locAl context

The local context is an important factor in rainwater tank management. Specifically, it needs to be acknowledged that rainwater tanks exist in a regulatory and legal environment; and any strategy will need to consider the socio-psychological aspects of the domestic rainwater tank owners. Regardless of situation, without the broad cooperation of rainwater tank owners, any strategy to manage rainwater tanks is likely to fail. Even if maintenance were mandated as per onsite sewerage systems, it is likely that upholding such regulations would still be largely dependent on community cooperation.

7.5.1 local regulatory environment

For the purpose of our topic, the regulatory environment relating to rainwater tanks in a given location is important. In some locations, regulatory or legal frameworks relating to rainwater tanks may not exist, or if such frameworks do exist, may not be widely adhered to. In other locations, such regulations may be stringent and people tend to follow them. The key components of the regulatory environment include:

• Whether domestic rainwater tanks are mandated (i.e., a legal requirement for new dwellings) or rebated (incentives for the purchase and installation of rainwater tanks), and so on. The reasons why people install rainwater tanks influence the behaviour of tank owners (Mankad, 2012; Mankad et al.

2012; Mankad et al. 2013) (see Chapter 8).

• The available technical guidelines to support rainwater tank owners, developers and plumbers in installing and maintaining rainwater tanks (Standards Australia, 2008; Standards Australia, 2004;

WSAA, 2002; Queensland Government, 2011; Queensland Health, 2007).

• The approval process to certify that rainwater tanks have been designed and installed appropriately.

These may follow the process outlined in Table 7.3. For example in the case of South East Queensland, a number of agents are involved throughout the process (Moglia et al. 2012a).

• Guidelines and legal requirements regarding public health issues. What is the legal requirement to ensure that mosquitoes are not breeding in the rainwater tank? What are the guidelines and legal responsibilities relating to using the rainwater for drinking and other purposes? What organisation is responsible for making sure that domestic rainwater tank owners comply with public health related legal requirements? In the case of South East Queensland, local councils are responsible for this.

• Stakeholders. What agencies have vested interests in making sure that rainwater tanks are adequately maintained? Urban water planners and health officials, but also environmental managers, should have an obvious interest in this topic. It is likely that it is these stakeholders that will have to drive a management strategy – assuming they are given adequate resources.

The roles of various agencies, departments and stakeholders vary between jurisdictions. There are also relevant guidelines regarding design and installation, as discussed in Sections 7.4.2–7.4.3.

table 7.3 Process for installation of rainwater systems.

Tank maintenance is a voluntary behaviour, unless (or until) some form of regulation is introduced. Tank maintenance actually reflects a suite of different activities, performed at regular but infrequent intervals (see Section 7.4.1). Psychological research suggests that the drivers of this sort of voluntary behaviour are twofold: a motivation for keeping the tank maintained; and a sense of one’s own capability (or self-efficacy) in being able to undertake maintenance activities (Walton & Gardner, 2014; Walton et al. 2012).

7.5.2.1 Motivation

The motivations that drive tank maintenance can be grouped into three broad sources. Firstly, individuals are motivated to take action to the extent that their perceived benefits outweigh the costs of keeping the tank maintained. The ‘costs’ in this situation reflect concerns for the effort, inconvenience, and time required to conduct maintenance, as well as financial cost. The benefits of rainwater tank system maintenance also reflect a range of factors, for example, it may provide access to a personal source of water where the rainwater tank owner has autonomy regarding its use for garden watering, swimming pool top-up, or an indoor connection to the washing machine and toilets. Many rainwater tank owners also regard tank water

as cheaper than mains water – ‘it comes for free as rain from the sky’. This perceived cost advantage, although probably incorrect (see Chapter 12), is seen as a benefit to the home owner, especially in a situation of increasing mains water prices and other cost of living pressures. Some rainwater tank owners also strongly support water conservation, and see rainwater tank ownership as a way of drawing maximum benefit from water that would otherwise be ‘wasted’, thereby helping to mitigate future drought impact.

As well as these personal benefits that are associated with keeping a rainwater tank maintained, some tank owners feel what is best described as a sense of ‘moral obligation’ towards rainwater tank system maintenance. Such feelings relate to the notions of preventing public health risk associated with mosquito breeding in unmaintained rainwater tanks, and of reducing the overall demand for mains water. This type of motivation is especially strong in people who have experienced severe drought and/or grew up in rural areas and were fully dependent on rainwater tank water. Further, the idea of maximising the return on money invested in the rainwater tank can also appeal to a person’s sense of obligation and act as a motivator to keep the rainwater tank maintained. Many people received their rainwater tank through a government subsidy or rebate and are aware of the considerable public money invested in providing households with roof-water harvesting facilities. People who paid for their own rainwater tank system, often as part of building their own home, may also feel a sense of obligation in keeping it maintained and not wasting their own investment.

The third source of motivation for keeping a tank maintained is the rainwater tank owner’s self-image:

a perception of themselves as someone who keeps things well maintained and in sound working order.

For some people, this self-image helps to shape their behaviour, prompting water tank maintenance along with other household maintenance tasks, like pest control, swimming pool and garden maintenance. Self-reported confidence to maintain things may also reflect a capability to undertake practical tasks.

These three sources of motivation obviously can vary among tank owners, and can vary depending on the proposed use of the tank water. Research has indicated that motivations for keeping a tank maintained were lower in those tank owners that only used their water for outdoor use, and higher amongst owners that had their tanks connected to indoor devices. This finding supports other research, which suggests that the level of personal contact someone has with a water source is an important driver of how they behave towards that water (Hurlimann, 2011; Mankad & Tapsuwan, 2011). For example, when recycled water is used for outdoor use, people find it more acceptable than if it is for indoor use. As personal contact with the water increases, for example using the water for showering or drinking, the more people become concerned about aspects of water quality such as colour, odour and safety (Nancarrow et al. 2010).

7.5.2.2 Self-efficacy

This is the second broad driver of tank maintenance: this construct revolves around issues of knowledge, skills, and capacity for performing the maintenance tasks. The starting point for a sense of efficacy is a degree of awareness of the problem, in this case awareness that water tanks need to be maintained. The majority of tank owners are not aware that a rainwater tank needs to be regularly maintained (Walton &

Gardner, 2014). Also, self-efficacy requires knowledge of the actual maintenance tasks: how and when they are to be done. The tank owner then needs to feel a sense of confidence in being able to perform these tasks. This confidence may involve the physical capability to actually perform the tasks, for example depending on age and fitness levels, such as clearing gutters and checking first flush devices. Another factor is the financial capability and willingness to outsource the tasks, such as desludging the tank.

Successful outsourcing will also depend on access to suitable services. Self-efficacy can be viewed as a

‘necessary condition’ for tank maintenance: even if motivation levels are high, if a person does not feel capable of performing the required tasks, the tank may go unmaintained.

As well as the internal drivers of tank maintenance described above, there are other external factors that could influence tank maintenance behaviour.

7.5.2.3 External influences

Regulations, penalties, incentives, education programs and awareness campaigns are all policy instruments that may potentially influence tank maintenance behaviour. However, these approaches may or may not result in increased tank maintenance because they interact with a person’s views and opinions of the approach, as well as with their own levels of motivation and self-efficacy. For example, a person who feels very motivated and capable of keeping a tank maintained may view any form of intervention by an authority as inappropriate interference. Indeed, the intervention may actually decrease motivation for keeping the tank maintained. Furthermore, research suggests that people who were ‘forced’ to get a tank as part of adhering to building codes have different levels of motivation towards maintaining their tank compared to those who chose to retrofit a tank, especially if they also received a subsidy from the government to install the tank (Gardiner, 2009; Mankad & Greenhill, 2014). Those householders who were mandated to install a tank were less motivated to maintain a tank than those who had retrofitted their tank. Increased government intervention to maintain the tank could again act as a further de-motivator in the mandated tank owner case. Thus, the public’s acceptance of a policy instrument designed to change behaviour is important if the intervention is to succeed.

Research indicates that people’s judgments about the features of a policy will influence acceptance, particularly judgments about how fair and how effective they feel the intervention will be. The most widely studied policy feature in the environmental psychology literature is the type of behaviour change mechanism embodied in the policy, which can be more or less coercive. The literature uses a variety of names to describe these mechanisms (Garling & Schuitema, 2007; House of Lords Science and Technical Committee, 2011; Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012). At the non-coercive end, there are ‘soft’ and ‘pull’

approaches. Soft approaches include education and awareness campaigns, and activities to encourage and facilitate voluntary undertaking of the target behaviour. Pull policies are those that provide incentives and rewards as ways to encourage a change towards the target behaviour.

In contrast, the more coercive policy options include ‘hard’ and ‘push’ approaches, and use increasing levels of regulation to bring about change. Hard approaches can include regulatory mechanisms designed to enforce behaviour, and push policies use disincentives, such as penalties and increased taxes or prices, to bring about change. In general, less coercive mechanisms are perceived to be more acceptable, fairer, and more effective. Perceptions of fairness involve the concepts of equality, equity, and personal freedoms.

The notions of personal freedom and fairness are important to tank owners who participated in surveys and focus groups, where the freedom to ‘do what I want with my water’ is seen as an important benefit of having a rainwater tank (Walton et al. 2012).