Public perceptions of potable water reuse, regional growth, and water resources management in the Reno-Sparks area of northern Nevada, USA

Ormerod, Kerri Jean; Redman, Samantha; Kelley, Scott

doi:10.1016/j.cacint.2019.100015

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings are also consistent with those of several other studies, such as Alhumoud & Madzikanda (2010) and Kantanoleon et al (2007), who found low acceptance of reusing treated wastewater for various potable uses such as cooking, drinking, washing, and cleanliness. Ormerod et al (2019) conducted a study in the Reno-Sparks area of northern Nevada, USA, and found low acceptance of the reuse of treated wastewater for potable use, even when respondents were asked, 'Would you be willing to drink tap water mixed with treated wastewater if it was treated to a water quality level that matched or exceeded your current tap water quality?' Additionally, studies by Chfadi et al (2021), Dolnicar & Hurlimann (2010), Dolnicar et al (2011), Wilson &Pfaff (2008), andMiller (2006) found low acceptance to reuse treated wastewater for potable uses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions on wastewater treatment, technologies, and reuse in Tanzania

Msaki

Njau

Treydte

et al. 2022

Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study assessed the social knowledge, attitude, and perceptions (KAPs) on wastewater treatment, the technologies involved, and its reuse across different wastewater treatment areas in four regions of Tanzania. We used both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods in a household-level questionnaire (n=327) with structured and semi-structured questions, which involved face-to-face interviews and observation. Our results show that social KAPs surrounding wastewater treatment and reuse were sufficient based on KAP scores achieved from asked questions. However, the general knowledge on treatment technologies, processes, and reuse risks was still low. Of the respondents, over 50% approved using treated wastewater in various applications, while the majority (93%) were reluctant if the application involved direct contact with the water. Furthermore, over 90% of interviewees did not know the technologies used to treat wastewater and the potential health risks associated with its use (59%). Multivariate analysis of variance revealed significant differences (P<0.05) in the KAPs on treated wastewater across different studied demographic variables, i.e., age, sex, and education level. Therefore, we recommend that more effort be spent on providing public education about the potential of wastewater treatment and existing technologies in order to facilitate their adoption for the community's and environment's benefit.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions on wastewater treatment, technologies, and reuse in Tanzania

Msaki

Njau

Treydte

et al. 2022

Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, Q-method does not require large sample sizes and can be used with a small sample selected to capture a range of perspectives (Steelman & Maguire 1999). Because Q-sorts do not generate inferential statistics, one of their weaknesses is they do not provide information about the prevalence of a particular perspective (Ormerod et al 2019), nor are they necessarily generalizable to other study sites (Sneegas et al 2021). Thus, it is likely that the perspectives identified through a Q-sort exist outside of a particular study sample population, but probably not in the same proportions.…”

Section: Q-sortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diverse stakeholders navigate divergent perspectives on stream restoration success in Western rangelands

Millard

Hale

Burnham

2022

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological restoration is a value‐driven process; yet social understanding of restoration lags ecological understanding. Restoration goals are driven by which stakeholders have a voice in the restoration process and their individual goals. While conflict among stakeholder visions has been observed, we lack a multidimensional understanding of these visions, where they overlap, and how they diverge. Focusing on stream restoration on private lands, we asked: (1) How do perspectives on measures of restoration success vary among stakeholders, including contractors and designers, scientists, organizations, and landowners? and (2) How do these groups discuss and navigate these differences? We used a mixed‐method interview and Q‐methodology approach to understand the range of stakeholders' approaches for assessing a successful stream restoration. We asked stakeholders to rank their level of agreement with 33 statements about restoration goals, using these to evaluate perspectives about restoration success. We identified four perspectives on successful stream restoration that varied in: the use of science‐driven criteria, risk tolerance, private property protection, and commitment to restoring streams to a previous state. Notably, contractors used deficit model approaches to communicate with landowners, even for private restoration. Institutional and cultural changes to how we approach restoration, suggested by some of the interviews, may provide paths forward. These include a recognition that all restoration objectives are socially defined, even within and among professionals, and that landowners have important local‐system knowledge. Earlier engagement between all stakeholders involved in restoration may help create mutual understanding across parties and stave off disputes about project objectives or implementation.

show abstract

“…However, in cities that are starting to allow residential water reuse, much time and money would be required for the implementation and monitoring of pilot practices (Wanjiru and Xia, 2018), and this has made basing regulations on the results of practices of other locations an appealing solution. While the implementation and use of greywater reuse systems elsewhere is a key input for cities that want to integrate greywater reuse as part of their supply sources, the direct transfer of policies and regulations could lead to unsuccessful outcomes due to differences between areas (Ormerod et al, 2019). Indeed, as with any innovation, the extent to which practices of greywater reuse is transferable between cities is unclear (Wester and Broad, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most valuable cross-disciplinary insights that these methodologies can bring to the field of water reuse is that they have highlighted that consumer preferences, and thus acceptability, a key element in the success of any policy, can be linked to different factors such as mental, physical and/or cultural associations (Hurlimann and Dolnicar, 2016;Mankad and Tapsuwan, 2011;Wester and Broad, 2021;Stithou et al, 2012), and can vary by geographic location (Ormerod et al, 2019;Beveridge et al, 2017;Budziński et al, 2018;Czajkowski et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From mathematical models to policy design: Predicting greywater reuse scheme effectiveness and water reclamation benefits based on individuals’ preferences

Amaris

Dawson

Gironás

et al. 2021

Sustainable Cities and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public perceptions of potable water reuse, regional growth, and water resources management in the Reno-Sparks area of northern Nevada, USA

Cited by 17 publications

References 35 publications

Social knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions on wastewater treatment, technologies, and reuse in Tanzania

Social knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions on wastewater treatment, technologies, and reuse in Tanzania

Diverse stakeholders navigate divergent perspectives on stream restoration success in Western rangelands

From mathematical models to policy design: Predicting greywater reuse scheme effectiveness and water reclamation benefits based on individuals’ preferences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About