Laserfiche WebLink
<br />*The results for each city may vary, but the overall trends can be seen in the majority of <br />the communities analyzed. Additionally, due to the small sample sizes of some cities, <br />data is not as reliable as when included in the larger sample. <br />Appendix H: 2004 Results by City <br /> <br />2005 Group Results <br /> <br />Pre-Audit and Post-Audit Outdoor Water Usage of 2005AG Expressed as % ET <br /> <br /> 25% <br /> 20% <br /> 15% <br />>. <br />~ <br />= <br />QJ <br />= <br />0" 10% <br />QJ <br />... <br />~ <br /> 5% <br /> <br /> <br />0% <br /> <br />L~ '6\Jo!o ~6\Jo!;;') ~bt\Jo!;;') ~~\Jo!;;') \Jo!o, \J} ~\Jo!;;') bt\Jo!~ 6\Jo!~ '6\Jo!~ \J\Jo!;;') ~ \ \J\Jo!o <br />of,) o! 0, f-..\J o! 0, bt\J o! 0, \:' ~ \ \J , 1"\ \Jo! 0, bt \Jo! 0, 6 \Jo! 0, \Jo! 0, ~ 7// <br />\:,0 \:,U \:' ~ \: ~ \'6 <br /> <br />0/0 IT <br /> <br />iii Pre-Audit (2004) D Post-Audit (2006) <br /> <br />For the 2005 group as a whole, there was not a statistically significant difference between <br />the water use of households before and after the inspection for the group as a whole. <br /> <br />Households that were watering above 1000/0 of ET <br /> <br />Pre-Audt 2005AGDistrilDtion ofH)Usehol~ wth Outmor Wlter "age >l000;{'Ef <br /> <br /> 80% <br /> 60% <br />~ <br />= <br />~ <br />= 40% <br />0" <br />~ <br />.. <br />~ 20% <br /> 0% <br /> <br /> <br />~ /6, ~ /6, ~ /6, ~ /6, (5)\J /0) (5)0 jO) cPo jO) 6(5)0/0) <br />..a\J/0, _,,~/o, ~,,~/o, 1a\J/0, ~/o,~ (5)0/0,\7:. ~o/o,\~ ~/o,~ <br />\~ ~v ~v \ \~ ~ ~ ~ <br /> <br />%Ef <br /> <br />iii Pre-Audit (2004) <br /> <br />Results: 99 of 645 households <br /> <br />28 <br />