Industrial pollutants in water mainly occur when water used in an industrial process is discharged into a water body such as a lake or a river. This waste water often carries with it several pollutants that make the water impure and unfit for human use. Additionally, these pollutants can adversely affect the fish population and the birds that prey on these fishes. The principal contaminants in industrial pollutants are acids, alkalies, alcohol, dyes, fats, suspended matter, oil and grease, toxic metals such as chromium or arsenic, pesticides and some radioactive material. Urban sewage and solid wastes dumped into a river or lake may contain all the elements of industrial pollutants. Additionally it will contain a sizeable bulk of organic waste such as food waste, dead animals and plants and excreta. Agricultural pollutants are mainly chemical fertilizer and pesticide residue washed away by rain into water bodies or ground water.

Commonly, water pollution is measured by the total oxygen requirement necessary to oxidize the polluting elements. This is known as Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). Sometimes it is important to measure the amount of oxygen needed to oxidize only the biological pollutant and this measure is known as Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). Alkalinity is measured by pH and Suspended Solids (SS) measures the volume of solid waste in the water found in undissolved form.

The Indian industry has grown annually at an average rate of 5.5 per cent during the last 50 years. Among the different industrial sectors, water pollution is concentrated within a few industrial subsectors, 40-45 per cent of the total pollutants can be traced in the processing of industrial chemicals and nearly 40 per cent of the total organic pollution is found in the food products industry alone.

The industries release into the water, effluents containing chemicals and biological matter that impose high demands on the oxygen in the water. That is why polluted water contains low levels of Dissolved Oxygen (DO) – the result of heavy BOD and chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). Apart from this, industrial wastes contain chemicals and heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium etc., which are harmful to human health and the ecosystems. When the polluted water is used for irrigation, it causes a serious impact on land productivity. Heavy concentration of chemicals and metals in both surface and groundwater bodies cause serious damage to the ecology of river systems. The consequences of water pollution due to heavy discharge of industrial effluents are now being experienced by many of the industrial towns in India.

Of all the infectious diseases, diarrhea has perhaps the strongest link to the environment and some of the most deadly ramifications. Diarrhea is spread by both bacteria and viruses through contaminated food or water and these disease-causing agents represent one of the most widespread health problems in the developing countries. Diarrhea killed roughly 2.5 million people in 1996, according to WHO, most of whom were children of below 5 years¹. In 1990, diarrhea accounted for 8 per cent DALYs(Disability Adjusted Life Years) globally short of death, roughly 4 billion episodes of diarrhea each year cause widespread debilitation ^{2, 3}. Other familiar and dangerous infectious diseases, such as cholera and hepatitis A and E, can also be transmitted by focally contaminated food and water.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Many authors use water quality index for their study on Water quality and pollution. The researcher reviewed important evaluations in this study. Organic substances, inorganic substances with primary and secondary drinking water standards, pH, and other water quality index parameters were tested^4,5. The samples taken by Exponent were also used to evaluate the toxicity effects on aquatic life^5,6. In a study, leachate was collected from two Stark County, Ohio monofills⁷. The monofills contain tire shreds and soil cover. They are located in abandoned coal strip mines. The monofills have leachate collection systems so the results are applicable to above groundwater table conditions. The wells were monitored eight times between February, 1994 and January, 1997 in north of Williamsburg, Virginia for selected metals, hardness, pH, total organic carbon, total organic halides, and specific conductivity^8,9. A range of water quality index tests were performed on projects with samples from adjacent wells including: pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), total solids (TS), biological oxygen demand (BOD), and chemical oxygen demand (COD). The pH from the Richmond, Maine project was within the secondary drinking water standard¹⁰. Regarding health hazards of water pollution, Abdalla, et al¹¹ assessed through Valuing Environmental Quality Changes Using Averting Expenditures to Ground Water Contamination. Barodawala et al¹² analyzed Industrial Effluent from Nandesari Chemical Complex, Baroda, India. Sinha A.K ¹³ studied in the area of river Ganga between Shuklaganj (Unnao) and Phaphamau (Allahabed) and assessed the health problem among the peoples who are using the pollution water. Vasisht A.K¹⁴ examined the water quality by an Econometric Criteria for Estimating Economic Loss of Poor Quality Irrigation Water. Based on the reviews, this paper sets problem to assess the water quality and its effects on the people. Alen Krupnic et.al¹⁵ assessed the effect of air pollution and how to reduce the effect with willingness to pay approach in the area of Ontario residents, Washington.

3. SETTING OF THE PROBLEM:

Exposures to chemical agents from the industries in general and chemical industries in particular in the environment (air, water and soil) have resulted in numerous adverse effects on human beings and soil.

Water pollutants like organic and inorganic matters led into the soil or water in the industrial area through industrial effluents cause waterborne diseases such as skin diseases, enteric fever, dysentery, diarrhea, typhoid, cholera and jaundice to the human beings.

The above stated facts reveal the exposure of human beings and agricultural lands to chemically induced pollutants resulting in various types of health hazards and economic losses. Considering the above stated facts, the research has taken a micro level study on the economic impact of water pollution choosing SIPCOT (State Industrial Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu) industrial area, Cuddalore in Tamilnadu, India.

4. RESEARCH DESIGN:

4.1. Objectives

The study is conducted with special reference to the SIPCOT complex in Cuddalore district of Tamil Nadu. The overall objective of the present study is to probe into the impact of water pollution in the study area. In this context the present study makes a serious attempt to probe into the factors affecting the environment and health and the ways and means to improve the quality of life of the people living in and around SIPCOT area Cuddalore. The specific objectives of the study are:

1. To access the quantum of water pollution with reference to the tolerance level given by environmental protection agency and Indian Standard limits.

2. To estimate the financial cost of health damages of the sample households due to water pollution.

3. To identify the determinants of the willingness to pay and the willingness to accept of the sample households.

4. To suggest suitable policy measures to reduce environmental pollution.

4.2. The Survey Design

4.2.1. Selection of the Villages and Samples

A two-tier sample design is the unique feature of the study. The first stage of sampling is the selection of the villages on the basis of distances from the SIPCOT industrial complex. The first village is located within the complex of SIPCOT. The second one is located at 3 kms away from the SIPCOT, and the last one is located at 7 kms from the SIPCOT complex. Kudikadu, Karaikadu and Pachayankuppam are the selected villages and these villages are named as zone I, zone II, and zone III respectively.

The second stage of the sampling is the selection of families from the sample villages. In order to obtain a symmetrically representative sampling, the sample of 10 per cent families from each village is selected. Further the samples are rounded off to 120 in each village.

4.3. Method of Analysis

An exploration survey of the area is undertaken with a view to gain insight into the economic conditions and health status of the people in the SIPCOT area. Additional information is gathered from Federation of Consumer Organization of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry (FEDCOT), Non-government Organizations (NGOs), doctors, and contractors Association and observations made during the preliminary survey form the basis for developing the objectives of the study. The selected respondents are contacted in person and inquired using the pre-tested schedule. The objectives and importance of the study are explained to the respondents briefly to elicit their co-operation. All respondents do not maintain any proper records regarding the occurrence of air borne and water borne diseases, expenses on medicine and duration of illness. But they are able to reiterate and furnish the information. But cross checks are found necessary to minimize the errors due to recall bias.

4.4. Water Samples

Water samples were collected from all sample villages, and they were analyzed in chemical laboratories. Water samples have been collected following the advice of Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD Bd.) engineer, Cuddalore. Water samples are taken from three sources of water viz., public tap, hand pump and bore well. Public Tap water is used for drinking purpose. Hand pump water is used for bathing and washing and bore well water is used for agriculture. These water sources are tested for pollution contents.

4.5. Tools of Data Analysis

Simple averages and percentages are computed for primary data, and the primary data are cross-tabulated.

The following index is computed in the present study.

Water pollution index =

SWP_i = Total Index Value of Water Pollutants

SW_i = Total Weightage of Pollutants = 100.

Sampling Design

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

5.1. Water Pollution in the SIPCOT area (Rainy Season)

The people in SIPCOT use water supplied by the industrial owners, public tap and hand pump water for drinking, bathing, washing and for other uses. For zone I, water is distributed by the SIPCOT industries through public taps. all the wells are polluted and are not used by the residents. In zones II and III, the people use public tap and hand pump sources. However, all the respondents in the SIPCOT zones have reported that the water is polluted due to the discharges of the SIPCOT. Hence the study has analyzed the rigorousness of water pollution in rainy and summer seasons. Table 1 presents the level of water pollution in SIPCOT area in rainy season. In Zone I, 48 sample households are using water supplied by industrial owners while public tap and hand pump water are used by 72 and 30 sample households respectively. There is no provision for water supplied by industrial owners in zone II and zone III and thereby the entire sample households in zones II and III use only public tap. In zones II and III, the numbers of hand pumps used are 38 and 33 respectively. The water sources used by the sample households are analyzed and their opinions regarding taste, color and reliability of water are registered. Their opinions reflect the water quality in the SIPCOT area. The poor quality of water causes various waterborne diseases. The opinions expressed by the sample respondents helped the research to assess the waterborne disease occurrences in the study area.

5.2. Water pollution in the SIPCOT Region (Summer Season)

The water quality in the summer season as expressed by the respondents is presented in table 2. The water quality is very poor in summer season as compared to that of rainy season. In using private and public tap water, the respondents have no problem because they get treated water from other areas. Whereas zones I and II have the problem of ground water pollution. In zone I, 100 per cent of the hand pump users have reported that the water quality is poor in summer season and 74 per cent reported the same in zone II. In zone I, 40 per cent of the respondents opined that the ground water cannot be used during rainy season but this percentage increased to 63 in summer season. The problem is not severe in zone II and III Hence, it is concluded that the households in zone I suffer much due to ground water pollution both in rainy and summer seasons.

Table 1. Water Pollution in SIPCOT Area (Rainy Season)

Sl. No.	Number of Users	Zone – I			Zone – II		Zone - III		All
		Water Supplied by Industries	Public Tap	Hand Pump	Public Tap	Hand Pump	Public Tap	Hand Pump	Water Supplied by Industries	Public Tap	Hand Pump
		48	72	30	120	38	120	33	48	312	101
I.	Quality
1.	Excellent	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
2.	Good	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	11 (9.2)	0 (0.0)	28 (23.3)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	39 (12.5)	0 (0.0)
3.	Normal	48 (100)	72 (100)	2 (6.7)	109 (90.8)	17 (44.7)	92 (76.7)	33 (100)	48 (100)	273 (87.5)	52 (51.5)
4.	Poor	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	28 (93.3)	0 (0.0)	21 (55.3)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	49 (48.5)
II.	Colour
1.	Excellent	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
2.	Good	0 (0.0)	13 (18.1)	0 (0.0)	11 (9.2)	0 (0.0)	28 (23.3)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	52 (16.7)	0 (0.0)
3.	Normal	48 (100)	59 (81.9)	0 (0.0)	109 (90.8)	17 (44.7)	92 (76.7)	33 (100)	48 (100)	260 (83.3)	50 (49.5)
4.	Poor	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	30 (100)	0 (0.0)	21 (55.3)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	51 (50.5)
III.	Water Reliability
1.	Potable Water	48 (100)	72 (100)	0 (0.0)	120 (100)	0 (0.0)	120 (100)	0 (0.0)	48 (100)	312 (100)	0 (0.0)
2.	External Use Only	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	18 (60.0)	0 (0.0)	38 (100)	0 (0.0)	33 (100)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	89 (88.1)
3.	Not Usable	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	12 (40.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	12 (11.9)

Source : Computed; Note : Figures in parentheses denote percentage to number of users

Table 2. Water Pollution in SIPCOT Area (Summer Season)

Sl. No.	Number of Users	Zone – I			Zone – II		Zone - III		All
		Water Supplied by Industries	Public Tap	Hand Pump	Public Tap	Hand Pump	Public Tap	Hand Pump	Water Supplied by Industries	Public Tap	Hand Pump
		48	72	30	120	38	120	33	48	312	101
I.	Quality
1.	Excellent	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
2.	Good	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	11 (9.2)qa	0 (0.0)	28 (23.3)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	39 (12.5)	0 (0.0)
3.	Normal	48 (100)	72 (100)	0 (0.0)	109 (90.8)	10 (26.3)	92 (76.7)	26 (78.8)	48 (100)	273 (87.5)	36 (35.6)
4.	Poor	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	30 (100)	0 (0.0)	28 (73.7)	0 (0.0)	7 (21.2)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	65 (64.4)
II.	Colour
1.	Excellent	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
2.	Good	0 (0.0)	13 (18.1)	0 (0.0)	11 (9.2)	0 (0.0)	28 (23.3)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	52 (16.7)	0 (0.0)
3.	Normal	48 (100)	59 (81.9)	0 (0.0)	109 (90.8)	10 (26.3)	92 (76.7)	26 (78.8)	48 (100)	260 (83.3)	36 (35.6)
4.	Poor	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	30 (100)	0 (0.0)	28 (73.7)	0 (0.0)	7 (21.2)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	65 (64.4)
III.	Water Reliability
1.	Potable Water	48 (100)	72 (100)	0 (0.0)	120 (100)	0 (0.0)	120 (100)	0 (0.0)	48 (100)	312 (100)	0 (0.0)
2.	External Use Only	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	11 (36.7)	0 (0.0)	36 (94.7)	0 (0.0)	33 (100)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	80 (79.2)
3.	Not Usable	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	19 (63.3)	0 (0.0)	2 (5.3)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	21 (20.8)

Source : Computed ; Note : Figures in the parentheses denote percentage to number of users.

Table 3. End Use of Water in Rainy Season

Sl. No.	Number of Users	Zone – I			Zone – II		Zone - III		All
		Water Supplied by Industries	Public Tap	Hand Pump	Public Tap	Hand Pump	Public Tap	Hand Pump	Water Supplied by Industries	Public Tap	Hand Pump
		48	72	30	120	38	120	33	48	312	101
I.	Water End Use
1.	Drinking	48 (100)	72 (100)	0 (0.0)	120 (100)	0 (0.0)	120 (100)	0 (0.0)	48 (100)	312 (100)	0 (0.0)
2.	Bathing	39 (81.2)	66 (91.7)	16 (53.3)	83 (69.2)	38 (100)	87 (72.5)	25 (75.8)	39 (81.2)	236 (75.6)	79 (78.2)
3.	Washing	35 (72.9)	60 (83.3)	29 (96.7)	68 (56.7)	36 (94.7)	84 (70.0)	33 (100)	35 (72.9)	212 (67.9)	98 (97.0)
4.	Other Uses	35 (72.9)	57 (79.2)	24 (80.0)	72 (60.0)	32 (84.2)	79 (65.8)	30 (90.9)	35 (72.9)	208 (66.7)	86 (85.1)
Average (In liters)		41.7	74.1	23.8	117.8	28.5	148.2	29.5	41.7	113.4	27.3

Source : Computed ; Note : Figures in the parentheses denote percentage to number of users.

Table 4. End use of Water in Summer Season

Sl. No.	Number of Users	Zone – I				Zone – II		Zone - III		All
		Water Supplied by Industries		Public Tap	Hand Pump	Public Tap	Hand Pump	Public Tap	Hand Pump	Water Supplied by Industries	Public Tap	Hand Pump
		48		72	30	120	38	120	33	48	312	101
I.	Water End Use
1.	Drinking	48 (100)	72 (100)		0 (0.0)	120 (100)	0 (0.0)	120 (100)	0 (0.0)	48 (100)	312 (100)	0 (0.0)
2.	Bathing	39 (81.2)	66 (91.7)		16 (53.3)	83 (69.2)	38 (100)	87 (72.5)	25 (75.8)	39 (81.2)	236 (75.6)	79 (78.2)
3.	Washing	35 (72.9)	60 (83.3)		21 (70.0)	68 (56.7)	36 (94.7)	84 (70.0)	33 (100)	35 (72.9)	212 (67.9)	90 (87.0)
4.	Other Uses	35 (72.9)	57 (79.2)		12 (40.0)	72 (60.0)	32 (84.2)	79 (65.8)	30 (90.9)	35 (72.9)	208 (66.7)	74 (85.1)
Average (In liters)		50.8	86.5		15.6	136.5	29.5	167.7	34.7	50.8	130.2	26.6

Source: Computed ; Note: Figures in parentheses denote percentage to number of users

Table 5. Water Pollutants of Water Samples in the Sample Villages

Sl. No.	Water Pollutants*	Weightage	Zone – I			Zone – II			Zone – III			IS limit : Drinking Water
Sl. No.	Water Pollutants*	Weightage	Public Tap	Hand Pump	Bore Well	Public Tap	Hand Pump	Bore well	Public Tap	Hand Pump	Bore well	IS limit : Drinking Water
I.
1.	PH	2	6.1 (81.3)	7.14 (95.2)	7.3 (97.3)	6.2 (82.7)	7.02 (93.6)	6.8 (90.6)	7.12 (94.9)	6.7 (89.3)	6.9 (92)	7.5
2.	Total Dissolved\ Solids(TDS)	2	480 (96)	2514 (502.8)	1256 (251.2)	445 (89)	2322 (464.4)	1432 (286.4)	422 (84.4)	1356 (271.2)	936 (187.2)	500
3.	Total Hardness	2	125 (41.7)	356 (118.7)	140 (46.7)	108 (36)	321 (107)	213 (71)	104 (34.7)	389 (129.7)	118 (39.3)	300
4.	Alkalinity	4	178 (89)	306 (153)	90 (45)	166 (83)	294 (147)	96 (48)	150 (75)	236 (118)	62 (31)	200
II
1.	Sulphate	6	98 (49)	240 (120)	114 (57)	79 (39.5)	217 (108.5)	100 (50)	72 (36)	162 (81)	182 (91)	200
2.	Chloride	6	81 (32.4)	352 (140.8)	182 (72.8)	52 (20.8)	134 (53.6)	153 (61.2)	79 (31.6)	222 (88.8)	48 (19.2)	250
3.	Fluoride	8	2.1 (350)	3.2 (533.3)	0.9 (150)	1.8 (300)	2.5 (416.7)	0.8 (133.3)	1.8 (300)	2.1 (350)	0.8 (133.3)	0.6
III.
1.	Lead (pb)	35	0.187 (187)	0.214 (214)	0.133 (133)	0.173 (173)	0.201 (201)	0.140 (140)	0.130 (130)	0.156 (156)	0.122 (122)	0.1
2.	Copper (Cu)	15	0.056 (112)	0.082 (164)	0.080 (160)	0.038 (76)	0.056 (112)	0.040 (88)	0.035 (70)	0.044 (88)	0.042 (84)	0.05
3.	Iron (Fe)	20	0.04 (13.3)	2.17 (723.3)	1.92 (640)	0.07 (23.3)	1.89 (630)	1.74 (580)	0.08 (26.7)	2.06 (686.7)	1.33 (443.3)	0.3

Source: Tamil Nadu Water supply and Drainage Board (TWAD), Cuddalore. Note: Figures in Parentheses are Index values of water pollutants (Pi) with respect to their IS norm values with. Pi= (actual level/ IS norms)x 100 for pollutant

All units except pH are in mg/l. IS Limits – Indian Standard Limits.

Table 6. Waterborne Diseases Wise Distribution of the Sample Households in SIPCOT area

Sl. No.	Water borne Diseases	Zone – I					Zone – II
Sl. No.	Water borne Diseases	Child male (n =97)	Child Female (n =69)	Adult male (n=211)	Adult Female (n=189)	Total (n = 566)	Child Male (n =81)	Child Female (n =53)	Adult Male (n=220)	Adult Female (n=192)	Total (n = 546)
1.	Skin diseases	5 (5.2)	9 (13.0)	40 (19.0)	52 (27.5)	106 (18.7)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	29 (13.2)	35 (18.2)	64 (11.7)
2.	Enteric Fever	43 (44.3)	28 (40.6)	45 (21.3)	41 (21.7)	157 (27.7)	22 (27.2)	18 (34.0)	34 (15.5)	33 (17.2)	107 (19.6)
3.	Dysentery/ Diarrhea	55 (56.7)	58 (84.1)	78 (37.0)	63 (33.3)	254 (44.9)	32 (39.5)	24 (45.3)	47 (21.4)	53 (27.6)	156 (28.6)
	Epidemic Diseases
4.	Typhoid	15 (15.5)	22 (31.9)	33 (15.6)	36 (19.1)	106 (18.7)	5 (6.2)	4 (7.6)	11 (5.0)	15 (7.8)	35 (6.4)
5.	Cholera	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	21 (10.0)	26 (13.8)	47 (8.3)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	2 (0.9)	4 (2.1)	6 (1.1)
6.	Jaundice	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	9 (4.3)	3 (1.6)	12 (2.1)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)

Sl. No.	Water borne Diseases	Zone – III
Sl. No.	Water borne Diseases	Child Male (n = 79)	Child Female (n =73)	Adult Male (n= 222)	Adult Female (n=189)	Total (n = 566)
1.	Skin diseases	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	7 (3.2)	52 (27.5)	106 (18.7)
2.	Enteric Fever	12 (15.2)	10 (13.7)	14 (6.3)	41 (21.7)	157 (27.7)
3.	Dysentery/ Diarrhea	14 (17.7)	13 (17.8)	19 (8.6)	63 (33.3)	254 (44.9)
	Epidemic Diseases
4.	Typhoid	2 (2.5)	3 (4.1)	5 (2.3)	9 (4.7)	19 (3.7)
5.	Cholera	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	3 (1.4)	0 (0.0)	3 (0.5)
6.	Jaundice	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)

Source : Computed

Note : Figures in parentheses denote percentage to number

N – Total number of person in the sample households

Zonewise incidence of waterborne disease (Tables 7 – 9)

Table 7. Incidence of waterborne diseases on Children

Sl. No.	Zones	Affected		Not Affected	Total
Sl. No.	Zones	Number	%	Not Affected	Total
1.	Zone-I	98	59.0	68	166
2.	Zone-II	61	45.5	73	134
3.	Zone-III	42	27.6	110	152
Total		201	44.5	251	452

Source : Computed c² = 31.75

Table 8. Incidence of Waterborne diseases on Adults

Sl. No.	Zones	Affected		Not Affected	Total
Sl. No.	Zones	Number	%	Not Affected	Total
1.	Zone-I	117	29.3	283	400
2.	Zone-II	90	21.8	322	412
3.	Zone-III	66	15.9	347	413
Total		273	22.3	952	1225

Source : Computed c² = 17.55

Table 9. Incidence of waterborne diseases on Sample Households

Sl. No.	Zones	Affected		Not Affected	Total
Sl. No.	Zones	Number	%	Not Affected	Total
1.	Zone-I	215	37.9	351	566
2.	Zone-II	151	27.7	395	546
3.	Zone-III	108	19.1	457	565
	Total	474	28.3	1203	1677

Source : Computed c² = 68.92

Agewise Incidence of Waterborne diseases in SIPCOT (Tables 10- 12)

Table 10. children and adults affected by waterborne diseases

Sl. No.	Zones	Children Affected	P₁	Adults Affected	P₂	\|P₁-P₂\|	Z - Statistics
1.	Zone-I	98 (166)	0.59	117 (400)	0.44	0.30	6.44
2.	Zone-II	61 (134)	0.46	90 (412)	0.22	0.24	5.45
3.	Zone-III	42 (152)	0.28	66 (413)	0.16	0.12	3.24
Total		201 (452)	0.45	273 (1225)	0.22	0.23	9.17

Source : Computed

Note : figures in parentheses indicate total

Table 11. Male children and male adults affected by waterborne diseases

Sl. No.	Zones	Male Children Affected	P₁	Male Adults Affected	P₂	\|P₁-P₂\|	Z - Statistics
1.	Zone-I	51 (97)	0.53	65 (211)	0.31	0.22	4.4
2.	Zone-II	33 (81)	0.41	42 (220)	0.19	0.22	4.4
3.	Zone-III	23 (79)	0.29	24 (222)	0.11	0.18	3.6
Total		107 (257)	0.42	131 (653)	0.20	0.22	7.3

Source : Computed

Note : figures in parentheses indicate total

Table 12. Female children and female adults affected by waterborne diseases

Sl. No.	Zones	Female Children Affected	P₁	Female Adults Affected	P₂	\|P₁-P₂\|	Z - Statistics
1.	Zone-I	47 (69)	0.68	52 (189)	0.28	0.40	6.67
2.	Zone-II	28 (53)	0.53	48 (192)	0.25	0.28	4.0
3.	Zone-III	19 (73)	0.26	42 (191)	0.22	0.04	0.8
Total		94 (195)	0.48	142 (572)	0.25	0.23	5.75

Source : Computed

Note : figures in parentheses indicate total

Table 13. Average Cost of Waterborne Diseases of Sample Households Per Month (In Rs.)

Sl. No.	Waterborne Diseases	Direct cost				Indirect Cost
I.	Zone – I	Doctor Fees	Medical Expenses	Diagnostic Cost	Total	Travel Cost	Loss of Income	Total
1.	Skin diseases	33 (2.7) (5.3)	45 (2.8) (4.6)	0 (0.0) (0.0)	39 (2.9) (5.1)	70 (5.4) (9.9)	50 (3.0) (5.8)	60 (4.1) (7.7)
2.	Enteric fever	118 (10.2) (19.1)	151 (9.3) (15.3)	79 (7.0) (12.5)	116 (8.7) (15.3)	94 (7.3) (13.3)	118 (7.1) (13.7)	106 (7.2) (13.5)
3.	Dysentery / Diarrhea	206 (17.8) (33.3)	322 (19.9) (32.6)	247 (22.0) (39.0)	259 (19.6) (34.1)	373(28.8) (52.9)	279(16.8) (32.4)	327 (22.1) (41.7)
4.	Typhoid	124(10.7) (20.1)	174 (10.7) (17.6)	242 (21.5) (38.2)	180 (13.5) (23.7)	112 (8.6) (15.9)	170(10.3) (19.7)	141 (9.5) (17.9)
5.	Cholera	89 (7.7) (14.4)	181 (11.2) (18.3)	25 (2.2) (3.9)	98 (7.4) (12.9)	31 (2.4) (4.5)	147 (8.9) (17.1)	89 (6.0) (11.4)
6.	jaundice	48 (4.1) (7.8)	115 (7.1) (11.6)	40 (3.6) (6.4)	68 (5.1) (8.9)	25 (1.9) (3.5)	97 (5.9) (11.3)	61 (4.1) (7.8)
Total		618 (100)	988 (100)	633 (100)	760 (100)	705 (100)	816 (100)	784 (100)
II	Zone – II
1.	Skin diseases	18 (1.6) (4.8)	25 (1.5) (6.6)	0 (0.0) (0.0)	22 (1.7) (6.0)	27 (2.0) (6.5)	65 (3.9) (14.5)	46 (3.1) (10.5)
2.	Enteric fever	117 (10.1) (31.0)	111 (6.8) (29.2)	80 (7.1) (24.8)	103 (7.8) (28.0)	98 (7.8) (23.2)	95 (5.8) (21.2)	97 (6.6) (22.1)
3.	Dysentery / Diarrhea	109 (9.4) (28.9)	149 (9.2) (39.2)	150 (13.3) (46.4)	136 (10.2) (37.0)	239 (18.4) (56.6)	187 (11.4) (41.6)	214 (14.5) (48.9)
4.	Typhoid	84 (7.3) (22.3)	50 (3.1) (13.2)	65 (5.8) (20.1)	66 (5.0) (17.9)	33 (2.5 (7.8)	62 (3.8) (13.8)	48 (3.2) (11.0)
5.	Cholera	49 (4.2) (13.0)	45 (2.8) (11.8)	28 (2.5) (8.7)	41 (3.0) (11.1)	25 (1.9) (5.9)	40 (2.4) (8.9)	33 (2.2) (7.5)
6.	jaundice	0 (0.0) (0.0)	0 (0.0) (0.0)	0 (0.0) (0.0)	0 (0.0) (0.0)	0 (0.0) (0.0)	0 (0.0) (0.0)	0 (0.0) (0.0)
Total		377 (100)	380 (100)	323 (100)	368 (100)	422 (100)	449 (100)	438 (100)
III	Zone – III
1.	Skin diseases	15 (1.3) (9.3)	23 (1.4) (9.0)	0 (0.0) (0.0)	19 (1.4) (9.5)	21 (1.6) (12.5)	27 (1.6) (7.9)	24 (1.6) (9.3)
2.	Enteric fever	40 (3.5) (24.5)	64 (3.9) (25.2)	29 (2.6) (17.3)	44 (3.3) (21.9)	34 (2.7) (20.2)	85 (5.1) (24.9)	60 (4.1) (23.4)
3.	Dysentery / Diarrhea	62 (5.4) (38.0)	102 (6.3) (40.2)	69 (6.1) (41.0)	78 (5.9) (38.8)	68 (5.3) (40.5)	145 (8.8) (42.4)	107 (7.2) (41.6)
4.	Typhoid	22 (1.9) (13.5)	36 (2.2) (14.2)	48 (4.3) (28.6)	35 (2.6) (17.4)	25 (1.9) (14.9)	50 (3.0) (14.6)	38 (2.6) (14.8)
5.	Cholera	24 (2.1) (14.7)	29 (1.8) (11.4)	22 (2.0) (13.1)	25 (1.9) (12.4)	20 (1.5) (11.9)	35 (2.2) (10.2)	28 (1.9) (10.9)
6.	jaundice	0 (0.0) (0.0)	0 (0.0) (0.0)	0 (0.0) (0.0)	0 (0.0) (0.0)	0 (0.0) (0.0)	0 (0.0) (0.0)	0 (0.0) (0.0)
Total		163 (100)	254 (100)	168 (100)	201 (100)	168 (100)	342 (100)	257 (100)
Overall		1158(100)	1622(100)	1124(100)	1329(100)	1295(100)	1652(100)	1479(100)

Source: Computed

Note: Figures in right side parentheses denote percentage to overall total and below parentheses denote percentage to zone wise total.

Table 14. Estimators of Cost of Waterborne Diseases – MLRM

Sl. No.	Predictor Variables	Costs incurred on Epidemic (Rs.)	Costs incurred on Enteric Fever (Rs.)	Costs incurring on Dysentery / Diarrhea (Rs.)
1.	Zone (dummy)	0.156* (1.667)	0.161* (2.123)	0.392** (8.127)
2.	Income (Rs.)	0.104* (1.947)	0.203* (2.750)	0.105* (2.165)
3.	Number of affected persons	0.374** (3.647)	0.187** (2.474)	0.124* (1.700)
4.	Number of days of illness	0.442** (8.481)	0.585** (9.532)	0.531** (8.746)
5.	Proportion of Severely Person	0.462** (8.635)	0.478** (9.873)	0.451** (8.356)
R²		0.642	0.631	0.612

Source : Computed

Note : Figures in parentheses denote percentage to number of respondents

** : Significant at 1% level

* : Significant at 5% level

Table 15. Willingness to pay for solving water pollution

Sl. No.	Amount	Zone – I	Zone – II	Zone – III	Total
1.	Nil	66 (55.0)	99 (82.5)	102 (85.0)	267 (74.2)
2.	Rs. 25	34 (28.3)	21 (17.5)	18 (15.0)	73 (20.3)
3.	Rs. 50	8 (6.7)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	8 (2.2)
4.	Rs. 75	12 (10.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	12 (3.3)
5.	Rs. 100	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Total		120 (100)	120 (100)	120 (100)	360 (100)

Source : Computed

Note : Figures in parentheses denote percentage to Total

Table 16. Willingness to Accept for Water Pollution

Sl. No.	Amount	Zone – I	Zone – II	Zone – III	Total
1.	Nil	0 (0.0)	27 (22.5)	75 (62.5)	102 (28.3)
2.	Rs. 25	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
3.	Rs. 50	4 (3.3)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	4 (1.1)
4.	Rs. 75	10 (8.3)	16 (13.3)	4 (3.3)	30 (8.3)
5.	Rs. 100	106 (88.3)	77 (64.2)	41 (34.2)	224 (62.2)
Total		120 (100)	120 (100)	120 (100)	360 (100)

Source: Computed

Note: Figures in parentheses denote percentage to total

Table 17. Estimates of Willingness to pay and accept water pollution: MLRM

Sl. No.	Explanatory Variables	WTP	WTA
1.	Constant	29.53** (4.74)	58.73** (3.92)
2.	Age (in years)	0.07 (0.79)	0.01 (0.03)
3.	Education (years of schooling)	0.38* (1.66)	0.36 (0.61)
4.	Quality of Water	0.82* (2.21)	7.72** (8.65)
5.	Loss of Income (in Rs.)	0.01 (1.02)	0.01 (1.03)
6.	Family Size (in Rs.)	2.99** (3.99)	2.02 (1.12)
7.	Per Capita Income (in Rs.)	0.02** (7.83)	0.01 (0.38)
8.	Household Health Care Expenditure (in Rs.)	0.02* (2.20)	0.01 (0.42)
9.	Zone – II (3 kms away from SIPCOT)	13.35** (7.01)	14.89** (3.25)
10.	Zone – III (6 kms away from SIPCOT)	14.50** (6.91)	42.40** (8.39)
Adjusted R Square		0.43	0.37

Source: Computed

Note: Figures in parentheses denote t/f value

** Significant at 1% level

* Significant at 5% level

5.4. Water Pollution index

Water pollution index is constructed for comparing the extent of water pollution level among the zones and in control village. Weightage is given for the water quality according to the severity of the problem. Lead is given weightage (w_i) 35, while copper and Iron are given 15 and 20 respectively. Inorganic materials and fluoride are given 8 while weightage of sulphate and chloride are 6 each respectively. In the physical features, alkalinity is given 4 and others are given 2. Index value of water pollutants (P_i) is calculated by actual level of pollutant divided by IS norms and multiplied by hundred. Thereafter, water pollution index has been calculated to assess the significant variation in the level of water pollution between the sources of water supply in zones. Water pollution index is

SWP_i = Total Index value of water pollutants

SW_i = Total weightage of pollutants=100

Of the water pollutants, trace metals is severe than the inorganic compounds and physical features. Table 5 gives the aggregate water pollution index from different sources of water and regions. Contamination is found to be more in hand pump and bore well. The problem is severe in zone I and II due to the nearness of the SIPCOT industries and it is causes for the waterborne diseases in the SIPCOT area.

5.5. Waterborne Diseases

The study has analyzed the waterborne diseases viz., skin diseases, enteric fever, dysentery, diarrhea, typhoid, cholera, and jaundice classifying the respondents into children and adults. The various waterborne diseases that the sample households have undergone is given in Table 6. Among the diseases, dysentery / diarrhea constitute the highest percentage of all the waterborne diseases. Enteric fever is found to be higher than skin diseases. Typhoid, cholera and jaundice are found to be in the next level. In zone I, 27.5 per cent of adult female and 19 per cent of male are affected by skin disease whereas 13 per cent of female children and only 5.2 per cent of male children are affected by skin diseases. Use of contaminated water for bathing and washing had led to skin diseases especially for adult female. The children in zones II and III are free from skin diseases. In zone II, 18.2 per cent of adult female and 13.2 per cent of adult male and in zone III, 16.8 per cent of adult female and 3.2 per cent of adult male are affected by skin diseases respectively.

Enteric fever has affected both children and adults while the infection is more on children than on adults. In zone I, 44.3 per cent of child male and 40.6 per cent of child female are affected while 21.7 per cent of adult female and 21.3 per cent of adult male are affected by enteric fever. In zone II, child female (34%) and child male (27.2%) are affected whereas 17.2 per cent of adult female and 15.5 per cent of adult male are affected. In zone III, 15.2 per cent of child male and 13.7 per cent of child female are affected while 10 per cent of adult female and 6.3 per cent of adult male are affected by enteric fever.

Dysentery / diarrhea affected cases are found to be higher among the sample households. In zone I, 84.1 per cent of child female and 56.7 per cent of child male are affected whereas 37 per cent of adult male and 33.3 per cent of adult female are affected. In zone II, 45.3 per cent of child female, 39.5 per cent of child male, 27.6 per cent of adult female and 21.4 per cent of adult male are affected by the dysentery / diarrhea diseases. In zone III, child male (17%) and child female (17.8%) are affected while 15.2 per cent of adult female and 8.6 per cent of adult male are affected by the same.

In case of typhoid, 31.9 per cent of child female, 15.5 per cent of child male, 19.1 per cent of adult female and 15.6 per cent of adult male are affected in zone I. In zone II, 7.8 per cent of adult female and 7.6 per cent of child female are affected whereas 6.2 per cent of child male and 5 per cent of adult male are affected by typhoid. In zone III, the affected sample is low when compared with other zones. That is 4.7 per cent of adult female and 4.1 per cent of child female are affected while 2.5 per cent of child male and 2.3 per cent of adult male are affected by typhoid.

In case of cholera, children are not affected. In zone I, 13.8 per cent of adult female, and 10 per cent of adult female are affected while 2.1 per cent of adult female and 0.9 per cent of adult male are affected in zone II and only 3 adult male are affected in zone III.

Jaundice is prevalent only in zone I, where 4.3 per cent of adult male (9) and 1.6 per cent of adult female (3) are affected by Jaundice. Hence, the infection of dysentery / diarrhea and enteric fever are more among the sample and particularly, the severity of problem is more in zone I than zones II and III.

The incidence of waterborne diseases is analyzed and presented under the following headings (1) Zone wise incidence of waterborne diseases, (2) Age wise incidence of waterborne diseases, (3) Incidence of waterborne diseases on male adults and male children in the sample and (4) Incidence of waterborne diseases on female adults and female children in the sample. For age wise incidence and gender wise incidence ‘Z’ statistics are applied to see which age group is significantly affected and also to see whether children (male and female) or adults (male and female) are significantly affected by waterborne diseases.

5.6. Zone wise Incidence of Waterborne Diseases

Table 7 gives the details of the waterborne diseases incurred by the children in the sample zones. In total, 45 per cent of the children in the sample households are affected due to waterborne diseases. The children infected are 59 per cent in zone I, 45 per cent in zone II and 28 per cent in zone III. It can be constructed that the problem of waterborne disease on children is severe in all the zones.

The incidence of waterborne diseases in the case of adults is analyzed and is presented in Table 8. In total, only 22.3 per cent of the sample adults are affected by waterborne diseases. Hence, the problem is not much severe on the adults as compared to that of children. Similar trend could be seen in case of severity of the problem among the various zones. In zone II, 21.8 per cent and in zone III, 15.9 per cent of the adults are totally affected.

Finally, the overall incidence of waterborne diseases is analyzed and Table 9 gives the details. Of the sample households, 28.3 per cent of them are infected due to the waterborne diseases. Problem is more among the people in zones I and II, whereas it is meager in case of zone III. In terms of percentage in zone I, 37.9 per cent in zone II, 27.7 per cent and in zone III, 19.1 per cent are affected by the diseases. The c² test applied to see the association between location and incidence clearly showed the significant association between the two (c² = 68.92).

5.7. Age wise incidence of waterborne diseases

Incidence of waterborne disease varies according to the age group of the sample population. The study has classified the affected children and adults according to different age groups (See Table 10). In zone I, out of the total 166 children and 400 adults, 98 children and 117 adults are affected respectively, i.e. 59 per cent of children and 44.3 per cent of are totally affected. Thus, it could be inferred from the percentages of affected number of children and adults, the incidence of waterborne diseases is higher on children rather than on adults. In zone II, 46 per cent of children and 22 per cent of adults are being affected. In zone III, 28 per cent of children and 16 per cent of adults are affected by waterborne diseases.

Table 11 gives details of male children and male adults affected by waterborne diseases. In zone I, 51 male children (53%) are affected out of 97 while 65 male adults (31%) are affected out of 211. In zone II, 33 male children (44%) are affected out of 81 and 42 male adults (19%) out of 220 are affected by waterborne diseases. The ‘Z’ statistics proved that the incidence of waterborne diseases is found to be significant at 1 per cent level in all the zones.

The incidence of waterborne diseases on female children and female adults is presented in Table 12. In zone I, 68 per cent of female children and 28 per cent of female adults are affected by waterborne diseases. In zone II, 53 per cent of female children and 25 per cent of adult females are being affected. In zone III, 26 per cent of female children and 22 per cent female adults are affected by waterborne diseases. In total, the ‘Z’ statistical value is significant at 1 per cent level. It is inferred that the incidence of disease on children are higher than adults.

The ‘Z’ statistics values proved that in different age groups children below 16 are significantly affected since the calculated ‘Z’ statistics values (9.17, 7.3 and 5.75) are significant at 1 per cent level. Likewise the ‘Z’ statistics applied with respect to male gender and female gender separately also proved that in male gender, male children and in female gender, female children are significantly affected since the calculated ‘Z’ statistics values in both cases are significant at 1 per cent level. The results of this analysis corroborates with the results of the studies made by Robin Meadows¹⁵.

5.8. Average cost of Waterborne Diseases

In the study region, the pollution of the SIPCOT region has affected the people and has made them to incur medical expenses to cure as well as to prevent waterborne diseases. The study has analyzed the direct and indirect costs spent by the people for overcoming various diseases. Direct costs are doctor fees, expenses on medicine and diagnostic cost. Indirect costs are travel costs of patients to the dispensaries and loss of income. The Table 13 gives the average cost of waterborne diseases of the sample households incurred in a month. On an average, loss of income per month is Rs. 1652. Besides, average expenses on medicine incurred are Rs. 1622 per month.

Of the sample zones, in zone I, the average direct cost is Rs. 760 while Rs. 784 is the indirect cost. However, the sample respondents have spent more amounts on medicines (Rs. 988) and their loss of income is Rs. 816 per month. In zone II, average direct cost incurred per month is Rs. 368 and Rs. 438 is the indirect cost. Loss of income is Rs. 449 and traveling expenses to dispensaries by the sample respondents is Rs. 422 and the expenses on medicines is Rs. 380. In case of zone III, the average direct cost is Rs. 201 and indirect cost is Rs. 257 per month. The loss of income is Rs. 342 and expenses on medicines are Rs. 254 per month.

Of the various costs, loss of income and expenses on medicines found to be high for the sample respondents. Particularly, in zone I, the costs incurred by the sample households are more compared to that of other zones.

The costs are classified for different types of morbidity incurred by sample households. In zone I, the cost incurred for curing dysentery / diarrhea is more and the average direct cost incurred is Rs. 259 and Rs. 327 is the indirect cost per month. Next to this, the expenses are more for typhoid than enteric fever. For typhoid, the average direct cost is Rs. 180 and indirect cost is Rs. 181 per month. For enteric fever, the average direct cost is Rs. 116 and indirect cost is Rs. 106 respectively.

In zone II, the average direct and indirect costs on dysentery / diarrhea are Rs. 136 and Rs. 214 respectively. for typhoid, the direct cost is Rs. 66 and indirect cost is Rs. 48. For enteric fever, the direct cost is Rs. 103 and indirect cost is Rs. 97.

In zone III, the average direct and indirect costs for dysentery / diarrhea are Rs. 78 and Rs. 107 respectively. For typhoid and enteric fever, the direct and indirect costs are Rs. 35, Rs. 38 and Rs. 44, Rs. 60 respectively. from the analysis of costs for different morbidities, it is followed that the severity of the problem is comparatively meager in zones II and III than zone I.

5.9. Cost Function of Waterborne Diseases – Multiple Linear Regression Function

The cost function for waterborne diseases viz., epidemic, enteric fever and dysentery / diarrhea is fitted by taking into account the zones, income, number of person affected by diseases, number of days of illness and proportion of severely affected persons. In multiple linear regression model,

y = a₁ + b₁x₁ + b₂x₂ + b₃x₃ + b₅x₅ + …….. + u, estimators b_s provide the marginal effect of endogenous variable (y) with respect to the corresponding predictor variables (x). Here, endogenous variable (y) is cost of waterborne diseases. Predictor variables (x) are as follows: (1) zone (x₁), (2) Income (x₂), (3) Number of disease affected persons (x₃), (4) Number of days of illness (x₄) and (5) Proportion of severely affected person (x₅). The MLRM results are presented in Table 14. The zones, cost of epidemic, diseases and cost of enteric fever are significant at 5 per cent level and cost of dysentery / diarrhea are significant at 1 per cent level. Thus, the various zones have significant influence over diseases. This leads to the inference that nearer the zones to the SIPCOT industries higher will be the cost incurred on different types of morbidity. That is, zone I is nearby the SIPCOT and zones II and III are next to zone I and thus location has influenced the waterborne diseases.

The costs incurred on enteric fever, and dysentery / diarrhea are significantly affected by income at 5 per cent level. Number of affected person by various diseases also has significantly affected the costs. On cholera / typhoid and enteric fever at 1 per cent level and on dysentery / diarrhea at 5 per cent level the costs are influenced by the number of patients. In the case of number of days of illness and proportion of severely affected persons the costs are significantly influenced at 1 per cent level.

From the MLRM model, the following inferences are drawn:

(1) Zone, income, number of disease affected persons, number of days of illness and proportion of severely affected persons have significant effect on the costs. Besides, income also determines the household health conditions. People those who are economically sound may spend more on health care whereas poor cannot do so and thus income also takes care of human health.

(2) Number of disease affected persons differs according to the nearness of the zone and types of morbidity and this has significant effect on the costs.

(3) Number of days of illness varies due to the nearness of the zones and type of morbidity. If number of days increases, the costs of health care also increase.

(4) Proportion of severely affected persons increases according to the nearness of zones to SIPCOT industries proportion of severity of diseases leads to increase in the costs of waterborne diseases Thus it can be concluded from the model that the different types of morbidity and location influence the cost of health.

5.10. Contingent Valuation for Water Pollution

5.10.1. Willingness to Pay for Water Pollution

Water pollution has resulted in various costs to the residents in SIPCOT zones. To reckon this, the people have reported to the government officials to control the menace. But, the Governmental measures are not enough to overcome the pollution of the SIPCOT region. However, the researcher has probed the willingness to pay of the community for solving the water pollution in the sample zones (see Table 15). In total, 75 per cent of the samples are not interested to pay for solving the water pollution. The intention of the public is that SIPCOT is responsible for solving the problem and due to this, they are not interested to bare the pollution cost directly. At the same time, the rest 25 per cent of the sample are willing to pay to the policy makers some amount for overcoming the water pollution. Of the zones, in zone I, 28 per cent of them are willing to pay Rs. 25, 7 per cent opine to pay Rs. 50 and 10 per cent are ready to pay Rs. 75, while 55 per cent of them are not willing to pay any amount. In case of zone II, 82 per cent of the samples are not willing to pay and 18 per cent of them came forward to pay Rs. 25 for preventing the pollution while none is ready to pay more than this. The same situation exists in zone III where 85 per cent are not willing to pay any amount and only 15 per cent are willing to pay Rs. 25. In total, in zone I, the people are willing to pay more comparatively, than the people in zones II and III.

5.10.2. Willingness to Accept for Water Pollution

The research has probed the interest of the communities on willingness to accept for tolerating the polluted water and the results are given in table 16. In this case, the community showed more interest and the responses are reverse to that of WTP. That is, 72 per cent of them are willing to accept for the water pollution whereas only 25 per cent are willing to pay for solving the pollution problem. This shows that the communities are not ready to pay but they are ready for getting compensation. In case of WTP, nobody is willing to pay Rs. 100, while majority of them are ready to accept Rs. 100 for the water pollution. Particularly, in zone I, cent per cent of them are ready to accept compensation for polluted water and 88 per cent accepts Rs. 100. But, the residents of zone II show somewhat better interest while the interest is not much in case of zone III. This shows that the problem is not severe in zone III whereas the acceptance of compensation of the communities in zones I and II is due to the severity of the problem. the problem warrants the authorities to control the pollution and save the future generation.

5.11. Regression Estimates of WTP and WTA

The factors influencing the WTP and WTA are analyzed by the researcher by fitting a multiple linear regression model, y = a₁ + b₁x₁ + b₂x₂ + b₃x₃ + b₄x₄ + b₅x₅
+ ….. + u, y is willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Predictor variables are as follows : (1) age (x₁), (2) Education (x₂), (3) Quality of water (x₃), (4) Loss of income (x₄), (5) Family size (x₅), (6) Per capita income (x₆), 7) Household health cost (x₇), (8) Zone II (x₈), and (9) zone III (x₉).

WTP and WTA of the sample households are determined by age, education, income, family size, healthcare expenditures and quality of water. The significance of explanatory variables over WTP and WTA are analyzed through regression estimates. Of the estimated variables, zones have significant effect over WTP and WTA at 1 per cent level (see table 17). Next, the quality of water has significant effect over WTP and WTA, which is significant at 5 and 1 per cent level respectively. Besides, family size, per capita income, education and health care expenditures have significant influence over WTP but not in case of WTA. However, age and loss of income do not influence the WTP and WTA. Besides, family size, per capita income, education and health care expenditure have influenced significantly the WTP rather WTA.

6. CONCLUSIONS:

6.1. Water pollution in the SIPCOT area (Rainy and Summer Seasons)

a. It is conjectured that the rainy season, the ground water level will be high and this might reduce the severity of ground water pollution. But even in rainy season, the problem in zone I was severe than zones II and III due to its proximity to SIPCOT industries.

b. In summer season, due to the scarcity of ground water, there is severity of ground water pollution by effluent, the households in zone I are not using the ground water for any purpose.

6.2. End use of water in rainy and summer seasons

a. The sample respondents have consumed more water in summer season than in rainy season but water use from hand pump was reduced in summer season than in rainy season due to ground water pollution.

b. In all the zones, cent per cent of the population use public tap water only for drinking. Hand pump water is used for bathing, washing and other external uses. The average use of hand pump water varies between zones.

6.3. Waterborne disease prevalence in the SIPCOT area

Water borne diseases prevalence was more in zone I than zones II and III, particularly, dysentery / diarrhea and enteric fever. occurrences are found to be at a higher level in zone I.

6.4. Incidence of waterborne diseases

a. Children are affected more than adults by waterborne diseases in all the SIPCOT zones.

b. Male and female children are severely affected than male and female adults by waterborne diseases.

6.5. Costs of waterborne Diseases

a. expenditure on medicine is found to be high for all the sample households while loss of income for all the sample households is also high in all the SIPCOT zones.

6.6. Regression estimates of costs of waterborne diseases

Predictor variables income, zones, number of health affected persons, number of days of illness, and proportion of severely affected persons significantly influenced the cost of waterborne diseases.

6.7. Contingent valuation

a. Willing to pay of the sample respondents is found to be higher in zone I than zones II and III and willing to accept is also higher in zone I than the other zones.

b. The predictor variables education, quality of water, family size, per capita income, household health cost and different locations (zone II and III) significantly influenced WTP whereas quality of water, locations (zone II and III) significantly influenced the WTA of the sample households.

7. POLICY SUGGESTIONS:

The following are the important suggestions that flow directly from the analytical part of the study. The suggestions are addresses to all policymakers in pollution control activities in the SIPCOT area, namely the government, CPCB, PCB of the district and NGOs. They are meant to help them deal with the problem of industrial pollution. There are no real solutions to deal with pollution after it is caused. The real solution is pollution prevention.

1. Adults are mostly affected by respiratory problems, skin diseases, and enteric fever because of using more pollution water. Safe drinking water is not available to the surrounding village people. Hence safe drinking water should be provided to the villages surrounding SIPCOT.

2. The ground water pollution should be controlled by providing irrigation from other sources.

3. Industrial authorities are expected to give compensation to people who lost their health and wealth by the industrial pollution.

4. Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) is not reducing the pollutants of toxic heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants from industrial waste streams. Rather than cleaning up pollution, CETP is itself a source of high pollution load through the contaminated wastewater and the larger quantities of toxic sludge generated by its process. So PCB should monitor the functioning of CEPT in SIPCOT. The task can be effectively executed by mobilizing the contribution of the residents who are willing to pay for environmental protection.

5. Information regarding various other methods of control, treatment and disposal of gaseous, liquid and solid wastes from the chemical industries and the pollution effects on health should be collected by the PCB. This information should be disseminated to the SIPCOT management, surrounding village people, NGOs who are working for the reduction of industrial pollution and the doctors who are giving medical treatment for the pollution affected people.

6. Further, effluent treatment plants (ETPs) inside the chemical industries should be checked by PCB because it is the opinion expressed by the people that effluent treatment of the polluted water is not properly done by the industrial authorities at SIPCOT. In this regard a community Regulatory Authority can be formed consist the surrounding public who will provide necessary information to the PCB regarding the extent of water pollution in their areas.

7. Steps should be taken to promote and develop the manufacture of low cost appliances devices for safety environmental protection in the SIPCOT industries.

8. REFERENCES:

1. world health organization (WHO). Conquering Suffering, Enriching Humanity. Geneva : WHO. 1997.

2. Christopher, J.L. Murray and Alan D. Lopez. eds. The Global Burden of Disease : Volume I. Geneva : World Health Organization, Harvard School of Public Health, and the World Bank. 1996: 465.

3. World Health Organisation (WHO). Fighting Disease, Fostering Development. Geneva: WHO. 1996.

4. Humphrey, D.N. and Katz, L.E. Water-quality effects of tire shreds placed above the water table: Five-year field study. Transportation Research Record 1714, (2000).18-24.

5. Exponent, “Tire Shred Leachate Study: Chemical Composition and Aquatic Toxicity for Above- and Below-Water-Table Applications,” Exponent, Oakland, California, (2003)26.

6. Sheehan, P.J., Warmerdam, J.M., Ogle, S., Humphrey, D.N., and Patenaude, S.M. “Evaluating the toxicity of leachate from tire shred fill in roads and the risk to aquatic ecosystems,” Journal of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 25, No. 2, (2006), 400-411.

7. Chyi, L.L. (2000). Shredded Tire Leachate from Monofill Sites. Department of Geology, The University of Akron, 131.

8. Hoppe, E.J. “Field Study of Shredded-Tire Embankment,” Transportation Research Record No. 1619, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., (1999), 47-54.

9. Hoppe, E.J. and Mullen, W.G. “Field Study of a Shredded-Tire Embankment in Virginia – Final Report,” Report No. VTRC 04-R20, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesvile, Virginia, (2004), 52.

10. USEPA “Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms,” 3rd Edition, USEPA 600/4-91/002, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (1991).

11. Abdalla, W. Charles, Brian A. Roach and Donald J. Epp. “Valuing Environmental Quality Changes Using Averting Expenditures: An Application to Ground Water Contamination.” Land Economics 68: 2 (1992): 163-69.

12. Barodawala S.F., P.K. Patel, and C.D. Patel. “Industrial Effluent from Nandesari Chemical Complex, Baroda: A Source of Ground Water Pollution.” In Environmental Degradation: Strategies for Control. Eds. Dadhich , L.K and Rima Hooja, Jaipur : Aalakh Publishers. 1992.

13. Sinha A.K. Pollution Status and Health Hazards of River Ganga between Shuklaganj (Unnao) and Phaphamau (Allahabed): In Human Health and Environment (Volume I). Eds. Sinha A.K., R.P. Singh, and K.M. Rastogi. New Delhi: A.P.H. Publishing Corporation. 1997.

14. Vasisht A.K. “On Econometric Criteria for Estimating Economic Loss of Poor Quality Irrigation Water – Some Comments.” 2005. http://www.index.org.

15. Krupnic, Alan et.al. Age-Health and the Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions: A Contingent Valuation Survey of Ontario Residents. Washington. D.C. : Resource for the Future. 2000.

Received on 20.01.2012

Revised on 10.03.2012

Accepted on 22.03.2012

3. SETTING OF THE PROBLEM:

Sampling Design

Epidemic Diseases

Epidemic Diseases

Table 7. Incidence of waterborne diseases on Children

Zones

Zones

Zones

Zones

Table 11. Male children and male adults affected by waterborne diseases

Zones

Zones

Zone – I

Total

Zone – II

Zone – III

Sl. No.

Predictor Variables

Table 15. Willingness to pay for solving water pollution

5.10. Contingent Valuation for Water Pollution

5.10.1. Willingness to Pay for Water Pollution

7. POLICY SUGGESTIONS: