IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v27y2007i1d10.1007_s10669-007-9019-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is recycled water use risky? An Urban Australian community’s perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Anna C. Hurlimann

    (University of Melbourne)

Abstract

The emergence of a global water crisis has seen the necessity for a sustainable approach to water management. Policies directed towards water recycling have been implemented in many regions of the world. In Australia, prolonged drought conditions in most major cities during the past decade have led to serious national calls for less drinking water to be used (Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and Innovation Council, 2003), and a strategic policy response from many State Governments, including bold targets for water recycling. A key consideration to the realisation of these policies is greater understanding of community attitudes to recycled water use, without which, a number of recycled water projects have failed (Hurlimann and McKay, 2004). Despite the critical nature of community attitudes, little research has been conducted, especially in relation to perception of risk, which has been found to be critical in the adoption of new technologies (Cvetkovich and Lofstedt, 1999). This paper investigates an urban Australian community’s perception of risk involved with using recycled water. Key findings include: perception of risk increased as the use of recycled water became increasingly personal. Perception of risk was significantly negatively related to trust, perception of fairness and information. Trust in the Water Authority to manage risk was significantly related to perception of trust, communication and integrity of the Authority.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna C. Hurlimann, 2007. "Is recycled water use risky? An Urban Australian community’s perspective," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 83-94, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:27:y:2007:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-007-9019-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-007-9019-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-007-9019-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-007-9019-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. L. J. Frewer & C. Howard & D. Hedderley & R. Shepherd, 1996. "What Determines Trust in Information About Food‐Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, August.
    2. F. Thomas Juster, 1966. "Consumer Buying Intentions and Purchase Probability: An Experiment in Survey Design," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number just66-2, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mozhgan Moshtagh & Mohaddeseh Mohsenpour, 2019. "Community viewpoints about water crisis, conservation and recycling: a case study in Tehran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 2721-2731, December.
    2. Rasha M. Abdelrahman & Sameh E. Khamis & Zeinelabidin E. Rizk, 2020. "Public attitude toward expanding the reuse of treated wastewater in the United Arab Emirates," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(8), pages 7887-7908, December.
    3. Samantha Redman & Kerri Jean Ormerod & Scott Kelley, 2019. "Reclaiming Suburbia: Differences in Local Identity and Public Perceptions of Potable Water Reuse," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Kelly Fielding & John Gardner & Zoe Leviston & Jennifer Price, 2015. "Comparing Public Perceptions of Alternative Water Sources for Potable Use: The Case of Rainwater, Stormwater, Desalinated Water, and Recycled Water," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(12), pages 4501-4518, September.
    5. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    6. Savchenko, Olesya M. & Kecinski, Maik & Li, Tongzhe & Messer, Kent D. & Xu, Huidong, 2018. "Fresh foods irrigated with recycled water: A framed field experiment on consumer responses," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 103-112.
    7. Tsigkou, Stavroula & Messer, Kent D. & Kecinski, Maik & Li, Tongzhe, 2021. "The impact of nontraditional irrigation water on consumers’ perception of food and non-food items: A field experiment in the United States," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313940, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cristine D. Delnevo & Michelle Jeong & Ollie Ganz & Daniel P. Giovenco & Erin Miller Lo, 2021. "The Effect of Cigarillo Packaging Characteristics on Young Adult Perceptions and Intentions: An Experimental Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-12, April.
    2. Lynn J. Frewer & Chaya Howard & Duncan Hedderley & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "Methodological Approaches to Assessing Risk Perceptions Associated with Food‐Related Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 95-102, February.
    3. Ralph Stinebrickner & Todd R. Stinebrickner, 2014. "A Major in Science? Initial Beliefs and Final Outcomes for College Major and Dropout," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(1), pages 426-472.
    4. Engelberg, Joseph & Manski, Charles F. & Williams, Jared, 2009. "Comparing the Point Predictions and Subjective Probability Distributions of Professional Forecasters," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 27, pages 30-41.
    5. Jos'e Raimundo Carvalho & Diego de Maria Andr'e & Yuri Costa, 2023. "Individual Updating of Subjective Probability of Homicide Victimization: a "Natural Experiment'' on Risk Communication," Papers 2312.08171, arXiv.org.
    6. Nugroho, Adi, 2021. "Study of Airport Service Quality and Profitability in Indonesia," OSF Preprints ah2ns, Center for Open Science.
    7. Kirstin Lindloff & Nadine Pieper & Nils C. Bandelow & David M. Woisetschläger, 2014. "Drivers of carsharing diffusion in Germany: an actor-centred approach," International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 14(3/4), pages 217-245.
    8. Tine Janžek & Petra Ziherl, 2013. "Overview of models and methods for measuring economic agent’s expectations," IFC Bulletins chapters, in: Bank for International Settlements (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth IFC Conference on "Statistical issues and activities in a changing environment", Basel, 28-29 August 2012., volume 36, pages 172-179, Bank for International Settlements.
    9. Silvia Balia, 2007. "Reporting expected longevity and smoking: evidence from the SHARE," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 07/10, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    10. Romaniuk, Jenni & Nenycz-Thiel, Magda, 2016. "Lapsed buyers' durable brand consideration in emerging markets," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3645-3651.
    11. Pamela Giustinelli & Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Survey Measures Of Family Decision Processes For Econometric Analysis Of Schooling Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 81-99, January.
    12. Das, J.W.M. & Dominitz, J. & van Soest, A.H.O., 1997. "Comparing Predictions and Outcomes : Theory and Application to Income Changes," Discussion Paper 1997-45, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    13. Conti, G.; & Giustinelli, P.;, 2022. "For Better or Worse? Subjective Expectations and Cost-Benefit Trade-Offs in Health Behavior: An Application to Lockdown Compliance in the United Kingdom," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 22/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    14. Dan Jiang & Guangling Zhang, 2021. "Marketing Clues on the Label Raise the Purchase Intention of Genetically Modified Food," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, September.
    15. Ozer, Muammer, 2011. "Understanding the impacts of product knowledge and product type on the accuracy of intentions-based new product predictions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 359-369, June.
    16. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew Parker & Jürgen Maurer, 2011. "Assessing small non-zero perceptions of chance: The case of H1N1 (swine) flu risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 145-159, April.
    17. Nguyen, Cathy & Romaniuk, Jenni, 2013. "Factors moderating the impact of word of mouth for TV and film broadcasts," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 25-29.
    18. Roper, Stuart & Parker, Cathy, 2013. "Doing well by doing good: A quantitative investigation of the litter effect," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(11), pages 2262-2268.
    19. Øystein Bortne & Jone Bjornestad & Mads Nordmo Arnestad & Tore Tjora & Kolbjørn Kallesten Brønnick, 2024. "The role of persuasion by significant others and engagement in bank-switching intention," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 29(4), pages 1279-1290, December.
    20. John R. Hauser & Guilherme (Gui) Liberali & Glen L. Urban, 2014. "Website Morphing 2.0: Switching Costs, Partial Exposure, Random Exit, and When to Morph," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(6), pages 1594-1616, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:27:y:2007:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-007-9019-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.