Water resources and wastewater reuse: perceptions of students at the Ohio State University Campus.
Vedachalam, Sridhar ; Mancl, Karen M.
ABSTRACT. As global population increases and more people achieve
higher standards of living, the availability of freshwater across the
world may be threatened in the coming decades. Reuse of wastewater is
seen as one of the many solutions that can reduce the need for
freshwater and lead to long-term sustainability. However, the concept of
wastewater reuse does not elicit unconditional public support.
Universities worldwide have taken the lead in creating water management
programs for their local watersheds. Students at the main campus of The
Ohio State University were surveyed for their opinions on water
resources and wastewater reuse using an online questionnaire. Results
indicate weak awareness of facts and practices regarding water usage and
quality, but strong support for implementing a wastewater reuse program
in the region. Level of contact with the treated wastewater and
familiarity with the institution undertaking the wastewater reuse
program have strong impacts on perceptions of the processed wastewater
quality. This is important for institutions that serve public needs and
depend on consumer trust to promote new and innovative environmental
initiatives. Water management programs involving wastewater reuse could
be an effective method to reduce the risks in scenarios which project
potential water shortages in urban areas during the coming decades.
Date of publication: 31 May 2012
INTRODUCTION
An increasing global population with higher standards of living may
threaten the availability of freshwater across the world in the coming
decades, a situation that could be intensified by fluctuations due to
climate change. Although the concept of sustainable development was
formally defined in 1987 in the Brundtland Report (United Nations 1987),
its meaning and framework in the context of water resources has been a
work-in-progress. The definition of sustainability in water resources
has evolved over time, starting from the idea that all human demands be
met by natural supplies. In the light of increasing population and the
development of technology, it was expanded to include meeting the water
demand from the natural supplies, not just in quantity but also in
quality through adequate treatment processes (Hermanowicz 2008). At the
minimum, the term sustainability in the context of water resources
indicates "maintenance of natural water resources in adequate
quantity and with suitable quality for human use and for aquatic
ecosystems" (Roy and others 2010). Reuse of wastewater is seen as
one of the many solutions that can reduce the demand for freshwater and
lead to long-term sustainability.
The evolution of wastewater reclamation, recycling, and reuse has
its roots in the early water and wastewater system of the Minoan
civilization in ancient Greece (Angelakis and others 2005). Although
wastewater reuse has been practiced in many countries for centuries,
renewed interest in water reuse is surging (Asano and Levine 1996).
Wastewater reclamation and recycling have been prominently used or are
being considered in the arid and semi-arid parts of the world such as
West Asia (Al-A'ama and Nakhla 1996), Mediterranean Europe
(Angelakis and others 2005), parts of Africa (Bahri and Brissaud 1996),
Australia (Eden 1996), and in China, where demand for clean water
outstrips supply (Yang and Abbaspour 2007). In the U.S., wastewater
reuse for non-potable or indirect potable purposes is being practiced in
arid regions of Arizona, California, Colorado, and Texas, and in humid
regions of Florida, Georgia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
(Hartley 2006).
Public Perception
Understanding the behavior of local communities towards natural
resources is integral to the creation of effective policies and their
implementation. These policies are advocated at a national or regional
level, but implemented at a local level. Increased local ownership,
involvement, or participation can raise awareness about the resources,
thereby, helping the programs that oversee these environmental resources
and goods become more sustainable (Lipchin and others 2004). Perceptions
about the environmental resources are often shaped by several influences
(Sia Su and Cervantes 2008), some of which include historical or
anecdotal information, visual imagery, and personal experiences. The
technology required to treat wastewater and convert it to reusable water
that surpasses drinking water standards is currently available (Bixio
and others 2005). However, the notion of consuming treated wastewater is
not a concept that elicits unconditional public support (Dolnicar and
Schafer 2009). Irrespective of scientific and engineering-based
considerations, public opposition has the potential to cause wastewater
reuse projects to fail--before, during, or after their execution.
Wastewater reuse programs may face public opposition resulting from a
combination of prejudicial beliefs, fear, attitudes, lack of knowledge
and general distrust of public utilities (Jeffrey and Temple 1999;
Wegner-Gwidt 1991).
Public support for wastewater reuse increases when the level of
contact with the reusable water decreases (Bruvold 1984; Jeffrey and
Jefferson 2003), the primary source of wastewater becomes more personal
(Jeffrey and Jefferson 2003), and the reuse implementation process is
transparent to the general public (Harding 2001). Insufficient
dissemination of information to the public and poorly managed public
information campaigns were responsible for non-completion of a number of
large-scale wastewater reuse proposals in the U.S. during the 1990s
(DeSena 1998; Harding 2001). Gibson and Apostolidis (2001) state that
the best way to involve the general public and gain its acceptance is
through successful demonstration or pilot projects.
Universities as Role Models
As scientific challenges acquire social dimensions, institutions of
higher learning play a unique role in advancing the cause of sustainable
efforts. Not only do universities educate the citizenry with
interdisciplinary knowledge, they are prestigious and influential
institutions capable of impacting the environment as well as influencing
local and global communities (Uhl and Anderson 2001). Universities
worldwide have taken steps to reduce, reuse, and recycle wastewater
(Staff Reporter 2004; USAID 2006). The reasons for undertaking these
wastewater reuse initiatives include water shortage in arid climates,
the need to sustain and protect the local watershed, and to set an
example to the local community.
In the U.S., universities in arid, drought-prone, and
water-impoverished regions were quick to adapt to the growing demands of
water, while those in other areas followed later. In 1971, University of
Hawaii initiated a pilot study to irrigate sugarcane and grasslands
using treated wastewater (Lau and others 1972). The University of
Florida has utilized its own wastewater treatment plant since 1948
(University of Florida 2010) and reclaims approximately three million
gallons per day (Campbell and others 1998). Penn State University has
been reusing its wastewater since 1963 using the
'Living-Filter', an organic wastewater treatment system, after
the long-term viability of clean ground and surface waters in the region
was threatened (Bitler 1990). In 2009, the University of North Carolina
constructed a water reclamation system on the university's campus
in response to the severe drought that affected the region in 2002
(University of North Carolina 2009).
Given the importance of water conservation and reuse worldwide and
the role of universities in promoting effective management strategies,
the perceptions of university students on water resources and reuse is a
critical piece of the public policy dialogue on this issue. University
students are an important section of the society because of their
ability to influence the nation's policies in the coming years,
both as policy-makers, and as consumers and producers of affiliated
goods and services.
METHODS
Students at the main campus of The Ohio State University were
surveyed for their perceptions on the water resources and wastewater
reuse through an online questionnaire.
Constitutive Definitions
Some of the terms, used throughout this literature, are defined the
following way:
Perception: Affect for or against a psychological object (Thurstone
1931).
Wastewater: Any water that has been reduced in quality to be below
acceptable minimum regional/national standards for potable use. It
comprises liquid waste discharged by domestic and commercial properties,
industry or agriculture, and can encompass a wide range of natural and
manmade contaminants at varying concentrations.
Wastewater reuse: Using wastewater from one application (primary
purpose) to another application (secondary purpose) (USEPA 1992). The
deliberate use of wastewater must be in compliance with the applicable
rules for the secondary purpose.
Contact: The act of physically touching an object--in this case,
reused wastewater.
Survey Methodology
After approval of the survey methodology and the questionnaire from
the Institutional Review Board, contact information for a random sample
of the students (18 years or older) was obtained from the
university's Office of Enrollment Services. Eight hundred and
nineteen (N=819) students participated in the web survey, conducted over
a period of two weeks (12-25 November 2009), through email. The survey
questionnaire was hosted on a third party website, which also provided
the raw data for analysis at the conclusion of the survey. Two reminders
were sent to the participants--after five and 11 days from the date of
the first email. The entire questionnaire is available in Vedachalam
(2011).
Questionnaire
Items on the questionnaire can be grouped into four sub-topics.
Water consumption and practices. Three factual lead-in questions
were asked at the beginning of the questionnaire. Two questions were on
water consumption in the U.S., and the third one was related to
wastewater generated on the campus. The factual questions were included
to test the participants' knowledge about water-related issues.
Listed below are the lead-in questions.
1. Globally, the average domestic water consumption in urban areas
per individual is 45 gallons per day. The same figure for an average
American is --times this value.
a. About the same b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5
2. In an average American home, where is the maximum amount of
water consumed?
a. Shower b. Toilet c. Faucet d. Washing Machine e. Leaks
3. The university's football stadium is an iconic structure on
the campus. Which of the following options most accurately describes
what happens to the wastewater that is generated in the stadium during a
season game?
a. The wastewater is treated within the stadium and drains into the
river that flows through the campus.
b. The wastewater is treated within the stadium and reused for
watering plants around the stadium.
c. No treatment is carried out within the stadium. The wastewater
drains into the river that flows through the campus.
d. No treatment is carried out within the stadium. The wastewater
is sent to the city's treatment plant These questions were followed
by several opinion-based questions on water quality and management.
Campus and general water quality. The respondents were asked to
rate the quality of drinking water provided in campus buildings and
off-campus facilities, based on their overall perceptions of taste,
appearance, and smell (on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1=poor
to 5=excellent). On the next item, the respondents were given a
hypothetical scenario of an outbreak of water-borne illness in the
region and were asked to indicate their level of disagreement or
agreement on a five-point Likert scale on two statements: 1) utility
companies will take extra steps to ensure high quality water in case of
such an event; and 2) the university will take extra steps to ensure
high quality water in case of such an event. The final question in this
section was on the issue of surface water quality. The respondents were
asked to select the primary source of river pollution in the U.S. from
five options: 1) storm sewer outflows, 2) industrial discharge, 3)
septic systems, 4) run-off from farmland, and 5) animal farms.
Wastewater reuse. The final section of the questionnaire was
focused on opinions regarding reuse of treated wastewater. In a series
of questions, participants were asked to indicate their level of
agreement or disagreement (on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1
=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree) on statements related to reuse
of wastewater, such as reusing treated wastewater: 1) is being
environmentally responsible, 2) reduces amount of pollutants discharged
to the environment, 3) will cause health concerns, 4) will bring
personal economic benefits, and 5) will bring economic benefits to the
participant's community. The participants' views on these
statements are expected to provide an indication of their overall view
on the general practice of wastewater reuse. The change from a
five-point scale to a seven-point scale was made for this section of the
questionnaire to align the results with other studies on wastewater
reuse that utilize a seven-point scale.
In addition, the participants were asked to indicate their level of
approval or disapproval (on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from
1=strongly disapprove to 7=strongly approve) if a program involving
reuse of treated wastewater were to be implemented in Ohio for each of
these activities: 1) industrial manufacturing, 2) firefighting, 3)
washing cars in a commercial facility, 4) watering golf courses, 5)
watering domestic lawns, 6) flushing toilets in the participants'
residence, 7) flushing toilets in public restrooms, 8) use in domestic
washing machines, 9) discharge into a river, and 10) growing food crops
in a farm. Participants' level of approval for these reuse
applications is expected to provide an indication of which applications,
in particular, are preferred by them.
Demography. Participants were asked to provide demographic data,
which included sex, age, academic level (undergraduate, graduate,
professional), academic program, and hometown. This information was
matched against the university registrar's office data to ascertain
if the sample was representative of the population under study.
Additional information on the respondents' housing status, amount
of the water bill paid monthly, involvement with environmental
organizations, and political affiliation was obtained to identify any
underlying trends in the responses.
Analysis
The raw data was stored as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and the
analysis was conducted on SPSS software. The statements on campus water
quality were analyzed using chi-squared ([chi square]) distribution
tests. Paired sample t-tests and boxplots were used to analyze the
results for the source of river pollution, and support for statements on
wastewater reuse and applications involving wastewater reuse.
Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of
items measuring support for wastewater reuse applications. Additionally,
factor analysis was performed to determine variations in the levels of
support for different wastewater reuse applications.
RESULTS
Response Rate
A total of 819 responses were obtained from the survey; 218 were
not considered for analysis due to lack of responses to a majority of
the opinion questions. The remaining 601 responses were analyzed for the
purpose of this study. Since the participants did not answer all the
questions, the number of respondents for each particular question is
indicated in parenthesis. The survey was emailed to a random list of
10,000 students; hence the overall response rate was approximately eight
percent (N=819). The response rate is lower than the response rates
achieved in other web-based surveys targeted at the student population,
which range from 12.4 percent (Yanling 2006) to 36 percent (Boulianne
and others 2010).
Demographic Breakdown
There were 258 male (43.07 percent) and 341 female (56.93 percent)
respondents (N=599). Female participation was considerably higher in the
survey than in the general student population (48.14 percent), which is
consistent with observations from previous studies involving student
surveys (Porter and Umbach 2006; Porter and Whitcomb 2005; Sax and
others 2003). The demographic distribution of the respondents and that
of the general population is shown in Table 1 and Fig.1. The survey
responses show an under-sampling of students in the 18-22 age group and
an over-sampling of students in all other age groups. Since most surveys
of college students are conducted at four-year campuses where the range
of student age is fairly narrow, the effect of age on survey responses
has not been studied well. However, a study on students enrolled in
community colleges in the Los Angeles Community College District,
California recorded a higher response rate among older students compared
to their younger peers (Sax and others 2008). The response rate of
students from the colleges of Engineering (17.8 percent); Food,
Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (8.4 percent); Mathematics and
Physical Sciences (6.0 percent); and Public Health (1.8 percent) was
significantly higher ([chi square] = 9.29, p < 0.05) than their
distribution in the university population (15.1 percent, 4.6 percent,
4.2 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively), indicating a possible
connection between interest in the survey topic and academic major.
The distribution of students according to academic status (N=595)
as undergraduate, graduate, and professional students shows that a
larger proportion of graduate students (34.62 percent) responded to the
survey as compared to their proportion in the general population (19.19
percent). This could be due to the fact that graduate students
understand the implications of research initiatives such as this, and
are more likely to participate in surveys than undergraduates. This
would also explain the undersampling of the 18-22 age group, in which
most of the undergraduate students are likely to fall. However, their
distribution as per their hometown (see Table 1) and academic major (see
Fig. 1) reflected the university-wide distribution.
Water Consumption and Practices
The questionnaire started with three questions concerning water
consumption and practices. Nearly one-third (32.83 percent) of the
respondents (N=600) gave the correct response that the average American
consumes three times the global urban average. A little more than 20
percent of the respondents felt that each of the choices b, d and e
represented the right answer to the question. Including the respondents
who said that Americans consume twice or four times the global urban
average (options b and d), three-fourths of the respondents gave an
answer that was broadly representative of the fact.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Nearly half (47.75 percent) of the respondents (N=599) thought that
showers consumed the maximum amount of indoor water, while only 24.21
percent gave the correct response as toilet. Though no wastewater is
treated on campus, 19.87 percent of the respondents (N=599) thought that
water treatment is carried out inside the stadium (options a and b). The
correct response (option d) was provided by 61.77 percent of the
respondents, while 18.36 percent of the respondents thought that
untreated water is being discharged into the river that flows through
campus..
Campus and General Water Quality
Based on overall perceptions of taste, appearance and smell, the
students were asked to rate the quality of drinking water provided in
off-campus buildings (residences and commercial establishments) by
utility companies and in on-campus buildings by the university. Fig. 2
shows that nearly half the respondents (N=589) rated the water quality
in on- and off-campus buildings as average. A [chi square] test revealed
significant difference between the distributions of the response to both
the statements (p < 0.001). More students rated the quality of water
in on-campus buildings as good or excellent (39.58 percent) as compared
to that in off-campus buildings (29.47 percent), even though the
university does not undertake any additional treatment of water before
supplying it through the university buildings.
Students were also asked to indicate their level of agreement or
disagreement (on a five-point Likert scale ranging from l=strongly
disagree to 5=strongly agree) on the willingness of utility companies
and the university to take extra steps to ensure high quality water in
case of a water-borne illness in the region. Fig. 3 shows that nearly
three-fourths (73.67 percent) of the respondents agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement about the university, while only 40.64 percent
did so regarding the utility companies. A [chi square] test revealed
significant difference between the distributions of the response to both
the statements (p < 0.001).
On the issue of pollution in U.S. rivers, the students were given
several sources of pollution and were asked to indicate their level of
agreement or disagreement (on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1
= strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) with the statement that a
particular activity was the primary cause of river pollution. Fig. 4
shows a boxplot of the student responses on the five options. The ends
of the whiskers extend to 1.5 times the height of the box, or if there
is no value in that range, to the minimum and maximum values. If the
data are distributed normally, approximately 95 percent or the data are
expected to lie between the whiskers.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Industrial discharge (mean = 5.90 and standard deviation = 1.12)
and fertilizer run-off from agricultural farms (mean = 5.77 and S.D. =
1.21) were considered to the primary cause of river pollution by the
respondents. A t-test revealed no significant difference between the two
options (p > 0.0125). Industrial animal farms (mean = 5.59 and S.D. =
1.31) were rated as the next most likely cause of river pollution. Of
the five likely sources listed, storm sewer overflows (mean = 5.26 and
S.D.= 1.29) and septic systems (mean = 5.02 and S.D.= 1.29) were
considered the least likely cause of the river pollution. A t-test
revealed significant difference between the two options (p < 0.0125).
Wastewater Reuse
The respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or
disagreement (on a seven-point Likert scale) with five statements about
wastewater reuse in general. Fig. 5 shows a boxplot of the student
responses on the five statements about wastewater reuse, some of which
were adapted from Dolnicar & Schafer (2009). Respondents strongly
agreed that reuse of wastewater is an environmentally responsible
activity (statement a; mean = 6.04 and S.D.= 1.02). There is also
agreement on the statements that reuse of wastewater reduces the amount
of pollutants discharged into the environment (statement b; mean = 5.09
and S.D. = 1.45), and that undertaking wastewater reuse will bring
economic benefits--both personal (statement d; mean = 4.81 and S.D. =
1.24) and for their community (statement e, mean = 5.11 and S.D.= 1.24).
The respondents were divided in their opinion about potential health
concerns arising from wastewater reuse (statement c; mean = 3.79 and
S.D. = 1.48).
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
The final opinion question on the questionnaire asked the students
to indicate their level of approval or disapproval (on a seven-point
Likert scale) for specific reuse applications, if a hypothetical program
involving reuse of treated wastewater were to be implemented in Ohio.
Some of these applications were adapted from Friedler and others (2006),
and Dolnicar & Schaer (2009). Florida already uses reclaimed water
for several activities listed on the questionnaire (Davis 2000).
Figure 6 shows a boxplot of the student support for ten
hypothetical wastewater reuse applications. Based on the mean scores,
flushing toilets in public restrooms (mean = 6.18 and S.D. = 1.09) and
firefighting (mean = 6.16 and S.D. = 1.13) received the strongest
support, followed by industrial manufacturing (mean = 5.95 and S.D. =
1.17), flushing toilets in residences (mean = 5.94 and S.D. = 1.27), and
watering golf courses (mean = 5.95 and S.D. = 1.38), further followed by
watering lawns (mean = 5.84 and S.D. = 1.35). Applications such as
discharge into the river (mean = 4.82 and S.D. = 1.64)-a current
practice-and usage in domestic washing machines (mean = 4.57 and S.D. =
1.75) received low level of support.
DISCUSSION
Only one-third of the respondents correctly indicated that the
amount of water consumed by an average American is three times the
global urban average. Knowledge of water consumed or wastewater
generated is generally not well-known among the public. In a study
conducted in Greece, Kantanoleon and others (2007) reported that only 22
percent of the respondents could reasonably estimate the amount of
wastewater generated per person in their household. Similarly, Robinson
and others (2005) reported that number to be only 20 percent in a study
conducted in southeastern U.S. Selection of showers as the most
water-consuming indoor activity by nearly 50 percent of the respondents
could be a reflection of the focus by several environmental
organizations on reducing the carbon and water footprint by reducing the
time spent in showers. According to the American Water Works
Association, toilets consume the maximum amount of indoor water in an
average home, representing one-fourth the total consumption. Washing
machines consume about one-fifth the total usage, followed by showers,
faucets, and leaks (USEPA 2008). A little more than three-fifths of the
respondents provided the correct response that the wastewater generated
within the university's stadium is sent to the city's
wastewater treatment plant. Although a small section of the respondents
are still unaware of the status of the wastewater, knowledge about this
issue is better than questions about general water quantity and
household consumption. q-he authors believe that this may be attributed
to an increased awareness of campus issues as compared to general water
issues.
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
Using forecasted precipitation and demand, the Natural Resources
Defense Council (Roy and others 2010) issued a county-by-county
projection for the year 2050 on various parameters, including one called
the Water Supply Sustainability Index. The index was derived under two
scenarios--one considering effects of climate change, and one without
any climate change impacts--and rated risk to the counties as extreme,
high, moderate or low. When climate change was not considered, only one
county in Ohio was rated at high risk--Franklin County, home to
Columbus, the largest city in the state, while more than a dozen
counties were rated at moderate risk. When the impact of climate change
based on available models was considered, Franklin County was rated at
extreme risk, while 14 counties, mostly around the three largest cities
in the state--Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati; and along the Ohio
River were rated at high risk. Although most of Ohio and the Midwestern
region were considered to be at moderate risk, some of the urban
counties may face water shortages, irrespective of the forecasted
impacts of climate change.
Rating the quality of water in both on- and off-campus building as
average either reflects the perceptive quality of drinking water or that
students have a higher expectation of water quality, and neither of the
waters meet that quality. It is also possible that the respondents did
not have a strong opinion and therefore, selected the middle option to
reflect their neutrality. When a hypothetical scenario of an outbreak of
water-borne illness was provided in the questionnaire, students placed a
higher level of trust on the university as compared to the local utility
companies to ensure supply of high quality water. Utility
companies' failure to maintain public trust (Kantanoleon and others
2007) has been compounded by incidents such as the Cryptosporidium
outbreak in 1993 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Mac Kenzie and others 1994).
Being a public educational institution, the university is likely to be
perceived as more trustworthy than local utility companies. In a study
on public trust in the siting of hazardous waste facilities in Arizona,
Ibitayo (2002) reported that a greater proportion of the public lacked
trust in the developer managing the hazardous waste facilities as
compared to the state agency. The accountability of a public institution
could be a reason for the higher level of trust placed on it by the
stakeholders.
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
Agricultural run-off and industrial discharge have been long known
to cause pollution in rivers (Logan 1993, Nedeau 2003, Singh and others
2005). However, strict monitoring by USEPA since the 1970s has reduced
pollution from point sources such as industrial discharges. Non-point
sources such as agriculture, animal farms, sewer overflows, and septic
systems are now considered major sources of pollution. Though industrial
animal farms have been in existence for over 60 years, their
contribution towards pollution in local watersheds has been highlighted
recently due to consolidation of farms (Marks 2001) and development of
newer techniques like the microbial source tracking using genetic
markers for various animals such as cattle (Call and Plescia 2008) and
pigs (Mieszkin and others 2009). In a study conducted to assess public
support for the wet weather improvement program in Hamilton County,
Ohio, the respondents were asked to indicate the most likely source of
pollution in the Ohio River (Vedachalam and others 2010). The
respondents rated industrial discharge as the most likely source (mean
score=5.7 on a Likert scale of 1 to 7), followed by storm sewer
overflows (mean=5.6) and industrial animal farms (mean=4.7). Septic
systems were not offered as an option to the respondents. Though the
responses provided by the students are in alignment with the views of
the general population, they are not indicative of the factors causing
pollution in water bodies.
When presented statements about wastewater reuse, the respondents
agreed with the benefits of wastewater reuse, although they were divided
in their opinion about potential health concerns arising from wastewater
reuse. Some of these statements were adapted from Dolnicar and Schafer
(2009), where the authors reported results as the number of respondents
who agreed with certain statements related to treated wastewater (the
authors used the term 'recycled water'). More than 85 percent
respondents agreed with statements a and b, while 60 percent of the
respondents agreed that consumption of treated wastewater could lead to
health concerns (statement c).
The approval scores for wastewater reuse applications match those
obtained by Friedler and others (2006) and Dolnicar and Schafer (2009).
In the original study, Friedler and others (2006) collected the opinion
of residents of Haifa, Israel on 22 applications, which were divided
into three categories based on the level of contact as low, medium, or
high. Similarly, the ten applications presented in this questionnaire
were categorized in the following way:
Low contact: industrial manufacturing, firefighting, washing cars
in a commercial facility, and flushing toilets in public restrooms.
Medium contact: watering golf courses, flushing toilets in own
residence, and watering personal lawns.
High contact: growing foods crops on a farm, discharge into a
river, and for use in domestic washing machines.
Friedler and others (2006) reported that reuse options such as
firefighting, public park irrigation, domestic toilet flushing, private
garden irrigation, and washing cars received high levels of support,
while high contact applications such as discharge into recreational
lakes and aquifer augmentation received low levels of support.
Similarly, Dolnicar and Schafer (2009) reported that toilet flushing,
watering gardens, firefighting, golf course irrigation and washing cars
received high levels of support, while applications such drinking and
cooking received low levels of support. Respondents' support for
the ten reuse options was recorded to ultimately determine their broader
perceptions towards the practice of wastewater reuse. This is determined
by measuring the Cronbach's alpha, which is a measure of internal
consistency of the responses. A high value of alpha (0.70 or higher) is
often used as evidence that the individual items (statements or
questions) on the questionnaire truly measure an underlying construct.
In the case of wastewater reuse applications, the Cronbach's alpha
for the ten applications was 0.839, suggesting that the items have
internal consistency. Tests conducted to verify if factor analysis is
appropriate for this data yielded favorable results. The
Kaiser-Myer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy yielded a score of
0.836, and the Bartlett's test of sphericity yielded significant
results (approx. [chi square] = 2740.22, p < 0.001). A KMO statistic
close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively
compact and therefore, factor analysis should yield distinct and
reliable factors. The Bartlett's test of sphericity tests the null
hypothesis that the original correlation matrix is an identity matrix.
Therefore, a significant result means that the original matrix is not an
identity matrix and that there are certain relationships between the
variables that can be studied further (Field 2005). Factor analysis
indicated the presence of two components, one containing all the high
contact applications and another containing all the medium- and
low-contact applications. This analysis shows that support for
wastewater reuse is dependent on the level of contact and confirms the
observation reported by Bruvold (1984), Jeffrey and Jefferson (2003) and
Friedler and others (2006) that support for wastewater reuse decreases
as the severity of contact increases.
Conclusions
The survey results indicate that most students lack information
about certain facts and practices regarding water usage or wastewater.
The students have limited knowledge on issues related to water
consumption and quality. The students have a perception that the
university provides a higher quality of drinking water compared to
utility companies, even though the university does not undertake any
additional treatment. The students displayed more trust in the
university over utility companies to provide high quality drinking water
in the hypothetical event of a water-borne illness outbreak. The
students incorrectly attributed the poor quality in rivers to discharge
from industrial establishments. The students are overwhelmingly
supportive of wastewater reuse efforts, but are somewhat concerned about
health safety, one of the common concerns expressed by consumers when a
reuse program is proposed (Friedler and others 2006; Hartley 2006).
Support for any wastewater reuse application is inversely related to the
level of contact with the reused water. Discharge of treated wastewater
into river, a currently EPA approved practice received low support,
indicating that some of the perceptions are not based on available
scientific information.
The survey showed strong support from students towards a water
management and wastewater reuse program, but also demonstrated a need to
educate them on issues related to water quality and quantity. Azapagic
and others (2005) reported a similar result where undergraduate
engineering students recognized the importance of sustainable
development, despite their low level of knowledge on that topic. Setting
up pilot projects is a recommended method to gain public acceptance of
wastewater reuse projects (Gibson and Apostolidis 2001). Given the
higher level of trust in the university, the wastewater reuse program
could be instituted on the university campus as part of an effort to
increase awareness about the issue and also serve as an educational
tool. The water supply projection for the year 2050 by Roy and others
(2010) shows urban areas at high to extreme risk. Water management and
wastewater reuse programs could be way to enhance water security in an
uncertain future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. Research and salary support was provided by the
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Council. Additional funding
for the study came from an Ohio Water Development Authority grant. Linda
Katunich at the Office of the University Registrar was very helpful in
providing student contact information for this study. Erik Nisbet, Tom
O'Hara and countless other colleagues reviewed the questionnaire
and provided critical comments. Statistical help was provided by
Fangfang Sun at the Statistical Consulting Service. Comments from
anonymous reviewers were helpful in improving the manuscript.
LITERATURE CITED
Al-A'ama MS, Nakhla G. 1995. Wastewater reuse in Jubail, Sandi
Arabia. Water Resources 29(6):1579-1584.
Angelakis AN, Koutsoyiannis D, Tchobanoglous G. 2005. Urban
wastewater and stormwater technologies in ancient Greece. Water Research
39(1):210-220.
Asano T, Levine AD. 1996. Wastewater reclamation, recycling and
reuse: Past, present and future. Water Science and Technology 33(10-11):
1-14.
Azapagic A, Perdan S, Shallcross, D. 2005. How much do engineering
students know about sustainable development ? The findings of an
international survey and possible implications for the engineering
curriculum. European Journal of Engineering Education 30(1): 1-19.
Bahri A, Brissaud F. 1996. Wastewater reuse in Tunisia: Assessing a
national policy. Water Science and Technology 33 (10-11):87-94.
Bitler M. 1990. University uses 'living filter' to treat
water. The Daily Collegian Online. Retrieved from:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1990/04/0404-
90tdc/04-04-90dnews-04.asp.
Bixio D, De heyder B, Cikurel H, Muston M, Miska V, Joksimovic D,
Schafer AI, Ravazzini A, Aharoni A, Savic, D, Thoeye C. 2005. Municipal
wastewater reclamation: where do we stand? An overview of treatment
technology and management practice. Water Supply 5(1):77-85.
Boulianne S, Klofstad CA, Basson D. 2010. Sponsor prominence and
responses pattern to an online survey. International Journal of Public
Opinion Research. 23(1):79-87
Bruvold WH. 1984. Obtaining public support for innovative reuse
projects. In Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium, Vol. 3.
Washington, D.C.: WateReuse Association. pp. 122-132.
Call DR, Pleseia P. 2008. Identifying sources of fecal pollution in
the Colville River using library-independent genetic markers. Northwest
Science 82 (2):120-127.
Campbell C, Ferland R, Harris L. 1998. The University of Florida
water reclamation facility--A model of multipurpose reuse. In
Proceedings of the American Water Works Association Annual Conference,
Dallas, Texas: AWWA.
Davis C. 2000. UF Professor: Drought highlights value of reused
water. University of Florida News. Retrieved from:
http://news.ufl.edu/2000/05/24/water/.
DeSena M. 1998. Public opposition sidelines indirect potable reuse
projects. Water Environment and Technology 11(5): 16-18.
Dolnicar S, Schafer AI. 2009. Desalinated versus recycled water:
Public perceptions and profiles of accepters. Journal of Environmental
Management 90:880-900.
Eden R. 1996. Wastewater reuse: limitations and possibilities.
Desalination 106:335-338.
Field AP. 2005. Discovering Statistics using SPSS. London, UK: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Friedler E, Lahav O, Jizhaki H, Lahav T. 2006. Study of urban
population attitudes towards various wastewater reuse options: Israel as
a case study. Journal of Environment Management 81:360-370.
Gibson H, Apostolidis N. 2001. Demonstration, the solution to
successful community acceptance of water recycling. Water Science and
Technology 43(10):259-266.
Hartley TW. 2006. Public perception and participation in water
reuse. Desalination 187(1-3):115-126.
Hartling EC. 2001. Laymanization-an engineer's guide to public
relations. Water Environment and Technology 13(4):45-48.
Hermanowicz SW. 2008. Sustainability in water resources management:
Changes in meaning and perception. Sustainability Science 3 (2):
181-188.
Ibitayo OO. 2002. Public-private partnerships in the siting of
hazardous waste facilities: The importance of trust. Waste Management
and Research 20:212-222.
Jeffrey P, Jefferson B. 2003. Public receptivity regarding in-house
water recycling: Results from a UK survey. Water Science and
Technology-Water Supply 3(3):109-116.
Jeffrey P, Temple C. 1999. Sustainable water management: Some
technological and social dimensions of water recycling. Sustainable
Development International 1:63-66.
Kantanoleon N, Zampetakis L, Manios T. 2007. Public perspective
towards wastewater reuse in a medium size, seaside, Mediterranean city:
A pilot survey. Resources Conservation and Recycling 50(3):282-292.
Lau S, Ekern PC, Loh P, Young RHF, Dugan GL. 1972. Water recycling
of sewage effluent by irrigation: A field study on Oahu. Honolulu,
Hawaii: University of Hawaii.
Lipchin CD, Antonius R, Kishmawi R, Afanah A, Orthofer R, Trottier
J. 2004. Public perceptions and attitudes towards the declining water
level of the Dead Sea Basin: A multi-cultural analysis. Paper presented
at the Palestinian and Israeli Environmental Narratives, Toronto,
Canada.
Logan TJ. 1993. Agricultural best management practices for water
pollution control: current issues. Water Quality and Environment.
46(1-4): 223-231.
Mac Kenzie WR, Hoxie NJ, Proctor ME, Gradus MS, Blair KA, Peterson
DE, Kazmierczak JJ, Addiss DG, Fox KR, Rose JB, Davis JP. 1994. A
massive outbreak in Milwaukee of Cryptosporidium infection transmitted
through the public water supply. The New England Journal of Medicine
331(3):161-167.
Marks R. 2001. Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and
Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health. New York: Natural
Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network.
Mieszkin S, Furet JP, Corthier G, Gourmelon M. 2009. M. Estimation
of pig fecal contamination in a river catchment by real-time PCR using
two pig-specific Bacteroidales 16S rRNA genetic markers. Applied
Environmental Microbiology 75(10):3045-3054.
Nedeau EJ, Merritt RW and Kaufman MG. 2003. The effect of an
industrial effluent on an urban benthic community: water quality vs.
habitat quality. Environmental Pollution 123 (1): 1-13.
Porter SR, Umbach P. 2006. Student survey response rates across
institutions: Why do they vary? Research in Higher Education
47(2):229-247.
Porter SR, Whitcomb ME. 2005. Non-response in student surveys: The
role of demographics, engagement and personality. Research in Higher
Education 46(2):127-152.
Robinson KG, Robinson CH, Hawkins SA. 2005. Assessment of public
perception regarding wastewater reuse. Water Science and Technology:
Water Supply. 5(1):59-65.
Roy SB, Chen L, Girvetz E, Maurer EP, Mills WB, Grieb TM. 2010.
Evaluating Sustainability of Projected Water Demands under Future
Climate Change Scenarios. New York: Natural Resources Defense Council.
Sax LJ, Gilmartin SK, Bryant AN. 2003. Assessing response rates and
non-response bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education
44(4):409-432.
Sax LJ, Gilmartin SK, Lee JJ, Hagedorn LS. 2008. Using web surveys
to reach community college students: An analysis of response rates and
response bias. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 32(9)
:712-729.
Staff Reporter. 2004. Wastewater recycling in Loyola College. The
Hindu. Retrieved from:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2004/11/25/stories/2004112512700300.htm. Issue
date: November 25.
Sia Su GL, Cervantes J. 2008. Public perception of local
communities towards the sustainable management of Laguna Lake,
Philippines. American Journal of Environmental Sciences 4(6):615-619.
Singh KP, Malik A and Sinha S. 2005. Water quality assessment and
apportionment of pollution sources of Gomti river (India) using
multivariate statistical techniques--a case study. Analytica Chimica
Acta 538(1-2):355-374.
Thurstone L. 1931. Measurement of social attitudes. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology 26:249-269.
Uhl C, Anderson A. 2001. Green destiny: Universities leading the
way to a sustainable future. Bioscience 51 (1):36-42.
United Nations. 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment
and Development: Our Common Future. Retrieved from:
http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm.
University of Florida. 2010. Water reclamation facility. University
of Florida Website. Retrieved from: http://www.ufwrf.com/. Accessed:
March 24.
University of North Carolina. 2009. Reclaimed water system goes
into operation. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and
Orange Water and Sewer Authority joint news release.
USAID. 2006. Wastewater reuse in Jordan: A USAID Initiative.
Washington, D.C.: United States Agency for International Development.
USEPA. 1992. Guidelines for Wastewater Reuse (Manual--US
EPA/625/R-92/004). Cincinnati, Ohio: United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
USEPA. 2008. Indoor Water Use in the United States (EPA
832-F-06-004). Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
Vedachalam S. 2011. Attitudinal, Economic and Technological
Approaches to Wasterwater Management in Rural Ohio (Doctoral
Dissertation). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Document No.
osu1306819286.
Vedachalam S, Hnytka M, Sohngen BL, Hitzhusen FJ. 2010. Non-market
valuation of water quality along the Ohio River. In Proceedings of the
Cities of the Future/Urban River Restoration Conference. Boston, MA:
Water Environment Federation. pp.946-967.
Wegner-Gwidt J. 1991. Winning support for reclamation projects
through proactive communication programs. Water Science and Technology
24(9):313-322.
Yang H, Abbaspour KC. 2007. Analysis of wastewater reuse potential
in Beijing. Desalination 212(1-3) :238-250.
Yanling S. 2006. Effects of Web Page Design and Reward Method on
College Students Participation in Web-based Surveys. (Doctoral
Dissertation). Athens, OH: Ohio University. Document No. ohiou
1150392670.
SRIDHAR VEDACHALAM (1) and KAREN M. MANCL, Environmental Science
graduate program and Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological
Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
(1) Address correspondence to Sridhar Vedachalam, 1103 Bradfield
Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. E-mail: sv333@cornell.cdu
TABLE I
Demographic distribution of the sample
and the population
Characteristic Sample Population
(%) (%) *
Sex
Male 43.07 51.86
Female 56.93 48.14
Age (years)
18-22 50.58 60.8
23-27 30.55 23.32
28-32 9.52 8.33
33 and above 9.35 7.55
Academic Status
Freshman 12.44 13.76
Sophomore 12.10 16.53
Junior 12.27 17.01
Senior 21.85 27.45
Graduate 34.62 19.19
Professional 6.72 6.06
Hometown
Ohio 79.13 78.77
Other US. states 15.53 13.53
International 5.34 7.70
Size (n) 601 55,014
* Enrollment data from Fall Quarter 2009 used to
determine population demographics.
