Pit latrine emptying behavior and demand for sanitation services in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania

Abstract

Pit latrines are the main form of sanitation in unplanned areas in many rapidly growing developing cities. Understanding demand for pit latrine fecal sludge management (FSM) services in these communities is important for designing demand-responsive sanitation services and policies to improve public health. We examine latrine emptying knowledge, attitudes, behavior, trends and rates of safe/unsafe emptying, and measure demand for a new hygienic latrine emptying service in unplanned communities in Dar Es Salaam (Dar), Tanzania, using data from a cross-sectional survey at 662 residential properties in 35 unplanned sub-wards across Dar, where 97% had pit latrines. A picture emerges of expensive and poor FSM service options for latrine owners, resulting in widespread fecal sludge exposure that is likely to increase unless addressed. Households delay emptying as long as possible, use full pits beyond what is safe, face high costs even for unhygienic emptying, and resort to unsafe practices like 'flooding out'. We measured strong interest in and willingness to pay (WTP) for the new pit emptying service at 96% of residences; 57% were WTP≥U.S. $17 to remove ≥200 L of sludge. Emerging policy recommendations for safe FSM in unplanned urban communities in Dar and elsewhere are discussed.

Figure 1

Positive perceptions shaping preference for latrine emptying method vs. reasons for choosing the method used last time in unplanned areas of Dar Es Salaam (2008).

Figure 2

Negative perceptions of the emptying method used last time to empty the latrine facility in unplanned study areas of Dar Es Salaam (2008).

Figure 3

Positive and negative reactions to the proposed Gulper pit emptying service offer in unplanned study areas of Dar Es Salaam (2008).

Figure 4

Proposed Gulper service “cheap” and “expensive” price bids for removing one 50 liter drum of fecal sludge from the latrine pit and property. Non-exceedance % is the fraction of respondents who named a price equal to or less than the Y-axis price. The mid-point price is the respondent’s average bid (cheap and expensive price average).