• About this site|
• Site index|
• Contact us|
• Jobs

On Tap?

Executive summary

Introduction

Attitudes to water

Population segmentations

Behaviours

Barriers and incentives to action

Applying the research to demand management

References

Appendix 1: Attitudes to household water metering

Appendix 2: Selecting a new washing machine

Appendix 3: Watering the garden

4. Behaviours

In general, New Zealanders were more likely to say they currently conserve water through habitual behaviours rather than having carried out one-off actions. But when asked about their willingness to do more to save water, many were less willing to take up new habits, compared with making one-off changes.

Most survey respondents said they were maintaining habitual behaviours such as having short showers instead of baths, turning off the tap when brushing teeth, or doing only full loads of washing. Fixing leaks was the most common one-off action in both the Watercare and Greater Wellington research, but was not included in the Ministry for the Environment’s survey.

This section summarises the findings about behaviour from each of the three existing pieces of research; these are followed by summaries of the findings on two behaviours in particular (selecting a new washing machine, and watering the garden) that were considered in the new qualitative research. The full reports on these qualitative research topics are included in appendices 2 and 3.

4.1 Behavioural questions in the existing research

Each of the quantitative surveys asked respondents about their current water-saving behaviours, and their willingness to or likelihood that they may take up certain behaviours in the future.

There were significant differences in the way the three surveys were structured; these are likely to account for the notable differences in results between surveys. The Ministry for the Environment and Watercare quantitative surveys directly asked respondents whether or not they were engaging in particular water-saving behaviours. Greater Wellington’s quantitative survey asked respondents about current water-saving behaviours on an unprompted basis.

The water-saving behaviours covered in each of the surveys can be classified as either habitual behaviours or one-off actions. Turning off taps when not in use is an example of a habitual action, whereas choosing a water-efficient shower head is a one-off action.

The habitual behaviours covered fit into the following categories:

• tap use

• baths and showers

• toilet flushing

• using washing machines and dishwashers

• car washing

• re-using water

• watering gardens.

The one-off actions fit into the following categories:

• garden watering equipment

• fixing leaks

• appliance or hardware purchasing

• toilet cistern capacity

• rainwater tanks.

The Ministry for the Environment’s findings

Most Household Sustainability Survey 2008 respondents said they paid attention to the amount of water they used at home. The majority also reported that they did only full loads of washing, and were choosing water-efficient washing machines and toilets when purchasing. Fewer said they had replaced their shower head with a more water-efficient one or reduced the volume of their toilet cistern.

The full set of water-use behaviours covered in the Household Sustainability Survey 2008 is detailed in table 5.

Table 5: Current water-use behaviours (Ministry for the Environment)

When these behaviours were looked at in relation to demographic or lifestyle factors, there were few significant differences. The only notable differences in the uptake of these behaviours are listed here.

• Respondents who were not on town supply water were more likely to have installed a rainwater tank for outside use, at 60 per cent, compared with only 24 per cent of the general population.

• Of the respondents who lived in a home owned by their parents, only 51 per cent were taking shorter showers, compared with 73 per cent of the general population.

• Renters were less likely to have bought a water-efficient toilet, at only 50 per cent.

Those respondents who said they didn’t already have the appliances or were not currently engaging in the water-use behaviours, were then asked if they were willing to do these things. Most respondents who did not currently have water-efficient washing machines, toilets or shower heads, said they would be willing to choose a more efficient one in future. Respondents were more likely to say they were willing to take one-off actions than to change their habits. Table 6 shows the willingness to take action in the future for the sub-sample of respondents who said they hadn’t already taken these actions.

Table 6: Willingness to engage in new water-use behaviours (Ministry for the Environment)

Figure 1 (on the following page) gives a summary view of the combined percentages of those who were currently undertaking these water-use behaviours or were willing to undertake them.

Figure 1: Water-use behaviours – current and willing to do (Ministry for the Environment)

View graph|View text description

This graph gives a summary view of the combined percentages of those who were currently undertaking water-saving behaviours or were willing to undertake them.

Behaviour/action	Currently doing or already have done (%)	Willing to do (%)
Have one shower a day that is 3 to 5 minutes long	73	12
Only do full loads of washing	82	8
When buying a new washing machine, choose one that is water efficient	80	14
When buying a new toilet, choose one that is water efficient	67	26
Replace your shower head with one that is more water efficient	45	36
Reduce the volume of your toilet tank (by putting in a solid object)	31	41
Install a rainwater tank for outside use	24	38

Watercare’s findings

Almost 70 per cent of households in Watercare’s survey undertook at least one high-water-use activity as part of their regular lifestyle, with more than half washing their cars regularly, and half gardening regularly. The high-use activities also included waterblasting and boat washing.

The most common habitual water-saving behaviours were: having showers instead of baths, keeping showers short, turning off the tap when brushing teeth, and only doing full loads in the washing machine or dishwasher. Of the one-off actions, 60 per cent of respondents said they fix leaks, but less than half said they had things like water-efficient appliances or garden equipment.

Rather than just looking at current behaviours, Watercare’s research used five key metrics to compare water-saving behaviours. For each behaviour or action, respondents were asked if they were aware of it as way to save water. For the behaviours and actions they were already aware of, they were then asked the following questions.

• Impact: “Which do you think significantly impacts water usage (ie, reduces the amount of water we use)?”

• Current use: “Which of these do you currently do/use in your household?”

• Future use: “Which of these do you think you may consider doing/using in the future?”

• Ability: “Which of these do you think your household has the ability to use/adapt to?”

Table 7 gives the full results for each behaviour, and figures 2 and 3 graph these, showing habitual behaviours and one-off actions separately. Note that the questions about impact, current use, future use, and ability were only asked of the sub-samples of people who were already aware of the behaviour/action as a way to save water, but the percentages recorded are out of the total sample.

Table 7: Behaviours and actions – awareness, impact, current, future, and ability (Watercare)

Figure 2: Habitual behaviours – awareness, impact, current, future, and ability (Watercare)

View graph|View text description

This graph displays the data from Table 7 for habitual behaviours.

Figure 3: One-off actions – awareness, impact, current, future, and ability (Watercare)

View graph|View text description

This graph displays the data from Table 7 for one-off actions.

Watercare’s research also investigated consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for the following water-efficient technologies:

• Water-efficient irrigation

• dual-flush toilets

• water-efficient shower heads

• front-loading washing machines.

The total willing to pay a premium for water-efficient versions of these devices ranged from 36 per cent of respondents willing to pay more for water-efficient irrigation, to 52 per cent willing to pay for front-loading washing machines or water-efficient shower heads. Of those respondents who were willing to pay a premium, most were willing to pay only 10 per cent more.

Greater Wellington’s findings

Greater Wellington’s respondents, when asked what they were currently doing to conserve water, were most likely to say they had habitual behaviours involving tap use, bathing and showering, and watering gardens. Greater Wellington’s findings were similar to Watercare’s, with the most popular behaviours being turning off the tap when not in use and having a bath instead of a shower. Fixing leaks was the most common one-off action. Respondents were not prompted on the actions, but were asked an open question. The full set of responses is contained in table 8 on the following page.

The Greater Wellington survey then asked respondents, on a scale of 1 to 5, how willing they would be to take specific steps to conserve water. Most were willing to fix leaks, but fewer respondents were willing to take the other steps they were questioned about. Table 9 gives the total willingness for each action (ie, the percentage who responded with a 1 or 2, on a scale where 1 is “very willing” and 5 is “not at all willing”).

Table 8: Current steps to conserve water (Greater Wellington)

Table 9: Willingness to take steps to conserve water (Greater Wellington)

4.2 Selecting a new washing machine

The focus of the qualitative research on selecting a new washing machine was to understand where Waste Watchers get their information from, and what influences their appliance-purchasing decisions, to provide a greater understanding of the channels of influence.

There was a wide range of information sought about washing machines prior to their purchase. Key aspects were obtaining a good price and/or deal, followed by reliability and/or durability and/or brand reputation. The physical size of the machine was important, especially in smaller homes. The capacity and configuration of the machine (top-loading or front-loading) were also considered. Features such as the different washing cycle options were also important, as were warranty, and delivery and installation options.

Washing machine purchasers were not aware of the significant contribution to the total household water consumption of washing machines. Instead they were more concerned with power use. Focus group participants commented that they tried to keep their power bills down, so a machine which did not consume a lot of power was attractive. There was also an interest in washing machines that did not use a lot of water, to minimise the use of hot water and hence minimise power costs.

In both Wellington and Auckland there was also, to a lesser extent, a desire not to waste water. The energy-efficiency and water-efficiency labels were key communication devices to communicate cost efficiency to Waste Watchers buying washing machines. The frugal nature of Waste Watchers appeared to be the major driver in obtaining these efficiencies, rather than a desire to be environmentally responsible.

Table 10 summarises the different types of information sought at different stages during the purchase process. For some washing machine purchasers, typically making unplanned purchases, this process was undertaken in a matter of hours or just a day or two. For other, more planned purchases, the decision-making process was conducted over a longer period of time and for some, took up to two months.

Table 10: Information sought at various decision stages for washing machine purchases

As table 10 identifies, there was a wide range of fragmented sources of information used in the decision process for purchasing a washing machine. Participants commented that retail sales staff were typically of little use in the decision-making process. This was because they often lacked detailed product knowledge (eg, just reading the one sentence description on the store price/information display).

Many washing machine purchasers were relatively time poor, and the purchase of a washing machine was complex with a wide range of factors considered. The first ‘tier’ of factors considered by Waste Watchers was cost, reliability and some aspects of functionality. Energy efficiency and water efficiency appeared in the second ‘tier’ of considerations.

Simple communication was powerful, and the water-efficiency and energy-efficiency rating stickers had impact. Most recent washing machine purchasers in the groups were already aware of the labels and had seen them. The water-efficiency labelling provided a benchmark of sorts, and enabled comparison between different washing machines. In addition, there was very little confusion between water-efficiency and energy-efficiency labelling. Energy-efficiency and water-efficiency labelling were clearly understood and factored into the purchase decision.

Waste Watchers purchasing washing machines appeared to lack an understanding of the contribution of washing machine use to overall household water usage. In addition, the number and nature of the factors considered in their purchase of washing machines is already very crowded.

The full report on the qualitative research on selecting a new washing machine is included in appendix 2: Selecting a new washing machine.

4.3 Watering the garden

The focus of the qualitative research on watering the garden was to gain an understanding of garden-watering behaviour, particularly about attitudes around wasteful watering and how decisions are made about how frequently to water, which can then be used to inform communications and interventions, particularly for local government.

There was a range of awareness of how to water gardens effectively among the Waste Watchers in focus groups in Auckland and Wellington. Some were very knowledgeable, others less so. Watering approaches used varied according to the type of garden, time of year, and time available for gardening. While some gardeners had established routines in the garden, many were opportunistic in making time to attend to the garden. Some of the water-conserving methods of watering the garden also promote healthy gardens, or are consistent with effective garden care. Although Waste Watchers were concerned about being wasteful, they were generally not aware of the contribution of garden watering to total household water use.

Effective watering practice

Some Waste Watchers claimed to have routines related to watering their gardens in terms of regularity, consistency of approach, time and frequency of watering (which were at times mitigated by circumstances). While Waste Watchers were knowledgeable about effective ways to water, there was little evidence that this knowledge was always put into practice. Effective watering appeared to be highly subjective, with respondents believing their practice was not as wasteful as that of others.

Many Waste Watchers knew that thorough and less frequent watering (once every three days to once a week, for an hour or two) was more effective than light and frequent watering (every second day for half an hour). Few used timers for irrigation systems, instead they turned the irrigation system, sprinkler or soaker hose on by hand or used a hand-held hose or watering can to water their gardens. Sprinkler owners tended to turn sprinklers on manually rather than use timers. This sometimes resulted in waste if they forgot to turn them off.

Sprinklers were highly visible, and the time, frequency and spread of water from sprinklers was seen as either effective or wasteful, depending on how they were used. Waste Watchers were concerned to avoid overwatering, and saw water runoff or water-logging as undesirable. They were particularly scathing of neighbours who used their sprinklers all the time, regardless of the weather.

Hand-held hoses were used by many to water the garden. Benefits were that the hose watered specific areas, and that in many instances participants had to be actively engaged in watering the garden when using the hose. Watering cans were also seen as a particularly effective way to deliver water exactly where needed.

Some Waste Watchers only watered the garden if there had not been rain for several days. Some of those with watering routines watched the weather forecast and watered in the early morning or evening, if they thought it was not going to rain. Others were opportunistic in the timing of watering their gardens, and gave them a good soak when they remembered. For many who were time poor, gardens were watered when time was available, and this was not always at the optimal time for the garden.

There was evidence that some gardeners had adapted their gardens to make them easier to manage – for instance using mulch, improving the soil over a number of years, or adapting the planting style.

While commentary in news media reminded Waste Watchers not to water too often, in their minds this related more to water shortages during droughts, than water conservation in general. On the other hand there were also a few participants who were aware of the need to conserve water, but overall Waste Watchers felt concerned not to ‘waste’ water (rather than conserve it). Waste was defined as watering the garden when the garden is clearly damp or there are even pools of water, or overwatering – where there was water running onto the footpaths from the garden. It was considered wasteful to use high-powered sprinklers rather than a concentrated soak of the garden, as was watering when the sun was high.

Indicators that the garden needs watering

Indicators that a garden needed watering included both rational observable aspects and less tangible, more emotive aspects.

The rational indicators that the garden needed watering included:

• Assessing the soil condition to determine if the garden needed watering. Some checked below the surface.

• Plants were droopy, losing leaves, looked lethargic, or if there were lots of insects on plants.

• Dry weather for an extended period.

• New plantings that needed more intensive tending.

The emotive drivers for watering the garden included:

• For some it was a relaxing ‘time out’ activity.

• Others used garden watering as a chance to spend time with children, and gardening was an important skill some parents wanted to share with their children.

• Some felt guilty if they did not maintain the garden to the parent’s instruction. They felt particularly guilty if plants seemed ‘stressed’ – especially if their parents were visiting.

• In some suburbs there was social pressure from neighbours and from others to maintain a healthy looking garden. They were likely to water their garden to ensure it looked similar to others in the street.

• For some, their garden was linked to their self esteem (how they felt about themselves) and their self identity (how others viewed them).

• There was also a sense amongst group participants that gardening is an iconic New Zealand activity, especially the pride of growing fruit and vegetables, and allowing children to play in the garden with the hose.

The full report on the qualitative research on watering the garden is included in appendix 3: Watering the garden.

[ Previous|Next