Women Are Walking and Waiting for Water: The Time Value of Public Water Supply

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractPublic funding of water supply infrastructure in developing countries is often justified by the expectation that the time spent on water collection significantly decreases, leading to increased labor force participation of women. In this study we empirically test this hypothesis by applying a difference-in-difference analysis to a sample of 2000 households in rural Benin where improved water supply was phased in over time. Time savings per day are rather modest at 35 minutes: even though walking distances are considerably reduced, women still spend a lot of time waiting at the water source. Moreover, a reduction in time to collect one water container induces women to collect a higher number of containers per day. Our results indicate that time savings are rarely followed by increased labor supply of women: men are the first to be freed from water fetching activities.JEL classification: I38, J22, J16

Water, Sanitation, and Child Health: Evidence From Subnational Panel Data in 59 Countries

“…For water, different sources are perceived to have different levels and sources of pathogenic contaminants. But physical access to water likely also affects the prevalence of handwashing and other hygienic practices given that acquiring water from even moderately distant sources dramatically increases the implicit cost of these behaviors, and water piped to the home could generate important savings of time and effort for households (Devoto et al 2012 ; Gross et al 2018 ). To reflect potential differences in both contamination levels and access gradients, we therefore disaggregate the JMP/WHO definition of “any improved water” into three categories: (1) piped water to the home, (2) other piped water, and (3) nonpiped improved water access.…”

“…Hence, there is likely to be important unobservable heterogeneity in the quality of piped water across countries. Still, the statistically significant association between water piped into the home and stunting—and the insignificant coefficients on improved water not piped into the home—suggests that the costs associated with collecting water outside the home may have especially harmful impacts on child welfare even with heterogeneity in water quality (Gross et al 2018 ).…”

Evaluating Water- and Health-related Development Projects: A Cross-project and Micro-based Approach

“…Madagascar; Duflo et al (2015) and Dwivedi et al (2018) for India; Gross et al (2017) for rural Benin; Koolwal and van de Walle (2013) for a range of developing countries; Zhang (2012) for rural China). Special attention was attracted by the economic effects of a reduction in water collection time on women (e.g., Gross et al, 2017, Ilahi and Grimard, 2000, Koolwal and van de Walle, 2013, Ray, 2007, Sorenson et al, 2011.…”

“…Madagascar; Duflo et al (2015) and Dwivedi et al (2018) for India; Gross et al (2017) for rural Benin; Koolwal and van de Walle (2013) for a range of developing countries; Zhang (2012) for rural China). Special attention was attracted by the economic effects of a reduction in water collection time on women (e.g., Gross et al, 2017, Ilahi and Grimard, 2000, Koolwal and van de Walle, 2013, Ray, 2007, Sorenson et al, 2011. Given past research efforts, recent meta studies still suggests a higher tendency of water sources in low-income countries and rural areas to contain fecal contamination (see the review by Bain et al, 2014) but a substantially lower risk of diarrheal morbidity if interventions promote point-of-use filters, high-quality piped water to premises, sewer connections or hand-washing with soap (see the reviews by Wolf et al, 2014Wolf et al, , 2018.…”

“…The literature argues that women often tend to be a target group and therefore might benefit more from water-related development projects. We are looking at surveys that questioned only women, assuming that the effect of projects for female respondents might be higher, especially for the variable time to water (e.g., Gross et al, 2017, Ilahi and Grimard, 2000, Koolwal and van de Walle, 2013, Ray, 2007, Sorenson et al, 2011. We observe a relevant drop in the number of observations, as the DHS data does not provide gender information on a respondent's basis.…”