Why do households invest in sanitation in rural Benin: Health, wealth, or prestige?

Abstract

Seventy percent of the rural population in sub-Saharan Africa does not use adequate sanitation facilities. In rural Benin, as much as 95% of the population does not use improved sanitation. By analyzing a representative sample of 2000 rural households, this paper explores why households remain without latrines. Our results show that wealth and latrine prices play the most decisive role for sanitation demand and ownership. At current income levels, sanitation coverage will only increase to 50% if costs for construction are reduced from currently $190 USD to $50 USD per latrine. Our analysis also suggests that previous sanitation campaigns, which were based on prestige and the allure of a modern lifestyle as motives for latrine construction, have had no success in increasing sanitation coverage. Moreover, improved public health, which is the objective of public policies promoting sanitation, will not be effective at low sanitation coverage rates. Fear at night, especially of animals, and personal harassment, are stated as the most important motivational factors for latrine ownership and the intention to build one. We therefore suggest changing the message of sanitation projects and introduce new low-cost technologies into rural markets; otherwise, marketing strategies will continue to fail in increasing sanitation demand.

Strengthening the Human Right to Sanitation as an Instrument for Inclusive Development

“…For instance, technocrats and policy makers identify (un)willingness to pay as a driver of poor sanitation services (Seraj, 2008;Van Minh, Nguyen-Viet, Thanh & Yang, 2013) because it reduces the funds available for sanitation services, and this is mostly supported by case studies in formal settlements (Arimah, 1996;Rahji & Oloruntoba, 2009), informal settlements (Goldblatt, 1999), and rural areas (Gross & Günther, 2014). However, the increasing number of humanitarian situations raises the question of whether or not refugees and internally displaced persons can be made to pay for their sanitation needs, and how, but this is yet to be addressed in the literature.…”

“…Suasive instruments also require affordable technology to promote upscaling (Gross & Günther, 2014), and continual monitoring for sustained behavioural changes (Mathew et al, 2009).…”

Environmental, Demographic, and Socio-Economic Correlates of Access to Improved Sanitation: Empirical Evidence From Papua and West Papua Provinces

“…Globally, this study is not the first to investigate the demographic and socio-economic correlates of access to improved sanitation facility (see Blakely, Hales, Kieft, Wilson, and Woodward (2005); Prasetyoputra and Irianti (2013); Gross and Günther (2014)). However, our contribution is threefold: first, an underutilised regression model in Indonesia is used.…”

“…Demographic factors such as age and household size have been shown to be associated with water and sanitation (Francisco, 2014;Gross & Günther, 2014;Jenkins & Cairncross, 2010;Jenkins & Scott, 2007;Wright & Gundry, 2009). In this study, variables intended to represent demographic characteristics of the households were household size (number of household members of any age -in discrete form), age of household head (in years), squared age of household head, ethnicity of household head (1, Papuan [referent category]; 2, Javanese; 3, other ethnicity), and household head is a migrant (0, no [referent category]; 1, yes).…”

“…Second, a constant change of in the odds does not correspond to a constant change in the probability, and hence the probabilities from probit regression are more meaningful to interpret (Long & Freese, 2014). Third, PRM has been widely used in global literature (see Francisco (2014); Gross and Günther (2014)). …”