Sanitation, financial incentives and health spillovers: A cluster randomised trial

Financial incentives for sanitation take-up: A randomized control trial in rural Vietnam

This study assesses the impact of financial incentives on hygienic latrine ownership by poor/near-poor households in Vietnam. Rural communes were randomly assigned to a control group and three treatment arm groups: (T1) a rebate for households that installed a hygienic latrine; (T2) a financial reward for commune governments if the proportion of hygienic latrines in their commune increased by 30 percentage points; (T3) both a household rebate and a commune reward. We find a strong and positive effect from the household rebate (treatment arms 1 and 3) but an insignificant effect from the commune reward (treatment arm 2) on household ownership of a septic tank latrine. Our analysis provides suggestive evidence that microcredit is a channel through which a rebate encourages the installation of septic tank latrines. We also find that treatment arm 3 increases people's knowledge regarding sanitation and the availability of water and soap for handwashing within households.

Performance of Pit Latrines and Their Herd Protection Against Diarrhea: A Longitudinal Cohort Study in Rural Ethiopia

In sanitation policies, "improved sanitation" is often broadly described as a goal with little rationale for the minimum standard required. We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected as part of a cluster randomized controlled trial in rural Ethiopia. We compared the performance of well-constructed and poorly constructed pit latrines in reducing child diarrhea. In addition, we explored whether having a well-constructed household latrine provides indirect protection to neighbors if cluster-level coverage reaches a certain threshold. We followed up children aged younger than 5 years (U5C) of 906 households in rural areas of the Gurage zone, Ethiopia, for 10 months after community-led total sanitation interventions. A study-improved latrine was defined as having all the following: pit of ≥2 m depth, slab of any material, drop-hole cover, wall, roof, door, and handwashing facilities (water and soap observed). U5C in households with a study-improved latrine had 54% lower odds of contracting diarrhea than those living in households with a latrine missing 1 or more of the characteristics (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.27, 0.81; P=.006). Analyses were adjusted for child age and sex, presence of improved water for drinking, and self-reported handwashing at 4 critical times. The odds of having diarrhea among those with an improved latrine based on the World Health Organization/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) definition (i.e., pit latrines with slabs) were not substantially different from those with a JMP-unimproved latrine (aOR=0.99; 95% CI=0.56, 1.79; P=.99). Of U5C living in households without a latrine or with a study-unimproved latrine, those in the high-coverage villages were less likely to contract diarrhea than those in low-coverage villages (aOR=0.55; 95% CI=0.35, 0.86; P=.008). We recommend that academic studies and routine program monitoring and evaluation should measure more latrine characteristics and evaluate multiple latrine categories instead of making binary comparisons only.

Sustainability of facilities built under the Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) implementation: Moving from basic to safe facilities on the sanitation ladder

In the context of monitoring progress towards SDG target 6.2, a household is counted to have access to sanitation if it uses at least basic sanitation services. Several approaches have been employed to help rural communities to climb up the sanitation ladder such as Community-led Total Sanitation (CLTS), whose primary target is to end open defecation through behavior change. CLTS does not subsidize sanitation facilities, but let households build their own facilities. The types and sustainability of facilities when construction is entrusted to households without guidelines remain understudied. The contribution of CLTS in achieving SDG6.2 also have not been studied. This paper addresses these gaps. Conducted in the province of Sissili in Burkina Faso, our study involved interviewing CLTS implementers, government officials, and community stakeholders. Coupled with household surveys, the data was analyzed using SPSS and Excel software. Findings indicate that CLTS succeeded in motivating households to build latrines hence escalating latrine coverage from 29.51% in 2016 (pre-CLTS) to 90.44% in 2020 (post-CLTS) in the province. However, 97.53% of latrines built were unimproved pit latrines with superstructures and without/with wooden or clay slabs and no roof, of which 19.76% collapsed during the rainy season. During this period, sanitation access rate rose from 11.9% to 17.00%. The study has therefore revealed that CLTS significantly elevates latrine coverage, yet it does not guarantee a proportional rise in sanitation access. This discrepancy results from the type of technologies generated by CLTS, which are not considered in calculating the sanitation access rate due to their unimproved nature. Consequently, further exploration of social approaches is essential, amalgamating technical and engineering aspects. Beyond socio-economic considerations, the sustainability of CLTS and the achievement of access to adequate and safe sanitation also rely on the robustness and resilience of the implemented facilities.

Social and financial incentives for overcoming a collective action problem

Addressing public health externalities often requires community-level collective action. Due to social norms, each person's sanitation investment decisions may depend on the decisions of neighbors. We report on a cluster randomized controlled trial conducted with 19,000 households in rural Bangladesh where we grouped neighboring households and introduced (either financial or social recognition) rewards with a joint liability component for the group, or asked each group member to make a private or public pledge to maintain a hygienic latrine. The group financial reward has the strongest impact in the short term (3 months), inducing a 7.5-12.5 percentage point increase in hygienic latrine ownership, but this effect dissipates in the medium term (15 months). In contrast, the public commitment induced a 4.2-6.3 percentage point increase in hygienic latrine ownership in the short term, but this effect persists in the medium term. Non-financial social recognition or a private pledge has no detectable effect on sanitation investments.

The Impact of Pro-Poor Sanitation Subsidies in Open Defecation-Free Communities: A Randomized, Controlled Trial in Rural Ghana

BACKGROUND

According to the World Health Organization/United Nations International Children's Fund Joint Monitoring Program, 494 million people practice open defecation globally. After achieving open defecation-free (ODF) status through efforts such as Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS), communities (particularly vulnerable households) may revert to open defecation, especially when toilet collapse is common and durable toilets are unaffordable. Accordingly, there is increasing interest in pro-poor sanitation subsidies.

OBJECTIVES

This study determined the impacts of a pro-poor sanitation subsidy program on sanitation conditions among the most vulnerable households and others in the community.

METHODS

In 109 post-ODF communities in Northern Ghana, we conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate a pro-poor subsidy program that identified the most vulnerable households through community consultation to receive vouchers for durable toilet substructures. We surveyed households to assess toilet coverage, quality, and use before and after the intervention and tracked program costs.

RESULTS

Overall, sanitation conditions deteriorated substantially from baseline to endline (average of 21 months). In control communities (not receiving the pro-poor subsidy), open defecation increased from 25% (baseline) to 69% (endline). The subsidy intervention attenuated this deterioration (open defecation increased from 25% to only 54% in subsidy communities), with the greatest impacts among voucher-eligible households. Noneligible households in compounds with subsidized toilets also exhibited lower open defecation levels owing to in-compound sharing (common in this context). CLTS followed by the subsidy program would benefit more households than CLTS alone but would cost 21-37% more per household that no longer practiced open defecation or upgraded to a durable toilet.

DISCUSSION

Sanitation declines, often due to toilet collapse, suggest a need for approaches beyond CLTS alone. This subsidy program attenuated declines, but durable toilets likely remained unaffordable for noneligible households. Targeting criteria more closely aligned with sanitation inequities, such as household heads who are female or did not complete primary education, may help to generate greater and more sustainable impacts in Northern Ghana and, potentially, other contexts facing toilet collapse and limited market access. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10443.