No abstract

Reclaimed water has been identified as a viable and cost-effective solution to water shortages impacting agricultural production. However, lack of consumer acceptance for foods irrigated with reclaimed water remains one of the greatest hurdles for widespread farm-level adoption. Using survey data from 540 adults in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S., this paper examines consumer preferences for six sources of reclaimed irrigation water and identifies statistically significant relationships between consumers' demographic characteristics and their preferences for each type of reclaimed water. Key findings suggest that consumers prefer rain water to all other sources of reclaimed water. Women are less likely than men to prefer reclaimed irrigation water sources and are particularly concerned about the use of black and brackish water. Consumers who had heard about reclaimed water before are more likely to accept its use. Drawing on evidence from survey and experimental research, this paper also identifies disgust, neophobia and health concerns as the key issues that lead consumers to accept or reject foods produced with reclaimed water. Finally, we identify avenues for future research into public acceptance of reclaimed water based on our analysis and evidence from prior research.

No abstract

1 1. Introduction Water scarcity is a growing concern in many regions of the U.S. and across the world. Currently, 4 billion people worldwide, including 130 million people in the U.S., experience severe water shortages at least part of the year (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2016). Projected growth in populations and food demand, coupled with rising temperatures and changing weather patterns, will further strain available water resources. These issues pose a serious challenge for the agricultural sector, which currently uses more than 70% of the world's fresh water resources for irrigation (World Water Assessment Programme, 2016). In the U.S., the agricultural sector is responsible for 80% of the country's total water consumption and 90% of total water consumption in most western states (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2017). Furthermore, global agricultural output is projected to double in the next 30 years (World Bank, 2014), and therefore alternative sources of irrigation water are critically needed. Recycled water has emerged as a safe and cost-effective way to provide for the growing 1 demand for irrigation water around the world (Chen et al., 2013). Countries such as Israel and Australia have been using recycled irrigation water for decades, but its use by U.S. agricultural producers has been modest. Though 32 billion gallons of municipal wastewater are produced daily in the U.S. (National Research Council, 2012), only California, Florida, Arizona, and Texas augment their irrigation supplies with recycled water (McNabb, 2017). Perhaps the most According to the California Department of Water Resources (2018), "recycled water is highly treated wastewater 1 from various sources, such as domestic sewage, industrial wastewater and storm water runoff." This type of water has been referred to by several names, including reclaimed water, reused water, treated wastewater, repurified water, tertiary treated wastewater, advanced purified water, NEWater (

No abstract

Reclaimed water is often presented as a cost-effective, reliable, and safe solution to increasingly common water shortages in the United States and across the globe, but studies have shown that consumers tend to object to the use of this water. Broad adoption of this technology will require consumer acceptance or at least tolerance of it, and studies have suggested that better branding could minimize or even overcome their concerns. This study uses an experimental approach to test consumer preferences for twenty-one potential branding names for reclaimed water and to determine whether an opportunity for consumers to try this water can change their preferences. The results suggest that the common names for this water, such as Recycled, Reclaimed, Nontraditional, Treated Wastewater, and Reused, are the least appealing, as they all scored at the bottom. In contrast, names that invoke desirable characteristics of the water-Pure, Eco-Friendly, and Advanced Purified, were viewed significantly more favorable than the others. Having an opportunity to taste this water seems to clarify consumers' preferences by increasing the differences in favorability between the names. Based on these results, it appears that while there are a couple of appealing names, the most preferred is Pure Water.

Stigmatization of water and food products can constrain markets and prevent the implementation of scientifically safe solutions to environmental problems, such as water scarcity. Recycled water can be a cost-effective, dependable, and safe solution to water shortages. However, consumers generally either require a large reduction in price to purchase products made with recycled water or reject such products outright. If emerging sustainable agricultural technologies, such as recycled water, are to be used to address growing water shortages worldwide, policymakers, water managers, and industry stakeholders must identify effective strategies for mitigating the stigma associated with recycled water. Using field experiments involving 1420 adult participants, we test the effectiveness of two stigma-mitigating techniques. We also demonstrate a novel twist to the collection of representative samples in nonhypothetical field experimental settings and then compare the results to a more traditional field experiment that recruited participants at large public gatherings. The analysis of these two different samples suggests a common finding: passing recycled water through a natural barrier, such as an aquifer, removes the stigma consumers would otherwise attach to it. We also find that the trophic level an organism occupies in the food chain influences stigmatizing behavior. The greater the steps in the food chain between an organism and the use of recycled water, the less it is stigmatized by consumers. These results have important implications for efforts to promote large-scale potable and non-potable water recycling projects and the use of recycled water in the agricultural industry.

No abstract