Towards sustainable sanitation management: Establishing the costs and willingness to pay for emptying and transporting sludge in rural districts with high rates of access to latrines

Abstract

MotivationProper management of fecal sludge has significant positive health and environmental externalities. Most research on managing onsite sanitation so far either simulates the costs of, or the welfare effects from, managing sludge in situ in pit latrines. Thus, designing management strategies for onsite rural sanitation is challenging, because the actual costs of transporting sludge for treatment, and sources for financing these transport costs, are not well understood.MethodsIn this paper we calculate the actual cost of sludge management from onsite latrines, and identify the contributions that latrine owners are willing to make to finance the costs. A spreadsheet-based model is used to identify a cost-effective transport option, and to calculate the cost per household. Then a double-bound contingent valuation method is used to elicit from pit-latrine owners their willingness-to-pay to have sludge transported away. This methodology is employed for the case of a rural subdistrict in Bangladesh called Bhaluka, a unit of administration at which sludge management services are being piloted by the Government of Bangladesh.ResultsThe typical sludge accumulation rate in Bhaluka is calculated at 0.11 liters/person/day and a typical latrine will need to be emptied approximately once every 3 to 4 years. The costs of emptying and transport are high; approximately USD 13 per emptying event (circa 14% of average monthly income); household contributions could cover around 47% of this cost. However, if costs were spread over time, the service would cost USD 4 per year per household, or USD 0.31 per month per household—comparable to current expenditures of rural households on telecommunications.ConclusionThis is one of few research papers that brings the costs of waste management together with financing of that cost, to provide evidence for an implementable solution. This framework can be used to identify cost effective sludge management options and private contributions towards that cost in other (context-specific) administrative areas where onsite sanitation is widespread.

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

“…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.…”

“…Alternatively, if the respondent answered "no" to the first question, we then queried their willingness to pay a lower amount. Providing a sequence of questions motivates respondents think about a relevant price range [1,18,19], and other studies of WTP for water and sanitation products and services have applied similar dichotomous choice methods [6,8,19,28,29]. We followed the dichotomous choice questions with an open-ended question asking respondents to state the highest amount they would be willing to pay [30].…”

“…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.…”

Appraising Policy, legal and Institutional Frameworks used in promoting Sustainable Sanitation Management Approaches in Mavoko Municipality within Machakos County

“…Poor representation of sanitation matters by the legislative arm of Government and by extension political leadership has been found to impede progress in the improvement of sanitation management. The dismal allocations in the sanitation sector which is not even accorded a line item and is a public service good in the form of health and environmental externalities which according to Balasubramanya et al (2017) deserves a subsidy avers Cronin (2015) pronouncement that political will as one of the components of political factors and support from high profile champions can help prioritize and initiate momentum, in moving the sanitation agenda forward.…”

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: A Mixed Methods Study of Health-Related Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) for Indigenous Shawi in the Peruvian Amazon

“…The Joint Monitoring Program specifies that drinking water should be safe, affordable, and free from contamination [1,3]. In addition, appropriate sanitation practices should be promoted, with a particular focus on ending open defecation [4] and encouraging the use of soap in hand washing practices [5,6].…”