Water Conservation: Customer Behavior and Effective Communications

Water Conservation: Customer Behavior and Effective Communications Subject Area: Management and Customer Relations

Water Conservation: Customer Behavior and Effective Communications

About the Water Research Foundation The Water Research Foundation (formerly Awwa Research Foundation or AwwaRF) is a member-supported, international, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that sponsors research to enable water utilities, public health agencies, and other professionals to provide safe and affordable drinking water to consumers. The Foundation s mission is to advance the science of water to improve the quality of life. To achieve this mission, the Foundation sponsors studies on all aspects of drinking water, including resources, treatment, distribution, and health effects. Funding for research is provided primarily by subscription payments from close to 1,000 water utilities, consulting firms, and manufacturers in North America and abroad. Additional funding comes from collaborative partnerships with other national and international organizations and the U.S. federal government, allowing for resources to be leveraged, expertise to be shared, and broad-based knowledge to be developed and disseminated. From its headquarters in Denver, Colorado, the Foundation s staff directs and supports the efforts of more than 800 volunteers who serve on the board of trustees and various committees. These volunteers represent many facets of the water industry, and contribute their expertise to select and monitor research studies that benefit the entire drinking water community. The results of research are disseminated through a number of channels, including reports, the Web site, Webcasts, conferences, and periodicals. For its subscribers, the Foundation serves as a cooperative program in which water suppliers unite to pool their resources. By applying Foundation research findings, these water suppliers can save substantial costs and stay on the leading edge of drinking water science and technology. Since its inception, the Foundation has supplied the water community with more than $460 million in applied research value. More information about the Foundation and how to become a subscriber is available on the Web at www.waterresearchfoundation.org.

Water Conservation: Customer Behavior and Effective Communications Prepared by: Tony Silva, Diana Pape, and Ronald Szoc ICF International 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031-1207 and Peter Mayer Aquacraft, Inc. 2709 Pine Street, Boulder, CO 80302-3836 Sponsored by: Water Research Foundation 6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-3098 and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. Published by:

DISCLAIMER This study was jointly funded by the Water Research Foundation (Foundation) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under Cooperative Agreement No. X-83294801. The Foundation or USEPA assume no responsibility for the content of the research study reported in this publication or for the opinions or statements of fact expressed in the report. The mention of trade names for commercial products does not represent or imply the approval or endorsement of the Foundation or USEPA. This report is presented solely for informational purposes. Copyright 2010 by Water Research Foundation ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced or otherwise utilized without permission. ISBN 978-1-60573-095-0 Printed in the U.S.A.

CONTENTS TABLES... ix FIGURES... xi FOREWORD... xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... xv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... xvii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION... 1 Social Marketing... 2 Key Social Marketing Principles... 4 Commitment, Norms, and Prompts: Tools for Social Change... 7 Potential Barriers to Social Change... 8 Study Goals and Approach... 9 Organization of This Report... 10 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON CONSERVATION COMMUNICATION AND BEHAVIOR CHANGE EFFORTS... 11 Water Conservation Campaigns... 11 Application of Communication Strategies to Influence Conservation Behaviors... 13 Social Marketing Research Example: Water Conservation Awareness, Attitudes, and Behaviors... 14 CBSM Programmatic Example: Region of Durham... 14 CBSM Programmatic Example: City of Calgary, Alberta, Canada... 15 CBSM Research Example (Non-Water Related): Pilot to Increase Do-It- Yourself Oil Recycling Rates... 16 Case Study Seattle 1% Program... 17 Social Marketing Research Example Using Mass Media to Influence Energy Consumption Behavior: California s 2001 Flex Your Power Campaign as a Case Study... 19 A National Example: ENERGY STAR... 20 Residential Water Use and Factors Influencing Consumption... 21 Key Factors in Residential Demand... 24 Impacts of Conservation Programs... 26 Indoor Water Savings from Technological Changes... 27 Outdoor Water Savings from Technological Changes... 27 Utility Conservation Program Savings... 28 Range of Communication Strategies and Tactics Used by Water Utilities... 28 Conclusion... 29 v

vi Water Conservation: Customer Behavior and Effective Communications CHAPTER 3: OVERALL RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGIES USED... 31 Literature Review... 31 Recruitment of Utility Partners... 32 Utility Interviews and Case Study Development... 34 Calculating the Size of the Sample for the Residential Survey... 35 Sampling the Residential Customers and Obtaining Billing Data... 37 Questionnaire Development... 38 Survey Administration... 39 Data Analysis and Analytic Methods... 40 Data Limitations... 41 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS... 43 Survey Results... 43 Survey Response Rates... 43 Survey Results Demographic Questions... 44 Survey Results Water, Conservation, and Environmental Questions... 47 Water Use Comparison... 55 Average Annual Water Use... 56 Factors that Influence Water Use... 60 Introduction... 60 Basic Multiple Regression Model... 61 Expanded Multiple Regression Models... 63 Other Factors That Influence Water Use... 69 Evaluation of Communication Strategies and Water Use... 73 Tempe, Arizona (www.tempe.gov)... 75 JEA Jacksonville, Florida (www.jea.com)... 81 Orange County, Florida (www.orangecountyfl.net)... 85 Durham, North Carolina (www.durhamnc.gov)... 91 Case Studies of Two Large Communication Campaigns... 96 Phoenix, Arizona (www.phoenix.gov/waterservices)... 96 Seattle, Washington (www.seattle.gov/util)... 107 CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS FOR WATER CONSERVATION COMMUNICATIONS... 117 Planning Conservation Communication Efforts... 117 Conservation or Efficiency Behavior... 117 High Levels of Awareness... 119 Credible Influencers... 119 Communication Channels... 119 Messaging and Motivation... 120 Rebate/Incentive Communications... 120 Findings in Relation to the 4 P s of Social Marketing... 121 Product... 121 Price... 122 Place... 122 Promotion... 122

Contents vii Checklist for Developing a Water Conservation Outreach Campaign... 122 Use a Strategic Communications Approach... 122 Define Campaign Objectives... 123 Know Your Audience... 123 Understand Current Perceptions... 124 Carefully Consider Communications Channels... 124 Evaluate Performance... 124 Recommendations for Evaluating Effective Conservation Communication Efforts... 124 What Works: Findings from Research Partners... 126 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY... 133 What This Study Tells Us and What We Now Know... 133 What We Do Not Know... 134 Areas for Further Research... 134 APPENDIX A: UTILITY PARTNER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL...137 APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS...145 APPENDIX C: SAMPLE SURVEY MATERIALS...179 APPENDIX D: ENUMERATED SURVEY RESPONSES...187 APPENDIX E: RANGE OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES AND TACTICS USED BY WATER UTILITIES...283 REFERENCES...293 ABBREVIATIONS...305

TABLES ES.1 Average annual water use and sample size six study sites... xxvii 2.1 Measures and Strategies for Seattle 1% Program... 18 2.2 OLS model of household billing data water use... 23 3.1 Number of items by questionnaire section for each utility partner... 39 3.2 Statistical procedures employed in the data analysis... 40 4.1 Survey results type of housing... 44 4.2 Survey results home ownership... 45 4.3 Survey results length of time at current address... 45 4.4 Survey Results what year was home built... 45 4.5 Survey results number of bathrooms... 46 4.6 Survey results number of people per household... 46 4.7 Survey results educational attainment... 46 4.8 Survey results household income... 47 4.9 Survey results general environmental concerns... 47 4.10 Survey results credible sources of information on water conservation... 48 4.11 Survey results conservation activity frequency... 49 4.12 Survey results conservation actions performed during the past year... 50 4.13 Survey results count of conservation actions taken in past year... 52 4.14 Survey results rebate program participation rate... 52 4.15 Reasons that support water conservation steps taken... 53 4.16 Survey results reasons that support rarely or never taking conservation steps... 54 4.17 Survey results drought response behavior... 54 4.18 Survey results most effective way to deliver water conservation information... 55 ix

x Water Conservation: Customer Behavior and Effective Communications 4.19 Average annual water use and sample size six study sites... 56 4.20 Basic demographic and climate data from six study sites... 57 4.21 Average annual non-seasonal and seasonal water use six study sites... 58 4.22 Basic multiple regression model summary statistics, coefficient of determination, and significance... 61 4.23 Basic multiple regression model coefficients and significance of independent variables... 62 4.24 Expanded multiple regression model #1 summary statistics, coefficient of determination, and significance... 64 4.25 Expanded multiple regression model #1 coefficients and significance of independent variables... 64 4.26 Expanded multiple regression model #2 summary statistics, coefficient of determination, and significance... 66 4.27 Expanded multiple regression model #2 coefficients and significance of independent variables... 67 4.28 Individual factors found to influence water use... 71 4.29 Tempe, Arizona individual factors found to influence water use... 79 4.30 JEA, Jacksonville, Florida individual factors found to influence water use... 84 4.31 Orange County, Florida individual factors found to influence water use... 90 4.32 Durham, North Carolina individual factors found to influence water use... 95 4.33 Survey response and water use Phoenix Q6 Was a conservation message heard?... 101 4.34 Survey response and water use Phoenix Q6 Was a conservation action taken?... 101 4.35 Phoenix, Arizona individual factors found to influence water use... 106 4.36 Seattle, Washington individual factors found to influence water use... 116 5.1 Measuring Outcomes and Outputs... 125

FIGURES ES.1 ES.2 ES.3 Annual residential water use (average and median) in six study sites... xxvii Annual water use distribution, 6 study sites, 5,223 homes... xxviii Annual water use Q6 survey respondents Was conservation action taken?... xxxvi 2.1 Mean daily per capita water use, 12 study sites (from REUWS 1999)... 21 3.1 Example of Reminder Postcard... 40 4.1 Survey response rates in six study sites... 44 4.2 Annual water use distribution, 6 study sites, 5,223 homes Seasonal and Non-Seasonal Water Use... 58 4.3 Annual seasonal and non-seasonal water use distribution six study sites... 59 4.4 Predicted non-seasonal water use assuming 2 bathrooms and $50K household income... 63 4.5 Single-Family Water Use in Phoenix with Regression Line, 1996 2007... 98 4.6 Seasonal and Non-Seasonal Single-Family Water Use in Phoenix, 1996 2007... 99 4.7 Average residential daily per capita indoor water use in Phoenix... 100 4.8 Annual water use Q6 survey respondents Was conservation action taken?... 101 4.9 Residential water use in Seattle, 1994 2008... 111 4.10 Average residential daily per capita indoor water use in Seattle... 112 xi

FOREWORD The Water Research Foundation (Foundation) is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to the implementation of a research effort to help utilities respond to regulatory requirements and traditional high-priority concerns of the industry. The research agenda is developed through a process of consultation with subscribers and drinking water professionals. Under the umbrella of a Strategic Research Plan, the Research Advisory Council prioritizes the suggested projects based upon current and future needs, applicability, and past work; the recommendations are forwarded to the Board of Trustees for final selection. The Foundation also sponsors research projects through the unsolicited proposal process; the Collaborative Research, Research Applications, and Tailored Collaboration programs; and various joint research efforts with organizations such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Bureau of Reclamation, and the Association of California Water Agencies. This publication is a result of one of these sponsored studies, and it is hoped that its findings will be applied in communities throughout the world. The following report serves not only as a means of communicating the results of the water industry's centralized research program but also as a tool to enlist the further support of the nonmember utilities and individuals. Projects are managed closely from their inception to the final report by the Foundation's staff and a cadre of volunteers who willingly contribute their time and expertise. The Foundation serves a planning and management function, and awards contracts to other institutions such as water utilities, universities, and engineering firms. The funding for this research effort comes primarily from the Subscription Program, through which water utilities subscribe to the research program and make an annual payment proportionate to the volume of water they deliver and consultants and manufacturers subscribe based on their annual billings. The program offers a cost-effective and fair method for funding research in the public interest. A broad spectrum of water supply issues is addressed by the Foundation s research agenda: resources, treatment and operations, distribution and storage, water quality and analysis, toxicology, economics, and management. The ultimate purpose of the coordinated effort is to assist water suppliers to provide the highest possible quality of water economically and reliably. The true benefits are realized when the results are implemented at the utility level. The foundation's trustees are pleased to offer this publication as a contribution toward that end. Roy Wolfe, Ph.D. Chair, Board of Trustees Water Research Foundation Robert C. Renner, P.E. Executive Director Water Research Foundation xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Evaluating communication campaigns requires large data collection efforts. Our partners made this possible for our project. In particular, the City of Durham Department of Water Management, City of Phoenix Water Services Department, City of Tempe Water Utilities Department, JEA Jacksonville, Fla., Orange County Utilities Water Division, and Seattle Public Utilities worked with us to survey more than 6,000 customers. We thank each of the contacts at our partner utilities: Vicki Westbrook and James Lim of the City of Durham Department of Water Management Mary Lu Nunley and Brandy Kelso of the City of Phoenix Water Services Department Pete Smith of the City of Tempe Water Utilities Department Bruce Doueck of JEA Jacksonville, Fla. Jacqueline Torbert of Orange County Utilities Water Division Al Dietemann of Seattle Public Utilities We also thank Nancy Stalker and Margaret Beeston, who provided insights on lessons learned from the City of Calgary. The comments and insights from our Project Advisory Committee (PAC) provided focused direction for the project and were much appreciated. We were fortunate to have the support of several AWWARF project managers, including India Williams, Shonnie Cline, and Susan Turnquist. The commitment of our project managers and our PAC members, Elizabeth Gardener, Mitch Basefsky, and Karen Snyder, is noteworthy and much appreciated by the project team. ICF International led and managed this project with assistance from Aquacraft, Inc. ICF International researchers included Tony Silva, Diana Pape, and Ronald Szoc. Peter Mayer and Matt Hayden of Aquacraft, Inc., provided historical data on water use and conducted the statistical analysis of the survey results and the billing date. We are grateful to Peter Mayer for having archived the billing data from the 1990s and made it available for this study. The staff from ICF International and Aquacraft, Inc. are the primary authors of this report. Erin Caldwell from National Research Center, Inc., created the mailing lists, sent the postcard notifications, and implemented the survey. We thank Erin for her diligence in tracking responses and assisting with follow up mailings to our water utility partners customers. xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY When the well s dry, we know the worth of water. Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard s Almanac Since the beginning of human civilization, communicating the concept and value of wise water usage, conservation, and efficiency has been a common endeavor. In the modern era, water utilities have often taken on the responsibility of informing and educating customers about the need and importance of wise water use and stewardship. Today, water providers regularly implement sophisticated education and marketing campaigns to promote water use efficiency and conservation behaviors, but little is known about the specific, measurable impacts of these efforts or what constitutes a successful program. The process of communicating with the public in an effort to change people s behaviors for the benefit of an individual, group, or community is commonly known as social marketing. Water conservation social marketing campaigns are intended to educate customers about the importance and value of water, to encourage behaviors and practices that diminish water waste, and to reduce demands for the benefit of the individual customer and the community. Water conservation communication campaigns may promote a range of conservation behaviors from installing more water-efficient fixtures to changing consumption habits, such as turning off the faucet while brushing teeth. Water use patterns differ by region and customer, but the categories of end uses (toilet flushing, bathing, washing clothes, food preparation, landscape irrigation, etc.) are remarkably consistent across the country. Consequently, the conservation behaviors promoted by water utilities are often similar (e.g., replacing inefficient toilets, improving irrigation efficiency, and eliminating single-pass cooling). A key difference lies in the delivery channels and messages by which utilities promote water conservation. Utility sponsored water conservation campaigns leverage a variety of delivery channels, including bill stuffers, print and broadcast media, the internet, and outdoor advertising such as billboards or transit advertising. What are the impacts of water conservation communication campaigns in terms of customer recognition, attitudinal changes, behavior modification, and verifiable water use reductions? What are the most effective methods and techniques for designing and implementing water conservation social marketing campaigns? This research study, Water Conservation: Customer Behavior and Effective Communications, seeks to answer these and other critical questions in an effort to help water providers improve the design and implementation of water conservation social marketing campaigns. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The objective of this research study was to evaluate the linkages and relationships between the water conservation behavior of residential customers 1 and the communication approaches that seek to influence that behavior. The research team implemented this evaluation through a multi-method approach including: telephone interviews with water agency personnel, 1 Non-residential customers are important end users of water as well, but as most utility social marketing campaigns are targeted at the residential sector, this sector was the chosen emphasis of this study. xvii

xviii Water Conservation: Customer Behavior and Effective Communications surveys of residential water customers, analyses of current and past billing records supplied by water agency partners, in-depth case studies of water agencies and their water conservation communication campaigns, and an evaluation of communication methods implemented by the six participating utilities. This study leveraged previous research, in particular AWWARF s Residential End Uses of Water Study (Mayer, et. al., 1999) as well as the knowledge gained from existing social marketing programs implemented in Durham, N.C.; Phoenix, and Tempe, Ariz.; Jacksonville and Orange County, Fla.; and Seattle, Wash. The three primary research objectives were to: investigate through empirical research and literature review the relationships among the water conservation behaviors of customers, demographics and other factors, and effective communication that influence behavior; establish communication guidelines that water agencies can use to design effective, integrated communication approaches aimed at influencing water conservation behavior; and provide reference data and methods for evaluating the success of water conservation social marketing efforts. This report also outlines key social marketing principles and explains how they can be applied in the water utility and conservation context. The literature review synthesizes information on the current knowledge concerning conservation communication and social marketing efforts. The review includes examples from the energy efficiency field in North America and resource conservation in general from around the globe. This report presents a time-and-place view of conservation communication efforts in a number of water agencies in North America. Samples obtained from participating agencies were selected to be statistically representative of the customers in each service area and analysis on the pooled data set was performed. The researchers sought to include information and data from a diverse group of providers, but the results should not be interpreted as being statistically representative of all North American locations. Rather, the results from this research provide examples and guidance for water providers seeking to implement effective water conservation education and social marketing campaigns that resonate with customers and produce tangible water savings. The report will assist water utilities in designing and implementing social marketing campaigns through three mechanisms: (1) sharing of informational resources on social marketing; (2) sharing lessons learned from other water utilities; and (3) sharing research on linkages between demographics and effective communications for use in designing targeted communications campaigns, in particular when budgets are limited. APPROACH A detailed and rigorous workplan to research conservation communication strategies and obtain data from each participating study site was developed by the project team. An in-depth literature review was the first task of the workplan to be implemented. The following data were collected from each of the six participating water agencies:

Executive Summary xix interview with agency conservation staff detailed information about water conservation communication, education, and marketing efforts including examples of materials historic billing records from a systematic random sample of approximately 1,000 single-family detached residential accounts in each agency (6,051 in total) survey response data from 1,890 households (35.3% response rate) Literature Review The literature review served as an important foundation for all other tasks. The information collected and synthesized in the review influenced the direction and scope for subsequent components of the project. The subtasks for the literature review included: an examination of the state of knowledge regarding residential water use and the impact of conservation programs, and a review of the range of resource conservation communication strategies and tools put into practice. Participating Water Agencies During the proposal process, the research team contacted a number of water utilities that have implemented a significant water conservation communication campaign to solicit participation in the research project. Seven utility partners were included in the study. For six of the partners, a full case study was developed including analysis of historic water billing records, mail survey of customers, and evaluation of conservation communication program impacts. The seventh agency served in an advisory role. The participating utilities for this study were: City of Durham, North Carolina City of Phoenix Water Services Department, Arizona City of Tempe Water Utilities, Arizona JEA, Jacksonville, Florida Orange County Utilities, Florida Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Washington City of Calgary Water Services, Alberta, Canada (advisory agency) Utility Interviews To begin the process of evaluating conservation communication program efforts and developing detailed case studies, an interview was conducted with conservation staff members from each of the six primary participating water utilities. The research team developed a detailed utility interview protocol that sought information about past and current water conservation program activities as well as data about the utility itself. The following sections were included in the utility survey instrument:

xx Water Conservation: Customer Behavior and Effective Communications past experience and current responsibilities of utility conservation staff information about current conservation efforts with particular emphasis on communication and education programs characteristics of conservation program communications impact of program communications (if available) program metrics program outcomes lessons learned The utility interview protocol contained 43 questions as well as a matrix completed by the interviewer summarizing the salient characteristics of the water conservation programs carried out by the utility. The following characteristics were included in the matrix: geopolitical factors demographics housing factors target audience for conservation programs size of target audience family factors message(s) media channels, type of outreach materials financial incentives outcomes estimated cost of program implementation A copy of the complete utility partner interview protocol can be found in Appendix B. Sampling and Billing Data A systematic random-sampling approach was used to select a representative sample of approximately 1,000 single-family detached residential customers at each of the participating water utilities. The average annual water use of the sample was compared against the average annual water use of the population of single-family customers at each study site to ensure each sample was representative. The participating agencies supplied available historic water consumption data for each customer in the sample. Some agencies were able to provide the five most recent years of consumption data. Others had only limited access to their consumption data and were only able to provide one or two years of historic data. Customer Survey The research team developed a detailed customer survey instrument, customized for each of the six participating water agencies. About half of the survey questions were the same across all six study sites and half were customized questions seeking customer response to specific conservation messaging campaigns in each agency. The survey instruments were circulated to

Executive Summary xxi the project advisory committee (PAC) and the utility partners in draft form. The instruments were modified and circulated again. This process continued until no additional changes were desired. Sample survey instruments are provided in Appendix C. To maximize response rate, the research team employed a five-step survey administration process. Surveys were sent out to all 6,051 customers for which historic billing data were provided and an overall response rate of 35.3% was achieved. The five survey steps were: 1. A letter of introduction was mailed on utility stationary. 2. Within one week, a complete survey packet was mailed to the residential customers. 3. Two weeks after the initial mailing, a reminder postcard was mailed to the customers asking them to respond to the survey if they had not done so already. 4. After an additional two weeks, a second complete survey packet was mailed to all selected customers, asking customers to complete the questionnaire using the supplied materials. 5. Two weeks after the second survey packet was mailed, another reminder postcard was mailed asking customers to respond if they had not yet done so. Data Analysis Copies of all the letters and postcards can be found in Appendix D. Data obtained from each of the mail surveys was linked with the historic billing data from the same household. This dataset was used to analyze survey results, examine the factors that significantly influence residential water use and evaluate communication strategies, and determine if the conservation communication strategies implemented by the six participating agencies had influenced demand. The results obtained in this research were often analyzed against comparable results from the Residential End Uses of Water study (Mayer, et. al., 1999) as this provides a solid benchmark for evaluating differences in attitudes and water use patterns. In many instances, results from the data set developed for this behavior change study align closely with the results from the Residential End Uses of Water study (REUWS). The consistency of the findings suggests that the samples utilized in this study are reasonable and representative of singlefamily demand across the continent. The consistency also suggests that average water use patterns have not changed substantially over the past 10 years in the cities surveyed an important finding in itself. Research Findings A summary of the key research findings from this study is presented below. For a more complete interpretation of these results, please read the Conclusions and Recommendations chapter of this report. Literature Review: Key Principles of Social Marketing. Water utilities across North America have shown significant interest in social marketing as a useful approach for conservation programs. Marketing experts have promoted broad-based media communications campaigns as the best way to hasten behavior change and as a cost-efficient way to reach the broadest audience (Hoffman 2006). Prepackaged marketing programs such as Water Use It Wisely (developed by Park and Co.) have been implemented in States ranging from California

xxii Water Conservation: Customer Behavior and Effective Communications and Arizona to North Carolina. Programs such as Water IQ in Texas and the Seattle 1% Program represent substantial efforts to enlist social marketing principles in the search for water savings. Several of these programs were studied as part of this project. The social marketer s job is complete when a behavior is performed consistently by the target audience. Although complete adoption of a behavior is ideal, it is not realistic. Therefore, social marketers must plan, evaluate, and refine their approaches and clearly identify measurable outcomes and performance measures. Traditional commercial marketers often refer to the marketer s toolbox or the 4P s: product, price, place, and promotion. The 4P s are important because they remind social marketers that any marketing effort must apply a customer orientation to their strategy and message development. Following are descriptions of each tool within the context of social marketing: Product. In the context of water conservation, one might think of product (i.e., what is being sold) as an idea and a set of actions (e.g., to conserve water and achieve a sustainable, healthy water supply). (Kotler and Lee 2007) Others see the product in this context as the programs and services offered by the utility to reach water conservation goals. Price. Price, in the context of social marketing, should be understood as the perceived costs of adopting the desired behavior (entry costs) and of abandoning the current behavior (exit costs). (Kotler et al. 2002) For water utility customers, the price of behavior change may be described as follows: paying the cost for replacing a toilet that still has useful life remaining changing the time of day when watering the lawn turning off the faucet when brushing one s teeth Consumers usually are more responsive to making small, easily doable and maintainable changes. Focusing on one or two changes at a time is important in social marketing. Place. In the context of water utilities, place is most likely the customer s home where the behavior change will take place or, in the commercial setting, the office or business locations where the behavior changes will take place. Place also may be related to where the utility s services and products are accessed. Promotion. The term promotion refers to the manner in which the product (behavior change) will be communicated. Promotion may include bill stuffers, mass media advertising, public relations, or editorial content and even sales promotions with local retailers. Promotion means communicating messages using the most appropriate mix of media vehicles to reach the target audience. Literature Review: Commitment, Norms, and Prompts: Tools for Social Change. Social marketing researcher and author Doug McKenzie-Mohr has identified a number of tools that can make social marketing efforts effective the idea of commitment, norms, and prompts. McKenzie-Mohr developed an approach to social marketing called community-based social marketing (CBSM) that includes its own fundamental principles and concepts. CBSM has caught the attention of water conservation professionals and has been implemented in a number of utilities with favorable results (e.g., Region of Durham Canada, Los Angeles). The following outlines several of the key concepts from CBSM (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999):

Executive Summary xxiii Commitment. Social marketing research has shown that people who make a nominal commitment to a cause (e.g., by wearing a button or signing a petition) are more likely to respond favorably to requests to adopt behaviors that support that cause than those who have not made such a commitment. Water utilities should consider obtaining a commitment to water conservation through a pledge campaign or community network. In doing so, utilities will establish a core group of individuals and businesses that see themselves as water conservation advocates and who are more likely to make changes in usage behaviors when asked to do so. Norms. Water utilities should seek to establish a water conservation ethic, or norm, that fosters desired behaviors. Prompts. People are more likely to take actions that are top-of-mind and that appeal to them personally. Water utilities should consider using prompts, or reminders, in their marketing campaigns to motivate behavior changes. Examples could include giveaways at festivals or events that will prompt people to change their behaviors. In their 2007 book, Marketing in the Public Sector, Kotler and Lee present 12 key social marketing techniques that they believe will create the foundation for a successful social marketing campaign. 1. Take advantage of prior and existing successful campaigns. 2. Start with target markets most ready for action. 3. Promote single, simple, doable behaviors one at a time. 4. Identify and remove barriers to behavior change. 5. Bring real benefits into the present. 6. Highlight costs of competing behaviors. 7. Promote a tangible object or service to help target audiences perform the behavior. 8. Consider non-monetary incentives in the form or recognition and appreciation. 9. Have a little fun with messages. 10. Use media channels at the point of decision making. 11. Get commitments and pledges. 2 12. Use prompts for sustainability. Marketing Water Conservation. Ideally, water conservation programs need a communications and marketing component. Every water conservation program must include some effort to communicate with the targeted audience. Some of the participating agencies in this project utilized (knowingly or unknowingly) a number of the principles described above in the marketing campaign studied by the researchers. The research results presented below document the measurable impacts of marketing efforts in these communities, given the limitations of the data set available. In a few cases, the research team was able to directly connect a particular conservation message with lower water use in customers familiar with the message. In most cases, such a connection was not possible to discern. While the results were often ambiguous, this research opens the door for further consideration of the importance of social marketing programs and techniques in the implementation of successful water conservation programs. 2 This element is discussed in greater detail in the section of this report focused on commitment, norms, and prompts.

xxiv Water Conservation: Customer Behavior and Effective Communications Survey Results Demographic Questions. The intent of this study was to survey detached single-family residential properties exclusively. The sample of customers to be surveyed, provided by the participating utilities, was screened to include only these customers. However, database records are imperfect. While 93% of the respondents lived in a single-family home (as intended for this study) the remaining 7% live in a townhouse, multi-family apartment, mobile home, duplex, or other similar dwelling. Respondents who reported living in something other than a single-family home were not excluded from subsequent analysis. Most of the survey respondents (95%) own the home they live in. Only 5% of respondents indicated they rent their home and less than 1% did not know. Nearly three-quarters of the survey respondents (72%) reported living at the current address for seven or more years and another 19% reported living at the current address for 3 to 7 years. About 6% reported living at this address for between 1 to 3 years and only 2% had been at the current address less than one year. The homes of the survey respondents were largely built prior to 1994 when the Federal plumbing code changed through the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992, which required more water-efficient toilets, showerheads, and faucets to be manufactured. The average home in this study was built in 1974 (using midpoints from question 19), and more than 25% of the homes were built prior to 1960. The average home in this study had 2.20 bathrooms and 2.4 people per household yearround. Household income averaged $84,562 among survey respondents. The median household income in the US in 2006 was $48,000 according to the US Census Bureau. The median is of course different from the average. It is not possible to compute a precise median value from the survey data obtained in this study, but the median would fall at the upper end of the $50,000 to $74,999 category, a little below the average. The income data collected here proved a useful explanatory variable for water use. Survey Results Water, Conservation, and Environmental Questions. The primary purpose of the residential customer water survey was to determine attitudes and opinions about water, water use, water conservation messaging efforts, and general environmental concerns. A total of nine such questions were common across all six surveys. A summary of the results from this category of questions is presented here. Water supply and demand stood alone as the biggest environmental concern among survey respondents. In this study, 88% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, Water is precious and in great demand for many uses. Only 4% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Air pollution and residential growth impacting water supplies were the second and third biggest concerns of survey respondents, with more than 80% agreeing with the statements. Other areas of high concern to respondents were: industrial pollution, lack of recycling, loss of fish and aquatic habitat, commercial growth, urban development, depletion of fossil fuels, climate change, and destruction of the ozone layer.

Executive Summary xxv More than 70% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statements on these issues. The lowest-ranked environmental issue stated, the quality of water is getting worse. Only 45% of respondents agreed with this statement, 34% had no opinion, and 22% disagreed. Water supply managers were cited as the most credible source for water conservation information with 92% of respondents calling them at least somewhat credible. In contrast, sales associates at home improvement stores were cited as the least credible source, with only 55% finding them at least somewhat credible. In general, respondents found those with a financial interest in a conservation product or service (plumbers, manufacturers, contractors, sales associates) to be less credible than sources such as water supply managers, professors, and family. The exceptions were landscapers or nurseries, which ranked more highly on water conservation credibility. Which water conservation behaviors are practiced most frequently? In general, respondents reported practicing all of the conservation measures at least some of the time. A maximum of only 14% of respondents said they rarely or never practice any of the specific measures. The results suggest that most people believe they regularly practice water efficiency measures. Whether true or not, it does suggest a high level of awareness about conservation practices and a concerted attempt to integrate conservation practices into everyday life. Using a garbage can rather than the toilet to dispose of trash was the most frequently practiced water conservation behavior practiced most or all of the time by 94% of respondents. In this study, 90% of respondents reported avoiding the heat of the day for watering most or all of the time and another 88% said they don t irrigate when it is raining. Running the dishwasher and clothes washer only when full ranked highly as well. The three conservation activities that respondents practiced least often were: water-wise landscaping techniques (50% most or all the time, which is still quite high); a jug of water in the refrigerator (63% most or all of the time); and tracking usage via monthly water bill (64% most or all of the time). Which water conservation actions have been most frequently taken during the past year? Repairing leaking faucets and/or toilets was the most frequently taken action with 58% of respondents indicating that they had done this within the past year. The next most popular action taken was changing the lawn watering schedule, but only 37% of the respondents indicated doing this during the past year. 30% responded that they installed a water-saving showerhead in the past year, and 30% reported stopping irrigation of some or all of an existing lawn, possibly due to drought conditions. One in five respondents (20%) reported installing an efficient clothes washer during the past year. Clothes washers have a expected useful life of 14 years, so it is anticipated that a little over 7% of the public will replace their clothes washer per year. This is much lower than the 20% replacement rate found in the survey group. The respondents appear to be installing new clothes washers at more than double the expected rate, perhaps due to incentive programs or to the anticipated water and energy savings associated with installing a new washing machine. One in four respondents (25%) reported replacing a toilet or installing a toilet displacement device during the past year. Nearly one in five (19%) reported installing water efficient faucet aerators during the past year. Both of these reported installation rates exceed the expected natural replacement rate for these fixtures. Only 10% of respondents have ever participated in a utility rebate program, so the increased installation rate for clothes washers, dishwashers, and toilet devices found in the survey is not likely due to utility-sponsored rebate programs. However, 13% of respondents said

xxvi Water Conservation: Customer Behavior and Effective Communications their utility offered a program that but they did not participate. A full 61% said they would have participated in a rebate program if one had been available. These results suggest that rebate programs are useful but not always necessary to achieve a higher than expected installation rate of efficient fixtures. Many customers are installing efficient fixtures without a rebate incentive. Furthermore, if a rebate were available, these customers might well have taken advantage of the offering to get money back for an action they would have taken any way. This is commonly referred to as free-ridership, and has been shown to be a real issue for many utility rebate programs (Whitcomb 2003). Why do people take action to conserve water? Question 12 on the survey asked customer to select reasons why they took deliberate steps to conserve water sometimes or all the time. Three reasons stood out as the most important in influencing conservation steps: (1) saving money 78%; (2) it is the right thing to do 76%; and (3) concern about water availability 75%. About half of the respondents conservation actions were brought about or prompted by drought (57%), climate change (53%), environmental impacts (50%), and drought restrictions (44%). Water bill inserts (18%), TV shows (13%), peer pressure (2%), and utility workshops (1%), were at the bottom of the list for respondents in terms of supporting conservation steps. The rating of peer pressure as a motivating factor is interesting because other studies have found that peer pressure...works better than trying to appeal to people s sense of social responsibility, desire to save money or even their hope of safeguarding the earth for the future generations. 3 Drought can be a powerful motivator for water conservation activities. Question 14 on the customer mail survey asked respondents if drought is experienced, is water-use behavior changed and why. Most respondents (45%) reported changing their behavior, because it is the right thing to do. Another 31% reported changing their behavior during drought because of governmental mandate (e.g., water-use restrictions). Another 11% reported conserving water above and beyond locally mandated drought restrictions, while 8% responded that their region has not experienced droughts. Only 3% of respondents indicated that do not think about it. Question 15 asked, What would be the most effective way to reach you with information about water conservation that you will use? Utility bill inserts about water conservation (68%) and TV ads demonstrating water conservation tips (55%) were the two most frequently chosen information delivery methods, followed by newspaper ads (35%), radio ads (26%), TV demos (25%) magazine articles (24%), the Weather Channel (23%), demonstrations (21%) and billboards (21%). Bill inserts are often criticized as an ineffective way to reach people, yet in this survey it was by far the most preferred method for receiving water conservation information. The lowest-rated methods for delivering conservation information were irrigation contractors (4%), university extension services (4%), utility sponsored classes and workshops (4%), public meetings (5%), and plumbers (6%). Personal contact with a utility representative was selected by 7%. The Internet received mixed reviews in this survey. Utility web sites (13%) are frequently used to provide conservation information, but apparently customers do not view this as a particularly effective communication method. E-mailed information also received a 13% response. These results should be of interest to utilities that strive to communicate conservation messages regularly to customers. 3 Quoted in Classen, Neal (2007). Peer Pressure: Conserving Water Because Everyone is Doing It, Watermark Magazine, Winter.

Executive Summary xxvii Water Use Comparison. The average annual single-family water use across all six study sites was 145.4 kgal per year and the median was 105.0 kgal per year. The standard deviation was 161.4 kgal. For comparison, the average annual single-family water use (from billing data) from 12,055 homes in the Residential End Uses of Water study (REUWS) was 146.1 kgal per year and the median was 123.3 kgal per year. Results are shown below in Table ES.1 and in Figure ES.1: Table ES.1 Average annual water use and sample size six study sites Total annual water use from billing records Site Sampl Mean** Median Std. Dev. Location e Size* (kgal) (kgal) (kgal) All Sites 5,223 135.5 99.0 149.3 Tempe 1082 190.8 155.2 231.2 Durham 952 53.2 47.9 29.5 Phoenix 966 159.5 125.7 139.7 JEA 969 148.8 114.4 122.0 Orange 969 141.8 111.5 109.6 County Seattle 282 52.9 43.4 39.2 *Samples drawn from the population of single-family accounts in each study. The sample size presented is smaller than the original sample because of missing data. **Based on most recent available complete year of historic billing data - 2006 for all sites except Seattle (2008). Annual Residential Water Use (kgal) 250 200 150 100 50 0 Average Median Tempe Durham Phoenix JEA Orange County Seattle All Sites Figure ES.1 Annual residential water use (average and median) in six study sites The consistency of results from this study and the REUWS indicates that about 135 to 145 kgal per year is a reasonable estimate of the average annual water use for residential properties. When considering typical single-family residential water use, the median is probably a better measure than the mean, which is strongly influenced by a few high water users. The median water use across all six study sites was 99.0 kgal per year, which is about 27% less than the mean. Significant differences in demand between cities and regions exist. As shown in Table ES.1, the average annual use in Seattle was 52.9 kgal and in Durham it was 53.2 kgal. The average annual use in Phoenix is 159.5 kgal and in Tempe it is 190.8 kgal. These values are three