SUMMARY REPORT OF A STUDENT RESEARCH PROJECT ON WATER USE AND WATER CONSERVATION IN KELOWNA

Transcription

1 SUMMARY REPORT OF A STUDENT RESEARCH PROJECT ON WATER USE AND WATER CONSERVATION IN KELOWNA The following summary report describes the key findings of a telephone survey conducted in March 2005, by Okanagan University College students. Twenty-three students enrolled in an anthropology fieldwork course (ANTH 407) conducted the study under the supervision of the course instructor, Dr. John Wagner. This is the first of two summary reports. A supplementary report will be posted to this website by the end of August 2005, once all the data has been fully analyzed. The survey was designed to gather information about the water use patterns of households living in single family residences in Kelowna, BC. Questioning focused mainly on outside water use in relation to the maintenance of lawns, flower beds, trees and shrubs, but questions about water use inside the house were also included. We were especially interested in learning whether households were actively attempting to limit their water use for conservation purposes. The survey, which took an average of about 15 minutes to complete, ended with a series of questions about the participants personal attitudes toward water conservation (a copy of the questionnaire can be viewed on this website). The individuals who participated in the telephone survey were selected at random from the Kelowna telephone book. In order to limit participation to the residents of single family houses, we excluded any telephone numbers associated with a business, apartment or condominium address. We also excluded numbers from areas outside of the Greater Kelowna area such as Westbank and Big White. Survey Response Rates Response rates themselves turned out to be one of the most interesting aspects of the research project. The objective for each student was to complete 5 interviews with an upper limit of 60 telephone numbers being assigned to each student for this purpose. While one student was able to complete 5 interviews after making only 11 phone calls, two students were able to complete only 2 interviews after making 60 phone calls. On average students needed to make 9 phone calls in order to find one individual who would agree to participate in the survey. The 23 students as a whole made a total of 816 calls in order to complete 94 interviews. Many of these calls were to numbers where there was no answer and a small percentage were to numbers now out of service. A total of 531 individuals were contacted, however, with 94 individuals agreeing to participate and 437 declining to participate. The survey response rate was therefore 17.7% (94 divided by 531). A response rate of 17.7 % is extremely low when compared to average response rates for surveys of this type. For several decades now, response rates of between 60%-70% have been commonly reported for telephone surveys conducted by social scientists. The low response rate in this case could mean that Kelowna residents are not very interested in the water conservation issue but this is not the conclusion we have drawn. Telephone survey fatigue appears to be the more important factor. Many of those who were contacted complained about the volume of calls they receive daily from telemarketers and charities. Most did not distinguish between those types of calls and the calls made by university researchers or others involved in legitimate research on important local issues. Many students reported that individuals hung up immediately when told that the interview could take up to 20 minutes to complete. The response of Kelowna residents may, in fact, be 1

2 typical of a growing trend across North America. The ever expanding telemarketing industry may soon make it impossible for legitimate researchers to use telephone surveys effectively. Attitudes towards Conservation Of those who did participate in the telephone survey, fully 92% stated that they felt water conservation in Kelowna was either a very important (61%) or an important (31%) issue (see Table 1). These figures cannot be considered entirely representative of Kelowna as a whole since individuals who think water conservation is not important are less likely to participate in a survey of this type than those who think it is important. While our current set of data does not allow us to reliably determine the extent to which response rates were skewed on this basis, it seems TABLE 1 Relative Importance of Water Conservation Based on question 1 of part 3 of the survey: Do you believe that water conservation in the Kelowna area is a very important issue, an important issue, not a very important issue or not important at all? Relative Importance of water conservation Number of Households Percentage of Households very important 57 61% Important 29 31% not very important 5 5% not important at all 2 2% no opinion 1 1% Totals % reasonable to assume that a significant majority of Kelowna residents do see water conservation as an important issue. Of greater importance, however, is the issue of whether individuals are prepared to change their water use habits as a result of these concerns. A significant number of households reported that they have been attempting to reduce the amount of water they use both inside and outside of the home (see TABLE 2 Attempts to Reduce Water Use Table 2). 73% of households Based on question 3 of part 3: Have you ever tried to reduce the amount of water you use in any of the following ways. reported that they have attempted to reduce the Strategies Response Number of Households frequency of outside watering, Change automatic sprinkler Yes 31 33% for instance. 40% of settings to avoid peak hours No 63 participants reported that they Reduce frequency of outside Yes 69 73% had begun to apply xeriscaping watering No 25 principles when landscaping Replace or supplement light Yes 34 36% (i.e. plant more drought soils with heavier soils No 60 tolerant plants). 36% of Landscape with drought Yes 38 40% households also reported that tolerant plants No 56 they have replaced or Install water-saving Yes 61 65% supplemented light soils under technology inside the home No 33 their lawns with heavier soils Turn off tap when brushing Yes 79 84% that are better at retaining teeth, shaving, etc. No 15 water. 31 households reported Reduce use of appliances Yes 52 55% (dishwashers, etc.) No 42 that they have reset the timers on their automatic sprinklers to Take showers rather than Yes 65 69% baths No 29 avoid peak hours. This figure Yes 23 25% contradicts the information Other measures No 71 found in Table 4 below, however, which indicates that more than half of all households with automatic sprinkler systems 2

3 continue to water wholly or partly during peak hours from 5:00 to 7:00 am in the morning. This discrepancy may indicate some confusion over exactly what constitutes peak hours or it may indicate that schedules have been shifted slightly but not entirely outside the peak period. It should also be kept in mind that self-reports are not generally as accurate as observational data. Interview subjects providing self-reports will often overestimate or underestimate certain aspects of their behaviour, based either on how they would like to be perceived, or on what they believe the interviewer wants to hear. The Water Smart Program Participants were also asked during the survey if they were aware of the City of Kelowna s Water Smart program for conserving water and reducing the cost of water services. Fully 61% answered yes to this question despite the fact that many live in areas not serviced by the City of Kelowna and therefore not included in TABLE 3 Watering Systems Based on question 3 of part 2: What type of watering system do you use to water your yard? Type of Watering System Number of Households Automatic/underground sprinklers only 32 Automatic combined with other types 11 Households with automatic systems 43 Manually positioned sprinklers only 32 Hand-held sprinklers only 4 Both manually positioned and hand-held 13 Other watering systems 2 Total of non-automatic systems 51 the Water Smart program. The City is, in fact, only one of fiv water purveyors in the survey area. It is also worth noting that 50% of all participants (47 of 94) also reported having attempted to implement one or more of the measures recommended by the Water Smart Program. Quite possibly, then, the Water Smart message is reaching households outside the area in which they are mandated to operate (an analysis of survey responses by location within the city will be included in a later supplementary report). Survey data also indicates that the main strategy of the Water Smart Program to date is entirely appropriate for the Kelowna area. Table 3 indicates that almost half (43) of the 94 households TABLE 4 Watering Hours for Automatic Sprinklers Based on question 6b of part 2: During what hours of the day does your automatic system normally run? Hours of Operation Number of Households Partly or entirely during peak hours (5:00 am to 7:00 am) Between 10 pm and 5 am 17 Between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm 3 surveyed use an automatic sprinkler system, either as a stand alone system or together with other watering systems. Table 4 also indicates that slightly more than half of all the households that use automatic systems are still watering wholly or partly during peak hours. Convincing these households to change their watering schedules and avoid peak hours will therefore significantly lower the costs that arise as a result of heavy demands during peak hours. While this is not a conservation issue per se, it is a critical management issue for the City and a key component in the Water Smart Program. It should also be kept in mind that this survey deals entirely with single family residences. A much higher incidence of automatic sprinkler use can be 23 3

4 expected for multi-family housing units such as apartments and condominiums and for gated communities. Looking to the Future Kelowna residents were also given the opportunity during this survey to express their opinions about how water conservation measures in Kelowna could be improved (see Table 5). The most striking finding in this case is that 98% of participants (92 of 94 responses) said no when asked if no watering restrictions would be an appropriate choice for Kelowna at this time. Even those who indicated that they thought water conservation was not very important (see Table 1) stated that no restrictions would not be appropriate. Also of considerable interest is the fact that 60% of participants stated no when asked if voluntary restrictions would be appropriate. A clear majority of respondents, then, believe that people are not likely to become less wasteful of water on an entirely volunteer basis. 64% of participants on the other hand supported the idea of mandatory restrictions of one kind or another. 60% of participants also thought the idea of increases in water rates would be an TABLE 5 Best Methods for Promoting Conservation Based on question 6 of part 3: Which approaches to water conservation do you think are most appropriate for the Kelowna area at this time? Approach Response Number of Households voluntary watering Yes 38 40% restrictions No 56 60% mandatory Yes 60 64% restrictions No 34 36% no watering Yes 2 2% restrictions No 92 98% Subsidies for more Yes 52 55% water efficient technology No 42 45% higher water rates Yes 56 60% No 38 40% Other measures Yes 19 20% No 75 80% effective deterrent to overuse of water. Many participants mentioned that one or more people in their neighbourhood would regularly use excessive amounts of water throughout the summer to water lawns, clean driveways and vehicles and so on. Higher water rates, it was thought, would be an especially effective deterrent in such cases. Significant support (55%) was also expressed concerning the introduction of subsidies for the purchase of more water efficient technology for inside water use in particular (i.e. more water efficient toilets). One rather troubling outcome of this research project concerns the frequent complaint made by interview subjects about the watering practices of the City of Kelowna itself. The City was accused by many of being very wasteful in the way they water City parks, school grounds and boulevards. We are unable to provide statistical documentation concerning the frequency of this complaint since none of the questions on the survey were explicitly designed to capture this information. Some but not all of the students who heard such comments recorded them on the survey form. Participants complained, for instance, that the City set a bad example by watering in the rain and by watering during peak hours. Summary The research project described here was set up as a pilot project to collect some baseline information on attitudes towards conservation. Despite the low response rate, a significant body of information was gathered and now provides the foundation for further, more detailed studies. As development proceeds in Kelowna and demands on local water supplies increase, the incentives 4

5 for additional conservation and cost-saving measures will also increase. Given the current profile of water use in Kelowna, this study confirms the appropriateness of the Water Smart Program when it comes to reducing the costs associated with high water demand during the peak hours of 5:00 to 7:00 am. Eventually, however, the City of Kelowna will have to expand the part of its program devoted explicitly to conservation. The results of this study suggest a number of possible directions for future research. One of the most promising could be an investigation of the water use habits of the City of Kelowna itself. Too what extent are the complaints of Kelowna residents about wasteful practices by the City justified? To what extent is the City missing out on its best opportunity for convincing people that changes need to be made? Another promising area for future research would be an observational study of the watering practices of households with automatic systems by comparison to those without. As anyone knows who has forgotten to turn off their manual system, it is not only automatic systems that waste water. A third promising area for future research lies in a close comparison of the various areas within greater Kelowna that are served by different water purveyors. Which areas are having the most success in water management and why? Acknowledgements As supervisor for this project, I would like to take this opportunity to formally thank the 94 individuals who agreed to participate in the study. I would also like to express my appreciation to the student researchers who diligently conducted the interviews. Participants have expressed their opinion about some of the policy choices that the City of Kelowna will be needing to make in the near future. A majority have also indicated their personal willingness to make significant changes. Further research of this type, hopefully, will support the processes by which those choices are being made and the manner in which change will be brought about. Dr. John Wagner Department of Anthropology Okanagan University College April 27,