Understanding social acceptability of arsenic-safe technologies in rural Bangladesh: a user-oriented analysis

Abstract

Contamination of shallow tube well drinking water by naturally occurring arsenic is a severe societal and human health challenge in Bangladesh. Multiple technological interventions seeking to ameliorate the problem face hurdles in securing social acceptance, i.e. the willingness of users to receive and use a technology. While most papers focus on expert understanding of social acceptability, this paper analyzes how users themselves understand the factors shaping the social acceptability of safe drinking water options in rural Bangladesh. We then deploy such understanding to comparatively assess which factors users see as most important in securing social acceptance for three safe drinking water options in rural Bangladesh: the arsenic removal household (Sono) filter; the deep tube well; and an improved dug well. We draw on focus groups and semi-structured interviews with technology users in six villages across three districts to analyze how users assess the social acceptability of specific arsenic-safe technologies. Our findings highlight that factors such as availability, affordability and compatibility with existing water use practices, as understood by users, are key to securing users' acceptance of a specific arsenic-safe option. In concluding, we point to a future research agenda to analyze user-oriented social acceptability of arsenic-safe technologies in developing country contexts.

The consolidation of deep tube well technology in safe drinking water provision: the case of arsenic mitigation in rural Bangladesh

“…These technological innovations fall into two categories: first, filter and treatment technologies designed to remove arsenic from contaminated shallow tube well water, such as household and community-level filter systems and, second, alternative safe water options that do not require treatment of arsenic-contaminated water. These include piped water supplies, deep tube wells, improved dug wells, designated safe shallow hand pump tube wells, and rain water harvesting (Hoque et al, 2004;Ahmad et al, 2006;Inauen et al, 2013;Kundu et al, 2016).…”

Technological innovations for societal change : Arsenic mitigation technologies for safe drinking water in rural Bangladesh

“…Confronted with the arsenic crisis, policy actors were evolving a clear preference for community level, non-filter technologies, instead of household filters, in the same period of time as the Sono filter was being developed and deployed. For instance, the deep tube well-a close alternative to shallow hand pump tube well -is now dominant in arsenic mitigation in Bangladesh (Ravenscroft et al, 2014; see also Kundu et al, 2016a). As the analysis has shown, a variety of factors, including lack of support from policy actors and absence of a market, and the need to change existing user practices, hindered successful Sono filter niche formation.…”

“…A policy maker from DPHE (25 July, 2013) stated that "regardless of what people expect and prefer, implementing agencies deploy the technologies they want or are suggested by donors, as most projects are donor-funded. Basically, projects enforce users to use a particular technology without keeping in mind what users want" (see also Kundu et al, 2016a). Similarly, three focus group sessions revealed that users urgently needed an arsenic mitigation technology and MSUK provided them with the Sono filter without offering any alternatives.…”

“…These technological innovations fall into two categories, first, filter and treatment technologies designed to remove arsenic from contaminated shallow tube well water, such as household and community-level filter systems; and, second, alternative safe water options that do not require treatment of arsenic contaminated water. These include piped water supplies, deep tube wells, improved dug wells, designated safe shallow hand pump tube wells, and rain water harvesting (Hoque et al, 2004;Ahmad et al, 2006;Inauen et al, 2013;Kundu et al, 2016a).…”

“…A wide range of solutions have been proposed and tested since, focusing either on filtering out arsenic from pumped up groundwater or providing alternative sources of safe drinking water. All of these arsenic mitigation and safe drinking water options face various technological, economic and/or social challenges and limitations (see Hoque et al, 2006;Shafiquzzaman et al, 2009;Johnston et al, 2010;Milton et al, 2012;Kundu et al, 2016a). Furthermore, no single solution is feasible for all arsenic affected areas (GoB, 2004a(GoB, , 2004b, given diversity of geo-hydrological and social conditions.…”