TRADUIRE LA RECHERCHE EN ACTION

1

Happiness  on  Tap?    Piped  Water  Adop2on  in  Rural  

Morocco  

Urban  Services  Ini2a2ve  Conference  

Collabora2on  between…  

•   Veolia  Environnement  (funding)  

•   Amendis  (implemen7ng  partner  in  Morocco)  

•   JPAL  research  team:    –   Florencia  Devoto  –   Diva  Dhar  –   Esther  Duflo  –   Pascaline  Dupas  –   William  Pariente  –   Vincent  Pons  

Context  

§  City  of  Tangiers  in  northern  Morocco  

§  Most  households    have    a  private  connec7on  to  the  water  grid  managed  by  Amendis      

§  But  poorest  households  do  not  have  a  private  tap  

§  Main  reason:  cannot  afford  cost  of  connec7on  to  the  grid  

§  Instead  they  use  public  taps  

TRADUIRE LA RECHERCHE EN ACTION

4 A  public  tap  

Amendis  “BSI”  program  

§  BSI  =  “Branchements  Sociaux  Individuels”  

§  Program  to  help  poor  households  acquire  private  connec7on  to  water  grid  

§  Subsidy  in  the  form  of  a  0%-­‐interest  loan  to  purchase  the  connec7on  §  Connec7on   costs   from  US$   540   to   US$   1340,   depending   on   distance   to  

grid  

§  Loans  to  be  reimbursed  in  monthly  installments  over  3,  5  or  7  years    §  About  US$  15  per  month    

 

Poten2al  ways  through  which  the  program  could  posi2vely  affect  the  lives  of  the  beneficiaries  §  Improved  Health?  

§  Private  tap  =  no  risk  that  water  is  contaminated  while  transported  or  stored  

§  Private   tap   =     higher   quan7ty   of   water   available   since   no   transport  costs.  Can  affect  hygiene  prac7ces.  

§  Freed  2me?  §  Average  untapped  household  spends  7  hours  a  week  fetching  water  §  With   private   tap   this   7me   can   be   allocated   to   produc7ve   ac7vi7es  

(labor  supply  for  adults,  schooling  for  children),  or  to  leisure  

§  Fewer  conflicts  in  the  community?  §  Private   tap   =   no   conflict   within   household   w.r.t   who   is   on   water  

fetching  duty….  §  Private  tap  =  no  risk  of  conflict  with  neighbors  about  maintenance  or  

use  of  public  tap  

 

But  could  be  nega2ve  impacts  too…  

§  Private  tap  =  confines  women  to  the  house?    §  Lose  opportunity  to  socialize  /  meet  others  at  water  source  

§  Credit  =  stress  ?  §  Though   unlikely   since   credit   is   voluntary   and   failure   to   repay   only  

means  disconnec7on  from  grid.  No  legal  consequences.  

 

Research  Design:  Randomized  Encouragement  

§  Census.  Iden7fied  850  households  eligible  for  the  loan  

§  Randomized  850  eligible  households  into  two  groups:    

§  TREATMENT  GROUP:  Home  visit  to  provide  informa2on  about  loan  program  +  assistance  with  paperwork  

§  CONTROL  GROUP:  Eligible  if  applied  on  their  own,  but  not  informed    nor  helped  

Large  impact  of  encouragement  on  take-­‐up  

Share  of  households  with  a  private  connec4on  to  the  grid,  7  months  a9er  randomized  encouragement  

68.7%  

9.7%  

0.0%  

10.0%  

20.0%  

30.0%  

40.0%  

50.0%  

60.0%  

70.0%  

80.0%  

Traitement  (n=434)   Contrôle  (n=411)  Treatment (n=434) Control (n=411)

Why  such  a  big  difference?  

§  Since  everyone  was  eligible  for  loan  program,  why  was  take-­‐up  so  low  in  control  group?  

§  Study  done  during  pilot  phase  of  program:  before  program  was  heavily  adver7sed,  so  households  did  not  yet  know  about  it  

§  Cumbersome  paperwork  required  to  apply  §  Need  approval  from  local  authority  §  Need  copies  of  important  iden7fica7on  documents  §  Go  to  branch  office  to  make  downpayment  

Evalua2on  Timeline  and  Data  

§  Baseline  survey  administered  in  August  2007  §  Socio-­‐economic  characteris7cs  §  Health  and  hygiene  prac7ces  §  Water  collec7on,  storage  and  treatment  prac7ces  §  Social  integra7on,  life  sa7sfac7on,  mental  health  §  Time  use  (including  labor  supply  and  schooling)  

§  For  a  subsample  :  water  test  (Chlorine  and  E  coli)  §  Baseline  Diaries  for  health  and  schooling  in  Dec  2007  

§  Daily  illness  records  for  children  (diarrhea,  fever  and  vomi7ng)  §  Daily  school  anendance  

§  Encouragement  visit  to  treatment  households  in  January  2008  §  Connec7ons  built  by  Feb  March  2008  §  Diaries  for  Health  and  Schooling  in  May,  Aug,  Nov  2008  §  Follow-­‐up  Survey  :  August  2008  

Results            

No  change  in  water  quality...    

•   No  significant  difference  in  E  coli  presence  

•   12  percentage  points  (28%)  increase  in  chlorine  presence  

12.79  10.38  

37.8  

0.00  

5.00  

10.00  

15.00  

20.00  

25.00  

30.00  

35.00  

40.00  

Treatment   Control   Rural  

Tangiers   Kenya  

E  Coli  found  in  drinking  water  

0.55  

0.43  

0.00  

0.10  

0.20  

0.30  

0.40  

0.50  

0.60  

Présence  de  chlore  détectée*  

...   but   a   large   increase   in   quan2ty   of   water  available  Reported  at  endline  (about  5  months  a9er  connec4on  if  connected)  

0.88   0.88  

3.03  

3.63  

0.67   0.71  

2.74    

3.66    

0.00  

0.50  

1.00  

1.50  

2.00  

2.50  

3.00  

3.50  

4.00  

Bathing***   House  cleaning***   Respondent*   Youngest  child  

Has  enough  water  for…   Times  bathed  in  last  7  days…  

Treatment   Control  

No  effect  on  health  

•    No   health   effect   despite   big   gain   in   water   quan7ty  à   suggests   that   water  quan7ty  is  not  a  big  factor  in  health?  

Weekling  number  of  days  with  severe  diarrhea,  children  age  0-­‐6  at  baseline  

0.37    

0.23    

0.35    0.32    

0.35    0.32    

0.29    0.32    

0.00    

0.05    

0.10    

0.15    

0.20    

0.25    

0.30    

0.35    

0.40    

Follow-­‐up  1:  May  2008  

Follow-­‐up  2:  Aug  2008  

Follow-­‐up  3:  Nov  2008  

Average  

Treatment   Control  

Large  Time  Gains…  

0.15  

0.71  0.95    

3.09    

0.00  0.50  1.00  1.50  2.00  2.50  3.00  3.50  

that  a  child  fetched  water***  

that  an  adult  fetched  water***  

#  of  7mes  over  past  3  days  

Treatment   Control  

95  8    

1053  

41    0  

200  

400  

600  

800  

1000  

1200  

fetching  water***   socializing  while  fetching  water*  

Minutes  spent  over  past  month  

Treatment   Control  

…but  at  a  monetary  cost  

(in  MAD)  

502  

145    

76   73    

0  

100  

200  

300  

400  

500  

600  

Fixed  cost  of  connec7on***   Monthly  water  expenditure***  

Treatment   Control  

What  do  people  do  with  their  free  2me?  

•  They  do  not  work  more  or  generate  more  income  •  Children  do  not  do  more  homework  or  anend  school  more  •  But  everyone  report  having  more  free  7me,  more  7me  for  

watching  TV,  receiving  friends  or  family.    •  So  essen7ally:  more  leisure.  

Posi2ve  impact  on  social  integra2on  

4%  4%   5%  

7%  

4%  

2%  2%  

15%  

6%  

10%  12%  

1%  

0%  

2%  

4%  

6%  

8%  

10%  

12%  

14%  

16%  

18%  

Belongs  to   water  issues***   property  maners   inheritance   water  issues***   property  maners  

a  social  group  or  associa7on*  

with  family  members  regarding   with  neighbors  regarding  

Having  a  conflict  with…  

Treatment   control  

Overall,  well-­‐being  seems  to  improve  

21%  

35%  

57%  

51%  

65%  

13%  

57%  

24%  

0%  

10%  

20%  

30%  

40%  

50%  

60%  

70%  

Water  listed  as  major  source  of  concern***  

Home  is  cleaner  than  a  year  ago***  

Water  tastes  good   Overall,  the  life  of  the  household  has  improved  compared  to  a  year  ago  

Treatment   Control  

Overall,  well-­‐being  seems  to  improve  

0.179  

0.432  0.476  

0.639  

0.23  

0.47  0.43  

0.596  

0.00  

0.10  

0.20  

0.30  

0.40  

0.50  

0.60  

0.70  

Sad   Worried   Sa7sfied  

Over  the  past  7  week,  respondent  was  some7mes…   Average  effect  on  mental  health*  

Treatment   Control  

Demand  over  the  long-­‐run  

•  People  could  stop  using  private  tap  and  go  back  to  (free)  public  tap  if  they  wanted….did  they?  

•  We  see  no  evidence  of  that  •  Early  2010  (2  years  auer  gevng  connected),  households  were  s7ll  paying  their  monthly  bill  •  No  complete  default  on  loan  (no  disconnec7on)  •  Suggests  that  households  are  con7nuously  willing  to  pay  for  the  connec7on  •  Though  about  20%  of  people  were  late  on  their  payments,  sugges7ng  cost  is  not  trivial  

•  What  about  those  in  the  control  group?  •  We  find  evidence  that  those  who  lived  near  treatment  households  learned  about  the  

program  and  were  more  likely  to  take  it  up  •  This  confirms  that  those  in  the  treatment  group  were  happy  enough  to  recommend  the  

program  to  their  friends  

Wrap-­‐up  

•  High  willingness  to  pay  for  a  private  water  connec7on  

•  No  impact  on  health  •  Not  surprising  since  water  quality  at  public  tap  already  very  high  

•  Nevertheless,  large  effect  on  well-­‐being  •  More  7me  for  leisure  •  Fewer  conflicts  within  or  across  households  •  Higher  reported  sa7sfac7on  level  

•  Improved  access  to  credit  allows  households  to  invest  in  quality  of  life-­‐enhancing  technology  •  Even  if  credit  is  not  put  to  produc7ve  use,  appears  to  significantly  

improve  welfare  

A  Collabora2on  between…  

•   Veolia  Environnement  (funding)  •   Amendis  (implemen7ng  partner  in  Morocco)  •   JPAL  research  team:    

– Esther   Duflo,   Pascaline   Dupas,   William   Pariente,   Florencia   Devoto,   Vincent   Pons,   Diva  Dhar  

• First  discussion  with  Amendis  in  summer  2006:    – Consider  all  projects  suitable  for  evalua7on    

•    Actual   study   in   the   field   from   August   2007   to   August   2008,   informed  Amendis  prac7ce  immediately:    

– In  par7cular  the  result  of  high  take  up  of  BSI  – No  change  in  e-­‐coli  in  water.    – Help  control  group  to  access  program  that  was  not  previously  used  as  much  as  thought  

•   First  drau  of  the  paper  available  in  September  2009