13. Installed adopters: Latrine types, satisfaction, usage Table 46: Household investment in latrine materials Median expenditure for latrine MATERIALS, USD*
Kg Speu
Kg Cham
Total
Latrine Core (Underground)
41
43
42
Shelter
200
150
175
*Respondents had great difficulty recalling costs. Median costs shown here based on respondents who could estimate costs, Latrine Core, N=196, Shelter, N=177.
Table 47: Household investment in construction labor Median expenditure for LABOR, USD*
Kg Speu
Kg Cham
Total
Latrine Core (Underground)
25
18
19
Shelter
50
38
44
*Respondents had great difficulty recalling costs. Median costs shown here based on respondents who had hired labor and who could estimate costs, Latrine Core, N=115, Shelter, N=105
!
Nearly half of all installed adopters saved or borrowed for their latrine. About 6% took an MFI loan and 7% paid the enterprise in installments.
Figure 28: Source of funds for latrine material purchase Kampong Cham
50.4%
26.4%
Kampong Speu
60.4%
Total
0%
14.0%
27.9%
27.1%
55.0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Had money on hand
Borrowed from family/friend/neighbor
Saved money for it
Borrowed from an MFI or bank
not pay for additional labor, while 51 respondents did not know if they paid for labor. Among those who hired labor and could estimate costs, Kampong Speu adopters spent significantly more than Kampong Cham adopters. Median shelter construction labor cost was 50 USD in Kampong Speu, compared to 38 USD in Kampong Cham (Table 35).
50%
60%
70%
80%
9.6%
90% 100%
Saved money through a savings group Don’t know
Received help from NGO
spondents) borrowed from an MFI or bank in order to get the cash for latrine purchase. Kampong Cham households were more likely to borrow from family or friends (14% compared to 4.5% in Kampong Speu) or from an MFI (7% compared to 5.4% in Kampong Speu). At the time of the study WaterSHED was working with MFI partners to pilot consumer loans for latrines. Cross-checking was not undertaken to determine whether the respondents captured in the RCSAS were part of this study, or had independently taken an MFI loan for their latrine. 2
Among installed adopters, 55% indicated they paid for their latrine with money they had on hand (Fig. 28). This corresponds with findings above indicating that most rural households do not usually set aside cash savings (Section 5). Households tend to purchase larger items when they have cash on hand, particularly after the harvest. The findings could also indicate that many installed adopters are among the better off with some existing cash on hand. Over 60% of Kampong Speu installed adopters were able to pay with existing cash, compared to 50% in Kampong Cham.
The majority (nearly 92%) of all installed adopters paid for their latrine all at once in one up-front payment (Table 48). A total of 7.1% of all installed adopters (17 respondents) paid for their latrine in installment payments, with the majority paying the enterprise in two installments. There was little difference across provinces in terms of access to payment plans. Among the 17 installers who paid in installments, over 64% had paid for
Other households needed to explicitly save or borrow the cash to make their latrine investment. About 27% of all installed adopters saved their own money, nearly 10% borrowed from family or friends, and just over 6% (15 re-
2 The study, Evaluating the effect of microcredit on latrine uptake in rural Cambodia, undertaken between 1 Oct 2011 and 31 Dec 2012, found that enduser are interested in loans for latrines. Of those who participated in sales events during the study, approximately 27% applied for or intended to apply for a latrine loan. However, a good portion were unable to get a loan because they did not qualify or meet the MFI loan credit requirements. See www. watershedasia.org/sanitation-marketing/wash-finance for study details.
64