Back to Search
Start Over
Acceptance and use of eight arsenic-safe drinking water options in Bangladesh.
- Source :
- PLoS ONE, Vol 8, Iss 1, p e53640 (2013)
- Publication Year :
- 2013
- Publisher :
- Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2013.
-
Abstract
- Arsenic contamination of drinking water is a serious public health threat. In Bangladesh, eight major safe water options provide an alternative to contaminated shallow tubewells: piped water supply, deep tubewells, pond sand filters, community arsenic-removal, household arsenic removal, dug wells, well-sharing, and rainwater harvesting. However, it is uncertain how well these options are accepted and used by the at-risk population. Based on the RANAS model (risk, attitudes, norms, ability, and self-regulation) this study aimed to identify the acceptance and use of available safe water options. Cross-sectional face-to-face interviews were used to survey 1,268 households in Bangladesh in November 2009 (n = 872), and December 2010 (n = 396). The questionnaire assessed water consumption, acceptance factors from the RANAS model, and socioeconomic factors. Although all respondents had access to at least one arsenic-safe drinking water option, only 62.1% of participants were currently using these alternatives. The most regularly used options were household arsenic removal filters (92.9%) and piped water supply (85.6%). However, the former result may be positively biased due to high refusal rates of household filter owners. The least used option was household rainwater harvesting (36.6%). Those who reported not using an arsenic-safe source differed in terms of numerous acceptance factors from those who reported using arsenic-safe sources: non-users were characterized by greater vulnerability; showed less preference for the taste and temperature of alternative sources; found collecting safe water quite time-consuming; had lower levels of social norms, self-efficacy, and coping planning; and demonstrated lower levels of commitment to collecting safe water. Acceptance was particularly high for piped water supplies and deep tubewells, whereas dug wells and well-sharing were the least accepted sources. Intervention strategies were derived from the results in order to increase the acceptance and use of each arsenic-safe water option.
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 19326203
- Volume :
- 8
- Issue :
- 1
- Database :
- Directory of Open Access Journals
- Journal :
- PLoS ONE
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- edsdoj.45d80e42f404e0d9f9fdacc0515cd07
- Document Type :
- article
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053640