Safe drinking water is a global challenge for rural populations dependent on unregulated water. A scoping review of research on human health risk assessments (HHRA) applied to this vulnerable population may be used to improve assessments applied by government and researchers. This review aims to summarize and describe the characteristics of HHRA methods, publications, and current literature gaps of HHRA studies on rural populations dependent on unregulated or unspecified drinking water. Peer-reviewed literature was systematically searched (January 2000 to May 2014) and identified at least one drinking water source as unregulated (21%) or unspecified (79%) in 100 studies. Only 7% of reviewed studies identified a rural community dependent on unregulated drinking water. Source water and hazards most frequently cited included groundwater (67%) and chemical water hazards (82%). Most HHRAs (86%) applied deterministic methods with 14% reporting probabilistic and stochastic methods. Publications increased over time with 57% set in Asia, and 47% of studies identified at least one literature gap in the areas of research, risk management, and community exposure. HHRAs applied to rural populations dependent on unregulated water are poorly represented in the literature even though almost half of the global population is rural.

Rural communities dependent on unregulated drinking water are potentially at increased health risk from exposure to contaminants. Perception of drinking water safety influences water consumption, exposure, and health risk. A community‐based participatory approach and probabilistic Bayesian methods were applied to integrate risk perception in a holistic human health risk assessment. Tap water arsenic concentrations and risk perception data were collected from two Saskatchewan communities. Drinking water health standards were exceeded in 67% (51/76) of households in Rural Municipality #184 (RM184) and 56% (25/45) in Beardy's and Okemasis First Nation (BOFN). There was no association between the presence of a health exceedance and risk perception. Households in RM184 or with an annual income >$50,000 were most likely to have in‐house water treatment. The probability of consuming tap water perceived as safe (92%) or not safe (0%) suggested that households in RM184 were unlikely to drink water perceived as not safe. The probability of drinking tap water perceived as safe (77%) or as not safe (11%) suggested households in BOFN contradicted their perception and consumed water perceived as unsafe. Integration of risk perception lowered the adult incremental lifetime cancer risk by 3% to 1.3 × 10−5 (95% CI 8.4 × 10−8 to 9.0 × 10−5) for RM184 and by 8.9 × 10−6 (95% CI 2.2 × 10−7 to 5.9 × 10−5) for BOFN. Probability of exposure to arsenic concentrations >1:100,000, negligible cancer risk, was 23% for RM184 and 22% for BOFN.