Sociological perspective of water consumers in south Florida households

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Sociological perspective of water consumers in south Florida households
Series Title:
Florida Water Resources Research Center Publication Number 18
Physical Description:
Book
Creator:
Watkins, George A.
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID:
AA00001478:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

















A SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF WATER CONSUMERS
IN SOUTH FLORIDA HOUSEHOLDS


Edited by



George A. Watkins


PUBLICATION NO. 18


FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER




RESEARCH PROJECT TECHNICAL COMPLETION REPORT


OWRR Project Number A-010-FLA


Annual Allotment Agreement Number
DI-14-01-0001-1077 (1968)


Report Submitted: September 4, 1968






The work upon which this report is based was supported in part
by funds provided by the United States Department of the
Interior, Office of Water Resources Research as
Authorized under the Water Resources
Research Act of 1964.












ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The editor expresses his gratitude to Dr. Daniel Kubat, University

of Waterloo, Ontario, and to Mrs. Lilian Tsai, Florida Atlantic University,

Boca Raton, Florida, for their contributions to the original report from

which this monograph was written. Dr. Kubat was the principal investigator

for Project A-010-FLA "Prediction Model for Water Use by Population

Structure" and provided invaluable guidance to his staff and researchers.

The Department of Sociology at the University of Florida is

gratefully acknowledged for providing facilities during the project.

Dr. Gerald R. Leslie and Dr. Joseph Vandiver, chairman of the department

during the project, along with other faculty members, provided

substantial assistance and encouragement to the researchers.

Dr. Vandiver's additional assistance in the preparation of this final

report is most sincerely appreciated by the editor.

Dr. Tom Huser, Publicity Director of the Central and Southern Florida

Flood Control District in West Palm Beach and Dr. Olaf Pearson, City

Manager of Homestead are also thanked for their cooperative attitude

during the field work stages.

Finally, the editor wishes to express his sincere thanks to the

Florida Water Resources Research Center in Gainesville, Florida and to

the Department of Sociology at the University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma,

for encouragement and support during the editing of this report.




















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . .


Review of the Literature . . .


II. RESEARCH DESIGN . . . . .


Sampling Procedures . .
Data Collection Techniques .
Data Processing . .
Data Analysis . . .


III. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION


Size of Households . .
Number of Children . .
Average Age of Children .
Education of Head of Household


Occupational Classification of Head of Household
Income of Head of Household . . .
Age of Husband . . . . .
Summary . . . . . .


IV. WATER CONSUMPTION BY HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS .


Water Consumption by Size of Household . .
Water Consumption by Number of Children . .
Water Consumption by Average Age of Children .


Water Consumption by Education of Head of Household .
Water Consumption by Occupation of Head of Household
Water Consumption by Income of Head of Household
Water Consumption by Number of Water Appliances .
Determinants of Water Consumption: A Factor Analysis
Summary . . . . . .


V. AN ATTITUDINAL PROFILE OF WATER CONSUMERS TOWARDS WATER
CONSERVATION . . . . . .


The Rationale for the Variables in the Set . .
Test for Scalability . . . .
A Test for Validity . . . . .
Naming the Guttman Scale . . . .
Potential Uses of the Water Concern Scale . .


. 25


. 25
. 26
. 29


. . . .


. . . .
. . . .
. . . .


. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .










Chapter
VI. AN APPLICATION OF THE SCALE . . . . 62

Statements of Relationships . . . . 62
Summary . . . . . . 65

VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . 68

Conclusions . . . . . . 69

APPENDIX . . . . . . . 75

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . 86

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF AUTHOR . . . . . 93
















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page
1. Number and Percentage Distribution of Size of Households,
Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida . . . 17

2. Number and Percentage Distribution of Children in Households,
Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida . . . 18

3. Number and Percentage Distribution of Average Age of Children
in Households, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida . 19

4. Number and Percentage Distribution of Head of Household's
Education, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida . 19

5. Number and Percentage Distribution of Occupational Classifi-
cation of Head of Households, Homestead and West Palm Beach,
Florida . . . . . . . 21

6. Number and Percentage Distribution of Head of Household's
Income, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida . . 22

7. Number and Percentage Distribution of Ages of Husband in
Households, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida . 23

8. Number and Percentage Distribution of Size of Household and
Water Consumption, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida 27

9. Number and Percentage Distribution of Number of Children in
Household and Water Consumption, Homestead and West Palm Beach,
Florida . . . . . . . 28

10. Number and Percentage Distribution of Average Age of Children
in Household and Water Consumption, Homestead and West Palm
Beach, Florida . . . . . . 30

11. Number and Percentage Distribution of Years of Education Com-
pleted by Head of Household, and Water Consumption, Homestead
and West Palm Beach, Florida . . . . 31

12. Number and Percentage Distribution of Occupation of Household
Head and Water Consumption, Homestead and West Palm Beach,
Florida . . . . . . . 33

13. Number and Percentage Distribution of Income of Household
Head and Water Consumption, Homestead and West Palm Beach,
Florida . . . . . . . 34










Table Page
14. Number and Percentage Distribution of Water Appliances
and Fixtures and Water Consumption, Homestead and West
Palm Beach, Florida . . . . . 36

15. Rotated Factor Matrix on Selected Socioeconomic Variables
and Water Consumption . . . . . 39

16. Correlation Matrix on Selected Socioeconomic Variables . 41

17. Correlation Matrix on Selected Socioeconomic Variables and
Water Consumption: Homestead and West Palm Beach . 43

18. Arithmetic Averages (X) and Standard Deviations (S.D.) of
Selected Socioeconomic Variables . . . . 44

19. Item Set with Assigned Subuniverses and Percentage Favorable
Responses . . . . . . 49

20. Scalogram for Final Five Items . . . . 52

21. Final Five Statements for Guttman Scale . . . 54

22. Factor Matrix of Attitudes toward Water Conservation . 55

23. Factors Underlying Attitudes towards Water Conservation . 56

24. Rank-Order of Factors by Mean Loadings of Attitudes towards
Water Conservation . . . . . 58

25. Comparison between the Guttman Scale Rankings and Factor
Matrix Rankings of Variables Reflecting Attitudes towards
Water Conservation . . . . . 59

26. Water Concern Scalogram . . . . . 61

27. Number and Percentage Distribution of Water-Using Appliances
and Fixtures, Homestead and West Palm Beach Households . 70
















CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION


Concern over water resources on a national level is a relatively recent

phenomenon. There have been many local squabbles over water rights, there

have been droughts in some areas while others suffered floods, and there has

been considerable national concern over waterway rights for navigation. But

only since the end of World War II has there evolved a nation-wide concern for

water as such. Very recently in American life, rapidly intensifying concern

over environmental resources has taken on the characteristics of a social move-

ment. An indispensable part of the concern with environmental resources is the

use and misuse of water resources.

One of the reasons for the increased concern of the federal government

with the water crisis is the population increase in the United States since

1900. United States census figures projections show births, deaths, and in-

migration indicating a population rise from 192 million in the early 1960's

to 245 million by 1980, and perhaps 350 million by the year 2000 (Moss, 1967:4).

Our whole society is using more water per person. This nation required only

40 billion gallons daily in 1900, but by the year 1965, it required 360 billion

gallons a day. On a per capital basis this comes out to 526 gallons per person

in 1900, and 1,893 gallons per person in 1965.

At the present time, industry uses the most water. Industry is cur-

rently using 160 billion gallons of water a day in its production processes,

and twenty years from now will require close to 400 billion gallons a day.

Irrigation now claims the second largest share of the nation's water supply.










United States agriculture uses about 141 billion gallons of water a day and it

is estimated that this will increase by 1980 to about 166 billion gallons a day.

Unlike the water used by industry, water used for irrigation can only be used

once before most of it is lost in evaporation to begin nature's hydrological

cycle again. Municipalities, the third largest users of water and the concern

of this particular study, require more than 22 billion gallons a day at present,

and by 1980 this need will increase to 37 billion gallons. This increase will

come about not only because the population will be larger, but because of greater

domestic uses. For example, it takes 3 gallons of water to wash dishes by hand,

but twice this amount by machine; no water at all to put garbage in a can, but

2 gallons each day to flush refuse down a drain (Nikolaieff, 1967:16-17).

There are many programs offered at the local, state, and national level

regarding water resources allocation which may simply be decided administra-

tively and on the basis of some engineering efficiency estimate. At the same

time, not all population groups are willing to accept innovations or simple

administrative fiats for a number of reasons including, perhaps, a simple dis-

affection with community leadership. Therefore, it is quite important to assess

the feelings of the population before changes in water supply and distribution

practices are initiated. The need for change is always there as demonstrated

by the rapidly expanding pace of population and industry. Sociologists may be

able, through a detailed description of water consumer patterns and through the

assessment of the attitudes of a particular population, to help bridge the gulf

between the administrative solutions needed and the hesitation on the part of

the water consumers to accept them.


Review of the Literature


Within the last ten years there has grown an accumulation of studies con-

cerned with the sociological aspects of water resources. Prior to this time,










most studies of water resources were technical and administrative in nature.

That is, they were concerned with engineering systems and problems connected

with the allocation of and preservation of water resources. The recent trend

in the social sciences to become concerned with water resources reflects their

growing awareness of the problematic nature of water resources and an emphasis

on an interdisciplinary approach to the solution of such problems.


Necessity of Sociological Inquiry in Water Resources Problems


There have been several articles written which concern themselves with

the need for sociological inquiry, and its resulting contribution, into the

problem of water resources.

Hufschmidt (1967), who noted that the interdisciplinary approach to re-

search and education in water resources is a relatively recent phenomenon,

cited the need for the social sciences to be concerned with water resources.

Although some academic economists and political scientists had been working

on water resources problems for a number of years, their efforts were highly

individualistic, and most of them had made only sporadic contact with engineers

and natural scientists. Hufschmidt felt that the situation has radically changed

and that today social scientists can converse meaningfully with natural scien-

tists about the concern and problems of water resources.

However, he further noted that today's water resources experts have had

little or no formal training in water resources.

They obtained their education in a specific discipline or professional field,
perhaps civil or sanitary engineering, economics, law, public administration,
geology, chemistry, biology, forestry, city and regional planning, geography,
and the like. The interest in water resources probably developed some time
after their academic and professional education; to a large extent, they
were self-taught in the intricacies of the field. Perhaps because the
limitations of this method of training for the water resources field are
recognized, we are now concerned with improvements (Hufschmidt, 1967:4).

One of the recognized limitations of training with which Hufschmidt con-

cerned himself was the "highly theoretical nature of sociology." Resources










for the Future (RFF), which has as its mission the application of social

science knowledge to natural science problems, investigated the possible

role that sociology might play in natural science research.

A few leading sociologists were consulted about the contribution
that their field might make to water resources. Careful investigation
revealed, both to the sociologists and to the RFF staff, that the kinds
of research in which sociologists were interested were not easily
adaptable to the kinds of natural resource problems that RFF was con-
sidering at the time (Hufschmidt, 1967:5).

This relatively early neglect of applied research by sociologists may

have been part of the difficulty, but it is one which is gradually being

overcome by such men as Wade H. Andrews of Utah State University.

Andrews has indicated that important contributions for the sociological

study of water resources are being made by several areas of sociology.

perhaps most notable are rural sociology, as it has dealt with
the structure and culture of rural people related to land resource,
but also there are the fields of social change, urbanization, dif-
fusion and adoption of technology, social psychology, social action
and community development processes. In addition, social
theory, research methodology, industrial, communication, urban,
regional and political sociology as well as population, can contri-
bute to the problems of water resources development (Andrews, 1968:2).

Andrews cited, as did Hufschmidt, the need for an interdisciplinary

approach to the water resources problem. For Andrews, this is not a mere

overlapping of fields in a unidirectional approach, but rather an approach

which demands the most that each field has to offer in a cooperative effort,

i.e., a closure of the social aspects of geography and the applied field of

urban and regional planning.

Regarding the industrial and urban uses of water, Andrews cited the

need for sociology to investigate and direct its attention: (1) to the study

of private industry in relation to the needs, use, and organization of in-

dustry for water, (2) to the way these factors affect other developments,

including the effects on communities, (3) to the analysis of the decision-

making process in both the public and private sectors, including both










noneconomic factors which affect those decisions and the effect such decisions

may have on the whole developmental picture, and (4) to study present com-

munities and regions and necessary future changes in them.

Technical knowledge for improved use of the water resources and changing
needs for water are constantly in contact with the behavioral systems
man has devised of beliefs, organizations or customs to deal with this
resource. To implement the adoption of useful information much more
technical knowledge about man's behavior is needed (Andrews, 1968:12).


Sociology's Increasing Awareness Reflected by Studies Concerned
with Socioeconomic Variables and Water Resources and Use


The numerous sociological studies of the relationship of certain socio-

economic variables to water resources and use, reflect, in part, the concern

of Hufschmidt and Andrews regarding a sociological emphasis and investigation

into water resources problems.

Two studies which reflect a comprehensive investigation into the rela-

tionship between socioeconomic variables and water resources and use are

those of Linaweaver, Geyer, and Wolff (1964, 1967), and Spaulding (1967).

Linaweaver and his colleagues conducted a large scale study of water-

use patterns which occur in residential areas. They further described the

phenomenon of residential water use and analyzed and evaluated the major

factors which influence the use of water in these areas. Linaweaver, et al.

found that there is a considerable variation in water use in residential

areas influenced by seasonal and hourly factors. Water demands vary over a

wide range throughout the country from season to season and from area to

area, and the nature of water-use patterns and the factors influencing them

were determined by their analysis of residential water-use data.

For purposes of analysis, Linaweaver and his associates separated

residential water use into domestic use and sprinkling use. Domestic use

was defined as water used within the home for purposes including drinking,










cooking, bathing, washing, and carrying away of wastes. Sprinkling use was

defined as water used for irrigation of lawns when the natural supply from

precipitation failed to meet lawn requirements. Domestic and sprinkling uses

were again subject to seasonal, daily, hourly and regional differences. An

investigation by the researchers into the major influencing factors affecting

these variations resulted in the following: (1) the principal factor in-

fluencing total annual water use in any residential area is the total number

of homes, and (2) the income level of the consumer influences water use, i.e.,

the consumer in a higher-valued area is likely to have more water-using ap-

pliances and a larger lawn (Linaweaver, et al., 1967:28 et passim).

Spaulding (1967) conducted a study of a growing suburb in Rhode Island

in an attempt to determine if quantities of water used in households were

related to the social status of those households. Using selected socio-

economic variables such as house value, lot size, household income, occupa-

tion of the household head, education of the household head, and equipment-

status-use, he arrived at the following conclusions:

1. Among the households studied, quantities of water per household
vary directly with social status; higher status households use
more water than lower status households.

2. Among the indicators of status, house value and household income
are more closely related to water used than are the education and
occupation of the household head (Spaulding, 1967:24).

Thus, Spaulding did determine that water use is related to some socio-

economic variables.


Attitudinal Studies of Water Use


The need for greatly expanded research effort should be emphasized in

order to give insight into the social processes as they relate to water re-

sources. There is the need both for research and for an organization of

"social engineers" to augment civil engineers. The goal of the social










engineers, or sociologists and other social scientists, would be to eliminate

some of the obstacles to the efficient operation of the programs suggested by

the civil engineers. This is a goal which requires an investigation into the

needs and interests of the affected populations as well as the planned programs

of the engineers in regard to water resources. The efforts of several men

have increased the awareness of the need for further study into the needs and

interests of the populace at state and local levels.

Dasgupta (1968) conducted a study of watershed development and analyzed

his data at three interrelated levels--organizational, individual, and com-

munity. It is the second, or individual level which is of present concern.

At the individual level, according to Dasgupta, one is mainly interested in

delineating the characteristics of the landowners which make them positively

or negatively predisposed toward watershed development. Factors such as

occupation, education, social participation, and level of living have been

found to be related to adoption of farming practices and innovations by

Rogers (1962). These findings may have some relevance in delineating factors

related to attitudes toward watershed development at the individual level.

For example, Photiades (1960) reported on the empirical relationship between

attitudes toward watershed development programs and a number of socioeconomic

factors, such as occupation, tenure status, size of farm, age and education.

Dasgupta developed a Guttman scale and selected seven socioeconomic

variables in an attempt to examine their relationship to attitudes towards

watershed development. His seven variables were organizational involvement,

occupational status, education, level of living, age, tenure status, and number

of acres operated. He found only the variables of organizational involvement,

occupational status, education, and level of living to be significantly re-

lated to attitude. High organizational involvement, nonfarm occupation, high

education, and high level of living were positively related to attitudes toward










watershed development (Dasgupta, 1968:7). He also found that knowledge of

watershed development was highly related to attitudes. Individuals who were

well informed and knowledgeable about watershed development programs were

the same persons who were found to have more favorable attitudes toward

the implementation of such a program in their community.

Spaulding, in his Rhode Island study, also attempted to measure atti-

tudes of his respondents in the following areas: (1) water as a necessity,

(2) water as abundant in nature, (3) water as an economic commodity,

(4) concern with water supply problems and shortages, and (5) relationships

among ability to buy water-using equipment, social status, and amount of

water used (Spaulding, 1967:26).

Wilkinson (1966) conducted a survey of rural landowners in two water-

shed districts and attempted to measure the attitudes of the residents toward

the watershed project and toward water conservation in general. He found

differences and similarities in the attitudes of the residents of the com-

munities as follows: (1) 55 percent of the respondents in Community A and

32 percent in Community B rated the watershed project as "good" or "excellent,"

(2) regarding water conservation in general, a greater proportion of the

respondents in Community A felt that conservation was a real local problem,

that the area's future economy would depend in large part on conservation

of water resources, that the federal government should be involved in water

conservation, that pollution of streams is a major national problem, that the

state gives up power when the federal government finances watershed projects,

that landowners alone should not be required to pay for flood protection,

that most local landowners would lose from watershed programs, that supplying

water for industry should be a major local concern, that widespread local

acceptance of watershed programs would be likely, that spending money for

watershed development is a good investment, and that everyone in the county










would benefit from the watershed project, and (3) 72 percent of the respondents

in Community B and 38 percent in Community A agreed with the statement, "Land-

owners have little opportunity to express their opinion in planning watershed

programs" (Wilkinson, 1966:14-15).

Wilkinson found that an examination of demographic and socioeconomic

characteristics of the two groupings did not reveal a pattern of differences

which would account for the differences in attitudes noted above.

For Wilkinson and Cole (1967), attitude

is basically a field-theory concept having to do with the qualitative
relationship between an individual's inner life and some object in
his psychological environment, i.e., with some object of which he is
aware. Two attitude objects appear to be of great significance in
the study of water resources problems. One is the attitude of the
individual toward water resources as such. The other is his attitude
toward programs of water management (Wilkinson, Cole, 1967:9).

The second effort of this study is directed at Wilkinson and Cole's

first attitudinal object--the attitude of the individual toward water re-

sources as such. An attempt will be made to develop an attitudinal scale

to measure the attitudes of a particular population of respondents toward

water resources. Of concern are the attitudes of the respondents regarding:

(1) water resources as an economic commodity, (2) their willingness to do

something about the water resources problems, (3) their awareness of water

resources problems, and (4) their knowledge of certain socioeconomic rela-

tionships and availability of water. Once the scale has been developed, the

scale score of each respondent will be compared with certain socioeconomic

variables.

However, the purpose of this study is first to determine what relation-

ships there are between water consumption in residential areas as compared with

certain socioeconomic variables of the population. It is believed that the

quantities of water used in households are positively related to: (1) the

socioeconomic status of the household, (2) the demographic composition of the






10


household, and (3) the number and kinds of household appliances present which

use water.

In essence, the first part of this study is a replication of research

already done by Spaulding, Linaweaver and others with the intent of verifi-

cation. The second part of this study is exploratory in nature. It will be

concerned with the development of a scale to measure attitudes towards water

conservation as developed by Watkins (1968).
















CHAPTER II


RESEARCH DESIGN


In July, 1967, the Department of Sociology at the University of Florida

was awarded a grant from the Office of Water Resources Research at the Uni-

versity of Florida under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, Public

Law 88-379. The purpose of the grant was to determine the possibility of a

prediction model for water use by different population structures.

In an effort to establish a prediction model for water use by population

structures, data collected for this study were obtained from a sample survey

of households in two urban places in South Florida--Homestead and the contig-

uous areas of northern West Palm Beach. In order to minimize expense in

sampling, the universe from which the sample was drawn was defined so as to

contain a minimum of business establishments, large-scale apartment complexes

and trailer parks. It was felt by the investigators that the latter complexes

would not offer sufficient data for analysis since the flat rate for dwelling

units eliminated information on the variation of water use by individual

households.


ITo conduct a survey on water consumption in individual households is
quite similar to any other survey work. There are some specific traits of
such a survey, however. In the first place, when the survey questionnaire
contains items regarding attitudes towards water consumption, conservation,
and waste, the respondents are not as ready to provide accurate and considered
answers inasmuch as such questions still pertain to the realm of the "irrela-
vant." In the second place, there arise specific problems of identifying
households with water meters, households with own wells, and households with
both without violating the principle of probability sampling. In the third
place, information about the actual water consumption and water-using appli-
ances and plumbing fixtures itemization runs into the problem of incomplete
answers.










Field work, consisting of four stages, was necessary for the collection

of data. After a pretest of the interview schedule (Appendix A) in Gainesville,

Florida in September, 1967, the first stage was started and completed in

February, 1968 in the target areas. The second stage was started and com-

pleted in June, 1968.


Sampling Procedures


The first stage of the field-work consisted of sampling residential

units in the two target areas--West Palm Beach and Homestead, Florida. The

technique of area probability sampling was used (Monroe and Finkner, 1959).

First of all, large areas which were presumed to have an equal number of

dwellings were selected from aerial photographs. These selected areas were

then mapped for sampling frames and segmented. Segments were then randomly

selected to represent the sample. By using segments of approximately four

adjacent units and then interviewing the whole segment, it was possible to

keep interviewing costs at a minimum and to spot respondents who were pos-

sibly "unique" in their life style and water consumption patterns.

The target area covered forty-five traffic zones in Palm Beach County,

Florida. A systematic sampling procedure was then used on these traffic

zones in an attempt to simplify sampling procedures and to produce a manage-

able universe from which a two-stage area probability sample, without re-

placement, was drawn. The method of random selection, used to draw a starting

point from the first three zones, consisted of simply "reaching in and drawing

out (N=1) different items." From the zone selected, every third zone on the

list was drawn. As a one-third probability of forty-five traffic zones,

fifteen traffic zones were thus selected, from which the two-stage area

probability sample was drawn.

The first stage of the area probability sample consisted of dividing









the fifteen zones into 116 smaller ones. These smaller areas were presumed

to have equal numbers of dwellings in each, based upon the previous study

of aerial photographs and upon on-the-spot inspections. Using a table of

random digits, about one-fifth (N=22) of the smaller areas could be identified

on the aerial photographs and thus were selected.

In the second stage of the area probability sample, the twenty-two

selected areas were mapped and divided into 736 segments. Each segment con-

tained approximately four adjacent dwelling units. Using random-sampling

techniques, about 15 percent of these segments (N=111) were selected. Thus,

for the target area of West Palm Beach, the sample consisted of 425 residen-

tial dwelling units.

The third stage of the field-work consisted of an area probability

sample of Homestead, Florida. This was carried out in the same manner as

the first stage in Palm Beach County yielding a sample of 137 residential

dwelling units.

The fourth stage of the field-work represented a "purposive sample"

(Selltiz, et al., 1965) in the sense that selected for inclusion in the sample

were only those households for which there were completed interview schedules

from the first field-work stage. The final number of such units was 313, of

which 189 were accounted for after checking on vacant dwellings and those

who had moved to new locations. No effort was made to trace the addresses

as the interviews were anonymous and the investigators had only street ad-

dresses with which to work.


Data Collection Techniques


To facilitate interviewing and to limit the number of refusals, the

occupants in the sampled households were notified by letter of the impending

interview. The letter explained the purpose of the interview and asked for










the occupant's cooperation. This was done for both stages of interviewing.

In the first stage of data collection, an interview schedule (Appendix

A) was designed to collect the necessary demographic information on the house-

holds. This interview schedule also provided information for the socioeconomic

profile of the respondents in the households, their water consumption patterns

and patterns of water use, and the number of water-using items in the house-

holds. In the second stage of data collection, the aforementioned was again

collected with the addition of responses to a set of questions designed to

elicit the respondents' attitudes toward water resources problems.

In the West Palm Beach area, of the 425 residential units selected,

only 257 (about 55 percent) met the following requirements: (1) the household

was occupied, (2) the household had an individual water meter, and (3) there

was a completed interview schedule for the household.

As stated, of the 425 residential units selected for inclusion in the

sample, only 257 met the requirements. However, there were 56 dwelling units

for which only one criterion was missing. These units were selected for inclu-

sion in the second data-collection stage (N=313). However, the final "N" was

189 for the target area in the second data-collection stage. Of the 313 resi-

dential dwelling units originally selected for inclusion in this second sample,

59 units were vacant, 47 householders were different residents, and 18 house-

holders refused to be interviewed. This concluded the data-collection stages.


Data Processing


Data-processing techniques involved the coding of some items from each

of the interview schedules. After the schedules for the two data-collection

stages were corrected, edited, and coded, the data were transferred to


IThe refusal rate for the first data-collection stage was 13.4 percent
(N=425) and for the second, 5.8 percent (N=313).









eighty-column IBM cards.


Data Analysis


Absolute frequencies and percentage distributions were computed for

the necessary household information needed for this study. Used in testing

relationships among the variables being examined were: (1) Chi Square

(Mueller and Schuessler, 1961), (2) Factor Analysis (Fruchter, 1954),

(3) Guttman Scalogram Analysis (Edwards, 1957), (4) the Kruskal-Wallis

One-Way Analysis of Variance (Siegel, 1956), and (5) the Spearman Rank

Order Correlation Coefficient (Siegel, 1956).
















CHAPTER III


CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION


This chapter is devoted to the presentation of a profile of the

characteristics of the respondents in the total sample. In attempting to

construct a prediction model for water use by a given population structure,

it is imperative that an accurate and descriptive profile of the sample be

given. Data are presented for each subsample separately on the following

demographic and socioeconomic variables: (1) size of households, (2) number

of children, (3) average age of children, (4) education of head of household,

(5) occupational classification of head of household, (6) income of head of

household, and (7) age of husband. These data should prove very valuable in

the subsequent chapters.


Size of Households


Regarding the size of the households, that is, the number of persons

in each household, the Homestead sample had a greater proportion of single

person households than did the West Palm Beach sample. Contrary to what one

might anticipate, given current sociological data on family size and fertility

differentials, the West Palm Beach sample seems to have proportionately more

larger families. While 84.6 percent of the Homestead households have families

of one to four, only 76.6 percent of the West Palm Beach sample fell into

this same category (Table 1). On the other hand, 23.3 percent of the West

Palm Beach sample had families of five or more while only 15.4 percent of

the Homestead families fell into this same category.










TABLE I

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SIZE
OF HOUSEHOLDS, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM
BEACH, FLORIDA


Number of Persons Homestead West Palm Beach
in the Household Number Percent Number Percent


1 12 8.6 20 7.8

2 46 33.6 78 30.4

3 32 23.4 53 20.6

4 26 19.0 46 17.9

5 17 12.5 34 13.2

6 or More 4 2.9 26 10.1

Total 137 100.0 257 100.0



Number of Children


Consistent with the data presented on the size of the households, the

data on the number of children in the households seem contrary to other studies

on the same data. West Palm Beach seemed to have a larger proportion of its

families with a greater number of children. That is, while 86.2 percent of

the Homestead sample had between no children and two children, only 76.6 per-

cent of the West Palm Beach sample had the same number (Table 2). But, 23.4

percent of the West Palm Beach sample had three or more children while only

13.8 percent of the Homestead sample fell into this same category.


It should be noted that there is a large United States Air Force
installation located in the Homestead area which may account for the apparent
"discrepancies" on size of household and number of children data.









TABLE 2

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN
IN HOUSEHOLDS, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM
BEACH, FLORIDA


Number of Children Homestead West Palm Beach
in the Household Number Percent Number Percent


0 65 47.4 110 42.8

1 29 21.3 51 19.8

2 24 17.5 36 14.0

3 13 9.5 36 14.0

4 5 3.6 11 4.3

5 or More 1 .7 13 5.1

Total 137 100.0 257 100.0


Average Age of Children


Regarding the average of the children in the households, West Palm

Beach would seem to have slightly older children, that is, proportionately

more West Palm Beach families have older children than do Homestead families.

While 78.8 percent of the Homestead sample have children between the ages

of 0 (the first year) and 9, only 76.7 percent of the West Palm Beach sample

have children of the same ages. Of those families with children 10 to 19

years of age, West Palm Beach had 23.3 percent in this category and Homestead

had 21.2 percent (Table 3).










TABLE 3

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE AGE
OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLDS, HOMESTEAD
AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA


Average Age of Children Homestead West Palm Beach
in the Household Number Percent Number Percent


0-4 95 69.3 156 60.7

5-9 13 9.5 41 16.0

10-14 21 15.4 37 14.4

15-19 8 5.8 23 8.9

Total 137 100.0 257 100.0



Education of Head of Household


From Table 4 one can determine that the West Palm Beach sample was

slightly more educated than the Homestead sample.


TABLE 4

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HEAD
OF HOUSEHOLD'S EDUCATION, HOMESTEAD
AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA


Head of Household's Homestead West Palm Beach
Education Number Percent Number Percent


Less than High School 32 23.3 44 17.4

High School Complete 51 37.2 104 40.9

Less than Bachelor's Degree 38 27.8 50 19.7

Bachelor's Degree 9 6.6 32 12.6

Work beyond Bachelor's Degree 7 5.1 24 9.4

Total 137 100.0 254 100.0










Twenty-two percent of the West Palm Beach sample had completed at least a

Bachelor's degree, while only about half this number, or 11.7 percent, of

the Homestead sample had done so. This difference holds for any category.

For example, 82.6 percent of the West Palm Beach sample and 76.7 percent of

the Homestead sample had completed at least high school (Table 4).


Occupational Classification of Head of Household


Nationally, in 1965, 51.1 percent of the total United States population

was classified as Blue Collar, 22.1 percent as White Collar, and 26.8 percent

as Professional (Petersen, 1967:459). As revealed in Table 5, there are some

small differences between the sample used in this study and the national

population as regards occupational classification. For example, Homestead

was very close to the national figure in the Blue Collar category, 50.7 and

51.1 percent respectively. West Palm Beach, on the other hand, had only 45.1

percent of its constituents in this occupational category. While 22.1 percent

of the national population was classified as White Collar, only 18.8 percent

of the Homestead sample and 18.6 percent of the West Palm Beach sample was

so classified. And finally, where 26.8 percent of the national population

was classified as Professional, 30.5 percent of the Homestead sample and

36.3 percent of the West Palm Beach sample was so classified. It would appear

that in both samples used in this study, there is a significant over-represen-

tation in the Professional category and a slight under-representation in the

Blue Collar category.










TABLE 5

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATION OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLDS, HOMESTEAD
AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA


Occupational United States Homestead West Palm Beach
Classificationa Percentb Number Percent Number Percent


Laborers and Service
Workers 7.2 3 4.3 22 10.2

Operatives and Kindred
Workers 31.5 10 14.5 14 6.5

Craftsmen, Foremen, and
Kindred Workers 12.4 22 31.9 61 28.4

Sales Workers 6.5 10 14.5 18 8.4

Clerical and Kindred 15.6 3 4.3 22 10.2

Managers, Officials, and
Proprietors 13.9 8 11.6 24 11.2

Professional, Technical,
and Kindred Workers 12.9 13 18.9 54 25.1

Total 100.0 69 100.0 215 100.0


aBlue Collar includes laborers and service workers, operatives and
kindred workers, and craftsmen, foremen and kindred workers. White Collar
includes sales workers and clerical and kindred workers. Professional in-
cludes managers, officials and proprietors, professional, technical and
kindred workers.

Actual numbers not available so percentages only can be presented.


Income of Head of Household


It would appear from Table 6, that West Palm Beach has a higher average

income per head of household than does the Homestead sample. Sixty-five

percent of the West Palm Beach sample earned between $6,000 and $14,999 per

year while only 42.8 percent of the Homestead sample earned this much. The

mode for the Homestead sample would appear to have been between $4,500 and










$5,999, while for the West Palm Beach sample it was between $10,000 and

$14,999. As has been earlier demonstrated (Dasgupta, 1968), and as will

be shown later in this study, income tends to explain a good deal of the

variation found in water consumption.


TABLE 6

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HEAD
OF HOUSEHOLD'S INCOME, HOMESTEAD AND
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA


Income of Homestead West Palm Beach
Head of Household Number Percent Number Percent


$ -0- $ 2,999 20 15.3 12 5.1

3,000 4,499 24 18.3 20 8.5

4,500 5,999 28 21.4 26 11.1

6,000 7,999 25 19.1 48 20.4

8,000 9,999 17 13.0 45 19.1

10,000 14,999 14 10.7 61 26.0

15,000 19,999 3 2.2 11 4.7

20,000 or more 0 0.0 12 5.1

Total 131 100.0 235 100.0



Age of Husband


Table 7 reveals that the West Palm Beach population is somewhat older

than the Homestead population. When one divides the population into under

forty and over forty years of age, the Homestead population had 55.4 percent

of its husbands under forty and the West Palm Beach sample had only 43.2 per-

cent of its husbands under forty. In the middle ages of 40 years to 59 years,

the West Palm Beach sample was greater with 41 percent of its husbands in this










age category while Homestead had 27.7 percent. It is only in the age category

of 60 years of age or older that Homestead exceeded West Palm Beach, 17.3 per-

cent and 15.8 percent respectively. The modal age group in Homestead was the

20-29 years of age range (N=33.9%), while the modal age range in Palm Beach

County was twenty years older (26% in the 40-49 years of age range). The

analysis of the data on age enables one to see that the income differences

and family size differences previously noted are largely explained by the

differential age distribution in the two areas.


TABLE 7

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AGES
OF HUSBAND IN HOUSEHOLDS, HOMESTEAD
AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA


Average Age Homestead West Palm Beach
of Husband Number Percent Number Percent


20-29 41 33.9 48 21.2

30-39 26 21.5 50 22.0

40-49 15 12.8 59 26.0

50-59 18 14.9 34 15.0

60-69 11 9.1 25 11.0

70 or more 10 8.2 11 4.8

Total 121 100.0 227 100.0



Summary


In general, when one compares the West Palm Beach sample with the Home-

stead sample, the following appears: (1) West Palm Beach has proportionately

more larger families, (2) West Palm Beach had a larger proportion of its

families with a greater number of children, and (3) West Palm Beach had a







24


larger proportion of its families with older children. Additionally, the

head of the household in West Palm Beach, when compared to the head of the

household in Homestead, was: (1) more likely to have completed a high school

education and a college education, (2) more likely to be a professional worker

and less likely to be a blue collar worker, (3) more likely to earn more, and

(4) was slightly older.
















CHAPTER IV


WATER CONSUMPTION BY HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS


In this chapter an attempt will be made to focus on the relationship

between the amount of water consumed in households and the demographic and

socioeconomic characteristics of these households. Contingency tables will

be presented which represent cross-tabulation of the consumption of water

with information on family size, number of children, average age of children,

education of the head of household, occupation of the head of household, in-

come of the head of household, number of water appliances and fixtures,

description of water-using appliances and fixtures, and determinants of

water consumption.

For purposes of analysis, four categories of water consumption were

established. The first group of households had a fairly low consumption of

water, under 3,000 gallons per month, or about 100 gallons per day. The

second group, which proved to be a modal for Homestead but not for West Palm

Beach, had a maximum daily use of about 200 gallons per day. The third

group had a maximum use of about 300 gallons per day per household, and the

fourth group had a minimum daily consumption of over 300 gallons.


Water Consumption by Size of Household


In an effort to determine differential water consumption in the sampled

households, analysis was first made on the size of households and water con-

sumption. In Homestead, in a small household of four persons or less (85

percent fell into this category), 40 percent of the households used between










4,000 and 6,000 gallons a month. The remainder of the households is fairly

evenly distributed over the other categories (Table 8). This pattern re-

peats itself for the families of five or more with the exception of the 1,000

to 3,000 gallons per month category, where only 14.3 percent used this little

water. Thus, at least in the Homestead sample, the size of the household

did not seem to contribute much to differential consumption since the per-

centages in Table 8 were fairly evenly distributed.

In West Palm Beach however, both the small and the large families were

heavy users. The small households constituted about three-fourths of the

West Palm Beach sample and the large households about one-fourth. Among the

large households, two-thirds showed high water consumption as compared with

one-third of the small households. With no large households using less than

4,000 gallons per month in the West Palm Beach area, one could speculate

that there is a positive relationship between the number of persons in the

household and differential water consumption in West Palm Beach.


Water Consumption by Number of Children


To get at the relationship between number of persons in the household

and differential water consumption further, the number of children in the

household was tabulated with water consumption. The number of children was

dichotomized into two or fewer and three or more children in the household.

With no major changes, Table 9 revealed the pattern described above with size

of household. It would seem reasonable, then, to state that the number of

children and, consequently, the size of the household does influence water

consumption, at least for the West Palm Beach area.












TABLE 8


NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD
AND WATER CONSUMPTION, HOMESTEAD AND
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA


Monthly Water Consumption
in Thousands of Gallons

Size of 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 or More Total
Household Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent


Homestead (a)

1 4 26 22.4 45 38.8 23 19.8 22 19.0 116 100.0
(84.7)

5 or more 3 14.3 9 42.9 4 19.0 5 23.8 21 100.0
(15.3)

Total 137 (100.0)
West Palm Beach (b)

I 4 33 16.7 56 28.4 44 22.4 64 32.5 197 100.0
(76.6)

5 or more 0 0.0 11 18.3 13 21.7 36 60.0 60 100.0
(23.4)

Total 257 (100.0)


(a) Chi square equals 0.843--p. <.90
(b) Chi square equals 20.787--p.(.001












TABLE 9


NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF CHILDREN
IN HOUSEHOLD AND WATER CONSUMPTION, HOMESTEAD
AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA


Monthly Water Consumption
in Thousands of Gallons
Number of
Children in 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 or More Total
Household Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent



Homestead (a)

2 or less 26 22.0 46 39.0 23 19.5 23 19.5 118 100.0
(86.3)

3 or more 3 15.9 8 42.1 4 21.0 4 21.0 19 100.0
(13.7)

Total 137 (100.0)
West Palm Beach (b)

2 or less 33 16.8 56 28.4 43 21.8 65 33.0 197 100.0
(76.6)

3 or more 0 0.0 11 18.3 14 23.3 35 58.4 60 100.0
(23.4)

Total 257 (100.0)


(a) Chi square equals 0.380--p.C.0.95
(b) Chi square equals 19.466--p.<.001









Water Consumption by Average Age of Children


Does age composition affect water consumption in the household? It

may be that having younger children necessitates more water than having

teenagers in the household. To determine this, the data were dichotomized

into families with children nine years and younger and children ten years

and older, the latter representing the threshold of the teens. Table 10

reveals that the data for the Homestead area are inconclusive; about the

same proportion of families with young children consumed as much water as

those families with older children. In the West Palm Beach area, however,

there does appear to be some relationship, only in the opposite direction.

That is, proportionately more families with older children use more water

than those with younger children.

The data would tend to support the notion that the number of people

in the household affects water consumption directly. However, it was earlier

stated that the major factor in water consumption is the socioeconomic status

of the family and not family size. To test for this relationship, data on

education, occupation, and income of the head of the household was cross-

tabulated with water consumption.


Water Consumption by Education of
Head of Household


The variable of education of the head of household was trichotomized,

using graduation from high school and from college as the cutting points

(Table 11). In comparing the two areas it can be determined that only about

11 percent of the Homestead sample had a college education as compared with 21

percent of the West Palm Beach sample. Among the big water consumers, the

more educated were slightly over-represented in both samples, with the pattern

being more pronounced in the West Palm Beach area. Since only about one-fifth












TABLE 10


NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE AGE OF
CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD AND WATER CONSUMPTION,
HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA


Monthly Water Consumption
in Thousands of Gallons

Average Age 1 3 4 6 7 -9 10 or More Total
of Children Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent


Homestead (a)

9 or less 26 24.1 42 38.9 19 17.6 21 19.4 108 100.0
(78.8)

10 or more 3 10.3 12 41.4 8 27.6 6 20.7 29 100.0
(21.1)

Total 137 (100.0)
West Palm Beach (b)

9 or less 33 16.8 57 28.9 36 18.3 71 36.0 197 100.0
(76.6)

10 or more 0 0.0 10 16.7 21 35.0 29 48.3 60 100.0
(23.4)

Total 257 (100.0)


(a) Chi square equals 3.20-p.\.50
(b) Chi square equals 20.11--p. (.001










TABLE 11


NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF YEARS OF EDUCATION
COMPLETED BY HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD, AND WATER CONSUMPTION,
HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA


Monthly Water Consumption
in Thousands of Gallons
Years of Education
Completed by Head 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 or More Total
of Household Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent


Homestead (a)

11 or less 8 25.0 13 40.6 6 18.8 5 15.6 32 100.0
(23.4)

12 15 17 19.1 35 39.3 19 21.4 18 20.2 89 100.0
(64.9)

16 or more 4 19.1 6 37.5 2 12.5 4 25.0 16 100.0
(11.7)

Total 137 (100.0)
West Palm Beach (b)

11 or less 4 9.1 13 29.5 14 31.0 13 19.6 44 100.0
(17.4)

12 15 26 16.9 41 26.6 30 19.5 57 37.0 154 100.0
(61.3)

16 or more 3 5.4 12 21.4 12 21.4 29 51.8 56 100.0
(21.3)

Total 251 (100.0)


(a) Chi square equals 1.55--p.<.98
(b) Chi square equals 12.79--p. <.05










of the population had less than a high school education, education would

seem not to be a discriminating variable, unless one considers the second

category of twelve to fifteen years of education as the breaking point.

One could, of course, assume that the older population had less education

proportionately and lived in smaller households and thus consumed less water.

The age distribution of the husband attests to this fact when the age is

fifty or older. However, one should keep in mind that the variables dis-

cussed described as head of household need not describe the husband of the

household. In some cases where the families were not complete, the head of

the household was not the husband, so that education, income, and occupation

portray a central tendency.


Water Consumption by Occupation of
Head of Household


The second indicator of socioeconomic status is occupation. Using

seven occupational categories, the two samples were dichotomized into two

occupational categories: manual and nonmanual (Table 12). It appeared

from the data that nonmanual occupations are more clearly associated with

high water consumption than are manual occupations. This pattern holds

somewhat more strongly for the West Palm Beach area than for the Homestead

area.


Water Consumption by Income of
Head of Household


Income was the third indicator of socioeconomic status. Using income

of the head of the household, an even stronger relationship was revealed

between the consumption of water and income than was revealed with occupation

(Table 13). Again, Homestead had only one-sixth of the low income households

among high water consumers as opposed to two-fifths of the high income












TABLE 12


NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF OCCUPATION
OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD AND WATER CONSUMPTION,
HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA


Monthly Water Consumption
in Thousands of Gallons
Occupation
of Head of 1 3 4 6 7 -9 10 or More Total
Household Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent


Homestead (a)

Manual (b) 6 17.1 15 42.9 10 28.6 4 11.4 35 100.0
(50.7)

Nonmanual (c) 5 14.7 14 41.2 6 17.6 9 26.5 34 100.0
(49.3)

Total 69 (100.0)
West Palm Beach (d)

Manual (b) 14 14.4 25 25.8 27 27.8 31 32.0 97 100.0
(45.1)

Nonmanual (c) 12 10.2 27 22.9 23 19.5 56 47.4 118 100.0
(54.9)

Total 215 (100.0)


(a) Chi square equals 3.00--p. (.50
(b) Manual includes laborers and service workers, operatives and kindred workers, craftsmen, foremen, and
kindred workers.
(c) Nonmanual includes sales workers, clerical and kindred workers, managers, officials proprietors,
professional, technical and kindred workers.
(d) Chi square equals 5.71--p. <.2.0









TABLE 13


NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME
OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD AND WATER CONSUMPTION,
HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA


Monthly Water Consumption
in Thousands of Gallons

Income of 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 or More Total
Household Head Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent


Homestead (a)

$0 $4,999 16 36.4 14 31.8 7 15.9 7 15.9 44 100.0
(33.6)

$5,000 $9,999 8 11.7 33 47.1 17 24.3 12 17.2 70 100.0
(53.5)

$10,000 or more 3 17.6 5 29.1 2 11.8 7 41.2 17 100.0
(12.9)

Total 131 (100.0)
West Palm Beach (b)

$0 $4,999 5 15.6 12 37.5 9 28.1 6 18.8 32 100.0
(13.6)

$5,000 $9,999 16 13.5 35 29.4 30 25.2 38 31.9 119 100.0
(50.6)

$10,000 or more 8 8.5 13 15.5 15 17.9 45 57.1 84 100.0
(35.8)

Total 235 (100.0)


(a) Chi square equals 16.451--p.<.02
(b) Chi square equals 20.289--p. .001









households. Income also discriminated water consumption in West Palm Beach

as about three times as many high income households and high water consumers

appeared when compared to low income water consumers. Income, as shown in

other studies (i.e., Spaulding, 1967), proved to be the most discriminating

of the socioeconomic variables used in this study.


Water Consumption by Number of
Water Appliances


There seems little doubt that socioeconomic status, especially as in-

dicated by income, is important in discriminating how much water a household

consumes. Since the consumption of water is more or less dependent on the

facilities through which the use is possible, the relationship between the

number of water-using appliances and water fixtures and the amount of water

consumed was explored (Table 14). Dichotomizing the appliances into ten or

less and eleven or more, it was revealed that three-fourths of the households

in Homestead were "appliance-poor" when compared to West Palm Beach. It

would seem additionally, that appliances and fixtures prove to be weak pre-

dictors of water consumption in Homestead but relatively good predictors in

West Palm Beach.

The data have shown two things to this point. One, a fairly accurate

profile of the two samples of households has been shown. Second, the cir-

cumstances surrounding high or low water consumption are being revealed.

It should be noted that Homestead charges very low rates for metered

water. The rate is low enough to be considered a flat rate. From other

studies evidence has appeared which indicates that a flat rate tends to

encourage water consumption, not as much in actual household use, but rather

in external use, like the watering of lawns. On the other hand, West Palm

Beach has a graduated water rate which is much more expensive than Homestead












TABLE 14


NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF WATER APPLIANCES
AND FIXTURES AND WATER CONSUMPTION, HOMESTEAD
AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA


Monthly Water Consumption
in Thousands of Gallons
Water
Appliances 1 3 4 6 7 -9 10 or More Total
and Fixtures Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent


Homestead (a)

10 or less 26 25.5 40 39.2 17 16.7 19 18.6 102 100.0
(74.4)

11 or more 3 8.6 14 40.0 10 28.6 8 22.8 35 100.0
(25.5)

Total 137 (100.0)
West Palm Beach (b)

10 or less 24 26.1 34 37.0 21 22.8 13 14.1 92 100.0
(35.7)

11 or more 9 54.5 33 20.0 36 21.8 87 52.7 165 100.0
(64.3)

Total 257 (100.0)


(a) Chi square equals 5.631--p. (.20
(b) Chi square equals 48.756--p. (.001










rates. Even so, Homesteaders seem to use about half as much water as house-

holds in the West Palm Beach area. This may be explained in that the West

Palm Beach area has been shown to have better educated, higher occupationally

rated, and "wealthier" residents. Since income has been demonstrated to be

positively related to water consumption, the higher water consumption in

West Palm Beach is not surprising. Income helps in purchases of appliances

and installment of additional water fixtures, and so, the mechanisms of

water consumption are greatly improved.

This circumstance may, perhaps, explain the lower water consumption in

Homestead. Homestead households seem not to be as well equipped with water

dependent appliances as does West Palm Beach, and thus even practically free

water finds little utilization. Additionally, one might speculate that the

suburbanism of West Palm Beach with its stress on green lawns is not as

visible to the casual observer in Homestead. Thus, combined with the life

styles of lower middle class and slightly less money, the Homestead area off-

sets a relatively free water supply by "under-utilizing" it. On the other

hand, the more suburban nature of the sampled area in West Palm Beach, with

its population geared more to the stereotypical image of the "American

Dream," and the resulting increase in number of water-using appliances and

fixtures, by necessity, is an area of heavier water consumption than Home-

stead.

In any event, inspecting the various relationships between the amount

of water consumed by individual households and selected socioeconomic

characteristics of those households, some relationships were established.

The data, however, lend themselves to further analysis in an attempt to

verify the previous explored relationships.









Determinants of Water Consumption:
A Factor Analysis


A useful descriptive measure to identify salient components of any

complex set of variables is factor analysis. This technique was used in

an attempt to confirm the relationship between the selected socioeconomic

variables and water consumption. Twelve variables were selected to be factor

analyzed: family size, number of children, age of children, husband's educa-

tion, wife's education, husband's age, occupation of head of household, in-

come of head of household, income of entire family, number of appliances,

and the metered amount of water consumed in one month by each household.

Using this technique, Table 15 revealed that two factors appeared to

account for eight of the twelve variables used. Factor I will hereafter be

referred to as the "Economic Factor" because of the high factor loadings on

the two income variables (income of head of household and income of entire

family), the two appliance variables (number of appliances and appliances

weighted score), and the water consumption variable. Factor II will here-

after be referred to as the "Family Factor" because of the high loading on

family size, number of children, and age of children.

The important finding of the factor analysis is the clear separation

between the Economic Factor and the Family Factor, especially when most of

the variance in the income variables is accounted for, while the overlap

between the income and the socioeconomic variables obtains, by necessity

again, on the part of the demographic factor. In other words whereas one

can explain water consumption by income and assume that members of the house-

hold are the consumers, the number of people in a given household does not

have much to do with the amount of water consumed. This seemingly curious


For a more complete description of the technique of Factor Analysis,
see Fruchter, p. 196.












TABLE 15

ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX ON SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC
VARIABLES AND WATER CONSUMPTION


Factor Loadings

Selected Socioeconomic I II
Variables Economic Factor Family Factor Communalities


Size of family .271 .655 .502

Monthly water consumption .455 .016 .207

Age of husband .064 .359 .133

Education of husband .156 .211 .069

Education of wife .094 .247 .069

Number of children .239 .671 .508

Age of children .327 .497 .354

Occupation of head of household .361 .054 .133

Income of head of household .624 .097 .399

Income of family .608 .098 .380

Number of appliances .696 .014 .485

Appliances weighted score .695 .006 .483










fact is easy to explain when one considers that high income households may

be using water for purposes unrelated to the physical needs of the household

members. Additionally, such households are more likely to entertain which

may function as numerically enlarged households without ever showing in the

demographic indicators.

An inspection of the zero order correlation matrix which served as the

basis for the factor analysis program will help one further explain and ex-

plore the relationship between consumption and the socioeconomic variables.

The incipient clustering which one observes in the two factors identified

(Table 15) was already noticeable in the correlation matrix (Table 16).

Although a number of the coefficients is significant at the .01 level,1

significance which explains reasonable amount of the variance is not as

frequent. For example, income of the head of the household explained 16

percent of the variance when related to the number of appliances, whereas

water consumption correlated to the number of appliances explained 20 per-

cent of the variance. These are the strongest relationships observed, if

one disregards the naturally high correlations between variables like the

size of the family and the number of children. Factored out, the number of

appliances, which had the highest loading on the Economic Factor, represents

close to 50 percent of the total variance and close to unity in explained

variance. In other words, the more water dependent appliances and fixtures

in a household, the more likely are these going to be used and consume water.

To this point, enough real differences between the two samples have

been revealed to deserve even further analysis. The factor analysis dealt

with the two areas combined, rather than separately as was done with the

socioeconomic variables. The justification for doing so was that there should


IBy convention in the social sciences, the .05 level of significance is
used.












TABLE 16

CORRELATION MATRIX ON SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES


Selected Socioeconomic Variables
Selected Socioeconomic
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Size of Family

Water Consumed

Age of Husband

Education of Husband

Education of Wife

Number of Children

Age of Children

Occupation of Head of Household

Income of Head of Household

Income of Family

Number of Appliances

Weighted Score of Appliances


--- .16 -.25

.07


-.08

.06

-.01


-.08 .90

-.01 .13

.11 -.31

.52 -.04

-.08


.56

.14

-.06

-.05

-.08

.60


-.14 .24

-.28


-.04

-.11

-.19

-.06

-.02

-.08


.21

.24

-.12

.11

.02

.17


.21

.23

-.15

.11

.02

.15

.23

-.24

.93


.18

.45

.13

.06

.03

.15

.24

-.26

.39

.38


.21

.43

.13

.04

.03

.17

.26

-.24

.40

.38

.96









be some underlying factors which influence the various relationships between

household water consumption and the socioeconomic variables considered, such

factors should still be revealed. Whatever the shortcomings of the data may

have been, the variables connected to the fluctuation in water consumption

in the two samples are being more clearly explained.


Income as the Major Determinant of Water
Consumption

In order to see what type of household environment acts as a restrictive

or encouraging force on water consumption, another set of variables were

cross-tabulated separately for Homestead and for West Palm Beach. The nine

variables used were: size of family, number of children, age of children,

age of husband, education of head of household, occupation of head of house-

hold, income of head of household, number of appliances, and the amount of

water consumed in one month.

Table 17 revealed that for Homestead, the trinity of education, occupa-

tion and income showed some relationship with water consumption. It showed

additionally that water consumption is significantly related to all of the

other variables used. The possession of appliances is related to income

(r=.36) and occupation of the head of the household (r=.30), but neither

coefficient is very strong given the size of the sample.

Looking at the results for the West Palm Beach sample, a stronger

relationship between income and the number of appliances (r=.49) and between

appliances and water consumption (r=.45) was observed. The link between

education, occupation, and income is stronger in West Palm Beach than in

Homestead.

Table 18 revealed that the mean number of appliances and fixtures in

the Homestead households (X=9.49) is on the lower end of the scale. After

the normal number of bathroom fixtures, kitchen sinks, and a few odd faucets,
















TABLE 17

CORRELATION MATRIX ON SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES
AND WATER CONSUMPTION: HOMESTEAD
AND WEST PALM BEACH


Selected Socioeconomic Variables

Homestead
Selected Socioeconomic
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


1 Size of Family --- .14 -.27 -.07 -.01 .92 .61 .25 .15
2 Water Consumed -.08 .11 .13 .10 .09 .16 .10
3 Age of Husband -.29 .07 -.31 -.09 .00 .20
4 Education of Head of Household .39 .00 -.04 .27 .02
5 Occupation of Head of Household .05 .04 .44 .30
6 Number of Children .66 .22 .11
7 Age of Children .27 .17
8 Income of Head of Household .36
9 Number of Appliances ---


Selected Socioeconomic Variables

West Palm Beach
Selected Socioeconomic
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


1 Size of Family --- .16 -.32 .00 -.08 .95 .58 .06 .15
2 Water Consumed .13 .17 .14 .11 .14 .35 .45
3 Age of Husband -.26 -.06 -.34 -.07 -.06 .12
4 Education of Head of Household .61 .00 .00 .45 .25
5 Occupation of Head of Household -.09 -.03 .43 .25
6 Number of Children .57 .01 .12
7 Age of Children .13 .24
8 Income of Head of Household .49
9 Number of Appliances ---











TABLE 18

ARITHMETIC AVERAGES (X) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (S.D.)
OF SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES


Homesteada West Palm Beacha
Selected Socioeconomic
Variables X S.D. X S.D.


Size of Family 3.03 1.35 3.36 1.64

Water Consumed 6.83 5.26 11.30 10.46

Age of Husband 41.33 17.06 43.48 14.07

Education of Head of Household 12.18 2.69 12.93 2.66

Occupation of Head of Householdb 4.10 1.86 4.35 2.03

Number of Children 1.04 1.27 1.35 1.64

Age of Children 3.90 5.30 4.90 5.78

Income of Head of Householdc 3.37 1.64 4.62 1.73

Number of Appliances 9.49 2.13 12.14 3.61


aThe number of subjects averaged for each variab

bRated from Low Manual (1) to Professional (7).

cRange from No Income (0) to $20,000 or more (8)


le differs according to available data.









Homestead households did not seem to be equipped with much more. The average

age of husbands in Homestead is 41 years, which would probably be modal for

such a population since only residential one-family units were sampled. It

is felt, however, that the suburban one-family residential dwellings are

the main water consumers among the total population. This is due, probably,

to the equipment of the households and the need for water connected with

maintenance of homes on any side of the lot. The mean age for the whole

population in the sample is about 31 years of age, the population in Home-

stead being somewhat younger than the population in West Palm Beach.


Summary


Evaluating the findings so far, there is increasing evidence of a

definite relationship between household water consumption and the income

standing of the household. The income standing, however, is tied more closely

to the earning power of the head of the household than to the earning power

of the family as a whole unit. To interpret this minor difference, it can

be assumed that the social standing of the head of the household is related

more directly to the earning of the head of the household than to the aggre-

gate dollars a family can bring together. Probably, the additional income is

not concentrated on the needs of the household as such.

The difference between the West Palm Beach and the Homestead households

is striking, but explainable. To the casual observer, the areas sampled in

West Palm Beach carry more of an image of rapid expanding suburbanization

than the two sampled census tracts in Homestead. The "spirit" of the eastern

coast of Florida, with all of its stress on appearance and on status competi-

tion, apparently imposes a style of life which becomes more demanding of

water consumption. Water consumption in West Palm Beach does not appear

to be deterred by pricing which, compared to Homestead, is noticeably more










expensive.

Another difference encountered between the residents of West Palm Beach

and Homestead is that the modern urban, or rather suburban, features of the

system are more pronounced in West Palm Beach than in Homestead. The modern

urban features referred to are those revealed in the strong relationships

between income, education, and occupation, a standard relationship featured

in many sociological studies. If the relationships hold more for the West

Palm Beach area than for Homestead, and it appears to do so, this may suggest

that in terms of growth and in terms of expectation of a forward movement by

the residents, West Palm Beach is more "typical" of the modern suburban areas

than is Homestead. So, if the American residential household is a high water

consumer, estimating the future needs of these households would require one

to concentrate on projection of the types of households encountered in West

Palm Beach rather than those in Homestead.
















CHAPTER V

AN ATTITUDINAL PROFILE OF WATER CONSUMERS
TOWARDS WATER CONSERVATION


The effort of this chapter was directed at determining the attitude of

the respondent toward water resources as such. An attempt was made to develop

an attitudinal scale to measure the attitudes of a particular population of

respondents toward water resources. Of concern were the attitudes of the

respondents regarding: (1) water resources as an economic commodity,

(2) their willingness to do something about the water resources problems,

(3) their awareness of water resources problems, and (4) their knowledge of

certain socioeconomic relationships and availability of water. Once the

scale had been developed, the scale score of each respondent was compared

with certain socioeconomic variables. The variables considered were family

size, water consumption, age of husband, number of children, income of the

head of household, education of the head of household, and the occupation

of the head of household.

From the interview schedule administered during the second stage of

the field work, nineteen attitudinal statements were administered to the

respondents. They were asked to respond with the five categories of "Strongly

Agree," "Agree," "Undecided," "Disagree," and "Strongly Disagree." The

Guttman scalogram analysis technique was used for analysis.1


iThe Guttman cumulative scaling technique of scalogram analysis was
employed. The use of a Guttman scalogram permits one to rank an individual
as higher or lower than another according to their responses to a set of
statements. An individual with a higher rank than another individual on
the same set of statements must also rank as high or higher on every state-
ment in the set as the other individual. this means that a person









The Rationale for the Variables in the Set


Each variable, or statement, in the set can be placed in one of four

"subuniverses":

1) Statements assigned to subuniverse I were intended to discriminate

between those respondents who felt water is an economic commodity which should

be controlled by the government and those respondents who felt otherwise.

2) Statements assigned to subuniverse 2 were intended to discriminate

between those respondents who would be willing to make a sacrifice in time

and/or effort to provide for the proper use and distribution of water and

those who felt the opposite.

3) Statements assigned to subuniverse 3 were intended to discriminate

between those respondents who were aware of a water resources problem and

those who seem to take the existence of water for granted.

4) Statements assigned to subuniverse 4 were intended to discriminate

between those respondents who were knowledgeable and those who were not

knowledgeable about: (a) the relationship between socioeconomic status,

water consumption, and number of water-using appliances, and (b) the presumed

availability of water and water resources in general, as indicated by the

amount of thought which they had given the water resources problem.

The percentage of favorable responses to each variable in the set was

established through a cutting point for each variable. The Cornell technique

(Edwards, 1957:178-184) was then employed, assigning 1 to indicate favorable


must also be just as favorable or more favorable in his response to every state-
ment in the set than the other person" (Edwards, 1957:172). The score is an
indication of the rank-order position of individuals with respect to the under-
lying variable. Unidimensionality is reflected when a single score is derived
which is the measure of one factor only. If a single, quantitative score is
to represent, without ambiguity, the behavior of an individual on the set of
items in the interview schedule, then it must be possible, knowing each re-
spondent's score, to know his behavior on each and every statement in the set.
Guttman calls this the principle of reproducibility (Remmers, 1954:99).






49


responses and 0 to indicate unfavorable responses to the dichotomous categories

(Table 19).


TABLE 19

ITEM SET WITH ASSIGNED SUBUNIVERSES AND
PERCENTAGE FAVORABLE RESPONSES



Statements Subuniverse Favorable


*1. Problems of water supply are only
temporary. 3 .43

2. If there were a shortage of water, we
would cut our use of water. 2 .49

*3. The amount of water people use depends
on how much water is available. 4 .36

*4. Nature has a way to solve water supply
problems before they get serious. 3 .63

5. We would cut our water consumption if
necessary. 2 .09

*6. The government should control the
price of water. 1 .37

7. Water reclaimed from waste is as
good as any other water. 4 .31

8. During water shortages, there should
be a restriction of the watering of
lawns. 2 .18

9. The water-using appliances a family
has identifies their position in
society. 4 .53

10. We would cut down our use of water
if we had to. 2 .09

*11. Mankind has a right to free and
unlimited use of water. 3 .52

*12. Water is the most abundant natural
resource. 3 .44

13. The amount of water people use
depends on the number of water-using
appliances they have. 4 .78






50


TABLE 19 (continued)


Statements Subuniverse Favorable


14. It's the people who should do
something about the water problem. 4 .70

*15. We really haven't thought about
cutting down our use of water. 4 .23

*16. The water we draw on in this area
is already polluted. 3 .38

*17. It's the government who should do
something about the water problem. 1 .29

*18. The water cycle is beyond human control. 4 .40

19. I would be willing to do something
about the water problem. 2 .10


*The coding was reversed on these statements as a response of "Disagree"
was a favorable response.


Test for Scalability


If the subuniverses of content which were sampled comprise the true

scale rank-order, or closely approximate it, then the scalogram should have

the regular pattern which appears in the perfect Guttman scalogram. A perfect

coefficient of reproducibility (1.00) would indicate that, given any respon-

dent's score on the scale, one would be able to indicate how the respondent

answered each of the items on the scale. In attempting to approximate this

perfect coefficient of reproducibility, four trial scalograms were constructed.

The first trial scalogram included fourteen items and had a coefficient of

reproducibility of .797, the second included ten items and had a coefficient

of reproducibility of .811, the third included eight items and had a coefficient

of reproducibility of .858, and the fourth scalogram included six items and

had a coefficient of reproducibility of .884. The elimination of one item









from the fourth trial scalogram provided the final scalogram of five items

with a coefficient of reproducibility of .895, thus virtually fulfilling

Guttman's own requirement of an arbitrary 90 per cent .

so as to prevent misreading as a G-scale a finding that might actually be

generated by statistically independent items" (Riley, 1963:476) (Table 20).

The final five items which make up the scale are: (1) We really haven't

thought about cutting down our water consumption. (2) Water reclaimed from

waste is as good as any other water. (3) Mankind has a right to free and

unlimited use of water. (4) Nature has a way to solve water supply problems

before they get serious. (5) It's the people who should do something about

the water problem (Table 21).


A Test for Validity


An attempt was made to validate the subuniverses of content as initially

conceived. From a factor analysis, initially employed with all nineteen items

in the set, six factors were isolated (Table 22). Seventeen of the nineteen

original items had loadings of .50 or higher on one of the factors. Only the

variables concerning the temporariness of water problems and water pollution

had loadings of less than .50 (Table 23). The six factors were given de-

scriptive names which, with two exceptions, correspond directly with the four

subuniverses. One exception is Factor VI (Rationality) which contains two

items originally assigned to two other subuniverses. The other exception is

Factor V (Knowledgeability II) which contains items originally assigned to

the subuniverse of knowledgeabilityy." The original subuniverse of "know-

ledgeability" was found to be made up of two factors rather than only one,

as had originally been anticipated.

The six attitudinal factors, which were labeled Willingness, Awareness,

Knowledgeability I, Economic Commodity, Knowledgeability II, and Rationality












TABLE 20

SCALOGRAM FOR FINAL FIVE ITEMS


Variablesa Guttman Scores


1 2 3 4 5 Frequency Score Total Error


Responsesb

i 1 1 1 1 6 5 0
1 1 0 1 1 4 5 4
1 1 1 1 0 1 5 1
1 1 1 0 1 1 5 1
1 1 1 0 0 1 5 2

0 1 1 1 1 20 4 0
0 1 0 1 1 5 4 5
0 1 1 0 1 7 4 7
0 1 1 1 0 1 4 1
0 1 0 1 0 1 4 2

0 0 1 1 1 28 3 0
1 0 1 1 1 8 3 8
1 0 1 1 0 2 3 4
0 0 1 1 0 12c 3 12c
0 0 1 0 1 7 3 7

0 0 0 1 1 19 2 0
1 0 0 1 1 3 2 3
1 0 0 1 0 2 2 4
0 0 0 1 0 8 2 8












TABLE 20 (continued)


Variables Guttman Scores


1 2 3 4 5 Frequency Score Total Error


0 0 0 0 1 13 1 0
1 1 0 0 1 2 1 4
0 1 0 0 1 5 1 5
1 0 0 0 1 5 1 5

0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 1 0 2
1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
1 0 0 0 0 6 0 6
0 1 0 0 0 3 0 3
0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3

Total Frequency
of "1" Response:

43 58 98 120 133 189 99


aThe variables coincide with the items in the interview schedule in the following manner:
variable I equals item 15, variable 2 equals item 7, variable 3 equals item 11, variable 4 equals
item 4, and variable 5 equals item 14.

bFavorable response equals 1, unfavorable response equals 0.

cThis scale-type exceeds the .05 percent error for any scale-type. Investigation into the twelve
respondents of this scale type revealed that nine have fourteen years or more of education, three have
twelve years of education. This was the only variable that was discovered to be "common" among the
scale type. For the entire sample, 30 percent were found to have fourteen years or more of education
and 42 percent were found to have twelve years of education. The "common denominator" of education for
this particular scale-type may or may not explain the high occurrence of the scale type.

















TABLE 21

FINAL FIVE STATEMENTS FOR GUTTMAN SCALE


Variable Statement Statement Favorable Responses


*1 15 We really haven't thought
about cutting down our use
of water. .23

2 7 Water reclaimed from waste
is as good as any other
water. .31

*3 11 Mankind has a right to free
and unlimited use of water. .52

*4 4 Nature has a way to solve
water supply problems before
they get serious. .63

5 14 It's the people who should
do something about the
water problem. .70


*Statements have been reverse coded.












TABLE 22


FACTOR MATRIX OF ATTITUDES TOWARD WATER CONSERVATION


VARIABLES FACTORS


No. Description I II III IV V VI


5 Cut water consumption if necessary 0.77155
10 Cut water use if had to 0.73554
2 If shortage, cut use 0.71484
19 I'd do something about water problem 0.60213

11 Man's right to free water 0.71548
12 Water most abundant resource 0.66522
4 Nature solves own problems 0.54321

14 People do something 0.62379
9 Appliances identifies position -0.62293
7 Water reclaimed is good 0.51246

6 Government control price 0.78317
17 Government do something 0.75615

15 We haven't thought about cutting use 0.59271
13 Water use depends on appliances -0.51862
18 Water cycle beyond control 0.50614

3 Amount water used depends on amount available -0.66340
8 Restriction of watering lawns 0.56616










TABLE 23

FACTORS UNDERLYING ATTITUDES TOWARDS WATER CONSERVATION
(Selected loadings of .500 or higher)a


Statements Factor Loadingsb Label


I Willingness

5 We would cut our water con-
sumption if necessary. .771

10 We would cut down our use of
water if we had to. .735

2 If there were a shortage of
water, we would cut our use
of water. .714

19 I would be willing to do some-
thing about the water problem. .602


II Awareness

11 Mankind has a right to free and
unlimited use of water. -.715

12 Water is the most abundant
natural resource. -.665

4 Nature has a way to solve
water supply problems before
they get serious. .543


III Knowledgeability I

14 It's the people who should do
something about the water
problem. .623

9 The water-using appliances a
family has identifies their
position in society. .622

7 Water reclaimed from waste is
as good as any other water. .512










TABLE 23 (continued)


Statements Factor Loadingsb Label


IV Economic Commodity

6 The government should control
the price of water. -.783

17 It's the government who should
do something about the water
problem. -.756


V Knowledgeability II

15 We really haven't thought
about cutting down our use
of water. -.592

13 The amount of water people
use depends on the number of
water-using appliances they
have. -.518

18 The water cycle is beyond
human control. -.506


VI Rationality

3 The amount of water people use
depends on how much water is
available. .663

8 During water shortages, there
should be a restriction on
the watering of lawns. .566


aSelected value from the factor matrix, Table 22.

bSigns on loadings on all factors corrected for unidirectionality.










were ranked by the strength of their mean loadings. The ranking developed

as follows: Economic Commodity, Willingness, Awareness, Rationality, Know-

ledgeability I, and Knowledgeability II (Table 24).


TABLE 24

RANK-ORDER OF FACTORS BY MEAN LOADINGS OF ATTITUDES
TOWARDS WATER CONSERVATIONa


Factor Name Mean Loadingb


IV Economic Commodity .769

I Willingness .705

II Awareness .641

VI Rationality .614

III Knowledgeability I .586

V Knowledgeability II .539


aDerived from Table 22.

bsigns disregarded.



When the Guttman scale ranks were compared with the corresponding factor

analysis (Table 25), the results fully support the original subuniverses

as initially conceived.


Naming the Guttman Scale


The way in which the final Guttman scale should be read is as follows:

for those respondents who had given considerable thought to the water problem,

it is acceptable to treat water reclaimed from waste as being as good as any

other water, to accept the necessity of control over water exploitation and

misuse, to believe that nature cannot solve supply problems before they

become serious, and finally to acknowledge that the solution of water












TABLE 25


COMPARISON BETWEEN THE GUTTMAN SCALE RANKINGS AND FACTOR MATRIX RANKINGS OF
VARIABLES REFLECTING ATTITUDES TOWARDS WATER CONSERVATION


Guttman
Scale Factor Original
Score Statement Description Rank Description Subuniverse


1 15 Haven't thought about 5 Knowledgeability II Knowledgeability
cutting water consumption.

2 7 Reclaimed water is 3 Knowledgeability I Knowledgeability
good.

3 11 Man has a right to free 2 Awareness Awareness
water.

4 4 Nature solves water 2 Awareness Awareness
problems.

5 14 People should do some- 3 Knowledgeability I Knowledgeability
thing about the water
problem.










resources problems is a matter with which they must personally concern them-

selves. The underlying dimension which this scale seems to measure is a

concern for and about the water resources problem. The scale was thus

named the "Water Concern Scale" and the resulting scalogram is found in

Table 26.


Potential Uses of the Water Concern Scale


The Water Concern Scale may be a feasible instrument to be used by

civil engineers and community officials in the planning and initiation of

water projects in local areas. The scale could provide the planners with

some measure of the concern and involvement of the residents of the particu-

lar community in the water resources and conservation problem, and more

specifically, in the suggested local project. Such a measure would enable

water project planners to decide how much more and what kind of information

needs to be disseminated to the residents in order to gain acceptance for


the suggested project.












TABLE 26

WATER CONCERN SCALOGRAMa


SCALE PATTERN

I = favorable response and concern
0 = unfavorable response and concern


Thought
about
water
consump-
SCALE TYPE OF SUBJECT tion


Water
reclaimed
is as
good


Right
to
free
water


Nature
solves
own
problems


People
should
do some-
thing


Most Concerned


DISTRIBUTION OF THE
RESPONDENTS


Perfect
Nonscale Scale


6 13

20 34

28 57

19 32

13 25


14 14 28


Least Concerned

Total Subjects


100


aCompare with Table 3 for further details of the scale.


Total
















CHAPTER VI


AN APPLICATION OF THE SCALE


In an effort to reveal any relationship or association between the

scale types of the sampled population and the respondent's "actual" partici-

pation or concern with the water resources problem, the Guttman scores were

compared with certain socioeconomic variables. For the variables of family

size, water consumption, age of husband, number of children, income of the

household head, number of water-using appliances, and education of the house-

hold head, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient1 was used (Siegel,

1956:202-213).

For the variable of occupation of the household head, the Kruskal-
2
Wallis one-way analysis of variance was used (Siegel, 1956:184-194).


Statements of Relationships


The following variables were subjected to a statement of relationship,

using in each instance the form of the null hypothesis, and tested.

FAMILY SIZE: The null hypothesis may be stated: There is no rela-

tionship between the size of the respondent's family and the respondent's

I
Spearman rank correlation coefficient is a "measure of association
which requires that both variables be measured in at least an ordinal scale
so that the objects or individuals under study may be ranked in two ordered
series" (Siegel, 1956:202). The two sets of scores are ranked in two series.
Because of the large proportion of observations tied for certain ranks, a
correction factor was incorporated in the computation of rs. The correction
factor prevents an inflation of the value of rs.

2The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance by ranks assumes that
the variable under study has an underlying continuous distribution. "It
requires at least ordinal measurement of the variable" (Siegel, 1956:185).










Guttman score.

For family size, rs = 0.066 indicating only a very low correlation

between family size and the Guttman score. This relationship is not signifi-

cant at the .05 level of significance and, therefore, the null hypothesis

cannot be rejected. On the basis of the evidence, then, it does not appear

that one may assume that the size of the family as such operates as a major

determinant of attitudes toward issues related to concern about water problems.

WATER CONSUMPTION: The null hypothesis is: There is no relationship

between a respondent's household water consumption and his Guttman score.

For water consumption, rs = 0.095 indicating a low correlation between

water consumption and the Guttman score. This relationship is not signifi-

cant at the .05 level of significance and would indicate that a respondent's

household water consumption does not significantly affect his attitude re-

garding concern about water resources problems. The null hypothesis cannot

be rejected.

AGE OF HUSBAND: The null hypothesis may be phrased: There is no re-

lationship between the age of the husband in the household and the respondent's

Guttman score.

For age of husband, rs = 0.079 indicating that a low correlation exists

between the age of the husband and the Guttman score. This relationship is

not significant at the .05 level of significance, and, thus, the null hypothesis

cannot be rejected. It would appear that the age of the husband is not a

"cause" of the respondent's attitude concerning water resources problems.

NUMBER OF CHILDREN: The following null hypothesis is offered: There

is no relationship between the number of children in the household and the

respondent's Guttman score.

For the number of children, rs = 0.066 indicating only a very low

correlation between the number of children in the household and the respondent's










Guttman score. This relationship is not significant at the .05 level of

significance, and, on this basis, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

The number of children apparently does not affect the respondent's attitude

regarding his concern about water resources problems.

INCOME OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD: The null hypothesis may be stated:

There is no relationship between the income of the household head and the

respondent's Guttman score.

For income of the household head, rs = 0.164 indicating that there is

a correlation between the income of the household head and the Guttman score.

This relationship is significant at the .05 level of significance and, con-

sequently, the null hypothesis can be rejected. As found by Dasgupta (1968),

income is found to be a determinant of the respondent's attitudes toward

water resources problems.

NUMBER OF WATER-USING APPLIANCES: The null hypothesis is: There is

no relationship between the number of water-using appliances in the household

and the respondent's Guttman score.

For number of water-using appliances, rs = 0.008 indicating a very low

correlation between the number of water-using appliances in the household and

the Guttman score. This relationship is not significant at the .05 level of

significance, and, therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Although

the number of water-using appliances was found to be significantly related to

attitudes by Dasgupta (1968), in this sample the number of water-using appli-

ances does not contribute to the respondent's attitudes regarding water re-

sources problems.

EDUCATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD: The null hypothesis may be phrased:

There is no relationship between the education of the household head and the

respondent's Guttman score.

For the education of the household head, rs = 0.233. Although a










correlation on this level does not suggest a very close relationship between

the series of data, the relationship is significant at the .01 level of

significance. That this null hypothesis can be rejected may offer support,

in some manner, to the occurrence of the twelve-scale-types as discussed

in Table 2. In Table 2 it was determined that education could be the common

denominator for the appearance of twelve respondents with the same response

pattern. The direction of the relationship is such that one may assume the

existence of some tendency for the Guttman score to be higher as the educa-

tion of the household increases.

OCCUPATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD: The null hypothesis is: There is

no relationship between the occupation of the household head and the respond-

ent's Guttman score.

For the occupation of the household head, H = 7.066, indicating that

the probability associated with the occurrence under the null hypothesis of

a value this large (df = 6) is not significant at the .05 level of significance.

The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. One may assume, because of this

quite low probability of occurrence, that the occupation of the household

head is not determinant of the respondent's Guttman score.


Summary


An attempt was made to construct an attitudinal scale that might be

useful to social scientists, natural scientists, and civil engineers con-

cerned with the water resources problems in the United States. The inter-

view schedule contained questions which provided standard socioeconomic

information on the respondents. The interview schedules also contained

nineteen attitudinal questions which were intended to elicit respondents'

attitudes towards water resources problems. The attitudinal questions were

designed to measure the subuniverses of (1) willingness on the part of the










respondent to do something about the water resources problem, (2) the con-

sideration by the respondent that water is an economic commodity, (3) aware-

ness on the part of the respondent, and (4) knowledgeability of the respondent

regarding the water resources problem.

An attempt was then made, using the technique of Guttman scalogram

analysis, to construct the attitude scale. In meeting the requirements of

the Guttman scalogram analysis, that is, that the scale be reproducible,

only five of the original nineteen attitudinal statements were retainable.

The final scale had a coefficient of reproducibility of .895.

The original nineteen items were subjected to a factor analysis to

determine if the original subuniverses were to be validated. Initially,

four subuniverses were proposed: economic commodity, willingness, awareness,

and knowledgeability. The factor analysis revealed that there were six sub-

universes measured by the attitudinal items: economic commodity, willing-

ness, awareness, knowledgeability I, knowledgeability II, and rationality.

Only two of the original nineteen items were not sufficiently "loaded" on

the factor analysis. In comparing the original subuniverses with those

revealed by the factor analysis, the final scale was fully supported. That

is, the final five items on the scale had loadings of .50 or higher and were

initially assigned to subuniverses which were validated by the factor analy-

sis. The nature of the final five items on the scale was such that it was

named the Water Concern Scale.

The scale scores of the final Water Concern Scale were then compared

with certain socioeconomic variables in order to reveal any relationship

between a respondent's score and his actual concern and participation with

the water resources problem. Using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient

and the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance, the following socio-

economic variables were compared with the Guttman scores of the respondents:










family size, water consumption, age of husband, number of children, income

of the household head, number of water-using appliances, education of the

household head, and occupation of the household head. The relationships

were stated in the form of null hypotheses and the following null hypo-

theses could not be rejected at the .05 level of significance: family size,

water consumption, age of husband, number of children, number of water-using

appliances, and occupation of the household head. Only the null hypotheses

concerning the socioeconomic variables of education of the household head

and income of the household head could be rejected. The implication of

this rejection is that income and education of the household head are

determinants of the respondent's attitude score in the population samples

in this research. It was finally noted that another attitudinal study had

revealed these same two socioeconomic variables to be significantly related


to attitudes regarding water resources problems.
















CHAPTER VII


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


An effort has been made in this research to: (1) determine what rela-

tionships there are between water consumption in two residential areas com-

pared with certain socioeconomic variables of the population, and (2) measure

the attitudes of water consumers toward water conservation. The research

consisted of interviewing residents of two South Florida areas--West Palm

Beach and Homestead.

In an attempt to achieve the two goals of this research, data were

presented and analyzed on the characteristics of the population, water con-

sumption by household characteristics, attitudes of the respondents toward

water conservation, and on the relationships of certain socioeconomic vari-

ables and the Water Concern Scale. It was determined in this analysis that

the West Palm Beach sample had proportionately more larger families, had

proportionately a larger number of families with a greater number of children,

and had proportionately more families with older children than did the Home-

stead sample. The head of the household in West Palm Beach was also found

to have been more likely to have completed a high school education and a

college education, more likely to have been a professional worker and less

likely to have been a blue collar worker, more likely to earn more, and to

be slightly older than his or her Homestead counterpart.

It was also determined, as has been established in other research,

that there is a definite relationship between water consumption and the

income standing of the household. Additionally, differences between West









Palm Beach and Homestead in water consumption were attributed to their different

"life styles," with West Palm Beach being considered more typically urban.

Finally, with the development of the Water Concern Scale, it was deter-

mined that income and education of the household head appear to be the deter-

minants of a respondent's attitude score in the two areas sampled. The

attitudinal profile proved to be consistent with other research on attitudes

and water conservation, although this was the first attempt to construct a

Guttman scale as such.


Conclusions


Some basic relationships between the use of water and the several

socioeconomic characteristics of the households of West Palm Beach and

Homestead have been established. By further observation of frequency dis-

tributions on some of the items of the interview schedule used, some major

habits of the householders with regard to water use can be established.

In part of the preceding analysis, water dependent appliances and

plumbing fixtures proved to be the key discriminators in water use. Table 27

compares West Palm Beach and Homestead households on the number and types of

appliances and fixtures.

It is demonstrated that the West Palm Beach households are more affluent,

at least judging by the number of appliances which tend to characterize the

higher income households such as dishwashers, garbage disposals, and multiple

bathrooms. To what use these appliances and fixtures were put can be esti-

mated by the differential water consumption of the respective households.

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the West Palm Beach households use

substantially more water than the Homestead households. For instance, when

asked about their lawn watering practices, the Homestead respondents were

about twice as likely (71 percent) as the West Palm Beach respondents










TABLE 27

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF WATER-USING APPLIANCES
AND FIXTURES, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH HOUSEHOLDS


NUMBER OF APPLIANCES AND FIXTURES

One Two or More
DESCRIPTION OF
APPLIANCES AND West Palm West Palm
FIXTURES Homestead Percenta Beach Percenta Homestead Percenta Beach Percenta


Washing Machine 99 72.3 196 77.1

Dishwasher 12 8.7 76 29.9

Garbage Disposal 4 2.9 72 28.3

Lawn Sprinkler 15 10.9 152 59.8 3

Swimming Pool 2 15

Hot Water Heater 136 254

Bathtub 122 89.0 207 81.4 13 9.5 40 15.7

Shower 106 77.4 157 61.8 20 14.6 86 33.8

Bathroom Commode 100 72.9 105 41.3 37 27.0 149 58.6

Bathroom Sink 98 71.5 112 44.0 38 27.7 142 55.9

Kitchen Sink 135 248 97.6 2 96 37.8

Outside Faucet 45 32.8 33 12.9 92 67.1 215 84.6

N 137 254 137 254


Percent based on total number of respondents in Homestead (N=137) and West Palm Beach (N=254) respectively.









(32 percent) to report that they water their lawn "seldom or never." A

routine sprinkling of lawns either with a hose or through a sprinkler system

was claimed by West Palm Beach respondents convincingly more often than by

Homestead respondents (watering by garden hose: 25 percent for Homestead,

42 percent for West Palm Beach; watering by sprinkler system: 2 percent

for Homestead and 26 percent for West Palm Beach).

However, the purpose of this research was not to give weight to minor

water consumption habits, but rather to tap the attitudes and opinions of

the respondents as to their understanding of the water supply distribution

question. One of the difficulties in water conservation and consumption

surveys when the focus is on attitudes is that water for a long time has been

considered one of the free things like air, which may not be free either.

In order to pinpoint some of the general and diffuse attitudes and opinions

on water, an attempt was made first of all to ascertain how accurately the

respondents think about their sources of water supply.

One of the questions was designed to find out whether the respondents

could identify accurately the supplier of their water. This proved to be no

problem in Homestead as the City of Homestead is the sole supplier of house-

holds who do not have their own wells or are out of the water district. In

the West Palm Beach area, however, the many subdivisions and incorporated

places have a variety of private suppliers, but only 12 of the 254 respondents

identified their water suppliers as such. Apparently, most of them think

the city always supplies water. On the other hand, when asked whether or

not they are satisfied with their present water supply, 16 percent of the

West Palm Beach respondents would prefer a different supplier. This latter

refers, of course, only to the households connected to a metered supply of

water.

The respondents were also asked whether they ever thought before about










cutting down their water use, whether they would be willing to do so, and how

they would prefer to implement such cuts. A great majority of them (92 per-

cent in Homestead and 82 percent in West Palm Beach) indicated that they have

not given thought to cutting their water consumption and from among those who

had done so, about 15 percent (mostly from West Palm Beach) did so because

of the cost. This seems consistent with other observations made where the

use of water is related to water rates.

When asked how they would implement a cut in water consumption, 36 per-

cent of the Homestead respondents and 41 percent of the West Palm Beach

respondents indicated they would cut down on their lawn watering, 30 percent

and 14 percent respectively would check fixtures for leaks, and others men-

tioned yet other means. In general, the make-up of the households in the two

areas is reflected in these responses. Since fewer respondents in Homestead

than in West Palm Beach water their lawns in the first place, fewer of the

Homestead respondents would be able to turn off their lawn irrigations. How-

ever, since the people in the Homestead sample are apparently more aware of

the cost of living, the lower percentage is proportionately larger regarding

lawn irrigation than the West Palm Beach sample. The economic factor also

enters in checking for leaking faucets where the Homestead respondents would

check their fewer faucets more thoroughly for leaks than would be the case

with the West Palm Beach sample.

Were the respondents faced with a community-wide shortage of water,

they would relegate the responsibility for water consumption to, in the first

place, the water plant itself (20 percent in Homestead and 31 percent in West

Palm Beach), second to the civic responsibility of the citizens themselves

(36 and 34 percent respectively), and lastly, to some legal sanctions (41 and

37 percent respectively). The only apparent real difference between the two

samples is the understanding of the role of the water plant, where only two









out of ten respondents in Homestead, but three out of ten in West Palm Beach

would favor such control.

Questions concerning water shortage seem to be of only minor relevance

when three-quarters of the respondents never expect this to happen in their

area. Just about all of them believed that the water supply in their area

was either abundant or quite satisfactory. When the respondents were asked

whether they would go farther, deeper, into the ocean, or into the sewers

were they in need of more water, 13 percent of the Homestead respondents

and only 7 percent of the West Palm Beach respondents indicated such, even

though Homestead draws all of its water supply from the ground and West Palm

Beach off the surface. On the other hand, 34 percent and 44 percent of the

Homestead and West Palm Beach respondents, respectively, indicated they would

prefer to go deeper for the water. Almost 47 percent of the respondents in

Homestead and 42 percent of the respondents in West Palm Beach indicated de-

salination as an alternative. Regarding the reclamation of water from the

effluent, only three respondents in each area indicated such as a favorable

alternative.

When, however, the respondents were presented directly with the re-

claimed water questions giving reclaimed water as an economical solution to

the water problem, still 51 percent and 60 percent of the respondents in

Homestead and West Palm Beach, respectively, would rather pay more than have

to drink reclaimed water. And, if they had to drink water reclaimed from the

effluent, 62 percent of the Homestead respondents and 66 percent of the West

Palm Beach respondents would be bothered by the knowledge of it. It would

appear that the dislike of water reclaimed from effluent seems to cut across

social class lines.

The overall profile of the two communities may increase our understanding

of the social forces behind the differential water consumption. In Homestead,






74


where the income does not allow as much equipment in the household as in

West Palm Beach, there appears correspondingly lower water consumption,

mainly reflected in the low use of water for lawns and the like. Also, the

overall set of attitudes and opinions toward water conservation seems to be

one of a lack of real concern, some misunderstanding of what it is all about,

and willingness to have somebody else take care of it.






































APPENDIX










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Department of Sociology
Water Resources Research Center

Prediction Model for Water Use by Population Structure


INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
CARD 6

COLS CODE

ADDRESS: (Zone: Segment: 1-6

SCHEDULE SERIAL NUMBER: 75-77

INTERVIEWER: 7,8

DATE OF CONTACT: 1st

2nd

3rd

INTERVIEW COMPLETED: 9 1
2
INTERVIEW INCOMPLETE: Dwelling Vacant 10 1

Interruption 2

Refusal 3

Different Residents 4

**INTERVIEWER NOTE: ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF EVERY RESIDENT

1. Were you interviewed last Fall by someone from this
project? YES NO 11 1
2
If NO, TERMINATE THE INTERVIEW

If YES, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

la. Were you interviewed by a male or female? 12 1
MALE FEMALE 2

lb. Did you receive any literature from the 13 1
interviewer? YES NO 2

If YES, did you read it? 14 1
YES NO 2










The University of Florida is interested in some long range estimates of water
needs in this area. You were most cooperative last Fall, and we once again
ask your cooperation in answering a few questions on the use of water by this
household. As you know, the Project is being paid for by the Federal Govern-
ment but the results will be of help to the people in this community regarding
the future needs for water here.


1. Do you know how many gallons you use on an average day?


If Yes, how many_______


COLS

17-19


CODE


No


Comments:


2. Did you ever contemplate cutting down your water con-
sumption?
Yes No

If Yes, what was the main reason for it?

Water Cost

Dislike Taste

Problems of Supply

Comments:



3. Do you think you could cut down on your water use?


If Yes, why:


Water Cost

Dislike Taste

Problems of Supply

Comments:


4. Were you to cut down your water consumption, what would
you do?


Stop watering lawn

Check the faucet leakage










COLS


Other

Don't know

Comments:


5. Were the community to experience a water shortage and
cuts of consumption in each household would have to be
made, which of the following ways would appeal to you
most?

Rationing plan by water works, e.g., shutting
water supply off a certain time of the day.

Encouraging the citizens to cut their water
consumption in general.

A ban on watering lawns and fines to enforce it.

Allowing only so many gallons per person in the
household.

Decreasing the pressure.

Comments:



6. Do you think that your community will ever face a problem
of an inadequate supply of water?


Yes

Comments:


Don't Know


7. Do you think the water supply in this area is:


Sufficient_


Inadequate


Comments:



8. When a community like yours faces a water shortage be-
cause there is no adequate recharging of the areas the
water comes from, there are several alternatives facing
the community. If each of the following alternatives
were to cost the same, which one would you prefer?


Go farther to get the water.


Abundant


CODE






79




Go deeper to get the water.

Desalinate, using the water from the ocean.

Reclaim water from the waste.

Comments:



9. Were the cost of reclaiming water from the waste the
cheapest way to keep up with the water need of the
community:

would you rather pay more for the other alternatives.

would you accept it as a reasonable solution.

Comments:



10. Would it bother you to know that the water you are
drinking was reclaimed from the waste?


Yes_

Comments:


No_


Don't Know


11. Have you heard about communities where this is the case?


Yes_

Comments:


No


12. Do you think it would be worthwhile, even though the
initial cost might be high, to have a dual system of
water supply; one for outside use and one for cooking
and drinking?


Don't Know


COLS


CODE


Yes_

Comments:










COLS


13. Were it necessary to install such a system, how
should it be financed?

Increased water rates.

Governmental subsidy.

Don't know.

Comments:


14. There is no question that this area is
population and in the need for water.
that there should be some governmental
assure that the cost of water does not
disproportionately?


Yes_

Comments:


increasing in
Do you think
agency to
increase


Don't Know


15. Do you think that water works should be subsidized
so that even the poor families may have as much
water as they need?


Yes


Don't Know


If Yes, how should this subsidy be effected?


A general water tax.

Property tax.

Some other tax.


Comments:


16. Have you ever attended a formal or informal gatherings
concerned with water?


Yes


If Yes, how many:


34,35


CODE










COLS CODE

17. With whom have you talked most about the water problem? 36

Family I

Close personal friends 2

Other neighbors 3

Other friends at work 4

Other (specify) 5

Comments: 9
0


18. Have any of the following indicated concern about 37
conserving water?

Family I

Close personal friends 2

Other neighbors 3

Other friends at work 4

Other (specify) 5

Comments: 9
0


19. Do any of the following exercise exceptional or 38
noticeable practice with respect to water conservation?

Family I

Close personal friends 2

Other neighbors 3

Other friends at work 4

Other (specify) 5

Comments: 9
0










COLS


20. Would you be willing to pay more for the water you
need?


Yes

Comments:


21. Would you use desalinated water?


No


Comments:


22. Do you think your
soon?

Yes


community will face a water shortage


No


Comments:


23. Do you water your lawn often?


Yes

Comments:


24. Do you think your monthly water bill is fair?


Yes

Comments:


**INTERVIEWER NOTE:


That concludes that part of this questionnaire. Now I will read to you
a series of statements concerning your attitudes on water. Consider how
strongly you personally agree or disagree with the following statements.
Tell me if you STRONGLY AGREE with the statement, only AGREE with the state-
ment, if you STRONGLY DISAGREE with the statement, only DISAGREE with the
statement, or if you are UNDECIDED about the statement.


CODE










**INTERVIEWER GIVES THE RESPONDENT THE CARD WITH THE RESPONSES ON IT.


COLS


CODE


1. Problems of water supply are only temporary.

SA A U D SD


2. If there were a shortage of water, we would
cut our water use.


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


SA A U D SD


1 2 3 4 5


3. The amount of water people use depends on how
much water is available.


SA A U D SD


4. Nature has a way to solve water supply problems
before they get serious.


1 2 3 4 5


SA A U D SD


5. We would cut our water consumption if necessary.

SA A U D SD


6. The government should control the price of water.


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


SA A U D SD


1 2 3 4 5


7. Water reclaimed from waste is as good as any
other water.


SA A U D SD


8. During water shortages, there should be a
restriction on the watering of lawns.

SA A U D SD


9. The water-using appliances a family has identifies
their position in society.


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


SA A U D SD









COLS


10. We would cut down our use of water if we had to.


CODE

1 2 3 4 5


SA A U D SD


11. Mankind has a right to free and unlimited use
of water.

SA A U D SD


12. Water is the most abundant natural resource.

SA A U D SD


13. The amount of water people use depends on the
number of water-using appliances they have.

SA A U D SD


14. It's the people who should do something about
the water problem.

SA A U D SD


15. We really haven't thought about cutting down
our use of water.


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


SA A U D SD


16. The water we draw on in this area is already
polluted.


1 2 3 4 5


SA A U D SD


17. It's the government who should do something about
the water problem.


1 2 3 4 5


SA A U D SD


18. The water cycle is beyond human control.


1 2 3 4 5


SA A U D SD










COLS


19. I would be willing to do something about the
water problem.


CODE

1 2 3 4 5


SA A U D SD







THAT CONCLUDES THE INTERVIEW. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR YOUR COOPERATION. IT WAS MOST SINCERELY APPRECIATED.





**INTERVIEWER NOTE


1. Degree of Interview Cooperation


Good

Fair

Poor

Comments:
















BIBLIOGRAPHY


"A Directory of Information Resources in the United States Water,"
U.S. Library of Congressional Natural Referral Center for Science
and Technology (September, 1966).

Ackerman, Edward A., "Questions for Designers of Future Water Policy,"
Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 38 (November, 1956), pp. 971-980.

Andrews, Wade H., "Sociological Analysis and Water Resources Problems,"
Prepared for presentation at a Workshop for Sociological Aspects
of Water Resources Research in Logan, Utah State University,
April 18, 1968 (Mimeographed).

,__ and Gillings, James L., "Some Factors Affecting Social Change
in Water Resources." Unpublished Paper. San Francisco: Rural
Sociological Society Meeting, 1967.

Arrow, Kenneth J., "Criteria for Social Investment," Water Resources
Research, Vol. I (First Quarter, 1965), pp. 1-8.

Backstrum, Charles H., and Hursh, Gerald D., Survey Research. Evanston:
Northwestern University Press, 1963.

Baur, E. Jackson, "Opinion Change in a Public Controversy," Public Opinion
Quarterly, Vol. 26 (Spring, 1962), pp. 210-226.

"Public Opinion and the Primary Group," American Sociological
Review, Vol. 25, (April, 1960), pp. 208-219.

Brock, Dan A., "Multiple Regression Analysis of Maximum-Day Water Con-
sumption at Dallas, Texas," Journal of the American Water Works
Association, Vol. 50 (October, 1958), pp. 1391-1394.

Brown, Carl B., and Murphy, Warren T., "Conservation Begins in the Water-
sheds," Water: The Year Book of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Agriculture (1955), pp. 161-165.

Bryan, E. H., "Water Supply and Pollution Control Aspects of Urbanization,"
Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 30 (Winter, 1965), pp. 176-192.

Bylund, H. Bruce, "The Human Factor and Changes in Water Usage Patterns,"
Water Resources Research, Vol. 3, No. 3 (First Quarter, 1966),
pp. 365-369.

"The California State Water Project in 1965," Department of Water Resources,
Resources Agency, California, Bulletin No. 132-65 (June, 1965).










Carhart, Arthur H., Water-Or Your Life. J. B. Lippincott Co., New York,
1951.

Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V., "Water Policy and Economic Optimizing: Some
Conceptual Programs in Water Research," American Economic Review:
Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 57 (May, 1967), pp. 179-196.

Clawson, Marion and Dretsch, J. L., "Outdoor Recreation Research: Some
Concepts and Suggested Areas of Study," Resources for the Future,
Inc., Washington, D.C.: Reprint No. 43 (November, 1963), pp. 23.

Cole, Lucy W., and Wilkinson, Kenneth P., "Sociological Factors in Water-
shed Development, Preliminary Report No. 20." Social Science Research
Center: Mississippi State University, July, 1967.

"30,000 Communities Without Water," Department of Agriculture, U.S. (1965).

Conway, Clarence M., "The Competitive Position of Agriculture for Usable
Water," Louisville, Kentucky: Association of Southern Agricultural
Workers, 1968.

Craine, Lyle E., "The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District: A Study
of Local Control," Law and Contemporary Social Problems, Vol. 22
(Summer, 1957), pp. 378-404.

Crain, R. L., "Fluoridation: The Diffusion of an Innovation Among Cities,"
Social Forces, Vol. 44 (June, 1966), pp. 467-476.

_, and Rosenthal, D. B., "Structure and Value in Local Political
Systems: The Case of Fluoridation Decisions," Journal of Politics,
Vol. 28 (February, 1966), pp. 169-195.

"Customers React to Increased Rate by Reducing Water Consumption," Water
Works Engineering, Vol. 110 (February, 1957), pp. 150, et passim.

Dasgupta, Satadal, "Attitudes of Local Residents Toward Watershed Develop-
ment. Preliminary Report No. 18," State College: Mississippi
State University, Social Science Research Center, 1967.

__ "Sociology of Watershed Development," Jackson, Mississippi:
Mississippi Water Resources Conference, April, 1968.

and Wilkinson, Kenneth P., "Local Participation and Watershed
Development: A Comparative Study of Two Communities," San Francisco:
Third Annual American Water Resources Conference (November, 1967).

Downs, J. F., "Social Consequences of a Dry Well," American Anthropologist,
Vol. 67 (December, 1965), pp. 1387-1416.

Dunn, Dorothy F., and Larson, T. E., "Relationship of Domestic Water Use to
Assessed Evaluation, with Selected Demographic and Socio-economic
Variables," Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol. 55
(April, 1963), pp. 441-450.









Ellis, Harold H., "Legal Aspects of Rural-Urban Water Use Conflicts,"
Association of Southern Agricultural Workers, Louisville, Kentucky,
1968.

"Federal Assistance in Outdoor Recreation," Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, Vol. 18 (March-April, 1963), pp. 57-60.

Firey, W., "Coalition and Schism in a Regional Conservation Program,"
Human Organization, Vol. 15 (Winter, 1957), pp. 17-20.

Fox, I. K., "New Horizons in Water Resources Administration," Public
Administration Review, Vol. 25 (May, 1965), pp. 61-69.

Gardner, B. Kilworth, and Schieh, Sett H., "Factors Affecting Consumption
of Urban Household Water in Northern Utah," Logan, Utah Agricultural
Experiment Station, Utah State University, Bulletin No. 449 (November,
1964), pp. 21.

Hamilton, H. R., "Bibliography of Socio-Economic Aspects of Water Resources,"
U.S. Office of Water Resources Research, 1966.

Haney, P. D., and Hamann, C. L., "Dual Water Systems," Journal of American
Water Works Association, Vol. 57 (September, 1965), pp. 1096-1098.

Haveman, Robert H., "Water Resources Investment and the Public Interest:
an Analysis of Federal Expenditures in Ten Southern States,"
Vanderbilt University Press (1965).

Heath, Milton S., Jr., and Godschalk, David, "How Population and Economic
Trends May Affect Water Resources in North Carolina," Popular
Government, Vol. 31 (November, 1964), pp. 8-10

Hirshleifer, J., and Milliman, J.W., "Urban Water Supply: A Second Look,"
American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 57 (May, 1967),
pp. 169-178; 190-196.

Hunter, Homer A., "Texas Water Need Forecast," Journal of the American Water
Works Association, Vol. 53 (August, 1961), pp. 968-972.

Kiker, John E., Jr., and Morgan, W. H., "Research Highlights," Water Resources
Research Center, Publication No. 1, University of Florida, Gainesville.
(November, 1966).

Kneese, Allen V., "Socio-Economic Aspects of Water Quality Management,"
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 36 (February,
1964), pp. 254-262.

Kraenzel, Carl F., "Social Consequences of River Basin Development," Law
and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 22 (Spring, 1957), pp. 221-236.

Kubat, Daniel, and Lei, Lillian, "Awareness of Water Consumption by Socio-
Economic Status," Paper prepared for the Rural Sociological Society,
Boston, 1968.










and Watkins, George A., "Patterns of Water Use by South Florida
Households," A paper presented to the American Water Works Association
Conference, Hollywood, Florida, November, 1968.

Lei, Lillian Y. S., "Sociological Determinants of Water Use in Selected
Southern Florida Households," Masters Thesis, University of Florida,
Gainesville, 1968.

Linaweaver, F. Pierce, Jr., Geyer, John C., and Wolff, Jerome B., "A Study
of Residential Water Uses: A Report Prepared for the Technical Studies
Program of the Federal Housing Administration," Department of Housing
and Urban Development (February, 1967).

"Progress Report on the Residential Water Use Research Project,"
Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol. 56 (July, 1964),
pp. 1121-1128.

"Residential Water Use, Research Project Report II, Phase 2,
Department of Sanitary Engineering and Water Resources," Baltimore,
Maryland, Johns Hopkins University, June, 1965.

Lloyd, T., "Water Resources Policy for Canada," Canada Geographical Journal,
Vol. 73 (July, 1966), pp. 2-17.

Lumbard, Emily C., "Theses on Engineering, Economic, Social and Legal Aspects
of Water," Water Resources Center Archives, University of California,
Berkeley, Report No. 2 (October, 1958).

Lyle, C. V., "Economic Problems of Water Pollution Control in the Southeast,"
Association of Southern Agricultural Workers, Louisville, Kentucky, 1968.

Mendenhall, William, Introduction to Statistics. Belmont, California.
Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1964.

Metz, A. S., "Analysis of Some Determinants of Attitude Toward Fluoridation,"
Social Forces, Vol. 44 (June, 1966), pp. 477-484.

Milliman, J. W., "Economic Consideration for the Design of Water Institutions,"
Public Administration Review, Vol. 25 (December, 1965), pp. 284-289.

"Price Policy and Land Value Taxation for Urban Water Supplies,"
American Journal of Economics, Vol. 25 (October, 1966), pp. 379-404.

Monroe, John, and Finkner, A. L., Hand Book of Area Sampling. Chilton
Company Book Division, Philadelphia, 1959.

Morgan, Robert J., "The Small Watershed Program," Law and Contemporary
Social Problems, Vol. 22 (September, 1957), pp. 405-432.

Moss, Frank E., The Water Crisis, F. A. Praeger, New York, 1967.

Mueller, J. E., "Politics of Fluoridation in Seven California Cities,"
Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 19 (March, 1966), pp. 54-67.










__ Schuessler, Karl F., Statistical Reasoning in Sociology, Houghton
Mifflin Company, Boston, 1961.

Murphy, Gardner, and Rensis, Likert, "Public Opinion and the Individual,"
Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, 1938.

Nikolaieff, George A. (ed.), The Water Crisis, New York, W. W. Wilson, Co.,
1967.

North, Ronald L., "Changes in Land Values Associated with Urbanization and
Reservoir Development," Association of Southern Agricultural Workers,
Louisville, Kentucky, 1968.

"Obtaining Census Statistics for a Selected Group of Persons," Data Access
Descriptions, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (March,
1967), 4 p.

Photiades, John D., Attitudes Toward the Water Resources Development Program
in Central South Dakota, Preliminary Report No. 1 in Rural Sociology,
South Dakota State College, Brookings, 1960.

Porges, Ralph, "Factors Influencing Per Capita Water Consumption," Water
and Sewage Works, Vol. 104 (May, 1957), pp. 451-455.

Price, R. C., "Some Decisions in the State's Development of California's
Water During the 1960's," Public Administration Review, Vol. 25
(December, 1965), pp. 290-296.

Proceedings of the Workshop for Sociological Aspects of Water Resources
Research, Held at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, April 18-19,
1968, Report No. 1, Social Science Institute Series, Logan, 1968.

Quraishi, G. M., "Domestic Water Use in Sweden," Journal of the American
Water Works Association, Vol. 55 (April, 1963), pp. 451-455.

Reid, Paul M., "Problems and Techniques in Population Forecasting," Journal
of the American Water Works Association, Vol. 50 (May, 1958), pp. 655-
660.

Remmers, Hermann H., Introduction to Opinion and Attitude Measurement,
Harper, New York, 1954.

Renne, Roland R., "Social Problems in Water Resources Research," Unpublished
paper. San Francisco, Rural Sociological Society Meeting, 1967.

"Report on Seven Cities Water Project, Yadkin River," Pratt and Davis,
William C. Olsen and Association, Hazen and Sawyer, Engineers, (1957).

Schmid, A. A., "Nonmarket Values and Efficiency of Public Investments in
Water Resources," American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings,
Vol. 57 (May, 1967), pp. 158-168.

Schram, Wilber (ed.), Studies of Innovation and Communication to the Public,
Stanford University Institute for Communication Research, Palo Alto,
California, 1962.









Scott, Guy R., "High Rates of Water Use," Journal of the American Water Works
Association, Vol. 50 (March, 1958), pp. 369-374.

Seidel, Harris F., and Cleasky, John L., "A Statistical Analysis of Water
Data for 1960," Journal of American Water Works Association, Vol. 58,
No. 12 (December, 1966), pp. 1507-1527.

Siegel, Sidney, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1956.

Singh, R. N., and Wilkinson, Kenneth P., "Social Science Studies of Water
Resources Problems: Review of Literature and Annotated Bibliography,"
Water Resources Research Institute, Mississippi State University, 1968.

"Six-Year Progress Report," Temporary State Committee on Water Resources
Planning, Legislature, New York (1965).

Smith, Stephen C., "Population Demand for Land and Water Resources of the
Hinterland," Land and Water Use, American Association for the Advance
of Science, pp. 25-43.

Snedocer, George W., Statistical Methods, Ames, Iowa, The Iowa State
University Press, 1956.

Spaulding, Irving A., Household Water Use and Social Status, Agriculture
Experiment Station, University of Rhode Island, Bulletin 392 (December,
1967), Kingston.

Stern, Carlos, "Recreation in the Missouri River Basin," Water Resources
2545 (May, 1967), (Mimeograph).

"Symposium: Water Resources Research," Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 5
(October, 1965), pp. 218-297.

Taves, M., Hathaway, William, and Bultena, G., Canoe Country Vacationers,
Misc. Report No. 39, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station,
Bulletin 851 (1960).

The Big Water Fight, Brattleboro: The Stephen Greeme Press, The League
of Women Voters Education Fund, 1966.

Warriner, Charles K., "Public Opinion and Collective Action: Formation of
a Watershed District," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 6
(December, 1961), pp. 333-359.

__ "Water Problems and Social Processes: A Study of Social Action
in the Delaware Watershed, Kansas," Laurence, Kansas, March, 1957,
(Mimeograph).

"Water Consumption," Public Works, Vol. 92 (August, 1961), pp. 83-84.

"Water, Present and Future Estimate of Water Consumption," Public Works,
Vol. 87 (December, 1956), pp. 73-77.









Watkins, George A., "Scaling of Attitudes Toward Water Conservation,"
Master's Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1968.

Wennergren, E. Boyd, "Value of Water for Boating Recreation," Agricultural
Experiment Station, Utah State University, Bulletin No. 453 (June,
1965), Logan, Utah, p. 27.

Wilkinson, Kenneth P., Local Action and Acceptance of Watershed Development,
Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University, July,
1966. Bibliography.

_____ "Watershed Development in the Community Field," Rural Sociological
Society, Boston, Massachusetts, 1968.

Wolff, Jerome B., "Peak Demands in Residential Areas," Journal of the
American Water Works Association, Vol. 53 (October, 1961), pp. 1251-
1260.

Wolman, Abel, "Effects of Population Changes on Environmental Health
Problems and Programs," Journal of the American Water Works
Association, Vol. 57 (June, 1965), pp. 811-818.

"The Metabolism of Cities," Scientific American, Vol. 213, No. 3
(September, 1965), pp. 178-190.

Wright, James, The Coming Water Famine, Coward-McCann, Inc., 1966.
















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF AUTHOR


Dr. George A. Watkins is an assistant professor of sociology at the

University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Before his current status of Graduate

Advisor in the Department of Sociology, Dr. Watkins earned his B.A., M.A.

and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

While at the University of Florida, Dr. Watkins served as Assistant to

the Principal Investigator for OWRR Project A-010-FLA. He has read papers

on water conservation at the American Water Works Association meeting,

Southern Sociological Society meeting, and at the Southwestern Sociological

Association meeting. He has a paper to be published in the LSU Journal of

Sociology on water conservation. In the Fall of 1972, Dr. Watkins will

become the Academic Coordinator for Environmental Studies at Wright State

University in Dayton, Ohio.

Dr. Watkins is currently a member of the American Association for

the Advancement of Science, American Association of University Professors,

American Sociological Association, Southwestern Sociological Association,

National Council on Family Relations, Population Association of America,

and the Southern Sociological Society. He is also currently the National

Social Sciences Coordinator for Population Phase I, a member of the Phi

Kappa Phi honorary, the past president of Alpha Kappa Delta, Beta Chapter,

and past president of Gamma Beta Phi, Beta Chapter.




Full Text

PAGE 1

A SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF WATER CONSUMERS IN SOUTH FLORIDA HOUSEHOLDS Edited by George A. Watkins I PUBLICATION NO. 18 \ \ FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER RESEARCH PROJECT TECHNICAL COMPLETION REPORT OWRR Project Number A-01 O-FLA Annual Allotment Agreement Number DI-14-01-0001-1077 (1968) Report Submitted: September 4, 1968 The work upon which this report is based was supported in part by funds provided by the United States Department of the I nterior, Office of Water Resources Research as Authorized under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964.

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The editor expresses his gratitude to Dr. Daniel Kubat, University of Waterloo, Ontario, and to Mrs. Lilian Tsai, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, for their contributions to the original report from which this monograph was written. Dr. Kubat was the principal investigator for Project A-OIO-FLA "Prediction Model for Water Use by Population Structure" and provided invaluable guidance to his staff and researchers. The Department of Sociology at the University of Florida is gratefully acknowledged for providing facilities during the project. Dr. Gerald R. Leslie and Dr. Joseph Vandiver, chairman of the department during the project, along with other faculty members, provided substantial assistance and encouragement to the researchers. Dr. Vandiver's additional assistance in the preparation of this final report is most sincerely appreciated by the editor. Dr. Tom Huser, Publicity Director of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District in West Palm Beach and Dr. Olaf Pearson, City Manager of Homestead are also thanked for their cooperative attitude during the field work stages. Finally, the editor wishes to express his sincere thanks to the Florida Water Resources Research Center in Gainesville, Florida and to the Department of Sociology at the University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for encouragement and support during the editing of this report. i

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION II. III. IV. V. Review of the Literature RESEARCH DESIGN Sampling Procedures Data Collection Techniques Data Processing Data Analysis CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION Size of Households Number of Children Average Age of Children Education of Head of Household Occupational Classification of Head of Household Income of Head of Household Age of Husband Summary . . WATER CONSUMPTION BY HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS Water Consumption by Size of Household Water Consumption by Number of Children Water Consumption by Average Age of Children Water Consumption by Education of Head of Household Water Consumption by Occupation of Head of Household Water Consumption by Income of Head of Household Water Consumption by Number of Water Appliances Determinants of Water Consumption: A Factor Analysis Summary ...................... AN ATTITUDINAL PROFILE OF WATER CONSUMERS TOWARDS WATER CONSERVATION . . . The Rationale for the Variables in the Set Test for Scalability A Test for Validity Naming the Guttman Scale Potential Uses of the Water Concern Scale ii 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 25 26 29 29 32 32 35 38 45 47 48 50 51 58 60

PAGE 4

Chapter VI. AN APPLICATION OF THE SCALE Statements of Relationships Summary ... VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Conclusions APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF AUTHOR iii 62 62 65 68 69 75 86 93

PAGE 5

Table 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. LIST OF TABLES Page Number and Percentage Distribution of Size of Households, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida .. ...... 17 Number and Percentage Distribution of Children in Households, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida . .. 18 Number and Percentage Distribution of Average Age of Children in Households, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida 19 Number and Percentage Distribution of Head of Household's Education, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida . 19 Number and Percentage Distribution of Occupational Classification of Head of Households, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida ....................... 21 Number and Percentage Distribution of Head of Household's Income, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida . 22 Number and Percentage Distribution of Ages of Husband in Households, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida 23 Number and Percentage Distribution of Size of Household and Water Consumption, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida 27 Number and Percentage Distribution of Number of Children in Household and Water Consumption, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida .......... .... 28 Number and Percentage Distribution of Average Age of Children in Household and Water Consumption, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida . . . . 30 Number and Percentage Distribution of Years of Education Completed by Head of Household, and Water Consumption, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida . . .. 31 12. Number and Percentage Distribution of Occupation of Household Head and Water Consumption, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida 13. Number and Percentage Distribution of Income of Household Head and Water Consumption, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida iv 33 34

PAGE 6

Table 14. Number and Percentage Distribution of Water Appliances and Fixtures and Water Consumption, Homestead and West Palm Beach, Florida . . . 15. Rotated Factor Matrix on Selected Socioeconomic Variables 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. and Water Consumption Correlation Matrix on Selected Socioeconomic Variables Correlation Matrix on Selected Socioeconomic Variables and Water Consumption: Homestead and West Palm Beach Arithmetic Averages (X) and Standard Deviations (S.D.) of Selected Socioeconomic Variables . .. .. Item Set with Assigned Subuniverses and Percentage Favorable Responses . Scalogram for Final Five Items Final Five Statements for Guttman Scale Factor Matrix of Attitudes toward Water Conservation Factors Underlying Attitudes towards Water Conservation Rank-Order of Factors by Mean Loadings of Attitudes towards Water Conservation . . Comparison between the Guttman Scale Rankings and Factor Matrix Rankings of Variables Reflecting Attitudes towards Water Conservation Water Concern Scalogram Number and Percentage Distribution of Water-Using Appliances and Fixtures, Homestead and West Palm Beach Households ... v Page 36 39 41 43 44 49 52 54 55 56 58 59 61 70

PAGE 7

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Concern over water resources on a national level is a relatively recent phenomenon. There have been many local squabbles over water rights, there have been droughts in some areas while others suffered floods, and there has been considerable national concern over waterway rights for navigation. But only since the end of World War II has there evolved a nation-wide concern for water as such. Very recently in American life, rapidly intensifying concern over environmental resources has taken on the characteristics of a social movement. An indispensable part of the concern with environmental resources is the use and misuse of water resources. One of the reasons for the increased concern of the federal government with the water crisis is the population increase in the United States since 1900. United States census figures projections show births, deaths, and inmigration indicating a population rise from 192 million in the early 1960's to 245 million by 1980, and perhaps 350 million by the year 2000 (Moss, 1967:4). Our whole society is using more water per person. This nation required only 40 billion gallons daily in 1900, but by the year 1965, it required 360 billion gallons a day. On a per capita basis this comes out to 526 gallons per person in 1900, and 1,893 gallons per person in 1965. At the present time, industry uses the most water. Industry is currently using 160 billion gallons of water a day in its production processes, and twenty years from now will require close to 400 billion gallons a day. Irrigation now claims the second largest share of the nation's water supply. 1

PAGE 8

2 United States agriculture uses about 141 billion gallons of water a day and it is estimated that this will increase by 1980 to about 166 billion gallons a day. Unlike the water used by industry, water used for irrigation can only be used once before most of it is lost in evaporation to begin nature's hydrological cycle again. Municipalities, the third largest users of water and the concern of this particular study, require more than 22 billion gallons a day at present, and by 1980 this need will increase to 37 billion gallons. This increase will come about not only because the population will be larger, but because of greater domestic uses. For example, it takes 3 gallons of water to wash dishes by hand, but twice this amount by machine; no water at all to put garbage in a can, but 2 gallons each day to flush refuse down a drain (Nikolaieff, 1967:16-17). There are many programs offered at the local, state, and national level regarding water resources allocation which may simply be decided administratively and on the basis of some engineering efficiency estimate. At the same time, not all population groups are willing to accept innovations or simple administrative fiats for a number of reasons including, perhaps, a simple disaffection with community leadership. Therefore, it is quite important to assess the feelings of the population before changes in water supply and distribution practices are initiated. The need for change is always there as demonstrated by the rapidly expanding pace of population and industry. Sociologists may be able, through a detailed description of water consumer patterns and through the assessment of the attitudes of a particular population, to help bridge the gulf between the administrative solutions needed and the hesitation on the part of the water consumers to accept them. Review of the Literature Within the last ten years there has grown an accumulation of studies concerned with the sociological aspects of water resources. Prior to this time,

PAGE 9

3 most studies of water resources were technical and administrative in nature. That is, they were concerned with engineering systems and problems connected with the allocation of and preservation of water resources. The recent trend in the social sciences to become concerned with water resources reflects their growing awareness of the problematic nature of water resources and an emphasis on an interdisciplinary approach to the solution of such problems. Necessity of Sociological Inquiry in Water Resources Problems There have been several articles written which concern themselves with the need for sociological inquiry, and its resulting contribution, into the problem of water resources. Hufschmidt (1967), who noted that the interdisciplinary approach to re-search and education in water resources is a relatively recent phenomenon, cited the need for the social sciences to be concerned with water resources. Although some academic economists and political scientists had been working on water resources problems for a number of years, their efforts were highly individualistic, and most of them had made only sporadic contact with engineers and natural scientists. Hufschmidt felt that the situation has radically changed and that today social scientists can converse meaningfully with natural scien-tists about the concern and problems of water resources. However, he further noted that today's water resources experts have had little or no formal training in water resources. They obtained their education in a specific discipline or professional field, perhaps civil or sanitary engineering, economics, law, public administration, geology, chemistry, biology, forestry, city and regional planning, geography, and the like. The interest in water resources probably developed some time after their academic and professional education; to a large extent, they were self-taught in the intricacies of the field. Perhaps because the limitations of this method of training for the water resources field are recognized, we are now concerned with improvements (Hufschmidt, 1967:4). One of the recognized limitations of training with which Hufschmidt con-cerned himself was the "highly theoretical nature of sociology." Resources

PAGE 10

4 for the Future (RFF) which has as its mission the application of social science knowledge to natural science problems, investigated the possible role that sociology might play in natural science research. A few leading sociologists ... were consulted about the contribution that their field might make to water resources. Careful investigation revealed, both to the sociologists and to the RFF staff, that the kinds of research in which sociologists were interested were not easily adaptable to the kinds of natural resource problems that RFF was considering at the time (Hufschmidt, 1967:5). This relatively early neglect of applied research by sociologists may have been part of the difficulty, but it is one which is gradually being overcome by such men as Wade H. Andrews of Utah State University. Andrews has indicated that important contributions for the sociological study of water resources are being made by several areas of sociology perhaps most notable are rural sociology, as it has dealt with the structure and culture of rural people related to land resource, but also there are the fields of social change, urbanization, diffusion and adoption of technology, social psychology, social action and community development processes. In addition, ... social theory, research methodology, industrial, communication, urban, regional and political sociology as well as population, can contribute to the problems of water resources development (Andrews, 1968:2). Andrews cited, as did Hufschmidt, the need for an interdisciplinary approach to the water resources problem. For Andrews, this is not a mere overlapping of fields in a unidirectional approach, but rather an approach which demands the most that each field has to offer in a cooperative effort, i.e., a closure of the social aspects of geography and the applied field of urban and regional planning. Regarding the industrial and urban uses of water, Andrews cited the need for sociology to investigate and direct its attention: (1) to the study of private industry in relation to the needs, use, and organization of in-dustry for water, (2) to the way these factors affect other developments, including the effects on communities, (3) to the analysis of the decision-making process in both the public and private sectors, including both

PAGE 11

5 noneconomic factors which affect those decisions and the effect such decisions may have on the whole developmental picture, and (4) to study present com-munities and regions and necessary future changes in them. Technical knowledge for improved use of the water resources and changing needs for water are constantly in contact with the behavioral systems man has devised of beliefs, organizations or customs to deal with this resource. To implement the adoption of useful information much more technical knowledge about man's behavior is needed (Andrews, 1968:12). Sociology's Increasing Awareness Reflected by Studies Concerned with Socioeconomic Variables and Water Resources and Use The numerous sociological studies of the relationship of certain socio-economic variables to water resources and use, reflect, in part, the concern of Hufschmidt and Andrews regarding a sociological emphasis and investigation into water resources problems. Two studies which reflect a comprehensive investigation into the rela-tionship between socioeconomic variables and water resources and use are those of Linaweaver, Geyer, and Wolff (1964, 1967), and Spaulding (1967). Linaweaver and his colleagues conducted a large scale study of water-use patterns which occur in residential areas. They further described the phenomenon of residential water use and analyzed and evaluated the major factors which influence the use of water in these areas. Linaweaver, et found that there is a considerable variation in water use in residential areas influenced by seasonal and hourly factors. Water demands vary over a wide range throughout the country from season to season and from area to area, and the nature of water-use patterns and the factors influencing them were determined by their analysis of residential water-use data. For purposes of analysis, Linaweaver and his associates separated residential water use into domestic use and sprinkling use. Domestic use was defined as water used within the home for purposes including drinking,

PAGE 12

6 cooking, bathing, washing, and carrying away of wastes. Sprinkling use was defined as water used for irrigation of lawns when the natural supply from precipitation failed to meet lawn requirements. Domestic and sprinkling uses were again subject to seasonal, daily, hourly and regional differences. An investigation by the researchers into the major influencing factors affecting these variations resulted in the following: (1) the principal factor in-fluencing total annual water use in any residential area is the total number of homes, and (2) the income level of the consumer influences water use, i.e., the consumer in a higher-valued area is likely to have more water-using ap-pliances and a larger lawn (Linaweaver, al., 1967:28 et passim). Spaulding (1967) conducted a study of a growing suburb in Rhode Island in an attempt to determine if quantities of water used in households were related to the social status of those households. Using selected socio-economic variables such as house value, lot size, household income, occupa-tion of the household head, education of the household head, and equipment-status-use, he arrived at the following conclusions: 1. Among the households studied, quantities of water per household vary directly with social status; higher status households use more water than lower status households. 2. Among the indicators of status, house value and household income are more closely related to water used than are the education and occupation of the household head (Spaulding, 1967:24). Thus, Spaulding did determine that water use is related to some socio-economic variables. Attitudinal Studies of Water Use The need for greatly expanded research effort should be emphasized in order to give insight into the social processes as they relate to water re-sources. There is the need both for research and for an organization of "social engineers" to augment civil engineers. The goal of the social

PAGE 13

7 engineers, or sociologists and other social scientists, would be to eliminate some of the obstacles to the efficient operation of the programs suggested by the civil engineers. This is a goal which requires an investigation into the needs and interests of the affected populations as well as the planned programs of the engineers in regard to water resources. The efforts of several men have increased the awareness of the need for further study into the needs and interests of the populace at state and local levels. Dasgupta (1968) conducted a study of watershed development and analyzed his data at three interrelated levels--organizational, individual, and community. It is the second, or individual level which is of present concern. At the individual level, according to Dasgupta, one is mainly interested in delineating the characteristics of the landowners which make them positively or negatively predisposed toward watershed development. Factors such as occupation, education, social participation, and level of living have been found to be related to adoption of farming practices and innovations by Rogers (1962). These findings may have some relevance in delineating factors related to attitudes toward watershed development at the individual level. For example, Photiades (1960) reported on the empirical relationship between attitudes toward watershed development programs and a number of socioeconomic factors, such as occupation, tenure status, size of farm, age and education. Dasgupta developed a Guttman scale and selected seven socioeconomic variables in an attempt to examine their relationship to attitudes towards watershed development. His seven variables were organizational involvement, occupational status, education, level of living, age, tenure status, and number of acres operated. He found only the variables of organizational involvement, occupational status, education, and level of living to be significantly related to attitude. High organizational involvement, nonfarm occupation, high education, and high level of living were positively related to attitudes toward

PAGE 14

8 watershed development (Dasgupta, 1968:7). He also found that knowledge of watershed development was highly related to attitudes. Individuals who were well informed and knowledgeable about watershed development programs were the same persons who were found to have more favorable attitudes toward the implementation of such a program in their community. Spaulding, in his Rhode Island study, also attempted to measure attitudes of his respondents in the following areas: (1) water as a necessity, (2) water as abundant in nature, (3) water as an economic commodity, (4) concern with water supply problems and shortages, and (5) relationships among ability to buy water-using equipment, social status, and amount of water used (Spaulding, 1967:26). Wilkinson (1966) conducted a survey of rural landowners in two watershed districts and attempted to measure the attitudes of the residents toward the watershed project and toward water conservation in general. He found differences and similarities in the attitudes of the residents of the com muni,ties as follows: (1) 55 percent of the respondents in Community A and 32 percent in Community B rated the watershed project as "good" or "excellent," (2) regarding water conservation in general, a greater proportion of the respondents in Community A felt that conservation was a real local problem, that the area's future economy would depend in large part on conservation of water resources, that the federal government should be involved in water conservation, that pollution of streams is a major national problem, that the state gives up power when the federal government finances watershed projects, that landowners alone should not be required to pay for flood protection, that most local landowners would lose from watershed programs, that supplying water for industry should be a major local concern, that widespread local acceptance of watershed programs would be likely, that spending money for watershed development is a good investment, and that everyone in the county

PAGE 15

9 would benefit from the watershed project, and (3) 72 percent of the respondents in Community Band 38 percent in Community A agreed with the statement, "Land-owners have little opportunity to express their opinion in planning watershed programs" (Wilkinson, 1966:14-15). Wilkinson found that an examination of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the two groupings did not reveal a pattern of differences which would account for the differences in attitudes noted above. For Wilkinson and Cole (1967), attitude is basically a field-theory concept having to do with the qualitative relationship between an individual's inner life and some object in his psychological environment, i.e., with some object of which he is aware. Two attitude objects appear to be of great significance in the study of water resources problems. One is the attitude of the individual toward water resources as such. The other is his attitude toward programs of water management (Wilkinson, Cole, 1967:9). The second effort of this study is directed at Wilkinson and Cole's first attitudinal object--the attitude of the individual toward water re-sources as such. An attempt will be made to develop an attitudinal scale to measure the attitudes of a particular population of respondents toward water resources. Of concern are the attitudes of the respondents regarding: (1) water resources as an economic commodity, (2) their willingness to do something about the water resources problems, (3) their awareness of water resources problems, and (4) their knowledge of certain socioeconomic rela-tionships and availability of water. Once the scale has been developed, the scale score of each respondent will be compared with certain socioeconomic variables. However, the purpose of this study is first to determine what relation-ships there are between water consumption in residential areas as compared with certain socioeconomic variables of the population. It is believed that the quantities of water used in households are positively related to: (1) the socioeconomic status of the household, (2) the demographic composition of the

PAGE 16

10 household, and (3) the number and kinds of household appliances present which use water. In essence, the first part of this study is a replication of research already done by Spaulding, Linaweaver and others with the intent of verification. The second part of this study is exploratory in nature. It will be concerned with the development of a scale to measure attitudes towards water conservation as developed by Watkins (1968).

PAGE 17

CHAPTER II RESEARCH DESIGN In July, 1967, the Department of Sociology at the University of Florida was awarded a grant from the Office of Water Resources Research at the University of Florida under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, Public Law 88-379. The purpose of the grant was to determine the possibility of a prediction model for water use by different population structures. In an effort to establish a prediction model for water use by population structures, data collected for this study were obtained from a sample survey of households in two urban places in South Florida--Homestead and the contig-1 uous areas of northern West Palm Beach. In order to minimize expense in sampling, the universe from which the sample was drawn was defined so as to contain a minimum of business establishments, large-scale apartment complexes and trailer parks. It was felt by the investigators that the latter complexes would not offer sufficient data for analysis since the flat rate for dwelling units eliminated information on the variation of water use by individual households. 1 To conduct a survey on water consumption in individual households is quite similar to any other survey work. There are some specific traits of such a survey, however. In the first place, when the survey questionnaire contains items regarding attitudes towards water consumption, conservation, and waste, the respondents are not as ready to provide accurate and considered answers inasmuch as such questions still pertain to the realm of the "irrelavant." In the second place, there arise specific problems of identifying households with water meters, households with own wells, and households with both without violating the principle of probability sampling. In the third place, information about the actual water consumption and water-using appliances and plumbing fixtures itemization runs into the problem of incomplete answers. 11

PAGE 18

12 Field work, consisting of four stages, was necessary for the collection of data. After a pretest of the interview schedule (Appendix A) in Gainesville, Florida in September, 1967, the first stage was started and completed in February, 1968 in the target areas. The second stage was started and completed in June, 1968. Sampling Procedures The first stage of the field-work consisted of sampling residential units in the two target areas--West Palm Beach and Homestead, Florida. The technique of area probability sampling was used (Monroe and Finkner, 1959). First of all, large areas which were presumed to have an equal number of dwellings were selected from aerial photographs. These selected areas were then mapped for sampling frames and segmented. Segments were then randomly selected to represent the sample. By using segments of approximately four adjacent units and then interviewing the whole segment, it was possible to keep interviewing costs at a minimum and to spot respondents who were possibly "unique" in their life style and water consumption patterns. The target area covered forty-five traffic zones in Palm Beach County, Florida. A systematic sampling procedure was then used on these traffic zones in an attempt to simplify sampling procedures and to produce a manageable universe from which a two-stage area probability sample, without replacement, was drawn. The method of random selection, used to draw a starting point from the first three zones, consisted of simply "reaching in and drawing out (N=l) different items." From the zone selected, every third zone on the list was drawn. As a one-third probability of forty-five traffic zones, fifteen traffic zones were thus selected, from which the two-stage area probability sample was drawn. The first stage of the area probability sample consisted of dividing

PAGE 19

13 the fifteen zones into 116 smaller ones. These smaller areas were presumed to have equal numbers of dwellings in each, based upon the previous study of aerial photographs and upon on-the-spot inspections. Using a table of random digits, about one-fifth (N=22) of the smaller areas could be identified on the aerial photographs and thus were selected. In the second stage of the area probability sample, the twenty-two selected areas were mapped and divided into 736 segments. Each segment contained approximately four adjacent dwelling units. Using random-sampling techniques, about 15 percent of these segments (N=lll) were selected. Thus, for the target area of West Palm Beach, the sample consisted of 425 residential dwelling units. The third stage of the field-work consisted of an area probability sample of Homestead, Florida. This was carried out in the same manner as the first stage in Palm Beach County yielding a sample of 137 residential dwe lUng units. The fourth stage of the field-work represented a "purposive sample" (Selltiz, et al., 1965) in the sense that selected for inclusion in the sample were only those households for which there were completed interview schedules from the first field-work stage. The final number of such units was 313, of which 189 were accounted for after checking on vacant dwellings and those who had moved to new locations. No effort was made to trace the addresses as the interviews were anonymous and the investigators had only street addresses with which to work. Data Collection Techniques To facilitate interviewing and to limit the number of refusals, the occupants in the sampled households were notified by letter of the impending interview. The letter explained the purpose of the interview and asked for

PAGE 20

14 the occupant's cooperation. This was done for both stages of interviewing. In the first stage of data collection, an interview schedule (Appendix A) was designed to collect the necessary demographic information on the house-holds. This interview schedule also provided information for the socioeconomic profile of the respondents in the households, their water consumption patterns and patterns of water use, and the number of water-using items in the house-holds. In the second stage of data collection, the aforementioned was again collected with the addition of responses to a set of questions designed to elicit the respondents' attitudes toward water resources problems. In the West Palm Beach area, of the 425 residential units selected, only 257 (about 55 percent) met the following requirements: (1) the household was occupied, (2) the household had an individual water meter, and (3) there was a completed interview schedule for the household. As stated, of the 425 residential units selected for inclusion in the sample, only 257 met the requirements. However, there were 56 dwelling units for which only one criterion was missing. These units were selected for inclu-sion in the second data-collection stage (N=3l3). However, the final "N" was 189 for the target area in the second data-collection stage. Of the 313 resi-dential dwelling units originally selected for inclusion in this second sample, 59 units were vacant, 47 householders were different residents, and 18 householders refused to be interviewed. 1 This concluded the data-collection stages. Data Processing Data-processing techniques involved the coding of some items from each of the interview schedules. After the schedules for the two data-collection stages were corrected, edited, and coded, the data were transferred to lThe refusal rate for the first data-collection stage was 13.4 percent (N=425) and for the second, 5.8 percent (N=3l3).

PAGE 21

15 eighty-column IBM cards. Data Analysis Absolute frequencies and percentage distributions were computed for the necessary household information needed for this study. Used in testing relationships among the variables being examined were: (1) Chi Square (Mueller and Schuessler, 1961), (2) Factor Analysis (Fruchter, 1954), (3) Guttman Scalogram Analysis (Edwards, 1957), (4) the Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance (Siegel, 1956), and (5) the Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficient (Siegel, 1956).

PAGE 22

CHAPTER III CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION This chapter is devoted to the presentation of a profile of the characteristics of the respondents in the total sample. In attempting to construct a prediction model for water use by a given population structure, it is imperative that an accurate and descriptive profile of the sample be given. Data are presented for each subsample separately on the following demographic and socioeconomic variables: (1) size of households, (2) number of children, (3) average age of children, (4) education of head of household, (5) occupational classification of head of household, (6) income of head of household, and (7) age of husband. These data should prove very valuable in the subsequent chapters. Size of Households Regarding the size of the households, that is, the number of persons in each household, the Homestead sample had a greater proportion of single person households than did the West Palm Beach sample. Contrary to what one might anticipate, given current sociological data on family size and fertility differentials, the West Palm Beach sample seems to have proportionately more larger families. While 84.6 percent of the Homestead households have families of one to four, only 76.6 percent of the West Palm Beach sample fell into this same category (Table 1). On the other hand, 23.3 percent of the West Palm Beach sample had families of five or more while only 15.4 percent of the Homestead families fell into this same category. 16

PAGE 23

Number 17 TABLE 1 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SIZE OF HOUSEHOLDS, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA of Persons Homestead West in the Household Number Percent Number 1 12 8.6 20 2 46 33.6 78 3 32 23.4 53 4 26 19.0 46 5 17 12.5 34 6 or More 4 2.9 26 Total l37 100.0 257 Number of Children Palm Beach Percent 7.8 30.4 20.6 17.9 l3.2 10.1 100.0 Consistent with the data presented on the size of the households, the data on the number of children in the households seem contrary to other studies on the same data. West Palm Beach seemed to have a larger proportion of its families with a greater number of children. That is, while 86.2 percent of the Homestead sample had between no children and two children, only 76.6 per-cent of the West Palm Beach sample had the same number (Table 2). But, 23.4 percent of the West Palm Beach sample had three or more children while only 1 13.8 percent of the Homestead sample fell into this same category. lIt should be noted that there is a large United States Air Force installation located in the Homestead area which may account for the apparent "discrepancies" on size of household and number of children data.

PAGE 24

18 TABLE 2 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLDS, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA Number of Children Homestead West in the Household Number Percent Number 0 65 47.4 110 1 29 21.3 51 2 24 17 .5 36 3 13 9.5 36 4 5 3.6 II 5 or More 1 .7 13 Total 137 100.0 257 Average Age of Children Palm Beach Percent 42.8 19.8 14.0 14.0 4.3 5.1 100.0 Regarding the average of the children in the households, West Palm Beach would seem to have slightly older children, that is, proportionately more West Palm Beach families have older children than do Homestead families. While 78.8 percent of the Homestead sample have children between the ages of 0 (the first year) and 9, only 76.7 percent of the West Palm Beach sample have children of the same ages. Of those families with children 10 to 19 years of age, West Palm Beach had 23.3 percent in this category and Homestead had 21.2 percent (Table 3).

PAGE 25

19 TABLE 3 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE AGE OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLDS, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH,. FLORIDA Average Age of Children Homestead West in the Household Number Percent Number 0-4 95 69.3 156 5-9 13 9.5 41 10-14 21 15.4 37 15-19 8 5.8 23 Total 137 100.0 257 Education of Head of Household Palm Beach Percent 60.7 16.0 14.4 8.9 100.0 From Table 4 one can determine that the West Palm Beach sample was slightly more educated than the Homestead sample. Head TABLE 4 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD'S EDUCATION, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA of Household's Homestead West Education Number Percent Number Less than High School 32 23.3 44 High School Complete 51 37.2 104 Less than Bachelor's Degree 38 27.8 50 Bachelor's Degree 9 6.6 32 Work beyond Bachelor's Degree 7 5.1 24 Total 137 100.0 254 Palm Beach Percent 17.4 40.9 19.7 12.6 9.4 100.0

PAGE 26

20 Twenty-two percent of the West Palm Beach sample had completed at least a Bachelor's degree, while only about half this number, or 11.7 percent, of the Homestead sample had done so. This difference holds for any category. For example, 82.6 percent of the West Palm Beach sample and 76.7 percent of the Homestead sample had completed at least high school (Table 4). Occupational Classification of Head of Household Nationally, in 1965, 51.1 percent of the total United States population was classified as Blue Collar, 22.1 percent as White Collar, and 26.8 percent as Professional (Petersen, 1967:459). As revealed in Table 5, there are some small differences between the sample used in this study and the national population as regards occupational classification. For example, Homestead was very close to the national figure in the Blue Collar category, 50.7 and 51.1 percent respectively. West Palm Beach, on the other hand, had only 45.1 percent of its constituents in this occupational category. While 22.1 percent of the national population was classified as White Collar, only 18.8 percent of the Homestead sample and 18.6 percent of the West Palm Beach sample was so classified. And finally, where 26.8 percent of the national population was classified as Professional, 30.5 percent of the Homestead sample and 36.3 percent of the West Palm Beach sample was so classified. It would appear that in both samples used in this study, there is a significant over-representation in the Professional category and a slight under-representation in the Blue Collar category.

PAGE 27

21 TABLE 5 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLDS, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA Occupa tiona 1 United States Homestead West Palm Beach Classificationa PercentD Number Percent Number Percent Laborers and Service Workers 7.2 3 4.3 22 10.2 Operatives and Kindred Workers 31.5 10 14.5 14 6.5 Craftsmen, Foremen, and Kindred Workers 12.4 22 31.9 61 28.4 Sales Workers 6.5 10 14.5 18 8.4 Clerical and Kindred 15.6 3 4.3 22 10.2 Managers, Officials, and Proprietors 13.9 8 11.6 24 11.2 Professional, Technica 1, and Kindred Workers 12.9 l3 18.9 54 25.1 Total 100.0 69 100.0 215 100.0 aBlue Collar includes laborers and service workers, operatives and kindred workers, and craftsmen, foremen and kindred workers. White Collar includes sales workers and clerical and kindred workers. Professional includes managers, officials and proprietors, professional, technical and kindred workers. bActual numbers not available so percentages only can be presented. Income of Head of Household It would appear from Table 6, that West Palm Beach has a higher average income per head of household than does the Homestead sample. Sixty-five percent of the West Palm Beach sample earned between $6,000 and $14,999 per year while only 42.8 percent of the Homestead sample earned this much. The mode for the Homestead sample would appear to have been between $4,500 and

PAGE 28

22 $5,999, while for the West Palm Beach sample it was between $10,000 and $14,999. As has been earlier demonstrated (Dasgupta, 1968), and as will be shown later in this study, income tends to explain a good deal of the variation found in water consumption. Income of TABLE 6 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD'S INCOME, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA Homestead West Head of Household Number Percent Number $ -0-$ 2,999 20 15.3 12 3,000 -4,499 24 18.3 20 4,500 -5,999 28 21.4 26 6,000 -7,999 25 19.1 48 8,000 -9,999 17 13.0 45 10,000 -14,999 14 10.7 61 15,000 -19,999 3 2.2 11 20,000 or more 0 0.0 12 Total 131 100.0 235 Age of Husband Palm Beach Percent 5.1 8.5 11.1 20.4 19.1 26.0 4.7 5.1 100.0 Table 7 reveals that the West Palm Beach population is somewhat older than the Homestead population. When one divides the population into under forty and over forty years of age, the Homestead population had 55.4 percent of its husbands under forty and the West Palm Beach sample had only 43.2 per-cent of its husbands under forty. In the middle ages of 40 years to 59 years, the West Palm Beach sample was greater with 41 percent of its husbands in this

PAGE 29

23 age category while Homestead had 27.7 percent. It is only in the age category of 60 years of age or older that Homestead exceeded West Palm Beach, 17.3 per-cent and 15.8 percent respectively. The modal age group in Homestead was the 20-29 years of age range (N=33.9%), while the modal age range in Palm Beach County was twenty years older (26% in the 40-49 years of age range), The analysis of the data on age enables one to see that the income differences and family size differences previously noted are largely explained by the differential age distribution in the two areas. Average Age of Husband 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 or more Total TABLE 7 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AGES OF HUSBAND IN HOUSEHOLDS, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA Homestead West Number Percent Number 41 33.9 48 26 21.5 50 15 12.8 59 18 14.9 34 11 9.1 25 10 8.2 11 121 100.0 227 Summary Palm Beach Percent 21.2 22.0 26.0 15.0 11. 0 4.8 100.0 In general, when one compares the West Palm Beach sample with the Home-stead sample, the following appears: (1) West Palm Beach has proportionately more larger families, (2) West Palm Beach had a larger proportion of its families with a greater number of children, and (3) West Palm Beach had a

PAGE 30

24 larger proportion of its families with older children. Additionally, the head of the household in West Palm Beach, when compared to the head of the household in Homestead, was: (1) more likely to have completed a high school education and a college education, (2) more likely to be a professional worker and less likely to be a blue collar worker, (3) more likely to earn more, and (4) was slightly older.

PAGE 31

CHAPTER IV WATER CONSUMPTION BY HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS In this chapter an attempt will be made to focus on the relationship between the amount of water consumed in households and the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of these households. Contingency tables will be presented which represent cross-tabulation of the consumption of water with information on family size, number of children, average age of children, education of the head of household, occupation of the head of household, income of the head of household, number of water appliances and fixtures, description of water-using appliances and fixtures, and determinants of water consumption. For purposes of analysis, four categories of water consumption were established. The first group of households had a fairly low consumption of water, under 3,000 gallons per month, or about 100 gallons per day. The second group, which proved to be a modal for Homestead but not for West Palm Beach, had a maximum daily use of about 200 gallons per day. The third group had a maximum use of about 300 gallons per day per household, and the fourth group had a minimum daily consumption of over 300 gallons. Water Consumption by Size of Household In an effort to determine differential water consumption in the sampled households, analysis was first made on the size of households and water consumption. In Homestead, ina small household of four persons or less (85 percent fell into this category), 40 percent of the households used between 25

PAGE 32

26 4,000 and 6,000 gallons a month. The remainder of the households is fairly evenly distributed over the other categories (Table 8). This pattern repeats itself for the families of five or more with the exception of the 1,000 to 3,000 gallons per month category, where only 14.3 percent used this little water. Thus, at least in the Homestead sample, the size of the household did not seem to contribute much to differential consumption since the percentages in Table 8 were fairly evenly distributed. In West Palm Beach however, both the small and the large families were heavy users. The small households constituted about three-fourths of the West Palm Beach sample and the large households about one-fourth. Among the large households, two-thirds showed high water consumption as compared with one-third of the small households. With no large households using less than 4,000 gallons per month in the West Palm Beach area, one could speculate that there is a positive relationship between the number of persons in the household and differential water consumption in West Palm Beach. Water Consumption by Number of Children To get at the relationship between number of persons in the household and differential water consumption further, the number of children in the household was tabulated with water consumption. The number of children was dichotomized into two or fewer and three or more children in the household. With no major changes, Table 9 revealed the pattern described above with size of household. It would seem reasonable, then, to state that the number of children and, consequently, the size of the household does influence water consumption, at least for the West Palm Beach area.

PAGE 33

TABLE 8 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD AND WATER CONSUMPTION, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA -Monthly Water Consumption in Thousands of Gallons Size of 1 -3 4 -6 7 -9 10 or More Household Number Percent Number Homestead (a) 1 -4 26 22.4 45 5 or more 3 14.3 9 West Palm Beach (b) 1 -4 33 16.7 56 5 or more 0 0.0 11 (a) Chi square equals 0.843--p. (.90 (b) Chi square equals 20.787--p.(.001 Percent Number Percent Number Percent 38.8 23 19.8 22 19.0 42.9 4 19.0 5 23.8 Total 28.4 44 22.4 64 32.5 18.3 13 21.7 36 60.0 Total Total Number Percent 116 100.0 (84.7) N '-J 21 100.0 (15.3) 137 (100.0) 197 100.0 (76.6) 60 100.0 (23.4) 257 (100.0)

PAGE 34

Number of TABLE 9 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD AND WATER CONSUMPTION, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA Monthly Water Consumption in Thousands of Gallons Children in 1 -3 4 -6 7 -9 10 or More Household Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Homestead (a) 2 or less 26 22.0 46 39.0 23 19.5 23 19.5 3 or more 3 15.9 S 42.1 4 21.0 4 21.0 Total West Palm Beach (b) 2 or less 33 16.S 56 2S.4 43 21.S 65 33.0 3 or more 0 0.0 11 lS.3 14 23.3 35 5S.4 Total (a) Chi square equals 0.3S0--p. (.0.95 (b) Chi square equals 19.466--p. <:;001 Total Number Percent l1S 100.0 (S6.3) N 00 19 100.0 137 (100.0) 197 100.0 (76.6) 60 100.0 (23.4) 257 (100.0)

PAGE 35

29 Water Consumption by Average Age of Children Does age composition affect water consumption in the household? It may be that having younger children necessitates more water than having teenagers in the household. To determine this, the data were dichotomized into families with children nine years and younger and children ten years and older, the latter representing the threshold of the teens. Table 10 reveals that the data for the Homestead area are inconclusive; about the same proportion of families with young children consumed as much water as those families with older children. In the West Palm Beach area, however, there does appear to be some relationship, only in the opposite direction. That is, proportionately more families with older children use more water than those with younger children. The data would tend to support the notion that the number of people in the household affects water consumption directly. However, it was earlier stated that the major factor in water consumption is the socioeconomic status of the family and not family size. To test for this relationship, data on education, occupation, and income of the head of the household was cross-tabulated with water consumption. Water Consumption by Education of Head of Household The variable of education of the head of household was trichotomized, using graduation from high school and from college as the cutting points (Table 11). In comparing the two areas it can be determined that only about 11 percent of the Homestead sample had a college education as compared with 21 percent of the West Palm Beach sample. Among the big water consumers, the more educated were slightly over-represented in both samples, with the pattern being more pronounced in the West Palm Beach area. Since only about one-fifth

PAGE 36

TABLE 10 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE AGE OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD AND WATER CONSUMPTION, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA Monthly Water Consumption in Thousands of Gallons Average Age 1 -3 4 -6 7 -9 10 or More Total of Children Number Percent Number Percent Number Percen-t Number Percent Number Percent Homestead (a) 9 or less 26 24.1 42 38.9 19 17.6 21 19.4 108 100.0 (78.8) w 10 or more 3 10.3 12 41.4 8 27.6 6 20.7 29 100.0 0 (21.1) Total 137 (l00.0) West Palm Beach (b) 9 or less 33 16.8 57 28.9 36 18.3 71 36.0 197 100,0 (76.6) 10 or more a 0.0 10 16.7 21 35.0 29 48.3 60 100.0 (23,4) Total 257 (100.0) (a) Chi square equals 3.20-p. (.50 (b) Chi square equals 20. ll--p. (.001

PAGE 37

TABLE 11 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF YEARS OF EDUCATION COMPLETED BY HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD, AND WATER CONSUMPTION, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA Monthly Water Consumption in Thousands of Gallons Years of Education Completed by Head 1 -3 4 -6 7 -9 10 or More Total of Household Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Homestead (a) 11 or less 8 25.0 13 40.6 6 18.8 5 15.6 32 100.0 (23.4) 12 -15 17 19.1 35 39.3 19 21.4 18 20.2 89 100.0 (64.9) \.J..) I-' 16 or more 4 19.1 6 37.5 2 12 .5 4 25.0 16 100.0 (11. 7) Total l37 (100.0) West Palm Beach (b) 11 or less 4 9.1 l3 29.5 14 31.0 13 19.6 44 100.0 (17.4) 12 -15 26 16.9 41 26.6 30 19.5 57 37.0 154 100.0 (61.3) 16 or more 3 5.4 12 21.4 12 21.4 29 51.8 56 100.0 (21.3) Total 251 (l00.0) (a) Chi square equals 1. 55--p. <.98 (b) Chi square equals 12.79--p.'.05

PAGE 38

32 of the population had less than a high school education, education would seem not to be a discriminating variable, unless one considers the second category of twelve to fifteen years of education as the breaking point. One could, of course, assume that the older population had less education proportionately and lived in smaller households and thus consumed less water. The age distribution of the husband attests to this fact when the age is fifty or older. However, one should keep in mind that the variables dis-cussed described as head of household need not describe the husband of the household. In some cases where the families were not complete, the head of the household was not the husband, so that education, income, and occupation portray a central tendency. Water Consumption by Occupation of Head of Household The second indicator of socioeconomic status is occupation. Using seven occupational categories, the two samples were dichotomized into two occupational categories: manual and nonmanual (Table 12). It appeared from the data that nonmanual occupations are more clearly associated with high water consumption than are manual occupations. This pattern holds somewhat more strongly for the West Palm Beach area than for the Homestead area. Water Consumption by Income of Head of Household Income was the third indicator of socioeconomic status. Using income of the head of the household, an even stronger relationship was revealed between the consumption of water and income than was revealed with occupation (Table 13). Again, Homestead had only one-sixth of the low income households among high water consumers as opposed to two-fifths of the high income

PAGE 39

1 -3 TABLE 12 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD AND WATER CONSUMPTION, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 4 -6 Monthly Water Consumption in Thousands of Gallons 7 -9 10 or More Occupation of Head of Household Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Homestead (a) Manual (b) 6 17.1 15 42.9 10 28.6 4 11.4 Nonmanual (c) 5 14.7 14 41.2 6 17.6 9 26.5 Total West Palm Beach (d) Manual (b) 14 14.4 25 25.8 27 27.8 31 32.0 Nonmanual (c) 12 10.2 27 22.9 23 19.5 56 47.4 Total (a) Chi square equals 3.00--p. (50 Total Number Percent 35 100.0 (50. 7) 34 100.0 (49.3) 69 (100.0) 97 100.0 (45. 1) 118 100.0 (54.9) 215 (100.0) (b) Manual includes laborers and service workers, operatives and kindred workers, craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers. (c) Nonmanual includes sales workers, clerical and kindred workers, managers, officials proprietors. professional, technical and kindred workers. (d) Chi square equals 5.7l--p.(.2.0 l;..l l;..l

PAGE 40

TABLE 13 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD AND WATER CONSUMPTION, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA Monthly Water Consumption in Thousands of Gallons Income of 1 -3 4 -6 7 -9 10 or More Total Household Head Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Homestead (a) $0 -$4,999 16 36.4 14 31.8 7 15.9 7 15.9 44 100.0 (33.6) $5,000 -$9,999 8 11.7 33 47.1 17 24.3 12 17.2 70 100.0 (53.5) w .j> $10,000 or more 3 17.6 5 29.1 2 1l.8 7 41.2 17 100.0 (12.9) Total 131 (100.0) West Palm Beach (b) $0 -$4,999 5 15.6 12 37.5 9 28.1 6 18.8 32 100.0 (13.6) $5,000 -$9,999 16 13.5 35 29.4 30 25.2 38 31.9 119 100.0 (50.6) $10,000 or more 8 8.5 13 15.5 15 17.9 45 57.1 84 100.0 (35.8) Total 235 (100.0) (a) Chi square equals l6.451--p.(.02 (b) Chi square equals 20.289--p. <.001

PAGE 41

35 households. Income also discriminated water consumption in West Palm Beach as about three times as many high income households and high water consumers appeared when compared to low income water consumers. Income, as shown in other studies (i.e., Spaulding, 1967), proved to be the most discriminating of the socioeconomic variables used in this study. Water Consumption by Number of Water Appliances There seems little doubt that socioeconomic status, especially as in-dicated by income, is important in discriminating how much water a household consumes. Since the consumption of water is more or less dependent on the facilities through which the use is possible, the relationship between the number of water-using appliances and water fixtures and the amount of water consumed was explored (Table 14). Dichotomizing the appliances into ten or less and eleven or more, it was revealed that three-fourths of the households in Homestead were "appliance-poor" when compared to West Palm Beach. It would seem additionally, that appliances and fixtures prove to be weak pre-dictors of water consumption in Homestead but relatively good predictors in West Palm Beach. The data have shown two things to this point. One, a fairly accurate profile of the two samples of households has been shown. Second, the cir-cumstances surrounding high or low water consumption are being revealed. It should be noted that Homestead charges very low rates for metered water. The rate is low enough to be considered a flat rate. From other studies evidence has appeared which indicates that a flat rate tends to encourage water consumption, not as much in actual household use, but rather in external use, like the watering of lawns. On the other hand, West Palm Beach has a graduated water rate which is much more expensive than Homestead

PAGE 42

TABLE 14 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF WATER APPLIANCES AND FIXTURES AND WATER CONSUMPTION, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA Monthly Water Consumption in Thousands of Gallons Water Appliances and Fixtures 1 -3 4 -6 7 -9 10 or More Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Homestead (a) 10 or less 26 25.5 40 39.2 17 16.7 19 18.6 11 or more 3 8.6 14 40.0 10 28.6 8 22.8 Total West Palm Beach (b) 10 or less 24 26.1 34 37.0 21 22.8 13 14.1 11 or more 9 54.5 33 20.0 36 21.8 87 52.7 Total (a) Chi square equals 5.631--p. (.20 (b) Chi square equals 48.756--p. <.001 Total Number Percent 102 100.0 (74.4) w C5\ 35 100.0 (25.5) 137 (100.0) 92 100.0 (35.7) 165 100.0 (64.3) 257 (100.0)

PAGE 43

37 rates. Even so, Homesteaders seem to use about half as much water as households in the West Palm Beach area. This may be explained in that the West Palm Beach area has been shown to have better educated, higher occupationally rated, and "wealthier" residents. Since income has been demonstrated to be positively related to water consumption, the higher water consumption in West Palm Beach is not surprising. Income helps in purchases of appliances and installment of additional water fixtures, and so, the mechanisms of water consumption are greatly improved. This circumstance may, perhaps, explain the lower water consumption in Homestead. Homestead households seem not to be as well equipped with water dependent appliances as does West Palm Beach, and thus even practically free water finds little utilization. Additionally, one might speculate that the suburbanism of West Palm Beach with its stress on green lawns is not as visible to the casual observer in Homestead. Thus, combined with the life styles of lower middle class and slightly less money, the Homestead area offsets a relatively free water supply by "under-utilizing" it. On the other hand, the more suburban nature of the sampled area in West Palm Beach, with its population geared more to the stereotypical image of the "American Dream," and the resulting increase in number of water-using appliances and fixtures, by necessity, is an area of heavier water consumption than Homestead. In any event, inspecting the various relationships between the amount of water consumed by individual households and selected socioeconomic characteristics of those households, some relationships were established. The data, however, lend themselves to further analysis in an attempt to verify the previous explored relationships.

PAGE 44

38 Determinants of Water Consumption: A Factor Analysis A useful descriptive measure to identify salient components of any complex set of variables is factor analysis. 1 This technique was used in an attempt to confirm the relationship between the selected socioeconomic variables and water consumption. Twelve variables were selected to be factor analyzed: family size, number of children, age of children, husband's educa-tion, wife's education, husband's age, occupation of head of household, in-come of head of household, income of entire family, number of appliances, and the metered amount of water consumed in one month by each household. Using this technique, Table 15 revealed that two factors appeared to account for eight of the twelve variables used. Factor I will hereafter be referred to as the "Economic Factor" because of the high factor loadings on the two income variables (income of head of household and income of entire family), the two appliance variables (number of appliances and appliances weighted score), and the water consumption variable. Factor II will here-after be referred to as the "Family Factor" because of the high loading on family size, number of children, and age of children. The important finding of the factor analysis is the clear separation between the Economic Factor and the Family Factor, especially when most of the variance in the income variables is accounted for, while the overlap between the income and the socioeconomic variables obtains, by necessity again, on the part of the demographic factor. In other words whereas one can explain water consumption by income and assume that members of the house-hold are the consumers, the number of people in a given household does not have much to do with the amount of water consumed. This seemingly curious 1 For a more complete description of the technique of Factor Analysis, see Fruchter, p. 196.

PAGE 45

TABLE 15 ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX ON SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES AND WATER CONSUMPTION Factor Loadings Selected Socioeconomic I II Variables Ec.onomLc. Factor FamLly. Factor Size of family .271 .655 Monthly water consumption .455 .016 Age of husband .064 -.359 Education of husband .156 -.211 Education of wife .094 -.247 Number of children .239 .671 Age of children .327 .497 Occupation of head of household -.361 .054 Income of head of household .624 .097 Income of fami ly .608 .098 Number of appliances .696 .014 Appliances weighted score .695 .006 Communalities .502 .207 .133 .069 w \0 .069 .508 .354 .133 .399 .380 .485 .483

PAGE 46

40 fact is easy to explain when one considers that high income households may be using water for purposes unrelated to the physical needs of the household members. Additionally, such households are more likely to entertain which may function as numerically enlarged households without ever showing in the demographic indicators. An inspection of the zero order correlation matrix which served as the basis for the factor analysis program will help one further explain and explore the relationship between consumption and the socioeconomic variables. The incipient clustering which one observes in the two factors identified (Table 15) was already noticeable in the correlation matrix (Table 16). Although a number of the coefficients is significant at the .01 level,l significance which explains reasonable amount of the variance is not as frequent. For example, income of the head of the household explained 16 percent of the variance when related to the number of appliances, whereas water consumption correlated to the number of appliances explained 20 percent of the variance. These are the strongest relationships observed, if one disregards the naturally high correlations between variables like the size of the family and the number of children. Factored out, the number of appliances, which had the highest loading on the Economic Factor, represents close to 50 percent of the total variance and close to unity in explained variance. In other words, the more water dependent appliances and fixtures in a household, the more likely are these going to be used and consume water. To this point, enough real differences between the two samples have been revealed to deserve even further analysis. The factor analysis dealt with the two areas combined, rather than separately as was done with the socioeconomic variables. The justification for doing so was that there should lBY convention in the social sciences, the .05 level of significance is used.

PAGE 47

TABLE 16 CORRELATION MATRIX ON SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES Selected Socioeconomic Variables Selected Socioeconomic Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 Size of Family .16 -.25 -.08 -.08 .90 .56 -.04 .21 .21 .18 .21 2; Water Consumed .07 .06 -.01 .13 .14 -.11 .24 .23 .45 .43 3 Age of Husband -.01 .11 -.31 -.06 -.19 -.12 -.15 .13 .13 4 Education of Husband .52 -.04 -.05 -.06 .11 .11 .06 .04 5 Education of Wife -.08 -.08 -.02 .02 .02 .03 .03 t-' 6 Number of Children .60 -.08 .17 .15 .15 .17 7 Age of Children -.14 .24 .23 .24 .26 8 Occupation of Head of Household -.28 -.24 -.26 -.24 9 Income of Head of Household .93 .39 .40 10 Income of Family .38 .38 11 Number of Appliances .96 12 Weighted Score of Appliances

PAGE 48

42 be some underlying factors which influence the various relationships between household water consumption and the socioeconomic variables considered, such factors should still be revealed. Whatever the shortcomings of the data may have been, the variables connected to the fluctuation in water consumption in the two samples are being more clearly explained. Income as the Major Determinant of Water Consumption In order to see what type of household environment acts as a restrictive or encouraging force on water consumption, another set of variables were cross-tabulated separately for Homestead and for West Palm Beach. The nine variables used were: size of family, number of children, age of children, age of husband, education of head of household, occupation of head of house-hold, income of head of household, number of appliances, and the amount of water consumed in one month. Table 17 revealed that for Homestead, the trinity of education, occupa-tion and income showed some relationship with water consumption. It showed additionally that water consumption is significantly related to all of the other variables used. The possession of appliances is related to income (r=.36) and occupation of the head of the household (r=.30), but neither coefficient is very strong given the size of the sample. Looking at the results for the West Palm Beach sample, a stronger relationship between income and the number of appliances (r=.49) and between appliances and water consumption (r=.45) was observed. The link between education, occupation, and income is stronger in West Palm Beach than in Homestead. Table 18 revealed that the mean number of appliances and fixtures in the Homestead households (X=9.49) is on the lower end of the scale. After the normal number of bathroom fixtures, kitchen sinks, and a few odd faucets,

PAGE 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 43 TABLE 17 CORRELATION MATRIX ON SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES AND WATER CONSUMPTION: HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH Selected Socioeconomic Variables Homestead Selected Socioeconomic Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Size of Family 14 -.27 -.07 -.01 .92 .61 Water Consumed -.08 .11 .13 .10 .09 Age of Husband -.29 .07 -.31 -.09 Education of Head of Household .39 .00 .04 Occupation of Head of Household .05 .04 Number of Children .66 Age of Children Income of Head of Household Number of App liances Selected Socioeconomic Variables West Palm Beach Selected Socioeconomic Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Size of Family .16 -.32 .00 .08 .95 .58 Water Consumed .13 .17 .14 .11 .14 Age of Husband -.26 -.06 -.34 -.07 Education of Head of Household .61 .00 .00 Occupation of Head of Household -.09 -.03 Number of Children .57 Age of Children Income of Head of Household Number of Appliances 8 9 .25 .15 .16 .10 .00 .20 .27 .02 .44 .30 .22 .11 .27 .17 .36 8 9 .06 .15 .35 .45 -.06 .12 .45 .25 .43 .25 .01 .12 .13 .24 .49

PAGE 50

TABLE 18 ARITHMEiI'IC AVERAGES eX) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (S.D.) OF SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES Homestead a Selected Socioeconomic Variables X S.D. Size of Family 3.03 1.35 Water Consumed 6.83 5.26 Age of Husband 41.33 17.06 Education of Head of Household 12.18 2.69 Occupation of Head of Householdb 4.10 1. 86 Number of Children 1.04 1. 27 Age of Chi ldren 3.90 5.30 Income of Head of Householdc 3.37 1.64 Number of Appliances 9.49 2.13 West Palm Beach a X S.D. 3.36 1. 64 11.30 10.46 43.48 14.07 12.93 2.66 4.35 2.03 1. 35 1.64 4.90 5.78 4.62 1.73 12.14 3.61 a The number of subjects averaged for each variable differs according to available data. bRated from Low Manual (1) to Professional (7). CRange from No Income (0) to $20,000 or more (8). +:--+:--

PAGE 51

45 Homestead households did not seem to be equipped with much more. The average age of husbands in Homestead is 41 years, which would probably be modal for such a population since only residential one-family units were sampled. It is felt, however, that the suburban one-family residential dwellings are the main water consumers among the total population. This is due, probably, to the equipment of the households and the need for water connected with maintenance of homes on any side of the lot. The mean age for the whole population in the sample is about 31 years of age, the population in Homestead being somewhat younger than the population in West Palm Beach. Summary Evaluating the findings so far, there is increasing evidence of a definite relationship between household water consumption and the income standing of the household. The income standing, however, is tied more closely to the earning power of the head of the household than to the earning power of the family as a whole unit. To interpret this minor difference, it can be assumed that the social standing of the head of the household is related more directly to the earning of the head of the household than to the aggregate dollars a family can bring together. Probably, the additional income is not concentrated on the needs of the household as such. The difference between the West Palm Beach and the Homestead households is striking, but explainable. To the casual observer, the areas sampled in West Palm Beach carry more of an image of rapid expanding suburbanization than the two sampled census tracts in Homestead. The "spirit" of the eastern coast of Florida, with all of its stress on appearance and on status competition, apparently imposes a style of life which becomes more demanding of water consumption. Water consumption in West Palm Beach does not appear to be deterred by pricing which, compared to Homestead, is noticeably more

PAGE 52

46 expensive. Another difference encountered between the residents of West Palm Beach and Homestead is that the modern urban, or rather suburban, features of the system are more pronounced in West Palm Beach than in Homestead. The modern urban features referred to are those revealed in the strong relationships between income, education, and occupation, a standard relationship featured in many sociological studies. If the relationships hold more for the West Palm Beach area than for Homestead, and it appears to do so, this may suggest that in terms of growth and in terms of expectation of a forward movement by the residents, West Palm Beach is more "typical" of the modern suburban areas than is Homestead. So, if the American residential household is a high water consumer, estimating the future needs of these households would require one to concentrate on projection of the types of households encountered in West Palm Beach rather than those in Homestead.

PAGE 53

CHAPTER V AN ATTITUDINAL PROFILE OF WATER CONSUMERS TOWARDS WATER CONSERVATION The effort of this chapter was directed at determining the attitude of the respondent toward water resources as such. An attempt was made to develop an attitudinal scale to measure the attitudes of a particular population of respondents toward water resources. Of concern were the attitudes of the respondents regarding: (1) water resources as an economic commodity, (2) their willingness to do something about the water resources problems, (3) their awareness of water resources problems, and (4) their knowledge of certain socioeconomic relationships and availability of water. Once the scale had been developed, the scale score of each respondent was compared with certain socioeconomic variables. The variables considered were family size, water consumption, age of husband, number of children, income of the head of household, education of the head of household, and the occupation of the head of household. From the interview schedule administered during the second stage of the field work, nineteen attitudinal statements were administered to the respondents. They were asked to respond with the five categories of "Strongly Agree," "Agree," "Undecided," "Disagree," and "Strongly Disagree." The Guttman scalogram analysis technique was used for analysis.l lThe Guttman cumulative scaling technique of scalogram analysis was employed. The use of a Guttman scalogram permits one to rank an individual as higher or lower than another according to their responses to a set of statements. An individual with a higher rank than another individual on the same set of statements must also rank as high or higher on every statement in the set as the other individual. ... this means that a person 47

PAGE 54

48 The Rationale for the Variables in the Set Each variable, or statement, in the set can be placed in one of four "subuniverses": 1) Statements assigned to subuniverse 1 were intended to discriminate between those respondents who felt water is an economic commodity which should be controlled by the government and those respondents who felt otherwise. 2) Statements assigned to subuniverse 2 were intended to discriminate between those respondents who would be willing to make a sacrifice in time and/or effort to provide for the proper use and distribution of water and those who felt the opposite. 3) Statements assigned to subuniverse 3 were intended to discriminate between those respondents who were aware of a water resources problem and those who seem to take the existence of water for granted. 4) Statements assigned to subuniverse 4 were intended to discriminate between those respondents who were knowledgeable and those who were not knowledgeable about: (a) the relationship between socioeconomic status, water consumption, and number of water-using appliances, and (b) the presumed availability of water and water resources in general, as indicated by the amount of thought which they had given the water resources problem. The percentage of favorable responses to each variable in the set was established through a cutting point for each variable. The Cornell technique (Edwards, 1957:178-184) was then employed, assigning 1 to indicate favorable must also be just as favorable or more favorable in his response to every statement in the set than the other person" (Edwards, 1957:172). The score is an indication of the rank-order position of individuals with respect to the underlying variable. Unidimensionality is reflected when a single score is derived which is the measure of one factor only. If a single, quantitative score is to represent, without ambiguity, the behavior of an individual on the set of items in the interview schedule, then it must be possible, knowing each respondent's score, to know his behavior on each and every statement in the set. Guttman calls this the principle of reproducibility (Remmers, 1954:99).

PAGE 55

49 responses and 0 to indicate unfavorable responses to the dichotomous categories (Table 19). TABLE 19 ITEM SET WITH ASSIGNED SUBUNIVERSES AND PERCENTAGE FAVORABLE RESPONSES Statements *1. Problems of water supply are only temporary. 2. If there were a shortage of water, we would cut our use of water. *3. The amount of water people use depends on how much water is available. *4. Nature has a way to solve water supply problems before they get serious. 5. We would cut our water consumption if necessary. *6. The government should control the price of water. 7. Water reclaimed from waste is as good as any other water. 8. During water shortages, there should be a restriction of the watering of lawns. 9. The water-using appliances a family has identifies their position in society. 10. We would cut down our use of water if we had to. *11. Mankind has a right to free and unlimited use of water. *12. Water is the most abundant natural resource. 13. The amount of water people use depends on the number of water-using appliances they have. Subuniverse 3 2 4 3 2 1 4 2 4 2 3 3 4 Favorable .43 .49 .36 .63 .09 .37 .31 .18 .53 .09 .52 .44 .78

PAGE 56

50 TABLE 19 (continued) Statements Subuniverse Favorable 14. It's the people who should do something about the water problem. 4 .70 *15. We really haven't thought about cutting down our use of water. 4 .23 *16. The water we draw on in this area is already polluted. 3 .38 *17. It's the government who should do something about the water problem. 1 .29 *18. The water cycle is beyond human control. 4 .40 19. I would be willing to do something about the water problem. 2 .10 *The coding was reversed on these statements as a response of "Disagree" was a favorable response. Test for Scalability If the subuniverses of content which were sampled comprise the true scale rank-order, or closely approximate it, then the scalogram should have the regular pattern which appears in the perfect Guttman scalogram. A perfect coefficient of reproducibility (1.00) would indicate that, given any respon-dent's score on the scale, one would be able to indicate how the respondent answered each of the items on the scale. In attempting to approximate this perfect coefficient of reproducibility, four trial scalograms were constructed. The first trial scalogram included fourteen items and had a coefficient of reproducibility of .797, the second included ten items and had a coefficient of reproducibility of .811, the third included eight items and had a coefficient of reproducibility of .858, and the fourth scalogram included six items and had a coefficient of reproducibility of .884. The elimination of one item

PAGE 57

51 from the fourth trial scalogram provided the final scalogram of five items with a coefficient of reproducibility of .895, thus virtually fulfilling Guttman's own requirement of an ... arbitrary. 90 per cent so as to prevent misreading as a G-scale a finding that might actually be generated by statistically independent items" (Riley, 1963:476) (Table 20). The final five items which make up the scale are: (1) We really haven't thought about cutting down our water consumption. (2) Water reclaimed from waste is as good as any other water. (3) Mankind has a right to free and unlimited use of water. (4) Nature has a way to solve water supply problems before they get serious. (5) It's the people who should do something about the water problem (Table 21). A Test for Validity An attempt was made to validate the subuniverses of content as initially conceived. From a factor analysis, initially employed with all nineteen items in the set, six factors were isolated (Table 22). Seventeen of the nineteen original items had loadings of .50 or higher on one of the factors. Only the variables concerning the temporariness of water problems and water pollution had loadings of less than .50 (Table 23). The six factors were given descriptive names which, with two exceptions, correspond directly with the four subuniverses. One exception is Factor VI (Rationality) which contains two items originally assigned to two other subuniverses. The other exception is Factor V (Knowledgeability II) which contains items originally assigned to the subuniverse of "knowledgeability." The original subuniverse of "know ledgeability" was found to be made up of two factors rather than only one, as had originally been anticipated. The six attitudinal factors, which were labeled Willingness, Awareness, Knowledgeability I, Economic Commodity, Knowledgeability II, and Rationality

PAGE 58

TABLE 20 SCALOGRAM FOR FINAL FIVE ITEMS Variablesa Guttman Scores 1 2 3 4 5 Frequency Score Total Error Responsesb 1 1 1 1 1 6 5 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 5 4 1 1 1 1 0 1 5 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 5 2 In 0 1 1 1 1 20 4 0 N 0 1 0 1 1 5 4 5 0 1 1 0 1 7 4 7 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 2 0 0 1 1 1 28 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 8 3 8 1 0 1 1 0 2 3 4 0 0 1 1 0 l2c 3 12 c 0 0 1 0 1 7 3 7 0 0 0 1 1 19 2 0 1 0 o 1 1 3 2 3 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 1 0 8 2 8

PAGE 59

Variables 1 2 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Total Frequency of "1" Response: 4 5 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 58 98 120 133 TABLE 20 (continued) Guttman Scores Frequency Score Total Error 13 1 0 2 1 4 5 1 5 5 1 5 14 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 6 0 6 3 0 3 3 0 3 189 99 a The variables coincide with the items in the interview schedule in the following manner: variable 1 equals item 15, variable 2 equals item 7, variable 3 equals item 11, variable 4 equals item 4, and variable 5 equals item 14. b Favorable response equals 1, unfavorable response equals O. cThis scale-type exceeds the .05 percent error for any scale-type. Investigation into the twelve respondents of this scale type revealed that nine have fourteen years or more of education, three have twelve years of education. This was the only variable that was discovered to be "common" among the scale type. For the entire sample, 30 percent were found to have fourteen years or more of education and 42 percent were found to have twelve years of education. The "common denominator" of education for this particular scale-type mayor may not explain the high occurrence of the scale type. In w

PAGE 60

Variable *1 2 *3 *4 5 54 TABLE 21 FINAL FIVE STATEMENTS FOR GUTTMAN SCALE Statement 15 7 11 4 14 Statement We really haven't thought about cutting down our use of water. Water reclaimed from waste is as good as any other water. Mankind has a right to free and unlimited use of water. Nature has a way to solve water supply problems before they get serious. It's the people who should do something about the water problem. *Statements have been reverse coded. Favorable Responses .23 .31 .52 .63 .70

PAGE 61

No. 5 10 2 19 11 12 4 14 9 7 6 17 15 13 18 3 8 TABLE 22 FACTOR MATRIX OF ATTITUDES TOWARD WATER CONSERVATION VARIABLES Description Cut water consumption if necessary Cut water use if had to If shortage, cut use I'd do something about water problem Man's right to free water Water most abundant resource Nature solves own problems People do something Appliances identifies position Water reclaimed is good Government control price Government do something We haven't thought about cutting use Water use depends on appliances Water cycle beyond control I 0.77155 0.73554 0.71484 0.60213 Amount water used depends on amount available Restriction of watering lawns II 0.71548 0.66522 0.54321 FACTORS III 0.62379 -0.62293 0.51246 IV 0.78317 0.75615 V 0.59271 -0.51862 0.50614 VI -0.66340 0.56616 \Jl \Jl

PAGE 62

56 TABLE 23 FACTORS UNDERLYING ATTITUDES TOWARDS WATER CONSERVATION (Selected loadings of .500 or higher)a Statements Factor 5 10 2 19 11 I We would cut our water consumption if necessary. We would cut down our use of water if we had to. If there were a shortage of water, we would cut our use of water. I would be willing to do something about the water problem. II Mankind has a right to free and unlimited use of water. 12 Water is the most abundant natural resource. 4 14 9 7 Nature has a way to solve water supply problems before they get serious. III It's the people who should do something about the water problem. The water-using appliances a family has identifies their position in society. Water reclaimed from waste is as good as any other water. Loadingsb Label Wi llingness .771 .735 .714 .602 Awareness -.715 -.665 .543 Knowledgeability I .623 .622 .512

PAGE 63

57 TABLE 23 (continued) Statements Factor Loadingsb 6 17 15 l3 18 3 8 IV The government should control the price of water. It's the government who should do something about the water problem. V We really haven't thought about cutting down our use of water. The amount of water people use depends on the number of water-using appliances they have. The water cycle is beyond human control. VI The amount of water people use depends on how much water is available. During water shortages, there should be a restriction on the watering of lawns. -.783 -.756 -.592 -.518 -.506 .663 .566 aSelected value from the factor matrix, Table 22. Label Economic Commodi ty Knowledgeability II Rationality bSigns on loadings on all factors corrected for unidirectionality.

PAGE 64

58 were ranked by the strength of their mean loadings. The ranking developed as follows: Economic Commodity, Willingness, Awareness, Rationality, Know-ledgeability I, and Knowledgeability II (Table 24). TABLE 24 RANK-ORDER OF FACTORS BY MEAN LOADINGS OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS WATER CONSERVATIONa Factor Name Mean Loadingb IV Economic Commodity .769 I Willingness .705 II Awareness .641 VI Rationality .614 III Knowledgeability I .586 V Knowledgeability II .539 aDerived from Table 22. bSigns disregarded. When the Guttman scale ranks were compared with the corresponding factor analysis (Table 25), the results fully support the original subuniverses as initially conceived. Naming the Guttman Scale The way in which the final Guttman scale should be read is as follows: for those respondents who had given considerable thought to the water problem, it is acceptable to treat water reclaimed from waste as being as good as any other water, to accept the necessity of control over water exploitation and misuse, to believe that nature cannot solve supply problems before they become serious, and finally to acknowledge that the solution of water

PAGE 65

Guttman Scale Score 1 2 3 4 S TABLE 25 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE GUTTMAN SCALE RANKINGS AND FACTOR MATRIX RANKINGS OF VARIABLES REFLECTING ATTITUDES TOWARDS WATER CONSERVATION Factor Original Statement Description Rank Description Subuniverse 15 Haven't thought about S Knowledgeability II Knowledgeability cutting water consumption. 7 Reclaimed water is 3 Knowledgeability I Knowledgeability good. 11 Man has a right to free 2 Awareness Awareness water. 4 Nature solves water 2 AWareness Awareness problems. 14 People should do some-3 Knowledgeability I Knowledgeability thing about the water problem. V1 \0

PAGE 66

60 resources problems is a matter with which they must personally concern themselves. The underlying dimension which this scale seems to measure is a concern for and about the water resources problem. The scale was thus named the "Water Concern Scale" and the resulting scalogram is found in Table 26. Potential Uses of the Water Concern Scale The Water Concern Scale may be a feasible instrument to be used by civil engineers and community officials in the planning and initiation of water projects in local areas. The scale could provide the planners with some measure of the concern and involvement of the residents of the particular community in the water resources and conservation problem, and more specifically, in the suggested local project. Such a measure would enable water project planners to decide how much more and what kind of information needs to be disseminated to the residents in order to gain acceptance for the suggested project.

PAGE 67

TABLE 26 WATER CONCERN SCALOGRAMa SCALE PATTERN 1 = favorable response and concern o = unfavorable response and concern Thought about Water Right Nature People water reclaimed to solves should consump-is as free own do some-SCALE TYPE OF SUBJECT tion good water problems thing Most Concerned 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Least Concerned 0 0 0 0 0 Total Subjects aCompare with Table 3 for further details of the scale. DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS Perfect Nonscale Scale Total 7 6 13 14 20 34 29 28 57 13 19 32 12 13 25 14 14 28 89 100 189 (J\ ,.....

PAGE 68

CHAPTER VI AN APPLICATION OF THE SCALE In an effort to reveal any relationship or association between the scale types of the sampled population and the respondent's partici-pation or concern with the water resources problem, the Guttman scores were compared with certain socioeconomic variables. For the variables of family size, water consumption, age of husband, number of children, income of the household head, number of water-using appliances, and education of the household head, the Spearman rank correlation coefficientl was used (Siegel, 1956:202-213). For the variable of occ.upation of the household head, the KruskalWallis one-way'analysis of variance2 was used (Siegel, 1956:184-194). Statements of Relationships The following variables were subjected to a statement of relationship, using in each instance the form of the null hypothesis, and tested. FAMILY SIZE: The null hypothesis may be stated: There is no rela-tionship between the size of the respondent's family and the respondent's 1 Spearman rank correlation coefficient is a "measure of association which requires that both variables be measured in at least an ordinal scale so that the objects or individuals under study may be ranked in two ordered series" (Siegel, 1956:202). The two sets of scores are ranked in two series. Because of the large proportion of observations tied for certain ranks, a correction factor was incorporated in the computation of rs. The correction factor prevents an inflation of the value of rs. 2 The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance by ranks assumes that the variable under study has an underlying continuous distribution. "It requires at least ordinal measurement of the variable" (Siegel, 1956:185). 62

PAGE 69

63 Guttman score. For family size, rs 0.066 indicating only a very low correlation between family size and the Guttman score. This relationship is not signifi-cant at the .05 level of significance and, therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. On the basis of the evidence, then, it does not appear that one may assume that the size of the family as such operates as a major determinant of attitudes toward issues related to concern about water problems. WATER CONSUMPTION: The null hypothesis is: There is relationship between respondent's household water consumption and his Guttman score. For water consumption, rs = 0.095 indicating a low correlation between water consumption and the Guttman score. This relationship is not signifi-cant at the.OS level of significance and would indicate that a respondent's household water consumption does not significantly affect his attitude re-garding concern about water resources problems. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. AGE OF HUSBAND: The null hypothesis may be phrased: There is no re-lationship between the of the husband in the household and the respondent's Guttman score. For age of husband, rs = 0.079 indicating that a low correlation exists between the age of the husband and the Guttman score. This relationship is not significant at the .05 level of significance, and, thus, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. It would appear that the age of the husband is not a "cause" of the respondent's attitude concerning water resources problems. NUMBER OF CHILDREN: The following null hypothesis is offered: There is E relationship between the number of children in the household and the respondent's Guttman For the number of children, rs = 0.066 indicating only a very low correlation between the number of children in the household and the respondent's

PAGE 70

64 Guttman score. This relationship is not significant at the .05 level of significance, and, on this basis, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The number of children apparently does not affect the respondent's attitude regarding his concern about water resources problems. INCOME OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD: The null hypothesis may be stated: There is relationship between the income of the household head and the respondent's Guttman score. For income of the household head, rs = 0.164 indicating that there is a correlation between the income of the household head and the Guttman score. This relationship is significant at the .05 level of significance and, consequently, the null hypothesis can be rejected. As found by Dasgupta (1968), income is found to be a determinant of the respondent's attitudes toward water resources problems. NUMBER OF WATER-USING APPLIANCES: The null hypothesis is: There is no relationship between the number of water-using appliances in the household and the respondent's Guttman score. For number of water-using appliances, rs = 0.008 indicating a very low correlation between the number of water-using appliances in the household and the Guttman score. This relationship is not significant at the .05 level of significance, and, therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Although the number of water-using appliances was found to be significantly related to attitudes by Dasgupta (1968), in this sample the number of water-using appliances does not contribute to the respondent's attitudes regarding water resources problems. EDUCATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD: The null hypothesis may be phrased: There is relationship between the education of the household head and the respondent's Guttman score. For the education of the household head, rs = 0.233. Although a

PAGE 71

65 correlation on this level does not suggest a very close relationship between the series of data, the relationship is significant at the .01 level of significance. That this null hypothesis can be rejected may offer support, in some manner, to the occurrence of the twelve-scale-types as discussed in Table 2. In Table 2 it was determined that education could be the common denominator for the appearance of twelve respondents with the same response pattern. The direction of the relationship is such that one may assume the existence of some tendency for the Guttman score to be higher as the education of the household increases. OCCUPATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD: The null hypothesis is: There is no relationship between the occupation of the household head and the respondent's Guttman score. For the occupation of the household head, H = 7.066, indicating that the probability associated with the occurrence under the null hypothesis of a value this large (df = 6) is not significant at the .05 level of significance. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. One may assume, because of this quite low probability of occurrence, that the occupation of the household head is not determinant of the respondent's Guttman score. Summary An attempt was made to construct an attitudinal scale that might be useful to social scientists, natural scientists, and civil engineers concerned with the water resources problems in the United States. The interview schedule contained questions which provided standard socioeconomic information on the respondents. The interview schedules also contained nineteen attitudinal questions which were intended to elicit respondents' attitudes towards water resources problems. The attitudinal questions were designed to measure the subuniverses of (1) willingness on the part of the

PAGE 72

66 respondent to do something about the water resources problem, (2) the consideration by the respondent that water is an economic commodity, (3) awareness on the part of the respondent, and (4) knowledgeability of the respondent regarding the water resources problem. An attempt was then made, using the technique of Guttman scalogram analysis, to construct the attitude scale. In meeting the requirements of the Guttman scalogram analysis, that is, that the scale be reproducible, only five of the original nineteen attitudinal statements were retainable. The final scale had a coefficient of reproducibility of .895. The original nineteen items were subjected to a factor analysis to determine if the original subuniverses were to be validated. Initially, four subuniverses were proposed: economic commodity, willingness, awareness, and knowledgeability. The factor analysis revealed that there were six subuniverses measured by the attitudinal items: economic willingness, awareness, knowledgeability I, knowledgeability II, and rationality. Only two of the original nineteen items were not sufficiently "loaded" on the factor analysis. In comparing the original subuniverses with those revealed by the factor analysis, the final scale was fully supported. That is, the final five items on the scale had loadings of .50 or higher and were initially assigned to subuniverses which were validated by the factor analysis. The nature of the final five items on the scale was such that it was named the Water Concern Scale. The scale scores of the final Water Concern Scale were then compared with certain socioeconomic variables in order to reveal any relationship between a respondent's score and his actual concern and participation with the water resources problem. Using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient and the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance, the following socioeconomic variables were compared with the Guttman scores of the respondents:

PAGE 73

67 family size, water consumption, age of husband, number of children, income of the household head, number of water-using appliances, education of the household head, and occupation of the household head. The relationships were stated in the form of null hypotheses and the following null hypotheses could not be rejected at the .05 level of significance: family size, water consumption, age of husband, number of children, number of water-using appliances, and occupation of the household head. Only the null hypotheses concerning the socioeconomic variables of education of the household head and income of the household head could be rejected. The implication of this rejection is that income and education of the household head are determinants of the respondent's attitude score in the population samples in this research. It was finally noted that another attitudinal study had revealed these same two socioeconomic variables to be significantly related to attitudes regarding water resources problems.

PAGE 74

CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS An effort has been made in this research to: (1) determine what relationships there are between water consumption in two residential areas compared with certain socioeconomic variables of the population, and (2) measure the attitudes of water consumers toward water conservation. The research consisted of interviewing residents of two South Florida areas--West Palm Beach and Homestead. In an attempt to achieve the two goals of this research, data were presented and analyzed on the characteristics of the population, water consumption by household characteristics, attitudes of the respondents toward water conservation, and on the relationships of certain socioeconomic variables and the Water Concern Scale. It was determined in this analysis that the West Palm Beach sample had proportionately more larger families, had proportionately a larger number of families with a greater number of children, and had proportionately more families with older children than did the Homestead sample. The head of the household in West Palm Beach was also found to have been more likely to have completed a high school education and a college education, more likely to have been a professional worker and less likely to have been a blue collar worker, more likely to earn more, and to be slightly older than his or her Homestead counterpart. It was also determined, as has been established in other research, that there is a definite relationship between water consumption and the income standing of the household. Additionally, differences between West 68

PAGE 75

69 Palm Beach and Homestead in water consumption were attributed to their different "life styles," with West Palm Beach being considered more typically urban. Finally, with the development of the Water Concern Scale, it was determined that income and education of the household head appear to be the determinants of a respondent's attitude score in the two areas sampled. The attitudinal profile proved to be consistent with other research on attitudes and water conservation, although this was the first attempt to construct a Guttman scale as such. Conclusions Some basic relationships between the use of water and the several socioeconomic characteristics of the households of West Palm Beach and Homestead have been established. By further observation of frequency distributions on some of the items of the interview schedule used, some major habits of the householders with regard to water use can be established. In part of the preceding analysis, water dependent appliances and plumbing fixtures proved to be the key discriminators in water use. Table 27 compares West Palm Beach and Homestead households on the number and types of appliances and fixtures. It is demonstrated that the West Palm Beach households are more affluent, at least judging by the number of appliances which tend to characterize the higher income households such as dishwashers, garbage disposals, and mUltiple bathrooms. To what use these appliances and fixtures were put can be estimated by the differential water consumption of the respective households. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the West Palm Beach households use substantially more water than the Homestead households. For instance, when asked about their lawn watering practices, the Homestead respondents were about twice as likely (71 percent) as the West Palm Beach respondents

PAGE 76

DESCRIPTION OF APPLIANCES AND FIXTURES Washing Machine Dishwasher Garbage Disposal Lawn Sprinkler Swimming Pool Hot Water Heater Bathtub Shower Bathroom Commode Bathroom Sink Kitchen Sink Outside Faucet N TABLE 27 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF WATER-USING APPLIANCES AND FIXTURES, HOMESTEAD AND WEST PALM BEACH HOUSEHOLDS NUMBER OF APPLIANCES AND FIXTURES One Two or More West Palm West Palm Homestead Percenta Beach Percenta Homestead Percenta Beach 99 72.3 196 77 .1 12 8.7 76 29.9 4 2.9 72 28.3 15 10.9 152 59.8 3 2 15 136 254 122 89.0 207 81.4 13 9.5 40 106 77.4 157 61.8 20 14.6 86 100 72.9 105 41.3 37 27.0 149 98 71.5 112 44.0 38 27.7 142 135 248 97.6 2 96 45 32.8 33 12.9 92 67.1 215 137 254 137 254 a Percent 15.7 33.8 58.6 55.9 37.8 84.6 apercent based on total number of respondents in Homestead (N=137) and West Palm Beach (N=254) respectively. '" 0

PAGE 77

71 (32 percent) to report that they water their lawn "seldom or never." A routine sprinkling of lawns either with a hose or through a sprinkler system was claimed by West Palm Beach respondents convincingly more often than by Homestead respondents (watering by garden hose: 25 percent for Homestead, 42 percent for West Palm Beach; watering by sprinkler system: 2 percent for Homestead and 26 percent for West Palm Beach). However, the purpose of this research was not to give weight to minor water consumption habits, but rather to tap the attitudes and opinions of the respondents as to their understanding of the water supply distribution question. One of the difficulties in water conservation and consumption surveys when the focus is on attitudes is that water for a long time has been considered one of the free things like air, which may not be free either. In order to pinpoint some of the general and diffuse attitudes and opinions on water, an attempt was made first of all to ascertain how accurately the respondents think about their sources of water supply. One of the questions was designed to find out whether the respondents could identify accurately the supplier of their water. This proved to be no problem in Homestead as the City of Homestead is the sole supplier of households who do not have their own wells or are out of the water district. In the West Palm Beach area, however, the many subdivisions and incorporated places have a variety of private suppliers, but only 12 of the 254 respondents identified their water suppliers as such. Apparently, most of them think the city always supplies water. On the other hand, when asked whether or not they are satisfied with their present water supply, 16 percent of the West Palm Beach respondents would prefer a different supplier. This latter refers, of course, only to the households connected to a metered supply of water. The respondents were also asked whether they ever thought before about

PAGE 78

72 cutting down their water use, whether they would be willing to do so, and how they would prefer to implement such cuts. A great majority of them (92 percent in Homestead and 82 percent in West Palm Beach) indicated that they have not given thought to cutting their water consumption and from among those who had done so, about 15 percent (mostly from West Palm Beach) did so because of the cost. This seems consistent with other observations made where the use of water is related to water rates. When asked how they would implement a cut in water consumption, 36 percent of the Homestead respondents and 41 percent of the West Palm Beach respondents indicated they would cut down on their lawn watering, 30 percent and 14 percent respectively would check fixtures for leaks, and others mentioned yet other means. In general, the make-up of the households in the two areas is reflected in these responses. Since fewer respondents in Homestead than in West Palm Beach water their lawns in the first place, fewer of the Homestead respondents would be able to turn off their lawn irrigations. However, since the people in the Homestead sample are apparently more aware of the cost of living, the lower percentage is proportionately larger regarding lawn irrigation than the West Palm Beach sample. The economic factor also enters in checking for leaking faucets where the Homestead respondents would check their fewer faucets more thoroughly for leaks than would be the case with the West Palm Beach sample. Were the respondents faced with a community-wide shortage of water, they would relegate the responsibility for water consumption to, in the first place, the water plant itself (20 percent in Homestead and 31 percent in West Palm Beach), second to the civic responsibility of the citizens themselves (36 and 34 percent respectively), and lastly, to some legal sanctions (41 and 37 percent respectively). The only apparent real difference between the two samples is the understanding of the role of the water plant, where only two

PAGE 79

73 out of ten respondents in Homestead, but three out of ten in West Palm Beach would favor such control. Questions concerning water shortage seem to be of only minor relevance when three-quarters of the respondents never expect this to happen in their area. Just about all of them believed that the water supply in their area was either abundant or quite satisfactory. When the respondents were asked whether they would go farther, deeper, into the ocean, or into the sewers were they in need of more water, 13 percent of the Homestead respondents and only 7 percent of the West Palm Beach respondents indicated such, even though Homestead draws all of its water supply from the ground and West Palm Beach off the surface. On the other hand, 34 percent and 44 percent of the Homestead and West Palm Beach respondents, respectively, indicated they would prefer to go deeper for the water. Almost 47 percent of the respondents in Homestead and 42 percent of the respondents in West Palm Beach indicated desalination as an alternative. Regarding the reclamation of water from the effluent, only three respondents in each area indicated such as a favorable alternative. When, however, the respondents were presented directly with the reclaimed water questions giving reclaimed water as an economical solution to the water problem, still 51 percent and 60 percent of the respondents in Homestead and West Palm Beach, respectively, would rather pay more than have to drink reclaimed water. And, if they had to drink water reclaimed from the effluent, 62 percent of the Homestead respondents and 66 percent of the West Palm Beach respondents would be bothered by the knowledge of it. It would appear that the dislike of water reclaimed from effluent seems to cut across social class lines. The overall profile of the two communities may increase our understanding of the social forces behind the differential water consumption. In Homestead,

PAGE 80

74 where the income does not allow as much equipment in the household as in West Palm Beach, there appears correspondingly lower water consumption, mainly reflected in the low use of water for lawns and the like. Also, the overall set of attitudes and opinions toward water conservation seems to be one of a lack of real concern, some misunderstanding of what it is all about, and willingness to have somebody else take care of it.

PAGE 81

APPENDIX

PAGE 82

76 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA Department of Sociology Water Resources Research Center Prediction Model for Water Use by Population Structure INTERVIEW SCHEDULE ADDRESS: (Zone: Segment: ) SCHEDULE SERIAL NUMBER: INTERVIEWER: DATE OF CONTACT: lst __________________________ 2nd __________________________ __ 3rd ----------------------------INTERVIEW COMPLETED: INTERVIEW INCOMPLETE: Dwelling Vacant ____________________ Interruption ______________________ __ Refusal "-----------------------------Different Residents ------------------CARD 6 COLS CODE 1-6 75-77 7,8 9 10 1 2 1 2 3 4 **INTERVIEWER NOTE: ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF EVERY RESIDENT 1. Were you interviewed last Fall by someone from this project? YES NO If NO, TERMINATE THE INTERVIEW If YES, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS lao Were you interviewed by a male or female? MALE FEMALE lb. Did you receive any literature from the interviewer? YES NO If YES, did you read it? YES NO 11 12 13 14 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

PAGE 83

77 The University of Florida is interested in some long range estimates of water needs in this area. You were most cooperative last Fall, and we once again ask your cooperation in answering a few questions on the use of water by this household. As you know, the Project is being paid for by the Federal Government but the results will be of help to the people in this community regarding the future needs for water here. 1. Do you know how many gallons you use on an average day? If Yes, how many ________________ No __________________ Comments: 2. Did you ever contemplate cutting down your water consumption? Yes No ----------------------If Yes, what was the main reason for it? Water Cost -----------------------------Dislike Taste Problems of Supply Comments: 3. Do you think you could cut down on your water use? Yes No ---------------------------------------------If Yes, why: Water Cost Dislike Taste Problems of Supply --------------------Comments: COLS 17-19 20 21 4. Were you to cut down your water consumption, what would 22 you do? Stop watering ______________________ Check the faucet leakage __________________ CODE 999 000 1 2 3 4 5 9 o 1 2 3 4 5 9 o 1 2

PAGE 84

78 COLS Other ---------------------------------------Don't know ----------------------------------Comments: 5. Were the community to experience a water shortage and 23 cuts of consumption in each household would have to be made, which of the following ways would appeal to you most? ____ plan by water works, e.g., shutting water supply off a certain time of the day. ____ the citizens to cut their water consumption in general. A ban on watering lawns and fines to enforce it. ____ only so many gallons per person in the household. ____ the pressure. Comments: 6. Do you think that your community will ever face a problem of an inadequate supply of water? Yes ---Don't Know ----No ___ Comments: 7. Do you think the water supply in this area is: Abundant -----Sufficient ----Inadequate __ Comments: 24 25 8. When a community like yours faces a water shortage be-26 cause there is no adequate recharging of the areas the water comes from, there are several alternatives facing the community. If each of the following alternatives were to cost the same, which one would you prefer? Go farther to get the water. ---CODE 3 9 o 1 2 3 4 5 9 o 1 2 9 o 1 2 3 9 o 1

PAGE 85

79 Go deeper to get the water. ---___ using the water from the ocean. Reclaim water from the waste. --....; Conunents: 9. Were the cost of reclaiming water from the waste the cheapest way to keep up with the water need of the community: would you rather pay more for the other alternatives. ----would you accept it as a reasonable solution. ----Comments: 10. Would it bother you to know that the water you are drinking was reclaimed from the waste? Yes ---Don't Know ---No __ Comments: COLS 27 28 11. Have you heard about communities where this is the case? 29 Yes ---No ___ Comments: 12. Do you think it would be worthwhile, even though the 30 initial cost might be high, to have a dual system of water supply; one for outside use and one for cooking and drinking? Yes No Don't Know ---------Comments: CODE 2 3 4 9 o 1 2 9 o 1 2 9 o 1 2 9 o 1 2 9 o

PAGE 86

80 13. Were it necessary to install such a system, how should it be financed? 14. Increased water rates. --_____ Governmental subsidy. Don't know. Corrrrnents: There is no question that this area is population and in the need for water. that there should be some governmental assure that the cost of water does not disproportionately? increasing in Do you think agency to increase Yes No __ Don I t Know ---Corrrrnents: 15. Do you think that water works should be subsidized so that even the poor families may have as much water as they need? Yes ---No __ Don't Know --If Yes, how should this subsidy be effected? ____ general water tax. ____ tax. Some other tax. ---Comments: 16. Have you ever attended a formal or informal gatherings concerned with water? Yes No __ If Yes, how many: COLS 31 32 33 34,35 CODE 1 2 9 o 1 2 9 o 1 2 9 3 4 5 o 1 2 99 00

PAGE 87

81 COLS 17. With whom have you talked most about the water problem? 36 __ ....;Family Close personal friends --Other neighbors --Other friends at work --Other (specify) ---Comments: 18. Have any of the following indicated concern about conserving water? __ .....;Family Close personal friends --_____ Other neighbors Other friends at work --Other (specify) ---Comments: 37 19. Do any of the following exercise exceptional or 38 noticeable practice with respect to water conservation? __ ....;Family Close personal friends --Other neighbors ---Other friends at work --Other (specify) ---Comments: CODE 1 2 3 4 5 9 o 1 2 3 4 5 9 o 1 2 3 4 5 9 o

PAGE 88

82 20. Would you be willing to pay more for the water you need? Yes No ------Comments: 21. Would you use desalinated water? Yes No ------Comments: 22. Do you think your community will face a water shortage soon? Yes __ No __ Comments: 23. Do you water your lawn often? Yes___ No __ Comments: 24. Do you think your monthly water bill is fair? Yes __ No __ Comments: **INTERVIEWER NOTE: COLS CODE 39 1 2 9 0 40 1 2 9 0 41 1 2 9 0 42 1 2 9 0 43 1 2 9 0 That concludes that part of this questionnaire. Now I will read to you a series of statements concerning your attitudes on water. Consider how strongly you personally agree or disagree with the following statements. Tell me if you STRONGLY AGREE with the statement, only AGREE with the statement, if you STRONGLY DISAGREE with the statement, only DISAGREE with the statement, or if you are UNDECIDED about the statement.

PAGE 89

83 **INTERVIEWER GIVES THE RESPONDENT THE CARD WITH THE RESPONSES ON IT. COLS CODE l. Problems of water supply are only temporary. 45 1 2 3 4 5 SA A U D SD 2. If there were a shortage of water, we would 46 1 2 3 4 5 cut our water use. SA A U D SD 3. The amount of water people use depends on how 47 1 2 3 4 5 much water is available. SA A U D SD 4. Nature has a way to solve water supply problems 48 1 2 3 4 5 before they get serious. SA A U D SD 5. We would cut our water consumption if necessary. 49 1 2 3 4 5 SA A U D SD 6. The government should control the price of water. 50 1 2 3 4 5 SA A U D SD 7. Water reclaimed from waste is as good as any 51 1 2 3 4 5 other water. SA A U D SD 8. During water shortages, there should be a 52 1 2 3 4 5 restriction on the watering of lawns. SA A U D SD 9. The water-using appliances a family has identifies 53 1 2 3 4 5 their position in society. SA A U D SD

PAGE 90

84 COLS CODE 10. We would cut down our use of water if we had to. 54 1 2 3 4 5 SA A U D SD lL Mankind has a right to free and unlimited use 55 1 2 3 4 5 of water. SA A U D SD 12. Water is the most abundant natural resource. 56 1 2 3 4 5 SA A U D SD 13. The amount of water people use depends on the 57 1 2 3 4 5 number of water-using appliances they have. SA A U D SD 14. It's the people who should do something about 58 1 2 3 4 5 the water problem. SA A tJ D SD 15. We really haven't thought about cutting down 59 1 2 3 4 5 our use of water. SA A U D SD 16. The water we draw on in this area is already 60 1 2 3 4 5 polluted. SA A U D SD 17. It's the government who should do something about 61 1 2 3 4 5 the water problem. SA A U D SD 18. The water cycle is beyond human control. 62 1 2 3 4 5 SA A U D SD

PAGE 91

85 19. I would be willing to do something about the water problem. SA A U D SD COLS 63 THAT CONCLUDES THE INTERVIEW. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH CODE 1 2 3 4 5 FOR YOUR COOPERATION. IT WAS MOST SINCERELY APPRECIATED. **INTERVIEWER NOTE 1. Degree of Interview Cooperation 65 ___ Good 1 Fair 2 Poor 3 Comments:

PAGE 92

BIBLIOGRAPHY "A Directory of Information Resources in the United States -Water," UoS. Library of Congressional Natural Referral Center for Science and Technology (September, 1966). Ackerman, Edward A" "Questions for Designers of Future Water Policy," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 38 (November, 1956), pp. 971-980. Andrews, Wade H., "Sociological Analysis and Water Resources Problems," Prepared for presentation at a Workshop for Sociological Aspects of Water Resources Research in Logan, Utah State University, April 18, 1968 (Mimeographed). _____ and Gillings, James L., "Some Factors Affecting Social Change in Water Resources." Unpublished Paper. San Francisco: Rural Sociological Society Meeting, 1967. Arrow, Kenneth J., "Criteria for Social Investment," Water Resources Research, Vol. I (First Quarter, 1965), pp. 1-8. Backstrum, Charles H., and Hursh, Gerald D., Survey Research. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1963. Baur, E. Jackson, "Opinion Change in a Public Controversy," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 26 (Spring, 1962), pp. 210-226. _____ "Public Opinion and the Primary Group," American Sociological Review, Vol. 25, (April, 1960), pp. 208-219. Brock, Dan A., "Multiple Regression Analysis of Maximum-Day Water Consumption at Dallas, Texas," Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol. 50 (October, 1958), pp. 1391-1394. Brown, Carl B., and Murphy, Warren T., "Conservation Begins in the Watersheds," Water: The Year Book of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture (1955), pp. 161-165. Bryan, E. H., "Water Supply and Pollution Control Aspects of Urbanization," Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 30 (Winter, 1965), pp. 176-192. Bylund, H. Bruce, "The Human Factor and Changes in Water Usage Patterns," Water Resources Research, Vol. 3, No.3 (First Quarter, 1966), pp. 365-369. "The California State Water Project in 1965," Department of Water Resources, Resources Agency, California, Bulletin No. 132-65 (June, 1965). 86

PAGE 93

87 Carhart, Arthur R., Water-Or Your Life. J. B. Lippincott Co., New York, 1951. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V., "Water Policy and Economic Optimizing: Some Conceptual Programs in Water Research," American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 57 (May, 1967), pp. 179-196. Clawson, Marion and Dretsch, J. L., "Outdoor Recreation Research: Some Concepts and Suggested Areas of Study," Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, D.C.: Reprint No. 43 (November, 1963), pp. 23. Cole, Lucy W., and Wilkinson, Kenneth P., "Sociological Factors in Watershed Development, Preliminary Report No. 20." Social Science Research Center: Mississippi State University, July, 1967. "30,000 Communities Without Water," Department of Agriculture, U.S. (1965). Conway, Clarence M., "The Competitive Position of Agriculture for Usable Water," Louisville, Kentucky: Association of Southern Agricultural Workers, 1968. Craine, Lyle E., "The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District: A Study of Local Control," Law and Contemporary Social Problems, Vol. 22 (Summer, 1957), pp. 378-404. Crain, R. L., "Fluoridation: The Diffusion of an Innovation Among Cities," Social Forces, Vol. 44 (June, 1966), pp. 467-476. and Rosenthal, D. B., "Structure and Value in Local Political ---Systems: The Case of Fluoridation Decisions," Journal of Politics, Vol. 28 (February, 1966), pp. 169-195. "Customers React to Increased Rate by Reducing Water Consumption," Water Works Engineering, Vol. 110 (February, 1957), pp. 150, et passim. Dasgupta, Satadal, "Attitudes of Local Residents Toward ment. Preliminary Report No. 18," State College: State University, Social Science Research Center, Watershed DevelopMississippi 1967. _____ "Sociology of Watershed Development," Jackson, Mississippi: Mississippi Water Resources Conference, April, 1968. and Wilkinson, Kenneth P., "Local Participation and Watershed ------Development: A Comparative Study of Two Communities," San Francisco: Third Annual American Water Resources Conference (November, 1967). Downs, J. F., "Social Consequences of a Dry Well," American Anthropologist, Vol. 67 (December, 1965), pp. 1387-1416. Dunn, Dorothy F., and Larson, T. E., "Relationship of Domestic Water Use to Assessed Evaluation, with Selected Demographic and Socio-economic Variables," Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol. 55 (April, 1963), pp. 441-450.

PAGE 94

88 Ellis, Harold H., "Legal Aspects of Rural-Urban Water Use Conflicts," Association of Southern Agricultural Workers, Louisville, Kentucky, 1968. "Federal Assistance in Outdoor Recreation," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 18 (March-April, 1963), pp. 57-60. Firey, W., "Coalition and Schism in a Regional Conservation Program," Human Organization, Vol. 15 (Winter, 1957), pp. 17-20. Fox, 1. K., "New Horizons in Water Resources Administration," Public Administration Review, Vol. 25 (May, 1965), pp. 61-69. Gardner, B. Kilworth, and Schieh, Sett H., "Factors Affecting Consumption of Urban Household Water in Northern Utah," Logan, Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University, Bulletin No. 449 (November, 1964), pp. 21. Hamilton, H. R., "Bibliography of Socio-Economic Aspects of Water Resources," U.S. Office of Water Resources Research, 1966. Haney, P. D., and Hamann, C. L., "Dual Water Systems," Journal of American Water Works Association, Vol. 57 (September, 1965), pp. 1096-1098. Haveman, Robert H., "Water Resources Investment and the Public Interest: an Analysis of Federal Expenditures in Ten Southern States," Vanderbilt University Press (1965). Heath, Milton S., Jr., and Godschalk, David, "How Population and Economic Trends May Affect Water Resources in North Carolina," Popular Government, Vol. 31 (November, 1964), pp. 8-10 Hirshleifer, J., and Milliman, J.W., "Urban Water Supply: A Second Look," American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 57 (May, 1967), pp. 169-178; 190-196. Hunter, Homer A., "Texas Water Need Forecast," Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol. 53 (August, 1961), pp. 968-972. Kiker, John E., Jr., and Morgan, W. H., "Research Highlights," Water Resources Research Center, Publication No.1, University of Florida, Gainesville. (November, 1966). Kneese, Allen V., "Socio-Economic Aspects of Water Quality Management," Journal of the Water pollution Control Federation, Vol. 36 (February, 1964), pp. 254-262. Kraenzel, Carl F., "Social Consequences of River Basin Development," Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 22 (Spring, 1957), pp. 221-236. Kubat, Daniel, and Lei, Lillian, "Awareness of Water Consumption by SocioEconomic Status," Paper prepared for the Rural Sociological Society, Boston, 1968.

PAGE 95

89 _____ and Watkins, George A., "Patterns of Water Use by South Florida Households," A paper presented to the American Water Works Association Conference, Hollywood, Florida, November, 1968. Lei, Lillian Y. S., "Sociological Determinants of Water Use in Selected Southern Florida Households," Masters Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1968. Linaweaver, F. Pierce, Jr., Geyer, John C., and Wolff, Jerome B., "A Study of Residential Water Uses: A Report Prepared for the Technical Studies Program of the Federal Housing Administration," Department of Housing and Urban Development (February, 1967). _____ "Progress Report on the Residential Water Use Research Project," Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol. 56 (July, 1964), pp. 1121-1128. "Residential Water Use, Research Project Report II, Phase 2, Department of Sanitary Engineering and Water Resources," Baltimore, Maryland, Johns Hopkins University, June, 1965. Lloyd, T., "Water Resources Policy for Canada," Canada Geographical Journal, Vol. 73 (July, 1966), pp. 2-17. Lumbard, Emily C., "Theses on Engineering, Economic, Social and Legal Aspects of Water," Water Resources Center Archives, University of California, Berkeley, Report No.2 (October, 1958). Lyle, C. V., "Economic Problems of Water Pollution Control in the Southeast," Association of Southern Agricultural Workers, Louisville, Kentucky, 1968. Mendenhall, William, Introduction to Statistics. Belmont, California. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1964. Metz, A. S., "Analysis of Some Determinants of Attitude Toward Fluoridation," Social Forces, Vol. 44 (June, 1966), pp. 477-484. Milliman, J. W., "Economic Consideration for the Design of Water Institutions," Public Administration Review, Vol. 25 (December, 1965), pp. 284-289. _____ "Price Policy and Land Value Taxation for Urban Water Supplies," American Journal of Economics, Vol. 25 (October, 1966), pp. 379-404. Monroe, John, and Finkner, A. L., Hand Book of Area Sampling. Chilton Company Book Division, Philadelphia, 1959. Morgan, Robert J., "The Small Watershed Program," Law and Contemporary Social Problems, Vol. 22 (September, 1957), pp. 405-432. Moss, Frank E., The Water Crisis, F. A. Praeger, New York, 1967. Mueller, J. E., "Politics of Fluoridation in Seven California Cities," Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 19 (March, 1966), pp. 54-67.

PAGE 96

90 _________ Schuessler, Karl F., Statistical Reasoning in Sociology, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1961. Murphy, Gardner, and Rensis, Likert, "Public Opinion and the Individual," Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, 1938. Nikolaieff, George A. (ed.), The Water Crisis, New York, W. W. Wilson, Co., 1967. North, Ronald L., "Changes in Land Values Associated with Urbanization and Reservoir Development," Association of Southern Agricultural Workers, Louisville, Kentucky, 1968. "Obtaining Census Statistics for a Selected Group of Persons," Data Access Descriptions, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (March, 1967), 4 p. Photiades, John D., Attitudes Toward the Water Resources Development Program in Central South Dakota, Preliminary Report No. 1 in Rural Sociology, South Dakota State College, Brookings, 1960. Porges, Ralph, "Factors Influencing Per Capita Water Consumption," Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 104 (May, 1957), pp. 451-455. Price, R. C., "Some Decisions in the State's Development of California's Water During the 1960's," Public Administration Review, Vol. 25 (December, 1965), pp. 290-296. Proceedings of the Workshop for Sociological Aspects of Water Resources Research, Held at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, April 18-19, 1968, Report No.1, Social Science Institute Series, Logan, 1968. Quraishi, G. M., "Domestic Water Use in Sweden," Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol. 55 (April, 1963), pp. 451-455. Reid, Paul M., "Problems and Techniques in Population Forecasting," Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol. 50 (May, 1958), pp. 655-660. Remmers, Hermann H., Introduction to Opinion and Attitude Measurement, Harper, New York, 1954. Renne, Roland R., "Social Problems in Water Resources Research," Unpublished paper. San Francisco, Rural Sociological Society Meeting, 1967. "Report on Seven Cities Water Project, Yadkin River," Pratt and Davis, William C. Olsen and Association, Hazen and Sawyer, Engineers, (1957). Schmid, A. A., "Nonmarket Values and Efficiency of Public Investments in Water Resources," American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 57 (May, 1967), pp. 158-168. Schram, Wilber (ed.), Studies of Innovation and Communication to the Public, Stanford University Institute for Communication Research, Palo Alto, California, 1962.

PAGE 97

91 Scott, Guy R., "High Rates of Water Use," Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol. 50 (March, 1958), pp. 369-374. Seidel, Harris F., and Cleasky, John L., "A Statistical Analysis of Water Data for 1960," Journal of American Water Works Association, Vol. 58, No. 12 (December, 1966), pp. 1507-1527. Siegel, Sidney, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, McGrawHill, New York, 1956. Singh, R. N., and Wilkinson, Kenneth P., "Social Science Studies of Water Resources Problems: Review of Literature and Annotated Bibliography," Water Resources Research Institute, Mississippi State University, 1968. "Six-Year Progress Report," Temporary State Committee on Water Resources Planning, Legislature, New York (1965). Smith, Stephen C., "Population Demand for Land and Water Resources of the Hinterland," Land and Water Use, American Association for the Advance of Science, pp. 25-43. Snedocer, George W., Statistical Methods, Ames, Iowa, The Iowa State University Press, 1956. Spaulding, Irving A., Household Water Use and Social Status, Agriculture Experiment Station, University of Rhode Island, Bulletin 392 (December, 1967), Kingston. Stern, Carlos, "Recreation in the Missouri River Basin," Water Resources 2545 (May, 1967), (Mimeograph). "Symposium: Water Resources Research," Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 5 (October, 1965), pp. 218-297. Taves, M., Hathaway, William, and Bultena, G., Canoe Country Vacationers, Misc. Report No. 39, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 851 (1960). The Big Water Fight, Brattleboro: The Stephen Greeme Press, The League of Women Voters Education Fund, 1966. Warriner, Charles K., "Public Opinion and Collective Action: Formation of a Watershed District," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 6 (December, 1961), pp. 333-359. _____ "Water Problems and Social Processes: A Study of Social Action in the Delaware Watershed, Kansas," Laurence, Kansas, March, 1957, (Mimeograph). "Water Consumption," Public Works, Vol. 92 (August, 1961), pp. 83-84. "Water, Present and Future Estimate of Water Consumption," Public Works, Vol. 87 (December, 1956), pp. 73-77.

PAGE 98

92 Watkins, George A., "Scaling of Attitudes Toward Water Conservation," Master's Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1968. Wennergren, E. Boyd, "Value of Water for Boating Recreation," Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University, Bulletin No. 453 (June, 1965), Logan, Utah, p. 27. Wilkinson, Kenneth P., Local Action and Acceptance of Watershed Development, Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University, July, 1966. Bibliography. "Watershed Development in the Community Field," Rural Sociological -----Society, Boston, Massachusetts, 1968. Wolff, Jerome B., "Peak Demands in Residential Areas," Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol. 53 (October, 1961), pp. 12511260. Wolman, Abel, "Effects of Population Changes on Environmental Health Problems and Programs," Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol. 57 (June, 1965), pp. 811-818. -----, "The Metabolism of Cities," Scientific American, Vol. 213, No.3 (September, 1965), pp. 178-190. Wright, James, The Coming Water Famine, Coward-McCann, Inc., 1966.

PAGE 99

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF AUTHOR Dr. George A. Watkins is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Before his current status of Graduate Advisor in the Department of Sociology, Dr. Watkins earned his B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. While at the University of Florida, Dr. Watkins served as Assistant to the Principal Investigator for OWRRProject A-OlO-FLA. He has read papers on water conservation at the American Water Works Association meeting, Southern Sociological Society meeting, and at the Southwestern Sociological Association meeting. He has a paper to be published in the LSU Journal of Sociology on water conservation. In the Fall of 1972, Dr. Watkins will become the Academic Coordinator for Environmental Studies at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. Dr. Watkins is currently a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Association of University Professors, American Sociological Association, Southwestern Sociological Association, National Council on Family Relations, Population Association of America, and the Southern Sociological Society. He is also currently the National Social Sciences Coordinator for Population Phase I, a member of the Phi Kappa phi honorary, the past president of Alpha Kappa Delta, Beta Chapter, and past president of Gamma Beta Phi, Beta Chapter. 93