This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 A SOCIAL EVALUATION OF LANDSCAPE SOIL MOISTURE SENSORS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HOMEOWNERS By LYNDALL CHRISTINE BREZINA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 201 4
2 201 4 Lyndall Christine Brezina
3 To my family and my great friends in Gainesville
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Gainesville Regional Utilities for the opportunity to work on this project, specifically the cooperation of Jennifer McElroy and Shelby Hughes. I thank also the Agricultural Education and Communication Department for supporting this work, Dr. Tracy Irani, and I especially thank Dr. Paul Monaghan, and Emily Ott for their patience and assistance.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURE S ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 The Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 11 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 12 Water Demand ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 14 Agriculture ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 14 Commercial Industrial Self Supplied ................................ ................................ 15 Power Generation ................................ ................................ ............................ 15 Recreational Irrigation ................................ ................................ ...................... 16 Domestic Self Supplied ................................ ................................ .................... 17 Public Supply ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 17 Water Governan ce ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 Water Resource Caution Areas: Signs of Stress on the Resource ................... 18 Setting Minimum Flows and Levels to Limit Future Withdrawals ...................... 19 Governance Efforts to Encourage Residential Conservation ............................ 20 The Barriers to Conservation: Development Patterns and Lawns .................... 20 Lawns and History ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 21 Landscape Design for Conservation ................................ ................................ 22 Social Challenges to Conservation Efforts ................................ ....................... 23 Can Environmental Theory Help Us Understand Landscaping Behavior? ....... 24 Problem ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 27 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 29 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ .................. 30 Li mitations and Assumptions ................................ ................................ ............ 31 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 31 2 USING THEORY, POLICY AND SOCIAL MARKETING TO PROMOTE CONSERVATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 37 Environmental Theory ................................ ................................ ............................. 37 Demograp hic Predictors of Behavior ................................ ................................ 38 Environmental Paradigms ................................ ................................ ................ 39 Attitudes and Beliefs and Their Impact on Water Conservation ....................... 40 Norms and Neighborhood Behaviors ................................ ............................... 41
6 ................................ ............................ 42 Specificity in Environmental Behavior Research ................................ .............. 43 Rogers and the Dif fusion of Innovation ................................ ............................ 44 Black Box Approach to Disseminating Conservation Technology .................... 45 Educational Approaches for Promoting Conservation ................................ ...... 46 Policy Approaches to Water Conservation ................................ ....................... 47 Social Marketing as an Alternative Approach ................................ ......................... 50 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 52 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 55 Background: SMS In terventions Phase A and Phase B ................................ ......... 55 Recruitment Phase A ................................ ................................ ....................... 56 Recruitment Phase B ................................ ................................ ....................... 57 Quantitative Comparison ................................ ................................ .................. 58 Eval uation Stage Recruitment ................................ ................................ ................ 58 Instrument ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 59 Input From Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) ................................ ................. 59 ................................ ........... 61 ................................ .. 62 Guidance From Social Marketing ................................ ................................ ..... 63 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 64 Phase A Overview ................................ ................................ ............................ 64 Phase B Overview ................................ ................................ ............................ 65 Interviews ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 65 Focus Groups ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 65 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 67 ................................ ................................ 68 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 69 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 73 Overview of the Phases and Data ................................ ................................ .......... 73 Quantitative Results ................................ ................................ ................................ 73 Results From Coding: Five Themes and Sub themes ................................ ............ 74 Theme 1: Discussions on Water Use ................................ ............................... 75 Subtheme 1: Awareness of personal use ................................ .................. 75 Subtheme ................................ ............. 76 Subtheme 3: Water and politics ................................ ................................ 76 Subtheme 4: Reasons for the SMS program ................................ ............. 77 Theme 2: Audience Pr ofile ................................ ................................ ............... 77 Subtheme 1: Self description ................................ ................................ ..... 77 Subtheme 2: Talking to neighbors ................................ ............................. 78 Theme 3: Benefits of SMS ................................ ................................ ................ 79 Subtheme 1: Effectiveness ................................ ................................ ........ 79 Subtheme 2: Efficiency/Accuracy ................................ ............................... 79 Subtheme 3: Makes travel easier ................................ ............................... 80
7 Subtheme 4: Water savings ................................ ................................ ....... 80 Theme 4: Barriers to Effectiveness ................................ ................................ .. 81 Subtheme 1: SMS did not work ................................ ................................ .. 81 Subtheme 2: Confusion over setting the threshold ................................ .... 82 Theme 5: Knowledge of the Device ................................ ................................ .. 82 Recommendations from Participants ................................ ................................ ...... 83 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 84 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 86 Social Marketing Benchmarks ................................ ................................ ................ 86 Behavior change. ................................ ................................ ............................. 86 Audience research ................................ ................................ ........................... 87 Segmentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 87 Exchange ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 88 Marketing mix ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 89 Product ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 90 Price ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 91 Product placement ................................ ................................ ..................... 91 Promotion ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 91 Competition ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 92 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 94 6 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 95 A PPENDIX A : UTILITY CHECKLIST AND REBATE FORM ................................ .......................... 99 B : DRAFTS FOR INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ .............. 102 C : FULL INSTRUMENT FOR DATA COLLECTION ................................ .................. 107 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 114 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 122
8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Total water withdrawals in Florida by category, 2005.. ................................ ...... 33 2 1 List of theories and their descriptions regarding adoption behavior. .................. 54 3 1 Comparison of Phase A and Phase B interventi ons. ................................ .......... 71
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Districts. ................................ ........... 34 1 2 Florida. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 35 1 3 Groundwater level statistics for a point in High Springs, Suwannee River Water Management District. ................................ ................................ ............... 3 6
10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requi rements for the Degree of Master of Science A SOCIAL EVALUATION OF LANDSCAPE SOIL MOISTURE SENSORS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HOMEOWNERS By Lyndall Christine Brezina May 201 4 Chair: Paul Monaghan Major: Agricultural Education and Communication Limited research has been devoted to water conservation. The water saving technology has been tested in pilot studies to evaluate how it functions and saves water but the factors t hat influence adoption of new landscaping technologies by homeowners has yet to be examined. T he s oil m oisture s ensor (SMS) is a device that has the potenti al to save 20 60 % of household water commonly used on landscape irrigation. A municipal water utility evaluated the effectiveness of SMS by installing them for free in the yards of customers who were high water users These are households that value their lawn but often do not know how to maintain it and they appl y more water tha n is needed. A tech nology which can automatically apply or shu t off water as needed could be a valuable addition to irrigation thesis examine s the adoption potential for s oil m oisture s ensors among homeowners using a community based social marketing approach
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Study As development in Florida has increased water demand has also increased The resulting changes to the natural landscape have affected the sustainability of water resources One challenge for water managers is the overuse of water on lawns by many small private landowners: the suburban homeowner. A possible solution to th e problem of overwatering may be automated devices that make adjust ments to the irrigation timer without homeowner input. Soil m oisture s ensors (SMS) are one type of automatic shutoff device for residential i rrig ation system s that are set for a designated threshold for water use, specific to the needs of each lawn ; they m easure actual soil moisture before activating the irrigation system While the technology has proven s uccessful at lowering household water use its dissemination still depends on understanding how it fits in with homeowner landscape practices and the fact ors that encourage them to overwater in the first place. Technological solutions to limit the application of water on landscapes will not have success unless the homeowner becomes more interested, knowledgeable, and motivated to adopt and maintain new wate r conserv ation technologies. This thesis offers an alternative approach to technology adoption called community based social marketing (CBSM) in order to identify key target audiences, their barriers to acceptance and the potential incentives and normative factors that would improve dissemination of the SMS. This chapter will outline the study, showing the significance of water conservation programs and the difficulties of motivating behavior change. I will present background and the governance over its use. Then I will
12 discuss the phenomenon of suburban development in Florida, the growth of lawns and the social factors that sustain them. The overconsumptio n of water resources in the state caused by homeowner landscap ing practices is then detailed. An alternative for saving water, the soil moisture sensor, is offered as a potential solution to water waste. The chapter concludes with an outline of the goals of the thesis which answer four questions: Is SMS technolo gy seen as useful by homeowners? D oes an environmental ethic play a role in adopt ion? Do homeowners need to understand the technology to accept it? H ow can the results be used in a social marketing campaign? In Florida, increased development is both a be nefit to the economy and a concern to the environment While development is necessary growth, it permanently alters water re sources while continually increasing water demand. Whether the development is housing, industry, or agricult ure, increased population and infrastructure create their own unique problems within the landscape (Pickett et al., 2008) Situated within a n anci ent limestone and shale reef, the underground water sources in Florida are trapped in aquifers and in some pla ces, water is pressured into upwelling springs like those found in North Central Florida (Carriker & Borisova, 2013) The karst landscape, with a stratum of both impermeable and permeable rock, is covered by Mya k ka soil type, which consists largely of sand (Allen & Main, 2011). When impermeable concrete is poured and storm water drainage systems divert rain water away from structures in cities, the water does not run through the
13 sandy soil and return to recharge the aquifers and other water bodies (Carriker & Borisova, 2013) Drainage systems and other municipal systems take water in all its forms and se quester it into areas where it is temporarily or permanently cut off from the rest of the natural system (Carriker & Borisova, 2013) Evaporation and transfe r into agricultural or manufactured products are some other ways in which water is removed and made unavailable to seep through the ground into aquifers (Carriker & Borisova, 2013) Loss of water from the aquifers does more than just diminish water supply. It also interferes with the natural flow and constitution of the landscape. Confined aquifers, surface aquifers, and springs require large amounts of water to create the pressure that maintains t heir natural flow and exclu des the saltwater from the ocean (Carriker & Borisova, 20 13 ). The damage that has been caused by water withdrawal without sufficient recharge also called groundwater depletion, includes sinkholes, decreased ground water supply, decreased river flow, and dec reased water levels in springs, lakes and wetlands, and saltwater intrusion into the aquifer (Custodio, 2002). West C entral Florida, for example, has reported saltwater intrusion, appearance of sinkholes, and surface water depletion, as a result of ground water use and increased development ( Spechler, 1994 ). There is a distinction between water consumption and water withdrawal. Water withdr awal is the water rces such as lakes or aquifers while w ater consumption is wat er that is pumped but held unavailable for source recharge. Both water withdr awal and water consumption remove the water needed for ecological purposes such river and stream flow and for overall
14 water supply (Borisova & Carriker, 20 09 ) The foll owing is a consideration of water demand in Florida for various sectors and it s e ffects. Water D emand Water withdrawal in Florida is driven by six main, overlapping purposes: agricultural irrigation, commercial use, power generation, domestic self supplied use, recreational irrigation, and public supply (Borisova & Carriker, 2009). Water withdrawal fluctua tes monthly due to variation in temperature, precipitation, crop production and tourism (Marella, 200 9 ). Total water withdrawal in 2005 amounted to 18,369 m illion gallons per day (Mgal/d), groundwater withdrawals providing 60 % of that total (Marella 200 9 ) Agriculture In 2005, agricultural production accounted for 2,766.18 Mg/d (million gallons per day), which is 40 % the water is from ground sources and the other half from surface wate rs (Marella, 200 9 ). Other than public supply, agriculture is the leading purpose for freshwater withdrawals in Florida. One example of the impact of agriculture can be seen in the Florida Everglades once cover ing 11,000 square miles, but now less than 2,0 00 square miles. Much of the land was first drained for crop production, and through construction of canals, levees, and pump stations built in the 1950s and 60s, more surface water became available for thousands of acres of sugarcane and vegetables (Grunw ald, 2006; Marella, 2009). Each day, 1.7 billion gallons of water are channeled from the Everglades into the ocean (DEP, 2011).
15 Comm ercial I ndustrial S elf S upplied Seven percent of total freshwater utilized by Florida in 2005 was in commercial industrial self supplied use (488.33 mg/d). Facilities included in this category are prisons, schools, hospitals and non manufacturing facilities. The Floridan aquifer supplied 78 % of the water for this category. The remaining water came from s urface waters from cre eks catchments in unnamed mining pits and from rivers Mining accounted for the largest water use (40 % ), followed by paper and pulp manufacture rs (28 % ) (Marella, 200 9 ; pg 20) and then other facilities (32 % ). Power G eneration During the 1950s and 1960s, freshwater withdrawals fluctuated due to construction of new power facilities In 2005, there were a total of 66 active power generation facilities and an additional 4 power plants for standby use while one is shut down for maintenance. More than 12 ,042 Mgal/d of water were reportedly withdrawn for power generation in 2005 freshwater making up 5 % (558 Mgal/d), and saline amounting to 95 % (11,484 Mgal/d) of the total water. The saline waters came from surface waters, which may include brackish, salt or fresh water, in accordance with tidal patterns Eighty two percent of the freshwater withdrawals came from the Floridan Aquifer. Since the peak of water withdrawal s for power plants in 1985, total yearly withdrawals have decreased or are nearly consta nt. Power generation accounts for nearly all (99.9 % ) saline water withdrawals. Between 1990 and 2005, withdrawals for saline water increased 12 % but freshwater decreased 29 % while the total amount of gross power generated statewide increased 59 % betwee n 1990 and 2005 (Marella, 2009)
16 The purpose for most of the total water (98 % ) used by power generating companies is once through cooling purposes, and the water used is returned to its source immediately after use (Marella, 2009). More freshwater is con sumed during the hot season, due to t he need for its use in cooling and increased public power demand ; the highest withdrawals are from June through October (Marella, 2009). Although e lectric utilities are efficient in their use of water (Marella, 200 9 ), they along with bottling companies, are exempt from needing consumptive permits to withdraw waters from aquifers, lakes, or rivers in Florida (Holt, 2005) Recreational I rrigation Recreational irrigation is water application generally for commercial or public lands like golf courses athletic fields, cemeteries, common public or highway areas, parks, playgrounds, and lawns (primarily nonresidential, but may include some residential lawns that are measured with a separate irrigation meter Recreational irr igation accounted for 4 % of total fresh groundwater withdrawals in 2005, and 6 % of total fresh surface water withdrawals. Water withdrawal for recreational irrigation in 2005 totaled 330 Mgal/d of freshwater, 52 % (171 Mgal/d) being from groundwater, and 48 % (159 Mgal/d) from surface water. In many cases, surface water sources for recreational irrigation are supplemented either with ground water or reclaimed water. Reclaimed wastewater from treated domestic wastewater facilities amounted to an additional 321 Mgal/d, and the Florida aquifer system supplie d more than one half (nearly 55 % ) of withdrawals. Aesthetic uses for this category include water used to fill or maintain nonagricultural ponds Swimming pools may be found in this category, but accordin g to
17 Ozan and Alsharif, (2012), swi mming pools were not found to be a significant ly greater water consumer for comparable homes. In 1985, data was differentiated for use on golf courses. Golf course irrigation was the largest user for the recreational use category in 20 05, amounting to 225 Mgal/d (69 % of water withdrawals and 110 Mgal/d (34 % ) of reclaimed wastewater. Seventy percent of land in this category is golf courses, while the remaining is for turf grass for public lands or other landscape uses. The total water withdrawn for recreational irrigation increased 82 % between 1985 and 2005, and golf course acreage increased 62 % Withdrawals for recreational irrigation see large sea sonal fluctuations, because water is largely dependent first on rainfall. Withdrawals increased during March, April and May (36 % of the yearly water used), and were at the lowest in 2005 during months June through Sep tember (Marella, 200 9 ). Domestic S elf S upplied Domestic water use includes indoor and outdoor residential use, and all withdrawals are assumed to be from groundwater sources, accounting for well water use. Populations for this category are obtained by subtracting the populations served by pub lic supply systems from total county population. Withdrawals are calculated by supplied population served for each county. Amounts in water withdrawal ranged between 190 and 300 Mgal/d in years between 1975 and 2005 (Marella, 200 9 ). Public Supply Public suppliers are utility companies and managers that provide water delivery for residential, commercial, industrial, public use and other uses. Florida ranked first in
18 the n ation in groundw ater withdrawals for public supply. Nearly 90 % (16.13 million) of supply system. Of those residents, 89 % (14.40 million) relied on groundwater sources and the remaining rel ie d on surface water. Alachua County where the study took place, withdrew 60.56 mg/d, almost 99 % of which is from groundwater sources (Marella, 200 9 ) Water Governance The Florida Water Resources Act of 1972 established authority for management of the (WMD s ) They operate under the general supervision of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Marella, 200 9 ; Fernald & Patton, 1984). The five WMDs have been charged with maintaini ng and protecting the water supply for the citizens of Florida in partnership with utility companies and local and state governments. See Figure 1 1 WMDs have alert ed citizens to problems in supply and have helped plan fo r sustainable use of resources. T hey are also responsible for the management of all competing uses. Water Resource Caution Areas : S igns of S tress on the R esource A ll Florida WMDs have reported areas with critical water supply problems or areas projected to have problems within 20 years. These Water Resource Caution Areas (WRCAs) are declarations of an looming problem in the projected future supply of clean water given current development trends. The Northwest Florida Water Management District (NFWMD) designated the southern portion of Oka loosa, and Santa Rose Counties and the Telogia Creek Basin in Gadsden County to be the WRCAs in the district. The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) designated four areas as WRCAs; the South Florida Water Management Di strict
19 (SFWMD) desig nated 90 % of its district as a caution area, and the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJ R WMD) designated its entire district as a WRCA (FDEP, 20 12 ). The Suwannee District was the final one to report a WRCA : in 2010 four of its river water basin s are expected to have problems within the next 20 years. The city of Gainesville, Florida, falls under both SJ R WMD and SRWMD jurisdiction, with a majority belong ing to SJRWMD The soil moisture sensor study with homeowners was sponsor ed by the SJRWMD in an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of this technology for saving water. It was administered through the local utility compan y, Gainesville Regional Utilities A map of SJRWMD jurisdiction is provided in Figure 1 2 The SJRWMD has the second largest population with about 25 % of total Florida residents ( about 4.46 million ) It also has the largest self supplied population (0.6 million people) and accounts for the second largest total freshwater withdrawals in the state (19 % ) (Marell a, 2009) Setting Minimum Flow s and Levels to Limit Future Withdrawals By Florida Law, ( Section 373.042, F.S. ) WMDs must establish Minimum Flow and Levels (MFLs) These are water quantity limits for lakes, streams, rivers and aquifers and when measures g o below the MFL, it signifies danger for ecologically important fish populations and for recreation (Annear & Conder, 1984) Also established are m inimum water levels at which further ground or surface withdrawal would be significantly harmful to water res ources in the area (Silk et al. 2000 ) MFLs are constructed by utilizing elevation transects extending from open water to its surrounding uplands ( Neubauer et al. 2008) MFLs are decided in a process that begins with public workshops The decisions reached in these workshops are review ed by the Florida Department of Environmental
20 Protection, and the n the MFLs are adopted as rules a nd are publi shed in the Florida Administrative Weekly MFLs are to be reviewed periodically and revised as necessary unde r Florida law (Subsection 373.0421(3), F.S.). This information, as well as historical record, help guide conservation and r egulation strategies and decisions on permitting and water restrictions. Governance E fforts to Encourage Residential Conservation Flo rida statutes encourag e conservation as a water demand limiting strategy S hut off devices for irrigation systems (§373.62) water conserving landscape choices (§373.185) and reclaimed water systems (§373.250) are supported by Florida Statutes In response to these directives, Water Management Districts and utilities impose timing restrictions rationing, pric e schemes and encourage the use of water saving technology (Lund, 1995; Renwick & Archibald, 1998; Ozan & Alsharif, 201 2 ). Many municipal ities have instituted one day a week watering restrictions, especially during the winter season when most lawns go dormant. In addition, management authorities advocate landscape design that uniquely caters to local soil and climate conditions Both mandat ory and voluntary water restrictions have been issued according to the amounts of rainfall and water use for Gainesville, Florida by the water management districts covering Alachua County. Under normal conditions, WMDs have restrict ed watering lawns to cer tain days of the week and times of day Utility companies use incentives and rebates for water conservation technology adoption The Barriers to Conservation: Development Patterns and Lawns Between 2000 and 2010, total housing units increased in Alachua County by 18.56 % (112,766) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Urban sprawl has claimed land for residences while lawns have replaced farmland (Milesi, et al, 2009). Water
21 management districts scramble to plan for potable water sources for an increasing populatio n of consumers Meanwhile, many Florida homeowners with in ground irrigation systems use approximately 60 % of household water from public supply to preserve their landscape (Mayer et al., 1999; Haley et al., 2007 ; Haley & Dukes, 2012). Further landscap e c hange is expected with an increasing population and higher demand for water (Milesi, et al. 2005) making lawns a focus of water conservation efforts by management authorities (Russel l & Fielding, 2010) Lawns and H istory S ince the late 1800s residential lawns have been widely marketed and advertise d in the United States (Jenkins, 1994). U pwardly mobile Americans during the post WWII housing boom had increased acce ss to a turfgrass lawn and it became a status symbol for affluent homeowners (Skardon, 1962; Jenkins, 1994). The lawn ideal, a thick, uniform expanse of grass, has been symbolically tied to patriotism, unity, and the retention of social and moral order (Feagan and Ripmeester, 1999 ; Dorse y, 2010; Ozan & Alsharif, 2012). Through media and adver tising, the lawn took root in the American psyche, where acceptable yards were associated with a socially accepted lifestyle Within neighborhoods, t he successful lawn maker became the turf evangelist for his neighborhood The no rmative belief was that lawn cultivation was the mark of a good citizen and neighbors encouraged that behavior with each other (Feagan and Ripmeester, 1999; Dorsey, 2010; Ozan & Alsharif, 2012) Turfgrass and soil However, the s andy Myakka soil does not hold applied moisture, and multiple water applications have been necessary to keep lawn quality St. Augustine grass and Bermuda grass have required irrigation twice or three times weekly for acceptable qua lity during the
22 summer (Trenholm et al., 2002). St. August ine and Bermuda grass have often been for lawn s in Florida suburb developments. These types of grass and their maintenance are incorporated into homeowner deed r estrictions. Landscape D esign for Conservation Xeriscaping has been recommended as an alternative to turfgrass lawns in landscaping Xeriscaping is a water conservation planning methodology that involves seven practices that would ideally maintain and nurt ure healthy landscapes: 1) adequate planting and design, 2) soil amendments, 3) drought tolerant plant selection, 4) smaller turf areas, 5) efficient irrigation, 6) use of mulch ing and 7) appropriate maintenance (Welsch et al., 1998). These themes wer e adapted by University of Florida researchers and the resulting program to encourage best landscaping practices for Florida was called Florida F riendly L and scape Gamer, et al., 1996 ). The FFL Program has nine principles : 1. Right plant, right place. This p rinciple advocates the best plant for the area based on soil, water tolerance under the most natural occurring circumstances requiring the low est inputs of water, pesticides, or fertilizers. 2. Water efficiently. Irrigating the yard only when it needs water c an cut do wn on withdrawals from the aquifer and potentially damaging the plants by overwatering 3. Fertilize appropriately. Fertilizing plants too much is a waste of money and can lead to runoff i nto stormwater systems 4. Mulch. Mulching t he soil cuts down on weeds, and also holds moisture in the s oil, saving the need to water 5. Attract wildlife. Plants that would attract wildlife lend to the health of your yard, as well as some aesthetic ally pleasing encounters.
23 6. Manage pests responsibly. Using pesticides in an incorrect manner can harm pets and family members. Pesticides must be used as directed and only when needed 7. Recycle yard waste Grass clippings and other substances can add to nitrogen in water bodies if not disposed of responsibly. In this case, the gra ss can be used as fertilizer right back on the grass instead of falling into storm drains and contributing to algal growth in water bodies. 8. Reduce stormwater runoff. pesticides and fertilizer from lawns can leach and run off and cause non point source pollution. The university recommends keeping water on the property by limiting impermeable surfaces and building rain gardens to let rainwater soak into the ground. 9. Protect the waterfront. Buffer zones of 10 feet should be established around waterbodies to reduce pollution runoff. I nvasive aquatics should be eliminated while natural plants should be maintained carefully These nine princ iples are a design inspired solution to water waste and they depend on behavior changes among residents. In contrast the Soil Moisture Sensor is a technological solution emphasizing efficiency of water use while still maintaining a healthy lawn WMDs have worked alongside utility companies and policy mak ers to encourage adherence to the FFL conservatio n practices and have also encourage d the use of rebates for water conservation technology purchase and Installation. Social C hallenge s to C onservation E fforts Enlisting the public in water conservation prog rams has met with mixed results in many cities, rarely resulting in significant water savings (Harlan et al., 2009; Eden & Megdal, 2006). The t ur fgrass lawn continues to be a dominant landscape despite the financial and environmental cost. Th is social phen omenon of costly lawn maintenance was described by Jenkins (1994), who noted the paradox of homeowner concern for the environment and the wasteful actions taken to maintain their lawns. In opposition to serious conservation efforts is the reality that turfgrass lawns raise property values and have been found to contribute to social order in a
24 neighborhood ( Byrne, 2005; Pickett et al., 2008; Nash, 1982; Feagan & Ripmeester, 1999; Dorsey, 2010). Accordingly, many their housing agreements that set standard s for lawns in their neighborhoo ds (Ozan & Alsharif, 201 2 ) A cceptable grass species, uniformity in species, grass height and thickness, and the use of irrigation systems have been some requirements listed in neigh borhood housing deeds or agreements Deviation from the standard can res ult in penalties such as warnings or even fines association successfully sued a man for despite the fact that the design sav ed 5 ,000 gallons of water per month (Robbins, 2007) Florida law now defends water efficient lawns, providing they follow the standards of the program ( § 720.3075 (4)) Increasingly strict i rrigation ordinances are believed to be one reason homeowners are changing their landscapes to low maintenance, low energy designs that wo uld still be aesthetic ally pleasing while using fewer resources (Hansen, et al. 2012) However, despite the encouragement of best practices in lawn maintenance, the lawn continues to be viewed as a social and financial investment, and a status symbol of the affluent Despite water supply concerns, and despite higher utility prices for higher users, the lawn is still a source of excessive household water use (Kurz et al., 2005 ; Dorsey, 2009). Can Environmental Theory Help Us Understand Landscaping Behavior ? What is the answer to changing behaviors to conserve more water among homeowners with turfgrass landsca pes? Environmental theory has shown that p ortions of the population are more likely to adopt certain water conservation technologies and behaviors than others This has been observed by Gilg and Barr (2006) and Corral
25 Verdugo and Frias Armenta (2006). Gil g and Barr (2006) identified four different groups based on environmental behavior: the committed environmentalists, mainstream environmentalists, occasional environmentalists and non environmentalists Corral Ver dugo & Frias Armenta, (2006) wro te that, on an individual level, antisocial or less involved persons are less altruistic and tend to act against the environment, which coincides with the non environmentalist group in Gilg and Barr (2006). Ajzen and Fishbein (1993) created a theoretical model (the Theory of Reasoned Action) that attempts to predict behavioral intention that is, the attitudes and beliefs toward a behavior that can impact whether a new behavior is performed. Despite its popular use in research, the Theory of Reasoned Action has been criticized for assuming that people make reasonabl e decisions, its emphasis on attitude change affecting behavior change, and limited attention to barriers or the means by which the actor has control over the behavior. The other categories described in the model, normative behavior and attitudes, are popularly applied toward lawn maintenance behavior to account for group pressure in landscaping (Jenkins, 1994). of Reasoned Action, targeting technology acceptance as the final behavior change, and was used primarily with Information technology. It provided for a directive toward This has some relevance to SMS because it is seen as an easy technology for adopters. philosophical values as factors leading to a behavior, and dir ects it more toward an
26 environmental behavior. There are five components of this model: personal philosophical values, environmental awareness, emotions, perceived control, and environmental behavior. Personal Philosophical values are found to be the most emotion directly affects behavior, although the causes of the emotion may be more complex than the model implies. The five components were described by Grob as motivat ions that lead to environmental behavior. Different paradigms have been described by some authors regarding the interface of people with their environment. The Human Exception Paradigm is that which is anthropocentric and technology reliant confidence that humans can change and adapt the environment to their wishes. Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) developed an environmental paradig m in opposition to that where the interface is more eco centric and human beings are thought to be just a component of the larger en vironment or system. The most recent paradigm described by Corral Verdugo and others (2008), the New Human Interdependence Pa radigm (NHIP), is a compromise between the two extremes. These paradigms can be studied to further categorize individuals into segm ents of the population that can be targeted Although not specifically designed for environmental behaviors, Everett Rogers (1995) model of technological diffusion lends itself to understanding the process of the social acceptance of a technology. For R ogers, the population that is faced with a new technology can be split into five groups: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. As a population begins to adopt a new technology they form a bell curve with the majority in t he middle. The initial innovators lead the diffusion
27 process and the curve begins to decline with the few laggards who the last to adopt. Rogers also provided an ideal model for extension services to disseminate new technologies as well as a description o f the individual adoption decision process. Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM ) is an alternative to the above theories and paradigms The field of CBSM draws on marketing theory by emphasizing target audiences for change and the active lowering of barriers to a specific target behavior pinion leaders as partners in campaign s to influence individual behavior change for the benefit of the public. More information on environmental theory and CBSM and they role they play in SMS adoption will be provided in the literature review in Chapter 2. Problem The purpose of the study is to evaluate the beliefs, attitudes and experience of households using S oil M oisture S ensor (SMS) in order to understand the factors that influence the ad option of water conservation technologies and behaviors. Understanding this process may assist in marketing the device to a larger scale audience D espite much effort devoted to water conservation campaigns, lawn loving homeowners have continued to overwa ter their lawns, wasting resources. Understanding the perspective of the homeowner is the first step to achieving a technological solution to the problem of water waste on lawns Soil Moisture Sensors (SMS ) are devices attached to the irrigation system th at override regularly timed watering if the moisture content of the soil is above a set threshold (Olmstead & Dukes, 2008). An SMS controller is an irrigation shut off device that is similar to a rain sensor but is placed underneath the mat of turf instead of on a rain gutter or roof. The SMS reads the moisture levels in the soil directly while a Rain
28 Sensor (RS) determines whether the system should irrigate based on rainfall (Haley & Dukes, 2012). Both innovations provide water to a thirsty landscape but s ense the need for water by different means. The rain sensor technology has several limitations such as deteriorating parts and problems if it is not located properly, while the SMS is seen as a more precise means of providing feedback to the irrigation sys tem because of its direct reading of soil moisture content (Haley & Dukes, 2012). While r ain sensors have been studied and accepted by industry SMS controllers have yet to become accepted by many landscape professionals and homeowners Field tests for SM S technology have been performed for agricultural crops in Florida I n one study, SMS use increased irrigation water use efficiency 2 3 times compared to timing treatments for tomato and pepper crops (Zotarelli, et al. 2006). Multiple agricultural field tests of SMS devices resulted in increased water use efficiency diminishing fertilizer leaching and run off and thereby contribut ing to money savings in fertili zer and increased crop productivity. (D ukes, Zotarelli & Morgan, 2010). One controlled study of SMS with residential landscapes reduced water demand between 69 and 92 % during normal wet weather conditions and between 28 and 83 % during dry weather conditi ons (Cardenas Lailhacar, et al., 2008). In another study conducted over 9 months, homes with SMS used 51 % less water than homes using only irrigation timers (Haley et al., 2007). These savings occurred without any loss in turf grass health. Justification for the present study is found in Florida Statute §373.62 which requires all new automatic of the sprinkler system when adequate rainfall has occ (Florida S tatutes, Part VI;1)
29 Objectives This study to 1) e valuate homeowner opinion of the SMS device, 2) examine homeowner environmental beliefs 3 ) compare the black box approach to an informed approach for advancement of SMS adoption, and 4) tailor the results to a Community Based Social Marketing campaign for SMS adoption. The objectives o f the study are expounded below. Homeowner opinions of SMS. The homeowner s involved in the pilot study were asked a series of questions either in focus g roups or in personal interviews, such as their interaction with the device, and their perceptions on its usefulness and whether it filled some need in their landscape practices or their desire to conserve water Knowing these answers helped to understand t he barriers to interactio n with the technology, and helped evaluate potential market perceptions of the device. E nvironmental and technological beliefs. In order to evaluate the usefulness of different paradigms of environmental beliefs, and whether they motivated behavio r questions were asked of the study participants on the ir beliefs about conservation. E x ploring the beliefs surrounding SMS use and the environment might illuminate a common phenomenon or tendency linking beliefs and specific behaviors. Black box vs. informed approach. In effort to understand how the message and adoption of the device may be received the answers to two different interventions were compared utilizing the approach to introducing the SMS device. One was a ch where the homeowner had the technology installed without much explanation. The other was an informed approach where educational materials were provided in addition to online support and a follow up to installation. In adoption of a techn ology, homeowner s may enjoy the freedom that comes from automation and
30 function of the device and not desire more information, or they may require information and desire more control over its functioning. T ailor the results to a Community Based Social Marketing campaign Finally, t he principles of CBSM were applied to prepare for plan ning in adoption of SMS devices to benefit the environment, but tailored to the audience and situation. T his evaluation from the pilot study is essential for developing a socially targeted act ion plan. Significance of the Study The utility company which instituted the pilot study wanted to document the opinions of high water users targeted for the study. An addition to accounting for the water saved during the pilot study the technological adva ntage of a functioning SMS in terms of gallons per day saved the utility company also wanted to evaluate the opinions of their clients and explore the most efficient and effective means to SMS a doption by households. In contrast to the first round of insta approach, in which the SMS device was provided with little explanation, an informed approach was also used in which clients were provided education and training with the device. A survey instrument was created to incorporat ed f unctional opini ons of the device with the effects of the black box approach and the informed approach to the adoption, as well as the benefits and barriers associated with use There has been littl e published research as to SMS t homeowners. Most studies focus on the efficiency of the Soil Moisture Sensor as a water saving device. However, to the applied nature of this research, th is study was most useful for utilities and water managers for the develop ment of future campaigns, as well as for the manufacturers and installers of soil moisture sensor technology.
31 Recommendations were lastly given on how high water consumers may be effectively engaged in the future Limitations and Assumptions The use of SM S as a tool for the focus of conservation motivations may be limited due to the specificity of the technology and its application that is, each brand may be slightly different and installed or maintain if different ways. In addition, the choice of using A lachua County residents implies that the results may not be transferable to a greater population although similarities may exist between the participants and other Florida resident s. Validity was ensured with multiple researcher oversight and outside infor mation from the local utility. Chapter Summary districts charged with ensuring the future of water resources. Past drainage projects supported the agricultural boom of the south and have cleared the way for population increase and urban sprawl. As climate change limits predictability of weather and saltwater intrusion threatens, groundwater depletion is a concern in providing water to an increasing population in Florida. The chall enge water managers and utilities prepare to meet is with efficient water use. Since 1991, power companies have decreased their dependency on freshwater withdrawals in favor of saline waters, and power generated has increased 59 % much of this returned im mediately to the source after cooling use. Public supply in Florida is the deliverer of potable household water through utilities, with the source of 99 % coming from groundwater Five WMDs were directed by the legislature to maintain and protect water sou rces, and lowering water demand through
32 efficient water use is a common strategy Conservation is an effort to lower water demand in Florida by providing more efficiency in water use. Through government policy and programs, water managers have sought to water waste on residential lawns, Gainesville Regional Util ities partnered with St. Johns River Water Management District to pilot test a S MS technology through a pilot test with 35 households Using behavior change theory and environmental paradi gms a survey garding the SMS. The impact of the SMS device will depend on widespread successful adoption. Objectives of this evaluation were to 1) evaluate the perspective of the homeowner in regards to the usefulness and ease of use of the Soil Moisture Sensor, 2) examine the beli efs surrounding SMS use and environment al attitudes f or indicators of a tendency to link b eli efs and specific behaviors, 3) the homeowner does not understand the technology to an informed approach, and 4) to utilize results in recommending a Community Based Social Marketing campaign.
33 Table 1 1 Total water withdrawals in Florida by category, 2005. U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Water Science Center Tallahassee; all values in million gallons per day. Florida 2005 Freshwater Saline water All water Ground Surface Total Ground Surface Total Total Public supply 2,201.26 339.26 2,540.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,540.52 Domestic self supplied 190.38 0.00 190.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 190.38 Commercial industrial self supplied 365.56 122.77 488.33 0.00 1.19 1.19 489.52 Agricultural self supplied 1,301.57 1,464.61 2,766.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,766.18 Recreational irrigation 171.03 158.61 329.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 329.64 Power generation 17.56 540.52 558.08 3.26 11,481.10 11,484.36 12,042.44 State totals: 4,247.36 2,625.77 6,873.13 3.26 11,482.29 11,485.55 18,358.68
34 Figure 1 Water Management Districts. (Neubauer et al. 2008)
35 Figure 1 2 Florida. Alachua County is divided between The Suwannee River Water Management District to the southeast. Gainesville, the setting of this study is within the boundaries of SJRWMD, although some participants of the study may be locat ed on the border or in SRWMD jurisdiction. (SJRWMD, 2012)
36 Figure 1 3 Groundwater level statistics for a point in High Springs, Suwannee River Water Management District. This shows the variation in water levels along with historic lows and highs and minimum recorded level for this point (SRWMD, 2012)
37 CHAPTER 2 USING THEOR Y, POLICY AND SOCIAL MARKETING TO PROMOTE CONSERVATION The purpose of the study is to evaluate the beliefs, attitudes and experie nce of households using Soil Moisture Sensor (SMS) for the purpose of forming a well informed marketing campaign T he stated objectives were 1) to evaluate homeowner opinion of the SMS device, 2) examine homeowner environmental and technological advancement of SMS adoption, and 4) to tailor the results to a Community Based Social Marketing campaign for SMS adoption. This s tudy can contribute to the body of research on diffusion of innovations (Rogers 1995 ) and the wider body of action research concerning technology adoption. An alternative approach to encouraging adoption of SMS technology is community based social market ing and this study illustrates how that approach could be applied Environmental Theory Environmentalism is a concept based on the limits to resources and the need to conserve them (Hardin 1977 Conservation behavior results whenev er individuals take on a personal responsibility for environmental stewardship. A number of studies have sought to predict conservation behavior by linking it to demographic and situational factors ( Corral Verdugo, 2003, Gilg and Barr 2006; Corra l Verdugo & Frias Armenta, 2006 ) Environmental paradigms are often based on the understanding that beliefs lead to behavior. Attitudes and beliefs are the main focus of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). B oth the Technology Acceptance Mo dels (TAM) and Environmental Beliefs (EB) model are two of the many variants on the TRA model. In addition, Ev diffusion of
38 innovations is a good descriptor of how an innovation is adopted among individuals and through a population on a larger scale (Rogers 1995) Demographic P redictor s of B ehavior A number of studies have sought to predict conservation behavior by linking it to demographic and situational factors (Corral Verdugo et al., 2003). Gilg and Barr (2006) identified four different groups based on environmental behavior: the committed environmentalists, mainstream environmentalists, occasional environmentalists and non environmentalists. Those that were non environmentalists were young m ales with lower income, with a focus on luxuries rather than frugality, while committed environmentalists, on the other side of the ordinal grouping, were older and had membership in a community organization, own ed their own home, had smaller household siz es and terraced properties, and were more likely to vote Green or Liberal Democrat. The committed and mainstream environmentalists were those most likely to state that their neighbors and friends usually helped the environment, with non environmentalists t he least likely to state that commitment. Antisocial or less involved persons were less altruistic and tend ed to act against the environment (Gilg and Barr 2006; Corral Verdugo & Frias Armenta, 2006). However, research shows it is difficult to establish a significant relationship between environmental beliefs and water conservation (Mainieri et al., 1997; Corral Verdugo & Armendariz, 2000). This may be because measurement involved only general environmental beliefs. Corral Verdugo et al. (2003) made an asse ssment more directly focused on water resource beliefs, resulting in a significant link mediating between general environmental beliefs and the more specific beliefs about water. General beliefs were not found to be specifically influencing water consumpti on, and the researchers concluded that general
39 environmental beliefs were not good direct predictors of specific water consumption behavior. Instead, the relation was found to be mediated between a specific behavior by a specific related belief. A scale in dicating specific beliefs was given to participants in the study, and compared with household observations of water use. Those participants who admit a need for setting a limit on human growth and exploitation are those that see water as a resource to save indicated by conservation activities such as re using sink or tub water for irrigation or limiting the rinse cycle to once while washing clothes. One segment of the population is known to have both concern for natural resource sustainability and they utiliz e resources responsibly. A consistent percentage of people who report going above and beyond recommended behaviors have been the actors in th e diffusion process of adoption. These may be the opinion leaders who are more likely to be the voluntary innovators t hat catalyze diffusion Environmental Paradigms The field of environmental sociology has produced research linking beliefs to the motivations for environmental behavior. One of the first scales to measure general environmental beliefs is the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP), developed by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978). These belief s are narrowed down to the individual assumptions of balance and limits on the human impact on the environment. If there is a balance in nature, and humans are a part of that balance, humans must be wary of their effects on the whole. If resources are limi ted, then the use of them must also be limited. Alternatively, the Human Exception Paradigm (HEP) concludes that humanity is the exception and humans have the power to manipulate the environment and utilize
40 resources how they see fit. These two paradigms f orm a dichotomy where a person or people could view the environment either anthropocentrically (HEP) or eco centrically (NEP). Another model combines anthropocentric ecocentric views into the New Human Interdependence Paradigm (NHIP) ( Corral Verdugo, C ar rus, Bonnes, Moser and Sinha 2008). The NHIP corresponds to beliefs commonly affi liated with the sustainability m ovement by linking t he well being of current and future human societies to the ability to care for a proper renewal and restoration of natura used to measure this paradigm takes into account a mixture of views regarding environmentalism, without a sharp dichotomy of eco centric versus anthropocentric environmental beliefs. One limitation of the study is that par ticipant samples from the New Human Interdependence Paradigm were not from the United States. They were from four countries: India, Mexico, Italy and France. Geographically, each of these would have unique settings and cultures which would provide for diff erent attitudes and barriers to behavior. Attitudes and Beliefs and T heir Impact on Water Conservation In the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) have found that personal attitude has a great effect on behavior but that is has been confounded by normative beliefs toward the environment. The Theory of Reasoned Action model accounts for actual behavior based on the following main factors: Behavioral Beliefs, Normative Beliefs, and Control Beliefs U tilizing the T RA model has been advocated to help encourage adoption of a behavior, either by affecting behavioral beliefs or normative beliefs by increasing knowledge and by eliminating barriers to the behavior by influencing the personal control one has over that beha vior. Health research has
41 been performed using this model regarding condom use (Albarracin, Johnson, Fishbein, and Muellerlleile, 2001) and breastfeeding (Manstead, Proffitt & Smart, 1983) as well as AIDS risk related behaviors (Fishbein & Middlestadt, 19 89) Behavioral beliefs are beliefs by individuals surrounding the specific target behavior N ormative be liefs are beliefs about the behavior by others and the extent to which these beliefs of others would influence the individuals, and control beliefs a re the beliefs surrounding the ability or inability to change ones behavior. Ajzen and Fishbein constructed Likert type questions for their study participants and graded the answers on a scale, comparing the scores to actual behavior. The model describes influence on behavior but apart from knowledge gained does not aid in planning interventions. Norms and Neighborhood Behaviors Utilizing the TRA model, homeowner landscaping behavior is influenced by pervasive so cial norms that are reinforced through medi a and through communities and neighborhoods. These normative pressures encourage homeowners to maintain a landscape that is prone to consume s more wate r than it needs (Jenkins, 1994; Haley et al., 2007). In the case of irrigating turf, th e TRA model shows that beliefs form an attitude toward the current behavior by the individual, and a wide scale normative understanding of the acceptability of the behavior ( Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Fishbein and Yzer (2003) oward a particular behavior by persuading someone to believe differently about the behavior and by augmenting the Convincing households to change their irrigation behavior might depend on their actual ability to perform the task.
42 (1995) Fishbein (1979) wrote that the Theory of Reasoned Action does not include factors of personality or values because they do not add to the goal of behavior prediction Grob (1995) in contrast, integrated emotion and person al phil osophical values into his model. T he main categories for this model are: Personal Philosophical Values, Environmental Awareness, Emotions, Perceived control, and Environmental Behavior. When s peaking of Environmental Awareness, Grob states that this involves two factors : 1) Factual knowledge of the environment, and 2) recognition of environmental problems. However, researchers described a gap between knowledge of the environment and recognition of the problems Grob also highlighted the importance of Perceived Control, which include the efficacy o f science and technology, and self efficacy. The idea of Perceived Control applies to the SMS project, with homeowner beliefs about technology, trust o f technology, and self efficacy The extent to which the participant trusts technology and is comfortable with its use may m otivate or discourage acceptance of the device. Personal Philos o phical Values presents a case for involving self identification que stions in the study, and those which can identify environmental paradigms of thought that could be commonly seen in Environmental Psychology research. This category for motivation is directly related to segmentation of the population based on what values p articipants ascribe to, or the environmental paradigm of belief they can be identified with. How do they describe themselves? Do they value conservation or do they value the opinions of their neighbors or friends? These values feed directly in to the emotio ns toward behavior and into the other categories of Environmental Awareness
43 and Perceived control, as well as directly affecting the behavior itself. Grob therefore labels this category as the most influential toward behavior (Grob, 1995) Emotion is the l influence behavior. According to Verhage (1978), m arked behavior change sometimes only comes about when there is an identifiable crisis. Emotion is influenced primarily by Personal Philosophical Values, and directly af fects the Environmen tal Behavior, according to about their water use or fear of consequences from Homeowner Associations or other authority. Specificity in E nvironmental B ehav ior R esearch Research shows it is difficult to establish a significant relationship between environmental beliefs and water conservation behavior (Mainieri et al., 1997; Corral Verdugo & Armendariz, 2000). This may be because measurement involved general environmental beliefs. Corral Verdugo et al (2003) made an assessment singularly focused on water resource beliefs, resulting in a significant link between general environmental beliefs and the more specific beliefs about water. General beliefs were not f ound to specifically influenc e water consumption, and the researchers concluded that general environmental beliefs were not good direct predictors of specific water consumption behavior. Instead, the relation was found to be mediated between a specific beh avior by a specific related belief. One of the admitted limitations of the TRA model was a & Warshaw 1988 ) In the ir meta analysis, the reliability of the TRA model to predict behavior change was questioned as well as the ability to direct the researcher to a point where an intervention can be performed. They assert that the generality of the model makes it insufficient for use in
44 behavioral change. In fact, many variants on TRA have been created to specifically tail or the behavior change model to a prescribed behavior one of which deals specifically with technology acceptance, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Moore & Benbasat, 1996). This model created and tested by Davis (1985) deals almost exclusively with I nformation Systems research, or adoption of a technology product or service as in Information Technologies. Corral Verdugo (2003) tested a scale indicating specific beliefs to participants and c ompared it with household observations of water use. Those par ticipants who admit a need for setting a limit on human growth and exploitation are those that see water as a resource to save, and practiced conservation activities such as re using sink or tub water for irrigation or limiting the rinse cycle to once whil e washing clothes. By targeting the adoption of a water conservation device, other beliefs and understanding concerning water, irrigation, and conservation can be explored, but the definition of the prescribed behavior is extremely important in that it dir ects action research and diminishes ambiguity that may inhibit study. Rogers and the Diffusion of Innovation innovation within a population. The specific behavior researched in this stu dy was the adoption of a SMS for use in residential landscapes. In the case of this pilot study, the successful adoption of a soil moisture sensor might be described with curve. In order to be successful, the new innovation has to have a r elative advantage over the old practice (Rogers, 1995 ) I t also has to be consistent with existing cultural patterns (Barnett, 1953).
45 model for adoption of an innovation forms a bell curve where five characterized population segments sequentially adopt the innovation. The five population categories indicated by adoption behavior are: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and late adopters. Innovators are those who adopt the innovation readily and can possibly be opinion leaders who sustain the impetus to diffuse the technology across communication to the early adopters. Then the late adopters and finally a few laggards follow suit. Rogers (1995) provided for the kinds of perceptions an individual would have toward the innovation and how this would benefit adoption. The first is relative advantage, which is the degree to which an innovation is perceived to be better than another similar option. Is the S MS a better choice than using a rain s ensor? How is it relative to using only an irrigation timer? Compatibility is another perceived attribute of innovation which is the degree to which the SMS is consistent with the values and past experience of the adopters. The complexity of the innovatio n is a third attribute, whether i t is easy to use and understood. Trialability is the fourth attribute of a new technology and it allows participants to test it subjectively Observability is the last attribute of an innovation perceived b y an adopter, and this is the degree to which the results of an i nnovation are observed by other (Rogers, 1995) If others view benefits first hand, they are more likely to adopt the innovation. Black Box Approach to Disseminating Conservation Technology technology that is described solely based on its inputs and outputs, with no attention to understanding the object by those that adopt them (Winner, 1993). Before the 1980s, much of technology was delivered and t
46 often from an economic or logic driven hard science lens, devoid of sociological influence or understanding (Pinch & Bijker, 1984; Kallinikos, 2002; Feenburg, 2004). The black box approach is a top down authoritative approach where authority comes from the utility company, the water management district and public policy regarding automatic shut off devices. This approach could be effective where simple technology has been added to a previously accepted device for the purpose of conserving water. For example, aerators in faucets and flow restrictors installed in showers of college dormitories have been shown to save water (Sharpe & Fletcher, 1977). Seen as a technological extension o f an in ground irrigation system, the approach assumes that full understanding of the function or use of the devices is unnecessary. However, Hoff (2009) encouraged water management to be integrated vertically across all levels with particular decisions as close to individual citizens as possible, citing the ideal to be close cooperation and networks for benefit sharing. Educational Approaches for Promoting Conservation Extension Services are employed by water managers to plan and implement programs A pro gram could be defined as either activities, such as field days, demonstrations, or presentations, or a comprehensive set of activities where education is a component (Israel, Harder & Brodeur, 2010). C onservation education/awareness programs are one leadin g strategy advocated by managers and utilities (Raibhandary, et al. 2010) However, e ducation alone does not lead to conservation practices (Geller, et al., 1983). Programs conducted by the University of Florida Extension Service have had some limited suc ces s in participant adoption of best practices for irrigation and
47 based on Environmental Landscape Management practices, and was developed in 1992 by the University of Florida, Sarasota Bay, and Tampa Bay National Estuary programs, EPA, FDEP, and SWFWMD Its goal is to educate the public on creating and maintaining a lan dscape that impacts the surrounding environment as little as possible. It provides consultations and works hops to demonstrate best practices developed by field research and further adapted with continued so cial research. Another Extension program is the P rogram for Resource Efficient Communities (PR EC) that promotes the adoption of best design, construction and management practices in new residential community developments to reduce energy and water consumption and environmental degradation. P rofessionals work in partnership with utilities for research and aid in the creation of extension programs which largely emphasize an education component Evaluative surveys given after educational interventions claim a difference in attitude but fall short when these attitudes are tested with choice in action (Bickman, 1972, Geller, 1981; Geller, Erickson, & Buttram, 1983; Finger, 1994). A portion of the population not respond ing or accessed in a volunteer program can yield low return s for funds spent on the programs (McKenzie Mohr, 2000(2). Policy Approaches to Water Conservation Policy approaches to water conservation are by nature, top down adoption decisions directed by Florida law. Florida Statutes are passed by legislature as directives that can be specific but are too technical and minute to address in implementation. Florida Statute §373.185 appointed Water Management Districts to plan and implement strategies in partnership with utility companies in effort to meet
48 directives set by law (Olexa, Borisova & Broome, 2011). Water managers, scientists and policy makers are relied upon to augment water resources through creating more supply or diminishing water resource demand. Increasin g supply can be done by using more water from traditional water sources (ground water or surface water), or by using alternative sources such as desalination, water storage, or reclaimed water. Overuse of traditional sources is problematic, and t he infras tructure needed for increasing water supply with alternative sources is costly T herefore water managers pursue efforts to reduce the demand for water (Rawls & Borisova, 2009). Reducing increasing water use efficiency and water conservation. (Baumann & Boland, 1997; Rawls & Borisova, 2009) Some examples of demand management strategies are: educational programs, financial incentives for voluntary water use reduction or conservation water pricing, mandatory restrictions, and leak detection. ( Rawls & Borisova, 2009) Other conservation strategies include irrigation design and installation standards and cost share incentives (e.g., rebates) (FDEP 2002). U nder normal conditions, WMDs have comm only used mandatory watering restrictions (Raibhandary, et al. 2010) on watering lawns to certain days of the week and at specific times of the day lowering water demand. Unfortunately, water restrictions are often ignored (Haley & Duke s 2007). A t echno logical strateg y pursued to decrease the demand of water with the use of an automatic shut off device i s supported in Florida Statute § 373.62 which
49 specifically directed that water efficiency should be attained with the use of a technological device: Any person who purchases and installs an automatic sprinkler system after May 1, 1991, shall install and must maintain and operate a rain sensor device or switch that will override the irrigation cycle of the sprinkler system when adequate rainfall has occurr ed. (Florida Statutes, 1991) Strategies used by utilities to encourage conservation can be categorized as either financial through certification programs and rebates, or ensuring appropriate use of technology. One popular strategy used by utilities is conservation pricing (Borisova, Unel and Rawls, 2013). Based on consumption rates, customers are placed in price jbhandary, Borisova, Adams, Haynes, & Boyer, 2010) Raibhandary et. al (2010) found that rate block structures are an economic incentive for high water users to conserve, while there is no difference between uniform rate structures for low water users, and therefore no economic incentive to conserve for these low use households. Ensuring that technology is properly used is extremely important. Olmstead and Dukes (2011) found that in an evaluation of 3,416 residential irrigation systems, there were five mai n problems: unmatched, varying application rates in the same zone, vegetation blocked water stream, overlap of two types of vegetation (turf and landscape) within the same zone, operating time too frequent, and operating time too long. These are problems w ith both irrigation design and homeonwer operation. Certificate Programs such as Florida Water Star SM are recognition programs that have also showed some success by both incentivizing water conserving practices and adopt ion of water conservation technolog y. Florida Water Star SM was a program developed by the SJRWMD in 2006 that went statewide in 2012 and allows a home to
50 be recognized as efficient both outdoors and indoors. Developers can base their design on the Florida Water Star SM criteria and be design ated gold or silver and are given rebates for certification by various companies (Florida Water Star, 2012). The utility in partnersh ip in this study uses rate block structures to discoura ge high use and uses rebates to encourage purchase and use of water conservation technology. The installation of an SMS would serve the purpose of following the directive instituted by Florida law, and would increase efficiency of irrigation, depending on proper installation and use. Social Marketing as an Alternative Appr oach Social Marketing is an appro ach to behavior change that has gained more influence in the arena of a ction research in public health Kotler and Zaltman (1971) describe it as a framework that applies knowledge from fields such as psychology, sociology, anthropology and communications theory to solve social and health problems. Proponents for the approach cite the many instances when a n educational ( Bickman, 1972; Ge ller, 1981; Geller, Erickson & Buttram, 1983; Finger, 1994 ). While attitude has been one focal point of behavi or change research, another has been economic incentives. One study in energy research achieved very little change a program where money that ha s been spent on media messages and programs resulted in only 2 3 % energy change, amounting to very little in return for money spent on the campaign. ( Hirst, 1984; Hirst, Berry,&Soderstrom, 1981; U.S. Department of Energy, 1984 ; McKenzie Mohr, 2000(2)) Behavior c hange is much more complex than what Information intensive campaigns
51 fall s hort of creating a new behavior (McKenzie Mohr, 2000(2)) and fall short in catering to the audience to ensure greater s uccess. McDermott, Stead and Hastings (2005) reviewed social marketing literature and developed a set of six benchmarks common to Social Marketing research. These were adapted from Andreasan (2002) that described social marketing application. These benchma rks are described below. Behavior change. In any directed study, the target behavior must be identified and there must be specific and measurable behavioral objectives Audience research. Formative research is produced that identifies the traits and needs of the audience, and a pilot study is conducted with the intervention. Segmentation. The intervention target group is selected out as a segment of the population with certain characteristics. Exchange. There must be an exchange where return benefits for pa rticipation or change would motivate people to voluntarily engage. Marketing mix. Product, price, and promotion and place are a part of the marketing strategy for the behavior. Competition. Minimizing the chance of competing behaviors is necessary by acco unting for and eliminating barriers to target behavior. These are recommended portions of a successful social marketing campaign, and not all were involved in the SMS pilot study, but will be discussed in Chapter 5. There are four main steps emphasized in social marketing: discovering barriers to behavior and selecting behavior to promote, designing a program to overcome barriers toward the behavior, piloting the program, and then evaluating it (McKenzie Mohr, 2000(2)) The behavior sought to be corrected with the use of an SMS device was reducing the use of water on lawns. In research ing the barriers to adoption the approach first identifies differences between individuals who engage in the activity, and
52 those who do not (Andreasan, 1995; McKenzie Mohr, 20 00 (2) ). this prepares the agent to identify a target audience or segment based on certain characteristics or traits. Identifying barriers to adoption of a behavior is a key feature of CBSM, whether these barriers are cultural normativ e beliefs, information or knowledge gaps, or physical ability to adopt a change (McKenzie Mohr, 2000(2)). An effective strategy can only be developed if there is a detailed knowledge of barriers, either internal (knowledg e or skill gap) or external (limits on accessibility to product). (McKenzie Mohr, 2000(2)) Education is useful if it eliminates a barrier and does not cause additional barrier s to emerge (McKenzie Mohr, 2000(2)) In the case of this study, the adoption of a Soil Moisture Sensor may or may not alternative product for one already in use, such as an alternative to the rain s ensor. In addition it is important to consider whether the behavior is repetitive or a one time event. In the case of a S MS adoption is a one time event, although the device must also be maintained with subsequent routine checks Chapter Summary Adoption of SMS f or lawn and landscape maintenance is the specific behavior researched in this study. There can be many motivators either to reje ct or accept the SMS device. Literature that aided this study came from descriptive and applied research. Studies have been cond ucted on technology adopt ion : segments of the population are more likely to adopt water conservation technologies and behaviors than others (Gilg & Barr, Corral Verdugo & Frias Armenta, 2006). Studies have also been performed that emphasize the importance of marketing information for technology
53 adoption. Everett Rogers identified and described the characteristics of critical components in the adoption diffusion process. Research on the rate of adoption of an innovation, types of decisions based on adoption approaches, social system impacts, and the influence of change agent s are some of the important models provided by Rogers for both small scale or individual innovation decision making (Rogers, 1995). The instrument created and used for this researc h was gu ided by the above theories and literature to meet the following objectives: 1) to evaluate homeowner opinion of the SMS device, 2) examine homeowner environmental and technological ad vancement of SMS adoption, and 4) to tailor the results to a Community Based Social Marketing campaign for SMS adoption. The adoption of any water conserving innovation is dependent upon the understanding and beliefs by those who are targeted for behavior change The m otivations behind adopting thi s water conservation device were uncovered through this evaluative study. High outdoor water consumers who already display a propensity to waste water on the l andscape can limit their resource use with the use of an SMS T he pilot study attempts to ease transition to conservation with SMS technology by having participating households answer questions on their opinion of the SMS device A program is effective if the difficulty to change behavior is not underestimated and if the barriers to that behavior are addressed (McKenzie Mohr, 2000(2)) Extension approaches that rely heavily on media messages and education may change attitudes, but often the behavior does not follow. McKenzie Mohr (2000(2)) cites s tudies in which education and the lure of incentives is not enough to change a behavior
54 T able 2 1. List of theories and their descriptions regarding adoption behavior. (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Davis, 1986; Rogers, 1995; Grob, 1995) Theory Applies To Mai n dependent constructs/factors Main independent constructs/factors TRA Fishbein & Ajzen Reasoned Action, 1975 Individual behavior is driven by intentions which are a function of beliefs and feeling about the behavior and its consequences Behavioral intention, Behavior Attitude toward behavior, Subjective norm TAM Technology Acceptance Model, 1986 Information technologies usually, but can be applicable to other technology adoption situations Behavioral intention to use (leads to use) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use DOI Adoption of Innovations (Diffusion of Innovations Theory), 1995 Channels of influence and communication leading to adoption of an innovation Implementation Success or Technology Adoption Compatib ility of Technology, Complexity of technology, Relative advantage Grob of Environmental Behavior, 1995 Environmental behavior is correlated mostly to Personal Philosophical Values which affects Environmental Awareness, Perceived Control, an d Emotions. Correlations and Motivations for Environmental behavior Personal Philosophical Values, Perceived Control, Environmental Awareness, Emotions, and Environmental Behavior
55 CHAPTER 3 METHODS This chapter describes the process in which qualitative research data was collected and analyzed. The purpose of this research was to explore the conservation motivations, behaviors and potential adoption of SMS by hi gh outdoor water use households The research was also designed to produce results useful for the development of a future social marketing campaign to promote SMS adoption. A local utility company provided the SMS technologies to selected households in order to test the ir use in a real world setting. Quantitative data on water use was r ecorded by the utility and a social evaluation was conducted with participants. Since the SMS is a tool directly concerned with water conservation, attitudes toward the environment and water conservation were considered in addition to attitudes toward the device itself. The instrument was tested and evaluated by a n expert panel before being implemented Constant Comparative method. T his chapter described the methodology for recruitment of parti cipants to the SMS trial contrast s the interventions used for Phase A and B, the recruitment for the evaluation and the methods used in qualitative data collection and analysis. Background: SMS I nterventions Phase A and Phase B The pilot study to test S M S us e in homeowners l andscapes underwent two different interventions with two different sets of participants. The selection of the technology used in the program was influenced by the research conducted by University of Florida researchers and the successful track record of Acclima Closed Loop Irrigation Systems Phase A was characterized by having a black box approach with Ac c
56 model SC X, and Phase A occupied a different timeline for installation than the later Phase B. A different model, t he SC 6/12, was used for Phase B and was installed by a different contractor. K nowledge was provided to homeowners in Phase B by means of an information packet given during installation A follow up visit was made to the homes and some training provided w ith an educational approach. What follows is a description of the recruitment for participants in the SMS interventions for Phase A and Phase B, and description of differences between the interventions These differences are also recorded in Table 3 1. Re cruitment P hase A In the fall of 2 008, letters were sent to 323 customers of Gainesville Regional Utilities who consumed more than thirty thousand gallons of water per month (>30 kgal/mo). These letters informed residents of their high water usage compared to their neighbors and invited them to participate in a free SMS pilot study to help lower their water bill. Of these, one hundred people responded (30 % ) The utility then called these households an d narrowed them down to thirty eight qualified participants By the time a contractor installed the SMS, the final number was 22 households Selection bias of these participants includes the fact that the study is composed primarily of participants who use excessive amounts of water on their lawn. No educational materials or guidance were provided to homeowners with SMS installation in Phase A With each installation, a new control panel was spliced int o the existing irrigation timer There were no follow up appointments and very little contact before recruitment for evaluation approximately one year later
57 Recruitment P hase B Phase B of the installations took place approximately one year after Phase A with a similar letter sent to 300 high water using households. This time only s ixty three people respo nded (21%) They were interviewed and sc r eened by the utility company T hirty four people met the qualification criteria for the study At the time of installation, contractors were given a checklist (see APPENDIX A ) to guide their installation and to create a baseline This ensured that the irrigation system and timer were in good working order before the study, to record the zones and their settings, and to ensure that there was a back flow preventer pres ent Participants of Phase A and Phase B had a separate meter for outdoor irrigation, which is a factor that aided accuracy in water savings during the study A new model of SMS devices were installe d which required that the existing irrigation control panel in each home was replaced control panel that functioned both as an irrigation timer and SMS interface. Phase B participants were presented with a rebate form at installation where they would be receiving $25 in return for the installation. Pa rticipants also agreed that they would p articipate in a final evaluation. Extension services were employed to create an informational packet and a w ebsite for the program with step by step instruction videos for the use of Phase B households The informational packet contained an overview of the SMS pilot study, the instructional manual for the SMS control panel, information on its function, irrigation tracking sheets, and contact information for contractors and progr am staff. A f ollow up appointment was conducted in many cases by the utility to provide access to some
58 training on the use of the new control panel and to make adjust ments to the SMS thresholds. See Table 3 1 for comparison of Phase A and Phase B. Quantitative Comparison The Program for Resource Efficient Communities (PREC) at the University of Florida was responsible for the quantitative data analysis involved in this study. Homeowner use of water was tracked before, during and after the utility sent the invitation letter for the study. For each household PREC estab lished a baseline for expected water consumption based on irrigable area of lawn Then pre and post irrigation periods were compared within the intervention periods for the SMS groups and also between those households that received the recruitment letter Evaluation Stage Recruitment The research participant list of 37 households ( 18 participants from Phase A, and 19 participants for Phase B) was provided to the evaluators by the local utility Focus groups were the most reasonable data collection method for evaluation, due to the propensity to gain richer data through discussion Possible venues for focus groups were mapped according to proximity and convenience for participants, and participants were called on the telephone and given multiple choices of location and dates. A $50 dollar gift card was offered as incentive for focus group participation. However, many participants opted to be interviewed over the phone which garnered no financial return. Through focus groups and interviews, d ata were collec te d from 2 4 out of the original 37 contacts provided Out of the 24 that participated in the research, 1 5 agreed to the phone survey and five came to a focus group two were involved in a small group interview.
59 Instrument The preliminary questions created for the study, and the subsequent semi structured interview guide draft can both be found in A PPENDIX B The interview guide draft was tested in the first interview on November 2, 2012, and was then re examined by an expert panel of social science researchers. They conclud ed that the informat ion gained could achieve better quality with some additional interview questions and prompts added to the interview guide That became the instrument for the evaluation along with the accompanying demographic q uestionnaire The IRB document was submitted for these changes. The final Interview/Focus Group guide contained questions on motivations, acceptability and experience of the device, level of awareness and control over the SMS device, assistance with the d evice including training and education, normative beliefs about landscaping and evaluation of their environmental beliefs regarding risk and the future of water resources by different theory and their components. APPENDIX B and APPENDIX C have preliminary and final versions, respectively. Input F rom T heory of R easoned A ction (TRA) The construction of the survey borrowed from understanding of attitude, norms and control which would impact the s etting of the study. Setting a couple of distinctions dealing according to the behavior, attitudes were explored. Some aspects of attitude are presented as follows: Attitude s toward technology. Do participants consider technology to be a trusted and reliab le solution to problems? What is their comfort level when dealing with technology?
60 Attitude s toward installation contractors. What amount of trust or distrust is there for those installing the technology? Who do people turn to when a problem arises concer ning the technology? Attitude s toward water managers. Do participants display trust or distrust toward regulating organizations and for what reasons? Attitud es toward conservation of water itself. Do participants perceive problems regarding the water supp ly and its future? Which problems are these and how would they combat them? Normative beliefs can impact behavior as well and the norms of lawn care were explored. Normative beliefs toward lawn cultivation. What level of importance d o participants give lawns in contrast to their neighbors? concerning lawn maintenance and does it signify an awareness of the problem? Normative beliefs toward interaction with their neighbor s Wha t is acceptable behavior with neighbors? Do participants speak to others in their neighborhood? Are lawns or landscaping acceptable topics of conversation? Control beliefs are extremely important for behavior change. If participants do not believe the new behavior is within their abilities, there is a low chance it will be performed, or the possibility even explored. Some control beliefs are considered in the following. Control beliefs toward the environment. Do participants believe their individual choices can influence water supply or the health of the environment? What connection to participants perceive between their actions and environmental consequences? Control beliefs over policy. Do participants believe they have influence over policy or management decisions? Control beliefs over irrigation. Can participants utilize what is necessary to manage their lawn irrigation? Control beliefs over SMS device use. Do people feel confident in their use of the device?
61 Control beliefs over similar equipment. Do participants feel confident in their use of similar equipment? Exploration on these control beliefs would enlighten researchers to barriers present for SMS adoption and a variety of other similar issues. Input f The objectives for the study and components from theory and research lend model, the motivations for adoption of the S MS can be laid out clearly. As written by Grob, the main categories for this model are: Personal Philosophical Values, Environmental Awareness, Emotions, Perceived control, and Environmental Behavior. Other Models include some of these factors, which can fit into the diagram. These were explored in preparation for the instrument as well. Personal Philosophical Values This category for motivation is directly related to segmentation of the population based on what values participants ascribe to, or the environmental paradigm of belief they can be identified with. How do participants describe themselves? Do they value conservation or do they value the opinions of their neighbors or friends? This feeds into the emotions toward SMS adoption. Cultural changes that value conservation create a cognitive dissonance in th ose who knowingly invest in the opulence of a lawn Environmental Awareness When speaking of Environmental Awareness, Grob states that this involves two sections: 1) Factual knowledge of the environment, and 2) recognition of environmental problems. Participants of the study revealed knowledge gaps when it came to the environment, while some demonstrated knowledge of source waters and homeowner impact on them. What knowledge does a participant have concerning water sources in Florida, the hydrologic cycle and possibilities of augmenting water supply? Does a participant notice or draw a connection between regulations and rain? Have they observed infractions by neighbors and can relate it to environmental problems? Emotions Gui lt and self justification has been a focal point for the study, and may be a good motivator. Fear is also a motivator through social norms and the threat of being fined, or getting a letter from the H omeowners Association Emotion leads directly to adoptin g behavior along with the other motivations.
62 What emotions do participants have toward their own water waste or that of their neighbors? Do they show guilt? Are they inspired to address problems they see? Perceived Control The two factors involved in Perc eived Control, according to Grob are: 1) the efficacy of science and technology, and 2) self efficacy. These can be translated through the TAM model to be usefulness, and ease of use. The price would also be a factor in control do they have the ability to pay for the device and its maintenance ? Do participants see avenues by which they can be part of the solution to environmental problems? In particular, do they feel that they can make an informed decision on lawn care or lawn design and take action? What limits them? The desire for more control can be a proponent for SMS adoption signified by interest in technological solutions and hands on use of technology Input f rom P erceptions T oward the I nnovation that related to: Relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. With these categories, individual perceptions toward the SMS were explored. Relat ive advantage. To what degree do participants perceive this to be a better choice than using a timer alone or a rain sensor, and under what conditions? How does its use compare? Compatibility. How is the degree to which the SMS is consistent with the value s and past experience of the adopters? Does the culture and setting lend itself to acceptance? Complexity. Is the SMS easy to use and is the use understood? Trialability. Are participants allowed to test it subjectively? Observability. To what degree ar e the effects of its use observable? Relative advantage was explored regarding the SMS comparison to use of the timer or rain sensor. Compatibility was investigated in regards to past experience with the devices and the perceived acceptability of its use and landscape. Usability and ease of use was tested according to knowledge about the device and configured in trialability.
63 Guidance f rom Social Marketing McDermott et al (2005) established benchmarks for social marketing using a systematic literature an alysis of studies. Below were the benchmarks put forth by McDermott, Stead and Hastings (2005), common to social marketing research application. Behavior change In any directed study, the target behavior must be identified and there must be specific and m easurable behavioral objectives Audience research The research performed provided for a list of homes with high comparative outdoor irrigation outdoor irrigation amounting to more than 30 kgal/month. T he traits and needs of this audience merit more expl oration. An evaluation is conducted on both black box and informed approaches regarding SMS. The evaluation of this is integral to understanding the audience by its response to the intervention. Segmentation T he intervention target group is selected out a s a segment of the population due to its high outdoor water use, but segments within that group can help researchers find different avenues to affect behavior I dentifying opinion leaders that can be recruited in product diffusion is one outcome of segmen tation Exchange There must be an exchange where return benefits for participation or change would motivate people to voluntarily engage. What incentives or accompanying interventions would influence adoption? Marketing mix P roduct, p rice, and promotion and place (the 4Ps) are a part of the marketing strategy for promoting behavior adoption Does the product fit the need of the segment of the population? Is the price or cost worth its adoption? What would be an acceptable price for the device? A re participants willing to take necessary actions to
64 ensure its proper function and use? With what media and through which channels should the device be promoted? Is their ease of access to the purchase of the device and its installation? Competition Mini mizing the chance of competing behaviors is necessary by accounting for and eliminating barriers to target behavior. What competing devices or factors can limit SMS adoption? According to McDermott, et al. 2005, at least two of these six benchmarks were fo und in any one study analyzed. These benchmarks that should be useful in planning were evaluated as to how and if they functioned during the study. Data Collection Data collection for the evaluation was gained through interviews and focus group discussion s. What follows are descriptions of Phase A and Phase B data collection and then description of data collection for both interviews and focus groups Table 3 2 is a timeline is provided for the recruitment and data collection. Phase A O verview Out of the 1 8 participants in Phase A, data was collected from only seven T wo of these were residents who agreed to participate but had no knowledge of the study or the device itself. T hey had recently moved to their residence and o ne of these had installed a well fo r irrigation. The remaining five participants had lived in their re sidence long enough to take part in the SMS pilot study, but the memories were unclear due to the lengthy period before this follow up. These five participants were professionals or retired between the ages of 38 and 80, four males and one femal e. Three of these participants were interviewed via telephone while one participant came to the group
65 interview. All participants of Phase A had similar stories of how the device either did not function, or only functioned for a short time. Phase B O verview The contact information for nineteen participants was provided and fifteen participants (fourteen households ) were successfully recruited for evaluation There was a total of six women and ten men The age of these participants was between 37 and 75. All but two participants had graduated college. Five of the participants were retired. Almost all participants were white, with one Hispanic Phone interviews were conducted with eight of the Phas e B participant households and seven participants ( representing six households) were present at the focus group. Interviews A total of fourteen telephone interviews were conducted The interviews were performed by two researchers, from October 2012 to Dece mber 2013. E ach participant was called and invite d f irst to a focus group and if refused asked to participate immediately in a tele phone interview If another time was more convenient, the interview would be scheduled for a later time. If there was no answer, the researcher left m essage s with the intent of the call and a return contact Telephone interviews were recorded with a digital audio recorder after recording permission was granted by the participant. The participant was first rea d the informed consent information and with verbal agreement, the interview questions were asked, followed by demographic questions The length of the interviews varied from 15 to 40 minutes. Focus Groups Focus group design was guided by Krueger & Casey (200 0 ). This particular method of data collection was emphasized due to th e rich data provided by group
66 discussion. The survey instrument was used to guide a that discussion and encourage participation. The number sought f or participation was between 6 and 12 which was reached in the first focus group, but not in the second. Segmentation, that is, multiple focus groups divided according to characteristics or even according to Phase intervention was beyond the resources and scope of this project due to lo w recruitment numbers. Use of focus groups allow ed for the generation of ideas and gave participants a venue to express themselves regarding their SMS experience Some benefits of focus group use according to Krueger and Casey (2000) to gather data are: d iscovery of specific issues of interest, identification of language and terminology used by the population of interest, and new ideas that may have never been discovered. The vernacular used can help create marketing messages that would resonate with poss ible adopters. The one focus group (FG 1 ) was held at a local library on November 14, 2012, while a second group interview of two individuals (FG2) w as held at another local library on December 11, 2012 Participants were first asked to read and sign IRB informe d consent verification forms and then given a questionnaire that collected data on demographics and landscaping practices. The se sessions were facilitated discussion s lasting about 45 90 minutes, using the same guide used for telephone interviews (See Tabl e 3 1). The sessions were audio recorded, transcribed and coded similarly to the interviews. Those present for t he focus group were all from Phase B and had different experiences using the S MS Only two participant household in the first focus group had
67 p roblems with the SMS, one discontinuing use and the other request ing adjustment from the SMS contractors. In the second group interview o ne participant who participated in Phase A discontinued use of the SMS after six months and the other who had been in volved in Phase B, had no problems with the device. Variance between participants and the mix of Phase A and Phase B participants in the intervention caused the focus of data analysis to be on topics rather than the questions asked. Some topics were overa rching themes not unique to the intervention, and these provided insight into the personal values of the participants. Data gained from the f ocus g roups and interviews were transcribed by the researchers, and each recording was listened to at least twice, while transcripts were read. Notes were taken based on content, to organize responses according to topics. Categories were labeled and coded based on the observed trends, general the mes, patterns, ideas, self reported behaviors, and terminology exhibited in the audio recordings and transcripts. Further explanation for analysis is in the next section. Data Analysis An appropriate technique for analyzing qualitative data comparative method. The data collection took the form o f numerous transcripts of raw Transcripts from the focus groups and interviews were coded three times into smaller categories. Starting with the 4 broad objectives of the study, five main themes were created. Then an open coding system was used to get the subcategories. A third round of coding produced the individual quotes chosen to highlight the themes. Data from the demographics questionnaire was compiled into an excel spreadsheet according to participant for ease of comparison.
68 comparative method, described below. in theories such as TRA with the broad exploration used in transcript analysis. It is not testing a theory but rather is a means of creating new h ypotheses or theory The constant comparative method follows 4 steps: 1 ) comparing incidents applicable to each category, 2) integ rating categories and the ir properties, 3) delimiting the theory, and 4) writing the theory ( Glaser, 1967) Theory is directly accountable to the researcher. Below is an outline of the steps taken in data analysis Comparing incidents applicable to each category The researcher start ed with transcripts from the audio recordings of focus groups and interviews. The researcher listened to the recordings and read the transcripts multiple times, creating a memo for each one of these separately that describes f irst impressions of the participants and their perspectives. Using MaxQDA, a qualitative analysis program, the researcher create d coding segments or incidents. Each incident was compared with the next incident Segments linked together creat ed five broad c ategories: discussion of water use, audience descriptions, benefits to SMS use, barriers, and knowledge or understanding of the technology. Integrating categories and their properties Each new incident or segment was compared to a code with its uniq ue de fin ition A total of 213 segments were categorized into the five codes
69 coded. Delimiting the theory E xclusion (or delimiting) occur red three ti mes from the greater categories by creating subcodes. Theory took shape within sub codes identified and defined with the use of the comment function in M ax QDA. The second round of coding revealed subcodes for discussions of w ater u se such as a wareness, commenting on others use of water and seeing water wasted in their neighborhood, water politics, and reasons for the program The s ubcodes for udi ence d escriptions were: self description, unconcerned about water resources views about restrictions, and communication with neighbors. The s ubcodes for SMS benefits were: efficacy (ease of to use), less worry benefits when travelling and savings The subocdes for b arriers included any mention of problems or negative comments about the SMS device nowledge dealt with how the participants viewed the SMS device and understanding of it. These subcodes were broken down even further in some cases, the results of which are presented in the next chapter. Chapter Summary A qualitative approach was used to determine t he methods of data acquisition and analysis Starting with the original behavior target as curtailing over irrigati on on lawns, the pilot study utilized the S MS as a technological solution The subsequent Recruitment for the pilot study targeted a section of the population with similar behavior: they were all high consumers of outdoor water. D ifferences between the two Phases of the pilot study were : the use of a new SMS model and control panel availability of education and tr aining given to the homeowners, and the time elapsing
70 betwe en invitation and installation in Phase B The interventions also differed in that Phase A participants had separate water meters and most of Phase B participants did not have separate water meters (Table 3 1) The municipal water utility provided evaluators with a contact list of 37 names, telephone numbers and addresses. The participants were contacted by the evaluators and invited to a focus group or were asked to complete a telephone interview. Seven participants were evaluated for Phase A, and seventeen total participan ts from Phase B. Total participants in the study number ed 24 The instrument found in APPENDIX C, was constructed and evaluated by a s categories in environmental behavior model, description of an innovation decision. T ranscripts were made from the audio recordings of the interviews and focus gro ups, and these were coded to broad categories, and then three times into smaller categories, finally ending with representative quotes for the themes regarding theory. These resu lts can be found in the next chapter. T ranslat ion of findings into a potential social marketing strateg y was discussed in Chapter 6.
71 Table 3 1. Comparison of Phase A and Phase B interventions. Phase Education Training Contractor Devi ce Invitation Installation Phase A No Educati on materials provided. No training was provided, no rep present. Company 1 Acclima Closed Loop Irrigation System, SC X Separate water meter June 2009 Fall 2009 Phase B Informational packet with contact information for contractors and utility project workers. Website for reference, additional material. Utility rep explained packet Follow up appointment and training. Company 2 Acclima Closed Loop Irrigation System, SC 6/12 No separate water meter May 2012 Fall 2012 Phase A and Phase B had differences in the treatments for participants regarding education, training, installation contractors, the SMS device, and the timing of the invitation to study and the installation
72 Table 3 2. Timeline for the study. Aug. Oct. 2008 High use water notification invitations were sent to 323 high use residences, volunteers interested in the pilot study called GRU. Follow up with phone interviews, screening criteria for SMS installation. Jul 2009 Phase A installation of SMS device model SC X. May June, 2012 300 Letters sent for Phase B recruitment and volunteer response, second contractor hired and trained. Phase B installation of SMS device model SC 6/12. Jul 5, 2012 IRB approved for the thesis focus of study. Aug. 2012 Postcards sent by GRU to all Phase A and Phase B participants informing them to anticipate contact regarding Pilot Study evaluation. Oct. 16, 2012 Evaluation recruitment started; confirmation e mails sent after receiving agreement to participate in Focus Groups. Nov. 2, 2012 First interview Nov. 14, 2012 Focus Group 1 (FG1) performed at Tower Road Branch Library. Dec. 11, 2012 Small group interview ( FG 2) performed at Millhopper Branch Library. Dec 12 ,201 2 Last interview
73 C HAPTER 4 RESULTS Transcripts were made from the audio recordings of interviews and focus groups, and these were coded three times into smaller categories starting with the 5 broad objectives of the study, then an open coding system to get the subcategories, then a third coding as individual quotes are chosen to highlight the themes. Re sponses of participants helped document the homeowner perspective as to the usefulness and ease of use of the SMS. Responses also revealed e nvironmental attitudes and beliefs and their link to specific behaviors. The data also provided some comparison of the the data contribute to the design of a community based social marketing campaign. Overview of the Phases and Data Of the 2 4 study participants, seven were retired, four were homemakers and the rest were professionals. There were nine women and 15 men in our sample. All were married; nearly all were white and had a college education, many with advanced degrees. There were sever al professors, as well as physicians, dentists and lawyers. All of the households used some type of lawn care service and only one used well water for irrigation. All but two had lived in Gainesville for more than 10 years. Only three had lived in their cu rrent home for a year or less, with most having lived in their present home for six years or more. Of the 2 3 three had removed or disconnected their SMS. (GRU, 2012) Quantitative Results Quantitative data provided by the utility and analyzed by the P rogr am for Resource Efficient Communities (P REC ) at the University of Florida revealed the
74 efficacy of using SMS devices in residential landscapes. Multiple regression tests were performed to generate the baselines of expected water consumption based on irriga ble area, year of construction and home size A comparison was made between pre and post irrigation intervention periods for the SMS groups and also between those who received the letter as an intervention and those who did not. The group that received a letter but not the SMS saw an average water savings of 33.5 % (32.4 kgal/season) across the study period. Total savings per mail recipient was 226.8 kgal over the 42 months of the study The act of receiving a letter was enough to change the behavior, a t least during the period of the study. The SMS participant group averaged savings of 52.5 % (44.6 kgal/season) across the study period. These savings were statistically significant from Winter 2010 through Winter 2011. Total savings per SMS participant wa s 315 kgal over the 36 months that were measured. (GRU, 2012) The difference in savings between the SMS participant and mail recipient groups showed that the SMS participant group saved 22.3 % (11.5 kgal/season) more than the group that just received the letter (GRU, 2012) Results F rom Coding: Five Themes and Sub themes Coding was started with the five broad categories from the five themes from the research: discussion s about water use, audience descriptions, SMS benefits, barriers, and knowledge. These five themes originated from several objectives of the study: the need to determine the barriers to adoption of Soil Moisture Sensors by the targeted audiences; discover the perceived benefits from the participants viewpoint and finally, gain insight into how the program can be disseminated more effectively. Below is an outline of how they were broken down into subthemes, with explanation.
75 Theme 1: Discussions on Water Use ir knowledge of water politics, understanding of the purpose of the program, and other segments related to the topic of water use were coded in this category. The need to ses around them helps characterize their beliefs as well as their accompanying actual behavior, according to Objective 2 of the study: Determine the link between expressions of e nvironmental attitudes and conservation behavior Subtheme 1: Awareness of pe rsonal use Many participants had little awareness of how much water they were using previous to receiving the invitation letter, while others had seen the water reports on their household use in their GRU bill and had taken measures to fix potential leaks or other problems. In general, there was little concern about their excessive use. I haven't seen the bills, or I haven't just analyzed the volume of water since we put the sensor in. I know the system runs less and we haven't seen the spikes in the water usage since then, so I think it's positively affecting the amount of water usage that we have. I haven't compared that. ( 16B, 37, male, FG2) higher end of water usage but I have a lot more so d and a lot more vegetation than (10B, 62, male, interview ) becaus e I got the letter. I know a lot of people have a whole yard irri gation system. I mean, some do I d say 50 % do O thers just watch the rain water or have a manual sprinkler system like the old school hook it to the hose sprinkler system. So I would say I was probably an aggressive irrigation person. (12B, 37, female, interview)
76 Subtheme 2: Opinions about n In contrast to their lack of concern about their own water use, p articipants were mo re likely to point out the neighbors excessive use of i rrigation water. I want to criticize them because they I think they water their lawn too much, anyways. (17B, 40, male, interview) know, I come back up here and see the way we us e water uh, foolish . . Water on lawns an d things like that is a waste. (14a, 71, male, interview) Subtheme 3: Water and p olitics Some participants acknowledged the stresses placed on population growth, but they more often emphasized the allocation of water to companies and industries Some particular entities mentioned to be at fault were: Agriculture Cattle or livestock Quarries Golf courses Water bottling companies If I were a management officer or a coun ty commissioner I would look at the entities that are using the most amount of water. And, you know, and I think most people ndividual family or family unit (17B 40, male interview) W ket compared to these big decisions that are very negative for long term management of this important resource. (11A, 59, male, interview)
77 Subtheme 4: Reasons for the SMS program Some participants did not see the need for water conservation technology Wh ile o thers fe lt the conservation efforts are misdirected, and should be focused on larger entities rather than homeowners. If you look at the overall cycles, you know, dry spells an d wet spells it evens water disappears. You know, it still gets recycled. It goes into the ground. It g oes into the water treatment plant but it still gets recy consumed like gas or oil (9B, Interview, 40, male, Phase B ) not it for our environment. (18A, interview, 37, female, Phase A) I am opposed to the present heavy . restrictions on homeowner's use and wide open, take all you want to people that's bottling water and doin' industry and plants and so forth. (2A, 80, male, FG2) T heme 2: Audience Profile This theme also relates to Objective 2: Evaluating homeowner environmental beliefs, and contributes to Objective 4 by providing insight for a social marketing campaign. S ubtheme 1: Self description Participants described themselves according to their values; they volunteered programs, and most mentioned the cost of water as a strong motivator or one of the motivations to conserve water. In contrast, other participant s admitted that water was wasted, they were motivated by neighborhood norms, and cost was not a strong enough motivator to dissuade use. a lawn despite high cost. Another participant gives the
78 excuse that their home is already landscaped, and changing it would decrease property value. I like that I am being green ey and helping the environment. (12 B 37, female, interview) t I just want it to look nice. (7A, male, 53 interview ) Well, I can . think a minute and my lawn is probably a lot greener than the rest of my neighbors so you know they all have a sprinkler sys tem and irrigation system, but I don't know . the one with the well they have to manually turn it on when they want to. The others obviously don't water as heavily as I do . You can't live -without irrigation, you've got to have I mean, to have a lawn you got to have irrigation. I mean, the people on my street, their back yards are not grassed in. It's natural woody with the leaves and all. And the previous owners to my house cleaned it out and put a big lawn in the back yard. My neighbors come and look at my yard for the first oh my! What a big lawn! And you know, well that takes water! (2A, 80, male, FG2) W s q uare footage in these gardens [ w ife] has, but she spends a lot of time out there and the maintenance on those is really time consuming. You know, and I think right now, and this might change in the future, but this part of the country, homes that are built on large lots are somehow already landscaped and to take out l awns and go native is not a value enhancing decision. (11A, 59, male, interview) Sub them e 2 : Talk ing to neighbors A Willingness or unwillingness to talk to neighbors about their water use can help evaluate how likely adopters may be in the diffusion process, and could identify key actors who may aid in the process. Hm, um, well, I suppose talking to people about it is probably not a great way to build a friendly neighborhood. (11A, 59, male, interview) I can't tell you how many times I saw that thing running when it was pouring rain. But I couldn't talk to the guy about it. Didn't feel it was my duty to do that. (19B, 68, male, FG 1 )
79 To think about my neighbor overusing water motivate me. You know. Probably if I uh, if we we re out in the yard I might say something. (15A, 69, male, interview) If there was educational material or something, I could I wouldn't mind passing that along to the association because we do pay association dues and that covers the water cost in our ne ighborhood. I think it would be bene ficial to them to have a water you know, some kind of sensor or some way to not water when we don't need to. (16B, 37, male, FG2) Theme 3: Benefits of SMS The theme of benefits coincides with O bjective 1 : evaluating th e perspective of the homeowner regarding the usefulness of the SMS These segments can help to understand what residents like about the technology and creating suitable marketing m essages Subtheme 1: Eff ectiveness Most participants in the study were plea sed that the SMS worked so well. They had little interaction with the technology but their lawns were still acceptable and they had noticed a savings in their water bills. From this standpoint, the intervention was effective. Well, in my opinion, if it rains, it prevents you from using that extra wat er time. L ike, it will cut off it overrides the regular system. So, if you don't have any type of way to monitor the water, then the system is gonna go on and it will sprinkle whi le it's raining, or right after it rained. And with the sensor, whether it be a water sensor or a moisture sensor, it's gonna save water. (16B, 37, male, FG2) Subtheme 2: Efficiency/Accuracy Some participants seemed to view the efficiency of the sensor wit h a means of having more control over lawn maintenance Um, I I think what I like the most is that it appeals to my need to be more scientific about my lawn. So I I m in medicine and science, so having more uh, accuracy and precision appeals to me I t enables me to use the professional side of my mind into my personal life. (17B 40, male interview)
80 Um, I wanted to use the minimum amount but I have no way of gauging how much my lawn really needed. And this gave me an automated way to find out. (11B, 5 9, male, FG 1 ) Subtheme 3 : Makes travel easier A couple of program participants provided insight into the fact that the SMS technology allowed them to leave home on vacations and not have to worry about the lawn. Our landscaping is basically designed for us to be able to go away. I mean, we pick types of plants and flowers that especially blooms in the winter time instead of the summer, because we spend our springs, summers, and early tuff e and needs to be taken care of T there are many days where we don overwa ter. (15A, 69, male, interv iew) Well you don't have to worry if it's raining, it doesn't go on. If you go out of town you don't have to worry. My neighbors are jealous. (2b, 68, female, FG 1 ) Subtheme 4 : Wate r savings The savings noticed by program participants was a clear benefit to those households that had a positive experience with the SMS technology. I think there's so much water we could save just on a residential basis. If it was enforced, we would sa ve lots of water just on a residential basis. (16B, 37, male, FG2) Well, in my opinion, if it rains, it prevents you from using that extra wat er time. Like, it will cut off it overrides the regular system. So, if you don't have any type of way to monitor the water, then the system is gonna go on and it will sprinkle while it's raining, or right after it rained. And with the sensor, whether it be a water sensor or a moisture sensor, it's gonna save water. (16B, 37, male, FG2)
81 Theme 4: Barriers to Eff ectiveness Investigating b arriers is extremely important when developing marketing strategies Understanding the b arrier s to adoption of the S MS meets Objective 1 of the study: evaluate homeowner opinion of the SMS device. T he actual or perceived capabilit ies of the device itself can provide insight into what barriers need to be addressed to market the device successfully. Many of the devices failed, or only worked for a short time, and some did not function ideally for the landscape. Characteristics of the sensor, either perceived or real, were based on the limited knowledge of the participants and are recorded in sub themes Subtheme 1: SMS did not work There were several participants whose SMS failed or they had it removed. When technological solutions ar e proposed to conservation issues, this is always a risk. This can lead to potential adopters being discouraged to try the technology again and they may also talk to their neighbors about their negative experience. It was great when it worked. (14A, 71, male, interview) Well I was hoping it would save me a lot of money on my water bill and it really did when it wasn't working. (15B, 75, male, FG 1 ) T reading as it relates to how much water the different parts of my yard needed. ( 10B, 62, male, interview) D ifferent parts of my yard requires different amounts of water so when it to cut off and not feed the rest. ( 10B, 62, male, interview ) I had a rain sensor that was attached to my wall not to the soil itself and when it rained that would turn off my system. And when the sensor dried out it would call for the system to come back on the day that I needed it to
82 was spending on my utility bill as it relates to the system that you guys installed. ( 10B, 62, male, interview) Subtheme 2 : Confusion over setting the t hreshold Some participants had a problem with what threshold setting was appropriate for their lawns. An improper setting could cause the SMS to turn the water on too soon or not often enough. The threshold setting issues originate in the installation stage by the contractors. Well, you know my groundskeeper told me that the manufacturer ships them set at 24 or 25 and yet the installers pulled them down to 16 or so. I don't know why they did that. (19b, 68, male, FG 1 ) Theme 5: Knowledge of the Device Knowledge of the device was coded by how they interacted with the SMS Participants hat ran automatically and did not need recalibration af ter installation These quotes demonstrate how little participants knew of the device. nd uh, then it So it automatically did everything and then once a year it has to be inspected so they come out and inspect it so I I I ve never seen it, actually. [So er had to reprogram it, or . that. They um, they you know, they make you pay for an, uh, upkeep, but 37, female, interview) [Ever reprogram it?] This is a tricky answer long period of time to not really touch it. To let it go. And so, you mean post (14B, 49, female, interview) We think we got a little booklet or so mething. We had some questions and someone came out once, but we had really very little follow up. Um, and we play. The thing gets plugged in and it would take care of itself have to worry about it. That was how we understood it and we were sold on it. That was our expectation. (11a, 59, male, Interview)
83 I don't think it's as easy as the rain bird we had initially. All you had to do is off on, set the date and t he time, and that's it. Whereas this, you gotta go in, and pu sh this and change that and ok It s just getting used to it, that's all. (2B, 68, female, FG 1 ) It may not need the water that it normally would and therefore that magical trigger point could be and should be changed. But I wouldn't know how to do that, and I don't . (19B, 68, male, FG 1 ) water twice a week in the summer and once a week in the winter, and if the sensor (1 B 44, female, interview) To best of my knowledge, the what are you calling your thing again? The moisture system or something, to the best of my knowledge that was something they wen t out there and buried in the ground wired some wires to my valves so it would cut on and cut off when it told it to. (2A, 80, male, FG2) I can call the plumber that will come out and look at it that I was given that allowed to you know, play with that, I can see if I can increase the percentage myself. (14B, 49, female, interview) Recommendations from Participants Participants were eager to offer recommendations for the improvement of the project or for the device itself. The following are some topics they brought up Participants suggested having more than one S MS in order to account for vari ations in soil and to have more accurate readings and contro l over each zone However, m ul tiple much water different plants or zones need. Perhaps education or training will help people understand the water needs of the plants in their yard and they might become more aware of the impact lawn has on their water consumption. Another participant wanted increased control, perhaps with satellite and use of a smart phone application.
84 Chapter Summary The quantitative savings r ecorded by the SMS in stallation showed that the device was effective for water conservation. While the savings were significant, the households remained in the upper level of water users. The social evaluation showed why this occurred. The audience for the trial could be described as mo stly white, upper income with a large number of retirees. All used a lawncare service and lived in a neighborhood with homeowners association. The coding process yielded five broad themes with subthemes within each. The first broad theme that emerged was coded into participant discussions of water. Within this category, they recounted their awareness of their own use of water, and expressed opinions about how much their neighbors were using (or wasting). Participants had strong opinions about what they saw as the real issues about use of water resources and hinted that it was political decisions that led to the wasteful use of water in bottling plants, agricultural operations, and large developments. A second broad category was created to capture a descr iption of the SMS audience. This category included quotes about their lawns and how often they talked to their neighbors opinions about their perceived benefits of the SMS. This depended on whether it was effective at saving water but also how it made travel easier. A fourth category revealed the barriers to effectiveness, such as when the device failed to work properly or when there was confusion about the threshold settin gs. A final category showed that some residents did have knowledge of how the SMS worked and how to set it. Finally, participants offered many recommendations for improving the program. The next
85 chapter will discuss these data results in terms of developi ng a social marketing campaign for adoption of SMS.
86 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The results for the pilot study indicate that integration of Soil Moisture Sensor s into a real life residential setting can be more complicated than just installing the tec hnology For this chapter, the themes and coding resulting from the qualitative data analysis were applied to the principles of social marketing A n approach for more successful adoption by homeowners must address the target audience the particular behavior and a mix of factors to be used for marketing: the characteristics of the product, its price, placement, and its promotion. Recommendation s from participants were considered along with their beliefs, calling to attention ga ps in communication and possible barriers to behavior change Social Marketing Benchmarks Using McDermott et al (2005) as a guide, the data were arranged into social marketing benchmarks. These are useful for structuring the discussion of the data results from the interviews and focus gr oups. Behavior change In any directed study, the target behavior must be identified and there must be specific and measurable behavioral objectives Behavior change in this case is the acceptance and adoption of use of the Soil Moisture Sensor in a homeow landscape. This is a narrow scope for behavior change and only involves purchasing a technology. It does not ask homeowners to become involved in the hands on management of their landscapes or to actively save water. Participants admitted n ot realizing they were over watering their lawn until they were invited to participate in the study. Others are not aware that their use of water is over watering and harming their
87 lawn. Others have no knowledge of the dormant period grass undergoes during the acknowledge there being a problem in the water supply at all, describing the hydrologic process. This lack of awareness can inhibit the recognition of a need to curtail water usage. Audience research Research on the participants drew characteristics and vernacular that can be used to create relatable marketing messages. The segment of the population was chosen based on rate of water consumption on lawns. These participants u sed enormous amounts of water regardless of the high payment required. However, some information gathered indicated that ultimate control of the irrigation systems and practices was often in the hands of contractors and lawn care professionals. This provid es for a new direction in targeting another segment involved in the communication process for the purposes of diffusion the professional sector. Participants reported that groundskeepers and lawn care professionals were responsible for setting and utilizi ng the irrigation system. In addition, most other lawn care needs were contracted out: thirteen participants hired a mowing/trimming company to handle those needs, while 20 hired fertilizing/pest control companies Advice concerning products and services i s routinely through the lawn care professionals rather than any other avenue. The partnership with these professionals is integral to the success of SMS adoption. Segmentation The intervention target group is selected out as a segment of the population du e to its high outdoor water use, but segments within that group can help researchers find different avenues to affect behavior, such as identifying opinion leaders that can be
88 recruited in product diffusion As a group, the participating households had so me similar characteristics. They were mostly white, upperclass and retired. They had large irrigation demands every month. There were potential segments that could be further defined with research. There were individuals who fully understood the SMS techn ology and were not afraid of adjusting the settings. Participants approved of the that exhibited unique and progressive new features. One participant in particular was ver y interested in the technology and essentially micromanaged the installation. Another participant merely liked using the SMS controller because he felt that it afforded him more control over his lawn and gave him a way to test out different thresholds on t he grass. Two more participants appeared to be more knowledgeable of electronics and recommended new features, such as satellite linkage, or linkage to mobile devices. likely to adopt the sensor the quickest, aided by lawn care professionals or promotion. Most participants however were more likely to avoid checking on the technology, which is typical of many households and their irrigation timer. The influence of spouses brin gs in another potential audience segment. In some cases, the spouse that received the intervention or parts of the intervention, such as training, was not accessible for data collection but this highlights that not everyone in the household was familiar wi th the technology. Greater attention could be given for gender in future research. Exchange There must be an exchange where the target audience voluntarily accepts the new behavior in anticipation of some future benefits. One result of this study may be t o
89 highlight the incentive s that would influe nce adoption. Benefits in return for adoption of the device have traditionally been rebates. In this case, $25.00 was offered in rebates to participants in Phase B. Other financial exchanges for its use were wat er savings and a decrease in the monthly water bill. Still other benefits perceived in return for the use of the SMS could be relief from worry. The fear of penalty for lack of lawn upkeep was very real for some participants, and some may find relief from the worry of infringing on neighborhood norms. On this same front, worry can be eliminated during travel with the automation provided by the SMS. It could lessen worries based on these conflicts, and it could reliably maintain a landscape during travel awa y. not want to worry about their lawns. They also saved water and money, which may have er from the utility. Some participants enjoyed the control that the device afforded them threshold. The SMS device afforded a worry free travel time to those often or se asonally out of town. Seasonal travel is common to Florida, and this point is particularly significant for Florida homeowners. One other benefit participants indicated may be important was the feeling of environmental responsibility such as being A commonly state d motivation for enrollment in the study was onservation initially concerned about their use. Marketing m ix P roduct, p rice, and promotion and place ar e a part of the marketing strategy for the behavior. Does the product fit the need of the segment of the population? Is the
90 price or cost worth its adoption? What would be an acceptable price for the device? Are participants willing to take necessary actio ns to ensure its proper function and use? What media and channels should be used to promote the device? Is there ease of access to the purchase of the device and its installation? These are points to consider where the device interacts d irectly with potent ial adopters, considering messages to use for marketing and how they may be used. Product E ssentially the device inter action with the homeowner. However, the black box approach gave participants a false sense of the trialability of the device and this confused the participants. Further confusion occurred with the look of the control panel splic ing at installation in Phas e A, and then the panel/timer replacement in Phase B. As the black box experiment indicated, homeowners need to have an accessible and clear source of information as well, perhaps from a third party, so that they may have the option to learn all the infor mation about the device they would purchase. The fact that participants received an obvious avenue to gain information helped them feel secure in the project. Participant involvement is necessary for any future endeavor. Control beliefs and a sense of tria lability are extremely important for SMS acceptance by stakeholders. The SMS device is similar in concept to the rain sensor a device that overrides the irrigation system timer if it measures moisture according to rain fall. Participants who were familia r with their rain sensor device have more of an understanding of the technology of the SMS Otherwise, despite incentives, participants need to know what
91 part they play in the interaction with the device. How does it fit into their lives? Those who were fa miliar with similar products like the rain sensor were more likely to understand their role and accept the product, and follow the directive not to touch. Price The price of the product includes the time to contact an installer, the total price of install ation and maintenance, and the potential costs if the technology does not function as advertised. These prices may be lowered through a rebate program offered by the utility and the risks of failure may be mitigated by support from the local Extension offi ce. Product p lacement The SMS is probably best suited to new home construction projects where the irrigation system is under going installation If SMS is part of the irrigation syst em, it could be promoted as a technological asset to the new home. If it is to become an item for retro fitting projects, it should be made available to the landscaping companies that do the installation. Promotion Because communication regarding landscapes came through lawn care professionals the device would most likely be p romoted and disseminated by lawn care professionals These are the people best suited to the knowledge of the device and the setting where it would be used as well as the network in which it can be adopted Acting as opinion leaders, i n many cases, the se professionals were relied upon for advice concerning the lawn and setting of the irrigation system Training more irrigation installers, who work as opinion leaders, and ensuring their understanding and
92 acceptance of the device should be the focus of futur e residential study, as points of Other than promotion through specialty magazines and through distributors, SMS devices would be promoted through marked signs on lawns that have them in use, which is a practice alrea dy advocated by Florida statute 37 3.62, and which would influence neighborhood normative beliefs about the use of SMS devices. Promotion messages for homeowners could be: Travel ease of lawn maintenance Lower water bill Environmental savings Greater con trol over how much water is applied to the lawn Promotion for lawn care professionals could be incentives in the form of free product s or commission s based on adoption by their customers. Competition What competing actions, or products interfere with the adoption of a Soil Moisture Sensor for residential use? This portion of the discussion addresses the barr iers discovered in the research Among the competing devices or factors that may limit SMS adoption are the rain sensors and the low price for water. As an alternative to buying and installing an SMS, many households may prefer to maintain their rain sensor or keep using large amounts of water each month. Few participants knew they were in the overwatering category until they received the initial lette r from the utility. Participants were somewhat concerned with prices, and in fact, the motivation to participate in the study commonly was to lower irrigation costs once they had been pointed out
93 Some appropriately linked their water use with the characteristics of their landscape. The degree to which a participant would perceive the lawn as a necessity would drive their maintenance and overuse of water, although many are uninformed just how much water their yard needs. Some reasons given concernin g the benefit of 7A, male, 53 interview ) The influence of personal loved ones and attention received for the lawn does inspire more feelings of community than would otherwise be accessible. If the SMS places the lawn at risk, participants will not invest in its use and this represents a competitive behavior (maintaining the sta tus quo). One potential cost of any new technology is the chance of malfunction or incorrect installation. Participant 2A claimed that the Soil Moisture Sensor shorted out the electronics of the irrigation system 6 months after SMS installation. D idn't stop my system from working, until it shorted out traced it down to uh, shortages at the valve switches due to the whoever installed the sensor running his wires in there and causin' shorts. I t was killin' my sprinkler system so [t he plumbe r] disconnected all of that sensor junk. ( 2A, 80, male, FG2 ) Some technical problems were due to lack of calibration at time of installation. Well, I had a problem with mine it was put in on July 20th and until this last Sunday, it had never come on a utomatically. It was okay at first because there was a lot of rain, but then the plants were s tarting to show signs of stress ( 15B, 75, male, FG 1 ) In this case the threshold was set too low, and the sensor was reading that the soil moisture content was sufficient due to its setting, and therefore the irrigation system was perpetually turned off. Another participant in the same focus group had the opposite problem in that the SMS did not function to control the irrigation system at all,
94 ( 19 B 68, male, FG 1 ) If the device does not function, it fails to achieve the original promise of full automation. The factory settings were the settings used for most installations, and then the follow up an d training session from the technician were the opportunity to change the settings. If the threshold for factory setting is high for Florida soils, lawns can be overwatered with the SMS. After the follow up session, many participants had their SMS threshol ds lowered to water less. In this case, particular attention should be given to greater training of plumbers and irrigation experts. Chapter Summary The discussion for the evaluation results indicate that integration of SMS into a real life residential setting can be more complicated than just installing the technology For this chapter, the themes and coding resulting from the qualitative data analysis were applied to a social marketing framework Its benchmarks and marketi ng variables were discussed. An approach for more successful adoption by homeowners considers addressing the target audience, the particular behavior, and a mix of factors to be used for marketing: the characteristics of the product, its price, placement, and its promotion.
95 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS The conservation of water is a powerful issue in the face of increas ing population and th reats to aquifer health in Florida To address Management District partnered with Gainesville Regional Utilities to pilot test a conservation device, a Soil Moisture Sensor in homes around Gainesville, Florida. Ph ase A of the project was characterized primarily by installing the technology in homes using a black box approach with lit tle information provided to homeowners. Unfortunately, many of the SMS failed to work properly. The second phase involved a partnership with cooperative Extension which provided information t o the homeowners with more positive results. This thesis is a n evaluation of both phases of the pilot study, prepared from the perspective of homeowners and with the follow ing objectives: To evaluate homeowner opinion of the SMS device To examine homeowner environmental and technological beliefs To tailor the results to a Community Based Social Marketing campaign The results in Chapter F ive summarized each of these objectives. This chapter will make final recommendations for a future campaign to promot e adoption of SMS technology by homeowners. The specific behavior to be promoted is the purchase of SMS technology and the installation of it in the landscape. Associated behaviors include the maintenance of the technology and confirmation that it is wo rking properly. The target audience includes those households most likely to adopt the innovation such as those who are comfortable with new technologies or who would like technological solutions that
96 remove hands on management of landscape irrigation. H Many participants in the research admitted that the y did not adjust their irrigation system themselves and left it up to their lawn care professionals. If their lawn care contractor was capable of setting and using the SMS technology, they would be a secondary audience. Normative beliefs play a large role in landscaping behavior s These are beliefs enforced by family or community members to support the norm of a lush green landscape Personal e nvironmental beliefs may be in conflict with t his ideology ; several participants said they thought their landscaping actions were harmful to the environment but they would do it anyway or look the other way when a neighbor did them For example one woman, when asked about hiring a pesticide and fertilizer company, said, Another participant, after admitting that he hates th e thought of water being wasted, many times I saw that thing running when it was pouring rain. But I couldn't talk to the guy about it. I d Having homeowner associations (HOAs) play more of a role in setting the standards for behavior could eventually translate into normative changes in the neighborhood. The information nee ded to support adoption of SMS, even if the household just must b e easily accessible fo r homeowners A website that is provided through Extension t hat clearly differentiates the choices in technological care for the lawn, with links to the operation manuals of different SMS models can help homeowners make clear choices, and encourage greate r responsibility. Plumbing,
97 irrigation, or lawn care companies may also be a target for marketing and information delivery and also a good source for gaining feedback about SMS. Partnerships are extremely important to a social marketing campaign. Multip le partners can address barriers from different directions, through different communication channels. The cooperative Extension service should partner with utilities to lower the barriers to adoption of SMS. The lack of knowledge by homeowners concerning their s well as watering restrictions shows the need for better informed citizens. Utility companies and Extension can do the following : Address the personal disconnect between landscaping and water resources Address the barriers due to conve nience Address normative barriers in neighborhoods and HOAs Utilize communication channels Utilize change agents and opinion leaders Rogers ( 1995 ) has indicated that the most influential sources are opinion leaders in the community. Indeed, the results have pointed to the fact that most residents rely on their irrigation contractors or landscapers for their information. Participants in the study demonstrate a propensity to rely on l awn care professionals and are a trusted source of information. Housing d evelopments with landscaped common areas can also employ the use of SMS devices to save on water costs. Conservation rules c ould potentially be a dopted in codes and deed restrictions, and t he use of SMS on residential properties could be encouraged. Recruiting lawn care professionals as partners to disseminate the technology is a very clear avenue for growth. Training can be pr ovided in partnershi p with Extension as well. The results for the pilot study indicate that integration of Soil Moisture Sensor s into a real life residential setting can be more complicated than just installing the
98 technology Water conservation behavior is remarkably differe nt from other conservation behaviors The public does not have strong understanding of water as a threatened resource and they often blame others for using more than they do. They also do not understand the water needs of their landscape. W hile education is important in behavior change, it will not change behavior alone. Neither would t ech nological advances alone be enough to promote change, because it does little to bridge the gap between understanding the problem of water and the role in tha t problem The results of this study provide policy makers, utility providers, and researchers a view of the possible barriers, complexities and avenues through which the Soil Moisture Sensor may be marketed. People are more likely to change their behavio r when they have multiple motivations for doing so. These motivations must also or danger, and the messages should increase over time through multiple avenues, especially from opinion leaders in the community In this way s ocial m arketing has proven effective by taking into account different f actors of the setting, the perspective of possible adopters, and identifying the barriers to behavior change. In this case, the best approach would be addressing a particular t arget audience, focusing on a specific behavior, and using the mix of pr oduct, its price placement, and its promotion. Finally creating partnerships to plan and implement tailored strategies for adoption will produce the best chances for behavior change
99 APPENDIX A UTILITY CHECKLIST AND REBATE FORM The following are example pages used to aid SMS installation and record keeping for the utility company. Markings from the installer are there to visualize how they were used. The first page is a baseline checklist for installers that provides space to record previous settings, what actions were performed (e.g. installation of an irrigation system backflow preventer, or SMS device) and pre and post threshold settings for each irrigation zone. The second page is a rebate form. Homeowners had a $25 rebate available to them in return for the installation of the SMS device. All names and personal information on the form were eliminat ed to ensure confidentiality.
102 APPENDIX B DRAFTS FOR INSTRUMENT Below are the preliminary questions formed for the study by researchers, and then following is the first draft of the instrument that was tested on participant 18A on November 2, 2012.
103 Preliminary Questions 1. What should Floridians do to conserve water? 2. Does it ever bother you how much water your neighbors use in their yards? 3. What motivated you to get involved in the GRU soil moisture sensor program? 4. What do you like best about having the soil moisture sensor? 5. What is the biggest drawback? 6. What were you expecting when it was installed? 7. How has it changed the way you water your lawn? 8. Have you talked to your family or neighbors about the soil moisture sensor? What did you say to them? 9. How could GRU convince more people to install SMS in their yards? 10. Do you think any of your neighbors would be interested in this? Why or why not? 11. Is there anything else you would like to add?
104 First Instrument Thank you for agreeing to participate in the interview. Before we begi n, can you confirm on the recording that I have your permission to audio record our conversation today ? The University of Florida Institutional Review Board requires me to inform you that there are no foreseeable risks to your participation in this inter view today. You will not be compensated for your participation and it is completely voluntary -you may withdraw without penalty at any time. If at any time you want me to stop audio recording our conversation, let me know and I will do so. Your name will never be associated with your responses, and I hope by maintaining this confidentiality you will speak openly and honestly. Your perceptions and those of others who participated in the SMS program I really appreciate your time. 1. What were your reasons for being involved in this pilot study? 2. What were you expecting when the Soil Moisture Sensor was installed? 3. How has the SMS changed the way you water your lawn? 4. What do you like most about having the soil moisture sensor? 5. How easy is it to use? Have you ever had to reprogram it? When? Why? Tell us more about that?
105 6. How do you know it works properly? Do you think it wo rks properly all the time? What makes you say that? 7. Did you previously rely on the Timer? How does the SMS compare to using a timer? 8. Do you think your yard needs more water? Why? What do you do if/when you think that? 9. What do you dislike about your SMS ? 10. Would you recommend an SMS to a friend or neighbor? Probe: Have you already? Were they interested? [Switching gears] 11. Are you happy with your landscaping? Why or why not? 12. What would you change about your landscaping? 13. Have you made changes to your landscape since SMS installation? [Switching gears] 14. How do you feel about water restrictions? 15. Do you ever worry that water use will be restricted even more than it is? 16. Have water restrictions had an effect on your yard? What makes you say that?
106 17. Have y ou ever seen water being wasted? Where/when? How does that make you feel? 18. Do you anticipate water shortages in Florida that would impact you personally? 19. Floridians do to se cure enough water for the future? 20. Anything else you would like to add? Do you have any questions? 21. Is it ok for me to contact you in the future with further questions or feedback?
107 APPENDIX C FULL INSTRUMENT FOR DATA COLLECTION Below is the interview guide or the qualitative instrument in use for the study. This instrument starts with an introduction and informed consent, and is designed to be said aloud to participants in either a recorded interview setting or a focus group sett ing. The survey and questionnaires were given in a semi structured interview, where the researcher, at his or her own discretion probes for more information or decides to omit question based on a previous response. The demographics questionnaire and the en vironmental paradigm questionnaire was given aloud in personal telephone interview s after the survey questions were asked and was completed by Focus Group participants on paper prior to the discussion.
108 Interview/Focus Group Guide Thank you for taking the time to join this discussion about soil moisture sensors and water use. My name is Lyndall Brezina and I am from the University of Florida. (If focus group: Assisting me is _______________.) My purpose today is to learn more about your opinions about the soil moisture sensors and water conservation in general. I am interested to know your opinions so that we can better understand SMS use and water management through conservation technology programs. Your perceptions will be used a with me today. (If interview: Thank you for agreeing to participate in the interview.) Before we begin, can you confirm on the recording that I have your permission t o audio record our conversation today? Great, thanks. The University of Florida Institutional Review Board requires me to inform you that there are no foreseeable risks to your participation in this interview today. You will not be compensated for your pa rticipation is completely voluntary -you may withdraw without penalty at any time. If at any time you want me to stop audio recording our conversation, let me know and I will do so. Your name will never be associated with your responses, and I hope by mai ntaining this confidentiality you will speak openly and honestly. Your perceptions and those of others who participated in the SMS program This interview should take 1. What were your reasons for being involved in this pilot study? had you ever noticed how much water your used on your yard before? Were you surprised at how much water you were using on your y ard? 2. What have you noticed about your water use since the SMS was installed? 3. How has the SMS changed the way you water your lawn? 4. What do you like most about having the soil moisture sensor? 5. How easy is it to use? Have you ever had to reprogram it? Wh en? Why? Tell us more about that? 6. Did you receive any training on how to use it? IF YES: From whom? How was the training for you What can you tell me about your training experience? Have you used information you learned in the training? How could the tra ining be improved? [ Back to SMS itself: ] 7. How do you know it works properly? Do you think it works properly all the time? Do you look to see if it is working? What signs do you see that let you know it is
109 working? What makes you say that? 8. What do you do if/when you think your SMS is not working properly? (What if it information provided by the manufacturer or GRU been helpful? 9. How do you know how much water your yard needs? Do you think your yard needs more water? Why? 10. Did you previously use an irrigation timer? How does the SMS compare to using a timer? 11. What do you dislike about your SMS? 12. Would you recommend an SMS to a fri end or neighbor? 13. Have you talked to neighbors about your SMS? Why/ how did that come up? What did you say about your SMS? 14. How do your irrigation practices compare to your neighbors? How do you know? How do you know your neighbors use more/less irrigation water? How does that make you feel? 15. Have you ever seen water being wasted? Where/when? How does that make you feel? 16. What would you be willing to do to help your neighbors use less water? Ex: Talk to them about SMS, deficit irrigation, springs health, problems with overwatering grass shallow roots, fungus etc. Refer their address to GRU and/or the county so they can receive a letter about their water use and information to lower it Talk about Reduce turf, remove turf, add natives Talk to your HOA about native plants, etc. 17. Do you talk to your neighbors about your yard? Do your neighbors talk with you about your yard? About what? 18. Are you happy with your landscaping? Why or why not? 19. What would you change about your landscaping? 20. Have you made changes to your landscape since SMS installation? 21. Could you live without an irrigation system?
110 [Switching gears] 22. How do you feel about water restrictions? 23. Do you ever worry that water use will be restricted even more than it is? 24. Have water restrictions had an effect on your yard? What makes you say that? 25. Do you anticipate water shortages in Florida that would impact you personally? 26. Floridians do to secure enough water for the f uture? 27. Anything else you would like to add? Do you have any questions? 28. Is it ok for me to contact you in the future with further questions or feedback? [ Now I have some demographic questions to ask you. ]
111 Demographics Questionnaire 1. What is your occupation? ___________________________________________________ 2. What is your age? ____________ 3. What is your gender? Female Male 4. How long have you lived in the Gainesville area? ____________ years 5. How long have you lived at your curren t residence? ____________ years 6. How many live in your household? ____________ 7. What are their ages and sexes? ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ 8. On average, how many days a week do you water your lawn? (circle your answer) Rain is the source of water 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. What is your current marital status? Divorced Living with another Married Separated Single Widowed 10. What is the highest level of education you have completed? Grammar school High school or equivalent Vocational/technical school (2 year) Some college Bachelor's degree Master's degree
GRU SMS Interview Guide 112 Doctoral degree Professional degree (MD, JD, etc.) 11. How would you classify yourself? Caucasian/White Asian/Pacific Islander Black Arab Hispanic Indigenous or Aboriginal Latino Multiracial Would rather not say Other __ _____________________________ 12. Do you hire a contractor to (circle your answer): Apply Fertilizer Apply Pesticides Apply Herbicides Mowing Trimming 13. What is/are the name(s) of your contractor(s)? __________________________________________________ ____________________ 14. Do you have a well? Yes No If yes, what do you use it for? (I.E. household use or irrigation only) ____________________________________________ __________________________ Finally, if you are willing we have an optional ten question inventory to assess your worldview. Would you like to answer eleven more questions or do you need to hang up?
Participant code ________ 113 New Environmental Paradigm Questionnaire We are curious as to your opinion on a wide range of environmental issues. For each of the following statements please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Mildly Disagree Neutral Mildly Agree Strongly Agree _____1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support _____2. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. _____3. Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature _____4. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequence _____5. Plants and animals exist primaril y to be used by humans _____6. economy where industrial growth is controlled _____7. Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive _____8. The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources _____9. Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to suit their needs _____10. There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand. _____11. Mankind is severely abusing the environment Adapted from Dunlap & V an Liere (1978). The new environmental paradigm: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10 1
114 L IST OF REFERENCES Ajzen I. F ishbein M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall ). Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Retrieved March 5, 2013, from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw208 Andreasen, A. R. (1994). Social marketing: its definition and domain. Journal of public policy and marketing 13(1), 108 114. Annear T C Conder A L (1984) Relative bias of several fisheries instream flows methods. North A merican Journal of Fisheries Management 4, 531 539 Barnett, H. G. (1953). Innovation: the basis of cultural change (McGraw Hill: New York, NY, US) Brookshire, D. S., Thayer, M. A., Schulze, W. D., D 'Arge, R. C. (1982). Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approaches. The American Economic Review 72(1), 165 177. Byrne, L. B. (2005). Of looks, laws and lawns: how human aesthetic preferences influence landscape management, public policies and urban ecosystems. In Emerging issues along urban rural interfaces: linking science and society conference proceedings (Auburn University, Auburn 42 46). Fishbein, M. Yzer, M. C. (2003). U sing Theory to Design Effective Health Behavior Interventions. Communication Theory 13, 164 183. Milesi, C. Elvidge, R. Nemani (2009). Assessing the extent of urban irrigated areas in the United States. Remote sensing of global croplands for food securi ty ( NASA Ames Ecological Forecasting Lab, San Francisco, CA ) R etrieved from http://ecocast.arc.nasa.gov/pubs/pdfs/2009/Milesi_Urban_BookChapter.pdf Cahn, M. A., O Brien, R. (Eds.). (1996). Thinking about the environment: Readings on politics, property, and the physical world ( ME Sha rpe. Armong, NY) Cardena s Lailhacar B., Dukes, M. D., Miller, G. L. (2008). Sensor based automation of irrigation on bermudagrass, during wet weather conditions. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 134(2), 120 128. Carriker, R. R., Boriso va, T. ( 2009 ) Public Policy and Water in Florida ( FE799 ) Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved October 22, 2013 from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe799/
115 Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved October 22, 2013 from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe757 Corral Verdugo, V. (2002). A structura l model of pro environmental competency. Environment and Behavior 34(4), 531 549. Corral Verdugo, V., Armendriz, L. I. (2000). The new env ironmental paradigm in a Mexican community. The Journal of Environmental Education 31(3), 25 31. Corra l Verdugo, V., Bechtel, R. B., Fraijo Sing, B. (2003). Environmental beliefs and water conservation: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23(3), 247 257. Corral Verdugo, V., Carr us, G., Bonnes, M., Moser, G., Sinha, J. B. (2008). Environmental b eliefs and e ndorsement of s ustainable d evelopment p rinciples in w ater c onservation t oward a n ew h uman i nterdependence p aradigm s cale. Environment and Behavior 40(5), 703 725. Corral Verdugo, V., Fras Armenta, M. (2006). Personal normative beliefs, antisocial behavior, and residential water conservation. Environment and Behavior 38(3), 406 421. Custodio, E. (2002). Aquifer overexploitation: what does it mean?. Hydrogeology Journal 10(2), 254 277. Dandy, N Davies, A ( 1997 ). Estimating Residential Water Demand in the Presence of Free Allowances. Land Economics 73(1) Davis, F. D. (1986). A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End User Information Systems: Theory and Results. ( Doctoral dissertation, MIT Sloan School of Man agement, Cambridge, MA) Dorsey, J. W. (2010). Lawn control, lawn culture, and the social marketing of sustainable b ehaviors. Ecopsychology 2(2), 91 103. doi:10.1089/eco.2009.0041. Dukes, M. D., Shedd, M., Cardenas Lailhacar, B. (2010). Smart Irrigation Controllers: How Do Soil Moisture Sensor (SMS) Irrigation Controllers Work? ( AE437). Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Retrieved October 20, 2013, from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ae437 Dukes, M. D., Zotarelli, L., Morgan, K. T. (2010). Use of irrigation technologies for vegetable c rops in Florida. HortTechnology 20(1), 133 142. Dukes, M. D., Zotarelli, L., Scholberg, J. M., Muoz Carpena, R. (2006). Irriga tion and nitrogen best management practices under drip irrigated vegetable production. In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress (Omaha, NE)
116 Dunlap, R. E., N ew E nvironmental P d measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education 9, 10 19. Eden, S., Megdal S. ( 2006 ) Water and growth. In development: Natural resources and infrastructure chap. 4. ( Background report prepared for the 88 th Arizona Town Hall, April) Retrieved March, 12, 2013 from http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/files/finalathchapter4.pdf FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Prot ection. (2013). Water Management District Reuse Programs. Retrieved October 20 2013, from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/reuse/wmdprog.htm Feagan, R .B. Ripmeester M. (1999). Contesting naturalized lawns: A geography of private green space in the Niagra region Urban Geography 20 (7) 617 634 Feenberg, A. (2004). Democratic rationalization: Technology, power, and freedom. Readings in the Philosophy of Technology 209 226. Fernald, E.A., Pa tton, D.J. ( 1984 ). Water Resources Atlas of Florida, Library of Congress Catalog No. 84 081758, ( Institute of Science and Publi c Affairs, Tallahassee, Florida) Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior : An introduction to theory and research. ( Reading, Mass; Don Mills, Ontario: Addison Wesley Pub. Co.) Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and Changing Behavior: The reasoned action approach ( New York : Psychology Press Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. ) Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2002. Florida Water Conservation Initiative. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/waterpolicy/docs/WCI_2002_Final_Report.pdf Florida Statute s. § 720.3075. (Part I). Prohibited clauses in association documents. (4b) Retrieved October 22, 2013, from http://www.leg.state. fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_Mode=Display_Statute&URL= Ch0720/Sec3075.htm&StatuteYear=2001 Retrieved 21 April, 2012 from http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/florida/statutes/florida_statutes_373 62 Florida Water Star SM (2012). SJRWMD. Retrieved February 11, 2014 from http://floridawaterstar.com/
117 Garner, A., Stevely, H., Smith, M., Hoppe, M., Floyd, T., Hinchcliff, P. (1996). A Guide to Environmentally Friendly Landscaping: Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Handbook. ( SP191). Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Retrieved October 22, 2013 from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ep079 Ge ller, E. S., Erickson, J. B., Buttram, B. A. (1983). Attempts to promote residential water conservation with educational, behavioral and engineering strategies. Population and Environment 6(2), 96 112. Gilg, A., Barr, S. (2006). Behavioural attitudes towards water saving? Evidence from a study of environmental actions. Ecological Economics 57(3), 400 414. Glaser, B. G. Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: St rategies for qualitative research (New York: Aldine DeGruyter) Grafton, R. Q., Ward, M. B. (2008). Prices versus rationing : Marshallian surplus and mandatory water restrictions. Economic Record 84:S57 S65. doi: 10.1111/j.1475 4932.2008.00483.x Grob, A. (1995). A structural model of environmental attitudes and behavio u r. Journal of Environmental Psycholog y 15(3), 209 220. GRU. (2012). Soil Moisture Sensor Pilot Progra m Final report draft prepared for St. Johns River Water Management District, in coordina tion with the University of Florida. Grunwald, M (2006). The swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the politics of paradise ( New York, NY: Simon and Schuster) Haley, M. B., Dukes, M. D. (2012). Validation of l andscape i rrigation r eduction with s oil m oisture sensor irrigation controllers. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 138(2), 135 144. Retrieved February 2, 2014 from http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10 .1061/(ASCE)0733 9437(2008)134:2(120) Haley, M. B., Dukes, M. D., Miller, G. L. (2007). Residential irrigation water use in Central Florida. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 133( 5 ), 427 434. Hansen, G., Ramos, J., Felter, E. A., White, C. (20 12). Adopting a Florida Friendly landscape: Steps for converting a typical development landscape to a Florida Friendly Landscape. ( ENH1134). Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Retrieved March 5, 2013, from http s://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ep396 Harlan, S. L ., Yabiku, S. T., Larsen, L., Brazel, A. J. (2009). Household water consumption in an arid city: affluence, affordance, and attitudes. Society and Natural Resources 22(8), 691 709 doi:10.1080/08941920802064679
118 Hayes, S.C., Cone, J.D. (1977). Reducing residential electrical energy use: Payments, information and feedback. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 10 (3), 425 435. Holt, L. (2005). Avoiding a Water Crisis in Florida be Ma naged in Response to Growth? In managed in response to growth? ( Vol. 18) Jen kins, V. S. (1994). The Lawn: A History of an A merican o bsession ( Washington, D.C. : Smit hsonian Institution Press) Kallinikos, J. (2002). Reopening the black box of techno l ogy artifacts and human agency. I n Galliers, R. and Markus, L. (eds) 23 rd International Conference on Information Systems ( Barcelona, December 14 16 287 94) King, J.L., Gurbaxani, V., Krae mer, K.L., McFarlan, F.W., Raman, K.S., Yap, C.S. ( 1994 ). Institutional factors in information technology innovation. Information systems Research 5(2), 139 169. Kohlenberg, R., Phillips, T., Proctor, W. (1976). A behavioral analysis of peaking in resident ial electrical energy consumers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 9(1), 13 18. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1976.9 13. Kotler, P., Zaltman, G. (1971). Social marketing: an approach to planned social change. Journal of marketing, 35(3). Krueger R A Casey M A. (2000 ). Focus Groups. 3rd ed. ( Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage ) Kurz, T., Donaghue, N., Rapley, M. and Walker, I. (2005). The ways that people talk about natural resources: Discursive strategies as barriers to environmentally sustainable practices. British Journal of Social Psychology 44, 603 620. doi: 10.1348/014466604X18064 Lund, J. Reed, R. (1995). Drought w ater r ati oning and transferable rations. Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management 121(6), 429 437. Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., V aldero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., Oskamp, S. (1997). Green buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology 137(2), 189 204. Maintenance Problems. Florida Statutes § 373.62 (Part VI; 1). Water conservation; Automatic Sprinkler Systems (Current as of 2012). Marella, R.L. (2009) Water withdrawals, use, and trends in Florida, 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009 5125, 49 Mayer, P. W., DeOreo, W. B., Opitz, E. M., Kiefer, J. C., D avis, W. Y., Dziegielewski, B., and Nelson, J. O. (1999). Residential end uses of water. ( American Water Works A ssociation Research Foundation, Final Report. Denver, Colorado)
11 9 McCready, M Dukes, M Miller, G (2009). Water conservation potential of smart irrigat ion controlle rs on St. Augustinegrass. Agricultural Water Management 96 ( 11 ) 1623 1632. Retrieved October 22, 2013 from http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/ McDermott, L., Stead, M., Hastings, G. (2005). What is and what is not social marketing: the challenge of reviewing the evidence Journal of Marketing Management 21(5 6), 545 553. McKenzie Mohr, D. (2000) (2). New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to community based social mark eting. Journal of social issues 56(3), 543 554. McKenzie Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through community based social marketing. American Psychologist 55(5), 531. Milesi, C., Running, S. W., Elvidge, C. D., Dietz, J. B., Tuttle, B. T., Nemani, R. R. (2005). Mapping and modeling the biogeochemical cycling of turf grasses in the United States. Environmental Management 36(3), 426 438. Moore, G. C., Benbasa t, I. (1996). Integrating diffusion of innovations and theory of reasoned action models to predict utilization of information technology by end users. In Diffusion and adoption of information technology 146. (Springer US) Nash, R. (1982). Wilderness and the American M ind 3rd ed ( New Haven, CT: Yale University Press) Neubauer, C. P., Hall, G. B., Lowe, E. F., R obison, C. P., Hupalo, R. B., Keenan, L. W. (2008). Minimum flows and levels method of the St. Johns River water management district, Florida, USA. Environmental Management 42(6), 1101 1114. Olexa, M. T., Borisova, T., Broome, Z. (2011) Handbook of Florida Water Regulation: State Regulatory Powers (FE581 ). Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FE/FE58100.pdf Olmsted, T. R., Dukes, M. D. (2011). Frequency of Residential Irrigation Ozan, L. A., Alsharif, K. A. (201 2 ). The effectiveness of water irrigation policies for residential turfgr ass. Land Use Policy (31), 378 384. Pascale, R. T., Ste rnin, J., Sternin, M. (2010). The P ower of P ositive D eviance ( Bos ton, MA: Harvard Business Press) Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L. Grove, J. M. Groffman, P. M. Band, L. E. Boone, C. G Burch . Wilson, M. (2008) Beyond urban legends: an emerging
120 framework of urban ecology, as illustrated by the Baltimore ecosystem study. Bioscience 58:139 150. Pinch, T. J., Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social S tudies of S cience 399 441. Post, A. (2012) Florida Report. Newport: UF/IFAS Sarasota County Extension. Retrieved February 10, 2014 from http://www.cityofnorthport.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=6516 Rajbhandary, S., Borisova, T., Adams, D., Haynes, D., Boyer, C. (2010). Use, perceptions, and bar riers to water conservation strategies for Florida water utilities (FE851). Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FE/FE85100.pdf. Rawls, C., Boris ova T ( 2009 ) Conservation and d rought w ater r ates: State of the a rt p ractices and t heir a pplication. Conserve Florida Water Clearinghouse Research, Gainesville: University of Florida Water Institute, UF Public Utilities Research Center (PURC). Retrieved February 2, 2014 from http://warrington.ufl.edu/purc/purcdocs/papers/0910_Rawls_Conservation_and Drought.pdf Renwick, M. E., Archibald, S. O. (1998). Demand side management policies for residential water use: Who bears the conservation burden? Land Economi cs 74 : 343 359 Robbins, P. (2007). Lawn p eople: How g rasses, w eeds, and c hemicals m ake u s w ho w e a re. ( Philadelph ia, PA: Temple University Press) Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed .). ( New York NY: The Free Press) Russell, S., Fielding, K. (2010). Water demand management research: A psychological perspective. Water Resources Research 46(5), W05302. Sharpe, W. E., Fletcher, P. W. (1997). The impact of water saving device installation on resource conservation ( University Park, Pen nsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources, July) Silk N., McDonald J Wigington R (2000) Turning instream flow water rights upside down. Rivers 7(4), 298 313 Skardon, J. A. (1962). The Grass Craze In Saturday Evening Post, 17 March 1962, 30 33.
121 Spechler, R. M. (1994). Saltwater intrusion and quality of water in the Floridan aquifer system, northeastern Florida: Water Resources Investigations 92 4174. http://fl.water.usgs.gov/Abstracts/wri92_4174_spechler.html Spechler, R. M. (2001). The relation between structure and saltwater intrusion in the Floridan aquifer system, southeastern Florida; U.S. Geological Survey Karst Inte rest Group proceedings; Water Resources Investigations 01 4011, 25 29 http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/kigconference/rms_relationintrusion.htm Trenholm, L. E., Gilman, E. F., Knox, G. W., Black, R. J. (2002). Fertilization and Irrigation Needs for Florida Lawns and Landscapes ( ENH 860). Gainesville: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Retrieved October 22, 2013, from http://edis.ifas.ufl.ed u/ep070 U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Quickfacts: Search Housing Alachua County Accessed February 2, 2014. Verhage, B. J. ( 1978 ) Energy saving as a social marketing strategy: Implication for the government policy. Economisch Statistiche Berichten 28 November 1978, 1248 53. Welsh, D F. Welch, W C. Duble R L. (2007). Conservation. Electronic Document: Texas A&M University. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http : / /hdl .handle .net /1969 .1 /87749 Winner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology Science, Technology, and Human Values 18(3), 362 378.
122 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lyndall Br ezina is a graduate of Agricultural Education and Communication from the University of Florida focusing on Extension and received her ce rtificate in Tropical Conservation and Development. She received her Bachelor degree in Ent omology, focusing on ecotourism Her primary i nterests are water conservation, food security and food systems, and international sustainable development in agriculture.