Perception, Trust and Credibility

Instead of boring everyone to death with another technical post (I’ll get back to UV disinfection later), I decided to address some of the comments that I have received about perception, trust and credibility.

I have no interest in commenting on local social or political environments in Toowoomba, Goulburn or anywhere else (except perhaps Sydney, which I think I am more entitled to comment on!). Therefore, none of the below should be interpreted as an analysis of any specific organisation, but as general observations from an impartial perspective.

A number of proposed water recycling projects around the world have failed as a direct result of a lack of community confidence. They include schemes in Europe, Australia and the USA. In each case, community misgivings could be attributed, in part, to a lack of trust towards the organisation responsible for the proposed water recycling scheme.

Community views of water recycling have been a topic of interest to social scientists since the early 1970s. Since then, water treatment technologies have undergone considerable development and improvement. However, during that time, community support for many forms of water recycling has not significantly increased. As such, there appears to be no strong correlation between the quality of reclaimed water and community acceptance of its use for specific applications.

To fully understand community attitudes to water recycling, it is necessary to consider instinctive and emotional responses that people have to the issue. It has been shown that many people trust their own impressions of water quality (often based on cloudiness or colour of the water) more than they trust medical and scientific evidence. In other words, perceptions of water quality are not simple and not always entirely rational.

Some researchers have suggested that once water has been in contact with contaminants, it can be psychologically very difficult for people to accept that it has been purified. These factors can create mental barriers to the acceptance of recycled water as a source of pure water.

Despite these challenges, a recent review of studies undertaken in the USA has revealed highly positive insights to community perceptions and attitudes towards water recycling. I suspect many would also apply in Australia:

• The community is interested in being meaningfully involved in water reuse decisions.
• The community is interested in finding ways to ensure independent and secure water supplies for their communities.
• While the community is not well versed in the water cycle, they are generally aware that there are water supply problems in many parts of the country.
• The community believes that some form of potable reuse is inevitable, given growth and water supply constraints.
• Information sharing, educational activities and opportunities for reflection upon the concepts of water recycling can increase support.

Ultimately, success of water recycling projects will largely depend on the credibility of the supplier of information. The credibility of the water recycling organisation and its senior personnel are as important to the success of the project as the quality of the project itself. A recent study by Anna Hurlimann (University of South Australia) demonstrated that the degree of trust that an individual had for a water authority was proportionate to the individual’s level of confidence that a planned recycled water supply would not pose unacceptable risks to their health. Dr June Marks (Flinders University, Adelaide) has further reported that institutional frameworks that inform and involve the community are required factors for the generation of trust.

The credibility of an organisation planning water recycling will be judged on a number of factors, which may include perceptions of the organisation’s:

• commitment to the welfare of the community
  
• performance record based on previous initiatives
• knowledge of the issues, as demonstrated by spokespersons
• impartiality regarding the subject matter

Surveys undertaken by June Marks indicate that water and sewerage authorities often receive the lowest degrees of community trust. The medical profession commands the greatest degree of community trust, followed by public health authorities, reputable research institutions, environmental protection agencies and non-government environmental groups.

In instances where the community associates a high level of risk with a water recycling project, trust has shown to be maximised when the following conditions are met:

• Dialog is sustained
• The community has independent sources of information, not linked to the sponsoring agency
• The community can ask questions
• The community is involved early
• Information is available to everyone
• Behaviour is non coercive. It is considered a reasoned and fair way to make a decision
• Everyone’s opinion matters, and there is a willingness to listen to all views and expand the discussion if necessary
• Citizens have some level of control in the process (such as by contributing to the agenda or ground rules)

I would argue that it is the responsibility of the organisation promoting water recycling to generate this trust over time. However, I would also argue that well-placed trust in the organisation is very much in the communities’ interest. The water management problems faced by Australians are real and serious. We need to implement sustainable solutions as a matter of urgency.

It is clear to me that communities can over-come their natural trepidation and place their trust in responsible organisations when they see clearly that it is in their interest to do so. Every time we get on train or bus we depend on the relevant authority or owner to have employed suitably trained drivers who will get us to our destinations safely. When we eat in a restaurant, we trust the chef not to poison us. When we drink bottled water, we trust the bottling company to have properly treated and managed the water. We even trust hospitals and doctors to cut us open to make repairs, -all because we have determined that the benefits far outweigh the risks. The same can and should apply to a well planned and carefully managed water recycling scheme.

As always, send your feedback, praise or personal abuse by clicking the “comments” link below.