A national study of the attitudes of Australians to using desalination to bolster their water supplies has found broad acceptance of the process but a low level of trust in state and territory government decision-making on water issues.
Attitudes to desalination technology, it found, are affected by a range of factors, including plant location, how much trust they have in their government’s ability to manage desalination plant implementation and whether they accept its right to make decisions about the water they use.
The yet to be released report, Public Perceptions of, and Responses to, Desalination in Australia, follows an 18-month research project into public attitudes to desalination and water management. Backed by the National Centre of Excellence in Desalination with funding from the federal government, researchers from Deakin and Victoria universities in Melbourne, and Murdoch University in Perth where the centre is based, collaborated on the project.
Deakin anthropologist Dr Tanya King, who led the team, says Australian attitudes to desalination are highly influenced by whether they see their state or territory government as legitimate, fair and trustworthy. Overall, however, those surveyed considered desalination to be a valuable part of the mix in ensuring an adequate water supply.
She says that despite the general lack of trust in government, the researchers found public acceptance of the need for desalination was particularly high in Perth, where nearly half the drinking water is now produced from the city’s two desalination plants. But in Victoria, where controversy over the location and construction of the Wonthaggi desalination plant has been intense, public opinion is not nearly as supportive.
The study involved the largest national survey on desalination in Australia and eight focus groups. The researchers drew on a national random sample from the electoral rolls of 7000 people across Australia, and another sample of 1500 people living within 20 kilometres of the Wonthaggi plant, and 500 living within 20 kilometres of the Port Stanvac desalination plant in South Australia.
The survey samples yielded more than 3000 responses. Focus groups were selected from people within 20 kilometres of the plants in Wonthaggi, Port Stanvac and Kwinana in Western Australia.
Not surprisingly, attitudes to desalination varied markedly among the different groups, with opposition to desalination strongest in Wonthaggi, whereas in Port Stanvac and Kwinana support was more likely.
The national survey found Australians are almost equally divided on whether cutting demand for water is preferable to boosting its supply in response to water shortages. But most favour a range of responses and 84 per cent say their support for desalination depends on whether alternatives have been investigated.
“While providing factual information about recycled and desalinated water has been found to increase acceptance of both methods of supply augmentation, the present study suggests that ‘knowledge’ may not be as importance in predicting acceptance of desalination as other factors such as ‘trust in government’,” the report says.
It notes the first major Australian seawater desalination plant began operating at Kwinana in 2006. Since then, developments in desalination technology and its increasing economic viability, as well as the greater focus on water security because of climate variability, have encouraged governments to invest in more plants. By next year, Australia’s capacity to produce desalinated drinking water from the sea will have increased nine-fold — from 200 megalitres a day to 1800 megalitres a day.
The survey reveals that rising costs plus concerns about environmental impacts and the political processes surrounding implementation of desalination plants and water management more generally contribute to shaping public opinion.
Dr King says one of the most surprising findings is the low level of citizen knowledge of and trust in formal consultation processes. This finding has implications for governments in their attempts to consult about a range of large public infrastructure.
Only one in seven of the national respondents “feel they have a good understanding of the formal consultation processes undertaken by their governments”. In contrast, 36 per cent say that even if they felt strongly about an issue they wouldn’t bother talking to the government “because it would not do any good” — an indication of a very high level of apathy nationally when it comes to government consultation processes, the report says.
“I was very surprised by the low level of understanding expressed by people across the country about formal consultation processes,” Dr King says. “It was clear that what people think consultation means is different to what those doing the consulting think.
“I was also surprised by the low level of understanding of the formal government process of consultation, the fact that so many people did not know what a green paper or a white paper was. We found that what consultation means to many in the community is often worlds apart from the government’s view.”
She says that even if governments consult perfectly according to their own rules, policies or best practice, if people doubt this is what consultation should be then that will impact on their support. “As Australians, we love to bash the government if we get a chance, especially anonymously, but this is not something to be dismissed. In fact, it should be taken seriously given the need for trust in government and government initiatives, not to mention democratic participation in decision making processes.”
The report says the research results add to the literature that helps with understanding opposition to large public infrastructures by extending it beyond the vague and uncritical attribution of the “not in my back yard” attitudes shown by so-called NIMBYs.
“The standard two-fold response [of government] to public infrastructure opposition — educate and compensate — can occur at the expense of addressing the underlying factors that may be informing such opposition,” the authors argue.
“Our analysis shows that procedural justice — trust in experts and government, perceptions of fairness, legitimacy of authorities, consultation and transparency — is highly significant when it comes to predicting support for, or opposition to, large public infrastructure.”
The study found that more Australians were supportive of desalination technology as a response to water shortages ( 44 per cent) than were not ( 34 per cent), while a portion of people expressed no strong feelings (22 per cent).
