-
extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION IN OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON:
AN EVALUATION OF LOCAL WATER CONSERVATION POLICY
AND USER BEHAVIOR
by
Matthew E. Anderson
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
August 2014
©2014 by Matthew E. Anderson. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
By
Matthew E. Anderson
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Martha L. Henderson, Ph.D.
Director of the Graduate Program on the Environment
Member of the Faculty, The Evergreen State College
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
Residential irrigation in Olympia, Washington: An evaluation
of local water conservation policy and user behavior
Matthew Anderson
Water conservation is of growing concern for municipal governments and utility
managers. Uncertainty in population growth, changes in water demand, and the reliability
of water supply have led to some state and local governments to implement water
conservation policies. Water supply concerns are managed by governments and utilities,
but water demand is largely the result of user behaviors. In Olympia, Washington, the
local government has implemented a six year Water System Plan in accordance with a
mandate issued by state legislation. Water conservation outreach has been conducted for
the past six years that encourages water customers to reduce consumption by providing
education, economic triggers, and incentives for efficiency upgrades. The City of
Olympia has surpassed the water use reduction goals it set forth in the Water System Plan
of 2009, despite intermittent participation in conservation programs by its customers. In
order to explore the outdoor water use behavior of residents in Olympia, a survey was
distributed to ten neighborhoods throughout the city. The theory of planned behavior was
used as a model for survey design. Survey results were assessed by analysis of variance
(ANOVA). Surveys that were returned showed no significant difference between
neighborhoods, socio-economic criteria, or ownership status in opinions of water
conservation. Analysis of specific survey question groups found significant differences
along the behavioral factors of the theory of planned behavior. A majority of respondents
indicated interest in receiving more detailed information on utility billing statements.
Incorporating behavioral analysis and the findings of conservation behavior research in
water conservation policy has the potential to reduce demand. The reliability of future
water supplies will depend on effective demand management. In order to effectively
reduce demand, water user behavior must be strategically addressed in future policy
implementation.
Table of Contents
List of Figures and List of Tables...…………………………………………… v
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………. vii
Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………...….
1
Chapter 2: Literature Review………………………………………………….….. 6
Residential Water Conservation Research…………………………….......... 7
Spatial and Psycho-Social Analyses in Water Conservation Research……... 10
Conservation and the Theory of Planned Behavior……………………...….. 13
Methods…………………………………………………………………....... 21
Chapter 3: Federal, State, and Local Water Conservation Policy……………....
Federal Water Conservation Policy………………………………………….
Water Conservation Policy in Washington State……………………………
Water Conservation in the City of Olympia……………...………………….
24
25
29
33
Chapter 4: Analysis………………………………………………………………...
Survey Design and Implementation…………………………………………
Behavioral Scoring Method………………………………………………....
Survey Analysis and Results………………………………………………...
Discussion…………………………………………………………………....
42
42
44
45
51
Chapter 5: Conclusion…………………………………………………………......
55
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………... 58
iv
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1:
The City of Olympia is located at the southernmost point
of the Puget Sound
Figure 2:
A model of the theory of planned behavior depicts three
factors that influence how intention does not always lead
to intended behavior.
Figure 3:
The map of the United States shows the uneven participation
in federal WaterSense conservation initiatives.
Figure 4:
Pooling of municipal water on street from the use of an
automated irrigation system in SE Olympia at mid-day
in July, 2014.
Figure 5:
Map of survey distribution across ten neighborhoods in Olympia.
Figure 6:
ANOVA analysis of question #23 by social norm relative
behavioral score with post-hoc comparisons labeled
above Likert responses.
Figure 7:
ANOVA analysis of question #28 by social norm relative
behavioral score with post-hoc comparisons labeled
above Likert responses.
2
15
27
40
43
47
47
List of Tables
Table 1:
Water consumption by tiered rate structure shows that the
heaviest users do not respond to price signals.
Table 2:
One-Way ANOVA analysis of lawn aesthetics indicates
comparable influence of both personal and social norm
behavioral factors.
34
48
v
Page
Table 3:
Water conservation questions about respondents'
neighbors and their corresponding behavioral relationships.
Table 4:
Water conservation attitudes are shown in mean
relative scores across groups of different duration
of residency in Olympia.
49
51
vi
Acknowledgements
The following thesis would not have been possible without tremendous help, support, and
instruction from my family, friends, faculty, and peers. In particular I would like to thank
Dr. Martha Henderson for her patience, encouragement, and careful feedback throughout
this writing process. Thank you Sarah Killion and Justin Eygabroat for your assistance
and encouragement in the demanding process of preparing and delivering survey
materials. Thank you for your correspondence and insight, Erin Conine. Your task of
engaging an entire city in water conservation must be daunting at times. I can only hope
that this report provides any assistance towards that end.
vii
Chapter 1: Introduction
Water conservation in urban areas is an issue of growing concern for municipal
governments and utilities that manage water supplies. Throughout the developed world,
water management authorities are facing the threat of shortage in water supply due to
growing populations (Breyer, Chang, & Parandvash, 2012), drought (Kenney, Goemans,
Klein, Lowrey & Reidy, 2008; Marks, 2006), and the potential risk of future climate
change (Frei, Armstrong, Clark & Serreze, 2013).
Water authorities have a responsibility to achieve water supply goals that will
ensure adequate supply into the future. This responsibility is fulfilled by limiting waste in
delivery systems, monitoring existing source levels, developing further water sources if
necessary, and ensuring the system can deliver to all of the authority’s customers in peak
demand times. Another way that utilities have approached water supply issues is through
programs designed to manage demand. Water conservation programs implemented to
reduce customer demand have produced mixed results. Despite educational outreach,
financial incentives, and in some cases regulatory penalties, water conservation programs
have produced varied and inconsistent results in water demand behavior.
In the City of Olympia, Washington, the City government manages the Drinking
Water Utility. The Utility Water System Plan for 2009-2014 indicated that increases in
demand will exceed the existing system capacity by 2021, with shortages increasing to
2.33 million gallons per day (Mgd) by 2028 (City of Olympia Public Works Department,
2009). To address this shortfall the City is developing three new sources for its municipal
supply. Once these new sources are operational the City will have ensured adequate
supply for the next 50 years. A caveat of this adequate 50 year supply is a continued
1
reduction in demand, despite population forecasts that project 68% growth by the year
2035 (Thurton Regional Planning Council [TRPC], 2012). The Utility has demonstrated
gains in system efficiency, and between 1996 and 2007 water use declined 14% whereas
connections to the system increased by 23% (Olympia, 2009). As the City of Olympia
Capital Facilities Plan (2013) forecasts 20,000 new residents in the next 20 years, the
management of water demand will be a critical component of maintaining reliable
supply.
The stated conservation goal of the Olympia Water System Plan (2009) is to
reduce water use by 5% per
connection between 2009 and 2014.
The plan established a new tiered rate
structure to trigger price signals for
customers with higher consumption,
set goals for reduced waste in the
system, provided efficient technology
rebates and incentives for customers,
and set goals for increased outreach
to promote conservation practices. A
Figure 1:The City of Olympia is located at the
southernmost point of the Puget Sound; city
boundaries shown here in white.
major focus of this outreach program
has been residential outdoor water
use. The outreach primarily consisted of updated website information and brochures that
were included with customers bi-monthly water bills.
2
Research presented in this document evaluates the efficacy of the City of
Olympia’s residential water conservation outreach program and incorporates behavioral
analysis of residents' opinions of water conservation. The research is presented as an
independent student project, and does not reflect official views of the City government or
staff. The City will conduct its evaluation based on water consumption data. The research
explores the water conservation knowledge and attitudes of City residents. The
methodology employed is designed to determine if there are neighborhood effects on
water conservation behavior that result in significant differences between neighborhoods.
The Water System Plan (2009) acknowledges the subjective nature of outdoor
water use by stating: “[b]ecause outdoor watering is tied greatly to cultural and aesthetic
values and practices (such as having a green lawn), this strategy focuses on eliminating
wasteful irrigation practices by providing customers with ways to irrigate more
efficiently” (p. 6-17). The Plan, however, states no formal strategy for how to address
residents’ behaviors in order to encourage greater conservation.
The thesis assumes that outdoor water use, in non-agricultural settings, is the most
discretionary and least necessary for basic living needs. Therefore, in order to increase
conservation of outdoor water use, outreach programs must recognize the subjective
norms that support outdoor water use. By approaching this research utilizing the
framework provided by the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), the thesis explores
a critical component of residential water conservation that the City has not addressed:
residents’ behavior patterns.
The theory of planned behavior (TPB) was conceived as a pragmatic framework
to understand how behavioral intentions actually become behavioral performance. The
3
theory has been incorporated into many behavioral studies focused on health (Godin &
Kok, 1995), education (Cizek, Bowen & Church, 2010), and marketing (Kalafatis &
Pollard, 1999; Rivera-Camino, 2012). Increasingly, the theory has been applied to study
environmental behaviors, such as in the workplace (Greaves, Zibarras & Stride, 2013), in
the adoption of new soil conservation methods (Wauters, Bielders, Poesen, Govers &
Mathijs, 2009), and in water conservation (Lynne, Casey, Hodges & Rahmani, 1995;
Lam, 2006; Lee & Tansel, 2013). Through the use of this theory, the research described
below is designed to identify neighborhoods that are behaviorally predisposed to
positively view water conservation. Identifying neighborhoods along these criteria could
assist targeting pilot conservation programs in the future.
The study of water conservation is inherently interdisciplinary. Natural sciences
are used to explain the status of our water resources, and provide innovative methods for
expanding those resources. Policy must be studied in order to learn from previous
iterative adjustments to ensure viable water supply into the future. And, as this author
argues, the science of behavior should be incorporated to both the natural science and the
policy of water conservation. Just as the main cause of human health degradation in the
U.S. is due to modifiable behaviors (Mokdad, Marks, Stroup & Gerberding, 2004), so too
are the challenges that face our shared environment. This research draws direct
inspiration from a paper by Akerlof & Kennedy (2013), in their call to “[e]xplicity utilize
evidence from social and behavioral sciences in the design of conservation initiatives.”
In the case of Olympia’s home water conservation program, the policy has been in
place for the past five years and is set for an iterative update. This thesis provides an
evaluation of the conservation program’s outreach. It evaluates the program for its
4
education efficacy, and utilizes the theory of planned behavior to better understand what
factors are affecting water conservation behaviors. The research concludes with a
discussion of demographics, policy measures, and behavioral tools that may be employed
in future conservation policy strategies. Guided by a philosophy that every community is
particular in its subjective norms, this research demonstrates that policy decisions must
incorporate aspects of the behavioral sciences in order to influence greater water
conservation. A mixed methods approach is utilized, incorporating a 41 question survey
and basic housing stock data.
The following chapters include a review of relevant literature on residential water
conservation and conservation behaviors; information and studies on water management
in Olympia, Washington; research and data analysis methods and results; a summary,
discussion, conclusion; and a bibliography complete the thesis.
5
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The study of residential water conservation has produced a rich and varied
literature. The research has set forth in quantifying usage patterns across spatial,
demographic, technological, ecological, and behavioral criteria. The following literature
review presents a synthesis of material across many disciplines that illustrates a field in
some disagreement, as much of the findings are case specific, and often the result of
place-based variations. Further discrepancies arise from the various theoretical and
design aspects of water conservation research. Common themes that arise include local
environmental conditions that provoke conservation research, efforts to isolate behavioral
components of water usage, and the interdisciplinary use of behavior theory to
understand conservation behavior.
Understanding water use patterns is most commonly studied by finding
correlations along spatial, economic, and demographic criteria. These criteria are adept at
explaining variation in overall residential home use. Larger homes typically have more
water fixtures, can house more people who consume water, and are often more expensive.
When we narrow our attention to outdoor residential water consumption, we encounter
subjective criteria that are more difficult to quantify and predict. Outdoor water use is
largely used for maintaining lawns and gardens, filling swimming pools, and washing
cars. Status, tradition, and perceived cultural norms are pressures to maintain a higher
level of outdoor water consumption. As noted by Janmaat (2013), “[l]andscaping choices
are public statements, and therefore will reflect complex social influences.” These
‘complex social influences’ were not in the scope of his paper, as we will see is true of
much of the outdoor water conservation literature.
6
In order to address the gaps in many water conservation studies, this literature
review turns from the state of water conservation research to the developing field of
environmental behavior. Environmental behavior reserarch employs study designs from
socio-psychological disciplines, and recent reviews have advocated for behavior analysis
to be incorporated into policy design. The review concludes with criticism of the Theory
of Planned Behavior, and the use and misuse of the Likert scale for behavioral research.
Residential Water Conservation Research
Literature regarding water conservation research studies is often conducted in
areas that are climatically drier. Often these research sites are experiencing other
pressures that threaten the reliability of water supply, such as increasing population
growth, or increasing drought conditions. Studies often employ spatial analysis to
determine variation in water demand and attempt to understand these variations through
demographic data and housing characteristics (Breyer, Chang, and Parandvash, 2012;
Janmaat, 2013; Giner, Polsky, Pontius, and Runfola, 2013). These studies often conclude
with policy suggestions for how to manage land development and water demand.
The state of Texas is experiencing both diminishing precipitation and increasing
population are reducing water reserves. In 2012, Hermitte and Mace produced a report
for the Texas Water Development Board that surveyed the water use across 259 cities for
the years 2004-2011. The study relied on monthly water bills to determine annual and
seasonal patterns of water consumption. As the water bills do not differentiate between
indoor and outdoor use, the authors created a proxy method to determine outdoor use.
This method relies on a weighted average per city based on the number of single-family
7
connections, and derives a statewide weighted average by summing the averages of the
259 cities. The research found that between 20 and 53 percent of all water consumption
was for outdoor use. There was not a strong correlation between outdoor use and
precipitation levels. However usage did increase during 2011, which was a particularly
dry year. The authors attribute the variability in their findings to the low temporal
resolution of the data (monthly water statements).
Another arid state that is experiencing rapid population growth is Utah. Seventy
percent of water consumption in the state is residential. Hasenyager and Klotz (2009)
employed a mixed method of surveys, water bill data, and evapotranspiration data to
determine water usage across 17 cities in Utah. An unstated number of residents were
randomly selected for receiving the water use survey. In order to determine the
relationship between home characteristics and water use patterns, the surveys collected
data including persons per household, square footage of home, and lot size which were
compared with the respondents' water bills. Outdoor water use was calculated as the
difference between consumption in summer months and winter months. Common
patterns in water conservation research were found: larger homes and homes with more
residents consume more water; homes that irrigate with manual sprinklers use less than
automatic systems; most residents water more than their turf grass requires; and residents
who were aware of conservation media campaigns use less water than residents who are
unaware.
In Aurora, Colorado, water use compares with Utah, where residences make up
70-80 percent of consumption. Model analysis of residential consumption patterns before
and after the drought of 2002 demonstrated up to 30 percent reduction of water
8
consumption during the drought. Due to the mix of strategies employed by the water
utility, it is unclear whether it was water pricing, regulatory penalties for excessive use,
or educational campaigns that reduced demand (Kenney et al., 2008). A three tiered water
rate structure demonstrated the influence demographics have on consumption patterns.
Wealthier, older people tend to live in larger homes that consume more water. Water
Smart Readers distributed by the Aurora utility that allow residents to monitor their water
consumption in real time contributed to reduced demand. Kenney et al. (2008) concludes
that the entire suite of demand management strategies is effective, however their research
was unable to determine the exact effect of each individual strategy.
The demand management described by Kenney et al. (2008) is largely reactive, in
that higher water rates and information campaigns were established after drought
conditions made previous consumption excessive. In order to develop proactive water
demand management, high resolution water meters are utilized to provide residents with
real-time consumption data. When installed throughout research participants' homes, the
actual water usage is found to be higher than the residents previously stated (Beal,
Stewart, and Fielding, 2013). Participants were grouped into high, medium, and low
water users, based on self-identified water use patterns. Self-reported high users were
found to actually use less than self-reported medium users. Further analysis found that
users demand less water when their billing statements include local use averages. The
disparity between water use attitudes and actual consumption suggests water demand can
be reduced if consumers are given more information about their actual usage (Aitken,
McMahon, Wearing, Finlayson, 1994; Willis, Stewart, Panuwatwanich, Jones, and
Kyriakides, 2010).
9
Spatial and Psycho-Social Analyses in Water Conservation Research
Literature describing residential outdoor water consumption in the developed
world often explores psycho-social drivers of water use. The residential landscape of
manicured lawns and gardens is associated with social status that originates from the
estates of the French and British elite of the 17th century. The entrenched values
associated with these landscapes have become part of the identity of homeowners
(Feagan and Ripmeester, 2001). Challenging the social norm of irrigated and chemically
treated lawns therefore is interpreted as a personal affront to homeowners who prefer to
maintain lawns. The social driver to maintain a lush residential landscape is such that in
cases of regulatory penalty for irrigating during drought, some homeowners will accept
monetary penalty rather than let their landscape wilt (Ozan and Alsharif, 2013).
In order to explore the social drivers of different lawn maintenance methods in
Kelowna, British Columbia, Janmaat (2013) employs a spatial analysis of annual water
consumption. Through mathematical modeling, the study finds a spatial lag between
water use clusters, supporting other findings of housing stock and demographics as
drivers of water use. Novel water saving strategies are reported to be most effective in a
clustered fashion, in order to encourage greater conservation program participation
through social mimicry. This conclusion is somewhat tenuous due to the method of
analysis, however the positive influence of social mimicry is supported by Nassauer,
Wang, and Dayrell (2009). In a survey of 494 Michigan residents, participants chose
what front yard landscape design was preferable. The types of designs were comprised of
turf grass, wooded yards, and innovative designs that incorporate native plants. When the
surrounding homes were turf grass, the respondents favored the ecologically innovative
10
yard design the least. When all the yards were innovative, the turf grass was least desired,
with a native garden design ranking highest.
The maintenance of turf grass is associated with higher water consumption, and
homes with in-ground sprinklers use 35 to 47 percent more water than homes that do not
(Mayer and DeOreo, 1999). Replacing grass with gardens comprised of native plants that
require less water during hot summer months is a strategy for residences to demand less
water. Remote sensing analysis of Ann Arbor Michigan demonstrated a tendency among
residences to have a clustering effect of front lawn gardens. A property was found to be
2.4 times more likely to have an easement garden if another property within 30 meters
had one as well (Hunter and Brown, 2012). This analysis demonstrates the influence of
social norms on residential landscape management, however does not include actual
water consumption in its analysis.
Social mimicry is not ubiquitous in the water conservation literature. An
investigation to the role of Homeowners' Associations in the suburbs of Baltimore found
that residential landscaping is in part explained by personal preference (Fraser, Bazuin,
Band, and Grove, 2013). Attitudes in response to water restrictions in Australia were
researched across urban, suburban, and rural boundaries. Spatial criteria did not explain
the variation in attitude, but demographic criteria such as age, income, and education did
(Pearce, Willis, Mamerow, Jorgensen, and Martin, 2012). Attitudes towards the
environment were found to be the most predictive criteria when researching residential
water consumption in Gold Coast City, Australia (Willis, Stewart, Panuwatwanich,
Williams, and Hollingsworth, 2011). There was no spatial component of the study in
11
Gold Coast City, however, so any spatial clustering effect of social norms cannot be
determined.
The literature on residential water consumption and its social drivers is comprised
of disparate methods, disciplinary perspectives, and scales of analysis. The academic
study of residential landscapes can be described as a developing field, with under five
publications per year in the mid-1990's to over thirty per year by 2010. A review of this
literature subject synthesized 256 papers and found that outdoor residential water use was
strongly related to the type of ground cover and vegetation present, the irrigation
technology utilized, and the variability of climate (Cook, Hall, and Larson, 2012). Single
scale analysis often makes comparisons between studies difficult due to place-based and
cultural variability.
A study in Australia (Syme, Shao, and Po, 2004) found that positive attitudes
towards conservation corresponded with reduced outdoor consumption. Using a similar
questionnaire and structural equation modeling method as Syme et al. (2004), a study in
Mexico found that environmental attitudes were the least predictive for actual
consumption (Corral-Verdugo, Bechtel, and Fraijo-Sing, 2003). Due in part to the
inability to compare different single-scale, place-based studies, Cook et al. (2012)
recommends further research should address the knowledge gaps between landscapes and
regions. Their synthesis provides a conceptual framework for future interdisciplinary
research that consist of four main study areas: ecology of residential landscapes,
management decisions, multi-scalar human drivers, and legacy effects.
12
Conservation and the Theory of Planned Behavior
The water conservation literature described above makes use of the terms
“attitude” and “behavior” in order to describe the beliefs of residential water consumers.
With the exception of Syme et al. (2004) and Corral-Verdugo et al. (2003), none of these
studies employ the methods of behavioral sciences. Psycho-social research has examined
environmental behavior since the early 1970's, employing a simple linear model that
assumed people would rationally develop pro-environmental behavior if they were
provided environmental education. This model was soon found to be inadequate, as
subjects' environmental attitudes may have shifted due to educational programs, but
changing behavior patterns is very difficult. Many management agencies, however, still
maintain the assumption that there is a knowledge deficit that prevents pro-environmental
behavior (Owens, 2000). The field of environmental behavior has progressed and no
longer attributes as much significance to environmental attitudes, acknowledging that
social norms and personal agency provide important roles. Kollmuss and Agyeman
(2002) presents a complex model of pro-environmental behavior as a result of three
internal drivers, six internal barriers, and six external barriers.
The rapid development of the field of behavioral change research has produced a
variety of protocols and theoretical frameworks that makes the application of the science
difficult. Akerlof and Kennedy (2013) present a five-point strategy for conservation
policy practitioners to use in order to incorporate the findings of behavioral change
research:
Promote favorable attitudes towards conservation, as they correlate with proenvironmental behaviors (Bamberg and Moser, 2007)
13
Increase personal agency by removing barriers and portraying positive role
modeling, and providing informational feedback
Facilitate emotional motivation, as emotions have been found to affect judgment,
cognition, and physiology (Lench, Flores, and Bench, 2011)
Communicate supportive social norms, which can overlap with personal norms
and promote a sense of fairness; and
Alter the context of the choice of conservation practices so that complexity is
reduced and individual agency is preserved
These strategies are intended to promote environmental behavior that has a
greater motivation than produced by historical strategies of regulation and incentives.
A study in Georgia illustrates how these behavioral concepts can affect residential water
consumption. Ferraro and Price (2013) provided three different requests for water
conservation to residents: technical advice on how to reduce usage, a weak social norm
request to reduce usage, and a strong social norm report that directly compared the
subjects' usage with other residents in the area. By comparing the water usage of the
groups with different conservation messaging, the research found the greatest reduction
in use was achieved by the strong social norm report. This was achieved by providing
informational feedback, communicating supportive social norms, and altering the context
of the decision making process.
One of the theories that contributed to the five strategies above is the theory of
planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985; 1991). The theory of planned behavior (TPB) has been
implemented in over 200 behavioral studies with such diverse subjects as medicine
(Ceccato, Ferris, Manuel, and Grimshaw, 2007), drunk driving (Chan, Wu, and Hung,
14
2010), tourism (Quintal, Lee, and Soutar, 2010), and hunting (Shrestha, Burn, Pierskalla,
and Selin, 2012). Akerlof and Kennedy refer to the TPB as “[a]rguably the most
influential of the [behavioral] theories” (2013), in part because it has an empirical design.
A review of thirty TPB papers found that the theory could explain two-thirds of the
behavioral changes studied (Hardeman et al., 2002). A meta-analysis of 185 papers found
that the theory could explain 27 percent of the change in behavior (Armitage and Conner,
2001).
The theory of planned behavior consists of three constructs: personal attitudes,
perceived social norms, and perceived behavioral control in regards to a specific behavior
(Figure 2). These three factors determine one's intention to perform a particular behavior.
Figure 2: A model of the theory of planned behavior depicts three factors that influence
how intention does not always lead to intended behavior
The discrepancy between intentions and actual behavior is explained by the perceived
behavioral control, or the factors that prevent one from conducting the behavior. The
15
simplicity of the TPB model has encouraged researchers to augment the theory in order to
explore other factors that explain behavior.
Much of the literature pertaining to the TPB is in the medical and psychological
fields. Increasingly, there have been applications of the theory in environmental and
conservation studies. One of the first applications of the theory involved a structured
survey of strawberry farmers regarding their preferred method of irrigation (Lynne,
Casey, Hodges, Rahmani, 1995). Farmers were encouraged by local water authorities to
adopt microdrip irrigation technology in order to reduce waste in irrigation. Installation
costs for the upgrade ranged from $500 - $40,000 per acre, and the study hypothesized
this cost was a key factor in prohibiting widespread adoption of the technology. The
study's interviews revealed that it was in fact the coercive control of the water authorities
that contributed to a perceived lack of personal control by the farmers. Adopters of the
technology were more prone to do so if they were influenced by their community, despite
the high installation costs. The policy implications of this study suggested softer
regulation and stronger incentives would be more productive in achieving consumption
goals.
In Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria, a study on residential water conservation incorporated
the TPB with other variables including demographics, environmental attitudes, and
environmental education. The complete model explained 27 percent of the variation
between intentions to conserve water and actual conservation behavior, and 35 percent of
the variation was explained by the TPB alone (Clark, 2005). A study of water supply
restrictions in Taiwan sought to predict people's intention to save water using the TPB
and a modified the TPB model. In this case the modified model accounted for 37 percent
16
of the variation between intention and actual behavior, while the TPB alone produced 13
percent (Lam, 2006). Both of the studies above use interviews, questionnaires, and
modified the TPB models, but employ different methods of quantitative analysis. In
Bulgaria the modified model attributed lack of conservation information as most
prohibiting conservation behavior, whereas the modified model in Taiwan identified
personal attitude to save money was more significant than the collective good of the
community.
The studies above identify personal attributes as key in explaining variation in
conservation behavior. In a marketing study of preference for more expensive “green”
products over less expensive products with similar environmental impact, social norms
were found to be the key driver of consumer behavior. Consumers preferred products that
offered less luxury than “non-green” products of comparable value, but instead offered
greater social status (Griskevicius, Tybur, and Van Den Bergh, 2010). This study's
method relied on hypothetical, context-based questionnaires and not actual behavior,
rendering its use of the TPB incomplete.
Personal beliefs and social norms were found to be the predictors of the adoption
of soil conservation techniques on Belgian farms (Wauters, Bielders, Poesen, Govers, and
Mathijs, 2010). It was previously believed that the farmers did not adopt the alternative
tillage method due to the difficulty or high costs associated with that behavior (perceived
behavioral control). Through the use of TPB analysis on survey results, however, it was
found that the farmers did not personally believe in the practices. This belief was
supported by their community, strengthening their reluctance to change behavior. The
application of the TPB in this context indicated further study was required in order to
17
determine how best to change those personal beliefs in order to facilitate behaviors that
would improve soil quality.
Variations in model constructs and analysis methodology are common in the TPB
literature on conservation behaviors. Researchers have altered the theory to include
model components based on context-based variables. While many of these studies find
that TPB positively explains actual conservation behaviors, the variety of analysis
methodology makes generalizations difficult. While some studies go to great lengths to
describe their analysis (Greaves, Zibarras, and Stride, 2013), some do not report specific
calculation methods at all (Budeanu, 2007). Overall, however, the process of TPB
research is very similar, in part due to the efforts of the theory's author to provide detailed
guidelines for its use (Ajzen, 2006).
The theory of planned behavior is not without its critics. In its application to study
health-related behaviors, Ogden (2003) finds that the theory's constructs act as
interventions that alter the subjects' behavior and cognition. This prohibits the model
from being tested as it cannot make accurate observations of the actual relationship
between intentions and behaviors without affecting the subjects' normal routines. Further
criticism is directed at the inability of the theory to test hypotheses in a structured
manner. The review Ogden provides demonstrates that of the 47 articles reviewed there
was great discrepancy in which factor of the TPB was significantly affecting behavior
(attitude, social norm, or perceived behavioral control). Ogden continues (p. 425):
“[f]urther, all of the articles examined left much of the variance unexplained, with
explained variance ranging from 1% to 65% for behavior and 14% to 92% for behavioral
intentions.”
18
Criticism has also focused on the inability of the TPB to explain behavior that
does not match intentions, and that it does not specify how to modify cognition in order
to change intention and behavior. (Sniehotta, 2009). Recently, Sniehotta, Presseau, and
Araujo-Soares have gone so far as to claim that the persistence of the TPB prohibits other
more explanatory theories from developing, and call for the theory to be “retired” (2014).
This article quickly elicited a rebuttal from Ajzen, who developed the theory. Contrary to
Sniehotta et al. (2014), Ajzen asserts that the feedback that occurs once a behavior is
carried out can be predicted with the TPB. This misunderstanding shows that the critics
have a “poor understanding of the TPB and of the nature of psychological research”
(Ajzen, 2014). It should be noted that Sniehotta has authored 80 academic publications,
many of which use TPB.
Beyond the structural criticisms of the theory's ability to predict or change
behavior are less frequently discussed critiques of a method in behavioral surveys: the
Likert scale. Likert scales are ordinal data, and represent a ranking rather than a
continuous nominal interval. As ordinal data, any analysis of their central tendency must
rely on the median or mode and must rely on non-parametric analysis. In a commentary
on the misuse of Likert scales in medical research, Jamieson (2004) points to the
common mistake of conducting parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA) and reporting
the mean when using Likert data. Interestingly, the commentary cites two misuses of
Likert that appear in the same publication as Jamieson (Santina and Perez, 2003; Hren et
al., 2004).
Norman (2010) disagrees with the contention that only non-parametric analysis
can be performed on Likert data, and points to the past 70 years of research that have
19
been conducted this way. Carifo and Perla (2007) argues that Likert scales differ from
Likert items. The items are individual responses, whereas the scales are collections of
Likert items across multiple themed questions, and are therefore interval data. A
parametric approach is then valid as long as the Likert scales meet the “standard
psychometric rule-of-thumb criterion of comprising at least eight reasonably related
items.”
Likert scale analysis has been critiqued for the subjective nature of the language
used in the questionnaires. In order to parse out the impact a participant's frame of
reference can make on Likert results, Ogden and Lo (2011) provided the same
questionnaire to students, town residents, and homeless people. This Likert data was then
compared to free text written responses to a set of similar questions. The Likert analysis
found the homeless group to be more content and friendlier than other groups, but this
result was not found in the free text data.
This literature review has described the relevant literature pertaining to the study
design that will be described below. Water conservation literature is interdisciplinary,
place-based, need-based, multi-scalar, and often produces findings that are idiosyncratic.
The goal of water conservation research, however, is very much the same across scales
and locations: to learn how to encourage and sustain reduced consumption of water
resources. Cultural and demographic drivers continue to keep water usage higher than
practitioners recommend. Efforts to incentivize the adoption of more efficient
technologies have met resistance from water users, so conservation research has
incorporated behavioral components to its studies.
20
This mixed conservation/behavior approach, however, has produced literature that
is so varied in methodology that makes it difficult to advance the field of conservation
behavior. This has inspired Akerlof and Kennedy (2013) to call for bringing together
“[behavioral] theoretical experts and [policy] practitioners to select and define the most
influential behavioral interventions, synthesize across theories and unify them with
practice, and identify future needs and areas of research.”
The developing field of conservation research that employs behavior science
methods has contributed literature that begins to address the needs stated by Akerloff and
Kennedy. Standardized methods produced by experts in psycho-social disciplines have
been applied to understand the behavioral drivers behind water consumption. The
findings demonstrate that the variability in the adoption of conservation practices is
place-based, and can be driven by factors that are attitudinal, social normative, or a lack
of personal agency. These findings have then been used to assist policy makers in
tailoring programs to address those prohibitive drivers.
Methods
The residential water conservation research presented here employs a behavioral
science methodology with basic demographic and temporal components. The design
allows for an exploratory analysis of the personal attitudes, perceived social norms, and
perceived behavioral control residents experience when considering water conservation
practices. Using a survey design, the methods presented by Ajzen (2006) are augmented
to include topics that were drawn from the City of Olympia's water conservation outreach
program. An item also included in the survey determines how long participants have
21
resided in Olympia. These components combined with a control for neighborhood effects
allows for conservation behavior analysis between neighborhoods. Further analysis is
possible for exploratory comparisons among all neighborhoods with individual City
conservation program effects on conservation behavior of residents.
Surveys were distributed to 100 homes each in ten randomly selected
neighborhoods within Olympia, and postage-paid envelopes were provided for
participants to return the surveys for analysis. The 41 question surveys were comprised of
eight “Yes or No” questions based on the Olympia water conservation outreach program,
one question regarding how long participants have lived in Olympia, and thirty
conservation behavior questions based on the design provided by Ajzen (2006) and
Francis et al. (2004). Behavioral questions were on a 5-point Likert scale. An additional
question was added to determine if participants would like to receive billing statements
that showed their average usage as compared with their neighbors (as demonstrated in
Ferraro and Price, 2013). Another additional question determines whether or not
participants would be interested in smart meters in different regions of their homes (as
demonstrated in Willis et al., 2011).
The research described below was not intended to explore the predictive
capability of the theory of planned behavior. As such, there is no component of the
surveys that addresses participants' intentions to conserve water. Each of the three
constructs of the theory of planned behavior were designated ten questions each.
Behavior questions were written such that five questions directly measure each theory
construct and five questions indirectly measure each theory construct. Relative behavioral
22
scores were then calculated for each behavior construct (Francis et al., 2004) and analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was calculated between neighborhoods.
This analysis method was designed to determine if there is a neighborhood effect
on conservation behavior in the City of Olympia. The assumption is that neighborhood
effects will be detectable as demonstrated by Nassauer, et al. (2009), Hunter and Brown
(2012), and Janmaat (2013). This is intended to serve as a pilot study that can inform
future water conservation programs. New programs will have to be tested in small areas
before implementation across the City. The conservation behavior research design
requires a spatial component in order to target future test conservation programs
effectively.
The next chapter will address water conservation policy at the Federal, State, and
local levels. A brief history of Federal policy is followed by an introduction to water
conservation policy in Washington State. The rest of the chapter is dedicated to the study
area for this thesis, the capitol City of Olympia. It is a city where water supplies are of
concern due to a growing population and uncertainty in future precipitation, much like
the studies described above. Previous efforts to appeal to residents to practice
conservation have met mixed results, and in the coming year officials will draft a new
five-year water system plan.
23
Chapter 3: Federal, State, and Local Water Conservation Policy
Water conservation throughout much of history has focused on maintaining
adequate water supply and quality to ensure agriculture is robust. Failure to irrigate with
conservation practices has been attributed to the decline of the Sumerian civilization and
Southwest Native American civilizations due to salinization of land and water (El-Ashry,
Schilfgaarde, and Schiffman, 1985). It is only with the advent of municipal water
delivery systems in the 20th century that the field of water conservation has turned its
focus to residential consumption.
This chapter demonstrates the recent shift in water conservation focus by
providing an overview of Federal water conservation policy. Federal water conservation
policies are confounded by conflicting ideologies between changing administrative
regimes, the complexity of overlapping jurisdictions and management plans, and a
general lack of political will to dictate what each state or region should do. By executive
decree and congressional funding practices over the past three decades, individual states
have been left to choose whether or not to implement water conservation policies.
Washington is a state that has put forth the mandate to its municipalities to create
and manage active water conservation programs. An overview of Federal water
conservation is provided below that demonstrates the deference to state management and
a preoccupation with resource management instead of demand management. Washington
State policy is described and illustrates the state-by-state approach used in the United
States for water conservation policy. The review of the water conservation program in
Olympia provides a snapshot of the relatively new implementation of new policy in water
conservation at the municipal level.
24
Federal Water Conservation Policy
The first formal review for water conservation policies was requested by
President Harry Truman in 1950. Truman created the National Water Resources Policy
Commission (NWRPC) by executive order 10095 and charged the commission with the
task of providing a comprehensive review of the state of the nation's water (Truman,
1950). The resulting report, “A Water Policy for the American People,” provided the first
assessment of all of the nation's fresh waters (United States National Water Resources
Policy Commission, 1950).
Major findings of the Commission addressed the need to conserve water for
agricultural purposes and the need for municipal and commercial water to receive
adequate treatment and distribution. The report was the first policy document that called
for the management of water resources to address the entire hydrological cycle and to
create management plans for entire river basins. The report's recommendations primarily
served as guidance for the management of floodplains, the development of hydropower,
and the distribution of water rights for agriculture and industry.
The National Water Commission (NWC) was a formalized federal office that
continued the priorities of the NWRPC. Formed in 1968, the NWC created methods for
evaluating watersheds, mapped many watersheds throughout the nation, and provided
analysis that interpreted water resources within cost-benefit, environmental, and social
criteria. The NWC produced an influential report in 1973, titled “Water Policies for the
Future,” (United States National Water Commission, 1973).
The NWC report of 1973 provided many recommendations that were
implemented and many that were not. The report is the first to call for the establishment
25
of a user-pay system of water distribution and the first to predict that meeting future
water demand will require conservation and efficient use in agriculture and municipal
use. The user-pay system was conceived to trigger price signals for heavy users to reduce
consumption. A recommendation of the report that has never been fulfilled was the call to
update federal laws and legal institutions to adequately address water needs at a national
level.
The Water Resources Council was created in 1965 and served as the coordinating
agency that provided grants and set standards for the assessment of water supplies and
creation of watershed management plans. Cody and Carter (2009) describe the volume
and quality of water assessments created by the Council as “unprecedented” in federal
resource management. By 1978, however, the Carter Administration targeted many of the
Council's programs for defunding. In 1983 the Reagan Administration disbanded most of
the large-scale river basin commissions. Funding for the Water Resources Council was
soon revoked and states were then required to take a more active role in watershed
management. The initial legislation that founded the Water Resources Council has never
been repealed, but the last funding for the Council was issued in 1983.
Formalized institutional approaches to water conservation have been politically
problematic, so individual agencies have established public-private partnerships in order
to increase water conservation. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) started its
WaterSense accreditation program to encourage best conservation practices in industry,
commercial, and manufacturing. Since the program's start in 2006, the EPA reports 757
billion gallons of water have been conserved through the adoption of approved equipment
and methods (EPA, 2013).
26
The EPA has established criteria for a variety of devices that consume energy and
water in homes. Private sector professionals that value conservation work with the
agency to receive certification and the EPA then provides their contact information for
potential clients. The collaborative method works around the lack of coordinated federal
policy and Figure 3 shows how unevenly the WaterSense program has been adopted
Figure 3: The map of the United States shows the uneven participation
in federal WaterSense conservation initiatives
around the country. The piecemeal approach to water conservation has drawn sharp
criticism from Galloway (2011), who states, “[s]ince the 1970s, we have become
increasingly confused about fundamental management of U.S. water resources.”
Executive orders are another one of the many piecemeal strategies to establish
water conservation policy at the federal level. In recent years, these orders have not
27
pertained to the entire country, but rather only to the management of federal facilities.
Executive order s 13123 (1999), 13423 (2007), and 13423 (2009) have all set
benchmarks for federal facilities to achieve lower consumption of water and energy.
Respectively, from Presidents Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, these executive orders have
incrementally raised the bar on efficiency programs at the more than 500,000 buildings
that the federal government operates across the country.
The preceding brief summary of federal water conservation is not comprehensive,
but demonstrates the shift away from federal involvement in conservation activities
towards state management and the initiative of the private sector. The federalist system of
government in the United States enables states to craft resource policies that are best
suited for local factors, and agency grant programs can bypass legislative gridlock by
providing conservation incentives. Water resources are dispersed across the landscape
and this often involves multiple jurisdictions with legacy policies that are not always in
concert. Congressional and executive policies “have resulted in many agencies and
organizations being involved in different but related aspects of federal water policy. This
dispersed arrangement complicates management of large river systems and estuaries...”
(Cody and Carter, 2009, p.2).
Congress has not enacted any major national water policy legislation since the
1965 Water Resources Planning Act, which established the formation of the Water
Resource Council. State authorities have taken leadership on water resource management
and conservation programs. The number of states that have enacted water conservation
mandates went from nine in 1990 to 23 in 2005. A study by Mamunur, Maddaus, and
Maddaus (2010) found there was a significant correlation between states' commitment to
28
water conservation and their expected population and water security. The study concludes
that it may take national legislation or public interest group pressure to facilitate
widespread adoption of state water conservation policy across the country.
Water Conservation Policy in Washington State
Washington State water conservation policy bears some similarities to the
transitions of priority that are shown in federal policy. Washington policy carries a legacy
of western expansion that focuses on acquisition and transfer of water rights as
populations grow and move about over time. By the late 20th century, several legal
challenges against state policy prompted the legislature to enact a comprehensive
municipal water law. In 2003 a new law was written to settle historical debates regarding
inequity in the application of water rights' policies between developers and
municipalities. Also within the new municipal water law were water conservation
protocols and benchmarks for municipalities. By 2007, state agency rules were approved
and present the criteria that shape the municipal water conservation programs across
Washington.
Water rights are most commonly allocated by government to water users for
specific volumes of water that are to be withdrawn over specific time periods. Most water
rights have a “use it or lose it” clause that provides the rights will be transferred to
another user if the water right is not used in its entirety for a given amount of time. These
water right abandonment clauses were intended to prohibit speculators and to encourage
beneficial water use.
29
Throughout the development of the western United States a series of federal court
rulings established legal precedents that allowed municipalities more leniency with water
rights abandonment clauses. Contrary to speculators that may attempt to appropriate a
water right larger than they require in order to profit from that right's transfer,
municipalities were seen as requiring larger than necessary appropriations to
accommodate future population growth. Court rulings in Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado
were in agreement, resulting in what has since been called the 'growing communities
doctrine,' (Gravley, Feldman, and Derr, 2012). Under the informal set of principles in the
growing communities doctrine municipalities appropriated water rights that were not in
jeopardy of water right abandonment due to incomplete usage.
In Washington State the abandonment of a water right for incomplete usage is
codified under RCW 90.03.030. No Washington court ruling or legislation expressly
exempts municipalities from water right abandonment. The Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) was responsible for issuing rights to municipalities
once infrastructure was constructed. The rules for exact volume appropriation for
municipalities were unclear and were brought to court in the 1998 landmark case
Theodoratus v. Department of Ecology (Kray, 2008). The Washington Supreme Court
acknowledged that Ecology was not authorized by law to determine water rights based on
system capacity, but refused to address how the law pertained to municipal water rights.
The Washington State legislature enacted House Bill 1338, titled the Municipal
Water Law (MWL) in 2003, to address the legal uncertainty of municipal water. There
were considerable contentions among stakeholders to the contents of the bill, including
concerns that the bill was unconstitutional and that it changed legal definitions such that
30
developers could file for water rights as if they were municipalities (Turner, 2003).
Opposition mounted a legal case against the MWL where tribal interests and other
stakeholders filed two parallel suits under the names Lummi Indian Nation v.State of
Washington and Burlingame v. State of Washington. After a series of appeals, the
Washington State Supreme Court unanimously upheld previous rulings in support of
MWL.
Wrapped within the contentious 2003 Municipal Water Law were new mandates
on water conservation. The Department of Health is directed by the MWL to manage a
mandatory conservation program and ensure that municipalities are meeting efficiency
standards, meeting distribution leakage standards, and maintaining water conservation
reporting standards (Gravley et al., 2012). To fulfill the directives in the MWL, the water
use efficiency (WUE) program was created by the Department of Health, and the first
guidelines to the program were finalized and distributed to all municipalities across the
state in 2007 (Washington State Department of Health, 2007).
Within the water use efficiency program are several key goals for all state
municipalities. Water production meters are required for all municipalities to measure the
volume of water produced or purchased for distribution by 2007. Consumption meters are
required for all connections to ensure accurate billing and to provide customers with
usage information. All municipalities must have consumption meters installed by 2017.
Monthly and annual data collection is required for production and consumption, and
system leakage must be calculated from this data. All municipalities are required to keep
system leakage under 10% of total production volume (Washington State Department of
Health, 2011).
31
The Department of Health requires that each municipality make its own water use
efficiency program. A WUE plan consists of goal setting and performance evaluation,
funding considerations such as partnering with nearby water systems, developing
incentives and price structures to encourage customers to reduce consumption, and an
education and public forum component. These WUE programs are required to be
evaluated and updated every six years, but allows for municipalities to update them more
frequently in order to evaluate the results of new conservation strategies.
Components of the WUE that pertain to metering, leakage, and data are
considered supply-side efficiency measures. Demand-side strategies include
informational outreach, tiered rate structures to trigger price signals to heavy users,
developing a conservation website, and providing incentives and rebates for customers to
acquire efficient components. Compliance with the WUE program requires that utilities
with more service connections must provide more demand-side efficiency measures to
customers (Figure 4). The Department of Health acknowledges that hardware and
equipment upgrades are quantifiable measures, while education and outreach programs
are the most unquantifiable in terms of water use reductions. Some of the outreach
methods the Department suggests in the WUE guidebook are:
Sending water savings tips to customers in the annual water quality report.
Sending the Department of Health's Stop Water Waste brochure once a year.
Educating customers to identify and repair leaks.
Educating customers about the economic benefits of installing WaterSense
fixtures.
Including water consumption history on billing statements.
32
The deadline for utilities to have set water use efficiency program goals was mid2009. Municipalities throughout Washington have just recently finished the first period of
WUE program implementation and will soon update their programs and submit new
plans. The Department of Ecology is tasked with issuing water rights and working with
municipalities to ensure adequate supply for projected growth. The Department of Health
is directed by legislation to manage and oversee municipal water conservation programs.
Through an iterative process the water use efficiency program is intended to reach
customers and compel them to reduce usage by way of economic signals, incentives for
efficient water devices, and educational outreach. The following section highlights how
the City of Olympia has developed its conservation program.
Water Conservation in the City of Olympia
In 2009 the City of Olympia completed its first Water System Plan in accordance
with the Washington State Department of Health Water Use Efficiency (WUE) program.
The plan addresses all aspects of providing municipal water, including population
forecasts, supply-side management issues, legal framework considerations, costs of
operation, and water conservation, among other topics. A key management priority of the
water conservation program is “[c]omplying with new water efficiency requirements,”
(City of Olympia Public Works Department [Olympia], 2009, p. S-2). Prior to the
mandate of HB 1338 for municipal water conservation programs Olympia had
implemented its own program. The City of Olympia has maintained a water conservation
program since 1996, but participation has been intermittent. Going forward in 2015 the
City will be developing a new Water System Plan as required by the WUE program.
33
The City of Olympia started a water conservation in 1996 that introduced a tiered
water rate structure. The structure uses economic signals to reduce usage, and heavier
users are subject to higher rates. The structure of the three tiered rate was designed to
reduce summer consumption, but as reductions weren't satisfactory as fourth tier was
introduced in 2004.
The City reports that between 1996 and 2007 despite connections to the utility
system increasing by 23.2 percent actual consumption decreased by 14.6 percent
(Olympia, 2009). The time frame reported includes the 2004 four-tiered rate structure.
The new fourth tier was designed specifically to target the greatest consumers in summer
months. Consumption in Olympia reduced after the passage of the four-tier structure,
however it is not clear if the cooler summers of 2005 and 2007 contributed to reduced
demand.
An examination of consumption patterns of water consumption for each tier of the
pricing structure demonstrates that some usage does not respond to price signals. Table 1
shows usage for the years 2004 – 2007 by tiered rate and the fourth tier consumed more
than the third tier for that time period (Olympia, 2009).
Table 1: Water consumption by tiered rate structure shows that the heaviest users do not
respond to price signals. (Adapted from Olympia, 2009).
34
Through a partnership with the Lacey-Olympia-Tumwater Treatment plant
(LOTT) the City has secured over $7 million in grants for home fixture upgrades. A
major component of the rebate programs was the high-efficiency toilet giveaway.
Residences with toilets using three gallons or more per flush are eligible to trade their
toilets for free toilets that use 1.1 – 1.6 gallons per flush (LOTT, 2010). The reduction in
water use provided by these toilet upgrades on average 13,500 gallons per year. By 2014
the free toilet program was canceled and $100 rebates were offered for eligible residences
instead (LOTT, 2014).
Water fixture upgrade incentives from the City also include water saving kits that
include low-flow showerheads, faucet aerators, and leak detection kits. Residents were
informed of the free kits through the mail and were invited to pick them up from the
utility. Initially this program distributed 150 kits per year, but by 2006 the program only
distributed 35 kits per year. The City adjusted its strategy and in 2007 began mailing kits
directly to residents' homes. Mailed kits were sent only to residents that requested the
kits, but the new strategy increased participation to 150 kits per year between 2007 –
2009 (Olympia, 2009). The City estimates that the water saving kit program will save
over 3 million gallons for 2009 – 2014. It should be noted that these savings are based on
the assumption that 90 percent of mailed kits will be installed.
The City's comprehensive water conservation program also addresses the business
and public sectors. Rebates are provided for businesses to upgrade fixtures and several
schools in the City public system have received restroom and kitchen retrofits. In 2007
the City increased its rebate program from 50 percent to 75 percent of the cost of
35
equipment and systems efficiency upgrades. This program is purely voluntary and
between 2006 – 2007 three businesses and two schools participated.
The security of the water supply is a major consideration of the City in the
crafting of water conservation policy. McAllister Springs is the source of 84 percent of
Olympia's water and is the only source that provides water all throughout the year
(Cuykendall et al., 2008). The pumphouse that delivers water from springs was
constructed in the mid-1940s and relies on outdated technology. Further concerns come
from the springs' close proximity to I-5 and the potential for an accident to introduce
toxins to Olympia's primary water supply.
Arguably the greatest concern stems from the inability for the springs to provide
adequate water for projected population growth. The City of Olympia projects that 1,000
new residents will move to Olympia per year until 2035. Water production from
McAllister Springs would be insufficient for the increased demand, which would result in
a deficiency of 2.33 million gallons per day by 2028 (Olympia, 2009). Despite the
seriousness of local water supplies that are unable to meet local demand, the projected
shortfall has not been part of City outreach education. Even when discussing with a local
reporter about the rationale for moving the City's primary source from McAllister Springs
to an upland wellfield, Olympia public works director Rich Hoey is not reported to have
mentioned the projected shortage of water (Batcheldor, 2012).
The water conservation strategies described above are all designed to reduce
indoor water consumption. Indoor use makes up 77 percent of all use, with 8 percent
attributed to irrigation, and 15 percent sold wholesale to neighboring municipalities
(Olympia, 2009; Olympia City Council, 2007), . Single-family homes are the largest
36
consumer block on the utility system, using 40 percent of City water. Two percent of
residential use is attributed to outdoor irrigation use. The remainder of this chapter will
cover the City of Olympia's residential outdoor water conservation program.
The Water System Plan for 2009 – 2014 introduced an expanded set of services
for meeting outdoor residential consumption goals. A series of bi-monthly fliers and
brochures were mailed to all utility customers to inform them of ways outdoor water use
can be reduced. Among those services were free residential irrigation system audits that
were provided for customers with the highest use. Previous efforts to engage residents in
outdoor water conservation had seen declining participation. The City offered free
irrigation audits and landscape consultations for its highest use customers but
participation had declined from 2005 – 2007. By 2014, the City was offering a contract
position for a professional irrigation auditor (City of Olympia, 2014).
The expanded outdoor water conservation program offered a new set of incentives
through rebates educational outreach through mailers and the City's water conservation
website. A variety of free devices were offered, available to residents who provide a copy
of their utility bill to City offices. Eligible residents can receive free rain gauges, free
hose timers, and a free outdoor water kit. Also available for eligible residents is a rebate
on rain barrels ranging from $20-$60.
The educational component of the outreach brochures for 2009 – 2013
demonstrates a shifting priority in City goals. The summer brochures for 2009, 2010, and
2011emphasized lawn care practices that demand less water. Removing water intensive
sod, replacing grass with native plants, installing barrels to collect rain water, and
inspecting watering devices to ensure proper functionality were common topics (City of
37
Olympia 2009;2010;2011). The brochures also included check lists and pledge forms
intended to help residents prioritize their outdoor water system and garden upgrades.
By 2012, the City shifted its outreach to ensure customers are ensuring their home
watering practices do not endanger City water quality. Water system backflow can occur
when there are sudden pressure changes, such as when a fire hydrant is opened or if there
is a sudden large leak. If residents do not have backflow prevention devices, water that
has become stagnant in their systems can potentially be drawn into the City system.
Backflow is particularly dangerous from irrigation systems where the water has the
greatest likelihood of contamination. For 2012 and 2013 these messages were only
educational, as there were no related services or incentives offered in relation to
backflow.
The addition of backflow to the educational outreach of the water conservation
program may be in part due to a change in the Olympia Municipal Code. In October,
2011, the City added a provision to existing water safety code that calls for water
connections to be shut off if contamination is detected. Furthermore, all costs for
installation, maintenance, and testing of backflow prevention devices are the
responsibility of the property owner (City of Olympia, 2011).
The Olympia Municipal Code (OMC) has included laws that address water supply
and water safety since at least 1969. In the Municipal Code there is also a provision that
prohibits the waste of water provided by the City utility. Waste is defined in OMC
13.04.080 as the application of water to a landscape such that impervious areas are
watered or “significant runoff” occurs (City of Olympia, 2011). Failure to comply with
the water regulations can result in discontinuation of water service, or fines ranging from
38
$50-5,000. At the time of this report it appears that there has been absolutely no
enforcement of either codes that pertain to backflow prevention or waste of water.
A review of the City of Olympia water system budget process reveals systemic
contradictions with its water conservation program. The 2014 Adopted Operating Budget
for the City of Olympia (2014) indicates that the operational budget of the utility is
dependent upon steady consumption. “Slowdown in development activity, effective water
conservation efforts and wetter summers in recent years have resulted in lower than
anticipated revenues. As a result, in 2012 we increased the ready-to-serve fee to better
reflect fixed costs for the utility, and proposed a three year plan to phase in additional
increases to this portion of the rate,” (p. 144).
The City is dependent upon utility use charges to fund its operational costs, which
also include the costs associated with maintaining its conservation outreach program. For
the fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014, system-wide consumption per connection reduced
8.1 percent, 7.7 percent, and 7.3 percent, respectively. The reductions are greater than the
5 percent system-wide reduction that was stated in the Water System Plan of 2009. The
administrative and fiscal structure of the City water utility was not in the scope of this
research. However, the above statements from the 2014 City Budget raise concerns
regarding the viability of the City's water conservation program.
The above review of the City of Olympia's water conservation policy
demonstrates a pragmatic and adaptive approach to resource management. The City
developed an incentive based outreach program upon its own initiative prior to any
legislative mandate. Upon receiving such a mandate through the passage of HB 1338, the
City implemented its first six-year Water System Plan in accordance with guidelines set
39
by the Department of Health. The outreach program has met mixed results in
participation levels and has been required to adjust its level of rebate incentives due to
changes in funding. Despite the challenges of changing water demand behavior the City
has surpassed its water conservation goals.
Along with the reported success of reduced consumption are complications in
policy and implementation that deserve attention. Nowhere in the conservation program's
outreach has there been an effort to educate the public exactly how finite local water
resources are. Existing municipal codes that prohibit the waste of water have rarely, if
ever, been enforced. Figure 4 is an example of the many water customers throughout the
City that maintain wasteful water use behaviors despite outreach efforts. The funding of
Figure 4: Pooling of municipal water on street from the use of an automated irrigation
system in SE Olympia at mid-day in July, 2014.
40
the utility is based in part on usage rates, requiring the routine increase of other line-item
fees. There is a potential for this combination of policies to render water customers
uniformed about their public resource while suffering punitive fee increases for reduced
consumption. Also limiting outreach potential is the City policy to send utility billing
statements exclusively to property owners. The policy prohibits tenants from monitoring
their usage or receiving educational materials.
The next chapter presents analysis of residential home water use surveys. The
survey includes aspects of the City's water conservation brochure outreach and integrates
behavioral analysis methods as described in Chapter 2. The research is based on the
inquiry of how to improve the City of Olympia's water conservation outreach program.
The findings reported below are concluded with a discussion on future policy
opportunities that may increase water conservation in Olympia by incorporating the
methods of behavioral analysis.
41
Chapter 4: Analysis
The following chapter on analysis reports the analysis of the City of Olympia's
water conservation outreach program and the behavioral aspects of residential water
conservation. The methodology used in creating and analyzing the survey are described.
Following which, the mixed statistical analysis will be described, and the test results will
be reported. Discussion on the implications of the analysis results concludes the chapter,
and provides possible policy opportunities. The final chapter will conclude this research
with a summary and further discussion.
Survey Design and Implementation
The water conservation survey was designed to evaluate residents' opinions and
behaviors with their home irrigation, provide a scoring method to determine dominant
behavior drivers, and determine residents' interest in novel methods of reporting home
water information. The 41 question survey consists of eight “Yes/No/Not Applicable”
questions about home irrigation methods, one question about how long residents have
lived in Olympia, thirty questions that utilize the theory of planned behavior, and two
questions to ask if residents would be interested in more in-depth of their home water
usage. Surveys were delivered to neighborhood clusters that were randomly selected from
a numbered grid of the City, as depicted in Figure 5. Of the 1,000 surveys distributed to
homes, seventy were returned for this analysis.
Survey questions pertaining to the theory of planned behavior were crafted to fit
the methods described in Francis et al. (2004). Questions were written with a 'stem'
statement that is designed to elicit the opinion of the participant, which is chosen from a
42
Figure 5: Map of survey distribution across ten neighborhoods in Olympia.
5-point Likert scale. Ten questions are written to target each of the three major constructs
of the theory of planned behavior (personal attitude, social norm, perceived behavioral
control). For each construct, one question is written to measure opinion directly, and the
other is written to measure opinion indirectly. To describe residents' personal attitudes on
water conservation, five questions were written to describe the strength of their
behavioral beliefs (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree), and five questions were written
to describe how residents would evaluate outcomes of water conservation (Very
Desirable to Very Undesirable). Question pairs are written with very similar language,
but are reworded to describe either participants' beliefs or their evaluation of outcomes.
43
For a measure of social norm, five direct questions were written to describe what
participants think a person should do (Strongly agree to Strongly Disagree), and five
indirect questions were written to describe what participants believe people actually do
(Very Much to Not at all). Measuring perceived behavioral control is done by framing
five questions around what beliefs participants have that make it difficult to perform the
behavior (Very Likely to Very Unlikely). The following five questions are written to
assess the power of these beliefs to influence their behavior (Much Easier to Very
Difficult).
The conclusion of the survey inquires if residents would like to have utility billing
statements to include their usage in the context of other homes in their area (Ferraro and
Price, 2013), or if they would be interested in multiple home water monitors throughout
their house that they could monitor (Willis et al. 2010).
Behavioral Scoring Method
Five-point Likert scale answers were allocated numerical values from -2 to 2.
Behavioral scores were calculated for each respondent by summing the total of the
product of each behavioral contstruct's direct and indirect questions. Resulting in the
following formula for behavioral attitude, demonstrating which direct question number
was paired with which indirect question:
A = (#10 x #16) + (#11 x #15) + (#14 x #17) + (#13 x #18) + (#12 x #19)
The range of possible behavioral score is from -20 to 20. A high positive score indicates a
respondent has a positive attitude towards outdoor water conservation and a high negative
score indicates a strong negative attitude.
44
For this scoring method to be accurate, it should be noted that questions must be
worded in order to highlight the nuanced meaning of the question it is to be paired with.
Questions that provide answers with reversed scaling will provide the opposite results in
behavioral scoring (due to the negative aspect of the Likert scale in this method). This
relative scoring method is outlined by Francis et al. (2004) and offers a simpler method of
behavioral analysis than the methods presented by Ajzen (2006), Lam (2006), or Greaves
et al. (2013).
Survey Analysis and Results
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of behavioral scores was conducted with SAS
JMP software version 10.0 for each theory construct by neighborhood. Results showed no
statistical difference between any of the neighborhoods for personal attitude, social
norm, or perceived behavioral control beliefs on water conservation. Preliminary
assumptions of ANOVA analysis were not met by Levene's test, F-ratio probability
statistics ranged from 0.37 to 0.88, and post-hoc Tukey analysis demonstrated that the
neighborhoods belong to one group when analyzed along behavioral scores.
Surveys that were filled out and returned did not evenly represent the
neighborhoods surveyed. For instance, the Fir Southeast neighborhood returned
seventeen surveys while the Southwest neighborhood only returned one. ANOVA
analysis of the sample group with the Southwest neighborhood removed also produced
insignificant results.
Chi-square contingency table analysis of water conservation program survey
items were found to be insignificant. The ownership of irrigation systems in homes were
45
not a significant predictor of the willingness to receive augmented utility billing
statements or the willingness to have water meters throughout participants homes. Sixtythree percent of participants are interested in receiving more information on their billing
statements, and forty-five percent of participants are interested in multiple home water
meters they can monitor.
Median home value and median income were analyzed for significance against
behavioral scores, interest in augmented billing statements, and interest in multiple home
water meters. Chi-square logistic fit tests produced insignificant, confounding results.
Socio-economic variables are not predictors of home water conservation behaviors in this
survey.
The effect of individual questions about residents' opinions of the City proved to
have significant relationships with water conservation behavioral scores. Question 23
prompted participants with “I should save water because the City of Olympia
recommends it.” For analysis of the relationship between these answers and the city-wide
social norm behavioral score, this question produced a significant relationship to the
social norm behavioral score, F(4,66) = 7.03, p<0.0001. Question 28 was written as the
indirect couple to question 23, and had significant response in social norm behavioral
score, F(4,66) = 2.97, p = 0.026. Post-hoc Tukey tests of the analysis above shows two
distinct groupings of social norm scale when asked about the City, as depicted in figures
6 and 7.
The results from City related questions suggest there are distinct groups of
opinion among residents across neighborhoods. Positive survey responses represent
46
residents that value cooperation with City initiatives. The distinct groups in these
Figure 6: ANOVA analysis of question #23 by social norm relative behavioral score with
post-hoc comparisons labeled above Likert responses.
ANOVA results show an overlap in opinion between those respondents who had no
opinion and those who do not value cooperation with City initiatives. This suggests the
social norm behavior response of those who are in support of the City's conservation
program is stronger than those who are indifferent or disinterested. It is possible that the
Figure 7: ANOVA analysis of question #28 by social norm relative behavioral score with
post-hoc comparisons labeled above Likert responses.
difference between the two statistical tests on these two related questions is the result of
language effects from the writing of survey questions.
47
Analysis of questions that pertain to opinions of lawns that brown during dry
summer months provides significant relationships between aesthetic preferences and
personal attitude and social norm behavioral scores. Perceived behavioral control scores
were not significantly related to lawn aesthetics, and both personal attitude and social
norm behavior scores produced comparable ANOVA results. Table 2 highlights the
similar social and personal value residents place on the appearance of their yards.
Table 2. One-Way ANOVA Analysis of Lawn Aesthetics
Question 14
Personal Attitude
Social Norm
F Ratio (4,66)
p Value
Question 16
F Ratio (4,66)
2.64
0.042
2.92
0.028
3.21
2.81
p Value
0.018
0.033
Table 2: One-Way ANOVA analysis of lawn aesthetics indicates
comparable influence of both personal and social norm behavioral factors.
The effects on behavioral attitudes by neighbors was explored with three direct
and three indirect questions (questions 21, 22, 24, and 26, 27, and 29, respectively).
Question 21, which states, “neighbors should talk to each other about ways to save water
in the yard,” was paired with question 27 that stated, “talking with my neighbors about
water conservation is important to me.” Question 21 was significantly related with
perceived behavioral control score groupings, F(4,66) = 2.90, p = 0.028. Question 27 was
significantly related with social norm scores, F(4,66) = 14.2, p<0.0001. Post-hoc Tukey's
test analysis for question 21 shows two groups that are higher on perceived behavioral
control for both strongly positive and negative responses. Post-hoc analysis of question
27, however, shows a split between the pairwise groups, with positive responses
significantly different from indifferent or negative responses.
48
The analysis results of these paired questions demonstrate how survey language
can influence results. The respondents who most negatively responded to the prompt in
question 21 that “neighbors should talk to each other” were statistically similar in their
perceived behavioral control scores to those who most positively responded. The indirect
phrasing of question 27 elicited responses that show positive responses are significantly
related to higher social norm behavior scores. This suggests it is not important whether
respondents talk with their neighbors about water conservation, but how they do it. The
imperative statement “should” in question 21 may have influenced high perceived
behavioral control scorers to choose either strongly positive or negative reactions.
Table 3 further demonstrates how important language usage is in eliciting survey
data. The four questions pertaining to neighbor relations and water conservation that
produced significant relationships with all three behavioral score factors. These findings
21.
27.
Table 3. One-Way ANOVA Analysis of Neighbor Relations
Question
F Ratio (4,66)
p Value
Neighbors should talk to
each other
2.90
0.028
about ways to save water
Talking with my neighbors
about water
conservation is important to
me
Behavior Factor
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
14.2
<0.0001
Social Norm
24.
My neighbors will disapprove
if I don't
water my yard enough
4.78
0.0019
Perceived
Behavioral
Control
26.
The way my neighbors use
water in their
yard is important to me
6.38
0.0002
Personal Attitude
Table 3: Water conservation questions about respondents' neighbors and their
corresponding behavioral relationships.
suggest that the social aspect of residential water conservation is complex and involves
multiple aspects of human behavior.
49
Paired questions exploring the impact of the perceived work involved with
practicing residential water conservation produced interesting analysis results. Question
34 stated “trying water saving methods in the yard will make more work for me to do,”
and provided a 5-point likelihood scale. Question 39 stated “using water saving methods
in my yard that weren't time consuming would make saving outdoor water,” and provided
a 5-point scale from very difficult to much easier. Response analysis of question 34
significantly relates with perceived behavioral control, F(4,66) = 7.83, p<0.0001. Posthoc analysis demonstrates the two significantly different groups split evenly between the
positive and negative responses. Question 39 elicited only no opinion or positive
responses.
The perceived work required to reduce water usage is shown by this survey to be
significant behavioral control that prevents more residents from practicing outdoor water
conservation. While question 39 does not produce significant statistical results, there
were no respondents that disagreed with the statement.
One direct and one indirect question in the survey explored the role water
conservation information plays in residents' conservation behavior. Question 32 stated “if
I knew how to save water in our yard I would try conserving water,” and provided a 5point likelihood scale. Question 36 stated “if I had more information about saving water
outside it would make conservation,” and provided a 5-point scale from very difficult to
much easier. Neither question produced a significant behavioral relationship, but question
36 elicited no negative responses. Like the behavioral control of perceived work required
for outdoor water conservation, residents expressed a positive opinion towards the role of
information and conservation.
50
Analysis of the relationship between duration of residence in Olympia showed
that respondents who have lived in Olympia 5 – 10 years had significantly higher
personal attitudes toward water conservation than all other residence groups,
F(4,66) = 4.27, p = 0.0039. Table 3 shows how mean personal behavior scores differ
between groups of different residence durations.
Table 4. Mean Personal Attitude Behavioral Score by Residence Duration
Residence
Pairwise Group
Mean
5 – 10 years
20+ years
10 – 20 years
1 – 5 years
1 year or less
4.73
1.10
0.647
-0.222
-2.33
A
B
B
B
B
Table 4: Water conservation attitudes are shown in mean relative scores across
groups of different duration of residency in Olympia.
Negative relative behavior scores indicate a negative attitude towards water
conservation.
Discussion
Behavioral analysis is provided for the water conservation beliefs of respondents
in Olympia, Washington. The survey method was adapted from Ajzen (2006), behavioral
scoring method was provided by Francis et al. (2004), and statistical analysis was
conducted by analysis of variance with SAS JMP software. Survey data was found to be
significantly related to the three contributing behavior groups that comprise the theory of
planned behavior. As this survey did not elicit responses particular to the water
conservation intentions of respondents, it is not possible to conduct the predictive
analysis of the theory of planned behavior. It does, however, provide an explanatory,
relationship-based analysis of conservation behaviors and behavior types.
51
Respondents who reacted both positively and negatively to questions regarding
compliance with City conservation goals were ranked higher in the social norm behavior
score. Likewise, respondents with high social norm scores both negatively and positively
reacted to a question that uses the imperative “should” when referring to how to talk to
neighbors. Ignoring possible language effects in the survey process, these results suggest
there is an aversion to coercive messaging among Olympia residents.
The significance of the lush green lawn is demonstrated in this survey analysis,
both in personal attitude and in social norm behavior score. The cultural weight of these
landscapes is not only deeply rooted in our culture, but has the potential to serve as a
point of social conflict if challenged (Feagan and Ripmeester, 2001). Future efforts to
challenge this cultural norm for the purpose of water conservation must acknowledge
these behavioral factors. One previous effort to trigger cognitive dissonance in order to
inspire water conservation did so by directly challenging participants' beliefs in order to
trigger a “hypocrisy effect” to motivate participants. Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, and
Miller (1992) conclude that this approach produces more lasting effects than distributing
printed information to target populations. It should be noted, however, that both the
experimenters and the participants in Dickerson et al. (1992) were female college
students. Utilizing a confrontational information campaign to inspire water conservation
would likely produce less compliance in the demographically diverse context of a city.
Neighborhood selection in this survey was based on a random number grid
method and an intentional selection within those quadrants of the neighborhoods with the
highest density. This was a pragmatic and structural decision. In order to explore
neighbor effects it would not have been as informative to have selected homes on
52
properties over an acre in size. The presumption was that interactions with neighbors
would be lower where houses are further apart.
The survey revealed that relationships between water conservation and neighbors
are significantly related to all three of the behavioral constructs in the theory of planned
behavior. Programs that successfully involve neighborhood groups, therefore, may have
the ability to engender comprehensive conservation behavior changes. Monroe (2003)
explores social marketing strategies and concludes that significant life experiences and
environmental based education are the most productive strategies to encourage
conservation behaviors. There are active programs in Olympia that utilize these strategies
to manage invasive plants and improve salmon-bearing streams. The Olympia water
conservation program to date does not incorporate these strategies.
To develop conservation programs, Monroe (2003) adds that research can assist
policymakers by identifying barriers to conservation that exist in the target audience. To
that end, this survey has identified two barriers: a lack of water conservation information
and a lack of convenience associated with practicing water conservation. The Olympia
water conservation brochure mailing campaign was apparently not effective, did not
reach its audience, or respondents were not yet residents of the City at the time of
mailing. That the majority of respondents have resided in Olympia for five years or more
suggests that the brochures were simply not read by some residents.
Another barrier perceived by respondents was the inconvenience of outdoor water
conservation. This may be related to the effort required to install native plants or water by
hand. In order to determine what aspect of outdoor conservation that is inconvenient for
residents, a follow up study is required. Survey questions that were designed to determine
53
if the cost of water was a significant variable in conservation behavior produced
insignificant results. Also insignificant in this survey analysis were questions that directly
referenced the reliability of the City's water supply.
It is possible that cost and reliability of the City's water supply would be best
explored using other methodology than found in behavioral analysis. One survey had a
message written by its respondent that indicated frustration with the City's annual utility
price increases. The reliability of water available in Olympia appears to be largely
unknown by its residents. Informal conversations with residents throughout this research
indicated most residents believe there is ample supply. This may be due to the high level
of precipitation in this region. As respondents indicated an interest in receiving more
information about water conservation, it would likely encourage conservation if water
supply status updates were provided to residential water customers on a regular basis.
Finally, this research demonstrated that a majority of residential water customers
are interested in receiving more information about their home water use. Actual home
water use is often higher than residents' perceived home water use, (Beal, et al., 2013).
When residents receive augmented utility bill statements that include their home water
use as compared to local averages, it has been shown that consumption is reduced
(Ferraro and Price, 2013). The utilization of social normative messaging can be
incorporated with traditional conservation messaging to directly target and influence
conservation behavior. It is possible that providing Olympia residents with increased
personal water use information will encourage more water conservation than can be
achieved through informational mailers alone.
54
Chapter 5: Conclusion
Municipal water conservation is a balancing act between water supply and water
demand. The City of Olympia has developed a water conservation program that is
relatively aggressive compared to other municipalities in Washington. The City has
undergone extensive planning and negotiation with State agencies in order to develop a
more secure and productive water supply. And the City has developed an outreach
program designed to encourage conservation that incorporates education, economic
signals, and incentives for home upgrades. Despite these accomplishments there are
many water customers who do not practice water conservation behaviors.
Water conservation outreach can be described as a behavioral intervention. This
thesis presents a method for evaluating a municipal water conservation outreach program
that incorporates behavioral analysis. A major goal of the research is to address the need
to “include social science research within conservation programs in designing strategies,
selecting behavioral targets, and evaluating results,” (Akerlof and Kennedy, 2013, p.1).
To this end, the research has produced results that can inform new water
conservation policies in Olympia. Nearly two-thirds of respondents indicated they are
interested in receiving more information about their usage in their billing statements. The
inclusion of water use information that compares one customer's use against local
average consumption has been found to be effective in reducing demand (Ferraro and
Price, 2013). The increased information is described as producing a positive response due
to perceived social norms. The inclusion of this information would likely be inexpensive
to implement and could serve as an opportunity to monitor any changes in demand after
implementation.
55
The research also shows the mixed behavioral responses that arise from receiving
normative imperatives from the City government. Social norms are drivers of water
consumption patterns that support conservation and increased use. The complex
relationship between personal attitudes and water demand behavior may therefore be best
addressed by incorporating behavior strategies through social mechanisms (Dolnicar and
Hurlimann, 2010). The research indicates that there is a disconnect between favorable
conservation attitudes and actual conservation behavior that is in part due to the difficulty
of adopting conservation practices. Policy that addresses this behavior through social
strategies may be able to bypass negative attitudes toward the City that would prohibit the
adoption of new water use behavior.
The City of Olympia expects continued population growth for the foreseeable
future. The research presented here indicates there is a relationship between water
conservation attitudes and the duration of residence in Olympia. As the City continues to
refine its conservation outreach program it is important that special attention be given to
educating new residents. Existing outreach is primarily delivered along with billing
statements that are required to be sent only to property owners. As a result of this billing
policy over one-third of Olympia residents do not receive their water use information or
water conservation brochures (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
2012).
Behavioral studies can inform the development of municipal conservation
programs that influence desired conservation behaviors. The development of
conservation outreach that is based on the behavioral sciences should be the result of
collaboration between policy practitioners and behavior specialists. An adaptive approach
56
to implementation would phase in conservation strategies incrementally and incorporate
empirical analysis of the results. The specific components of municipal water
conservation plans are crafted by individual cities and towns. The City of Olympia has
the opportunity to develop a conservation outreach program that is designed as a demand
behavior intervention. There are only so many possible methods for improving water
supply efficiency. The reliability of future water supplies will be determined by how
water demand is managed.
57
Bibliography
Aitken, C., McMahon, T., Wearing, A., Finlayson, B. (1994). Residential water use:
predicting and reducing consumption. Applied Psychology, 24 (2), 136 – 158.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. From Actioncontrol: From cognition to behavior. J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.). Heidelberg:
Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
DecisionProcesses, 50(2), 179 – 211.
Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire.
http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf. Retrieved May 5, 2014.
Ajzen, I. (2014). The theory of planned behavior is alive and well, and not ready to retire:
a commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araujo-Soares. Health Psychology
Review. DOI: 10.1080/17437199.2014.883474.
Akerlof, K., Kennedy, C. (2013). Nudging toward a healthy natural environment – how
behavioral change research can inform conservation. Report produced for the
George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A
meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471 - 499.
Bamberg, S., Moser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a
new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14 -25.
Batcheldor, M. (2012, September 16). Olympia will get water from wells, not springs.
The Olympian. Retrieved online August 2, 2014.
http://www.theolympian.com/2012/09/16/2252576_olympia-will-get-water-fromwells.html
Beal, C.D., Stewart, R.A., Fielding, K. (2013). A novel mixed method smart metering
approach to reconciling differences between perceived and actual residential end
use water consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, 116 – 128.
Breyer, B., Chang, H., Parnadvash, G.H. (2012). Land-use, temperature, and singlefamily residential water use patterns in Portland, Oregon and Phoenix, Arizona.
Applied Geography, 35, 142 – 151.
Budeanu, A. (2007). Sustainable tourist behavior – a discussion of opportunities for
change. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 499 – 508.
58
Bush, G.W. (2007). Strengthening Federal environmental, energy, and transportation
management. Federal Register, Volume 72, Number 17.
Carifio, J., Perla, R. (2007). Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing
Likert scales. Medical Education, 42, 1150 – 1152.
Ceccato, N. E., Ferris, L. E., Manuel, D., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2007). Adopting health
behavior change theory throughout the clinical practice guideline process. Journal
of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 27(4), 201- 207.
Chan, D. C. N., Wu, A. M. S., & Hung, E. P. W. (2010). Invulnerability and the intention
to drink and drive: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 42(6), 1549-1555.
City of Olympia Public Works Department. (2009). Water system plan for 2009 – 2014.
July 2009. http://olympia.gov/city-utilities/drinking-water/water-system-plan-for2004-2014. Retrieved March 10, 2014.
City of Olympia. (2009). Olympia gardens – Summer 2009. Brochure produced by the
Public Works Department.
City of Olympia. (2010). Olympia gardens – Summer 2010. Brochure produced by the
Public Works Department.
City of Olympia. (2011). Olympia gardens – Summer 2011. Brochure produced by the
Public Works Department.
City of Olympia. (2011). Cross-connections and backflow protection. Olympia Municipal
Code 13.04.110.
City of Olympia. (2011). Waste of water prohibited. Olympia Municipal Code 13.04.080.
City of Olympia. (2012). Five things – an Olympia utilities publication, Olympia gardens
edition. Brochure produced by the Public Works Department.
City of Olympia. (2013). Five things – an Olympia utilities publication, Olympia homes
edition. Brochure produced by the Public Works Department.
City of Olympia. (2013). City of Olympia 2014-2019 preliminary Capital facilities plan.
Report Prepared by the City of Olympia, Administrative Services Department.
City of Olympia. (2014). Request for qualification(RFQ), 2014-2015 landscape
irrigation system auditor. Retrieved June 12 2014. http://olympiawa.gov/citygovernment/rfp-and-rfq.aspx
59
City of Olympia. (2014). 2014 adopted operating budget. Report prepared by the City of
Olympia Administrative Services Department.
Cizek, G.J., Bowen, D., Church, K. (2010). Sources of validity evidence for educational
and psychological tests: a follow-up study. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Denver, CO, May 2010.
Clark, W.A. (2005). Obstacles and opportunities for water conservation in Blagoevgrad,
Bulgaria. A Thesis in Forest Resources Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The Pennsylvania State University Graduate
School, School of Forest Resources.
Clinton, W.J. (1999). Executive Order 13123 – Greening the government through
efficient energy management. Federal Register, Volume 64, No. 109.
Cody, B.A., Carter, N.T. (2009). 35 years of water policy: The 1973 National Water
Commission and present challenges. Report produced for the Congressional
Research Service.
Cook, E.M., Hall, S.J., Larson, K.L. (2012). Residential landscapes as social-ecological
systems: a synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home
environment. Urban Ecosystems, 15, 19 – 52.
Corral-Verdugo, V., Bechtel, R.B., Fraijo-Sing, B. (2003). Environmental beliefs and
water conservation: an empirical study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23,
247 – 257.
Cuykendall, C., Gunn, S., Johnson, E.L., Kettman-Thomas, J., Parker, J., Peeler, M.V.,
Tabbutt, B. (2008). Thurston County water realities in relation to planned
development. Report produced for the League of Women Voters Thurston
County.
Dickerson, C.A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive
dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 22(11), 841 – 854.
Dolnicar, S., Hurlimann, A. (2010). Australians' water conservation behaviours and
attitudes. Australasian Journal of Water Resources 14(1), 43 – 53.
El-Ashry, M., Schilfgaarde, J., Schiffman, S. (1985). Salinity pollution from irrigated
agriculture. Journal of Soil and Water, 40(1), 48 – 52.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). WaterSense accomplishments 2013. EPA832- F-14-002.
60
Feagan, R., Ripmeester, M. (2001). Reading private green space: competing geographic
identities at the level of the lawn. Philosophy & Geography, 4(1), 79 – 95.
Ferraro, P.J., Price, M.K. (2013). Using nonpecuniary strategies to influence behavior:
evidence from a large-scale field experiment. The Review of Economics and
Statistics, 95(1), 64 – 73.
Flores, L., Batker, D., Milliren, A., Harrison-Cox, J. (2012). The natural value of
Thurston County – a rapid ecosystem service evaluation. Report produced by
Earth Economics as commissioned by Thurston County.
Fraser, J.C., Bazuin, J.T., Band, L.E., Grove, J.M. (2013). Covenants, cohesion, and
community: the effects of neighborhood governance on lawn fertilization.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 115, 30 – 38.
Frei, A., Armstrong, R.L., Clark, M.P., Serreze, M.C. (2013). Catskill Mountain water
resources: vulnerability, hydroclimatology, and climate-change sensitivity. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, 92(2), 203 – 224.
Gadermann, A.M., Guhn, M., Zumbo, B.D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for
Likert-type and ordinal item response data: a conceptual, empirical, and practical
guide. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation,17 (3), 1 – 13. Available
online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=17&n=3.
Galloway, G.E. (2011). A plea for a coordinated National water policy. The Bridge,
National Academy of Engineering, 41(4), 37 – 46.
Gilg, A., Barr, S. (2006). Behavioural attitudes towards water saving? Evidence from a
study of environmental actions. Ecological Economics, 57, 400 – 414.
Godin, G., Kok, G. (1995). The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications
to health-related behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion:
November/December 1996, 11(2), 87 – 98.
Gravley, A.W., Feldman, V.N., Derr, G. (2012). Lummi v. State: Washington State
moves toward balanced growing communities doctrine. From the proceedings of
the 41st Annual Conference on Environmental Law. March 22-24, 2012.
Greaves, M., Zibarras, L.D., Stride, C. (2013). Using the theory of planned behavior to
explore environmental behavioral intentions in the workplace. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 34, 109 – 120.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M., Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: status,
reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98(3), 392 – 404.
61
Haley, M.B., Dukes, M.D. (2012). Validation of landscape irrigation reduction with soil
moisture sensor irrigation controllers. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering, February 2012, 135 – 144.
Hardeman, W., Johnston, M., Johnston, D. W., Bonetti, D., Wareham, N. J., &
Kinmonth, A. L. (2002). Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour in
behaviour change interventions: A systematic review. Psychology and Health, 17,
123-158.
Harris, E.M., Polsky, C., Larson, K.L., Garvoille, R., Martin, D.G., Brumand, J., Ogden,
L. (2012). Heterogeneity in residential yard care: evidence from Boston, Miami,
and Phoenix. Human Ecology, 40, 735 – 749.
Hawcroft, L. J., Milfront, T. L. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental
paradigm scale over the last 30 years: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 30, 143-158.
Hasenyager, C., Klotz, E. (2009). 2009 residential water use, survey results and analysis
of residential water use for seventeen communities in Utah. Report produced for
the Utah Department of Natural Resources.
Helfand, G.E., Park, J.S., Nassauer, J.I., Kosek, S. (2006). The economics of native plants
in residential landscape designs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 229 – 240.
Hermitte, S.M., Mace, R.E. (2012). The grass is always greener...outdoor residential
water use in Texas. Report produced for the Texas Water Development Board.
Technical Note 12-01.
Hostetler, M., Noiseux, K. (2010). Are green residential developments attracting
environmentally savvy homeowners? Landscape and Urban Planning, 94, 234 –
243.
Hren D., Lukic, I.K., Marusic, A., Vodopivec, I., Vujaklija, A., Hrabak, M., Marusic, M.
(2004). Teaching research methodology in medical schools: students' attitudes
towards and knowledge about science. Medical Education, 38, 81 – 86.
Hunter, M.C.R., Brown, D.G. (2012). Spatial contagion: gardening along the street in
residential neighborhoods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105, 407 – 416.
Hurlimann, A., Dolnicar, S., Meyer, P. (2009). Understanding behavior to inform water
supply management in developed nations – a review of literature, conceptual
model and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 47 –
56.
Jamieson, S. (2003). Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 38, 1212 –
1218.
62
Janmaat, J. (2013). Spatial patterns and policy implications for residential water use: an
example using Kelowna, British Columbia. Water Resources and Economics, 1, 3
-19.
Johnson, K. H. (2014). Effects of simulated tree canopy removal on a municipal wellfield
in the Puget Sound aquifer system, Thurston County, Washington: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013-1291, 32 p.
Jones, N., Evangelinos, K., Gaganis, P., Polyzou, E. (2011). Citizens’ perceptions on
water conservation policies and the role of social capital. Water Resources
Management, 25, 509 – 522. DOI 10.1007/s11269-01-9711-z.
Jorgensen, B., Graymore, M., O’Toole, K. (2009). Household water use behavior: an
integrated model. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 227 – 236.
Kalafatis, S.P., Pollard, M., East, R., Tsogas, M.H. (1999). Green marketing and Ajzen’s
theory of planned behavior: a cross-market examination. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 16(5), 441 – 460.
Kenney, D.S., Goemans, C., Klein, R., Lowrey, J., Reidy, K. (2008). Residential water
demand management: lessons from Aurora, Colorado. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association (JAWRA), 41(1), 192 – 207.
Kilgren, D.C., Endter-Wada, J., Kjelgren, R.K., Johnson, P.G. (2010). Implementing
landscape water conservation in public school institutional settings: a case for
situational problem solving. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 46(6), 1205 – 1220.
Kirk, D. (2013, April). Green grass & high tides. A side trip into the world of lawn
irrigation. Reeves Journal: Plumbing, Heating, Cooling, 10 – 11.
Kray, J.B. (2008, May 21). Washington municipal water suppliers could lose unused
water rights by September, if Ecology position prevails in key test case. Marten
Law Newsletter. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20080521-unused-water-rights
Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and
what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education
Research, 8 (3), 239 – 260.
Lacey-Olympia-Tumwater Treatment (LOTT). (2010). High-efficiency toilet program.
HET Voucher Program, LOTT Clean Water Alliance.
Lacey-Olympia-Tumwater Treatment (LOTT). (2014). Water conservation offers and
rebates. Retreived August 14, 2014. http://www.lottcleanwater.org/rebates.htm
63
Lam, S. P. (2006). Predicting intention to save water: theory of planned behavior,
response efficacy, vulnerability, and perceived efficiency of alternative solutions.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(11), 2803 – 2824.
Lench, H.C., Flores, S.A., Bench, S.W. (2011). Discrete emotions predict changes in
cognition, judgement, experience, behavior, and physiology: a meta-analysis of
experimental emotion elicitations. Psychological Bulletin, 13(5), 834 – 855.
Lynne, G. D., Casey, C. F., Hodges, A., Rahmani, M. (1995). Conservation technology
adoption decisions and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 16, 581 – 598.
Mamunur, R., Maddaus, W.O., Maddaus, M.L. (2010). Progress in US water
conservation planning and implementation—1990-2009. American Water Works
Association, 102(6), 85 – 99.
Marks, J.S. (2006). Taking the public seriously: the case for potable and non potable
reuse. Desalination, 187, 137 – 147.
Mayer, P.W., DeOreo, W.B. (1999). Residential end uses of water. Report published by
the American Water Works Association.
Meeks, L., Dukes, M.D., Migliaccio, K.W., Cardenas-Lailhacar, B. (2012). Expandingdisk rain sensor dry-out and potential irrigation savings. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering, November 2012, 972 – 977.
Messick, S. (1998). Consequences of test interpretation and use: the fusion of validity
and values in psychological assessment. Report produced for the Educational
Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey.
Mokdad, A.H., Marks, J.S., Stroup, D.F., Gerberding, J.L. (2004). Actual causes of death
in the United States, 2000. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical
Association, 291(10), 1238 – 45.
Monroe, M.C. (2003). Two avenues for encouraging conservation behaviors. Human
Ecology Review, 10(2), 113 – 125.
Nassauer, J.I., Wang, Z., Dayrell, E. (2009). What will the neighbors think? Cultural
norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92, 282 – 292.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics.
Advances in Health Science Education, 38(12), 1217 – 1218.
Ogden, J. (2003). Some problems with social cognition models: a pragmatic and
conceptual analysis. Health Psychology, 22(4), 424 – 428.
64
Obama, B. (2009). Federal leadership in environmental, energy, and economic
performance.Retrieved August 21, 2014.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/2009fedleader_eo_rel.pdf
Olympia City Council. (2007). Wholesale water agreement with the City of Lacey. From
City Council Meeting, May 1, 2007.
Owens, S. (2000). Engaging the public: information and deliberation in evironmental
policy. Environment and Planning, 32(7), 1141 – 1148.
Ozan, L.A., Alsharif, K.A. (2013). The effectiveness of water irrigation policies for
residential turfgrass. Land Use Policy, 31, 378 – 384.
Pearce, M., Willis, E., Mamerow, L., Jorgensen, B., Martin, J. (2012). A rural-urban
divide? Attitudinal differences towards water restrictions in South Australia.
Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 18(3), 392 – 419.
Quintal, V. A., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2010). Risk, uncertainty and the theory of
planned behavior: A tourism example. Tourism Management, 31(6), 797- 805.
Rivera-Camino, J. (2012). Corporate environmental market responsiveness: a model of
individual and organizational drivers. Journal of Business Research, 65, 402 –
411.
Robbins, P., Birkenholtz, T. (2003). Turfgrass revolution: measuring the expansion of the
American lawn. Land Use Policy, 20, 181 – 194.
Robbins, P., Sharp, J. (2003). The lawn-chemical economy and its discontents. Antipode,
35(5), 955 – 979.
Rogers, G.O., Sukolratanametee, S. (2009). Neighborhood design and sense of
community: comparing suburban neighborhoods in Houston, Texas. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 92, 325 – 334.
Santina, M., Perez, J. (2003). Health professionals' sex and attitudes of health science
students to health claims. Medical Education, 37, 509 – 513.
Schielke, S., Altobelli, C.F. (2012). Consumer greenwashing: using the theory of planned
behaviour to explain unethical consumer behaviour. Institut fur Marketing
Diskussionsbeitrag, 5, ISSN 2193-8482.
Schlager, E., Bauer, C. (2011). Governing water: institutions, property rights, and
sustainability. Treatise on Water Science. P. Wilderer (Ed.). Atlanta: Elsevier, 23
– 33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53199-5.09003-5 .
65
Shrestha, S., Burns, R., Pierskalla, C., & Selin, S. (2012). Predicting deer hunting
intentions using the theory of planned behavior: A survey of Oregon big game
hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 17(2), 129-140.
Sniehotta, F. (2009). An experimental test of the theory of planned behavior. Applied
Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1(2), 257 – 270.
Sniehotta, F., Presseau, J., Araujo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to retire the theory of planned
behavior. Health Psychology Review, 8(1), 1 – 7.
Syme, G.J., Shao, Q., Po, M. (2004). Predicting and understanding home garden water
use. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 121 – 128.
Tarlock, D. (2007). Land use regulation: the weak link in environmental protection.
Washington Law Review, 82, 651 – 666.
Tekle, A. M. (2011). Lawns and the new watershed law. Marquette Law Review, 95, 213
– 243.
Thurston Regional Planning Council. 2012. Population forecast allocations for Thurston
County. November 2012.
Trafimow, D., Finlay, K. A. (2001). The relationship between normatively versus
attitudinally controlled people and normatively versus attitudinally controlled
behaviors. The Social Science Journal, 38, 201 – 216.
Truman, H.S. (1950). Executive Order 10095 – Establishment of the President's Water
Resources Policy Commission. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley,
The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?
Pid=78358.
Turner, T. (2003). Municipal water law 1338: Questions and answers. Report produced
for Earthjustice.
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2012). Comprehensive
housing market analysis. Report produced by the Office of Policy Development
and Research. September 1, 2012.
United States Water Resources Policy Commission. (1950). The report of the President's
Water Resources Policy Commission: Volume 1, a water policy for the American
people. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
United States National Water Commission. (1973). Water policies for the future: Final
report to the President and to the Congress of the United States. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
66
Washington State Department of Health. (2007). Getting started – Water use efficiency
guidebook Report produced for the Training and Outreach Section, Office of
Drinking Water of the Department of Health.
Washington State Department of Health. (2011). Water use efficiency guidebook – Third
edition. DOH 331-375 (Revised).
Wauters, E., Bielders, C., Poesen, J., Govers, G., Mathijs, E. (2009). Adoption of soil
conservation practices in Belgium: an examination of the theory of planned
behavior in the agri-environmental domain. Land Use Policy, 27, 86 – 94.
Willis, R.M., Stewart, R.A., Panuwatwanich, K., Jones, S., Kyriakides, A. (2010).
Alarming visual display monitors affecting shower end use water and energy
conservation in Australian residential households. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 54(12), 1117 – 1127.
Willis, R.M., Stewart, R.A., Panuwatwanich, K., Williams, P.R., Hollingsworth, A.L.
(2011). Quantifying the influence of environmental and water conservation
attitudes on household end use water consumption. Journal of Environmental
Management, 92, 1996 – 2009.
67
68