Water Conservation in Kelowna.

1. Water Conservation in Kelowna. Why?

2. The Okanagan

3. The Okanagan

4. The Okanagan

5. The Okanagan

6. The Okanagan

7. Kelowna Water Providers • Five purveyors • RWD: Groundwater • CITY: Lake • GEID: Upland + lake • BMID: Upland • SEKID: Upland + ground

8. Kelowna Water Providers • 2012/2013 Water Rates

9. Kelowna Water Providers

10. Kelowna Water Providers

11. Benefits of Conservation • Dual Flush Toilet, • $200, two per house ($400 total) • Toilet, 29% of ~25 m3 / month indoor • Save $16.42 per year, • $328.40 @ 5% pays same! • NET RETURN NEGATIVE!!! BUT • Positive if replacing ornew build.

12. Benefits of Conservation • Xeriscape, say 75% less outdoor water. • Save expensive peak water, ~$120 / yr • Depends on yard size, etc. • Conversion cost, ~ $8/ft2 • 66x120 yard, ~30K convert • $2,400 at 5% pays $120 / yr • NET RETURN NEGATIVE!!!BUT • New yard, incremental cost

13. Benefits of Conservation • Household perspective • Save some money (CITY, RWD) • Not enough for replace, but maybe new install. • No savings if not priced (BMID, SEKID, GEID). • Avoid penalties or damage • Fine/cutoff if violate outdoor watering bans • Damage risk for sensitive plants • Doing good for community / environment.

14. Benefits of Conservation • For utility, delay capital costs. • Delay $20M one year, save $400K interest (5%). • Kelowna, reduce average water use 2.5% per year, ‘buy’20 yrs.

15. Research Project • Residential Survey: • Environmental attitudes • Okanagan water knowledge • Residence characteristics • Demographics • Conservation behaviors • Investments inside • Investments outside • Behaviors

16. Research Project • Data collection • Canada411 address and phone number harvest, • Stratified by water provider and near borders. • Telephone survey with internet option (2008), • 80% respondents chose internet! • Mail survey with internet option (2009), • Forgot to ask responent age! • Follow up telephone contact. • 516 returned surveys (337 with age).

17. Research Project

18. Conservation

19. Conservation

20. Conservation

21. Conservation • No significant difference across providers • Measure total number of activities undertaken. • What, no price effect!!! • Examine interactions • Examine ‘matched sample’.

22. Matched Samples • Question: If I am near a border, do I act like people far from the border?ORIs my behavior influenced by behavior of people nearby who pay differently? • Answer: Compare ‘similar’ people near and away from border.

23. Matched Samples • Matching • Near border = treat. • Away = control • For each near obs., find ‘similar’ far obs. • Compare variablesof interest betweentreatment and control.

24. Matched Samples • Comparing within, not between purveyors. • All in group face same rate. • All in group get same bills, other info from purveyors. • Between purveyors, uncertain of cause • Price effect • Information campaign effect • Subsidy programs • Different rules (lawn watering, etc.)

25. Matched Samples • Effect direction (mostly) consistent with price. • Existence consistent with social influence. • PRICE MATTERS AND NEIGHBOURS MATTER!

26. Implications • Volumetric pricing has an influence • All else equal, 3 of 4 undertake one more conservation activity indoor and one outdoor. • Neighbour effects powerful. • Price effect not dominant. • Policy can use neighbour effect • Identify ‘good’ behavior and recognize locally • Provide comparison info vs good behavior.