Table 2 Community members’ evaluation of sustainability options
| Â | Options | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Response category | A (Individual household) | B (Household/voluntary group) | C (Governing body + compulsory groups) | D(Governing body + donor) |
General views | The preferred option | May work for some | May work for villages and some beach women but with conditions | May work for villages and some beach women |
Conditions | Â | Â | Sense of ownership and trust in governing body | Â |
| Â | Â | Â | Addressing the risk of misappropriation of contributed funds | Â |
| Â | Â | Â | Governing body composed of SMoTS owners | Â |
Advantages/Conditions | Households accountable to themselves on sustainability | Group members will support the poor to maintain SMoTS | Â | Donor provides funds for stock |
Disadvantages | Difficulty recovering credit | Free riders | Distrust in governing body | Distrust in governing body |
| Â | Good for light but not for malaria elimination | Misappropriation of group resources | Bad previous experiences with group monetary contributions | Lack of trust among people on island |
| Â | Untrustworthy technicians | Lack of trust between members | Governing body could favour parts of the island | Failure to pay monthly fee |
| Â | Neglect/sale if high maintenance costs | Frequent migrations in town areas | Â | Â |
| Â | Clarify SMoTS owners in beaches; landlord or tenant | Politics | Â | Â |
| Â | Â | Gossip | Â | Â |