The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Urban Australians using recycled water for domestic non-potable use—An evaluation of the attributes price, saltiness, colour and odour using conjoint analysis
Open accessAbstract
Recycled water use in urban areas is viewed as one part of the solution to Australia's water shortage. The effectiveness of policies designed to promote recycled water systems depends on the acceptance by the community of the price, colour, odour and salt content of the recycled water. In Australia and other countries, limited research has been conducted that investigates community attitudes to and willingness to pay for recycled water, especially in urban settings. Community acceptance of recycled water and the economic feasibility of such projects have not been widely evaluated, even though the long-term feasibility of many projects is dependent on such information. This paper examines the attitudes of an urban Australian community living at Mawson Lakes in South Australia, to using recycled water for non-potable domestic purposes. Conjoint analysis (CA) was used to evaluate participant's (n=136) preferences for various attributes of recycled water (colour, odour, salt content and price) for various uses (garden watering, toilet flushing and clothes washing). The analysis was used to estimate the respondent's willingness to pay (WTP) for quality increases for each of the attributes. Differences in WTP were investigated according to various demographic variables including income and education. Results indicate that for garden watering having 'low salt levels' is the most important attribute of recycled water, for clothes washing 'colourless' is the most important attribute, and for toilet flushing a 'low price' was the most important attribute. Respondents were willing to pay for increases in the quality of recycled water. The amount they were willing to pay varied depending on applied use and the attribute in question. Respondents were most willing to pay for an increase in quality of recycled water when used for clothes washing (willing to pay Australian dollars (A$) 0.07/cubic meter (m(3)) for removal of colour, A$0.065 per cubic meter for an increase in quality of recycled water from 'salty' to 'low salt,' and A$ 0.06/m(3) for removal of odour (1A$=0.75 US $ and 0.62 euro, August 24, 2005)). Segmentation of the price attribute by demographic sectors reveals that those in the higher income bracket, higher education sector, middle age group, and who are male, had a higher marginal valuation on price. The results of this study provide important information for recycled water retailers and water policy developers, helping achieve greater economic feasibility for future recycled water projects, to the satisfaction of the communities involved.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
The highest acceptability of greywater reuse schemes is for non-potable uses.
“It has been reported by Dolnicar and Schafer (2006), Friedler et al. (2006b), Hurliman and McKay (2007), Kantanonleon et al. (2007) and Marks (2004) that the highest acceptability of greywater reuse schemes are for non-potable uses.”
From Greywater Characteristics, Treatment Systems, Reuse Strategies and User Perception—a Review (2018) · cites this paper as Hurliman and McKay (2007)
Citations
Cites
A New Approach to Consumer Theory
Lancaster, K. J. (1966) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/259131 · Cited by 8,471
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 30
- Albrechtsen, 2002, Microbiological investigations of rainwater and graywater collected for toilet flushing, Water Science and Technology, 46, 311, 10.2166/wst.2002.0694 · DOI
- Alvarez-Farizo, 2002, Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain, Energy Policy, 30, 107, 10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00063-5 · DOI
- Baarsma, 2003, The valuation of the Ijmeer nature reserve using conjoint analysis, Environmental and Resource Economics, 25, 343, 10.1023/A:1024447503683 · DOI
- Blamey, 1999, Choice modelling: assessing the environmental values of water supply options, The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 43, 337, 10.1111/1467-8489.00083 · DOI
- Bruvold, 1988, Public opinion on water reuse options, Water Pollution Control Federation, 60, 45
- Byrnes, P., 2000. Reuse in California—an Australian Perspective. Paper presented at the Water Recycling Australia Conference, Adelaide.
- Centre for International Economics, 2001. Review of willingness-to-pay methodologies. Prepared for the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW, Canberra.
- Erickson, 1985, The role of price in multi-attribute product evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 195, 10.1086/208508 · DOI · Paper page
- Garrod, 1997, The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study, Ecological Economics, 21, 45, 10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00092-4 · DOI
- Green, 1978, Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook, Journal of Customer Research, 5, 103
- Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tathan, R., Black, W., 1998. Conjoint Analysis, Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed. Prentice-Hall, London, pp. 387–441 (Chapter 7).
- Hanemann, 1984, Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66, 332, 10.2307/1240800 · DOI
- Hanley, 2001, Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation?, Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 435, 10.1111/1467-6419.00145 · DOI
- Hurlimann, 2004, Attitudes to reclaimed water for domestic use: Part 2. Trust, Water, Journal of the Australian Water Association, 31, 40
- Hurlimann, 2005, Contingent valuation by the community of indirect benefits of using recycled water—An Australian case study, Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 5, 95
- Hurlimann, 2005, Pricing of drinking water vs recycled water: Fairness and satisfaction, Water, Journal of the Australian Water Association, 32, 50
- Johnson, 1974, Trade-off analysis of consumer values, Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 121, 10.2307/3150548 · DOI
- Juster, 1966, Consumer buying intentions and purchase probability: An experiment in survey design, American Statistical Association Journal, 658, 10.2307/2282779 · DOI
- MacKenzie, 1992, Evaluating recreation trip attributes and travel time via conjoint analysis, Journal of Leisure Research, 24, 171, 10.1080/00222216.1992.11969884 · DOI
- MacKenzie, 1993, A comparison of contingent preference models, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75, 593, 10.2307/1243566 · DOI
- Madi, 2003, Willingness of farmers to pay for reclaimed wastewater in Jordan and Tunisia, Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 3, 115
- Marks, J., Cromar, N., Fallowfield, H., Oemcke, D., Zadoroznyi, M., 2002. Community experience and perceptions of water reuse. Paper Presented at the third World Water Congress of the International Water Association, Melbourne. · DOI
- McFadden, 1986, The choice theory approach to market research, Marketing Science, 5, 275, 10.1287/mksc.5.4.275 · DOI
- McKay, 2003, Attitudes to reclaimed water for domestic use: Part 1. Age, Water, Journal of the Australian Water Association, 30, 45
- Okun, 2002, Water reuse introduces the need to integrate both water supply and wastewater management at local and regulatory levels, Water Science and Technology, 46, 273, 10.2166/wst.2002.0689 · DOI
- Parsons, 1992, Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation, Land Economics, 68, 93, 10.2307/3146746 · DOI
- Po, M., Kaercher, J.D., Nancarrow, B.E., 2003. Literature Review of Factors Influencing Public Perceptions of Water Reuse: CSIRO Land and Water.
- Telser, 2002, Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: An application of conjoint analysis, Health Economics, 11, 129, 10.1002/hec.653 · DOI
- Tsagarakis, 2003, The role of information on farmers’ willingness to use recycled water for irrigation, Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 3, 105
- van der Pol, 1996, Using conjoint analysis to establish consumer preferences for fruit and vegetables, British Food Journal, 98, 5, 10.1108/00070709610150879 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Greywater Characteristics, Treatment Systems, Reuse Strategies and User Perception—a Review
Oteng-Peprah, M., Acheampong, M. A., & deVries, N. K. (2018) · Water, Air, & Soil Pollution · doi:10.1007/s11270-018-3909-8 · Cited by 367
Metadata
- Authors
- Hurlimann, A., & McKay, J.
- Affiliations
- University of South Australia (AU)
- ORCID
- McKay, Jennifer
- Venue
- Journal of Environmental Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-04
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 93-104
- ISSN
- 0301-4797 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1992385223
- Cited by
- 104
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 9.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- papers.ssrn.com
- Locations
- Journal of Environmental Management (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
- 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
- Keywords
- reclaimed water, non-potable water use, willingness to pay, consumer acceptance, salt content, odor, color, price, household water use, toilet flushing, laundry, demographic segmentation, water policy, water scarcity, economic feasibility, preference elicitation, Australia, South Australia
- MeSH terms
- Australia, Conservation of Natural Resources, Humans, Urban Population, 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