Agricultural Research Management Information System

Home
Research Summary
Search
About Us
- ARMIS
- Brochure
Contact Us
Report
User Request
Data Input
Help
- Operation Manual
  - PDF
  - Video
- Program Area & Commodity
We have reached 37600 number of research entries at this moment.

- Logout

Research Detail

Home
Research
Detail

Can Information Alone Change Behavior? Response to Arsenic Contamination of Groundwater in Bangladesh

Malgosia Madajewicz
Corresponding author
Columbia University, United States

Alexander Pfaff
Columbia University, United States

Alexander van Geen
Columbia University, United States

Joseph Graziano
Columbia University, United States

Iftikhar Hussein
National Institute of Preventive and Social Medicine (NIPSOM), Dhaka, Bangladesh

Hasina Momotaj
National Institute of Preventive and Social Medicine (NIPSOM), Dhaka, Bangladesh

Roksana Sylvi
Columbia University, United States

Habibul Ahsan
Columbia University, United States

Abstract/ Executive Summary:

We study how effectively information induces Bangladeshi households to avoid a health risk. The response to information is large and rapid; knowing that the household's well water has an unsafe concentration of arsenic raises the probability that the household changes to another well within one year by 0.37. Households who change wells increase the time spent obtaining water fifteen-fold. We identify a causal effect of information since the incidence of arsenic is uncorrelated with household characteristics. Our door-to-door information campaign provides well-specific arsenic levels without which behavior does not change. Media communicate general information about arsenic less expensively and no less effective.

Keywords: Information, Health risk, Arsenic, Drinking water

Location: In Bangladesh

Start Date:

End Date:

Program Area: Risk Management in Agriculture

Commodity: Arsenic

Objectives:

To determine the Response of arsenic contamination of groundwater in Bangladesh

Methodology:

We estimate an OLS regression in which the binary outcome is whether respondent i in village j changes to another well or not. Our estimator of the effect of information is the coefficient on the binary variable which indicates whether the respondent's baseline well is safe. Since the independent variable of interest is binary, OLS provides a non-parametric estimator, whereas probit does not. We also compare the probability that the respondent changes to a different well in a restricted range of arsenic levels, i.e. just below and just above the threshold of 50 μg/L, above which the well is labeled unsafe. If a concern remains that levels of arsenic are correlated with respondents' unobserved characteristics, then respondents whose wells have similar arsenic levels should have similar characteristics.16 Therefore, a large difference in behavior between households whose baseline wells are just below the safe threshold and those whose wells are just above it should be due to the information value of the safe threshold and not other characteristics correlated with arsenic levels. Even if this assumption does not hold, but the relationship between characteristics and arsenic levels is smooth, then the effect of the threshold should constitute a valid estimate of the effect of information when we control smoothly for arsenic levels.

Source of Information: Journal of Development Economics 84 (2007) 731–754

Article Link (Online Journal): doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2006.12.002

Funding Source:

Budget:

Total Budget (Tk.) :

Achievement/Findings:

Our principal finding is that information alone can rapidly induce a large percentage of people who face a risk to health to change their behavior in order to avoid the risk, even if the change is costly. The important implication is that investment of public resources in providing information can be effective even when resources for a more elaborate intervention, such as alternative sources of water, are lacking. We provide information about the concentration of arsenic in the water in people's wells. Having an unsafe well increases the probability that the person changes to another well within one year by 0.37. Furthermore, those who change to another well to avoid arsenic increase the time they spend walking for water fifteen-fold. The response to information is striking since few people were sick from arsenic at the time of our survey and switching to another well is costly. The crucial effect of our house-to-house information campaign was to provide information specific to the individual, whether her/his well is safe and which wells in the vicinity are safe. Ninety-eight percent of people in our study area know whether their well is safe, while 20% claim to know in control areas. People exposed only to the media information campaign have not obtained well tests and they have not sought safe water. The media communicate general information about arsenic no less effectively and less expensively than does the door-to-door campaign. This is surprising since only two-thirds of households own a TV or a radio and few people read newspapers. The contrast between our results and prior literature raises an important question for future research; under what circumstances is a large and rapid change in behavior in response to information likely to occur? One potential explanation is the influence which neighbors have on each others' behavior. If such influence is strong, even if only a few people are convinced of the need to act, their behavior may spread through the community. Such strong effects may help design information campaigns which target only a few people in a group.35 Explaining the effect we observe requires understanding which components of our intervention were crucial in eliciting the behavioral response. For example, would a media campaign together with a well test yield the same outcome, or did other parts of our intervention such as the repeated surveys and the daily contact between residents and project staff promote a sense of urgency about the problem? The earth scientists involved in the Araihazar study are documenting the percentage of people who change to another well in areas in which well tests were conducted by the Bangladesh Arsenic Mitigation Water Supply Project in addition to the media campaign. Their data may help to shed light on the question. A number of questions remain for future research. Future surveys will reveal whether the change in behavior which we document is a long-term or a transitory one. We should understand the long-term impact of the decision to change to another well on welfare, which requires valuing benefits and long-term costs such as potentially worse nutrition and/or reduced schooling for children due to reduced income and increased burden of walking for water. Finally, we want to determine whether information can lead to more complex behavioral responses. Access to safe water in the medium and long run is likely to require an organized response by communities, the public sector or the private sector to drill wells into deeper aquifers which are free of arsenic, to pipe water from safe wells, and/or to clean up surface water. The question arises under what conditions an information intervention is sufficient to catalyze collective action.

Knowledge Management: Journal