IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/124547.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Comparative Study of Bottled and Tap Water in Abbottabad City: Implications for Stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmad, Saba
  • Khan, Abdullah
  • Baig, Zenab Tariq

Abstract

Access to safe drinking water is essential for human health. In Abbottabad, tap and bore water are commonly used, but there has been a recent increase in bottled water consumption. This study aimed to compare tap and bottled water quality in Jinnahabad, Abbottabad. Physicochemical and bacteriological analysis was conducted on water samples collected from various sources. Surveys and interviews were also conducted to assess consumer perceptions and costs. The study found that, on average, bottled water had better physicochemical quality, although both alternatives met WHO limits. Tap water had higher levels of E. coli due to a weak sanitation system. Interestingly, despite perceiving bottled water as safer, most respondents still consumed tap water daily. Shopkeepers reported higher bottled water purchases for travel but lower daily consumption. Tap water was the main source, according to the Cantonment Board Abbottabad, though resources were insufficient. Doctors confirmed tap water-related diseases. The study suggests further research into consumer behavior and recommends monitoring measures, staff evaluations, and penalties to reduce costs and waste.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmad, Saba & Khan, Abdullah & Baig, Zenab Tariq, 2023. "A Comparative Study of Bottled and Tap Water in Abbottabad City: Implications for Stakeholders," MPRA Paper 124547, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:124547
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/124547/1/MPRA_paper_124547.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    drinking water; contamination; health; consumer perception; Pakistan;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pra:mprapa:124547. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.