110
is likely due to households that continued to use other sources even if they have a tap connection. The number of non-tap sources ranges from one to four; at baseline, households used 1.15 non-tap sources on average (households that used only tap are counted as zero). Excluding the households that only used a tap connection, the average is 1.56 non-tap sources.
In Table 53, we address this issue by using the travel time that corresponds to the best type of water source that the household used; namely the time to travel to the source defined by the improved water score. We can see that treatment households experienced some time savings while travelling to water sources, with a savings of 1.78 minutes per trip per person in the ITT estimate (3) and over 3 minutes per trip in IV specification with the reported treatment assignment (7).
TABLE 52 AVERAGE TIME IN MINUTES TO ACCESS WATER SOURCES
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Inside Project Area # Post Period -0.4
[0.68]
Inside Project Area-ITT in Post Period -0.039
[1.01]
Std. errors are clustered at the census segment level.
All equations include year fixed effects. Equations are DID, in (1)-(3) the treatment is defined as living in a treatment assigned segment, (4)-(5) treatment is defined as living inside the project area within the matched pairs, (6)-(7) treatment is defined as having reported being beneficiary of the WASH project within the matched pairs. Equations (4)-(7) control for initial treatment assignment.
Equation (2) includes household fixed effects. Pair dummies indicated in the table are based in on nearest neighbor matching propensity score matching based on 2007 census segment data.
IV estimates in columns (5) and (7) use the census segment treatment assignment to instrument for indicators for being in a project area in 2012-2013 (5); and the households reporting being a beneficiary of the WASH projects from MCC in (7)
^IV estimates partial out the indicators for pairs to compute the std. errors of the coefficients of interest. We report the K-P rk Wald F statistic following the results in Stock and Yogo (2005)
* p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01
111 TABLE 53 TIME IN MINUTES TO ACCESS WATER SOURCES: BEST SOURCE USED
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
DID DID-FE DID-Pairs RF-Area-ITT
IV-Area-ITT^ RF-ATE IV-LATE^
Treatment # Post Period -1.71 -1.7 -1.78
[0.52]*** [0.47]*** [0.53]***
Inside Project Area # Post Period -2.43
[0.58]***
Inside Project Area-ITT in Post Period -2.62
[0.77]***
Std. errors are clustered at the census segment level.
All equations include year fixed effects. Equations are DID, in (1)-(3) the treatment is defined as living in a treatment assigned segment, (4)-(5) treatment is defined as living inside the project area within the matched pairs, (6)-(7) treatment is defined as having reported being beneficiary of the WASH project within the matched pairs. Equations (4)-(7) control for initial treatment assignment.
Equation (2) includes household fixed effects. Pair dummies indicated in the table are based in on nearest neighbor matching propensity score matching based on 2007 census segment data.
IV estimates in columns (5) and (7) use the census segment treatment assignment to instrument for indicators for being in a project area in 2012-2013 (5); and the households reporting being a beneficiary of the WASH projects from MCC in (7)
^IV estimates partial out the indicators for pairs to compute the std. errors of the coefficients of interest. We report the K-P rk Wald F statistic following the results in Stock and Yogo (2005)
* p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01
Another outcome central to the improvement in access to WASH services is the reliability of the water systems in the communities. We measured reliability by the numbers of days and hours per week that households that have taps could obtain water and by the number of days and hours per week that public taps were available.
Table 54 shows some descriptive statistics for these variables. For the households that had a tap at baseline, we see that they had water for five days a week, on average, and over 50 percent of these households had water seven days a week.
In what follows, we first estimate the impact for the complete sample and then limit the estimation to the households that had tap connections at baseline. The purpose is to disentangle the extensive margin from the intensive margin. For example, on the extensive margin, a household that did not have a tap and then began receiving the water service would create an upward pressure in the full sample estimates, as they go from having zero days of service to five days of service. In the second set of results, we get the pure intensive margin impact; households that were already connected and now might be receiving better service.
112
TABLE 54 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: HOURS AND DAYS PER WEEK THAT HOUSEHOLD HAS ACCESS TO TAP WATER
Comparison Treatment
Mean SD Median Observations Mean SD Median Observations
2011
Number of days Household Tap Available 5.01 2.45 7 853 4.37 2.9 6 828
Household tap is available <7 0.47 0.5 0 853 0.5 0.5 1 828
Hours per week Household Tap is Available 77.4 68.3 49 769 59.3 67.8 21 652
2012
Number of days Household Tap Available 5.04 2.48 7 822 5.23 2.49 7 804
Household Tap is Available <7 0.43 0.49 0 822 0.37 0.48 0 804
Hours per Week Household Tap is Available 80.4 69.5 48 741 70.6 69.6 28 733
2013
Number of days Household Tap Available 4.94 2.45 7 834 4.99 2.52 7 810
Household tap is Available <7 0.46 0.5 0 834 0.45 0.5 0 810
Hours per Week Household Tap is Available 75 69.7 36 751 72.8 71.6 32 734
Total
Number of Days Household Tap Available 5 2.46 7 2509 4.86 2.67 7 2442
Household Tap is Available <7 0.45 0.5 0 2509 0.44 0.5 0 2442
Hours per Week Household Tap is Available 77.6 69.2 42 2261 67.9 70 24.5 2119
*Sample with a connection at baseline.
113 Table 55 shows that households in treatment segments were around 20 percent less likely to report having tap water available less than seven days a week. This table shows the coupled effects on the extensive and intensive margins. Table 56 shows that household in treatment segments had 16.5 to 24.3 more hours of available service per week after the completion of the WASH interventions than households living in comparison segments.
In addition, we estimate these effects on the sample of households that had a tap at baseline to isolate the effects on the intensive margin, presented in Table 57. We find effects of similar size that are concentrated in households that had access to a backyard tap at baseline (as opposed to internal house plumbing); although not always significant at the 5 percent confidence level. Coupled with the results in Table 56, we conclude that there was a general increase in the reliability measures for households that had potable water for the first time and for those that had tap water previously, where the projects improved the existing system.
TABLE 55 RELIABILITY: TAP AVAILABILITY 7 DAYS OR LESS
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Inside Project Area # Post Period -0.29
[0.049]***
Std. errors are clustered at the census segment level.
All equations include year fixed effects. Equations are DID, in (1)-(3) the treatment is defined as living in a treatment assigned segment, (4)-(5) treatment is defined as living inside the project area within the matched pairs, (6)-(7) treatment is defined as having reported being beneficiary of the WASH project within the matched pairs. Equations (4)-(7) control for initial treatment assignment.
Equation (2) includes household fixed effects. Pair dummies indicated in the table are based in on nearest neighbor matching propensity score matching based on 2007 census segment data.
IV estimates in columns (5) and (7) use the census segment treatment assignment to instrument for indicators for being in a project area in 2012-2013 (5); and the households reporting being a beneficiary of the WASH projects from MCC in (7)
^IV estimates partial out the indicators for pairs to compute the std. errors of the coefficients of interest. We report the K-P rk Wald F statistic following the results in Stock and Yogo (2005)
* p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01
114
TABLE 56 RELIABILITY: TAP AVAILABILITY IN HOURS PER WEEK
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
DID DID-FE DID-Pairs
RF-Area-ITT
IV-Area-ITT^ RF-ATE IV-LATE^
Treatment # Post Period 17.1 14.4 16.5
[7.91]** [6.32]** [6.79]**
Inside Project Area # Post Period 20.2
[7.65]***
Inside Project Area-ITT in Post Period 23.1
[9.40]**
Beneficiary # Post Period 22.6
[8.24]***
Beneficiary-LATE in Post Period 24.3
[9.99]**
Pairs Indicators NO NO YES YES NO YES NO
Mean of Comp. at Baseline 77.5 77.5 77.5 77.3 77.3 76.7 76.7
SD of Comp. at Baseline 68.3 68.3 68.3 68.8 68.8 69.2 69.2
Number of Clusters 122 122 122 122 122 122 122
Observations 5,316 5,316 5,316 5,273 5,273 5,273 5,273
K-P rk Wald F 92.5 86.3
Standard errors in brackets
Std. errors are clustered at the census segment level.
All equations include year fixed effects. Equations are DID, in (1)-(3) the treatment is defined as living in a treatment assigned segment, (4)-(5) treatment is defined as living inside the project area within the matched pairs, (6)-(7) treatment is defined as having reported being beneficiary of the WASH project within the matched pairs. Equations (4)-(7) control for initial treatment assignment.
Equation (2) includes household fixed effects. Pair dummies indicated in the table are based in on nearest neighbor matching propensity score matching based on 2007 census segment data.
IV estimates in columns (5) and (7) use the census segment treatment assignment to instrument for indicators for being in a project area in 2012-2013 (5); and the households reporting being a beneficiary of the WASH projects from MCC in (7)
^IV estimates partial out the indicators for pairs to compute the std. errors of the coefficients of interest. We report the K-P rk Wald F statistic following the results in Stock and Yogo (2005)
* p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01
115 TABLE 57 RELIABILITY FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH TAPS AT BASELINE: HOURS AND DAYS PER WEEK WITH ACCESS TO TAP WATER
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Inside Project Area # Post Period # Backyard Tap 12.2
[8.11]
Inside Project Area # Post Period # In house Tap 18.3
[10.4]*
Beneficiary # Post Period # Backyard Tap 15.4
[8.77]*
Beneficiary # Post Period # In house Tap 25.6
[11.0]**
Std. errors are clustered at the census segment level.
All equations include year fixed effects. Equations are DID, in (1)-(3) the treatment is defined as living in a treatment assigned segment, (4) treatment is defined as living inside the project area within the matched pairs, (5) treatment is defined as having reported being beneficiary of the WASH project within the matched pairs. Equations (4)-(5) control for initial treatment assignment.
Equation (2) includes household fixed effects. Pair dummies indicated in the table are based in on nearest neighbor matching propensity score matching based on 2007 census segment data.
Impact estimates represent the DID estimates for households that had the same baseline water source
* p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01
The WASH interventions also included the construction of public taps; although not many). The impact on indicators for public taps access and reliability are not precisely estimated in Table 58. This is for two reasons—
first because there were few households reporting the use of public taps, and second, because the main purpose of the water and sanitation intervention was not to improve access to public taps but to household taps, as the evidence suggests. As mentioned before, only 15 public taps were constructed. The impact estimates suggest that public taps in treatment segment had increased service, increasing by almost 50 percent or 30.3 hours per week in segments where the WASH interventions took place.
116
TABLE 58 RELIABILITY OF PUBLIC TAPS AVAILABILITY
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Inside Project Area # Post Period 30.1
[16.5]*
Inside Project Area-ITT in Post Period 39.9
[18.5]**
Std. errors are clustered at the census segment level.
All equations include year fixed effects. Equations are DID, in (1)-(3) the treatment is defined as living in a treatment assigned segment, (4)-(5) treatment is defined as living inside the project area within the matched pairs, (6)-(7) treatment is defined as having reported being beneficiary of the WASH project within the matched pairs. Equations (4)-(7) control for initial treatment assignment.
Equation (2) includes household fixed effects. Pair dummies indicated in the table are based in on nearest neighbor matching propensity score matching based on 2007 census segment data.
IV estimates in columns (5) and (7) use the census segment treatment assignment to instrument for indicators for being in a project area in 2012-2013 (5); and the households reporting being a beneficiary of the WASH projects from MCC in (7)
^IV estimates partial out the indicators for pairs to compute the std. errors of the coefficients of interest. We report the K-P rk Wald F statistic following the results in Stock and Yogo (2005)
* p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01