Social, technological and contextual influences on …...2011/09/14 · Social, technological and...
Transcript of Social, technological and contextual influences on …...2011/09/14 · Social, technological and...
Social, technological and contextual
influences on water end uses in SEQ
Cara BealSouth East Queensland Residential End Use Project
14 September 2011
Urban Water Security Research Alliance
PRESENTATION SCOPE
• Background and benefits of water end use
studies
• Aims of study
• Methods
• Challenges faced with weather and
equipment
• Summary of results
• Conclusions and policy recommendations
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
• During the recent drought, successful demand
management strategies in SEQ led to low
residential water consumption (Target 140) –
but “reactionary”
BACKGROUND
• Without knowing how the water is used and where it
is being used in a home, how can you manage its
demand and encourage relevant water conservation
strategies?
Yes, sure…but where? How?
!!!
• Smart metering technology is
rapidly developing – used in
end use studies (both energy
and water)
• Water end use studies are becoming more
commonplace in Australia and overseas in the quest
to better understand urban water consumption and
demand strategies
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
• Smart metering and resultant end use analysis can
facilitate a proactive approach to demand
management
– Targeted rebate / water efficiency programmes based on
known high water use appliances and/or demographic
groups
– Demand forecasting models based on current and accurate
measured data
– Increased cost efficiency in conservation programs,
distribution infrastructure etc.
STUDY AIMS
• Quantify and characterise mains water end uses
during winter and summer
• Identify end use volumes and trends:
– socio-demographic categories,
– water efficient stock (eg, star rated clothes
washers, low flow shower head)
– peak, diurnal, seasonal timeframes
• Comparative analysis of measured end uses with
other existing data
RESEARCH METHODS
STUDY AREAS
Sunshine Coast Regional Council
(Noosa, Caloundra, Maroochy)
Brisbane City Council
Ipswich City
Council
Gold Coast
Methods• Mixed method approach
• Rely on both participant involvement and advanced technology
Taken from
aligned SSA
project
Methods – Trace flow analysis
Trace Wizard™ software from Aquacraft Inc.
Washing Machine
Shower
Toilet
full
flush
Tap
Leak
Toilet
half
flush
Readings
Dates Comments End use
analysis
Winter 2010 14/6/10 to 28/6/10 Yes
Summer 2010-
2011
1/12/10 to 14/12/10
24/12/10 to 6/1/11
6/2/11 to 21/2/11
School holidays
Christmas/New Year
Business as usual
Yes
Winter 2011 1/6/11 to 15/6/11 Currently
underway
• Summer 2011 > double long term average
• 6th wettest for QLD on record-111 years!! (2nd wettest for Aust.)
• No requirements for irrigation
89.583.1
68.350.4
36.7 40.1
80.1
96.1
137.0159.5
165.1
78.4
43.8
10.6
38.6
116.496.6
389
55.6
442.4
391.0
188.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
Mo
nth
ly ra
infa
ll (m
m)
April 2010 to February 2011
Average (1905 to 2009) SEQREUS
WINTER READ
SUMMER READ
Not an ideal summer!
RESULTS
Results – sample sizes and usage distributions
Gold Coast Brisbane Ipswich Sunshine Coast All regionsWinter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer Winter Summer
87 68 61 64 37 31 67 56 252 219
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
500
700
Cu
mu
lati
ve d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Fre
qu
en
cy d
istr
ibu
tio
n
Per capita water consumption (L/p/d)
Summer frequency distribution Winter frequency distribution
Summer cumulative curve Winter cumulative curve
RESULTS –
Water End Use Breakdowns
Results – winter and summer
SUMMER
Sample size: 219 homes
Av. total: 125.3 L/p/d & 316 L/hh/d
QWC per capita: av.154 (149 to 167) L/p/d
WINTER
Sample size: 252 homes
Av. total: 145.3 L/p/d & 370.7 L/hh/d
QWC per capita: av 154 L/p/d
Results – winter and summer – per capita
Results – winter and summer – per household
RESULTS –
Effect of water efficient
technology on consumption
46.8 45.142.5
37.335.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
AN
NU
AL
WA
TE
R
CO
NSU
MP
TIO
N
CW
: fro
nt
cold
on
ly
Tap
s, a
era
tor
use
Sho
we
r,e
ffic
ien
t he
ads
Sho
we
r,d
isp
lay
mo
nit
ors
An
nu
al w
ater
co
nsu
mp
tio
n [k
L/p
/y]
Solution
CW DW Taps Shower Total
Results – water intervention scenarios
Results – water efficient technology impacts
RESULTS –
Water end uses and socio-
demographical trends
Results – socio-demographic trends
65.4
53.746.5
42.7 43.8 41.650.2
1.8
2.3
3.0
3.3 3.2 3.2
2.6
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
< 3
0
30
-5
9
60
-8
9
90
-1
19
12
0 -
14
9
>1
50
No
res
po
nse
Ave
rage
pe
op
le p
er
ho
use
ho
ld
Ave
rage
tota
l h
ou
seh
old
wat
er
use
(L/
p/d
)
Income category ($ '000)
Per capita water use (left axis)
Average age (years)
Persons per household (right axis)
Results – perceptions of water use
Results – perceptions of water use
*
Results – perceptions of water use
*
*
*
Results – Perception of water use - profiles
• Careful with generalisations: sample size, respondent only, non-seasonal..…but…
Perceived high water users:
• potentially overestimate water use;
• older, smaller families, fewer
children;
• lower incomes and education level;
• less water efficient technology;
• strong self-identity as water saver;
and
• strong belief that household is a
water conserving one.
Perceived low-medium water users:
• potentially under estimate water use;
• younger, larger families, children;
• less aware of high usage periods
during day;
• higher incomes and education level;
• more water efficient technology;
• lower self-identity as water saver; and
• less of a belief that household is a
water conserving one.
Conclusions – perception of water use
• Curtailment as well as Efficiency water conserving behaviours are required for “under-estimators” e.g. emphasis on frugal water use and not just relying on technology
“a low flow shower head doesn’t mean you can have
a 30 minute shower!”
“low flow taps still need to be turned off!”
“a four star rated clothes washing machine should
still only be turned on when full!”
RESULTS –
Water end uses and energy
demand
35.153.3
214.7
486.6
0.011.5 0.0 0.0
40.0CW
DW
Taps
Shower
Toilet
Bathtub
Irrigation
Leaks
Water treatment
Results – energy / water demand scenarios
Annual average carbon emissions [Kg CO2/Kwh/year]
1293
736 707675
626568
459 422 413
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
AN
NU
AL
ENER
GY
CO
NSU
MP
TIO
N
HW
S: e
lect
ric
bo
ost
ed s
ola
r
CW
: fro
nt
cold
on
ly
Sho
wer
38
˚
Sho
wer
35
˚
Tap
s, a
erat
or
use
Sho
wer
,eff
icie
nt
hea
ds
Sho
wer
, dis
pla
y m
on
ito
rs
Dis
hw
ash
ers,
3.5
+4 e
. s. r
. on
ly
An
nu
al e
ner
gy c
on
sum
pti
on
[kW
h/p
/y]
Solution
CW DW Taps Shower Total
Results – energy intervention scenarios
CONCLUSIONS AND
BEYOND
Conclusions from SEQREUS
• Rebound effect yet to be clearly seen – winter 2011 data to confirm
• Shower, clothes washing machines, taps contribute most to total household use
- this is area for targeted conservation strategies
• Regional differences – Sunshine Coast higher water users than Ipswich participants (per capita and per household)
• Socio-economic differences – high income and high occupancy families tend to use less water (per capita)
• Water efficient technology can reduce peak morning flows by up to 20%
Conclusions from SEQREUS
• Water efficient appliances appear to reduce household water use. Low flow shower heads and high star-rated washing machines particularly effective…..however…..
• Perception of low-average water user not always reflected by actual water use.
- Water efficient technology has to be matched with water efficient behaviour ….area for water demand managers to consider
• Initial exploration of water/energy demand shows intervention strategies aimed at reducing hot water usage and/or type of HWS key area for reducing carbon footprint
Final comprehensive report covering:
• winter and summer end use breakdown
• stock efficiency v end use
• end use diurnal patterns and seasonal demand
• socio-demographic predictors of end use
• water-energy demand relationships and intervention strategies
• extensive set of descriptive statistics
• low flow volumes and non-registered water loss
Wrapping it up….
Future of SEQREUS
• Finalising negotiations for a new SEQREUS study for next two years (2012-2013) with QUU, Unity Water and QWC
• Build on current SEQREUS, greater representation of seasonal data, rebound effect from drought, diurnal analysis
• Journal publications still to come: Journal of Cleaner Production, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, Science of the Total Environment
• IWA World Congress on Water, Climate and Energy, Dublin, May 2012
Acknowledgements
• Project Leader - Assoc. Prof Rodney Stewart
• Dr Kelly Fielding and SSA Team
• Lisa Stewart, Chris Bennet, Byron Carragher,
Edoardo Bertone, Dr Andrew Huang, Anas Makki
at Smart Water Research Centre
• All the participants
• Don and Sharon 1 and Sharon 2!
Urban Water Security Research Alliance
THANK YOU
www.urbanwateralliance.org.au