1 Household Panel

1.1 Characteristics of Household Panel

Panel Overview
Variable Baseline Obs Baseline Mean Baseline Median Endline Obs Endline Mean Endline Median
Gender (1 = Female) 3748 0.617 1 3748 0.682 1
Married (1 = Yes) 3748 0.91 1 1204 0.839 1
Age 3748 45.287 43 3748 45.884 43
HH Size 3748 4.924 5 3748 4.895 5
Education (5 = Some Secondary) 3746 4.773 5 1204 4.935 5
Number of Phones 3356 2.979 3 3748 2.855 3
Respondent Has Phone (1 = Yes) 3355 0.793 1 3532 0.79 1
Satisfaction w Muni Services (-2 to 2) 2637 0.757 1 3228 0.843 1
Satisfaction w Vill Services (-2 to 2) 3555 0.793 1 3681 0.911 1
Satisfaction w HH’s Waste Services (-2 to 2) 1412 0.788 1 1653 0.833 1
Agree that Contacting Service Provider is Effective (-2 to 2) 1386 1 1 1638 0.985 1
Willingness to Pay - Home Service (Riels) 3657 8821.848 12000 3687 9807.025 12000
Willingness to Pay - Neighborhood (Riels) 3673 5974.407 5000 3692 7208.072 7500
Don’t Know, Refused and NAs removed throughout. Note that only new respondents in return HHs were asked their education and marital status at Endline

1.2 HH Interaction with Treatment

1.2.1 Phone Call Treatment

App Use by Treatment Status
Treatment Group N Familiar with WasteVoice % Familiar Downloaded WasteVoice % Downloaded Used WasteVoice % Used
Control 2033 435 21.4% 94 4.62% 5 0.25%
Waste Voice 1689 455 26.94% 150 8.88% 15 0.89%
Total 3722 890 23.91% 244 6.56% 20 0.54%
Does Treatment Status Predict App Behaviors?
Dependent variable:
Familiar with App Downloaded App Used App
(1) (2) (3)
Received Phone Treatment 0.058*** 0.043*** 0.006***
(0.017) (0.010) (0.002)
Constant 0.218*** 0.046*** 0.002**
(0.010) (0.005) (0.001)
Observations 3,647 3,707 3,720
R2 0.005 0.008 0.002
Adjusted R2 0.004 0.007 0.002
Residual Std. Error 0.429 (df = 3645) 0.247 (df = 3705) 0.073 (df = 3718)
Note: p<0.1; p<0.05; p<0.01
Robust SEs clustered by block.

1.2.2 Report Treatment

Received WasteVoice Report by Treatment Status
Treatment Group N % Reports Delivered (RDS) Received Report (self-reported) % Received Report Found Report Useful % Found Useful Acted on Report % Acted on Report
Control 1879 0% 498 26.5% 379 20.17% 22 1.17%
Report 1843 71.3% 609 33.04% 436 23.66% 13 0.71%
Total 3722 35.3% 1107 29.74% 815 21.9% 35 0.94%
Does Treatment Status Predict Having Received the Report?
Dependent variable:
Received WasteVoice Report (self-reported) Found Report Useful Acted on Report
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Received Report Treatment 0.071*** -0.016 -0.035 -0.005
(0.016) (0.021) (0.022) (0.003)
RDS Delivered Report 0.110*** 0.122***
(0.018) (0.025)
Constant 0.274*** 0.270*** 0.274*** 0.867*** 0.012***
(0.011) (0.010) (0.011) (0.016) (0.003)
Observations 3,582 3,570 3,570 961 3,686
R2 0.006 0.013 0.013 0.002 0.001
Adjusted R2 0.006 0.013 0.012 0.001 0.0003
Residual Std. Error 0.461 (df = 3580) 0.459 (df = 3568) 0.459 (df = 3567) 0.359 (df = 959) 0.097 (df = 3684)
Note: p<0.1; p<0.05; p<0.01
Robust SEs clustered by block.

1.3 HH-Level Treatment Effects

1.3.1 Difference-in-Means: Overall

1.3.1.1 Overview

The table below presents the difference-in-means of select outcome variables, measured at endline, for the treatment and control groups for both the phone treatment and the report treatment. Note that throughout the data, “I don’t know” and “Refused” responses have been recoded to NAs.

Tables with more details from the series of t-tests can be found in the section below.

Difference-in-Means Table: Overview
  Phone Treatment   Report Treatment
Description N   Difference in Means p *   Difference in Means p *
HH waste disposal behavioral outcomes
HH receives formal collection services 3748   0.02 0.229   -0.012 0.444
HH burns waste 3748   -0.004 0.791   0.024 0.14
HH burys waste 3748   0.006 0.369   0.015 0.029 **
HH dumps waste 3748   -0.002 0.676   0.002 0.686
HH uses current disposal method bc it is Clean 3747   -0.034 0.039 **   -0.033 0.047 **
HH uses current disposal method bc of Environment 3747   -0.035 0.033 **   -0.021 0.204
HH has receptacle 1613   -0.014 0.562   -0.008 0.739
Amount willing to pay for HH collection (Riels) 3687   -119.114 0.543   15.371 0.937
Amount willing to pay for Neighborhood Collection (Riels) 3692   -437.28 0.026 **   -154.987 0.431
How often discuss waste w Vill Chief (0 = Never, 4 = All the time) 3739   -0.01 0.669   0.036 0.131
How often discuss waste w Sang Chief (0 = Never, 4 = All the time) 3738   0.011 0.449   0.014 0.324
Waste provider outcomes
HH has no access to formal collection services 3748   0.007 0.665   0.023 0.126
Frequency of formal collection (0-7: lower = more frequent) 1634   -0.121 0.028 **   0.166 0.003 ***
Waste is collected on same day of week (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 1422   0.011 0.662   -0.018 0.479
Waste is collected at same time of day (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 1497   -0.01 0.654   -0.03 0.163
HH attitudes about gov’t/service provider
Satisfaction with HH Waste Provision (-2 to 2) 1653   -0.045 0.235   -0.052 0.17
Satisfaction with Village Waste Provision (-2 to 2) 3615   -0.023 0.383   -0.001 0.96
Satisfaction with services of Village and Sangkat (-2 to 2) 3681   -0.046 0.077 *   0.035 0.169
Satisfaction with services of Municipality (-2 to 2) 3228   0 0.994   0.025 0.343
Agree that contacting provider is effective (-2 to 2) 1638   -0.058 0.079 *   -0.022 0.505
Agree that waste services will improve in future (-2 to 2) 3641   -0.046 0.025 **   -0.065 0.001 ***
Agree that informed about govt service delivery (-2 to 2) 3608   -0.016 0.573   0 0.996
Agree that know who to contact about service issues (-2 to 2) 3566   -0.032 0.161   0.006 0.795
Agree that feel comfortable contact officials about service (-2 to 2) 3606   -0.006 0.827   0.026 0.329
Agree that govt responsive to MY service needs (-2 to 2) 3605   -0.014 0.601   0.004 0.887
Agree that govt responsive to COMMUNITY service needs (-2 to 2) 3525   -0.02 0.43   0.009 0.719
Agree that govt responsive to ALL citizen needs (-2 to 2) 3588   -0.023 0.418   0.001 0.966
Agree that trust the decisions of local govt (-2 to 2) 3633   -0.031 0.248   0.014 0.592
Agree that govt punishes bad officials (-2 to 2) 3514   -0.079 0.011 **   0.076 0.014 **
Control - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4) 1813   -0.031 0.368   -0.023 0.512
Treatment - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4) 1868   -0.03 0.448   -0.016 0.688
HH attitudes about waste habits
Agree that dumping on road is disrespectful (-2 to 2) 3731   -0.058 0.089 *   0.002 0.956
Agree that burning trash is disrespectful (-2 to 2) 3725   -0.075 0.031 **   0.006 0.855
Agree that village is clean (-2 to 2) 3708   0.011 0.748   -0.028 0.406
Agree that waste disposal an important issue (-2 to 2) 3715   -0.062 0.04 **   -0.007 0.824
Agree that one shouldn’t litter (-2 to 2) 3739   -0.057 0.047 **   -0.074 0.009 ***
HH interaction with intervention
Thinks an app could help improve waste collection (1 = Yes) 3649   -0.014 0.015 **   -0.003 0.638
Familiar with WasteVoice (1 = Yes) 3673   0.058 0 ***   0.022 0.128
Downloaded WasteVoice (1 = Yes) 3733   0.043 0 ***   0.005 0.559
Used WasteVoice to report issue (1 = Yes) 3746   0.006 0.011 **   -0.001 0.687
Received report (1 = Yes) 3608   -0.014 0.369   0.071 0 ***
Agrees that report was useful if received (-2 to 2) 961   0.072 0.13   -0.075 0.112
Acted on report (1 = Yes) 3712   0.006 0.089 *   -0.005 0.145

1.3.1.2 Phone Treatment

The table below presents the difference-in-means of select outcome variables, measured at endline, for treatment vs. control households for the phone treatment.

Blue highlights throughout the table indicate that the difference-in-means achieves standard levels of significance \((p < 0.1)\).

Difference-in-Means Table: Phone Treatment
Description N Control Mean Treatment Mean Difference in Means T-Stat p *
HH waste disposal behavioral outcomes
HH receives formal collection services 3748 0.431 0.451 0.02 -1.203 0.229
HH burns waste 3748 0.551 0.547 -0.004 0.264 0.791
HH burys waste 3748 0.042 0.048 0.006 -0.899 0.369
HH dumps waste 3748 0.027 0.025 -0.002 0.418 0.676
HH uses current disposal method bc it is Clean 3747 0.486 0.452 -0.034 2.069 0.039 **
HH uses current disposal method bc of Environment 3747 0.538 0.503 -0.035 2.136 0.033 **
HH has receptacle 1613 0.597 0.583 -0.014 0.58 0.562
Amount willing to pay for HH collection (Riels) 3687 9850.3 9731.186 -119.114 0.609 0.543
Amount willing to pay for Neighborhood Collection (Riels) 3692 7411.217 6973.936 -437.28 2.223 0.026 **
How often discuss waste w Vill Chief (0 = Never, 4 = All the time) 3739 0.291 0.281 -0.01 0.427 0.669
How often discuss waste w Sang Chief (0 = Never, 4 = All the time) 3738 0.098 0.109 0.011 -0.757 0.449
Waste provider outcomes
HH has no access to formal collection services 3748 0.294 0.3 0.007 -0.433 0.665
Frequency of formal collection (0-7: lower = more frequent) 1634 3.059 2.937 -0.121 2.197 0.028 **
Waste is collected on same day of week (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 1422 0.309 0.32 0.011 -0.437 0.662
Waste is collected at same time of day (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 1497 0.228 0.219 -0.01 0.448 0.654
HH attitudes about gov’t/service provider
Satisfaction with HH Waste Provision (-2 to 2) 1653 0.856 0.811 -0.045 1.189 0.235
Satisfaction with Village Waste Provision (-2 to 2) 3615 0.885 0.861 -0.023 0.872 0.383
Satisfaction with services of Village and Sangkat (-2 to 2) 3681 0.934 0.888 -0.046 1.769 0.077 *
Satisfaction with services of Municipality (-2 to 2) 3228 0.844 0.843 0 0.007 0.994
Agree that contacting provider is effective (-2 to 2) 1638 1.014 0.956 -0.058 1.76 0.079 *
Agree that waste services will improve in future (-2 to 2) 3641 1.124 1.078 -0.046 2.24 0.025 **
Agree that informed about govt service delivery (-2 to 2) 3608 0.797 0.78 -0.016 0.564 0.573
Agree that know who to contact about service issues (-2 to 2) 3566 1.002 0.969 -0.032 1.403 0.161
Agree that feel comfortable contact officials about service (-2 to 2) 3606 0.881 0.875 -0.006 0.219 0.827
Agree that govt responsive to MY service needs (-2 to 2) 3605 0.83 0.816 -0.014 0.523 0.601
Agree that govt responsive to COMMUNITY service needs (-2 to 2) 3525 0.853 0.832 -0.02 0.789 0.43
Agree that govt responsive to ALL citizen needs (-2 to 2) 3588 0.858 0.835 -0.023 0.81 0.418
Agree that trust the decisions of local govt (-2 to 2) 3633 0.835 0.803 -0.031 1.155 0.248
Agree that govt punishes bad officials (-2 to 2) 3514 0.956 0.877 -0.079 2.533 0.011 **
Control - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4) 1813 0.456 0.425 -0.031 0.901 0.368
Treatment - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4) 1868 0.57 0.539 -0.03 0.759 0.448
HH attitudes about waste habits
Agree that dumping on road is disrespectful (-2 to 2) 3731 1.039 0.98 -0.058 1.699 0.089 *
Agree that burning trash is disrespectful (-2 to 2) 3725 0.78 0.705 -0.075 2.16 0.031 **
Agree that village is clean (-2 to 2) 3708 0.558 0.569 0.011 -0.321 0.748
Agree that waste disposal an important issue (-2 to 2) 3715 1.044 0.982 -0.062 2.053 0.04 **
Agree that one shouldn’t litter (-2 to 2) 3739 1.258 1.201 -0.057 1.987 0.047 **
HH interaction with intervention
Thinks an app could help improve waste collection (1 = Yes) 3649 0.976 0.962 -0.014 2.445 0.015 **
Familiar with WasteVoice (1 = Yes) 3673 0.218 0.276 0.058 -4.032 0 ***
Downloaded WasteVoice (1 = Yes) 3733 0.046 0.089 0.043 -5.151 0 ***
Used WasteVoice to report issue (1 = Yes) 3746 0.002 0.009 0.006 -2.536 0.011 **
Received report (1 = Yes) 3608 0.315 0.301 -0.014 0.898 0.369
Agrees that report was useful if received (-2 to 2) 961 0.816 0.888 0.072 -1.515 0.13
Acted on report (1 = Yes) 3712 0.007 0.013 0.006 -1.7 0.089 *

1.3.1.3 Report Treatment

The table below presents the difference-in-means of select outcome variables, measured at endline, for treatment vs. control households for the report treatment.

Blue highlights throughout the table indicate that the difference-in-means achieves standard levels of significance \((p < 0.1)\).

Difference-in-Means Table: Report Treatment
Description N Control Mean Treatment Mean Difference in Means T-Stat p *
HH waste disposal behavioral outcomes
HH receives formal collection services 3748 0.446 0.434 -0.012 0.765 0.444
HH burns waste 3748 0.538 0.562 0.024 -1.475 0.14
HH burys waste 3748 0.037 0.052 0.015 -2.19 0.029 **
HH dumps waste 3748 0.025 0.027 0.002 -0.405 0.686
HH uses current disposal method bc it is Clean 3747 0.486 0.454 -0.033 1.991 0.047 **
HH uses current disposal method bc of Environment 3747 0.533 0.512 -0.021 1.269 0.204
HH has receptacle 1613 0.595 0.587 -0.008 0.333 0.739
Amount willing to pay for HH collection (Riels) 3687 9788.667 9804.038 15.371 -0.079 0.937
Amount willing to pay for Neighborhood Collection (Riels) 3692 7288.871 7133.884 -154.987 0.788 0.431
How often discuss waste w Vill Chief (0 = Never, 4 = All the time) 3739 0.269 0.305 0.036 -1.511 0.131
How often discuss waste w Sang Chief (0 = Never, 4 = All the time) 3738 0.096 0.11 0.014 -0.987 0.324
Waste provider outcomes
HH has no access to formal collection services 3748 0.285 0.308 0.023 -1.531 0.126
Frequency of formal collection (0-7: lower = more frequent) 1634 2.921 3.087 0.166 -3.006 0.003 ***
Waste is collected on same day of week (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 1422 0.323 0.305 -0.018 0.708 0.479
Waste is collected at same time of day (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 1497 0.238 0.208 -0.03 1.396 0.163
HH attitudes about gov’t/service provider
Satisfaction with HH Waste Provision (-2 to 2) 1653 0.86 0.808 -0.052 1.373 0.17
Satisfaction with Village Waste Provision (-2 to 2) 3615 0.875 0.873 -0.001 0.051 0.96
Satisfaction with services of Village and Sangkat (-2 to 2) 3681 0.896 0.931 0.035 -1.375 0.169
Satisfaction with services of Municipality (-2 to 2) 3228 0.831 0.856 0.025 -0.948 0.343
Agree that contacting provider is effective (-2 to 2) 1638 0.998 0.976 -0.022 0.666 0.505
Agree that waste services will improve in future (-2 to 2) 3641 1.135 1.07 -0.065 3.191 0.001 ***
Agree that informed about govt service delivery (-2 to 2) 3608 0.789 0.789 0 -0.005 0.996
Agree that know who to contact about service issues (-2 to 2) 3566 0.984 0.99 0.006 -0.26 0.795
Agree that feel comfortable contact officials about service (-2 to 2) 3606 0.865 0.891 0.026 -0.976 0.329
Agree that govt responsive to MY service needs (-2 to 2) 3605 0.821 0.825 0.004 -0.143 0.887
Agree that govt responsive to COMMUNITY service needs (-2 to 2) 3525 0.839 0.848 0.009 -0.359 0.719
Agree that govt responsive to ALL citizen needs (-2 to 2) 3588 0.847 0.848 0.001 -0.043 0.966
Agree that trust the decisions of local govt (-2 to 2) 3633 0.813 0.828 0.014 -0.537 0.592
Agree that govt punishes bad officials (-2 to 2) 3514 0.883 0.959 0.076 -2.464 0.014 **
Control - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4) 1813 0.453 0.431 -0.023 0.656 0.512
Treatment - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4) 1868 0.564 0.548 -0.016 0.401 0.688
HH attitudes about waste habits
Agree that dumping on road is disrespectful (-2 to 2) 3731 1.011 1.013 0.002 -0.056 0.956
Agree that burning trash is disrespectful (-2 to 2) 3725 0.743 0.749 0.006 -0.182 0.855
Agree that village is clean (-2 to 2) 3708 0.577 0.549 -0.028 0.831 0.406
Agree that waste disposal an important issue (-2 to 2) 3715 1.019 1.013 -0.007 0.223 0.824
Agree that one shouldn’t litter (-2 to 2) 3739 1.269 1.194 -0.074 2.599 0.009 ***
HH interaction with intervention
Thinks an app could help improve waste collection (1 = Yes) 3649 0.971 0.969 -0.003 0.47 0.638
Familiar with WasteVoice (1 = Yes) 3673 0.233 0.255 0.022 -1.521 0.128
Downloaded WasteVoice (1 = Yes) 3733 0.063 0.068 0.005 -0.585 0.559
Used WasteVoice to report issue (1 = Yes) 3746 0.006 0.005 -0.001 0.403 0.687
Received report (1 = Yes) 3608 0.274 0.345 0.071 -4.626 0 ***
Agrees that report was useful if received (-2 to 2) 961 0.888 0.813 -0.075 1.589 0.112
Acted on report (1 = Yes) 3712 0.012 0.007 -0.005 1.459 0.145

1.3.2 Difference-in-Means: By Municipality

Difference-in-Means by Municipality: Phone Treatment
  Siem Reap   Stung Saen   Kampong Cham
Description   N Diff p   N Diff p   N Diff p
HH waste disposal behavioral outcomes
HH receives formal collection services   2100 -0.026 0.231   1079 0.066 0.012   569 0.06 0.136
HH burns waste   2100 0.053 0.015   1079 -0.071 0.007   569 -0.049 0.234
HH burys waste   2100 0.011 0.122   1079 0.004 0.816   569 0.002 0.92
HH dumps waste   2100 0.004 0.426   1079 -0.01 0.475   569 -0.006 0.73
HH uses current disposal method bc it is Clean   2100 -0.055 0.008   1078 0 0.981   569 -0.085 0.041
HH uses current disposal method bc of Environment   2100 -0.041 0.057   1078 -0.005 0.854   569 -0.106 0.012
HH has receptacle   1010 0.002 0.961   239 0.023 0.678   364 -0.034 0.484
Amount willing to pay for HH collection (Riels)   2066 -429 0.074   1063 40 0.917   558 307 0.488
Amount willing to pay for Neighborhood Collection (Riels)   2071 -573 0.026   1066 -533 0.135   555 -74 0.881
How often discuss waste w Vill Chief (0 = Never, 4 = All the time)   2095 0.006 0.833   1076 -0.04 0.322   568 -0.025 0.729
How often discuss waste w Sang Chief (0 = Never, 4 = All the time)   2095 0.01 0.592   1075 -0.009 0.69   568 0.043 0.382
Waste provider outcomes
HH has no access to formal collection services   2100 0.04 0.043   1079 -0.031 0.309   569 -0.024 0.428
Frequency of formal collection (0-7: lower = more frequent)   1017 -0.112 0.101   246 -0.045 0.758   371 -0.249 0.04
Waste is collected on same day of week (0 = No, 1 = Yes)   883 0.062 0.061   224 -0.08 0.126   315 -0.003 0.939
Waste is collected at same time of day (0 = No, 1 = Yes)   936 0 0.996   228 0.032 0.524   333 -0.031 0.374
HH attitudes about gov’t/service provider
Satisfaction with HH Waste Provision (-2 to 2)   1027 -0.002 0.972   251 -0.052 0.554   375 -0.118 0.221
Satisfaction with Village Waste Provision (-2 to 2)   2059 0.001 0.974   1006 -0.007 0.857   550 -0.122 0.16
Satisfaction with services of Village and Sangkat (-2 to 2)   2075 -0.059 0.102   1049 -0.024 0.581   557 -0.02 0.752
Satisfaction with services of Municipality (-2 to 2)   1876 -0.002 0.954   870 -0.003 0.949   482 0.036 0.598
Agree that contacting provider is effective (-2 to 2)   1022 -0.049 0.183   248 -0.159 0.013   368 0.012 0.901
Agree that waste services will improve in future (-2 to 2)   2070 -0.066 0.013   1036 0.019 0.575   535 -0.094 0.154
Agree that informed about govt service delivery (-2 to 2)   2064 -0.059 0.149   1026 0.004 0.931   518 0.136 0.057
Agree that know who to contact about service issues (-2 to 2)   2041 -0.063 0.052   1007 -0.006 0.861   518 0.051 0.403
Agree that feel comfortable contact officials about service (-2 to 2)   2054 0.004 0.916   1022 -0.009 0.836   530 -0.018 0.789
Agree that govt responsive to MY service needs (-2 to 2)   2048 -0.001 0.971   1027 -0.021 0.617   530 -0.033 0.609
Agree that govt responsive to COMMUNITY service needs (-2 to 2)   2017 -0.019 0.592   990 -0.011 0.8   518 -0.02 0.764
Agree that govt responsive to ALL citizen needs (-2 to 2)   2037 -0.032 0.414   1014 -0.001 0.99   537 -0.01 0.89
Agree that trust the decisions of local govt (-2 to 2)   2057 -0.053 0.174   1036 -0.004 0.92   540 0.028 0.681
Agree that govt punishes bad officials (-2 to 2)   2009 -0.125 0.005   996 -0.022 0.647   509 0.017 0.836
Control - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4)   1014 0.005 0.914   507 -0.087 0.116   292 -0.088 0.291
Treatment - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4)   1068 -0.053 0.341   535 -0.021 0.743   265 0.008 0.936
HH attitudes about waste habits
Agree that dumping on road is disrespectful (-2 to 2)   2098 -0.042 0.378   1066 -0.026 0.611   567 -0.175 0.081
Agree that burning trash is disrespectful (-2 to 2)   2097 -0.137 0.004   1063 0.077 0.167   565 -0.123 0.227
Agree that village is clean (-2 to 2)   2091 -0.005 0.916   1058 0.01 0.885   559 0.043 0.604
Agree that waste disposal an important issue (-2 to 2)   2095 -0.113 0.003   1059 0.027 0.639   561 -0.056 0.513
Agree that one shouldn’t litter (-2 to 2)   2100 -0.027 0.493   1075 -0.085 0.075   564 -0.137 0.105
HH interaction with intervention
Thinks an app could help improve waste collection (1 = Yes)   2054 -0.019 0.012   1044 0.016 0.052   551 -0.053 0.011
Familiar with WasteVoice (1 = Yes)   2076 0.097 0   1058 -0.012 0.616   539 0.03 0.42
Downloaded WasteVoice (1 = Yes)   2089 0.068 0   1077 0.003 0.655   567 0.02 0.23
Used WasteVoice to report issue (1 = Yes)   2098 0.01 0.016   1079 0   569 0.004 0.496
Received report (1 = Yes)   2045 -0.017 0.408   1040 -0.002 0.956   523 -0.017 0.667
Agrees that report was useful if received (-2 to 2)   540 0.032 0.617   297 0.168 0.027   124 0.013 0.937
Acted on report (1 = Yes)   2091 0.007 0.105   1060 0   561 0.007 0.613
Difference-in-Means by Municipality: Report Treatment
  Siem Reap   Stung Saen   Kampong Cham
Description   N Diff p   N Diff p   N Diff p
HH waste disposal behavioral outcomes
HH receives formal collection services   2100 -0.038 0.085   1079 0.034 0.189   569 0.009 0.826
HH burns waste   2100 0.055 0.012   1079 -0.045 0.084   569 0.018 0.664
HH burys waste   2100 0.01 0.126   1079 0.026 0.128   569 0.001 0.948
HH dumps waste   2100 -0.003 0.492   1079 0.002 0.901   569 0.015 0.337
HH uses current disposal method bc it is Clean   2100 -0.022 0.276   1078 -0.025 0.192   569 0 0.993
HH uses current disposal method bc of Environment   2100 -0.023 0.287   1078 -0.002 0.952   569 -0.012 0.776
HH has receptacle   1010 0.004 0.884   239 0.136 0.012   364 -0.09 0.058
Amount willing to pay for HH collection (Riels)   2066 3.547 0.988   1063 505 0.191   558 -295 0.504
Amount willing to pay for Neighborhood Collection (Riels)   2071 -283 0.271   1066 340 0.341   555 -220 0.657
How often discuss waste w Vill Chief (0 = Never, 4 = All the time)   2095 0.056 0.068   1076 0.052 0.201   568 -0.087 0.233
How often discuss waste w Sang Chief (0 = Never, 4 = All the time)   2095 0.021 0.273   1075 0.001 0.975   568 0.012 0.806
Waste provider outcomes
HH has no access to formal collection services   2100 0.029 0.138   1079 0.043 0.15   569 -0.043 0.167
Frequency of formal collection (0-7: lower = more frequent)   1017 0.11 0.11   246 0.09 0.536   371 0.307 0.011
Waste is collected on same day of week (0 = No, 1 = Yes)   883 -0.004 0.91   224 0.076 0.139   315 -0.051 0.24
Waste is collected at same time of day (0 = No, 1 = Yes)   936 -0.034 0.24   228 0.02 0.69   333 -0.013 0.699
HH attitudes about gov’t/service provider
Satisfaction with HH Waste Provision (-2 to 2)   1027 -0.009 0.842   251 -0.144 0.098   375 -0.052 0.585
Satisfaction with Village Waste Provision (-2 to 2)   2059 -0.026 0.446   1006 0.023 0.575   550 0.069 0.427
Satisfaction with services of Village and Sangkat (-2 to 2)   2075 0.034 0.337   1049 0.031 0.463   557 0.01 0.871
Satisfaction with services of Municipality (-2 to 2)   1876 0.022 0.547   870 0.011 0.79   482 0.017 0.805
Agree that contacting provider is effective (-2 to 2)   1022 0.004 0.915   248 -0.04 0.533   368 -0.037 0.699
Agree that waste services will improve in future (-2 to 2)   2070 -0.058 0.029   1036 -0.056 0.101   535 -0.087 0.182
Agree that informed about govt service delivery (-2 to 2)   2064 -0.031 0.448   1026 0.049 0.3   518 -0.004 0.954
Agree that know who to contact about service issues (-2 to 2)   2041 0.012 0.7   1007 -0.016 0.666   518 0.003 0.963
Agree that feel comfortable contact officials about service (-2 to 2)   2054 0.012 0.756   1022 0.022 0.607   530 0.067 0.319
Agree that govt responsive to MY service needs (-2 to 2)   2048 -0.002 0.968   1027 -0.024 0.567   530 0.037 0.567
Agree that govt responsive to COMMUNITY service needs (-2 to 2)   2017 -0.014 0.69   990 0.041 0.318   518 0.007 0.915
Agree that govt responsive to ALL citizen needs (-2 to 2)   2037 -0.017 0.671   1014 -0.024 0.592   537 0.095 0.19
Agree that trust the decisions of local govt (-2 to 2)   2057 -0.004 0.924   1036 0.04 0.325   540 -0.001 0.985
Agree that govt punishes bad officials (-2 to 2)   2009 0.055 0.213   996 0.103 0.031   509 0.082 0.313
Control - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4)   1014 -0.006 0.896   507 -0.032 0.559   292 -0.031 0.706
Treatment - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4)   1068 0.036 0.514   535 -0.061 0.339   265 -0.109 0.304
HH attitudes about waste habits
Agree that dumping on road is disrespectful (-2 to 2)   2098 -0.005 0.921   1066 0.046 0.371   567 -0.056 0.574
Agree that burning trash is disrespectful (-2 to 2)   2097 -0.025 0.587   1063 0.058 0.306   565 0.045 0.661
Agree that village is clean (-2 to 2)   2091 -0.057 0.194   1058 0.038 0.563   559 -0.006 0.941
Agree that waste disposal an important issue (-2 to 2)   2095 -0.015 0.697   1059 0.019 0.746   561 0.013 0.88
Agree that one shouldn’t litter (-2 to 2)   2100 -0.092 0.018   1075 -0.041 0.393   564 -0.049 0.561
HH interaction with intervention
Thinks an app could help improve waste collection (1 = Yes)   2054 -0.008 0.256   1044 0.006 0.478   551 0.004 0.856
Familiar with WasteVoice (1 = Yes)   2076 0.058 0.004   1058 -0.025 0.275   539 -0.004 0.92
Downloaded WasteVoice (1 = Yes)   2089 0.012 0.372   1077 -0.004 0.52   567 0.012 0.477
Used WasteVoice to report issue (1 = Yes)   2098 -0.002 0.564   1079 0   569 0.003 0.6
Received report (1 = Yes)   2045 0.066 0.001   1040 0.077 0.01   523 0.075 0.059
Agrees that report was useful if received (-2 to 2)   540 -0.015 0.814   297 -0.121 0.117   124 -0.208 0.182
Acted on report (1 = Yes)   2091 -0.005 0.267   1060 0   561 -0.012 0.357

1.3.3 Diff-in-Diff Results

1.3.3.1 Overview

This table presents the coefficient on the interaction term when running the difference-in-differences model:

\[y_i = treat_i + post_i + treat_i *post_i + \epsilon \]

Where \(y\) is the outcome of interest, \(treat\) is a dummy that takes the value of 1 if a household received the given treatment (either phone treatment or report treatment), and \(post\) is a dummy indicating whether the outcome was measured before or after treatment. Standard errors are clustered by block. Throughout the data, “I don’t know” and “Refused” responses have been recoded to NAs.

Rows highlighted in blue indicate the coefficient on the interaction term is statistically significant (\(p < 0.1\)).

The complete regression results (including coefficients on the \(treat\) and \(post\) terms) are reported in the treatment-specific sections below.

Diff-in-Diff Results: Coefficient on Treat*Post interaction term
  Phone Treatment   Report Treatment
Description   Coef SE p-value *   Coef SE p-value *
HH waste disposal behavioral outcomes
HH receives formal collection services   0.025 0.017 0.13   0.017 0.012 0.178
HH burns waste   0.011 0.017 0.522   -0.012 0.014 0.383
HH burys waste   0.006 0.011 0.548   0.015 0.011 0.164
HH dumps waste   -0.01 0.008 0.211   0.001 0.008 0.921
HH uses current disposal method bc it is Clean   -0.041 0.044 0.347   -0.05 0.024 0.033 **
HH uses current disposal method bc of Environment   -0.017 0.038 0.648   -0.015 0.023 0.514
HH has receptacle   0.01 0.039 0.807   -0.044 0.031 0.162
Amount willing to pay for HH collection (Riels)   106.726 280.228 0.703   82.15 232.319 0.724
Amount willing to pay for Neighborhood Collection (Riels)   -222.399 300.894 0.46   -229.119 244.368 0.348
Waste provider outcomes
HH has no access to formal collection services   -0.004 0.021 0.861   0.024 0.017 0.16
Frequency of formal collection (0-7: lower = more frequent)   -0.055 0.113 0.625   0.161 0.085 0.059 *
Waste is collected on same day of week (0 = No, 1 = Yes)   -0.012 0.041 0.763   -0.008 0.037 0.822
Waste is collected at same time of day (0 = No, 1 = Yes)   -0.001 0.037 0.985   0.011 0.031 0.723
HH attitudes about gov’t/service provider
Satisfaction with HH Waste Provision (-2 to 2)   -0.085 0.06 0.155   -0.128 0.056 0.022 **
Satisfaction with Village Waste Provision (-2 to 2)   -0.1 0.046 0.032 **   0.021 0.037 0.573
Satisfaction with services of Village and Sangkat (-2 to 2)   -0.062 0.038 0.098 *   0.003 0.034 0.936
Satisfaction with services of Municipality (-2 to 2)   -0.013 0.043 0.761   0.033 0.04 0.406
Agree that contacting provider is effective (-2 to 2)   -0.045 0.055 0.412   -0.064 0.048 0.183
Agree that informed about govt service delivery (-2 to 2)   0.034 0.045 0.448   -0.057 0.04 0.152
Agree that know who to contact about service issues (-2 to 2)   -0.04 0.039 0.306   -0.039 0.034 0.249
Agree that feel comfortable contacting officials (-2 to 2)   -0.019 0.041 0.645   0.037 0.036 0.304
Agree that govt responsive to MY service needs (-2 to 2)   -0.057 0.041 0.166   -0.007 0.038 0.847
Agree that govt responsive to COMMUNITY service needs (-2 to 2)   -0.017 0.04 0.669   -0.011 0.036 0.761
Agree that govt responsive to ALL citizen needs (-2 to 2)   -0.077 0.041 0.062 *   0.001 0.038 0.987
Agree that trust the decisions of local govt (-2 to 2)   -0.069 0.041 0.09 *   -0.019 0.034 0.585
Agree that govt punishes bad officials (-2 to 2)   -0.118 0.054 0.031 **   0.101 0.046 0.029 **
Control - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4)   -0.056 0.047 0.231   0.013 0.04 0.741
Treatment - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4)   -0.038 0.055 0.487   -0.019 0.051 0.719
HH attitudes about waste habits
Agree that dumping on road is disrespectful (-2 to 2)   -0.067 0.088 0.448   0.004 0.053 0.948
Agree that burning trash is disrespectful (-2 to 2)   -0.092 0.069 0.182   0.067 0.046 0.147
Agree that village is clean (-2 to 2)   -0.034 0.06 0.575   -0.035 0.043 0.418
Agree that waste disposal an important issue (-2 to 2)   -0.038 0.065 0.562   0.048 0.045 0.283
Agree that one shouldn’t litter (-2 to 2)   -0.055 0.066 0.407   -0.078 0.04 0.054 *

1.3.3.2 Phone Treatment

The table below presents the coefficients and standard errors from 33 separate models regressing the outcome of interest on whether or not a household received a phone call about WasteVoice (\(treat\)), an indicator for pre- or post-treatment (\(post\)), and the interaction of these two terms (\(treat*post\)).

In all models, robust standard errors are clustered at the level of the block and appear beneath the coefficient estimates in parentheses. Note that no controls or fixed effects are employed in these models.

Diff-in-Diff Results: Phone Treatment
Outcome N Treat Post Treat*Post Constant
HH waste disposal behavioral outcomes
HH receives formal collection services 7444 -0.006 0.051 0.025 0.38
(formally_serviced) (0.032) (0.011) (0.017) (0.021)
HH burns waste 7444 -0.015 -0.106 0.011 0.657
(burn_waste) (0.03) (0.012) (0.017) (0.02)
HH burys waste 7444 0 -0.021 0.006 0.062
(bury_waste) (0.009) (0.007) (0.011) (0.006)
HH dumps waste 7444 0.008 -0.01 -0.01 0.037
(dump_waste) (0.008) (0.005) (0.008) (0.005)
HH uses current disposal method bc it is Clean 7443 0.007 0.078 -0.041 0.407
(dispose_why_Clean) (0.028) (0.03) (0.044) (0.018)
HH uses current disposal method bc of Environment 7443 -0.018 0.077 -0.017 0.462
(dispose_why_Environment) (0.025) (0.025) (0.038) (0.017)
HH has receptacle 2928 -0.024 -0.034 0.01 0.632
(recept) (0.033) (0.025) (0.039) (0.022)
Amount willing to pay for HH collection (Riels) 7293 -225.84 932.087 106.726 8918.213
(wtp_home_amt) (323.995) (187.816) (280.228) (223.117)
Amount willing to pay for Neighborhood Collection (Riels) 7313 -214.882 1350.745 -222.399 6060.472
(wtp_nbh_amt) (275.627) (212.282) (300.894) (184.646)
Waste provider outcomes
HH has no access to formal collection services 7444 0.01 -0.027 -0.004 0.321
(no_formal_access) (0.028) (0.014) (0.021) (0.019)
Frequency of formal collection (0-7: lower = more frequent) 2968 -0.066 -0.214 -0.055 3.272
(COLL_FREQ) (0.119) (0.082) (0.113) (0.086)
Waste is collected on same day of week (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 2364 0.023 -0.055 -0.012 0.365
(COLL_REL_DAY) (0.036) (0.025) (0.041) (0.022)
Waste is collected at same time of day (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 2537 -0.009 -0.043 -0.001 0.272
(COLL_REL_TIME) (0.034) (0.025) (0.037) (0.022)
HH attitudes about gov’t/service provider
Satisfaction with HH Waste Provision (-2 to 2) 3034 0.04 0.085 -0.085 0.771
(HH_STFY) (0.054) (0.042) (0.06) (0.036)
Satisfaction with Village Waste Provision (-2 to 2) 6918 0.076 0.102 -0.1 0.782
(vill_stfy) (0.041) (0.032) (0.046) (0.028)
Satisfaction with services of Village and Sangkat (-2 to 2) 7185 0.017 0.147 -0.062 0.787
(stfy_serv_vilcom) (0.032) (0.025) (0.038) (0.023)
Satisfaction with services of Municipality (-2 to 2) 5828 0.013 0.091 -0.013 0.752
(stfy_serv_mun) (0.037) (0.028) (0.043) (0.025)
Agree that contacting provider is effective (-2 to 2) 2992 -0.013 0.006 -0.045 1.008
(AGREE_PROV_IMP) (0.047) (0.03) (0.055) (0.028)
Agree that informed about govt service delivery (-2 to 2) 7043 -0.051 0.12 0.034 0.677
(agree_inf_serv) (0.04) (0.029) (0.045) (0.025)
Agree that know who to contact about service issues (-2 to 2) 6844 0.008 0.086 -0.04 0.915
(agree_cont_serv) (0.034) (0.025) (0.039) (0.022)
Agree that feel comfortable contacting officials (-2 to 2) 6999 0.013 0.068 -0.019 0.813
(agree_comf_cont) (0.037) (0.028) (0.041) (0.024)
Agree that govt responsive to MY service needs (-2 to 2) 6945 0.043 0.075 -0.057 0.754
(agree_muni_me) (0.036) (0.028) (0.041) (0.023)
Agree that govt responsive to COMMUNITY service needs (-2 to 2) 6619 -0.003 0.11 -0.017 0.743
(agree_muni_comm) (0.035) (0.027) (0.04) (0.023)
Agree that govt responsive to ALL citizen needs (-2 to 2) 6802 0.055 0.113 -0.077 0.745
(agree_gov_all) (0.035) (0.027) (0.041) (0.023)
Agree that trust the decisions of local govt (-2 to 2) 7028 0.037 0.091 -0.069 0.744
(agree_gov_trust) (0.033) (0.027) (0.041) (0.024)
Agree that govt punishes bad officials (-2 to 2) 6676 0.039 0.224 -0.118 0.732
(agree_mon_pun) (0.047) (0.037) (0.054) (0.032)
Control - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4) 3605 0.025 0.115 -0.056 0.342
(list_resp_0) (0.032) (0.032) (0.047) (0.021)
Treatment - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4) 3699 0.007 0.105 -0.038 0.465
(list_resp_1) (0.039) (0.04) (0.055) (0.027)
HH attitudes about waste habits
Agree that dumping on road is disrespectful (-2 to 2) 7386 0.008 0.321 -0.067 0.717
(agree_road) (0.073) (0.06) (0.088) (0.049)
Agree that burning trash is disrespectful (-2 to 2) 7337 0.017 0.319 -0.092 0.461
(agree_burn) (0.055) (0.047) (0.069) (0.038)
Agree that village is clean (-2 to 2) 7324 0.045 -0.077 -0.034 0.635
(agree_clean) (0.047) (0.04) (0.06) (0.031)
Agree that waste disposal an important issue (-2 to 2) 7340 -0.024 0.198 -0.038 0.846
(agree_disp) (0.054) (0.044) (0.065) (0.036)
Agree that one shouldn’t litter (-2 to 2) 7409 -0.002 0.083 -0.055 1.174
(agree_litter) (0.053) (0.044) (0.066) (0.033)
Robust standard errors, clustered by block, appear in parantheses.

1.3.3.3 Report Treatment

The table below presents the coefficients and standard errors from 33 separate models regressing the outcome of interest on whether or not a household received a report about WasteVoice (\(treat\)), an indicator for pre- or post-treatment (\(post\)), and the interaction of these two terms (\(treat*post\)).

In all models, robust standard errors are clustered at the level of the block and appear beneath the coefficient estimates in parentheses. Note that no controls or fixed effects are employed in these models.

Diff-in-Diff Results: Report Treatment
Outcome N Treat Post Treat*Post Constant
HH waste disposal behavioral outcomes
HH receives formal collection services 7444 -0.029 0.054 0.017 0.392
(formally_serviced) (0.015) (0.01) (0.012) (0.018)
HH burns waste 7444 0.036 -0.095 -0.012 0.632
(burn_waste) (0.016) (0.011) (0.014) (0.017)
HH burys waste 7444 0 -0.025 0.015 0.062
(bury_waste) (0.008) (0.007) (0.011) (0.006)
HH dumps waste 7444 0.001 -0.015 0.001 0.04
(dump_waste) (0.007) (0.005) (0.008) (0.005)
HH uses current disposal method bc it is Clean 7443 0.018 0.085 -0.05 0.402
(dispose_why_Clean) (0.017) (0.025) (0.024) (0.016)
HH uses current disposal method bc of Environment 7443 -0.006 0.076 -0.015 0.457
(dispose_why_Environment) (0.017) (0.023) (0.023) (0.015)
HH has receptacle 2928 0.036 -0.009 -0.044 0.604
(recept) (0.027) (0.025) (0.031) (0.021)
Amount willing to pay for HH collection (Riels) 7293 -66.779 939.402 82.15 8849.265
(wtp_home_amt) (213.395) (180.441) (232.319) (197.094)
Amount willing to pay for Neighborhood Collection (Riels) 7313 74.133 1362.56 -229.119 5926.311
(wtp_nbh_amt) (199.635) (197.343) (244.368) (174.773)
Waste provider outcomes
HH has no access to formal collection services 7444 -0.001 -0.04 0.024 0.326
(no_formal_access) (0.016) (0.014) (0.017) (0.016)
Frequency of formal collection (0-7: lower = more frequent) 2968 0.005 -0.319 0.161 3.241
(COLL_FREQ) (0.084) (0.075) (0.085) (0.074)
Waste is collected on same day of week (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 2364 -0.009 -0.056 -0.008 0.379
(COLL_REL_DAY) (0.031) (0.027) (0.037) (0.023)
Waste is collected at same time of day (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 2537 -0.041 -0.049 0.011 0.287
(COLL_REL_TIME) (0.026) (0.024) (0.031) (0.022)
HH attitudes about gov’t/service provider
Satisfaction with HH Waste Provision (-2 to 2) 3034 0.076 0.108 -0.128 0.753
(HH_STFY) (0.047) (0.04) (0.056) (0.035)
Satisfaction with Village Waste Provision (-2 to 2) 6918 -0.022 0.046 0.021 0.828
(vill_stfy) (0.029) (0.03) (0.037) (0.025)
Satisfaction with services of Village and Sangkat (-2 to 2) 7185 0.032 0.118 0.003 0.778
(stfy_serv_vilcom) (0.028) (0.025) (0.034) (0.022)
Satisfaction with services of Municipality (-2 to 2) 5828 -0.008 0.069 0.033 0.762
(stfy_serv_mun) (0.035) (0.029) (0.04) (0.026)
Agree that contacting provider is effective (-2 to 2) 2992 0.043 0.016 -0.064 0.982
(AGREE_PROV_IMP) (0.039) (0.035) (0.048) (0.03)
Agree that informed about govt service delivery (-2 to 2) 7043 0.057 0.164 -0.057 0.625
(agree_inf_serv) (0.032) (0.032) (0.04) (0.027)
Agree that know who to contact about service issues (-2 to 2) 6844 0.045 0.087 -0.039 0.897
(agree_cont_serv) (0.028) (0.026) (0.034) (0.023)
Agree that feel comfortable contacting officials (-2 to 2) 6999 -0.011 0.041 0.037 0.824
(agree_comf_cont) (0.03) (0.029) (0.036) (0.024)
Agree that govt responsive to MY service needs (-2 to 2) 6945 0.011 0.053 -0.007 0.769
(agree_muni_me) (0.03) (0.027) (0.038) (0.023)
Agree that govt responsive to COMMUNITY service needs (-2 to 2) 6619 0.02 0.108 -0.011 0.731
(agree_muni_comm) (0.03) (0.027) (0.036) (0.022)
Agree that govt responsive to ALL citizen needs (-2 to 2) 6802 0.001 0.078 0.001 0.769
(agree_gov_all) (0.031) (0.028) (0.038) (0.023)
Agree that trust the decisions of local govt (-2 to 2) 7028 0.033 0.068 -0.019 0.745
(agree_gov_trust) (0.028) (0.027) (0.034) (0.023)
Agree that govt punishes bad officials (-2 to 2) 6676 -0.025 0.121 0.101 0.761
(agree_mon_pun) (0.039) (0.035) (0.046) (0.03)
Control - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4) 3605 -0.036 0.083 0.013 0.371
(list_resp_0) (0.029) (0.031) (0.04) (0.02)
Treatment - Items in Election List Experiment (0-4) 3699 0.002 0.097 -0.019 0.467
(list_resp_1) (0.034) (0.038) (0.051) (0.024)
HH attitudes about waste habits
Agree that dumping on road is disrespectful (-2 to 2) 7386 -0.002 0.289 0.004 0.722
(agree_road) (0.044) (0.052) (0.053) (0.042)
Agree that burning trash is disrespectful (-2 to 2) 7337 -0.06 0.244 0.067 0.498
(agree_burn) (0.038) (0.042) (0.046) (0.035)
Agree that village is clean (-2 to 2) 7324 0.007 -0.075 -0.035 0.652
(agree_clean) (0.033) (0.037) (0.043) (0.029)
Agree that waste disposal an important issue (-2 to 2) 7340 -0.055 0.157 0.048 0.862
(agree_disp) (0.035) (0.038) (0.045) (0.032)
Agree that one shouldn’t litter (-2 to 2) 7409 0.004 0.097 -0.078 1.172
(agree_litter) (0.032) (0.038) (0.04) (0.032)
Robust standard errors, clustered by block, appear in parentheses.

1.3.3.4 Combined Treatment

The table below presents the coefficients and standard errors from 33 separate models regressing the outcome of interest on:

  • whether or not a household received a phone call about WasteVoice (\(phone\)),
  • whether or not a household received a report about WasteVoice (\(report\))
  • an indicator for pre- or post-treatment (\(post\)),
  • all combinations of interactions between these three terms, including \(phone*report*post\).

In all models, robust standard errors are clustered at the level of the block and appear beneath the coefficient estimates in parentheses. Note that no controls or fixed effects are employed in these models. For clarity of presentation, only the variable name appears in the table - descriptions of each variable can be found in the table above.

Diff-in-Diff Results: Combined Treatment
Outcome N Phone Report Post Phone x Report Phone x Post Report x Post Phone x Report x Treat Constant
HH waste disposal behavioral outcomes
formally_serviced 7444 -0.019 -0.042 0.048 0.027 0.014 0.007 0.022 0.4
(0.036) (0.02) (0.013) (0.03) (0.021) (0.017) (0.025) (0.024)
burn_waste 7444 -0.021 0.031 -0.112 0.011 0.039 0.013 -0.056 0.642
(0.035) (0.02) (0.015) (0.032) (0.021) (0.019) (0.028) (0.023)
bury_waste 7444 -0.001 0 -0.024 0 -0.001 0.008 0.016 0.062
(0.012) (0.011) (0.01) (0.016) (0.014) (0.014) (0.021) (0.008)
dump_waste 7444 0.016 0.008 -0.008 -0.016 -0.017 -0.005 0.013 0.033
(0.01) (0.009) (0.007) (0.014) (0.011) (0.011) (0.016) (0.006)
dispose_why_Clean 7443 -0.025 -0.012 0.095 0.065 -0.022 -0.033 -0.038 0.413
(0.032) (0.022) (0.033) (0.033) (0.049) (0.031) (0.047) (0.021)
dispose_why_Environment 7443 -0.033 -0.02 0.081 0.031 -0.011 -0.009 -0.013 0.472
(0.03) (0.022) (0.03) (0.033) (0.046) (0.03) (0.046) (0.02)
recept 2928 -0.03 0.031 0 0.011 -0.02 -0.073 0.062 0.617
(0.042) (0.037) (0.032) (0.054) (0.051) (0.043) (0.063) (0.028)
wtp_home_amt 7293 -297.221 -132.63 974.421 144.217 -75.687 -85.586 370.007 8983.896
(396.41) (285.914) (242.543) (430.976) (363.147) (316.646) (467.542) (268.74)
wtp_nbh_amt 7313 -40.115 233.698 1684.674 -353.702 -706.478 -673.599 978.175 5944.621
(351.017) (269.96) (279.07) (398.384) (390.849) (339.955) (486.73) (235.253)
Waste provider outcomes
no_formal_access 7444 0.042 0.028 -0.036 -0.064 -0.009 0.018 0.012 0.307
(0.033) (0.021) (0.018) (0.032) (0.028) (0.021) (0.034) (0.021)
COLL_FREQ 2968 -0.119 -0.043 -0.292 0.11 -0.055 0.167 -0.012 3.292
(0.14) (0.112) (0.106) (0.165) (0.145) (0.112) (0.17) (0.107)
COLL_REL_DAY 2364 0.035 0.001 -0.053 -0.024 -0.01 -0.005 -0.005 0.364
(0.047) (0.043) (0.035) (0.062) (0.055) (0.05) (0.075) (0.029)
COLL_REL_TIME 2537 0.032 -0.004 -0.028 -0.085 -0.047 -0.032 0.098 0.273
(0.043) (0.037) (0.032) (0.051) (0.048) (0.043) (0.062) (0.029)
HH attitudes about gov’t/service provider
HH_STFY 3034 0.082 0.117 0.151 -0.092 -0.097 -0.14 0.033 0.716
(0.067) (0.067) (0.056) (0.092) (0.077) (0.08) (0.11) (0.049)
vill_stfy 6918 0.161 0.056 0.108 -0.17 -0.135 -0.012 0.072 0.755
(0.049) (0.038) (0.04) (0.058) (0.06) (0.049) (0.074) (0.033)
stfy_serv_vilcom 7185 -0.023 -0.004 0.119 0.081 -0.003 0.057 -0.12 0.789
(0.044) (0.036) (0.034) (0.057) (0.051) (0.043) (0.068) (0.03)
stfy_serv_mun 5828 -0.03 -0.048 0.038 0.089 0.068 0.108 -0.165 0.775
(0.052) (0.047) (0.037) (0.072) (0.06) (0.053) (0.08) (0.032)
AGREE_PROV_IMP 2992 0.01 0.065 0.031 -0.049 -0.035 -0.054 -0.018 0.978
(0.06) (0.047) (0.044) (0.08) (0.073) (0.063) (0.099) (0.039)
agree_inf_serv 7043 -0.092 0.018 0.132 0.085 0.07 -0.024 -0.072 0.668
(0.054) (0.044) (0.041) (0.065) (0.064) (0.053) (0.08) (0.034)
agree_cont_serv 6844 -0.011 0.027 0.097 0.039 -0.022 -0.022 -0.037 0.902
(0.046) (0.037) (0.035) (0.056) (0.052) (0.046) (0.068) (0.029)
agree_comf_cont 6999 0.02 -0.005 0.054 -0.014 -0.029 0.028 0.021 0.816
(0.048) (0.041) (0.038) (0.062) (0.057) (0.049) (0.074) (0.031)
agree_muni_me 6945 -0.029 -0.055 0.048 0.146 0.01 0.054 -0.136 0.782
(0.046) (0.04) (0.035) (0.06) (0.055) (0.05) (0.077) (0.029)
agree_muni_comm 6619 -0.044 -0.017 0.087 0.082 0.046 0.046 -0.126 0.751
(0.045) (0.041) (0.034) (0.059) (0.055) (0.048) (0.073) (0.03)
agree_gov_all 6802 -0.022 -0.069 0.073 0.154 0.011 0.081 -0.177 0.779
(0.046) (0.043) (0.037) (0.061) (0.055) (0.051) (0.076) (0.031)
agree_gov_trust 7028 0.013 0.011 0.068 0.049 0.001 0.046 -0.141 0.739
(0.045) (0.039) (0.037) (0.057) (0.055) (0.046) (0.068) (0.032)
agree_mon_pun 6676 0.021 -0.041 0.154 0.036 -0.074 0.142 -0.09 0.752
(0.06) (0.052) (0.048) (0.079) (0.07) (0.062) (0.092) (0.039)
list_resp_0 3605 0.013 -0.047 0.092 0.024 -0.021 0.045 -0.07 0.365
(0.041) (0.037) (0.042) (0.058) (0.063) (0.055) (0.08) (0.027)
list_resp_1 3699 0.093 0.08 0.161 -0.169 -0.139 -0.111 0.201 0.425
(0.049) (0.047) (0.052) (0.066) (0.074) (0.07) (0.103) (0.033)
HH attitudes about waste habits
agree_road 7386 0.085 0.068 0.36 -0.154 -0.155 -0.077 0.178 0.684
(0.084) (0.061) (0.072) (0.087) (0.102) (0.072) (0.107) (0.058)
agree_burn 7337 0.032 -0.047 0.293 -0.03 -0.106 0.054 0.028 0.484
(0.07) (0.052) (0.058) (0.076) (0.084) (0.062) (0.092) (0.047)
agree_clean 7324 0.074 0.034 -0.041 -0.059 -0.074 -0.071 0.082 0.618
(0.059) (0.043) (0.051) (0.067) (0.074) (0.059) (0.086) (0.038)
agree_disp 7340 0.017 -0.017 0.198 -0.083 -0.089 0.001 0.104 0.854
(0.065) (0.048) (0.052) (0.07) (0.077) (0.058) (0.09) (0.043)
agree_litter 7409 0.033 0.036 0.154 -0.072 -0.126 -0.142 0.142 1.156
(0.064) (0.042) (0.047) (0.065) (0.076) (0.051) (0.082) (0.039)
Robust standard errors, clustered by block, appear in parentheses.

1.4 List Experiment

Question Text

We are interested in the sets of activities that you may take when you find the performance of your subnational officials to be disappointed.

I am going to read 4 statements that describe activities. Please tell me how many of these activities you took in the past 3 years. I don’t want to know about any specific item. I only want to know the total number of activities that you did.

  1. Complained to family, friends, or neighbors.
  2. Organized neighbors to provide substitute services yourselves.
  3. Considered changing my vote in the next election.
  4. Moved to a different municipality or province.

1.4.1 Experimental Results - Baseline and Endline

Below are the results of the list experiment for both baseline and endline survey. We see a greater share of respondents willing to use elections as sanctioning tools in the Endline compared to the Baseline.

Item Selection on Election List Experiment - Baseline and Endline
  Baseline   Endline
  Control Treatment   Control Treatment
Share 0 Items   69.6% 65.2%   66.5% 60.6%
Share 1 Item   22.6% 22.4%   22.5% 24%
Share 2 Items   5.4% 7.6%   7.8% 9.7%
Share 3 Items   0.5% 2.1%   1.3% 2.8%
Share 4 Items   0.2% 0.4%   0.4% 1%
Obs   2486 2526   2457 2555
Mean   0.363 0.467   0.442 0.568
List Experiment Difference-in-Means
Survey Difference.in.Means p.value
Baseline 0.104 0
Endline 0.126 0

1.4.2 Effect of RCT Treatment on List Experiment Response

The tables below show the estimated effect of treatment (phone, report, and combined) on the use of elections as sanctioning tools. The estimates are derived using the Nonlinear Least Squares (NLS) estimator, proposed by Imai (2011) and Imai and Blair (2012) for analyzing the effect of individual covariates (in this case, treatment) on an the probability of choosing a sensitive item in a list experiment.

NLS-Estimated Effect of Treatment on Election Use - Phone and Report Treatment
  Phone Treatment   Report Treatment
Covariate   LE Treatment LE Control LE Treatment LE Control   LE Treatment LE Control LE Treatment LE Control
RCT Treat   -0.1723 0.0773 -0.2403 0.0746   0.3764 -0.1114 0.3652 -0.1011
  (0.4586) (0.0904) (0.4691) (0.0909)   (0.4614) (0.0909) (0.4639) (0.0914)
Post   -0.0973 0.3211 -0.0208 0.3368   0.1505 0.2243 0.171 0.2425
  (0.4576) (0.0846) (0.4446) (0.0852)   (0.5316) (0.0856) (0.5262) (0.0861)
Treat*Post   0.1801 -0.1569 0.1671 -0.1472   -0.3121 0.054 -0.2353 0.0568
  (0.6977) (0.1267) (0.6972) (0.1271)   (0.698) (0.1262) (0.6914) (0.1268)
Siem Reap   0.3094 0.0847   0.2756 0.0826
  (0.5171) (0.0851)   (0.5035) (0.0851)
Stung Saen   -0.3372 -0.2698   -0.3618 -0.2702
  (0.6296) (0.0999)   (0.612) (0.0999)
Intercept   -1.9606 -2.3705 -2.0737 -2.362   -2.234 -2.2815 -2.3362 -2.2777
  (0.2846) (0.0624) (0.5265) (0.0917)   (0.3685) (0.06) (0.5578) (0.09)
NLS-Estimated Effect of Treatment on Election Use - Combined Treatment
  Combined Treatment
Covariate   LE Treatment LE Control
phone_treat   0.9261 0.0384
  (0.8628) (0.1196)
report_treat   1.2678 -0.1493
  (0.819) (0.125)
post   0.8297 0.2512
  (0.8972) (0.117)
phone_treat:report_treat   -1.9955 0.0816
  (1.1613) (0.1819)
phone_treat:post   -1.3229 -0.0595
  (1.1836) (0.1718)
report_treat:post   -1.5718 0.1466
  (1.0948) (0.1693)
phone_treat:report_treat:post   2.7687 -0.2016
  (1.5922) (0.2541)
(Intercept)   -2.7388 -2.2993
  (0.7682) (0.085)

The table below reports the results from a simple interaction model, regressing item count on the standard DID interaction (\(treat*post\)) interacted with treatment status in the list experiment, with standard errors clustered at the level of the block.

DID Model - Election List Experiment
Dependent variable:
Items - Election List Exp
(1) (2)
Phone 0.025
(0.032)
Report -0.036
(0.029)
Post 0.115*** 0.083***
(0.032) (0.031)
LE Treat 0.123*** 0.097***
(0.033) (0.031)
Phone x Post -0.056
(0.047)
Phone x LE Treat -0.017
(0.048)
Report x Post 0.013
(0.040)
Report x LE Treat 0.038
(0.046)
Post x LE Treat -0.010 0.014
(0.047) (0.048)
Phone x Post x LE Treat 0.018
(0.067)
Report x Post x LE Treat -0.032
(0.070)
Constant 0.342*** 0.371***
(0.021) (0.020)
Observations 7,304 7,304
R2 0.010 0.009
Adjusted R2 0.009 0.009
Residual Std. Error (df = 7296) 0.748 0.748
Note: p<0.1; p<0.05; p<0.01

2 Observational Survey

2.1 Characteristics of Surveyed Blocks

Overview of Observational Survey
Metric Kampong Cham Siem Reap Stung Saen Overall
Number of blocks surveyed regularly 55 138 53 246
Number of blocks where issue was resolved at least once 26 33 47 106
Share of surveyed blocks where issue resolved 47.27% 23.91% 88.68% 43.09%
Avg time to resolve issue (months, in blocks where issue resolved) 6.88 5.82 5.45 5.92
Avg smell at baseline (1 = No Smell, 3 = Really Bad) 1.95 1.89 1.70 1.86
Avg smell at endline (0 = Issue Resolved, 3 = Really Bad) 1.24 1.84 0.58 1.43
Avg appearance at baseline (1 = Acceptable and Tidy, 4 = Disgusting) 2.28 2.18 2.07 2.18
Avg appearance at endline (0 = Issue Resolved, 4 = Disgusting) 1.67 2.07 0.58 1.70
Share of surveyed blocks that receive phone treatment 43.64% 42.75% 43.4% 43.09%
Share of surveyed blocks in control group for phone treatment 52.73% 55.07% 54.72% 54.47%
Share of surveyed blocks that contain treated and control HHs 3.64% 2.17% 1.89% 2.44%

2.2 Treatment Status across Surveyed Blocks

Note that only the phone treatment was administered at the block level.

Treatment Status across Blocks in Observational Survey
Kampong Cham Siem Reap Stung Saen
Treated Blocks 24 59 23
Control Blocks 29 76 29
Mixed Blocks 2 3 1
Total Blocks 55 138 53

2.3 Treatment Effects

We look at the effect of the phone treatment on the outcomes below. Due to the nature of the data, not all outcomes for a block can be tracked consistently across the survey period for all 246 surveyed blocks

  • Whether the waste issue in the block was resolved at least once
  • The number of months it took to first resolve the issue, in blocks where the issue was resolved (note that for the 140 blocks where the issue was NOT resolved, the “time to resolve” is coded as NA)
  • Steps to circumnavigate waste issue (only available in issues coded as “illegal dumping”) – baseline vs. last monitoring observation
  • Depth, in meters, of waste issue (only available in issues coded as “illegal dumping”) – baseline vs. last monitoring observation
  • Issue smell (available for all issues, coded as 0 if issue was resolved) – baseline vs. last monitoring observation
  • Issue appearance (available for all issues except where trash was burned, coded as 0 if issue was resolved) – baseline vs. last monitoring observation
  • Issue size (categorical variable available for all issues except where trash was not picked up, coded as 0 if issue was resolved) – baseline vs. last monitoring observation

2.3.1 Difference-in-Means

The table below presents the difference-in-means of select outcome variables, measured at endline, for treated vs. control blocks (for the phone treatment). The difference-in-means table shows no evidence of significantly different outcomes between treated and control blocks.

Please note that only 246 of 543 blocks were regularly surveyed as part of the observational survey.

Difference-in-Means Table: Observational Survey
Outcome N Control Mean Treatment Mean Difference in Means T-Stat p *
Waste issue in block was resolved at least once 246 0.44 0.425 -0.016 0.244 0.808
Time to resolve issue, months (in blocks where issue was resolved) 106 6.153 5.733 -0.419 0.494 0.622
Number of steps around trash pile (in blocks where issue is illegal dumping) 124 7.955 6.453 -1.502 0.888 0.376
Depth of trash pile in meters (in blocks where issue is illegal dumping) 124 0.358 0.356 -0.002 0.025 0.98
Issue smell (0 = Resolved, 3 = Really bad) 244 1.406 1.476 0.07 -0.632 0.528
Issue appearance (0 = Resolved, 4 = Disgusting; in blocks where issue NOT burning) 231 1.659 1.747 0.089 -0.619 0.537

2.3.2 Difference-in-Differences

This table presents the coefficient on the interaction term when running the difference-in-differences model below for 5 key observational outcomes. The DID model is as follows:

\[y_i = treat_i + post_i + treat_i *post_i + \epsilon \]

Where \(y\) is the outcome of interest for block \(i\), \(treat\) is a dummy that takes the value of 1 if block \(i\) received the phone treatment, and \(post\) is a dummy indicating whether the outcome was measured before or after treatment. Standard errors are clustered by block. No fixed effects or covariates are employed in these models.

Please note that different outcomes were measured based on the nature of the trash issue, such that not all outcomes are observed for all 246 surveyed blocks.

Diff-in-Diff Results: Coefficient on Treat*Post interaction term
Outcome N Coefficient SE p *
Size of trash pile (0 = No pile, 8 = Multiple piles of various sizes) 385 0.248 0.405 0.541
Number of steps around trash pile (in blocks where issue is illegal dumping) 219 14.397 10.518 0.172
Depth of trash pile in meters (in blocks where issue is illegal dumping) 219 0.499 0.651 0.444
Issue smell (0 = Resolved, 3 = Really bad) 478 0.16 0.141 0.257
Issue appearance (0 = Resolved, 4 = Disgusting; in blocks where issue NOT burning) 449 0.145 0.186 0.434