. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Oct 1.

Published in final edited form as: Environ Dev Econ. 2014 Oct;19(5):631–647. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X13000612

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics

	FULL SAMPLE		Unsafe - Safe		Switch – Didn’t

	Mean	Std.Err.	Mean	Std.Err.	Mean	Std.Err
Monthly Income (takas)	8186	8569	−88.8	473.13	64.33	543
Brick Walls	0.13	0.33	−0.02	0.01	0.07	0.03^***
Uses a latrine	0.81	0.39	0.02	0.03	0	0.03
Respondent age	40	13.33	−0.28	0.85	−0.46	0.88
Respondent literate	0.44	0.5	0	0.03	0.07	0.03^**
Household size	5.6	2.44	−0.12	0.13	−0.1	0.2
Fraction with unsafe wells	0.68	0.48	n/a	n/a	0.27	0.03^***
Fraction with arsenic symptoms	0.09	0.28	0.05	0.03^**	0.01	5.14
Distance to closest safe well (m)	32	51.47	46 ¹	5.69^***	5 ²	2.89^*

Source: Authors’ 2008 survey, all calculated using sampling weights and clustering at the village level.

The distance to safe for households with safe wells is zero, so this is the average for unsafe wells.

The distance to safe is higher for those who switch because most switching is from unsafe wells, influencing also the coefficient in Table 5 – which differs if studying unsafe wells (as in Table 4).

^{*, ** and ***}

denote significance at 10%, 5% and 1% respectively.