For example, we build a toilet in a family home or in a school nominated (for the toilet) by their “urbanised compatriots”. The nominee agrees that they are willing to take our toilet.

The compatriot, typically a close relative/friend/leader to the nominee, is naturally compelled to: lower their social status; privately discuss with the school/family; and, agree with the nominee –– in such private discussions, coercion around it being “disgusting” or “undignified” to shit on the open ground, if any, is not expected to be harmful to the nominee.

Organisations/corporations/persons that draw attention to their products, services, candidacy or events in public offline news medium e.g. a political candidate, a business etc support this project in-kind – they promote this project so that there may be more nominations. They #WasteNoAds in the process.

Political candidate and family businesses have or want to have connections with their local area – they are more than happy to support. National and international chains, on the other hand, often have a strong social or community support ethos as part of their corporate policy, providing free or subsidised goods and services – and sometimes funding too – for local community initiatives. Businesses operate as part of communities and hold as much of a stake in supporting local community amenities and promoting civic pride as the locals themselves.

Therefore, families/schools are still toilet-less because: you, their “urbanised compatriots” are about to nominate them for toilets; and or, corporations/organisations/persons are about to #WasteNoAds.

RaHa is keen to reduce effects, on the poor, of shame [similar to those in community-led total sanitation (CLTS) and in adverts commonly used in sanitation marketing]. To promote the necessary uptake (because any percent of toilet-less-ness is bad, from the public health perspective), we shift effects of promoting conspicuous consumption (i.e. keeping up with or outdoing your neighbour) from the poor (who are affected negatively by this) to you, their urbanised compatriots, and organisations/corporations.

We are guided by an assumption that beneficiaries see little value in low quality products like pit latrines (which may not be meeting UN definition of ‘improved sanitation’) mainly because they know that you, their more urbanized compatriots and favourite organizations, use much better toilets – in this sense, the pit is not different from open defecation (OD), its a mockery.

This explains why our toilets and rainwater harvesting systems are of very high quality standards.

Reusable sanitary pads, that we give to teenage girls (especially those that get our toilets) are for purposes of managing our sun-drying toilets – the girls use them, not because the girls are less fortunate, but because our sun-drying toilets cannot accept disposable pads.