End-User Preferences for and Performance of Competing POU Water Treatment Technologies among the Rural Poor of Kenya

Abstract

Household point-of-use (POU) water treatment technologies targeted at vulnerable populations are microbiologically effective and, in small trials, improve health. We do not understand the factors that influence preference for and adoption of these technologies by target end-users. We cycled 400 rural subsistence farm households in western Kenya through three randomly ordered two-month trials of three POU products: dilute hypochlorite solution, porous ceramic filtration, and a combined flocculant-disinfectant powdered mixture to compare relative end-user preferences and usage. Households reported higher usage of both dilute hypochlorite and filters than the flocculant-disinfectant. Averaged among all participating households, Escherichia coli reductions in treated water were generally higher among those that received dilute hypochlorite solution than among those receiving either of the other two products. Among those households that self-reported product usage, the E. coli reductions achieved by dilute hypochlorite and the flocculant-disinfectant are statistically equivalent to one another and higher than the reductions achieved by filters. At the same time, households ranked filters most frequently as their most preferred product.

User preferences and willingness to pay for safe drinking water: Experimental evidence from rural Tanzania

“…2). PuR removes turbidity, and households with turbid water liked it more; this has not been the case for some previous studies (Albert et al, 2010). Takasa Maji did better than PuR, so it seems that generic packaging did not negatively affect preferences (Figs.…”

“…Following the household water literature, we argue that preferences are an important indicator of what might be adopted and regularly used (Albert et al, 2010). The user preference ranking exercise indicated that boiling (with an efficient stove) and the pot filter (with a storage container) were the most preferred HWTS options, before costs were factored in.…”

“…In particular, social marketing research has found that consumer preferences and viable price points strongly influence effective demand and the likelihood of consistent use (Evans et al, 2014). This has led to several studies on user perceptions and willingness to pay for HWTS products (Luoto et al, 2012;Albert et al, 2010;Poulos et al, 2012).…”

“…We found few journal articles that compared several HWTS products, for either user preferences or WTP (e.g. Luoto et al, 2011Luoto et al, , 2012Albert et al, 2010). The literature on preventative health products indicates that users' willingness to pay, even when they are liked, is generally low; the evidence suggests that unfavorable opinions would be consistent with low valuations (i.e.…”

Modeling the Complexities of Water, Hygiene and Health in Limpopo, South Africa

“…Although, our percentage declined to 58% during period 2, the Arnold & Colford meta-analysis relied on studies that had a median length of only 30 weeks. A recent study that compared the e↵ectiveness of chlorination with a silver-coated porous ceramic candle element found a mean log reduction value of 1.21 for households provided WaterGuard (a dilute hypochlorite solution) while the ceramic candles provided a log reduction of only 0.91 (Albert et al , 2010). Finally, it is worth noting that if the log reduction values measured in our study were to be improved to 3 or better, it could lead to improved outcomes (Mellor et al , 2013b).…”