Homeowner perceptions of watering restriction scenarios in the Minneapolis–St. Paul metropolitan area

Abstract

Turfgrass-dominated residential yardscapes are an important component of urban ecological landscapes. These spaces provide a multitude of benefits both ecological (e.g., water filtration) and social (e.g., recreation). However, yardscapes can require significant amounts of input such as fertilizers, herbicides, and more critically water. Residential outdoor water use has been extensively studied in water-scarce areas (e.g., southwestern United States) but water supply issues are also beginning to impact previously water-rich regions. One tool a municipality can use to control water usage is residential watering restrictions. Despite past research on the outcomes of such watering restrictions, few studies have tried to understand the perceptions of how homeowners subject to such restrictions feel about them. The current study addresses two critical gaps: first to understand homeowner perceptions of common watering restriction types and their likelihood to water, and second to expand the geographic scope of water use research by targeting a nonwater-scarce area. We conducted an online survey of homeowners in the Twin Cities metropolitan area (TCMA) in Minnesota. Overall, homeowners held moderately favorable views towards three theoretical restriction scenarios and were about equally as likely to water across scenarios compared to no restrictions. Attitudes and perceptions of restrictions saving water drove favorability; conversely, the presence of irrigation systems predicted increased watering likelihood across scenarios. Strategies to reduce water use and achieve conservation goals in nonwater-scarce areas should include assessment of resident perceptions of watering restrictions alongside sustained education campaigns. WATER SCARCITY AND RESIDENTIAL YARDSWater scarcity issues are a problem on a global scale, with an estimated half a billion to four billion people living in areas that are or will become water scarce (Gosling & Arnell, 2016;Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2016). Water scarcity is driven by resource availability combined with demand (Vörösmarty Abbreviations: TCMA, Twin Cities metropolitan area.

Insights from residents under year‐round irrigation restrictions to improve water conservation impacts

“…Importantly, policies should be aligned with residents' educational and communication needs and perceptions (Barnes et al, 2021). Thus, policy and educational implications include a need for provisions to target approximately half of the residents lacking awareness knowledge to increase awareness and accuracy.…”

“…Environmentally framed messages urging conservation tend to be the default and may be salient with some individuals but they are not universally effective or influential (Maibach et al, 2011). For example, permanent in‐ground irrigation users are less likely to follow irrigation restrictions (Barnes et al, 2021) and tend to value landscape aesthetics and a green lawn more than others (Bremer et al, 2012). Thus, a salient barrier to the adoption of water‐conserving practices is a concern over potential lawn decline (Salter Mitchell, n.d.; Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration, 2018), and educational messages could be framed around avoiding lawn decline that results from overwatering.…”

“…Intensifying water scarcity has led to a greater use of irrigation restrictions in various regions to achieve conservation goals (Barnes et al, 2021). This approach to conservation is used in the state of Florida, as well as many locations throughout the country (Asci & Borisova, 2014), including but not limited to California, Arizona, Nevada, and Texas (AWE, 2020).…”

“…Irrigation restrictions are considered among the most common and cost‐effective tools used to encourage water conservation, to promote efficient landscape irrigation, and to delay costly water facility capacity expansions (Boyer et al, 2018; Rajbhanary et al, 2010; Whitcomb, 2006). Intensifying water scarcity has led to a greater use of irrigation restrictions in various regions to achieve conservation goals (Barnes et al, 2021). This approach to conservation is used in the state of Florida, as well as many locations throughout the country (Asci & Borisova, 2014), including but not limited to California, Arizona, Nevada, and Texas (AWE, 2020).…”

“…People need to follow these regulations for them to be effective, and changing public behaviors relies on understanding those behaviors (i.e., the human dimensions) in depth (Wallen & Daut, 2018). While much research on the technical side aspects of irrigation restrictions is available (Dukes, 2020), little has been conducted regarding people's perceptions of irrigation restrictions (Barnes et al, 2021), and a greater focus on the social elements is needed to fully understand the potential of this conservation approach.…”