IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v9y2020i6p71-d368886.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Risk Assessments by Sanitary Inspection for Small Drinking-Water Supplies—Qualitative Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Katherine Pond

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH, UK)

  • Richard King

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH, UK)

  • Jo Herschan

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH, UK)

  • Rosalind Malcolm

    (School of Law, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH, UK)

  • Rory Moses McKeown

    (Consultant, World Health Organization (WHO), Avenue Appia 20, CH-1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland)

  • Oliver Schmoll

    (World Health Organization (WHO), Regional Office for Europe, European Centre for Environment and Health, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1, 53113 Bonn, Germany)

Abstract

Small drinking-water supplies face particular challenges in terms of their management. Being vulnerable to contamination but often not monitored regularly nor well-maintained, small drinking-water supplies may pose consequences for health of users. Sanitary inspection (SI) is a risk assessment tool to identify and manage observable conditions of the water supply technology or circumstances in the catchment area that may favour certain hazardous events and introduce hazards which may become a risk to health. This qualitative research aimed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the SI tool as published by the World Health Organisation to inform a review and update of the forms and to improve their robustness. The study identified a number of benefits of the approach, such as its simplicity and ease of use. Challenges were also identified, such as potential for inconsistencies in perception of risk between inspectors, in interpreting questions, and lack of follow-up action. The authors recommend a revision of the existing SI forms to address the identified challenges and development of complementary advice on possible remedial action to address identified risk factors and on basic operations and maintenance.

Suggested Citation

  • Katherine Pond & Richard King & Jo Herschan & Rosalind Malcolm & Rory Moses McKeown & Oliver Schmoll, 2020. "Improving Risk Assessments by Sanitary Inspection for Small Drinking-Water Supplies—Qualitative Evidence," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:9:y:2020:i:6:p:71-:d:368886
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/9/6/71/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/9/6/71/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daboula Koné & Etienne Mullet, 1994. "Societal Risk Perception and Media Coverage," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 21-24, February.
    2. Aaron Gichaba Misati & George Ogendi & Rachel Peletz & Ranjiv Khush & Emily Kumpel, 2017. "Can Sanitary Surveys Replace Water Quality Testing? Evidence from Kisii, Kenya," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-12, February.
    3. Paul Slovic & Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1982. "Why Study Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 83-93, June.
    4. Emily Kumpel & Rachel Peletz & Mateyo Bonham & Annette Fay & Alicea Cock-Esteb & Ranjiv Khush, 2015. "When Are Mobile Phones Useful for Water Quality Data Collection? An Analysis of Data Flows and ICT Applications among Regulated Monitoring Institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-15, September.
    5. Jonny Crocker & Jamie Bartram, 2014. "Comparison and Cost Analysis of Drinking Water Quality Monitoring Requirements versus Practice in Seven Developing Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-14, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. D. Daniel & Arnt Diener & Jack van de Vossenberg & Madan Bhatta & Sara J. Marks, 2020. "Assessing Drinking Water Quality at the Point of Collection and within Household Storage Containers in the Hilly Rural Areas of Mid and Far-Western Nepal," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    3. Lekfuangfu, Warn N., 2022. "Mortality risk, perception, and human capital investments: The legacy of landmines in Cambodia," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    4. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    5. Laura K. Siebeneck & Thomas J. Cova, 2012. "Spatial and Temporal Variation in Evacuee Risk Perception Throughout the Evacuation and Return‐Entry Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1468-1480, September.
    6. Noland, Robert B & Kunreuther, Howard, 1995. "Short-run and long-run policies for increasing bicycle transportation for daily commuter trips," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 67-79, January.
    7. Sandra Cortés & Soledad Burgos & Héctor Adaros & Boris Lucero & Lesliam Quirós-Alcalá, 2021. "Environmental Health Risk Perception: Adaptation of a Population-Based Questionnaire from Latin America," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-13, August.
    8. Andree Ehlert & Jan Seidel & Ursula Weisenfeld, 2020. "Trouble on my mind: the effect of catastrophic events on people’s worries," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 951-975, August.
    9. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    10. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    11. Andrea Cerase & Lorenzo Cugliari, 2023. "Something Still Remains: Factors Affecting Tsunami Risk Perception on the Coasts Hit by the Reggio Calabria-Messina 1908 Event (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, February.
    12. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.
    13. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    14. Ao Zhang & Hao Yang & Zhenlei Tian & Shuning Tong, 2022. "Evolution Model and Simulation Study of the Public Risk Perception of COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-29, September.
    15. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    16. Liu, Wenjuan & Agusdinata, Datu B. & Eakin, Hallie & Romero, Hugo, 2022. "Sustainable minerals extraction for electric vehicles: A pilot study of consumers’ perceptions of impacts," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    17. Hoehn, John P., 1989. "Consumer Demand for Innovation in Food Safety," Staff Paper Series 201028, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    18. Rianne van Duinen & Tatiana Filatova & Peter Geurts & Anne van der Veen, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Farmers' Drought Risk Perception: Objective Factors, Personal Circumstances, and Social Influence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 741-755, April.
    19. Syed Hassan Raza & Umer Zaman & Paulo Ferreira & Pablo Farías, 2021. "An Experimental Evidence on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food through Advertisement Framing on Health and Environmental Benefits, Objective Knowledge, and Risk Reduction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-24, May.
    20. Banus Kam Leung Low & Siu Shing Man & Alan Hoi Shou Chan & Saad Alabdulkarim, 2019. "Construction Worker Risk-Taking Behavior Model with Individual and Organizational Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-13, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:9:y:2020:i:6:p:71-:d:368886. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.