Publikation: Acceptance and use of eight arsenic-safe drinking water options in Bangladesh
Dateien
Datum
Autor:innen
Herausgeber:innen
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
URI (zitierfähiger Link)
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
Internationale Patentnummer
Link zur Lizenz
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationstyp
Publikationsstatus
Erschienen in
Zusammenfassung
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, selfefficacy, 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 arsenicsafe water option.
Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
Schlagwörter
Konferenz
Rezension
Zitieren
ISO 690
INAUEN, Jennifer, Mohammad Mojahidul HOSSAIN, Richard B. JOHNSTON, Hans-Joachim MOSLER, 2013. Acceptance and use of eight arsenic-safe drinking water options in Bangladesh. In: PLoS ONE. 2013, 8(1), e53640. eISSN 1932-6203. Available under: doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053640BibTex
@article{Inauen2013Accep-21538, year={2013}, doi={10.1371/journal.pone.0053640}, title={Acceptance and use of eight arsenic-safe drinking water options in Bangladesh}, number={1}, volume={8}, journal={PLoS ONE}, author={Inauen, Jennifer and Hossain, Mohammad Mojahidul and Johnston, Richard B. and Mosler, Hans-Joachim}, note={Article Number: e53640} }
RDF
<rdf:RDF xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/" xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/21538"> <dc:contributor>Inauen, Jennifer</dc:contributor> <dc:contributor>Johnston, Richard B.</dc:contributor> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/21538/1/inauen_215382.pdf"/> <dc:creator>Inauen, Jennifer</dc:creator> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/> <dc:contributor>Hossain, Mohammad Mojahidul</dc:contributor> <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/> <dcterms:title>Acceptance and use of eight arsenic-safe drinking water options in Bangladesh</dcterms:title> <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2013-03-12T07:35:51Z</dcterms:available> <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/21538/1/inauen_215382.pdf"/> <dcterms:issued>2013</dcterms:issued> <dc:creator>Hossain, Mohammad Mojahidul</dc:creator> <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">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, selfefficacy, 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 arsenicsafe water option.</dcterms:abstract> <dc:contributor>Mosler, Hans-Joachim</dc:contributor> <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/> <dcterms:bibliographicCitation>PLoS ONE ; 8 (2013), 1. - e53640</dcterms:bibliographicCitation> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2013-03-12T07:35:51Z</dc:date> <dc:creator>Mosler, Hans-Joachim</dc:creator> <dc:creator>Johnston, Richard B.</dc:creator> <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/21538"/> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>