Water-supply options in arsenic-affected regions in Cambodia: Targeting the bottom income quintiles

Chamberlain, Jim F.; Sabatini, David A.

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.011

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A comprehensive view of the cost per household of safe drinking water would include installation costs, normal operating costs, repairs and replacements, interest paid on borrowed money, education to induce a shift from unsafe to safer sources, marketing, community mobilization and labor (if needed), and planning and policy changes at local or regional levels (145,150). In addition, costs of water quality testing and monitoring, and (for arsenic removal) of sludge management and monitoring, should all be included (148). However, in much of the supposedly low-cost literature it is not clear what has been included and what has been excluded, and who bears these excluded costs.…”

Section: Costs Of Removing or Avoiding Arsenic In Drinking Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inauen et al (103) found that technology-specific psychological factors could influence behavior change interventions. This implies that different technologies will require different levels of investment to achieve a comparable level of adoption, a cost that should be considered for technology comparisons (148). Most studies do not provide enough information about the educational or motivational programs that accompanied technology interventions, but descriptions of repeated meetings, focus groups, skits, and songs (100,110) suggest that these costs could be significant.…”

Section: Arsenic Contaminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Safe Drinking Water for Low-Income Regions

Amrose¹,

Burt

Ray

2015

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Well into the 21st century, safe and affordable drinking water remains an unmet human need. At least 1.8 billion people are potentially exposed to microbial contamination, and close to 140 million people are potentially exposed to unsafe levels of arsenic. Many new technologies, water quality assessments, health impact assessments, cost studies, and user preference studies have emerged in the past 20 years to further the laudable goal of safe drinking water for all. This article reviews (a) the current literature on safe water approaches with respect to their effectiveness in improving water quality and protectiveness in improving human health, (b) new work on the uptake and use of safe water systems among low-income consumers, (c) new research on the cash and labor costs of safe water systems, and (d) research on user preferences and valuations for safe water. Our main recommendation is that safe water from "source to sip" should be seen as a system; this entire system, rather than a discrete intervention, should be the object of analysis for technical, economic, and health assessments.

show abstract

Section: Costs Of Removing or Avoiding Arsenic In Drinking Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Arsenic Contaminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safe Drinking Water for Low-Income Regions

Amrose¹,

Burt

Ray

2015

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adsorption and ion exchange have been demonstrated in resource-constrained settings within household filters, community filters, and small water systems to remove numerous contaminants [e.g., As (14,(104)(105)(106)(107)(108)(109)(110), Cd (111), Cr (112)(113)(114), F (115), Pb (111,116), and EOCs ( 117)]. Subsurface-flow constructed systems (e.g., wetlands and wells injected with reactive media), reliant on in situ processes to adsorb or degrade contaminants, have been demonstrated at the pilot scale to successfully remove As, NO − 3 , U, and some EOCs [e.g., BTEX chemicals (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene), phenol] (118,119).…”

Section: Adsorption and Ion Exchangementioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical Contamination of Drinking Water in Resource-Constrained Settings: Global Prevalence and Piloted Mitigation Strategies

Amrose

Cherukumilli

Wright

2020

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemical contamination of drinking water (including salinity) puts more than one billion people at risk of adverse health effects globally. Resource-constrained communities are the most affected and face unique challenges that require innovative safe water solutions. This review focuses on arsenic, fluoride, nitrates, lead, chromium, total dissolved solids, emerging organic contaminants, and, to a lesser extent, manganese, cadmium, selenium, and uranium. It covers contaminant prevalence, major health effects, and treatment technologies or avoidance strategies that have been proven effective in realistic water matrices and conditions. The review covers the levelized costs of water for pilot- and full-scale systems most relevant to resource-constrained communities, with a focus on component costs including the costs of power systems, lifting water, waste management, and labor. These costs are not universally reported, but can be significant. The findings are analyzed and discussed in the context of providing sustainable safe water solutions in resource-constrained settings. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Volume 45 is October 19, 2020. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

show abstract

“…Subsidies can also help in developing countries where rainwater harvesting systems may be beyond the financial options of citizens. In a study of options for water supply in arsenic-affected areas of Cambodia, rainwater harvesting was one of the least expensive options, though still too expensive for the poorest 20 % of the population without subsidies [102].…”

Section: Economic Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%