| . | Fecal contamination . | Arsenic contamination (WHO threshold) . | Arsenic contamination (Bangladeshi threshold) . |
|---|---|---|---|
| . | (1) . | (2) . | (3) . |
| Difference | −0.13*** | −0.58*** | −0.35*** |
| (0.05) | (0.04) | (0.03) | |
| Mean (project tubewell) | 0.34 | 0.06 | 0.01 |
| Mean (other tubewells) | 0.46 | 0.63 | 0.34 |
| N | 3,399 | 3,515 | 3,515 |
| . | Fecal contamination . | Arsenic contamination (WHO threshold) . | Arsenic contamination (Bangladeshi threshold) . |
|---|---|---|---|
| . | (1) . | (2) . | (3) . |
| Difference | −0.13*** | −0.58*** | −0.35*** |
| (0.05) | (0.04) | (0.03) | |
| Mean (project tubewell) | 0.34 | 0.06 | 0.01 |
| Mean (other tubewells) | 0.46 | 0.63 | 0.34 |
| N | 3,399 | 3,515 | 3,515 |
Source: Authors’ analysis based on data sources discussed in the text.
Note: The table reports the regression-estimated difference in contamination rates in project tubewells compared to other water sources in the same communities, from a regression that includes community fixed effects. The table also reports mean contamination levels in project tubewells and other water sources in the same communities. The sample includes water sources that at least one study household reported using for drinking or cooking, in communities in which we installed at least one project well. Standard errors are clustered by community and shown in parentheses. *** p < 0.01.
| . | Fecal contamination . | Arsenic contamination (WHO threshold) . | Arsenic contamination (Bangladeshi threshold) . |
|---|---|---|---|
| . | (1) . | (2) . | (3) . |
| Difference | −0.13*** | −0.58*** | −0.35*** |
| (0.05) | (0.04) | (0.03) | |
| Mean (project tubewell) | 0.34 | 0.06 | 0.01 |
| Mean (other tubewells) | 0.46 | 0.63 | 0.34 |
| N | 3,399 | 3,515 | 3,515 |
| . | Fecal contamination . | Arsenic contamination (WHO threshold) . | Arsenic contamination (Bangladeshi threshold) . |
|---|---|---|---|
| . | (1) . | (2) . | (3) . |
| Difference | −0.13*** | −0.58*** | −0.35*** |
| (0.05) | (0.04) | (0.03) | |
| Mean (project tubewell) | 0.34 | 0.06 | 0.01 |
| Mean (other tubewells) | 0.46 | 0.63 | 0.34 |
| N | 3,399 | 3,515 | 3,515 |
Source: Authors’ analysis based on data sources discussed in the text.
Note: The table reports the regression-estimated difference in contamination rates in project tubewells compared to other water sources in the same communities, from a regression that includes community fixed effects. The table also reports mean contamination levels in project tubewells and other water sources in the same communities. The sample includes water sources that at least one study household reported using for drinking or cooking, in communities in which we installed at least one project well. Standard errors are clustered by community and shown in parentheses. *** p < 0.01.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
