4.7 Article

The costs of coping with poor water supply in rural Kenya

Journal

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
Volume 52, Issue 2, Pages 841-859

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2015WR017468

Keywords

rural water supply; economic benefits; value of travel time

Funding

  1. Environment for Development-Kenya

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As the disease burden of poor access to water and sanitation declines around the world, the nonhealth benefits--mainly the time burden of water collection - will likely grow in importance in sector funding decisions and investment analyses. We measure the coping costs incurred by households in one area of rural Kenya. Sixty percent of the 387 households interviewed were collecting water outside the home, and household members were spending an average of 2-3 h doing so per day. We value these time costs using an individual-level value of travel time estimate based on a stated preference experiment. We compare these results to estimates obtained assuming that the value of time saved is a fraction of unskilled wage rates. Coping cost estimates also include capital costs for storage and rainwater collection, money paid either to water vendors or at sources that charge volumetrically, costs of treating diarrhea cases, and expenditures on drinking water treatment (primarily boiling in our site). Median total coping costs per month are approximately US$20 per month, higher than average household water bills in many utilities in the United States, or 12% of reported monthly cash income. We estimate that coping costs are greater than 10% of income for over half of households in our sample. They are higher among larger and wealthier households, and households whose primary source is not at home. Even households with unprotected private wells or connections to an intermittent piped network spend money on water storage containers and on treating water they recognize as unsafe.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available