ArticlePloS one2021
Willingness to pay for improvements in rural sanitation: Evidence from a cross-sectional survey of three rural counties in Kenya.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of SaTo pans as a new latrine technology in Kisumu County healthcare facilities, Kenya.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2023Trial
- Predicting Sanitation Behaviors: Comparison of Willingness to Pay Techniques for Sanitation Services in Urban Dhaka, Bangladesh.Environmental health insights · 2026Article
- Understanding Households' Willingness to Pay for Improved Sanitation Services in Benin: A Study Protocol.Environmental health insights · 2024Article
- Navigating Taxpayers Attitude: Exploring Support for Urban Sanitation Surcharge in Kumasi.Environmental health insights · 2024Article
- Assessing Sustainability Factors for Rural Household Sanitation Coverage in Bhutan, Kenya, Nepal, and Zambia: A Qualitative Analysis.Global health, science and practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Poor sanitation worldwide leads to an annual loss of approximately $222.9 billion and is the second leading cause of Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALY's) lost due to diarrhoea. Yet in Kenya, the slow rate and levels at which the household's access improved sanitation facilities remain a concern, and it is unknown if the cost of new technologies is a barrier to access. This study assessed the maximum willingness to pay (WTP) for SAFI and SATO sanitation products and identified those factors that affect the willingness to pay (WTP) valuation estimates by households in three counties in Kenya. It used quantitative economic evaluation research integrated within a cross-sectional survey. Contingent valuation method (CVM) was used to determine the maximum WTP for sanitation in households. We used the logistic regression model in data analysis. A total of 211 households were interviewed in each county, giving a total sample size of 633 households. The mean WTP for SAFI latrines was $153.39 per household, while the mean WTP for SATO pans and SATO stools was $11.49 and $14.77 respectively. For SAFI latrines, households in Kakamega were willing to pay $6.6 more than average while in Siaya, the households were willing to pay $5.1 less than the average. The main determinants of households WTP for the two sanitation products included household's proximity to the toilet (p = 0.0001), household income (β = .2245741, p = 0.004), sanitation product (β = -2968.091; p = 0.004), socioeconomic status (β = -3305.728, p = 0.004) and a household's satisfaction level with the current toilet (β = -4570.602; p = 0.0001). Increased proximity of households to the toilet, higher incomes, and providing loan facilities or subsidy to poor households could increase the demand for these sanitation technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.