Laserfiche WebLink
<br />INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSIONS <br /> <br />It is a challenging proposition to interpret the results from this study. It would have been rather <br />straightforward, had Group 2 (amended soil) proven to use less water than Group I (unamended soil). <br />In that case, it could be interpreted that the lower water use of people who amend their soil was due <br />to the actual benefits of amending the soil and/or the more conserving watering habits of people who <br />choose to amend their soil. (Although, the fact that they have comparable per capita indoor water use <br />might cause some doubt about the latter.) <br /> <br />Likewise, if the two groups' landscape watering had been approximately equal and excessive, <br />interpretations could easily be made. It might be speculated that the water-saving benefit of amending <br />the soil is minimal, especially given the relatively flat topography of Fort Collins, and the fact that <br />sprinklers currently marketed have fairly low precipitation rates. Under such results, another possible <br />conclusion would be that both groups were equally guilty of over-watering, and to such a degree that <br />they certainly weren't monitoring their landscape's watering needs close enough to actualize the small <br />benefit of the amendment. <br /> <br />However, these results show that Group 2 not only didn't use less or equivalent water, but 25% <br />more. Ruling out that the amendment itself increases the water requirements of the landscape, these <br />results lead to speculation that the Group 2 participants were different in some attribute from the <br />Group 1 participants. <br /> <br />It can be safely concluded that the Group 2 participants are more inclined to spend money on their <br />landscape, as documented by the fact that they amended their soil. Since they put more money into <br />their landscapes, they may have a stronger desire to assure that it looks nice, and are therefore not <br />overly concerned about the extra $20 or $30 per year that it might cost to be on the safe side and <br />water more. If the Group 2 participants are, in fact, willing to spend more on their landscapes and <br />water bills, it doesn't correlate with the amount of money they put into their home purchase. The <br />average estimated home value for Group 2 was significantly less than that for Group I; $160,000 <br />versus $200,000. <br /> <br />It should be clarified that this was more of a pilot study, as opposed to a rigorously scientific one. <br />More study in certainly necessary before drawing firm conclusions. However, the differences in the <br />two groups' average annual irrigation depths were significant enough to be notable. If there is a <br />policy-making conclusion to draw from this study, it is that no evidence was found to support <br />requiring, or offering incentives for, the addition of organic materials to landscaping soils. At least <br />not if the objective is saving water; there still is undisputed horticultural benefit from amending soils <br />with organic materials. <br /> <br />6 <br />