BOOK
Public perception of drinking water source protection
Blair E. Nancarrow | Geoffrey J. Syme
(2014)
Additional Information
Book Details
Abstract
Climate change is reducing water resources in many parts of Australia. Increasingly, higher risk sources are either being developed or being considered for development as public drinking water sources. There is a rising demand from the community for additional recreation facilities and subsequent access to drinking water catchments, as they are predominantly close to urban areas. These competing factors place substantial pressure on public water utilities to ensure the provision of safe drinking water. As the health risk profile increases, there is a need for additional barriers which may include new or upgraded water treatment facilities.
This report covers the methodological development in the WaterRA project Public Perception of Source Protection and Its Relationship to Recreation and Water Treatment. It aims to develop a nationally applicable methodology to assist in the formulation of defensible policy which provides for drinking water source protection while accounting for recreational needs in surface water catchments in Australia.
This book is co-published with Water Research Australia.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cover\r | Cover | ||
| CONTENTS | vi | ||
| FIGURES | vii | ||
| TABLES | viii | ||
| 1. INTRODUCTION | 1 | ||
| 2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH FRAMEWORK | 3 | ||
| 2.1 The Social Context of Drinking Water Catchment Protection\r | 3 | ||
| 2.1.1 Background\r | 3 | ||
| 2.1.2 The WA Environmental Context | 4 | ||
| 2.1.3 Measuring and Understanding Attitudes towards Risk and Environmental Protection | 5 | ||
| 2.1.3.1 Accounting for Attitude Strength and Polarisation | 5 | ||
| 2.1.3.2 Thresholds | 7 | ||
| 2.1.4 Possible Determinants of Catchment Protection and Related Values, Attitudes and Preferences | 7 | ||
| 2.1.4.1 Values and Ethics | 7 | ||
| 2.1.4.2 Trust in Government and Scientists | 7 | ||
| 2.1.4.3 Risk Perception | 8 | ||
| 2.1.4.4 Knowledge | 9 | ||
| 2.1.4.5 Substitutability, Site Attachment and Specialisation | 9 | ||
| Site Attachment | 10 | ||
| Recreational Specialisation | 10 | ||
| 2.1.4.6 Equity Issues | 10 | ||
| 2.1.5 Policy Evaluation: Assessing Benefits and Costs and Preferences | 11 | ||
| 2.1.5.1 Subjective Measures of Dollar Values of Non-market Goods | 11 | ||
| 2.1.5.2 Non Dollar Based Assessment Tools | 12 | ||
| The Benefits Approach | 12 | ||
| Multi-criteria Analysis, Multi-Attribute Utility Theory and Analytical Hierarchy Processes | 13 | ||
| 2.1.6 Relating Policy Assessment to Ecosystem Services. | 13 | ||
| 2.2 Conclusions | 15 | ||
| 3. SCOPING PHASE | 16 | ||
| 3.1 Interviews with Professionals | 16 | ||
| 3.1.1 Overview of Professionals’ Interviews in the WA Case Study | 17 | ||
| 3.2 Stakeholder Focus groups\r | 18 | ||
| 3.2.1 General Community Discussions | 18 | ||
| 3.2.1.1 Major Points from the WA Case study | 20 | ||
| 3.2.2 Recreation Group Discussion | 20 | ||
| 3.2.2.1 Major Points from the WA Case study | 21 | ||
| 3.3 The Relationship between Sport and Recreation Policies and Drinking Water Source Protection | 22 | ||
| 3.4 Cost Implications for Additional Treatment Associated with Recreation in Drinking Water Catchments | 23 | ||
| 3.4.1 The WA Case Study | 23 | ||
| 3.4.1.1 Issues | 24 | ||
| 3.4.1.2 Metropolitan Example – Multiple Sources | 24 | ||
| 3.4.1.3 Regional Example: Single Source with no Environmental Storage Barrier | 24 | ||
| 4 SURVEY PHASE | 26 | ||
| 4.1 The Three Samples\r | 26 | ||
| 4.1.1 Community Sample | 26 | ||
| 4.1.2 Recreator Sample | 26 | ||
| 4.2.3 Professional Sample | 27 | ||
| 4.2 The Questionnaire | 27 | ||
| 4.2.1 Overview of the Questionnaire | 27 | ||
| 4.2.2 The Questionnaire | 29 | ||
| 4.2.3 Data Analysis | 37 | ||
| 5. RISK-BENEFIT ASSESSMENT PHASE | 42 | ||
| 5.1 Risk-Benefit Assessment Method | 43 | ||
| 5.1.1 Invitation of Participants | 44 | ||
| 5.1.2 Developing the Hierarchical Framework | 44 | ||
| 5.1.2.1 Workshop 1 Identification of the Risks and Benefits | 44 | ||
| Background briefing | 44 | ||
| Agreement with the Assessment Objective, Guiding Principles and Future Scenario (1 hour)\r | 44 | ||
| Presentation of Policies for Assessment (15 minutes)\r | 46 | ||
| Individual Work (30 minutes)\r | 46 | ||
| Group Work (2 hours)\r | 47 | ||
| Final Plenary Session (45 minutes)\r | 47 | ||
| 5.1.2.2 Individual MAU Rating of the Risks and Benefits | 47 | ||
| 5.1.2.3 Analysing the MAU ratings | 50 | ||
| 5.1.3 Cross Impact Assessment | 52 | ||
| 5.1.3.1 Development of the Cross Impact Matrices | 52 | ||
| 5.1.3.2 Workshop 2 Completing the Cross Impact Assessment | 53 | ||
| Plenary Session | 53 | ||
| Group Assessment of Policy Option 1 (1 hour 30 minutes)\r | 55 | ||
| Group Assessment of Policy Options 2 and 3 (1 hour 30 minutes)\r | 55 | ||
| Plenary discussion of Assessments (1 hour 30 minutes)\r | 55 | ||
| 5.1.4 Interpreting the Cross Impact Matrices | 56 | ||
| 5.1.5 Cross Impact Analysis of the Policies in the WA Case Study | 60 | ||
| 5.1.5.1 Current Policy | 60 | ||
| 5.1.5.2 Policy that allows Passive recreation in the 2km RPZ | 61 | ||
| 5.1.5.3 Policy that allows Off-Road Access in the Outer Catchment | 62 | ||
| 6. REFERENCES | 63 | ||
| APPENDIX 1:\rNOTES OF SCOPING INTERVIEWS WITH PROFESSIONALS IN WA | 68 | ||
| APPENDIX 2:\rOUTCOMES OF SCOPING FOCUS GROUP WITH GENERAL COMMUNITY IN WA | 75 | ||
| APPENDIX 3:\rOUTCOMES OF SCOPING FOCUS GROUP WITH RECREATORS FROM FORMAL GROUPS IN WA | 79 | ||
| APPENDIX 4:\rREPORT OF THE SURVEY PHASE OF THE WA CASE STUDY | 83 | ||
| Results | 87 | ||
| Summary and Conclusions | 116 | ||
| APPENDIX 5:\rTHE HIERARCHICAL FRAMEWORK DEVELOPED FOR THE RISKBENEFIT ASSESSMENT IN THE WA CASE STUDY | 125 |