Costs and Willingness to Pay for Pit Latrine Emptying Services in Kigali, Rwanda

Abstract

Kigali, Rwanda lacks a centralized sewer system, which leaves residents to choose between on-site options; the majority of residents in informal settlements use pit latrines as their primary form of sanitation. When their pits fill, the pits are either sealed, or emptied; emptying is often done by hand and then dumped in the environment, putting the residents and the broader population at risk of infectious disease outbreaks. In this paper, we used revealed and stated preference models to: (1) estimate the demand curve for improved emptying services; and, (2) evaluate household preferences and the willingness to pay (WTP) for different attributes of improved emptying services. We also quantify the costs of improved service delivery at different scales of production. The study included 1167 households from Kigali, Rwanda across 30 geographic clusters. Our results show that, at a price of US$79 per pit, 15% of all the pits would be emptied by improved emptying services, roughly the current rate of manual emptying. Grouping empties by neighborhood and ensuring that each truck services an average of four households per day could reduce the production costs to US$44 per empty, ensuring full cost coverage at that price. At a lower price of US$24, we estimate that the sealing of pits might be fully eliminated, with full coverage of improved emptying services for all pits; this would require a relatively small subsidy of US$20 per empty. Our results show that households had strong preferences for fecal sludge (FS) treatment, formalized services (which include worker protections), and distant disposal. The results from the study indicate a few key policies and operational strategies that can be used for maximizing the inclusion of low-income households in safely managed sanitation services, while also incorporating household preferences and participation.

When pits fill up: Supply and demand for safe pit-emptying services in Kisumu, Kenya

“…In the case of Gasia Poa, we only compared stated and revealed WTP at higher price points, which may have limited our ability to detect significant differences (Fig 3B). Nevertheless, at market prices, stated and revealed demand for both types of emptying services was low-less than 20% of households were willing to pay full market prices ( Fig 3B and 3C); these results are comparable to a similar study in Rwanda that found only 15% of pits would be emptied at estimated prices that did not include subsidies [5].…”

“…We estimated annual emptying costs to be 50-95 USD per toilet, or 8-16 USD per household. For comparison, prior studies estimated that the annual costs of safe emptying services, in optimal scenarios with high market penetration, would amount to approximately 4-8 USD per household in Bangladesh [6] and 7 USD per household in Rwanda [5]. Our cost estimates for Kisumu are slightly higher than in these other settings, though extending safe emptying services to all Kisumu households may offer opportunities for economies of scale and reduce costs.…”

“…These practices pose environmental and health risks to households and emptiers, who often operate without proper equipment, training, or oversight [ 2 – 4 ]. As a result, inadequate sanitation service provision disproportionately affects the health and environment of the urban poor: a 2010 study of sanitation subsidies in six low-income countries found that that the majority of poor households pay high costs for onsite sanitation, an activity seen as a private good and a household responsibility, despite the negative public health externalities of poor sanitation [ 5 ].…”

“…Safe emptying services are inevitably more expensive than informal practices due to licensing requirements, the costs of transporting fecal sludge to designated disposal areas, and dumping fees [ 3 ]. Studies in different settings have found that that the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for safe latrine emptying services among low-income households is substantially lower than market prices: for example, in rural Bangladesh household contributions covered approximately 47% of service provider costs [ 6 ], and in urban Rwanda, affordable price points only covered approximately 40% of service provider costs for formal manual emptying [ 5 ]. Quantifying the differences between market prices (supply) and household WTP (demand), and, thereby, the extent to which low-income customers can bear the cost of safe emptying, is central to designing appropriate service delivery and financing approaches.…”

Will Households Invest in Safe Sanitation? Results from an Experimental Demand Trial in Nakuru, Kenya

“…In Tanzania and Kenya, experimental trials found that <5% of rural households were willing to pay the market price for latrine slabs, though demand was much higher at discounted levels: approximately 90% of households in Kenya and 60% in Tanzania were willing to pay some amount for latrine slabs [ 7 , 8 ]. Similarly, previous studies have shown that WTP for safe latrine pit emptying services is substantially lower than market prices: household contributions only covered an estimated 47% of safe pit latrine emptying costs in rural Bangladesh [ 9 ], 40% of emptying costs in urban Rwanda [ 10 ], and 25–50% of emptying costs in urban Kenya [ 11 ]. This growing body of evidence indicates substantial differences between household demand and supply costs for improved sanitation products and services, which can be quantified as financial gaps [ 12 ].…”