Back to History Current Version

Tasty, Traditional, and Healthy Water: The Impact of Novel Technologies that Consider Local Culture on Safe Water Adoption

Last registered on August 29, 2022

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Tasty, Traditional, and Healthy Water: The Impact of Novel Technologies that Consider Local Culture on Safe Water Adoption
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0009944
Initial registration date
August 29, 2022

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
August 29, 2022, 5:20 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Brown University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Universidad de San Andrés

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2022-10-01
End date
2023-05-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
At least 2 billion people around the world drink water from a contaminated source. About two million children die every year from diarrheal diseases and around 700 million people worldwide are affected by chronic kidney disease because of unsafe drinking water and sanitation, despite the availability of effective and inexpensive technologies to improve water quality (Null et al. 2012). Most efforts to provide clean water focused on the technology of chlorine (adding chlorine or chlorine compounds such as sodium hypochlorite to water), which is affordable and easy to use (see, for example, Amrita, Kremer, and Zwane 2010; Null et al. 2012; Dupas et al. 2022).
Despite the evidence of health benefits associated with chlorine water, empirical evidence indicates that most households in developing countries are not willing to adopt and pay much for it (Amrita, Kremer, and Zwane 2010; Null et al. 2012; Berry, Fischer, and Guiteras 2020). Indeed, Dupas et al. (2016) and Dupas et al. (2022) report that less than half of households consume chlorine water even when they receive chlorine for free.

A plausible hypothesis is that previous efforts to promote adoption of clean water disregard the importance of understanding the local culture. Our hypothesis is that there are factors explaining the low take-up rates (and willingness to pay) of chlorine water other than price itself or lack of adequate information. In particular, we propose that dislike for taste of chlorinated water and/or its cultural unsuitability might explain low adoption rates (and willingness to pay). Moreover, in rural areas with high illiteracy rates, people may use taste as a strong signal of healthy water more than standard information messages. To test this hypoyhesis, we will run two separate experiments with women residing in rural village in Upper Egypt. We focus on medium to large sized villages with poor water quality, high incidence of water-borne diseases (such as diarrhea and kidney failures), and without NGOs providing water related services in the area.

The first experiment consists of a blind test between chlorinated and filtered water or tea. While health status is equalized between the two samples of water, they differ in taste. While health and taste is equalized between filtered water and tea, they differ in cultural relevance since consumption of tea is strongly embedded in local habits and social traditions. After tasting water (or tea), women will report which water they prefer, as well as express health perceptions on both samples of water.

In the second experiment, we propose a randomized design at the household level in two rural villages in Upper Egypt. In our experiment, there are 3 groups: a treatment group, a control group, and a pure control group. The treatment group will be offered a tank of 10 liters of healthy filtered water. The control group will be offered a tank of 10 liters of chlorine water. Finally, the pure control group will not be offered cleaned water. Both treated and control women will taste water (or tea) from the offered tank before proceeding to express their adoption decision and willingness-to-pay (WTP). In a follow-up visit, we will measure the effect of the intervention on health and hygiene measures, as well as domestic violence, in the treatment and pure control group.




External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Buccione, Giulia and Martin Rossi. 2022. "Tasty, Traditional, and Healthy Water: The Impact of Novel Technologies that Consider Local Culture on Safe Water Adoption." AEA RCT Registry. August 29. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.9944-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
First Experiment

The first experiment consists of a blind test between chlorine water and filtered water. While health status is equalized between the two samples of water, they differ in taste. Half of the sample would be offered chlorinated and filtered water, while the other half would receive chlorinated and filtered tea. Tasting of the water will happen in private, so respondents cannot influence each other answers. Also, we will randomize the order at the time one person enters into the experiment place, with 50% chance of tasting filtered water (or tea) first and other 50% chance of tasting chlorinated water (or tea) first. After tasting the water, we will record which water (or tea) they prefer. Our hypothesis is that individuals will prefer filtered water/tea. Moreover, following the blind taste, we will ask respondents to rank, on a scale from 1 to 10, their perception of healthiness of the two waters/teas.

Second Experiment

We propose a randomized design at the household level in two rural villages in Upper Egypt. The respondent of all surveys (pre-treatment and follow-up) will be the woman in charge of the household, who is typically the one that fetch water. We focus on medium to large sized villages with poor water quality, high incidence of water-borne diseases (such as diarrhea and kidney failures), and without NGOs providing water related services in the area.

In our experiment, there are 3 groups: a treatment group, a control group, and a pure control group. We will organize two home visits: pre-treatment visit, and a follow-up visit after 2 months.
In the pre-treatment visit, we include the treatment and the control group. The treatment group will be offered a tank of 10 liters of healthy filtered water. The control group will be offered a tank of 10 liters of chlorine water. Finally, the pure control group will not be offered cleaned water and will not be visited in this round. Both treated and control women will taste water (or tea) from the offered tank before proceeding to express their adoption decision and willingness-to-pay (WTP).

To study individuals’ choices in a real-life scenario, in our experiment we will focus on a setting where water tanks are delivered home by home by water taxis going to fetch water to the local treatment unit. The range of prices in the willingness-to-pay experiment includes prices that reflect both the cost of the tank and the cost of transportation.

After the first home visit, before leaving the house, treated people will receive a free voucher for the water taxis to obtain filtered water home for 2 months. Relevantly, both the control and pure control won’t be served by the water taxis for this period of time.

The follow-up visit will take place after 2 months, and we will survey only the treated and pure control group. In this round, we will record long-term outcomes related to health, women's outcomes and household dynamics.

Intervention Start Date
2022-10-01
Intervention End Date
2023-05-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Preference for chlorinated and filtered water (or tea); health perceptions; willingness-to-pay and adoption of filtered and chlorinated water; health (water-borne illnesses); women's outcomes (e.g. savings, etc.); domestic violence.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
We propose a randomized design at the household level in two rural villages in Upper Egypt. The respondent of all surveys (pre-treatment and follow-up) will be the woman in charge of the household, who is typically the one that fetch water.

In our experiment, there are 3 groups: a treatment group, a control group, and a pure control group. We will organize two home visits: pre-treatment visit, and a follow-up visit after 2 months.
In the pre-treatment visit, we include the treatment and the control group. The treatment group will be offered a tank of 10 liters of healthy filtered water. The control group will be offered a tank of 10 liters of chlorine water. Finally, the pure control group will not be offered cleaned water and will not be visited in this round.
The follow-up visit will take place after 2 months, and we will survey only the treated and pure control group. In this round, we will record long-term outcomes.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
Random assignment will be at the household level. Our experimental design stratifies at the surveyor level.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
No clusters
Sample size: planned number of observations
First experiment: 400 individuals Second experiment: 2100 women
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
700 women treatment (filtered water), 700 women control (chlorinated water), 700 women pure control
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number