Differences in stakeholders' and end users' preferences of arsenic mitigation options in Bangladesh
Hossain, Mohammad ; Inauen, Jennifer
In: Journal of Public Health, 2014, vol. 22, no. 4, p. 335-350
Aggiungi alla tua lista- Summary
- Aim: Arsenic contamination of drinking water is a public health crisis. Since its detection in Bangladesh, the world's most arsenic-affected country, organizations involved (i.e., stakeholders) have made great efforts by testing wells and installing safe water options. Yet, 20 million Bangladeshi are still at risk. It has been suggested that the discrepancy between stakeholders' and end users' preferences of arsenic mitigation options is one reason for the slow progress. Therefore, this study aimed at comparing stakeholders' and end users' preferences. Subjects and methods: Three investigations were conducted in Bangladesh: a series of qualitative interviews with 22 stakeholders and two end user surveys with a total of 1,268 randomly selected households living in six arsenic-affected districts of Bangladesh. Results: Stakeholders mostly preferred rural piped water supplies and deep tubewells, while their least preferred options were dug wells and arsenic removal filters. End users mostly preferred deep tubewells, well-sharing and rural piped water supplies, while dug wells were least preferred. End users identified several disadvantages of mitigation options, including long distances, great effort to collect water and difficult social situations. They further demonstrated moderate willingness to pay for a rural piped water supply, deep tubewells and pond sand filters, but lower willingness for other options. Conclusion: Stakeholders' and end users' preferences converged for deep tubewells and rural piped water supplies, while well-sharing was preferred by end users, but not by stakeholders. The results suggest installing deep tubewells and rural piped water supplies with greater priority. Furthermore, stakeholders' preferences to promote well-sharing should be enhanced.