The Author is a PhD Researcher at the Department of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), in Trondheim, Norway.
Keywords: Conservation, Demand-side management, Reuse, Sustainability, Water supply, Willingness to pay
Water, no doubt, is a basic human need. Often it is taken for granted by consumers who deem it their right to get access to clean water. Most people are only vaguely aware of the consumption of the energy and materials associated with water treatment, pumping and wastewater treatment downstream in urban water-wastewater networks. Energy consumption in the water cycle indirectly contributes to global warming, while materials consumption may lead to abiotic depletion of resources. Water cuts are sources of ire and frustration and oftentimes, the challenges shouldered by the city/town authorities go unheeded. Certain practices have been so firmly entrenched in human society that bringing about a change is far from easy. Nations have gone to war over water in the past and may do so in the future if water resources are not wisely managed. The indispensability of water and the sheer range of applications it is put to makes conservation a necessity and scarcity and supply-unreliability a grave concern. On the demand-side, it behoves consumers to support cash-strapped municipalities in efficiency improvement plans by being willing to pay a little more and at the same time contribute to water conservation and lesser stress on water, energy and material resources by taking the initiative to consciously reduce consumption, retrofit the plumbing in their houses to accomplish reuse by cascade, harvesting rainwater etc.
The technical and economic aspects are strongly embedded in social and cultural dimensions and cannot be treated in isolation (Zerah, 2007). Challenges due to development of urban centres – especially great urban agglomerations in developing countries are huge and water is a key figure in this equation, according to Varis, et al (1997). The fact that the referred-to paper is 12 years old at the time of writing indicates that researchers had started thinking on the lines of sustainability of urban water infrastructures in the last century itself.
When it comes to individual and governmental initiatives to conserve water and break the mould, so to say, Maher, et al (2003), while stressing on the need for “Water-Sensitive Urban Design” makes a mention of the fact that 3 million Australians use rainwater from tanks for drinking without suffering from any health problems whatsoever. The same paper also gives the example of a three-storey office building in Canada which cut down its water demand from the municipal supply by a staggering 90 per cent by resorting to rainwater harvesting, composting toilets and grey-water reuse. Harremoes (1998), states that it is a key issue that water usage can be diminished by demand control. Icke, et al (1999) states that there are possibilities to collect grey water from the wash basins and bathrooms in a grey-water tank and use the same for toilet-flushing; and also install a rainwater tank to feed applications like washing clothes, gardening and car-washing. In de Jong, et al (1995) it is stated that if solutions are to be found to overcome socio-political bottlenecks that exist, it is mandatory that a broad social awareness of the choices of the past and the necessity of radical changes in the future, should be created. The paper asserts that unless the society on the whole realises the importance of water, no headway can be made on the road to sustainability of urban water networks. Old habits die hard; as Gram-Hannsen (2007) for instance, dwells on the difficulties associated with striking a balance between physical hygiene and cleanliness on the one hand, and the consumption of water to attain to the same on the other. The paper points to cases where teenagers (in Denmark in this study) under the influence of peers and driven by the need to socialise and be accepted in friend circles, are obsessed with cleanliness and end up consuming a lot of water in the process. Cheng (2002) and Zerah (2007) attribute the lack of seriousness as regards water conservation to the fact that water is quite cheap in many parts of the world (the said papers are case studies of Taiwan and India respectively). Of course, when something is almost gratis, there is no initiative or drive to conserve it. Periods of scarcity and drought may change the way of thinking of city-dwellers momentarily, yet, it is often seen that the onus is thrown back on the city authorities which operate and manage the water-wastewater networks. Gascon, et al (2004) state that strategies followed by managers and politicians in Spain have been mainly focused on the supply side of water management, whereas practices from the demand side have been systematically neglected over the years. The paper however also adds that both utilities and citizens have now realised that future trends in water supply will lie in water conservation programmes and retrofitting of facilities. Stedman (2009) quotes Gustaf Olsson, professor emeritus at Lund University in Sweden “The problem I see is that almost everyone is aware of how much they pay per kilowatt-hour for energy and no one is aware of how much they pay for water. It is taken for granted.” Paul Reiter, the Executive Director of the International Water Association observes in the June 2009 issue of the Water21 magazine that seventy per cent of the energy consumption in the water cycle is tied up in the uses of water (mostly heating); and contends that if utilities would like to think of reducing energy usage in the water and sanitation networks, they need to focus on the customers. It has however been seen, as Nistor (2008) writes about the situation in Moldova, that household consumption behaviour has been significantly affected by a rise in prices accompanied by the adoption of water meters. Between 1996 and 2006, the average per connection daily (pcd) consumption in Moldovan households dropped from a high of 328 litres pcd to 110 litres pcd.
Development of new water resources is investment-intensive, and so is the maintenance of pipelines in order to reduce leakages and thefts and ensure that those who pay for the services are promptly serviced. With assets in the water and wastewater sector in cities around the world getting older, the operation and maintenance expenses keep mounting (Ugarelli, et al, 2008). To serve the people better, the municipalities are in need of more finances. Subsidies will not help for too long and loans from lending institutions are unaffordable most of the time (Zerah, 2007). The municipalities will have to turn to the people for help. Raising the price of water for consumers across all strata of society will create unrest among the lower strata, which form a significant percentage of populations in cities of the developing world. Subsidising the poor and charging the rich may also not be a popular move in such cities. Singhirunnusorn, et al (2009) is of the view that the ability-to-pay is a very important issue, reflecting the reasonable levels of service that the consumers are able to pay for. Charging every individual household on a per-unit-volume-consumed basis (akin to how it is done for electricity consumption for instance) will be a better strategy if that could be achieved by installing automated tamper-proof water meters, remotely controlled and read by the utilities. Fixed monthly payments do not give any incentive for savings. Citizens who understand the importance of water end up being overcharged and unconsciously subsidise those who over-consume. As Zerah, et al (2007) points out, in countries like India, industries pay much more for the water they consume vis-à-vis households. The gap between these two groups of consumers should be narrowed.
In many parts of the world, especially in the developing world, people are sceptical of paying more for services which they have gotten used to receiving cheaply, owing to distrust of the integrity of the officials in charge of public services. Yet, they do not wish to be deprived of that very basic requirement of theirs – water; and its associate, sanitation. If the people would like to have their way, they had better resort to conserving water and reducing their dependence on the municipal water supply as much as they can.
Kolokytha, et al (2002) presents the results of a survey of over 2700 households to gauge what the citizens had to say about several aspects related to municipal water supply, carried out in the Greek city of Thessaloniki. Willingness to pay and willingness to conserve are thus the qualitative variables which need to be studied in order to determine the degree of awareness, cooperation and concern on the part of society (the consumers who avail of water-wastewater services). Sustainability is not merely a governmental responsibility. It works better when it is bottom-up and boosted by the cooperation of all individuals in society.
In Kolokytha, et al (2002), there were two things which the respondents had in common – their city of residence and their dependence on the municipal water supply. The respondents of the survey conducted for this paper basically had just one thing in common – their dependence on and sensitivity to municipal water supply.
They belonged to different nationalities and were based in different cities around the world. As de Jong, et al (1995) observed years ago, the country of origin has no bearing on the central point – our relationship with water has reached a turning point. What was true in 1995 is truer in 2009. All of them know, and are known to, at least one of the corresponding authors. All of them are residents of urban societies around the world, are well-educated and have access to the Internet. They are all well-to-do and members of the middle and upper-middle class of urban society, pay for their water and sanitation services, and are in general, aware citizens. The Internet connectivity and personal acquaintance factors facilitated the informal survey over e-mail. Unlike Kolokytha, et al (2002), the authors worked with a relatively smaller sample. The questionnaire was despatched by e-mail to over 200 potential respondents, across four continents. One of the limitations of the sampling is the exclusion (or rather the inability to include) of respondents from South America and Africa from the sample. The other is the fact that the lower strata of society (slum dwellers), which constitute a significant proportion of urban populations in many developing countries, has not been represented in the sample. It goes without saying that the views and opinions of the lower strata of society matters as much as those of the upwardly-mobile classes. The questionnaire circulated has been reproduced hereunder:
The respondents were also requested to indicate their city of residence, nationality, age and profession. The authors realised that it would be better to keep the questionnaire as short as possible, bearing in mind the possibility that the request would be turned down by some of the respondents. Responses ranging from a mono-verbal “Yes” and “No” to detailed explanations and justifications were expected. The subject matter is chiefly water supply and conservation (and also the willingness to pay). Sanitation and wastewater treatment have been touched upon in the last two questions, though these are possible subjects the authors intend to dwell upon in detail in a subsequent survey.
The subjectivity of opinions to varying conditions of hydrology, economic development and degrees of awareness that obtain around the world was certainly not overlooked. Probability sampling was followed – each individual respondent was assumed to be equally sensitive to water supply (quality and reliability) issues. As Varis, et al (1997) states (and of course, quite obviously as well), safe drinking water and proper sanitation are concrete issues to every individual. In effect, the respondents were expressing their opinions on the water supply services prevailing in their respective cities of residence – thereby, similar and not the same services. Individual preferences vary for sure, as expectations differ across the whole spectrum of urban denizens. “Good” and “better” are relative terms, determined by what has been experienced in the past – how something was earlier, or how something was/is elsewhere. One cannot, obviously, on the basis of the limited number of responses (subjective at that) present a general global outlook. However, the results can serve as a platform for more extensive surveys – in depth and width, scope and size.
Responses were received from about 50 individuals characterised as in Figures 1,2 and 3. The distribution among age-groups is very much uniform and thus accounts for views of youngsters of the current generation, middle-aged individuals as well as senior citizens, who have witnessed the changes in services over time. The respondents come from several walks of life (by no means inclusive of all professions and occupations however), and hail from 15 different countries. It should be mentioned however that the cities of residence are much more in number – 24 in all. These include Oxford and Birmingham (UK), Trondheim(Norway), Singapore (Singapore), Sydney (Australia), Vadodara, Mumbai, New Delhi, Kolkata, Jullunder, Noida, Gurgaon, Ahmedabad, Bangalore (all 9 from India), Raleigh, Colts Neck, New York and Beaverton (all from the USA), Chongqing (China), Seoul (South Korea), Berlin (Germany), Tsukaba (Japan), Stockholm (Sweden) and Lyngby (Denmark). Indians account for a significant percentage of the respondents, as not only were more of them contacted in the first place, but a greater percentage of those contacted, responded to the questionnaire. It must be mentioned however, that a good percentage of the Indians reside and work in cities outside India and hence have commented about the services in those cities. The male-female ratio among the respondents is 3:2, thus avoiding any kind of gender bias. The results are discussed question by question hereunder:
If given an option, would you like to install a rain-tank on the roof of your house and use that water for laundry, toilet flushing etc.? If no, why not?
If the responses provided could be classified into willingness and non-willingness, with the fence-sitters who are hesitant or conditionally willing being clubbed along with the latter, 74 per cent of the respondents consider setting up a rainwater tank to trap water and use it for either flushing or laundry or both, as an attractive option to reduce the dependence on the municipal water supply. The reasons furnished by those who are unwilling or conditionally willing are the problems associated with obtaining the permission of fellow-residents in high-rise buildings (the need for a participative and cooperative approach is evident here), the cumbersomeness associated with installing a tank and the associated additional plumbing, the suspect quality of the rainwater vis-à-vis conduciveness to washing clothes and the need to treat the same in-house before use, and surprisingly even the unreliability of rainfall. It is interesting to note that despite the general logical belief that the motive behind setting up a water tank is to combat the scarcity of water, or in other words, the unreliability of rainfall, which impacts the municipal water supply as well, one respondent points to the unreliability of rainfall as the main reason for not installing one. What the municipal water supply collects after all, in its reservoir is generally a fraction of the rainfall received by a city (unless of course there are desalination plants operated by it). In the monsoon region for example, there is a marked wet season, implying that there is almost no precipitation for the rest of the year. A rainwater tank may be active during the monsoon months when it can collect and store water. However, the use of rainwater for flushing alone which consumes a great portion of household water consumption, during the monsoon, would mean that the municipal reservoir(s) will not be depleted as quickly as they would be otherwise. In the dry season, the rainwater tank of course will not be operational, but by virtue of having reduced the stress on the municipal water supply during the monsoon months, it would already have contributed to shrinking the period of scarcity. There is another moot point made by a Norwegian respondent, who incidentally is a researcher in the water-wastewater field. He believes that rainwater harvesting coupled with low-water-use toilets would work out best, as that would mean that the size of the rain-tank could also be reduced substantially.
The respondent from Japan believes that in his country, it would be preferable to have a tank on the ground instead of on the roof, to guard against typhoons. An Englishwoman says she would like to install one below the ground. The Australian respondent points out that though the legislation in Australia is not so strong as to make the setting up of a rainwater tank compulsory, use of rainwater tanks is widespread especially in the relatively drier areas of the country and the awareness is spreading fast (Maher, et al (2002) mentions that over 3 million Australians used water collected in rainwater tanks for drinking as well. The number would have increased at the time of writing). There are some very eager and enthusiastic affirmative responses – especially from the senior citizens, most of whom are retired army men. Respondents from countries which do not face water scarcity and are not very densely populated, do not consider it necessary to install rainwater harvesting tanks. In some Indian cities – Chennai for instance – it has been legally mandated that all new constructions be equipped with rainwater harvesting facilities (www.rainwaterharvesting.org). All the respondents from the USA are unanimously in favour of setting up rainwater tanks, presumably owing to the droughts that have plagued many parts of the country in recent years. A Norwegian, despite the fact that Norway does not really encounter any water scarcity problems, insists first on performing a life cycle costing analysis to determine if such a measure would be profitable, but then states that for the sake of the environment, he would be willing to incur some losses. It was thought at the outset that all respondents from the developing countries would support the idea of a rainwater harvesting tank. However, it turns out that quite a few in India prefer to pass the onus to the city authorities and not take individual initiatives.
Would you be keen on collecting water used in laundry wash and reusing that for other uses – like in the garden for instance?
This question pertains to grey-water reuse within the home. While all respondents do not have their own gardens, the definition of “garden” extends to potted plants in the balconies as well. Over one-third of the respondents are emphatic in their opposition to the idea of using laundry wash water in the garden, stating that the detergents and soaps in the grey-water would be harmful to the plants. Nearly 60 per cent state that they would be willing to reuse the laundry wash grey-water, though not necessarily to water plants in the garden. They say they would do so if they would know for sure that the detergents and soaps used for washing would not harm the plants. However, quite a few among the said 60 per cent were keen on using the grey-water for flushing, car-washing and cleaning cemented areas around the house. A small percentage turns out to be fence-sitters not very sure of whether they would want to or not.
Of course, in order to make this reuse happen, one needs to retrofit the plumbing within the home to store the grey-water in a tank (and allow the excess to overflow into the municipal sewage mains). This was considered to be an obvious prerequisite, and hence not specified in the question. There are some who wrongly assume that what was being asked of them was to collect the grey water used for laundry in buckets and personally transport the same to the garden to water the plants. It turns out that some respondents, in cities plagued by water scarcity (in India), have actually been collecting the wash-water (without soap) and using it to keep the potted plants in their balconies alive.
Again, as in the case of the earlier question, in countries where water scarcity has not been a problem, this is considered unnecessary. One respondent even states that it had not been necessary to ever water the garden as precipitation was not restricted to a few months in his city as it is in some other parts of the world, which have a well-defined wet season.
Have you ever wondered if it makes sense to use piped water (which is actually treated before supply) for flushing?
Before moving on to discuss the responses to this question, attention should be drawn to some of the responses to the previous one. There are a few respondents who would not use grey-water on their lawns or for gardening but would gladly reuse it for toilet flushing. A significant percentage of water consumed by households is used for flushing. Wong et al (2005) puts it at 30 per cent in Hong Kong. It could be much more (as a percentage) in lesser-developed cities of the world, where uses such as car-washing, gardening etc. are absent. A range between 30 per cent to 40 per cent can be safely assumed. This implies an equivalent proportion of energy and materials consumption upstream and downstream (pumping and treatment). The motive behind the question was to find out if respondents had ever given a thought to the fact that clean water was being used for flushing, which could easily be done with recycled wastewater. A little less than 30 per cent of the respondents have not. Over 30 per cent of those who have, fear for the safety of the toilet fittings or are put off by the additional effort and investment that retrofitting the plumbing to redirect the wastewater from the kitchen and/or bathroom would call for. A little over one-third of the respondents express keen interest in the possibility of reusing grey or green water for flushing. One respondent is curious to know what the cost-benefit analysis would prove. Another calls it a “paradox” that clean water was being used as a carrier for faeces and urine and re-treated at the wastewater treatment plant. A respondent from New York thinks that individual citizens cannot influence town planners and architects in any way to get back to the drawing board and re-design networks, even though he/she would realise and appreciate the senselessness in using clean water for flushing.
A respondent from Japan considers that more than wastage of water, this implied wastage of energy and materials upstream and downstream. As Cheng (2002) shows, over 80 per cent of the energy consumption per unit of water consumed in households (in Taiwan which is the focus of study in the said paper), happens in treatment and pumping. It is ironical that there are respondents who prioritise the fittings in the toilets over water and energy. Of course, while one respondent points out the potential harm that could be caused to the faucets and fittings, she also indicates that if the used water (grey, green or both) can be partially treated in-house, it can surely be used for flushing. There are some cities in India where in addition to using rainwater tanks, people also draw up groundwater from bore-wells (n dependence on municipal water supply in this case) to be used for flushing inter alia. However, this is not sustainable. The energy consumption in pumping water over long distances (and materials consumption in treating it) may be avoided, but a rapid depletion of ground water is not really advisable. In summation, there are lock-ins, both on an institutional and structural level, as well as on a socio-psychological level, and breaking the mould is a difficult thing to do. It does not happen overnight for sure.
How keen are you on spending on water saving devices? For instance, would you go out of your way to install sensor-controlled taps at your place (as a retrofit / replacement), in the absence of any regulations or compulsions from the authorities / government?
Water-saving devices and energy-saving devices have forayed into the global marketplace. The latter are more in vogue considering the fact that energy is costlier than water. This question was aimed at gauging whether consumers would, irrespective of whether water was pricey or cheap, attempt to reduce their consumption by expending on installing water-saving devices. If water comes cheap, a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) based entirely on money spent and money saved, would suggest that such expenditures would not make economic sense. If not, it would depend on whether the consumers are charged a flat rate every month or are charged on a per-unit-volume-consumed basis. A respondent from Stockholm who hails from Prague informs the authors that when meters were installed to measure the volume of water being consumed by households, it had an immediate effect on the consumption patterns of the citizens. There were conscious attempts made to optimise water consumption. Thus, if payments are proportional to the volumes consumed, there would be a possibility that consumers would be driven towards carrying out a CBA. Of course, frequent water cuts may also be a driver towards conservationist-thinking; though in this case, there may be free riders who do not change their consumption patterns, at the expense of those who do. Whether electronic aids will actually lead to water savings is not known. If taps or showers are designed in such a way that valves do not open fully, thereby reducing the maximum flow rate, it is quite possible that the tap/shower may be left open for a longer time, resulting in perhaps more consumption than would otherwise have happened (unless there is an awareness of scarcity or a charge levied on a per-unit-volume-consumed basis) As one Czech respondent puts it very succinctly, “I regulate water consumption by using as little water as possible even if I don”t have any control system installed. The control system sits between my eyes.” A quotable quote, if one may say, but then, that is what one would expect every individual to do, if one is striving to achieve sustainability on a larger scale. A response from China is on similar lines and the respondent believes that personal will and water reuse in-house are more efficient means of reducing water consumption, than going in for hi-tech electronic solutions. Over 30 per cent of the respondents are of the view that installing water saving devices will not really make much economic sense. This clearly points to the fact that when water comes cheap, any strategy to reduce use with an unattractive Return on Investment is deemed to be impractical. Cost is what most of the respondents focus on, either when refusing to install water saving devices or when agreeing conditionally that this would be a good idea to reduce consumption. In countries where water scarcity has never been a problem, the installation of flow-reducers in showers, is primarily to reduce electricity consumption (for heating up the water). Electricity is charged on a per-kWh-consumed basis and hence, perceptible savings can be achieved by reducing its consumption. However, some respondents from the USA, from cities which have been facing drought conditions and water scarcity off and on in the recent past, have installed low-flush showers and even sensor-controlled taps – the driver in this case is the scarcity they have encountered and learnt from. They believe that the water saving devices would pay for themselves in the medium-term. The USA is a vast country and some cities are blessed with abundant and reliable water supply. A respondent from such a city however is very particular that if the return of investment on water saving devices would be greater than 3 years, he would not find the idea attractive enough. Another, from New York, feels that in an ultra-consuming society like the one which obtains in the USA, these measures often get overlooked. A small percentage of the respondents who categorically refuse to consider using such devices in their homes, are however of the opinion that these should certainly be used in public places. One respondent from Denmark says that if the municipalities would popularise and subsidise water saving devices, they themselves would stand to gain by way of reduced expenditures on energy and materials for pumping and treatment. The electricity consumption by the sensor in the taps is the stumbling block for one respondent from India – a clear indicator of the fact that energy is an economic good and water is still not considered to be one. Unfortunately, anyone furnishing this as the reason is oblivious of the fact that this sensor energy consumption is a very small fraction of the overall energy consumption along the entire cycle.
How much do you pay for water and wastewater services per month? Would you be happy to pay more if services need to be improved? Are you paying more now than you were paying before? Do you think water comes cheap in your city?
One would consider something to be of value only when it comes at a price. The price, in this case, is what one would interpret as a percentage of the family income. Thus, what is cheap for one family may not be so for another. The payment here is for water and sewage services taken together. Among the respondents, most explicitly state that water is cheap in their cities. While few believe that it is reasonably priced, there are even some who are of the opinion that it is expensive. Respondents belonging to the last category are generally those who have left their home countries in the developing world and settled down to work in the developed world. Thus, one cannot rule out the element of subjectivity in their opinions. There is also a small fraction which is either unaware of the exact amount paid for water and sewage services or believes that water is for gratis. The rent (by tenants) or maintenance expenses (by members of a housing society) paid every month often includes water and sewage charges and the break-up is not generally known.
The payments per month range from as low as 2.8 Euros per month in an Indian city to 50 Euros per month in a Norwegian city to 75 Euros on average in the USA, with perceptible variations among cities. In some cities, where water is also purchased from private vendors in times of scarcity, the household expenses on water are double of what is paid to the municipalities. It is interesting to note that many respondents are willing to pay more “if” services are bettered. This can be interpreted differently from paying more to help better the services. Of course, even in the developing countries, there are individuals – generally the senior citizens – who are willing to contribute in any way they can to facilitate water conservation. There is one respondent who is willing to pay more if the adverse environmental impacts related to wastewater discharges and water depletion could be alleviated. This is noteworthy as, unlike most others, who would wish to pay more for betterment of services – interpreted as reliable supply of cleaner water – the driving force behind willingness to pay can also be the environment. On the other hand, there are those who say that unless the benefits obtained by paying more are not direct and conspicuous, true willingness is difficult to come about. In India for instance, the payments have been very much the same for many years now, while in many other countries like Japan and China for instance, it is gathered that the payments are gradually increasing, as the level of water and wastewater treatment has also improved over time time. The respondent from Birmingham points out that from UK£ 22 in 2002, the fees have risen to UK£ 35 in 2009. As Zerah (2007) points out, municipal water and sewage departments in India in most cities and towns have a very low cost recovery factor. The said paper however believes that funds are sufficient but not being utilised wisely and responsibly in many cases. A respondent from Singapore, while not very sure of how much he pays per month for water and sewage services, believes that if permissions to install rainwater tanks could be obtained easily, citizens of his country may end up paying less than whatever they are paying at present.
Thus, as far as willingness to pay more is concerned, three distinct schools of opinion emerge from the survey:
These roughly account for one-third each of the total sample size.
Are you happy with the water and wastewater services provided by the authorities in your city? Do you ever think about the need for wastewater treatment before disposal, as much as you think about the reliability of water supply?
Satisfaction cannot obviously be measured and it is not a constant. The views on satisfaction thus are based on what the respondents feel at the time of responding. The second part of the question obviously pertains to the gap between the developing world and the developed world. In many cities of the former, the goal of providing clean water to all the inhabitants has not yet been attained. As long as administrators in municipalities keep pursuing that goal, wastewater treatment will remain subjugated. Whether one is affluent or otherwise, does not really influence opinions much, when there is a common problem like water scarcity which afflicts one and all. Private vendors do exist and the rich may be able to afford the highly-priced water on the private market for some time, but certainly not for too long a period of time. It is only when water availability is guaranteed and the quality of water supplied does not leave any room for dissatisfaction, that the consumers could spare a thought for the environment (read treatment of wastewater to high standards before discharge and sewage handling).
If the responses have to be broadly classified into satisfaction and dissatisfaction, there are 30 per cent more respondents who are satisfied vis-à-vis those who are not. The grey area of course has been neglected. There are however some interesting gleanings from the responses. While over 85 per cent have given a thought to wastewater treatment (even in the developing world, where this is usually accorded a much lower priority), there is one respondent who is of the opinion that the wastewater need not be treated if it is not going to be reused in some way. This indicates either ignorance or neglect of the sink into which the wastewater flows, and the concomitant problems like eutrophication etc. There is also one respondent from the developed world who is not aware of what wastewater treatment actually entails. The Australian respondent who has been quoted earlier believes that the services are in general satisfactory in Australia though they seem to be slacking a bit. He believes that consumers by being compelled (legally) to reuse grey water for some other applications within the household (flushing etc.), could be made to play a key role in wastewater management. The Singaporean is happy with the services, but worries about reliability considering that his country imports water from Malaysia.
Knowing what people think and are willing to do is just a first step. It is of course much better than totally abstaining from attempting to find out what their needs, opinions, demands and complaints are. As Buch, et al (2009) say, management must come down to the ground and decide on things after knowing the realities. As van de Meene, et al (2009) point out, capacity building in sustainable urban water management includes mobilising community support. Governments which have sustainable development on their agenda need the support of the people to accomplish steady economic growth without compromising environmental upkeep. As Foxon, et al (1999) said a decade ago, as individuals, academics an policy makers gain a better understanding of people”s wants and needs, and of the system-wide effects arising from end-use demands, we can move towards developing more sustainable cities and societies. However, knowing what people think does not yield a silver bullet solution to the challenges faced by society and government. Often, public policy is aimed at satisfying the majority even if that would annoy the minority. There is sadly no perfect via media. A referendum however is a very good starting point. Misgivings, non-cooperation and suspicions can be healed if one can ascertain that they exist. Also, as Beck, et al (1996) wrote over a decade ago, “ While (urban water and wastewater utilities) will be able to do more of what is presently being done, more reliably and more efficiently – with less consumption of energy (and materials perhaps); it is only too apparent that what we do now may not be what we should be doing.” The reference of course was not just to the need for integrated approaches to water supply and sanitation, but also the need for water saving strategies – reuse of treated wastewater, cascade within households, rainwater harvesting etc. The said paper also refers to “engines of materials manipulation (the consumers and dischargers of water in other words) sitting at the mouths of sewer pipelines”, which could bring about a paradigm shift in the urban water and sanitation networks.
Several insights have been gathered from this survey and the main ones can be listed hereunder:
This paper has its own limitations
The authors intend to narrow down the focus and study the responses in selected cities; and also expand the sample sizes. The results of such a survey would be of interest to the municipalities in the said cities, in case they have not carried out surveys of this kind to determine the opinions and viewpoints of the consumers they serve. In a developing world context, this will enable the governments which take over the reins of administration in cities to pursue developmental programmes with a well-defined agenda bolstered by complete knowledge of what ails the electorate.
To all the respondents who found time to respond to the questionnaire. The responses were obtained on the promise of anonymity and hence, the names are not being revealed. There however are references to the nationalities / cities of residence of some of the respondents in the paper.
***
Copyright © 2009, ECO Services International