Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 2.1 Low to high
perceived water-use
categories
Level of analysis
Perceived use
Percent (N)
Individual residents (n
¼
316)
Low
54 % (172)
Average
35 % (110)
High
11 % (34)
Neighborhoods (n
¼
16)
Low
56 % (9)
Average
44 % (7)
High
0 (0)
Table 2.2 Cross-tabulations: perceived vs. actual water use at individual and neighborhood level
Perceived Use: Percent (N)
Low
Level of analysis
Average
High
Actual water demand
(by CBGs)
Individual residents
(N
Low
22% (70)
11% (35)
4% (14)
¼
316)
Average
19% (59)
15% (47)
4% (12)
High
14% (43)
9% (28)
3% (8)
Low
25% (4) 13% (2) 0 (0)
Average 19% (3)
19% (3) 0 (0)
High 13% (2) 13% (2)
0 (0)
Note: Mismatches in perceptions and usage rates are
gray-shaded
for emphasis.
Italics
represent
especially troublesome discrepancies, that is, since water demand is high relative to perceptions
Neighborhoods
(N
¼
16)
2.4.2 Cross-Tabulations for Perceived vs. Actual Water Use
Integration of the datasets began with running cross-tabulations to explore patterns
of low to high actual versus perceived water use based on the data that were
classified into broader, ordinal categories (Table
2.2
). For individual residents,
40% of the Phoenix-based survey respondents (n
125) displayed a match
between their perceived and actual water demand, with just over half of those in
the low/low category. While these residents correctly perceived water use to be
comparatively low, very few survey respondents (3%) in high-demand areas per-
ceived water use to be high. Of the 79 respondents (26% of the total sample) in high
demand neighborhoods, 90% perceived water use to be about average or below
normal.
The majority of individuals displayed a disconnect between their perceptions
and actual water demand. The most common mismatch was for average-demand
neighborhoods in which residents (19%) perceived their water use as low. Second,
and more troublesome, are the individuals (14%) who perceive their water use to be
low but live in high-demand areas. In total, 42% of Phoenix-based respondents
underestimated their water consumption relative to metered water-use rates, while
19% overestimated water demand by indicating they use average to relatively high
amounts of water when local rates are actually low to average. Perhaps residents'
perceptions of high use encourage conservation locally in some areas. However, our
results indicate that perceptions largely do not reflect neighborhood water con-
sumption rates, thereby potentially obstructing efforts to reduce residential water
demand.
¼
