Diagnóstico do serviço de abastecimento de água na percepção do usuário no município de Barcarena-Pará
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2236130815673Palavras-chave:
Sistema de abastecimento de água, Usuário, DiagnósticoResumo
Este trabalho teve como objetivo diagnosticar o serviço de abastecimento de água do bairro Centro, no município de Barcarena-Pará, através da percepção do usuário. A metodologia utilizada foi à aplicação de questionários, os quais foram tratados através de método estatístico, sendo aplicados em 166 residências nos anos de 2013 e 2014. De acordo com os resultados verificou-se que grande parcela dos entrevistados (66%) não tem acesso ou não utiliza o serviço público de abastecimento de água, sendo os poços individuais a solução utilizada. A pesquisa revelou ainda que fatores como interrupção no fornecimento (69%) e deficiência na qualidade da água (90%), podem ser responsáveis pela busca de outras fontes de abastecimento. Na opinião dos usuários a água apresenta características indesejáveis como cor e sabor, fator este que faz com que o consumo de água envasada seja elevado no local, chegando a 58% das residências. Portanto, a metodologia de avaliação do sistema a partir da percepção do usuário, mostrou-se ferramenta importante para a gestão, planejamento e a credibilidade do sistema.
Downloads
Referências
INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA (IBGE). Pesquisa Nacional de Saneamento Básico - Rio de Janeiro, 2010.
MAINALI, Bandita; PHAM, Thi Thu Nga; NGO, Huu Hao; GUO, Wenshan; MIECHEL, Clayton; O’HALLORAN, Kelly; MUTHUKARUPPAN, Muthu; LISTOWSKI, Adnrzej. Vision and perception of community on the use of recycled water forhousehold laundry: A case study in Australia. Science of the Total Environment, 463-464:657-66, 2013.
NASCIMENTO, Ruth Silveira do; RIBEIRO, Maria Adriana de Freitas Mágero; BARBOSA, Dayse Luna; OLIVEIRA, Rui; MEIRA, Celeide Maria Belmont Sabino; OLIVEIRA, Lorena Thaís Freitas; LUCENA, Dátia Paula Marques Maia. Análise da percepção sobre a qualidade do sistema de abastecimento de água na cidade de Campina Grande – Paraíba. In: XX Simpósio Brasileiro de Recursos Hídricos. ABRH. Bento Gonçalves-RS, 2013.
NNAJI, Chidozie Charles; ELUWA, Chinedum; NWOJI, Chioma. Dynamics of domestic water supply and consumption in a semi-urban Nigerian city. Habitat International, 40, p 127-135, 2013.
OLIVEIRA, Paulo Henrique F.C. Amostragem básica – Aplicação em auditoria. Ed. Ciência Moderna Ltda, 2004.
RISCH, Eva; LOUBET, Philippe; NÚÑEZ, Montserrat; ROUX, Philippe. How environmentally significant is water consumption during wastewater treatment?: Application of recent developments in LCA to WWT technologies used at 3 contrasted geographical locations. Water Research, Vol 57, pp 20–30, 2014.
ROWE, Elmo J.; CARDOSO, Décio L. A utilização de mapas temáticos no diagnóstico de áreas suscetíveis à contaminação por percolado de aterro sanitário. Eng. Agrícola, Jaboticabal, v.29, n.4, p.670-678, 2009.
SILVA, Deibys Gildardo Manco; ERAZO, Jhoniers Guerrero; CRUZ, Ana María Ocampo. Eficiencia en el consumo de agua de uso residencial. Revista Ingenierías Universidad de Medellín, vol. 11, No. 21 pp. 23-38, 2012.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Ethical guidelines for journal publication
The REMOA is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
