Next Article in Journal
Do Clinicians Ask Pregnant Women about Exposures to Tobacco and Cannabis Smoking, Second-Hand-Smoke and E-Cigarettes? An Australian National Cross-Sectional Survey
Previous Article in Journal
Recycling Pricing and Coordination of WEEE Dual-Channel Closed-Loop Supply Chain Considering Consumers’ Bargaining
Article Menu
Issue 12 (December) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14(12), 1584;

Small Water Enterprise in Rural Rwanda: Business Development and Year-One Performance Evaluation of Nine Water Kiosks at Health Care Facilities

The Center for Global Safe Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
The Access Project Rwanda, Kigali, Nyarugenge District, Rwanda
The Republic of Rwanda Ministry of Health, Environmental Health Desk, Kigali, Kicukiro District, Rwanda
School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, The University of Oklahoma, 4, Norman, OK 73019, USA
Current address: Millennium Water Alliance, Washington, DC 20036, USA.
Current address: The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK.
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 1 October 2017 / Revised: 16 November 2017 / Accepted: 30 November 2017 / Published: 16 December 2017
Full-Text   |   PDF [2426 KB, uploaded 16 December 2017]   |  


Small water enterprises (SWEs) have lower capital expenditures than centralized systems, offering decentralized solutions for rural markets. This study evaluated SWEs in rural Rwanda, where nine health care facilities (HCF) owned and operated water kiosks supplying water from onsite water treatment systems (WTS). SWEs were monitored for 12 months. Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient (rs) was used to evaluate correlations between demand for kiosk water and community characteristics, and between kiosk profit and factors influencing the cost model. On average, SWEs distributed 15,300 L/month. One SWE ran at a loss, four had profit margins of ≤10% and four had profit margins of 45–75%. Factors influencing SWE performance were intermittent water supply (87% of SWE closures were due to water shortage), consumer demand (demand was high where populations already used improved water sources (rs = 0.81, p = 0.02)), price sensitivity (demand was lower where SWEs had high prices (rs = −0.65, p = 0.08)), and production cost (water utility tariffs negatively impacted SWE profits (rs = −0.52, p < 0.01)). Sustainability was more favorable in circumstances where recovery of capital expenditures was not expected, and the demand for treated water was sufficient to fund operational expenditures. Future research is needed to assess the extent to which kiosk revenue can support ongoing operational costs of WTS and kiosks both at HCF and in other contexts. View Full-Text
Keywords: cost model; demand estimation; water treatment; sub-Saharan Africa cost model; demand estimation; water treatment; sub-Saharan Africa

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Supplementary material


Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Huttinger, A.; Brunson, L.; Moe, C.L.; Roha, K.; Ngirimpuhwe, P.; Mfura, L.; Kayigamba, F.; Ciza, P.; Dreibelbis, R. Small Water Enterprise in Rural Rwanda: Business Development and Year-One Performance Evaluation of Nine Water Kiosks at Health Care Facilities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1584.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health EISSN 1660-4601 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top