Public perception and social acceptance of desalinated and recycled water
When water augmentation projects are introduced, it is not only the technical solutions that determine whether their implementation will be successful or not. Success also depends on the acceptance of the water augmentation project in the community. History has taught us that “the issue of public acceptance could kill the proposal” (Dishman et al. 1989, p. 158), as experienced in the USA, the Netherlands and most recently in Australia (Hurlimann and Dolnicar 2010).
It is therefore of crucial importance to be aware of the public perception about water augmentation projects well before they are implemented to ensure measures can be taken to communicate effectively to the public the benefits of such schemes as well as prevent potential scare campaigns, which tend not provide the public with true facts but instead play on their fears, especially in relation to public health, to mobilize the public against the introduction of augmentation schemes which are safe for the public.
Content Table
Perceptions relating to water augmentation
Perceptions relating to water augmentation, typically either water recycling or desalination, vary from country to country, from region to region, but also change over time. Therefore there is no standard baseline that water policy makers can refer to. Instead, public perceptions have to be determined using both qualitative and quantitative market research methods. Qualitative methods (such as interviews and focus groups) can be used to identify the key issues (see Dolnicar and Hurlimann 2009 for an example). In a second step, a survey can be conducted to determine the prevalence of each of the identified issues among the general public.
A large number of studies have investigated public perception and acceptance of recycled water in the past. This stream of research was pioneered by Bruvold in the early 1970ties (Bruvold and Ward 1970; Bruvold 1972, 1979 and 1988) and still pursued to better understand public acceptance related to water (for example, Nancarrow et al. 2002; Marks et al. 2006). Only a small number of recent studies have compared the perceptions the public holds about recycled and desalinated water (Dolnicar and Schäfer 2006, 2007 and 2009; Dolnicar and Hurlimann 2010; Hurlimann and Dolnicar 2010). A few general conclusions can be drawn from these studies although the levels of acceptance and agreement with difference perceptions vary across locations and date of measurement:
- The general level of public knowledge about the processes involved in water augmentation as well as the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches is relatively low.
- The public discriminates clearly between different approaches to water augmentation. People perceive water recycling as the more environmentally friendly solution while expressing public health concerns related to recycled water. On the other hand people view desalinated water as environmentally unfriendly but express fewer health concerns.
- These differences in perceptions lead to differences in the stated likelihood of using recycled and desalinated water, respectively. Desalinated water tends to be preferred for close to body uses whereas recycled water is preferred for tasks such as cleaning the car. These differences seem to indicate that people might feel there is some residual salt in desalinated water which may harm their car or garden, whereas there is residual wastewater in recycled water which makes them uncomfortable about using it for bathing and showering.
- Different groups in society (market segments) prefer different kinds of water because they either care more about the perceived environmental impact or the perceived potential public health impact.
- Finally, the public’s opinion can be modified. In a recent experiment is was demonstrated clearly that explaining to people the process of producing both recycled and desalinated water using a simple graphical illustration increases significantly the stated likelihood to use both recycled and desalinated water (Dolnicar, Hurlimann and Nghiem 2010).
Overall, it can therefore be concluded that understanding the public perceptions towards water augmentation projects before attempting to implement a project is crucial. Public policy makers need to be aware of the fact that the general public has little knowledge and understanding of how recycled and desalinated water are produced and therefore cannot assess the implications of introducing either of the two approaches. Such lack of knowledge can be fertile ground for scare campaigns which are often not based on facts but on people’s fundamental fears about their health. Scare campaigns can lead to public opposition which in turn can stop water augmentation project from going ahead. However, even simple information about the production processes can help people understand how recycled and desalinated water are produced. Provision of such factual information changes perceptions and increases stated likelihood of use or acceptance.
Acknowledgement
Funding for much of the research conducted by Sara Dolnicar and Anna Hurlimann (University of Melbourne) and cited in this article has been provided by the Australian Research Council (ARC) through its Discovery Grant scheme (DP0878338).
Resources
The issues in this article are addressed in Public perception of desalinated versus recycled water in Australia by Sara Dolnicar A. I. Schafer. The article was adapted and by
Sara Dolnicar
Institute for Innovation in Social and Business Research
University of Wollongong
References
Bruvold, W. & Ward, P. (1970) Public Attitudes Toward Uses of Reclaimed Wastewater. Water & Sewage Works. 120.
Bruvold, W. (1972) Public Attitudes Towards Reuse of Reclaimed Water. USA: Univ. of California.
Bruvold, W. (1979) Public Attitudes Towards Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Options. USA: Univ. of California.
Bruvold, W. (1988) Public Opinion on Water Reuse Options. Journal WPCF, 60(1), 45.
Dishman, C., Sherrard, J. & Rebhun, M. (1989) Gaining Public Support for Direct Potable Water Reuse. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, 115(2), 154.
Dolnicar, S. & Schäfer, A.I. (2007) Australians Raise Health, Environment and Cost Concerns. Desalination & Water Reuse, 16(4): 10-15.
Dolnicar, S. & Schäfer, A.I. (2009) Desalinated Versus Recycled Water — Public Perceptions and Profiles of the Accepters. Journal of Environmental Management, 90: 888-900.
AVAILABLE FOR FREE AT http://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/485/
Dolnicar, S. & Hurlimann, A. (2009) Drinking water from alternative water sources: differences in beliefs, social norms and factors of perceived behavioural control across eight Australian locations. Water Science & Technology, 60(6): 1433-1444.
AVAILABLE FOR FREE AT http://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/634/
Dolnicar, S. & Hurlimann, A. (2010) Desalinated Versus Recycled Water – What Does the Public Think? In: Escobar, I.C. & Schäfer, A. (Eds), Sustainable Water for the Future: Water Recycling Versus Desalination. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 375-388.
AVAILABLE FOR FREE AT http://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/709/
Dolnicar, S. & Schäfer, A.I. (2006) Public Perception of Desalinated Versus Recycled Water in Australia. CD Proceedings of the AWWA Desalination Symposium 2006.
AVAILABLE FOR FREE AT http://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/138/
Dolnicar, S., Hurlimann, A. & Nghiem, L. (2010) The effect of information on public acceptance - The case of water from alternative sources. Journal of Environmental Management, 91: 1288-1293. AVAILABLE FOR FREE AT http://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/713/
Hurlimann, A. & Dolnicar, S. (2010) Acceptance of Water Alternatives in Australia. Water Science and Technology. 61(8): 2137-2142.
AVAILABLE FOR FREE AT http://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/708/
Hurlimann, A. & Dolnicar, S. (2010) When Public Opposition Defeats Alternative Water Projects - the Case of Toowoomba Australia. Water Research, 44: 287-297.
AVAILABLE FOR FREE AT http://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/714/
Marks, J. S., Martin, B. & Zadoroznyj, M. (2006) Acceptance of Water Recycling In Australia: National Baseline Data. Water Journal of the Australian Water Association, 33(2), 151.
Nancarrow, B., Kaercher, J. & Po, M. (2002) Community Attitudes to Water Restrictions Policies and Alternative Sources, A longitudinal Analysis 1988-2002. Perth: CSIRO Land and Water Consultancy Report, November 2002.
Related Articles
- Desalinization
- Beneficial Use of Recycled Water
- Health Studies
- Increase Support for Drinking Recycled Water
- Protecting Public Health
- Public Acceptance
- Recycled Water Quality
- Regulating Water Recycling
- Talking about Water Recycling
- Water Recycling Events and Conferences
- Water Recycling Links and Websites
- Water Recycling: Information and Resources
- Water Recycling Glossary
- Water Reuse
- Water Reuse: The Perspective System
