| Literature DB >> 34580221 |
Rob Hope1,2, Paola Ballon3,2.
Abstract
More than 500 million rural Africans lack safe drinking water. The human right to water and United Nations Sustainable Development Goal SDG6.1 promote a policy shift from building water infrastructure to sustaining water services. However, the financial calculus is bleak with the costs of "safely managed"' or "basic" water services in rural Africa beyond current government budgets and donor funds. The funding shortfall is compounded by the disappointing results of earlier policy initiatives in Africa. This is partly because of a failure to understand which attributes of water services rural people value. We model more than 11,000 choice observations in rural Kenya by attributes of drinking water quality, price, reliability, and proximity. Aggregate analysis disguises alternative user priorities in three choice classes. The two larger choice classes tolerate lower service levels with higher payments. A higher water service level reflects the smallest choice class favored by women and the lower wealth group. For the lower wealth group, slower repair times are accepted in preference to a lower payment. Some people discount potable water and proximity, and most people choose faster repair times and lower payments. We argue policy progress needs to chart common ground between individual choices and universal rights. Guaranteeing repair times may provide a policy lever to unlock individual payments to complement public investment in water quality and waterpoint proximity to support progressive realization of a universal right.Entities:
Keywords: Africa; Kenya; choices; drinking water; human rights
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34580221 PMCID: PMC8501757 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2105953118
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205
Fig. 1.Pictorial design of choice attribute levels (Left) and a test choice card (Right).
Respondent profiles by choice card preferences for change and status quo options
| Characteristic | Preference for change options | Preference for status quo option | Total |
| No. of choice cards | 7,528 | 4,322 | 11,850 |
| Percent | 63.5 | 36.5*** | 100.0 |
| Characteristics of the respondent | |||
| Female, % | 63.4 | 36.6*** | 65.6 |
| Highest level of completed education | |||
| Primary school, % | 63.5 | 36.5*** | 50.3 |
| Secondary school, % | 65.1 | 34.9*** | 14.3 |
| Being in the bottom 20% of the wealth distribution, % | 60.0 | 40.0*** | 20.2 |
| Being in the top 20% of the wealth distribution, % | 64.1 | 35.9*** | 19.7 |
| Access to electricity, % | 58.6 | 41.4*** | 5.6 |
| Mobile phone ownership, % | 64.2 | 35.8*** | 83.4 |
| Water concerns | |||
| Seasonality, % | 70.8 | 29.2*** | 12.9 |
| Reliability, % | 64.0 | 36.0*** | 35.5 |
| Safety, % | 62.5 | 37.5*** | 16.2 |
| Cost, % | 70.5 | 29.5*** | 11.1 |
Statistics are row-conditional frequencies summing to 100% (for a given characteristic). Statistical differences are tested using paired sample tests. This allows accounting for the presence of the same respondent in change and status quo options across cards. ***Indicates statistically significant differences between change and status quo groups at 1% level.
Frequencies are computed over 11,850 cards.
Fig. 2.Payment behavior by sex (Left) and distance to nearest hand pump by type of voter (Right). (Left) Plot of the difference between cumulative density curves of payment of females minus males. (Right) Plot of the density curve to the nearest hand pump by preference for change or the status quo.
Conditional logit and latent class models
| Model specification | ||||
| CLM coefficient | LCM 1 coefficient, estimated class probability 26% | LCM2 coefficient, estimated class probability 39% | LCM3 coefficient, estimated class probability 35% | |
| Dependent variables – choice attributes | ||||
| I. Preference for no. of days to repair | ||||
| 2 d | 1.175 | 2.215 | 1.465 | 2.080 |
| 4 d | −0.110 | −3.265 | 1.178 | 0.345 |
| 6 d | 0.360 | −1.191 | 0.833 | 1.070 |
| 8 d | −0.649 | −3.207 | 0.704 | −0.198 |
| II. Preference for payment | ||||
| Pay $0.5 | 3.237 | 6.646 | 2.371 | 4.796 |
| Pay $1.0 | 1.591 | 0.733 | 2.072 | 2.815 |
| Pay $1.5 | 1.618 | 0.957 | 1.802 | 2.894 |
| Pay $2.0 | 1.448 | −1.461 | 2.307 | 3.115 |
| III. Preference for type of water | ||||
| Potable water | 1.721 | 5.038 | 2.898 | 0.601 |
| IV. Distance to hand pump | ||||
| In meters | 0.001 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Interactions | ||||
| Being in the bottom 40% of the wealth distribution with: | ||||
| Days to repair - less than 4 d | −0.067 | 0.208 | −0.403 | −0.084 |
| Payment - less than USD $1.0 | 0.278 | 1.333 | 0.435 | 0.392 |
| Being a female with: | ||||
| Days to repair - less than 4 d | 0.654 | 2.523 | 0.602 | 0.681 |
| Payment - less than $1.0 | 0.444 | 2.267 | 0.732 | 0.160** |
| Concern for seasonality with: | ||||
| Days to repair - less than 4 d | 0.030 | 0.436 | 0.464 | 0.022 |
| Payment - less than $1.0 | 0.190 | 1.419 | 1.248 | −0.077 |
| Concern for reliability with: | ||||
| Days to repair - less than 4 d | 0.303 | 1.885 | 0.124 | 0.477 |
| Payment - less than $1.0 | 0.141 | 2.072 | 0.740 | −0.212 |
| Concern for safety with: | ||||
| Days to repair - less than 4 d | 0.741 | 0.738 | 1.410 | 1.697 |
| Payment - less than $1.0 | 0.592 | 4.572 | 2.627 | 0.821 |
| Distance | 0.005 | 0.928 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Concern for cost with: | ||||
| Days to repair - less than 4 d | −0.217** | 0.729** | −0.440 | −0.101 |
| Payment - less than $1.0 | 0.445 | 3.260 | 0.076 | −0.132 |
| Distance | −0.002** | 0.225** | −0.002 | −0.031 |
| Model summary | ||||
| No. of observations, no. of parameters | 11,740; 24 | 11,740; 74 | ||
| Log likelihood at convergence | −8,925.5 | −12,897.7 | ||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.292 (adjusted) | 0.407 (McFadden) | ||
| Information criteria AIC | 17,899 | 15,386 | ||
| Normalized AIC | 1.525 | 1.311 | ||
, **, * denote statistical significance at 1, 5, and 10% levels, respectively. No asterisk(s) denotes nonsignificance.