报告题目：Ceramic Water Filters and Subjective Well-being: Preliminary Results from the SURE-FOOD Project
报告人：Alfonso Sousa-Poza 教授
时间：2026年6月26日9:30-11:30
地点：西安交通大学创新港涵英楼8121会议室
报告人简介：
Alfonso Sousa-Poza，德国霍恩海姆大学健康护理与公共管理学院经济学教授，执行院长。本科毕业于南非开普敦大学计算机科学专业，之后在瑞士圣加仑大学先后获得经济学硕士和博士学位。Alfonso Sousa-Poza教授是瑞士圣加仑大学经济学永久客座教授,德国劳动经济研究所 (IZA) 研究员，The Journal of the Economics of Ageing (Elsevier)共同主编之一。研究领域主要涉及健康经济学、老龄经济学，劳动经济学和主观幸福感，其研究成果已发表于Nature, The Lancet, Nature Medicine, Journal of Health Economics、Journal of Population Economics等国际知名期刊。Alfonso Sousa-Poza教授的英文学术论著累计谷歌学术他引超过15000次 (H-index=50)。
摘要：
Waterborne illnesses remain a leading cause of mortality in low-resource settings, underscoring the need for effective household water treatment solutions. This study reports on a large-scale survey in one of Africa’s largest informal settlements (Kibera, Nairobi) evaluating the use of ceramic water filters (CWFs) and associated impacts on subjective well-being (SWB). Approximately 1,008 households were provided CWFs, and an in-line water meter in each filter recorded objective usage over a six-month period, alongside self-reported water usage and SWB surveys. Results indicate that actual filter usage was very low: on average only approximately 1.6 liters per household per day (roughly 0.4 L per person), and only 43% of households regularly used the CWF despite all receiving one. Self-reported usage vastly overestimated actual consumption, highlighting significant reporting bias. No significant improvements in life satisfaction or happiness were observed in association with objective CWF use. However, households reporting higher filter use tended to report higher SWB, suggesting a potential perception or reporting effect rather than true welfare gains. Additionally, about one-third of the filters broke during the trial, further limiting sustained use. These findings raise important questions about the cost-effectiveness of CWF interventions. The study provides novel evidence using objective usage data, cautioning that simply distributing filters may not yield expected health or well-being benefits unless adoption barriers are addressed. It also emphasizes the danger of relying solely on self-reported usage data in impact evaluations, which may misrepresent true behavior and outcomes.
