Paper Review 3

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usnr20

Society and Natural Resources

ISSN: 0894-1920 (Print) 1521-0723 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20

Managing Sustainable Urban Water Reuse: Structural Context and Cultures of Trust

June S. Marks & Maria Zadoroznyj

To cite this article: June S. Marks & Maria Zadoroznyj (2005) Managing Sustainable Urban Water Reuse: Structural Context and Cultures of Trust, Society and Natural Resources, 18:6, 557-572, DOI: 10.1080/08941920590947995

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590947995

Published online: 24 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 643

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Managing Sustainable Urban Water Reuse: Structural Context and Cultures of Trust

JUNE S. MARKS AND MARIA ZADOROZNYJ

Department of Sociology, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Water scarcity in urban environments is an issue of increasing concern in Australia and many other parts of the world. Technological solutions include recycling munici- pal effluent, which can be treated to a standard suitable for nonpotable uses such as garden watering and toilet flushing. Successful operation of such solutions requires institutional arrangements for long-term management, as well as public awareness and cooperation to establish safe practices. This article reports on research under- taken at four case study sites in Australia and the United States and identifies the social and management issues important to the success of water reuse projects. The cross-national findings demonstrate that best practice in residential water reuse technology should be coupled with institutional and structural arrangements that inform and involve the public and provide transparent governance. It is suggested that this combination of technical and social structural elements will facilitate a sustained trust in, and acceptance of, water reuse.

Keywords community, public acceptance, recycled water, risk, trust, water reuse

It is now widely accepted that the use of reclaimed water, termed water reuse, can assist in achieving sustainable urban development (e.g., Anderson 1996). Accord- ingly, in Australia, various state governments have now set targets for cities to recycle at least a fifth of their total sewage effluent. Reclaimed water is derived from sewerage systems and treated to a standard that is satisfactory for its intended use. As other ‘‘natural resources’’ and ecological research suggests (Lawrence, Higins, and Lockie 2001; Nyhus et al. 2002), the findings in this article relating to water reuse demonstrate that successful, sustainable management requires an interdisci- plinary approach with input from social scientists that can address the nontechnical, human aspects of resource management. It has also been demonstrated that the character of social structures, social and legal institutions (Klug 2002), and social relations of power (Gupte 2003; Sneddon et al. 2002) has a significant impact on the sustainability of outcomes. History shows that technology can cause new pro- blems while solving others (Arcury & Christianson 1990, 389–390; Beck 1992). The research reported in this article uses cross-national comparative case studies at four urban water reuse sites and examines their differing social and institutional structures in relation to residents’ levels of understanding and trust in water reuse.

Received 4 April 2004; accepted to November 2004. Address correspondence to June S. Marks, Department of Sociology, Flinders University

of South Australia, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide SA 5001, Australia. E-mail: june.marks@flinders. edu.au

Society and Natural Resources, 18:557–572 Copyright # 2005 Taylor & Francis Inc. ISSN: 0894-1920 print/1521-0723 online DOI: 10.1080/08941920590947995

557

Contemporary Social Organization and the Significance of Trust

Modern urbanized societies are characterized by ‘‘abstract systems’’ such as water and electricity that are little understood by consumers and over which individuals have limited control (Giddens 1990, 90). Consumer expectations about their pro- vision have become routinised based on the largely well-established, unproblematic delivery of the service. For the theorist Giddens:

In conditions of modernity, attitudes of trust towards abstract systems are usually routinely incorporated into the continuity of day-to-day activities . . . trust is much less of a ‘‘leap of commitment’’ than a tacit acceptance of circumstances in which other alternatives are largely foreclosed. (1990, 90)

With the depletion of water resources through overdrawing of rivers and under- ground sources, this routine service is being reviewed as part of the drive for sustain- able urban development. Used water, previously wasted through disposal to oceans and rivers, is being treated to a higher standard and delivered to households for nonpotable—not for drinking—uses, known as ‘‘residential reuse.’’ Nonpotable uses include garden watering, toilet flushing, car washing, and other incidental uses such as ornamental features. This helps to conserve water resources, but it also raises the possibility of public health risk if the water is inadequately treated or inappropriately used. As such, ‘‘basic trust’’ in household water supply is necessarily challenged. Under these circumstances, trust has to be actively produced (Giddens 1994, 93), but what are the social and structural conditions important to the development of ‘‘active trust’’?

Sztompka (1999) provides a model that takes as its focus the process of trust for- mation, or what he calls the ‘‘social becoming of trust.’’ Like Giddens (1993), Sztompka argues that a complex interplay of historical antecedents, political, social, and cultural conditions, and individual characteristics all contribute to the level and character of trust. For Sztompka, trust is a necessary prerequisite for political order—without it, social systems are precarious at best (1999, 139). The institutions of a democratic state are predicated on the trust-building process, an important dimension of ‘‘civic culture’’ that includes civil society, cultural capital, and social capital (Sztompka 1999, 15; Misztal 2001, 381). For both Giddens (1990; 1991; 1994) and Sztompka (1999, 21), trusting becomes the crucial strategy for dealing with an uncertain and uncontrollable future in situations of risk.

How, then, is trust built in the case of water recycling with its associated increased health risk and uncertainty? We can deduce that because trust is an ongoing dynamic, it flows from historical conditions and is further shaped by current social influences, as shown in Figure 1. Of particular relevance to water reuse, are the constraining and enabling conditions of the natural environment (Sztompka 1990, 252–253), such as water scarcity or pollution of water resources.

In the case of residential reuse, changes in the way of thinking about, or using, water sourced from sewage effluent are experienced within a particular structural context that interacts with the characteristics of a given community. The resulting experiences influence higher or lower levels of trust in the new technology and those that are advocating its use. This revised culture of trust then becomes the new con- text that shapes future considerations and action.

558 J. S. Marks and M. Zadoroznyj

In essence, existing social theory suggests that two kinds of components are important to the building of trust (Giddens 1990; Sztompka 1996; 1999; Misztal 1996; 2001). The first of these relates to structural conditions. For example, Sztompka (1999) identifies five structural factors that provide opportunities to build trust:

1. Normative coherence—a general awareness that is developed through a coherent, noncontradictory system of law that exerts influence on other extralegal forms of regulation.

2. Stability of social order—the extent to which the institutions or processes have provided firm reference points through enforcement of regulations.

3. Transparency—of the principles and processes of the social organization. 4. Familiarity—to facilitate knowledge of and confidence in the changed

environment. 5. Accountability— promoted though properly functioning institutions that

provide checks and balances, a form of insurance that is essential to the development of trust.

The second component comprises the personal and collective characteristics of social actors important in shaping the ‘‘prevailing cultural climate of trust’’ (Sztompka 1999, 120). The personal and collective characteristics of a community influence its ‘‘social mood,’’ derived from its social networks and ‘‘collective capital’’ in terms of quality-of-life values and awareness of and willingness to take up existing structural opportunities (1999, 125–132).

Research Design and Methodology

Until recently there has been little research or published literature on the social aspects of water reuse. For these reasons a case-study approach was taken to explore the community experience of recycling water and to analyse how trust is built through the experience. Four residential reuse sites were selected to investigate the experience of those who have chosen to live in these developments. Residential reuse sites involve a community-scale practice of recycling water. These purpose-built housing developments incorporate dual pipes, one reticulating potable (drinking) water and the other, a purple pipe, distributing nonpotable reclaimed water for open-space irrigation and for household use.

Figure 1. The ‘‘social becoming of trust model.’’ Adapted from Sztompka (1990, 1999).

Sustainable Water Reuse: Structure Trust 559

Replication logic was used for selection of multiple-case studies to strengthen the analytic generalizations to the theory (Yin 1989, 44; Glaser and Strauss 1967, 49). New Haven Village was chosen as the first site because, at the commencement of the research in 2000, this eco village north east of Adelaide was the only site in Australia where residents were using reclaimed water for toilet flushing and outdoor uses in a purposefully built development. Following data collection and analysis for the New Haven study, subsequent cases were selected in 2001 on the basis of theor- etical replication, whereby different results were expected for predictable reasons (Yin 1989, 53).

Mawson Lakes, north of Adelaide, was selected as the second site. This was the only other purposefully designed development in Adelaide and, because the reclaimed water was not yet on line, the expectations rather than experience of nonpotable reuse comprised the main variation between the two case studies. A cross-national comparator was required to include sites where residential reuse was well established. Therefore, the third case selected was the city of Altamonte Springs in Florida (USA), where an established municipal system has recycled water for residential use for around 12 years. The fourth study was located in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida, where a centrally managed system similar to Altamonte Springs has been on line for approximately the same period of time as New Haven. Both Florida sites provide reclaimed water for outdoor uses only (garden irrigation, car washing, hosing down), while the Australian sites extend the purple pipes into the houses to enable the water to be used for toilet flushing. Table 1 summarizes the background context to the sites.

Multiple sources of data were collected for each embedded case study to enhance construct validity (Yin 1989, 41). As summarized in Table 2, data were collected for each unit of analysis relating to the study community as a whole through to the experience of individual residents. The type of project and intermediate-level data varied according to availability and application to each case study. Additionally, at New Haven, interviews were also conducted with the engineering contractor responsible for maintaining the reclaimed water treatment plant, the accountant for the local council, a nongovernment welfare housing manager, one of the original project developers, and an engineer for the recycled water permitting authority. Twenty householders were recruited through random selection from the residential customer databases for each of the four sites. High response rates resulted, with 67% at Altamonte Springs, 80% at Brevard County, 85% for New Haven, and 87% at Mawson Lakes. Semistructured, face-to-face interviews were audiotaped at each of the Adelaide sites and, due to time and budget constraints for the United States field trip, Florida residents were interviewed on site by telephone with ver- batim notes taken in shorthand.

The comparative case-study method provided the opportunity to identify similari- ties and differences between the sites. Although residents at Mawson Lakes had not yet gained delivery of reclaimed water, the data complemented and strengthened findings for the other case studies and underlined the significance of this early stage of preen- gagement. The qualitative data could not be generalised to the respective populations; however, worthwhile comparisons could be made between the data sets, backed by field observations and other data, as listed in Table 2. Face-to-face interviews with the Florida respondents would have provided a more accurate comparator, yet this was no barrier for these experienced end users in terms of understanding the interview questions, and roughly half provided additional explanations and comments.

560 J. S. Marks and M. Zadoroznyj

T a b le

1 . C h a ra ct er is ti cs

o f th e fo u r st u d y si te s

N ew

H a v en , A u st ra li a

M a w so n L a k es , A u st ra li a

A lt a m o n te

S p ri n g s, F L

B re v a rd

C o u n ty , F L

O n li n e si n ce :

1 9 9 5

N o t y et

o n li n e

L a te

1 9 8 0 s

1 9 9 4 – 1 9 9 5

H o u se h o ld s co n n ec te d

6 2 (c o m p le te d )

a p p ro x . 2 0 0 in

Ja n u a ry

2 0 0 1 , ex p a n d in g to

3 5 0 0

5 4 7 7

2 7 0 0 a n d ex p a n d in g

O rg a n iz a ti o n

D ec en tr a li ze d , lo ca ll y

m a n a g ed

O ri g in a l P la n fo r

d ec en tr a li ze d sy st em

u n d er

re v ie w

(2 0 0 3 )

C en tr a li ze d sy st em

a n d m a n a g in g a u th o ri ty

S ca le

N ei g h b o rh o o d

W h o le

su b u rb

M et ro p o li ta n

E q u ip m en t co st s in

ad d it io n to

ir ri ga ti o n

B a th ro o m

co n n ec ti o n ,

g a rd en

ta p

B a th ro o m

co n n ec ti o n ,

g a rd en

ta p a

S p ec ia l su b su rf a ce

h o se

co n n ec ti o n if re q u ir ed .

C o n n ec ti o n co st s

N il

N o t y et

o n li n e

$ 6 b = m o n th

$ 2 4 0

C h a rg es

$ 2 6 4 p a ($ 1 3 = m ),

eq u a l to

w a iv ed

se w er a g e ra te s

N o t co n fi rm

ed ,

b u t w il l b e m et er ed

$ 1 4 p er

m o n th

þ se w a g e

ra te s

$ 9 .6 2 p er

m o n th

þ se w a g e ra te s

a T h is co st

ra n g es

fr o m

a p p ro x . $ 7 0 0 to

$ 1 2 0 0 a t M a w so n L a k es , d ep en d in g o n th e n u m b er

o f to il et s fe a tu re d in

th e h o u se

d es ig n .

b A u st ra li a n d o ll a rs , A u g u st

2 0 0 1 (A

U $ 1 ¼

U S $ 0 .5 2 ).

561

T a b le

2 . E m b ed d ed

ca se -s tu d y d es ig n

U n it o f a n a ly si s

D a ta

so u rc es

P ro je ct

le v el

d a ta

E n d -u se rs

M a in

u n it

P ro je ct

P o li cy

a n d in fo rm

a ti o n

d o cu m en ts , p ro v id er

w eb

si te , o b se rv a ti o n s

H is to ri ca l co n te x t a n d in d ic a ti o n s

o f st ru ct u ra l su p p o rt s

B a ck g ro u n d , fa m il ia ri ty ,

co m p li a n ce

w it h p o li ci es

S u b u n it s

In te rm

ed ia te

A rc h iv a l d a ta : m ed ia

re p o rt s, in vo

ic es , p re vi o u s

su rv ey s, in d u st ry

li te ra tu re

A sp ec ts

o f p ro je ct

su ch

a s

ch a rg es , n o ti ce s,

re se a rc h fi n d in g s

A w a re n es s o f b il li n g , n o ti ce s,

ev en t co p in g p ro ce d u re s

In d iv id u a l

m a n a g er s

In te rv ie w s w it h m a n a g er s

A tt it u d e to w ar d p o li cy , ec o n o m ic ,

te ch n ic al

is su es , co m m u n ic at io n

Q u a li ty

o f co m m u n ic a ti o n s,

se rv ic e

H o u se h o ld er s

In te rv ie w s w it h re si d en ts ,

fi el d o b se rv a ti o n s

E x p er ie n ce

o f n o n p o ta b le

re u se

K n o w le d g e,

b el ie fs , a tt it u d es ,

b eh a v io r

562

Results

The findings for each of the four residential reuse developments relating to the struc- tural context are drawn from all information sources. These are presented under the five conditions theorised as trust-building factors (Sztompka 1999). This is followed by an exploration of the characteristics of the social actors that shape the pre- vailing culture of trust, mainly based on interviews with residents at each of the four locations.

The Structural Context of Residential Reuse—Comparisons Across the Sites

The comparisons between the four study sites with respect to institutionalised structural arrangements are summarized in Table 3.

Awareness of Regulations and Rules The regulations governing New Haven and Mawson Lakes are derived from the national guidelines for water reuse. Although the State Health Department is responsible for issuing (South Australian Department of Human Services, Adelaide) permits to operate sewage treatment plants, it has few resources available for follo- wing up compliance with the criteria set for each individual permit (M. Kayaalp personal communication 2002). Therefore, there has been little attention given to operations and management of the decentralized recycled water system at New Haven. In turn, the local council that inherited the responsibility for this demon- stration site claims that it, too, is constrained by a lack of additional resources to accommodate anything more than the outsourcing of plant operations and main- tenance. Information at New Haven and Mawson Lakes consists of marketing brochures, building encumbrance documents, and a model of the development. No specific advice is directed to residents outlining the rules for using the recycled water.

Few research participants at New Haven were aware of the original permitting rules that stipulate subsurface, drip irrigation and prohibition of recycled water

Table 3. Structural variations of the four case studies

New Haven

Mawson Lakes

Altamonte Springs

Brevard County

Awareness of regulations and rules

Weak Weak Strong Strong

Stability through enforcement of rules

Not enforced

Ad hoc Rigorous Rigorous

Transparency of governance

Low Low High High

Familiarity with the changed environment through formal communications

Informal Informal, developing

Formal, established

Formal, established

Accountability of persons and institutions

Unclear Unclear Clear Clear

Sustainable Water Reuse: Structure Trust 563

garden taps. The only tenant among the 20 residents interviewed was unaware that recycled water was connected. Enquiries with her landlord, a manager of five welfare houses in the development, confirmed that tenants were not informed nor given access to the water for garden irrigation because it was considered they would not be able to understand the technology. At Mawson Lakes, 12 respondents were not aware that the reclaimed water would be sourced from sewage effluent, and one-fifth believed that the reclaimed water was already on line. Around one-third were considering whether to use the water to fill swimming pools, a use clearly outside appropriate guidelines.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2003) is a strong and vocal regulatory institution for the promotion and monitoring of recycled water developments in Florida. Rules are reflected in city ordinances and county codes, as confirmed in the information provided by Brevard County to recycled water users, as follows:

The use of reclaimed water is regulated through Chapter 62–610 of the Florida Administrative Code and Chapter 23 of the Brevard County code. The following rules were derived from those regulations. (Brevard County 2001)

Residents at Altamonte Springs and Brevard County are required to read through a package of information provided before signing a connection form that acknowledges their obligations as well as the responsibilities of the provider. From the descriptions given by respondents for the ways they use recycled water, it was confirmed that residents are aware of the rules governing safe use.

Stability Through Enforcement of Rules Some of the original settlers at New Haven reported that the developers used above- ground spray irrigation as well as subsurface, drip irrigation in display home land- scaping. Since then, in the absence of regulatory follow-up, the council has adopted a laissez-faire stance and also uses spray irrigation for common areas within the development. Longer term residents are aware of the original stipulations but have adapted the irrigation system to overcome clogging of drippers. Three-quarters of the respondents use sprayers, sometimes in conjunction with drippers. Additionally, several have installed taps that are not identifiable as standard issue recycled water taps (purple with removable handle). A similar pattern characterizes the experience at Mawson Lakes. Although building encumbrances specify requirements to the con- trary, some builders have installed ordinary taps rather than purple recycled water taps and half the households interviewed had no outdoor drinking-water taps.

Relative stability and consistency of policies are evident at Altamonte Springs and Brevard. For example, permission must be obtained to use garden hoses, and only a special hose connection is allowed, which is housed in a below-ground service box. Site inspections are made by the local water department to oversee this practice, and noncompliance can result in disconnection from the reclaimed water service. Florida respondents referred to these arrangements that govern hand watering or car washing, and site observations verified the installation and use of the specified hose connection. Altamonte Springs respondents confirmed that a water restriction policy, which affects reclaimed water, is being enforced through a system of monitoring, warnings, and fines.

564 J. S. Marks and M. Zadoroznyj

Transparency of Governance Of the four sites, the exemplar with regard to organizational transparency is Brevard County. Government board meetings are advertised well ahead, inviting public attendance. The proceedings are televised locally and throughout the government offices to facilitate input from managers if and when required. There is no parallel to this in Altamonte Springs; however, both Florida sites use their web sites and newsletters to disseminate reclaimed water policies. Such transparency of governance is not evident in the Adelaide sites. At New Haven, no mention is made of meetings, nor of the recycling system itself, on the local council web site. Residents do not receive prior warning of interruption to the service due to periodic system mainte- nance. Mawson Lakes residents were not being kept informed of progress toward the final design, commissioning, and which authority will be responsible for the ongoing management of their recycled water system.

The lack of transparency at both Adelaide sites in relation to managing safe uses of the water was further exemplified in the reclaimed water rates. Citing the benefits of reclaimed water, Mawson Lakes respondents were expecting that the water would be a quarter to a third of the cost of potable water. It was ascertained that these are early estimates that were either advertised in the local press or relayed by real estate salesmen. Respondents had not been updated with the fact that, based on current estimates, the price is more likely to be three-quarters of the charge made for tra- ditional mains water. New Haven householders are billed at a low rate—the equiva- lent of the sewerage rate for the service. However, their accounts imply that this rate is being heavily subsidized when, in fact, this is not the case. The council attributes the anomaly to the limitations of their computing system.

Familiarity With the Changed Environment Through Formal Communications While advice and assistance can be accessed through the management of the system at the Florida sites, this was less apparent for the Adelaide developments. In addition to the information provided upon connection to the system, the city of Altamonte Springs employed a public relations person for over 17 years to orient residents to recycled water issues. Brevard County uses its comprehensive web site to convey information and invite feedback from customers. Information is also channeled through homeowners’ associations at each of the Florida sites. In Adelaide, apart from promotional models of the developments that include basic details of the sys- tem, seen and noticed by a few of the respondents, there have been no proactive, ongoing efforts made to inform householders about this new technology and indeed there was no clear delegation of authority to do so.

Therefore, in the absence of formal communication in Adelaide, informal social networks have emerged. Residents at both sites rely on social cues, copying what their neighbors do or being directed by neighborly advice. At New Haven, the idio- syncrasies of the neighbourhood treatment and distribution system are managed by a collaborative effort between the engineering contractor responsible for plant opera- tions and maintenance and three self appointed residents (village ‘‘big men’’). It was explained by the engineer concerned and respondents that these three residents report pipe damage caused by builders and variations to water quality, then keep their neighbors informed of progress made in solving the problem. At both sites, enquiries revealed that builders and plumbers also needed to be familiarised with the recycled water system. The main hazard with the dual system is when pipes become cross-connected, allowing the nonpotable reclaimed water to flow through

Sustainable Water Reuse: Structure Trust 565

drinking-water taps. Confusion and a lack of know-how was observed by respon- dents, compounding the problematic access to information on safe practices to avoid public health risks.

Accountability of Persons and Institutions As most residents at the two study sites in Adelaide are either unaware of, or are not obliged to follow, any particular rules governing the use of recycled water, they are equally unsure of who is ultimately accountable for the quality of the recycled water and the system as a whole. For example, one resident who has lived at New Haven for over 2 years thought that the state water authority, SA Water, was responsible for managing the decentralized reuse system. Mawson Lakes respondents did not know whether SA Water, the local council, or both would be responsible. In con- trast, the information package provided at the Florida sites ensures that all residents involved are aware of which government utility is responsible for providing the reclaimed water service and the main rules governing its use.

Characteristics of Social Actors

This section considers some of the findings that describe the capacity of these communities to manage opportunities and constraints emerging from the structural context. The variation in key responses is summarized in Table 4.

Collective Capital The characteristics relevant to acceptance of and trust in nonpotable reuse include social capital, forged through social networks, and cultural capital arising from an awareness of the environmental drivers for undertaking water recycling, knowledge gained from the experience of living in a residential reuse development, the level of concern for the management of health risks, and trust in water reuse and the recycled water provider.

Social Capital. Homeowners’ associations have a proactive communicative role at the Florida sites, as already described. The information relayed by the social net- works in the Adelaide sites is more problematic because it is generated informally,

Table 4. Characteristics of social actors

New Haven

Mawson Lakes

Altamonte Springs

Brevard County

Collective capital Social capital: social networks Reactive Reactive Proactive Proactive Environmental awareness—

water issues 25% 60% 30% 30%

Benefit of saving natural resources 60% 30% 25% 30% Health risk concerns 55% 30% 15% 40% Need for more information 60% 80% 15% 25%

Trust in providers (mean levels) Local council=city=county provider 6.2 6.5 7.7 7.2 SA Water (Adelaide sites) 5.2 5.6

Social mood Uncertain Optimistic Positive Positive

566 J. S. Marks and M. Zadoroznyj

outside the sphere of responsible governance. At New Haven, the collaborative net- work of three residents and the treatment plant engineer helped others cope with interruptions to the service. A lack of water due to poor quality or other problems causes greater inconvenience than is the case in Florida, because the water is used for toilet flushing. However, other advice received from neighbors at New Haven circu- lated misinformation. For example, a new owner believed taps were allowed in the back garden when in fact only subsurface irrigation was specified in licensing criteria for the New Haven system:

[A neighbor] said they weren’t allowed to put taps out in the front garden or on the front of the house with the grey water going through, for any passers-by that just happen to stop and drink it. So all of the taps con- cerning the grey water are located at the back.

Similarly, at Mawson Lakes, residents who have not had potable taps installed or have had ordinary taps fitted instead of the specified type were reassured by the fact that others were in the same situation. On the other hand, there were indications that Mawson Lakes residents would protest if the system does not function properly. They have taken the initiative to form a residents’ association and there are expecta- tions for an acceptable quality of service. One respondent, a builder and foundation member of the association, reflected: ‘‘If it was offensive then I won’t use it. . . . I’ve got every expectation they will monitor the quality all of the time.’’ The response from a mother of two echoed the reflexive nature of others’ statements: ‘‘I don’t have any problems with it. I know it is going to be done correctly, and if it’s not, there will be such a huge thing about it they will stop it straight away anyway.’’ A recently arrived resident, a business manager who has made a substantial investment in his property, stated: ‘‘If I could smell it I’d be worried about it, yes. I’d be shutting the system down quite fast!’’

Environmental Awareness. Awareness of the environmental drivers for water reuse was explored through general and more specific questions in the Adelaide interviews, while Florida respondents were directly asked if they had any concerns about water. As a result, a quarter of New Haven research participants voluntarily identified the problem of the salinity of the Murray River, compared to over half of those interviewed at Mawson Lakes. The depletion of water resources was nomi- nated by around one-third of each of the Florida samples.

Benefits of Residential Reuse. All 80 respondents appreciated at least one of the benefits of recycling water. These were identified by respondents as personal cost savings and environmental benefits. Recycled water is supplied at a lower price than traditional mains water, so it is no surprise that the majority at each site appreciated this cost-saving factor. New Haven respondents were less sure of this benefit, reflecting the confusion experienced over the billing. However, they were more conscious of the saving of natural resources (see Table 4).

Health Risk Concerns. Several questions posed early in each interview indirectly explored whether participants had any health-related concerns in using recycled water. Most respondents knew the sewage source of the water, except at Mawson Lakes where the water was not being distributed. None of the 80 residents volunteered any problems with the recycled water. Finally, they were asked: ‘‘Can

Sustainable Water Reuse: Structure Trust 567

you describe any concerns you may have about recycled water?’’ Few related any concerns at the Florida sites, and initially only one respondent expressed concern at each of the Adelaide sites.

At Altamonte Springs, two women were worried about exposure; for example, a 50-year-old musician reflected: ‘‘I know it’s not safe to drink. I don’t know if it’s dangerous for bare feet. Health?’’

A consulting engineer in his sixties had some doubt: ‘‘A concern if I had young ones about the yard—might access it, drink it. As I understand it—I’m not a chemist.’’

Three respondents in Brevard wondered about the safety of reclaimed water. Its safety for pets was raised by a homeowners’ association president, an Hispanic mother queried the quality in relation to pathogens such as giardia (an intestinal parasite). A young mother with a master’s degree in communication cogently articu- lated the risk of delayed or secondary consequences:

I am trusting they are being truthful; that it’s not harmful. They would not want you drinking it. I often wondered if there is a residue of any- thing [so] kids running in the grass bare feet and 20 years down the line they may be saying: ‘‘We were wrong.’’ So I am taking them on face value. They say kids should not have contact with it. Children like to play in water.

A further two of the respondents who initially said they had no concerns qualified that this was because they ‘‘have no small children and no animals’’ and they ‘‘wouldn’t let visiting grandchildren out in it,’’ revealing concerns for children and pets.

At New Haven, where recycled water is used for both toilet flushing and irrigat- ing the garden, each respondent eventually revealed concerns. Problems with water quality in relation to toilet flushing were experienced by all respondents who noticed either odor, color, or sediment effects. A clerical assistant asked:

Have other people complained about the smell that you get from it? . . . When you are brushing your teeth you want to throw up some mornings. It’s coming up the drains and sometimes up the toilet.

Additionally, two-thirds described disruptions to the service due to treatment plant pro- blems or pipe breakages, when buckets would be required to flush toilets. An automatic switch to potable water has now addressed this issue, but this was a problem for 5 years. Some reported that major events occurred once a year, others remembering them happening about every 6 months or more frequently. An engineer and his wife reported: ‘‘When it breaks down, it’s dreadful. . . .When the water comes through, again, it’s not very good quality and it smells in the toilet.’’ In addition, three respon- dents wondered if the taps connected to the recycled water system might be accessible to unwary children. Overall, 11 respondents nominated health-risk concerns.

Mawson Lakes residents had given little thought to the system, which was not yet in operation, but six respondents queried the safety of using the water. One father, an information technology training manager, considered the risk to his children:

If the water is coming back onto my land, I want to be sure that the water that is coming back on is clean, as it needs to be, to not cause my kids to get bugs from going outside and playing in the garden.

568 J. S. Marks and M. Zadoroznyj

Therefore, a proportion of respondents at each site identified concerns specifically related to public health risk, with some stating a need to know more about safety issues, as summarized in Table 4. Despite the comprehensive information provided to Altamonte Springs and Brevard County respondents, there was still a need for further information to allay concerns, confirming the importance of ongoing communication.

Trust in Nonpotable Reuse. Has the experience of recycling water affected respondents’ trust in this alternative resource? A proportion of respondents at each site were prepared to handle the water for things like hand watering, car washing, and hosing down pavements and buildings. However, a degree of misplaced trust was detected at Mawson Lakes, where some residents were unwisely contemplating its potable use for swimming pools.

The comparative negative experience at New Haven has not dampened enthusiasm for recycling water. Levels of acceptance in recycling water for nonpotable uses were not directly assessed at the Florida sites because this alternative water resource is well estab- lished throughout the state. Agreement to using reclaimed water for irrigating parks and gardens and for industry and agriculture was specifically queried at the Adelaide sites. All participants supported irrigation of public parks, and both industrial and agricul- tural reuse was approved by 95% at New Haven and 90% at Mawson Lakes.

Trust in Reclaimed Water Provider. Respondents at each site were asked:

Would you please give a score between 1 and 10 as to how much you trust information on water quality or the environment given by these agencies: (a score of 10 indicating that they are totally trustworthy).

The list of agencies included the health department, scientists, the environmental protection agency, environmental groups, and those responsible for providing reclaimed water. The mean was taken of the scores given to each agency. Unsure or ‘‘don’t know’’ responses were excluded, as were the scores given by three residents who were members of staff of the city of Altamonte Springs because of possible bias (each rating the city 10). Due to the uncertainty of who was responsible for the reclaimed water systems at the Adelaide sites, trust in both the local council and SA Water was examined.

The results suggest that the Florida respondents had greater trust in their recycled water service providers than respondents in Adelaide, as illustrated in Table 4. Further, this resulted in the highest ranking for the reclaimed water provi- ders at the Florida sites, while the lower mean scores for the Adelaide local councils and SAWater placed them toward the least trusted of all agencies considered. Expla- nations for the lower trust levels in Adelaide partly relate to disenchantment with the recent corporatization of the water authority and lower trust scores for all agencies with the exception of scientists.

In relation to the local council, a New Haven respondent advised:

I don’t know whether it was just us or the pattern for new people coming in to this place, but we really didn’t receive much education or infor- mation about how to use the water; the best way to use it, and that sort of vital information.

Sustainable Water Reuse: Structure Trust 569

Another respondent, previously a farmer, reflected on trust in the local council in relation to the operation of the reclaimed water system:

The thing’s always broken down I suppose. . . . That’s why I don’t like councils. They say all these wonderful things like we do this and that— but they won’t spend the money on it you know.

Social Mood The interaction of the structural elements discussed in the previous section and collective capital of the social actors involved contributes to the social mood that for Sztompka (1999) has a significant impact on the development of trust. Compared to the experience in Florida, there were barriers to the development of a trusting social mood at the Adelaide sites. At New Haven, respondents expressed satisfaction with the gains from using the water but uncertainty in relation to the competence of council management and the cost of operating the system. A sense of inadequacy was conveyed by the local council manager in relation to managing this decentralised system with lim- ited resources. At Mawson Lakes, there was a preoccupation with establishing new homes, and respondents were keen for the development to be the success promised in the prolific advertising. Therefore, although there was disappointment in the delays in establishing some services, including the recycled water, there was a general sense of optimism for the future at this new subdivision. The development manager had a cau- tious approach to finalizing the design and building of the water reuse system, being unsure of how this initiative would ultimately affect land sales and profits.

Respondents in Florida had a more matter-of-fact attitude toward the recycled water system. Only the water restrictions and fines were a source of annoyance for a few residents at Altamonte Springs. At Brevard, three householders drew attention to the interruptible nature of the supply, although this feature of the system was made clear to residents upon connection. Overall, however, there was a sense that recycled water had become a taken-for-granted, routinized feature of these Florida sites. The managers responsible for the operations and management of the reclaimed water were water engineers, and both systems were a source of pride that, in turn, encouraged vigilance to ensure continued success.

Summary

As already indicated, the four case study sites vary between the well-established, centrally managed Florida developments and the newer, locally managed systems in Adelaide. The more rigorous structural support for both Florida sites compared to the Adelaide developments is evident (Table 3). As the qualitative data demonstrate, the structural differences between the Florida and Adelaide sites are reflected in the residents’ health risk concerns and the need for further information (Table 4). The structural context also gives shape to the social mood observed through interviews with respondents and managers of the respective system; this in turn is congruent with the levels of trust in reclaimed water providers, despite relatively positive atti- tudes about the benefits of water recycling.

Conclusion

This comparison of the structural shapers of trust and characteristics of social actors involved in the experience of water reuse reveals important differences between the

570 J. S. Marks and M. Zadoroznyj

Florida and Adelaide sites. It illustrates that a supportive structural framework facil- itates knowledge of and trust in the use of reclaimed water, as indicated at Altamonte Springs and Brevard County. By contrast, weaker regulatory, mana- gerial, and communicative mechanisms effect compensatory informal structures at New Haven and Mawson Lakes. The knowledge of respondents in these sites is only partial and incomplete with respect to the operations and risks associated with non- potable reuse. While social cues may reassure neighbors and, in the case of New Haven, provide networks to help householders cope with the irregularities of the reclaimed water service, these types of informal social structures work against estab- lishing safe practices. Misinformation and the lack of regulatory enforcement result in illegal taps being installed, which run the risk of being mistaken for potable taps. The lack of detailed information creates a false reassurance that the water is suitable to fill swimming pools. And the neglect of educational and regulatory controls creates confusion for tradesmen in managing the separation of the dual pipe system.

Three conclusions can be drawn that have policy implications. First, the data suggest that the transparency of governance and regulatory institutions and the two-way communications between expert management and residents’ associations that characterize the centrally managed Florida sites need to accompany the shift to decentralized water services. Second, if indoor uses of reclaimed water such as toilet flushing are to be provided, stringent controls are all the more important to ensure that indoor reuse is not confused with potable connections and that a consistent quality and supply of water are provided. Finally, where residents infor- mally create and manage the flow of information to their neighbors, a false sense of confidence is established. Disruptions to the service, problems of water quality, or deviation from permitting rules may be accepted as the norm of community- scale water recycling. The problem, of course, is that this exacerbates the issues of transparency and accountability: Who is in charge? The informal network has neither a legitimate regulatory role nor the resources to accurately inform all residents.

This research demonstrates the significance of particular structural and insti- tutional arrangements in developing trust in water reuse. In an increasingly reflexive risk society, close attention is needed to ensure that the overarching legal insti- tutional framework is reflected in enforceable policies to guide agency. In this analysis of some of the characteristics identified by Sztompka for being important to the development of trust, it is clear that variations in structural factors have a sig- nificant impact on a well-informed appreciation of water reuse and its associated risks, as well as trust in the providers of the service. Managing these structural arrangements is therefore critical to the sustainability of urban water reuse and to the environmental improvements that may be effected through this practice.

References

Anderson, J. M. 1996. The potential for water recycling in Australia: Expanding our horizons. Desalination 106(1-3):151–156.

Arcury, T. A. and E. H. Christianson. 1990. Environmental worldview in response to environ- mental problems. Environ. Behav. 22(3):387–407.

Beck, U. 1992. Risk society. London: Sage. Brevard County Utility Services. 2001. Reclaimed water information. Accessed 28 October

2001, http:==www.brevardcounty.us=water-resources=reusinfo.cfm

Sustainable Water Reuse: Structure Trust 571

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2003. Florida’s reuse. Water resource man- agement. Accessed 15 December 2003, http:==www.dep.state.fl.us=water=wf=dom=reuse= experience.htm

Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Giddens, A. 1991.Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford,

CA: Stanford University Press. Giddens, A. 1993. New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative socio-

logies 2nd ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Giddens, A. 1994. Beyond left and right. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Glaser, B. G. and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for quali-

tative research. Chicago: Aldine. Gupte, M. 2003. Reexamining participatory environmental policy: Social stratification and

the gender dimension. Society Nat. Resources 16:327–334. Klug, H. 2002. Straining the law: Conflicting legal premises and the governance of aquatic

resources. Society Nat. Resources 15:693–707. Lawrence, G., V. Higins, and S. Lockie (Eds.). 2001. Environment, society and natural resource

management: Theoretical perspectives from Australasia and the Americas. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Misztal, B. A. 1996. Trust in modern societies. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Misztal, B. A. 2001. Trust and cooperation: the democratic public sphere. J. Sociol. 37(4):

371–386. Nyhus, P. J., F. R. Westley, R. C. Lacy, and P. S. Miller. 2002. A role for natural resource

social science in biodiversity risk assessment. Society Nat. Resources 15:923–932. Sneddon, C., L. Harris, R. Dimitrov, and U. Özesmi. 2002. Contested waters: Conflict, scale

and sustainability in aquatic socioecological systems. Society Nat. Resources 15:663–675. Sztompka, P. 1990. Agency and progress: The idea of progress and changing theories of

change. In Rethinking progress: Movements, forces, and ideas at the end of the twentieth century, ed. J. C. Alexander and P. Sztompka, 274–263, Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Sztompka, P. 1996. Trust and emerging democracy. Int. Sociol. 11(1):37–62. Sztompka, P. 1999. Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Yin, R. K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.

572 J. S. Marks and M. Zadoroznyj