Table 1.

Mutual shaping of technology and social contexts of the intervention

Period	Event/decisions	Feedback	Consequences of feedback
Jan-March 2012	Commenced trap development with the introduction of Mosquitito trap™.
April-June 2012	Continued trap development with the first Suna trap.	Solid metal cone introduced because fabric absorbed the odours and consequently reduced trap efficacy.	More durable.
		Fabric base replaced with flexible plastic mesh base.
July-September 2012	Continued Suna trap development with the replacement of metal cones with plastic ones and plastic mesh base with a rigid one.	Metal cones are potentially attractive to thieves who could sell them to scrap metal dealers.	Lower unit cost for SMoTS.
		Plastic cones are cheaper than metal cones.	Rigid plastic base to increase durability but found to reduce airflow and performance.
July-September 2012	Complete SMoTS installed in 18 households for piloting. In nine households 20-Watt systems were provided and in the other nine, 30-Watt systems were provided. Also, four different types of bulb were provided.	Performance of various components and community perceptions of SMoTS.	Decision on final SMoTS components: 20-Watt systems and brighter bulbs selected for the intervention.
		Estimates of lengths of electrical cable needed per house.
July-September 2012	Removal of carbon dioxide from the blend.	Logistical challenges with procuring and distributing molasses to households.	Discontinued mobilisation of women’s groups that were being mobilised to distribute molasses for fermentation.
		Time constraints with regard to project timelines.
		Need for more intensive training to households on replacing molasses on a daily basis and concerns about adherence.
		Cost of procuring molasses.
October-December 2012	Finalised trap development with the modification of plastic base with fine grid of holes to increase airflow (Figure 3).	Rigid plastic base with fine grid of holes.	Increased airflow and performance with greater durability than a fabric base.