IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/waterr/v29y2015i12p4501-4518.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Public Perceptions of Alternative Water Sources for Potable Use: The Case of Rainwater, Stormwater, Desalinated Water, and Recycled Water

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly Fielding
  • John Gardner
  • Zoe Leviston
  • Jennifer Price

Abstract

This research investigated how people’s perceptions of alternative water sources compare with their perceptions of other technologies, and identified significant predictors of comfort with different alternative water sources. We drew on data from four questionnaire survey studies with a total sample of more than 1200 Australian participants. Relative levels of comfort with the alternative water sources was consistent across the four studies: comfort was always highest for drinking rainwater and lowest for drinking recycled water, with comfort with drinking treated stormwater and desalinated water sitting between these two. Although comfort with drinking recycled water was always lowest of the four alternative water sources, participants were significantly more comfortable with drinking recycled water than they were with nuclear energy, or with using genetically modified plants and animals for food. In general, demographic variables were less important predictors of comfort with alternative water sources than were psychological variables; only age and gender emerged as relatively consistent predictors for recycled water, stormwater, and desalinated water, with older participants and males more comfortable with drinking these water sources. Of the psychological variables, participants’ comfort with technology in general, trust in science and trust in government emerged consistently as significant positive predictors of comfort with drinking recycled water, stormwater, and desalinated water. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly Fielding & John Gardner & Zoe Leviston & Jennifer Price, 2015. "Comparing Public Perceptions of Alternative Water Sources for Potable Use: The Case of Rainwater, Stormwater, Desalinated Water, and Recycled Water," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(12), pages 4501-4518, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:29:y:2015:i:12:p:4501-4518
    DOI: 10.1007/s11269-015-1072-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11269-015-1072-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11269-015-1072-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anna C. Hurlimann, 2007. "Is recycled water use risky? An Urban Australian community’s perspective," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 83-94, March.
    2. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    3. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    4. Aditi Mankad & Meng Chong & Ted Gardner & Ashok Sharma, 2012. "Examining Biophysical and Socio-Demographic Factors across Mandated Tank Users in Urban Australia: A Linking Step towards Achieving Best Practices," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(7), pages 1983-1998, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jelena Ristić Trajković & Verica Krstić & Aleksandra Milovanović & Cristina Sousa Coutinho Calheiros & Mirjana Ćujić & Milica Karanac & Jan K. Kazak & Sara Di Lonardo & Rocío Pineda-Martos & Mari Carm, 2024. "Moving Towards a Holistic Approach to Circular Cities: Obstacles and Perspectives for Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-24, August.
    2. James, Christina Anne & Kavanagh, Marie & Manton, Carl & Soar, Jeffrey, 2023. "Revisiting recycled water for the next drought; a case study of South East Queensland, Australia," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    3. Erika Allen Wolters & Brent S. Steel & Muhammed Usman Amin Siddiqi & Melissa Symmes, 2022. "Public Water Policy Knowledge and Policy Preferences in the American West," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-20, February.
    4. Peter Zeisl & Michael Mair & Ulrich Kastlunger & Peter M. Bach & Wolfgang Rauch & Robert Sitzenfrei & Manfred Kleidorfer, 2018. "Conceptual Urban Water Balance Model for Water Policy Testing: An Approach for Large Scale Investigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-24, March.
    5. Shufen GUO & Zhifang Wu & Ludi Wen, 2022. "Urban Residents’ Acceptance Intention to Use Recycled Stormwater—An Examination of Values, Altruism, Social and Cultural Norms, and Perceived Health Risks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-16, February.
    6. Zack Dorner & Daniel A. Brent & Anke Leroux, 2019. "Preferences for Intrinsically Risky Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(4), pages 494-514.
    7. Nahui Zhen & Jon Barnett & Michael Webber, 2020. "Is Trust Always a Precondition for Effective Water Resource Management?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(4), pages 1423-1436, March.
    8. Furlong, Casey & Jegatheesan, Jega & Currell, Matthew & Iyer-Raniga, Usha & Khan, Tehmina & Ball, Andrew S., 2019. "Is the global public willing to drink recycled water? A review for researchers and practitioners," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 53-61.
    9. Sean F. Ellis & Maik Kecinski & Kent D. Messer & Clive Lipchin, 2022. "Consumer perceptions after long‐term use of alternative irrigation water: A field experiment in Israel," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 1003-1020, June.
    10. Cristina Gómez-Román & Luisa Lima & Sergio Vila-Tojo & Andrea Correa-Chica & Juan Lema & José-Manuel Sabucedo, 2020. "“Who Cares?”: The Acceptance of Decentralized Wastewater Systems in Regions without Water Problems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-16, December.
    11. Jesse L. Barnes & Anjala S. Krishen & Han-fen Hu, 2021. "Untapped Knowledge about Water Reuse: the Roles of Direct and Indirect Educational Messaging," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(8), pages 2601-2615, June.
    12. Dimitra Lazaridou & Anastasios Michailidis & Konstantinos Mattas, 2019. "Evaluating the Willingness to Pay for Using Recycled Water for Irrigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-8, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    2. Savadori, Lucia & Lauriola, Marco, 2022. "Risk perceptions and COVID-19 protective behaviors: A two-wave longitudinal study of epidemic and post-epidemic periods," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    3. Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2016. "Understanding Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions on the Benefits and Risks Associated with High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 1983-1999, October.
    4. Evensen, Darrick & Stedman, Rich, 2017. "Beliefs about impacts matter little for attitudes on shale gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 10-21.
    5. Brandi S. Morris & Polymeros Chrysochou & Simon T. Karg & Panagiotis Mitkidis, 2020. "Optimistic vs. pessimistic endings in climate change appeals," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-8, December.
    6. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    7. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    8. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    9. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    10. Thomas Deroche & Yannick Stephan & Tim Woodman & Christine Le Scanff, 2012. "Psychological Mediators of the Sport Injury—Perceived Risk Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 113-121, January.
    11. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.
    12. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    13. Mutlu, Asli & Roy, Debraj & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Capitalized value of evolving flood risks discount and nature-based solution premiums on property prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    14. Therese Kobbeltvedt & Katharina Wolff, 2009. "The Risk-as-feelings hypothesis in a Theory-of-planned-behaviour perspective," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 567-586, December.
    15. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    16. Dolores J. Severtson & Jeffrey B. Henriques, 2009. "The Effect of Graphics on Environmental Health Risk Beliefs, Emotions, Behavioral Intentions, and Recall," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11), pages 1549-1565, November.
    17. Sedona Chinn & P. Sol Hart, 2021. "Effects of consensus messages and political ideology on climate change attitudes: inconsistent findings and the effect of a pretest," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-21, August.
    18. Martijn Adriaan Boermans & Daan Willebrands, 2017. "Entrepreneurship, risk perception and firm performance," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 31(4), pages 557-569.
    19. Christiane Riedinger & Jackie Campbell & William M P Klein & Rebecca A Ferrer & Juliet A Usher-Smith, 2022. "Analysis of the components of cancer risk perception and links with intention and behaviour: A UK-based study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-16, January.
    20. Liana Fraenkel & Marilyn Stolar & Jonathan R. Bates & Richard L. Street Jr & Harjinder Chowdhary & Sarah Swift & Ellen Peters, 2018. "Variability in Affect and Willingness to Take Medication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 34-43, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:29:y:2015:i:12:p:4501-4518. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.