reuse 07 presentation by janet saunders session 4 a

Additional Behavioural Change

Methods for Building Community

Acceptance of Recycled

Drinking Water

Presenter:

Janet Saunders, Managing Director

Introduction

Community Education & Interaction

• Can often be a difficult and complex process

Made More Difficult

• When it involves such an emotive issue as water, particularly during

a prolonged drought/enforcement of stringent water restrictions

Issues Become Even More Complicated

• When you introduce alternative sources of water such as purified

recycled drinking water

Waters Are Muddied Even Further

• When ‘trust’ becomes a major issue because the ‘alternative source

of water’ is being provided by a ‘Government’ or semi-quasi

Government’ organisation

Extensive Research

• Into public opinion/attitudes about water reuse over past 20 years in

Australia/globally (Bruvold, Po, Baumann, Marks, CSIRO)

Community Consultation

• Acknowledged as being key to achieving public acceptance of


Current Long-Term Studies

• CSIRO/AWA’s ‘Australian Water Conservation & Reuse Research

Program’

• Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality & Treatment’s

‘Community Views on Water Recycling’

Two Key Questions Remain Unanswered

Q1. How well do we understand community attitudes/likely

stakeholder behaviour to purified recycled drinking water?

Q2. Was Toowoomba’s reaction to the 2006 Referendum

reflective of the Australian population at large?

Background

People Are Complex Creatures

• What people say doesn’t necessarily mirror what they do, just

ask a politician at election time

• Successful community consultation programs do not necessarily

guarantee public acceptance of water reuse projects

Influenced by Internal & External Barriers/Drivers

• Attitudes to purified recycled drinking water are influenced by

different factors to other commonly adopted recycling actions

• People’s beliefs are significantly impacted by the perceived

taste/visual appearance/source of recycled water (tend to

generate an ‘emotional’ sometimes ‘irrational’ response)

Voting Process Adds Another Dimension

• When processes such as a referendum are introduced, can

create another powerful barrier to change

• Stakeholders’ emotions/stress levels can be further heightened

because of having to make a ‘decision/choice’ one way or

another

Challenges

1. Western Corridor Project

• Stage 1: Construction of a new water treatment plant to treat

wastewater to supply recycled water to Swanbank & Tarong power

stations

• Stage 2: Construction of two new water treatment plants to supply

purified recycled water for transfer into Wivenhoe Dam


Step 1: Inform stakeholders about overall project

Step 2: Enable stakeholders to raise their issues/concerns

Step 3: Document stakeholder feedback as part of project planning,

approvals, construction processes

Step 4: Report back to stakeholders on outcomes of community

engagement process

Step 5: Undertake further public consultation as part of

environmental assessment, approvals processes

Major IPR Projects

2. Water2Water Project

• ACTEW Board agreed in principle, pending feasibility studies, to

purify water from Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre for

return to Cotter catchment

• ACTEW currently investigating available options before making

final recommendation to ACT Government in mid-2007


ACT Government-led community consultation program comprising:

• Provision of general project information to all stakeholders

• Underpinned by community group briefings

• Stakeholder feedback obtained via community surveys

• Ongoing stakeholder updates provided via dedicated web site

• Project team accessible to answer stakeholder queries, deal with

written submissions

• Expert panel established to review suitability of Water2WATER

from a health perspective

Major IPR Projects

Q: What are the risks/benefits of enforced/mandatory

introduction of recycled drinking water?

versus building community support and acceptance prior to its

introduction

Q: Is community consultation still as vital as it was?

in achieving public acceptance for recycled drinking water

Q: Is there a right or wrong way to consult with your

communities?

about the introduction of recycled drinking water

Q: Is a referendum/vote still the preferred ‘democratic’

option/actually necessary?

in deciding whether the community supports the introduction of


Q: Will the current IPR projects be trailblazers for

widespread community acceptance?

for the future use of purified recycled drinking water, directly or

indirectly

Even More Questions

Combine ‘behavioural change tools’ and traditional

‘community consultation’ methodologies to gain vital

stakeholder insights

Benefits:

• Provide better understanding of stakeholders’ ‘deep seated’

sometimes ‘irrational’ beliefs

• Identify to what degree these ‘beliefs’ influence stakeholders’

behaviour

• Provide more accurate predictions (up to 98% accuracy) of how

stakeholders will behave/respond

• Help create effective, ‘scientifically based’ communications

programs that achieve sustainable behavioural change

Today will look at one specific behavioural change tool:

• Core Belief Research

Another Possible Approach

Core Beliefs:

• Deep seated views about ourselves, other people, world we live in

• Core beliefs are either positive or negative, are formed through

individual life experiences/personal circumstances

• Specific view is only a ‘core belief’ when it’s held by more than 75%

of people in a particular stakeholder group

• Core beliefs cannot be changed, only the intensity with which they

are held can be influenced

• Core beliefs of a stakeholder group are impacted by the ‘bandwagon

effect’

Core Belief Research:

• Relies on carefully worded questions to delve beyond a person’s

attitudes and perceptions

• Primary source of data = surveys, other stakeholder feedback

processes

• Secondary source of data = detailed analysis of written

correspondence, physical actions of stakeholders (body language,

tone of voice, choice of words/phrases)

Core Belief Research

Examples of Core Beliefs:

1. ‘Weather forecasters never get it right’

2. ‘Governments/politicians can’t be trusted, they’re all as bad as each other’

3. ‘It will rain eventually’

4. ‘Water is safe to drink it if comes out of my kitchen tap’

5. ‘My water provider has a responsibility to provide me with safe, high quality drinking water’

6. ‘If discoloured water comes out of my tap it isn’t safe to drink’

7. ‘Water from sewage is dirty and not safe to drink’

8. ‘Water in our dams and rivers is a natural source of drinking water’

And of course everyone’s favourite:

All women are bad drivers!


Q1: Please describe, in your own words, where you believe recycled

water originates from

Q2: How do you believe recycled water should be used to

supplement traditional sources of water for both drinking and

non-drinking purposes?

Q3: What issues and concerns, if any, do you have about recycled

water being used to supplement traditional sources of drinking

water?

Q4. What alternative sources of water, in order of priority, do you

believe your water provider should be investigating to help boost

drinking water supplies during the ongoing drought?

Q5. If you have never sampled purified recycled water, how do you

believe it would look, taste and smell?

Q6. If you have sampled purified recycled water, how did it look,

taste, smell? In your own words describe how it differed, if at all,

from traditional tap water?


Turning Negatives to Positives

Resulting data is carefully analysed to identify:

- key drivers/barriers to changing stakeholder behaviour

- positive core beliefs

- negative core beliefs

- preferred delivery mechanisms (visual, written, direct/indirect)

- key words or phrases that can be used to ‘intensify’ existing

positive core beliefs and ‘neutralise’ existing negative core

beliefs

Using only traditional community consultation methods can

increase the risk of:

- inappropriate words or phrases being used that could

intensify stakeholders’ negative core beliefs

- ineffective delivery mechanisms being used that could result

in vital information not being read or misunderstood (creating

more questions than it answers)


Based on anecdotal feedback from Toowoomba Council staff:

• Original plan was to undertake a 2-3 year community

consultation program - to gradually build acceptance for


• Communications program was beginning to deliver results -

strong indications of increasing support for introduction of


• Decision to hold a Referendum - changed the community

consultation dynamics

• Emotive ‘No’ campaign included ‘powerful’ television

advertisements - based on fear which eroded community

support very quickly

• Stakeholders were suddenly faced with making a black or

white decision - they could only vote Yes or No

• The ‘No’ campaign argued that a ‘Yes’ vote meant people

would no longer have a ‘choice’ - and that by voting NO would

ensure all possible options to boost the region’s water supply

would remain on the table

Toowoomba Experience

Behavioural change tools may not have changed the outcome but

let’s consider the following possibilities:

1. People’s understanding about what made Toowoomba

unique - which meant other possible options to boost the

region’s water supply system were not sustainable, could have

been a driver for change

2. People having to ‘trust’ the Council/Mayor - could have been

a barrier to change

3. Community fears about being locked into a single option or

choice - could have been a barrier to change

4. Endorsement of recycled water by the Federal Government

(Malcolm Turnbull) - could have been a barrier to change

5. Affordability and reliability may not have been key factors

for the community - and were therefore neither a barrier or

driver for change, rather they muddied the waters

6. A direct request to the community to work with the

Council/Mayor to secure the region’s water supply system -

could have been a driver for change

Toowoomba Experience

UK Nuclear Industry

• Research into attitudes to the nuclear power industry, in

particular the building of new nuclear reactors

• July 2001 - 60% public opposition, 20% support

• November 2005 - 41% public support, 28% opposition

• Turnaround achieved through comprehensive core belief

research and resulting community consultation program

UK Customer Trust Index

• Survey of 2,441 adults in UK to identify key drivers for

generating trust in retail brands and organisations

• Research conducted on behalf of Microsoft, EDF Energy,

London Underground, BT, Royal Bank of Scotland, The Body

Shop and Orange

• Total of six core beliefs identified which most commonly

influence consumers’ buying decisions

• Found that what people ‘believe’ about a brand or organisation

was a more powerful influence on buying habits than price,

quality or reputation

Overseas Case Studies

• Variety of additional behavioural change tools available - to help improve water industry’s understanding of community beliefs about recycled drinking water

• Tools designed to work in tandem - with existing community consultation programs/techniques, there is no ‘right or wrong’ way to identify barriers/drivers to change

• More information you glean about stakeholders- the more accurate your predictions will be about their likely future behaviour

• Some of these tools and methodologies are new to the water industry - they have not yet been properly tested but are widely used in other market sectors

• Next step is to secure funding for a formal ‘pilot program’ - to gauge their effectiveness and prove the long-term value of this type of approach

In Summary

Your Questions Answered