Additional Behavioural Change Methods for Building Community Acceptance of Recycled Drinking Water

1. Additional Behavioural Change
Methods for Building Community
Acceptance of Recycled
Drinking Water
Presenter:
Janet Saunders, Managing Director

2. 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

3. Background
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
recycled drinking water
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?

4. Challenges
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

5. Major IPR Projects
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
Community Consultation
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

6. 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
Community Consultation
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

7. Even More Questions
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
recycled drinking water
Q: Will the current IPR projects be trailblazers for
widespread community acceptance?
for the future use of purified recycled drinking water, directly or
indirectly

8. Another Possible Approach
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

9. Core Belief Research
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)

10. 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’
10. ‘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!

11. Core Belief Research
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?

12. Core Belief Research
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)

13. Toowoomba Experience
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
recycled drinking water
• Communications program was beginning to deliver results -
strong indications of increasing support for introduction of
recycled drinking water
• 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

14. 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
• 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

15. Overseas Case Studies
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

16. In Summary
• 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

17. Your Questions Answered