9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Fecal Sludge Management Services and Knowledge Gaps: A Scoping Review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Achieving universal access to safely managed sanitation services is one of the Sustainable Development Goal 6 targets (SDG6.2). The cost and availability of services to ensure the safe management of on-site sanitation, such as pit latrines and septic tanks, can be major barriers for poor households. Particularly, fecal sludge emptying services have become increasingly important due to the growing urban population. This review aims to scope the literature on stated and revealed willingness to pay (WTP) for emptying on-site sanitation systems and to identify determinants of WTP and gaps in knowledge. We performed electronic searches of six databases. After deduplication, 1846 records were identified, of which 14 were included in the review. In these studies, we identified 26 distinct scenarios that reported mean or median WTP values for emptying services and their market price (i.e., price at which the services were provided). Among the 26 scenarios, 77% ( n = 20) reported that WTP was lower than the market price. We identified 20 statistically significant determinants of WTP, which can be leveraged when developing or improving manual and mechanical emptying services to attract more customers. Future research should consider services that adopt flexible pricing or mobile money payment and optimize their emptying operations to increase WTP. Validating the effectiveness of such services in solving the WTP–market price imbalance is a significant knowledge gap.

          Abstract

          This is the first scoping review on willingness to pay for sludge emptying services, which mapped existing findings and identified knowledge gaps.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

            Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Environ Sci Technol
                Environ Sci Technol
                es
                esthag
                Environmental Science & Technology
                American Chemical Society
                0013-936X
                1520-5851
                18 January 2024
                30 January 2024
                : 58
                : 4
                : 1908-1920
                Affiliations
                []London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine , Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom
                []Nagasaki University School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health , 1-12-4 Sakamoto, Nagasaki852-8523, Japan
                [§ ]Nagasaki University Office for Global Relations , Bunkyo-machi, 1-14, Nagasaki 852-8521, Japan
                []African Population & Health Research Centre, APHRC Campus, Manga Cl , Nairobi 00100, Kenya
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4711-4203
                Article
                10.1021/acs.est.3c06628
                10832061
                38237917
                c9b3898d-6a09-4852-9410-c81f41052d1e
                © 2024 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

                Permits non-commercial access and re-use, provided that author attribution and integrity are maintained; but does not permit creation of adaptations or other derivative works ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 17 August 2023
                : 29 December 2023
                : 28 December 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Nagasaki University, doi 10.13039/100015060;
                Award ID: NA
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                es3c06628
                es3c06628

                General environmental science
                on-site sanitation,sdg6,sludge removal,developing countries,operational cost,affordability,economic analysis,willingness to pay

                Comments

                Comment on this article