Table 3.

Probit regression results for Vietnamese small scale farmer engagement in mitigation of waterborne disease at source by treatment of water.

Variable	Beta	s.d.	z-score	P > |z|
Years schooling	0.0632	0.0399	1.59	0.113
Years farming	0.0195	0.0169	1.16	0.247
Household members >18	0.0115	0.1300	0.09	0.929
RESPONDENT
Male health role	0.1008	0.3474	0.29	0.772
Female health role	1.4816***	0.4397	3.37	0.001
On-farm income	−0.9672***	0.3344	−2.89	0.004
Chickens	−0.0008	0.0047	−0.16	0.871
Pigs	0.0172*	0.0106	1.63	0.103
Log E. coli drinking water	0.0181	0.0608	0.30	0.765
DUMMY WATER SOURCE
Rain	1.5554***	0.5100	3.05	0.002
Pipe	0.2886	0.5032	0.57	0.566
Well	2.1583***	0.5893	3.66	0.000
River with flocculation	0.1225	0.4841	0.25	0.800
PERCEPTIONS
Susc to HPAI (from agr water)	−0.3159	0.2602	−1.21	0.225
Susc to HPAI (from well water)	0.7093*	0.3845	1.84	0.065
Severity HPAI	0.6662	0.4682	1.42	0.155
Cost is a barrier	−0.6230**	0.2636	−2.36	0.018
Knowledge barrier	0.6054**	0.2798	2.16	0.031
Peers barrier	0.0639	0.5397	0.12	0.906
Benefits encourage	1.3906***	0.4408	3.15	0.002
Ability livestock	0.4928*	0.2757	1.79	0.074
TRIGGERS TO ACTION
Health worker advice	0.8077***	0.2787	2.90	0.004
Lost income	0.6833**	0.3430	1.99	0.046
Peers	0.5982	0.3913	1.53	0.126
Worry	−0.1829	0.2958	−0.62	0.536
Constant	−4.3756	0.9117	−4.80	N/A

Dependent binary variable = Yes or No answer to the question “Indicate if you have been employing one or more of the following mitigation practices in relation to water storage treatment [with 5 options including “Invest in household water treatment technology; Use and/or change disinfectants; Repair household water storage]”; Yes = 149, No = 155; Number of observations = 304; LR ${\chi }_{(25)}^2$ = 233.44; Prob > χ² = 0.0000; Log likelihood = −84.3955; Pseudo R² = 0.5804;

^*P < 0.10;

^**P < 0.05;

^***P < 0.01; Concordance = 86.51%