However, the present situation in many markets is one of very low rents. Where public facilities are charged out to users at lower than normal levels, the facilities are likely to be used inefficiently. Increasing rents and the level of charges to more realistic levels without a parallel improvement in benefits to market traders, in terms of maintenance or services available, is likely to be met with strong resistance from market users. Improvements have to lead to savings in the trader's operating costs or otherwise market prices are likely to increase to compensate for the additional costs. In the case of urban markets, health gains, while they are virtually unquantifiable in financial or economic terms, are likely to be the greatest project benefit.
Markets are a major potential source of infection from food and water-borne diseases.
The central location of many street markets and their relationship to the public transport system may offer a particularly rapid way for disease to spread. The most immediate health benefit is likely to be a reduction in the more common and less threatening diseases, such as gastro-enteritis and worms. However, if only one epidemic of a more dangerous but less common diseases such as cholera, is prevented or reduced, a market programme will have been justified. There can be substantial improvements in amenity and convenience for all users from market improvements and this has always been viewed as the main benefit of programmes implemented in urban areas. Traders will usually have better stalls with greater protection from the sun and rain.