Skip to main content.

2. Attitudes to water

While New Zealanders do understand the vital importance of water and its necessity for life, they often do not stop to think about where their household water comes from, and can take it for granted. In general, very few people perceive that there are any probable or serious risks to the water supply, and as such, making conscious efforts to conserve water is not a priority for most unless a crisis situation is reached.

Arising from this belief that water is plentiful, in Wellington there was wariness of the motives for introducing household water metering, with tension between it being seen as a way to generate revenue versus responsible forward planning. Many see the idea of being metered and charged for water as a loss of something that is free and is a ‘human right’.

While consciously conserving water is not a priority for many New Zealanders, a significant proportion do have strong anti-waste attitudes, and overt waste of water is frowned upon.

2.1 Valuing water

Water is often taken for granted in New Zealand households. The research by Greater Wellington and Watercare found that for many New Zealanders, water is simply not a ‘top of mind’ issue and there is an expectation that water should and always will flow from their taps. This can mainly be attributed to a low appreciation that water resources are finite.

Many people do not stop to think about where their water comes from. They do, however, understand the vital importance of water and its necessity for life. Watercare’s research found a high level of agreement with the statement “water is a valuable resource”. But most see water as a ‘God-given right’, and are not engaged in the issue of conservation. The overall attitude to water can be summarised by the comment “Without it we die … it is just that essential; [however], there appears to be plenty of it.”

2.2 The relative importance of water

The research by both Greater Wellington and Watercare asked respondents about the importance of water relative to other utilities. Greater Wellington found that water was more highly regarded than other utilities such as gas, electricity, or telecommunications “which are important but do not prompt a life threatening situation if they are withheld”.

Notably, in Auckland, where residents are charged for their water use, water was considered slightly less important than electricity – implying that water is treated more like a commodity than a public good, where there is a financial transaction involved. However, Aucklanders still considered water to be more important than communications, waste removal, recycling services, and gas. Responses indicated that electricity was ranked as more important than water in Auckland as it was almost literally perceived as the ‘power’ behind everything else, “without it everything else comes to a standstill including the water pumps and water treatment plants”. Aucklanders considered water-related issues to be less evident than electricity, because they are less talked about in the media, and because there is a less regular connection with the utility, compared to monthly electricity bills and occasional power cuts. Similar findings came out of the new qualitative research, with saving energy being considered more important than saving water for washing machine purchasers.

2.3 Perceived availability and risks to supply

Almost all New Zealanders agreed with statements like “water is a limited resource and we shouldn’t waste it”,7 but conversely, when asked directly about risks to supply very few perceived there to be any risks.

“Don’t know” was the most common response when Watercare asked respondents “do you think there will be enough water to meet the demands of Auckland’s water needs in the next 20 years?”.

Greater Wellington’s research found that there is perceived to be a very low risk to the water supply in Wellington. This stems from a belief that there is plenty of water in the region, and a general disinterest and complacency where water supply is concerned. For most Wellingtonians, risk to supply and the need to conserve are hypothetical issues.

The Greater Wellington report points out that although there is an assumption that there will be sufficient water to meet needs, there is a recognition from the public that:

  • water is a limited resource

  • it is a shared, community resource

  • the Wellington region is growing and with it a need for more water

  • there is always a need to plan for the future.

2.4 Perceptions of water use, conservation and wastage

A strong dislike of overt waste emerged as a common theme through each piece of research, which is reflected in each of the population segmentations (see section 3: Population segmentations). This dislike of overt waste does not always equate to conscious efforts to conserve, although most respondents said they pay attention to the amount of water they use at least sometimes.

Two-thirds (69 per cent) of respondents to the Ministry for the Environment’s Household Sustainability Survey 2008 claimed to give thought to the amount of water they use at home, and 75 per cent of Watercare’s respondents said they consider their water use at least occasionally. Those who thought about their water use were also more likely to say that they engaged in specific water-saving activities such as having short showers, or using water efficient technologies.

Greater Wellington’s research found a strong theoretical support for water conservation, but also that take-up of these actions is likely to be much lower unless a crisis situation is reached. Forty-nine percent of Greater Wellington’s respondents claimed to be making an effort to conserve water, and only 14 per cent claimed to make very little effort. Ninety-two percent claimed they would do more to conserve water if there was a shortage, and 77 per cent felt that the community could do more to save water.

But some Greater Wellington residents had a reluctance to conserve water when they were not sure who it would benefit. They did not mind making savings to benefit ‘everyday’ people, but not the council (who may have been partly responsible for the shortage) or ‘greedy neighbours’ with sprinklers and swimming pools.

Overall, Greater Wellington residents were very aware of wastage and could cite numerous examples of where this has occurred. The main ways water is wasted were considered to be:

  • household use including leaving taps running, long showers, and washing cars with hoses

  • leaky taps and pipes (households, businesses and council)

  • gardens, including sprinklers and watering lawns.

So while most survey respondents were very conscious of overt waste, and many claimed that they at least occasionally thought about their water use, significantly fewer were making any sustained and considered efforts to conserve. Most admitted that they could do more, but without the threat of an imminent crisis, or any perceived personal benefit, they lacked the motivation to do so. This lack of motivation would need to be addressed in order to increase the uptake of water-saving behaviours.

2.5 Attitudes to household water metering

The focus of the qualitative research on household water metering was to understand attitudes, particularly fears and objections, to metering in an area that is not currently metered. The approach used also provided some insight into the differences in attitudes to water metering between areas that are currently metered (Auckland) and those that are not (Wellington).

Understanding the role of councils

Although there was some confusion about different councils’ roles where more than one organisation was involved in water supply to an area, focus group participants in Wellington had expectations that ‘the council’ would lead the way in demonstrating water conservation practices. This included the use of water-saving techniques on its own properties, fixing leaks quickly, and fairly apportioning the cost between domestic and business use of water.

There was a low recognition of the infrastructure costs in supplying water to Wellington, and a tension between the introduction of water metering being seen as revenue generating, versus responsible forward planning. Residents relied on councils to make sound decisions on their behalf, but many were not interested in the detail of those decisions.

Perceptions of water availability

In both Auckland and Wellington, participants thought that there was generally plenty of water available. In Wellington, this translated into a feeling that household water metering would not be needed, and therefore wariness about the motives for considering its introduction. But in Auckland it appeared that water metering had become normalised and accepted, partly because it was universal there.

Conserving water

While there was commitment to not being wasteful in Auckland and Wellington, there was little spontaneous focus on conserving water to reduce water bills in Auckland (other than reducing the use of hot water to reduce power bills), or to conserving water for environmental reasons.

Group participants frequently articulated an ability to adapt and use less water (for example when in rural areas, at holiday homes or on overseas travel). But participants enjoyed returning to urban life, where water is more plentiful and where they could have long showers, for instance. Water use seemed to be viewed as a form of ‘personal freedom’.

Attitudes, fears, and objections

Household water metering brought out both rational and emotive responses from focus group participants, and often the two were intertwined.

There was some acknowledgement that some people might be better off with household water metering in Wellington; for instance, those who used little water. But there was a general feeling that there would be more people paying more and only a few paying less if household water metering were introduced. Participants assumed metered water would be an extra cost to them, without a corresponding reduction in rates.

Wellington focus group participants were more critical of the need for water metering than were their Auckland counterparts and were generally opposed to its introduction. It seemed that group participants did not really want to engage in water planning discussions, rather they wanted water to be ‘on tap’ as cost-effectively as possible. Part of this reserve to be involved related to a lack of knowledge and expertise to make informed decisions about the future, and a lack of knowledge about the need for water conservation. Participants commented:

I haven’t heard anything about it and I don’t think I would go to the trouble of trying to find out about the infrastructure because I think that it will probably ... annoy me even more.

If it [information about water infrastructure] is not obviously available to us, who is going to spend their time Googling that?

Group participants in Wellington were asked for the potential advantages of water metering. In general, groups continually returned to the disadvantages of water metering. The main advantages of water metering were perceived to be that users pay for the water used, leaks will become more apparent, households will become more aware of the water used, and that some may save in water bills from their more frugal use.

Amongst those without household water meters, the idea of water being measured and charged for created a sense of ‘loss’ of a New Zealand ‘way of life’ – where water is free and unrestricted use is mostly possible (except for when there are seasonal water shortages). Water was considered ‘free’ and there were concerns over who should have the ‘right’ to ‘sell’ water.

Discussion about household water metering in Wellington raised issues of equity – there was a sense that water is a ‘human right’ and needs to be available to all. Some felt access should be unrestricted, whilst others felt it was only fair that people pay for the water they used. Aucklanders perceived the advantage of household water metering was that everyone paid for the water they used.

For group participants in Wellington there appeared to be both a sense of stealth and a sense of inevitability around activities related to water metering, and this was fuelled by wariness about the motives for introducing it.

There was also a sense of inevitability that household water metering would lead to the privatisation of water, and the electricity reform model was cited as a likely model for water privatisation. Some participants were in favour of privatisation as it was seen as offering more choice, whilst others were strongly opposed to privatisation.

Wellington group participants observed that in addition to usage costs, there are two types of costs which would be incurred if water metering were implemented; the cost of the initial installation, and the cost of ongoing maintenance. So residents felt they would pay for all aspects of implementation along the chain and expected that the average cost of water to each household would increase as a result.

The full report on the qualitative research on water metering is included in appendix 1: Attitudes to household water metering.

 

7  Fifty-eight per cent strongly agreed and 28 per cent agreed when asked in the Ministry for the Environment’s Household Sustainability Survey 2008.

 

[ |