International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research
Abbreviation: IJIAAR | ISSN (Online): 2602-4772 | DOI: 10.29329/ijiaar

Original article    |    Open Access
International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research 2022, Vol. 6(3) 218-229

Consumers’ Preferences for Drinking Water in Istanbul City

Gürdal Kanat, Gözde Ergüven & Gökhan Önder Ergüven

pp. 218 - 229   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijiaar.2022.475.5

Published online: September 30, 2022  |   Number of Views: 12  |  Number of Download: 44


Abstract

Water is an indispensable resource for living things to survive. In addition to its direct consumption, water is also used in the preparation of foods necessary for eating and drinking. Therefore, it is extremely important that the water used is drinkable, healthy and safe. The aim of this study is to determine the place of network water as drinking water in consumer preferences. In accordance this purpose, an online questionnaire was prepared with 274 participants from different age groups, including students from Yıldız Technical University (YTU) Department of Environmental Engineering and their relatives and neighbours, including different ages and occupational groups. With this questionnaire, the factors affecting their water preferences and water usage profiles were determined. As a result of the survey, 54.1% of the participants use carboy water, 33.8% use pet bottle water, 12.1% use network water. The criteria that consumers pay attention to in their water preferences are taste, smell, color, cleanliness and the amount of mineral substances in the water, respectively. The reasons for preferring the carboy water, which is preferred by the majority, are that they find the carboy water cleaner and safer and that it tastes better. On the other hand, participants who preferred tap water stated that 33.3% of them preferred this water because its clean and reliable properties, 33.3% of it was affordable and 22.2% of it was easily accessible. When the degree of trust in the network water was questioned, 12.2% of the participants said that they found the network water safe, 40.5% did not find it safe and 47.3% said they were not sure. In addition, when the participants ranked carboy water, pet bottle water and network water according to the degree of reliability, the network water was found to be reliable with a large rate of 89.2%. 35.1% of the respondents stated that they would prefer to drink tap water if the Water Administration periodically discloses their water quality reports and indicates that the network water is clean enough

Keywords: Network water, Water usage profile, Mineral matter, Reliability degree


How to Cite this Article

APA 6th edition
Kanat, G., Erguven, G. & Erguven, G.O. (2022). Consumers’ Preferences for Drinking Water in Istanbul City . International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research, 6(3), 218-229. doi: 10.29329/ijiaar.2022.475.5

Harvard
Kanat, G., Erguven, G. and Erguven, G. (2022). Consumers’ Preferences for Drinking Water in Istanbul City . International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research, 6(3), pp. 218-229.

Chicago 16th edition
Kanat, Gurdal, Gozde Erguven and Gokhan Onder Erguven (2022). "Consumers’ Preferences for Drinking Water in Istanbul City ". International Journal of Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Research 6 (3):218-229. doi:10.29329/ijiaar.2022.475.5.

References
  1. REFERENCES [Google Scholar]
  2. Ayse, T.A.S., Kahveci, P.B., & Kiraz, E.D.E. (2020). Bir tıp fakültesinde klinik öncesi eğitim alan öğrencilerin içme kullanma suyu tercihleri ve nedenleri. Türk Hijyen ve Deneysel Biyoloji Dergisi, 77(EK-4), 179-186. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bayhan, M., &Hançer, N. (1987). Biyokimya ve Besin Kimyası. Devlet Kitapları. İstanbul. [Google Scholar]
  4. Çeber, K., Aslan, G., Otag, F., Delialioglu, N., Ozturk, C., Babur, C., & Emekdas, G. (2005). Mersin ilinde içme suyu, kullanma suyu, atık su ve deniz sularında Cryptosporidium spp. ookistlerinin araştırılması. Türkiye Parazitol. Derg, 29, 224-8. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ciner, F. (2017). Su kullanımında tüketici davranışları ve farkındalık-Niğde örneğinde bir alan araştırması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 23(9), 1019-1026. [Google Scholar]
  6. Demirci, A. S., Gumus, T., & Demirci, M. (2007). Damacana suların mikrobiyolojik kalitesi üzerine pompa temizliğinin etkisi. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(3), 271-275. [Google Scholar]
  7. EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition, and Allergies (NDA). Scientific opinion on dietary reference values for water. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(3):1459. [Google Scholar]
  8. Gizachew, M., Admesia, A., Wegi, C., Assefa, E. (2022). Bacteriological Contamination of Drinking Water Supply from Protected Water Sources to Point of Use and Water Handling Practices among Beneficiary Households of Boloso Sore Woreda, Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia. International Journal of Microbiology 2020(3):1-10 [Google Scholar]
  9. Istanbulism web page, https://istanbulism.saglik.gov.tr/TR,109716/icme-kullanma-sulari-sehir-sebeke-suyu.html (Erişim Tarihi: 16.04.2022) [Google Scholar]
  10. Kanat G. (2017). Risk Perception and Bottled Drinking Water Consumption in Istanbul City. GLOBAL NEST JOURNAL, 19-3, 521-532. [Google Scholar]
  11. Morgan, C.E., Bowling, J.M., Bartram, J., Kayser, G.L. (2021). Attributes of drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene associated with microbiological water quality of stored drinking water in rural schools in Mozambique and Uganda. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. 236, 113804 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ondieki, J.K., Akunga, D.N., Warutere, P.N., Kenyanya, O. (2022). Socio-demographic and water handling practices affecting quality of household drinking water in Kisii Town, Kisii County, Kenya. J.K. Helion, 8, 2022, e09419. [Google Scholar]
  13. Tekbas, F., & Ogur, R. (2009). Evsel su arıtma cihazlarına dikkat. TSK Koruyucu Hekimlik Bülteni, 8(2). [Google Scholar]
  14. Usman, M., Gerber, N., & Pangaribowo, E. (2016). Determinants of household drinking water quality in rural Ethiopia. ZEF-discussion papers on development policy, 220. [Google Scholar]
  15. Uzundumlu, A. S., Fakıoglu, Ö., Kokturk, M., & Temel, T. (2016). Erzurum İlinde En Uygun İçme Suyu Tercihinin Belirlenmesi/Determining of the Best Drinking Water Preference in Erzurum Province. Alinteri Journal of Agriculture Science, 30(1), 1-7. [Google Scholar]
  16. Uzundumlu, A., Askan, E., & Celik, Z. (2020). İçme suyu olarak belediye şebeke suyunun tüketici tercihlerindeki yerinin belirlenmesi: Iğdır ili örneği. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 10(2), 1350-1360. [Google Scholar]
  17. Yilmaz, M., Yilmaz, M., Kara, I.H., Poyraz, B., & Mayda, A.S. (2014). Konuralp beldesinde içme sularının elementer analizi ve içerdiği ağır metaller: şebeke suyu, doğal kaynak suyu ve zemzem suyunun karşılaştırılması. Konuralp Medical Journal, 6(3), 54-58. [Google Scholar]
  18. Xia, L., Han, Q., Shang, L., Wang, Y., Li, X., Zhang, J., Yang, T., Liu, J., Liu, L. (2022). Quality assessment and prediction of municipal drinking water using water quality index and artificial neural network: A case study of Wuhan, central China, from 2013 to 2019. Science of The Total Environment, 844, 157044 [Google Scholar]