Accepting managed aquifer recharge of urban storm water reuse: The role of policy‐related factors

Abstract

A between-groups experimental design examined public acceptance for managed aquifer recharge of storm water for indirect potable and nonpotable reuse; acceptance was based on five policyrelated variables (fairness, effectiveness, trust, importance of safety assurances, and importance of communication activities). Results showed that public acceptance (N 5 408) for managed aquifer recharge of storm water was higher for nonpotable applications, as was the importance of safety assurances. Analyses of variance also showed that perceptions of fairness and effectiveness were higher for a nonpotable scheme, but not trust. A three-step hierarchical regression (Step 1: age, gender, education, and income;Step 2: type of use;Step 3: fairness, effectiveness, trust, safety assurance, and communication activities) demonstrated that type of storm water use and the policy-related factors accounted for 73% of the variance in acceptance of storm water (R 2 5 0.74, adjusted R 2 5 0.74, F (10, 397) 5 113.919, p < 0.001). Age, type of use, and three of the five policy-related factors were also significant individual predictors of acceptance. The most important predictors were perceptions of trust in water authorities, perceptions of effectiveness, and perceptions of fairness. Interestingly, while safety assurance was important in attitudinal acceptance of managed aquifer recharge based on type of use, safety assurance was not found to be significant predictor of acceptance. This research suggests that policy-makers should look to address matters of greater public importance and drive such as fairness, trust, and effectiveness of storm water programs and advocate these at the forefront of their policies, rather than solely on education campaigns.

Public responses to water reuse – Understanding the evidence

“…However, these findings must be tempered against the fact that potable reuse schemes, when considered on their own terms (rather than compared against other hypothetical uses), can still generate high levels of support (City of San Diego 2013, Hills et. al 2013, Aitken et al 2014, Mankad & Walton 2015). Hartley's (2006) list of ten factors also stated that public acceptance of reuse is more likely when protection of the environment is a clear benefit; when promotion of water conservation is a clear benefit; and when awareness of water supply problems in the community is high.…”

“…As previously mentioned, several modelling-based studies have argued that higher levels of trust are associated with lower perceptions of risk, which in turn increase the likelihood of acceptance (Nancarrow et al 2009, Bratanova et al 2013, Ross et al 2014. In addition, a large number of studies from different approaches have found that trust is actually one of the most important factors in determining the acceptance of water reuse (Ormerod & Scott 2013, Aitken et al 2014, Ross et al 2014, Mankad & Walton 2015.…”

Measuring objective knowledge of potable recycled water

“…Partially as a function of practical attempts to implement recycled potable water programs, there has been increased research concerning the psychological and social factors associated with the acceptance of recycled water (Fielding et al, 2018; Smith et al, 2018). Factors associated with acceptance include being less disgust sensitive (Callaghan, Moloney, & Blair, 2012; Rozin, Haddad, Nemeroff, & Slovic, 2015; Wester et al, 2015), more educated (Price et al, 2015), more trusting (Mankad & Walton, 2015; Ormerod & Scott, 2013; Price et al, 2015), having more experience with recycled water (Dolnicar, Hurlimann, & Grun, 2011), and having more subjective knowledge of recycled water (Dolnicar et al, 2010; Dolnicar & Schafer, 2009; Fielding & Roiko, 2014).…”

Response to Dr. YongCheol Kim

“…Basic events that can lead to MAR failure were compiled based on a literature review of the problems encountered by different facilities around the world (Aiken and Kuniansky, 2002;Alazard et al, 2016;Assmuth et al, 2016;Bhusari et al, 2016;Chaoka et al, 2006;Flint and Ellett, 2005;Masetti et al, 2016;Murray and Ravenscroft, 2010;Petersen and Glotzbach, 2005;Schneider et al, 1987;Izbicki et al, 2006;Sultana and Ahmed, 2016;Tredoux et al, 2009;Tredoux and Cain, 2010;Tripathi, 2016). We revised 51 MAR facilities at 47 sites (some sites involved more than one facility) located in different countries and climatic conditions worldwide: Australia, Belgium, Botswana, China, Finland, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Namibia, South Africa, Spain, Tunisia, and USA.…”