Cited by 104Economic and Environmental ValuationWastewater Treatment and ReuseWater resources management and optimization

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 access
Hurlimann, Anna, McKay, Jennifer·2007·Journal of Environmental Management

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.02.008

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • 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.”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Albrechtsen, 2002, Microbiological investigations of rainwater and graywater collected for toilet flushing, Water Science and Technology, 46, 311, 10.2166/wst.2002.0694 · DOI
  2. 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
  3. Baarsma, 2003, The valuation of the Ijmeer nature reserve using conjoint analysis, Environmental and Resource Economics, 25, 343, 10.1023/A:1024447503683 · DOI
  4. 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
  5. Bruvold, 1988, Public opinion on water reuse options, Water Pollution Control Federation, 60, 45
  6. Byrnes, P., 2000. Reuse in California—an Australian Perspective. Paper presented at the Water Recycling Australia Conference, Adelaide.
  7. Centre for International Economics, 2001. Review of willingness-to-pay methodologies. Prepared for the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW, Canberra.
  8. Erickson, 1985, The role of price in multi-attribute product evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 195, 10.1086/208508 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 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
  10. Green, 1978, Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook, Journal of Customer Research, 5, 103
  11. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tathan, R., Black, W., 1998. Conjoint Analysis, Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed. Prentice-Hall, London, pp. 387–441 (Chapter 7).
  12. Hanemann, 1984, Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66, 332, 10.2307/1240800 · DOI
  13. Hanley, 2001, Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation?, Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 435, 10.1111/1467-6419.00145 · DOI
  14. Hurlimann, 2004, Attitudes to reclaimed water for domestic use: Part 2. Trust, Water, Journal of the Australian Water Association, 31, 40
  15. 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
  16. Hurlimann, 2005, Pricing of drinking water vs recycled water: Fairness and satisfaction, Water, Journal of the Australian Water Association, 32, 50
  17. Johnson, 1974, Trade-off analysis of consumer values, Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 121, 10.2307/3150548 · DOI
  18. Juster, 1966, Consumer buying intentions and purchase probability: An experiment in survey design, American Statistical Association Journal, 658, 10.2307/2282779 · DOI
  19. MacKenzie, 1992, Evaluating recreation trip attributes and travel time via conjoint analysis, Journal of Leisure Research, 24, 171, 10.1080/00222216.1992.11969884 · DOI
  20. MacKenzie, 1993, A comparison of contingent preference models, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75, 593, 10.2307/1243566 · DOI
  21. Madi, 2003, Willingness of farmers to pay for reclaimed wastewater in Jordan and Tunisia, Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 3, 115
  22. 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
  23. McFadden, 1986, The choice theory approach to market research, Marketing Science, 5, 275, 10.1287/mksc.5.4.275 · DOI
  24. McKay, 2003, Attitudes to reclaimed water for domestic use: Part 1. Age, Water, Journal of the Australian Water Association, 30, 45
  25. 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
  26. Parsons, 1992, Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation, Land Economics, 68, 93, 10.2307/3146746 · DOI
  27. Po, M., Kaercher, J.D., Nancarrow, B.E., 2003. Literature Review of Factors Influencing Public Perceptions of Water Reuse: CSIRO Land and Water.
  28. Telser, 2002, Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: An application of conjoint analysis, Health Economics, 11, 129, 10.1002/hec.653 · DOI
  29. Tsagarakis, 2003, The role of information on farmers’ willingness to use recycled water for irrigation, Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 3, 105
  30. 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

Metadata

Authors
Hurlimann, A., & McKay, J.
Affiliations
University of South Australia (AU)
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
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