USVI Public Records

Document text

;jpj iEl WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS BY USERS OF CISTERN, PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS H. Akia Gore, Ph.D February 1989 Technical Report No.31 Water Resources Research Center Caribbean Research Institute m University of the Virgin Islands Dr. Arthur A. Richards Dr. Darshan S. Padda President Vice President Research and Land-Grant Affairs •W$) •^SE) TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 31 WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER CARIBBEAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ST. THOMAS, U.S.V.I. 00802 PROJECT NO. 3 AGREEMENT NO. 14-08-001-G1455 ip\ lip*! r r ^1 THE RESEARCH ON WHICH THIS REPORT IS BASED WAS FINANCED IN PART, BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AS AUTHORIZED BY THE WATER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1984 (P.L. 98-242) Disclaimer Contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Department of the Interior, nor does mention of the trade names or commercial product constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government, f^ ffl psi (Si ABSTRACT The present study was conducted to determine fresh-water use patterns among domestic users of cistern, public and private commercial systems. The data were gathered via a structured closed-ended questionnaire and analyzed with descriptive statistics. The results show that people tend to conserve water but only through some avenues by which waste is obvious to them. The majority of those interviewed showed a lack of knowledge and use of technologically based water conservation devices. Policies and programs are recommended to increase general awareness and adoption of conservation technology in households. SP) p*l ffW $wi pi tpi £* ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research project could not have been possible without the financial support from the United States Geological Survey, the participation of 420 persons who spared the time to answer questions on the research subject, and Dr. Darshan Padda, Vice President, Research and Land Grant Affairs, University of the Virgin Islands, who located the research funds to defray expenses associated with this project. Deepest appreciation to Dr. Frank Mills, Director, Caribbean Research Institute, University of the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas, who assisted with the methodology for data collection, Ms. Kim Emmons for computer programming assistance, and Ms. Joan De Graff for literature search and editorial assistance, and to office and administrative secretaries for word processing assistance. 11 r ffSJ fc^l p> r jpl TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iii LIST OF TABLES iv INTRODUCTION 1 Efforts in Water Resource Development 2 Conservation Efforts in the Virgin Islands 4 LITERATURE REVIEW 6 Objectives 9 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 11 Data Collection 11 Sampling Scheme 13 Socio-Demographic Characteristics 16 Measurement of Variables 29 RESULTS 36 DISCUSSION 75 Implications and Alternatives for Water Conservation Policy and Program Development 80 Recommendation 81 REFERENCES 85 APPENDIX 88 Water Saving Devices 88 Interview Questionnaire 93 in fpl LIST OF TABLES P Table Age of respondents 18 2 Respondents by Race 19 3 Educational Levels of Respondents 20 *• 4 Occupation of Respondents 21 5 Family Income of Respondents 22 6 Family Size of Respondents 23 7 Value of Residence of Respondents 24 8 Living Arrangement of Respondents 25 m 9 Respondents' Dwelling Types 26 10 Age of Housing Occupied by Respondents 27 F 11 Time Spent by Respondents in the V.I 28 12 Length of Time Spent by Respondents at Current Address 29 13 Perception of Abundance of Water in the Natural Environment 37 14 Perception of Availability of (Ample) Water Resources to Consumers 38 15 Perception of Need to Preserve Freshwater Resources 39 16 Perception of Wasteful Behavior of Water in the Home 40 17 Perception of Businesses Water Wasting Patterns 41 p 18 Residential Source of Water Supply in all Three Islands 42 * 19 Source of Water by Island 43 F 20 Consumer Water Purchase from Water Haulers in Previous 12 Months 44 m 21 Frequency of Household or Landlord's Water [ Purchases from Haulers 45 22 Average Cost per Year for Hauled Water 46 l 23 Purchase of Water from Water and Power Authority 47 iv pi 24 pw 25 -. 26 r 27 28 p^ 29 W\ 30 • 31 p£5V 32 - 33 iBl 34 35 36 ^t 37 : 38 r 39 i 40 psi , 41 •SI 42 • 43 » 44 I 45 46 r 47 f 48 ps> 49 V 50 Perception of Cost of Water from WAPA 48 Conservation of Freshwater 49 Residential Use of Low Flow Faucet 50 Use of Bathroom Showers Conservation Devices 51 Use of Toilet Dams 52 Households With Leaking Faucets 53 Time Taken to Fix Leaking Faucet 54 Reuse of Freshwater 55 Uses for Grey-Water (Fxcept for Bath) " 56 Reuse of Grey-Water 57 Types of Use Made of Bath Grey-Water 58 Residential Toilet Systems 59 Frequency of Toilet Flushes per Day by Households 60 Choice of Bathing Activity by Households 61 Shower Procedure by Household 62 Water Running While Brushing Teeth 63 Washing Face While Water Running 64 Residential Use of Washing Machines 65 Method of Cleaning Laundry 66 Frequency of Cleaning Laundry (Times per Week) 67 Wash Load Required to Operate Washing Machine 68 Family Members Laundering Wash Separately 69 Ownership of Dishwashers 70 Manual Dish Washing Activity 71 Frequency of Washing Car 72 Lawn and Garden Cultivation 73 Frequency of Irrigation of Lawn/Garden 74 JM iff!?! IW MX INTRODUCTION Water has always been a scarce commodity in the U.S. Virgin Islands. There are no rivers and streams, and residents must rely on inconsistent and infrequent rainfall to replenish water stored in cisterns or steel barrels, and meager groundwater supplies (Peebles, Pratt and Smith 1979). The traditional methods of collection, storage, and distribution partially fulfill the needs for water, but commercial activities, settlement patterns and the style of life are greatly affected by the lack of an adequate water supply. The need for additional water has risen sharply in recent years with the growth of the hotel industry and high population growth due to the immigration of people from eastern Caribbean countries, Puerto Rico, Asia and elsewhere in the last few years. The rapidly expanding tourist-based economy and the population explosion require a dependable, economical, consistent and adequate supply of freshwater (Peebles et al. 1979). Given the limited water supply in the territory and the importance of the tourist industry to the local economy, water distribution policy in the future is likely to favor the tourist sector. Currently, attempts at securing an adequate water supply for Virgin Islands residents have stimulated exploration of a wide range of very expensive alternative freshwater sources for present and projected future demand. Among these are manufactured freshwater (desalinated water), expanded catchments, storage reservoirs, wells, waste water reclamation and commercial production. Already some of these measures have created as many problems as they have solved. For example, the modern desalinization technology used to produce freshwater has been incorporated into a very antiquated infrastructure, resulting in constant breakdown and interruption of services. This condition aggravates an already precarious water supply situation. Because of these problems, Virgin Island residents should be encouraged to participate in efforts to manage the scarce water supply through conservation practices, as a means of coping with current and future shortages. Efforts in Water Resource Development The rapidly expanding commercial and residential demand for water is met from three main sources: desalinated water, groundwater and cistern systems. The desalinated water, clearly the most important source, is purchased from the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority (WAPA) on St. Croix and St. Thomas. Apart from the breakdowns and frequent service interruptions, desalinated water is fH m fflSSl f&m ) p&l extremely costly in terms of energy, capital and operational (IP![ expenditure. m Groundwater represents a major source of freshwater for *• St. Croix, but is less important on St. Thomas and St. John. f° Although it is significantly less expensive than desalinated water, it is sometimes polluted and can have a salty taste that consumers find objectionable (CH2M Hill Southeast Inc., 1983). The high salt content in groundwater is due to i prolonged intensive exploitation of this water source, which p has lowered the water tables to the point where seawater has seeped into the underground aquifer and replaced freshwater. The loss of these water supplies has aggravated the freshwater problem. Finally, water harvesting via roof catchment and m cistern systems constitutes another source from which residents obtain their freshwater. Roof catchments and m cisterns are required by the local government for all new residential constructions, including hotels and condominiums. Although this is an important source of p water, it is unreliable during periods of drought and low *• rainfall. An alternative is for residents to purchase water m from private water haulers to refill their cisterns. This approach is very expensive. The cost of water is from forty J to sixty dollars for a three-thousand-gallon truck-load of p water, depending on whether it is purchased from WAPA, or ^ comes from private wells or rainwater obtained from private P storage. fill Conservation Efforts The increasing cost of water has become a burden for residents, who must rely on both the private and public « production systems for their water supply. The legislature is involved in an on-going struggle to obtain refunds for m the customers of the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority. At the same time the legislature is trying to obtain reductions in the cost of water to residents. This may be impossible in light of increasing costs of production - to WAPA. One method of controlling costs would be for WAPA ^} to produce less and for consumption to be reduced by legally ~ enforced conservation policies, instead of constantly trying to expand production. To date, water conservation has received little J emphasis in public water policy. The first legislative ** attempt at this approach occurred in 1965, when the legislature passed the Water Conservation Act (Act No. 1344, "1 12 V.I. Co., Chapter 5), which calls for a prohibition on the ..."wasteful use of water", and established a comprehensive system for regulating the digging of wells and «• the withdrawal of water (Peebles et al. 1979). However, the law made no provisions for legally enforcing conservation T measures. Some consumers now try to conserve water by reusing water for gardening and other purposes. However, 1 this is voluntary, and done by only a few home owners, « hotels and condominiums (Peebles et al. 1979). Because conservation is voluntary, it lacks the coercive power that T I1"8^1 rs SSPI fSl jpi Jpl p) only official policy can give. Neither the government nor private research has determined how residents use freshwater, although both the government and the University have conducted studies to determine demand. To increase production of freshwater as usage increases does not adequately solve the water crisis situation in this territory. Empirical research on conservation practices should be undertaken as an integral part of. water production plans. With the need for information on how Virgin Islands pi residents use freshwater, this study was conducted to determine water conservation practice policies needed for P the Virgin Islands. To the extent that the need for conservation practices is established through this research •Ft [ effort, policy-makers will be better informed concerning the needs of their constituents, and will gain the potential to t approach problem resolution from the perspective of conservation. LITERATURE REVIEW The literature on water conservation research was reviewed to determine the factors which affect water J conservation behavior among mainland and local residential «• users. Unfortunately, relatively little literature exists on the topic. This is ironic in view of the fact that water scarcity and conservation issues have received considerable coverage both in the print and visual media. Most of the empirical research that has been conducted has been carried & out by municipalities, and the emphasis, for the most part, ~ has been one of determining water use patterns of business "1 and industry. The states of Arizona and California have been in the forefront of water conservation research, but much of the ^ information resulting from their efforts has been concerned primarily with exploring conservation practice needs for ^ consumers. In very few instances has existing research isolated residential users with a view to determining ( factors that relate to water use behavior. In their review of the literature on water resource development, Napier, ' Scot, Foster and Sapella (1983) found that for a 20-year- ^ period (1963-83) only a few more than twenty bibliographies and literature reviews have been published on the social factors that affect water resources. Of these, most are concerned with Government legislation and law, and the cost benefit associated with water resource development. The fWk fit?) search for a general theory of water conservation specifically relating to residential users has also been m unproductive. Much of the existing water conservation research has been conducted by development sociologists, and P these studies have been concerned, primarily, with water use behavior in the farm sector (Napier et al. (1983). [ The need for water conservation research on residential pv users is therefore undeniable; especially in view of the ^ fact that, unlike other natural resources, there are no T substitutes for water. When residential freshwater reserves in springs, catchments and elsewhere are depleted, consumers are inconvenienced and must face prohibitive costs for exploiting alternative sources. For many communities negative consequences of water scarcity are unnecessary; the problem could be avoided by more effective management of existing water supplies. However, more effective water management can only be achieved, if it is based on a sound knowledge of how social-behavioral factors relate to water use practices. ^ Although sparse, the available research literature has provided some important insights on factors that relate to t water conservation behavior. For example, Woodard and Rasmussen (1983), found pricing factors to be very important in encouraging conservation by residential users. People who are appropriately charged for the water they consume, use less, especially if there is an increase in price with increase in use. Most writers are convinced that the low w* fp?t 8 cost of water is the major contributor to waste of water by residential users. In a water scarcity region such as Arizona, the water management strategy that is employed to encourage conservation includes the imposition of water quotas. Users who exceed their quotas risk increased costs or the interruption of water services for a designated period of time. Additionally, Woodard et al.(1983> found that households which directly pay their water bills consume considerably less than those that do not. The ability to pay, as expressed in income, is also an important predictor of residential water use patterns (Woodard et al. 1983). Carlile (1983) concluded from his research, that income is frequently expressed in water conservation practices, with higher income people more prone to switch to conservation measures. Such measures include the use of desert vegetation instead of grass lawns, altering plumbing, as well as other changes that cost money. He also found that lower income people resort to other, less costly, conservation measures, such as not letting the water run in the sink and keeping the faucet in repair (Carlile, 1983). Additionally, the literature reveals that other factors H such as age, home ownership, length of residence (seasonal or year round), size of family, educational and occupational | achievement, are important in explaining water use patterns (Woodard et al. 1983). Additional factors, such as size of ' wash load, use of a washing machine, method of washing m' s f$i fx^S (®$\ dishes, attention to broken or malfunctioning plumbing { fixtures, the use of water-saving appliances, such as low- flush toilets, and water-saving devices in the bathroom, t kitchen and elsewhere, all affect residential water use » patterns (Woodard et al. 1983). Only a few of the variables delineated in the literature will be included for analysis in this study. The following objectives provide the general thrust of I this research project: Objectives:, This study was undertaken to determine the extent to which Virgin Islands residents conserve water. The is I literature review revealed that several factors tend to influence water use behavior. While this information is useful, it does not provide a comprehensive view of the | social factors that explain conservation behavior. The following stated objectives will serve to broaden as well as ( to focus the scope of this study. m Objective 1. To determine the extent to which Virgin Islands residents conserve water. P Objective 2. To ascertain the extent to which Virgin Islands residents are aware of, and use water conservation | measures that are utilized in water scarcity zones on the U.S. mainland. Objective 3. To determine the methods and devices of conservation most often used by residential users. r & /Pv 10 Information sought at this point moved beyond the awareness of conservation information technology and mechanized technology into determining whether people actually employ *» such information and technology when using freshwater. Objective 4. To examine perceptions of water use m' patterns and perceptions of availability of freshwater resources. Perception-type variables were carefully selected and integrated into the measuring instrument to assist in determining how residential users view their freshwater resource base (depletable or inexhaustible). If users view this resource as depletable, they would be more inclined to conserve it. On the other hand, if this resource is believed to be inexhaustible, people will tend to be less concerned about conserving it. Objective 5. To assess the immediate and future socio economic gains to Virgin Islands residents once the institutions of practice becomes the norm. i^ b^ ffia fflf raa .|pi 11 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Data were collected via an interview schedule administered from January through May, 1988 using a multi stage area probability sampling lapproach in selecting a representative sample. The sampling design ensured that every head of household in the three major U.S. Virgin Islands, except those living in houseboats, boats or in institutions, had a known chance of being selected as a unit of the study sample. By using this sampling procedure, the views expressed by respondents in the sample closely approximated the views that would have been expressed by the population as a whole, had every head of household been interviewed. The target population for this study consisted of heads of households who are users of cistern systems and/or the Territory's potable water systems (public or commercial). Data Collection The data collection process followed a number of steps. The first step involved generating a sampling frame. It was generated from enumeration district (ED's) maps of the Virgin Islands, which were derived from the 1980 Virgin Islands census of population and housing. It was determined from these ED maps that the Virgin Islands consisted of 316 ED's. These ED's were stratified geographically, and a pair of ED's was selected randomly from each stratum based on the probability proportional to their size. A listing of each residential unit within each selected enumeration district was undertaken as a second step in the 12 /K| data collection process. A "house listing sheet" was created which provided for the appropriate numbering of each ^ residential dwelling in the enumeration district. Where apartments are indicated, provisions were made to list each unit separately. Residential units were listed as either occupied or vacant. A small number of dwellings was selected randomly from the listing of each ED. "* A third step of the data collection process involved the actual interviewing of the respondents. The selection of respondents to be interviewed was based on selection intervals generated from the house listing sheet. Once the household to be interviewed was determined, trained interviewers visited each selected housing unit. Subjects were asked to give the most appropriate response to each question, and enumerators indicated the respondents' answers to each question on the schedule. Only heads of households were permitted to participate in the interview. Enumerators were instructed to return to the homes of selected respondents if the subjects were not available for an interview at the time of the initial visit. Previous research has shown that the interviewing technique employed in this study is a valid and reliable method for collecting sample data from a population of household (Single, Kandell and Faust, 1975; Hardt and Peterson-Hardt, 1977; Mills, m- 1982). The present study targeted five hundred (500) respondents for its sample. It obtained 420 completed (m$ fi^ fSl n tf^Jj 0w\ 13 questionnaires; a completion rate of 84 percent. This rate compares favorably with similar rates for multistage samples survey conducted in the continental United States. Sampling Scheme In a area sample of this kind, it is important to obtain a reliable and representative sample. This was I obtained via a reliability estimate that was formulated and an advanced by Kish (1965) and tested locally by Mills (1982) in a household survey. Given a target of 400 completed P interviews, the total number of dwellings in the sample was determined with an equation involving the rates of occupancy and completion rate of interviews (Warwick and Lininger, rm 1975): fpl ipi Completed Completed Dwelling Dwelling to Interviews = Interviews rate x use rate x be selected = 500 400 (0.95) (0.84) X Therefore, it required a sample size of about 500 dwellings to yield approximately 400 completed interviews, the number required for a reliability estimate of five percentage points for each item to which all household respondents.. The following data show the distribution of the sample size of 500 households among the three islands comprising the Virgin Islands. Island Sample Size St John 25 St. Thomas 225 St. Croix 250 Total 500 14 In selecting the housing units, the enumeration districts (ED's) or primary sampling units (PSU's) were determined by geographically grouping the ED's, and then dividing them into about 20 strata of approximately the same ) size of 1672 households in each. The strata are distributed « as follows: one on St. John, nine on St. Thomas, and 10 on St. Croix. ^ Forty PSU's were drawn into the sample, two from each stratum. Each of the forty PSU's was drawn with a probability proportionate to the size of the number of « dwelling units in each enumeration district. Thus, the greater the number of housing units in a PSU, the greater "") its chance of entering the sample. Having identified 40 PSU's for interview, baseline maps were prepared. The next step was to select the household to be interviewed. The selection process had to guarantee that f^ 16 8ocio-DemoaraDhic/Ra«idential Characteristics The sample for this study consisted of 420 respondents. The socio-demographic and residential characteristics are illustrated in Tables 1 to 12. The data indicate that about one-half of the sample (54 percent) were ages 26-45, and a little more than one-third (35 percent) were 46 and older. In terms of the racial composition of the sample, more H than half (61 percent) were black, 20 percent were white, 12 percent was black of Hispanic origin, 2 percent were white j of Hispanic origin and less than one percent were Asian. Three percent of the respondents did not identify with any ' of the aforementioned racial groups. ^ Three quarters of the sample (76 percent) had completed high or junior high school, and only 11 percent had finished college. Less than 2 percent had no schooling. For occupational groups, data show that almost one- third (29 percent) of the sample claimed to be from the m managerial and professional class. Less than a quarter (22 percent) were involved in service occupations, one percent was seasonally employed and less than five percent were unemployed. In terms of income, slightly more than one half (51 percent) consider their family income to be average, about r^f f^| i (5^al iipi ^i iiwt fpi r ^\ 17 21 percent said below average, and 18 percent claimed above average income.* Information on family composition was also garnered data. As illustrated in the below table, more than one-half (53 percent) had a family size of between three to five people, 32 percent had one to two people, 12 percent with family size of six to eight people and 2 percent with more than six people in the family. A number of variables were assessed to determine the residential characteristics of the study area. Questions on 1 value of dwelling, living arrangements, type of dwelling, m time spent in the Virgin Islands, length of stay at current address and value of place of residence were included on the measuring instrument to achieve this objective. In terms of residential characteristics, a majority(38 percent) of those interviewed claimed a value of between $50,000 to $102,000 for the place where they live. One half (50 percent) said they were buying or owning and 61 percent of those sampled lived in single family dwellings. A majority of these structures ranged between one to twenty- one years old. Most of the respondents(96 percent) live in the territories on a year round basis with one half(50 percent) having lived in the Virgin Island from between one to ten years. *U.S. Department of Commerce statistics show that average income for^an American family of four, as late as 1985, was $10,980. Table 1. Age of Respondents (N = 420) Years 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66 and Over Do Not Know No Response TOTAL N Percent 39 9.3 94 22.4 132 31.4 66 15.7 48 11.4 32 7.6 4 1.0 5 1.2 420 100.0 ffi? 18 AS fmS f^ ffiwi ffl f^5? f^^l 5S\ |SI m* •«F\ pi fS 19 Table 2. Respondents by Race (N = 420) Racial Groups Hispanic Black Black Hispanic White White Asian Others No Response N Percent* 51 12.1 257 61.2 8 1.9 84 20.0 3 .7 11 2.6 6 1.4 TOTAL 420 100.0 ♦Percentage may not add to 100.0 due to rounding error. 21 m\ ~* Table 4. Occupation of Respondents (N = 420) j$w| ^1 SPI fj>a$\ Occupation Category N Percent Managerial/Professional 120 28.6 Teacher/Nurse/Secretary 38 9.0 Clerical/ Police 27 6.4 Service Occupation 91 21.7 Laborer/Farmer/Taxi 62 14.8 Housemaker/Retired 56 13.3 Unemployed 19 4.5 Seasonally Employed 3 .7 No Response 4 1.0 TOTAL 420 100.0 Table 5. Family Income of Respondents (H = 420) Family Income N Percent* Below Average 89 21.2 About Average 212 50.5 Above Average 75 17.9 No Response 44 10.3 TOTAL 420 100.0 ♦Percentage may not add to 100.0 due to rounding error. fflS 22 fl. (mi ffij Table 7. Value of Residences of Respondents (N = 420) Value .n Percent Do Not Know/No Response Less Than $50,000 $50,000-$76,000 $77,000-$102,000 $103,000-$128,000 $129,000-$154,000 $155,000-$180,000 $181,000-$206,000 $207,000 And Over No Response 125 29.8 46 11.0 66 15.7 47 11.2 16 3.8 22 5.2 14 3.3 25 6.0 52 12.4 7 1.6 TOTAL 420 100.0 24 f$ft I5KI S3 jpl pi lip! ip»'i jpl IS Table 8. Living Arrangements of Respondents (N = 420) Accommodation Types Renting Buying Own No Response TOTAL N Percent* 202 48.1 30 7.1 182 43.3 6 1.4 420 100.0 ♦Percentage may not add to 100.0 due to rounding error. 25 Table 9. Respondents' Dwelling Types (K = 420) Dwelling Types N Percent Apartment Duplex/Triplex Mobile Home Single Family Town House Condo Public Housing No Response 120 28.6 25 6.0 4 1.0 255 60.7 7 1.7 2 .5 6 1.4 1 .2 TOTAL 420 100.0 26 1 (PI IP) |P^ Ip?! F Table 10. Age of Housing Occupied by Respondents (N = 420) Age . N Percent* Less than 12 months 5 1.2 1-10 years 98 23.3 11-21 years 153 36.4 22-32 years 45 10.7 33+ years 40 9.5 Do Not Know 79 18.8 TOTAL 420 100.0 •Percentage may not all add to 100.0 due to rounding error 27 Table 11. Time spent by Respondents in the V.I. (N = 420) Season N Percent Year Round 402 95.7 Winter Elsewhere 10 2.4 Summer Elsewhere 2 .5 Do Not Know 4 1.0 No Response 2 .5 TOTAL 420 100.0 28 13 IS! na f^j 1 PS 30 Attitudes Toward Water Availability Attitudes toward water availability and water conservation were measured using a number of related variables. These include: perception of water availability, perception of water wasting practices, and perception of the importance of conservation practices. Respondents were asked to rank their attitudes toward these factors by choosing from five possible scale responses created by Likert (1932): "strongly disagree," "disagree," "undecided," "agree," and "strongly agree,"* Sources of Freshwater Respondents were asked where they received freshwater for home use. The responses were cistern systems, "potable water (from commercial/Water and Power Authority(WAPA)", "private well", "potable water (trucked)", "cistern and potable water systems". Information was sought on commercial water purchase by the respondent or the landlord within the past year in order to determine the relative frequency of purchase. The respondents were asked whether they or their landlord purchased water during the past 12 months. The possible responses were "yes" and "no". * "Don't know" and "no response" are options included for all variables. i i r r m\ 31 The respondents were also asked to note the "average cost for water per year by haulers". The possible responses were "less than $60", "$60 - $120", "$121 - $180", "$181 - $241", and "$242 - $302" . Respondents were asked to indicate how they felt about the cost of this water, and the possible responses were as follows: "very expensive", "moderately expensive", "neither expensive nor cheap", "moderately cheap", "very cheap". The variable "water purchase from WAPA" was measured by asking respondents if they purchased water from WAPA. The possible responses were "yes" and "no". A "yes" response to the above question required a stated monthly billing amount. Perception of the cost of water secured from WAPA was measured using the following responses: "very expensive", "moderately expensive", neither expensive or cheap , "moderately cheap", and "very cheap". Water Use Patterns & Conservation Behavior The respondents were asked to note how they use freshwater. This information was obtained by examining water use patterns and the employment of conservation measures and devices by residential users. Variables to be measured included: use of freshwater, use of washing machine at home, reuse of freshwater (grey water), conservation devices used in bathrooms, frequency of toilet flushing, methods of bathing, methods of showering, leaving the water running while brushing the teeth, car ownership, 32 frequency of car wash, method of cleaning household laundry, leaking faucets in the home, length of time taken to fix leaking faucets, cultivation of lawn and gardens, household reduction of water use, and utilization of water-saving devices. Respondents were asked if they used a washing machine at home; (possible responses: yes or no). Respondents were also asked if they "reuse freshwater after it has been used „ previously (grey water);" (possible responses: yes and no). ) If the respondent indicated that he/she reused water, he/she was asked to tell how water was reused. Possible responses include: "toilet flush", "car wash", "wash dishes", and "others". Information was solicited on use of conservation devices in residential bathroom facilities. Respondents were asked to indicate the "type of toilet system they used". Possible responses were: "common white ceramic type with hand lever", "stainless steel with push button", "low flush". Frequency of "toilet flush" seriously affects water use m patterns. Information on the variable was obtained by asking respondents to indicate the number of times during m the day that the toilet was flushed. Information on water use patterns was also determined via the method of bathing. The possible responses were: « shower, tub bath, others. Respondents were asked to tell how they used water while showering. The four response m 1™S IS) PI tffflWj F^ 33 categories were: "apply sorp while -he shower is running"; "turn off the faucet, apply soap, then shower"; "run water until it gets warm, then soak, apply soap, then wash"; "others." Respondents were asked if they frequently "leave water running from the faucet while brushing teeth". Response categories were: "yes", or "no". The respondents were asked if they owned a car. The possible responses were: "yes" and "no". If "yes", respondents were asked how many cars they owned. Data on conservation practices were obtained from respondents by asking them to indicate how often they or members of the household wash the family car(s) with freshwater. The responses were: "don't wash the family car", "once per week", "twice per week", "three or more times per week", "don't have a car". Information on method of cleaning household laundry as an indication of conservation behavior was measured using four indices: "commercial laundry", "washing machine at home", "wash by hand", and "other". If a respondent cleaned laundry by machine at home, they were asked "how many times per week they did laundry". The responses were: "at least once", "twice", "three or more times". The size of the wash-load that the respondent must have before deciding to operate the washing machine at home was measured in four response categories: "half-load", "full- load", "less than half-load", and "a few pieces of soiled 34 laundry". Respondents were also asked whether members of the household washed their soiled laundry separately, with a possible response of "yes" or "no". Information on conservation practice was further obtained by asking respondents to tell if they had any leaking faucets in the home ("yes" or "no"). If the response to this question was "yes", respondents were asked to tell how long they usually waited before having a leaking faucet fixed. Choice of responses were: "sometimes up to one week", "several weeks", and "months". Respondents were also asked to recall whether they ever heard a hissing sound in the commode in the house. The possible responses were "very seldom", "seldom", "sometimes", "frequently", "very frequently", "never", and "don't have a commode in my house". The cultivation of a lawn, vegetable garden, or flower garden has always been recognized as a water-intensive activity. Respondents were questioned to determine if they engaged in any of these activities. If "yes", they were asked to tell how frequently they watered their garden. The possible responses were: "once a day", "every other day", "two days per week", "never water". Information on respondent's effort to conserve water was obtained by asking if they ever considered reducing the amount of freshwater their household uses. The possible responses were "yes" or "no". Vmi i^a 1 fw£ fm«S fW: api m 35 Respondents were asked to provide information on use of specific water-saving devices as a means of determining water conservation practices among residents. Respondents were asked if they used low-flow faucets throughout the house; low flow shower heads, shower cut-off valves, shower head inserts, or shower aerators in the bathroom; toilet dams in the commodes; washed dishes by hand; or washed dishes by dishwasher. The responses were "yes" or "no". RESULTS The data presented in this chapter were derived from a research survey of conservation practices among residential users of public distribution, commercial and cistern water systems in the Virgin Islands. The following results derived from the study, reflect the research objectives listed earlier. The data on water conservation have been analyzed and presented in the following section. Perception of Abundance of Fresh Water in the Natural Environment Data presented in Table 13 provide information regarding the way people view water as a natural resource. When asked about their perception of abundance of water in the natural environment, 76 percent of the sample disagreed that water is in abundance. Only 18 percent indicated that there is an abundance of freshwater supply in the natural environment. 36 i f^$ t?$$ f*9f| 38 Perception Regarding Availability of Freshwater Data in Table 14 are focussed on the perception of Virgin Islands residents regarding the availability of water resources in the territory. The data show that a majority (70%) of those sampled disagree that there is an ample supply of freshwater available to consumers. Only 23 percent believe that water isn't a scarce commodity in the Virgin Islands. Table 14. Perception of Availability of (Ample) Water Resources to Consumers (N = 420) Response Frequency Percent Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't Know Undecided No Response 86 20.5 207 49.3 83 19.8 2 .5 23 5.5 17 4.0 2 .5 TOTAL 420 100.0 ] m 1 Fmt f pf) .|3a?l 39 Perception of Need to Preserve Freshwater Perception of the need to preserve freshwater resources is believed to have considerable influence on water conservation behavior. The data in Table 15 are focused on perception of need to preserve freshwater. As noted in the table, 87 percent of those surveyed think that there is a need to preserve freshwater, while 8 percent do not agree that such a need exists. Table 15. Perception of Need to Preserve Fresh Water Resources (N = 420) Response Frequency Percent Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't Know Undecided No Response 18 4.3 16 3.8 192 45.7 175 41.7 9 2.1 8 1.9 2 .5 TOTAL 420 100.0 Data on perception of water wasting behavior in the home are presented in Table 16. When asked how they perceive water use behavior in the community as a whole, 43 percent of those interviewed disagree that people waste water and 42 percent agree that people waste water in the home. At the same time 14 percent of those surveyed were either undecided or don*t know whether or not people waste or conserve water. Table 16. Perception of Wasteful Use of Water in the Home (N= 420) 40 Response Frequency Percent Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Undecided Don't Know No Response 36 8.6 144 34.3 150 35.7 27 6.4 23 5.5 37 8.8 3 .7 TOTAL 420 100.0 im 1 /^Kfl 41 Perception oft Water u*m Fatt»ra aaoncr Buadnaaaea [ The data presented in Tftble 17 provide information; on p how people perceive water use patterns among businesses.. In? ^ this reference, 27 percent disagree7 that businesses?,waste m water. While 32 percent agree that they do, almost: a, third indicated that: they have no knosrledger of water use patterns SB[ among businesses. {p* prv JP) Wfi Table 17. Perception of Businesses. Water Wasting Patterns (N = 420) Response Frequency Percent* Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't Know Undecided No Response TOTAL 13 3.1 101 24.0 116 27.6 20 4.8 124 29.5 37 8.8 9 2.1 420 100.0 ♦Percentage may not add to 100.0 due to rounding error. Residential source of Freshwater Table 18 presents data on residential sources of freshwater on all three islands. The data show that a majority (63%) of those surveyed obtain their freshwater supply from cistern systems, 16 percent from the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority, 14 percent from a combination of cistern and commercial haulers, 3 percent from private wells and 2 percent from commercial haulers. Table 18. Residential Source of Water Supply (N = 420) Response Frequency Percent Cistern WAPA Private Well Trucked Cistern & Trucked Do Not Know No Response 265 63.1 65 15.5 12 2.9 7 1.7 59 14.0 7 1.7 5 1.1 TOTAL 420 100.0 42 <a _ 1 ,^t r isi JSl 43 Sources of Freshwater SupdIv bv Island The data were segmented to show differences in sources of freshwater supply by islands. As illustrated by Table 19, 70 percent of St. John residents rely on cistern systems, 64 percent in St. Croix, and 63 percent in St. Thomas. WAPA is the second single largest source of freshwater for residents, and this source accounts for 16 percent in St. Croix and 17 percent in St. Thomas. WAPA does not provide freshwater to St. John residents. A combination of cistern and trucked systems is the third largest source, with 22 percent of the sample from St. John, 15 percent from St. Thomas, and 12 percent from St. Croix, claiming this source. Table 19. Source of Water by Island (N =420) Island Source of Water St. Croix St. Thomas St,.John NO. % NO. % NO. % Cistern 124 63.6 125 63.1 16 69.6 WAPA 31 15.9 34 17.2 0 0 Private Well 10 5.1 1 .5 1 4.3 Trucked 2 1.0 4 2.0 1 4.3 Cistern & Trucked 24 12.3 30 15.2 5 21.7 Do Not Know 3 1.5 4 2.0 0 0 No Response 2 1.0 0 0 0 0 Total 196 100 198 100 23 100 Purchases from Water Haulers The data in Table 20 show the percentage of the sample who purchase water from commercial haulers. A majority (65 percent) claimed that they did not purchase water from commercial haulers, and 24 percent said they did. 44 fm§ TABLE 20. Consumer Water Purchase From Water Haulers in Previous 12 Months (N = 420) m Response Frequency Percent* Yes 101 24.0 No 274 65.2 Don't Know 27 6.4 No Response 18 4.3 TOTAL 420 100.0 ♦Percentage may not add to 100.0 due to rounding error. (^s Of f«i«!S jpl jpil pj •p?) HP?) 45 Household or Landlord's Water Purchases From Commercial Haulers Table 21 presents data on frequency of household or landlord's average yearly water purchases from commercial haulers. The data show that 14 percent of those interviewed purchased water between one to three times per year, and just 6.7 percent four times or more per year. Table 21. Frequency of Household or Landlord Water Purchases from Haulers (N = 420) Response Once Twice Three Times Four Or More Do Not Know No Response TOTAL Frequency Percent 25 6.0 21 5.0 14 3.3 28 6.7 19 4.5 313 74.6* 420 100.0 *The high "no response" rate results from an option which allows respondents to skip this question if they had given a response of "no" to the previous question. fill 46 Cost of Hauled Water The data in Table 22 show average yearly cost for hauled water to participants in the survey. Of those interviewed, 7 percent spent up to $60 - $120 per year for water from commercial haulers, 5 percent spent between $121 - $302 and another 5 percent spent $303 or more yearly for the same service. Table 22. Average Cost per Year for Hauled Water (N = 420) Response Frequency Percent Less Than $60 $60-$120 $121-$180 $181-$241 $242-$302 $303 or more Do Not Know No Response 7 1.7 23 5.5 11 2.6 5 1.2 6 1.4 21 5.0 27 6.4 320 76.2* ] i TOTAL 420 100-° "| 1 *The high "no response" rate results from an options which allows respondents to skip this question if they had given a response of "no" to the previous question.