Groundwater for Sustainable Development 26 (2024) 101189

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Groundwater for Sustainable Development

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gsd

Research paper

How do households living in arsenic-contaminated regions value safe

drinking water in western Bihar, India?
Sushil Kumar a, Diptimayee Nayak b, *
a
Doctoral Research Scholar, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India
b
Associate Professor, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Households’ mean willingness to pay

(WTP) for arsenic-safe water is ₹216.68/
month.
• High arsenic exposure, education, in­
come, and awareness significantly in­
fluence WTP.
• Urgent need for robust arsenic educa­
tion campaigns to create awareness.
• Community involvement helps in fund­
raising to maintain the arsenic removal
unit.
• 94% of households are taking mitigating
measures.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

JEL classification: Access to safe drinking water is a critical concern, particularly in areas affected by arsenic contamination. In
Q510 Bihar, an Indian state, 13 districts are facing groundwater contamination. The report of Ministry of Jal Shakti,
Q530 Government of India (2021), reveals that about 24 habitations from five districts of Bihar are affected by arsenic
Q250
groundwater contamination, impacting about 71,946 population and their health and economic conditions. The
Keywords: objectives of the present study are to determine factors that impact households’ WTP for arsenic-free drinking
Arsenic contamination
water and estimate the mean willingness to pay (WTP) for arsenic-free drinking water. The primary data from
Arsenic exposure
Willingness to pay
300 households was collected following simple random sampling, and villages were selected through a multi-
Contingent valuation method stage sampling method. The study uses a single-bound dichotomous choice method for WTP elicitation and
Single bound dichotomous choice applies a probit model to determine factors affecting households’ WTP for arsenic-free safe drinking water. The
Indirect utility model mean WTP is estimated to be ₹ 216.68 per household/month, and results find that education, income, health
expenditure, awareness level and high-risk exposure to arsenic are the most influential determinants of house­
holds’ WTP for arsenic-free drinking water. The influence of education and awareness level is positive, calling for
conducting more awareness programs in the arsenic-contaminated areas in Bihar.

* Corresponding author. Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology Roorke, India.
E-mail addresses: krsushil078@gmail.com (S. Kumar), dipti.nayak@hs.iitr.ac.in (D. Nayak).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2024.101189
Received 13 September 2023; Received in revised form 3 April 2024; Accepted 25 April 2024
Available online 5 May 2024
2352-801X/© 2024 Published by Elsevier B.V.
S. Kumar and D. Nayak
1. Introduction
Presence of naturally occurring arsenic in groundwater has emerged
as a major global challenge, posing a threat to the increasing demand for
water worldwide. According to the World Health Organisation (2010) ,
140 million people across 70 countries have access to water that con­
tains arsenic above the WHO permissible limit of 10 μg/L. Fendorf et al.
(2010) estimated that more than 100 million people in India, China,
Pakistan, Myanmar, Cambodia, Nepal, and Vietnam drink untreated
arsenic-contaminated groundwater. The majority of this arsenic is
concentrated in the Alluvial plains of Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna delta
region in Bangladesh (Chakraborti et al., 2010; Dhar et al., 1997; Khan
et al., 2014; Maddison et al., 2005), the Ganga river floodplains in India
(Jangle et al., 2016; Thakur et al., 2021; Pal et al., 2023), Attrak river
basin in Iran (Alidadi et al., 2019), Mekong delta in Vietnam (Agusa
et al., 2007; Pham et al., 2020), Red river basin in Cambodia (Agusa
et al., 2007). Collectively, this region is called the South and Southeast
Asian Arsenic Belt (Podgorski and Berg, 2020; UNICEF & WHO, 2018;
Kumar et al., 2022). However, recent studies found traces of arsenic
from countries like Argentina and the USA, indicating that it is not
limited to South Asian countries only but is a global issue (Shaji et al.,
2021). Podgorski and Berg (2020) reported that the highest percentage
of the population potentially exposed to arsenic in groundwater is in
Asia (94%), followed by Africa (3.7%) and South America (1.6%) of the
total global population.
Arsenic is recognized as a carcinogen occurring naturally in the
environment (Singh et al., 2018; Mukherjee et al., 2006) and can exist in
organic and inorganic forms. Among these, the inorganic forms, arsenite
(As III) and arsenate (As V) are of primary concern due to their
considerable toxicity (Kuivenhoven and Mason, 2022; Mondal et al.,
2020). They can be easily dissolved in water due to their relatively high
solubility, leading to water contamination and subsequent health risks
for human populations (Bhowmick et al., 2018;Central Ground Water
Board, 2014). The harmful effect of arsenic-contaminated water is
mainly determined by the dose and length of exposure (Mukherjee et al.,
2006). When the concentration of arsenic exceeds the permissible limit
(>10 μg/L)1 in drinking water, individuals can experience acute arsenic
poisoning characterized by immediate symptoms such as vomiting,
abdominal pain, and diarrhoea (World Health Organisation, 2010). In
extreme cases, this condition can result in fatality. Long-term exposure
to arsenic causes severe health hazards such as skin lesions, pigmenta­
tion, and the formation of hard patches on the hands and soles of feet
(Dhar et al., 1997; Moyé et al., 2017; WHO, 2022). This chronic expo­
sure has been associated with various forms of cancer, notably skin
cancer and bladder cancer (Chakraborti et al., 2010; Flanagan et al.,
2012; Zheng, 2020). It is estimated that approximately 500 million
people across the world are suffering due to arsenic contamination of
groundwater (Shaji et al., 2021).
Apart from physical health impacts, exposure to arsenic-
contaminated water has far-reaching socioeconomic repercussions. It
restricts individuals from actively participating in economic and liveli­
hood activities while imposing a financial burden in the form of medical
expenditures (Singh, 2017; Thakur et al., 2022). Additionally, psycho­
logical distress and anxiety stemming from these health issues may be
exacerbated by the societal stigma associated with arsenic contamina­
tion. Individuals face social exclusion and isolation (Thakur et al.,
2013). Children suffering from Arsenicosis are not allowed to go to
school, leading to school absenteeism (Hassan et al., 2005). A study by
Alam et al. (2002) revealed that the most pronounced impact is observed
among children and women. In certain circumstances, children find
themselves compelled to engage in employment to supplement their
family’s income, particularly when the primary breadwinner of the
household is afflicted by illness. This leads to a higher rate of school
1
μg/l = microgram per litre.
2
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 26 (2024) 101189
dropouts among students (Majumdar and Guha Mazumder, 2012).
Women are reluctant to undergo examination because they fear it might
affect their marriage prospects if they are diagnosed with the condition
(Alam et al., 2002). Hence, the United Nations (UN) has established Goal
6.1 within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to guarantee ac­
cess to safe drinking water. This goal aims to provide clean and safe
water to all, recognizing it as a fundamental human right (United Na­
tions General Assembly, 2010;United Nations, 2018; Mitlin et al., 2019).
The first case of arsenic poisoning was identified in 1983 in 24
Parganas district of West Bengal (Directorate General of Health Services,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, 2015).
Further investigations revealed that regions in the Ganga-Brahmaputra
river basin in India and Bangladesh are among the worst
arsenic-affected regions in the world (Thakur et al., 2022). Various
studies have found the traces of arsenic in groundwater from West
Bengal (Roy, 2007; Bhowmick et al., 2018; Dasgupta et al., 2022),
Assam (Mahanta et al., 2016), Bihar (Thakur and Gupta, 2016; Kumar
et al., 2022; Brouns et al., 2013; Kumar et al., 2019; Pal et al., 2023;
Kumar et al., 2021), Chattisgarh (Shukla et al., 2010), Punjab (Hundal
et al., 2010) and Uttar Pradesh (Nickson et al., 2007; Mehrotra et al.,
2018). In response to an inquiry in the Rajya Sabha, the Ministry of Jal
Shakti, Government of India (2022), highlighted the extensive nature of
this problem. It was revealed that 209 districts across 25 states have
reported groundwater arsenic levels exceeding the permissible limit of
0.01 mg/l. According to a report by the Central Ground Water Board
(2014), 15,811 habitations2 face significant arsenic problems. This
alarming situation places a substantial 13,210,469 individuals at direct
risk of arsenic exposure through their water sources.
Bihar is one of the most severely affected states in the country and is
known for releasing naturally occurring arsenic in groundwater (Thakur
and Gupta, 2016; Abhinav et al., 2016) (see Fig. 1). Alarming statistics
reveal that out of its 38 districts, 15 districts (Fig. 2) are grappling with
the peril of arsenic contamination (Central Ground Water Board, 2018).
In a comprehensive study by the School of Environmental Studies
(SOES), water samples were collected from 19,961 tubewells across 12
districts in Bihar. The findings revealed that all the districts had arsenic
concentrations exceeding the permissible limit of 50 μg/l. The highest
recorded concentration was found in Chakani village in Buxar district,
recorded at 2182 μg/l (Chakraborti et al., 2016). Ministry of Jal Shakti,
Government of India (2021) estimates that about 24 habitations from
five districts of Bihar are affected by arsenic groundwater contamina­
tion, affecting about 71,946 population and their health and economic
conditions. While Kumar et al. (2022) reported that atleast 10 million
people in Bihar are consuming arsenic-contaminated water, posing a
significant health risk to the population. Given the severity of the
problem, a large proportion of the state’s population may be in danger
from exposure to arsenic-contaminated drinking water. Usage of
arsenic-contaminated water has mild to severe health effects leading to
increased health expenditures and wage losses (Thakur and Gupta,
2019). Some studies have reported that poor households are the worst
affected. Therefore, it is important to understand how households
perceive the importance of arsenic-safe drinking water. It is crucial for
social acceptability for introducing new technology to mitigate the
arsenic risk (Aḥmad et al., 2005). Surprisingly, there is not enough
literature on the factors that affect households’ decision to invest in
arsenic-safe drinking water options to mitigate the risk. One of the ex­
planations for this research gap is the difficulty in estimating the cost
and benefits of non-marketed goods like health. Therefore, the objec­
tives of the present study are to determine factors that impact
2
A ’Habitation’ is a locality within a village where a cluster of families re­
sides. The total population should be 100 or more. It is generally assumed that
around 20 families reside in a habitation. Average number of persons in a
family is taken as 5. In case of hilly areas, a habitation may have a population,
which is less than 100.
S. Kumar and D. Nayak Groundwater for Sustainable Development 26 (2024) 101189

households’ willingness to pay (WTP) for arsenic-free safe drinking

water and estimate the mean willingness to pay (MWTP) for arsenic safe
drinking water. The findings of this research are anticipated to inform
and guide future policy decisions aimed at ensuring safe and arsenic-free
drinking water for the people of Bihar.
This paper is organized into six main sections. The first section is the
introduction, which provides an overview of the research topic and its
significance. The second section is the literature review, which critically
examines previous studies and research on the topic. The third section
presents the theoretical framework that guides the study. The fourth
section outlines the data and methods employed in the research. The
fifth section presents the results and discussion, highlighting the key
findings and their interpretation. Finally, the sixth section concludes the
paper by summarizing the main points and discussing their implications.

2. Literature review

There are several studies that have documented the presence of

arsenic in drinking water worldwide. Scientists have extensively
explored diverse facets of arsenic contamination in groundwater, like
relationship between arsenic levels in water sources and depth and its
consequences on health (Thakur et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2019),
geochemical process that governs release of arsenic in groundwater
(Nickson et al., 1998) and innovative solutions that can mitigate the risk
of arsenic exposure (Hassan et al., 2004).
There are few studies that measure the value of arsenic-safe drinking
water by estimating the willingness to pay (WTP) for arsenic-free safe
drinking water and factors that determine the WTP for arsenic-free
drinking water in Bihar state. Table 1 summarises the findings of
studies that have reported WTP by households for arsenic-free drinking
water.
Fig. 1. Arsenic-affected regions in India. The empirical literature suggests a relationship between socio-
Source: Authors’ compilation based on data from the Central Ground Water demographic and economic factors and household WTP for arsenic-
Board (2018) free, safe drinking water. Positive associations have been observed be­
tween factors like age, gender, income, education, family size, occupa­
tion and WTP of a household for arsenic-free safe drinking water (Guha,
2007; Khan et al., 2014; Thakur et al., 2022; Dasgupta et al., 2022).
Conversely, a negative relationship has been reported between age and
family size with WTP (Guha, 2007). Households adopt various mea­
sures, such as spending money on electronic purifiers or investing time
to fetch safe drinking water, to ensure the availability of safe drinking
water (Orgill-Meyer et al., 2018). Studies suggest a negative relationship
between mitigation measures and WTP, indicating that households
already employing such measures may be less likely to contribute
financially. However, some studies have found a positive relationship
between time spent collecting water and WTP (Dasgupta et al., 2022). In
a study by Barnwal et al. (2017), an attempt was made to assess the price
sensitivity concerning the demand for testing drinking water sources for
the presence of arsenic. The findings indicated a clear correlation be­
tween households’ demand for mitigating measures, such as testing
wells for arsenic, and the associated price. As the testing price increased
from ₹10 to ₹50, demand substantially declined, dropping from 68% to
31%. Moreover, the study highlighted an intriguing observation:
households tended to selectively forget test results and actively remove
evidence of their wells’ arsenic status when a water source was identi­
fied as having arsenic contamination. Recognizing the critical of
awareness in sustaining arsenic mitigation technologies, Singh et al.
(2018) conducted a study to assess arsenic awareness in rural Indian
communities affected by arsenic contamination, utilizing machine
learning methods. The study found that even though the region was
Fig. 2. Map of the study area. facing arsenic problem for over a decade, only 63% of the surveyed
Source: Map prepared by author population demonstrated arsenic awareness. Factors such as caste, ed­
ucation level, occupation, housing status, and water-related behaviors
influenced individual arsenic awareness. Vulnerable groups, including
economically disadvantaged individuals, lower castes, and the less
educated, were identified as targets for immediate arsenic mitigation

3
S. Kumar and D. Nayak Groundwater for Sustainable Development 26 (2024) 101189

Table 1 (willingness to accept compensation) for changes in the provision of

Existing literature on WTP estimates for safe drinking water. non-market goods (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Devel­
Country Region Sample size WTP estimates Citation opment (OECD, 2018). The theoretical model used in this study is based
on random utility theory (RUT) given by Hanemann (1984). The model
India 24 Paraganas 1003 WTP is ₹0.6/l for Dasgupta
(South), West households on-site (i.e., RS. et al. assumes that an individual is aware of his utility function. However,
Bengal 432/pm assuming (2022) there are some hidden components that are unobservable for the
the average researcher. It states that Utility (Ui) has two components, i.e., one that
household size to be are observable (Vi) and another that cannot be observed and are sto­
4, consuming 6 L/
day/person &
chastic (εi).
₹0.65/l for home
U i = Vi + ϵ i (1)
delivery (i.e., ₹468/
pm during 2015
India Patna and 420 Mean WTP is Thakur In single-bound dichotomous choice, respondents indicate their WTP by
Bhojpur households estimated ₹20 per et al. answering ’yes’ or ’no’ to bid values to obtain non-marketable envi­
district, Bihar month during 2013 (2022) ronmental goods or services. Thus, with the given income (Y) and socio-
Bangladesh Average WTP $9 Akter economic status (Z), the individual will maximise utility for non-
per year for safe (2008)
drinking water
marketed goods, i.e., providing safe and clean arsenic-free drinking
Bangladesh Comilla, 515 Median WTP from Khan et al. water. Thus, indirect utility function can be written as:
Munshiganj households DBDC elicitation (2014)
and Pabna for capital cost is
V = V(W, Y, Z) (2)
districts USD 2.6 monthly.
While median WTP In equation (2) ’W’ represents individuals’ preference for safe drinking
is USD 6.7 per water, i.e., W = 1 represents arsenic-free safe drinking water and W =
household annually 0 represents no change in water quality. Hanemann (1984) propose that
for operation and
maintenance.
jth household will accept the initial bid amount so that they can maxi­
India Calcutta 202 ₹0.0034 to 0.0173 Guha mise their utility for safe and clean drinking water from a status quo
individuals INR/litre (2007) (W0) to an improved situation (W1) given that the following condition is
Bangladesh Tala Upazila of 4500 Weekly estimated Dey et al. satisfied:
the Satkhira households mean WTP for safe (2019)
( ) ( )
district drinking water was V1j W1 , Y1j − t1j ; Z1j + ϵ1j ≥ V0j W0 , Yj ; Zj + ϵ0j (3)
30.1 BDT.
Vietnam Bac Ninh 1000 DC1- 275,816 Song et al.
Where V1j is the indirect utility function for the household for safe and
Province households VND/year (2019)
DC2- 355,821 clean drinking water W1. tj is the initial bid value. Thus, respondents
VND/year know which choice will maximise his utility, however, for the
Cambodia Kandal 915 Average monthly Orgill et al. researcher, response are random variable with probability distribution is
Province households WTP for safe (2013)
given as:
drinking water is
$2.7.
{ ( ) ( ) }
P1 = Pr(WTP = Yes) = Pr V1j W1 , Y1j − t1j ; Z1j + ϵ1j ≥ V0j W0 , Yj ; Zj + ϵ0j
Bangladesh Chandpur, 2880 Multinomial logit Ahmad
Barisal and households was used to et al. (4)
Chapai estimate MWTP. (2003)
Nawabganj The initial capital P0 = Pr(WTP = No) = 1 − P1 (5)
cost for domestic
connection was Tk
4. Study area and methodology
1787 and Tk 87 as
monthly MWTP for
operation. 4.1. Study area
For standpost,
initial capital cost
The study area was situated in the Buxar district of Bihar state in
was Tk 960 and Tk
51 as monthly India (Fig. 3). Bihar is a land-locked state located in the northern region
MWTP for and forms the international border with the neighbouring country
operation Nepal. On the other three sides, i.e., west, south and east, it shares
(Source: Authors’ own compilation) boundaries with other Indian states like Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, and
West Bengal. The Ganga River passes through the state, spearing it into
two halves, i.e., northern Gangetic plains and southern Gangetic plains
efforts, emphasizing the role of local institutions and NGOs in awareness
(Central Ground Water Board, 2013). It also acts as the northern
and outreach programs. Perceptions about water quality play a crucial
boundary of the district. Buxar district is in the southwestern part of the
role in determining WTP for arsenic-safe drinking water. Positive asso­
state (refer to Fig. 2). It has 11 blocks grouped into two subdivisions,
ciations have been found between WTP and arsenic concentration in
Buxar and Dumraon, stretched over an area of 1, 62,380 ha. It has a
groundwater, indicating that higher perceived risks lead to a greater
population of 10,87,676 of which 91.64% is rural, and the remaining
willingness to pay for safe drinking water (Khan et al., 2014; Thakur
8.35% is urban (Census, 2011a, 2011b). The climate in the region is
et al., 2022). Households perceiving higher arsenic concentrations tend
warm and temperate, with an average temperature of 25.6 ◦ C. Summers
to express greater WTP for improving water quality or accessing
are hot, with mercury shooting up to 42 ◦ C, while winters are cool and
arsenic-free drinking water in their local areas (Orgill et al., 2013).
pleasant, with a minimum of 10 ◦ C. The average precipitation in the
region varies between 562.7 mm and 1355.6 mm. Agriculture is the
3. Theoretical framework
main occupation in the district. Rice, wheat, grams, and pulses are the
main crops of this region.
The present study used the contingent valuation method (CV) to
estimate economic values associated with environmental goods. The CV
method involves eliciting respondents’ willingness to pay or

4
S. Kumar and D. Nayak Groundwater for Sustainable Development 26 (2024) 101189

Fig. 3. Number of affected habitations and Mean Arsenic concentration in districts of Bihar
*Note: Data on Arsenic concentration for Bhojpur and Bhagalpur districts of Bihar were unavailable.
(Source: Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, 2019*)

4.2. Sampling design and data collection following the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) panel guidelines (Arrow et al., 1993; Bateman et al., 2006).
This study employed a contingent valuation method to estimate In addition to the primary survey data, relevant secondary data like
household Willingness to pay (WTP) for arsenic-safe drinking water. To population and socio-economic data for the districts were sourced from
ensure a representative sample, a multi-stage sampling technique was the district handbooks (Census, 2011a, 2011b). These secondary data
employed based on the mean arsenic concentration as a primary crite­ sources provided valuable context and additional insights to comple­
rion. The primary data for groundwater quality for all the arsenic- ment the primary survey findings.
affected districts were obtained from the Public Health Engineering
Department (PHED), Government of Bihar, (2019). The study began 4.3. Survey instrument and payment method
with identifying the district with the highest mean arsenic concentration
(Fig. 3). In the second stage, we chose three blocks from a chosen district In this study, survey instrument was based on the contingent valu­
with the highest mean arsenic concentration. In the third stage, we ation (CV) method, specifically utilizing the Single-Bounded Dichoto­
selected four villages3 from each selected block with the highest mean mous Choice (SBDC) format, to obtain the household willingness to pay
arsenic concentration. The distribution of samples collected from each for contamination-free drinking water (Bishop and Heberlein, 1979).
village can be found in Table 2. Finally, we randomly selected 300 The survey questionnaire featured key sections to gather information on
household to participate in the survey. households’ socio-economic and demographic characteristics, source of
Prior to the interview, verbal consent was obtained from the inter­ drinking water and perceptions of water quality, and health effects of
cepted participants. Each respondent was presented with a semi- drinking arsenic-contaminated water and the cost of illness. The final
structured questionnaire, which was administered by the interviewer. section focused on capturing households’ WTP for safe drinking water.
Data was collected through a semi-structured questionnaire. The Before presenting the hypothetical scenario, participants were briefed
questions related to CVM were explicitly designed for this purpose about the harmful effects of consuming arsenic-contaminated water on
human health and the benefits of adopting arsenic-safe drinking water
options. Thereafter, the interviewer asks respondents about their will­
Table 2 ingness to pay to obtain a change P (status quo) to some alternative, say
Sample area and sample size.
P’.
Block Village Number of households Sample size Prior to the final survey, we conducted a pilot study to identify and
Buxar Belaur 239 33 rectify the survey instrument. Following the pilot survey, the bid amount
Parasiya 150 21 was decided through collaborative discussion with a co-author while
Tiwaripur 149 18 considering the economic condition prevalent in the study area.
Harkisanpur 204 28
Thus, we found four initial bid amounts, i.e., ₹ 100/₹150/₹200/₹250
Simri Niayzipur 620 18
Badka Rajpur 300 26 per household per month. The initial bids4 were randomly assigned to
Chotka Rajpur 203 26 every respondent. The random assignment of bid amounts helped
Tilak Rai ka Hata 263 30 minimize potential biases, allowing for more accurate estimations of
Brahmpur Mahuar 833 27
households’ WTP values (Sajise et al., 2021). It was followed by an
Nimej 896 25
Dhanchhapra 114 21
open-ended question, i.e., their maximum willingness to pay. House­
Bairia 557 27 holds were expected to make payments using cash as the preferred
payment method.
Source (Census, 2011a, 2011b)
The close-ended question asked by the interviewer has been detailed
below.

3
In India, a village is the smallest administrative unit within a district,
typically consisting of a group of households and governed by a Gram Pan­
4
chayat (village council) elected by the local residents. 1USD = ₹ 74.50 in 2022.

5
S. Kumar and D. Nayak
Hypothecial scenario to measure WTP using contingent valuation method
Willingness to pay
In your village, groundwater is contaminated due to the presence of arsenic above the
permissible limit, which poses a risk to human health. Now, suppose to address this
problem the government has proposed a project to provide improved water facilities
to each household. The new water source would be clean, germ-free, and arsenic-
free, thereby ensuring the health and well-being of the community. However, the
intervention to provide arsenic-safe water incurs some costs, i.e., establishment and
maintenance costs of the plant.
Now, suppose, in the real market, you have the option to purchase a 20-L water
bottle that is free from arsenic concentration @20rs per bottle, which translates to
Rs 1 per litre. Now, let us consider the government’s plan to provide arsenic-free
water to your village through public standpipes strategically placed on each street.
The water will be available at fixed times twice a day— in the morning and in the
evening. However, each household will have a daily limit of 200 L of water.
1. Would you be willing to pay in principle for arsenic (Yes/No) [if No skip to next
safe drinking water supply? question no 3]
2. If Yes, suppose it cost you ₹ 100/150/200/200 to (Yes/No)
obtain safe arsenic-free drinking water to your
household, would you be willing to pay that
amount?
2.3 If you are not willing to pay, can you explain why not?
The response to above question forms the qualitative information in
the form of a bound on their WTP for the change—a lower bound if they
answer ’yes’, and an upper bound if they answer ’no’. The initial bids
were ₹100, ₹150, ₹200, and ₹250.
4.4. Econometric model
The CV survey is widely used approach to elicit individual’s WTP for
a non-market good or service and based upon hypothetical scenario
(Dasgupta et al., 2022). There are methods like direct payment
approach, open-ended approach, payment card approach, referendum
approach, dichotomous choice approach and multiple bound approach
that can be used to capture the WTP for a good/service. These various
techniques offer flexibility in capturing individuals’ WTP in CVM
studies.
4.4.1. Single-bound dichotomous choice method
In the present study Single bound approach is adopted. Single-
bounded dichotomous Choice (SBDC) is a contingent valuation
method used to ask individuals to state their WTP for a good or service
by presenting them with a single bid and asking for a binary response
(yes/no). In SBDC format WTP of ith individual (Wi) depends upon
observable factors (xi), including initial bid price and unobserved factors
(εi) as given in the equation below:
Wi = xi (β) + εi (6)
Where xi is a non-linear function of k independent variables, β is a col­
umn vector of length k representing unknown parameters, and εi is the
error term following a normal distribution with mean zero and variance
(σ2). The interviewer records the respondent’s reply to the bid (bi), i.e.,
the respondent replies “yes” to the bid offer if Wi > bi and “no”
otherwise.
The SBDC method provides a straightforward and practical
approach. Its simplicity makes it easy for people to understand, saving
time. Also, it requires less resources. A simple ‘yes’ or ‘No’ is enough to
understand what people prefer.
Despite the mentioned strengths, this method has certain limitations
like limited precision and biases that are discussed further. A notable
limitation of this approach is its hypothetical nature (Sajise et al., 2021).
In practice, individuals might make choices distinct from their responses
in the hypothetical setting. Also, this method assumes that there is a
linear relationship between bid amount and probability of acceptance,
which might not be true in every case.
6
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 26 (2024) 101189
4.4.2. Specifying probit model
A probit model determines the factors that affect the willingness to
pay for arsenic-free drinking water. The dependent variable is WTP,
which takes a value of 1 if the respondent accepts the initial bid amount
offered to him for the arsenic-free drinking water, and 0 otherwise.
The equation for the probit model can be written as:
P(Y= 1|X) = Φ(β0 + xβ) (7)
where Φ is the cumulative distribution function of a standard normal
variable so that 0 < Φ(z) < 1 is used to transform the linear combination
of independent variables into a probability between 0 and 1. x is a vector
of factor that affect the WTP for arsenic-free drinking water and β is the
vector of coefficients that shows that effect of changes in x.
To estimate the model parameters, the log-likelihood function is
maximised. The log-likelihood function for the probit model is expressed
as:
nyes
∑ ∑
nno
( )
Loglikehood = y log πyes + (1 − y)log 1 − πyes (8)
i=1 i=1
where nyes and nno are number of respondents saying yes or no to the
start-up bid amount and y is dummy variable indicating individual’s
choice 1 for ’yes’ and 0 for ’no’ (Hanemann and Kanninen, 1999). The
analysis was done in R studio using the DCchoice package (Aizaki et al.,
2022), which is designed for dichotomous choice contingent valuation.
4.4.3. Description of variables
To assess the willingness to pay (WTP) for safe drinking water, it is
essential to identify and understand the factors that potentially influence
households’ decisions. The variables mentioned in Table 3 are expected
to play a significant role in determining individuals’ WTP for accessing
safe drinking water. Analyzing the relationship between variables and
WTP will provide valuable insights into the economic valuation of safe
drinking water and inform policy decisions related to water quality
improvement.
4.4.4. Biases and validity in the CVM
In the contingent valuation (CV) approach, different methods like
open-ended questions, payment cards, bidding game, and dichotomous
choice (DC) (both single-bound closed-ended questions and multiple
bounded questions) have been developed to elicit answers from re­
spondents on a hypothetical scenario (Chien et al., 2005). DC method is
more pronounced in CV surveys over all other methods. However,
several studies like Hanemann (1984) and Hanemann et al. (1991)
preferred the double-bound dichotomous choice approach (DBDC),
ensuring statistical efficiency over SBDC. He argued that a follow-up
question can increase the efficiency of the questionnaire. However, it
may suffer from the anchoring bias5 problem (Flachaire et al., 2007),
which is found when through closed-ended questions, respondents are
asked to compare their estimate to a value supplied by the surveyor, a
value referred to as the ‘anchor’. Respondents were then asked to esti­
mate the quantity being valued through an open-ended question. A
strong correlation may be found between the anchors provided amount
and the estimates proposed by the subjects which is termed as anchoring
bias (Flachaire et al., 2007). SBDC can be preferred over DBDC.
We have checked the validity of study design by testing whether the
law of demand holds or not. Since, the law of demand says that as the bid
amount increases, the number of respondents willing to pay arsenic safe
drinking water tends to decrease (Dasgupta et al., 2022; Walle and
Nayak, 2021).
5
Anchoring bias occurs when respondents rely heavily on the surveyor or
anchors their answer to second bid based on the first proposed bid.
S. Kumar and D. Nayak
5. Results and discussion
This section provides an overview of the socio-demographic and
economic characteristics of households, including their current source of
drinking water and the mitigation strategies employed to reduce the
health risks associated with arsenic-contaminated drinking water.
Furthermore, the section presents the results of the probit model esti­
mation, which sheds light on the factors influencing households’ will­
ingness to pay (WTP) for arsenic-safe drinking water. Additionally, it
reports the mean WTP for arsenic-safe drinking water among
households.
5.1. Socio-demographic characteristics of households
This section provides household socio-economic and demographic
characteristics for the sample villages. Most respondents are male
(83.33%), while 16.6% are female. The average age for respondents is
42.87 years. Around 81% of respondents are literate, with an average of
9.09 years of schooling. Also, 51.67% of the respondents are head of the
household. In most cases (97.33%), the head of the family is a male
member. The average household size is 8.46 members, with 59.67%
living in a joint or extended6 family while 40.33% living in a nuclear
family.
Agriculture remains the primary source of livelihood. Around
45.33% of households depend on agriculture and allied activities like
animal husbandry, poultry, etc., and 17.67% depend on casual labour.
Also, 14.67% of households are engaged in non-agricultural activities
for livelihoods, and the remaining 22.33% are salaried employees.
5.2. Present water source of households
Households use hand pumps and tubewells as the primary source of
drinking water. More than 90% of households use groundwater for daily
use like drinking, cooking, bathing, etc. The present source of drinking
water for the household is given in Table 4.
5.3. Household mitigating strategies
The sample households adopted various mitigating strategies,
including the shift to different water sources (64%), use of electric pu­
rifier RO (14%), purchase of purified water (10%) and arsenic removal
unit like water ATM (3%) (see Fig. 5).
5.4. Household’s WTP for arsenic-free drinking water
Around 91.67% of respondents agreed that they were willing to pay
to secure arsenic-safe water, while 8.33 % declined to pay, citing the
following reasons: Cannot afford (32%), government’s responsibility
(16%), already use RO or deep tubewells.
The households’ responses, as shown in Table 5, reflect their will­
ingness to pay for arsenic-free water at different initial bid values. It is
observed that the WTP of households decreases as the initial bid amount
increases, as illustrated in Fig. 4. The range of WTP varies from ₹3.3 to
₹8.3 per day, meaning that households are willing to pay between
₹1204.5 and ₹3029.5 annually for access to arsenic-safe drinking water.
5.5. Determinants of WTP for arsenic-free drinking water
In this section, we present descriptive statistics (Table 6) and report
the outcomes of the probit model (Table 7).
The LR statistics, i.e., 36.736, is statistically significant at a 1% level
6 7
An extended family is a family structure that consists of two or more adults
that are from different generations of the same family, who maintain a
household together.
7
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 26 (2024) 101189
of significance, thus rejecting the null hypothesis that all the coefficients
are equal to zero (Table 7). This result indicates that our model out­
performs the null model7 (Dasgupta et al., 2022).
The coefficient for the start-up bid value is negative and significant
(p-value <0.01). Thus, it shows an inverse relation between WTP for
arsenic-free water and start bid value (BID), i.e., as the bid amount rises
likelihood of WTP decreases for arsenic-free water.
The coefficient of education and income (more than 5 lakh) is posi­
tive and significant, implying that households with higher levels of in­
come and education are more likely to have higher WTP for arsenic-free
drinking water. This relationship is consistent with the previous studies,
such as Thakur et al. (2022), concluding that income of household, and
years of education, are positively related to willingness to pay for arsenic
safe drinking water.
AWARENESS is also positive and statistically significant at (p-value
<0.05). It indicates that respondents who were previously known about
the presence of arsenic in groundwater and its consequences on health
are more likely to WTP for arsenic-free drinking water in the region.
The coefficient of health expenditure (HEALTHEXP) is also positive
and statistically significant at (p-value <0.01). It indicates that house­
holds who incur a more considerable portion of their monthly income on
medical bills are more likely to WTP for arsenic-free drinking water.
The coefficient for high-risk exposure (ASCONC) is positive and
significant at (p-value <0.05). Households living in areas with high
arsenic contamination in groundwater are more likely to Pay. This
mirrors the findings of Khan et al. (2014), which conclude that house­
holds living in medium or high-risk zones are willing to contribute
significantly more to arsenic-safe communal water deep tube wells as
compared to households in risk-free zones.
Moreover, some other variables like age, gender, and education
although have expected signs explaining the relationship between the
explanatory variables and the dependent variable, but the coefficients of
these variables are not found to be significant. The reasons for the
insignificant coefficients may be attributed to the limitations of the bid
values, which is an inherent characteristic of the SBDC model. Likewise,
the mitigation variables are not significant as the percentage of the
population in the sample adopting the selected mitigation strategies is
very low, i.e., around 26 per cent (For RO-13.33 per cent, PBW 10 per
cent and ARU 2.67 per cent). The insignificant results can be attributed
to the following further reasons. Because of similar characteristics of the
respondents (since they belong to a particular geographical area), such
as low income, poverty, and dependence on groundwater, it might have
contributed to limited variation in responses within the sample popu­
lation. This lack of diversity in socioeconomic status and water source
reliance could potentially affect the statistical significance of certain
explanatory variables in the model. Additionally, the prevalence of
similar preferences and behaviours among respondents due to these
common characteristics may further influence the outcome of the
model.
5.6. Estimating confidence interval for mean WTP
The confidence interval for Mean Willingness to Pay (MWTP) can be
estimated using the delta method, bootstrap method, and Krinsky-Robb
(KR) method. Hole (2007) compared all three methods for accuracy and
found that all three gave similar results.
The study found that the delta method produces the most accurate
results when the data is well-conditioned. It assumes that WTP is nor­
mally distributed and symmetric around its mean. However, in cases
where the sample size is not sufficiently large, these assumptions do not
hold, and the estimated confidence interval may be inaccurate, as it will
A null model or reference model assumes that there is no relationship be­
tween dependent and independent variables. The null model for probit
regression is given as: P(Y = 1) = Φ(β0).
S. Kumar and D. Nayak Groundwater for Sustainable Development 26 (2024) 101189

Table 3
Description of the variables used in the model.
Variable Description Expected
sign

WTP A binary variable that takes value 1, if

respondent is WTP for safe drinking water
and 0, otherwise
Explanatory variables
BID Initial Bid value (in ₹ per household every − ve
month)
Socio-Demographic Characteristics
AGE Age of respondent +ve
Gender (GEN) Gender of the informant that takes value 1 +/−
if Male and 0 otherwise
Education (EDU) Education of the informant takes value 1 if +ve
the respondent has taken at least 1 year of
formal education and 0, otherwise
Household size (HS) Number of household members +ve Fig. 4. Demand Curve depicting WTP of respondents.
Child (NC) Number of children below 6yrs of age +ve
Economic Indicator
Income (INC) Annual Income (₹) of households with +ve
four categories:
0 to ₹74000 -1
₹74001 to ₹174000–2
₹174001 to 500000 - 3
Above ₹5 lakh - 4
Health expenditure Total Expenses on health by household in +ve
(HEXP) last month (in Rs)
Averting Behaviour Indicator
Electric purifier (RO) It takes value 1, if a household has electric − ve
purifier, and 0, otherwise
Arsenic removal unit It takes value 1, if a household has access − ve
(ARU) to ARU at community level, 0, otherwise
Purchase purified It takes value 1, if a household purchase +/−
water bottle (PBW) water, 0 otherwise
Changed water source It takes value 1, if a household shifts to +/−
(CWS) any other arsenic safe water source,
0 otherwise
Awareness (AW) Awareness about the presence of arsenic +ve Fig. 5. Mitigating strategies adopted by villagers.
in groundwater takes value 1, if the
informant knows the presence of arsenic
in groundwater and its consequence on
health, and 0, otherwise Table 5
Sick person (SICK) It takes value 1, if there is a sick person in +ve Distribution of household response to initial bids.
a household, and 0, otherwise Initial bids (in ₹) WTP (in ₹/litre) Responses
Water requirement Daily water consumption for drinking and +ve
(WTRCONS) cooking by household (in litres) YES NO

₹100 ₹0.016 49 (17.82%) 26 (9.45%)

₹150 ₹0.025 50 (18.18%) 33 (12%)
₹200 ₹0.033 34 (12.36%) 28 (10.18%)
₹250 ₹0.041 31 (11.27%) 24 (8.73%)
Table 4
Total 164 111
Present source of drinking water.
Present source of drinking water Frequency (n) Percent (%)
not reflect the skewness of the WTP distribution. Krinsky-Robb method
Deep Layer Personal tubewell 151 50.33
Low-layer personal tubewell 126 42 is an alternate method that involves drawing substantial samples from a
Community tube well 23 7.67 multivariate normal distribution. These draws have means derived from
Total 300 100 the estimated covariance matrix of the coefficients. Consequently, this
Piped water* 114 38 method produces simulated values for the WTP. These simulated values
Note: * Piped water is being provided by the government under the Har Ghar are then used to construct percentiles that define the desired level of
Nal ka Jal scheme launched from 2016 onwards (providing drinking water to confidence for estimating a confidence interval. Notably, the Krinsky-
doorstep), and only 114 households got connection by that time. Robb method assumes a normal distribution of coefficients but re­
frains from imposing distribution assumptions. This characteristic

8
S. Kumar and D. Nayak Groundwater for Sustainable Development 26 (2024) 101189

Table 6
Where X represents the row vector of the sample mean, including 1 for
Descriptive statistics of the variables.
constant term, the beta prime is the column vector of estimated co­
Variables Mean SD Frequency Percent efficients, and β0 is the coefficient of the bid variable. The estimated
(%)
Mean WTP and Confidence interval is given in Table 8.
BID 167.63 54.26
AGE (in years) 42.56 16.29
6. Conclusion, limitations, and policy implications
Household size (HS) 8.48 4.36
Child (NC) 1.42 1.7
HEALTHEXP (in ₹) 546.25 511.59 Groundwater is one of the major sources of drinking water in the
WTRCONS (in litres) 59.2 28.23 study area, however it contains arsenic commonly known as the “Silent
Gender (GEN) 0 = Female 50 16.67 Killer”.8 The presence of arsenic poses a significant health risk to the
1 = Male 250 83.33
majority of the population. A study by Kumar et al. (2021) magnifies this
Education 0 = illiterate 57 19
(EDU) 1 = literate 243 81 concern, revealing a maximum arsenic concentration of 1908 μg/l from
Income (INC) 1 = ₹0 - ₹74000 40 13.33 Tilak Rai ka hata in Buxar district. In this context, the present study
2 = ₹74001 - 136 45.33 endeavours to determine how households value safe drinking water
₹17400
using a contingent valuation method.
3 = ₹174001 - 109 36.33
₹500000 Our findings shed light on the determinants influencing households’
4 = Above 15 5.0 willingness to pay (WTP) for arsenic-safe drinking water in Bihar. Fac­
₹500000 tors such as education, awareness, income level, and perceived risk of
AWARENESS 0 = No 46 15.33 arsenic exposure emerge as key drivers of WTP. Notably, households
1 = Yes 254 84.67
with higher education levels and income are more inclined to invest in
SICK 0 = No 205 68.33
1 = Yes 95 31.67 arsenic-safe water, underscoring the importance of awareness and
ASCONC* 1 = Low risk 78 26 financial capacity in prioritizing safe drinking water. Impressively, 91%
Exposure (<30 of households express a WTP for safe drinking water, with an estimated
μg/l)
mean WTP of ₹216.68 per month per household.
2 = Medium risk 77 26.67
Exposure
In this paper, we employed the SBDC approach within the Contin­
(30–60 μg/l) gent Valuation Method. However, it is important to acknowledge the
3 = High Risk 145 48.33 potential limitations and biases associated with contingent valuation
Exposure (>60 methods, as highlighted by Hausman (2012) and elucidated further by
μg/l)
Sajise et al. (2021). One notable limitation is the presence of hypo­
Mitigation
RO 0 = No 260 86.67 thetical bias, wherein respondents may provide values in hypothetical
1 = Yes 40 13.33 scenarios that differ from their real-world behaviours. This bias can
ARU 0 = No 292 97.33 impact the accuracy of estimates, as respondents may tend to overstate
1 = Yes 8 2.67
their WTP in survey settings. Additionally, the study recognizes the
PBW 0 = No 270 90
1 = Yes 30 10
insensitivity to scope, where individuals may not consistently adjust
CWS 0 = No 110 36.67 their valuation proportionally when the quantity or quality of the good
1 = Yes 190 63.33 or service changes, potentially leading to biased estimations. Disparities
(* The categorization into low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk exposure was between measures of WTP and WTA pose another challenge, driven by
based on the summary statistics of arsenic levels in the study area. The minimum psychological factors such as loss aversion, resulting in different valu­
observed concentration was 22 μg/l, the maximum was 92 μg/l, and the mean ations for the same item or outcome. Information bias is acknowledged,
concentration was 54 μg/l. Based on these values, we categorized arsenic levels considering that incomplete or biased information provided during the
into three ranges: below 30 μg/l, 30–60 μg/l, and above 60 μg/l. This approach valuation process can influence responses. Lastly, payment vehicle bias
allowed us to stratify arsenic concentrations into distinct risk zones, facilitating is recognized, understanding that the form of payment suggested (e.g.,
the assessment of health risks associated with different exposure levels and taxes, direct payments) can introduce biases in stated values.
informing targeted intervention strategies.). Estimating the mean WTP for arsenic-safe drinking water can be
helpful for policymakers to understand the demand for safe drinking
makes it particularly valuable when dealing with scenarios where WTP water can be helpful in designing a pricing mechanism. The study re­
is not symmetric or normal. veals potential of raising funds between ₹188.32 to ₹321.89 per month
Bootstrap is similar to the KR method, which is also based on pro­ from households to provide safe drinking water for households. These
ducing a simulated distribution for a WTP. It repeatedly draws samples findings will further help policymakers in making investments in water
from the original data and re-estimates the model for each time to create infrastructure and treatment technologies. Moreover, the study high­
the distribution. Confidence intervals are then calculated to account for lights the need for targeted interventions like awareness programs,
possible variations. Like KR, the bootstrap does not assume a symmetric health camps and piped drinking water to households to mitigate the
WTP distribution but differs in not requiring joint normal distribution of harmful impact of arsenic-contaminated groundwater.
coefficients (Hole, 2007). This makes bootstrap potentially advanta­ The government has implemented initiatives like the Mukhyamantri
geous for small sample sizes. However, it is more computationally Gramin Peyjal Nischay Yojna (Under this initiative, all households of all
intensive, as it requires model re-estimation for each sample drawn from the wards of the non-quality affected 4291 Gram Panchayats of the state
the original data, which could be resource-intensive for large datasets or are being supplied with tap water through pipes) in response to the
complex models. ongoing challenges in ensuring clean water access. However, despite
Therefore, we have used the Krinsky-Robb method to estimate the these efforts, issues such as restricted availability, low pressure, and
confidence interval for Mean WTP for arsenic-safe drinking water (Sajise inadequate maintenance persist, largely due to constraints in govern­
et al., 2021). Krinsky-Robb method uses following formula for the mental funding or infrastructure deficiencies. Therefore, our study
calculation of mean WTP:
( )
Xβ′
Mean WTP = − (9) 8
β0 The presence of arsenic in groundwater takes some time to show its effect
on human health and that is the reason it is also known as ‘silent killer’.

9
S. Kumar and D. Nayak Groundwater for Sustainable Development 26 (2024) 101189

Table 7
Results of the Probit model.
Variables Coefficient Estimate Standard Error z-value Pr(>|z|) Confidence interval [95%]

lower upper

AGE 0.001 0.0052 0.218 0.827 − 0.009 0.0114

GENDER − 0.316 0.2386 − 1.328 0.184 − 0.784 0.150
EDU 0.424 0.242 1.753 0.079* − 0.050 0.899
HHSIZE − 0.006 0.030 − 0.227 0.820 − 0.065 0.052
NOCHILD 0.018 0.058 0.321 0.748 − 0.094 0.132
INCOME
74001–174000 0.078 0.266 0.293 0.769 − 0.444 0.600
174001–500000 0.285 0.328 0.867 0.386 − 0.359 0.929
More than 5 lakhs 1.015 0.545 1.859 0.063* − 0.055 2.085
HEALTHEXP 0.0005 0.0002 2.586 0.009*** 0.000 0.000
AWARENESS 0.591 0.237 2.486 0.012** 0.125 1.057
SICK − 0.098 0.175 − 0.563 0.573 − 0.443 0.245
Exposure
WTRCONS − 0.0001 0.004 − 0.004 0.997 − 0.008 0.008
ASCONC
Medium risk Exposure (30–60 μg/l) − 0.115 0.252 − 0.458 0.646 − 0.610 0.379
High Risk Exposure (>60 μg/l) 0.411 0.204 2.011 0.044** 0.010 0.812
Mitigation
RO 0.064 0.261 0.245 0.806 − 0.448 0.577
ARU − 0.481 0.549 − 0.877 0.380 − 1.558 0.594
PBW 0.069 0.306 0.227 0.820 − 0.531 0.671
BID − 0.0066 0.0019 − 3.330 0.000*** − 0.01 − 0.002
Constant 0.116 0.472 0.246 0.805 − 0.0091 0.011
Distribution: normal pseudo-R2: 0.0990
Number of Obs.: 275 LR statistic: 36.736 on 2e+01 DF, p-value: 0.006
log-likelihood: 167.1083 AIC: 372.216586, BIC: 440.935237

Note: ‘***’, ‘**’ and ‘*’ denotes level of significance at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively.

the work reported in this paper.

Table 8 Data availability

Estimates of WTP (in ₹).
Measure WTP Confidence Interval (95%) Data will be made available on request.
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Mean WTP 216.68 188.32 321.89
Median WTP 210.65 184.1 276.3
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
Note: Confidence interval estimates are based on a parametric bootstrap org/10.1016/j.gsd.2024.101189.
approach with 10000 replications.

underscores the potential of community-driven initiatives to address
these challenges effectively. By advocating for collaborative approaches
that harness local resources and encourage community participation,
such as community-led fundraising efforts and volunteer-driven main­
tenance programs, policymakers can empower communities to take
ownership of their water supply systems (UNICEF, 2018). Furthermore,
forging partnerships with local businesses or NGOs can provide addi­
tional support for infrastructure development and maintenance, thereby
ensuring sustainable access to clean water. Ultimately, by instilling a
sense of ownership and responsibility among residents, these initiatives
can help overcome funding constraints and ensure long-term access to
safe drinking water for all.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sushil Kumar: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Visualization, Validation, Software, Resources, Project administration,
Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Dipti­
mayee Nayak: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology,
Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
References
Abhinav, A., Navin, S., Kumar, A., Kumar, R., Ali, M., Verma, S.K., Ghosh, A.K., 2016.
Prevalence of high arsenic concentration in Darbhanga district of Bihar: health
assessment. J. Environ. Anal. Toxicol. 6 (6) https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-
0525.1000410.
Agusa, T., Kubota, R., Kunito, T., Minh, T.B., Trang, P.T.K., Chamnan, C., Iwata, H.,
Viet, P.H., Tana, T.S., Tanabe, S., 2007. Arsenic pollution in groundwater of Vietnam
and Cambodia : a review. Biomed. Res. Trace Elem. 18 (1), 35–47. https://doi.org/
10.11299/brte.18.35.
Ahmad, J., Goldar, B.N., Misra, S., Jakariya, M., 2003. Willingness to pay for arsenic-
free, safe drinking water in Bangladesh. World Bank Water and Sanitation Program-
South Asia 1–115.
Aḥmad, J., Goldar, B., Misra, S., 2005. Value of arsenic-free drinking water to rural
households in Bangladesh. J. Environ. Manag. 74 (2), 173–185. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.011.
Aizaki, H., Nakatani, T., Sato, K., Fogarty, J., 2022. R package DCchoice for dichotomous
choice contingent valuation: a contribution to open scientific software and its
impact. Japanese Journal of Statistics and Data Science 5 (2), 871–884. https://link.
springer.com/article/10.1007/s42081-022-00171-1.
Akter, S., 2008. Determinants of willingness to pay for safe drinking water: a case study
in Bangladesh. Asian J. Water Environ. Pollut. 5 (3), 85–91.
Alam, M.N.H.Z., Allinson, G., Stagnitti, F., Tanaka, A., Westbrooke, M., 2002. Arsenic
contamination in Bangladesh groundwater: a major environmental and social
disaster. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 12 (3), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0960312021000000998.
Alidadi, H., Sany, S.B.T., Oftadeh, B.Z.G., Tafaghodi, M., Shamszade, H., Fakhari, M.,
2019. Health risk assessments of arsenic and toxic heavy metal exposure in drinking
water in northeast Iran. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 24 (59), 1–17.
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report
of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 58 (10), 4601–4614.
Barnwal, P., van Geen, A., von der Goltz, J., Singh, C.K., 2017. Demand for
environmental quality information and household response: evidence from well-
water arsenic testing. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 86, 160–192.

10
S. Kumar and D. Nayak
Bateman, I.J., Burgess, D., Hutchinson, W.G., Matthews, D.I., 2006. Preference learning
versus Coherent Arbitrariness: NOAA Guidelines or a Learning Design Contingent
Valuation (LDCV), CSERGE Working Paper EDM No. 06-18. university of East Anglia,
The Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE),
Norwich. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/80293.
Bhowmick, S., Pramanik, S., Singh, P., Mondal, P., Chatterjee, D., Nriagu, J., 2018.
Arsenic in groundwater of West Bengal, India: a review of human health risks and
assessment of possible intervention options. Sci. Total Environ. 612, 148–169.
Bishop, R.C., Heberlein, T.A., 1979. Measuring values of Extra-market goods: are indirect
measures biased? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 61 (5), 926–930.
Brouns, M., Janssen, M., Wong, A., 2013. Dealing with Arsenic in rural Dealing with
arsenic in rural Bihar, India. Evaluating the Successes and Failures of Mitigation
Projects and Providing a Long-Term Mitigation Strategy. Delft University of
Technology, The Netherland, p. 222p.
Census, 2011a. District Census Handbook Buxar, Series-11, Part -XII-A. Directorate of
Census Operations, Bihar.
Census, 2011b. District Census Handbook Buxar, Series-11, Part -XII-B. Directorate of
Census Operations, Bihar.
Central Ground Water Board, 2014. Concept Note on Geogenic Contamination of Ground
Water in India with a Special Note on Nitrate. Ministry of Water Resources,
Government of India.
Central Ground Water Board, 2013. Groundwater Information Booklet, Buxar district, Bihar
State. Ministry of Water Resources. Government of India.
Central Ground Water Board, 2018. Groundwater quality in shallow aquifers in India.
Ministry of Water Resources. Government of India.
Chakraborti, D., Rahman, M.M., Ahamed, S., Dutta, R.N., Pati, S., Mukherjee, S.C., 2016.
Arsenic contamination of groundwater and its induced health effects in Shahpur
block, Bhojpur district, Bihar state, India: risk evaluation. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Control Ser. 23, 9492–9504.
Chakraborti, D., Rahman, M.M., Das, B., Murrill, M., Dey, S., Mukherjee, S.C., et al.,
2010. Status of groundwater arsenic contamination in Bangladesh: a 14-year study
report. Water Res. 44 (19), 5789–5802.
Chien, Y.-L., Huang, C.J., Shaw, D., 2005. A general model of starting point bias in
double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys. J. Environ. Econ.
Manag. 50 (2), 362–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2004.12.002.
Dasgupta, S., Roy, J., Ghosh, M., Talukder, J., 2022. Willingness to pay (WTP) for
arsenic-safe drinking water: a case study to understand societal embedding of ECAR
technology in rural West Bengal, India. Development Engineering 7, 100096.
Dey, N.C., Parvez, M., Saha, R., Islam, M.R., Akter, T., Rahman, M., et al., 2019. Water
quality and willingness to pay for safe drinking water in Tala Upazila in a coastal
district of Bangladesh. Exposure and Health 11 (4), 297–310.
Dhar, R.K., Biswas, B.K., Samanta, G., Mandal, B.K., Chakraborti, D., Roy, S., Hadi, S.A.,
1997. Groundwater arsenic calamity in Bangladesh. Curr. Sci. 73 (1), 48–59.
Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India, 2015. Detection, Prevention and Management of Arsenicosis in
India: A Field Guide.
Fendorf, S., Michael, H.A., Geen, A.V., 2010. Spatial and temporal variations of
groundwater arsenic in South and Southeast Asia. Science 328 (5982), 1123–1127.
Flachaire, E., Hollard, G., Luchini, S., 2007. Heterogeneous anchoring in dichotomous
choice valuation framework. Rech. Écon. Louvain 73 (4), 369–385.
Flanagan, S.V., Johnston, R.C., Zheng, Y., 2012. Arsenic in tube well water in
Bangladesh: health and economic impacts and implications for arsenic mitigation.
Bull. World Health Organ. 90 (11), 839–846. https://doi.org/10.2471/
blt.11.101253.
Guha, S., 2007. Valuation of clean water supply by willingness to pay method in a
developing nation: a case study in Calcutta, India. Journal of Young Investigators 17
(4), 1255–1263.
Hanemann, W.M., Kanninen, B., 1999. The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV
data. In: Bateman, I.J., Willis, K.G. (Eds.), Valuing Environmental Preferences:
Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Methods in the US, EU, and
Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 302–441.
Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., Kanninen, B., 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded
dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73 (4), 1255–1263.
Retrieved from. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1242453.
Hanemann, W.M., 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with
discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 66 (2), 332–341.
Hassan, M.M., Atkins, P.J., Dunn, C.E., 2004. Suitable arsenic mitigation options in
Bangladesh: voices of local people. Indian Journal of Landscape Systems and
Ecological Studies 27 (2), 1–7.
Hassan, M.M., Atkins, P.J., Dunn, C.E., 2005. Social implications of arsenic poisoning in
Bangladesh. Soc. Sci. Med. 61 (10), 2201–2211.
Hausman, J., 2012. Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. J. Econ. Perspect. 26
(4), 43–56.
Hole, A.R., 2007. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for
willingness to pay measures. Health Econ. 16 (8), 827–840.
Hundal, H.S., Kumar, R., Singh, K., Singh, D., 2010. Occurrence and geochemistry of
arsenic in groundwater of Punjab, Northwest India. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 38
(17–18), 2257–2277.
Jangle, N., Sharma, V., Dror, D.M., 2016. Statistical geospatial modelling of arsenic
concentration in Vaishali District of Bihar, India. Sustainable Water Resources
Management 2, 285–295.
Khan, N.I., Brouwer, R., Yang, H., 2014. Household’s willingness to pay for arsenic safe
drinking water in Bangladesh. J. Environ. Manag. 143, 151–161.
Kuivenhoven, M., Mason, K., 2022. Arsenic Toxicity. In StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure
Island, FL. StatPearls Publishing. Retrieved January 27, 2023, from. https://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK541125/.
11
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 26 (2024) 101189
Kumar, A., Ali, M., Kumar, R., Kumar, M., Sagar, P., Pandey, R.K., et al., 2021. Arsenic
exposure in Indo Gangetic plains of Bihar causing increased cancer risk. Sci. Rep. 11
(1), 2376. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81579-9.
Kumar, A., Ali, M., Kumar, R., Rahman, M.S., Srivastava, A., Chayal, N.K., Sagar, V.,
Kumari, R., Parween, S., Kumar, R., Niraj, P.K., Anand, G., Singh, S.K., Ghosh, A.,
2019. High arsenic concentration in blood samples of people of village Gyaspur
Mahaji, Patna, Bihar drinking Arsenic-Contaminated water. Exposure and Health 12
(2), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12403-018-00294-5.
Kumar, A., Rahman, M.S., Ali, M., Salaun, P., Gourain, A., Kumar, S., et al., 2022.
Assessment of disease burden in the arsenic exposed population of Chapar village of
Samastipur district, Bihar, India, and related mitigation initiative. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Control Ser. 1–17.
Kumar, M., Patel, A.K., Singh, A., 2022. Anthropogenic dominance on geogenic arsenic
problem of the groundwater in the Ganga-Brahmaputra floodplain: a paradox of
origin and mobilization. Sci. Total Environ. 807, 151461 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2021.151461.
Maddison, D., Catala-Luque, R., Pearce, D., 2005. Valuing the arsenic contamination of
groundwater in Bangladesh. Environ. Resour. Econ. 31 (4), 459–476.
Mahanta, R., Chowdhury, J., Nath, H.K., 2016. Health costs of arsenic contamination of
drinking water in Assam, India. Econ. Anal. Pol. 49, 30–42.
Majumdar, Kunal K., Guha Mazumder, D.N., 2012. Effect of drinking arsenic-
contaminated water in children. Indian J. Publ. Health 56 (3), 223–226. https://doi.
org/10.4103/0019-557X.104250.
Mehrotra, A., Mishra, A., Shukla, N., 2018. An assessment of arsenic contamination and
mitigation measures in district ballia, part of Ganga and ghagra. Earth Sci. India 11
(I), 44–70.
Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India, 2021. District-Wise Details of Quality-
Affected Habitations for Bihar.
Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India, 2022. Schemes to control arsenic and
fluoride contamination of groundwater: states wise details of partly affected districts
with fluoride and arsenic contaminants in ground water of India [annexure].
Parliamentary Debates, Rajya Sabha 254 (6), 25 July 2022.
Mitlin, D., Beard, V.A., Satterthwaite, D., Du, J., 2019. Unaffordable and Undrinkable:
Rethinking Urban Water Access in the Global South. Working paper, Washington,
DC. World Resources Institute. Available online at: www.citiesforall.org.
Mondal, S., Kumar, M., Jain, S., 2020. Arsenic Contamination in Water in Bihar. South
Asia Consortium for Interdisciplinary Water Resources Studies (SaciWATERs),
Hyderabad, India. http://saciwaters.org/eu/Situation_paper_Bihar.pdf.
Moyé, J., Picard-Lesteven, T., Zouhri, L., El Amari, K., Hibti, M., Benkaddour, A., 2017.
Groundwater assessment and environmental impact in the abandoned mine of
Kettara (Morocco). Environmental Pollution 231, 899–907. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.044.
Mukherjee, A., Sengupta, M.K., Hossain, M.A., Ahamed, S., Das, B., Nayak, B., Lodh, D.,
Rahman, M.M., Chakraborti, D., 2006. Arsenic contamination in groundwater: a
global perspective with emphasis on the asian scenario. J. Health Popul. Nutr. 24 (2),
142–163. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23499353.
Nickson, R., McArthur, J., Burgess, W., Ahmed, K.M., Ravenscroft, P., Rahmanñ, M.,
1998. Arsenic poisoning of Bangladesh groundwater. Nature 395 (6700), 338-338.
Nickson, R., Sengupta, C., Mitra, P., Dave, S.N., Banerjee, A.K., Bhattacharya, A.,
Basu, S., Kakoti, N., Moorthy, N.S., Wasuja, M., Kumar, M., Mishra, D.S., Ghosh, A.,
Vaish, D.P., Srivastava, A.K., Tripathi, R.M., Singh, S.N., Prasad, R., Bhattacharya, S.,
Deverill, P., 2007. Current knowledge on the distribution of arsenic in groundwater
in five states of India. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A 42 (12),
1707–1718. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934520701564194.
OECD, 2018. Contingent valuation method. In: Cost-Benefit Analysis and the
Environment: Further Developments and Policy Use. OECD Publishing, Paris.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264085169-7-en.
Orgill, J., Shaheed, A., Brown, J., Jeuland, M., 2013. Water quality perceptions and
willingness to pay for clean water in peri-urban Cambodian communities. J. Water
Health 11 (3), 489–506.
Orgill-Meyer, J., Jeuland, M., Albert, J., Cutler, N.S., 2018. Comparing contingent
valuation and averting expenditure estimates of the costs of irregular water supply.
Ecol. Econ. 146, 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.10.016.
Pal, S., Singh, S.K., Singh, P., Pal, S., Kashiwar, S.R., 2023. Spatial pattern of
groundwater arsenic contamination in Patna, Saran, and Vaishali districts of
Gangetic plains of Bihar, India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 1–15.
Pham, H.C., Le, T.H., Le, H.T., Tran, M.D., Vu, T.T., 2020. The value of safe water for
rural households in arsenic affected areas of vietnam. International Journal of
Innovation, Creativity and Change 12 (12), 871–890.
Podgorski, J., Berg, M., 2020. Global threat of arsenic in groundwater. Science 368,
845–850.
Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar. 2019. Water Quality.
Retrieved from http://phedbihar.gov.in/WaterQuality.aspx.
Roy, J., 2007. Economic benefits of arsenic removal in India: a case study from West
Bengal. Sci. Total Environ. 397 (1–3), 1–12.
Sajise, A.J., Samson, J.N., Quiao, L., Sibal, J., Raitzer, D.A., Harder, D., 2021. Contingent
Valuation of Nonmarket Benefits in Project Economic Analysis: a Guide to Good
Practice. Asian Development Bank.
Shaji, E., Santosh, M., Sarath, K.V., Prakash, P., Deepchand, V., Divya, B.V., 2021.
Arsenic contamination of groundwater: a global synopsis with focus on the Indian
Peninsula. Geosci. Front. 12 (3), 101079.
Shukla, D.P., Dubey, C.S., Singh, N.P., Tajbakhsh, M., Chaudhry, M., 2010. Sources and
controls of arsenic contamination in groundwater of rajnandgaon and kanker
district, Chattisgarh Central India. J. Hydrol. 395 (1–2), 49–66.
S. Kumar and D. Nayak
Singh, S.K., 2017. An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of arsenic mitigation technologies:
implications for public policy. International Journal of Sustainable Built
Environment 6 (2), 522–535.
Singh, S.K., Taylor, R.W., Rahman, M.M., Pradhan, B., 2018. Developing robust arsenic
awareness prediction models using machine learning algorithms. J. Environ. Manag.
211, 125–137.
Song, N.V., Huyen, V.N., Dung, L.T.P., Thuy, N.T., 2019. Using double-bounded
dichotomous-choice to estimate households’ willingness to pay for improved water
quality in bac ninh province of vietnam. J. Environ. Protect. 10, 1407–1418. https://
doi.org/10.4236/jep.2019.1011083. Retrieved from.
Thakur, B.K., Gupta, V., 2016. Arsenic concentration in drinking water of Bihar: health
issues and socio-economic problems. J. Water, Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 6 (2), 331–341.
Thakur, B.K., Gupta, V., 2019. Valuing health damages due to groundwater arsenic
contamination in Bihar, India. Econ. Hum. Biol. 35, 123–132.
Thakur, B.K., Gupta, V., Chattopadhyay, U., 2013. Arsenic groundwater contamination
related socio-economic problems in India: issues and challenges. Knowledge Systems
of Societies for Adaptation and Mitigation of Impacts of Climate Change,
pp. 163–182.
Thakur, B.K., Gupta, V., Bhattacharya, P., Chakraborty, T., 2022. Impact of socio-
economic factors on households’ willingness to pay for arsenic-free safe drinking
water-A case study of Bihar, India. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 19,
100837.
12
Groundwater for Sustainable Development 26 (2024) 101189
Thakur, B.K., Gupta, V., Bhattacharya, P., Jakariya, M., Islam, M.T., 2021. Arsenic in
drinking water sources in the Middle Gangetic Plains in Bihar: an assessment of the
depth of wells to ensure safe water supply. Groundwater for Sustainable
Development 12, 100504.
UNICEF & WHO, 2018. Arsenic Primer: Guidance on the Investigation and Mitigation of
Arsenic Contamination.
UNICEF, 2018. Policy Brief Mitigating Arsenic in Drinking Water.
United Nations (UN), 2018. Goal 6: ensure access to water and sanitation for all.
Sustainable Development Goals 17.
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), 2010. Resolution 64/292, the human right to
water and sanitation, 28 July 2010). [Online]. A/RES/64/292. https://www.un.org/
ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/64/292. (Accessed 29 August 2019).
Walle, Y., Nayak, D., 2021. How do local communities valuate forest conservation
through participatory management? A case of Amhara region, Ethiopia. Int. J.
Global Environmental Issues 20 (1), 80–99.
WHO, 2022. Arsenic. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/arsenic.
World Health Organisation (WHO), 2010. Preventing disease through healthy
environments. Retrieved from. https://www.who.int/ipcs/features/arseni.pdf?ua
=1.
Zheng, Y., 2020. Global solutions to a silent poison. Science 368 (6493), 818–819.