Trust in technological systems: the role of 'access points' within water recycling schemes

The literature on risk generally recognises the role of trust in shaping risk perceptions. There are large portions of our everyday existence managed by expert systems, such as water supply and electricity infrastructure. Giddens (1991) explains that the ‘basic trust’ invested in expert, technological systems enables us to move through the day unhindered by existential anxieties. Trust is established through ‘access points’ (Giddens 1990) to the myriad of specialised systems that provide the underbelly of our modern lifestyle and these become more important when a new technological system is being introduced. This paper will explore the levels of user access to the innovative, expert system of water recycling. The question we seek to address centres on whether in fact interactions at access points build trust in the provision of water recycling services. This will be investigated through the experience of householders at three residential developments that recycle water. Introduction With increasing pressure on existing water supplies, the governance of water involves not only federal, state and local governments and established agencies, such as water catchment authorities and the recently formed Natural Resource Management groups, but also water users themselves. In response to prolonged drought conditions in Australia, water restrictions are now part of the daily routine of most capital city residents and several cities have instituted permanent restrictions for year round conservation. Reusing water for applications around the home that do not require a high drinking water quality protects the natural environment from unwanted discharges of sewage effluent while offsetting the demand on existing drinking water supplies. The authorities that are responsible for regulating and provisioning water supplies recognise that health risks are involved in using water that is not treated to drinking water standard. Water that is recycled for toilet flushing and garden watering through specialised reclaimed water treatment plants is treated to a standard that is suitable for its end use, but requires responsible management. Higher treatment TASA Conference 2006, University of Western Australia & Murdoch University, 4-7 December 2006 2 TASA 2006 Conference Proceedings would meet drinking water standards, however, where proposals to blend the water with drinking water supplies have been put to different populations, these have been rejected, as in the recent case of Toowoomba. One explanation for repeated opposition can be found in the approach to public consultation (Marks 2003a). This paper will explore the extent to which interactions between householders and the expert system of non potable (not for drinking ) water recycling have worked to build trust in this new service, and the authorities responsible for the safety of the water. Central to this enquiry are the concepts of consumer access to the expert system, and confidence in responsible authorities. Evidence will be drawn from survey research undertaken at three sites in Australia where householders recycle water for outdoor applications such as garden watering and indoor toilet flushing. Literature We begin with the theoretical assumption that everyday trust in modern, abstract systems – those providing services that rely on specialisation and complex technology is influenced through ‘access points’ (Giddens 1990:84-88) to each system. This concept is taken up by Sztompka (1999) in his affirmation of the nexus between social structure and agency, recognising this as a process along the lines of ‘structuration’ (Giddens 1984) and similar ideas of interactive dependencies. For Sztompka (1999), trust is a dynamic, ongoing process. Not only is it instrumental in the absence of knowledge (Giddens 1990; Sztompka 1996) so that people perceive less risk if they invest trust in authorities and the management responsible for the technology (Siegrist et. al 2005), but it also works the other way. Interaction with expert systems (social praxis) in the face of uncertainty results in either a more trusting or less trusting attitude towards the system or authorities concerned. Sztompka (1996; 1999) argues that helpful, friendly communications and interactions between users and systems at such access points builds the agential endowment required for ongoing and future trust in the system characterised by levels of risk. Giddens (1994) terms this ‘active trust’, sustained in association with social reflexivity through educational, regulative and material support to allow proactive involvement (pp.15, 155). The dynamics of this process have been explored at sites that involve household water recycling (Marks 2003b; Marks & Zadoroznyj 2005) and a positive influence was suggested in the qualitative research findings. TASA Conference 2006, University of Western Australia & Murdoch University, 4-7 December 2006 3 TASA 2006 Conference Proceedings Further elaborations of trust distinguish between trust and confidence. Drawing from Luhmann (1989, cited in Siegrist et. al 2005), it is asserted that while trust is the willingness to make oneself vulnerable based on similarity of intentions or values, confidence is belief based on experience or evidence (Siegrist et. al 2005:147). Clearly, both constructs are relevant to the present case. People buying into residential developments where recycled water is reticulated for non potable uses invest ‘basic trust’ (Giddens 1991:127) in this expert system. It is posited that confidence in the authorities responsible for the regulation and running of the service will be a reflection of the quality of communication between the end users and the managers, at the access points to the system. While confidence was used for measurement, for discussion purposes, we regard the term as interchangeable with trust (for example Giddens 1990:92). Research design and methodology A mail-back survey of the three sites in Australia where householders have experience of recycling water through a large community scale system was fielded from early May through July 2006. The survey is part of an embedded case study design (Yin 1989) for this current project, which involves triangulation of both quantitative and qualitative data collection. Cluster sampling was used to randomly select streets, then households and, finally, a person within each household (who last celebrated a birthday) was invited to participate. A four-stage method of engaging respondents was used involving an introductory postcard explaining the research, through to a second copy of the questionnaire booklet as a final reminder to non respondents. An overall response rate of 45.3 percent yielded sample sizes of 338 for Mawson Lakes (Adelaide), 262 for the Newington suburb adjacent to Sydney Olympic Park and 337 in the Rouse Hill water recycling scheme area (Sydney). This paper reports comparative, quantitative findings on information flows, awareness of the water source and one element of the risk, as well as satisfaction with the water recycling service, confidence in current uses of the water and levels of confidence in various authorities. Contextual background Each of the water recycling schemes has been operating for over twelve months. However, the recycled water has only been ‘on line’ at Mawson Lakes since April TASA Conference 2006, University of Western Australia & Murdoch University, 4-7 December 2006 4 TASA 2006 Conference Proceedings 2005, compared to April 2001 at Newington and September 2001 for the largest development, the Rouse Hill recycled water area (which embraces several suburbs). The responsible water authority for the Adelaide site, Mawson Lakes, is SA Water; the Sydney Olympic Park Authority (SOPA) provides the recycled water for Newington; and Sydney Water runs the scheme for the Rouse Hill area. Some form of ‘cross connection’, whereby the recycled water pipe has been confused with the drinking water line, has occurred in each of the sites; the most recent being at Newington. In each case, once the error was discovered, the problem was swiftly arrested and attracted minimal attention by the local or mass media. Results Survey research findings for each of the three water recycling sites are presented for each individual case to provide a comparison of the experiences. Respondents were asked whether they had received information updates on recycled water since they had moved into the scheme area and, as shown in Table 1, the majority reported that this was the case. The high result for Mawson Lakes possibly reflects the newness of the system, whereas it is clear that the perceived level of ongoing communication at Newington is much lower than the experience in the Rouse Hill area. Of those who say they have received an update of information, most recall receiving the material in the last six months, suggesting that the information they have is currently relevant. Table 1: Receipt of information from water authority (percent) Mawson Lakes Newington Rouse Hill Received information update from responsible Water Authority 82.0 55.4 72.0 When last received? Last six months 47.5 62.0 52.1 In last year 44.7 28.7 30.5 More than year ago 7.8 9.3 17.4 Total: 100.0 100.0 100.0 TASA Conference 2006, University of Western Australia & Murdoch University, 4-7 December 2006 5 TASA 2006 Conference Proceedings To gauge unmet information needs, respondents were asked to indicate whether they required more information and, in separate sections in the questionnaire, were queried on their awareness of the actual source of the recycled water, as well as the term ‘cross connection’. The results (Table 2) show that just over half the householders at the established Sydney sites are interested in more information, while the newer Mawson Lakes development has the least unmet need. A greater proportion of respondents at Mawson Lakes and the Rouse Hill area claim they are aware of the recycled wate