risk: its more than the statistics

One of the interesting findings coming out of the Toowoomba recycled water controversy  was that residents were put off because the council couldn’t offer  a 100% guarantee that the water was safe. This raises interesting issues around the perception and communication of risk.

From a  scientist’s perspective, risk is a combination of the likelihood an event will occur and the consequences of the event occurring.

For example, the likelihood of a nuclear reactor melting down are tiny but the consequences are catastrophic. Whilst the chances of a severe thunderstorm occurring on a given day in Sydney are much higher, the consequences are much less severe.

A nuclear accident may have a low likelihood but devastating consequences. Photo courtesy of National Nuclear Security Administration / Nevada Field Office.

Research shows the general public views risk quite differently to scientists*. Us non-specialists carry a much broader notion of risk that incorporates accountability, economics, values and trust.

In Toowomba, the delay by council in their initial communication about the recycled water plant lead to a loss of public trust. This was likely because the risk vacuum created was filled by an anti-recycled water activist group. It may also be that while focusing on the risk statistics, there was a lack of acknowledgment about other values that the public felt were threatened by the scheme – the image of the town as Poowoomba.

Studies of risk communication show that communication of zero risk is doomed to failure. While this was not the issue in the Toowoomba case, early loss of trust in decision-makers made subsequent communication difficult. With earlier and better engagement, discussion about values may have taken place. There may even have been a chance to put the case for economic opportunities associated with having more water, and how a more stable water supply could benefit key values of the town such as their gardens.

* Leiss, W. (2004). Mad cows and mother’s milk: the perils of poor risk communication. McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.

 

 

anatomy of a water controversy

There have been several spectacular failures in the implementation of water recycling schemes in Australia. One that resonates was in the south-eastern Queensland town of Toowoomba. After a controversy that caught up players from the local to Federal level, residents voted against recycled water as a solution to a dire water shortage. How might we understand this type of controversy?

The Toowoomba story

Toowoomba is known as ‘Queensland’s Garden City’ and has a population of   over 150,000 people. Most of the water for the gardens and the rest of the city comes from dams. By 2006, however, the total water demand in Toowoomba exceeded supply* and the population were on crippling water restrictions.

In response, the local council developed a policy document supported by State and Federal governments. It included a range of solutions, most prominently the construction of an advanced water treatment plant to provide potable (drinking) quality recycled water for the town.

Toowoomba – Garden City. Photo by Southern Queensland Country

Before the council could commence its proposed 3 year community consultation process, the CADS (Citizens Against Drinking Sewage) Toowoomba group had formed. Within half a year, 10,000 people had signed a petition against the Scheme. The Federal government had also called a referendum on the subject and three councillors, along with the Federal and State members had jumped ship.

The majority (62%) of residents, voted against the proposed recycled water scheme.

Was it about the science?

Surveys showed some residents were not sure if they could trust science; they were irritated that the Toowoomba Council refused to state that the water was 100% safe. Is this an appropriate expectation? In 1998 Sydney had a Cryptosporidium scare from its “clean” water supply dam.

Was it about the politics?

The calling of the referendum by the Federal Government was interesting at a number of levels. They promised funding for the project on the basis of the referendum outcome but funded a similar project in Goulburn without a referendum subject to a six month consultation with the public.

The Toowoomba mayor at the time has stated that “The decision was an abrogation of political leadership and usurped the democratically elected Council’s mandate for making decisions relating to its community”*

Our vision of clean, safe water – Sydney’s Lake Burragorang. Photo by Roger Barnes.

Or was it a communication issue?

By being the first to communicate with the public, CADS became the benchmark information source for matters relating to the proposed recycling project*. This gave CADS significant market power and made it more and more difficult over time, for any positive message about recycled water to be communicated successfully to the residents of Toowoomba.

Or is it an example of difficulties in changing the moral order

Another way of viewing the Toowoomba controversy is as an attempt to shift a fundamental moral order. Who of us has the capacity to get their head around the technicalities of all of life’s issues? Instead we tend to accept certain people or claims. In Toowomba: clean and safe drinking water comes from dams. The alternative, as put by some survey respondents* is the Garden City becomes “Shit City” or “Poowoomba”.

 

*material in this post was sourced from:

Hurlimann, A. & Dolnicar, S. (2010). When Public Opposition Defeats Alternative Water Projects – the Case of Toowoomba Australia. Water Research, 44 (1), 287-297. http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1752&context=commpapers

recycled water – what’s the scoop?

People across the globe are facing water scarcity as our water use increases but supplies stay the same. One option to deal with water scarcity is the use of recycled water.  However, the use of recycled water in Australia has sometimes sparked controversy. So what’s the scoop?

On  World Water Day last year, the UN report released a report predicting that by 2050 more than 40% of the world’s population will live in areas of “severe” water stress.

Humans need water for drinking, to produce food crops, and for industry, among other things. In the old days we pumped water out of natural waterbodies (rivers, lakes and the like), or from underground (wells, bores, etc). When that wasn’t enough we created artificial water storages by damming rivers.

Yarrawonga Weir on the Murray river – an example of how we have regulated rivers for water supply. Photo: Michael Bell

The time has already come in many places when these traditional methods of water supply aren’t enough. What are our options?

1. Use less (demand management). Many of us in Australia have been subject to government water restrictions in our household water use.

2. Improve efficiency.  For example, until recently, water coming out of bores in the Great Artesian Basin was unregulated meaning up to 95% was wasted.

3. Access more (supply management). This is where recycled water comes in. We can also increase supply by building more dams, drilling more bores, desalinating seawater, etc.

All options have their pluses and minuses. But are we water consumers always aware of what trade-offs we making?