CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 154Wastewater Treatment and ReuseWater resources management and optimizationPro-Environmental Behavior and Attitudes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Study of urban population attitudes towards various wastewater reuse options: Israel as a case study

Friedler, Eran, Lahav, Ori, Jizhaki, Hagar, Lahav, Tali·2006·Journal of Environmental Management
DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.11.013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper summarizes the findings of a survey (256 participants) conducted to determine the attitude of the Israeli urban public towards various urban water reuse options. Israel is known for its long and successful agricultural water reuse scheme, but to date no large-scale urban reuse projects have been implemented. The survey included 21 reuse options, which were clustered into three reuse categories, namely: low, medium, and high contact levels. Results show that a high proportion of the participants supported medium contact reuse options such as sidewalk landscaping (95%), domestic WC flushing (85%) and firefighting (96%). Higher contact reuse options such as domestic laundry (38%), preserved food (13%), and potable aquifer recharge (11%) found much lesser support. Less than expected support was found for low contact reuse options with 86% for field crop irrigation, 62% for aquifer recharge for agricultural irrigation, and as low as 49% for orchard irrigation. This low support is surprising, since all three options have been practiced on a large scale for over three decades in Israel without any adverse effects to the public. No correlation was found between any biographical characteristic examined (education, gender, income, marital status, having young children, and age) and support for medium contact options. For the medium contact options, the results suggest that perceived financial gain (individual and/or communal) and positive public opinion enhances support, while perceived health effects negatively affects the degree of support. Technology, trust in authorities and awareness of water and environmental issues were found to not have a significant effect on support for medium contact reuse options. Analyzing the four possible reasons for support given by participants who identified themselves as supporters of wastewater reuse revealed that the most important reason for support was "water saving", followed by "minimization of importing water from abroad". These were followed by "infrastructure cost saving" together with "environmental improvement".

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.11.013

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bruvold, W.H., 1984. Obtaining public support for innovative reuse projects. In Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium, vol. 3, San Diego Ca, pp. 122–132.
  2. DeSena, 1998, Public opposition sidelines indirect potable reuse projects, Water Environment and Technology, 11, 16
  3. Jeffrey, 1999, Sustainable water management: some technological and social dimensions of water recycling, Sustainable Development International, 1, 63
  4. Marks, J., 2004. Back to the future: reviewing the findings on acceptance of reclaimed water. Conference Proceedings, Enviro 04, Australian Water Association, 28–31 March 2004, Sydney, Australia.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–154 of 154

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Friedler, E., Lahav, O., Jizhaki, H., & Lahav, T.
Affiliations
  • Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
  • The Max Stern Yezreel Valley College (IL)
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Corresponding author
Friedler, Eran
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Environmental Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-12
Volume
81
Issue
4
Pages
360-370
ISSN
0301-4797 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.11.013
OpenAlex
W2051055633
Cited by
151
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Environmental Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water resources management and optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Pro-Environmental Behavior and Attitudes
Keywords
water reuse, public attitudes, urban water reuse, household water use, firefighting water, perceived health effects, water saving
MeSH terms
Attitude, Conservation of Natural Resources, Humans, Israel, Surveys and Questionnaires, Urban Population, Waste Disposal, Fluid, Water Supply

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review