A Survey of Public Opinion for Water Reuse in Corvallis, Oregon: Attitudes, Values and Preferences

Transcription

1 A Survey of Public Opinion for Water Reuse in Corvallis, Oregon: Attitudes, Values and Preferences Karen DuBose March 2009 Support for this study provided by: Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Oregon State University Master of Public Policy Program Institute for Water and Watersheds USGS Mini-Grants Program

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A survey of 1200 randomly selected registered voters in Corvallis was administered by Oregon State University and the Institute for Water and Watersheds during November-December The survey was tested before being mailed to the selected respondents. Approximately 4 weeks later, a reminder letter with a second copy of the survey was sent to non-respondents. Eightyfour surveys were returned undeliverable. Five hundred and eighteen responses were received (46% response rate), and were entered into an Excel database. Response frequencies and crosstabulations were calculated to explore Corvallis citizens attitudes, values and preferences toward reclaimed water. Results of the survey indicate that the city can expect significant support for water reuse in the community, especially if the program demonstrably adheres to the principles of sustainability. If the decision is made to pursue water reuse, the majority of respondents prefer the water be sent wherever it is needed, whether inside or outside of city limits. This, in combination for the support for sustainability suggests that the community would support an in-city use if there is need for the water within the city and it was more sustainable than sending the water elsewhere. The degree of contact that respondents could expect to have with the water appeared to influence their acceptance of the uses presented. Low contact uses like irrigation of business park landscaping were more preferred than high contact uses like irrigation of edible crops. There is significant uncertainty among respondents about the safety of reclaimed water for all uses listed in the survey. Given more information, citizens may be more willing to support higher contact uses. Education about wastewater treatment and reclaimed water quality, as well as increasing awareness of the reason the city is considering water reuse will increase support for a water reuse program. University scientists and independent, unbiased sources of information are more trusted than local, state and federal government sources. The majority of respondents prefer to read about the city s water reuse plans in the Corvallis Gazette Times, The City monthly newsletter, and in direct-mailed pamphlets. Public meetings, focus groups and workshops are the least preferred communication method, but should not be neglected because they are where the city can expect to receive the most useful public input. The city should also consider other ways of communicating with the public, including television programs on public channels, information booths at community events and presentations to clubs or other groups. 2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary...2 Table of contents...3 I. Introduction...4 II. Approach and methods...4 III. Results...6 A. Demographics of respondents...6 B. Awareness of wastewater and water reuse...8 C. Support for and the best uses of reclaimed water in Corvallis...9 D. Factors affecting public acceptance of reclaimed water in Corvallis...13 E. Trust...15 F. Communicating with the public and receiving feedback...17 IV. Recommendations and conclusions...19 V. Limitations of this study...20 VI. References...21 Appendix A Wastewater Recycling Survey...22 Appendix B Factor Analysis and Regression Analysis Details...31 Appendix C Responses to Open Ended Question...36 Appendix D Respondents wanting to participate in further discussion

4 I. INTRODUCTION Since 1975, the City of Corvallis has been treating wastewater from Corvallis homes and businesses at the Wastewater Reclamation Plant, and releasing the treated effluent into the Willamette River. Wastewater that passes through the plant goes through primary and secondary treatment, which removes solids and most of the organic load in the water. The plant produces over 4 billion gallons of effluent every year. Recently, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) tightened water quality regulations on the effluent released into the river. The Wastewater Reclamation Plant currently meets all of the new standards, except for the TMDL for temperature about four times a year. As the city grows, the associated increase in wastewater production will put the city in danger of exceeding TMDL standards more frequently than it already does. In order to avoid future noncompliance with the standards, the city is exploring water reuse as a way to keep effluent from entering the Willamette River. While water reuse is becoming more common in the United States, guides to help treatment plant managers through the public involvement process are rare. Water reuse faces the possibility of public outcry if citizens are not actively brought into the discussion of reclaimed water standards and end uses. Assessing public opinion of water reuse both before and during the decision making process is a critical step. This survey was designed to address the following questions for Corvallis: What is the level of awareness in the community about water reuse? What kinds of information does the community need in order to feel comfortable with water reuse? What areas of education will the city need to focus on for the community to understand water reuse? What does the community believe is the best use for Corvallis reclaimed water, given limited information? What deal breakers would make water reuse unacceptable to the public? What is the best way to communicate the city s plans to the public and receive feedback? Where do citizens get their information and who do they trust? This report details the methods used to produce the survey, along with analysis of the results. The results described below provide reliable information to help wastewater treatment staff and city managers in making decisions about water reuse. II. APPROACH AND METHODS We conducted a mailed survey to a randomly sampled selection of Corvallis registered voters. The methods used to collect and analyze the data are described below. 4

5 Sample. Given a population of approximately 54,000 people, 594 responses were needed to ensure a 95% confidence level with a confidence interval of plus or minus 4%. A random sample of 1200 registered voters with mailing addresses in Corvallis were selected by city staff. Survey administration. The survey and postcards were printed on ivory colored paper in order to stand out from other mail. Postcards were printed with black ink; surveys were in black ink with a large color OSU logo on the cover page. Cover letters were printed on standard OSU stationary with a color logo. All correspondence was hand-signed in blue ink by the researchers. The initial postcard was mailed to survey respondents notifying them that a survey would be arriving in the mail shortly. The survey was then mailed to each randomly selected customer with a postage-paid business reply envelope. A cover letter that describes the purpose and importance of the survey was included with each survey. Approximately four weeks later, a reminder letter accompanied by another copy of the questionnaire was mailed to nonrespondents. The cover letters and postcards included phone numbers and addresses for questions or concerns about the survey. We received several phone calls and s, either noting recipients intent to fill out the survey or requesting removal from the contact list. One respondent asked about the source of our contact list. In order to track survey responses so that non-responders could be contacted, a unique number was given to each respondent. The number was placed on the mailing label and survey. When a survey was returned, the number on the survey was used to remove that respondent from the list for future mailings. Survey questions. Based on information derived from interviews with Corvallis city staff and a review of research and surveys done elsewhere, questions were developed to obtain information about the general themes described above. A draft version was drawn up and pilot tested to identify in advance any issues that may have been problematic. Changes were made to the questions, response categories, and order. The final eight-page survey consisted of nineteen close-ended questions and a space at the end for respondents to write any extra thoughts, comments or ideas they had. Of the nineteen questions, six were demographic, including level of education, occupation, age of children in the household, and age of respondent. (See Appendix A.) Data Entry and Analysis. Data from the surveys were entered by an undergraduate student assistant into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. A random sample of 40 surveys were checked to ensure data were entered correctly. Eight errors were found for an error rate of less than 0.3%. Comments were entered separately into Microsoft Word for analysis. Frequency responses were calculated for each question. These frequencies were entered into the original survey alongside each respective response (Appendix A). Descriptive statistics were calculated where appropriate. Cross-tabulation was used to compare answers across demographic groups in order to determine whether there were significant differences in the responses among different groups of citizens. 5

6 20 to to to to to to to to Under consultation with two Oregon State University professors, a multiple linear regression was performed to identify what factors influence public acceptance of water reuse in Corvallis. Details of the regression analysis are provided in Appendix B; results are described below. Open-ended responses were tabulated and analyzed for patterns of similarities and differences. Comments were first read to determine general themes that emerged, then grouped into each category. Results are provided in Appendix C. Representative comments are included in the results section where appropriate. III. RESULTS A total of 518 responses were received. Eighty-four surveys were returned undeliverable. The total response rate was 46%. A. Demographics of respondents Figures 1, 2 and 3 present the spread of age, gender and education of survey respondents. Because the response rate was slightly less than we hoped, we compared respondents to 2000 census data in order to identify any differences that would affect our analysis. 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Survey 2000 Census 0% Age of Respondents Figure 1. Age of respondents as compared to 2000 census data. (Eight respondents years of age are not show in the graph.) 6

7 56% 54% 52% 50% 48% 46% Survey 2000 Census 44% 42% Male Female Figure 2. Gender of respondents as compared to 2000 census data. 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% Survey 2000 Census 5% 0% Less than high school High school Some college Bachelor's degree Graduate degree Figure 3. Highest level of education attained of respondents as compared to 2000 census data. As is clear from the graphs, we received more responses from women than men, and the respondents for our survey are generally older and more educated than the regular population. The median age of respondents was 52 years. From figure 1, we can see that the census population of Corvallis is much younger than that of our survey. The large population of young people reported by the census is likely due to the student population from Oregon State University. Our sample was taken from the list of registered voters in Corvallis. If students are registered to vote, they may be registered in their hometown rather than Corvallis, and therefore would not have made it into the sample pool for our survey. Therefore, we expect that our results to under-sample the student population. However, sixty-four respondents reported their 7

8 occupation as student, forty-one of which are in the year age range that was significantly under-sampled by our survey. Forty-one is considered an adequate number to perform statistical analysis, so we feel comfortable that we can draw accurate conclusions when age seems to be a consideration. Our survey also oversampled highly educated people. It is not known whether this is due to the registered voter data set we sampled from (i.e. it is possible that lower educated people are less likely to be registered voters). Thirty respondents reported achieving high school education, and four respondents had less than a high school education. With thirty respondents, our survey results can probably be generalized to include those with a high school education, but not to those with less than a high school education. The survey asked a number of other demographic questions. Thirty-two percent of survey respondents reported having children in their household, compared with the 2000 census report of 19.5%. The difference may again be the result of sampling registered voters. Young people, especially if they are university students, may be less likely to have children in the household, and since we have under-sampled the young population we expect to receive more responses from households with children. The categories offered in the survey for a respondent s occupation do not directly relate to categories from the 2000 census, so a direct comparison cannot be made. However, 23% of survey respondents reported that they were retired, which is likely a higher percentage than actually exists in the population. Thirteen percent of respondents (sixty-four individuals) reported being students, 9% (forty-six individuals) were business owners or self-employed, 7% (thirty-seven individuals) were university education professionals, and 6% (thirty individuals) were school teachers. Other occupations listed accounted for less than thirty individuals each, so the sample for those occupations cannot be considered representative of the population. B. Awareness of wastewater and water reuse Water will be a major problem in the future. We need to conserve/efficiently utilize it. Solutions should begin now, not after there s a crisis. We may need to pay more for water to do it properly (probably will). Questions 1, 4 and 5 were designed to measure the level of awareness of wastewater and water reuse in Corvallis. We measured awareness of wastewater treatment in Corvallis by asking how informed respondents felt they were. Figure 4 shows that the majority of respondents are not well informed about wastewater treatment. Older respondents and those with higher education (college graduate and higher) report being more informed about wastewater treatment. To measure knowledge of wastewater and identify which terms may be the most confusing for the general public when used in discussion, we offered six terms of varying difficulty and asked respondents to identify whether they knew each term, had heard of it but didn t know its meaning, or had not heard of it at all. Terms varied from sewage, which is known by 97% of respondents, to effluent, which only 50% of respondents reported knowing. Overall, there is relatively high level of knowledge, with 34% of respondents reporting knowing all six terms, and 26% knowing all but one term. Again, older and more educated respondents were more likely to 8

9 know more of the terms. Forty-nine percent of university professionals reported knowing all six terms, followed by retired respondents at 34%. Only 27% of school teachers and 19% of students were the familiar with all six terms. Informed 13% Very well informed 4% To measure awareness of water reuse, we asked whether respondents were familiar with the term recycled water. Seventy-five percent of respondents reported knowing what the term meant, while 24% either had not heard of the term at all or had heard of the term but did not know what it meant. Education does not appear to be a factor in familiarity with the term, though respondents less than 34 years old are somewhat less likely to know recycled water. University professors were most likely and school teachers and students were least likely to know the term. Somewhat informed 49% Not informed 34% Figure 4. Responses for In general, how well informed would you consider yourself to be concerning wastewater treatment in Corvallis? Greywater was included on the list of terms to see if there might be some confusion between recycled water and greywater since they are similar concepts, but the source of the water is different. Sixty-five percent of respondents knew what greywater meant, however it is not clear whether they understand the difference between the source of greywater versus reclaimed water. We recommend that the city clearly differentiate between greywater and reclaimed water in all contact with the public in order to avoid confusion between the terms. Respondents aged and those who were more educated were more likely than other age groups to know the term. About three quarters of self-employed business owners, university professors and school teachers were familiar with greywater. Only 48% of students reported knowing the term. Research from California, Australia and other areas has shown that public acceptance of reclaimed water is often affected by awareness of issues such as drought or water quality issues prompting its consideration by municipalities. Respondents read a short statement outlining the new water quality regulations on the Willamette River and how that might impact wastewater treatment in Corvallis. They were then asked whether they were aware of the situation or not. Two-thirds of respondents were unaware of the change in water quality standards and the impact that it would have on wastewater treatment and their sewer bill. Those who were most aware of the situation were respondents who were older and those who were retired. C. Support for and the best uses of reclaimed water in Corvallis Love the idea of using recycled H2O for landscaping et. al. Hope it will be publicized where used. Questions 7, 9 and 10 asked respondents about what uses of reclaimed water they would support and what might increase their support. 9

10 Due to space considerations, little information was given about reclaimed water in the survey or the cover letter that accompanied it. To help alleviate this lack of information, we chose to use the term recycled water in the survey as opposed to the industry standard of reclaimed water because we believe recycled is a more familiar word and easier to understand for the average person. As is shown above however, nearly a quarter of respondents are not familiar with the term recycled water, and we have no way of knowing whether those that report knowing the term understand that wastewater is the source of the water. Therefore, results from these questions should be considered theoretical rather than concrete acceptance of water reuse. Figure 5 shows the level of acceptance of the eleven uses that were listed in the survey. Respondents were more willing to support uses in which they could expect only minimal contact with the water. Irrigate business park landscape Irrigate golf courses Flush toilets in public buildings Irrigate non-edible agricultural crops Use to cool buildings Use in industrial processes Irrigate public parks Supply fire hydrants Supply car wash businesses Irrigate school grounds Irrigate edible agricultural crops 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 5. Percentage of respondents choosing "very favorable" or "favorable" for various reclaimed water uses. Uncertainty about the listed uses, measured by the number of respondents who chose neutral, is relatively high. High contact uses such as irrigation of edible agricultural crops, supply of car wash businesses, irrigation of school grounds had the highest level of uncertainty. Such high levels of uncertainty are likely a reflection of the lack of information provided by the survey. Other uses that had high levels of uncertainty are those in which the general public may not be familiar with exactly how the water might be used such as use in industrial processes, use to cool buildings, and supply fire hydrants. Several respondents noted that they would like more information to make a decision. For example, I had difficulty answering many questions because I don t know how you would pipe the recycled water to the different locations it might be used, and I m assuming the wastewater won t make anyone ill. What about heavy metals? Are they treated in wastewater? Retired respondents generally were less accepting of all uses listed. Twenty-one percent of school teachers rated irrigate school grounds as unfavorable or highly unfavorable. This 33% 67% 65% 89% 88% 88% 86% 82% 81% 78% 77% 10

11 suggests that those who will be most likely to come into contact with the water for the uses being considered should be included as an integral part of the decision process. Additionally, whether or not a respondent has children and the age of those children appears to affect acceptance of water reuse for school and public park irrigation. In order to see if having younger children in a household affected response, we sorted respondents into those with no children, those that had a child age 0-10 years old (regardless of if there were other children older than 10 years old in the household), and those that had only children aged 11 or older. Figures 6 and 7 show that respondents with older children (11+ years of age) are more likely to consider both irrigation of school grounds and public parks favorable or highly favorable than those with no children or young children. 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 19% 19% 19% 15% 13% 7% Unfavorable or highly unfavorable Neutral no kids 0-10 yr 11+ yr 62% 65% 79% Favorable or highly favorable Figure 6. Acceptance of reclaimed water irrigation of school grounds, sorted by the presence and age of children in the respondent s household. 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 14% 4% 14% 8% 13% 77% 78% 82% Unfavorable or highly unfavorable Neutral Favorable or highy favorable no kids 0-10 yr 11+ yr Figure 7. Acceptance of reclaimed water irrigation of public parks, sorted by the presence and age of children in the respondent s household. 11

12 In order to determine whether support of water reuse was affected by the expense and sustainability of the proposal, we asked respondents whether they would support a recycled wastewater program if it was cheaper and if it was more sustainable than continuing to discharge the water into the Willamette River. We also wanted to gauge how much support there might be in the community to reuse the water as drinking water if regulations were to allow it. Figure 8 presents the results of these three questions. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 0% Support if cheaper Support if more sustainable Support drinking water Figure 8. Acceptance of water reuse if it is cheaper or more sustainable than discharging into the river, and acceptance of turning reclaimed water into drinking water if regulations allowed it. Sustainability appears to be a very important factor for respondents, with 91% agreeing that they would support a recycled water program if it were more sustainable than releasing the water into the Willamette River. It is important to note, as one respondent did that we did not provide a definition in the survey for sustainable. This omission was intentional; another question assessed the extent to which the respondent accepts common principles of sustainability (Q6). With over 300 definitions for sustainability in existence, however, it is important to note that respondents personal definitions of sustainable when answering this question may be significantly different than city officials definition. Seventy-four percent of respondents agreed that they would support water reuse if it were cheaper than continuing to discharge into the river. Given the large amount of support for sustainability, however, a project that is cheaper may be a nice benefit but not a core reason to support water reuse. In the words of one respondent, cheaper is not always better. Only 38% of respondents agreed that they would support using reclaimed water for drinking if regulations allowed it. Age was a factor in acceptance of potable reuse, with younger respondents accepting using the water for drinking more than older respondents. Women are 12

13 less likely to accept potable reuse, with 33% of women agreeing that they would accept potable reuse as opposed to 42% of men. We also asked where the water should be used if a decision was made to recycle Corvallis wastewater. The majority of respondents (73%) said that the water should be sent wherever it is needed, whether in or outside of city limits (see figure 9). Sixteen percent of respondents preferred it be used only within city limits This, in combination for the support for sustainability suggests that the community would support an in-city use if there is need for the water within the city and it was cheaper and/or more sustainable than sending the water elsewhere. Wherever needed 73% Within city limits 16% No recycling 1% Don't know 7% Other 3% Outside city limits 1% Figure 9. If a decision is made to recycle Corvallis wastewater, where should it be used? D. Factors affecting public acceptance of reclaimed water in Corvallis Research by Bruvold (1985, 1988) and others has attempted to generalize the demographic and other factors affecting public approval of water reuse. Following that lead, we performed a multiple regression to identify which factors affect acceptance of water reuse in Corvallis at the 95% significance level. Factors that were used in the regression are listed in Table 1. In light of the focus that Corvallis and its citizens place on the concept of sustainability, we added a measure of sustainability to our analysis, theorizing that those with a strong sustainability ethic may be more willing to accept water reuse than those who do not. Table 1. Independent variables used in multiple regression and corresponding question on survey. For the full text of the questions, see Appendix A. Independent variables Informed about wastewater treatment? Level of knowledge about wastewater Aware of Corvallis wastewater effluent problem? Strength of respondent s sustainability ethic Trust in public works department to serve public interest Gender Age Level of education Children present in household? Question number Q1 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q12a Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 13

14 We performed a factor analysis on the eleven uses of reclaimed water from Q7 to see if any patterns emerged in the responses (see Appendix B for details). We found that responses fell into three groups: uses in which the respondent has a high likelihood of contacting or perhaps ingesting the water (hereafter called high contact uses ); uses where there was a low likelihood of contact ( low contact ), and a group of uses we will call other uses. High contact uses included irrigation of schools, public parks and edible crops. Low contact uses included irrigation of business park landscaping, golf courses and non-edible crops, and use in industrial processes. The explanatory factor behind the other uses group is less clear. The uses in the group include building cooling, toilet flushing in public buildings, supplying fire hydrants in the city, and supplying car wash businesses. The level of contact a respondent could expect to have does not appear to have an influence since building cooling is a low contact use and car washing is a higher contact use. We suspect that respondents were unsure of how exactly the water would be used (i.e. would respondents have contact with water used to cool buildings, and would a new set of pipes need to be installed in public buildings to flush toilets?) and that the other uses group reflects this uncertainty. We used the three groups identified above to performed three regressions to identify what factors influence responses for the three groups. Details about the factor analysis and regression procedures are found in Appendix B. Results from the regression show that several variables strongly affect the acceptance of water reuse in Corvallis (see Table 4). For high contact uses, there is strong evidence that acceptance is higher for men (p=0.004) and those who have a strong sustainability ethic (p=0.051). Contrary to what we might expect, those who are aware of the Willamette River water quality problems are less likely to accept water reuse for high contact uses (p=0.000). It is possible that those who are aware of the situation already consider water reuse as a solution and decided that low contact uses are most appropriate. For low contact uses, acceptance is higher among those who are generally knowledgeable about wastewater (p=0.009). Again, gender is a significant factor but this time it is women who are more likely to accept the low contact uses (p=0.029). There is somewhat weaker evidence that those who trust the Public Works Department to serve the public interest are also more likely to accept low contact uses (p=0.067). For other uses of reclaimed water, a strong sustainability ethic and higher levels of education positively influence acceptance (p=0.003 and p=0.028, respectively). The presence of children in the household may have a small negative influence on acceptance of other uses of reclaimed water (p=0.088). The results on education support the theory noted above that the other uses group is the result of uncertainty about how the water will be used. Those who have a higher education are more likely to understand how exactly the water would be used in each of the uses in the group, and so may be more accepting of the use. Why men are more accepting of high contact uses while women are more likely to accept low contact uses is an interesting question to consider. Bruvold (1985) found six studies showed that those who believed in the existence of technology to safely and effectively treat wastewater for 14

15 reuse are more likely to support using the water for drinking. Belief in the existence of appropriate treatment technology likely also applies to high contact uses like irrigation of food crops. We speculate that men are more likely to believe that adequate technology exists, and therefore are more supportive of high contact uses. Technological fields (such as engineering) are still dominated by men, therefore men may be more aware of treatment technologies, or at least believe that adequate technologies might exist. E. Trust It s better to have info from more than one source (preferably unrelated sources). One aspect is the basic info on what are acceptable standards. The other is city testing to see if standards are met. We asked respondents two questions about their level of trust in city government: how much they trust the Corvallis Public Works Department to serve the public interest, and how much they trust it to protect the environment. Overall, respondents have a good deal of trust in the Public Works Department (see figure 10). The level of education of respondents appears to impact the level of trust they have that Public Works serves the public interest, with high school graduates choosing limited trust more often than other education groups (see figure 11). 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 29% 24% Great deal of trust 58% 56% 18% 13% 1% 2% Moderate trust Limited trust No trust at all Serve the public interest Protect the environment Figure 10. How much do you trust the Corvallis Public Works Department to serve the public interest and protect the environment? 15

16 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 58% 60% 56% 46% 31% 30% 30% 27% 19% 12% 13% 10% 4% 4% 1% 1% No trust at all Limited trust Moderate Trust Great deal of trust High school Some college College graduate Graduate student Figure 11. Education and respondents level of trust in Public Works to serve the public interest. As sources of information, Oregon State University scientists are trusted more than any other source (see figure 12). State agencies and city reports of regular testing were also frequently chosen. When asked to choose the single most credible of all the sources listed, scientists again were chosen most frequently (see figure 13). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Oregon State University scientists Other university scientists City reports of regular testing Oregon Dept. of Health 78% 78% 77% 93% Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 61% 75% Figure 12. There are many sources of information concerning the use of treated wastewater. Which of the following sources would you find credible? 16

17 City reports 15% Other 1% EPA 9% OSU scientists 28% Oregon DOH 10% Oregon DEQ 19% All university scientists 18% Figure 13. Which of the above sources do you think is the most credible? F. Communicating with the public and receiving feedback Good, informed decisions by the public are needed in conjunction with the scientific community (not just the elected officials). In an attempt to gauge how much citizens value public participation over the increased costs to government that participation can cause, we asked respondents how much they valued public participation, especially if it adds to the cost of government. Respondents clearly value public participation with only 6% believing that citizen participation is of little value and adds needlessly to the cost of government (figure 14). A clear majority values citizen involvment enough that they approve of some increase in the cost of government. 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1 No value 4% 15% 20% 29% 13% 16% Neutral Great value Figure 14. Where would you locate yourself on the following scale? 1=citizen participation is of no value and adds needlessly to the cost of government; 9=citizen participation is of great value even if it adds to the cost of government. 17

18 We asked respondents what were the best ways to communicate with them about a water reuse project (figure 15). A large majority (71%) of respondents would like to read about plans for water reuse in the Corvallis Gazette Times newspaper. Articles in The City monthly newsletter (59%) and pamphlets mailed to their homes (57%) were the next most frequently chosen methods of communication. Focus groups/workshops and presentations at clubs or other meetings were chosen least frequently (5% and 9% respectively), however they are the source of the highest quality communication between city officials and the public and should not be neglected. Several respondents suggested as an additional way to keep them informed. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Corvallis Gazette Times 71% The City newsletter Direct mailed pamphlets 59% 57% City website 31% Public TV programs Public meetings Booth at community event 22% 21% 21% Club/other meeting presentation Focus group/workshop 5% 9% Figure 15. What are the best ways to communicate with you concerning how Corvallis will meet the new Willamette River regulations? Older respondents were most likely to select the Corvallis Gazette Times and The City newsletter as a source of information. The City is least effective for communicating with students; only 34% report that it is a good communication method. Television programs on public channels may be an effective way to reach retired citizens and those younger than 24 and older than 65 years. Posting information on the city s website is most effective for year old respondents and students. However, posting on the website requires citizens to already be aware of the project and actively looking for more information, therefore the website is not likely to be an effective means of informing citizens of the project. Public meetings and presentations at clubs and other similar gatherings are a more interactive way to communicate with citizens. Respondents with higher education are more likely to attend public meetings; 22% of respondents with at least some college chose public meetings as an appropriate method of communication, as opposed to only 6% of those with high school or less. 18

19 Presentations to clubs and other groups are most effective for respondents younger than 34 and older than 65. Responses to the open-ended question at the end of the survey along with comments written elsewhere indicate that there is room for improvement in the city s approach to public involvement. For example, When I have attended public meetings I ve found that the people in charge listen politely to public input & then do what they already had decided especially the city council. We suggest that the city be clear in defining the role of citizens in the decision process as advisors, decision makers or another role and clarify if and how comments that are made will be incorporated into the final plan. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS This survey represents a scientific sampling of Corvallis registered voters attitudes, values and preferences toward reclaimed water. The results provide reliable information to help wastewater treatment staff and city managers in making decisions about water reuse. Key findings are discussed below. Key Findings 1. There is significant support for a water reuse program, especially one that adheres to the principles of sustainability. The majority of respondents generally support water reuse. A program that adheres to the principles of sustainability will receive the greatest support. The cost of a program will still be a consideration, but many respondents appear willing to pay higher fees for a more sustainable program. The safety of a program will be a key concern for citizens. 2. Low contact uses are likely to receive the most support from the public. The degree of contact respondents can expect to have with the water is linked to their support for a particular use. The city should present specific information about how the water will be used in order to clear up any confusion citizens may have about a particular reuse option. In addition, information about the safety of reuse options must be provided. The majority of respondents believe that the water should be sent wherever it is needed. However, the strong support for sustainability suggests that if a use within the city was found to be more sustainable than one outside of the city, the in-city use would be preferred. 3. Scientists and unbiased, independent sources of information are most highly valued by respondents. While trust in the city to serve public interest and protect the environment is generally high, citizens prefer to get information about water reuse from a wide variety of sources, especially independent sources. The city should consider supporting research by local OSU researchers about the safety of reclaimed water uses and/or bring in experts in water reuse to make presentations at public meetings and workshops. Independent testing of reclaimed water quality with results made available to the public is another strategy that will help to build trust. 19

20 4. Public involvement and education efforts should be comprehensive, and include many different communication methods. Only 21% of respondents chose public meetings as one of the best ways the city can communicate its water reuse plans to them. The city should pursue other ways of informing and asking for input. Respondents clearly favor written communication that they can get in their homes such as mailed pamphlets and articles in The City and the Corvallis Gazette Times. If the city does not already have close contacts with reporters from the local newspaper, they may want to consider developing one. Especially when asking the public for feedback, clearly explain what the public s role in the decision is (i.e. is the public role advisory only, or will they be the primary decision makers?), and describe how comments will be used. Those who will have the highest likelihood of coming into contact with the water should be consulted about any plans for reuse. 5. Education efforts should focus on increasing awareness of the reason the city is proposing water reuse, and increasing knowledge of wastewater treatment. Though we did not directly explore the issue, comments written on the survey indicate a significant level of uncertainty about the safety of water reuse, perhaps for lack of knowledge about treatment technologies and contaminants that may remain in reclaimed water. Language used to discuss wastewater and water reuse must be carefully chosen. Use terms that are commonly understood by the general public if they exist, and define terms that cannot be replaced by simpler words. V. LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY The primary limitation of this study is the lack of information provided to respondents about water reuse in order to keep the length of the survey reasonable. Several respondents noted on the survey that they would have liked more information. Clearly, more information about the quality of the water, financial and other factors are likely to influence a person s decision to accept a certain use. One respondent stated: I had difficulty answering many questions because I don t know how you would pipe the recycled water to the different locations it might be used. If you have to build extensive and expensive infrastructure I would oppose if you don t have to tear up the city to install new pipes I would accept all proposed uses for recycled water. In addition, positive results of acceptance should be not be taken as hard and fast acceptance of water reuse but as a general predilection toward acceptance. Bruvold (1988) found that in hypothetical studies designed to gauge general acceptance of water reuse, the degree of contact the respondent would have with the water was the best predictor of acceptance. In surveys that asked about specific water reuse proposals designed for the respondents communities, Bruvold found that acceptance relied more on beliefs about the health effects, environmental effects, treatment and distribution costs, and the potential of the project to help conserve water. Because a specific water reuse proposal has not been developed for Corvallis, our study should be considered hypothetical in nature, and the results not reliable as the sole predictor of acceptance of a specific proposal. 20

21 VI. REFERENCES Bruvold, W.H. (1985). Obtaining Public Support for Reuse Water. Journal American Water Works Association, 77 (7), Bruvold, W.H. (1988). Public Opinion on water reuse options. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 60 (1), United States Census Bureau. (2000). Corvallis city, Oregon Fact Sheet. Retrieved February 23, 2009, from Context=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=corvallis&_state=04000US41&_zip=&_lang =en&_sse=on 21

22 Appendix A Wastewater Recycling Survey with frequencies (printed on OSU Master of Public Policy Program letterhead) Dear Corvallis resident, Your household has been selected at random to take part in a survey concerning public knowledge and opinion of water recycling in Corvallis. Recycled water is water that has been recycled from appropriately treated wastewater or sewage. This water can be treated to very high standards and can be used for purposes that do not require drinking-quality water such as landscape irrigation and industrial processes. Funding for this research was provided by the OSU Institute for Water and Watersheds and the Master of Public Policy Program. We would appreciate it if you would take minutes to respond to the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the postage pre-paid envelope provided. Your responses will be added together with others and recorded as a group. If the results of this project are published, your identity will not be made public. Your participation in this study is voluntary and you may refuse to answer any question(s) for any reason. Only a small sample of citizens in Corvallis will receive this questionnaire, so your participation is important to the study. Only respondents 18 years of age or older are eligible to participate in this survey. The answers you provide will be kept confidential to the extent permitted by law. Special precautions have been established to protect the confidentiality of your responses. The number on your questionnaire will be removed once it has been received. (The number is used to contact those who have not returned their questionnaire, so those who have responded are not burdened with additional mailings.) If you do not wish to participate and do not wish to be contacted further, please return the uncompleted survey in the enclosed postage pre-paid envelope and you will be removed from the list. Your questionnaire will be destroyed once your responses have been tallied. Please be assured that we will take all precautions to keep all information confidential. There are no direct benefits from your participation in this study, but your responses are extremely valued and may help your community in future planning. If you would like a copy of the survey results or would like to participate in more discussion on the topic of wastewater recycling, please place a separate note in the return envelope with your address and copy of results requested or would like to participate (please do not put this information on the survey). If you would like a copy of the survey results, place a separate note in the return envelope with your address and copy of results requested (please do not put this information on the survey). If you have any questions about the survey, please contact us at (541) or by at bsteel@oregonstate.edu or duboseka@onid.orst.edu. If you have questions about your rights as a participant in this research project, please contact the Oregon State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) Human Protections Administrator at (541) or by at IRB@oregonstate.edu. Thank you for your help. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Brent Steel Professor and Director Master of Public Policy Program Karen DuBose OSU Graduate Student Water Resource Policy & Management 22

23 Wastewater Recycling Survey Results: Frequency Distributions (Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding) Sample Size: 1116 Surveys Returned: 518 Response Rate: 46% Professor Brent S. Steel Master of Public Policy Program Graduate Student Karen DuBose Water Resources Policy & Management Graduate Program Master of Public Policy Program 311 Gilkey Hall Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon

24 SECTION 1 In this first section, we would like to ask you some general questions about your interests, activities and knowledge about wastewater and recycled water. Please circle your answers. Q-1 In general, how well informed would you consider yourself to be concerning wastewater treatment in Corvallis? 34% Not informed 49% Somewhat informed 13% Informed 4% Very well informed Q-2 How often do you talk about city issues with your family, friends, or other acquaintances? 7% Never 29% Hardly ever 52% Sometimes 13% Often Q-3 Overall, how much impact do you think PEOPLE LIKE YOU can have in making policy decisions in Corvallis? 9% No impact at all 44% A small impact 37% A moderate impact 11% A big impact Q-4 For the following terms, please indicate if you know what the term means, have heard of the term but don t know its meaning, or have not heard of the term at all. Have not heard of the term at all Have heard of the term but don t know its meaning Know what the term means a. Potable water 7% 9% 84% b. Wastewater 1% 9% 91% c. Greywater 18% 17% 65% d. Sewage 1% 2% 97% e. Recycled water 4% 21% 75% f. Effluent 21% 30% 50% 24

25 Q-5 Since 1954, wastewater (or sewage) from Corvallis homes and businesses has been treated and released into the Willamette River. The plant treats over 4 billion gallons of wastewater every year. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is tightening water quality regulations on the Willamette River. The new standards will impact the city s ability to continue discharging treated wastewater into the river. These tightened regulations over time could force the city to upgrade the plant or face fines, both of which could eventually impact your sewer bill. Were you aware of this situation? 29% Yes 66% No 6% Unsure Q-6 How important are each of the following when choosing an approach to meeting the new water quality regulations in the Willamette River? If you have no opinion of one, please leave it blank. Not Important at All Limited Importance Somewhat Important Important Very Important a. Prevent pollution 0% 1% 3% 29% 68% b. Protect human health 0% 0% 1% 13% 85% c. Be a long term solution 0% 0% 6% 27% 66% d. Be energy efficient 1% 2% 13% 33% 51% e. Be financially sound 0% 1% 9% 33% 56% f. Protect fish and wildlife 0% 1% 6% 27% 65% g. Have low greenhouse gas emissions 4% 5% 15% 28% 48% h. Other 0% 0% 3% 16% 81% 25

26 SECTION 2 Recycling treated wastewater is one way to help meet the new water quality regulations in the Willamette River. In this section, we are interested in what uses of recycled water you would accept in Corvallis. Q-7 How much do you favor the use of recycled wastewater for each of the following? If you don t know or have no opinion of a use, please leave it blank. Highly Unfavorable Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Highly Favorable a. Irrigate golf courses 2% 2% 8% 25% 63% b. Irrigate landscaping in business parks 1% 2% 8% 27% 62% c. Irrigate public parks 1% 8% 13% 31% 47% d. Irrigate school grounds 4% 14% 17% 27% 38% e. Irrigate non-edible agricultural crops (grass) f. Irrigate agricultural crops for human consumption g. Use in industrial processes 2% 4% 8% 29% 57% 15% 26% 26% 20% 13% 1% 2% 16% 27% 54% h. Use to cool buildings 2% 2% 14% 27% 55% i. Flush toilets in public buildings j. Supply fire hydrants in the city k. Supply car wash businesses 1% 3% 8% 25% 63% 2% 5% 17% 27% 50% 3% 8% 21% 25% 43% l. Other 0% 0% 12% 6% 82% 26