Next Article in Journal
Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions in “La Charca de Suárez” Wetlands, Spain
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluating the Level of the Household Water Service Provided by a Private Water Enterprise in Ghana
Previous Article in Journal
Structure and Functions of Hydrocarbon-Degrading Microbial Communities in Bioelectrochemical Systems
Previous Article in Special Issue
Correction: Carrard, N., et al. Groundwater as a Source of Drinking Water in Southeast Asia and the Pacific: A Multi-Country Review of Current Reliance and Resource Concerns. Water 2019, 11, 1605
Open AccessArticle

Why Do People Remain Attached to Unsafe Drinking Water Options? Quantitative Evidence from Southwestern Bangladesh

1
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Princetonlaan 8a, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands
2
TNO Geological Survey of The Netherlands, Princetonlaan 6, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands
3
Department of Geology, Dhaka University, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2020, 12(2), 342; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020342
Received: 24 December 2019 / Revised: 21 January 2020 / Accepted: 22 January 2020 / Published: 25 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Present and Future of Drinking Water Supplies in Low-Income Regions)
The acceptance of newly implemented, safe drinking water options is not guaranteed. In the Khulna and Satkhira districts, Bangladesh, pond water is pathogen-contaminated, while groundwater from shallow tubewells may be arsenic- or saline-contaminated. This study aims to determine why, as well as the extent to which, people are expected to remain attached to using these unsafe water options, compared to the following four safer drinking water options: deep tubewells, pond sand filters, vendor water, and rainwater harvesting. Through 262 surveys, this study explores whether five explanatory factors (risk, attitude, norms, reliability, and habit) pose barriers to switching from unsafe to safe drinking water options or whether they could act as facilitators of such a switch. Users’ attachment to using pond water is generally low (facilitators: risk and attitude. Barrier: norms). Users are more attached to shallow tubewells (no facilitators. Barriers: reliability and habit). The safe alternatives (deep tubewell, rain water harvesting, pond sand filter, and vendor water) score significantly better than pond water and are estimated to have the potential to be adopted by pond water users. Deep tubewell, rain water harvesting, and pond sand filter also score better than shallow tubewells and could also have the potential to replace them. These findings may be used to optimise implementation strategies for safer drinking water alternatives. View Full-Text
Keywords: Bangladesh; rural drinking water supply; arsenic contamination; surface water health problems; attachment to unsafe drinking water Bangladesh; rural drinking water supply; arsenic contamination; surface water health problems; attachment to unsafe drinking water
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Naus, F.L.; Burer, K.; van Laerhoven, F.; Griffioen, J.; Ahmed, K.M.; Schot, P. Why Do People Remain Attached to Unsafe Drinking Water Options? Quantitative Evidence from Southwestern Bangladesh. Water 2020, 12, 342.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop