Skip to Main Content
Perceived well status with respect to As was not the only determinant of well switching. The average distance to the nearest safe well in a village decreases with the proportion of safe wells within that village (Figure 4(a)). Geography has an impact on switching, as indicated by the relationship between the proportion of switching and the average distance to the nearest safe well (Figure 4(b)). Education of the interviewed household member also had an impact on switching. Across all unsafe wells, there was predictable variation in rates of switching as a function of both education and distance to the nearest safe well (Table 1). Years of formal education of the respondents ranged from 0 to 16 years, averaging four years, and distance to the nearest safe well varied widely (10–600 m) across the study area, averaging 69 m. A one-standard-deviation increase in years of formal education (4 1/4 years) raised the well-switching rates by 3.5% (in absolute terms, i.e. percent of the group, the convention we use for all percentage results), while a one-standard-deviation increase in the distance to the nearest safe well (82 m) decreased the well-switching rates by 8%.
Table 1

Results from two household-level regressions and one village-level regression to determine relation between probability of switching, education, distance to the nearest safe well, and distance to the HEALS area

Independent variables of household-level regressionProbability of switching from unsafe wellsIndependent variables of household-level regressionProbability for those who switch beyond nearest safe wellIndependent variables of village-level regressionProbability of switching from unsafe wells
Education (year) 0.008 (p < 0.001) Education (yr) 0.008 (0.11) Average education (yr) 0.039 (0.00) 
Distance to nearest safe well (m) −0.001 (p < 0.001) Distance to nearest safe well (m) −0.024 (p < 0.001) Distance to nearest safe well (m) −0.001 (0.01) 
    Log (distance to HEALS) −0.058 (0.01) 
    Constant 0.68 (0.00) 
2003 467 76 
Adjusted r2 0.22 Adjusted r2 0.11 Adjusted r2 0.28 
Village effects included as controls for village differences in factors not observed  Village effects included as controls for village differences in factors not observed  F Statistic
Prob > F 
F (3, 72) = 10.7
0.0000 
Independent variables of household-level regressionProbability of switching from unsafe wellsIndependent variables of household-level regressionProbability for those who switch beyond nearest safe wellIndependent variables of village-level regressionProbability of switching from unsafe wells
Education (year) 0.008 (p < 0.001) Education (yr) 0.008 (0.11) Average education (yr) 0.039 (0.00) 
Distance to nearest safe well (m) −0.001 (p < 0.001) Distance to nearest safe well (m) −0.024 (p < 0.001) Distance to nearest safe well (m) −0.001 (0.01) 
    Log (distance to HEALS) −0.058 (0.01) 
    Constant 0.68 (0.00) 
2003 467 76 
Adjusted r2 0.22 Adjusted r2 0.11 Adjusted r2 0.28 
Village effects included as controls for village differences in factors not observed  Village effects included as controls for village differences in factors not observed  F Statistic
Prob > F 
F (3, 72) = 10.7
0.0000 
Figure 4

(a) Relationship between the proportion of switching from unsafe wells in a village and the average distance from an unsafe well to a safe well in that village (p < 0.05). (b) Relationship between the average distance from an unsafe well to the nearest safe well and the proportion of safe wells in that village (p < 0.05).

Figure 4

(a) Relationship between the proportion of switching from unsafe wells in a village and the average distance from an unsafe well to a safe well in that village (p < 0.05). (b) Relationship between the average distance from an unsafe well to the nearest safe well and the proportion of safe wells in that village (p < 0.05).

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal