Community level: social norms and practices.

At the community level, most households relied on traditional self-construction methods using locally available materials, and earthen floors were widely accepted as the norm. Flooring preferences were strongly shaped by cultural expectations of what a “typical” home should look like, and families often prioritised conformity with community standards over individual preferences for improvement.

At the household level, decisions about flooring upgrades were influenced by limited finances, competing priorities (e.g., school fees and food security), and perceptions of self-efficacy. Even where people expressed interest in improved flooring, many felt that the decision was beyond their current economic capacity. These traditional structures are typically oblong or loaf-shaped and are locally referred to as ‘OTC’ because they resemble the shape of old buses from the Overseas Transport Company (OTC) of London. The dimensions are generally 2 meters by 3 meters, with rounded corners and low ceilings (Fig 2).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Traditional house structures and floors.

Building in Kwale (A); building in Bungoma (B); traditional Maasai house and (C) modernised Maasai house (D) in Narok. Typical unimproved earthen floors in houses in Kwale (E), Bungoma (F), and Narok (G).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0013943.g002

“The Maasai tradition is that women build the houses. They use cow dung, and they don’t use iron sheets, timber, or cement.” (FGD, Narok, male)

The construction of these houses typically takes four to eight days and cow dung and soil are used to cover the floors. In the absence of water, cows’ urine is mixed with the cow dung and soil to create the flooring mixture.

“…the Maasai building tradition, using mud and urine, is what we still follow today. We live with livestock in the house, and the floor is earthen, not cemented. We use cow dung and urine, along with soil, for the flooring when there is no water available.” (FGD, Narok, female)

Although some Maasai families now build improved houses with iron sheet roofs and straight mud walls, many still prefer traditional houses due to cultural identity and lower costs.

“…The modern Maasai house requires iron sheets, poles, and nails, and it is expensive. The local Maasai house is cheaper to build, which is why you still see many of these traditional houses. Men tend to neglect the house-building task, as it is traditionally a woman’s responsibility.” (FGD, Narok, female)

Across all three study counties, traditional unimproved houses were cited as the most common, though a small minority of participants owned modern brick or stone houses.

“Only two houses here in Nakholo have improved floors. These are permanent houses with stone foundations, murram, and a layer of polythene sheet. Then, a mixture of cement, ballast, and soil is applied.” (FGD, Bungoma, male)

Clear gender roles in house construction were observed across all three sites, though the division of labour varied by location. In the Maasai community, women were primarily responsible for constructing both the house and the floor. In contrast, in Bungoma and Kwale, men led major construction activities—including sourcing materials and supervising the build—while women contributed mainly to finishing tasks such as floor smearing and providing water, alongside other supportive roles. They may also cook for those assisting with construction, while children are tasked with running errands.

“…Men cut the trees, measure the house, and dig the holes. They tie the sticks together and put up the roof. After that, the women thatch the roof, but if it’s a makuti roof (palm leaves), the men do that part.” (FGD, Kwale, male)

“Women also contribute to the building process by preparing food for the workers and inviting other women to help with cooking and fetching water.” (FGD, Bungoma, female)

“A house belongs to both the man and woman. The man builds, but the woman fills the house with soil and completes the construction.” (FGD, Bungoma, male)

Despite women not taking the lead in the construction work in Bungoma and Kwale, they play a significant role in initiating and guiding the project by contributing to decisions about home improvements.

“As a woman, you need to be involved. If you have a husband, you must tell him that you need to sleep in a better place.” (FGD, Kwale, female)

“Men are motivated by their wives to finish building the house.” (KII, Bungoma)

Household level: financial capability and competing priorities.

Discussions clearly identified that financial considerations directly influence the selection of building materials and home design, particularly in Kwale and Bungoma. While this was also mentioned in Narok, discussions there more frequently focused on tradition and cultural identity, with participants expressing less desire for change. When modernisation was considered, members of the Maasai community indicated they would “not wish to modify traditional houses, but rather, when affordable, built a completely new and modern structure”.

In Kwale and Bungoma, most participants felt that building materials were too expensive for their circumstances, which prevented them from upgrading their homes.

“…When I was building my house—a two-bedroom house with a sitting room and veranda—it cost over 200,000 Kenya Shillings [equivalent to USD 2,000 at time of interview]. The timber and iron sheets came from Bungoma town, and the other materials like stones and ballast came from far and added to the cost.” (FGD, Bungoma, male)

Stakeholders from government and local action groups echoed these concerns. Investment in housing was only considered feasible if it did not divert funds from more immediate household needs, such as food and children’s education.

“…The main challenge is cost. While everyone may want an improved floor, the financial burden is too much for many who live below the poverty line.” (KII, Bungoma)

“…The poverty level in Kwale is very high. Only 15% are moderately able. The majority cannot even afford food. Even if you advise them on how to build, their immediate concern is how to feed their families. So, if you suggest they invest in standard housing, it might seem insensitive.” (KII, Kwale)

There was a general perception across communities that home improvements could only be done to specific modern housing standards. Consequently, it was widely assumed that skilled artisans would be required, and that necessary materials for standard improvements were not readily available locally. As a result, both the cost of qualified labour and material sourcing were seen as substantial financial burdens that families in traditional rural homes could not easily overcome.

“…With low income, there are children to feed, and the farm to manage. When you spend your limited income on cement and paying for technicians, it puts you in a financial bind. It forces you to prioritize essential needs and delay home improvements.” (FGD, Bungoma, female)

Although most participants in Kwale and Bungoma expressed positive attitudes toward improved floors, they acknowledged that flooring was a low priority when funds were limited. In cases where floors were upgraded, the work was often partial; bedrooms and kitchens were frequently left unfinished due to financial constraints.

“…We’ve improved our houses, but because of a lack of money, we’ve only completed the sitting room floor… we prioritize the floor where many people use it. We haven’t done the bedroom yet.” (FGD, Bungoma, female)

There was a prevailing belief that improved housing was only attainable by the financially privileged. This perception contributed to a sense of low self-efficacy among those in lower-income households.

“The modern houses I see with stone walls and iron sheet roofs are for the privileged, but for those of us who can’t afford it, we use mud to build.” (FGD, Kwale, female)

Availability and accessibility of building materials and skilled artisans.

Whilst it was noted that materials for improving housing and flooring are available in hardware shops and with suppliers, their need to be sourced from the next larger town or quarries and hence the required planning of logistics and high costs for transport, was highlighted as a major barrier for most.

“Availability is there, accessibility is a different thing because there are no major shops in [rural] areas as compared to the urban places… Not all homes can easily get sand. Few homes that close to riverbanks, so they can get sand for free. But those who are quite far […] they have to organise transport”. (KII, Bungoma)

For promoting improved flooring in rural homes, respondents recommended to innovate ways to provide floors at significantly lower costs than the current standard floors installed in modern structures in the study locations.

“If you develop a floor for the community […] if they see that they can’t afford those materials to come up with that improved floor, it will be difficult for them to adopt.” (KII, Bungoma)

“…the expense for a modern floor is different [from an earthen floor] because the materials you use in building a traditional house are not same as those you will need to build a modern floor.” (KII, Kwale)

All stakeholders also agreed that it was a major challenge to find skilled local artisans that can be trusted and will deliver high quality work. Many participants reported a lack of trust in the work done by local artisans.

“The challenge is […] quality issues [with the artisans’ work]”. (KII, Bungoma)

“Challenge would be availability of artisans who can make a good floor at a cheaper price. […] their skills, the know-how, how experienced they are […] because if you just take anybody, they could do a substandard work and within a short period the floor will be damaged”. (KII, Kwale)

Perceptions around novel low-cost flooring solutions.

Participants expressed that introducing new low-cost flooring solutions would require extensive education and awareness efforts. Most community members tend to rely on familiar construction methods and may initially reject unfamiliar building solutions. While affordability was a key consideration, participants emphasized that cost should not come at the expense of durability.

“…If you introduce an improved floor, durability might be a challenge. If people [who receive these novel floors] realize it doesn’t last long, adoption by others will be difficult. The quality of the floor and the affordability of materials are both crucial.” (KII, Bungoma)

Both, key informants and focus group participants, suggested that community sensitization and behaviour change communication would be necessary to improve acceptance of any improved flooring, especially when using a novel, low-cost approach. Some participants felt that changing long-standing practices, such as cooking on the floor using three-stone fires, keeping domestic animals indoors (e.g., chickens), and maintaining floor hygiene with soap and water, would require targeted awareness campaigns. One participant compared the behavioural shift needed for adopting improved flooring to the challenge of addressing open defecation, noting that even simple interventions require sustained support to ensure widespread adoption.

“A toilet is not difficult to build, yet we are still far from eliminating open defecation. People still prefer going to the bush. So, while new flooring solutions may be introduced, there must be strong support systems in place to encourage lifestyle improvements.” (KII, Kwale)

Absence of rural housing policies and limited government support.

Key informants highlighted that while a national housing policy exists recommending the provision of adequate housing for populations in deprived conditions, it does not extend tailored solutions to traditional rural communities. The housing needs of low-income rural populations were perceived to be a low priority for government planning and resource allocation. Consequently, most informants reported an absence of rural-specific housing policies and initiatives in their areas.

“The issue of rural housing actually hasn’t been prioritized … I come from the village, I spend time in the village, and I work with people from the village. If there was any [plan], I would have heard by this time.” (KII, Bungoma)

“To my knowledge, I have not encountered any such thing [rural housing policies] in my county. I have not heard of it.” (KII, Bungoma)

In Bungoma County, participants referenced a social housing scheme intended to provide simple residential houses for the rural poor at the ward level. However, this initiative was not implemented due to budgetary constraints, and awareness of the program was limited to a few informants from the housing department and local action groups.

“...in this policy, there is a provision that the county is supposed to meet rural housing needs through social housing. These social houses are a step forward in providing just a simple residential house for the rural poor at the ward level.” (KII, Bungoma)

“Social housing scheme. It …. hasn’t been implemented.” (KII, Bungoma)

The absence of rural-focused policies and government support was further compounded by the perception that enforcing formal building standards in rural areas is impractical and prohibitively expensive. There was also a lack of awareness around innovations aimed at improving traditional housing. Informants noted that technical training curricula for masonry students remain centred on formal, modern construction standards, despite the fact that graduates are more likely to work in rural settings and serve local communities, rather than enter the formal construction sector.

Additionally, a misalignment of policy priorities was seen to hinder support for interventions aimed at creating healthier home environments. Government-funded infrastructure projects, such as roads and public wells, were perceived as receiving preferential attention due to their visibility and potential to garner political capital, whereas initiatives that could directly benefit family health, such as housing improvements, were largely overlooked.

“With politicians, they’ll want to prioritize and build things that are of benefit to them. They want to drill boreholes […] more than one household will use that […] even to make good roads. […] So political priorities are a challenge. We need to engage the county government and show that there is a real impact on diseases when houses and floors are improved.” (KII, Bungoma)

Participants emphasized the need for greater political will and clear policies to improve rural housing for better health outcomes.

“The process […] needs to be led by someone, and that someone will want to know what they stand to gain from it since this is political. […] If there is a policy document stating that we need to improve households, then the county government can pass it through the county assembly as a regulation or policy. Though policy change takes time, it can be done to ensure better housing, but it requires political will. That, for me, will determine whether they set aside resources towards improving houses.” (KII, Kwale)

“There is not much policy in terms of how safe those [traditional] structures should be. There is no policy in the government on rural, semi-permanent, or temporary structures in reference to health and the prevention of infectious diseases.” (KII, Bungoma)

Absence of intersectoral collaborations and knowledge exchange.

Informants emphasized that rural housing, including flooring, receives little consideration in public health and housing policies. Intersectoral collaborations between stakeholders of health and the built environment are limited, partly due to the lack of understanding of the connection between housing, flooring, and health, as well as the absence of clear guidelines.

“The concept of having permanent floors and improved walling to control parasites is a concept that many people would not be aware of, especially policymakers. If we implement such floors and demonstrate [the impact], it will be beneficial for policymakers to consider the needs of the poor in rural areas.” (KII, Bungoma)

“For permanent structures, we apply the Public Health Act. That is our tool; it has specifications on what to look for. But for traditional houses, there is no specific guideline.” (KII, Bungoma)

Health stakeholders lamented that poor health outcomes as a consequence of substandard housing will be brought to the attention of the Department of Health, who can only deal with the treatment of the disease.

“Most rural houses are temporary structures, so nobody seems to be much interested in them. The people living in them are struggling to grow economically, and nobody seems concerned about what is happening to them in terms of their health. But as people begin seeking medical attention for tungiasis and other parasitic diseases, it becomes a concern, not for the stakeholders involved in the built environment, but for the Department of Health. That’s when we send field staff to advise, though not necessarily on structural improvements like flooring.” (KII, Bungoma)

Representatives from local action groups highlighted their potential role in advocating for home improvements, including flooring, to enhance public health. They noted that their support for county governments in this regard would depend on sufficient evidence that can clearly demonstrate the impact of improved housing on health outcomes.

“As an organization, we can work together with the Ministry of Health, public health, and sanitation to share the importance of good flooring. I have not heard this being discussed in the county health stakeholders’ forum. If they can make it part of their agenda, then we can support awareness creation. […] We can support the Ministry of Health in developing a brochure that explains the importance of good flooring. […] As an organization, we can also support initiatives aimed at improving household incomes so that people can make informed choices for themselves.” (KII, Kwale)

Absence of innovation and training at the intersection of built environment and health.

Most artisans serving rural communities are trained in local tertiary colleges. Interviews with training officers from masonry courses in the target communities were conducted to understand the teaching content and explore the potential role of these colleges in promoting low-cost building innovations within the context of health interventions.

Tertiary education in these settings is largely practical and hands-on, as students prefer this approach over more academic learning. However, neither theoretical nor practical instruction focuses on traditional structures and methods. Moreover, students and institutions are not encouraged to engage in topics outside the prescribed curriculum. Teaching is strictly aligned with exam requirements.

“It is hands on teaching style. There is no way you can just lecture and go. Many of our students like practical more than theory, so we teach and practice at the same time” (KII, Bungoma).

“We teach about the Kenya building codes, we make sure we follow the regulations of the Government on how one is supposed to erect a building...” (KII, Bungoma)

“… you just must follow the right building procedure or less, … it will be a substandard building” (KII, Kwale)

“We teach them [traditional construction], but then when it comes to the final exams, they don’t examine the traditional house …there isn’t much about it in the curriculum.” (KII, Kwale)

While most respondents recognized that their students would likely work in rural areas, supporting low-cost traditional construction, the current curriculum offers no guidance on innovative, low-cost building methods. There is no room within the current structure for exploration.

“The housing design that that we teach must follow the national standards …. when you go into our teaching curriculum, it talks about the modern buildings. But actually, we build more of these traditional houses around here than the modern ones.” (KII, Kwale)

Standard building codes, typically applied to urban residential buildings, are also taught in relation to flooring, in line with curriculum requirements and exam preparation.

“…the standard of the floor will need to align with the standard of the building itself. There is no way we can build a roof with iron sheets and then go floor with mud. We can’t do it like that. So, when somebody decided to build the house, then we have to build expensive floors” (KII, Kwale)

“To be frank, no, I only teach those [complex flooring] ones. You know we follow the syllabus in place.…there’s that syllabus which is being updated every year, so that is what guides us ….. at the end of the year it [the content] may appear in the exams” (KII, Bungoma)

Many of the trainers interviewed had personal ideas and suggestions on how to construct sealed floors in traditional homes at low cost, noting that such floors require less structural strength than those in modern buildings.

“...to reduce the costs, we can floor using cement but take some shortcuts to reduce material. You see we can have this floor levelled and then rammed to compress that floor. After ramming, we can put murram, then compress the murram also after which we can have a thin slab from cement mixed with soil…”

Nevertheless, respondents emphasized that such methods are not taught, as teaching must adhere strictly to the curriculum. When asked why people in rural villages do not improve their floors, even when upgrading other parts of their homes, trainers echoed other stakeholders in noting that homeowners are only familiar with the complexity of standard flooring and fear the associated costs.

“[to build a floor] you have to dig your foundation and now on the floor level, you have to fill hardcore. After that you need to use ballast, compact it and then do the curing. Then you put the concrete slab…but before that you have to put DPM [damp proof membrane] to separate underground and the upper part. So, it is much too expense, the requirements are too many.” (KII, Bungoma)

“….people don’t improve their floors, even if they otherwise improve their house, because of the availability for workmanship - when you go to a more complex floor, they feel you have to get an expensive expert.” (KII, Kwale)

“People lack knowledge of how something like the floor is done. …. It is only that people fear that one who has gone through school will need a lot of money in terms of labour. So, it is lack of sensitization. You will find that the materials they need are just around but then they perceive that those are only to be used by the government.” (KII, Kwale)

“Yes, it’s about not having the money, and also not having the understanding. Maybe you will find out a better way when someone explains it to you, and if you follow up on it, you will realize that it’s much easier from what you were thinking.” (KII, Bungoma)

Similarly, although trainers were aware of health issues related to housing, they confirmed that the masonry curriculum does not equip students with a deeper understanding of health aspects or how minor improvements to the built environment could enhance health outcomes. The only health-related content pertains to ventilation and dampness. When asked, all respondents mentioned sand fleas in relation to dirt floors; some noted mosquito problems through openings. However, solutions to these challenges, apart from modern construction methods, are not covered in teaching or exams.

Trainers expressed a willingness to teach students novel skills and health-oriented interventions that could benefit their communities but felt restricted by the existing curriculum. They believed that in order to propose curriculum changes, evidence would need to be presented to policymakers to demonstrate the necessity and value of such changes. There was also a general perception that the system is resistant to change.

“…if we wish to train those [alternative methods used for traditional houses]…now in the curriculum we need someone who can take the information [to the decision makers]…but then with us, we only follow the curriculum. I mean people like you [the researchers] need to take the information that this is important, and we need to add this in our teaching, so that they [education board] discuss and adopt it.” (KII, Bungoma)

“The challenges now here, actually, including anything in the curriculum, it needs some money….then also, some people are not ready to change their system of operation.” (KII, Kwale)

Few of the interviewed tertiary institutions had participated in research projects, but they expressed interest and enthusiasm about such opportunities. They felt that both students and teachers could benefit from innovative training, and that research projects could likewise benefit from student labour. Local institutions were also seen as ideal platforms for disseminating information to end users and promoting new approaches.

“What we can contribute - taking the students for lessons in research projects. The teachers involved too, they can go for the training and be part of the research. We can then also invite stakeholders to visit our school to disseminate the new method.” (KII, Kwale)

“I see in such project there is also a lot of manpower needed. So, I’d say our students can be the labour force [and be trained].” (KII, Kwale)

“We can promote novel flooring solutions by teaching students as they are the ambassadors. Once we teach them, they are the ones who will disseminate the information …. Sometimes when the students are at a site somewhere, they can see the client is struggling, they can tell them there is this alternative way, you can try this one.”(KII, Bungoma)

Perceived health benefits.

While not universal, a significant proportion of participants recognized a connection between unimproved floors and health outcomes. Health improvement was among the most commonly cited reasons for upgrading floors. Specifically, there was a sense of improved hygiene and knowledge around ectoparasites associated with the floor where people sleep.

“…A good floor, in case you have a young child, prevents the child from eating the soil from the floor. The child may get worms from eating soil, so a cemented floor makes everything easy. If food falls on a cemented floor, it doesn’t get dirty, a child can still eat it without being affected.” (FGD, Bungoma, female)

“…these earthen floors are […] dirty, when a child sleeps on that floor, in just a month […] he will start getting sick, but if he sleeps on a floor that is improved, there will not be such issues. For us […], mats [on the floor] are the mattresses we use, and the insects that come, come from the soil, they jump on to the mat, and bite the children, and they will get into the child’s body” (FGD, Kwale, male)

“ I will not have to deal with jiggers [sand fleas], because that dust really breeds jiggers. So yes, I would really wish to have that [improved floor].” (FGD, Kwale, male)

Participants also associated respiratory illnesses with unimproved earthen floors, although there was limited understanding of the specific diseases caused by dust.

“Benefits of the floor […] it will reduce cold/flu which is mainly caused by dirt” (FGD, Narok, male)

“…they reduce the transmission of common cold and TB, […], but when the floor is cemented there is no dust so […] the diseases are prevented.” (FGD, Narok, female)

Improved floors were further linked to healthier food storage and preparation. Freshly harvested crops, such as maize and beans, are often stored on the house floor, and earthen floors were associated with dampness that compromises food safety. Participants also believed improved floors facilitated safer food preparation.

“… if you don’t improve the floor, then it will allow some dampness, then you realize that anything stored in the house will gather some dampness and with time, it will not be good for consumption. […] If its maize, you realize that there is mould growing which can produce aflatoxins….” (KII, Bungoma)

“I harvested maize and I’m just storing it on the floor, this is good food, maybe my wife doesn’t have time, she will just pick the grains with all the dirt on the floor and grind at the mill, […] beans also [….] you find that you contract diseases from eating the dirt from the earthen floor, but if it was a cemented floor it will be safe..” (FGD, Kwale, male)

Perceived improvement of quality of life and social standing.

Participants widely expressed that improved floors would significantly enhance their quality of life, especially for women caregivers, due to easier maintenance and reduced health concerns.

“I’m tired of smearing the floor right from my childhood to the time that I’m married, jiggers [sand fleas] are many, they get into my legs, and I can’t see them” (FGD, Bungoma, female)

“The cemented house has really eased the work of women because they will not smear nor sweep, it will give her more energy and the children will not get diseases like cold/flu and jiggers [sand fleas], and bed bugs, so generally health will improve, children will be at peace, and everybody will be at peace.” (FGD, Narok, male)

“The cemented floor would bring so much joy because you will not feel discomfort brought about by the dust. Also, in terms of diseases like cough, the jigger fleas, [they all] would be eradicated.” (FGD, Narok, male)

“So, with the cemented floor, you get rid of so many negative things and now the woman of the house can even sweep properly with soft grass instead of hard twigs.” (FGD, Kwale, female).

“Actually, it brings about satisfaction and happiness…There is little or no dust in the improved floor and reduces times of cleaning.” (FGD, Narok, female)

The aesthetic appeal of improved floors also emerged as a motivator, with participants associating better housing with pride and higher social status in their community.

“When you have visitors, they will appreciate that even though you don’t have much, the house is well made.” (FGD, Bungoma, male)

“..the benefit of a cemented floor is that you can keep it clean, prevent diseases, …then you will have moved to a class of your own.” (FGD, Bungoma, female)

“Someone wants to live in a better place where there are no diseases, and it should also be pleasing, … then you can be proud of living in a nice house. (KII, Kwale)

Advocacy through community and stakeholder engagement.

Stakeholders from the built environment indicated their willingness to support advocacy efforts and engage with both policymakers and end users to promote innovative flooring solutions, if developed affordably for rural populations. One proposal was to construct model houses in villages to demonstrate the use of low-cost materials and techniques.

“You see once people see that those methods and materials are locally and easily available, [....] people will understand. We can show examples, we can go build such a house somewhere [...] they see.” (KII, Bungoma)

Technical training institutes also expressed readiness to support research and development related to flooring and offered to help promote low-cost technologies through community engagement, if given the mandate.

“What we can use [for developing a low cost floor] in this area, the local soil, which is good -…so all we’ll need is cement,}...] then we can design.” (KII, Kwale)

“We can start educating the students and their parents on [novel ideas when it comes to house construction]. Then those can act as ambassadors. We can also advocate with the help of posters.”(KII, Kwale)

There was further recognition that local artisans, who already work within the community, could be key in promoting new ideas and educating people on affordable flooring options.

“As artisan, I have to advice you, tell you I see you have built a nice house but then you lack the floor which isn’t difficult to put. So, you advise them on the materials needed […] and convince them you will do a good job. You make them aware, so that they can see it is actually a good idea. It would be a motivating factor if they see it happen at an affordable price. If you do it for one person, they will promote it to the others in the village. So, you sensitize them and do away with the mentality that flooring is costly.” (KII, Kwale)

Financial and practical constraints.

As discussed earlier, many participants were aware of the health problems associated with unimproved floors. However, the strong perception that floor improvement is expensive was a major reason why such upgrades were not pursued, especially in the communities of Kwale and Bungoma.

“…when [the floor] is loose, it brings health problems to children and promotes jiggers [sand fleas]. But because we do not have the means, there is absolutely nothing we can do.” (FGD, Kwale, male)

Beyond financial limitations, practical concerns were also noted. These included a preference for the comfort provided by earthen floors, as well as longstanding habits such as indoor cooking and animal keeping, which were frequently cited as reasons for not upgrading floors. Particularly in Maasai communities in Narok, earthen floors were preferred due to their warmth, compared to the perceived coldness of cemented alternatives.

“..: they love it because it is warm, while the cemented one they say it is cold so they prefer to have the earthen one because it is warm.” (FGD, Narok, male)

Across all study sites, open cooking fires inside traditional homes are common. Cooking is typically done on a three-stone fire placed directly on earthen floors, which participants believed would damage improved flooring.

“Most of [the community] you’ll find that they are cooking inside their homes. […] they are using the three stones mechanism to cook. […] how can I invest in an improved floor yet I use three stones to cook on the floor?..” (KII, Bungoma)

Additionally, domestic animals are often kept indoors. In Bungoma and Kwale, this included chickens and occasionally goats or cattle, while in Narok, Maasai families commonly kept livestock inside. This practice was seen as another factor that could damage improved floors.

“Sometimes the rural people, they don’t improve their floors because some share their houses with animals and chickens. So even if they improved these floors, at the end of the day, in a few months’ time, the floors will be damaged”. (KII, Bungoma)

Cultural identity.

Participants in Narok said that traditional housing practices were an important part of the Maasai cultural identity. Participants noted that installing improved floors in traditional structures was seen as impractical, as it could compromise the structural integrity of the buildings. Many families preferred to maintain their traditional way of life.

“..the Maasai love animals so much, […] we prefer the earthen floors because livestock are living inside together with the dogs and cats where they also give birth, the only people who can have cemented floors are the learned ones, pastors or doctors. […] we love the kind of floor that accommodates everyone and all livestock […]” (FGD, Narok, male)

In Kwale and Bungoma communities, cultural identity was highlighted as a barrier especially among the elderly people. Beliefs and taboos were cited as preventing such changes.

“Some people are typically guided by the culture. Some people especially old men and women, they just feel that they cannot do away with the mud flooring. They don’t believe in permanent structures […] somebody will tell you, you know, we are not supposed to step on cemented floors, traditionally, my house is supposed to remain [as is]. The only thing you can do is maybe put cow dung.” (KII, Bungoma)