Community experience and perceptions of water reuse

Abstract

The experience and perceptions of 80 people residing in four separate sites, which feature reclaimed water systems, are considered in this paper in relation to the benefits and costs of residential water reuse applications. Reclaimed water is used for non-potable applications by residents in Florida mainly for garden irrigation and in Australia for both irrigation and toilet flushing. All respondents value reclaimed water and although the benefit of water conservation is identified they are more enthusiastic about the personal cost benefit involved in using this cheaper alternative to potable water. Many are willing to handle the water but the extent to which this increased exposure is seen as a good development depends on the quality of information provided to users. In relation to reclaimed water for toilet flushing, there is a strong indication that the water conservation and cost saving benefit is small compared to the initial cost and the increased cross connection risk.

What Germany’s University Beginners Think about Water Reuse

“…It has been repeatedly found that the higher the educational level, the higher the likelihood of acceptance (e.g., Reference [12]). In line with our results, Marks and colleagues [28] found perceived positive effects on the environment as a major reason for using recycled water. Similar to our results, Alhumound and Madzikanda [9] found health to be the number one reason not to use recycled water, closely followed by psychological conflicts.…”

“…Risk assessment of these substances is needed; these unresolved questions regarding health risks are of great importance [12,33]. Although our sample mainly named health concerns, other factors are important for acceptance that are cited in literature are trust of water authorities and perception of fairness in terms of price [28,34]. Besides outreach educational campaigns for the public, critical points for success of implementation of water reuse plants are the involvement of various stakeholder groups (industry, health, academia, and community organizations), including trusted persons in public life (local politician, religious leaders).…”

Desalinated versus recycled water: Public perceptions and profiles of the accepters

“…However, 24 Thomas and Syme (1988) found that the price elasticity for water is generally low, 25 and price increases of conventional water sources have little effect on acceptance 26 levels for recycled water Bruvold, 1979). In contrast, 27 Kaercher et al(2003) and Marks et al (2002) found that cost-benefits are an 28 important criterion for public acceptance. Alhumoud et al (2003) conclude that 29…”

“…In Australia, Higgins et al (2002) found that "public health and the 7 environmental effect of microbiological agents," together with chemicals such as 8 endocrine disrupters, were a prime concern. Marks et al (2002) identify quality and 9 cost as the two main concerns among users. Hamilton (1994) found that opposition to 10 potable reuse schemes derives from the public's suspicion of politicians and 11 organizations involved in the projects.…”

Cross-connection detection in Australian dual reticulation systems by monitoring inherent fluorescent organic matter

“…The use of highly treated recycled water for direct or indirect consumption is already faced with a low level of community support within Australia, with up to 77% of residents in one study displaying concerns over recycled water quality [47]. Cross-connection events risk a similar negative attitude towards non-potable water recycling, and risk undermining public confidence in the further implementation of dual reticulation systems [48].…”