Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />V. Brochure <br />Of the 7 respondents, 5 remember receiving the brochure. The other 2 did not fill out this part of <br />the survey. All 5 respondents read the brochure. Four found it useful. One respondent said she <br />had already done extensive research on water conservation and didn't find the brochure helpful. <br />Three respondents claimed their water use did not change after reading the brochure. Two <br />households did. One household actually did the calculation, but wished there were a place to get <br />more information on the most efficient lawn watering systems. These responses coincide with <br />the findings ofthe students. <br /> <br />VI. Responsiveness to Change! Commitment <br />The objective of this question was to determine if values influence people's water use behavior. <br />All the respondents would change their landscape to one that uses less water if it was financially <br />feasible, while maintaining the look of the yard and minimizing water use as the top choices of <br />importance. Responses to what people value the most in their yard varied between green grass, <br />trees, and color. Five of the 7 respondents didn't answer the question about encouraging <br />neighbors to conserve water. Of the 2 that did, one suggested bringing up the issue at town hall <br />meetings. The other respondent had many suggestions. They were I) send comparisons/analyses <br />with the bill and show what can be saved is usage was reduced to average, 2) hold seminars/ <br />instructional meetings at the malls, home centers, and garden centers, 3) offer rebate programs <br />for water conserving device additions or give a year~end credit for overall water use reductions as <br />a reward system, 4) hold free classes at educational centers for water conservation and improving <br />landscapes. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5) Conclusions <br /> <br />Overall, this project was a valuable learning experience for what will and will not work in the <br />arena of water conservation. Most of the water customers that call in are not interested in <br />hearing a lengthy discourse on water conservation techniques; thus conservation information <br />must be presented in a form that will be both attractive and informative. The brochure was at <br />least partially effective in doing this; however, the equation that allowed people to determine <br />application rates to irrigated areas was too complicated for the average recipient. Overall, the <br />project has impressed upon the City the need to develop a comprehensive and ongoing water <br />conservation program. The clerks must be incorporated as part of this effort, and the City hopes <br />to train them to be not only front-line customer service personnel, but also front-line water <br />conservation advice experts. Currently, the City is using some of the findings of the study to <br />develop a computer program that automatically calculates application rates based on lot size, and <br />compares that figure to other residences in the same lot size category. <br /> <br />The potential for water savings depends on individual customers and is impossible to generalize. <br />However, specific tools (such as the equation used to determine landscape application rates and <br />the sprinkler application measuring technique) will be invaluable in assisting residents on a <br />personalized basis. The City will use the comments gathered from brochure recipients to refine <br />the existing brochure, and to select additional conservation literature to round out the selection of <br />information available to residents. This project provides a good base from which to build. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />9 <br />