The use of alternative safe water options to mitigate the arsenic problem in Bangladesh: a community perspective

CHAPTER 7.  RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

7.1 General description of the two upazilas

7.1.1 The arsenic problem at a glance in the two upazilas where the study villages were located.

The whole of Jhikargacha upazilla and most of the south of Sonargaon upazilla is underlain by Holocene-Recent fluvial (river) sediments (GSB, 1990). However, there is a marked difference in the relative number of red wells. On average, in Jhikargacha the percentage of red wells was 48% while in Sonargaon it was 80% (BRAC, 1999) (see Figure 7 for location of the two upazilas).

Such variation in the contamination of the groundwater of Sonargaon and Jhikargacha may be explained by considering the geomorphology and geology of the two areas (Figure 8). Jhikargacha is rarely flooded and is geomorphologically more stable than Sonargaon which is mainly underlain by the active Meghna floodplain. It is likely that Jhikargacha is underlain by the full range of fluvial sediments (gravels, sands, silts and clays) related to different relict features of fluvial systems such as in-filled oxbow lakes, floodplain, meander belts, levees, etc. In contrast, the sediments underlying the southern part of Sonargaon are more likely to be dominated by the finer grain sizes (silts and clays) which are associated with floodplains. As finer grained sediments (silts and clays) are more likely to contain arsenic (Mok and Wai, 1994) this geomorphological variation between the two upazilas may explain why more arsenic-contaminated tube wells are found in Sonargaon than in Jhikargacha (BRAC, 2000).

Figure 7: Location of the Upazillas where the study villages are located 

|Click on the Figure for a larger view|

Figure 8 : Geomorphology an d Geology of Bangladesh 

|Click on the Figure for a larger view|

7.2 Arsenic problem in the study villages

Although the percentage of arsenic concentration in the tube well water of the two villages was almost the same, there were significant differences observed among all other variables. The variables selected for this study were age, education, occupation, knowledge about arsenic and safe water options, and presence of arsenic patients. These are described in the following section.

7.2.1 Age

The mean age of respondents at the time of administering the questionnaire survey was 36 in Vhagolpur and 34 in Kamarpara. It was observed that pertaining to a certain age group played a key role in the type of answer to the problem in the two villages studied.

Table 3: Arsenic in tube well water is a problem: by age group

V= Vhagolpur, K= Kamarpara, Numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage

From the table it is observed that arsenic is considered to be a problem by the young and middle-aged group in both villages although there are marked differences between the two villages as regards the perception and views of the problem - this is discussed later. In both villages, older people do not consider it to be a problem; they have been drinking water from the present sources for about 25-30 years without perceiving any difficulties and they think there will be no problem in the near future. Some of them also mentioned that this type of arsenic mitigation programme might be a ploy by the manufacturer of pipes since they knew from the provided information that the deeper aquifer might be free from arsenic.

Table 4: Arsenic in tube well water is a problem

The numbers within parentheses indicate percentage. Significant at 1% level1

Villagers were asked whether they consider arsenic in tube well water to be a problem or not. Although the majority of the respondents from both the villages under study recognized arsenic to be a problem, the nature of perceiving arsenic as a problem varied significantly (p<0.01); for this reason the type of expectation to solve the problem and other variables which are discussed later were not similar.

7.2.2 Education

Level of education was also an important indicator - not in terms of accepting or rejecting the provided alternative safe water options, but with regards to recognizing arsenic to be a problem. There was no significant difference observed between the villages studied. From Table 5 it may be observed that the level of education is higher in Vhagolpur village of Sonargaon upazilla. In Vhagolpur 56% of the illiterate villagers do not consider arsenic in water to be a problem whereas in Kamarpara this number is 10%. Here it is mentioned that although the number of people still drinking arsenic contaminated water was higher in both the literate and illiterate categories, the general perception that arsenic is a problem was lower among the illiterate categories.

Table 5: Arsenic in tube well water is a problem: by level of education

The numbers within parentheses indicate percentage

It was observed that the nature of the response in the two villages was also different; in Vhagolpur, the majority of the respondents did not consider arsenic to be a problem because they did not see any patients in their villages, whereas in Kamarpara, the respondents who basically did not have any safe options in the vicinity and not enough manpower to collect water from distant places (e.g. deep tube well) were found not to be taking arsenic free water regularly.

7.2.3 Occupation

A clear difference was observed in the occupational profile of the two villages studied. In Vhagolpur, which is close to Dhaka and another port-city Narayanganj, the primary occupation of 82% of the respondents was business, whereas in Kamarpara 70% of the respondents were in agriculture (Table 6). For this reason, the perception of people about arsenic and the provided options also varied considerably. For instance at the initial stage the people of Vhagolpur did not welcome the arsenic mitigation activities; instead, they tried to hinder the functioning of some of the community-based options. At the initial stage people of this village even thought that ‘you (the project people) have got money either from government or from the donor so you are bound to construct the options whether it is useful or not to the people.’ Later though, this attitude of the villagers changed, perhaps due to their more open-minded approach itself owing to their occupation and comparatively strong economic background; further study is needed in order to understand the relationships.

Table 6: Main occupation of the study villages

The number in the parentheses indicate percentage

The business-oriented people of Vhagolpur were reluctant to spend much time away from their business activities; at the same time they did not have as much leisure-time as the people in the other village - leisure-time, particularly in the afternoon, is a characteristic of a typical village in rural Bangladesh. Respondents in Vhagolpur also mentioned that they have a lesser degree of community-cohesion and unlike the people of other villages they do not like to seek help from other members of the community - rather, they communicate or seek help from relatives and other family members in times of emergencies. This made the response pattern of this village as described above, different from that in Kamarpara.

7.2.4 Main problems encountered in the study villages

Respondents of individual households were asked about the main problems of their locality. Although the majority of the respondents in both the study villages considered arsenic to be the severe problem, the percentage and the subsequent problems mentioned by the respondents were not similar (Table 7).

Table 7: Main Problem of the study villages

The number in the parentheses indicate percentage  

Significant at 2% level2

In Vhagolpur 59% of the total respondents mentioned arsenic as their major problem, followed by financial problems (20%) related to their business capital - the majority of respondents in this village were businessmen. 10% of the respondents mentioned sanitation and by this they meant a central sewage system such as are found in urban areas, whereas in the other village the majority of the respondents mentioned arsenic (80%) as their principal problem. Respondents of the Kamarpara village also mentioned financial problems as their second biggest worry but in their case these financial problems had to do with maintaining their family and seeing to their daily needs.

The response pattern of the two villages varied significantly (p<0.02) when the arsenic problem was compared with other problems as mentioned by the villagers.

7.2.5 Monthly expenditure

As one can see from Table 8 the average monthly expenditure is higher in Vhagolpur, which indicated the better economic condition of the respondents of this village.

Table 8: Monthly expenditure of the respondents of the study villages

The numbers within parentheses indicate percentage

An attempt was made to understand the relationship between the level of monthly income of the respondents and the arsenic problem. The results are as follows:

Table 9: Arsenic problem vs. monthly expenditure

V: Vhagolpur, K: Kamarpara

From the table is observed that there are more cells, which have frequencies less than 5, therefore the chi-square test is not possible in this case. But this relationship can be established in another way:

The proportion of inhabitants of Vhagolpur who identified arsenic to be a problem was nearly 6/10=0.6 among those with a monthly income of up to Taka 3000; the proportion for the inhabitants who had monthly income of more than Taka 3000 or more was 40/41=0.975. Without performing a statistical test it can be said by observing the proportions that the difference is significant. On the other hand, the proportion of inhabitants of Kamarpara who identified arsenic to be a problem was nearly 28/29=0.965 for those with a monthly expenditure of up to Taka 3000 and the proportion for the inhabitants who had a monthly income of more than Taka 3000 was 26/27=0.9629. So, without performing a statistical test it can be said by observing the proportions that the difference is probably not significant.

Therefore, it can be said that in Kamarpara where a large number of arsenic patients were identified, irrespective of their different incomes, the respondents perceived arsenic to be a severe problem. On the other hand, this difference is significant in the case of Vhagolpur where there were no arsenic patients identified.

7.2.6 Knowledge about arsenic and alternative safe water options

To assess the knowledge of respondents about arsenic, different questions were asked. When asked about the source of arsenic-related information the majority of the respondents in both the study villages mentioned BRAC (see Appendix 1 for details), the NGO that first started working on arsenic-related issues in these two areas. This high percentage indicates that although radio and television were continuously broadcasting messages on arsenic long before BRAC’s activities, physical appearance and personal contact rather than a distant motivation play an important role. As one can see in Vhagolpur, although 78% of the respondents had television they mentioned the name of BRAC first - the organization had personally told everyone in this village about arsenic and its related hazards and also about safe water sources.

In replying to the question of whether arsenic is a contagious and / or a hereditary disease, all the respondents (100%) in Kamarpara answered correctly while in Vhagolpur, where there was no arsenic patients, 22% did not. Here it is mentioned that in Kamarpara, villagers at first considered it to be a contagious disease and those affected with this disease were kept aside from the rest of the village community; they were not even allowed to bathe in the same pond as the other villagers. Apart from that, the incidence of divorce of the arsenic-affected women and a lot of other social problems were also prominent among the villagers. However, these problems no longer existed in this village once the villagers understood the facts.

Table 10: Knowledge about arsenic and alternative safe water options

The number in the parentheses indicate percentage

In Kamarpara, all the respondents were informed or at least had some idea about the alternative safe water options, which was either provided by BRAC or by the government i.e., deep tube wells. On the other hand, in Vhagolpur village 14% of the villagers did not have any idea about alternative safe water options although they were informed about the problem of the presence of arsenic in tube well water. At the same time 86% of the respondents knew about alternative safe water options but a majority of them were not found eager to get or use the existing alternative safe water options.

7.2.7 Arsenic testing and arsenic related information

All the respondents from both the villages mentioned that their tube well or the sources from where they got drinking water were tested by BRAC. Initially in Vhagolpur all tube wells but one were found to be contaminated with arsenic at levels higher than the safe standard for arsenic in Bangladesh; in Kamarpara only 9% of the tested tube wells were safe for drinking and cooking purposes.

What happened was that at one point in Vhagolpur, two villagers sunk their tube wells deeper (300ft) with the help of local tube well masons and got arsenic-free water. Several others followed but they failed to get arsenic-free water from the same depth - this indicates the irregular distribution of arsenic in the groundwater and made the villagers frustrated with their ‘innovation’. People of this village were found eager to sink their tube wells deeper and were asking for expert opinion about this measure. In Kamarpara the government provided two deep tube wells of the five safe tube wells of this village. It was observed during field visits that people of this village were interested in drawing deep tube well water and that is why a long queue of village women was daily observed in front of the deep tube wells to fetch water.

An attempt was made to understand how many people were still using arsenic-contaminated water and to find out the reasons why they were doing so.

Table 11: Arsenic testing and related information

The numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage

From the table it is observed that in Vhagolpur 80% of the respondents mentioned that they were still drinking arsenic-contaminated water although they were well-informed about the effects of arsenic poisoning whereas in Kamarpara only 14% of the respondents were still drinking arsenic-contaminated water. Villagers of Kamarpara mentioned that just after the testing of tube well water and when alternative options were provided to them and particularly when government (i.e., DPHE) provided deep tube wells, all the villagers used to take water from these safe sources. As time passed without the disease spreading or any other problems, some people - particularly those who were living some distance away from the safe water sources - started drinking from their red tube wells. This percentage in Kamarpara, where one arsenic-affected patient had already died, was 14%. As the villagers mentioned, this percentage may increase if there are no further difficulties or problems of arsenic poisoning i.e. further spread of the disease. Whereas in Vhagolpur, the villagers from the very beginning did not take the arsenic problem seriously and they (86%) were still drinking water from contaminated wells. Very few people, generally those who got options from BRAC or personally re-sunk their tube well depths (20%) were found drinking water from safe sources.

An effort was made to find out the reasons why some of the respondents were still using arsenic-contaminated water and the reasons are presented in the following table:

Table 12: Reasons for using arsenic-contaminated water by the respondents

The numbers in parentheses indicate percentage

From the table it is observed that there are variations in the response patterns of the respondents of the two villages. In Vhagolpur, the results clearly indicate that the people of this village were more reluctant to deal with the problem; at the same time their expectations for better options not only implied their dislike of the existing alternative safe water sources but also reflected their comparatively better economic condition.

It was observed in Vhagolpur that without having any practical difficulties from drinking arsenic contaminated water for this long time - that is without any patients in the village - people were not prepared to accept this might create any problem in the long run. At the same time they were also aware of the long incubation period of this disease and that their better nutritional status helped prevent it; this made villagers reluctant to use arsenic-free water. Instead, people of this village mentioned that the advocating of safe water options may be a ploy intended to make money through selling the options. Some of them also mentioned that if there were really an arsenic problem in the water, some medicine would be likely to be available in the future. On the other hand, in Kamarpara very few people who are living far away from the deep tube wells and who do not have any extra hands in the houses to collect water from a distant place were still drinking water from the arsenic contaminated tube wells. A few aged people of this village who thought that the disease might not spread in new areas since it did not do so for the last several years were also drinking contaminated water. Although villagers of this category also mentioned that when they found favorable situations in the house, they try to collect water from the deep tube wells (that is from the arsenic-free sources).

As regards the options, the majority of the respondents of this village mentioned further sinking of the existing tube wells as one of the better option to alleviate the arsenic problem. On the other hand, villagers of Kamarpara mentioned deep tube wells as the best option. They were also hopeful of getting more deep tube wells from the government.

7.2.8 Arsenicosis patients: correlations

Out of the 40 arsenic-affected patients identified in Kamarpara, the household survey covered only 15 households that included such patients. The distribution of the arsenic- affected patients was particular in that all the patients were concentrated in two residential clusters in the village. People of the two clusters were not affected with the arsenicosis disease at the same time. There was a belief among villagers that the people who were affected later (i.e. affected people from the second cluster) used to criticize and socially avoid the arsenic-affected patients of the first cluster from the same village. They did not even want to allow the arsenic patients to use their ponds for bathing, washing, and other purposes. For this reason, the rest of the villagers still believe that some people from the second cluster are affected with the same disease. There was not much difference observed between the two groups of people in terms of average income, source of arsenic-contaminated drinking water (but the exact concentration of arsenic was not checked), average duration of exposure, etc. An in-depth investigation is needed to find out the reasons behind this.

Table 13: Number of arsenic-affected patients in the study villages

The numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage

When the relations between household income and the number of arsenic-affected patients in households is analyzed, it results that there are clearly very few patients in high income households - the number of patients decreases as household income increases, that is. From the table it is also observed that not all the low-income households were affected with the disease. Therefore, the relation between household income and the number of patients is not linear. In any case, however, no patients were observed in the high-income categories, which indicates a relation with the nutritional condition of the exposed population. A number of studies confirm the relation between being affected with arsenicosis and the nutritional condition of the exposed population (DCH, SOES, 1999). At the same time it is also true that not all the members of a family were necessarily affected with the disease, although drinking from the same contaminated sources for roughly the same period of time. A detailed epidemiological study is needed to identify the reasons for this pattern of spreading the disease.

7.2.9 Perceptions about the alternative safe water options

7.2.9.1 Safe water options

Different types of safe water options were identified as alternatives to arsenic- contaminated water. Providing safe drinking water is not easy because very little is known about the different technologies that could be used to supply safe drinking water. Some of the provided options are totally new to the community. Therefore a substantial amount of time is needed to assess both the technical viability and the community acceptance of the provided options. It has been observed in the past that in any new initiative, people generally express their curiosity but are reluctant to accept new approaches or technology. Rather they prefer to wait, observe carefully and take time to decide (Hadi, 2000). Some of the provided options were found not to be working properly and at the same time some prospective new options were also included in the safe water option list and later provided to the community for its acceptance.

Although the project activities were started in June 1999, the distribution of the alternative safe water option was started around September 1999. Therefore, the total time to assess the options both in terms of community acceptability and technical viability was not enough to draw up a conclusive recommendation about options and their acceptance. It took 25 to 30 years to convert up to 97% of the rural population of Bangladesh to using tube well water; and even then it was easier than today’s provided alternative safe water options in terms of acceptance, technical viability, financial and maintenance aspects. It should be pointed out that this report did not cover all the options for community assessment provided by BRAC in the two upazilas. Potential sources identified as alternatives to the arsenic-contaminated water were as follows:

• Treated pond water

• Rain water

• Treated groundwater

The following alternative safe water options were assessed for this research project:

Table 14: Alternative safe water options

Two Chamber Treatment Units was later excluded from the project due to concerns about residual aluminium in the treated water. These technologies will not be discussed here.

It was observed that not all the provided alternative safe water options were feasible for every region and for every class of people in a society. Therefore, it was necessary to evaluate the viability, effectiveness and acceptance by different classes of people in a community of the provided options.

7.2.9.2 Description of individual options

In this section the main features of the assessed alternative safe water options are discussed; technical and other details as well as a comparative assessment of different alternative safe water technologies are presented in Appendix 1.

Pond Sand Filter (PSF)

Filtration is the process whereby water is purified by passing it through a porous material or media. In slow sand filtration a bed of fine sand is used through which the water slowly percolates. The suspended matter present in the untreated water is largely retained in the upper 0.5-2 cm of the filter bed. This allows the filter to be cleaned by scraping away the top layer of sand. The filter cleaning operation need not take more than one day, but one to two more days are required after cleaning for the filter bed again to become fully effective (DPHE/UNICEF, 1988-93).

In the coastal belt of Bangladesh where much of the groundwater is saline, the local populations are dependent on surface water from dug ponds. However, water from these ponds is not potable without the adequate treatment. DPHE with funding from UNICEF has installed slow sand filtration units into which pond water is fed using a tube well (hand pump).

Figure 9: Pond Sand Filter |Click on the Figure for larger view|

These units are called Pond Sand Filters (PSF). The use of PSF technology to filter surface water is also considered appropriate for areas where groundwater is contaminated with arsenic. One pond sand filter can supply the daily drinking and cooking requirements for about 40-60 families (DPHE/UNICEF, 1988-93).

Ponds for the PSF were selected on the basis of the following criteria:

• Ponds will not be used for fish culture; almost all the ponds in recent years were used for culture fisheries and therefore chemical fertilizers and pesticides are usually used in these ponds.

• Ponds should be protected in all respects, e.g. free from agricultural and domestic runoff, and also from any kind of sewerage discharges, etc.

• Ponds will not be used for washing livestock or any other domestic purposes.

• Ponds should be permanent (not prone to periodic drying-up).

• There should be community pledges on the operation and maintenance of the ponds and PSFs.

A water-management committee composed of potential users of the PSF was formed for each of the constructed PSFs. They were given training on operation and maintenance of PSF. Construction cost of these options varies from Taka 25,000 (£1 » Taka 82) to Taka 40,000 (depending on the size of the option).  

Rain Water Harvester (RWH)

Rainwater harvesting is utilized in many parts of the world to meet the demand for fresh water. There is a long-established tradition of rainwater collection in some parts of Alaska and Hawaii and even in parts of Bangladesh where shallow groundwater water is problematic due to salinity. In the city of Austin in Texas a tax rebate is offered to households for using rainwater. Gibraltar has one of the largest rainwater collection systems in existence. Rainwater harvesting is also popular in Kenya, South Africa, Botswana, Tanzania, Sri Lanka, and Thailand (Daily Star, 24 September 1999).

Figure 10 : Rainwater Harvester |Click on the Figure for larger view|

In some areas of Bangladesh the potential for rainwater harvesting is good - however, the amount of rainfall is variable across the country. Rashid (1977) shows that mean annual precipitation ranges from 1,400 mm (about 55 inches) along the country’s east central border to more than 5,000 mm (200 inches) in the far north-east. The wet months are mid-June to late September and the dry period is from January to April. About 80% of the annual precipitation occur in the monsoon period.

Rainfall patterns were confirmed with local communities in order to ascertain the feasibility of RWH, and alternatives and parallel use of other options were considered before constructing RWH jars. The capacity of a jar is about 32,000 liters and the cost is about Taka 8,000 (DPHE/UNICEF, 1988-93).During the course of the project it was observed that the cost was too prohibitive for it to spread locally. Also, in every case the RWH was used by more than one family so the water only lasted for a limited period (maximum one month when the rainy season stops- i.e. not long enough to cover the full dry period).

One small Safi filter is designed to handle approximately 40 liters of water per day. This should be more than sufficient for the needs of a family of six for hygienically safe and arsenic free water. The cost of such filter is Taka 900. Larger filters for schools, etc. are available which can filter 80 litters of water per day and cost Taka 2000 (BRAC, 1999).

Figure 11: Safi Filter

Kolshi or Three-Pitcher Filter

Deep Tube well (DTW)

There are two main aquifers in Bangladesh, one shallow and one deep. Usually there is a thick layer of silt and clay between the two aquifers. Water can not easily pass through the layer. It has been observed that the deeper aquifer is much less contaminated than the shallow one. A recent hydro-geological study conducted by the British Geological Survey (DPHE/BGS/MML, 1999) tested 280 tube wells the depth of which was more than 200 meters, and found unsafe levels of arsenic in only two of them - less than1%. DPHE has also tested many deep tube wells, and found only limited arsenic contamination. BRAC has also tested some deep tube wells that were contaminated with arsenic at levels that were higher than the acceptable limit. These sporadic statistics indicate the uncertain safety of the deep aquifer and careful observation is needed before making a general recommendation for this option as a safe source for arsenic free water in the future. Even so, deep tube wells cannot be drilled in all areas. This is because in some parts of the country, rocky layers make drilling impossible. Due to these constraints deep tube wells, that are not yet scientifically proven to be safe, were not included as a safe source of arsenic free water in the BRAC-UNICEF community-based arsenic mitigation project.

7.2.10 Community perceptions of the alternative safe water options

Two types of perceptions of the villagers about the alternative safe water option were observed. In Kamarpara, before the introduction of deep tube wells by the government (i.e. by DPHE) villagers were interested in the provided options and those who got the options were using them regularly for getting arsenic-free water. When villagers got deep tube wells they gradually started to lose their interest in other options. On the other hand, people of Vhagolpur right from the beginning were not very interested in the alternative safe water options. Later, when DPHE masons started to motivate villagers for further sinking of the pipes of the existing tube wells villagers were found to be interested in this measure. Therefore, in both cases it was observed that due to a lack of co-ordination between government and the implementing agency, the true picture of community participation in the provided options could not be obtained. Hence, co-ordination between different stakeholders plays a dominant role in the sustainable implementation of a project. Although this was found to be difficult, an effort was made to assess the perception of the community regarding the provided alternative safe water options. The results are presented in the following table:

Table 15: Community perception of the alternative safe water options

The numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage, HHs: Households

From the table it is observed that in Vhagolpur, villagers were not very interested in the existing options but at the same time a significant number of respondents (22%) had no knowledge about the alternative options. Generally respondents from this village had no practical difficulties and were not taking this problem seriously, although a majority of the respondents (59%) considered this problem to be one of the most severe of their locality. This notion of severity, according to the villagers, is based on their perception that there may be some problem in the near future.

The perception of respondents about community-based safe water options was not encouraging. Although BRAC set up village water-committees wherever necessary, in fact none of the committee members were taking responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the provided free demonstration units. It was observed in many places that these community-based options were not in operation: this was either because of minor faults that in fact cost little money to fix, or routine maintenance of the options that would need physical labor to replace or regenerate. It may well be the case that since villagers did not have to pay anything to obtain these demonstration units, they all but lost interest after a couple of months even if at the beginning they were very enthusiastic about these options. Due to this potential problem, BRAC is planning to ensure some community contribution in their future project in order to get the sense of ownership over the provided options by the community and also to ensure continuous use and maintenance of them. Individual household-based options that do not require much maintenance, for example the three-pitcher option, were becoming more popular among community people.

Although socio-economic conditions and the general perception that arsenic is a major problem were different in the two villages studied, the expectations of the villagers from alternative safe water options to alleviate the arsenic problem were almost similar. In fact, the difference between the villages in terms of the importance attached to having alternative safe water options to avoid future problems, if any, was not very significant: 86% in Vhagolpur and 96% in Kamarpara.

Table 16: Importance of safe water options to the people of community

The numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage

Significant at 10% level3

In Kamarpara very few respondents (4%) did not consider arsenic to be a problem in the near future: this is because they have been drinking water from the same source for generations without any difficulties. On the other hand, concentrations of arsenic-affected families were situated in particular areas and did not spread to other parts of the village during the 4 - 5 year period. This had created the false belief that the disease might not spread in other areas. But in Vhagolpur, the respondents of the last two categories (14%) (i.e. no need and no idea) were not living permanently with their family members because of their business commitments and therefore were not very keen on the problem of arsenic and its mitigation options.

A remarkable difference was also observed in the nature of expectation of the respondents of the two study villages to alleviate the arsenic problem. More than 54% of the respondents of Kamarpara village mentioned that they expected the government to solve the problem. Although BRAC provided a number of free safe water demonstration units in this village, the villagers thought that they were provided by government because they believe that anything that is free comes from government and that NGOs never distribute anything for free. They basically wanted more free options from government or government help of any kind in order to alleviate the problem. The same situation was revealed when they were asked whether they were interested to (at least partially) pay for different mitigation options, basically for different improved or better options. About 64% of the respondents of Kamarpara mentioned that they do not want to pay for any type of alternative safe water options; rather, they thought that at some point they will definitely get at least something from government. There may be another reason for their not being willing to pay for safe water options: this village is frequently visited by a large number of visitors (from home and abroad) which might make villagers think they will get something free considering their importance to visitors.

Table 17: Expectation of the villagers to solve arsenic problem

The numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage

Significant at 1% level4

On the other hand, villagers of Vhagolpur expect more NGO involvement (53%) to solve this problem because of the latter’s repute for honest and quick action. At the same time about 73% of the respondents of this village showed their willingness to pay for better arsenic free safe water sources. From Table 16, it is observed that at least 12% of the respondents of this village did not have any idea as to who could be expected to solve the arsenic problem, which indicated that they were not concerned about it.

When the expectations of the villagers to solve the arsenic problem were categorized in terms of expectation from the government and others (basically NGOs), the difference was found to be highly significant (p<0.01) among the respondents of the two study villages.

7.2.11 Expenditure verses willingness to pay for alternative safe water options

It has been observed that the economic factor was the main determinant for many of the response patterns of development interventions. An attempt was made to find out whether there was any relation between the monthly expenditure of the respondents and their willingness to pay for alternative options to alleviate the arsenic problem.

Table 18: Monthly expenditure verses willingness to pay for safe water options

From the table it is observed that in both the villages willingness to pay for alternative safe water options was highly dependent (p<0.005) on monthly income levels of the respondents.