4.7 Article

Effects of feedback about community water consumption on residential water conservation

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 143, Issue -, Pages 719-730

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.051

Keywords

Residential water consumption; Water conservation; Feedback; Water use behavior; Smart meters; Pro-environmental behavior

Funding

  1. Environmental Research Grant of The Sumitomo Foundation [133393]
  2. JSPS KAKENHI Grant [15K00653]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K00653] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was designed to investigate methods of promoting water conservation through feedback about the level of water consumption in the long term. Most previous studies have been conducted in areas where water resources are under stress, whereas as this study was conducted in the Tokyo commuting area, where there is little worry about a water shortage. Three types of feedback about the level of water consumption in their community were provided to water users. These included actual mean consumption, consumption rank, and emoticons with written information. Feedback was sent once every two weeks during a 24-week period. Two hundreds and forty-six participants were randomly sampled from survey monitors in the Tokyo commuting area. The results indicated that effective feedback information differed for high and low water consumers. Water use in high consumers decreased when they received emoticons, whereas that in low consumers decreased when they saw that their use had decreased. Consumption in low water users did not increase even when they were notified that their consumption was relatively small. In addition, information about mean water consumption is only effective under conditions of water scarcity. In the future, the amount of regional water resources should be considered in selecting the survey area. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available