of using

the boom toilets?”.

Table 5 - Table illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, “Would you consider the provided

instructions/information helpful?”

Table 6 - Table illustrating the distribution of justified answers of those users who answered “No” to question nº7 - “Would

you consider the provided instructions/information helpful?”

Table 7 - Table illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, “Would you consider the

number of bathrooms to be sufficient?”

Table 8 - Table illustrating gender division of those who answered “No” to question nº 8 –

“Would you consider the number of bathroom to be sufficient?”.

Table 9 - Table illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, “Would you consider the

toilets to be well located?”.

< 18 18-30 30-50 >50 Blank

Age Group 4 215 77 6 1

1 2 3 4 5 Blank

How would you rate the difficulty level of using the boom toilets? 6 14 38 77 166 2

Yes No Blank Did not read them

Would you consider the provided instructions helpful? 261 36 5 1

Confusing text

Unclear Steps Badly Located

I didn't see any instructions/ information Other Blank

If No, why? 1 1 3 22 4 5

Yes No Blank

Would you consider the number of bathrooms to be sufficient? 161 136 6

Male Female

Gender division of those who answered “No” when asked if they considered the number of bathroom to be sufficient?” 63 73

Yes No Blank

Would you consider the toilets to be well located? 267 28 8

32

Table 10 - Table illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, ”Would you consider the

toilets to be well equipped?”

Table 11 - Table illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, “Would you rather if the

toilets provided a latrine instead of a toilet seat?”

Table 12 - Table illustrating the distribution of user’s ratings when asked, “How would you rate

the intensity of smell inside the toilets?”

Table 13 - Table illustrating the distribution of user’s ratings when asked, “How would you rate

the intensity of smell outside the toilets?”

Table 14 - Table illustrating the distribution of user’s ratings when asked, “How would you rate

the level of hygiene inside the Boom toilets?”

Table 15 - Table illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, “Do you feel you have to

wait in line for a long period of time to use the toilet?”

Yes No Blank

Would you consider the toilets to be well equipped? (e.g. Toilet Paper; Trash Disposer; Light; Proper Access) 290 11 2

Yes No Blank

Would you rather if the toilets provided a latrine instead of a toilet seat? 51 226 26

1 2 3 4 5

How would you rate the intensity of smell inside the toilets? 10 20 89 121 63

1 2 3 4 5 Blank

How would you rate the intensity of smell outside the toilets? 16 63 121 74 24 5

1 2 3 4 5 Blank

How would you rate the level of hygiene inside the Boom toilets? 9 32 93 130 36 3

Yes No Null

Do you feel you have to wait in line for a long period of time to use the toilet? 156 128 19

33

Table 16 – Table illustrating the percentage of user’s answers when asked, “Do you sit when

using a Boom toilet?”

Table 17 - Table illustrating the distribution of justified answers of those users who answered

“No” to question nº 16 – “Do you sit when using a Boom toilet?”

Table 18 - Table illustrating gender division of those who answered “No” when asked if they sit

when using a Boom toilet.

Table 19 - Table illustrating the distribution of user’s ratings when asked, “How would you rate

your overall satisfaction with this sanitation system?”

Table 20- Table illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, “Would you rather if the

toilets were separated by sex?”

Table 21 - Table illustrating the distribution of justified answers of those users who answered

“Yes” to question nº 19 – “Would you rather if the toilets were separated by sex?”

Yes No Null

Do you sit when using a Boom toilet? (make full physical contact with the toilet seat) 191 104 8

I'm scared of getting a disease

Toilet seat is dirty/ unhygienic

I am not used to sitting in toilets

Toilet seat is uncomfortable Other Blank

If No, which of the following options would best justify your answer. 40 31 21 1 8 3

Male Female

Gender division of those who answered “No” when asked if they sit when using a Boom toilet 40 64

1 2 3 4 5 Blank

How would you rate your overall satisfaction with this sanitation system? 9 5 67 153 63 6

Yes No Blank

Would you rather if the toilets were separated by sex? 25 275 3

I feel scared sharing the toilet with the opposite sex

Lack of privacy

Different sex, different needs

My culture/ Religion does not allow same sex toilets Other Blank

If “Yes” which of the following options would best justify your answer? 5 4 12 0 3 1

34

Table 22 - Table illustrating gender division of those who answered “Yes” when asked if toilets

should be separated by sex.

Table 23 - Table illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, ”Would you consider

important to have a mirror inside the toilet?”

Table 24 - Table illustrating gender division of those who answered “Yes” when asked if they

considered important to have a mirror inside the toilet.

Table 25 - Table illustration of female user’s opinions when asked, “Would you consider the

Boom toilets to be functional when menstruated?”

Table 26 - Table illustrating the distribution of justified answers of the female users who

answered “No” to question nº 22 – “Would you consider the Boom toilets to be functional when

menstruated?”

Table 27 - Table illustrating the distribution of inquired users, by type of toilet used in daily life

Male Female

Gender division of those who answered “Yes” when asked if toilets should be separated by sex. 7 18

Yes No Blank

Would you consider important to have a mirror inside the toilet? 105 194 4

Male Female

Gender division of those who answered “Yes” when asked if they considered important to have a mirror inside the toilet. 31 74

Yes No Blank

Would you consider the Boom toilets to be functional when menstruated? (e.g. enough space to change hygienic pads; place to discard the pads; place to hang your belongings) 107 43 3

Not enough space to change hygienic pads

No place to discard hygenic pads

No place to hang my belongings

No toilet paper Other

If “No” which of the following options would best justify your answer? 11 25 15 11 2

Sitting Toilet Latrine Open field Other Blank

Which of the following kinds of toilet do you mostly use in your daily life? 281 6 3 1 12

35

Table. 28 - Table illustrating the distribution of inquired users, by type of toilet hygiene used in

daily life.

Table 29 - Table illustrating the percentage of opinions when asked, “is the absence of water a

problem for you?”

Fig. 30 - Chart illustrating the distribution of justified answers of those users who answered

“Yes” to question nº 29 – “Is the absence f water a problem for you?”

Table 31 - Table illustrating gender division of those who answered “Yes” when asked if the absense of water is a

problem while using the toilet.

Table 32 - Table illustrating the percentage of user’s answers when asked, “Does this toilet

system go against your cultural values?”

Table. 33 - Table illustrating the percentage of user’s answers when asked, “Does this toilet

system go against your religious values?”

Toilet Paper Water Wipes Other Blank Null

Which of the following options do you personally use for toilet hygiene in your daily life? 278 13 1 0 10 1

Yes No Blank Null

Is the absence of water a problem for you? 74 218 9 2

Cultural Reasons Religious Reasons Personal Habits Other Blank

If “Yes” which of the following options would best justify your answer? 3 0 51 1 19

Male Female

Gender division of those who answered “Yes” when asked if the absense of water is a problem while using the toilet. 36 38

Yes No Blank

Does this toilet system go against your cultural values? 7 280 16

Yes No Blank

Does this toilet system go against your religious values? 1 285 17

36

Table 34 - Table illustrating the percentage of user’s answers when asked, “Would you eat vegetables fertilized by

composted excrement?

Table 35 - Table illustrating the distribution of justified answers of those users who answered

“No” to question nº 34 – “Would you eat vegetables fertilized by composted excrement?”

Yes No Blank

Would you eat vegetables fertilized by composted excrement? 191 82 30

I find it sickening

I'm scared of getting a disease

It's against my culture

It's against my religion Other Blank

No to eating vegetables fertilized by composted excrement 43 24 2 2 6 5

37

Photos

Fig. 36 – Toilet set at chill out area.

Fig. 37 – Toilet set at “Dance Temple”.

38

Fig. 38 – Toilet set at “Dance Temple”.

Fig. 39 – Toilet set at “Alchemy Circle” / Restaurants (south).

39

Fig. 40 – Toilet set at “Alchemy Circle” / Restaurants (south).

Fig. 41 – Toilet set at “Sacred Fire”.

40

Fig. 42 – Toilet set at auto caravan camping area.

Fig. 43 – Toilet set at auto caravan camping area.

41

Fig. 44 – Toilet queue, at auto caravan camping area.

Fig. 45 – Toilet set at camping area / restaurants (north).

42

References

George, Rose

2008 Open Defecation – Free India. In The Big Necessity: The Unmentionable World of Human Waste and why it Matters. Pp.173-223. New York: Holt Paperbacks.

Heller, Léo

2006 Access to Water Supply and Sanitation in Brazil: Historical and Current Reflections; Future Perspectives. Electronic document, http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2006/papers/heller%20leo.pdf, accessed January 9.

Molotch, Harvey

2010 Introduction: Learning from the Loo. In Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing. Harvey Molotch and Laura Norén, eds. Pp. 1-20. New York: New York University Press.

Trauth, Laura

2005 European History/Personal Hygiene. Electronic document, http://en.allexperts.com/q/European-History-670/personal-hygiene.htm, accessed January 9.

43

Bibliography

Bharadwaj, Sowmyaa and Archana Patkar 2004 Menstrual Hygiene and Management in Developing Countried:

Taking Stock. Electronic document, http://www.wsp.org/Hygiene-Sanitation-Water-Toolkit/Resources/Readings/Bharadwai-2004-Menstrual.doc.

Douglas, Mary

2001 Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Routledge.

Fam, Dena

2008 Is Design the Answer to Cultural Acceptability of Waterless Toilets?. Electronic document, http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/fam2008designwaterlesstoilets.pdf.

George, Rose

2008 The Big Necessity: The Unmentionable World of Human Waste and why it Matters. New York: Holt Paperbacks.

Harvey Molotch and Laura Norén, eds

2010 Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing. New York: New York University Press.

Heller, Léo

2006 Access to Water Supply and Sanitation in Brazil: Historical and Current Reflections; Future Perspectives. Electronic document, http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2006/papers/heller%20leo.pdf, accessed January 9.

Huuhtanen, Sari and Ari Laukkanen

2006 A Guide to Sanitation and Hygiene for Those Working in Developing Countries, Electronic document, http://www.drytoilet.org/pdf/Sanitation_Guide.pdf

Trauth, Laura

2005 European History/Personal Hygiene. Electronic document, http://en.allexperts.com/q/European-History-670/personal-hygiene.htm, accessed January 9.

44

Acknowledgments

I would like to express a special thanks to Serafim Santos, Rodrigo Silva, Pedro Campos, Boom Festival Ecosan Team and mostly, to Ecocentro Ipec who gave me the chance to make this project happen.