ArticlePloS one2024
Cross-subsidies are a viable option to fund formal pit latrine emptying services: Evidence from Kigali, Rwanda.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Formal Manual Fecal Sludge Emptying and Transport Services: Cost Analysis of 23 Service Providers in Malawi and Uganda.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
- A compliance assessment tool for household pit latrines and cesspits against RS ISO 24521: evidence from Kigali City.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pit latrines are the most common household sanitation system in East African cities. Urbanisation reduces the space available for new latrines to be constructed when pits fill and they increasingly require emptying. But formal services that empty and transport sludge to safe disposal or treatment are often unaffordable to low-income households. Cross-subsidies have been suggested to fund services for low-income households but there are no academic studies assessing this funding mechanism. This study analyses empirical financial and operational data shared by a formal service provider in Kigali, Rwanda who is establishing a cross-subsidy model between corporate and high-income households, and low-income households in informal settlements. A semi-mechanical method is used to serve households which cannot be accessed from the road by an exhauster truck. We find that mechanical emptying is gross profitable when exhauster trucks are fully used, particularly large volume and corporate customers. Transferring sludge between vehicles for efficient transport reduces average cost. Cross-subsidies are found to be a viable funding method and a ten-fold increase in mechanical emptying by the service provider would generate 466,876 Int$ (2022 international dollars) gross profit to fund a cross-subsidy for all low-income households in Kigali which require semi-mechanical emptying. This study highlights the opportunities that city authorities have to organise funding to cross-subsidise emptying for low-income households. In addition, by using data from operational records rather than self-reported estimates the reliability of cost estimates is in improved. Further research is required to understand customer group size, demand and emptying frequencies to determine the structure of a citywide cross-subsidy.
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.