The Cooperative Research
Centre for Water Quality and
Treatment is an unincorporated
joint venture between:
CRC for Water Quality and
Treatment
Private Mail Bag 3
Salisbury SOUTH AUSTRALIA 5108
Tel: (08) 8259 0351
Fax: (08) 8259 0228
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.waterquality.crc.org.au
The CRC for Water Quality and Treatment is established
and supported under the Federal Government’s Cooperative
Research Centres Program.
Research Report 56
The Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Water Quality
and Treatment is Australia’s national drinking water research
centre. An unincorporated joint venture between 29 different
organisations from the Australian water industry, major
universities, CSIRO, and local and state governments, the CRC
combines expertise in water quality and public health.
• ACTEW Corporation
• Australian Water Quality Centre
• Australian Water Services Pty Ltd
• Brisbane City Council
• Centre for Appropriate
Technology Inc
• City West Water Limited
• CSIRO
• Curtin University of Technology
• Department of Human Services
Victoria
• Griffith University
• Melbourne Water Corporation
• Monash University
• Orica Australia Pty Ltd
• Power and Water Corporation
• Queensland Health Pathology &
Scientific Services
• RMIT University
• South Australian
Water Corporation
• South East Water Ltd
• Sydney Catchment Authority
• Sydney Water Corporation
• The University of Adelaide
• The University of
New South Wales
• The University of Queensland
• United Water International Pty Ltd
• University of South Australia
• University of Technology, Sydney
• Water Corporation
• Water Services Association
of Australia
• Yarra Valley Water Ltd
Community
Attitudes to
Recycled Water
Use: an Urban
Australian Case
Study – Part 2
Research Report
56
Community Attitudes to Recycled Water Use:
an Urban Australian Case Study
– Part 2
Anna Hurlimann
The University of Melbourne
Research Report No 56
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
© CRC for Water Quality and Treatment 2008
DISCLAIMER
The Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment and individual contributors are not
responsible for the outcomes of any actions taken on the basis of information in this research report, nor for
any errors and omissions.
The Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment and individual contributors disclaim all
and any liability to any person in respect of anything, and the consequences of anything, done or omitted to
be done by a person in reliance upon the whole or any part of this research report.
The research report does not purport to be a comprehensive statement and analysis of its subject matter,
and if further expert advice is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment
Private Mail Bag 3
Salisbury SA, 5108
AUSTRALIA
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
Web site:
61 8 8259 0351
61 8 8259 0228
[email protected]
www.waterquality.crc.org.au
Research Report: Community Attitudes to Recycled Water Use an Urban Australian Case Study Part 2
Photos on the front cover were supplied courtesy of Dr Anna Hurlimann
ISBN: 1876616822
Published by the CRC for Water Quality and Treatment
2
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
FOREWORD
Title: Community Attitudes to Recycled Water Use: an Urban Australian Case Study Part 2
Project Leader:
Dr Anna Hurlimann
Research Nodes:
SA Water
CRC for Water Quality and Treatment Project No. 201307– Community Attitudes to Recycled Water Use: an
Urban Australian Case Study Part 2
3
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents results from a research project which surveyed 269 members of the Mawson Lakes
community regarding their attitudes to recycled water use. Mawson Lakes is a greenfields suburb in Adelaide,
South Australia where recycled water is distributed in addition to potable (drinking) water through a dual
water supply system. Recycled water use commenced in April 2005. Conducted in June/July 2007, this was
the fourth survey of the community’s attitudes to recycled water use and the second to be conducted after
recycled water use had commenced. There is limited literature internationally regarding community attitudes
to recycled water. There are few studies with communities who are actually using recycled water. A review of
literature indicates this is the only long-term study assessing community attitudes to recycled water. As such,
this study makes a contribution to knowledge and understanding of community attitudes to recycled water.
This research is important given the increasing pressure on water resources experienced in many areas of
the world, and because of increasing promotion of the use of recycled water and other alternative sources in
policy. However, policy makers are increasingly turning to other water alternatives such as desalination after
predicted insurmountable public opposition to recycled water use. Such assumptions are often not based on
evidence. The objectives of this project were to further assess community attitudes to actual recycled water
use at Mawson Lakes, and to assess how attitudes to recycled water use have changed over a 5 year period.
This work complements other research currently being conducted in Australia including with the community
located in Rouse Hill, Sydney who are using recycled water for non-potable purposes.
Key findings of this 2007 study include:
- The majority of respondents (94%) were satisfied with recycled water use at Mawson Lakes. Only
two respondents had disconnected from the recycled water system.
- Acceptance of recycled water use increases as the use becomes decreasingly personal (i.e. garden
watering was the most accepted use, and drinking the least accepted use).
- Since May 2005 there has been a significant increase in acceptance of recycled water use (Class A+)
for clothes washing and drinking.
- Perception of risk related to recycled water use decreases as the use becomes decreasingly
personal (i.e. garden watering and street cleaning were perceived the least risky, and drinking the
most risky).
- Since May 2005 there has been a significant decrease in perception of risk associated with recycled
water use for all uses investigated: toilet flushing, garden watering, car washing, vegetable growing,
clothes washing, showering and drinking.
- Since May 2005 the community's attitudes to recycled water use and related issues have become
significantly more positive, specifically this includes:
o greater satisfaction with recycled water use
o greater trust in the water authority to ensure water quality and safety
o greater agreement that the current pricing structure for recycled water is fair
o less concern about the effect recycled water will have on their garden
o greater agreement that they have been treated fairly in the process relating to the dual water
supply system
- Since August / September 2004, there has been a significant increase in the perceived value of
recycled water. The mean price respondents thought recycled water should cost has increased from
A$0.46/kL in 2004, to A$0.49/kL in 2005 and A$0.89/kL in 2007.
- With regards to recycled water use for garden watering, the majority of respondents (95%)
expressed it was as good or better than potable water. Five percent of respondents commented that
their garden did not respond well to the recycled water.
- With regards to recycled water use for toilet flushing, the majority of respondents (60%) did not have
any concerns. Of those who did, 80 commented that the recycled water stained their toilet bowl or
had a colour, 21 commented about the presence of an odour at times.
- In general, 28.3% of respondents said recycled water had an odour at times, and 49.1% said
recycled water had a colour at times.
- A small number of respondents said that they had used recycled water for uses not permitted by the
SA Reclaimed Water Guidelines (i.e. drinking and washing clothes).
- Analysis of water consumption data (both potable and recycled) indicates that the average recycled
water consumption as a percentage of total water use for Mawson Lakes households is 32-38% in
the winter six months (May – October) and 51-55% in the summer six months (November – April).
4
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
Overall, these results show that the community have been increasingly accepting of recycled water use over
the two year period since use commenced. Based on the findings of this study, the report recommends a
number of initiatives and activities for various authorities to address in order to ensure the long term success
of this recycled water project and others.
5
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................ 4
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 6
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................. 8
List of Tables................................................................................................................................................... 9
Abbreviations................................................................................................................................................. 10
1. Background and purpose of the study.................................................................................................... 11
2. Review of existing research ..................................................................................................................... 12
2.1 The importance of public participation in recycled water project decisions ........................................... 12
2.2 Water Recycling – Australia................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.1 Rouse Hill ........................................................................................................................................ 14
2.2.2 Newington ....................................................................................................................................... 15
2.2.3 Other Australian water recycling research regarding community attitudes..................................... 15
2.3 Water recycling – international............................................................................................................... 16
2.3.1 North America ................................................................................................................................. 16
2.3.2 Israel................................................................................................................................................ 17
2.3.3 Africa ............................................................................................................................................... 17
2.3.4 Europe ............................................................................................................................................. 17
2.3.5 Asia.................................................................................................................................................. 18
2.4 Factors influencing attitudes to recycled water use ............................................................................... 19
2.4.1 Degree of human contact with recycled water ................................................................................ 19
2.4.2 Attributes of recycled water............................................................................................................. 21
2.4.3 Hypothetical attitudes versus attitudes based on experience ......................................................... 21
2.4.4 Socio-demographic variables.......................................................................................................... 22
2.4.5 Trust ................................................................................................................................................ 23
2.4.6 Satisfaction...................................................................................................................................... 23
2.4.7 Perception of fairness...................................................................................................................... 23
2.4.8 Perception of risk............................................................................................................................. 24
2.4.9 Pricing of recycled water ................................................................................................................. 25
2.4.10 Community attitudes to price of drinking water and recycled water.............................................. 25
3. The study site – Mawson Lakes ............................................................................................................... 27
3.1 Water supply issues at Mawson Lakes.................................................................................................. 28
3.2 Provision of information regarding recycled water................................................................................. 29
3.3 Pricing issues ......................................................................................................................................... 30
3.4 Summary................................................................................................................................................ 30
4. Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 31
4.1 Recycled water use participation rates and practicalities ...................................................................... 32
4.2 Attitudinal measures............................................................................................................................... 32
4.3 Willingness to pay for recycled water..................................................................................................... 33
4.4 Recycled water attributes....................................................................................................................... 33
4.5 Potable and recycled water consumption data ...................................................................................... 34
4.6 Summary................................................................................................................................................ 34
5. Findings...................................................................................................................................................... 35
5.1 Survey response details......................................................................................................................... 35
5.2 Recycled water use: participation rates and experience of the product ................................................ 36
5.2.1 Recycled water use ......................................................................................................................... 36
5.2.2 Experience of recycled water use ................................................................................................... 36
5.3 Attitudinal measures............................................................................................................................... 43
6
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
5.4 Attitudes to recycled water use .............................................................................................................. 46
5.4.1 Attitude to recycled water use at Mawson Lakes............................................................................ 46
5.4.2 Attitudes to recycled water use at Mawson Lakes and beyond ...................................................... 46
5.4.3 Demographic influences.................................................................................................................. 49
5.4.4 Attitudinal influences ....................................................................................................................... 50
5.5 Risk perception ...................................................................................................................................... 51
5.5.1 Perceived risk associated with recycled water use at Mawson Lakes and beyond........................ 51
5.5.2 Demographic influences.................................................................................................................. 54
5.5.3 Attitudinal influences ....................................................................................................................... 54
5.6 Willingness to pay for recycled and potable water................................................................................. 55
5.7 Recycled water aesthetics ..................................................................................................................... 56
5.8 Management of recycled water.............................................................................................................. 58
5.8.1 Trust in authorities........................................................................................................................... 59
5.9 Water consumption ................................................................................................................................ 60
6. Summary and conclusions....................................................................................................................... 63
7. Key messages and recommendations .................................................................................................... 64
8. Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................... 66
9. References ................................................................................................................................................. 67
Appendix I ...................................................................................................................................................... 72
7
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Location of the Mawson Lakes development in relation to key landmarks.................................. 27
Figure 3.2 Mawson Lakes time line – population growth and key events..................................................... 28
Figure 4.1 Research method overview.......................................................................................................... 32
Figure 5.1 Other recycled water uses listed by respondents, Mawson Lakes 2007..................................... 37
Figure 5.2 Concerns about recycled water use, Mawson Lakes 2007 ......................................................... 37
Figure 5.3 Respondent comments on how their garden was growing with recycled water, Mawson
Lakes 2007................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 5.4 Respondent comments on flushing toilets with recycled water, Mawson Lakes 2007 ................ 39
Figure 5.5 How recycled water differs from drinking water, Mawson Lakes 2007 ........................................ 40
Figure 5.6 Details of recycled water ‘odour’ experienced by some Mawson Lakes residents 2007............. 40
Figure 5.7 Details of recycled water ‘colour’ experienced by some Mawson Lakes residents 2007 ............ 41
Figure 5.8 How recycled water has / has not met respondent expectations, Mawson Lakes 2007 ............. 42
Figure 5.9 Respondent comments about the dual water supply system at Mawson Lakes 2007 ................ 46
Figure 5.10 The Mawson Lakes community’s attitude to recycled water for various uses 2002 – 2007 ........ 48
Figure 5.11 Perception of risk related to recycled water use .......................................................................... 52
Figure 5.12 Recycled water risk perception at Mawson Lakes: a comparison between 2005 and 2007 ....... 53
Figure 5.13 Averaged importance scores for recycled water attributes explored for drinking purposes ........ 57
Figure 5.14 Averaged importance scores for recycled water attributes explored by demographic group ...... 58
Figure 5.15 Respondent opinion of who should manage recycled water quality at Mawson Lakes 2007...... 59
Figure 5.16 Average household potable water consumption at Mawson Lakes 2002-2007 (six month
periods) ........................................................................................................................................ 60
Figure 5.17 Average household recycled water consumption at Mawson Lakes 2003-2007 (six month
periods) ........................................................................................................................................ 61
Figure 5.18 Average total household water consumption at Mawson Lakes 2003-2007 (six month periods):
percentage potable and recycled................................................................................................. 61
8
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1
Overview of Mawson Lakes community surveys ......................................................................... 31
Table 5.1
Survey details and respondent details for each Mawson Lakes community survey 2002-2007 . 35
Table 5.2
Recycled water use participation rates, Mawson Lakes 2007 ..................................................... 36
Table 5.3
Responses to questions about recycled water characteristics, Mawson Lakes 2007 ................. 39
Table 5.4
Attitude and perception statements relating to recycled water and associated issues: a
comparison of results from surveys 2, 3 and 4 ............................................................................ 44
Table 5.5
Happiness ratings for various recycled water uses, Mawson Lakes 2007 .................................. 47
Table 5.6
Attitudes to potable use of recycled water: a comparison of three treatment methods ............... 47
Table 5.7
Happiness to use recycled water for various uses: details of statistically significant results for
gender .......................................................................................................................................... 50
Table 5.8
Relationship between satisfaction with recycled water use and perception of: communication,
trust, risk, fairness, quality and environmental concern............................................................... 50
Table 5.9
Risk ratings for various recycled water uses, Mawson Lakes 2007 ............................................ 52
Table 5.10 Perception of risk associated with various uses of recycled water: details of statistically
significant results for demographic variables ............................................................................... 54
Table 5.11 Relationship between perception of risk associated with recycled water use and perception
of: trust, risk, fairness, quality and environmental concern.......................................................... 55
Table 5.12 WTP for drinking water and recycled water, Mawson Lakes 2007 .............................................. 55
Table 5.13 Summary statistics: WTP for drinking water and recycled water, Mawson Lakes 2004 – 2007 . 56
Table 7.1
Key Messages and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 64
9
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
ABBREVIATIONS
AATSE
ASR
ANOVA
A$
CA
CATI
CBD
COAG
CRC
CRCWQT
CSIRO
CV
DAD
DAFF
df
kL
km
L
MFP
NHMRC
NWI
PMSEIC
SA
SA Water
SD
SPSS
TDS
UK
USA
WTP
WWTP
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering
Aquifer Storage and Recovery
analysis of variance
Australian dollars
conjoint analysis
Computer assisted telephone interviewing
central business district
Council of Australian Governments
Cooperative Research Centre
Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
contingent valuation
‘decide announce defend’
Dissolved Air Flotation and Filtration
degrees of freedom
kilolitre
kilometre
litre
Multifunction polis
National Health and Medical Research Council
National Water Initiative
Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and Innovation Council
South Australian
South Australian Water Corporation
standard deviation
Statistical package for the social sciences
total dissolved solids
United Kingdom
United States of America
Willingness to pay
Wastewater treatment plant
10
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study was conducted within the People's Perspectives Program of the CRC for Water Quality &
Treatment. This program is the social research arm of the CRC. In particular the project is directly in line with
the objectives of the People’s Perspectives program, which has the purpose to develop an understanding of
community views, needs, expectations and preferences for water services across Australia. Specifically, it is
in line with the program’s objectives: to understand people’s views on water related issues, including the
acceptability of a range of alternative water resources, and to provide regulators and policy makers with
information on community attitudes, needs, expectations and judgement on standards of service. This project
is also directly relevant to, and in line with the strategic objectives of Program 2F Sustainable Water
Resources.
This project forms the second stage of Project 2.0.1.3.0.6 ‘In Theory and In Practice-Attitudes to Potential
and Actual Use of Recycled Water In and Out of House’. Project 2.0.1.3.0.6 was a long term study of the
Mawson Lakes (South Australia) population’s attitudes to recycled water use. Mawson Lakes was a suitable
case study given the suburb has a dual water supply system which delivers recycled water for non-potable
domestic use (further details are provided in section 3 of this report). Through Project 2.0.1.3.0.6 three
surveys of the community were completed – two prior to the use of recycled water commencing and the third
8 weeks post recycled water use commencing. This was the current project leader’s PhD research,
undertaken with the University of South Australia, funded by the CRC for Water Quality & Treatment and
successfully completed in June 2006.
The aim of this specific project was to further test community attitudes to recycled water use, importantly
after the use of recycled water had been occurring for two years. Of particular interest was the community’s
response to the major use of recycled water, for gardens having experienced two summer periods. Only one
survey was previously conducted post recycled water use commencing, and that was with the residents
having only 8 weeks experience of the recycled water. During this period the source of water was highly
variable (predominantly potable water). Conducting an additional survey of the Mawson Lakes community
when they had more experience of the recycled water was thought to be beneficial to assess how attitudes to
(actual) recycled water (not potable) changed over the longer term and with more experience of the recycled
water product. This was viewed as particularly important because of the lack of long-term research into
community attitudes to recycled water use internationally.
The report firstly reviews existing research regarding community attitudes to recycled water use and various
Australian and international case studies. This review forms the basis for this study. Section three of this
report describes the study site (Mawson Lakes) giving background information on the recycled water
particularities. Section four then describes the method employed to execute the research, before the findings
are presented in section five. The findings are summarised in section six of the report, before key messages
and recommendations are provided in section seven.
11
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
2. REVIEW OF EXISTING RESEARCH
This section of the report provides a brief overview of literature regarding community attitudes to recycled
water use. Gaps in knowledge and understanding of community attitudes to recycled water use are
highlighted and these form the central areas of research to be addressed in this project.
While water recycling research has been increasing in Australia and other parts of the world over the past
decade, there are few specific sources of literature to draw upon both nationally and internationally. This is
particularly so for community attitudes to recycled water use (Dillon 2001; Jeffrey 2005; Marks 2003a; Nexus
Australia 1999; Po et al. 2003). There is little detailed research conducted on factors contributing to the
acceptance of recycled water use. Existing studies have been somewhat limited in their scope. As a result,
parallel literature has been reviewed for the contribution it could make to this issue (for example; risk analysis
and psychology literatures).
The information presented in this section of the report is limited to available literature. In addition to academic
literature, documentation of both successful and abandoned recycled water projects has been drawn upon
for anecdotal evidence to inform this report. There are presumably numerous other cases of water recycling
throughout the world for which there is no published information available. During the course of this research,
water recycling has gained increased prominence as a research priority specifically in Australia but also in
other areas of the world. As a result, a number of new publications have recently been released. These
recent publications are included to best knowledge in this discussion. A number of studies investigating
community acceptance of recycled water use and other aspects of recycled water have been conducted by
various institutions including water authorities, developers and local government bodies. The results of many
studies have not been made publicly available because of commercial-in-confidence issues.
The material presented in this section of the report is organised under four thematic topics for the purpose of
clear presentation. These are: the importance of public participation in recycled water project decisions;
water recycling in Australia; water recycling in the international context; and factors influencing attitudes to
recycled water use.
2.1 The importance of public participation in recycled water project decisions
Until recently, the consideration of community attitudes to recycled water use was in the majority not
considered a critical component of recycled water projects. However, after a number of such projects failed
due to lack of community support, this is beginning to change. As with the adoption of other technologies,
implementers of recycled water projects were often of the opinion that the community would interfere in the
decisions of authorities and be counterproductive (Kraft and Clary 1991). Recycled water projects were
implemented predominantly by engineers with the mantra ‘DAD’ – ‘Decide, Announce, Defend’, which is now
recognised as inadequate (Baggett et al. 2004; Po and Nancarrow 2004; Rosenblum 2004) as there was
little consideration of social, cultural, environmental or political implications. Forester (1999) believes that it is
a great disservice if deliberations are seen as a mere 'process’. Lundqvist et al. (2001) believe that if various
stakeholders are not properly involved in management, their efforts to improve overall water use is likely to
be insignificant and even counterproductive to what is required. Lundqvist et al. (2001) advocate that the
inclusion of society in policy formulation and management tasks will facilitate an improved awareness of the
challenges that have to be faced, with such an approach likely to strengthen skills necessary to solve
essential problems.
The inappropriateness of the DAD approach for water recycling projects was demonstrated after a number of
projects in various locations around the world failed due to the absence of public support, often after a DAD
approach to implementation (including Quakers Hill Sydney, Maroochy in Queensland, and San Diego USA).
In connection with the siting of hazardous facilities (nuclear waste) Kasperson et al. (1992) note that a DAD
approach will serve only to generate conflict, anger, and additional distrust. Rosenblum (2004) is of the
opinion that the DAD approach does not work, and needs to be revised, especially for water recycling
projects. Rogers (2003) and Bass (1969) highlight the importance of social not just technical influences on
the adoption of innovations, e.g. recycled water use.
12
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
Bruvold and colleagues conducted a significant body of research in the USA in the 1970s and 1980s
regarding community attitudes to recycled water. Bruvold et al. (1981) recognise authorities implementing
recycled water systems must be very sensitive to public attitudes and should allocate funds, time and
expertise to objectively assess public attitudes and opinion regarding proposed recycled water projects.
Bruvold et al. (1981) warn that failure to deal directly and constructively with public opinion could result in
frustrated plans, ill-will and distrust between the public and its elected and appointed officials. They suggest
that to ensure the success of recycled water projects it is imperative that public attitudes are considered
(Bruvold et al. 1981). They warn that projects deemed by engineers and other technical personnel to be best
for an area may not be seen as the best option in the collective view of the community (Bruvold et al. 1981).
A central theme of the above discussion regarding community acceptance of recycled water use is the need
to involve the public in decision making. Importance has been placed on public participation to achieve
optimal social outcomes in decision making (Lockie and Rockloff 2005; Lundqvist and Gleick 1997; Renn et
al. 1991; White 2003). Public participation and social acceptance have also been highlighted as a specific
imperative in water resource management, including integrated catchment management (Falkenmark et al.
2004). Traditional approaches to implementing technologies, such as DAD and other methods of persuasion,
are seldom effective, not only for recycled water projects, but the introduction of other technologies and
innovations. In this light alternative approaches are being sought including public participation and social
marketing. Public participation emerged in the late 1960s and 1970s as a central concern in public policy
(Kraft and Clary 1991). The need for public participation was also highlighted in the World Conservation
Strategy (ICUN, UNEP, WWF 1980) as a key to ensuring sustainability.
The importance of public participation has also been highlighted specifically in the field of water resource
management and specifically recycled water use. Lundqvist and Gleick (1997) advocate major decisions
made without involving local communities and those affected by the decisions are considerably more likely to
fail. Hartley (2001) believes that in order to increase community acceptance of recycled water use, the
development of more effective methods of public participation is required. Hartley (2001) believes that the
key factors to public participation and perception of recycled water use include: information and context,
communication and dialogue, trust and trust building, perception of fairness, and motivation and commitment
to participate in decision-making. The World Bank (2003) also encourages public participation in water
recycling decision making. In a paper reviewing community campaigns against recycled water projects in
Australia, White (2003) highlights the importance of public participation in recycled water projects. Public
participation is also regarded as important to increasing community acceptance of hazardous facilities
(nuclear waste). Kasperson (1992) believes that risk communicators should seek broad public participation.
Lockie and Rockloff (2005) describe the benefits of enhancing public participation and negotiation in decision
making, including offering opportunities to improve environmental decision making by: reducing conflict and
polarisation over management goals and actions.
Social marketing is a method used to increase acceptance of new technologies, and could be applied to
increase acceptance of recycled water use. Social marketing was a concept developed in the 1950s by
Wiebe (Kotler and Zaltman 1971). The approach applies marketing concepts and techniques to successfully
promote social objectives such as pollution control, and health promotion (Kotler and Zaltman 1971).
McKenzie-Mohr (2000) describes community-based social marketing as an attractive approach to promote
sustainable behaviour, using psychological knowledge. Unlike information-intensive campaigns which make
little use of psychological knowledge, social marketing has been shown to have a much greater probability of
promoting sustainable behaviour (McKenzie-Mohr 2000).
McKenzie-Mohr (2000) presents a case study where social marketing was successfully used to encourage
water use efficiency. Despite its claimed strengths, social marketing does face critics and barriers to its
implementation, Andreasen (2002) highlights various present barriers to social marketing, including a lack of
appreciation of social marketing at top management levels, perceived by some as having undesirable traits,
inadequate documentation and publicity of successes, and lacking academic structure. Po et al. (2005) claim
social marketing is ineffective to increase acceptance of recycled water use, but they do not substantiate why
they are of this opinion. Others such as Buurma (2001) advocate the use of social marketing to achieve
social objectives. Dishman et al. (1989) believe social marketing can be used effectively to increase
acceptance of recycled water use.
13
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
2.2 Water Recycling – Australia
The focus of recycled water policy in Australia until 2006 was predominantly on non-potable recycled water
use, through utilisation of recycled water use by industry and agriculture, and a few dual water supply
systems for non-potable domestic use. In Australia during the financial year 2000-2001 recycled water use
accounted for less than 4% of total water use, and this was predominantly for agriculture and industry
(Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004). In Australia at present the public is removed from direct experience of
recycled water use because the majority of recycled water use occurs in industry and agriculture. Very little
recycled water use occurs in direct contact with the community in a domestic environment. Given the lack of
experience with recycled water use, there could be significant challenges faced in achieving recent policy
initiatives which seek to increase recycled water use.
In some states of Australia the use of recycled water for potable purposes is not currently policy, for example
Victoria (Government of Victoria 2006). However, in other states potable reuse proposals have been put
forward. This includes the case of Toowoomba, Queensland where a public referendum on 29 July 2006 saw
61.5% of voters oppose the use of recycled water for potable purposes (Water Futures Toowoomba 2006).
The former Premier of Queensland (2007) announced in 2007 that potable reuse was inevitable for South
East Queensland and that a public referendum would not take place. Recycled water will be available in
Brisbane when a new pipeline currently under construction connects to the Wivenhoe Dam in late 2008
(Premier of Queensland 2007), thus facilitating planned indirect potable recycled water use.
With regards to the delivery of recycled water through dual water supply systems in Australia, the approach
has been risk averse. High quality water (usually class A or A+ depending on definition and particulars of the
various State Guidelines) is delivered for limited uses (predominantly toilet flushing, garden watering and car
washing). Thus, if a cross connection occurs or the recycled water is misused, the risk to the community is
minimal. There have been a number of cross connections which have occurred in Australian dual water
supply systems in various locations and to varying degrees. In August 2004, a cross connection occurred in
Rouse Hill as the result of illegal plumbing works, and it affected 82 households (Sydney Water 2004). The
cross connection was quickly identified and was not detrimental to any residents. In November 2005 a cross
connection was discovered in two households in Newington, and established to have existed since the
properties were built (Sydney Water 2005). The NSW Health Department advised that the incident was
unlikely to pose a health risk to the customers affected, given the high level of treatment the recycled water
receives (Sydney Water 2005). Such a risk averse approach brings high cost to each project, but brings
significant savings to communities if affected by cross connection. Some (Law 2005) argue this is a waste of
high quality water and we should use this for potable purposes.
There are three well-known and relatively large Australian examples of recycled water use through dual
water supply systems: Rouse Hill and Newington, both suburbs of Sydney, and Mawson Lakes in Adelaide.
Additionally, there are other dual water supply systems of a small scale existing and in development. Details
of the Rouse Hill and Newington developments and the research conducted into community attitudes to
these schemes will be now be discussed. Other examples include the use of recycled water for non-potable
purposes in office buildings including the Melbourne City Council, Council House 2 (CH2) building and the
Bendigo Bank Head Office in Bendigo (Hurlimann et al. 2007).
2.2.1 Rouse Hill
The Rouse Hill residential subdivision in northwest Sydney incorporates a dual supply system delivering
treated wastewater for non-potable purposes. The first stage of this development incorporating 12,000
dwellings was completed in the late 1990s (Law 1996). Permitted uses for recycled water include toilet
flushing, car washing, garden watering, and public open space irrigation. The system was installed to reduce
potable water consumption and reduce the environmental impact of the development on the nearby major
river system which is used for recreational and industrial purposes (Law 1996).
Research has been conducted by Sydney Water into community attitudes to using recycled water, at Rouse
Hill. The results of this research are contained in internal reports which could not be obtained. However the
internal reports are quoted by the CSIRO in a literature review of community attitudes to recycled water use
(Po et al. 2003) with the findings summarised as follows. Two surveys were conducted by Sydney Water,
one prior to recycled water use commencing, and the other post recycled water use commencing. Most
residents surveyed were aware of the scheme but there was uncertainty among some of the residents as to
whether human waste was being recycled or not, and they were not clear about the treatment of the recycled
water. Residents were generally aware of the appropriate uses of recycled water and had used it accordingly.
14
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
Regarding the dual water scheme with a sense of pride, there were few concerns raised, although many felt
they had no choice (Po et al. 2003).
2.2.2 Newington
The 2000 Sydney Olympic Games Village is now known as Newington and has a dual water supply system
throughout the suburb. Wastewater and storm water collected in the suburb is tertiary-treated prior to
distribution to residential properties, commercial buildings and parklands (Taylor 2003). The recycled water is
used for toilet flushing, garden watering, car washing, and has recently been approved for clothes washing,
with positive community sentiment (PMSEIC 2003). Through personal communication the Manager of Water
and Energy for the Sydney Olympic Park Authority said he is of the opinion that there is no consensus on the
best method of conducting community attitude research. Because of this, no research has been conducted
on the Newington residents’ attitudes to recycled water use.
2.2.3 Other Australian water recycling research regarding community
attitudes
A CSIRO research report ‘Predicting Community Behaviour in Relation to Wastewater Reuse: What Drives
Decisions to Accept or Reject?’ (Po et al. 2005) details findings of a social experiment conducted by the
CSIRO. In this experiment community members were asked to drink ‘recycled water’ and eat horticultural
products grown with ‘recycled water’ through a series of experiments where attitudes were tested. The
products were in fact grown with regular irrigation water, not recycled water. Both trust and emotions were
shown to be involved in people's decisions to accept or reject the trials, but surprisingly health risks were not
significant in their decision. The structural equation modelling methodology was used. Two case studies in
Australian cities were used to test the hypothesised model. The attributes influencing willingness to buy
vegetables grown with recycled water were found to be: emotions, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived
control, knowledge, trust and environmental obligation.
PhD research by Marks (2003a) investigated the role of trust in community acceptance of recycled water use.
Four case studies were undertaken of communities using, or soon to be using, recycled water for nonpotable purposes, two urban American developments Brevard County and Altamonte Springs – and two
urban Australian developments New Haven and Mawson Lakes, both in Adelaide. The research was
qualitative and involved in-depth interviews with 20 households at each site. The research found acceptance
of water sourced from sewage, but suggests a high level of trust will need to be invested in science and
technology, the responsible authorities, and the entire expert system of water supply in general. At the time
of the research, the Mawson Lakes population was not yet receiving recycled water for use. The New Haven
population of about 62 households was using recycled water and a number of complaints about consistency
and quality of recycled water supply were made (Marks 2003a).
A paper by Roseth (2000) presents the results of 2 surveys conducted by Sydney Water on community
attitudes to recycled water use. The first study in 1995 concluded:
‘The community will accept reuse, not because it is inherently good but because it is an inevitable initiative which along
with other initiatives will safeguard Sydney's future supply. Associated with the acceptance of water reuse is
considerable concern about its health and safety particularly when using it for personal purposes.’
The conclusion held in the second survey conducted in 1999, although the strength of support for using
recycled water and trust in the authorities to manage it responsibly decreased (Roseth 2000). Roseth (2000)
reports that the decreased support is likely to be associated with a general community belief that the need to
conserve water diminishes during periods of rain, which was experienced prior to the 1999 survey. She
found it may also be associated with a potable water contamination incident that occurred prior to the second
survey which resulted in a boil water alert issued in Sydney for a number of days. The 1999 survey randomly
conducted on 1,000 Sydney residents found people's emotional response expressed in the statement 'the
thought of drinking recycled water is disgusting' was the strongest predictor of the extent to which they will
support its use and over-rode the association between support for environmental protection and using
recycled water. Those who are disgusted by the thought of drinking recycled water will not support its use
even if they strongly support other environmental protection issues. Prior exposure to recycled water
initiatives was not associated with stronger support for recycling (contrary to Hurlimann 2006b; 2007a).
Females were found to be more concerned than males about the safety of using recycled water, although
gender differences were not as pronounced as in 1995 (Roseth 2000).
15
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
2.3 Water recycling – international
The review of literature undertaken for this research revealed that globally, as in Australia, there has been
limited research conducted on community attitudes to the use of recycled water. In many regions of the world,
water recycling is becoming increasingly required as an alternative supply of water and investment in
drought-proofing an area (Okun 2002). Like Australia, water recycling in many parts of the world is limited in
application to predominantly irrigation and industrial purposes. However, direct potable reuse is occurring in
some areas: Windhoek, Namibia – where 25% of the municipality’s drinking water supply consists of treated
wastewater (du Pisani 2005), Singapore – where recycled water constitutes approximately 3% of municipal
supply (Seah et al. 2003) and Orange County in the USA – where indirect potable reuse is occurring through
recharge of aquifers with wastewater, the aquifers later drawn upon for potable municipal supply
(Marquez 2002).
‘Unplanned’ potable recycled water use also occurs in numerous parts of the world including Australia.
Recycled water use for potable purposes occurs indirectly when wastewater is treated and put back into a
river or other water body, which is later drawn upon by communities for potable supply. The cases are often
referred to as ‘unplanned’ because the history of the water is not acknowledged in treatment processes, and
the communities involved are largely unaware of the source of their water. Examples include the Murray and
Hawkesbury Rivers in Australia, and the Thames River in Europe. In many developing countries untreated
sewage is directly applied to crops (AATSE 2004; Bahri and Brissaud 1996; Fatta et al. 2004).
2.3.1 North America
Recycled water use in the USA has been led predominantly by, but not only, the State of California.
Recycled water in the USA is both extensive and well established. The first dual system in America was built
in 1926 to serve Grand Canyon Village (Okun 1997). There are now over 200 communities in America
ranging in size from a few thousand to more than a million people, that are being served by dual systems
including San Jose, Los Angeles, St Petersburg and Tuscan (Okun 2002). The majority of the state of
California is located in desert-like climate and is water-scarce. An American Supreme Court decision in 1964
found California’s water allocation from the Colorado River was too large – subsequently California lost over
half of its original allocation (Zoller 1984). Realising that planned domestic recycled water use will play an
increasingly important role as water becomes a scarce commodity in the future, the state of California
encourages recycled water use where public health is not compromised (Crook 1981).
The Irvine Ranch water district is located in the south of Orange County, California. It is a semi-arid region
receiving low annual rainfall, relying on water imports from the Colorado River and Northern California. Fifty
per cent of Irvine’s drinking water is imported (Parsons 1990). In 1963, the District decided to produce
recycled water, and within four years delivery commenced to agricultural users. Recycled water now makes
up 15% of the district’s total water use (Irvine Ranch Water District 1994). Recycled water use in Irvine
includes irrigation of crops, golf courses, parks, school grounds, footpaths, in high-rise buildings for toilet
flushing, and commercial cooling towers. New developments in Irvine must be built with dual water systems
for landscape irrigation with strict time restrictions on water use for irrigation: 9pm to 6am. Despite costs
associated with the initial investment in infrastructure for the system, it has been economically beneficial for
users. Numerous studies have been conducted in the USA investigating community attitudes to recycled
water use and are discussed in section 2.4.1.
In Canada, the need to facilitate increased recycled water use has developed because of regional water
supply limitations coupled with increasing demand and uncertainty. Schaefer et al. (2004) explain that water
recycling is implemented on a small scale in Canada, varying regionally depending on availability of water
supplies and regulatory flexibility. Examples include non-potable applications for irrigation of urban parklands
and golf courses. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment workshop on Water Reuse and
Recycling (Marsalek et al. 2002) highlighted research and practical needs in the light of increasing use of
recycled water. The Council recognised that among all potential barriers, public perception may be the
greatest.
16
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
2.3.2 Israel
Recycled water has been used extensively in Israel for application in agriculture for many years. A major
portion of Israel’s wastewater is recycled then used to recharge groundwater, which is pumped at a ratio of
5% to 95% natural groundwater, and then used for the nation’s potable distribution (Dishman et al. 1989).
There is little consumer apprehension about recycled water, which is explained by Dishman et al. (1989) to
be because of the residents’ awareness of the need to conserve water due to the region’s limited water
resources. Dishman et al. (1989) propose that populations in water-scarce regions more readily accept
recycled water use. However evidence in Australia suggests this is not the case (Hurlimann 2007c; 2007d).
2.3.3 Africa
Direct potable use of recycled water was pioneered in Windhoek, Namibia in 1969. Namibia is the most arid
country in Sub-Saharan Africa, with its only perennial rivers on the northern and southern borders, 750km
and 900km respectively from Windhoek (du Pisani 2005). The city relies on three surface reservoirs built on
ephemeral rivers that only flow for a few days after heavy rainfall (du Pisani 2005). Information about public
perception of direct potable reuse in Windhoek is provided by du Pisani (2005), who comments that while no
consumer surveys have been conducted on community attitudes, over the last six years there have been no
consumer complaints lodged about the use or quality of recycled water. A continual communication
campaign is being undertaken in Windhoek, through media and municipal newsletters, demonstrating the
importance of wise water use.
In Tunisia, the over-exploitation of groundwater has caused sea water intrusion into aquifers resulting in
increased utilisation of recycled water to meet demand, and allow farmers to move from rain-fed farming
(Bahri and Brissaud 1996). Wastewater was directly applied to crops in the 1970s, until recently outlawed.
Recycled water use has now become an integral part of Tunisia’s national water management strategy. A
study by Bahri and Brissaud (1996) assessed farmers’ attitudes to using recycled water, finding that 40%
were worried about quality of recycled water and its health effects on workers. 42% believed recycled water
use is damaging soils and threatening crops. 47% were reluctant to use recycled water because of the
restrictions on crops which are allowed to be irrigated with recycled water. There was a lack of information
among farmers about wastewater quality, health risks and reuse impacts on crops and soils.
2.3.4 Europe
Wastewater reuse in Europe has increased over the past decade, particularly in semi-arid Mediterranean
countries. However one of the major obstacles at present is a lack of uniform European standards, despite
the European Council Directive ‘treated wastewater shall be reused whenever appropriate’ (Wintgens et al.
2005). In Sweden, sludge a by-product of reuse, is often utilised for fuel and agricultural fertiliser (Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency 1998). Sweden aims to promote the development of sustainable
wastewater systems, and an important component of this is the recovery and reuse of resources in
wastewater.
Seaton and Jeffrey (1999) report that in the United Kingdom (UK) privatisation has commoditised water to a
much greater extent than in Australia, resulting in few innovative re-use schemes actually on the ground and
little or no use of water reclaimed within local systems. Emphasis in the UK has instead been on innovative
water science, simulation, social enquiry techniques and risk analysis (Seaton and Jeffrey 1999). The
‘Watercycle’ project at the Millennium Dome in the UK is one of the largest in-building recycling schemes in
Europe, designed to supply 500kL/day of recycled water for toilet and urinal flushing, and it catered for over
6 million visitors in 2000 (Hills et al. 2002). The project included an investigation of visitor perceptions of
recycled water, with 1,055 visitors to the Millennium Dome surveyed in relation to their water recycling and
conservation initiatives. Ninety five per cent of respondents accepted the use of recycled water through dual
water supply systems in public areas. A lower level of acceptance was found for use of recycled water in
respondents’ own homes. Results indicate that education, information and exposure to recycled water
systems further increases users’ acceptance of the concepts (Hills et al. 2002).
17
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
In other water recycling research conducted in the UK, Jeffrey and Jefferson (2001) found broad conditional
support for water recycling, with 86% of respondents agreeing with the statement ‘I have no objection to
water recycling as long as safety is guaranteed’. This study also found using recycled water from second
party or public sources was less acceptable. More results from this study are reported by Jeffrey (2002) who
found the use of water recycling systems where the source and application are located within the
respondents’ own house is acceptable to most people provided that they trust the organisation which sets
standards for water recycling. Water recycling was generally more acceptable in non-urban areas than urban
areas. A willingness to use recycled water, particularly from communal sources, was higher amongst
metered households, and those households that take water-conservation measures (Jeffrey 2002).
2.3.5 Asia
In Japan, recycled water is mainly used for non-potable applications in urban areas including toilet flushing
and industrial use. Recycled water is also used for environmental purposes, including in-stream flow
augmentation (Yamagata et al. 2002). In 1996 there were approximately 2,100 buildings in Japan with onsite water recycling systems, or connected to large scale water recycling systems. In 1984, to encourage
recycled water use and decrease discharge of wastewater into the sewerage system the Tokyo Metropolitan
Government established a regulation requiring newly constructed large buildings to install on-site water
recycling systems. In a questionnaire conducted in 1999 of occupants of 125 commercial buildings using
recycled water (mainly for toilet flushing), problems with odour of the recycled water were reported
(Yamagata et al. 2002). For more information on wastewater recycling in Japan see: Yamada et al. (2007)
and Kimura et al. (2007).
In Hong Kong, sea water is used to flush toilets in an extensive dual water supply system established in the
1950s which has made a significant contribution to conserving potable water use (Bjornlund et al. 2001). The
system’s installation was driven by limitations to Hong Kong’s water resources due to its geographical setting
and physical environment (Bjornlund et al. 2001). Urban water supply has been maintained in Hong Kong
over the past half century by transferring water from mainland China (Chen 2001). Nearly 80% of Hong
Kong’s population is supplied with seawater for toilet flushing at no cost for the users and the government is
trying to increase this to 90% (Chen 2001). Chen (2001) details the enormous work, investment, and impacts
to local settlements, farmland and country parks and tremendous policy and regulatory efforts required with
the dual water supply system.
As previously mentioned, recycled water constitutes approximately 3% of potable water supply in Singapore
and will increase to 20% over the next decade (Seah et al. 2003). Fifty per cent of Singapore’s water is
presently imported from Malaysia. Water supply agreements will be renegotiated in 2011 and 2065, and is a
highly political issue, with extensive media coverage (Law 2003). The amount of water Singapore imports
from Malaysia and the price at which they purchase it is likely to dramatically change in 2011. Thus with
advice from local and international experts, the Singapore government adopted indirect potable reuse of
‘NEWater’ (highly treated wastewater) (Seah et al. 2003). NEWater was launched on August 9, 2002 during
National Day celebrations with 60,000 bottles of NEWater given away on the day. NEWater began flowing
into the reservoirs Feb 21, 2003 (Seah et al. 2003). While community acceptance of NEWater is said to be
strong, there have been no formal studies, and in terms of the government structure of Singapore it must be
noted that a democratic community may have a different response to such a proposal.
18
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
2.4 Factors influencing attitudes to recycled water use
There are many factors potentially influencing attitudes to the use of recycled water. This section of the
report explores a number of these factors.
2.4.1 Degree of human contact with recycled water
Bruvold conducted a significant body of work regarding community attitudes to recycled water in the USA in
the 1970s and 1980s (Bruvold 1979; Bruvold 1988; Bruvold et al. 1981; Bruvold and Smith 1988; Bruvold
and Ward 1970). Bruvold (1979) assessed Californian community attitudes to the use of recycled water,
finding the more personal the use of recycled water was, the less favoured it became – e.g. there was
greater acceptance for the use of recycled water for irrigation of golf courses than for potable use. In addition
to Bruvold’s research other studies have been conducted into the acceptance of recycled water for different
uses. Table 2.1 provides an overview of this research. Such studies have been conducted predominantly in
the USA, but also in the UK and Australia in varying detail.
There are a number of interesting trends in the data presented in Table 2.1. Firstly, in all studies, acceptance
of recycled water use decreases as the use becomes increasingly closer to personal contact. In general,
opposition to drinking recycled water increased from the 1970s to the 2000s. This may be related to
decreasing levels of trust in institutions and technology evidenced in USA society since the 1960s
(Kasperson et al. 1992; Otway and Von Winterfeldt 1982). Detailed studies of community attitudes toward
recycled water for various uses were not conducted in Australia until the late 1990s, so a comparison of
attitudes over time (i.e. since the 1970s) for Australia cannot be made, thus the data presented in Table 2.1
is limited.
The data in Table 2.1 shows large differences in acceptance of recycled water for various uses between
countries. Differences observed between countries may relate to cultural differences between nations. The
differences may also relate to a reflection of the specific communities surveyed rather than the country as a
whole, or could be due to differences in timing of the surveys.
19
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
Table 2.1 Percentage of respondents opposed to specific uses of recycled water – various international studies
20
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
2.4.2 Attributes of recycled water
Limited research has been conducted to understand community attitudes to specific attributes of recycled
water. The characteristics of recycled water may differ from potable water and it is important to understand
community attitudes to these differing characteristics. These could be divided into aesthetic attributes (such
as saltiness, odour, and colour), and physical attributes (such as microbiological, chemical, pathogens,
viruses, bacteria, and hormones). Recycled water is a new product (or commodity) offered to select
consumers and communities, in distinct locations. Yet despite its ‘new’ nature little research has been
conducted on consumer acceptance of this product. This is unlike other new products which generally
undergo significant market research prior to launch. This helps to establish what attributes are important to
consumers and to give the product the best chance of survival in the market place. Perhaps because of the
nature of recycled water and potable water – both natural monopolies, such research has not been
undertaken. Mills and Asano (1998) believe recycled water projects must not be initiated without establishing
a market for the recycled water. Mills and Asano (1998) present 16 issues that should be considered when
establishing a market for recycled water, including establishing willingness of the user to accept recycled
water. Community attitudes to attributes of recycled water are poorly understood. Additionally, it is not known
how community attitudes to attributes of recycled water will change, if at all, for different uses, e.g. for toilet
flushing, clothes washing, garden watering, or drinking.
Attributes of recycled water may vary from those of potable water. The extent to which recycled water
attributes vary from potable water will depend largely on the source of the water (e.g. wastewater, versus
stormwater versus industrial wastewater etc), and the treatment process undertaken. Wastewater often has
a higher salt content, which generally increases if sourced from industry. Stormwater is typically less salty,
but may contain heavy metals or organic materials. As with potable water, the physical attributes of recycled
water will vary from project to project depending on source and treatment of the recycled water.
Particular attributes of recycled water may affect its adoption by the community. Saltiness of water may have
negative impacts on plants in people’s gardens. Many flowers, fruits, vegetables and grasses have a low salt
tolerance, and careful consideration is needed before planting gardens that will be irrigated with recycled
water. Aesthetic attributes such as colour and odour may also affect the uptake of recycled water use by the
community. Typically an earthy or musty odour is present in water when there is excessive microbial growth
and metabolism. A brownish colour is typically present if the total dissolved solids levels (TDS) are high, or
from precipitating iron (United Kingdom Environment Agency 2004).
A paper by Jeffrey and Jefferson (2003) reports on a study of community attitudes to recycled water and
includes information on attitudes to aesthetic attributes. They found poor aesthetic water quality – measured
by increases in turbidity, colour and suspended solids – only had a minor detrimental effect on the frequency
of acceptance of recycled water. Turbid water was consistently considered less acceptable than either water
which was coloured or had high suspended solids content.
Communities using recycled water have been concerned about the presence of the attributes colour and
odour in the past. In an Australian study by Marks et al. (2002), a number of the 20 residents surveyed from
New Haven in Adelaide identified occasional problems with recycled water use for toilet flushing, including
occasional odour, a murky colour and sediment. As mentioned previously, a survey of office workers in
Japan using recycled water for toilet flushing found that problems with odour were encountered (Yamagata
et al. 2002). A pilot study undertaken in Denmark by Albrechtsen (2002) investigated the use of rainwater
and greywater for toilet flushing and community responses to this use. The study reported several complaints
regarding bad smell, resulting in the closure of one pilot treatment plant. Such conditions could potentially
have a major impact on the outcome and feasibility of recycled water schemes.
In the second survey at Mawson Lakes, attitudes to the aesthetic attributes of recycled water: colour, odour
and salt were investigated using conjoint analysis. The results found that for garden watering having 'low salt
levels' was the most important attribute, for clothes washing 'colourless' is the most important attribute and
for toilet flushing a 'low price' was the most important attribute (Hurlimann and McKay 2007). Respondents
were also found to be willing to pay for increases in the quality of recycled water. The amount they were
willing to pay varied depending on applied use and the attribute in question.
2.4.3 Hypothetical attitudes versus attitudes based on experience
Internationally there is a lack of research conducted on communities that are actually using recycled water.
As mentioned previously, in Australia during the financial year 2000-2001 recycled water use accounted for
less than 4% of total water use, and this was predominantly for agriculture and industry (Australian Bureau of
Statistics 2004). As a consequence, Australian communities lack direct experience of recycled water use.
21
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
The scarce research conducted in relation to community attitudes to recycled water use has been
predominantly hypothetical, conducted on communities who have little or no experience with recycled water.
Literature indicates that there is not necessarily a relationship between attitudes and behaviour.
In a paper regarding marketing aspects of recycled water, Dolnicar and Saunders (2005) provide a detailed
review of research conducted into community acceptance of recycled water use. In suggesting future
research, the authors highlight the need to move away from explaining relationships consistently identified in
survey research, to an understanding of the process of community adoption of recycled water use. The
authors suggest that more insight is needed into actual use and behaviour regarding recycled water, rather
than hypothetical evaluations by respondents. Dolnicar and Saunders (2005) suggest an extension of
existing recycled water research into eight areas including: conducting longitudinal studies to gain insight into
the process of attitudinal and behavioural change to assess effectiveness of measures to increase public
acceptance, investigations into the interaction of willingness to adopt recycled water use, and research into
pricing strategies. Each of these is addressed in this research.
Research conducted by Bruvold and Ongerth (1974) suggests that there may not be any difference between
hypothetical attitudes to recycled water use and attitudes based on experience. Bruvold and Ongerth
compared attitudes between members of the USA public who had experienced recycled water use (n=479)
and those who had no experience with recycled water use (n=493). Attitudes were compared for 25 uses of
recycled water, and no significant difference was found. It would be beneficial for more extensive and long
term research to be conducted to support, clarify and extend these findings.
Many fields of research have attempted to deal with difficulties surrounding the interpretation of hypothetical
data. In many instances it is not possible to obtain respondents’ revealed (actual) preferences. Louviere
(2000) believes that well designed surveys eliciting stated preferences can produce data which are
indistinguishable from revealed preference data. Louviere (2000) also believes that there are relative
strengths in both data types, and significant value in combining both types of data. Fischhoff et al. (1978)
describe the use of direct questioning scales to assess perceived risk of a wide variety of human and manmade hazards in many studies. The use of such questionnaires has been criticised on the grounds that
answers to hypothetical questions bear little relationship to actual behaviour. Fischhoff et al. (1978) believe
these criticisms are overstated, and that answers correlate highly with behaviour. An additional benefit of
revealed preference techniques is that they elicit present values rather than historical preferences.
An important research consideration for recycled water use is change of attitude over time. The majority of
research conducted in Australia and overseas at present provides only snapshots of community attitudes.
There is little consideration of how these attitudes may change over time, or as a consequence of certain
community events. There is a lack of long-term research on community attitudes to using recycled water.
More research is needed with actual communities using recycled water, and over a long-term, to increase
understanding and to facilitate greater acceptance.
2.4.4 Socio-demographic variables
Socio-demographic variables may have an influence on an individual’s acceptance of recycled water use.
However research conducted to date finds inconclusive results regarding the role socio-demographic
variables play. Conclusions reached are often weakly supported by data. Research conducted by Bruvold
(1979) posited various socio-demographic correlations with acceptance of water reuse, including being male,
more highly educated, and having a higher income. A study by the Open Mind Group (1998) on behalf of
Melbourne Water found that young, male, tertiary educated respondents tended to be more accepting of
recycled water use. A survey of community attitudes to recycled water use conducted in association with the
Millennium Dome project in the UK found no attitudinal difference between genders, but higher socio
economic groups were more accepting (Hills et al. 2002). In research predicting acceptance of recycled
water use to irrigate horticultural products, Po et al. (2005) found lower educated respondents were less
trusting and females were more inclined to hold more negative emotions.
The findings discussed above and in other sections of this report, follow some trends – being male, more
highly educated and having a higher income is associated with being more accepting of recycled water use –
but they are not conclusive. In a literature summary of public perception and participation in water reuse,
Hartley (2001) discusses socio-demographic differences in acceptance of reuse, and says that overall, sociodemographic factors may be weak indicators and unreliable if not confirmed by other measurement
instruments. Marks (2004a) comments that while some socio-demographic associations were proposed in
the 1970s and 1980s, there is little available evidence to support them today. Additionally, a study by
Robinson and Robinson (2005) on attitudes to recycled water in the US found only one significant difference
22
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
between socio-demographic variables – those who attended or graduated from university were significantly
more favourable to recycled water use. A greater understanding of the role that socio-demographic factors
play in the adoption of recycled water use will help increase acceptance and use of recycled water. Perhaps
socio-demographic variables are not the underlying components of acceptance, and other components such
as attitudinal positions are more important. The results from surveys 1-3 at Mawson Lakes indicate there is
little conclusive evidence regarding the influence of socio-demographic variables to community attitudes to
recycled water use (Hurlimann 2006a). It would be beneficial to investigate this further.
Results from survey 3 (Hurlimann et al. In Press) indicate that the components of satisfaction with recycled
water use were an individual’s positive perception of: the water authority’s communication, trust in the water
authority, fairness in the recycled water system’s implementation, quality of the recycled water, financial
value of the recycled water system, and risk associated with recycled water use (negative relationship).
These factors were found to be more important than demographic variables. These variables will now be
further discussed.
2.4.5 Trust
Trust is an essential component of social capital (Putnam 1994), and is seen as a prerequisite for a healthy
and flexible economy and democracy (Kasperson et al. 1999). Thus, understanding the role of trust in
relation to community attitudes to recycled water may help to increase its acceptance and use. In surveys 13 at Mawson Lakes, trust was found to be an important component of community acceptance of recycled
water use (Hurlimann and McKay 2004a; Hurlimann and McKay 2004b; Hurlimann et al. In Press).
Marks (2003b) suggests that trust in water recycling draws on historical background levels of trust in water
and sewerage services. Marks (2003b) found that variation in the historical and structural context coincided
with levels of trust in the water, sewerage and reuse providers. As trust in water and sewerage providers
increased so did agreement to invest in recycled water technologies for the purpose of clothes washing and
showering. Jeffrey (2005) reports that the issues involved with acceptance of recycled water use are
complex and complicated having to do with beliefs, attitudes and trust. Marks (2004b) suggests trust in water
service providers, and in technology play a pivotal role when risk is introduced to a traditionally, taken forgranted service e.g. when the provision of recycled water is introduced for a use that would have traditionally
been met by potable water.
In a recent article on getting past the ‘Yuck Factor’ in recycled water projects, Christen (2005) believes that
failure of recycled water projects often relates to some breach of the public trust in terms of the authority or
utility’s behaviour or credibility. With a focus on US case studies, Christen notes that water recycling projects
were side-lined in the past because of public opposition but projects are now being successfully implemented.
Christen posits that this is due to recent initiatives to involve stakeholders in the entire decision making
process.
2.4.6 Satisfaction
Literature indicates that trust leads to satisfaction which will be an important consideration for recycled water
provision. In an Australian study regarding the social basis of urban water provision in the 21st Century,
Syme et al. (1999b) found trust in the Water Authority is a major determinant of overall satisfaction with the
supply. In the 2005 Mawson Lakes survey, Hurlimann et al. (In Press) found that the components of
community satisfaction with recycled water use were an individual’s positive perception of: the water
authority’s communication, trust in the water authority, fairness in the recycled water system’s
implementation, quality of the recycled water, financial value of the recycled water system and risk
associated with recycled water use (negative relationship).
2.4.7 Perception of fairness
Syme et al. (1999a) found that for water allocation decisions the manner in which decisions are made and
the perceived fairness of that process is at least as important to their success as the outcomes of decision
making. Thus, the perception of fairness in the implementation of recycled water projects will be important to
their success. Syme et al. (1999a) examined justice and fairness considerations appropriate to decision
making. They found that local procedural justice issues, particularly pertaining to local community
involvement in decision making, were significant determinants of judgments of the fairness of the decisions.
While economic considerations had some importance, they were not the overriding issue. Water markets
were seen as an unacceptable process for water allocation and re-allocation. It was evident through this
research that the public could make relatively complex judgments using dimensions that go beyond the
scope of traditional social psychological definitions of equity and procedural justice. In Syme et al.’s (1999a)
23
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
study, participants had a choice, which is not the case for the residents of Mawson Lakes who have
purchased property or chosen to live in a pre-existing scheme with no opportunity for involvement in
determining the parameters of the recycled water system.
Hartley (2001) argues the importance of perception of fairness in public participation and perceptions of
water recycling. Hartley (2001) describes that fairness applies to both the decision making process and the
outcome. In terms of the outcome, are the burdens and / or benefits being shared fairly? A fair outcome may
not need to be an equally distributed outcome. Van den Bos and Wilke (1998) found that when information
about an authority’s trustworthiness is lacking, people interpret decisions made by the authority by relying on
perceived procedural fairness, thus suggesting a relationship between trust and fairness.
2.4.8 Perception of risk
Risk is an increasingly important area of research, especially in relation to water recycling for which public
perception of risk has not been widely investigated. Like many activities in modern society the use of
recycled water carries risks, which vary depending on the source of the water to be recycled. Health risks
associated with recycled water judged by regulatory and health authorities to be of major concern are
microbial pathogens and chemicals of concern (Toze 2005). Reducing this risk can be achieved in the
treatment process, by placing multiple barriers in the treatment process (Toze 2005). While sound treatment
processes have been established, there is still debate in the scientific community about risk assessment.
Additionally, little is known about community attitudes to risk involved with recycled water use. Increasing
understanding of risk perception could facilitate increased recycled water acceptance and use.
There has been little empirical research investigating community perceptions of risk involved with recycled
water use. Analysis of perceptions of risk has often formed a small component of a larger survey. Greater
insight could be provided by more detailed research. In a research paper for the CSIRO, Po et al. (2003)
highlighted the importance of investigating judgement strategies used in assessing risk acceptability so that
effective risk communication strategies relating to recycled water can be tailored to cater for different people.
The experience of failed recycled water projects has shown that perceptions of risk related to recycled water
use can cause emotional reactions.
A study by Sydney Water (1999) found 11% of respondents found health risk associated with cooking or
drinking recycled water as a disadvantage. Research conducted in the UK by Baggett et al. (2006)
investigated stakeholder attitudes to many aspects of recycled water use and management, including
perceptions of risk. They found that 15.6% of domestic customers surveyed thought a lack of appropriate
monitoring or control over wastewater quality was a risk. Christen (2005) posits that a major element of
success of recycled water projects is community confidence that the treatment system is effective.
A groundwater recharge project in the San Gabriel Valley in the USA which aims to use tertiary treated
effluent to recharge depleting groundwater resources faced significant opposition from a local community
group who perceived that the potential health risks, however small, were unacceptable (Stenekes et al.
2001). A paper by Marks and Zadoroznyj (2005) reporting findings of community attitudes to recycled water
use reports on whether participants had any health-related concerns about using recycled water. None of the
80 residents interviewed volunteered that they thought recycled water was risky. When asked specifically, a
few respondents raised concern relating to the safety of the recycled water and the possibility of public health
risk. This indicates that risk was not a salient concern.
Risk perception was explored in survey 3 at Mawson Lakes. Key findings (Hurlimann 2007b) included
perception of risk increased as the use of recycled water became increasingly personal. Perception of risk
was significantly negatively related to trust, perception of fairness and information. Trust in the water
authority to manage risk was significantly related to perception of communication and integrity of the
authority. This provides useful information to water authorities, and is further explored in this study.
More recent studies of community risk perception with recycled water use in Melbourne and Bendigo in
Australia have also found that perception of risk increased as the use of recycled water became increasingly
personal (Hurlimann 2007c). Prior experience (use) of recycled water was found to be a significant and
positive factor in reducing risk perception. The results indicated that in order to reduce perception of risk
associated with the use of recycled water the authorities should aim to gain and maintain trust, provide timely,
accurate and ample information (including quality and health risks), and have a process of implementation
which is perceived as fair.
24
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
2.4.9 Pricing of recycled water
Pricing is an important factor in a product’s introduction and long term survival (Kotler 2000). Importantly
consumer perceptions of and attitudes to the price of recycled water could have important implications for the
success of recycled water projects. In California, obtaining finance and gaining public acceptance were the
two main obstacles identified to overcome when implementing recycled water use (Young 1989).
Establishing pricing structures for recycled water which are acceptable to the community will be important in
ensuring the sustainable use of recycled water in Australia and other parts of the world. Knowing the price
that the community are prepared to accept and understanding why they hold these opinions, can help
establish sound policies for setting the price of recycled water. However, another important factor is ensuring
full cost recovery to ensure the long-term sustainability of recycled water projects.
Available real cost estimates for the provision of recycled water have shown that economic feasibility studies
are seldom carried out, and the pricing structures of recycled water projects are rarely transparent. As Hatton
MacDonald (2004) explains, strict financial analysis would suggest many reuse projects should not be
approved. In Australia, many exemplary recycled water projects have been subsidised by government and
industry. Most Australian governments and authorities involved in recycled water projects have adopted
pricing policies for recycled water that do not reflect full costs, despite the COAG water reform process
seeking to achieve full cost recovery (COAG 2004). It is important that these issues are resolved in order to
ensure policy aims are achieved in a sustainable manner.
Shown by Hurlimann et al. (2005) the price charged for recycled water rarely exceeds the price of potable
water, despite the estimated real costs of producing that water. This trend of cheaper recycled water is
evidenced around the world – the price of recycled water in relation to potable water ranges from 25-85% in
Australia, and 75-100% in California (Byrnes 2000). The price is often established to encourage use of
recycled water and achieve other goals, such as reduction in potable water consumption, rather than recover
costs.
Policies for establishing the cost of recycled water seem to be based on causal empiricism rather than sound
research and are predicated on the expected negative psychological reaction consumers may have to
recycled water. The dominant policy has been to set the price of recycled water at a discounted amount – a
percentage of the price of drinking water – rather than considering the costs of production and delivery. If the
charge set for recycled water relative to drinking water is too low, then over consumption could be
encouraged. This has occurred at Australia’s Rouse Hill. A study by Sydney Water showed that total water
consumption in Rouse Hill was approximately 20% above the Sydney average (AATSE 2004). On the
contrary, if the price of recycled water is too high, people may revert to potable water, if they perceive its
quality is superior for the price differential.
Newington’s dual water supply system was constructed some time after the Rouse Hill development. The
price of recycled water at Newington was set at A$0.83/kL which still does not cover the estimated costs of
production and delivery Hurlimann et al. (2005). There have been no reports of excessive water use in this
development, which suggests that a recycled water price at 85% of the price of drinking water is sufficiently
high to discourage excessive consumption. Pricing of recycled water at Mawson Lakes will be discussed in
section 4 of this report.
As established in the above discussion, it is important to establish sound policies for pricing of recycled water
with respect to potable water in order to ensure long-term sustainability of recycled water projects. It is also
important to understand community willingness to pay (WTP) for recycled water in order to facilitate adoption
of recycled water use. Existing research regarding community attitudes to the price of drinking water and
recycled water is now discussed.
2.4.10 Community attitudes to price of drinking water and recycled water
In the review of literature limited information was found on community attitudes to the price of recycled water
and associated infrastructure. There have been limited studies conducted into farmers’ WTP for recycled
water. Madi et al. (2003) found that farmers in Tunisia and Jordan were willing to pay only US$0.05/kL for
recycled water due to the low price of freshwater. This WTP did not meet the operational and maintenance
costs of recycled water provision. Research into farmers WTP for recycled water for agricultural purposes in
Crete Greece, found that farmers were willing to pay 55% of the price of fresh water (Menegaki et al. 2006).
In a study of Greek farmers, Tsagarakis and Georgantizis (2003) researched willingness to use recycled
water as price changed in relation to potable water. They found willingness to use recycled water was
positively correlated with income and education, and that information on advantages of recycled water had a
significant impact on willingness to use recycled water. In generating a demand curve for recycled water,
25
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
Tsagarakis and Georgantizis (2003) found very little demand for recycled water the closer it came to the
price of fresh water. An Australian study of environmental values of water supply options in Canberra found
that respondents were willing to pay A$47 annually to be able to use recycled water for outdoor use.
Conversely, people were willing to pay A$55 to avoid using recycled water for drinking purposes
(Blamey et al. 1999).
The role of pricing in demand management of water resources has been widely debated. Martinez-Espineira
and Nauges (2004) present a model of residential water demand. Their research, conducted in Spain, found
that water consumption includes two components: a fixed quantity that cannot be adjusted immediately after
a price increase, and a residual that can adapt instantaneously. Martinez-Espineira and Nauges (2004)
estimate that 3kL per capita per month is highly insensitive to price changes and suggest that the design of
water management policies should acknowledge that once this threshold is approached, price policies would
barely affect demand. A greater understanding of consumer WTP for recycled water and drinking water
would help inform the economic feasibility of recycled water projects. Survey two at Mawson Lakes studied
WTP for recycled water for non-potable residential use (Hurlimann et al. 2005). Respondents were found to
be willing to pay A$0.46/kL on average, which is 45% of the price of potable water (at step 2 of the 2 tier
pricing for potable water in that area (A$1.03/kL at that time)) and 60% or the recycled price charged at the
area (A$0.70 at that time).
2.5 Summary
This section of the report has identified the limited nature of literature directly related to community attitudes
to recycled water use. The literature that does exist lacks detail. It is apparent from the literature review
undertaken here, that there exist significant gaps, uncertainties and assumptions surrounding community
attitudes to recycled water use and factors impacting their willingness to use. Particularly there is a lack of:
long term research on attitudes to recycled water use and possible change in attitude over time; research on
communities who are actually using recycled water; factors which influence willingness to use recycled water;
and customer experiences (positive and negative) of recycled water use. These and other issues are
addressed in this study.
26
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
3. THE STUDY SITE – MAWSON LAKES
This section of the report provides details of the case study site for this research, Mawson Lakes. The suburb
is located 12km north of Adelaide’s central business district (CBD). Adelaide is the capital city of South
Australia (SA). Figure 3.1 provides a map of the location of Mawson Lakes in relation to key features.
Mawson Lakes is an innovative Greenfields development originating from a more detailed Commonwealth
Government project called the Multi Function Polis (MFP) (for more detailed information on the suburb's
history please see Hurlimann (2008)). The suburb is innovative in its approach to many aspects of urban
design such as energy conservation and water cycle management, breaking with traditional design
approaches to water management. The development incorporates a dual water supply system, which
delivers recycled water (a combination of treated wastewater and treated stormwater) to residential
households for non-potable uses. The development is a joint venture between the South Australian
Government and private industry – Delfin Lend Lease Consortium. In addition to the joint venture parties, the
broader environmental concepts including the dual water supply system have been supported and guided by
other parties, including the City of Salisbury, SA Water Corporation, and the University of South Australia.
It is anticipated that the construction of the development will be completed by 2010, with an expected
population of 10,000 residents, 6,000 workers and 4,000 students. At the time of the fourth survey (June/July
2007) there were approximately 6560 residents living at Mawson Lakes. Given recycled water is used at
Mawson Lakes it is an appropriate case study site for this research.
Source: SA Water Corporation
Figure 3.1 Location of the Mawson Lakes development in relation to key landmarks
27
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
Fourth Survey
Recycled water use starts
Third Survey
Second Survey
First recycled water bill
First Survey
Development opened
Construction begins
Key Events
Figure 3.2 displays a time line of population growth and key events for the Mawson Lakes development.
Timing of the 4 community surveys conducted will be discussed in section 4 of this report and are also
shown in Figure 3.2. Approximately 10-15% of households in Mawson Lakes are units (personal
communication T. Atkins, Delfin Lend Lease Limited). Approximately 15% of properties are occupied by
renters and with the balance of 85% owner occupied (personal communication T. Atkins, Delfin Lend Lease
Limited).
Population
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Jul-07
Jan-07
Jul-06
Jan-06
Jul-05
Jan-05
Jul-04
Jul-03
Jan-04
Date
Jan-03
Jul-02
Jan-02
Jul-01
Jan-01
Jul-00
Jan-00
Jul-99
Jan-99
Jul-98
Jan-98
Jul-97
Jan-97
0
Figure 3.2 Mawson Lakes time line – population growth and key events
3.1 Water supply issues at Mawson Lakes
An encumbrance on the title of all residential properties within the development mandates the inclusion of a
dual water supply system in all residential dwellings at the time of construction. The installation of this dual
water supply system must conform to South Australia’s Reclaimed Water Guidelines (Department of Human
Services et al. 1999) These guidelines stipulate details of the system’s construction and appropriate use of
recycled water. Key requirements for domestic non-potable use of recycled water include:
- Recycled water use is only permitted for defined non-potable use including: toilet flushing, garden
watering and car washing
- Identification measures, including all recycled water pipes and fittings above and below ground must
be lilac in colour; all garden taps and toilet cisterns must have signs marked ‘Water not suitable for
drinking’
- Australian Standards for dual water supply plumbing codes must be adhered to.
- Measures to prevent cross-connection of the two water systems.
- Control of access to the recycled water.
Recycled water distributed through the dual water supply system is sourced from local storm water and
treated wastewater. Wastewater from the development is transported to Bolivar wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) (8km away, Figure 3.1) where it is treated in a wastewater reclamation plant to Class A standard.
The recycled water is then transported back to the development in a purpose built pipeline. Stormwater is
harvested from the development and the surrounding local area by the City of Salisbury (City of Salisbury
2003). Following primary screening the stormwater is renovated through a series of engineered wetlands.
This renovated storm water is sold by the City of Salisbury to SA Water, which mixes it with the treated
wastewater (at Greenfields Reclaimed Water Facility, Figure 3.1) prior to distribution through the dual water
supply system. This allows the higher salt levels of the treated wastewater to be reduced, making the salt
levels more appropriate for residential purposes most notably for irrigation. Aquifer Storage and Recovery
(ASR) will be used in the future to balance supply and demand of stormwater throughout the year.
28
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
The recycled water is also used for irrigation of public open spaces within the development. Additionally, the
local School and industries use the recycled water in a capacity defined in specific agreements made with
the joint venture.
The original plans for the Mawson Lakes development’s dual water supply system incorporated an on-site
treatment facility for the generation of wastewater, rather than treatment at Bolivar WWTP. This was not
pursued because of substantial increases in costs for operation and maintenance that would have occurred
with an on-site treatment plant. Costs of the system were reduced with treatment at Bolivar WWTP because
the plant was upgraded with a Dissolved Air Flotation and Filtration (DAFF) plant in 1999 (a A$30M
investment), a result of another project, the Virginia Pipeline scheme. On-site treatment of wastewater would
have had increased costs, translating into higher volumetric costs of the recycled water for consumers, or
would have required significant subsidy from government. As discussed in section 2 of this report, economic
feasibility of recycled water projects is a major barrier to the implementation of many recycled water systems,
and the change in original plans to treat wastewater at the existing Bolivar WWTP and DAFF plants resulted
in significant benefits of the economic feasibility of the Mawson Lakes dual water supply system.
The process of deciding to abandon the original on-site treatment plant plans caused lengthy negotiations
and deliberation between project partners, resulting in serious delays to commencement of delivery of
recycled water to consumers. The recycled water commenced distribution through the recycled water pipes
on 1 April 2005. Until that time, the recycled water network was run using potable water. Residents were not
charged for the potable water flowing through the recycled water pipes until November 2004, shortly after the
first reading of recycled water meters. They were charged the set price of the recycled water even though
they were receiving potable water through the recycled water network.
In the first few months of recycled water use commencing there were inconsistencies in delivery of the
recycled water. This was due to technicalities with the stormwater system (some quality indicator concerns).
There were also periods of time where the dual water supply system was again run fully with potable water.
This was due to quality concerns surrounding the treated wastewater from the Bolivar DAFF plant. At times
the treated wastewater was combined with potable water (rather than stormwater) to bring TDS levels (an
indicator of salinity) down to the target of 900mg/L for use at Mawson Lakes. Personal communication with C.
Marles from SA Water established that while the SA Reclaimed Water Guidelines (Department of Human
Services et al. 1999) do not specify desired TDS levels, at Mawson Lakes, SA Water has an aim of 900mg/L.
If the recycled water’s salt levels exceed this, storm water (and as a back up potable water) is used to dilute
the recycled water. This compares to 500 - 1000 mg/L (based on taste) for potable water as per the
Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 6 (NHMRC et al. 2004), as noted in these guidelines TDS levels in
excess of 1000mg/L can be associated with excessive scaling, corrosion and unsatisfactory taste. The use of
a combination of treated stormwater and wastewater is expected to achieve an optimal product.
This demonstrates the high standards required of the recycled water, but also the flexibility of the system’s
design to be able to adapt to changes in the recycled water quality. The inconsistency of the recycled water
product at this early stage does have a few implications for the third survey in this study as the ‘recycled
water’ experience on which attitudes in the third survey were measured were at times based solely potable
water. Thus, conducting the fourth survey was important.
An additional piece of information which is useful to the context of this study is that Mawson Lakes residents
were informed from the outset via an official letter that their use of recycled water would be exempt from
water restrictions (‘water conservation measures’). However, this policy changed in 2004 after SA Water
considered the appropriate (conservative) use of recycled water should be encouraged as with potable water.
Thus recycled water use is no longer exempt from these restrictions or ‘water conservation measures’, but
they are not as severe as water restrictions.
3.2 Provision of information regarding recycled water
Information about the dual water supply system was provided to prospective and actual property purchasers
by the Developer from the inception of the development. This information was brief and was contained within
the sale contract and a booklet of general information about the development. An interactive demonstration
board with details of the dual water supply system was placed in the sales office. People wanting additional
information were directed to contact SA Water.
29
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
Residents were kept informed of the scheme’s developments through letters sent by the Developer and SA
Water. SA Water Managers dealing with the dual water supply system were proactive in participating in
community meetings to speak about and answer questions regarding recycled water. Communication with
local school children, most of whom were living in the development, was undertaken as part of their
curriculum.
As part of the transfer of the recycled water network from the Developer to SA Water and the introduction of
recycled water into the system it was necessary to ensure that the recycled water and drinking water
networks were independent of each other. It was also necessary to ensure that the on-property plumbing
systems were independent of each other. SA Water had responsibility for ensuring this and it developed a
self audit program which had the double effect of the customer undertaking the on-property audit which also
informs the customer of how their recycled water system works.
Immediately preceding the introduction of recycled water, correspondence about the dual water supply
system was increased. Each household received a ‘Recycled Water System Information Package’ which
included a detailed letter to residents, and a series of information sheets. Additional information was made
available on the internet, including a variety of educational resources and a recycled water plumbing guide.
Signage was strategically placed in public areas indicating that recycled water was used for landscape
watering, informing both residents and visitors to the area that it was not suitable for drinking. Entrance signs
have been placed at the key entry points to the development advising ‘Recycled Water is used at Mawson
Lakes’.
On-going communication about the recycled water system at Mawson Lakes has been maintained through
the Mawson Lakes development and SA Water websites. Additionally a call centre is maintained by SA water
to provide the community with a means for providing feedback about water supply issues and to request
further information. Just prior to the change-over from drinking water supplying the recycled water system to
recycled water, each household was advised in the form of a letter. Customers were requested to contact
the SA Water Call Centre if they had any questions. Less than 20 calls were received, of which the majority
related to the pricing structure of recycled water and its relationship to the price of drinking water (C. Marles
SA Water, personal communication).
3.3 Pricing issues
The price of potable water in Adelaide starts at A$0.50 for use up to 125kL and increases to A$1.16/kL for
use above 125kL (metropolitan Adelaide areas, 2007 / 2008 rates). The price of recycled water at Mawson
Lakes was set at 75% of the price of potable water in excess of 125kL/year, which is at present A$0.87/kL.
Personal communication with C. Marles, SA Water established that the percentage price was thought to be
appropriate and acceptable to the community while most likely facilitating full cost recovery (although this has
not yet been fully analysed or made publicly available). The pricing structure of potable and recycled water in
Adelaide is such that in some instances the price of recycled water will be more expensive than potable
water, for example single or small households, or households with a small garden.
It is estimated that only 10% of households at Mawson Lakes use less than 125kL of water per year (C.
Marles SA Water, personal communication), so for these households, recycled water will cost more than
potable water on a volumetric basis, but when considering the service charges, the effective price of recycled
water is lower than potable water. In Adelaide there is an annual service charge of A$157.40/annum (2007 /
2008 rate) for potable water. At Mawson Lakes there is only a once-off meter connection fee of A$294.00
(2007 / 2008 rate) and no on-going annual service charge for recycled water. The Mawson Lakes residents
receive two separate accounts, one for recycled water and one for potable water.
3.4 Summary
This section of the report has demonstrated the appropriateness of Mawson Lakes as an important case
study of community attitudes to recycled water use. Also demonstrated is the unique opportunity to add to
this long-term study of attitudes to recycled water use.
30
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
4. METHODOLOGY
This project draws on a well established methodology (repeat cross-sectional) by utilising and building on the
first three surveys conducted on the Mawson Lakes population through CRC for Water Quality Treatment
project 2.0.1.3.0.6 (Hurlimann 2006a). The main methodology was a community survey (see Appendix I).
This is consistent with the method of data collection in the previous three surveys. The overall method for
this long-term study is illustrated in Figure 4.1. It can be seen from this figure that both direct and unobtrusive
(Babbie 2005) methods informed the larger research project, and thus this study.
The first (benchmark) survey of the Mawson Lakes community was completed in September 2002, and the
second in August/September 2004. Both of these surveys were conducted prior to the use of recycled water
commencing. The third survey was completed in May 2005, eight weeks post recycled water use
commencement. The survey was conducted over the telephone by professional interviewers from the
Ehrenberg Bass Institute (formerly known as the Marketing Science Centre at the University of South
Australia). The interviewers used computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI), as per the first three
surveys.
For this fourth survey (the focus of this report) 269 Mawson Lakes households were randomly surveyed over
the telephone by professional interviewers during the months of June and July 2007. These households
were randomly selected from a phone list of 704 Mawson Lakes households (obtained from Impact Lists). At
the time of survey there were approximately 2860 households occupied at Mawson Lakes, which gives the
results a precision level of ± 6%, where the confidence level is 95% and P = 0.5. See Table 4.1 for general
information on the four surveys.
For survey period four, the interviews took an average of 27 minutes to complete. Information collected in the
survey included information about: what purposes they use recycled water for; experience of recycled water
use; willingness to use recycled water for other uses; recycled water use risk perception; responses to a
series of attitude and perception statements; and demographic information about the individual respondents
(including variables such as gender, income, age and education level).
Table 4.1 Overview of Mawson Lakes community surveys
Details
Survey 1
Survey 2
Survey 3
Survey 4
Dates survey undertaken
12 – 14
September 2002
26 August –
20 September
2004
12 – 26 May 2005
4 June – 17 July
2007
Number of households surveyed
136
136
162
269
Approximate number of occupied
households at Mawson Lakes at time of
survey
350
1000
1218
2860
Approximate population of Mawson Lakes
at time of survey
1670
2700
3550
6560
Had recycled water use commenced?
No
No
Yes – for 8 weeks
Yes – for over 2
years
Number of questions / tasks in survey
45
124
110
108
Average time taken to complete survey
15 minutes
30-40 minutes
30 minutes
27 minutes
Survey description
Benchmark
In-depth
In-depth
In-depth
Number of interviewers
20
9
5
7
Response Rate
63%
45%
65%
39%
31
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
Figure 4.1 Research method overview
This report primarily presents results from the data collected in the fourth survey. At times the results are
contrasted with those from surveys 1-3 and are assessed for change in relation to these. The Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Inc 2007) program was used to analyse the data. In particular, Chisquare tests, ANOVA tests, and t-tests were conducted at various points of the study to analyse results and
establish if there were significant differences between particular groups (i.e. attitudinal and demographic) and
between survey periods. The specific methods incorporated in the fourth survey are now described.
4.1 Recycled water use participation rates and practicalities
Respondents were to indicate whether or not they use recycled water for various purposes by answering
dichotomous (yes/no) questions. Respondents were also asked about their experience of recycled water use
by a number of methods. This included both open ended (non-leading) and probing (dichotomous yes/no)
questions. Using both types of response elicitation methods was important to strengthen the quality of the
data gathered.
4.2 Attitudinal measures
Attitudes (including willingness to use recycled water, risk perception and responses to attitude and
perception statements) were measured using a combination of open ended (OE) and closed (C) questions.
Open-ended questions explored respondents’ attitudes to different uses of recycled water, attitude to living at
Mawson Lakes and other general issues.
Closed questions more directly measured specific attitudes to and perceptions of recycled water and
associated issues. An 11 point Juster-type Likert scale was used as per the previous surveys. The Likert
scale is the most widely used approach to attitude measurement in the social sciences (Adams and
Schvaneveldt 1991; Bernard 2000) due to its ordinal nature, flexibility and ease of construction. The Juster
Scale (Juster 1966) was designed to measure consumer purchase probability, and had an associated verbal
32
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
statement at each point of the scale. The scale chosen for this research consists of 11 points like the Juster
Scale, but only has verbal statements at the extreme ends of the scale (0 and 11). These statements varied
depending on the context of the question. Day et al. (1991) confirm that the Juster scale is superior in
comparison to buying intentions scales in terms of predictive ability. The 11 points on the Juster scale result
in greater sensitivity of responses and make it less prone to mid-point bias and ‘yea-saying’. The Juster-type
scale employed will predominantly measure agreement / disagreement with various statements with an
example being: 0 = very strongly disagree and 10 = very strongly agree. This type of scale is known for
respondents’ ability to equate the scale with 100% (0-10). A response category for ‘don’t know’ and for those
who ‘refused’ to reply was also available. These methods of attitude measurement were successfully used in
these previous surveys.
4.3 Willingness to pay for recycled water
The aim of this component of the research was to establish respondent willingness to pay (WTP) for recycled
water and compare this to WTP for drinking water. Motivation for this investigation was the significant gaps
existing in the literature relating to this issue. Obtaining such information would aid greater understanding of
community attitudes to price, informing recycled water pricing policy. Evidence of the Mawson Lakes
community’s response to price of the first recycled water bill suggests that price was an emotive issue. In
surveys 2 and 3, respondents were asked the following questions: ‘What should you pay per kilolitre of
recycled water?’ and ‘What should you pay per kilolitre of drinking water?’ This comparison of their opinion
of what the price of drinking and recycled water ‘should be’ was made pre and post recycled water use
commencing. In survey 4 (2007) the wording of the question changed to be: ‘What is the maximum amount
you would be willing to pay per kilolitre of recycled water?’. This was altered given further research into WTP
methodologies (see Frykblom 1997; Hanemann 1994; Mitchell and Carson 1989).
4.4 Recycled water attributes
The tool chosen to assess community attitudes to attributes of recycled water was the traditional consumer
research method conjoint analysis (CA). CA can be used to evaluate the introduction of a new product with
both private and public implications (Louviere et al. 2000). The method is frequently used by marketers to
understand consumer attitudes to a product with new attributes or features. CA allows product attributes to
be considered jointly rather than in isolation, thus enabling trade-offs to be made between attributes
analysed. The CA technique is based on the assumption that complex decisions are not based on a single
factor or criteria but on several factors ‘considered jointly’ (Johnson, 1974). The above mentioned
characteristics of CA make it an appropriate technique to assess consumer attitudes to the relatively new
commodity of recycled water. For details of the CA methodology see Hurlimann and McKay (2007), a paper
published from the results of previous Mawson Lake survey on attitudes to colour, odour, salt and price.
The attributes investigated in the fourth Mawson Lakes study included: chemicals, viruses, bacteria and
hormones when used for drinking purposes. They were chosen on the basis of concerns raised by vocal
community groups protesting about recycled water projects (as monitored in the media), and based on
previous research with the Mawson Lakes community and the concerns they had raised about recycled
water use. SPSS was used to analyse the results.
33
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
4.5 Potable and recycled water consumption data
In addition to the community interviews, potable and recycled water consumption data was collected (with
the assistance of SA Water). At the end of the survey, respondents were asked for permission to access
their water consumption data. A total of 176 respondents gave permission to access their water consumption
data. The period of data collected and analysed was May 2002 – May 2007. Basic statistical analysis was
undertaken.
4.6 Summary
This section has described the method employed in this research. The method is based on sound tools
developed in the first three surveys. Multiple methods are used to complement each other, and address
specific research needs and objectives. The following section presents the results of this study.
34
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
5. FINDINGS
This section of the report outlines the research findings for all the components of the survey. The results are
presented thematically below: survey response details; recycled water use and experience; attitudinal
measures; attitudes to recycled water use; risk perception; willingness to pay for recycled water and potable
water; recycled water aesthetics; management of recycled water; and water consumption. A brief
introduction to each topic is provided, followed by an introduction to the specific questions, presentation of
results, and commentary on the results.
5.1 Survey response details
A series of demographic questions were asked at the end of the survey so that it could be ensured a good
cross section of the community was surveyed. Table 5.1 provides an overview of survey respondent
characteristics for survey 1 – survey 4. As can be seen from this table, a good cross section of the
community was surveyed.
Table 5.1 Survey details and respondent details for each Mawson Lakes community survey 2002-2007
VARIABLE
Survey details
Number of respondents
Response rate
Precision level
(Confidence level is 95%, and P = 0.5)
Age
< 30
31-50
> 50
Don’t know / refused
Gender
Female
Male
Number of household members
1- 2
3-4 (for survey 1 > 2)
>4
Don’ know / refused
Highest education
Primary / Year 10
High School / TAFE / Other Certificate
University / Post Graduate Degree
Don’t know / refused
Potable water consumption
Low < 58kL / 6 months
Medium 58 – 88kL / 3 months
High > 88kL / 3 months
Unobtainable information
Recycled water consumption
Low < 34kL / 3 months
Medium 34 – 60kL / 3 months
High > 60kL / 3 months
Unobtainable information
Gardener of the household?
Yes
No
Don’t know / refused
Environmental group membership?
Yes
No
Don’t know / refused
Survey 1, n (%)
Survey 2, n (%)
Survey 3, n (%)
Survey 4, n (%)
136
63%
± 7%
136
45%
± 8.5%
162
65%
± 8%
269
39%
± 6%
24 (17.7)
81 (59.6)
31 (22.7)
0
18 (13.3)
74 (54.4)
43 (31.6)
1 (0.7)
27 (16.7)
84 (51.9)
49 (30.2)
2 (1.2)
68 (25.3)
119 (44.2)
81 (30.1)
1 (0.4)
78 (57.4)
58 (42.6)
65 (47.8)
71 (52.2)
74 (45.7)
88 (54.3)
134 (49.8)
135 (50.2)
57 (41.9)
79 (58.1)
68 (50)
52 (37.2)
14 (10.3)
2 (1.5)
74 (45.7)
70 (43.3)
15 (9.2)
3 (1.9)
135 (50.2)
106 (39.4)
23 (8.6)
5 (1.9)
22 (16.2)
70 (51.4)
42 (30.9)
2 (1.5)
6 (4.4)
76 (55.9)
45 (33.1)
9 (6.6)
13 (8)
97 (59.9)
50 (30.9)
2 (1.2)
28 (10.4)
133 (49.4)
98 (26.5)
10 (3.7)
43 (31.6)
46 (33.8)
40 (29.4)
7 (5.2)
47 (34.6)
38 (27.9)
42 (30.9)
9 (6.6)
52 (32.1)
53 (32.7)
49 (30.3)
8 ( 4.9)
86 (32.0)
54 (20.1)
35 (13.0)
94 (34.9)
45 (33.1)
43 (31.6)
43 (31.6)
5 (3.7)
50 (36.8)
45 (33.1)
32 (23.5)
9 (6.6)
53 (32.7)
45 (27.8)
53 (32.7)
11 (6.8)
68 (25.3)
42 (15.6)
61 (22.7)
98 (36.4)
83 (61)
49 (39)
4 (4)
116 (71.6)
46 (28.4)
0
171 (63.6)
92 (34.2)
6 (2.2)
5 (3.7)
129 (94.9)
2 (1.5)
9 (5.6)
153 (94.4)
0
13 (4.8)
253 (94.1)
3 (1.1)
35
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
5.2 Recycled water use: participation rates and experience of the product
This section reports on respondents' stated recycled water use participation rates. It also reports on their
attitudes to and experiences of the use or recycled water.
5.2.1 Recycled water use
Respondents were asked whether they ever use recycled water for seven uses including those permitted by
the SA Reclaimed Water Guidelines (Department of Human Services et al. 1999) and additionally some uses
not permitted by the Guidelines. Results are displayed in Table 5.2. As can be seen, a number of
respondents use recycled water beyond the uses allowed by the guidelines. Notably, 4 respondents
indicated they have drunk recycled water, 4 that they have showered with recycled water, and 2 that they
have cooked with recycled water. The 13 respondents who indicated they wash their clothes with recycled
water may have altered their household plumbing to allow this to occur. Perhaps increased communication
with the Mawson Lakes community is required to address this use of recycled water beyond the guidelines.
Table 5.2 Recycled water use participation rates, Mawson Lakes 2007
Recycled water use
Number (%) of respondents
who use
Number (%) of respondents
who don't use
Number (%) don't know /
refused
Toilet flushing
259 (96.3%)
3 (1.1%)
7 (2.6%)
Garden watering
260 (96.7%)
8 (3.0%)
1 (0.4%)
Car washing
212 (78.8%)
51 (19.0%)
6 (1.1%)
Clothes washing
13 (4.8%)
247 (91.8%)
9 (3.3%)
Drinking
4 (1.5%)
263 (97.8%)
2 (0.7%)
Cooking
2 (0.7%)
264 (98.1%)
3 (1.1%)
Showering
4 (1.5%)
262 (97.4%)
3 (1.1%)
Respondents who answered 'no' to toilet flushing and garden watering were asked why they don't use
recycled water for these uses. For toilet flushing two respondents indicated that they have had the recycled
water turned off (disconnected) and the other indicated that they are not sure if the recycled water is
connected as they are living in a town house. With regards to garden watering, 2 respondents again
indicated they had the recycled water disconnected, 6 respondents indicated they live in a townhouse / unit
which does not have a garden.
Respondents were also asked if they used recycled water for uses beyond those listed. A total of 221 (82%)
respondents said that they do not. Twelve (5%) respondents did not know, and 36 (13%) respondents listed
other uses. These 36 responses were coded into use categories and are shown in Figure 5.1. The uses
indicated by these respondents show that they are using recycled water for uses beyond which are permitted
by the Guidelines. Of particular note, 3 respondents said they use recycled water to fill children's wading
pools.
5.2.2 Experience of recycled water use
Respondents were asked if they had any concerns about using recycled water for any of these uses. A total
of 210 (78.1%) respondents said they did not, 56 (20.8%) did, and 3 (1.1%) didn't know or refused to
respond. Those who said yes were then asked what their concerns were. These were coded into categories
which can be seen in Figure 5.2. The category with the highest number of respondents was 'non-permitted
uses' this included all responses that indicated concern with recycled water use for purposes such as
drinking and showering. The second most populated response category was 'quality' which is closely related
to the category 'bacteria / germs' and 'cleanliness' indicating their major concern lied with the quality of
recycled water. The following response is an example in this category:
'The water is not pure, I heard it has hormones'.
Six respondents said that the risk to children and pets was a concern for them, conveying a sense that they
could not control the activities (inappropriate uses of recycled water) of children and pets, or that they may
be more sensitive to recycled water use. Comments regarding recycled water use concerns included the
following:
"Children with allergies, skin sensitivity etc may be exposed to the recycled water in parks etc"
"I’m concerned that it is not healthy for pets, if I water my garden they want to drink from the hose"
36
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
Wash hands (gardening)
1
Wash pool filter
1
Wash boat
1
Fill pool
1
Air conditioning
2
3
Other
3
Wash pets
3
Pet water
3
Fish pond
3
Water features
3
Cleaning various (inside)
3
Use
Children's wading pool
Cleaning various (outside)
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Number of respondents
Concern
Figure 5.1 Other recycled water uses listed by respondents, Mawson Lakes 2007
Price
1
Yuck factor
1
Garden
1
Smell
4
Treatment
4
Cleanliness
4
Health
4
Bacteria / Germs
4
6
Children / Pets
11
Quality
Non permitted uses
16
0
2
4
6
8
10
Number of respondents
Figure 5.2 Concerns about recycled water use, Mawson Lakes 2007
37
12
14
16
18
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
Respondents were then asked a series of questions about what recycled water was like to use. The first
question was 'how is your garden growing with recycled water use'? Responses to this question were coded
into categories and are displayed in Figure 5.3. As can be seen in this figure, the majority of respondents
said it was fine or better than potable water (238, 95% of valid responses). Five respondents said they have
adapted their garden to suit the recycled water conditions. Comments included the following:
"Earlier plants died, tolerant plants are now salt tolerant"
"We have lost some plants – we now choose different/hardier plants"
"Ok – it affected some plants due to salt content but we worked around it"
"It is ok – it is growing but over a period of time it will show that it is not suitable for some plants"
"It might take some time for plants to adapt to it"
Twelve respondents said their garden was not good because of the recycled water use. Comments included
the following examples:
"I’ve noticed it burns the plants and lawn – and inhibits the growth of the lawn"
"Some plants do not like the water"
"Sometimes it is alright and other times it is not good – it depends of the kind of plants"
"Its not all that great – there’s an oily residue"
"The water is a bit salty for the garden"
5
Have adapted garden to suit
Beautiful
8
11
Green
12
Not good
14
Comment
Don’t have garden / don’t use
16
Excellent
The same
18
35
Alright / ok
51
Good
94
Fine
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Number of respondents
Figure 5.3 Respondent comments on how their garden was growing with recycled water, Mawson Lakes 2007
All respondents were then asked: 'How are you finding flushing your toilets with recycled water?'
Responses to this question were coded into categories and are displayed in Figure 5.4. As can be seen in
this figure, the majority of respondents (161, 60%) did not have any concerns with recycled water use for
flushing toilets. Of those who had a comment to make, the majority (65, 24%) commented that the recycled
water leaves a mark/stain stain in the toilet bowl. Fifteen respondents specifically commented that they have
to clean their toilet bowl more frequently because of recycled water use. Other comments related to the
presence of an odour at times, and the water in the toilet bowl having a cloudy/grey appearance. It would be
useful in the future to map these responses to see if there is a relationship between household location and
aesthetics. It would also be useful to establish if this is perceived or real.
38
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
4
Comment
Cloudy / Grey
Have to clean more often
15
Odour
21
Leaves a mark/ stains
65
Fine - No concerns
161
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
number of respondents
Figure 5.4 Respondent comments on flushing toilets with recycled water, Mawson Lakes 2007
Respondents were asked a series of questions about recycled water characteristics. These questions and
results can be seen in Table 5.3. The results indicate that the majority of respondents were happy with the
pressure of the recycled water, with only 9.7% of respondents expressing they were not happy. Poor
pressure was a major concern expressed by respondents in previous surveys at Mawson Lakes and
indicates that the situation has improved.
Table 5.3 Responses to questions about recycled water characteristics, Mawson Lakes 2007
Recycled water characteristic
Yes
N (%)
No
N (%)
Don't know / refused
N (%)
Are you happy with the pressure?
241 (89.6%)
26 (9.7%)
2 (0.7%)
Does recycled water differ from drinking water in any way?
Does it have an odour at times?
106 (39.4%)
76 (28.3%)
104 (38.7%)
188 (69.9%)
59 (19.9%)
5 (1.9%)
Does it have a colour at times?
132 (49.1%)
135 (50.2%)
2 (0.7%)
A total of 106 respondents (39.4%) indicated that they perceived recycled water was different from drinking
water. These respondents were asked how it differs from recycled water. Responses to this question were
coded into categories and are displayed in Figure 5.5. The majority of responses to the question of how
recycled water differs from drinking water related to aesthetic attributes including colour / sediments and
odour. This relates directly to the following survey questions which specifically asked respondents if recycled
water had an odour or colour at times. A total of 28.3% of respondents said recycled water did have an odour
and 49.1% said it did have a colour (see Table 5.3). Respondents who indicated recycled water had colour
or odour were asked to give some detail of the odour and colour experienced. Those responses were coded
into categories and the results are displayed in Figures 5.6 and 5.7.
The majority of comments related to the recycled water having a stagnant / stale smell. People mentioned
this was most notable in the bathroom. Some comments made by respondents are found below:
“It has a slight odour in toilet and extra staining – particularly if not used for a while”
“It stains the toilet and sometimes has an odour”
“The water smells bad sometimes in the toilet”
39
How recycled water differs from drinking water
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
Psychological
2
Algae build up
2
Cloudy water
3
Chemicals
3
Taste
3
6
Other
10
There are guidelines
13
Quality
27
Odour
47
Colour
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Number of respondents
Odour description
Figure 5.5 How recycled water differs from drinking water, Mawson Lakes 2007
Stagnant / Stale
24
Other
24
Wetlands / creek / swampy
12
6
Sewerage
Associated with toilets
5
Dirty / Muddy
2
0
5
10
15
Number of respondents
Figure 5.6 Details of recycled water ‘odour’ experienced by some Mawson Lakes residents 2007
40
20
25
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
5
Darker
6
Colour description
Grey
16
Cloudy
Other
19
Yellow
22
Brown
64
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Number of respondents
Figure 5.7 Details of recycled water ‘colour’ experienced by some Mawson Lakes residents 2007
The majority of respondents commented that the recycled water had a brown appearance, especially in the
toilet bowl. Respondents were then asked to rate how satisfied they were with recycled water at present on a
scale of 0-10 where 0 = not at all satisfied and 10 = extremely satisfied. Despite the poor aesthetic
characteristics mentioned above, the mean for this question was 8.6, indicating a high degree of satisfaction.
As will be described in section 5.3 of this report, it is a significant increase in satisfaction since the 2005
survey. Again, it would be useful to map the households who experienced colour and odour to see if there is
any relationship between location and aesthetic concerns. It would also be good to establish if this was
perceived or real.
The final question relating to recycled water use experience asked respondents if they had any comments
they wanted to make about the recycled water and whether or not it had met their expectations. These
responses were coded into categories and can be found in Figure 5.8. The results indicate that the majority
of respondents thought the recycled water had met or exceeded their expectations (169, 73% of valid
responses). A total of 62 (25%) respondents said it did not meet their expectations and the major reason
related to the recycled water being more expensive than anticipated.
This section has reported on the recycled water use activities of the Mawson Lakes population. It has also
presented their experience of recycled water use. The main findings were that a number of respondents
indicated they are using recycled water beyond the uses specified by the guidelines (i.e. for drinking,
showering and clothes washing). The Water Authority and other authorities will need to carefully consider
how they will deal with this. While the majority of respondents did not have concerns about recycled water
use at Mawson Lakes, for those who did the main concerns surrounded those uses not permitted by the
guidelines, followed by concerns about its quality and danger to pets and animals. In relation to recycled
water use for garden watering, the majority of respondents (95%) were happy. This compares to toilet
flushing, for which 40% of respondents commented on colour or odour. Details of the colour and odour
experienced by some of the Mawson Lakes residents were detailed in Figures 5.6 and 5.7. Overall 73% of
respondents indicated that recycled water had met their expectations. For those that disagreed the main
reason stated was that the recycled water was too expensive. Attitudinal results will now be presented.
41
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
Having no water restrictions is great
4
18
Good / great
19
No comment
19
Comment
Should be extended to other suburbs / uses
Other
23
28
Fine / OK
Its too expensive
30
32
Did not meet expectations
Met expectations
77
0
10
20
30
40
50
Number of respondents
Figure 5.8 How recycled water has / has not met respondent expectations, Mawson Lakes 2007
42
60
70
80
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
5.3 Attitudinal measures
Various attitude and perception statements were included in each survey, many of these were repeated
across the full study period, allowing for comparison over time. The results for these questions can be found
in Table 5.4 along with the results of statistical analysis of change in mean response over the full study
period (ANOVA used).
There were three significant differences between survey two and three. Respondents were less concerned
that costs associated with the dual water supply may increase, agreed more that environmental benefits of
the dual water supply are more important than financial ones, and agreement that the potential to do
something positive for the environment motivated them to live at Mawson Lakes decreased.
Between survey three and survey four there were 16 significant differences between means. These are
summarised as follows. Between survey three and survey four there was significantly:
-
greater satisfaction with the recycled water
greater trust in the water authority to ensure water quality and safety
greater agreement that the current pricing structure for recycled water at Mawson Lakes is fair
greater agreement that there is financial value in the recycled water system
greater agreement that the present water quality system in Adelaide is good
less agreement that they would prefer the water system at Mawson Lakes to be standard (no dual
supply)
less concern about the effect recycled water will have on their garden
greater agreement that environmental benefits of the dual water supply system are more important
than financial benefits
greater agreement they are likely to recommend other dual water supply systems
greater agreement that they have been treated fairly in the process relating to the dual water supply
system
less agreement that charging for recycled water should be based on treatment and transport
greater agreement that there is adequate regulation to ensure safe use of recycled water at Mawson
Lakes
less agreement that saving energy is more important than water
less agreement that the dual water scheme may have a negative impact on the environment
less agreement that they avoid using the dual water supply system
greater agreement that they are confident there are no health risks associated with the dual water
supply system
Overall these results indicate two years post recycled water use commencing at Mawson Lakes,
respondents had a more positive and altruistic attitude to the use of recycled water.
A number of the attitude and perception questions asked respondents who gave extreme ratings (i.e. 0 or 10)
a follow up question. The details of these for survey three are provided below. They show insight into some
respondents’ ambivalent feelings towards the dual water supply system.
Why would you prefer a standard system?
“Because of health concerns, and ecological repercussions on garden and clothes quality”
“Better quality water”
“It reduces the extra cost of setting up the infrastructure and they have been delivering water for over
100 years I do not see why the water quality would change”
“Sick of stink in the toilet in summer”
“The water is not clean enough”
43
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
Table 5.4 Attitude and perception statements relating to recycled water and associated issues: a comparison of results
from surveys 2, 3 and 4
Attitude / Perception Statement
(Scale: 0-10 where 0 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree)
Environment
Saving energy is more important than saving water ++
I am not concerned about global environmental problems
I look forward to / enjoy living in a community that actively contributes to
environmental sustainability
The potential to do something positive for the environment motivated me to
live at Mawson Lakes*
The dual water scheme may have a negative impact on the environment ++
The threat of climate change is a concern to me
Water
I think the present water quality system in Adelaide is good +
I trust the Water Authority to ensure water safety and quality +
We need to use recycled water for the future’s sake
Water Recycling
I would prefer it if the water system at Mawson Lakes was standard – no dual
water supply ^ +
I am well informed about the dual water supply scheme ^
I plan to / I avoid using the lilac (recycled water) taps whenever possible ^ ++
I am confident there are no health risks associated with the dual water supply
system at Mawson Lakes ^ +
I worry about the effect recycled water will have on my garden ^ +
Environmental benefits of dual water supply are more important than
financial benefits** +
I trust technology to treat wastewater more than I trust nature
I am likely to recommend other dual water supply systems +
I think I have been treated fairly in the process relating to the recycled water
system +
I think there is adequate regulation to ensure safe use of recycled water at
Mawson Lakes +
The Water Authority provides information that can be trusted
I trust the water authority to ensure water safety and quality +
I trust the water authority to ensure recycled water safety and quality
I trust the water authority
I trust the Council
I trust the developer
SA Water keeps me informed of new developments within the recycled water
scheme
Recycled water at Mawson Lakes is of a high quality
Recycled water quality can be as good as drinking water quality
All water is recycled
Recycled water use should not be subject to water use restrictions
On a scale of 0-10 where 0 = not at all satisfied and 10 = extremely satisfied,
please rate how satisfied you are with the recycled water to present +
I would be willing to pay a higher price for drinking water that is more
aesthetically pleasing
Price
The potential to save money, associated with the dual water supply system
contributed to my decision to live in Mawson Lakes
I think the current pricing structure for recycled water at Mawson Lakes is fair
+
I am concerned that costs associated with the dual water scheme may
increase in the future**
Charging for recycled water should be based on treatment and transport ++
The dual water supply system add value to my property
I see financial value in the recycled water system ++
*Significant at 0.01 level between survey 2 and 3, ** Significant at 0.05 level between survey 2 and 3,
+Significant at 0.01 level between survey 3 and 4, ++ Significant at 0.05 level between survey 3 and 4,
^ Further information asked after rating
44
2004 – Survey 2
mean (SD) n
2005 – Survey
3 mean (SD) n
2007 – Survey 4
mean (SD) n
4.0 (2.5) 132
2.0 (2.3) 134
8.5 (1.9) 135
4.4 (2.4) 160
2.2 (2.0) 162
8.5 (1.4) 162
3.9 (2.0) 266
1.8 (2.2) 268
8.7 (1.6) 269
6.0 (2.8) 135
5.1 (2.9) 162
4.6 (3.2) 268
2.6 (2.5) 128
2.6 (2.3) 159
2.0 (2.4) 256
8.0 (2.2) 268
6.2 (2.4) 136
7.2 (2.2) 136
5.7 (2.6) 161
6.8 (2.2) 162
6.5 (2.4) 264
7.4 (1.9) 268
8.9 (1.4) 269
2.2 (2.4) 135
2.5 (2.5) 162
1.6 (2.0) 267
7.1 (2.5) 135
2.1 (2.3) 136
5.9 (2.7) 127
7.3 (2.4) 162
2.1 (2.0) 161
5.5 (2.7) 161
7.3 (2.3) 269
1.6 (2.1) 266
7.3 (2.2) 264
3.1 (3.1) 135
5.6 (2.6) 135
2.9 (2.9) 162
6.2 (2.4) 162
1.4 (2.2) 264
7.2 (2.2) 265
7.1 (2.6) 159
7.0 (2.3) 162
5.9 (2.5) 254
7.8 (2.3) 260
7.7 (2.2) 262
6.8 (2.1) 150
7.5 (2.0) 259
6.3 (2.5) 136
7.2 (2.2) 136
6.6 (1.9) 161
6.8 (2.2) 162
6.3 (2.3) 136
4.6 (2.8) 136
6.5 (2.6) 136
6.0 (2.1) 157
5.1 (2.4) 161
6.7 (2.2) 161
6.9 (2.0) 262
7.4 (1.9) 268
7.6 (1.9) 268
6.9 (7.0) 265
6.7 (2.3) 266
6.2 (2.5) 264
5.7 (2.9) 261
7.5 (1.7) 161
7.2 (2.1) 245
6.5 (3.0) 244
5.0 (3.5) 231
6.2 (2.9) 269
8.6 (1.7) 268
5.1 (3.1) 129
5.0 (2.9) 160
5.4 (2.6) 265
2.9 (2.8) 135
2.9 (2.8) 161
2.6 (2.6) 266
3.7 (2.7) 122
4.2 (2.8) 149
5.7 (2.9) 237
7.1 (2.5) 133
6.5 (2.7) 162
6.2 (2.8) 261
6.9 (2.4) 129
6.5 (2.2) 156
6.0 (2.3) 251
6.1 (2.6) 233
6.3 (2.7) 259
5.7 (2.8) 158
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
Why don’t you feel well informed?
“Haven’t heard anything about it. I’ve been here for one year, no mail drops etc”
“I don’t know enough about it”
“I don’t know if I am connected. Outside I am but inside in the bathroom and laundry I am not sure”
“I know how it works, but I don’t know about long term effects and the process”
“No idea”
“We’re renting, didn’t receive initial information”
“What type of treatment is it?”
Why aren’t you confident?
“Because I cannot get past thinking of it as toilet/dirty water”
“Due to possible incompetence – contamination of systems has occurred both in Australia and
overseas in recycled water systems”
“I don’t know how it is cleaned or stored”
“If they are telling me that pets cannot drink it then there must be something wrong with it”
“Not enough research done”
“Suspicious responses, I’ve had hair and skin problems – but doctor says it is part of old age”
“They tell me it is not potable water, so the safety for family and pets is of concern”
“They tell you not to drink it”
These comments provide reasons and explanations for respondent concerns. They also indicate areas in
which the Water Authority could improve their recycled water communication campaign.
The results presented in this section of the report indicate that there have been some significant attitudinal
changes for respondents between survey two and survey three. Results indicate that two years of recycled
water use have increased satisfaction with various aspects of water management (both potable and recycled)
over the study period.
45
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
5.4 Attitudes to recycled water use
The results presented in this section of the report relate to respondent attitudes to recycled water use. The
research included both uses permitted and prohibited at Mawson Lakes.
5.4.1 Attitude to recycled water use at Mawson Lakes
Respondents were firstly asked: What are your feelings about the dual water supply system (recycled water
system) at Mawson Lakes? Responses to this question were coded into categories and the results are
displayed in Figure 5.9.
Negative
1
Comment
Other
2
Disconnected
3
Don't know
4
Cheaper
5
Good given the water restrictions
5
Some concerns
11
Too expensive
13
Environmental benefits
13
Fine
30
Excellent / fantastic / great
60
Good / very good / happy
110
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Number of respondents
Figure 5.9 Respondent comments about the dual water supply system at Mawson Lakes 2007
As can be seen from this graph the majority of respondents (83%) were very happy with the dual water
supply system. Notably, 13 respondents commented on the environmental benefits of the scheme, and five
were happy considering the tougher water restrictions in place across the state.
5.4.2 Attitudes to recycled water use at Mawson Lakes and beyond
Respondents were then asked to rate their attitude to a series of uses of recycled water on a scale of 1-10
where 1 = not at all happy and 10 = extremely happy. The question was prefaced with the following
statement: 'We would now like you to think of recycled water use including and beyond that occurring at
Mawson Lakes. If Class A standard of recycled water – which is often better quality than drinking water –
was to be available, what would be your attitude to its use'? This statement was included to clearly
distinguish between recycled water used at Mawson Lakes, and Class A recycled water in general, and to
make sure respondents were making a consistent attitudinal response. The mean scores and (other
statistical properties) for each of the recycled water uses tested can be found in Table 5.5.
As can be seen from Table 5.5, happiness with the use of recycled water increased as the use became
increasingly less personal i.e the use of recycled water for public garden watering was rated a mean of 9.5
while drinking directly was rated a mean of 6.4. This is consistent with recycled water literature explored in
section 2 of this report, and presented in Table 2.1. Drinking both 'directly' and 'indirectly' were explored in
this survey to see if there was a difference in attitudes between the two deliveries of recycled water for
potable purposes. Indirect drinking of recycled water was explained to respondents as 'i.e. added to the
drinking water reservoir / river after treatment'. As can be seen from the results in table 5.5, drinking recycled
46
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
water indirectly had a higher mean (acceptance) than drinking directly. Statistical analysis (t-tests) indicated
there was a significant difference in the mean ratings at the 0.001 level. This indicates respondents were
significantly more accepting of recycled water use for drinking in an indirect manner.
Table 5.5 Happiness ratings for various recycled water uses, Mawson Lakes 2007
Use
Mean
Standard
deviation
Median
N
Maximum
Minimum
Garden watering – public
9.5
1.3
10
268
10
1
Irrigation of sports grounds
9.4
1.6
10
268
10
1
Garden watering – private
9.4
1.7
10
268
10
1
Toilet flushing
9.3
1.8
10
268
10
1
Street cleaning
9.3
1.8
10
264
10
1
Public fountains and water features
8.8
1.9
10
267
10
1
Clothes washing
7.8
2.9
9
268
10
1
Wash hands
7.8
2.8
9
265
10
1
Drink – indirectly
7.4
2.9
8
263
10
1
Shower
7.3
3.1
8
267
10
1
Drink – directly
6.4
3.4
8
265
10
1
* 1 = not at all happy and 10 = extremely happy
Given the increasing pressure on water supply, potable reuse of wastewater has been touted as a suitable
management approach. A previous study undertaken in Bendigo, Victoria (Hurlimann 2007a) found higher
willingness to drink recycled water from indirect potable regimes. Given this context, it was thought useful to
investigate attitudes of the Mawson Lakes community to various indirect potable water treatment and supply
regimes. Respondents were asked to think of recycled water use beyond that occurring at Mawson Lakes,
and were asked whether or not they would drink recycled water from three treatment methods:
(1) “Treatment at a wastewater treatment plant and direct delivery to your household for use”
(2) “Treatment at a wastewater treatment plant and storage in a reservoir or river system for some time
before further treatment and delivery to your household for use”
(3) “Treatment at a wastewater treatment plant and storage in ground water for some time before
delivery to your household for use”
They were asked to rate each of the treatment methods on a scale of 0-10 where 0 = would not drink, and 10
= would definitely drink. The results can be found in Table 5.6. Statistical tests (t-tests) were undertaken to
establish if there as a significant difference between the means for each treatment method. As can be seen
from Table 5.5 there was a difference between treatment method 2 and that of 1 and 3. This was found to be
significant at the 0.001 level indicating treatment and delivery regime 2 was significantly more favourable,
and may indicate the community’s preferred approach if further explored by policy makers in the future.
Table 5.6 Attitudes to potable use of recycled water: a comparison of three treatment methods
Potable treatment 1
Potable treatment 2
Potable treatment 3
N
245
249
247
Mean
5.2
6.2
5.3
Median
5.0
7.0
5.0
Standard deviation
3.5
3.2
3.4
With regard to results presented in Table 5.5, attitudinal responses for the uses of recycled water occurring
at Mawson Lakes were compared with results from previous surveys (1-3). The comparison appears in
Figure 5.10. In previous surveys respondents were asked about their feelings about using recycled water in
an open ended manner, i.e: 'What are your feelings about using recycled water for clothes washing?' The
responses to these questions were coded into the categories: 'in favour', 'not sure' and 'not in favour'. For the
2007 survey responses to the happiness ratings were coded into 1-4 = 'not in favour', 5&6 = 'not sure' and 710 = 'in favour'. In the 2002 survey respondents were not asked about their attitude to recycled water use for
toilet flushing. For the purpose of statistical analysis to test whether or not there was a difference in
acceptance of recycled water use over the 5 year study period, responses in the category 'not sure' was
omitted.
47
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
100%
15
90%
30
23
2
1
3
4
0
1
1
2
1
5
3
4
97
94
93
99
97
94
93
29
80%
% respondents
2
1
11
70%
12
28
31
62
60%
68
80
93
50%
40%
74
30%
20%
58
30
12
2
8
10%
0%
Not in favour
Not sure
In favour
3
49
40
15
23
4
2002 2003 2005 2007 2002 2003 2005 2007 2002 2003 2005 2007 2002 2003 2005 2007
Drinking
Clothes washing
Toilet flushing
Garden watering
Use and year
Figure 5.10 The Mawson Lakes community’s attitude to recycled water for various uses 2002 – 2007
The results presented in Figure 5.10 clearly show that acceptance of recycled water use decreases as the
use becomes increasingly personal in each survey. Garden watering and toilet flushing have strong support
– with nearly 100% of respondents ‘in favour’ of these uses. Support decreases to 20-74% for clothes
washing and 2-58% for drinking.
Results also show that the attitudes of the Mawson Lakes community towards the use of recycled water have
been in a state of flux over the two and a half year study period. This is in line with Mann (1969) who found
that attitudes are at times unstable, and Thurstone (1928) who found that attitudes may change over time.
The results are now discussed in closer detail for each use.
Garden watering: For garden watering the proportion of respondents who were in favour decreased slightly
each survey, and there were an increasing number of respondents who were ‘not sure’. In the third and
fourth survey a number of respondents raised concerns about the salt content of the recycled water when
used on the garden. On the contrary, as shown in Figure 5.10 the majority of respondents were satisfied with
recycled water use on the garden. Two respondents who were not happy have had the recycled water
system disconnected from their property. Statistical analysis found there was not a significant difference in
attitude to the use of recycled water for garden watering over the 5 year study period.
Toilet flushing: For toilet flushing, responses were consistent from survey 2 to survey 4. In survey 3, ten
respondents commented about the quality of recycled water when used for toilet flushing, commenting about
occasional odour, staining to the toilet bowl, and that their cistern is ‘slimier’. While respondents raised these
concerns, the majority added that they are willing to put up with the conditions. This indicates that they are
willing to trade off those quality/aesthetic issues with the benefit of recycled water use. In the fourth survey a
number of people also raised issues with recycled water use for toilet flushing as detailed in Figure 5.4,
however, it could be that these conditions would prevail if potable water was also used. It would be beneficial
in the future to investigate if these differences are perceived or real. Statistical analysis found there was not a
significant difference in attitude to the use of recycled water for toilet flushing over the study period.
Clothes washing: An increasing proportion of respondents were ‘not in favour’ of the use of recycled water
for clothes washing from survey 1 to survey 3. In the third survey a number of respondents highlighted
concern about discolouration of clothing and ‘germs’. Many respondents said that they would need more
48
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
guarantees before using recycled water for clothes washing, and drinking. However in survey 4, the
proportion of respondents who were in favour of the use of recycled water for clothes washing dramatically
increased from 22% in 2005 to 74% in 2007. This indicates that perhaps after 2 years of recycled water use,
the population is increasingly comfortable with the idea of recycled water use for clothes washing. Statistical
analysis found there was a significant association between attitude to the use of recycled water for clothes
washing and survey year (Chi-square = 133, df = 3, sig = 0.0001). This indicates there was a significantly
different acceptance level each survey, with a significant increase in acceptance in the 2007 survey.
Drinking: For drinking purposes support was low in the first three surveys. The lowest support and greatest
uncertainty was provided in survey 1. Some quotes from respondents for all surveys regarding the use of
recycled water for drinking are as follows:
“It’s better than River Murray water”
‘”The process that has treated water and the chemicals, what would that do to us?”
“I’d have concerns about drinking it because of the salt content”
“I’d be happier to drink tank water”
There was a significant change in attitude to drinking recycled water in 2007 where 58% of respondents were
in favour of recycled water use for drinking purposes. Statistical analysis found there was a significant
association between attitude to the use of recycled water for drinking and survey year (Chi-square = 251, df
= 3, sig = 0.0001). This represents a significantly different acceptance level each survey, with a significant
increase in acceptance in the 2007 survey).
The general decrease in favourable attitudes to all uses of recycled water close to the commencement of
recycled water use at Mawson Lakes (survey period 3), may be due to the effective safety campaign by the
authorities, which increased prior to recycled water use commencing. Signage on the recycled water pipes
within the Mawson Lakes development, make it very clear that the recycled water should not be drunk. The
following quotes are responses to various questions from survey 3 relating to various aspects of the
communication campaign and recycled water use.
“They say not to drink it because it is harmful”’
“The water authority tells us not to use it for some of those purposes”
“They must be very worried about the recycled water they have put warning signs on all the taps”
“You can’t drink it, so it’s not safe”
These statements suggest that the communication campaign regarding recycled water use was effective
around the time of recycled water use commencement in April 2005. However it also indicates that such
negative signage may have negative impacts on willingness to use recycled water. This was the case in a
Greek study by Mellon, and Tsagarakis (2006).
The results of greater acceptance of clothes washing and drinking in the 2007 survey may relate to
increased national public awareness of water shortage and the need to use recycled water. There has been
increased media and political coverage of water as an issue over this period. The 2007 acceptance levels
are comparable to studies undertaken in Melbourne and Bendigo (Hurlimann 2006b; Hurlimann 2007a). With
regards to the Mawson Lakes population the results suggest that acceptance of recycled water use for more
personal uses has increased over the two years that they have been using recycled water. This indicates
that their positive experience of recycled water may have influenced greater acceptance for more personal
uses. In the context of Bendigo and Melbourne, Hurlimann (2007d) found that those who had used recycled
water previously were significantly more likely to be accepting of recycled water use for close to personal
uses. This is in line with the Mawson Lakes population’s experience and increase in acceptance.
5.4.3 Demographic influences
The 2007 attitudinal results were analysed to see if demographic variables (gender, age, education,
household size, date moved to Mawson Lakes, gardening interest) influenced "happiness to use" recycled
water use for all uses investigated in the study. Table 5.7 displays the results for significant differences in
ratings for demographics using ANOVA (SPSS Inc 2007). Females rated their happiness to use recycled
water for the uses: to wash hands, in public fountains and water features, showering, and drinking directly
and indirectly, significantly lower than men. There were only significant differences for gender and for more
personal uses of recycled water. This indicates that demographic variables (apart from gender) are weak
predictors of attitude to recycled water use, as per results of the first three surveys.
49
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
Table 5.7 Happiness to use recycled water for various uses: details of statistically significant results for gender
Sum of squares
Between groups
Within groups
Total
86.63
1958.07
2011.69
19.52
979.12
998.64
40.72
2518.93
2559.65
134.19
2994.63
3128.82
92.68
2157.29
2249.98
Recycled water use / Mean
Wash hands
(Means: female = 7.3, male = 8.4)
In public fountains and water features
(Means: female = 8.5, male = 9.1)
Showering
(Means: female = 6.9, male = 7.7)
Drinking
(Means: female = 5.7, male = 7.1)
Drinking indirectly
(Means: female = 6.8, male = 8.0)
Degrees of freedom
Between groups
Within groups
Total
1
263
264
1
265
266
1
265
266
1
263
264
1
261
262
Mean Square
Between groups
Within groups
86.63
7.45
F Sig.
11.64 0.001
19.52
3.70
5.28 0.05
40.71
9.51
4.28 0.05
134.19
11.39
11.79 0.001
92.68
8.27
11.21 0.001
5.4.4 Attitudinal influences
Survey four results were analysed to see if there was any relationship between attitudinal variables and
satisfaction with recycled water use. The attitudinal variables found in survey three (Hurlimann et al. In
Press) to be components of community satisfaction with recycled water use (perceived: value, risk
(negative), trust in the Water Authority, fairness, communication, environmental concern, and quality) were
used as a basis for this research. Chi-Square tests were used to measure if there was a statistical
significance between satisfaction with recycled water use and these attitudinal variables. In order to conduct
this analysis, responses were recoded into two categories: 0-5 = disagree / not satisfied, and 6-10 = agree /
satisfied. The results of this analysis can be found in Table 5.8.
Table 5.8 Relationship between satisfaction with recycled water use and perception of: communication, trust, risk,
fairness, quality and environmental concern
1
Perceived
Perception
Perceived
Trust in the
2
3
4
5
risk
of fairness
Quality
Water Authority
Pearson Chi-Square
4.07
13.90
15.34
21.91
5.49
Degrees of freedom
1
1
1
1
1
Significance
0.05
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.05
Pearson's R (Sig)
0.12 (0.05)
0.23 (0.001)
0.24 (0.001)
0.29 (0.001)
0.14 (0.05)
1
"I am well informed about the dual water supply system"
2
"I trust the water authority to ensure recycled water safety and quality"
3
"I am confident there are no health risks associated with the dual water supply system at Mawson Lakes"
4
"I feel I have been treated fairly in regards to the recycled water system"
5
"I think the present water quality system in Adelaide is good"
6
"The environmental benefits of the dual water supply system are more important than financial benefits"
Communication
Environmental
6
concern
10.73
1
0.001
0.08 (0.22)
There was a significant relationship between satisfaction with recycled water use and all variables
investigated except for 'perceived value'. This indicates the following:
- Those who perceive they have been treated fairly (in regards to the recycled water system), are
significantly more likely to be satisfied with recycled water use.
- Those who perceive the present water quality system in Adelaide is good, are significantly more
likely to be satisfied with recycled water use.
- Those who feel well informed about the dual water supply system are significantly more likely to be
satisfied with recycled water use.
- Those who trust the water authority are significantly more likely to be satisfied with recycled water
use
- Those who are confident there are no health risks associated with the dual water supply system at
Mawson Lakes, are significantly more likely to be satisfied with recycled water use.
- Those who perceive the environmental benefits of the dual water supply system are more important
than financial benefits, are significantly more likely to be satisfied with recycled water use.
50
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
This provides interesting information to water retailers and policy makers regarding the composition of those
more likely to be satisfied with recycled water. The results indicate how communication strategies and
customer relations should be operated to increase likelihood of success.
This section of the report presented results relating to respondent attitudes to various uses of recycled water.
Overall, the majority of respondents (94%) were satisfied with the dual water supply system at Mawson
Lakes. In the fourth survey, acceptance of recycled water use was again found to increase as the use
became increasingly personal (93% of respondents happy to use recycled water for garden watering, 93%
for toilet flushing, 74% for clothes washing and 58% for drinking purposes). The 2007 responses were
compared with those from previous surveys and it was found that there was a significant increase in
acceptance of recycled water use for drinking and clothes washing in the 2007 survey. This may be due to
the increasingly recognized water crisis at the national level, or could also be due to increased experience of
recycled water use. Gender was the only demographic variable for which there were significant differences in
attitudes to recycled water use. Females rated their happiness to use recycled water for the uses: to wash
hands, in public fountains and water features, showering, and drinking directly and indirectly, significantly
lower than men. The following attitudinal variables were found important to promoting satisfaction with
recycled water use, perceived: communication, trust in the water authority, risk (negative), fairness, quality
and environmental concern. The following section of the report discusses results regarding recycled water
risk perception.
5.5 Risk perception
Results presented in this section of the report relate to recycled water risk perception.
5.5.1 Perceived risk associated with recycled water use at Mawson Lakes and
beyond
Respondents to survey four were asked if they think there is any risk involved with recycled water use. A
total of 82 respondents (30.5%) replied 'yes', 168 (62.5%) 'no' and 19 (7.1%) 'don't know'. Those that
responded 'yes' were asked to list the risks they thought were involved with recycled water use. One
respondent listed four risks, two respondents listed two risks, twelve respondents listed three risks, and sixtyseven respondents listed one risk. These responses were coded and can be found in Figure 5.11. This figure
shows that the main perceived risk is to health. The second main concern was that the system might fail
(trust in technology). Some quotes indicative of responses to this question are provided below.
“Concern about infection due to falling on watered surfaces”
“I wouldn’t use it for contact with skin or drinking”
“The purification process of breaking down”
“Checks and balances in treatment – concern about failures in systems”
Respondents were also asked to rate their perception of risk for 12 uses of recycled water on a scale of 0-10
where 0 = not at all risky and 10 = extremely risky. This included uses permitted and forbidden as per the
Guidelines at Mawson Lakes. The mean results for these rankings can be found in Table 5.9.
51
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
Table 5.9 Risk ratings for various recycled water uses, Mawson Lakes 2007
Use
Mean*
Standard deviation
Median
N
Maximum
Minimum
Garden watering – public
0.5
1.4
0
265
10
0
Garden watering – private
0.4
1.1
0
264
10
0
Toilet flushing
0.5
1.6
0
267
10
0
Street cleaning
0.4
1.2
0
266
10
0
Car washing
0.7
1.7
0
264
10
0
Public fountains and water features
1.6
2.6
0
265
10
0
Vegetable growing
1.6
2.5
0
257
10
0
Clothes washing
2.9
3.0
2
259
10
0
Wash hands
3.5
3.1
3
260
10
0
Drink – indirectly
4.5
3.5
4
258
10
0
Shower
4.3
3.3
4
256
10
0
Drink – directly
6.4
3.5
7
255
10
0
* 0 = not at all risky and 10 = extremely risky
Table 5.9 shows that as the use of recycled water became increasingly personal, respondents’ perceived risk
significantly increased. Tests of statistical significance between means were undertaken (t-tests). The
difference in means of perceived risk between each use was found to be significant at the 0.001 level for the
majority of uses indicating a differentiation of risk perception between uses. The only means that were not
significantly different were:
toilet flushing with street cleaning and
garden watering home and private with street cleaning
garden watering home and public with street cleaning
vegetable growing and public fountains, and
drinking indirectly and showering
Respondents to survey 3 (2005) were also asked to rate their perceived risk associated with 7 recycled water
uses on the same 11 point scale as survey 4 (2007). The mean ratings for those uses are displayed in Figure
5.12 which compares both the 2005 and 2007 means. As can be seen from this graph the mean risk
perception ratings were significantly lower in the 2007 survey. Statistical analysis (ANOVA tests), confirm
these decreases are significant for all uses investigated. The results were significant at the 0.0001 level for
all uses except toilet flushing which was significant at the 0.05 level. The results suggest that risk perception
will decrease with experience of recycled water use, not just for those uses of recycled water experienced,
but also for uses of recycled water beyond those experienced at Mawson Lakes. Decreased risk may also be
due to increased public awareness of drought and the increased media coverage alternative water projects
have been getting.
52
Risk
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
Chemicals
2
Excessive use
2
Bad experience
2
Impacts to garden
2
Quality
4
Pets
4
Cross connection
5
Risk to people not from Mawson Lakes
7
Forbidden uses
12
Risk to children
13
System failure
22
Health
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
Number of respondents
Figure 5.11 Perception of risk related to recycled water use
9.6
10
2005
Average risk perception:
0 = not at all risky - 10 = extremely risky
2007
9
8.4
8
6.8
7
6.4
6
5
4.2
4.3
4
3.1
2.9
3
1
1.6
1.7
2
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.4
0
Toilet flushing
Garden
watering
Car washing
Vegetable
growing
Clothes
washing
Showering
Use of recycled water
Figure 5.12 Recycled water risk perception at Mawson Lakes: a comparison between 2005 and 2007
53
Drinking
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
5.5.2 Demographic influences
The 2007 recycled water risk perception results were analysed to see if demographic variables (gender, age,
education, household size, date moved to Mawson Lakes, gardening interest) influenced perception of risk
for all the uses of recycled water investigated in the study (using ANOVA (SPSS Inc 2007)). Table 5.10
displays the significant differences in ratings for demographics. As can be seen from this table, there were
four significant differences for gender, and one each for age and education. These significant differences
were predominantly for more personal uses of recycled water. This indicates as per results of the first three
surveys that demographic variables (apart from gender) are weak predictors of attitude to recycled water use,
but that gender was the strongest predictor. Females rated recycled water risk for washing hands, vegetable
growing and drinking significantly higher than males. Those aged less than 50 years rated recycled water
use for vegetable growing significantly more risky than those over 50, and those without a university degree
rated recycled water use for clothes washing significantly more risky than those with a university degree.
Table 5.10 Perception of risk associated with various uses of recycled water: details of statistically significant results for
demographic variables
Demographic variable / Use / Mean
GENDER
Wash hands
(Means: female = 4.0, male = 3.0)
Vegetable growing
(Means: female = 1.9, male = 1.2)
Drinking
(Means: female = 6.9, male = 5.9)
Drinking indirectly
(Means: female = 5.1, male = 4.0)
AGE
Vegetable growing
(Means: <50 =1.8 , 50+ = 1.0)
EDUCATION
Clothes washing
(Means: no uni degree = 3.1, uni degree = 2.4)
Sum of squares
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Degrees of freedom
Between groups
Within groups
Total
61.06
2445.94
2507.00
32.74
1544.03
1576.77
70.36
2955.98
3026.34
89.65
3000.47
3090.11
1
258
259
4
255
256
1
253
254
1
256
257
40.00
1534.28
1574.28
31.26
2134.32
2165.57
Mean Square
Between groups
Within groups
F Sig.
61.06
9.48
6.44 0.01
32.74
6.06
5.41 0.05
70.36
11.69
6.02 0.01
89.65
11.72
7.65 0.01
1
254
255
40.00
6.04
6.62 0.01
1
247
248
31.26
8.64
3.62 0.05
5.5.3 Attitudinal influences
Survey four results were analysed to see if there was a relationship between attitudinal variables and
recycled water risk perception. Respondents’ answers to the following question was used as a measure of
risk perception: "Do you think there are any risks involved with recycled water use?". Respondents who
answered 'don't know' were removed from analysis. The attitudinal variables found in survey three
(Hurlimann et al. In Press) to be components of community satisfaction with recycled water use (perceived:
value, risk (negative), trust in the Water Authority, fairness, communication, environmental concern, and
quality) were used as a basis for this research. Chi-Square tests were used to measure if there was a
statistical significance between recycled water risk perception and these attitudinal variables. In order to
conduct this analysis, responses to the attitudinal statements were recoded into two categories, 0-5 =
disagree, and 6-10 = agree. Those who answered 'don't know' were removed from the analysis. The results
of this analysis can be found in Table 5.11.
54
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
Table 5.11 Relationship between perception of risk associated with recycled water use and perception of: trust, risk,
fairness, quality and environmental concern
2
Trust in the Water
Perception of
Perceived risk
Perceived
1
3
4
Authority
fairness
Quality
Pearson Chi-Square
8.30
20.68
9.34
5.70
Degrees of freedom
1
1
1
1
Significance
0.01
0.001
0.001
0.05
Pearson's R (Sig)
0.14 (0.05)
0.29 (0.001)
0.20 (0.001)
0.15 (0.05)
1
"I trust the water authority to ensure recycled water safety and quality"
2
"I am confident there are no health risks associated with the dual water supply system at Mawson Lakes"
3
"I feel I have been treated fairly in regards to the recycled water system"
4
"I think the present water quality system in Adelaide is good"
5
"The environmental benefits of the dual water supply system are more important than financial benefits"
Environmental
5
concern
7.42
1
0.01
0.17 (0.005)
5.6 Willingness to pay for recycled and potable water
Results presented in this section of the report relate to respondents' willingness to pay (WTP) for recycled
and potable water. Respondents to survey 4 were asked what the maximum amount they would be willing to
pay per kilolitre of recycled water was. Respondents were informed that a kilolitre of water was equal to
1,000 litres and were given the step 2 price of drinking water in the Adelaide area (A$1.09 per kilolitre) as a
reference point. Respondents were then asked what the maximum amount they would be willing to pay per
kilolitre (1,000 litres) for drinking water was. The results for this component of the survey can be found in
Table 5.12.
Table 5.12 WTP for drinking water and recycled water, Mawson Lakes 2007
WTP drinking water (A$/kL)
WTP recycled water (A$/kL)
N
149
157
Mean
1.20
0.89
Median
1.09
0.87
Mode
1.10
1.09
Standard deviation
0.87
0.51
The mean and median values were very similar, which indicates that the figures are likely to be reliable. The
mean WTP for recycled water ($0.89/kL) was higher than is currently charged (A$0.87/kL). It should be
noted that a large percentage of respondents could not / did not provide a WTP figure for both recycled
water (n=157) and potable water (n = 149) indicating a large proportion of respondents could not place a
dollar value on the price of water. Fourteen respondents provided other responses, but not in a dollar and
cents figure, such as: "lower than it is priced now". Four respondents provided other responses, such as:
"Can't do without drinking water – have to pay"
It's not applicable to me I have a rental property"
These WTP figures are significantly higher than figures obtained in previous surveys at Mawson Lakes. See
comparative figures displayed in Table 5.13. In both previous surveys (2004 and 2005) respondents were
asked: ‘What should you pay per kilolitre of recycled water?’ and ‘What should you pay per kilolitre of
drinking water?’ In those surveys there was also a large percentage of respondents who also could not
place a dollar figure on the price drinking water and recycled water ‘should be’. In both surveys a larger
proportion of respondents did not know what price drinking water ‘should be’ when compared to recycled
water. Perhaps this is due to the tiered approach to drinking water in SA and thus respondents did not have
a clear reference point to base their opinion. The main limitation associated with this component of the
research was that respondents were asked to express the price in a dollar figure and as a flat rate rather
than tiered. Perhaps this made the task more difficult for respondents to complete accurately.
55
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
Table 5.13 Summary statistics: WTP for drinking water and recycled water, Mawson Lakes 2004 – 2007
Survey 2, 2004
Price drinking
water ‘should
be’ (A$/kL)
Price recycled
water ‘should be’
(A$/kL)
Survey 3, 2005
Price drinking
water ‘should
be’ (A$/kL)
Price recycled
water ‘should
be’ (A$/kL)
Survey 4, 2007
WTP drinking
water (A$/kL)
WTP recycled
water (A$/kL)
N
64
67
65
93
149
157
Mean
0.60
0.46
0.80
0.49
1.20
0.89
Median
0.45
0.45
0.88
0.50
1.09
0.87
Mode
0.42
0.50
1.03
0.50
1.10
1.09
Standard deviation
0.28
0.24
0.29
0.23
0.87
0.51
With regards to comparison of survey 2 with survey 3, overall the average price respondents thought drinking
water ‘should be’ increased from A$0.60 in 2004 to A$0.80 in 2005 – this was a significant increase (ANOVA
F= 14.79, 1df, significance = 0.000). The mean price respondents thought recycled water ‘should be’
increased from A$0.46 in survey 2 to A$0.49 in survey 3 – but this increase was not found to be significant.
With regards to comparison of 2005 with 2007, both recycled water WTP and drinking water WTP increased.
Statistical analysis revealed this increase was significant, both for recycled water (ANOVA F = 52.5, 1df,
significance = 0.0001) and drinking water (ANOVA F = 13.8, 1df, significance = 0.0001). Contributing to this
increase, may be the changes to phrasing of the question, although it is anticipated that such influence
would be minimal. It may be due to an incremental increase in perceived value of recycled water due to
demonstrated quality after two years of use. Unpublished research by Hurlimann indicates that Bendigo
residents (who are on stage 4 water restriction) are on average willing to pay over A$7.00/kL for recycled
water trucked to their homes.
5.7 Recycled water aesthetics
As described in section 4.4 of this report, the conjoint analysis (CA) method was used to assess community
attitudes to attributes of recycled water when used for drinking purposes. The method is frequently used by
marketers to understand consumer attitudes to a product with new attributes or features. CA allows product
attributes to be considered jointly rather than in isolation, thus enabling trade-offs to be made between
attributes analysed. The conjoint component of the study has investigated community attitudes to more
technical attributes of recycled water when used for drinking purposes. In prior Mawson Lakes surveys CA
was used to investigate community attitudes to recycled water attributes colour, odour and salt (Hurlimann
and McKay 2007). In the fourth survey the recycled water attributes investigated were: chemicals, viruses,
bacteria and hormones. SPSS was used to analyse the results of the CA study.
SPSS computes importance scores for each attribute. These are calculated by taking the utility (coefficient)
range for the particular attribute and dividing it by the sum of all the utility ranges for that use (SPSS Inc,
2007). Figure 5.13 displays the importance scores for each attribute in the study and shows that the most
important attribute was ‘no viruses’. As can be seen in Figure 5.13 the second most important attribute
overall was no bacteria, followed by no hormones then no chemicals. This indicates that respondents were
more concerned about health related attributes than hormones or chemicals present.
56
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
35
Averaged Importance
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
chemicals
viruses
bacteria
hormones
Recycled Water Attribute
Figure 5.13 Averaged importance scores for recycled water attributes explored for drinking purposes
Analysis of the results by demographic sectors was undertaken. The importance scores (also known as partworth scores) are expressed on a common scale, thus they can be used to compare demographic variables
(unlike coefficients which can not be directly compared). The average importance scores for each
demographic group are displayed in Figure 5.14. This shows that the presence of chemicals in recycled
water was of most concerned to those in the 'middle age group'. Viruses were of most concern to those in
the 'younger' age group. Bacteria was of most concern to those with lower education levels, and hormones
those in the 'high' education group.
In conclusion, the most important attribute was found to be no viruses, followed by no bacteria, no hormones,
then no chemicals. These results are interesting as the main attributes the community groups protest on, and
media reports on are hormones and chemicals. These results show that a population representative of an
average Australian community are more concerned about viruses and bacteria. The results have also
highlighted which demographic sectors are most concerned about each attribute and will help authorities with
targeting communication campaigns. Further expansion of this research to other communities, and including
other variables would be beneficial.
57
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
40
Averaged Importance
35
30
Chemicals
25
Viruses
20
Bacteria
15
Hormones
10
5
0
Low
High
Education
Male
Female
Younger
Gender
Middle
Older
Age
Demographic Group
Figure 5.14 Averaged importance scores for recycled water attributes explored by demographic group
5.8 Management of recycled water
Respondents were asked who they thought should manage recycled water quality at Mawson Lakes.
Responses to this question can be found in Figure 5.15. As can be seen from this figure the majority of
respondents were of the opinion that SA Water should manage recycled water quality (174, 65%), followed
by 40 (15%) the Health Department. This indicates strong support for the current management structure of
recycled water.
58
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
174
180
160
Number of respondents
140
120
100
80
60
35
40
40
20
6
9
Community
Representatives
Don't know /
Refused
5
0
The Developer
SA Water
The Health
Department
Other
Authority
Figure 5.15 Respondent opinion of who should manage recycled water quality at Mawson Lakes 2007
5.8.1 Trust in authorities
With regards to trust in authorities, in survey 4 respondents were asked to rate their trust of the water
authority, the Council and the developer (the results of which can be seen in Table 5.5). Statistical tests were
undertaken to establish if there was a difference in level of trust between authorities. Results indicate that
there was a significant difference in trust between the water authority and the developer (at the 0.001 level)
and between the Council and the developer (at the 0.001 level) this indicates that the developer was the
least trusted authority. There was not a significant difference between trust in the Council and the water
authority. These results indicate it would not be beneficial for developers to manage recycled water systems.
This is comparable to results found in survey 2 and 3 at Mawson Lakes and reported in Hurlimann (2006c).
The results indicated that, overall, in both surveys, the respondents perceive that the water authority has
highest integrity, followed closely by the Council, and then by the developer. Highest trust is placed in the
water authority, and they were rated the best communicator of information. In both surveys the water
authority and the Council were trusted significantly more than the developer. However, in terms of
information provision, the Council was in the majority rated the lowest in both surveys. Perhaps this is due to
their logo not being placed on most communications about the dual water supply system, unlike the water
authority and the developer.
59
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
5.9 Water consumption
Assessing water consumption was thought to be an important component of this study. Averages were
calculated for the 176 households who gave permission for their water consumption history to be accessed.
A number of these households (<10) had to be omitted from analysis because of missing or illogical data.
For potable water, six monthly consumption data was collected from November 2002 (June 2002 –
November 2002) – May 2007 (December 2006 – May 2007). For recycled water six monthly consumption
data from November 2003 – May 2007 was gathered. The average for the six month consumption periods
are displayed for potable water in Figure 5.16 and recycled water in Figure 5.17.
80
Water consumption (kL)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
May-07
Feb-07
Nov-06
Aug-06
May-06
Feb-06
Nov-05
Aug-05
May-05
Feb-05
Nov-04
Aug-04
May-04
Feb-04
Nov-03
Aug-03
May-03
Feb-03
Nov-02
0
6 month periods
Figure 5.16 Average household potable water consumption at Mawson Lakes 2002-2007 (six month periods)
As can be seen in Figure 5.16, potable water consumption varied between 61-70kL in the winter six month
periods, and 68-73kL during the summer six month periods. This is not much variation between seasons,
but is what was anticipated (a slight increase due to increased number of showers in summer). Figure 5.17
shows there is much more variation in recycled water consumption between seasons (than for potable water).
This varies from 28-38kL during the winter period and 70-83kL during the summer periods. The November
2003 recycled water consumption data was considered to be unusually higher because it was the first meter
reading to occur and thus is reflective of more than six months consumption. The water conservation
measures came in place in 2004, and it can be seen from this graph that the highest consumption recorded
was in the summer 2003/2004 period and it does not get higher than that after that period, suggesting that
the water conservation measures for recycled water have been somewhat successful (10kL reduction in the
summer six month period). However recycled water consumption has been increasing in the winter 6 month
periods since November 2004 (by 10kL). This may indicate that residents need to be further engaged in
water conservation measures during winter periods.
Figure 5.18 displays recycled water use as a percentage of total consumption for each of the 6 month
periods. A red line has been placed at the 50% mark for reference. As can be seen from this graph, recycled
water use varies between 32-55% of total water consumption. Recycled water use is typically a higher
percentage during summer periods. This is presumed to be because of increased demand for water outdoors
(e.g. garden use) during summer. The summer period use is close to the aim of the development’s original
objective, which was to decrease potable water use by 50% (Marks and Eddleston 2000).
60
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
90
Average consumption (kL)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
May-07
Mar-07
Jan-07
Nov-06
Sep-06
Jul-06
May-06
Mar-06
Jan-06
Nov-05
Sep-05
Jul-05
May-05
Mar-05
Jan-05
Nov-04
Sep-04
Jul-04
May-04
Mar-04
Jan-04
Nov-03
0
6 month period
Figure 5.17 Average household recycled water consumption at Mawson Lakes 2003-2007 (six month periods)
Percentage of total water consumption
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
No
v03
Fe
b04
M
ay
-0
4
Au
g04
No
v04
Fe
b05
M
ay
-0
5
Au
g05
No
v05
Fe
b06
M
ay
-0
6
Au
g06
No
v06
Fe
b07
M
ay
-0
7
0%
6 month period
Recycled
Potable
Figure 5.18 Average total household water consumption at Mawson Lakes 2003-2007 (six month periods): percentage
potable and recycled
61
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
The original intent of this study was to establish if there was a relationship between recycled water
consumption and attitudinal variables. However, it was quickly established that this is not be possible to
achieve. Water consumption data is collected at the household level, while attitudinal variables are measured
at the individual level – thus they are not comparable.
Only 26 of the survey respondents (10%) live alone, which is not a large enough or representative sample to
test for any statistical relationships. A larger study in the future with single person households would be
beneficial to greater understand and test the relationship between attitudes, stated behavioural intention and
actual behaviour. It would also be beneficial to have more sensitive water consumption data such as smart
metering to further understand behaviour and use of recycled water.
62
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report presented results from a research project which surveyed 269 members of the Mawson Lakes
(Adelaide, Australia) community regarding their attitudes to recycled water use. The survey was conducted in
June/July 2007 and was the fourth survey of the community’s attitudes to recycled water use, and the
second to be conducted after recycled water use had commenced. There is limited literature internationally
regarding community attitudes to recycled water. There are few studies with communities who are actually
using recycled water. A review of literature indicates this is the only long-term study assessing community
attitudes to recycled water. As such, this study makes a contribution to knowledge and understanding of
community attitudes to recycled water.
Key findings of this 2007 study include:
- The majority of respondents (94%) were satisfied with recycled water use at Mawson Lakes. Only
two respondents had disconnected from the recycled water system.
- Acceptance of recycled water use increases as the use becomes decreasingly personal (i.e. garden
watering was the most accepted use, and drinking the least accepted use).
- Since May 2005 there has been a significant increase in acceptance of recycled water use (Class A+)
for clothes washing and drinking.
- Perception of risk related to recycled water use decreases as the use becomes decreasingly
personal (i.e. garden watering and street cleaning were perceived the least risky, and drinking the
most risky).
- Since May 2005 there has been a significant decrease in perception of risk associated with recycled
water use for all purposes investigated: toilet flushing, garden watering, car washing, vegetable
growing, clothes washing, showering and drinking.
- Since May 2005 the community's attitudes to recycled water use and related issues have become
significantly more positive, specifically this includes the community have:
o greater satisfaction with recycled water use
o greater trust in the water authority to ensure water quality and safety
o greater agreement that the current pricing structure for recycled water is fair
o less concern about the effect recycled water will have on their garden
o greater agreement that they have been treated fairly in the process relating to the dual water
supply system
- Since August / September 2004, there has been a significant increase in the perceived value of
recycled water. The mean price respondents thought recycled water should cost has increased from
A$0.46 in 2004, to A$0.49 in 2005 and A$0.89 in 2007.
- With regards to recycled water use for garden watering, the majority of respondents (95%)
expressed it was as good or better than potable water. Five percent of respondents commented that
their garden did not respond well to the recycled water.
- With regards to recycled water use for toilet flushing, the majority of respondents (60%) did not have
any concerns. Of those who did, 80 commented that the recycled water stained their toilet bowl or
had a colour, 21 commented about the presence of an odour at times.
- In general, 28.3% of respondents said recycled water had an odour at times, and 49.1% said
recycled water had a colour at times.
- A small number of respondents said that they had used recycled water for purposes not permitted by
the SA Reclaimed Water Guidelines (i.e. drinking and washing clothes).
- Analysis of water consumption data (both potable and recycled) indicates that the average recycled
water consumption as a percentage of total water use for Mawson Lakes households is 32-38% in
the winter six month (May – October) and 51-55% in the summer six months (November – April).
Overall, these results show that the community have been increasingly accepting of recycled water use over
the two year period since use commenced. This indicates that increased experience of recycled water use
and ongoing demonstration of a high quality and reliable product, increases community confidence with the
product. This in turn promotes acceptance of recycled water use for other more personal uses, those uses
which are perceived to entail greater risk. The following section of this report presents key messages and
recommendations for various authorities to address in order to ensure the long term success of this recycled
water project and others. Future research is also recommended.
63
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
7. KEY MESSAGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The main findings from this research, and the implications for water resource managers, communicators,
policy makers and developers involved with recycled water use, are presented in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Key Messages and Recommendations
Institution
Key Message
Recommendation
Implication
General
Acceptance of recycled water for
drinking and clothes washing has
increased from 2005 – 2007.
Experience of recycled water use will lead to
greater acceptance. Non-potable recycled
water use demonstration projects would be
beneficial to increase acceptance of those
uses of recycled water the community
perceive to be riskier (close to personal use).
Demonstration projects
will increase community
familiarity with and
acceptance of recycled
water use. This will lead
to greater acceptance
(and use) of recycled
water use for close to
personal uses.
General
Risk perception for all recycled
water uses investigated has
decreased over the survey period
(2005-2007).
Experience of recycled water use will lead to
decreased perceived risk. Non-potable
recycled water use demonstration projects
would be beneficial to decrease perceived
risk for close to personal uses of recycled
water.
Lower perceived risk for
close to personal use of
recycled water. This may
lead to increased use.
General
WTP for recycled water has
increased over the survey period.
A recycled water price of 75% the cost of
potable water is a good starting point.
Community WTP for recycled water will
increase with positive experience of the
product.
The community may be
willing to pay a higher
price for recycled water
than initially anticipated.
General
The community had greatest trust in The current management structure for
the water authority, followed by the recycled water is appropriate given the
Council, then developer.
community place greatest trust in the water
authority.
High levels of trust in the
water authority promote
satisfaction with recycled
water use
General
Renters are unsure about recycled
water use (if they are using it, to
what extent they are using it, how it
is recycled etc).
A communication campaign about recycled
water use should be developed for and
targeted to renters.
Decrease potential
misuse of recycled water
and decrease potential
risk.
Water authority
A percentage of respondents are
using recycled water for purposes
beyond those allowed by the SA
Reclaimed Water Guidelines.
Review communication strategies to ensure
all Mawson Lakes residents are aware of
appropriate use of recycled water. Particular
groups to focus on are new residents and
renters.
Safe use of recycled
water and decrease
potential risk.
Water authority
The main concern respondents had
with recycled water use was
regarding non permitted uses (i.e.
drinking and clothes washing).
A balance is needed in communication
strategies. One which informs people of
appropriate uses of recycled water at the site,
but does so in a positive manner so as not to
impact negatively on their future willingness to
use recycled water. See Mellon and
Tsagarakis (2006). These concerns may well
be covered by the delivery of such a high
quality product (Class A+).
More positive signage
and communication
regarding appropriate use
of recycled water will
reduce fears and increase
acceptance.
Water authority
95% of respondents were satisfied
with recycled water use in 2007.
Experience of recycled water use will lead to
greater satisfaction. Non-potable recycled
water use demonstration projects would be
beneficial to increase acceptance of recycled
water use.
Greater satisfaction (and
use) of recycled water
use.
Water authority
Stated acceptance of recycled
water may not be related to actual
acceptance (i.e. behaviour). Those
respondents who stated they are
willing to drink recycled water, may
not actually translate this attitude
into behaviour.
Further research regarding actual behaviour
would be beneficial to test the relationship
between stated behavioural intention (i.e. to
drink) and actual behaviour.
It would also be beneficial to more closely
monitor recycled water consumption for single
person households and monitor factors
(attitudes) that may be influencing this.
This would lead to
information which would
inform programs that
could lead to behaviour
change.
64
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
Institution
Key Message
Recommendation
Implication
Water authority
60% of respondents did not have a
problem with recycled water use for
toilet flushing. However, 24% of
respondents reported staining of
their toilet bowl, 21% reported an
odour and 15% said they have to
clean their toilet more often.
Future research would be beneficial to map
where those reporting odour and colour live to
establish if there is a location relationship. It
would also be beneficial to monitor recycled
water quality in toilet bowls to establish if the
concerns raised are real or perceived.
Depending on the results of this further
research the Water Authority may wish to
address the removal of these attributes.
Increase the customer
base who have a more
satisfactory product.
Recycled water
retailers
A significantly larger proportion of
respondents who felt well informed
about recycled water use were
satisfied with recycled water use (as
compared to those who did not feel
well informed).
Communicate effectively about recycled
water to both potential and actual
consumers of recycled water.
Communication should be open, honest,
timely and responsive to community
requests and events.
Effective communication
will increase trust and will
lead to increased
satisfaction with recycled
water use and decrease
perceived risk.
Recycled water
retailers
Gain and maintain trust.
A significantly larger proportion of
respondents who felt trusted the
water authority were satisfied with
recycled water use (as compared to
those who did not trust the water
authority).
This will increase
community satisfaction
with recycled water use,
increase perception of
fairness in the recycled
water system and
decrease perception of
risk.
Government /
Policy developers
Ensure that recycled water policy is
A significantly larger proportion of
implemented in a manner that is perceived
respondents who felt the recycled
water system had been implemented fair by the communities involved.
in a fair manner were satisfied with
recycled water use (as compared to
those who perceived the dual water
supply system had not been
implemented in a fair manner).
This will ensure greatest
survival for recycled water
policies and facilitate
community satisfaction.
Government /
Policy developers
Stated acceptance of recycled water
use decreases as the use becomes
increasingly personal (i.e. potable is
least accepted, garden watering is
most accepted).
Perceived risk associated with
recycled water use increases as the
use becomes increasingly personal
(i.e. garden watering is perceived
least risky and drinking water is
perceived most risky).
In general, policy advocating recycled water
use for non-potable purposes should be
implemented prior to other more personal
uses. This will allow the community to
experience recycled water for uses
perceived less risky and will contribute to
greater acceptance of uses perceived to be
riskier.
The community are most
receptive to non-potable
uses of recycled water.
These uses will be most
acceptable to the
community.
Experience of recycled
water use for these
purposes will increase
acceptance of those uses
perceived more risky.
Developers
The close location to wetlands and
parks was found in survey 1 to be
the major reason respondents
stated contributed to their decision
to live at Mawson Lakes.
In new developments that incorporate
recycled water use, promote the indirect
benefits of recycled water use (such as
wetlands and parks) if they are present.
These features are likely to be more
important in residents’ decision to purchase
or reside in the suburb than the dual water
supply system itself.
This will lead to greater
acceptance of recycled
water use, and will attract
more residents to reside
in the suburb.
Developers
In previous surveys customers
perceived the developer did not
communicate well and this led to
decreased trust and an increase in
perception of unfairness.
Communicate in an open and honest way to
potential property buyers.
This will avoid customer
disappointment in the
future and will facilitate
trust and perception of
fairness.
65
Despite colour and odour
reported 94% of
respondents were
satisfied with recycled
water use at Mawson
Lakes.
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank and acknowledge the assistance and support of the following people and
organisations. The CRC for Water Quality Treatment for funding this research, and the following people:
Professor Don Bursill, former CEO for comments and feedback on various past papers; Dr Naomi Roseth,
Program Leader of the People’s Perspectives Program, Mr Bob Dorrat, Associate Professor Dennis Mulcahy,
and Associate Professor Heather Chapman for her review of this report. Ms Rebecca Jerram from the
University of Melbourne for her research assistance with the water consumption aspects of this report.
Professor Jennifer McKay, University of South Australia, and Professor Gus Geursen (Central Queensland
University) who supervised the PhD which encompassed surveys 1-3 of this study and was based at the
University of South Australia. SA Water, especially Mr Chris Marles for his continual support, provision of
information and review of the report. Delfin Lend Lease Ltd, particularly Dr Stan Salagaras, Ms Chantal
Milton and Ms Tracy Atkins for their provision of information. The City of Salisbury, especially Mr Colin
Pitman. Ms Kirsty Willis from the Ehrenberg Bass Institute (formerly known as the Marketing Science Centre)
for managing the telephone interviews. Lastly, and most importantly, all the participants of the survey,
without which, this study would not have been possible.
66
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
9. REFERENCES
Adams GR, and Schvaneveldt JD (1991). Understanding Research Methods, New York: Longman.
Albrechtsen HJ (2002). "Microbiological investigations of rainwater and graywater collected for toilet
flushing." Water Science and Technology, 46(6-7), 311-316.
Andreasen AR (2002). "Marketing Social Marketing in the Social Change Market Place." Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing, 21(1), 3-13.
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (2004). Water Recycling in Australia,
Melbourne: Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004). "4610.0: Water Account Australia". City: Australian Government:
Canberra.
Babbie E (2005). The Practice of Social Research, Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing.
Baggett S, Jeffrey P and Jefferson B (2004). "Participatory water reuse planning: a conceptual model based
on social learning and personal constructs." Presented at IWA World Water Congress, Marrakech
19-24 September, CDROM.
Baggett S, Jeffrey P and Jefferson B (2006). "Risk Perception in Participatory Planning for Water Reuse."
Desalination, 187, 149-158.
Bahri A and Brissaud F (1996). "Wastewater Reuse in Tunisia: Assessing a National Policy." Water Science
and Technology, 33(10-11), 87-94.
Bass FM (1969). "A New Product Growth Model for Consumer Durables." Management Sciences, 15(5),
215-227.
Bernard HR (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, London: Sage
Publications.
Bjornlund H, McKay J and Pisaniello J (2001). Water: Waste Not - Want Not, An initiative of the water
conservation partnership project. University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Blamey R, Gordon J and Chapman R (1999). "Choice modelling: assessing the environmental values of
water supply options." The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 43(3), 337357.
Bruvold WH (1972). Public Attitudes Toward Reuse of Reclaimed Water. University of California, Water
Resources Centre, California.
Bruvold WH (1979). Public Attitudes Towards Community Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Options,
California: University of California.
Bruvold WH (1988). "Public opinion on water reuse options." Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, 60(1), 45-49.
Bruvold WH, Olson BH, and Rigby M (1981). "Public Policy for the Use of Reclaimed Water." Environmental
Management, 5(2), 95-107.
Bruvold WH and Ongerth HJ (1974). "Public Use and Evaluation of Reclaimed Water." Journal of the
American Water Works Association, 66(5), 294-297.
Bruvold WH and Smith BR (1988). "Developing and Assessing a Model of Residential Water Conservation."
Water Resources Bulletin, 24(3), 661-669.
Bruvold WH and Ward PC (1970). "Public attitudes toward uses of reclaimed wastewater." Water and
Sewage Works, 117, 120-122.
Buurma H (2001). "Public policy marketing: marketing exchange in the public sector." European Journal of
Marketing, 35(11/12), 1287-1300.
Byrnes P (2000). "Reuse in California - an Australian Perspective." Proceedings from the Water Recycling
Australia Conference, Adelaide, 19-20 October, pp. 137-138.
Chen YD (2001). "Sustainable Development and Management of Water Resources for Urban Water Supply
in Hong Kong." Water International, 26(1), 119-128.
Christen K (2005). "Water Reuse: Getting Past the 'Yuck Factor'." Water Environment and Technology,
17(11), 11-15.
City of Salisbury (2003). "Stormwater Harvesting and Utilisation in the City of Salisbury". City of Salisbury:
Adelaide. Accessed on line 23 June 2005:
http://cweb.salisbury.sa.gov.au/manifest/servlet/binaries?img=1440&stypen=html
Council of Australian Governments (2004). "Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative,
Canberra". City: Australian Government: Canberra.
Crook J (1981). "Wastewater Reuse in California - Regulations and Rational." Proceedings from the NSF
Eighth National Conference, America, pp.263-280.
Day D, Boon G, Gendall P and Esslemont D (1991). "Predicting Purchase Behaviour." Marketing Bulletin, 2,
18-31.
67
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
Department of Human Services, Environment Protection Agency, and Government of South Australia. (1999).
South Australian Reclaimed Water Guidelines. Environment Protection Agency, Adelaide.
Dillon P (2001). "Water Reuse in Australia: Current, Future and Research." Water, Journal of the Australian
Water Association, 28(3), 18-21.
Dishman M, Sherrard JH and Rebhum M (1989). "Gaining Support for Direct Potable Water Reuse." Journal
of Professional Issues in Engineering, 115(2), 154-161.
Dolnicar S and Saunders C (2005). "Marketing Recyled Water, Review of Past Studies and Research
Agenda", in S. J. Khan, M. H. Muston, and A. I. Schaefer, (eds.), Proceedings from Integrated
Concepts in Water Recycling. Wollongong: University of Wollongong, pp. 181-192.
du Pisani PL (2005). "Direct Reclamation of Potable Water at Windhoek's Goreangab Reclamation Plant", in
S. J. Khan, M. H. Muston, and A. I. Schaefer, (eds.), Proceedings from Integrated Concepts in Water
Recycling. Wollongong: Wollongong University, pp. 193-202.
Falkenmark M, Gottschalk L, Lundqvist J and Wouters P (2004). "Towards Integrated Catchment
Management: Increasing the Dialogue between Scientists, Policy-makers and Stakeholders." Water
Resources Development, 20(3), 297-309.
Fatta D, Salem Z, Mountadar M, Assobhei O and Loizidou M (2004). "Urban Wastewater Treatment and
Reclamation for Agricultural Irrigation: The Situation in Morocco and Palestine." The
Environmentalist, 24, 227-236.
Fischhoff B, Slovic P, and Lichtenstein S (1978). "How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of
Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits." Policy Sciences, 9, 127-152.
Forester J (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes, Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Frykblom P (1997). "Hypothetical Question Modes and Real Willingness to Pay." Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management, 34, 275-287.
Government of Victoria. (2006). Sustainable Water Strategy, Central Region Action to 2055, Melbourne:
Department of Sustainability and Environment.
Hanemann MW (1994). "Valuing the environment through contingent valuation." Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 8(4), 19-43.
Hartley TW (2001). Public Perception and Participation in Water Reuse: Literature Summary. Resolve Inc,
Washington DC.
Hatton MacDonald D (2004). The Economics of Water: Taking Full Account of First Use, Reuse and Return
to the Environment. CSIRO, Adelaide.
Hills S, Birks R and McKenzie B (2002). "The Millennium Dome "Watercycle" experiment to evaluate water
efficiency and customer perception at a recycling scheme for 6 million visitors." Water Science and
Technology, 46(6-7), 233-240.
Hurlimann A (2006a). An Exploration of Community Attitudes to Recycled Water Use - An Urban Australian
Case Study, PhD, The University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Hurlimann A (2006b). "Melbourne Office Worker Attitudes to Recycled Water Use." Water Journal of the
Australian Water Association, 33(7), 58-65.
Hurlimann A (2006c). "Who Should Manage Recycled Water Systems? The Community's Perspective"
Proceedings from the WateReuse Symposium. American Water Reuse Association: Los Angeles,
10-13 September. USB Disk.
Hurlimann A (2007a). "Attitudes to Future Use of Recycled Water in a Bendigo Office Building." Water
Journal of the Australian Water Association, 34(6), 58-64.
Hurlimann A (2007b). "Is Recycled Water Use Risky? An Urban Australian Community’s Perspective " The
Environmentalist.
Hurlimann A (2007c). "Recycled Water Risk Perception - A Comparison of Two Case Studies." Water
Practice and Technology, 2.
Hurlimann A (2007d). "Urban versus rural – how public attitudes to recycled water differ in these contexts."
Proceedings from the 6th International Water Association Specialty Conference on Wastewater
Reclamation & Reuse for Sustainability, Antwerp Belgium, 9-12 October. CDROM.
Hurlimann A (2008). "From MFP to Mawson Lakes, the suburb making a contribution to Australia’s water
future." Proceedings from the 9th Australasian Urban History/Planning History conference, University
of the Sunshine Coast, 5-7 February, CDROM.
Hurlimann A and McKay J (2004a). "Attitudes to Reclaimed Water for Domestic Use: Part 2. Trust." Water,
Journal of the Australian Water Association, 31(5), 40-45.
Hurlimann A and McKay J (2004b). "Governance that Builds Knowledge and Trust in Water Authorities and
Positive Impacts on Community Use of Recycled Water." In Proceedings from Enviro 2004, Sydney,
March 28- April 1, CDROM.
68
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
Hurlimann A and McKay J (2007). "Urban Australians using recycled water for domestic non-potable use—
An evaluation of the attributes price, saltiness, colour and odour using conjoint analysis " Journal of
Environmental Management, 83(1), 93-104.
Hurlimann A, McKay J and Geursen G (2005). "Pricing of Drinking Water vs Recycled Water: Fairness and
Satisfaction." Water, Journal of the Australian Water Association, 32(2), 5066.
Hurlimann AC, Hemphill E, McKay J and Geursen G (In Press). "Establishing Components of Community
Satisfaction with Recycled Water Use through a Structural Equation Model." Journal of
Environmental Management.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, United Nations Environment
Programme, and World Wildlife Fund (1980). World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource
Conservation for Sustainable Development. Gland, Switzerland.
Irvine Ranch Water District (1994). Water Reclamation and Reuse: An Exemplary Program. Irvine Ranch
Water District, Irvine.
Jeffrey P (2002). "Public Attitudes to In-House Water Recycling in England and Wales." Water and
Environmental Management: Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental
Management, 16(3), 214-217.
Jeffrey P (2005). "Community and Institutional Engagement in Agricultural Water Reuse Projects", in V.
Lazarova and A. Bahri, (eds.), Water Reuse for Irrigation Agriculture Landscapes and Turf Grass.
Boco Raton, Florida: CRC Press, pp. 285-307.
Jeffrey P and Jefferson B (2001). "Water Recycling: How Feasible Is It?" Filtration and Separation, 26-29.
Jeffrey P and Jefferson B (2003). "Public receptivity regarding "in-house" water recycling: results from a UK
survey." Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 3(3), 109-116.
Juster TF (1966). "Consumer Buying Intentions and Purchase Probability: An Experiment in Survey Design."
American Statistical Association Journal, 658-696.
Kasperson RE, Golding D and Tuler S (1992). "Social Distrust as a Factor in Siting Hazardous Facilities and
Communicating Risks." Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 161-187.
Kasperson RE, Golding D and XKJ (1999). "Risk, trust and democratic theory", in G. Cvetkovich and R. E.
Lofstedt, (eds.), Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan, pp. 22-41.
Kimura K, Mikami D and Tunamizu N (2007). "Onsite wastewater reclamation and reuse in individual
buildings in Japan." Proceedings from the 6th IWA Specialist Conference on Wastewater
Reclamation and Reuse for Sustainability, Antwerp, Belgium, 9-12 October. CDROM.
Kotler P (2000). Marketing Management, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kotler P and Zaltman G (1971). "Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change." Journal of
Marketing, 35, 3-12.
Kraft ME and Clary BB (1991). "Citizen Participation and the NIMBY Syndrome: Public Response to
Radioactive waste Disposal." The Western Political Quarterly, 44(2), 299-328.
Law IB (1995). "Non-Potable Reuse Systems - Why not consider planned indirect potable reuse as well?"
Proceedings from the Northern Engineering Conference, McKay, Australia, pp 1-9.
Law IB (1996). "Rouse Hill - Australia's First Full Scale Domestic Non-Potable Reuse Application." Water
Science and Technology, 33(10-11), 71-78.
Law IB (2003). "Singapore's NEWater Programme." Presented at Community Consultation in the Australian
Water Industry Conference, Sydney, August.
Lockie S and Rockloff S (2005). Decision frameworks: Assessment of the social aspects of decision
frameworks and development of a conceptual model. Cooperative Research Centre for Costal Zone,
Estuary and Waterway Management, Brisbane.
Lohman LC and Milliken JG (1985). Informational/Educational Approaches to Public Attitudes on Potable
Reuse of Wastewater. U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver.
Louviere JJ, Hensher DA and Swait JD (2000). Stated Choice Methods, Analysis and Application,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lundqvist J and Gleick PH (1997). Comprehensive assessment of the freshwater resources of the world:
Sustaining our waters into the 21st century, Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.
Lundqvist J, Turton A and Narain S (2001). "Social, institutional and regulatory issues", in C. Maksimovic and
J. A. Tejada-Guibert, (eds.), Frontiers in Urban Water Management Deadlock or Hope. London: IWA
Publishing, pp. 343-398.
Madi A, Braadbaart O, Al-Sa'ed R and Alaerts G (2003). "Willingness of farmers to pay for reclaimed
wastewater in Jordan and Tunisia." Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 3(4), 115-122.
Marks J (2003a). The Experience of Urban Water Recycling and the Development of Trust, PhD, The
Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Marks J (2003). "Situating trust in water reuse." Presented at Aquarec Workshop III (Community
Consultation and Education in Water Management Issues: Reflecting on Objectives and Methods),
University of Wollongong, 20 June.
69
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
Marks J (2004a). "Advancing Community Acceptance of Reclaimed Water." Water Journal of the Australian
Water Association, 31(5), 46-51.
Marks J (2004). "Back to the Future: Reviewing the Findings on Acceptance of Reclaimed Water."
Proceedings from Enviro 2004 Conference, Sydney, 28 March – April 1, CDROM.
Marks J, Cromar N, Fallowfield H, Oemcke D and Zadoroznyi M (2002). "Community Experience and
Perceptions of Water Reuse." Proceedings from the 3rd World Water Congress of the International
Water Association, Melbourne, 7-12 April, CDROM.
Marks J and Zadoroznyj M (2005). "Managing Sustainable Urban Water Reuse: Structural Context and
Cultures of Trust." Society and Natural Resources, 18, 557-572.
Marks JS, Martin B and Zadoroznyj M (2006). "Acceptance of Water Recycling In Australia: National
Baseline Data." Water Journal of the Australian Water Association, 33(2), 151-157.
Marks R and Eddleston F (2000). "Meeting the Challenges of Urban Water Recycling - Mawson Lakes,
South Australia", in P. J. Dillon, (ed.), Proceedings from the Water Recycling Australia Conference.
Adelaide: CSIRO & AWA, pp. 69-74.
Marquez L (2002). "UCLA News: UCLA Study Shows Water Reclamation Could Become an Important
Source of Future Water Supplies". City.
Marsalek J, Schaefer K, Exall K, Brannen L and Aidun B (2002). Water Reuse and Recycling. Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Martinez-Espineira R and Nauges C (2004). "Is all domestic water consumption sensitive to price control?"
Applied Economics, 36, 1697-1703.
McKenzie-Mohr D (2000). "Fostering Sustainable Behaviour Through Community-Based Social Marketing."
American Psychologist, 55(5), 531-537.
Mellon RC and Tsagarakis KP (2006). "Assessment of Implicit Meaning in the Design of Graphic Symbols for
the Control of Recycled Water Use." Environment and Behaviour, 38(5), 689-706
Menegaki A, Hanley N and Tsagarakis KP (2006). "Social Acceptability and Evaluation of Recycled Water in
Crete: A Study of Consumers' and Farmers' Attitudes." Ecological Economics, 62, 7-18.
Mills RA and Asano T (1998). "Planning and Analysis of Water Reuse Projects", in T. Asano, (ed.),
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. Pennsylvainia: Technomic, pp. 57-112.
Mitchell RC and Carson R (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method,
Washington: Resources for the Future.
National Health and Medical Research Council, and Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council
(2004). Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 6, Canberra: Australian Government.
Nexus Australia (1999). "Queensland Water Recycling Strategy: Education Needs Background Report". City:
Queensland Government: Brisbane.
Okun DA (1997). "Distributing reclaimed water through dual systems." Journal of the American Water Works
Association, 89(11), 52-64.
Okun DA (2002). "Water reuse introduces the need to integrate both water supply and wastewater
management at local and regulatory levels." Water Science and Technology, 46(6-7), 273-280.
Open Mind Group (1998). Exploring Community Attitudes to Water Conservation and Effluent Reuse (A
Qualitative Research Report). Melbourne Water Corporation, Melbourne.
Otway HJ and Von Winterfeldt D (1982). "Beyond Acceptable Risk: On the Social Acceptability of
Technologies." Policy Sciences, 14, 247-256.
Parsons J (1990). "Irvine Ranch's Approach to Water Reclamation." Water Environment and Technology, 6871.
Po M, Kaercher JD and Nancarrow BE (2003). Literature Review of Factors Influencing Public Perceptions of
Water Reuse, Perth: CSIRO Land and Water.
Po M and Nancarrow BE (2004). Literature Review: Consumer Perceptions of the Use of Reclaimed Water
for Horticultural Irrigation. CSIRO Land and Water, Perth.
Po M, Nancarrow BE, Leviston Z, Poter NB, Syme GJ and Kaercher JD (2005). Predicting Community
Behaviour in Relation to Wastewater Reuse: What Drives Decisions to Accept of Reject?, Perth:
CSIRO.
Premier of Queensland (2007). South East Queensland will have purified recycled water but no vote:
Premier Media Release, Government of Queensland, Brisbane.
Prime Minister's Science Engineering and Innovation Council (2003). Recycling Water For Our Cities.
Federal Government of Australia, Canberra.
Putnam RD (1994). Making Democracy Work, Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Renn O, Webber T and Johnson BB (1991). "Public Participation in Hazard Managment: The Use of Citizen
Panels in the U.S." Risk - Issues in Health and Safety, 197, 197-226.
Robinson KG, Robinson CH and Hawkins SA (2005). "Assessment of public perception regarding
wastewater reuse." Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 5(1), 59-65.
70
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
Rogers EM (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, New York: The Free Press.
Rosenblum E (2004). "The Water Reclamation Matrix: A Framework for Sustainable Water Use." Marbella
Spain.
Roseth N (2000). "Community Views on Recycled Water." Proceedings from the Enviro 2000 Towards
Sustainability Conference, Sydney, 9-13 April, CDROM.
Schaefer K, Exall K and Marsalek J (2004). "Water Reuse and Recycling in Canada: A Status and Needs
Assessment." Canadian Water Resources Journal, 29(3), 195-208.
Seah H, Poon J, Leslie G and Law IB (2003). "Singapore's NEWater Demonstration Project, Another
Milestone in Indirect Potable Reuse." Water, Journal of the Australian Water Association, 30(4),
74-77.
Seaton R and Jeffrey P (1999). "Local Water Reuse: Designing and Managing the Interface with the
Customer: Australian/UK Comparisons." Presented at The Australian Water and Wastewater
Association 18th Federal Convention, Adelaide, 11-14 April.
SPSS Inc. (2007). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Chicago, IL: SPSS.
Stenekes N, Schaefer AI and Ashbolt N (2001). "Community Involvement in Water Recycling - Issues and
Needs", in A. I. Schaefer, T. D. Waite, and P. Sherman, (eds.), Recent Advances in Water Recycling
Technologies Workshop Proceedings.. Brisbane: Centre for Water and Waste Technology, Civil and
Environmental Engineering The University of New South Wales, Queensland Government
Environmental Protection Authority, pp. 113-124.
Stone R and Company Incorporated (1974). Wastewater Reclamation: Socio-Economics, Technology, and
Public Acceptance. U.S Department of the Interior, Los Angeles.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (1998). Water and Wastewater Treatment - The Swedish
Experience, Tryckeri: Graphium Norstedts.
Sydney Water (1999). Community views on re-cycled water. Research Report, Sydney Water, Sydney.
Sydney Water (2004). "Media Release: Sydney Water working closely with Rouse Hill residents ". City:
Sydney Water: Sydney.
Sydney Water (2005). "Media Release: Recycled water cross-connection at Newington ". City: Sydney Water.
Syme GJ, Nancarrow BE and McCreddin JA (1999a). "Defining the components of fairness in the allocation
of water to environmental and human uses." Journal of Environmental Management, 57, 51-70.
Syme GJ, Nancarrow BE, Seligman C and Jorgensen BS (1999b). The Social Basis for Urban Water
Provision in the 21st Century, Report by the Australian Research Centre for Water in Society.
CSIRO.
Taylor E (2003). "ABC Science Lab". City: ABC Network Australia: Sydney.
The World Bank. (2003). Water Resources and Environment Technical Note F3, Wastewater Reuse.
Technical Note F3, The World Bank, Washington DC.
Toze S (2005). "Water Reuse and Health Risks - Real vs Perceived", in S. Khan, M. H. Muston, and A. I.
Schaefer, (eds.), Proceedings from Integrated Concepts in Water Recycling. Wollongong: University
of Wollongong, pp. 680-690.
Tsagarakis KP and Georgantzis N (2003). "The role of information on farmers' willingness to use recycled
water for irrigation." Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 3(4), 105-113.
United Kingdom Environment Agency (2004). The Microbiology of Drinking Water (2004) - Part 11 - Taste,
odour and related aesthetic problems. United Kingdon Environment Agency, Bristol.
Van den Bos K and Wilke HAM (1998). "When Do We Need Procedural Fairness? The Role of Trust in
Authority." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1449-1458.
Water Futures Toowoomba (2006). "Water Futures Toowomba - Referrendum Results Website". City: Water
Futures Toowomba: Toowoomba.
White S (2003). "Participatory Techniques for Water and Wastewater." Presented at Community
Consultation in the Australian Water Industry Workshop, Sydney, 19 August.
Wintgens T, Hochstrat R, Melin T, Jeffrey P and Salgot M (2005). "Political and legislative framework
conditions for wastewater reclamation and reuse in Europe"20th Annual WateReuse Symposium of
the Water Reuse Association. City: WateReuse Association: Denver, Colorado.
Yamada K, Matsushima O and Sone K (2007). "Reclaimed Wastewater Supply Business in Tokyo and
Introduction of New Technology." Proceedings from the 6th IWA Specialist Conference on
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse for Sustainability, Antwerp, Belgium, 9-12 October, CDROM.
Yamagata H, Ogoshi M, Suzuki Y, Ozaki M and Asano T (2002). "On-Site Water Recycling Systems in
Japan." Proceedings from the World Water Congress, Melbourne, 7-12 April, CDROM.
Young RE (1989). Irvine Ranch Water Reclamation Expands. Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine.
Zoller J (1984). "Losing a water source, but gaining reclamation momentum." Weeds Trees and Turf, 22, 24
& 28.
71
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
APPENDIX I
Mawson Lakes Community Survey, June/July 2007
Hi, my name is <NAME> from the Marketing Science Centre on behalf of University of Melbourne.
May I please speak with an adult – someone that lives at this house and is over 18 years of age?. We are
not selling anything. We are doing a study at Mawson Lakes about recycled water use which is delivered
through the dual water supply system. The survey is funded by the Cooperative Research Centre for Water
Quality and Treatment. If it is not a convenient time to speak now, we can arrange a more suitable time to
call you back. The interviews should take 20-25 minutes. Your answers remain totally confidential.
Do you work for Delfin Ltd, the City of Salisbury, SA Water or in Market Research? (If yes, thank and
terminate the interview). Confirm over 18 years of age.
SECTION ONE:
1) How do you find living at Mawson Lakes at present?
2) What are your feelings about the dual water supply system (recycled water system) at Mawson Lakes?
3) We would now like you to think of recycled water use including and beyond that occurring at Mawson
Lakes. If Class A standard of recycled water – which is often better quality than drinking water – was to
be available, what would be your attitude to its use? Please rate you attitude to the following uses of
recycled water on a scale of 1-10 where 1 = not at all happy and 10 = extremely happy. How happy are
you to use Class A recycled water for:
(a) Toilet flushing
(b) To water public trees and gardens
(c) Irrigating sports ground
(d) To wash your hands
(e) In public fountains and water features
(f) On your plants and gardens at home
(g) To shower in
(h) For clothes washing
(i) For drinking
(j) For drinking indirectly (i.e. added to the drinking water reservoir/river after treatment)
(k) For street cleaning
(l) On sports fields
Back to thinking about recycled water use at Mawson Lakes
4) Do you ever use recycled water for: (yes / no / don’t know / refused)
(a) Toilet flushing? (If no, ask: why not?)
(b) Garden watering? (If no, ask: why not?)
(c) Car washing?
(d) Clothes washing?
(e) Drinking?
(f) Cooking?
(g) Showering?
(h) Any other uses? (if yes, please list)
5) Do you have any concerns about using recycled water for any of these uses? (yes / no)
(a) If yes: What are your concerns about using recycled water for any, or all of these uses?
6) We would now like to ask you some questions about what the recycled water is like:
(a) How is your garden growing with recycled water use?
(b) How are you finding flushing your toilets with recycled water?
(c) Are you happy with the pressure? (yes / no / don’t know / refused)
(d) Does the recycled water differ from drinking water in any way? (yes / no / don’t know / refused).
If yes: How does it differ from drinking water?
(e) Does it have a swampy odour at times? (yes / no / don’t know / refused)
If yes: please give some details
(f) Does it have a colour at times? (yes / no / don’t know / refused)
If yes: please give some details
72
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
7) On a scale of 0 – 10, where 0 = not at all satisfied and 10 = extremely satisfied, please rate how satisfied
you are with the recycled water to present? (Don’t know / refused also available)
8) Are there any comments you would like to make about the recycled water and whether or not it has met
your expectations?
9) Do you think there is any risk involved with recycled water use? (yes / no / don’t know/refused)
(a) If yes, please list the risks you think are involved with recycled water use (list up to 4)
10) We are interested to know how risky you think particular uses of recycled water are. Please rate the
following uses of recycled water on a scale of 1-10 where: 1 = Not at all risky and 10 = extremely risky:
(a) Toilet flushing
(b) Garden watering – home
(c) Garden watering – public
(d) Drinking – directly
(e) Drinking indirectly (i.e. added to the drinking water reservoir/river after treatment)
(f) Washing hands
(g) Clothes washing
(h) Car washing
(i) Vegetable growing
(j) Showering
(k) Street cleaning
(l) Public fountains
11) We would now like you to think again of recycled water use beyond that occurring at Mawson Lakes.
Would you drink recycled water from the following treatment methods. Please rate the following on a
scale of 0-10 where 0 = would not drink, and 10 = would definitely drink.
(a) Treatment at a wastewater treatment plant and direct delivery to your household for use
(b) Treatment at a wastewater treatment plant and storage in a reservoir or river system for some time
before further treatment and delivery to your household for use
(c) Treatment at a wastewater treatment plant and storage in ground water for some time before
delivery to your household for use
12) Are there any other comments you would like to make at this point?
SECTION TWO:
I am going to read out a number of statements about the environment and different types of water. We would
be interested in your views. Please rate each of the following statements on a scale of 0-10 where: 0 = very
strongly disagree and 10 = very strongly agree:
The following statements relate to the environment:
1) Saving energy is more important than saving water
2) I am not concerned about global environmental problems
3) I enjoy living in a community that actively contributes to environmental sustainability
4) The potential to do something positive for the environment motivated me to live at Mawson Lakes
5) The dual water system may have a negative impact on the environment
6) The threat of climate change is a concern to me
Now thinking about water:
7) I think that the present water quality system in Adelaide is good
8) I trust the Water Authority
9) I trust the Council (City of Salisbury)
10) I trust Delfin (the Developer)
11) We need to use recycled water for the future’s sake.
Now thinking about water recycling:
12) I would prefer it if the water system at Mawson Lakes was standard – no dual water supply
(For those that answer 9 or 10 ask: Why would you prefer a standard system?)
13) I am well informed about the dual water supply system
(For those that answered 0 or 1 ask: Why don’t you feel well informed?)
73
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
14) I avoid using the lilac (recycled water) taps whenever possible
15) I trust the Water Authority to ensure recycled water safety and quality
16) I am confident there are no health risks associated with the dual water supply system at Mawson Lakes
(For those that answered 0 or 1 ask: Why aren’t you confident?)
17) The opportunity to substitute drinking water with recycled water was a contributing factor in my decision
to move to Mawson Lakes
18) The Water Authority provides information that can be trusted
19) I worry about the affect recycled water will have on my garden
20) The environmental benefits of the dual water supply system are more important than financial benefits
21) I think there is adequate regulation to ensure safe use of recycled water use at Mawson Lakes
22) Recycled water use should not be subject to water use restrictions
23) I trust the water authority to ensure water safety and quality
24) SA Water keeps me informed of new development with the recycled water scheme
25) Recycled water at Mawson Lakes is of a high quality
26) I am likely to recommend other dual water supply systems
27) Recycled water quality can be as good as drinking water quality
28) I feel I have been treated fairly in regards to the recycled water system
29) All water is recycled
And finally, about price:
30) I think the current pricing structure for recycled water at Mawson Lakes is fair
31) The potential to save money, associated with the dual water supply system contributed to my decision to
live in Mawson Lakes
32) I see financial value in the recycled water system
33) I am concerned that costs associated with the dual water supply system may increase in the future
34) The dual water supply system adds value to my property
35) Charging for recycled water should be based on treatment and transport.
36) I would be willing to pay a higher price for drinking water that is more aesthetically pleasing
37) I trust technology to treat wastewater more than I trust nature
SECTION THREE:
1) Do you know who is responsible for recycled water quality at present? (Who)
2) Who should be responsible for recycled water quality?
(a) The developer
(b) SA Water
(c) The Health Department
(d) Community representatives
(e) Other ________________
(f) Don’t know / refused
3) Do you feel you need more information about recycled water use? (yes, no, don’t know, refused)
If yes what information do you need and from whom?
4) What is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay per kilolitre (1,000 litres) for recycled water
(note the step 2 price of drinking water in the Adelaide area is A$1.09 per kilolitre)
5) What is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay per kilolitre (1,000 litres) for drinking water?
SECTION FOUR:
Current recycled water policy in South Australia allows the use of recycled water for garden watering, toilet
flushing and car washing. Recycled water in some parts of the world is allowed for drinking purposes, for
example in Singapore and in Namibia. Strict quality controls and treatment processes are required in relation
to various parameters, for example: chemicals, microbiological components (bacteria and viruses) and
endocrine disruptors (substances that disrupt the function of hormones). In some instances these
parameters are totally removed, in other instances there is potential that there are traces of these
parameters in the water with unknown long term consequences. We are interested to know how you feel
about different combinations of these possible recycled water parameters when used for drinking purposes.
To help complete this next section please grab a pen and some paper. I am going to read out a group of 4
possible recycled water parameters and ask you how to rate each combination as a group on a scale of 0 –
74
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT – RESEARCH REPORT 56
10 where 0 = very low preference and 10 = very high preference. So with a pen and paper write the following
under one another; chemicals, bacteria, viruses, endocrine disruptors which we will refer to as ‘hormones’.
When I call out each combination of attributes you can jot them down under those headings, and more easily
rate them on the scale of 0 – 10.
The following 8 scenarios are for the use of recycled water for drinking:
1) Chemicals: potential trace with unknown long term consequences,
Viruses: none
Bacteria: potential trace with unknown long term consequences
Hormones: potential trace with unknown long term consequences
2) Chemicals: none
Viruses: potential trace
Bacteria: potential trace
Hormones: none
3) Chemicals: potential trace
Viruses: none
Bacteria: potential trace
Hormones: none
4) Chemicals: potential trace
Viruses: potential trace
Bacteria: none
Hormones: none
5) Chemicals: none
Viruses: potential trace
Bacteria: potential trace
Hormones: potential trace
6) Chemicals: none
Viruses: none
Bacteria: none
Hormones: none
7) Chemicals: potential trace
Viruses: potential trace
Bacteria: none
Hormones: potential trace
8) Chemicals: none
Viruses: none
Bacteria: none
Hormones: potential trace
9) Were there any other comments you wanted to make about water or recycled water in South Australia?
SECTION FIVE:
That’s the end of the formal questions. Can I just check a couple of personal details to ensure we have a
good cross section of people?
1) When did you move to Mawson Lakes (year and month)?
2) How old are you?
3) What is your occupation?
4) Gender by observation (Male / female/ not sure)
75
COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TO RECYCLED WATER USE: AN URBAN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY
5) How many people including children live in your household?
6) Are you best described as the gardener of the house? Yes / No
7) Your completed education could be described as?
(a) Primary
(b) Year 10
(c) High school certificate
(d) Tafe / other certificate
(e) University degree
(f) Post graduate studies
(g) Don’t know / refused
(h) Other
8) Are you an active member of any environmental group or organisation?
9) The researchers are hoping to investigate water consumption history for Mawson Lakes households. Do
you give permission for the researchers to access water consumption data for your household? Yes / No
(a) If yes, what is your address?
Thank you for your time. In case you missed it my name is <name> from the Marketing Science Centre.
Should you have any queries on this survey or would like more information, our toll free contact number is
1800 801 857.
76
The Cooperative Research
Centre for Water Quality and
Treatment is an unincorporated
joint venture between:
CRC for Water Quality and
Treatment
Private Mail Bag 3
Salisbury SOUTH AUSTRALIA 5108
Tel: (08) 8259 0351
Fax: (08) 8259 0228
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.waterquality.crc.org.au
The CRC for Water Quality and Treatment is established
and supported under the Federal Government’s Cooperative
Research Centres Program.
Water Quality
and Health Risks
from Urban
Rainwater Tanks
Research Report 42
The Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Water Quality
and Treatment is Australia’s national drinking water research
centre. An unincorporated joint venture between 29 different
organisations from the Australian water industry, major
universities, CSIRO, and local and state governments, the CRC
combines expertise in water quality and public health.
• ACTEW Corporation
• Australian Water Quality Centre
• Australian Water Services Pty Ltd
• Brisbane City Council
• Centre for Appropriate
Technology Inc
• City West Water Limited
• CSIRO
• Curtin University of Technology
• Department of Human Services
Victoria
• Griffith University
• Melbourne Water Corporation
• Monash University
• Orica Australia Pty Ltd
• Power and Water Corporation
• Queensland Health Pathology &
Scientific Services
• RMIT University
• South Australian
Water Corporation
• South East Water Ltd
• Sydney Catchment Authority
• Sydney Water Corporation
• The University of Adelaide
• The University of
New South Wales
• The University of Queensland
• United Water International Pty Ltd
• University of South Australia
• University of Technology, Sydney
• Water Corporation
• Water Services Association
of Australia
• Yarra Valley Water Ltd
Research Report
42