The Impacts of Household Water Quality Testing and
Information on Safe Water Behaviors:
Evidence from Randomized Experiment in Ghana
Authors: Charles Yaw Okyere1, Evita Hanie Pangaribowo2, Felix Ankomah Asante3, and
Joachim von Braun1
Affiliation: 1Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Germany, 2Gadjah
Mada University, Indonesia, 3Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research (ISSER),
University of Ghana, Legon
A presentation at “Better Policies: Better Lives” Conference
Middlesex University, London
London, 1 December 2015
Organization of the Presentation
Introduction
Water Quality Testing and Information
Experiment, and Data
Data Analysis
Results: Impacts on Safe Water Behaviors
Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
2
Introduction
 Evidence that improved water sources are not good enough for
consumption (Bain et al., 2014)
 WHO recommends at least twice water testing per annum at
source level (and by extension the household level)
 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially Goal 6 on
water and sanitation
 Target 6.3 highlights on the importance of improving water quality
 Water quality information to households improves safe water
behaviors (Madajewicz et al., 2007; Hamoudi et al., 2012; Jalan
and Somanthan, 2008)
 Gaps in previous studies:
 Missing learning experiences
 Missing the assessment of the effectiveness of delivery channels
based on intra-household resource allocation or decision making
(roles by children vs. adults and males vs. females)
 Rigorous impact evaluation studies are needed (Lucas et al.,
2011)
3
Water Quality Testing and Information
Experiment, and Data
Water Quality Testing and Information Experiment
 Training of school children and adult household
members on the use of water testing toolkits
 Water testing toolkits (Acquagenx’s Compartment Bag Test
(CBT))
 Testing the microbiological properties (E. coli) of the water
 Using the information (results) from the water testing exercise
in managing water at the individual and household level
 Water quality improvement messages
 Nine water quality improvement messages in the form of
handouts
4
Water Quality Testing and Information
Experiment, and Data cont’d
Research Design
Cluster-randomized controlled trials design
Public basic schools and communities
Time frame: 2013-2015
Third party randomization
Source and Type of Data
Primary data: Field Survey
Panel data (4 rounds/waves of data collection)
Quantitative data
Sampling Procedures and Sample Size
2 districts (1 rural; 1 urban) in Greater Accra region
of Ghana
16 public basic schools (4 child treatment; 4 adult
treatment; 8 control)
School children representing households
512 households
5
Data Analysis
Baseline Summary Statistics and Orthogonality
Tests
T-test of difference in means
F-test of difference in means
Mean orthogonality tests
Analysis of Impacts on Safe Water Behaviors
Intention-to-treat (ITT) estimation
Instrumental variable (IV) estimation
Differences-in-differences estimation
6
Table 1: Baseline Descriptive Statistics and Orthogonality
Tests, Mean (April-May, 2014 Survey)
(1)
All
A: Household-level data
Water source choices
Improved
main 0.731
drinking
water (0.02)
source
Other improved
0.659
(0.02)
(2)
(3)
Child
Adult
treatment treatment
(4)
Comparison
group
(5)
F-test
(p-value)
from
regression of variable on child
treatment
and
adult
treatment
0.696
(0.041)
0.669
(0.042)
0.779
(0.026)
0.993
(0.393)
0.608
(0.044)
0.669
(0.042)
0.680
(0.029)
0.0746
(0.928)
Unimproved
sources
0.109
(0.01)
0.208
(0.036)
0.110
(0.028)
0.0593
(0.015)
0.487
(0.624)
Surface water
0.160
(0.02)
0.0960
(0.027)
0.220
(0.037)
0.162
(0.023)
1.551
(0.244)
Multisource
user_drinking
water
0.392
(0.02)
0.408
(0.044)
0.307
(0.041)
0.427
(0.031)
1.735
(0.210)
Table 1: Baseline Descriptive Statistics and Orthogonality
Tests, Mean (April-May, 2014 Survey) Cont’d
Multisource user_general purpose
water
0.420
(0.020)
0.480
(0.045)
0.291
(0.041)
0.455
(0.031)
5.785**
(0.014)
Improved secondary drinking water
source
0.677
(0.033)
0.745
(0.062)
0.590
(0.080)
0.676
(0.045)
0.755
(0.487)
Improved main general purpose water
source (JMP classification)
0.586
(0.022)
0.552
(0.045)
0.591
(0.044)
0.601
(0.031)
0.0481
(0.953)
Main drinking water is sachet/bottle
0.147
(0.016)
0.192
(0.035)
0.126
(0.030)
0.134
(0.022)
0.150
(0.862)
1.302
(0.314)
1.266
(0.330)
1.501
(0.240)
F-test (p-value) from regression of
each treatment assignment on all
above covariates
Observations (N)
505
125
127
253
Table 2: Details on Take-up of Water Quality Testing and
Information Experiment
Day
Total school
children
Total adult household
members
Total
males
Total
females
1
2
Total **
Average
attendance for
the two days of
training
107
90
197
98.5
79
48
127
63.5
94
59
153
76.5
92
79
171
85.5
Total
expected
participants
125
127
---
---
**Double counting
Results: Impacts on Safe Water Behaviors
 Safe water behaviors include:
 Water source choices
 Water storage
 Water quality, treatment and health risk
 Water transport, collection and handling techniques
 Water quantity, consumption/usage and security
 Results are structured into three areas:
 Impacts (assignment to any of the treatment arms)
 Differential impacts (assignment into the treatment armsschool children vs. adult household members)
 Gendered treatment effects (gender (male vs. female) of
participants)
Table 3: Impacts on Safe Water Behaviors
Dependent
variable:
Safe water behaviors
Improved main
drinking water
(1)
Other improved
drinking water
source
Surface water as
main drinking
water source
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
0.066**
0.051*
0.049
0.025
(0.030)
No
(0.031)
Yes
(0.031)
No
(0.032)
Yes
(0.024)
No
(0.024)
Yes
960
901
960
901
960
901
0.005
0.076
0.005
0.056
0.005
0.124
Panel A. ITT Estimation
Treatment
Household
Controls
Observations
R-squared
-0.051** -0.048**
Table 3: Impacts on Safe Water Behaviors cont’d
Dependent
variable:
Safe water behaviors
Improved main
general
purpose water
(1)
Household use
sachet water as the
main drinking water
Satisfied with water
quality
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
0.069**
0.056*
0.023
0.048*
-0.087***
0.085***
(0.032)
(0.033)
(0.025)
(0.024)
(0.028)
(0.030)
Household
Controls
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Observations
964
905
960
901
964
905
0.005
0.087
0.001
0.154
0.010
0.052
Panel A. ITT Estimation
Treatment
R-squared
Table 3: Impacts on Safe Water Behaviors cont’d
Dependent
variable:
Safe water behaviors
Drinking water
storage container
is covered
(1)
Children under 12
years fetch water
Distance to main
drinking water (in
meters)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
0.034**
0.036**
-0.030
-0.060*
-23.216*
31.954**
(0.014)
(0.015)
(0.032)
(0.032)
(13.641)
(14.124)
Household
Controls
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Observations
851
797
932
873
873
819
0.007
0.032
0.001
0.116
0.003
0.069
Panel A. ITT Estimation
Treatment
R-squared
Table 4: Differential Impacts on Safe Water Behaviors
Dependent
variable:
Safe water behaviors
Improved main
drinking water
(1)
Other improved
drinking water
source
Improved
secondary
drinking water
source
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
0.119***
0.088**
0.082**
0.038
-0.037
-0.022
(0.035)
(0.035)
(0.037)
(0.038)
(0.046)
(0.047)
0.016
0.014
0.018
0.012
0.111***
0.082*
(0.037)
(0.039)
(0.038)
(0.040)
(0.040)
(0.043)
Household
Controls
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Observations
960
901
960
901
644
602
0.011
0.079
0.005
0.057
0.015
0.067
Panel A. ITT Estimation
Child
treatment
Adult
treatment
R-squared
Table 4: Differential Impacts on Safe Water Behaviors cont’d
Dependent
variable:
Safe water behaviors
Improved main
general purpose
water
(1)
Household use
sachet water as the
main drinking water
Surface water as
main drinking water
source
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
0.165***
0.138***
0.058*
0.079***
-0.110***
-0.078***
(0.039)
(0.039)
(0.032)
(0.030)
(0.026)
(0.026)
-0.024
-0.025
-0.012
0.017
0.007
-0.018
(0.039)
(0.041)
(0.029)
(0.030)
(0.032)
(0.032)
Household
Controls
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Observations
964
905
960
901
960
901
0.022
0.100
0.005
0.157
0.016
0.127
Panel A. ITT Estimation
Child treatment
Adult treatment
R-squared
Table 4: Differential Impacts on Safe Water Behaviors cont’d
Safe water behaviors
Dependent
variable:
Water from source
Drinking water
Interior of
is clear
storage container is
drinking water
covered
storage container
is clean
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Satisfied with
water quality
(7)
(8)
0.023
0.014
Panel A. ITT Estimation
Child
treatment
Adult
treatment
0.062**
0.047
0.037**
0.039**
0.050** 0.051*
*
(0.028)
(0.030)
(0.017)
(0.018)
(0.020)
(0.023) (0.032) (0.034)
-0.074** -0.064*
0.032*
0.033*
-0.014
-0.016
(0.027) (0.037) (0.039)
0.192* 0.184*
**
**
(0.034)
(0.035)
(0.016)
(0.017)
(0.025)
Household
Controls
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Observations
963
904
851
797
854
800
964
905
0.015
0.064
0.007
0.032
0.007
0.029
0.039
0.076
R-squared
Table 5: Gendered Treatment Effects on Safe Water Behaviors
Dependent
variable:
Safe water behaviors
Improved main
drinking water
Other improved
drinking water
source
Surface water
as main
drinking water
source
Improved main
general
purpose water
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
-0.127**
-0.083
-0.153***
-0.107*
0.078**
0.066
-0.118**
-0.091
(0.049)
(0.054)
(0.051)
(0.056)
(0.036)
(0.040)
(0.054)
(0.059)
Household
Controls
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Observations
334
327
334
327
334
327
334
327
0.020
0.113
0.027
0.089
0.015
0.121
0.014
0.085
Male
participated
R-squared
Conclusions
• Uptake rate is high for school children compared to adult household
members. The uptake rate is also slightly higher for females than
males
• Results show that the experiment was effective in convincing
households on the choice of safe water behaviors
 Water quality testing and information could be used as “social marketing”
strategy
• Differential impacts exist with "school children intervention group"
households being better-off than “adult household member
intervention group” households in most of the indicators for safe
water behaviors
 School children could be used as “agents of change”
• There are gendered treatment effects with male participants being
worse-off compared to their female counterparts in most of the
indicators for water source choices
Acknowledgements
Funding
 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
 Dr. Hermann Eiselen Doctoral Programme of the Fiat
Panis Foundation
Comments and suggestions







Dr. Daniel Tsegai
Dr. Nicolas Gerber
Prof. Dr. Devesh Rustagi
Prof. Dr. Michael Kosfeld
Dr. Julia Anna Matz
Dr. Guido Lüchters
Seminar participants at ZEF
19
References

Bain, R., R. Cronk, R. Hossain, S. Bonjour, K. Onda, J. Wright, H. Yang, T.
Slaymaker, P. Hunter, A. Prüss-Ustün and J. Bartram (2014). Global
assessment of exposure to faecal contamination through drinking water based
on a systematic review. Tropical Medicine and International Health, 19(8), pp.
917–927.

Hamoudi, A., M. Jeuland, S. Lombardo, S. Patil, S. K. Pattanayak and S. Rai
(2012). The effect of water quality testing on household behavior: Evidence
from an experiment in rural India. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 87(1), pp.18-22.

Jyotsna, J., and E. Somanathan (2008). The importance of being informed:
Experimental evidence on demand for environmental quality. Journal of
Development Economics , 87, pp.14-28.

Lucas, P. J., C. Cabral, J. M. Colford Jr. (2011). Dissemination of Drinking Water
Contamination Data to Consumers: A Systematic Review of Impact on
Consumer Behaviors. PLoS One, 6(6), pp.1-9.

Madajewicz, M., A. Pfaff, A. van Geen, J. Graziano, Iftikhar Hussein, H. Momotaj,
R. Sylvi and H. Ahsan (2007). Can information alone change behavior?
Response to arsenic contamination of groundwater in Bangladesh. Journal of
Development Economics, 84, pp.731-754.
20
Thank you for your
attention!
22