Measurement and Monitoring of WASH Affordability

1 Introduction
The Measurement and Monitoring

of Water Supply, Sanitation and
Hygiene (WASH) Affordability
A Missing Element of Monitoring
of Sustainable Development Goal
(SDG) Targets 6.1 and 6.2
A collaboration of the WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme (JMP), the UN-Water Global Analysis and
Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water (GLAAS) and
an Expert Group on WASH Affordability
May 2021
The Measurement and Monitoring of Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Affordability May 2021
Published by UNICEF and WHO
Programme Division/WASH
3 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017 USA
www.unicef.org/wash
© United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO), 2021
Suggested citation: The measurement and monitoring of water supply, sanitation and
hygiene (WASH) affordability: a missing element of monitoring of Sustainable Development Goal
(SDG) Targets 6.1 and 6.2. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the
World Health Organization, 2021.
UNICEF ISBN: 978-92-806-5217-8
WHO ISBN: 978-92-400-2328-4 (electronic)
WHO ISBN: 978-92-400-2329-4 (print)
Permission is required to reproduce any part of this publication. For more information on usage rights,
please contact nyhqdoc.permit@unicef.org
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNICEF or WHO concerning the legal status of
any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries. Dotted or dashed lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may
not yet be full agreement.
All reasonable precautions have been taken by UNICEF and WHO to verify the information contained in
this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind,
either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with
the reader. In no event shall UNICEF or WHO be liable for damages arising from its use.
The statements in this publication are the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
policies or the views of UNICEF or WHO.
2
Uganda, April 04, 2019

© UNICEF/UN0306427/Abdul
3 Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
This initiative was led by Guy Hutton, Senior Adviser Members of the expert consultative group were as
for water, sanitation and hygiene, UNICEF. follows, in alphabetical order:
The initiative has received the valuable inputs of
members of the expert consultative group on WASH
affordability, the teams of the UNICEF/WHO Joint
Monitoring Programme and the UN-Water Global
Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-
Water (GLAAS) team, consultants, and UNICEF
country offices where case studies were conducted.
MEMBERS OF THE EXPERT CONSULTATIVE GROUP
Member Title/Institution
Barbara Mateo Expert on Human Rights & Implementation, previously served as adviser to the former Special
Rapporteur on the Human Rights to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation
Dale Whittington Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering and Professor, Department
of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA
Henri Smets Water Academy, Paris
John Garrett Senior Policy Analyst (Development Finance), WaterAid
Joseph Cook Former Special Associate Professor, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University,
Pullman, WA
Leo Heller Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, and Researcher,
Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Brazil
Luis Andres Lead Economist, World Bank
Luke Wilson Deputy Director, Center for Water Security and Cooperation
Manuel Alvarinho Former President of Water Regulatory Council, Mozambique
Manuel Teodoro Associate Professor, LaFollette School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Michael Rouse Distinguished Research Associate at the University of Oxford and formerly Head of the Drinking
Water Inspectorate, UK
Pali Lehohla Member, UN Statistical Commission; and former Statistician-General for Statistics South Africa
Peter Mutale Chief Inspector, National Water Supply and Sanitation Council, Zambia
Rob Hope Professor of Water Policy, School of Geography and the Environment and Smith School for
Enterprise and the Environment, Oxford University, UK
Alexander (Sasha) Senior WASH Specialist and Responsible for IB-NET, World Bank
Danilenko
Xavier LeFlaive Principal Administrator, OECD
Yaw Sarkodie Consultant, Former Team Leader, Water and Sanitation Monitoring Platform, Ghana
4 Acknowledgements
MEMBERS OF THE UNICEF AND WHO TEAMS (IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)
Resource Position Role
Guy Hutton Senior Adviser, WASH Section, Technical lead and convener of expert group, and lead
UNICEF author of concept note, methodology guide, Ghana case
study and synthesis report
Tom Slaymaker Senior Statistics and Monitoring Lead of JMP, UNICEF

Specialist (JMP), Data & Analytics
Section, UNICEF
Rob Bain Statistics and Monitoring Technical contributions on data sets

Specialist (JMP), Data & Analytics
Section, UNICEF
Rick Johnston Technical Officer (JMP), Water, Lead of JMP, WHO

Sanitation and Health Unit, WHO
Fiona Gore Manager of GLAAS, Water, Lead of UN-Water GLAAS

Sanitation and Health Unit, WHO
Sofia Murad Technical Officer, Water, Sanitation Contributions on GLAAS

and Health Unit, WHO
Marina Takane Technical Officer, Water, Sanitation Contributions on GLAAS

and Health Unit, WHO
Joao Costa UNICEF Consultant Helped initiate affordability country case studies
Akmal Abdurazarov UNICEF Consultant Extracted data from income and expenditure surveys,
wrote protocol for analysis of expenditure surveys
(Annex C), and co-author of country case studies
Zachary Burt UNICEF Consultant Drafted 5 country case studies, contributed to Ghana
case study, and co-author of synthesis report
Simone Klawitter UNICEF Consultant Wrote UNICEF paper and guidelines on WASH
affordability response
Data Streamers Publication design
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 3
Foreword 8
Summary 10
01 Introduction 14
02 Understanding affordability 18
2.1 Previous approaches 18
2.2 Developing the concept 19
2.3 Threshold approach to make judgements on affordability 22
03 Measuring affordability 24
3.1 Approaches to measuring affordability 24
3.1.1 How people behave (‘revealed preference’) 24
3.1.2 What people say (‘stated preference’) 26
3.1.3 How expenditure compares to an agreed benchmark (‘expenditure threshold approach’) 26
3.1.4 Poverty status 27
3.1.5 What measures are in place to protect the poor and vulnerable (‘response measures’) 27
3.2 Options for empirical assessment 28
3.2.1 Expenditure threshold approach 28
3.2.2 Revealed preferences 34
3.2.3 Stated preferences 35
3.2.4 Poverty status 36
3.2.5 Response measures 37
04 Data for monitoring affordability 38

4.1 Nationally representative surveys 39
4.2 Non-nationally representative surveys and studies 45
4.3 Administrative data and policy surveys 47
05 Comparative performance of approaches 50

5.1 Criteria for assessment 50
5.2 Expenditure threshold approach 51
5.3 Revealed preferences 53
5.4 Stated preferences 55
5.5 Poverty status 57
5.6 Enabling environment responses to affordability 58
06 Conclusions and recommendations 60

6.1 Global level monitoring 60
6.1.1 Conclusions 60
6.1.2 Recommendations 61
6.2 National (and sub-national) level monitoring 65
6.2.1 Conclusions 65
6.2.2 Recommendations 65
07 References 66
08 Annex A: Affordability definitions for different basic needs 68
09 Annex B: Findings from six country case studies 70

B1. WASH coverage and expenditures 70
B1.1 Introduction 70
B1.2 Data availability 70
B1.3 Water access 71
B1.4 Linkages between reliability, resilience and affordability, 74
B1.5 Household monetary expenditures on WASH 74
B1.6 Household time expenditures on water collection 77
B2. WASH expenditure as a proportion of total expenditure 82
B2.1 Partial WASH operational expenditure as a proportion of total expenditure 82
B2.2 Required expenditure on WASH as a proportion of total household expenditure 85
B2.3 Recommendations for future analyses and data collection efforts 91
B3. Household behaviours, WASH prices, consumption and choice 93
B3.1 The advantages of demand assessment 93
B3.2 Static assessments - consumption level 93
B3.3 Static assessments – household preferences and perceptions 95
B3.4 Dynamic assessments – revealed preferences and willingness to pay estimation 96
B3.5 Dynamic assessments – stated preferences and willingness to pay estimation 97
B4. Comprehensive poverty assessments and implications for meeting other essential needs 99
B4.1 Indicator options and dimensions covered 99
B4.2 WASH coverage for poor and extreme poor 99
B4.3 Comparison of WASH costs for poor and non-poor 100
B4.4 WASH spending leads to reduced consumption of other essential goods 100
B4.5 Spending exceeds income, suggesting households are living beyond their means 102
B5. Summary 103
B6. References to Annex B 104
10 Annex C. Protocol for data extraction 106

C1. Introduction 106
C2. Selecting and recoding WASH variables 106
C3. A variable on WASH expenditure 109
C4. Consumption expenditure by major categories and household characteristics 113
C5. WASH affordability indices formulas 113
11 Annex D. Countries with income and expenditure

surveys since 2014 118
7 List of tables
LIST OF TABLES
○ Table 1 Degree of vulnerability resulting from three dimensions of WASH affordability
○ Table 2 Different types of cost for water, sanitation and hygiene
○ Table 3 Summary of expenditure or cost items included in each indicator
○ Table 4 Key data available from most relevant categories of household survey
○ Table 5 Sources of data on WASH expenditure from nationally-representative surveys
○ Table 6 Data collected by surveys on household income and expenditure
○ Table 7 Performance of the expenditure threshold approach against criteria
○ Table 8 Performance of the revealed preference approach against criteria
○ Table 9 Performance of the stated preference approach against criteria
○ Table 10 Performance of the poverty status approach against criteria
○ Table 11 Performance of the enabling environment indicators against criteria
LIST OF FIGURES
○ Figure 1 Populations fall into four affordability quadrants depending on whether they
access a targeted minimum level of service and whether the service is
affordable or not
○ Figure 2 Pyramid of costs to be included in the numerator of the expenditure

threshold approach
8 Foreword
Foreword
Djibouti, February 06, 2018

© UNICEF/Noorani
Today, many countries are unable to provide safe No one drinks a sip more than they need, just as no one
drinking water and sanitation services to their breathes a cubic centimetre more air than they need,
populations – the challenge and cost of scaling up even if water and air are free. And as for other uses of
the infrastructure required, as well as operational and water for hygiene or cooking, equally necessary but
maintenance costs, are too great. Yet despite these potentially requiring greater quantities than water for
challenges, in the past many countries that were not drinking, the tremendous effort of carrying water will
economically developed were able to ensure access prevent any waste. An effort that, by the way, often falls
to safe drinking water for everyone. How? The strategy on women and children.
was to guarantee, above all, a free, safe, public water
supply, close to everyone’s home, in the square of each The key to ensuring drinking water for all has always
town and each neighbourhood. been to guarantee its priority in all senses. Priority in the
event of shortages due to drought, priority in terms of
When I say this, questions are often asked about free quality over any other use, and even budgetary priority
water at public fountains – won’t people over extract for the free public drinking fountain in the square –
these water resources? My answer is always the before paving streets or installing lighting.
same: “don’t worry, no one will take a litre more of the
water they need at home from the public fountain; it is Sanitation, on the other hand, has in many countries
too heavy.” been left for the household to decide what type
of toilet they want, and make the investment
Supposing you were the one who had to fetch water themselves. While sanitation is in many senses a very
for your family every day. How much water would you private issue, the consequences of not having safe
carry from a public source? The benchmark for minimum sanitation are of a highly public nature. Hundreds of
needs is usually 50 litres per person per day. In such a millions of people continue to suffer the daily indignity
case, if five people live in your household, we would be of defecating in the open, a practice which is especially
talking about 250 litres of water. Would you carry more shameful for women. Even when a toilet is used, the
water because the water is free? vast majority of the waste is not managed safely, thus
threatening the health and damaging the environment
of much larger populations.
9 Foreword
Today, however, in the 21st century, an estimated 2.2 We cannot stop at strategic reflections, however
billion people in the world do not have access to safe important they may be. We must promote urgent
drinking water and 4.2 billion people do not have access measures to achieve the progressive fulfilment of the
to safe sanitation. The reasons are diverse and depend human rights at stake. As water and sanitation services
on multiple factors and circumstances. In extreme semi- are delivered, we must ensure they are affordable to
arid territories, subject to climatic changes that threaten the individuals, communities and groups in the most
their habitability, the problems are most often due to vulnerable situations.
physical water shortages. However, the vast majority of
these 2.2 billion people are not thirsty people without This report, released by UNICEF and WHO, with the
water in their living environments, but impoverished collaboration of a prestigious team of experts and on the
people living next to rivers or on polluted aquifers. The basis of a broad and in-depth study of socio-economic
shameful global water crisis we face is rooted in the realities, offers ways to assess, evaluate and monitor
confluence of two major structural flaws: the affordability of WASH services. It seeks to establish
not only conceptual rigour but also flexibility to integrate
One, the flaw of inequity and poverty that the diversity of existing contexts and circumstances. It
ºgenerate profoundly unequal and unsupportive provides concrete guidelines and recommendations to
socio-economic systems. make the obligation of providing affordable access to
water and sanitation services a key objective.
Two, the flaw of unsustainability that we have
caused in our aquatic ecosystems, transforming Achieving targets 6.1 and 6.2 of SDG 6 will hardly
water, which has always been the key to life, into progress if we are not able to identify households and
the most dangerous vector of disease and death populations with payment difficulties and if we are not
that humanity has ever known. able to assess non-compliance with the affordability
principle as one of the key causes of failure of the
As the pressure of tariffs to finance the growing costs human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation.
of water and sanitation services increases, we must
reflect on the strategy to guarantee safe drinking water With the analysis and recommendations found in this
to those 2.2 billion people and safe sanitation to those report, countries will have a clearer benchmark and
4.2 billion people, and sustain services for those already information to promote and guarantee the human
enjoying safe water and sanitation. rights to water and sanitation, particularly regarding
affordable access to drinking water and sanitation
Today we have sophisticated technologies, such as services and prohibition of disconnecting those
reverse osmosis with semi-permeable membranes, services in case of incapacity to pay. But above all,
which would make it possible to purify water this report will ultimately be used to empower those
contaminated by all kinds of pollutants. We can also who suffer the harshest situations of poverty and
make water transfers from remote places where we vulnerability to meet their rights.
still have quality water. But the costs of these options
could not be paid by those who live in conditions For these reasons, as the UN Special Rapporteur on
of extreme vulnerability. Only if we make serious the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, I
progress in restoring the health of the rivers and welcome this report.
aquifers on which these people depend, then we will
make definitive progress in achieving effective and
universal access to safe water, thus fulfilling not only
the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation,
but interrelated human rights as well such as education,
health, food and housing.
Pedro Arrojo Agudo
Special Rapporteur on the human rights

to safe drinking water and sanitation
10 Summary
Summary
Affordability is an essential consideration for Earlier human rights literature focused on the principle
improving the population’s access to water, of Equity. The General Comment 15 stated in 2003
sanitation and hygiene (WASH) products and that “Any payment for water services has to be
services. based on the principle of equity, ensuring that these
services, whether privately or publicly provided, are
The cost of access can be a significant barrier to affordable for all, including socially disadvantaged
WASH services, whether it is a monthly water bill, groups. Equity demands that poorer households
an investment in water or sanitation infrastructure or should not be disproportionately burdened with water
regular spending on hygiene products. Safe drinking- expenses as compared to richer households.” (para 27,
water and sanitation have both been recognised as United Nations). This was echoed by the Independent
human rights, and affordability has been included as Expert on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water
one of five normative criteria. Consequently ‘affordable’ and Sanitation in preparing for the 65th Session of
water is included in Sustainable Development Goal the UN General Assembly in 2010 “Services must be
(SDG) target 6.1, while target 6.2 explicitly requires affordable. Access to water and sanitation must not
equitable access to sanitation and hygiene, and paying compromise the ability to pay for other essential needs
special attention to the needs of women and girls and guaranteed by human rights such as food, housing and
those in vulnerable situations. health care”. 1However, neither the General Comment
15 nor the Resolution 18/1 provided any quantitative
Until now there has been no major evidence-based metric in determining what is affordable.
initiative assessing the affordability of WASH services
in low- and middle-income countries. However, Until now, the main practical methodology used
SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2 will not be reached unless to measure affordability has been to compare a
affordability can be measured and monitored to identify household’s expenditure on water and wastewater
precisely which population groups and households as a proportion of annual income, and compare the
do not have access to WASH services or face other ratio with an affordability ‘threshold’. Expenditure
barriers to WASH services resulting from vulnerability or above the threshold would therefore render a service
discrimination, and ultimately, and ultimately to inform ‘unaffordable’. However, different methodologies, data
policy and programmatic responses to unaffordable sets and cost components have been used in the
services. studies conducted to date, and there is no international
agreement on the appropriate value for the affordability
A multi-stakeholder group of experts and organizations threshold. Indeed, defining a single threshold value
was convened by WHO and UNICEF to address WASH nationally or even globally has severe limitations in
affordability, under the umbrella of the WHO/UNICEF pronouncing services as affordable or unaffordable as
Joint Monitoring Programme and the UN-Water Global recommended by the Special Rapporteur on the Human
Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking- Rights to Drinking-Water and Sanitation, affordability
Water (GLAAS). The initiative was designed to answer standards should be defined by a participatory process
key questions: first, how can affordability be concretely at national and/or local level (Heller, 2015), involving poor
defined; second, how can WASH affordability be and marginalized people. Furthermore, these studies
practically measured using available data; and third, have tended to include costs of the levels of WASH
how can WASH affordability be monitored both services that households currently use and in many
nationally and globally? cases, these service levels do not meet the minimum
national standards or the normative criteria of the
Drawing on ways in which WASH affordability has human rights; therefore, the studies do not say whether
been understood in the past, there are two main paying the costs to meet these required service levels
approaches that have been conceptualised and would be affordable for households.
applied: (a) the Human Rights perspective and (b) the
comparison of WASH expenditure with total income. In the proposal put forward by the Expert Group, WASH
affordability depends on the interrelation between three
key variables, or dimensions, at the household level:
1
Human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and
sanitation.
11 Summary
1. The price of the WASH services (paid by to increase consumption of poor households. However,
the household), including the time cost of as survey techniques are research intensive the
accessing WASH services, populations these studies cover are limited in size, and
they are not conducted regularly to enable affordability
2. The overall spending power and time monitoring at national level. On the other hand,
budget of the household, and simple questions exploring WASH affordability can be
incorporated into existing surveys, as has been done in
3. The competing nature of different a few cases to date.
household needs,2 and the spending
required by households to meet How WASH expenditures compare to an agreed
those needs. benchmark on WASH spending as a percent of
overall household income or expenditure. This
What the absolute levels of these variables are, and indicator has considerable potential for national and
how households behave in relation to each of them, global monitoring, due to the availability of nationally-
will lead to decisions on what level and type of WASH representative income and expenditure survey data
service they will demand and the associated behaviours sets in a large number of countries. However, as well
they will adopt. as examining current WASH costs, it is important to
focus on estimating the additional costs needed to
Five distinct approaches are identified that provide raise each household to (at least) the minimum service
insights into WASH affordability: standards for WASH. This can be either the national
minimum service level, or the SDG 6 ‘safely managed’
How people behave with respect to WASH service standard. By applying this approach, it ensures
expenditure and service levels, and whether it is that subsidy schemes can be targeted at poor
observable that poor households do not demand households who are unlikely to be able to afford these
expensive but essential WASH services, or they cut additional costs. Costs should include both investment
back on essential WASH services when the prices of and operations and maintenance costs, to ensure all
those services rise or household income drops. These financial bottlenecks are addressed. Non-financial costs
are called ‘revealed preference’ studies in economics. such as access time should also be incorporated, to
Local (small area) data sets are commonly available to avoid the selection of technology options with a low
measure these, but they are not available at large scale financial cost per capita but might involve long journey
or nationally representative. Significant additional efforts or waiting times to obtain services, which tends to fall
are therefore required to conduct affordability analyses on female household members and children.
and compile data sets across jurisdictions or countries.
Hence, this methodology can be used for localized What is a household’s poverty status, which
assessments that can feed as illustrative case studies indicates deservingness for supportive measures
into a national assessment, but they are not currently to ensure WASH services are affordable. The use of
suitable for global monitoring of affordability. poverty lines to define population groups that are least
likely to afford WASH is potentially a very neat and
What people say about their preferences on WASH simple approach, and can be based on either national
expenditure and service levels. These are called ‘stated or community assessments. If a household is poor,
preference’ studies in economics. They can include they are likely to be the most deserving of assistance
surveys that determine households’ willingness to pay to help them achieve or sustain the minimum WASH
(WTP) for WASH services, or they can involve questions standard. The advantage of the poverty line is that it
about how affordable current or future WASH prices are considers the costs of meeting other essential needs,
and how prices affect their consumption levels. WTP and therefore might be seen as most within the spirit of
surveys are quite a common research methodology the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation.
used by both WASH suppliers and by academics to It is most appropriate when there is a reliable and
help determine market prices and needs for subsidies regularly updated national inventory of poor households,
2
The latter point does not necessarily cover those needs that are considered
‘essential’, as the latter is very hard to define precisely, and it is ultimately
the household’s choice as to how spending is balanced between the ‘more
essential’ and the ‘less essential’ needs.
12 Summary
otherwise a mis-categorization of households will Build and strengthen global databases of WASH tariffs
occur and subsidies will be distributed to the wrong and costs, to enable affordability assessments that
households. incorporate the current prices of WASH goods and
services for achieving the national minimum services
What measures already are in place to ensure levels or the “safely managed” standard, aligned with
the poor and vulnerable can afford WASH services. the progressive realization of the rights to water and
Overall, enabling environment indicators are predictive sanitation;
of whether services are likely to be affordable,
being based on the underlying policy frameworks, Strengthen the use of the UN-Water GLAAS survey
programming approaches, market attributes, sector to collect and analyse policy indicators relevant
intelligence, financing mechanisms and flows, as well for affordability assessment, for triangulation with
as indicators such as the rates of water disconnection expenditure data and to help determine future policy
and bill collection. However, these indicators say little and programmatic responses to unaffordable WASH
about the prices paid and their actual affordability. For services;
this reason, they will not themselves be sufficient, but
rather they will provide important additional information Reach a broad consensus on comparative expenditure
for a fuller interpretation of the other affordability requirements for households to meet multiple essential
indicators covered earlier. They will also help guide the household needs, leading to the setting of a threshold
appropriate responses based on what is already being (or threshold range) of WASH expenditure required as a
done to improve affordability. proportion of total expenditure for an affordable WASH
service; and
Based on the assessment described in this report,
the following recommendations are made for future Conduct further in-depth country case studies
monitoring of WASH affordability: to explore how WASH affordability can be better
understood using available data sets, and further
Strengthen data sets and data analyses of income enhanced through additional data collection, thus
and expenditure surveys, to provide initial affordability contributing to the implementation of enhanced national
assessments in over 50 countries for which these policies to make WASH services affordable for all.
surveys are available in the past 5 years;
India, February 01, 2019

© UNICEF/UNI289566/Narain
13 Summary
Burundi, September 27, 2019

© UNICEF/UNI306246/Prinsloo
14 Introduction
01
Introduction
Affordability is an essential recognition that the achievement

consideration for improving the of the Sustainable Development
population’s access to water, Agenda is heavily reliant on goods
sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and services being affordable to
products and services. The cost populations, especially the poor.
of access, whether it is a monthly However, when the SDG targets
bill or an investment in household were set in the year 2015, there
infrastructure, can be a significant was neither a definition provided
barrier to improved access. Household nor an established methodology for
budgets may only allow for access to measuring affordability. Furthermore,
water sources that meet the national only two SDG indicators – both in
minimum standard, and therefore the SDG 3 on health – explicitly require
sources may be far from the home, affordability to be monitored (UN
at risk of contamination, or provide an General Assembly, 2019).4 Hence, to
insufficient quantity of water. In the date, there has been limited progress
future, how people source their water on monitoring affordability within the
supply will be impacted: a growing Sustainable Development Agenda.
proportion of the world’s population
live in areas that are defined as water Little has been done to track WASH
scarce, hence being exposed to affordability at the global scale
seasonal shortages and longer-term to date. No single indicator nor set
climate shifts which threaten the of indicators have been adopted in
quantity and quality of water supply. order to understand the relationship
between policies, programmes and
Limited access to credit or ability to household costs for WASH. While
save may hinder construction of quality the word ‘affordability’ is repeatedly
household latrines. Lack of funds and used when talking about providing
willingness to pay may also prevent populations with quality WASH
proper treatment of different waste services, there are few examples
streams before disposal into the of affordability analyses in low- and
environment. middle-income countries leading to
concrete conclusions.
Therefore, economic access – ensuring
that the costs paid by households and Several Human Rights emphasize
communities for WASH services are the importance of economic
affordable – is a necessary condition accessibility, or affordability.
3
SDG targets with explicit references to affordability
of goods and services include: SDG 3.8: Affordable
for improving the quality of WASH Affordability is featured in many
essential medicines and vaccines for all; SDG 3.b: services. economic, social and cultural human
Affordable essential medicines & vaccines; SDG 4.3:
Affordable education; SDG 6.1: Affordable drinking
rights passed by the UN Human
water; SDG 7.1: Affordable energy services; SDG Affordability is writ large across the Rights Council, under the term
9.1: Affordable infrastructure; SDG 9.3: Affordable Sustainable Development Agenda, ‘economic accessibility’. Common
credit; SDG 9.c: Affordable internet access; SDG 11.1:
Affordable housing and basic services; SDG 11.2: but not yet monitored. The word across several human rights (housing,
Affordable transport systems. ‘affordable’ features in 10 targets food, water) is the requirement
across six Sustainable Development that prices are commensurate with
4
Indicator 3.8.2 “Proportion of population with large
household expenditures on health as a share of total
Goals (SDGs) (UN General Assembly, income levels, and that individuals (or
household expenditure or income” and Indicator 3.b.2 2015),3 underlining the widespread households) should be able to afford
“Proportion of health facilities that have a core set of
relevant essential medicines available and affordable on
a sustainable basis”
15 Introduction
these goods without compromising Human Rights put the onus on - Date and entry into force and
on any other basic needs (see Annex States as duty bearers in resolving coverage of national action
A). Implicit in these human rights affordability issues. The resolution plan on affordability of water
texts is the recognition that poor 18/1 on the Human Rights to Safe and sanitation services
households’ limited income should Drinking Water and Sanitation (HRWS)
be spent in a balanced way in order calls upon States to “continuously - Proportion of households
to meet all the basic human needs. monitor and regularly analyse the disconnected from the water
The principle of equity mentioned in status of the realization of the right to supply due to bills not met
several human rights texts demands safe drinking water and sanitation on within X working days
that poorer households should not the basis of the criteria of availability,
be disproportionately burdened with quality, acceptability, accessibility and - Proportion of households’
the costs of meeting basic needs affordability” and it refers to States’ requests for financial support
as compared to richer households. responsibility to establish mechanisms to pay their water bill or
Hence, while these human rights have to provide protection for poor and sanitation costs met during
been adopted individually, they are vulnerable populations when costs the period
understood to be interrelated. of meeting human rights are high.
To ensure that water is affordable, - Proportion of households
Human rights principles are cross- General Comment 15 expands: “State spending more than X % of
cutting dimensions that form part parties must adopt the necessary expenditure or income on
of each human right, including the measures that may include, inter alia: water and sanitation
rights to drinking water and sanitation. (a) use of a range of appropriate low-
There are reflected in the Sustainable cost techniques and technologies; (b) Hence States have significant flexibility
Development Goals and Agenda 2030, appropriate pricing policies such as in defining economic access to basic
also by using the terminology of “leave free or low-cost water; and (c) income goods and services. In practice, many
no-one behind” (LNOB). These human supplements.’ economically poorer countries face
rights principles must inform the significant challenges in meeting
respective policy and programmatic Guiding texts in the human rights all the human rights due to the
responses to ensure affordable literature fails to define how limited household incomes and state
services to all. economic accessibility can be resources. Thus, trade-offs must be
measured or monitored at a global made and this potentially leads to one
scale. While different Human Rights human right being met at the expense
refer to economic accessibility, there of other human rights.
is no clear benchmark or methodology
provided for defining what expenditure Pre-dating most of the economic,
should be made on achieving each social and cultural human rights
human right. Indeed, any global is the use of the poverty line to
blueprint would be too restrictive given define who is deserving of State
the very different economic levels as support. These days, most States
well as different political economies define a poverty line and take
of UN Member States. “In a 2014 measures to support those living
report by the Special Rapporteur on below the poverty line to enable them
the Human Rights to Drinking-Water to access basic goods and services.
and Sanitation 5, some indicators The World Bank estimates in 2015
were proposed, but no methodology, that 736 million people, or 10% of
data sources or threshold values for the world’s population, were living
interpreting affordability were provided. in extreme poverty (below US$ 1.90
These indicators were: per person per day). This population
group will be severely challenged to
meet all their human rights based on
the expenditures they would need
to make. It is likely that hundreds of
million more people are living near the
extreme poverty line and are thus at
risk of falling into poverty.
5
Human Rights Council. Report of the Special
Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water
and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque. Common
violations of the human rights to water and sanitation.
A/HRC/27/55.
16 Introduction
Hence well over a billion people A multi-stakeholder group of This report explores these questions
worldwide are likely to have severe experts and organizations has one by one in the following chapters;
challenges in meeting all their been convened to address WASH it then conducts a comparative
economic and social rights.6 affordability. It is with this backdrop assessment of alternative approaches
that WHO and UNICEF convened in Chapter 5; and concludes by making
Planning to meet human rights – an expert group and conducted proposed recommendations for global
and leave no-one behind – requires country case studies7 to explore the and national monitoring of WASH
a concrete assessment of what ways in which affordability of water, affordability in Chapter 6. Further
service is needed, what is the sanitation and hygiene services can reading material and references are
cost and what is the appropriate be understood, in relation not only provided.
financing mix. When planning how to to a household’s income or means
provide each basic good or service, the at its disposal, but also in relation to Annex A provides affordability
cost needs to be known for achieving other basic human rights or needs. definitions for different basic needs.
(at least the) the minimum standard. The initiative was driven by four main Annex B gives a synthesis of findings
Once this is known, a financing questions: from six country case studies.
assessment is needed using the 3 Annex C details the protocol for
‘T’s (taxes, transfers and tariffs) to extraction and analysis of data from
assess what minimum cost could be 1 How can affordability be the income and expenditure surveys in
covered by the individual or household, concretely defined so that the country case studies.
and how that can be supplemented a judgement can be made Annex D gives an indicative list of
by public funds or other sources. In on whether the price paid income and expenditure surveys in
determining what tariff can be paid by by a household on WASH low- and middle-income countries
poor households for WASH products services is ‘affordable’ or ‘not since 2014.
and services, it requires clarity on what affordable’? This is addressed
proportion of household income should in Chapter 2.
be reserved for other human and child
rights, such as health, education, social 2 Based on the definitions,
protection and food. This point defines how can WASH affordability
the very heart of the affordability issue, be measured using available
as different goods and services should data? This is addressed in
not be dealt with in isolation. Chapter 3.
In a world heavily impacted by the 3 How can WASH affordability

COVID-19 pandemic, the affordability be monitored globally and
and accessibility of all basic services nationally, using existing
comes to the fore as a priority issue, or future data sets? This is
with implications for government addressed in Chapter 4.
budgets and official development
assistance to subsidise WASH 4 What are the options for
services and the consequences different stakeholders to
of the lockdown measures on the respond when it is found
employment status and incomes of that WASH is not affordable
the population, especially the poor to (certain) households?
and vulnerable. And how do these options
perform in relation to
making WASH services
more affordable to the
target households? This
is addressed in separate
publications, given it is
outside the direct issue of
affordability monitoring.
6
Specifically, those human rights requiring household
expenditure such as for food, housing, education,
health and WASH
7
Cambodia, Ghana, Mexico, Pakistan, Uganda, and
Zambia. Annex B provides synthesis results from these
case studies. Separate reports are available per country.
17 Introduction
Introduction
Congo, 17 September 2019

© UNICEF/UNI213409// VincentTremeau
18 Understanding affordability
02
Understanding affordability
Prior to measuring and monitoring “Any payment for water services has focused on measuring WASH (or
WASH affordability, it is critical to has to be based on the principle of water) expenditure as a proportion
have a clear understanding of what equity, ensuring that these services, of total expenditure or income, and
affordability is, and what it is not. whether privately or publicly provided, comparing it with an ‘affordability
Past studies that have assessed are affordable for all, including threshold’. Expenditure above the
affordability of water services socially disadvantaged groups. Equity threshold would therefore render a
have had many weaknesses, demands that poorer households service ‘unaffordable’. Henri Smets
which has made it difficult to pass should not be disproportionately reports significant inter-country
valid judgements about which burdened with water expenses as differences in affordability thresholds
populations are deserving of public compared to richer households.” (para (Smets, 2012). For example, for
subsidies due to affordability 27, United Nations). water supply the threshold varies
concerns (covered in more detail between 2% in the USA and 4% in
in Chapter 3). Despite growing In preparing for the 65th Session of Indonesia and Mongolia. For both
attention to the affordability of the UNGA in 2010, the Independent water and sanitation, the threshold
WASH services, the understanding Expert on the Human Right to Safe varies between 2% in Lithuania and
of what it is and how it can be Drinking Water and Sanitation 6% in Mongolia. Likewise, multilateral
measured has varied. Hence, underlined the importance of development banks and the OECD
this chapter explores the various making progress on affordability: have defined thresholds of between
dimensions of affordability. 3% and 5%.
“Services must be affordable. Access
However, defining a single threshold
2.1 to water and sanitation must not
compromise the ability to pay for other value nationally or even globally has
severe limitations in pronouncing
Previous approaches essential needs guaranteed by human
rights such as food, housing and health services as affordable or unaffordable.
care” 8 As stated by Andres et al (2020)
“Thus, threshold values are often
Drawing on ways in which WASH The language ‘not compromising selected in a short-sighted manner,
affordability has been understood in other human rights’ is echoed in other, without a significant investigation
the past, there are two main sources: earlier, human rights such as housing of the income required to afford all
(a) the Human Rights literature and and food. However, no human rights essential expenditures. In light of this,
(b) the common practice of countries, resolutions or international treaties it may not be surprising that there is no
service providers and international define clear methodologies, indicators consensus on how the threshold value
agencies. and data sources for how to measure should be determined.” (page 8).
the affordability of meeting human
Earlier human rights literature rights, including the human rights to As stated by Heller (2015), thresholds
focused on the principle of Equity. drinking-water and sanitation. should be set nationally and/or locally,
Neither the General Comment 15 based on a participatory process,
nor the Resolution 18/1 provide any Until now, the main way to involving in particular people living in
quantitative metric in determining what measure affordability has been a poverty and other marginalized and
is affordable. The General Comment household’s expenditure on water disadvantaged individuals and groups,
did, however, state in 2003 that: and wastewater as a proportion of that consider all costs associated with
annual income. Due to its simplicity water, sanitation and hygiene.
and the availability of data, the current
practice of measuring affordability
8
Human rights obligations related to access to safe
drinking water and sanitation.
2.2 While equity and fairness arguments

are important in the debate on
1
Developing the affordability, they are relative and do

not give absolute judgements on what
The price or cost related to WASH
services at the household level
concept is affordable and what is not. Hence,
in order to formulate a metric for
will vary depending on geographical
and climatic context, the nature
affordability, the key building blocks of of the service provider (public or
affordability need to be understood. private), service provider efficiency,
market competition, and levels of
In the proposal put forward corruption or leakage. The ownership
by the Expert Group (see of assets, the public-private mix and
Acknowledgements), WASH the regulatory context will all play
affordability depends on the a role in determining the extent to
interrelation between three key which production costs differ from
variables, or dimensions: the prices charged. If there are public
subsidies or cross-subsidies between
1. The price of the WASH services consumers, the price will be below the
(paid by the household), total cost of the product or service.
including the time cost of If the regulatory context allows for
accessing WASH services, private ownership and profit-making,
or else some other type of margin
2. The overall spending power (e.g. surplus in a public provider), then
and time budget of the prices to the consumer will be above
household, and the total cost of the product or service.
3. The competing nature of As well as the above considerations,

different needs9, and the an understanding of affordability
spending required to meet requires a distinction between financial
those needs. and economic costs:
What the absolute level of these • Financial cost – cash outlay for
are, and how households behave in the service itself.
relation to these, will lead to decisions
on what level and type of WASH • Economic cost – includes
service or behaviour they will adopt. financial outlay plus:
Who within the household has access
to the household budget and what - Other non-financial costs
has been agreed to use it for, will also to obtain a service such as
be an important determining factor unpaid time spent developing
for household and individual decisions or accessing the service.
on WASH. The type and intensity of
need – such as the sickness, age or - Non-financial and financial
disability of household members – will consequences of consuming
also be determining factors. Each one a less-than-ideal level of
is described in more detail below. service.
Thus, the policy maker should

consider what ‘free’ resources a
household might make available to
enable access to a service, and the
consequences of consuming a below
standard service, which can impact
the household severely and even
cause it even higher financial outlays,
9
The latter point does not necessarily cover those needs such as the health consequences
that are considered ‘essential’, as the latter is very hard
to define precisely, and it is ultimately the household’s
of drinking polluted water or unsafe
choice as to how spending is balanced between the sanitation or hygiene practices.
‘more essential’ and the ‘less essential’ needs.
2 debts to service providers that

they cannot easily repay, hence
The spending power of the putting them in a permanent
household is derived from the cycle of debt.
resources at hand, including asset
ownership, property, wealth, income 3
and savings. The monthly cash
income, after taxes, is typically the The price or cost of meeting
most important consideration when other household needs must be
paying for a regular service. However, weighed against the costs of WASH.
property, wealth and other assets Assets and property owned by a
are also important in determining household can enable households
affordability, as they can be sold or to afford more services as it frees
traded to increase expenditures or up what might have otherwise
consumption or used to invest in been spent on rent. Likewise, when
capital items. Government resources public transportation, health care or
paid directly to households, such as education are (partially) subsidized by
a government pension system or the welfare state, it means a lower
welfare payments, will also affect a burden on a household’s limited cash
household’s cash situation. income. However, the reach of the
welfare state varies significantly by
A further element of the price of country and by rural/urban location.
the service is the timing of when it Therefore, at the household level,
should be paid, and hence whether the affordability of WASH services
the payment schedule suits the is, in part, determined by the total
income patterns of the household. expenditures required to meet other
This raises the question of the ability basic needs. These aspects are key
or willingness of the household to to understanding whether WASH
borrow, or the willingness of the expenditure is affecting a household’s
service provider to allow a customer to ability to meet other basic needs.
go into payment arrears. This issue can
be broken into payments for capital Why these three dimensions? The
items and payment for recurrent items: reason why each of these dimensions
is essential to understanding
• Payment for capital items: affordability is that if only one or two
borrowing money to pay for a of these dimensions are considered,
capital item has been normalized it is not enough to determine that a
in most countries, though the household can or cannot afford WASH
high interest rates and borrowing products and services. A household
conditions can constrain might be challenged to pay for WASH
households from taking a loan.10 either (a) when WASH tariffs are high,
which might be due to a high level of
• Payment for recurrent items: service on offer; (b) when income is
some households may, for low; and/or (c) when the household
example, go into short-term debt has many other essential needs
to pay for services in periods of which also require expenditure such
the year when there is limited as healthcare, education, housing,
or no income. This may not be clothing and food. However, if one of
ideal as it usually incurs interest these dimensions is favourable and
charges. If the supplier grants the other two less favourable, WASH
households additional time services might still be affordable.
10
With competitive interest rates, households can to make a payment, this can
borrow to attain a higher level of service (or maintain
an existing one), which can avert health costs and
be highly beneficial for a poor
lead to access time gains. It might also reduce household with irregular income.
their operating or recurrent month-to-month costs. On the other hand, the risk is
However, when interest rates are high, it becomes less
attractive for households. For poorer households with that (poorer) households build up
no guarantees, the lender might not be willing to lend
(even at higher interest rates).
The triple consequences of highly WASH services are least affordable For example, in a scenario where
priced WASH services that might is one which is poor, and/or faces WASH prices are high and spending
lead to a judgement of them being high WASH prices and/or does not power is low, this clearly makes a
‘unaffordable’ is that households have state support for other social household vulnerable. However, if that
might: services. Naturally there will be ranges household has few other competing
in income, price levels and spending needs because they are in good health
a. go into debt by consuming required on other essential services and have no children, and/or public
a WASH service level above which gives rise to a 3-dimensional services are free, then that household
what they can pay from their space where cut-offs will be needed is in a better position to pay for WASH
cash resources, and/or in order to categorise households. expenses. On the other hand, if the
In addition, a time dimension may household has sick people that need
b. reduce expenditure on other be needed in contexts where there out-of-pocket payments for regular
essential items, and/or is seasonality in water availability, treatment, or there are several children
seasonality in income, or irregular with education costs, it will be harder
c. cut back on WASH work patterns, which means some to afford highly priced WASH services.
consumption, thereby populations may be moving between If on the other hand there is a welfare
resulting in other negative these categories several times in one state that covers health and education
consequences for themselves year. Also, vulnerability is a relative costs, then that same household is
as well as for others (e.g. concept; hence there will be many more likely to have spare income to
adverse health outcomes). degrees of vulnerability not reflected cover their WASH expenses. This
in the 3-way classification in Table demonstrates that there is an interplay
A categorical conclusion on 1. Furthermore, while a welfare between these three dimensions
affordability is rarely possible state may exist, many of the most which determines whether a
when there are no numbers to excluded may have little or no access household can afford WASH services.
back it up. The judgement about to it – such as unregistered citizens,
affordability is highly context- migrants, those living in temporary In conclusion, to make a valid
specific and dependent on where accommodation, those with no legal judgement about affordability requires
the household falls with respect to land tenure or no registered address, data on the three dimensions of
the three dimensions. The interplay and ethnic groups. affordability as well as a defined
between the three dimensions is threshold or rule of thumb for an
depicted at a very simple level in affordability frontier (i.e. different
Table 1. For example, the most combinations of the three dimensions).
vulnerable household where A time dimension should also be
considered in some contexts.
Table 1.
Degree of vulnerability resulting from three dimensions of WASH affordability
Matrix Welfare state or other source covers health, Welfare state or other source do not cover health,
education, housing & pension education, housing & pension
WASH prices low WASH prices high WASH prices low WASH prices high
Low Less vulnerable More vulnerable More vulnerable Most vulnerable

income
Median Less vulnerable Less vulnerable Less vulnerable More vulnerable

income
2.3 One issue with the current approach

to measuring the current household
In a recent book on achieving equitable
WASH services, a chapter on the costs
Threshold approach spending on WASH is that it does not
typically allow explicit assessment
and benefits of achieving equitable
WASH defines four potential outcomes
to make judgements of the costs against a specified level
of service. Such an assessment
for a household according to whether
they are connected to a (minimum)
on affordability works well when it is known that all
households consume at least the
service or not, and whether the
service is affordable or not (Hutton and
national minimum level of WASH Andres, 2018), shown in Figure 1. As
services in a specified service area. noted above, with seasonal or other
However, in the developing world variations, households might move
the majority of households still do in and out of different vulnerability
not consume safely managed water categories (Table 1) and quadrants
and sanitation services, and still (Figure 1) over time.
many live without a basic level of
WASH service. Hence, a distinction
of WASH expenditure by service level
is important. The key question then
becomes: “what would a household
have to spend in order to reach (at
least) the national minimum standard
of WASH?” Note also that some
national minimum standards might
not be sufficient to meet the human
rights, and hence further examination
of these standards is necessary.
Figure 1.
Populations fall into four affordability quadrants depending on whether they access a targeted minimum level of service and
whether the service is affordable or not
With minimum
level of service QUADRANT #1 QUADRANT #4
Without minimum
level of service QUADRANT #2 QUADRANT #3
Affordable
Unaffordable
(able to pay)
Figure 1 Source: Hutton and Andres (2018)
This framework leads to potentially QUADRANT #3: Households do not The key question remains: what are
three ‘unaffordability’ situations, as consume the minimum service the quantitative cut-offs between
follows: level, and they incur low or zero these four quadrants? As stated
expenditure. This situation is very earlier, there is no international
QUADRANT #1: Households common, especially for poor and consensus around what level of
consume the minimum service vulnerable households and remote expenditure on WASH services
level but pay too much. Although communities. While their current is affordable or unaffordable, and
these households are served, the expenditure indicates they have the threshold that defines these.
level of water service is judged to be affordable WASH, the fact that the The United Nations Development
unaffordable. service level is below the minimum Programme (UNDP), the World
standard may suggest that they would Bank, the Organization for Economic
QUADRANT #2: Households do not face affordability constraints in paying Cooperation and Development
consume the minimum service for a higher service level. Furthermore, (OECD), the European Commission
level, but still pay too much. This there are considerable hidden costs and the African Development Bank
outcome is quite common in urban associated with their low level of have all defined a threshold of
areas, where households do not have service, such as (a) the amount of time expenditure as a proportion of income
access to utility services and pay taken to collect water or travel to a (or expenditure) for water to be
considerable sums for water supply, or place of open defecation, time which affordable, all lying between 3% and
where they have access to poor quality could be used for productive purposes; 5%.11 However, in most cases it is not
utility services and pay high tariffs for and (b) the health consequences of clear how this threshold was reached.
it, without any kind of subsidy or social lower service levels (i.e. that are not Even if some empirically based
protection. There are many examples safely managed), due to contamination threshold was proposed, it would be
of this happening but there is limited of water at the source or while questionable whether such a threshold
capture of this phenomenon from transporting home; and the spread can apply across different countries or
nationally representative surveys. of disease from open defecation and across households with very different
Households that pay high sums for non-safe management of human capacities and needs. Therefore,
vendor-supplied water might be under- excreta from pit latrine, septic tank such an exercise is both ethically and
sampled in national household surveys, and untreated sewage. Hence, while empirically very challenging. It is picked
and also their expenses might not be households might have ‘affordable’ up again in the recommendations in
captured well in the survey questions, services according to a proxy that is Chapter 6.
given the variability in expenditure from based on current expenditure, the
day to day and from month to month. negative consequences of this service
Second, for households with utility level should also be considered.
services, the issue of low service level
is not well picked up. In a household In both Quadrants #2 and #3, it is
survey they would be assumed to important to assess what a minimum
have an adequate service, as data service level would cost and assess
are not often collected on continuity the consequences of households
(e.g. hours per day, days per week) or paying this cost on their spending on
quality of water supply. Hence, in order other essential items, or their debt
to understand more about populations levels. This understanding translates
falling into Quadrant #2, more in-depth into a concrete proposal to measure
data on WASH expenditure is needed, an indicator that includes the full costs
as well as deeper analysis of available a household needs to pay to reach a
data sets. minimum service level (see Chapter 3).
11
Not all of these thresholds by international
organizations are official releases, or do they apply
organization-wide.
24 Measuring affordability
03
Measuring affordability
3.1 The concepts described in the previous

chapter have provided signposts as to
These approaches require specific
methodologies and indicators for
Approaches to how affordability might be measured,
but they have not provided actual
empirical analysis, which enables a
distinction between those for whom
measuring affordability methods or measurable indicators that
allow a concrete judgement about the
WASH services are ‘affordable’, ‘less
affordable’ or ‘unaffordable’. Note
extent of affordability or unaffordability that they are not mutually exclusive
of a WASH service. analyses – and that implementing
these approaches together can
Following the work of the JMP/GLAAS shine a light on affordability from
Expert Group on WASH Affordability, different angles and thus enhance
five distinct approaches were agreed understanding.
that provide insights into WASH
affordability:
3.1.1
How people behave with
How people behave (‘revealed
1
respect to WASH expenditure preference’)
and service levels;
What WASH services people
2 What people say about consume depends on a variety of
their preferences on WASH factors, including availability, physical
expenditure and service accessibility, acceptability, quality
levels; and economic accessibility, which
mirror the normative criteria of the
3 How WASH expenditures human rights to safe drinking-water
compare to an agreed and sanitation. Economic accessibility
benchmark on WASH includes the three dimensions of
spending as a percent of affordability covered in chapter 2 and
overall household income or could also incorporate the capacity to
expenditure; take on debt. In making the decision
on service level they consume,
4 What is a household’s households will compare the different
poverty status, based on options available, often trading off the
either national or community normative criteria against each other,
assessments, which indicates especially when their willingness or
deservingness for supportive ability to pay for these services is low.
measures to be provided with
affordable WASH services;
and
5 What measures already are

in place to ensure the poor
and vulnerable have economic
access to WASH services.
One approach that can shed some 1. Comparing different populations If some population groups are seen
light on WASH affordability is how that face the same or different to be consuming below the minimum
households respond to the prices of prices of WASH services. For service level, and appear to be
WASH services, either comparing example, comparing households sensitive to price, then this implicit
different populations or the same in different economic strata and choice of households highlights a
populations over time, or both. This what they spend on WASH can potential affordability problem. High or
approach is termed in economics reveal the sensitivity of poorer increased prices might lead them to
‘revealed preference’. households to WASH prices. taking measures that put them at risk
(e.g. unprotected water sources) or
2. Observing the same population lead to a reduction in water demand
over time and measuring how below their basic needs. On the other
their demand changes when hand, households might accept and
WASH prices change. For pay high WASH prices that threaten
example, if there is an increase their enjoyment of other human rights,
in WASH prices then household indicating they are willing to pay and
consumption levels can be willing to trade off their fulfilment of
observed for how they adapt to other basic needs. Such an outcome
the price change. This allows a would indicate unaffordable water and
‘price elasticity of demand’ for sanitation services as interpreted in
WASH to be estimated – an the Human Rights to Drinking-Water
economic term which calculates and Sanitation.
how much demand changes
when price changes. Household
response will depend on a
number of factors, such as
the alternative WASH sources
available, whether the household
has spare income, and whether
the household consumes above
or below the minimum level
covering essential needs.
Guinea-Bissau, January 18, 2020

3.1.2 Even when household behaviour is 3.1.3

known, interviews can also reveal
What people say (‘stated additional information that was not How expenditure compares to an
preference’) evident from their behaviours. For agreed benchmark (‘expenditure
example, if a household states it
A second approach asks populations cannot afford a service, questions can
threshold approach’)
directly what they would be willing to explore why they feel this is the case. Given the lack of clarity on how to
pay for an improved service, or willing Questions can also examine issues directly measure household welfare
to accept for a reduced service. It such as unfairness in pricing such as and how they make consumption
can also reveal if, and why, they are when discriminatory pricing occurs.12 decisions, alternative measures have
consuming below a given service been popular with international and
level. Because these answers are The problem with getting households national WASH agencies and WASH
obtained from an interview with users to state their preferences through service providers to make conclusions
of services, the approach is termed question and answer is that it is about affordability (see Chapter 2.1).
in economics ‘stated preference’. subjective. Respondents will consider Over recent decades, the popularity
The willingness to pay estimates many different aspects in their reply, of a proxy indicator for affordability
obtained from the user survey can be and they may omit others; and has emerged that seeks to answer:
compared with their income levels this will vary from one to another “what percentage of income would
to enable conclusions about whether respondent. Also, the individual it be reasonable to expect a (poor)
households might be able to pay these respondent might not be reflecting household to pay?” Most applications
amounts. Comparing willingness to all the views and preferences in a of this indicator use actual (measured)
pay with the actual price of the service household. For example, access time WASH expenditure in the numerator.
also indicates financial viability of the for a distant water source or place It is commonplace for only water
service, and whether a subsidy might of open defecation might not be expenditure to be included.
be needed to make it financially viable. explicitly considered if the respondent
From these analyses, conclusions can is not the one who spends their time In some instances, the required cost
be made about whether the current or in that activity. for a household to reach a given
future price of services appear to be WASH consumption level is used
affordable or not. In economics, direct observation or instead of the actual consumption
statement of household preferences levels and expenditures. The World
are considered the appropriate values Bank’s International Benchmark on
to use for assessing population Water Utilities (IBNET), for example,
welfare, as they are said to reveal requires utilities to estimate the cost
directly how households make of consuming 6m3 of (piped) water,
decisions under resource constraints. and this allows easy comparison with
Hence these values tend to be the poverty income or median income.
preferred when analysing population This quantity of water is assumed to
welfare and formulating a policy be the lifeline amount for an average
response. However, they too have household. Any consumption above
their weaknesses, as described that minimum level is assumed to be
above; hence other approaches need excess to their minimum needs and
to be explored. is therefore a discretionary decision
for the household to make, based
on their needs and their willingness
to pay for additional water. However,
a common criticism of assigning a
single lifeline value for all households
is that it is insufficient for large
families or households sharing a water
connection, who are often poorer.
12
Price discrimination is a selling strategy that charges
customers different prices for the same product or
service based on what the seller thinks they can get the
customer to agree to. For example, a water vendor might
not have documented prices hence can change the price
from day to day or from customer to customer.
3.1.4 to quantify what subsidy should be raised considerably in all countries

be provided to those living on or to accommodate all the expenditure
Poverty status below the poverty line to cover their required to meet the long list of basic
essential WASH needs. needs and rights. On the other hand,
Poverty is a state or condition in which
if the prices of basic services are
a person, household or community Policies based on the poverty line will heavily subsidized by the government
lacks the financial resources and help push public funds in the right or donors, then it implies that lower
essentials for a minimum standard direction, but it will not guarantee expenditures need to be made by the
of living. It implicitly requires a that subsidies are used fairly. For household.
threshold for defining those living example, the Government of India
above or below the poverty line. under the Swachh Bharat Mission
Some countries and agencies use two provided sanitation subsidies to all
lines for categorizing the poor and the ‘below poverty line’ (BPL) households,
extremely poor. The term ‘near poor’ 3.1.5 What measures are in place
which in theory would have left those
is also being increasingly used to households living just above the to protect the poor and vulnerable
identify households at risk of slipping
into poverty if an economic shock
poverty line without any support.13 (‘response measures’)
were to occur such as a sudden price An alternative approach is a more
rise or loss of income. While literature detailed analysis of the WASH A final approach looks at what
on the poverty line commonly refers component of the poverty line. If a measures are being taken to make
to the ability to pay for a defined poor household has an income that service more affordable. The ‘enabling
‘basket of goods’, data deficiencies in is 40% of the median income, then environment’ is used as a broad,
this approach means that countries when applying a fairness principle, catch-all phrase that can include legal
and international agencies more it implies that their expenditure on instruments, citizen voice, policies and
commonly use benchmarks of WASH should also be less than the programmatic measures. Essentially,
income to estimate the poverty line, WASH expenditure of a median income these measures protect the poor from
or multiples of food expenditure household. This would therefore the high cost of WASH services either
requirements to sustain an adult. This require a government or WASH directly or indirectly. The impact of
suggests a high degree of uncertainty provider to provide additional support these measures is to either lower the
over whether households are to households defined as very poor or costs of WASH (or other) services for
correctly classified as living in poverty, extremely poor. households or to increase household
and what financial amount might be income to pay for WASH and other
reserved for WASH expenditure. One final consideration is needed essential services. In analyzing data
in the context of the broader SDG from household expenditure surveys,
The implication of defining a agenda. Picking up on the points in it is important to know to what extent
poverty line is that anyone living in a Chapter 1 on the importance of an WASH services are currently being
household with household income integrated assessment of the costs subsidized. This will require some
less than the defined poverty line (and affordability) of meeting different matching of different data sets (e.g.
(on a per capita basis for the entire basic needs, it might require a new utility data, government data and
household) means that their ability to look at how poverty assessments household survey data) to understand
cover the costs of meeting essential are conducted. It would need the which households have benefited from
needs has been compromised. While following question to be answered: these measures, and by how much.
the essential needs related to water “What would it cost for a household to
and sanitation are implied in the meet all the needs implied in the SDG
poverty line, they are not explicitly targets, plus any other basic needs
included. This makes it difficult to or rights that have been omitted?”
quantify what WASH costs are Indeed, if households are to meet all
reasonable for poor households to these costs themselves, it is likely
pay, whether they are on or below the that the poverty line would need to
poverty line. As a result, it is difficult
In practice, subsidies were available to many more

13
households than those defined as BPL.
3.2 These five approaches will now

be further detailed in terms of the
1. WASH expenditure
Options for empirical different ways to measure and analyse

them empirically. The threshold
As described by WHO/UNICEF Joint
monitoring Programme report in
assessment expenditure approach is covered first,
as this is the focus of the empirical
2017, there are many types of WASH
expenditure. Table 2 presents a matrix
work in the country case studies of the type of service (water, sanitation
(Annex B). Indeed, it is noted that the or hygiene) and the type of cost
piloting of each approach using country (financial recurrent, financial capital or
case studies will depend on the non-financial). The negative impacts
availability of data for each approach. of these choices, such as health and
environmental impacts hpersonal
3.2.1 security concerns and psycho-social
distress, are not included as these are
Expenditure threshold approach covered in separate types of economic
analysis (e.g. damage cost studies14).
This approach requires three pieces of However, while conducted separately,
information: the different types of analysis should
be linked.
1. WASH expenditure – either by
household or average for specific It is difficult to conduct a
population groups; comprehensive cost assessment, as
data are rarely collected on all these
2. Total expenditure or total income categories of expenditure. Hence, to
– either by household or average be consistent with the data availability
for specific population groups; and cost sub-type, Figure 2 proposes
a pyramid of costs to be compiled, to
3. Threshold level for WASH aid formulation of indicators for the
expenditure as a percentage of expenditure threshold approach.
total expenditure (or income),
14
https://www.wsp.org/content/economic-impacts- above which WASH expenditure
sanitation
would be deemed ‘unaffordable’.
Table 2.
Different types of cost for water, sanitation and hygiene
SERVICE RECURRENT COSTS CAPITAL COSTS NON-FINANCIAL COSTS
Water • Water tariff or use fee • Piped network connection • Collection time for water
• Bottled or vendor water • Water supply construction
• Maintenance fees
Sanitation • Wastewater tariff • Toilet construction • Travel time to communiity

facility or open defecation
• Public toilet user fees • Sewer network connection
• Maintenance costs
Hygiene • Purchase of soap • Handwashing station • Collection of water for

handwashing and anal
• Menstrual hygiene materials • Bins for menstrual materials cleansing
• Maintenance costs
Table 2 Source: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (2017).
Figure 2.
Pyramid of costs to be included in the numerator of the expenditure threshold approach
1.Visible monthly
actual costs
2. Hidden monthly actual costs
3. Infrequent capital and maintenance costs
4. Additional costs to meet service gap
5. Time costs to access water source and place of sanitation
The tip of the pyramid in Figure 2 costs to meet the service gap, are
represents those costs that are most what the household is currently not
visible, because they are collected by spending, but would need to spend in
national surveys that capture WASH order to meet the national minimum
expenditure, or utility financial data. The service level.
second level, hidden monthly actual
costs, include items that are likely to The fifth level, the time cost, is collected
be included in reporting expenditure routinely by some national surveys
such as when bottled water is reported either as distance or roundtrip to the
within ‘other drinks’ category, and when water source. However, time spent for
sanitary cleaning materials and personal accessing sanitation is not included in
care such as soap and menstrual these surveys. To date, the potential
hygiene pads are hidden in broader value of time savings from closer water
hygiene categories. These items are and sanitation facilities has received
difficult to separate from other items, limited attention from global or national
and hence typically are not included in monitoring, although it is included in
analyses of WASH expenditure. previous cost-benefit analyses (World
Health Organization, 2004, 2012). That
The third level, capital and maintenance said, the time needed to access a
costs for WASH infrastructure, are water source is now recognized in the
either omitted from expenditure categorization of a household’s water
surveys or they are included in broader access – where an improved water
maintenance or house improvement source that is >30 minutes roundtrip
categories; hence they cannot be is classified as ‘limited’ access, and
extracted separately from surveys. an improved water source that is <30
Danert and Hutton (2020) argue minutes roundtrip is classified as ‘basic’
that self-investment by households access. From the perspective of the
is largely omitted from financing human rights to water and sanitation,
assessments using the 3 ‘T’s (tariffs, personal security is one of the
taxes and transfers) as they are not components that should be ensured
charged for in the tariff of the service even in the minimum level of service.
provider. The fourth level, additional
From the pyramid in Figure 2,

the following list shows different
indicator options that include
different cost categories in the
numerator. This list is represented in
Table 3.
1. Full actual expenditure – 2. Partial actual expenditure – 3. Required costs of a minimum

includes includes WASH service
a. Option 1.1: includes 1 and 2 a. Option 2.1: includes 1 in a. Option 3.1: includes 1, 2 and
in Figure 2 Figure 2 4 in Figure 2
b. Option 1.2: includes 1, 2 and b. Option 2.2: includes 1 and 5 b. Option 3.2: includes 1, 2, 4
5 in Figure 2 in Figure 2 and 5 in Figure 2
c. Option 1.3: includes 3 in c. Option 2.3: includes 3 in c. Option 3.3: includes 3 and 4
Figure 2 Figure 2 in Figure 2
d. Option 1.4: includes 1, 2 and d. Option 2.4: includes 1 and 3 d. Option 3.4: includes 1, 2, 3
3 (annualized) in Figure 2 (annualized) in Figure 2 (annualized) and 4 in Figure 2
e. Option 1.5: includes 1, 2, 3 e. Option 2.5: includes 1, 3 (an- e. Option 3.5: includes 1, 2, 3
(annualized) and 5 in nualized) and 5 in Figure 2 (annualized), 4 and 5 in
Figure 2 Figure 2
Table 3.
Summary of expenditure or cost items included in each indicator
INDICATOR
ACTUAL EXPENDITURE ON WASH REQUIRED EXPENDITURE ON WASH
OPTIONS
ALL PARTIAL ALL PARTIAL ANNUAL TIME O&M CAPITAL ANNUAL TIME
O&M O&M CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL COSTS CAPITAL COSTS
Option 1:
full actual
expenditure
OPTION 1.1 
OPTION 1.2  
OPTION 1.3 
OPTION 1.4  
OPTION 1.5   
Option 2:
partial actual
expenditure
OPTION 2.1 
OPTION 2.2  
OPTION 2.3 
OPTION 2.4  
OPTION 2.5   
Option 3:
full required
expenditure
OPTION 3.1 
OPTION 3.2  
OPTION 3.3 
OPTION 3.4  
OPTION 3.5   
To implement these indicators, suggests time spent collecting water or expenditures in the denominator
several decisions need to be made on or walking to a defecation site should (discussed below), then information is
methodology: be valued at less than working time. needed on time spent in market and
Nine of the eleven studies report non-market activities for all household
First, how are capital and capital mean estimates that fall in the range members. Otherwise, valuing all
maintenance captured? These of 25%-75% of some measure of time available in the denominator will
expenditures are dealt with in one of household income or wage rate. One double count hours spent working for
two ways: study found mean estimates near zero, wages. Although many countries have
and only one found the value of time completed detailed time use surveys
1. Include full capital and approximately equal to market wages. (e.g. Ghana 200915), these data
maintenance costs in options 1.3, collection efforts are far from universal
2.3 and 3.3. This includes multi- As time is being valued in the and not currently conducted routinely
year costs relating to the type numerator, it could be argued that to enable incorporation into global
and life span of the infrastructure. the value of time of all non-paid monitoring of affordability. Income
When making a judgement about time should also be included in the and expenditure surveys do attempt
affordability, a different threshold denominator. This is most easily to monetise non-market work in the
would be needed than the one seen through an extreme example. income estimations, and therefore
referring to percent of annual Suppose a rural household relies may partially address the above issue
expenditure. on subsistence farming and has for some household members.
virtually no cash income or cash
2. Convert the full capital and expenditures. The household’s key This leaves two approaches. The first
maintenance costs to annual resource is time and they must is to value time in the numerator but
values, as done in options 1.4, 1.5 allocate it towards farming, firewood not the denominator, which is the
2.4, 2.5, 3.4 and 3.5. To calculate collection, water collection, home main approach used in this report. It is
annual equivalent values, the care, maintaining social networks, recognized, however, that this will bias
lifespan of the capital items is and so on. Calculating WASH affordability to make it appear worse
needed, as well as a value for affordability with monetized collection than it is. The second, explored only
the Social Discount Rate for the time expenditures in the numerator as a sensitivity analysis for Ghana, is
depreciation of assets. but only cash expenditures in the to value all household members’ time
denominator would paint a picture of in the denominator but omit data on
Second, how is the value of time costs highly unaffordable WASH (because actual income or expenditures to avoid
estimated? In the ratio estimation, the the denominator is near zero). The double-counting. This is undoubtedly
value of time cost is simply added to correct interpretation of affordability less accurate, particularly for urban
the financial cost in the numerator, would therefore be the percent of all households that may spend less time
in indicator options 1.2, 1.5, 2.2, 2.5, the household’s economic resources collecting water, but it illustrates the
3.2 and 3.5. The value can either spent in collecting water. In this case importance of how time is treated in
be derived from the income of the it would essentially be the percent of affordability calculations.
working household members, or as an time spent collecting water divided
average across an entire population or by the total amount of waking hours
sub-population. The former is difficult of all working age family members.
to do, as a specific individual would This would lead to an estimate of total
need to be chosen from the household monetized value of water collection
to represent time value. time divided by the monetized value
of all available time.
Also, in terms of the economic value
or ‘opportunity cost’ of this time, the In reality, however, many households
questions should be asked whether in rural areas will have some family
the time spent collecting water or members working for cash wages
finding a place for sanitation is worth as well as doing non-market work
the same as working time. Whittington such as household chores. Other
and Cook (2019) reviewed eleven family members, such as teenage
studies on the value of time spent children, may attend school but collect
in non-market activities in low- and water or firewood in the mornings or
middle-income countries. The evidence evenings. If one includes cash income
15
https://www2.statsghana.gov.gh/nada/index.php/
catalog/53/related_materials
Total expenditure or total income OPTION C: Annual expenditure

available for discretional items
Several options exist for estimating
the denominator. Some of the main This variable represents household
options are described below: expenditure after tax, rent and other
fixed or essential expenditure items
OPTION A: Total annual income have been deducted. The logic of
using this variable to measure WASH
This option would be the ideal one for affordability is that households do
assessing affordability, including salary not have discretion over all their
and non-salary income. However, expenditures. Households may pay
it is not used in this study because income or property tax, and there are
the household surveys on which it is regular fixed costs such as rent and
based typically do not provide reliable discretionary but essential items such
estimates. Instead, the proxy (Option as essential food, education, clothing,
B) can be more accurate. health insurance and healthcare.
This denominator therefore takes out
OPTION B: Total annual expenditure of the equation some of the costs
that can vary significantly from one
Given the weaknesses of Option A, household to another, making it easier
Option B is commonly used as a proxy to determine a threshold that applies
for income, being used in food poverty to the majority of (poor) households.
assessments. A comprehensive
questionnaire that includes all possible However, even with very detailed
spending categories is applied at income and expenditure surveys there
household level. Questions must are significant empirical challenges
be phrased in a way that avoids in defining what is the minimum
overlap and double counting (e.g. if a essential level of all of these costs for
household consumes bottled water each household, taking into account
then it might be captured both in the needs of each household member.
monthly water costs and in bottled Instead, comparative assessment of
drinks category).
Sudan, November 04, 2019

© UNICEF/UNI233865/Noorani
average household costs of major Threshold level for WASH The threshold might be set based
spending categories has been done expenditure as a percentage of total on several factors:
for Ghana, and available in the poverty expenditure (or income)
chapter of the Ghana report (Hutton et 1. The proportion of a poor
al 2019). Any interpretation of the indicator household’s income likely to be
generated from the above variables available for spending on WASH.
OPTION D: Minimum wage rate requires a threshold value to be This must take into account
defined – i.e. a percentage above spending required for other
This option calculates how many hours which WASH expenditure would essential items.
a poor household would have to work become ‘unaffordable’ for the
at the minimum wage to pay for their household. It is also feasible to 2. The number or proportion of
monthly water (and sanitation and set more than one threshold, with households expected to spend
hygiene) expenses. The advantage gradations of degree of affordability above the threshold. This is
of this indicator is that it is simple (e.g. affordable, potentially relevant for policy makers as it
to tabulate and to understand and unaffordable and unaffordable). has implications for how many
enables comparison of a household’s households would need to be
ability to pay WASH expenses The threshold value depends on which subsidized.
between different geographic areas. expenditures and incomes are included
On the other hand, not every poor in the denominator and numerator, as 3. The extent of subsidies within
household might have access to a job described earlier in this chapter. Once the current WASH prices. If a
offering the minimum wage, and their the threshold is set, the quadrant subsidy is already provided, the
time might only be sold in the informal approach (Figure 1) can be used to threshold might be lower than
market which provides variable income categorise households, with specific otherwise.
(and might be below the minimum policy and programming implications
wage rate). Hence applying a national for each one (see Chapter 2). The most important of these is
wage rate will lead to inaccuracies in number 1, but the other factors might
many areas where labour cannot be influence setting of a threshold. To
sold for the wage rate assumed by the determine point 1, it is necessary
analysis. Also, many countries do not to conduct a complete household
have minimum wage rates, or annually expenditure analysis with a focus on
updated minimum wage rates that poorer households.
keep pace with inflation.
Mali, July 09, 2012

© UNICEF/UNI134610/Dicko
3.2.2 ‘elastic’ for poorer households than

richer ones. In poorer communities
Revealed preferences in Kenya, for example, the REACH
consortium has shown how seasonal
One approach to measure revealed
availability of water (and how recently
preferences is to examine a one-
it rained) determines demand for
point-in-time snapshot of a sample
paying water services in any given
of households. This requires
month (Hoque and Hope, 2018). Also,
information on WASH prices, the
increasing water prices can lead to
existing WASH service levels per
water saving measures such as less-
household, and the opportunities
water-use flush toilets, economical
available for consuming higher service
shower systems, or drip irrigation. In
levels. In particular the focus is on
Bangladesh, the same authors find
(a) those who are consuming below
that behavioural dynamics on water
the minimum service level, and the
sourcing and payment are shaped by
extent to which the service prices
several environmental, infrastructure
explain their consumption level; (b)
and cultural factors; and where
those consuming at or just above the
household wealth is found to be a
minimum service level, and whether
weak indicator of behaviour (Hoque and
price fluctuations put their service
Hope, 2019). The authors conclude that
level at risk.
affordability measures should recognize
the quality of service available and
A second approach is to examine how
chosen by users across seasons,
consumers react to price changes.
rather than being fixated on income
This requires information before and
or expenditure ratios for a single main
after a price change. Such information
water source.
is available in abundance for many
goods and services, and it can be
As suggested above, changes in
used to estimate the price elasticity
consumer behaviour can be related
of demand (PED). The PED is a
to availability of competitors’ goods
measure used in economics to show
and services as well as the price
the responsiveness, or elasticity, of
changes. For water it is a simple case
the quantity demanded of a good or
when there is a monopoly provider
service to a change in its price when
(such as a water utility) and there are
nothing but the price changes. More
limited alternative water sources.
precisely, it gives the percentage
Even if there are other water sources,
change in quantity demanded in
market data over time can indicate
response to a one percent change in
how sensitive households are to price
price. Given the law of demand – that
changes, depending on what other
typically demand of a good reduces
water sources there are. For example,
when prices increase – the PED is
the Safe Water Network in Ghana
negative for most goods and products.
has analysed impacts of water price
changes on connection rates and
When the PED is below between
water consumption, with a view to
0.0 and -1.0 it is said to be inelastic
increasing cost recovery rates to make
because the % change in price has led
water stations more financially viable16.
to a correspondingly lower % change
The study found that average monthly
in demand. Demand from a given
sales volumes decreased by 12% in
water source is likely to show this
the 15 months after the price increase,
property when the quantity consumed
compared with the 15 months
is for mainly essential needs and there
preceding the price increase, and
are no other viable sources, and for
poor households were most affected
better off households. However, water
(decrease in demand by 26%).
demand can be ‘elastic’ when water is
being used for non-essential needs and
when there are other lower cost water
16
‘Price change and station performance in Ghana.’ sources. Demand is likely to be more
Safe Water Network. 2017.
The PED refers to the change in consumers on what their demand

demand resulting from changes in their will be and it helps set a market
own price (called ‘own-price elasticity entry price. WTP studies are most
of demand’). Another measure is the commonly conducted by marketing
‘cross-price elasticity of demand’, companies for a range of consumer
which, in the case of water, is the products, but there is also some
elasticity of demand for a given water experience in the field of water and
source with respect to the change sanitation, in particular around their
in the price of water from another perceived benefits (such as time and
water source. It can be used to assess health savings). Willingness to accept
substitution between two water (WTA) is an alternative methodology
sources and the factors that explain it. to assess the value a household has
for a service by asking them what they
3.2.3 should be remunerated if they were to
lose access to the good or service.
Stated preferences
The second indicator is one that asks
There are two main indicators or directly about household perceptions
measurements in this category. of WASH affordability. Such questions
The first of these is the willingness examine why households do not use
to pay (WTP) of households for a minimum service levels, and whether
given service or product using the higher prices explain their decisions.
contingent valuation method, which For example, an analysis by JMP of
refers to the fact that consumers are 20 recent MICS17 asked households
asked about their WTP rather than the question “In the last month,
observe it. Willingness to pay is a has there been any time when your
methodology used by economists, household did not have sufficient
firms and sometimes government quantities of drinking water?” and for
agencies to assess potential market those answering ‘yes’ in 16 countries
size, to set prices, and to measure they were asked the main reason
consumer surplus (those who paid less for drinking water being unavailable.
for a good or service than they were Among the reasons were ‘Water not
willing to pay). A WTP survey is often available from source’, ‘Water too
conducted for a product, service type expensive’, ‘Source not accessible’,
or service level that is not yet available and ‘Other’.
in the market. Its main purpose is to
provide information from potential
17
Unpublished
Nigeria, April 21, 2013

© UNICEF/UNI145739/Esiebo
3.2.4 The third approach is to conduct

a detailed analysis of expenditure
Poverty status profiles across different sub-
populations (e.g. income deciles),
Three ways of measuring WASH
comparing WASH, other essential
affordability are identified in relation
and non-essential items, to explain
to poverty status and the poverty
WASH consumption levels. In cases
line. The first approach is a simple
where WASH spending is low or
categorization of households by
zero, and the service levels are below
their income and poverty status.
the national minimum standard, it
There might be other measures of
might also be concluded that WASH
vulnerability, such as female-headed
spending is compromised by the
households, ethnic group or high-risk
many other needs for household
communities, that governments use to
spending. This approach is the most
target subsidized or free services.
difficult to implement, given that
household consumption choices are
The second approach is measurement
difficult to explain: every household
of the WASH component of the
has different needs and opportunities,
poverty basket, such that:
and their responses to the offer and
prices of WASH services will vary,
If actual spending on WASH > the
as well as the resultant impact on
WASH component of the poverty
demand for other services. This makes
basket, then WASH is unaffordable
it extremely challenging to quantify
This might need to be prorated if the any relationships. Furthermore, what
household is living below the poverty constitutes an essential need and
line, given that they will have even less the consumption amount is difficult
to spend on WASH. If this is done, it to define. A benchmark might be
needs to be decided if the prorating defined to fit the average household,
is done using a linear or non-linear but it does not account for variation
adjustment. However, as stated in in household composition and needs,
section 3.1.4, poverty lines are rarely such as spending on education,
calculated using a full basket of goods healthcare and food.
that includes WASH.
India, October 28, 2018

© UNICEF/UN0267933/Akhbar Latif
3.2.5 • Service-level pricing models such

as tariff structure or solidarity funds
Response measures that lower the price and hence
encourage consumption by specific
A range of different indicators have
population groups;
already been formulated by the
biannual UN-Water GLAAS survey • Regulations on tariff setting that
for different aspects of the enabling must be followed utilities in serving
environment. As no single indicator poor and vulnerable households;
can predict whether a WASH service
is affordable or not, these indicators • WASH service payment options
should be looked at in combination and that enable vulnerable households’
triangulated with indicators covered flexibility in bill payment;
earlier in this chapter. Indicators
included in the GLAAS survey are • Disconnection rates (or laws
listed in Chapter 4.3, but they include: protecting from disconnection) and
reconnection fees;
• Legal instruments, such as
the human rights to water • The availability of affordable
and sanitation being explicitly financing options for one-time
recognized in the constitution and capital expenses such as micro-
thereby citizens exercising their loans;
legal right to demand government
action under specific accountable • Community participation in service
mechanisms created for this management;
purpose;
• The stimulation of the market for
• Policies recognizing the need to low-cost designs for the bottom of
target specific population groups the pyramid population groups;
with lower cost WASH services
on a non-discriminatory basis, • Measures to reduce corruption;
especially for disadvantaged and
marginalized groups18; • Measures to enhance competition
and hence reduce prices faced by
• Availability of earmarked budgets the user.
that target populations with public
funds; Many of these indicators can be
measured from utility or local-area level
• Monitoring systems that track the up to national level.
impact of those funds and other
measures, such as through benefit-
incidence analysis (an approach that
identifies which population groups
benefit from public subsidies);
18
General Observation 15, para 37, b) (core obligations)
38 Data for monitoring affordability
04
Data for monitoring affordability
Ultimately, the ability to monitor This chapter presents each of these

the indicators covered in Section data sources in terms of their:
3 will depend on the availability
of data. In the short-term, global • Content and degree of
monitoring will rely heavily on standardization
data that are already collected,
• Representation, quality and
while in the longer term there will
disaggregation
be additional sources of data. The
findings and recommendations • Frequency and global coverage
from this current initiative should be
used to influence existing surveys • Access to data (public or limited
and promote new data sources on availability; procedure and cost to
WASH expenditure and affordability extract data)
indicators.
• Implications for national
monitoring
To monitor WASH affordability, data
sources fall into one of three main • Implications for global
categories, covered in the following monitoring
sections: • Potential future data sources
1
Survey data from nationally
representative household
surveys;
2 Surveys and assessments

conducted as part of
research studies that are not
representative of the national
level; and
3 Administrative data or policy

surveys that are compiled
from local and national
governments, utilities,
providers and regulators.
When aggregated, and
if at large enough scale,
these data can be nationally
representative.
4.1 Introduction
Nationally Nationally representative surveys are

the most important data source for
representative global monitoring during the SDG
period in low- and middle-income
surveys countries. These surveys tend to be
largely standardized across countries
and their sampling methodology
ensures national representation.
International agencies produce
modules with core questions for
different topics, which countries draw
on and adapt for their own purposes.
As shown in a previous report on

WASH affordability (Hutton, 2012),
there are many types of household
survey. These surveys are catalogued
for non-OECD countries by the
International Household Survey
Network19 (after 1981) and classified
under 18 different categories of
survey. For the purposes of this study,
nine relevant survey categories are
highlighted and listed in Table 420.
Table 4.
Key data available from most relevant categories of household survey1
SURVEY INSTRUMENT DATA PRESENTED ON:
POVERTY QUINTILLES WATER SANITATION

STATUS SOURCE3 ACCESS
Table 4. Key:
1
Covers mainly countries of the developing world, Core Welfare Indicators Yes Income Yes Yes
although some countries belonging to the European Questionnaire (CWIQ)
region are included (e.g. Croatia, Hungary, Poland). Demographic and No Wealth2 Yes Yes
Health Survey (DHS)
2
Based largely on durable goods and housing
characteristics; includes source of water and type of Income and Expenditure Yes Income Yes Yes
sanitation. Surveys (IES)

Integrated Surveys Yes Income Yes Yes
3
In addition to the main source for drinking purposes, (non-LSMS)
some surveys ask questions on other or secondary
sources of water, and/or divide questions on water Living Standards Yes Income Yes Yes
source for drinking purposes and water sources for Measurement
Survey (LSMS)
other purposes21 .
Multiple Indicator No Wealth2 Yes Yes
Cluster Survey (MICS)

19
http://www.internationalsurveynetwork.org/ Population and No Wealth2 Yes Yes
Housing Census (PHC)
20
Other surveys deemed to be non-relevant are: 1-2-3
surveys, agricultural surveys, labour surveys, the World Priority Surveys Yes Income Yes Yes
Health Survey and the World Fertility Survey. (World Bank)
Socio-Economic Yes Income Yes Yes

21
Drinking water covers for drinking purposes, food Monitoring Survey
preparation or personal hygiene https://washdata.org/ (SEMS)
sites/default/files/documents/reports/2019-03/JMP-
2018-core-questions-for-household-surveys.pdf
Measurement Survey (LSMS),

Content. Table 5 presents a summary
Socio-Economic Monitoring Survey
of the types of data available from
(SEMS) and Integrated Surveys (non-
national household surveys that
LSMS). The Core Welfare Indicators
are relevant for the calculation of
Questionnaire (CWIQ) survey
WASH financial expenditure and
only captures major categories of
access time costs. These include
household spending, hence it is not
annual expenditure as well as capital
possible to extract water and sanitation
expenditures on new systems or
costs from these. The Demographic
repairs.
and Health Survey (DHS), Multiple
Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS),
The most complete and robust data
Census and Priority Surveys do not
source on WASH expenditure is the
collect WASH expenditure data.
income and expenditure survey (IES).
It should be noted, however, that
Across all these surveys, expenditure
there is some country variation in the
items with very limited data are (1)
questions included. In the European
capital expenditure, which is usually
Union, the household budget survey
mixed with housing expenditure, if
captures water supply, refuse
collected at all; and (2) maintenance
collection and sewerage costs (in the
expenditure, which is usually mixed
standard forms, section HE04.4). Also,
with general maintenance, if included
Source: Hutton (2012). Notes: over time, surveys tend to become
at all.
more detailed and specific. Surveys
1
A question on number of trips was more recently which capture water and wastewater
introduced into the MICS survey – WS6 http://mics.
unicef.org/tools?round=mics6 costs alone are the Living Standards
Table 5.
Sources of data on WASH expenditure from nationally-representative surveys
SURVEY MONTHLY OR ANNUAL OTHER WATER WATER

INSTRUMENT EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURES TREATMENT ACCESS
Water Sanitation Hygiene Fixed Capital House % House- Treatment Capital One trip Daily trips Water hauler
tariff items repairs holds method cost
CWIQ Only part No Only part of No No No No No No Time No No

of ‘Fuel, “Miscellaneous”
lighting, expenses
other
utilities’
DHS No No No No No No Yes Yes Only Time No Yes

hardware
type
IES Sometimes Sometimes Somtimes No Mixed Sometimes No No Water Metres No No

water bill stated as specified, or part with plumbing dispenser
separate, ‘mixed of mixed hygiene housing cost sometimes
sometimes sanitary products costs
mixed with fittings’, or
housing and part of total
utility water bill
Integrated Surveys Yes (varies Yes (varies No No No No Yes, usually Yes, Not Metres Yes, Yes,
between between somtimes specified (usually) sometimes sometimes
survey) survey)
LSMS Yes Sewerage Personal care No Home Repair and Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes No No
together products or toilet improve- maintenance asked if water metres
with water soap ments they boil boiler
cost water
MICS No No No No No No Yes Yes Only hard- Time Yes1 Yes

ware type
Census No No No No No No No No No No No No
No No No No No Part of rent, No No No Sometimes No Yes,

Priority Surveys repair and metres sometimes
maintenance
SEMS Yes (varies Yes (varies No No No No Yes, usually Yes, Not Metres Yes, Yes,
between between sometimes specified (usually) sometimes sometimes
survey) survey)
The surveys best capturing variables vary whether the distance is expressed
to estimate the costs of water in metres (IES, Integrated Survey,
treatment or water collection, LSMS, SEMS) or time per journey
including the identity of the water (CWIQ, DHS, MICS). The total access
hauler, are the MICS, DHS, Integrated time per day is collected in some but
Survey, LSMS and SEMS. However, not all Integrated Surveys and SEMS.
there is some variation in the specific The identity of the water hauler is
questions in each of these surveys. collected routinely in MICS surveys, in
The MICS and DHS are generally earlier DHS surveys (but is no longer
more standardised and consistent included) and sometimes in Integrated
between countries. Over time, Surveys, Priority Surveys and SEMS.
additional questions and specification
have been added to both these The CWIQ survey only asks the time to
surveys. Of the five survey types that water source and does not identify the
ask about whether the household water hauler. The respondent is asked
treats its drinking water or not, why there is only “occasional or non-
most also ask what water treatment use” of services, and “too far” is one
method is used. The capital cost of of the possible responses. The CWIQ
water treatment methods (e.g. water also asks whether the respondent is
boiler, filter) is sometimes identified in satisfied with the service or not. Also,
expenditure surveys. in relation to distance, the respondent
is asked for the usual means of water
In addition, as stated in section 3.2.2, in collection (answer categories: on foot,
response to the requirements for SDG mechanized vehicle, or non-mechanized
monitoring, MICS is increasingly asking vehicle).
questions around water availability
and reasons for non-availability, and Type of fuel used for cooking (and
both MICS and DHS are increasingly hence boiling water) is commonly
conducting water quality testing included in DHS, MICS, LSMS and
(selected parameters). Of those Censuses. The financial cost of fuel
households answering non-availability is collected by IES and some non-
of water, unaffordability was cited as a LSMS surveys. Time to collect fuel is
reason in 0.1% of households (Georgia commonly captured by IES (distance
and Paraguay) and as high as 4.3% and place), non-LSMS surveys
in Bangladesh, with an overall global (distance and identity of collector), and
average of 1.5%. priority surveys (distance and identity
of collector) but not by CWIQ, DHS or
Water access to off-plot sources is MICS surveys.
identified by most surveys, but they
Madagascar, November 11, 2018

© UNICEF/UN0267003/Raoelison
Time to access off-plot sanitation household members, but there is

facilities (or place of defecation) is significant variation in the level of detail
not captured by any national surveys. collected by the different surveys.
Some research studies have included a
question on time to place of defecation Given that not all household surveys
for valuation of access time (Hutton et capture income reliably, a measure
al 2014). of total expenditure is sometimes a
better measure of income than asking
In terms of the denominator the WASH direct questions on income, as covered
expenditure indicator, Table 6 provides in Chapter 3. The most detailed and
a summary of results. Data on income robust data on total expenditure are
are available from most types of collected by IES, followed by LSMS.
survey, except DHS, MICS and most The level of detail for Integrated
Censuses. However, the level of Surveys and SEMS varies between
detail of questions varies significantly different types of survey. The CWIQ
between IES, LSMS and SEMS – and priority surveys mainly collect
which provide the most detailed major expenditure items; however, with
information – and CWIQ and priority questions on aggregate expenditures
surveys – which provide the least it is unlikely that the expenditure data
detailed information. The DHS, MICS do not fully capture all expenditures.
and Censuses do ask questions on The DHS, MICS and Censuses do not
durable assets, thus enabling ‘wealth’ collect total expenditure data.
quintiles to be estimated. Some
Censuses ask what types of benefits
are claimed; however, this may be
relevant only for countries where a
benefits system is functioning. All
surveys ask some questions about
employment and work situation of
Table 6.
Data collected by surveys on household income and expenditure
SURVEY INSTRUMENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS INCOME TOTAL EXPENDITURE

OF HOUSEHOLD
MEMBERS
SALARY NON-SALARY OTHER PRODUCTION
OR INCOME
CWIQ Yes Yes, income stated under 12 main items, including salaries, gifts, sale of By 10 main expenditure
assets and remittances categories
DHS Only women age 15-49 % cash % in-kind % other No
and men age 15-54 or -59 income income unpaid work
IES Yes Yes, detailed questions on all sources of income Identifies food Very detailed
consumed that was
Integrated Surveys Yes Yes, detailed questions on all sources of income freely received Yes, but level of detail varies
between survey
LSMS Yes Yes Yes Yes, detailed
MICS No (only child labour) No No No No
Census Yes Type of Type of benefit No No

employment claimed
Priority Surveys Yes Yes, major categories of income No Yes, major items only
SEMS Yes Yes, detailed questions on all sources of income Identifies food Yes, level of detail
consumed that was varies
freely received
In conclusion, the five main survey that are more likely to face affordability
categories with expenditure data on constraints.
selected WASH items are:
One aspect that needs to be
• Income and Expenditure Survey further explored with survey and
(IES) sampling experts is the degree of
coverage, and breakdown possible,
• Integrated Survey (non-LSMS) for populations living in specific low-
income neighbourhoods, especially
• Living Standards Measurement
informal settlements and slums.
Survey (LSMS)
Some governments may not allow
• Priority Survey surveys to be conducted in some
types of housing that are not officially
• Socio-Economic Monitoring recognized. Furthermore, survey
Survey (SEMS) sampling methods usually do not allow
data to be disaggregated for specific
These surveys allow WASH costs to
areas of a single city, for example.
be cross tabulated with service type
and level, and from this the required Frequency and global coverage.
costs of accessing the minimum or a When looking at expenditure surveys
given service level can be assessed. as a whole, they are conducted in
Their major weakness is that they have countries at very different frequencies,
omitted some cost items, especially varying from annual surveys (e.g.
capital and maintenance costs; while China), to frequent surveys (especially
other cost items might be included in in E Europe and C Asia), to a survey
broader expenditure categories such every 5, 8 or even 10 years.22 European
as hygiene products. Also, while there Union countries implement Household
is one standard question on monthly Budget Surveys frequently: according
water costs, and sometimes monthly to Eurostat, roughly two-thirds of
wastewater costs, the inclusion of countries of the European Union
additional questions (and the nature of conduct annual Household Budget
those questions) varies from country Surveys, while the remaining one-
to country, and from survey to survey. third conduct less frequent Household
Budget Surveys23,24. Currently data are
Representation, disaggregation
collected for all EU Member States
and quality. These surveys are
as well as for Croatia, the Former
nationally representative and are
Yugoslav of Republic of Macedonia,
most commonly implemented by the
Turkey, Norway and Switzerland.
national statistics agency. Hence there
is a high degree of credibility in the Some countries have implemented
information that is collected, despite only one such expenditure survey,
being incomplete on some WASH which does not allow conclusions
expenditure items. about their frequency or about when
the next one might be implemented.
The nine survey categories covered
Annex D gives an indicative list of
above are all nationally representative,
income and expenditure surveys
and moreover data can be
conducted since 2014, with over 60
disaggregated and compared across
countries identified from internet
a number of different population sub-
sources. Given the frequency in many
groups – such as rural-urban, by ethnic
countries of at least 5 years between
group, by gender, by education level,
one expenditure survey and the
by income level or income/wealth
next, it makes regular and up-to-date
quintile, and by the first sub-national
22
http://catalog.ihsn.org/index.php/catalog monitoring of WASH affordability very
administrative level, among others.
difficult, if it were to rely on these data
23
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/ Data sets with these disaggregations
household_budget_surveys/introduction sets alone. Indeed, data sets need
will be very useful in comparing WASH
to be as up to date as possible when
expenditures among population groups
24
Water supply, refuse collection and sewerage costs informing a national policy response
are covered in the standard forms HE04.4.
to unaffordable WASH services, due expenditure in low- and middle-income

to the rapidly changing economic countries, most countries will not be
conditions of many low- and middle- able to conduct regular assessments
income countries (e.g. water prices, of WASH affordability. Each country
general inflation, household incomes, would need to wait until the latest
economic growth, etc). expenditure survey data are made
available to then update the WASH
Access to data. There is considerable affordability analysis.
variability in the access to data sets,
as countries have different policies. Global monitoring. In terms of
Some international agencies have global coverage, almost all countries
special access to these data sets, and are covered by at least one survey
for the purposes of global monitoring in the past five years asking detailed
of WASH affordability it is plausible questions on income and expenditure,
to obtain many of these data sets and also including some elements of
directly from such agencies without WASH expenditure. However, because
going to each and every country to of the infrequent implementation
obtain permission. Second, although of such surveys, a regular global
many questions are similar, they are monitoring report (e.g. every 2
not identical across all countries, years) would not provide up-to-date
hence each data set needs to be information for many countries on
extracted manually and tabulated WASH affordability.
separately in a common analysis file
(see Annex C). The World Bank has a Potential future data sources. The
project that harmonizes data set to future frequency of these surveys
enable comparison across countries. is presently unknown, but some
However, this data set is unlikely close variant on business-as-usual
to be used for WASH affordability would be expected. The survey
monitoring, because it omits some of questions do change over time, and
the key additional questions on WASH hence opportunities will arise to add
expenditure that would contribute or change WASH questions related
significantly to a WASH affordability to coverage and expenditure to
analysis. enable better assessments of WASH
affordability. However, realism is
National monitoring. Given the needed in what changes can be made
periodic but infrequent nature of and how fast. Recommendations are
nationally representative surveys that made in section 6.1.2.
provide the required data on WASH
Myanmar, May 16, 2019

© UNICEF/UN0337676/Htet
4.2 This second category is less likely to be

an appropriate source of data for global
The first type of survey is a tailored
survey to collect data on economic
Non-nationally monitoring than the first category
covered in the previous section, but
variables. One example of this was a
multi-country study conducted by the
representative surveys such surveys and studies can add
significantly to national monitoring
World Bank’s Water and Sanitation
Program (WSP) under the Economics
and studies of affordability. For one, they involve
methods and data sets that explore
of Sanitation Initiative (ESI). This
initiative implemented a customised
affordability from different angles, thus economic survey across thousands
potentially providing a more complete of households in six Southeast Asian
picture. Also, they can be more countries between 2008 and 2010
focused on vulnerable populations, (World Bank, 2015; Hutton et al 2014)
i.e. those who merit more attention in for the purposes of a cost-benefit
relation to the affordability of WASH study. UNICEF implemented a similar
services. survey in India in 2017 to assess
the costs and impacts of Swachh
Localized WASH surveys and studies Bharat Mission (UNICEF, 2019). These
are commonly implemented by economic surveys included detailed
development partners and less often questions on costs and benefits,
by local governments. For many including time use for sanitation.
implementing agencies, ‘before and Results were also presented by wealth
after’ surveys are often a pre-condition quintile. A new consortium called
of receiving funds in order to show Uptime has collected expenditure data
how a population has been impacted on four countries (Burkina, CAR, Kenya
by a programme. Some are used for and Uganda) indicating rural people
design purposes prior to intervention, are willing to pay for a guaranteed
while others are mid-line during an maintenance service (McNicholl et al
intervention period or end-line at the 2019).
end or some months following the
intervention period. A second type of tailored survey for
assessing WASH practices and costs
There are some examples of surveys is the water diary method (Hoque
that have included WASH expenditure and Hope, 2018, 2019). In this survey,
or other economic variables, and households are asked to record each
while they are insufficient for global day their sources of water, volumes
monitoring at the present moment, of water, water uses, and what
they do indicate some potential for they paid for them, as well as other
future monitoring of WASH affordability. variables. This method responds to
The following five categories of the weaknesses of other types of
economic analysis have been household survey, such as those
conducted widely, collected by several types of household survey covered
different survey types as described in the previous section which provide
below: ‘snapshots’ of WASH behaviours and
expenditures at a particular time point
1. Cost assessment and suffer from recall bias. Hence, the
water diary method better captures the
2. Benefit assessment temporal variations such as seasonality
in supply and coping responses. Water
3. Cost-benefit analysis (which diaries suffer their own challenges,
combines 1 and 2) such as diarist fatigue, which may lead
to short-cuts in recording information
4. Willingness to pay assessment and eventually drop-out, as described in
Hoque and Hope (2018).
5. Market assessment
A third type of study using survey Currently there are no routine sources A sixth type of study is a market
methodology is a willingness to for obtaining willingness to pay data. A assessment. These can be aggregated
pay (WTP) study. These studies can systematic review of WTP studies for at different levels, from a single seller
be conducted by a range of sector water in 2012 found a large number of to a national market; hence they can
stakeholders, mainly with the aim studies but when sorting for quality, be nationally representative if data
of determining a price for WASH found only 5 experimental studies that collected at the right scale. Some
services to ensure financial viability met the inclusion criteria (Null et al market data are collected routinely
of the service. For a market provider 2012). Some years later, Van Houtven both by major suppliers on their own
with no access to subsidies, it might et al (2018) conducted a meta-analysis products and by market research
mean identifying whether a product and found 60 WTP studies on water agencies who may have major
or service can be introduced at a which could be used for their analysis. suppliers as clients. Government
price that enables their business to However, overall, WTP studies are agencies, either directly or indirectly
operate. For an NGO or government conducted spontaneously according to via a regulator, may also collect data
provider, it might mean identifying the needs of research or implementing on markets that touch on public
whether services at a given price point organisations acting in isolation, and policy such as toilet supplies, hygiene
are affordable and will be demanded hence countries cannot rely on them products, water treatment chemicals or
by sufficient households to make the being available for WASH affordability fecal sludge management.
service worthwhile. In this latter case, assessments.
subsidies may be used to support parts These six different types of survey
of the market to achieve both scale and A fourth type of study is an or study can be very informative on
equity. Indeed, within public-private assessment of WASH costs and the full range of WASH expenditures,
partnerships, market players can be financing using research methods. household WASH behaviours and
incentivised to provide services to The IRC’s WASHCost project was one service or product markets in specific
populations where they are not fully such study which conducted detailed locations, and they can provide a
financially viable. Hence, willingness research in selected communities snapshot in the countries where
to pay studies have played a vital role to understand the full range of costs they are conducted. However, these
for many WASH sector stakeholders in and financing sources to meet the types of survey are the exception
determining their pricing strategy. communities’ WASH needs. Similarly, rather than the norm and they tend
the ESI study mentioned above to be conducted infrequently. They
collected field data on costs for have generally been set up to answer
sanitation and hygiene infrastructure. immediate time-bound questions rather
Also, the World Bank’s Country Status than providing routine data over time.
Overview (in Africa) or Service Delivery Data sets are typically owned by the
Assessment (in Asia) estimated financing and/or implementing partner,
national cost benchmarks for WASH and may not be made publicly available.
services for estimating the cost of Results are typically published in a
meeting national targets. report (grey literature) and sometimes
in a peer-reviewed journal. Companies
A fifth type of study is a financial who conduct market assessments
analysis at the service provider generally do not make their results
level, covering either a single provider publicly available. Therefore, these
or conducting a comparative analysis types of survey or study cannot be
across service providers. An example relied upon for global monitoring. On
of the latter s the World Bank’s IBNET the other hand, given their in-depth
which collects data on utility prices and unique nature, they can provide a
and costs, and if utilities consistently useful snapshot of affordability in some
report their data, it enables a time locations, which might or might not be
series analysis. A Safe Water Network representative of the country at large.
(SWN) study also looked at price and
demand changes over time for a small
number of rural water service providers
in Ghana, thus enabling conclusions
about determinants of household
demand.25
25
‘Price change and station performance in Ghana.’
Safe Water Network. 2017.
4.3 The third category of data source is

information that is routinely collected
or poverty incomes per locality to
calculate an affordability indicator
Administrative data by utilities, other service providers,
regulators and local authorities. These
similar to indicator 2.1, or indicator 2.4
if annualised capital costs are included
and policy surveys data are likely to provide information
on some key variables related to
in the tariff.
affordability such as service access Information on other types of tariff,

(of customers), service compliance such as tariffs paid to informal WASH
(of providers), prices of goods and service providers or investments
services, and expenditures. These made by households in their own
data sources include provider installations (such as latrines) are
databases, policy surveys, and not monitored by any regulators or
expenditure tracking. industry associations. Some studies
have sought to estimate the value of
Provider databases are available these flows, but only at single points
either through regulatory agencies or in time. Available evidence shows that
self-reporting such as national, regional these flows are likely to be substantial,
or global industry associations. particularly for sanitation (Tremolet et
Regulatory data has a high likelihood al 2010). Indeed, Danert and Hutton
of being accurate, and is likely to (2020) argue that the “3 T” financing
improve over time, assuming the sources (taxes, tariffs and transfers)
regulator has both the resources and should be supplemented with HI (as
the authority (e.g. to impose punitive household self-investment), which
measures). Self-reported data to is commonly omitted from financing
industry associations is less likely to be tracking initiatives and financial
accurate because it is not a regulatory assessments.
exercise and there is limited validation
of submissions. The commitment of Policy surveys provide information
service providers to submit regular, about the different measures to make
quality data to industry associations WASH services more affordable to
will vary over time. Presently, the only users. The main global sector resource
initiative that provides some potential providing such information is UN-
for global monitoring of affordability Water’s biannual Global Level Analysis
is the IBNET, managed by the World and Assessment of Sanitation and
Bank. In the benchmarking initiative, Drinking-Water (GLAAS). This topic
IBNET encourages submission of was already discussed in section 3.2.5.
a wide range of key performance The survey consists of a questionnaire
indicators on water and wastewater. to Ministries and global sector donors
These include tariffs, average prices, every 2 years. In the latest 2018/19
average costs, and monthly cost of round, the GLAAS survey covered
a given quantity of water for a single 106 countries and 23 donors. For
household (lifeline amount of 6m3). countries, the survey covered legal,
The reporting utilities are mainly regulatory, policy, programming,
from urban areas. The benchmarking participation, monitoring and financing
database hit a peak in 2015 when aspects. The following are the main
2,510 utilities covering 630 million relevant questions, though many other
people were reporting, although in questions that explore the WASH
more recent years there has been a sectors performance on efficiency,
sharp reduction in utilities reporting equity, collaboration and sustainability,
to the benchmarking database.26 The which will all directly or indirectly affect
tariff database, on the other hand, WASH services, WASH prices and
claims 2,567 utilities are reporting WASH affordability:
from 211 countries and territories. The
database contains tariff structure and
rates. These data could be combined
with assumptions on consumption
26
https://database.ib-net.org/DefaultNew.aspx
accessed on 5th June 2020.
rates per household as well as average
1
Legal: Does the constitution 11
Financing: If a sector /
or other legislation recognize sub-sector plan exists, has
water and sanitation as the plan been supported
human rights? with adequate financing to
implement the plan? Are there
2 Regulatory: To what extent sufficient human resources to
do regulations, standards implement the plan?
and regulatory instruments
exist for drinking-water and 12 Financing: Are operations
wastewater? and basic maintenance
(O&M) covered by tariffs or
3 Policy: Are policy and planning household contributions?
development processes
effective? 13 Financing: Are there specific
measures in the financing plan
4 Policy: What is the national to target resources to reduce
coverage target in each inequities in access and levels
sub-sector? of service and are they being
applied for vulnerable groups?
5 Policy: Is there an affordability (9 categories given in form)
target for drinking-water
(rural, urban)? 14 Financing: Are there financial
schemes to make access to
6 Programming: To what WASH more affordable for
extent are there measures vulnerable groups?
to extend services to
vulnerable populations in 15 Financing: Is affordability of
national policies and plans? (9 WASH services defined in
categories given in form) policies or plans (e.g. no more
than 2% of median household
7 Participation: Are there clearly income)?
defined procedures in laws
or policies for participation 16 Financing: Please provide
by service users (e.g. examples of affordability
households) and communities schemes in use and the scope
and what is the level of of coverage, including how
participation? specific groups are targeted
for these schemes.
8 Monitoring: Are there
clearly defined performance 17 Financing: Going forward, do
indicators used for equitable you estimate that financing
coverage? from all sources allocated to
water/sanitation/hygiene is
9 Monitoring: What is the sufficient to reach national
progress towards affordability targets?
target for drinking-water (rural,
urban)?
10 Monitoring: Is progress in
extending and sustaining
service provision specifically
to the following populations
tracked and reported? (9
categories given in form)
Affordability and other analyses can for sub-Saharan Africa. PERs present
usefully draw on GLAAS monitoring data on where public funding is spent,
data. For example, GLAAS data were but they do not indicate accurately
used in a recent analysis in Bangladesh which households benefit from
which explained how the country had subsidies nor the expenditures they
met the national MDG target through make on WASH services.
household investments in unregulated
shallow tubewells (Fisher et al 2020). Since 2012, the UN-Water TrackFin
initiative has been implemented by
Expenditure tracking shows the WHO27 in more than 10 countries,
public funds and ODA allocated to focusing on the WASH sector.
and spent on water and sanitation, The methodology is based on the
and sometimes includes investments National Health Accounts and is
made by service providers and implemented using a detailed software
contribution of water users. The and data collection instruments. In
data for these surveys are typically some countries, household surveys
extracted from administrative systems. are conducted to capture user
Public expenditure reviews (PERs) contributions. WHO encourages
are an instrument promulgated by the responsible ministries to set up
World Bank and used extensively in TrackFin units and provide capacity
different sectors of the economy. PERs building in order to enable sustained
are a snapshot in time that typically and regular assessments, rather than
cover the previous 2-3 years. PERs one-off exercises. Similarly to the
specific to water and sanitation have PER instrument, TrackFin does not
been conducted in many countries as identify which households benefit from
one-off exercises. Between 2003 and subsidies; however, because it can
2009, the World Bank funded 40 PERs compare public and private spending,
in which the water sector featured. A it does estimate the proportion of the
review by van Ginneken et al (2011) WASH sector that is subsidized by
covers 15 PERs in water and sanitation public spending.
https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/
27
monitoring/investments/trackfin/en/
Ghana, July 22, 2020

© UNICEF/UNI357812/Buta
50 Comparative performance of approaches
05
Comparative performance
of approaches
Before making recommendations 1. Validity: the degree to which 3. Relevance and uptake: whether an
for monitoring of WASH affordability the definition of an indicator has indicator or methodology makes sense
in Chapter 6, this chapters makes encompassed the three dimensions or is it acceptable to the stakeholders
a summary assessment of the of affordability, which are (a) the who are going to use it.
different approaches to measuring price or cost of WASH services at
and monitoring affordability against the household level; (b) the spending - Can the indicator be explained
selected criteria to conclude how power of the household; and (c) the and understood easily by non-
they perform relative to each other. price or cost households incur in specialists?
meeting other essential needs
- Does the indicator fit with
5.1 - Do proposed indicators or common experience?
methodologies capture our
Criteria for assessment definitions of affordability, either - Does the indicator fit with the
agendas of key decision makers
individually or in combination?
The Expert Group agreed that the inside and outside the WASH
indicators and measures for assessing - How can the indicator or sector?
affordability would be assessed against generated data be interpreted?
the following criteria: Are there benchmarks or 4. Feasibility: the ease of estimating
thresholds that need to be an indicator and applying a
considered as part of the methodology, including required
indicator’s design, in order to disaggregation.
enable interpretation?
- What is the coverage of data at
2. Accuracy: the degree to which the national level?
the data used capture the definition
intended. - What is the coverage of data at
the global level?
- What elements of cost are
captured or omitted? - What data are available for
sub-national disaggregation or
- What is the expected quality of population stratification?
data? (e.g. question formulation,
procedures for enumerator) - What further data collection is
required to fill data gaps?
- Is there methodological
agreement on additional data - What is the cost of extracting,
analyses or estimations that compiling and analysing data for
are conducted? (e.g. unit cost national or global uses?
estimation, valuation of saved
time) These criteria are assessed qualitatively
below for each indicator and
methodology.
5.2 Table 7 summarises the performance

of the expenditure threshold approach
A second major critique highlights
the fact that data on current
Expenditure against the four criteria and sub-
questions.
expenditures are incomplete as many
cost categories are omitted from
threshold approach While the threshold approach provides
the household questionnaire used in
income and expenditure surveys. For
a crude assessment of expenditure some households, especially those not
relative to income, the utility of this connected to a reliable piped water
approach for informing policy and and wastewater service, this means
programming has been questioned. that the majority of WASH costs might
be omitted when answering the WASH
One major critique argues that expenditure questions found in IES
focusing on current expenditure questionnaires. These missing costs
ignores the fact that many or most could be potentially filled by using
households do not have the national standards e.g. for system maintenance
WASH standard – thus requiring a at household level, or soap purchases.
refocus of the affordability analysis
on the costs that need to be paid to
achieve that national standard. Hence,
WASH expenditure tabulations need to
be made by service level. A separate
analysis can be made showing
required costs to meet the national
WASH standard for those currently
below the minimum standard.
Lebanon, 2020
© UNICEF/UNI317998/Choufany
Table 7.
Performance of the expenditure threshold approach against criteria
CRITERIA AND SUB-CRITERIA PERFORMANCE
1. Validity
Dimensions covered Covers (a) expenditure and (b) spending power of the household
Interpretation Ratio of WASH expenditure to total expenditure gives a snapshot of different relative costs that different household
categories face. A threshold for what is ‘unaffordable’ is helpful to policy makers to decide which households to
support. However, there is currently no agreed threshold value across international agencies or countries; and
interpretation is affected by the data issues covered below.
2. Accuracy
Data completeness Only partial WASH costs included in common IES ‘Monthly expenditure’ variable – it therefore ignores some recurrent
cost categories and typically omits capital expenditures. Missing costs can be estimated to fill gaps. Time costs can be
added onto financial costs in numerator, but not all country surveys have access time for water and none have access
time for sanitation.
Data quality Monthly expenditure more likely to be accurate if household faces regular costs, such as a weekly or monthly bill. Total
expenditure is preferred over total income for denominator of the indicator, due to greater inaccuracies in income data.
Methodological agreement Value of time spent for WASH does not have consensus, and in the literature there have been various sources of
value for time: GDP per capita, average wage and minimum wage. Depending on the opportunity cost of time of
the household member (e.g. whether it is a child of school age, a productive or non-productive adult, or whether the
member is earning an income), anywhere between 15% and 100% of these wage values has been used.
3. Relevance and uptake
Ease of explaining indicator WASH expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure is easy to communicate, and already widely used. As no
consensus currently exists on how to capture access time values – whether as a separate cost of integrated into
financial costs – thus raising questions about how to communicate these costs.
Fit with experience Many utilities, national decision makers and global agencies already use the expenditure ratio, and thresholds vary
between 2% and 6%, while some include only water charges and others include wastewater.
Fit with decision-making If consensus is reached on which threshold to use nationally or globally, and monthly costs are well captured, then an
expenditure ratio approach gives clear guidance for determining an affordability policy and for targeting subsidies to
households whose expenditure is likely to exceed the threshold
4. Feasibility
Data for national monitoring Income and expenditure surveys are conducted every 3-5 years for most LMICs. WASH expenditure data typically
cover partial costs. Utility data sets could be used to reflect those populations, including cost per household for
minimum water and wastewater levels, as practiced by IBNET. For ‘Required’ costs to meet minimum service level, no
regularly updated data sets or benchmarks exist in most countries.
Data for global monitoring At any timepoint, IES data for some countries will be up to date while others will be >3 years old, hence not reflecting
current context. IES in some countries include questions on a broader WASH expenditure, which allows additional
costs to be included. For ‘Required’ costs to meet minimum service level, the latest global data set is World Bank’s
2016 publication estimating SDG WASH costs (targets 6.1 and 6.2), which needs updating.
Sub-national disaggregation Most IES allow rural/urban and expenditure decile breakdowns. Other household categorisations are possible (e.g.
female head, household size).
Potential to fill data gaps Standard or benchmark costs can be used to turn partial into full costs. IES unlikely to be conducted more frequently.
More detailed cost surveys could be implemented through local initiatives. A future global cost benchmark initiative
could fill standardized unit costs for different service levels across a large number of countries.
Cost of extraction/analysis With an established protocol (see Annex C), extraction and analysis can be conducted in a standard way for global
monitoring; more in-depth country reports can be developed with other local studies on WASH expenditure.
Third, the ratio expenditure approach Sixth, the threshold approach also However, the reasons explaining
does not take into account other ignores other aspects of affordability individual household choices can be
spending commitments a household such as whether existing financing hard to assess at the aggregate level,
faces on essential services, which will from non-household sources is as there are many drivers of household
vary by context and by household. This sustainable. For example, can the spending decisions. These decisions
highlights the need to take a multi- public sector continue to subsidise are made based on an implicit
service perspective when measuring services at the same levels, and if hierarchy of needs and preferences
affordability, thus requiring that WASH not, these O&M costs, and eventually which vary from one household to the
expenditure is not considered in infrastructure replacement costs, next, thus making it hard to conclude
isolation. Other sectors have defined might eventually be passed to the whether WASH is truly affordable or
their own frameworks on assessing household. unaffordable for a particular household
affordability, such as nutrition or category of household. Where
(adequate nutritional intake and the demand is particularly low for a WASH
food poverty line) and health (what is service, real-life experiments can be
termed ‘catastrophic’ health spending conducted to observe whether price
which propels a vulnerable household 5.3 reductions lead to significant increases
into poverty). A single benchmark ratio in demand. The results would,
defined at the global level might not Revealed preferences however, need to be interpreted
be desirable, as existing subsidies taking into account the many factors
provided for WASH and non-WASH explaining consumption choices.
services differ between countries, as Table 8 summarises the performance Also, a distinction needs to be made
well as within countries. of the revealed preferences between short-term changes and
approach against the four criteria long-term equilibrium. For example,
Fourth, when time costs are added and sub-questions. Under some consumers might be attracted to
into the numerator of the expenditure circumstances, revealed preferences purchase a lower cost product to test
ratio, it can significantly increase the can expose affordability issued faced it out, but after their first experience,
ratio, as shown in the case studies by households, especially when high they may not demand the product in
(see Annex B). The ratio is increase prices or price increase over time the longer-term.
most of all for those households with leads to household demand falling
the least financial costs, as they are below the minimum standard. Both
more likely to be accessing free or static and dynamic data analyses
low-cost service or have no service at can enable useful interpretations
all. Hence, including access time costs on affordability. For water, quantity
will need international consensus versus price changes can be recorded
around the valuation methodology to over time for individual households
be more widely applicable. (if their consumption is metered).
Alternatively, absolute water demand
Fifth, the ratio expenditure approach levels can be compared across
ignores the financial and economic households in different income deciles
benefits that flow from higher WASH to assess the extent to which poorer
service levels. There are reports that households have suppressed demand.
the ‘poor’ are willing to pay for 24/7 For sanitation, preferences can be
services as it transforms their lives revealed through market behaviour
and provides the time and improved of households in one-off purchase
health necessary for children to go decisions of toilets, periodic decisions
to school, and for families to improve on pit emptying, or demand for toilet
their economic situations. Hence cleaning products or soap.
households might see the high cost
of water as having a high return,
which means they are willing to pay
the higher cost. Also, improved piped
supply might lead to lower expenditure
on vendor-supplied water, leading to
net cost savings – hence the higher
service level could leads to lower costs
for poor households.
Table 8.
Performance of the revealed preference approach against criteria
1. Validity
Dimensions covered Potentially covers (a) expenditure, (b) spending power and (c) other needs of the household
Interpretation Potentially powerful way of identifying affordability issues for water, when price levels (and price rises) explain water
consumption below the minimum service level. No thresholds are needed, but instead determination of relationship
between price and demand - and having the data to identify whether rising prices reduce demand for specific
population groups. Price changes might have dynamic effects, such as higher prices leading to a decision to fix a
leaking pipe, for example. Also, demand may be inelastic because of essential nature of water and lack of other water
sources – hence a poor household may have no other choice. For sanitation and hygiene, current demand for products
and services would need to be interpreted through willingness and ability to pay.
2. Accuracy
Data completeness Assessment focuses on the relationship between price of and demand for a specific good. The relationship needs
to be statistically determined, where possible, hence requiring adequate study design and sample size. If it can be
assumed that no other variables change during the observation period, a demand/price comparison is sufficient to
identify potential affordability issues for WASH.
Data quality Quality varies by survey methodology applied or data collection method.
Ease of explaining indicator A statement such as “The increase in water price led to x% of households consuming water below minimum threshold”
can be understood, but beyond such a result, most data sets and findings will be more complicated to explain.
Fit with experience The market for goods, and the relationship between price and demand, is generally well understood.
Fit with decision-making When demand is weak for a service, the role of prices can be evaluated and recommendations made for price
adjustments. However, adjusting prices for a specific segment of the population is challenging to achieve and may have
unwanted side-effects.
4. Feasibility
Data for national monitoring Absolute levels of demand can be compared with prices in different jurisdictions, collected from utilities or from market
data. Demand can be cross tabulated by household characteristic, depending on the data collected by the utility and
what other data sets can be overlaid on utility data. Time-series comparisons are less common to assess how demand
changes when prices are adjusted – though some opportunities exist to conduct case studies.
Data for global monitoring No international data sets are available that assess prices with respect to demand, except IBNET benchmarking and
tariff data. However, time-series comparisons may be unreliable due to changes in other conditions.
Sub-national stratification Data obtained from utilities has limited, if any, socio-economic data on households, unless it is overlaid from other
municipal data sets. The one exception is when a household has applied for or received a customer assistance program
Potential to fill data gaps More case studies could be collected from utilities that have changed their prices and enable assessment of the
impact on average demand.
Cost of extraction/analysis Extraction of data sets from IBNET is simple and low cost. Further data collection would require a more significant effort.

of the stated preferences approach
Direct household responses to
questions on WASH affordability have
Stated preferences against the four criteria and sub-
questions.
some similarities to the contingent
valuation methodology, in that it relies
on household subjective assessments.
There are both strengths and However, it is a simpler, more direct
weaknesses of stated preference way to assess whether there are
measures. The stated preference affordability constraints. If households
approach potentially covers all three are not accessing a WASH service,
dimensions of affordability – as they can be given a range of reasons
household opinions expressed in why not, among them “we cannot
interviews will take into account afford to pay for it” or “we do not
WASH prices, their income level and want to pay for it”. Given the limited
other needs. The main advantage of experience with questions that
the contingent valuation approach directly ask households about WASH
to measuring willingness to pay affordability, it is difficult to conclude
(WTP) is that it considers household how valid they might be. In designing
priorities and eventual choices based such questions, it would be important
on their own situation (constraints, to have a broader set of questions
opportunities and preferences). which help explain their answers to
For example, it might happen the questions probing on affordability,
that a household is willing to pay such as their perceptions of a desirable
well above a defined affordability service level, their history of WASH
‘threshold’ because of the social and services or their perceptions of what
economic benefits they recognize as the government should do for them.
resulting from using a better WASH In some countries, citizen committees
service. Also, the stated preference act on behalf of the regulator to
methodology allows demand for a provide potential solutions to citizen
service to be voiced in cases where complaints. Such platforms could be
households are currently excluded, for used to explore these issues.
example due to non-tenure of land or
lack of legal status, where unserviced
households might show a high
willingness to pay for a service that is
provided to other households nearby.
On the other hand, the contingent

valuation methodology suffers various
problems. Results of studies that have
been used for policy making or price-
setting have sometimes been shown
to be inaccurate or incorrect after more
data have been collected on actual
market behaviour. Weaknesses can
be addressed through implementing
larger samples, using better formulated
questions and more tailored analyses
for the results to be valid.
Table 9.
Performance of the stated preference approach against criteria
1. Validity
Interpretation The answers to consumer surveys give direct indication of whether a WASH service is economically accessible or not,
either by comparing willingness to pay with price levels, or through a direct response from households that prices are
unaffordable. This approach is a departure from an objective measure of affordability, and results can be quite different
from those given by a normative approach (such as an expenditure ratio threshold). Given the inter-household variability,
agreeing a single price that benefits the most households is difficult. However, the answers given by respondents can
include additional relevant considerations, such as what economic or financial savings may result from WASH.
2. Accuracy
Data completeness As questions request the respondent to take into account all relevant costs and their current income levels, it is
assumed that the full set of costs and issues are taken into consideration.
Data quality Critics of stated preference approaches argue that respondents can give answers that do not reflect their actual
situation or preferences: (1) expectation that they can gain from the answers they give, for example, that the eventual
prices of service might be lower of they indicate low willingness to pay; (2) interviewer bias, by the way questions are
framed; and (3) protest answers, either zero or very high, because the respondent wants to spoil the research or not
have their answers counted. Hence attention is needed on questionnaire design and interviewer training.
Ease of explaining indicator Willingness to pay is well understood. However, explaining the difference between objective and subjective measures
of affordability can be complicated, and might confuse decision makers.
Fit with experience Decision makers can relate to the concept of willingness to pay and individual preferences in their own lives.
Fit with decision-making Given the subjectivity of the approach it might not be correct to determine policy based on a sample of divergent
opinions and only subjective responses.
4. Feasibility
Data for national monitoring Currently very few data sources provide these data, except for some academic studies in the literature and exercises
conducted by water providers. On the latter, data sets are rarely publicly available.
Data for global monitoring Based on few available national sources, it is not possible to use these indicators for global monitoring.
Sub-national stratification Existing studies typically collect household characteristics for stratification.
Potential to fill data gaps It is not worthwhile to implement new surveys for this methodology alone, but questions could be added to existing
surveys to gain potentially useful additional information.
Cost of extraction/analysis It is costly to implement new research with household survey components and large sample sizes (to be nationally
representative). However, there is a low marginal cost of adding questions to existing surveys, although additional
training may be required for the enumerators.

of the poverty status approach against
3.2.4). One problem of defining
households by their poverty status
Poverty status the four criteria and sub-questions. is that poverty lines are typically set
at national level and are thus a blunt
The use of poverty lines to define instrument for deciding if a specific
population groups that are least household in a specific neighbourhood
likely to afford WASH is potentially a can or should pay the full price of a
very neat and simple approach. If a WASH service that meets the national
household is poor, they are likely to minimum standard.
be the most deserving of assistance
to help them achieve or sustain a Furthermore, the response to
minimal level of WASH service. The unaffordable WASH prices should be
advantage of the poverty line is that coordinated with the multi-sectoral
it considers other essential needs, response to addressing poverty. It is
and therefore might be seen as most also unclear how households would
within the spirit of the human rights be dealt with that are ‘near poor’ or at
to safe drinking water and sanitation. risk of being poor from shocks. Indeed,
However, the weaknesses of how poor making such households pay for
households are identified might lead to costlier WASH services might itself put
a mis-categorization of households as them into poverty.
poor that are non-poor, or of non-poor
households that are poor (see Chapter
Table 10.
Performance of the poverty status approach against criteria
1. Validity
Interpretation Rather than invent new thresholds, an approach that incorporates poverty status can use existing poverty thresholds,
such as those defined as ‘poor’ and ‘extremely poor’. Whether additional subsidies should be targeted to the poor
depends on what social protection measures have already been implemented. As poor households are more likely to
have a WASH service level below the minimum standard, targeted subsidies to poor households to afford movements
up the WASH ladder makes good policy sense.
2. Accuracy
Poverty assessments can be conducted using IES, hence enabling cross-tabulations with levels of WASH expenditure.
Data completeness
Data quality The methods for poverty assessment are long-established and have been improved over time. However, the measure
can be blunt in some circumstances, depending on how the poverty definition deals with savings, wealth or capital tied
up in livestock or land.
Ease of explaining indicator Using poor versus non-poor in relation to WASH expansion should make sense to decision makers, as it is an
established approach.
Fit with experience Identifying the poor as deserving of further social protection measures fits closely with experience.
Fit with decision-making It is easy to channel further subsidies based on poverty status as an established mechanism exists in most countries.
4. Feasibility
Data for national monitoring Poverty data are widely available and used.
Data for global monitoring Poverty data are widely available and used.
Sub-national stratification Survey sources enable multiple types of stratification.
Potential to fill data gaps No or few data gaps to fill.
Cost of extraction/analysis Minimal cost as data can be easily cross tabulated using existing surveys.

of the enabling environment indicators
indicators will help explain the contents
of the numerator or the denominator,
Enabling environment against the four criteria and sub-
questions. Given these indicators cover
which are affected by different forms
of subsidy and household income
responses to different aspects of the response to
the affordability issue, the performance
supplementation, respectively.
Therefore, there will be an interplay
affordability against criteria will vary from one
indicator to the next. Overall, these
between the enabling environment
indicators and the expenditure-based
indicators are predictive of whether affordability indicators. For example,
services are likely to be affordable poor households might find a basic
based legal on frameworks, policies, WASH service affordable exactly
programming approaches, market because there is a policy that ensures
attributes, monitoring, financing WASH subsidies are received by poor
mechanisms and flows, rates of water households.
disconnection, and bill collection
rates. However, these indicators say Given the large number of indicators,
little about the prices paid and their it is necessary to place them together
actual affordability. For this reason, and view them from different angles
they will not themselves be sufficient, to enable a correct and overall
but rather they will provide important interpretation. Brief assessments
additional data for a fuller interpretation were conducted in the country case
of other affordability indicators. They studies, synthesised in Annex B and
will also help guide the appropriate available as separate country reports.
responses based on what is already There is therefore no prior experience
being done to improve affordability. of a comprehensive analysis of these
indicators, hence a more in-depth
The picture of WASH affordability approach needs to be developed and
is therefore not complete without further case studies documented.
inclusion of indicators of what
measures are being taken – or could In addition to household affordability,
be taken – to make WASH more policy analyses cannot ignore that
affordable. Indeed, some of these WASH costs have to be paid from one
of the 3 Ts (tariffs, transfers, taxes).
Hence, an exploration is needed of
how to link household affordability with
broader issues of societal affordability,
taking into account the full production
costs and sustainability considerations
(i.e. where water pricing takes into
account long-term water availability).
Table 11.
Performance of the enabling environment indicators against criteria
1. Validity
Dimensions covered Includes indicators which are predictive of the extent to which poor and vulnerable households are given specific
consideration in paying the price of WASH services, hence implicitly covering dimensions (a) WASH expenditure and (b)
spending power. No WASH sector instruments currently include questions on other needs of the household, though
this could be gathered from other sources.
Thresholds required Most enabling environment indicators have yes/no responses. Few indicators are expressed as a percentage value.
2. Accuracy
Data completeness In the GLAAS survey, some countries omit to fill in some questions if they cannot easily answer them.
Data quality The GLAAS survey is typically filled through a sector consultation and is checked for consistency by the GLAAS team.
Ease of explaining indicator Overall, the enabling environment indicators are simple to explain, even though no single indicator will indicate
affordability or not.
Fit with experience Overall, the enabling environment indicators typically fit with experience.
Fit with decision-making Overall, the enabling environment indicators are designed to be relevant for decision makers, with a clear pathway to
making WASH services more affordable.
4. Feasibility
Data for national monitoring In the most recent round, GLAAS was completed by 115 countries and territories (mainly low- and middle-income countries).
Data for global monitoring GLAAS is completed by a sufficient number of countries for global monitoring.
Sub-national stratification Current data sets are national, with disaggregation by sub-sector. Specific questions focus on how different population
groups are dealt with, which enables some stratification.
Potential to fill data gaps Future GLAAS surveys can be adjusted to include additional affordability indicators, e.g. disconnection rates, market
attributes for poor people such as competitiveness and access, and availability of affordable loans
Cost of extraction/analysis Global data sets are available for all countries in a single file and hence cross-country summaries are easily tabulated.
Building narratives based on the data requires more resources to analyse the data for single countries and triangulate
with results of other affordability assessments. As GLAAS surveys have evolved and changed over time, analysis of
time-series would require more resources to complete.
60 Conclusions and recommendations
06
Conclusions and
recommendations
This synthesis report has shown
the many opportunities as well 6.1 Data on these variables are available
from nationally representative income
as constraints to measuring and
monitoring the affordability of Global level and expenditure surveys which are
conducted every 3 to 5 years in a
water, sanitation and hygiene.
Given the current data sets, it monitoring significant number of countries globally,
although cost data rarely cover all
will be challenging to monitor components of WASH covered in
affordability at the global level 6.1.1 Chapter 3.2.1 (see Table 2 and
in any broad sense, using the Conclusions Figure 2).
identified approaches and
methodologies. That said, there Several alternative angles have Cost data are also available from the
are several avenues to pursue been explored in this report for World Bank’s IBNET utility database,
in analysing existing data sets understanding whether households which gives a snapshot of utility
which can uncover issues of are able to afford WASH – though most performance indicators and tariffs in
(un)affordability in a significant of these examine relative affordability selected countries and jurisdictions
number of countries globally, (on a sliding scale) as opposed to whose utilities (or regulators) have
both high income and low- and absolute affordability (affordable submitted data. However, the
middle-income countries. The six versus not affordable). The latter benchmarking and tariff databases are
country case studies, summarised can only be determined using the currently far from complete for global
in Annex B, indicate some of the expenditure threshold approach when monitoring purposes, and they cover
affordability issues that can be affordability thresholds are introduced, mainly urban areas.
identified with current evidence. which until now have been arbitrary
If similar studies were conducted values between around 3% and 6% The third dimension of affordability –
in a sufficient number of countries of household income. Alternatively, what households have to pay for other
from different world regions, then application of the poverty line can essential services – is important to
a global picture would emerge. identify households likely to find higher understand what resources households
As with all endeavours, the levels of WASH services unaffordable; have remaining for WASH expenditure.
funding available for affordability and also subjective assessments In a multi-country assessment of
monitoring will determine the of affordability can be made when affordability, it would be difficult to use
scope and precision of the households are asked directly whether a single threshold value to accurately
findings. This chapter provides they can afford WASH services or not. assess affordability in a range of
both overall conclusions and different contexts, given the differences
recommendations for monitoring Returning to the three dimensions of in other essential services provided or
of affordability at global and at affordability introduced in section 2.2, supported by welfare states.
national levels. the first two are the most critical
to capture: As proposed in Chapter 3.2.1, it might
be possible to account for this third
1. What people are either (a) dimension in the disposable income
currently paying, or (b) would pay calculation, by subtracting benchmark
for (at least) the minimum service values for other essential costs such as
level. food, housing, education and medical
costs. However, any estimates of
2. How this compares to either (a) these costs would need to be aligned
their total income or expenditure, with affordability initiatives from those
or (b) their disposable income. sectors, giving a cost estimation for an
essential basket of goods. Given the meeting service gaps and bringing all
considerable inter-household variability households to (at least) a minimum
in household composition (total WASH service level defined either by
members, their age and their health national standards or the SDG targets
status), as well as property ownership, 6.1 and 6.2 indicators. In the future,
it becomes a very complicated these data sets can be supplemented
exercise. Hence, for now, it is easier by (a) more questions in national
to make an affordability judgement income and expenditure surveys to
based on total expenditure as the enable better capture of a wider range
denominator. of WASH expenditures; and (b) tailored
WASH expenditure surveys conducted
in localities where WASH services are
likely to be challenging for populations
6.1.2 to afford.
Recommendations 2.
Using nationally representative income

and expenditure surveys, the monthly/
Recommendation 1. Strengthen data annual costs of water and wastewater
sets and data analyses of income services should be extracted and
and expenditure surveys tabulated:
1. a. By rural-urban area,
Existing income and expenditure b. By decile and other socio-
surveys that are nationally economic markers, and
representative provide the richest and
most expansive data sets available on c. By service level (piped, non-piped
WASH as well as total expenditures. basic, below basic, no service;
Cost estimates can also be made for and degree of seasonality in
service).
Sudan, February 16, 2014

© UNICEF/UNI165897/Noorani
While imperfect, these surveys are the 3. and whether it is a sustainable and
most available ones and can therefore climate-resilient service. For example,
be used as a foundation for WASH Additional tabulations should be made if the current tariff does not reflect
cost data which can be built on. Data incorporating imputed costs of access the full water production cost or
gaps to fill include: the costs of non- time. Distance or time to water source wastewater treatment cost, upward
piped services that might vary from is captured in some income and adjustments are needed. Efforts should
month to month; other costs such as expenditure surveys. In the absence of be made to estimate national averages;
hygiene and sanitation services which these data, average access distance or if there is significant sub-national
are usually omitted from these surveys; time data can be extracted from DHS variation, high and low values can be
and the value of access time for both or MICS surveys and combined with used to show the potential range in the
water and sanitation. Questions might income and expenditure surveys based costs of WASH services to households.
cover water access and water prices on the water source. Sanitation access As this analysis involves combining
in different seasons (e.g. wet and time can be added to the time cost different data sources, it is possible to
dry season), where there is seasonal calculations, if data exist for a country estimate both capital and O&M costs.
variation (as is already done for water or else data can be extrapolated from Separate analysis can be conducted
source in some DHS and MICS other countries. Transparency is needed on the affordability of upfront capital
surveys). Given that not all surveys are on assumptions made (e.g. number of costs, given these are commonly the
publicly available, any global monitoring journeys per day) and time valuation, costs which are least affordable to poor
effort would need to obtain permission and sensitivity analysis should be used. households. Also, if a country plans to
from all countries for the use of their Number of hours spent by households use public funds to pay a share of the
data sets. collecting water can be compared with capital or operational costs, the service
total household time budget, thus costs can be adjusted downwards to
avoiding the pitfalls of valuing time in reflect what households themselves
monetary units. are likely to pay.
4. 5.
To know what each country needs to To estimate the WASH expenditure

plan in order to meet national WASH ratios, the WASH expenditures
targets, the required unit costs of extracted from IES should be
WASH services should be estimated compared with the total income
for different service levels, covering or expenditure of households. For
basic, piped, and safely managed households that need to increase their
services (see Recommendation 2 service level to meet the minimum
below). When based on real data, the service, the costs of achieving it should
context should be described to assess also be added, as demonstrated in
whether it has country-wide relevance Annex B.
Uganda, October 23, 2019

© UNICEF/UNI232821/Bridger
6. academic papers, data sets and reports Hence, any future affordability initiative
from development agencies and might promote the submission of
To strengthen WASH expenditure academic institutions, and engineering complete data regularly to the IBNET
data in the future, a first task will departments of relevant ministries in platform, as it provides a standard and
be to develop a list of expanded countries. However, these studies and credible platform for monitoring prices
WASH expenditure questions for data sets are found in many different and affordability in a large number
future household surveys. Given the places and there is no platform of utilities simultaneously. The data
space limitation in national household consolidating them. Also, studies and submitted can also be used by national
surveys, it will be necessary to data sets reference different service governments, local governments and
prioritise and shortlist the expenditure levels or are provided in different regulators alike.
items that capture the main costs units of measurement (e.g. cost per
items in a majority of settings. In infrastructure, cost per household, cost
particular, it will be important to per capita). Furthermore, cost data
capture the WASH costs of non-utility quickly become outdated given the Recommendation 3. Strengthen
service providers and household self- high rates of inflation and technology the use of the UN-Water GLAAS
investment, as argued by Danert and change in many countries. It is survey to collect and analyse policy
Hutton (2020). This means capturing therefore recommended to create indicators relevant for affordability
lumpy expenditures over 12 months a common database which collects assessment
prior to the survey (which is often the and compiles cost data from all these
maximum recall time in an expenditure sources in a standard format, which 9.
survey), taking into account that prices, can be used to assess the cost and
quantities and sources might vary over affordability of service expansion The GLAAS survey has considerable
a single year period. In addition, capital and improvement in many countries value as a tool for global monitoring on
items need to be better captured in simultaneously. the status of the enabling environment
terms of their value, their expected across more than 100 countries. Many
duration and how often they are 8. of the indicators collected by the
renovated or replaced. When reviewing survey are of relevance to affordability,
the core and expanded questions to From the IBNET global utility data and when triangulated with WASH
measure WASH affordability, there base, it is recommended to extract expenditure data it is possible to
is an opportunity to better capture and tabulate selected performance develop a fuller understanding
water needs and expenditures for non- indicators. These can be averaged of whether policy responses are
domestic uses, given their importance across all participating utilities for improving affordability and/or which
in the economy of households, each country for data submitted in new policy measures might improve
especially in rural areas. Published the previous 3 years. Variables of future affordability.
studies on the costs of coping with particular interest are (a) cost per cubic
WASH expenditure (e.g. Gurung et metre of water and wastewater, (b) 10.
al 2017; Cook et al 2016) can be used cost per month per household for a
to further explore different aspects of lifeline amount of water (6 m3), and (c) Some indicators collected by GLAAS
WASH affordability. monthly cost as percentage of median have direct relevance, such as the
wage. It is also interesting to assess setting of an affordability target
the financial viability of a utility, such for drinking-water, or whether
as a comparison of average costs affordability schemes exist for
Recommendation 2. Build and with average revenues. However, the vulnerable groups. Others have
strengthen global databases of number of utilities submitting data to indirect relevance, such as the
WASH tariffs and costs the IBNET benchmarking platform is availability of public funds and the
currently in decline, and many utilities degree to which the sector finances
7. who submit data do not submit for are likely to meet the national
every year. The gap is even greater coverage targets.
Aside from income and expenditure for utilities in low-income countries.
surveys to collect cost data, there IBNET therefore does not – at present
already exists a range of data sources – provide a reliable option for global
on the costs of providing WASH monitoring of affordability. Case studies
services. These include the World can be made for selected utilities that
Bank’s IBNET global utility data base have submitted their data, as illustrative
with data on performance and tariffs, of the prices faced by their customers.
11. Recommendation 4. Reach a 13.

broad consensus on the setting
Further assessment will be possible of a threshold or range for an A threshold value that only considers
on how indicators perform in terms affordable WASH service, preferably the costs of WASH services risks
of validity and country response rate, with reference to broader poverty leading to overly simplistic proposals
in order to make recommendations assessments and affordability of which might be poorly applied in
for improved indicators in future other essential goods and services country settings – for example,
cycles of the GLAAS survey. The concluding that WASH services are
reporting of some indicators needs 12. affordable when they are not. It will be
to be improved, such as whether the necessary to engage in the discusion a
affordability of WASH services has Given different international agencies, range of players from other sectors or
been defined in policies or plans (e.g. governments and utilities are using fields who have different perspectives
no more than 2% of median household different thresholds, it is important to and interests.
income), or whether progress towards try and reach a consensus on how to
affordability target for drinking-water set and use affordability thresholds in 14.
is monitored. In addition, deeper the future. First, it is recommended to
insights are needed into how national review the issues and determinants It is therefore recommended to
policies are implemented at sub- of an affordability threshold while constitute a cross-sectoral panel
national level, as it will vary at different enabling national and local authorities to discuss the threshold value and
administrative levels and by different to adapt the thresholds to their find consensus on questions such
service providers. Additional questions context. International agencies might as whether affordability thresholds
could be added to the GLAAS survey use affordability ‘bands’ rather than should be used in different sectors,
on water disconnection rates, market point estimates. Different thresholds and how to interpret the expenditure
attributes for poor people such as should be explored for water alone, data and affordability indicators. It
competitiveness and access, and water and sanitation together, and may indeed not be desirable to set a
availability of affordable loans. WASH as a whole. single global affordability threshold,
given the contextual factors and
variability in cost components
captured by different data sets.
Guinea-Bissau, January 16, 2020

6.2 6.2.2 16.

Recommendations
National Other case studies can be sought
based on the availability of sub-
(and sub-national) At national and sub-national level,
national or small area data sets that
have significant potential to make
considerably more options are available
level monitoring for assessing affordability, and for
conclusions about WASH affordability.
This may include slum or district
combining such analyses with well surveys conducted by government
formulated responses where lack of or partners, or expenditure data from
affordability is identified.
6.2.1 specific utilities or groups of utilities
(e.g. as available from IBNET). For
Conclusions example, initial case studies on
WASH affordability for utilities that
Recommendation 5. Conduct more
have submitted data to IBNET could
The six national studies conducted in-depth country case studies to
generate interest among stakeholders
and summarized in Annex B have explore how WASH affordability
and become the foundation for broader
demonstrated what standard analyses can be better understood using
analyses encompassing more utilities.
might be possible for a larger number available data sets, contributing to
This level of analysis could be called a
of countries. These analyses can be the implementation of enhanced
country assessment type 2.
extended by drawing on additional national policies
studies and data sets to enable a
17.
better interpretation of the findings. 15.
Indeed, one of the main purposes
When there is local interest in
of the global analyses is to highlight The 6 country case studies in Annex
exploring WASH affordability
potential affordability issues that B and their individual reports can be
further, additional surveys may be
need further analyses to explore used to further the policy dialogue
implemented that contain a fuller
and propose solutions. A country- in these and other countries,
set of questions that cover a broader
level assessment of affordability has leading to better understanding of
range of affordability dimensions or
the flexibility to draw on a variety affordability issues among government
indicators. It is important to define
of available data sets and partner stakeholders and in-country partners.
a minimum and extended set of
experiences. It can also collect other Further quantitative and qualitative
questions to capture WASH costs
relevant data from service providers or analyses can be conducted where
more fully and other essential needs
populations through additional surveys. data permit, and different surveys
and their costs, and (socio-economic)
The presentation of findings to sector may be triangulated (e.g. IES, DHS,
disaggregations, which allow more
partners and experts can lead to a MICS) and gaps filled. More fine-tuned
precise conclusions. This might include
rich discussion on the validity of the local interpretations are possible,
implementing a cost benchmark
results and the missing pieces, and to based on locally defined poverty lines,
initiative at sub-national level, to
inform the policy and programmatic location-specific average incomes
account for within-country variations in
responses. Any such deeper or and existing levels of subsidy. This
both capital and O&M costs
enhanced assessment of affordability requires a mapping of these variables
can, in turn, be used to inform the on the expenditure data and other 18.
global assessment. data tabulation provided by the various
affordability analyses. This level of The lessons learned can be fed
analysis could be called a country back into the global dialogue on
assessment type 1. WASH affordability and lead to fine-
tuned recommendations for global
monitoring.
66 References
References
ǒ Andres L, Brocklehurst C, ǒ Heller L (2015. Affordability

Grabinsky J, Joseph G, Thibert and the human rights to water
M (2020). Measuring the and sanitation. A report by
affordability of water supply, the Special Rapporteur on
sanitation, and hygiene the human rights to water
services: a new approach. Water and sanitation. Human Rights
Economics and Policy. Council. A/HRC/30/39.
ǒ Cook J, Kimuyu P, Whittington D ǒ Hoque SF and Hope R (2018).

(2016). The costs of coping with The water diary method –
poor water supply in rural Kenya. proof-of-concept and policy
Water Resources Research 52: implications for monitoring water
841–859. use behaviour in rural Kenya.
Water Policy 20 (4): 725–743.
ǒ Danert K, Hutton G (2020).
Editorial: Shining the spotlight ǒ Hoque SF and Hope R (2019).
on household investments for Examining the economics of
water, sanitation and hygiene affordability through water
(WASH): let us talk about HI and diaries in coastal Bangladesh.
the three ‘T’s. Jounal of WASH Water Economics and Policy
for Development 10(1). 6(3). 1950011.
ǒ Fischer A, Hope R, Manandhar ǒ Hutton G (2012). Monitoring

A, Hoque S, Foster T, Hakim “Affordability” of water and
A, Sirajul Islam M, Bradley D sanitation services after 2015:
(2020). Risky responsibilities for Review of global indicator
rural drinking water institutions: options. United Nations Office
The case of unregulated self- of the High Commissioner for
supply in Bangladesh. Global Human Rights, Geneva.
Environmental Change 65:
102152. ǒ Hutton G and Andres L (2018).
Counting the costs and benefits
ǒ Gurung Y, Zhao J, Kumar Bal of equitable WASH service
KC, Wu X, Suwal B, Whittington provision’, in “Achieving Equality
D (2017). The costs of delay in Water and Sanitation. Eds
in infrastructure investments: Cummings O and Slaymaker T.
A comparison of 2001 and Routledge, UK.
2014 household water supply
coping costs in the Kathmandu ǒ Hutton G, Abdurazakov A, Burt Z,
Valley, Nepal. Water Resources Costa, J, with the JMP/GLAAS
Research 53(8): 7078–7102. doi: Expert Consultative Group on
10.1002/2016WR019529. WASH Affordability (2019).
Assessing the Affordability of
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene:
Ghana Country Case Study.
WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme and UN-Water
GLAAS.
67 References
ǒ Hutton G, Rodriguez U-P, Winara ǒ UN General Assembly (2019).

A, Nguyen VA, Kov P, Chuan Global indicator framework for
L, Blackett I, Weitz A (2014). the Sustainable Development
Economic efficiency of sanitation Goals and targets of the
interventions in Southeast Asia. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Journal of Water, Sanitation and Development. The official
Hygiene in Development 4(1): indicator list includes the
23-36. global indicator framework as
contained in A/RES/71/313
ǒ McNicholl D, Hope R, Money including refinements agreed
A (2019). Performance-based by the Statistical Commission
funding for reliable rural water at its 49th session in March
services in Africa. Uptime
2018 (E/CN.3/2018/2, Annex II)
Working Paper.
and at its 50th session in March
ǒ Nauges C, Whittington D (2010). 2019 (E/CN.3/2019/2, Annex II).
Estimation of water demand
ǒ United Nations Economic
in developing countries: an
and Social Council. General
overview. World Bank Research
Comment 15: The right to water
Observer Vol. 25, Issue 2: 263–
(Twenty-ninth session, 2002),
294.
U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2002/11 (2003).
ǒ Null C, Hombrados JG, Kremer
ǒ Van Ginneken M, Netterstrom U,
M, Meeks R, Miguel E and
Bennett A (2011). More, better,
Zwane AP (2012). Willingness
or different spending? Trends in
to pay for cleaner water in less
public expenditure on water and
developed countries: systematic
sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa.
review of experimental evidence.
White Papers 67321-AFR. World
3ie Systematic Review 06
Bank.
ǒ Smets H (2012). Quantifying
ǒ Van Houtven GL, Pattanayak SK,
the affordability standard, in
Usmani Faraz, Yang J-C (2017).
The Human Right to Water:
What are Households Willing to
Theory, Practice and Prospects.
Pay for Improved Water Access?
Cambridge University Press.
Results from a Meta-Analysis.
ǒ Trémolet, S., P. Koslky, and Ecological Economics 136(C):
E. Perez. Financing On-Site 126-135.
Sanitation for the Poor. A Global
ǒ Whittington, D. and Cook, J.
Six Country Comparative Review
(2019) ‘Valuing Changes in Time
and Analysis. 2010. Water and
Use in Low- and Middle-Income
Sanitation Programme, World
Countries’, Journal of Benefit-
Bank.
Cost Analysis, 10, pp. 51–72. doi:
ǒ UNICEF (2019). National 10.1017/bca.2018.21.
Economic Impact Evaluation of
ǒ World Bank (2015). Economic
Swachh Bharat Mission (Clean
assessment of sanitation
India Mission). UNICEF: New
interventions in Southeast Asia.
Delhi, India.
Water and Sanitation Program.
ǒ UN General Assembly (2015). World Bank, Washington DC.
Transforming our world: the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Resolution
adopted by the General
Assembly on 25 September
2015. A/RES/70/1.
68 Annex A: Affordability definitions for different basic needs
Annex A: Affordability
definitions for different
basic needs
Adequate housing Highest attainable
“Personal or household financial
standard of health
costs associated with housing
“Economic accessibility (affordability):
should be at such a level that the
health facilities, goods and services
attainment and satisfaction of other
must be affordable for all. Payment for
basic needs are not threatened or
health-care services, as well as services
compromised. Steps should be taken
related to the underlying determinants
by States parties to ensure that the
of health, has to be based on the
percentage of housing-related costs
principle of equity, ensuring that these
is, in general, commensurate with
services, whether privately or publicly
income levels. States parties should
provided, are affordable for all, including
establish housing subsidies for those
socially disadvantaged groups. Equity
unable to obtain affordable housing,
demands that poorer households
as well as forms and levels of housing
should not be disproportionately
finance which adequately reflect
burdened with health expenses as
housing needs. In accordance with
compared to richer households.”
the principle of affordability, tenants
should be protected by appropriate
means against unreasonable rent Water
levels or rent increases. In societies
where natural materials constitute the “Economic accessibility: Water, and
chief sources of building materials water facilities and services, must be
for housing, steps should be taken affordable for all. The direct and indirect
by States parties to ensure the costs and charges associated with
availability of such materials.” securing water must be affordable, and
must not compromise or threaten the
realization of other Covenant rights.”
Adequate food
“To ensure that water is affordable,
“Economic accessibility means that
States Parties must adopt the
food must be affordable. Individuals
necessary measures that may
should be able to afford food for an
include, inter alia: (a) use of a range of
adequate diet without compromising
appropriate low-cost techniques and
on any other basic needs, such as
technologies; (b) appropriate pricing
school fees, medicines or rent. For
policies such as free or low-cost water;
example, the affordability of food can
and (c) income supplements. Any
be guaranteed by ensuring that the
payment for water services has to
minimum wage or social security
be based on the principle of equity,
benefit is sufficient to meet the cost
ensuring that these services, whether
of nutritious food and other basic
privately or publicly provided, are
needs.” (Human Rights Council
affordable for all, including socially 276
Resolution 7/14. The right to food)
disadvantaged groups. Equity demands
that poorer households should not
be disproportionately burdened with
water expenses as compared to richer
households.”
69 Annex A:
A: Affordability
Affordabilitydefinitions
definitionsfor
fordifferent
differentbasic
basicneeds
needs
Mali, 2020
© UNICEF/UNI332257/Keïta
70 Annex B: Findings from six country case studies
Annex B: Findings from

six country case studies
B1. B1.1 (for WASH access as well as total

expenditures) in all six countries
Introduction
WASH coverage included in this report. This exercise
will also outline the availability of data
and expenditures This Annex presents a comprehensive
assessment of an exhaustive list
in each of these categories, and some
brief recommendations on future data
of affordability indicators, to better collection efforts.
understand how each performs and
what is their potential for national All data for access, equity and
and global monitoring of WASH expenditures are from publicly
affordability. In order to assess our available, household surveys,
affordability indicators, we have conducted at the national level, using a
applied them to six different countries, representative sample. These datasets
including Ghana, Mexico, Uganda, are the Cambodia Socio-Economic
Pakistan, Cambodia and Zambia. Survey 2015 (CSES); Pakistan’s
Household Integrated Economic
Survey / a Household Integrated
B1.2 Income and Consumption Survey
Data availability 2015-16 (HIES/HIICS); Zambia’s Living
Conditions Monitoring Survey 2015
Basic information on WASH access (LCMS); the Uganda National Panel
levels at the national level and relevant Survey 2015/2016 (UNPS); Mexico’s
stratifications, such as residency in ‘National Survey of Income and
rural or urban areas, are needed in Expenses of Homes’ 2016 (ENIGH);
order to assess quality of access and Ghana’s Living Standards Survey
and equity. While not essential in 6 – 2014 (GLSS6). All these surveys
every case for estimating affordability collected data on household access
indicators, these datasets are to water and sanitation but did not
valuable for setting the context collect data on access to handwashing
and interpreting the findings of facilities. In addition, these datasets
any exercise which includes the collected data on total household
estimation of an affordability indicator. expenditures and any on-going
In addition, estimating affordability expenditures for water, including
indicators based on the ratio of WASH monthly bills, maintenance expenses
expenditure over some measure of or consumables purchased. Although
household spending power requires information on savings and debt was
WASH expenditure data, and overall not collected (and therefore household
household expenditure data. The income was not estimated), they all
most common sources of these data had the data necessary for creating
come from national survey exercises deciles of total household expenditure,
that include WASH expenditure data, as well as categorizations of either
WASH access data as well as total ‘rural’ or ‘urban’ for all households,
household expenditure estimates. which were used to explore equity in
Therefore, we will explore access the context of affordability.
levels, equity of access, and the
availability of expenditure data
Cambodia, Uganda, Ghana and understood. These stratifications

Pakistan collected estimates on time included (i) the rural-urban divide; (ii)
expenditure for water collection, but deciles of total household expenditure
in different ways. Zambia collected (a proxy for household income levels);
distance between the house and the (iii) the types of WASH access and
primary water source, but in order (iv) the levels of WASH access (as
to use this in some of our indicators per JMP ladder). These stratifications
we would need the average walking were used individually and in
speed, which was not available for combination. Universal availability was
Zambia. In the Uganda survey, total an important criterion for selection
time for water collection over a 7-day of these stratifications; other
period per household member was stratifications that are more relevant
asked. Mexico collected information within certain countries might be
on the time spent collecting either useful in other contexts.
water or firewood: since this data
cannot be segregated by activity, it Figure B1 shows how households get
too is not useful for our purposes. their drinking water in urban and rural
As an example, we calculated the areas for Cambodia, Zambia, Uganda
monetary value of time expenditures and Pakistan. Access in Cambodia and
associated with collecting water for Zambia are shown across the levels
Ghana only; this allowed us to add included in the JMP ladder of water
time costs to monetary costs, as access; this was the most simple
required for indicators 2.2, 2.5, 3.2 characterization of access that we
and 3.5. used. Access in Uganda and Pakistan
was further broken-down; unimproved
B1.3 was disaggregated into surface water
and other unimproved, while basic
Water access access was broken down into bottle/
sachet, piped and other improved.
We chose four different stratifications Both sets of categorizations for
for this report, in order to include access are useful for setting the
equity as a core dimension along national context, and also showing
which affordability is tracked and inequities in access, without requiring
income proxies.
Figure B1.
Coverage of water services in rural and urban areas of Cambodia, Zambia, Uganda and Pakistan
100% 100% 100% 100%

90% 90% 90% 90%
80% 80% 80% 80%
70% 70% 70% 70%
60% 60% 60% 60%
50% 50% 50% 50%
40% 40% 40% 40%
30% 30% 30% 30%
20% 20% 20% 20%
10% 10% 10% 10%
0% 0% 0% 0%
URBANURBAN
RURAL RURAL
URBANURBAN
RURAL RURAL URBANURBAN
RURAL RURAL
URBANURBAN
RURAL RURAL
Cambodia
Cambodia ZambiaZambia UgandaUganda Pakistan
Pakistan
Unimproved
Unimproved
Limited Limited
Basic Basic Surface Surface
Unimproved
Unimproved
Limited Limited
Other Other Bottled/ Bottled/ Piped Piped

improvedimproved
sachet sachet
In Figure B2, basic water access levels expected, while the correlation is
for each decile of total household much less strong in Cambodia.
expenditure shows the relationship Whether inequities in access are
between spending power and access expressed by strata of spending
in Mexico, Cambodia, Zambia, power or across the rural-urban divide,
Pakistan, Uganda and Ghana. As can understanding affordability requires
be seen, the inequities increase with first understanding access levels and
lower per capita GDP for Mexico, inequities in access.
Zambia and Ghana, as would be
Figure B2.
Coverage of Basic WASH services in Ghana, Cambodia, Zambia, Pakistan, Uganda and Mexico.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
LOWEST 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HIGHEST
Mexico Ghana Cambodia Zambia Pakistan Uganda
Cambodia lowest and the highest deciles of total

expenditure was 16% (see Figure
In Cambodia there is a wide gap in B2); but the difference in coverage to
access between urban and rural areas. basic sanitation access between the
In 2015, the gap between rural and lowest and highest deciles of total
urban coverage for basic water access expenditure was 44%.
was 32%, and for basic sanitation it
was 40%. Limited water sources were Ghana
used by 11% of households in urban
areas, and by 28% of households in In 2013, coverage of basic water
rural areas; high proportions relative access was 84% on average across
to other countries. Shared sanitation all of Ghana. Coverage of basic water
facilities were far less common; only was 96% in urban areas, but it was
3% in urban areas and 5% in rural 28% lower in rural areas. Safely
areas (see Figure B1). Access to WASH managed water supply was available
was mediated by household income in less than 10% of rural households
levels (as proxied by total household in 2015, compared to 44% in urban
expenditure), but the effect was much areas. Nationally, basic sanitation
more pronounced for sanitation than coverage was very low, at 14%, with
for water. The difference in coverage not much difference in urban and
to basic water access between the rural areas, which were 16% and
11%, respectively. Water access was Pakistan accessing water from different sources
clearly moderated by income levels, did not vary considerably. While
as only 60% of households in the In 2015/2016, coverage of basic water time expenditures for piped water or
lowest decile of total expenditure was very similar in rural and urban bottled/sachet water were negligible,
had basic water access, while the areas; 86% in the former and 89% the average time expenditure for
same level of access was enjoyed in the latter. Basic sanitation access other sources did not vary much.
by 94% of households in the highest was much lower though; only 64% These other improved sources, and
decile. Sanitation access was also nationally. Likewise, roughly 90% of unimproved sources, required around
moderated by income, but it was the country spent 15 minutes or less 15 minutes total time collection per
relatively across all households: in the collecting their water, each trip. The day in urban areas and nearly double
lowest decile, only 9% had access to average time spent per day accessing that in rural areas, on average.
basic sanitation, while in the highest water from different sources varied
decile this was raised to only 24% of considerably; surface water and other Zambia
households. unimproved sources had a larger
time expenditure than piped sources In 2015, coverage of basic water was
Mexico or other types of basic access. 23% lower in rural than in urban areas
Surprisingly, richer households, on (see Figure 1). For households in rural
In 2016, coverage of basic water was average, spent more time waiting areas using a piped water source the
92% on average across all of Mexico. and collecting their water than did average distance was 2.4 kilometers;
Basic water access was 97% in the poorer households; 20% of the this was substantially more than
highest decile of total expenditure; households from the richest decile the distance to other sources. The
although still relatively high by global of total expenditure spent more than average distance traveled accessing
standards, this coverage was 15% 15 minutes waiting and collecting water varied considerably between
lower in the lowest decile (see Figure their water, while the same was true different sources in rural areas. The
B2). This shows that further work for only 6% of the households in the distance traveled in urban areas, for
is needed, but that basic services poorest decile. all types of sources was much less
are accessible for a large majority of than the distances in rural areas. For
households, in all wealth categories. Uganda basic sanitation the coverage in rural
Some tabulations could not be made areas was very low at 11%, although
for Mexico because there was no In 2015/2016, coverage of basic most households in rural areas had
binary rural/urban location identifier water was 31% lower in rural than in at least limited access. There is a
for each household; and also the time urban areas while for basic sanitation strong correlation between income
expenditure data available included the national coverage was very low (as proxied here by total household
both water collection and firewood at 19%. A small number of urban expenditure) and access (see Figure
collection, and not water collection dwellers (1%) were spending more B2), for both water and sanitation. For
specifically. than 30 minutes fetching water the lowest decile of total expenditure,
from an improved source, but this only 45% have access to basic water
proportion grows to 12% in rural sources, and only 5% have access
areas. The average time spent per day to basic sanitation, whereas for the
highest decile these figures are 86%
and 82% respectively.
B1.4 the world. Where these investments

are passed on to households in the
Linkages between reliability, form of increased prices and tariffs,
resilience and affordability, affordability will decrease. Thus,
affordability is not just linked to access
type and quality, but also linked to
Affordability is an important first reliability and resilience, and could be
step towards breaking down the impacted by climate shifts. Unpacking
determinants of access. Reliability these relationships is an important part
and resilience are also important of designing and assessing affordability
factors determining WASH access indicators.
over time. Here we use reliability to
mean consistency of supplies hour to B1.5
hour, day to day and week to week.
Reliability might shift seasonally but Household monetary
it is a baseline level of likelihood that expenditures on WASH
water will be there when needed.
Resilience is the ability to maintain
When water sources are categorized
the current reliability after a major
by level of service, there are clear
shock; for example, an earthquake,
differences in household cost between
a climate incident, a broken pump or
sources achieving a basic level of
an economic recession. Just like the
service versus limited or unimproved
minimum acceptable access level
service (Figure B3). In Ghana, a basic
must be defined in any affordability
service costs approximately US$ 23
indicator in order to ensure that such
(GHS 110) per person per year, while a
indicators do not encourage a back-
limited service is about one third the
sliding in access, the same danger
cost. Limited access points might cost
exists for maintaining the resilience
less either due to changes in quantity
and reliability of access as well.
or quality; the mix of sources included
For example, if the water utility in ‘limited access’ might be less
operator in Accra reduces volumetric expensive access types, such as public
tariffs for piped water access, this will wells; but it might also indicate that
increase affordability and might also households with more limited access
increase access. If the tariffs were are more likely to share their access
reduced through subsidy, then this points with multiple households, might
tariff reduction will not contribute to also be collecting a lesser quantity of
any change in reliability or resilience. water. Most likely, it is a combination
But if the loss in revenues lead directly of both factors that leads to lower
to insufficient funds for operations or average costs. Rural households in
maintenance, then this could lead to Uganda, Zambia and Ghana spent
decreased reliability and resilience. less than urban households, for all
In this scenario, an increase in levels of water access (see Figure B3).
affordability will have been due to a But in Cambodia, urban households
decrease in reliability and resilience, spend less, on average, than rural
perhaps an undesirable outcome. households, for all levels of access.
At the same time, resilience might
decrease over time, simply due to the
changing climate; in order to maintain
resilient supplies, in the face of climate
change, more investments will be
needed in many countries around
Figure B3.
Annual per capita expenditures on WASH O&M, in rural and urban areas of Ghana, Zambia and Uganda (converted to 2019
USD)
US$ 30 Basic Limited Unimproved
25
20
15
10
0
RURAL URBAN RURAL URBAN
Ghana Zambia
US$ 30 Rural Urban
25
20
15
10
0
PIPED BOTTLED/SACHET BASIC (except LIMITED UNIMPROVED SURFACE
piped/bottled/sachet)
Uganda
We calculated the average per capita per capita per year on WASH which is
expenditure on WASH for each of the over 10 times as much as the poorest
six countries included in this study. We two deciles. In Pakistan, not only is the
found a wide range of expenditures, average annual expenditure for piped
from US$0.55 to US$185. Ugandans water less that spent for unimproved
spent, on average, USH 29,180 sources, improved sources were
(US$7.88) per capita per year for roughly one third the annual
WASH O&M to pay for the WASH expenditures for unimproved sources.
expenses captured in the UNPS. Expenditures in rural and urban areas
Zambians spent, on average, ZMW 7.9 of Pakistan were not significantly
(US$0.55) per capita per year to pay different. Mexicans spent, on average,
for all WASH expenses captured in the MXN 3504 (US$185.04) per capita per
LCMS. In Ghana, households spend year for water expenses, as captured
an average of US$ 30 (140 GHS) per in the ENIGH.
capita per year on WASH services,
with the majority accounted for by
water supply. In Ghana, the richest
households spend US$ 65 (GHS 307)
Figure B4.
Annual per capita expenditure on water access in Cambodia and Pakistan.
US$
Cambodia
1,2
1,1
0,9
PIPED BOTTLED/SACHET OTHER IMPROVED UNIMPROVED SURFACE
& LIMITED
US$ Pakistan
20
15
10
5
0
PIPED BOTTLED/SACHET OTHER IMPROVED UNIMPROVED LIMITED SURFACE
The difference between countries all types of water access (see Figure
was much larger than the difference B4). The pattern of partial expenditures
between water access types. This for O&M across deciles of total
supports our hypothesis that looking expenditure, was the same across all
at expenditures alone, without countries: higher spending power was
accounting for spending power, is an correlated with higher expenditures on
inferior measure of affordability. While WASH, as was expected. The absolute
absolute values changed from country amounts, converted to US dollars,
to country, the pattern of expenditures varied greatly (see Figure B5). This
across different types of access was likely, in part, due to our use of
remained largely consistent, and in line exchange rates rather than estimates
with expectations: improved sources of purchasing power parity (PPP),
cost more. The one exception to this although had we used PPP rates, this
was Cambodia, which had roughly the would not have completely offset the
same levels of expenditures across differences between countries.
Figure B5.
Annual per capita expenditure on WASH access across deciles of total expenditure in Mexico, Ghana and Zambia.
US$ Mexico
400
200
0
US$ Ghana Zambia

60
40
20
0
B1.6 As mentioned above, there is water. Lastly, we have estimated the

a relationship between income annual time expenditure for collecting
Household time expenditures level (as proxied by deciles of total water in Ghana by incorporating data
on water collection household expenditure) and levels on the frequency of collection at the
of WASH access (see Figure B2). household level. This allowed us to
Likewise, there is a relationship then monetize the total annual time
between WASH expenditures and expenditure, by multiplying this amount
level of WASH access (see Figures by the Ghanaian minimum wage.
B3 and B4) and between WASH
expenditures and income level (see In urban areas of Zambia, piped water
Figure B5). Several factors contribute and bottled water took less time to
to these relationships: for one, poorer collect than other types of improved
households may access similar levels water access; likewise other types of
of water access to richer households, unimproved access took less time to
but purchase lower water quantities. collect as compared to surface water.
Likewise, lower income households, In rural areas of Zambia, higher time
looking to limit their expenditures on expenditure is correlated with use
WASH, might opt for lower access of improved sources: the higher the
levels, that cost less but also have service level (improved instead of
lower water quality, lower reliability, unimproved source), the more time
or lower resilience, as compared to it takes to collect water. In the case
higher income households. Along of rural Zambia, there seems to be a
these lines, poorer households may willingness to spend time in order to
opt for similar levels of access, or access higher quality water sources
lower levels of access, which cost less (see Figure B6). Whereas in Uganda,
but require a higher time expenditure, the time expenditure on improved
either because they are shared with appears to be similar to unimproved
other households (and require waiting) water sources (Figure B7).) Aside
or they are located at a distance from from these case studies, Nauges
the households (and require travel). and Whittington (2009) review the
There is an opportunity cost for time literature on how households choose
expenditure. We therefore looked among water sources. Most studies
at distance (for Zambia) and time support the idea that households are
expenditure (for Uganda, Pakistan willing to walk and to pay more for
and Ghana) per trip while collecting higher quality sources.
Figure B6.
Distance to primary water source in Zambia, in urban and rural areas.
Distance (km) Rural Urban
0
SURFACE UNIMPROVED LIMITED OTHER IMPROVED BOTTLED PIPED
WATER (9.5%) (not surface) (21.5%) (1.9%) (31.9%) (0.5%) (34.8%)
Figure B7.
Daily time expenditure for water collection in Uganda, across deciles of total household expenditure.
Lowest
Time Expenditure (minutes) Lowest
decile
2
90
3
80
4
70
5
60
6
50
7
40
8
30 9
20 Highest
Highest
decile
10
0
IMPROVED LIMITED UNIMPROVED SURFACE OVERALL
(<=30 MIN)
We broke down time expenditures Time per trip data in Pakistan was
across deciles of total expenditure collected as a categorical variable.
overall, as well as across both deciles We have retained this format and
of total expenditures and water calculated the prevalence of each of
access levels (see Figure B7)27. these categories across water access
Looking at Uganda overall, there types and deciles of total household
is a correlation between income expenditure (see Figure B8). Improved
levels and time expenditure; there water access has a lower time
was a general trend that higher total expenditure than unimproved sources;
household expenditures had lower within improved sources, bottled water
time expenditures in general, with the took the most time, while surface
exception of the highest decile. This water took more time than other
trend did not hold up for unimproved unimproved sources. Unexpectedly,
sources when the data was subset by higher average time expenditures were
access type; for unimproved sources, found in higher income households
while there was a difference in average (see Figure B8). Both of these patterns
time expenditure across access types, were markedly different than the
there was not a correlation between patterns observed in Zambia.
time expenditure and deciles of total
household expenditures for data
subset by access type. This implies
that, to a certain extent, income level
determines the type of access, and
the type of access is a determinant of
time expenditure (see Figure B7).
27
Only categories with >10 households (N>10) were
included
Figure B8.
Time spent per trip while fetching water, across major water service levels, and household residency, in Pakistan. The
proportion of the total population availing of each type of water access is included in the parentheses with the column label.
MINUTES 0 1-15 16-30 31-45 46-60 60+
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
PIPED BOTTLED/ OTHER IMPROVED LIMITED UNIMPROVED SURFACE WATER TOTAL
(21,4%) SACHED (0,6%) (<=30 min) (66,9%) (1,7%) (not surface) (7,4%) (1,9%) (100%)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Expenditure Decile
Figure B9 shows the average time access type, and not income, the
spent per trip accessing water from same result as was observed in
different sources in Ghana. The longest Uganda. This indicates that improved
daily collection times are from flowing sources are preferred, and people are
surface water sources such as rivers expressing that fact with their feet; it
or streams (average 80 minutes per also indicates that the level of access
day), followed by stagnant surface is an important part of determining
water sources and unprotected time expenditure, and therefore also
springs (average 50 minutes per impacts affordability through time
day). Most other community water costs as well as monetary costs.
sources require at least 20 minutes, Decreasing the time needed to
while piped water off the premises collect water from improved water
and rainwater on premises require sources has the potential to free
a little over 10 minutes (see Figure up a significant amount of labour,
B9). Interestingly, whether urban which could then be used for other
households spent more time or rural productive pursuits. Likewise, to
households spent more time varied the extent that time costs have an
between different sources, unlike opportunity cost, making improved
in Zambia. Figure B10 presents the sources more accessible will make
same data broken down across them more affordable.
income quintiles; as can be seen,
time expenditure for water collection
depends almost entirely on water
Figure B9.
Time expenditure per trip for water collection in Ghana, across different types of water access, in all areas, as well as rural
and urban areas.
Minutes per trip
100
80
60
40
20
0
PIPED, PUBLIC TAP/ BORE-HOLE/ PROTECTED RAIN PROTECTED UNPROTECTED UNPROTECTED RIVER/ DUGOUT/
NOT ON STANDPIPE PUMP/ WELL WATER SPRING WELL SPRING STREAM POND/ LAKE/
PREMISES TUBE WELL DAM/ CANAL
National Rural Urban
Figure B10.
Average annual time expenditure for water collection per household in Ghana, across different types of water access, and
across quintiles of total household expenditure.
Minutes
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1st DECILE 2nd DECILE 3rd DECILE 4th DECILE 5th DECILE
Piped Other improved Unimproved Surface Limited
In Figure B10, we estimated the Time expenditure is clearly a significant

average time spent collecting water cost, and the trade-off between time
per year, valued at the Ghanaian expenditure and monetary expenditure
minimum wage rate, and converted does seem to shift based on the
to US$ in Figure B11. Figure B12 type of water access. Therefore, any
shows the ratio of reported monetary affordability indicator which does
expenditure over the value of the not incorporate time expenditures,
reported time expenditure when at least in the case of Ghana, would
using minimum wage as the value be missing a significant dimension
of time. Using these time valuations, of access cost. The importance of
only piped water has an average time costs will be picked up in the
monetary expenditure significantly affordability indicators covered in the
above the value of time expenditure. next section, below.
Figure B11.
Monetized time expenditure for water collection in Ghana, across different types of water access, in all areas, as well as rural
and urban areas.
US$
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PIPED PUBLIC TAP BORE-HOLE/ PROTECTED RAIN PROTECTED UNPROTECTED UNPROTECTED RIVER/ DUGOUT/
TUBE WELL WELL WATER SPRING WELL SPRING STREAM POND/ LAKE/
National Rural Urban
Figure B12.
Ratio of average annual monetary expenditures to average annual value of time to fetch water from different water sources
in Ghana (100% indicates the two values are equal; over 100% means monetary expenditure is higher than the value of the
time expenditure).
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
PIPE-BORNE, PUBLIC TAP/ BORE-HOLE/ PROTECTED RAIN PROTECTED UNPROTECTED UNPROTECTED RIVER/ DUGOUT/
OUTSIDE STAND POST PUMP/ WELL WATER SPRING WELL SPRING STREAM POND/ LAKE/
TUBE WELL
Rural Urban
B2. B2.1 households that pay less than 1% of

total expenditures was 16% in Uganda
Partial WASH operational
WASH expenditure as expenditure as a proportion of
and 48% in Ghana and higher than
that in all other countries. Only 2% of
a proportion of total total expenditure households in Cambodia paid more
than 5% of their total expenditures
expenditure Estimating affordability by calculating
on WASH O&M; this goes up to 5%
of households in Mexico and Zambia,
Indicator 2.1C is useful for instances 12% in Pakistan, 19% in Ghana and
when affordability targets might be 22% in Uganda (see Figure B13).
Different indicator options are outlined set to a specific level of spending, Ugandan households spent, on
in section 3.2.1. Due to availability of for instance 5% of household average 2.4% of total household
data, selected options were tested expenditures. Indicator 2.1C is shown expenditures on WASH O&M; in
in Figure B13 for the entire population Zambia this was 2.1%; in Ghana 3.0%;
of Mexico, Cambodia, Ghana, in Pakistan 4.1%; and in Mexico 1.5%.
Zambia, Uganda and Pakistan. There In Ghana the average was 1.7% for
is a large range in the percentage of rural areas and 5.5% for urban areas.
households which reported paying no
money for O&M WASH expenses:
72% in Pakistan, 59% in Zambia to
30% in Mexico. The proportion of
Figure B13.
Distribution of partial WASH expenditure share as percent of total expenditure across major cut-offs, for Mexico, Cambodia,
Ghana, Zambia, Uganda and Pakistan (Indicator 2.1C)
Frequency
80
0
60
>0% to 1%
>1% to 3%
40
>3% to 5%
>5% to 7%
20
>7% to 10%
0 >10%
MEXICO CAMBODIA GHANA ZAMBIA UGANDA PAKISTAN
In the case of Uganda, urban income for limited access and bottle
households seem to pay more on or sachet water (see Figure B15). In
average, for improved sources, than Figure B14 we see that Indicator 2.1C
did rural households, and less than was higher in urban areas than in rural
rural households for unimproved areas for both Ghana and Cambodia.
sources (see Figure B3). Incorporating We can also see a general tread of
spending power, through the ratio lower affordability (higher rates for
proposed in Indicator 2.1C, resulted in Indicator 2.1C) in higher levels of
an entirely different pattern. Estimating access; the one exception to this was
Indicator 2.1C across water access basic access in rural Cambodia (see
types, in rural and urban households in Figure B15).
Uganda, we see that urban households
pay slightly higher proportions of their
Figure B14.
Partial WASH expenditure as a share of total household expenditure in rural and urban areas across different types of water
access in Uganda (Indicator 2.1C)
Share of total expenditure, % Rural Urban
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
PIPED BOTTLED/SACHET IMPROVED LIMITED UNIMPROVED SURFACE
(<30=mins)
Figure B15.
Partial WASH expenditure as a share of total household expenditure in rural and urban areas across different types of water
access in Ghana and Cambodia (Indicator 2.1C)
Share of total expenditure, % Basic Limited Unimproved
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
Ghana Cambodia
Figure B16 shows Indicator 2.1C, Ghana and Pakistan, the proportion
across deciles of total household of total expenditures did not seem
expenditure for all six countries – to be correlated with income levels.
including all households. In addition, A different pattern emerged for
we have calculated Indicator 2.2C for Ghana for Indicator 2.2C: including
Ghana, using household level data time expenditures resulted in a clear
on water collection trips per day and correlation between income level and
a time valuation equal to the daily affordability (see Figure B16).
minimum wage in Ghana. Mexico,
Zambia and Uganda appear to have
a trend: higher income households
seem to spend a lower percentage of
expenditures on WASH. In Cambodia,
Figure B16.
Comparison of actual O&M costs for Mexico, Cambodia, Ghana, Zambia, Uganda and Pakistan (Indicator 2.1C) and actual
O&M + time expenditure for Ghana (Indicator 2.2C), across deciles of total expenditure
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
Mexico Ghana Pakistan Cambodia

2.1C (Actual O&M) 2.2C (2.1C+ time costs) 2.1C (Actual O&M) 2.1C (Actual O&M)
Zambia Ghana Uganda

2.1C (Actual O&M) 2.1C (Actual O&M) 2.1C (Actual O&M)
As mentioned in the previous time costs are significant; in Figure

chapter, including time expenditures B12 we see that they are possibly
in the numerator, without including more significant than monetary costs.
a time budget for hours available Simply not including them may lead
for housework in the denominator, to an invalid picture of affordability,
may lead to inaccurate affordability depending on the context. Figure
estimates. In general, this will inflate B17 shows the variation in access
indicator estimates, but it will likely time costs between different water
bias this inflation towards lower sources, both in Ghanaian Cedis and
income households, since they as a percent of the minimum wage
generally have higher time budgets rate. Across all water sources, the
for housework. Given that data is average time spent accessing water
not available on time budgets, the is 27% of the minimum wage. This
decision to include time expenditures, percent value can theoretically be
and introduce any associated bias, converted to number of days of work
has to be weighed against not by multiplying the percent of minimum
including time expenditures at all, wage (27% average) by the number of
and whether indicators without time working days per month. If the latter
expenditures are sufficiently valid. This is 22 days per month, the time spent
is a difficult decision; in the case of accessing water average 6 days per
Ghana, including time expenditures month.
changed the relationship between of
affordability indicator estimates and
income levels, but it did so in line with
expected bias, making it impossible to
disentangle the two with the available
dataset. Having said that, Figures B9-
B12 make show ample evidence that
Figure B17.
Annual monetized value of the time to fetch water, in GHC and as percent of minimum wage
Ghanaian Cedis Percent of minimum wage
350 70
300 60
250 50
200 40
150 30
100 20
50 10
0 0
PIPE-BORNE PUBLIC TAP/ BORE-HOLE/ PROTECTED RAIN PROTECTED UNPROTECTED UNPROTECTED RIVER/ DUGOUT/
OUTSI STAND PUMP/ WELL WATER SPRING WELL SPRING STREAM POND/ LAKE/
TUBE WELL
Annual monetized value of the time to get water (GHC) (left axis)
Annual monetized value of the time to get water as a proportion of minimalmonthly wage (right axis)
B2.2
Required expenditure on WASH
as a proportion of total household
expenditure
Affordability indicators 2.1-2.5 These are rough approximations
incorporate data collected directly made at the national level, and do
from households, which is a not incorporate the variation in cost
reasonably good method for gathering that would naturally happen across
accurate data, despite some cost the variety of local contexts which
category omissions. Unfortunately, exist at the sub-national level. We
household costs sometimes refer acknowledge that some households
to unimproved water sources and will require higher (or lower)
unimproved sanitation access. This investment than others to reach water
makes sense because lower levels sources, or to build basic access to
of access are often more affordable sanitation. Like with time costs, this
as well. Therefore, in order to design presents another situation where an
an affordability indicator that does indicator might be more valid but less
not implicitly encourage lower levels accurate; having one estimate for
of access, we adopted the JMP’s the most typical required costs does
definition of basic access, and sourced not have the same level of accuracy
data on typical operational and capital than reported actual costs, but it
costs to meet basic WASH service does ensure that affordability is not
levels, for rural and urban areas. These increased at the expense of basic
cost estimates were validated by local access, an important component of
experts. Costs are presented in Table indicator validity.
B2 below. These estimates were used
to calculate Indicators 3.1C, 3.2C,
3.3C, 3.4C and 3.5C.
Table B2.
Unit costs per capita for O&M and capital costs (US$, 2018 prices)
COUNTRY REQUIRED COSTS PER SERVICE LEVEL ANNUAL PER CAPITA COSTS LUMP SUM CAPITAL PER CAPITA

O&M CAPITAL O&M CAPITAL
Pakistan Water Basic 1.2 3.8 2.6 8.4 1724.1 1051.8

Safely managed 12.4 21.6 16.5 19.2 1235.8 1017.0
Sanitation Basic 7.6 7.1 6.4 5.0 313.3 327.6
Safely managed 10.0 9.8 9.8 7.8 828.3 615.2
Hygiene Basic 1.9 0.3 1.9 1.5 10.0 25.5
Uganda Water Basic 1.0 10.4 8.0 6.3 91.7 100.1

Safely managed - - - - - -
Safely managed 0.9 36.4 34.4 40.8 245.4 291.6
Hygiene Basic 0.5 2.1 0.5 4.2 0.3 7.7
Mexico Water Basic 2.2 5.8 7.4 26.1 826.1 1865.4

Safely managed 3.8 4.0 22.2 4.0 125.0 125.0
Safely managed 6.0 29.3 15.2 29.7 1350.0 1370.3
Hygiene Basic 7.0 0.8 3.8 5.2 20.0 40.0
Cambodia Water Basic 1.2 3.0 0.9 3.1 228.3 678.4

Safely managed 7.4 4.9 9.8 16.2 177.8 660.0
Safely managed 4.3 5.8 19.5 16.1 256.9 958.5
Hygiene Basic 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.3 1.4 1.9
Zambia Water Basic 0.7 2.6 0.7 2.7 23.6 22.1

Safely managed 51.1 40.3 57.5 58.6 501.9 730.1
Safely managed 7.9 6.6 26.9 7.9 82.6 97.9
Hygiene Basic 3.0 0.5 3.3 0.3 3.7 4.2
Ghana Water Basic 1.0 1.6 107.1 3.5 19.2 60.0

Hygiene Basic 5.0 0.5 5.2 1.9 0.5 14.7
Indicator 2.1C does not take into such a result needs further validation,
account the quality of access. this simple comparison is nonetheless
Therefore, setting affordability a potential first step towards assessing
targets using Indicator 2.1C alone affordability while protecting competing
carries the risk of encouraging lower policy goals. Figure B18 provides
(and cheaper) access types, and a comparison of the distribution of
thereby creating a trade-off between Indicator 2.1 and 3.1 across Mexico,
affordability and other policy goals Cambodia, Ghana, Zambia, Uganda
such as safety (through better water and Pakistan. We can see clearly that
quality), accessibility (with lower time basic access is completely unaffordable
requirements), reliability or resilience. for the vast majority of households
One way to balance this trade-off is to in Zambia and Pakistan, while there
compare Indicator 2.1C with 3.1C: for are significant minorities that can
households that have a higher score for afford basic access in Cambodia and
the former, as compared to the latter, Uganda and a majority that can afford
we may assume that basic access is it in Mexico. While this comparison
likely to have been achieved. This also was done looking at the distribution
indicates that any household which of results for Indicators 2.1 and 3.1, it
reports zero partial WASH expenditures can also be performed at the individual
Source: (0% for Indicator 2.1C) is at risk of household level as well.
estimates from Hutton and Varughese (2016), adjusted
and validated by selected in-country stakeholders accessing less than basic access. While
Figure B18.
Distribution of partial WASH expenditure share, and required WASH expenditure share on O&M for basic WASH service
across major cut-offs, for Mexico, Cambodia, Zambia, Uganda and Pakistan (Indicator 2.1C and 3.1C)
Frequency Frequency Frequency Required Actual
100 100 100
80 80 80
60 60 60
40 40 40
20 20 20
0 0 0
0
>0% to 1%
>1% to 3%
>3% to 5%
>5% to 7%
>7% to 10%
>10%
>0% to 1%
>1% to 3%
>3% to 5%
>5% to 7%
>7% to 10%
>10%
>0% to 1%
>1% to 3%
>3% to 5%
>5% to 7%
>7% to 10%
>10%
Mexico Cambodia Zambia
Frequency Frequency Frequency
100 100 100
80 80 80
60 60 60
40 40 40
20 20 20
0 0 0
0
>0% to 1%
>1% to 3%
>3% to 5%
>5% to 7%
>7% to 10%
>10%
>0% to 1%
>1% to 3%
>3% to 5%
>5% to 7%
>7% to 10%
>10%
>0% to 1%
>1% to 3%
>3% to 5%
>5% to 7%
>7% to 10%
>10%
Uganda Pakistan Ghana
Figure B19 shows the results of both time and required expenditures
Indicator 3.1C for Mexico, Cambodia, are taken into account, there emerged
Ghana, Zambia, Uganda and Pakistan. a clear and pronounced negative
Looking at our estimates for Indicator relationship between income level and
3.1C, a more pronounced relationship affordability.
between household income levels and
affordability emerged, as compared to
Indicator 2.1C. In addition, the protocol
for calculating 3.1C accounts for the
trade-off between quality of access
and affordability. We have further
calculated Indicator 3.2C for Ghana
(see Figure B19), showing that when
Figure B19.
Comparison of required O&M costs for Mexico, Cambodia, Ghana, Zambia, Uganda and Pakistan (Indicator 3.1C) and
required O&M + time expenditure for Ghana (Indicator 3.2C), across deciles of total expenditure
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Mexico Ghana Cambodia Zambia

3.1C (requried O&M) 3.2C (3.1C+ time costs) 3.1C (Requried O&M) 3.1C (Requried O&M)
Pakistan Uganda Ghana

3.1C (Requried O&M) 3.1C (Requried O&M) 3.1C (Requried O&M)
For Indicators 3.1C and 3.2C, while Figure B20 shows the results of
they do incorporate time expenditures, Indicator 3.4C for Mexico, Cambodia,
and also incorporate policy goals Ghana, Zambia, Uganda and Pakistan
regarding the quality of access, they do (Zambia and Uganda are shown
not include capital costs. Capital costs separately to allow for the use of an
are particularly tricky, since they were appropriate scale). Incorporating capital
not included in the national datasets of expenditures using an annualized
household-level information. Therefore, amortization formula (as described
it was not possible to calculate in the previous section) resulted in a
Indicators 2.3C, 2.4C or 2.5C. But we similar pattern as was observed for
were able to make single estimates at Indicator 3.1C, for Mexico, Cambodia,
the national level for both O&M and Zambia, Uganda and Zambia, although
capital expenses, using interviews at a sometimes significantly higher level
with in-country experts and secondary for all income levels. The difference
data sources. It should be reiterated at between Indicator 3.1C and Indicator
this point that we used these single, 3.4C was sometimes a factor of 1.8-
national estimates to replace the O&M 3.2 time larger for the lowest decile,
cost data at the household level, for and between 0.25 and 1.25 for the
only those households that reported highest decile in Mexico, Cambodia
having less than basic access when and Pakistan. Similarly, there was an
calculating Indicators 3.1C and 3.2C. increase by a factor of 11.7 and 117
Therefore, those indicators retained in the lowest decile and 3.7 and 8.6
some national sample data in the in the highest decile for Uganda and
numerator of the WASH expenditure Zambia respectively. But the negative,
to spending power ratio. This was not linear relationship between income
the case for Indicators 3.3C, 3.4C and level and affordability was retained in all
3.5C; in these indicators the capital five countries, as might be expected.
contribution amount was the same Ghana, on the other hand, did not have
for all households. This is clearly not a linear relationship between income
meant to represent reality, but to levels and affordability indicator 3.1C;
give a rough approximate estimation but with Indicator 3.4C, a more clearly
of the affordability of basic access, linear relationship between income
as opposed to the affordability of levels and affordability emerged (see
current access. Figure B20).
Figure B20.
Comparison of annualized total required O&M costs for Mexico, Cambodia, Ghana, Uganda, Zambia and Pakistan (Indicator
3.4C), across deciles of total expenditure
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
LOWEST
HIGHEST
DECILE DECILE
Mexico Cambodia Ghana Pakistan
500%
450%
400%
350%
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
LOWEST
HIGHEST
DECILE DECILE
Uganda Zambia
Figure B21.
Comparison of WASH costs as percent of total expenditure under different indicators in Ghana, across deciles of total
household expenditure
Share of total expenditure, %

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
LOWEST HIGHEST
BOTTOM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOP 10 OVERALL
DECILE DECILE
2.1C 2.2C 3.1C 3.2C 3.4C

(Actual O&M) (Actual O&M + time cost) (Required O&M) (3.1C + time costs) (Required Total Annualized)
Figure B21 shows a summary of time costs (at minimum wage rate)
different indicators by income decile are considered the same as cash
and overall, for Ghana. The indicator spending. Although some households
using only actual partial costs for may not have a choice, these results
O&M (2.1) shows little variation indicate that many households choose
across total expenditure deciles, WASH access options that have
indicating lower WASH costs for lower monetary costs but higher
poorer households. This is likely time costs. For example, even if a
because poorer households have lower household has a closer water source
levels of WASH access; comparing that costs money, they may choose
indicator 2.1 with other indicators to use their spare time to collect
that incorporate either time costs or water from a more distant source
access level show this to be the case. instead of spending cash on the more
The real costs of accessing WASH convenient water service. Figure
services, which include time costs, B22 shows the same indicators
vastly exceed the current partial actual as in Figure B21, but includes the
financial costs paid by households, distributions of households over the
with greater impact the lower the range, in logarithmic values. We see
household income. When time costs a log-normal distribution, which is
are taken into account (Indicator 2.2C), what we might expect from a
poorer households end up spending representative sample.
a higher proportion of their income
on WASH access. This contains the
important assumption that the valued
Figure B22.
Distribution of households with basic WASH service level in Ghana, across the spectrum of WASH costs in relation to total
expenditure, by indicator, log values
Share of total expenditure, %

(log scale)
400
55
0.1
0.02
OPTION OPTION OPTION OPTION OPTION OPTION

2.1C 2.2C 3.1C 3.2C 3.3C 3.4C
For all the indicators estimated in B2.3 expenditure, types of access or levels
this chapter, a few additional caveats of access. The first two categories
must be kept in mind. First, not all Recommendations for allowed us to explore affordability
data are recent: the Ghana data was future analyses and data through the lens of equity; the second
collected in 2012, which means that two categories allowed us to explore
it may already be obsolete. And none
collection efforts potential trade-offs between quality
of the datasets were less than four of access (in terms of access and
years old. Higher frequencies of data Current datasets from Ghana have water quality/safety) and affordability.
collection will help make affordability allowed us to calculate Indicators Additional data have the potential to
indicators more relevant to policy- 2.1C, 2.2C and 3.1C-3.5C. Data for allow the interrogation of the trade-offs
makers, although that is true for all Cambodia, Uganda and Pakistan between affordability and reliability,
policy-relevant data collection efforts. also had data on time expenditures resilience or intra-household equity.
Likewise, the data presented here has associated with water collection, but We recommend that such analyses
been standardized to a certain extent, in contrast to Ghana, they did not be explored in the future, and if
using definitions of access adopted have data on the number of trips per possible, some of the questions listed
from the JMP’s water and sanitation day made to collect water. Adding in Table B4, or other similar types of
access ladders, for example. It is a question to future data collection information, be integrated into future
likely that there is some variation on efforts regarding the number of trips data collection efforts.
the ground in how different types of per day would increase the accuracy of
WASH access are defined; this may time expenditure estimates and allow As mentioned earlier, ratios of
have contributed to any differences the estimation of Indicators 2.2C and expenditures over a measure of
between countries, but it can also 3.2C. Zambia currently collects data spending power is only one category,
be present within intra-country on distance; converting this question out of four categories identified, of
analyses as well, to the extent that to a time expenditure instead would affordability indicators. Other types of
definitions have not been harmonized likely accomplish similar policy goals data are necessary in order to explore
at a national level. Lastly, while we regarding access, and also allow time the other categories. For example, a
have presented a comprehensive expenditure estimation. For similar static assessment of demand, one
assessment at the national level, reasons, we would recommend that of the affordability indicators in the
mostly focused on water, a more Mexico separates data on time spent category of revealed demand, requires
focused analysis may be desired, on firewood collection and water data on the sufficiency of water
looking at affordability at the level collection. In addition, in order to quantity (see Table 5). In addition,
of a single urban conglomeration, estimate Indicators 2.3C-2.5C, adding comprehensive poverty assessments,
or looking more at sanitation, for data collection on capital expenditure the fourth category of affordability
example. In sub-national analyses, would allow more accurate affordability require the kinds of data listed in Table
and in an analysis of sanitation costs, assessments regarding the full range B5, such as poor/non-poor status, or
we suspect, there may emerge of WASH cost categories. A list of data regular payments of water charges.
more instances were lower levels needed for the estimation of Indicators
of access cost more than higher 2.1C-2.5C and 3.1C-3.5C is presented
levels of access: such cases would in Table B3, along with an accounting
indicate a need for a re-assessment of of which ones are present in the data
current subsidy distribution, and any sets used in this report.
associated policies.
In this report we used four sets of
categories through which we analyzed
Indicators 2.1C-2.5C and 3.1C-3.5C:
these were residence in rural or urban
areas, deciles of total household
Table B3:
Data available (Y) or not available (N) from country surveys to estimate indicators 2.1C-2.5C/3.1C-3.5C and to provide
population disaggregation
TYPES OF TOILETS GHANA UGANDA CAMBODIA MEXICO PAKISTAN ZAMBIA
Water partial O&M expenditure Y Y Y Y Y Y

Sanitation partial O&M expenditure Y N Y N N Y/N
Hygiene partial O&M expenditure Y N N N N N
Water capital expenditure N N N N N N
Sanitation capital expenditure N N N N N N
Hygiene capital expenditure N N N N N N
Total household expenditure Y Y Y Y Y Y
Rural/urban status Y Y Y Y Y Y
Water access level Y Y Y Y Y Y
Sanitation access level Y Y Y Y Y Y
Hygiene access level Y Y Y Y Y N
Time spent to wait for & collect water Y Y Y N Y <Distance>
Number of trips per day to collect water Y N N N N N
Time spent per day/month on urination, N N N N N N
defecation & menstruation
Household time budgets for housework & leisure N N N N N N
Table B4:
Additional categories that can be applied to Indicators 2.1C-2.5C and 3.1C-3.5C, and whether included in survey (Y) or not (N)
GHANA UGANDA CAMBODIA MEXICO PAKISTAN ZAMBIA
Intra-Household Inequality
Gender and age group of water collectors Y Y Y N N N
Reliability and Resilience of Access
Last time the water facility broke down, how long Y N N N N N
did it take to have it fixed and working again?
When was the last time the water facility Y N N N N N
broke down?
Frequency of deliveries/availability Y N N Y Y N
How has the availability of safe water for N Y N N N N
household consumption changed in your
community since 2008?
Seasonal water access N N Y N N N
Seasonal time to collect water N N Y N N N
Table B5:
Additional data which would be useful for the calculation of other affordability indicators, and whether included in survey
(Y) or not (N)
GHANA UGANDA CAMBODIA MEXICO PAKISTAN ZAMBIA
Static Assessment of Demand (Consumption Level)

Deficiency of water quantity Y N N N N N
Comprehensive Poverty Assessments
Regular payment of water charges Y N N N N N
Poor/non-poor status Y Y Y Y Y Y
Distribution of communities by major reason for N Y N N N N
incomplete toilet coverage (%)
What are the main constraints that your household N Y N N N N
faces in accessing safe water sources?
B3. B3.1 responses to WASH prices might

be considered a more valid way of
The advantages of
Household demand assessment
examining affordability indicators, as
compared to the WASH expenditure
behaviours, WASH indicators covered in Annex B2.
One of the potentially most powerful
prices, consumption indications of affordability is to assess
In the following sections we will cover
methods that assess demand and
the relationship between household
and choice demand, prices and price changes. As
preferences through either cross-
sectional data sets or panel data.
consumers, especially poorer ones,
Cross-sectional data allows some
choose their consumption level of a
assessment of affordability across
good or product based on the price,
households for a single point in time,
price increases can lead households
a static assessment, or snapshot of
to cut back on their consumption
household behavior. Panel data allows
of water. Arguably, the effect of a
for the estimation of demand models,
change in water price on demand is
price elasticities or willingness to pay.
less than it would be for many less
Furthermore, demand models can use
essential goods. In the context of
two broad categories of data: revealed
encouraging more efficient use of
preferences and stated preferences. In
scarce resources, or for the goal of
the next few sections we will first look
conserving water in local ecosystems,
at cross sectional analyses, and then
this can be a good thing. But only up
move on to preference modeling.
to a point: the price of water can also
be considered a barrier to access for
poorer households, for example. If B3.2
high prices, or price rises, lead poorer Static assessments -
households to refrain from demanding
a sufficient quantity of water that consumption level
is required to maintain health and
livelihoods, it could be concluded that One approach to measurement
the minimum standard has become is to examine a one-point-in-time
unaffordable to these households. snapshot of a sample of households
Likewise, if it is higher prices which and assess their apparent choices in
specifically cause households to the face of different service options
choose riskier water sources, or with different prices. It is the process
sources with known water quality of incorporating consumer choice
problems, then it can be said that that allows integration of all three
water from the preferred source is dimensions of affordability. Yet, the
unaffordable for those households. word ‘apparent’ here indicates that we
can surmise, but without triangulation
The advantage of affordability with other data sources; we cannot
indicators that take into account say with any certainty. Therefore,
household demand, household these types of indicators might be
perceptions, price elasticities, demand considered more valid indicators, but
management policies or willingness with lower certainty.
to pay (WTP) studies, is that such an
assessment potentially covers all three Static assessments of consumption
dimensions of affordability outlined levels require information on the
in chapter 2. Household behaviour existing WASH service levels per
in relation to changes in the cost of household, and the opportunities
WASH access is a response that available for accessing higher
integrates WASH prices, household service levels. Broadly speaking, two
income and the cost of other basic questions in relation to affordability can
needs, through income, substitution be analysed:
and complement effects on demand.
Hence, assessing household
1. To what extent are households capital costs in Annex B2.2) or the on-
consuming less than they should, going costs (such as the operations
or choosing to use WASH types and maintenance costs or the
that do not meet minimum monthly bill).
service levels?
Although the definition of basic water
2. To what extent are prices likely access does not specify minimum
responsible? quantities of water needed to maintain
health, livelihoods and well-being,
In terms of the first question, it is water quantity can still be used
necessary to first define a minimum in conjunction with basic access
service level for WASH access, then categories to create an affordability
examine those who do not have that indicator. If consumption levels are
minimum service level and try to known, then an indicator can be built
understand why that is so, specifically looking at the proportion of households
looking at whether prices and costs using less than 70 litres per capita per
are a significant barrier. Defining a day (the minimum standard quantity of
minimum service level for WASH can water designated by the WHO) across
include dimensions of water quality, access types and income deciles.
safety, water quantity, reliability, Alternatively, deficiencies in quantity
cleanliness and convenience; it may can be evaluated by the households
also include some assessment of themselves; Figure B23 shows how
resilience and sustainability of access, households in Ghana responded to a
and for sanitation it may also include question on whether they experience
aspects of dignity as well. For the regular deficiency of water quantity
purposes of this study, the WHO/ for different sources. Overall, the
UNICEF JMP’s ‘basic’ service level greatest deficiency is for water tanker
is used due to it being relatively or vendor-supplied water, followed
more feasible than other alternatives; by unimproved supply. However, the
data is widely available regarding deficiency appears to be similar for
coverage of basic access, allowing the bottom 6 or 7 deciles, while the
comparison across countries. The deficiency reduces for the higher
definition of basic access for both income households, on average. This
water and sanitation access types, implies that piped supplies might be
is a rough proxy for safety, reliability more affordable than the other water
and convenience. It does not explicitly access types and tanker or vendor
include, however, water quantity, water unaffordable; it could also mean
resilience or sustainability of access, that there are other restrictions, such
nor measures of dignity. as infrequent or insufficient deliveries.
As can be seen by this example, static
When tabulating service coverage assessments of affordability based on
by income decile, there was a clear household behaviours can be useful
relationship between income level for identifying the access types that
and basic water access in Mexico, are most or least affordable; it can
Zambia and Ghana, and a less also be used to assess whether this
obvious relationship, if any at all, in indicator varies for lower income
Cambodia. There are many reasons households. But it does not allow
why households might not have basic for setting of maximum thresholds
WASH access: socio-cultural reasons; of affordability, as a percentage of
a lack of norms regarding WASH income, for example.
access; lack of WASH programmes
or government support; and a lack of
affordable options. Challenges with
regards to affordability might be due
to household income constraints,
the upfront infrastructure costs by
themselves (refer to the lumpsum
Figure B23.
Deficiency of water quantity across different water supply categories, by income decile
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
BOTTOM -1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOP -10
Piped supply (any) Other improved supply Tanker or vendor Unimproved supply
Source:
GLSS6 B3.3 Of the six countries included in this
report, only the Uganda data collected
Static assessments – information on the constraints to
household preferences access. For water access, households
were asked, ‘what are the main
and perceptions constraints that your household faces
in accessing safe water sources?’,
Like a static assessment of with answer options including ‘long
consumption, it is also possible to distance’, ‘inadequate sources’, ‘high
conduct a simple, static assessment costs’, ‘insecurity’, ‘no problem’
of prices. But in this case, the only and ‘other’. For the proportion of
option is to ask households directly households that reported ‘high
about their perceptions of WASH costs’ as the main reason, this may
affordability. Such questions examine be a good indicator of affordability.
why households do not use minimum Regarding sanitation access,
service levels (whether temporary community leaders were asked for
or regularly), and whether a higher the major reason for incomplete toilet
price is one factor that disincentivizes coverage in their community: 24.5%
consumption. It can also be informative stated ‘low income’ as the main
to directly ask households questions reason, indicating a lack of affordability
about affordability and enables in those communities. Other major
exploration of why a household cannot reasons included ‘ignorance’ (23.8%),
afford a service. Asking households ‘negative attitude’ (towards sanitation)
whether they feel the price they pay is (21.7%), ‘poor soil type’ (8.4%), ‘no
affordable for them potentially covers land’ (5.2%) and ‘poor landscape/
all three dimensions of affordability terrain’(4.1%). This does not mean that
– as household opinions expressed affordability was not a challenge in
in interviews will take into account these other locations, just that it was
WASH prices, their income level and not the most prominent challenge.
the costs of other essential needs.
However, household responses are
highly subjective, and bias can be
introduced by the expectations and
mood of the respondent, and the way
questions are asked.
in Ghana. SWN analysed impacts of

B3.4 water price changes on connection
Dynamic assessments – revealed rates and water consumption, with a
preferences and willingness to view to increasing cost recovery rates
to make water stations more financially
pay estimation viable (Worsham et al., 2018). The price
increase applied in the SWN coverage
Dynamic assessments use areas depended on the technology.
observations of how consumers For example, a limited mechanization
react to price changes. This requires system, which accounted for 26 out
information before and after a price of the 35 stations, increased prices
change, hence requiring time series from US$ 0.015 to US$ 0.026 per 20
data on the same households or litres. The study found that average
service areas. Such observations monthly sales volumes decreased
can be used to estimate the price by 12% in the 15 months after the
elasticity of demand (PED), a measure price increase, compared with the 15
used by economists to show how months preceding the price increase
consumers adjust their demand for a (see Figure B24). The study reports
29
More precisely, the PED gives the percentage good or service when faced with price that low socio-economic status (SES)
change in quantity demanded in response to a one changes.29 There are many instances households were most affected by
percent change in price. PED refers to the change in the price increase, with an average
demand resulting from changes in their own price
in the research literature which use
(called ‘own-price elasticity of demand’); there is also actual consumption data in a revealed decrease in sales of 26%. The
the cross-price elasticity of demand, which in the case preferences approach. Meta-analyses average consumption of 53 litres per
of water is the elasticity of demand for a given water
source with respect to the change in the price of water have compiled dozens of demand household per day before the price
from another water source. It can be used to assess studies in industrialized countries that increase dropped to 45 litres after the
substitution between two water sources and the
factors that explain it. use actual consumption (billing) data, increase. These prices compare with
first by Dalhuisen et al (2003) and later the current user cost of public utilities
30
Based on 2.98 GHS per cubic metre, converted to by Sebri (2014). of US$ 0.0123 per 20 litres30; hence
US$ at exchange rate of 4.7.
the revised SWN prices are higher, but
Figure Source:
One illustrative analysis is conducted arguably provide a better quality and
Safe Water Network (2018) by the Safe Water Network (SWN), continuity of service for rural dwellers.
Figure B24.
Average monthly volumes per water station, comparing those with and without price increase
Litres (L) Before Price Increase AfterPrice Increase
360,000
350,000
340,000
12%
Decrease
330,000
320,000
310,000 1%
Decrease
300,000
290,000
280,000
PRICE INCREASE STATIONS NO PRICE INCREASE STATIONS
In addition, 57% of low SES B3.5

households reported decreased
use, compared to 19% in high-SES Dynamic assessments – stated
households. At the 6 water stations preferences and willingness to
without a price increase, average
monthly sales decreased by 1%.
pay estimation
However, within 10-15 months of
the price increases, sales were back Stated preference data are generally
to the pre-price increase rates. This collected using one of two methods:
suggests households accommodate contingent valuation (CV) or discrete
the price increase, either through choices (DC). With CV a hypothetical
income increases or cuts in other product or service is described, and
expenditures. Other factors such as then a series of gradually increasing
rainfall and payment plans were not prices are presented; the survey
taken into account in the comparisons participant is requested to indicate
and might account for some of the the highest price they are willing to
changes over time. Also, water sold pay (WTP). With DC, two or more
via household water connections was hypothetical products or services
more resilient to price increase than are presented, including the prices
onsite sales, due to the convenience associated with each, and the survey
and the higher proportion of high- participant is requested to indicate
SES households with household their preference. DC requires that the
connections, who proved less full set of options be included – for
sensitive to the price increase. example, all the feasibly accessible
water access types face by a given
Revealed preference demand household. Although stated preference
modeling is routinely used in the data is collected at one point in time,
research literature, for policy analysis a simulated dynamism is created by
and in private enterprise. Projecting designing a variation in the prices,
demand for a given price is a valuable service levels, attribute desirability,
tool for service providers and overall quality or quantity of the
producers of consumer products. products and services presented
Using these techniques as an indicator across the options and between
of affordability requires the same steps different survey participants. The goal
as in static assessments: first define is to estimate the average amount that
a minimum service level for WASH participants are willing to pay for an
access; this might be an access type, introduction of, or improvement in, a
a quantity of water, or both. Second, given service or product. WTP surveys
a minimum acceptable percentage of are typically conducted to project the
the population consuming at or below potential consumer demand and are
this minimum service level must be often used by service providers or
chosen. Third, the demand model is producers of consumer goods in order
used to examine what percentage of to assess market potential and to set
households might consume below that prices.
minimum service level for each price
level; affordable prices are those which Unfortunately, the number of WTP
project that the acceptable percentage studies using stated preferences are
of the population is consuming at limited. We did a search using the
or above the minimum acceptable name of each country, the phrase
consumption level. ‘willingness to pay’ and the word
‘water’, then repeated the searches
again, but this time using the term
‘sanitation’. We then filtered the search
results for relevance by reading the
abstracts of the papers that came
up; we only included papers that
focused on the WTP for different types
of access, not for household water Ghana, Kwabena et al. also used Currently there are no routine sources
treatment systems. This resulted in contingent valuation methods to for obtaining data on stated household
a list of 13 publications: one focuses estimate that households with private, preferences and perceptions.
on sanitation access, one includes shared or public piped water access Data on WTP is most commonly
both water and sanitation access and were willing to pay up to 7 times their conducted by academic institutions,
the remaining focus on water access current expenditures, in order to get not governments. It is unclear if this
(mostly piped water access). safe, piped drinking water delivered was because governments did not
on premises. Only households that find value in them, or if it was due to
Five of these papers are summarized used trucked water had a WTP a lack of technical capacity. Looking
here, one for each of the following which was lower than their current into how WTP studies might be
countries: Pakistan, Ghana, Zambia, expenditures, indicating that trucked designed specifically with the goal of
Mexico and Uganda. No WTP papers water was not affordable, but piped evaluating the impacts of policies or
were found for Cambodia. The water largely is (Twerefou et al., 2015). interventions on affordability, especially
research articles that we found are Like observations in Mexico City and at larger spatial scales and over time,
not an exhaustive list, but they do Karachi, the affordability of piped water is worth further exploration and
present a representative summary services in Accra-Tema was at the cost scrutiny. Ostensibly, this category of
of the types of stated preference, of lower quality services. In a rural indicators has the potential to be the
WTP information available in these village in Uganda, Wright et al. found most accurate and valid, if logistical
five countries. In Zambia, Abramson that the WTP for access to a public challenges could be overcome in its
et al. looked at WTP in a rural area tap was higher than the estimated implementation.
using a discrete choice experiment. In cost of services for that tap, based on
addition, they included new concepts, the costs incurred by two neighboring Of the 20 MICS studies (introduced in
along with WTP: willingness to borrow villages that had already installed a section 3.2.2) with a question exploring
and willingness to work. These new similar system (Wright et al., 2014). the reason for non-availability of water
concepts were added because local sources, of those households stating
residents had a WTP far below the cost In general, the established research unavailable water sources, in Ghana
of various water access improvements on WTP for WASH has had very 2.1% replied it was unaffordable.
– a clear indication that they are not consistent limitations: it is always
affordable (Abramson et al., 2011). In focused on one location (one city, or Stated preference data can also be
Karachi, Pakistan, Asim and Lohano one village), it is almost exclusively combined with revealed preference
used the contingent valuation method focused on water access, and within data in some cases; this technique
to estimate WTP for improved piped that it is almost exclusively focused helps to minimize bias and maximize
water services. Their estimates of on piped water services. While WTP information about WTP for a variety of
WTP for ‘safe and regular’ piped water estimates for sanitation, or even service levels and product attributes.
services were far above the current hygiene for that matter, is a gap that Using stated preference models
average billed amounts, indicating that could theoretically be filled through a or combined stated and revealed
affordability criteria were met in the focused effort, it is hard to see how preference models as indicators of
city, but at a trade-off with lowered broader comparisons, at a national affordability is done in exactly the
service quality (Asim & Lohano, 2015). or international scale might be made same way that revealed preference
In Mexico City, Rodríguez-Tapia et al. possible. models are used. First a minimum
looked at coping costs and compared service level for WASH access is
them with WTP estimates using the defined, along with a minimum
contingent valuation method. They acceptable percentage of the
found a positive WTP for improved population consuming at or below this
water quality in piped water services, minimum service level. The stated
which was a larger percentage of preference demand model is then
family income among poor households used to determine what prices meet
than among the rich (Rodríguez-Tapia or exceed these minimum thresholds,
et al., 2017)installation of ﬁltration indicating that they are affordable.
devices, and other means of water
puriﬁcation. The demand for better
water quality was tested by estimating
the household’s willingness to pay
(WTP. In the Accra-Tema region,
B4. levels of public or welfare services,

which might change from year to
Figure B25 shows the spread of
households by the Ghana poverty line
Comprehensive poverty year, it is important to have indicators
that integrate the larger picture, in a
in 2013, according to their poverty
status and their level of water and
assessments and dynamic way. sanitation service. Poverty status is a
predictor of basic water and sanitation
implications for meeting B4.2 coverage, but there are many poor
households with a water service and
WASH coverage for
other essential needs poor and extreme poor
many non-poor households without
basic water service. In rural areas,
16.5% of non-poor use surface water
B4.1 One targeting mechanism for sources compared with 22.4% of the
subsidies and subsidised services poor. Hence targeting households by
Indicator options and poverty status would leave some non-
to make essential services more
dimensions covered affordable is in relation to the poverty poor out, who might be near-poor and
line. If a household is classified as not able to afford shouldering the costs
An alternative to WASH-specific being poor (using criteria that can be of water service themselves. Likewise,
assessments covered above is a more applied from national, sub-national or for sanitation, it is a similar picture
general picture of the socio-economic community levels) then it could be when looking at a basic versus non-
situation of a household, and how concluded that they should not pay basic service. However, we can see
WASH payments (or non-payments) the full costs of WASH services. Using that open defecation in rural areas is
interact with these. Hence the focus the GLSS6, it was estimated that the almost exclusively in poor households,
of these methodologies and indicators poverty line (food and non-food) is at indicating that the rural poor are
is on the second and third dimensions US$ 280 (GHS 1,314) per adult per prioritizing other essential needs over
of affordability – the household year, while extreme poverty line (food access to sanitation. Other measures
spending power and the payments for only) is US$ 167 (GHS 792) per adult of vulnerability such as female-headed
other essential (non-WASH) products per year. Therefore, for the purposes households or high-risk communities
and services. Given that the latter of this current study the first of these can also be tabulated with available
depends on the prices and subsidy rates was applied equally across rural data, but are not included here. This
and urban areas, and to all members type of analysis was restricted to
in a household (not just adults), in Ghana for the purposes of this report.
order to identify which households are
Figure Source: classified as poor.
GLSS6a
Figure B25.
Households classified by poverty status and water (top figure) and sanitation (bottom figure) access, by rural and urban areas
Water Sanitation
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
POOR NON-POOR POOR NON-POOR POOR NON-POOR POOR NON-POOR
Rural Urban Rural Urban
Basic Limited Unimproved No service
B4.3 Water and Sanitation - UN Special

Rapporteur, 2011) Hence to assess
Comparison of WASH such a requirement, a broader
costs for poor and non-poor analysis of household spending and
consumption is needed. However,
An alternative approach is a more it is difficult to assess what are the
detailed analysis of the WASH impacts of water spending given every
component of the poverty basket, context has its own price levels and
by assessing what is the spending options for substitution (e.g. alternative
on WASH allowed for in the poverty water sources). Moreover, needs and
line, termed PLWASH. The implication preferences for services will vary from
is that any WASH costs paid by poor household to household depending
households above PLWASH would not on socio-cultural, demographic
be affordable to the household, and and personal factors. This makes
therefore paying that cost would interpretation of what is determining
risk pushing them further below the the status quo very challenging. Two
poverty line. As essential needs, analyses are possible. One is to assess
water, sanitation and hygiene would the relative spending on WASH versus
typically be included in the non- non-WASH items, focusing on the
food component of the poverty line essential items. The other is to expand
calculation. The World Bank, however, the revealed preferences analysis
largely avoids identification of which which was discussed in section 2.2.4,
non-food items are included in the to include other essential goods as
poverty line, recognizing that there well.
will be significantly different outcomes
depending on what are considered We have applied the first approach
essential needs (Ravallion et al., to the Ghana data. This is a snapshot
2009; World Bank Institute, 2005). of households at a single timepoint
Instead, the World Bank uses the with a given set of prices and service
median expenditure on non-food items offers. Figure B26 shows the actual
and takes a percentage of that to WASH costs as a percent of other
estimate the non-food component of essential goods (food) and services
the poverty line. Hence, the non-food (housing and education), and because
items are not assessed individually, all values are below 100%, it means
and this makes it impossible to that WASH expenditures are less than
know what proportion of it should these 3 essential items. In particular,
be reserved for WASH expenditures. food expenditure is more important
Similar limitations existed in the than WASH expenditure, especially
datasets used in this report. for lower income households, but
also housing and education are more
important at lower income deciles. This
B4.4 is partly because many households,
WASH spending leads to especially at lower income levels, have
reduced consumption of significantly lower WASH costs (due
largely to the fact that they have an
other essential goods unimproved or limited service).
An interpretation of affordability
implied from statements made by
the UN Special Rapporteur at the
time of the HRTWS resolution in
2011 is that water spending should
not impact on other essential needs:
“Access to water and sanitation must
not compromise the ability to pay for
other essential needs guaranteed
by human rights...”.(Human Rights to
Figure B26.
Actual WASH expenditure as a proportion of other essential services, across income deciles
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
LOWEST
1 (POOR) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10HIGHEST
(HIGH)
DECILE DECILE
WASH/ Housing Rent WASH/ Food WASH/ Education
When the required WASH costs are education costs. Therefore, it is

used instead of actual costs, and zero doubtful that the poorest households
subsidy assumed, the findings change could raise the income needed, or
significantly, as shown in Figure B27. substitute other expenditures, to pay
The indicator includes capital costs, the additional costs of a basic WASH
but excludes time costs. For the service (including both O&M and
poorest income decile households annualised capital costs).
WASH costs would be as high as
housing costs and about twice the
Figure B27.
Required WASH expenditure (Indicator 3.4C) as a proportion of other essential services, across income deciles
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
LOWEST
1 (POOR) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10HIGHEST
(HIGH)
DECILE DECILE
WASH/ Housing Rent WASH/ Food WASH/ Education
The second approach was not applied, on other essential spending? Such an
due to a lack of data. This approach assessment needs observation of at
analyzes WASH costs in relation to least two points in time, both before
other essential goods costs is to and after the change. This would be
examine the household response to a available from tailored surveys such as
change in prices. The analysis would the one of Safe Water Network (section
go beyond that in section 2.2.4, as it 2.2.4), or panel data, where there has
includes the impact on demand for been changes in absolute or relative
other services. For example, if water prices of water services. As far as we
prices increase or a household decides know, no such data sets or analyses are
to invest in a household water supply or available for the countries included in
a sanitation facility, what is the impact this report at this time.
B4.5 However, the weakness of this

analysis is a limited ability to identify
Spending exceeds income, excess spending from the income and
suggesting households are living expenditure survey data. For example,
the GLSS6 data from Ghana, as with
beyond their means all income and expenditure surveys,
does not closely relate income and
A final approach attempts to identify expenditure given the difficulties in
whether a household is living beyond getting household respondents to
its means, and explores whether accurately estimate their income and
high WASH costs might account for expenditure. Indeed, it is well known
that. From GLSS6, total household that estimates of annual income can
income (TI) can be compared with total be very inaccurate – due to multiple
household expenditure (TE), and their and variable sources of income,
WASH spending share (Indicator 2.1C) especially in rural settings where
tabulated for those with TE>TI versus incomes are more seasonal. Also,
those with TE<TI. Figure B28 shows households might not want to inform
that households in deciles 4 and 5 on the full extent of their income,
have higher WASH costs as percent fearing information will be used to levy
of income for those households that additional taxes or charges.
appear to be operating at a deficit.
From the data it is not possible to say
whether the WASH costs are causing
this apparent deficit.
Figure B28.
Actual WASH O&M cost as a percent of total expenditure in Ghana, comparing households with/without excess spending, by
income decile
WASH expenditure as a share

of total expenditure,%
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
1,0
0,0
LOWEST HIGHEST
BOTTOM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOP 10
DECILE DECILE
Expenditure < Income Expenditure > Income All sample
For future analyses, and with better repayable from future earnings? Once
data sets, a household could be households are identified who fall into
identified as living beyond its means this ‘financial stress’ category, the
in other ways: (a) are they reducing spending on WASH can be examined
their savings to afford their daily living as to whether it is high (e.g. above 5%
or large capital items? (b) are they of expenditure) or very high (e.g. above
borrowing large amounts of money, 10% of expenditure).
and at a level which is unlikely to be
B5. In concluding, we seek to make

some judgement drawing on General
as shown in Figure B20. Were basic
WASH to be expanded to reach all
Summary Comment 15: “…payment for water
services has to be based on the
Ghanaian households, for example,
some of the subsidy mechanisms are
principle of equity… Equity demands likely to take effect, thus protecting the
that poorer households should not poor. However, the cost of this subsidy
be disproportionately burdened with to the government and external
water expenses” (ESCR-Net, 2003). partners needs to be assessed in
Using Indicator 2.1C, it appears that order to understand its feasibility in the
poor households are not currently short-term.
disproportionately burdened with
water expenses. However, this is At the same time, the cost and
because water is sometimes hauled feasibility of undertaking detailed
from a distant source with a low affordability assessments restricts the
monetary cost and open defecation number of indicators that are possible,
is commonly practiced, especially and it can also restrict the basic design
in rural areas. Thus, when including options that are available. Within the
time costs, as was done here for subset of indicators that are feasible,
Ghana, the costs increase significantly we also found several instances where
for lower income households. Also, increased validity came at the cost
when including other coping costs of decreased accuracy. We cannot
of poor WASH, such as drudgery and say which is better, as it is likely that
personal insecurity – especially for will depend on the context in which
women and girls – or health costs an affordability indicator is used and
of consuming contaminated water the purpose for which it is applied.
– the costs increase significantly for But we do find it important that an
those with poor WASH, which are assessment is done when choosing
disproportionately poor people. which affordability indicator makes the
most sense in a given context, and
In terms of judging what is affordable we argue that validity, feasibility and
versus what is not affordable, the accuracy as we have defined them, are
findings from this study are very key criteria to be considered.
instructive. This study has found that
any conclusion about affordability using
an indicator that includes a threshold
will be heavily influenced by the choice
of threshold. The most valid indicator
is one that includes the full costs for
all households, while also maintaining
a minimum service level. In the case
of this analysis, the ‘basic WASH’
service level was chosen. We found
indicators that protected a minimum
standard to be a basic requirement
and necessary for judging any indicator
to be valid. Under this scenario
(Indicators 3.1C, 3.2C and 3.4C), the
costs to households, especially poor
households, are significantly higher,
B6. ǒ Abramson, A., Becker, N., Garb,

Y., & Lazarovitch, N. (2011).
ǒ Rodríguez-Tapia, L., Revollo-
Fernández, D., & Morales-
References to Willingness to pay, borrow, and
work for rural water service
Novelo, J. (2017). Household’s
Perception of Water Quality
Annex B improvements in developing
countries: WILLINGNESS
and Willingness to Pay for
Clean Water in Mexico City.
TO PAY. Water Resources Economies, 5(2), 12. https://doi.
Research, 47(11). https://doi. org/10.3390/economies5020012
org/10.1029/2010WR010147
ǒ Sebri M (2014). A meta-
ǒ Asim, S., & Lohano, H. D. analysis of residential water
(2015). Households’ Willingness demand studies. Environment,
to Pay for Improved Tap Water Development and Sustainability
Services in Karachi, Pakistan. The 16(3): 499–520.
Pakistan Development Review,
54(4I-II), 507–526. https://doi. ǒ Twerefou, D. K., Tutu, K. A.,
org/10.30541/v54i4I-IIpp.507-526 Botchway, E., & Darkwah, S.
(2015). Willingness-to-Pay for
ǒ Dalhuisen JM et al (2003). Potable Water in the Accra-Tema
Price and Income Elasticities of Metropolitan Area of Ghana.
Residential Water Demand: A Modern Economy, 06(12), 1285–
Meta-Analysis. Land Economics 1296. https://doi.org/10.4236/
79(2): 292–308. me.2015.612122
ǒ ESCR-Net. (2003). General ǒ World Bank Institute. (2005).

Comment No. 15: The Right to Poverty Manual, Introduction to
Water. ESCR-Net. https://www. Poverty Analysis.
escr-net.org/resources/general-
comment-no-15-right-water ǒ Worsham, K., Hwang, S.,
Ojomo, E., Yeboah, C., Iqbal,
ǒ Human Rights to Water M., Aguze, G. D., & Gimble, A.
and Sanitation - UN Special (2018). Price Change and Station
Rapporteur. (2011). Catarina de Performance in Ghana (Field
Albuquerque, UN Independent Insights Series, p. 4). Safe Water
Expert on the right to water Network.
and sanitation: Mission to the
United States of America from ǒ Wright, S. G., Muralidharan, D.,
22 February to 4 March 2011. Mayer, A. S., & Breffle, W. S.
https://sr-watersanitation.ohchr. (2014). Willingness to pay for
org/en/pressrelease_catarina. improved water supplies in rural
html Ugandan villages. Journal of
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
ǒ Ravallion, M., Chen, S., & for Development, 4(3), 490–
Sangraula, P. (2009). Dollar 498. https://doi.org/10.2166/
a Day Revisited. The World WASHdev.2013.011
Bank Economic Review, 23(2),
163–184. https://doi.org/10.1093/
wber/lhp007
105 Annex B:
B: Findings
Findingsfrom
fromsix
sixcountry
countrycase
casestudies
studies
Indonesia, November 13, 2018

© UNICEF/ UNI209339
106
106 Annex C. Protocol for data extraction
10
Annex C. Protocol for data
extraction
C1. C2. Table C1 shows composition of a
ladder variable based on information on
Introduction Selecting and recoding sources of drinking water and time to
get water available from Ghana Living
This note presents a methodology WASH variables Standard Survey (GLSS 6).
of calculating WASH affordability

indices using a household living 1. Drinking water
standards survey (or LSMS). This
kind of survey provides detailed A LSMS survey usually has two
information on incomes and incurred variables that provide information
expenditures at household level. about a surveyed household’s: (i)
This note shows a step-by-step access to source of drinking water,
procedure for calculating WASH and (ii) time spent to get the water
affordability indexes by using survey from the source and return home. A
datasets. This document consists combination of these variables forms a
of four parts, namely selecting and new variable for drinking water, based
recoding WASH variables, aggregating on the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring
consumption expenditure by major Programme’s (JMP) definitions under
categories, selecting key household the SDG monitoring. The new data on
characteristics variables, and drinking water shows different levels
calculating WASH affordability indices. of service accessible to the population.
India, October 28, 2018

© UNICEF/UN0267929/Akhbar Latif
Table C1.
The ladder of service level of drinking water
SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER TIME TO GET WATER <30 MINS TIME TO GET WATER >= 30 MINS
Piped water into dwelling Safely managed1
Piped water to yard/plot Safely managed1 Limited
Public tap or standpipe At least basic Limited
Tubewell or borehole At least basic Limited
Protected dug well At least basic Limited
Protected spring At least basic Limited
Bottled water At least basic2 Limited
Rainwater refers At least basic Limited
Public tap or standpipe At least basic Limited
Tubewell or borehole At least basic Limited
Protected dug well At least basic Limited
Protected spring At least basic Limited
Unprotected spring Unimproved Unimproved
Unprotected dug well Unimproved Unimproved
Cart with small tank/drum Unimproved Unimproved
Tanker-truck Unimproved Unimproved
Surface water Unimproved Unimproved
Others Unimproved Unimproved
Notes: If there is no record on the time to Sources of drinking water may vary
1
It is assumed to be safely managed but misses
information on quality and continuity of service get water for any given household, it from country to country, and the list
2
Classified as basic, on the condition that remaining is assumed that this household spent of sources of water is not always
domestic water needs are met from a basic water
source
less than 30 minutes to get water. This standard between countries, although
assumption might lead to overestimate harmonization of categories has
Source: of the service level for households that occurred under the influence of the
GLSS 6
get water from springs and wells. JMP reports and the core WASH
indicators issued by JMP and used by
national statistical offices in designing
the response options. While GLSS 6
shows more extensive list of sources
of drinking water, some other datasets
might provide shorter lists. For
example, in Pakistan’s HIES / HIICS
2015-16 dataset only 5 sources of
water were listed, but they generally
comply with Table 1.
2.Sanitation households. Table C2 below shows a

formation of different service levels
When it comes to sanitation, LSMS (ladders) of sanitation based on WHO/
usually has information on types of UNICEF JMP definitions.
toilet used by households and whether
this facility is shared with other
Table C2.
A ladder of sanitation service level
TYPES OF TOILETS NOT – SHARED SHARED
W.C. – flush to septic tank or sewer Safely managed1 Limited
KVIP At least basic Limited
Improved pit latrine At least basic Limited
Public toilet - Limited
Bucket/Pan Unimproved Unimproved
No facilities (bush/beach/field) No service -
Other/shared toilet facilities not meeting quality Unimproved Unimproved

standards (e.g. no superstructure, open pit)
Table C2 shows that GLSS 6 provides According to JMP, improved sanitation

7 mutually exclusive type of toilets facilities are “those designed to
used in Ghana. There is no fully hygienically separate excreta from
harmonized list of type of toilet human contact, and include: flush/
across countries, although again, pour flush to piped sewer system,
harmonization of categories has septic tanks or pit latrines; ventilated
occurred under the influence of the improved pit latrines, composting
JMP reports and the core WASH toilets or pit latrines with slabs.”31
indicators issued by JMP and used by Therefore, some expert knowledge
national statistical offices in designing about technological aspects of different
the response options. Hence it is types of toilets in a different country is
difficult, for example, to make correct needed.
judgements about whether a pit toilet
meets the improved criterion or not.
1
This classification pre-supposes that human excreta
is treated before safe disposal.
Figure Source:
GLSS 6
31
https://washdata.org/monitoring/sanitation
accessed 15 May 2020
C3. The LSMS usually provides information

on a household’s expenditure for water
contains data in a harmonized
monetary unit per specified time
A variable on and wastewater / sewerage. This
information may come in two ways.
period, data in housing section
provides raw data with different units
WASH expenditure For example, in GLSS 6 expenditure
for water supply and sewage removal
of measure. Therefore, it is always
smart to utilize all information that
can be found in household expenditure exists in different parts of the survey
section. This section also requests datasets. The Housing section should
information about a household’s be a starting point, whichever survey
expenditure on major domestic instrument is used for WASH analysis
equipment including water pumps and (e.g. LSMS, IES, etc).
water cans. The same information, Table C3 shows different units of
albeit more detailed, can be found in measure for volume and time period
the housing section, which provides used in Housing section of GLSS 6.
data not only about types of sources According to this survey, there are 4
of drinking water or sanitation facility, different measures of volume and 7
it also sheds light on the quantity of different measures of period of time.
water used, the value of the bill for
water, and the actual household’s
payment for supplied water. Although
the Household expenditure section
Table C3.
Conversion to common units of measurement
WATER VOLUME
Litre Litre 1
Gallon Litre 3.8
Bucket1 Litre 18-20
BILL FREQUENCY
Daily Monthly 0.03
Weekly Monthly 0.23
Monthly Monthly 1
Quarterly Monthly 3
Half yearly Monthly 6
Yearly Monthly 12
1
http://www.conversion-website.com/volume/bucket-
to-liter.html
The GLSS 6 is unusual in that it When it comes to WASH expenditure Nevertheless, this simple approach
provides very detailed information on variable, it consists of several sheds a light on the burden that a
WASH, while this is not always the elements that can be found in each household bears if one takes into
case with other LSMS surveys. For dataset. First, the questionnaire of account the opportunity cost of time.
example, the GLSS 6 reported data on the datasets has to be thoroughly
quantity of water used, while none of investigated. For example, in GLSS Not all survey datasets provide all
the other five countries analysed had 6 there are questions directly asking information about WASH. In particular
such information. about households’ expenditure for households’ expenditure for toilet
water (supplied) and toilet (used). use was not available for Pakistan,
Also, surveys vary in how many This data is accompanied with a unit Uganda, Mexico and Zambia datasets.
units of measurement they use. of time. Additionally, household were In Cambodia’s dataset, there were
For example, in the Pakistan HIES asked about their expenses for soap only information about amount of
/ HIICS 2015-16 survey, units of and other goods for hygienic purposes. money a (members of) household
measurement for time and monetary Some households are pumping water spent for accessing public toilets.
values were already unified to one to get drinking water in developing Also, a variable on time to get water
common denominator. Most surveys countries. In such cases, household could be missing in some surveys; for
have a standard and unified approach expenditure on pumping equipment example, the Uganda dataset did not
when it comes to reporting periodic (amortization or maintenance) has have this variable.
expenditure or WASH. to be taken into account as well.
Electricity used for pumping water As indicated above, useful data on
(if not hand-pumping) is impossible WASH can be found in different parts
to impute unless there is a specific of the surveys. It is important to
information on the use of energy for separate these variables, recode them
household appliances and lighting. accordingly and label in a meaningful
way. When working with datasets,
It is very important to take into account similar information can be found in
a variable on time to get water. This different parts of the survey, but it may
variable is presented in most LSMSs. need to be adjusted to the common
Converting the time used to get water metric for the analysis.
into corresponding monetary value is
an imputation task. For example, in WASH expenditure variables can be
the analysis of GLSS 6, a minimum expressed in two ways depending on
wage in Ghana in 2013 was used as the inclusion of imputed value of the
a factor by which a variable of time time to collect water. In a formal way,
(to get water) was multiplied to arrive this can be expressed in the following
at the monetary value. This approach way:
might be disputable from an economic
point of view because a minimum
wage represents a labour market
clearance rate, while the time spent
for carrying water for a household use
is not considered as market activity.
EXPwash = EXPw +EXPt/s +EXPh.p (1), where
EXPwash
HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE FOR WASH PER MONTH
EXPw
HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE FOR WATER SUPPLIED PER MONTH
EXPt/s
HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE FOR TOILET USE AND SEWERAGE PER MONTH
EXP h.p
HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE FOR HYGIENIC PRODUCTS PER MONTH
In the datasets, calculation of total Our analysis adopts solution 1. There

WASH expenditures using this were two main reasons for this
formula requires adjustment. Data decision. The most important reason
on expenditures across each WASH is that it is likely the household could
component may not be balanced. Data not express a cost for sanitation
on expenditure for water is usually and sewerage O&M because there
full and complete for each household were none, or they were minimal. Or,
record, but data on expenditures for some costs, such as toilet cleaning
sanitation facilities (toilet use and materials or labour, are included under
sewerage) might not be reported by other expenditure categories. Hence
some households. In some LSMS this by not including these households in
issue is more acute than others. There estimation of average cost would likely
are three main alternatives for dealing lead to serious overestimation of the
with missing values in this case. sanitation cost. Second, distribution of
missing values was not uniform across
1. All missing values were replaced all types and categories of expenditure.
by 0 (zero). Deleting or omitting missing values
from WASH variables would have to be
2. All missing values are ignored; accompanied with a similar procedure
hence average values do not regarding other expenditure variables.
include these households in the The latter procedure would have led
denominator. to alteration of household’s ranking
(computed by overall expenditure
3. All missing values are replaced by level). The third option is not feasible,
what sanitation and/or sewerage given lack of data on sanitation O&M
are expected to cost for each expenditures; and this approach is
household (based on their covered in the ‘Required expenditures’
sanitation option). indicator (indicator option 3).
Figure C1 shows the distribution of

zero and non-zero values of overall
WASH variables in GLSS 6.
Figure C1.
Distribution of Partial WASH expenditure share across major cut-offs
WASH cost as % Percent Cumulative

of total expenditure
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
No record or >0% to 1% >1% to 3% >3% to 5% >5% to 7% >7% to 10% >10%
zero expenditure
Figure 1 shows that about 1.3% of If a household’s WASH expenditure

households reported either zero or is estimated to include the monetary
no data for WASH expenditure. In the value of time spent to get water (round
other datasets, the range varied from trip) then the formula will take the
2-4%. following form:
EXPwash_t = EXPw + EXPt/s + EXPh.p + (T*Ntr*Wm /480)*30.44

(2), where
Wm
A MINIMUM DAILY WAGE RATE (IN LOCAL CURRENCY PER DAY)
T
TIME SPENT FOR ROUND TRIP TO COLLECT WATER INCLUDING WAITING TIME; T=0 IF T<=10 MINUTES
Ntr
NUMBER OF ROUND TRIPS TO A SOURCE OF WATER PER DAY.
480
AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED PER DAY (TAKEN AS 8 HOURS, OR 480 MINUTES)
30.4
AVERAGE DAYS PER MONTH (365/12)
It is clear that (2) > (1) if T >0, so

inclusion of time value shifts the
household’s WASH expenditure
upwards.
India, November 10, 2018

© UNICEF/UN0271817/Hajra
C4. C5.
Consumption WASH affordability
expenditure by indices formulas
major categories
WASH affordability indicators are
and household described in section 3.2.1 of this
report. How these indicators were
characteristics32 computed is described below.
Partial WASH O&M expenditure

There are 12 broad categories of (indicator option 2.1)
consumption expenditure used in the
WASH study. LSMS has a section titled Partial O&M expenditure is calculated
Household expenditures that shows as a ratio of WASH expenditure
detailed records of all expenditures variable (EXP wash) to total household
across food, non-durable goods, expenditure. This ratio is expressed
durable good, leisure, recreation and in percentage. As partial O&M
other items. These expenditures are expenditure is calculated for each
grouped by categories. As before, household, an estimate for a country
expenditure for different items may be is a weighted mean of all households
recorded for different time frames. For in the dataset. For example, O&M
example, in most cases expenditure expenditure for Ghana is calculated
on food items is recorded for 14-day using Table C4.
periods. Expenditures on durable and
non-durable goods as well as leisure A. Partial WASH O&M expenditure
and recreation are often recorded (indicator option 2.1)
for a month or for a year. Therefore,
it is important to take into account Partial O&M expenditure is calculated
the time period in estimating total as a ratio of WASH expenditure
annual equivalent expenditures. variable (EXP wash) to total household
Total household expenditure was expenditure. This ratio is expressed
therefore calculated as the sum of all in percentage. As partial O&M
expenditures for all categories. expenditure is calculated for each
household, an estimate for a country
For estimations and for making is a weighted mean of all households
required disaggregation, household in the dataset. For example, O&M
characteristics were derived directly expenditure for Ghana is calculated
from the survey datasets. All surveys using Table C4.
have the following variables: household
size (number of household members),
household’s place of residence (rural
or urban); household member’s age
and sex. Also, using LSMS datasets
households can be grouped by level of
their income that form income deciles
or income quartiles. In this study,
income deciles were calculated using
ranking of household by their total
annual expenditure per capita.
32
Annex 1 provides all variable and construction of the
new variables using GLSS 6
Table C4.
Input data to calculate partial WASH O&M expenditure, GLSS 6
NOMINAL VARIABLE ITEM EXPEDITURE GLSS6 FILE CODE
Partical WASH O&M expediture Expenditure on supply and miscellaneous services Section 9 PART A 060 - 062
related to dwelling
Expenditure on sewerage Section 9 PART A 59
Avarage of amount of money HH pay for use of toilet Section 7: HOUSING 17a, 17b
facility AND amount of last bill
Hygiene expenses on: washing soaps, bathing soaps, Section 9 PART B 180, 181, 186
toilet papers and soaps
B. Partial WASH O&M expenditure ii) capital, and iii) lump sum capital. The
and time cost (indicator option 2.2) required cost estimates are produced
in accordance with a different
Partial O&M expenditure and time methodology that takes into account
cost is calculated as a ratio of WASH local conditions related to the whole
expenditure variable adjusted for the value-chain of WASH service.
cost of fetching water (EXPwash_t) to
total household expenditure. This ratio The required cost estimates are
is also expressed in percentage. As usually produced in USD term and for
partial O&M expenditure is calculated the current year. So, when the required
for each household, an estimate for cost estimates are available, they need
a country is a weighted mean of all to be converted into national currency
households in the dataset of a country under the study. The
conversion procedure is shown in the
C. Required O&M, capital and lump following four tables.
sum expenditure
Table C5 shows cost estimates for
In order to achieve basic WASH service achieving basic WASH service in
level, a commitment for a certain Ghana for 2018. These estimates are in
level of expenditure for setting up, the US dollars
organizing, connecting, maintaining
and running of WASH facilities and
service is required. These expenditures
can be broadly divided into three
categories: i) operations and maintains,
Table C5.
The 2018 estimate of the basic WASH cost in USD
REQUIRED COSTS PER SERVICE LEVEL ANNUAL PER CAPITA COST LUMP SUM CAPITAL PER CAPITA
Rural Urban
O&M Capital O&M Capital Rural Urban
Water Basic 1 1.61 107.07 3.5 19.7 60
Hygiene Basic 5 0.52 5.2 1.9 0.5 14.71
Table 5 reveals information about of Ghana for 2018 is to be used to

O&M, capital and lump sum per capita express data in the table in the local
expenditures required to achieve basic currency in Table C6. The exchange
WASH service level that is assumed rate data can be found in IMF or WB
to be available to a typical household statistical resources in respective
in Ghana. The cost estimates are macroeconomic statistics branches.
separately provided for urban and rural
areas respectively. In 2018, according to IMF, the official
exchange rate of Ghana Cedis to per
Because the cost estimates in Table US dollar was 4.7.
15 are in the US terms, the average
exchange rate of the US dollar to Cedis
Table C6.
The 2018 estimate in Ghana Cedis
Rural Urban
Water Basic 4.7 7.6 503.2 16.5 92.6 282.0
Hygiene Basic 23.5 2.4 24.4 8.9 2.4 69.1
Table C6 shows required cost One of the common ways of deflation

estimates per capita in Ghana Cedis is to use GDP deflator for different
for 2018. Table shows that required periods, in the Ghana case-study these
cost for basic WASH varies between periods are 2013 and 2018. Table C7
rural and urban areas. Because LSM shows Ghana’s GDP deflator and
survey for Ghana is available for 2013, exchange rate for two periods.
data in Table C3 needs to be deflated
in order to reflect prices for that year.
Table Source:
The World Bank, 2018
Table C7.
Selected data on price levels and exchange rate in Ghana from 2013-2016
COUNTRY NAME YEAR GDP DEFLATOR (BASE YEAR OFFICIAL EXCHANGE RATE (LCU
VARIES BY COUNTRY) PER US$, PERIOD AVERAGE)
Ghana 2013 289.8 2.0
Ghana* 2018 576.1 4.7
If the base year is 2018, then change Table C7 needs to be adjusted for
in the GDP deflator from 2013 through change in price levels in order to derive
2018 will be equal to 0.5. In other the required cost estimates for 2013.
words, the overall price level in Ghana Table C8 shows adjusted estimate of
has increased 2 times over 5 years the required expenditure for achieving
from 2013 to 2018. basic WASH service level in Ghana.
Table C8.
Adjusted 2013 estimate of the basic WASH cost in Ghana Cedis
Rural Urban
Water Basic 2.4 3.8 253.1 8.3 46.6 141.8
Hygiene Basic 11.8 1.2 12.3 4.5 1.2 34.8
Table C8 shows input data for survey datasets.

calculating WASH affordability indices
for the basic service level based on i) Full operations and maintains
GLSS 6. Following WASH affordability expenditure for basic WASH service
indicators – Indicator 3.1, Indicator 3.2
and Indicator 3.4 - are calculated based Full operations and maintains
on data presented in Table C4. These expenditure for basic WASH service is
input data have replaced data on per calculated by the following formula:
capita expenditure for water, sanitation
and hygiene found/identified in the
REQo&m = Nhh * (REQ_Wo&m + REQ_So&m + REQ_Ho&m), where
REQo&m REQ_Wo&m
FULL OPERATIONS AND MAINTAINS REQUIRED O&M EXPENDITURE
EXPENDITURE FOR BASIC WASH; FOR WATER
Nhh REQ_So&m
HOUSEHOLD SIZE (OR NUMBER REQUIRED O&M EXPENDITURE
OF PEOPLE/MEMBERS IN A FOR SANITATION
HOUSEHOLDS)
REQ_Ho&m
REQUIRED O&M EXPENDITURE
FOR HYGIENE
Indicator 3.1 is calculated as is

follows:
REQo&m = Nhh * (REQ_Wo&m + REQ_So&m + REQ_Ho&m), where
EXPtot
HOUSEHOLD ANNUAL TOTAL EXPENDITURE
ii) Full O&M and capital expenditure Full O&M and capital expenditure for
for basic WASH service capital basic WASH service is calculated by
the following formula:
REQcapital = REQo&m + Nhh * (REQ_Wcapital + REQ_Scapital +

REQ_Hcapital), where
REQcapital
FULL O&M AND CAPITAL REQ_Wcapital
EXPENDITURE FOR BASIC WASH; REQUIRED CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
FOR WATER
REQo&m
FULL OPERATIONS AND MAINTAINS REQ_Scapital
EXPENDITURE FOR BASIC WASH REQUIRED CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
FOR SANITATION
Nhh
HOUSEHOLD SIZE (OR NUMBER REQ_Hcapital
OF PEOPLE/MEMBERS IN A REQUIRED CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
HOUSEHOLDS) FOR HYGIENE

follows:
Indicator 3.2 = 100* REQcapital / EXPtot, where
EXPto
iii) Full O&M and capital and lump Full O&M and capital and lump sum
sum expenditure for basic WASH expenditure for basic WASH service is
service capital calculated by the following formula:
Indicator 3.2 = 100* REQfull / EXPtot, where

REQfull = REQo&m+REQcapital+Nhh*(REQ_Wl/s+REQ_Sl/s +
REQ_Hl/s), where
REQfull
FULL O&M AND CAPITAL AND LUMP Nhh
SUM EXPENDITURE FOR BASIC WASH HOUSEHOLD SIZE (OR NUMBER
SERVICE OF PEOPLE/MEMBERS IN A
HOUSEHOLDS)
REQcapital
FULL O&M AND CAPITAL REQ_Wl/s
EXPENDITURE FOR BASIC WASH; REQUIRED LUMP SUM CAPITAL
EXPENDITURE FOR WATER
REQo&m REQ_Sl/s
FULL OPERATIONS AND MAINTAINS REQUIRED LUMP SUM CAPITAL
EXPENDITURE FOR BASIC WASH EXPENDITURE FOR SANITATION
REQ_Hl/s
REQUIRED LUMP SUM CAPITAL
EXPENDITURE FOR HYGIENE

follows:
Indicator 3.2 = 100* REQfull / EXPtot, where
EXPtot
118 Annex D. Countries with income and expenditure surveys since 2014
11
Annex D. Countries with income
and expenditure surveys since
2014
Low- and middle-income countries with a national survey that collects income and
expenditure data, including WASH expenditure – covering period 2014-2020
COUNTRY SURVEY NAME LATEST YEAR
Afghanistan Living Conditions Survey 2016-2017

Albania Household Budget Survey 2015
American Samoa Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2015
Armenia Integrated Living Conditions Survey 2016
Bangladesh Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2016-2017
Bolivia Encuesta de Hogares 2018
Bosnia & Herzegovina Household Budget Survey 2015
Brazil Pesquisa de Orçamentos Familiares 2018-2019
Bulgaria Household Budget Survey 2014
Burkina Faso Enquête Multisectorielle Continue 2014
Burundi Enquête sur les conditions de vie des ménages 2014
Cambodia Household Socio-Economic Survey 2017
Cook Islands Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2015-2016
Cape Verdi Inquérito às Despesas e Receitas Familiares 2014-2015
Colombia Gran Encuesta Integrada de Hogares 2015
Croatia Household Budget Survey 2014
Egypt, Arab Rep Household Income, Expenditure, and Consumption Survey 2015
Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey 2015-2016
French Polynesia Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2015
Ghana Living Standards Survey 2017
Guatemala Encuesta Nacional sobre Condiciones de Vida 2014
India Household Expenditure on Services and Durable Goods: 2014-2015
Indonesia National Socio-Economic Survey 2016
Iraq Rapid Welfare Monitoring Survey 2017
Kazakhstan Household Budget Survey 2014
Kenya Household budget survey 2016
Kiribati Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2019
Liberia Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2016
Malawi Fourth Integrated Household Survey 2016-2017
119 Annex D. Countries with income and expenditure surveys since 2014
COUNTRY SURVEY NAME LATEST YEAR
Maldives Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2016

Mali Enquête Agricole de Conjoncture Intégrée aux Conditions de Vie des Ménages 2017
Marshall Islands Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2017
Mexico Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2018
Micronesia Household Income, Consumption and Expenditure Survey 2014
Mongolia Household Socio Economic Survey 2016
Mozambique Inquérito sobre Orcamento Familiar 2019-2020
Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2015-2016
Nepal Annual Household Survey 2014-2015
Niger National Survey on Household Living Conditions and Agriculture 2014
Nigeria General Household Survey 2018-2019
Niue Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2015-2016
Palau Household Income, Consumption and Expenditure Survey 2014
Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement Survey 2013-2014
Russian Federation Household Budget Survey 2015
Rwanda Integrated Household Survey on Living Conditions 2017
Samoa Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2018
South Africa Quality of Life Survey IV 2015-2016
Tajikistan Household Budget Survey 2016
Tajikistan Survey of WASH for Households and Schools 2017
Tanzania National Panel Survey 2014-2015
Tonga Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2015-2016
Togo Questionnaire sur les Indicateurs de Base du Bien-être 2015
Tokelau Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2015-2016
Thailand Household Socio-Economic Survey 2017
The Gambia Integrated Household Survey 2015
Tuvalu Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2015-2016
Uganda National Panel Survey 2015-2016
United Arab Emirates Income and Expenditure Household Survey 2014-2015
Uzbekistan Household Budget Survey 2017
West Bank and Gaza Expenditure and Consumption Survey 2016
Zambia Living Conditions Monitoring Survey VII 2015
Sources:
https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/home
https://www.ilo.org/surveyLib/index.php/catalog
https://catalog.ihsn.org/index.php/catalog
https://microdata.pacificdata.org/index.php/home
http://www.erfdataportal.com/index.php/catalog
Note: this list excludes European countries where Income and Living Surveys are regularly conducted:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/income-and-living-conditions/quality/questionnaires
120 Introduction
Front cover :
South Sudan, 8 October, 2020
© UNICEF/UN0349009/Obel
Back cover :
South Sudan, 2020
© UNICEF/UNI374937/Ryeng

Measurement and Monitoring of WASH Affordability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Measurement and Monitoring of WASH Affordability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Introduction

The Measurement and Monitoring

Uganda, April 04, 2019

MEMBERS OF THE EXPERT CONSULTATIVE GROUP

Henri Smets Water Academy, Paris

John Garrett Senior Policy Analyst (Development Finance), WaterAid

Luis Andres Lead Economist, World Bank

Manuel Alvarinho Former President of Water Regulatory Council, Mozambique

Xavier LeFlaive Principal Administrator, OECD

MEMBERS OF THE UNICEF AND WHO TEAMS (IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

Resource Position Role

Tom Slaymaker Senior Statistics and Monitoring Lead of JMP, UNICEF

Rob Bain Statistics and Monitoring Technical contributions on data sets

Rick Johnston Technical Officer (JMP), Water, Lead of JMP, WHO

Fiona Gore Manager of GLAAS, Water, Lead of UN-Water GLAAS

Sofia Murad Technical Officer, Water, Sanitation Contributions on GLAAS

Marina Takane Technical Officer, Water, Sanitation Contributions on GLAAS

Data Streamers Publication design

04 Data for monitoring affordability 38

05 Comparative performance of approaches  50

06 Conclusions and recommendations 60

09 Annex B: Findings from six country case studies  70

10 Annex C. Protocol for data extraction  106

11 Annex D. Countries with income and expenditure

○ Table 1 Degree of vulnerability resulting from three dimensions of WASH affordability

○ Table 2 Different types of cost for water, sanitation and hygiene

○ Table 3 Summary of expenditure or cost items included in each indicator

○ Table 5 Sources of data on WASH expenditure from nationally-representative surveys

○ Table 6 Data collected by surveys on household income and expenditure

○ Table 7 Performance of the expenditure threshold approach against criteria

○ Table 8 Performance of the revealed preference approach against criteria

○ Table 9 Performance of the stated preference approach against criteria

○ Table 10 Performance of the poverty status approach against criteria

○ Table 11 Performance of the enabling environment indicators against criteria

○ Figure 2 Pyramid of costs to be included in the numerator of the expenditure

Djibouti, February 06, 2018

Pedro Arrojo Agudo

Special Rapporteur on the human rights

India, February 01, 2019

Burundi, September 27, 2019

Affordability is an essential recognition that the achievement

In a world heavily impacted by the 3 How can WASH affordability

Congo, 17 September 2019

2.2 While equity and fairness arguments

Developing the affordability, they are relative and do

3. The competing nature of As well as the above considerations,

Thus, the policy maker should

2 debts to service providers that

Low Less vulnerable More vulnerable More vulnerable Most vulnerable

Median Less vulnerable Less vulnerable Less vulnerable More vulnerable

2.3 One issue with the current approach

Figure 1 Source: Hutton and Andres (2018)

3.1 The concepts described in the previous

5 What measures already are

Guinea-Bissau, January 18, 2020

3.1.2 Even when household behaviour is 3.1.3

3.1.4 to quantify what subsidy should be raised considerably in all countries

In practice, subsidies were available to many more

households than those defined as BPL.

3.2 These five approaches will now

Options for empirical different ways to measure and analyse

SERVICE RECURRENT COSTS CAPITAL COSTS NON-FINANCIAL COSTS

Sanitation • Wastewater tariff • Toilet construction • Travel time to communiity

04 Data for monitoring affordability 38

05 Comparative performance of approaches 50

06 Conclusions and recommendations 60

09 Annex B: Findings from six country case studies 70

10 Annex C. Protocol for data extraction 106