Nudges, TimePoverty, and the Friction of Distance:Three Factors Explaining Arsenic Exposure in Rural India

Informational nudges to adopt safe wells have been the main strategy employed to reduce arsenic exposure in West Bengal, India. However, it is still unclear why some households adopt safe sources while others do not. Using novel data on 125 households’ real water consumption over a nine-day period (a total of 1125 daily observations), we investigate whether past nudge interventions used by nongovernmental organizations and government health workers in the past have resulted in modifying the distance trade-offs households make when choosing between dangerous home water sources and distant safe sources. We found that nudges were more effective when collecting for drinking water than cooking. Even in 100% safe drinking water scenarios, using unsafe sources for cooking can exceed arsenic risk thresholds. Informing households about the health benefits of safe sources is not enough to overcome the distance barrier for all consumed water. Only households with a member who can walk further for water show a reversal in this trend. Considering household and environmental constraints can help design better interventions to provide arsenic-safe water.