Is recycled water use risky? An Urban Australian community’s perspective

Environmentalist (2007) 27:83–94

DOI 10.1007/s10669-007-9019-6

Is recycled water use risky? An Urban Australiancommunity’s perspective

Anna C. Hurlimann

Published online: 22 February 2007C© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract The emergence of a global water crisis has seen the necessity for a sustain-able approach to water management. Policies directed towards water recycling havebeen implemented in many regions of the world. In Australia, prolonged drought con-ditions in most major cities during the past decade have led to serious national calls forless drinking water to be used (Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and InnovationCouncil, 2003), and a strategic policy response from many State Governments, in-cluding bold targets for water recycling. A key consideration to the realisation of thesepolicies is greater understanding of community attitudes to recycled water use, withoutwhich, a number of recycled water projects have failed (Hurlimann and McKay, 2004).Despite the critical nature of community attitudes, little research has been conducted,especially in relation to perception of risk, which has been found to be critical in theadoption of new technologies (Cvetkovich and Lofstedt, 1999). This paper investi-gates an urban Australian community’s perception of risk involved with using recycledwater. Key findings include: perception of risk increased as the use of recycled waterbecame increasingly personal. Perception of risk was significantly negatively relatedto trust, perception of fairness and information. Trust in the Water Authority to managerisk was significantly related to perception of trust, communication and integrity of theAuthority.

Keywords Attitudes . Communication . Community . Mawson Lakes . Perceptions .

Recycled water . Risk . Trust

A. C. Hurlimann (�)Lecturer, Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning, University of Melbourne,Victoria 3010, Australiae-mail: [email protected]

Springer

84 Environmentalist (2007) 27:83–94

1 Introduction

The emergence of a global water crisis has seen the necessity of a sustainable ap-proach to water management. Policies directed towards water recycling have beenimplemented in many regions of the world. In Australia, policy impetus for waterrecycling was founded primarily in the Council of Australian Governments (COAG)Water Reform of 1994. More recently water recycling policy has been directly im-plemented through the ‘National Water Initiative,’ an intergovernmental agreementwhich aims to encourage water conservation in cities through better use of stormwaterand recycled water (Council of Australian Governments, 2004). In addition, prolongeddrought conditions in most of Australia’s major cities during the past decade have ledto serious national calls for less drinking water to be used (Prime Minister’s ScienceEngineering and Innovation Council, 2003). This has seen a strategic policy responsefrom many State Governments, which has included bold targets for water recycling.Including: Western Australia’s State Water Strategy which aims to recycle 20% ofwastewater by 2012 (Government of Western Australia, 2003), and Victoria’s De-partment of Sustainability and Environment aiming to recycled 20% of Melbourne’swastewater by 2010 (State Government of Victoria, 2002).

However, in Australia, water recycling presently accounts for only a small percent-age of total water use, less than 1% in 2000–2001 (Australian Bureau of Statistics,2004). Most of this use is removed from direct community involvement, as it is usedpredominantly for industrial and agricultural purposes. The Australian communityhas very little experience with recycled water use, making research into communityattitudes of great importance if these strategic policies are to be achieved. The tech-nological feasibilities of recycled water projects have largely been proven, however,social aspects have not. Without community acceptance, a number of recycled waterprojects have failed, including projects in Australia, The Netherlands and the UnitedStates of America (Hurlimann and McKay, 2004). Despite the critical nature of com-munity attitudes, little research has been conducted, and there have been calls madefor this to be a priority research area in the Australian water industry (Dillon, 2000).

A key area of research which has not received due attention, is the perception ofrisk involved with recycled water use. Perceptions of risk and trust have been foundto influence adoption of technologies use including genetic modification of foodand nuclear power (Cvetkovich and Lofstedt, 1999). This paper investigates an urbanAustralian community’s perception of risk involved with using recycled water and theirtrust in the Water Authority. The aim is to facilitate the realisation of recycled waterpolicy and a sustainable approach to the management of water resources in Australia.

2 Risk and recycled water use

Like many activities in modern life the use of recycled water carries risks, which varydepending on the source of the water to be recycled: greywater, wastewater, stormwateretc. Microbial pathogens and chemicals of concern are judged by regulatory and healthauthorities to be health risks of major concern with recycled water use. Reducing therisk can be achieved in the treatment process, by placing barriers between the recycledwater and members of the community (Toze, 2005). While sound treatment processes

Springer

Environmentalist (2007) 27:83–94 85

have been established, there is still debate in the scientific community about recycledwater risk assessment.

These risks identified by scientists are often very different from the risks perceivedby the community, and regardless of how sound the science may be, influence on theperception of risk is minimal (Daughton, 2004). This difference is perhaps based ondifferent norms values and beliefs. Daughton (2004) discusses how risk is related tosubjective feelings resulting from many complex aspects of emotions, but could alsorelate to: values, beliefs, ethics, superstitions, preferences and attitudes. He believesthat risk is complicated by the fact that subjective feelings vary among individualsof any group, and can not be foreseen or anticipated. Knowledge of community per-ceptions of risk and their individual characteristics will help inform risk managementstrategies and indeed the feasibility of future recycled water projects. The communitymay determine that perceived risk outweighs benefits, and in such case an alternativeapproach to sustainable water management may be necessary.

3 Influences on perceptions of risk

There has been little empirical research investigating community attitudes towardsrecycled water use, and that which has been conducted has not looked in detail atperceptions of risk. Analysis of perceptions of risk has often formed one componentof a larger survey (see for example: Attwater and Derry, 2005; Marks and Zadoroznyj,2005). Greater insight could be provided through more detailed research. Po et al.(2003) highlight the importance of investigating judgement strategies people use inassessing risk acceptability so that effective risk communication strategies can betailored to cater for different people.

3.1 The impact of perceptions of risk to recycled water projects

There has been some evidence of the impact perceptions of risk can have on recycledwater projects, and this can often be significant. Research in parallel literatures indi-cates it can be expected that a portion of the community will have concern about riskassociated with recycled water use as an innovation. More broadly speaking a numberof studies have found that the public are less favourable toward recycled water thecloser the use is to personal contact (Bruvold, 1988; McKay and Hurlimann, 2003). Ina study by Sydney Water (1999), it was found that 11% of respondents found healthrisk associated with cooking or drinking recycled water as a disadvantage. Researchconducted in the UK by Baggett et al. (2006) investigated stakeholder attitudes tomany aspects of recycled water use and management, including perceptions of risk.They found that 15.6% of the domestic customers surveyed thought that lack ofappropriate monitoring or control over the wastewater quality was the second greatestrisk stated, behind concern that costs of the process outweigh the benefits (20%).

A groundwater recharge project in the San Gabriel Valley USA which will usetertiary treated effluent to recharge depleting groundwater resources, has facedsignificant opposition from a local community group who perceived that thepotential health risks, however small, were unacceptable (Stenekes et al., 2001). Thisdemonstrates how perception of risk can motivate a community group’s actions. A

Springer


study by Marks and Zadoroznyj (2005) investigated community attitudes to recycledwater use in four communities (two in the USA and two in Australia, n = 20 for eachsite). They indirectly explored whether participants had any health-related concernsin using recycled water. None of the 80 residents volunteered any problems with therecycled water. When asked specifically, the few concerns raised related to the safetyof the recycled water and the risk to public health.

3.2 Influences on perception of risk

Outside the field of water recycling there has been considerable research into risk per-ception. Literature indicates that public concern with environmental effects resultingfrom the application of technology has been increasing and it is paralleled by a declinein trust of technology and government regulation of the technology (cited in Flynnet al., 1992). These are increasingly important areas of research, especially with theemerging technology of water recycling for which these issues have not been widelyinvestigated. Literature from parallel fields such as risk analysis, communication andmarketing indicates there are many factors closely related to perception of risk. Theseinclude satisfaction, trust, information, communication and knowledge.

Selnes looks at the role of trust and satisfaction in marketing relationships, andfound that trust and satisfaction can reduce perceived risk. Selnes suggests that per-ceived risk can be reduced by collecting more information, but highlights that infor-mation is often not available. Breakwell (2000) has found that the source of a riskmessage must be trusted for a risk message to be effective. Trust has been found tobe associated with believing the source is expert, unbiased, disinterested and not sen-sationalizing. Communication has been found to lead to trust (Anderson and Narus,1990), and to be trusted, information must be provided by sources which are not seenas biased or self-serving (cited in Frewer et al., 1996). Will these theories hold truefor perception of risk associated with recycled water use? A thorough review of liter-ature from the fields of water resources, risk analysis, communication and marketing,informed the following hypothesis to be tested in this study:

Hypothesis 1. Perceived risk associated with recycled water use increases as thepurpose for which recycled water is used becomes increasingly personal.

Hypothesis 2. Satisfaction with the recycled water system is negatively related toperceptions of risk involved with using recycled water.

Hypothesis 3. Perception of risk involved with using recycled water is negativelyrelated to three factors: trust, information and perception of fairness.

Hypothesis 4. Perception of the Water Authority’s ability to manage risk associatedwith the recycled water system is dependent on three factors: trust, communicationand perceived integrity.

Hypothesis 5. Perception that the Water Authority has a vested interest in the recycledwater scheme will contribute to distrust in the Authority’s ability to manage riskassociated with the system.

Springer


4 Methodology

Data collected to test these hypotheses were part of the third survey in a long-termstudy of an Australian community’s attitudes to using recycled water. The communitylive at Mawson Lakes, a greenfields development 12 km north of the Adelaide centralbusiness district capital city of the state of South Australia. The development incorpo-rates a dual water supply system that delivers recycled water (a combination of treatedwastewater and stormwater) for non-drinking uses (toilet flushing, garden wateringand car washing) in a purpose built lilac pipe network. A covenant on all property titlesrequires residents to install the dual water supply system at the time of construction,which must conform to South Australian reclaimed water guidelines (Department ofHuman Services, Environment Protection Agency & Government of South Australia,1999). Recycled water commenced reticulation through the dual water supply systemin April 2005. Until that time drinking water flowed through both sets of pipes. Forfurther information about the Mawson Lakes development see McKay and Hurlimann(2003).

Members from 162 Mawson Lakes households were interviewed over the phoneby professional interviewers in the month of May 2005. Interviews took 25 min onaverage to complete. The response rate of 65% is considered very good given thesurvey’s length. Two thirds of the respondents had been surveyed in either, or both ofthe previous surveys. The other third were randomly selected from the Mawson Lakespopulation, which at the time of survey consisted of approximately 1,300 occupiedhouseholds. This third survey was the first to be conducted after the use of recycledwater had commenced. The majority of the questions required an answer on an 11point Likert scale similar to the Juster scale (Juster, 1966). Respondents were alwaysable to respond ‘don’t know.’ If less than 10% of the subjects responded ‘don’t know’they were removed from that particular analysis, in line with Babbie (1989). Responsesto the 11 point scale were recoded into 3 categories for statistical analysis. Responses0–3 included in category 1, responses 4–6 included in category 2 and responses 7–10included into category 3. The SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Inc.,1997) package was used to analyse the data.

5 Results

Respondents were asked if they think there is any risk involved with using recycledwater. Responses were: 62% ‘no’, 33% ‘yes’ and 5% ‘don’t know’. Respondents whoreplied ‘yes’ were then asked to list the risks they associate with the use of recycledwater. Respondents listed the number of risks as follows: 35 respondents (21.6% ofrespondents) listed 1 risk, 12 (7.4%) listed 2 risks, 5 (3.1%) listed 3 risks and 1 (0.6%)listed 4 risks. Table 1 provides details of the risks the respondents associated withrecycled water use. There was no significant difference found between risk perceptionand demographic variables gender, age or highest education level achieved for thisrisk perception question.

In order to test Hypothesis 1, respondents were asked to rate how risky they thought7 uses of recycled water were on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 = ‘not at all risky’ and10 = ‘extremely risky.’ Mean responses for the total set of respondents are shown

Springer


Table 1 Respondents’ perception of risk involved with recycled water use at Mawson Lakes

Risk Number of respondents (%)

Specific:Danger to children 14 (8.6)Danger to pets/animals 10 (6.2)

Quality:Bacteria 4 (2.5)Chemicals 4 (2.5)Salt 3 (1.8)Germs 2 (1.2)Purity/Full removal of contaminants not assured 9 (5.5)

Use related:Car washing—paint damage 1 (1.2)Vegetable/herb irrigation 1 (1.2)Damage to plants 3 (1.8)Misuse 3 (1.8)Splashes/skin contact/sprinkler mist 5 (3.1)Accidental drinking 2 (1.2)

Other issues:Health issues 7 (4.3)It’s not safe to drink 5 (3.1)Cross connection 3 (1.8)Implementation 1 (0.6)Long term risks of build up in system 1 (0.6)Lack of information 1 (0.6)Costs 1 (0.6)

0.8

1.66

3.08

4.15

6.77

8.49.06

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Toiletflushing

Gardenwatering

Carwashing

Vegetablegrowing

Clotheswashing

Showering Drinking

Use of recycled water

Ris

k; 0

= n

ot a

t al

l ris

ky,

10 =

ext

rem

ely

risk

y

Fig. 1 Respondents’ views of risk associated with various uses of recycled water

in Fig. 1. Table 2 displays the results for significant differences in ratings betweendemographic groups, using ANOVA (SPSS Inc., 1997). As can be seen from Table 2there were significant differences between education and gender for the more personaluses of recycled water.

Springer


Table 2 Details for statistically significant results for demographic variables: Perception of risk associatedwith various uses of recycled water

Sum of squares Degrees of freedomBetween groups Between groups Mean squareWithin groups Within groups Between groups

Demographic variable/Use/Means Total Total Within groups F Sig.

GENDERClothes washing 6.07 1 32.69 4.82 0.03(Means: female = 7.3, male = 6.4) 375.61 156 6.75

381.68 157Vegetable growing 46.23 1 46.23 5.21 0.02(Means: female = 4.7, male = 3.7) 1375.40 155 8.87

1421.63 156Showering 17.67 1 17.67 3.89 0.05(Means: female = 8.8, male = 8.1) 722.89 159 4.55

740.56 160EDUCATIONa

Drinking 19.4 2 9.7 3.57 0.03(Means: 1 = 9.5, 2 = 9.3, 3 = 8.5) 421.27 155 2.7

440.69 157Clothes washing 46.11 2 23.06 3.48 0.03(Means: 1 = 7.6, 2 = 7.1, 3 = 6.0) 1015.04 153 6.63

1061.15 155Vegetable growing 122.78 2 61.39 7.26 0.00(Means: 1 = 3.5, 2 = 4.9, 3 = 3.0) 1286.10 152 8.46

1408.88 154Showering 76.41 2 38.20 9.04 0.00(Means: 1 = 8.6, 2 = 8.9, 3 = 7.4) 658.95 156 4.22

735.36 158

a1 = ≤ Year 10, 2 = High School Certificate/Other certificate, 3 = University degree/Postgraduate.

Respondents were asked to rank perceived risk associated with 4 technologies ona scale of 1 to 4, were 1 = ‘the most risky’ to 4 = ‘the least risky.’ This was doneto contextualise perceived risk of recycled water use with that of other technologiesdiscussed in contemporary society. Results can be found in Fig. 2.

In order to test Hypothesis’ 2 and 3, respondents were asked to rate the first 4questions in Table 3 on an 11 point scale, which for the satisfaction variable was:0 = ‘not at all satisfied’ to 10 = extremely satisfied, and for the other 3 questionswas 0 = ‘very strongly disagree’ to 10 = ‘very strongly agree.’ Responses wererecoded into the 3 categories previously described. Each of these variables was testedagainst perceived risk (‘yes’ or ‘no’). Chi Square tests were used to measure statisticalsignificance between the 3 categories of responses. Pearson’s R values were used toindicate the direction of the relationship. The results are displayed in Table 4.

Table 3 displays questions used to test Hypothesis 4 and 5, which were all ratedon the same 11 point scale (0 = ‘very strongly disagree’ – 10 = ‘very stronglyagree’), then coded into 3 categories. The response frequencies can be found inTable 5. Responses to the ‘risk question’ were tested against each of the questions forcommunication, trust, integrity and vested interest, with Chi Square tests of statisticalsignificance undertaken. Results can be found in Table 6.

Springer


Table 3 Survey questions listed by hypothesis and variable tested

Question

FOR TESTING HYPOTHESIS’ 2 AND 3Satisfaction: How satisfied are you with the recycled water to date?Trust: I trust The Water Authority to manage any risk that may be associated with recycled

water use at Mawson LakesInformation: I am well informed about the dual water supply systemFairness: Up to now I think I have been treated fairly in the process relating to the recycled

water systemFOR TESTING HYPOTHESIS’ 4 AND 5

Risk (R)R1: I trust The Water Authority to manage any risk that may be associated with recycledwater use at Mawson Lakes

Communication (C)C1: The Water Authority lets the community know as soon as possible of any unexpected

problems with things such as service interruptions, and project delaysC2: In our relationship, The Water Authority keeps us informed of new developments with

the recycled water schemeTrust (T)

T1: The Water Authority provides information that can be trustedT2: In our relationship, The Water Authority cannot be trusted at times

Integrity (I)I1: The Water Authority fulfils promisesI2: In our relationship The Water Authority has high integrity

Vested Interest (V)V1: The Water Authority has a vested interest in the success of the recycled water system

at Mawson Lakes

2.28

1.48

2.27

3.69

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Radiation from mobilephones

Nuclear waste/uraniummining

Genetic modification of food

Recycled water use for non-drinking purposes

Mean response; 1 = the most risky, 4 = the least risky

Fig. 2 Respondents’ views on risk associated with various technologies

6 Discussion

A large proportion of the respondents (33%, or n = 53) thought there was risk involvedwith using recycled water. These respondents were then asked to list the risks theythought were involved with recycled water use. The majority listed only one risk (n =33), and one respondent listed 4. Of the risks listed, the majority related to concerns

Springer


Table 4 Relationship between perception of risk associated with recycled water use and: satisfaction,trust, information, and perception of fairness

Satisfaction Trust Information Perception of fairness

Pearson Chi-Square 24.37 14.93 3.82 19.71Degrees of freedom 2 2 2 2Significance 0.000∗ 0.001∗∗ 0.15 0.000∗

Pearson’s R (Sig) 0.40 (0.000)∗ 0.30 (0.000)∗ 0.15 (0.058)∗∗∗∗ 0.35 (0.000)∗

∗Significant at the 0.0001 level, ∗∗ Significant at the 0.001 level, ∗∗∗∗ Significance at the 0.1 level.

Table 5 Frequency of responses to questions listed in Table 3

ResponseFrequency (percentage) R1 C1 C2 T1 T2 I1 I2 V1

1 (disagree) 6 (3.5) 14 (8.5) 14 (8.5) 6 (3.5) 71 (44) 12 (7.5) 7 (4) 5 (3)2 (neither agree or disagree) 50 (31) 37 (23) 39 (24) 56 (31) 58 (36) 63 (39) 65 (40) 39 (24)3 (agree) 105 (65) 110 (68) 108 (67) 101 (65) 24 (15) 77 (47.5) 84 (52) 111 (69)Don’t know/Other 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5) 9 (5) 10 (6) 6 (4) 7 (4)

Table 6 Relationship between trust in the Water Authority to manage risk and: integrity, trust, communi-cation and vested interest

Integrity Trust Communication Vested interest

Question 1Pearson Chi-Square 65.81 96.57 29.85 16.48Degrees of freedom 4 4 4 4Significance 0.000∗ 0.000∗ 0.000∗ 0.002∗∗∗

Pearson’s R (Sig) 0.50 (0.000)∗ 0.62 (0.000)∗ 0.29 (0.000)∗ 0.275 (0.001)∗∗

Question 2Pearson Chi-Square 29.98 29.63 47.28Degrees of freedom 4 4 4Significance 0.000 0.000∗ 0.000∗

Pearson’s R (Sig) 0.37 (0.000)∗ −0.37 (0.000)∗ 0.47 (0.000)∗

∗Significant at the 0.0001 level, ∗∗ Significant at the 0.001 level, ∗∗∗ Significant at the 0.01 level.

about danger to children (n = 14) or pets and animals (n = 10). The assurance thatcontaminants would be removed was raised by 9 respondents.

Support was provided for Hypothesis 1. Shown clearly in Fig. 1, respondents’ viewof risk associated with recycled water increased as use became increasingly personal.This ranged from a mean score of 0.8 for toilet flushing, to 4.15 for vegetable growingand 9.06 for drinking. Interestingly of four technologies commonly discussed incontemporary society, recycled water use for non drinking purposes, was ranked theleast risky, followed by radiation from mobile phones, genetically modified food,with nuclear waste/uranium mining rated the most risky. Support was also providedfor Hypothesis 2. Those that perceived risk associated with recycled water use, weresignificantly less satisfied with the recycled water system than those that did notperceive risk (sig at the 0.0001 level).

Hypothesis 3 was also supported. Significant negative relationships were foundbetween perception of risk, trust in the water authority and perception of fairness

Springer


at the 0.0001 level, while only at the 0.1 significance level for information. Theseresults indicate that those who perceive risk associated with recycled water use wereless trusting of the Water Authority to manage risk, did not perceive that they hadbeen treated fairly in the recycled water process, and did not feel well informed aboutthe recycled water system. Support was also provided for Hypothesis 4. Trust in theWater Authority to manage risk associated with the recycled water system was foundto be positively related to perception of the Water Authority having integrity and goodcommunication, and with trust in the Water Authority. Results were significant at the0.0001 level. Pearson’s R values indicated the expected direction of the relationship,the negative value on question T2 relating to the negative nature in which the questionwas phrased. These results indicate that trust in the Water Authority’s ability tomanage risk will increase if they are perceived as having integrity, if they are trustedand perceived to communicate well.

Hypothesis 5 was not supported. Trust in the Water Authority to manage risk wasfound to be positively associated with the perception that they had a vested interestin the success of the recycled water system. This indicates that while the communitythought the Water Authority have a vested interest in the recycled water scheme, thiswas not perceived as a threat to trusting them to manage any risk associated with therecycled water system.

7 Conclusions

These results are important, providing empirical evidence of a community’s perceptionof risk associated with recycled water use. Results indicate that a significant numberof respondents do perceive there is risk associated with recycled water use, mainly re-lating to safety of children and animals. These and other risks raised by the communitylisted in Table 1 should be noted for risk communication strategies and in order to pro-vide further specific information to residents. Risk associated with the recycled wateruse was found to increase as the use became increasingly personal, indicating the usesallowed at the Mawson Lakes development were those which the community associ-ated least risk, importantly there were significant differences in perceived risk betweengender and education groups for more personal uses of recycled water, indicatingmales and those highly educated perceive the less risk. Perception of risk was signif-icantly associated with low trust in the water Authority, perception of being not wellinformed about the recycled water system and perception of not being treated fairly inthe process. This indicates in order to reduce perception of risk associated with the useof recycled water the Authorities should focus on gaining the community’s trust, pro-viding timely and accurate information, and have a process of implementation whichis perceived as fair. Trust in the Water Authority to manage risk associated with recy-cled water was found to be significantly related to communication, trust, perceptionof integrity, and also surprisingly the perception that the Water Authority had a vestedinterest in the recycled water project. These results provide useful information for Wa-ter Authorities relating to risk communication with recycled water projects, helpingto identify and address community concerns. They also identify characteristics WaterAuthorities can focus on to enhance community trust and reduce perception of risk.

Springer


Acknowledgments This paper was written from results from the author’s PhD thesis undertaken at theUniversity of South Australia as a CRC for Water Quality and Treatment Scholar. Funding for the researchcame from an ARC SPIRT Grant. The Author acknowledges the following people and organisations fortheir assistance and support with the study: Professor Jennifer McKay, Professor Gus Geursen, Mr ChrisMarles, Dr June Marks, The CRC for Water Quality and Treatment, The University of South Australia, SAWater, The Marketing Science Centre especially Ms Kirsty Willis, The City of Salisbury, Delfin Lend Lease.

References

Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A.: 1990, ‘A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm WorkingPartnerships,’ Journal of Marketing 54, 42–58.

Attwater, R. and Derry, C.: 2005, ‘Engaging Communities of Practice for Risk Communication in theHawkesbury Water Recycling Scheme,’ Action Research 3(2), 193–209.

Australian Bureau of Statistics: 2004, 4610.0: Water Account Australia, Australian Government, Canberra,viewed 5 July 2004, <http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/a7f8ae8188119911ca2568d40004eaf7?OpenDocument>.

Babbie, E.: 1989, The Practice of Social Research, Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, California.Baggett, S., Jeffrey, P., and Jefferson, B.: 2006, ‘Risk Perception in Participatory Planning for Water Reuse,’

Desalination 187, 149–158.Breakwell, G.M.: 2000, ‘Risk Communication: Factors Affecting Impact,’ British Medical Bulletin 56:1,

110–120.Bruvold, W.H.: 1988, ‘Public Opinion on Water Reuse Options,’ Water Pollution Control Federation 60(1),

45–49.Council of Australian Governments: 2004, Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Wa-

ter Initiative, Canberra, Australian Government, Canberra, viewed 21 September 2004,<http://www.coag.gov.au/meetings/250604/iga national water initiative.pdf>.

Cvetkovich, G. and Lofstedt, R.E.: 1999, Social Trust and the Management of Risk, Earthscan, London.Daughton, C.G.: 2004, ‘Ground Water Recharge and Chemical Contaminants: Challenges in Commu-

nicating the Connections and Collisions of Two Disparate Worlds,’ Ground Water Monitoring andRemediation 24(2), 127–138.

Department of Human Services, Environment Protection Agency, and Government of South Australia:1999, South Australian Reclaimed Water Guidelines, Environment Protection Agency, Adelaide.

Dillon, P.: 2000, ‘Water Reuse in Australia: Current Status, Projections and Research,’ paper presented atthe Water Recycling Australia Conference, Adelaide, October 19–20.

Flynn, J., Burns, W., Mertz, C.K., and Slovic, P.: 1992, ‘Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High-levelRadioactive Waste Depository: Analysis of a Structural Model,’ Risk Analysis 12(3), 417–429.

Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., and Shepherd, R.: 1996, ‘What Determines Trust in Informationabout Food Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs,’ Risk Analysis 16(4), 473–486.

Government of Western Australia: 2003, A State Water Strategy, for Western Australia, Govern-ment of Western Australia, Perth, viewed 21 September 2004, <http://www.ourwaterfuture.com.au/Docs/State Water Strategy complete.pdf>.

Hurlimann, A. and McKay, J.: 2004, ‘Attitudes to Reclaimed Water for Domestic Use: Part 2. Trust,’ Water,Journal of the Australian Water Association 31(5), 40–45.

Juster, T.F.: 1966, ‘Consumer Buying Intentions and Purchase Probability: An Experiment in SurveyDesign,’ American Statistical Association Journal September, 658–696.

Marks, J. and Zadoroznyj, M.: 2005, ‘Managing Sustainable Urban Water Reuse: Structural Context andCultures of Trust,’ Society and Natural Resources 18, 557–572.

McKay, J. and Hurlimann, A.C.: 2003, ‘Attitudes to Reclaimed Water for Domestic Use: Part 1 Age,’ Water,Journal of the Australian Water Association 30(5), 45–49.

Po, M., Kaercher, J.D., and Nancarrow, B.E.: 2003, Literature Review of Factors Influencing PublicPerceptions of Water Reuse, CSIRO Land and Water, Perth.

Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and Innovation Council: 2003, Recycling Water For Our Cities,Federal Government of Australia, Canberra.

Selnes, F.: 1998, ‘Antecedents and Consequences of Trust and Satisfaction in Buyer-seller Relationships,’European Journal of Marketing 32(3/4), 305–322.

State Government of Victoria: 2002, New Water for Victoria, Victoria’s Water Recycling ActionPlan, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne, viewed 21 September

Springer


2002, <http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/nrenlwm.nsf/93a98744f6ec41bd4a256c8e00013aa9/fd52871f222b5a 214a256dea0024ed8c/$ FILE/ATTMOAOP/Water%20Recycling%20Action%20Plan.pdf>.

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Inc.: 1997, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, SPSS,Chicago, IL.

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Inc.: 1997, SPSS Conjoint 8.0, SPSS, Chicago, IL.Stenekes, N., Schaefer, A.I., and Ashbolt, N.: 2001, ‘Community Involvement in Water Recycling—Issues

and Needs,’ paper presented at the Recent Advances in Water Recycling Technologies Workshop,Brisbane, 26 November.

Sydney Water: 1999, Community Views on Re-Cycled Water, Sydney Water, Sydney.Toze, S.: 2005, ‘Water Reuse and Health Risks—Real vs Perceived,’ in S. Khan, M.H. Muston, and A.I.

Schaefer (eds.), Proceedings from Integrated Concepts in Water Recycling, University of Wollongong,Wollongong, pp. 680–690.

Springer

Documents

Is recycled water use risky? An Urban Australian community’s perspective